Playoff Format - What Could Change, and What Would You Change?

by baseballgirl on Jan 18, 2007 12:06 AM PST in News Comment 69 comments

Well, I was excited for a fraction of a second when I saw an article on MLB's website about possible changes in playoff structure. I was hoping for one of two things: that somehow the league has realized that nine-thirty in the morning is not an acceptable time for a game that represents the culmination of a one hundred and sixty-two game season; that they are doing a disservice to the fans who have had a hard enough time following their low-budget, minimally-broadcast team from coast to coast anyway, and should at least be rewarded when said team is one of only eight left. Either that, or they were going to change the format of the ALDS from five games to seven.

However the article is clear on one point:

DuPuy said there was no discussion about extending the first round to a best-of-seven format.

"That is not under consideration," DuPuy said.

Until last year, this was a major complaint of mine, and it probably wasn't coincidental. I have always been a proponent of a seven game divisional series, and it's very possible that it's because I have always believed that the A's fortune over the last few years would have been different had this been the case; instead of their famous game-five exits, they would have had game-seven advances. Yet, logically, as someone who believes that the true test of a team is not in the small sample size of a short series--whether five or seven games--why should it even matter? Would we have seen any difference over the last ten years if this had been implemented? I don't know.

I won't keep you in suspense any longer. The article simply stated that MLB is thinking of adding a travel day:

Since the best-of-five first-round series went to the current format in 1998, the team with the better record (or the non-Wild Card winner) has hosted the opening two games, and then after an off-day, has played the next two games of the series in the opposing city. If the series goes to the limit, it returns to the host of the opening games, but without a travel day.

At its extreme, in 2000, the Yankees and A's had to fly back to Oakland from New York for a deciding Game 5 on a Sunday, which the Yankees won. The Yankees then had to return to New York to open the American League Championship Series against Seattle two days later.

It is interesting to note that, as the article points out, during the first three years of the division series, the team with the worse record (or the Wild Card) would host the first two games, and then play three on the road, which was changed to the current format, 2+2+1. I think this was a good change, but obviously requires more travel, especially if both coasts are involved.

I like the off-day idea. In fact I like it so much, I'm imagining it's going to solve the first problem I mentioned: if MLB could use this as a way to stagger off-days, and series games, so there are two games a day instead of three at this level, then A's quite possibly could get a reasonable timeslot for any future playoff appearances. I'm not picky; I'll settle for the afternoon.

<sigh>

A girl can dream, can't she?

So what do you think? Are the playoffs fine the way they are? And if you were to change anything about the structure, what would it be?

0 recs | Comment 69 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think the main thing

would be to find a way to give a better advantage to the higher regular season record teams. Seems like making it in as a wild card really isn't as much of a disadvantage as in other major sports.

"Choosing between Milledge and Gomez is like choosing between Mozart and Beethoven" --NY Mets Message Boards

by apilgrim on Jan 18, 2007 1:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

a topic dear to my heart

although I'm not sure why. These were my thoughts on it 14 months ago, in case you want to be the judge of whether my opinions have matured.

I think all American sports need more flexible playoff formats in general, because no one system is perfect. Look at college football: essentially right now it has a two-team playoff. Which, one year ago, was ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, when USC and Texas were the only undefeated teams. An eight-team playoff could have only fucked up what was the perfect championship game.

But most years, the BCS is woefully inadequate (well, maybe not "woefully" ...) I think what baseball needs is optional rounds in its playoffs--so that the commissioner could declare at the end of the regular season how many rounds there will be and therefore how many teams will get in. In any case, I think the team with the better regular-season record does deserve a steeper home-field advantage--hold the whole series at one site, especially if the series is best-of-5 or shorter. There are also too many off-days in the current Division Series due to the travel back and forth, so giving one team all the home games would solve two problems at once.

I also think American sports should experiment with the promotion and relegation that they do in soccer in Europe. I don't know much about how that works (promotion and relegation) but it sounds pretty cool.

"WTF is wrong with you people TASTELESS COMMENTS. I'm disgusted. Mocking a 10 year old's horrible painful death." --eshock

by rubin sierra on Jan 18, 2007 1:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

#2 starters rejoice!

The extra travel day will likely mean more 3 man rotations, which in the A's case have been disastrous. #1 starter goes on 3 days rest in Game 4, and the #2 starter on 4 days rest in Game 5. For example:

Yankees -- Wang on 3, Mussina on 4
Twins -- Santana on 3, Bonser on 4
Tigers -- probably would keep the 4 man
White Sox -- Contreras on 3, Buehrle on 4
Indians -- Sabathia on 3, Westbrook on 4
Angels -- Lackey on 3, Weaver on 4
Blue Jays -- Halladay on 3, Burnett on 4
Rangers -- Millwood on 3, Padilla on 4
Red Sox -- Beckett on 3, Matsuzaka on 4
and....
A's -- Haren on 3, Harden on 4

OK that's not so bad.

by WaddellCanseco on Jan 18, 2007 4:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if I trust...

...the commissioner's office, no matter who's in charge, to make the decision. I can see the number of teams being based on the number required to get the New York teams, the Cubs, the Red Sox or the Dodgers in so they'd get the TV ratings.

And yes, "woefully" is a wonderful word to use to describe the BCS's inadequacy.

"So, whatever, Ozzie." -- Nick Swisher

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Jan 18, 2007 7:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I need a hot dog and a sunburn, actually

[sigh] Just gimme baseball. Fu*% January.

by paradox on Jan 18, 2007 6:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Doubleheaders

Wouldn't the owners / players / fans want to see more playoff games?

I would add One Home & Home Doubleheader Day per division rivalry game. For instance, the A's v. Angels (2) - A's @ Angels (2), A's v. Seattle (2) - A's @ Seattle (2), and A's v. Texas (2) - A's @ Texas (2).

To make sure the owners don't lose out on extra cash, these games can be played on Fridays. One Afternoon Delight Game @ 12:30 PM ... the next, an Evening Delight @ 7:00 PM. The Fans Win. The owners win. The town wins.... Everyone wins.

This gives the league one extra week to fit in a First Round, 7-Game Series. Plus, we won't be playing games in early/rainy November.

by Colorado Fan on Jan 18, 2007 7:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think division series

should be best of five (unless the A's fail to win three of the first five; then we should go best of seven with the other team forfeiting their right to use bats and gloves).

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Jan 18, 2007 8:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

And bases.

"I mean, hey, if they're going to bring the A's to Fremont, you might as well bring a Hooters." ~ some guy

by Poppy on Jan 18, 2007 8:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I, too, am opposed to permanent bases

The inspection process may require that the handler take off the monkey's diaper as part of the visual inspection @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 18, 2007 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought I was the only one

I don't have a problem with the first round being best of five. Baseball did fine from 1969 to 1985 with a five game LCS, with classic series' like 1980 Phils-Astros, the 76-77 KC-NYY series' (Chris Chambliss, anyone?) and the A's wins in 72 and 73.

Unless MLB is prepared to return to the 154 gamer regular season (which is cool with me), the post-season shouldn't be any longer than it is today.

"If your athame is a spork, you might be a Discordian."

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 18, 2007 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I heard an interesting idea

that would definately make winning your division vastly superior to winning the wild card.

The idea was to add an extra wild card team in each league. Therefore 3 division winners and 2 wild cards. However, the 2 wild card teams would play a 1 game playoff at the end of the season to be the "true" wild card and advance to play the #1 divisional seed.

This would do two things. First, it would mean that just going in as a wild card would be very risky and teams would have to really try and take first in their divisions. You would not have had a scenario where the Twins would rest Santana at the end of the regular season if the division title were still in doubt. Also, it gives a possible advantage in the first round to the team with the best overall record because the wild card team will (theoretically) have their rotation slightly out of order from playing the wild card game.

Personally, I think this would be great as it would not only make more teams viable to compete for the postseason (even if it is only 1 game) but it also puts a premium on winning the division that currently does not exist.

Thoughts?

by AsFanInLA on Jan 18, 2007 8:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like it

The necessity of having a play-in game between the fourth and fifth teams would definitely give the division winners an advantage (hey, you win the division, you deserve an advantage).

The other thing I would like to see is to get rid of the rule that keeps teams in the same division from playing in the divisional series. This way, if the Yankees and Red Sox both make the playoffs (as would be expected given their payrolls), they could meet in the ALDS, meaning the ALCS would possibly be relevant to people outside of the northeast.

Zito, Schmito - they still have 0 WS titles

by doctorK on Jan 18, 2007 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

One game play-offs always mess up with the line-up, which seems like an unfair disadvantage for the wildcard team.

Say that Minnesota is in the wildcard playoff. Do you use Johan Santana in the playoff game and find yourself without him until Game 3 or 4? Or do you take your chances with your second guy, hold your best, and just hope to make it?

I'm actually in favor of a decent break between the regular and post-seasons. If we're actually about seeing a battle between the best teams, I'd like it to be as even as possible, meaning that a team whose division race came down to the final days would still have enough time to get their starters in order.

Kettlecorn! Swishercorn!

by TurnTwo on Jan 18, 2007 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with what you are saying,

but that is why I like it. The wildcard team should be at a disadvantage. If you don't want to be put at a disadvantage, then win your division.

I think as it is right now there is really no disadvantage to being a wild card -- to the point where a team does not even try to win its division if they are already in as a wildcard. I would like to see that change, and this would give teams the incentive to go for the division

by AsFanInLA on Jan 18, 2007 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doing away with the wild card

I always thought it would be good to do away with the wild card and give the best regular season win team a bye in the first round.
I don't like seeing Red Sox vs Yanks, Angels vs A's or ChiSox vs. Twins in the playoffs. One of them should be in, the other out.
Thats what used to make the regular season games so much more important back in the 80s. Unfortunately, I only see the number of games going up(for revenue purposes).

"Choosing between Milledge and Gomez is like choosing between Mozart and Beethoven" --NY Mets Message Boards

by apilgrim on Jan 18, 2007 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It made regular season games

much less important in the '80s because only a few teams had any chance. Would it have been better in '01 to have Indians, Yankees, and Mariners face off when the A's had the second best record in MLB?

by mikeA on Jan 18, 2007 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the Pennant race really

meant something then, September meant win or get ready for the off season. Teams didnt care in the 80s? I think they would disagree. The 80s were so much more tense than now IMO, the Royals were good-they were great actually. It was great, once September started every season 5 teams were within 3-4 games of each other and no one really ran away with the division. Trading 2001 for that? you bet!! No question, it was far better and a pennant race was a month filled with tension. I have to admit I am surprised you wrote that, because in the whole decade of the 80s I can only remember one year where one team was a lock-unlike now where by the beginning of September one team is a lock. 3 or 4 years were top teams finishing within 2 games of each other much more exciting than now, just a better system back then.

"Choosing between Milledge and Gomez is like choosing between Mozart and Beethoven" --NY Mets Message Boards

by apilgrim on Jan 19, 2007 1:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I oppose it on principle.

It's already bad enough that 162 games hinge on a 5-game playoff, but I can't think of anything less baseball than having a "winner take all game."

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Jan 18, 2007 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but every Zito W felt that way

The inspection process may require that the handler take off the monkey's diaper as part of the visual inspection @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 18, 2007 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I look at it the opposite way

It is not a winner take all game per say, as this will only determine the final playoff spot.

Really, it is more like saying that the winners (of the divisions) make the playoffs. The top two non-winners get a chance to also join the fray. I just hate that the wild card can just coast into the postseason as if it is the same as winning a division (which essentially, under the current setup, it is). Takes a lot of the drama out of some of the divisional races.

by AsFanInLA on Jan 18, 2007 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Eventually, it gets down to the "7th game" or one game, but let's not -begin- with "one game, winner takes all".

MLB has 160+ games in the season, versus 16 for football. Let's not revert to NFL-style eliminations. They do it because football cannot be done in doubleheaders. Baseball -can-.

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Deemphasize the divisions

Go back to a 2 division format with the division champs receiving a first round bye, and the four non-division winners with the best records play a best of 5 first round series.

It would add an extra round, but you could make up for the time by having a few more doubleheaders during the season...

It's not gonna happen, though, so I won't worry too hard about it.

"Sometimes you gotta destroy a village to save it"- Alan Embree

by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Jan 18, 2007 8:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like the travel day

But I strongly prefer a 7-game format to a 5-game format. A seven-game format tests the depth of the participants more completely. Further, I think that the lengths of the rounds should be uniform. You need to win all three rounds to win it all, so each round is equally important to success. Therefore, each round should possess the same format. NFL wildcards don't play 40-minute games; I don't see why MLB wildcards should play truncated series.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Jan 18, 2007 9:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Excellent point.

Ho hum. Just another day for the OAKLAND ATHLETICS OF AWESOME! ~Kyli

by baseballgirl on Jan 18, 2007 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Extra off day is a bad idea

It strongly encourages teams to go with a 3-man rotation. I think it's silly to play 162 games with a 5-man rotation, and then have the season decided in a series where each teams top 2 pitchers start 4 out of the 5 games. If starting pitching accounts for 40% or so of success, that means the regular season and division series versions of each team are fundamentally different.

Also, should be 7 games. I like the basic structure right now though. 4 per league is about right.

by mikeA on Jan 18, 2007 9:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Replace LDS and LCS with Round-Robin

It's always seemed strange to me that the baseball post-season is so unlike the regular season. I'd rather see a post-season that rewards the same basic team-building criteria as the regular season, and not the "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain" juggling that goes on in the current playoffs.

So while I realize this is never going to happen (TV, the Players Union, and the "traditional" baseball fan would all nix the idea), I'd like to see the LDS and LCS replaced with a round-robin format where each team plays three-game home and away series with each of the other three teams in their league. The first tie-breaker could be head-to-head post-season matchups.

by LoveDemAs on Jan 18, 2007 10:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like this. Sort of like the Group Stage in the

World Cup or UEFA Champions League.

by WaddellCanseco on Jan 18, 2007 10:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I have favored Round Robin since Texas

since Texas played the Yankees twice in the 1990s.

WooHoo! The home fans got to see exactly TWO ALDS GAMES in TWO YEARS, after their team made the playoffs! So MLB doesn't really worry about rewards to the fans, per se, for making the playoffs.

So forget the hometown fans:

Major League baseball needs to build a four-field mega-stadium in Las Vegas, for a round-robin tournament. Four fields, where the NL as well as the AL playoff teams would play. Make the stadium a place with hotel room accommodations for the players and team associates, as well as their families (and, uh, special groups like AN members!) No driving to the ballpark!

Advantages

Las Vegas has always wanted Major League Baseball, and now they would have it. To accommodate the "gambling" angle, there would have to be "no book" once the playoffs began.
A round-robin tournament would allow each team to play -all- the other playoff teams at least once. No getting by with two good pitchers and a crazy strategy. In fact, opening day playoffs could be a doubleheader! Maybe make expanded rosters, instead of diminished rosters, the rule.
No time/energy lost to travel time. All the players' stamina devoted to the game.
Weather would be great, in 97% of the cases: warm enough, dry enough. No "twinky dome" or "short left/right field porch" advantages, no crappy locker room (Fenway, Wrigley) to get the other team. More day games!
A ticket to the tournament could be easily exchanged or sold. And if you went, you'd get to see your team play, in person, at -least- four games, and perhaps more! In fact, you could guarantee yourself (!!) the ability to see in person your team on the field, celebrating, if they were going to the World Series (which would be traditional). I'd advocate "standing room" be made available, so if you could not afford/buy a particular game ticket, you could see other games, other teams, too.
A plane ticket to Las Vegas is easier to resell or return than, say, a ticket to Detroit. Or, for Californians, you could -reasonably- drive (10 hrs each way? Is that "reasonable"??)

I'd say just because of the weather this would rate doing. But, add in, no travel, playing four games minimum, playing other teams, players watching the other league when they were not playing... it cannot miss...

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 18, 2007 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

some more advantages....

There are always rumors about "the guy in centerfield, stealing signals" for the home team.
Any type of cheating that is accomplished in the "off hours" of the home park would be avoided... not to mention "extra effort" like Kenny Rogers, related to "the weather".

Rumor was, the Dome in Minnesota was affected by turning on the a/c blowers depending on who was at bat. Could not do that in a neutral site. Teams used to water down the basepaths for opposing base-stealers. That would be out. As would stadium peculiarities that snatch foul balls from the gloves of players! ..or make fan grabs into home runs!

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 18, 2007 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Make it happen in 2007!

How fast could they build a Mega-plex, four field ballpark in Las Vegas? Not very fast, I'm sure.

Still, I think if they took a vote of the fans, MLB would find (1) the majority of fans are not as enamored of the playoffs that they would feel cheated if they could not attend, so long as the World Series was intact (2) a huge majority would feel satisfied with television coverage.

So, Las Vegas should just get some ready-made high school football bleachers and make four baseball fields go up very very fast. So you only get 15,000 fans per game, and the pressbox and announcing is amateurish, and there is no "Jumbotron"... <= which true fans, the ones paying $150 per seat for one of the 15,000 seats, DOESN"T WANT ANYWAY. WE DO NOT GO TO A GAME FOR DOT RACING!

The ball fields, with grass, and an outfield wall. That is really all that is needed. The rest is simply $$$ generators.

For the players, some manufactured housing would suffice in the beginning. That could be put in place in a week. If I'm a baseball player on a playoff team, I think I would enjoy NOT TRAVELING! For a week of baseball, I think I could live in the same room, not drive.

Fifteen thousand people in the stands would no doubt be purists. How great is that?? No overcoats! EVEN BETTER! Television could be Thought One while designing the layout... overhead of home plate instead of those "dirt shots" that worms see.

Las Vegas should just get the actual games in place, then take the 2-3 years to build the monolithic structure. Plenty of suitable land around Las Vegas, and a temporary permit for temporary housing/ ball fields should be no problem.

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 18, 2007 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Traveling for a

single game like a bowl game is understandable, but a series that could go 7 games would be hard on the local fans. Holding playoffs/WS in a neutral location would be bad for local fans IMO, since the games are every other night, you would need to take some time off work to see them. (To see one game would cost 2-3 days). Plus Las Vegas is pretty pricey if your going on a weekend.

You could take your clients (or be taken out by suppliers) to a game, but the logistics of having to travel to LV would make it far less likely.
Explaining to your boss that xxxxx co. took you to a ball game last night is much easier than explaining that xxxxxx co. took you to a ball game that took 3 days of your time.

"Choosing between Milledge and Gomez is like choosing between Mozart and Beethoven" --NY Mets Message Boards

by apilgrim on Jan 19, 2007 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Paying for tickets for seven games

would be costly no matter what the situation.

It would be hard on most fans if it were $65 for bleachers x 7 games.

Yes, flying to Las Vegas would be costly, but you know what? The major hotels on the Strip are quite pricey, but you don't have to stay there. You can go in four directions away from the center of town, and it gets plenty cheaper.

My first premise was, it would be better for the majority of the fans, and -not- simply game attendees, to have a round-robin tournament. If 40,000 are at a game, there are probably 600,000 local fans watching on television (not to mention nationwide fans). So I'm just omitting the typical "let's go to a playoff game" fan as a factor. And, as I said, the World Series would be traditional, seven games, two cities, home field weirdness... the whole thing.

Like I said, let's think about the Texas Ranger fan. He waits 25+ years for his team to even -get- to the playoffs. For two years, they play the Yankees only. They never win a game. They get to play one home game each year. Which they lose both times. The Yankees celebrate in front of the Ranger fans.

Maybe the Rangers would have scored a victory or two if the system was different. But, even if they were -equally miserable- against the other teams, they would have played a minimum of eight playoff games, a 33% increase over six. For my money as a fan, I'd rather see my team play four games in a tournament, and only watch on television, rather than go to -one- game, pay a lot of money, get a crummy seat, and watch them lose (and watch the other team celebrate on my field). I would venture to say, too, that the number of times a team went 0-4 and out would be very very small, compared to the weird situation where since 1994, where wildcard teams have been disproportionately in the World Series.

And about the celebrations. It's not worth doing when you only win the ALDS. You haven't done anything. Nobody remembers those "winners", because, ultimately, for the AL, all the "winners" ended up losers.

Instead of the "faux" ALDS and NLDS winner celebrations, a celebration by the winners of a tournament would be appropriate: "We're going to the World Series!!!!". Now that is worth celebrating. Not what the Athletics celebrated: "Were going to the next round, against (to be determined) !!" Every A's player tried to play down the fake euphoria the media tried to pump up.

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 11:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I have been to

the college world series, which is a similar format to what your suggesting (I think). The CWS is amazing for any fan of baseball and was a great experience.

"Choosing between Milledge and Gomez is like choosing between Mozart and Beethoven" --NY Mets Message Boards

by apilgrim on Jan 20, 2007 12:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it is similiar in format

What I am suggesting is very similar to the CWS.

At the College World Series, I believe, there are a lot more teams, and two or three losses and you're out.

In 1990, who would have thought the Major Leagues would have Korean, Japanese, and Chinese players in such numbers, as we have in 2007? It's just a matter of time before the pressure builds to put the "World" in World Series. The only, feasible way to accommodate teams from around the world will be a round-robin tournament at a neutral location for the play-offs. Then the "World Series" can be traditional, even if it means Game 1 and 2 in New York, and Games 3, 4, and 5 in Tokyo!

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 20, 2007 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I really like this idea

It feels like it's more of an equal competition because everyone has to play each other, but it's still possible for those "miracle" teams who don't seem to have a chance to step up and surprise everyone.

That would be so much fun to go out there and go to like 6 games in a row, regardless of which teams were playing.

"I never saw a hooligan I did like. They're like left-handed pitchers, they all have a screw loose somewhere." - The Asphalt Jungle

by drmmerchk on Jan 18, 2007 3:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

regardless of where they played

See? I think the idea of "woo hoo! we're in the playoffs" is overstressed by the MLB "powers" (i.e. Selig and the owners). You're really nothing until you make the WS.

Round robin would certainly make it more interesting, and they would have to hold it in one place. Las Vegas would be very neutral, very easy to get to. And they average less than two days of rain in October, with an average high of 82 degrees.

Wake up fans! You want your team eliminated by the inability to pitch at 40 degrees with a wet ball?

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm on board with this, too

This is an awesome idea, LoveDemAs. LoveDisIdea!

"WTF is wrong with you people TASTELESS COMMENTS. I'm disgusted. Mocking a 10 year old's horrible painful death." --eshock

by rubin sierra on Jan 19, 2007 1:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

match the risks/randomness of the regular season

I, too, think that the playoffs should be more reflective and rewarding of the same risks, randomness, roster depth, and durability of the regular season.

To that end, I think that we should maintain the current basic structure of 4 teams in each league qualifying for the playoffs at the conclusion of a 162-game season.

The first round of the playoffs, however, should be expanded to match the parameters of the regular season: the first round of the playoffs should be conducted over the course of 162 games between each set of teams, to be scheduled in the calendar year immediately following the regular season. To give the Wild Card winner a handicap, each WC series should be home/away in a 41-20-41-20-20-20 format.

The second, LCS, round of the playoffs should likewise be expanded to 162 games; again, to be scheduled in the calendar year immediately following the first round of the playoffs.

The World Series, also to be played in a first-to-82-wins format, should be then delayed by an off-year for travel.

The inspection process may require that the handler take off the monkey's diaper as part of the visual inspection @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 18, 2007 10:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

pfffff

Still a crapshoot.

"I mean, hey, if they're going to bring the A's to Fremont, you might as well bring a Hooters." ~ some guy

by Poppy on Jan 18, 2007 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"pfffff"?

That doesn't sound like a crapshoot to me ...

The inspection process may require that the handler take off the monkey's diaper as part of the visual inspection @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 18, 2007 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You've never

rekindled/mixed things up with some textured dice? Give it a try...

by mikeA on Jan 18, 2007 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a crazy and may be a stupid idea

But I'm about to leave for lunch and can't think of anything too brilliant right now...

What about making Home Field Advantage a real advantage by making it so the top seed has to be eliminated at home?

For example, if the A's are the top seed and we lose the first two at home, then game three would be at home as well. Or, if they split the first two in Oakland and lost game three away, they would return to Oakland for game 4 and/or 5.

Wild Card teams wouldn't be able to "take away" home field advantage.

"Baseball is like a church. Many attend, but few understand." - Wes Westrum

by oaklandfan40 on Jan 18, 2007 11:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

So if the home team goes down 0-2 ...

they never play on the road ... that's not very fair for the visitors' fans.

Read my latest articles

by devo on Jan 18, 2007 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

is that a bad thing?

would the fans prefer if they werent up 2-0?

The Not-So-Casual Fan

by rktse on Jan 18, 2007 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough ...

now for an unrelated question:

Would you prefer to shag your dad with your little sister watching?
or
Would you prefer to have all four of your limbs cut off?

Read my latest articles

by devo on Jan 18, 2007 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's difficult to say, because

I've never had all four of my limbs cut off.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 18, 2007 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't try it

..even while dreaming. I mean, either of those choices....

This idea of "tilting the table" with unnatural constructs all goes back to the basic unnaturalness of "playoff series upon playoff series". Let's have a round-robin tournament to determine which team from each league goes to the WS.

Just for future considerations, if baseball elsewhere gets to the level of American baseball, -they too- will naturally wish to be in the "World Series" hunt. Only a round robin tournament can accommodate other teams in some fashion, with the ability to "weight" lesser to teams to a disadvantage by making them play more frequently.

Increasing frequency (i.e. doubleheaders) is truly the only way to measure a team's worthiness, post regular schedule. If you have a great closer but no run production, your closer will be spent early. Your starting pitching -must- go further.

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Change to 4 divisions like the NFL did.

Eliminate the wildcard and match the best record against the worst in a 7 game first round. That would make all teams win their division to get in. It would also cut down on regular season travel a little because of the division games played during the season.

by 66th ave tailgatter on Jan 18, 2007 12:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

In MLB, though...

...you'd have two divisions with only three teams. That's hardly worth calling a real division.

"So, whatever, Ozzie." -- Nick Swisher

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Jan 18, 2007 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball needs fewer divisions

It only works when you play sixteen games for a season. MLB plays TEN TIMES as many games as the NFL. It should go back to two divisions, with four teams making it. And no goofiness like Atlanta in the NL West, or Cincinnati in the NL West, with Chicago in the NL East. That was like walking around with a nail under your foot inside your shoe.... STOP and CORRECT, REMEDY, REMOVE, please!

Already, with the unbalanced schedule, you get two teams like the Yankees and Red Sox piling up a lot of wins against Tampa Bay and Baltimore because of the smallness of the divisions. Look back at the two-division years for the leagues, at baseball-reference.com. I think you'll see a more fair final season ranking over the years, with only two divisions.

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I like the idea of a 7 game ALDS

or the travel day, but I would prefer that the games not be played all the way till the end of October. I can't figure how to avoid that w/o starting earlier in year and that's not an option. Shorten the season?

Or consider Monkeyball's suggestion above..never-ending baseball.

As long as our A's are in the playoffs, I'm happy.

by LongTimeFan on Jan 18, 2007 12:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

why not...

just give the division winner 4 home games and the wild card team a game 3 home game?

The Not-So-Casual Fan

by rktse on Jan 18, 2007 2:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

A couple thoughts...

Almost all the proposals I'm reading here would extend the season. Either you'd have to cut the regular season to less than 162 games or you'd have to play a week longer--which is an issue for reasons related to weather, other sports, etc. It may be a baseball fan's dream to have another week of baseball, but it's not practical in a lot of ways.

Also, what bugs me is the 2-2-1 home/road format for the LDS. It should be 2-3--better travel schedule for the teams and if the favored team can split the away games they have a clear home field advantage in the remaining "best of three". Fair and sensible.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 18, 2007 5:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I first started thinking round-robin

tournament, just because I was tired of watching the World Series in frigid night weather. Dragging on with the playoffs is dreadful.

A round robin tournament could start October 1, and end October 6. That would allow the World Series to start October 9th, which would eliminate some off the problems.

A tournament in Las Vegas would eliminate rain delays. Let's face it, Detroit looked flat and never was in the WS in 2006, because of the double whammy of finishing their round in three games, and rain postponements and a seven-game series in the NL. A Las Vegas tourney would end within a day or so for both leagues.

The regular season should revert to 154 games.

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My plan ...

cut the full league regular season to 142 games, ending by 9/7.

The three division winner plus two wild cards from each league make the round robin.

Each team plays the other 4 teams 5 times. There will be 4 3 games series and 4 2 game series. The wild cards will have all of their 2 game series at home and their 3 game series on the road. Divsion winners have 3 3 gamers at home and 1 on the road.

The top 2 teams from each league advance to the LCS at the beginning of October, with a tie being broken by a three game playoff and the rest of the system works the same.

Read my latest articles

by devo on Jan 18, 2007 5:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like the off day between 4 and 5

If they stick to 1-2 off, 3-4, off, 5 ... there are 3 possible realistic scenarios for MLB to schedule the 1st round. For the most part, I'd stil recommend that MLB schedule the home team as close to its own prime-time as possible for the sake of both fan turn-out and home fans being able to watch their own team.

(9 day max)
A
ABC
BCD
AD
ABC
BCD
AD
BC
D

(8 day max)
AB
ABCD
CD
AB
ABCD
CD
AB
CD

(8 day max)
ABC
ABCD
D
ABC
ABCD
D
ABC
D

by Rickeyfan on Jan 18, 2007 6:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

If a tournament were held in Las Vegas

then there would be no travel days, and you could "weight" the schedule by making the teams with lesser success in the regular season play "doubleheaders" while the more successful teams played one game per day. With no travel days to recover, the weaker teams would be exposed for having less bullpen, less quality starts, etc.

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 10:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The only thing I'd change

Would be me receiving free tickets to all the games. I'd be flown to each contest by private jet and stay in a penthouse suite for the duration of my stay. I'd pay for my own food at the ballpark.

Other than that, the playoffs are the playoff are the playoffs.

This guy is dead! We'll list him as day-to-day for possible reincarnation.

A's Medical Staff, 2006

by grover on Jan 18, 2007 6:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't mind the system as it is now

Maybe these tweaks:

No playoff game, regardless of round, should start before 1 p.m. Pacific Time for series involving a West Coast team or 2 p.m. Eastern Time for series with two Eastern/Central teams. No series, regardless of team, starts after 8 p.m. Eastern Time during the week. On weekends, no game starts after 6 p.m. Eastern Time, regardless of who's playing.
If you finish the season .500 or below, you are ineligible for the postseason and the spot is either vacated (with the best record team getting a bye) or a second wild card is awarded. Obviously this hasn't been an issue yet, but San Diego's 82-80 finish in 2005 shows how it could happen.

"So, whatever, Ozzie." -- Nick Swisher

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Jan 18, 2007 7:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I gotta agree with you on both...

but on the first one, i don't think the mlb cares too much about poor oakland fans who can't see their team cause it starts during their work/school day. All they really care about with time slots is getting NY/Boston in primetime.

and the second tweak i'm a supporter of. why should a sub-.500 team be rewarded a playoff spot for winning (what turns out to be) a crappy divison. that's just a waste of a playoff spot, especially if there was a team that finished with like 88 wins or something and fell short of the wild-card spot.

by swisherroks33 on Jan 18, 2007 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Televison determines the time

First you have to address the ridiculous situation of television running (and ruining) the MLB playoffs. Why the times are what they are.... entirely in the hands of the networks. If they think a good episode of "Friends" is slotted, heck, they'd make the teams play at 3 AM, and MLB would say, "yeeeeeeeessssssss, master" (clomp clomp clomp).

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 10:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely...

"So, whatever, Ozzie." -- Nick Swisher

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Jan 19, 2007 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hear, Hear!

(Visiting Cubs fan)

by Loon from Left on Jan 19, 2007 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

as long as we are in the play offs...

then i don't much care. although seven game series for the first round sounds fun.

Oakland A's 2007 World Champions!

by CrackBaby on Jan 19, 2007 12:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You should care

Because it should change. Just because a team makes the playoffs doesn't really amount to anything unless they get to the World Series. Look at the Twins. Great comeback season, great pitching, but because of about three bad pitches, their post-season was dismal and completely unappealing.
This is not right. A round robin tournament would be more like the regular season, and faaarrr more interesting.

So being in the postseason is worthless unless you make the World Series.

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

home field advantage

i don't like how the all-star game winner determines which league gets home field advantage in the world series. sure, it makes the all-star game much more competitive now because of the stakes but i don't really like seeing a wild card team getting home field advantage over a team with the best regular season record in the world series.

by gotgreen on Jan 19, 2007 9:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It was ridiculous to do this..

as if the players don't really want to play.

You can't just look at Bonds and say, "Oh, we gotta motivate these guys to win." I think that simply having the pressure of your teammates who are the best in the business, is motivation enough.

Just let the All-Star game end after nine-innings. It's an exhibition. Wouldn't a tie leave everyone feel "decent"??

Rename Fremont to Philadelphia, and all's well.

by One won lost won on Jan 19, 2007 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My suggestion

would be to play a 162 game season, just like they do now. But starting after the All-Star break have two polls taken by both the writers and the coaches then feed this data into a computer which also ranks the teams based on record and strength of schedule. At the end of the season, the two highest ranked teams in the computer poll play each other in a seven game series. About a dozen of the other teams, could also play each other in a seven game series for exhibition purposes only.
vr, Xei
http://XeiOnSports.blogspot.com/

by xeifrank on Jan 19, 2007 10:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs