The only problem I can see with it is that it makes the playoffs even more random than they already are. Baseball is unique in that the best team rarely wins (even the best playoff-built team) and this would just increase that.
Theres also less incentive to create a dominant team.. you'd just need 88 wins or whatever and hope you get lucky. It increases the chances for entering the playoffs, but also decreases the chances of going all the way (just due to so many rounds increasing randomness).
That said, if MLB created a "bye system" I'd be in favor of expanding. Reward the top regular season finishers with 1st round byes and it starts making sense. It would be hard to fit in the schedule, so perhaps the wild cards duke it out in 3-game series.
Q. How would the balance be, as far as the regular season vs. the playoffs, if there were 10-12 teams going in? Would the game then be "tuned" optimally?
A. I think the tuning would be better - not necessarily perfect. You might need more than 12 playoff teams to tune it just right.
The perfect "tuning" of 162-games-vs-playoffs when this happened: In March, you weren't sure whether to go for playoff ballplayers or regular season ballplayers.
Right now, all 30 teams seem to emphasize 162-game ballplayers, and playoff construction is almost an afterthought (except maybe in NYY and BOS). That's not balance. That's overemphasis on the humdrum of July.
...........
In Europe, they simply do both: they give a trophy for #1 in the regular season, and another one for UEFA Champion, and teams are unsure about which kind of player to amass.
.
Q. 5 teams a league, or 6?
A. Can't deny: with 3 divisions, then 5 teams gives you the awesome benefit of the WC's being precisely the same set of teams that has an extra round of playoffs to survive.
You really wouldn't want to be the WC; you'd really want to win that last weekend series and take the division.
A 5-team format would make the division precious.
................
But, six teams would also be interesting. It would make for more a more complex September tapestry. I don't notice that the NFL suffers for having too many teams (12/32) in the steel cage, do you?
The NBA has too many, I think. 16 of 30 isn't wrong in principle; it's wrong because now the regular season lacks tension.
We've got practical return here. 12-of-32 didn't rob the NFL of any tension; it probably increased tension, compared to when most teams were out of it by game 6.
Come to think of it, 12 teams might be the perfect tuning. We've got precedent.
.
Q. And the whole thing would affect Seattle, how?
A. With Felix, and with Zduriencik's emphasis on impact players, anything that emphasizes the playoffs favors us, compared to the average "have."
And anything that widens the playoff net, favors us, relative to the Yankees and Red Sox and Royals. We're on that fringe.
If the playoffs were expanded, the Seattle Mariners might benefit more than any AL team. They're (1) a gray-area team with (2) a monster starter and (3) a pitcher's park.
.
Q. Who would it chap the most?
A. The losers would be the teams at the very top and bottoms of the table, since the game would get better for all the average-solid teams.
The Yankees and Red Sox have a lot more resources than everybody else. Those two have dominated the Wild Card since 2003, taking it five times and just missing it by one game in 2002. I expect them to dominate the "first" Wild Card even more in the future.
So the Yankees and Red Sox take a division and a WC. Why not let the Field race in a pack for another WC?
................
Like Armstrong used to say, as long as we have Edgar, I'm in favor of the DH :- )
But whether we have Felix, Pineda, and Bedard or not: bring 'em on. The game is better now than in 1960, and it is better now than it was in 1992, and it would be better still, with even more playoff teams.
.................
I'm hoping fervently for the announcement. 2011, amigos.
.
Cheerio,
Dr D
Comments
With 5 or 6 teams, there's no way around it :- )
5 teams -- the 2 WC's play each other, and then you're down to 4 teams ....
6 teams -- the two best records get byes, the "worst" division winner plays the first round with the three WC's, and then you have 4 teams again.
So, it would actually promote the #1 regular-season team winning more often than it does now.
....................
That's a great point, that in baseball, the inferior team has an inherently better chance than it does in the NBA and NFL. BABIP and Pascal's Triangle weigh heavily ('it's a game of inches").
Ya, I mean how often does the #8 or #9 team win in NBA or NFL? Never. Happens all the time in baseball, and now we'd be talking the #10 or #12 teams..
I like the "bye" format though. It doesn't really change the current format of the playoffs, but it gives more teams a crack at it. Now you have some incentive to create a great team in the regular season and its even more epic if a bottom team defies the odds.
As conceded in my last post, there's just less luck factor in those sports...
...............
Not sure the #8 *best* team wins, because you have to take into account (1) late improvement and (2) playoff construction.
Anybody think the Giants got lucky? Or did they just peak at the right time, and have playoff personnel?
Not often that I don't like the WS winner. In the NBA and NFL, the champion is always worthy; in baseball it's worthy what, 7, 8, 9 times out of 10...
The Giants had a great team and are worthy champions, but ya, theres always some luck involved. I'm pretty sure they lose to the Rangers in a best of 50 for instance.
Both the Rangers and Giants were better than their records, but sometimes inferior teams really do just get hot at the right time. Things like the '02 Angels or Cards of a few years back just don't happen in other sports. Of course, thats part of the appeal.
Still, I like the idea of adding more playoff teams as long as "bye round" are added. It doesn't increase the randomness anymore than it does now.. It just means that the #11 team might go all the way once in a while.. but if they do they would have done it the hard way and would make it that much more special for that team's fans.
Agree - if a team could run a gauntlet of what, 4 ?! series and win them all, more power to them.
Wouldn't happen often, without a Lee / Lincecum / Darvish or two :- )
I'd much rather see an expansion and realignment occur before more playoff teams are added. The way that it's set up right now just simply isn't fair to the NL Central with 6 teams or the entire NL for that matter. A 16/14 NL to AL league split isn't harmonious. However, each league must have an even number of teams to balance the playing schedule. If each league had 15 teams on opening day one team in each league would be left with out a playing partner. Unless inter league play between the two leagues were to occur through out the entire season.
In my opinion the perfect scenario would be to expand to 32 teams. And 32 is a nice number. It factors and divides so well. What are they waiting for? So then we're talking about 4 divisions of 4 teams per league. Maybe a north, south, east and west similar to the NFL. Realignment and expansion alone enhances the chances for certain teams to make the post season. Now that's balance and harmony. Expand first to achieve perfect balance.... then consider adding an additional team or two to the play off picture.
As is, right now, the upper 27 percentile make the post season. An expansion with an additional post season team would keep the percentile marginally low at around 31%. I'd go for that. The top third of the league competing for the championship.
1) Expand to 32 teams
2) Realign the divisions
3) Add 1 play off team
4) perfection
How about them Oregon Ducks! They're absolutely romping the Pac 10. You may need to spot the Huskies 60 points tomorrow to make it fair.
My problem with a bye in a playoff format is the sitting around.
Having the better team cool their heels for an extra week works fine in football. You can get over injuries and rest up for the next fight. Football is bruising.
Baseball is timing. Pitchers and hitters sitting around for 8 days not playing, when their comfort zone has been playing basically every day for 7 months, is not smart to me.
In a bye format I wouldn't want a best of 5 for the play-in to the divisional round - it takes too long and does a disservice to those who won higher slots by letting them get rusty. OTOH, one game for all the marbles is too short. It should be kept to a length that is reasonable to see a team wait. In a best of seven series one team can sweep and one team can go 7, so there can be a 3 game wait for an opponent to be ready.
And that's why I'd graduate it. 3 games for the Wild-card matchup, 5 games for the divisional, 7 for the pennants and the World Series.
That way we're not pushing the World Series too far into November hopefully either.
Otherwise, I'm down with it. The Wild Card helped baseball dramatically by making it possible to see Cinderella tales and not just divisional races that are over by the trade deadline.
It helps individual teams all get races to be aware of, and reasons to go to the park beyond the hydroplane races on the scoreboard.
I DEFINITELY wouldn't expand, though. Contract, maybe. Go to 28 teams instead of 30, and have 14 in each league. The powers that be would never allow that, though. Not when the Nationals franchise sold for a billion whatever dollars, and the Rangers was similarly obscene. Phase out 2 billion dollars of assets just to consolidate talent and make the other teams better and more competitive while removing markets unsuited for the game?
Craziness.
But if we can't get them to contract, we can at least stop them from expanding and watering down the talent pool even further.
Just an expanded playoff is fine, please - as long as it's done the right way.
~G
Expanding teams would not water down the talent...not long term. As the game has expanded through time, the talent pool has expanded to keep pace with the demand. That continues to be true today. Generally, league expansions have resulted in temporarily weaker leagues (1998, 1999 were very weak by modern standards), but long term gains in player development, scouting, and interest in the game.
You're thinking in the here and now G...you need to think like an economist to understand wy the game will benefit from expansion long term. Or...you could try thinking like a historian.
That's only true if your sport is growing, Matt.
Growing the game happens because the games are worth watching and catch public interest, not because there are more teams playing locally.
It's fine to add an expansion team in a new untapped market, but we already have unsustainable markets in MLB (think Florida).
This isn't finding an untapped market, it's trying to squeeze 2 more baseball teams into a market that already has flatlined or sagged. Tampa is WINNING and can't draw fans. The Marlins have two world titles and are in dire need of a stadium to hope to draw some fans.
I hope it works out in Florida, I really do, but other than Las Vegas who is gonna pony up for a stadium in the current economic climate? At least the As are just asking for some property and they'll get the building itself built without taxpayer dollars.
I hear you about interest in the game, but the league would be better served spicing up the playoffs with another wildcard, putting a pitchclock in to get the batters and pitchers to have to actually do something in those Yankees/Bo Sox 4 hour yawnfests, and moving forward with their product first. Put a salary floor in place to force owners to spend so that there are minimum standards for teams.
They can expand when they can fill stadiums. They have the same basic number of under 60% capacity teams they've had for a decade.
In 2001, there were 12 teams under 60% (ten under 2 million fans for the year).
2010? 11 (nine under 2 million).
TV ratings? Better for the World Series in 2001-2002 than 2009-2010. Each two-year grouping has the Giants and the Yankees markets included, so it's mostly fair.
NFL teams under 60% capacity? zero. 70%? Zero. 80%? two. Over 100% (standing room)? NINE. They expanded to 32 because their product could support it, IMO - the expansion did not cause the explosion.
Hockey expanded until their game broke. Ducks, Panthers, Predators, Thrashers, Blue Jackets, Lightning, Wild, Sharks in a 10 year span. Why didn't expansion grow their game?
How's the WNBA going? Should they expand to grow their game, or figure out how to reach more fans in their existing markets first?
This is only two teams, I get that. I just don't think it's anywhere near the top of what baseball should be doing. Make sure the game is growing ITSELF before you ride that momentum to expansion.
Ten years from now that pretty Florida field they're finishing could be vacant unless the LLWS comes to town. They could be playing minor league ball on it if the fans decide not to come out.
That would be MLB's fault. Get the game right first. Then expand. Doing it the other way around invites disaster, IMO.
~G
I agree, which is why I think the timing is important. The WC rounds would have to be best of 3, and they would have to be back-to-back.
32 is a wonderful number for eleven-teen reasons ... dilution of talent, and being present in communities that (relatively) ignore MLB, that's a good question and you have me going back and forth... Great arguments on this score, Matty...
Without any question, the "timing" concern is unique to baseball and weighs very heavily...
Odd thing is, ML players and managers themselves don't seem to worry about this, and I've never noticed that when the Yankees sweep, wait for their opponents, and set up their pitching, that they have any performance deficit...
Being "beat up" may have an analogue, in that the pitchers are gassed at this time of season, and rejuvenate with some time off...
Would agree, that first round maybe shouldn't be a whole 9 days though!
"I've never noticed that when the Yankees sweep, wait for their opponents, and set up their pitching, that they have any performance deficit..."
Didn't that JUST happen to them against the Rangers? The Rangers hit them on schedule after going the distance against the Rays, while CC just sat their after Game One against Minny, waiting and waiting for someone to show up, and was atrocious. CC had 9 days rest...and had the shortest outing of the season, was bouncing balls off the backstop...it was miserable.
Imagine if CC pitches 3 days before the season ends, then waits through a 7 game in 10 day stretch of wildcards for his opponent to show up.
Two weeks off? Terrible. If it's two rounds of byes over shorter series it's the same thing.
First round of any wildcard has to be 3 games if they do it. I'd WANT to let the Yankees win otherwise, get rusty while I keep playing, and take it to em. I'd feel better about getting Cliff Lee on 2 weeks rest than on 5 days.
So did the Giants, who shelled him on 8 days rest. More rest is better in the NFL. It's worse in MLB. MLB is all about routine. EVERY day they go to the park at X time, warm up for X hours, throw X pitches or take X swings...
The body does what it is accustomed to doing. You don't train for 6 months running half-marathons and then suddenly decide to run a full one. Your body will explode. You've trained it to turn off after 13 miles.
Long breaks in baseball disadvantage the breakers. It's not a reward, it's a punishment. And it should be considered such. 2-3 games gives you time to get your rotation in order, maybe. 5 or 7 games just ruins your momentum and routine.
~G
But yeah, ironic if that occurred in the most-recent NYY series. :- )
Bet you a dollar, though, that baseball teams waiting 3-5 days don't underperform historically. Maybe Hardball Times has an article.
....................
Will cheerfully concede that, for pitchers on 6-7-8 days' rest, you see some sloppiness reflected in their stats. But would like to see it isolated: long rest *immediately after* overwork, compared to normal rest after overwork.
Could be the long rest hurts the pitchers. I'd be more inclined to look at the fact that, if you finish early, you can always get your ace in game 1, though. What's better? #3 SP on sched, or Cliff Lee on long rest? I'll bet the historical split ERA's would go with Lee :- )