There should not be an off-day twice in these series.

Blame the networks.

The media people are so angry because they've been denied their stories every step of the way. They wanted the Cubs in the World Series; they get swept. They wanted a Dodgers-Red Sox World Series; each is behind in their respective LCS series. They would have settled for an all L.A. World Series, but nooooo...

The only thing wrong with the playoffs is the weird scheduling. For instance, the Phils and Dodgers have a day off today for, apparently, no reason. The only time a series should have a day off is for travel.

I totally agree with this, especially about the extra days off during the LCS.

As fun as it must be to see a team's stud pitch 3 times in a series, let's stop penalizing teams that have the deeper rotation---and these are usually the teams that win more games over the course of the regular season---by creating extra opportunities for inferior rotations to skip their back ends.

It's never made any sense to me that a team that sneaks into the postseason partly because of its crappy 3 and 4 (nevermind the 5!) is then given an advantage by being able to substitute the studs for the bums.

Why not do the same thing with the offense, and change the way the games are played in a different way: allow a team to substitute defensively for a power-hitting, poor-fielding slugger, but then allow the slugger to play again as a pinch-hitter. The benefit to the team with the less-deep 25-man roster wouldn't be as extreme as the current benefit to the team with the less-deep rotation, but at least it would be philosophically consistent.

Re: the title of the piece, the thought of Greenberg as commish sends a cold shiver down my spine.

I'm with salvo here. The back of a team's rotation is an integral part of their overall strength, and shouldn't be eliminated as a factor in a playoff series if the intent is to ID the best teams.

For instance, the Phils and Dodgers have a day off today for, apparently, no reason.

(1) With games on competing networks, they're trying not to have as little overlap while keeping as many games in primetime.

(2) Scheduled days off = makeup days for rainouts. They've had none so far, so the days off look more useless than they are. Having these days allows the schedule to be relatively fixed; one rainout doesn't throw off a whole series (TV schedule, hotel arrangements, travel plans, etc.)

I'd rather that, for a given round, they stick with one broadcast partner with multiple networks. Turner (TBS, TNT), NewsCorp (FOX, F/X), Disney (ABC, ESPNs), or Universal (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA, Bravo) would be fine, if they'd just stick to one of them. Splitting between TBS and FOX is asinine. I'd also rather that they plan few days off, and let the networks deal with the aftermath. But I don't know how realistic that is. It seems like the broadcast contract works to the networks' advantage more with each year, and I'm getting sick of it.

A 5-game series is the same as a 7-game series tied at 1-1, except that in the latter the worse-seeded team has home field advantage. I have no problem with the LDS being as they are currently structured.

The back of a team's rotation is an integral part of their overall strength, and shouldn't be eliminated as a factor in a playoff series if the intent is to ID the best teams.

A team's overall strength, as I'm reading you to say, is their strength over the course of a 162-game season. The extreme solution that fits in with that is to have each round of the playoffs last 162 games, else we would be eliminating something integral to their overall strength. Put more simply, if the playoffs aren't different from the regular season, there really isn't a point to playoffs.

I know that's a heck of a strawman I was building there. Still, as of this very moment every team knows they need (a) to have a strong team over the course of a 162-game season in order to make the 2009 playoffs, (b) to have a roster capable of winning in a short series in order to advance, and (c) to have a roster capable of winning two longer series in order to be crowned as 2009 champions. A team built advantageously for (a) and (c) but not (b), to the point that they are at as significant a disadvantage as is being implied, should not be blaming the postseason structure for their troubles.

Basketball is more than capable of altering its postseason schedule to account for series which end quickly, so why can't baseball? I recall on more than one occasion the next round being played while the last game of the previous round in the other conference was still going on.

A team's overall strength, as I'm reading you to say, is their strength over the course of a 162-game season. The extreme solution that fits in with that is to have each round of the playoffs last 162 games, else we would be eliminating something integral to their overall strength. Put more simply, if the playoffs aren't different from the regular season, there really isn't a point to playoffs.

There will still be a significant difference between the playoffs and regular season, which would be evidenced by the decisions managers make. But virtually eliminating the contributions of one or two pitchers who started up to 40 percent of a team's games seems to be taking that difference too far in the other direction.

I don't get why we can't add two days to the baseball season so that the division series can be 7 games. Why do we even need to obsess over cutting out currently scheduled off days or whatever? Just add two days at the front and/or back end of the season. Why is that so unthinkable?

The media people are so angry because they've been denied their stories every step of the way. They wanted the Cubs in the World Series; they get swept. They wanted a Dodgers-Red Sox World Series; each is behind in their respective LCS series. They would have settled for an all L.A. World Series, but nooooo...

The only thing wrong with the playoffs is the weird scheduling. For instance, the Phils and Dodgers have a day off today for, apparently, no reason. The only time a series should have a day off is for travel.

Amen. And what makes it even worse is that their motivation is to avoid as many day games as possible, even though more than half the country has to stay up till nearly midnight or later to watch the ends of the night games. I will be SO glad to have an all East Coast World Series and watch the ratings tank because of the late finishes.

------------------

Hey, Ray, I hope you're going to declare that killing you're going to be making for selling out your sould in Vegas last Spring. (smile) I picked the Rays, too, but that was only in the Postseason prediction thread and I didn't put my moolah where my mouth was.

I consider Mike Greenberg calling for the LDS to expand to 7 games validation of my idea to have both the LDS and LCS be 5 games.

And what makes it even worse is that their motivation is to avoid as many day games as possible, even though more than half the country has to stay up till nearly midnight or later to watch the ends of the night games.

The reason they want to avoid day games is because not as many people watch them. So isn't it actually fan-friendly to schedule as many games at night as possible? The reason more fans watch the night games is because more are able to.

I will be SO glad to have an all East Coast World Series and watch the ratings tank because of the late finishes.

Everyone talks about this, but it doesn't happen, according to the ratings. Even among school-age kids. The only demographic where ratings drop when it gets really late is old people.

I'm with salvo here.

He lost me with his re-entry rule proposition.

Everyone talks about this, but it doesn't happen, according to the ratings. Even among school-age kids. The only demographic where ratings drop when it gets really late is old people.

Careful King, Moscow used to be Andy. And Andy used to be young.

Greenberg is absolutely right. For those that prefer a 5-game LDS or even LCS, would you also want to see a 5-game WS? I doubt many would consider it an appropriate test. The better team, presumably, will fare better the more games in the series. The season is marathon and then if you blink the LDS is over. It's ridiculous that two days cannot be added to the season. More games = more money, and I'm surprised Selig in all his greed hasn't punched that ticket yet.

Ray has the Rays, for dough? Blind monkey found a banana! ;-)

Seriously, congrats. That's a nice score.

There will still be a significant difference between the playoffs and regular season, which would be evidenced by the decisions managers make. But virtually eliminating the contributions of one or two pitchers who started up to 40 percent of a team's games seems to be taking that difference too far in the other direction.

Eliminating the contributions of those pitchers is a decision managers make. Cartainly it's encouraged by the fact that it's a short series vs. a 162-game schedule; but changing from 5 games to 7 doesn't change this aspect very much. The number of off-days in a series affects it more than the series length, I think.

Eliminating the contributions of those pitchers is a decision managers make. Cartainly it's encouraged by the fact that it's a short series vs. a 162-game schedule; but changing from 5 games to 7 doesn't change this aspect very much. The number of off-days in a series affects it more than the series length, I think.

Which is why I support filling the off days with games (with perhaps a single off day for travel), rather than just tacking on two extra games to the series. Three off days in a 7-game series is ridiculous, and really magnifies the difference between the postseason and regular season to a degree I find less appealing.

Everyone talks about this, but it doesn't happen, according to the ratings. Even among school-age kids. The only demographic where ratings drop when it gets really late is old people.

Careful King, Moscow used to be Andy. And Andy used to be young.

Nah, I stay up and watch the end, at least if it's the AL or the World Series, and if it's not an early blowout. You forget that us wiley old buzzards survive fine on 5 or 6 hours sleep.

But I'd love to see the breakdown for these "demographics." I'd love to see the survey that says that the ratings don't fall off for younger children after about 10:30 or 11:00. I'll believe it when I see it, and I'm not talking about teenagers, who haven't had to answer to their parents since about the year 1620. I'm talking about younger kids whose baseball allegiances are being formed. I simply don't believe that the majority of parents let them stay up night after night for an entire month to watch the ends of these games, when they've got to go to school early the next morning.

And all this just to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the advertisers. If there ever were a real recession / depression, that'd be one of the spinoffs that'd be sweet to contemplate, seeing the advertising dollars tank and the whole f*ck*ng game of baseball (and all other big time sports) deflate by about 80%. It couldn't happen to a nicer group of fellows.

For those that prefer a 5-game LDS or even LCS, would you also want to see a 5-game WS? I doubt many would consider it an appropriate test.

Let me make this clear: I don't prefer 5 games over 7 games, nor the opposite. I'm OK with things the way they are. I just don't see why 7 is just so much better than 5, and why so many people are picking this year - a year in which series length almost certainly wouldn't have mattered - to make the point that 5=useless and 7=useful.

Do I want to see a 5-game WS? Whatever. It's been 7 games for 100 years or so, and I guess I don't see the point of changing.

Can someone please point out a few 5-game series that were not an appropriate test, and explain how a 7-game series would have been materially different? Seriously, I want to know how everyone is geting there. I get the notion that a larger sample size is better, but people seem to be married to 7 as being sufficiently large, in a sport that takes 162 games to determine who makes the playoffs. When I view it that way, I fail to see what the big deal is about 5 vs. 7.

Which is why I support filling the off days with games (with perhaps a single off day for travel), rather than just tacking on two extra games to the series. Three off days in a 7-game series is ridiculous, and really magnifies the difference between the postseason and regular season to a degree I find less appealing.

So if they eliminated the extra off-days, but kept each series at its current length, you'd be fine?

So if they eliminated the extra off-days, but kept each series at its current length, you'd be fine?

I'd like it more than 5 games in 7 or 8 days, which is what is offered now. I still think 7 games over 8 days is preferable.

(2) Scheduled days off = makeup days for rainouts. They've had none so far, so the days off look more useless than they are. Having these days allows the schedule to be relatively fixed; one rainout doesn't throw off a whole series (TV schedule, hotel arrangements, travel plans, etc.)

The day off today would only buffer rainouts in Games 3 or 4. Which is a nice feature, but I highly doubt that this factored heavily into the reasoning for the break.

Just start one LCS a day earlier, and allow two travel days each, just like they did for many years. That way you begin the first series on a Tuesday, you end the other one on the next Thursday, and you can start the World Series on a Saturday and get in two weekends. You also get four days (Wed., Sat., Sun. and Wed.) where you could have both a day game and a prime time game. What in the hell is wrong with that?

EDIT: This is exactly the schedule they followed between 1985 (the first year of the 7 game LCS) and 1993 (the last postseason without DS). Did the world of baseball come to an end?

Do I want to see a 5-game WS? Whatever. It's been 7 games for 100 years or so, and I guess I don't see the point of changing.

Well, this is where I came in. Baseball postseason series had been 7 games for 70 or so years until the LCSs were created as 5 game series. Why were they 5? It seemed very unpopular and eventually changed to 7. Then the LDSs came in as 5 - again, why?

It seems to me that, for whatever reason, baseball postseason series have mostly been 7 games. I don't think one is necessarily a lot better than another (7 is better, but, as you say, not a lot). But I also don't see a strong argument for making them 5 games with lots of off days. You're basically just saying you don't want the teams to play.

I'd make all three series the same length - it makes no sense to have different length series. So, either three 5 game series or three 7 game series. As you say, the World Series isn't getting shorter, so I favor three 7 game series.

And it isn't just this year that this is ####### about - we talk about it every year. We also talked about it every year the LCSs were 5 games.

I am falling in serious like with an idea that I expressed on this site (I think) during the LDS: keep the LDS at 5 games, but let the team with the better record host all five. That would create more important games at the end of the season -- owners will really discourage coasting in on the wild card slot because it will cost them a lot of money. It would make the regular season more meaningful.

(I also think they should scrap the idea that teams with the best record can't play a wild card from their own division. I think the team with the best record should get to pick who they want in the first round.)

EDIT: This is exactly the schedule they followed between 1985 (the first year of the 7 game LCS) and 1993 (the last postseason without DS). Did the world of baseball come to an end?

The new playoff format makes it much more likely that a 163rd game is required. In the divisional era, there were only two such games, in 1978 and 1980, over the course of 25 years. Since the switch to the Wild Card format, there have already been five such games in 14 years (plus three other instances where two teams tied for the division lead, but no playoff was needed because one of those teams ended up as the Wild Card).

I think the start of the playoffs was moved back one day to keep the traditional one-day breathing room between the regular season and the playoffs (although the White Sox didn't get that this year), and to keep a rained-out one-game playoff from really wreaking havoc on the postseason schedule.

EDIT: This is exactly the schedule they followed between 1985 (the first year of the 7 game LCS) and 1993 (the last postseason without DS). Did the world of baseball come to an end?

The new playoff format makes it much more likely that a 163rd game is required. In the divisional era, there were only two such games, in 1978 and 1980, over the course of 25 years. Since the switch to the Wild Card format, there have already been five such games in 14 years (plus three other instances where two teams tied for the division lead, but no playoff was needed because one of those teams ended up as the Wild Card).

From the POV of baseball, which would probably drag the postseason into Thanksgiving if it thought it could get away with it, I can see this argument. But from any other perspective I dunno why you particularly need that day off between the 163rd game and the start of the DS, especially since there's a 50% chance that the team with that 163rd game won't start their DS until Wednesday to begin with. Teams deal with this sort of a schedule all the time in the regular season, and the better the team, the better they'll be able to cope with it. And if a tightened schedule works to the advantage of a team with better pitching depth, or to a team that was good enough to clinch its playoff spot early, I don't see anything particularly wrong with that.

And the truth is also that unless you're flying coast to coast, those two traditional "travel" days aren't necessary for anything other than rainout protection in the first place. Philadelphia and Milwaukee or Boston and St. Petersburg don't really require an off day between cities, unless they're playing a day game after a night game.

I'm not saying to eliminate those two travel days, of course, but the idea that you need a third one for anything other than the dubious goal of mimimizing the number of day games is pure fiction.

1) Move Milwaukee back to the AL where they belong. Add new teams to the AL (Portland) and NL (Montreal).
2) Create eight four-team divisions.
3) LDS is best-of-7, with a twist: the 4 seed, the division winner with the worst record, loses a home game (to penalize a 79-83 team sneaking into the playoffs by winning a crappy divison).
4) LCS, WS best-of-7, as usual.
5) No off days, except for travel.

You're welcome.

I'm not talking about teenagers, who haven't had to answer to their parents since about the year 1620.

Silly! All teenagers obeyed their parents until 1644, when Roger Williams ran away from home and founded Rhode Island.

Why were they 5? It seemed very unpopular and eventually changed to 7.

I don't recall it being "very unpopular". To the contrary I recall the general opinion at the time was that it was entirely unnecessary to go with 7 but MLB was just doing it for the money.