“No, I’m afraid to do that,” he said.

Just be sure to bring it up with a ring of garlic around your neck, that keeps Bud at bay.

Beane's #### still wouldn't work.

Lew, less talking and more check writing. Thanks.

Beane's #### still wouldn't work.

Naw, Game 1's the A's can handle. It's the Game 5's that trip 'em up.

Yes, King... but how will that help them out in the second round?

Yes, King... but how will that help them out in the second round?

Get to games 6 and 7? I have no idea what the A's mojo is there.

Hey, it works for the stupid NFL. Nobody is telling the NFL to go towards a best of 3.

I always liked the two wild card teams that play a 1 game playoff to make the best of 5 series idea. Punish the puny wild card teams!

I'd think he has bigger things to worry about these days, like how to catch up with the Texas Rangers.

This team has put me to the test a few times, but this is the first time I've ever been embarrassed to be an A's fan. Holy moly.

One-game playoff? Dullsville. Make it a sudden-death playoff: the first team that scores wins. And first ups are decided by a coin toss.

And the coin is tossed by a naked cheerleader.

That's the ticket!

I'd think he has bigger things to worry about these days, like how to catch up with the Texas Rangers.

Joey, you're all right, but you are the least funny A's basher in the history of BBTF. Can't you do better than Jack Crust? That should be your floor. If you don't have snark better than Jack Crust, just don't bother.

I've got a much better idea... Make the World Series one-and-done. Pitch it as an EVENT. Like the Superbowl.

If you shorten the first round, the post-season is now just 4 + 14 + 7 = 25 games long.
If you shorten the last round, the post-season is 20 + 14 + 1 = 35 games long.

And any team that makes it past two rounds of playoffs is likely pretty deserving anyways.

I was never sure how dumb Lew was, now I know. It's not the NFL, where you only play a 16 game season. He really thinks teams should play a 162 games to make the playoffs and then get eliminated in one game?

If anything it should be the opposite. The MLB playoffs is the most important part of the year and should be expanded (again). The first round should be 7 games. The leagues should also consider going to 2 wild card teams and force them to play a 5 game series first to decide which one gets to play against division winners, or 3 wild cards and force the worst division winner to play an early 5 game series against a wild card while the two best division teams get a week off.

What is so difficult to understand that having more games with the best teams playing each other with a championship on the line is better?

To do this the regular season should either go back to 154 games, or Saturdays should become mandatory double headers. The playoffs should start September 7th to put the World Series in the first week of October. Get the playoffs finished before the worst of the cold weather.

One-game playoff? Dullsville. Make it a sudden-death playoff: the first team that scores wins. And first ups are decided by a coin toss.

And the coin is tossed by a naked cheerleader.

That's the ticket!

With the losing team literally put to death. WE WANT BLOOD!

Joey, you're all right, but you are the least funny A's basher in the history of BBTF. Can't you do better than Jack Crust? That should be your floor. If you don't have snark better than Jack Crust, just don't bother.

So you're saying that I should put a tarp over my comedic stylings?

With the losing team literally put to death. WE WANT BLOOD!

Beheaded, one by one. By naked cheerleaders using samurai swords. And lots of flashing lights and loud music over the PA and stuff.

So you're saying that I should put a tarp over my comedic stylings?

There ya go. That's much better. I am completely in favor of you taking over BL's schtick since he seems to have disappeared on us.

#16 - Joey

Better!

As a rule, juvenile puns on a person's name are the worst, most self-discrediting form of "humor" out there. I mean, how many times did we all want to groan upon hearing "Barack Osama" or "John McLame?"

I admit I'm partial to Rays fans calling Vinny Castilla "Vinny Cashsteala," however. For whatever reason, that one makes me laugh.

Hey, I actually like the one-game playoff idea...

For two wild-cards. If you can't win your division, you should have to play a sudden-death game just to earn the RIGHT to get into the playoffs.

Beyond that, five games or seven for the division series matters not. I want excitement on the Monday after the season ends though...

(Al K - managed to miss your comment there. Just consider this echoing your sentiments...)

Beheaded, one by one. By naked cheerleaders using samurai swords. And lots of flashing lights and loud music over the PA and stuff.

Hosted by Dane Cook.

Hosted by Dane Cook.

So much for that idea. Not even naked cheerleaders could get me to watch.

I admit I'm partial to Rays fans calling Vinny Castilla "Vinny Cashsteala," however. For whatever reason, that one makes me laugh.

Hideki I-rob-you was also funny. Not as funny as fat toad, though.

He really thinks teams should play a 162 games to make the playoffs and then get eliminated in one game?

It's not so far-fetched. That kind of did happen in the AL Central this year.

I don't mind it as an idea--it's interesting to think how the pitching matchups might be arranged--but it won't fly due to decreased TV revenues.

Not even naked cheerleaders could get me to watch.

Not even if they were naked female cheerleaders?

starting with runners on 1st and 2nd

Not even if they were naked female cheerleaders?

That makes it better, but it would require some Big Lebowski like blanket tossing of large breasted naked cheerleaders resembling Kate Beckinsale being filmed from a bird's eye view to make up for a Dane Cook appearance. That's all I'm saying.

A one game playoff isn't a big deal. Let's say you have two teams, one is a 55% chance to win on a neutral site (far superior to the other team, in baseball terms). Let's call this 58% to win at home, 52% on the road, I think +/-3% is the swing.

In a one-game playoff, the better team, if it gets home field, has 58% chance of winning.

In a five-game playoff, 3 at home 2 on the road, the better team has a 60% chance of winning.

2% is nothing. If the better team doesn't get home field -- which unlikely given the talent difference I've assumed, and besides if the much better team can't get home field in a 162 game season, it's their own fault -- the better team has a 52% chance of winning in one game and 58% in five.

good point DCA, but the problem is that, for the average person, they don't realize that a 5 game playoff is such a crapshoot. they can trick themselves into thinking the better team won. with a one-game playoff, even the average layman will realize it's a glorified coin toss.

A one game playoff isn't a big deal. Let's say you have two teams, one is a 55% chance to win on a neutral site (far superior to the other team, in baseball terms). Let's call this 58% to win at home, 52% on the road, I think +/-3% is the swing.

In a one-game playoff, the better team, if it gets home field, has 58% chance of winning.

In a five-game playoff, 3 at home 2 on the road, the better team has a 60% chance of winning.

2% is nothing. If the better team doesn't get home field -- which unlikely given the talent difference I've assumed, and besides if the much better team can't get home field in a 162 game season, it's their own fault -- the better team has a 52% chance of winning in one game and 58% in five.

This is why the mainstream deservedly hates sabermetrics.

What about added a second wild card team and having a one game series between the wild cards to join the three division winners in the divisional series? Give you more reason to win the division

If they're naked, how do you know that they are cheerleaders?

If they're naked, how do you know that they are cheerleaders?

tattoos

With a 24-second shot clock!

I've never been fond of the second wild card idea. Give the fifth best team in the league an opportunity to win a pennant or World Series, and eventually they will.

I feel that way about the second best team in the league.

Of course, there already are one-game playoffs, and they are very exciting. There was one this year. I doubt they would be all that exciting if there weren't three postseason rounds to follow, however.

I'm trying to remember if there were mandatory league rules for playoffs back before 1969, or if they just improvised. The three NL playoffs ('46, '51, '62) were 2-of-3, but 1948 in the AL was a one-game playoff. One-game playoffs have a very special air to them. If they became routine they would become, well, unmemorable.

but it won't fly due to decreased TV revenues.

Yep. Not a chance in Hades. Owners would never go for it. Better chance seeing spring training shortened, the first round extended, and days in-between the LCS and WS shortened.

Bob, I'm pretty sure the AL settled it in 1 game while the NL used the 3 game series because they had different rules.

Better chance seeing spring training shortened, the first round extended, and days in-between the LCS and WS shortened.

I could go for some of those shortened days... Perhaps eliminate the hours between 9 am and noon, and between 2 pm and 5? That would speed things up by a full 25%.

I actually wouldn't mind a one-game first round. As was pointed out above, it's really not much more of a crapshoot than a best-of-five series, and it would be one heck of a fun game to watch.

Of course, it will never happen - both teams want to sell playoff tickets.

A one game playoff isn't a big deal. Let's say you have two teams, one is a 55% chance to win on a neutral site (far superior to the other team, in baseball terms). Let's call this 58% to win at home, 52% on the road, I think +/-3% is the swing.

In a one-game playoff, the better team, if it gets home field, has 58% chance of winning.

In a five-game playoff, 3 at home 2 on the road, the better team has a 60% chance of winning.

2% is nothing. If the better team doesn't get home field -- which unlikely given the talent difference I've assumed, and besides if the much better team can't get home field in a 162 game season, it's their own fault -- the better team has a 52% chance of winning in one game and 58% in five.

The assumption that one team has a 55% chance of winning on any given day during a short series is off. The value of the 5 game series over a 1 game series (and a 7 game series over a 5) is not in the additional 2% increase it gives the 55% team. The value is in forcing that 55% team to play close to 55%, because in baseball no one is 55% day in and day out. On any given day that 55% team could swing from 40%-60% (or whatever) do to favorable matchups and depth, particularly the starting pitchers. The more games you have to play the more exposed teams become. If the 45% team is running out Pedro Martinez in his prime in game one, and the equivalents of Dustin Moseley in games two through five I would love their chances in a 1 game playoff vs a 5 game series.

I thought we all agreed that the way to fix the playoffs was to start all the games tied and in the middle of the sixth. No more gripes from the East Coast about the games finishing late.

What if they just played the 5 games, back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back - with no breaks... just roll right into game 2.

At a neutral location, obv. Wouldn't want things to get out of hand

I'm trying to remember if there were mandatory league rules for playoffs back before 1969, or if they just improvised. The three NL playoffs ('46, '51, '62) were 2-of-3, but 1948 in the AL was a one-game playoff. One-game playoffs have a very special air to them. If they became routine they would become, well, unmemorable.

Memorable?
How many of the one-game playoffs since 1948 do you remember?

--
Take a page from the 1948 BAA (one NBA predecessor).
Let me illustrate with a baseball example drawn completely at random. . . .
it's the National League of 1981

The two most accomplished teams, whom the true fans most want to see, match up in a best-of-7 series, planned for 9 days including two travel days off.
St Louis 4-3 Cincinnati [played on days 1-2, 4-5-6, 8-9 same as modern base ball best-of-7]

Meanwhile the next four teams match up in back-to-back best-of-3 series.
Montreal 2-1 Philadelphia [played on days 1-2-3]
Los Angeles 2-1 Houston [played on days 1-2-3]
Los Angeles 2-1 Montreal [played on days 5, 7-8]

Then
St Louis meets Los Angeles in a best-of-7 that opens in St Louis, planned for 9 days including two travel days off.

That is essentially the 60-year old NBA model.
An alternative probably better for modern baseball, and "much more likely" to be adopted although n * 0 = 0, is that "Los Angeles and Montreal" in my example play best-of-5, planned for days 5-6-7-8-9.

just to be clear, those phoney 1981 playoffs are supposed to represent
- one semifinal matching the two highest rank teams ; they could be winners of two divisions
- one semifinal matching the next four teams, completed during the same period of time

I've never been fond of the second wild card idea. Give the fifth best team in the league an opportunity to win a pennant or World Series, and eventually they will.

Again?

And you really wouldn't have been happy if the Dodgers won this year.

If they're naked, how do you know that they are cheerleaders?

Pom-poms of course.