At least I have the satisfaction of knowing that I wouldn't have given a rats ass if my Red Sox had lost a one game playoff in 2010 and 2011.

It's still very good baseball.

But it's not. It dilutes the real one game playoffs we've had before this, and as I pointed out, the last two years it would have featured a Red Sox team that had no business being there. Now I ADMIT, that's simply a matter of baseball narrative. I ADMIT if the the second WC was in effect in 2010 and 2011, and those Sox teams were teams that STORMED DOWN THE STRETCH (insert NFL Autumn Thunder music), then it would be exciting.

At the end of the day, I feel the potential pitfalls outweigh the potential advantages. There *is* a best possible balance of teams and I think we have it now. IMHO.

To put it in perspective, if the favored team is a 55% favorite and the underdog a 45% winner in each series, the new wild card team will win the World Series 4% of the time. Once every 25 years. I think it'd be less than that, especially given the impact on setting a rotation, but I'm trying to be conservative. That's the tradeoff we're up against.

But it's not. It dilutes the real one game playoffs we've had before this, and as I pointed out, the last two years it would have featured a Red Sox team that had no business being there. Now I ADMIT, that's simply a matter of baseball narrative. I ADMIT if the the second WC was in effect in 2010 and 2011, and those Sox teams were teams that STORMED DOWN THE STRETCH (insert NFL Autumn Thunder music), then it would be exciting.

Baseball played between two teams that won 85-95 games at the highest possible level is good baseball. We're baseball fans. I don't understand how this is debateable. I understand feeling that way about the Sox the last two years (I'm a Sox fan), but I think the narrative is clouding your judgement.

SoSH, I'm really struggling to see what other issues there are. Can you elaborate?

Off hand (and not inclusive, since this is a subject we've hit plenty of times before):

Depending on the league's results, division winners could see value in specifically tanking games in final days to get a first-round matchup with a team with a vastly inferior record. The same situation doesn't exist now (at least not directly). As much as the down-the-stretch indifference of the 07 Sox and 10 Yankees/Rays grates on us, that pales in comparison to losing on purpose for gain.

As mentioned above, every degree to which we weaken the wild card winner's chances also increases the chances of their one division opponent in the LDS (which could very well be a team with the exact same record as another team not so blessed by the tiebreaker gods). Is that a good thing?

How likely are some of these? Not bloody. Then again, the issue of teams not trying to win the division title hasn't exactly been commonplace, but we're dealing with potential here.

To put it in perspective, if the favored team is a 55% favorite and the underdog a 45% winner in each series, the new wild card team will win the World Series 4% of the time. Once every 25 years. I think it'd be less than that, especially given the impact on setting a rotation, but I'm trying to be conservative. That's the tradeoff we're up against.

Considering the old wild card has won the World Series five times in 17 years, I'm skeptical about your numbers.

But in the real world, it's absolutely crazy to schedule a one game crapshoot that gives a well rested 90 win wild card team a chance to put its ace against a 99 win wild card team that only lost its division on the last day of the season and has to use its # 4 starter in an elimination game.

Why? The entire point of a playoff system is that teams that already proved they were "better" than other teams have to beat them again in the playoffs. How is that any crazier than giving the 2011 Cardinals another crack at beating the Brewers, or any crazier than letting the '87 Twins into the playoffs instead of 3 "better" teams because the Twin Cities are located west of Toronto, Milwaukee, and New York?

If you don't like the inherent unfairness of playoffs in general, that's fine. But I don't see how the unfairness of making a non-division winner win one more game to earn its way into the semi(edit: quarter)-finals is suddenly a bridge too far.

I've described the problem that's unique to this new gimmick: A team that eked into the wild card with a Verlander-like lopsided rotation has to win but one game against a superior team with a more balanced rotation. I don't have anything against somewhat flukish upsets, since that's what can often add drama and unpredictability to the postseason. But I do have a lot against a system that lets a team advance on what amounts to a one shot hit-and-run. At least make them do a bit more than that to earn a trip to the next round. A 3-of-5 series affords the probability of seeing the top three starters in the rotation, not just one team's ace against the other team's #3 or #4, and IMO that's the minimum that should be required.

And finally...I think the 'there is no home-field advantage in baseball playoffs' is an aberration. It was foolish of the Yanks not to care that they were playing the first two games in Texas. IMO.

From 1903-1968, winning the pennant meant something significant. Winning the WS meant more -- but partly because it included the pennant, too.

Now you see flags on them at ballparks that say "Wild Card 2006". The expanding playoff format is diluting the regular season, as now we'll be seeing fully 10 teams per year fly flags (AL 5th place, 2013!!). So it doesn't follow that disliking ever-expanding post-season means that one feels that baseball has been screwed up since 1903.

One-game play-ins are not as bad as the ridiculous penalty-kick format that they have for breaking ties in championship soccer -- for it to be that bad, the play-in game would have to be a home run contest. But it fells like a step in that direction.

If we have to have it, how about a play-in tripleheader, best of three, starting at noon on Monday after game 162? I'd go.

Yep. It's not just that the playoffs are too bulky; it's also that the meaning of winning a division or league pennant has been diminished.

The split-season format in 2011 with 1993 divisions adjusted for expansion and the Brewers shift to the NL would have been (*):

AL East, First Half Champ: Yankees
AL East, Second Half Champ: Tigers

AL West, First Half Champ: Rangers
AL West, Second Half Champ: Rangers (Angels get spot)

NL East, First Half Champ: Phillies
NL East, Second Half Champ: Phillies (Cards get spot)

NL West, First Half Champ: Braves
NL West, Second Half Champ: Brewers

Interestingly, a lot of these matchups turn out to be what happened -- including the infamous Cardinal-Phillie first-round series. I'd make the first-round series there best of 7, with the Phillies getting 5 games at home. (Same thing with Rangers-Angels for the AL West). This is a preferable system to the current system -- the pig that keeps getting new coats of lipstick smeared on.

(*) Not perfectly; I'm going by standings on June 29, when most but not all teams had played 81 games. Source (of course): BB-Ref.

but to let an 85 win team be able to eliminate a 99 win team in a one game shootout is worse than anything we've seen to date

Since the strike, there have been 16 full seasons, in two leagues. This scenario has happened once - 102 win Seattle and 85 win Minnesota. Of course in that season the 116 win Mariners had to play the 91 win Indians and 95 win Yankees. The spread in the AL probably averages about 5 wins, but the team that would have been let in is generally a 90+ win team. In the NL, the spreads are quite small - one 8 games, everything else 4 or less. The team let in would generally have been upper 80s.

If all you care about is the best team winning, then smaller playoffs are generally better. Once you go to a larger field, the next best thing you can do is give an advantage to the top teams, and a bye is the most obvious sort. Under the current system, all 4 seeds are essentially identical. Under the proposed system, #1 would be much better than #2 and #3, which would be way better than #4 and #5.

I'm not sure I like the new idea - it does seem gimmicky (more so than the original wild card) and there's some value in tradition, especially in baseball. There are also scenarios where it could be awful (though as has been pointed out that's the case in any system). But it would give a greater reward to teams that finish higher in the standings than the current system.

It was foolish of the Yanks not to care that they were playing the first two games in Texas. IMO.

The amazing thing about baseball is that the rules are actually tilted to the road team's advantage. It's the ballpark (even if there is a travel effect, that's a wash in the playoffs) that produces the advantage, so the question is: would the Yankees actually be at a disadvantage in Texas specifically (or the limited other options) instead of New York.

The amazing thing about baseball is that the rules are actually tilted to the road team's advantage.

How do you figure? (granted I think you're right that HFA has more to do with park/travel than anything else, but I don't see where the game's structure benefits the visitor). I could see a miniscule advantage to the home team, but I don't see where the road team would have an edge.

The amazing thing about baseball is that the rules are actually tilted to the road team's advantage.

?

Yes, I would have thought that batting last is at least a minor advantage to the home team. Can't see any for the visitors.

And in any case, I should think that the "home" team in a seven-game series should be at least as freaked out about playing three straight in the middle on the road. If you lose one of two at home (easily and often done), you're looking at having to win one on the road to stay alive, 2 of 3 on the road to take the lead. Really, both situations are pretty tense for both clubs.

Yes, I would have thought that batting last is at least a minor advantage to the home team.

The only way where I see last licks is relevant is when the game reaches the ninth inning or later (and is close). Once there, or in extras, you know what your opponent has done and you can act accordingly. Most notably, you'd never want to employ a one-run strategy if you're down 2, for instance. Other than that, I don't think there's a lick of difference batting first or last.

Again, one overriding assumption in all of this is that the team with the best overall record in baseball is the best time at playoff time in Oct. This is not necessarily the case, nor would I expect it to be true very often, maybe 50% but Im guessing.

Thus posts about the odds of a wild card winner winning it all etc. are based on huge assmptions about their true odds of winning which not really knowable in absolute sense but even in a rough sense it is not consonant with overall record. Similar posts about such and such team beating another team 9x during the season are similarly tainted.

A second big assumption is that you can even know statistically who the best team is. Sounds strange, but I took a survey of the last 11 seasons and ranked groups of teams as excellent; very good etc. This was based on combined OPS+ and ERA+ but you could do it with run differential or whatever.

The result: The excellent teams (around 220 combined OPS/ERA+) skewed from about 95-105 wins. Similar for each group. Each group with similar stats could skew +/- 5 games.

So go ahead, go through say the last 10 or 12 season and you tell me: Which was the best overall team for that season? I bet none of you can agree on all 10.

You dont even know who these mythical "BEST TEAMS" are and you're arguing over it. It's like getting worked up into a froth about the flouride or prayer in schools or something.

A second big assumption is that you can even know statistically who the best team is. Sounds strange, but I took a survey of the last 11 seasons and ranked groups of teams as excellent; very good etc. This was based on combined OPS+ and ERA+ but you could do it with run differential or whatever.

It's not just that; it's also the fact that teams play wildly different schedules. It simply isn't the case that a 93-win second place team is "better" than a 90-win division winner.(*) It's not even the case that the 93-win second place team is better than a 90-win second place team from another division.

With the factors you noted, and the scheduling differences, there's likely something like five or six games of noise -- each way, so it's more like 10 or 12 -- in the W-L records. Even that's probably conservative; there's that much play from Pythag alone. The "true" record of a random 93-win team, adjusted for everything important, is somewhere between 87 and 99 wins.

The wild card was always, and continues to be, a solution in search of a problem.

(*) And thus there's nothing "unfair" about letting in the 90-win team, but not the 93-win team.

By the way...has anyone ever figured out why home-field advantage is so immense in soccer? So much so that it affects the rules. I'm referring to home-away goals.

That would mean that 70 percent of the time, the outcome with a one-game playoff and with a best-of-x series would have been the same. I was surprised that winning Game 1 carried that much of an advantage.

I think you're mistaking cause and effect here. The team that wins the a seven game series is typically the better team, and sometimes a much, much better team (especially in the divisional series). I'm actually surprised that it isn't higher than 70%.

I don't have data in a usable form to tackle this myself, but I'm curious how often teams with a 10+ game advantage in the regular season win game 1 of a series/a 5 game series/a seven game series.

I really think what's going to happen with this new system is that most of the time it will make very little difference on the negative side but that when it does it will be a pretty serious negative. The most serious potential problem I see is a good team with an incredible #1 starter having a monstrous single-game advantage over a great team with a more balanced rotation. Even worse, there often isn't any competition between the 5th and 6th best teams, so you could imagine the second wild card being able to set up its rotation while the first wild card is legitimately fighting for the division.

The second serious problem is when the first and second teams in a division are both spectacular teams that are separated by 1-2 games, and that margin can be reasonably attributed to differences in interleague schedule. Let's imagine the 2012 Yankees beat the Red Sox by 1 game in the division because they went 5-1 against the Mets and 2-1 against the Braves while the Sox went 2-1 against the Mets and 4-2 against the Braves. I think that's a very possible scenario and it's a huge punishment for the Sox. Even worse, there often isn't any competition between the 5th and 6th best teams, so you could imagine the second wild card being able to set up its rotation.

I don't really like the system mainly because it rewards teams in lousy divisions and punishes teams in strong divisions even more than the current system does. I think a better system would have been to have 4 teams (weak divisional winner and 3 WC) playing a round-robin tournament for the three consecutive days immediately after the season ends and seeding based on those results (worst case, you have a three-team tiebreak and a fourth day of games before the regular playoff begins). That's still a big penalty for the WC, but also a penalty for sneaking in by being the best of the worst. It's short enough that we'd barely notice it (the postseason usually doesn't start for a few days after the regular season anyway), it avoids the randomness of a single-game sample, it de-emphasizes the top-heavy rotation, and it solves the problem of teams coasting into the playoffs rather than fighting for the division. We could even keep this system if baseball expanded to 8 4-team divisions like football; top 2 divisional winnings in each league get byes, weaker two and two best remaining records play in the "Play-In Tournament."

The wild card was always, and continues to be, a solution in search of a problem. \

The problem is too few teams making the playoffs.

A four team playoff was no longer revenue maximizing when you got to a 28 or 30 team league. Too many teams eliminated too early.

Three divisions is awkward b/c baseball doesn't do byes, and four divisions would result in some really mediocre teams making the playoffs. Hence, 3+1, or 3+2 is the best way to get more playoff teams w/o getting 78-82 win playoff teams.

The only way where I see last licks is relevant is when the game reaches the ninth inning or later (and is close). Once there, or in extras, you know what your opponent has done and you can act accordingly. Most notably, you'd never want to employ a one-run strategy if you're down 2, for instance. Other than that, I don't think there's a lick of difference batting first or last.

While I agree in large part, you're missing one big advantage, and that's in how you use your closer. The team that bats last can always save the closer to protect a lead. Assuming (a big assumption, but not an entirely unreasonable one) that you would like to save your best reliever for the inning where success guarantees the win, that's another advantage for the home team.

The most serious potential problem I see is a good team with an incredible #1 starter having a monstrous single-game advantage over a great team with a more balanced rotation

All of that is premised on the idea that finishing with the best second-place record entitles you to be treated "fairly," when in fact it entitles you to nothing. The wild-card team is in the playoffs in our era because of commerce, not competition. And if your scenario comes to pass, it will be nudged out of moving forward because of commerce, not competition.

A four team playoff was no longer revenue maximizing when you got to a 28 or 30 team league. Too many teams eliminated too early.

That's a commercial problem. I'm talking competition. (Not that I necessarily agree that 28 or 30 teams is on the other side of a structural tipping point from 24 or 26. We had 4 out of 26 make the playoffs for 16 years, and 4 out of 28 a 17th).

While I agree in large part, you're missing one big advantage, and that's in how you use your closer. The team that bats last can always save the closer to protect a lead. Assuming (a big assumption, but not an entirely unreasonable one) that you would like to save your best reliever for the inning where success guarantees the win, that's another advantage for the home team.

First, that's not right. In a tie game in the ninth or later, the team that bats first can save the closer to protect a lead. The home team can not.

Second, I'm not sure there's any real advantage. Whatever edge is gained from being able to "save your closer" is going to be lost in the number of times you save him for a situation that never comes.

Moreover, it's a choice. Each team can opt to deploy its pitching staff in the exact same manner. It's only the man-made creation of the specialness of the save situation that changes things, nothing structural in the game itself.

I may have overstated it - the road team isn't at an advantage but it's basically a draw. The home team can play for one run, but they don't have that much control over who comes to the plate (short of pinch-hitting, which usually won't be helpful). The away team can somewhat adjust their defense, but most importantly they can choose the pitcher.

See http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/keeping-score-an-edge-to-friendly-confines/ and you can also find the papers referenced if you're so inclined.

By the way...has anyone ever figured out why home-field advantage is so immense in soccer? So much so that it affects the rules. I'm referring to home-away goals.

I have two theories;

1. Officiating - It seems that home teams are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt. When 60,000 people go bonkers screaming for a handball in the box...

2. Effort - Given how much of soccer is simply a function of effort* (similar to hockey) I would think having "your fans" spurring you own would help.

* - taking nothing away from the extraordinary skills of these players but at the risk of going Joe Morgan on you, when you have to sprint 80 yards to defend your own goal in the 90th minute after running 5-6 miles already...well a lot of that is just heart.

With the factors you noted, and the scheduling differences, there's likely something like five or six games of noise -- each way, so it's more like 10 or 12 -- in the W-L records. Even that's probably conservative;

you're quite accurate, it actually did skew more toward +/- 6 but I figured it was either a small sample or just didnt want to believe it was that much. Is that the figure you get with run differential? . I guess I should finalize the data and post it.

I have a question about all this playoff stuff: Do they still do the 3 game playoff in case of a divisional tie? I know they've changed the rule over the years, I guess the '62 Giants/Dodgers was 3 but the Bucky Dent thing was 1.

So if they still do a 3 game playoff, then wouldnt it be odd to have a 3 game playoff for divisional title, but then a mere one game for the wild card game? You would think of the divisional playoff as a sort of precursor to the playoffs, but eh....

The most serious potential problem I see is a good team with an incredible #1 starter having a monstrous single-game advantage over a great team with a more balanced rotation

aside from sugarbears comment: it's also a little hard to imagine a team in this one game predicament going against the modern day Jack Morris or Stever Carlton wouldnt just throw everything they had out there. How large a difference could it be?

it's also a little hard to imagine a team in this one game predicament going against the modern day Jack Morris or Stever Carlton wouldnt just throw everything they had out there.

Heh.

So if they still do a 3 game playoff, then wouldnt it be odd to have a 3 game playoff for divisional title, but then a mere one game for the wild card game?

No, both leagues employ the one-game playoff to break ties as necessary, which is only in cases where one playoff berth is at stake. Presumably, with the second wild card rule in place, a tiebreaker would again be used to determine division champion/wild card status.

No, both leagues employ the one-game playoff to break ties as necessary, which is only in cases where one playoff berth is at stake. Presumably, with the second wild card rule in place, a tiebreaker would again be used to determine division champion/wild card status.

Didn't they already decide on a one-game playoff for the division championship? (Understanding that they still haven't "officially" adopted the new system.)

Well, we know how to beat Verlander: pray for rain.

A couple of years ago (during the season when Toronto had to play a "home" game in Philly) a study was published showing that batting first was in fact an advantage. I noted this at the time because it seemed the Jays were being conspired against even more than usual: they had to play in the other guy's park (advantage Phils) and they had to let them hit first (ditto). [btw, not a Jays fan myself, but sympathetic to all who suffer]

Don't recall who did the study, where it was published, how they arrived at their conclusion, but fairly certain I'm not making this up. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that since the team that scores first wins well more than half the time (close to 60%?), hitting first always gives you a better shot at being first to score, and making the other guy play catch-up.

Didn't they already decide on a one-game playoff for the division championship? (Understanding that they still haven't "officially" adopted the new system.)

It's possible that they announced that feature and I didn't hear or don't remember. It just seems obvious that they have to adopt a playoff for the division title, considering what will be at stake.

It's possible that they announced that feature and I didn't hear or don't remember. It just seems obvious that they have to adopt a playoff for the division title, considering what will be at stake.

I'm 99% sure they already announced it. 1-game playoff for division. Loser gets WC (if applicable).

I'm 99% sure they already announced it. 1-game playoff for division. Loser gets WC (if applicable).

Thanks.

Don't recall who did the study, where it was published, how they arrived at their conclusion, but fairly certain I'm not making this up. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that since the team that scores first wins well more than half the time (close to 60%?), hitting first always gives you a better shot at being first to score, and making the other guy play catch-up.

This (by Ted Turocy) might be what you're thinking of (the link goes to a page where the full paper is accessible as a PDF). The abstract says that it finds negligible advantages either way. As I read the study, it struck me as being a bit more supportive of the team batting first having an advantage. Basically, the argument is that the team with the ball (i.e., the pitching team) has more strategic options - what pitcher(s) to use, how to play defense - than the batting team has, so you're (very slightly) better off having the ball at the end of the game when you know the exact score needed to win/tie, rather than batting last. Empirically, home teams have a lower winning percentage in extra-inning games than overall, although I'm not sure what (if anything) that says about the relative advantages of batting first or last.

I stand educated – again, I would have assumed that batting last was a minor (perhaps very minor) advantage. I think my assumption was just based on the "feel" of tied-9th or extra innings. The visiting team gets a man on 3rd and still has to score as much as they can; the home team just has to get that one guy 90 feet further and they win. But I suppose that's an illusion. (The "advantage," I mean, not the fact of the 90 feet.)

Basically, the argument is that the team with the ball (i.e., the pitching team) has more strategic options - what pitcher(s) to use, how to play defense - than the batting team has, so you're (very slightly) better off having the ball at the end of the game when you know the exact score needed to win/tie, rather than batting last.

That seems counterintuitive to me. What stratetic options are there for the defense? Your pitcher's job is to get guys out. You employ the same defense you'd use in virtually every other situation, shifts excepted.

At least at the plate, batting last, you know what you how many runs you need to score to tie/win, and can make some decisions based off that (sac bunt, stolen base, etc.).

Edit: OK, playing the defense in would be one choice that you could make. I wonder if that's enough to offset the offensive strateiges.

Either way, I agree that whatever structural advantage exists is extremely small.

I have two theories;

1. Officiating - It seems that home teams are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt. When 60,000 people go bonkers screaming for a handball in the box...

I believe someone did a study that said that officiating is pretty close to 100% of home-field advantage.

That seems counterintuitive to me. What stratetic options are there for the defense? Your pitcher's job is to get guys out. You employ the same defense you'd use in virtually every other situation, shifts excepted.

But you can choose the pitcher freely. The offense has much less choice on who hits.

At least at the plate, batting last, you know what you how many runs you need to score to tie/win, and can make some decisions based off that (sac bunt, stolen base, etc.).

But most of those decisions have a very small effect on your chances of winning, especially given that you're not exerting a lot of control over who is at the plate. In addition to playing the infield/outfield in, the defense can also issue intentional walks (which again has at best a small positive effect in most cases).

I believe someone did a study that said that officiating is pretty close to 100% of home-field advantage.

I think it was Freakonomics, so I take it with several heaps of salt...

Well, it wasn't freakonomics, but it was another U Chicago econ guy trying to make the move from economics to social research, and the results look predictably under-theorized and over-stated.

I think it was Freakonomics, so I take it with several heaps of salt...

Well, it wasn't freakonomics, but it was another U Chicago econ guy trying to make the move from economics to social research, and the results look predictably under-theorized and over-stated.

Oh yeah. I remember now. I got the book, and was about a third of the way through when he started saying stuff that revealed he knew nothing about baseball, so I stop reading.

I agree, a good cup full of salt is required.

But you can choose the pitcher freely. The offense has much less choice on who hits.

But the home team already had its free choice on who pitches in the top of the inning, in a situation where the game was just as much in the balance as it is in the bottom of the frame. I'm not sure where the edge is there. And there's really little to no strategy involved with pitching. Get the damn guy at the plate out.

I can definitely see where the choice on playing the infield could be an issue. If you're in the top of the inning and have runners on second and third, you opt to play the infield in and get burned for two runs. In the bottom of the frame, you know for certain what to do about the infielder's positioning.