Terrible. I was really for this extra wild card b/c I felt it properly "punished" the teams for not winning the division. Sudden death game, burn through your ace, lots of traveling (last day of regular season, then the playoff location, then the home field of the division winners). NOW, they've gone and given an advantage to the lesser team. So if Tampa wins the AL East, and Yankees and Angels are having a sudden death, Tampa won't know what coast they are playing on until the game is over.

Horrible.

[1] ditto

Terrible. I was really for this extra wild card b/c I felt it properly "punished" the teams for not winning the division. Sudden death game, burn through your ace, lots of traveling (last day of regular season, then the playoff location, then the home field of the division winners). NOW, they've gone and given an advantage to the lesser team. So if Tampa wins the AL East, and Yankees and Angels are having a sudden death, Tampa won't know what coast they are playing on until the game is over.

I can't wait for the year when a one-game playoff (or, gloriously, a two-game playoff) is required to determine who gets to play in the wild card game. The league's best team might have to watch the WC game from the airport, waiting to see which city they'll be playing in the following day.

But it will occasionally make one division series race per year slightly more compelling, so it will all be worth it.

This is dumb, but I'm pretty sure it's just for 2012. They should have just waited a year rather than squishing the play-in game into an already planned schedule. Next year they'll plan the schedule ahead of time and the Divisional Series will go 2-2-1 again.

really, really stupid.

Is this a joke? This can't be real.

Pretty sure this is for this year only. That was the indication before the season started.

This year only, the two wild card games will be played on the same day, while in future years they'll be on separate days.

All of this is because the schedule was written before the wild card games were finalized.

This is dumb, but I'm pretty sure it's just for 2012.

RTFA:

Baseball could revert back to a 2-2-1 format in 2013, when the regular season is tentatively set to start on April 1, with a Sunday night game possible the previous day. Baseball is shifting from the midweek start it used in 2011 and 2012.

I'm a little surprised the owners would vote for something that takes away the division winner having two guaranteed home games.

Terrible. I was really for this extra wild card b/c I felt it properly "punished" the teams for not winning the division. Sudden death game, burn through your ace, lots of traveling (last day of regular season, then the playoff location, then the home field of the division winners). NOW, they've gone and given an advantage to the lesser team. So if Tampa wins the AL East, and Yankees and Angels are having a sudden death, Tampa won't know what coast they are playing on until the game is over.

I'd rather see the 2-2-1 format, but the whole idea of a one game playoff is infinitely worse than a 2-3 setup. It's insane to see two wild card 93 game winners from a strong division facing a one game elimination while an 87-75 division winner gets a first round bye. All that does is give an advantage to a team lucky enough to be in the right geographical location.

This is ####### awful. #### this ####.

They couldn't plan for this? I mean do they lose millions somehow if they had scheduled for play-in games this year and somehow didn't get the play-in games?

I'm a little surprised the owners would vote for something that takes away the division winner having two guaranteed home games.

They were forced to do it, by adding the extra playoff teams after the schedule was already made. They had to lose a travel day somewhere in the playoffs to make the schedule work.

They were forced to do it, by adding the extra playoff teams after the schedule was already made. They had to lose a travel day somewhere in the playoffs to make the schedule work.

Well they could move everything back one whole day. That would be another solution.

I'm looking forward to September when a team complains about the schedule.

Well I'm glad they decided this before the season started. WTF. Why are they in such a ####### rush to implement this?

Well they could move everything back one whole day. That would be another solution.

They can't, for TV reasons. Or at least its very difficult and they couldn't get their TV partners on board.

They can't, for TV reasons. Or at least its very difficult and they couldn't get their TV partners on board.

Good point, hadn't thought of that.

As I expected, the new playoff format has made me much less interested in baseball this season than I was in the past. I've barely actually watched or listened to a game this year, because it's all meaningless. Granted, I had been moving in that direction anyway with the random outcomes of recent post-seasons.

I think they should just shorten up the season to like 140 games, and go with a 12 team post season. Make all the post season series 7 game series.

This is dumb, but I'm pretty sure it's just for 2012. They should have just waited a year rather than squishing the play-in game into an already planned schedule. Next year they'll plan the schedule ahead of time and the Divisional Series will go 2-2-1 again.

If this is so, then fine, no big deal. It'll be a little dumb for one year.

As I expected, the new playoff format has made me much less interested in baseball this season than I was in the past. I've barely actually watched or listened to a game this year, because it's all meaningless.

Really? I've found it much more interesting- I've noted I really care whether the Nats are in first or second because being the wild card is such a disadvantage now.

They should have gone to a 3-2 instead of 2-3. That'll teach those Wild Card people.

Granted, I had been moving in that direction anyway with the random outcomes of recent post-seasons.

So you want to know who is going to win before they even play?

So you want to know who is going to win before they even play?

No, but teams with worse records win so often now that it's a turnoff. There was the whole 2006 thing, the Rockies in 2007, the Dodgers beating the Cubs whichever year that was, the Phillies losing for the past two years . . . that's too many big upsets for my taste. It only serves to highlight the sample size problem of the post-season, and matters aren't made any better by the ensuing yammering of the sports media about teams "not having heart," or "coming through in the clutch."

As I expected, the new playoff format has made me much less interested in baseball this season than I was in the past. I've barely actually watched or listened to a game this year, because it's all meaningless. Granted, I had been moving in that direction anyway with the random outcomes of recent post-seasons.

I don't get this. Sure, I don't like the playoff format either, but I don't see how it makes watching a game less enjoyable. If you just want to know who won the postseason tournament, then why were you even the least bit concerned about any games before September, regardless of the postseason setup?

No, but teams with worse records win so often now that it's a turnoff. There was the whole 2006 thing, the Rockies in 2007, the Dodgers beating the Cubs whichever year that was, the Phillies losing for the past two years . . . that's too many big upsets for my taste. It only serves to highlight the sample size problem of the post-season, and matters aren't made any better by the ensuing yammering of the sports media about teams "not having heart," or "coming through in the clutch."

The Cubs sucked when they played the Dodgers and got swept. You want MLB to go to a 21 game playoff series? The Cubs weren't going to win that series and it wasn't because of the format. The Rockies swept the Phillies and Diamnondbacks. Was the NLCS supposed to be a best of 11 game format?

The 2006 Cardinals beat an 88 win Padres team in 4 games. The Mets and Cardinals played a 7 game series and it went 7 games. They've been playing 7 games a series now for more than 100 years. Should they be giving the Mets 2 more games in that series.

Nothing you brought up looks like it would have produced better results by moving a 5 games series to a 7 game series.

The Cubs sucked when they played the Dodgers and got swept. You want MLB to go to a 21 game playoff series? The Cubs weren't going to win that series and it wasn't because of the format. The Rockies swept the Phillies and Diamnondbacks. Was the NLCS supposed to be a best of 11 game format?

The 2006 Cardinals beat an 88 win Padres team in 4 games. The Mets and Cardinals played a 7 game series and it went 7 games. They've been playing 7 games a series now for more than 100 years. Should they be giving the Mets 2 more games in that series.

Nothing you brought up looks like it would have produced better results by moving a 5 games series to a 7 game series.

I think his proposal is for fewer series, not longer ones, position I happen to share.

I do find the Rockies inclusion in his list somewhat misguided. Based on the way the entire NL played out in 2007, I think Colorado was legitimately the best team in the league when the season ended. Now, as a second-place finisher they shouldn't have been there to begin with, but I think they were the best NL club in 2007.

I do find the Rockies inclusion in his list somewhat misguided. Based on the way the entire NL played out in 2007, I think Colorado was legitimately the best team in the league when the season ended. Now, as a second-place finisher they shouldn't have been there to begin with, but I think they were the best NL club in 2007.

The 90-win Rockies beat the 89-win Phillies and the 90-win Diamondbacks in the playoffs. Anybody who thought these were "big upsets" wasn't really paying attention.

I think his proposal is for fewer series, not longer ones, position I happen to share.

So a team that proved itself to be rather shvtty against good teams like the Cubs should have an easier road to winning the series?

The Rockies swept everybody in the NL. The Cardinals easily beat the Padres and swept the Tigers.

So a team that proved itself to be rather shvtty against good teams like the Cubs should have an easier road to winning the series?

I have no idea what point you're making, but it doesn't have anything to do with Vaux's objections. He doesn't like the inclusion of wild cards in the postseason, and how that expansion has allowed teams with mediocre regular season performances to get hot at the end and reach the World Series. Now that MLB has added two more teams to the postseason mix, his interest in the sport is fading even more. How is that complicated?

I think McCoy is trying to say the 97-64 Cubs weren't any good.

I have no idea what point you're making, but it doesn't have anything to do with Vaux's objections.

Yes it does. He doesn't like the playoffs because he thinks that "weaker" teams can play for it all and I'm arguing by showing what actually happened that what he thinks were the "weaker" teams probably weren't the weaker teams and were probably the better and more entertaining team to play for it all than the teams they beat. The Cubs got swept in the first round and looked bad doing it. Is the argument that the NL should have had only one playoff series before the series and the Cubs should have played in it? Sounds like a pretty bad series to me. Why not have the teams that have proven to be amongst the best in the regular series and actually do good in the playoffs play for it all?

Abolish divisions.
Even number of teams in each league.
Balanced schedule.
No regular season inter-league play.
League pennants to best regular season records.
Postseason tournament features interleague quarterfinal round, with the possibility of teams from the same league playing in the World Series.

tournament bracket

Re: Cubs being shitty vs good teams that year. Of playoff teams, only the Angels had a better record vs teams above 500. They too lost in the first round.

He doesn't like the playoffs because he thinks that "weaker" teams can play for it all and I'm arguing by showing what actually happened that what he thinks were the "weaker" teams probably weren't the weaker teams and were probably the better and more entertaining team to play for it all than the teams they beat.

I don't think you're showing it. The Cubs had a crappy three games against the Dodgers. That doesn't mean the Dodgers should have been there in the first place.

The Dodgers finished 13 games worse than the Cubs did in 2008. A three-game series can't erase that fact.

We can expand the playoffs to 16 teams and team No. 16 can get on a great roll and win it all. That doesn't mean that eighth-place club belongs in a postseason tournament, particularly if you like the regular season to have any meat to it.

As I said, I think some of his examples are off the mark (like the Rockies in 2007, or the Tigers half of the 2006 world series). But believing the inclusion of more teams in the postseason (including four non-winners) leads to a less interesting overall product is a perfectly reasonable position.

This is punishment for every single person for whom having a third of the league in the playoffs wasn't a problem.

I don't get it all. What is the objection here? Is this not the least advantageous scheduling to the team that already has an unavoidable advantage with an extra home game? How is this not the most fair way to do it? Why should we use scheduling to increase the advantage of the team already getting one rather than mitigate it?

does anybody consider this playoff format to be the fairest way to deal with the homefield advantage in a clinching game 7 (or 5)? Given what we know of home field advantage, isnt doing it this way the most intelligent way to make it more even?

From the latest stuff I read, the homefield advantage (think they studied the top 4 american sports) decreases over time. So it is greatest in the 1st inning, or greatest in the first game of a series. the hypothesis being of course that familiarity with surroundings decreases the players whatever and so the home field effect lessens. They found it in several sports. It makes some sense to me.

So with only one travel date in the series, the road teamw should be most accustomed to that ball park on it's last day there.

Do you consider it just chance that so many (I forget the exact no) of 7th games in the world series have been won by the home team. It is just staggering, and frankly a little bizarre.

Or maybe you dont think so; that it's a small data set. That's certainly open to debate. But I think this trend in game 7s, might have a lot to do with the scheduling of the travel dates in a series.

Now I dont want to give MLB baseball more credit than they deserve, I am just saying from an intellectual pt of view; and GIVEN what we know today about the Homf Field Advantage, isnt this really the better way to schedule a series?

EDIT: second par. for clarity

Now, as a second-place finisher they shouldn't have been there to begin with, but I think they were the best NL club in 2007.

there are different ways to look at this.

For instance, arent you more likely to get a hot team if you include more teams, other than one team with the best winning percentage over a six month period? I mean that would have to stand the test of reason, yes? THat if you go from one team (call them team A), with best w/l over time, versus more than one team, including team A, then you'd have to increase the chances yes?

And dont you WANT a hot team in baseball to have a chance to play for the championship? Dont you want that? Doesnt that make playoffs better?

I gues the other argument, and one that seems almost impossible to get past, in my opinion, is HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU CAN KNOW THE "BEST" TEAM IN BASEBALL COME PLAY OFF TIME, BASED ON A RECORD CREATED OVER a SIX MONTH PERIOD?

wrong thread.

And dont you WANT a hot team in baseball to have a chance to play for the championship? Dont you want that? Doesnt that make playoffs better?

The objection that most of us have with expanded playoffs isn't that it necessarily weakens the playoffs (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't). It's that expanded playoffs always weaken the regular season.

\let me double check that last one...

EDIT: to post 37; I am quoting from post 24.

Granted, I had been moving in that direction anyway with the random outcomes of recent post-seasons.

Can you then answer something for me? Are you suggesting that the outcomes produced by a 162 game schedule with less on the line than a series victory or less random than those in a playoff series?

I mean, I guess I understand small sample size and all that. But I mean, for a single given game, wouldnt the outcome in a playoff game be LESS random that a single ordinary regular season game?

if so, how can you put all your faith in the regular season?

I'm still for the 3 game WC series with the games being played in 3 days between the start of the Division Series. Prevents any team from getting too "lucky" in a single game but still gives the division winners a chance to set their rotations while not giving an off day to the WC team until the first scheduled off day of the DS. Seems to make more sense in just about every way than the current system, and doesn't even extend the season more than a day or two.

Also, 2-3 is ####### dumb.

Do you consider it just chance that so many (I forget the exact no) of 7th games in the world series have been won by the home team. It is just staggering, and frankly a little bizarre.

Between 1952 and 1979, the home team lost 13 out of 16 World Series game 7's, including 5 in a row from 1952-58 and again from 1965-72. These things are cyclical.

Or maybe you dont think so; that it's a small data set. That's certainly open to debate. But I think this trend in game 7s, might have a lot to do with the scheduling of the travel dates in a series.

From 1957 to today, there has always been a travel date in the World Series between games 2-3 and 5-6.

Abolish divisions.

You can't sell a fifteenth-place team.

Still not understanding the outrage about this setup. All the reasoning seems designed to make the series less fair by giving further unnecessary advantage to one team on top of one they must receive. Can anyone actually tell me why they think this is appropriate?

All the reasoning seems designed to make the series less fair by giving further unnecessary advantage to one team on top of one they must receive. Can anyone actually tell me why they think this is appropriate?

Because a lot of folks don't want fairness in a game between the best team in a league and a dirty, filthy wildcard. In fact, some believe the wild card should be even more disadvantaged than a mere 2-3 setup, to the tune of 4 home games to 1 for the team with the best record.

I'm not in that camp. I don't think the wild card should be there at all, but if you're going to let their runner-up asses into the fold, then I don't see a good cause for handicapping them (primarily because I don't feel like the team with best record, which may very well be a team tied with another team that played a tougher schedule, should be anti-handicapped).

how can you put all your faith in the regular season?

Exactly. I don't think we've seen "random" World Champions in recent years, so much as general parity. A four- or five-game difference in the regular season, given imbalanced and unequal schedules, doesn't tell me much about the relative strengths of the two teams, if it ever did.

I am never much distressed when a team with a great regular-season record loses a playoff series. (See 2011 Phillies.) If they were really that great, shouldn't they have won? When a "random" champion appears, I reckon that the field was more even than it seemed after the regular season.

There have been World Series winners every few years who seemed the best clubs coming out of the regular season and were convincing postseason winners: the 2007 Red Sox, the 2009 Yankees. I think it's been ever thus. Sometimes a superior team vindicates itself in the short series (1927 Yankees), and sometimes it doesn't (1906 Cubs). When it doesn't, it's a clue that it had some weaknesses to be exploited. It just makes you admire the teams that overcame their weaknesses, or didn't show any.

2-3 is ####### dumb

2-3 was great in the two-division days when the imbalanced schedule made it less clear which division winner deserved HFA. (When there was even much of a difference to make clear.) Neither team really wants HFA in a 2-3 series; the team with it is forced onto the road and can quickly be down 2 games to 0. I love that.

If you really want to assign advantage, 2-2-1 seems much the better way to do that, though it may be an illusion, or it may not matter, or it may be hard to perceive an deserved advantage when a 90-72 team plays a 91-71 team.

1995 Ms-Yanks, best five game series ever, was 2-3, so clearly 2-3 is optimal.

1995 Ms-Yanks, best five game series ever, was 2-3, so clearly 2-3 is optimal.

Ah the 1995 playoffs. Whenever we complain about MLB's cockamamie ideas, we must remember that none can match 95-96 format for true idiocy. That's the system that gave us the 100-64 Indians with home field disadvantage against the 86-58 Red Sox in the first round, while the 79-win powerhouses from Seattle and New York squared off in the other series. Since that wasn't enough, the Indians also didn't have HFA for the ALCS or the World Series.

And the foolishness didn't end with the format. Since all the first-round games were played at the same time (with only one game broadcast in each market), if you were a Tribe fan in Columbus Ohio, you couldn't even see any of those Indians games (the team's first postseason appearance in 41 years) on your television.

all the first-round games were played at the same time

I remember that. You'd think that greed alone would have ruled out that plan from the start, but it was like they were hypnotized by the prospect of four series running simultaneously, and they couldn't think of any other way of handling it.

all the first-round games were played at the same time

And wasn't that the first time the phrase "Baseball Night in America" was uttered? Oof.