|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Saturday, September 24, 2011
My #### REALLY doesn’t work in a one-game playoff!
Negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement for major league baseball are moving at a fast pace and one issue the sides have all but agreed upon is adding two wild-card teams and holding one-game playoffs in each league to determine which of the wild cards advances, The Post has learned.
One person involved in the talks described that scenario as a done deal and another hedged a little by saying it is likely to play out that way, but nothing will be finalized until an entire CBA is inked.
Both sources said because there would be just a one-game playoff added, the second wild-card team could be installed as early as next year, but the new system will go into effect no later than 2013.
...The TV networks generally have been uninterested in the other wild-card option—a best-of-three series—instead wanting the drama and ratings potential of a sudden-death game. The players also strongly favored the one-game playoff, mainly because they did not want the division winners to have to wait around an additional three-to-five days without playing while a wild-card round is contested.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Posnanski: Jeff Francoeur and ANT (41 - 6:37pm, May 21)Last: DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISPNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3801 - 6:35pm, May 21)Last: Bitter Mouse is a genre addictNewsblog: JM Catellier: Is Pedro Martinez a First Ballot Hall of Famer? (110 - 6:28pm, May 21)Last: SteveFNewsblog: White Sox Ace Chris Sale Eats and Eats and Eats Without Gaining Any Weight (60 - 6:22pm, May 21)Last: AustinNewsblog: Barry Bonds: Detroit Tigers' Miguel Cabrera 'the best' ... but not better than me (49 - 6:21pm, May 21)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-21-2013 (18 - 6:02pm, May 21)Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants toNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1045 - 5:58pm, May 21)Last: I am going to be FrankNewsblog: SB Nation: Five lost scouting reports (9 - 5:45pm, May 21)Last: What did Billy Ripken have against Elroy Face?Newsblog: WaPo | Ryan Mattheus breaks throwing hand punching a locker, adds to bullpen disarray (11 - 5:43pm, May 21)Last: Steve TrederNewsblog: Living up to expectorations: The Alex Sanabia spitball clip (6 - 5:42pm, May 21)Last: PerryNewsblog: Rare Feat Not Done Since Pete Rose (4 - 4:53pm, May 21)Last: Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and SoupussNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 21, 2013 (11 - 4:42pm, May 21)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: Dollar Sign on the Glistening Muscle: Scouting Ballplayers in 1980s Playgirl (19 - 4:39pm, May 21)Last: The District AttorneyNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1011 - 4:36pm, May 21)Last: NJ in NYNewsblog: Sherman: Mets' roster of rubbish makes it impossible to evaluate Collins (46 - 3:47pm, May 21)Last: if nature called, ladodger34 would listen
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Also, I would think a best-of-3 would boost season ticket sales because all teams in the playoffs would be assured of having at least one postseason home game.
#### me.
#### me.
More like a fifth of the league in the playoffs, and four teams that get a chance in a coin flip.
That should still be possible. There has to be a day off somewhere in case of divisional playoffs (2009 tigers Twins). Let's make some scheduling assumptions;
Season - Wednesday
Wild Card Game sponsored by CitiBank - Thursday
LDS start - Saturday
So only teams that don't clinch before the last two days won't have their #1 hurler ready for game one.
Imagine - 4 round best of 7 - suddenly depth and health play a big part in deciding who wins the WS. Of course, then it won't matter as much in the regular season.
And wild card teams who do clinch early will likely be using their #1 in the play-in game, while other wild card teams will have their rotation somewhat in disarray, arguably even more so than under the current system. So unless it's by happenstance (wild card #1 starter comes out of the regular season lined up right for game 1 of the LDS and the team actually survives the play-in), this would seem to give the division winner that faces the wild card a small boost.
Right now the wild card is a playoff spot like any other. Short of scrapping wild cards completely, devaluing it by making it a "non-guaranteed" playoff spot doesn't seem like a terribly bad idea to me. At least I'm assuming that most fans won't celebrate it as too much of a success if their season ends in a play-in loss, while reaching the LDS would still be a major achievement.
Put 4 days between game 162 and the LDS, and your #1 will be fine pitching the last game of the season and first in the playoffs. But your other starters might be waiting too long between starts.
I agree. In the NFL, a bye week is an unmitigated good thing. Teams with the bye tend to win in the second round – of course, they're the better teams, and they get HFA and seeding advantages, so it's hard to isolate the value of the week off – but it surely does them no harm. In baseball, it would be a distinctly mixed blessing.
1. AL question would be if Angels can catch Rays, not Rays trying to catch Red Sox.
2. NL would be between Giants - Cards, not Cards- Braves
3. Most years final battle between Yankees -Red Sox would take on much more meaning, evenif both were assured a playoff spot.
DB
Ratings potential of a sudden-death game between the 4th and 5th place teams in the league? I'll have one of what they're having, bartender.
Given that one of the teams will probably be the Yankees or Red Sox, I would say the ratings potential is pretty good.
2009:
Of course, the ratings trade-off is the rather high chance that the one of the Yankees or Red Sox in that game loses. Or is so disadvantaged in the next round that they exit quickly then.
How about not letting second place teams in?
Other than the inveterate conservative part, this is pretty much my take. I don't hate this and am relieved it wasn't worse. The Cards fan in me would like this implemented posthaste.
This is pretty much how I see it.
Sure, but that isn't going to happen until/unless MLB goes 32/4 x 8. Among things Selig was likely to do, this is the best option.
Yeah. I said this several times; so did other people. Not sure if this new thing of the season ending on Wednesday will become a regular thing. If it does, I would guess the play-ins would be on Thursday and Friday nights, or a Friday doubleheader. This seems to me to be a good marketing hook for MLB; I think it will probably draw some casual fans' eyeballs to their flat screens and laptops.
Correct. Boston's awful September has ended the possibility of an epic non-race occurring in 2011, but this does/would give Evil Empire and Evil Empire Jr. real incentive to finish in 1st place. I see that as a positive thing.
I am actually an inveterate conservative when it comes to my baseball. My guess is that we will go from this to 4 x 8/32--but that system will keep the two Wild Cards, so it will be what Bud has always, always wanted: the exact same set-up as the NFL.
BTW, Dayn, read your Boston piece at Insider. Good to see your work on-line at a big site again.
Me neither. I would be happy with two eight-team divisions and two seven-team divisions and four playoff teams. But that will happen at about the same time you and I vote for the same presidential candidate, so I am ready to go with this wrinkle over what MLB does now.
BTW, Dayn, read your Boston piece at Insider. Good to see your work on-line at a big site again.
Thank you, sir.
No. A week off in baseball is a bad thing. Your hitters gets too rusty w/o facing live pitching. More than one extra day off usually doesn't help pitchers either.
I think this is the best you can do, short of eliminating wildcards. I'd also prefer two divisions, winners go straight to the LCSs.
That ship has sailed. In the world we live in, this is an improvement over the current status quo.
1. It doesn't actually expand the playoffs. It expands the number of playoff teams, but immediately eliminates that extra team in a single, do-or-die game.
2. It actually addresses some small part of the underlying problem with the current playoff system - the devaluation of the regular season and winning divisional titles. It doubles the potential wild-card teams, but it makes it much more difficult for either of those given teams to advance. This revalues the divisional title and the regular season. Short of eliminating the WC altogether - which isn't going to happen - this is probably the best solution we could hope for.
What you see as "screwed up" I see as awesome drama. To me, the more ties and one-game playoffs the better.
And if they don't do that to avoid screwed up schedules? If they start throwing in head-to-head and run differential and ######## like that? Let's say the Sox and Yankees tied for the division lead this year. I seriously doubt they would play a playoff game. They would do what they do now and give it to the winner of head-to-head. How screwed up is that? Identical records, and one team has to play an 89 win team that coasted (possibly) based on head-to-head.
33 - if that's true I'm fine with it, great with it actually. I'm even willing to agree with Sam H if that's what it takes.
Why do you assume that this is the case? In fact it seems quite unlikely. The only reason they just do it off head to head now is that it's just to determine seeding. If it determined who gets a bye and who has to play a single elimination play-off, then it seems very likely they would play a tie-breaker.
That's a reasonable point. But this is all about trade-offs, and doing it this way increases the importance of the division win without penalizing the division winners by putting them on ice for a week.
of course the team that makes it through the sudden death game is now going to face the best team in their league with a rested number one starter against their number two starter, adding in a travel day and they are severely hampered for the first two games of a best out of five series.
Full privileges if they beat a better team and advance to the 2nd round. In the Divisional Series they're going to be at a disadvantage from (likely) using their best pitchers in a do or die play-in game while they face a team with a fully rested staff that has had more time to line up its rotation.
It devalues it *even more* for the wild card teams. 162 games coming down to a one game playoff? What other sport does this? NFL plays 1/10th the schedule to do that. Soccer for the most part has home and away series. 162 games for a coinflip? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. I'm not investing 162 games for the horror-picture watch through closed fingers of a coin-flip. A 2 out of 3 I can get behind, but not a coinflip.
How is an "even less deserving team" being given anything? There are division winners, and then there are the rest.
They can't do that. Why would they?
The extra playoff game is good for business. If they have to put an extra off-day in the schedule, that's no big deal. Just remove one off-day from the regular season; there are too many in April anyway.
If they don't want to have to flip a coin to get a chance at the 'championship' they should win their damned division. How is that "devaluing" the regular season? Win the regular season and you are in.
A one game playoff that's NOT an elimination game??? FCS, this is getting further and further away from Baseball. That's not directed at you. That's just my gut feeling.
No it doesn't, b/c they can compete for the division. A big part of the positive here is the end the Red Sox "just be good enough to be the WC" mentality.
It's not a "coin-flip", they're actually going to play the game. I really doubt 2 of 3 is materially better in determining the "best" team.
Edit: coke to Sam.
We already have that possibility.
In a three way tie, the first playoff game is not elimination. It lets the winner proceed, and forces the loser to play an elimination game.
And if the Yankees had to have a one-game wild-card play-in?
Except if Weaver is ready for the playoff game, they probably used Haren or Santana the last day of the season to get there.
The right way to do this is end the season on Wed., wild-card play-in game Thursday, DSs start Friday (unless there's another tie, in which case you push everything back one day.
more accurately it's getting further and further away from MLB baseball. Post season formats has absolutely zero to do with "baseball". I understand the fear of bucking tradition, I'm sure that when Jackie Robinson played, there were people complaining about it getting further and further away from Baseball also. And we know the addition of two divisions, DH, Astroturf, players not wearing Onions on their belts, interleague and wild card play all moved it further and further from the pure baseball of the....what year was it best? I guess from the black sox scandal until they started to let those negroes in. Seriously people should stop hiding behind the tradition crap defense and just say "I don't like it because...." and give a reasonable response, instead of saying it bucks tradition(even if they don't use those exact words)
Why? For the billionth time, why? No other sport places this much importance on winning a division. If Baseball were an 82 game season, it would still be stupid. Baseball hasn't done so for 16 years. It's beyond stupid. AGAIN it's taking something special from baseball and diluting it by making it every year. It's a fukking glowpuck gimmick.
"Isn't it cool how the AL and NL only meet each other once a year?? Let's do that MORE!!!"
"Isn't cool how if teams tie, there's a one game playoff?? Let's do that every year!!!"
I *suppose* I could just ignore the wildcard game. And if my team is still in it at the end of the day, awesome.
Agreed.
You do realize there is such a thing as a tipping point, yes? I'd say introducing two things that have never happened in the history of the game*, would constitute. And this "Well, when Negroes were allowed to play..." BS is the biggest flipping strawman in the history of wicker.
* 162 games coming down to a 1 game playoff between non-tied teams
non-elimination 1 game series.
I don't, the only reason you have given for opposing this move is some misguided attempt into believing that this will weaken the goal of winning the division, when this move actually strengthens the goal of winning the division that was originally weakened by the addition of the wild card(17 years ago). Heck ask a 25 year old fan and he's probably never seen a season without a wildcard, so it's part of his tradition.
I understand why the wild card sucks, and it has absolutely zero to do with tradition, and there is no reason to bring in the argument about how baseball has worked in the past. Once someone invokes tradition, the strawman arguments are plenty reasonable counter arguments, because tradition is a flat out stupid argument. It has nothing to do with anything except being old and set in your ways.
I think arguing against the wild card has plenty of defensible points. I think that this fixes a few of those arguments and adds one small weakness to overall system.
The absolute truth of the matter is that the number of teams in the post season is never ever going to go down for a league that is doing well, the financial incentives is too great. The jump up to 8 teams in the post season is never going away.
If I'm running the Red Sox, I say "why spend $170 million every year just for a coin flip?" John Henry's a smart guy--this is the end of the Red Sox being Evil Empire II.
Look, it comes down to this: if team A won 93 games and team B won 88 games, then team A and team B are NOT TIED. Why, therefore, should the situation be treated as if they are tied? That's what a one-game playoff is. It's an extension of the regular season to decide a tie after 162 games. If there's no tie after 162 games, then that's that. The only logical things to do are (1) only first-place teams in the post-season or (2) a wild card team or teams that play in an actual post-season series.
I wanted to avoid saying that because I don't want to get flamed with 'entitled brat' a billion times.
It's been like this for 16 years. It's not entitlement when it's been going on for 16 years. So please understand my trepidition about embracing a 162 game season when quite literally there is about a 60% chance my season will come down to a coinflip. And even if I were a Royals fan, this would turn me off. Okay, flame away.
Who cares about parity? The only way to create parity in baseball is to have a salary cap, salary floor, and maybe even an open draft of all minor leaguers with 3+ years of minor league service time(giving them a spot on the 40 man roster)
One game playoffs are awesome for breaking ties. One game playoffs are stupid if the teams aren't tied.
And no other sport matches baseball for clarity of sport and brilliance of game. I wonder if these things are coincidental.
No you're not.
The Red Sox would have to make a decision - either they compete with the Yankees for the division, or they take a chance on the wild card, which becomes a true *wild card.* The Braves have a decision - either they compete with the Phillies or they take a chance on the wild card.
The idea that you're going to stop watching if your team is required to fully and wholly compete, rather than skim in via the back door, is sad. Basically you're saying "The Red Sox can't be asked to keep up with the Yankees, but it's unfair to take away their near-universal easy track to the playoffs by making it easier for the Angels or Rays to keep up with them."
Wah. My pvssy hurts.
I don't see it that way. I think the Red Sox started spending like they've been in order to assure themselves of the playoffs, or come as close to it as they could, because the wild card made both them and the Yankees think that they could do that. Now that there will be essentially no wild card, but instead a coin flip between the two best second-place teams, there's no way either the Yankees or Red Sox can assure themselves of anything. While fans of other teams may applaud that--though I'm frankly shocked at the level of support for this among "thinking fans," who supposedly know how meaningless one game is--I think its effect will be that the Yankees will spend more than ever before to assure themselves of the division, and the Red Sox will see little value in assuring themselves a place in the coin flip when their odds will be almost as good if they go back to being just another $100 million team.
And this scheme increases the chances of an 87 win team beating 95 win teams in the playoffs, because it increases the chances of an 87 win team being in the playoffs in the first place.
Like I said the last time we covered this, this is little more than a question of taste. No system, other than perhaps a fully-balanced schedule, no divisions, and top two teams go best-of-7 for league title is going to be "fair." I (and apparently some other guys here) prefer that winning the division matter more. You don't. End of story. The guys who prefer that the division matter more know MLB is not going to back to four divisions, so we will settle for this. The problems and the "flaming" come in when you say stuff like, "For the billionth time, why?" as if you have some keen insight into this that the rest of us lack.
At least two other people (you and Dale) seem to realize this.
We all already realize that the playoffs are meaningless anyway, when it comes to determining who the best team was in a season, but do they have to be so blatant about it? Most fans somehow think they are meaningful, and it matters who is the "champion." But further randomizing the possibility of becoming the "champion" even beyond the short-series level we have currently makes it also matter less whether your team wins 90 games in the season or 70, since nothing beyond the regular season has meaning anyway, and the main reason it matters that you win 90 instead of 70 is that you're trying to get beyond the regular season.
As for the insanity that "I'll never watch if they do this", please.... you said that crap when there was a strike in '94-'95. We're all on crack. Accept it.
At least two other people (you and Dale) seem to realize this.
You're not the only ones, and to kiss TV's ass by allowing it to be decided by a one game shootout is just rubbing our noses in their obscene greed and total disregard for what's left of the game's integrity.
I can live with a second wild card, but for crissakes, at least make it a best of five, so that the weaker team has to win more than one ####### game to advance to the next round.
Teams from different divisions aren't playing the same schedule. Their comparative won-lost records are inherently less than fully comparable.
Eliminating any wild card would be fine with me, although either that or the apparent actual change would, it must be admitted, tarnish the past 16 years of post-season results, since they occurred in a system that was imposed suddenly and endured briefly, as contrasted with the system in place before that, which emerged more organically over time.
The system in place before that was imposed abruptly and arbitrarily in 1969. It prevailed for a grand total of 25 years.
Twenty-five is a higher number than 16, granted, but it isn't that much higher.
Yep.
I never said that, actually. I couldn't wait for them to come back.
This is probably true, unfortunately. I most likely won't be able to stay away. But I really will care even less about the playoffs, and probably won't watch them. It will grate on me too much how important everyone thinks they are when they're really just the baseball equivalent of the showcase showdown wheel on the Price is Right. And since the regular season is also being cheapened, I will probably case less about it, too. I probably will watch a lot fewer games, attend fewer games, etc., because if they're going to treat it like it's not a big deal, why should I treat it like a big deal?
What will the networks think when they realize that 7-game series between the Yankees and Red Sox will now be happening much less frequently?
And in every major U.S. sport someone could point out a similar example to argue for or against any system that is out there. The Cardinals won a world series with 83 wins while winning the division, the Marlins won two world series and have never won a division, the Mariners set a record for most games won in a season and got booted in the first round of a playoff, under the old system(pre divisional play) the Dodgers twice won over 100 games and didn't get to participate in the post season. Every system is going to be unfair to somebody, sometime. It's a balancing act between making the season important, making the post season fair and keeping the largest percentage of fans invested in the both the season and the post season. I personally think this newest fix is perfect in increasing the value of the division, while still keeping the one advantage of the wild card(which is a team with a good record who probably has a better record than at least one division winner) and adding one disadvantage(a second wild card team means increased liklihood that the second team isn't "that" good.)
The playoffs as a format do this. You get home-field advantage, but otherwise your record for the season is wiped away. As in - you're treated as if you tied.
That's true, certainly, but it was more logically reasonable, since it still involved groups of teams that competed against each other to see who would come out with the most wins over 162 games, with the team with the most wins in each group being considered the winner and moving to the post-season.
The only difference between it and the previous system was the number of teams in the groups, and over the previous decade the number of teams in the pre-existing groups had increased anyway--splitting each previous group (the AL and NL) into two smaller groups was as much a return to the previous odds of making the post-season as anything. It had been 1 in 8, but expansion had ramped it all the way up to 1 in 12, so switching it to 1 in 6 was sort of a compromise between those two, as well as causing there to be more playoff teams at once. It was a win-win.
Yep.
And the prime directive is, always has been, and always will be maximizing revenue.
Well I'm aghast that the Yankees will have thrashed the Red Sox (again) in the "championship season" only to have to potentially beat them again in the LCS.
Why is that any more "logical"? Under your theory the 2004 World Championship is illogical, along with a bunch of others.
Look, unless you're going to say the Yankees and Phillies should be suiting it up on Friday for game 1 of the World Series, any other system is going to be some version of "illogical".
The playoffs are a separate tournament from the regular season, obviously. That has nothing to do with how the teams got there.
Bottom line is the popularity of the game will grow. Sudden-death Wild Card games may have higher ratings than LDS or LCS. Watch.
Andy, this is absurd.
That would disadvantage the teams that won the divisions. Do you know how much it hurts a baseball team to sit around for 10 days without playing?
That's a distinction without a difference.
We're already letting teams with a worse record get a second crack at the team with the best record.
Why is it any worse letting a 90 win WC get a crack at a 95 win WC than letting an 83 win division winner get a second crack at a 102 win division winner?
If I'm a betting man, I would agree with you on that one. I think part of the reason for football's tv ratings success is the finality of each game. Heck if baseball wanted to double ratings they could have single game elimination for the post season, air it prime time and give each team a weeks rest so that their ace is pitching each elimination game. Baseball ratings for the playoffs would jump up dramatically.(other issues would follow of course)
I hate to set myself up with such an easy straight line, but my answer to that is SO FUCKING WHAT? Of course we'll watch it, but again, SO FUCKING WHAT? You could probably get even more people to watch if the losing team had to do a live circle jerk after the game, and double even that if you allowed Vegas to make odds on who could shoot it fastest and farthest, if all that matters is the TV ratings and the money.
Indeed, it's true that that circumstance is also in a sense illogical, which is why I'm sure my current self, as opposed to my 13 year-old self back in 1993, would have opposed the institution of the wild card.
But I see it like this: Having divisions--groupings of teams that are competing to have the most wins and thereby earn a spot in the post-season tournament--is perfectly logical. Then, saying that the best of the second-place teams will also earn a spot in the post-season tournament is logical in the sense that those teams are competing on logical terms, namely that they know, and we all know, that in each league, of the three teams that finish second for the season, the one with the most wins is in the playoffs.
It's then also illogical that a team can, in the post-season, go on to defeat a team that already won more games than it did out of a much longer sample, but at least the way in which the post-season's participants were determined was logical.
Under the new system, not only is the post-season illogical, but the way in which its participants are determined is also illogical. The new system adds a new layer of illogic.
Unless at least one team in both leagues has an off-day every day of every week, yes, it sort of does.
Split opponent double-headers baby!
In speaking to a league source, if the Astros don't jump leagues this year, it is not out of the realm of possibility that you get expanded playoffs next year. It's not optimal as you have to have interleague every day.
And if I hear that Crane is what's holding this up, I'll scream. He's not being approved for many reasons at the moment, and it's a moving target. Will be after the postseason before any vote is taken.
So... 2012 is wanted, but it will be 2013 at the latest for added Wild Card. Been hearing about the additional playoff teams for some time.
I guess it's a viewpoint issue. To most people this creates a three round playoff with the division winners getting a first round bye. The first round of the playoffs is a single game playoff. Winner of that advances to the second round, loser goes home, just like any other playoff round. The stats for this game does not constitute regular season stats, so by it's very nature it's not the same thing as a tie breaker which count towards the regular season.
I can't speak for everyone but that would turn me off from watching baseball. I'd still listen on the radio. Especially to hear McCarver and Buck call the winning shot.
An illogical change would be to have teams who win 85-89 games be ineligible for the playoffs, but teams who win more or less still be allowed in. You'd have to scratch your head and say "hmmm, I don't really see the logic of that."
With this change, the logic is blindingly obvious. You don't have to agree with it, but pretending that it's incoherent doesn't help your case.
Yep.
BECAUSE they were the culmination of a 162 game dogfight.
A 93 game winner who gave up the division fight 8 games before the end of the season, and an 89 game winner who cruised in is not dramatic or hard-fought.
And another thing all this drama based on avoiding a negative, but not ultimately fatal outcome?? What other sport does that? When has baseball done that? All this 'how dramatic would it have been last year if the Yanks and Rays had to fight tooth and nail to avoid a one game playoff!!!" You can't tell me how dramatic that's going to be, because it's never happened before. Drama over avoiding a negative, but not fatal outcome? I don't find that particularly compelling.
edit: I should say ' a one game playoff between non-tied teams '
Game 1 of the 1988 WS didn't do anything for you?
Literally every great non-elimination game in baseball history (regular season or post) has been "drama over avoiding a negative, but not fatal outcome".
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main