Yes, and best of 9 is a better test, and best of 11 would be even better, etc.

But, from a fan excitement point of view, best of 5 is better than best of 7, and best of 3 would be even more exciting than best of 5.

Period. Most managers and players agree.

Curious that he doesn't cite sources. Or maybe not.

a better test

For those who haven't seen it, question #4 in this quiz might be of interest.

Marmaduchscherer: 162-game season a better test.

MLB should add another round. It's sudden death. If the first pitch is a strike or an out, the home team wins. A ball or the hitter reaches, the visitors win.

To me, after playing 162 games the Division Series should be a best-of-seven. Period. Most managers and players agree.

If 30 Helens agree, then I REALLY think we're on to something.

AO

I don't see this as an "end all be all", I kind of like the 5 game series. It gives you a great chance for an upset and you get things like the Cubbies and Angels floundering in the Post Season. He seems to think that is a "tragedy" I seem to think it is good drama.

I love how he mentions that Baltimore loses to 3 20 game winners to the "lesser" team, yeah because if you lose 3 strait to three 20 game winners your odds were REALLY strong that the 4th game would have been all you needed to turn the tide.

I get sick of these articiles, you know what I think? I think that Baseball should be over in October PERIOD. How about that. You want 2 more playoff games than we get a 158 game Regular Season, then see how many owners sign up for it.

This is a dopey thread. What exactly is it about this suggestion that made everyone run to the Slippery Slope Argument Machine? Is the thread the result of a contest where people tried to come up with a clever way to phrase "fine, let's not have any playoffs at all then"? If so, the contest was unsuccessful. The only semi-decent point made here in favor of best-of-5 is post #6's, that is, if you intentionally want to create more upsets. That's fine if that's a priority for you, but ultimately, I myself don't see why the first round should be any different from the other two rounds.

Ultimately the jump from 5 to 7 games is not a very big deal because you don't get too many series that go to 5 games where the loser would win the next two anyway. If someone is bored and wants to do the research I doubt the number of series affected would be higher than 1 of 20 series.

I've wanted to see a slightly shorter regular season coupled with a short round robin first round. Maybe it's just because my team is always 3 and out in the first round, but I just hate going 162 games all year waiting for the postseason for it to end up over before it really begins.

There is way too much talk of trying to master the perfect playoff system. I'm beyond tired of this subject in all sports.

Also, stadium beer is TOTALLY overpriced. Check it out for yourself the next time you're at a game. You'll find that I'm right!

I agree that the current format makes upsets a bit too easy. However, I don't feel it's necessary to eliminate the 5-game format in the opening round to solve this problem. Instead, I would propose that the top seed be allowed to pick its first round opponent or that the teams be seeded solely on the basis of record without consideration to divisions. Does anyone believe the Angels should be "rewarded" for winning 100 games by being forced to play the Red Sox in the first round? Is there any doubt they would have selected the White Sox as their opponent, if given a choice? Also, I believe MLB should eliminate one or both of the travel dates in the first round to force teams to use their 4th starters and go deeper in their bullpens.

moneyball agrees

Instead, I would propose that the top seed be allowed to pick its first round opponent

in addition, they get to set the pitching rotation of their 1st round opponent

I want the dern cow, so i'm keeping the door. Least I can refuel the dern thing.

Three words: paper, rock, scissors.

Two leagues, no divisions. One WS, 9 games. Downhill ever since.

I propose a 6 game playoff and then if there is a tie, a coin toss. Can you imagine the excitement and rage that would ensue after the umpire said it was tails, when it was really heads?

I love how he mentions that Baltimore loses to 3 20 game winners to the "lesser" team, yeah because if you lose 3 strait to three 20 game winners your odds were REALLY strong that the 4th game would have been all you needed to turn the tide.

You have that backwards, but I know what you mean. Game 4 would have been against a 20 game winner too. If they played a 9 game series, every game would have been against a 20 game winner.

And this:

Take 1971: The Oakland A's, under manager Dick Williams, won the AL West title by 16 games with 101 victories.

The A's, an overwhelming favorite, met the Baltimore Orioles in the AL Championship Series.

I'm a little young to remember, but I doubt this is true. The O's also won 101 games, and won their tougher division over a much tougher 2nd place team by 12 games, with fewer losses, was the 2 times defending AL champ, with four 20 game winners, and had beaten the A's 7 times in 11 tries during the regular season. In what way should the A's have been considered superior? Vida Blue and his MVP season?

Two leagues, no divisions. One WS, 9 games. Downhill ever since.

And it's not like west coast fans deserve any baseball, they leave after the 7th inning!

People, people. let's remember what it's all about for the owners and the players; more money. Fair, schmair, that doesn't matter. That said, I was surprised to read this from Bud:

Selig also downplayed any talk of expanding the first round of the playoffs from to best-of-seven series. He told team owners that expressed support of more playoff games they would have to cut regular-season games from the schedule -- something owners clearly weren't willing to do and the players' union likely would oppose.

"End of discussion," Selig said.

Linky-Dinky

Why would the players object to reducing the regular season? I assume that the salaries would stay the same.

(Editors note & full disclosure: I'm a Cubs fan. I wrote this in the mid-afternoon today, and it has NOTHING to do with the severe ass-thrashing served up by the Dodgers.)

So with the talk lately about how the best-of-5 first round is a terrible format due to it not being enough of an advantage to the favorite, I decided to do some research:

The 3-division-champion, 1 wild-card playoff format began in 1995, but from '95-'97, baseball followed the silly "games 1 & 2 at the home of the team WITHOUT home-field advantage, games 3, 4, & 5 at the "advantaged" team. So, today's format really started in 1998.

1998-2007:

* Teams with homefield advantage: 19-21
(Particularly bad year: 2002. Oakland, New York Yankees, Atlanta, and Arizona all had homefield and went 0-4)

* Teams with better record than opponent (div. champ or wild-card): 15-22

* Teams with the same record as opponent and had home-field: 2-1

* Division champions vs. wild-card: 7-13

* Teams with best regular season record in the league: 13-7

* Teams who finished with record 10+ games better than their opponent during the season: 6-2

Conclusions:

* Clearly home-field advantage doesn't mean all that much. The "number 1 seeds" are winning at a .650 clip which is pretty good, but nowhere NEAR the dominance shown in other sports. (Although the most dominant #1 teams tend not to #### the bed...at least before this year's Cubs).

* Speaking of ####ting the bed: #2-ranked division winners are 6-14. WTF???

* Being the wild-card isn't nearly a big enough disadvantage.

Solutions?:

* Best-of-7 first round? Homefield to better team for games 1 & 2, other team for games 3 & 4, and back to home team for 5, 6, & 7? (I like this idea best.)

* Maybe there should be 2 wild cards that must play a best of 3 while all division winners rest? That seems a bad idea; I'm against letting more teams in.

* Maybe there should be NO wild-card and the #2 and #3 division winners play a best of 5 while the #1's rest? Need to re-balance the divisions, then. (Probably should do it anyway; kick someone from the NL Central into the AL and move K.C. into the AL West. Or kick Houston into the NL West and Colorado or Arizona into the AL West.)

I don't know. But clearly something should change; there are WAY TOO MANY upsets going on.

I don't know. But clearly something should change; there are WAY TOO MANY upsets going on.


Aren't there upsets in the World Series too? Should we make it nearly impossible for the Dodgers or Brewers to win the World Series this year?

It does seem odd that having the best record would be a disadvantage.

One thing that might make this look a little better is that in a long season like baseball, the final, overall record doesn't necessarily indicate the quality of the teams that actually play in the playoff games. That's no new hypothesis, but it bears discussion anyway. Take 2003, for instance. The 91-71 Marlins beat the 100-61 Giants, and the 88-74 Cubs beat the 103-59 Braves. But by the end of the season, given the personnel on the field and how they had developed, the Marlins were probably better than a 91-71 team, and the Cubs were definitely better than an 88-74 team. The true talent of both teams that actually played in the playoffs was probably in the mid 90s, not nearly as big of an upset; with an unbalanced schedule, who really knows whether 100-61 trumps 95-67?

Solutions?:

* Best-of-7 first round? Homefield to better team for games 1 & 2, other team for games 3 & 4, and back to home team for 5, 6, & 7? (I like this idea best.)

Out of curiosity, why do you like this idea best? You say just a few lines up that home field doesn't mean all that much. How is changing the site for one game going to significantly impact all of these upsets?

Incidentally, Vaux makes a very good point that gets brought up much less than it should.

The true talent of both teams that actually played in the playoffs was probably in the mid 90s, not nearly as big of an upset; with an unbalanced schedule, who really knows whether 100-61 trumps 95-67?

Isn't the standard deviation 6 (maybe 6.5 games?) for each team. I know I had read that in a few places, but cannot remember where now. If that is the case, then it shouldn't be surprising at all that in a 5 game or 7 game series the team with less wins win their fair share of games.

I don't think there really is a way for there to be a playoffs that is 'fair' or truly decides the best team. If 162 games doesn't do it, then 11 wins out of a possible 19 won't. IMO, a team's record 'earns' them the right to play in a tournament. And, for the casual fan; i.e. those that just watch the playoffs, I cannot think of a fair way to decide the best team and keep them interested. More games could be added, but that might kill the excitement for some of the casual fans and even if the series were best of 9, 13, 13 it wouldn't prove anything. It would just make it more likely that the better team won. But assuming that casual fans enjoyed the new schedule, there is still a chance that the two best teams play each other in the first round. So, there needs to be a better way of seeding the teams. I think this could be done, but would probably only make baseball fans and stat geeks happy.

Also, other than St. Louis, has there been any real atrocities recently? And this year, there isn't really any team in the playoffs that could win the world series and me feel like I did when St Louis won.

The only thing that could make it fair, and still keep the same format (somewhat), would be to have the ALCS count as the World Series, then the winner of the NLCS gets to play the loser of the ALCS, if they win, then they have to play the winner of the ALCS series (I kid. I kid).

with an unbalanced schedule, who really knows whether 100-61 trumps 95-67?

And in any case, it is totally on the cards for a 95-win team to beat a 100-win team 3 of 5 or 4 of 7. It is totally on the cards for an 81-win team to beat a 100-win team in that frame; happens all the time in regular-season series, and even granted that teams put their best talent up front for the playoffs, it's still on the cards for an upset to happen in that small scale. To have a fair test, as #3 not-so-jokingly remarks, you'd have to have a 162-game series and require one team to beat the other by maybe ten games or so.

As I have said before in these threads, baseball is somewhere in the middle of a continuum between sports that have exhaustive playoff structures (NBA, NHL, tennis majors) that ensure a pretty much no-doubt champion, and those that have single-event championships where upsets are almost the rule (golf majors, Triple Crown racing). All such championships are legitimate in that you have to actually win them on a level playing field (or one with a hill if you're playing in Houston). Nobody taped lead weights to the Cub bats to prevent them beating the Dodgers this year. And so the Dodger win, though an upset of sorts, is completely legitimate (not that anyone's denying that).

In 1971, indeed, the Orioles were the established power and the A's were the new kid on the block. Nobody was surprised in the least by the Orioles' victory.

Solutions?:

* Best-of-7 first round? Homefield to better team for games 1 & 2, other team for games 3 & 4, and back to home team for 5, 6, & 7? (I like this idea best.)

Out of curiosity, why do you like this idea best? You say just a few lines up that home field doesn't mean all that much. How is changing the site for one game going to significantly impact all of these upsets?

If tomorrow I became the All-Powerful Overlord of the MLB Playoffs, I wouldn't want to significantly change the system right off the bat, just want to tweak it.

Right now, teams with homefield advantage in the playoffs are winning their first series at a .475 clip. Teams with more regular season wins than their opponents are winning at a .425 pace. These are the teams that have proven themselves to be superior over a 162-game season; the longest in professional sports. I don't know about you, but those numbers seem wrong to me in a fundamental way.

Pulling a number strictly out of my ass, it seems to me that the better regular season team, with home field advantage, should win a playoff series around, oh, 55-60% of the time. That still leaves plenty of upsets to make things interesting.

In order to reach those numbers, I want to see if longer series and giving the team with homefield more, and all of the "decisive", games at home tweak the system enough to give the "favorites" an advantage that they clearly don't have right now. An advantage that I feel they've "earned" through their consistent year-long regular season play.

I don't know. But clearly something should change; there are WAY TOO MANY upsets going on.

How do these numbers look if you use each team's Pythagorean record? We look at every aspect of offense and pitching through sabermetric adjustments, and now we're taking the season wins (which we scoff at as a stat for pitchers) as the end all be all for determining who really deserves to win the playoffs.

Incidentally, Vaux makes a very good point that gets brought up much less than it should.

I couldn't agree more. Just this year, the Dodgers with Manny and a healthy (or at least playing) Furcal is a completely different animal than a team running Pierre and Hu out at those positions. Are the people ######## about the current format willing to rule out in-season trades?

Does anyone really think that the Brewers or Cubs would've come back to win these series if they had the cushion of an extra game? I know I'm sick of hearing about how the "100 win Angels" who got their 100 wins against the Rangers, Mariners, and an A's team that quit half-way through the season are somehow getting screwed because they can't beat the 95 win Red Sox.

OCD- That's why I ran the numbers for 10 years. Of course, individual exceptions are easy to identify. The 84-win Dodgers smoked the 97-win Cubs so thoroughly that it's hard to say that the win was clearly a "fluke", and no one is arguing too hard that the Angels are so much better than the Red Sox that what's happening now is a statistical improbability.

But the playoff records argue that the entire collection of 10 years of teams with the best records in baseball were inferior to the entire collection of 10 years of teams that were the weakest division champions and wild-cards in the league. Do you agree with this statement?

Free advice: wanna make some money betting on next-years playoffs? Or make predictions that show how smart you are? Just take all the Pythagorian favorites.

1998-2007 Divison Series results by Pythagorian records:

(Edit): I posted the entire results of my spreadsheet, year-by-year, series-by-series, but the text refused to line up and was too hard to read. Ugh.)

Pythagorian Favorites Totals: 25-15

More notes:

* In no year did the pythagorian favorites do any worse than 2-2 in their first-round matchups. In 2005 they ran the table to the tune of 4-0.

* There were 5 series in which the two teams met with identical pythagorian records. In these cases, I proclaimed the team whose W-L record least showed their true capabilities compared to their pythagorian record the "favorite". These favorites went 5-0.

* "Road" Pythag Favorites: 10-4

* Wild-Card Pythag Underdogs: 5-4
* Wild-Card Pythag Favorites: 8-3 (hmm)

* "#1 Pythag Seeds"(MLB): 8-3 (NY-A and ATL tied perfectly in 2003)
* " (AL) : 9-1
* " (NL) : 6-4
* " (Total) : 15-5

You want to have a better record- but not MUCH of one.

* Favored teams with Pythag record within 5 games of opponent: 16-3
* Teams with Pythag record 5+ games better than opponent : 9-12 (strange)
* " 10+ " : 7-3


So overall, I guess the moral of the story is that the teams that SHOULD advance, ARE advancing, that homefield doesn't mean much if you don't have the best team, and that the MLB playoff system sorts teams sort of arbitrarily.

For shits and giggles:

2008 Playoff matchups by Pythag:

Underdog: W L Favorite: W L
Los Angeles (A) 88 74 Boston 95 67
Chicago (A) 89 74 Tampa Bay 92 70
Los Angeles (N) 87 75 Chicago (N) 98 63
Milwaukee 87 75 Philadelphia 93 69

The Red Sox got screwed as far as homefield goes, but they seem to be getting the job done just fine anyway. The Rays and Phils are predictably taking care of business. The Cubs join the '98 Astros, the '01 A's, and the '03 Braves in losing a series they should have won easily.

I never realized that pythagorean record was so much better predictive of postseason success than actual record is. Thanks for pointing it out.

Nevertheless, both pythagorean and actual record fail to take into account changes in the teams as the season goes along. Like the addition of Manny Ramirez, or Rich Harden for that matter.

Just this year, the Dodgers with Manny and a healthy (or at least playing) Furcal is a completely different animal than a team running Pierre and Hu out at those positions. Are the people ######## about the current format willing to rule out in-season trades?

Of course not. But:

Dodgers Aug. 1 and later (post-Manny): 30-24
Cubs Aug. 1 and later : 32-20

Dodgers run differential post-Aug. 1 : +33
Cubs run differential post-Aug. 1 : +54

Dodgers overall Pythag record : 87-75
Cubs overall Pythag record : 98-63

All these numbers indicate a Cubs win, if a decently competitive series. I see nothing in any of these numbers to show that the Dodgers are a significantly better team, much less predicting the curb-stomping that occurred.

Oh, someone already pointed out the changes in the teams over the season.

Indeed, the Cubs have been the only team to underperform drastically in their first-round series.

That's great work BullpenJesus. I can't say I'm really surprised by this. I think there isn't much to argue for significantly changing the playoff structure other than nostalgia.