I Hate the New Playoff Format
So this stupidity is happening.
Under the new format, the Nos. 4 and 5 seeds in each league -- the wild-card teams -- will meet in a playoff, with the three division winners awarded a first-round bye.
1) So to "solve" the problem of the Wild Cards having it too easy and winning the division not mean enough, MLB wants to.... add a Wild Card team.
2) The divisions are frequently not equal. The divisions have no intrinsic meaning. They are random semi-geographic groupings of convenience. What, pray tell, should winning the "AL Central" actually mean? Regional pride? The ability to establish tariffs on the Mississippi? A key to the Quad Cities? Is it too much to ask that we seed the playoffs according to record, even the screwed up, imbalanced schedule we're currently using?
2A) Divisions are often likely to fall into uneven power matches because as noted above, they're essentially arbitrary divisions and the internal competition dynamics pull divisions internally towards increased competition and mediocrity.
3) The argument that the additional playoff slots will get more teams involved is worthless. Sure, so will adding ten playoff teams. I'm sure a one game series will be exciting. So would a one inning series. So would a home run derby to decide the thing.
4) You know what's really being devalued in the Bud Selig Era? The regular season, for everyone. Forget the sanctity of winning a division. Baseball was once unique because even making the playoffs was a very big deal. The regular season mattered, all 162 games of it, in some cases. You know what may have once meant something? Since we're on the subject.... winning the AL West when there were seven teams in the division instead of FOUR or heck, winning the American League when that was all there was.
4A) Seriously, we had a division with 4 teams, when most others had 5 and the NL Central had 6 and no one thought this was a problem? And these are the folks that want to lecture us about the purity of the game?
So, as always, we have the false solution to yesterday's war. Although, because this is baseball, this isn't even yesterday's war, it's the day before yesterday's war. In 2010 the Yankees and Rays didn't care who won the division and here we are. Nevermind that in 2011, we enjoyed one of the greatest days in baseball history in this current format (a day that would have absolutely been meaningless in the new rules). I hate the notion that the NCAA tournament is some sports Venus that I must bow before. It's random noise. An unbroken bracket like that, all single elimination, is great for manufactured drama, terrible for deciding anything.
All those glorious paeans to one-game playoffs and dramatic October clashes mattered not because the playoffs are inherently magical and all that matters (the horrible side effect of the glorification of the clutch myth) but because the six month journey of the season, the daily grind of 162, had to be endured and experienced by the parties in question. I know as the fan of a mediocre (hopefully!) team, I'm supposed to praise the Lord at this news. Really though, I just hate to see so much irrationality and a betrayal of the sport's essence wrapped in the flag of progress when really it is just a cash grab. Baseball has completely lost the plot.
82 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not sure how this devaules the regular season.
You still need to win 88-90 games to be in consideration for the postseason, which means you’re a pretty damn good team.
by Discolando on Mar 1, 2012 12:02 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
If anything, it makes the regular season more valuable. Win so you don't get eliminated on the first night.
I like the new format for 3 reasons
1) It helps the Royals
2) It helps the Royals
3) It helps the Royals
Get on board.
i dunno if that's really the case...i think you're very frequently going to get 4 93 or so plus win teams out of
ny, bos, tb, tex and anaheim…thats going to win the central most years
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 1, 2012 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah...1 of those teams won't make it, and another 2 will be stuck in an extra round.
I don’t mean it helps the Royals because there is one more spot to get. It helps the Royals because it devalues the current wild card spot, thus helping the AL Central winner.
It doesn’t help the Royals when someone else wins the division.
the royals are just going to play a better team in the WC round....
those teams will be shooting more to win the division now, which means building better teams, bc there’s actually reason to do so now.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 1, 2012 12:21 AM EST up reply actions
"Now that there is a 5th wild card spot, teams will finally try to build the strongest team possible"
I’ll give you one thing—you’re probably the first one to come up with that theory. Don’t be offended if you’re also the last.
there hasnt been an advantage to winning the division....
for most of the past 10 years both the yanks and sox were guaranteed playoff spots that were about equal. what was the need for a legitimately good 4 and 5 starter? just watch…the elite teams will get even better
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 1, 2012 12:43 AM EST up reply actions
So under your theory..the Yankees and Red Sox weren't really trying their hardest to have the best rotations possible??
I have a hard time thinking that the Yanks and BoSox weren’t worried about their 4th and 5th starters because they were “guaranteed playoff spots,” especially since the Rays have pushed one of them out of the playoffs in three of the past four years.
I think those teams were trying their hardest to be as good as possible in all areas before and will continue to do so.
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Mar 1, 2012 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
are you serious? i argue things forever...
i ended my statement with ‘just watch’….there’s nothing more to argue…i’ll either be right or i’ll be wrong
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 2, 2012 12:50 AM EST up reply actions
AL
2011 – Boston 90-72
2010 – Boston 89-73
2009 – Texas 87-75
2008 – New York 89-73
2007 – Detroit/Seattle 88-74
2006 – Los Angeles 89-73
2005 – Cleveland 93-69
2004 – Oakland 91-71
2003 – Seattle 93-69
2002 – Seattle 93-69
2001 – Minnesota 85-77
2000 – Cleveland 90-72
1999 – Oakland 87-75
1998 – Toronto 88-74
1997 – Anaheim 84-78
1996 – Seattle 85-76 (Boston and Chicago finished 85-77)
1995 – California 78-67
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Possibly 4 more playoff appearances for our heated rivals, the Mariners
They might have got hot and won it all…the battle for grass creek would be over. :)
Re 4A)
Well, obviously they did think it was a problem since they are moving the Astros next year to make every division 5 teams.
I don't mind the change, but I wish it were a 3 game playoff instead of just one game.
I like the idea of giving the division winners a little more of an edge over the wild card teams.
Killing time until time kills me
I think that would be more of a punishment for the division winners
since it would undoubtedly result in at least a 5 day layoff, which usually seems to hurt teams.
by ElChupanibre on Mar 1, 2012 12:27 AM EST up reply actions
I think 100% of the teams would still choose the five day layoff over having to play a short three game series just to move on.
Hell, have the three games be played over three straight days in the home park of the 1st wild card. I don’t think a few days off would be that big of a deal as long as the three-game playoff occured as quickly as possible.
Killing time until time kills me
Agreed about the three-game playoff
Just one game does totally devalue the regular season.
Divisions exist, if you have an unbalanced schedule, in order to make travel easier and to facilitate rivalries. It also helps to have a little geographic balance in the playoffs—somebody from the AL South or whatever has to make it, even if they’re really not that great. You don’t want all the teams from the Northeast monopolizing the playoffs all the time.
Let’s try the NFL as a model and see what we get.
Expand by two teams to make 32. 2 16-team leagues divided into four divisions each. You play each other team in your division 16 times, eight home and eight away, for 48 games. You play each other team in the other three divisions eight times, four home and four away, for 90 games. And, on a rotating basis, you play each team in one division from the other league six times, three home and three away, for 24 games. That’s a total of 162.
Each of the four division winners, along with two wild cards, makes the playoffs. The six playoff teams are seeded 1-6 according to regular season record. 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5 in a three-game series, while 1 and 2 have five days off. They can deal with that. Then 1 plays the 4-5 winner and 2 plays the 3-6 winner in a five-game series, and then the final round is seven games for the league championship, and a seven-game World Series.
"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943
Possible alignments:
Add Portland or Utah to the AL and Nashville or Carolina to the NL. Let’s just say Portland and Nashville.
Then you have:
AL: West: Sea, Por, Oak, LAA. Central: Min, KC, Tex, Hou. North: Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto. East: Boston, NYY, Bal, TB.
NL: West: SF, LAD, SD, Ari. Central: Col, STL, CHC, Mil. East: Pit, Cin, NYM, Phi. South: Was, Nas, Atl, Mia.
"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943
JK Ward had pretty much the same idea
Should have read the whole thread.
"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943
AL Vs NL
One league apiece, 154 regular season games. Balanced intraleague schedule. Perfect.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 1, 2012 12:27 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
less baseball is bad for me
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 1, 2012 12:44 AM EST up reply actions
OK, 162 Games
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 1, 2012 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
Quite honestly, I wonder if this all came about because the Rays decided to finally become a good team.
The current playoff system really didn’t have a problem. I happened to like it, mainly because I didn’t know another system. But once Boston and New York started missing the postseason, MLB took notice. Man I really hate saying this, but I’m guessing a significant portion of casual fans across the US are fans of those two teams, and they don’t spend as much on teams that miss the playoffs. This is all about making sure that if Boston and New York don’t completely blow a season (and the money they spend almost guarantees at least a playoff berth), they get a playoff trip every year.
In addition, having the 4 and 5 seeds play each other is an interesting twist. MLB is hedging against the Rays winning the AL East by having Boston and New York meet in a playoff series when they’ll probably be the biggest news that week. If they make it as the division winner, then even better, as they’ll be seen in playoff games anyway.
I don’t like the change, mainly because I love to see high payroll teams miss the playoffs. I can see why they did it though, and I can’t say that I wouldn’t do the same thing if in their position.
Additional fun fact: Here’s a list of AL wild card teams listed by appearances since the 94 strike.
Boston Red Sox: 7 times
New York Yankees: 4 times
Tampa Bay Rays: 1 time
Oakland Athletics: 1 time
Seattle Mariners: 1 time
Anaheim Angels: 1 time
Detroit Tigers: 1 time
MAJOR LEAGUE (The Royals)
Rachel Phelps (Royals Management): I think he'll fit right in with our team concept.
Charlie Donovan (Royals Fans): That reminds me, I was going to ask you. What exactly *is* our team concept?
Missed the Baltimore Orioles: 1 time
MAJOR LEAGUE (The Royals)
Rachel Phelps (Royals Management): I think he'll fit right in with our team concept.
Charlie Donovan (Royals Fans): That reminds me, I was going to ask you. What exactly *is* our team concept?
Don't let Warden see you trash talking the NCAA tournament like that
There’s an ongoing debate at Rock Chalk Talk on just how random the NCAA tournament is
Ha, I thought about calling it out.
But don’t get my stance wrong, the tournament features plenty of randomness. However, the teams that win the tournament are also the very elite of D1.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
I like it..
I agree with the fact that those who win their division should be rewarded.. and those who don’t win it should suffer a bit of a penalty.
In football, the top two teams have a bye. Which is quite the advantage that you get to rest your players a little bit while the wildcard teams and other two division winners play.
In hockey and basketball, the 1 seed plays the 8 seed, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5… So the better teams have an easier road to advance (on paper).
In baseball, its 4 teams, and if you don’t win your division and win the wild card you pretty much get treated the same as if you did. Sure, if you win the wild card you play the team with the best record, but to win the wildcard, you still gotta be a pretty damn good team.
The disadvantage would be that the wild card team now has to face wildcard team 2 in a 1 game playoff, which means they’d likely use their best pitcher and wouldn’t get to start him the first game of the next series should they win. So now they really have an uphill battle to win the title, and they should, considering they didn’t do what it takes to win their division. They shouldn’t be on the same level as teams that did.
It will give teams more incentive to win the division now, which in turn, will make more exciting baseball down the stretch AND It will definitely bring more excitement to the playoff format..
I like it
-After this OC fiasco if the Chiefs dont WIN a playoff game in 2012 FIRE SCOTT PIOLI-
-Kool Aid drinking Cassel Believer-
(7-9) My record of picking Chiefs games before the season
(12-4) My Chiefs before the season prediction
Thunder Win-Loss 2011-2012 record (52-14)
Western division champs
NBA Champs over Miami Heat
"What, pray tell, should winning the "AL Central" actually mean?"
It means a first round bye that takes it back to the old format. I think this is just trying to guarantee there’s a one game playoff every year. Those have been happening recently and it means big TV dollars, so Papa Bud thought it would be a good idea to capitalize on it.
But, yes I do like to add one more playoff team. As a baseball fan, I’m tired of always seeing the same old shit in the playoffs. This way random team x always has a chance. One chance. It’s like a fairy tale. One Cinderella could crash the ball. It only adds to the MLB playoffs which are far outdated and sad. The division may not still matter, but we will be better entertained every year. In this day and age, you need that sort of thing. Just watch the movie “Idiocracy”. You’ll see what I mean.
If you don't expect too much from me, you might not be let down
-Gin Blossoms
I would have preferred that they added two Wild Card teams
Division winners with best records get a bye, other four play each other in a 3-game series.
Two winners play the two bye teams (ALDS).
Winners play each other (ALCS).
Winner plays in the World Series.
A minimum of 36 postseason games between the two leagues. That should be all of the revenues that Bud Selig desires.
We should trade for Vance Worley.
I would get rid of the Divisions
Expand the the playoffs to 5 teams from each League. The top 5 teams from each get in. The teams are seeded 1-5, with 4 and 5 playing a 3 game Wildcard. The winner of that matchup goes on to play the #1 team in the 5-game semifinals, and its the same from there on out. 2 more teams get to go, and the top team is rewarded by facing the weaker teams. I’d also reduce the season to 158 games, to keep the baseball from getting into November.
Hopefully a 3 game first round would be less meaningless than a one game playoff.
Jesus, Will
You’ll whine about anything. It’s baseball. It will make September more exciting for at least one set of fans. Go write a poem or something.
by Gordon Soy on Mar 1, 2012 7:40 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
So you're going with the "if it's more exciting, we should do it" argument?
one game playoffs for everyone!!!!!!!!!!
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 1, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
Get off my lawn!!!
I think it’s pretty well established that the difference between a 95-win team and a 90-win team often comes down to luck even over 162 games. And that’s just in-game luck. If an 85-win team gets in by virtue of winning a weak division then a 90-win team in a much tougher division Gould certainly have a shot. Short of arguing for abolishing divisions and playing equal schedules I think this is the best solution.
by billexgordler on Mar 1, 2012 8:40 AM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
I'm all for abolishing divisions
and playing equal schedules. In all the major sports. If only this could happen. Especially in the NBA.
The only problem with abolishing divisions is that they largely exist to both build rivalries and more importantly control travel costs.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Mar 1, 2012 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
but where does it stop?
This doesn’t fix the problem. What about the 90-win team versus the 85-win team? Also luck, so shouldn’t they get a shot, too? And what about the 84, 83, 82-win teams?
This fundamentally alters the structure to make the goal “win your division, then worry about beating everyone else”. Maybe that’s the way it should be, maybe not. It doesn’t fix the problem that the AL East is loaded, screwing at least one of NY, Bos, TB, or Tor.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 1, 2012 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Bud looks like
a cross between Bill Gates and the corpse of Al Davis in that picture
by ElChupanibre on Mar 1, 2012 9:30 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Glad I'm Not
The only one.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Mar 1, 2012 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
I thought for a minute that Joe had become a ventriloquist
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
The only AL Central wild card team is the 2006 Tigers
And they had to win 95 games for the privilege. It was already unlikely that the hypothetical contending Royals team could look to the wild card to get them in the postseason, and now the wild card is unlikely and undesirable. The Royals need to build a 95 win team, not just a 90 win team, and that’s even more true now.
I really like the new system
I think it puts more emphasis on winning the division which will make late season AL East baseball more exciting, and it brings more teams into the wild card picture, even if the wild card slot is much less valuable. So more drama, more cities. Win-win.
Easy for us to say.
What if we took Baltimore’s place in the ALE? That would basically limit KC’s playoff possibilities to a 1-game play-in. Would your opinion be different?
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 1, 2012 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
Baltimore is getting screwed either way. If anything, the change helps them.
It’s also worth noting that TB and Toronto are just as screwed by the divisional format as Baltimore is. They just happen to be better than Baltimore at overcoming their disadvantage in recent years.
toronto is a sleeping giant
theyve got a good GM, a rich owner who according to AA has given him free reign to spend , huge metro area that has proven that they will show up to support a winner, a good core, a great farm system
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 1, 2012 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
not just a huge metro area
but a whole country to itself now that the Expos are no more
yeah...that'd help their TV revenue...
but the 6 million in the metro area is huge
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 1, 2012 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
I think Baltimore is a good proxy for KC in the ALE
My point was that this may look OK from KC’s eyes in the ALC—KC has a genuine shot at winning the division every once in a while—though for Baltimore, they’re still just as screwed as before. They have nearly no shot at winning the division – give them KC’s best year possible, then put that up against NYY, Bos, TB, AND Tor – what are their odds of all four of those falling flat simultaneously? For the wildcard, at least under the old system, all they had to do was luck into #2 in the ALE (essentially, though Tex/LAA may show that that’s not a given anymore), but now they still have to have a play-in game, so not only are their chances halved if they finish #2/#3, also their chances in the first round are decreased b/c they don’t get to align their pitching as well as the other teams.
I think Baltimore, and to and extent TB/Tor (b/c they really can’t be ALE title contenders that often IMO), are at best seeing this as a push, but more likely they are hurt by it.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 1, 2012 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
It seems to me that people are getting a bit too bullish about the Angels, but that's a conversation for another day...
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Mar 1, 2012 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, for another day, though let me add that my assumption about their resurgence
is just what should happen in theory. SEA sucks, OAK has run out of wish powder, LAA has gobs of cash, and the only thing stopping them from winning the division is TEX (oh, also, the Astros are the new Royals). The only thing stopping them from being at least a serious wild-card contender each year will be themselves (and the part where Pujols’s enrolls in the Joe Mauer master class).
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 1, 2012 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
i dunno....
they added an 7-9 win player to replace their 2 win 1b…they added the 4th best pitcher in the AL last year…they’re going to at some point add a top 3 prospect in baseball to an 86 win team
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 2, 2012 12:55 AM EST up reply actions
Pujols was a 5.1 fWAR player last year in the lesser league.
I don’t think he’ll be that bad this year, but I wouldn’t put money on him being better. He is certainly at the age where he could be on the decline.
Wilson is a year removed from leading the AL in Walks Allowed (he was three behind Jonathan Sanchez). It’s possible that he learned how to throw strikes more consistently. I don’t dislike C.J. Wilson, but I’d be pretty shocked if 2011 didn’t prove to be his career year.
More importantly, they have to find a way to make up 10 wins on the Rangers. Their lineup looks something like this:
Aybar
Abreu
Pujols
Torii
Kendrick
Callaspo
Wells
Iannetta
Bourjos
It’s hard to get too excited about them even when Wells (presumably) is replaced by Trout. Iannetta is a nice add, but they’re stuck with the albatross of Wells’ contract, Hunter and Abreu are too old to be counted on for much, and their likely leadoff hitter has a career wOBA of .311.
Their rotation is very good, but I am very hesitant to believe that the Angels offense is going to be able to do much. They scored the fifth-fewest runs in the AL last year and had the fourth-lowest OBP. Pujols will help alleviate some of that. The possible return of Morales may help, too, but it seems like a lot of their already meager production is fairly likely going away as their ancient trio of Hunter, Wells, and Abreu threaten to drive straight off the cliff.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Mar 2, 2012 2:24 AM EST up reply actions
even if wilson regresses, he’s an upgrade over whoever he replaced. will darvish be as good as wilson was last year? you think theres a chance in hell napoli repeats that season? michael young is old as well.
the angels were a 91 win team last year by WAR and made two significant improvements. their significant contributors are all in their prime. i think they’re a 93-95 win team.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 2, 2012 2:50 AM EST up reply actions
I look forward to them proving you wrong.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, and pontificating on pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick.
Twit. Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Mar 2, 2012 4:37 AM EST up reply actions
we shall see....
i almost hope im wrong…i fucking hate the angels…and trout falling on his face would make me look smarter regarding that harper v trout conversation a couple weeks ago
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 2, 2012 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
Even if Trout doesn't fall on his face,
I don’t know that he can make the difference this year.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, and pontificating on pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick.
Twit. Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Mar 3, 2012 6:00 AM EST up reply actions
And moving past my pithy initial response,
the collective Napoli and Young drop-off could easily be offset by a rebound from Nelson Cruz, who was saddled with nagging injuries all season.
I don’t think that Darvish will throw down 5.9 WAR, but I don’t think Wilson ends up doing that either, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see a combination of Darvish and improvements from Harrison and more significantly Holland off-setting the loss. It also would surprise me if Neftali Feliz didn’t outproduce what Ogando did last year.
What it boils down to is that the Angels finished 10 games back, and I don’t know that their offseason moves made up enough ground.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, and pontificating on pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick.
Twit. Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Mar 2, 2012 4:49 AM EST up reply actions
I'll worry about it after my team shows it can win more than it loses
Baseball has much bigger problems than this.
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
I think I like this plan
It really disadvantages the wild card teams by reducing their chance to win the WS by 50%, and then reducing it even more, becuase they presumably used their best pitcher in the 1 game series.
I agree that we need to be worried expanding the playoff field because it makes the regular season less exciting.
I can live with this plan
if having to burn a starter in the wild card play-in game causes the wild card teams to be eliminated in the division series more than 95% of the time.
That way it’s easy to ignore all that crap.
Yes, I know it sounds like I’m another member of the “get off my lawn club”, but sometimes the old way really was better. I happen to think that postseason TV viewership would be better and more lucrative if there were fewer, more highly anticipated games. If you have four divisions and four postseason times, balanced schedules and very little or no interleague nonsense, I think MLB can successfully exploit both close races in the divisions that have them and the cachet of a powerful team in divisions that are easily won. People can either be drawn in while following a close head-to-head race as the regular season winds down, or they can be drawn in while anticipating the postseason match-up of one or more powerhouse teams.
Essentially MLB has traded all of the suspense and anticipation that used to occur in August and September for a 1-day play-in. That’s a terrible trade.
Agree with EspeciallyK and others on the three-game wild card series
Regular season ends on Sunday. The three-game series between the wild cards starts Monday, travel day on Tuesday (which also allows a safety day in case of a regular season play-in game), and then finishes Wednesday and (if necessary) Thursday. The Divisional Series then begin Friday. The Division winner with the best record gets the benefits of the extra rest and of facing a team that just had to play up to three games with extra travel.
The argument that the division winners get too much rest is undermined by the fact that teams get that much time off at the All-Star break and often get close to that much time off between the LCS and World Series. A four day break is not going to kill a team. And the series between the two division winners can always start on Thursday.
And if there are rain outs during the wild card series, the last two games get played as a doubleheader — fans and TV would love that.
while we're changing baseball around....
can we be done with pitchers hitting?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12061/1213588-63.stm
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 1, 2012 12:46 PM EST reply actions
Let's just expand
the rosters to 40, use separate squads for offense and defense, and make pitchers just like kickers in football — except that instead of having just one or two ultra-specialists on the roster, we’ll carry 20 and change pitchers every time a different-handed batter comes to the plate.
Pure baseball bliss?
baseball is entertainment....
there’s absolutely no reason to watch pitchers hit. the al has had the DH for like 35 years….has it ruined baseball?
you act like losing the pitchers hitting will increase specialization? really? the nl is awful with regards to pinch hitting, pitching changes, double switches, etc
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 1, 2012 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
I hope we're only one more CBA or realignment away from all DH
The NL fans I know only protest halfheartedly now. It’s good for pitchers not named Greinke, it’s good for teams employing those pitchers, it’s good for positions players, especially our own Billy Butler and aging stars like Big Papi and Big Hurt and it can be used to try to keep guys fresh and healthy through the long season.
Calling NL baseball superior or better for the game is just silly IMO.
i'd rather not....
just as i’d rather not meet football fans who think that helmets and shoulder pads are a bad idea.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 1, 2012 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
Well, I think helmets could very possibly be a bad idea.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Did I suggest that the DH had ruined baseball?
I’m not lobbying to make a change — you are.
Are are you really acting like instituting the DH rule in the NL will decrease specialization? Now that’s silly. The DH is the way for old players to stay in the game when they can’t do anything other than hit — and don’t take my word for it, as that was one of the express reasons for its adoption. Let’s take advantage of that Baseball Digest archive:
The aging superstar now can hang on as a hitter for a few extra years. That is why, as soon as the passage of the rule was announced, the phone at Orlando Cepeda’s residence began ringing. He was a free agent. No one had wanted him. Suddenly, he was in demand, finally signing with Boston.
Pinch-hitting for a pitcher is at least a managerial decision that can’t always follow well-established convention: the decision to pull an effective starter for a pinch hitter is always a gamble, one way or the other. I like a little unpredictability in how the manager will play the situation, so I find that particular call a lot more interesting than most calls that they make, such as extending the parade of platoon switches that can occur in either league when the game gets to the bullpen.
Although AL starters tend to stay in the game 1/3 of an inning longer on average, I don’t notice that AL play is any more crisp. Pinch-hitting for the pitcher doesn’t slow the game down, because the pitching change occurs between innings. A double-switch during a pitching change that occurs on defense doesn’t slow down the game either.
Also, because these days pitchers make up about half the roster or more in both leagues, there really are very few pinch-hitting or pinch-running specialists anywhere. Who were you thinking of?
Yes, it has.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Mar 1, 2012 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
I'd like to see even more expansion of the playoffs
Expand the league to 32 teams and let the top 8 in each league get in the playoffs. Would make it harder for the big market teams to make it through every year. Plus would help the Royals sneak in if they ever figure out how to play .500 ball.
no way...then its just like the nfl, nba and nhl
where you dont even have to be good to make the playoffs
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 2, 2012 12:57 AM EST up reply actions
Torre and Selig
Selig and Torre
The picture looks like Joe is saying “Dad, we’ve talked about you about the driving thing. Now gimme the keys.”

















