PDA

View Full Version : Mike Schmidt: Eliminate Central Divisions



Ron Madden
06-26-2011, 01:19 AM
This was written by Mike Schmidt: The Hall Of Famer also wants to end interleague play.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110625/SPT04/306250054/Mike-Schmidt-Eliminate-Central-divisions?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Sports|s

Mike Schmidt says in this article he'd eliminate the Central Division and have two 8 team divisions in the NL, The East and The West with the Reds moving to the East Division. What do you think about the Reds playing in the East?

KronoRed
06-26-2011, 02:46 AM
Terrible idea, the 70's and 80's are gone Mike.

I also find it amusing he complains about travel days then suggests a plan where teams are in divisions with 5 teams two time zones away.

Johnny Footstool
06-26-2011, 11:44 AM
Schmidt seems to be angling for the "HOF curmudgeon" position that Bob Feller used to hold.

muddie
06-26-2011, 01:02 PM
I totally agree with Mike. He's saying what I've been saying for years.

Reds/Flyers Fan
06-26-2011, 01:08 PM
I actually like this idea. And with the top 4 teams in each division making the postseason, it wouldn't be impossible being in a division with the Phillies and Braves (or Mets, if they ever shape that organization up).

Slyder
06-26-2011, 01:54 PM
I am telling you anything that does away with the Central is to allow more opportunities for the big markets to monopolize the playoffs and leave the fans in cities like Minnesota and Cincinnati out in the cold.

Ron Madden
06-26-2011, 02:21 PM
I am telling you anything that does away with the Central is to allow more opportunities for the big markets to monopolize the playoffs and leave the fans in cities like Minnesota and Cincinnati out in the cold.

I'm afraid that's what will happen if the Central is eliminated.

15fan
06-26-2011, 02:42 PM
I like the plan. It's the plan I've proposed several times over the years. 2 divisions in each league. First place in the East plays #2 in the West, and vice versa. Winners play for the right to represent the league in the WS.

Scrap interleague and get rid of this nonsense that awards home field advantage in the WS to the league that wins the mid-summer exhibition game, and things will really be on the right track!

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2011, 02:50 PM
I am telling you anything that does away with the Central is to allow more opportunities for the big markets to monopolize the playoffs and leave the fans in cities like Minnesota and Cincinnati out in the cold.

I disagree. Simply because this plan makes for one monumental change...8 teams from each league makes the playoffs. EIGHT. The way I look at it, if you can't manage to be at least one of the best 4 teams in your division...you don't deserve to be in the playoffs...small market or not.

For me, the biggest things that need to be addressed is getting back to a balanced schedule and eliminating interleague play. These go hand in hand because it's not really possible to have balanced schedules IF you have interleague play.

cincinnati chili
06-26-2011, 05:22 PM
I favor the eliminate-the divisions-idea and playing a balanced schedule (and I'd be fine with cutting out interleague play too while we're at it). Just let the teams with the best records into the playoffs. If the teams in the midwest aren't in the playoffs as often, so be it. God forbid that the best teams should actually make the playoffs.

Slyder
06-26-2011, 07:48 PM
In the past 3 years (before 2009)...

14 of 24 spots were top 10 spenders of the year.
5 of 24 spots were in the 11-20 spenders of the year.
5 of 24 spots were in the bottom 1/3.

2010 Payroll:
Yankees 1st
Phillies 4th
Giants 10th
Twins 11th
Braves 15th
Reds 19th
Rays 21st
Rangers 27th and got bailout from MLB to keep em afloat.

Eliminating the Central all but assures Boston and New York a guarentee ticket to post season.

cincinnati chili
06-26-2011, 08:18 PM
Eliminating the Central all but assures Boston and New York a guarentee ticket to post season.

If they're among the best four teams in the AL every year (or best 5 or best 6 if Selig expands the playoffs) then I have no problem with that.

I'm all for competitive balance, but I'd rather address competitive balance with revenue sharing and salary caps than by pretending the team that wins the AL West deserves to make the postseason.

Also, Boston and New York (Yanks) are pretty much making the postseason every year anyway (the latter all but one year for the past 15 or so)

Slyder
06-26-2011, 08:37 PM
If they're among the best four teams in the AL every year (or best 5 or best 6 if Selig expands the playoffs) then I have no problem with that.

I'm all for competitive balance, but I'd rather address competitive balance with revenue sharing and salary caps than by pretending the team that wins the AL West deserves to make the postseason.

Also, Boston and New York (Yanks) are pretty much making the postseason every year anyway (the latter all but one year for the past 15 or so)

There were a couple years that the NL Central was the butt of the jokes too. Good thing they had a chance to prove it on the field eh.

The reason baseball gets its butt kicked by the NFL when theyre up head to head is because the smallest of small markets Green Bay can not only compete year in a year out, but actually WIN championships. Eliminating the divisions just lessens the chances of someone from the pack rising up. 1/2 the league in a given year knows they have no shot.

You eliminate the opportunity of a Cleveland catching fire like they have by going to two divisions. Football has done it right and I thought baseball was catching up but there still seems to be reverting to "tradition". You continue to push the fan base to the coasts as thats the only ones that are going to matter. I am telling you that this will STIFFLE baseball outside of the major cities not make it more competitive.

Reds/Flyers Fan
06-26-2011, 09:46 PM
I am telling you anything that does away with the Central is to allow more opportunities for the big markets to monopolize the playoffs and leave the fans in cities like Minnesota and Cincinnati out in the cold.

We're already in a division with a big market (Chicago), make that a mega market. We're just fortunate that the Cubs are fools and don't come close to maximizing their economic power.

If the Cubs were as well run as the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies and Braves, we'd be fighting for second every year and clammoring to get out of the central.

How long can we expect the Cubs to trip over themselves?

KronoRed
06-26-2011, 09:58 PM
How long can we expect the Cubs to trip over themselves?

Over 100 years and still going strong :D

KronoRed
06-26-2011, 10:01 PM
For me, the biggest things that need to be addressed is getting back to a balanced schedule and eliminating interleague play. These go hand in hand because it's not really possible to have balanced schedules IF you have interleague play.

Sure it is, with the 5-5-5-5-5-5 plan you could have every club play 72 games in its division (18 against each opponent); 72 games against the other clubs in the league (two clubs 8 times and the other eight 7 times each); 15 games against one of the divisions in the other league (3 against each team); and lastly 3 games against a 'traditional' interleague rival.
*schedule plan copied from a poster on another forum*

Johnny Footstool
06-26-2011, 11:03 PM
I'm all for competitive balance, but I'd rather address competitive balance with revenue sharing and salary caps than by pretending the team that wins the AL West deserves to make the postseason.

The Rangers pretended their way to a pretty good postseason last year.

_Sir_Charles_
06-27-2011, 12:05 PM
Sure it is, with the 5-5-5-5-5-5 plan you could have every club play 72 games in its division (18 against each opponent); 72 games against the other clubs in the league (two clubs 8 times and the other eight 7 times each); 15 games against one of the divisions in the other league (3 against each team); and lastly 3 games against a 'traditional' interleague rival.
*schedule plan copied from a poster on another forum*

But here's where you've strayed from a balanced schedule. One NL team would be facing the AL East, while another would be facing the AL West. And the traditional rivals...those aren't exactly all created equal either. We could be facing a 1st place Indians club while the Cards would be playing a bottom-feeding Royals club. When I say balanced schedule...I mean COMPLETELY balanced.

Slyder
06-27-2011, 12:08 PM
But here's where you've strayed from a balanced schedule. One NL team would be facing the AL East, while another would be facing the AL West. And the traditional rivals...those aren't exactly all created equal either.

Do like NFL and each division plays a team that finished in their position the previous year (IE AL East 3 plays NL East 3 one year, Then plays NL Central 3 the following, etc to try and keep those series fresh).

_Sir_Charles_
06-27-2011, 12:15 PM
Do like NFL and each division plays a team that finished in their position the previous year (IE AL East 3 plays NL East 3 one year, Then plays NL Central 3 the following, etc to try and keep those series fresh).

You still get inequalities. Some teams will end up facing much harder competiton.

Have a team play their NL division rivals 14 times each. 8 teams in each NL division so that's 98 games against in-division rivals. Then play the teams in the other other NL division 8 times each for a total of 64 games. 162.

Every team is facing the same opponents the same number of times...all year, every year. It's fair and balanced. In a tight race for a division title, we could feasibly lose out to the Cardinals by 1 game and it could all be because of the interleague "rivalry" games that gave them that edge.

Schmidt's got it right.

Chip R
06-27-2011, 01:43 PM
The fly in the ointment to all this realingment is interleague play. That's Selig's baby and they aren't going to get rid of it. If they had 32 teams, like the NFL, maybe they could do something about it but it's very difficult to get a fair schedule with interleague play with 30 teams.

cincinnati chili
06-28-2011, 12:30 AM
The Rangers pretended their way to a pretty good postseason last year.

I don't say this to pick on one division. This year the AL West sucks. By having 6 divisions, you increase the likelihood that some undeserving team (usually not in an Eastern division) will make the playoffs. We don't need divisions.

cincinnati chili
06-28-2011, 12:32 AM
You eliminate the opportunity of a Cleveland catching fire like they have by going to two divisions. Football has done it right . . . .

Cleveland has the 5th best record in the AL. In a best-five-teams-in-each-league make the playoff scenario, they'd make the playoffs.

I disagree that the NFL has done anything right. Three words:

2010 Seattle Seahawks.

KronoRed
06-28-2011, 01:36 AM
The fly in the ointment to all this realingment is interleague play. That's Selig's baby and they aren't going to get rid of it.

Nor should it, the leagues are not separate entities anymore, with 162 games to go around there is no reason for each league to pretend it is 1949 and the other league does not exist, the all star game is dull not because of interleague play but because nobody cares anymore about the labels, players move back and forth all the time in the age of free agency, it's not special and it never will be again.

I'd almost be in favor of abolishing the names and calling them conferences :D

AtomicDumpling
06-28-2011, 03:43 AM
I am in favor of going back to the format they used when baseball was the National Pastime and the most popular sport in the country. Baseball plays 162 games for one reason -- to make sure you know who the best team in the league is at the end of the year. There should be no divisions. Best team in each league goes to the World Series. I could live with having two divisions with only one team from each division making the playoffs. It worked great for decades. No more .500 teams in the playoffs! No more 2nd place teams winning the World Series! How can you claim to be the best team if you couldn't even win your own division?

It will never happen obviously, but that is what I would do if I were running the show.

Back in the Glory Days of baseball making the postseason meant that your team already had a great season your fans will never forget. Making the postseason was a hard-won reward for an epic struggle that validated your place in history. Nowadays making the postseason means almost nothing -- you still have to go a long, long way to win the World Series. Mediocre teams get hot in the playoffs and win the title most years. The best team rarely wins the title. My attention span is long enough that I don't have to make the playoffs every year. I just want it to be special and exciting when I do get there.

If you like nearly meaningless regular seasons and months-long playoffs you can have the NBA, NHL and NFL. Baseball historically has been different. The World Series was a showcase of two great teams meeting to fight for the ultimate prize -- now it is just another championship among many sports championships every year. Why cheapen it further by continually lowering the bar for admission into the playoffs?

Chip R
06-28-2011, 09:24 AM
Nor should it, the leagues are not separate entities anymore, with 162 games to go around there is no reason for each league to pretend it is 1949 and the other league does not exist, the all star game is dull not because of interleague play but because nobody cares anymore about the labels, players move back and forth all the time in the age of free agency, it's not special and it never will be again.

I'd almost be in favor of abolishing the names and calling them conferences :D

That's fine but, again, you can't have a fair schedule with interleague play. If there were 2 more or fewer teams, you could work something out but you either have to split them up 15-15 or like it is now which is 16-14. It doesn't mater too much in the NHL and NBA since they play half the games MLB does and everyone plays everyone at least once. If some genius would like to figure out a schedule where AL and NL teams play each other one game home and home and then everyone else in their own league the same number of times, interleague play would work. But you don't see the Lakers playing the Celtics 6 times while San Antonio plays the Celtics once.

Sea Ray
06-28-2011, 10:52 AM
I disagree. Simply because this plan makes for one monumental change...8 teams from each league makes the playoffs. EIGHT. The way I look at it, if you can't manage to be at least one of the best 4 teams in your division...you don't deserve to be in the playoffs...small market or not.

For me, the biggest things that need to be addressed is getting back to a balanced schedule and eliminating interleague play. These go hand in hand because it's not really possible to have balanced schedules IF you have interleague play.

Why in the world would you want 8 teams to make the playoffs? This isn't the NHL. With that system the Phillies could rest their regulars for the rest of the season. Don't you want games to mean anything? You will also likely have a sub .500 team making the playoffs. It's a mockery of the playoff system and the tradition of baseball

_Sir_Charles_
06-28-2011, 11:19 AM
Why in the world would you want 8 teams to make the playoffs? This isn't the NHL. With that system the Phillies could rest their regulars for the rest of the season. Don't you want games to mean anything? You will also likely have a sub .500 team making the playoffs. It's a mockery of the playoff system and the tradition of baseball

I don't. I'd prefer it be 4...but I was pointing out that this is what Schmidt was proposing. People were arguing that his proposal would effectively cut out the small market teams. Not if it was 8 teams per league it wouldn't.

Sea Ray
06-28-2011, 12:04 PM
I think we need three divisions in order to protect the small market teams. Not just the Reds but the Twins, Indians and Brewers too. Even though baseball is hot right now in Milwaukee and Minny, it won't last. It'll fizzle out like it did in Cleveland. If we have to have 8 teams in the playoffs, I'd go to 4 divisions. When does Schmidt think the season would end?

Chip R
06-28-2011, 12:56 PM
I think we need three divisions in order to protect the small market teams. Not just the Reds but the Twins, Indians and Brewers too. Even though baseball is hot right now in Milwaukee and Minny, it won't last. It'll fizzle out like it did in Cleveland. If we have to have 8 teams in the playoffs, I'd go to 4 divisions. When does Schmidt think the season would end?

Probably November - like it did last year and the year before.

What I'd find ideal is 4 divisions with 4 teams in each division. No wild card. Unfortunately, the AL can't do that and the wild card is so loved that it's a no-hoper.

I just don't see what the attraction to all these teams making the post-season is. I suppose if some .500 team wins their division or gets a wild card they can claim they are a success. I'd like to see the regular season mean something.

Johnny Footstool
06-28-2011, 03:53 PM
Divisions create rivalries, which spur fan excitement, which drives ticket sales and higher TV ratings.

Throwing everyone into one big division is a lot less interesting.

Roy Tucker
06-28-2011, 03:57 PM
I am in favor of going back to the format they used when baseball was the National Pastime and the most popular sport in the country. Baseball plays 162 games for one reason -- to make sure you know who the best team in the league is at the end of the year. There should be no divisions. Best team in each league goes to the World Series. I could live with having two divisions with only one team from each division making the playoffs. It worked great for decades. No more .500 teams in the playoffs! No more 2nd place teams winning the World Series! How can you claim to be the best team if you couldn't even win your own division?

It will never happen obviously, but that is what I would do if I were running the show.

Back in the Glory Days of baseball making the postseason meant that your team already had a great season your fans will never forget. Making the postseason was a hard-won reward for an epic struggle that validated your place in history. Nowadays making the postseason means almost nothing -- you still have to go a long, long way to win the World Series. Mediocre teams get hot in the playoffs and win the title most years. The best team rarely wins the title. My attention span is long enough that I don't have to make the playoffs every year. I just want it to be special and exciting when I do get there.

If you like nearly meaningless regular seasons and months-long playoffs you can have the NBA, NHL and NFL. Baseball historically has been different. The World Series was a showcase of two great teams meeting to fight for the ultimate prize -- now it is just another championship among many sports championships every year. Why cheapen it further by continually lowering the bar for admission into the playoffs?

I think I wrote this rant once. Well done. But I think its a lost cause. Playoffs won't contract, only expand. Too much money.

1993 was the last great pennant race. A 103-59 team didn't make the playoffs. I don't think we'll see 2 giants with great records fighting it out till the last day any more and the loser suffering a cruel fate again. It all gets watered-down.

Sea Ray
06-28-2011, 04:02 PM
Probably November - like it did last year and the year before.

What I'd find ideal is 4 divisions with 4 teams in each division. No wild card. Unfortunately, the AL can't do that and the wild card is so loved that it's a no-hoper.

I just don't see what the attraction to all these teams making the post-season is. I suppose if some .500 team wins their division or gets a wild card they can claim they are a success. I'd like to see the regular season mean something.

Schmidt's plan would add ar least a week onto the season, so it'd likely be mid November. We could start a pool on what would come first, the end of the World Series or the OSU-Mich football game...

_Sir_Charles_
06-28-2011, 04:09 PM
I am in favor of going back to the format they used when baseball was the National Pastime and the most popular sport in the country. Baseball plays 162 games for one reason -- to make sure you know who the best team in the league is at the end of the year. There should be no divisions. Best team in each league goes to the World Series. I could live with having two divisions with only one team from each division making the playoffs. It worked great for decades. No more .500 teams in the playoffs! No more 2nd place teams winning the World Series! How can you claim to be the best team if you couldn't even win your own division?

It will never happen obviously, but that is what I would do if I were running the show.

Back in the Glory Days of baseball making the postseason meant that your team already had a great season your fans will never forget. Making the postseason was a hard-won reward for an epic struggle that validated your place in history. Nowadays making the postseason means almost nothing -- you still have to go a long, long way to win the World Series. Mediocre teams get hot in the playoffs and win the title most years. The best team rarely wins the title. My attention span is long enough that I don't have to make the playoffs every year. I just want it to be special and exciting when I do get there.

If you like nearly meaningless regular seasons and months-long playoffs you can have the NBA, NHL and NFL. Baseball historically has been different. The World Series was a showcase of two great teams meeting to fight for the ultimate prize -- now it is just another championship among many sports championships every year. Why cheapen it further by continually lowering the bar for admission into the playoffs?

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I agree whole-heartedly. I unfortunately agree that it'll never happen. I think the best we can hope for is a minimum of 4 teams per league making the playoffs (which is why I said I was in favor of that version as opposed to Schmidt's 8 team version). But I would absolutely love to see us go back to a 2 division format in each league with only the division winners advancing. I loathe the idea of second place teams winning the world series. It cheapens the accomplishment substantially IMO.

If they absolutely MUST have 4 teams per league make the playoffs...then they have to go to 4 divisions per league. It eliminates the possibility of 2nd place teams winning it all.

Johnny Footstool
06-28-2011, 04:22 PM
I think I wrote this rant once. Well done. But I think its a lost cause. Playoffs won't contract, only expand. Too much money.

1993 was the last great pennant race. A 103-59 team didn't make the playoffs. I don't think we'll see 2 giants with great records fighting it out till the last day any more and the loser suffering a cruel fate again. It all gets watered-down.

No, now we get to see 3 or 4 teams vying for the last playoff spot, and a chance to Cinderella their way to a championship. That's not watered down, IMO.

KronoRed
06-28-2011, 05:14 PM
Divisions create rivalries, which spur fan excitement, which drives ticket sales and higher TV ratings.

Throwing everyone into one big division is a lot less interesting.

Indeed, hard to get excited about "Woo! we finished 14th!"

I'll also say that's a problem with even Mike's 8 team divisions, attendance would fall.

KronoRed
06-28-2011, 05:24 PM
That's fine but, again, you can't have a fair schedule with interleague play. If there were 2 more or fewer teams, you could work something out but you either have to split them up 15-15 or like it is now which is 16-14. It doesn't mater too much in the NHL and NBA since they play half the games MLB does and everyone plays everyone at least once. If some genius would like to figure out a schedule where AL and NL teams play each other one game home and home and then everyone else in their own league the same number of times, interleague play would work. But you don't see the Lakers playing the Celtics 6 times while San Antonio plays the Celtics once.

174 Game schedule, play everyone else 6 times, that's the only true balanced schedule.:D

Slyder
06-29-2011, 02:34 PM
Assuming the initial 8 team divisions:
East:
1 Atlanta
2 Florida
3 New York
4 Washington
5 Philadelphia

6 Pittsburgh
7 Cincinnati
8 Milwaukee/Houston/expansion team?? (they arent splitting up St Louis/Chicago for "traditional reasons)

OR
1 Arizona
2 Colorado
3 Los Angeles
4 San Diego
5 San Francisco

6 Cincinnati
7 St Louis
8 Chicago

So insteads of having to compete with St Louis and Chicago you want to go to a division where you have to beat NY, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Washington (who is just beginning to spend like their market should allow) or head out west where we go back to multiple cross country trips? I am sorry neither is a recipe for sustained success unless we return to the days of Marge Schott spending without gutting the scouting.

AtomicDumpling
07-03-2011, 05:34 PM
No, now we get to see 3 or 4 teams vying for the last playoff spot, and a chance to Cinderella their way to a championship. That's not watered down, IMO.

But that playoff spot they are battling for is a lot less valuable when it is just one of 8 playoff slots (instead of 2 or 4 like it used to be) -- so therefore the "pennant race" is now a lot less exciting than it used to be.

Back in the day a pennant race consisted of two great teams battling it out for a chance at immortality. Nowadays a pennant race consists of several mediocre teams scrambling for an undeserved chance to squeak into a big post-season tournament. That is a lot less compelling for me as a connoisseur of baseball legends and lore.

It is going to be hard for an 87 win team to generate a "shot heard round the world" type of epic moment if all they earn is the last slot in an 8+ team playoff tournament.

mth123
07-03-2011, 05:53 PM
But that playoff spot they are battling for is a lot less valuable when it is just one of 8 playoff slots (instead of 2 or 4 like it used to be) -- so therefore the "pennant race" is now a lot less exciting than it used to be.

Back in the day a pennant race consisted of two great teams battling it out for a chance at immortality. Nowadays a pennant race consists of several mediocre teams scrambling for an undeserved chance to squeak into a big post-season tournament. That is a lot less compelling for me as a connoisseur of baseball legends and lore.

It is going to be hard for an 87 win team to generate a "shot heard round the world" type of epic moment if all they earn is the last slot in an 8+ team playoff tournament.

Exactly how I feel. I understand the need for expanded play-offs and even agree that its for the best, but it sure takes away a lot of the lore of it all.

IslandRed
07-03-2011, 06:01 PM
I disagree that the NFL has done anything right. Three words:

2010 Seattle Seahawks.

And yet, I would be surprised if anyone could name a single person -- a real, live, person -- who stopped being a fan of the NFL -- as in, went from big fan to shunning the sport forever -- because those Seattle Seahawks made the playoffs.

Similarly, for all the hand-wringing and griping over interleague play and its questionable benefits, I would bet the number of diehard baseball fans who genuinely quit following the game specifically because of interleague play could fit in a hotel lobby. And I don't mean a Vegas casino hotel lobby, either. I mean a Days-Inn-next-to-the-interstate lobby.

Much as I hate to say it, the people who run these sports generally have a good idea of how far they can push us.

cincinnati chili
07-05-2011, 04:04 AM
And yet, I would be surprised if anyone could name a single person -- a real, live, person -- who stopped being a fan of the NFL -- as in, went from big fan to shunning the sport forever -- because those Seattle Seahawks made the playoffs.

Similarly, for all the hand-wringing and griping over interleague play and its questionable benefits, I would bet the number of diehard baseball fans who genuinely quit following the game specifically because of interleague play could fit in a hotel lobby. And I don't mean a Vegas casino hotel lobby, either. I mean a Days-Inn-next-to-the-interstate lobby.

Much as I hate to say it, the people who run these sports generally have a good idea of how far they can push us.

But having your customers tolerate your mistaken decisions isn't exactly creating goodwill. Your right about people not quitting baseball over interleague play but when a good chunk of your fans have bad tastes in their mouths, even a semi-conscious bad taste, they may attend fewer games, watch less often, etc., without even realizing it.

I'm not going to stop watching baseball if MLB refuses to adopt my realignment plans. But I would cut way, way back if they forced the Reds or the Rockies (the teams I watch the most) to use the DH on a regular basis. So maybe there's someone out there as passionate about his team remaining in the same league (i.e. Astros fan who doesn't want to be moved to the AL).

Johnny Footstool
07-05-2011, 03:27 PM
But that playoff spot they are battling for is a lot less valuable when it is just one of 8 playoff slots (instead of 2 or 4 like it used to be) -- so therefore the "pennant race" is now a lot less exciting than it used to be.

Back in the day a pennant race consisted of two great teams battling it out for a chance at immortality. Nowadays a pennant race consists of several mediocre teams scrambling for an undeserved chance to squeak into a big post-season tournament. That is a lot less compelling for me as a connoisseur of baseball legends and lore.

It is going to be hard for an 87 win team to generate a "shot heard round the world" type of epic moment if all they earn is the last slot in an 8+ team playoff tournament.


Baseball is at its best when a scrappy bunch of loveable losers somehow defies the odds and wins a championship. A greater number of playoff teams means more chances for a huge upset. Who doesn't like rooting for the underdog?

traderumor
07-05-2011, 03:32 PM
Baseball is at its best when a scrappy bunch of loveable losers somehow defies the odds and wins a championship. A greater number of playoff teams means more chances for a huge upset. Who doesn't like rooting for the underdog?Me if my team is playing the underdog :D

Johnny Footstool
07-05-2011, 03:47 PM
Me if my team is playing the underdog :D

Assuming your team is the Reds, I don't think you have much to worry about these days.

AtomicDumpling
07-05-2011, 04:36 PM
Baseball is at its best when a scrappy bunch of loveable losers somehow defies the odds and wins a championship. A greater number of playoff teams means more chances for a huge upset. Who doesn't like rooting for the underdog?

Then why play 162 games if your goal is to have lovable losers win championships? Maybe we could allow all teams into the playoffs and have a single-elimination tournament like they do in NCAA basketball.

I see what you are saying, but that is the way all the other sports work. Baseball has historically been different.

To baseball purists the idea of 2nd-place teams or 85-win teams winning the World Series is anathema. World Series teams are supposed to be great teams full of star players -- not mediocre teams that get a second chance to get hot at the right time after they have proven themselves over 162 games to be inferior to other teams.

The World Series is supposed to be a national showcase featuring the best team in the National League against the best team in the American League in an epic duel for immortality.

Since the playoffs were expanded to 8 teams the World Series is now merely the last round of a month-long tournament, rarely features the best teams and rarely generates any lasting memories.

mth123
07-05-2011, 08:02 PM
Put me down as a guy who appreciates sustained excellence. I don't see any reason why a team that can't finish first in its own division over 162 games should get a shot to win the championship. They have already proven over a long schedule designed to separate the men from the boys that they aren't the best team.

I get the need for having more teams involved and providing hope to the masses, but still wish we didn't have to drop our standards to make that happen.

Slyder
07-05-2011, 08:18 PM
Put me down as a guy who appreciates sustained excellence. I don't see any reason why a team that can't finish first in its own division over 162 games should get a shot to win the championship. They have already proven over a long schedule designed to separate the men from the boys that they aren't the best team.

I get the need for having more teams involved and providing hope to the masses, but still wish we didn't have to drop our standards to make that happen.

Then why not reward the teams that seperate themselves from the rest of the division by giving one more wild card and giving the "best" the extra advantage of being better able to set their rotation for playoffs?

Johnny Footstool
07-06-2011, 11:28 AM
Then why not reward the teams that seperate themselves from the rest of the division by giving one more wild card and giving the "best" the extra advantage of being better able to set their rotation for playoffs?

An extended down-time works in football and some other sports, but doesn't really help baseball players. More than a day or two, and players tend to be less sharp.

Redlegs
07-07-2011, 10:45 AM
If they're among the best four teams in the AL every year (or best 5 or best 6 if Selig expands the playoffs) then I have no problem with that.

I'm all for competitive balance, but I'd rather address competitive balance with revenue sharing and salary caps than by pretending the team that wins the AL West deserves to make the postseason.

Also, Boston and New York (Yanks) are pretty much making the postseason every year anyway (the latter all but one year for the past 15 or so)

Agree 100%. Time for baseball to get with the times and have a salary cap. Allow teams to win based on their ability to make tough cap decisions in addition to scouting and development. I'm so tired of teams being in the post-season based on where they're located on the map.