true, but this is one thing that could help teams like the reds. if i were a team like the yankees or dodgers i would not like this. why? because any baseball team can get hot and win a short series. big-market teams have so many advantages in MLB; this could be one advantage for small-market teams. if you get in the dance, you've got a chance.Originally Posted by TNRED
RiverRat13 (12-04-2020)
Yeah, I have long thought that if you're going to let so many non division winning teams in, you should at least make it more difficult for them to actually advance all the way to the WS.
Look at the NFL. Most wild card teams have to play all of their games on the road. MLB should be the same. Division winners should get almost all their playoff games at home and wild cards should have to play ALL on the road. Once you get to LDS, the team with the better regular season record (assuming both division winners) gets the entire series at home. Best record in the league gets you home field through the LCS. That would give extra incentive to winning as many games as possible instead of just winning enough to coast in.
World Series can stay as it always has. A wild card team making it that far would've earned some home games by that point.
Last edited by TexasRedsFan; 12-03-2020 at 08:42 PM.
I disagree. If we are going to have more teams in, than the ones who perform worse during the season should have to face elimination more often. I say one game play-in for all but the top 2 teams in each league. Make lots of drama and make it more desirable to perform better over 162 games.
My preference is that we have only a League Championship with the top two teams in each league and a Worled Series. Those series can be longer if necessary to add revenue, but best of seven seems fine to me. There is nothing more boring to me than the NBA play-offs dragging on for 2 and a half months. Unless you are a fan of one of the teams playing until the end, it becomes more like boring regular season games after the first few games. Baseball is headed that direction IMO. Adding more play-offs cheapens the play-offs and the regular season has becime more liek Spring Training. I hate the idea.
Baseball has always been about managing the 162 game endurance test and coming out on top at then end. The reason those games in the middle fo June seem meaningless is because we've cheapened them with more play-off teams. I think a priority needs to be given to winning the 162 game season, so if we must have all thses teams making it, there definitely needs to be a huge advantage for having a better record. Avoiding that 1 game one or done scenario seems the best that can be done.
Just have an NCAA Style single elimination tournament with all 30 (expand to 32) teams untl we get to the final four where it becomes 3 seven game series to finsih it up. If they have to hsave more games, do best of three at the "Sweet Sixteen" and best of five at the "Elite Eight" and best of seven from there, but the crummy teams need to either be miracle teams making an upset run or fall away quickly. Dragging on with bottom feeders isn't the way to make baseball more appealing. This would motivate all teams to try to win during the season to get a better seed. There would always be something to play for. No more completely out of it and playing out the string.
Last edited by mth123; 12-04-2020 at 05:32 AM.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
You might as well just flip a coin until you get to the 7 game series. I don't personally see much drama with an event that is almost completely random chance. I know that's probably just me, but a weekday Monday afternoon game in October to determine who gets to advance to a five game series after playing 162 games is just the most boring thing. Who really thinks of that as a playoff appearance? Does anyone here relish that 2013 "playoff appearance"? Do Pirates fans look back fondly on winning a "playoff round" in 2013?
On the rest of this, MLB should create something like the MLS Supporters Shield to award the best regular season record in each league. It should be a big enough deal to put a flag up, the whole deal. Would make it a little easier to swallow further diluting the playoffs.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
I like the one-game model a lot better than the five-game model. Also like avoiding the one-game playoff as the reward for winning your division.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
I don't think there's any version of the playoffs which can do a better job at determining who the best team is than the 162 game schedule does. The sample sizes are just too small and the spread of talent too narrow.
That said, if the teams really want to capitalize on the $$ and drama of a big playoff system, I'd be really interested to see a structure like the Korean one. It allows you to expand the field but tilt the advantage much more in favor of the higher seeds. They use a "step-ladder" system that works thusly. #1 seed gets a bye to the finals. Lowest 2 seeds have a "play-in" game or series to compete in a "play-in" game/series against the next highest seed. And so on. The winner of that process faces the #1 seed in a 7 game series.
That system puts the lower seeds at major disadvantages of having to win more games and having to face an opponent that can start at the top of their rotation. On top of that, you can add in game-up advantages to the higher seeds.
With a big field, I think you would have to do it bracket style with two 4-team brackets. Otherwise there's too big of a layoff for the top seed. For example, here's how it might look with MLB going to four 8-team divisions and 8 teams in each league making the playoffs.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Edd Roush (12-04-2020)
This is the argument that I'm receptive to for sure, I do get this point of view.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
M2 (12-04-2020)
Just tossing it out there, what if they did a group play round?
Four divisions, each group features a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th from each division. Higher seed hosts all the games. You could play a six-game group stage over 9 days. Top two in each group advance to a quarterfinals round (or league semifinals round if they're keeping the league structure).
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote