Playoff expansion likely to be permanent

I'll preach to the choir.

If Rob Manfred allows this to happen and I have no doubt he will, he deserves to be fired and owners deserve to permanently have no fans attend their games.

What the hell is the point of a 162 game season if all you have to do is be a .500 team (not even) to make the playoffs?

It renders the regular season near meaningless. No more pennant races at all.

It's funny, but I put up a big stink 25 years ago when wild cards were allowed into the game. I didn't like the fact that true pennant races were gone and that the emphasis was taken off of finishing in first place. I didn't like how wild cards entered the regular season on the same ground as the division winners.

But with the division winners raised from 2 to 3, you knew that would really increase the odds of an 82-79 division winner, so that watered down finishing in first place.

They did come up with the second wild card and the sudden death playoff game, which is something you really want to avoid - so at least that did something to preserve some sanctity of the reward for finishing in first place.

But my biggest concern all those years ago would be that the Pandora's box would be open and sooner or later EVERYBODY (or just about) would make the playoffs turning it into a tournament where it's so watered down there would be absolutely no relevance to the regular season.

At this point I guess we can expect 7 inning double headers to become the norm, runners starting at 2b with no outs in extra innings, or maybe they can do home run derby instead or just declare ties after 9.

Manfred and the owners are destroying baseball to the point it is truly sickening to me.

paste and cut from Chris' tweet link:



Josh Kraushaar @hotlinejosh
4h

Towards the end of the negotiations over restarting the season, I wrote that this is all about setting up for the 2022 negotiations. MLB wants expand playoffs for 2020 & 21 so it will be the status quo. MLBPA recognized that & agreed to only expand playoffs in 20. That leaves 21 subject to future negotiations, but more importantly after the 21 postseason, when the CBA reopens that December, it is something MLB has to give something up in order to get.

Expanded post season to this degree means a lot of things. First, it means more revenue. MLBPA had proposed a 50/50 split of increased TV revenue in exchange for expanded playoffs. MLB balked and eventually took the proposal off the table for 21. The future split of increased TV revenue is the key to this deal for the players.

But, if making the playoffs is easier, the value of a marginal win is less valuable, perhaps meaningless. Greatly expanded playoffs will suppress player salaries, especially for players who add only marginal value. Stars will continue to add significant value, but journeyman who are slightly better than another will have essentially no value over the league minimum. This leads to a discussion of raising league minimums (a rising tide lifts all boats) & 40-man roster compensation in the minors.

Third, how does this affect length of the regular season, during which players receive their individually negotiated salaries (or reserve clause salaries). If the season is shortened to accommodate longer playoffs, how does that affect those salaries?

Ultimately, expansion of the playoffs is going to be a key provision in the next CBA negotiations. I don't think it was a tactical error by the Commissioner to say it publicly. Everyone knew it was coming as a proposal.

Fans need to brace themselves for some kind of playoff expansion, because really it's about compensation, not right and wrong. If MLB puts enough money on the table, in the right format to make it palatable for the players (not just the Union) it will be agreed. So format of pay matters - it has to benefit 40-man roster players, those holding onto a bench job, and veterans who aren't much better than those on the bench.

I can live with it, but it feels cheap. If the Sox win a WS after finishing behind the Yankees, it is not the same as beating them pillar to post.

I agree with the sentiment I think you're trying to convey, but I would point out that the Yankees finished ahead of the Red Sox in 2004 (by 3 games in the AL East race) but that didn't stop any of us from enjoying the pennant and eventual World Series win.

Well, there is something to being a spoiler underdog!!

Ok, let me be a homer: I’d be pissed if the Sox kicked butt all season and a .500 8-seed went on some ridiculous tear to win it all.

I mean, we had the 1973 Mets sneak in at 82-79, but they beat out the other 5 teams in their division. The 1984 Royals finished 84-78 and finished first and beat out 6 other teams. Same with the '87 Twins who went 85-77 and also won the World Series.

At least those teams beat out everybody in the division. There is an accomplishment beating out half a dozen teams in your division even if it's not a great record, but to finish in the middle of the pack and make the playoffs - and yeah, we'd see some sub-.500 teams who might even make the post-season and possibly win the pennant and/or World Series. To me, that feels different than a weak division winner getting in.

While I'm at it I'll throw out a trivia question - name the only sub-.500 team to ever make the post-season.







The 1981 KC Royals who finished a combined 50-53. They had a 20-30 first half and a 30-23 division winning 2nd half during that strike shortened split season.

The Texas Rangers in 1994 had a chance to be the second. They were in first place with a record about 10 games under .500 but luckily the strike put them out of their misery.

If this comes to pass, we'll have others.

Byes would work. Another thought I have is what if you have a one seed play a series against an 8 seed where they're spotted a game in a best of five series or even two games in a best of five so that the 8 seed would have to sweep the #1 seed to advance.

Maybe a #2 seed gets one game spotted in a best of five against a #7.

Sounds crazy, but when you do these kinds of things....

Otherwise, what real benefit is there in a seeding when it's so crapshoot? If you truly give incentives to be the best or second best team in the league, then that's the only way it works. HFA really doesn't do much, nor does the #1 playing the #8. In a best of 5, the #8 can knock out the #1 about 1/4 or 1/3 of the time I'd think. I'd like to see where it takes a miracle for the #8 to beat the #1.

Like I said, if you spot the #1 a two game lead in a best of five and you make it necessary for the #8 to go on the road to win three straight, then you can justify a #8 moving on. Otherwise, I can't see why a #8 would even remotely deserve to have a real chance to move on to the next round.

But we know that ownership wouldn't do the "spot the highest seed games" because they'd lose the game revenue and if you do the "bye" thing, it could throw off the top teams due to too much rest and getting out of the rhythm - kind of like what the 2007 Rockies ran into.

If I could write like Jonathan Swift, I'd pen a piece suggesting that whoever is leading after 3 hours should win. That would make the game so much easier to televise!

Yeah, like 2004. That one felt cheap as hell.

To be clear, I hate this idea as well.

Based on a bazillion tweets, articles, etc. Almost everyone not named Manfred (as opposed to manfred) hates it.