SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Playoff expansion likely to be permanent
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 16, 2020 11:19:05 GMT -5
Buried in this article about MLB's plans for this year's playoffs is a near-promise from Manfred to ruin baseball: Why the hell would anyone care about the 162-game regular season when 16 teams make the playoffs? As I said elsewhere, all the drama is going to be about which 79-83 teams sneak into the playoffs, and if you're a fan of a really great team you'll just have to sit around for months, waiting to see if you win a coin flip of a three-game series with the 79-win team. These owners won't be satisfied until baseball is dead and buried in the ground.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 16, 2020 11:28:18 GMT -5
Buried in this article about MLB's plans for this year's playoffs is a near-promise from Manfred to ruin baseball: Why the hell would anyone care about the 162-game regular season when 16 teams make the playoffs? As I said elsewhere, all the drama is going to be about which 79-83 teams sneak into the playoffs, and if you're a fan of a really great team you'll just have to sit around for months, waiting to see if you win a coin flip of a three-game series with the 79-win team. These owners won't be satisfied until baseball is dead and buried in the ground. At this point, i have to agree with you. That is far too many teams, given the amount of games they play. An expansion of the playoffs is probably necessary, because they will see that it will bring in more gate / rights fees. Given their losses this year, I think it is fair to allow that to happen. But that is too much for me. I would rather they just added another 2 teams, which would make it 12 teams with top 4 seeds getting a bye, or something like that.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,632
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 16, 2020 11:40:39 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 16, 2020 11:46:27 GMT -5
Here is a question for stats guys: what are the odds of the best team winning a short series (or a single game) in each major sport? Or, since “best” is not a clear variable.... the percent of upsets historically? I ask because my perception — and I am guessing this is shared — is that baseball has by far the best chance of an upset in a single game or short series of major sports. I mean, the NBA seems like it is all a preshow before a handful of teams that everyone could pick before game one play in the last few rounds of the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 16, 2020 11:46:29 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Sept 16, 2020 12:04:33 GMT -5
The current system is ideal, but I could live with 12 teams (six AL, six NL) if a three-game opening round omitted off days. Go back to 154 games while we’re at it.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 16, 2020 12:21:21 GMT -5
The current system is ideal, but I could live with 12 teams (six AL, six NL) if a three-game opening round omitted off days. Go back to 154 games while we’re at it. 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.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 16, 2020 12:35:19 GMT -5
Here is a question for stats guys: what are the odds of the best team winning a short series (or a single game) in each major sport? Or, since “best” is not a clear variable.... the percent of upsets historically? I ask because my perception — and I am guessing this is shared — is that baseball has by far the best chance of an upset in a single game or short series of major sports. I mean, the NBA seems like it is all a preshow before a handful of teams that everyone could pick before game one play in the last few rounds of the playoffs. I don't know the exact answer to that question, but the Dodgers are pretty indisputably the best team in the majors, and fangraphs currently gives them an 18% chance of winning the World Series. That's the result of having to make it through four rounds of playoffs, including short series, when there is just structurally such a high degree of randomness in the outcome of baseball games. ADD: Collectively, the five teams with the best odds combine for just a 53% chance of winning the WS. In other words, there's almost a 1-in-2 chance that the World Series winner won't be one of the top five teams. Pretty sure that wouldn't be the case in the NBA.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,632
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 16, 2020 13:26:08 GMT -5
The current system is ideal, but I could live with 12 teams (six AL, six NL) if a three-game opening round omitted off days. Go back to 154 games while we’re at it. 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.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 16, 2020 13:42:34 GMT -5
Playing in the snow might be fun. I always enjoy that in football with heaters on the sidelines and players unable to get their footing....umpires would be in pratfalls, making wrong calls because they can't see the base lines, uniforms dirty and sopping. Yep baseball's been too coddled.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 16, 2020 14:28:17 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Sept 16, 2020 14:42:42 GMT -5
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. If it went to 12 teams, I'd want MLB to return to two divisions each in the AL and NL. The two division winners (back to AL East, AL West, NL East, and NL West) in each league would get a bye while the other four would play in with a three-day, three-game series at the higher seeds' parks. In doing so, you'd incentivize more teams to go for it, but still reward the truly great teams over a 154-game sample size. One can dream...
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,632
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 16, 2020 14:47:22 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Sept 16, 2020 14:51:25 GMT -5
I would be really disappointed if this happened.
The 2018 regular season was less entertaining than it should have been for me, because I was dreading the possibility of them winning 104 games and getting stuck in the BS 1 game wildcard playoff spot.
At some point I am going to care more about winning a lot of regular season games than winning a series of coinflips at the end.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,632
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 16, 2020 14:54:05 GMT -5
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. If it went to 12 teams, I'd want MLB to return to two divisions each in the AL and NL. The two division winners (back to AL East, AL West, NL East, and NL West) in each league would get a bye while the other four would play in with a three-day, three-game series at the higher seeds' parks. In doing so, you'd incentivize more teams to go for it, but still reward the truly great teams over a 154-game sample size. One can dream... 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.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Sept 16, 2020 18:21:17 GMT -5
Manfred needs to go. He's done more to destroy Baseball than Bettmans southern expansion did to the NHL in the 90s. Thats saying something. Keep baseball unique.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 16, 2020 20:54:20 GMT -5
We just learned an important and interesting fact: most of the owners are not baseball fans. Because no baseball fan likes this idea.
Folks, let us pray.
Let us pray that the Dodgers lose their 3-game series when the #8 seed racks up five times as many cheap hits, and for no other apparent reason. [1]
(Remember that the Sox were down 3-1 to the Indians in 2007 on nothing at all but luck.)
And the same thing happens to the Yankees, and by some strange coincidence, to all the most popular teams, leading to the worst TV ratings for the rest of the playoffs in history.
Let's hope they're smart enough to poll the fans on this.
[1] Actually, let's throw in two terrible calls on 3-2 pitches, one a strike called with the Dodgers hitting when the tying run would have been walked in, and one with them pitching that extends an inning, with the next batter hitting a 3-run bomb that proves to be the game-winner. Then you get a quicker implementation of robot umps, too!
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 16, 2020 22:32:39 GMT -5
We just learned an important and interesting fact: most of the owners are not baseball fans. Because no baseball fan likes this idea.
Folks, let us pray.
Let us pray that the Dodgers lose their 3-game series when the #8 seed racks up five times as many cheap hits, and for no other apparent reason. [1]
(Remember that the Sox were down 3-1 to the Indians in 2007 on nothing at all but luck.)
And the same thing happens to the Yankees, and by some strange coincidence, to all the most popular teams, leading to the worst TV ratings for the rest of the playoffs in history.
Let's hope they're smart enough to poll the fans on this.
[1] Actually, let's throw in two terrible calls on 3-2 pitches, one a strike called with the Dodgers hitting when the tying run would have been walked in, and one with them pitching that extends an inning, with the next batter hitting a 3-run bomb that proves to be the game-winner. Then you get a quicker implementation of robot umps, too!
Of course the nightmare is that the Yankees get into the playoffs as the 7 seed or whatever and then go all the way. In addition to being a crime against humanity, it would probably make the owners feel vindicated in this plan. I will be rooting for ratings to absolutely tank if they go ahead with this next season. It might be the only thing that could save them from their own stupidity.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 17, 2020 7:07:21 GMT -5
We just learned an important and interesting fact: most of the owners are not baseball fans. Because no baseball fan likes this idea.
Folks, let us pray.
Let us pray that the Dodgers lose their 3-game series when the #8 seed racks up five times as many cheap hits, and for no other apparent reason. [1]
(Remember that the Sox were down 3-1 to the Indians in 2007 on nothing at all but luck.)
And the same thing happens to the Yankees, and by some strange coincidence, to all the most popular teams, leading to the worst TV ratings for the rest of the playoffs in history.
Let's hope they're smart enough to poll the fans on this.
[1] Actually, let's throw in two terrible calls on 3-2 pitches, one a strike called with the Dodgers hitting when the tying run would have been walked in, and one with them pitching that extends an inning, with the next batter hitting a 3-run bomb that proves to be the game-winner. Then you get a quicker implementation of robot umps, too!
Of course the nightmare is that the Yankees get into the playoffs as the 7 seed or whatever and then go all the way. In addition to being a crime against humanity, it would probably make the owners feel vindicated in this plan. I will be rooting for ratings to absolutely tank if they go ahead with this next season. It might be the only thing that could save them from their own stupidity. 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!
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 17, 2020 8:30:36 GMT -5
Of course the nightmare is that the Yankees get into the playoffs as the 7 seed or whatever and then go all the way. In addition to being a crime against humanity, it would probably make the owners feel vindicated in this plan. I will be rooting for ratings to absolutely tank if they go ahead with this next season. It might be the only thing that could save them from their own stupidity. 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! I would “modestly” add that the losing team gets eaten, too.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 17, 2020 8:30:37 GMT -5
The current system is ideal, but I could live with 12 teams (six AL, six NL) if a three-game opening round omitted off days. Go back to 154 games while we’re at it. 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. Yeah, like 2004. That one felt cheap as hell.To be clear, I hate this idea as well.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 17, 2020 8:34:02 GMT -5
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. Yeah, like 2004. That one felt cheap as hell.To be clear, I hate this idea as well. True: note I revised further on.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 17, 2020 8:59:06 GMT -5
Based on a bazillion tweets, articles, etc. Almost everyone not named Manfred (as opposed to manfred) hates it.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Sept 17, 2020 9:08:42 GMT -5
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! I would “modestly” add that the losing team gets eaten, too. Yes! 18th century lit has been the missing ingredient on this board for years!
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,632
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 17, 2020 9:33:14 GMT -5
Based on a bazillion tweets, articles, etc. Almost everyone not named Manfred (as opposed to manfred) hates it. Exactly. So we can expect it to happen. Maybe to get millenials interested they can narrow the games to 5 innings or 2 hours long, whichever happens first so that their attention spans can hang in there. (Yes, I'm being very sarcastic with that line) I mean, who cares anyways, they're just playing for that stupid metal thing (isn't that roughly what Manfred referred to the trophy?) I swear it is so disheartening to see baseball runs by a commissioner who doesn't even like baseball (for all of Selig's faults I do think he genuinely loved the game) at the control of owners (the majority of them) who only care about one thing and one thing only - profits.
|
|
|