Expanding the postseason

Post by Tarkus
Two more wild-card teams would add drama, create incentive to finish in
first place
Stark By Jayson Stark
ESPN.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings1000909

With a little creativity, we could postpone the World Series
to compete directly with the Super Bowl.

--
Crash

Committed to the search for intraterrestrial intelligence.

Tarkus

2010-09-10 14:20:57 UTC

Post by Dave "Crash" Dummy

Post by Tarkus
Two more wild-card teams would add drama, create incentive to finish
in first place
Stark By Jayson Stark
ESPN.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings1000909

With a little creativity, we could postpone the World Series
to compete directly with the Super Bowl.

Heh. :)

James Sidbury

2010-09-10 19:37:42 UTC

For those of you who didn't read all of the article, here's a gem near
the end of the page:

There is no longer any doubt Jayson Werth is in his final days as a
Phillie. On a team with nearly $140 million already committed to 16
players next year -- plus a philosophical commitment to keep turning
over at least 25 percent of the roster -- Werth isn't going to be a fit.

The Phillies, obviously, are a long ways from making any final decisions
on what their lineup will look like without him. But the likely plan is
to give hot-shot rookie Domonic Brown most of the playing time in right
-- while complementing him with a right-handed-hitting fourth-outfielder
type. A couple of potential options for that role: Cody Ross or Jeff
Francoeur, if they're nontendered.

dick

--
so Jeff Francoeur becomes the new Bruce Chen, maybe.

Tarkus

2010-09-10 20:11:05 UTC

But the likely plan is to give hot-shot rookie Domonic Brown most of
the playing time in right -- while complementing him with a
right-handed-hitting fourth-outfielder type. A couple of potential
options for that role: Cody Ross or Jeff Francoeur, if they're
nontendered.

Ha ha! I missed that.

Loved Stark's article about expanding the postseason, though.

Colin William

2010-09-10 21:29:37 UTC

Post by James Sidbury
The Phillies, obviously, are a long ways from making any final decisions
on what their lineup will look like without him. But the likely plan is
to give hot-shot rookie Domonic Brown most of the playing time in right
-- while complementing him with a right-handed-hitting fourth-outfielder
type. A couple of potential options for that role: Cody Ross or Jeff
Francoeur, if they're nontendered.

Wow.

Colin

p t

2010-09-10 23:51:09 UTC

the way the NL is going, nobody should get the WC, expanding the PS is a
dumb idea imo. take 10-15 games off the season, and get it over
before temps fall in the 30's.

Tarkus

2010-09-11 00:23:04 UTC

Post by p t
the way the NL is going, nobody should get the WC, expanding the PS is a
dumb idea imo.

Did you read the article?

p t

2010-09-11 01:23:56 UTC

nope :)

p t

2010-09-11 01:35:32 UTC

after checking it out, i wouldn't want it.

Tarkus

2010-09-11 02:07:43 UTC

Post by p t
after checking it out, i wouldn't want it.

Why not?

Joe Schmoe

2010-09-11 03:11:55 UTC

Post by James Sidbury
The Phillies, obviously, are a long ways from making any final
decisions on what their lineup will look like without him. But the
likely plan is to give hot-shot rookie Domonic Brown most of the
playing time in right -- while complementing him with a
right-handed-hitting fourth-outfielder type. A couple of potential
options for that role: Cody Ross or Jeff Francoeur, if they're
nontendered.

Wow.
Colin

Yeah. Wow. I wonder if he would get all of the playing time he deserves.

Joe Schmoe

2010-09-11 03:10:54 UTC

Hmmm. This sounds good in a season such as this one, but in a different
season, it could be bad news. Consider a case where there are three
division winners and one really great wild-card team, say the second
best team in the league, and then a bunch or mediocrities. The really
good wild-card team would have to stake their whole season on,
potentially, one game against a mediocrity. If the mediocrity wins that
game, the rest of the playoffs become less interesting without the
second best team in the league around.

The current system is far from perfect, but let's resist making
permanent changes based on temporal circumstances.

Tarkus

2010-09-11 03:54:19 UTC

Post by Joe Schmoe

Actually, that would apply to this season with the Yankees and the Rays
(at least the last time I checked the standings). The counter-argument
is that this would make their race for the division title really mean
something, instead of no big whoop. The one really great wildcard team
is largely the basis for Stark's proposal, in that they wouldn't be
simply satisfied being a wildcard team. The point, after all, is to
return importance to winning your division. The wildcard would become
something of a mulligan, rather than a reward pretty much equal to that
of division winners.

Joe Schmoe

2010-09-11 13:21:03 UTC

You are right. This season it would have the effect of punishing either
the Yankees or Rays for not winning their division, but it would also
reward a lesser team by allowing them to knock off a better team by just
winning one or two games. I think baseball is a long-haul sport, and I
don't like those abbreviated series for all the marbles.

Tarkus

2010-09-11 14:44:54 UTC

Post by Joe Schmoe
You are right. This season it would have the effect of punishing either
the Yankees or Rays for not winning their division, but it would also
reward a lesser team by allowing them to knock off a better team by just
winning one or two games. I think baseball is a long-haul sport, and I
don't like those abbreviated series for all the marbles.

It wouldn't be punishing the Yankees or Rays, but rather rewarding the
one who is able to win their division. It would restore the classic
pennant races, to an extent, by again placing much greater importance on
winning your division.

By your logic, if the Red Sox, for example, finished 3rd, one game back,
but with the third best league record, they too would be "punished."
The wildcard should be a bonus for teams not winning their divisions,
not effectively creating a 4th division winner.

Joe Schmoe

2010-09-11 19:46:53 UTC

It wouldn't be punishing the Yankees or Rays, but rather rewarding the
one who is able to win their division. It would restore the classic
pennant races, to an extent, by again placing much greater importance on
winning your division.
By your logic, if the Red Sox, for example, finished 3rd, one game back,
but with the third best league record, they too would be "punished." The
wildcard should be a bonus for teams not winning their divisions, not
effectively creating a 4th division winner.

I do see your point, I just think that this only solves a problem in the
narrow circumstance that we are seeing in the AL East this season. I
don't see that such a system would have any impact on the NL this
season, which you must admit is still very interesting. It only really
seems to be better than the current system in the narrow circumstance
where the wild card team is in the same division as the team with the
best record, and both teams are close to each other.

Tarkus

2010-09-11 22:33:21 UTC

Post by Joe Schmoe

It wouldn't be punishing the Yankees or Rays, but rather rewarding the
one who is able to win their division. It would restore the classic
pennant races, to an extent, by again placing much greater importance on
winning your division.
By your logic, if the Red Sox, for example, finished 3rd, one game back,
but with the third best league record, they too would be "punished." The
wildcard should be a bonus for teams not winning their divisions, not
effectively creating a 4th division winner.

Actually, even though neither one is guaranteed the wildcard, it would
place even more emphasis on the Braves and Phillies winning the NL East,
because even if the loser happens to get the wildcard, they'd be at a
much greater disadvantage than the division winner. So it turns what is
now a good race into a great race, and makes those last two series with
each other all the more meaningful.

Joe Schmoe

2010-09-12 00:26:53 UTC

It wouldn't be punishing the Yankees or Rays, but rather rewarding the
one who is able to win their division. It would restore the classic
pennant races, to an extent, by again placing much greater importance on
winning your division.
By your logic, if the Red Sox, for example, finished 3rd, one game back,
but with the third best league record, they too would be "punished." The
wildcard should be a bonus for teams not winning their divisions, not
effectively creating a 4th division winner.

OK, I see that.

zig zigalo

2010-09-12 01:38:14 UTC

It wouldn't be punishing the Yankees or Rays, but rather rewarding the
one who is able to win their division. It would restore the classic
pennant races, to an extent, by again placing much greater importance on
winning your division.
By your logic, if the Red Sox, for example, finished 3rd, one game back,
but with the third best league record, they too would be "punished." The
wildcard should be a bonus for teams not winning their divisions, not
effectively creating a 4th division winner.

OK, I see that.

i still liked the system that produced the 1993 NL west pennant race. a SF
giants team that won 103 games did not make the post season.

zig

Colin William

2010-09-13 01:32:02 UTC

Post by Tarkus
Actually, that would apply to this season with the Yankees and the Rays
(at least the last time I checked the standings). The counter-argument
is that this would make their race for the division title really mean
something, instead of no big whoop. The one really great wildcard team
is largely the basis for Stark's proposal, in that they wouldn't be
simply satisfied being a wildcard team. The point, after all, is to
return importance to winning your division. The wildcard would become
something of a mulligan, rather than a reward pretty much equal to that
of division winners.

My idea for rewarding the best record in the league and punishing the
Wild Card: those two teams square off in a five game series; however,
for the WC team to advance, they must win 4 games, whereas for the best
team to win, they need win only 2. And,the first two are at the home of
the best team.

Alternatively, play all five games of the first series at the home park
of the best team, no home games for the WC team in the first round

(There are obvious reasons why MLB wouldn't go for these, but they'd put
incentives in place to win the division without increasing the risk of a
truly mediocre team making it.)

Colin

Ronald Emerson

2010-09-13 06:38:04 UTC

My idea for rewarding the best record in the league and punishing the
Wild Card: those two teams square off in a five game series; however,
for the WC team to advance, they must win 4 games, whereas for the best
team to win, they need win only 2. And,the first two are at the home of
the best team.
Alternatively, play all five games of the first series at the home park
of the best team, no home games for the WC team in the first round
(There are obvious reasons why MLB wouldn't go for these, but they'd put
incentives in place to win the division without increasing the risk of a
truly mediocre team making it.)
Colin

The problem of the wild card now is some teams have an easyer schedule
in the wild card race than other teams do because teams play more
games against teams in their division than against teams out of their
division and of course some divisions are weeker than other divisions.
My solution to this problem is to take the three second place teams
and then only count games that those teams played against each
other.The team with the best record for those games gets the wild
card. Ronald Emerson.

Tarkus

2010-09-13 14:20:04 UTC

Post by Tarkus
Actually, that would apply to this season with the Yankees and the
Rays (at least the last time I checked the standings). The
counter-argument is that this would make their race for the division
title really mean something, instead of no big whoop. The one really
great wildcard team is largely the basis for Stark's proposal, in that
they wouldn't be simply satisfied being a wildcard team. The point,
after all, is to return importance to winning your division. The
wildcard would become something of a mulligan, rather than a reward
pretty much equal to that of division winners.

My idea for rewarding the best record in the league and punishing the
Wild Card: those two teams square off in a five game series; however,
for the WC team to advance, they must win 4 games, whereas for the best
team to win, they need win only 2. And,the first two are at the home of
the best team.
Alternatively, play all five games of the first series at the home park
of the best team, no home games for the WC team in the first round

I personally think both of those things are way too unfair and simply
anti-wildcard. I think Stark's solution is much better. It rewards the
divisional champion, without making the playoffs a joke that pretty much
gives the wildcard no chance.

The NFL has done pretty well without placing leg weights on the wildcard
teams. They reward division winners (especially those with the top two
seeds), but don't completely burden wildcard winners, turning the
playoffs into a bit of a joke.

Colin William

2010-09-13 21:11:40 UTC

Post by Tarkus
I personally think both of those things are way too unfair and simply
anti-wildcard. I think Stark's solution is much better. It rewards the
divisional champion, without making the playoffs a joke that pretty much
gives the wildcard no chance.

You think that a one game playoff in which Tampa Bay could lose to a
White Sox team that finishes several games worse in the standings
against a weaker division is fairer than putting Tampa Bay into the
postseason but telling them they get no home games? Sorry, I think
Stark's model is much worse.

Post by Tarkus
The NFL has done pretty well without placing leg weights on the wildcard
teams. They reward division winners (especially those with the top two
seeds), but don't completely burden wildcard winners, turning the
playoffs into a bit of a joke.

I hate the NFL.

If a wild card team made it to the Super Bowl, how many of its
postseason games would have been on the road?

Colin

James Sidbury

2010-09-13 21:41:27 UTC

Post by Colin William
If a wild card team made it to the Super Bowl, how many of its
postseason games would have been on the road?

two or three depending on circumstances.

dick

Tarkus

2010-09-13 21:56:20 UTC

Post by Tarkus
I personally think both of those things are way too unfair and simply
anti-wildcard. I think Stark's solution is much better. It rewards
the divisional champion, without making the playoffs a joke that
pretty much gives the wildcard no chance.

One of Stark's models is a three-game series, which I prefer. But
whether or not it's fairer is subject to debate. I just want the actual
playoffs (not the wildcard play-in game/series) to be at least somewhat
balanced, and not to so severely handicap one of the participants such
that they have no realistic chance.

Post by Tarkus
The NFL has done pretty well without placing leg weights on the
wildcard teams. They reward division winners (especially those with
the top two seeds), but don't completely burden wildcard winners,
turning the playoffs into a bit of a joke.

I hate the NFL.

Irrelevant. The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the the USA, so
they must be doing something right. That was my point, not which sport
you prefer.

Post by Colin William
If a wild card team made it to the Super Bowl, how many of its
postseason games would have been on the road?

Three games, and then most likely a neutral Super Bowl.

James Sidbury

2010-09-14 01:10:11 UTC

Post by Tarkus
The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the the USA, so
they must be doing something right.

I've heard this many times and have no reason to dispute this, but what
do you base your statement on?

Clearly more people attend major league baseball games.
Clearly more people attend college football games. I suspect that the
average attendance at SEC and Big 10 home games is equal to the average
NFL attendance. I assume that the cost of a commercial on an NFL game
is higher than the cost on college football or MLB. Every town that I
have ever lived in that had their own TV station devoted half the Friday
night 11:00 (or equivalent) news to HS football and I've never seen this
for any other sport.

dick

Tarkus

2010-09-14 07:04:44 UTC

Post by James Sidbury

Post by Tarkus
The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the the USA, so
they must be doing something right.

I've heard this many times and have no reason to dispute this, but what
do you base your statement on?
Clearly more people attend major league baseball games.
Clearly more people attend college football games. I suspect that the
average attendance at SEC and Big 10 home games is equal to the average
NFL attendance. I assume that the cost of a commercial on an NFL game
is higher than the cost on college football or MLB. Every town that I
have ever lived in that had their own TV station devoted half the Friday
night 11:00 (or equivalent) news to HS football and I've never seen this
for any other sport.

The NFL dominates TV ratings, the radio airwaves, gambling, fantasy
leagues, the internet, sports bars, general conversation, etc. I'm sure
many colleges have teams that dominate their local market, but the NFL
is a national sport. No other sport captures the attention of so many
people for so many hours as NFL Sundays.

IMO. :)

Tarkus

2010-09-16 01:16:52 UTC

Post by James Sidbury

Post by Tarkus
The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the the USA, so
they must be doing something right.

I've heard this many times and have no reason to dispute this, but what
do you base your statement on?

Nielsen Knocks: ESPN Nets Best 'MNF' Opening Doubleheader
Mike Reynolds -- Multichannel News, 9/14/2010 10:04:16 PM

Continuing the success enjoyed by the league's other programmers, ESPN
scored its highest-rated and most-viewed opening night with its
doubleheader presentation of Monday Night Football.

The Baltimore Ravens' 10-9 road victory of the New York Jets at the New
Meadowlands Stadium on Sept. 13 tackled a 10.9 cable rating, 10.85
million households and 14.97 million viewers on average, according to
Nielsen data, the best of ESPN's 10 MNF opening night games in the
network's fifth year with the franchise.

Moreover, Ravens-Jets marked the second largest audience on cable in
2010, trailing only the 2009 MNF season finale, Chicago's overtime upset
over Minnesta on Dec. 28, 2009 (part of Nielsen's 2010), which drew a
12.0 cable rating, 11.9 million homes and just over 17 million watchers.

The sept. 13 nightcap, the Kansas City Chiefs' 21-14 win over the San
Diego Chargers, garnered an 8.8 rating with an average of 8.8 million
households watching and 11.9 million viewers, the third-largest
household audience for any show on cable this year.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/457126-Nielsen_Knocks_ESPN_Nets_Best_MNF_Opening_Doubleheader.php

Note that the second game didn't start until 10:15 pm ET, and was still
the third highest rated show on cable TV this year.

Colin William

2010-09-14 11:54:20 UTC

Post by Tarkus
One of Stark's models is a three-game series, which I prefer. But
whether or not it's fairer is subject to debate. I just want the actual
playoffs (not the wildcard play-in game/series) to be at least somewhat
balanced, and not to so severely handicap one of the participants such
that they have no realistic chance.

I just want teams to keep trying to win the division in September rather
than coasting because they already got the Wild Card. And, I just want
for the best teams to be in the playoffs, rather than some fluke that
can then ride a few ace starters and hide its lack of depth because Fox
demands a gazillion off days within series. Stark's offerings certainly
increase the incentive to win the division, but they also increase the
chance that an inferior team can get into the postseason and get lucky.
I think the latter of these is too high a price to pay for the former.
I'd rather stick with what we currently have

Post by Tarkus
The NFL has done pretty well without placing leg weights on the
wildcard teams. They reward division winners (especially those with
the top two seeds), but don't completely burden wildcard winners,
turning the playoffs into a bit of a joke.

I hate the NFL.

Irrelevant. The NFL is by far the most popular sport in the the USA, so
they must be doing something right. That was my point, not which sport
you prefer.

I didn't mean it as a point of argument, I just like to say it every
chance I can. Needless to say, though, just because something is right
for the NFL, that doesn't make it right for baseball.

Post by Colin William
If a wild card team made it to the Super Bowl, how many of its
postseason games would have been on the road?

Three games, and then most likely a neutral Super Bowl.

So, in the NFL a wild card might get no home games, in a sport where
home field plays a much stronger role than in baseball. Remind me why
this is "fairer" than saying that an MLB wild card should play their
first 5-game series on the road, in a sport where home field is less
important, after which they get 3 home games out of 7 in the CS and
either 3 or 4 in the WS?

Colin

Tarkus

2010-09-14 14:06:22 UTC

Post by Tarkus
Three games, and then most likely a neutral Super Bowl.

Oh, I think "higher seeds" (with all division winners seeded higher than
all wildcards) should get HFA in both sports. The big difference is
that each round in the NFL is only one game/team, so it's all or
nothing. You can only give a team 100% HFA or 0%; you can't give one
team 60% and the other team 40%.

If MLB had the same type of system, by all means I'd want the higher
seed to get HFA each game, just like I want them to each series
(including the World Series). But when you're talking about a series of
games, I think it should be more balanced, not just for competitive
reasons, but so fans of both cities get a chance to watch their team
play in person.

I would imagine that would be better financially for MLB also, by
increasing exposure, as well as spreading out the cost of attending
games across two cities.

Colin William

2010-09-15 16:39:25 UTC

Post by Tarkus
If MLB had the same type of system, by all means I'd want the higher
seed to get HFA each game, just like I want them to each series
(including the World Series). But when you're talking about a series of
games, I think it should be more balanced, not just for competitive
reasons, but so fans of both cities get a chance to watch their team
play in person.

The problem I have, and many others I suppose, is that currently there
is not enough of a penalty on a wild card team as compared to a team
with the best record in the league. The two maybe separated by 15 games
in the standings, but the difference in a five game series is exactly
one home field game. Given the inherent randomness of the sport, I see
that as no meaningful disincentive to getting the wild card as opposed
to winning a division, and many teams apparently agree (most notoriously
the 1996 Dodgers, who essentially threw the last game of the season).

While Stark's solution increases that disincentive, it comes at a high
price - now there's a bigger chance of an even worse team forcing its
way into an anything-can-happen 5 game series (within the current AL
standings, that could be the team with the 6th-best record out of 14 in
the league, and that record accumulated with a big assist from a weak
division). I just don't see how baseball is improved by further
rewarding increasingly weak teams.

And of course, once you have a setup in which two out of three
second-place teams get in, it becomes even easier for MLB to further
expand it down the road to all three second-place teams.

Post by Tarkus
I would imagine that would be better financially for MLB also, by
increasing exposure, as well as spreading out the cost of attending
games across two cities.

That was one of the points I had in mind when I said that MLB would have
some points against it, and it's a valid one.

Can you offer any other solutions that would disincentivize the wild
card without adding another relatively mediocre team into the postseason
mix?

Colin

Tarkus

2010-09-15 20:20:27 UTC

Post by Colin William
Can you offer any other solutions that would disincentivize the wild
card without adding another relatively mediocre team into the
postseason mix?

I don't have a major problem with the current system, so I haven't
really given it a lot of thought. Stark's solution was the first one
I've seen that I kind of like, which is why I posted it here. But you
and others have offered valid criticisms of his proposal(s) too.

I don't think there's any magical formula out there that will fix the
problems you and others have with the current system, without causing
new problems (such as the exposure and financial aspects we discussed).

Ideally, I'd love to see two 4x4 leagues, with only division winners
advancing to the playoffs. However, I don't see expansion happening
anytime soon.

tom dunne

2010-09-14 14:50:10 UTC

Post by Colin William
If a wild card team made it to the Super Bowl, how many of its
postseason games would have been on the road?

If? Two of the last five Super Bowl winners were wildcard teams.
Both the '05 Steelers and '07 Giants played all three playoff games on
the road (and the Giants were technically the visiting team in their
Super Bowl.)

That aside, I thought loving the NFL was a citizenship requirement.
How did you beat the polygraph on that one?

Tarkus

2010-09-14 15:27:20 UTC

Post by tom dunne

Post by Colin William
If a wild card team made it to the Super Bowl, how many of its
postseason games would have been on the road?

If? Two of the last five Super Bowl winners were wildcard teams.
Both the '05 Steelers and '07 Giants played all three playoff games on
the road (and the Giants were technically the visiting team in their
Super Bowl.)
That aside, I thought loving the NFL was a citizenship requirement.
How did you beat the polygraph on that one?

Heh. :)

Ronald Emerson

2010-09-14 20:08:23 UTC

If a wild card team made it to the Super Bowl, how many of its
postseason games would have been on the road?

If? Two of the last five Super Bowl winners were wildcard teams.
Both the '05 Steelers and '07 Giants played all three playoff games on
the road (and the Giants were technically the visiting team in their
Super Bowl.)
That aside, I thought loving the NFL was a citizenship requirement.
How did you beat the polygraph on that one?

Heh. :)

I make a motion that this thred has been extended long enougth! Ronald
Emerson who also has another long extension!

zig zigalo

2010-09-14 20:13:47 UTC

Post by Ronald Emerson

Post by Colin William
If a wild card team made it to the Super Bowl, how many of its
postseason games would have been on the road?

If? Two of the last five Super Bowl winners were wildcard teams.
Both the '05 Steelers and '07 Giants played all three playoff games
on the road (and the Giants were technically the visiting team in
their Super Bowl.)
That aside, I thought loving the NFL was a citizenship requirement.
How did you beat the polygraph on that one?

Heh. :)

I make a motion that this thred has been extended long enougth! Ronald
Emerson who also has another long extension!

denied.

zig

Dale Hicks

2010-09-15 01:07:57 UTC

In article <ea34346c-e46d-4137-b419-e8e1590d06d2
@k9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

Post by tom dunne
That aside, I thought loving the NFL was a citizenship requirement.
How did you beat the polygraph on that one?

Probably the USAian polygramists weren't smart enough to specify
"American" Football, and he got in on a technicality.

--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net

Colin William

2010-09-15 11:27:33 UTC

Post by tom dunne

Post by Colin William
If a wild card team made it to the Super Bowl, how many of its
postseason games would have been on the road?

If? Two of the last five Super Bowl winners were wildcard teams.
Both the '05 Steelers and '07 Giants played all three playoff games on
the road (and the Giants were technically the visiting team in their
Super Bowl.)
That aside, I thought loving the NFL was a citizenship requirement.
How did you beat the polygraph on that one?

I generally try to know just enough about football to be able to fake
interest during a conversation.

Colin

Tomasz Radko

2010-09-11 13:14:02 UTC