2016 Postseason Discussion

[zambonir]

A friend of mine was joking that Epstein should run the Knicks. The Cleveland Browns already have DePodesta.

I imagine Epstein's next job will have to include an ownership stake, he can't really go any higher (he is
already the MacPhail of the Cubs, not the Klentak. I suppose another team might want to go after Hoyer).

[donaldorc]

great series and yes, i was rooting for either team to win. extremely jealous of the cubs, not because they won but how they did it. best record in the league and followed through with it. this is the way '11 should have ended up, with the best record winning it. even though it is 5 years ago, it still haunts me. there should have been at least one more world championship for that group of guys. Ugh !!!
gm

Indeed! Indeed!

[Philsmania]

Francona has been building quite a legacy himself. But he took a big hit with his move to insert Mini-Mart as a defensive replacement for Crisp which made no difference in that inning but wound up saddling the Tribe with Mini-Mart batting with the tying run on base with 2 outs in the bottom of the 10th. There was no reasonable scenario where Mini-Mart was going to help Cleveland's offense in a tight game.

The thought that perhaps Mini-Mart should have attempted a surprise bunt for a hit attempt crossed my mind.

[Lawman]

A friend of mine was joking that Epstein should run the Knicks. The Cleveland Browns already have DePodesta.

I imagine Epstein's next job will have to include an ownership stake, he can't really go any higher (he is
already the MacPhail of the Cubs, not the Klentak. I suppose another team might want to go after Hoyer).

Epstein has now brought a WS to the cursed Red Sox and the cursed Cubs. Who is next?

[Philsmania]

Another thing, I really believe that the Indians deserved better from their fans. First, Cleveland had the third lowest attendance in all of baseball despite having a great team (look it up here:espn.com/mlb/attendance). Then, come the World Series, their fans pretty much pimped their tickets to Cub fans on Stubhub. The four games in Cleveland were pretty much neutral site games, if not slightly pro-Cubs. I hope they use that money to buy season tickets to the Tribe for the next few seasons.

[Philsmania]

great series and yes, i was rooting for either team to win. extremely jealous of the cubs, not because they won but how they did it. best record in the league and followed through with it. this is the way '11 should have ended up, with the best record winning it. even though it is 5 years ago, it still haunts me. there should have been at least one more world championship for that group of guys

. Ugh !!!
gm
Indeed! Indeed!

In the now twenty-two seasons that we've had wild card play, the team with at least a tie for the best record in baseball has won the WS only four times. And the 2016 Cubs are the first team not named the Yankees or Red Sox to pull off that feat. Meanwhile, wild card teams have won the WS six times.

[julio]

great series and yes, i was rooting for either team to win. extremely jealous of the cubs, not because they won but how they did it. best record in the league and followed through with it. this is the way '11 should have ended up, with the best record winning it. even though it is 5 years ago, it still haunts me. there should have been at least one more world championship for that group of guys

. Ugh !!!
gm
Indeed! Indeed!

In the now twenty-two seasons that we've had wild card play, the team with at least a tie for the best record in baseball has won the WS only four times. And the 2016 Cubs are the first team not named the Yankees or Red Sox to pull off that feat. Meanwhile, wild card teams have won the WS six times.

Short series between good teams are a crap shoot. The better team doesn't reliably win.

Expanding the post-season to multiple teams has devalued the importance of the regular season - because sustained excellence frequently gets you nothing but one short series. Mediocrity and a hot streak at the right time can get you into the World Series.

This appears to be what MLB (and, I suspect, the majority of fans) wants. It's consistent with trends in our society - people want to be entertained, they don't care much about meaning or excellence.

[zambonir]

At this point we'd do better to take the soccer approach, and recognize/celebrate the excellence of baseball's regular season champion as the finest achievement, while also enjoying the drama of a tournament.

What stood out for me this year was not the randomness we usually seem to get with wild cards and the short early rounds, but the extent to which teams shortened their rotations and bullpens (in Cleveland's case, not entirely by choice) throughout. I doubt we'll see more two-inning saves over the course of a long season, but the middle reliever and set-up roles/values are definitely changing (the latter has been happening for a while, and now it looks like the former will be more important because managers are starting to prefer the bullpen to starters going a third time through the order).

[bkeich]

great series and yes, i was rooting for either team to win. extremely jealous of the cubs, not because they won but how they did it. best record in the league and followed through with it. this is the way '11 should have ended up, with the best record winning it. even though it is 5 years ago, it still haunts me. there should have been at least one more world championship for that group of guys

. Ugh !!!
gm
Indeed! Indeed!

In the now twenty-two seasons that we've had wild card play, the team with at least a tie for the best record in baseball has won the WS only four times. And the 2016 Cubs are the first team not named the Yankees or Red Sox to pull off that feat. Meanwhile, wild card teams have won the WS six times.
Short series between good teams are a crap shoot. The better team doesn't reliably win.

Expanding the post-season to multiple teams has devalued the importance of the regular season - because sustained excellence frequently gets you nothing but one short series. Mediocrity and a hot streak at the right time can get you into the World Series.

This appears to be what MLB (and, I suspect, the majority of fans) wants. It's consistent with trends in our society - people want to be entertained, they don't care much about meaning or excellence.

I would hate to go back to just having the best team in each League in the playoffs. One 7 game series at the end of the season? 2 teams out of 30? No way.

Even going back to just a league championship series is equally unenjoyable to me. I remember back to 1993 where the SF Giants won 103 games, the most in franchise history since 1905, and did not even make the playoffs. It should be very, very difficult for this to happen (almost impossible).

Many people who are "traditionalists" hated adding the extra wild card team, but honestly I dont understand why. With one wild card in each league there is no advantage to winning the division, now there is a huge advantage. This is much better. I would much rather have the "play in", if it helps to think of it that way. I hate to say Bud Selig did something correct, but in this case he did.

The current system requires a team to be in the top third in each league (more or less), hardly excessive. It isnt like Hockey or Basketball where half (or slightly more) make the playoffs, it is pretty close to Football (slightly more than baseball at 3/8 of teams make the playoffs). If you don't count the loser of the "play in" wild card game it is even more restrictive (4/15, 27%). That seems pretty reasonable to me, I don't want the playoffs to only last 1 week.

[julio]

I would prefer the elimination of wild cards. Expand to 32 teams, have four divisions, two rounds of playoffs. If you cannot win an eight-team division, you're not in the post-season. Unbalance the schedule so division winners have to be the best teams in the division, against their division rivals.

Won't happen. The extra playoff layers are about money. Money rules.

[olgrandad]

Money rules???? You can't be serious in this day and age. Surely not!

[andyb]

I would prefer the elimination of wild cards. Expand to 32 teams, have four divisions, two rounds of playoffs. If you cannot win an eight-team division, you're not in the post-season. Unbalance the schedule so division winners have to be the best teams in the division, against their division rivals.

Won't happen. The extra playoff layers are about money. Money rules.

I am resigned to the extra rounds of playoffs. I would probably shorten the season to 154 games. Then make the playoff series 3-7-7-7 to make up for the cash. That should still let you end the WS a half week earlier. The division series not involving a wild card could also start while the wild card series is going on.

I actually don't mind the 3 division plus wild cards and subjecting the wild card to a short series. I know 1 game is made for TV but 3 would be a little more fair and let you do a 1-2 home/away schedule so every city gets a home game. No off days of course so the travel will be tougher on the wild card team. To make the schedule smoother I would also not have any 1-game playoffs for divisions or wild card spots. Use tie breakers like every other sport does. Wild card series can be Monday-Wednesday or Tuesday-Thursday. Division series could then start only a day or two after they start now (and the season theoretically ends a week early because of the 154 game schedule).

[EDmuch]

I kind of like the current format. Two wild cards playing each other in a one game sudden death does make a difference between winning a division and being a wild card.

[Philsmania]

At this point we'd do better to take the soccer approach, and recognize/celebrate the excellence of baseball's regular season champion as the finest achievement, while also enjoying the drama of a tournament.

What stood out for me this year was not the randomness we usually seem to get with wild cards and the short early rounds, but the extent to which teams shortened their rotations and bullpens (in Cleveland's case, not entirely by choice) throughout. I doubt we'll see more two-inning saves over the course of a long season, but the middle reliever and set-up roles/values are definitely changing (the latter has been happening for a while, and now it looks like the former will be more important because managers are starting to prefer the bullpen to starters going a third time through the order).

My brother is a big fan of the real football. He tells me that foreign fans of the sport scratch their heads over MLS having playoffs. It's just the American way of doing things he tells them. In the European and Latin American leagues there is no playoffs. The team that finishes first is the champion. Of course, that was the way baseball did things too until the modern major leagues were created when the National League accepted the American League as an equal. Until 1903, the team that finished first in the NL won the NL pennant was the champion of baseball.

[Les229]

There is another way of looking at this. I started following MLB in 1952, the year that Robin Roberts won 28 games. There were 2 eight team leagues with no playoffs. For a long time, I hated the playoff structure, thought of it as watered down. The thing that I remember about it is that if your team was in third place by mid season, they spent the rest of the season just playing out the string.(Wait 'till next year). I'm not saying that the current system is perfect, but it sure keeps the fans interest in the second half of the season. The concept of although you are in second place in a tough division, you still have a chance to make the playoffs keeps the fans interest up. I think it also leads to better play by the individual players coming down the stretch. The current system is better than it was because it rewards the division winners with a bye in the first round.

I remember some of the good Phillies teams in the '50s that were in third place and the season was over for them by the end of July. It was boring and all of the enthusiasm was gone. This system still gives them a chance and keeps their fans interested.

[allentown]

If the DH rule can be made consistent between leagues, I'd eliminate inter-league play and have all games within your own league. Eliminate divisions and go to a totally balanced 154-game schedule. Each team plays every other team in the league 11 times. Top 4 teams in each league make the playoffs. I have never seen the un-balanced schedule as fair.

[andyb]

If the DH rule can be made consistent between leagues, I'd eliminate inter-league play and have all games within your own league. Eliminate divisions and go to a totally balanced 154-game schedule. Each team plays every other team in the league 11 times. Top 4 teams in each league make the playoffs. I have never seen the un-balanced schedule as fair.

There are travel and time zone issues with a perfectly balanced schedule. Think of it this way - If the Phillies played twice as many games with 10:00 start times Comcast would be getting a lesser product.

I have never been a fan of interleague but I am guessing baseball will keep it. Though they love the part I like the least - the extra rivalry games. I always thought schedules should be fair and if your rival is better than someone else's rival (i.e. the Yankees are usually pretty good so it is a little unfair to the Mets) then in the long run it is unfair.

Consistent DH should be a no-brainer at this point.

[zambonir]

My brother is a big fan of the real football. He tells me that foreign fans of the sport scratch their heads over MLS having playoffs. It's just the American way of doing things he tells them. In the European and Latin American leagues there is no playoffs.

There's no playoffs, but there are various tournaments that offer March Madness-like drama as well as a great deal of prestige, they are just separate. In some ways that's what baseball used to be - winning the league or even the division "pennant" used to feel pretty prestigious, and then those four teams would also play a tournament. Expanding the size of that tournament is actually not that weird, IMO, but by going to six divisions and adding interleague play the prestige of winning your division was also lost.

MLS is weird because yeah, it's all about the postseason, but you still get aggregate scoring which is almost impossible, IMO, for casual American sports fans to accept (or even just wrap their heads around when the tiebreakers come into play). And then for the final it reverts to single-game.

[BostonRoss]

The problem with wild cards is that teams are not playing on a level field. It's easier to be the wild card out of a weaker division. I haven't gone back and looked at the detailed results, but I would guess that the Mets had an easier schedule than their wild card competitors, with only one other good team in the division.

As someone else pointed out, interleague play makes it even a more unlevel playing field. Maybe I can't understand it since neither my team and the team in the city where I live has a "natural" rival. I'm not sure how much interest there is even in the cities with two teams now that it's been going on for 20 years. A few years ago I was in Chicago and was able to get Cubs-White Sox tickets at Wrigley easily.

[schillingfan]

I like wild cards and more teams because it makes September more interesting when your team has a shot at the wild card. Before wild cards all a lot more teams were eliminated and the last month of baseball became meaningless in a lot of cities. I'd like a 154 game season and 7 game versus 5 game playoffs. AndyB's 3-7-7-7 proposal makes sense.