Major MLB changes coming?

[Cheeks]

Thoughts?


https://nypost.com/2020/02/10/mlb-plotting-playoff-expansion-with-reality-tv-twist/

[wadesworld]

Trying too hard.

[SaveOD238]

The pick-your-opponent twist seems a little gimmicky to me, but I'm all for increasing the number of playoff teams.  Too many teams are all-but-eliminated by mid-August, and this will help keep more teams in the running for longer.  It should also break up some of the tanking, especially in the AL where three of the playoff spots are pre-determined every year.

[StillAWarrior]

The pick-your-opponent twist seems a little gimmicky to me...

Yeah, it does sound gimmicky...and completely awesome. I actually like the proposed changes. I love the idea of the two division winners picking their opponent and giving them the ultimate bulletin board material.

[mu_hilltopper]

I like it.

I like it more as a Twins fan, that maybe we could pick to not play the f***ing Yankees each year and go winless.

[CTWarrior]

The pick-your-opponent twist seems a little gimmicky to me, but I'm all for increasing the number of playoff teams.  Too many teams are all-but-eliminated by mid-August, and this will help keep more teams in the running for longer.  It should also break up some of the tanking, especially in the AL where three of the playoff spots are pre-determined every year.

Disagree.  You are playing 162 games to separate the wheat from the chaff.  7 teams means just shy of half the teams (46.7%) make it, which I suspect will get you an under .500 team every now and again.  That is way too many teams.  I am a Red Sox fan, and they would have played in the playoffs under this scenario.  That team had no business being in the postseason.  And neither they nor the Indians nor anybody else would have been playing for much in September because they would have had those seeds tied up already.  In the NL the Mets, Cubs and D-backs would have been fighting it out for the 6th and 7th slots. I guess that's exciting.  If the Mets made it, I suspect they would have played the Braves.  Do we really want the Braves to have to beat the Mets again in a three game series after they spent 162 games proving they are the better team?

[MU82]

Disagree.  You are playing 162 games to separate the wheat from the chaff.  7 teams means just shy of half the teams (46.7%) make it, which I suspect will get you an under .500 team every now and again.  That is way too many teams.  I am a Red Sox fan, and they would have played in the playoffs under this scenario.  That team had no business being in the postseason.  And neither they nor the Indians nor anybody else would have been playing for much in September because they would have had those seeds tied up already.  In the NL the Mets, Cubs and D-backs would have been fighting it out for the 6th and 7th slots. I guess that's exciting.  If the Mets made it, I suspect they would have played the Braves.  Do we really want the Braves to have to beat the Mets again in a three game series after they spent 162 games proving they are the better team?

Totally understand this take.

However, this is the take every time any governing body (including MLB's) expands the postseason. Folks whine about it for awhile, then it simply becomes part of what is.

I'm also a fan of "less is more," but I understand the financial incentive of keeping more teams alive for playoff spots as long as possible in every sport.

As for the pick-your-own-opponent thing ... it is definitely a gimmick, but I agree with 'topper that it's a pretty cool one. I wouldn't hate it. And if they decide not to do it that way, that would be fine with me, too.

[The Sultan]

Not to mention its the playoffs that draw the TV ratings, and September baseball just gets lost when football starts up and kids go back to school, etc.

[CTWarrior]

However, this is the take every time any governing body (including MLB's) expands the postseason. Folks whine about it for awhile, then it simply becomes part of what is.

Of course this is true.  If you love baseball, what choice do you have but accept it?  As long as there are an odd number of divisions that don't play the same schedule, a wild card for the best 2nd place team makes good sense to me, because that team will often/usually be better than the worst first place team.  Beyond that I'd rather there not be any more.  I get that people like the one game winner take all nature of the wild card game, but I hate the idea that after a 162 game schedule, and 85 win team can knock out a 100 win team by winning one road game.  It will add a few more days to the postseason.  I look forward to those November games in NY or Chicago or hopefully Milwaukee.

If they do do it, I think the best starting pitchers are going to see their salaries go up.  Now you can have an OK team, pretty much rely on the play-offs if you can get 85 wins and if you have 2 or 3 starters, ride them in the postseason. 

[MU82]

Of course this is true.  If you love baseball, what choice do you have but accept it?  As long as there are an odd number of divisions that don't play the same schedule, a wild card for the best 2nd place team makes good sense to me, because that team will often/usually be better than the worst first place team.  Beyond that I'd rather there not be any more.  I get that people like the one game winner take all nature of the wild card game, but I hate the idea that after a 162 game schedule, and 85 win team can knock out a 100 win team by winning one road game.  It will add a few more days to the postseason.  I look forward to those November games in NY or Chicago or hopefully Milwaukee.

If they do do it, I think the best starting pitchers are going to see their salaries go up.  Now you can have an OK team, pretty much rely on the play-offs if you can get 85 wins and if you have 2 or 3 starters, ride them in the postseason.

Agree about the longer-postseason factor and potentially horrendous weather in several spots.

The logical thing to do if you want to expand the postseason would be to shorten the regular season by at least a couple weeks so it starts after April 1 and ends by Sept. 20-something.

But I'm guessing the players would only agree to that if it didn't mean a corresponding drop in salary, and the owners would only agree to that if it did. In other words ... ain't gonna happen.

[StillAWarrior]

Agree about the longer-postseason factor and potentially horrendous weather in several spots.

The logical thing to do if you want to expand the postseason would be to shorten the regular season by at least a couple weeks so it starts after April 1 and ends by Sept. 20-something.

But I'm guessing the players would only agree to that if it didn't mean a corresponding drop in salary, and the owners would only agree to that if it did. In other words ... ain't gonna happen.

I think even a drop back to 154 would work.  Shorten the season by just over a week, and add three days to the playoffs.
Or would it actually just be two additional days since the current single wild-card game would be replaced by a three-game series?

[tower912]

Against it.   Gimmicky.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Against it.   Gimmicky.

The same for me.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I think even a drop back to 154 would work.  Shorten the season by just over a week, and add three days to the playoffs.
Or would it actually just be two additional days since the current single wild-card game would be replaced by a three-game series?

Would teams make for money with 8 less games?
Less TV money, less concessions, less tickets, etc.  Owners won't go for 154 games if it brings in less.

[StillAWarrior]

Would teams make for money with 8 less games?
Less TV money, less concessions, less tickets, etc.  Owners won't go for 154 games if it brings in less.

I wasn't really arguing that owners would go for it, but was just commenting that even shortening the season by eight games would take care of the "playing into November" issue.

I think another question would be how much could MLB get by adding as  many as eight additional playoff games in each league? How much lost revenue from 8 fewer regular season games (presumably four home games) could be offset by additional revenue from additional playoff games?

[jsglow]

The same for me.

Ditto.

[Jockey]

Disagree.  You are playing 162 games to separate the wheat from the chaff.  7 teams means just shy of half the teams (46.7%) make it, which I suspect will get you an under .500 team every now and again.  That is way too many teams.  I am a Red Sox fan, and they would have played in the playoffs under this scenario.  That team had no business being in the postseason.  And neither they nor the Indians nor anybody else would have been playing for much in September because they would have had those seeds tied up already.  In the NL the Mets, Cubs and D-backs would have been fighting it out for the 6th and 7th slots. I guess that's exciting.  If the Mets made it, I suspect they would have played the Braves.  Do we really want the Braves to have to beat the Mets again in a three game series after they spent 162 games proving they are the better team?

I agree CT. Let's not reward mediocrity.

In the last 10 years, 8 teams that were .500 or worse would have gotten into the Playoffs - not to mention several others that were 1 or 2 games over .500.

[RushmoreAcademy]

I love baseball.  So this feels like a really bad idea to me.
That said, the MLB is fairly concerned about its future up against other sports.  I don't look at this as desperate, but just facing reality.  All said and done, I prefer this to some awful in game change, which is what I fear much more as they worry about speeding the game up so much.

[TallTitan34]

I hate all of it but my least favorite part is a three game series in a single location.

[WI inferiority Complexes]

Under this proposed playoff format:

2014: two 79-win teams tie for postseason spot
2015: two 83-win teams make postseason
2016: a 79-win team makes postseason
2017: three 80-win teams tie for postseason
2018: three 82-win teams tie for postseason
2019: an 84-win team makes postseason

https://twitter.com/craigcalcaterra/status/1227205636779364354?s=21

[mu03eng]

Would teams make for money with 8 less games?
Less TV money, less concessions, less tickets, etc.  Owners won't go for 154 games if it brings in less.

So the laws of supply and demand don't impact entertainment revenue? Baseball, basketball, and hockey have too much game inventory....doesn't make the individual games important or rare and it means teams are totally out of it with months to go.

I like the post season changes  if you also couple it will a reduction in the regular season schedule to 120 games but played from April 1st to September 30th. That spreads the inventory out, saves wear and tear on the players, minimize the tv revenue erosion, etc.

Yes I get its radical but we live in a different era the game needs to adapt

[MU82]

Under this proposed playoff format:

2014: two 79-win teams tie for postseason spot
2015: two 83-win teams make postseason
2016: a 79-win team makes postseason
2017: three 80-win teams tie for postseason
2018: three 82-win teams tie for postseason
2019: an 84-win team makes postseason

https://twitter.com/craigcalcaterra/status/1227205636779364354?s=21

Yikes. So if they go through with this, will they have to have a 1-game playoff every time there is a tie for the last postseason spot?

[StillAWarrior]

Yikes. So if they go through with this, will they have to have a 1-game playoff every time there is a tie for the last postseason spot?

If you wanted to get really crazy -- and I am not advocating this -- you could just throw all of the tied teams into the hopper when the two division winners and top wildcard team are deciding who they want to play. If nobody picks you as the first round opponent, you're out.

[MU82]

Rock, paper, scissors?

[Benny B]

Hmmmm..... where have I seen this before?

1) An institution makes a major change that - although arguably in the best interests of all - strikes at the heart of tradition and sentiment.  An uproar ensues.  The institution refuses to back down.
2) A couple decades go by and yet still, many people still complain about the change, some refusing to even acknowledge it (even while still maintaining faith/loyalty in the institution itself).
3) The institution goes public with a proposal for a new, more radical change that - unlike the first change - makes no rational sense whatsoever, and is instantly and universally condemned.
4) Citing the fact that everyone is against the new proposal, the institution actually backs down this time and pulls the proposal.
5) The public breathes a sigh of relief and feels like nostalgia has won the day.  Behind closed doors, the institution's leaders shake hands and exchange congratulations on successful execution of a charade that has finally galvanized support for the change they made decades prior.

Some call this tactic the "GOLD standard"   

If it doesn't work, maybe throw in a ballot initiative (that doesn't give the option of reversing the change from decades back) between #4 and #5 for good measure.