Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dominikk85

16 team playoffs here to stay?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Chisoxfn said:

The owners are just switching out regular season money for post-season money.  Net net same money to go around to players with potentially slightly less average games.  Now I'm sure there will be a massive discussion between owners & union on this exact point - but eventually that is how it should work out.  

Owners make a LOT more money in the playoffs, which is why they want them.  A guy like Mike Trout isn't making $35 million a year in the playoffs, he is making the same as everyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Owners make a LOT more money in the playoffs, which is why they want them.  A guy like Mike Trout isn't making $35 million a year in the playoffs, he is making the same as everyone else. 

The league makes more money in playoffs - with the league making more money - that money needs to be shared - so if you get dispropriationely more money in playoffs than regular season (as a league) - than it makes sense from a revenue share perspective, etc, that you end up in a similar spot and I would ultimately assume a better spot (because I don't think owners are doing this if it didn't generate MORE revenue - and obviously players aren't signing off if they don't get their split of the extra revenue).

So while they have to negotiate - principally speaking - as long as this brings in more revenue - it is good for PLAYERS and OWNERS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

Dan Szymborski argues otherwise. 

He claims Front offices will only put together 80-85 win teams from this point forward, because now that it's so easy to get in, there's no incentive to improve from an 80-85 win team to a 90 win team. 

If the GM can pit together an 85 win team much differently than a 90 win team, they are really good at their jobs. With injuries and the randomness of the game this is a poorly developed argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Dan Szymborski argues otherwise. 

He claims Front offices will only put together 80-85 win teams from this point forward, because now that it's so easy to get in, there's no incentive to improve from an 80-85 win team to a 90 win team. 

That is trash, and the Dodgers are a great example of why.  They were a lock to get into the playoffs this year, yet still went out and brought in Mookie Betts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

That is trash, and the Dodgers are a great example of why.  They were a lock to get into the playoffs this year, yet still went out and brought in Mookie Betts.

 

This - Spot on 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Dan Szymborski argues otherwise. 

He claims Front offices will only put together 80-85 win teams from this point forward, because now that it's so easy to get in, there's no incentive to improve from an 80-85 win team to a 90 win team. 

Not only does he claim it, he has claimed that front offices contact him for his analysis just for things like this. He's an industry insider and he knows how it thinks as a sabr guy. 

This is why you give division winners byes. The other teams can fight for HFA in the first segment of the playoffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

The league makes more money in playoffs - with the league making more money - that money needs to be shared - so if you get dispropriationely more money in playoffs than regular season (as a league) - than it makes sense from a revenue share perspective, etc, that you end up in a similar spot and I would ultimately assume a better spot (because I don't think owners are doing this if it didn't generate MORE revenue - and obviously players aren't signing off if they don't get their split of the extra revenue).

So while they have to negotiate - principally speaking - as long as this brings in more revenue - it is good for PLAYERS and OWNERS 

Half the league doesn't see that money, so they get nothing.  Another big chunk of the league is playing these extra games at a much lower rate than if they were making regular salary.  The only spot where players make a real chunk of money is getting to the World Series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

That is trash, and the Dodgers are a great example of why.  They were a lock to get into the playoffs this year, yet still went out and brought in Mookie Betts.

 

I think he is talking about average teams. A team can win 81 and make the playoffs, why try for 90? To get around this, divison winners get byes. Let the others fight for HFA. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind expanding but the 8 team set-up per league sucks, it needs to be just like football. These best of 3 series are too dumb and there is too little advantage to being good.

Here's what the MLB needs to do and they know it:

- Add 2 new teams, 1 per league

- Create a new division per league, 4 teams each

4 division winners + 2 wild cards

Top 2 teams get a bye

1st round - Best of 5

(3) division team + (6) wildcard, (4) division team + (5) wildcard

DS  - Best of 5

(1) Division team + (winner of 4/5)

CS - Best of 7

WS - Best of 7

Use the new 7 inning double headers to start in late september or cut schedule to 154 games.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SonofaRoache said:

I think he is talking about average teams. A team can win 81 and make the playoffs, why try for 90? To get around this, divison winners get byes. Let the others fight for HFA. 

It is a false idea that there isn't a significant difference between the skill level of a 80 win team and a 90 win team.  Especially if we are going to play a series of games and not a single game, while you will have upsets, the creme will still mostly rise to the top.  I mean look at the NCAAs.  They play one game to move on, they have upsets early, but at the end of the day, the Final Four is almost always elite teams, with an occasional fluke mixed in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

I think he is talking about average teams. A team can win 81 and make the playoffs, why try for 90? To get around this, divison winners get byes. Let the others fight for HFA. 

Come on man, think about this on its face.  It's not easy to put together either an 81 or 90 win team.   No gm is short changing their team because they are sure they have 81 games in the bag, too many variables can change everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It is a false idea that there isn't a significant difference between the skill level of a 80 win team and a 90 win team.  Especially if we are going to play a series of games and not a single game, while you will have upsets, the creme will still mostly rise to the top.  I mean look at the NCAAs.  They play one game to move on, they have upsets early, but at the end of the day, the Final Four is almost always elite teams, with an occasional fluke mixed in.

Yes. There will be some upsets even with a 3 games series but most often that will be due to an injury or other factor. This is also what makes it a lttle more intriguing as well for he general fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Dan Szymborski argues otherwise. 

He claims Front offices will only put together 80-85 win teams from this point forward, because now that it's so easy to get in, there's no incentive to improve from an 80-85 win team to a 90 win team. 

Not only does he claim it, he has claimed that front offices contact him for his analysis just for things like this. He's an industry insider and he knows how it thinks as a sabr guy. 

That is exactly right. Teams going crazy on payroll with the exception of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and perhaps Cubs will be over. You won’t  need a 100 win roster, and why risk the money to try to put one together? Best of 3 in baseball, anything can happen especially if the underdog has one or two really good starters.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dick Allen said:

That is exactly right. Teams going crazy on payroll with the exception of the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and perhaps Cubs will be over. You won’t  need a 100 win roster, and why risk the money to try to put one together? Best of 3 in baseball, anything can happen especially if the underdog has one or two really good starters.

Teams don't need a 100 win roster now and teams makes trades just for the opportunity to play the 1 game play in wild card game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually really liked the format for the 10 teams.  I can deal with 12 but to me 16 is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much with as many games as there are in baseball(even if they shorten the season a bit).  Also, they couldn't have done this when the Sox were mediocre?!? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Teams don't need a 100 win roster now and teams makes trades just for the opportunity to play the 1 game play in wild card game.

Now they won’t need to make that trade. You are around .500, you have a decent shot of making it. Then it’s a crapshoot. 
 

Where it might help is tanking. It shouldn’t take too much of a commitment from an organization to be average.Then have a hot month, win a trophy. Both extremes probably will be the most affected. I suspect owners would love it because more playoffs is more TV money. And a lower standard to make the playoffs is a smaller payroll.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's "teams won't be willing to break bank in a world where 100 wins doesn't matter", but you could tell the chance for more teams to make the playoffs (giants, reds, etc) made deadline acquisitions more expensive. That may cut down on win totals a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Now they won’t need to make that trade. You are around .500, you have a decent shot of making it. Then it’s a crapshoot. 
 

Where it might help is tanking. It shouldn’t take too much of a commitment from an organization to be average.Then have a hot month, win a trophy. Both extremes probably will be the most affected. I suspect owners would love it because more playoffs is more TV money. And a lower standard to make the playoffs is a smaller payroll.

They will need to make that trade because they have more competition for that final spot. The team with the hot month is the team that wins now.

 

The bottom line is that if more teams are in it, the competition for those assets will be greater.

Edited by ptatc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Half the league doesn't see that money, so they get nothing.  Another big chunk of the league is playing these extra games at a much lower rate than if they were making regular salary.  The only spot where players make a real chunk of money is getting to the World Series. 

The league shares the money from TV deals which include playoffs - so yeah, gate money is something just the teams that make the playoffs make - but the real money is the TV money and that is what we are talking about here and what is going to be shared and ultimately when negotiating the union is going to look at the aggregate revenue streams (or they should).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ptatc said:

In case you haven't seen the ratings for baseball compared to the NFL and NBA, there is no well enough to leave alone.

Local baseball ratings are much better for MLB than NBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmags said:

I don't mind expanding but the 8 team set-up per league sucks, it needs to be just like football. These best of 3 series are too dumb and there is too little advantage to being good.

Here's what the MLB needs to do and they know it:

- Add 2 new teams, 1 per league

- Create a new division per league, 4 teams each

4 division winners + 2 wild cards

Top 2 teams get a bye

1st round - Best of 5

(3) division team + (6) wildcard, (4) division team + (5) wildcard

DS  - Best of 5

(1) Division team + (winner of 4/5)

CS - Best of 7

WS - Best of 7

Use the new 7 inning double headers to start in late september or cut schedule to 154 games.

 

Yeah, everything about this. Probably won't happen, but it's a fantastic compromise of the recent past and the current setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

In order to fit this in, won't they have to shorten the season a bit?  I can't imagine they want to be going into November every year with some of the weather in certain cities (like ours), but they can't play every October with zero days off.  

I do think the season is too long and should preferably start mid April to early-mid September but that would effect single season records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expanding the playoffs beyond what it now only makes the season meaningless. I don't want to see the MLB turned into the NBA and NHL. Getting into the playoffs should be a reward for a good season. The system is diluted enough as it is.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few thoughts:

1 - this has a lot more angles to explore than just the surface. 

Meaning, at the surface, my first reaction is this is stupid! Now if we were the Sox of a year or two ago, or even this year in Spring Training, i think we selfishly say, this is cool. I like it. Basically meaning, it benefits the fringe teams, which i think is kind of ridiculous considering the length of the season. 

However, on the flip side, extended playoffs also means a few more things. It almost turns into hockey playoffs - meaning, any team can win, and if any team can win, then you probably see more teams like the Pirates holding onto assets like Gerrit Cole and less teams like the Sox/Royals/Tigers completely tanking for a period of time. More competitive teams, equal more competitive and fun regular season games. So i think, at least on the surface extended playoffs = less super teams and better "bad teams" which i think is good overall. 

2 - we dont know the structure yet. I personally would not want to see a three game series stick around post this year. variables are too high in a 3, hell even a 5 game series. I'd much rather see 7 game series, minimal time off between series and games, throughout the entirety of the playoffs. In this scenario I think the variables are lessened. Basically, if you have 7 games, and no off days, then theoretically a team that maybe snuck in is going to have a tough time against the Dodgers. So in the NL for example, let's say the Brewers sneak in this year as an 8 seed and the Dodgers are the 1 seed. Maybe in a 3 game series things go haywire and milwaukee advances. I think it's much more unlikely that over a 7 game series, with no off days, that milwaukee wins 4. Rotation depth, team depth, etc. All the things that got you to the playoffs SHOULD ultimately win you the series. Now not always true, but thats the beauty of it. Kind of like hockey playoffs. 

3- you have to shorten the season to accomplish this. I don't want to see the current format and i want to minimize the variables, therefore in order to fit it all in you have to chop off about 12 games. make it a 150 game season and you can use that extra week for the playoffs. 

 

If those few suggestions are followed: 7 game series, minimal off days? Then i think i am very for extended playoffs. If you keep it with the same structure as this year? And then allow off days like in the past? Then I'm very against it because you're not rewarding the long season in any way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they go to 16, they could do the following. 

Seed 7-8 play a 3 game series in the Wild Card Round. (No days off, higher seed has homefield)

Winner plays in the next round, which is a best of 5 round.
2-7
3-6
4-5

1 Seed has a bye - they get roughly 9 days off, which might be a lot but I think it's better than playing and players will adjust.

Divisional Round best of 7
1 v Lowest Seed
3 v 4

I think that benefits the 1 seed a lot, but some would argue the time off is bad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×