1 minute ago, hi8is said:

Didn’t you say you were leaving? ?

No. 

I said if MLB institutes a large expansion of playoffs *permanently* I would stop following the sport. 

I could care less what they do this season, it's already a dumpster fire anyway at 60 or so games. 

 

Edited June 17, 20205 yr by iWiN4PreP

12 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

What makes you say that? Source? I'd be interested in reading. 

Just go through the MLB standings from 2002-present and it's fairly apparent. 

Go through the NFL standings during the same time and there's more continuity there. 

The NFL has high variance among teams without an elite QB. The teams with an elite QB are almost always in the playoffs. 

MLB has high variance period. 

34 minutes ago, Tony said:

Agree.  They don’t have to change things to make the sport unrecognizable, but I can’t deal with the “WE JUST WANT BASEBALL BACK!” Crowd then when changes come with it, the same crowd says “BUT THATS NOT THE BASEBALL I WANTED! I’M DONE!” 
 

The sport isn’t in a good place right now, and that was before COVID. If they are smart, they’ll use this time to get a little crazy, try some things and see if a few things stick.

But what would they complain about?

11 minutes ago, Buehrle>Wood said:

Just to clarify, the expanded playoffs wont be permanent right? Man I hope not

No.  just these two seasons, the rest would have to be negotiated.

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

Just go through the MLB standings from 2002-present and it's fairly apparent. 

Go through the NFL standings during the same time and there's more continuity there. 

The NFL has high variance among teams without an elite QB. The teams with an elite QB are almost always in the playoffs. 

MLB has high variance period. 

So you have no source other than how you feel based on the standings you look at.

Ok. 

 

Edited June 17, 20205 yr by iWiN4PreP

1 hour ago, iWiN4PreP said:

MLB going to 16 teams in the playoffs would make it unwatchable for me. The regular season wouldn't matter and the playoffs would be a joke. 

I'm fine with discussions on adding a wild card here or there, but any expansive additions would result in losing me as a fan. 

See ya. 

9 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

So you have no source other than how you feel based on the standings you look at.

Ok. 

 

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2016/12/which-sports-league-has-the-most-parity/

NHL has the most parity, but NFL and MLB are virtually identical. 

When I was talking about variance, I was referring to season to season performance of each individual player. 

It makes sense. Puck luck plays a fairly big role in hockey playoffs, along with the huge field.

Edited June 17, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman

27 minutes ago, almagest said:

So 16 teams in the playoffs means 8 per league - 2 at the top of each division (East, Central, West) and the next 2 best teams record-wise are the 7 and 8 seeds. Based on last years standings that would be:

Yankees

Tampa

Minnesota

Cleveland

Houston

Oakland

Boston (84-78)

Texas (78-84)

 

Atlanta

Washington

St Louis

Milwaukee

LA Dodgers

Arizona

Mets (86-76)

Cubs (84-78)

 

Only one team below .500. Could do NBA style 1 vs 8 2 vs 7 etc but that's boring. I'd like to see the WC teams play each other still in a 1 game elimination, give the top seed in each league a bye, then do 2 vs Wild Card, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5.

Wouldn't necessarily be 2nd place in any division. It would likely be 3 division winners and 5 best records. That makes more sense. 

21 minutes ago, Buehrle>Wood said:

Just to clarify, the expanded playoffs wont be permanent right? Man I hope not

I think it's absolutely permanent 

5 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I think it's absolutely permanent 

Yeah, the owners won't give up that dough. 

They could cut the season down by a month then, but that would cost the owners too much money. 

I think it will lead to going back to 154 games instead of 162. 8 games isn't that much to lose for an extra week of playoffs. 

Edited June 17, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman

3 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I think it's absolutely permanent 

That’s the thing. Once they start something, there are too many stupid people to ever reverse it. It’s a bad idea. Plain and simple. 10 out of 30 is perfect. 12 out of 32 someday (maybe), would be fine. This 14/16 stuff is just terrible.

Edited June 17, 20205 yr by flavum

21 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

No. 

I said if MLB institutes a large expansion of playoffs *permanently* I would stop following the sport. 

I could care less what they do this season, it's already a dumpster fire anyway at 60 or so games. 

 

Could or couldn't?

Just now, flavum said:

That’s the thing. Once they start something, there are too many stupid people to ever reverse it. It’s a bad idea. Plain and simple. 10 out of 30 is perfect. 12 out of 32 someday (maybe), would be fine. This 14/16 stuff is just terrible.

NHL and the NBA playoffs are exciting as shit and they have, what, 16 teams each?

31 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

That doesn't make sense. How can it be the longest sport (and thus the most accurate representation of standings at the end) yet flukey?

Want flukey go to the NFL. 

MLB standings are not flukey. 

I mean since it is the longest, teams and fans need to be rewarded. Is it fair for a team to play 162 games, win 90 of them, and then miss the playoffs because they had a bad week or because a team won 91 games in a weaker division? 

The playoffs should be 7 games each series to ensure the team that won earned it, even the first round. If a team like the Cardinals wins it all with 83 wins, then so be it, it was earned. 

1 minute ago, SonofaRoache said:

I mean since it is the longest, teams and fans need to be rewarded. Is it fair for a team to play 162 games, win 90 of them, and then miss the playoffs because they had a bad week or because a team won 91 games in a weaker division? 

The playoffs should be 7 games each series to ensure the team that won earned it, even the first round. If a team like the Cardinals wins it all with 83 wins, then so be it, it was earned. 

Its funny, but I think the most successful post season tournament is the NCAA basketball playoffs.  It is one game and done, and the whole world loves the upsets.  Once you get past the initial snub talk after the brackets are released, the talk is all about winners and losers, and the big upsets.  You every rarely hear any talk about the top team losing out early hurting the tournament as instead people fall in love with the underdogs.

2 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

I mean since it is the longest, teams and fans need to be rewarded. Is it fair for a team to play 162 games, win 90 of them, and then miss the playoffs because they had a bad week or because a team won 91 games in a weaker division? 

The playoffs should be 7 games each series to ensure the team that won earned it, even the first round. If a team like the Cardinals wins it all with 83 wins, then so be it, it was earned. 

I think there will be preference given to the three division winners. Those three teams get a bye, then the bottom 5 teams duke it out for the last spot. 

2 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

NHL and the NBA playoffs are exciting as shit and they have, what, 16 teams each?

And once again, I don’t care what other sports do. It shouldn’t have to be explained why allowing under .500 teams in baseball in the playoffs is terrible.

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Its funny, but I think the most successful post season tournament is the NCAA basketball playoffs.  It is one game and done, and the whole world loves the upsets.  Once you get past the initial snub talk after the brackets are released, the talk is all about winners and losers, and the big upsets.  You every rarely hear any talk about the top team losing out early hurting the tournament as instead people fall in love with the underdogs.

It's a weird thing.....do you want the best team to win or not? If you do, then going back to pre-1995 is better. 

If you want the most compelling TV, the expanded playoffs are better.....however.....If we find that teams that used to not get in are winning the majority of championships, then there's going to be an issue. 

16 teams is too many because you only have 12 teams or so finish above .500 in a given season. Teams below .500 shouldn't be allowed to make the playoffs. If you wanted to do a floating number where it's based on how many teams finish .500 or above, I can buy that. 

Edited June 17, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's a weird thing.....do you want the best team to win or not? If you do, then going back to pre-1995 is better. 

If you want the most compelling TV, the expanded playoffs are better.....however.....If we find that teams that used to not get in are winning the majority of championships, then there's going to be an issue. 

Why though?  No one ever complains about the NCAA tournament no matter who wins.

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's a weird thing.....do you want the best team to win or not? If you do, then going back to pre-1995 is better. 

If you want the most compelling TV, the expanded playoffs are better.....however.....If we find that teams that used to not get in are winning the majority of championships, then there's going to be an issue. 

The MLB playoffs are all heavily predicated on variance anyway. Instead of 10 teams having a chance to win a title, it'll be 16. 

2 minutes ago, flavum said:

And once again, I don’t care what other sports do. It shouldn’t have to be explained why allowing under .500 teams in baseball in the playoffs is terrible.

We just showed, and only one team under .500 made it... The other additional teams were the Red Sox, Cubs and Mets... How do those 3 not excite anyone?

6 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

The MLB playoffs are all heavily predicated on variance anyway. Instead of 10 teams having a chance to win a title, it'll be 16. 

I know.....what's the point of the long season then? the point was always to eliminate the variance as much as possible...the cream rises to the top. 

I agree that it's stupid if 3 of the 8 teams have 79 or fewer wins. 

 

Just as recently as 2017 there would have been 3 teams that made the playoffs in the AL under .500 (all with 80 wins), and that same year in the NL a 77 win Marlins team would have qualified. 

Edited June 17, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman

This stands to get the White Sox valuable playoff experience in a developmental season where they otherwise might not have gotten it.  That's really all I care about. 

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I know.....what's the point of the long season then? the point was always to eliminate the variance as much as possible...the cream rises to the top. 

I agree that it's stupid if 3 of the 8 teams have 79 or fewer wins. 

If you take the division winners plus the next 5 best record teams.. How many in the past 5 years were under .500?  I'd GUESS 1 a year. or something super small

5 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

If you take the division winners plus the next 5 best record teams.. How many in the past 5 years were under .500?  I'd GUESS 1 a year. or something super small

In 2017 4 teams would have qualified under .500 out of the 16 total.  The lowest win total would have been a 77 win Marlins team. the other three won 80 games. 

In 2016 two NL teams qualify with 79 and 78 wins, all AL teams were above .500, with one team having 84 wins excluded. 

In 2015 only one team out of 16 was below .500

 

Edited June 17, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman