So, pretty much, you're judging him on the body of work of 3 (4 including Giamatti) other men.

 

Selig has had successful expansion twice, a team moving only once, profit sharing in the form of the payroll tax, decent parity, the 3 tier division with the very popular wild card. Many new stadiums, the All Star Game meaning something, exciting interleague play, record increases in baseball attendance following a work stoppage (which was the union's fault as much as the owners') and a 14 year period that saw 26 of 30 mlb teams make the playoffs.

 

No other Commissioner can say these things.

Edited October 19, 200619 yr by knightni

So, pretty much, you're judging him on the body of work of 3 (4 including Giamatti) other men.

 

Selig has had successful expansion twice, a team moving only once, profit sharing in the form of the payroll tax, decent parity, the 3 tier division with the very popular wild card. Many new stadiums, the All Star Game meaning something, exciting interleague play, record increases in baseball attendance following a work stoppage (which was the union's fault as much as the owners') and a 14 year period that saw 26 of 30 mlb teams make the playoffs.

 

No other Commissioner can say these things.

Good stuff there knight. I honestly was just going to mention the wild card cause imo that is one of the best things ever to happen to baseball.

If there were willing to shorten the reg. season by atleast 8-10 games I wouldnt be against another round. But I do like the playoffs the way they are and I dont think anything really needs to be changed.

Why can't they just start the season a week earlier and play games in warm weather/domed stadiums?

 

AL: Anaheim, Oakland, Toronto, Tampa, Seattle, Arlington, Kansas City, Minneapolis.

 

NL: Houston, Atlanta, Milwaukee, St Louis, Arizona, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, San Diego

Why can't they just start the season a week earlier and play games in warm weather/domed stadiums?

 

AL: Anaheim, Oakland, Toronto, Tampa, Seattle, Arlington, Kansas City, Minneapolis.

 

NL: Houston, Atlanta, Milwaukee, St Louis, Arizona, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, San Diego

 

It wouldn't be fair to the fans whose teams aren't in a warm climate or don't have a dome stadium. Example Chicago, Detroit, New York and others.

 

Selig is also the one who wants to make it harder for wild card teams to get to the World Series.

It wouldn't be fair to the fans whose teams aren't in a warm climate or don't have a dome stadium. Example Chicago, Detroit, New York and others.

 

Selig is also the one who wants to make it harder for wild card teams to get to the World Series.

What's fair?

 

The Sox started on the road nearly every season since the early 90s until last year.

 

Two 4 game road series' at the beginning of the year are no big deal.

 

Those teams can have two 4 game home series' to finish the season.

Problem #1 with current first-round format:

You play 162 games and then are a couple games away from it all being for nothing. In football you play 16 games a season, so one-game elimination works. In the NBA, they play 82 games, so even a 5-game first-round makes sense. But in baseball, you can go out and have a 100-win season and then lose three out of five to an 80-win team. There is really no point in having 162-game schedule then.

 

 

Problem #2:

Every team plays 162 games with a five-man rotation, the fourth and fifth guy coming into play roughly 40 percent of the time. But come first-round of the playoffs, who cares about them two? As long as you have a couple really good starters, you're good to go. Once again, why play so many games during the season then?

 

Problem #3:

The home-field advantage, in some cases, is pointless. If there is a team that won 10-15 more games than their opponent during the season, does one game at home really make that much of a difference? In a short-season, yes. Fewer games, fewer road games, but when you are talking about 81 games on the road, one game in a five-game series doesn't mean anything. Problem is, all you can do with a five-game series is go 4-to-1, and that would completely screw a team in certain situations (Like the Yanks/Tigers series this year).

 

The current system could definitely use some tweaking. First, I'd shorten the season though.

Problem #1 with current first-round format:

You play 162 games and then are a couple games away from it all being for nothing. In football you play 16 games a season, so one-game elimination works. In the NBA, they play 82 games, so even a 5-game first-round makes sense. But in baseball, you can go out and have a 100-win season and then lose three out of five to an 80-win team. There is really no point in having 162-game schedule then.

Problem #2:

Every team plays 162 games with a five-man rotation, the fourth and fifth guy coming into play roughly 40 percent of the time. But come first-round of the playoffs, who cares about them two? As long as you have a couple really good starters, you're good to go. Once again, why play so many games during the season then?

 

Problem #3:

The home-field advantage, in some cases, is pointless. If there is a team that won 10-15 more games than their opponent during the season, does one game at home really make that much of a difference? In a short-season, yes. Fewer games, fewer road games, but when you are talking about 81 games on the road, one game in a five-game series doesn't mean anything. Problem is, all you can do with a five-game series is go 4-to-1, and that would completely screw a team in certain situations (Like the Yanks/Tigers series this year).

 

The current system could definitely use some tweaking. First, I'd shorten the season though.

 

You bring up some excellent points. Any thoughts on a compromise where there are two wild card teams in each league who play each other in a one game playoff to face the team with the best record of the division winners?

 

There is always a day off before the postseason starts so there is no lengthening of the season for anyone. This will help lessen the advantage a team with a great 1-2-3 punch might have even though they are not nearly as balanced at the back of the rotation over 162 games.

 

If one game is not enough, make the play-in a three game series on three consecutive days followed by an off day where the two division winners not facing the wild card winner would play their first game. Then the wild card winner would have to start their 4th starter or choose to go on short rest. This would reward the division winners with extra rest and an extra bonus to the team with the best record.

 

Overall, however, I think most wild card teams have performed so well because they typically come from the toughest division in the league and are already in playoff mode when the postseason starts. Odds are they have been in a dogfight with several other teams and realize how close they were to elimination. The Tigers this year and the Sox (although not the WC) last year are both great examples of this fact.

With Major League baseball, I can remember from Bowie Kuehn (spelling?) on, and Selig is the worst. On the other hand Fay Vincent was pretty bad.

I actually think that overall Selig is one of the best comissioners the game has had. He's had some minor slips (definately the 94 strike) but as a whole he's been a very good GM. Heck, the addition of the Wild Card alone makes him one of the greatest comissioners ever in my book. I can't even imagine baseball without the new divisional alignments and the wild card (it makes things even more exciting than it used to be).

I say ditch the wild card, the team with the best record in the league gets a bye in the first round and plays the winner of the division series, which should remain best of 5.

I like the wild card. The divisonal series should remain a best of 5 series. I wouldn't want any more teams added to the playoffs. Leave things as they are.

I actually think that overall Selig is one of the best comissioners the game has had. He's had some minor slips (definately the 94 strike) but as a whole he's been a very good GM. Heck, the addition of the Wild Card alone makes him one of the greatest comissioners ever in my book. I can't even imagine baseball without the new divisional alignments and the wild card (it makes things even more exciting than it used to be).

Well, baseball was kind of forced to add the Wild card. With the league expanding they absolutely could not keep it at 2 divisions per league. There needed to be 3 and a "bye week" in baseball is way too long for a team to have off. It wouldnt be fare to the bye team.

Well, baseball was kind of forced to add the Wild card. With the league expanding they absolutely could not keep it at 2 divisions per league. There needed to be 3 and a "bye week" in baseball is way too long for a team to have off. It wouldnt be fare to the bye team.

I don't know if it was a forced issue, at the time it was heavily debated and baseball purists everywhere we screaming murder.

The problem with the playoffs isn't how it's structured - it's who gets in.

 

Eliminate the divisions, because they're completely arbitrary anyway, go back to a balanced schedule, and let the top 4 teams in the league into the playoffs, seeding them 1-4 and having them play each other.

 

That way you don't have this joke where an 83-win team gets in like this year, or an 82-win team like last year.

It makes divisions meaningless then.

That way you don't have this joke where an 83-win team gets in like this year, or an 82-win team like last year.

Yeah, those teams are jokes. They don't have a shot to beat anyone.

I demand for Bud Selig to resign. I am serious.