As people have said here repeatedly, the idea isn’t to be fair. The idea is to put the WC at a disadvantage. You want to avoid that, win your division. You want to be in an easier division? Tough luck.
The very existence of a playoff system seems to mystify Jasmine.
Is it worse if they don’t get to play a single game at all?
Even having divisions means a team could be wildly better during the regular season than the team that ends up winning the pennant. The 1987 Twins won 13 games fewer than the Tigers. The 2006 Cardinals won 14 games fewer than the Mets.
Unless you have no divisions OR leagues and just have the 30 teams play a balanced schedule and declare the first place team the champion, the way European football leagues do it, there will always be a mismatch between regular season success and playoff seeding and playoff results. The best regular season team usually does not win the World Series, after all, and just having divisions makes it inevitable some teams will be a raw deal; if they played in the Central Division, my team, the Blue Jays, would have probably won a hundred games. But they don’t, so they didn’t.
MLB is stuck between having eight teams in the playoffs, which is a reasonably fair system - the benefit of a single wild card is that an exceptional team like the 1993 Giants cannot miss the playoffs - but which tends to eliminate a lot of teams early, and sixteen teams, which is just too many in a 30-team baseball league. Having two wild cards opens up a few more interesting games in September.
The next step would be an NFL system - six teams per league, with two getting a bye. That would allow for, say, an abbreviated first round followed by a division series, but the disadvantage is that the season’s too goddamn long already and the gifters who run the league won’t cut back from 162 games.
Well, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think a 10-game lead is a pretty good point where we can safely say “yeah, the team with the better record is getting jobbed if the system is allowing them to be eliminated from the playoffs in just one game”.
Good point about burning pitchers. If I had my way, I’d shorten the regular season and give more time after the wild card games for rest, but I don’t think that will be popular.
Or perhaps an unholy mashup of my proposal and asahi’s idea from this post might work - if a wild card team has a record that is ≥ 15 games better than the division winner with the worst record among all the division winners, then the teams swap spots - the division winner has to play in one wild card game, while the “wild card” team goes straight to the divisional series.
I think they should swap spots even if the difference is a single game. That way, a team like the White Sox still has something to fight for. They’re not just competing against the lowly Cleveland Guardians or Detroit Tigers; they’re fighting to keep pace with the Blue Jays, Yankees, Astros, and Mariners.
Then why have divisions at all? Just have one league and seed the top five accordingly.
I wouldn’t have a problem with eliminating divisions, but I think MLB’s marketing department would. If I understand it correctly, the NBA’s model for seeding is actually a model for what I’m proposing – division winners get in but their seeds are not guaranteed.
I think so, yes. However, it would almost never matter; when eight teams make the playoffs it’s a really rare event for one of the three division champions to not be one of the eight best teams in the conference.
I just go back to the game on Wednesday between LA and STL. As I said in the playoff thread, I’m not complaining that the Cards lost a one-game playoff against the Dodgers, who were absolutely the better team in every which way. I’m actually upset that the Cardinals could have beaten the Dodgers once and ended the season for a team that had a historically good year - in one game. It should have been Atlanta playing St. Louis, not LA
Fairness is not the correct measure. You want a fair system that is easy. Every team plays every other team six times, three at home and three on the road Most wins is the champion. Incredibly fair and incredibly boring.
The purpose is never fairness but rather entertainment. However, you need to balance the entertainment of the postseason with the entertainment of the regular season. For instance you could have a NCAA style single elimination postseason where every team was included. Would be a great postseason, but would make the regular season completely meaningless.
That regular season is where baseball differs from the other sports mentioned. No one cares about pennant races in football or basketball, but in baseball they are a key part of the appeal. Baseball has a long regular season in part because it takes a long time to distinguish who are the best teams.
The postseason is going to be a crapshoot no matter how you design it.
I actually think the current system is just about perfect and this year illistrated why. You got an epic pennant race from two all time great times and also got fun freefor all to capture the last spots in the AL. Is it fair that the Dodgers had to play to one game playoff? Is it fair they get to play in one of the largest markets. Who cares. It was fun. Certainly way more fun then the Giants an Dodgers resting their starters for the last month because it couldn’t mean less who had the 1 vs 2 seed.
Oh and on the Yankees, their offseason seems pretty straightforward. Sign a star shortstop. Fill in some depth.
The Mets on the other hand…
I disagree. Shortstop should be lower on their priority list. They have 3 top prospects at shortstop, two of which will be ready soon. They need a one year bridge at SS which can be Gio. 1st base is a problem. Rizzo may not sign. Voit is uneven and injury prone. And without Rizzo they lose an important left hand bat. I don’t see them wanting to pay a long term bloated salary to one of the big free agent short stops when there are other problems that don’t have a solution yet.
If Hicks can’t be counted on is Florial ready? I don’t think so. They have to look at centerfield. Judge can’t be the answer he won’t last the year in center. They need to answer the first base question. Kluber will either be on another team or they will sign him but not be able to count on him. They need another starter. Shortstop is at best 4th priority.
Crap. Boone got a three year extension. I was hoping someone old school would take over.
My priorities:
1- Get rid of Sanchez and Chapman. Every single year we hear how hard Gary has worked on his defense and every single year he proves he just can’t field. Plus his offense is pretty much hot or cold. Either an automatic out or a real threat. Speaking of streaky, Chapman is either lights out or he blows a save.
2- Shore up center field. Gardner isn’t an option anymore, Father Time has caught him. Judge belongs in right. Sign a free agent.
3- Get rid of Voit. Rizzo is better.
4- Keep Torres at second. He can’t play short. I’d give him one more year to live up to his potential
5- Urshela has to stay at third until someone else comes along.
6- Bring up a young shortstop, even if not quite ready.
Isn’t that exactly who Boone is?
Rigid adherence to defined relief roles.
Preference given to veterans regardless of performance.
Unimaginative lineup creation.
I see Boone as a puppet of the analytics people who seem to run the organization. I’d like to bring back the corpse of Billy Martin. I believe in get them on, get them over, and get them in. Nowadays it’s homer or strikeout.
I don’t think any of the Yankee prospects are close/good enough to prevent you from going after a shortstop. Besides too many shortstops is never a problem. You can move them around the field if you need to.
Besides the market is loaded with ss options. Correa/Seager/Story are much bigger impact players then say Rizzo. In the toughest division in baseball I don’t think Rizzo/Torres/Urshela/LeMeiheu is going to get it done.
I’m annoyed Boone got an extension. But most likely the days of real managers are gone anyway.
Yanks have some excellent SS & CF prospects that won’t be ready in April, so it puts them in a tough spot. If you bring in a SS or promote one DJ is probably the 1st baseman. So bringing Rizzo back is not a high priority. Teams a bit of a mess honestly.
I’d like to see the all or nothing plate approach scrapped, pronto, but I expect the Yanks to be pretty much the same next year. With Stanton and Cole on the payroll, there aren’t going to be any more monster contracts handed out to the likes of Correa or Seager.
They won’t invest in a center fielder because the great Aaron Hicks is expected back. Sanchez is in his walk year, so still relatively cheap, and maybe he’ll be extra-focused with his eyes on the big money prize. Chapman is in his final year, but very expensive and thus possessing little offseason trade value. Either or both could be moved at the trade deadline if they are performing well and the team is mired in fourth place, as I fully expect.
Rizzo is a vacuum cleaner at first, but his range sucks and he’s on the wrong side of 30. His glory days are firmly in the past, but he’ll still command at least three years, hopefully somewhere else. Voit isn’t the answer, either, but nobody seems to want him. Torres and Urshela seemed to have lost their power with the juiced ball and…
You know what? This team is fucked, lol.
It baffles me why the all or nothing approach to hitting is so dominant. When you watch post season play, the teams that are winning series are hitting the ball around the field, taking extra bases, moving runners over, etc. Little ball works and if the analysis boys keep insisting on all or nothing, then they’re wrong.
Have you watched the Red Sox in the ALCS?