Expanded 2020 playoffs

[fan_since79]

2 hours ago, RendZone said:

No way that happens. 

With the Angels anything can happen. There are still 7 teams in the AL that won't make the postseason. If our pitching blows up we'll be one of those teams. Better hope our starters can do better than a 5+ ERA.

[Claude]

20 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

With the Angels anything can happen. There are still 7 teams in the AL that won't make the postseason. If our pitching blows up we'll be one of those teams. Better hope our starters can do better than a 5+ ERA.

I think Maddon can motivate this team to at least get into the sweet sixteen.

[disarcina]

expanded playoffs not a bad idea but when the Commissioner was on ESPN - he said there were no bye rounds and everyone is in the mix round one which sounds like a three game series - and the division winners play the lower seed teams and those games are ALL home games for the division winners (although - no crowds so may not matter much).

oh well - I think its only for this season.

I don't mind more teams in the playoffs but prefer that the lower seeded teams with poorer records wade through an additional round which means the division winners and perhaps the second place team with the best record all get a bye round.  Otherwise sort of the 'Seattle' effect may occur (that references when Seattle won more games in team history 108 or something and up there in terms of overall wins for a season in MLB history - and then went out and either got swept or lost in five games in the first round of the playoffs to the lowest seeded team........ it happens - but you don't want your top team knocked out by a team with 20 fewer regular season wins in the FIRST ROUND.

 

[Pancake Bear]

53 minutes ago, disarcina said:

no bye rounds

Are bye rounds really a good thing in baseball? I mean, obviously you can’t lose a bye round, but it seems like in baseball, taking breaks isn’t really a benefit. 

Personally, I’m just looking forward to the Yanks or Dogs losing two in a row in the first round and breaking every national journalist’s heart. It will be glorious. 

[Blarg]

15 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Lol....  So if every series went the max number of games, then there would be a total of 65 postseason games following a 60 game season.   

Baseball needs only random fights and a penalty box and it becomes hockey. 

[Blarg]

12 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

Watch us still miss the playoffs.

And draft 17th. 

[Angel Oracle]

Might as well institute a draft lottery for the non-post-season teams.   Everything else is being done to screw up the one sport that had the post-season done right, up until 2012.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Angel Oracle

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

And draft 17th. 

Wouldn't we draft 14th if we just missed the playoffs?

[Junkballer]

10 hours ago, disarcina said:

expanded playoffs not a bad idea but when the Commissioner was on ESPN - he said there were no bye rounds and everyone is in the mix round one which sounds like a three game series - and the division winners play the lower seed teams and those games are ALL home games for the division winners (although - no crowds so may not matter much).

oh well - I think its only for this season.

I don't mind more teams in the playoffs but prefer that the lower seeded teams with poorer records wade through an additional round which means the division winners and perhaps the second place team with the best record all get a bye round.  Otherwise sort of the 'Seattle' effect may occur (that references when Seattle won more games in team history 108 or something and up there in terms of overall wins for a season in MLB history - and then went out and either got swept or lost in five games in the first round of the playoffs to the lowest seeded team........ it happens - but you don't want your top team knocked out by a team with 20 fewer regular season wins in the FIRST ROUND.

 

I don't really care for bye rounds.  The playoffs should be difficult, taxing and cause teams to play their best under a compressed time frame to stress their adaptability, depth and ability to rise to the moment.  Playoffs is about performing when it counts, not who "should" advance.  A top seed getting to play an inverse seed and home field advantage (minimal as that may be) seems like reward enough.  Not saying that I like this particular playoff scenario, I prefer all 7-game series, but the removal of a bye round advantage sits well with me.

[Hubs]

I actually think 12 is the right number for baseball, assuming they expand to 32.

I would really like to see 8 divisions of 4 teams, even though that would require some shuffling. Drop the Texas teams from the AL West, add an NL West team (Arizona).

Depending on where the two expansion teams end up, Nashville and Portland being my two preferences, with Tampa moving to Montreal. I'd switch Colorado, Arizona to the AL, and Tampa would go to the NL. Portland would join the NL West, and Colorado would join KC and the Texas teams in the New AL South, with the NL East would have the most upheaval, as three of it's teams would leave to form the new NL South, ATL, FLA, WAS, and adding expansion Nashville. The remaining NL East teams would be joined by Tampa/Montreal, and a team from the NL Central, likely Pittsburgh.

I like scaling back division play to 14 games, versus the 3 opponents, playing the other 12 teams in your league 6 times and playing all 16 teams in the other league 3 times each.

The extra rival games being eliminated, cuz with the realignment in my proposal, only LA, CHI, SF/OAK, NY, and maybe AZ/SD, POR/SEA, CLE/CIN, MON/TOR have an interleague rival. Who would Texas's RIval be? What about Atlanta? It's not that Clear. But playing 1/2 of each division at home and 1/2 on the road, is easy, especially since they can schedule visits when they're already traveling to that area to play the other teams. I'm also in support of reducing that by 12, playing your own interleague division every year for 3 games and one interleague division home and away on a rotating three year basis. 

Then when the playoffs start, you'd have two top division winners getting a bye for the three round series, the other two division winners playing the two wild cards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[disarcina]

19 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

Are bye rounds really a good thing in baseball? I mean, obviously you can’t lose a bye round, but it seems like in baseball, taking breaks isn’t really a benefit. 

Personally, I’m just looking forward to the Yanks or Dogs losing two in a row in the first round and breaking every national journalist’s heart. It will be glorious. 

I would agree with the observation that 'taking breaks' isn't really a break so while you can't LOSE a bye round - it CAN hurt you.

 

[Jeff Fletcher]

Today Joel Sherman wrote a column proposing that the top two seeds essentially get to start their best of 3 with a 1-0 lead. 
 

I actually liked that idea. I think there should be layers of benefit for each rung you climb on the 1-8 ladder, to encourage teams to play meaningful games all the way to the end. 
 

1-2 get the 1-0 bonus

3-4 play at home 

5-6 avoid the 0-1 penalty 

7-8 just get in

[Pancake Bear]

16 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Today Joel Sherman wrote a column proposing that the top two seeds essentially get to start their best of 3 with a 1-0 lead. 
 

I actually liked that idea. I think there should be layers of benefit for each rung you climb on the 1-8 ladder, to encourage teams to play meaningful games all the way to the end. 
 

1-2 get the 1-0 bonus

3-4 play at home 

5-6 avoid the 0-1 penalty 

7-8 just get in

Not crazy about it, tbh. Even in a 7 game series, 1 win is a gigantic advantage statistically. Seems like there should be better options on the drawing board. 

[Lou]

7 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Today Joel Sherman wrote a column proposing that the top two seeds essentially get to start their best of 3 with a 1-0 lead. 
 

I actually liked that idea. I think there should be layers of benefit for each rung you climb on the 1-8 ladder, to encourage teams to play meaningful games all the way to the end. 
 

1-2 get the 1-0 bonus

3-4 play at home 

5-6 avoid the 0-1 penalty 

7-8 just get in

Sorry, but I think that's a terrible idea. 

[Warfarin]

While I'm really not a fan of this 8 team per league playoff idea, it really does give us a solid shot this year.  

As long as we get in, which I think we have a very strong shot of doing, a first round "rotation" of Ohtani, Heaney, and Bundy (or Canning) would give us a pretty decent shot, IMO.  

[Taylor]

No. 1 seed should start every inning with the bases loaded, and they get 4 outs instead of 3.

[Tank]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

No. 1 seed should start every inning with the bases loaded, and they get 4 outs instead of 3.

and get two guys pitching at the same time.

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, Taylor said:

No. 1 seed should start every inning with the bases loaded, and they get 4 outs instead of 3.

And play every game at Yankee Stadium - even in the NL.

[Taylor]

16 minutes ago, Lou said:

And play every game at Yankee Stadium - even in the NL.

But they switch to the Oakland Coliseum when the other team is batting.

[Angel Oracle]

11 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Today Joel Sherman wrote a column proposing that the top two seeds essentially get to start their best of 3 with a 1-0 lead. 
 

I actually liked that idea. I think there should be layers of benefit for each rung you climb on the 1-8 ladder, to encourage teams to play meaningful games all the way to the end. 
 

1-2 get the 1-0 bonus

3-4 play at home 

5-6 avoid the 0-1 penalty 

7-8 just get in

I would prefer to have 1-2 host all 3 games, instead of being given the 1-0 bonus.   That just seems a little too quirky for me.

[AngelsLakersFan]

With so many teams making the playoffs and there being so many potential playoff games I think they really missed a great opportunity to create an interesting playoff format, like a round robin, group stage or seeded double elimination bracket. 

Once again MLB went with the least creative option, which was simply letting more teams in.

[Duren, Duren]

Remember, the objective of MLB (and all sports) ultimately is to make as much money as possible and generate the highest TV ratings.That means 'playoff contention' for as many teams as possible for as long as possible. 

Fair recognition of regular season standings has to suffer to some degree. The possible upset of the better teams by the underdogs adds to the intrigue even if unfair. 

In a world with decreasing attention spans current pro sports leagues risk boredom setting in if there are too many teams too far ahead and too far behind in the regular season. Parity is the ideal. 

The best teams still usually go the furthest in whatever playoff format is used, but the pressure is greater and risk of elimination increases. 

Probably the toughest era was from 1961 - 1968 when only one team in each league won a pennant and went directly to the World Series.  Those were the years of ten teams per league. Up from the eight that had been traditional for decades. There were some intriguing teams that never had a chance to advance. 1961 Detroit, 1964 Phillies, and others. Only the first place team was rewarded. Fair, but fan interest was waning. 1969 brought expansion and a league championship round. 

This season is a real unprecedented experiment. We won't know till it's over what kind of impact it will have for the future.

[AngelsLakersFan]

13 minutes ago, Duren, Duren said:

Remember, the objective of MLB (and all sports) ultimately is to make as much money as possible and generate the highest TV ratings.That means 'playoff contention' for as many teams as possible for as long as possible. 

Fair recognition of regular season standings has to suffer to some degree. The possible upset of the better teams by the underdogs adds to the intrigue even if unfair. 

Of course, but we've seen what result this has had on NBA and NHL post seasons. Their playoff format has turned the regular season into exhibition and their first rounds are just a formality. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

On 7/26/2020 at 10:25 AM, Angel Oracle said:

I would prefer to have 1-2 host all 3 games, instead of being given the 1-0 bonus.   That just seems a little too quirky for me.

The higher seeds already host all 3 games.