Jump to content

djhutch

Expansion Could Trigger Re-Alignment, Longer Postseason

Recommended Posts

On 10/17/2017 at 12:36 PM, tiger337 said:

I think expansion will happen soon, but I doubt Ringolsby's scenario was seriously discussed.  I don't think they will ever get rid of the American and National Leagues.  They are too important to the identity of the sport and too many fans would protest it.  I think the leagues will stay pretty much the same, but the divisions will be different. 

The commissioner has said in the past that there would be eight four team divisions.  It is hard to see how they would make the playoffs work with that though.  They would either have to have just division winners (which won't happen) or first round byes or have 16 teams in the playoffs (which would be so awful it would almost kill my interest in the sport).  I could see the latter scenario  happening only because the networks would love it. 

Another possibility would be four eight team divisions with eight wild cards having play in games.  I would dislike that too, but it would be much less awful than 16 teams in the playoffs.  

In the end, I think MLB will do something I don't like, but if it gets Montreal back in the sport I could live with it.    

Well put. If baseball really wants to expand the playoffs, they need to really shorten the regular season. This season, if the World Series goes 7 games, will end in November. Baseball in that weather makes little sense and puts players at risk of injuries. Players that are making too much money to replace and would destroy a franchise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Casimir said:

How so?

Well the set up destroy several long standing rivalries and the AL/NL thing. Then you only get three games, maybe at home, against every other team. Then a 10 team playoff creates odd and harmful stretches of a week off and odd playoff setups with byes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

****, go back to AL and NL without divisions and award the pennant to the regular season champion. The World Series loser takes no pride from being able to hoist a league pennant anyway. 

You could even imbalance the schedules based on geography to cut down on travel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shelton said:

****, go back to AL and NL without divisions and award the pennant to the regular season champion. The World Series loser takes no pride from being able to hoist a league pennant anyway. 

You could even imbalance the schedules based on geography to cut down on travel. 

I know you are kidding, but I actually would like that.  I would probably go with two divisions in each league, but I don't like seeing a bunch of teams in the playoffs.  It cheapens both the regular season and the playoffs.  I realize this will never happen.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

Well the set up destroy several long standing rivalries and the AL/NL thing. Then you only get three games, maybe at home, against every other team. Then a 10 team playoff creates odd and harmful stretches of a week off and odd playoff setups with byes. 

What rivalries get destroyed?

As it is now, teams don’t face other teams in the other league more than once every three years.

There are 10 playoff teams now.  I don’t see how what I proposed is any different.  The bottom 4 teams have those stupid play in games (just like now) and then the first round gets seeded 1-8 with who isn’t left.  And then the second round gets seeded 1-4 with whoever is left.  We do agree they aren’t going back from 10, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I know you are kidding, but I actually would like that.  I would probably go with two divisions in each league, but I don't like seeing a bunch of teams in the playoffs.  It cheapens both the regular season and the playoffs.  I realize this will never happen.  

If they do expand and get to 32, 4 divisions of 8 is the way to go.

I don’t they’re going to go backward on the number of playoff teams, so I hope they stay with the number they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I know you are kidding, but I actually would like that.  I would probably go with two divisions in each league, but I don't like seeing a bunch of teams in the playoffs.  It cheapens both the regular season and the playoffs.  I realize this will never happen.  

I’m absolutely not kidding. If I were in charge that is what I would do. 

I would still keep the playoffs including 8 teams in a “divisional series” type format. How they get to 8 can be up for debate. Just take the top four. Or take the top 3 and have two wild card teams. Or take the top 3 with three wild cards where the 4 seed plays the winner of the 5-6 game. Or take the top 2 with four wild cards that play a best of three series where the 3/4 seeds start the series up a game so the max number of games played is 2. 

Share this post


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

I’m absolutely not kidding. If I were in charge that is what I would do. 

I would still keep the playoffs including 8 teams in a “divisional series” type format. How they get to 8 can be up for debate. Just take the top four. Or take the top 3 and have two wild card teams. Or take the top 3 with three wild cards where the 4 seed plays the winner of the 5-6 game. Or take the top 2 with four wild cards that play a best of three series where the 3/4 seeds start the series up a game so the max number of games played is 2. 

I thought you were just saying that you would just talk the two winners and put them in the World Series.  I would have no problem with that, but I know it won't happen.  Realistically, I would want no divisions and just take the top four in each league. They could do that now, no need for expansion.  

Share this post


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

I’m absolutely not kidding. If I were in charge that is what I would do. 

I would still keep the playoffs including 8 teams in a “divisional series” type format. How they get to 8 can be up for debate. Just take the top four. Or take the top 3 and have two wild card teams. Or take the top 3 with three wild cards where the 4 seed plays the winner of the 5-6 game. Or take the top 2 with four wild cards that play a best of three series where the 3/4 seeds start the series up a game so the max number of games played is 2. 

we do need a solution that eliminates a one-game wild card playoff.  An 8-team playoff approach would do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Casimir said:

What rivalries get destroyed?

As it is now, teams don’t face other teams in the other league more than once every three years.

There are 10 playoff teams now.  I don’t see how what I proposed is any different.  The bottom 4 teams have those stupid play in games (just like now) and then the first round gets seeded 1-8 with who isn’t left.  And then the second round gets seeded 1-4 with whoever is left.  We do agree they aren’t going back from 10, right?

Cubs-StL for one. Baltimore vs. the East. Philly-Pit. KC-central division, Cincy-STL, Cle-Det, 

And your right we do have a 10 team playoff, but its one that mathematically works. In yours five division winners and five wild card teams. How does it work. Do four play in the playoff game? So one wildcard gets a bye? Five divisions just makes the math weird and clunky. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

Cubs-StL for one. Baltimore vs. the East. Philly-Pit. KC-central division, Cincy-STL, Cle-Det, 

And your right we do have a 10 team playoff, but its one that mathematically works. In yours five division winners and five wild card teams. How does it work. Do four play in the playoff game? So one wildcard gets a bye? Five divisions just makes the math weird and clunky. 

I hate the Indians and want them to lose always, but in truth, that is just an inter-division rivalry.  I don't think it is steeped in any historical significance.  If we moved into separate divisions, I'd likely become indifferent to them.  We'd find another team to hate the most, much like we did with Toronto in the 80's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

we do need a solution that eliminates a one-game wild card playoff.  An 8-team playoff approach would do that.

I think the networks want more one-game playoffs and more homers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keepleyland2 said:

Cubs-StL for one. Baltimore vs. the East. Philly-Pit. KC-central division, Cincy-STL, Cle-Det, 

And your right we do have a 10 team playoff, but its one that mathematically works. In yours five division winners and five wild card teams. How does it work. Do four play in the playoff game? So one wildcard gets a bye? Five divisions just makes the math weird and clunky. 

If they were to actually realign, something is indeed going to be broken somewhere.  And depending upon how much realignment there is, because Detroit doesn't have much of a natural rivalry with anyone (I don't think Cleveland is much of a rivarly, and I doubt MLB sees it as much of one), Detroit could be the last team assigned to a division, especially if it is done by geography.  I know some folks think putting Cincinnati in the south makes sense, but I think MLB would place them with Cleveland if the realignment is that widespread.

So what are the owners going to be focused on if they are serious about realignment?  Money or tradition?  Why are they considering expansion when they have current teams struggling with attendance and no serious outcry from any locations about attracting any of the struggling teams?  Tampa has its goofy lease agreement.  But Oakland has been the dregs for a long time.

In a five division winners and five wild card scenario, they could have the 7th vs the 10th best winning percentage and the 8th and 9th best winning percentage do the one gamers.  Those games get played, and then you've got a regular 8 team bracket.  The best team gets the winner of 7-10 with the worst winning percentage, the 2nd best team gets the other team out of the 7-10 play ins.

Baseball would probably go with a hard bracket, but I would match up the best team against the worst team in every round.  Make the regular season count for something.  So if 8 &10 win the play ins, it'd be 1 vs 10, 2 vs 8, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5.  If everything in that round is chalk except 6 beats 3, I would match up 1 vs 6 and 2 vs 4 in the semis rather than 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I think the networks want more one-game playoffs and more homers.  

I think you are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Casimir said:

If they were to actually realign, something is indeed going to be broken somewhere.  And depending upon how much realignment there is, because Detroit doesn't have much of a natural rivalry with anyone (I don't think Cleveland is much of a rivarly, and I doubt MLB sees it as much of one), Detroit could be the last team assigned to a division, especially if it is done by geography.  I know some folks think putting Cincinnati in the south makes sense, but I think MLB would place them with Cleveland if the realignment is that widespread.

So what are the owners going to be focused on if they are serious about realignment?  Money or tradition?  Why are they considering expansion when they have current teams struggling with attendance and no serious outcry from any locations about attracting any of the struggling teams?  Tampa has its goofy lease agreement.  But Oakland has been the dregs for a long time.

In a five division winners and five wild card scenario, they could have the 7th vs the 10th best winning percentage and the 8th and 9th best winning percentage do the one gamers.  Those games get played, and then you've got a regular 8 team bracket.  The best team gets the winner of 7-10 with the worst winning percentage, the 2nd best team gets the other team out of the 7-10 play ins.

Baseball would probably go with a hard bracket, but I would match up the best team against the worst team in every round.  Make the regular season count for something.  So if 8 &10 win the play ins, it'd be 1 vs 10, 2 vs 8, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5.  If everything in that round is chalk except 6 beats 3, I would match up 1 vs 6 and 2 vs 4 in the semis rather than 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 6.

I don’t think the benefit of reseeding like you suggest is all that significant. 

Share this post


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

I don’t think the benefit of reseeding like you suggest is all that significant. 

It just depends upon the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Casimir said:

If they were to actually realign, something is indeed going to be broken somewhere.  And depending upon how much realignment there is, because Detroit doesn't have much of a natural rivalry with anyone (I don't think Cleveland is much of a rivarly, and I doubt MLB sees it as much of one), Detroit could be the last team assigned to a division, especially if it is done by geography.  I know some folks think putting Cincinnati in the south makes sense, but I think MLB would place them with Cleveland if the realignment is that widespread.

So what are the owners going to be focused on if they are serious about realignment?  Money or tradition?  Why are they considering expansion when they have current teams struggling with attendance and no serious outcry from any locations about attracting any of the struggling teams?  Tampa has its goofy lease agreement.  But Oakland has been the dregs for a long time.

In a five division winners and five wild card scenario, they could have the 7th vs the 10th best winning percentage and the 8th and 9th best winning percentage do the one gamers.  Those games get played, and then you've got a regular 8 team bracket.  The best team gets the winner of 7-10 with the worst winning percentage, the 2nd best team gets the other team out of the 7-10 play ins.

Baseball would probably go with a hard bracket, but I would match up the best team against the worst team in every round.  Make the regular season count for something.  So if 8 &10 win the play ins, it'd be 1 vs 10, 2 vs 8, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5.  If everything in that round is chalk except 6 beats 3, I would match up 1 vs 6 and 2 vs 4 in the semis rather than 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 6.

Money and tradition are not mutually exclusive. Especially when you consider some of those broken rivalries listed are considered preimum games in attendance. 

I also agree something is going to have to be broken somewhere, hence why we are in the central not in the east. But, that doesn't mean you have to break 19 rivalries. 

And the playoffs are just weird in your set up. Ok so one wild card gets a buy, the other four play each other. It makes plenty of sense after the first round with matchups and I get all that. But, its really weird and I'm not sure fair before the group of 8. 

Share this post


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

I hate the Indians and want them to lose always, but in truth, that is just an inter-division rivalry.  I don't think it is steeped in any historical significance.  If we moved into separate divisions, I'd likely become indifferent to them.  We'd find another team to hate the most, much like we did with Toronto in the 80's.

And I get that. But, I was just throwing one one of several matchups that go by nearly the complete wayside in Cas' idea when reduced to three games a year. There are other more historical ones that are broken up all for going to five divisions? There are other proposals thrown out that have far fewer of those types of interruptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I like the one game play-off if it penalizes wild cards.

You can penalize wildcards by not having wildcards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should go back to the two divisions in each league and take top 3 or 4 teams from each division and do a playoff format off that. If you're going to go to 4 divisions like the commissioner wants then you have to look at shortening the season or realign the schedule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I like the one game play-off if it penalizes wild cards.

I don''t like penalizing wild cards that finish with better records than division winners.

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

×