2022 MLB Playoffs Format

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Have one league, like the Premier League.

After the first year, promote the top sixteen AAA teams, and drop the worst eight MLB teams into a new Championship League.

Do the same all through the MLB system.

Allow Japanese, Korean, and other leagues to participate.

The sooner baseball goes to a European-style soccer league system, the better.

You know, maybe I am having a late-in-life epiphany, or a senior-age life crisis, but that actually sounds appealing to me!

[thehef]

Originally Posted by pilight

Yeah, sometimes you would get seasons like 1943 where both races were basically over by the beginning of August and have weeks or months of meaningless games.

Not a disagreement, but more of an fyi. Back in those days, there was considerable focus on a) finishing in the first division (finishing in the top four of the 8-team NL or AL), and b) simply where a team finished. For example, if the Giants were out of the race for the pennant by August, but still in the running for fourth place, you'd see mention of that in their game articles, and sometimes in the actual headline.

Times certainly have changed...

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Have one league, like the Premier League.

After the first year, promote the top sixteen AAA teams, and drop the worst eight MLB teams into a new Championship League.

Do the same all through the MLB system.

Allow Japanese, Korean, and other leagues to participate.

The sooner baseball goes to a European-style soccer league system, the better.

I don’t it would work logistically. You would need to do 5 or 7 game series and it would take up too much time from the regular season.

[WestCoastGuy]

Originally Posted by thehef

Not a disagreement, but more of an fyi. Back in those days, there was considerable focus on a) finishing in the first division (finishing in the top four of the 8-team NL or AL), and b) simply where a team finished. For example, if the Giants were out of the race for the pennant by August, but still in the running for fourth place, you'd see mention of that in their game articles, and sometimes in the actual headline.

Times certainly have changed...

Good point. Yeah, I think that there was a significant pay bump for the players finishing in the first division, plus lesser pay bumps depending on where they finished, and with how little they earned then compared to today, those differences were not insignificant.

Just speaking for myself, I very much preferred the old system, even the 1969-93 two-division-per-league setup. It's fine if all of the pennant races are essentially wrapped up in August. But I know that this type of format this will most likely never happen again, but, thankfully, I can make it happen in OOTP.

Not only do I want the regular season to be as important as possible as far as determining champions, but there is also so much more to this sport than a team's chances of making the playoffs, making the World Series. In other words, it actually is possible to enjoy following a team that's out of the running.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by thehef

Not a disagreement, but more of an fyi. Back in those days, there was considerable focus on a) finishing in the first division (finishing in the top four of the 8-team NL or AL), and b) simply where a team finished. For example, if the Giants were out of the race for the pennant by August, but still in the running for fourth place, you'd see mention of that in their game articles, and sometimes in the actual headline.

Times certainly have changed...

I do remember that kind of thing, yes! The fact that your team came in sixth last season but improved to third this year would have been a big deal. The only bad news was "finishing in the basement" (or a fall from third to sixth place).

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Westheim

But you do know there's a fix for that!

Yep. Add one more team per league and then have four divisions with four teams.

The league has too many teams for only two divisions in each league with only the division winners moving on.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Yep. Add one more team per league and then have four divisions with four teams.

(clutches chest)

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Westheim

(clutches chest)

I know. I grew up in the era of two divisions in each league with only the division winners advancing. That's my preferred. Three divisions with one wildcard is my next. 8 teams max in the playoffs is where my OOTP games land. This whole 16 teams thing is very much not to my liking.

[Amazin69]

Four four-team divisions isn't my preference either, but anything that gets rid of Wild Cards (win the World Series even though you couldn't beat the Braves! FFS…) is all right by me. And obviously, I'd rather have 4/16 teams making the playoffs than 6/15.

That said, I disagree that we couldn't return to having 2 8-team divisions per league. For 60 years (1901-1960), we had 8-team leagues and it worked out just fine.

Promotion/relegation would be cool, too. Especially if it meant you could put teams in every city that wanted one and thus end owners screwing cities out of taxpayer money by threatening to move. (Memphis isn't paying $$$ to lure the Athletics to town when they can just have the Chicks win their way up from AAA.)

Which, of course, is why this will never happen. Can't be taking away ownership's power to screw over the fans, right?

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Now, as I mentioned above, there is more exciting baseball. Games are meaningful for more teams late in the season.

I've always disagreed with this. Bloated playoffs don't make September exciting for more teams, just for different ones. They take the excitement away from the best teams, who are just twiddling their thumbs and padding their stats, and transfer it to the mediocrities fighting it out for a #6 slot.

In 1993, the Braves and the Giants went down to the wire; Braves won 103 games and made the post-season, Giants won 102 games and went home, cursing Salomon Torres forever.

Last season, the Giants won 107 games to the Dodgers' 106, and it didn't make the slightest difference. They both made the post-season and indeed the Dodgers went farther. What should have been a pennant race for the ages became an after-thought while we watched flawed teams that should have been planning their next golf dates "battle it out" for the glory of a #5 slot. Feh.

Keith Hernandez rightly says that the 1980s Mets would have made the post-season every year if they had the WC to fall back on. Yes, but they would have been undeserving. As much as I hate that Keith's 5-hit game wasn't enough for us to get that needed sweep in 1985, or the tragedy of the TRUE 9/11 (the Terry Pendleton game in 1987), I'd hate for those season-long dramas to be consigned to inconsequential footnotes as we choke our way into the WC and either an undeserving October run or quick and pointless oblivion.

The whole point of a long season is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise, you're just hockey. JMO.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

I don’t it would work logistically. You would need to do 5 or 7 game series and it would take up too much time from the regular season.

The Premier league has one home game, and one away game.

If there is a twenty team "Major League", then one four game set at home, one four game set on the road, for 152 games. A twenty one team league would have a 160 game season.

I think it would be EASIER to schedule, not worse.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

I've always disagreed with this. Bloated playoffs don't make September exciting for more teams, just for different ones. They take the excitement away from the best teams, who are just twiddling their thumbs and padding their stats, and transfer it to the mediocrities fighting it out for a #6 slot.

In 1993, the Braves and the Giants went down to the wire; Braves won 103 games and made the post-season, Giants won 102 games and went home, cursing Salomon Torres forever.

Last season, the Giants won 107 games to the Dodgers' 106, and it didn't make the slightest difference. They both made the post-season and indeed the Dodgers went farther. What should have been a pennant race for the ages became an after-thought while we watched flawed teams that should have been planning their next golf dates "battle it out" for the glory of a #5 slot. Feh.

Keith Hernandez rightly says that the 1980s Mets would have made the post-season every year if they had the WC to fall back on. Yes, but they would have been undeserving. As much as I hate that Keith's 5-hit game wasn't enough for us to get that needed sweep in 1985, or the tragedy of the TRUE 9/11 (the Terry Pendleton game in 1987), I'd hate for those season-long dramas to be consigned to inconsequential footnotes as we choke our way into the WC and either an undeserving October run or quick and pointless oblivion.

The whole point of a long season is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise, you're just hockey. JMO.

You didn't mention Yadi's homer, or Waino's 3-2 curveball...

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Waino's 3-2 curveball...

Beltran's still looking at that, I've heard.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

I've always disagreed with this. Bloated playoffs don't make September exciting for more teams, just for different ones. They take the excitement away from the best teams, who are just twiddling their thumbs and padding their stats, and transfer it to the mediocrities fighting it out for a #6 slot.

Except if you play for, or root for, a mediocrity vying for a #6 slot.

[BBGiovanni]

Aand... what great excitement is unfolding? The underachieving Padres are two games ahead of the Brewers. Baltimore is 4 games behind the Rays with Chisox 6.5 games back . No one else has more than a mathematical chance, maybe the Twins. Who are... 71-70.

Meanwhile, there are SEVEN teams more than 20 games out of the wild card. That's the problem no amount of giving .500 teams playoff bids is going to fix.

[kq76]

I do think that Amazin69 does have a point that watching two great teams battle it out for a division win is more exciting, and certainly more memorable, than watching teams playing for a wild card spot.

However, let's keep in mind those great pennant races didn't happen every year. And if we did have one right now, it'd still be exciting as the winner would get a bye and the other would have to play a best of 3. Mets-Braves, anyone? Yeah, neither will win 100, but I have to imagine fans of both teams are really into it right now.

I'm quite enjoying the Jays, Rays, and Mariners scratching their way to that so important first wild card spot because of course the two that don't will have to play on the road and one might even get caught by another team.

I like wild cards. I more dislike division winners that are barely above .500.

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by kq76

I like wild cards. I more dislike division winners that are barely above .500.

I second that emotion, I wish there was some way to have a "springing" wild card, a berth only if the team finishes over 91 wins or something.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by BBGiovanni

I second that emotion, I wish there was some way to have a "springing" wild card, a berth only if the team finishes over 91 wins or something.

The 2007 National League just called. It wants its playoffs back.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by kq76

.
I'm quite enjoying the Jays, Rays, and Mariners scratching their way to that so important first wild card spot because of course the two that don't will have to play on the road and one might even get caught by another team.

Of course. if we were playing by 1994 rules, there would be more drama, because 2 of the 3 would be going home, and obviously "in or out" is much more crucial than "home field advantage…for two games".

Even under last year's rules, all three of the Jays/Rays/Mays (shh, I'm stretching) would be fighting every day to stay alive, instead of kind of hoping they can get the #4 slot, but as long as the Orioles aren't a threat, let's not overtax ourselves, etc.

Every added playoff team diminishes the drama, IMO. And I say this as someone who cherishes 1999 and 2016 just fine.

(2000 was never my jam; we played two scabs regularly, we couldn't beat the Braves and just got lucky the Cards did our work for us, and the Subway Series hype made me queasy, since I really hate defining the team in relation to the Yankees. It ain't 1977 any more; I'm not in 9th grade listening to smug Yankees bandwagoners [who probably thought Celerino Sanchez was a condiment] gloat non-stop. I just want to win. Idgaf if we never played the Yanks at all.)

RE 2007: they had a bunch of past Clemente Award honorees at the Mets-Pirates game last night, introducing them before the 1st pitch. The fans booed Jimmy Rollins [2007 winner], as they should.

(Jimmy took it very well. It's all good, now. Sort of.)

RE 2006: Carlos Beltran [2013 winner] was also honored. The fans clapped, politely (not what they did for Leiter [2000], Delgado [2006] or Granderson [2016]).

I, of course, screamed at my TV, "Swing the &#$^# bat, Carlos!" As I probably will until I'm dead, lol.

[Amazin69]

Speaking of 2000…here's how things would have looked under 1993 rules.

(I've followed through on the idea that got Fay Vincent fired and moved the Illinois-and-adjacent NL teams to the West. Because you can't split up those rivalries just because the Cubbies don't want to put 9:30 PM CDT games on WGN, and I can't see consigning the Braves to eternal "West Coast" status.)

AL EAST:

Cleveland 90-72
NY Yanks. 87-74
Boston 85-77
Toronto 83-79
Detroit 79-83
Baltimore 74-88
Tampa Bay 69-92

AL WEST:

Chicago Sox 95-67
Oakland 91-70
Seattle 91-71
Anaheim 82-80
KC. 77-85
Texas 71-91
Minnesota 69-93

We gain: Tight multiple-team fights in both divisions, with the Yankees being punished for their wretched September fold. (Or perhaps actually playing harder, if they don't have the divisional cushion to spend.)

We lose: the photo-finish in the actual AL West, but we erase the stain of the A's not bothering to make up that last game because Seattle has the WC, so who cares who wins?

NL EAST:

Atlanta 95-67
NY Mets 94-68
Cincinnati 85-77
Florida 79-82
Houston 72-90
Pittsburgh 69-93
Montreal 67-95
Phillies 65-97

NL WEST:

San Francisco 97-65
St. Louis 95-67
Los Angeles 86-76
Arizona 85-77
Colorado 82-80
San Diego 76-86
Milwaukee 73-89
Chicago Cubs 65-97

We gain: Nail-biting pennant races with everything at stake in both divisions. And a memorable miss by the Mets, instead of my remembering it as "just another year we couldn't beat the Braves".

(I'd honestly forgotten we came so close. Huh.)

We lose: the "drama" of all four post-season teams clinching in mid-September. And Brewers fans being able to point out that they finished in the upper half of the Central.

(You'd think 73-89 wouldn't get you 3rd in a 4-team division. And yet they ended up 3rd out of 6. Huh.)

Simplicity adds sanity and excitement!

ETA: Sorry, I tried adding spacing, but it wouldn't stick. I don't know what to do when you can't use tabs.