Will We Ever See Deserving Teams In The World Series Again?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

What is the significance of four or five games versus 162 games?

A question naturally presents itself: how many games are enough in your view? Was the 60-game 2020 season illegitimate even before its expanded post-season? Is 140 games enough for legitimacy?

[cephasjames]

Brad doesn't like that 12 teams make it to the postseason now. And he especially doesn't like it that two wild card teams made the World Series. And he especially especially doesn't like it that the two wild card teams that made the World Series are teams that wouldn't have been eligible to make the postseason even last year. It's this last bit that prompted him to start this thread, is my guess. But saying "I don't like this," is not as provocative as saying "These teams don't deserve to be here," and "Will any team that deserves to be in the postseason play in the World Series ever again?"

This thread is really just about his frustration with the current playoff structure that allows the 5th best team in one league to compete against the 6th best team in another league to determine the league's champion. While LGO has shown some rare instances in the history of major league baseball where teams, record-wise, who were not in the top 1, 2, 3, or 4, made the postseason, for the first 153 years of existence no 5th or 6th best teams, record-wise, has ever made the postseason without also winning their division. And now, the first year those 5th and 6th best teams are allowed into the postseason without having to win a division, two of them make it to the World Series.

The argument Brad is making is those teams don't deserve to be there. There is no president, after all, for them being in the postseason, let alone in the World Series. While I disagree with labeling them deserving or not deserving, I do agree that 12 teams making the postseason sucks and is very (historically) un-major league baseball-like. MLB will never lessen the number of teams in playoffs now and that saddens me - even if it allows my middling Tigers to make the postseason next year . My guess is it saddens Brad too and this thread is him venting his frustration over the situation - just in a needlessly provocative manner.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Who cares if they weren't the best team in the regular season.

MLB cares that they weren't the best team in the regular season because it stacks the playoff deck against poorer teams. Their actions show they want those teams in the playoffs but they don't want them to win. That's a big "who.".

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

That's nice but like so many of your post it has nothing to do with the current issue . . .

You do know you can skip any post that contains content you don't consider relevant to the topic at hand, yes?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

While LGO has shown some rare instances in the history of major league baseball where teams, record-wise, who were not in the top 1, 2, 3, or 4, made the postseason, for the first 153 years of existence no 5th or 6th best teams, record-wise, has ever made the postseason without also winning their division.

To be fair, divisions have only been around for 55 seasons (two-division leagues for 25 seasons and three-division leagues for 30 seasons). You can't really compare pre-1969 to post-1969 because the pre-1969 seasons never had the opportunity for an overall lower-placed team overall to qualify.

Originally Posted by cephasjames

The argument Brad is making is those teams don't deserve to be there. There is no president, after all, for them being in the postseason, let alone in the World Series.

There is what seems to me a contradiction in his argument. He wants only the 'best' teams to be there, and in his view only the top finishers in a single-division league over a long season qualifies. Okay, that's fine, but . . .

What's the point of the World Series since it is far too short to determine which of the contesting teams is truly the better club? An 'undeserving' team could easily be crowned World Series champion because the competition is too short.

(This raises an interesting statistical question: how many times would two teams have to play in order to reliably determine which is the better club? Ten games? Twenty games? Thirty games? I'm sure some SABR stats guru has attempted to answer the question.)

[kq76]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I do agree that 12 teams making the postseason sucks

I don't so much look at it as a # of teams, but a %. Awhile back I did a simple SS looking at #s and %s of teams making the postseason to try to figure out exactly what I like and I came to the following conclusions:

I'm personally okay with using anything from 12.5 to 37.5%.

MLB's current 12/30 is 40%.

Min = 12.5% (2/16, 3/24, 4/32)
Max = 37.5% (3/8, 6/16, 9/24, 12/32)

My personal ideal is probably 33%. It's not too close to 50% that you're in danger of having .500 teams making the playoffs (the # of divisions you have also plays a large factor in that), but you still have plenty of teams making the postseason to ensure the regular season is interesting for as long as possible.

I think anything less than a .555 winning % (< 90 wins) shouldn't virtually guarantee you a postseason spot and 33% pretty much ensures that, while 40% does not. I don't think teams under a .525 % (< 86 wins) should usually make the postseason. In 2023, the Jays and Twins both had a % under .555, while the DBacks and Marlins both had a % under .525.

So... while I think it's fine to grumble about the DBacks (84 wins), I don't think we should about the Rangers. They were a 90 win team, as were the Astros. They only lost the division based on tiebreakers. If you look at run differential / expected record, they were the 2nd best team in the AL, the 4th best in MLB. People might not like the Rangers for whatever reason, but they're legit.

I have to hand it to them. Back when they signed Seager and Semien I'm pretty sure that I laughed and said on these boards that they were crazy, or at least something to that effect. But as soon as they signed Bochy, I thought, "uh oh". Yeah, managers don't play so they can't possibly mean that much, but it was definitely a sign that something different was going on down there, that maybe they could be onto something. And they obviously were.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

To be fair, divisions have only been around for 55 seasons (two-division leagues for 25 seasons and three-division leagues for 30 seasons). You can't really compare pre-1969 to post-1969 because the pre-1969 seasons never had the opportunity for an overall lower-placed team overall to qualify.

Yep. An answer I'd like to know from him is who does he think deserves to be in the postseason? Only the best team in each league? Only division winners? Divison winners and one wild card? What's his preferred league structure? I think that's the only way for him to explain, in his mind, who is deserving.

Again, I don't like having 12 teams in the playoffs. But I don't think that means the 5th and 6th best teams in their respective leagues are not deserving if they've made the playoffs within the league's designed structure. Brad could clear up his thoughts on this quite easily. But instead, he has chosen to base his discussion around the ambiguous and provocative label of "deserving."

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by kq76

I don't so much look at it as a # of teams, but a %.

Absolutely. 12 just happens to be the number of teams that made it too many in my eyes.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Absolutely. 12 just happens to be the number of teams that made it too many in my eyes.

As I mentioned earlier, I think 12 would work all right if it was the top 3 teams in each of four 8-team divisions, with 2nd playing 3rd in each division in the first round.

I'm ambivalent on the matter. My personal preference is 4/24 (secondarily, 4/26), with two-division leagues and just the division winners qualifying. However, that is what I grew up with, so that undoubtedly influences that preference.

I'm ambivalent simply because MLB is going to do what MLB wants to do. The question becomes at what point does MLB doing what it does spoil my interest in the sport. It hasn't been spoiled yet, but it's always possible some decision will do that.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

As I mentioned earlier, I think 12 would work all right if it was the top 3 teams in each of four 8-team divisions, with 2nd playing 3rd in each division in the first round.

I saw you say something similar before and I don't understand why you would rather have the top 3 teams from each division make the playoffs instead of 2 wild cards per division. With the latter at least you'd be getting better winning %s in the postseason. Yeah, it's debatable whether those teams with better %s are really better, especially depending on how unbalanced the schedule is, but it still confuses me how your way could be better. What am I missing?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by kq76

I saw you say something similar before and I don't understand why you would rather have the top 3 teams from each division make the playoffs instead of 2 wild cards per division. With the latter at least you'd be getting better winning %s in the postseason. Yeah, it's debatable whether those teams with better %s are really better, especially depending on how unbalanced the schedule is, but it still confuses me how your way could be better. What am I missing?

I thought it was in this thread, but it was in the "MLB 2023 Season" thread (see this, this, and this post). These were my reasons for preferring the top three teams in each division:

Division-based qualification makes the divisions more important, and division rivalries more meaningful since clubs are competing directly against those division opponents for a post-season berth. The simpler tie scenarios means tie-breaking playoff games can be reinstated — if two clubs are tied for third place, a tie-breaking game determines which team advances to the post-season; if two teams are tied for first place, a tie-breaking game decides which team goes directly to the second round and which will have to play the third place team in the first round.

Division-based playoffs also means reduced travel since contesting teams are closer together with fewer time zones to traverse, meaning a travel day could be eliminated from the post-season schedules thus shortening the overall length by a couple of days.

Taking the top three from a division is really just an extension of taking the first-place team only. If you're going to have divisions, make them mean something. Otherwise the divisions become arbitrary and effectively meaningless, in which case just scrap them and play a balanced schedule.

[TheMaus2]

overwhelmingly pro the current playoff system. i think it has made late season baseball immensely more interesting (mariners getting eliminated on the second to last day! the fact that the padres had a chance to win out to claim the third wild card!) and it has provably incentivized teams to try and compete a little bit more in season, which is something that good owners should be pushing to do.

perhaps the mlb could do some reseeding after the wildcard rounds to offset playoff variance, but i think its fun that arizona won a pennant after acquiring a deathly closer in sewald (until he wasnt) and that texas won after adding scherzy and monty to the rotation. not to say that adding another playoff team will be the end of tanking, but teams should be motivated to field competitive squads and not just tank when they're out of the division race.

and if the dodgers, phillies, braves, etc. were the 'true' champions, they should have just won more games in the playoffs. that's just a fact of life.

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by TheMaus2

overwhelmingly pro the current playoff system. i think it has made late season baseball immensely more interesting (mariners getting eliminated on the second to last day! the fact that the padres had a chance to win out to claim the third wild card!) and it has provably incentivized teams to try and compete a little bit more in season, which is something that good owners should be pushing to do.

perhaps the mlb could do some reseeding after the wildcard rounds to offset playoff variance, but i think its fun that arizona won a pennant after acquiring a deathly closer in sewald (until he wasnt) and that texas won after adding scherzy and monty to the rotation. not to say that adding another playoff team will be the end of tanking, but teams should be motivated to field competitive squads and not just tank when they're out of the division race.

and if the dodgers, phillies, braves, etc. were the 'true' champions, they should have just won more games in the playoffs. that's just a fact of life.

That’s great you feel that way. Unfortunately, the facts differ. TV ratings for MLB playoffs have dropped since the introduction of expanded playoffs. Ironic that the thing that was supposed to increase viewership of the postseason has so far done the exact opposite. In addition to the 2023 World Series being the least watched finale ever, the full MLB Postseason averaged 4.45 million viewers, down 8% from last year (4.86M).

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by mytreds

That’s great you feel that way. Unfortunately, the facts differ. TV ratings for MLB playoffs have dropped since the introduction of expanded playoffs. Ironic that the thing that was supposed to increase viewership of the postseason has so far done the exact opposite. In addition to the 2023 World Series being the least watched finale ever, the full MLB Postseason averaged 4.45 million viewers, down 8% from last year (4.86M).

It would be interesting to see the aggregate number of post-season viewers for various seasons and divide by the number of post-season games to determine the per-game average. I'm wondering if the increased number of playoff games is diluting the viewership for individual series (i.e. the market has become saturated).

It would also be interesting to plot this per-game playoff viewership against the per-game regular season attendance. Any parallels or do they diverge?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I thought it was in this thread, but it was in the "MLB 2023 Season" thread (see this, this, and this post). These were my reasons for preferring the top three teams in each division:

Division-based qualification makes the divisions more important, and division rivalries more meaningful since clubs are competing directly against those division opponents for a post-season berth. The simpler tie scenarios means tie-breaking playoff games can be reinstated — if two clubs are tied for third place, a tie-breaking game determines which team advances to the post-season; if two teams are tied for first place, a tie-breaking game decides which team goes directly to the second round and which will have to play the third place team in the first round.

Division-based playoffs also means reduced travel since contesting teams are closer together with fewer time zones to traverse, meaning a travel day could be eliminated from the post-season schedules thus shortening the overall length by a couple of days.

Taking the top three from a division is really just an extension of taking the first-place team only. If you're going to have divisions, make them mean something. Otherwise the divisions become arbitrary and effectively meaningless, in which case just scrap them and play a balanced schedule.

Oh, I think I get it now. I must have just glossed over it before and didn't really try to understand it. But I just read it 3 times and I get it now. Interesting, very interesting.

And even if one division is weaker than another, who cares. It's not like we should be that concerned about a team missing the postseason that couldn't come even third in their own division.

Yeah, when I expand my current league from 12 to 16 I think I'll try it!

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by mytreds

That’s great you feel that way. Unfortunately, the facts differ. TV ratings for MLB playoffs have dropped since the introduction of expanded playoffs. Ironic that the thing that was supposed to increase viewership of the postseason has so far done the exact opposite. In addition to the 2023 World Series being the least watched finale ever, the full MLB Postseason averaged 4.45 million viewers, down 8% from last year (4.86M).

I wonder how much of that decline is due to an increased number of fans having their team in the postseason or due to MLB generally allowing the product on the field to trend dull, duller, dullest among the sports viewing options for many decades without doing something about it.

MLB should have listened to Bill James decades ago. They have now responded and made their product more watchable. Unfortunately, they will not gain back viewership driven away for decades in a single season. It may take a generation to walk this back. i.e. it may be too late. Even if Brad's perfect playoff format is employed next season it won't change that.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Soccer/football. Best team wins the league title every year.

They play a balanced schedule and they have relegation to keep the games meaningful for the out of contention squads.

The first is do-able albeit more complicated in a much larger country like the US. All of England is about the size of Iowa. Even a "long" trip, say Berwick to Penzance, is much less of a burden than going coat-to-coast. New York to Los Angeles is like going from London to Baghdad (NY to LA is actually slightly longer).

Promotion/relegation will never be approved by MLB owners.

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by mytreds

That’s great you feel that way. Unfortunately, the facts differ. TV ratings for MLB playoffs have dropped since the introduction of expanded playoffs. Ironic that the thing that was supposed to increase viewership of the postseason has so far done the exact opposite. In addition to the 2023 World Series being the least watched finale ever, the full MLB Postseason averaged 4.45 million viewers, down 8% from last year (4.86M).

ratings are a bunk data point. the market for cable gets lower every year and the MLB hasn't marketed the game well. the only thing that has survived the decline of cable is the NFL. the postseason should create stars, like adolis! but why ratings are down is a whole separate issue from the expanded playoffs. it should not be an indicator of fan interest

[TheMaus2]

perhaps the ratings issue has something to do with the fact that the wild card games are on espn (which rarely advertises baseball in their morning talk shows), and shows the rest of the playoffs on tbs & fox. maybe it could be because regular season baseball has been relegated to regional sports networks that can only be accessed through cable, how mlb's streaming service makes it hard to keep track of your team over the course of a season? not to mention mlb's video game issue that has more than likely affected how many more new younger fans they could stand to gain. or how unseemly it was as a tv product before this year. or the fact that most people probably cant name an active major league player besides ohtani.

its not that people dont care, they dont know! the mlb has been a billion dollar enterprise focused entirely on lining their pockets instead of growing the game for a long time now.

but no, its expanded playoffs which are the issue. no other reason!

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Rich teams win and fans complain.
Poor teams win and fans complain.
Wouldn't it be better to just enjoy the game?
I enjoyed seeing the Braves win in 95 and Yankees win in 96,
White Sox in 05, Cubs in 16 just as much as the Royals in 15 and the Rangers this week.
It took over 60 years for the Rangers to do it.
Who cares if they weren't the best team in the regular season.
They qualified and they did it.
The organization deserves the credit and their fans deserve that championship.

This. I don't alibi my 2006 Cardinals. ESPN said that they would lose every series they played..but they just kept winning.

They only won 83 games in the regular season, but Pujols had a monster year, backed up by Rolen, and Chris Carpenter one of the greatest competitors of all time leading the pitching staff.