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

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by Brad K

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

If Atlanta can’t win more than one game in four, rested, rotation set up, with home-field advantage, with the season on the line, they don’t belong in the NLCS, regardless of a gaudy regular season record. Otherwise we’d just hand them the crown, and tell the other teams to go home. Where’s the fun in that?

And I admit, if the Phillies poop the bed against the lowly D-backs, they don’t deserve to be there, either. It hurts, but that’s the reality of the post-season. What makes it special. It’s a long slog; but the best teams won’t fall apart in 11-22 games, if they were really that good in 162.

[Pelican]

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'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.

I agree with expansion to 32 and keeping the postseason teams at 12. That’s 37.5% which probably should be the maximum. Also agree with top three in each division, with two playing three and the winner playing the one seed division winner. But what about those days off for the one seed? Some seem to think that rest and setting up a rotation and home field advantage somehow hurt the one seeds. I don’t agree.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by pilight

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.

Technically, the closest comps for England in total square mileage are Alabama and Louisiana. (Mississippi is a skoche larger.) Of course, the difference from endpoint to endpoint may differ, as that data is a bit more work than just checking a list of States by Area.

(This came up in a non-sports context, so I haven't checked other examples. I recall reading that France is roughly the size of Missouri, but that's only a rumor.)

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Technically, the closest comps for England in total square mileage are Alabama and Louisiana. (Mississippi is a skoche larger.) Of course, the difference from endpoint to endpoint may differ, as that data is a bit more work than just checking a list of States by Area.

I was being generous because I wanted to use a central state to make a more stark comparison.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I agree with expansion to 32 and keeping the postseason teams at 12. That’s 37.5% which probably should be the maximum. Also agree with top three in each division, with two playing three and the winner playing the one seed division winner. But what about those days off for the one seed? Some seem to think that rest and setting up a rotation and home field advantage somehow hurt the one seeds. I don’t agree.

I'm not a fan of 8-team divisions personally, as I find them a little too big. However, if the question is what is the best way to handle 12 playoff teams, then the top 3 teams from four 8-team divisions is to me the optimal way. (Four divisions is also easier for regular season scheduling.)

As to playoff scheduling, ideally, I'd propose the following, assuming the regular season ends on Sunday:

Monday is an off day to handle any tie-breaking games.
Tuesday is for the 3rd vs. 2nd game. It's a one-game, winner-take-all affair.
Wednesday sees the start of the Division Series, a best-of-seven series, with a 2-2-3 home field rotation in favor of the first-place team.

The division winners are thus idle for only two days.

I suspect, however, MLB and/or MLBPA would raise objections to this proposal.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.".

Shouldn't that give more credit to poor teams that win it all?

It sounds more like an off the wall conspiracy theory.
Why would they want the poor teams in the playoffs?
Wouldn't they rather have poor teams be competitive during the regular season and stack the deck against them making the playoffs.
So only the rich teams make it.

If the Braves had won would you have a problem with them winning?
If not then why do they get the credit but not Texas?

[cephasjames]

Brad's probably done in this thread. Especially when it comes to answering specifics. His schtick was ambiguity and provocation.

[Brad K]

Recent questions have been repetitive, or slightly reworded versions of previously answered questions, or silly. Why would I respond to those?

What surprises me about this thread is the number of people who insist a short series has significance, some, amazingly, arguing several short series are more significant than a 162 game season.

Yet those who say that seem to understand sample size in other contexts. I don't see them posting complaining that their AAA SS called up to cover an injury is hitting .380 after a month or that their ace starter has a 6.50 ERA in May.

I want four divisions with only the winners going to the post season. I don't see how that could not be discerned.

Like everyone who starts a thread, I wanted this one to be popular. So I'm grateful for all who contributed to its success.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

What surprises me about this thread is the number of people who insist a short series has significance, some, amazingly, arguing several short series are more significant than a 162 game season.

And what's the point of the World Series when it is far too short to determine which club was truly the superior team?

Originally Posted by Brad K

I want four divisions with only the winners going to the post season.

With a divisionally-weighted schedule, of course.

[Ty Cobb]

Let it go, Indiana.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

And what's the point of the World Series when it is far too short to determine which club was truly the superior team?
.

At least my method has strong teams in it. Other people here are claiming if a sixth seed team wins the world series they're the best. You're talking to the wrong person if you want the best example of the damage done by short series.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Ty Cobb

Let it go, Indiana.

Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

At least my method has strong teams in it. Other people here are claiming if a sixth seed team wins the world series they're the best. You're talking to the wrong person if you want the best example of the damage done by short series.

Again, what's the point? The post-season isn't determining the deserving teams, is it, because it is too short. You should follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion: all the teams in one big division, playing each other equally, and the top finisher is the undisputed champion. None of this short series post-season malarkey to mess up which team is the most deserving.

At least that would be argumentatively consistent. No half-measures.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Again, what's the point? The post-season isn't determining the deserving teams, is it, because it is too short. You should follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion: all the teams in one big division, playing each other equally, and the top finisher is the undisputed champion. None of this short series post-season malarkey to mess up which team is the most deserving.

At least that would be argumentatively consistent. No half-measures.

Half measure? I'm 90% of the way there!

Go talk to the people who want near second division teams to have a chance at the title. Get there quick before they qualify everyone for the post season! LOL.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Suspect he's upset because this thread has lots of action and his thread that misogynist domestic abuser and all around jerk Bobby Knight died got no action. All that preparation he did to explain how Knight was defeated by cancel culture gone to waste.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Like everyone who starts a thread, I wanted this one to be popular.

Being provocative for provocative's sake is cheap. But if that's how you get your thrills.

[TheMaus2]

i think the ideal playoff system is a ladder where all teams qualify for the playoffs. best of 9

[slic1149]

Finding a champion in MLB is not really about awarding the best team the championship. The champion is the team who is playing the best when they participate in the playoffs. There is a long 162 game season to determine the best teams in the league. In it's present iteration 12 teams out of 30 get in. Based on the fact that there is often little difference between one and twelve when it comes to team talent. This is proven by the fact that the best regular season team often loses early in the playoffs. The bottom line is no matter whether you are the best team or not, you have a chance to win it all once you are in the playoffs. I like the fact that 12 teams get a chance, you only want 4. It appears that MLB and a majority of the fanbase wants more than than a 4 team tournament to decide the ultimate champion. Deserving teams are teams that win enough to get to the playoffs. Champions are the ones who win those games.

[Ty Cobb]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

and this thread has Zachary Disease.

[Ty Cobb]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Suspect he's upset because this thread has lots of action and his thread that misogynist domestic abuser and all around jerk Bobby Knight died got no action. All that preparation he did to explain how Knight was defeated by cancel culture gone to waste.

I pity you, Brad.