|
||||
|
|
OOTP 19 - General Discussions Everything about the 2018 version of Out of the Park Baseball - officially licensed by MLB.com and the MLBPA. |
View Poll Results: How many playoff teams? | |||
12, 6 per league | 8 | 20.00% | |
16, 8 per league, 4 wild cards | 19 | 47.50% | |
16, 8 per league, top two in each division | 8 | 20.00% | |
10, 5 per league | 4 | 10.00% | |
14, 7 per league | 1 | 2.50% | |
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
11-19-2018, 01:15 PM | #21 |
Minors (Rookie Ball)
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 35
|
I vote = 16, 8 per league, 4 wild cards
|
11-19-2018, 01:17 PM | #22 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The belly of the beast
Posts: 1,498
|
Even 16 teams is only 25% of your league which is probably about as low as I would go if you want something that would be sustainable in real life. If you go down to 20% or lower then you set up a situation where most teams are out of the running much earlier in the regular season which would hurt league attendance.
If I did sixteen then I would have the four division winners and four wild card in each league. Home field in each round would be set by winning percentage so weak division winners would have to go on the road against a strong wild card team. Now if you made it a promotion/relegation league, then you could take that down to an 8-12 team playoff field as there would be drama at the bottom of the league to give people a reason to care about their teams’ efforts once eliminated from the playoff hunt. |
11-19-2018, 02:41 PM | #23 |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 216
|
There are already 64 teams in the majors, a pro/rel set-up might make my head explode! :P
|
11-19-2018, 02:45 PM | #24 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The belly of the beast
Posts: 1,498
|
|
11-20-2018, 12:11 AM | #25 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2016
Location: St Petersburg Florida USA
Posts: 5,433
|
Quote:
MLB will never admit that. And its not true, actually. MLB STILL wants the best team to win. In a spectacular piece of double talk, it lets teams in it knows shouldn't be there, and puts in handicaps to reduce the chance of the impostor winning. But they can't eliminate the chance, only reduce it. What double talk. Last edited by Brad K; 11-20-2018 at 12:33 AM. |
|
11-20-2018, 12:32 AM | #26 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2016
Location: St Petersburg Florida USA
Posts: 5,433
|
Convince me! Please, big playoff proponents.
Give me some good reasons for wild cards. "They finished second and might be the second best team in baseball...." very bland. OK, division winners qualify. Then the second place team? Boooooring. How about any team with a better record than the worst division winner in the league. Really though, on average you'd probably only on average qualify 2 teams per year that way. So there needs to be some other ways to qualify. What's needed is fan interest in the regular season. Give teams something to play for other than first place. That will make a better playoffs. Best record in September? Cool. Everyone likes a hot team and imagining what they could have done with good luck all year. Put them in the playoffs. And the leading home run team. Fans like home runs. Top SB team too. There's all kinds of events that could be elevated to playoff qualifiers. Oh, and if the batting champ or home run champ plays for a rotten team, let that team in too. Playoffs are supposed to be fun, and how can they be fun if the best players are watching at home? But make every playoff team qualify by being a winner in SOME way. None of the finished second crap. Make 'em winners. Even if its something like most sacrifice bunts. |
11-20-2018, 10:46 AM | #27 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tampa Bay, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,928
|
Quote:
Obviously, if the entire point were to find the best team each season, there would be no need for playoffs - play a balanced round-robin schedule, and there's your winner. But that's not as much fun. Playoffs are exciting. Cinderella stories are exciting. Rooting for the underdog is exciting. Having something to play for gets fans invested in the game. And sure, you might have a scrappy team go on a hot streak in October and somehow take down the 100-win behemoth - but (other than for the fans of the behemoth) isn't that a far more interesting tale than "the best team in the league wins again"? A great deal of the appeal of sports is the drama. And it's okay for some of that drama to be manufactured, because it makes for a better, more engaging product for a wider number of fans. |
|
11-20-2018, 01:09 PM | #28 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,123
|
Quote:
EDIT: Also, I would go with one division in each subleague, and take the top eight teams. Eliminates the problem of crappy teams making the playoffs. Would probably hurt attendance for the bad teams, but if you want fans to show up...Build a better team. Balanced schedule and no interleague. Who cares about the rigours of extra travel time? It's OOTP...They don't exist.
__________________
My corrected FaceGen IDs .zip file here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRd...usp=share_link OOTP post re-FG IDs here: https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...postcount=3198 My DB which restores Fed Leaguers here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZoN...B2GCcULxt/view Instructions for the DB: https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...07&postcount=9 Last edited by actionjackson; 11-20-2018 at 01:18 PM. |
|
11-21-2018, 01:40 AM | #29 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2016
Location: St Petersburg Florida USA
Posts: 5,433
|
Quote:
|
|
11-21-2018, 01:48 AM | #30 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2016
Location: St Petersburg Florida USA
Posts: 5,433
|
Quote:
Your suggestion is possible in MLB. 3 home and 3 away results in 174 which is fewer than regular season plus playoffs if playoffs go to the last game. Last edited by Brad K; 11-21-2018 at 12:35 PM. |
|
11-22-2018, 03:25 AM | #31 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,413
|
Quote:
At MLB's 1974 summer meetings, there were three different proposals to increase the number of playoff teams: (1) the top two teams in each division, with the second-place team in one division playing the first-place team in the other division; (2) the two division winners and two wild card qualifiers; (3) splitting each league into three divisions, with the three division winners and one wild card qualifying. At the 1978 winter meeting, there was again a proposal to split each league into three divisions, which would come into effect for the 1980 season. The reason given by Walter O'Malley in 1971, and demonstrated in practice by the International League thirty-eight years prior: more clubs in the playoff hunt later in the season meant more fan interest which meant better attendance which in turn translated into higher revenue. (And in the era of television broadcasting, more series to sell to the networks.) The financial reason matters, at least for the real-life version, since MLB is a business first and foremost (and has been from its very start). Last edited by Le Grande Orange; 11-22-2018 at 03:28 AM. |
|
11-22-2018, 03:30 AM | #32 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,413
|
Strictly speaking, even that isn't necessarily definitive. Sometimes clubs get lucky in a season, in different ways. (The Pythagorean Record is one way, albeit a crude one, to measure a club's luck.)
|
11-22-2018, 10:33 PM | #33 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2016
Location: St Petersburg Florida USA
Posts: 5,433
|
Quote:
First thing that comes to my mind is that at the time each division would have only four teams, something discussed here and recommended as a never do situation. Keeping two divisions per league and putting the second place team in the playoffs, well, given the schedule at the time was weighted to in division play, a second place team the finished way behind was obviously inferior and undeserving. Its not surprising the proposals came from the owner of a large market team. The effects of free agency were obvious: the big market teams could run away from the field. So there could still be competitive races (for second place) and the revenue it brought and the big market teams could buy their way to a first place finish. Creating competition at a lower level would be preferable to the big market teams than funding the small market teams to be truly competitive for first place. |
|
11-23-2018, 01:44 AM | #34 | |||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,413
|
Quote:
The NL was more hesitant about changes. That's why it rejected the DH (and still does to this day), that's why it had to be pressured into splitting into two divisions for 1969 (it had been committed to operating as a single 12-team league). Quote:
Quote:
Arguably, the advent of much greater revenue sharing first implemented for 1996 did much to advance the competitiveness of smaller market clubs after local revenue disparities began accelerating. (With the exception of the AL East, at any rate.) |
|||
11-23-2018, 05:06 AM | #35 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2016
Location: St Petersburg Florida USA
Posts: 5,433
|
By 71 owners should have had an idea free agency would come.and by 74 a much stronger idea.
Saying the playoff expansion proposals failed due to tradition is rather dismissive. Surely you have the kind of detail on the arguments of those opposed as you have provided on those in favor. |
11-23-2018, 03:20 PM | #36 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,413
|
Quote:
Quote:
(Even after it changed its rules to a three-quarters majority, it left in a provision stating that no team facing realignment into another division could be moved without its express approval. This is what led to Commissioner Vincent being unseated, after he overrode the Cub's dissent on being sent to the NL West for the 1993 season, and the club took legal action in response.) |
||
11-23-2018, 06:20 PM | #37 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2016
Location: St Petersburg Florida USA
Posts: 5,433
|
Unanimous might make sense for very small groups but as there are more members in a group makes less sense. Allowing a veto by the member on which the proposal has the greatest effect is reasonable.
Although a former subscriber many years ago, I do not have multiple closets filled with vintage copies of The Sporting News. I subscribed when it was published on newsprint and I doubt at this point those would be readable. Regardless of what was said at the time, the consensus here including many who favored big playoffs is that four teams per division is a bad idea. With two divisions and two qualifiers each, well then half a playoff field is second place teams. Doesn't sound so good. selling a chance to win the world series to a second-place team is selling the chance too cheap. It lowers the content and eventually the perceived value. Yeah it's good short-term, but there are long-term consequences. |
11-25-2018, 03:54 PM | #38 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
|
Quote:
regular season -- larger sample provides greater certainty that the best teams are at the top of the standings. its function, whether they understood it or not, is to weed out the lucky and the poor. (they = people responsible for SOP of mlb) the best record from a reg season is by far better information than the results of some playoff bracket with limited # of games as far as telling you who is the best. isn't that the supposed point? crowning a champion. champion = best. well, if the system provides a lower % chance that the best wins, how is that logical? it may be what someone wants... including me. i've been brainwashed to think that way too. i like playoffs, but i don't want ~1/2 the league in the playoffs like hockey does it.. that's at total joke. playoffs -- not really needed outside of entertainment or 2+ mutually exclusive leagues/divisions. playoffs provide a greater opportunity for a 'lesser' team to win a WS compared to having a poor team at the top of w/l record. some will even think a 'lesser' team is better if they win a WS, because they don't understand the ramifications of a tiny sampe of games. (omniscience required to know specifics, but math dictates its inevitability and certainty of existence) playoffs are silly and just for fun as far as picking a "winner". it's far from conclusive. the regular season likely tells you with more certainty whom is better. logic ignored, people like a championship game. there is no logic for it, because it doesn't provide an answer to the question of who is better in any meaningful way. now, if one league doesn't play the other, a playoff makes more sense for that reason, but still doesn't conclusively determine anything -- mathematically true. their regular season record can only be compared to others in their same division/conference etc - so a playoff is more neccessary in that context. a playoff has meaning at this point,but it still has a very low resolving power of whom is better. can't get around that small sample size. the best team rarely wins the playoffs -- at lower rates each time they expand the playoffs. so, what exactly is it accomplishing besides entertainment -- and a meaningless outcome due to uncertainty from small sample size. a large playoff merely further guarantees that the best team will not win. i'm not saying that as an argument against having a larger playoffs. fun is fun.. who cares it's just entertainment. however, wanting something to be true doesn't make it tue. the math on this is true. feelings are false. i think expanded playoffs systems are reflective of our shifting culture... it's like extra credit in college or 'do-overs' for any similar context... it's just giving people second chances who have already failed. at least that's why it's accepted by the spectators. the poeple at the top want a larger playoffs for money... money only. the rest of this isn't even considered for them.. they don't care of the best wins or not. Last edited by NoOne; 11-25-2018 at 04:02 PM. |
|
11-25-2018, 05:26 PM | #39 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2016
Location: St Petersburg Florida USA
Posts: 5,433
|
Meaningful in the sense it is needed to break a tie. In contrast to a playoff game between two wild cards who finished second their division which is totally concocted and not needed at all except for being a patch for inept expansion, division set up, or scheduling.
I agree neither is meaningful in a mathematical sense as far as determining the better team. |
11-26-2018, 05:58 PM | #40 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,413
|
Quote:
That is why MLB remained a static structure for fifty years: the rules expressly made it difficult for any change to take place. For a relocation, contraction, or expansion to take place it required a unanimous vote in the league considering the move and a majority vote in the other league. This persisted up until Veeck was out, after which the rules were changed to allow the Browns to relocate. Thereafter, the other league no longer had any input and in the league considering the move it only required a three-quarters (AL) or unanimous (NL) vote (with the exception of relocating to a city already home to a major league club, in which case a unanimous vote was required in both leagues). The result was more changes in the AL than the NL, since it was easier to accomplish. After 1983, however, the rules were changed again with the aim of encouraging more cooperation between the leagues when it came to such matters. Both leagues had to vote in the affirmative. Expansion and relocation required a three-quarters majority in the league making the change and a majority vote of the other league (with the exception of relocating to a city already home to a ML club, which needed a three-quarters majority in both leagues). Realignment required a three-quarters majority vote in both leagues. By 2000 or so, the voting was changed to being a either majority or three-quarters majority of all MLB clubs, without regard to league. The entire run of TSN is available digitally online—it's one of the perks for joining SABR (though you can still access it without a SABR membership). |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|