How many playoff teams?

[bertha]

I vote = 16, 8 per league, 4 wild cards

[professor ape]

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.

[DustyElbows]

There are already 64 teams in the majors, a pro/rel set-up might make my head explode! :P

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by DustyElbows

There are already 64 teams in the majors, a pro/rel set-up might make my head explode! :P

No one wants that. Go with the 16 in the playoffs.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by DustyElbows

I think we could also make the argument that the purpose of the playoffs is not to determine the best team.

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.

[Brad K]

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.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

You've got it right there. That's why I like the divisional format with wildcards. If you're in a tight division, your team has something to play for, even if your team is weak compared to the rest of the league. Conversely, if your division has been taken over by one team running away with it, you don't have to give up in August despite being a competent team.

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.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by DustyElbows

I've always liked large game universes, so I've been toying around with a fictional historical sim where MLB starts out at its normal 16 teams in 1901 and then expands by two teams roughly every five year until it finally reaches 64 teams in 2018.

Here's the divisional setup:
AL East
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
Buffalo Bisons
Charlotte Knights
Hartford Yard Goats
New York Yankees
Ottawa Champions (maybe Lynx)
Toronto Blue Jays

AL South
Arkansas Travelers
Houston Astros
Louisville Bats
Mexico City Diablos
Orlando Juicers
San Juan / Puerto Rico ???
Tampa Bay Rays
Texas Rangers

AL Central
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Kansas City Royals
Memphis Redbirds
Minnesota Twins
Nashville Sounds
Winnipeg Goldeyes

AL West
Calgary Cannons
Honolulu Waves
Las Vegas 51s
Los Angeles Angels
Oakland Athletics
Portland Beavers
Salt Lake Bees
Seattle Mariners

NL East
Brooklyn Cyclones
Montreal Expos
New York Mets
Norfolk Tides
Philadelphia Phillies
Providence Paw Sox (or other name??)
Quebec Capitales
Washington Nationals

NL South
Atlanta Braves
Birmingham Barons
Havana Sugar Kings
Jacksonville Suns
Miami Marlins
New Orleans Zephyrs
Oklahoma City Redhawks
San Antonio Missions

NL Central
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
Columbus Clippers
Indianapolis Arrows (Indians was already taken)
Milwaukee Brewers
Omaha Stormchasers
Pittsburgh Pirates
St. Louis Cardinals

NL West
Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
Edmonton Trappers
Los Angeles Dodgers
Sacramento Solons (or maybe just River Cats)
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants
Vancouver Bears

In this admittedly ridiculous scenario, how many teams should make the playoffs? I have been leaning towards 12, 6 in each league, all of the division winners plus two wild cards per league. But I can certainly see arguments for 16 (each 4 wild cards per league or just top two in every division) or even 10 or 14. What do you think?

Also, if anyone has any team name ideas (with already existing logos somewhere) for San Juan / Puerto Rico or Providence, let me know.

I'd go with 16 myself. 25% is an absolutely reasonable number for teams reaching the postseason. I would prefer to see eight in RL MLB, but what can you do...The Wild Card Game also adds excitement, so I can see the argument for it. RL NFL has 38%, NHL has 52%, and NBA has 53%. WRT the last two, what the hell is the point of playing a full slate of games only to eliminate fewer than half the teams? Am I missing something here? I know the endgame is money, but show some respect for the war of attrition that is the regular season.

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.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

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"?
.

No. I never hear anyone fondly talk about the 1987 or 2006 world series.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

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.
.

There is a need for playoffs in the 64 team league because 1 home 1 away for each team is 126 games, not enough, and 2 and 2 is 252, too many.

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.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Anyway, so why do we have wild cards in MLB? Well, the basic reason is baseball screwed up expansion and division alignment and ended up with an odd number of divisions in each league. So they got themselves a wildcard.

The idea of having three divisions per league was first proposed by Walter O'Malley way back in 1971. His reason? It kept more teams in the post-season chase, and that was good for more clubs' bottom line. (The idea that more teams kept in the post-season chase was good for attendance, and thus good for club revenue, had been demonstrated in 1933 when the International League adopted the Shaughnessy playoff format.)

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.

Originally Posted by Brad K

So assuming someone has not screwed up expansion and divisions and has an even number of divisions per league, what are the arguments used in favor of wild cards?

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).

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

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.

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.)

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The idea of having three divisions per league was first proposed by Walter O'Malley way back in 1971. His reason? It kept more teams in the post-season chase, and that was good for more clubs' bottom line. (The idea that more teams kept in the post-season chase was good for attendance, and thus good for club revenue, had been demonstrated in 1933 when the International League adopted the Shaughnessy playoff format.)

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).

The proposals were rejected. Do you know why? It would be interesting to know what undesirable effects were anticipated by the majority.

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.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

The proposals were rejected. Do you know why? It would be interesting to know what undesirable effects were anticipated by the majority.

Traditionalism. It was a thing then, it's still a thing now. (In the case of 1978, the problem was confounded by the NL's rules at the time, which required a unanimous vote by the league's clubs in order for any realignment to proceed; the AL only required a three-quarters majority.)

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).

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

There was no free agency in 1971.

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

Big market clubs have always been able to buy their way to a first-place finish. This was as true for the Yankees of eighty years ago as it is today.

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

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.)

[Brad K]

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.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

By 71 owners should have had an idea free agency would come.and by 74 a much stronger idea.

It took the Seitz decision to force the matter of free agency.

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

Read the TSN articles from the time covering the summer and winter meetings. There was plenty of resistance to change, probably an attitude of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The NL requiring unanimity in voting is a strong indicator of not wanting things to be changed.

(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.)

[Brad K]

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.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Brad K

It is? Really? Wow!!! Whodda thunk it?!?!?!?

Hmmmm... y'know throw all 64 teams into the same pot... one league and no divisions... there would be playoffs and they'd be meaningful!!!

Ha, i wish you could read my little avatar picture thing.. fallacious reasoning detected! false equivalent or some misunderstanding invovled etc. misrepresentation of what i said yadda-yadda-yadda some mix of that.

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.

[Brad K]

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.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

And it ensures that changes will almost never happen.

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.

Originally Posted by Brad K

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.

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).