Jump to content

2023 MLB Playoffs


Toddwert

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, HeyAbbott said:

There is absolutely no reason to have a 162 game season.Cut the season to 82 games and make a 16 team playoff best of 7 for each series.

 

I actually wouldn't mind doing a split/double season. Play 70, have a short midsummer playoff tournament. Then the inter-season trade period. Then play 70 more with another closing tournament. A season so long that the losers end up 40 games behind isn't particularly good for anything or anyone.

And to reward aggressive management,  the teams that improve between halves get draft bonuses in proportion to the increase in games won.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I actually wouldn't mind doing a split/double season. Play 70, have a short midsummer playoff tournament. Then the inter-season trade period. Then play 70 more with another closing tournament. A season so long that the losers end up 40 games behind isn't particularly good for anything or anyone.

And to reward aggressive management,  the teams that improve between halves get draft bonuses in proportion to the increase in games won.

I could support that.  I prefer the long season and don't need them to have any tournaments, but I know most fans like tournaments.   playing 162 games just to start all over again with a bunch of short series just seems insane to me though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did do a split season playoff in 1981 with the strike season. The downside was St Louis and Cincinnati finished with best overall records in their divisions but didn't win either "half". 
 

With expanded playoff teams that could include the "best" overall teams in divisions if they don't win a half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

They did do a split season playoff in 1981 with the strike season. The downside was St Louis and Cincinnati finished with best overall records in their divisions but didn't win either "half". 
 

With expanded playoff teams that could include the "best" overall teams in divisions if they don't win a half.

I would hate for the best overall team(s) for a season to miss the playoffs due to a split season format.

Edit to add:  I would probably just hate a split season format, period.

Edited by casimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, oblong said:

I just dont see it as a problem that needs fixing. If we need to protect the higher seed teams then just cancel the playoffs and award championships by record, which will never happen obviously.

Byes make sense in football because it's a physical game and there's also lots of studying and planning that goes on.  The body can heal during that time. 

I guess if there is a problem to be solved it's baseball's own doing by expanding the rounds, being beholden to TV considerations, and trying to squeeze the added playoffs between a 4 week window when you have to allow for time to settle tiebreakers and days off for travel. All of that has nothing to do with the teams or the players and their abilities, it's financial. 

"Let's make it exciting by having sudden death" gets cancelled by "Well it's not fair to have an all or nothing game and we want to introduce another team into the playoffs anyway"

"Let's give the top two division winners a bye" gets cancelled by "well they are rusty now"

"Let's make every round best of 7" gets cancelled by "there's not enough time to fit it all in before Thanksgiving"

"Let's give the higher seed all the home games early on" gets cancelled by "The owners wants games in the other team's ballpark"

 

Hey, let’s keep the cancel culture commentary to the political forum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

It has to be at least 154 games, bare minimum.

IMO.

I think that’s probably right.  Plus, owners aren’t going to give up gates and players aren’t going to shave that off of their pay/benefits.  I’d guess we’d see more games and more active roster spots or a pandemic before the regular season gets reduced below 162.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oblong said:

Every format change to the playoffs has been done to address alleged problems.  Should we give higher seeds an extra runner on base like we do in extras?  They are losing games to teams that are also pretty good. 

The problem with playoff baseball is there’s just not a good way to replicate the regular season to the postseason in the earlier rounds and balance a schedule with TV (the way TV wants it) and have teams waiting around for a series.  Even the teams that were in the first round have “rusty” schedules.  The NL teams had two days off (although in fairness, one of those is due to a two game sweep), then a game day, then another off day, and then repeat the game day and off day again?  That’s not a baseball schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

Evidence that long layoffs may not hurt teams:

 

 

I'd be more interested in the series result than just the first game, though generally a 1st game win tilt the odds the rest of the way in the winner's favor. For instance, a confounding factor would be that the (better) team on the layoff may also have the single most dominant pitcher in the series, that factor could wash out all the others for the first game.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...