5 Game Opening Round

[Camden_yardbird]

Whether you lose in 5 games or 7 games, it is still a small sample size and doesn't reflect who the best team is.

I think if I were the cubs fans I would be wondering why show up next year. 5 games is far too short.

But I do think 7 games is necessary. There is a little more opportunity for adjustments and such, and that for me seperates the good teams from the bad. The ability to adjust challeges hitters, pitchers, and coaches. Whereas I think their hands are tied in 3 games.

I also think there are two different ways you have to build your team, and that is to win in the regular season and to win in the playoffs. The playoffs really are a comprehensive test of a GM's ability to build a roster.

[Mad Mark]

I still believe that teams should be required to play a minimum of one scheduled doubleheader a month, which would knock a full week off the regular season, and allow the WS to wrap earlier, even with a seven-game first round. If you played two a month, you could knock two weeks off the season. I'd certainly consider changes in the roster rules to accommodate the additional stresses it would place on the players.

It would likely take negotiations between the owners, and between the owners and the Players Association, but it could be done, if there was a will.

[Mark Carver]

The NBA playoffs go on for entirely too long as it is. They're the last thing we should model MLB playoffs after.

And 16 teams out of a 30 team league gets to go to the playoffs...

[Migrant Redbird]

I think if I were the cubs fans I would be wondering why show up next year. 5 games is far too short.

But I do think 7 games is necessary. There is a little more opportunity for adjustments and such, and that for me seperates the good teams from the bad. The ability to adjust challeges hitters, pitchers, and coaches. Whereas I think their hands are tied in 3 games.

There is a difference between 5 and 7 games, but I don't believe it's quite as large as you imagine it is.

Remember that the 2004 version of the Rays put together a 12 game winning streak in June, but still managed to finish 21 games below .500. All the 12 game winning streak did for them was to enable them to finish a few games better than they did in 2003 or 2005.

An 11 game winning streak in the post season is enough to take home all the marbles. Of course, it's a bit more difficult to manage in October than it is in June.

I also think there are two different ways you have to build your team, and that is to win in the regular season and to win in the playoffs. The playoffs really are a comprehensive test of a GM's ability to build a roster.

Nah, they just provide a convenient rationale for lots of bloviating in bars and on internet forums.

I still believe that teams should be required to play a minimum of one scheduled doubleheader a month, which would knock a full week off the regular season, and allow the WS to wrap earlier, even with a seven-game first round. If you played two a month, you could knock two weeks off the season. I'd certainly consider changes in the roster rules to accommodate the additional stresses it would place on the players.

It would likely take negotiations between the owners, and between the owners and the Players Association, but it could be done, if there was a will.

And precisely how do you propose to compensate the owners for the gate revenue they'd lose from scheduling 6-12 games as double headers?

If they schedule those as separate games on the same day with separate admission, they wouldn't get nearly as much attendance, so it would still be a significant reduction in net revenue. This would drive some franchises currently making a profit into the red. I think it would be a definite nonstarter for the owners, and the players probably would dislike it just as much. Fans wouldn't like it unless they got 2 games for the price of one, and fans who start filing out before the ninth inning probably are already getting more baseball in a day than they want.

[Mad Mark]

And precisely how do you propose to compensate the owners for the gate revenue they'd lose from scheduling 6-12 games as double headers?

Good question. Perhaps it would be simpler to return to a 154-game schedule, and raise ticket prices 5% to cover the lost dates. Isn't going to do much for the Red $ox, who have no problems with surplus ticket inventory, or the Yankee$, who will be selling out games in the New Palace of Ca$h for the foreseeable future...but I'm not much interested in helping those teams, anyway.

Most teams, facing a surplus of ticket inventory, likely would not suffer that much...

[DrungoHazewood]

It's long since been established that the MLB playoffs aren't about picking the best team. Best I can figure they're about taking eight of the top 12 or 15 teams and putting them in a tournament, with the overall winner declared the Champion.

Given that as what MLB has picked and most fans are fine with, I don't see how the statistical significance of best-of-seven vs. best-of-five has any traction at all. We're not trying to be statistically significant; we're trying to make the most profitable, most exciting, winner-take-all steel cage match tourney.

It's like the NCAA basketball tournament, which is essentially a series of best-of-one playoffs. It's popular, fun, exciting, and makes a ton of cash. But not at all designed to determine which NCAA basketball team is the best over a significant sampling of games.

As long as the basic ground rules are in effect, I'd be fine with all baseball playoff series being single elimination, or best of three or whatever, if that's what makes the most money and gets the most eyes watching baseball.

[YardBirds13]

It's long since been established that the MLB playoffs aren't about picking the best team. Best I can figure they're about taking eight of the top 12 or 15 teams and putting them in a tournament, with the overall winner declared the Champion.

Given that as what MLB has picked and most fans are fine with, I don't see how the statistical significance of best-of-seven vs. best-of-five has any traction at all. We're not trying to be statistically significant; we're trying to make the most profitable, most exciting, winner-take-all steel cage match tourney.

It's like the NCAA basketball tournament, which is essentially a series of best-of-one playoffs. It's popular, fun, exciting, and makes a ton of cash. But not at all designed to determine which NCAA basketball team is the best over a significant sampling of games.

As long as the basic ground rules are in effect, I'd be fine with all baseball playoff series being single elimination, or best of three or whatever, if that's what makes the most money and gets the most eyes watching baseball.

I agree Drungo, and that, to me, is what the playoffs are about.

The 162 game season is to weed out the best teams, not determine the champion. Once you've weeded out the best, you play head to head to determine the champion. Best team doesn't always win, but to me, that's not how its supposed to happen.

I know you feel differently.

[Migrant Redbird]

Fixed it for you.

... The 162 game season is to weed out [all but] the best teams, not determine the champion.

Agreed, with the caveat that dividing MLB up into divisions with as few as 4 teams pretty well assures that there will be one or two "weak" division champions which make it to the post season.

... you play head to head to determine the champion. Best team doesn't always win, but to me, that's not how its supposed to happen.

If the "best" team always won, we could simply use RPI to determine the best team and there would be no need for a post season. We'd know who was going to win. It's the variability which makes for exciting baseball.

Although, I know of Cardinals fans who still insist that the best team "at that time" won the 2006 World Series.

[YardBirds13]

Fixed it for you.

Agreed, with the caveat that dividing MLB up into divisions with as few as 4 teams pretty well assures that there will be one or two "weak" division champions which make it to the post season.

If the "best" team always won, we could simply use RPI to determine the best team and there would be no need for a post season. We'd know who was going to win. It's the variability which makes for exciting baseball.

Although, I know of Cardinals fans who still insist that the best team "at that time" won the 2006 World Series.

I think that's a fair argument to make. The Cards played better than the Tigers in that World Series, and they won it. Were they the best team of the entire season? Of course not. But they won, and that's what really matters.

The goal of the season is to make the playoffs. Then, anything can happen.

[Migrant Redbird]

I think that's a fair argument to make.

Not if you're one of the Cardinals fans who believe the main difference between the team which went 83-78 in the regular season (5 games above .500) and then went 11-5 (6 games above .500) in the post season was mostly luck.

I still believe the 2004 Cardinals were as good or better in the regular season than the 2004 Red Sox that swept them in the World Series. That was a team which won 105 games during the regular season, crushed the Dodgers 3-1, and narrowly edged an extremely hot Astros team (Carlos Beltran parlayed that post season into a monster contract), despite not having their best pitcher for the playoffs.

Part of the problem was having a manager who refused to let his hitters attempt bunting against a Red Sox pitcher whose ankle was bleeding through his sock. If Schilling had made one ill-timed pivot on that ankle, his season could have been ended right there.

The goal of the season is to make the playoffs. Then, anything can happen.

The goal of the season is to win as many games as possible in the regular season, and then to win eleven more in the post season. But yes, anything can happen. The worst team in the majors would still have a slim chance of sweeping the best team in a three or four game series. There is a lot more variability from game to game than there is in the NFL or NBA -- where a vastly inferior team has little if any chance of winning even a single game.

[YardBirds13]

Not if you're one of the Cardinals fans who believe the main difference between the team which went 83-78 in the regular season (5 games above .500) and then went 11-5 (6 games above .500) in the post season was mostly luck.

I still believe the 2004 Cardinals were as good or better in the regular season than the 2004 Red Sox that swept them in the World Series. That was a team which won 105 games during the regular season, crushed the Dodgers 3-1, and narrowly edged an extremely hot Astros team (Carlos Beltran parlayed that post season into a monster contract), despite not having their best pitcher for the playoffs.

Part of the problem was having a manager who refused to let his hitters attempt bunting against a Red Sox pitcher whose ankle was bleeding through his sock. If Schilling had made one ill-timed pivot on that ankle, his season could have been ended right there.

The goal of the season is to win as many games as possible in the regular season, and then to win eleven more in the post season. But yes, anything can happen. The worst team in the majors would still have a slim chance of sweeping the best team in a three or four game series. There is a lot more variability from game to game than there is in the NFL or NBA -- where a vastly inferior team has little if any chance of winning even a single game.

Ahh, I misread what you wrote. People that say the Cardinals were the best team in the league at that time.

That's wrong.

I was just saying that in that World Series, the Cardinals were the better team. Which surely could have been because of luck, or a number of different things.

[DrungoHazewood]

I agree Drungo, and that, to me, is what the playoffs are about.

The 162 game season is to weed out the best teams, not determine the champion. Once you've weeded out the best, you play head to head to determine the champion. Best team doesn't always win, but to me, that's not how its supposed to happen.

I know you feel differently.

I know the intent was to set up a format to play head-to-head to determine the champion. But to me, the playoffs are baseball's equivalent of a soccer penalty kick shootout. You play the whole season by one set of rules and constraints, then you play three weeks where you don't need depth, you don't need a 4th or 5th starter, and you don't need an 11th, 12th or 13th reliever.

So not only do you have the small sample size problem making the odds of the best team winning at <20%, you also have teams playing a very different game than what got them to October.

To me, much of what makes baseball baseball is building a deep, quality organization and showing up to play consistently, almost every day, for six months. It's not seeing how many innings you can get out of Schilling and Johnson before their arms fly off.

[Balmer Bomber]

The goal of the season is to win as many games as possible in the regular season, and then to win eleven more in the post season. But yes, anything can happen. The worst team in the majors would still have a slim chance of sweeping the best team in a three or four game series. There is a lot more variability from game to game than there is in the NFL or NBA -- where a vastly inferior team has little if any chance of winning even a single game.

The best way to defend this statement is to look at the NBA playoffs of this past season. Of the 15 series, the top seed won the series (If you choose to call Boston the top seed due to their 66 wins compared to the Lakers 57) all but one time. That was the Spurs winning in seven over the Hornets.

That is why the baseball playoffs are so great. The hard part is finishing well enough in the marathon to where you give yourself a chance to beat your competitors in the sprint to the finish.

Since MLB started using the Wild Card the team with the best record has won the World Series twice while a wild card team has won it four times. If you don't like to see that kind of crap shoot happen, then you are the same person who wants to see nothing but #1 seeds in the Final Four come late March.

[DrungoHazewood]

Since MLB started using the Wild Card the team with the best record has won the World Series twice while a wild card team has won it four times. If you don't like to see that kind of crap shoot happen, then you are the same person who wants to see nothing but #1 seeds in the Final Four come late March.

No. You're the kind of person who likes that the regular season used to determine the league champions, because the real test of baseball is having a consistent, deep organization that can withstand six grueling months of daily games. Having the best record in the league over the long haul needs to be rewarded. That reward shouldn't be limited to "you get into the playoffs and have to play an 85-win, 2nd-place team that got hot in September."

Or you're the kind of person who knows that the Temple Cup was an afterthought after two teams had duked it out for months. They'd already won more games during the year, so the teams thought it was silly to have seven more games to tell them what they already knew - and they treated it that way.

I'm the kind of guy who thinks the Ivy League got it right by not having a postseason tournament in basketball, and declaring the team that won the most games over the long haul as the Champion. Then that champion gets to go have some fun in the made-for-TV-and-office-pool NCAA tournament.

[Balmer Bomber]

No. You're the kind of person who likes that the regular season used to determine the league champions, because the real test of baseball is having a consistent, deep organization that can withstand six grueling months of daily games. Having the best record in the league over the long haul needs to be rewarded. That reward shouldn't be limited to "you get into the playoffs and have to play an 85-win, 2nd-place team that got hot in September."

Or you're the kind of person who knows that the Temple Cup was an afterthought after two teams had duked it out for months. They'd already won more games during the year, so the teams thought it was silly to have seven more games to tell them what they already knew - and they treated it that way.

I'm the kind of guy who thinks the Ivy League got it right by not having a postseason tournament in basketball, and declaring the team that won the most games over the long haul as the Champion. Then that champion gets to go have some fun in the made-for-TV-and-office-pool NCAA tournament.

The Pac 10 have only had a b-ball tourney for a few years before realizing how much extra money can be generated by hosting a post season tourney.

I like having a post season tournament as well as rewarding the regular season champ. That is why I have started investing my time into European soccer, particularly the English Premiership. They have a regular season champ in a league where every team plays each other in a home and home round robin season. The top teams in England than get to compete in the UEFA Champions League. They also have 2 cups that are contested during the season.