OT: MLB expands playoffs to 10 teams

Submitted by Moleskyn on

Title says it all. Here's ESPN's write-up on it. If you've been paying attention to baseball at all, you saw this coming. The new format adds a one-game playoff between the two best non-division-winning teams. Which means, had this format been in place last year, the Red Sox would have played the Rays and the Braves would have played the Cards, with the winner of each game going on to play the respective #1 teams in their leagues.

Here's what The Bud had to say:

"This change increases the rewards of a division championship and allows two additional markets to experience playoff baseball each year," Commissioner Bud Selig said in a statement.

I mean, I guess so, if one extra game means "playoff baseball" to you. I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, what does 1 game prove? Not much. Plus, the winner of that game is at a disadvantage since they definitely would not be able to pitch their ace more than once in the divisinoal series. And, depending on the amount of time between this wild card and the LDS, that ace could potentially be pitching for the first time in an elimination game (assuming that he wouldn't be ready to go until game 3). So that creates a competitive inbalance, in my mind.

On the other hand, the last day of the regular season last year was incredible. Both the Rays and Braves were playing for their lives and it led to really compelling and dramatic games. I know I stayed up late to watch those games, and I don't care about either team. So maybe they're trying to establish that sort of excitement on an annual basis. Also, since they had already set the playoff schedule for 2012, adding an entire series for this year could not have worked logistically. So maybe they turn this into a best 3-of-5 series down the road.

What say the rest of you?

ChiCityWolverine

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^

Couldn't disagree more! It actually does incentivize performance more than the standard format. Battles for the division mean something as a team can't just coast with a wild card into the playoffs. The top seed presumably has an extra advantage as its opponent played an extra game and likely had to use one of their top pitchers. It's not the greatest idea ever, but it is a band-aid on the problem of how easy it's been for a wild card team to coast into the playoffs and align its pitching.

Space Coyote

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:21 PM ^

Your point is valid about it being a competitive disadvantage, but to me this gives a better reward for actually winning your division.  All to much recently in sports teams haven't even won their division/conference and are winning championships.  I like it when the season counts for a little more (in that winning a division counts more), and while this isn't a whole lot more (because they still play a billion games in the regular season and now there are 2 more teams, albeit in a single elimination format) it at least adds a little something to it in my mind.

Plus, last season was a blast at the end of the year.

UMaD

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^

"the winner of that game is at a disadvantage since they definitely would not be able to pitch their ace"

The ramification here is that the best regular season teams actually get a reward (unlike now), thereby making the regular season more important.

This is a rare improvement that makes the regular season more meaningful and the playoffs more exciting.

MGoBlue96

March 2nd, 2012 at 9:28 PM ^

just because a team wins their division does not mean they are one of the best regular season teams. For instance, a division winner could be in a horrible division and win the division with a very mediocre record.  Meanwhile in a tougher division, the Wild Card team that doesn't win that division could have a sigficantly better record than the division winner from the horrible division. So how exactly does this mean the best regular season teams will always be rewarded, when the wildcard team may have a better record than the division winner? They shouldn't be punished for playing a tougher division in that situation. Under this new format they would be.

And I really don't see how it makes the playoffs more exciting if the teams in the divisional round, aren't able to matchup their aces with one another.

snarling wolverine

March 3rd, 2012 at 12:20 AM ^

Also, with a 162-game season, if one team wins 98 games and another wins 97, can we really conclusively state that the first team is better?  A pollster would call that a statistical tie.  

With the huge number of games in the season - and the fact that games are sometimes rained out and rescheduled - I don't mind a strong second-place team getting a little leeway.  This is very different from the NFL, where each game is 1/16 of the season.  Baseball teams have to play 10 games to equal the significance of one NFL game.  If you finish 10 games out of first, you're probably not getting the wild card, anyway.

 

BraveWolverine730

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:23 PM ^

I think this is dumb. How much less special(or in my case agonizingly, being forever forced to live in Ohio watching looping replays of the FG kick being blocked against App St narrated by Pam Ward terrible) was that they were playing for everything. The Cards and Rays got in and the Braves and Red Sox got nothing. I thought baseball had the right balance for exclusitvity for the playoffs as is and letting an additional two teams in will make that less so. 

Moleskyn

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:29 PM ^

If your argument is that it cuts down the exclusivity of the playoffs, I disagree with that. As I understand it, this new format basically guarantees that 4 teams will be in the same position as Atlanta, Boston, and Tampa were in last year. What happened last year was pretty unique (at least as far as I can remember) and exciting, and this is basically forcing that kind of excitement to happen every year; and they're calling it a part of the playoffs.

BraveWolverine730

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:43 PM ^

What was unique about last year was the super exciting finished in both leagues simulataneously.  To find a year where the Wild Card wasn't in doubt in either league on the final day of the season, you would have to go back to 2002.  What is an appealing part, however, is that it does make winning a division mean something. Home Field is nice, but outside of Interleague play,. probably an extremely weak advantage. 

Vivz

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:27 PM ^

the regular season does nothing for me. Last year was the best one ever by most accounts. Ok maybe every 100 years we lose that atmosphere of the last day, and an extra 50 times add a meaningful (playoff) game, as while as incrase the point of games competing for the division

PurpleStuff

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:29 PM ^

I'm sure Selig and company view keeping more teams alive in the playoff hunt as a recipe for more dollars, but it just further dilutes an already thin product.  Fewer and fewer people care about the World Series as it pits two teams that win the crapshoot that is playoff baseball.  The idea that one game (or even a short series) is a better indicator of a team's season/performance than 162 is just asinine. 

Add this to a hard salary cap in football that allows a mediocre 9-7 team to win the Super Bowl, overexpansion across the board (especially to Sun Belt states in hockey), and my interest in pro sports is at roughly zero at this point.

BraveWolverine730

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:55 PM ^

Come on now. It was impossible to look at Alabama's and Ok State's resumes this year and determine which was the better team because they each only played 13 games and I don't think they had any common opponents.  It is way easier, however, to look at the bodies of after 162 games and tell who the better team is. 

PurpleStuff

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^

I am pretty strongly anti-playoff in college football.  I think the problems with the BCS system have come from dumb decisions (Bama/LSU rematch), quirky results (LSU backs in with 2 losses in 2007), and poor policy (computer polls putting Nebraska #2 in 2001 and leaving out #1 USC in 2003).

A simple "you have to actually win your conference" rule and the elimination of the computer nonsense would go a long way to making the system as functional as possible.  A 4-team playoff between the champions of the B1G, Big 12, SEC, and Pac 12 would probably be okay by me, but that would essentially eliminate the bowl system in my view, and I don't know that that is a necessary trade off most years.

I don't care for the conference title games either.  What makes college football special is that you don't get a second bite at the apple.  When that can happen, or happens on a regular basis I think a lot of the do-or-die appeal is lost.

Gulogulo37

March 2nd, 2012 at 8:56 PM ^

I agree with winning your conference, although I think the conference championship game or regular season winner should be able to go. Also, are the computers really that bad? There have always been more obvious reasons for why the title game matchup got screwed up right? Because if the computers did some team in, people would go nuts. I believe Okie St actually had better computer rankings, but it was Bama that owned the human polls. And the human polls have their own BS biases, like who starts at the top at the beginning and which program has more prestige.

jmblue

March 2nd, 2012 at 4:00 PM ^

Add this to a hard salary cap in football that allows a mediocre 9-7 team to win the Super Bowl.

The salary cap is not responsible for 9-7 teams making the playoffs. That's just on the playoff format.  There were teams making the postseason with 9-7 and 8-8 records before the cap was instituted.

PurpleStuff

March 2nd, 2012 at 4:25 PM ^

Wild Card teams rarely made the conference title game, much less the Super Bowl until very recently (the Raiders won Super Bowl XV, but they had an 11-5 record, tied for best in the AFC).  Now it happens with extreme regularity.  Wild Card teams only made the Super Bowl in '75, '80, '85, and '92.  Only the '80 Raiders won.  The '85 Pats and the '92 Bills were smoked in the Super Bowl.

The salary cap was implemented in the mid 1990's.  Since then six Wild Card teams have won the Super Bowl ('97 Broncos, '00 Ravens, '05 Steelers, '07 Giants, '10 Packers, '11 Giants).  The '99 Titans came close to winning another.  The last three didn't win more than 10 games in the regular season.  Expansion also plays a role, but it is hard to argue against the fact that mediocre teams have won the Super Bowl with incredible regularity in recent years.  Some people like it, but to me it basically makes the regular season more meaningless and makes the label "Super Bowl Champions" seem like more of a luck-of-the-draw title than an incredible accomplishment.

jmblue

March 2nd, 2012 at 4:38 PM ^

OK, I can see that, but that could be averted if the NFL wouldn't have so many divisions, leading to lousy division champs making the playoffs.

Overall I think salary caps are a good thing.  They eliminate economic advantages that tip the playing field.  The constrast between the Pittsburgh Steelers (6-time Super Bowl champs) and Pirates (two decades of futility), in the same city, is striking. 

Gulogulo37

March 2nd, 2012 at 9:00 PM ^

I'm only a fan of parity to a point. I like having the occasional juggernaut or the season with the 2 teams who are clearly the cream of the crop on a seemingly inevitable path to the championship game. Just having a group of 5 teams being the only ones to win a championship in some sport year in, year out would be lame though. Luckily, with the streaks and quirks of baseball, even the Yankees can't just dominate like they would with their salary difference in other sports.

Erik_in_Dayton

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:33 PM ^

All but two teams make the playoffs, but those two play in a "do-or-die" regular season game, and the winner goes to the playoffs. The loser will also make the playoffs, because what the hell...

All outfield fences are moved in so that they  are only 150 feet from home plate for the sake of making sure at least a dozen home runs are hit each game. 

All players - and anyone in the stand who wants to join in - take some sort of performance-enhancing drug during the seventh inning stretch. 

Every game ends with the home team down three runs with two outs and its best hitter up to bat with the bases load - because it's just so damn exciting!

Every game - and every year - will be the most special yet.  The specialness will be great at first, but then it will become cloying, and then it will be irritating, and evetually all MLB fans will simply go mad. 

Erik_in_Dayton

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:55 PM ^

It's the former.  I've stopped watching as the game, in my eyes, has left its past behind.  Baseball's connection to its history was what made it interesting to me.  Now it seems like a mix of professional wrestling and watching someone paint a fence - boring and vulgar at the same time.  I realize what category this puts me in...

PurpleStuff

March 2nd, 2012 at 4:11 PM ^

I would re-embrace MLB in a heartbeat if they simply turned back the clock just slightly.  Get rid of teams in Florida and AZ (you get spring training, so stop complaining) and boot the Rockies as well (baseball shouldn't be played in an atmosphere where the physics of the game are so dramatically altered).  I doubt too many people will be sincerely heartbroken at the loss of these relatively new franchises either. 

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, Blue Jays, Orioles, Indians, Brewers

AL West: A's, Twins, Royals, Angels, Mariners, Rangers, White Sox

NL East: Mets, Pirates, Phillies, Nationals, Reds, Braves

NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Astros, Cubs, Cardinals

Division winners play a 7 game series, then you play the World Series.  You have a balanced schedule and people probably pay attention come October.  Smaller market teams improve without the need for a salary cap as more players become available to them.  Straight statistical odds of making the playoffs drop from 26% to 15%, but making the playoffs actually means something (as does winning a division title). 

It won't happen because the total pie would shrink, but it would make for a much better product and a more meaningful season IMO.

 

Picktown GoBlue

March 2nd, 2012 at 10:45 PM ^

when I didn't have Excel to create my charts and graphs, so instead I searched for the newspaper every day and plotted the results of the AL West (games above or below .500) on graph paper with 7 colored pencils.  As luck would have it, I picked a year when my Royals started slow but their blue line started passing all the others on the way to a division championship (except for that gap of about 7 days when we went on vacation and I was too busy to find a paper).

Not a bad proposal, although I might suggest swapping the Reds/Braves for the Cubs/Cards so that I'm completely transported back to 1977.  I was going to mention putting the Brewers back in the NL and the fact they're trying to bribe the Astros into joining the AL, but then they'd want to put the Astros in the West with the Rangers and I want to keep the White Sox in the West with the Royals.  So leave your AL as is.

Ah, if only we had had 7 games instead of 5 against those damn Yankees...

Alton

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:42 PM ^

This is a great idea.  The problem with the World Series as it is now is wild card teams making it--if you're not the best team in your division, how can you be the best team in baseball?

This new system makes it significantly less likely that a wild card team makes the World Series.  There are still 6 division winners and 2 wild card teams in the playoffs, it's just that now the wild card team in the playoffs will have played 163 games instead of 162, and they will have used up their #1 starter to get to the playoffs.  Also, there is a non-zero chance now that the best wild card team doesn't make the true playoffs, so again that means we are less likely to have a wild card team in the World Series.

 

saveferris

March 2nd, 2012 at 4:03 PM ^

I see your point, but if having Wild Cards getting hot late in the season and winning the World Series is such an offensive concept, then reorganize the AL and NL into 4 divisions each and get rid of the Wild Card altogether.  Introducing a one game Wild Card playoff as a means to handicap the Wild Card  team in the Divisional Series just seems clumsy to me.

Of course this will foster the argument that not all divisions are equally competitive and that Detroit gets a free ride because the Central sucks while Boston, New York, and Tampa Bay have to slug it out in the East.  Hence the Wild Card is more fair overall, if not as satisfying from a pedigree perspective.

saveferris

March 2nd, 2012 at 4:18 PM ^

But your Wild Card teams would usually be teams close in quality so either one coming out of the one game playoff probably wouldn't offend anyone.  Since the Wild Card was introduced in 1994, the runner-up to the Wild Card team has finished an average of only 5.9 games back, which means you're clinching your playoff spot, on average, with around a week to go.  Most seasons, the 2nd place finisher to the Wild Card is pretty good.

turtleboy

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:45 PM ^

One game playoff is kind of an oxymoron isnt it? Playoffs are typically a series of games, right?. I wish they'd call them elimination games or deathmatches, or something else cool and slightly more genuine.

Nothing.But.10ve

March 2nd, 2012 at 3:49 PM ^

This is a very simple concept, and one that I'm 100% in favor of.  It adds to the regular season, making sure that division winners get their cut of the pie.  Too many wild card teams recently have been making world series runs, which takes away from winning your respective division.  Now, there will be an additional 2-3 teams who are in the hunt until the final out is made, and for those who get the 2 wild card slots, they will be forced to burn their ace pitcher while the division winners are kicking it in 5-star hotels.  This isn't to say that wild card winners have no chance to make a playoff run, but it makes it more difficult for them - the way it should be.  And now with 2 wild card teams for each league, the last day of the season has the potential for 4/5 teams in each league to be playing for the spot (something that wouldn't happen with 1 wild card winner).  Lastly, a one game playoff will be awesome to watch, because after all, who doesn't enjoy watching game 7's?  Just my two sense, but i think MLB struck gold with this new format

Westside Wolverine

March 2nd, 2012 at 4:19 PM ^

except for the fact that the trade deadline will have less activity. If more teams are buyers, then less teams are sellers and the price for players will increase significantly (see NHL trade deadline). If deadline trades are made, the higher trade prices lead to better trades for bad teams, and possibly an increase in parody.

snowcrash

March 2nd, 2012 at 5:03 PM ^

At least for the AL. Under the current system, in a typical year the playoff teams are the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Central winner and the West winner. The Yankees have made the playoffs 8 of the last 9 years, the Red Sox 6 of the last 9. Under the proposed system, the other (read: poorer) teams will have a much better shot.   

manchild56

March 2nd, 2012 at 5:07 PM ^

is so the AL East can get 3 teams if Tampa beats one of the GOD TEAMS Yanks, or BoSox. I am serious this is the only reason to make the regular season now pointless. I mean the AL Central has had a 163rd game what 3 of the last 5 seasons right? Could have had 3 different races last season come down to a 163rd game or actually 164th in the one case were a three way tie was very possible. I just don't get it, nor do I like.

WhoopinStick

March 2nd, 2012 at 5:16 PM ^

I don't like this move at all.  The rules that were in place last year were better than this. 

 

What's the over / under until this new rule gets modified?  I'm guessing it won't be in place more than 2 years max. 

ixcuincle

March 2nd, 2012 at 5:19 PM ^

This expansion is stupid. It's been coming for several months now, so I've accepted it, but I didn't think the playoff system needed any changes at all. I guess it's all about money now. Now the Yankees and Red Sox are basically guaranteed playoff spots every year. Now the drama of last year, when the playoff seeds were determined on the final day, is gone. It's a real shame. 

The main complaint of baseball is the big boys such as the Yankees and Sox dominating the sport. This playoff system doesn't address the complaint at all, in fact it makes the problem worse. 

PurpleStuff

March 2nd, 2012 at 5:42 PM ^

Since 2001, the Yankees have won a single World Series and won the pennant 3 times.  The Red Sox have won their only two trips to the World Series.  Before that they hadn't won a pennant in 18 years and hadn't won the World Series since 1918.

The St. Louis Cardinals have won two World Series and appeared in three in that same time span.  The Giants have appeared twice, winning one (their first ever since moving to San Francisco).  The Phillies have done the same (before that they had gone 13 seasons without a playoff appearance).  The Marlins, Angels, Diamondbacks, and White Sox have all won the World Series.  The Rays, Rockies, Astros, Tigers and Rangers (twice) have all won a pennant.

In the same time period, other big market teams like the Dodgers and Cubs have failed to make the World Series (haven't done so since '88 and '45 respectively).  The Mets have won a single pennant since winning it all in '86.  Teams like the Blue Jays, Braves, and Indians that produced powerhouse teams in the '90's have not returned to the World Series since. 

The only real problem MLB has in this respect is that perception doesn't match reality.

ixcuincle

March 2nd, 2012 at 6:38 PM ^

MLB has so much parity right now, as you indicated, that there really is no need for a playoff expansion. 

The Yankees and Red Sox always do make the playoffs though, or come close. Under this system, they would pretty much make the playoffs every year, and the Sox would have made the playoffs last year. 

The teams that have contended for the "2nd wild card" over the last couple of years have not been impressive at all. Two seasons ago in the AL, Oakland and a mediocre Red Sox team would have been in contention. 

 

Huma

March 2nd, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^

Just wait until the 1st wildcard team with like 100 wins loses to the 2nd place wildcard team that has like 80 wins in a one game playoff.  While rewarding the division winners this change really puts the wildcard team at a disadvantage.  That being said, I like it.  Go Tigers!

LSAClassOf2000

March 2nd, 2012 at 6:48 PM ^

I see where they are going with this, but I have concerns about it - 

If this format had existed last year, you would have seen one-game playoffs between the Rays (91-71) and the Angles (86-76) in the AL, and the Cardinals (90-72) and the Braves (89-73) in the NL. In 2010, it would have been the Yankees (95-67) and the White Sox (88-74), and the Braves (91-71) and the Padres (90-72). Granted, these would be taking teams at snapshots in time, but they had decents seasons within those years so I could see this additional game being competitive more often than not. I also agree that it would probably give teams that are good already an incentive to stay that way somehow (either by developing talent or trades) and not consider the possibility that they could simply back into the postseason as the wild card.

I see where they are placing a premium on the division crown, but I dare say that this was the case as well before the mid-90s, when not winning it meant you went home at the end of September, so it makes me wonder if adding additional games is strictly necessary if you're trying to get back to this "meaning".  

I guess I have a concern about how this might drive up the prices on the trade market if you have a few more teams that now see that they have a shot at getting into the playoffs. Does that put a few already struggling teams behind more? Certainly, the current format has created some equity, particularly since division leaders don't seem to win the World Series much lately, but does expansion like this start tilting some scales?

My other question would be this - does the MLB feel that a World Series between a team that was in third in a division in the regular season and a division leader, for example, would fare as well from a ratings standpoint as a World Series between division leaders? Since 2000, the highest rated one was 2004 with an average 15.8 share. Since then, it's been 11.1, 10.1, 10.6, 8.4, 11.7, 8.4 and 10.0. I could see problems attracting viewership even from die-hard fans some years.

If nothing  else, Seattle is hopeful now - 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/baseball/2012/03/02/mariners

aiglick

March 2nd, 2012 at 7:48 PM ^

I'm guessing people who don't like playoffs or think that division or conference winners should more times than not win the championship don't like March Madness. IMO this is the best event in sports because teams are given a chance to show they are improved from earlier in the season.

Yes, of course teams that did better during the regular season should have an advantage or two rewarding them for the success but just because wildcard or fringe teams beat them in the playoffs isn't inherently wrong. We are all human and make mistakes during the course of a long season. If you are able to beat the Goliath and go on to win a championship you should not be given flak.

There is a reason they play the games and just because you won the regular season or were the best in a regular season doesn't mean you should automaticallybe handed the trophy.

My two cents