http://sports.espn.g...umblings1000909

 

Yeah it's a long read, but I fully agree with Stark on this one. I really hope this is brought up in 2012.

 

 

Actually, reading through that again, I'm not sure how I would feel about that. Why allow a mediocre team into the playoffs?

I liked it better when less teams made the playoffs. League expansion has complicated this.

I get sick of some of these "tradionalists" trying to keep things like they were back in the 'old days'. Its a reason why baseball is losing popularity at an alarming pace.

 

 

I would love for them to add 2 more playoff teams per league.

 

In fact, would hope that they get two more expansion teams so we can see 4 divisions of 4 teams per league.. then adding 2 wildcard teams.

 

There might be an issue with top teams having too long of a break.. but they just need to not put SO much time between games and I think after a long season of baseball, some teams might enjoy it. But the main issue is playing them with not as many breaks

 

Also would love to see at least one day world series game.

I liked it better when less teams made the playoffs.

 

How can you say that and be a Marlins fan?

 

 

Just leave it the way it is.

I get sick of some of these "tradionalists" trying to keep things like they were back in the 'old days'. Its a reason why baseball is losing popularity at an alarming pace.

 

 

I would love for them to add 2 more playoff teams per league.

 

In fact, would hope that they get two more expansion teams so we can see 4 divisions of 4 teams per league.. then adding 2 wildcard teams.

 

There might be an issue with top teams having too long of a break.. but they just need to not put SO much time between games and I think after a long season of baseball, some teams might enjoy it. But the main issue is playing them with not as many breaks

 

Also would love to see at least one day world series game.

 

Wouldn’t you agree that it’s a bit illogical to blame the “old days� mentality for dwindling popularity of baseball when the two-division “traditional� structure has been gone since 1993? The game has lost popularity since about that period despite adding interleague play, adding the wild card, adding teams, changing the ASG rules.

 

Now this is not saying that all of those things have contributed to the dwindling popularity of MLB (I think cultural changes have a lot to do with this), but it seems to be logically inconsistent to acknowledge the decline in popularity and then blame “old school� attributes that have been kicked to the curb long ago. (I would also attribute some of this to the steroid era and the perceived lack of parity).

 

Expanding the playoffs might generate more revenue (after all, there will be more games to be played and thus more tickets to sell), but it won’t necessarily make baseball more appealing to the extent that it will gain more popularity. One could argue that expanded playoffs only dilute the match-ups, drag out the post season, and make the World Series seem anti-climatic. The playoffs seem dull and tedious now and the dominance of some Wild Card teams in some postseason years (including the Marlins) seems to be met with more derision than appreciation.

 

In other words, one does not necessarily need to be “old school� to appreciate less playoff teams. There are plenty of people who consider the NBA playoff model to be a comical absurdity. Why move closer to that?

I liked it better when less teams made the playoffs.

 

How can you say that and be a Marlins fan?

 

 

Just leave it the way it is.

Because I like to be intellectually honest and objective.

 

New parity measures (like a salary cap) would have benefitted the Marlins enormously over the last ten years. I don't advocate those either.

 

I'm fine keeping things the way they are, but if MLB is going to shake things up, I'd like to see:

 

-28 teams (14 teams/2 divisions in each league...that would be 7 teams in a division)

-Balanced schedule

-No interleague play

 

Is this going to happen realistically? Of course not, but this would be my preference.

I liked it better when less teams made the playoffs.

 

How can you say that and be a Marlins fan?

 

 

Just leave it the way it is.

Because I like to be intellectually honest and objective.

 

New parity measures (like a salary cap) would have benefitted the Marlins enormously over the last ten years. I don't advocate those either.

 

I'm fine keeping things the way they are, but if MLB is going to shake things up, I'd like to see:

 

-28 teams (14 teams/2 divisions in each league...that would be 7 teams in a division)

-Balanced schedule

-No interleague play

 

Is this going to happen realistically? Of course not, but this would be my preference.

So just go back to 1994 basically?

No! If there is one friggin thing the MLB has right, it's their playoff structure. Dont change it!!

I am 100% in favor of Jayson Stark's playoff proposal. Everything about it just sounds amazing and would make the end of the season that much more exciting, and give that Wild Card game an NFL style excitement. Baseball needs the national exposure of a one game, winner take all series to open up the playoffs and get people juiced up for the rest of the playoffs. Baseball currently doesn't have the kind of playoff excitement that other sports have. This would certainly help keep people interested in the playoff race and playoffs into September and October.

 

I'd be disappointed if this didn't happen by 2012, although Bud Selig has forever been the Buzz Killington of good ideas to help the game of baseball.

I liked it better when less teams made the playoffs.

 

How can you say that and be a Marlins fan?

 

 

Just leave it the way it is.

Because I like to be intellectually honest and objective.

 

New parity measures (like a salary cap) would have benefitted the Marlins enormously over the last ten years. I don't advocate those either.

 

I'm fine keeping things the way they are, but if MLB is going to shake things up, I'd like to see:

 

-28 teams (14 teams/2 divisions in each league...that would be 7 teams in a division)

-Balanced schedule

-No interleague play

 

Is this going to happen realistically? Of course not, but this would be my preference.

So just go back to 1994 basically?

Yes, but obviously the teams in the divisions would be aligned differently.

I really do love this idea and hope it happens soon!

 

I'd prefer a 3 Game WildCard series since it is Baseball and seems more original.

 

Also think about this scenario.

What if there is a tie for the last wildcard spot? They'd play a huge win or go home game to get into the Wild Card series and then the winner of that game would have to play the actual series! That's big drama and makes it more exciting to watch.

 

I'm all for a 6 team playoff and a Best Of 3 Wildcard Series.

I am 100% in favor of Jayson Stark's playoff proposal. Everything about it just sounds amazing and would make the end of the season that much more exciting, and give that Wild Card game an NFL style excitement. Baseball needs the national exposure of a one game, winner take all series to open up the playoffs and get people juiced up for the rest of the playoffs.

 

I'd be disappointed if this didn't happen by 2012, although Bud Selig has forever been the Buzz Killington of good ideas to help the game of baseball.

 

Football is meant to be a "one big game a week" sport, but not baseball. I disagree with your assessment that the NFL model works well for both sports.

 

Baseball is meant to be played everyday, rendering a "one game, winner takes all" format rather incompatible. In most match-ups, the team with the better fist starter will have the higher probability of winning. This is bad because it would make the strength of the rest of rotation (2-5 starters) completely useless. Baseball is a format (due to being played everyday with a five man rotation) where the regular season warrants much more weight, because it requires a team to be complete and all-around elite, while football is designed more for tournament style play (where the regular season is not so important).

 

One of the problems with the division series is that it's only five games. It should probably be seven, but that would just drag the playoffs out longer and push them into November (unless the season is shortened). That's why I'd rather see them eliminated.

 

I'd also disagree that the large number of playoff teams in the NFL makes their postseason more "exciting." In fact, the exact opposite but that's purely a matter of personal taste.

Football is meant to be a "one big game a week" sport, but not baseball. I disagree with your assessment that the NFL model works well for both sports.

 

 

 

This. Baseball is the opposite of football in terms of games played. You need a series, which explains the World Series. Baseball does it justly, though. It's not like the NBA or NHL where they have best of 7 series in the first rounds. In baseball, it's of 5 starting, which makes sense. I like it that way, and the fact that they play 160some games justifies that only 4 teams make it, simply because if you cant prove yourself as one of the top 4 teams in your league by that time, you dont deserve a World Series. Period.

I'm not talking about making the entire playoffs a one game playoff. I'm taking about a wild card, one game playoff, winner take all game.

 

Think about the last few times we've had that one game "playoff" between teams tied at the end of the season. In 07 we had an epic game between the Padres and Rockies in which Tulowitzki scored head first (although never touching the base) in extra innings in one of the most exciting games in recent memory. Last year we had the Twins/White Sox "playoff" game which was a back and forth, close game that ended on a walk off by the Twins. Baseball got the headlines both times and tons of hype for both teams heading into the playoffs and a lot of national exposure.

 

You're missing my point el penguino. My point revolves around adding just one team per conference (as Starks mentions). It doesn't change anything other than a playoff game between the wild card teams. It doesn't mean that far worse or mediocre teams make that wild card game, it's just that the team that finishes just behind that first wild card team (usually finishes within a game or two) gets to earn that actual playoff spot against that other wild card team in a one game playoff format. It adds an exciting element that will add excitement just before the playoffs begin. The team that wins that playoff game gains confidence heading into their next playoff game (which will go back to the format which it is now, NLDS, NLCS, World Series).

 

As we saw in the playoffs last year, there were WAY too many off days and they dragged on way too long without baseball. People lost interest. By adding a simple round to the playoffs and making it a single game format, it makes for great entertainment. It enhances interest in the game.

 

I still don't see the downfall of adding that one game playoff between wild card teams. Seriously, how does it harm the game? All it does is benefit in giving an extra team that performed to playoff caliber a chance to earn a spot in the NLDS and baseball the exposure needed to keep interest in the baseball playoffs and the end of September during an NFL season (which takes away a lot of viewers and interest).

You guys are viewing this in terms of fairness. I'm thinking in terms of building anticipation to a September race in baseball and keeping interest in the playoffs.

 

Just think, what do you see on all the national sports and television shows during September and October? You see lots and lots of talk about the start of the NFL season (hell in August we hear about training camp and subplots to the season), we hear about the NBA season about to get started. And then they show some highlights of some MLB games for a few minutes and talk more about football and basketball.

 

Baseball is less talked about in September and October because the NFL is more intriguing during this time period. During September in this format, most of the playoff teams are set, and usually there are just one or two races to keep an eye on. Most people only pay attention when there's a one game playoff for a division or wild card spot at the end of September.

 

To prove this point, we've heard for a few years how the World Series and MLB playoff television ratings are decreasing and each and every year, which the NFL and NBA playoff numbers are reaching newer all time highs in ratings.

 

The format Starks talks about will keep people interested in the sport into September. People will care about baseball in September. We'll care about the Rays vs Yankees fighting for first place because they are fighting for a bye into the NLDS. Instead we are subjected to both teams resting their players and basically coasting for the rest of the season because they already know they are in the playoffs.

 

It's bullsh*t right now. Interest for baseball is at an all time low in September. NFL and the NBA are the hot sports right now. Baseball is falling farther and farther in interested in relation to other sports. Baseball needs a new format like the one Starks talks about to keep interest in the sport alive. This might sound like I'm being a doomsday conspiracy theorist, but I honestly feel if a format like this isn't implemented soon, baseball will begin to suffer similar to the fate to what was about to happen Pre- McGwire/Sosa home run race.

I'm not talking about making the entire playoffs a one game playoff. I'm taking about a wild card, one game playoff, winner take all game.

 

Think about the last few times we've had that one game "playoff" between teams tied at the end of the season. In 07 we had an epic game between the Padres and Rockies in which Tulowitzki scored head first (although never touching the base) in extra innings in one of the most exciting games in recent memory. Last year we had the Twins/White Sox "playoff" game which was a back and forth, close game that ended on a walk off by the Twins. Baseball got the headlines both times and tons of hype for both teams heading into the playoffs and a lot of national exposure.

 

You're missing my point el penguino. My point revolves around adding just one team per conference (as Starks mentions). It doesn't change anything other than a playoff game between the wild card teams. It doesn't mean that far worse or mediocre teams make that wild card game, it's just that the team that finishes just behind that first wild card team (usually finishes within a game or two) gets to earn that actual playoff spot against that other wild card team in a one game playoff format. It adds an exciting element that will add excitement just before the playoffs begin. The team that wins that playoff game gains confidence heading into their next playoff game (which will go back to the format which it is now, NLDS, NLCS, World Series).

 

As we saw in the playoffs last year, there were WAY too many off days and they dragged on way too long without baseball. People lost interest. By adding a simple round to the playoffs and making it a single game format, it makes for great entertainment. It enhances interest in the game.

 

I still don't see the downfall of adding that one game playoff between wild card teams. Seriously, how does it harm the game? All it does is benefit in giving an extra team that performed to playoff caliber a chance to earn a spot in the NLDS and baseball the exposure needed to keep interest in the baseball playoffs and the end of September during an NFL season (which takes away a lot of viewers and interest).

 

 

I agree on the Wildcard round but I'd prefer 3 game set so their isn't a one game "Playoff" followed by a 1 game Wildcard Game.

Also it was Matt Holliday that slid head 1st in 07 to score the game winning run for the Rockies. :thumbup

Oh.

 

Bud Selig has said he doesn't want the playoffs to drag into November, and I 100% agree with that. For a Wild Card game to work, only a 1 game series would work. And in terms of interest and national coverage, a one game series works a hell of a lot better than a three game series. People like the excitement of a win or go home type of scenario. This system doesn't work with three games simply because three games would drag out too long. A three game series just isn't memorable. It doesn't leave a lasting impression with the viewers.

 

For example, if you see a one game series just before the playoffs that was a 10th inning walk off home run (back and forth game), you would without a doubt be pumped to see that team play heading into the NLDS, and probably would tune in to watch them play.

 

However, if you saw a walk off home run the first game and an 11-0 blowout the second in the 2nd game, would you be just as excited to watch that NLDS game? Do you think the casual fan would go into the NLDS, with an 11-0 blowout fresh on their mind, and say "Man, I'd like to see that team in the NLDS so I can watch some more blowouts." We as Americans have short term memory. What we last see will dictate how we feel about something, and whether we want more of it. The point of the one game playoff is the build up excitement, bring in viewership (and new fans), and to use that build up to bring those fans over to watch the NLDS/NLCS/World Series.

 

No, casual fans want excitement. They want drama. They want a lasting impression. Those kind of moments bring in more and more fans, drive up the ratings, raise merchandise sales and helps the game of baseball. A one game playoff is without a doubt what the sport needs. A three game playoff just doesn't work.

That game is so memorable that Dim forgot the memorable moment.

That game is so memorable that Dim forgot the memorable moment.

 

 

You know what I'm referring to though. The player isn't important, the moment is. I remember that year that the Marlins sucked. I kinda gave up on the baseball season because of that and stopped watching a lot of September.

 

However, I watched that one game playoff because of how important the situation was, and it was an exciting game. That got me interested in seeing how the Rockies would do in the playoffs, so I watched some of their NLDS games. WIthout that game, I wouldn't have watched any bit of the playoffs.

 

Imagine that kind of thing happening every year with that extra Wild Card game. Obviously it won't be an exciting game, but it will be a game that without a doubt will build up interest in baseball heading into the playoffs, and keep people talking about baseball during the middle of the NFL season (which rarely happens).

 

It's not the end all be all of bringing back interest in baseball, but it's a hell of a start.

It is fine the way it is. Playoff teams should be good teams only. I'd rather see good teams sit out some seasons than see mediocre teams playing.

It is fine the way it is. Playoff teams should be good teams only. I'd rather see good teams sit out some seasons than see mediocre teams playing.

 

 

Well you need to be good (relatively win at least 80 to 85 game) to be in a Wildcard race so those teams will be good not mediocre.

I'm not talking about making the entire playoffs a one game playoff. I'm taking about a wild card, one game playoff, winner take all game.

 

Think about the last few times we've had that one game "playoff" between teams tied at the end of the season. In 07 we had an epic game between the Padres and Rockies in which Tulowitzki scored head first (although never touching the base) in extra innings in one of the most exciting games in recent memory. Last year we had the Twins/White Sox "playoff" game which was a back and forth, close game that ended on a walk off by the Twins. Baseball got the headlines both times and tons of hype for both teams heading into the playoffs and a lot of national exposure.

 

You're missing my point el penguino. My point revolves around adding just one team per conference (as Starks mentions). It doesn't change anything other than a playoff game between the wild card teams. It doesn't mean that far worse or mediocre teams make that wild card game, it's just that the team that finishes just behind that first wild card team (usually finishes within a game or two) gets to earn that actual playoff spot against that other wild card team in a one game playoff format. It adds an exciting element that will add excitement just before the playoffs begin. The team that wins that playoff game gains confidence heading into their next playoff game (which will go back to the format which it is now, NLDS, NLCS, World Series).

 

As we saw in the playoffs last year, there were WAY too many off days and they dragged on way too long without baseball. People lost interest. By adding a simple round to the playoffs and making it a single game format, it makes for great entertainment. It enhances interest in the game.

 

I still don't see the downfall of adding that one game playoff between wild card teams. Seriously, how does it harm the game? All it does is benefit in giving an extra team that performed to playoff caliber a chance to earn a spot in the NLDS and baseball the exposure needed to keep interest in the baseball playoffs and the end of September during an NFL season (which takes away a lot of viewers and interest).

 

I understood what your point was (obviously I didn't think you were suggesting a 1 game World Series). I just don't agree with everything else.

 

Tiebreaker games are part of the structure as is. There's no real problem with them as long as they immediately follow game 162 of the regular season. Otherwise, you will have teams trying to reorient their rotations during the last week or two of the season to win the tiebreaker game. That's very much like the football model and non-baseball. What happens if you have a pre-set, guaranteed Wild Card tiebreaker game is that it opens the possibility for there to be a known WC candidate (far ahead in the standings) that will simply tweak its rotation just to win the single game. It's much better to have the single-game tiebreaker occur spontaneously because the standings are that close.

 

The trade-off or having a guaranteed "epic" one game playoff every season, is a game decided by a football model, not a baseball model. Considering that we are talking about two teams not good enough to win a division, I'd argue that you are overstating the potential marketability of this in being a yearly event. I think there is already enough eye-rolling about one wild card team. How can you say it doesn't matter? You are diluting the standards of play. I don't expect the market of potential and current baseball fans to start embracing a model where sub-90 win teams will routinely be in position to win the Series. I suppose this is just a matter of taste, but all of your support in this regard essentially rests on highly subjective claims (saying things like it "adds excitement before the playoffs begin"). That might be true for you, but not necessarily for the rest of baseball fans. At least I'm trying to speak toward the logical issues here, such as essentially devaluing the regular season by adding more playoff candidates, which is at odds with the nature of baseball.

 

And there absolutely can be a case where a "far worse" team makes the playoffs. Don't you think it's a bit unfair for Tampa to have to face Boston in a one game playoff, despite Tampa being 6.5 games ahead after playing all of the same opponents during the regular season? What's the point of even having a playoff game between these two? You are saying that Tampa's much better record should be secondary to the results of a one game playoff. I really don't see the fairness or the logic in this.

 

And this isn't unique to Stark, either. I've heard this proposed countless times over the years. Not that it matters.

You guys are viewing this in terms of fairness. I'm thinking in terms of building anticipation to a September race in baseball and keeping interest in the playoffs.

 

Just think, what do you see on all the national sports and television shows during September and October? You see lots and lots of talk about the start of the NFL season (hell in August we hear about training camp and subplots to the season), we hear about the NBA season about to get started. And then they show some highlights of some MLB games for a few minutes and talk more about football and basketball.

 

Baseball is less talked about in September and October because the NFL is more intriguing during this time period. During September in this format, most of the playoff teams are set, and usually there are just one or two races to keep an eye on. Most people only pay attention when there's a one game playoff for a division or wild card spot at the end of September.

 

To prove this point, we've heard for a few years how the World Series and MLB playoff television ratings are decreasing and each and every year, which the NFL and NBA playoff numbers are reaching newer all time highs in ratings.

 

The format Starks talks about will keep people interested in the sport into September. People will care about baseball in September. We'll care about the Rays vs Yankees fighting for first place because they are fighting for a bye into the NLDS. Instead we are subjected to both teams resting their players and basically coasting for the rest of the season because they already know they are in the playoffs.

 

It's bullsh*t right now. Interest for baseball is at an all time low in September. NFL and the NBA are the hot sports right now. Baseball is falling farther and farther in interested in relation to other sports. Baseball needs a new format like the one Starks talks about to keep interest in the sport alive. This might sound like I'm being a doomsday conspiracy theorist, but I honestly feel if a format like this isn't implemented soon, baseball will begin to suffer similar to the fate to what was about to happen Pre- McGwire/Sosa home run race.

 

That might be true for you, but necessarily everyone else.

 

What you call "excitement" or "anticipation," I like many others call "superfluous," or "dilution," or possibly even "boring." Not all one-game playoffs will be close and exciting like they were during the last two occurences. You seem to be fueling your opinion on this. What happens when they become more one-sided (which is much more probable)?

 

And again, the "talk" or "excitement" about the NBA and NFL seasons probably has little to nothing to do with playoff structure. It likely has more to do with cultural preference or other unrelated factors (I mentioned earlier). Not to mention (as I've already argued), baseball is a much different sport than football and basketball (to a lesser extent) with respect to how it's played and scheduled. Baseball really isn't a sport that's compatible with tournament style play.

 

One could also argue that playoff teams are already "set" in early Septemeber because there are too many playoff seeds. Things would be much more undecided if Tampa and New York were competing for one spot. Instead we allow both teams admission to the post-season and neither have anything to fight over now other than WC vs. Division champs bragging rights. Arguably, the possibility of one team being eliminated and one team making the postseason would be more exciting than fighting for a "bye." Again, while I know this is subjective stuff, you are overstating the excitement factor for a lot of this stuff.

 

And how can you say that the playoff structure (too few playoff teams) is the result of declining TV ratings. I made this argument earlier. They didn't start following off of a cliff until the mid-90s, which is right around when MLB added playoff seeds. Of course, I don't think that this had much effect either way, but I don't think one can logically say that too few playoff teams have resulted in declining TV ratings for the MLB post-season. And again, I think cultural preference is likely driving the NBA/NFL boom and MLB decline, but that's another topic altogether.

Oh.

 

Bud Selig has said he doesn't want the playoffs to drag into November, and I 100% agree with that. For a Wild Card game to work, only a 1 game series would work. And in terms of interest and national coverage, a one game series works a hell of a lot better than a three game series. People like the excitement of a win or go home type of scenario. This system doesn't work with three games simply because three games would drag out too long. A three game series just isn't memorable. It doesn't leave a lasting impression with the viewers.

 

For example, if you see a one game series just before the playoffs that was a 10th inning walk off home run (back and forth game), you would without a doubt be pumped to see that team play heading into the NLDS, and probably would tune in to watch them play.

 

However, if you saw a walk off home run the first game and an 11-0 blowout the second in the 2nd game, would you be just as excited to watch that NLDS game? Do you think the casual fan would go into the NLDS, with an 11-0 blowout fresh on their mind, and say "Man, I'd like to see that team in the NLDS so I can watch some more blowouts." We as Americans have short term memory. What we last see will dictate how we feel about something, and whether we want more of it. The point of the one game playoff is the build up excitement, bring in viewership (and new fans), and to use that build up to bring those fans over to watch the NLDS/NLCS/World Series.

 

No, casual fans want excitement. They want drama. They want a lasting impression. Those kind of moments bring in more and more fans, drive up the ratings, raise merchandise sales and helps the game of baseball. A one game playoff is without a doubt what the sport needs. A three game playoff just doesn't work.

 

They could start the season earlier or shorten the schedule by just a few games. Or take away unnecessary off-days in the playoffs that allow teams to stack their rotations.

 

And I still think you are overstating the "lasting impression" of a routine one game tiebreaker between two teams not good enough to win their divisions. The last two tiebreakers were unplanned and happened to be close, which arguably added to the "excitement" factor. Not to mention that one game playoffs don't fit baseball well (as I've already argued). A seven game series is ideal, but five games should be the minimum. Anything below that is absurd for a sport that inherently has a 4-5 man rotation.

 

The problem with your argument is that you are counting on things like "10 inning walk off home runs" to be occurring routinely, while routine might realistically be a 7-3 nine-inning game between two sub-90 teams. It sounds nice to say that every year there will be an extra-inning marathon, but it's unrealistic to be expecting this.

 

You are basing your argument entirely on what-ifs and that really isn't reasonable.

It is fine the way it is. Playoff teams should be good teams only. I'd rather see good teams sit out some seasons than see mediocre teams playing.

 

 

Well you need to be good (relatively win at least 80 to 85 game) to be in a Wildcard race so those teams will be good not mediocre.

 

80 to 85 games? So... you are good (relatively) now if you win less than half of your games? (80)? Or even just half? Does a team who won only half of their games deserve a shot at the World Series? I mean... I know a .500 team right now... the Florida Marlins... they've been terrible. They dont deserve even a chance at getting in the playoffs, and if they did with their current record that wouldnt be fair.

 

You already get the best of the best advancing into the playoffs. Competition at its finest. Please, the last thing I'd ever want to see baseball like is the way the NBA/NHL works out, where .500 teams and under can make it in, and can (and have) won championships before. You have to remember that a playoff is not a tournament. Lowly seeded teams advancing is more than an upset in my eyes.