Major League Baseball Has A Problem
 

This year's baseball playoffs further expose a glaring problem with the format. Five of the top 6 seeded teams have been eliminated. This is just not acceptable from a fairness standpoint. The baseball season has traditionally been long to mean something, that the best teams over the long haul are rewarded. Given the layers of playoffs now used, the "best" teams throughout the season are vulnerable to losing to an inferior "hot" team. This is not what baseball has been about for most of its history and is not weighing the regular season fairly. I don't know what the solution is, but a format needs to be implemented that respects the regular season record much more than it does.

The teams with the five best regular-season records – the Braves, Baltimore (101 wins), Dodgers (100), Tampa Bay (99) and Milwaukee (92) – all failed to reach LCS.

So yeah, there's a problem. You have to somehow weigh the playoffs more towards the teams with the best records. The bye doesn't seem to work.

What if your seeding determined the number of games you need to win to claim the series? If the 1 seed plays the 6 seed, then the 1 seed needs to win 1 game and the 6 seed would to win 6 games, or something like that, and then re-seed every series until you get to the World Series.

The other obvious answer is to shorten the regular season to around 120 games. Then you could have all best-of-seven series, which would tend to favor the better teams.

You could go back to the old format where the team with the best regular season record in the NL met the team with the best record in the AL for a best of seven World Series.

How 'bout the teams with the better records START the game with a ghost runner at second base...

How 'bout the teams with the better records START the game with a ghost runner at second base...in every inning.



Oh, Wait! That sounds even better!

Personally, I like the current 12 team format. I wouldn't change that. I also don't care that the best teams are losing. If Houston would lose, I would be all the happier. But I understand what people are saying, so I would tinker with the protocol.

Here's some things I've seen around:

Reseed each round of the playoffs to make sure the remaining top seeds always play the lowest remaining seed. For example, the NL #1 seed ended up playing a tougher team in the NLDS (#1 Braves vs #4 Phillies) than the #2 team (#2 LA vs #6 AZ). That should not have been.

Another idea I've heard is borrowed from KBO Korean baseball. Allow the higher seed to start with a one game advantage. So in a 5 game series, the higher seed only needs to win 2 games, while the lower seed needs to win 3 games.

Another idea I've heard is that you return the Wild Card series to one game, and then have the winner immediately travel to the bye team city and play the next day. This allows the bye team to have a shorter break rather than having to create fake games with split squads to stay in the groove.....which obviously didn't work.

Another idea I've heard, which I think is stupid, is that the lower seed cannot pitch pitchers on short rest. This ruins the chess match strategy of a lower seed trying to defeat a higher seed. So a #1 pitcher that throws in the WC round must wait until his next 5th day rotation spot comes back around. This supposedly would allow the higher seed in the Division Series to pitch their #1 seed against the #3/#4/#5 pitcher of the lower seed. But this also negatively impacts the drama of having the two top pitchers face each other.

How about.......the teams with the better records.......PLAY BETTER when it counts.

+1. I really don't get the complaints. The whole concept of a baseball playoffs is to increase randomness and allow more teams a shot at a championship. If we don't like that, let's go back to three division winners and one wildcard.

Exactly!

Everyone else quit the whining.

It's not a problem for Houston.

So what`s the problem again, I for one enjoy seeing all these higher seeds going down the toilet.

Really they had it perfect with 5 playoff teams. The 2 wildcards were punished with a coin flip game, the division winners had a short enough break not to get rusty and then we started the real playoffs with the division series.

+1 Agree
The Top Seeds have the advantage of Home Games etc and if they are truly better teams they will move on.
Upsets happen in all sports and sometimes teams built for the regular season are not really built for the playoffs.

I think the issue is that the playoffs are too bloated. I understand the necessity for a single wild card team, but I honestly hate what the playoffs have become. Major League Baseball will stop at nothing to make more money, so I'm not surprised.

The general direction of the sport is leaving me with a soured taste in my mouth. Pitchers barely go the distance anymore, all everyone cares about is velocity and spin rate. Too much showboating, the players are investments now, and do not play over the slightest bit of an injury. I know I sound like an old man, but man I think the game was more enjoyable, when it was less complicated.

I cannot disagree more with the premise of this thread. The postseason has always been about getting hot. I'm not even really sure what you're saying. Why would anyone want to sit through a season with the kind of predetermined outcome you're looking for? How would that be exciting?

I guess the Giants better give those 2 Super Bowls back to the Patriots.

It's not "fair", that the superior team didn't win.

Should have given the Patriots a 10 point cushion to start the game.


:rolleyes:


Only real solution here, if there actually is a problem, is to make the 3 game series, a 5 game series, and make the 5 game series a 7 game series.

Take a few games off the regular season if need be.

Mixed feelings.

I do think when sports continue to expand and drag out playoffs it deemphasizes the regular season. I mean who is going to pay $250 to see a hockey game in the middle of the season where your local team is playing one of the worst teams in the league. All you need to do is get in playoffs by the skin of your teeth and peak then.

Baseball is such a long year. . . .does seem in a way unfair for teams that dominated over 162 games to get bounced because some team 5 games above .500 got hot one week in October.

On the other hand, if you've dominated all year. . .play well in the post season.

If the Yankees got in via the wild card and got hot I suspect you'd hear very little of this kind of griping.

I'd prefer watching a team win the World Series rather than watch a team that everyone thinks should have won the World Series be declared the winner.

It's fairly similar to hockey now, yes a couple more teams (but it's not like those teams were close to under .500.

In football you can be 7-9 and get in the Playoffs.

And....like hockey just get in the Post Season and you have the same shot the #1 seed has. Now settle it on the ice.......or grass.

The winner is the winner, hockey & baseball playoffs are TREMENDOUS.

This Post Season:

Phillies fans doing Atlanta's fans Chop

Twins fans taunting the opposing teams pitchers counting down the pitch clock.

Harper's f%&k up, then puts up 2 home runs and his staredowns of Arcia.

The battle of Texas coming up.

Just enjoy it!

It seems that some of you are 'whining" because you disagree with my point. Baseball has traditionally had the distinction among the other major professional sports of valuing the regular season more. 162 games and 8 months is a long haul. Having a majority of the top seeds bounced in the first rounds of the playoffs is not "fair" to the teams that excelled all year.

If fairness was the goal, MLB should go back to pre-LCS rules. Two league winners play in the world series.

We all know there will only be more playoff games though, because $$$$

I agree.

Then eliminate the wildcard spots and call it good--after all, those teams could not prevail in their own division. Or better yet, just take the teams with the best 3 records in each league, give the one with the best record a bye and go from there. I am sure either of those will go over big with the fans.

I really have a hard time questioning this fairness argument. The Brewers and Rays were given all home games and couldn't win one. The Orioles and Dodgers were given byes and home field advantage and still got swept, and the same nearly happened (and should have) to the Braves. What more of an advantage does "fairness" require?

The World Series has been won by a wildcard team almost 25% of the time. Again, a World's Champion that couldn't even win its own division. Does anyone cry for the team that finished ahead of them as being "unfairly" treated or claim that it is a "problem" that the game only gets it right 3/4 of the time?

Here's a take:

Play your ass off in the play offs! If you're the best, prove it on the field. These weren't one and done games.

If one of the "best teams" giving up 6 runs in one out in the first inning should make me feel bad and demand change - something is wrong!

Do like NASCAR - have a regular season Champion so they can be recognized - and then move on and crown a World Champion.

It's all about the money - look for ways to have more games and generate revenue. Create "Wild Card" teams, change the format and go from a sudden death game to the best 2 out of 3, heck make it 7 out 13. Follow the money!

Agree with this apt comparison to the NY Giants.
This said, I disagree that the Patriots were the better team. Definitionally, the Giants were the best team in 2007 and 2011 because they ran the table in the playoffs. They won when it mattered most.

IMHO, the season MVP award for all sports should take into account playoff performance. What did Acuna do during the playoffs? He looked like Elly De La Cruz out there.

I mean, Mariano Rivera never won an MVP or a Cy Young Award, but that guy's got 5 rings, and I'm not sure you'd want anyone else on the mound if you had to close out an inning to win a championship.

I love watching guys like Tony Gwynn, Mike Trout, Ichiro, Ken Griffey, Jr., Ohtani, and Dan Marino, but I'm hard pressed to say that they are "better" than guys with a bunch of hardware.

(As an aside, I looked up these stats, which I thought were interesting. In 2007, the Giants had ZERO All-Pros and beat the Patriots, who had 10 All Pros and an undefeated season. In 2011, the Giants did it again, this time with two All Pros (Victor Cruz and Jason Pierre-Paul) versus 8 for the Patriots.)

Couldn't they have avoided being bounced if they won?

The problem is playoff money is exponentially more than a regular season game so its purely financial that the playoffs keep increasing in games. I loved the old ALCS - WS route. Made the regular season more meaningful but unfortunately, we won't go back to that.

Of course, but that's not the point. That is the obvious.

While there have clearly been upsets this year (and last), let's not forget that Houston had a bye last year and then swept their ALDS and ALCS series to get to the WS. This year, Houston had a bye and then beat the Twins 3-1. Is 2 years just too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions from given how often there are upsets in playoff series anyway?

Having a hard time seeing this point.

Top seeds:

1. get a few days off to rest and heal any injuries that comes from a long season
2. get to set their pitching lineup
3. can watch & study their opponent who doesn't get to do the same
4. have home field advantage
5. get to play the weaker seed

then it comes down to head to head performance as it should.

you can't win with all those advantages, no one to blame but yourselves.


and prety sure Baseball has the least amount of postseason teams of the Big 4 sports. Once they start letting in .500 and below teams into the playoff then let's revisit.

All a better record has ever guaranteed is home field advantage. If better record team stinks up the series and loses, oh well. Too bad for them. To the victors go the spoils.

Arizona is only 3* games over .500 (84-78) - same record as Miami, which also got itn.

*-I'm constantly hearing that someone with 6 more wins than losses is 6 games over .500, while, in fact, they are only 3.


.

The present format makes for very exciting baseball. I would not change it. If the team with the best regular season record loses early, so be it.

I agree with the people who say there's no problem. The teams that win in the playoffs, win.

For those who think it's a problem, it starts with the division alignment. For example, the Twins are in a consistently weak division, where a record slightly above .500 is all it takes to make the playoffs. Meanwhile, in some other divisions, several much better teams have to scratch and claw just to get a wildcard berth, meaning, no games to rest, no home field advantage, etc.

It isn't "fair" that some teams, year after year, have a much easier path to winning their division and making the playoffs, but there isn't much that can be done to "fix" it.

Best of 3, and best of 5 series likely does not yield the “better” team as often as best of 7, statistically.
Probably makes for more excitement though.

I know that Manfred has gone on record advocating that MLB split into 4, yes 4, leagues. 2 leagues would play a series, 2 leagues would play a series, and the winners would meet in the World Series. American, National, Federal and Continental leagues. Doing away altogether with wild cards, and endless layer after layer after layer of fan fatiguing playoffs. He even said that, to the extent possible, put the original teams back into the American and National leagues. This will NEVER happen, though, as he himself stated, there is just too much against it.

I don't know about that one, Manfred
 

Manfred has had some questionable calls in the past and this one might just take the cake. First off I think it's important to recognize the deeply-flawed system that is the MLB playoffs. The fact that baseball has the longest regular season (which is considered by many to be boring and arduous) and the shortest post-season (one of the most exciting times in all of sports) shows a deep misunderstanding of what the fans want. Don't even entertain the idea of splitting the league into all these divisions and whatever, it's not going to change that reality. Shorten the regular season, elongate the playoffs, and I absolutely guarantee it will increase fan engagement and sustain more consistency with better teams moving on.

I don't remember ever hearing this suggested. I remember talk of expansion to 32 teams and then splitting each league into 4 divisions (like the NFL), but I don't remember how many playoff teams there would be along with the 8 division winners. I would imagine some number of wild cards, but not sure how many to make the playoffs really work.

I've heard just the opposite, that MLB wants to get rid of divisions entirely. The scheduling change whereby teams no longer play more games against division rivals seems to presage that...

I think the more balanced schedule was to make the wild card competition fairer to teams in tougher divisions. I don't see how they can get away from divisions.