1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

MLB Playoff Re-format

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Jeff_Rake, Oct 20, 2006.

  1. Jeff_Rake

    Jeff_Rake Member

    I'm curious to hear some of your thoughts on the MLB playoff system. Do you like it or dislike it?

    Personally, I hate it. The one thing I love about the MLB, believe it or not, is the 162-game season. I always feel like the best 8 teams make the playoffs. I truly always feel that way. Unlike in the NFL, the best teams ALWAYS make it.

    In the NFL, I don't feel like the 12 best are always in. The schedule plays such a factor.
  2. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    It's fine. Leave it alone.
  3. busuncle

    busuncle Member

    I think they would solve a lot of the problems by playing a truly balanced schedule. I would vote to kill interleague play. But since that won't happen anytime soon, I think a totally balanced schedule is the only fair way of deciding things.

    And, no, the Cardinals are not one of the two best teams in baseball. I think that's pretty clear.
  4. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    They just changed off the balanced sked a few years ago to make division titles and wild cards more relevant.
    There has been talk of 7-game first round but you can't push the world series back into November...that ain't baseball weather in most of the country.
    Hell, October is barely baseball weather in most of the country.
  5. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    They play baseball east of the Hudson in late October?
  6. broadway joe

    broadway joe Guest

    It's just the way it is. In baseball you have to build a team that can handle the long haul of the season and the short series of the postseason. Every team knows that going in. It's as fair a system as you can reasonably ask for.
  7. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    You're right. You're going to get flamed.

    Apples and oranges.

    Yeah, there's a chance some team will get on a Villanova-esque run and win it all. But if the Cardinals win it all, they'd be the first team to pull off a run like that since the playoffs expanded.

    And someone's ALWAYS going to say "Well, crap, we were great over 162 games but we had bad luck in a short series." The only way to avoid that is to crown a champ at the end of the regular season. Not going to happen.
  8. MC Sports Guy

    MC Sports Guy Member

    I'd leave football exactly how it is. Why mess with success?

    Basketball and hockey have WAY too many teams make postseason play. It's ridiculous. Mediocre teams should not be in the playoffs in any sport, and that happens way too much in the NBA and NHL. But I cover a prep sports scene where EVERY team makes the playoffs in every sport, and then they do a blind draw to determine matchups, all of which pisses me off. So I may be jaded.

    For baseball, the point about the postseason being disproportionate to the regular season is valid. But an 11-game series? Holy shit. Do we want to be playing baseball on New Year's Eve?
  9. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    The more rounds you have in the playoffs, the greater the chance that the "non-best" team in a league is going to win the championship. Baseball, which ALWAYS has been a sport that determines its "best" teams over the long haul, suffers when you add extra playoff rounds to the mix.

    In football, the way you set up your team -- and your gameplan -- is exactly the same whether it's regular season or playoffs. In basketball and hockey, same thing. Expanded playoffs works very, very well for all of those sports in determining a champion.

    In baseball, you set up your team -- and your gameplan -- vastly different for 162 games as opposed to a seven-game playoff series. 1 of 162 doesn't matter nearly as much as 1 of 16 (or even 1 of 82, for that matter.)

    There is no way in hell that, say, the Raiders could beat, say, the Colts over three straight games. Might happen once in 100. ... But it would not be THAT unusual for the Pirates to sweep the Cardinals or the Royals to sweep the Tigers (and, in fact, they did) in three straight games at any point in any given season. ... Football and baseball are not measured the same.

    The best team in the regular season rarely wins it all in baseball, because the playoff system is set up so unlike the season schedule -- hell, it's almost a different game. It's certainly a different gameplan, and that's why the teams that win most over 162 games are not always the ones that are set up to win over a random 7-game series.
  10. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member


    154-game schedule
    7-game division series
    7-game pennant series
    7-game world series

  11. MacDaddy

    MacDaddy Active Member

    And while we're fixing things, no more of this two-three-two crap. Yeah, there's more travel, but it should be two-two-one-one-one.
  12. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    An ELEVEN-GAME World Series? Holy smokes. You think bullpens are taxed now? How many times would a team be able to change its roster during an ELEVEN-GAME World Series?

    Wow. An ELEVEN-GAME World Series would be the end of my days as a baseball fan.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page