Comments on: Mulling a different playoff format http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Interesting Blog in Baseball Reference. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-10080 Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:06:27 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-10080 [...] [...]

]]>
By: sav2880 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-10015 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:45:07 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-10015 If nothing else, I would love to see a video game, be it the more mainstream style like an MLB 09: The Show, or a straight-up sim game like Baseball Mogul give the option to customize the playoff structure in some crazy method like this. I agree, this would add a lot of excitement to the way baseball is setup but with union structures, it would likely never fly.

I would see such a system as organized chaos for about 4-5 years, and then the promotions and demotions would level off and be more predictable, much like they are in English soccer.

]]>
By: whiz http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-9932 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:28:04 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-9932 Kingduct -- good point about clinching early, that could reduce the number of games needed.

And it probably wouldn't happen too early (the earliest is by game 6 if one team was 6-0 and the others all 2-4). But if it does, it's not much different from a 7 game series ending early in terms of dead time.

I like it. Let's do it 🙂

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-9929 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:59:28 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-9929 Terry, you're hitting on another aspect of this whole idea. When the teams can fall in and out of the leagues, it really disrupts player movement. The players union as we currently know it could not function in such a new system and there would be a LOT more competition for players. One big problem is that current teams that draw well make $100 million in ticket revenue, which goes a long way (or the entire way) towards paying the payroll. If that team drops to a lower league, suddenly ticket prices and revenues are going to drop and they won't be able to make payroll. Perhaps the team has to fold right there, making all the players free agents. Overall, it would bring down salaries and ticket prices, I think.

It sure would be interesting, but I don't see anything like this happening.

]]>
By: terry312 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-9928 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:49:38 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-9928 I would restructure baseball to include relegation. Unfortunately, that doesn't at all work with the minor-league system - when Kansas City gets knocked down to AAA and the International League champion gets called up in its place, what happens to KC's farm system? Do they still have rights to those players?

That's led me to conclude that the only way relegation would work would be to abandon the farm system. No draft or anything either. I believe this is the way things work for English soccer too - when a player's contract is up, any team can sign him. If applied to baseball, you'd think this would mean that big-market teams like the Yankees and Red Sox would get all the prospects. But that's not necessarily true - where would they put them? Unless they were willing to carry a guy on their roster who wasn't ready for the big time, they'd have to let him improve in the minors for a while before getting a crack at him.

Frankly I think this would make baseball so much more exciting, and it would even make the minors more interesting too. I'm not sure what the downsides would be.

]]>
By: kingduct http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-9927 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:22:03 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-9927 Oops, I don't know how to edit my post -- I meant to say that clinching would rarely happen only after 7 or 8 games! At least that's my guess.

]]>
By: kingduct http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-9926 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:21:02 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-9926 Yes, round robins would lead to ties, but I don't see that as a downside and it wouldn't be too often. What could be better than a tiebreaker after an exciting 9-game playoff?

The biggest potential downsides (and they are true of all round robins and of the regular season):
a) What happens when teams are essentially eliminated before the end of the 9 games? Does they give up? I myself don't worry too much about this, in that observation from both regular seasons and soccer World Cups is that it generally isn't an issue, because teams really want to win. Perhaps money would have to motivate those teams (dollars per win?).
b) What happens when one team clinches before the 9 games are finished? Again, this is an issue that happens in all round robins -- should it simply end once a team clinches? That is probably the most logical, but it takes the symmetry out of the system. I would guess that it would usually only happen after 10 or 11 games, just because the odds of a baseball team sweeping through a round-robin against other good teams are low, but it would happen sometimes. Probably we would basically just have to sit through a what would in reality be a few exhibition games before the World Series in which the team going to the Series would try especially hard to avoid injury.

Again, those are the downsides. The upside in my mind outweighs them (after all, there are teams that play dozens of games after they have either clinched or been eliminated), due to additional excitement and more teams getting closer to the World Series.

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-9925 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:50:47 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-9925 I see why they call you Whiz...

]]>
By: whiz http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-9924 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:48:04 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-9924 kingduct, the round-robin format is interesting. The number of games would be similar -- a maximum of 5 + 5 + 7 = 17 for division series plus LCS versus 18 for the round-robin (although it is always 18, never less), but they could be done in less time. The DS + LCS takes at least 17 days: 12x34x5x12x345x67, where x is a day off.
The round robin could be done 123xx456xx789, which is only 13 days AND it allows a team to use its top three starters in each series, always with 4 days rest.

You would have to allow for breaking ties in the round-robin (I assume tie-breakers would not be used since they are not used in the regular season). The worst case scenario would be a 3-way tie (three teams at 5-4 and one at 3-6, or three teams at 6-3 and one at 0-9) -- that could get messy.

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/3507/comment-page-1#comment-9923 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:02:48 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=3507#comment-9923 fascinating stuff kingduct--thanks.

]]>