Baseball need its own, unique, system of playoffs. Unlike other sports who have the same players on the field for every game, the better baseball team is often the one who has the most pitching depth. The decision to go to one game "playins" for the wild card team is another gimick that cheapens the game.
Some statistically oriented folks have pointed out that the odds for who wins one game between even two mismatched teams is almost the same as flipping a coin. But, while that is true for a random regular season game, it isn't true in a single playoff game. A one game playoff rewards a team with one really good starter and a great closer over a team with depth in both the rotation and the bullpen.
Almost all the demands by bloggers that the Twins get an "ace" are based on the value of an ace in a playoffs where pitching depth is a lot less important. The emphasis on winning just one playoff game diminishes even further the value of putting together the best team for the regular season.
What they ought to do is restructure the playoffs to give a win to the team with the better record at the start of the series. So the team with the better record would need to win one game in a "three game series", while the other team would need to win two. Of course the teams would actually only play, at most, two of the three games. In a "seven game series", teams would play six games and the team with the better record would need to win only three games, while the other team would need to win 4. That would make the regular season a much bigger factor in who ended up in the World Series.
I would love to see baseball go back to one winner in each league. They could schedule two home and away series with each team in a 13 team league plus one home and away game against each team in the other league. That would be 170 game schedule. It would turn those one game interleague "series" into an annual event for the local fans of that team. Imagine how many Cub fans would show up for its single game each year against the Twins.
Then you would have the next six teams in each league do "three game playins". If the teams had the same record they would play all three games, otherwise the team with the better record would get a win to start and they would actually play only two games. The three winners of the playins and the division winner would play "seven game" series, but the league champion would get that one game gimme in each series. So teams playing them would have to win 4 of 6 games instead of 4 of 7. In short, you make getting to the World Series a long shot for anyone other than the league champions. Which is the way it should be.
Of course, no one is going to adopt that convoluted system. It doesn't conform to how football, basketball and hockey do their playoffs. And emulating those other sports seems to be what baseball is after under Selig. Unfortunately, part of baseball's appeal is that it is unique. It has already been surpassed by football as the national sport. As it becomes increasingly just another sport, its place in American life is going to be further diminished.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I don't see where your system is any "fairer" than the new system, unless baseball goes back to balanced schedules and throws out interleague play.
Baseball has such a long season that the "best" team seldom wins any playoffs anyway. The "best" team in September isn't likely the "best" team based on the most wins throughout the year. Since the teams don't play identical schedules it is pretty hard to judge who the "best" team is anyway.
I just hope baseball doesn't get too carried away with expanded playoffs. This looks like an attempt to pander to teams who feel like they are in tough divisions and don't have a "fair" enough chance to reach the playoffs. I doubt if this idea will really fix that. It might give more teams the illusion of contending in September.
"The "best" team in September isn't likely the "best" team based on the most wins throughout the year."
I suppose it depends on whether you think the team that wins the World Series should be based on something beyond who has the "best" team at the end of the season. But the "best team in September" may not even be in the playoffs.
If the playoffs are a separate season to determine the best team at the end of the year, then they ought to let every team participate. The way we do for state high school tournaments in Minnesota.
"I suppose it depends on whether you think the team that wins the World Series should be based on something beyond who has the "best" team at the end of the season"
I really don't know the answer to this question. Hardly ever does a team end the season with the same players they begin the season with. Often the "best" team in baseball loses its best player near the end of season and is no longer the best team. You are right that the best team in September often doesn't make the playoffs. If they do, they probably don't win the World Series.
On top of all that, the things that often made the best team in baseball the best during the regular season, often aren't as big of factors in the post season.
I think regular season and post season are so different that the "best" team in baseball seldom has a better chance of winning the World Series than the 8th best team. Or now the 10th best team.
I also don't think there is as much difference between the best teams as some fans would like to think. Baseball plays so many games that 10 more wins is statically about the same as 1 more win in the NFL.
"Baseball plays so many games that 10 more wins is statically about the same as 1 more win in the NFL. "
I don't think that is true. The more games you play the more likely records are going to reflect the likelihood of who wins.
Which is why playing two games instead of one has such a huge impact.
Take two teams where team A will win 60% of the games and team B 40%. That's a big difference in baseball. But, over ten years, team B will be expected to win the playoff 4 times and team A 6 times.
If you play two games, as I suggest, team B will be expected to win 1 or 2 playoffs and team A 8 or 9. That seems a lot more fair to me. Team A is clearly the better team and it ought to be unusual for Team B to win.
As for who SHOULD win, I think the pennant winners ought to reflect the entire season. Being the better team in April ought to count just about as much as being the better team in September. And the results of the 162 game season ought to be as big a part of deciding who ends up winning the pennant as a handful of games in October. Instead they appear to be moving toward making it almost irrelevant for all but eliminating the worst teams.
I agree with you about the 162 game season. I don't want to see the playoffs expanded. Still, part of the specialness of the 1987 Twins was, they were far from being the best team in baseball and won the World Series anyway.
Logically, baseball should go to 32 teams, have 2 sixteen team leagues. They should do away with interleague play. They should have 2 divisions in each league. Only let the winners of each division be in the postseason.
But baseball won't do that, so I just hope they can resist adding more team to the postseason.
Post a Comment