Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Manfred continues to want to kill baseball...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Horrible analogy. Currently 68 out of 350 teams make the ncaa tournament. Expanding the mlb playoffs would be like expanding the tournament to 175.  No one would want to watch it. 

Half of the NBA teams make the playoffs, so this can't be that bad, right? Well, the best regular season team advances in the NBA 80% of the time. StatsByLopez looked into this and found that to

Expanding the playoffs like that would pretty much obliterate the value of the regular season. Let's hope not. 

20 minutes ago, sleepysock said:

People aren't answering this question bc it's so ridiculous. Not trying to be mean -- that's just the truth. If you don't get why there is a postseason in sports, then people aren't going to engage with you.

No of course I do. It generates revenue for owners and is exciting for fans. It doesn’t reward the best team all season.

THAT’S THE POINT.

Lol. You guys are pretending what we currently have is somehow superior. It’s not. It’s what you’ve been sold. And you’re not replying because you can’t truly justify your point about how 162 is so important and still supporting current playoffs.

But you knew that.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Backdoor Slider said:

No of course I do. It generates revenue for owners and is exciting for fans. It doesn’t reward the best team all season.

THAT’S THE POINT.

Lol. You guys are pretending what we currently have is somehow superior. It’s not. It’s what you’ve been sold. And you’re not replying because you can’t truly justify your point about how 162 is so important and still supporting current playoffs.

But you knew that.

Oh stop it.  We have replied.  But you keep repeating all this stuff over and over and over again that makes no sense whatsoever.  It's like talking to a wall. 

Let's try an analogue.  The regular season is the main course.  The playoffs are the dessert.  They have to compliment each other in a logical and good ratio way to make a full course meal.  Too much dessert with not enough of the main meal just makes you just feel bloated and unsatisfied in the end and leads to obesity and ill health aka the ruin of the magic that made baseball so much different than all the other sports. 

And those other sports feel more and more like melting ice cream at best and lack and real feeling of substance.  I can't be bothered to even watch basketball and hockey anymore and football is stating to feel boring to me at this point.  Only baseball's regular season main course leads to the anticipation of a fine dessert to end the meal with at this point for me.

Edited by The Big Bat Theory
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Backdoor Slider said:

No of course I do. It generates revenue for owners and is exciting for fans. It doesn’t reward the best team all season.

THAT’S THE POINT.

Lol. You guys are pretending what we currently have is somehow superior. It’s not. It’s what you’ve been sold. And you’re not replying because you can’t truly justify your point about how 162 is so important and still supporting current playoffs.

But you knew that.

 

Cool. That's your opinion. Most people don't share it so quit acting like it's "fact."

Playoffs are part of every American sport. Do a poll, I think maybe 2% of people would want to eliminate playoffs

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 1969-1993 system was the best. 2 divisions in each league, 2 winners, LCS and WS. If we must have 3 divisions, then why have wildcard teams? Have the two worse division winners play each other in the only division series for the right to face the top seed in the LCS.

 

There’s no reason why a team that finishes third in their division should be in the running for a championship.

Edited by Thenewwildone8
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thenewwildone8 said:

I think the 1969-1993 system was the best. 2 divisions in each league, 2 winners, LCS and WS. If we must have 3 divisions, then why have wildcard teams? Have the two worse division winners play each other in the only division series for the right to face the top seed in the LCS.

There’s no reason why a team that finishes third in their division should be in the running for a championship.

Because a division could be filled with bad teams whereas the wild card team could be better than a division winner.  And has been in the past at times.  So it adds some fairness to the system.  Also sitting one team for a whole series makes their hitters rusty not being able to see live pitching for that long so you wold be punishing the best team and diminishing their chances of winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thenewwildone8 said:

I think the 1969-1993 system was the best. 2 divisions in each league, 2 winners, LCS and WS. If we must have 3 divisions, then why have wildcard teams? Have the two worse division winners play each other in the only division series for the right to face the top seed in the LCS.

 

There’s no reason why a team that finishes third in their division should be in the running for a championship.

It's too limiting with so many teams. The last year of that system the Giants won 103 games and missed the postseason. That's as bad as a 75-win team hypothetically making it in.

And divisions should be abolished. I'd like to eventually see two 16-team leagues. Win two best of 7 playoff series to get to the WS. Top 5 teams get in to prevent a very good team from getting screwed out. 4 plays 5 in a best of 3 and then you have your 4 postseason teams. Pipe dream, will never happen, but I think it keeps the postseason feeling meaningful while still keeping a fair chunk of teams and fanbases in it. That's nearly a third of teams getting a shot at a ring + whoever is chasing the fifth spot in each league. Seems fair enough to me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sleepysock said:

It's too limiting with so many teams. The last year of that system the Giants won 103 games and missed the postseason. That's as bad as a 75-win team hypothetically making it in.

And divisions should be abolished. I'd like to eventually see two 16-team leagues. Win two best of 7 playoff series to get to the WS. Top 5 teams get in to prevent a very good team from getting screwed out. 4 plays 5 in a best of 3 and then you have your 4 postseason teams. Pipe dream, will never happen, but I think it keeps the postseason feeling meaningful while still keeping a fair chunk of teams and fanbases in it. That's nearly a third of teams getting a shot at a ring + whoever is chasing the fifth spot in each league. Seems fair enough to me.

How about this then? No divisions and top 3 teams in the playoffs. 2 and 3 play a best of 7 and winner plays 1 in a best of 7. I just feel like the less teams in the playoffs the better. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Thenewwildone8 said:

How about this then? No divisions and top 3 teams in the playoffs. 2 and 3 play a best of 7 and winner plays 1 in a best of 7. I just feel like the less teams in the playoffs the better. 

Because eventually you have the three large market teams every year.  Boring for the other 27 franchises and the fans they have

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Thenewwildone8 said:

How about this then? No divisions and top 3 teams in the playoffs. 2 and 3 play a best of 7 and winner plays 1 in a best of 7. I just feel like the less teams in the playoffs the better. 

 

Too long of possible down time for the #1 seed...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sleepysock said:

It's too limiting with so many teams. The last year of that system the Giants won 103 games and missed the postseason. That's as bad as a 75-win team hypothetically making it in.

And divisions should be abolished. I'd like to eventually see two 16-team leagues. Win two best of 7 playoff series to get to the WS. Top 5 teams get in to prevent a very good team from getting screwed out. 4 plays 5 in a best of 3 and then you have your 4 postseason teams. Pipe dream, will never happen, but I think it keeps the postseason feeling meaningful while still keeping a fair chunk of teams and fanbases in it. That's nearly a third of teams getting a shot at a ring + whoever is chasing the fifth spot in each league. Seems fair enough to me.

 

I would love to see two 16-team leagues...  That way interleague play can be abolished and then the NL doesn't have to think about using the DH...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thenewwildone8 said:

How about this then? No divisions and top 3 teams in the playoffs. 2 and 3 play a best of 7 and winner plays 1 in a best of 7. I just feel like the less teams in the playoffs the better. 

Better then the **** show they have now but still like the 4 divisions winners making it only system. No reason to play 162 games just to let inferior teams get in after all those games then get hot and win it all. You know the best teams after 162.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FantasyGeek2018 said:

Better then the **** show they have now but still like the 4 divisions winners making it only system. No reason to play 162 games just to let inferior teams get in after all those games then get hot and win it all. You know the best teams after 162.

4 teams or 3 teams, just not half the league like Manfred wants. I think he’s so obsessed with money, he doesn’t get that fans have less reasons to watch and go to regular season games if they mean even less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, FantasyGeek2018 said:

Better then the **** show they have now but still like the 4 divisions winners making it only system. No reason to play 162 games just to let inferior teams get in after all those games then get hot and win it all. You know the best teams after 162.

Because fans love Cinderella stories. Look at March madness when some 12seed wins, people go crazy. Plus if it was only division winners teams would start tanmng as soon as they arent in first. There has already been so much drama about taking, imagine if over half the teams started doing it half way in the season? Shitshow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, itslarry said:

Because fans love Cinderella stories. Look at March madness when some 12seed wins, people go crazy. Plus if it was only division winners teams would start tanmng as soon as they arent in first. There has already been so much drama about taking, imagine if over half the teams started doing it half way in the season? Shitshow.

Is it fair to call the 12 seed the best team of the season?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, itslarry said:

Because fans love Cinderella stories. Look at March madness when some 12seed wins, people go crazy. Plus if it was only division winners teams would start tanmng as soon as they arent in first. There has already been so much drama about taking, imagine if over half the teams started doing it half way in the season? Shitshow.

Real teams that earned it for 162 games> cinderella. Or make the season 16 games like the nfl then let inferior teams in the playoffs

Edited by FantasyGeek2018
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/17/2020 at 7:59 PM, Backdoor Slider said:

No of course I do. It generates revenue for owners and is exciting for fans. It doesn’t reward the best team all season.

THAT’S THE POINT.

Lol. You guys are pretending what we currently have is somehow superior. It’s not. It’s what you’ve been sold. And you’re not replying because you can’t truly justify your point about how 162 is so important and still supporting current playoffs.

But you knew that.

 

Of course the best regular season record is the best indicator of the best team.  Probably, the soccer model is best, where you have a league championship for the best record, then a bunch of cup tournaments that are separate events, but still prized.  The lesser teams only win the championship once in a blue moon, but they have a decent shot at the cups.  

 

Americans--perhaps we are a gambling people--like a little more luck to be involved and would probably never accept different competitions with different winners.  We want one winner, but also for it to be a bit of a crapshoot. But there's a balance to be struck, I think.  Because the advantages in baseball are so small, the winner of a baseball tournament is a lot more random. And as you introduce more teams, it becomes more random.  

 

Ultimately, sports is not international relations. It's entertainment and whatever people enjoy is what they enjoy.  

 

However, while the NCAA hoops tourney is popular and fun, NCAA is a niche sport.  You have a bunch of teams who may never have played each other, and who few people have paid attention to all season.  You throw them in a blender for one big event and see what happens. We learn about the teams and players for the first time, and watch them slug it out. Then everyone forgets all about it. I'm sure I'm one of many who has no idea who won last year's event, even though I watched some of it.  It's a one off novelty event for a game we mostly ignore, like the Indy 500 or the World Series of Poker.

I don't think that's what baseball should aim to become. But if you have an almost meaningless regular season, followed by a WSOP style coinflip festival that is usually won by a mediocrity, they might head in that direction.  

One more detrimental thing could be that you see excessive star resting, like you get in the NBA but even more so.  Dodger-itus would spread like the black plague. That would really suck for fantasy, which is one of the big drivers for interest in the game generally.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about revenue. If you have a small amount of teams getting in the playoffs some teams are eliminated by mid-June. Then the fans stay home for those losing teams. The more teams that get in the longer those bottom dwellers stay in the race for longer the fans keep coming to the games

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m totally fine with 16 team playoffs but only under the condition that all of the series are best of 7s. Reduce the number of regular season games to accommodate that. The best of 3 first round is not going to cut it with that many teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners love expanded playoffs because they think they'll increase revenue and allow them to spend less on player salaries.

Why would a mid or small market team spend the money required to build a 95 win team when an 85 win team will also put them in a crapshoot, best of three series? Why would they pay somebody like Anthony Rizzo the money he deserves when a guy like Eric Thames will play for 20% of the wages and get you 80% of the wins? Etc. This move would probably not hurt the earnings of the megastars, but it would be an enormous salary compressor for everybody else.

From a fantasy perspective, expanded playoffs will wreak havoc because they will mean star players only play 120-130 games or pitch 140-150 innings per year. If 85 wins will almost certainly get you into the playoffs, why wouldn't you sit Mookie Betts twice a week and give Jacob deGrom two three-week breaks?

The expanded playoffs will be bad for fans and bad for players, but very, very good for the owners. And that is why all people who love baseball - as a sport, not a profit source - should be against the idea.

Edited by dele
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...