I Fixed Baseball

[Centerfield]

Keep the 162 game season. Six teams from each league make the playoffs.



On October 1, each league has a 15 game round robin. 3 game series against each team. Division winners get 9 home games. WC gets 6.



First place in each pool advances to a best of 7 World Series.

[Gwreck]

Intriguing!



I would go a step further: higher seed plays at home, always. You get #1 seed, you don't travel. #2 seed gets 4 home series; #3 gets 3, etc. #6 seed is on the road the whole time.



Biggest obstacle is TV. Does having 6 “playoff” games happening on a given day increase profits enough?

[Centerfield]

Yeah. The question is revenue of course. You'll have some meaningless games there at the end. But is more games overall.



I think it could work. Winners would be decided on a larger sample size. Scoreboard watching. As God intended.

[Gwreck]

The math is more complicated than I can do in my head but I would expect there are many scenarios in which some games in the final series (or two) wind up being cancelled as moot. That might be ok, since it ratchets up the attention on those deciding games.



BUT: you also could very well have games in a final series between a team that's out of it and a team that needs to win to advance. That seems much less compelling than the existing structure.

[Edgy MD]

That is intriguing. Another upside is that a team who has a good season but doesn't cut it in the post-season, not only has 15 games to right their ship, but fans have 15 games to process that the run is perhaps ending. And if their last few games are spoiler games, that's something.

[Ceetar]

I like that better than the random wild card series/games but I'm not sure it solves any "problems".



Also as important as each game is, I don't think the first couple of games are going to feel as critical. I like that the thing shifts to _POSTSEASON_ and each game feels do or die. Reducing that to a mini-season where you're still scoreboard watching and pacing other teams isn't as intense. And you're gonna get to the end and it'll be like, the Mets are playing the Braves each with 9 wins, the Dodgers have 10 and are playing the Phillies with 4. How hard are the Philles trying here? Do the Mets chances have anything to do with how well they play the final 3? Maybe not!

[Gwreck]

Part of that might be solved by stacking the matchups, so that you start with 1v4, 2v5, 3v6, and finish with 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, hoping that at least one (and maybe 2) of those series become(s) irrelevant.



But as noted, there's no guarantee that there wouldn't be teams with mismatched motivations.

[whippoorwill]

Send it in!

[A Boy Named Seo]

It's definitely better than the current thing, and a wild card needing to win 5 extra games under your plan for the title makes the road a little harder for them.



I just don't like re-doing the season after the season just finished. That's the point of the season. But CF >>> Manfred by a thousand miles.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, I'm there. In my world, the playoffs are eliminated, and even the World Series isn't safe, but not expecting to see my world come to pass anytime soon, I'd much prefer Centerfield's world to the one I inhabit.

[batmagadanleadoff]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: .... and a wild card needing to win 5 extra games under your plan for the title makes the road a little harder for them.

I'm not following this. A little help? Where are you getting the "five extra wins" from? Thanks.

[A Boy Named Seo]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: .... and a wild card needing to win 5 extra games under your plan for the title makes the road a little harder for them. I'm not following this. A little help? Where are you getting the "five extra wins" from? Thanks.

Oops, my mistake. We know how many wins are needed for a wild card to win the title currently, but there's no way to know under CF's plan.

[Centerfield]

If you're on board with the pool play concept, there are variations that can work too.



For instance:



6 teams make the post-season in each league. Each team plays 4 series, 3 games each. Top two seeds don't have to play each other, so their schedule is easier. Top two teams in each league advance. Best of 7 LCS, Best of 7 WS.



This format brings fewer meaningless games, and makes each game a little more important. You preserve the excitement of the LCS and WS.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe there can be some kind of next-season incentive for the teams to win the meaningless games? (Can't think of anything specific though. Maybe Dunkin Donuts in the clubhouse? I suspect there may be better possible incentives than that.)

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe there can be some kind of next-season incentive for the teams to win the meaningless games? (Can't think of anything specific though. Maybe Dunkin Donuts in the clubhouse? I suspect there may be better possible incentives than that.)

The easiest way to incentivize winning is with draft picks. So, for instance:



15 team league. Top 6 make the playoffs.



Draft Order:



First nine to miss the playoffs, with the 7th place team picking first, then in descending order.



Followed by:



First four playoff teams to miss the LCS, starting with the 3rd place team picking first.



Then Seed 2, then Seed 1.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Does that incentivize the players, though? Most of them probably don't expect to be with the same team by the time a draft pick has any impact.

[Edgy MD]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe there can be some kind of next-season incentive for the teams to win the meaningless games? (Can't think of anything specific though. Maybe Dunkin Donuts in the clubhouse? I suspect there may be better possible incentives than that.) The easiest way to incentivize winning is with draft picks.

I can think of easier ways to incentivize winning — promotion and relegation, cash rewards, the right to claim contracts of players from losing teams, vacation stays in Cabo San Lucas, or a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat.



The sooner the draft ends, the better.

[whippoorwill]

Or Jello for Charlie (I forget his last name)

[batmagadanleadoff]

This would be a non-starter with MLB. There aren't enough "Game Sevens", where the winning team advances and the loser is eliminated. Those "do or die for both teams" games are the biggest draws and yes, I know that that could also be a game five or a game three, too. Also, following this playoff system requires a larger commitment, probably more than the casual fan is willing to give. And if the main goal is to reduce playoff upsets, I'm not so sure this system will accomplish that. There's just too much luck in baseball, and there's no way to get around teams with better records losing to teams with lesser records more than is tolerable in short series' so long as the opposing teams are both good teams to begin with and then playing few games against each other. Even the old pre-1969 system didn't guarantee that the WS winner would be baseball's best team because the WS and in fact the entire playoffs consisted of no more than seven games. But at least back then, the WS was limited to elite teams, ensuring that a top team would capture the crown. Playoff baseball doesn't establish much beyond who won the few games played. And that's fine but it's just that people want to read much more into this than is really there and then they go ballistic when their expected narratives don't pan out or when their 100 win team loses to an 89 win team, even if that 100 win team only lost two out of three instead of 40 out of 50.

[MFS62]

Why should we change the system if we don't like the result?

A (hopefully) Cleveland / San Diego series?

Still baseball.

As Batmags said, a game seven has its own excitement, no matter which teams are involved.

And if some network execs and advertisers (and bookies)don't like that, tough crap.

And under the same system, it might be a NY(Mets)/LA(Angels) series next year.

Who knows?

And that's why it doesn't have to change.

Later

[Edgy MD]

I think that there'd be plenty of the equivalent of game seven. Seven's just a number. High stakes would abound for everybody.

[Ceetar]

Just do the NHL/NBA style. two leagues, two divisions each. 16 playoff teams (add 16 expansions too) then 8, then 4, then 2.



Four 7-game series. If you have to adjust the schedule, I don't think there's anyone attached to those last 8 games or whatever. Or explore a neutral/warm World Series. Lots of options.



There's no perfect solution, but this seems to hit most of the important points.

[Frayed Knot]

Please spare me anything resembling NBA/NHL style playoff systems.

[Fman99]

=Centerfield post_id=111490 time=1666098751 user_id=65]
Keep the 162 game season. Six teams from each league make the playoffs.



On October 1, each league has a 15 game round robin. 3 game series against each team. Division winners get 9 home games. WC gets 6.



First place in each pool advances to a best of 7 World Series.

[Fman99]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: But CF >>> Manfred by a thousand miles.

Well CF also likes baseball, so there's that.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Please spare me anything resembling NBA/NHL style playoff systems.

What's wrong with them? Each series is seemingly treated with import, it's 7 games so it gives a little back and forth. The intensity increases with each level, and it's all the same format throughout so you're not manipulating rosters to maximize 3 games series, and 5 game series.. plus it's basically regular playing time so there's a little more consistency to it. I'd love to see sports flex those later series earlier as needed, so like if both NLCS and ALCS end in 5 games, the World Series starts 2-3 days earlier, but I know there's too much advertising/marketing/tv involved for that.

[Frayed Knot]

Too many teams, too long, and it turns the back half of the regular season into a lengthy waltz with little on the line but slight advantages (or not) in 'seeding' ... and we saw how important that was recently.

The Mets would have clinched a playoff spot around Father's Day this year just as the Golden State Warrior are on pace to clinch a week from Tuesday at which point 'Load Management' takes over.

[Ceetar]

well yes, all my points include 18 teams of expansion. But yes, the difference between 1 and 8 isn't as meaningful in baseball over a 7 game series, though we all seem to like to pretend it is. There's no solution that awards the best regular season team the championship most often. The real solution is to place more value/prestige on winning divisions. You could do byes if you want. 4 first round series, the winner of each places the division winner from each of the 4 divisions.



You could also dispense with the days off. or do the first round as 3-3-1, first 3 at team with the better record, 3 at the other team, and if there's a game 7 it's at the location of the team the winner plays.



Again, no playoff system is "good" but like, the main idea is competition right, team v team, duking it out. This maximizes that. the drama and narrative of that battle. The smaller series, even the NLDSs seem like play-in games. But a first round 7 game series? even between two wild card teams? I don't think that would.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Too many teams, too long, and it turns the back half of the regular season into a lengthy waltz with little on the line but slight advantages (or not) in 'seeding' ... and we saw how important that was recently. The Mets would have clinched a playoff spot around Father's Day this year just as the Golden State Warrior are on pace to clinch a week from Tuesday at which point 'Load Management' takes over.

Agree with all of the above. At the end of the day, the idea is to reward the best team. Small sample sizes (like best of 5, best of 7) is a poor way of doing this in baseball, where luck and randomness plays a much larger role in the outcome of any one game.

[Ceetar]

=Centerfield post_id=111643 time=1666292951 user_id=65]




At the end of the day, the idea is to reward the best team.