Expanded Playoffs Coming in 2012

[swerb]

From 8 to 10 teams. Two wild cards each side, play 1st rd, advance to rd two against the three division winners.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=A ... edplayoffs

[gotribe31]

Just trying to cover up for the revenue/payroll disparity. Now one more chance for a Rays/Indians/Padres team to make the playoffs while Selig and company can point to how balanced everything is and how parity rules.

[bookelly]

They'll need to cull some of the days off or we're gonna have games in November, but I like it. Many, many more meaningful games in September. Not to mention this assures the Red Sux and the Bankies will always make the postseason. Which is apparently good for baseball.

Edit: If they do cull days off, this could potentially alter how many starting pitchers would be required per series. Teams with deep rotations would have an advantage.

[Cease]

With both sides expressing support for adding two playoff teams in 2012, negotiators for baseball players and owners are considering having the new wild-card round be best-of-3 or winner-take-all.

Because longer series would push playoffs deeper into cold weather, the sides are not considering have the new first round be best-of-5 of best-of-7.

A one or a three game series? I guess I don't see the point of a one-game winner take all. Especially if the the 1st Wildcard beats the 2nd Wildcard by a meaningful margin of games over the course of 162.

[Kingpin74]

From 8 to 10 teams. Two wild cards each side, play 1st rd, advance to rd two against the three division winners.

I like it, devalues the wild card a little. And scheduling should't be too much of an issue. In fact, it could be better since they'll probably have to remove all the BS off days they have now during playoff series. Pitching depth that helps you during the season should actually help you during the playoffs also.

Hopefully they don't allow more than one wild card from the same division though. I don't want to see an AL East Jamboree every year.

[Am I Here Again?]

I'm all for the two wild card teams to play rock/paper/scissors to see who advances.

Much as I love baseball I'm afraid some sub-.500 teams are going to end up in the play-offs this way...just like the NBA. Wasn't it just a year or two ago when a west-coast team just barely made it to .500 at the end of the season? But as leader in their division they would have been the default "winner" even if they were below .500.

[bookelly]

I'm all for the two wild card teams to play rock/paper/scissors to see who advances.

Much as I love baseball I'm afraid some sub-.500 teams are going to end up in the play-offs this way...just like the NBA. Wasn't it just a year or two ago when a west-coast team just barely made it to .500 at the end of the season? But as leader in their division they would have been the default "winner" even if they were below .500.

The only way a sub .500 would make it would be by winning the division, not the extra wild card spot. That scenario would statistically almost impossible, you would have to have 4 teams so dominant they knocked everyone else below .500.

[Am I Here Again?]

Ah, not thinking again on my part. You're right!

[shamwow imitator]

I'd much rather see a best-of-seven 1st round Divisional series than adding a 9th and 10th playoff team.

[swerb]

I like this move. Makes more games exciting at the ends of season, gives more hopes to the Indians of the world.

Also makes winning your division mean more, which I like. Current format, there is no advantage for winning your division. Now, not only will you not have to partake in a limited first round, but the #1 seed is going to get the advantage of being rested and able to set their rotation up against a team that likely had to scramble late to get in, then win a series just to get to them.

[Jumbo]

On the plus side, it makes the road to winning the world series harder for a wild card time. On the minus side, it makes it possible for a team that did even worse in the regular season (the #2 wildcard) to make their regular season record meaningless.

Looking the last couple of years, the following teams would have gotten in under this system:
Boston 89-73
San Diego 90-72
Texas 87-75
San Fran 88-74
Yankees 89-73
Mets 89-73

So you're generally looking at about an 88-90 win team, which also seems to generally be about how many wins the worst division winner gets.

The other issue to work out would of course be scheduling. Even a 3 game series pushes everything back by 3 days. There would also be tiebreaker issues.

The advantage to MLB is clear. Even aside from just having more time on TV, if a smaller market team gets into the playoffs the old fashioned way, the #2 tiebreaker is more likely to be a larger market. OTOH, if the larger markets dominate the normal playoff seedings, the #2 tiebraker could be filled by a smaller market team. Plus, the 3 game series will put all the spotlight on the wildcard teams, so if one of those should break out and compete for the title then the networks will have had more time to market that team's stars.

On balance, I am cautiously in favor of this move...but I would be adamantly opposed to any further expansion, and I worry that if this succeeds then that's what you'll get.

[Toxicadam]

They should eliminate the 'play-in' game and have the regular season series winner determine who gets a spot.

[The Brook]

I hate this. Get rid of divisions, get rid of the unbalanced schedule and have the top 4 teams from each league make the playoffs. Can't be more fair than that, plus the races at the end of the year most of the time would be insane.

[Adverb Harry]

Yeah, this is a direct response to the "disaster" that was the Red Sox not making the playoffs last year. Gotta make sure Boston and the Yankees have as clear a road as possible to October.

Totally against this. Uncle Bud's gonna think this somehow creates fairness and parity and competitive balance and all his other empty buzz words. But throwing a bone to an extra couple small-market wild card teams isn't going to do anything when they get bounced out of the playoffs in the first or second round by the big boys, anyway. (Big whoop. You made it to the wild card playoffs. Your reward: Boston or New York. Enjoy your off-season.)

Knee jerk reaction. Fix the big problem. Band aids like this are all about appeasement.

[Loo]

Couple of people think this is a marketing ploy by Selig to get the AL East teams in the playoffs, so I looked into it.

Here are the teams what would have gotten the fifth spot had it been implemented earlier.

2010--Boston (by one game over Chicago)
2009--Texas (by one game over Detroit)
2008--New York (by one game over Minnesota)
2007--Detroit and Seattle each with 88 wins
2006--Chicago (By one game over LA)
2005--Cleveland (by five games over Oakland)
2004--Oakland (by two games over Texas)

Only three years--'10, '08, '06--where NY/BOS weren't both in the playoffs. In two of those three, one of the "super powers" would have benefited, but by only one game over a Central team.

Of course this is about money, but to say it's deliberately in favor of one of the East power teams is unfair. Los Angeles and Chicago are also represented.

[FUDU]

I like this move. Makes more games exciting at the ends of season, gives more hopes to the Indians of the world.

Also makes winning your division mean more, which I like. Current format, there is no advantage for winning your division. Now, not only will you not have to partake in a limited first round, but the #1 seed is going to get the advantage of being rested and able to set their rotation up against a team that likely had to scramble late to get in, then win a series just to get to them.

I like it if

A) it doesn't turn MLB into a hockey season, or more of one.
B) if they have a 3 game series, 1 game is crap.
C) my team wins!

[Dnthateonthepronk]

F#%% it lets go from go from 10 to 12.


1. This is really just an empty "Band Aid" gesture.

2. I like adding the extra team because at least its something.

3. I prefer this over a one game playoff scenario between the 2 wild card teams

[jb]

I'd be OK with it if the RS season were shortened. Disguting how late the WS is now. MLB should be over in mid-October.

Thne again, given the 9 pm starts, I cn't tll you te last time I saw the end of a WS game live.

Can't imagine how they cultivate any young fans.

[FUDU]

10 games off the front and back end of the season. WS games should not be played in 42 degree weather with a chance of snow.

[pup]

Shorten the regular season...

[gotribe31]

Here's what I don't like about it...say the Indians and Royals go down to the wire fighting for the central division crown (bear with me). The Royals beat out the Indians on the last day of the season, winning 115 games to the Indians' 114. So the Indians win the 1st wild card, but they used 27 game winner Carlos Carrasco on short rest on the last day of the season and don't have him available to start the 1-game playoff against the Yankees, who coasted to 89 wins, knowing they had the 2nd wild card locked up but couldn't catch Tampa for the East crown.

Bottom line, it creates a scenario where the 2nd best team in the league could lose a fluke 1-game playoff and not even get a shot at a real playoff series.

[pup]

Here's what I don't like about it...say the Indians and Royals go down to the wire fighting for the central division crown (bear with me). The Royals beat out the Indians on the last day of the season, winning 115 games to the Indians' 114. So the Indians win the 1st wild card, but they used 27 game winner Carlos Carrasco on short rest on the last day of the season and don't have him available to start the 1-game playoff against the Yankees, who coasted to 89 wins, knowing they had the 2nd wild card locked up but couldn't catch Tampa for the East crown.

Bottom line, it creates a scenario where the 2nd best team in the league could lose a fluke 1-game playoff and not even get a shot at a real playoff series.

Nobody is throwing their ace in game 162 when they have a playoff spot locked up.

[gotribe31]

Here's what I don't like about it...say the Indians and Royals go down to the wire fighting for the central division crown (bear with me). The Royals beat out the Indians on the last day of the season, winning 115 games to the Indians' 114. So the Indians win the 1st wild card, but they used 27 game winner Carlos Carrasco on short rest on the last day of the season and don't have him available to start the 1-game playoff against the Yankees, who coasted to 89 wins, knowing they had the 2nd wild card locked up but couldn't catch Tampa for the East crown.

Bottom line, it creates a scenario where the 2nd best team in the league could lose a fluke 1-game playoff and not even get a shot at a real playoff series.

Nobody is throwing their ace in game 162 when they have a playoff spot locked up.

They would if the difference was a 1 game playoff vs being in the "real" playoffs with a 5 game series and time to set their rotation.

[pup]

Here's what I don't like about it...say the Indians and Royals go down to the wire fighting for the central division crown (bear with me). The Royals beat out the Indians on the last day of the season, winning 115 games to the Indians' 114. So the Indians win the 1st wild card, but they used 27 game winner Carlos Carrasco on short rest on the last day of the season and don't have him available to start the 1-game playoff against the Yankees, who coasted to 89 wins, knowing they had the 2nd wild card locked up but couldn't catch Tampa for the East crown.

Bottom line, it creates a scenario where the 2nd best team in the league could lose a fluke 1-game playoff and not even get a shot at a real playoff series.

Nobody is throwing their ace in game 162 when they have a playoff spot locked up.

They would if the difference was a 1 game playoff vs being in the "real" playoffs with a 5 game series and time to set their rotation.

Now would probably be a good time to admit i didn't read the article.

But your choice comes down to pitching your ace against the Royals and wasting him, or using him against the other wild card team. Given that choice, I think a majority of teams would hold him back and having to beat that 89 win yankee team than risk going into that game with your #2 and starting a best of 5 in the "real" playoffs with your 3 starter.

[gotribe31]

Here's what I don't like about it...say the Indians and Royals go down to the wire fighting for the central division crown (bear with me). The Royals beat out the Indians on the last day of the season, winning 115 games to the Indians' 114. So the Indians win the 1st wild card, but they used 27 game winner Carlos Carrasco on short rest on the last day of the season and don't have him available to start the 1-game playoff against the Yankees, who coasted to 89 wins, knowing they had the 2nd wild card locked up but couldn't catch Tampa for the East crown.

Bottom line, it creates a scenario where the 2nd best team in the league could lose a fluke 1-game playoff and not even get a shot at a real playoff series.

Nobody is throwing their ace in game 162 when they have a playoff spot locked up.

They would if the difference was a 1 game playoff vs being in the "real" playoffs with a 5 game series and time to set their rotation.

Now would probably be a good time to admit i didn't read the article.

But your choice comes down to pitching your ace against the Royals and wasting him, or using him against the other wild card team. Given that choice, I think a majority of teams would hold him back and having to beat that 89 win yankee team than risk going into that game with your #2 and starting a best of 5 in the "real" playoffs with your 3 starter.

Fair enough, I see an argument either way. The main point was that the 2nd best team in the league could be put in a position where they're in a 1-game playoff where anything can happen. Doesn't seem like it would be fair after proving themselves in a 162 game season.

My $.02, not that anyone asked for it: 2 divisions, 2 wild cards. Much higher likelyhood of getting the best 4 teams in the playoffs.

[pup]

And after reading the article and a some other stuff on it last night, I can totally see the concern.