Should The MLB Expand The Playoffs? The Argument For A Second Wild Card
According to Nick Cafardo, the GM meetings have kicked off on an interesting topic: expanding the playoffs.
To be specific, this would entail adding a second wild card team to each league, and having the two wild cards play a best-of-three series for the playoff spot. The division winners would all get a short first round bye.
It's already a bit late to help the Red Sox' season--yes, they would have won the wild card spot in question had it existed this year--but it's not too late to change things for the future. With stacked divisions such as the AL East inspiring calls for reorganization not long ago, could this be the better, easier answer to solving the problem?
It's no secret that teams in strong divisions get the short end of the stick when it comes to the playoffs, and there's really no way to change that in some regards. They will always face a harder schedule, leading to fewer wins and more losses. Simple as that. But expanding the playoffs could help to solve the greatest complaint many of these disadvantaged (only, of course, in this regard. Payroll is, of course, another story) teams have: the unevenly high threshold for a playoff spot.
Consider last year, when the Red Sox could have won 94 games and still missed out on the playoffs. Consider the 2008 Mets, who won 89 games and missed the playoffs while the 84-win Dodgers waltzed in with a division title. Actually, let's look at all of the wild card races in the last eight years:
| Year | AL Actual | AL 2WC | AL 3WC | AL Div. Low | NL Actual | NL 2WC | NL 3WC | NL Div. Low |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 95 | 89 | 88 |
90 | 91 | 90 | 86 | 91 |
| 2009 | 95 | 87 | 86 | 87 | 92 | 88 | 87 | 91 |
| 2008 | 95 | 89 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 89 | 86 | 84 |
| 2007 | 94 | 88 | 88 | 94 | 90 | 89 | 84 | 85 |
| 2006 | 95 | 90 | 89 | 93 | 88 | 85 | 82 | 83 |
| 2005 | 95 | 93 | 88 | 95 | 89 | 88 | 83 | 82 |
| 2004 | 98 | 91 | 89 | 92 | 92 | 91 | 89 | 93 |
| 2003 | 95 | 93 | 86 | 90 | 91 | 87 | 86 | 88 |
These are the number of wins held by the first, second, and third place teams in the wild card race since 2003, as well as the lowest win total for a division winner in each league. As you can see, seven times in the last eight years, a team missed the playoffs despite having more or the same number of wins as a division winner. By adding a second wild card team, we drop that number down to just two. Seven times in sixteen instances makes it an almost common occurence, two times makes it a rarity.
What it does do is allow for significantly more teams to be in contention as the year goes on, increasing interest in lower-win teams by giving them hope that, even if they come into the All-Star break at or maybe even slightly below .500, they can still compete for a playoff spot. The average wild card winner comes in with nearly four more wins than the average second place wild card team. That makes a pretty big difference when determining the range of teams that can be considered to be in contention.
At the same time, the MLB isn't about to become the NBA. I don't know how many Celtics fans we have around here, but for the last few years, the regular season hasn't been about making the playoffs, but about gaining home court advantage. Think about that: 82 games being played for the sake of, at most, four games having a change in venue. While teams that manage to win 90+ games are going to be reasonably assured a playoff spot, anyone falling below that is putting themselves in serious danger. Look at all those third place teams with 87 or 88 wins. We're not going to be throwing open the doors to the Royals of the world as the NBA often does for its sub-.500 teams. The playoff race will still be a real competition between legitimately good teams.
The expansion would also serve to make late division races exciting regardless of whether or not the second place team is in position for a wild card spot. I expect the Yankees would have been more sore about losing to the Rays had they been forced to play another series as a result.
But what about the playoffs themselves? They're already quite long, and adding a bye? Hasn't that always been an issue for baseball teams looking to stay hot? It's actually not that much of a difference, though. Certainly there can be no 1-game playoffs for the second wild card spot--on the rare occasion that there is a tie (as you can see above, it would have happened once in the last eight years) for that spot, tiebreakers need to be used. There's simply not enough time to fit four games in without unduly effecting the other playoff teams. But otherwise, teams are taking two days off before the playoffs, so adding one more probably can't hurt too badly. If the MLB wanted to avoid that, they could even force a double-header.
The only real problem to be found comes in the actual fairness of that playoff series. Three games is just not enough to really determine the better team, and with on average a four win difference between the first and second place wild card teams, it seems somewhat unfair that a team with 95 wins could be sent to the golf courses so early thanks to just two games. But I think when compared with all the benefits, this negative isn't nearly enough to tip the balance.
While there's no telling for sure if and when this will get done, it seems like it's a no-brainer. More exciting races and more teams involved means more interest in the game means more money. It's really one of those rare times where the league seems to have a perfect option to improve the game for the owners, the fans, and the players.
81 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Instead of adding a second wild card.
I think baseball should promote two more AL teams (Portland and Memphis maybe?) and then divide into four divisions instead of only three. Eliminate the wildcard completely. However, barring that, the wild card series need to be a 5 game series.
If I was your math homework I'd be really hard and you'd be doing me on your desk.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Maybe not Memphis
I always thought Nashville, Charlote, San Antonio, and Portland.
Watch The Internet Sport Show
Help get Lacrosse on SBN. Join the lacrosse community at The Lacrosse Blog
by Marisa Ingemi on Nov 16, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Not Portland..
Portland just doesn’t have the market, and the Mariners would be mighty pissed off, actually it would screw up their revenue as well.
Why eliminate the Wild Card?
No matter how many divisions you have—two, three, or four—you’ll always have at least one division that’s a joke. I understand the need for divisions in terms of travel, etc. But divisions by their very nature are arbitrary and unfair. If there are divisions, there must be a Wild Card to mitigate some of the problems caused by having divisions.
While the current playoff system isn’t perfect, it’s far better than the one the preceded it—or any of the proposed alternatives. Under the two division format, often one division was much weaker and teams missed the playoffs despite having the 2nd or 3rd best record in the league. Some examples:
1978 – AL West winner KC Royals (92 wins). Boston Red Sox (99 wins) Milwaukee Brewers (93 wins) missed the playoffs.
1979 – AL West winner California Angels (88 wins). Milwaukee Brewers (95 wins), Boston Red Sox (91 wins), MFY (89 wins) missed the playoffs.
1980 – AL West winner KC Royals (97 wins). Baltimore Orioles (100 wins) missed the playoffs.
1982 – AL West winner California Angels (93 wins). Baltimore Orioles (94 wins) missed the playoffs.
1984 – AL West winner KC Royals (84 wins). Toronto Blue Jays (89 wins), MFY (87 wins), Boston Red Sox (86 wins), and Baltimore Orioles (85 wins) missed the playoffs.
1985 – AL West winner KC Royals (91 wins). MFY (97 wins) missed the playoffs.
1987 – AL West winner Minnesota Twins (85 wins). Toronto Blue Jays (96 wins), Milwaukee Brewers (91 wins), and MFY (89 wins) missed the playoffs.
1988 – AL East winner Boston Red Sox (89 wins). Minnesota Twins (91 wins) missed the playoffs.
1989 - AL East winner Toronto Blue Jays (89 wins). KC Royals (92 wins) and California Angels (91 wins) missed the playoffs.
1990 – AL East winner Boston Red Sox (88 wins). Chicago White Sox (94 wins) missed the playoffs.
Excluding the strike year (1981), between 1978 and 1990 there were only two seasons when the teams with the best records in the AL met in the playoffs. This is what happens when geography trumps excellence.
The best post-season format would be one that only included the teams with the best records (depending on how many), regardless of whether or not they won a division. I have never understood why some people cringe at the thought of a 99-win Wild Card team like the 2002 Angels winning it all (or a 98-win team like the 2004 Red Sox), yet these same people don’t care when an 83-win division winner like the 2006 Cards win.
As I said, the current system isn’t perfect. But it’s much better than the one that preceded it. The only current flaw is they don’t seed by record (thus, Wild Card teams are punished too much). I think any change that adds another team or a short series of 3 games or less is a bad idea. A 162-game season is too long to be decided by an elimination games or a ridiculously short series.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 16, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
LOL, I you stole my idea!
I have been writing about this for months, only to be disagreed with every time.
Good to have someone else see it the same.
Watch The Internet Sport Show
Help get Lacrosse on SBN. Join the lacrosse community at The Lacrosse Blog
No
Adding a game would give an unfair advantage to teams who have byes to rest their starting pitching.
whats unfair about it?
seems like it would give more incentive for actually winning your division, so instead of teams not caring about the division title (see, yankees and rays this year), you’d see them actually playing their best guys down the stretch rather than resting them.
they SHOULD expand the playoffs
but in a different way. The DS needs to be 7 games. Otherwise, no.
It seems like a no-lose situation. Playoff teams get to sell more tickets, it’s more even.
I think the ALDS/NLDS should be
one game, with each team putting on their ace of the staff. The playoffs are already way too long, they are almost a month now of continuous playoffs.
I am all for the ALDS being one game as well, it just puts more tension and heighten anxiety on the game..
I would be more in favor of a round robin tournament, or the National League West plays the American League East in the playoffs and other random selections.
2 WC
1 game playoff
Makes for the division title mean so much more.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball. I’ll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. " ~Rogers Hornsby
MFY fan.
but would make the playoffs so much stupider
a one game playoff takes any semblance of a pretense that the best teams are in the playoffs out of the equation.
Big deal. Divisional titles are stupid and meaningless
One team can win a division by winning only 85 games, while another team could finish in 2nd in another division with 100 wins.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 16, 2010 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
I think it's a great idea
It gives more teams hope of making the postseason, which is good for baseball. It also means that winning your division is a big bonus and worth trying to do. Too often under the current system, when the two best teams in a league are in the same division, neither of them will really care about winning the division, and you get september call-ups deciding the division championship, like this year with the Yankees and Rays. I think this would really increase MLB’s ratings during september, a time MLB needs all the help they can get given the huge popularity of football.
If adopted
it increases the value of high-end starting pitching.
Interesting point.
The #1-#3 become even more important compared to the back end.
Of course, I think they’re artificially inflated in price as is thanks to the Yankees needing to buy a whole rotation these last few years, so. . .
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 16, 2010 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
The lesson of the 2010
playoffs is the value of high-end pitching. I suspect we are seeing a transition away from offense in baseball. The days of the 900+ runs may be mostly behind us. Every team that made either the ACLS or the NCLS had at least one dominant pitcher – and you can argue the Sox have no one as good as Lincecum, Halladay, Lee or Sabathia.
The addition of another series means the playoffs in baseball will resemble the playoffs in other sports more closely. In Football and Basketball it is widely understood that what works in the regular season may not in the post season.
All of this is a long winded way of saying I would rather have Lee than Betlre (Lowrie is a good replacement) and Martinez.
You can argue the first three.
Lester is empirically better than Sabathia. Like, a lot better.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
I am not worried that hitting will take a back seat..
If pitching was such a key, the A’s would be in the World Series. It is a combo of things, besides a batter who can hit with RISP. It also takes one pitch to break open a game, much like AJ Burnett’s pitch in game 4 of the 2010 ALCS to Bengie Molina pretty much wrecked the MFY post season chances.
Pitchers are important, but baseball is a team sport. Much like one error in the field, can put 10 or more pitches in the inning for the starting pitcher, and shorten his start by an inning or so.
I disagree with the general premise that pitching is more important than hitting
or that the days of mashing are behind us. To succeed, you need a strategy to win around 60% of your regular season games, and I don’t think that you can rely on doing that by winning games 2-1 or 3-2.
If there are 60 percent black marbles and 40 percent white marbles in a black box, and you want to make sure that you come out with more black marbles, you want the maximum number of draws. This is the general idea that if you are better than the team that you are playing, you want the maximum number of run scoring events (as they are more likely to be yours).
Low scoring games are the equivalent of only making a few draws, and are much closer to a coinflip situation.
This is why a team like the Mariners can trot out Cliff Lee and Felix Hernandez and a great defense and still toil in mediocrity because they can’t score runs and every game that they’re in becomes darn close to a 50/50 situation.
In high scoring games, the better team (on paper) wins more often than in low scoring games. Preventing the other team from being able to score in bunches is why pitching is important, but I would argue that being able to score in bunches yourself is more important.
To further this point, the leaders in runs scored (Yankees, Sox, Rays) tend to always end up at the top of the heap, whereas teams that lead in runs allowed (A’s, Mariners) do not have as strong of a correlation.
Questions or thoughts? Email me at duggan2423(at)gmail(dot)com
by Lord Duggan on Nov 17, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Keep it how it is
I have no “sour grapes” reaction to not making the playoffs this year, we weren’t good enough, that’s it. Too bad we were better than some divisional winners, we know who we play every year, we build a team to compete with the best teams in our division and we didn’t have enough. Same as how Texas spends and builds a team to compete with the teams in their division, not ours.
Baseball playoffs seemingly take forever anyway, do we really want to add another week? I like how it is, 4 teams, it’s simple and works well.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
It actually wouldn't go any longer.
Maybe one day at most.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 1:29 AM EST up reply actions
I hate this.
Playoff baseball is special because so few teams make it. This would just water it down. Baseball’s postseason gives it an identity. Leave it to the other sports for that half the teams make the playoffs stuff.
embrace the martian
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Nov 16, 2010 7:06 PM EST via mobile reply actions
+2
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 16, 2010 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
Great God NO!
No, no, no, a thousand times no. They would be playing baseball in December at this rate. There would be little incentive to actually win any division. Why no go whole hog and have an NBA/NHL playoff and everyone’s a winner. The wild card rewards teams who are better than just average, a wild wild card starts down the slope to .500 teams making a playoff.
by papoonforpresident on Nov 16, 2010 8:55 PM EST reply actions
But it would reward the teams that win their division
because they would have some days off to line up their rotation and skip a short series. I’m starting to lean the other way. Maybe it will need to involve shortening the season to 158 games. There was a time when the league didn’t play 162.
Ex: this past year, maybe NYY work a bit harder to win the AL East over Tampa because it would once again mean so much more. And maybe at the trade deadline our FO trades for a bullpen arm to help us stay in the Hunt for Red October.
.500 teams already make the playoffs. See: 2005, 2006, 2008
And, again, this is literally adding about a day to the schedule by my plan. Not even that if they just take away a day off during the playoffs.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
I am for scrapping the playoff system all together
and just going back to pre 1969. Two leagues. Winners of the regular season play each other in the World Series. Home field advantage alternates every year.
I think the playoffs already are way, way too long. However that isn’t going to happened, because of TV and Playoff revenue.
A Big Fat MAYBE
An expansion of the playoff would only work if the expansion consists of divisional playoffs that are best out of 3; only way I can think of without making it seem like it’s getting longer.
Even if it’s only getting longer by a game at most, teams that are the second wild-card have a higher chance of burning out. The MLBPA would certainly want to add a day off somewhere just to give that second wild-card team a fair shake.
Especially considering if that second wild-card team plays in a tough division and has a better record than say a division champion; wouldn’t that be something…to see fatigue set in on a team that certain could beat a division champ only to get hosed by that champ because of player fatigue and/or injury.
And don’t tell me that won’t play a role because it will.
Aside from that, if you want to do this simple as this: shorten the season a bit. The season ends a bit too late as it is anyway (this counting the playoffs). Sure the stingy owners will probably complain, but they need to suck it up; make it more of a financial incentive to make the playoffs and perhaps you might see owners who realize it’s worth their time to make a little less profit in the short-term in order to secure long-term gain.
And who knows what that might lead to…oh I don’t know, some semblance of parity like in the EN-EFF-ELL? :-)
"Common sense is quite rare." - Voltaire
The Artist Formerly Known as PacoL250
Resident Psychologist and Tech Support at Over the Monster: SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Web Site
You changed your name!
Watch The Internet Sport Show
Help get Lacrosse on SBN. Join the lacrosse community at The Lacrosse Blog
by Marisa Ingemi on Nov 17, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
I think another thing
that you have to think of is the amount of time off for 6 out of the 10 playoff teams that won’t be playing in the first “Wild Card” round. Baseball is a game that’s meant to be played just about every day, and 6 of those 10 teams would be facing almost a week off (Most likely a day off at the end of the year + 3 game series + Travel day + Day off).
That would be beneficial to getting the starting pitchers healthy and rested, but I would have to think that a lot of hitters would have their timing thrown off. Mark Teixeira has said that the disproportionate amount of off days in the playoffs makes it a lot harder to keep his swing fine tuned, and this just adds to that (but maybe he’s just an MFY wuss).
Also, baseball has easily the lowest winning percentages in major sports because there’s so much randomness involved in the game. Does it really make sense to devalue the 162 game season in favor of a 3 game series? The playoffs are already a watered down crapshoot without adding another ~90 win team and a 3 game series to the mix.
I think it will be hard for Bud and his lackeys to say no to this, as it is sure to increase revenue, but I certainly don’t think it’s in the best interest of the fairness of the game.
Questions or thoughts? Email me at duggan2423(at)gmail(dot)com
Again, the way to deal with this is to say
“Suck it up, wild card teams, no days off for you”
And go
Season Ends
Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 1 DS
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
And what if the two wild card teams are the Angels and Red Sox? And then the winner plays the Rangers? Unless these wild card games are being played in some neutral site near where the next round will be held (which is a possible solution, I’m not sure if that has been suggested) that is a buttload of travelling in the course of a few days.
And I don’t think Bud would go for the “neutral site” idea because that kills revenue, which is the whole point of this.
Questions or thoughts? Email me at duggan2423(at)gmail(dot)com
by Lord Duggan on Nov 17, 2010 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
frankly I don't really understand how travel would work in a 3 game series anyways
because they REALLY can’t say 1 game home, 1 game away, 1 game home. Just silly travel. Does the lower wild card team not get any home games? No no, this whole 3 game idea is just plain awful.
Team finishes game 162 @ 10:00 PM
Team has chartered flight to LA/Boston @ Midnight.
Game 1 @ 7:00 PM local
Game 2 @ 12:00/1:00 PM local
Teams land in city #2 at midnight maybe
Game 3 @ 3:30 PM Local
Winning team lands in ALDS city late
Game 1 @ 7:00
You’re not gonna have a lot of time off other than sleeping and playing baseball for a few days, but if you don’t want to deal with that, win the division.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
Game times for game 162 could even be set earlier specifically to add time to this sort of thing.
It’s just not that hard to fit three games into three days. Teams travel overnight and play all the time.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but for a series or group of series (West Coast trip, etc.), not 3 times in the span of 4 days.
I really can’t justify that being necessary (in addition to a minimum of 3 days off for the teams with a bye) for the sake of adding another playoff team. Especially when adding another playoff team just dilutes the playoffs even further.
Questions or thoughts? Email me at duggan2423(at)gmail(dot)com
Teams with a bye already get two days off.
And it’s not like the playoffs are particularly diluted to begin with.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 4:40 PM EST up reply actions
I would say that they are, especially in the NL.
A team like the Reds can beat up on the Pirates, Astros, Brewers, Cubs, and woefully injured Cardinals and make the playoffs by being mediocre at best.
Do we really need to add the Padres too? If anything, I would be for reducing the number of teams in the playoffs. Play every team in your league 13 times, top two records go the ALCS or NLCS. Then, the ALCS, NLCS, and WS are all 9 game series.
I know that my plan generates less money and so it wouldn’t ever be considered, but adding more playoff teams goes in the opposite direction of fairness and getting the best teams into the World Series.
Questions or thoughts? Email me at duggan2423(at)gmail(dot)com
Oh, and it's 13
because in my master plan both the AL and NL have 14 teams because we contract the Marlins and Pirates.
Questions or thoughts? Email me at duggan2423(at)gmail(dot)com
I am all contracting the Marlins
and the Yankees…
Actually I think MLB should set up a Winter Ball league, and put the Marlins as part of that, with Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Cuba, (well it is better to get them involved now, when the Castro regime falls sooner than later) Cartagena in Colombia can have a team etc.
However The Yankees need to be contracted from Major League baseball, they haven’t been successful since they began, except for a brief period from 1920 to 2009.
It doesn't really though.
I mean, it doesn’t go as far towards fairness. But if Team X has a noticeably worse record than Team Y, and X goes to the playoffs while Y does not, then that is unfair.
There are two ways to increase fairness: Y goes, or X does not. Both go in the direction of fairness, one is just “more fair”. But at the same time, as I said below, if we’re looking to go perfectly fair, than eliminate all divisions and leagues and just have every team face eachother once at home and once on the road and give the trophy to whoever has the highest winning percentage.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
NO!
Eliminate divisions, balanced schedules, take the top 4 teams in each league. Voila, problem solved.
Exactly
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 17, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
yes, really that would be best
but for time zone reasons wouldn’t work- TV stations and such would lose a lot of money on the East coast if that many games started at 10 PM, and West Coast teams would lose a lot from games starting at 4.
Central teams might be cool with it though.
Understandable
Also, balanced schedules would mean the elimination of interleague play (which I hate). MLB isn’t going to do that.
Therefore, in my opinion, these are the two best alternatives: (1) Leave divisions and take the teams with the 4 best records. This would still favor teams in weak divisions, but it would keep division-winners with weak records from making the playoffs. (2) Leave things as they are.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 17, 2010 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
What about:
15 team leagues (welcome back, Brewers). You play each other team in your league 11 times, then the other games you play interleague against the odd-team-out since you have odd-numbered leagues. So it becomes a 165 game schedule, but just add 3 mandatory doubleheaders (single-admission, just 3 bloody doubleheaders won’t kill the coffers and may lead to the Rays hitting 20,000 fans for a game for once) and it’s the same length.
I don't want the Brewers back..
I’ll take the Phillies.
Personally, I think it would be more interesting to set each division differently each year, so the Sox have four other teams like having the Mets, Braves, Indians, Angels for one season as part of their division, and someone other group for the next year, kind of like world cup group matchups, but I think people would tear their hair out after each year, and want some continuity..
If you want fairness
Balance schedules, eliminate leagues and divisions, best winning percentage wins championship.
But that would suck. We like playoffs. We also like having division rivalries (well, except you).
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, really, i wouldn't want to have 7 less Yankee games
and 7 more Royals games. Or whatever it would come out to be. Sure, the AL East sucks to compete in, but that’s why it’s fun to follow.
The AL East is fun to follow
because our team, who we want to see win a championship, happens to be there. There’s nothing interesting about the Yankees or Rays. The division structure is hopelessly outdated.
"There’s nothing interesting about the Yankees or Rays."
Nothing inherently interesting, no. But there’s absolutely something inherently interesting about division rivals. Removing divisions makes certain matchups a lot less interesting without really bringing up the interest in the games played against the rest of the teams.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
How?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 17, 2010 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
Divisions make for long-lasting rivalries.
I dunno about you, but having had this fight with the Rays these last few years will make the games against them for the next few years better regardless of how good they are. If they suck in 2014, for instance, I’ll still enjoy beating up on them more than I would beating up on, say, the Royals.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
The Angels games are always intense
And that’s not a division game. Others game could be intense if we saw them, maybe, more than once a season at home.
The Angels games aren't always intense at all.
They were around ‘07 and ’08. They’ve been really dying off hard, especially as the Angels have become mediocre.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
The same will happen with the Sox and Rays
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 17, 2010 10:59 PM EST up reply actions
Disagree.
I think Sox – Rays has at least 3 or 4 good years of Schadenfreude to be had, and if that gives them time to become relevant, then the rivalry never even died in the first place!
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
Sox-Rays would be a more intense rivalry
if the Rays actually had fans. I just consider them a talented joke.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
I went to a game in '09
Which Billy Wagner F’d up, that was easily the most intense of my 20 that season. The crowd was really into it. Certainly more than the Rays games.
I'm not sure that's true
There were rivalries in baseball before there were divisions. Rivalries didn’t start in 1969. They have always been a part of baseball. They’re driven mostly be geography and competition between good teams.
You use the Sox and Rays as an example. How come the Sox and Orioles or Sox and Blue Jays aren’t rivals? The Sox-MFY rivalry was most heated in the 1970s. Boston never had the same rivalry with Detroit, Milwaukee, or Cleveland, who were also in the AL East.
From 2004 to 2009, the Sox and Angels had something of a rivalry because they met in the playoffs.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 17, 2010 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
Something of a rivalry, but not a significant one.
The best rivalries are born from smaller groups. Divisions weren’t needed before around 1969 because there were significantly fewer teams. But once you get to 14-16 a piece, any given group just gets lost in the mix.
The only reason I care about beating the Angels now is ‘cause Halos Heaven annoys me. That’s about it. Getting knocked out of the 2009 playoffs wasn’t “Those damn Angels!” it was “Geeze, we sucked.” We don’t have a big rivalry with the Jays because it’s been at least a decade since we’ve really been in a race with them. Really it’s been longer. Ditto the Orioles—we haven’t both been good since ‘96. I’m not saying that divisions create Red Sox – Yankees with regularity, but it does create rivalries and give them a possibility to survive through a down period. Hell, beating the Jays is still more enjoyable to me than beating the White Sox, even though they knocked us out of the playoffs recentlyish.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 17, 2010 11:12 PM EST up reply actions
Lakers - Celtics is certainly a lot more legitimate.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 18, 2010 1:36 AM EST up reply actions
Pats-Colts
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 18, 2010 9:30 AM EST up reply actions
You don't need divisions to have rivalries
People think they do because most rivalries are base on geography, and divisions are roughly geographical. Geography is also the impetus for interleague play, which has its foundation in localities with teams in each league: New York, Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Chicago, etc. The Mets and MFY have a rivalry and they don’t even play in the same league.
As Sean and I noted, the Sox-Angels games used to have an intensity, far more than division games against the then-sucky Rays, Orioles, and Blue Jays. If the Rays lose their edge, the Tampa-Boston rivalry will cease to exist. I don’t think there’s “3 or 4 good years of Schadenfreude” there. I know I hated the Rays in 2008 and last year, and didn’t really care about them later in the 2009 season (once they had fallen out of contention). Also, Rays-Sox will never be the same as MFY-Sox because New York and Boston are so close. Have you ever sat in a bar with a Rays fan? I’ve never met one.
If the leagues eliminated divisions and went to a balanced schedule, as Sean suggested, you’d probably have more rivalries. The geographical rivalries would still be there. But now there’d be more intense competition between teams from different parts of the country. Getting rid of divisions might even create more rivalries. It certainly wouldn’t hurt.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 18, 2010 9:30 AM EST up reply actions
Shorten the season, lengthen the playoffs with more Wild Card teams.
Makes the regular season a lot more meaningful for a lot more teams. Makes the playoffs more exciting, but at the same time makes it harder for mediocre teams to fluke their way into the World Series. Makes the trade deadline that much more exciting, with more teams having to decide if they’re buyers or sellers.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
Maybe, maybe not.
If you can increase the number of “quality games”, it stands to reason that you would increase the attendance for those games. And if you increase the possibility of your team having actual playoff games, you more or less guarantee yourself a packed house for those games.
You increase merchandise sales, TV ratings…the whole bit.
Is there not a chance that would even out, revenue-wise? At least for some? I look at the Blue Jays this year. They were just playin’ out the string at the end of the season, and attendance was pathetic. It almost didn’t seem like it was worth turnin’ on the lights. But if the team is fighting for a playoff spot? 3500 people becomes 35,000.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by 

























