A radical baseball idea

[ROCHitman]

"radical" was certainly the operative word to describe these ideas.

The World Series has way too much prestige and history behind it so we will never see the 3 division MLB idea come to light.

[hubsportsfan17]

removed

[pcgd]

Hey, I agree. And you could have the team with the best record be in the third tier and not be able to be in the World Series, even having beat the best teams.

Its just a Radical idea. But it would be interesting none the less. I'm sure you've got the same thing that happens in England, where the First Division and the Second Divison turn into "Minor Leagues."

[STL FANATIC]

There's a lot of good and plenty of bad with the Wild Card.

The good is that it definatley keeps the fans of teams out of the divison races in it. That can't be ignored. Houston, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego all probably had more fans that they would have without the Wild Card. That's good for baseball, no doubt.

The bad (and if you feel you must call me bitter, so be it, but there's more to it than that) is that the Wild Card team always finishes on a hot streak because they have to win to get in usually. The team running away with the divison is playing for nothing and rests a little. They enter the playoffs not nearly as hot, and so far, the Wild Card's hot streak has gotten them very far many, many times. I don't like that. Maybe the strategy for the division runaways now needs to shift to if we get hurt we get hurt, but let's play these last 25 games like they're for everything even thought they are for nothing.

The other thing, is that having the Wild Card just further makes the playoffs a crapshoot. Any team can win a series in any given 7 game span. This is the reason I disagree with you Chris when you say everyone is happy with top 6 or top 8. No...talk about making the regular season worth nothing and kicking the dominant team to the curb...

I really don't know what the answer to this stuff is, but I don't think they should add anymore teams then they have now.

[OMMF]

There's a lot of good and plenty of bad with the Wild Card.

The good is that it definatley keeps the fans of teams out of the divison races in it. That can't be ignored. Houston, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego all probably had more fans that they would have without the Wild Card. That's good for baseball, no doubt.

The bad (and if you feel you must call me bitter, so be it, but there's more to it than that) is that the Wild Card team always finishes on a hot streak because they have to win to get in usually. The team running away with the divison is playing for nothing and rests a little. They enter the playoffs not nearly as hot, and so far, the Wild Card's hot streak has gotten them very far many, many times. I don't like that. Maybe the strategy for the division runaways now needs to shift to if we get hurt we get hurt, but let's play these last 25 games like they're for everything even thought they are for nothing.

The other thing, is that having the Wild Card just further makes the playoffs a crapshoot. Any team can win a series in any given 7 game span. This is the reason I disagree with you Chris when you say everyone is happy with top 6 or top 8. No...talk about making the regular season worth nothing and kicking the dominant team to the curb...

I really don't know what the answer to this stuff is, but I don't think they should add anymore teams then they have now.

If you wanted to solve your WC problem, just take away the rule that says you can't play your own division in the first round. It hurts to say this, but I think if you did that this year, the Red Sox aren't your WS champs.

[STL FANATIC]

If you wanted to solve your WC problem, just take away the rule that says you can't play your own division in the first round. It hurts to say this, but I think if you did that this year, the Red Sox aren't your WS champs.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. That may or may not solve the problem, but I definatley think that should be the rule anyways.

[OMMF]

If you wanted to solve your WC problem, just take away the rule that says you can't play your own division in the first round. It hurts to say this, but I think if you did that this year, the Red Sox aren't your WS champs.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. That may or may not solve the problem, but I definatley think that should be the rule anyways.

Well it would at least reward the team with the best record by playing the "weakest" team.

[CC97]

This is the reason I disagree with you Chris when you say everyone is happy with top 6 or top 8. No...talk about making the regular season worth nothing and kicking the dominant team to the curb...

You'd agree if your team was in a division it had no chance of even getting the wildcard in

The way I see it we won the AL East 6 years in a row from 1998-2003... third place!

[OMMF]

The way I see it we won the AL East 6 years in a row from 1998-2003... third place!

Is that you EagleFan?

[CC97]

The way I see it we won the AL East 6 years in a row from 1998-2003... third place!

Is that you EagleFan?

Naturally I was kidding... but to go 150% Eaglefan I'd have to say... "Everyone beat us this year... therefore we're the World Champions!"

[DaytonBlue]

If the Expos had survived, then we could add teams in Portland and DC. Then go to 4 8 team divisions.

AL West

Texas

Anaheim

Seattle

Oakland

Minnesota

Kansas City

Houston (changes leagues to create Texas rivalry and reduce travel for midwest teams)

Arizona (same as Houston and considered before, although now Dbacks would have to agree)

AL East

Chicago White Sox

Detroit

Toronto

Tampa Bay

NYY

Boston

Cleveland

Baltimore

NL West

LA

Colorado

San Diego

San Francisco

Portland

St. Louis

Milwaukee

Chicago Cubs

NL East

Atlanta

Washington

Philadelphia

NY Mets

Florida

Montreal

Pittsburgh

Cincinnati

Division opponents 12x each=84

Intraleague opponents 6x each=48

Interleague: 12 games/year on rotating basis (play every team every four years...rotation schedule drawn randomly every eight years)

10 "rival" games on rotating basis

Playoffs

# 1 seed: Top division winner

#2 seed: other division winner

#3: wild card one

# 4: Wild card two

#5: wild card three

#6: wild card four

National League Qualifying Series:

3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, best of three, all games in park of higher seed

nlds: #1 vs lowest remaining seed, #2 vs other team, best of 7

nlcs: two remaining, best of seven

world series: best of seven with other league team, team with best season record gets home field

This system is designed to reward winning the division first and to make winning the division a significant advantage.

[WJMorris3]

I say the Bob Costas theory works well, though they'll never do that.

First things first - add two teams to the playoffs - two wild cards per league. Second, we'll eliminate the rule that says teams from the same division can't meet in the opening rounds of playoffs. Third, revert back to alternating World Series home advantage between the two leagues each year. We'll say for argument's sake that 2005 is an NL year.

We're going to schedule five weeks of postseason play instead of four. Day 1 is a Monday and Day 35 is a Sunday.

Day 1 (M) - reserved for one-game playoffs

Day 2-4 (T-R) - Wild Card Series. Best of three series, all games played at the wild-card team with the better record. This year, Oakland at Boston and San Francisco at Houston.

Day 5 (F) - Best of seven series between #2 and #3 division champs in each league begins. This year, Minnesota at Anaheim and Los Angeles at Atlanta for Game 1.(2-3-2)

Day 6 (S) - Best of seven series between #1 division champ and wild card survivor in each league begins. This year, New York and St. Louis hosting Game 1.(3-2-2)

Day 13 (S) - Game 7 of #2-#3 series.

Day 14 (U) - Game 7 of #1-WC series.

Day 16 (T) - Best of seven NLCS begins. (2-3-2)

Day 17 (W) - Best of seven ALCS begins. (2-3-2)

Day 24 (W) - Game 7 of NLCS.

Day 25 ® - Game 7 of ALCS.

Day 27 (S) - Best of seven World Series begins. (2-3-2)

Day 35 (U) - Game 7 of World Series.

Now in years that the AL hosts the World Series, the ALCS will start first. The way I figure it, the season might have to start one week earlier than it did this year, or the World Series would stretch into November.

[Stampman]

The bad (and if you feel you must call me bitter, so be it, but there's more to it than that) is that the Wild Card team always finishes on a hot streak because they have to win to get in usually. The team running away with the divison is playing for nothing and rests a little. They enter the playoffs not nearly as hot, and so far, the Wild Card's hot streak has gotten them very far many, many times. I don't like that. Maybe the strategy for the division runaways now needs to shift to if we get hurt we get hurt, but let's play these last 25 games like they're for everything even thought they are for nothing.

But that's the way it works in most other sports--and it's all right with me.

If you can't stay hot, and you lose--too bad.

It's sports--it's competition--so no matter how you organize it, somebody's going to feel slighted--well you have deal with that--and play for how it's set up.

I look at the Calgary Flames when Bob Johnson took over as coach, and I look at the Stampeders in the late 70's/early 80's--as compared to the team 10 years later.

The Flames had a very good team prior to Johnson, but the playoff structure meant they played first in their division, so often it meant a 2nd round exit--where under ither systems they would at least have gone to the 3rd round, and possibly the finals--

The problem was facing the Oilers so early, but weaker teams face weaker opposition earlier, giving them a better shot.

What Johnson did was build a team to beat the Oilers, which he did, and Terry Crisp finished the job with a Cup in 1989--now basically the thought was they needed to be better than the Oilers if they wanted to go anywhere--and if they were better than the Oilers of that time they would be able to beat anyone.

They won the President's trophy in 88 & 89 as well.

the Stampeders of 79 & 80 were the second best team in the CFL, but unfortunately for them and their fans, this occurred at the same time as the Eskimo's most dominant era. In 1979 they got blown out in the Western Final vs the Eskimos--and so althought hey were better than the Eastern cahmpions, they didn't get to play in the Grey Cup--they had to beat a team to beat the Eskimos, and in 1980 came very close.

Unfortunately again, some poor decisions were made, and for most of the 80's they weren't that goood, but in the late 80's again--while the Eskimos weren't as dominant, the Stamps knew tahy needed to be able to beat the Esks to be successful--and during Wally Buono's reign were the best team in the CFL for that period--and teams were looking at building to beat the Stampeders.

So to wrap up--look at what the set up is--don't complain--and build a team to be successful under that system...

[rockchalk]

I say that the best plan for baseball is the one advocated by Steve Hirdt of Elias and is said to be under consideration of MLB. If you are going to have a WC and want to have more teams to build interest, but keep the season the same length and the World Series completely in October, it is the only way. You add one more wild card to each league, and the two wild cards meet the day after the regular season ends at the home of the team with the best record. After that game, the winner moves on to face the division winner with the best record, regardless of division. If this happens, you get the wild card game winner that will be at less of an advantage over the division winners, because they will have to use their top starter and their bullpen if nessacary, because if they don't win, as they say, there's no tomorrow. After the wild card game, the playoffs continue as normal.

This Year: AL-Oakland @ Boston; NL-San Francisco @ Houston

ALDS-ALWC winner @ home vs. NY for game 1 (2-3) and Minnesota vs. Anaheim (tie, home field on coin flip); NLDS-NLWC winner home vs. STL for game 1; LA @ Atlanta

LCS-Game 1 @ home of team with best record (2-3-2)

World Series-Game one @ home of team with best record (2-3-2)

I think this would be the best way to satisfy everyone involved.

[pcgd]

I've got to say, look at what's happened as of late. The playoffs have been extremely exciting, we've had game 5's and 7's all over the place the last couple years. The only problem is the Playoffs are set up for a Wild Card team. And like Stampman said, organize your team to fit the system. The system works best for teams with at least 2 dominating pitchers. Teams like the Cardinals and Yankees need to get those dominating pitchers instead of just having a solid staff. Solid staff wins the division, dominating pitching wins the Series.

I really don't mind adding an additional team in each league. I think the only teams that really effects would be those Wild Card teams. But, if its not broke, don't fix it. The new system is so much more exciting than the old 4 teams make the playoffs.

The all star game thing needs to go though. Roger Clemens cost the NL home field advantage in the series single handedly. Not that it would have helped the Cardinals, but the team with the better record needs to be rewarded for something that is at least in the TEAMS hands instead of thier two best players for a single AB in the All-Star game. I really could care less if the All star game ends in a tie. ITS AN EXHIBITION!!!

[Saintsfan]

What I would do is have the same number of playoff spots (I like having it tough to get into post season. When half the league gets in that devalues the system IMO) Then rank the 4 teams in each league on there records, irrespective of if they are a division winner or not. So in the AL this the first round of the playoffs would have been

NY Yankees (seed 1) vs minnesota Twins (seed 4)

Boston Red Sox (seed 2) vs Anaheim Angels (seed 3)

and in the NL

St Louis Cardinals (seed 1) vs. Houston Astros (seed 4)

Atlanta Braves (seed 2) vs LA Dodgers (seed 3)

Not a radical change, but it takes rewards strong wild card teams, whilst penalising those that just scrape into the playoffs.

And if you want the performance over the whole of a season to decide who the champions are, then why have playoffs at all?

[mjrbaseball]

My preference (which no one will ever do) is to abolish divisions and wild cards and go back to the old way: Top team in each league goes to the World Series. The end.

Not suggesting you said this but do you think that baseball is worse off with the division series and wild card?

Not at all.

I admit baseball is better off the way it is now. But this is my personal preference for aesthetic purposes.

[CC97]

Problem with having byes and a best 4 of 7 is that you have a team off for about a week and a half... a major disadvantage.

They used to do this in the OHL Playoffs and often a team would offer the bye to the 2nd place team so they didn't have that long rest.

[CZzyzx41]

Put the Brewers back in the American League. Shorten the season to 154 games. Two divisions in each league. One with 8 teams and one with 7. Of course I'd love to see a team from each league get contracted (Tampa Bay and Colorado or Washington DC). Division winners get a bye. Then it's based on regular season record. The best non-division winner plays number 4, then 2 plays 3. The winner with in the first round with the worst record plays the division winner with the worst record. This will make it much tougher for wild card teams to make it to the World Series. We've had wild card teams win it all the last 3 years.

So as an example, this year it would have been:

National League:

1. Eastern Division Champ St. Louis Cardinals

2. Western Division Champ Houston Astros

3. Atlanta Braves

4. Los Angeles Dodgers

5. Chicago Cubs

6. San Diego Padres

American League

1. Eastern Division Champ New York Yankees

2. Western Division Champ (winner of Anaheim vs. Minnesota one-game playoff)

3. Boston Red Sox

4. Loser of Anaheim vs. Minnesota one-game playoff

5. Texas Rangers

6. Chicago White Sox

The Braves were hotter at the end of the year and would have easily beat the Pads. The Dodgers would have beat the struggling Cubs and then we are left with an LA-Hou and STL-Atl series, culminating in the Houston-St Louis NLCS we saw.

In the AL I think Anaheim would have beaten the Twins. The Twins would have beat the Rangers and Boston beats Chicago. Then we're left with the same playoffs we had this year.

The deal is 6 of 15 teams get in which isn't rediculous...though some would argue letting the Padres and White Sox in there this year. It gives more cities playoff games and with the shortened regular season it's not much harder on the players. Successful teams get more games, hence more revenue, hence forcing the owners to spend their money on making their team successful.

[See Red]

I don't think you can contract Colorado. Even though in their history, they've only had one season that can be considered successful and even that was just a wildcard, they're still among the league leaders in attendance every year. If you have a team that's been unsuccessful every year, yet still does pretty good in terms of attendance, that's not the kind of team you want to contract.

edit -- I should say that this year they were only 15th in attendance and last year they were 14th, but as recently as 2002 they were 8th in attendance and this is a team that year after year, is out of contention before the All-Star break.

And I don't think giving the division winner a first round bye is a good idea at all. It's already a situation where if they win the division by a long shot, they're going to take it easy and rest the remainder of the season, and then giving them the possibility of almost a week off without playing at all will just lead to that team being rusty in the first round, compared to teams that are 'hot'.