Expanding baseball playoffs?

[loogodude90]

2)Figure out a different way to decide home field advantage for the World Series, whether it be alternating years, a coin toss, or whoever has the better record. I don't like the idea of the All-Star game having any other real significance other than enjoyment.

Agree with you 100%, I don't know a single person who thinks turning an exhibition game into a rather important decision maker was a good idea. And you know what sucks? Baseball had it right before, by just having it rotate every year: NL got home-field in odd years (post-1994) and AL in even years. Why Selig felt this needed to be changed is beyond me.

There are two very simple ways to determine home-field advantage: Have it alternate liked it used to (this is how the NFL does it), or just give it to the team with the better regular season record (like in the NBA and NHL). However, I do like the idea of the wild card team, regardless of regular season record, not having home-field advantage in any postseason round and this should be carried over into the World Series, too. Should two wild card teams meet in the World Series, like they did in 2002, then the wild card with the better record gets home-field.

Because it's stupid. The 100-44 Indians didn't have home field against a team with 10 less regular season wins than them in 1995, and in 1997, the Marlins (a Wild Card, although a team with a better record), got home-field and thus the advantage of hosting Game 7, which decided the series.

Yes, but two teams in different leagues dont play the same teams. You can have a 100 win team from the NL in a down year which probably isn't as good as a 90 win AL wild card team. It isn't fair to compare records across leagues. I think rotating every year is fair because it is left to chance. You lost game 7 on the road? Tough break. Get back to the Series next year and win it at home.

And not to mention if the American League teams get the best records for let's say 3-4 years in a row, it won't be fair for the National League teams to have a chance to host an extra World Series game.

It would be fair. They've just gotta win more games then their counterparts in the American League. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp...

Anyways, if the NL is so inferior, then why is there even a World Series each year? Shouldn't we just award it to the winner of the ALCS right then and there? I mean since a 90-win AL team is apparently better than a 100-win NL team...

The real reason why the AL wins more World Series' and more interleague games is not because the AL teams are better, but because they have a distinct advantage in home games by having a DH on their roster.

You are totally missing the point. He was just providing an example of a case in which a team from one league could have 90 wins but still be better than a team from the other league that won 100 games. Which is why it's kind of stupid to say that the team with the most wins is the better than everyone in a league of teams it has never played. This isn't the NBA where everybody plays everybody, so comparing the best teams of both leagues is like comparing apples and oranges. Not that confusing...

[loogodude90]

Yes, but two teams in different leagues dont play the same teams. You can have a 100 win team from the NL in a down year which probably isn't as good as a 90 win AL wild card team. It isn't fair to compare records across leagues. I think rotating every year is fair because it is left to chance. You lost game 7 on the road? Tough break. Get back to the Series next year and win it at home.

Wins and losses just don't really matter if you're not playing against the same competition. It's not really about a league being stronger or weaker. It's all about relevancy. Just rotate it, or after the LCSs, have the opposing managers play rock-paper-scissors for it.

The NBA and NHL give home-advantage to the team with the better record, and their Eastern Conference teams aren't playing the same schedules as the Western Conference teams.....

But in the NBA (I can't speak for the NHL) every team plays each other team at least twice a season, regardless of conferences. You can't say the same thing about MLB.

[crashcarson15]

Yes, but two teams in different leagues dont play the same teams. You can have a 100 win team from the NL in a down year which probably isn't as good as a 90 win AL wild card team. It isn't fair to compare records across leagues. I think rotating every year is fair because it is left to chance. You lost game 7 on the road? Tough break. Get back to the Series next year and win it at home.

Wins and losses just don't really matter if you're not playing against the same competition. It's not really about a league being stronger or weaker. It's all about relevancy. Just rotate it, or after the LCSs, have the opposing managers play rock-paper-scissors for it.

The NBA and NHL give home-advantage to the team with the better record, and their Eastern Conference teams aren't playing the same schedules as the Western Conference teams.....

But in the NBA (I can't speak for the NHL) every team plays each other team at least twice a season, regardless of conferences. You can't say the same thing about MLB.

In the NHL, everybody plays everyone at least once. But for example, the Blue Jackets' schedule includes 6 games against both the Red Wings and the Blackhawks with only one against teams like Pittsburgh and Washington, while the best team the Sabres play 6 times this year is Boston, Montreal, or Ottawa (sorry Toronto).

We're saying that we should set up a system where a team that is considerably better in any given season a disadvantage in the championship series in case of the unlikely scenario that a team with 85 wins could be better than a 100 win team? Not buying it. Why should a team's fate potentially be decided because of what year it is, not what they did during the season?

[JayJaxon]

The whole AL win more world series because of the DH is nonsense. They won more often before the DH as well.

I am not saying the DH isn't an advantage but it's not THE reason the AL does best. A lot of it is to do with history and money and prestige and tradition.

No team has ever won a championship because they had more history, prestige, and tradition than the other team. Those great Yankee teams from the 20's to the 60's are the reason that the American league has won 62 of the 106 World Series played. Those teams were amazing and it was more about the Yankees being better really than the American League. So that argument about the AL being better before the DH is one that people can easily go to but it doesn't hold a lot of weight because the American League back then consisted of the Yankees and mediocre competition. You can't argue that the AL was better, just the Yankees.

The designated hitter absolutely gives the American League an advantage. I don't understand how it isn't an advantage. I'll go over it again for those that missed my earlier post or just didn't understand what I was saying:

-If a National League team is playing in an American League park they get to use the DH. But the American League teams have guys that average 30-40 home runs as their DH. National League teams have to use a utility infielder that is lucky if he gets to 10 homers a season. The National League doesn't leave a 30 homer guy on the bench for such situations.

-If an American League team is playing in a National League park they have many more options now on the bench. Essentially they have to set their team up like an NL squad. But in a pinch hit situation, the manager can go to the 30-40 homer guy where the NL team still uses the utility infielder for that.

-When players are getting up in age and can't play the field anymore, there are two options: Retire or play in the American League.

This next part is going to sound harsh to AL fans but it's the truth:

The AL babysits these players that can't hack it anymore by giving them the option to just hit. You can still be a great hitter at an older age. The AL also makes it where managers really don't have to manage. Double switches and sac bunts are as rare as 4-homer game. I love Joe Torre and I respect the man. He is a great baseball person and he was right for the Yankees because he can handle large egos. But he is not a great manager. He proved that in Atlanta, St. Louis, and with the Mets. I could have managed those Yankee teams to those championships. The DH makes it where you really don't have to manage the game. Just put them in what order you want and start monitoring the pitcher.

I challenge anyone to give me a GOOD reason as to why the DH is not an advantage. I have yet to hear any argument for it that made any sense. I honestly haven't heard a decent argument in favor of it at all. Please can someone come up with something?

[mania]

Watching a pitcher try to hit is absolutely embarrassing. It's not fun to watch, it's not more strategic, it's just really kind of sad. It's clown ball, watching a #8 hitter get IBB'ed to face the pitcher is a joke, and there is a reason only three professional leagues in the world still have the pitcher flail away.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

But the double switch in the seventh inning is exciting, right?

[IceCap]

Yes, but two teams in different leagues dont play the same teams. You can have a 100 win team from the NL in a down year which probably isn't as good as a 90 win AL wild card team. It isn't fair to compare records across leagues. I think rotating every year is fair because it is left to chance. You lost game 7 on the road? Tough break. Get back to the Series next year and win it at home.

Wins and losses just don't really matter if you're not playing against the same competition. It's not really about a league being stronger or weaker. It's all about relevancy. Just rotate it, or after the LCSs, have the opposing managers play rock-paper-scissors for it.

The NBA and NHL give home-advantage to the team with the better record, and their Eastern Conference teams aren't playing the same schedules as the Western Conference teams.....

But in the NBA (I can't speak for the NHL) every team plays each other team at least twice a season, regardless of conferences. You can't say the same thing about MLB.

In the NHL, everybody plays everyone at least once. But for example, the Blue Jackets' schedule includes 6 games against both the Red Wings and the Blackhawks with only one against teams like Pittsburgh and Washington, while the best team the Sabres play 6 times this year is Boston, Montreal, or Ottawa (sorry Toronto).

Toronto: Better then Ottawa this year.

[JayJaxon]

But the double switch in the seventh inning is exciting, right?

it is strategy. Baseball is all about strategy. You do the double switch to make sure the pitcher's spot in the order comes up as late as possible. If a pitcher's spot is coming up in the batting order, the manager has decisions to make. He can sac bunt with one or no outs. He can pinch hit for him but that would take the pitcher out of the game. But that power lefty is coming up in the next half-inning and the manager can get the specialist up to face him. Baseball strategy is a great thing. But then again I'm a baseball fan. Of course the DH is never going away. But the argument that the American League has no advantage because of it is non-existent. If the National League had the DH too, then both leagues would be following the exact same rules and the only disadvantage would be teams that can't or won't spend like the Yankees.

[The_Admiral]

Watching a pitcher try to hit is absolutely embarrassing.

Ah, that's no excuse. I'm a Cubs fan. Watching our cleanup hitter try to hit is absolutely embarrassing.

I like pitchers hitting. It's never bothered me that most of them are bad. Having the same nine guys bat and field is baseball. I like the wax and wane of a traditional nine-man batting order more than the unwavering mutant tank warfare of an expensive AL lineup. The designated hitter was a gimmick of the '70s--the same decade that gave us astroturf and sansabelt pants--instituted to jolt the AL's anemic hitting and attendance. Hitting and attendance have never been better, mission accomplished, put it back in storage.

[BaltimoreFan]

The designated hitter absolutely gives the American League an advantage. I don't understand how it isn't an advantage. I'll go over it again for those that missed my earlier post or just didn't understand what I was saying:

-If a National League team is playing in an American League park they get to use the DH. But the American League teams have guys that average 30-40 home runs as their DH. National League teams have to use a utility infielder that is lucky if he gets to 10 homers a season. The National League doesn't leave a 30 homer guy on the bench for such situations.

-If an American League team is playing in a National League park they have many more options now on the bench. Essentially they have to set their team up like an NL squad. But in a pinch hit situation, the manager can go to the 30-40 homer guy where the NL team still uses the utility infielder for that.

-When players are getting up in age and can't play the field anymore, there are two options: Retire or play in the American League.

I think there is a slight advantage with the DH, but I don't think it is really that big. The disadvantage works both ways:

-Many times the DH is one of the best hitters on the team, but also a defensive liability. So the choice while playing in the NL park is either sit your best hitter or take the risk of putting him in the field. See, Vladimir Guerrero from this world series.

-There is also the chance that an AL team will have to sit another very good hitter. One example is the 2007 Red Sox who had to choose between David Ortiz or Kevin Youkilis, two of the best hitters. Either way their offense isn't at 100% of what got it to the World Series. You can argue they now have a better option off the bench, but they are still limiting one of their better hitters to just one at bat they may or may not need.

-NL pitchers have been hitting all year and taking batting practice. They should be in much better shape to hit than AL pitchers. Many probably are still horrible, but they still have an advantage over AL pitchers.

For the record, I'm against the DH and would like to see it eliminated from the AL. I say if you can't field, don't hit. However, I don't think it gives a large advantage to AL teams in the World Series.

[Saintsfan]

In the whole history of World Series, the AL has won roughly 60% of all series. That ratio had not changed since the 70's. The American League has won no more than 6 World Series in any decade, since the 70s. The DH has not given the AL any bigger advantage.

As far as history and prestige are concerned, you don't think the Yankees aren't pushed onto achieve more because they are the Yankees? You don't think players want to wear the pinstripes just to follow on from Ruth and Di Maggio and Bera and Mantle etc?

Now remember as well that relocation hit the NL harder than the AL. Sure the LA Dodgers have a thread linking them to the Brooklyn Dodgers, but does a Dodger player today feel that same link to Roy Campanella? I doubt it. The Braves have been through 2 relocations. Impossible to get the same sense of history through that.

[Saintsfan]

(just a quick reminder I am not saying the DH isn't AN advantage, I am saying it's one of several factors, not the ONLY one.)

[philly97flyer]

Maybe having the team with more wins having home field in the World Series isnt that fair, but its a hell of alot more fair than having it be decided by an exhibition game in mid-July.

[omnivore]

I support playoff expansion because it's not 1920 anymore, there is already one wild card and the divisions aren't aligned properly. Plus baseball is the only sport that awards post-season playoff shares to non-playoff teams as the 4 non qualifying 2nd place teams all get small postseason shares. Why not add a postseason playoff game and increase the stakes a bit while making them play for it. If people are concerned with 3rd place teams getting in -- which I don't have a problem with -- then restrict the 2nd wild card to only 2nd place teams in each division. That'll make division races even more important and give you parallel wild card and division races worth following.

It's inevitable with both the commissioner and union coming out in favor of it, it's just a matter of how they do it. I'm guessing there will be a one-game wild card playoff the day after the season ends or two as an experiment that stays. I doubt the LDS gets expanded to seven games in that case and the regular season will stay the same size because no one wants to lose that revenue, even though pursuits argue for sanctity of the game and players claim the wear and tear factor. (Why not just cut out some spring training games?)

I think it'll be interesting to see how they manage to implement it in the end.

[Quillz]

Here's what I'd like to see (and I'm sure this has been mentioned already)...

~ New first round, dubbed the "Wild Card Series," is a best-of-three (2-1 format) played between the two wild cards from each league. (One more wild card per league gets in, the wild card with the better record hosts the first two games.) The winner of the series advances to the Division Series.

~ Everything else remains the same beyond the Wild Card Series. Wild cards don't get home-field advantage unless the league they're in wins home-field from the All-Star Game. Two teams from the same division still cannot meet in the DS, although this may occur in the Wild Card Series if both wild cards are from the same division.

[The_Admiral]

Why do you want 162-game seasons determined by best two out of three? It's bad enough they do three out of five in the LDS! What a terrible idea.

[Saintsfan]

Quick point on this years series that dhows how the differing histories of the two franchises played out for the Giants. The Rangers looked happy to just get to the series, that was a big deal for that franchise. The Giants appeared to be in the series in order to win it, at least in part to honor past Giants greats.

[The_Admiral]

Active players don't care about any of that franchise history crap.

[Saintsfan]

I don't believe that's true. I think it's true ina lot of sports, but in Baseball there is clearly a link. But sometimes as well it's just an expectation thing. Everyone expects the Pirates to be rubbish now, so they generally are, good players don't sign for them coz they want to win things. Sure money is a reason the Yankees get there pick of free agents, but the promise of near annual post season play is another reason, as is the lure of Yankee Lore.

[The_Admiral]

I'm saying that the franchise-long malaise of the Senators-turned-Rangers does not weigh heavily on the mind of Vladimir Guerrero when he's up there doing his job. Any sort of "just happy to be there after all this time" narrative is a projection by those who want to believe that players have the same emotional investment in the organization as the fans do, which they don't. Both teams were equally determined to win the World Series because they're paid professionals.