Expanding baseball playoffs?

[BBTV]

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.

Are the two not related? Possibly even the same? You're a fool if you think these players care about the history of their teams. Heck - most of these players change teams every two or three years anyway, so they don't have a chance to really embrace their team's heritage. History and legacy are for fans.

[rams80]

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.

I'm not sure the goal is to determine something so much as it is to handicap the Wild Card even further.

If you could get away with it, I'd almost prefer a 1 and done game with no travel day in between to the next round.

[BaltimoreFan]

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.

I'm not sure the goal is to determine something so much as it is to handicap the Wild Card even further.

If you could get away with it, I'd almost prefer a 1 and done game with no travel day in between to the next round.

Yea, these two teams proved in a 162 game season that they were not good enough to win their division. I have no problem handing their fate to a 3 game series. I'd also probably perfer a 1 game playoff, but I'm sure too many people would dislike that.

[omnivore]

I think players most certainly respect the history of a franchise and the legacy of being on a team where they're part of the established lore of the club. I don't think all players do (see: LeBron) but I think lots of others do.

[JayJaxon]

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.

Are the two not related? Possibly even the same? You're a fool if you think these players care about the history of their teams. Heck - most of these players change teams every two or three years anyway, so they don't have a chance to really embrace their team's heritage. History and legacy are for fans.

Hit the nail right on the head there. The history and legacy are for the fans. Most players don't know a lot about the history of the franchise they play for unless they grew up as a fan of that particular team. Some players do really appreciate the game and cherish the history. But I doubt many players know or care about a team history. When Alex Rodriguez goes up to bat or CC Sabathia takes the mound, neither care about living up to the legends of Mantle or Ford. It was the dollars that brought them there. I know it may be hard to believe, but not everyone wants to be a Yankee. If you throw enough money at your holes, you are gonna win. You won't win every year because baseball is a crap shoot. But you improve your odds greatly by spending the kind of money they do.

Back to the history thing for a moment. Nobody is going to try harder because of the uniform they wear. What some people don't understand is that the players are not invested like we are. Yes the Texas Rangers franchise has been waiting to get to the World Series since forever. But the Texas Rangers players haven't. Vlad didn't give a damn about that team making the World Series until this year. The Giants fans have been waiting for a championship in San Francisco. But none of the players have been waiting since their last title. The players know it too. It's not like a weight has been lifted off the players shoulders. I think Renteria was one of the oldest players on that team and he had already been to the World Series a couple of times and won one. Listen closely when the players do their interviews. They say things like "This city has waited so long" or "These fans have been waiting for this" not "WE have been waiting so long" They (the players) were not waiting for anything. Yea they wanted to go to the World Series but it's not like they have been suffering for decades like their fans.

I never like hearing "This team has never been so they look like they are just happy to be there" That's a load of crap. I'm sure they are happy to be there but it has nothing to do with the fact that their team made the World Series for the first time.

When the Braves and Twins played in the World Series in 1991 the Braves had not been since 1958 but the Twins had just won one a few years before. That Twins team was happy as hell to be there though. They played their hearts out and won arguably the greatest World Series ever played. When the Cardinals won in 2006 it was their 10th title. So even though none of the current players were on the last title team were they supposed to act like they have been there before because the franchise has been there before? It doesn't matter if it's the Nationals against the Yankees in the next World Series. Those Yankees players will be just as happy to be there as the Nats players. Winning doesn't get old. It doesn't matter what team you play for.

[omnivore]

I think you underestimate guys who spend their whole career with a team or guys who are chasing the ring, but also the lore and legend of being one of the guys who brought that ring to the city. Ask those guys who played for the '04 Red Sox whether it meant something to them helping that city win a title after all of those years of futility. Giants guys this year will be remembered in the same way and they know that. I think people forget the guys who play are often the biggest fans. No they don't follow the history, per se, but they understand their team's history if they've been successful and they do play for the pride of that community for the time they are there...even if it's just for lip service.

Not every dude in a major league uniform is a faceless jerk playing only for his massive paychecks and it only takes a few interviews with this guys or recent retirees from the game to understand that the majority are good guys, there's the bad apples ruining it for the rest but that's with anything.

[JayJaxon]

I think you underestimate guys who spend their whole career with a team or guys who are chasing the ring, but also the lore and legend of being one of the guys who brought that ring to the city. Ask those guys who played for the '04 Red Sox whether it meant something to them helping that city win a title after all of those years of futility. Giants guys this year will be remembered in the same way and they know that. I think people forget the guys who play are often the biggest fans. No they don't follow the history, per se, but they understand their team's history if they've been successful and they do play for the pride of that community for the time they are there...even if it's just for lip service.

Not every dude in a major league uniform is a faceless jerk playing only for his massive paychecks and it only takes a few interviews with this guys or recent retirees from the game to understand that the majority are good guys, there's the bad apples ruining it for the rest but that's with anything.

I should have mentioned that guys like Jeter and Chipper Jones probably care a great deal about their teams. The Red Sox team knew they were special because of what the city had been though with that team and of course they wanted to do it. But the love for that franchise and connection to the past wasn't enough to keep Pedro and Damon around was it? Yea they were special for that one year but after the celebration is over they are still individuals that will bolt to another team if the opportunity and money is there. Damon didn't say "Screw the Yankees, I'm a Red Sox for life" He took the money. Lincecum is a hero in San Francisco but do you think winning the title this year will be enough for him to stay if the Yankees offer him a boatload of cash? I hope he stays but you just never know about these things.

Like I said before, some players have a good sense of history when it comes to the game and that's great. But not many of them get to play for the team they grew up rooting for so of course they are not gonna know (or care) too much about the history of the team that drafts them. Special consideration is given of course to guys that have been in one place forever. But those guys are few and far between.

[Saintsfan]

I think the whole issue is more complicated than some of you guys seem to think.

It's not that a sportsman walks out thinking about the history of his club/franchise, but it effects the expectations of everyone around the team, fans, management, ownerhiip, players, media. A team with little history, like the Rangers in this case, can just be excited to be in the series. It's not that the players aren't giving there all, but we've all seen sporting events were one team wins because 'they wanted it more'. These expectations play into that. A team for whom getting to a championship final just isn't enough will want it more than a team whose franchise have never been there, usually.

[The_Admiral]

we've all seen sporting events were one team wins because 'they wanted it more'. These expectations play into that. A team for whom getting to a championship final just isn't enough will want it more than a team whose franchise have never been there, usually.

This is thoroughly false and you should stop having opinions. San Francisco won because their pitching staff made the Rangers' hitting look foolish and the Rangers' bullpen couldn't throw strikes. This has nothing to do with "wanting it more" vis-a-vis the relative fortunes of the two organizations. Completely preposterous. Hang your head in shame.

[JayJaxon]

I'm sure there are teams that get complacent because they look at the match-up with the other team and don't feel threatened. When the Giants went into these playoffs they were not taken seriously and the Phillies and Rangers paid for it. I'm not saying those teams didn't try as hard because they were facing the Giants. But the media and their fans were already handing the championships to those franchises. When the Braves and Giants were playing I heard media outlets just proclaiming that they were just playing for the right to get beat by the Phillies. On paper the Giants and Braves were the weakest of the playoff teams. The pressure is there no matter how long it has been since a championship came to the city. An overconfident attitude can also come from a team no matter how long it has been since they were there.

The 1995 Indians were a great example of that. The Braves had already been to the World Series twice in the last three but it was the Indians that were cocky and spoke to the media like that series was going to be a walk in the park. Some even saying that the Braves know they can't win a World Series. That overconfidence (And great Atlanta pitching) was their downfall. I still say the history and all that mean little to these players but everything to the fans. Unless a player has been with the franchise forever (Chipper Jones) or grew up a fan of the team they play for (Brian McCann) then these players are not gonna know (or care) too much until they have spent some time with the franchise. That is if they are able (or willing) to stay for several years. It's not that hard to fathom.

[infrared41]

we've all seen sporting events were one team wins because 'they wanted it more'. These expectations play into that. A team for whom getting to a championship final just isn't enough will want it more than a team whose franchise have never been there, usually.

This is thoroughly false and you should stop having opinions. San Francisco won because their pitching staff made the Rangers' hitting look foolish and the Rangers' bullpen couldn't throw strikes. This has nothing to do with "wanting it more" vis-a-vis the relative fortunes of the two organizations. Completely preposterous. Hang your head in shame.

I agree with the Lieutenant Colonel on this one. Team history has nothing to do with who wins a title in any given year nor does it have anything to do with how a team plays in a championship game or series. Using Saintsfan's logic, the 1997 World Series should have been won by the Indians. This same Giants franchise should have won in 2002. And so on...

You want to know what wins championships? Beating your opponent. You do that and you win. "Wanting it more" has nothing to do with it. Except in the NFL where you also have to beat the officials.

[Saintsfan]

I only said history was one factor. There are other reasons why a franchise or a set of players might be inspired to play on a higher level. The Pirates in 79 are an example of a team inspired by one leader (Stargell in this case).

Look at the history of the Red Sox and you see a kind of reverse of this for a while, a franchise that didn't think it could win, by destiny, so struggled against that.

(Sorry to bang on on this subject but the psychology of sport fascinates me!!!)

[infrared41]

I only said history was one factor. There are other reasons why a franchise or a set of players might be inspired to play on a higher level. The Pirates in 79 are an example of a team inspired by one leader (Stargell in this case).

Look at the history of the Red Sox and you see a kind of reverse of this for a while, a franchise that didn't think it could win, by destiny, so struggled against that.

(Sorry to bang on on this subject but the psychology of sport fascinates me!!!)

No, there was no inspired "higher level" from the Pirates in 1979. The Pirates beat the Orioles in 1979 because the Pirates had a really good team. It's not supernatural or anything. The Pirates had a hall of famer in Stargell, a guy who some think should be in the hall in Dave Parker, and a batting champion in Bill Madlock. Omar Moreno who was a pretty good ballplayer in his day and Phil Garner had a pretty good season for the Pirates in '79. Bill Robinson could hit a little. Their lineup was very solid. Hell, Tim Foli of all people hit .291 for the Pirates in '79. Their pitching staff had three solid starters in Candelaria, Blyleven, and Kison. And then there was that guy Kent Tekulve closing the games for them.

The Pirates weren't an "inspired" fluke in 1979. They won 98 games. The only thing "remarkable" about them was they came back from a 3-1 deficit to win the series. The reason they were able to come back was because they had enough talent to do it. Let's stop acting like the '79 Pirates were no better than the '88 Dodgers. It wasn't a miracle.

God I hate it when people who know nothing about baseball history read something in a book and decide it's fact.

[JayJaxon]

I only said history was one factor. There are other reasons why a franchise or a set of players might be inspired to play on a higher level. The Pirates in 79 are an example of a team inspired by one leader (Stargell in this case).

Look at the history of the Red Sox and you see a kind of reverse of this for a while, a franchise that didn't think it could win, by destiny, so struggled against that.

(Sorry to bang on on this subject but the psychology of sport fascinates me!!!)

God I hate it when people who know nothing about baseball history read something in a book and decide it's fact.

I laughed so hard when I read this.

[Saintsfan]

I didn't say it was a fluke, I suggested that a star player, Stargell, gave a good group of players inspired leadership that drove the team on. What drove that team, in those circumstances, was the leadership of Stargell. Every champion team needs at least one spark to drive them on, whether it be an inspirational player, the opportunity for redemption for a franchise, great leadership, just something to give a champion team something extra.

My general point, and my interest in the psychology of all of this, comes down to the fact that in any given year there are at least 5 or 6 teams capable of winning the World Series, what drives the one team that does win. It's never a fluke, it's that spark that drives one team to be better than the rest.

[rams80]

I didn't say it was a fluke, I suggested that a star player, Stargell, gave a good group of players inspired leadership that drove the team on. What drove that team, in those circumstances, was the leadership of Stargell. Every champion team needs at least one spark to drive them on, whether it be an inspirational player, the opportunity for redemption for a franchise, great leadership, just something to give a champion team something extra.

My general point, and my interest in the psychology of all of this, comes down to the fact that in any given year there are at least 5 or 6 teams capable of winning the World Series, what drives the one team that does win. It's never a fluke, it's that spark that drives one team to be better than the rest.

Remember the agreement? We don't speak utter nonsense about soccer and you don't speak utter nonsense about American major league sports. WHY ARE YOU BREAKING THE AGREEMENT?

/I guess the spark that drove the 2006 Cardinals was the utter incompetence of Detroit's pitchers.

[UnclearInitial]

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.

And neither is rotating it every year, which is why I think it should be decided by the outcome of the previous world series

[infrared41]

I didn't say it was a fluke, I suggested that a star player, Stargell, gave a good group of players inspired leadership that drove the team on. What drove that team, in those circumstances, was the leadership of Stargell. Every champion team needs at least one spark to drive them on, whether it be an inspirational player, the opportunity for redemption for a franchise, great leadership, just something to give a champion team something extra.

My general point, and my interest in the psychology of all of this, comes down to the fact that in any given year there are at least 5 or 6 teams capable of winning the World Series, what drives the one team that does win. It's never a fluke, it's that spark that drives one team to be better than the rest.

Willie Stargell didn't bat in all 9 spots in the lineup and he damn sure didn't pitch. His leadership, while fun to read about, was not what won that World Series. "Leadership" doesn't drive in the run, turn the double play, or throw strikes. Players do.

I'm not knocking Willie Stargell. He's one of my all time favorite players. Your argument is simply idiotic. I'm sure that the Royals and Mariners have "inspiring leaders" on their teams as well. The big difference is the rest of the team sucks. Now please stop talking about baseball. You know nothing about it. If you don't stop, I am going to come into every soccer thread and regale you with my theories on why the United are not as good as some other team. (I'll have to look up the name of another team so I'll have something to talk about I guess)

[Saintsfan]

Of course Stargell was not the only reason the 79 Pirates won. But why didn't the '79 Yankees, say, win it all, or the '79 Orioles or any other good teamfrom that year? Every winning team has an x factor which pushes them over the top, something that creates a team spirit or whatever it is. It can be all manner of things. Winning is never just about talent.

[TxRangersFan]

Moving this thread back on-topic, I have an unusual idea to change the MLB Playoffs format.

1. Each league's three divisions winners are seeded #1, #2, and #3.

2. The two best remaining teams are seeded #4 and #5.

3. The #1 seeds (each league's best regular-season team) receive a double-bye into their league's LCS.

4. The first two rounds of the playoffs (best-of-three series) determine their LCS opponents.

The biggest advantage of this format is that it significantly rewards each league's best regular-season team, creating an incentive for division champions to remain competitive even after they have clinched their division.

Now, there is at least one drawback. The #1 seeds will sit out as the other playoff teams compete in the first two rounds. Teams (especially the starting pitchers) develop a routine during the regular season which has very few days off. Now, the #1 seed gets several days off while the other playoff teams maintain a playing schedule. This extended break could throw off the #1 seeds' momentum, their routines. To alleviate this, notice that my format calls for the Division Series to be SHORTENED to best-of-three. (Each best-of-three series would be played in a 1-2 format, the lower-seeded team hosting game one and the higher-seeded team hosting games two and three.)

Here is a graphical representation of this proposed format.