The evolution of postseason expansion in sports

[dbackdiehard17]

Hi guys,

Huge fan of the site and avid reader.

With MLB prepared to make their expanded post-season official for the 2012 season, I wanted to do a look back at sports and post-season formatting, while analyzing the argument of evolution vs devolution in sports. Is bigger better when it comes to finding a champion?

Check out the article, and chime in with your thoughts. If nothing else it should make for an interesting debate:

Expanding the MLB Playoffs ? is it natural evolution or inevitable devolution?

[dbadefense1990]

In terms of baseball, I would have ended the postseason expansion at 8 teams (right where it is now) but restructure the divisions.

Here's my logic: the idea of the Wildcard is that you can win a World Series by never winning your own division and then still suck for years to come and either relocate or fold. The Marlins did this twice, and yet still can't draw fans to support them (I doubt the new stadium will make new Marlin fans; it'll be just yuppie-hipsters raving the new ballpark for style).

Then you got the teams that cry Murphy because they lost to teams they say "should not have made it in the 1st place" (more prevalent among the 1997 Indians and 2003 Cubs). Long-suffering fans could have had titles by now; instead their misery continues as an effect of the given system.

What I would have done is:

-Keep the 8-team eligibility, but abolish the Wildcard.

-Get rid of the Central divisions and scatter those teams into East and West, just like pre-1994.

-The top two teams in each of the East and West divisions face off in a best-of-5 series (hence, a true meaning for Division Series).

-Then, best-of-7 LCS and WS.

My divisons would have gone like this:

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Rays, Blue Jays, Tigers, Indians

AL West: Angels, Rangers, Athletics, Mariners, Twins, White Sox, Royals

NL East: Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Marlins, Cubs, Cardinals, Pirates, Brewers

NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Rockies, Padres, D-Backs, Astros, Reds, Braves

[aci]

I agree with Dbad, though as a Blue Jays fan, I am grateful for the 2nd wildcard in each league. Kind sucks when your team is the 3rd- or 4th-best team in the AL some years and you miss the playoffs year in and year out because the two best teams in baseball are in your five-team division, not to mention another very competitive team in Tampa Bay.

There have been at least a few years in the past decade where the Blue Jays would have won the AL Central by a country mile if they could play 72 games against the Tigers/Twins/Royals/Indians/White Sox instead of the Yankees/Red Sox/Rays/Orioles. The way I see it, the fewer divisions, the better, and the more balanced the schedule, the better. I'm ok with some unbalancing to save on travel, but let's be honest: if baseball was really worried about travel costs, they'd merge the NL and AL and be done with it.

[OnWis97]

In terms of baseball, I would have ended the postseason expansion at 8 teams (right where it is now) but restructure the divisions.

Here's my logic: the idea of the Wildcard is that you can win a World Series by never winning your own division and then still suck for years to come and either relocate or fold. The Marlins did this twice, and yet still can't draw fans to support them (I doubt the new stadium will make new Marlin fans; it'll be just yuppie-hipsters raving the new ballpark for style).

Then you got the teams that cry Murphy because they lost to teams they say "should not have made it in the 1st place" (more prevalent among the 1997 Indians and 2003 Cubs). Long-suffering fans could have had titles by now; instead their misery continues as an effect of the given system.

What I would have done is:

-Keep the 8-team eligibility, but abolish the Wildcard.

-Get rid of the Central divisions and scatter those teams into East and West, just like pre-1994.

-The top two teams in each of the East and West divisions face off in a best-of-5 series (hence, a true meaning for Division Series).

-Then, best-of-7 LCS and WS.

My divisons would have gone like this:

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Rays, Blue Jays, Tigers, Indians

AL West: Angels, Rangers, Athletics, Mariners, Twins, White Sox, Royals

NL East: Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Marlins, Cubs, Cardinals, Pirates, Brewers

NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Rockies, Padres, D-Backs, Astros, Reds, Braves

I don't mind the two divisions per league (but glad the Twins don't have as many west coast games as this would dictate). However, something does not sit well with me regarding your "top 2 per division". It sort of makes the division title come across as meaningless. In the 1980s, under a two-division format, the AL had some incredible imbalance. The 1987 Twins won the World Series but would have finished 4th in the East. I'd rather both Wild Cards come out of the East in a year like that...two division titles and the two best "other" teams (particularly in that era, with a schedule that was essentially balanced).

[Epiphanic]

The very existence of a playoff means that the best team might not win the championship. Is that fair? I think the vast majority of fans are okay with the idea of the best team not winning it all in any given year.

With baseball's playoff expansion, I'm not sure if I like it or not. With just one wild card, it seems reasonable to let that team in. Usually the wild card winner has a better record than the worst division winner in the league. From that perspective, it makes sense to allow that team to vie for the World Series. The second wild card, however, usually doesn't have a better record than a divisional winner so why should that team play in October? On the flip side, there is something to be said about giving division winners an advantage in the playoffs so this "play-in" round does have merit. I do wish that it was a series of some sort. Going straight to sudden death in baseball just seems wrong.

[McCall]

In no other league, where there are more playoff teams, do division winners have a better chance at winning a championship than in baseball. The NBA and NHL have 16-team playoffs, yet only 6 division winners. How is baseball worse when there is only one team in each league that is not a division winner? And in fact, with only one wild card you're better guaranteed that a deserving team gets it. Plenty of times one or two division winners actually have lesser records than a wild card team because that team plays in a tougher division. I think the way it is, er, was, was a lot more accurate in determining the champion than in these other formats where over half of the league is in the postseason.

[speedy]

In no other league, where there are more playoff teams, do division winners have a better chance at winning a championship than in baseball. The NBA and NHL have 16-team playoffs, yet only 6 division winners. How is baseball worse when there is only one team in each league that is not a division winner? And in fact, with only one wild card you're better guaranteed that a deserving team gets it. Plenty of times one or two division winners actually have lesser records than a wild card team because that team plays in a tougher division. I think the way it is, er, was, was a lot more accurate in determining the champion than in these other formats where over half of the league is in the postseason.

I'll echo this. To be honest, I could completely care less if the Bruins win the Northeast division. It's meaningless except for home ice. As long as they're in the playoffs it's all gravy.

Now I want the Red Sox to win the East, every year. It's something I care about more than making the playoffs, even though that's the end result. There's something special about winning a division in baseball that's just not there in other sports. The new postseason really erodes some of that specialty.

[Epiphanic]

Now I want the Red Sox to win the East, every year. It's something I care about more than making the playoffs, even though that's the end result. There's something special about winning a division in baseball that's just not there in other sports. The new postseason really erodes some of that specialty.

I'd like you (or anyone else who agrees) to expand on that. Why is winning the division more important than "just making" the playoffs?

[speedy]

Now I want the Red Sox to win the East, every year. It's something I care about more than making the playoffs, even though that's the end result. There's something special about winning a division in baseball that's just not there in other sports. The new postseason really erodes some of that specialty.

I'd like you (or anyone else who agrees) to expand on that. Why is winning the division more important than "just making" the playoffs?

Maybe it has to do with one-upping the Yankees? I'm selfish like that. At least in the AL East the division rise is so heated, especially now with the Rays playing some damn good baseball. I can't speak for other divisions, but here winning it is a sense of pride. They played these guys 18 times, you know them, you can't stand them, it's like a year long series and to come out on top is great.

In the NHL it's a lot more spread out, you don't have those intense rivalries year long. You can hope to meet them in the playoffs, but during the season it's just kind of.. meh. Since the NHL/NBA playoffs are like a whole new season, I think it takes away from the luster of winning the division. It's pretty meaningless once the playoffs roll around.

With baseball, the playoffs are a direct continuation of the season. They're short and sweet. It's like a night cap after a long night. Not a lot changes between the playoffs and the regular season, especially since the last month of the season is a playoff in it's own right. It feels like you work harder for division titles in baseball than you do in other sports.

[Magnus]

Sigh...I think this whole hullabaloo is simply because the number of teams in MLB, the NBA and the NHL isn't easily divisible by 4.

If there were 4 (or 8) equally sized divisions, the whole mess of both sides of the argument (weak division winners or wild cards having a chance to win it all) could be thrown out, and all Big Four leagues could have nice playoff structures that are just as meaningful as their regular seasons.

[McCall]

Division championships are more prestige in baseball because only one other team in each league (before this year) got into the playoffs without winning one. 6 of the 8 teams were division winners. And as has been mentioned numerous times, the fewer amount of playoff spots make them that much more special. 30 teams, only 8 spots? That makes for great races or at least the possibility of them. Yeah not every season will be like last year, but adding more teams actually reduces that possibility because there will be more opportunities. Not as exciting.

[Cosmic]

In no other league, where there are more playoff teams, do division winners have a better chance at winning a championship than in baseball. The NBA and NHL have 16-team playoffs, yet only 6 division winners. How is baseball worse when there is only one team in each league that is not a division winner? And in fact, with only one wild card you're better guaranteed that a deserving team gets it. Plenty of times one or two division winners actually have lesser records than a wild card team because that team plays in a tougher division. I think the way it is, er, was, was a lot more accurate in determining the champion than in these other formats where over half of the league is in the postseason.

I'll echo this. To be honest, I could completely care less if the Bruins win the Northeast division. It's meaningless except for home ice. As long as they're in the playoffs it's all gravy.

Now I want the Red Sox to win the East, every year. It's something I care about more than making the playoffs, even though that's the end result. There's something special about winning a division in baseball that's just not there in other sports. The new postseason really erodes some of that specialty.

I agree with this, but on the other side of that argument, how many teams' seasons in MLB are essentially over by the All-Star break? In the NHL right now, there are only about five teams out of 30 that have no real playoff hopes. It's good for those fanbases to have something to root for. I get both sides, and I'm not sure which is the right way to go.

[McCall]

But that also counters the excitement of a playoff chase because more of those teams are getting in anyway, so that tension is diluted. There are so many games in baseball, even after the All-Star break, that only the absolute worst teams are completely out, those who It wouldn't make a difference if there were a 16-team playoff, they're still not getting in. Having fewer spots makes the race for them that much more intense. Only the really bad teams are separated from the race. And sometimes teams that are just having unbelievable seasons.

[Viper]

Sigh...I think this whole hullabaloo is simply because the number of teams in MLB, the NBA and the NHL isn't easily divisible by 4.

If there were 4 (or 8) equally sized divisions, the whole mess of both sides of the argument (weak division winners or wild cards having a chance to win it all) could be thrown out, and all Big Four leagues could have nice playoff structures that are just as meaningful as their regular seasons.

On the other hand, we've been seeing the same thing happen with increasing frequency in the NFL, where five out of the last seven Super Bowls have now been won by #3 seeds or lower (and another low seed came within 35 seconds of winning SB XLIII, and all this despite having 8 divisions of four teams), and no one's complaining about that. Hell, we've even had the defending Super Bowl champs get knocked out in the first round by a division champ with a 7-9 record!

Having said that, it seems to me the real "evolution of postseason expansion in sports" has been driven by, you guessed it, making the leagues' biggest cash cows even fatter. Nothing more and nothing less, notwithstanding whatever other fig leaf TPTB try to put over it. More playoff teams mean (1) more playoff games for leagues to sell TV rights for, and (2) more chances for the leagues' marquee, huge-market, ratings-driving franchises to get in even if they have a less-than-stellar season. Can't have both the Yankees and the Red Sox in the playoffs because they play in the same division? Add a wild card berth so they can both make it now. Wait, now the Rays are crashing the party and keeping the Red Sox out? Why, add another wild card, problem solved!

[slapshot]

Now I want the Red Sox to win the East, every year. It's something I care about more than making the playoffs, even though that's the end result. There's something special about winning a division in baseball that's just not there in other sports. The new postseason really erodes some of that specialty.

I'd like you (or anyone else who agrees) to expand on that. Why is winning the division more important than "just making" the playoffs?

Home field advantage.

Baseball is the only professional sport where the playing dimensions differ from stadium to stadium. Every team has its fans, but only Fenway has the Green Monster, only Oakland has miles of foul territory, etc.

Unlike the other sports, where wach team plays every game on a field/court/ice surface the same dimensions as everyone else, baseball fields are not uniform.

And therein lies the advantages that come with a team earning home field for each playoff round.

[bosrs1]

In no other league, where there are more playoff teams, do division winners have a better chance at winning a championship than in baseball. The NBA and NHL have 16-team playoffs, yet only 6 division winners. How is baseball worse when there is only one team in each league that is not a division winner? And in fact, with only one wild card you're better guaranteed that a deserving team gets it. Plenty of times one or two division winners actually have lesser records than a wild card team because that team plays in a tougher division. I think the way it is, er, was, was a lot more accurate in determining the champion than in these other formats where over half of the league is in the postseason.

I'll echo this. To be honest, I could completely care less if the Bruins win the Northeast division. It's meaningless except for home ice. As long as they're in the playoffs it's all gravy.

Now I want the Red Sox to win the East, every year. It's something I care about more than making the playoffs, even though that's the end result. There's something special about winning a division in baseball that's just not there in other sports. The new postseason really erodes some of that specialty.

If anything I think the new postseason brings some of that "specialty" back. Under the 8 team system they had the first seed division winner played on nearly equal footing with the No. 4 seed wildcard team (ie: the team that didn't win a division). Now under the new 12 team system, that No. 1 seed still plays whichever wild card wins the one game playoff, but they now are no longer on equal footing. The WC team that moves on will now play the No. 1 see without their ace pitching first (or twice in the series) unless their manager is a HUGE gambler not pitching the ace in the winner take all WC playoff game. Seems to me this has significantly improved the importance of being the number one seed division winner. Thus making the regular season that much more important.

[Epiphanic]

Here's something to think about. A big point that is trotted out often is that a team's ace will be burned in the wild card game and thus limiting his use in the divisional series. But how likely is that really? Aside from teams that clinch early, how much "rotation design" can/do teams really do?

[tBBP]

How about they just kill the current setup, establish preseason rankings based on ESPN hype media vote, let the managers, baseball writers, and Sabermetrics vote in a new poll each week...then at the end of the season, the best eight teams get in regardless of division?

Or am I doing it wrong?

[Magnus]

How about they just kill the current setup, establish preseason rankings based on ESPN hype media vote, let the managers, baseball writers, and Sabermetrics vote in a new poll each week...then at the end of the season, the best eight teams get in regardless of division?

Or am I doing it wrong?

Nope, I'd like that in baseball. It would make me not care for it at all, as opposed to the miniscule amount that I care about it now.

[smzimbabwe]

Here's a way to make winning your division even more important and relevant - win the division and you get in the playoffs. Don't win the division and you don't get in the playoffs...