- This topic has 78 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Milwaukee Brewers, fresh off consecutive playoff appearances, have trimmed payroll 20 percent. It's much easier to do that and still try to sneak into the tournament with the second wild card. Adding more playoff spots would only encourage that behavior, not discourage it.
— Marc Carig (@MarcCarig) February 11, 2020
But if you’re the owners, why not add more playoff teams? So many fans have bought the justifications for not spending, so it’s reasonable to think that they’ll buy this plan as an antidote to tanking, despite little evidence to support that theory.
— Marc Carig (@MarcCarig) February 11, 2020
I think it’s healthy for the game to explore new ways to generate excitement. I also think that anything that makes it easier for owners to serve a substandard product to their fans — and get away with it — is incredibly harmful to the sport.
— Marc Carig (@MarcCarig) February 11, 2020
I’m on the bandwagon of two divisions per league, an LCS and World Series follow the season. Period. Who wants to watch the sub .500 Mets play in the playoffs? I’d rather see four 98-100 win dynamos duke it out.
Make room for me on that bandwagon Card25.
How much money is enough for these owners?
I am just afraid that if the Cardinals win 82 games and get the seventh playoff spot in the NL DeWitt and Mo will tell the fans “hey we made the playoffs so get off our backs.” There will be little incentive in building a team capable of winning 90+ games.
Make room for me on that bandwagon Card25.
How much money is enough for these owners?
There’s never enough…it’s all about the next buck. That’s why they do stuff like squeezing minor league players and owners for every nickel they can with their dumb “contraction” talk.
I am just afraid that if the Cardinals win 82 games and get the seventh playoff spot in the NL DeWitt and Mo will tell the fans “hey we made the playoffs so get off our backs.” There will be little incentive in building a team capable of winning 90+ games.
While there is still some incentive to get the incremental wins to give yourself a better overall team, I agree that some of the bigger spenders will be pleased to back off and still make the playoffs. They want something like the NFL’s parity, it seems.
gscottar wrote:
I am just afraid that if the Cardinals win 82 games and get the seventh playoff spot in the NL DeWitt and Mo will tell the fans “hey we made the playoffs so get off our backs.”
You left off your implied assumption that the 82-win Cards would then lose in the first round. What if they win 82 and go on to win their NLDS series? What if they go even further? Is that worse than winning 90 in the regular season and getting beaten in the first round?
Of course, the Cardinals are not projected to be an 82-win team and DeWitt has been quoted as saying they plan for 90, but I went along with your point here. Further, for the 30+ years the current ownership has been in place, they have been pretty consistent with their spending ranking. So why would they all of the sudden change now?
IMO, the biggest incentive in this proposed new world is to win the division. Winning the most games in the league is even better.
Some valuable data to help frame the discussion.
To get a feel for just how low the bar for making the playoffs would be under MLB's reported playoff proposal, here is how many wins the seventh-place teams in each league have had since 2001.https://t.co/AzEeeipi2Z pic.twitter.com/PNKx7kvzEm
— Kyle Glaser (@KyleAGlaser) February 11, 2020
Olivia gets it https://t.co/o34du5lMOK
— Jack Flaherty (@jflare_) February 11, 2020
I remember there being a pretty good 83-win team back in 2006.
I know that change is hard for a lot of people, but more baseball, more playoff baseball, and more games deep into the season that matter doesn’t seem so bad to me.
You guys will still have your back in my day stories to tell. Back in my day, baseball players were hooked on speed, but we pretend they were puritans and that steroids corrupted the game.
Brian said:
Of course, the Cardinals are not projected to be an 82-win team and DeWitt has been quoted as saying they plan for 90, but I went along with your point here.
Well PECOTA has the Cardinals at 83-wins so I’m not sure that’s much better.
On another note, it is entirely disheartening seeing a vast number of national baseball writers holding Rob Manfred’s water and supporting and defending these proposals through more propaganda. If you’re going to allow so many teams in why even have a 162-game season? It cheapens the regular season. It will allow owners to spend even less than they already do. I hope the players see through this, because this is a ploy by the owners and MLB. They’re going to use this expanded postseason as a chip and say the players benefit while they will cut player salaries.
I haven’t forgotten about the 2006 team but most objective folks would say that scenario is the exception instead of the rule.
I am on record as saying that getting into the playoffs is the most important thing because the playoffs are a crapshoot, however, if the playoffs become so diluted then that philosophy becomes less relevant.
No, the Cardinals aren’t projected to be a 82 win team in 2020, but then again the new rules haven’t been implemented yet, which is what I was referring to. You know, apples to apples.
More baseball. More playoff baseball. More games late in the season that matter.
Are you going to stop watching the regular season? I’m not.
And I’ve heard the “it will cheapen the regular season” argument in every sport every time an expansion of playoffs happens. It never does.
I remember there being a pretty good 83-win team back in 2006.
Sure, but that was a unique circumstance. That team had won 100 games the two seasons before, was hurt by injuries and basically got healthy as the playoffs started. At least three and maybe 4 future HOFers were on it and probably 2-3 more Cards HOFers. Oh, and they won their division. That team was stacked, and I can’t think of any since that would fit that bill that didn’t make the playoffs.
Well, if they make the change, I will be watching.
If they don’t make the change, I will be watching.
I enjoy watching the Cardinals play. If there is a game on that I don’t enjoy watching (most all games without the Cardinals), then I don’t watch. It’s as simple as that. This rule could make it so that there are more Cardinals games on for me to watch than there would have been without the rule – so I’m not going to get too worked up over it.
And I’ve heard the “it will cheapen the regular season” argument in every sport every time an expansion of playoffs happens. It never does.
To me it has. I can’t tell you the last time I watched a regular season NBA game because it doesn’t matter who wins. I will watch the NBA playoffs though.
I am sure I will still watch a lot of regular season MLB games because I love baseball but I still feel that the regular season will have been cheapened.
To me it has. I can’t tell you the last time I watched a regular season NBA game because it doesn’t matter who wins. I will watch the NBA playoffs though.
I am sure I will still watch a lot of regular season MLB games because I love baseball but I still feel that the regular season will have been cheapened.
Me either, and it’s pretty rare that I watch the playoffs for NBA either.
I agree with you that MLB will be something I will always watch anyway. I would just prefer the playoffs to be teams that actually earned a shot at the title.
One other thing of note…a shorter regular season means almost no chance that some of the big records will ever be broken.
Was that 1984 when you bailed on watching NBA regular season? Sure it was. And basketball is doing quite a bit better than they were in 1983. Like I said, it never does.
By your argument, it would strengthen the MLB regular season if we just had a balanced schedule, and the top record in each league made the World Series. Somehow, the regular season would be better even though 75% of the teams in MLB would virtually be eliminated?
More teams in the playoffs means more meaningful games late in the regular season, not less, since more teams would be in contention for a spot.
More teams in the playoffs means more meaningful games late in the regular season, not less, since more teams would be in contention for a spot.
That’s not necessary true. The best postseason I can ever recall was 2011 when you had multiple teams playing down to the wire. You add in more teams and that drama and intensity goes away. All you’re gonna have is a bunch of teams who’ve already clinched a playoff spot jockeying for position. *BORING*
Was that 1984 when you bailed on watching NBA regular season? Sure it was. And basketball is doing quite a bit better than they were in 1983. Like I said, it never does.
No Nostradamus or Orwell it wasn’t 1984.
By your argument, it would strengthen the MLB regular season if we just had a balanced schedule, and the top record in each league made the World Series. Somehow, the regular season would be better even though 75% of the teams in MLB would virtually be eliminated?
Is that what I said? I don’t think so. Comparing one extreme to another doesn’t make your argument any more valid.
More teams in the playoffs means more meaningful games late in the regular season, not less, since more teams would be in contention for a spot.
If my team wins 100 games in the regular season but loses to an 82 win team in the playoffs should I celebrate the regular season? I didn’t think so.
Well, 1984 is when they “cheapened” the regular season by going with 16 playoff teams. So you’re stopping watching had nothing to do with that then. Thanks for sharing a meaningless tidbit.
You just cry to cry. Buy some tissues and put the computer away.
I wasn’t even born in 1984 but when I started watching NBA games it was because of Michael Jordan and every game of his was must see TV. Once he retired (for the second time) I stopped watching regular season NBA games and to do this day I haven’t watched a single NBA game in the regular season. But I do watch NBA playoff games.
And basketball is doing quite a bit better than they were in 1983. Like I said, it never does.
That has nothing to do with the expanded playoffs. It’s about marketability, endorsements, and having national TV deals just like every other sport that’s doing better today than 1983.
That has nothing to do with the expanded playoffs. It’s about marketability, endorsements, and having national TV deals just like every other sport that’s doing better today than 1983.
First off, my whole point was that people always claim the regular season gets cheapened with expanded playoffs, and it never does. That’s why 1984 was relevant once you guys brought up the NBA. If you didn’t stop watching then, then your point has no relevance to this conversation.
Secondly, to your point that, as a casual NBA fan, you only watch the playoffs – do you think that strengthens your argument against MLBs plan or weakens it? I don’t think it makes the point you think it does.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.