Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, putting six more teams in there including teams with wins down in the 80s would improve it, right? OK, if you have to have ten teams in the playoffs, then just forget about the leagues or divisions and put the ten winningest teams in the playoffs. If you need 20 teams in the playoffs, just put the top 20 teams in the playoffs. Do it fair.
I think you are overvaluing fairness and undervaluing the business aspect of the MLB.
The MLB is in the business of making money. They do this by providing a product to baseball fans. You are right that they need to produce a quality product in order to keep their customers spending money.
I hear more fans griping about low-revenue teams' chances of making the playoffs than I do fans griping about 80 win teams making the playoffs.
I trust that the MLB is doing a reasonable job in creating maximum interest in their product.
I hear more fans griping about low-revenue teams' chances of making the playoffs than I do fans griping about 80 win teams making the playoffs.
I don't hear any fans griping about anything. I hear the media griping for them, and telling the fans what to gripe about. And the media is in the business of making money, too. The media I hear the most is the play-by-play announcers, who are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporate baseball marketing empire.
I've never heard a fan complain, for example, about the length of games. The only people who complain about the length of games are the beat sportswriters and announcers, because longer games expands their working hours and delays their trip to the post-game bar. You were in Kansas City the other night for a double header, which drew a larger paid attendance than 14 of the previous 15 home dates, even though they played a doormat oppponent. If those fans hated the length of games, how come so many bought tickets to a 6-hour event? Because fans don't hate long games, the media does.
Just watch. Someday, extra innings will be abolished, and ties will be broken with a home-run derby format, like in the NHL. To protect the media from long games.
Like people who go to games don't have anything else to gripe about. Like concession prices. And bad guys not giving foul balls to kids.
When you went the Royals doubleheader, did you hear a lot or people start griping at 8 oclock that they had already been there for three hours? Or that the wild cards should be expanded so the Royals can make the post season this year, in order to have fairmess?
I don't hear anything at ball games, except the million dB sound system playing catchy heavy metal tunes.
Just curious. By today's standards, what SHOULD have been the ideal post-season structure in 1950?
Here are the final standings top four, with wins:
AL
New York 98
Detroit 95
Boston 94
Cleveland 93
NL
Philadelphia 91
Brooklyn 89
New York 86
Boston 83
St. Louis 78
How many teams from each league should be in the post season? Who plays whom in the first round? The top four AL teams won more games than any NL team. Would it have been better if there were two 4-team divisions in each league? In the NL, the four eastern division teams would have won more games than any western teams, led by St Louis only 1 game above the .500 mark. What post season structure would have been better than simply the Yankees against the Phillies?
Just curious. By today's standards, what SHOULD have been the ideal post-season structure in 1950?
Here are the final standings top four, with wins:
AL
New York 98
Detroit 95
Boston 94
Cleveland 93
NL
Philadelphia 91
Brooklyn 89
New York 86
Boston 83
St. Louis 78
How many teams from each league should be in the post season? Who plays whom in the first round? The top four AL teams won more games than any NL team. Would it have been better if there were two 4-team divisions in each league? In the NL, the four eastern division teams would have won more games than any western teams, led by St Louis only 1 game above the .500 mark. What post season structure would have been better than simply the Yankees against the Phillies?
Since everything else posted in this thread has gone directly over your head, I'm going to assume that any further posts will fail to hit you squarely in the nose.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________
The White Sox are just a couple of inning away from putting the sweep on the Tigers.
Here's an idea, you guys will love this, because it gives even more fans a hope that they will make the post season, regardless of how little their team deserves a playoff spot, which is the whole object of the wildcard expansion exercise in the first place, so let's really do it up royal. The top four division non-winners gather at a neutral site (or at the home field of the team with the best record), and play a series like this:
LA/StL at twelve oclock, Atl/Pitt at 4:00, and the winners at 8:00 to advance to the LDS.. Nobody has to play more than two games, so from the players standpoint, it's just like a double header, either a day-night or a twi-night. And it takes two wins to make the playoffs, not just one, which will give a faint glitter of legitimacy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
