|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 2, 2019 12:54:09 GMT -5
We have had the same playoff structure for quite awhile now. Change for the sake of change is not necessary. At the same time, just because we have always done it this way is not a reason to not consider changes.
Items up for discussion.
Number of games per round. Do we want to consider a best of 7 in the divisional round? Best of 5 in wild card?
Seeding. There is an option to manually set playoff matchups so we could really do anything we want. But I would rather not be responsible for that unless there is a huge sentiment to adopt something custom.
First round matchups are set to Seeding by winning percentage with the option "Wildcard seeded lowest" selected. This is my personal preference but I am open to unselecting "Wildcard seeded lowest" if that is the leagues preference.
I think one setting we can really discuss is "Later rounds matchups". The current setting is "Fixed". The other option available is "Re-order by seed prior to each round". Full disclosure I had just kind of assumed the latter is how we were doing it. I personally think it makes more sense. Curious what the league's opinion is.
We can discuss over the weekend and I will create polls on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 2, 2019 13:14:36 GMT -5
Number of games
Pro: More games lends an advantage to the better team, and fewer games leads to more randomness earlier in the playoffs. So adding games favors the better teams.
Con: The swing going from 3 to 5 or 5 to 7 is pretty small, about the equivalent of getting an extra home game in the series. And going to 7 games generally means splitting into two sims, which would make the playoffs take longer, which means the 20 teams who didn't make it are sitting on their hands longer.
My 2 Cents: I'm against it purely because of the cost of making the playoffs take longer to sim. Beyond that I'm totally open to it. If we were to do 7 game WC and DS but in one sim I'd be all for it.
Seeding
Pro: Seeding based on record instead of Division eliminates the risk of punishing better teams for capricious reasons.
Con: It's a change.
My 2 Cents: It feels counterintuitive to me simply because it's contrary to what baseball has always done (at least since it introduced the Wild Card). But it's really pretty much identical to the NBA's system (where divisional roles pretty much mean nothing) and the NBA does a fantastic job with its matchups. I mean, seriously, when was the last time anyone complained about seeding in the NBA? It's just pure record, what is there to complain about? Compare that to baseball, where either the Yankees or Red Sox are boned every year purely because they're in the same division, even if they're the two best teams in the league. Basically, I think it's the better system, but it's not the MLB model, so I can understand opposing it for that reason. It does diminish the value of winning a division slightly, but winning one still guarantees you a playoff spot.
Later Round Matchups
Pro: Adjusting later round matchups makes sure that the best team always plays the worst possible team.
Con: It's a change. And more to the point, it's not aesthetically pleasing.
My 2 Cents: For me the NBA playoffs / March Madness are the gold standard of playoffs. They always get good teams in, they make winning the division/conference mean something, they set their seeding and then they just let fly. So while I can see the reasoning behind re-seeding in the playoffs, I prefer seeding based on record, but then letting the chips fall where they fall after that.
But yeah. Just my two cents (or I guess, six cents). I am of course very happy to go with whatever the league decides.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 2, 2019 13:33:56 GMT -5
For the seeding I like the current setting. To have a shot at the bye you have to first win your division. Wild card teams should have a tougher road to the championship. It makes winning your division a bigger deal. I like it. This is also why I like determining each playoff round based on seeding.
|
|
|
Post by Wilson_DodgersGM on Mar 2, 2019 13:41:14 GMT -5
I am strongly against making the wild card 5 games. I think that in general I consider the team that wins the most games in the regular season the best team in the league regardless of the playoffs. Making the series longer to encourage the better team to have more time to show its skill and advance lessens the penalty of not winning the division and lessens the importance of regular season record. I think it's a good thing when a 90+ win team gets knocked out in the wild card by an under-dog because it rewards the team with the best record.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 2, 2019 13:50:46 GMT -5
I am strongly against making the wild card 5 games. I think that in general I consider the team that wins the most games in the regular season the best team in the league regardless of the playoffs. Making the series longer to encourage the better team to have more time to show its skill and advance lessens the penalty of not winning the division and lessens the importance of regular season record. I think it's a good thing when a 90+ win team gets knocked out in the wild card by an under-dog because it rewards the team with the best record. Well said. Additionally I think the rust factor of teams with the bye can be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Mar 2, 2019 13:52:13 GMT -5
My two cents are leave things as they are. We have a fine set up
|
|
|
Post by Wilson_DodgersGM on Mar 2, 2019 13:55:08 GMT -5
I am strongly against making the wild card 5 games. I think that in general I consider the team that wins the most games in the regular season the best team in the league regardless of the playoffs. Making the series longer to encourage the better team to have more time to show its skill and advance lessens the penalty of not winning the division and lessens the importance of regular season record. I think it's a good thing when a 90+ win team gets knocked out in the wild card by an under-dog because it rewards the team with the best record. Well said. Additionally I think the rust factor of teams with the bye can be an issue. If anything, I'd prefer a one game wild card series
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Mar 2, 2019 13:59:19 GMT -5
Well said. Additionally I think the rust factor of teams with the bye can be an issue. If anything, I'd prefer a one game wild card series I really don’t like that, I like that we made it a 3 game, which is perfect. Instead of a fluke one game, you need to win 2
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 2, 2019 14:02:07 GMT -5
If anything, I'd prefer a one game wild card series I really don’t like that, I like that we made it a 3 game, which is perfect. Instead of a fluke one game, you need to win 2 Yeah, it is kind of a fun thought and everything is up for discussion. But I agree and I would be extremely surprised if this gets any traction.
|
|
|
Post by Wilson_DodgersGM on Mar 2, 2019 14:19:26 GMT -5
If anything, I'd prefer a one game wild card series I really don’t like that, I like that we made it a 3 game, which is perfect. Instead of a fluke one game, you need to win 2 I don't disagree that the randomness is greater but we have different goals. I WANT fluke games.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Mar 2, 2019 19:06:30 GMT -5
I say keep things as they are, it has been working well for a long time. (Well at least that's what I hear. I have no real practical knowledge of this thing you all call the playoffs)
As far as reducing the Wildcard series to 1 game I would be all for it if it was just the 2 wildcard teams playing....BUT because they are playing 2 division winners I think it would be incredibly unfair for a division winner to be eliminated in a 1 game fluke by a wildcard. Keep the wildcard round at 3 games.
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Mar 2, 2019 22:21:58 GMT -5
If any playoff structure discussion is taking place, i have to put in what i think is the greatest structure ever.
80's-90's NHL.
4 Divisions. Top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs. 1v4, 2v3. two rounds of division playoffs. One round for league championship, then the world series. It creates great playoff races, it creates great rivalries!!!
This obviously would take realignment, but man, that's my wet dream!!
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_NatsGM on Mar 2, 2019 23:10:10 GMT -5
If any playoff structure discussion is taking place, i have to put in what i think is the greatest structure ever. 80's-90's NHL. 4 Divisions. Top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs. 1v4, 2v3. two rounds of division playoffs. One round for league championship, then the world series. It creates great playoff races, it creates great rivalries!!! This obviously would take realignment, but man, that's my wet dream!! I would like to see real life MLB go back to two divisions per league when they get around to expanding to 32. Maybe something similar with the division champ facing the winner of a 2v3 wild card game. Don't think it'll happen though.
As for the PBL, the current setup is working fine, though I wouldn't be opposed to a best-of-7 divisional series.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Mar 3, 2019 7:15:10 GMT -5
I’m a fan of the playoff structure as it is currently for the most part.
My only request is to reseed after the first round. The 1 seed should play the lowest remaining seed, and the 2 seed should play the highest remaining seed.
Our playoffs are the exact structure the NFL has, and this is the way they do it. I still like division winners 1-4, and wildcards 5-6. My belief is there is no reason that the 2 seed should have an advantage over the 1 seed in the first playoff games that they have. I don’t think there should be any reason a team should prefer to be a 2 seed over a 1 seed due to matchups.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 3, 2019 8:58:50 GMT -5
I’m glad we are having these discussions. The reason “We have always done it this way” is simply a bad reason not to change.
Currently constructed, 4 division winners and 2 wild card teams is fair. The regular season counts (winning division) and the bye is the incentive. 2 bye teams, and the next 4 teams decided by record in the matchups is also fair and makes sense.
Once the best of 3 wildcard round is complete (I like the idea of 3: it is more than 1, but not too hard as a 5 gamer), I would prefer re-seeding to take form at that point. The argument for division winners is the regular season counts, so play your best to win as many games as possible. So, in the same vein, best record vs worst remaining record also makes the most sense each playoff round and rewards teams who played to their talent level with the most wins. Re-seeding after every round also rewards teams who play to win, and impacts any team who has a large division lead in September who decide to play their triple A team. Nothing wrong with that mind you, but if you don’t play to win as many games as possible, I feel that dynamic should come into play once the playoffs reseed. This will inherently keep the best interest of all teams in play, including when they play other teams trying to make the playoffs. Integrity is at the root of my opinion here.
One other thought here. What i do not know is whether rust impacts player performance when it comes to the bye in the playoffs. Does anyone know? So my thought is, do away with the playoff bye and seed best records 1 v 6 (the reward for the 1 seed is playing the worst seed in a best of 3) to avoid any potential rust issues. Then reseed each round thereafter. I don’t expect much traction on this one. But there it is!
|
|