|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 3, 2019 9:41:13 GMT -5
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! I do not think the math works here unless we expand to 8 teams. In that scenario the field would go from 6 to 3 and someone would still have to get a bye.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 3, 2019 9:55:59 GMT -5
Yeah, no bye = teams in multiples of 2, ie, four teams from each league or eight teams from each league. FWIW I don't believe that a single week hurts the bye teams at all. I mean, think about it, SPs have four days off constantly; suddenly six days off is a game-changer? I think rust is a real thing but I think you'd need layoffs of at least a month for it to enter in.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 3, 2019 10:00:41 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 actually really like this. Realignment would not be too huge. Just combining existing divisions. It may be too extreme to adopt but please weigh in if anyone else likes the sound of this.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Mar 3, 2019 10:15:26 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 actually really like this. Realignment would not be too huge. Just combining existing divisions. It may be too extreme to adopt but please weigh in if anyone else likes the sound of this. We’re due for a shake up of the divisions. I’m down for whatever stirs things up.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 3, 2019 10:24:01 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 actually really like this. Realignment would not be too huge. Just combining existing divisions. It may be too extreme to adopt but please weigh in if anyone else likes the sound of this. I'm open to this, and it would inject some life into the PBL as far as changes go. Is it too extreme for some? Probably, but those folks would balk at any change, so i take that with a grain of salt. 2 divisions of 8 teams, per league. A sample from this past season: For simplicity, AL East and Central is division 1. AL West and South is Division 2. Same format in the NL. AL Division 1 playoff teams and seeding: 1. Cleveland vs Minnesota 2. Chicago vs Yankees AL Division 2 playoff teams and seeding: 1. Texas vs Oakland 2. Colorado vs Kansas City NL Division 1 playoff teams and seeding: 1. NY Mets vs Pittsburgh 2. Cincinnati vs St. Louis NL Division 2 playoff teams and seeding: 1. Arizona vs LA Dodgers 2. San Diego vs Washington Extra playoff revenue for one extra team under this format, increased end of season playoff excitement for teams still in it at the end, plus emphasis on wins matters! Good suggestion by John and I would be willing to go this route.
|
|
|
Post by Rich - Former GM on Mar 3, 2019 11:24:28 GMT -5
I actually really like this. Realignment would not be too huge. Just combining existing divisions. It may be too extreme to adopt but please weigh in if anyone else likes the sound of this. I'm open to this, and it would inject some life into the PBL as far as changes go. Is it too extreme for some? Probably, but those folks would balk at any change, so i take that with a grain of salt. 2 divisions of 8 teams, per league. A sample from this past season: For simplicity, AL East and Central is division 1. AL West and South is Division 2. Same format in the NL. ... Extra playoff revenue for one extra team under this format, increased end of season playoff excitement for teams still in it at the end, plus emphasis on wins matters! Good suggestion by John and I would be willing to go this route. I am actually quite open to this as well and that surprised me. I was going into this conversation thinking I'd like to see the playoffs reseeded after each round to favor the team with the best record, but this new playoff format intrigues me too. It gives an extra team something to fight for and more games make the playoffs as a whole lot more exciting (I'm thinking the conversations that happen during the live sims). The only problem I see is that by eliminating the bye for the 2 best teams, there may be a bit less incentive to earn them as we do now. For example, I was pushing hard the latter half of the season to catch up to the DBacks and while it didn't actually matter this postseason, it was a major goal of mine this season and still a major disappointment that I didn't earn it. In short, as a participant in this league, more teams competing for and being in the playoffs to watch and participate with in a live sim is a huge benefit of this format. As a GM of a playoff favorite, I would obviously prefer a bye to get me that much closer to a championship.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 3, 2019 11:29:52 GMT -5
I actually really like this. Realignment would not be too huge. Just combining existing divisions. It may be too extreme to adopt but please weigh in if anyone else likes the sound of this. I'm open to this, and it would inject some life into the PBL as far as changes go. Is it too extreme for some? Probably, but those folks would balk at any change, so i take that with a grain of salt. 2 divisions of 8 teams, per league. A sample from this past season: For simplicity, AL East and Central is division 1. AL West and South is Division 2. Same format in the NL. AL Division 1 playoff teams and seeding: 1. Cleveland vs Minnesota 2. Chicago vs Yankees AL Division 2 playoff teams and seeding: 1. Texas vs Oakland 2. Colorado vs Kansas City NL Division 1 playoff teams and seeding: 1. NY Mets vs Pittsburgh 2. Cincinnati vs St. Louis NL Division 2 playoff teams and seeding: 1. Arizona vs LA Dodgers 2. San Diego vs Washington Extra playoff revenue for one extra team under this format, increased end of season playoff excitement for teams still in it at the end, plus emphasis on wins matters! Good suggestion by John and I would be willing to go this route. On one hand, I'm a big fan of this, as this is pretty close to an NBA-style format (which is my preference). On the other hand, it drops the chances of the top teams winning the title by about 45%, so where before the #1 team in the conference would have maybe a 25% chance of winning it all, in the new format they'd have no more than a 15% chance of winning. Which I don't like. If we instituted this playoff style, but didn't want to punish top teams by costing them a bye we should do the following: 1) All playoff series are 7 games 2) The top seed of the matchup has home field advantage for *every* game The numbers on this actually balance out to being comparable as far as the effect on the top team, and it gives the top team considerable financial incentives in the playoffs as they will be getting 80% of the attendance revenue instead of 50-60%. This is considerably more wacky than anything I was proposing, but I would actually be for this idea. It brings more teams into the playoffs (yay!), has better seeding than the current system (yay!), but actually is neutral for or even favors top teams (yay!).
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 3, 2019 11:55:24 GMT -5
I'm open to this, and it would inject some life into the PBL as far as changes go. Is it too extreme for some? Probably, but those folks would balk at any change, so i take that with a grain of salt. 2 divisions of 8 teams, per league. A sample from this past season: For simplicity, AL East and Central is division 1. AL West and South is Division 2. Same format in the NL. AL Division 1 playoff teams and seeding: 1. Cleveland vs Minnesota 2. Chicago vs Yankees AL Division 2 playoff teams and seeding: 1. Texas vs Oakland 2. Colorado vs Kansas City NL Division 1 playoff teams and seeding: 1. NY Mets vs Pittsburgh 2. Cincinnati vs St. Louis NL Division 2 playoff teams and seeding: 1. Arizona vs LA Dodgers 2. San Diego vs Washington Extra playoff revenue for one extra team under this format, increased end of season playoff excitement for teams still in it at the end, plus emphasis on wins matters! Good suggestion by John and I would be willing to go this route. On one hand, I'm a big fan of this, as this is pretty close to an NBA-style format (which is my preference). On the other hand, it drops the chances of the top teams winning the title by about 45%, s o where before the #1 team in the conference would have maybe a 25% chance of winning it all, in the new format they'd have no more than a 15% chance of winning. Which I don't like. If we instituted this playoff style, but didn't want to punish top teams by costing them a bye we should do the following: 1) All playoff series are 7 games 2) The top seed of the matchup has home field advantage for *every* game The numbers on this actually balance out to being comparable as far as the effect on the top team, and it gives the top team considerable financial incentives in the playoffs as they will be getting 80% of the attendance revenue instead of 50-60%. This is considerably more wacky than anything I was proposing, but I would actually be for this idea. It brings more teams into the playoffs (yay!), has better seeding than the current system (yay!), but actually is neutral for or even favors top teams (yay!). Since the 2040 season, the team to have the most wins in a regular season have gone on to win the WS 20% of the time. Adding another team per league, plus additional games without a bye may decrease those odds obviously, but it won't dramatically change them from what we have witnessed in the past 10 seasons. And so if it isn't a dramatic change, to me it makes sense to explore it. 7 games per series isn't something I am against, since the model used would reflect what the NHL currently does in every round anyway. I'm not sure you will get people to get onboard for the top seed getting every home game. I don't think that is wise, considering the top seed already gets the additional home field advantage of an extra game as is.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 3, 2019 12:00:35 GMT -5
If we adopted this I would probably propose that we do 5 game series the first two rounds and then 7 for the last two. That would prevent us from extending too much further into the off season and would also not require two additional sims to complete the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 3, 2019 12:13:58 GMT -5
Adding another team per league, plus additional games without a bye may decrease those odds obviously, but it won't dramatically change them from what we have witnessed in the past 10 seasons. And so if it isn't a dramatic change, to me it makes sense to explore it. I am confused about how the change can "decrease those odds obviously" but "not dramatically change them". Given that the #1 team formerly had 20% chance but probably only has a 60% chance of winning this extra round they have to play, their odds drop to about 12% of winning it all. It's a pretty big drop. I really like the two extra teams and the better seeding, but adjusting it so the top team only has a 1 in 8 chance of winning the championship is a turn-off for me. Baseball is random enough that it's pretty hard to be the best team in the league and win it all; I wouldn't want to make it more so. To be clear, it's a very interesting idea and I'll go with whatever the league wants.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 3, 2019 12:29:29 GMT -5
I am confused about how the change can "decrease those odds obviously" but "not dramatically change them". Given that the #1 team formerly had 20% chance but probably only has a 60% chance of winning this extra round they have to play, their odds drop to about 12% of winning it all. It's a pretty big drop. I really like the two extra teams and the better seeding, but adjusting it so the top team only has a 1 in 8 chance of winning the championship is a turn-off for me. Baseball is random enough that it's pretty hard to be the best team in the league and win it all; I wouldn't want to make it more so. To be clear, it's a very interesting idea and I'll go with whatever the league wants. I agree with you, i will go with whatever the league decides. Let me clarify my comments. "Decreasing those odds obviously" is referring to adding another 4 teams to the playoff mix, from 12 to 18. The obvious part that I was referring to was from going from 12 teams, to 16. Sorry I wasn't more clear! "Not dramatically change them" was in reference to the data I provided. 20% of the time the team with the most regular season wins, wins the World Series. 1 out of 5 times with 12 teams in the playoffs with a shot to win the WS. If we include 16 teams (both leagues, 4x4), does it bump to 1 out of 6 or 1 out of 7 times on average, or 15%? Either way, IMHO, that isn't dramatically changing something that already exists. Which is it is hard to win it all, while also being the top win-team in the league. I should state my mindset is using strictly the last 10 seasons worth of data. Nothing more, nothing less. Apologies if i was not clear!
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 3, 2019 12:36:24 GMT -5
I am confused about how the change can "decrease those odds obviously" but "not dramatically change them". Given that the #1 team formerly had 20% chance but probably only has a 60% chance of winning this extra round they have to play, their odds drop to about 12% of winning it all. It's a pretty big drop. I really like the two extra teams and the better seeding, but adjusting it so the top team only has a 1 in 8 chance of winning the championship is a turn-off for me. Baseball is random enough that it's pretty hard to be the best team in the league and win it all; I wouldn't want to make it more so. To be clear, it's a very interesting idea and I'll go with whatever the league wants. I agree with you, i will go with whatever the league decides. Let me clarify my comments. "Decreasing those odds obviously" is referring to adding another 4 teams to the playoff mix, from 12 to 18. The obvious part that I was referring to was from going from 12 teams, to 16. Sorry I wasn't more clear! "Not dramatically change them" was in reference to the data I provided. 20% of the time the team with the most regular season wins, wins the World Series. 1 out of 5 times with 12 teams in the playoffs with a shot to win the WS. If we include 16 teams (both leagues, 4x4), does it bump to 1 out of 6 or 1 out of 7 times on average, or 15%? Either way, IMHO, that isn't dramatically changing something that already exists. Which is it is hard to win it all, while also being the top win-team in the league. I should state my mindset is using strictly the last 10 seasons worth of data. Nothing more, nothing less. Apologies if i was not clear! Forgive me, I'm finding myself irrationally wound up about this. I think I'm going to shut up and let the discussion continue
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 3, 2019 12:56:29 GMT -5
In my opinion, the NBA and the NBA playoffs are not a format to try to emulate.
Way too many teams make the playoffs in the NBA, and the regular season often doesn't matter. I am not a fan of increasing the amount of playoff teams or reseeding after every round.
This isn't being resistant to change. I just believe there are better ways to make qualifying for the playoffs more "fair or equal".
If we are wanting a better way to determine seeding, then eliminating divisions could go a long way to creating a more balanced schedule to determine the true top 4 or 6 teams in a league.
If we decide to change the existing format without balancing the schedules, then we still have issues when it comes to seeding.
If we continue with divisions, winning the division should mean something. Yeah, the counter to this is that you still make the playoffs but the whole point of a wildcard spot was to give those teams in a strong division a shot at the playoffs. They get that shot currently, but I don't think they deserve home field on top of it too.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 3, 2019 14:04:50 GMT -5
I'm a huge baseball fan, and I feel like we should be celebrating the uniqueness of baseball rather than just copying another game.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 3, 2019 15:04:36 GMT -5
I have been digesting Sean's post for the last hour, and at the risk of sounding like a waffler, I am going to waffle. This format really lessons the importance of winning your division. Towards the season's end the jockeying for position is really moot between the two and three seeds. The competition for the final playoff spot is already a thing. I really like having byes as a major incentive in the current system. I agree that this would reduce the importance of the regular season. John had a great point that it certainly can feed rivalries but I also look at this season's example of San Diego and Arizona chasing each other down the stretch as evidence that our current system also as the potential to accomplish this.
All that being said, I am still a fan of some of the changes we discussed. Namely 1) expanding round 2 of the playoffs from best of 5 to best of 7. 2) Setting matchups after each round based on seeding. 3) Changing to homefield for the world series based on record, not on all star game winner.
|
|