|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 3, 2019 15:11:32 GMT -5
If we want better seeding, are open to divisional changes, but want to keep divisional rewards the way they are: 1) Collapse the leagues into four eight-team divisions 2) Keep the playoffs the same; six teams in 3) The two divisional winners get the byes, the rest are seeded by record. That seems to achieve much of what has been discussed here. Sorry, I know I said I'd shut up. I'm a failure
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 3, 2019 15:14:42 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. My only counter would be in a reseed playoff, every win matters. So the wins down the stretch can impact home field advantage at any point in the playoff reseeding. Either way, whatever the league decides to do is fine by me. But it would have been nice to change up the PBL structure a bit and give us a different look, while adding more teams to the playoff mix and giving teams a chance at some playoff money IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_NatsGM on Mar 3, 2019 17:27:00 GMT -5
If we want better seeding, are open to divisional changes, but want to keep divisional rewards the way they are: 1) Collapse the leagues into four eight-team divisions 2) Keep the playoffs the same; six teams in 3) The two divisional winners get the byes, the rest are seeded by record. That seems to achieve much of what has been discussed here. Sorry, I know I said I'd shut up. I'm a failure If we're changing something like this would be my preference. I don't really view most of the realignment proposals as a big deal either way, but like Sean I'd be pretty opposed to going to an eight team playoff. The NBA structure is very good at determining the best team, but the regular season is almost completely pointless and teams know it. IMO a good playoff structure allows anyone with a potential argument to be the best team in, doesn't go too far beyond that, and rewards regular season performance. I think taking 6/16 in each league (division winners plus a few wild cards) like the PBL/MLB/NFL do is close to optimal, and a happy medium between the NBA/NHL and college football. College basketball gets a pass because while March Madness isn't a great way to determine the best team, it is wildly entertaining.
Since I'm bored at the moment, here's a few more realignment spitballs if we do go to two divisions per league:
- If you really want to keep things intra-divisional until the LCS (old school NHL style) you can take the top three in each division and do #1 plays winner of 2v3 like I alluded to earlier. That's ultimately less fair though, and will result in .500ish teams getting in some years if the divisions are unbalanced.
- If divisions need to make geographic sense (which they really don't in our case) Colorado can swap back to the NL for a eastern team, and an East/West split would more-or-less be Eastern time zone vs everyone else.
- If we're worried about rust for bye teams (and sticking with the three game wild card) we could shorten the wild card round slightly by doing Game 1 at the team with the worse record -> travel day -> Games 2 & 3 at the team with the better record. Only buys a day though.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 3, 2019 18:56:46 GMT -5
From a map point of view you'd probably do East/West and have: American League MapThe American League would be East + Central and South + West, except Minnesota should be West and Tampa should be East. AL East: New York Boston Baltimore Toronto Chicago Cleveland Detroit Tampa Bay Al West: Oakland Colorado Seattle Los Angeles Houston Texas Kansas City Minnesota National League MapIn the NL you'd just be combining the East and the South, because the NL South is waaay east. Cincinnati and Atlanta are almost a tossup but I thought it better to keep divisions reasonably intact: NL East: New York Philadelphia Pittsburgh Montreal Atlanta Washington Miami Carolina NL West: St. Louis Cincinnati Milwaukee Chicago Los Angeles San Diego Arizona San Francisco Using this organization but keeping with six playoff teams (two byes and four wildcards) the playoffs would have been seeded: #6 Colorado against #3 Chicago #5 Kansas City against #4 New York with the bye teams being #2 Texas and #1 Cleveland #6 St. Louis against #3 San Diego #5 Cincinnati against #4 Washington with the bye teams being #2 New York and #1 Arizona
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 3, 2019 18:57:31 GMT -5
Wait, moving my team in the same division as the NL West? I mean, Milwaukee is farther East than Atlanta, right? We'll go with that.
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Mar 3, 2019 19:37:49 GMT -5
Oh man, I'm really excited by this. A relignment and a new playoff format, to me, atleast, really adds an element to the game. Yes, winning in the regular season would still matter. I'd rather play team 4 then anyone else. Imagine the rivalries in the division. It gives new meaning to surviving your division before you get a shot at a title.
In this format, 50% of teams make the playoffs. That's not every team, that's half, and that's a pretty fair number. Lots of teams will have something to play for later in the year.
To be honest, i don't even know the exact playoff format we have, and despite my team's recent struggles, i was playing in there for a while. It's a simple, fun design. Potential for great battles, great upsets, and winning four rounds, to me, EARNS IT!
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Mar 4, 2019 13:05:20 GMT -5
In my opinion 50% of teams making the playoffs is too many.
We play 162 games- to then have half the teams make the post season doesn't make alot of sense to me.
I would support reseeding in the playoffs though. The teams that earn the top seeds should get the reward of playing the teams with the worst records.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Mar 4, 2019 13:21:53 GMT -5
Really don’t want half the league making the playoffs, this is spinning a bit out of control.
Hey, let’s no longer play baseball, let’s play Big Base. Combination of baseball and kickball, it would be really cool way different than this lame game people have played since the late 1800’s
There’s plenty of rivalries right now. The most important is that they need to grow organically you can’t contrive or manufacture a rivalry. That only comes from two good teams going at it year-to-year. There simply aren’t enough good teams for all these “rivalries” you speak of. Minnesota is NOT a playoff team, to think the bench mark for reaching the playoffs is 80 games is ludicrous. It’s supposed to mean something to make the playoffs
I just don’t get it, turns from a seeding conversation to let’s turn it upside down and have a March Madness style playoff!
The worst team in the league wins 50-60 games every year. The good teams don’t ALWAYS beat the bad, that’s why you’ve got 162 games to let the dust settle. As it’s been pointed out, baseball is fluky you can get swept or lose a 3 game series to a bad team in the regular season, happens every year (D-backs struggled vs Mil - CLE was 2-7 vs Houston - Rockies lose to Braves) we shouldn’t open the door for more of this to happen by expanding the playoffs to include less quality of teams. Again that’s why there’s a 162 games and the above teams took care of business the rest of the way.
I guess put it up for vote, looking through the thread I count 7-8 people that like this idea and I don’t think that’s enough votes to implement the change. I would vote against as well as Texas, Car, Cle, LAD, ARZ?
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 4, 2019 13:26:16 GMT -5
From my reading there are many changes being discussed:
1) Reorganizing the divisions into two divisions of eight teams per league 2) Increasing the number of playoff teams by two per league (and eliminating the bye) 3) Re-seeding each round of the playoffs 4) Changing the number of games in rounds (like bumping the wild-card round to 5, or the divisional round to 7)
I, for example, favor the first, am against the second, am fairly apathetic to the third and would be fine with bumping the wild-card to 5.
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Mar 4, 2019 16:09:05 GMT -5
Really don’t want half the league making the playoffs, this is spinning a bit out of control. Hey, let’s no longer play baseball, let’s play Big Base. Combination of baseball and kickball, it would be really cool way different than this lame game people have played since the late 1800’s There’s plenty of rivalries right now. The most important is that they need to grow organically you can’t contrive or manufacture a rivalry. That only comes from two good teams going at it year-to-year. There simply aren’t enough good teams for all these “rivalries” you speak of. Minnesota is NOT a playoff team, to think the bench mark for reaching the playoffs is 80 games is ludicrous. It’s supposed to mean something to make the playoffs I just don’t get it, turns from a seeding conversation to let’s turn it upside down and have a March Madness style playoff! The worst team in the league wins 50-60 games every year. The good teams don’t ALWAYS beat the bad, that’s why you’ve got 162 games to let the dust settle. As it’s been pointed out, baseball is fluky you can get swept or lose a 3 game series to a bad team in the regular season, happens every year (D-backs struggled vs Mil - CLE was 2-7 vs Houston - Rockies lose to Braves) we shouldn’t open the door for more of this to happen by expanding the playoffs to include less quality of teams. Again that’s why there’s a 162 games and the above teams took care of business the rest of the way. I guess put it up for vote, looking through the thread I count 7-8 people that like this idea and I don’t think that’s enough votes to implement the change. I would vote against as well as Texas, Car, Cle, LAD, ARZ?
I completely understand each and every point you make, i just don't feel strongly that any of them are bad.
"There’s plenty of rivalries right now. The most important is that they need to grow organically you can’t contrive or manufacture a rivalry. That only comes from two good teams going at it year-to-year. There simply aren’t enough good teams for all these “rivalries” you speak of. Minnesota is NOT a playoff team, to think the bench mark for reaching the playoffs is 80 games is ludicrous. It’s supposed to mean something to make the playoffs"
Playoff rivalries, playing the same few teams year after year. Trying to get over that divisional hump, i don't know, thats really appealing to me. More teams with a shot to make the playoffs mean more teams trying to make the playoffs, which might mean more quality teams.
"I just don’t get it, turns from a seeding conversation to let’s turn it upside down and have a March Madness style playoff! "
I just saw the conversation and stated my opinion on what my dream OOTP playoff would be.
"The worst team in the league wins 50-60 games every year. The good teams don’t ALWAYS beat the bad, that’s why you’ve got 162 games to let the dust settle. As it’s been pointed out, baseball is fluky you can get swept or lose a 3 game series to a bad team in the regular season, happens every year (D-backs struggled vs Mil - CLE was 2-7 vs Houston - Rockies lose to Braves) we shouldn’t open the door for more of this to happen by expanding the playoffs to include less quality of teams. Again that’s why there’s a 162 games and the above teams took care of business the rest of the way. "
That mindset suggests what's the point of having a playoff. Let the best record be the champion. Now, i'm exaggerating to make a point. Playoffs are playoffs. Luck, randomness all factor in. I think asking a team to win more games, beat more teams, would help the better teams win more often.
Regardless, its just an idea that i LOVE. That's all. I understand the arguments against it. I understand the purists. Trust me, i do, but man, that playoff setup sounds so amazing to me.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 4, 2019 16:38:50 GMT -5
Today's baseball is not the same baseball that was played in 1901. Baseball in 2050 WILL be different from baseball played in 2018. Expansion, contraction, rules, strategy, game play. It will be different. I say this only to counter any "purist" talk that some have alluded to or said.
Change happens, folks. You may not like it, it may not happen in the PBL but change happens. Don't fear change, embrace it.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Mar 4, 2019 18:49:56 GMT -5
I'm fine with realignment of divisions, however I do like 6 teams from each league making the playoffs. Any more than that is too many in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 4, 2019 20:17:21 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!! Sorry, tied up on the weekend, so just getting to this now.
No need to realign, just division winners in PBL. Then records. Bam!
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 4, 2019 20:28:23 GMT -5
Change happens, folks. You may not like it, it may not happen in the PBL but change happens. Don't fear change, embrace it. This made me (and my horse) chuckle!
|
|