MLB Playoffs Should Adopt The NFL Format
Comments (6)
Evan Longoria and the Rays would still be alive under my proposed system. (Keith Allison/Creative Commons)
First off, the one-game wildcard playoff is ridiculously unfair. The Atlanta Braves fought hard for 162 games. Why should their whole season come down to a single game, where anything could happen (and as we saw, a lot of crazy stuff did happen)? I realize the Braves were given the home-field advantage in the one-game playoff, but anyone who understands baseball knows even the best team in the game can lose to the worst team on any given night.
Since 1995, the best non-division-winning team was guaranteed a best-of-five series. That covenant was broken this year when the top two wild cards were forced into a one–game playoff. One game now can destroy a team’s championship hopes. It doesn’t matter that the Braves won six more games than the Cardinals during the regular season.
Of course, the Braves played miserable defense, which cost them dearly. I’m not disputing that. In addition, the Braves got ripped off by an incorrect infield fly ruling in a critical juncture of the game. All these things aside, in a sport/league that values endurance so heavily, one game should not have such a powerful impact. During the regular season, there are 162 games per team divided into a slew of three and four-game series, for the most part. That’s because baseball is a grind-it-out game. The best team will usually emerge victorious at the end of the series, but not always in the first game. But I digress.
Some writers and fans take issue with the fact that an extra wild card was allowed in this year. Adding extra teams is actually a good thing, given how much parity currently exists in the league. Below is my proposal for a new format for the major league playoffs. It will likely never be adopted, at least not any time soon, and I’ll explain why, but that won’t stop me from arguing why it would be the ideal solution for the teams and the game, as a whole.
Three wild card teams should make the postseason from each league. Not one, not two, but three. If this were adopted, the Orioles, Rangers and Rays would have all made the playoffs; same with the Braves, Cardinals and Dodgers. And none of this one-game playoff business. The Rays, for example, won 90 games (two more than the AL Central-winning Tigers), including 39 of their last 62 and 12 of their last 14. Despite all this, Tampa Bay was left on the outside looking in. The Tigers, however, benefit from playing in a poor division and were guaranteed a best-of-five series. In my proposed format, the Rays would have gotten in and been guaranteed a best of three.
Under this system, the Yankees would have earned a much-deserved bye. (Keith Allison/Creative Commons)
Re-seeding would have to occur. So for instance, if the Rays upset the Tigers in their best-of-three series, the AL team with the best record (the Yankees) would then face the worst seed remaining (the Rays) in the ALDS, while the second best division winner (the A’s) would face the other opening-round winner (the Rangers or Orioles).
I’m proposing an opening-round best of three, followed by everything that already occurs (four best-of-five divisional series, two best-of-seven championship series and a best-of-seven World Series).
Here’s a look at what how my proposal would have looked if it were adopted for this postseason:
AL Byes: (1) Yankees; (2) A’s
AL WC Round (Best of 3): Tigers (3) vs. Rays (6); Rangers (4) vs. Orioles (5)
ALDS (Best of 5): Yankees vs. Worst seed to advance past WC Round; A’s vs. Other remaining team to advance past WC Round.
ALCS (Best of 7): The winner of each ALDS face off for a trip to the World Series.
NL Byes: (1) Nationals; (2) Reds
NL WC Round (Best of 3): Giants (3) vs. Dodgers (6); Braves (4) vs. Cardinals (5)
NLDS (Best of 5): Nationals vs. Worst seed to advance past WC Round; Reds vs. Other remaining team to advance past WC Round.
NLCS (Best of 7): The winner of each NLDS play for a World Series berth.
Why my proposal will never be adopted, at least not any time soon:
1.) Traditionalists don’t want more teams in the playoffs, so three wild cards will be seen as way too much (one or two wild cards is too much for many of them already). Baseball has always been elitist in terms of determining who makes the playoffs. From 1969-1993, only two teams made the postseason from each league. Holding on to antiquated (and obsolete, if I may) traditions is understandable. People are sentimental about their baseball, but this is ridiculous. There is so much parity in the league, and rewarding six teams from each league is more than fair. That’s still only 12 of the 30 teams getting in. By comparison, the NBA has more than half of its teams make the playoffs.
2.) It will be argued that the season is too long already, and that a best-of-three round would only make the long season even longer. That’s true and a way better point than the first one I raised (traditionalists, get out of here!). If I had any say, I would shorten the regular season to 154 games or so. With that said, that’ll never happen, because statistics are central to baseball and 162 games have been played for far too long. Even so, a best-of-three series wouldn’t even add that much more time to the season. Yeah, I understand the season is long as it is, but using a one-game playoff causes much more harm than it does good. A best of three is needed, because as I alluded to earlier, anything can happen in one game. A single game is not a fair indicator of which team is better.
3.) Finally, my proposed system could disadvantage the top two division-winning teams if you believe in rust. Each of the four division-winning teams (two from each league) would not be competing as they await their opponent. None of the major American sports league award byes for entire series. Yes, rust is a possibility, but the added rest could also serve as a huge benefit given how long and arduous the regular season is. It could provide these teams with a much-needed opportunity to rest their starting pitchers, as well as the remainder of the players' tired legs.
I know my proposal seems crazy, but if adopted it would solve nearly every problem teams, fans and journalists have with the current system. My proposal won’t be adopted any time soon, but I’d love to hear why I’m so wrong about its merits…or why I’m so right. Let me hear it!
Reach Senior Sports Editor Aaron Fischman here or follow him on Twitter.
Comments
I feel you, Jabroni Jones. This was interesting yo. A one game wildcard playoff is unfair. Baseball is about coming in day in and day out and taking care of bitness. What if yo best playa cum to the park with diarrhea on the day of yo 1 gm wildcard like Josh Hamilton and the Rangers dis yr? Could you hit a curveball with d-juice in your jock? Anyway even dough the Braves and Range Rovers got home-field advantage, anything can still happen in 1 game and that is not in the spirit of America's pastime. Furthermore, keep yo pimp hands strongish, MLB playoff reform advocates!
I'm in the #2 camp of the list of reasons it won't be adopted.
You're also forgetting travel time, home-field advantage, play-in games, etc. This is the first season that they've added an extra team/game. It's far from perfect, yes. If you're saying any team can beat any team on any given night, then you're discounting the long season of baseball, and just kind of giving in to the whole "get hot in September and you can be a WS winner" idea.
I respect your proposed postseason format, but just making the Wild Card play-in game into a three-game series would be a better option.
Also, the rust thing - look at how the Cinderella Rockies team and how hot they were heading into the WS waiting for the ALCS then cooled off because of the long wait. Depending on travel schedule and play-in games, a division winner can be waiting for up to 4-5 days.
Thanks a lot for reading and for giving feedback. The one place where I lost you was your counter to my "any team can beat any team on any given night" point. I'm not discounting the long season of baseball. I'm doing the total opposite of that by saying that the 162-game grind should not be thrown in the trash by relying so heavily on the one-game playoff. Rather, the current system is "discounting the long season of baseball" by leaving both of the wild cards' playoff lives to one single game. It cheapens the 162 games.
In fact, I'm saying the opposite of what you said. The better, more deserving team is WAY more likely to emerge from a best-of-three series. On the other hand, in a one-game playoff (and in any field where you limit the sample size; in this case, from 2/3 games to 1), chance and luck are much more powerful, because it's only one game. Things typically even out over a larger sample of games.
Interesting read but I'm happy you're not the commissioner. I like the idea of a 3 game wild card battle but that would be too time consuming and would be a disadvantage to division winners because of rust. Also the idea behind the wildcard one game playoff is to give the team a disadvantage. Ideally for your system to work, we would need 4 divisions like football but baseball only has three. The problem with the old system was winning the wildcard was basically equal to winning a division and it shouldn't be that way. I feel sorry for the braves but as Ken Rosenthal said the Braves committed 3 errors, were 1 for 6 with risp and after the questionable "infield" fly ball, the next batter was walked. The braves had 3 straight innings of bases loaded or at least someone on third and they choked.
I'm happy with the playoff format for now at least but everyone agrees once the Yankees lose in the one game playoff, the MLB will probably make it into a 3 game series.
You raise some very good points. Just to address one of those now: You're right that the one-game playoff was put in place to disadvantage the wild cards, and I understand that. My proposal also disadvantages the wild cards (and the worst division winner) by making them play an extra round. As I explain, two of the best three division winners in each league would be rewarded with a bye.
My proposed system does NOT make "winning the wild card basically equal to winning a division." In fact, it keeps these new obstacles in place for the wild card, but makes sure the wild cards' playoff lives don't hinge on one stinking game. Anything can happy in one game. Sports always involves chance and luck, but moving to a three-game series would eliminate a lot of that chance and luck.
I'm not buying the rust argument that one person said. All things being equal, a first-round bye would benefit the teams receiving it.
Finally, the Braves clearly did not help themselves last night. That's not what this article's about. Of course, Atlanta should've taken care of business and that's largely their fault, but I'm trying to prevent future problems with the system. As I continue to argue, a one-game playoff isn't a fair indicator of which team is better, especially after 162 games. Even if the better-record team (the Braves) won last night, I still would have written that this system is unfair. The one-game playoff makes the fact that the Braves finished six games better than the Cardinals completely useless.