MLB 2019 Offseason Thread

[pr0ner]

That is a terrible idea and anyone responsible for coming up with it should be publically shamed.

[Lorini]

Apparently this is being done to stop the tanking. If so, I'd expect that the MLBPA will come on board with these changes.

[Isgrimnur]

You want to stop tanking? Start relegation.

[stessier]

That is a terrible idea and anyone responsible for coming up with it should be publically shamed.

What's terrible about it specifically? Or is this just an old man yelling at the clouds?

I'm intrigued and am willing to subscribe to their newsletter.

[pr0ner]

That is a terrible idea and anyone responsible for coming up with it should be publically shamed.

What's terrible about it specifically? Or is this just an old man yelling at the clouds?

I'm intrigued and am willing to subscribe to their newsletter.

The fact that this opens up baseball to the possibility of teams that are near/at/below .500 to make the playoffs is terrible and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

As is letting teams pick who they want to play.

[Isgrimnur]

SB Nation, worst NFL Playoff Teams.

2010 Seattle Seahawks, 7-9
2014 Carolina Panthers, 7-8-1

[pr0ner]

SB Nation, worst NFL Playoff Teams.

2010 Seattle Seahawks, 7-9
2014 Carolina Panthers, 7-8-1

And sub .500 teams make the playoffs in the NHL (W/L percentage, not points percentage) and NBA all the time.

Just because it happens in other sports doesn't mean it should happen in MLB, where 100 win teams have missed the playoffs before because it's always been so hard to make the playoffs by design.

[stessier]

Ah, so old man yelling at clouds.

This will make sure 100 win teams don't miss the playoffs. And teams picking their competition is fun. Heaven forbid we get that from a league that is losing fans every year! So what if a sub .500 team makes the playoffs. It's a story, they get bounced. Or they don't and they win it all. So what - they still had to play the games.

[El Guapo]

Ah, so old man yelling at clouds.

This will make sure 100 win teams don't miss the playoffs. And teams picking their competition is fun. Heaven forbid we get that from a league that is losing fans every year! So what if a sub .500 team makes the playoffs. It's a story, they get bounced. Or they don't and they win it all. So what - they still had to play the games.

If the 100 win team thing is the problem, why not just get rid of divisions and just have the top 8 (or what have you) teams in each league make the playoffs?

[stessier]

Ah, so old man yelling at clouds.

This will make sure 100 win teams don't miss the playoffs. And teams picking their competition is fun. Heaven forbid we get that from a league that is losing fans every year! So what if a sub .500 team makes the playoffs. It's a story, they get bounced. Or they don't and they win it all. So what - they still had to play the games.

If the 100 win team thing is the problem, why not just get rid of divisions and just have the top 8 (or what have you) teams in each league make the playoffs?

I'd be for that as well - especially if they keep the ability to pick the competition in the playoffs.

[pr0ner]

Ah, so old man yelling at clouds.

This will make sure 100 win teams don't miss the playoffs. And teams picking their competition is fun. Heaven forbid we get that from a league that is losing fans every year! So what if a sub .500 team makes the playoffs. It's a story, they get bounced. Or they don't and they win it all. So what - they still had to play the games.

A 100 win team won't miss the playoffs in its current form. This proposed expansion has nothing to do with protecting elite teams and everything to do with giving hope to mediocre teams.

[ImLawBoy]

You want to stop tanking? Start relegation.

We've already talked about how that is impossible in MLB.

This whole plan seems convoluted and silly, but I'm someone who'd prefer four divisions per league, unbalanced schedules (more teams within your division, but equal number outside your division), no interleague play, and no wild cards. Win 100 games but don't win your division? Enjoy your early vacation.

[El Guapo]

You want to stop tanking? Start relegation.

We've already talked about how that is impossible in MLB.

This whole plan seems convoluted and silly, but I'm someone who'd prefer four divisions per league, unbalanced schedules (more teams within your division, but equal number outside your division), no interleague play, and no wild cards. Win 100 games but don't win your division? Enjoy your early vacation.

We came so close to my dream scenario under the current format - for the Yankees to win 100+ games, not win the AL East, and lose the one game wild card matchup. Unfortunately the Twins or As or whoever it was blew it.

[ImLawBoy]

You want to stop tanking? Start relegation.

We've already talked about how that is impossible in MLB.

This whole plan seems convoluted and silly, but I'm someone who'd prefer four divisions per league, unbalanced schedules (more teams within your division, but equal number outside your division), no interleague play, and no wild cards. Win 100 games but don't win your division? Enjoy your early vacation.

We came so close to my dream scenario under the current format - for the Yankees to win 100+ games, not win the AL East, and lose the one game wild card matchup. Unfortunately the Twins or As or whoever it was blew it.

If you're going to have the wild card, I like the one game format for it. It puts a real penalty on a team for not winning its division.

[Jaymann]

Ah, so old man yelling at clouds.

This will make sure 100 win teams don't miss the playoffs. And teams picking their competition is fun. Heaven forbid we get that from a league that is losing fans every year! So what if a sub .500 team makes the playoffs. It's a story, they get bounced. Or they don't and they win it all. So what - they still had to play the games.

If the 100 win team thing is the problem, why not just get rid of divisions and just have the top 8 (or what have you) teams in each league make the playoffs?

Then you could hold a home run derby to determine the playoff seeding.

[Isgrimnur]

You want to stop tanking? Start relegation.

We've already talked about how that is impossible in MLB.

Yeah, but it's been like eight years.

[stessier]

This proposed expansion has nothing to do with protecting elite teams and everything to do with giving hope to mediocre teams.

Excellent! Where do I sign up?

[Lorini]

This proposed expansion has nothing to do with protecting elite teams and everything to do with giving hope to mediocre teams.

Excellent! Where do I sign up?

Exactly! Fans are tired of their teams throwing away good players because they can't get into the playoffs. And the teams being either completely top heavy (Dodgers/Yankees/Astros et al) or not even trying (too many to name it seems). This way more fans have more to root for and I'm all for that. None of the other leagues that allow sub .500 teams to get to the playoffs seem to have been hurt from it, both the NFL and particularly the NBA have seen more fan engagement and more fans period. I'm 1000% in favor even though the Dodgers will have less to choose from come trade deadline time as more teams will keep their good players.

[Octavious]

I hate that with the power of a thousand suns. I think the structure they have right now is a good balance between the old and the new. I don't see why you would play 162 games and have almost half the teams make the playoffs. I really doubt any of this happens it's just too dumb.

[Lorini]

I would say it's going to happen because the players union wants it to happen and MLB wants it to happen. They don't poll the fans so who will stop it?

[pr0ner]

I would say it's going to happen because the players union wants it to happen and MLB wants it to happen. They don't poll the fans so who will stop it?

The comments I've seen from players on Twitter are unanimously against the proposal. Where have you seen otherwise?

[pr0ner]

This proposed expansion has nothing to do with protecting elite teams and everything to do with giving hope to mediocre teams.

Excellent! Where do I sign up?

Is that because you only want the Red Sox to have more chances to make the playoffs as they flounder about, or because you genuinely think an 80-82 team deserves to make the playoffs?

[Lorini]

I would say it's going to happen because the players union wants it to happen and MLB wants it to happen. They don't poll the fans so who will stop it?

The comments I've seen from players on Twitter are unanimously against the proposal. Where have you seen otherwise?

The head of the players union, so if they are against it, they better let him know.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/286 ... r-teams-14

"Expanding the playoffs in a sensible way is something worth discussing when part of a much more comprehensive conversation about the current state of our game," union head Tony Clark said in a statement."

ie he's certainly not against it. And naturally the big money players are against it because they will almost certainly get less money with a less top heavy structure. Anyone ask the minor leaguers or other second tier players?

[stessier]

This proposed expansion has nothing to do with protecting elite teams and everything to do with giving hope to mediocre teams.

Excellent! Where do I sign up?

Is that because you only want the Red Sox to have more chances to make the playoffs as they flounder about, or because you genuinely think an 80-82 team deserves to make the playoffs?

No one "deserves" to make the playoffs. There are rules that determines who makes the playoffs. Change doesn't scare me as it apparently does for so many people, so I'm fine with seeing where this one goes. I think giving more teams hope is an excellent idea to preserve a sport that can't seem to attract new fans.

[El Guapo]

This proposed expansion has nothing to do with protecting elite teams and everything to do with giving hope to mediocre teams.

Excellent! Where do I sign up?

Is that because you only want the Red Sox to have more chances to make the playoffs as they flounder about, or because you genuinely think an 80-82 team deserves to make the playoffs?

No one "deserves" to make the playoffs. There are rules that determines who makes the playoffs. Change doesn't scare me as it apparently does for so many people, so I'm fine with seeing where this one goes. I think giving more teams hope is an excellent idea to preserve a sport that can't seem to attract new fans.

But yes, now that the Red Sox are apparently a small market team, I want mediocre teams to be able to make the playoffs.

[pr0ner]

This proposed expansion has nothing to do with protecting elite teams and everything to do with giving hope to mediocre teams.

Excellent! Where do I sign up?

Is that because you only want the Red Sox to have more chances to make the playoffs as they flounder about, or because you genuinely think an 80-82 team deserves to make the playoffs?

No one "deserves" to make the playoffs. There are rules that determines who makes the playoffs. Change doesn't scare me as it apparently does for so many people, so I'm fine with seeing where this one goes. I think giving more teams hope is an excellent idea to preserve a sport that can't seem to attract new fans.

I know there are rules. I'm saying, and a lot of other people are saying, that there shouldn't be rules that enable sub .500 teams, after a 162 game season, the opportunity to make the MLB playoffs.

I would say it's going to happen because the players union wants it to happen and MLB wants it to happen. They don't poll the fans so who will stop it?

The comments I've seen from players on Twitter are unanimously against the proposal. Where have you seen otherwise?

The head of the players union, so if they are against it, they better let him know.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/286 ... r-teams-14

"Expanding the playoffs in a sensible way is something worth discussing when part of a much more comprehensive conversation about the current state of our game," union head Tony Clark said in a statement."

ie he's certainly not against it. And naturally the big money players are against it because they will almost certainly get less money with a less top heavy structure. Anyone ask the minor leaguers or other second tier players?

I don't think money is the reason why players like Trevor Bauer are trashing the idea. The top end players are going to get paid regardless of how many teams make the playoffs.

Also, I would not see Tony Clark's statement as being in support of *this* particular proposal. He's open to talks about expansion, but he's not endorsing this idea specifically.

[ImLawBoy]

Change doesn't scare me as it apparently does for so many people, so I'm fine with seeing where this one goes.

What a cop out. Just dismiss arguments against the plan as fear of change.

[stessier]

Change doesn't scare me as it apparently does for so many people, so I'm fine with seeing where this one goes.

What a cop out. Just dismiss arguments against the plan as fear of change.

What can I say? That's what I see it as.

I don't find the sub .500 argument as meaningful. The cutoff rules are arbitrary to start with, so saying a sub .500 team is less worthy seems foolish to me. If they win in the playoffs, they automatically are worthy. If they aren't worthy, they will lose. Plenty of 100 win teams have been unworthy.

[ImLawBoy]

Change doesn't scare me as it apparently does for so many people, so I'm fine with seeing where this one goes.

What a cop out. Just dismiss arguments against the plan as fear of change.

What can I say? That's what I see it as.

I don't find the sub .500 argument as meaningful. The cutoff rules are arbitrary to start with, so saying a sub .500 team is less worthy seems foolish to me. If they win in the playoffs, they automatically are worthy. If they aren't worthy, they will lose. Plenty of 100 win teams have been unworthy.

Then you're being myopic. By automatically dismissing any arguments against as fear of change, you make it much less likely someone will want to engage in a discussion with you. I would hope you'd have enough respect for the people on the forum to at least listen to and consider their arguments. Or should I just dismiss your thoughts on the subject as fear of engaging in real discussion?

[stessier]

I know there are rules. I'm saying, and a lot of other people are saying, that there shouldn't be rules that enable sub .500 teams, after a 162 game season, the opportunity to make the MLB playoffs.

You're right - the season is way too long. It should be 144 games - possibly as few as 120. We sure as heck don't need division opponents playing each other 19x each year. Anyway we can roll that change in to the package?

The sport is failing to attract new fans. It needs to change radically if it wants to continue. Giving hope can help retain interest. Letting teams pick their opponents will spark interest and coverage. Shortening the season might help - sure can't hurt.

[El Guapo]

I know there are rules. I'm saying, and a lot of other people are saying, that there shouldn't be rules that enable sub .500 teams, after a 162 game season, the opportunity to make the MLB playoffs.

You're right - the season is way too long. It should be 144 games - possibly as few as 120. We sure as heck don't need division opponents playing each other 19x each year. Anyway we can roll that change in to the package?

The sport is failing to attract new fans. It needs to change radically if it wants to continue. Giving hope can help retain interest. Letting teams pick their opponents will spark interest and coverage. Shortening the season might help - sure can't hurt.

This isn't inconsistent with playoff changes, but they should also mandate a salary floor, as well as a salary cap / tax.

[Jaymann]

Owners will never vote for a shorter season. Players won't either if it means a cut in pay.

[Isgrimnur]

I look forward to seeing who is crowned the first Mr. November.

[stessier]

Change doesn't scare me as it apparently does for so many people, so I'm fine with seeing where this one goes.

What a cop out. Just dismiss arguments against the plan as fear of change.

What can I say? That's what I see it as.

I don't find the sub .500 argument as meaningful. The cutoff rules are arbitrary to start with, so saying a sub .500 team is less worthy seems foolish to me. If they win in the playoffs, they automatically are worthy. If they aren't worthy, they will lose. Plenty of 100 win teams have been unworthy.

Then you're being myopic. By automatically dismissing any arguments against as fear of change, you make it much less likely someone will want to engage in a discussion with you. I would hope you'd have enough respect for the people on the forum to at least listen to and consider their arguments. Or should I just dismiss your thoughts on the subject as fear of engaging in real discussion?

I think I've addressed the one point that has been presented, right there in the post you quote if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen anything else presented (although I admit to skimming El Guapo's posts).

Do you dispute that fear can be a reason people resist change? Why is it wrong to make them address the possibility?

[Scuzz]

ESPN

Major League Baseball is mulling significant changes to its postseason, including increasing the number of teams from 10 to 14 and adding a reality-TV-type format to determine which teams play each other in an expanded wild-card round, sources told ESPN.

MLB is considering a move in which each league would have three division winners and four wild-card teams make the postseason, sources said. The best team in the league would receive a bye into the division series. The two remaining division winners and the wild-card team with the best record of the four would each host all games of a best-of-three series in the opening round.

The potential changes were first reported by the New York Post.

Once the teams clinch and the regular season ends, the plan gets congested:

• The division winner with the second-best record would select its wild-card opponent from the three wild-card winners not hosting a series.
• The division winner with the worst record would then choose its opponent from the remaining two wild-card teams.
• The final matchup would pit the wild-card winner with the best record against the wild-card team not yet chosen.
• All of the selections, sources said, would be unveiled live on television the Sunday night of the final regular-season games.

Please don't increase the playoff teams. And back to the world of best of three.

[pr0ner]

The argument is that a 7-team playoff in each league makes it much more likely sub .500 teams make the playoffs (2 would have in the American League in 2017, 1 from the NL in 2016, and 2 from the NL in 2014), and people aren't fans of that idea.

[The Meal]

I'm a fair-weather MLB fan. "My" pro sport is the NHL. If "my" sport considered making such a significant change to its playoff structure (i.e., instead of 16 playoff teams, expand the post-season by 40% to 22 teams), I'd go crazy. I get why folks who are big league fans of the MLB don't like this one bit.

But as a casual fan, I do like it. MLB's lack of a salary cap means that teams know from very early on that they're not going to be competitive. And you see management of those teams sitting back and not pushing to move the franchise towards even a post-season attempt. Wasn't it just a year or two ago that everyone was putting the big FAs into a small handful of teams?

Expanding from 10 to 14 teams means fewer teams in the muddled middle and more opportunity for teams to compete for those last few post-season berths. Nothing changes at the tail end of the distribution (an expected 60-win team isn't suddenly going to "go for it" at a shot of coming in 14th place), but teams near the middle of the distribution suddenly "have a shot" at doing some post-season damage. MLB isn't like the NHL in how much unexpected stuff can happen in the post-season (no pro league in North America compares to hockey in this regard), but getting into the post-season does mean more gate and more eyeballs on your team at worst, and even being "in the hunt" come September likely means a boost in attendance and attention.

NHL has talked about the "pick your opponent" perk for better-seeded teams in the post-season. From the fan's point of view, there's a ton to love, but from the players, owners, and team management perspective, there's absolutely no upside to making this change. Second guessing the choice of opponent once a team loses is going to come with a whole lot of Monday morning QBing and questioning accountability. It's fun especially for the casual fan. For diehards, it doesn't hold nearly the same appeal (though the stigma goes away if all the pro leagues start doing it).

I do tend to pay attention to the MLB post-season already, but tuning into the opponent-selection show would be fascinating.

[Scuzz]

I know there are rules. I'm saying, and a lot of other people are saying, that there shouldn't be rules that enable sub .500 teams, after a 162 game season, the opportunity to make the MLB playoffs.

You're right - the season is way too long. It should be 144 games - possibly as few as 120. We sure as heck don't need division opponents playing each other 19x each year. Anyway we can roll that change in to the package?

The sport is failing to attract new fans. It needs to change radically if it wants to continue. Giving hope can help retain interest. Letting teams pick their opponents will spark interest and coverage. Shortening the season might help - sure can't hurt.

This isn't inconsistent with playoff changes, but they should also mandate a salary floor, as well as a salary cap / tax.

I thought baseball had a salary floor, or maybe that is football. But yes, there should be something like that.

[ImLawBoy]

Change doesn't scare me as it apparently does for so many people, so I'm fine with seeing where this one goes.

What a cop out. Just dismiss arguments against the plan as fear of change.

What can I say? That's what I see it as.

I don't find the sub .500 argument as meaningful. The cutoff rules are arbitrary to start with, so saying a sub .500 team is less worthy seems foolish to me. If they win in the playoffs, they automatically are worthy. If they aren't worthy, they will lose. Plenty of 100 win teams have been unworthy.

Then you're being myopic. By automatically dismissing any arguments against as fear of change, you make it much less likely someone will want to engage in a discussion with you. I would hope you'd have enough respect for the people on the forum to at least listen to and consider their arguments. Or should I just dismiss your thoughts on the subject as fear of engaging in real discussion?

I think I've addressed the one point that has been presented, right there in the post you quote if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen anything else presented (although I admit to skimming El Guapo's posts).

Do you dispute that fear can be a reason people resist change? Why is it wrong to make them address the possibility?

Of course fear can make people resist change. It's absurd to even ask that question, as no one is denying it. You've heard a well reasoned opinion on why the the change might be bad. You disagree with it and offer a counter. That's fine. Then you dismiss it as fearing change. That's insulting. Why am I going to bother with other arguments if I'll be insulted as fearing change regardless of how sound my argument is?

[El Guapo]

Change doesn't scare me as it apparently does for so many people, so I'm fine with seeing where this one goes.

What a cop out. Just dismiss arguments against the plan as fear of change.

What can I say? That's what I see it as.

I don't find the sub .500 argument as meaningful. The cutoff rules are arbitrary to start with, so saying a sub .500 team is less worthy seems foolish to me. If they win in the playoffs, they automatically are worthy. If they aren't worthy, they will lose. Plenty of 100 win teams have been unworthy.

Then you're being myopic. By automatically dismissing any arguments against as fear of change, you make it much less likely someone will want to engage in a discussion with you. I would hope you'd have enough respect for the people on the forum to at least listen to and consider their arguments. Or should I just dismiss your thoughts on the subject as fear of engaging in real discussion?

I think I've addressed the one point that has been presented, right there in the post you quote if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen anything else presented (although I admit to skimming El Guapo's posts).

Do you dispute that fear can be a reason people resist change? Why is it wrong to make them address the possibility?

Should I be offended? I feel like I should be offended.