Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MLB/MLBPA reach agreement on post season bubble sites

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MLB/MLBPA reach agreement on post season bubble sites

    Discuss.

    https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/sta...821334537?s=20

  • #2
    Interesting and probably for the best. Flying teams all over the country several times a week and having them stay in hotels they don't have control over as much would be risky. It's why we had the reduced schedule with teams closer to home cities.

    It will be sad not seeing GRF in the World Series, but it is what it is.
    Riding Shotgun on the Sox Bandwagon since before there was an Internet...



    Comment


    • #3
      At least they won't be playing the World Series during a Chicago snowstorm.

      Comment


      • #4
        Air quality can be a concern in SoCal if these wildfires don't let up. Hopefully they're working on a back up plan.

        Comment


        • #5
          My oldest son lives in San Diego. His office is next to and looks right into Petco Park -- perfect view of the field. He has gone into his office several times since August and has sat on his office's balcony and watched the Padres games. If the Sox make the playoffs (I'm trying to avoid any jinxes!) and get sent to the San Diego bubble, there's a good chance I'll go out there and watch the games live.

          2020 Sox Attendance Tracker: 0-0
          All-time Sox Attendance Tracker: 286-247
          Posts on old WSI: 7344

          Comment


          • #6
            They should just play the whole thing in Omaha.

            Really, though, this isn't at all good for the teams that win their divisions. The early series are short enough, especially on neutral sites, that expanding the postseason to the ridiculous extreme of 53 percent of MLB, only the teams that could scrape by at barely .500 to get into the tournament (can everyone now accept that this is what the 2020 postseason has become?) could win compete in this bracket.

            If your team would qualify under the division winners plus the winner of a wild-card play-in, this postseason works to your team's disadvantage.

            Comment


            • #7
              I have no issues with the plan--it's the right decision.

              But it's kind of a shame that the Sox--with their offense--will have to play all of their games in these big, pitcher-friendly parks (if they make it through the first round).

              Comment


              • #8
                These negotiations seem to have gone a lot more smoothly than the negotiations about how long the 2020 season would be. Hopefully that bodes well for CBA talks.
                "Hope...may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources...but those who stake their all upon the venture see it in its true colors only after they are ruined."
                -- Thucydides

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Los Angeles venue is the only one that bothers me. If the Sox win the #1 seed that makes it moot.

                  https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2020-po...dule-announced

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Unfortunately, Manfred thinks the expanded playoffs will be permanent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by thomas35forever View Post
                      Unfortunately, Manfred thinks the expanded playoffs will be permanent.
                      Playing a 162 game schedule then forcing the teams that won their divisions to face a .500 team in a 3-game do or die playoff series is a bad idea. No other sport does it that way. The NBA used to have a 3-game first round series but then expanded it to 5 but even that was too short and allowed too many first round exits of higher seeds so they expanded it again to 7. You want more teams in the playoffs, shorten the season by 2 weeks and play all 7-game series.
                      Riding Shotgun on the Sox Bandwagon since before there was an Internet...



                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by voodoochile View Post

                        Playing a 162 game schedule then forcing the teams that won their divisions to face a .500 team in a 3-game do or die playoff series is a bad idea. No other sport does it that way. The NBA used to have a 3-game first round series but then expanded it to 5 but even that was too short and allowed too many first round exits of higher seeds so they expanded it again to 7. You want more teams in the playoffs, shorten the season by 2 weeks and play all 7-game series.
                        I agree, and I think this will likely happen. Really, there's nothing you can learn about a team in 162 games that you can't learn in 140.

                        I still think the 6-team model is the best, with the top 2 seeds getting a bye, and the next 4 playing a 3-game series in the higher seed's park (3rd division winner automatically gets the 3 seed). But a full extra round of playoffs means more money (for both owners and players), so the 8-team format will likely stick.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by thomas35forever View Post
                          Unfortunately, Manfred thinks the expanded playoffs will be permanent.
                          Manfred's exile from baseball should be permanent.

                          This year, the division races are irrelevant. If people care about them, it's only from habit about caring about them in past seasons. Expansion of the postseason has rendered division races moot, especially this year with the neutral-site tournament and many teams facing each other for the first time in 2020. The difference between winning the division and making the postseason at around .500 is that the division winner gets to bat last in a potential deciding game. There are teams with losing records that could have a strong rookie pitcher who could totally shut down a division champ that has never faced him. In major league baseball the bad teams lose a lot of one-run games that could go either way on a given day.

                          It isn't that a best-of-three series is unfair if it pits, after a 162-game season, a division winner against a team that struggled throughout the season and never seriously contended. Shorten the season to 140 games and it's unfair to run that series at five or seven games. The champions accomplished so much more, went through so much more in their championship quest. Over the course of the season, the teams that have no business playing for the championship distinguish themselves as such. That doesn't mean that suddenly thrust into a postseason environment, they couldn't win games, for a variety of reasons. They often haven't left as much on the field in an effort to win, but they could elevate their game in a suddenly attainable championship setting.

                          When baseball went to three divisions and a wild card, there were cases where two teams battling for a division went from championship mode to setting up for the postseason in the last week because both teams had clinched postseason spots. (You know it's in the public record. Don't make me look it up.) Teams coasted at the end, even wild cards. Adding the wild card play-in game improved the postseason field, not simply by expanding the wild-card race, but by making the wild card prove it deserved to be there. In 2014, the A's were fading after Billy Beane stupidly traded from his lineup for pitching he believed would put them over the top, but they couldn't go from having the league's best record in August to a postseason series because the play-in game allowed the surging Royals to eliminate them.

                          The 2014 series points to the heroic potential of the wild-card play-in put into the division-winner mix, but it also hints at the potential for teams that earned a chance to play for the championship during the regular season to be denied with a more random tournament. Two wild card teams breezed through their respective league series to face each other in the World Series. Both the Royals and Giants had heroic runs, the Royals with a shut-down bullpen, contact hitting and speed on the bases and the Giants with superior starting pitching and contact hitting. The World Series went seven games, and the Giants won with their starter who shut out the Pirates in the play-in game, coming in with short rest from a shutout of the Royals in Game 5 to shut out the Royals for the last five innings of the 3-2 Game 7 win. It was the Giants third championship in five seasons, but it had to do less with the total team effort of the previous two (and the Royals' 2014 and 2015 successes) than the dominance of Madison Bumgarner's postseason run.

                          Such a run can come out of nowhere, whether it's a state high school championship, an NCAA championship (Google Greg Ellena and check out his 1985 College World Series exploits, including Bobby Thigpen's last game for Mississippi State). In the history of Major League Baseball, there have been players who have dominated postseasons. But their teams had enough to win a divisional title or be an elite team that finished just short and had to earn an exclusive spot in the mix. As much as you might fantasize about Dick Allen and Wilbur Wood dominating the 1972 postseason and winning the World Series (and obviously they would have been a wild card if such things existed that season as they finished an overall second in the 12-team league), they ended up finishing second to what would be a dynasty team that had proven itself superior. On the other hand, the Marlins in 2003 had a better record than the Cubs, playing in another division, and demonstrated that they were the better team.

                          Expand the postseason, and you end up with a tournament champion rather than a season champion. This season, with the neutral sites and so many teams not having faced each other this year, it feels more like the College World Series than an MLB postseason that culminates in the World Series. The World Series used to mean a championship season, not simply a championship tournament run. The difference affects the quality of the regular season. Adding a second-place team from each division and a couple more wild cards and putting them equal-for-for-homefield footing with division winners in a postseaon tournament doesn't determine a championship for a sport that spends six months to determine a championship.

                          But if you follow a mediocre team, this is all good. Even if your team is eliminated early, at least it got the participation ribbon.

                          More postseason doesn't mean more people will watch baseball, but that might be lost in this forum where people are watching baseball regardless.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            IIRC the MLBPA will have to sign off on any future amendements to the CBA, including a permenent playoff structure modification? Am I wrong?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TDog View Post

                              Manfred's exile from baseball should be permanent.

                              This year, the division races are irrelevant. If people care about them, it's only from habit about caring about them in past seasons. Expansion of the postseason has rendered division races moot, especially this year with the neutral-site tournament and many teams facing each other for the first time in 2020. The difference between winning the division and making the postseason at around .500 is that the division winner gets to bat last in a potential deciding game. There are teams with losing records that could have a strong rookie pitcher who could totally shut down a division champ that has never faced him. In major league baseball the bad teams lose a lot of one-run games that could go either way on a given day.

                              It isn't that a best-of-three series is unfair if it pits, after a 162-game season, a division winner against a team that struggled throughout the season and never seriously contended. Shorten the season to 140 games and it's unfair to run that series at five or seven games. The champions accomplished so much more, went through so much more in their championship quest. Over the course of the season, the teams that have no business playing for the championship distinguish themselves as such. That doesn't mean that suddenly thrust into a postseason environment, they couldn't win games, for a variety of reasons. They often haven't left as much on the field in an effort to win, but they could elevate their game in a suddenly attainable championship setting.

                              When baseball went to three divisions and a wild card, there were cases where two teams battling for a division went from championship mode to setting up for the postseason in the last week because both teams had clinched postseason spots. (You know it's in the public record. Don't make me look it up.) Teams coasted at the end, even wild cards. Adding the wild card play-in game improved the postseason field, not simply by expanding the wild-card race, but by making the wild card prove it deserved to be there. In 2014, the A's were fading after Billy Beane stupidly traded from his lineup for pitching he believed would put them over the top, but they couldn't go from having the league's best record in August to a postseason series because the play-in game allowed the surging Royals to eliminate them.

                              The 2014 series points to the heroic potential of the wild-card play-in put into the division-winner mix, but it also hints at the potential for teams that earned a chance to play for the championship during the regular season to be denied with a more random tournament. Two wild card teams breezed through their respective league series to face each other in the World Series. Both the Royals and Giants had heroic runs, the Royals with a shut-down bullpen, contact hitting and speed on the bases and the Giants with superior starting pitching and contact hitting. The World Series went seven games, and the Giants won with their starter who shut out the Pirates in the play-in game, coming in with short rest from a shutout of the Royals in Game 5 to shut out the Royals for the last five innings of the 3-2 Game 7 win. It was the Giants third championship in five seasons, but it had to do less with the total team effort of the previous two (and the Royals' 2014 and 2015 successes) than the dominance of Madison Bumgarner's postseason run.

                              Such a run can come out of nowhere, whether it's a state high school championship, an NCAA championship (Google Greg Ellena and check out his 1985 College World Series exploits, including Bobby Thigpen's last game for Mississippi State). In the history of Major League Baseball, there have been players who have dominated postseasons. But their teams had enough to win a divisional title or be an elite team that finished just short and had to earn an exclusive spot in the mix. As much as you might fantasize about Dick Allen and Wilbur Wood dominating the 1972 postseason and winning the World Series (and obviously they would have been a wild card if such things existed that season as they finished an overall second in the 12-team league), they ended up finishing second to what would be a dynasty team that had proven itself superior. On the other hand, the Marlins in 2003 had a better record than the Cubs, playing in another division, and demonstrated that they were the better team.

                              Expand the postseason, and you end up with a tournament champion rather than a season champion. This season, with the neutral sites and so many teams not having faced each other this year, it feels more like the College World Series than an MLB postseason that culminates in the World Series. The World Series used to mean a championship season, not simply a championship tournament run. The difference affects the quality of the regular season. Adding a second-place team from each division and a couple more wild cards and putting them equal-for-for-homefield footing with division winners in a postseaon tournament doesn't determine a championship for a sport that spends six months to determine a championship.

                              But if you follow a mediocre team, this is all good. Even if your team is eliminated early, at least it got the participation ribbon.

                              More postseason doesn't mean more people will watch baseball, but that might be lost in this forum where people are watching baseball regardless.
                              This is why if they do this, the opening series needs to be 7 games. If you're a #1 seed and you can't beat the #8 seed 4 out of 7 games, you don't deserve the championship. I agree the 3-game series or even a 5-game series leaves to much to randomness. But winning the World Series has never only been just about putting together the best regular season, otherwise they would just crown the team with the best regular season record the champion. You need to perform on the field when it counts the most, and that's during the pressure of the playoffs.

                              I don't think expanded playoffs are going to lead to a lot of 7-8 seeds winning the World Series, but it will probably lead to some 1-2 seeds going down in the first round, and if that happens I say they don't deserve to move on.

                              I agree though that the expanded playoffs lessen the importance of the division crown and the pennant race. That's why I'd be more in favor of the 6-team model where the top 2 division winners get a bye. Are there other incentives they could include that would give an advantage to winning the division? All 7 games in the home park for the division winners?

                              I have also seen people discussing that MLB is likely to add two more teams in the near future, bringing the total to 32. That could mean 4 4-team divisions per league (like the NFL), or maybe what I would prefer which would be 2 8-team divisions. Either way, the top half of the league would make the playoffs.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X