From the linked report on the TSN website: "Selig said he hopes the expanded playoffs can start next year, but he said the specifics are being worked out. The players' association favours the move."
So it sounds like there's a chance, albeit perhaps a small one, that the additional Wild Card could be added in 2012, rather than 2013.
To be clear though, this proposal doesn't create an additional wildcard so much as split the existing one in two, correct?
Could be very frustrating if we finally get to the point where we are good enough to earn a wildcard under the old system and find ourselves out of the Divisional Series after losing a one game playoff.
I like it for a few reasons.
First, it gives teams the incentive to win their division now. These days many teams will coast down the stretch knowing that if they don’t win the division there’s no real difference being the WC. No team with a chance to win the division is going to want to be a wild card if they have the chance to avoid it.
Wild card teams should be at a disadvantage in the playoffs and this does that. Plus, pitting two against each other for one game with the winner advancing will be compelling viewing (and there will probably be more game 163s now as well. If there’s a tie for the division would they have a playoff?).
And a one game WC playoff isn’t going to change the length of the postseason.
Not to mention the Jays chances (and everyone else for that matter) of making the playoffs increases.
Will there be a balanced schedule?
This sentence does not compute.
Like, seriously, how does that work? Wouldn't liking one of the latter two teams - or the Jays - have instilled a hate of the other franchise in you? All three teams are in the same division. Do you do it just to ensure you have a team to root for each postseason?
This sentence does not compute.
My thoughts exactly, Thomas. I am a Yankees, Jays, Rangers fan -- but can't comrehend being a Red Sox fan. that's anathema to Yankee fandom. I am sure the reverse is also true.
In other news -- have the Jays found the next Sergio Santos? They've signed relief pitcher Jerry Gil, a former top prospect in the Arizona system -- as a shortstop! He actually made it to the majors briefly as a shortstop, batting only .174. Then, like Santos, he was converted from shortstop to pitcher, and managed an ERA of 3.59 at the AAA level in the Reds system in 2011 as a 29-year-old.
Details are by Marc Hulet here: http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2011/11/17/2569569/jays-sign-big-arm-to-minor-league-deal
There is no need for each team to play 30 interleague games. The arithmetic there is totally out of whack. If each team plays 30 interleague games, times 30 teams, that's 900, divided by 2 (2 teams in each game, of course) and you get 450 games. That's roughly 3 times as many as you need, and would require 2 or 3 interleague games to be played every day. What you need is roughly 162 interleague games - the same as if the 2 "extra" teams were playing in the same league. One almost every day, with some off days. That works out as follows - 162 times 2 teams is 324, divide by 30 teams is 11 interleague games each. So there is absolutely no need to reduce the number of games against the non-divisional teams in your own league to 6. That would be nuts, and would give the teams in the AL Central and West an enormous advantage at the 2 AL wild card spots. Would probably make it tougher for the Jays to make the playoffs than the current system. Especially if they end up playing more vs the NL East than the other AL teams. Can't these bozos figure out simple stuff like that?
This sentence does not compute.
Like, seriously, how does that work? Wouldn't liking one of the latter two teams - or the Jays - have instilled a hate of the other franchise in you? All three teams are in the same division. Do you do it just to ensure you have a team to root for each postseason?
The Jays are my number 1 team out of the 3. When the Yankees and Red Sox play each other, I don't really have a preference. I've been a fan of all 3 teams for a long time now and it's not due to the reason that I would have a team to cheer for in the playoffs every season.
But how? I'm honestly curious, because I can't recall meeting ever someone who is a fan of both of the Yankees and Red Sox. Didn't supporting whichever of those teams you liked first instil a dislike of the other franchise in you? Didn't supporting the Jays instil a dislike of both franchises in you?
As a fan about the same age as the Jays franchise itself, I can see how you end up a Red Sox fan and a Yankees fan. In the 1980's, I had no particular idea that the Yankees and Red Sox were great rivals who hated one another. In fact, I'd guess that this wasn't the case at all in that decade, since the Yankees were consistently mediocre and the Red Sox one of many decent teams. The Jays were better than both for a good long time, and the 1980's were notable for a total lack on continuity. Who were the AL teams in the WS since I could start vaguely remembering? Milwaukee, Baltimore, Detroit, KC, Boston, Minnesota, Oaklandx3 - there was a team worthy of hating. Otherwise, it was a mixed bag, Until Oakland in the late 1980's, none of the WS teams even threatened to become consistently great. The NL was much the same - the opponents to the teams I listed - St. Louis, Philadelphia, San Diego, St Louis, New York, Atlanta, LA, Cincy, San Francisco. Playoff teams who lost were a similar wide mix of teams. The Jays winning two in a row was a monumental achievement, since in my memory, no one ever won twice in a row, and only Oakland even made it to the end twice in a row. Until Atlanta and New York started winning every single year...
The Jays were my favourite, followed by the Expos, then the Red Sox. I only really disliked the Tigers, Royals, and the A's - the Yankees weren't on the radar at all, frankly. It never occurred to me that I was supposed to dislike this team of overpaid underachievers with a great franchise history of legends. Loving baseball history can make you a Yankees fan - Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio...there are a lot of great stories there.
As a Jays fan, I like it. As a baseball purist, I don't like it.
Statistically, there is such variance in games. Even the Mariners had a winning streak last year.
There are 162 games in a season! It is designed to be a marathon only to have the world series won by a team sqeaking in the playoffs.
So conceivably the fifth best team in each league could meet in the World Series? Awful.
Over the last five years, the "2nd Wild Card team" (the best team other than division winners and WC) in the American League would have won 88, 89, 87, 89, and 90 games respectively. Over that span, only in 2011 was the difference between the Wild Card team and the "2nd Wild Card team" less than six wins (this past season where Tampa won the WC by one game over Boston). So basically, MLB will be rewarding a team that could be five or six wins inferior to the actual Wild Card winner a chance to move on to a playoff berth that they did not even earn......and in a one game sudden death round, no less! Why not just flip a damn coin and decide who moves on to the ALDS?
I sincerely hope the next time the Jays make the playoffs it will be by winning the East. I would hate for them to win the Wild Card only to lose the sudden death game and have a playoff berth taken away from them.
Between this and taking away Type A/B compensation, Selig has done absolutely nothing to bridge the gap between the have's and have not's. If anything, he has made it worse.
Before the Wild Card the best team in the East played the best team in the West in each league. Pretty cut and dry. Sure the 2nd place team in some cases could have been better than the 1st place team in another league, but that was part of the divisional format. Now we will have five playoff teams in each league and ten teams total. As opposed to four total before the Wild Card and eight total before this new change comes into effect.
I don't know, I'd rather win something that was more difficult to obtain than wait for rules to change to make the obstacle easier. Again, I hope the Jays win the AL East the next time they make the playoffs. I won't complain if they win the World Series as the 2nd WC team, but it won't have the same meaning to me as it would have with the regular Wild Card format. Making the hurdle easier doesn't make jumping over it more rewarding. If anything, it cheapens it.
http://skepticalsports.com/?p=2595
This is a great article explaining why the one-game playoff might be the fairest format to allow a marginally better team the greatest advantage, at least without skewing the distribution of home/away games in other formats (such as five-game series being 4 home, 1 away). It sounds wrong, but a five-game or seven-game series is also a fairly useless measure of team superiority. Earning "home field WC" will be a significant advantage, as much as anything is in a single baseball game. It had never occurred to me that one game could be more favourable to the best team than five or seven games just because the one game is at home.
The main advantage that gets cited is that the division winners don't have to burn their best starter in a one-game playoff, and hence they gain an advantage. I'm not convinced this is really much of an advantage in practice, since WC teams may not be able to use their ace in the one-gamer (depending on the race), division winners also might not be able to, for a lot of teams the difference between #1 and #2 is pretty minimal, and teams will still end up using 4 guys anyway. "Setting your rotation", especially at the end of 200+ IP for them, is way over-rated (sure didn't help Philadelphia).
The only way to get the best teams to win more is to balance the schedule and remove non-WS playoffs entirely. I think baseball really needs a Premier League style regular season trophy for best team, with the full acknowledgement that the postseason trophy is something different. So congrats to Philadelphia's 2011 championship - I say we name the trophy after the 2001 Mariners somehow.
TamRa @ http://thesouthpawbaseball.blogspot.com/
I HATE TWO-GAME SERIES.
Four-game series are design to follow or precede three-game series which is so convenient as it fills a seven-day week. Anything that shortens the season is a plus. I'm willng to go to alternate years for home and away. An alternative is a 161 game season or a 163 game season.
I enjoy your site.
A.A. has lately been talking (officially) to various Sports Writers / T.V. / Radio shows. He has been talking about a Big July, and if Toronto's within 4.5 games of a playoff berth - making big moves. Is that backpeddling, from his talk of having a big Offseason about 09/29/11 to 10/06/11, when he (Thu 09/29/11 TSN) and Paul Beeston (10/06/11 Richard Griffin Interview) were both on the record about it.
From the talk around Yu Darvish, it appears he might not post this year, prefering to wait two years, when he is a Free Agent.
A.A. has said he likes the Term but not the $$$ of some Closers, while he likes the $$$ but not the Term of other Closers. I say bite the bullet and sign one, especially with this http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/teams-signing-type-a-relievers-wont-forfeit-picks.html news happening. Negotiations are probably now increasing on Closers, and I think A.A. gets left behind (IMO, too afraid of making "the big mistake").
As we need a 2B (1) more than we need bullpen help, why is A.A. dragging this out. We need Bullpen help (1-2), as well as a Closer (1), more than we need an Upgrade at Starter. No moves here, which is should be a surprise. We need an Upgrade at Starter (1), more than we need a strong Bench, but can A.A. meet the price? We need a strong Bench (2-3), more than we need a Big Bat, unfortunately the choices are getting thinner. We need a BIG BAT (1) to compliment Jose Bautista, more than we need to resolve Left Field, or is this somthing else we must wait for.
I see (9) possible acqusitions A.A. should make, with (3) mandatory (2B & IF & 2nd C.). I think the number should be a mandatory (5). I include 1 Reliever & 1 Closer. That should get us to 90 wins. (The best Batter`s Box could agree on was 6 wins over last year; plus a better OF and an improved IF should be worth 3-5 wins. That equals 90-92 wins, which means we are close.
Does anyone know how to do the math for this type of calculation.
Expected winning percentage = (RF^2) / ((RF^2)+(RA^2))
RF=runs for
RA=runs against
^2="to the power of 2" (Bill James found that the exponent 1.83 is slightly more accurate)
I don't know if that makes it more accurate, but I don't know what "accurate" even means in such a context - does anyone? How would we know?
I thought James simply applied his model to historic data, at that time, and found that 1.83 (or whatever it was) reduced the mean square error. Perhaps due to the change in offensive context since he derived his formula, a higher exponent is now more "accurate" (again, when applied to historic data to measure MSE), thus your findings that 2 works "better" than 1.83.
bpoz
I have links to those interviews http://www.battersbox.ca/users.php?mode=profile&uid=9081 and http://www.battersbox.ca/users.php?mode=profile&uid=9081 . I also took the trouble to write the direct quotes down personally. Hope this helps.
greenfrog
Go here: http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5521:inside-mlbs-new-5-year-labor-agreement&catid=30:mlb-news&Itemid=42#comments and then here: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/cba-details-luxury-tax-draft-.html . If you still have question, ask again.
