Bud Selig has started up the expanded-playoff mill once again. On Thursday, the Commissioner told the AP that he believes the playoffs will expand from eight teams to 10 beginning in the 2012 season, reigniting what was already a very controversial issue even among the most devoted of baseball fans. At BP, reactions have ranged from pure criticism to mild tolerance. I propose we put to one side, at least for the moment, what the right answer is. Let’s see if we can first agree on a set of common principles on which to evaluate a proposal like this one.
The way Selig’s proposed plan would work, sketchy though the early details are, is pretty straightforward. Each league would get one more wild card team—the non-division-winning team with the second-best overall record. The two wild card teams would then play a series of undetermined length for the right to play in the second round, which for the division winners would be their first playoff series. In other words, the division winners get a bye. (If you’re curious how much the length of the play-in series matters, I recommend this article.)
Let me begin by saying that I’m going to try to take the point of view of a baseball fan. It is certainly true that teams and the league may simply act in such a way as to maximize their revenues, and it’s easy to see why they would. However, unless you think MLB is close to failing as a collective enterprise—and I don’t think there are many folks who believe that—the motivations that teams have to maximize their profits just don’t apply to fans. Fans may be incidentally better off when teams make more money, but that’s a complicated question of price equilibrium best left for the Matt Swartzes of the world.
Start by eliminating all those reasons that don’t apply to baseball fans purely in their capacity as fans of the game. Throw away your team allegiances, where you live, how much money you have, whether you have season tickets, and whether you have the sort of job that affords you the opportunity to watch several ballgames a day. What I’m most interested in isn’t what is best for the game in some abstract sense, but what is best for fans of the game, both present and future. Again, the people willing to pay a cool billion to buy a team may disagree, as is their right.
What’s left? Ah yes, the right answer. I will group my arguments into three broad categories: randomness, scheduling, and prestige.
Randomness
The most common argument against expanding the playoffs is that doing so would make it more likely that a marginal team would win the World Series. This is, statistically and at the margins, pretty uncontroversial, but it has also been true of every expansion of the playoffs in every sport ever. So the question isn’t whether it will raise the possibility that a fringy team—the canonical example being the 2006 Cardinals, who went 83-78 in the regular season, outscoring their opponents by just 19 runs—will win the World Series, it’s whether it does so in such a way that the downside is bigger than the benefit.
But let’s step back a minute. What do we mean when we talk about the best team? The team that had the best regular season record, most likely. But it turns out that performance over 162 games isn’t even enough to say for sure which team is the best. If an entire league with a “true talent” level of .500—that is, one in which God told you all the teams were .500 ballclubs—played a million 162-game seasons, two or three teams would end up with more than 90 wins each time. You’d probably look at those teams and assume they were the best, but we’ve specified that all of the teams were of exactly the same quality. So there’s a real way in which regular season record does a pretty lousy job of telling us which team is the best. Even if we used more advanced techniques like Pythagorean records, there’s still a substantial amount of luck involved in regular season outcomes. That’s an argument to say that the costs of letting in a team like the 2006 Cardinals isn’t so bad. We aren’t sure the Cardinals were lousy or that the Mets—who won 97 games that year—were great. And besides, the Cardinals made the playoffs in 2006 by (how else?) winning their division.
On the other hand, superior regular season performance does give some indication that one team is better than another. We just can’t be sure.
Scheduling
Another argument frequently advanced against expanding the playoffs is that doing so would make the season too long. Already World Series games have been played in November; adding another series would likely add up to a week of additional games. Given that owners are unlikely to surrender any portion of their lucrative 162-game season, the schedule has to expand into either March or November.
This is another argument that at the margins is correct, at least as far as it goes: more ballgames would get played in cold weather one way or the other. But it’s not at all clear how much colder, other than a couple degrees on average. And even so, what’s the big harm? It’s not like October is an especially warm month in most major-league cities, and that never seemed to ruin the World Series (except for that one time).
Besides, the longer season argument appears to overlook one glaring benefit: a longer season. From a baseball fan’s perspective, it’s a strange argument to make that more baseball is worse.
Prestige
At their roots, I suspect that many of the objections to adding more teams to the playoffs boil down to the fear that it would cheapen the entire process. Fair enough. But from the perspective of the fans, the playoffs are ours to cheapen. If adding more teams makes it more enjoyable for fans as a whole, then who cares if the playoffs are “cheaper”?
Besides, adding another wild card team probably doesn’t do much to decrease the likelihood that a division winner will win the World Series. In fact, it almost certainly makes it less likely that each wild card team will win the World Series. That means two things. One, all adding another wild card team would do is cheapen the wild card. And two, it would increase the prestige of winning the division compared with securing the wild card. As Neil deMause points out, this has at least the marginal effect of making pennant races somewhat more meaningful—and in the big game of one-upmanship that is baseball traditionalism, that could be the trump card.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Given that, it doesn't really make sense to punish the Wild Card (which, again, is almost always a strong team) while rewarding somebody like the 2006 Cardinals who coasted to victory in a weak division. Give the bye to the teams with the best three records, whether they're division winners or not.
Because the wild card is often a strong team, they should also fix the seeding so that the top record always plays the 4th record (or winner of the 4/5 matchup). This should give the top record a stronger advantage in the 1st round and would hopefully increase their incentive to keep winning even if they have locked up their division early. It seems like the Division winner cannot play the wild card winner if they inhabit the same division rule was tailor made to ensure that the Yankees will never play the Red Sox until the ALCS.
If the Wild Card format is here to stay and changing the basic tenets of a particular sport is no longer sacred - whether it is number games a season, number of playoff teams, moving teams to different leagues/conferences - why not eliminate the smaller divisions altogether. Create larger divisions/conferences that reward the winners and seed the remaining 'playoff' teams accordingly. This way the '06 Cards make the playoffs as a seeded team and not a conference winner. Schedule headaches aside - the ruling bodies have made other changes work to their benefits why not this one ...
Not necessarily. That would assume the WC teams were able to adjust their schedule so that their best pitcher would be available. If your season comes down to the wire, that's not really feasible.
That said, I don't like the idea of playing 162 games and making the playoffs, then playing one to decide if you get to
STAY in the playoffs. Too random.
I too would take issue with the notion that a longer season is a benefit. If memory serves, by and large the playoff ratings have been dropping over time. I think there IS such a thing as baseball fatigue, and after a month of spring training, 162 regular season games, and two rounds of playoffs, the World Series has, like Michael Scott leaving The Office, segued into the "let's get it over with already" state. What should be the pinnacle event becomes a letdown, an after-thought.
One beauty of baseball is that it still is hard to get into the playoffs. Why dilute that?
I think a good approach would be to take some of the data on marginal win $ value that I've seen on this site, and compare it to other major sports leagues. If the value of a regular season win diminishes beyond a certain point, it affects the quality of regular season games. Anybody who's every watched an NBA regular season game can tell you how that turns out.
When the NHL had 6 teams 4 of them made the playoffs - they actually have a lower percentage of teams making the playoffs now then they did then.
Baseball should not try to imitate other sports.
Second, watching baseball should be _fun_. Watching it in 29-degree temperatures with a light freezing rain falling, as I did at a White Sox game a couple of years ago, is not fun -- most utterly miserable experience I've had at a ballpark in 50 years of fandom. That game was in April. There will be many more like it in March or November.
The second benefit is increasing the number of teams in contention.
Both effects make the end of the regular season more interesting.
I don't think it would make the regular season less meaningful. I think it would make it more meaningful.
Furthermore, if "increasing the number of teams in contention" is such an important goal and makes the end of the regular season "more interesting" and "more meaningful", why stop at 10? Why not expand the playoff field to 12, 14, 16...heck, even 20 teams? More is better, right?
I seem to recall that BP has already demonstrated that this frequently-cited "benefit" (i.e. increased fan interest and attendance) inured itself and dissipated rather quickly. The same thing will happen again and even faster this time...or hasn't anyone else realized what's caused all the empty seats and obscure networks at Division Series games?
Selig, as usual, has a death wish and simply can't wait to take what integrity remains of the sport over the cliff into oblivion with him.
For that matter, I'm a bit disappointed that no one at BP has yet addressed what the real reason for expanded playoffs is: Because TV wants to sell people a postseason with both the Yankees and Red Sox involved EVERY year. Don't kid yourself, that's what this is about no matter what the Puppet Master and his cronies publicly argue otherwise. Just notice the timing of the announcement, now that 2 of the last 3 years saw Tampa Bay prevent what had become a foregone conclusion of October planning.
Exactly.
This (like all of Selig's ideas) is stupid, motivated by money and affects the integrity of the sport. The argument about the Cardinals in the article ignores the fact the weak division winners are a product of two other idiotic Selig inventions, the three-division league and inter-league play. Each league could easily be split into two equal divisions with ONLY division winners advancing to the post-season.
It's true that nothing can preclude a weak division winner but it's many less likely than with the three-division setup. The argument given against this is that it wouldn't work with the inter-league play. My response - So #$%!ing what? Inter-league play is a cheap, over-hyped novelty - baseball can live with out it and I would argue the league rivalries were more intense and the All-Star game and World Series more meaningful without it.
I think this expansion sucks and isn't needed.
The ironic thing is that supporters argue that adding a 5th team keeps more teams 'in it'. But that's not the case. With 2 weeks to go there are always a handful of teams 'in it'. And by the final weekend it's 3 teams fighting for two spots - usually with division crown spicing up the mix. How does this system add suspense or drama? It will take the air out of the final weekend.
The extra round WILL mess with the schedule, it cannot be slotted it easily in the same way the NCAA slotted in the play-in games. Isn't the 4 vs. 5 round going to merely replace the 163rd and 162nd games we've enjoyed the last few years?
Take 2007 - Mets vs. Marlins - the Mets collapse--but it's ok because they get the 5th WC slot!
2008 - Mets vs. Marlins - see 2007
Twins vs. Tigers 2009 etc.
There's little to be gained in adding a 5th team -
In an attempt to compare apples to oranges, let's look at pro basketball, a sport I neither enjoy nor watch. One of the reasons I eschew pro basketball is the size of the playoffs: 16 of 30 teams make the postseason! So long as you're remotely close to .500 (slightly below, most years), you're in. What's the point? 10 baseball teams making the playoffs isn't a bad idea, but if it's successful, then further postseason expansion is inevitable, and THAT'S when the real problems of diluting the regular season will begin to rear their ugly heads.
Amen. Personally, I'd rather not have another wild card, but if it happens, it's going to mean some exciting games and series, and it's not going to ruin the game. I have no idea why some of us are so bent on having the results of the playoffs correspond with regular season records or statistical predictions. Why are we so opposed to the element of surprise or luck? And what is wrong with more baseball?
I prefer having the division races be meaningful, so 10 teams with a wild card playoff is the best option. I think the best argument of all, is the expanded interest in September baseball, and more playoff baseball (and more baseball full stop) being the most fun.
The addition is also so small in many cases you're just turning the classic 163rd game into a 'playoff', as in the case of Rockies-Padres. But what if we need a 163rd game just to get to that point?
MLB has yet to have to deal with the nightmare of 3 teams tied after 162 and mucking through the round-robin it would entail, but it has come close. Should that happen, once this 'extra round' has been added, the 7th game of the WS would be on Thanksgiving.
It also robs us of great pennant races between good teams. As in the NBA and NHL, the end of the season becomes a battle for the last playoff spot, between teams barely over .500.
Give me 1908 NL, 1951 NL, 1967 AL, 1978 AL East, 1993 NL West, etc. Good teams battling to win. Much more entertaining and memorable than the current scheme.
1. shorten regular season back to 154
2. Add 10-15 day-night doubleheaders (expands rosters accordingly)to further shrink time lines
3. set up a round robin league playoff format to determine champion so that everyone plays everyone and best record goes
4. remove off-days so that the game strategy in playoffs is same as regular season
As a fan I see much downside to expansion, and I don't see the upside. You could say that expansion will make teams play more competitively in September, but I think there are plenty of ways to debunk this.
Maybe the point is really to make the Yankees/Rays/Red Sox play more competitively in September. But the fact that they didn't in 2010 is a side effect of adding a Wild Card team. Add another Wild Card team, and you just get a different set of teams playing less competitively.
Somebody mentioned the Indiana Pacers above: they had a 35-47 record this year, and they're in the playoffs. That's just stupid. There's a slippery slope here. Five teams from each league is an odd number, and it will soon enough become six to achieve some symmetry in the bye arrangements. Should 40% of major league ballclubs really be in the postseason?