THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Yeah, expand because there is not enough randomness to the playoffs already.

Does the weather argument count as [standard reason]?  Because I’d disagree with your assertion that we’d even want baseball played any further into the winter than it currently is.

re: season length, i’d be perfectly happy if baseball stopped in august and picked back up in february. i wouldn’t be listening to harold reynolds either as it would be football season.

Really, if players said that they should only have a 120 game season for health reasons, and that their salaries would be cut by 25%, then the owners would fight and eventually replace them with players that would be willing to play 162 games.

Players would have to take a much bigger cut than 25% for owners to be willing to give up 25% of their revenue. Not all costs are proportional to the number of games played. Plus, the owners would want to keep their actual net profit in the same general area where it currently is.

It depends how united the players are. 

MLB fans won’t accept replacement-level players, certainly not at MLB prices. 

Suppose that at the next CBA, the players are united in their belief that they should only play 5 games a week for 27 weeks (no different than the rest of the workforce).  They cite that their bodies can’t withstand the rigors of 6 games a week, and need two days off.  They also will give up a proportional amount of pay (or something close to it, say 20% instead of 16.7%).  They cite medical studies supporting them.  They say in teh minor leagues, the season is shorter.  Japan has a 120 or 130 game season, and so on.  Let’s say they make their case.

The owners will… what?  Go to the labor board and argue that the players are not negotiating in good faith?  Replace them with guys not on the 40-man roster? 

***

And I don’t buy that it wouldn’t be proportional, or something close to it.  The NHL has kept it pretty proportional through their CBA, even as revenues have jumped.

First, let’s be clear - we’re arguing over an impossibility - there’s no way you persuade a majority of players, let alone the near unanimity needed, to accept a 25% pay cut.

Second, in terms of proportionality. Yes, operating costs are roughly proportional, but with the debt loads of some of these teams, that’s not the only concern. Let’s say you’re Frank McCourt or Tom Hicks or other over-leveraged owner X. Your loan payments don’t get cut by 25% when you’re suddenly playing 25% fewer games.

And even if somehow you could get proportionality to work, how many people got to be billionaires by walking away from low-risk money? “Oh, you want to cut my profits by $10 mil while I carry the same or greater risk? Sure, that’s fine with me.”

I just can’t imagine the owners bending on something like this before the players. Especially if we expect players to stand up for their health. Just curious, do you think the NFL will succeed at increasing the regular season? Or do you think the NFLPA will successfully prevent that?

water/2: are you suggesting that we can’t have a professional league that uses MLB players in cities other than those that include the northeast and midwest?

There are DR and Mexican leagues, aren’t there?  Why not have a US Southern league?  Would a baseball fan in California or Texas be opposed to seeing baseball in Dec/Jan?

From a practical/logistical standpoint, I understand why.  From a desire standpoint, I see no reason for anything more than a one month layoff.

***

And, yeah, not having postseason games because of the cold is a standard reason.

As I understand the NFL, they will cut preseason games by 2, and increase regular season by 2, correct?  From a fan standpoint, they buy 10 tickets in their season ticket package, be it 8-2 or 9-1 (regular-pre), or whatever number of games there are. 

There will be increase in revenue from the broadcasters I imagine.

To answer your question, as long as the players get their share of the larger pie, then, yeah, they’ll succeed.  (The CFL plays 18 games.) Players are like the rest of us: they have their price for their bodies.

Players are like the rest of us: they have their price for their bodies.

Totally agree - that’s the bottom line.

By the way, how about a third option (neither expand or leave playoffs alone)? I’d really like to see re-alignment with no divisions, balanced schedule, top four from each league. If you did interleague right, you could also put 15 in each league. And even, and I’m sure people everywhere cringe at this idea, go with regional leagues.

I’ve had several threads on this issue.  Check out the archives.

Look for things like “why are the bluejays and orioles always in the same division”, and “geography, really?” among many others.  I’ve proposed alternatives, like putting 4 big-market teams in one division, and 15 small-market in another, and having two teams from each division moving forward (because that’s in reality what is happening, just hidden).

Check them out… you might like one of those threads.

The regular season length is perfect.  The number of entrants into the playoffs is perfect.

The playoff format needs tweaking.

The playoff format should be as follows:

Divisional, Championship, and World Series should all be best-of-seven series that take place over eight days. They should follow a 2-5 format: series starts in the road teams’ park, then finishes with all remaining games in the home teams’ park.

This proposal offers roughly a thousand benefits over the status quo:

*Each team that makes the playoffs is guaranteed two home games. It’s a shame that the Reds got one game this year, after a long playoff drought.
*Home field advantage might actually become more of an advantage, due to the additional home game, and the guarantee that the series would end on the home teams’ field.
*Travel decreases.
*Revenue increases, thanks to the DS extending to a best-of-seven.
*Injuries don’t really increase, because very few players are actually playing more. (In fact, teams would simply be incentivized to use more of their pitchers on the playoff roster).
*The season isn’t any longer, because every series is being played over eight days instead of nine.  (The travel day when you leave the road park is the only off day).
*Playoff rainouts are easier to make up.  (If one of the first two games is rained out, you make it up on the off-day; if one of the later games is rained out, you play a crazy playoff doubleheader later in the week).

As far as Affeldt’s argument, it seems like it would be in the team’s best interest to manage playing time if it’s that big of a risk.  I.e., adding games to the team’s schedule does not necessitate adding games to a player’s schedule.

As far as expanding the play-off, I prefer the pre-1969 format.  If they do expand, I’d rather they went to a Round Robin type league play-off (6 teams in each league, each playing 2 games against the other 5 with the winner in each league advancing to a Best-of-Seven World Series) than add another round of elimination games. 

I don’t like the fact that play-offs baseball in freezing temperatures sometimes does not resemble the regular season baseball.

Jacob: good.  While not novel, it is also not standard.  Something different worth discussing.  The non-off day allows for the possibility that your 4th or 5th best starter will pitch in Game 7 (since you definitely need at least 4 starters, if not 5).

***

JEH: that would be the World Cup “pooling”, or Olympic pooling.  I like those systems, and I also like what the Olympics does when the 2 of the top 4 in each pool criss-cross to the other pool.  This allows for the possibility that if Canada and Russia are in the same initial pool that they could meet in the finals (or Redsox/Yanks).

How much of a big deal is it that the same teams play in a series?  It is cool or overkill to have 7 games against the same team?  It saves on the travel of course, which may be the reason that you are stuck with it.

I think one of the main rebuttals to my proposal in #11 is that it wouldn’t maximize TV revenue, since you’d have four playoff games on the same day, multiple times in the first round. 

But it certainly works for the Thursday/Friday opening of the NCAA Tournament each year.  Those are two of the least productive work days in America, every year.  The lesson seems to be that people will watch, regardless of time of day, if the action is compelling enough.

I think MLB has the opportunity to turn those first few days into a national event, in the same way that the opening of the NCAA tournament is, if they show four games back-to-back-to-back-back on the first few days of the playoffs.

Thoughts?  Maybe it doesn’t work since MLB playoff games are longer than NCAA basketball games?  (Maybe you’d have to show two games simultaneously and have the network switch back and forth to the most compelling action, or do an ESPN/ESPN2 situation).

How about a divisional realignment based on record with teams 1-5 in one division, 6-10 in another, and the rest in the third? It can be based on one year or three year or five years or whatever.

2011 AL might look like this

East
Tampa Bay
Yankees
Minnesota
Texas
Boston

Central
White Sox
Toronto
Oakland
Detroit

West
Angels
Cleveland
Kansas City
Baltimore
Seattle

Does any team feel helpless in that scenario?

The players are going to go for more playoffs even if it means a longer season. I believe they get a greater piece of the revenue pie for playoff games than they do for the regular season games. Phillies postseason shares when they won the series was close the major league minimum.

I would not be in favor of expanding the postseason beyond what it is now other than having the division series’ go seven games. I like the idea that the team that wins the world series was also one of the best teams during the regular season. I would rather see baseball go back to two divisions in each league with two wild cards, guaranteeing, at worst, three of the best four teams in each league making the playoffs.

#14 Jacob, I think the allure of the NCAA basketball model is in the randomness of such a large one-and-done tournament. I don’t think this can ever be captured in a 7, 5 or even 3 game series.

What if the MLB allowed every team into the playoffs for a single emlimination tournament. Top two teams get a bye, and we get five rounds over ten (or so) days.

It would be absolutely ‘unfair’, but Joe The Plumber may be more interested in it.

#15 Yes - but do you actually want to see one of those West teams in the playoffs?  Getting to the playoffs by beating the worst 4 teams in the league is not the way to go.

How about expand the playoffs to encourage ownership to invest more in the product and, thus, resolve a bit of the competitive distortion incurred by the luxury tax?

For a team that doesn’t typically reach October, spending extra money--or reallocating existing money--to get into the postseason is a risky proposition. Add more spots and you make it less risky. Make it less risky and you encourage more teams to gamble for October. Encouraging teams to stay in the hunt longer and to spend more to win will alleviate both the payroll disparity and its ultimate effects.

Forget the ratings for now--adding a couple of spots will yield some gains in terms of the on-field product. Whether they’re worth what the losses are is the real question.