menu

Making Broad Concept Of Rob Manfred’s Postseason Plan Work

It is a danger to take anything Rob Manfred says seriously, especially at a time when he may be very well trying to deflect away from the ongoing Astros sign stealing scandal. We should take heed of the fact he has consistently being walked or scaled back significantly. That said, he is still the commissioner, and there is a CBA negotiation which will soon occur, so we don’t know.

In Joel Sherman’s New York Post article, baseball’s plan for 14 postseason teams were outlined. This would eliminate the Wild Card Game and replace it with Wild Card Series (best 0f three) with the top team in each league receiving a bye. That top team would then get to pick their opponent.

While this is being sold as fan friendly in that with more postseason spots means more teams going for it, at its core, this is a money grab for baseball and its television partners. With this being a money grab, this is something which perhaps needs to be taken more seriously than a universal DH which doesn’t create the same revenue possibilities.

Issues

In trying to make this work, let’s acknowledge what doesn’t work about the plan. First and foremost, the long layoff tends to hurt teams. As noted by USA Today, the last 13 teams to have a layoff of five games between series have a 7-6 record. Effectively speaking, this reduces the chances the better team will win their ensuing series, and it is not good business for baseball to see their best teams and players out quickly in the postseason.

Another factor is the troublesome seventh postseason team. In 2019, that would have meant the final postseason teams would have been the 84-78 Red Sox and the 85-77 Diamondbacks would have made the postseason. Going back a few years, the sub .500 Royals and Angles would have made it to the postseason in 2017, and the sub .500 Marlins would have made the postseason would have made it in 2016. Arguably, things get worse the further back in time you look.

We have seen the current division format yield similar results, but not quite that drastic. Certainly, having teams with a losing record making the postseason is unacceptable, and at its core, it puts into question the integrity of the 162 game schedule.

Overall, we see two things baseball could accomplish in an expanded postseason. First, it could re-establish or at least strengthen division winners. Second, it could discourage tanking by giving teams more of an opportunity to make the postseason.

On the latter, we see teams tanking helping prop up those sixth and seventh best teams having fairly respectable postseason records. When you take out the tanking incentives by having roughly half the teams make the postseason, you’re going to see more .500 teams makes the postseason, which runs counter to the concept of the 162 game gauntlet.

Another issue with the best-of-three Wild Card series would put the top teams at a disadvantage. Not only would they be rusty facing that dire five plus game layoff window, but they would also have teams flipping their rotations back over. As such, the top teams are not only facing teams playing well and coming off the high of winning a postseason series, but they are also getting the Wild Card teams best starters to begin a series.

In essence, MLB is further disincentivizing winning the division.

NFL Style Postseason

If MLB wants to expand the postseason, they first need to create a balance where the lower ranked teams have a respectable record. That would be aided by expansion. By adding two teams, you create an additional bottom feeder, which, hopefully, would mean fewer near .500 teams in the postseason.

Now, 16 teams cannot be evenly divided among three divisions calling for a realignment. That leaves two possibilities.

First, you could have four four team divisions like the NFL. What baseball could do is have four division winners and have an NFL style postseason. In keeping with that, MLB could keep the concept of a bye with the top two division winners avoiding the winner-take-all Wild Card games.

The two lower tier division winners could host the top two Wild Card teams. This keeps some of the dignity of winning the division while also setting up a situation where a better team could advance. You also get the added benefit of having the additional winner-take-all games MLB is looking to add.

Two Divisions

The other option is to have two eight team divisions. This time, the division winners definitively miss the Wild Card round. Ultimately, MLB would have four Wild Card teams playing two winner-take-all games to determine who advances. The question is how best to handle that.

On the one hand, it would seem to make the most sense to have the four best Wild Card teams. On the other hand, they could have the NHL style postseason which focuses on creating a division playoff to send to the conference finals. Under this sort of hybrid system, you could actually achieve what Manfred sought to achieve. Just to show what it could look like, lets take the 2019 standings but with the 1993 divisional format:

Nationals 93-69 Dodgers 106-56
Cardinals 91-71 Braves 97-65
Mets 86-76 Brewers 89-73
Cubs 84-78 Diamondbacks 85-77
Phillies 81-81 Giants 77-85
Pirates 69-93 Reds 75-87
Marlins 57-105 Rockies 71-91
Expansion Team Padres 70-92

Looking at the standings, the Nationals would go from a Wild Card team to a division winner. Conversely, the Cardinals would go from a division winner to a Wild Card team. These teams would be the top two teams in the new National League East postseason.

From there, you can guarantee the third team in each division a postseason spot. This means under the 2019 standings, the Nationals, Cardinals, and Mets would be in the NL East postseason bracket, and the Dodgers, Braves, and Brewers (replacing the Astros spot) would be in the NL West postseason bracket.

Now, baseball has two options here.

As the Wild Card with the worse record, the Mets could host the Diamondbacks at Citi Field in a winner-take-all game. The winner of that game would then travel to St. Louis to play another Wild Card Game as the Braves host the Brewers for their own Wild Card Game.

Alternatively, with the Dodgers having the best record, you could force the Brewers to host the Diamondbacks for the last Wild Card spot in NL West part of the postseason with the winner of that game traveling to Atlanta for the Wild Card Game. By doing it this way, you give the Dodgers more of an advantage.

Right there is three winner-take-all games, and the top teams do not have much of a layoff. You can then further incentive winning the division with a best-of-six series with the first two games and last two games of the series being played at the division winner’s home.

Under the best of six series, the division winner would only need to win three games to win the series whereas the Wild Card team would have to win four to advance to the NLCS. By doing it this way, you keep the integrity of the regular season in tact by really making it an uphill battle for the near .500 team to advance in the postseason.

In essence, if you want that seventh postseason team, make them really earn it. Make them a true Cinderella.

Why Seven Teams Works

Overall, if you want to really make the seven postseason teams work, it would appear baseball needs a realignment with the four division format, and they then need to adopt the NHL style of postseason. While this may be met with some resistance at first, it may actually prove beneficial to baseball.

The postseason would begin with three intense winner-take-all games, and then you transition from that to four intense series featuring fierce division rivals. From there, you have a system where you hopefully have the absolute best teams playing baseball at its highest level.

In the end, having a sprint followed by intensity followed by the best-of-the-best, you may get exactly what Manfred wanted in floating this seven postseason team plan. If MLB does ultimately go in this direction, there may be something to this plan.

35 thoughts on “Making Broad Concept Of Rob Manfred’s Postseason Plan Work”

  1. LongtimeFan1 says:

    There are a lot of flaws in the Manfred proposed format, and many have been articulated in this article.

    My concerns – too many teams in the postseason diminishes the quality of the teams in it and makes a joke of reaching it however exciting for the fans and MLB.

    162 should mean something. It would be a sham should a low win team reach the League Championship and World Series and/or win it

    I’m concerned about starting pitcher health, especially aces, and op of the rotation types – and pens who will now pitch more.

    I ponder whether there’s plan now to reduce the season to 154 to reduce wear and tear in what otherwise would be extended season. and playoffs perhaps played in November. Additional revenue of the playoffs could offset for some teams the lose of revenue for 8 fewer games.

    If not a reduction in regular season games, another roster expansion might be needed, let’s say from 26 to 27 or 28.

    I think playoff teams should be capped at 6 per league

    Am not in favor of expansion, especially two-team expansion which would further reduce head to head games in same league, reduce the quality of talent and cause every team to lose some players from their rosters and minors.

    A two team expansion would however eliminate the Need for interleague play (15 teams each league) should that be eliminated. Emphasis on NEED – have too, vs. want to. If interleague play is eliminated in all but NEED to – I’m fine with that and is my preference. Do that for 10 years, but the emphasis back on intraleague.

    I’m fine with realignment.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      I agree that six should be the absolute max, but I also think you could help the game by thinking unconventionally. The ultimate problem is Manfred is the absolute worst person to initiate change as he always comes from a place of baseball is not a great sport as is.

      While I did not like Selig, he unequivocally loved baseball, and he really did everything from that perspective.

      1. LongTimeFan1 says:

        Overall, I’m not against small changes to improve the game, including division and playoff realignments, but it has to also protect the integrity of the game, postseason, and player health.

        I’m no fan of Manfred.either, his focus is $$$ and process, honing short attention spans of the young, not love of game, nor retaining its rich tradition. His mission is to disrupt it with the ridiculous such as starting extra innings with a runner on second which is already occurring the minors.

        1. metsdaddy says:

          My problem is his proposals lack any insight into the game. It’s like he never watched a game in his life, and he’s making it up on the fly.

  2. Longtimefan1 says:

    Correction:

    Didn’t mean “but the emphasis back on intraleague – rather “put the emphasis back”

  3. oldbackstop says:

    I think there is one overwhelming, huge problem in the MLB today — teams tanking. Expansion would not help that. More wild cards would…more teams having a second half chance at a wild card, less teams dumping at the All Star game, more stars staying with their home fans.

    The season would go right into October, both for the byes and the wild card.

    Great idea.

    Until a salary cap goes in, expansion to more metropolitan areas does not makes sense. You already have the Yankees spending six times the Rays. Yeah, you will make some argument about it, but you don’t understand basic economics, you have proven that again and again.

    Anyway, the Bolsinger suit is the most interesting development on the week, focus on that.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      Salary caps don’t work, and ultimately, they’re bad for sports leagues.

      I’d also note expansion does not have any correlation with tanking.

    2. LongTimeFan1 says:

      There’s a way to deal with Tanking – mandatory, minimum payroll levels, a portion of which must be spent on free agents or trade acqusition in a rating system, and/or some form of punishment in the draft if fail to do so.

      1. metsdaddy says:

        The way to handle tanking has always been an inverse draft where the teams who just missed the postseason get the top picks.

      2. oldbackstop says:

        Complex accounting games just makes it more of a propeller head front office sport. You want to give a wildly beneficial benefit to the team that just misses the playoffs will make that a fantasy game as well, maybe not until the last week, but it will still be awarding a big trophy to a loser.Maybe some sort of random number pull for the playoff teams and the non playoff teams, two tier.

        How expansion without more playoff teams would cause more tanking is just…wha? More trolling by you? Two more teams that won’t be in the playoffs. Two more tanking candidates.

        1. metsdaddy says:

          You’re making a tenuous claim that two more teams necessarily means more tanking. It’s hard to substantiate that, especially when more teams means a more even talent distribution

          1. Oldbackstop says:

            There is no need to explain third grade math, although we all do here to you. Right now 12bteams make the playoffs — they will not tank and rebuild the next year, although you will do find a few examples out of thousands I’m sure. Eighteen teams do not make the playoffs. Those are candidates for.teardown rebuilds. You propose raising that 18 number to 20. That will raise the number of teams considering teardown rebuilds. From 18 to 20. Get it? From 18 to 20. Plus there will be an overall dilution of talent with, say, 160 more AAAA players in the majors, so the the 200 million payroll teams have an even better corner on the market for stars.

          2. metsdaddy says:

            Maybe instead of taking a third grade approach, use a deeper analysis

  4. oldbackstop says:

    btw, ever look at what a bizarre trade the Vargas was to the Phillies? From June 1 to when he was traded to the Phillies at the end of July he was 5-2 with a 3.72 ERA and averaged 6.0 IP per start. That compares very favorably with every SP not named deGrom on the Mets…maybe everybody, I’m not looking.

    They traded him for a no prospect catcher…who happened to be Bradley Wilpon’s battery mate for one year in college. Yeah, Stroman was coming, I get that, but they didn’t even get the option paid for next year. I would have to think they could have traded him out of the division and at least get the option picked up.

    Yeah he sucked with the Phillies in the second half, bur so did all the Phillies. Pitch framing no doubt.

    1. Oldbackstop says:

      Also btw, MD, remember we all argued with you when you repeatedly said the Mets should have stood by Beltran because it would all blow over?

      https://nypost.com/2020/02/11/carlos-beltran-was-relentless-godfather-in-astros-sign-stealing-scheme/

      1. metsdaddy says:

        It did blow over as will this story

    2. Oldbackstop says:

      Also, given that blue Jay’s pitcher’s lawsuit this week, which is 100 percent justified, there are going to be depositions and discovery dramas for quite awhile. Years. Plus additional suits piling on. Maybe Stroman Headlines.

      1. metsdaddy says:

        You’re assuming far too much

        1. Oldbackstop says:

          So, you believe the Mets should have taken your advice and kept Beltran on, despite yesterday’s news, because it will all blow over?

          1. metsdaddy says:

            This will all blow over, and I stick to this Mets organization with their COO firing pregnant women and celebrating people who abuse their wives, or the GM who texts during games, is not the one to fire someone for morality reasons.

        2. Oldbackstop says:

          Sports Illustrated has a nice piece today. Bolsinger is suing alleging fraud by the Astros players, chiefly Beltran by all accounts now. Other lawsuits have been filed against the Astros by multiple fantasy baseball players alleging fraud and monetary lawsuits. Sort that one out. Other players will undoubtedly file suit. Beltran will be discovery deposee number one in all those suits. Bolsinger is seeking damages for the Dodgers. It may wind up being international since he was a Blue Jay. Bolsinger is using Colin Kaepernick’s attorney, who loves daily bombshells and press conferences. He is seeking tens of millions in damages so this isn’t going to be a quick quiet settlement.

          Multiple Congressmen are calling for public hearings.

          So you still think it will all “go away”….”blowover”…and it would have been worth it to keep rookie manager Carlos Beltran?

          How is that first presser going in PSL?

          1. metsdaddy says:

            There was also the guy who sued the Yankees because he didn’t make it.

            When looking at Bolsinger, he’s going to have to explain why he had a 6.83 ERA in 2016 and a career ERA of 4.61 (82 ERA+) entering that season.

          2. metsdaddy says:

            Yes, it will blow over like it always does.

          3. Oldbackstop says:

            Bolsinger faced 8 batters at Minutemaid, seven of whom reached, four of whom scored. His outing was the worst one recorded in terms of cheating, 14 bangs in 29 pitches….and remember no bang was a signal as well.

            He was sent down immediately after the game and has never played in the majors again.

            Will they assert he was just a “bad player?” Sure. For about three years of daily public press conferences discovery and trials.

            And how about the fantasy baseball class action suits.

            It is clearly asserted now that Beltran instituted and drove the whole fraud, even after the manager smashed the monitors twice.

            Still think Beltrsn should be the Mets manager? Think maybe he’ll miss time for depositions and trials? Weren’t you pissed off when Tebow missed a spring training game for a charity golf outing?

          4. metsdaddy says:

            I think this Mets organization knew what they were doing and were in no place to fire him on morality grounds.

            I also think we’re getting very selective leaks

          5. Oldbackstop says:

            This will be the biggest story of the decade in MLB. The BoSox will be drawn in. The Yankees are next. Congressmen want to showboat about their teams getting jacked in the playoffs. There are literally hundreds of viable lawsuits…maybe thousands when you count up fantasy players alleging losses in individual discrete games.

            And the legal system will eat this like candy…every prosecutor and judge will love it and the media attention.

            And Beltran is the poster boy.

            You would still want Beltran to be the manager this week? Yes or no?

          6. metsdaddy says:

            Baseball doesn’t want to know what’s happening

          7. Oldbackstop says:

            Baseball won’t have a choice. Here is another SI story about the first (of thousands of plaintiffs, likely in some class actions) to sue over the fantasy implications of the fraud. It is a $3.3 billion industry based solely on stats. Lawyers will be slitting each others throats to take these cases.

            And notice half the article specifically focuses on BELTRAN.

            Still think they should have hung on to him as manager?

          8. metsdaddy says:

            Yes, I think the Mets should’ve held onto him if their motivating force was publicity.

            You’ll note how long the story was dormant and overlooked. This sudden push will also soon die out.

  5. oldbackstop says:

    The story has been dormant? There have been 6,273 mentions of Beltran in the NY Post in the last 30 days:

    https://nypost.com/search/beltran/

    That is just The Post.

    How many stories would there be if journalists could corner every Mets player and official about their manager every day?

    You really think the Mets should have kept Beltran as their manager?

    1. metsdaddy says:

      It’s been dormant. It was completely overshadowed by other events like Kobe, Betts, Cohen, etc.

      No one was talking about this until a week ago.

      1. Oldbackstop says:

        Idiocy.

        1. metsdaddy says:

          You’re really going to argue this was a hot story over the first month of 2020?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *