Baseball Playoff Format

[SentToStud]

I love baseball. Especially in October.

But I hate, absolutely hate, the 5-game Divsional Series format.

How the hell can teams play for eight months and play close to 200 games (including spring and, if lucky, playoffs) and have the first round decided in a best of five series?

Strikes me that baseball should somehow, someway, find time for two more playoff games.

[Revolution]

i agree. would not have made a difference for the yankees though. they were beaten by a better team.

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

I'm sure MLB will stretch it out now to 7 games. Sports playoffs in both the NBA & NHL are too long and don't have as much at stake than MLB. It should be 7.

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I love baseball. Especially in October.

But I hate, absolutely hate, the 5-game Divsional Series format.

How the hell can teams play for eight months and play close to 200 games (including spring and, if lucky, playoffs) and have the first round decided in a best of five series?

Strikes me that baseball should somehow, someway, find time for two more playoff games.

Good point. Wrong solution.

The season is already too long. Funny that a team like the Dodgers play for 5 1/2 months and then get eliminated in a long weekend. They used to play 154 regular season games before 2 teams went straight to the World Series.

Now they play 162 games for 8 teams go into the playoffs. It's the season that never ends.

Go ahead and make the first round 7 games. But for God's sake make up for that by shortening the regular season. A pennant race is no less exciting if it ends after 154 games.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by chromer

Good point. Wrong solution.

The season is already too long. Funny that a team like the Dodgers play for 5 1/2 months and then get eliminated in a long weekend. They used to play 154 regular season games before 2 teams went straight to the World Series.

Now they play 162 games for 8 teams go into the playoffs. It's the season that never ends.

Go ahead and make the first round 7 games. But for God's sake make up for that by shortening the regular season. A pennant race is no less exciting if it ends after 154 games.

Good points,Chromer!

[Gander]

120 regular season games would be enough.

You can have your 7 game series in all rounds of the playoffs. Not that I think it would matter most of the time, especially this year. If it stops those people who whine because there team lost in a best of 5 game series, then change it to 7 just to sut them up.

The 8 best teams in the Majors should earn a spot in the playoffs. Not 4 from the AL and 4 from the NL, but the 8 teams with the best overall records. If 7 of 8 come from the AL, so be it.

More interleague games. No need for division rivals to play each other 18 times. It should be more evenly spread. Heck, why even have divisions?

[Cannon Shell]

I like the 5 game series, makes each game more important and creates urgency right off the bat.

[pmayjr]

As a Twins fan, I gotta disagree with Chromer, because we needed all of those games to get a playoff spot.

But yeah, all the playoff rounds should be 7 games. It wasn't gonna help the Twins. Even with Johan potentially starting the next game, they weren't gonna beat the A's. But the playoff rounds should all be 7 games.

I think that the 5 game format is a joke and have said so for years, a bunch of times on here.
Best of 7 is the only way to play it. Teams are built by GM's for 5 man rotations, its the only way to qualify for the playoffs. Then you completely switch the format to a 3-4 man rotation. Its just not right. If they wanna have 162 games and three rounds they should start the seaon one week earlier and play a best of 7 in each of the next two rounds.

[31lengths]

Originally Posted by oracle80

I think that the 5 game format is a joke and have said so for years, a bunch of times on here.
Best of 7 is the only way to play it. Teams are built by GM's for 5 man rotations, its the only way to qualify for the playoffs. Then you completely switch the format to a 3-4 man rotation. Its just not right. If they wanna have 162 games and three rounds they should start the seaon one week earlier and play a best of 7 in each of the next two rounds.

The first few world series games were 9 game series'...
1903 Bos def Pit 5 games to 3.

How about that

Mel Allen

Originally Posted by 31lengths

The first few world series games were 9 game series'...
1903 Bos def Pit 5 games to 3.

How about that

Mel Allen

It puts too much pressure on the home team. Which is why 3 lost in the first round, again.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by oracle80

I think that the 5 game format is a joke and have said so for years, a bunch of times on here.
Best of 7 is the only way to play it. Teams are built by GM's for 5 man rotations, its the only way to qualify for the playoffs. Then you completely switch the format to a 3-4 man rotation. Its just not right. If they wanna have 162 games and three rounds they should start the seaon one week earlier and play a best of 7 in each of the next two rounds.

........ bingo......... and to think with all your k-rod rants i assumed you didnt know baseball that well

Originally Posted by alysheba4

........ bingo......... and to think with all your k-rod rants i assumed you didnt know baseball that well

Sheba, I love baseball. And this series with Detroit and Oakland is a good example of why 7 game series are the only way to play. In a five game series I'm not at all convinced that the best team wins, not at all.
I think both the Padres and Yanks would have taken their series to at least game 6, and at least one of those series to a game 7 if it had been best of 7 instead of 5.
Its just so ridiculous to ask GM's and managers to build a team on a 5 man rotation all year long. I mean please, Carpenter pitched two of the 4 games at SD. They had a 3 man rotation. Its also affects players pyschologically to start at home and blow one game, desperation sets in immediately and they play tight.
If the A's-Detroit series were best of 7 it would already be over for all intents and purposes. I know the Tigers have been hot, but does anyone really think that they can sweep the A's? I'm willing to bet that this one goes at least 6, and most likely 7 games.
I've never in my life watched a hockey, basketball, or baseball series and come away not feeling that the team who won a 7 game series earned the win. In 2004 when the Yanks had that 3-0 lead, the fact is that their 4-5 guys on the pitching staff were awful, and that got exposed. Had it been a 5 game series the Yanks would have swept, and that would not at all have been an indication of how close together those two teams were in talent that year.
I just can't imagine anything more ridculous than asking teams to play 162 games all year long, and then having them play a 3 outta 5 to see who moves on. It defies all logic. I know its all about money, adding that extra round, but it would only add three more days to play a best of 7. And then noone could bitch about the outcomes.
Liek I said, if this was a 3 outta 5 the Tigers would be as good as in and thats what we would be reading, how much better they were than the A's. Down 2-0 or not, if you don't think the A's can come back I have a bridge to sell you. They have a better rotation than the Tigers do in the 3-4-5 spots.
Since the 3-4-5 guys matter in the regular season, isn't it kind of stupid to say that they don't matter in the first round of the playoffs?

[gales0678]

mike,

i disagree with you here

i picked oakland to beat detroit on 1st impression

BUT

then i heard from a "sharpie" in the bronx that all "the suc*ers" were on Oakland - so that is when i re-posted no play. I trust this individual's info very much.

I think it will be a sweep - Detroit is riding a wave of momentum very strong right now , and the typical guy who played the A's here usually losses and if they press here in games 3 + 4 it usually gets worse

My opinion only of course

[31lengths]

I think the Mets Could have used that day off. But thats the way it goes, I guess.