I'd prefer to keep playoffs at 10 teams. If the Indians aren't one of them, so be it. I don't want to see a 28-32 team in the field.
Yeah, I understand the concept of expanded playoffs. I just hate it.My guess its going to be the top 8 teams record wise, getting seeded, likely like a 3 (maybe 5) game series then the regular playoffs after that.
I guess its me being greedy, but I wanna see more baseball, but during a normal season, I wouldn't want this, but this season with so few games, something out of the ordinary is fine with me
I agree, it would suck if a #8 seed got hot and beat the #1 seed in the first round. All of a sudden a 36-24 team is knocked out by a team that won 27 or something. As it stands now 33% of the teams make the playoffs so the regular season means something.
You said it in your first sentence. Basketball is different.Obviously basketball is a little different, but this doesnt seem to be an issue there. So im not sure why it would be an issue in baseball.
In a shortened season where 1 game is equal to 3 normal games, to me it makes sense to allow more teams into the playoffs Maybe a bye for seeds 1 and 2? maybe? But I would imagine you are going to have 20 teams fall between 25 and 35 wins, and in that case it makes sense to allow some extra teams in.
yes, and over a full season it makes sense to limit the number of teams. But in a season where every game is literally worth 3 times its normal worth and so variance is going to be at an all time high, it makes sense to accommodate for that variance by letting more teams in.You said it in your first sentence. Basketball is different.
In basketball you have teams that go 65-17 grabbing them one seed. When’s the last time we saw a baseball team with that kind of record?
Imagine a 50 win NBA team against a 41 win team. Not a huge difference there unless that 50 win team is the “chill mode” Cavs . That’s the kind of disparity you’d be looking at in the MLB.
The MLB landscape is a little different right now that it normally is with a few absolutely dreadful teams at the bottom. Still, everyone is between 50 wins and 110 wins. Imagine an NFL where the elite teams only win 10-11 games.
So, tldr, there’s a much greater chance for an upset in baseball because the talent disparity between teams is much closer than the other leagues.
I don’t agree, but I’ll leave it at that since I’ve already made my thoughts clear.yes, and over a full season it makes sense to limit the number of teams. But in a season where every game is literally worth 3 times its normal worth and so variance is going to be at an all time high, it makes sense to accomadate for that variance by letting more teams in.
I mean, Nightengale has to be right here.Nightengale is often wrong. I hope he’s wrong here if this means all 16 teams playing a first round 3 game series.
Need to have some incentive/reward for the division winners or the top 4-6 records.