Gammons Plan -- Add a wild card team

by Worf on Sep 26, 2009 11:39 AM CDT Comment 99 comments

I don't have a link to his column, because I don't get insider. He talked about it yesterday on the radio and the gist of it is this:

* Start the season on a weekend -- not on a Monday. This would help attendance anyway, because there is always a drop-off from Opening Day to the Tuesday or Wednesday game. Putting it on a weekend would help.

* Finish the season with Wild Card Weekend. The two wild-card teams would play a three-games series on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and then play the team with the best record.

This year, that would mean (Assuming no change in standings)

Red Sox vs. Rangers

Rockies vs. Braves

This gives meaning to winning the division, where there is none now. It would allow for more cities to be involved. It would punish the wild card team. Baseball still would have, percentage wise, the fewest playoff teams of the four sports.

I'm in favor of it. Bring it on.

Poll

2nd Wild Card team?

Yes! More pennant races, more emphasis on division

189 votes

No, I am an old fart who hates change! GET OFF MY LAWN!

65 votes

254 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 99 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

How about.........

………reducing each league to two divisions of six; 12 teams in the NL and 12 in the AL.

The respective division champs in each league play for the pennant with the winners advancing to the World Series.

Old fashioned? Perhaps, but we don’t need more teams and extra layers of clothing to watch the WS.

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day." ~ Frank Sinatra

by tville on Sep 26, 2009 11:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

And also...

Take away a team from the NL Central and move it to the AL West (Astros). Or move the Astros the NL West and one of the Rockies or Diamondbacks to the AL West. There is absolutely no reason we should have 6 teams in our division and the another one only has 4.

by Gurbal on Sep 26, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Amen.

Just don’t move the Pirates out of our division, please.

"Was you ever punched in the face five hundred times a night? It stings after a while." ~Rocky Balboa

by Goodie1969 on Sep 26, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you have two leagues of 15 teams

Then you either have at least one team off EVERY DAY or you have at least one interleague series EVERY DAY.

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Sep 26, 2009 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

At this point...

I’d prefer a constant interleague series on the schedule to the current system, where the AL West team has a 1 in 4 shot at the playoffs, and if 2 of the 4 teams happen to stink stink an easier shot at the WC.

by bison on Sep 26, 2009 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would NOT be in favor of that.

Interleague play is fine the way it is — 12-18 games a year. To have more would be ridiculous.

Eventually, the majors will expand by two more teams, making two leagues of 16 each and four divisions of four in each league. You’d have the same eight teams in the playoffs, only you’d have to win your division to get in.

With current economic conditions this may not happen for ten more years, but I suspect it will eventually.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 27, 2009 7:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So how would it look? One idea

AL Northeast

Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays
3rd NYC team

AL South

Orioles
Rays
Charlotte Team
Rangers

AL North

White Sox
Twins
Indians
Tigers

AL West

Royals
Angels
Mariners
Athletics

NL East

Mets
Phillies
Pirates
Reds

NL Central

Cubs
Cardinals
Brewers
Rockies

NL South

Braves
Marlins
Astros
Nationals

NL West

DBacks
Giants
Padres
Dodgers

Rockies were hard to place, but I think Houston belongs with the southern teams.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 27, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly I'd rather two divisions of eight teams in each league. Just four teams in a division seems... weird. I dunno. I don't like it.

Then the top two teams in each division meet in a playoff series to decide the division champion.

Something like this…

AL East – Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Tigers, Indians, Rays, Blue Jays, Expansion Team
AL West – White Sox, Twins, Rangers, Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Royals, Expansion Team

NL East – Cubs, Cardinals, Phillies, Pirates, Mets, Nationals, Marlins, Braves
NL West – Dodgers, Giants, Reds, Brewers, Astros, Padres, Diamondbacks, Rockies

Playoffs:
AL East Championship Series, AL West Championship Series
NL East Championship Series, NL West Championship Series
NL Championship Series
AL Championship Series
World Series

by cubsforever on Sep 27, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In fact, this format could even be used now, with 7 teams in each AL division.

by cubsforever on Sep 27, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to have sex with a supermodel too

That will not happen. There is no way baseball is going to go from eight playoff teams to four. None. Period. Nada. Zip. Zilch. NEVAH!

Under your set up — the Yankees would be running away with the AL East and the Angels would be running away with the AL West. Baseball in Boston, Minnesota, Detroit and Texas would be over. FAIL!

The Cardinals and Phillies would be in a race, but that would be it for the east.

The Dodgers would be done.

Congrats! You just went from 8 interested cities to 4.

FAIL!

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 27, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think you read my whole post.

I never said go from eight playoff teams to four. I said the 1 and 2 placed teams in each division would advance and play each other in the first round of the playoffs. The number of playoff teams and playoff series would remain the same.

by cubsforever on Sep 27, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmph...you're right

I still hate it.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 27, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not crazy about it either.

But it seems cleaner than 8 divisions x 4 teams.

I dunno. It seems like in this day and age there is no good alignment. Personally, I’d settle for a balanced schedule and a 7-game LDS.

by cubsforever on Sep 27, 2009 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

this defeats the whole purpose of wild card

the problem with this is if the 3rd place team in say the AL east has a better record than the 2nd place in the AL west, they would be losing out. this is why the wild card was put in. i remember the whitesox, in the larussa A’s era, had the 2nd best record in baseball for a couple of years and lost out because they were in the A’s division. if you used your format and did 2 “wildcards” than that would be better. either way, i dont think there should be expansion, as suggested by other posters. most teams cant sell out now. we dont need more dog teams. Marlins cant sell tickets until they make the playoffs so they think a new stadium will help? maybe for a year or two. after that same old thing, ask the Nats!

by imacubman on Sep 28, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm saying it would be better than the wildcard.

The thing about the wildcard is that it basically means that if two good teams are in one division, they’re both going to make the playoffs so little drama ensues over the last two months of the season. You’d probably agree that the AL Central has been the best race the last two years, right? That’s because the second place team has no fallback option – it’s win or go home. Personally I think it’s more exciting to see two teams in a tight race for the duration of the season than see more teams play a few games in October.

by cubsforever on Sep 30, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's pretty close, but...

… are you sure the extra expansion team goes to Charlotte? What about Vancouver?

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 27, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really? Vancouver???

Ugh, that sounds awful. Has it been discussed?

I was just kind of looking at cities that have at least two other pro teams, but no baseball. That means:

Charlotte, Nashville-Memphis, Indianapolis and New Orleans. I eliminated New Orleans because of economic concerns.

I know Portland was talked about at one point too, though.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 27, 2009 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anyway, if you're right...

Move Kansas City to the South and Vancouver to the West.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 27, 2009 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Portland might work.

It’s the 22nd largest TV market, larger than several cities that already have teams.

Indianapolis is too close to Chicago and Cincinnati.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 27, 2009 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indy

More than that, Indy already has the Colts and Pacers. I don’t think that market is big enough to support 3 major league sports teams. That being said, I have heard that Victory Field is a very nice AAA stadium for the Indy Indians. AAA is the highest level of baseball I see Indy having for the foreseeable future.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

eh

Indy only supports the Colts. Don’t let the fact that the Pacers play in the city convince you otherwise.

by edgesofsanity on Sep 28, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The NBA is weird

Because they have arenas of 20,000 capacity, they can get away with places like Salt Lake, Oklahoma City and San Antonio.

And Indiana-No-Place.

Hell, a third Chicago team might be better than any of the smaller options I’ve seen so far.

I’m starting to like Portland a little.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 28, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a group out there dedicated to bringing MLB to Portland.

Linky

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 28, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm very familiar with Portland, but can't see them supporting a team

long term. If I recall correctly, their minor league team folded for a while in the late 80’s or early 90’s from lack of support/financial issues.

if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand

by N Oakley on Sep 28, 2009 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indianapolis is supporting the Pacers once again.

They went through their JailPacers (not my expression) phase, which turned the community off. Now that the franchise has made a commitment to having both talent and character on the court, the fans will come back.

I love to play baseball. I'm a baseball player. I've always been a baseball player. I'm still a baseball player. That's who I am. - Ryne Sandberg

by Trey2317 on Sep 28, 2009 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right.

As a resident of Indianapolis, I don’t see any way this town can or would support a Major League team.

Fan loyalties are already divided between the Cubs, Reds and Cardinals (with sprinklings of White Sox and Indians fans around), so you’d have people attending games to see those teams but not their own.

Now, I will plug Victory Field as one of the best Minor League parks in America – fantastic sight lines and in the heart of downtown. At one point, there was talk of expanding it to try and draw the College World Series, but bringing a MLB franchise hasn’t really been discussed since the Hoosier Dome was built in 1980.

I love to play baseball. I'm a baseball player. I've always been a baseball player. I'm still a baseball player. That's who I am. - Ryne Sandberg

by Trey2317 on Sep 28, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Definite No On Memphis

Memphis only has about 50% of the population and 25% of the disposable income needed to support a MLB team. I agree with Al that Portland is a more viable option. I would not discount San Antonio as a possibility. However, with current economic conditions, I don’t see any MLB ready stadiums being built in the foreseeable future in markets that don’t currently have MLB teams.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

San Antonio...

… too close to Houston and Dallas in a state that is much more of a football place than a baseball place.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 28, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Portland More Viable Than San Antonio

For starters, Seattle is the only MLB team remotely close to Portland. The Portland team could be Oregon’s team and draw a lot of fans from further south in the state. I threw San Antonio in there because of how large the market is only having one major league team in the Spurs. I don’t see SA having a MLB team any time soon.

MLB teams are the hardest of all the major league teams to support. You don’t see markets like Memphis, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, and Salt Lake City, in MLB.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But if you take Nashville and Memphis together

they have the NBA, MLB and the NHL already.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 28, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of the current NL West teams needs to switch leagues.

If you go with the 4 team division, then you need 4 western teams in each league. Texas will be glad to explain why. And I don’t imagine Kansas City would be too pleased with all the travel if they’re the ones stuck in the AL West.

Seniority wise, I guess you could flip a coin between Arizona and Colorado but I’m thinking the Padres would be a better candidate. I know they’d be losing a rivalry with the Dodgers, but a combination of new ownership, current state of general fan apathy, and the chance to start up a new rivalry with Arte Moreno’s Angels might be enough to make them want to switch over. Seemed to work out okay for the Brewers. They lost the White Sox and the Twins to a certain extent but gained the Cubs.

KC could come over to the new NL Central (and the Rockies to the NL West) or put both expansion teams in the NL and juggle accordingly.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Sep 27, 2009 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disregard that last paragraph - got confused with my 16 and 14 team leagues.

If SD and KC switch leagues then both expansion teams go into AL. If KC stays in AL, then one expansion team per league.

I do like the idea of putting the Royals in our division. That’d make for some great road trips, not to mention the Negro League HoF and some great ribs, steaks, bbq, etc…

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Sep 27, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kauffman Stadium

That’s my favorite stadium in Missouri. I love the fountains there and the Royals Hall of Fame. They’ve got grass there now. The backdrop of Interstate 70 and the Blue Ridge Cutoff isn’t attractive, but I like that stadium better than the one in St. Louis. New Busch is a nice enough stadium but has a very generic feel to it. The best thing about new Busch is the background of downtown with the Arch, but it’s not Baseball Heaven.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I haven't been to Kauffman (then Royals) Stadium since the 1980 World Series.

But I heard they made a really nice renovation of it for this year. The Royals are going to draw their largest total attendance since 1993 this year despite being horrible.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 28, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In my division realignment, assuming the expansion teams suck

The AL playoff teams would be:

Yankees, Rangers, Tigers and Angles

NL:

Phillies, Cardinals, Braves, Dodgers

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 28, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see the WC concept going away

It keeps interest for teams that have no chance to finish first in a strong division.

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Sep 28, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

AL East Situation

Congrats to the Rays last season for breaking through to win the division! During most seasons, the Yankees and Red Sox are going to finish 1-2 in that division. Most of the time, the other teams in the AL East have no legitmate chance of making the playoffs. Having a second AL wild card would help the Rays, Blue Jays, and Orioles.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was all fine and good

in the 40s when the NFL barely existed and the NBA didn’t exist and the NHL had 12 Canadians in the stands and college football was Army-Navy and nothing else.

But go ahead, go back to eliminating 80 percent of the teams by July 4. See how it does for revenue.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 26, 2009 12:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

As opposed to........

……….teams like the Pirates that simply eliminate themselves annually?

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day." ~ Frank Sinatra

by tville on Sep 26, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, the future is here

Put down your Pong games and get with it

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 26, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pong was awesome

Oh, to be a teenager again. Cheetos were good.

by Southside Steve on Sep 26, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cheetos ARE good

Not past tense!

Visit FanIQ.com for sports news, bloggings, polls, and more!

by MrNFL on Sep 28, 2009 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pirates and Orioles

It’s not the 1970’s any more, is it? Those two franchises played against each other in both the 1971 and 1979 World Series. They will have combined for 20 losing seasons in the decade of the 2000’s at the end of this season. The Orioles haven’t been over .500 since 1997. Pittsburgh hasn’t been there since 1992. Those are two sad stories.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like this idea for a number of reasons

It would give more interest to the final weeks of the season and give division champs a first round bye. This could be both counterproductive, but it could also make things more interesting. Here’s how I would have it work.

MLB Playoffs
1) Wild Card Round – Best of Three Series
Two teams with the best records in their respective leagues that are not division champions meet for a best of three series. The team with the better record receives home field advantage in the series. This serves as a first round bye for division champions.
2) League Division Series – Best of Three Series
The winner of the Wild Card round plays the team with the league’s record unless that Wild Card winner is from the same division as the league wins leader. If this is the case, the WC winner plays the division champion with the second best record and the team with the best record plays the division champion with the third best record.
3) League Championship Series – Best of Three Series
This is a return to the old five game format, a necessity if an extra playoff series is added. The winner of this round takes the pennant and advances to the World Series.
4) World Series – Best of Four Series
This needs no explanation.

And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.

by Ace Venom on Sep 26, 2009 12:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

umm... a Best of Four series requires no explanation?

Perhaps that was a typo – maybe you meant Best of Seven? Likewise with the LCS – maybe you meant Best of Five?

Also, I’d be interested to hear your rationale for WC not playing the best record if from same division. I believe your presumption going into the postseason is the WC is the weakest team – ergo, why not match them up against the best record? Why should Division matter?

OTOH, if you don’t believe WC is necessarily the weakest team, then wouldn’t you want to re-seed (based on season record) once you get to the LDS?

Of course, none of this has a snowball’s chance in hell of happening seeing as how MLB and Bud Lite can’t figure out how to reserve hotel rooms in 3 extra cities now. Adding two more teams to the mix would blow their collective minds – though to be fair, it wouldn’t take much…

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Sep 26, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I meant

I give no rationale for my thoughts.

And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.

by Ace Venom on Sep 26, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like it...

Something more realistic that I would like to see is a 7-game Division series. I think a 162 game season should only be ended with a 7 game series. Maybe knock the regular season back to 154 if necessary…

by Kansas25 on Sep 26, 2009 12:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This idea has merit.

It makes total sense to me, and would probably be of great benefit to the game; therefore, I have no faith in this ever happening.

"Was you ever punched in the face five hundred times a night? It stings after a while." ~Rocky Balboa

by Goodie1969 on Sep 26, 2009 1:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed

if it makes sense then MLB won’t do it. I mean look at how hard it is for them to figure out that the team with the best record should have home field advantage in the world series.

by TJ3117 on Sep 26, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a terrible idea...

…but the execution could be so easily mangled.

I wouldn’t be opposed to adding another Wild Card team, but I’d want to see:

1) A reduction in the stupid number of off-days during the playoffs that we’re going to see going forward.

2) The winner of the Wild Card round plays the #1 seed in the Division series, regardless of whether or not the WC winner and the #1 seed are in the same division or not.

Neither of these ideas will fly, because television wouldn’t want them. Is Fox salivating right now at the prospect of a Yankees/Red Sox ALCS? Absosmurfly. But baseball is bigger than television.

by allyngibson on Sep 26, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cubs

would still be alive…….can we do this this year??

by plenz on Sep 26, 2009 1:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Ok, more

The idea is alright if you want more.

If you want even competition, they’ve butched that pretty bad over the years. Yet teams keep being awarded or rewarded for something when the competitors don’t play the same schedule.

by AboutTheCubs on Sep 26, 2009 2:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Unless you eliminate interleague play, that's never going to be the case.

The only way you will ever have that again, is if MLB expands by two teams, making two 16-team leagues with four divisions of four each. That way you could still have the same levels of playoffs as you have now, only you’d have to win your division to get in.

The unequal number of teams in divisions makes for the wacky scheduling we have now.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 26, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The unequal divisions make it messy, but it doesn't have to be this messy.

There’s no reason it has to be 6 series against divisional teams and 2 series everywhere else.

by cubsforever on Sep 27, 2009 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

natural rivals

this is the reason for the mess. do we really need to play the sox twice and the cards play KC twice? mets and yanks, lots of others. if we played sox once and kc once as well as stl it would help even it out. the uneven AL/NL #’s will never even out without expansion, which i dont see, or want to see, or year round IL, which would even fairness of schedules out but I dont see ever happening.

by imacubman on Sep 28, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And while we're at it, let's add the DH to the NL.

Really.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Sep 26, 2009 5:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

no, really?

I have always liked your advice SDSJM…

"When you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill

by vonde6 on Sep 26, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The DH in the NL...

… will probably be a big bargaining chip in the next labor negotiation. It could create 16 more fulltime jobs for players. (Think of Jake Fox just being able to hit every day.)

A lot of NL GM’s want it because of the injuries suffered to pitchers running the bases this year — Carlos Zambrano and Jake Peavy being the most prominent.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 27, 2009 7:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's long past time

to equalize the league rules. My preference would be pitchers hitting in the AL, but that ship has long sailed.

So the next best thing is NL DH. It is absolutely ridiculous to have two different rules.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 27, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 27, 2009 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why not both? The EH

Make the pitchers hit so there’s still some kind of strategy involved, but just add an extra hitter (EH) to the lineup.

Yes, it’d be a 10 man lineup and that might horrify some traditionalists (and I consider myself one), but I’d rather lose the symmetry of the nine than lose all pretense of a pitcher not even attempting to be a complete player.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Sep 27, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno if I'd like that.

If you do that, you have to make the AL pitchers bat. Part of the point of having the DH in the NL would be to have both leagues play by the same rules.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 27, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well if you add the DH to the NL, you making the NL pitchers NOT bat. Same difference.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Sep 27, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rather than adding a 10th Hitter,

couldn’t you just as easily remove the 9th Hitter in both leagues?

In a way, you would be compensating for the loss of the DH in the AL by increasing the number of times the top and middle of the order bat in a game, which would probably keep the offensive production about the same. The NL would likely see the offensive numbers move up, or at least stay the same.

"Was you ever punched in the face five hundred times a night? It stings after a while." ~Rocky Balboa

by Goodie1969 on Sep 27, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about the AL goes back to playing real baseball?

The DH was only supposed to be for a few years, but like toll roads in Chicago… (well, you know).

I'm a truth teller, I'm a risk taker, I'm like Johnny Cash - I walk the line...

by Jimmyeatworld on Sep 27, 2009 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm afraid neither scenario is plausible

for the simple reason that the Players’ Union will never allow them to cut those cushy DH jobs.

"Was you ever punched in the face five hundred times a night? It stings after a while." ~Rocky Balboa

by Goodie1969 on Sep 27, 2009 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks Mr. Finley...

I'm a truth teller, I'm a risk taker, I'm like Johnny Cash - I walk the line...

by Jimmyeatworld on Sep 27, 2009 7:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

“The average fan comes to the park to see action, home runs. He doesn’t come to see a one-, two-, three- or four-hit game. I can’t think of anything more boring than to see a pitcher come up, when the average pitcher can’t hit my grandmother. Let’s have a permanent pinch-hitter for the pitcher.” -Charlie Finley

What do you think about that, Z?

"Was you ever punched in the face five hundred times a night? It stings after a while." ~Rocky Balboa

by Goodie1969 on Sep 27, 2009 7:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because they won't

there is a real-world thing going on here — unions and jobs and high salaries.

No one cares about “real baseball”

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 27, 2009 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe you don't... I know plenty of people who do.

I'm a truth teller, I'm a risk taker, I'm like Johnny Cash - I walk the line...

by Jimmyeatworld on Sep 27, 2009 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one who matters cares

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 27, 2009 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, you're so witty...

Many purists would disagree, (noted baseball media & front office staff among them). Got to give it to ya though, your snappy “No one who matters cares” is a strong argument – NOT.

I'm a truth teller, I'm a risk taker, I'm like Johnny Cash - I walk the line...

by Jimmyeatworld on Sep 28, 2009 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one in the union or the ownership cares

And no one else matters.

If baseball listened to its purists, it would be played by strictly Caucasian men in 12 cities in the Northeast and Midwest and pennant races would be over by July 4.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 28, 2009 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Fan Cam would suck, too.

Who wants to look at lingering close-ups of sweaty white guys in cheap suits and bowlers puffing on cigars and twirling their pocket watches?

"Was you ever punched in the face five hundred times a night? It stings after a while." ~Rocky Balboa

by Goodie1969 on Sep 28, 2009 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you're saying going with an 8-man batting order?

That’s different – I’ll give you that. But as you’ve already pointed out, the union will never allow that to happen.

That’s the beauty of the EH – no jobs get eliminated. Indeed, you could argue that 16 higher-paying jobs just got created. So the union ought to be happy.

All pitchers have to hit, which means managers may have to… oh, I don’t know… manage a little more. Which ought to make games more exciting and make the fans happy.

While there may be a slight uptick in pitcher injuries during the time it takes the AL pitchers to learn how to, oh, I don’t know… become a ball player again, this should be offset by less head-hunting which means less brawls, suspensions, and injuries. That ought to make everyone except Bob Watson happy.

And if the day comes when we do feel the need to trade Z, he won’t have to consider not being able to bat when he considers what teams he’d be willing to go to, which ought to make Hendry happy.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Sep 27, 2009 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could get on board with this

But whatever happens, both leagues have to do it. I really am to the point where I don’t care if they decide pitchers AND shortstops don’t have to hit.

Or if they have a 12-man lineup and add a fourth outfielder.

I just want the same rules in both leagues. I’m sick and tired of the NL getting maligned because their pitchers don’t have to face nine real hitters. I’m sick and tired of watching failed AL pitchers come to the NL and become Cy Young candidates.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 27, 2009 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a reason your scenario would never be accepted.

If you had 10-man lineups, all the lineup positions would get 10% (approximately) fewer plate appearances.

Try telling guys who hit 30 HR a year that they’ll only have enough PA to get 27.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 28, 2009 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

10 batters? How long do you want these games to last?

The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.

by Ozzie Montana on Sep 27, 2009 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

umm... it's still 3 outs per team per inning.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Sep 28, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

DH Used at Lower Levels of Baseball

The DH is used in college baseball. In AA and AAA, the DH is used in every game involving an AL-affiliated team. Even pitchers on NL-affiliated teams in AA and AAA get a limited number of at-bats because they only bat if they are playing against another NL-affiliated teams.

With Carlos Zambrano being a notable exception, there’s no wonder why pitchers are such poor hitters in general. The pitchers simply don’t get the experience swinging the bat at lower levels of baseball.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its a great idea!

And for that reason alone, it will never happen.

"I didn't poke no goddamn rabbits!" 9/2/09

by Chicago White Sux on Sep 26, 2009 11:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

woops,

sorry i think i may have repeated a few posts by saying that. sorry

"I didn't poke no goddamn rabbits!" 9/2/09

by Chicago White Sux on Sep 26, 2009 11:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't like best of 5

I would rather see a team win with all 5 starters and leave out the off days. May the best team win, no tthe one with 3 starters.

This is only the beginning....Lou Pinella end of '07 season and Chicago Transit Authority (the band when they were really good).

by mrcubsfan on Sep 27, 2009 10:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes you need an off day...

… especially considering that you don’t know if you have an Eastern team playing a Western team. It’d be ridiculous to have a 5-game series with NO off days having to fly coast to coast twice.

But it’s MORE ridiculous to have three off days in a five-game series, as they do now.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 27, 2009 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

While I do love tradition...

sounds like a great idea. The only issue I see is starting the season on the weekend would be horrible. As it is, I have been to the season opener in Cincy for the last 19years. Opening day sells out in a matter of minutes. I can only imagine how fast that would sell out if it started on a Friday.

And while we are at it lets bring back a little tradition of having the Reds start the season again. When I started attending opening day, the Reds were given the distinction of being the team that started the baseball season.

I'm Buck Melanoma. Moley Russell's wart. Not her wart. Not her wart! I'm... I'm the wart. She's my tumor. My... my growth. My... uh, my pimple. I'm Uncle Wart. Just old Buck "Wart" Russell. That's what they call me, or Melanoma Head. - Uncle Buck

by Andiamo Cuccioli on Sep 28, 2009 7:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Somehow I think "selling out too fast" is

NOT going to be something that scares owners away from doing anything.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 28, 2009 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scare owner's?

No. It just means the scalper’s get more money. Good opportunity for owner’s will mean bad news for fans. Well… …maybe just the poor fans.

by Andiamo Cuccioli on Sep 28, 2009 9:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure I understand the benefit of adding an extra Wild Card team...

…except for the two additional owners selling tickets to another series of games. The division series aren’t very well watched events by neutral fans, relatively speaking, so the wild card matchup wouldn’t likely be a draw, in and of itself.

I can’t think of a single year since the Wild Card system was in place where the runner up in the Wild Card race really seemed jilted. Certainly nothing to compare with the 1993 Giants. There isn’t some prior injustice we’re making up for.

Also, a second Wild Card team doesn’t even seem to add much intrigue to the playoff race in September. If it’s a close Wild Card race, there’s several teams in the hunt already. If it’s not a close race, it’s hard to really say the runner up is all that deserving and we already have mediocre division winners making the playoffs—why water down the field further?

I guess I just don’t see the benefit…

by MarchHare on Sep 28, 2009 12:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I dislike that it's change, but like the added baseball passion

being in a playoff race adds. The more teams who can remain in contention to the last week, the better it is for baseball.

This may be a way for the Royals or Pirates to put things together for a season and jump start new members in their fan base.

if this was still new to me, i wouldn't understand

by N Oakley on Sep 28, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The fact that it's a change doesn't bother me...

…I just don’t see how it really improves upon the current system. I loved the addition of the Wild Card in the 90’s, as it was very possible for one of the two best team in the league to not both make the playoffs. While the argument existed that the runner up had their chance in the division race, if the second best team doesn’t make the playoffs, what’s the purpose of a playoff? The Wild Card solved this. As a side benefit, it also keeps more teams in contention, as you say. I would add, however, that it does so within reason.

Looking over the past seven seasons (the ones I immediately found on an online search), the Wild Card runner up would still be a 85-93 win team, which is certainly playoff calibre, so I’ll retract my earlier comment of watering down the post season. Outside of a few seasons, however (the 2003 NL race for a 2nd WC would have been a 5-6 team affair), there don’t seem to be many cases where it really changes the number of teams who are really in the hunt. It also brings up cases (last year in the AL, for instance) where the top Wild Card team would have to play someone who they were WELL in front of in the standings, even in the same division, much less just the Wild Card. It also runs the risk of having the season running pretty long (allowances for make up games, tie-beaker games for the divisions, play-in game for the 2nd Wild Card spot, etc).

All that aside, none of my critiques against a Second Wild Card winner are particularly damning in and of themselves. Therefore, I don’t think such a series would be a bad move for MLB, necessarily—I just don’t think it would be a good one either.

by MarchHare on Sep 28, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

3-Game Miniseries?, 1-Game Wild Card Playoff?

Would the division winners get rusty by waiting on the wild card series to end? The inactivity could help or hurt the division winners getting a first-round bye. The best of 3 miniseries was done in the NBA from the mid-1970’s through the early 1980’s. I didn’t hear about the division winners in the NBA complaining about being rusty back then.

The idea of a 1-game playoff (with teams NOT tied for the wild card) playing for the wild card would not gain much traction. We essentially had this in 1998 and 2007 in the National League because of ties for the wild card. That would reward division winners without the first place teams having to wait long to play in the division series. However, there would be something not right about a wild card team being 4 games better than the next place wild card team getting knocked out in a 1-game playoff. 2 out of 3 is better.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 3:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

1999 NL Wild Card Playoff

I forgot about the Reds playing the Mets for the wild card in 1999.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Extended Wildcard

I dont know what I think of this, it’s just a thought… But what if the Monday after the season, the 2 wildcards played a double header, and the aggregate score of the 2 games wins? It wouldnt really lengthen the playoffs. And then the wildcard winner plays the best of the league on wednesday or thursday?

"I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying" - Michael Jordan, the one and only...

by LPLancer23 on Sep 28, 2009 3:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Now that Ive got my mind going.....

It would have to be at a neutral field.

"I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying" - Michael Jordan, the one and only...

by LPLancer23 on Sep 28, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would never happen.

No one’s going to agree to play a game like that at a neutral field.

Also, what happens if each team wins a game 5-4? How do you decide it then? With a home run derby?

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Sep 28, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, but I kind of like this

How about a two-day, three-game playoff?

First day is a double-header. Winner of Game 1 has every incentive to go balls to the wall to get a day off. Loser of Game 1 is in an elimination game.

If they split the DH, then you go to the second day.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Sep 28, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Won't Happen, But...

it would be an interesting idea. Would all of the games be played at the same site, if it went three games in this alternate universe? I’m sure MLB would never go for teams playing a doubleheader in the playoffs in the first place. Then, there is the question of whether it would be a day-night doubleheader or not. MLB would not want to lose a gate in postseason having a traditional doubleheader.

I would love to see that format, used for a best of 3 wild card playoff, but reality dictates it would never happen.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 28, 2009 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It struck me today what I don't like about the wildcard.

Back in the day (pre-1994), there were basically three levels of success a team could achieve. Division title, league title, World Series title. Each was a clearly defined achievement. These days, you can win the division, or win the wildcard, and then you can make an LCS appearance, and then a league pennant, and then the World Series. It’s just a mess now. I like simplicity. The current system has none of it.

by cubsforever on Sep 30, 2009 12:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs