Think it devaules winning your division a lot with 3 division and 3 wildcards.
I think the divisions could be adjusted because they are not even in size. The NFL has it perfect with 2 conferences; each with 4 divisions, each with 4 teams. The only change there should be seeding for playoffs by record and not rewarding division winner with an automatic higher seed.
I wouldn't say that it devalues it. You get home field advantage throughout the playoffs (bigger deal than it is in football) and you play a lesser team.
I don't think you could do it like football because there would only be a few teams in a division and you would play those division teams even more than you do know.
See I also think home field matters more in football than it does in baseball lol.
I just hate the current balance of baseball divisions. AL has 14 teams to NL's 16. There are four divisions with 5 teams, one with 4, and one with 6. Being in the NL Central it is harder to make the playoffs than anywhere else just because you have more teams to contend with. The AL West is the easiest to win simply because there are only 3 teams you must be better than. If nothing else rebalance the NL to three 5 team divisions and take the left over team and put them in the AL west.
Maybe something like move Houston to the NL West and then move Arizona to the AL West.
__________________
Last edited by forumcrew on Oct 7th, 2009 at 05:41 PM
To even it up, then I guess I would agree to a few moves.
Baseball home field advantage is the only sport where it changes the game. Every sport has crazy fans and can provide a ton of pressure for/against players but baseball rules give last at bat. That's huge to have for home field advantage.
You can't really say that for football. Baseball can actually effect the game through the rules and not just having fans screaming at it.
I disagree one hundred percent. Is the AL West easier to win in? Yes, but not for the reasons you're saying. It's easier to win because, well, two of the teams are not very good. But, on that same token, lets say they were all good teams: that's three teams that you have to play against twenty plus times a year, so basically, if one of those teams is a bad match-up for you, you're screwed and therefore, not making the playoffs. Where as in the NL Central, BECAUSE you have more teams and, potentially, less loses against bad match-up teams, you have a better chance to make the play offs.
But I do agree with your general sentiment...no more teams need to be included in the play-offs.
__________________
The only thing thats with you your whole life is complete and utter darkness.
Last edited by Darth Macabre on Oct 7th, 2009 at 08:21 PM
If baseball isn't going to implement a salary cap (which it should) then adding a few more teams to the playoff structure would allow those teams that have a 1 year every 15 years chance to get into the playoffs more.
I know it wasn't your point, but a salary cap will never, ever be put in the place, so don't even bring it up. It would never get past the owners, and even in the extremely unlikely event that it did, the Union would never, ever allow it.
This "no team has a chance," is complete bs. Teams can spend more money, they just don't. Do they make as much as the Yankees and Red Sox do? No. Do they have as good of a market as the Mets and Cubs do? No, but revenue sharing gives them a chance, teams just don't use that chance. The Marlins having a 36 million dollar pay roll is completely unacceptable. If they weren't so cheap, they'd be in the play-offs as we speak.
Edit: I guess the MLB could lower the tax threshold, which would make more teams pay, but that's the most I could see them doing.
__________________
The only thing thats with you your whole life is complete and utter darkness.
Last edited by Darth Macabre on Oct 7th, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Your point is exactly right. It will always vary based on the current talent level of those teams. Either way the # of team balance issues has an effect and it would be so easy to fix I dont see why it isnt.
Carpenter, Lee, Hamels, and Wainwright...that's how it is in my eyes. Wainwright had a good season, I'll give him credit, but he's nothing special. And I know you were responding to me saying "Lee and Hamels," but in my mind, the Phillies have a better overall rotation, too.
__________________
The only thing thats with you your whole life is complete and utter darkness.
Because one team would be constantly playing inter-league teams. If all the teams are playing on the same day, one team from the AL would have to play a team from the NL. That's why its not fixed; in order to fix it, they have to expand.
__________________
The only thing thats with you your whole life is complete and utter darkness.
It's true though. Why do we see the same teams in the AL East? They can afford the massive contracts.
Every league has trade deadlines where a team trades their veterans for young players. But those guys are 30-35 years old.
Now, teams are traded great players who are in their mid 20's for even younger players. There is something wrong with that.
More teams can pay? That's complete bullshit. A team like the Jays pay 80-100 million dollars a season and they can't even get to second place. They could pay more but they'll be out of business.
What the league should do and it will probably happen in the next 20 years is a minimum salary cap to 50-60 million dollars and salary cap to 100-120 million dollars.
Look at the NFL and NHL. Both never had salary caps. Now they do. It can happen in baseball also.
Phillies tagged Wainwright for 7 runs early in the season, which was the worst he pitched all year. Phillies won the season series 4-1, 2-1 with Matt Holliday. Outscored them 40-24. Cardinals never had to face Hamels/Lee, and we never faced Carpenter.
Forget about Carpenter/Wainwright though, I don't want to face Pujols, so Go Dodgers.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 7th, 2009 02:16 AM
