Proposed Playoff Expansion with a Reality TV Twist

[bighat]

 

Relegation would solve the tanking problem. Three 10-team divisions. Bottom 2 (or 3) teams get relegated each year and top 2 or 3 promoted. Lower divisions get less TV/advertising money, so there is a strong incentive to avoid the bottom spots. Could add a firm salary cap to mitigate the "rich get richer" implications.

 

Playoffs would have a few teams from the first division, plus the champions of divisions 2 and 3. If division 3 champ wins the World Series it gets a double promotion to division 1.

It's a cool fantasy, but unfortunately it would never work. In your scenario, where do the "relegated" teams go? And where do the newly promoted teams come from?

 

I love the English Premier League and their relegation system. That said, all of their teams in every one of their leagues are separate, professional teams. It's not like Chelsea has a minor league team playing down in League One, feeding them players...when a team gets promoted, they are doing so as a completely independent entity.

 

What you're proposing is essentially dissolving the minor leagues, and then setting up a system where the Can-Am League, American Association, Atlantic League and Frontier League make up various rungs of the ladder instead.

 

It would be a monumental task that would most certainly be immediately snuffed by the MLB player's union before it even got to the table.

 

Would it be cool? Sure. Is it possible? Check back in 100 years.

[USAFChief]

 

In a one on conversation, sure. But Twitter was invented specifically for those short hyperbolic statements.

TWITTER WAS INVENTED BY THE DEVIL AND WILL BE THE DEATH OF US ALL!!1!

[Vanimal46]

I agree with this. To my mind, the NCAA tournament is the single best sporting event of the year. Why? Everyone gets a shot, and the amazing unpredictability makes for massively compelling storylines. Are you telling me it wouldn't be fascinating to watch an 82 win White Sox team go into the Bronx, and take game 1 from a 109 win Yankees team? What happens next? Especially if you make a rule that in the best of three series, the higher seed gets to pick the one game they play on the road. In this scenario, if the Yankees opted for games 1 and 2 at home, they now know they'll have to go to the South Side, and face 40,000 maniacally loud Chicagoans who want to see their plucky team topple the Empire. Are you really telling me any true fan of baseball wouldn't find that compelling beyond measure?

Not really, no. 1 out of 10 times maybe the 82 win White Sox make it interesting. The other 90% of the time New York destroys the 82 win White Sox.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

In a one on conversation, sure. But Twitter was invented specifically for those short hyperbolic statements.

 

Which in no way imparts incremental value to his statement.  It would be quite easy for Bauer to write a blog post and tweet a link to it.  Any number of baseball themed publications would be only too happy to publish the entirety of his rationale if he sent it to them.  The lack of specificity in Bauer's message is not because he is constrained from sharing it in any way; until he does share specifics, I remain convinced that he is being petulant and childish, and his opinion carries absolutely no weight whatsoever with me.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Not really, no. 1 out of 10 times maybe the 82 win White Sox make it interesting. The other 90% of the time New York destroys the 82 win White Sox.

 

I wasn't asking about the probability of it happening.  I was saying, if it does, is that honestly not compelling to you?  There's 13 minutes left to go in the second half, and UMBC is tied with Virginia--you're not switching over to watch?

[Vanimal46]

I wasn't asking about the probability of it happening. I was saying, if it does, is that honestly not compelling to you? There's 13 minutes left to go in the second half, and UMBC is tied with Virginia--you're not switching over to watch?

No. But I’m not a college basketball fan! I don’t see the value adding an 82 win team to the playoff mix when they’re going to lose 9 times out of 10.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

It's a cool fantasy, but unfortunately it would never work. In your scenario, where do the "relegated" teams go? And where do the newly promoted teams come from?

 

I love the English Premier League and their relegation system. That said, all of their teams in every one of their leagues are separate, professional teams. It's not like Chelsea has a minor league team playing down in League One, feeding them players...when a team gets promoted, they are doing so as a completely independent entity.

 

What you're proposing is essentially dissolving the minor leagues, and then setting up a system where the Can-Am League, American Association, Atlantic League and Frontier League make up various rungs of the ladder instead.

 

It would be a monumental task that would most certainly be immediately snuffed by the MLB player's union before it even got to the table.

 

Would it be cool? Sure. Is it possible? Check back in 100 years.

 

Not quite.  The teams in the EPL, LA Liga, Serie A, and the Budesliga all have academies that sign teen and pre-teen players, who then graduate to the parent team if and when they are ready.  A relegation system as proposed here would still keep 30 major league teams, but would result in the end of MiLB as we know it.  Instead, teams would have junior academies in the Latin countires, and a senior academy in the states (maybe two).  These would in all likelihood be clustered in Florida and Arizona, and in addition to doing drills and off-field work, would involve games against other team's academies.  Maybe these would be open to the public, maybe they wouldn't.

 

What this wouldn't do is end tanking, as there would only be two ways forward for relegated teams.  Hoard prospects, hope a wave hits that is both deep enough and close enough together that a successful team emerges, or sell promising players (either on the parent team, or in the academies) to the bigger teams for cash, which is used to sign the next wave of 18 year old Americans, and 16 year old non-Americans; rinse and repeat.  The big teams would be straining to the max to keep their teams together to compete, and wouldn't have the money to compete for unproven talent, hence it would go to the 2nd and 3rd division teams.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

No. But I’m not a college basketball fan! I don’t see the value adding an 82 win team to the playoff mix when they’re going to lose 9 times out of 10.

 

Ok, so that's a bad analogy for you personally then.  My larger point is that yes, it's unlikely the 82 win Sox take 2 of 3 from the 110 win Yankees.  But if the Sox steal Game 1, and get Game 3 at home, I can't think of many things more compelling than a winner-take-all game between the plucky upstart and the suddenly vulnerable behemoth.

 

But then again, I'm not a Philistine.

[Craig Arko]

 

No. But I’m not a college basketball fan! I don’t see the value adding an 82 win team to the playoff mix when they’re going to lose 9 times out of 10.

Well, for the teams and MLB that's easy. Additional TV revenue.

 

Whether that is worth it to you and me; I'm skeptical.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

As for the draft changes above, that dooms the worst teams to not getting the best players. No way is that a good idea for the long term good of the most number of teams.

 

I also have a LONG article someplace about how to convert the draft into a more fair process for the teams and the players, involving allowing certain teams to bid on the best players, but not other teams. It kind of combines a draft and an auction. If even 1 person says they want to see it, I'll find it.

I want to see it.

 

also, my draft reshuffle was just an idea. I would also say it’s not as “dooming” as you suggest. It only moves the top picks around a bit. The worst teams still get high picks, but the promise of the top one or two picks is removed. My idea also offers a nice consolation to the last team that misses out on the postseason (on the final day, for example).

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Ok, so that's a bad analogy for you personally then.  My larger point is that yes, it's unlikely the 82 win Sox take 2 of 3 from the 110 win Yankees.  But if the Sox steal Game 1, and get Game 3 at home, I can't think of many things more compelling than a winner-take-all game between the plucky upstart and the suddenly vulnerable behemoth.

 

But then again, I'm not a Philistine.

You are making people choose between the Yankees and White Sox? Who’s the real Philistine in this example?

 

Seriously though, I don’t want to see #7 seeds in the MLB postseason.

 

If MLB wants to add more teams to the postseason, they will have to reduce the schedule, as other posters have been saying.

 

What do you think about an NFL style postseason? Or letting the highest seeds play all the first round games at home? I think something needs to be done in your scenario to confer more advantage for the team that won 110 games during the season over the team that only played .500 ball all year.

[laloesch]

 

"Relegation" is a terrible idea. "Lower divisions" is a terrible idea.

 

I don't want a system whereby the big money teams are "the major leagues," and everyone else is considered AAA.

 

Really, really bad idea. It's an argument for one 10 team major league. 

agreed on this.  It would create a sort of Division 1a, Division 1b, something along those lines.  You kinda almost have it going already with the big market teams and the small market teams.

[Mike Sixel]

 

What the playoffs does do, however, is keep the drama going essentially until the final 2-3 games of the season, at worst.  Oftentimes, the drama goes into the final game, and sometimes even the final inning or final pitch.  This is something that is never guaranteed with leagues that crown a winner without playoffs--look at this year's EPL for example.  With 13 matches left, Liverpool has a 22 point lead (the equivalent of 7 matches).  That season is all but over--the only drama left is who will get relegated, and whether or not Liverpool can finish without a loss.

 

This new proposal does a few positive things;

 

1--It makes races at the top of each league hugely intense.  There is now a gigantic advantage to climbing up each rung of the ladder--1st seed gets a bye, 2nd seed gets their pick of any opponent, 3rd seed gets to choose an opponent, and 4th seed gets home-field advantage.

 

2--It incentivizes more teams in the 75-80 win range to try to get to the 80-85 win range, particularly if you re-wrote the rules to make playoff revenue shareable only amongst teams who make the playoffs.  If 14 teams make the playoffs, and split lets say a couple of hundred million dollars, making the playoffs or not is now worth an extra $10-$15M for a team

 

3--It keeps more fans interested.  From a national perspective, not many fans might have cared if the White Sox or the Angels could chase down the Rangers for the 7th spot last year.  Were I a White Sox or Angels fan, I may have wanted them to NOT chase down the Rangers.  But a lot of other people would, and they would buy a lot more tickets, concessions, and merch than I would.  Increased bottom lines for more teams is theoretically, a good thing.

 

4--It should help hasten rebuilds.  With more teams trying to improve before the trade deadline, and therefore fewer teams with players on the market, the price goes up, meaning tanking teams can more quickly accumulate assets, and resume competing for the playoffs.  Unless an organization is just terribly run, decade-long rebuilds will be a thing of the past.

 

One of the problems that baseball has right now is that too many teams have figured out that winning is not the best way To Win.  This, at least in my opinion, reduces the population of that lower class.  The Royals, Orioles, and Tigers will all still tank, but every other team will want a playoff spot, and the millions of extra revenue that come with it.

 

?

 

The playoff teams were largely decided by the all star break. No way it keeps the season in doubt until the last game or two, not for all but 2-3 teams. Not even a little.

 

It actually discentents any team that thinks it is a around a 500 team from adding expensive talent (the new system) because they might make the playoffs with a bit of luck. Any proposal from the owners has the goal of decreasing the number of teams bidding for players, to drive down wages.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

You are making people choose between the Yankees and White Sox? Who’s the real Philistine in this example?

Seriously though, I don’t want to see #7 seeds in the MLB postseason.

If MLB wants to add more teams to the postseason, they will have to reduce the schedule, as other posters have been saying.

What do you think about an NFL style postseason? Or letting the highest seeds play all the first round games at home? I think something needs to be done in your scenario to confer more advantage for the team that won 110 games during the season over the team that only played .500 ball all year.

 

I think in general, a 7 seed isn't necessarily as bad as some people think.  In the AL in 2019, the 7 seed would be the 84 win but defending WS champion Red Sox.  I also would be completely in favor of reducing the regular season to 154 games to support this, although that being said, an opening round consisting of 3 game series is only 2 more games maximum for that round.  It can even be scheduled March Madness style where all 6 series kick off on the Tuesday after the regular season ends, with half of them playing Wednesday/Friday, and the other half Thursday/Friday.  How fun would it be to have 10 hours of playoff baseball on the first Tuesday of October?  With generally at least 2 games, and sometimes 3 going at a time?

 

I'm also open to conferring more advantage on the teams with a superior record, but I want to do it in an interesting way; for example, allow a team to choose their opponent and 2 home games, or give up choosing their opponent, but get all 3 games at home.  As an example, this is how it would work last year in the AL.

 

Houston gets the 1 seed and the bye.

 

New York gets the two seed, and probably chooses to play the Red Sox, and selects games 1 and 3 to be in the Bronx

 

Minnesota gets the three seed, and probably chooses to play Cleveland, and selects games 1 and 2 to be in Minnesota

 

Oakland gets the four seed, and gets to play Tampa Bay all 3 games in the Bay Area.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

?

 

The playoff teams were largely decided by the all star break. No way it keeps the season in doubt until the last game or two, not for all but 2-3 teams. Not even a little.

 

It actually discentents any team that thinks it is a around a 500 team from adding expensive talent (the new system) because they might make the playoffs with a bit of luck. Any proposal from the owners has the goal of decreasing the number of teams bidding for players, to drive down wages.

 

I'm saying there were 10 teams that made the playoffs, all of whom had a chance to win.  The last game of the year was Game 7 of the World Series, which obviously had immense meaning.  Contrast that specifically to this year's EPL, where the last 13 matches of the season are in all likelihood a formality; if Liverpool wins their next 6 matches, it is mathematically a formality--the final 7 matches of the champion's season would be absolutely meaningless.  Liverpool could, conceivably, play the last 6 matches of it's schedule with amputees selected from the stands 2 minutes before kickoff, and still be crowned champions.  If Man City or Leicester City lose any of their next 7 matches, the picture is even worse.  

 

The equivalent in baseball would be if on August 1, the best team in the league had a record of 90-18, and no other team had a better record than 63-45.  How boring would the rest of that season be, since the last 2 months are basically meaningless?

 

I also disagree the new system would disincentivize teams to make the playoffs, particularly if incremental revenue is attached to making the playoffs.  The public backlash to a team in the 6 or 7 spot sitting pat, or even worse, trading players away, will be quite large.  As teams would also know there's an expanded field going into the season, there's more likely to be more competitive teams from the get-go, meaning less talent concentrated in 3-5 teams.  This would make 95 wins a much bigger achievement, but also mean that raising your baseline from 75 to 80, from 80 to 85, and from 85 to 90 is much more enticing prospect.  If you're an 85 win team, 2-4 moves that raise your baseline to 92 wins means you might be fighting for a top 4 seed, or at least a legitimate series, as opposed to maybe a one game coin toss that might be on the road.

[diehardtwinsfan]

My problem with all of this is that it doesn't fix the reason baseball is declining.

 

Baseball has, at it's foremost, a competitve balance issue. Teams don't spend equally, so you can always count on a handful of teams near the top every.single.season...  It's hard to call the Yankees a dynasty when they have an unlimited pool of money. It's not that they have been run better or draft better, it's that they can fork out $350 million and make sure the best pitcher on the planet is in pinstripes starting in 2020.

 

That... is why baseball is declining. A few teams have a window, and a small one, because of it. Most don't have one at all. 

 

This proposal doesn't fix that... like everything else baseball has tried, it doesn't touch it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm saying there were 10 teams that made the playoffs, all of whom had a chance to win.  The last game of the year was Game 7 of the World Series, which obviously had immense meaning.  Contrast that specifically to this year's EPL, where the last 13 matches of the season are in all likelihood a formality; if Liverpool wins their next 6 matches, it is mathematically a formality--the final 7 matches of the champion's season would be absolutely meaningless.  Liverpool could, conceivably, play the last 6 matches of it's schedule with amputees selected from the stands 2 minutes before kickoff, and still be crowned champions.  If Man City or Leicester City lose any of their next 7 matches, the picture is even worse.  

 

The equivalent in baseball would be if on August 1, the best team in the league had a record of 90-18, and no other team had a better record than 63-45.  How boring would the rest of that season be, since the last 2 months are basically meaningless?

 

I also disagree the new system would disincentivize teams to make the playoffs, particularly if incremental revenue is attached to making the playoffs.  The public backlash to a team in the 6 or 7 spot sitting pat, or even worse, trading players away, will be quite large.  As teams would also know there's an expanded field going into the season, there's more likely to be more competitive teams from the get-go, meaning less talent concentrated in 3-5 teams.  This would make 95 wins a much bigger achievement, but also mean that raising your baseline from 75 to 80, from 80 to 85, and from 85 to 90 is much more enticing prospect.  If you're an 85 win team, 2-4 moves that raise your baseline to 92 wins means you might be fighting for a top 4 seed, or at least a legitimate series, as opposed to maybe a one game coin toss that might be on the road.

 

 

Dan has several long threads on this. He's right about all of them (in terms of incentives).

[jkcarew]

The more rounds in the playoffs, and the more games in each round, the fewer the frequency of surprise/upset champions. And the less meaningful it is to “make the playoffs”.

 

Need to reduce the number or regular season games when they do this, but won’t have the guts to do so.

 

This does nothing to inhibit tanking. NHL teams regularly sell at trade deadlines despite being well within sight of the last playoff spot. Wild just sold while being the equivalent of about 2 games out with nearly 30 to play.

 

I think additional teams in the playoffs is both inevitable and almost totally irrelevant in terms of helping the game in the long term.

[bighat]

 

My problem with all of this is that it doesn't fix the reason baseball is declining.

 

Baseball has, at it's foremost, a competitve balance issue. Teams don't spend equally, so you can always count on a handful of teams near the top every.single.season...  It's hard to call the Yankees a dynasty when they have an unlimited pool of money. It's not that they have been run better or draft better, it's that they can fork out $350 million and make sure the best pitcher on the planet is in pinstripes starting in 2020.

 

That... is why baseball is declining. A few teams have a window, and a small one, because of it. Most don't have one at all. 

 

This proposal doesn't fix that... like everything else baseball has tried, it doesn't touch it.

The NFL doesn't have a competitive balance issue - all teams have the same $$$.

 

And yet, some teams (Detroit, Cleveland, and yes our very own Minnesota Vikings) can go 60 years without winning a championship.

 

Baseball is declining now. Okay. Maybe we just say "so what?" and have faith that it'll come back in a cyclical fashion. Nobody was watching the NBA until Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson showed up....and then, after those guys left, the league stumbled. But it's come back, thanks to LeBron.

 

MLB has a guy in Mike Trout that - for some reason - nobody sees and nobody knows about. Maybe baseball needs to just start doing a better job of promoting their superstars. The first step would be acknowledging that the Yankees and Red Sox are NOT the only teams out there. Honestly if you're sports fan living in Kentucky, and you watch ESPN every day....you might not know the Minnesota Twins exist.

[Mr. Brooks]

Expanding the postseason to 14 teams is a sure fire way to make me completely stop watching the regular season, as I have with the NHL and NBA.

[Shaitan]

 

TWITTER WAS INVENTED BY THE DEVIL AND WILL BE THE DEATH OF US ALL!!1!

I would have argued against that statement...5 years ago.

[Shaitan]

 

Which in no way imparts incremental value to his statement.  It would be quite easy for Bauer to write a blog post and tweet a link to it.  Any number of baseball themed publications would be only too happy to publish the entirety of his rationale if he sent it to them.  The lack of specificity in Bauer's message is not because he is constrained from sharing it in any way; until he does share specifics, I remain convinced that he is being petulant and childish, and his opinion carries absolutely no weight whatsoever with me.

I strongly dislike Bauer as a person.

 

But that's what Twitter is used for and I'm not trying to opine on his comment. I am saying to consider the platform in addition to the source. It's a social media platform, not a blog or baseball themed publication.

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

 

Dan has several long threads on this. He's right about all of them (in terms of incentives).

 

I'll admit I haven't read any of them, and don't have the time now--I'll attempt to get to them sometime.  That being said, baseball is in danger of becoming hockey if it doesn't actively attempt to find ways to engage with more than just the die-hards.  Is it better to change something to keep it, or preserve something to lose it?

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I strongly dislike Bauer as a person.

 

But that's what Twitter is used for and I'm not trying to opine on his comment. I am saying to consider the platform in addition to the source. It's a social media platform, not a blog or baseball themed publication.

 

I feel like you missed what I posted.  Twitter in no way prevented him from expounding on any of his views.  Blaming twitter for Bauer not providing any rationale for his opinion is a nonsensical argument, as there are multiple ways to more elaborately discourse on a subject on the twitter platform.  Bauer's failure to explain even a single reason why he dislikes this proposal is in no way a result of his desire to tweet.  It is a result of Bauer either not having a reason to dislike the proposal but wanting to antagonize Mannfred, Bauer not having the ability to expound on his reasons but wanting to antagonize Mannfred, or Bauer not caring to take the time to explain his reasons but wanting to antagonize Mannfred.  No matter which of the three cases it is, twitter is not to blame.

[cardsfan]

The pitchers mound has changed a handful of times, 1893, 1904, 1950 and 1968. That is one of the rule changes I can get behind.

 

Oh, and the experimental rules continue this year too. https://ballparkdigest.com/2019/04/10/controversial-pitching-mound-experiment-pushed-back-to-2020/

https://bosoxinjection.com/2013/12/13/pitching-mound-history/

But, not the distance.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I don't see what the huge uproar is all about. I'm old school, but They're not going back to 2 leagues, winners make the WS. Expansion of the postseason has been going on for a long time now, and further expansion is probably inevitable.

 

They'd be adding 2 teams per league to the postseason, which is probably a bad idea overall, but understandable from a money and marketing perspective. If they're going to add 2 teams, this isn't a terrible idea. I actually like the idea of the better teams getting the chance to pick their opponant. Best record, and winning your division, would still matter. Best of three instead of 1 game shots for the first round.

I don't hate the idea of higher seeds choosing their opponent but I think having 7 teams per league is too much. You're right, MLB isn't going to go backwards, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere right? If they continue to inch away from regular season relevance at some point they'll find themselves at a point where a 162 game season largely doesn't matter. I understand the tv and marketing aspect, but it feels like a very short term view, where the actual health of the game is being sacrificed for a quick buck.

[Riverbrian]

 

Specifically the pennant race in September. I’m not excited about watching 2-3 82 win teams fight for the last playoff spot.

 

Unless of course that it is your team representing one of the 2 or 3 82 win teams that are fighting for that last playoff spot.  

 

I'm pretty confident that the Pittsburgh Steelers faithful were checking the playoff scenarios with a 8-7 record going into that last game of the season just like all of us Viking fans do whenever we are hoping Atlanta loses or ties and Philadelphia Wins so we can get that last spot via tiebreaker.    

 

I'm pretty confident that interest in the Pirates is going to hold through September when they have a similiear 73-71 record with 20 games to go just the same. 

 

I'm pretty confident that Arizona State Basketball fans were checking out the bracketology on pins and needles, going over the scenarios it would take for the Sun Devils to get an invite to the dance just for that 11th seed. Dying a little while they wonder if that loss in the PAC conference tourney cost them. The D-Back Fans will do the same all the way through September. 

 

35 years later, The typical long time college basketball fan still remembers the 1985 Cinderella story of Rollie and Villanova winning it all as an 8th seed while Patrick Ewing wondered what happened. Nobody resented Villanova winning it all, the majority of us loved it. We may not remember the exact year but we remember the team without aid of research. 

 

37 Years later... Who could forget Jimmy V looking for someone to hug in 1983 after the 6th Seeded NC State Wolfpack beat that loaded Houston team with Clyde and Akeem. 

 

In contrast... 36 Years later in 1984... People have to turn to Wikipedia to remember that Georgetown won a title in between NC State and Villanova. 

 

NCAA basketball was 53 teams back then... It's now up to 68 teams and there are no scars on it's body. 

 

Are we really afraid that a 82 win team could win it all. We shouldn't be afraid of that, we should be hoping for it. 

 

September 1st with only 5 teams truly out of contention means 25 fan bases with a reason to get up in the morning and pay attention. That is good for the sport... that is tremendous for the sport. 

 

Now of course, that many teams in contention will absolutely change the trade deadline experience as we know it, less teams selling and more teams buying is going to be bone breaking change. However, the trade off is that less teams will be tanking as a result and it will narrow the have/have not gap that has been entrenched for decades in the game of baseball. 

 

I'm in. 

[Riverbrian]

 

What the playoffs does do, however, is keep the drama going essentially until the final 2-3 games of the season, at worst.  Oftentimes, the drama goes into the final game, and sometimes even the final inning or final pitch.  This is something that is never guaranteed with leagues that crown a winner without playoffs--look at this year's EPL for example.  With 13 matches left, Liverpool has a 22 point lead (the equivalent of 7 matches).  That season is all but over--the only drama left is who will get relegated, and whether or not Liverpool can finish without a loss.

 

This new proposal does a few positive things;

 

1--It makes races at the top of each league hugely intense.  There is now a gigantic advantage to climbing up each rung of the ladder--1st seed gets a bye, 2nd seed gets their pick of any opponent, 3rd seed gets to choose an opponent, and 4th seed gets home-field advantage.

 

2--It incentivizes more teams in the 75-80 win range to try to get to the 80-85 win range, particularly if you re-wrote the rules to make playoff revenue shareable only amongst teams who make the playoffs.  If 14 teams make the playoffs, and split lets say a couple of hundred million dollars, making the playoffs or not is now worth an extra $10-$15M for a team

 

3--It keeps more fans interested.  From a national perspective, not many fans might have cared if the White Sox or the Angels could chase down the Rangers for the 7th spot last year.  Were I a White Sox or Angels fan, I may have wanted them to NOT chase down the Rangers.  But a lot of other people would, and they would buy a lot more tickets, concessions, and merch than I would.  Increased bottom lines for more teams is theoretically, a good thing.

 

4--It should help hasten rebuilds.  With more teams trying to improve before the trade deadline, and therefore fewer teams with players on the market, the price goes up, meaning tanking teams can more quickly accumulate assets, and resume competing for the playoffs.  Unless an organization is just terribly run, decade-long rebuilds will be a thing of the past.

 

One of the problems that baseball has right now is that too many teams have figured out that winning is not the best way To Win.  This, at least in my opinion, reduces the population of that lower class.  The Royals, Orioles, and Tigers will all still tank, but every other team will want a playoff spot, and the millions of extra revenue that come with it.

 

This post is so beautiful it could win at the Westminster Kennel Club. 

[Vanimal46]

That’s the hope, RB. Where more teams try to improve a .500 team to be just a tiny bit better and make the playoffs. I don’t think it will actually happen, because it’s easier to sell than it is to buy.

 

Let’s look back to the 2015 Twins, whom, if this rule were implemented then would be a playoff team. Did they feel like a playoff team with one brilliant month of May, and the rest of the time .500 or below? Would more fans advocate trading Kepler+ for Troy Tulowitzki? I know I was ready to push the chips in then, and most likely regret it now.

 

It’s the easy pitch to say the .500 team doesn’t have a chance against the 90+ win teams. That’s the safe bet. Analytics tells us not to take the chance and build for a future strike...

[Riverbrian]

 

That’s the hope, RB. Where more teams try to improve a .500 team to be just a tiny bit better and make the playoffs. I don’t think it will actually happen, because it’s easier to sell than it is to buy.

Let’s look back to the 2015 Twins, whom, if this rule were implemented then would be a playoff team. Did they feel like a playoff team with one brilliant month of May, and the rest of the time .500 or below? Would more fans advocate trading Kepler+ for Troy Tulowitzki? I know I was ready to push the chips in then, and most likely regret it now.

It’s the easy pitch to say the .500 team doesn’t have a chance against the 90+ win teams. That’s the safe bet. Analytics tells us not to take the chance and build for a future strike...

 

They won't be able to buy.

 

Tulo's price just went way up past the Kepler mark due to supply and demand. The Trade deadline will experience bone breaking change. We won't recognize it afterwards.