Should MLB restructure its playoff format?

[CrimsonTribe]

I'm fine w/ this playoff system. 16 teams is way, way too many.

[HollywoodLeo]

Sub .500 teams that would have been in the playoffs under a 16 team format since the inception of the wild card.

2006
Cincinnati - 80-82
Atlanta - 79-83

2005
Toronto - 80-82

2004
Cleveland - 80-82

2003
none

2002
Philadelphia - 80-81
Toronto - 78-84

2001
Toronto - 80-82

2000
none

1999
Seattle - 79-83
Baltimore - 78-84
Pittsburgh - 78-83
Either LA Dodgers or Philadelphia - 77-85

1998
Chicago (AL) - 80-82
Baltimore - 79-83

1997
Chicago (AL) - 80-81
Detroit - 79-83
Milwaukee - 78-83
Pittsburgh - 79-83

1996
Milwaukee - 80-82

1995
Baltimore - 71-73
Kansas City - 70-74
San Diego - 70-74
New York (NL) - 69-75




.500 teams that would have missed the playoffs
- 2005 Nationals - 81-81
- 2004 Marlins - 83-79
- 2003 Phillies - 86-76
- 2003 Expos - 83-79
- 2001 Dodgers - 86-76

5 .500 or better teams would have missed the playoffs from 1995 on under a 16 team playoff format, and it wouldn't have happened for the first time till 2001.

Only 2 seasons (2000 and 2003) without a sub-.500 team in.

Basically, you'd only need to be a .500 team to make the playoffs...and not even that, really.

[HollywoodLeo]

Its not like those sub .500 are winning the WS, or even making it to the WS, besides STL from last year who just couldn't win durring last 2-3 weeks of the season the only reason why they had a sub .500 record.

What's the point of having them in the playoffs if there isn't a chance?

All it would take is for them to get hot at the right time and we have a .488 winning percentage champion.

[Halladay_is_God]

Its not like those sub .500 are winning the WS, or even making it to the WS, besides STL from last year who just couldn't win durring last 2-3 weeks of the season the only reason why they had a sub .500 record.

They didn't finish with a sub .500 record, they finished 83-78, at least check your facts 1st.

more to the point, sub .500 record teams don't deserve to be in the playoffs. Teams should win to make the playoffs, not lose more than half your games.

[HollywoodLeo]

For the record, there has never been a sub-.500 team in the MLB playoffs, which is the way it should be.

The 2005 Padres is the worst record ever of a playoff team. (82-80)

[GiantsFanatic]

They didn't finish with a sub .500 record, they finished 83-78, at least check your facts 1st.

more to the point, sub .500 record teams don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

Based on what Leo is saying, that is sub .500, any team with a .500-.599 is sub .500 so get your facts straight.

[HollywoodLeo]

Based on what Leo is saying, that is sub .500, any team with a .500-.599 is sub .500 so get your facts straight.

Where did I say that?

[Providence A's]

sub .500 means below .500 (.499 and below)...what you're saying would be sub .600

and I think the format is fine...though I wouldn't mind all of the series being 7 games.

[Halladay_is_God]

Based on what Leo is saying, that is sub .500, any team with a .500-.599 is sub .500 so get your facts straight.

how did you get that from sub .500? seriously.

sub .500 means below .500.

[GiantsFanatic]

What's the point of having them in the playoffs if there isn't a chance?

All it would take is for them to get hot at the right time and we have a .488 winning percentage champion.

Then whats the point of playing the most amount of games in all sports and having the least amount of teams in the playoffs? So that means we shouldn't reward the Padres winning there division with a sub .500 record then? And .500 record can show how tough some divisions can be, especially the NLW from last year and one point about a 1/3 season all 5 or 4 teams were over .500.

[GiantsFanatic]

My bad, I misunderstood what sub .500 meant, now I know. so sub .500 mean .400-.499?

[HollywoodLeo]

Then whats the point of playing the most amount of games in all sports and having the least amount of teams in the playoffs? So that means we shouldn't reward the Padres winning there division with a sub .500 record then? And .500 record can show how tough some divisions can be, especially the NLW from last year and one point about a 1/3 season all 5 or 4 teams were over .500.

Q: How many times has a team won its division with a sub-.500 record?

A: Never

If it were to happen one time then whatever, shit happens.

What you're proposing would invite sub-.500 teams to the playoffs pretty much every year, as demonstrated in post 17

And if you're for a shorter schedule that's for an entirely different discussion, one in which I might agree with you on.

[CrimsonTribe]

What's the point of having them in the playoffs if there isn't a chance?

All it would take is for them to get hot at the right time and we have a .488 winning percentage champion.

In baseball, unlike other sports, there is always a chance, which is why I believe fewer teams should be in it. Only the terms that deserve it should be there. I'd rather limit it to too few deserving teams than too many undeserving ones. Personally, I think it's a joke that the Cards got in and won it all last year (no offense to Cards fans), but at least the current system limits that from happening often unlike the one proposed in this thread.

[GiantsFanatic]

There has been teams in the NBA who have made it in the playoff with a sub .500 record, there is no problem with there format, nfl teams have made it to the playoffs with a 8-8 record, should those sports restructure there playoff format?

[HollywoodLeo]

The "if there isn't a chance" question was rhetoric posted in response to the "who cares? It's not like they'd win anything" counter-argument.

Everyone's 0-0 when the playoffs start and everyone there has a chance. That goes for every sport.

We should not be giving teams that lose more games than they win in the regular season the same chance at winning the World Series as those that win more than they lose.