Imagining the Perfect Season: If I Could Hypnotize Bud Selig

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

In recent days, there have been rumblings from MLB Commish Bud Selig that cash flow demands that baseball take a look at expanding its postseason and how it awards its so-called championship.

Well, on that topic, I have a few thoughts. (You shouldn't be surprised. )

The pursuit of a more-robust (and thus, more profitable) postseason is a worthy goal, but doesn't even require any extension of the current calendar. 2011 is already set, of course, so 2012 will be the next opportunity to do so.

My suspicion is that Selig might be (who actually knows?) limiting his scope to the traditional American in-the-box thinking of organizing the calendar and the postseason. But other major organizers of sports around the world, such as Olympic organizers and European soccer leagues, have seen the wisdom of using pool play and promotion/relegation systems. While it would be anathema to adopt those in any pure form, there are principles of both that would work well under this structure:

================

REGULAR SEASON

- 108 intraleague only games that run through July 31.

- Top 10 teams from each league graduate to the next stage, what I'll temporarily call the August Pool for want of a catchier term... while the bottom six NL teams and bottom four AL teams begin competition with each other over last two months (54 games) for the Bronze Cap.

- Bears mentioning that 108 -- divisible by 2, 3, and 4 -- is an optimal number of games mathematically, which makes scheduling for a 16-team and 14-team league particularly flexible.

::

AUGUST POOL

- 30 intraleague only games... Top teams in each league play a three-game series against each of the other teams in their league, plus one additional series against its opposite rank (e.g., one plays 10 an extra series, two plays nine, three plays eight and so on)...

- Top five teams from each league graduate to the September Pool, while the bottom five of each (10 total) vie against each other for the Silver Cap.

::

SEPTEMBER POOL

- 24 intraleague only games... Top teams play a three-game series against each of the other teams in their league home-and-home... given the odd number (5) of teams, each team gets two three-day breaks during the month, and otherwise plays every day.

- Top two teams for each league advance to the American or National League Championship, with home field advantage going to the better September Pool record

::

PLAYOFFS (League Championship Series)

- Expands to best 5-of-9 games, having dispensed with any need for a Division Series (due to the heightened intensity of the entire previous two months).

- Gains a significantly higher likelihood to keep the postseason contained to October year-in-year-out

::

WORLD SERIES

- Expands, also, to best 5-of-9 games (for which, by the way, there is some historical precedent)

- Addition of a new predetermined neutral-site Game 1 so that neither league obtains (what has always been a warrant-less and unfair) home-field advantage

- Winner not only wins the trophy, but wins the Golden Cap, which means that, the following season, that team exclusively gets to wear a golden-billed cap that serves as an every-game reminder to the opposition and those watching that they are the game's reigning champion.

- By the way... the winners of the Silver Cap and Bronze Cap seasons get similar treatment (silver and bronze colored bills), and going back to where this concept began... the greatest asset of this is that it keeps every team playing for something practically through the entire season... and that, then, translates into some degree of greater interest at the ticket window and among advertisers than what baseball currently enjoys, i.e., an enhanced, if not maximized, revenue stream.

================

So, there ya go, Bud.

No charge, my friend. Just a public acknowledgment that an anonymous fan contributed the concept is enough for me.

[Wavy Q]

I didnt read it all, but that hat idea is (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

[craig01]

Nah, never can happen.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

I didnt read it all, but that hat idea is (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

Thank you for weighing in.... Mr. Pee Wee Herman, everyone... *claps*....

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Nah, never can happen.

Please understand... not really saying what WILL happen... saying that if one is willing to get away from old standard conventional thinking and consider the entirety of the menu of possibilities... understands the primary objective of the authoritative stakeholders (i.e., to increase revenue)... recognizes that fan interest is congruent with that objective instead of conflicting with it... and sets out to orchestrate a coherent plan... THIS is at least one (though not necessarily the ONLY one) such coherent plan... one that would keep many more fans plugged-in for much more of the season, in perpetuity. Thus, I'm saying, instead of what "will" happen, what "would" happen... if we aspired to build the perfect season from the ground-up.

[Ong_dynasty]

^^
Im from europe and I really dont like the idea of bronze cups / silver cups / gold cups.
1 team wins all..thats how it should be.

I like the idea of add an extra team each and the two wildcards play a best of 3. so it only takes a few days.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

^^
Im from europe and I really dont like the idea of bronze cups / silver cups / gold cups.
1 team wins all..thats how it should be.

I like the idea of add an extra team each and the two wildcards play a best of 3. so it only takes a few days.

Did not mean to imply that just because a person is from Europe that they automatically like pool play or promotion/relegation.

Do not meant to imply, similarly, that just because there are others who do something, we should, too.

I only mean to suggest that, if you're looking for a solution to something, it makes sense to take into consideration the full menu of options available, compare that to the objective you're trying to achieve, and then make a coherent choice.

If the objective is to keep fans interest up and, concurrently, to make more money... this works very, very well.

If the objective is to do that without nudging us into an November World Series every year... that's even better.

[Wavy Q]

No, the hat idea is idiotic, just this year there was a player who was fined for having too distracting of cleats, how do you think a **** gold brim on a hat will be recieved.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

No, the hat idea is idiotic, just this year there was a player who was fined for having too distracting of cleats, how do you think a **** gold brim on a hat will be recieved.

[craig01]

I'd be happy just to return to a more balanced schedule with LESS interleague play.

I'd also like to add a wild card team in each league. I love the one-game playoff between the wild card teams idea too.

[Dr Positivity]

Too complicated.

Wild card playoffs is the way to go IMO. 3 division winners get in, then either 4 and 5 play or 5 and 6 play + the winner plays 4 in a 2 day event. Or ****, just make it an 7 team thing and do 4 vs 7, 5 vs 6, winners play to get in the next day

The objective is simple: Keep teams in the playoff race, making the games matter and the fans watch and eliminating the motive to trade away deadline players. The irony of baseball's low playoff teams is it'd otherwise be perfectly set up for playoff races because of the series. Because you're often playing teams 3 or 4 times in a row, if you're 5 back of the 7th place team, you're still in it because if you sweep them it's a 1-2 game gap. Oakland's 5 back of Detroit but the weekend is a must watch cause there's a chance they cut it to 1-2. Cleveland's 2 up on KC and they go into a 4 game set and it's huge. And so on.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Too complicated.

Thanks for the feedback.

My response, Dr. Mufasa, is that your post does illuminate the major hurdle to the proposed system.

But it is not that that it is "too complicated."

Rather, it is first impressions, or, comfort-level with something different, or, readiness on the part of Joe Fan to think of something outside of his box. Now, thankfully, that hurdle is largely eliminated with time and exposure.... and that is certainly better than other hurdles that beset other attempts at solutions, and that are just problematic matters of fact that do not go away without dismissing logic or good judgment.

Okay, let's deal with this "too complicated" criticism.

I have to assume you're saying that pool play is "complicated," since the rest of it is only a simplification of the current system, even taking it back to what we did before the Wild Card and the Division Series came along.

I would agree that pool play is different--we only see it in the U.S. when we pay attention to some Olympics team sport.

I would not agree that it is "complicated."

To the contrary, if people can understand "Survivor," they can understand pool play. If they can understand "round robins," then can understand pool play.

I think they can. And I think that eliminating 10 teams on Jul 31, then another 10 on Aug 31 through pool play is, instead, very simple.

Wild card playoffs is the way to go IMO....

The objective is simple: Keep teams in the playoff race, making the games matter and the fans watch and eliminating the motive to trade away deadline players....

"Yes" to keeping teams in the race.

The other is debatable--many fans love the intrigue of the July 31 trade deadline, and so that's not necessarily an "objective," so much as it is a consequence of any system that promotes the rest of what was said.

But the objective is actually even somewhat larger than that... it is to optimize profits. And profits are optimized when, from Team 1 to Team 30, those teams are competing for something through practically the entire season. Not just Team 1 through Team 15. This system does just that.

There is another objective, too, that has become an increasing concern. Most of us aren't big on the snow that has flown in recent years at World Series sites. Of course, fall weather itself cannot be controlled, but certainly most acknowledge that post-season that bleeds into November is something that ought to be avoided.

A system that increases revenue by optimizing the current April to September season is preferable to one that makes virtually certain that every post-season will be extended beyond October 31. And this system, again, is one that accomplishes that.

Finally... yet another objective is one that is largely illuminated by your own indecision about how many teams you would want to put into your addition to the current post-season schedule. After all, the number that make this added WC round is a rather arbitrary decision, subject to a troubling combination of (a) how deep into the calendar one is willing to go, (b) how badly profitability needs to be enhanced at any given point in time, and (c) the attitude/whim of the current commissioner. The objective, then, is to have a system that is plainly coherent... one that isn't so arbitrary... one that isn't subject to being torn up and re-done every time owners think they want some additional revenue (ie, through adding more teams or more playoff games or both).

A system that is constructed on the basis of the number of 30 teams and follows intuitive standards for reducing the competition for the championship in stages meets that standard. This system is an example of one that does that, first eliminating 1/3 through August pool play, another 1/3 through September pool play, and then by October tourney play (playoffs).

[wicked_crossova]

stop trying so hard.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

stop trying so hard.

Regardless of how hard or not I'm trying.... why would it matter to you?

And, think about it... if someone takes the time to reason all of this out, they might just be fairly prepared to defend it. Just skip the thread if it bothers you.

[cochiseuofm]

Who would want to wear the Bronze Cap? "Yeah, that's right, we were the 21st best team in the majors last year."

Anyways, more to the point, you would kill ticket sales at all of the teams that don't make the September pool. Its just true. Who wants to see bad teams play bad teams for half a season for an award that doesn't matter? Who wants to see middle of the pack teams get robbed of a chance of a late season run, think Colorado Rockies, and the real postseason? And I think you're wrong, this system doesn't keep teams playing for something all year long. I would guess every team stops trying when they realize they can no longer win the gold cap. Why? Because no respectable athlete takes pride in a tournament that deems them 21st best.

I mean haven't you seen the NIT tournament in college basketball? As a Michigan alumni, I can tell you from firsthand experience that nobody, fans especially, gives two s**** about that tournament. Except in your scenario, the NIT tournament would replace half of the regular season for the schools, instead of just being a disappointing prize for not being good enough for March Madness.

I think you combined pool play and regulation in a very poor way. And no offense because you obviously did a lot of research and seem to be taking a lot of these critiques personally, but I also think the caps is very tacky and would never catch on.

Actual regulation is a great system because it actually splits sports into seperate leagues. Actual pool play is a great system because it takes a win and go home tournement situation and makes it a bit more fair without adding an excessive amount of games. This system has neither of those benefits.

[craig01]

Who would want to wear the Bronze Cap? "Yeah, that's right, we were the 21st best team in the majors last year."

Anyways, more to the point, you would kill ticket sales at all of the teams that don't make the September pool. Its just true. Who wants to see bad teams play bad teams for half a season for an award that doesn't matter? Who wants to see middle of the pack teams get robbed of a chance of a late season run, think Colorado Rockies, and the real postseason? And I think you're wrong, this system doesn't keep teams playing for something all year long. I would guess every team stops trying when they realize they can no longer win the gold cap. Why? Because no respectable athlete takes pride in a tournament that deems them 21st best.

I mean haven't you seen the NIT tournament in college basketball? As a Michigan alumni, I can tell you from firsthand experience that nobody, fans especially, gives two s**** about that tournament. Except in your scenario, the NIT tournament would replace half of the regular season for the schools, instead of just being a disappointing prize for not being good enough for March Madness.

I think you combined pool play and regulation in a very poor way. And no offense because you obviously did a lot of research and seem to be taking a lot of these critiques personally, but I also think the caps is very tacky and would never catch on.

Actual regulation is a great system because it actually splits sports into seperate leagues. Actual pool play is a great system because it takes a win and go home tournement situation and makes it a bit more fair without adding an excessive amount of games. This system has neither of those benefits.

Most points I would agree with.

Would KC Royals fans still attend games knowing that a significant portion of the season would match them against the Pirates, Orioles, Indians, and Nationals? It would certainly reduce season ticket sales in markets that hardly can afford it.

Personally, I am anti-change for the most part......so the original post would never get serious consideration from me if I was one that held power to do so.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Who would want to wear the Bronze Cap? "Yeah, that's right, we were the 21st best team in the majors last year."

That's one way to look at it.

Another way is that our team didn't do so hot for the first 2/3 of the season, but we finished strong and have reason to be excited about our momentum.

I tend to think that's how it would be viewed, as would the Silver Cap... but maybe that's just me.

Anyways, more to the point, you would kill ticket sales at all of the teams that don't make the September pool. Its just true. Who wants to see bad teams play bad teams for half a season for an award that doesn't matter? Who wants to see middle of the pack teams get robbed of a chance of a late season run, think Colorado Rockies, and the real postseason? And I think you're wrong, this system doesn't keep teams playing for something all year long. I would guess every team stops trying when they realize they can no longer win the gold cap. Why? Because no respectable athlete takes pride in a tournament that deems them 21st best.

First, thanks for the retort. It's so much better to get some assertions with some rationale behind them than simply, "This is stupid." I take it as a sign of respect and civility that you took the time to respond as you did.

Responding to your response, I think there is some misunderstanding due at least in part to a miscalculation. There are six months to the season, and this system takes the top 20 teams from the first 4 of those 6 months and puts them into a round-robin of 30 games against each other to see who records the best record and shows themselves to be contenders instead of pretenders. You can argue that that's a minus, but I completely disagree. Completely. August becomes one heckuva month of baseball... and then, September, that much better with the top 5 of each league facing each other day after day after day.

Second, fans go to see their team win. That's what real fans do. They only go to see the other team when there is truly some iconic player either pitching or batting. Those bottom 10 teams, far from your conclusion, stand to increase their gate significantly from playing each other instead of getting beat up series after series. Teams this year who hypothetically would have been in that group were MIL, HOU, CHI, PIT, ARZ, WAS, SEA, KC, BAL and CLE.

Silver Cap competitors are those middling teams that, overwhelmingly, were at best contenders for a Wild Card slot. So, they get grouped together for the last month of the season, and again, they benefit in the same way that the Bronze Cap competitors do.

To compete for something is better than to compete for nothing at all, whether you're a player or a fan. It just is. Playing for nothing is, well, playing for nothing. Only die-hards who want to see the newest AAA talent make it a point to go see those games.

I mean haven't you seen the NIT tournament in college basketball? As a Michigan alumni, I can tell you from firsthand experience that nobody, fans especially, gives two s**** about that tournament. Except in your scenario, the NIT tournament would replace half of the regular season for the schools, instead of just being a disappointing prize for not being good enough for March Madness.

Not a good analogy for your own argument, first, because the NIT Tournament is just that... a tournament. The alternative is to stay home and not play and not make any money at all. The fallacy in your contention is that you want to measure the alternative by the better-but-unattainable alternative--that is, an alternative that is not one, since Michigan or Team X failed to demonstrate they belong in the group extended that better alternative.

No. Teams would rather play than not play. Fans buy tickets in enough numbers and watch games sufficiently that advertisers buy commercial time.

But again, baseball teams would be playing someone in August and September anyhow... and these particular teams would NOT be playing for a World Series slot. So they might as well be playing... again... for something as opposed to nothing at all.

I think you combined pool play and regulation in a very poor way. And no offense because you obviously did a lot of research and seem to be taking a lot of these critiques personally, but I also think the caps is very tacky and would never catch on.

Actual regulation is a great system because it actually splits sports into seperate leagues. Actual pool play is a great system because it takes a win and go home tournement situation and makes it a bit more fair without adding an excessive amount of games. This system has neither of those benefits.

I'm sure it does not surprise you to learn that... yes... I disagree once again. It's inaccurate to suggest that merely because one defends points they've made that they're necessarily "taking it personally." You are one of the few in this thread who has made a coherent attempt (at least on the surface) to debunk the format I've presented. As I said in the first paragraph above, I do appreciate an honest attempt at thinking through the cons beyond the pros that I assert.

Further, forgive the observation, but that last paragraph makes no sense. The pool play of this format, to the contrary, accomplishes what you say you like about pool play in general. And relegation (not regulation) is not a "great system" simply because it splits them into separate leagues... I mean, so what? What's great about that? But relegation is good because it divides teams into groups that are competitively balanced, and ostensibly, end up giving fans more enjoyable... that is, more highly competitive... games to watch.

So, in the end, I appreciate the attempt, but your criticisms mainly just end up seeming to be criticism out of a prevailing negative attitude toward out-of-the-box thinking, and a fairly indefensible denial that fans go to games out of an assumption that their team has a fairly distinct chance at winning, and winning for some purpose beyond just that day's game.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Would KC Royals fans still attend games knowing that a significant portion of the season would match them against the Pirates, Orioles, Indians, and Nationals? It would certainly reduce season ticket sales in markets that hardly can afford it....

Personally, I am anti-change, for the most part...

Yes, if you don't mind me agreeing... indeed, you are.

For reasons somewhat already explained, the contention that "it would certainly reduce season ticket sales in markets that hardly can afford it" is extremely difficult to support unless one believes that KC fans (for instance) mostly purchase season tickets under the current system out of an expectation that they'll be playing for something important in August and September.

You don't actually believe that.

I'm left to think that it's simply the anti-change part of you scrambling to think of some way of discouraging change.

To the contrary, this is a system that not only would enhance season ticket sales in the off-season, but would enhance single-game ticket sales in those dog days of summer when, previously, there was next-to-no-good-reason to attend.

[cochiseuofm]

I had a long response prepared and then I deleted it. The reason I think, and still do, you took responses personally is because of your unwillingness to admit any single part of your plan was flawed or potentially wrong. I haven't read one person say they think the caps were a good idea, you continue to act like we aren't willing to think outside the box (a not-so-subtle insult BTW) as a response.

Anyways, your argument seems to be grounded in your belief that fans will go to games if they think their teams have a better chance of winning than not. Can we agree on that?

If so, I'd like to ask what you are basing that off of. Certainly not off fact. If you look at attendance figures for bad teams, like the Pirates, the games that sell out to 40k+ fans are the ones against premier NL teams, like the Dodgers, Phillies, and Cardinals. In fact, in 2009, the Pirates lost 9 of their top 10 highest selling games.

Their highest selling game of the season? A loss to the Dodgers when they were already 54-89 and well out of the playoff picture.

And you know what else? I lived in Pittsburgh that year. I went to 5-10 games and I know why I went. The Pirates do a great job of having free concerts after games and fireworks for families to enjoy on certain nights. They sell tickets either by a) featuring a marquee team with superstars worth seeing in person, or b) relying on a gimmick marketing campaign that appeals more to casual fans (who BTW far outnumber "real" fans in every city). They don't do well in games where they play other doormats.

If you don't believe me, check for yourself. But please don't condescend to me and say things like "[your criticisms come from a] fairly indefensible denial that fans go to games out of an assumption that their team has a fairly distinct chance at winning, and winning for some purpose beyond just that day's game." Because I haven't seen one iota of statistical proof from your part that gives you the right to pretend my points are "indefensible."

And please stop responding to any criticism with accusations that we all hate change. Because all you are doing is seeming like an ass.

[craig01]

Would KC Royals fans still attend games knowing that a significant portion of the season would match them against the Pirates, Orioles, Indians, and Nationals? It would certainly reduce season ticket sales in markets that hardly can afford it....

Personally, I am anti-change, for the most part...

Yes, if you don't mind me agreeing... indeed, you are.

For reasons somewhat already explained, the contention that "it would certainly reduce season ticket sales in markets that hardly can afford it" is extremely difficult to support unless one believes that KC fans (for instance) mostly purchase season tickets under the current system out of an expectation that they'll be playing for something important in August and September.

You don't actually believe that.

I'm left to think that it's simply the anti-change part of you scrambling to think of some way of discouraging change.

To the contrary, this is a system that not only would enhance season ticket sales in the off-season, but would enhance single-game ticket sales in those dog days of summer when, previously, there was next-to-no-good-reason to attend.

For the last 15+ years, I doubt most KC fans have bought season tickets with expectations of winning. So I would venture to bet that attendance spikes (like almost every other MLB team does) when an attractive draw comes into town.

The Royals do draw better when the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phil, Dodgers, Cards and others come to town.

While your OP has some merit in ideals, it can't and won't happen in any way. shape, or form. It isn't about "change" but it is about "the way it is". Nice idea, but there really is no argument about it since there is no possibility of it ever being considered.