04/25/24
September 22, 2003
Bob Costas proposes a new playoff system for baseball: (sorry, registration required), suggesting that there should be more incentives to teams to make the push to win their divisions instead of settling for the wild card. His system (which he acknowledges is just a tweak of someone else's proposal) basically works like this -- the top two teams that are not division winners in each league are wild cards that play in a best of three series, with the winner to play the division champ with the best record in the next round. In that round, the wild card team still standing plays a best of 7 with the top divisional winner (while the other divisional winners play each other in a best of 7), but 5 of 7 games (games 1-3, 6 and 7) are played at the leading divisional winner's home (whereas for the other divisional series, it's the classic 4 home games for the team with the better record). And the season would have to be shortened by a week to allow for the expanded playoffs.
The motivating factor behind this, as mentioned above, is to create a greater disincentive to finish as a wild card team. In this respect, it would be more like the NFL system, whereby the top teams are rewarded for finishing at the top by getting a bye and it is very difficult for wild cards to make it to the Super Bowl.
Couldn't you just take up the whole front page with this post?
posted by StarFucker at 04:15 PM on September 22, 2003
Something tells me JerseyGirl ain't gonna like this.
posted by Samsonov14 at 04:26 PM on September 22, 2003
SF: Good point and sorry for the offense, but I wanted to lay out the system in detail for those who might not be able to get into the NYT site. Will try to split longer posts with a "more inside" in the future.
posted by holden at 04:40 PM on September 22, 2003
Oh I don't care...just messin' around.
posted by StarFucker at 05:11 PM on September 22, 2003
This just in: Bob Costas is cranky about baseball rules, begins retelling yarns about " the good old days". Meanwhile he still looks 12 years old, which always makes his points harder for me to take seriously.
posted by lilnemo at 06:04 PM on September 22, 2003
Costas is 12 years old, if you count in the right system.
posted by billsaysthis at 08:22 PM on September 22, 2003
You mean like in dog years?
posted by lilnemo at 08:51 PM on September 22, 2003
Something like that...
posted by billsaysthis at 10:32 PM on September 22, 2003
Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. What a stupid, stupid, stupid idea. What problem is being solved here? Costas is a pint-sized fuckwit. If I recall correctly (and I may be a bit fuzzy here), the Wild Card system debuted shortly after that infamous '93 season, when the Braves and Giants went down to the wire with 105 wins a piece and yet one of those teams didn't even make the playoffs (which wasn't tthe reason for the wild card, but an excellent example of why a wild card is better than the old format). So- philosophically, what is sports? What are playoffs? What is a champion? The point, I think you'll agree, is to strive for, and thus define, the "best team" in the league. It's arbitrary, and meaningless on a cosmic scale, but it amuses us humans to compete, and in competing define a "winner" by taking a few of the best, and pitting them directly against each other. Costas: The case for the wild card rests on the faulty premise that the best system is the one that keeps the most teams alive the longest, no matter the other consequences. No, the case for the wild card is that it ensures the two best teams in each league make the playoffs; the old two division format did not do that. Nice strawman, you ignorant ass-clown. Take 2001. Why did they have a playoffs? The Mariners won 116 games, no one else was close- and they did so in a division with a team that won 102 games. Fact is, best team that year in every way, shape, and form was the Seattle Mariners- NOT the Yankees, who beat them in a 7 game series, and NOT the Diamondbacks who then beat the Yankees. Yankees fans will dispute this, because they are ignorant jackasses, but the fact is the M's just got cold at the wrong time- if they'd gotten cold a couple of weeks earlier instead of during the playoffs, , they'd have won 114 games and yet handily beaten the Yankees to make it to the World Series. However, most years, it's not so damned obvious who the best team is- you'll have the Yankees probably winning a 100 this year, along with the Braves and possibly Giants, but if you look at the Pythagoreans, the Yanks and Braves should expect to have 4-5 fewer wins than they do, the Giants a full 8 games less, and the woeful Tigers should have 4 more wins than they do (not that anyone cares). Costas: ...has been replaced by hyperventilating over the Phillies and the Marlins, teams never remotely close to first place all year Again, looking at the Pythagorean lines, the Philies should have a better record than the Giants, as should the Houston Astros. But a few lucky games, or unlucky games, here or there is the only reason the Giants "look" good. Take away just a mere handful of Bonds' timely homeruns, and the Giants aren't even sniffing the playoffs. So statistically, it's a wash, and there is no clear "best team". That's why you take the top few teams, the obvious cream of the crop who have distanced themselves from the rest of the pack, and pit them against each other to determine a winner. In some cases, this confirms the obvious (1998 Yankees), and in other cases goes against all sense (2001 Mariners and most every other team that won 110+ games- look it up!). Most of the time, it remains arbitrary, but the point is simply to find a winner, and the candidates for this are limited to those teams that proved their mettle over a longer period than a mere 3, 5, or 7 game stretch. To that end, the single-team wild card addresses the real problem with standard division play: sometimes, the two best teams by a long shot are in the same division. This year, the 4 best teams in the AL are the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Mariners, and the A's (I'd argue the two AL East teams are the best of that lot). Yet, despite 4 playoff spots, 1 of those teams won't make it- and the Twins, armed with luck and a weak division, will sneak in robbing an arguably better team of a spot. However, this is preferable to that '93 situation, in which the no-questions best two teams didn't both make the playoffs. I say, find the two best teams in each league for an LCS- but in a divisional format, the only way to do that is a single-team wild card, just to cover the eventuality that the 2nd best team (which might only be a win behind the best) isn't kept out of the playoffs. You essentially let in four teams in each league as a way, mathematically, of ensuring the best two are part of them. Penalizing the wild card team so heavily is stupid, stupid, stupid, much like Bob "I am stupid, stupid, stupid" Costas. This year, the Wild Card will be either Boston or possibly (but not likely) the A's or the Mariners. Yet, only a stupid, stupid, stupid midget like Bob "I am a fuckwitted twit" Costas could argue that Boston deserves to be heavily punished because they didn't make the smart decision to play the Tigers a disproportionate number of times, and be in a division where mediocrity rules the day. Under Costas' method, the Red Sox and Mariners would hold a 3 game playoff to prove their worth, even though the Twins will come in with 3-5 fewer wins and face no such hurdle. Talk about your junk food on the menu! Costas: Under this plan, no matter who advances, the integrity of the regular season has been recognized. No, it hasn't, you fuckface. It's been trashed- if "the integrity of the regular season" means the teams that win the most games are rewarded, then you've basically set it up so that the team with the second most wins could get ridiculously and arbitrarily penalized while a team with 10-15 fewer wins would get an easy path. Again, I'm not sure what fucking problem the little jackass is trying to solve, here- all I can figure is that he doesn't like the Pennant races of old. Costas rambles incoherently about the flaws of the current system, but his proposal is as or more flawed in all the ways he derides the wild card: it cheapens winning by opening the field to yet more teams, it completely removes or turns on its head the meaning of a pennant race, and it penalizes the best teams that have run away from the pack in the wrong division by making them climb a hill they shouldn't have to (again, by suggesting the occasional 100 win team would nevertheless be penalized for not being an 85 win team in the weakest division). Costas, who's never actually been an athlete, seems to think teams aren't trying if they know they've got the wild card sewn up as a safety net. That's not how athletes think or play- they want to win, period. Look, a team that's going to have to play a 3-game playoff if it doesn't win its division isn't going to play any harder- they want to win regardless. Any team would gladly take just being alive one more day to not making the playoffs, 3 game arbitrary playoff or not. They'd prefer to stomp into October with 116 wins and homefield advantage throughout, but that doesn't usually happen. If the concern is meaningless races (and I'd disagree- for every 1951 or 1978, you have years of boring non-races where the last 2-3 weeks were a mere formality- whereas the wild card brings hope to cities that didn't have it, and kept the excitement going year after year), then just do one of two things: One, do away with divisional format and unbalanced schedules altogether, and have just two leagues with balanced schedules. Then, take the top two or four teams in each league, and have an LCS or seed them 1-4 and 2-3. There's still a race, albeit for 4th because the 1 and 2 seeds are likely a head above the rest (but probably not unquestionably so until that last week of the season), but it would be purely merit based, without any gimmick scheduling. Remember, the real goal is to find the best team, understanding that rarely is any one team so heads above the rest that a playoffs isn't a reasonable way of delimiting the better team. Or two, do it like volleyball, sort of: no playoffs, no nothing- best record wins, end of story. But you can't win by one lucky game, you gotta lead all other teams by at least 4 or 5 games, and you keep playing until you do, even if it lasts till December. Of course, to me that seems stupid, but I guess I'm just a purist.
posted by hincandenza at 11:11 PM on September 22, 2003
Good grief, Hal! That comment was worth an article all by itself. Something titled "Bob Costas is a little twerp." Or something like that.
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:47 PM on September 22, 2003
You go Hal!
posted by lilnemo at 12:50 AM on September 23, 2003
Now, I understand the benefit of keeping the Floridas and Philadelphias in the chase No BOB NO!
posted by gspm at 01:26 AM on September 23, 2003
wc2k: Something titled "Bob Costas is a little twerp." Or something like that I was going to title it "Bob Costas is a short, skinny idiot" but then Al Franken sued me for copyright violation. Go figure. me: all I can figure is that he doesn't like the Pennant races of old I mean, that he does like the pennant races of old, not the ones now. Damn; I hate glaring typos mid-rant... :( Also, I was overly harsh on the Twins (but not overly harsh on Costas!) in dismissing them as not worthy of being one of the 4 playoff teams- their recent 9-game win streak certainly has shown the right stripes, and vaulted them to the thick of it, not far off the A's/Sox/even Yankees. However, they still do that in their division, going 13-1 this year against the pathos-laden Tigers, with 4 games left to close out the year. By comparison, the Sox and Yankees beat up on each other, with the Yankees winning the season series 10-9, and the Mariners lead the A's 9-6 with 3 left to close out the year. If any one of those four teams gets 18 or 19 with the Tigers instead of their divisiona rivals, they very well could win 8-10 more games than they did. I like the wild card, but I am opposed to the unbalanced schedule for this very reason (and the current system of interleague play for a similar one).
posted by hincandenza at 02:21 AM on September 23, 2003
I ran into Bob Costas in a mall in St. Louis one time. He's damn short. Now, if I ever run into him again I'm punching him in the throat. That has to be the dumbest idea (and the reasons behind it are even dumber) I've ever seen. Basically, what Hal said. Thanks Hal, I rather enjoyed that.
posted by 86 at 08:11 AM on September 23, 2003
I dunno - I like three divisions and the wild card the way it is. It's just a nice way to look at the newspaper in the morning. So wonderfully sorted. Costas scenario seems overly complicated. It's just baseball.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:15 AM on September 23, 2003
what Hal said, except the part about me being an ignorant jackass.
posted by Bernreuther at 08:59 AM on September 23, 2003
Costas: The case for the wild card rests on the faulty premise that the best system is the one that keeps the most teams alive the longest, no matter the other consequences. No, the case for the wild card is that it ensures the two best teams in each league make the playoffs. Thus diluting the importance of the regular season. Costas: ...has been replaced by hyperventilating over the Phillies and the Marlins, teams never remotely close to first place all year Again, looking at the Pythagorean lines, the Philies should have a better record than the Giants, as should the Houston Astros. But a few lucky games, or unlucky games, here or there is the only reason the Giants "look" good. Take away just a mere handful of Bonds' timely homeruns, and the Giants aren't even sniffing the playoffs. Lucky games? Please define that. So statistically, try again. ….wild card addresses the real problem with standard division play: sometimes, the two best teams by a long shot are in the same division. Agreed. Costas: Under this plan, no matter who advances, the integrity of the regular season has been recognized. No, it hasn't, you fuckface. It's been trashed- if "the integrity of the regular season" means the teams that win the most games are rewarded, then you've basically set it up so that the team with the second most wins could get ridiculously and arbitrarily penalized “If "the integrity of the regular season" means the teams that win the most games are rewarded”…..um, yeah, that’s exactly what it means. Maybe that second place team could’ve been more, what do you call it, lucky. Those Yankees have been pretty freaking lucky. One, do away with divisional format and unbalanced schedules altogether, and have just two leagues with balanced schedules That is the best idea to increase the integrity of the regular season, and is something Costas is at fault for omitting. Or two, do it like volleyball, sort of: no playoffs, no nothing- best record wins, end of story. But you can't win by one lucky game, you gotta lead all other teams by at least 4 or 5 games, and you keep playing until you do, even if it lasts till December. That’s a pipe dream, but I like it….though I’m still very curious to hear your thoughts on this ‘lucky’ idea. I’m obviously fighting an uphill, and to be clear I don’t think we’re that far apart, but you’re way too harsh on an even-handed argument.
posted by garfield at 09:42 AM on September 23, 2003
I am fashionably late for the party, as always. You guys hashed it out pretty well... Hal especially. I ran into Bob Costas in a mall in St. Louis one time. He's damn short. Now, if I ever run into him again I'm punching him in the throat. I hope he doesn't retaliate by punching you in the shin.
posted by jerseygirl at 12:53 PM on September 23, 2003
I wonder when Bob Costas is going to show up here and do an Ossian Shine.
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:30 PM on September 23, 2003
Since I'm all alone thinking Costas isn't a mini-retard, answer me this: Is there integrity to the regular season as the format now stands? I'd say no, since schedule variances influence records more than luck. This ain't physics, which occurs in an imaginary bubble, its the real world, luck and all. The Wild Card is a product of the arbitrary divisions which would unfairly keep good teams out of the playoffs, Right? So are divisional breakdownss set in stone more so than the playoff format? The idea is to have the best teams compete for the World Series, right? Except for lucky teams, be it geographicalyl or what have you. Educate me, please, because luck and pythags don't cut it.
posted by garfield at 02:46 PM on September 23, 2003
...and since I'm not expecting much of an explanation from the 'status quo' camp, I feel for Costas who put forth his argument in the most constructive debate-inducing form possible. I feel ya, Bob, from one minority opinion holder to another.
posted by garfield at 02:58 PM on September 23, 2003
The integrity of the regular season is in the long haul, garfield; proving the best team is the point, and doing this over 162 games is more meaningful and statistically valid than doing it over 3, 5, or 7. Play 200, or 300 games a year if you can, and you'll be even better at assessing the "best" team. This is why (until the year 2000) elections weren't run based on polling data, but actually counting the votes themselves; you can't call it valid if you ask 10 people out of a 1000. Likewise, you can't call the "best team" the best team just two weeks into the season. Now, most of the time even after 162 games there's a clear group of best teams, instead of one stand-out unquestionable best team. In baseball, the actions of players, and the offense and defense, are very discrete quantities; even if a team averages 6.5 runs a game, they can't actually score that- sometimes they score less, sometimes they score more. It's been shown time and again that teams that score X runs and allow Y runs will typically win about N games over the year (hence the Expanded standings at ESPN, based on the Pythagorean formula developed by Bill James). That's the Pythagoras, and it's usually quite accurate if not always precise- most teams will finish between 0-3 games of their "expected" record. Of course, we don't use that to determine the winner, but it shows us that over a long season, 3, 4, 5 games is nothing- a lucky hit here, a wicked curve there, a go-either-way umpire's call over there. That's what I mean by luck- a 95 win team might not be better than a 90 win team- let's say they're equally "93" win teams. But one team winning 2 extra games from a little timely luck (a guy who hits 10 HR on the year happening to hit one of them with 2 on and 2 out, down by 2, bottom of the 9th kind of luck) while the other loses 3, suddenly becomes a 5 game gap. Not terribly significant. Yes, Team A has more wins, but not so many more that it means they're better- the chips fell the right way. What isn't in debate is that both Team A and B are better than Team C which might be the Tigers, the Devil Rays, or the Rangers. If we're going to be hardline about "more wins is more wins, screw the luck of the bounce", then why not go all the way and have no playoffs, just a "whoever has more wins after 162 games wins the championship". Only ties result in a playoff, or some kind of tiebreaker like head-to-head matchups, etc. Baseball was like this in the first part of the century, when there were just 16 teams total, top record in each league met in a "World Series". As the country grew and teams were added, they split each league into two divisions, adding an LCS to determine the World Series contenders from each league. The Wild Card extends this progression by ensuring that the LCS stands a good chance of having the two best teams in that league, instead of the best team and a team that was in the right division (again, see the '93 Giants/Braves). So while there's a clear group of teams that are more than lucky, beyond most other teams, between these top dogs there isn't a clear "best" of the best. So those teams, and those teams alone, go into a "play-off" format. Garfield and I aren't far apart; I feel if you're going to have a playoffs at all, do so in a way that you ensure as much as possible the "best" teams are in that playoff. If you want, do without playoffs like I suggested- making sure the best team has to win by a certain amount to eliminate luck. That won't happen, so we're stuck with a playoffs, and Bob's unbalanced duct-tape-and-baling-wire solution has no real value at ensuring the integrity of the season- i.e., ensuring that what you do as a team over 162 games has some value. If the integrity of the season is in winning games, then a team with more wins should not be excluded from the playoffs by a team with fewer wins- the old 2-division format doesn't solve that problem, nor does Costas' solution(without making the more wins team penalized). The Wild Card, as a general solution, does solve this problem within the bounds of the divisional format. It uses 4 teams in 3 divisions to ensure the top two teams make the playoffs, as defined by wins. I agree the unbalanced schedule adds a wrinkle I don't agree with- it makes the Twins unfairly benefit while the Sox and Yanks do not, which when deciding the "best" team is another unneeded factor. Divisional groupings aren't set in stone, but they aren't changed lightly- we aren't like UK soccer (if I am right) where teams can be in a higher or lower division based on the past year's performance. As garfield puts it, and what I was saying, is that in a 2 division format (pre- 1995) you aren't always getting the best two teams in each league into the playoffs. Moving to 3 divisions + wild card ensures you get the best team in each league into the playoffs- because you're guaranteed the best record in each division, as well as the second best record overall if that happens to be in the same division as the best record. The other two teams are along for the ride, so to speak. I could agree to a straight, balanced schedule, alongside a divisionless format where the top 4 make it, period. But Costas? Costas has described a solution that destroys the poetry, the symmetry, of the game. Baseball is a game of numbers, of the I Ching, of the holy maths. 3 up, 3 down, 3 strikes, 3 outs, 3x3 = 9 players, 3x3 = 9 innings, etc. So what's this crap about 3 game playoffs, 5 to 2 home/road playoff schedules? Ugly, asymmetric, and despicable. The man has no poetry in him to support a solution like this. :(
posted by hincandenza at 03:57 PM on September 23, 2003
I'm waiting for it wc2k2! Bring little Bobby Costas on!!
posted by lilnemo at 04:59 PM on September 23, 2003
I think the NHL has a decent idea, taking the eight best records in each conference and not just the top four in each division. Although the division winners get automatic bids, I don't recall one ever getting in with less than the eight best record.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:14 PM on September 23, 2003
Hal, thanks for your response. I see what you are trying to get at with the luck factor, but its part of the game, and as they say 'good teams have good luck', or 'you make your own luck', or, you know what I'm saying. But no playoffs? Think of the lost revenue and the disappointment of band wagon hoppers. I think expanding the playoffs would be a great idea, letting the teams weed each other out in all-out competition (read: I love the stanley cup like none other). I didn't give much thought to the symmetry aspects of baseball, and Costas is a blasphemer in this regard. As a novice to the baseball world, I'm curious how the playoffs are split up; 2-3-2? or 2-2-1-1-1? I'm not a big fan of the 3 game home-stand. Bill, I agree, the top-8 idea is fantastic. The problem with the NHL is the point system (a point is awarded for a tie, which before wouldn't have awarded either team a point, and yet a win is still only worth 2pts), and the playoff seeding (the SE division is the main offender) that places the top three seeds according to conference and not team record, thus disrupting the advantage gained with a better regular season record.
posted by garfield at 09:21 AM on September 24, 2003
Throw out the geographic divisions--but not the leagues--and put all the teams in one big bucket a la EPL, then take the top four finishers (in each league) into the playoffs. Go back to a balanced schedule with perhaps a slight bias towards geography (say two more games a year against the four or five teams in your league closest) to give the players a travel break and retain some rivalries. Simple and still gives the teams with 'good' luck a break.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:38 AM on September 24, 2003
Follow up: mediocrity the source of tight playoff races. (Sorry, NYTimes link....but sign up already, whoever you punks are that don't read the NYTimes.)
posted by garfield at 08:53 AM on September 30, 2003
Costa's framing of the dilemma is eeriely similiar to a recent national debate of an entirely different sort. Great link. I'm not much for baseball but, as a hockey fan whose playoff/divisional system is horrid, I welcome such clear-headedness.