After Joel Sherman's report on the revamping of the baseball playoffs was published Monday in the New York Post, the Reds' Trevor Bauer was among many who reacted strongly on Twitter.
No idea who made this new playoff format proposal, but Rob is responsible for releasing it, so I'll direct this to you, Rob Manfred. Your proposal is absurd for too many reasons to type on twitter and proves you have absolutely no clue about baseball. You're a joke.
— Trevor Bauer (@BauerOutage) February 11, 2020
Presumably, Bauer will eventually detail his objections to the proposed changes, and I'm sincerely curious about what they are -- because I can't see a lot of potential downside to the plan for the players or the sport.
In the meantime, here are some of the arguments we've seen so far on social media, along with our counterarguments:
A 14-team playoff field could undermine the integrity of the 162-game season.
Actually, you could make the case that in a sport without a salary cap, with enormous payroll disparities between the big-market and small-market teams, there is too much rigidity in a season of six months, because the financial strengths and weaknesses are borne out too clearly. The Dodgers and the Yankees are extremely well-run franchises with extraordinary resources, and over the course of six months, those advantages play out year after year. The Yankees spend $153 million on Jacoby Ellsbury, get almost nothing from him, and it doesn't matter because of the depth of their roster. They still win more than 100 games.
We've seen the emergence of the superteams in recent years, with the Dodgers, Yankees and Astros all winning more than 100 games annually -- and from the perspective of the small-market teams, there is little to no chance of competing with that. It's like a 250-pound boxer going up against flyweights, and this has contributed to the growing number of teams that have tanked, stopped spending and stopped trying to compete. Look at the Baltimore Orioles, who slashed their payroll, cut just about anybody making big dollars (other than the untradable Chris Davis) and lost 18 of 19 to the Yankees last year. With a larger pool of playoff teams, their path back to relevance could be shorter -- and they don't necessarily have to overcome the Yankees or the Red Sox over 162 games to make that happen.
There will be more hope for more teams, more hope for more fans and more chances for players to participate in the postseason. Imagine you are a fan of the San Diego Padres, who haven't made the playoffs since 2006 and haven't been .500 in a decade. The Padres are getting better, more competitive -- and yet even if they make operating decisions with near perfection, they still might not catch the Dodgers, who've won seven straight division titles. The additional wild-card teams would give Padres fans and players more hope to share in October glory as the club ascends.
Additional wild-card teams might erode the value of success in the regular season.
To some degree, this is true. But there will still be major incentive for teams to finish at the top of the standings to have the first-round bye. There will continue to be major incentive to win your division, to potentially pick your opponent in that first series and host up to three games in the wild-card round.
And the opportunity to be a wild-card team could compel teams to make the type of improvements we haven't typically seen in recent years -- the move for a starting pitcher who might be the difference between 84 and 86 wins, or the position player who could be the difference between the No. 4 seed (and home playoff games) and the No. 5 seed. Teams projected to win 78 games during their winter evaluations would seemingly have more incentive to get better before the season and in the days leading up to the trade deadline.
The proposed system would add too many days to what is already an interminable season.
Actually, it would add no days. Under MLB's plan, the tiebreakers and play-in games that sometimes filled the Monday and Tuesday after the close of the regular season would be eliminated, with MLB deferring to a tiebreaking system based on the results of the regular season. The three-game wild-card round, if that's what we want to call it, would fill the exact same four-day window as the current wild-card format.
This would mess with tradition.
Let's be real about this: There is no real tradition. For almost seven decades, baseball operated under a system in which only two teams made the playoffs, with the National League champion facing the American League champion in the World Series. Then, in 1969, MLB went to four divisions, and four playoff entrants. Before the 1995 season, Bud Selig proposed the addition of a wild card, and as a traditionalist, I thought it would be a terrible idea. I was 100% wrong. It was great, and it has been great -- more teams involved, more fans involved, more postseason games. The initial AL series involving a wild-card team, the Yankees versus the Mariners in 1995, was one of the best postseason series ever.
Later, baseball switched to three divisions, and later still, a fifth playoff team was added. The initial objections to the wild-card game were loud -- and yet, it has generated some of the highest-rated games ever.
By the way: By moving from the one-game wild card to a three-game wild-card series, the new system would address some of the concerns expressed by players (hello, 2014 and '15 Pirates, who were beaten in successive years by Jake Arrieta and Madison Bumgarner) over the serendipitous nature of the current wild-card game.
A seven-team playoff field in each league makes it more likely that the best team doesn't win the World Series.
This would be nothing new. The 1988 Dodgers were the worst of the four playoff teams before Orel Hershiser's and Kirk Gibson's magic carried them through the World Series. The 2006 Cardinals crawled into the playoffs with 83 wins, gathered momentum, pushed through the NL playoffs and beat the Tigers in the World Series. The 1914 Boston Braves, the 1969 Mets, the 2010 Giants and, heck, the 2019 Nationals were not considered to be the best teams, and they prevailed in the World Series.
Some folks in the game might see it as a travesty if a No. 7 seed were to win the World Series. But think about the mountain a team like that would have to climb -- a best-of-three series, with all games played on the road; a division series, probably against the well-rested, well-aligned No. 1 seed; the league championship series; and then a World Series, following a late-season scramble. It would be like a No. 13 seed winning the NCAA tournament: possible, but very, very unlikely, and the journey would generate interest.
This would be about television ratings and a money grab.
Yes and yes. And the players would benefit. The proposed playoff selection show on the Sunday night after the regular season would be sold and get high ratings. The players would get their share. The wild-card round would have more games and generate more money, for both sides. It's professional baseball, created to make money, and through the CBA negotiations, the players would get more.
To review: There could be more incentive for teams to win and spend money; more money for the players through that enhanced competition and this anti-tanking measure; more revenue for teams and players with that first crazy week of playoffs.
So it will be interesting to hear the specific objections from Bauer and others.