Playoffs In MLB, NBA, NHL

[swbrotha100]

This question refers to the 7-game playoff series in baseball, basketball, and hockey. Just wondering what others think out there.

2-3-2: The team with home-field advantage would host Games 1, 2, 6 and 7.

2-2-1-1-1: The team with home-field advantage would host Games 1, 2, 5 and 7.

BTW currently only MLB uses the 2-3-2 format, for the ALCS, NLCS and World Series. The NBA used to do the 2-3-2 format for the Finals.

[Billy F 1988]

That's not always the case in all these post-season scenarios.

[corco]

2-2-1-1-1 is a travel nightmare, not just from a flying back and forth perspective but from a booking that many room nights of hotels on that short of notice perspective

[swbrotha100]

2-2-1-1-1 is a travel nightmare, not just from a flying back and forth perspective but from a booking that many room nights of hotels on that short of notice perspective

I would think the other sports would want to do the 2-3-2 format more, and not less, especially if you have teams on the east coast and west coast playing each other.

[DTComposer]

Not that I have any official evidence for this, but I thought the rationale for 2-2-1-1-1 was:

1) In a 2-3-2 series, if the home team wins each game, then the higher seed finds themselves in an elimination position before the lower seed does;

2) In a 2-3-2 series, if it only goes five games, the lower seed ends up with more home games than the higher seed.

[tdindy88]

If I recall, the NBA used the 2-3-2 format largely because it was during the years in which Boston and the L.A. Lakers were playing each other in the finals every year or so. Of course, now that they don't play each other in the finals every year I guess they can stop that.

Speaking of the baseball playoffs, it is curious that the team with the best record remaining doesn't get home-field advantage at all through the playoffs, I guess it was worth it to win all those games, but that's an NFL and NBA (hockey too maybe?) problem too.

[1995hoo]

Generally 2-2-1-1-1 is considered fairer competitively even if it increases the travel burden. The reporters don't like it for that reason. But who cares what reporters think?

The NHL used to allow the 2-3-2, at the higher-seeded team's option, in Western Conference inter-divisional playoff series (but not the Stanley Cup Finals). Teams rarely, if ever, took the option.

Edited to add: In 1993—94 all such NHL series were 2-3-2 with the higher-seeded team deciding whether they wanted to host 4 games or 3. Starting the next year, the higher seed got to choose the format; if they elected 2-3-2, they still got to choose whether they hosted the two-game blocks or the three-game block. This option no longer exists.

Baseball originally adopted 2-3-2 because travel was by train and other options were impractical.

The most extreme travel example recently was a few years ago in the ECHL (minor-league hockey) when the South Carolina Stingrays, based in Charleston, played the Alaska Aces, based in Anchorage. I don't remember which format they used but I could look it up.

Edited to add: I looked it up. It was 2009 and they played 2-3-2 due to the distance. That was a good year. The Hershey Bears won the Calder Cup that same season. Both the Stingrays and the Bears are (and were) Caps affiliates.

[hotdogPi]

2-3-2 is better than 2-2-1-1-1.

4 games (2/16): Both are equal.
5 games (4/16): 2-3-2 has the disadvantaged team with more, 2-2-1-1-1 has the advantaged team with more.
6 games (5/16): Both are equal.
7 games (5/16): In both cases, the advantaged team has more.

2-3-2 is more balanced (5/16 and 4/16 almost cancel each other out), while 2-2-1-1-1 will unbalance it more.

Edit: that -> than

[AlexandriaVA]

In my opinion, the MLB playoffs have gotten too diluted.

You used to have two 8-team leagues, with the top team representing that league in a best-of-seven world series. That's 1/8 (12.5%) of each league making the playoffs.

You now have two 15-team leagues, with 5 teams per league making the playoffs. That's 5/15, or 33.3%. They need to get rid of the wild card, make it just the division champions. That way, it's 3/15, or 20%. The bottom two teams play each other in the first round. The winner plays the top team in the league.

Such a format would reward the top performing team in the league, which should matter over the span of a 162-game season.

[Thing 342]

I thought the reason baseball used 2-3-2 was because more games could then be played on consecutive days. I doubt that would be possible with A 2-2-1-1-1 schedule.

In my opinion, the MLB playoffs have gotten too diluted.

You used to have two 8-team leagues, with the top team representing that league in a best-of-seven world series. That's 1/8 (12.5%) of each league making the playoffs.

You now have two 15-team leagues, with 5 teams per league making the playoffs. That's 5/15, or 33.3%. They need to get rid of the wild card, make it just the division champions. That way, it's 3/15, or 20%. The bottom two teams play each other in the first round. The winner plays the top team in the league.

Such a format would reward the top performing team in the league, which should matter over the span of a 162-game season.

I disagree, especially in the case of this year's NL Central having the three best records in the majors. I dislike that fact that one of the three best teams in the league over 162 games could be eliminated in a single one. Unless we go back to 1969 and send the teams with the top records in each league to the World Series, I think that the division one plays in shouldn't affect your ability to reach the series. I think that they playoffs should be reseeded so that the teams with the two worst records to get in (wild-card or otherwise) have do the Bud Selig lightning round.

This year's post-season would be:

NLWC - #5 NYM at #4 LAD
ALWC - #5 HOU at #4 NYY

NLDS - NYM / LAD vs  #1 STL
NLDS - #3 CHC vs #2 PIT

ALDS - HOU / NYY vs #1 KC
ALDS - #3 TEX vs #2 TOR

[AlexandriaVA]

Kill the divisions and simply have a 15-team league. Top 2 or 3 teams go, depending on your preference. Seeding is done on a league-wide basis. MLB makes enough money that it can afford more long flights.

[corco]

Kill the divisions and simply have a 15-team league. Top 2 or 3 teams go, depending on your preference. Seeding is done on a league-wide basis. MLB makes enough money that it can afford more long flights.

If baseball were a video game, sure.

But it's not a matter of money - players aren't robots. I'd rather see ballplayers playing in top form than fatigued by constant cross-country flights. You can say "they get paid enough that they can suck it up" - and sure, that's true, but that doesn't mean that flying back and forth across the country isn't tiring.

[Pete from Boston]

Kill the divisions and simply have a 15-team league. Top 2 or 3 teams go, depending on your preference. Seeding is done on a league-wide basis. MLB makes enough money that it can afford more long flights.

MLB marketing likes the excitement of all these many division races.

[1995hoo]

I'd like them to go back to the format used from 1969 to 1993–four divisions (putting the Astros back in the NL where they belong to balance the divisions in each league), the first-place teams play in the LCS and the winners of those meet in the World Series. I have no beef with having each league divided into two divisions because when you don't have a promotion/relegation system, having a single table with 14 or 16 teams can become a problem for attendance because of how far back the worst-performing teams get to be. I also figure eight-team divisions are fine because in baseball's "golden era" each league was a single table with eight teams.

I really dislike the gimmicky one-game wild card thing, and I'm not a big fan of having the second-place teams in the postseason because I figure if you couldn't finish first over 162 games, why should you be given five or seven games to try to overturn that? I do not have the same objection in the other sports because you don't play the opponents as many times (and in the NFL, you don't even play all the teams in your own conference), so finishing first is not as comprehensive an achievement.

[corco]

I'm opposed to the wild card in general, but if we have to let in a random non-division champion team, I greatly prefer the one game playoff, since it means that getting the Wild Card doesn't mean much and it's really much more beneficial to win the division.

The argument for the wild card is that divisions can have dramatically different strength- a team could potentially have the second best record in all of MLB and not make the playoffs.

There's no perfect solution, though, short of eliminating divisions entirely.

Part of it is that baseball is a really weird sport - because there are so many games, and because the talent difference from the best team to the worst team is negligible relative to other sports, it's tough to identify who actually is the "best." A seven game World Series really doesn't even tell us much- it's not like football where the better team wins 90% of the time. The very best teams in history have only won 71% of their games, and teams often get into the postseason having only won 53% of their games or so.

[Pete from Boston]

The one-game playoff was exciting when it was only a tiebreaker.  MLB has attempted to package that excitement and sell it yearly, and it's underwhelming in comparison. 

It is absurd that the better record does not get home field advantage in the World Series.  This was true before Selig was embarrassed by an All-Star tie in his own park.  It is still true now that the All-Star Game has been given this silly role in determining things.

Other sports manage to handle contingent scheduling, so that is not an excuse.

[Big John]

It is absurd that the better record does not get home field advantage in the World Series.  This was true before Selig was embarrassed by an All-Star tie in his own park.  It is still true now that the All-Star Game has been given this silly role in determining things.

Other sports manage to handle contingent scheduling, so that is not an excuse.

Prior to the Selig rule, home field advantage alternated between the AL and NL winners.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

It is absurd that the better record does not get home field advantage in the World Series.  This was true before Selig was embarrassed by an All-Star tie in his own park.  It is still true now that the All-Star Game has been given this silly role in determining things.

Other sports manage to handle contingent scheduling, so that is not an excuse.

Prior to the Selig rule, home field advantage alternated between the AL and NL winners.

And no matter how many times people explain (and even defend) why MLB does this when the NHL and NBA don't, I just don't get it anymore. Before 2003 it smacked of "this is just how we always did it" when back in the days of train travel maybe you did need that sort of advance determination of which league would get HFA in the Series, and since 2003 it's just a marketing gimmick for the All-Star Game. Baseball (though I love it) is really bad when it comes to "this is how we always did it, let's never change".

[cwf1701]

In 1943 (Yankees-Cardinals) and 1945 (Tigers-Cubs), the world series was played under the 3-4 rule. This was due to travel restrictions during WWII. The 1944 World series reverted to the 2-3-2 format (St Louis Browns vs Cardinals)

[Pete from Boston]

It is absurd that the better record does not get home field advantage in the World Series.  This was true before Selig was embarrassed by an All-Star tie in his own park.  It is still true now that the All-Star Game has been given this silly role in determining things.

Other sports manage to handle contingent scheduling, so that is not an excuse.

Prior to the Selig rule, home field advantage alternated between the AL and NL winners.

Yes, my point was that it was absurd even before the Selig intervention.

[triplemultiplex]

Baseball heavily emphasizes it's history, so the dogged adherence to otherwise arbitrary traditions is to be expected.  Look how long it took to get instant replay or how fans still argue about the designated hitter.

The Wild Card expansion is a pretty blatant cash grab by MLB.  There's two more media markets who might buy some 'postseason' apparel; another game to sell ads during. 

Another point about the MLB Wild Card that strikes me is baseball by it's very nature tends to be streaky.  The myriad of factors that contribute to outcomes create data that can be described as "clumpy".  A team that finds itself in a hot streak at the end of the season can now sneak into the playoffs and shake things up.  That makes for a more compelling game when you are observing objectively, but if that's "your" team getting upset by by one of these Wild Card teams, it's not so great to have one's sense of entitlement for having a stellar regular season rewarded with jack squat.  Because of this 'hot streak' factor, I think it makes a World Series title a more impressive accomplishment because either a team is riding a hot streak to the championship or they defeated a team on a hot streak to win.  Both are impressive for the fan.

[1995hoo]

In 1943 (Yankees-Cardinals) and 1945 (Tigers-Cubs), the world series was played under the 3-4 rule. This was due to travel restrictions during WWII. The 1944 World series reverted to the 2-3-2 format (St Louis Browns vs Cardinals)

The 1944 World Series was in a 7—0/0—7 format: Both teams shared the same ballpark. (I suppose technically it was 2—3—2 due to determining who batted last in a given game.)

[US 41]

The MLB needs to make the wild card games a best of 3 series rather than a 1 game playoff. Have any of these leagues ever tried a 3-2-2 format before?

[Pete from Boston]

In 1943 (Yankees-Cardinals) and 1945 (Tigers-Cubs), the world series was played under the 3-4 rule. This was due to travel restrictions during WWII. The 1944 World series reverted to the 2-3-2 format (St Louis Browns vs Cardinals)

The 1944 World Series was in a 7—0/0—7 format: Both teams shared the same ballpark. (I suppose technically it was 2—3—2 due to determining who batted last in a given game.)

Today the only same-sport teams I know to share a facility outside football (where the Jets play in New Giants Stadium but play no playoff games against one another) are the Clippers and Lakers.  The crowd in a series between them would be heavily influenced by season ticket holders.  I wonder if and how the crowd changed from game to game in the '44 Series.

This makes me think of the New Jersey Nets, who had given locals so little to be excited about prior to 2002 that fans often came specifically to see and cheer better visiting teams.  The hapless Nets were thus said to have the NBA's only home-court disadvantage.  This may be seen as both cause and effect of their winning exactly one playoff series in their first twenty-five seasons in the NBA.

[triplemultiplex]

For a seven game series, I was thinking a 3-3-1 would work.  The team with home-field advantage hosts the first three games and the last game if needed.

The down side would be the winning team is more likely to finish the series on the road, since most baseball playoffs don't go to seven games.  But the TV viewing fans are getting three consecutive games in a row; possibly twice, thus giving the series a pace similar to the regular season.

The MLB needs to make the wild card games a best of 3 series rather than a 1 game playoff. Have any of these leagues ever tried a 3-2-2 format before?

Best of 3 would push the entire World Series into November save for one games.
3-2-2; so home field advantage means you get 5 home games and only two road games?  Wow.  MLB would have to end that silly All Star game deciding home field advantage rule under that model.  Might be a good reward for the WS team who defeats their playoff opponents faster.  But mostly, I don't see that ever happening because it would be seen as too much of an advantage for one team.