I have heard more than one person talking about the new 38+ playoff brackets. Where does one find these? Under the "schedule" icon the 2005 brackets are still posted?????
Mike, to answer your question, I'm just a manager, so this isn't the official word, but I believe I have this correct:
There are 12 teams in the 38s. At the end of the season, they will be divided into two distinct playoff brackets: The top six finishers (Group A) and the bottom six finishers (Group B).
Each will have their own, completely separate playoff series.
The top two seeds in each bracket will get a bye, while seeds 3-6 and 4-5 will play a single-game elimination. After that, the four teams standing will meet in a best-of-three semis, with the victors moving on to a conclusive best-of-three finals.
Again, this format will be followed in both brackets. The winner of the Group A bracket, with the top six finishers, will be named the Playoff Champion or whatever it is they call it (I, alas, wouldn't know).
This was debated and voted on at the manager's Winter Meetings. In my view, not a perfect solution, but a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will had some drama and meaning to the regular season games, with seedings of increased importance -- something that's been lacking, IMO -- and will streamline the playoff format; while at the same time giving every team a shot at postseason play and an opportunity to play as many as seven additional games after the regular season. Worst case, people hate it and we try something else next season.
I know I am late - I did not attend the pre-season manager's meeting when the playoff's were decided because of a previous commitment, but in my own little, usually ignored opinion, this playoff system is a bad one.
I usually manage in two modes - regular season and playoffs (though some may argue that my modes are "bad" and "worse"). We have players who have paid to be in the game - to enjoy the season and get some swings in. Now, to get to the top tier, I have to limit my philosophy of using the season as the spring training for the playoffs. In my mind, this does not bring excitement or meaning to the limited amount of games we get to play - it brings tension and bad feelings. Already this season, I have heard too many stories of players who were upset because they were not getting playing time - I'm sure there are the same feelings with players on my own team.
Already halfway through a meager 20 game season, I am frustrated with what I have to do to get into the "meaningful" playoff. Wait a second! Oooh - I might get a bye in the "second division" - Whoopeee!
I want to win - don't get me wrong. I also play to win. I play hard every minute I am on that field. But, to have to limit guys who have sought out our league to have the enjoyment of playing in real games, who play just as hard, just because I have to put in the more talented guys throughout the season to get to a meaningful playoff is plain wrong.
I think the playoff system only sets it up for the teams that actively recuit and solicit other team's better players. I does not bring any evenness to the league - it only sets it up to be more lopsided. A player who is on a .500 or worse team may offer themselves to a team with a better chance of winning. Sure, we have the "release" system where a manager can deny a player looking to move - but I do not know of many instances where that happens. What do you gain by tellling a guy he can't play for another team? Surely, he's not going to be all that happy about having to stay on the team he's looking to bolt - and the other players on your team won't be all the cheerful either. The rich only get richer - nobody is going to want to play on a previous year's "bottom-feeding division" team.
The recent past has shown that teams who have had a mediocre season can do well in the "real" playoffs (Highlanders last year - A's 3 years ago).
I'm a (somewhat) grown man. I know the facts of life. You don't get there to vote - you lose your say. I'll accept what has been done with the playoffs for this year. But it doesn't mean I don't have a strong feeling against it. I guess this is my start to campaign for a reversal next year.
Just a thought but, maybe now that we have an even amount of teams, let's put them in a hat and pull out two Divisions. We can change it every year so that everyone has a chance to be the 2006 METS (the real ones that play in Shea Stadium, please don't take it pesonal Joe C.)
The Two Division Champs get byes and six or eight wild cards play 1-8 2-7 etc.
And then the Chamionship game gets played at the Joe...
I'm glad, Ray, you are voicing your playoff format concerns even if, as you admit, they are half a year late. In the weeks before the winter meeting, we attempted to generate discussion in a manager's-only email, but very few expressed an opinion. The lack of response was disappointing, because we knew that a lot of people would care later on.
It's a complicated issue. In 2001, when I joined, there were seven teams in this league; now there are twelve, making the all-inclusive playoff format increasingly difficult to manage (dwindling sun, lack of lighted fields, compressed time frame, etcetera). Something inevitably had to give.
In the past six years, we've witnessed some extremely poor finals matchups, due to fatigue, injuries, burn out. Look at it historically and those finals have been almost uniformly (and uncharacteristically) poorly played, error-riddled, lopsided. When an underdog made it to the finals, they were too fried to compete. The Labor Day Tournament gets in the way. I remember watching the Marlins lose to the Hummingbirds in a disastrous game, like 20-1, when they simply had no one healthy to throw. Same with the Yankees a couple of years back, also against the Hummingbirds. In 2001- or 2002, the Blue Jays made a tremendous run but ran out of gas, forced to play something like 8 games in 10 days. Hard when you've got a full-time job. So part of the new format has been designed to streamline that process.
The old format, unchanged for years, was one that our ever-expanding league could not bear. The championship round should show our league at its best, with the top teams having earned the right to compete under quality conditions: the regular season should mean something. One solution, which has not been adopted, has been to limit the participants: Go to, say, an eight-team playoff. Four teams? Two?
Two years ago I worked very hard to try to "sell" an all-inclusive, double-elimination format. I send emails, created charts, the works. It was soundly defeated (in part because the "better" teams didn't want to lose those best-of-three semis and finals). I don't recall you, Ray, at that meeting either. Instead, in what I regard as a failure of the imagination, we stuck with the same thing and repeated the same problems.
Lastly -- and it's hard to address this topic without going into great length, so forgive me -- the CDMSBL was founded on the idea that this was a "competitive league," not a "recreational league." Our strengths and our weaknesses grow directly from that decision. Right or wrong, it's not a recreational league and that's been clear from Day One. That we are competitive has, I believe, raised the level of play, attracted quality players, and manifests itself in our quality showings in regional and national tournaments. On the whole, I think it's a positive.
I think the "recruitment of players" is a separate issue: The real question is what do you do in the postseason for a twleve-team league? How do you serve everybody? And should you even try? There's a range of possible solutions: The top two teams have a best-of-five finals and that's that. The top four teams? But I believe we've long been at a point where the old model is out-of-date.
ULtimately, Ray, I'm thrilled you've decided to enter the discussion. You make many fine points. What the Highlanders achieved last year was not something anyone wants to throw away completely. But . . . something's got to give. I wish more managers and players would voice their opinions. You kind of summarily dismiss the idea of a Group B "bye," but that's another problem, in my opinion. A team that finishes third overall can get eliminated in one game -- baseball over -- while an 8th place finisher will be guaranteed of at least a best-of-three semifinal series in Group B. This was a compromise to try to make everyone happy, which is impossible; we all have our own complaints.
Persoanlly, I think a chance at the championship should be earned during the season. I think the strongest teams deserve to play under better conditions. If you want to win, then you have to play to win during the season and strive to reach Group A. And if you don't like what that might require, then don't sweat it and enjoy the baseball, those teams will probably get more of it in a Group B context anyway and, I'd hope, everybody wins. It's a difficult balance and hard to even discuss without unintentionally offending somebody (so I apologize if I did that yet again, it's part of the danger of going on record). I'm glad that we are trying something different. We'll find out if it's better or worse after the season.
I do encourage everyone to at least withhold final judgement until after we see how it plays out.
Hey Jimmy - If you want something else to throw at me, I think my mother might have worn Army boots.
I had another enormously long, ramblin' rose of a post from my fat head all set to go...but changed my mind. I had it all typed out and everything! I've shortened it by quite a bit.
1) I don't think the definition of competitive has the words "winners only" in it. And by setting up a "winners only" mentality, in my belief, you are actually lowering the quality of the league, except for those few elite teams. Do you think the league has at any time been a top-to-bottom competitive league? The hope of all these teams is to have a shot at the big guys. The better teams need to prove in the end they are worthy - even against the "lesser" teams.
2) Your idea of the league differs from mine. I thought the ultimate competitiveness came during the playoffs and that you built up to it. There are many reasons why some teams need to the season to build for the playoffs - family, children's teams, work, vacations, etc. I am here to play hard at baseball and then have a chance to win something - two ideals that can work together. Don't ever think me or my team are just here to pick daisies in the outfiled or catch some sun. That is an insult.
3) We shortened the season to accomodate the playoffs.
4) We always send the best available players to tourneys - league play has nothing to do with it. Better players bring in more better players - not the word "competitive".
5) As far as voicing opinions - I have had legitimate reasons why I was unable to attend meetings, though I usually try to have a representative be there. I submitted a plan via email two years ago - double elim and all. No go.
6) If you want to have the league play mean something - everyone plays 25 games - top team wins. Period.
Oh - I'm pretty sure she wore OLD Army boots.
(Can you believe that this is SHORTER than my original response!).
I am gone till Friday - so feel free to have as much fun as you want at my expense. I plan to.
