Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
Discussion in the Open Talk forum
Comments
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Oct 31, 2005 8:53 AM
| HAN Fan
]
I see two points that really need to be addressed.
Firstly, retaining the integrity of the league and the pennant. This can only be done by the top team being awarded the pennant. It is the reward for the league championship. The second place team has no right to the league championship - it is the second place team.
Secondly, how do under .500 teams acquire the legitimacy to enter the Japan Series and feel involved in the latter half of the season? I think adding a cup tournament at the end of the season would help.
The top team in the league would win the league - this would reward the best over a period and retain the league's credibility. After the league finished, there would be a League Cup in which the top four teams would compete (semi-finals and final). The Ccup winner and the league winner would then play each other for the right to compete in the Japan Series (unless of course the Cup and league winners were the same team). Lots of excitment, especially if it was a sudden death play off (one game only) for the Cup.
There is no artificiality here as the team going through to the Japan Series would have proven that it was worth it by winning one or two serious competitions. Furthermore, it would involve four teams from each league and generate a lot of excitment.
Home advantage in the semi-finals would go to the team with the better winning record against it's opponent. So, for example, if this system had been in used in 2003 and the Tigers had drawn Chunichi for the semi-finals of the Cup, the venue would have been Nagoya Dome as Chunichi had the better winning record.
For the Finals of the Cup and the playoff between the league winner and the Cup winner, the venue would be a neutral ground. In the Central League Koshien or Tokyo Dome except when the Tigers and Giants played each other, in which case it would be Nagoya Dome. For the Pacific League it would be Fukuoka or Osaka Domes with Sapporo as a reserve.
Game format would be three games for the semi-finals followed by 5 for the Cup final and 5 for the playoffs.
Firstly, retaining the integrity of the league and the pennant. This can only be done by the top team being awarded the pennant. It is the reward for the league championship. The second place team has no right to the league championship - it is the second place team.
Secondly, how do under .500 teams acquire the legitimacy to enter the Japan Series and feel involved in the latter half of the season? I think adding a cup tournament at the end of the season would help.
The top team in the league would win the league - this would reward the best over a period and retain the league's credibility. After the league finished, there would be a League Cup in which the top four teams would compete (semi-finals and final). The Ccup winner and the league winner would then play each other for the right to compete in the Japan Series (unless of course the Cup and league winners were the same team). Lots of excitment, especially if it was a sudden death play off (one game only) for the Cup.
There is no artificiality here as the team going through to the Japan Series would have proven that it was worth it by winning one or two serious competitions. Furthermore, it would involve four teams from each league and generate a lot of excitment.
Home advantage in the semi-finals would go to the team with the better winning record against it's opponent. So, for example, if this system had been in used in 2003 and the Tigers had drawn Chunichi for the semi-finals of the Cup, the venue would have been Nagoya Dome as Chunichi had the better winning record.
For the Finals of the Cup and the playoff between the league winner and the Cup winner, the venue would be a neutral ground. In the Central League Koshien or Tokyo Dome except when the Tigers and Giants played each other, in which case it would be Nagoya Dome. For the Pacific League it would be Fukuoka or Osaka Domes with Sapporo as a reserve.
Game format would be three games for the semi-finals followed by 5 for the Cup final and 5 for the playoffs.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Something Lions | Posted: Oct 31, 2005 1:38 PM
| SL Fan
]
I wish the Asia Cup were the championship series (with more games, probably best of 5 or best of 7 format.)
Then we can get back to just having PL and CL pennant winners (or maybe top two teams from each league, though I'd sooner disband the 6 team leagues and form a 12+ team league with regional divisions), play the Japan Series in early October, then the Asia Series in late October. It's time to take things international! (It's such a good idea it'd never happen.)
I guess we'll see how competitive the Asia Cup is this year.
Then we can get back to just having PL and CL pennant winners (or maybe top two teams from each league, though I'd sooner disband the 6 team leagues and form a 12+ team league with regional divisions), play the Japan Series in early October, then the Asia Series in late October. It's time to take things international! (It's such a good idea it'd never happen.)
I guess we'll see how competitive the Asia Cup is this year.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Yakulto | Posted: Oct 31, 2005 12:58 PM
| TYS Fan
]
Nice summary Michael. As you may have gathered from my posts in the other thread, I am overwhelmingly in favor of a playoff system for the both leagues. I think the ideal system would be as follows:
Top 3 teams qualify as in the PL system used now. However, if a team does not have a winning record then they cannot qualify and their season is over. So if the 3rd place team has a record below .500 then the process skips to the Second Stage and the top two teams battle it out. So this year, in the PL, only the 2nd Stage would have been played between Lotte and Softbank (and indeed, this may have taken away some of Lotte's momentum that they gained during their roughing up of Seibu).
The First Stage would be as now, a best of 3 series between the 2nd and 3rd placed teams, all games played at the 2nd placed team's field. Also, if the 2nd place team finished 5 games in front of the 3rd place team they should get a game "head start" for the series, and thus only have to win 1 game to progress. I think this system would make it as hard as possible for a mediocre 3rd place team to progress through the system.
The 2nd Stage would be as now in the PL. Best of 5 series at the 1st placed team's field. If the 1st placers finished the season 5 games ahead of the 2nd place they get a game advantage, but if they finished 10 games ahead, they would get a two game advantage going into the series. This would add real value to the teams performing to their best right down to the last games of the regular season.
I feel this system is weighted strongly enough in favor of league position that it will give incentive to do as well as possible in the regular season, and the fact that sub .500 teams cannot enter the playoffs removes one of the biggest flaws in the current PL system.
Another addition could be that if the 1st place team finished over 15 games ahead of the pack they would be given an additional game head start for the Stage two series, i.e. There would be no playoffs that year with the 1st place team going straight through to the Japan Series. A further addition on this theme could be that if the 2nd place team finishes 10 or more games ahead of 3rd there would be no Stage One, with the playoffs starting with Stage Two.
Phew! Hope you followed that. Basically I am all for a single playoff system across both the PL and CL, and feel that if such a system was weighted heavily enough in favor of a higher league finish, then it wouldn't "devalue" the league system too much. And the fact that a team with a losing record has no chance of contesting the Japan Series is a step in the right direction, too.
As I said in the other thread, I think that there would be resistance at first to any playoff system in the CL, but given a few years and a chance to see how much it changes the excitement of the regular and post seasons, I'm sure most fans will come to love the new system, and indeed wonder how they ever managed without it.
Top 3 teams qualify as in the PL system used now. However, if a team does not have a winning record then they cannot qualify and their season is over. So if the 3rd place team has a record below .500 then the process skips to the Second Stage and the top two teams battle it out. So this year, in the PL, only the 2nd Stage would have been played between Lotte and Softbank (and indeed, this may have taken away some of Lotte's momentum that they gained during their roughing up of Seibu).
The First Stage would be as now, a best of 3 series between the 2nd and 3rd placed teams, all games played at the 2nd placed team's field. Also, if the 2nd place team finished 5 games in front of the 3rd place team they should get a game "head start" for the series, and thus only have to win 1 game to progress. I think this system would make it as hard as possible for a mediocre 3rd place team to progress through the system.
The 2nd Stage would be as now in the PL. Best of 5 series at the 1st placed team's field. If the 1st placers finished the season 5 games ahead of the 2nd place they get a game advantage, but if they finished 10 games ahead, they would get a two game advantage going into the series. This would add real value to the teams performing to their best right down to the last games of the regular season.
I feel this system is weighted strongly enough in favor of league position that it will give incentive to do as well as possible in the regular season, and the fact that sub .500 teams cannot enter the playoffs removes one of the biggest flaws in the current PL system.
Another addition could be that if the 1st place team finished over 15 games ahead of the pack they would be given an additional game head start for the Stage two series, i.e. There would be no playoffs that year with the 1st place team going straight through to the Japan Series. A further addition on this theme could be that if the 2nd place team finishes 10 or more games ahead of 3rd there would be no Stage One, with the playoffs starting with Stage Two.
Phew! Hope you followed that. Basically I am all for a single playoff system across both the PL and CL, and feel that if such a system was weighted heavily enough in favor of a higher league finish, then it wouldn't "devalue" the league system too much. And the fact that a team with a losing record has no chance of contesting the Japan Series is a step in the right direction, too.
As I said in the other thread, I think that there would be resistance at first to any playoff system in the CL, but given a few years and a chance to see how much it changes the excitement of the regular and post seasons, I'm sure most fans will come to love the new system, and indeed wonder how they ever managed without it.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Oct 31, 2005 2:47 PM
| HAN Fan
]
I would ask two questions here.
Firstly, how does this system maintain the integrity of a league championship? It is the first place team which wins the championship, not the second place team. Your proposal would cover the integrity factor more if the playoffs were just to determine the team that entered the Japan Series.
Secondly, how do you maintain interest in the latter half of the season for the lesser teams, especially if they fall more than 10 games behind? This happened well before Game 60 for the Pacific League this year (Borisov's 2005 PL Standings).
Firstly, how does this system maintain the integrity of a league championship? It is the first place team which wins the championship, not the second place team. Your proposal would cover the integrity factor more if the playoffs were just to determine the team that entered the Japan Series.
Secondly, how do you maintain interest in the latter half of the season for the lesser teams, especially if they fall more than 10 games behind? This happened well before Game 60 for the Pacific League this year (Borisov's 2005 PL Standings).
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Yakulto | Posted: Oct 31, 2005 4:26 PM
| TYS Fan
]
- Firstly, how does this system maintain the integrity of a league championship? It is the first place team which wins the championship, not the second place team. Your proposal would cover the integrity factor more if the playoffs were just to determine the team that entered the Japan Series.
You keep refering to integrity, and the only answer I can give is what I've given before in previous posts. The "focus" of the league would change, from a "pure" league championship format, where the top team becomes champion, to a means of qualifying for and getting the best possible advantage for the end of season playoffs. It's just a change in focus for the whole competition and just depends on if you can get your mind around the new way of thinking. It would no longer be a League Championship in it's truest sense, but a slightly different form of competition - like the a group stage followed by a knockout stage as found in numerous football competitions.
And if, as you suggest, the first place team were crowned league champions, and the playoffs were used to decide who advanced to the Japan Series, well, while this may maintain the "integrity" of the League, it wouldn't sit well with the new system in my view. The new system is no-longer that the first place team is the champion, but that they are the "top seed" for the playoffs with the best chance and opportunity to win them and thus become the champions.
- Secondly, how do you maintain interest in the latter half of the season for the lesser teams, especially if they fall more than 10 games behind?
Of course if a team is so far behind then they are not going to be in contention, but it will be a better and more inclusive situation than we have now in the Central League. Teams around the .500 mark will have a chance to qualify for the playoffs if they put in a good run to end the season. If a team is doing so badly then they don't deserve to be in contention for anything.
You keep refering to integrity, and the only answer I can give is what I've given before in previous posts. The "focus" of the league would change, from a "pure" league championship format, where the top team becomes champion, to a means of qualifying for and getting the best possible advantage for the end of season playoffs. It's just a change in focus for the whole competition and just depends on if you can get your mind around the new way of thinking. It would no longer be a League Championship in it's truest sense, but a slightly different form of competition - like the a group stage followed by a knockout stage as found in numerous football competitions.
And if, as you suggest, the first place team were crowned league champions, and the playoffs were used to decide who advanced to the Japan Series, well, while this may maintain the "integrity" of the League, it wouldn't sit well with the new system in my view. The new system is no-longer that the first place team is the champion, but that they are the "top seed" for the playoffs with the best chance and opportunity to win them and thus become the champions.
- Secondly, how do you maintain interest in the latter half of the season for the lesser teams, especially if they fall more than 10 games behind?
Of course if a team is so far behind then they are not going to be in contention, but it will be a better and more inclusive situation than we have now in the Central League. Teams around the .500 mark will have a chance to qualify for the playoffs if they put in a good run to end the season. If a team is doing so badly then they don't deserve to be in contention for anything.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Oct 31, 2005 5:52 PM
| HAN Fan
]
- The "focus" of the league would change [...]
Integrity is still an incredibly important factor and one that should not be ignored. But commenting further on your proposals they are still a long involved process to choose seeds, and in fact are too long. Without the championship - teams are going to ask - do we really need to play 140 games to determine who gets seeding for the playoffs? The reason the football group stages work is because they are short.
If you retain a series of 140 games you need some kind of rationale or target at the end of it and being top seed is not enough - so the League Championship needs to remain. Remember the league tests performance over a long period, whilst the Japan Series tests short term performance. I hate to say it, but your system does seem to be tinkering with a flawed example.
- Of course if a team is so far behind then they are not going to be in contention, but it will be a better and more inclusive situation than we have now in the Central League.
Unfortunately, your new system would not have done this with this year's Pacific League. Whatever the flaws of the current Pacific League system, it did retain the interest of supporters and teams up till the end. Under your new system the top two clubs would fight it out whilst the rest languished behind - remember Seibu were 23 games behind at the end of the season.
The advantage of the cup and league system I proposed is that:
Integrity is still an incredibly important factor and one that should not be ignored. But commenting further on your proposals they are still a long involved process to choose seeds, and in fact are too long. Without the championship - teams are going to ask - do we really need to play 140 games to determine who gets seeding for the playoffs? The reason the football group stages work is because they are short.
If you retain a series of 140 games you need some kind of rationale or target at the end of it and being top seed is not enough - so the League Championship needs to remain. Remember the league tests performance over a long period, whilst the Japan Series tests short term performance. I hate to say it, but your system does seem to be tinkering with a flawed example.
- Of course if a team is so far behind then they are not going to be in contention, but it will be a better and more inclusive situation than we have now in the Central League.
Unfortunately, your new system would not have done this with this year's Pacific League. Whatever the flaws of the current Pacific League system, it did retain the interest of supporters and teams up till the end. Under your new system the top two clubs would fight it out whilst the rest languished behind - remember Seibu were 23 games behind at the end of the season.
The advantage of the cup and league system I proposed is that:
- League integrity is maintained (and this is an incredibly vital factor for any sporting competition and a lot of fans).
- The winner of the League is rewarded with a real prize and not some valueless seeding.
- Involvement is higher in the second half of the season (four clubs from each league trying to get the best position for the Cup).
- The under .500 clubs have to prove themselves suitable to advance to the Japan Series in not one, but three short series competions. If they win all these, they can safely say they have a right to go there.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Yakulto | Posted: Nov 1, 2005 6:11 AM
| TYS Fan
]
- Japan Series tests short term performance. I hate to say it, but your system does seem to be tinkering with a flawed example.
You may well be right, but I'm trying to come up with a system that is workable and something that we are likely to see some time soon. As I said before, I think it's just a difference in philosophy and I think this is an issue that you can never can be convinced of, if we debated this from now until the end of time.
- Unfortunately, your new system would not have done this with this year's Pacific League. Whatever the flaws of the current Pacific League system, it did retain the interest of supporters and teams up till the end. Under your new system the top two clubs would fight it out whilst the rest languished behind - remember Seibu were 23 games behind at the end of the season.
I think it's still a better solution than what we have now in the Central League. You have to perform well in order to enter the playoffs, Seibu didn't.
- The advantage of the cup and league system I proposed is that....
While an interesting idea, I don't think there's any chance that we'll see anything that radical anytime soon. I'm just trying to come up with something that is within the realms of possibility and that we could see in the near future.
You may well be right, but I'm trying to come up with a system that is workable and something that we are likely to see some time soon. As I said before, I think it's just a difference in philosophy and I think this is an issue that you can never can be convinced of, if we debated this from now until the end of time.
- Unfortunately, your new system would not have done this with this year's Pacific League. Whatever the flaws of the current Pacific League system, it did retain the interest of supporters and teams up till the end. Under your new system the top two clubs would fight it out whilst the rest languished behind - remember Seibu were 23 games behind at the end of the season.
I think it's still a better solution than what we have now in the Central League. You have to perform well in order to enter the playoffs, Seibu didn't.
- The advantage of the cup and league system I proposed is that....
While an interesting idea, I don't think there's any chance that we'll see anything that radical anytime soon. I'm just trying to come up with something that is within the realms of possibility and that we could see in the near future.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Nov 1, 2005 9:33 AM
| HAN Fan
]
For the reasons I mentioned, though, your system is unworkable and actually makes things worse. It fails to address fundemental issues facing the league and which you yourself have highlighted. It even ignores fundemental elements of sporting philosophy. Saying that it's a difference in philosophy won't make these problems go away.
You still have to address these questions:
There is no ideal solution, but to come up with a new workable system you do have to think radically. Look at the other suggestions people have made, expansion, two leagues, three league structures - all radical. But they would all work. My ideas are also workable but this one wouldn't be.
You still have to address these questions:
- Why will a team play 140 games just for a first place seeding?
- If the two top teams open a huge gap early (as they did in the Pacific League this year) how are you going to maintain interest for the other 4 teams?
There is no ideal solution, but to come up with a new workable system you do have to think radically. Look at the other suggestions people have made, expansion, two leagues, three league structures - all radical. But they would all work. My ideas are also workable but this one wouldn't be.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: larryo | Posted: Nov 1, 2005 12:43 PM
| HT Fan
]
Yakulto, I agree with Christopher. The pennant winner should win the series.
- You may well be right, but I'm trying to come up with a system that is workable and something that we are likely to see some time soon.
There is an old saying - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This applies here.
I don't know if anyone watched the interview with Bobby Valentine after Lotte won the fifth and final game against the Hawks. He said: "These are 2 great teams, it is a shame one had to lose." This and one or two other comments gave me the impression that he felt a little uneasy about going to the Japan Series. I bet he wouldn't have felt that way if Lotte won the pennant.
Japanese baseball is in trouble. The Kyojin have all but lost their fan base outside of Kanto and have been in B-Class for a couple of years. When I came to Japan they had fans from all over Japan, and this is not the case anymore.
Stars are utilizing free agency and/or going to MLB in large numbers.
The owners and executives think the playoffs will make baseball more exciting. I disagree.
I think integrity is very important. I think is more important than polls on what the fans like. It is also good business. It is best for Japanese baseball to return to the pennant system.
- You may well be right, but I'm trying to come up with a system that is workable and something that we are likely to see some time soon.
There is an old saying - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This applies here.
I don't know if anyone watched the interview with Bobby Valentine after Lotte won the fifth and final game against the Hawks. He said: "These are 2 great teams, it is a shame one had to lose." This and one or two other comments gave me the impression that he felt a little uneasy about going to the Japan Series. I bet he wouldn't have felt that way if Lotte won the pennant.
Japanese baseball is in trouble. The Kyojin have all but lost their fan base outside of Kanto and have been in B-Class for a couple of years. When I came to Japan they had fans from all over Japan, and this is not the case anymore.
Stars are utilizing free agency and/or going to MLB in large numbers.
The owners and executives think the playoffs will make baseball more exciting. I disagree.
I think integrity is very important. I think is more important than polls on what the fans like. It is also good business. It is best for Japanese baseball to return to the pennant system.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Something Lions | Posted: Nov 1, 2005 3:11 PM
| SL Fan
]
Core fans (like those surveyed in Shuukan Baseball magazine) may dislike the playoffs because it lacks integrity (same in the States). But ironically, core fans don't matter, because no matter how badly the leagues treat them, they keep on coming back to pay for the tickets to watch the games and buy merchandise. What pro leagues need these days is attention from casual fans to drive up marginal revenue. And that is what you get by creating excitement with the playoffs/expanded post-season. That's just the reality of things.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Yakulto | Posted: Nov 1, 2005 3:19 PM
| TYS Fan
]
- For the reasons I mentioned, though, your system is unworkable and actually makes things worse. It fails to address fundemental issues facing the league and which you yourself have highlighted. It even ignores fundemental elements of sporting philosophy. Saying that it's a difference in philosophy won't make these problems go away.
Someone help me out here please. OK. People (including yourself) said that the current PL system didn't reward league position so all. So what I suggested was to weigh the existing system more so teams benefit from where they finish (be it first, second or third).
- Why will a team play 140 games just for a first place seeding?
Because they will have the best chance to qualify for the Japan Series. Simple as that. If anything, the example system I detailed gives teams more of an incentive to finish with the best possible record than the current PL system. Though you don't agree with it, it really is just a difference of philosophy. Everything is not so black and white. It's not just me who has expressed this opinion - (check the other thread).
- Until you address these issues, your proposals remain totally unworkable. They would be worse than not only what exists in the Central League now (which actually is logical and understandable), but also what exists in the Pacific League now.
I don't see it like that either. At least the top two teams get a chance to battle it out as opposed to just one. That's one more team than it stands at the moment in the CL. The other teams are going to battle it out for pride to take the other places, much as they do now. I don't see my idea as worse than the current PL system in anyway.
- There is no ideal solution, but to come up with a new workable system you do have to think radically. Look at the other suggestions people have made, expansion, two leagues, three league structures - all radical. But they would all work. My ideas are also workable but this one wouldn't be.
I have stated previously that all the radical ideas are great, and I have to add that I wholly support them above and beyond the current CL system and PL system. But the fact remains that none of them are ever going to happen anytime soon - look how long it took them to introduce inter-league play. Radical is not what the NPB does, no matter how benificial it would be for the game.
I gave my ideas on the assumption that we are likely to get in the CL, something similar to the current PL system, the last thing I read was that playoffs are likely in the CL from 2007, no matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks about it. I therefore tried to modify the PL system to give more reason to finish in 1st as opposed to 2nd, and 2nd as opposed to 3rd. It is meant to give more teams a chance to contest for the pennant than the current first passed the post system. It isn't perfect by any means, but I imagine it is in the realms of what we could see in a few years' time, like it or not.
Someone help me out here please. OK. People (including yourself) said that the current PL system didn't reward league position so all. So what I suggested was to weigh the existing system more so teams benefit from where they finish (be it first, second or third).
- Why will a team play 140 games just for a first place seeding?
Because they will have the best chance to qualify for the Japan Series. Simple as that. If anything, the example system I detailed gives teams more of an incentive to finish with the best possible record than the current PL system. Though you don't agree with it, it really is just a difference of philosophy. Everything is not so black and white. It's not just me who has expressed this opinion - (check the other thread).
- Until you address these issues, your proposals remain totally unworkable. They would be worse than not only what exists in the Central League now (which actually is logical and understandable), but also what exists in the Pacific League now.
I don't see it like that either. At least the top two teams get a chance to battle it out as opposed to just one. That's one more team than it stands at the moment in the CL. The other teams are going to battle it out for pride to take the other places, much as they do now. I don't see my idea as worse than the current PL system in anyway.
- There is no ideal solution, but to come up with a new workable system you do have to think radically. Look at the other suggestions people have made, expansion, two leagues, three league structures - all radical. But they would all work. My ideas are also workable but this one wouldn't be.
I have stated previously that all the radical ideas are great, and I have to add that I wholly support them above and beyond the current CL system and PL system. But the fact remains that none of them are ever going to happen anytime soon - look how long it took them to introduce inter-league play. Radical is not what the NPB does, no matter how benificial it would be for the game.
I gave my ideas on the assumption that we are likely to get in the CL, something similar to the current PL system, the last thing I read was that playoffs are likely in the CL from 2007, no matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks about it. I therefore tried to modify the PL system to give more reason to finish in 1st as opposed to 2nd, and 2nd as opposed to 3rd. It is meant to give more teams a chance to contest for the pennant than the current first passed the post system. It isn't perfect by any means, but I imagine it is in the realms of what we could see in a few years' time, like it or not.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Nov 6, 2005 2:00 PM
| HAN Fan
]
I appreciate your arguments, but it does seem to me that you do not understand how a league system works. It is not (except in short qualifying rounds) a means of determining entrants to a final, but an attempt to find the best team over a period of time. It therefore requires a reward at the end of it, and first place seeding is not enough.
The other problem with your idea is that, if the third place team falls out of contention, the race is a two horse race. This is absolutely no change from the normal situation where you tend to have two teams competing for the pennant. The Pacific League system is better in this respect as it at least involves more teams, but as I have mentioned, suffers from other problems.
As for being radical, the NPB is no more conservative than the Japanese Rugby Federation and their Top League system was very radical. They may surprise us.
The other problem with your idea is that, if the third place team falls out of contention, the race is a two horse race. This is absolutely no change from the normal situation where you tend to have two teams competing for the pennant. The Pacific League system is better in this respect as it at least involves more teams, but as I have mentioned, suffers from other problems.
As for being radical, the NPB is no more conservative than the Japanese Rugby Federation and their Top League system was very radical. They may surprise us.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: mijow | Posted: Nov 6, 2005 6:09 PM
| HT Fan
]
- ...but it does seem to me that you do not understand how a league system works.
I would have thought a league system works exactly how the organizers want it to work. If they wanted to do it the way Yakulto is suggesting, I can't really see how they could be prevented from doing so. Is there some International League Rules Authority I'm not aware of?
I would have thought a league system works exactly how the organizers want it to work. If they wanted to do it the way Yakulto is suggesting, I can't really see how they could be prevented from doing so. Is there some International League Rules Authority I'm not aware of?
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Nov 6, 2005 10:40 PM
| HAN Fan
]
You could say that the prize or award at the end is an essential element in how a league is organized and is embedded in the whole concept of what a league is. The prize is usually significant and a place in the playoffs is not normally the only prize - it might be included as an extra, but not as the main event. Yakulto's suggestion is workable, but would be even more removed from the concept of a league than the Pacific League's interpretation.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: westbaystars | Posted: Nov 7, 2005 9:17 AM
| YBS Fan
]
We have two different ways of looking at baseball going on here:
There has been a great deal of talk about incentives, namely incentives to finish first. I was watching a meeting at Harvard Law School about MA and "Open Standards and Interoperability", and Sun Microsystem's director of web technologies, Tim Bray, introduced himself by stating the three major human motivators are:
However, as you all know, there was a situation where the Lions could lose to guarantee that the third place team would get a chance to participate in the playoffs. If money and the desire to have a shot at the Nippon Series were truely the only motivator, it would have been in the Lions' best interest to roll over and play dead. But did they? No. Each team goes out there every game trying to win. I've seen no evidence to support the myth that teams play for a tie "to save face for both teams." If any team went out on the field with the purpose of losing, they would find their freedom to play baseball severely restricted - a suspension at a minimum, total expulsion from Pro Yakyu at a maximum. Nobody goes out to lose, no matter what the carrot in front of them is or is not.
I have no idea how to bring the third motivator in, but I'm sure some of you younger kids can come up with plenty. (No need to post them, though.
)
Anyway, these motivators sugget that baseball is entertainment, which is something that I agree with. That does not invalidate the idea that baseball is something sacred and has its holy commandments like:
This difference in opinion between hard core baseball fans leads to another problem with the "baseball is divine" arguement, namely that there are factions who have different beliefs. It's incredible how closely these beliefs can be compared to religious fanatisism, but that's what's going on here. Insisting that one view is "right" and another "wrong" isn't going to convert anybody. We're all free to believe in which ever baseball gods we chose to belive in, be they a Deity of Entertainment, the Everlasting Fighting Spirit, or a Holy Pennant.
[Fixed typo on Nov 7, 2005 10:20 AM JST.]
- Baseball is Entertainment
- Baseball is Devine
There has been a great deal of talk about incentives, namely incentives to finish first. I was watching a meeting at Harvard Law School about MA and "Open Standards and Interoperability", and Sun Microsystem's director of web technologies, Tim Bray, introduced himself by stating the three major human motivators are:
- Money
- Freedom
- Procreation
However, as you all know, there was a situation where the Lions could lose to guarantee that the third place team would get a chance to participate in the playoffs. If money and the desire to have a shot at the Nippon Series were truely the only motivator, it would have been in the Lions' best interest to roll over and play dead. But did they? No. Each team goes out there every game trying to win. I've seen no evidence to support the myth that teams play for a tie "to save face for both teams." If any team went out on the field with the purpose of losing, they would find their freedom to play baseball severely restricted - a suspension at a minimum, total expulsion from Pro Yakyu at a maximum. Nobody goes out to lose, no matter what the carrot in front of them is or is not.
I have no idea how to bring the third motivator in, but I'm sure some of you younger kids can come up with plenty. (No need to post them, though.
)Anyway, these motivators sugget that baseball is entertainment, which is something that I agree with. That does not invalidate the idea that baseball is something sacred and has its holy commandments like:
- Thou shalt play out of doors
- Thou shalt play on natural grass
- Thou shalt not settle for second place
- ...
This difference in opinion between hard core baseball fans leads to another problem with the "baseball is divine" arguement, namely that there are factions who have different beliefs. It's incredible how closely these beliefs can be compared to religious fanatisism, but that's what's going on here. Insisting that one view is "right" and another "wrong" isn't going to convert anybody. We're all free to believe in which ever baseball gods we chose to belive in, be they a Deity of Entertainment, the Everlasting Fighting Spirit, or a Holy Pennant.
[Fixed typo on Nov 7, 2005 10:20 AM JST.]
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Nov 7, 2005 6:18 PM
| HAN Fan
]
Michael, I'm not sure that I fully understand your point. Baseball is a sport and that only. Of course you can be passionate about it and some people are over passionate, however that doesn't alter the fact that it is still just a sport.
However, if we want to put forward ideas we should expect them to be challenged and to have to defend them. Are you saying that we are getting too involved in the arguments?
If like in this thread we are discussing business aspects then I am of the opinion that we should treat them as a genuine business proposal. This does involve significant challenging and even telling someone they are wrong. I can see nothing wrong with saying someone is wrong if you back it up with why you think they are. But the important thing is that you do back up your arguments with reasoning.
However, if we want to put forward ideas we should expect them to be challenged and to have to defend them. Are you saying that we are getting too involved in the arguments?
If like in this thread we are discussing business aspects then I am of the opinion that we should treat them as a genuine business proposal. This does involve significant challenging and even telling someone they are wrong. I can see nothing wrong with saying someone is wrong if you back it up with why you think they are. But the important thing is that you do back up your arguments with reasoning.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: westbaystars | Posted: Nov 7, 2005 11:06 PM
| YBS Fan
]
Too much metaphore? OK.
What I'm trying to say is that the arguements being made are based on assumptions that not everybody shares. You first need to find common ground, then work from there.
For example, there's the issue of a team finishing below .500 having a chance to go to the Nippon Series. Pretty much everyone agrees that this is a potential problem. There we have some common ground. There were two suggested solutions:
I thought that Yakulto-san's proposal dealt directly with the sub-.500 problem nicely. I'd like to add a rule that the team that finishes with the best winning percentage stays listed at #1 in the record books. Otherwise, the loss in excitement due to having less teams is made up for by at least having legitimate winners facing off.
Legitimacy of the league representative in the Nippon Series has been brought up a number of times. The second format above helps to improve such legitimacy in my view.
I also agree with Mijow-san in that a league system works the way the league organizers say it does. While my sense of fairness would put Softbank on top of the Pacific League this season, as you suggest, while Lotte is Nippon Ichi (having earned their spot in the Nippon Series), that's not how the powers-that-be decided to have the record recorded. The thing is, though, that I don't dislike it to the point that I feel the need to fight for a change. There are other areas of Pro Yakyu I feel more passion over than final league rankings. And I feel that the quality of the playoffs the last two years has been exceptional, well worth any minor negative issues.
You're right. A comprehensive proposal that we can present NPB would be a great result coming from this thread.
What I'm trying to say is that the arguements being made are based on assumptions that not everybody shares. You first need to find common ground, then work from there.
For example, there's the issue of a team finishing below .500 having a chance to go to the Nippon Series. Pretty much everyone agrees that this is a potential problem. There we have some common ground. There were two suggested solutions:
- The team with the best winning percentage wins the league pennant, then a cup tournament is played to see who goes to the Nippon Series.
- Any team finishing below .500 is either eliminated from the playoffs or given an extream disadvantage.
I thought that Yakulto-san's proposal dealt directly with the sub-.500 problem nicely. I'd like to add a rule that the team that finishes with the best winning percentage stays listed at #1 in the record books. Otherwise, the loss in excitement due to having less teams is made up for by at least having legitimate winners facing off.
Legitimacy of the league representative in the Nippon Series has been brought up a number of times. The second format above helps to improve such legitimacy in my view.
I also agree with Mijow-san in that a league system works the way the league organizers say it does. While my sense of fairness would put Softbank on top of the Pacific League this season, as you suggest, while Lotte is Nippon Ichi (having earned their spot in the Nippon Series), that's not how the powers-that-be decided to have the record recorded. The thing is, though, that I don't dislike it to the point that I feel the need to fight for a change. There are other areas of Pro Yakyu I feel more passion over than final league rankings. And I feel that the quality of the playoffs the last two years has been exceptional, well worth any minor negative issues.
You're right. A comprehensive proposal that we can present NPB would be a great result coming from this thread.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Nov 8, 2005 8:05 AM
| HAN Fan
]
I understand Michael - thanks for the explanation. Two points here though.
The issue of a sub .500 team going to the Nippon Series is a bit of a red herring. Here I am actually looking outside baseball at other competitions in other sports in which the team that wins no matter what its record is able to compete in the ultimate trophy. If, as in my suggestion, the sub .500 team can win several short series then it has demonstrated a right to compete in the final. I think that there may have been a misunderstanding here (of which I may be guilty of helping foster). I have no problem with a sub .500 team competing in the Nippon Series, but I have difficulty with a .500 team winning the league and competing in the Nippon Series.
Touching on the second point - that of legitimacy. What you say is right up to a point. However things are not as relative as you maintain. There has to be a certain amount of credibility to any competition and a league competition works in a certain way. If we take the example of the World Baseball Classic - it has been heavily critisized because it is seen as a vehicle for MLB and not a genuine world championship. There exists a concept (or form) of what a competition is outside of what organisers decide and its definition is implicit in the word itself. You mention a sense of fairness and whilst perhaps intending it as a passing comment actually put your finger on the essential element of the debate. The system must be fair. The current Pacific League system cannot be regarded as fair and Yakulto's proposals do not address this aspect but possibly make it worse.
I appreciate that you may not get so excited about this aspect, but to my mind it is fundemental and needs to be addressed first.
The issue of a sub .500 team going to the Nippon Series is a bit of a red herring. Here I am actually looking outside baseball at other competitions in other sports in which the team that wins no matter what its record is able to compete in the ultimate trophy. If, as in my suggestion, the sub .500 team can win several short series then it has demonstrated a right to compete in the final. I think that there may have been a misunderstanding here (of which I may be guilty of helping foster). I have no problem with a sub .500 team competing in the Nippon Series, but I have difficulty with a .500 team winning the league and competing in the Nippon Series.
Touching on the second point - that of legitimacy. What you say is right up to a point. However things are not as relative as you maintain. There has to be a certain amount of credibility to any competition and a league competition works in a certain way. If we take the example of the World Baseball Classic - it has been heavily critisized because it is seen as a vehicle for MLB and not a genuine world championship. There exists a concept (or form) of what a competition is outside of what organisers decide and its definition is implicit in the word itself. You mention a sense of fairness and whilst perhaps intending it as a passing comment actually put your finger on the essential element of the debate. The system must be fair. The current Pacific League system cannot be regarded as fair and Yakulto's proposals do not address this aspect but possibly make it worse.
I appreciate that you may not get so excited about this aspect, but to my mind it is fundemental and needs to be addressed first.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Yakulto | Posted: Nov 8, 2005 12:33 PM
| TYS Fan
]
- I appreciate that you may not get so excited about this aspect, but to my mind it is fundemental and needs to be addressed first.
I think this is where we have a problem. You see things one way, and others see them another way, but to your mind you are right and others are wrong. And this means no progress will be made until others bow to your view or opinions.
To quote Michael from earlier:
I will gracefully step aside from this debate for now as I have presented and tried to back up my ideas in both this and the other thread as best I can. I can say no more than I have already said.
I think this is where we have a problem. You see things one way, and others see them another way, but to your mind you are right and others are wrong. And this means no progress will be made until others bow to your view or opinions.
To quote Michael from earlier:
"Insisting that one view is "right" and another "wrong" isn't going to convert anybody. We're all free to believe in which ever baseball gods we chose to belive in, be they a Deity of Entertainment, the Everlasting Fighting Spirit, or a Holy Pennant."You initially dismissed my ideas as "not workable" and have since upgraded them to "workable." Now they simply "do not address this aspect (of fairness) but possibly make it worse." I have also learned that I "do not understand how a league system works."
I will gracefully step aside from this debate for now as I have presented and tried to back up my ideas in both this and the other thread as best I can. I can say no more than I have already said.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Nov 8, 2005 5:59 PM
| HAN Fan
]
- I think this is where we have a problem. You see things one way, and others see them another way, but to your mind you are right and others are wrong. And this means no progress will be made until others bow to your view or opinions.
Which is exactly the same as your approach - please do not try and claim to be an aggrevied party, we both act exactly the same.
- You initially dismissed my ideas as "not workable" and have since upgraded them to "workable." Now they simply "do not address this aspect (of fairness) but possibly make it worse." I have also learned that I "do not understand how a league system works."
I conceed here that I was wrong in saying that your ideas were unworkable. However, you did not address the issue of fairness and how a league system functions.
- I will gracefully step aside from this debate for now as I have presented and tried to back up my ideas in both this and the other thread as best I can. I can say no more than I have already said.
If you have an idea that you think is worth putting forward you should defend it, and more importantly, be prepared to defend it. Whilst I am all for polite language, I do not believe that you should get a soft ride just because you put forward a different idea. If you can justify your idea (and my position is not fixed in stone) I am interested in hearing your reasons. So far you haven't presented anything that could be classified as such a justification. I want to hear why your idea is worth adopting - maybe a hypothetical exercise, but I still want to hear.
Why did you change your position from (exact quote) "Your end of season cup idea is very interesting and I would be all for such an idea. Any idea that helps involve more of the teams is fine by me" (Nippon Series Game 3 Thread October 29 2005) to one of (paraphrased) "it would be OK if only two teams where in the final"? I am prepared to listen to your reasons, but they have to be reasons of substance.
Which is exactly the same as your approach - please do not try and claim to be an aggrevied party, we both act exactly the same.
- You initially dismissed my ideas as "not workable" and have since upgraded them to "workable." Now they simply "do not address this aspect (of fairness) but possibly make it worse." I have also learned that I "do not understand how a league system works."
I conceed here that I was wrong in saying that your ideas were unworkable. However, you did not address the issue of fairness and how a league system functions.
- I will gracefully step aside from this debate for now as I have presented and tried to back up my ideas in both this and the other thread as best I can. I can say no more than I have already said.
If you have an idea that you think is worth putting forward you should defend it, and more importantly, be prepared to defend it. Whilst I am all for polite language, I do not believe that you should get a soft ride just because you put forward a different idea. If you can justify your idea (and my position is not fixed in stone) I am interested in hearing your reasons. So far you haven't presented anything that could be classified as such a justification. I want to hear why your idea is worth adopting - maybe a hypothetical exercise, but I still want to hear.
Why did you change your position from (exact quote) "Your end of season cup idea is very interesting and I would be all for such an idea. Any idea that helps involve more of the teams is fine by me" (Nippon Series Game 3 Thread October 29 2005) to one of (paraphrased) "it would be OK if only two teams where in the final"? I am prepared to listen to your reasons, but they have to be reasons of substance.
Re: Playoffs: Good or Bad for NPB?
[ Author: Guest | Posted: Nov 9, 2005 2:19 AM
]
Looking at previous posts, Christopher likes to say people are "wrong" rather than respecting other peoples opinions.
Moving On
[ Author: Yakulto | Posted: Nov 11, 2005 11:05 AM
| TYS Fan
]
I read a very interesting idea for a playoff system in Wayne Graczyk's Japan Times column.
The first place teams in both the CL and PL become champions of their respective leagues. Then the playoffs consist of two best of seven series, with the first place CL team facing the second place PL team, and the first place PL team taking on the CL runner up.
The winner of these two series would then face off in the Japan Series.
This seems like a very logical and fair system. It would appeal to those who value the integrity of the league system as well as those who want the excitement of playoff series. It would also prevent any poor teams (for example Seibu 2005) from sneaking into the party.
It would involve more teams in the regular season than the current CL system and would raise the CL vs. PL rivalry as each league would have a chance to get two representatives into the Japan Series.
Whether there would be any home advantage for the league champions is open for debate, but I feel as the series are to decide the Japan Series participants (with the CL and PL champions already decided) they would be regular series. Perhaps the team with the better record during inter-league play could get home field advantage (not an entire home series, just the advantage)?
Anyway, I think it sounds like a pretty good idea. What do others think?
The first place teams in both the CL and PL become champions of their respective leagues. Then the playoffs consist of two best of seven series, with the first place CL team facing the second place PL team, and the first place PL team taking on the CL runner up.
The winner of these two series would then face off in the Japan Series.
This seems like a very logical and fair system. It would appeal to those who value the integrity of the league system as well as those who want the excitement of playoff series. It would also prevent any poor teams (for example Seibu 2005) from sneaking into the party.
It would involve more teams in the regular season than the current CL system and would raise the CL vs. PL rivalry as each league would have a chance to get two representatives into the Japan Series.
Whether there would be any home advantage for the league champions is open for debate, but I feel as the series are to decide the Japan Series participants (with the CL and PL champions already decided) they would be regular series. Perhaps the team with the better record during inter-league play could get home field advantage (not an entire home series, just the advantage)?
Anyway, I think it sounds like a pretty good idea. What do others think?
Re: Moving On
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Nov 11, 2005 12:52 PM
| HAN Fan
]
I remember seeing this system and being impressed. The only potential issue I could see is that you could end up with an all Pacific League or all Central League Japan Series.
As for grounds, I would favor neutral venues for the final - one ground (Koshien perhaps, as it can be considered the spiritual home of Japenese baseball) with a reserve to avoid home advantage.
As for grounds, I would favor neutral venues for the final - one ground (Koshien perhaps, as it can be considered the spiritual home of Japenese baseball) with a reserve to avoid home advantage.
Two Official Proposals
[ Author: westbaystars | Posted: Nov 11, 2005 3:28 PM
| YBS Fan
]
Today's (November 11, 2005) Nikkan Sports (paper version) has suggestions from two team representatives at yesterday's executive meeting.
The first proposal is from the Softbank Hawks. They have four bullet poits that they'd like to have discussed:
Lotte's representative at the meeting suggested that the if the winner of the regular season lost to the second (or below) team in the playoffs, that an additional round of playoffs be played to give the top team another chance. Maybe I mis-interpreted that, but that's how I read it. I can't say that it makes any sense, though.
Team One: "Let's play best 3 out of 5."
Team Two: "OK."
[Team Two wins 3 out of 5.]
Team One: "No, let's make it best 4 out of 7."
. . .
It sounds too much like the school yard bully making up the rules in his favor, with the rules continually changing when he loses. I know it was Lotte who put these up, which would have hindered them this season. But it just doesn't sound right to me.
Anyway, these are the current proposals by people who do have a say in this matter. Proposals for next year's Pacific League playoffs are to be finalized and gathered by the Board of Trustees' meeting on November 20. I'm assuming that the final decision on next year's playoff system will be decided then or soon after.
The first proposal is from the Softbank Hawks. They have four bullet poits that they'd like to have discussed:
- The advantage for the first place team be revised.
- Have a round robin with the upper three teams.
- Have a sudden death (single elimination) with the lower teams.
- Have entry to the Nippon Series be a separate event (from the regular season standings).
Lotte's representative at the meeting suggested that the if the winner of the regular season lost to the second (or below) team in the playoffs, that an additional round of playoffs be played to give the top team another chance. Maybe I mis-interpreted that, but that's how I read it. I can't say that it makes any sense, though.
Team One: "Let's play best 3 out of 5."
Team Two: "OK."
[Team Two wins 3 out of 5.]
Team One: "No, let's make it best 4 out of 7."
. . .
It sounds too much like the school yard bully making up the rules in his favor, with the rules continually changing when he loses. I know it was Lotte who put these up, which would have hindered them this season. But it just doesn't sound right to me.
Anyway, these are the current proposals by people who do have a say in this matter. Proposals for next year's Pacific League playoffs are to be finalized and gathered by the Board of Trustees' meeting on November 20. I'm assuming that the final decision on next year's playoff system will be decided then or soon after.
Re: Two Official Proposals
[ Author: Guest: jballfan | Posted: Nov 11, 2005 5:33 PM
]
I have an idea for a playoff system that I know will be very hard to pull off, and at the same time will receive criticism from all over.
People are worried that NPB's talent pool is draining due to the elite players leaving for the MLB. There are also people who believe that both the Japanese leagues are close in talent to their MLB counterparts (i.e. Bobby Valentine and many others), and thus there should be a true "World Series" where the NPB champs face off against the MLB champs.
I've thought about this for a long time. I admit, there WILL be a LOT of criticism from the American fans at first, as well as the MLB teams. But, my suggestion is to do away with the wild-card in both the AL and NL, and have the winners of the CL and PL join the division leaders of the Major Leagues in their playoffs.
This means no playoffs in Japan. Both league leaders in Japan will join the playoffs in the majors by squaring off in a best of 5 series, followed by 7 games in the semi-finals, and 7 games to determine the "True World Champions." The revenues from all proceeds can be allocated such that such a system benefits both MLB and NPB. Obviously, with the MLB teams representing 6 of the 8 playoff teams, they will share in a major chunk of the revenue.
The great part about this system is that this will pit the best of NPB against the best of MLB. This can be the "True World Series" that people want to see. Furthermore, if such a system proves to be a success for the NPB (by that I mean that the NPB teams play well against the MLB teams), then it should decrease the number of players from Japan wanting to go to MLB. If they can stay on the Lotte Marines (or any other team) and have a chance to beat out the Yankees, their tendency to want to challenge themselves in the MLB should decrease (at least a little).
It would be very, very difficult to put together something like this. But if it does happen, it will most likely be a success. Anybody agree / disagree? Other than the fact that this will have a lot of logistical problems, I would like to hear people's comments on this system.
People are worried that NPB's talent pool is draining due to the elite players leaving for the MLB. There are also people who believe that both the Japanese leagues are close in talent to their MLB counterparts (i.e. Bobby Valentine and many others), and thus there should be a true "World Series" where the NPB champs face off against the MLB champs.
I've thought about this for a long time. I admit, there WILL be a LOT of criticism from the American fans at first, as well as the MLB teams. But, my suggestion is to do away with the wild-card in both the AL and NL, and have the winners of the CL and PL join the division leaders of the Major Leagues in their playoffs.
This means no playoffs in Japan. Both league leaders in Japan will join the playoffs in the majors by squaring off in a best of 5 series, followed by 7 games in the semi-finals, and 7 games to determine the "True World Champions." The revenues from all proceeds can be allocated such that such a system benefits both MLB and NPB. Obviously, with the MLB teams representing 6 of the 8 playoff teams, they will share in a major chunk of the revenue.
The great part about this system is that this will pit the best of NPB against the best of MLB. This can be the "True World Series" that people want to see. Furthermore, if such a system proves to be a success for the NPB (by that I mean that the NPB teams play well against the MLB teams), then it should decrease the number of players from Japan wanting to go to MLB. If they can stay on the Lotte Marines (or any other team) and have a chance to beat out the Yankees, their tendency to want to challenge themselves in the MLB should decrease (at least a little).
It would be very, very difficult to put together something like this. But if it does happen, it will most likely be a success. Anybody agree / disagree? Other than the fact that this will have a lot of logistical problems, I would like to hear people's comments on this system.
Re: Two Official Proposals
[ Author: Something Lions | Posted: Nov 12, 2005 5:18 AM
| SL Fan
]
Point 1 especially sounds like sour grapes. The Hawks were unlucky, as things could have gone in so many different ways over the last two years' post-season, as the results were very close.
The PL1-CL2 and PL2-CL1 semi-final (best of 7?) leading to the Japan series sounds like the most reasonable idea. With inter-league play already in the picture, we can safely sacrifice the artificially created barriers between the leagues, they were one league half a century ago anyways (unlike the AL and NL).
The PL1-CL2 and PL2-CL1 semi-final (best of 7?) leading to the Japan series sounds like the most reasonable idea. With inter-league play already in the picture, we can safely sacrifice the artificially created barriers between the leagues, they were one league half a century ago anyways (unlike the AL and NL).
Re: Two Official Proposals
[ Author: Christopher | Posted: Nov 12, 2005 11:54 AM
| HAN Fan
]
The Marines' proposal sounds a bit like a guilty conscience. Two seperate series is strange and I can only think that the second series is to establish legitimacy for the second place team. However, what happens if the first place team wins the second series - a third series?
My question on the MLB suggestion is where is it to be played? This would be a major sticking point as American teams would be reluctant to travel to Japan.
My question on the MLB suggestion is where is it to be played? This would be a major sticking point as American teams would be reluctant to travel to Japan.
Re: Two Official Proposals
[ Author: Guest: Gary Garland | Posted: Nov 23, 2005 9:22 PM
]
I think it is too early for NPB to have a playoff system. If they had, say, three leagues of five or six teams, each with inter-league play, that would make for an honest playoff system. But I don't think you are going to get expansion anytime soon, especially with all the wrangling with Mikitani and Murakami that is taking up way too much space in the media (and the more you hear about the business of a sport more than what actually goes on with the team personnel or onfield-wise, the likelier you are to become disgusted and walk away from the sport) and the continuing economic funk in Japan.
The purpose of the playoffs is to draw more fan interest by increasing the number of high stakes matches. But the Japanese leagues have put the cart before the horse. They should first address why they can't get more NPB games on TV (and the more they are on TV, the more people will go to the games, buy souvenir merchandise, and build media equity in the sport) and find ways of lending a greater sense of intimacy between the game and the fans, which is hard work that requires out of the box thinking, rather than just resorting to an easy fix which is out of desperation more than a sound marketing strategy.
Playoffs didn't come to MLB for the first century of its existence. And there were good reasons for that. As much as I think hockey is exciting to see in the flesh, it is a dog to watch on TV, plus way too many teams are allowed to go to the playoffs. To a certain extent, the same can be said of the NBA vis a vis too many clubs being in the playoff mix. To a degree, both the NHL and the NBA schemes negate the value of winning the top spot in their respective divisions. And that is what you have in the Pacific League.
With the management of NPB in what appears to be a transitional period, going, effectively from the old Japan (a kind of cartel system run by an old boys network that still operates under assumptions created during the gogo 1950s and 1960s) to the new Japan (increasingly entrepeneurial and more media savvy), the NPB owners are riding the wrong wave. Get the new bosses in, let them reshape the future of the sport, expand, and then widen the field of playoff eligible clubs. Right now, though, 50% is a joke.
The purpose of the playoffs is to draw more fan interest by increasing the number of high stakes matches. But the Japanese leagues have put the cart before the horse. They should first address why they can't get more NPB games on TV (and the more they are on TV, the more people will go to the games, buy souvenir merchandise, and build media equity in the sport) and find ways of lending a greater sense of intimacy between the game and the fans, which is hard work that requires out of the box thinking, rather than just resorting to an easy fix which is out of desperation more than a sound marketing strategy.
Playoffs didn't come to MLB for the first century of its existence. And there were good reasons for that. As much as I think hockey is exciting to see in the flesh, it is a dog to watch on TV, plus way too many teams are allowed to go to the playoffs. To a certain extent, the same can be said of the NBA vis a vis too many clubs being in the playoff mix. To a degree, both the NHL and the NBA schemes negate the value of winning the top spot in their respective divisions. And that is what you have in the Pacific League.
With the management of NPB in what appears to be a transitional period, going, effectively from the old Japan (a kind of cartel system run by an old boys network that still operates under assumptions created during the gogo 1950s and 1960s) to the new Japan (increasingly entrepeneurial and more media savvy), the NPB owners are riding the wrong wave. Get the new bosses in, let them reshape the future of the sport, expand, and then widen the field of playoff eligible clubs. Right now, though, 50% is a joke.
About
This is a site about Pro Yakyu (Japanese Baseball), not about who the next player to go over to MLB is. It's a community of Pro Yakyu fans who have come together to share their knowledge and opinions with the world. It's a place to follow teams and individuals playing baseball in Japan (and Asia), and to learn about Japanese (and Asian) culture through baseball.
It is my sincere hope that once you learn a bit about what we're about here that you will join the community of contributors.
Michael Westbay
(aka westbaystars)
Founder
Copyright (c) 1995-2024 JapaneseBaseball.com.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Some rights reserved.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Some rights reserved.
First of all, some background is necessary, so let me first talk about how the Pacific League playoff system came to be and what it entails. After that, I'd like to go through the arguments for and against the playoff system as it is. Finally, I'd like to look at alternatives and then invite you all to discuss and append what is covered here.
I. The Pacific League Playoffs
The current Pacific League playoff system, along with past systems, is explained very well on the Pro Yakyu Wiki here. Basically, it's a two stage playoff system that looks like this:
Stage One is a best two out of three game series between the second and third place teams. Stage Two is a best three out of five game series between the winner of Stage One and the team that finished the league in first place. If the first place team finishes the regular season five or more games ahead of the challenger from Stage One, then the first place team gets a free win to start Stage Two, therefore they only have to win two games.
The host of each stage is the team with the better record during the regular season.
If two teams finish the season tied for first place with the same winning percentage, then the playoffs will be between the two first place finishers only. There will be no Stage One but rather go directly to the best three out of five Stage Two series. I am currently unsure about how one decides on home field advantage in such a situation.
Now, why did the Pacific League implement this playoff system starting in 2004? And why have they had three other playoff systems off and on over the past 50+ years?
According to the press releases at the time that the 2004 playoff schedule was announced, it was to help provide more excitement to the regular season. The 1973-1982 split season and accompanying playoffs were for the same reason, as was the adoption of the designated hitter. Without the Giants in their league, the Pacific League has suffered from a lack of media coverage, and have thus been looking for a number of gimmicks to draw fans.
II. Pros and Cons
The playoffs in 2004 and 2005 have really shown that the playoffs fulfill the role of making the end of the season exciting. While most Central League teams were out of the competition in August and the beginning of September, the Pacific League still had a race on for third place in both 2004 and 2005. The 2004 race for the third went down to the final day of the season, with Hokkaido Nippon Ham Fighters edging out the Chiba Lotte Marines by half a game. For 2005, it came down to the last game of the season to see if Lotte would be within 5 games of the Fukuoka Softbank Hawks so as to prevent a one-game advantage to the Hawks should they meet in Stage Two. The Marines finished 4.5 games back, and defeated the Hawks in five games.
Those people who pay attention to both leagues in Pro Yakyu overwhelmingly agree that the playoffs have fulfilled the desire to make the Pacific League more exciting to at least half the teams and their fans at the end of the season. The Pacific League has been seeing record numbers in attendance over the past several years, and the playoffs are a contributing factor for these increased numbers at the gates. (Regionalization is another major contributing factor not discussed here.)
But there is a very large fan base who thinks that these playoffs lower the value of the pennant race. In fact, that's what a majority of fans said in a Shukan Baseball (a weekly Japanese baseball magazine - issue #36 for 2005) questionnaire. The question was "Should the Central League also enter into a playoff system?" Most of the 462 "No" votes cited the above devaluation of the pennant as the reason not to. The main feeling from the 323 "Yes" group was that the merits of the playoffs (namely keeping things interesting and more meaningful to the end of the season) outweigh the demerits (the team with the best record not taking home the pennant).
Still, that's only 59% who don't approve of the Central League adopting a similar playoff system. Shukan Baseball does reach more hard-core baseball fans than the daily newspapers, so this poll is going to reflect the opinion of those who tend to have stronger feelings than the casual fan, as well as fans more concerned with the game's "purity" and other such abstractions. If such hard-core fans are split so evenly, then the casual fan who cares more about excitement and having a team with a chance going to the end aren't going to percieve the demerits as such (until their team that finishes the regular season in first is eliminated).
There has been a great deal written about how the playoff system creates an incentive void for the teams. The example brought up was that the Seibu Lions were in a situation where tying a game would eliminate the probability that the Hawks and Marines could finish the season tied, thus preventing a top two team only playoff. Did the Lions play for a tie that game? No, they did not. They are professionals. They, and all the teams, go out to win every game. I have never seen any evidence to the myth that Japanese play to tie to "save face" on all sides. I have seen teams continue to try to score more runs when the opposition is down by 10 or more runs - just humiliating the other team. Hypothetically, yes, there is only an incentive to get as far as third place. But I have a really hard time imagining a professional team not playing to raise a notch to the end. (Yes, several teams do give up and start working on "next year's roster" by giving more rookies playing time after the pennant race has been decided and they aren't involved any more. But finishing within 5 games of the leader is a strong incentive to keep competitive if it's within reach.)
III. Alternatives
One factor in the devaluation of the playoffs is the fact that a team with a losing record has a chance to make it to the Nippon Series. This is a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. I don't often agree with Toyoda Yasumitsu in his weekly complaint column in Shukan Baseball, but he suggested that a team that doesn't have a winning record should not be invited to the playoffs - and that sounds reasonable to me.
Toyoda-san also suggests that the first place team be given a one game advantage in Stage Two no matter how many games separate them with their competitor.
The split-season approach, which the Pacific League did between 1973 and 1982, is another playoff system that is often brought up. This system didn't work in involking more interest in the Pacific League and was abandoned after 10 seasons.
Increasing the number of teams and breaking up into more leagues is another idea that sounds very good. However, how much will it dillute the talent pool? MLB's recent expansions (over the last 10 years or so) have had a negative effect. Taiwan had expanded into two leagues at one point, but have merged back into one as the local talent pool was far too thin to support the teams. The merger of Orix and Kintetsu after the 2004 season with one team of castaways (the new Tohoku Rakuten Golden Eagles) shows that there may be a shortage of domestic talent on the same level as the rest of NPB. This is actually the idea I like the best, to expand to 16 teams and three or four leagues (with inter-league play). But I'm not convinced that it's feasible.
IV. Conclusion
While I seriously doubt that the powers-that-be in Pro Yakyu read this site, your ideas about what should be done with the playoffs may find their ways up the ladders to the ears of people who will act of them some day (some year) down the line.
So, please write your ideas of how weak points in the playoff system may be addressed. If I'd missed some, please preface your suggestion with what it is that you percieve to be a problem.