Do you go by amount of teams or percent of teams? In less popular leagues the WNBA playoffs (8 teams) and MLL playoffs (4 lacrosse teams) have fewer playoff teams than MLB.
I love the NHL playoffs...but I dont like a team with a losing percentage in them. Obviously I meant winning percentage and teams with more losses than wins getting into postseasons is horrible. I didnt think I needed to elaborate on that.
Those two leagues have great postseasons because they take the cream of the crop. Mediocre teams rarely get in and that is normally based on being in/winning a weak division. Having more teams in a postseason and making it "larger" doesn't make it better. Adding mediocre to it just waters it down. If after 34 games, a club in MLS cant differentiate itself to be in the top 4 in the conference, then why should it make the postseason?
The WNBA is a good example. 8 out of 12 teams make the playoffs. Last year 1 of those teams had a losing record and 3 were 17-17. The year before that 2 teams had a losing record. 2010? 3 teams with losing records. Thats when they let in two-thirds of the teams. I cant see that happening in MLS...but i dont want any losing teams in a postseason. My point is simply that if you are going to have a postseason, it should reward success, not mediocrity...and in some cases complete losers. And sorry for posting so many replies...i feel like a douche for it.
Quiet that noise. We both no those two things are myths. Not my argument. My argument is that there is a far more nuanced way to find the best number of teams for a playoff.
There's no inherent right number. In the NBA, the 16 team playoff is pretty terrible because nobody has a prayer outside of the teams with the few best superstars anyway. In the NHL, with how much parity there is in the league and how much random chance is inherent in a sport like hockey, every one of the 16 teams could conceivably beat the other in a seven game series, and it's very rare for a series to be non-competitive. The net result is a brutal (and incredibly entertaining) two months of intense hockey. The NHL playoffs are perfect exactly the way they are. Other than the World Cup, there's nothing better in sports.
The reason for elaboration is because ties make it much more difficult to assess a "winning" team. How do you translate winning percentage into points when a single match is worth either 3 or 2 points. By way of example: which team is really better? A team with 8W - 17D - 9 L (41 points) or a team with 7W - 20D - 7 L (41 points) One team lost and won the same amount but they had fewer wins then the other team. Or to be more extreme, based on your definition, a team could go 4W - 29D - 1 L and have the same point total. They would have more wins than losses but now you are letting a team in that won only 4 of 34 games. This is not to get on you, but winning percentage in football/soccer because of ties being values as 1 point each (2 for the match) where a win is 3 points makes picking a ".500" record impossible because it can come in many forms to get to the same point total.
I'll give you rep because you're right about the rate of better seeds winning and I hadn't thought about that before. I didn't evaluate your hypothesis of how close the series were. Out of the last 75 NBA Playoffs series (I used five seasons), the better seed won 53 times (70.7%). For the NBA Finals I used the teams' regular season record regardless of seed. Out of the last 75 NHL Playoffs series (I used five seasons), the better seed won 42 times (56.0%). For the NHL Finals, I used the teams' regular season points regardless of seed. The NHL has had each seed win one and lose one First Round series in two of the last four seasons. The NHL has also had an 8 seed win the Stanley Cup and an Eastern Conference Finals between the 7 seed and the 8 seed rceently. The NHL doesn't have D (draws). You need to call it OTL or something meaning overtime and shootout losses. I read about the NHL possibly going to the European system of making all games worth 3 points, with a 3-0 split for regulation and a 2-1 split for games decided in overtime or a shootout. This could make teams take more risks at the end of tied games in regulation because a regulation win would be worth more points than an overtime or shootout win. The downside is the increase in total points would make it easier for teams to break the season points record (whatever it is), but I don't think there are too many discussions about the best NHL team season of all-time.
It is hard to justify in the NHL what a "losing record" is since the shootout started. Because SOL go into losses and OTL have their own set. And in that time frame no NHL team has made the playoffs with a "losing" record. And if you use 83 points being above .500 since every winner gets 2 points in the game. 0 teams made it with under 88 points. The last team to make playoffs with 83 points was the 02/03 NY Islanders The last year in which teams made the playoffs below .500 was 98/99 season. SJ and Edmonton. Which was the 1st year of the W-L-T and a point for OTL. Having teams with losing records make the playoffs in the NHL was a problem when they were at 6-24 teams stretch. It isn't now.
An OTL stands for overtime LOSS. One of the worst things in the NHL. Its still a loss. a winning team team in the NHL is a team with 42+ wins. But the NHL is so hard to talk about as far as their postseason because the league has so much parity. The amount of 6-8 seeds making the finals in the NHL in the last decade is pretty astounding (philly in 2010). I think my generalized point is that if you are going to have a postseason, model it after the thought of "Only the cream of the crop". Maybe the top third of the league make it. If you are going to have more than half the league in the playoffs, then why have them at all.
You cant use "points" as the definition of a standard to make the playoffs when teams in the NHL get points for losing haha. Since the Tie was eliminated in 2005 after the strike, 5 teams have made the NHL playoffs with more losses (L & OTLosses) than wins. 7 have made it with the same amount of wins as losses. And if the season ended today, 3 teams (fly guys included) would make the playoffs with more losses than wins. Don't get me wrong, the NHL playoffs are exciting and I love them. But that's because absolutely anything can happened and everyone has a shot...not because its great at finding the best team. Look at the Kings (#8 seed) two years ago. They only won 40 games. That would be like if FC Dallas (one less win than loss) were able to make the playoffs last year and win it. MLB lets in 33% of the teams. NFL lets in 37.5% of the teams. Thats good. No more than that. If MLS had 8 out of 21 its 38%. Sweet.
Due to the fact SOL and OTL distort winning %. Point percentage is the best way to determine a "winning: percentage. I can't wait for the day the shootout is eliminated. Hopefully soon. It gives teams winning an extra point they don't deserve.
In the first 10 seasons of 1v8,2v7,3v6,4v5 3 teams 6 seed or lower made the finals(Van 94, Buf 99,Ana 03) 1 team was a "3" seed but had 7th best record in East(Car 02) Then the next 9 seasons had 5 teams (Cal 04,Edm 06,Phl 10,LA 12,NJ*12) NJ while 6th seed but had 5th points in Conference So it is really not that astounding. So essentially both periods have had 4 teams with 6th-8th record make Finals
If MLS become a 24 teams league and US Open Cup become longer and CCL get more dates in the year, 12 teams - single elimination playoff sound right, but you have to wait some years until.
Seems pretty clear to me that if MLS wants to be a TV events league rather than a gate receipts based league from a revenue standpoint they ought to ditch two-legged ties. Especially since the weather is so hostile during playoff season anyway. Get your playoff season down to a few big games.
12 teams is way too many for a playoff. I would have no more than 6 teams. It's not as if anyone is watching the playoffs now. They need to change something.
Lowering the number of teams in the playoffs means lowering the number of fans interested in watching the playoffs. Personally, if my team isn't in it, I have less interest in what happens until the final.
You could make that argument to suggest that 16 teams should make the post-season.That just shows the weakness of that argument. I think if you decrease supply you increase demand. You decrease the clubs that make the post-season to only the best clubs and the demand for the games goes up because they have the best competition.
The goal isn't so much to have the best postseason (though that is important), but to minimize the number of regular season games played with nothing at stake, either because the team has been eliminated or because they are already locked into the playoffs.
MLS is on course to have 24 teams in a few years. 12 teams out of 24 making the playoff is about right.
If you're going to have a post-season then that should absolutely be the goal. It's actually better for the league to have less teams make the playoffs. The teams that don't qualify will play more younger prospects and thus make the league stronger in the long run.
Agreed, we should try to make the 'best' playoffs. Though 'best' is a value statement and, while left undefined, could mean any number of things. So how about you redefine your statement to "The goal of playoffs should be to invite only the teams of the highest playing quality" (though, that'll get tricky. It's better if most games don't matter to most teams? I'm calling this crazy. In the ultimate league of 'teams don't qualify', La Liga, (where only, what 5 teams have a shot to even make Europe), how is that 'play young prospects, strengthen the league' thing going for them? How many Spanish teams can you name? Is it as many as 10? La Liga, en masse, is failing. I don't know why emulating it makes sense.
I would have no more than 6 teams. Once you get beyond that you are just giving mediocre teams a chance to win the title by going on a lucky run. That's different because they have pro/rel. But in a league without pro/rel, once a team is out of post-season contention they start playing youngsters and start preparing for the next season. You see this in other American sports, most notably, baseball.
La Liga gets 7 clubs in Europe (Champions League and Europa League combined) assuming the Copa del Rey winner is in La Liga and not a lower level (the 2013-2014 Copa del Rey winner will be from La Liga). I can name: Barcelona Real Madrid Atletico Madrid Athletic Bilbao Real Sociedad Read Valladolid Real Betis Villarreal Sevilla Espanyol Elche Granada That's 12.