One Giant Tournament Might Be Better Than a 50-Game Season by Dan Szymborski June 2, 2020 As first reported by ESPN’s Jeff Passan in the latest episode of “Let’s Negotiate Through the Media,” MLB ownership will reportedly issue a counter-counter-proposal to the MLBPA’s counter-proposal of a 112-game season with the prorated salaries previously agreed upon in March. This time, rather than the weird pay-scaling or completely dead-on-arrival revenue sharing schemes, the owners proposed a 50-game season, played at the players’ prorated salaries. The owners didn’t explain how they got to a 50-game season, but it coincidentally averages with the players’ 114-game proposal to come out exactly to the 82-game season that was originally proposed. While a season shorter than 82 games might not be the same bright shade of red flag the we’re-partners-but-only-when-times-are-bad revenue sharing proposal was, there’s a general belief that the players aren’t interested in assuming the risks of playing during a pandemic if they’re not even getting half-season of games in. One priority for the owners is finishing the postseason before a possible second wave of COVID-19 cases hits in order to safe guard lucrative playoff TV contracts — money, it should be noted, that wasn’t fully accounted for when the league claimed $640,000 per game losses in a presentation to the players. Since I’ve become quite adept at drastically changing the ZiPS in-season simulations to accomodate whatever hare-brained scheme is proposed, let’s look at the projections for a 50-game season. There’s still no concrete proposal for exactly what the playoffs would look like in this scenario, so I’ve left it at the current playoff format. It’s almost a certainty that the playoffs will be expanded in some way. I’ve also maintained the geography-based schedules that have previously been talked about as there’s no particular reason to think that’s changed. ZiPS Projected Standings – 50-Game Season Team W L GB PCT Div% WC% Playoff% WS Win% New York Yankees 30 20 — .600 46.2% 19.8% 66.0% 8.4% Tampa Bay Rays 29 21 1 .580 33.7% 21.9% 55.6% 6.3% Boston Red Sox 25 25 5 .500 13.8% 16.9% 30.8% 2.6% Toronto Blue Jays 22 28 8 .440 5.7% 10.2% 15.9% 1.1% Baltimore Orioles 17 33 13 .340 0.6% 1.4% 1.9% 0.1% Team W L GB PCT Div% WC% Playoff% WS Win% Minnesota Twins 29 21 — .580 40.0% 17.1% 57.2% 6.6% Cleveland Indians 27 23 2 .540 31.6% 17.7% 49.3% 5.3% Chicago White Sox 25 25 4 .500 19.4% 15.6% 35.0% 3.2% Kansas City Royals 22 28 7 .440 6.4% 8.2% 14.6% 1.0% Detroit Tigers 19 31 10 .380 2.6% 3.7% 6.2% 0.4% Team W L GB PCT Div% WC% Playoff% WS Win% Houston Astros 29 21 — .580 42.3% 17.7% 60.0% 7.3% Oakland A’s 28 22 1 .560 29.8% 19.3% 49.1% 5.2% Los Angeles Angels 25 25 4 .500 17.7% 16.2% 33.8% 3.1% Texas Rangers 23 27 6 .460 8.4% 10.9% 19.3% 1.5% Seattle Mariners 19 31 10 .380 1.8% 3.4% 5.3% 0.3% Team W L GB PCT Div% WC% Playoff% WS Win% Atlanta Braves 28 22 — .560 31.6% 18.1% 49.8% 5.1% Washington Nationals 28 22 — .560 31.0% 18.0% 49.0% 5.0% New York Mets 26 24 2 .520 17.4% 15.5% 33.0% 2.9% Philadelphia Phillies 25 25 3 .500 15.8% 15.1% 31.0% 2.6% Miami Marlins 21 29 7 .420 4.1% 6.1% 10.2% 0.6% Team W L GB PCT Div% WC% Playoff% WS Win% Chicago Cubs 27 23 — .540 27.1% 14.0% 41.0% 3.9% Milwaukee Brewers 26 24 1 .520 23.5% 13.3% 36.8% 3.4% St. Louis Cardinals 26 24 1 .520 21.8% 13.2% 35.0% 3.1% Cincinnati Reds 26 24 1 .520 20.5% 12.7% 33.2% 3.0% Pittsburgh Pirates 22 28 5 .440 7.1% 6.9% 14.0% 1.0% Team W L GB PCT Div% WC% Playoff% WS Win% Los Angeles Dodgers 31 19 — .620 56.1% 15.8% 71.9% 9.4% San Diego Padres 27 23 4 .540 21.3% 20.0% 41.3% 3.8% Arizona Diamondbacks 25 25 6 .500 14.3% 16.7% 30.9% 2.6% Colorado Rockies 22 28 9 .440 4.8% 8.2% 13.0% 0.8% San Francisco Giants 21 29 10 .420 3.5% 6.5% 9.9% 0.6% When I look at these standings, one burning question pops into my head: Why? At 50 games, the ability to meaningfully differentiate between the great and the good, the mediocre and the bad, starts to fade significantly. There’s a one-in-five chance that the winner of the World Series will be a team believed to be .500 or worse. In the last ZiPS projected standings before everything went sideways, that probability was right around 3%; it was 3.7% before the 2019 season. Of course, it’s a philosophical question. A 20% chance of a below-average team winning the World Series isn’t inherently superior or inferior to a 3% chance. But if the season doesn’t do a good job differentiating between dousing your head with champagne versus what’s in the bathroom urinals, what purpose does it serve? Remember, with a 12, 14, or 16 team playoff, this disparity grows. At that point, a randomly-drawn 32-team tournament, with teams advancing in best-of-15 series, might simply do a better job separating the wheat from the chaff (you could fill the final two spot with Futures teams from the AL and NL). I haven’t constructed a full simulation, but under this format, if the Yankees, projected as a .602 team in ZiPS, had to beat a .500 team, a .530 team, a .560 team, a .575 team, and a .590 team, they would have an 11% chance of winning the World Series. In the same scenario, a team we know is .500 would have a 20% chance to make the third round, a 6% shot at the fourth round, a 1.8% chance to make the World Series, and 0.4% to win. In a 50-game season, the argument for having a season at all instead of one big tournament simply becomes one of fulfilling local television contracts, rather than any actual baseball need. It cheapens the season into bottom-line-serving exhibition games, the equivalent of a network burning out the final eight episodes of a canceled sitcom on a Friday evening or on their little-used web app. From a baseball standpoint, a tournament has a lot to offer over a season damaged beyond any recognition.