I Hate The Wild Card
 

I hate the fact that because of the wild card, the odds of the 2 best teams in each league meeting in the LCS are severly reduced.

Every year I say "I cant wait for team A to meet team B" and every year a lesser deserving team ruins it and turns it into something im just not interested in.

Im 28 years old, so it isn't like I pine for the days of 8 team leagues and all of that but man, I hate having to think of the Marlins anywhere near the World Series.

Im a long time Philllies fan and my first true test came this season when things went down to the wire and quite honestly, I couldnt give a crap if they got the wild card or not, simply because winning a World Series as a wild card just seems empty to me.

It pisses me off cause I love Baseball but I just can't get into this and that makes it even worse. Ok, Im done venting.

I like the Wild Card but I think the first round would be fairer if it were a best of seven.

Then what it boils down to is, you're gonna have to go back to a two division system in each league, and that isn't going to do much for the sport.

Look at the NL this year. The Braves and Giants had by far the best records in the league, and everybody else was scrapping either for the wild card or the NL Central crown. Might be just fine and dandy for the postseason, but is there really joy in a regular season that's over by the All-Star Break?

I don't have a problem with the wild card, as it currently stands. I think four teams making the playoffs in each league isn't unreasonable, and I certainly think it's better for the survival of the sport as a whole.

Look at the Florida Marlins. Two years ago, they were on the short list of contraction candidates. They weren't quite as close to needing life support as the Expos, but they weren't what you would tout as the model of financial solvency, either.

They had a horrid start to the season, and were 10 games under .500 at one point in May. Meanwhile, the Braves ran away with that division. Without the wild card, the Marlins would have had nothing for their fans to get excited about, save for Dontrelle Willis, and as Vladimir Guerrero can attest to, simply having an electric player isn't always enough to draw the fans if the franchise has no hope.

Instead, the fact that they had that to strive for turned their season around, and it may have saved that franchise. If they win the NL pennant, or, heaven forbid, the World Series, how much you wanna bet their season ticket sales go through the roof next season? Or that the push for a new stadium finally gets somewhere, even if it's primarily privately-funded?

Think about it, some.

I like the wild card, it gives the small market teams a chance. Its a lot easier for the small market teams to get into a wild card slot than it is for them to knock of the teams with 80-100 million dollar payrolls over the course of a full season. However, once they do get to the postseason the playing field is more even over a 5 or 7 game series. Teams like Florida set attainable goals like getting the wild card at the beginning of the season because they know that they can't compete with teams like Atlanta over 162 games, but they can over a short series. Was San Francisco a better team than Florida because they won 100 games? It depends on how you look at things. Is the better team the one that plays better over the course of a long season or the one that steps up and wins in the postseason.

Without the wildcard I would have probably stabbed my eyeballs out getting sick of watching the Yankees and Braves play in the World Series every year. There are 30 teams in baseball, I don't like the idea of only 4 teams getting into the postseason, it just doesn't seem right to me to have maybe 6-8 teams with realistic shots at the postseason every year.

Sack, actually I think keeping the 3 divisions and just awarding a first round bye to the team with the best record in each league would make things alot better. The 2nd and 3rd best Division winners could play a best of 7 series to advance to the LCS. I know that's never gonna happen but I would love it. And I actually think that 2 divisions would be just fine. Even if you had 2 divisions this year you would still have great races in 2 of the 4 divisions but that aint gonna happen so it's neither here no there.

As far as the Marlins fans having nothing to get excited for, they were on the contraction list for a reason, they're fan base is almost non existant, they were barely able to sell out these past 2 wild card games, no matter what happens I don't think they will ever be a succesful franchise, but that's not really my argument so im not gonna get into that, but I will say that I think they are 2 seperate issues, im sure the Tampa Bay Devil Rays would get a huge boost in fans if they were allowed to play in the world series and somehow won it, it still doesn't mean they deserved it. And you sort of made my point for me, The Marlins were 10 games under .500 in May and the Braves were already way to far ahead of them to be caught, as good as the played in the second half they weren't within 5 miles of winning their division, I just don't like that.

Herd, since the turn of the century, these are the wild card teams,
Giants, Cardinals, Mets, Mariners, A's, Angels.
I believe that only the A's were not in the top 10 in the league in Payroll, but I could be wrong about that. In any event you will not find any medium market teams on that list except for the A's.

As far as who the better team is, they play 162 games for a reason, to seperate the best from the rest, at least they used to.

I think it's very safe to assume that the Marlins will have a great team next year and that they will go into the season as a favorite to win the NL East, they are young and improving, but over the course of 162 games this season, they were the 4th best team in the league who couldn't come close to winning their own division.

of course, back in the day atlanta and san francisco were in the same divison so it would have been a great penant race in the old NL west...

Ahh, the days of Reds hate the astros who hate the braves who hate the padres who hate the giants and everyone hated the dodgers...

Everyone hates a winner...

Okay, so basically, 6 of the 30 fanbases get to experience the excitement of a pennant race? That isn't going to do anything for the financial health of teams not in the cities of Boston, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Hell, even Oakland, who have been consistently one of the best teams in baseball the last three years or so, struggle in the shadow of the Giants, financially.

I'm not saying contraction is the answer, because I firmly believe it isn't, but under the current set of financial constraints that 2/3 of the league has to play with, this is the best option.

Quote:

As far as the Marlins fans having nothing to get excited for, they were on the contraction list for a reason

Which is what, exactly? The former owner ripped apart their championship team before the fans even had a chance to celebrate it and went into immediate rebuilding mode. So which came first? The removal of their reason to get excited about their team, or the fanbase to help the team stay financially competitive?

Quote:

they're fan base is almost non existant

And why, do you think, is that?

Quote:

they were barely able to sell out these past 2 wild card games

At what point is it 'barely' a sell-out?

Quote:

no matter what happens I don't think they will ever be a succesful franchise, but that's not really my argument so im not gonna get into that

I think a stadium would be helpful - South Florida weather in the summer is absolutely lousy. Build a retractable dome, and they will come.

Quote:

but I will say that I think they are 2 seperate issues, im sure the Tampa Bay Devil Rays would get a huge boost in fans if they were allowed to play in the world series and somehow won it, it still doesn't mean they deserved it

So if they manage to win their games, make the playoffs, and beat the three teams between them and the championship, that doesn't mean they deserve it?

Quote:

And you sort of made my point for me, The Marlins were 10 games under .500 in May and the Braves were already way to far ahead of them to be caught, as good as the played in the second half they weren't within 5 miles of winning their division, I just don't like that.

The Oakland A's had a similar start a year or two ago, and rebounded to beat the Mariners out. Do they not deserve the playoff berth because they were horrid early? And if that's the case, should we just automatically disqualify any team who doesn't have a winning record after April or May?

Quote:

Herd, since the turn of the century, these are the wild card teams, Giants, Cardinals, Mets, Mariners, A's, Angels. I believe that only the A's were not in the top 10 in the league in Payroll, but I could be wrong about that. In any event you will not find any medium market teams on that list except for the A's.

The Mariners and Cardinals have solid payrolls, but I'm not sure they're in the top 10. I'd say top 15, sure.

Quote:

As far as who the better team is, they play 162 games for a reason, to seperate the best from the rest, at least they used to.

Ah, right. So why not skip the playoffs entirely and just put the teams with the two best records in the World Series? After all, the 19 games the Yankees play (and win most of) against the Devil Rays are more relevant than the 19 that the Marlins play against the Phillies, and the Expos, and the Braves, right?

Quote:

I think it's very safe to assume that the Marlins will have a great team next year and that they will go into the season as a favorite to win the NL East, they are young and improving, but over the course of 162 games this season, they were the 4th best team in the league who couldn't come close to winning their own division.

Third best, as long as we're being picky. They had a 91-71 record, remember, good for 10 games behind the Braves.

To put that in perspective, they were 14-14 in April, and 12-16 in May. So 26-30 through the first two months of the season. 16-11 in May, brought 'em up to 42-41. That's a 49-30 clip the rest of the way.

Now what makes that relevant is that four of those losses in April were to the Braves. This was before Dontrelle Willis, before Jack McKeon, and frankly, not too long after Selig forced the Marlins to trade Hampton to the Braves - and to pay most of his salary in doing so.

Postulate for a moment that Selig doesn't force that trade. Maybe the Braves still win those games, maybe they don't, but they CERTAINLY don't find a Hampton-quality arm at the price they ended up paying for him. That impacts not just those four games, but the entire season.

The flip side of that coin is that if the Marlins have Hampton, maybe they do a bit better than 12-16 after their ace gets hurt for the season in May. Perhaps they split those games with the Braves in April.

Heck, sake of argument, let's say that they split the games with the Braves, and play perfect .500 ball in May. That's four games, and the Braves' lead is six now. If you assume that whoever would have taken the $1 mil or so that Atlanta is paying Hampton would have gone 11-11 or so, then that's another three losses for Atlanta, and you've gone from 101 wins to 96.

The Marlins, meanwhile, under these postulations, have picked up four games, from 91 wins to 95 wins.

All of a sudden, that 10 game lead that you're saying is the reason the Marlins don't deserve to be in the playoffs is down to just a single game.

The Marlins didn't play very well early, that's absolutely true. Torborg mismanaged their pitching staff horribly.

At the same time, they played very nearly .600 ball under Jack McKeon minus their ace, and for the last 4-6 weeks of the season, minus their best hitter. They lost 8 of 9 in one stretch in August following the injury to Lowell, but were red-hot in September after the acquisition of Conine, and ultimately knocked off the team favored by many to win the NL pennant.

Let's say for a moment that the above postulations played true through the season, but with one minor change - Lowell doesn't break his thumb. It's reasonable to expect that they might win two of the 8 games they lost between August 19th and August 28th, wouldn't you say? All of a sudden, that's 97 wins to Atlanta's 96.

This, of course, ignores the effect of injuries, and other factors with Atlanta, and thus shouldn't be taken as scientific in any way. It's not fact, it's simply a look at a 'what-if' scenario under some quite reasonable assumptions.

The Braves won their division by 10 games, it's true, but that in no way diminishes what the Marlins have done, and it certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the playoffs.

I don't know how you can consider the winning team less deserving, they play a 162 game season just like any other team and regardless of how they actually get into the playoffs they still gotta beat the 'more deserving' (in your mind) team.


Sure, upsets happen but if that other team is so much more deserving they should also be alot better and 80% of the time should win.

Teams shouldn't be considered better because they're from your home town or they make the playoffs every year.. whoever wins it in the end is the best team (for that year). no matter how many wins they have in the regular season.. that's the whole idea behind the playoffs.

Wild card teams are good... Teams may still be able to buy playoff spots but they might just have to go through a small market team with desire and nothing to lose.

atleast that's my opinion.

If a team is better, they will win in the first round.

Simple is that.

That much time off doesn't work in baseball. It would almost be a penalty to have the best record.

If the Marlins and Giants were in the same division the Giants would have stomped them over a 162 game schedule. My point isn't that the Marlins didn't deserve to win or didn't play better, my point is that, for me, that fact that they even have that opportunity makes it less appealing, because the odds that they will win a short series are very good, completely negating the whole regular season to me.

Bishop, i could care less about either of the teams, im just talking as a fan of baseball it lessens the appeal to me.

I think we're sort of arguin 2 things here, finances and the wild card, and while i agree they are obviously intertwined, even without the wild card we would still have 4 great division races this year and a true battle for home field. To me it's sort of backward logic, we know they cant compete for the top spots so lets expand the playoffs instead of leveling the playoff field financially.

I can only offer my opinion here, based on the ticket sales for the playoffs and the generaly laid back attitude that even when they're winning, the fan base is not big enough to support a MLB team.
Well, they still hadn't sold out game 4 as of Thursday night, Id say that that counts as barely.

Well, in my mind no, I'm not trying to change your opinion, im just saying that to me, they didn't win their division, so they shouldn't even have the chance, thats just my opinion. Would it be a great accomplishment? Sure it would, but winning 3 series in a row is something about 25 teams could do if given the chance, and more to the point, if they lose, to the Braves in the LCS then all it's done is muddled the playoffs even more, cause then the Braves merely beat a team they were significantly better than over the course of the season anyway, but if they win then what theyve done is beat a team 4 out of 7 that already proved over 162 games that they were better than.

The A's came back and won the division. The Marlins didn't, 2 entirely different things.

Come on, i hardly think im being outrageous when I say that the regular season has to mean something. My point is that the Wild Card team does not win anything, they don't win a division, they are simply the best of the rest,

Im not even gonna get into what the Managerial changes and Selig forcing trades, im not talking specificly about the Marlins anyway, im just using them as an example cause they're the wild card.

Clint, I think the red sox would love to have time off to set up Pedro for games 1,4,7. No team in Baseball wouldn't long for a 7-10 break after the regular season to rest up and get your rotation in order.

I think the Wild Card argument gains favor when you consider that the Wild Card team often has a better record than some of the division winners.

If you are trying to get the best teams in the playoffs, I think that you can make an argument a team that wins in a weak division has less right to be there than a team has a better record and makes it as a wild card.

Last year, for example, the Twins won the AL Central by winning 94 games in a division where only Chicago played .500 ball, and both Cleveland and Detroit played sub-.400 ball. Contrast them with the Angels, who won the Wild Card by winning 99 games in a four-team division where three of the four teams won 90+ games (Seattle, Oakland, Anahiem). This is not to take anything away from the Twins, but I think you would have to say that based soley on the results of the 162-game schedule, Anahiem--who played a higher percentage of games against much tougher opposition in the AL West--established themselves as a better team than the Twins. They should be in the playoffs, and thanks to the Wild Card, they were.

An even stronger case: If you go back to 2001, the A's won the Wild Card with the second best record in the AL (102 wins). They were 7 games better than the AL East Champion Yankees, and a full 11 games better than the AL Central Champion Indians. It would have been a travesty for them to not make the playoffs. They earned the right to play for the World Series.

I think a major problem I have is that the MLB should have put the Braves-Marlins and the Giants-Cubs against each other, not the fact that division rivals can't play each other.

Of course, with a two-division format we'd have gotten a great three team pennant race in the west. Becaue of the wild card we really didn't. Once the Mariners started to tank there was no meaning to the regular season games.

You don't think the regular season means anything with the current setup?

How do you feel about other sports playoffs then?

Baseball is easily the most difficult postseason to get into, even with the wildcards. Eight teams out of 30, compared to 12/32 for the NFL (the next toughest, and they were considering expanding playoffs), 16/29 for the NBA, and 16/30 for the NHL (I think NHL has 30 teams, I am forgetting, it's about that much).

I'm pretty sure every team deserves to be in the MLB postseason, and they proved it in the regular season, which makes the regular season a bit more than meaningless, IMO.

It's ridiculous that the DS are only five-game series, that I agree with. With a longer series, you would be less likely to have an improbable upset.

But as has been noted here, the wildcard team is often better than at least one of the division winners. Is it fair to penalize team, just because it happens to be in the wrong division? You seem to be arguing that simple division placement is more important than record.

How about we do away with divisions altogether (like pre-1969), play an equal schedule across the board, and then the top four teams in each league get to the playoffs. That would be the fairest way to do an eight-team, two-league postseason, where the only thing you need to get to be in the playoffs is a top four record in your league.

But, of course, eliminating divisions can hurt rivalries, results in less pennant races and you risk having whole sections of the country not have a team to root for in the playoffs at all. Divisions make sense, financially and for exposure and for furthering the game.

In any case, I think it's ridiculous to not want the best teams in the game in the postseason, and by forcing only the division winners into the postseason, you are essentially saying that where a team is placed in the division is more important than its record. And I just don't think that's right.

IMO, the wildcard was one of the best things baseball has added ever.

Chief Rum

You are absolutely correct in that year (except that once the Mariners tanked it would have been a two-team race, right?). But overall, the three division set-up plus Wild Card on average will create more meaningful games at the end of the year than a two-division set-up with no Wild Card.

Chief, lemme put it this way.
Baseball history has always been a team winning something to get to the next level, you win the League, you go the world series, you win the division you go to the LCS. Thats the way it's always been.

In theory your idea makes perfect senses, but in reality it doesn't.
Baseball has always been about the slow build, the essence of the post season was always magnified because the regular season was so long, that when it was done, a team had earned the right to be in the postseason, they had won something tangible.

All throughout Baseball history there have always been teams in other divisions that had better records than divsion or even league champions but that was the way it was set up and you knew that going in. If you were the Braves you knew you had to be better than the Giants or else you wouldn't get in. If you were the Red Sox you knew you had to be better than the Yankees or Tigers or Blue Jays or Orioles, there was a tangible thing you had to obtain.

To me the playoffs just feel like, as Bob Costas said, A bloated tournament to get to the Baseball Finals.

And im not arguing that the regular season doesnt mean anything because they let 8 teams in, im arguing that it means alot less than when they let 4 in. Baseball isnt' Hockey or Basketball, you can't jazz it up with bells and whistles a shiny new coat because in the end, it's a slow, methodical game that, in my opinion, is better suited with less, than more.

I'm tired now and I'll come back and read this tomorrow, but this strikes me as one of those arguments that dogs baseball but not another sport. In football, for instance, no one cares when a wild card does some damage and loses in a conference championship game.

It's another one of those arguments like "the game is too long" coming from a football fan who just watched a three and a half hour game or "the season is too long" coming from an NBA fan whose playoffs last into June.

Just something that struck me when glancing through this stuff.

SI

Actually, the 3 division setup with no wild card would have produced......I believe, off of the top of my head, at least 5 times in the past 10 years where 2 division rivals would have been playing each other on the final weekend with the division on the line. As it stands, in all of those series the games meant nothing because the loser was gonna get the wild card. Thats not progress.

Suicane, I understand that you're coming at this with a traditionalist perspective. I just don't agree with it.

I have always disliked arguments that go "it worked like that before", because the best way is not always the way that it's been done in the past.

There is attractiveness in the simplicity of a divisional alignment where only the winners go on, but it's not the fairest system.

Should we stick with artificial divisional breakdowns and keep better teams out of the playoffs? I don't think so. I think we need to make an effort to get as many of the best teams in baseball into the postseason as we can. I just don't see the logic in sticking with a system that actually keeps a better team out of the postseason. There is still the possibility this will happen (Seattle was a better team than Minnesota last year, record-wise, for instance), but it's much less likely. IMO, anything which improves the chances for the best teams to actually be in the playoffs, as they are supposed to be, is a good thing.

As for your noting of divisional matchups at the end of the year season losing their meaning, I can point out just as many or even more wildcard pennant races that were fantasic, but would never have happened in the old system. The current system also keeps some teams' hopes alive longer, which increases fans' interest in the game for a longer period of time.

Chief Rum

Actually, I don't think you can, and that's for 2 reasons.
1. Because I flat out don't think there have any compeling wild card races.

2. Because the "close" Wild Card races have always been between teams that A) Would get the wild card if they lost a division race, rendering both races meaningless.
B)have been between the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th best teams in the league, which while may be true, I dont see how anyone could find them as compeling as a final weekend of the season dual for the Division title and ONLY spot in the playoffs.


And i think it's a little absurd to suggest doing away with divisions is a solution,

Keep in mind that Im 28. Im not talking about 1940, Im talking about 1993, heh. I don't think that change is a problem, I think that change for pure cosmetic reasons is a problem.


Of course we should, I don't see why anyone who loves the sport would want to destroy it's tradition. Why don't we just throw them all together in 1 league, eliminate NL and AL and just take the top 8 teams, would that be more exciting for you?

I like the Wild Card, but just barely. In the beginning I was against it, but there seems to be some really fun races for the WC the last few years and if you are going to have 30 teams in a league, you probably need more than 4 divisions, IMO.

The point is that the wildcard is usually a foregone conclusion. In '98, I believe it was, the Dodgers and padres were tied for the division at the end of the season. They played a one-game playoff to determine the division champ. They both wound up resting some starters and not using their best pitchers, because the loser was getting the WC.

The same thing happened last year with the AL West. Boston wasn't really out in September in the AL East. But they saw Seattle tanking and let up on the gas. You're never gonna get the '93 NL West or the '78 AL East with the wildcard.

Also, the numbers don't bear out that people get excited about wildcard races. The Marlins and Phillies were not filling their parks and generating national buzz because they were battling for the wildcard.

You're are essentially trading a race between two 95-100 win teams for a race between a group of teams that might be anywhere 85-95 wins. It's more likely that the also-rans will be close to each other than that you'd get three or four 97-win teams in the same league in the same year. But the payoff is not nearly as big.

I've yet to hear anyone talk about the great wildcard race from year XXXX. We've had it for almost ten years now. We should have had one by now, if it were possible.

I tend to agree with Chief regarding the Wild Card, so I don't have much to add there. I would like to comment (read: minor threadjack), however, that the single most incomprehensible thing about the playoff format (along with the 5-game DSs) is that they alter a fundamental aspect of the game by introducing something new: frequent days off. The regular season is often compared to a marathon, with good reason. Teams don't get many days off, and thus it is important to have good depth in one's starting rotation, as teams are not able to skip their #4 or #5 starters very often. The difference between an elite division winner and a wild-card team is often a good #4.

But come playoff time teams suddenly have two days (or so) off before their first series begins and two days off per series. Teams can ride their ones and twos almost exclusively and win a series (see the Diamondbacks during their WS year). Thus, what made an elite team elite is gone (or at least moved into a relief role), giving those teams lacking rotation depth a bit of an advantage (or at least minimizing their disadvantage).

The obvious upside to this added "feature" is that fans get to see the great pitchers more often. The question then becomes: is it better to give the fans more exposure to the top pitchers, or for the playoff format to resemble the conditions under which the teams that qualified for the playoffs got there?

Just a thought. Carry on.

People still like baseball?

Ya learn someting new everyday.

Really, now? Florida was 9 games behind San Francisco, if you compare head-to-head records. Now consider that Florida played 19 games against Atlanta - the best team in the NL, by record, 19 games against Philadelphia, and 18 games against Montreal. That's 56 games, or better than 1/3 of their schedule, against three teams with a combined record of 270-216, good for a .556 winning percentage.

The Giants played 19 games each against the Dodgers, Rockies, and D'Backs. 57 games against three teams with a combined record of 243-243, good for a .500 winning percentage.

I left the Mets and Padres out of this analysis because they're essentially equally irrelevant from a competition standpoint - even though the Padres lost three more games than the Mets did.

Basically, against relevant teams, the Marlins played a more difficult schedule, and still won 91 games.

In fact, let's compare their records against common competition from the opposite division.

The Giants went 1-2 against the Phillies in April, 1-2 against the Braves in May, 0-3 against the Expos in May, 2-1 against the Phillies in August, 0-4 against the Expos in August, and 3-0 against the Braves in August. If you do the math, you get 7 wins 12 losses for the Giants.

The Marlins split a four game series with the D'Back spanning the end of April and start of May, took two of three from the Rockies in May, and got swept by the Dodgers in a 3 game set in May. Swept the D'Backs in 3 in July, split four with LA in August, and lost three against the Rockies in August. The math comes out to 9 wins, 11 losses for the Marlins.

The Marlins performed better against the top three non-SF teams in the West than the Giants did against the top three teams in the East. It's also worth noting that the Giants went 53-23 against the weaker West, overall (San Diego included this time) while the Marlins went 48-28 against the stronger East (Mets included).

I realize that this is all theoretical, but the point I'm making here is that your assertion that the Giants would have 'stomped' the Marlins over a 162 game season, were they in the same division, is completely unfounded.

I would postulate, further, that had the Marlins not lost their ace to Tommy John surgery, they might well have performed better still. Would they have reached 100 wins? Maybe, maybe not, but that's still an upgrade to their rotation. I will grant that Dontrelle would probably not have been called up without the injury, yes, but if you replace, say, Pavano with Burnett, you have to think that the overall rotation would be stronger, and would have resulted in a stronger team performance in the W-L column.

[/quote] My point isn't that the Marlins didn't deserve to win or didn't play better, my point is that, for me, that fact that they even have that opportunity makes it less appealing, because the odds that they will win a short series are very good, completely negating the whole regular season to me.[/quote]

And why are the odds so much better that the Marlins will win compared to the Giants? Heck, what's stopping the Giants from winning a short series with Schmidt. Ponson, Reuter, etc? I mean, they have an all-world player in Bonds, they should take the series easily, right? They went 5-1 against the Marlins in the regular season, winning by scores of 4-2, 3-2, 3-2, 6-4, 3-2, and then dropping the final game 7-4. Heck, the one game they lost, they were without Bonds - whose father had died.

I know I'm belaboring the point, so I'll get straight to it here.

Bonds is the most dangerous hitter in the game, bar none. The problem is that, offensively, the Giants are an incredibly one-dimensional team around him. The guys behind him failed to hit all year long, and yet they won 100 games anyway. Playoff time comes around, when the top three pitchers or so in each rotation get the bulk of the work, and they're able to effectively shut down the players not named Bonds.

Let's say the Marlins HAD won the NL East. Swap their records, in fact, Marlins with 101 wins, Braves with 91, but leave everything about both teams exactly the same. Marlins knock off the Cubs and Giants dispose of the Braves, for the sake of argument.

Seven game series, and I suspect the result would be the same, although perhaps in six games instead of four. The Marlins are simply a more dangerous team top to bottom in the lineup. Their speed allows them a flexibility the Giants don't have, and when those top two hitters get on board for Pudge, Lowell, and Lee, good things happen for the Marlins.

They're a better team defensively, and that begins and ends with Pudge behind the plate. Nine fewer wins over the course of six months is, in the scheme of things, irrelevant in my eyes. The Marlins deserve to be there every bit as much as the Giants do, and if you're using the win differential as a reason why 'the Giants would mop up the Marlins in a 162 game season,' then you have to extend that logic to its natural root and say, okay, no playoffs, just a World Series.

After all, the '88 Dodgers won 94 games to the Mets' 100. The Mets would have wiped the floor with the Dodgers over 162 games, so LA didn't deserve to be in the playoffs...right?

Quote:

Bishop, i could care less about either of the teams, im just talking as a fan of baseball it lessens the appeal to me.

A team on the verge of literal elimination has a miraculous comeback, makes the playoffs, and knocks off the consensus pick to win the NL pennant, and 'as a fan of baseball,' that doesn't appeal to you? Why do I have a feeling it has less to do with being a fan of baseball, and more to do with the team you wanted to advance not doing so?

Quote:

I think we're sort of arguin 2 things here, finances and the wild card, and while i agree they are obviously intertwined, even without the wild card we would still have 4 great division races this year and a true battle for home field. To me it's sort of backward logic, we know they cant compete for the top spots so lets expand the playoffs instead of leveling the playoff field financially.

And how do you propose to do this? Most of the financial remedies that make any kind of sense - an overall salary cap, or a limit on individual salaries - would be shot down in a minute by the players' union. Revenue sharing has been expanding, but that alone isn't going to do the trick. At some point, the fans still need to have a reason to believe that their team can go somewhere, and the simple fact is, without the wild card, a good 2/3 of MLB would be in that position. In the current league format, when discussing the wild card, you simply *cannot* discount financials, because they're such an integral part of what so many of the teams trying to compete have to consider.

The Marlins, the Expos, the Twins, the Royals, the Blue Jays (until they faded), heck, even the Braves had to trade one of their best pitchers for a backup catcher just to make everything work financially. That's nearly half of the 12 teams that either won a playoff spot, or were in contention for in the final days of the season, seriously constrained by finances. Some of them may be able to either keep their current players, or add payroll next season either because they made enough this season to justify it, or, like the Marlins, will be able to ride their late-season success and early playoff success into an increase in ticket sales next year.

It's the chicken and the egg. The Yankees have a fuckton of cash to throw around because they make a ton of cash. They make a ton of cash because people show up in droves for the games. People show up in droves for the games because the Yankees win. The Yankees win because they have a fuckton of cash to throw around. And so forth.

I'm not suggesting that the Marlins will ever be a financial juggernaut like the Yankees - their markets are simply too different, both in size and in what they can reasonably expect to extract from it - but they can certainly reach not only financial solvency, but profitability, if they keep this group of kids together and spend wisely. Without the wild card, the fans probably wouldn't have shown up nearly as much as they did.

In a roundabout way, you could actually argue that removing the wild card amounts to financial suppression for the 10 or so teams who otherwise wouldn't be in contention. That might not have been true 15 years ago, but the relative explosion in salary growth has changed that dramatically.

Quote:

I can only offer my opinion here, based on the ticket sales for the playoffs and the generaly laid back attitude that even when they're winning, the fan base is not big enough to support a MLB team.

The Braves only sold out their playoff games because of the huge contingent of Cubs fans who showed up. Heck, I'm not sure the Braves got much regular season support either. Not Montrealesque numbers, to be sure, but not what you'd expect for a team that routinely wins 100 games, either. Does that mean that their fans' laid back attitude about their team, even when they're winning, and their inability to give their team a home-field advantage in the playoffs means that Atlanta can't support a MLB team?

Give credit to the Marlins' fanbase - they showed up in droves for the playoff games in South Florida. A TRUE sellout, you might say, unlike those in Atlanta.

Well, they still hadn't sold out game 4 as of Thursday night, Id say that that counts as barely.[/quote]

Not surprising. I tend to think that South Florida is less affluent than the San Francisco area, and with everybody in the world seemingly picking the Giants to sweep the Marlins, it isn't too surprising that they might hesitate before buying Game 4 tickets. Still sold out, though.

Quote:

Well, in my mind no, I'm not trying to change your opinion, im just saying that to me, they didn't win their division, so they shouldn't even have the chance, thats just my opinion. Would it be a great accomplishment? Sure it would, but winning 3 series in a row is something about 25 teams could do if given the chance, and more to the point, if they lose, to the Braves in the LCS then all it's done is muddled the playoffs even more, cause then the Braves merely beat a team they were significantly better than over the course of the season anyway, but if they win then what they've done is beat a team 4 out of 7 that already proved over 162 games that they were better than.

The Giants won 103 games in 1993, but failed to win their division. The Philadelphia Phillies won 97 games, six fewer than those Giants, but got to go to the playoffs anyway. Should the Giants have gone because they were significantly better over 162 games (6 games better than the Phillies, not that far off from the 9/10 games that the Braves/Giants were against the Marlins this year), or should the Phils have gotten it despite the worse record because they won a weaker division?

You can't have it both ways. If you want the teams who perform the best over the course of the regular season in the playoffs, but you also want division winners to be in the playoffs, then you either have to leave out teams who have superior performances but fall short, or include a wild card.

Quote:

The A's came back and won the division. The Marlins didn't, 2 entirely different things.

I went back and looked at the standings for the 2001 season and the 2002 season. In 2002, the A's rode a 20 game winning streak in August to the AL West title, which they won by 4 games over the eventual world champion Angels. You argue that the playoffs are a classic case of a team getting hot at the right time, but the A's were scorching for a period of about three weeks. If they play 'normal' baseball during that span, the Angels probably win the West.

In 2001, the year that I thought the A's rallied from a shitty start to win the West, they actually finished 2nd as the wild card, because that was the year the Mariners won 116 games to win the West. For the record, neither one of those teams won the pennant. The Mariners got beat by the Yankees in the ALCS (a team they were 21 games better than during the regular season), who later lost the World Series to the Diamondbacks.

Oh, but wait, the ALCS were meaningless because the Mariners had to face a team that they were significantly superior to during the 162 game season, right?

Quote:

Come on, i hardly think im being outrageous when I say that the regular season has to mean something. My point is that the Wild Card team does not win anything, they don't win a division, they are simply the best of the rest,

I absolutely agree, it SHOULD mean something. But as another poster pointed out, the MLB allows *one* non-division winner to make the playoffs from each league. The NHL still has 8 playoff teams from each conference (effectively FIVE wild cards in EACH conference!), and the NBA does as well (SIX wild cards in each conference, if I've done my math right). Football's divisional realignment lowers the number of wild cards to two per conference.

Why is it such a grievous sin for baseball to have four playoff spots per league? Would it make you feel better if the MLB added a team in the AL and went to four divisions per league?

Josh

Let's look at the wild card races from '95 through this season.

National League, 1995

Colorado Rockies: 77-67, 0 GB
Houston Astros: 76-68, 1 GB

American League, 1995

New York Yankees: 79-65, 0 GB
California Angels: 78-67, 1.5 GB

It bears noting that the Angels missed the playoffs by virtue of losing a one-game playoff to the Mariners for the AL West, while the Yankees, who finished 7 games out of first, made the playoffs by winning the wild card. Likewise, neither the Astros nor the Rockies would have 'won their division' if they hadn't won the wild card.

National League, 1996

Los Angeles Dodgers: 90-72, 0 GB
Montreal Expos: 88-74, 8 GB

American League, 1996

Baltimore Orioles: 88-74, 0 GB
Seattle Mariners: 85-76, 2.5 GB
Boston Red Sox: 85-77, 3 GB
Chicago White Sox: 85-77, 3 GB

The Dodgers would have made the playoffs either way, it's true, but Montreal trailed the Braves by 8 games, and would not have made the playoffs without the wild card. Likewise, Baltimore finished 4 games behind the Yankees, and none of the other three wild card contenders were closer than 4.5 games. Chicago finished a whopping 14.5 games behind the 99-win Indians. Again, not an example of 'trading the division for the wild card,' because none of these four teams would have won their division

National League, 1997

Florida Marlins: 92-70, 0 GB
Los Angeles Dodgers: 88-74, 4 GB

American League, 1997

New York Yankees: 96-66

The Marlins finished 9 games behind the Braves, yet went on to win the World Series before H. Wayne Huizenga tore the team apart, an action that the team is still recovering from financially. You can argue that the Marlins didn't draw in massive numbers during their season-long fight for the wild card this year, but one wonders what the fan base would have been like if the team had naturally gone through decline and resurgence, rather than the fire sale within days, it seemed, of the championship. The Dodgers finished two games behind the Giants, but didn't win the wild card. The Yankees might have won the East, as they were the only true wild card contenders.

National League, 1998

Chicago Cubs: 90-73, 0 GB
San Francisco Giants: 89-74, 1 GB
New York Mets: 88-74, 1.5 GB

American League, 1998

Boston Red Sox: 92-70, 0 GB
Toronto Blue Jays, 88-74, 4 GB
Anaheim Angels, 85-77, 7 GB

This was the year the wild card truly proved its worth, as the Red Sox made the playoffs with 92 wins despite finishing a whopping 22 games out of first place. No National League team finished closer to their division leader than the Giants, whose one-game playoff loss to the Cubs left them 9.5 back of the Padres, and out of the playoffs entirely. The Cubs finished 12.5 games back of the Astros, who suffered a first-round defeat at the hands of the Padres. Again, neither wild card team was remotely close to first in their divisions, so this wasn't a case of 'they were headed to the playoffs anyway.'

National League, 1999

New York Mets: 97-66, 0 GB
Cincinnati Reds, 96-67, 1 GB

American League, 1999

Boston Red Sox, 94-68, 0 GB

For the second straight year, there was a tie for the wild card. The Mets won, the Reds went home. The Mets finished 6.5 back of the Atlanta Braves, while the Reds finished 1.5 back of the Houston Astros. Might the Reds have won the division? Perhaps, but you can't blame it on them falling back on the wild card, because it was far from secure. The same isn't true of the Red Sox that year. Four games back of the Yankees, but a comfortable seven in front of the A's.

National League, 2000

New York Mets: 94-68, 0 GB

American League, 2000

Seattle Mariners: 91-71, 0 GB
Cleveland Indians: 90-72, 1 GB

The Mets ran away with the wild card, finishing a game behind the Braves, and ultimately winning the NL pennant. The Mariners won the wild card in the AL, finishing just a half-game behind the A's, but the A's finished their schedule with only 161 games played. The Mariners might have tied for the West, or might have finished a game out; their playoff fate without the wild card was far from certain, and with the Indians breathing down their necks, it certainly wasn't a matter of "Ahhh, we're going to the playoffs anyway, why worry about the division?"

National League, 2001

St. Louis Cardinals: 93-69, 0 GB
San Francisco Giants: 90-72, 3 GB

American League, 2001

Oakland Athletics: 102-60, 0 GB

The Cardinals finished in a tie for the NL Central lead with the Astros, but took the wild card instead, as the Astros won the Central by virtue of tiebreakers. The Giants finished 2 games behind eventual World Champion Arizona, and three back of the Cardinals. The A's were an example of what might have happened had the wild card been in place in '93, albeit an extreme example. 102 wins, yet 14 games out of first place courtesy of an unreal season by the Mariners. The division, despite their gaudy record, was simply not in the cards.

National League, 2002

San Francisco Giants: 95-66, 0 GB

American League, 2002

Anaheim Angels: 99-63, 0 GB
Seattle Mariners: 93-69, 6 GB
Boston Red Sox: 93-69, 6 GB

The Giants coasted to the wild card, finishing 2.5 back of the Diamondbacks. The Angels played well down the stretch, but the Oakland A's 20 game win streak likely cost them the division. Not much you can do about freak incidents like that. Would they have won the division? Maybe, maybe not, but the wild card treated them well, as they won the World Series, becoming the second wild card behind the '97 Marlins to do so. The Giants also went to the Series, losing to the Angels in 7 games.

And then, of course, you have the Marlins this year, who wouldn't have gone otherwise, and the Red Sox, who probably could have caught the Yankees, but didn't. In the case of the AL, you're right - this year, it was musical chairs. Both were going, it was just a matter of who (mostly because Seattle tanked).

So, by my count, we have a total of six wild cards from 1995-2002, and 7 overall, out of 16, who were "swapping the division for the wild card." I didn't count teams who were in tough races for the wild card AND division simultaneously in that count, because they would not have let up. Further more, five of the races were decided by 2 games or fewer, and several others were within 3-4 games. That's hardly 'a foregone conclusion.'


Oh, I dunno, I thought the '03 NL Central was entertaining. For that matter, the A's still won over 100 the year the Mariners won 116. If the Mariners hadn't been so automatic that year during the regular season, that might have been a divisional chase for the ages with the wild card in the mix.

I think it can happen. Winning the division is still homefield in the first round, most of the time. The exception being if you're the #3 division winner, but still.

I think the wild card has been useful. It's let some teams into the playoffs who otherwise wouldn't have made it, and a few of those teams have done some damage. the 2000 Mets won the NL pennant, the '97 Marlins won the World Series, the '02 Angels AND Giants won their respective pennants, with the Angels winning the World Series, and now the Marlins are in the NLCS again in '03. Heck, if not for the Yankees and their little stretch of postseason dominance in the AL, we might have had the Red Sox in the World Series as the wild card a couple of times.

Josh

[edited to fix funky text formatting brackets]

THe point being made by the wildcard haters is that the WC makes a mockery of the regular season. If a team wins its divison, it shouldn't have to worry about some team it was 15 wins better than for the balance of the season.

If you wan't to keep three divisions and give the best team in the league a bye, I can agree with that. But Selig and company are killing what makes baseball baseball.

Why bother watching for six and a half months if the regular season means so little? Baseball is about the weekend series in August. It's not about feel-good second-place teams winning the World Series.

Without the Wild Card baseball would even be less popular. Who doesn't like to watch a young exciting Marlins team with vetran Ivan Rodriguez putting on a MVP performance.

NFL football will continue to be the national pastime. Until baseball can improve there illegal substance policy (no one hit over 50 HR this year, I guess the drug policy has improved), contract 2-3 teams, and get rid of the DH.

I was originally not a big fan of the wild card. However, I think it has done wonders to keep interest alive down the stretch in more cities. And that's good for baseball.

All while knocking out Barry Bonds!! :D

Someone mentioned above that the wildcard negates the season. I say that 162 games is too freaking long anyway. Its no wonder no-one goes to these games, there are 81 home games every summer...why bother going to more than a few? its not exciting, and if your team isn't one of those vying for SOME sort of playoff spot, what is the real worth to the fans?

Cut the season in half, fix the divisions so tehre are 5 teams in EACH division. eben rework the AL/NL assortment better.

Less = More, make the games less accessible, and more people might actually fill the seats. Its a problem I see in both the NBA and NHL too, their seasons are meaingless. but in those two leagues the answer is simply eliminating half of the playoff teams. three division winners and a wildcard team in the NHL suddenly makes the whoile season MUCH more important.

wow my typing sucks when I wakle up in the morning

The season is not too long. Counting the playoffs, it is actually shorter, in terms of calendar-time, than both the NBA and NHL. If you think it's too long, you're not a baseball fan.

Well, to continue that argument, you could say that the team with the best record in each league shouldn't have to worry about those other pesky division winners, as they finished with a worse record. For that matter, why bother with the World Series at all, just give the title to the team with the most wins overall at the end of the season.

No, the mockery is the sheer volume of teams that, before the wildcard, had absolutely nothing to play for come the last quarter or last third of a season.

That's a silly argument that I see all the time. That's like saying that since someone spent a buck on a Snickers, we should expect them to blow thirty-five on a chocolate cake in a bakery.

The underlying principle is the same.

But things have an absolute value. There is a difference between two teams and three teams. There is also a difference between three teams and four.

However, the real problem is that WC teams are rewarded for coming in second. That's not how baseball is supposed to work. They play 162 games in MLB. If you have the best team, then you win your division.

As for the wildcard keeping interest in towns that wouldn't have had it. I am waiting for the evidence. Fans don't turn out in droves to see a wildcard race. They show up to playoff games. But that's an entirely different thing. Everyone shows up for playoff games everywhere.

hrm, I think you're math is flawed:
Baseball
April through October = 7 months

Hockey
October through May = 7 months

NBA
I don't know, and frankly don't care, basketball sucks balls.


Besides the fact that the timeline is nearly identical, its not the length of time they play, its the sheer amount of COMPLETELY and UTTERLY meaningless games.

who honestly cares if the Reds beat the dodgers 7 out of 9 games during the season?

now tell me they won 4 out of 5? sure that makes me feel good, they only had 5 opportunities.

What I want to see happen is the interest in what happens on a given day going back up again. Because right now, nobody gives a rats ass what the box scores showed on june 15th 2003.

all they want to see is who's in and who's out.

Shorten the season, make the games more important, and many other problems might just fade away a bit.

And Fuck you on the idea that I'm not a baseball fan. I will always love the game, but right now, major league baseball is the most pathetic excuse for that game that we have on display.

Meaningless games? Last I checked a win in April counts the same as a win in September. The Phillies would have been a playoff team if they didn't lose some of those "meaningless games".


I also love how the arguement against the wild card goes back to the 'history of the game' arguement as well. If you want to use that than they shouldn't even have divisions. If you're worried about the best team in a league losing to a lesser team in the playoffs than just get rid of divisional play all-together.


No evidence that attendance is higher for a wild card race? How about Florida Marlins attendance up 77% above their season average for the series against the Phillies during the final week of the season, and it was a mid-week series.

The funny thing about tradition is that in twenty years the wild card will be the tradition, and people will be arguing to save the current system because that is the "traditional" way of doing things. I don't buy we should do things just because that is how we always did it. Change happens, get over it.

I think the WC is a great feature. Boston is one of the best teams, but they would be left out in a 2-division aligement. I thin the WC and playoffs need reformatting.

First, expand the wild card to a best-of-seven game series, and elimate the day-breaks. Give maybe a two-day break from the regular season, then go with the first three games at lower seeded team, a day off, then the last four games at the home-field team. This allows the depth of baseball, which is so important, become a bigger role. Then, do the same thing for the rest of the playoff series.

Secondly, get rid of the dumb of the "can't play your division rivals argument". Seed the three division winners, one through three, based on based records. Then, the wild card team is seeded fourth. No.1 hosts No. 4, No. 2 vs No.3. Home-field always go to the highest seed.

No, im not gonna get over, Baseball has lost a die hard fan, thats my point.


Im not worried about the best team losing to a "lesser" team, im worried about the best team losing to a team they already beat over 162 games.

I understand people who want want a mish mash league with no divsions and no leagues and just seedings, that seems to be a generational thing, but Baseball, more than any other sport is built on tradition. My suggestions arnt radical or insane, in fact, I think the 3 divsion no wild card solution is a real good compromise.



I find this argument odd. I love Baseball, the sport. The fact that the Phillies have more or less sucked for 20 years has not made me enjoy the game any less. Why are people clamoring for a Cubs/Red Sox world series? Because neither team has won a world series in eons.


Hehe, yes, a team that finished 22 games out of first place had the opportunity to defeat the team that beat them by 22 games, that surely proves it's worth :rolleyes:

Imagine message boards in the early 70's skewering division play and the League Championship Series.

Judging by the excellent ratings, I'll swap one fan for the new ones learning baseball for the first time.

I agree with pretty much everything here. I don't think it makes much sense to have the 1st round a best of 5 series, just because they do it in basketball doesn't mean its good for baseball.

The "can't play a division rival rule" is stupid as well, the wild card team should play the team with the best record, regardless of division.

What 6 divisions and the wild card brings is more meaningful games for more teams during the season. In a 2 division format, the Royals would have been done at the All Star break and Florida would have had nothing to play for and most likely folded. Does anyone want to see teams like these trade away there soon to be free agents like Lowell and Beltran to the Yankees or Braves because they have no shot at the post season?

The problem with this schedule is that it gives the lower seed an unfair chance to build up a series lead at home that it didn't earn. The 2-3-2 format has always worked well for a 7-game series, and I think is a lot more fair.

Your point is well taken, but to go with a 2-3-2 format, that wouldn't elimate day breaks. How is it differenet for three-game series on the road? That's how its done in the regular season? If the better team can't win on the road, then should they not be deserving of winning the series?

I don't think that there's really much reason to eliminate the off days. Other than your format change for the 7-game series, though, I like most of the rest of your ideas.

Yes, the off days allow teams to not use the No. 4 and 5 starters. They can the top pitchers and players. This kills the depth, which is a key to baseball.

I don't see why, if we must have a wildcard, that the wildcard team even gets one home game. Give the number one seed the full series at home.

But the wildcard is still no good. Second-place teams have nothing to whine about. If you can't win a five-team divsion, then you don't need to be in the playoffs.

Maybe it's just me. But it seems the true baseball fans (I mean those of us for whom baseball is number one) hate the Wildcard.

There's, of course, another problem with the WC that no one has mentioned in this thread. The wildcard is unfair because the theams play very unbalanced schedules. They compare overall records. But every division isn't the same and interleague play only compounds the problem.

It has always been that way, though, since the very first World Series. I really don't think that would improve the games.