Wild Card vs. Winning the Division

by southofcruiseamerica on Oct 28, 2004 12:24 PM PDT

Is it time to take a look at the system? Having a Wild Card itself is fine because there are now 30 clubs and it keeps fans interested through the last game of the regular season. However, since the last four World Series champs have been Wild Cards, does that cheapen the meaning of the regular season?

Baseball is an everyday grind for 6 months. The reward for a team that wins its division and/or has a better regular season record is the potential of hosting one more home game in a psot season series. One. Even if a Wild Card team has a better record than other division winners (Red Sox vs. Angels & Twins this year) and you will almost always get the best four teams from each league in the post season, I believe there just isn't as big a reward for winning the division as there should be.

The whole two year experiment with the All-Star Game winner receiving home field advantage in the World Series really doesn't figure into things when you consider that under the every other year system this would have been the AL's year and last year the Marlins won despite the Yanks holding home field in what would have been an NL year.

Should a Wild Card team ever have home field advantage in the World Series? I say no, unless of course both participants are Wild Cards (Giants-Angels in 2002), then you simply give it to the team with the better regular season record. MLB will give us some baloney about hotel rooms, TV trucks, time zones, etc. but they can work around it like they managed to do in the ridiculous criss-crossing of the country without an off day for Game 5 of both the 2000 and 2001 A's-Yanks series.

The only way to get around it is to have the Wild Card team only able to host Game 3 in the first round. Should they advance, they would only be able to host Games 4 & 5 in a seven game series.

By the way, I loathe the Red Sox and cannot comprehend how a guy with the most embarassing display of defense on a routine fly ball who also points to the dugout on his way down the first base line in the seventh inning of a one run game that results in a double being stretched into a single winds up winning the MVP award. The voters robbed Keith Foulke.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

wild cards

I have been thinking the same thing about wild cards. Why are they taking all the series. Maybe its the nothing to lose mentality that takes off the pressure. In most but not all cases the wild card teams had to fight for a playoff position down to the last days of the season. Maybe that keeps them in a better position to continue winning under pressure in the postseason.

by oscarwdog on Oct 28, 2004 2:41 PM PDT reply actions

Re:

I used to want MLB to institute more post-season incentives based on record (like the NFL), but this year showed me why it wouldn't necessarily work... the Angels won the west, the Red Sox the wild card. The Red Sox had a better record, won the season series, and were clearly a better team. How can you reasonably put them at a disadvantage in that situation?

by dchu on Oct 28, 2004 3:02 PM PDT reply actions

I totally agree.

by baseballgirl on Oct 28, 2004 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions

The voters robbed Keith Foulke

AMEN! If the Sox had, in fact, lost Games 1 & 2 due to the 8 errors combined, and especially by the two spectacular errors by Manny, he would be the goat, not the hero of the series. That really pissed me off. The fact that he's a horrible baseball player, just a great hitter, should be reflected. I'm sorry the Cards couldn't make Boston pay for their shabby defense. Manny should be DHing for someone. At least his only job would be to hit (see: David Ortiz and his well-deserved MVP, since he did his job, and did it well)

Since it's hard to award a single starting pitcher in a 4-game sweep, it makes complete sense that a reliever would get the honors. Especially one who was rock-solid and got the final out? Foulke was robbed. Make no mistake.

by baseballgirl on Oct 28, 2004 3:09 PM PDT reply actions

Don't get me wrong...

I respect what the Red Sox accomplished, but obviously a Wild Card World Series winner is no longer an anomaly. The question MLB needs to look at is if there is enough emphasis on winning the division. Also, why can't the Wild Card play the #1 seed in the first round if they come from the same division? Not enough interest? Please.

They Red Sox would be put at a disadvantage simply because they did not win their division, the Angels did. They get a break based on geography?

by southofcruiseamerica on Oct 28, 2004 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions

unbalanced schedule makes wildcard unfair

The way I see it, the unbalanced schedule makes the wildcard unfair because if you are in a two-deep division you have a big advantage against teams in a three-deep division. And I also agree that it sucks that the wildcard can't play their own division in the first round. I think the reason is that MLB doesn't want two teams finishing the regular season with a three game series, and then going directly into a playoff series. However, I think that is just something that comes with having a wildcard, and to make exceptions to the rules is unfair. Basically it seems to me that the rules are the way they are so that the Red Sox and Yankees can meet in the ALCS and Fox can make more money.

by David Owen on Oct 28, 2004 3:47 PM PDT reply actions

8 Teams out of 30 in Playoffs

At least MLB limits the number of teams that can get into the Playoff to about 25% of the teams as opposed to the NFL, the NHL and the NBA who seem to let in any team that can play 0.500 ball. In baseball that would equate to only winning 81 games.

The only thing I would change is that the team with the best record should host the World Series, but the TV networks would never agree and they are paying the bills.

by robertmelvin on Oct 28, 2004 4:11 PM PDT reply actions

Thanks Robert...

but you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with how many teams get into the post season or whatever happens in other professional sports leagues. Having a Wild Card itself is fine but they have won four WS in a row so maybe it is time to look at the format once the post season starts to give more of an advantage to the team that wins its division over the long haul of the regular season.

Thanks also for your math skills in citing percentages and explaining to me that .500 is winning only 81 out of 162 games. Jeez.

Next thing you'll be telling me that one team would have to have a first round bye if they only let division winners in because that would mean three teams in each league and you can only play one team at a time.

Only one TV network covers the All-Star game and they were fine with the format for years until Brenly and Torre came along and mismanaged the game into a tie and made the media over-react.

by southofcruiseamerica on Oct 28, 2004 5:02 PM PDT reply actions

unbalanced schedule

I hate the unbalanced schedule. I get sick of seeing the Rangers,Angels and Mariners. I
understand their logic of inner division games down to the end,but it takes away too much of the contact and rivalry with the other A.L. teams.

Let's balance the schedule again...please.

by sommers on Oct 28, 2004 6:19 PM PDT reply actions

An old proposal

I think Gammons came up with this over on ESPN a few years ago, but my memory is hazy, so don't quote me on it.

TWO wild card teams meet up in a best-of-one series. The very next day, the DS begins. This way, the eventual wild card has a very real pitching disadvantage going into the DS.

by artgibroni on Oct 28, 2004 7:25 PM PDT reply actions

Fairness

Fairness isn't much of an argument. The schedules aren't going to be fair no matter what you do. People will play some teams when they're hot, some when they're cold. Midseason trades mean if you play someone most of your games against them then they trade for Beltran and someone else hasn't even played them yet, you don't have a fair schedule, even if you play them the same number of games.

It also doesn't really make sense to base who makes the playoffs on geography. If the two best teams are in the East, they should both be in the playoffs.

What they should do is have two wildcard teams play a playoff game against each other. That's the best way. People might say that it might kill the wild card race, because the second wildcard team will get in. Just like they said the wild card killed division races. All it would do is change which races are interesting. Besides, the better record wild card team would get home field, which would definitely be worth fighting for if you're gonna play a 1 game playoff.

They should also have the league with the best interleague record get home field in the WS. It's better than just alternating every year, and it's better than the all star game deciding something.

by RichardP on Oct 28, 2004 8:46 PM PDT reply actions

Wlid Card

I think the current system of one wild card work well. I like the fact that the wild card has won the last 4 years. It has made the end of the year exciting, especially if someone takes off (ala Seatle two years ago, Yankees this year, well kind of).

Home field determined by the team with the best record excluding the wild card team, unless both wild cards make it, then its back to best record. If the playoffs are extended any further, it draws out the coverage so much that it becomes diluted. We already have to deal with day fricken games in the first round, to not upset the Sox/Yanks Buck/McCarver coverage. I think Selig would just screw it up more if they tried to change it, much like the All Star decision (note to Buddy boy, you decided to stop that game, you didn't need to ruin the playoffs because of YOUR bad decision).

"Not the fucking ducks again." Tony S.

by rook on Oct 28, 2004 8:58 PM PDT reply actions

i am for day playoff games

in general i don't consider myself a purist, but i like day baseball in the playoffs. the reason that they all are in primetime is because of tv, and fuck fox sports anyway. baseball is a game meant to be played in the afternoon, not 8pm eastern time.

by David Owen on Oct 28, 2004 11:40 PM PDT reply actions

Best of Seven Division Series

Maybe the answer is to lengthen the first round. A best of 5 DS is not long enough to give that much advantage to the home team. A longer division series gives more of a chance that the better team will win, rather than the hottest.
I agree that the wild card teams don't face much of hurdle in the playoffs. But do we really want them jumping through hoops of fire just to make it past the first round?
A best of 7 seems to me to be the simplest solution, while still appeasing the the league, players, and the networks.

by davebenfremont on Oct 29, 2004 8:10 AM PDT reply actions