Master Index of Archived Threads


Add a Second Wild Card?

Valadius Sep 25 2007 01:22 PM

I was browsing sports sites, looking for their takes on the NL MVP race, when I stumbled upon an article by Tom Verducci at SI: [url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/tom_verducci/09/25/wild.card/index.html[/url] He makes an interesting case for adding a second wild card in each league. His idea is that the two wild-card teams would face each other for a play-in game to get to the division series. Personally, I like the idea. Makes me think of the one-game playoff against Cincinnati in 1999, which was an incredible game. It gives division winners essentially a first-round bye. Why not?

Benjamin Grimm Sep 25 2007 01:24 PM

Ugh.

sharpie Sep 25 2007 01:26 PM

This has been proposed before. I think a 1-game play-in series would be pretty exciting. I've also thought that the wild card team should get only 1 home game in the first round.

metirish Sep 25 2007 01:33 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 25 2007 01:36 PM

...

metirish Sep 25 2007 01:33 PM

Al Leiter is years a head of Verducci,if I remember correctly Al was pushing a second Wild Card years ago,not quite that format that Verducci's proposes though.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 25 2007 01:40 PM

I don't like it. To fight all season to get into the playoffs and have all that decided by just one games is rather...football-ish. Baseball isn't a one-game-decides it all kind of sport. I know there have been one-game playoffs and they are exciting, but I don't think I want to see it every year.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 25 2007 01:59 PM

If they have to change it, I'd prefer to see a setup where the Wild Card team gets only one home game (game 1) in the NLDS. If they advance to the NLCS, it would be the typical 2-3-2.

Frayed Knot Sep 25 2007 02:14 PM

1) This idea HAS been around for years 2) Leiter's plan (IIRC) was more of an expand it even bigger and let more teams and and MORE MONEY FOR EVERYONE!! kind of strategy. I forgot all the details of his but I remember I didn't like it. 3) I like this one! - The idea is that it gives real meaning to winning the division versus getting in via the wildcard. Teams like this year's Yanx or even the Mets to a lesser extent would fight tooth & nail for the div crown rather than coast the final week knowing you had the WC as a fall-back. Strategies woud develop as to whether you use your best pitchers down the streatch to seal the deal or risk "saving" them for Round 1. The current carrot of the extra home games is barely a factor and even making it 4-1 (H/R) instead of the current 3/2 is window dressing mostly. Home teams win less than 55% of MLB games and recent post-season games have been closer still. So this year we'd most likely be looking at Yanx v Tigers (with Seattle still hoping) ... one-game play-in ... Wang vs Verlander ... for the right to face probably Cleveland or go home (you'd probably want to get rid of the no in-division in the 1st round rule) In the NL you'd see maybe Philly v SD, Peavy v Hamels. And in both cases the WC survivor would not only have a days less rest but would be without their #1 starter until later on ... or do they chance getting by with #2?!? As long as you're going to let non-Division winners into the party, this should have been the system all along IMO.

Valadius Sep 25 2007 02:19 PM

My knock on the give-the-wild-card-team-one-home-game thing is that it unnecessarily robs the fans of the wild card team of a chance to watch their team play. And home-field advantage is really only a slight factor anyway in determining a game's outcome. So it punishes the fans a lot more than it punishes the players. Also in the article, Verducci debunks "myths" about October baseball. One of the things he says is that in the wild-card era, the home team has just a .533 winning percentage (208-182). If not a play-in game, perhaps a 3-game series? I dunno, just throwing ideas out there.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 25 2007 02:20 PM

Make it a best of three and I like it better. (Gives an extra reward to the division winners too, since they'd be able to align their pitching staffs for the NLDS.) The thing I don't like is each time you allow an extra team into the playoffs you're lowering the bar for who's a postseason team. It would even be possible for a third place team to win the World Series.

Nymr83 Sep 25 2007 02:23 PM

a 1-game playoff round is too un-baseball-like for me. its different when 2 teams tie in the regular season because then we're just playing a 163rd regular season game, but to have the 93-69 WC team play 1 game against the 82-80 WC team is a bit silly to me. the playoffs are fine how they are imo, but if i were to make a change i'd cut each league down to 2 divisions and THEN have a 2nd wildcard.

Edgy DC Sep 25 2007 02:27 PM

Well, the problem isn't that the playoffs aren't fine, but that the presence of the wild card detracts from the stakes of the division race. The notion is that such a bitter high-risk consolation prize as a one-game playoff would return some of the importance to the division races.

metsmarathon Sep 25 2007 02:33 PM

the one-game playoff is my preferred modification to the current playoff system.

Frayed Knot Sep 25 2007 02:41 PM

Nymr83 wrote: a 1-game playoff round is too un-baseball-like for me. its different when 2 teams tie in the regular season because then we're just playing a 163rd regular season game To me this is very similar to the play-in game for tied teams, only it's a play-in game for the two top non-winners. No division winner is being made to jump through another hoop, nor is the post-season being extended for another half-week which it would be with a 2-of-3. ]but to have the 93-69 WC team play 1 game against the 82-80 WC team is a bit silly to me. Very unusual that the two teams records' would be anywhere near that disparate. And the solution to not being subject to that kind of one-off knockout is to win your division!!

Johnny Dickshot Sep 25 2007 02:41 PM

I don't mind the xtra team/ 1-game penalization at all. It's a good idea. It's not baseball like, but neither is the MFYs basically getting the same reward as Boston for finishing 2nd this year. Make 'em go hard!

Frayed Knot Sep 25 2007 02:44 PM

The Yanx this season might actually prefer the WC seeing as how it looks increasingly likely that it'll hook them up against Cleveland instead of Anaheim in the first round. Boy would THAT attitude turn around under this proposed system!

Nymr83 Sep 25 2007 02:48 PM

] ]Nymr83 wrote: a 1-game playoff round is too un-baseball-like for me. its different when 2 teams tie in the regular season because then we're just playing a 163rd regular season game To me this is very similar to the play-in game for tied teams, only it's a play-in game for the two top non-winners. No division winner is being made to jump through another hoop, nor is the post-season being extended for another half-week which it would be with a 2-of-3. its not to me, because the 163rdgame 1-game playoff can ONLY occur when two teams have exactly the same record, in which case i find it fair to have them play one more game to break that tie

metsguyinmichigan Sep 25 2007 03:37 PM

Didn't the Dodgers and Padres a few years back have a playoff game to decide the division -- even though whoever lost would be the wild card so each would be going to the playoffs anyway?

Frayed Knot Sep 25 2007 05:50 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Didn't the Dodgers and Padres a few years back have a playoff game to decide the division -- even though whoever lost would be the wild card so each would be going to the playoffs anyway? Don't think so. The only time they have play-in games at this point is when it makes a difference between a team making or not making the playoffs. If it's just to determine seeding they resort to various tie-breaking procedures a la Yanx-Boston in 2005; they tied after 162 but the Yanx were declared division winners due to head-to-head. Houston won a division from StL the same way a few years back.

A Boy Named Seo Oct 01 2007 09:55 PM

Tonight's game is a pretty awesome example of how this would go down. I dig that: 1) Whoever wins this will be exhausted 2) Their bully will be spent 3) If SD does get out, they had to burn Peavy. I think the WC should be at a significant disadvantage, and this scenario helps with that.

Frayed Knot Oct 01 2007 10:03 PM

Yup, if the double WC scenario were in effect this year it would have played out exactly as this one is playing out now. In the AL it would be the Yanx against the winner of a Detroit-Seattle battle -- a play-in to get to the play-in!!

Zvon Oct 01 2007 10:14 PM

I'm all for another wild card. And going back to two divisions.

sharpie Oct 02 2007 07:18 AM

I think last night's Pads-Rockies game is the reason the one-game play-in should be explored. We could have that every year (plus the MFY's would have to had played the Tigers last night).

Edgy DC Oct 02 2007 07:27 AM

We could, but (devil's advocate)if the game is a dog, with a 98-win team-getting hosed by an 84-win team, people will be barking(/devil's advocate).

Valadius Oct 02 2007 11:22 AM

I really, really doubt that there can ever be a wild-card winner that wins it by 14 games, but even if there was, them's the breaks. Hopefully last night's game opened a few eyes.

sharpie Oct 02 2007 12:06 PM

As it stands now an 84-win wildcard team could upset a 98-game division winner. In the sudden-death scenario at least it's two teams that didn't have the moxie to win the damn division.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 02 2007 12:26 PM

The only thing this change would do is make it harder to win that one Wild Card berth. Whoever does it is, as before, on a par with the three division winners. This way, however, it could even be a third place team as one of the final four.

metsmarathon Oct 02 2007 12:52 PM

true, but that WC team would have had to overcome perhaps having had to spend their ace in the WC-play-in game. also, the more we decry "an 84-win team" winning it all, the more pointless it is to even have the playoffs. we should just award the world series to the team with the best record right now, and save everybody some time.

Valadius Oct 02 2007 01:00 PM

The wild card team that wins the play-in game would be at a significant disadvantage. They likely burn their ace and potentially tire their pen, players are less rested, and there's an added chance of injury. Hey, if a third-place team makes it through the gauntlet to win it all, more power to them. They deserve it.

metsmarathon Oct 02 2007 01:30 PM

when pittsburgh won the superbowl, it was all about how impressive and inspiring their battle against all odds was. in baseball, it'd be a shame.

Frayed Knot Oct 02 2007 01:50 PM

Also, if there is a low/mid-80s win team it's probably more likely to be a division winning club than the WC. The WC team MUST be one of the top 4 teams in the league. Not so with the div winner each year ('73 Mets, '00 Yanx, '06 Cards, '07 Cubs)

Benjamin Grimm Oct 02 2007 01:56 PM

How about this then? Two leagues, no divisions. At the end of the season, the fourth and fifth place team play a best of three series. The winner of that series goes on to play a best of five against the first place team. The second place and third place teams also play a best of five. The winners of the two series play a best of seven for the League Championship. You still have your five playoff teams, but now you're absolutely certain that only the teams with the best records make the playoffs. The teams that are forced to play the first round are at a real disadvantage because the winner has to play a team that's had three days of rest. The first place team's advantage over the second and third place teams, in addition to home field, is that they get to play a tired team while the number 2 and 3 teams are each playing a rested opponent.

Edgy DC Oct 03 2007 10:20 AM

My point in saying people would be barking isn't that I don't support the idea --- don't like wildcards, and, if they must exist, like the disadvantage of forcing them through a play-in game --- but to question why yesterday's game should have anything to do with the decision. Selig's administration has already made too many integrity-of-the-schedule type decisions shortsightedly.

Frayed Knot Oct 04 2007 07:59 AM

So here's what 12 years worth of using the double-WC format would have looked like: 1996: NL: The 90 win Dodgers were actual WC (lost West by 1 game) - they would have been joined in a 1-game playoff by the 88-win Expos AL: Baltimore w/88 wins was the WC winner - [u:5172c5126b]3 teams[/u:5172c5126b] were tied w/85 1997: NL: Marlins 92 - Mets & Dodgers 88 - a play-in to get to the play-in! AL: Yankees 96 - Angels 84 ... Big gap here, but without it the Yanx went into cruise control most of September because they had no incentive to catch Baltimore for the East 1998: NL: Cubs & Giants tied for WC with 89 wins so things played out just as they would have with the double-WC system in place AL: WC winner was BoSox w/92 wins - joined by the [u:5172c5126b]3rd place[/u:5172c5126b] Blue Jays w/88 1999: NL: Mets w/96 - Reds w/96 ... In other words, exactly as it turned out anyway AL: BoSox 94 - A's 87 2000: NL: Mets 94 - Dodgers 86 ... Biggest NL gap from this period. Would have given the Mets extra incentive to catch the Braves who finished just 1 game ahead (or, to look at it another way, a bigger penalty for NOT catching them) AL: Mariners 91 - Indians 90 .... Mariners lost the West to Oakland by ½ game. A's never played game 162 because they would have won a tie-breaker anyway. THAT would have changed. Both teams, btw, much better than the 87-win eventual champs. 2001: NL: Cards 93 - Giants 90 ... Cards lost Central to Houston on tie-breaker. Again, no play-in game used because it was deemed unnecessary. AL: A's 102 - Twins 85 ... The biggest gap during this whole period, due mainly to Seattle's 116 win season draining so may wins from most other AL clubs 2002: NL: Giants 95 - Dodgers 92 ... 2nd & 3rd place teams AL: Angels 95 - Sox/Mariners 93 ... a play-in to get to the play-in! 2003: NL: Marlins 91 - Astros 87 ... league also had teams with 86, 85, 85, 84 & 83 wins AL: Red Sox 95 - Mariners 93 2004: NL: Astros 92 - Giants 91 AL: Red Sox 98 - A's 91 2005: NL: Astros 89 - Phils 88 AL: Red Sox 93 - Indians 93 ... Boston lost East via tie-breaker 2006: NL: Dodgers 88 - Phils 85 AL: Tigers 95 - White Sox 90 ... 2nd & 3rd place teams 2007: NL: Rockies 89 - Padres 89 ... would have played out the same AL: Yankess 94 - Tigers/Mariners 88 ... another play-in to get to the play-in

Johnny Dickshot Oct 04 2007 08:02 AM

That's 12 good arguments for it, IMO.

Frayed Knot Oct 04 2007 08:09 AM

24 actually. Or maybe more like 20 of the 24. There's a few there where the gap is big between curtain #1 and curtain #2, but a gap like that is just as likely to occur getting to the 1st WC team: ex; NL 1998 -- Div winners = 106, 102, 98 wins ... WC = 88 The thing is, I've always been somewhat amused by those who claim to love the WC system but then immediately set out trying to devise ways of preventing those WC teams from advancing. I've heard everything from fewer - or NO! - home games (a red herring mostly) to forcing them to play with smaller rosters or even given run handicaps to start each game! My view is that if you're upset about them advancing then don't let them in, and if you let them in then you need to treat them like they belong there. The rest of this sounds like; 'we'll let you in, but you have to use the kitchen entrance'. At least the 2-team system would provide a non div-winning playoff wannabe with a REAL roadblock to contend with and then treat them as an equal partner if they passed that, albeit one that had to play an extra game and expend maybe their top pitcher just to get there. Selig, btw, said this plan has been talked about in his circle but didn't seem to close to adding it.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 04 2007 08:11 AM

I still like my single-division, first-through-fifth plan (or is it a scheme?) better.

Frayed Knot Oct 04 2007 08:23 AM

I've always disliked single-division yet multiple-playoff team formats. You'd have to get rid of regional rivalries & institute totally balanced scheduling because otherwise teams would be vying for the same prize despite playing radically different competition. Then there's also the notion that you play all year for the purpose of proving that one team is better than the other (which is better than the next, and so on) only to be told that we're going to prove it all over again with short series. At least with divisions & leagues it's a case where you go win yours and I'll win mine then we'll wipe the slate clean and butt heads to see who's best.

Edgy DC Oct 04 2007 08:34 AM

Five teams from one "division" (is it a division if nonthing is divided) turns much of the regular season into an NHL-like meaningless pretext for most teams. If you're in second in August, will you grind it out in attempt to reach first and avoid third, or will you take it easy and try and get your players healthy? MLB is married to keeping teams within their time zone as much as possible --- they're probably right on that one --- so a monolithic league would either have to bag that have each team playing different schedules while competing for the same prize.