Fixing the Wild Card

As anyone who's read Clay's newsletter knows, Clay is renewing his call to change the Wild Card format here: http://www.sportsmogul.com/content/playoffs.html

Personally, I like the idea, just not the implementation. In my opinion, the Wild card should be eliminated completely. Of course, the only way to do that would be through realignment (either 2 or 4 divisions in each league). I feel that 2 divisions in each league would create divisions that are too large (8 each in the NL and 7 each in the AL). 4 divisions creates a different problem. The National League can have 4, 4 team divisions, which is fine. The American league, on the other hand, could have something like 4-4-3-3... yuck. So, the AL would really need to expand by a couple of teams (yay!).

Other than that though, I think nothing should be done. Go back to alternating home field advantage to each league (using the All Star game sucks), and get rid of that stupid rule about deciding the format. The Wild Card isn't ideal, but it's not terrible either. Selig's tinkering is terrible, though.

I agree with Yankee Hater on this. Leave the WC alone, let the AS game matter, maybe retract instead of expand!

Why should an EXHIBITION game decide something as important as home field for the World Series though? Just go back to alternating it each year.

Other than that, I don't think the Wild Card should be changed though, it is fine as is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

In my opinion, the Wild card should be eliminated completely.

---

I welcomed the Wild Card, when it was introduced...to me, it offers a little more
hope for the fans of not-quite-ready-for-prime-time teams that there may be life for them, in the post-season.

I would have no problem with best record deciding it either, at least that way every REAL game that counts in the standings matters. Does anyone know how the NBA does a tie-breaker for identical records works?

The NBA doesn't have two "leagues" though...
Interleague play could be used, I wouldn't mind that. Using the All Star game is just plain stupid though. It's supposed to be a "meaningless" game. That's it's whole point!

Anyway, I don't mind the Wild Card either. I just think that if anything at all is done about it then it should be eliminated, which means an even number of divisions.
I don't see how using 4 division winners could possibly lead to having "a worse 4th team in the playoffs than what we already have", since each team would be a division champion from an Unbalances Schedule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I don't see how using 4 division winners could possibly lead to having "a worse 4th team in the playoffs than what we already have", since each team would be a division champion from an Unbalances Schedule.

---

This has really bugged me since they went to the wild card. I mean, IMHO, MLB got it bass ackwards. When there were only division winners, they played a balanced schedule and THEN when they introduced a wild card, THEN THEY PLAYED AN UNBALANCED SCHEDULE?????? I mean, an unbalanced schedule makes no sense when you have teams from different divisions competing against each other for a playoff spot. Suppose one year the Rangers and A's really suck. I mean, really really really really suck. They couldn't win 50 games if they were given 30. The Angels and Mariners are gonna play close to 40 games against those two teams and compete for a wild card against the rest of AL who only faces them 12. That's a stretch to make the example, but its possible.

I like your idea. 4 divisions, each division playing an unbalanced schedule, makes more sense to me than the current system. But you're right, it would mean expansion, and I'm not sure that would work. Or, we could go the retraction route, back it down to 2 divisions, and let them play an unbalanced schedule. In the meantime though, I really like Clay's idea. To me, that makes a lot of good sense as an interim fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

What is broken that we are 'fixing'?

---

Hehe, yeah, good point. I guess you could say us purists view it as broken for three reasons. ONE, as I mentioned, teams competing for a playoff spot play vastly different schedules due to the unbalanced scheduling; TWO, the rash of wildcards winning the world series since its inception is bothersome, because baseballs long time appeal to many was that its 162 game schedule mattered, and when a team that can't even win its own division in said schedule wins the series, it rubs wrong; and THREE probably most important, its taken a lot of late season drama out of winning the division. For a lot of years in the AL East, there was no real drama between the Sox and Yankees because both knew they were gonna get in the playoffs anyway. Now imagine that rivalry those years if only ONE was gonna get in, the division winner.

But, your point is valid, as a LOT of fans do like the wild card. Especially the younger ones. It might be an age thing, I dunno.

1) I think the Wild Card is fine as it is.
2) I would be heavily against retracting teams, although I'd be for adding 2 American League teams and either just keeping things how it is now, or going to 4 4-team divisions (although, that's not something I feel strongly about. I just wouldn't care).
3) I think the All Star Game should be meaningless.
4) I do not want to expand the playoffs beyond 4 teams per league, nor do I want to add extra games to the playoffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

I can't really argue against anyone here, except that making the all star game meaningless should mean we pick another way to decide home field other than luck of the year.

---

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree there. Luck of the year shouldn't decide it either. Best record, best interleague record of the two, something, heck even playing a game 7 on a neutral field would be better than having it decided by luck of the year, though even on a neutral field one team or the other would have the advantage of batting last, so that's no good either. As far as I'm concerned, let the All-Star game still be the factor. Heck, its not unreasonable to assume that a lot of the players in the All-Star game may reach the series anyway since the best teams usually produce the most All-Stars anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree there. Luck of the year shouldn't decide it either. Best record, best interleague record of the two, something, heck even playing a game 7 on a neutral field would be better than having it decided by luck of the year, though even on a neutral field one team or the other would have the advantage of batting last, so that's no good either. As far as I'm concerned, let the All-Star game still be the factor. Heck, its not unreasonable to assume that a lot of the players in the All-Star game may reach the series anyway since the best teams usually produce the most All-Stars anyway.

---

Best interleague would not always work because there are always a couple NL teams that only have 5 series against the AL.

Quote:

---

2 - I like the All-Star game meaning something.

---

The worst idea since the Dh, the team with the best record should have home field advantage.

Quote:

---

the team with the best record should have home field advantage.

---

I'd buy that, except that the records aren't really comparable even with limited interleague play...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I'd buy that, except that the records aren't really comparable even with limited interleague play...

---

True, but really, that's also the case in basketball and hockey, and I can't see I've ever really heard any complaints there about the best record getting home court/ice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

1) I think the Wild Card is fine as it is.
2) I would be heavily against retracting teams, although I'd be for adding 2 American League teams and either just keeping things how it is now, or going to 4 4-team divisions (although, that's not something I feel strongly about. I just wouldn't care).
3) I think the All Star Game should be meaningless.
4) I do not want to expand the playoffs beyond 4 teams per league, nor do I want to add extra games to the playoffs.

---

I agree with everything here except for #3.

The wild card has been very successful and is not broken. I do think there could be some tweaks made as I don't like how teams play each other so much more inter-divisionally and while a good division beats themselves up a bad division can have two teams with bloated records. The premise of the WC is very good, though this should be looked at.

Regarding the All Star Game...look, I don't like having an exhibition game decide home field for the WS but what better option is out there? Swapping each year is dumb, best record is not legitimate....someone come up with a better solution. I don't feel home field in baseball is that important, so putting it on the allstar game brings some meaning to that game and is the most logical solution IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I agree with everything here except for #3.

The wild card has been very successful and is not broken. I do think there could be some tweaks made as I don't like how teams play each other so much more inter-divisionally and while a good division beats themselves up a bad division can have two teams with bloated records. The premise of the WC is very good, though this should be looked at.

Regarding the All Star Game...look, I don't like having an exhibition game decide home field for the WS but what better option is out there? Swapping each year is dumb, best record is not legitimate....someone come up with a better solution. I don't feel home field in baseball is that important, so putting it on the allstar game brings some meaning to that game and is the most logical solution IMO.

---

I don't understand how best record is illegitimate. Is it somehow WORSE than having an exhibition game decide it? So, if I'm the Sox, and I have the best record in baseball, but the Phillies are the NL team, and THEY get homefield because the NL team (consisting of...what...8% Phillies) beat the AL team (10% Red Sox), THAT is more fair than the Sox getting homefield because they won more games? Sure, they probably did have an easier schedule, but it still makes more SENSE because at least the Sox and Phils had absolute control over their circumstances, and weren't relying on teams filled with ringers from every other team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

I can't really argue with people wanting the all star game to mean nothing, because it was always an exhibition and this is sort a preferential call anyway. I still want it to mean something though :)

---

Me too. Maybe if they do away with it gaining home field in the series, they could use it to determine the league the next all-star game will be played in. They schedule these years in advance, but maybe the 2010 All-Star game determines the league whose park will host the 2013 game???? I dunno, I like it meaning something too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

I don't understand how best record is illegitimate. Is it somehow WORSE than having an exhibition game decide it? So, if I'm the Sox, and I have the best record in baseball, but the Phillies are the NL team, and THEY get homefield because the NL team (consisting of...what...8% Phillies) beat the AL team (10% Red Sox), THAT is more fair than the Sox getting homefield because they won more games? Sure, they probably did have an easier schedule, but it still makes more SENSE because at least the Sox and Phils had absolute control over their circumstances, and weren't relying on teams filled with ringers from every other team.

---

They didn't have absolute control of their circumstances which led them to a better record because they couldn't control their schedule.

You shouldn't think of it as the Phillies or Red Sox earning homefield, they didn't know they'd be in the WS until after the LCS was completed (lol). You should think of it as the NL or AL earning homefield advantage for their constituent, which is 'fairer' IMO than best record which is greatly scewed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Me too. Maybe if they do away with it gaining home field in the series, they could use it to determine the league the next all-star game will be played in. They schedule these years in advance, but maybe the 2010 All-Star game determines the league whose park will host the 2013 game???? I dunno, I like it meaning something too.

---

And as I stated earlier, i have no problem with changing the All Star game 'meaning' but I don't see a better option for home field of the WS.

I suppose a coin flip for the WS, or paper rock scissors may be fairer than any option on the table.....but most 'fans' would prefer the all-star game over paper rock scissors.