The Wild Card Strikes Again

[MadMax]

So the Oakland A's and Anaheim Angels are engaged in an HISTORICAL race of the AL West...both teams have performed incredibly well, running off huge winning streaks, including the longest winning streak in the history of the American League! There's all kinds of tension, right??? Each team waiting for the other to make a mistake, no doubt, right???

WRONG!!!!

why??? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER!!

The wild card bails out the second place finisher....despite the fact that after 162 games, we should know who the better team is.

Just like it robbed us of Mets and Braves nail-biters in years past for the NL East crown, it does the same in what would be an epic race between two incredible teams.

I know someone is going to say, "yes, but it does create the Dodgers/Giants matchup for the NL wildcard." To that I respond, I would gladly sacrifice this meaningful matchup of second-tier teams (according to record this season) for a meaningful pennant chase in the AL West among the two of the best teams in baseball right now.

[haven]

I would sure have felt sorry for Oakland last year... I like the Wild Card.

I hate it when one division is much stronger (or weaker) than the other two... but it would be worse without hte WC.

[MadMax]

haven -- i get the point...i just think if you wanna be the best, you gotta beat the best...and if you happen to be in a division that has the best team, prove you deserve to be there more than them...because in other years you'll find easier paths to a division championship...

baseball and football put importance on the regular season in exact opposite ways (basketball puts zero importance on the regular season, allowing in more teams in the playoffs than it excludes!)...baseball plays 162 games and says, "if you're good enough, we should know by now." that's why teams like san francisco in 1993 finish with 100 wins and still don't make the playoffs because Atlanta finished with 103...(of course that concern, i believe, is mitigated by adding additional divisions)...football says, "we're only gonna play 16 games...you better damn well make each game count, because one loss can and will cost you the season."

baseball moved in the direction of basketball when it added the wild cards...i think that's a mistake...and i think it tore at the very roots of what makes baseball different. and at the very notion that, "yes...game 137 of this 162 game season IS important..we either win these games or we stay home." otherwise you're selling tickets to less important, and arguably less relevant, events.

[Major]

baseball and football put importance on the regular season in exact opposite ways (basketball puts zero importance on the regular season, allowing in more teams in the playoffs than it excludes!)...baseball plays 162 games and says, "if you're good enough, we should know by now."

On the other hand, the difference between going 99-63 vs 98-64 is negligible precisely because of the number of games in baseball (along with the larger element of luck inherent in the sport compared to basketball and football). So if two teams finish with those records in the same division, it's really not clear which is the better team. If those two teams are better than any other teams, I don't see a problem with allowing both into the playoffs.

In football, on the other hand, the difference between an 11-5 team vs a 10-6 team is a bit more significant.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Major
baseball and football put importance on the regular season in exact opposite ways (basketball puts zero importance on the regular season, allowing in more teams in the playoffs than it excludes!)...baseball plays 162 games and says, "if you're good enough, we should know by now."

On the other hand, the difference between going 99-63 vs 98-64 is negligible precisely because of the number of games in baseball (along with the larger element of luck inherent in the sport compared to basketball and football). So if two teams finish with those records in the same division, it's really not clear which is the better team. If those two teams are better than any other teams, I don't see a problem with allowing both into the playoffs.

In football, on the other hand, the difference between an 11-5 team vs a 10-6 team is a bit more significant.

point well taken...my point remains the same...we're being robbed of what would be a marvelous pennant race right now...

[Major]

point well taken...my point remains the same...we're being robbed of what would be a marvelous pennant race right now...

I agree, but as you said, we're gaining another one in the wildcard. And OAK/ANA fans are still interested, so now you have fans from 4 teams excited about baseball, whereas without the wildcard, you'd only have fans from 2 teams excited about the sport. From baseball's viewpoint, that keeps interest higher overall.

If the Astros & Red Sox hadn't choked, that would be another two teams interested in the wildcard races.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Major
point well taken...my point remains the same...we're being robbed of what would be a marvelous pennant race right now...

I agree, but as you said, we're gaining another one in the wildcard. And OAK/ANA fans are still interested, so now you have fans from 4 teams excited about baseball, whereas without the wildcard, you'd only have fans from 2 teams excited about the sport. From baseball's viewpoint, that keeps interest higher overall.

If the Astros & Red Sox hadn't choked, that would be another two teams interested in the wildcard races.

yeah..but I am not interested in the A's/Angels at this point...and I'm not all that interested in Giants/Dodgers, quite frankly...I would be VERY interested in A's/Angels if it meant something...if they were fighting it out...so i'm not sure it keeps interest higher overall...in cities other than SF, LA, Anaheim and Oakland, it ain't all that compelling. It would be much more compelling if the A's and Angels were having to compete against each other...that's the American way!!! Let the cream rise to the top...

[bobrek]

MadMax

The only way to capture what you want, however, is to go to either two divisions per league or else have 0 divisions (as it was in 1968 and earlier).

If you have 3 divisions, then some team would get a bye. If you have 4 divisions you get the same number of teams in the playoffs as you do now.

While the A's and Angels would certainly be exciting if it meant all or nothing, the real problem this year is the lack of a 3rd team in the wild card hunt in each league.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by bobrek
MadMax

The only way to capture what you want, however, is to go to either two divisions per league or else have 0 divisions (as it was in 1968 and earlier).

If you have 3 divisions, then some team would get a bye. If you have 4 divisions you get the same number of teams in the playoffs as you do now.

While the A's and Angels would certainly be exciting if it meant all or nothing, the real problem this year is the lack of a 3rd team in the wild card hunt in each league.


no..you could capture exactly what i want by simply eliminating the wild card and offering a bye for the team that finishes with the best record in each league...that would accomplish the following:

1. provide a real incentive to finish with the best record in the NL...as we've seen, homefield advantage doesn't mean all that much in baseball playoffs...providing a bye would be a HUGE advantage...and again, that puts a strong emphasis on the results of a 162 game season

2. get rid of the wild cards..which this year would mean a true division fight that had meaning among two very good teams in the Angels and A's. Those kinds of division fights are what create the great rivalries among interdivision squads.

[Ric]

Originally posted by MadMax
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER!!
i don't know about that... loser has to play the yankees, don't forget. besides, no wildcard, and everyone's bitching about how unfair it is that one of these teams has to go home.

[bobrek]

Granted, that is true, however, schedules would have to be reworked to offer a true balanced schedule. As an example, the NL West is the toughest NL division this year. Atlanta is getting a cake walk through the NL East. Arizona gets around 38 games with the Dodgers and Giants while the bRaves get 38 with the Mets and Expos. Generally this evens out over a period of years, but there will be major grumbling about this most years.

Unfortunately, this is all a pipe dream. It would not surprise me at all to see 2 teams from each league added to the playoff mix in the near future.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Ric
i don't know about that... loser has to play the yankees, don't forget. besides, no wildcard, and everyone's bitching about how unfair it is that one of these teams has to go home.

1. loser has to play the yanks...but don't both teams have better records than the Yanks...yes, there are perks to winning...but it's not the do or die that baseball was traditionally known for

2. everyone may bitch...everyone but me and bob costas, at least! :) i still don't understand the concept of it being unfair to not make the playoffs...from the beginning of the season you set out...ok, here are the teams in your division...every year, if you want to win the division and advance to the playoffs, you have to be better than these teams...if not, sorry. that seems imminently fair to me. and makes for great competition, which is why we watch anyway, right?? particularly when we don't have a significant rooting interest.

truth be told...i don't give a rip about the A's or the Angels...I have zero history with these teams...but if they were playing for one spot, i'd be watching this story every night...as it is now, there is no story...we kept hearing how great this three team race for the AL West was gonna be...when the M's faded out of the picture, the race was over..there is no race...it's all decided...and there is no pressure for one team to be better than the other.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by bobrek
Granted, that is true, however, schedules would have to be reworked to offer a true balanced schedule. As an example, the NL West is the toughest NL division this year. Atlanta is getting a cake walk through the NL East. Arizona gets around 38 games with the Dodgers and Giants while the bRaves get 38 with the Mets and Expos. Generally this evens out over a period of years, but there will be major grumbling about this most years.

Unfortunately, this is all a pipe dream. It would not surprise me at all to see 2 teams from each league added to the playoff mix in the near future.


i disagree...why have balanced scheduling?? i'm asking you to make teams have to be better than the teams in their division...what is a better way to test that than having them play the teams in their division more than any other teams? the more they play, the more we know how good they are, right??? and since the standings among NL West teams would have no bearing on the NL Central race, that makes the most sense.

you're right...some years it will be tough...like when another team is just better than you. that was how baseball was played for nearly 100 years. i don't see the point of taking away any of the meaning of the 162 game season...it's that long for a reason...when you take away the reason, then there is no need to have such a long season.

[bobrek]

My response of balanced scheduling would be to make it fair as to which division winner gets the bye. Atlanta will probably end up a game or 2 better than Arizona this year, mainly due to the ability to feast on all 4 teams in their division. Arizona only has it easy against the Rockies and Padres. Why should Arizona have to waste Johnson and Schilling against the Cardinals while Maddox and Glavine are resting up? Having the bye is a huge advantage and, a number of times, would not go to the team that is truly the best in their league.

[Trader_Jorge]

More chances for the playoffs translates into more hope for more teams. This helps MLB generate fan support for teams such as the A's last year who won 100 games but finished 10+ games out of the division lead and many other teams that have little chance of winning the division. The teams in the NL East have had to put up with Atlanta winning the last 11 division titles -- do you think they'd be pumped up about the season were it not for the wild card? The Mets used the wild card as a platform to make it to the World Series in 2000.

On a practical level, eliminating the wild card would necessitate giving a team a bye in the first round of the playoffs (assuming no interleague play before the WS). You simply can not make the argument that there would be more playoff races, and thus more drama, with fewer post season opportunities. you can't do it. Case Closed.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by bobrek
My response of balanced scheduling would be to make it fair as to which division winner gets the bye. Atlanta will probably end up a game or 2 better than Arizona this year, mainly due to the ability to feast on all 4 teams in their division. Arizona only has it easy against the Rockies and Padres. Why should Arizona have to waste Johnson and Schilling against the Cardinals while Maddox and Glavine are resting up? Having the bye is a huge advantage and, a number of times, would not go to the team that is truly the best in their league.


admittedly, that's a problem...but it's no different than it is today in determining who matches up against the top team in the first round of the playoffs.

[Ric]

Originally posted by MadMax
from the beginning of the season you set out...ok, here are the teams in your division...every year, if you want to win the division and advance to the playoffs, you have to be better than these teams...if not, sorry. that seems imminently fair to me.
my god, MM -- it's been 8 years since the wildcard's inception, get over it, man!

besides, the goal of any and every athletic competition is to win, period. so to say a race like this has no meaning because the second place team is still "rewarded" is ignoring the fact that neither team is playing that way; both oakland and anaheim are playing as good a baseball as anyone could hope for; neither team looks content to settle. it's still a great race.

there's never, ever been a ceremony for finishing second place... except in st. louis. these players have pride and want to win -- something is definitely on the line. lighten up, francis...

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
More chances for the playoffs translates into more hope for more teams. This helps MLB generate fan support for teams such as the A's last year who won 100 games but finished 10+ games out of the division lead and many other teams that have little chance of winning the division. The teams in the NL East have had to put up with Atlanta winning the last 11 division titles -- do you think they'd be pumped up about the season were it not for the wild card? The Mets used the wild card as a platform to make it to the World Series in 2000.

On a practical level, eliminating the wild card would necessitate giving a team a bye in the first round of the playoffs (assuming no interleague play before the WS). You simply can not make the argument that there would be more playoff races, and thus more drama, with fewer post season opportunities. you can't do it. Case Closed.

Thanks for summarily closing the case like that...I'm glad you've convinced yourself. Good for you!!! I remain, regrettably, unconvinced. Maybe part of that is because you didn't understand my argument to begin with.

Again...I'm utterly uninterested in races for wild card spots, unless my team is in the hunt. Watching SF/LA is not nearly as intriguing to me as the possibility of watching two better teams fighting for ONE spot. That's the way baseball has always been..it has put value on the importance of winning over the course of a 162 game season. And it's made the season, itself, more exciting, than leagues like the NHL or NBA. That changes everytime you lower the bar for becoming a playoff team.

The fact is...there is ONE fewer race in the AL, whether you choose to see that or not. The race for the AL West crown...division championships used to mean something...now, they're an afterthought...making the playoffs is the important thing..so if the A's and Angels were to meet again late in the season, both teams would do well to rest their top players, since they're already assured of a playoff berth...as opposed to having their top players gunning for each other right at the end of the season.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Ric
my god, MM -- it's been 8 years since the wildcard's inception, get over it, man!

besides, the goal of any and every athletic competition is to win, period. so to say a race like this has no meaning because the second place team is still "rewarded" is ignoring the fact that neither team is playing that way; both oakland and anaheim are playing as good a baseball as anyone could hope for; neither team looks content to settle. it's still a great race.

there's never, ever been a ceremony for finishing second place... except in st. louis. these players have pride and want to win -- something is definitely on the line. lighten up, francis...

1. just because something exists for a while doesn't mean it's a good idea...i don't have to like it just because it is what it is...and i'm not saying it will ever change...just lamenting its effects. by the way...ease up on the lighten up francis and get over it rhetoric...internet message boards invite opinions from soapboxes...thanks for the tip though, mr. houstonprofootball.com

2. it's still a great race?? a great race for what??? a great race where both teams win?? that's not much of a race...consequences for not finishing first produce better races

3. there's never been a cermony for finishing second?? tell that to st. louis...tell that to colorado who flies a wild card banner in their park...

[Groogrux]

Astros are not out of it...They can be 4 games out if they sweep the Brewers and the Dodgers/Giants split their 4 game series.

I know it won't happen, but they still have a shot.

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by MadMax
Again...I'm utterly uninterested in races for wild card spots, unless my team is in the hunt.
Exactly my point. More teams are in the hunt when there are more spots available. With more teams in the hunt, there is a greater likelihood of your team being in the hunt, which would make you interested. Irrefutable evidence.

Originally posted by MadMax
Watching SF/LA is not nearly as intriguing to me as the possibility of watching two better teams fighting for ONE spot. That's the way baseball has always been..it has put value on the importance of winning over the course of a 162 game season.
The wild card puts a value on winning over the course of a 162 game season as well. Does it not? You see, the team with the most wins outside of the division winners is awarded the wild card. The first game of the 162 game season counts, and the last game of the 162 game season counts. Irrefutable evidence.

Originally posted by MadMax
The race for the AL West crown...division championships used to mean something...now, they're an afterthought... [/B]
If the division championship didn't mean something, then why did St. Louis erect a banner that says '2001 NL Central Co-Champs', when in fact they were the wild card last year? It does matter because it figures into homefield advantage and it pairs you with a different team in the first round of the playoffs. Yet another example: I don't see the Angels or A's resting players in tonight's game -- Washburn is pitching against Mulder. A battle of aces. Huh, if they weren't in a race, why not rest them?

Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3, YOU'RE OUT! Please take a seat on the bench next to Mr. Hidalgo.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Exactly my point. More teams are in the hunt when there are more spots available. With more teams in the hunt, there is a greater likelihood of your team being in the hunt, which would make you interested. Irrefutable evidence.


The wild card puts a value on winning over the course of a 162 game season as well. Does it not? You see, the team with the most wins outside of the division winners is awarded the wild card. The first game of the 162 game season counts, and the last game of the 162 game season counts. Irrefutable evidence.


If the division championship didn't mean something, then why did St. Louis erect a banner that says '2001 NL Central Co-Champs', when in fact they were the wild card last year? It does matter because it figures into homefield advantage and it pairs you with a different team in the first round of the playoffs. Yet another example: I don't see the Angels or A's resting players in tonight's game -- Washburn is pitching against Mulder. A battle of aces. Huh, if they weren't in a race, why not rest them?

Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3, YOU'RE OUT! Please take a seat on the bench next to Mr. Hidalgo.

Wow..I can't believe how personally you're taking this argument...did you invent the Wild Card??? Thanks for the emphatic strike out language....oh, wait...we're talking about baseball...and you used baseball lingo to describe your "victory" in this discussion...that's funny! you're a clever guy!!!

1. As I pointed out, unless I'm in SF or LA, I don't give a flying flip about the wild card right now...having said that...I would give a flying flip about a race for a division crown among two great teams if they were actually fighting for a playoff berth with no ways out...

2. I'm not smart enough to understand your St. Louis co-division champ argument...or maybe it's just way off point. I already said that yes, it does figure into playoff pairings...no doubt...By the way..the A's aren't pitching Mulder because they are interested in the AL West championship...they're pitching Mulder because you want to keep guys in their rhthym going into the playoffs.

Bottom line...I want to see the very best teams fighting for their playoff lives...I don't care about seeing second tier teams fighting for ancillary playoff spots. I think that's the whole value of having a season this long...after 162 games, you damn well know who the best teams are...putting a premium on winning a division to get into the playoffs forces the cream to rise to the top...it forces the good to be great....giving teams a "way out" and still get into the playoffs diminishes that.

[Ric]

Originally posted by MadMax
1. just because something exists for a while doesn't mean it's a good idea...i don't have to like it just because it is what it is...and i'm not saying it will ever change...just lamenting its effects. by the way...ease up on the lighten up francis and get over it rhetoric...internet message boards invite opinions from soapboxes...thanks for the tip though, mr. houstonprofootball.com
no problem, mr... doesn'thaveawebsitethatiknowof.com... it's a quote from stripes, i was tryingto bring some levity to the thread, so... really, lighten up.

back to the topic -- it's such a tired, non-issue -- what next? a thread about pete rose belonging in the hall of fame? it's not going to change, it's made the game better, you, i'm guessing, don't have a problem with the nba and nfl letting in so many teams... so what's the harm?

besides, MM, with no wildcard, there would've been no playoff baseball in houston the past five years (insert joke here). is that preferrable?

Originally posted by MadMax
2. it's still a great race?? a great race for what??? a great race where both teams win?? that's not much of a race...consequences for not finishing first produce better races.
both teams don't win; one team wins (the division). and with that, they get homefield advantage and, on paper anyway, a weaker first round opponent. the fallout is that a team and its fans get at least three more games, and countless other teams/fans stay in races far longer than they would have under the old rules. but yeah, that's what baseball should do -- alienate more fans so a select few bob costas-types can preserve this long dead romanticized idea of what baseball should be...


Originally posted by MadMax
3. there's never been a cermony for finishing second?? tell that to st. louis...tell that to colorado who flies a wild card banner in their park...
if you'd be content to fly a wildcard flag in leiu of a division flag... well, what does that say?

[Ric]

Originally posted by MadMax
Bottom line...I want to see the very best teams fighting for their playoff lives...I don't care about seeing second tier teams fighting for ancillary playoff spots. I think that's the whole value of having a season this long...after 162 games, you damn well know who the best teams are...putting a premium on winning a division to get into the playoffs forces the cream to rise to the top...it forces the good to be great....giving teams a "way out" and still get into the playoffs diminishes that.
sorry to double post... this isn't a bad argument, except... you make it sound like anaheim and/or oaklnad will be backing into the playoffs, and that's FAR from the truth. the "loser" will finish with a better record than the twins... how is the cream rising to the top if the third best team in the league is on the sidelines?

iguess i'm just completely oblivious to how anyone could still be complaining about the wildcard -- it's win-win all around.

[MadMax]

you win, ric...

that's it...no more discussions on issues that are settled or ones where we don't get a say....shut down all the iraq threads RIGHT NOW!!

we'll all monitor each other...


but one last comment...baseball is in trouble because it has alienated hardcore fans...not because it alienated casual fans. casual fans don't buy season tickets...casual fans don't watch much baseball on tv...wanna win an election? mobilize your core...get them out to vote..don't waste your time pandering to people who don't support you already...the same is true of baseball...

either ditch the 162 game season...or give it real credence and let IT be the determining factor as to who moves on....and i do have a problem with the nba letting in so many teams...i think it's freaking stupid!!! why pay for a regular season basketball game?? where's the urgency at all to win when more teams make the playoffs than sit out of the playoffs??

but we can't discuss this anymore...apparently we can't discuss the pete rose issue anymore either....i sure hope we can find some things to talk about.

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by MadMax
you're a clever guy!!!
Thank you.

Originally posted by MadMax
1. As I pointed out, unless I'm in SF or LA, I don't give a flying flip about the wild card right now...
Again, fans in SF and LA do care, and that increases the level of interest in the game. There are very few fans that tune out of a wild card race on the grounds that it is not a divisional race. There are millions of fans who will tune in to see who wins the wild card. Similarly, there are millions of fans who would be very disappointed if the A's didn't win the division.

Originally posted by MadMax
I'm not smart enough to understand your St. Louis co-division champ argument...
Agreed, but that's not my fault. My point was that if the division title was no less important than the wild card (a point which you are trying to make), then St. Louis would have just put up a banner that said 'NL Wild Card 2001'. Instead they put up the co-champs banner.

Originally posted by MadMax
after 162 games, you damn well know who the best teams are...
Correct. The A's and Angels both have better records right now than the Twins, so they should both be in the playoffs. With no wild card, the better team would be at home while a team with less wins (Twins) would still be playing. Therefore, your theory of the best teams playing in the playoffs would require a wild card entry to be valid.


GAME, SET, MATCH. Thanks for playing, rookie.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge

GAME, SET, MATCH. Thanks for playing, rookie.

do you realize how silly you look when you post things like that?

[StupidMoniker]

I bet Manny and Nomar are happy for the existence of the wildcard. Without it the Red Sux might as well cease to exist right now.

[NYKRule]

2. it's still a great race?? a great race for what??? a great race where both teams win?? that's not much of a race...consequences for not finishing first produce better races



1. loser has to play the yanks...but don't both teams have better records than the Yanks...yes, there are perks to winning...but it's not the do or die that baseball was traditionally known for



Loser plays the Yankees. Winner plays the Twins. Thats the race. BTW--Who cares if they had better records? Both of them have WORSE records than the Yankees, so you are WRONG. INFACT, they both lost the season series vs. the Yankees, Also, the Yankees are the 4-time defending AL Champs...its understandable why teams don't want to face them, no? I also have to mention that the A's are most likely still shell shocked from being up 2-0 and having it taken away. I think the winner might be a LITTLE relieved.

[bobrek]

Originally posted by Ric
...besides, MM, with no wildcard, there would've been no playoff baseball in houston the past five years (insert joke here). is that preferrable?...

Ric

I am curious. Could you clarify the above? The Astros were division winners 4 of the past 5 years. At least 2 of those years they had the best or 2nd best record.

[Ric]

Originally posted by bobrek
I am curious. Could you clarify the above? The Astros were division winners 4 of the past 5 years. At least 2 of those years they had the best or 2nd best record.
sure -- had they never realigned, houston would've been in the same division with atlanta; houston's never had a better record than atlanta since the realignment, and houston's never had the best record in the league; their best season (102 wins in '98), was bested by the braves (who had 106).

[Major]

sure -- had they never realigned, houston would've been in the same division with atlanta; houston's never had a better record than atlanta since the realignment, and houston's never had the best record in the league; their best season (102 wins in '98), was bested by the braves (who had 106).

Houston had a better record than Atlanta in '99, didn't they?

[Refman]

Ric, under MadMax's theory there would be 3 divisions with the winners going to the playoffs. The best record gets a bye. So the Astros still would have been there.

He has a point here. The AL West crown has become moot. There are two great team within a game or so from each other and it's being met with a collective yawn. Why? Because they're going to the playoffs regardless. Two teams like that in a division race should never just be playing out the string.

I also see the point that pro wild card guys are making. I just think that the anti wild card guys have a better argument.

Trader Jorge...Max was being sarcastic when he called you clever. He really should lop on the sarcasm a little thicker. And your game set match references are really lame. :rolleyes:

So what we have in baseball are the 3 champs and the first loser in the playoffs...GREEEEAAAT!!! :rolleyes:

The NBA system sucks. I have actually heard people say come playoff time that "the real season is starting." That is indicative of a real problem.

If the wild card is such a great idea because it gets fans interested in the affected markets, maybe EVERYBODY should make the playoffs with just playoff positioning at stake. How exciting. :rolleyes:

[Groogrux]

Atlanta was in the West? I thought they were in the East.

[bobrek]

Originally posted by Ric
sure -- had they never realigned, houston would've been in the same division with atlanta; houston's never had a better record than atlanta since the realignment, and houston's never had the best record in the league; their best season (102 wins in '98), was bested by the braves (who had 106).


Last year the Astros won 93 games, Atlanta 88, Arizona 91.

[Trader_Jorge]

Originally posted by Refman
He has a point here. The AL West crown has become moot. There are two great team within a game or so from each other and it's being met with a collective yawn. Why? Because they're going to the playoffs regardless. Two teams like that in a division race should never just be playing out the string.
Listen to the A's and Angels players themselves, you guys are just flat out wrong on this point.

''I've never been to the playoffs, but I can't imagine anything much more adrenalin-filled than this,'' said Angels closer Troy Percival, who pitched the 10th for his 250th career save. ''That was probably the best-pitched ballgame on both sides I've ever seen. Both guys didn't miss a spot all night.''

''It's never something you wish for, to be in a battle like that, but it was a lot of fun out there,'' said Washburn, who felt no ill effects from returning early. ''I'm never dominant, but it was just about the best game I've pitched all year. It was definitely one of the highlights of my career so far.''

''Mulder had me baffled,'' Salmon said. ''The guy had everything working. ... It feels great to get the big one in a game like this. I've played my whole career for this. I can't imagine more intensity than there was out there tonight.''

''That was a great baseball game, almost a throwback game, like Marichal and Koufax going at it,'' Oakland manager Art Howe said.

[bobrek]

The games between the A's and Angels are truly meaningful. First and foremost, the division winner gets the Twins at home, the loser gets the Yankees in New York. Second, these guys have a lot of pride. They want to be division winners. Look how important it was for St. Louis to consider themselves 'co-champs' last year. Sure, they both make the playoffs, but there is a significant advantage to the division winner.

[MadMax]

I've made my points here...I don't think this is a matter of right and wrong, but rather personal opinion. Not much else to be said...or as Ric points out...maybe it should have never been said at all.

[Ric]

Originally posted by Rocketman95
Atlanta was in the West? I thought they were in the East.
nope, don't you remember sid bream beating barry bonds' throw in the 90... 91 NLCS?

Originally posted by bobrek
Last year the Astros won 93 games, Atlanta 88, Arizona 91.
well, i'll be, they sure as hell did. man, i could've sworn ATL had better records each year the astros won the division. having said that, you look at the top three teams that year... all 3 would've been in the west... not so sure it would have shaken out quite the same way if they had been playing each other down the stretch.

[Ric]

Originally posted by MadMax
I've made my points here...I don't think this is a matter of right and wrong, but rather personal opinion. Not much else to be said...or as Ric points out...maybe it should have never been said at all.
actually, MM, you're right: it would have been better if one team has to go home, no question -- sudden death is always better.

but... to say who wins doesn't matter invalidates the very essence of sports and competition in general. you're telling me, if you were an angel or an a, you'd be content with second place? i'd like to think, were i a part of this, second place, even if it still meant a playoff spot, would suck. and by the looks of things, these two teams seem to share that sentiment.

players want to win it; it might not mean anything to you, but it means a lot to them. the astros and cardinals played their starters in what you likely termed a meaningless game last year on the season's final day. pride and accomplishment are not diminsihed by consolation prizes.