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