Joey's Soapbox: Why I Don't Like The Extra Wild Card

Earlier this week, Bud Selig announced the addition of two extra wild card teams that would be crashing the postseason party in 2012.  Although he used his index finger to point out why this would be good for baseball, what he really did was give real baseball fans such as myself the middle finger. (By the way, my Studious Metsimus colleague also believes extra wild card teams are a good thing.  It's okay.  He's allowed to make mistakes every once in a while.)

Why do I think baseball should not have changed its current playoff format?  I'm Joey Beartran and I'm about to get on my soapbox to tell you why.

Do you remember the last day of the 2011 regular season?  Sure you do.  You were watching the MLB Network or ESPN to see if Mr. Testosterone (Ryan Braun) would edge out Mr. Marlin (Jose Reyes) for the National League batting title.  But even after Mr. T fell short in denying the Mets their first-ever batting champion (I pity the fool who tries the take the batting title away from any Met), we didn't change the channel, as we were mesmerized by the Phillies-Braves, Cardinals-Astros, Red Sox-Orioles and Rays-Yankees games that would decide which teams would earn their league's wild card berth and which teams would go home.

Of course, under the new playoff format, none of those games would have had any impact on the wild card races, as every team's playoff destiny would have already been written.  Why mess with a good thing?  Because that's what Bud Selig does.  Isn't that right, Mr. This Time It Counts?

Also, by adding an extra playoff team in each league, our wonderful commissioner flipped us the bird by making it a one-game "series", rather than making it a best-of-three.  Just think of this scenario, using the Mets as an example.

In 2000, the Mets won the wild card by a wide margin.  With a 94-68 record, the Mets finished the year 26 games above .500.  No other competitor for the wild card finished more than 10 games above the break even point.  Of course, under the new system, the 86-76 Dodgers would have qualified for the playoffs as the NL's second wild card team.  Clearly, the Mets had an excellent season, as they finished only one game behind the first place Atlanta Braves in the NL East.  But anything can happen in a one-game playoff, a game they would have been forced to play under the new rules.

What if the Mets had used their best pitchers to try to win the division and then had to use their No. 5 starter in the one-game wild card playoff?  The 86-win Dodgers could definitely have ended the Mets' season in 2000, especially if they would be able to use either of their top two pitchers (Kevin Brown and Chan Ho Park combined to go 31-16 with a 2.92 ERA in 2000) in the do-or-die matchup.  The Mets might still be searching for their fourth pennant had these new rules been in place at the dawn of the millennium.

My colleague is a good man, and he usually has great baseball sense.  But by agreeing with Bud Selig and saying that the extra wild card teams will be good for baseball, he has as much sense as Jerry Manuel had during his post-game laugh-a-paloozas after the latest Mets' blowout loss.

I'm not your typical baseball traditionalist, but I do know that changing the current playoff format will not be good for baseball.  It will dilute the playoff punch and may lead to good wild card teams being knocked out by mediocre wild card teams because they couldn't win one game.

In football, any team can win on any given Sunday.  In baseball, any team will now be able to win in any given one-game wild card playoff game.  It's not good for those deserving wild card teams and as a result, it won't be good for baseball.

Why I Like The Extra Wild Card

With a wave of his mighty finger, Bud Selig recently announced that Major League Baseball has expanded its playoff format, going from an eight-team postseason to ten.  Fans everywhere have been discussing why they like or dislike the change.  I am on the "like" side of the fence, although my Studious Metsimus colleague, Joey Beartran, is not.  (That's okay.  We're still cool.)

I have a few reasons why I believe the addition of two wild card teams will be beneficial for baseball.  Hopefully, after you read them, you'll be on my side of the fence as well.

In all of the other major sports, mediocre teams are constantly winning championships or making it to the final round or game.  Just this past month, the New York Giants won the Super Bowl after going 9-7 in the regular season.  This came one year after the Seattle Seahawks won the NFC West with a 7-9 record and defeated the defending Super Bowl champion New Orleans Saints in the playoffs.

In the NBA, the 1980-81 Houston Rockets advanced to the NBA Finals despite finishing the regular season with a losing record (40-42).  Had the Rockets lost to their opponent in the Western Conference Finals, the Kansas City Kings, there still would have been a team in the finals with a losing record, as the Kings finished the regular season with an identical 40-42 mark.  The Rockets' magical ride ended in the NBA Finals, where they lost to the Boston Celtics in six games.  The '80-'81 Rockets were one-upped by two teams in hockey.

The 1948-49 Toronto Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup after finishing the 60-game regular season with a 22-25-13 record.  But eleven years before their unlikely Stanley Cup victory, they lost the championship round to a team that was even worse during the regular season.  In 1938, the Chicago Black Hawks (they didn't become the one-word Blackhawks until the 1986-87 campaign) defeated the Maple Leafs to win the Stanley Cup.  This unlikely title came on the heels of a 14-25-9 regular season.  That's right.  The Black Hawks won only 14 of their 48 regular season games, yet they still skated away with the Cup.

While I don't think teams with losing records should win championships, I do think teams with excellent regular seasons should be allowed to compete for the title.  In 1993, the last non-strike season before the advent of the wild card in baseball, the San Francisco Giants failed to make the playoffs despite finishing the regular season with a 103-59 record.  Six years later, the Cincinnati Reds won 96 regular season games, but failed to win their division or the wild card.  (The Mets defeated them in a one-game playoff to clinch the wild card berth.  Yay!)

Even with the two extra playoff teams, Major League Baseball will still have the fewest teams qualifying for the playoffs in the four major sports.  Only one-third of the teams in baseball will be invited to the postseason party, as opposed to 12 in football and 16 each in basketball and hockey.  For most teams, a 90-win season would be considered a success.  But I'm sure the 90-win Braves would not consider 2011 to be a successful season.  Good teams deserve to be rewarded for their performance over the full 162-game campaign.  The extra wild card should provide that.

Another reason why I'm in favor of the second wild card is that it will encourage teams to win their division as opposed to just settling for the wild card.

Too many teams in the past have given up on the division title (cough cough, 2010 Yankees, cough cough) to rest their players if they had the wild card to fall back on.  Now, with the possibility of their season ending in a one-game, do-or-die wild card game, teams that can still win their division will go all out to win that hat and T-shirt awarded to division champions.  Those clothes will not only signify that the team has won a championship (in this case, a division title), but will give them a chance to play in an actual playoff SERIES instead of a playoff GAME, which will give them a better chance to win the World Series.

Division champions should have an easier route to the World Series, as too many wild card teams have won it all over the years.  (Since 1995, a total of ten wild card teams have played in the Fall Classic, with five of them winning it all, including last year's Cardinals.)  Now, if a wild card team wins the World Series, they will have truly earned it, needing to win an extra postseason game and having to do so without being able to set up their starting rotation in the way they would want.

Without question, the addition of an extra wild card team in each league is a good thing for baseball.  It'll provide fans with more excitement during the season's final month and give division champions a better chance to win the World Series.  I can't be more in favor of this new playoff format.

What If There Had Been Two Wild Cards Since 1995?

Beginning with this year's postseason, more teams will be getting wild in the fall.  Major League Baseball has approved the addition of two playoff teams, with one extra team in each league crashing the playoff party in October.

There will now be a total of ten teams qualifying for the postseason, with each of the six division winners receiving a first-round bye.  The remaining wild card teams (two in each league) will face each other in a one-game do-or-die playoff for the right to advance to the division series, where they will play a best-of-five series against the team with the league's best record.

Last year, in a scintillating final day of the regular season, the Atlanta Braves and Boston Red Sox were eliminated from playoff contention after leading their respective leagues' wild card races for most of September.  Under the new postseason format, both teams would have been involved in the new one-game playoff.

The last time baseball expanded its playoff format was in 1994, although the players' strike delayed its implementation until the following season.  So how would the Mets have fared had this year's new playoff format been in place since 1995?  And which team would have made the most playoff appearances since the National League split up into three divisions?

Expansion of the playoffs calls for expansion of our research, and we found some interesting information on what the National League playoffs would have looked like going back to 1995.  We'll begin with the most recent season (2011) and work our way backwards, with the team that won the wild card listed first followed by the team that didn't make the playoffs, but would have made it under the new system.  We'll also list the team or teams that were directly behind the club that would've been the second wild card and how many games back they were to determine if there would have been a tight race for the second wild card spot.  We'll begin now before we end up confusing ourselves.


2011: St. Louis vs. Atlanta.  Runner-up: San Francisco (3 GB)

2010: Atlanta vs. San Diego.  Runner-up: St. Louis (4 GB)

2009: Colorado vs. San Francisco.  Runners-up: Florida (1 GB), Atlanta (2 GB)

2008: Milwaukee vs. New York.  Runners-up: Houston (2½ GB), St. Louis (3 GB)

2007: Colorado vs. San Diego.  Runner-up: New York (1 GB)

2006: Los Angeles vs. Philadelphia.  Runner-up: Houston (3 GB)

2005: Houston vs. Philadelphia.  Runners-up: New York (5 GB), Florida (5 GB)

2004: Houston vs. San Francisco.  Runner-up: Chicago (2 GB)

2003: Florida vs. Houston.  Runners-up: Philadelphia (1 GB), St. Louis (2 GB), Los Angeles (2 GB)

2002: San Francisco vs. Los Angeles.  Runner-up: Houston (8 GB)

2001: St. Louis vs. San Francisco.  Runner-up: Chicago (2 GB)

2000: New York vs. Los Angeles.  Runners-up: Cincinnati (1 GB), Arizona (1 GB)

1999: New York vs. Cincinnati.  Runner-up: San Francisco (10 GB)

1998: Chicago vs. San Francisco.  Runner-up: New York (1 GB)

1997: Florida vs. New York/Los Angeles.  Runner-up: New York/Los Angeles (Even)

1996: Los Angeles vs. Montreal.  Runner-up: Colorado (5 GB)

1995: Colorado vs. Houston.  Runner-up: Chicago (3 GB)

The Mets' run to the playoffs in 1999 would have been much easier under the new format.

Opponents of the extra wild card point to the final day of the 2011 season.  Had the dual wild card format been in place last year, both the Cardinals and Braves would have qualified for the postseason, with the Giants finishing three games behind the Braves for the second wild card spot.  There would have been no drama on the season's final day because both St. Louis and Atlanta would have already clinched a spot in the wild card playoff game.  But looking at what the National League wild card races would have looked like under 2012 playoff rules, there would have a number of instances of Game No. 162 being for all the marbles.

In five seasons (1998, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2009), the second wild card team finished a mere one game ahead of the team directly behind them.  In one instance (2000), two teams finished a game behind the team that would have been the second wild card.

There still would have been a season in which two teams would have tied for the second wild card berth.  In 1997, the Mets and Dodgers would have played a Game No. 163 to determine who would face the Florida Marlins in the wild card playoff game.

In 12 of the last 17 years, the race for the second wild card would have gone down to the season's final weekend, as the second wild card team had no more than a three-game lead over their closest competitors at season's end. 

Only twice (1999, 2002) in the 17-year history of the wild card would there have been no race for the second wild card during the final week of the regular season.  In each of the other 15 seasons, the team that finished directly behind the second wild card team finished within five games of that coveted spot.

The San Francisco Giants would have benefited the most had the two wild card format been in place since 1995, as they would made four extra trips to the playoffs (1998, 2001, 2004, 2009).  No other team would have been guaranteed more than two additional trips to the postseason.  (The Dodgers would have won the second wild card in 2000 and 2002, but they would have finished tied with the Mets for the additional wild card berth in 1997, needing to win a play-in game against New York to make the playoffs.)

More teams will be celebrating like this beginning in October.

 
In the mid-'90s, baseball purists denounced the wild card, claiming that if a team wasn't good enough to win their division, then they shouldn't be allowed to play for a World Series title.  A decade and a half later, those same people were overwhelmingly in favor of the format.

This year a second wild card team will be added to the mix.  Yet again, some people are not in favor of the change.  But looking at what this change would have done for pennant races had it been in place since 1995, it shouldn't take long for these new opponents to change their minds.  After all, you can never get too wild in baseball.

Listen Up, Bud! Expansion Can Fix It All!

Earlier today, Bud Selig announced the sale of the Houston Astros to Jim Crane.  As part as the deal, the Astros will move from the National League Central to the American League West, creating six five-team divisions and leaving the Mets as the sole 1962 expansion team left in the National League.

In addition, there will be an extra wild card team per league no later than 2013 and perhaps as early as next season.  This would increase the playoff field from eight to ten teams, with the wild card teams facing each other in an elimination game or best-of-three series, although Selig prefers the one game format.

Although the Astros' move to the American League finally ends the disparity between the two leagues, with each league now possessing an equal number of teams, it also creates the need for interleague play throughout the season.

Can you imagine if the hotly contested American League East was decided by the Pittsburgh Pirates?  What if the National League wild card winner was determined by a late season game featuring the Kansas City Royals?  It could happen, as at least one pair of teams would have to conclude their season by playing an interleague game.

One of the reasons why there are no interleague matchups after the All-Star Break is to preserve the integrity of each league's playoff races.  Teams competing for postseason berths should have as many head-to-head matchups as possible as the games dwindle to a precious few.  Having to stick in an interleague matchup in September would be a detriment to the excitement generated by late season playoff pushes.

I have a potential solution to this problem.  Can you say "expansion", boys and girls?

Without expansion, we might all be Yankee fans.  Hooray, expansion!

The first wave of expansion occurred in 1961, when the Washington Senators and Los Angeles Angels joined the American League.  Since then, the longest gap between expansion periods has been 16 years, as Major League Baseball didn't add any teams between 1977 (Toronto and Seattle) and 1993 (Colorado and Florida).

No new teams have begun play since 1998, when Arizona and Tampa Bay became the 29th and 30th franchises in the majors.  With no expansion on the immediate horizon, it appears likely that the aforementioned 16-year gap between expansion periods will be surpassed.

Major League Baseball is ready for more expansion.  North Carolina is represented in all of the major professional sports except baseball.  The NFL (Carolina Panthers), NBA (Charlotte Bobcats) and NHL (Carolina Hurricanes) have all set up shop in the Tar Heel state.  Why not baseball?  As of now, there is no major league franchise between Washington and Atlanta.  Expanding into Charlotte or Raleigh would give fans in the Carolinas their own team to root for, instead of having to settle for a team hundreds of miles to the north (Nationals) or south (Braves).

Another area that could potentially be a suitor for a major league franchise is Vancouver.  As things currently stand, Seattle is the city that is furthest from its closest geographical rival.  Every time the Mariners leave the Emerald City for a road trip, they have to travel quite a distance.  Their "shortest" trip would take them to Oakland, a mere 680.7 miles away, according to sportmapworld.com.  Adding a major league franchise in Vancouver would give the Mariners a much more natural geographical rival located only 140 miles away.  Also, a team in Vancouver would give Canada its second team, filling the void that was created when the Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals.

In addition to the Carolinas and Vancouver, other cities/metropolitan areas that could potentially become destinations for an expansion franchise include Portland (Oregon), Las Vegas, Indianapolis and Memphis.

So if baseball expands to 32 teams, what would this do to the league and divisional structure and how would this affect the postseason?

Baseball could adopt a structure similar to the one currently used by the NFL, creating eight four-team divisions.   The American League and National League would have 16 teams in four divisions, with one expansion team joining the AL and the other becoming the newest member of the NL.

Unlike the NFL, where 12 teams crash the postseason party, only 10 teams would make the playoffs in baseball.  Each of the eight division winners would qualify for October baseball, plus two wild card teams (one in each league).  The division winner with the poorest record would play the wild card team in the opening round (no more than best-of-three) and the other division winners would receive an opening round bye.  The winner of the opening round would then play the team with the league's best record in the next round, with the other division winners squaring off against each other.

By having only one wild card team per league, it would allow for fewer second place teams to potentially win a championship.  Since the advent of the wild card in 1995, only five non-division winners have gone on to win the World Series (1997 Marlins, 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins, 2004 Red Sox, 2011 Cardinals).  A team good enough to play in the World Series should also be good enough to outperform its division rivals over a 162-game season.  By not having multiple wild card teams per league, a division winner has a better chance to reach the Fall Classic.  The World Series should always feature the best teams in the sport, not second fiddles who just happened to get hot at the right time.

Also, by having the division winner with the poorest record play an extra playoff series against the wild card winner, it creates less complacency for teams after they've clinched the division title.  Many times (see 2011 Phillies, 2011 Yankees) a team has wrapped up their division weeks before the end of the regular season.  As a result, they coast to the finish line, abandoning the style of play that helped them win their division in the first place.  If the spectre of a potential extra playoff series were to loom on a division winner, they'd play hard until season's end, giving fans competitive baseball from Game No. 1 to Game No. 162.

Starting in 2013, the American League and National League will have the same number of teams for the first time since 1997.  However, with each league having an odd number of teams (15), the need for interleague play on a daily basis will become a reality.  As a result, a division title or wild card berth in one league might be determined by what the contending team does against the other league.

In addition to the realignment of the two leagues, Bud Selig wants to create excitement and have meaningful baseball games at the end of the regular season by adding a second wild card team to each league no later than 2013.

There is one way to generate such excitement in late September and it's not with interleague baseball to determine division titles.  Major League Baseball should expand to 32 teams in the near future and create two leagues with four divisions of four teams apiece.  By putting the focus on winning a division title instead of settling for the wild card and making division leaders play hard for all 162 games by adding the possibility of having to play an extra playoff series, Selig would give fans the best product possible.  Now that's baseball like it oughta be!