Add a Second Wild Card?

[Valadius]

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:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/tom_verducci/09/25/wild.card/index.html

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]

Ugh.

[Guest sharpie]

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]

...

[metirish]

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.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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

[Frayed Knot]

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!!

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

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]

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]

] ]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

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Guest sharpie]

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).

[Guest Edgy DC]

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]

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.

[Guest sharpie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.