Add a Second Wild Card?

[Frayed Knot]

Also, if there is a low/mid-80s win team it's probably more likely to be a division winning club than the WC.
The WC team MUST be one of the top 4 teams in the league. Not so with the div winner each year ('73 Mets, '00 Yanx, '06 Cards, '07 Cubs)

[Benjamin Grimm]

How about this then?

Two leagues, no divisions.

At the end of the season, the fourth and fifth place team play a best of three series.

The winner of that series goes on to play a best of five against the first place team.

The second place and third place teams also play a best of five.

The winners of the two series play a best of seven for the League Championship.

You still have your five playoff teams, but now you're absolutely certain that only the teams with the best records make the playoffs.

The teams that are forced to play the first round are at a real disadvantage because the winner has to play a team that's had three days of rest.

The first place team's advantage over the second and third place teams, in addition to home field, is that they get to play a tired team while the number 2 and 3 teams are each playing a rested opponent.

[Guest Edgy DC]

My point in saying people would be barking isn't that I don't support the idea --- don't like wildcards, and, if they must exist, like the disadvantage of forcing them through a play-in game --- but to question why yesterday's game should have anything to do with the decision.

Selig's administration has already made too many integrity-of-the-schedule type decisions shortsightedly.

[Frayed Knot]

So here's what 12 years worth of using the double-WC format would have looked like:


1996:
NL: The 90 win Dodgers were actual WC (lost West by 1 game) - they would have been joined in a 1-game playoff by the 88-win Expos
AL: Baltimore w/88 wins was the WC winner - [u:5172c5126b]3 teams[/u:5172c5126b] were tied w/85

1997:
NL: Marlins 92 - Mets & Dodgers 88 - a play-in to get to the play-in!
AL: Yankees 96 - Angels 84 ... Big gap here, but without it the Yanx went into cruise control most of September because they had no incentive to catch Baltimore for the East

1998:
NL: Cubs & Giants tied for WC with 89 wins so things played out just as they would have with the double-WC system in place
AL: WC winner was BoSox w/92 wins - joined by the [u:5172c5126b]3rd place[/u:5172c5126b] Blue Jays w/88

1999:
NL: Mets w/96 - Reds w/96 ... In other words, exactly as it turned out anyway
AL: BoSox 94 - A's 87

2000:
NL: Mets 94 - Dodgers 86 ... Biggest NL gap from this period. Would have given the Mets extra incentive to catch the Braves who finished just 1 game ahead (or, to look at it another way, a bigger penalty for NOT catching them)
AL: Mariners 91 - Indians 90 .... Mariners lost the West to Oakland by � game. A's never played game 162 because they would have won a tie-breaker anyway. THAT would have changed. Both teams, btw, much better than the 87-win eventual champs.

2001:
NL: Cards 93 - Giants 90 ... Cards lost Central to Houston on tie-breaker. Again, no play-in game used because it was deemed unnecessary.
AL: A's 102 - Twins 85 ... The biggest gap during this whole period, due mainly to Seattle's 116 win season draining so may wins from most other AL clubs

2002:
NL: Giants 95 - Dodgers 92 ... 2nd & 3rd place teams
AL: Angels 95 - Sox/Mariners 93 ... a play-in to get to the play-in!

2003:
NL: Marlins 91 - Astros 87 ... league also had teams with 86, 85, 85, 84 & 83 wins
AL: Red Sox 95 - Mariners 93

2004:
NL: Astros 92 - Giants 91
AL: Red Sox 98 - A's 91

2005:
NL: Astros 89 - Phils 88
AL: Red Sox 93 - Indians 93 ... Boston lost East via tie-breaker

2006:
NL: Dodgers 88 - Phils 85
AL: Tigers 95 - White Sox 90 ... 2nd & 3rd place teams

2007:
NL: Rockies 89 - Padres 89 ... would have played out the same
AL: Yankess 94 - Tigers/Mariners 88 ... another play-in to get to the play-in

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

That's 12 good arguments for it, IMO.

[Frayed Knot]

24 actually.
Or maybe more like 20 of the 24. There's a few there where the gap is big between curtain #1 and curtain #2, but a gap like that is just as likely to occur getting to the 1st WC team:
ex; NL 1998 -- Div winners = 106, 102, 98 wins ... WC = 88


The thing is, I've always been somewhat amused by those who claim to love the WC system but then immediately set out trying to devise ways of preventing those WC teams from advancing. I've heard everything from fewer - or NO! - home games (a red herring mostly) to forcing them to play with smaller rosters or even given run handicaps to start each game!

My view is that if you're upset about them advancing then don't let them in, and if you let them in then you need to treat them like they belong there. The rest of this sounds like; 'we'll let you in, but you have to use the kitchen entrance'.

At least the 2-team system would provide a non div-winning playoff wannabe with a REAL roadblock to contend with and then treat them as an equal partner if they passed that, albeit one that had to play an extra game and expend maybe their top pitcher just to get there.


Selig, btw, said this plan has been talked about in his circle but didn't seem to close to adding it.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I still like my single-division, first-through-fifth plan (or is it a scheme?) better.

[Frayed Knot]

I've always disliked single-division yet multiple-playoff team formats.
You'd have to get rid of regional rivalries & institute totally balanced scheduling because otherwise teams would be vying for the same prize despite playing radically different competition. Then there's also the notion that you play all year for the purpose of proving that one team is better than the other (which is better than the next, and so on) only to be told that we're going to prove it all over again with short series. At least with divisions & leagues it's a case where you go win yours and I'll win mine then we'll wipe the slate clean and butt heads to see who's best.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Five teams from one "division" (is it a division if nonthing is divided) turns much of the regular season into an NHL-like meaningless pretext for most teams. If you're in second in August, will you grind it out in attempt to reach first and avoid third, or will you take it easy and try and get your players healthy?

MLB is married to keeping teams within their time zone as much as possible --- they're probably right on that one --- so a monolithic league would either have to bag that have each team playing different schedules while competing for the same prize.