Let’s Improve the Wild-Card Round
Since the second Wild Card was introduced in 2012, Major League Baseball has enjoyed most of what the expanded playoff field has done for the game. The extra playoff berth has made division titles significantly more important. Winning a division outright allows a team to bypass the play-in game to advance into the October tournament. The second Wild Card has also created two more playoff races, allowing the majority of clubs to retain some plausible chance of reaching the postseason into the second half.
The Wild Card play-in game has also made for some compelling television, manufacturing two made-for-TV elimination games.
But the new format isn’t without its flaws, the most prominent of which, in the opinion of this author, is this: the No. 1 Wild Card can be a significantly better team than the No. 2 Wild Card but is nevertheless subject to playing in something of a coin-flip game after the grind of a 162-game season. It can be pretty unfair to have, say, a 98-win team lose to an 86-win team in a one-game playoff.
The addition of the second Wild Card pulled off an unlikely feat, increasing the importance of the regular season in some ways (by making division titles more meaningful) but also decreasing it in others (by possibly allowing a mediocre club into the postseason).
Many have proposed alternatives, which uniformly include expanding the Wild Card round. Of course, the calendar is an issue: northern cities can get quite cold by the end of October. There’s also the issue of waiting — that is, the sort of waiting a divisional winner is compelled to endure while the identity of their opponent is determined.
Cubs president Theo Epstein told the Chicago Tribune back in 2015 that he had proposed a best-of-three format which included a doubleheader to reduce the days involved.
Beyond the time involved, another significant problem with going to a best-of-three or best-of-five format is that it doesn’t change the odds all that much of a No. 1 seed avoiding an upset. With all other factors being equal, the home team in baseball has a 54% chance to win any one game. My handy binomial probability calculator suggests, in that case, that the lower Wild Card seed would have a 44.0% chance to emerge from a best-of-three format (if all games were on the road) and a 41.3% chance of emerging from a best-of-seven series. The numbers, in other words, don’t change appreciably.
Of course, these are just generic calculations using evenly matched clubs. Teams aren’t built equally, situations aren’t equal. The point is that, even if baseball extended the Wild Card round to a best-of-three or best-of-five series, there’s only a marginally less likely chance of ending up with an upset. And the games would lose the drama of single-elimination game while extending the postseason calendar.
But what if I told you there was a way to give the No. 1 Wild Card a much greater advantage while keeping the Wild Card round to one day? Would you be interested? I thought so.
The solution already exists in the real world, in practice, in the Korea Baseball Organization. In South Korea, the Wild Card round is a best-of-two affair. The lower seed, the road team in both potential games, must beat the No. 1 seed twice. The top seed must win just once to advance.
This is a rather elegant and simple solution to the problem.
While a best-of-three series reduces the chance of an upset by just a few percentage points, from 46.0% to 44.0%, the KBO format reduces the percentage chance of an upset from 46.0% to 21.1%.
And while this new Wild Card round could be spread out over two days, baseball could also utilize a doubleheader to keep the Wild Card round condensed to one day in each league. That would add further drama, with managers forced to decide which Game 1-employed relievers could possibly pitch again.
It would give the Wild Card round more of an NCAA Tournament feel, it would create more chaos, which is fun for those observing from the outside. It wouldn’t allow one ace pitcher to eliminate a higher-seeded team.
It would create more fairness for those No. 1 Wild Cards that had produced much stronger regular-season resumes than No. 2 Wild Cards. Moreover, close races between No. 1 and No. 2 Wild Cards would offer more meaningful baseball in late September. It would create, essentially, another postseason race.
The second Wild Card has made the game more interesting. It’s not perfect, but it’s close. It just needs a little help.
A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.
Funny how these things become important when they hurt the Yankees.
The argument against the current WC system is brought up annually, and it’s a fair one to keep bringing up so long as this system is in place
I agree, ARod, but Bud Selig and his cronies have been so busy patting themselves on the back for this system that it seems most people have bought it. Even most of the pundits and so-called experts love it.
Except for the part where it would benefit the Yankees this year?
LoL what difference does that make? I kind of doubt it will be put in effect for THIS year, so the Yankees’ position THIS year is more than a little irrelevant.
IMO, the appropriate format is the one which benefits the Yankees in any particular year.
Since when is hurting the Yankees a bad thing?
Regulator Johnson-The Yankees are the #1 wild card. The proposed rule change would benefit them, not hurt them. If there’s one thing I hate more than a whiny little bitch crybaby, it’s a STUPID whiny little bitch crybaby.
A friendly reminder to always sort the comments by “Newest.” You’ll avoid the first-mover trolls.
Great format, but I would layer it. If the two wild cards have the same record, they play one winner-take-all. If their records are separated by 1-3 games, the lower seed must win 2 of 2. If their records are separated by 4 or more games, the lower seed would need to win 3 of 3. In the latter two formats, the first day would feature a double header. In the 3 of 3 format, a single, winner-take-all would be played the next day.
Such a format would not only disadvantage the second wild card, but, should more than one game be played, also give the number one seed a potential advantage over whichever team advances.
I’m not sure why this idea is getting downvotes. My mind went to exactly the same place as yours did: Travis’s solution here solves the problem where the difference between the first and second WC teams is big, but it creates a problem where the two WC teams are roughly equal.
If the two teams finish with a tied record, or a one game difference, giving one team a (roughly) 4-to-1 advantage over the other is rather unfair. If the season ended today, the gap between the NL WC teams is 6 games, and in the AL it’s 7 games. So that’s significant.
But last year, both leagues had ties for the two wild card positions, with home field advantage being decided by secondary means (records against each other, home-road records, etc). A 79%-21% probability seems very lopsided. And given the fact that both WC games were tied headed into the 9th inning, the less advantage you could confer to those games, the better.
It received downvotes (and should have stayed there) because it’s a terrible idea. A one game difference is far too low a threshold to impose such an onerous penalty, especially given unbalanced schedules. There is no need to do anything on behalf of the higher wild card team given that they are already playing at home and probably didn’t have to push quite as hard during the last week of the regular season as the second wild card. The entire point of adding the second wild card was to reduce the value of the first wild card and place more value on winning your division.
This scenario (and probably any scenario involving multiple games) would hurt the division winners because the WC1 wouldn’t necessarily need to burn their ace. They could throw their number 2 for game one and if they win, they still have their ace ready to go in the division series.
Currently, the biggest advantage of playing the WC winner is because they most likely burned their ace in the WC game.
On the other hand, if they *do* have to use him, they’ve now burned their number one AND number two, giving a big edge to the division winner that faces them.
It’s a clever idea, but the current format has a simplicity and elegance I prefer.
This works for situations where the first wild card is significantly better than the second, but that won’t always be the case, yes? What if they’re tied? Or separated by only a game, and run differential/baseruns/projections/some more subjective analysis about how the teams are actually constituted at the end of the season suggests that the second wild card is the stronger team? Haven’t bothered to check the actual record but my sense is that the two wild card teams are usually pretty similar in terms of talent, as things have actually tended to play out. We haven’t had many 98 vs. 86 play-in games.
Those 54%/46% odds reflect the assumption that the two teams are equally strong, right? If that’s true, then it shouldn’t really bother us that the “weaker” team might advance; if it’s not true then the odds aren’t so even.
The odds arent close because the teams are equally strong, the odds are close because random variation! Hell, a 90 win team playing a 75 win team would have odds of 59%/41%.
But I don’t really think the point of this would be to make sure that the better team moves on, as you mention there are many things that influence a team’s record that doesn’t reflect the true talent of the team. The purpose of this change would be to reward the team that had the better regular season.
My thought as well in 2015 we had a 98 win vs a 97 win in the NL and 87 vs 86 in the AL. You wouldnt want to stack the deck for the team with 1 extra win. In 2016 both WC matchups had identical records.
The main issue with the 1 game playoff is the ace effect where it overly rewards a team with 1 great SP. The only way to avoid this and not punish the other team greatly is the 3 game format.
Yes, but an ace who isn’t available for several DS days. Add in more games (but not more days) and the WC team is starting their #4 and #5 starters. Add more days and the #1 seed is on long rest.
The problem with 2015 is the real issue. A 98 or a 97 win team was eliminated on day one. When the real wild card game should have been between the 90 win Mets and the 92 win Dodgers. This doesn’t seem to happen often but it is dumb that it does. Travel has improved enough that we don’t need divisions and an unbalanced schedule, if it is that much of a problem realign like the NBA but as long as the luck of your division determines the playoffs the system is going to be broken.
Just last season the WCs were held by teams with an identical record. Blue Jay/Orioles (89) and Giants/Mets (87). Would have been very harsh on the team losing the tie-breaker to have to win twice on the road.
True, but I think it works for all situations in which the No. 1 WC is 1+ games better than the No. 2 WC
Sorry Travis but this isnt a good idea. The 3 game series all played in team #1’s park is the better concept.
It also only adds 1 day to the schedule as the current format has the WC game on two different days. They can all start on Tuesday and end in time for weekend division series.
Eh, I view teams within 5 or so wins of each other to be fairly similar in talent, especially with unbalanced schedules. It still seems too harsh unless there’s a 10+ win difference.
What is the upset percentage for five game and seven game series? I always here the higher seed is favored but by how much?
MLB would never sanction a day-night doubleheader for a playoff round. It’d be harder to put on TV and would make it harder to logistically pull off two sell-outs since the possibility of extra-innings would push back the reopening of the stadium.
Also, there would be a ~55% chance that the night game doesn’t even happen. That alone makes this a nonstarter.
Which sucks because the atmosphere for a one-day elimination game with a potential double-header would be fun as hell
21% feels too low. If we must weight the game (and I don’t think we really need to, to be honest – we don’t worry about the regular season record in the subsequent rounds) then we could just give WC1 a one-run start which would give WC2 about a 36% chance of progressing.
Yes, but their not playing baseball.
I like it because it is fun and different. But it would seem weird to me that the wild card round has a smaller chance of an upset than the divisional or world series.
Just no. There is nothing wrong with having only a slight advantage once you make it to the playoffs (home field advantage) after 162 games. Once teams make it to the playoffs there should be more equal ground. What needs to change is to start having some back to back games in the playoffs, they don’t need an off day after every game. Always having an off day significantly changes the way the teams play with their pitching. It shouldn’t be that different from the regular season.
They already have back to back games. The only time they get breaks is for travel days and between series. What do you think this is, the NBA?
I double checked, you are mostly correct, I’ll take a hit for that. But I stand by the idea that other advantages don’t need to be given. As long as you qualify for the playoffs you are in, no reason for major advantages.
Love your stuff generally, Travis. Don’t usually bother to thank you for your efforts. Thanks very much.
That said, I strongly disagree here. I’m no fan of the wild card to begin with. I don’t think a 98-win team which finishes behind a 99-win team playing the same schedule is entitled even to compete for a championship. The wild card teams are awarded a made-for-TV game to enhance league profits. OK, fine. But I don’t feel that they’re due anything more in the name of fairness.
I don’t much care if the surviving WC team does so via one game, three, or seven. But let’s not forget that under Bud’s original one-WC system, there was effectively no difference between finishing 1st and 2nd in a division, if the 2nd-place team was assured a WC berth. One division race in each league was completely eradicated. Please, don’t do anything to cut into the advantage a division winner earns by outplaying the better WC team over the course of a full season.
Outplaying or outlucking?
Wait, why do we want to reduce the chance for an upset?
The post-season is a tournament, it’s interesting BECAUSE there’s a high chance of upset. If you’re interested in maintaining that “NCAA Tourney” feel, all you have to do is NOT give advantages to the better teams.
I wasn’t sure here whether he meant the way-way-more popular NCAA basketball tournament or the NCAA baseball tournament.
Except that the NCAA regular season isn’t all that meaningful relative to the regular season — unlike 162 games and 6 months of marathon in baseball. Regular season is supremely meaningful here
This seems like a solution in search of a problem. As mentioned by others, it is not always the case that WC1 >> WC2, and when that happens it’s WC2 that would be dealing with an “unfair” situation by having to win twice.
Also, frankly, I don’t see the claimed situation as really being all that unfair for WC1. If they are really that much better, their roster gives them an advantage. Also, since they have a significant lead they get the advantage of being able to rest players and line up their pitchers for the WC game in a way that WC2 probably does not. And, of course, the home field advantage.
Hell, I’ve read complaints that the Div#1 team suffers from a disadvantage in facing the WC winner because the 3-4 day layoff causes them to lose their edge.
Baseball has a lot of randomness. The “better” team loses all the time. Thus it has always been, thus it will always be!
They may not have the advantage of being able to rest players in fact the WC2 team very well may have that advantage. If the WC1 team has a very good record there is a strong chance they were in the division race down to the last days. Meanwhile the second wild card could have locked up a spot early and have been eliminated from their division race leaving them with nothing to play for.
Also true! Lots of situations exist where a system intended to grant advantage may, in fact, by unfair or even do the opposite of the intended.
I’m still trying to figure out the inherent unfairness angle. We ARE talking about two teams that did not win their divisions, right? Is it unfair for the team that was the first out of the WC game if they lost a tiebreaker? In years when potential WC3 is “close” to the WC2, should we have a third wild card?
If we are just worried about handicapping the wild card process, give the #1 wild card a run advantage at the start of the game, proportionate to the number of games they beat the #2 wild card by.
So a wild card team would be forced to burn its two best starting pitchers before playing the best team in its league? And this is supposed to make the playoffs *more* competitive?
It’s a wonderful plan if, to use this season as an example, you’re a Dodgers fan who would rather not be inconvenienced by your team having to face Greinke and Ray. Not sure how it helps anyone else.
Well, per your example, it would actually mean that DBacks fans get to see Ray pitch in a postseason game, if Greinke fucks up, and have a chance to make the NLDS.
the No. 1 Wild Card can be a significantly better team than the No. 2 Wild Card but is nevertheless subject to playing in something of a coin-flip game after the grind of a 162-game season. It can be pretty unfair to have, say, a 98-win team lose to an 86-win team in a one-game playoff.
Yes, they can also have identical (or close to it) records. Wouldn’t it be equally unfair to give such a proposed advantage if they are closely bunched? A summary of which scenario is more likely would support your argument. Perhaps your proposal gets triggered if there is x games of separation between the wild cards?
I just don’t see this as an issue – we all know the playoffs aren’t a big enough sample to necessarily crown the best team. They’re built for drama. Just don’t see this solution offering the requisite improvement in “fairness” to warrant a change. What if the wild card #1 has a better record than a division winner? Should they switch places? There’s all kinds of inequities in the current setup and this would do little to correct. Either completely reconstruct – remove divisions and make series best of 9 of 11 if the goal is to crown the best teams or live with the understanding that they aren’t setup for the best teams to win.
You obviously have a slanted view on this.
I like the current system, and I’m not overly concerned with tipping the scales in favor of a team that couldn’t win its division.
But should a 98 win team be worse off than an 87 win team because it “couldn’t win its division”?
I don’t get why this is an issue. Baseball is not fair, never has been. Not only that, “fair” hasn’t even really consistently been a goal of the MLB. The Yankees get the best strike zone, teams are able to spend whatever they want for players and are taxed for going over, but not restricted from spending. There’s a PED program in place that catches probably less than 10% of offenders.
We have a fun game that gets extra teams into the playoffs. Upsets are fun. Who cares if a team that loses a home game feels it’s unfair? If this is the logic than we should skip the world series altogether. The team with the best season record is the automatic winner.
WC1 coin flip to 2 game lead over WC2= one game playoff- but greater than 2 game lead goes like The Mighty Travis states- but it’s a potential doubleheader…
I’m a fan of the wildcard round, but not super excited about the format. I’d much prefer a four-division, no AL/NL (all DH) league with 8 wildcard teams. You can take the regular season down to 154 games with this format and inject revenue via higher ticket sales and playoff merch for the wildcard round.
Round 1 of the playoffs is the wildcard round. It will be seeded based on record. Wild card round finishes best of 3 games in 4 days. If you want to take a page from KBO let the higher seed host all three games and eliminate travel. Since we took the season down to 154 games, we’re already to the next Round by October.
#1 BYE
#5 v #12
#7 v #10
#4 BYE
#2 BYE
#6 v #11
#8 v #9
#4 BYE
Round 2 of the playoffs is the divisional round and is best of 5 and completes by 10/7. That leaves the Final 4 to play their best of 7 series as normal through the rest of October.
Just a thought.
This scenario would leave CLE, HOU, LAD and WAS as winners of the MLB North, South, West and East. While putting the Cubs, D’Backs,Rockies, Brewers, Red Sox, Yankees, Twins and Angels all in the playoffs (as of today).
Would leave playoff aspirations for Rangers, Rays, Orioles, Royals, Mariners and Marlins.
With all the terrific stories from all these teams think of all the narratives you get during the playoffs? Up and coming teams like the Brewers and Twins get in and fans get to see more of them. Mike Trout can actually be talked about playing meaningful playoff games. If the Marlins could sneak in you’d get to see more Stanton blasts. The Rockies pitching finally coming together.
So many great storylines and an opportunity for MLB to build the brand around more star players.
I think breaking up the NL/AL is just about the least likely thing to happen in baseball.
And baseball is doing a great job with their product? (They’re not)
Divisions are meaningless at this point, as is the distinction between leagues. It’s from a bygone era.
I for one welcome the baseball tournament to end the season.
“It’s so unfair that the 9th best college basketball team can win the title!” Said by nobody ever.
Once we stopped having two league winners compete all year to win their league in the regular season and put them in the World Series, the “best in the regular season” stopped mattering.
Embrace the tournament. The bygone era is long gone.
I respectfully disagree.
“ ‘It’s so unfair that the 9th best college basketball team can win the title!’ Said by nobody ever.”
Suggested correction: “said by nobody who rakes in a share of the money generated by the tourney.” Plenty of folks have lamented the unfairness that the 5th-best team in a conference can become the national champ.
The NCAA regular season means extremely little. Ditto for the NFL, NBA, & NHL. The expanded post-season produces more dollars, and that’s its purpose. I just personally prefer a meaningful regular season, and I’d like to retain as much of that as possible in MLB.
“It’s so unfair that the 9th best college basketball team can win the title!” Said by nobody ever.
Eh, “unfair” isn’t the word I would use. But “stupid” probably would be.
Jim, I think ending the leagues just won’t fly. But it’s absolutely true that fewer divisions and more wild cards will produce stronger playoff fields.
Many people think wild cards have diluted the field, but it’s really the #3 division winner that does so.
How about if WC1 has a 5 game lead, and beat WC2 in the season series, then you do the 2 game playoff?
If you don’t want to be subject to single-game elimination, then win your division. Compared to most of baseball history, a team that finishes in second place is lucky to even have the chance to advance.
Every day of September for the 1993 NL West race felt like an elimination day and the tension was awesome – for a month! 103 wins was not quite enough.
What they should do for the wild card game is cut the rosters to 21 players (maybe 22).
Randomly, sometimes teams will have very different records and basically get the same shot. This also happens with division winners. It’s not really a big deal. The second wild card exists to make division races interesting. It achieves that. I think it makes sense to leave it alone for a while.
If the second wild card existed one year earlier, September 28, 2011 would have been a much less interesting day for sure.
Yes, and as a Braves fan, that and the infamous outfield fly rule game were a tough juxtaposition to handle emotionally (seeing that we’d have easily been the sole WC under the old format). Obviously MLB saw how amazing that day was, and was like, “why don’t we just manufacture this every single season?” And at the same time, they were able to pump life back into pennant races, too. It really was a great idea from an entertainment standpoint, and arguably from a competitive standpoint, too.
“It can be pretty unfair to have, say, a 98-win team lose to an 86-win team in a one-game playoff”
WIN…YOUR…DIVISION.
And if you’re the second best team, lobby MLB to move you to an easier one that you would have won!
Seriously.
ALE teams spending the entire season deflating each other’s records harms the quality of the playoffs significantly.
WC1 typically wins 1-5% more games in the regular season. Having home field advantage gives them about an 8% edge in a one game playoff. Not sure why the WC1 should deserve a greater edge than the separation they typically get in the regular season. In addition, weakening the WC2 chances would likely make teams even less likely to invest in a wild card team. Having more teams trying to win in the regular season to me seems to greatly outweigh any slight on the WC1 team.
The wild card game is not about determining who the best team is. If it was, it wouldn’t exist as the regular season provided more evidence that both teams aren’t more than any 7 game or less series can.
I think this is a fantastic idea, at least when the teams aren’t tied in the standings. Do it!
I like it, for how it keeps interest through the regular season. “Fairness” in that the WC1 team deserves to win more often I don’t care about, but creating an advantage over WC2 helps keep a reason to care about being 1 versus 2.
If two different “doors” a team could take into the playoffs have the same chances of reaching the first series, then the stretch run deciding between the two becomes boring. Right now it’s WC1 versus WC2. Used to be WC versus division winner, which was even worse. Making all three — WC1, WC2, and division winner — play differently is good design.
While we’re talking playoff formats, here’s my radical idea: a flexible format that incentivizes winning no matter how high on the win curve you are.
In each league there are 8 “playoff points” that are distributed to teams proportional to the number of games they finish over .500. Each playoff point entitles you to a 12.5% chance of reaching the World Series. So 1 point gets you a play-in game, 2 points gets you a spot in the Division Series, and 4 points gets you to the Championship Series. A team with 3 points would get a playoff game against a team with 1 point to determine whether they advance directly to the Championship Series, or have to play in the Division Series.
I think there should be a balanced schedule initiated before tinkering with the format. If the WC teams are chosen on the basis of their overall records, it should also be that the teams go through a similar schedule.
Big fan of this idea. It simply adds more importance to winning as many games as possible throughout the season. Winning the division is obviously ideal, but if you end up drawing the short straw being in the same division as a juggernaut, the priority of finishing with the next best record is greatly enhanced. There will always be teams/fans upset, but imho, this would be a step in rewarding the total grind that is the regular season.
Excellent…and making it a doubleheader would create more dramatic opportunities for bench players…Tzu-Wei Lin puts the Red Sox into an ALDS in 2018 with a steal of home in the bottom of the second 12th inning of the day!
God, I hate all this gimmicky stuff. Why exactly does the higher WC need an advantage over the lower? What if the two teams have essentially the same record.
What history has shown is that each league tends to have 3-4 strong “championship worthy” teams in them. Under the previous format, you usually had the best field you could ask for. Occasionally a quality team was left out, and occasionally (usually only when a division was bad) you’d have a weak team get in, but the regular season served to prove which teams deserved a shot at a championship and then the playoffs fitted quality teams on an almost equal level.
In years such as 2003 and 2004, when arguably the two best teams in baseball were in the same division, you didn’t bend over backwards to punish the lesser record of the two, and baseball benefited from that.
Now, outside of the fun play-in games (which, however, ignores the years when we would still have a play-in game due to a tie for the WC), it’s virtually worse in every way. The races are often still crummy, and even when there is a race for the second WC it tends to be a race among mediocre squads, which isn’t compelling (look at this season, in which the stretch run is a yawn). I remember some epic races for the WC in the past, but that feeling has been muted with the second WC. We went backwards, not forwards.
Let’s not make the problem even worse with even bigger gimmicks. At this point, the most I’d go for would be to expand the playoffs by one team per league (six total with each), drop to two divisions per league, award the division winner a “bye”, and then have the other four teams per league involved in some sort of shorter round. That way, we reward the “better” teams, without idiotically awarding a benefit to the third place division winner, which is often not such a great team and not deserving of being elevated above the first WC. If not something like this, stick with what works or go back to the previous FAR SUPERIOR system.
I prefer a slight alternative to this suggestion. Why not play two games at the first wildcard’s home on consecutive days and aggregate the score? You’d give some additional weight to depth and give the better team two home games. Plus, there’d be consecutive days of playoff doubleheaders and the divisional round schedule would be unaltered.
Many soccer tournaments operate this way and have been successful.
At that point, there’s no reason to call them separate games: just make it a one-“game” series, but specify that the game should continue for a minimum of 18 innings rather than the usual 9, with a 21-hour “halftime break” or whatever.
You could look at it that way. The Champions League knockout stage consists of a match one week and a second match a week later and they track aggregate goals. This is a similar concept except with both games being played in the same stadium.
If it’s really that important that the better team advance, just eliminate the second wild-card. There. Problem solved.
We know Cameron is a pig fucker but sawcick probably is too
Let’s stop nickle and diming about the possible unfairness to a team that didn’t even win their division. It’s like arguing there should be 68 teams in the aforementioned NCAA tournament (which thankfully now there are, god forbid the 45th best team in the country’s case that it’s the best doesn’t get heard). If you want a fair shake, simply win your division. Otherwise be good enough to win the Wild Card game and deal with randomness of it (it is playoff baseball afterall). I know it’s sucked for Pirates fans but penalizing you for not winning your division with the uncertainly of maybe facing the Jake Arietta of 2 years ago is there whole point of the 2 team Wild Card system.
I like the one game “coin flip”. It’s been around a long time. Red Sox fans might not hate Bucky Dent as much if not for the one game playoff. Two of the best baseball games I’ve every seen were one game playoffs. A few years ago the Twin/Tigers game was awesome. About 30 years back the Indians beat the Yankees on a bunt single by the veteran catcher in the 9th that scored their speedy centerfielder from second.
How about a best of 3 with all games being played at the home of the team with the better record?
Why not use the soccer-style elimination rounds? Play two games. Game 1 is in the #2 seed park. Game 2 is the following day in the #1 seed park. Take the aggregate score to determine the winner. In case of a tie, use extra innings in the #1 seed park (Game 2) with the regular extra inning rules.
That way, every inning is important, there is a home-field advantage in case of a tie (and let’s face it, most WC games now are between pretty equal teams in the standings). It only makes it a day longer (or two).
I can’t say how much I hate this solution. I’d be open to a longer series but I don’t see any reason we should make it easier for the #1 WC than it already is. They have a small advantage presently and if they are actually a better team, the advantage is slightly larger (but still small).
It’s odd to start with the assumption that the problem with the current format is that the #1 WC doesn’t have a big enough advantage. Does anyone actually think that?
I think plenty of people think there’s a problem with the second or third best team in the league being forced into a coin flip with the fifth best team.
How about the number of games up on the 2nd WC teams is the number or runs that team start the game with? So a 1 game lead would mean the game starts 1-0 in the first place teams favor.
This would also give the #1 seed a huge advantage because the Wild Card team could potentially have to use their top 2 starters. Which would make the #1 seed a much bigger deal and perhaps create more intrigue.
Okay, the comments indicate this idea might not work, but I think we’ve stumbled upon another concept… weighting (initial) playoff series based on the difference between opponents’ records.
No sport has done this, but it would finally put some drama/intrigue to late-season games for teams that have runaway with divisions (baseball, basketball, and hockey).
Travis – Can you write up an article exploring this as a concept?
Over 162 games, with an unbalanced schedule, injuries, and after trades, what is actually “significant” in terms of who’s better?
Are the Angels, having lost Trout for a while, playing in the same division as the Astros, having acquired Justin Upton really THAT much worse than the Yankees?
The Yankees have had several breakouts (which may or may not be true talent level), mostly good health, and play in a division where BAL/TBR/TOR/BOS are probably worse than HOU/TEX/SEA/OAK.
NYY probably aren’t 10 games better, at full strength, all else equal.
Home field is enough of an advantage for 2 teams that are generally pretty close to equal.
I think Sawchik needed to generate some deadline content and just trolled everyone with a half-baked idea, knowing that playoff format articles are reliable clickbait fodder.
If the KBO wild card yields only a 21% chance of an upset, why bother? In four of five series it’s a predictable conclusion. Current system works fine and makes each game compelling. It also tends to reward the team that gets hot at the right time, like March Madness does. 2014 was a great year for the play offs, two WC teams going to the Series. It ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.
Wow, not much I can add to the comments in here.
I just think there is no reason to over-think this. The WC play-in game is weird and unfair, full stop. The way to improve the randomness of it (a little) is to make the team that advances have to win 2 games rather than 1. And give an advantage to WC1 (for having better record) by having this whole round (potentially 3 games) in the WC1 home. WC2 is the last team to sneak it’s way into the playoffs so their disadvantage is to play on the road.
Play on 3 consecutive days (if a 3rd game is needed) all with WC1 the home team.
This both legitimizes the round more, and also wounds whichever team that survives for the next round more than just the 1 game WC format does.
This is sort of close to Travis’s suggestion but it provides a clearer winner than the inevitable split of the 2 games.
I’m all about making it harder for the wild cards as long as they’re actually inferior teams, but nothing is worse than 2015, when both the Cubs and Pirates had better records than 27 other teams yet had to play in the do or die game.
I’d rather see the wild card round turned into a best of three series, following a 1/1/1 schedule, and allow the 1st WC to trade places with the weakest division winner if they have a better record. There are many years where the WC winds up with the 3rd or 4th best record in MLB. You may wbe concerned about not punishing them for not winning the division, but I’d rather not reward mediocre teams for winning crappy divisions
I don’t really get all the hand wringing about the wildcard being “unfair” to the team with the better record. Where does “fairness” come into play, it’s a sports competition with set rules, and you know the rules in advance. While you could argue the postseason product could be improved by making it more likely the actual “best” teams get in, framing that in terms of “fairness” has always been bizarre to me. You didn’t win your division, so if you want into the divisional series you have to beat the team with the next best record in a fairly random game. Why is this not fine? I think anything that pushes the divisional series out is a bad idea, even if it’s just 1 extra day, all the downtime for the division winner is most certainly not advantageous. If there’s anything in the playoffs I’d like to see changed, it’s the ALDS being only 5 games. This gives an advantage to teams that have top-heavy pitching rotations. Keep the wildcard a 1-game playoff, and make the division series 7 games like the ALCD and World Series would be something I’d like to see.
The solution is to follow the College World Series or World Baseball Classic.
Their should be a wild card tournament. It would work best if each league switched to 2 or 4 divisions, and would probably be best if the league expanded to 32 teams. But each league should send 6 teams, not the current 5 to the playoffs. The teams with the top 2 records in each league get a 1st round bye, like Football, rewarding a full seasons worth of excellence much more than just home-field advantage. The next 4 best teams in each league enter into the Wild Card Round. The Wild Card round is a 5 game round, double-elimination format. It is hosted in a neutral site. There would be an East Coast site and a West Coast site. The East Coast site would host the AL this year and the NL next year. The West Coast site would host the NL this year and the AL next year. This way no team has a competitive advantage. The host city would be a city that failed to make the playoffs and could be set on Sept 1, giving fans enough time to book hotels flights and enough time for the host city to make accommodation. For example, Atlanta this year knew they were not making the playoffs on Sept 1 could be the AL host site. And Oakland also knew their fate was sealed could be the NL host site. It also allows those markets to allow locals to see playoff baseball even though their team had a rough year. All 4 AL teams play at the same site for the 5 games. A double-header is played Day 1 at each site pitting Seeds 3-6 and seeds 4-5 at each location. Imagine instead of 1 game the first day of playoffs you get 4 games. East Coast would Host a 1pm EST(10am PST) start time and a 7:00pm EST(4PM PST Start time). West Coast would Host a 1pm PST(4pm EST) start time and a 7:00pm PST(10PM EST Start time). That way no one is overlapping the TV audience and there is enough time for stadium turnover to get a new gate for each game., which creates more revenue for owners and players alike! Day 2 is the losers bracket game and the winners bracket game. The loser of the losers bracket is 0-2 and is out of the playoffs. Usually if a team starts out 0-2 in any baseball playoff series they are doomed, unless they are playing the Oakland A’s. But at least they got two cracks at it, instead of running into a dominant pitching performance, like we’ve seen MadBum have in past Wild Card games. At least, the losing teams fans got two games to show for their 162 season run. The winner of the Winners bracket advances to the Division Series and will face the number 2 seed. The two remaining teams are both 1-1 and will face off on Day 3 at (7pm EST and 7pm PST) to maximize TV revenue in the winner take all games. And is off to face the 1 seed. Day 4 begins the ALDS and NLDS with the 2 Seed facing off the Wild Card Winners Bracket winner, which is now down their top 2 Starters and tired form the travel, even though they did enjoy a day off on Day 3. Still a much greater advantage for being one of the top 2 teams in the league rewarding regular season excellence more. Day 5 begins the 1 seed versus Wild Card Game 5 winner, who is now down their top 3 Starters, and likely has to throw the #4 arm in Game 1 on the road against the best team in the league, another advantage for the #1 seed. This creates a ton of action the 1st week of the playoffs, more revenue and incentive for regular season play. For logistics their should be tiebreakers for the 162 game season as opposed to game 163 so that everything goes off without a hitch, but if there were neutral sites and no travel had to be done. This is a Win-Win-Win for Baseball/Owners/Fans. Getting 1 playoff game for a couple years ago a 97 win season is an abomination. This at least gives you a fighters chance if you run into a stud pitcher and gives the teams that truly worked their tails an advantage and makes them more competitive towards season end as well especially if the 2 and 3 seed are tied going into the final game of the season. Its fun and should be implemented now!
I think this proposed format woulb too biased against the 2nd wildcard team. Especially in years where the 2 wildcard teams records are close.
Expansion is a more elegant (and fair) solution. 32 teams allow for multiple potential structures all more fair than today’s.
Go back to two divisions per league. I have no interest in seeing winners of weak, arbitrarily-defined five-team divisions automatically make into the quarterfinals of a sports championship.
In each league, the two winners of each division (East and West) get a bye, while the four next best record teams play in two best-of-three series with no days off for travel.
Padres would finish 2nd in the nl east. Its amazing how they went over their Vegas win total so early even playing in a division that has 3 playoff teams. WOW what a season, this team is awesome!! Andy Green should win manager of the year. Can we write about real stuff not something you thought of when you smoke too much weed. This isnt Fakegraphs… although it feels like it when i read Dave’s articles. It would be easy to argue that if they played in another division they would have won a least 5 more games by now.
The proposed advantage for the “better” team is far bigger than any that’s currently granted. That makes it too drastic for a “fairness” problem that’s been rare so far. Out of 10 Wild Card matchups so far:
— 4 had teams with identical records;
— 4 had teams separated by 1 win or loss; and
— The other gaps were 6 wins and 4 wins.
Yes, the current WC matchups have projected gaps of 6 wins each. But I think the rarity of such bulges isn’t a SS fluke; it’s baked into the 3-division structure.
I’d be uncomfortable with the proposed format being triggered by a mere 1-win edge. And there are further problems in the details:
Suppose a team that’s clinched a WC berth had a regular-season postponement that would not have to be made up under current rules, but was needed to decide this issue. The opponent would have little incentive to compete, which could make the game a farce. And if the opponent was another playoff team that would otherwise be resting, that’s unfair to them.
Lastly, making such an extreme effort to solve this particular “fairness” problem would make others more glaring — especially the fact that a division winner may have the worst record in a league’s playoff field (2012 Tigers and 2015 Mets), or even make the tourney over teams with better records (2012 Tigers over the Rays and Angels).
I think there are playoff “fairness” issues that deserve higher priority than a gap between wild cards. My top priority would be more favor for the #1 team in each league.
Here’s a ranking of playoff berths by average wins per 162 games in the 3-division era to date (1995-2016), including hypothetical WC #2 before 2012:
Berth — Wins/162g
Div #1 — 99.7
Div #2 — 94.6
WC #1 — 92.4
Div #3 — 90.5
WC #2 — 89.0
The biggest gap by far is from Div #1 to Div #2 (+5.1 wins) — almost as big as from Div #2 to the bottom berth (+5.6).
Div #1 gets home-edge throughout, plus an LDS matchup with the WC winner, who has likely used its top SP in the WC game. But on records alone, it’s not at all clear that this matchup is preferable. For instance, Div #3 has been notably weaker than WC #1, and even a hair worse than both WC combined:
All WC — 90.7
Div #3 — 90.5
There’s no way to predetermine an appropriately favorable matchup for Div #1, and letting them choose their LDS foe (which I’d favor) might be a hard sell. So why not give them a structural edge in the LDS?
Assuming MLB won’t accept *fewer* games, I’d make it something like this:
— Div #1 wins the LDS as soon as they win 3 games, while the WC must win either 3 of the first 4 games, or 4 total.
This would add at most one game to those LDS, and it needn’t lengthen the schedule, since there are ample off days. Game 6, if needed, would be played at Div #1.
I didn’t click on this one until after all the blood had already been spilled, but let’s just say I also disagree with Travis. There are lots of things that can be seen as “unfair” in MLB if this is the standard, and single elimination is awfully fun. I like it when the stakes are high in the playoffs.
The first thing that has to go is the divisions. Eliminating the divisions would not help much this year with the AL but it would close the gap a bit in the NL where the Cubs would likely face the wild card 2. The real problem is that it is the D-backs who have to play the wild card game because they happen to be in the division with the Dodgers but the Cubs get a pass because they played in a easier division. It should go without saying a balanced schedule would be required as well.
We eliminate the divisions at least some of the distance between WC1 and WC2 will be eliminated. Right now it is possible that the second best record in the league has to play in the wild card game and that is just silly.