Red Sox, Yankees, and Wild Card Fairness
It seems possible, maybe even likely, that a 100-win team will face off against a club with more than 10 fewer wins in a one-game Wild Card matchup. With the Yankees now 6.5 games back of the Red Sox, they are likely to get to 100 wins and play either the Mariners or A’s in the Wild Card game. In the format used 10 years ago with four playoff qualifiers, the team could’ve coasted to the finish and guaranteed entry into the division series. In the format used 25 years ago, they wouldn’t even make the playoffs without catching the Red Sox. It raises questions not only as to whether the current format is fair to the Yankees this year, but also whether it is fair in general.
First, let’s look at the standings in the American League.
| Team | W | L | W% | GB | Proj W | Proj L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red Sox | 76 | 34 | .691 | 0 | 106.3 | 55.7 |
| Yankees | 68 | 39 | .636 | 6.5 | 102.4 | 59.6 |
| Astros | 69 | 41 | .627 | 0 | 101.7 | 60.3 |
| Athletics | 64 | 46 | .582 | 5 | 90.2 | 71.8 |
| Mariners | 63 | 46 | .578 | 5.5 | 90.0 | 72.0 |
| Indians | 59 | 48 | .551 | 0 | 93.7 | 68.3 |
| Rays | 56 | 53 | .514 | 19.5 | 80.4 | 81.6 |
| Angels | 54 | 56 | .491 | 15 | 78.9 | 83.1 |
| Twins | 49 | 58 | .458 | 10 | 77.4 | 84.6 |
| Blue Jays | 49 | 59 | .454 | 26 | 75.7 | 86.3 |
| Tigers | 47 | 62 | .431 | 13 | 69.2 | 92.8 |
| Rangers | 47 | 63 | .427 | 22 | 70.7 | 91.3 |
| White Sox | 38 | 70 | .352 | 21.5 | 60.7 | 101.3 |
| Royals | 34 | 74 | .315 | 25.5 | 56.8 | 105.2 |
| Orioles | 33 | 76 | .303 | 42.5 | 53.4 | 108.6 |
Orange = Wild Card Leaders
In discussing fairness, which is the tougher beat, it is unclear which is worse: winning 100 games and playing in a one-game playoff, or winning 90 games and not having any shot at all? I’m not sure there is a correct answer, but both are likely to happen this season in the American League. Perhaps more unfair is that Mike Trout will once again miss the playoffs, but it isn’t clear what league intervention could change the situation. It’s worth noting that a 90-win season or even a 100-win season in the American League isn’t as impressive as it typically might be with five teams projected to lose at least 90 games and three teams on their way to triple-digit losses. The bottom seven teams are expected to average 96 losses, leaving a lot of wins out there for the better teams in the league.
For comparison’s sake, let’s consider a few alternative playoff scenarios. First, under the old method, the Yankees would feel pretty good about their chances of making the divisional round with a 5.5-game lead over the A’s. This scenario would have multiple negative effects on the season. First, the Mariners and A’s might not feel great about their chances of catching either the Astros or the Yankees, and those teams might have chosen not to add at the trade deadline or potentially sell. There would be no Wild Card race. Worse, the Yankees and Red Sox might not have made the same types of effort to improve their teams knowing a division title wasn’t worth all that much.
Another alternative I’ve heard is to go with the current number of teams in the playoffs, but to seed them by record. That would present an interesting scenario this year with the Red Sox, Yankees, and Astros likely nabbing the guaranteed spots with Cleveland, Seattle, and Oakland fighting for the Wild Card. Making Cleveland compete for a Wild Card spot since their division is bad has some merits, but it might have a drawback competitively as well. If Cleveland knows the best it can possibly do this season is the Wild Card game, do they still give up a top prospect in Francisco Mejia to get Brad Hand and Adam Cimber? Certainly those relievers are helpful in the regular season, but do they pay that high a price if they know the bullpen might only help in a single playoff game? Perhaps the same would be true for their acquisition of Leonys Martin. Teams make trades to get to the playoffs and for the playoffs, and sometimes different players meet different goals.
If the goal for this season is to have as many competitive races as possible without diluting those races to include undeserving teams, somehow rewarding the Yankees for their 100-win season doesn’t really accomplish that. The reward for winning the division is doing exactly what it set out to do, and if the Yankees can go on a run, a big September rivalry between the Yankees and Red Sox would generate a ton of interest and provide a great bridge to the postseason. That we also have a potentially great Wild Card race from two teams not expected to make the playoffs is another positive under the current format.
Of course, everything isn’t just about the Yankees and the American League. These are your National League standings.
| Team | W | L | W% | GB | Proj W | Proj L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cubs | 62 | 46 | .574 | 0 | 92.9 | 69.1 |
| Brewers | 63 | 49 | .563 | 1 | 88.5 | 73.5 |
| Phillies | 60 | 48 | .556 | 0 | 87.3 | 74.7 |
| Dodgers | 61 | 49 | .555 | 0 | 91.7 | 70.3 |
| Braves | 58 | 47 | .552 | 0.5 | 85.2 | 76.8 |
| D-backs | 60 | 50 | .545 | 1 | 86.6 | 75.4 |
| Rockies | 58 | 50 | .537 | 2 | 84.3 | 77.7 |
| Pirates | 56 | 53 | .514 | 6.5 | 83.0 | 79.0 |
| Cardinals | 56 | 53 | .514 | 6.5 | 82.5 | 79.5 |
| Nationals | 55 | 53 | .509 | 5 | 86.2 | 75.8 |
| Giants | 56 | 54 | .509 | 5 | 81.1 | 80.9 |
| Reds | 48 | 61 | .440 | 14.5 | 71.2 | 90.8 |
| Marlins | 46 | 64 | .418 | 15 | 66.7 | 95.3 |
| Mets | 44 | 62 | .415 | 15 | 70.9 | 91.1 |
| Padres | 43 | 68 | .387 | 18.5 | 64.3 | 97.7 |
Orange = Wild Card Leaders
There are 11 teams expected to finish with at least 81 wins and none expected to go higher than 93 wins. Everyone is close and the Wild Card race will not just be a clever name. It’s not really clear how these races could possibly be made better. Given the parity here, removing a playoff team seems unfair because there are already teams that might deserve a shot at October baseball being left out. It’s possible re-seeding might get the Brewers an automatic pass to the divisional round based on these projections, but it isn’t really possible to say they clearly deserve it when the standings are so tight. If the standings actually looked like this every year, there would probably be more arguments for expanding the playoffs.
The Yankees’ season isn’t going to be looked upon favorably by fans if the team wins 100-plus games but then fails to win the Wild Card. Perhaps it seems like that isn’t fair to the Yankees. Unfortunately for them, what is best and fair to the Yankees isn’t always best and fair for baseball. The current playoff setup produces considerably more regular season excitement for a lot more teams — including the Yankees — than it would with an alternative scheme. The American League is incredibly lopsided this season, with only six teams really in the race for the playoffs. Despite that imbalance, we still see several important races and teams winning the division investing in this year’s playoffs because they know it won’t be a one-game gamble. In what is supposedly a prime example for the necessity of changing the setup, we actually have the opposite in a justification of the current format.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Not many tears were shed when the 98 win Pirates had to play in a Wild Card game… against the 97 win Cubs.
But one of New York or Boston has to do it?! Oh the humanity!
Suck it up Buttercup. Win your division.
Not to mention that the 2015 Bucs had the 2nd best record in all of MLB, Cubs 3rd. Freakin’ Yankees fans.
Freakin’ MLB. I’m hearing/reading stuff that if the Yankees are a Wild Card then that means rule changes to eliminate the 1 game playoff. That’s as bad as the NBA rumors now that LeBron is in the West just seeding all teams 1-16 and eliminating conferences.
Also not to mention that we’re not *all that* far removed from the days where if you didn’t win your division straight up, you didn’t even play in the postseason, and older fans among us were alive where if you didn’t finish with the best record in your league, you stayed home.
“Suck it up Buttercup. Win your division” – pretty much my thoughts here too. Sometimes tough situations happen, and if that’s the case, like Al Davis said – just win, baby.
Oh yes, those days.. Was especially fun to lose the NL West to the Atlanta Braves..
More specifically, those three teams had the three best records in baseball, and all but one was eliminated by the end of the Division Series.
There is one proposal I would make for changing the way the playoff bracket is constructed. Currently, the team with the best record in baseball plays the winner of the wild card game on the assumption that the wild card team is the weakest team in the playoffs, an obviously faulty assumption.
I think that the preferable alternative is that the team with the best record in the league plays the team with the worst record that made the playoffs in the Division Series whether its the wild card team or another divisional winner and the other two teams play each other. It wouldn’t be overly complicated and would result more often with the best teams(by record) playing each other in later rounds of the playoffs.
Or how about this – let the team with the best record in the league chose their division round opponent after the Wild Card game is played. That would be fun, no? (most likely the team would choose the team with the worst record, but there may be some scenarios like travel or match-ups that could lead to something different.)
Oooh I like this
Totally agree!
used to be in hockey, the better team could choose the schedule, 2-3-2 format… most people would go for 4 home games, but the good teams figured home sweep + one road win = 5 game series.
It’s not just based on the assumption that the wild card winner would be the worst team in the playoffs – it also rewards the team with the best record by pitting them against a team that had to deploy its top pitchers in a winner-take-all.
This advantage was on display last year when the Dodgers clobbered a Dbacks team with a screwed rotation because of the WC game.
As a cardinal fan, that was the issue to me. These 3 teams fought it out all year and were 1,2 and 3 in the NL. So by design, only 1 of the top 3 teams would be playing in the NLCS.
Im not bitter about losing the playoff series, only that the 1-2 teams played in the NLDS instead of the NLCS.
The only part that needs a change is how they would handle a tie for first in a division, when both teams have a record that would qualify them for a wild card spot. It would be a logistical disadvantage for the loser of the one game division tiebreaker to have a second straight do or die game against a rested wild-card opponent. I’d rather have a an NFL style tiebreaker system for which team takes the division and which goes got the wild-card game.
I’m a soxfan so I’m shedding no tears here, but that matchup was way more fair than what’ll llikely happen to the yanks this season.
2 very evenly-matched teams had to flip a coin. That’s fair. The yankees needing to flip a coin against a team ~10 games worse than them is a rough shake.
The Mets finished with 7 fewer wins didn’t have to get involved in the coin toss at all in the scenario because they won an inferior division by 7 games.
You used to be such a sweet sweet thing til they got ahold of you.
This assumes that no one was empathetic to the plight of the Pirates, or that anyone outside of New York is demanding playoff format changes. Neither is true.
Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result.
Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
••••••••••••?!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
These things have a way of working themselves out. For example, the Yankees have a 1% chance of missing the playoffs entirely. I’m banking on that.
The Yankees have barely played .500 ball over the last 35 games. Getting to 100 wins isn’t as fait accompli as the article suggests. And I’m sure there are more than a few Yankees fans who would say that if they can’t beat the Red Sox, they don’t deserve anything better than a Wild Card game, and some who would rather be in last place instead of second to Boston.
I actually think the chances they fall out of the playoffs entirely are better than 1%. A lot better. More like…10%. The team is getting nailed by injuries to some of their best players, and who knows what they’ll be like when they come (or, for that matter, when they come back). Still unlikely, but not impossible.
I’d agree with you if not for the rough patch Seattle has hit. They’ve lost 4 in a row and have fallen 7 behind the Yankees in the loss column. If the Yankees only play .500 ball the rest of the way, Seattle has to go 32-20 to tie the Yankees.
Seattle is done. It’s the A’s who are the real threat now.
Fairness is a concept that was invented so kids and idiots could participate in debates.
I use that exact same logic trying to get steriods back in baseball, weird huh
What about NFL-style? 6 playoff teams in each league, with with the bottom four playing 1-game playoffs and the top 2 getting a bye from that wild card round?
If you change it to 3 games, that would make a lot more sense, but then it would also make the playoffs longer, which many would like to avoid. I am in favor of 6 teams and then seeding with 3 games, in the new wild card wound which in the NL would add the diamondbacks to contention, which seems to be pretty reasonable and would also make teams on the fringe try to compete more because a 3 game series is less fluke-y than a 1 game play-in.
I think teams have also adjusted their thinking in regards to a “play in game”, not being worth going “all in for”.
A 3-game series might be more appealing.
I also like this, but I think it would be better after MLB mirrors the NFL with 8 divisions of 4 teams. (Adding two expansion teams)
One possible modiciation: if the difference between WC1 and WC2 is larger than X, WC1 automatically qualifies.
The downside to this is that it gives division winners incentives to intentionally lose to potential WC2 teams.
Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
How about this:
-Wild Card series becomes a 2-game series, one game at the lower seed followed by one game at the higher seed.
-In both games, you would still play the bottom of the 9th inning even if the home team was already ahead.
-If the same team wins both games, that team obviously advances.
-If there’s a split, then you use net run differential in the two games, but if WC1 had a better regular-season record than WC2, each extra win is worth 1 run toward the differential. If that’s still tied, then play extra innings; since the second game is already at the higher seed, they have home field advantage for those innings.
This way, if the difference is rather large (say, 10), then WC1 effectively only has to win one out of two in order to advance, as long as they don’t get a huge blowout loss.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the MLB (with support from TV execs) weren’t already thinking about adding a third Wild Card team. Bottom two Wild Card teams play a one-game playoff. The winner of that faces the top Wild Card team in another one-game playoff (or even best-of-three playoff series).
I would not mind shortening the season to 154 games, and having one week to enact your idea. WC-3 vs. WC-2 one-game playoff then the winner vs. WC-1 three game playoff.
And let’s be honest, losing eight regular season games is not a big of a deal when you’re gaining at most EIGHT more playoff games. The 2017 AL-WC and NL-WC games were lit. Let’s do more of that!
And then the division winner sits around not playing baseball for a week? That can be a severe handicap.
The Giants won 102 games in the pre-wildcard era and failed t make the playoffs because LA win 103.
There have been multiple seasons when the Red Sox were the 2nd best team in the league and didn’t advance.
The last thing I am concerned about in this world is what’s “fair to the Yankees”, who have every baseball advantage known to mankind.
I don’t remember that happening, but I do remember that in the very last season before the wild card was instituted, the Giants won 103 games and stayed home because the Braves won 104. Which is slightly more unlucky.
25 years later, and I still can’t get over it. What were the Atlanta Braves doing in the NL WEST anyways?
The Cubs and Cardinals didn’t want to play so much on the West Coast and lose TV viewers, and they were powerful enough to outmuscle the Atlanta and Cincinnati for the last two East spots.
Seriously. The Red Sox won 97 games in 1977 and 99 games in 1978 and played zero playoff games; I wasn’t alive, but given that it took another 17 years to implement the wild card system, I’m guessing there wasn’t a huge outcry to change the rules to avoid that happening again.
It’s baseball. Sometimes really good teams get unlucky enough to have great seasons at the same time other really good teams have even better seasons. For a long time, the Yankees have mainly been the latter. This season, they might end up being the former. Oh well.
.
“who have every advantage known to baseball?”
Who said hyperbole was dead? And what about the Red Sox, spending tens of millions more than the Yankees, whose budget is EIGHTH.
The 1949-53 Yankees won a record five straight WS (no playoff rounds), but topped out at 99 wins in 1953. The 1954 Yankees won 104 games … and the Indians won 110. So it goes
I love the Yankees and I hope they win the division but if they fail to do so, they have no right to complain. If you win the most games in your league, you’re guaranteed a spot in the division round every year. If you don’t, you rely on being in a lesser division or winning a Wild Card and rolling the dice. It’s old school and new school wrapped into one. Make the games between now and the end of September count as much as possible.
Top team in each league faces off in the World Series.
Unprecedented suggestion!
I like this idea, but I think we should build on it by implementing two rounds of intra-league series to determine the top team in each league and THEN have them play each other. We can get those teams for the first few rounds by taking each division winner, plus the winner of a one game playoff between the next two best teams that weren’t division winners.
Just a thought.
Something about really tiny violins is appropriate for this travesty. If the goal of baseball were fairness, all 30 teams would play each other the same number of times, and the team with the most wins at the end of the regular season would be declared the champion. Baseball is about entertainment. The way that the champion is selected, the way the playoffs and season are structured, only have to be fair enough to make them seem legitimate to fans. The current structure easily passes that test.
I don’t necessarily disapprove of the current structure, but if the goal is “entertainment,” as you say, wouldn’t the most entertaining outcome involve the best teams playing each other at the end?
Look at college basketball. The money there has shown that chaos and a good team winning is all you need.
Also the money is where you exploit the labor of “student athletes” to your own gain!
Seriously, though, I want to see M. Bison and Shao Khan fighting at the end of the tournament, not some other random dudes because they snuck through on the weaker side of the bracket.
Welcome to Capitalism 101!
And if you look at what people talk about, it isn’t Kansas-Villanova from last year. It’s Loyola-Chicago, UMBC, and the like.
Is this theoretical fighting game bracket of yours just villains or are guys like Ken and Liu Kang involved as well?
That’s basically what happens now though. Sure, the Yankees are a little better than the As or Mariners, but if they played in a series, no one would bat an eye if Oakland or Seattle won. Over the course of a few games, there’s a very limited difference between a 100 win team and a 90 win team. It’s certainly not a big enough difference to merit reformatting the system, given the unfairness that’s baked into the unbalanced schedules. The Yankees get to play the Orioles and Blue Jays 19 times, which is an advantage over having to play the Rangers and Angels 19 times.
You neglected the RS, who are better than HOU.
WC1 should only have to win one game while WC2 would have to win two. Introducing disadvantaged series in the playoffs would make better records more rightfully advantaged, while using regular-season H2H to seed advantaged teams would make the the regular-season much more interesting and not the dragged-on slug that it is.
This is another bad idea. With imbalanced schedules you think it is fair for a team with 89 wins to have to beat a team with 90 twice? The better solution is a 3 game series with no off days, it would only add 1 day to the current schedule.
imo it’s fair for the same reason a 100-win team becomes a WC1. Wouldn’t everyone want the regular-season to carry more weight?
Unbalanced schedules are a real thing, particularly this year. Luckily, the races don’t seem very close in the AL at this point, except for WC2. However, what if only one game separates WC1 and WC2 in a year where schedules are similarly unbalanced? In other words, what if WC2 faced a relatively more difficult schedule than WC1 with only one game separating them?. For that case, your proposal seems much less fair. At least I think that’s what Pirates Hurdles is saying.
If the two teams are not rather close to each other, no travel day would be tough. Fix that by making neither team the home team and having them play at the home park of the divisional winner that the winner of this series would have to go to anyways. That would even save a travel day after the series!
Further, so that the divisional winners aren’t sitting around waiting for the WC to finish — I’d make the first two games a doubleheader. If you are a wildcard team and you’d like a day off before the LDS, then I suggest you sweep that doubleheader!
I really just wish they’d abolish divisions, balance the schedule between leagues, and put the best 5 teams in the postseason. You’d keep the same playoff format, making it more valuable to finish top 3 in the league. It would potentially make the #1 seed more important as well, because as it stands right now, Boston is lined up to face the 100 win, 2nd best in the AL, Yankees in the ALDS as a reward for their success. Houston, with the 3rd best record will get 6th best Cleveland as it stands now, which just seems kind of dumb.
And Cleveland is it’s own issue entirely. As it currently stands, the Indians who face the easiest schedule in baseball this year and still don’t have a top 10 record, are rewarded for nothing more than the location of their city. While one of Seattle or Oakland, who both face a much tougher schedule AND have better records, will probably be going home.
I get the complaints about travel time with a balanced schedule, but even that doesn’t seem that difficult to figure out. Play longer series and have longer home stands and road trips to cut down on the miles.
But when the AL Central was strong(er) in the mid 2000’s nobody cried. It’s all cyclical but that won’t stop the overreacting or hyperbolic comments.
I just straight up do not understand anyone’s resistance to two leagues, no divisions and playing a balanced schedule. I’m really not sure what you’d be losing from the current system compared to a balanced one. Bad playoff seeding that knocks 2 of the 3 best teams in the league out before the CS round, like in the NL in 2015? An unbalanced schedule that allows Cleveland to play the little sisters of the poor 5 out of every 7 games in the 2nd half, while the Rays get 40 games a year against 2 juggernauts? Why do you want that?
There is literally no logical argument that the current system is better, or more interesting than the alternative I’ve suggested.
Also the AL Central has been a punching bag for nearly all of it’s existence. This year is just more extreme. The nickname “Comedy Central” is nothing new.
I think the players would resist that proposal due to the increased travel no?
Probably, but that problem should be somewhat easy to work around. You can play 4-6 game series between teams instead of 3-4 game series. If they ditched interleague you’d play 11-12 games against each team in your league. If you keep interleague, you have 10 or so games against each team in your league.
You could easily turn that into two 5-6 game series and each team gets to host one, which is how it works now. You can have longer road trips and longer home stands too.
A linger series also ensures that each opponent faces the entire rotation, injuries aside.
We all know its not just who you play but when you play them.
Theres a big difference in a 3g series when you face a teams 1-3 pitchers vs 3-5. A 5g series has each team facing all 5 pitchers in the rotation.
Flying sucks no matter if its 2hours or 6 hours. The travel wouldnt change
Flying doesn’t suck if you go directly to your chartered aircraft and don’t deal with TSA or other lines.
I’d even be comfortable re-aligning AL/NL to east and west leagues/conferences whatever. Balance the intra-conference schedules and do sparing trips into the other league like inter-league is now. Travel problems are solved by 90% of the schedule being in the same time zone / at most one away plus less early games for west coast fans and less late games for east coast fans.
“the AL Central has been a punching bag for nearly all of it’s existence. This year is just more extreme. ”
This js demonstrably untrue.
As recently as 2015, the AL Central and the AL East were very comparable. The Central had three teams over .500; the East had two. A year earlier in the Central, the Tigers won the division with 90 wins, while the wild card Royals had 89 and the Indians finished five out at 85-77. In 2013, the winning Tigers finished at 93-69; the Indians were second at 92-70, qualifying for the play-in game; and the rising Royals ended the campaign at 86-76.
In 2000, the Central was led by the 95-win White Sox and the 90-win Indians, while the East was a scramble between three teams who had between 83 and 87 wins, won by the 87-win Yanks. In 2001, the AL Central had three teams above .500, while there were only two in the AL East; the same situation existed in 2005.
I wish people would resist the temptation to make things up.
Since the Wild Card’s inception the AL East has sent a Wild Card team 19 times, the AL West 6 times and the AL Central 4 times. It’s historically been the worst division in the AL since the Wild Card was invented. Cherry picking a couple years doesn’t change that fact.
I cited a lot more than “a couple” of years. And the disparity in Wild Card appearances between the AL East and the other two divisions has almost entirely to do with the Yankees and Red Sox, who have clear advantages over the rest of the league in terms of payroll flexibility.
In any case, if you’re using WC appearances as your main criterion, there isn’t a hell of a lot of difference between the AL West and the Central.
This is about crapping on cities that reside in “flyover country,” especially Cleveland, as people so often feel compelled to do. But whatever.
MLB should either keep the playoff set-up the way it is, or go to a best-of-three WC round with a doubleheader in the city of WC1.
It’s not travel, it’s time zones. Your plan would mean each team having a lot more out of zone games which are horrible for TV ratings. Bad ratings make broadcast rights less valuable.
How about a radical realignment where all Eastern Time zone teams are in one league with all Western in the other. Then the Mountain and Central get divvied up to make them equal.
East/West would work great except that you then need to change the DH as well, and for some reason people LOVE watching a pitcher watch strike 3 zip past.
The beauty of baseball is that the Indians in a 5 game series are a probably tougher out than the Yankees coming out of a WC would be. If the Yankees win a WC game their rotation would line as up Tanaka, Sabathia, Severino, Happ, and then Tanaka again with Severino out of the pen in game 5. The Indians would have a rotation of Kluber, Bauer, Carrasco, Clevinger or Kluber on short rest, and then Kluber or Bauer on short rest rest if Kluber starts game 4. I think every team in the playoffs would probably elect to play the Yankees over the Indians in that scenario.
Ignoring the Yankees bullpen in the playoffs is an interesting analytical choice…
This really has nothing to do with the Yankees and everything to do with the stupidity of a one game playoff. Make it three, and that’s sustainable within the time schedule and “fairer” to any of the teams who make it that far.
They could get rid of divisions. With chartered flights there isn’t the same travel cost there was 30 years ago and it wouldn’t be hard too schedule to avoid east-west-east-west trips. If we did that Cleveland would be fighting to catch Seattle and Oakland and it would still be exciting. The NL would still have most teams fighting as well.
If you get rid of divisions, you get rid of rivalries and additional races. It’s not as fair, but it’s more exciting.
Nothing in sports annoys me more than when some rule works exactly how it’s supposed to work but it disadvantages a prestige team and everyone freaks out. Without this rule people would be upset about how there was no drama in the AL races because all 4 playoff teams would be set.
They’ll change it to a best of three or something and then a few years from now the Yankees will win the east and then lose to a wild card team and it’ll spurn a whole cycle of takes about how it’s not fair that the Yankees had to sit at home and get rusty or whatever.
The stated goal of this system was to make the division races more exciting and make the wild card more exciting. “Wild card teams will have to play a play-in game to get into the playoffs!!” Of course, the real goal was to have more teams in the playoffs, and more teams able to say that they were in contention. Notice that everyone, including MLB, says both wild card teams “in the playoffs.”
As for the division races, they are more exciting. The stakes are higher. But at what cost? They are accomplishing this by punishing what is usually one of the best three teams in the league. They water down the playoffs and make more likely that an inferior team will win it all. That’s a terrible trade off.
They could also inject more drama into the division races by making the last month of games count double. Or having a special spot in the outfield stands that, if you hit it with a batted ball, adds 5 wins to your team’s total. Or by having the home run derby held at the end of the season and determining the seeding of the playoffs. All of these would add excitement. And drama! And intrigue. But they would do so with a gimmick that undermines the integrity of the competition. That’s the problem with the play-in game.
I knew it was something crazy TKDC. Thanks for the correction.
What about an extra round but only 3 game series until the WS? Each team basically goes to a 3 man rotation anyways, and the short rest starts have really impacted the players and the games negatively in the last few years anyway.
why do we still have divisions and unbalanced schedules? we dont travel by train anymore
For whatever reason, regional rivalries work. They’re fun, sometimes violent, and profitable.
Follow the money. Broadcast contracts pay the bills and broadcasters hate out of time zone games.
Its pretty annoying to be a fan on the east coast and watch your favorite team play a bunch of games that start at 10pm though
Until 1968, 10 teams in each league battled for one playoff spot. Until 1994, 14 teams in each league battled for two. I love regular season baseball, and it’s plenty random and exciting for me. I’d enjoy a race for two playoff spots in each league, knowing that the participants were truly elite. And it’d be neck-and-neck right now (seriously, 0 games in the NL and 0.5 in the AL).
I feel like fans need their team to have some chance, more so than they used to. Then again, maybe fans used to just wildly overestimate their team’s chances. Now there’s a wet blanket of data for anyone who wanted to say “this is the Reds’ year, I’m telling you!”
Thus concludes today’s edition of old man yells at cloud.
Based off what I’ve seen over the last several weeks, I’m not counting out the possibility of the A’s catching the Yankees and hosting that wild card game.
If MLB really wants the Yankees and Red Sox to be in the LDS the most often they could just move one to the Central and Cleveland or Detroit to the East. Ideally they probably want at least one giant fan base in each division and the AL Central is maybe the only division without one. Maybe the AL West too. Both teams would draw well no matter which division they were in.
Just wanted to enjoy the irony of this article coming out a mere few hours after this question in Meg’s chat:
12:59
OddBall Herrera: How deafening would the calls for change to the W.C. system be if the A’s or Mariners walk into Yankee stadium and beat them in a one game playoff? That’d be low-hanging-fruit-clickbait stuff sports writers can only dream of.
1:00
Meg Rowley: That is always the risk. That’s why it is good to win the division. And we don’t have to indulge the worst parts of sports media.
Just make the wild card game best of 3
I think the main question is whether you believe the playoffs should be built to give the best teams the best chance to win the world series, or whether the playoffs should be built to create the most exciting baseball possible. Simply the fact that the Red Sox and Yankees have to play each other so many times means they lose out of wins. But, the fact that they play so many games makes their match ups incredibly fun to watch. Same goes to the madness we’ve seen with the current wildcard. It doesn’t always reward the best teams with the best chance to win the world series, but does create an incredibly interesting wild card race and game.
100% agree.
How about this: *insert inane and overly complicated way that you could argue is more fair in certain select situations but others would argue is unfair in others*. It’s simple and logical now. Win your division and you don’t have to worry about the wild card. If you’re not the best team in your division you get no argument about fairness, just like you don’t get a parade for losing the championship. And I’m a Yankees fan. If they can’t beat the Red Sox over 162 games do we really need to make up reasons why they should have an easier time getting another try?
The wild card race and single elimination game are fun and exciting. What’s really unfair is that if the Yankees win the wild card game, 1 or 2 100+ win teams will be eliminated in a best of 5 series. Make the division series best of 7. Or, at the very least, make the WC winner play 5 road games.
This assumes that a 100 win Yankee team would be “much more deserving” than a, say, 94 win Seattle or Oakland team. But the AL West is a tougher division than the AL East. Yankees get twice as many “easy games” in division vs. Blue Jays and Baltimore (and Tampa will be tanking the last two months), while the Ms and As only have one “easy” Texas team in division. Likewise, in inter-league play, the NL west is tougher than the NL East.
In a more balanced schedule, the final standings would be much closer, with no clear edge to the Yankees.
The average AL West team is about 3 wins better than the average AL East team. You’re talking about one or two lost wins due to divisional strength. Considering the projected difference is 12 games, not 6, your assertion is unfounded.
The As are currently just 4.5 games back of NYY, (and on fire) so the 12 game projected difference seems hard to believe. 6 seems much more reasonable. Whatever, we will see in a few months who is closer. 🙂
what if this is a lot of hand wringing over the wrong team? Are Yanks still “likely “ to win 100 games? A’s sure look just as good as them right now. To me it seems like Mariners are the ones to probably be hurt the most. They might get 93-95 wins and miss out completely while posting the 5th best record in MLB. And they also look like a team with their contention window being pretty small. The same 5 teams in playoff position now are going to be the favorites in 2019 plus Angels should be competitive. Rays are probably better than M’s too.
I like it the way it is. But if you want to make it fairer, add (or subtract) 2 teams and make everyone play the same balanced schedule (with or without interleague play). Then you really could fairly seed teams by record.
The current format is not unfair to the Yankees. They have a good chance of losing their division by 10+ games and then only needing to win one home game against Oakland or Seattle to wipe it all away. Should the Yankees win the Wild Card game, they would face the Red Sox in the ALDS and, by winning 3 of 5, be able to wipe away Boston’s dominance over 162 games. I get the desire to have exciting pennant races, but any version of the Wild Card demeans the regular season, and in baseball, which plays a marathon schedule, that makes no sense. The best format would be to expand to 4 divisions in each league, play heavily unbalanced schedules, and have only the first place teams meet in the post season. That will never happen because sports has become all about the rings, so any route to a championship is validated, but in reality, this season, Boston’s potential AL East title could end up being a much more impressive accomplishment than the Yankees winning the World Series.
Kay and Cone talked about it in the booth before the Red Sox series, Cone said to just keep the current format and just reseed after the WC games, that way you get more exciting baseball. Personally, I like that idea, you don’t win the division you get penalized by having to play a do or die, but winning it rewards you if you are clearly a far superior team to the others. From a fan perspective, I’d much rather see a potential Red Sox – Yankees ALCS 7 game series (pending they both get there) with both at 100+ wins, than a Red Sox – Yankees 5 game series. It’s all moot though, one thing baseball tends to do is work out its problems without ever needing to address it sometimes lol.
Hard to focus too much on the inter-divisional comparisons of record when each division plays a different schedule that may be more or less difficult. It’s part of the reason I don’t like giving home field advantage in the World Series to the team with the better record. One team will have played a considerably easier schedule due to the typical differences in league strength (most years this should advantage the NL participant, though it may not this year).
I’m a red sox fan. I am shedding no tears. But I’ve always thought the 1 game wildcard is too much of a crapshoot. Baseball is an incredibly random sport. Plus I justI love the narratives that develop over a series. I think there’s 2 good solutions that keep the races very meaningful, but also allow the better team a bit more control over destiny.
In Japan, they do what’s called a “best of two” wherein the higher seed gets home field advantage over a 2 game series, and if they win either game they advance. So the lower seed needs to win 2 away games, higher seed needs to win 1 home game. Honestly, I feel that may be too steep an advantage for the home team, but I prefer it over the current system.
What I’d like is simply a best of 3 series, all 3 games at the higher seed’s home stadium, and no getaway day for the winner (assuming it goes 3 games). This’d still be a position any team that could win its division would hate to find itself in; still a huge crapshoot, PLUS if you’re giving everyone regular rest, a 3 game series means your #4 pitcher opens the LDS, and your #5 would need to pitch at least game 2 (again, assuming regular rest). So it puts even the winner of that series at a very serious disadvantage, but your entire season won’t come down to some typically-sure-handed middle infielder making a 2-run error. That could still happen, but you’ll either have another game in the series to course-correct, or you would have already had games in which you could’ve avoided that random whoopsems being so meaningful.
Again, as a red sox fan that dislikes the 1-game playoff (although I *love* the current general structure of the playoffs), the yankees making the wildcard and losing to a team 10+ games worse than them is a perfect outcome; it’d mean the yankees lose in somewhat unfair fashion, and they’ll probably cry so loud they’ll get the thing I don’t like changed.
I like this idea though, there should be considered each team went through different level of schedule… For example, Indians’ 95 wins cannot be the same with Astros’ 95 wins this year…
No rules can satisfy every teams sadly.
The problem is that this format forces you to become a ‘superteam’ if you want to win certain divisions to avoid the WC game. The Yankees, who have held back on spending to get under the luxury tax, are most certainly going to be spending in a big way this coming offseason to try to avoid a WC game in 2019.
Unlike basketball, super teams don’t always win in baseball.
I don’t want to add more games to the playoffs. Take the difference in wins between WC1 and WC2, and give WC1 that many runs to start the WC game. Or give WC1 half as many runs. That gives WC1 an advantage that’s proportional to their superior regular season performance. It also makes every single game count in the WC race, even if it’s lopsided. It’s sort of wacky, but so is playing a single WC game.
I think this is going in the right direction, although I think 1 run per game is way too much.
However, the knock on effect will inevitably be that people will say “why does the WC winner get this advantage while the team with the best record only gets a peasly extra home game in the World Series ?”
It seemed to me that the switch to 3 divisions/league and to add wild card team(s) was to (1) emulate the NFL stule setup, and (2) create more interest for more teams in september, and (3) put teams in more regional divisions (atlanta in the east, for example).
IIRC, this picked up traction when the giants won like 100 games and missed the playoffs bc the braves won the division and also Milwaukee not going to the AL to even up the teams/divisions.
At this point, Im not sure why there isnt just 1 division/league with balanced schedules and the top X number of teams in each league making the playoffs by seeds in whatever game format seems most effective in giving the highest seeds the best chance to make the world series.
For me, the best thing about baseball is the long season. There is a tremendous amount of games to determine who the best teams are. Its not like the NHL, NBA, etc where you can just skip watching the entire regular season and just watch the long playoff season.
I always thought this was the advantage if the long baseball season, Im not sure why MLB rewards division winners over teams that have shown they are better over the course of 162 games.
I would l love to see the wild card expanded to three teams decided by a double header. So for example: Athletics and Mariners play the day game at Yankee stadium with the winner playing the Yankees in game two.
Divisions aren’t going away, and no format with divisions can be optimally fair. But a plausible improvement would be 2 divisions and 4 wild cards per league, the latter seeded into 2 do-or-die games, with each game’s winner then facing a division winner.
That wouldn’t be a lot of help to a great runner-up, but at least they would face a somewhat weaker foe in the wild-card game — and if they advance, they’d be less likely to face the league’s #1 in the first round. And it would substantially raise the chance of getting each league’s top 5 teams into the playoffs.
Small divisions raise the chance that a so-so division winner gets in at the cost of a clearly better team. I’m not saying that’s true of Cleveland/Seattle this year, but it’s not uncommon. And I’m truly worried by the possibility of 4-team divisions after the next expansion.
I prefer the format 25 years ago. The two division winning teams in their league in a playoff. To me the competition just seems to watered down.
If only you could understand the joy of relegation. Two battles. The one to win and the other to survive.
The way the Yankees are playing right now, a Wildcard would be a good achievement and baseball is funny. The Jays are supposedly tanking but after getting season swept by the A’s, they are now looking to sweep Seattle. The Rays are better than anyone thinks and can trip a team up a bit and of course any NY/RS games right now look unbalanced in favour of the RS winning.
on the eye test the Yankees are lucky the Mariners are falling apart because they are not automatic the way they are playing right now.
As of today (Stinkies play Botox later today) the A’s are only three and a half back of the Stinkies. If you project wins for the remainder of the season based on their last 50 games then the A’s are actually on pace to finish a couple games ahead of the Stinkies.
As Alice Cooper says suck it up buttercup.
How about most hits by that team’s players in the All-Star game determines the winner
“This time it COUNTS !!”
– Joe Buck
A prerequisite to any change meant to make baseball fairer to the Yankees should be undoing the concept of territorial rights and putting an appropriate number of teams in New York.