The 2nd Wild Card Topic

I wasn't fully on board when it was announced.  Not totally against it but I had some reservations.    Mostly the watering down of winning a division and playing the season til the end.   I sort of thought we'd lose the monumental collapses of Boston/Atlanta last year which, while gut-wrenching to the fans of those teams, kept baseball interesting when all else was decided. 

I understood the reasoning for it.   Keep more teams/fans interested longer.   Add some revenue.  Blah, blah, blah.

Now, after a non-descript trade deadline, I think I like it.   The lack of trading was largely due to more teams thinking they have a chance to make the post-season.  Even if it's only one game, we all know a team can get hot and run it out.   I might even like a third WC.

What say ye, peeps of WifS?
8/2/2013 10:16 AM
I'd say the single game elimination that the Wild Card game presents makes winning the division more important.  As you saw last year, the home team lost both WC games.  Qualifying for the WC now guarantees you only 24 hours.  I like it.
8/2/2013 10:22 AM
Loved it then, love it now.  Adds value to winning a division, and keeps more teams in the playoff race.  
8/2/2013 10:23 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
I like it. Royals aren't catching the Tigers. And Boston and Tampa look lockish as well. But they are one of the five teams in the mix for that last spot. Shaping up to be an interesting September.
8/2/2013 10:32 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Wow, look, it's inkdskn - good to "see" you!  

I don't like the current set-up of the one-game playoff for WC1 v. WC2.  I'm okay with an expansion to the previous playoff system, but if you're in the playoffs, you should be really IN the playoffs, and not possibly OUT after one game!  Not saying we need more games, as I think the season should be reduced to 144 games or something similar, but the one game playoff - not a fan of it!  Also, if we keep this system or something similar, the non-waiver trade deadline needs to be moved out to 8-15.
8/2/2013 11:03 AM
hi wgasa!
8/2/2013 11:04 AM
Posted by inkdskn on 8/2/2013 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I don't like it, primarily due to the one game, 'winner-take-all' format. WC1 can finish 5 games ahead of WC2 after 162 games, lose the playoff game (and still be 4 games up after 163), but their season is over. That sucks. It makes game 163 much more important than the previous 162 combined, which I don't understand at all. WC2 had 162 games to beat WC1, couldn't do so, and still gets a one-game shot to do it.

I also think the perception that it 'rewards' division winners is bullshit, since division winners are in the same position they were before: a playoff series. The format severely diminishes the achievements of WC1, ridiculously awards WC2 (by opportunity alone), and leaves the three division winners unchanged. I hate hearing people say 'WC1 should won the division then!' which reeks of stupidity, imo, as all know that the WC team often has a better record than division winners.

'Rewarding' division winners could be done via a 1st-round bye for the best team (other 4 play 3/5 series), or something else.
The "reward" for the division winner is that they have the benefit of playing a best-of-5 series rather than risk a one-and-done as the WC1 and WC2 now face.  That's significant.

Before last season, there was virtually no advantage of winning the division over settling for the WC, as either way they were playing a best-of-5.
8/2/2013 11:15 AM

I think the league is aiming to lessen the risk of the best team getting upset in the 1st round......the WC teams are most likely using their #1 (or at the very least #2) starter just to advance past the WC game, making them that much weaker in the next round

the reward of having the best record is to be put in that favorable situation....makes winning late season games, even for teams already in the post season, all the more important

8/2/2013 11:47 AM
and for people that read into things so they can get worked up, I am not saying the league prefers the wild card teams lose...
8/2/2013 11:49 AM
Correct, the goal of the change was to make more regular season games meaningful to more teams at all spectrums.

You've got the additional teams on the fringe of the playoff picture that still feel they are in it.  You've got the races for the division, which are now always extremely meaningful even if both teams are going to make the playoffs, and even the race for the #1 seed among division winners is more meaningful.

Yes, it sucks for WC1 as opposed to what they would have gotten in the past, but that's exactly what it was designed to (and I'd argue that the previous system gave them too much)  - and the end result is that it improves the regular season, which is 6 of the 7 months on the baseball calendar.

8/2/2013 12:05 PM
Posted by edsortails on 8/2/2013 11:49:00 AM (view original):
and for people that read into things so they can get worked up, I am not saying the league prefers the wild card teams lose...
Right - the point of better protecting the #1 seed isn't to knock the wild cards out, it's to give the top teams something worthwhile to play for if they've already locked up the division, as you said.
8/2/2013 12:06 PM
Another thing I believe it does it "extend" the calendar for MLB.   Without pennant races, or races for the WC spots, baseball loses the casual fan in August to football.   They check out for two months and maybe come back for the playoffs if there's anyone in it that interests them.    It's good for baseball to keep fans engaged in the 2nd half.

Now, if they could quit stepping on their dicks with PED issues, they'd have something.
8/2/2013 12:13 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12345 Next ▸
The 2nd Wild Card Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.