What's wrong with the 1-game wildcard setup

[Patrick425]

This year is a good example of why I really do not like the wild card 1 game "playoff". Pittsburgh currently boasts a .604 winning percentage playing in the toughest division in the NL (maybe all of baseball) and will end up with between 96-99 wins. Their current record is 7 games better than L.A. and N.Y. (division winners in the East and West). Yet, they lose one game and they are out? There should never be a one game playoff in baseball with the possible exception of a year end tie-breaker.

[Outlander]

A one game play in is better than nothing. I wish the Brewers had that chance in 1987,88 and 92. Maybe they could have pulled off a nice little run and actually won the World Series.

[tmwiese55]

I initially hated the idea of having the whole season come down to one game, kind of the opposite of the way baseball is supposed to be. But it has grown on me due to keeping more teams in the race longer and putting the emphasis on winning the division.

 

Think of it the other way, without it the Cubs with the 3rd best record in baseball would not even be in the playoffs. I think the good outweighs the bad. Maybe there is a way the can find to make it a 3 game playoff or something down the line.

[Patrick425]

A one game play in is better than nothing. I wish the Brewers had that chance in 1987,88 and 92. Maybe they could have pulled off a nice little run and actually won the World Series.

 

I'm not saying it's not "better than nothing". I'm saying I don't think it's better than the previous playoff plan with one wild card team and 4 teams total. Under the old wild card system (with 4 teams making the playoffs in each league), the Brewers still would have qualified in 1987 and 92, not to mention 78,79, and 80. In 88 they were tied for 5th best record, so they still would have had a one game playoff with Toronto (or other tiebreaker?) under the current system. I don't think adding one team to the playoffs was worth the trade-off of having a 1 game playoff after a 162 game season.

 

I think I might be a little more for the current format of 5 teams in the playoffs and a one game playoff if they did away with divisions and the 5 best records went to the playoffs. So, NY and LA would be playing each other in the one game playoff and not Pittsburgh and Chicago which both have considerably better records than NY and LA.

[Baldkin]

I like the one game playoff as it means winning the division is a bigger deal.

[Patrick425]

I like the one game playoff as it means winning the division is a bigger deal.

 

 

I guess I'm not sure why winning the division is more important than overall record. The division you are in and the competition you have to face is luck of the draw based on your geographical location. Again, I believe that both Chicago and Pittsburgh could make strong arguments that they are better teams than NY or LA and that if they happened to be in either of those divisions they would have won that division.

 

For example, lets look at the AL in 1984. KC won their division with a .519 winning percentage. Is that really an accomplishment that deserves a playoff spot? There were 4 teams in the AL East that year that had better records than KC and did not make the playoffs. Even under the current system, Baltimore that year would not have made the playoffs despite having a better record (and probably tougher schedule) than KC...and Boston and NY (with better records than KC) would have been forced to a 1 game playoff (similar to Chicago and Pittsburgh this year).

 

To me, W-L record trumps place in the standings.

[1992casey]

I split this out of the Random News topic because of the number of responses it has generated.

 

The situation is a double-edged sword. It definitely makes sense to emphasize winning the division. But as it's been appropriately pointed out, wildcards can easily be superior teams. It's frequent that the wildcard team has a better record than at least one division winner. This year, we have the extreme where two wildcards are significantly better than two division winners.

 

I don't know what to suggest, though, as just about every option has some kind of flaw. I guess it's a matter of which flaw you'd like to live with. I'd kind of like to see a series where the wildcards play two out of three. But there's an aversion to making the season longer. More significantly, I think there's a concern about giving the non-wildcard teams too many days off.

[jerichoholicninja]

As long as there are divisions this will happen. You could get rid of divisions but then the East/West Coast teams are at a disadvantage will all the extra travel or you have a severely unbalanced schedule. You could go back to the old one Wildcard format but then you still have the same issue where the wild card team could be better than division winners. The only way to avoid this is to ditch divisions and leagues and just take the teams with the best records out of all 30 teams but I highly doubt that will ever happen.

[502 to Right]

I like the one game playoff as it means winning the division is a bigger deal.

 

I'd rather see the best teams in baseball playing in October, rather than the winner of an arbitrarily designed division system.

[Point Beer Is Best]

One idea that was proposed (and quickly shot down) was for a 3 game series, with the first two games being a double-header. That would add just one extra day into the playoff schedule (at most). I'm not sure why it was shot down, but it seems like a better set up than a one game showdown.

[homer]

I have never liked the one game playoff.

[sveumrules]

I personally love it. Sure, it's not fair but any set up will inherently be unfair in one way or another. This set up requires the least time while providing the most excitement.

[MrTPlush]

I remember two reasons specifically:

 

1. It was a bit of a scheduling thing. It would push the World Series back into November which MLB hates and just a scheduling issue in general. The other teams are sitting around for at least a week doing nothing. That could screw up a rotation and not be fair to a team that should have an advantage.

 

2. If they were to have a 3 game playoff, that includes a doubleheader, that team is going to trot into the divisional series tired and a mess. I think the goal is to get one team into the divisional series with a legitimate shot, not at a serious disadvantage.

[danzig6767]

As long as there are divisions this will happen. You could get rid of divisions but then the East/West Coast teams are at a disadvantage will all the extra travel or you have a severely unbalanced schedule. You could go back to the old one Wildcard format but then you still have the same issue where the wild card team could be better than division winners. The only way to avoid this is to ditch divisions and leagues and just take the teams with the best records out of all 30 teams but I highly doubt that will ever happen.

That's not the only way.

 

The NBA is going to a system where they simply seed home court in each conference by record. Baseball could take three division winners as automatic playoff berths and two wild card teams, but seed things by record to where the two teams with the worst records play in the plain in game vs automatically making the two wild card teams play each other.

 

Ideally, the schedule would be cut to 154 games and then make the wild card play in best 2 out of 3. Won't happen though because of money.

[Polish Falcons]

I like the idea of a 3 game playoff including a double header. I hope mlb makes that work without extending the season any longer as the World Series now goes into November which I think is a problem. Baseball should finish in October. An easy solution is to start the season earlier. For some reason opening day was April 6 this year. Mlb should make April 1 opening day every year regardless of the day of the week. This adds 5 days allowing to fit in a wild card double header AND game 7 of the WS to be scheduled 10/31 instead of 11/4.

 

I am not a fan of reducing the 162 game season at all. Historical statistics and records hold great meaning to me and if you change the length of the season you wipe out all of that.

[Bombers]

I think they just need to make a rule like the NBA. And I would only do it in this years scenario where the W1 team has the 2nd best record in the NL. That team could bump a team from divisional round to hosting the play in game. I do think the Pirates are getting a raw deal. But it could be worse without the play in game. If we didn't have the play in game, the 3rd best team in the NL would be home already. So this year it is exactly why they added it. The Cubs deserve to be in. I like the new format and I would even go to 6 teams and have a 3 game series for seeds 3-6. Top 1/2 get a bye.

So this year would be Giants at Pirates and Cubs at Mets. I would let the Pirates get the 3 seed. AL would see Angels @ Texas, Astros @ Yankees

 

And as others have mentioned the Brewers had some teams over Younts tenure that could have really done some damage if there was a wild card team much less a wild card 2 team.

[Funketown]

I would love the doubleheader idea, though I'd doubt it would actually happen. I also wish they still played both games on the same night (didn't they do that a couple years ago?).

 

How often are the three best records in the same division? You have to think it's pretty rare.

[joepepsi]

There are 3 days between the end of the season and the start of the division series. Let them play a 3 game series.

 

I think the best idea is seeding by record. NY and LA should be in the play-in game(s). The Mets and Dodgers each had 20 games against the Cards, Pirates, and Cubs, whereas those three teams each played the other two from the Central a total of 38 games. In fact, almost 1/3 of the games the three best played were against teams that made it to the playoffs.

[Point Beer Is Best]

I'm coming around to the idea of the teams being decided the way they currently are, but the seeding determined by overall record. You have the three best teams in one division, and you're going to just eliminate one of them off the bat, and then let the other one go into the divisional round with some of their pitching staff unavailable or fatigued? Not a good concept. But at least the current format gets those two WC teams to the dance, and not left at home watching lesser teams.

[BuckyBrewer61]

I've said it before about what's wrong with the college football system.

 

This is sports, and as counter intuitive as it may sound, sports are not about which team is best. Sports are about putting a competition forth, and letting the teams compete until a winner is crowned, whether that team is the best or not. That's the beauty of it, there shouldn't be subjectivity, only results. I don't love the 1-game play-in and think this could be a bit more fair (like a 3-game series), but that's the competition set forth, and every team has known it since day one.

 

The Cubs and Pirates both knew they had to win the division in order to avoid the wild card game, and they didn't. Tough. Should the Pirates be a #1 seed on the opposite side of the bracket than the Cardinals because they have the 2nd best record in baseball? Who's to say the Pirates would have a better record playing an AL schedule? Or than the Dodgers if they had played their schedule? Not all schedules are created equal - even if you think one is clearly tougher than another, it's still to some degree subjective. And before you say the NL Central was better than the West, remember the Pirates were 9-10 against the Brewers and 8-11 against the Reds this year...

 

Yes, the Pirates and Cubs are probably better than a number of teams that got a better draw for the playoffs, but those are the breaks. It's not about who's better, it's about what's earned, and they earned wild card berths, nothing more and nothing less.

[QuevedosTongue]

I love the current system and hope it stays.

 

1. The 1 game playoff is exciting and interesting.

2. Division winners are rewarded. Teams play nearly half their games within their division, they should be rewarded for winning. Does that stink for a team like the Pirates, who were mediocre in-division but pounder everyone else? Yes, but maybe they should play better against a poor team like Milwaukee.

3. It penalizes the WC teams by forcing them to use pitchers prior to the DS round. Sure the Pirates would love to be starting the series against the Cardinals with Gerrit Cole, but they now have a win-or-go-home game first.

[brewcrewdue80]

This occurrence has got to be so far off thought, you don't plan for. 3 teams in same division having pretty much the best records in Baseball? Shouldn't the Leader or 2nd place team have knocked down that 3rd a peg? Shouldn't 1 of the other 2 division winners have at least gotten a better record than the 3rd place team? The crappy thing is among the argument of Pitts/Cubs having their 1 game playin is that the winner then plays St Louis! So Boom! 2/3rds of the best records in baseball will be gone in the divisional series. Both those teams may be better to be in the World Series than any other Playoff team and would win a series vs all of them if given the chance. But instead, they'll be gone never getting to prove their true talented selves.

[homer]

I guess it's exciting but so would ending the season with the last day meaning something. I mean that Cubs/Pitt series a few weeks ago would have been HUGE. One game to advance is just dumb luck.

Having said that I hope the Pirate clown stomp Arrieta.

[jerichoholicninja]

I don't even consider the wild card game to be "making the playoffs" the same way I don't consider teams playing the play-in game for the NCAA Basketball Tournament to have "made the tournament."

[pacopete4]

Always interesting to think how this plays out if there is no one game play in and only one wild card. Pressure put on those three teams and who knows how the cookie crumbles.