Wasn’t the Wild Card supposed to add playoff race intrigue?
Posted by Andy on August 3, 2011
The Wild Card was supposed to make the season interesting for more teams by giving them a legitimate shot at the playoffs later in the season (and also, of course, increase revenue by adding more playoff games...)
Most years, the Wild Card fulfills its intention--but not this season.
As of now, the AL Wilcard is almost mathematically certain to be either the Yankees or the Red Sox--whichever team does not win the AL East, which Boston currently leads by 1 game. The Yankees lead the Angels by 7 games and the Rays by 10 for the Wild Card.
Over in the NL, it's less of a lock but the Braves have by far the best shot. They lead both the Giants and Diamondbacks by 1.5 games (but one of these teams will win the NL West) and the next-closest team is the Cardinals at 4.5 games. In fact, Coolstandings.com gives no NL team other than the Braves as much as a 6% chance of winning the NL Wild Card.
This year, at least, it seems the division races are the thing to watch. Aside from the tight AL East, we have the Rangers leading the Angels by just 1 game in the AL West, the Tigers leading the Indians by 3 in the AL Central, the Brewers leading the Cardinals by 2.5 in the NL Central (now that the Pirates have faded back to .500) and the Giants and D'Backs in that dead heat. That's 5 tight races out of 6, with only the Phillies a lock for the division at this point.
August 3rd, 2011 at 5:13 am
I for one have been a longtime advocate of having three wild cards in each league and setting it so they and the team with the worst record of the division champions would have to play in a single-elimination Wild Card round of the playoffs. As I posted about this on the Too Smart To Fail message board (http://www.toosmarttofail.com/forums/showthread.php?11026), the way I would do it would create many more meaningful games in September (including where division leaders would be trying to avoid being the #3 or worse seed and having to play in the Wild Card round) as well as a day-into-night Wild Card Saturday marathon that would be more likely to bring in the casual sports fan that otherwise is entrenched with the NFL and College Football by then. If the season ended today with this format, here's how it would look:
American League:
First Round Bye:
#1 Red Sox and #2 Rangers
Wild Card Round:
#6 Rays at #3 Yankees
#5 Tigers at #4 Angels
National League:
First Round Bye:
#1 Phillies and #2 Giants/Diamondbacks
Wild Card:
#6 Cardinals at #3 Braves
#5 Brewers at #4 Giants/Diamondbacks
This is where we would potentially have many more meaningful matchups in September if this formula were used.
August 3rd, 2011 at 7:13 am
I don't like the idea of byes in baseball, even if the Wild Card Round is a one game playoff.
I honestly like the current setup a lot, but if it needs changing then baseball should go back to two divisions per league and have the two division winners face the next two teams in terms of record regardless of division. Even that has its flaws, though, because all of the current Central teams would be kept out (even though there would be no Central divisions in this plan) and because the AL East would *almost* always be assured three of the four AL playoff teams (this year being an exception).
August 3rd, 2011 at 7:46 am
It doesn't matter whether a league has 4, 5 or 6 teams.
Some years will generate races and other years the really good teams and the number of playoff slots will line up just right.
The more you expand the playoffs the more .500 teams will be competing for the same slot.
August 3rd, 2011 at 7:48 am
The wild card killed the classic pennant race.
August 3rd, 2011 at 8:08 am
Agree with #4.
August 3rd, 2011 at 8:15 am
There are pros and cons to any system.
Let's just stay away from the NHL and its 16 teams that make the playoffs.
August 3rd, 2011 at 8:52 am
@4
Wasn't that a Buggles song?
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:03 am
@1 You show in your hypothetical example both NL Central teams being on the road. I know that there is a desire here to avoid the large playoff pools of the NHL and NBA, but I know for sure that the NHL gives all division champs a home playing surface advantage in the first round, and I think the NBA does, too, even if it means that a team will be hosting one with a better record in that round. Heck, baseball does it today, with the wild card team, who may have the 2nd best record in the league, not having the home field advantage.
One think that could through a wrench into the Saturday marathon plans is a rainout in any of the cities. There still aren't domed stadiums everywhere. And with it being the height of hurricane season, including "remnants of tropical storm" season that affects a lot of places in the northeastern U.S., this is a distinct possibility.
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:15 am
The more teams that can contend for a playoff position, the greater the likelihood that there will be a pennant (or wild card) race. But typically what happens is that you have a bunch of 85-77-like teams stumbling over each other and eventually one team goes 6-4 down the stretch to win the wild card race. How exciting! (Iām being facetious). On a few occasions two teams in one division (eg 1996 Padres vs. Dodgers) came down to the final day of the season tied, but the suspense was ruined because one team would win the division and the other would win the wild card. Since the wild card race has been around I thought there was only one really great race: in 2005 the White Sox, Indians, Yankees and Red Sox, all excellent teams, surged to the finish line. Two teams would win the division, one would win the wild card and one would go home. The Indians at 93-69 ended up drawing the short straw.
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:31 am
Check out the recent wild card teams in the AL:
2010: Yankees
2009: Red Sox
2008: Red Sox
2007: Yankees
2006: Tigers
2005: Red Sox
2004: Red Sox
2003: Red Sox
In most of those years, there was no interesting division race in the AL East because it was clear that the second-place team was going to win the wild card.
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:48 am
How do the NL teams have so little chance at the WC? 1.5 games with 50+ to play seems like it should generate a better-than-6% chance. Does it have to do with their battle for the division? I'm stumped...
August 3rd, 2011 at 10:00 am
clearly the Wildcard makes the playoff chase LESS interesting in the AL. The AL East is not a "race", it's 2 teams playing out the string for 2 months. It doesn' make much difference who is 1st and who is 2nd.
August 3rd, 2011 at 10:15 am
adding even more playoff teams only serves to further dilute the regular season. the NBA is a joke as the "regular" season at times resembles a pre-season. Going to 6 playoff teams in each league means November baseball. Clearly Bud Selig is inching in this direction though. It's a short term shot in the arm that in the long term dilutes the game. Interleague play? Wildcard? Haven't these about run their course?
Would it really be good theatre if an 84-78 Blue Jays team defeats an 83-79 Cardinals team while 100 win teams fail to advance? To me the theatre was when teams earned the right to be there over 6 months and whatever happened had drama because there was not a month long playoff process.
August 3rd, 2011 at 10:32 am
BSK, I think it comes down to a few things:
1) the Braves have a good run-scoring differential, significantly better than most of the teams chasing them, and therefore their expected record for the rest of the season is better
2) the teams chasing the Braves all play each other since they are division rivals, which decreases the likelihood that any one will string together a really strong run
3) while 1.5 games is not a huge lead, it's still a lead that needs to be overcome. if a few teams were all tied right now, the Braves would be the favorite thanks to their RS/RA differential, but not by nearly as large a margin. it's not at all difficult to imagine a scenario where SF/ARI or STL wins the wild card, but it has to actually happen for it to be a reality. When looking at it now on paper, there's no way you could pick any of those teams logically to beat the Braves (but in practice it could very well happen--after all the Braves have a 60% chance of winning it, meaning that "everybody else" has a 40% chance--so there's still a 40% chance that ONE of those teams wins it instead of the Braves.
August 3rd, 2011 at 10:36 am
Andy: "... only the Phillies a lock for the division at this point."
Are you listening, baseball gods? š
-- 2010 Padres had a 6.5-game lead on August 25; lost the race by 2 games.
-- 2007 Mets had a 7-game lead on Sept. 12; lost the race by 1 game.
-- 2006 Tigers had a 10-game lead on August 7 (with a record much better than the Phils' current mark); lost the race by 1 game (won the wild card).
There's every reason in the world to think the Phillies will win the division. But longshots do come in sometimes. And if disaster should strike ... well, Philly fans, you'll know whose castle to storm with your metaphorical flaming torches.
August 3rd, 2011 at 10:39 am
The Phillies aren't done until I say they're done. š
What I meant is really that at the moment, they seem like a lock--i.e. I doubt many people are waking up each morning and hurriedly checking box scores to see if the Braves are closing in.
And I'm not sure the 2006 Tigers' mark is all that relevant--the 2011 Phillies have an excellent, and realistic record. The 2006 Tigers were pretty far over their heads at that time, if I recall correctly, with a W-L% that few teams maintain for a whole season.
August 3rd, 2011 at 11:01 am
Andy-
Thanks. I didn't realize CoolStandings took into account the quality of play of the individual teams. It makes much more sense knowing that they account for RD.
August 3rd, 2011 at 11:28 am
It's not just this year -- go back and look through the history of the wild card, and you will see it has made September less interesting. Two good teams don't compete for one playoff spot anymore, and never will again.
August 3rd, 2011 at 11:51 am
@16, Andy -- The 2006 Tigers' mark is as relevant as any such comparison could possibly be, since their Pythag. W%* at the point I referenced was slightly higher than the Phillies' current mark -- .630 to .624.
* I used 1.81 as the exponent in the Pythag. formula, but the Tigers' PW% is better than the Phils' no matter which version of the formula is used.
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:00 pm
To add to what Andy said @14:
Another reason the Braves are such a favorite for the wild card is that 2 teams from another division would have to pass them. I'm sure the number of simulations in which the Braves don't have the 2nd best record in the NL is fairly substantial, but they would still win the wild card because the second place team in another division didn't also pass them. They also have a substantial cushion in both directions in their own division.
The percentage would be even higher if the Braves didn't have the most difficult remaining schedule of themselves and the top 2 teams in the other divisions.
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:05 pm
I often like to look at how the races stack up the "old" way with two divisions and I feel like most seasons it would give a better race - if you consider better to be the best teams separated by a few games. What we're generally left with now is the closest races being between lesser teams.
Here's the races with the "old" division setup (with a litte license putting Milwaukee in the NL East so that everything evens up)
AL East: Boston, New York 1 GB, Detroit 9.5 GB
AL West: Texas, Los Angeles 1 GB, Chicago 8 GB
NL East: Philadelphia, Milwaukee 10 GB
NL West: Atlanta, Arizona 1.5 GB, San Francisco 1.5 GB
Leaves us with similar races to the current setup, but removes the two Centrals from clogging up the playoffs and creates do or die situations for the best AL teams.
Honestly, I would prefer this way with the best teams having the most on the line for the rest of the season.
DEATH TO THE WILD CARD! š
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:05 pm
I always thought the point of the wild card was not to screw over teams with 90+ wins who would have won the other two divisions but didn't because they got stuck in a division with a team that won 100, for example. With the current 3 divisions plus wild card format, the 1992 Brewers I grew up listening to on the radio would have (deservedly) made the playoffs, along with probably dozens of other examples.
To me the purpose is to reward a team for having a good season and not penalize them for being stuck playing in the AL East, or whatever the case may be. Theoretically you could still have wild card races. Some years you will, some years you won't. Or, you have division races like this year's NL Central, where the 2nd-place team won't get the wild card but the division winner gets a playoff berth.
Now you can argue for or against the merits of that, but to say the only reason for the addition of the WC was to create playoff race intrigue is simply foolish (even if that idea came from something Selig or whoever said).
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:07 pm
And if you like the old 2- or 4- teams in the playoffs system, then don't go to any first-round playoff games and don't watch them on TV. Otherwise they aren't going anywhere.
In other words, get used to it, because as much as fansall complain you know they won't put your money where their mouth is, and so do MLB execs, and so do advertisers, and TV networks, and so on.
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Very misleading post, although I don't think it was intentional. Coolstandings (which I think is very dumb, all it does is show things that are painfully obvious but is still wrong all the time) counts wild card chances as separate from division winner, which is why no team other than Atlanta has a big chance. The reason AZ is so low is because they have a 56% chance of winning their own division, thus no wild card. For overall playoffs ATL is at 66% and AZ is at 61%, which more reflects the 1.5 game lead aspect.
@14 If somehow the Giants had a 12 game lead in the West then AZ would have a very high % to win the wild card over ATL because they are only 1.5 back, the reason theyre so low is not because of the reasons you listed, those reasons only play a minor part.
I would also very much like to justification for this "the AL Wilcard is almost mathematically certain" when post 15 lists 3 examples against this theory in the past 5 seasons, and I would be very interested to see the historical number of teams that made the playoffs with a 7 game lead on August 2, I would think far from the 99.99% you are implying.
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Topper, that's a great point about why my original post was misleading. It certainly wasn't intentional.
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
I don't know that the justification for the wild card (the purpose is pretty clearly to increase revenue as mentioned in the OP) is so add playoff intrigue via better/closer races so much as it is to keep more teams involved in the playoff chase (which incidentally increases crowds and tv viewing audiences in those cities).
It is also important if you want to have three divisions in each league in order to make the playoffs work. For all the drawbacks and imperfections that have previously been discussed about the current alignment and format of the divisions, I think they are a net positive for most fans for the simple reason that having more of your hometown team's games in the same time zone makes more games available to the tv audience (with apologies to Rangers fans). Games that start 2 or 3 time zones away start too early or end too late for much of the potential audience to watch the entire game. Granted DVRs help greatly in this regard in the western part of the country, but they aren't as useful when the game starts too late.
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I thought the wild card was designed solely to bring in more revenue. Thou shall be done.
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:56 pm
The 2007 NL season came down to the last DAY. Phillies, Mets, Padres, and Rockies all vying for 2 playoff spots (though the Padres/Rockies technically just for two). If the Mets had won their game, there would have been a 4 way tie! If there was no wild card, the Mets/Phillies would have been battling for the East and the Padres/Rockies would have been battling for nothing.
Yes, how boring that wild card is!
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:57 pm
just for two*
just for one
August 3rd, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Only Division 1A(or whatever they call it now)football has a regular season that is truly important.Every year the screaming to change it gets louder.
August 3rd, 2011 at 1:22 pm
The old way,1 team from each league was ideal.
August 3rd, 2011 at 2:19 pm
There is, of course, all this talk about adding a second wild card and having the two wild card teams meet in a one-game playoff.
Fine. But if you want it that way, it's time to scrap the divison format. Why should a 2nd place team in the AL East that wins, let's say, 95 games, have their season come down to one game against an AL Central or West team that has likely played an "easier" (read: lower combined winning %) schedule and may have only won, let's say, 88-90 games.
Get rid of the divisions, come up with some kind of balanced schedule. If it means the end or reduction of interleague play, so be it.
August 3rd, 2011 at 2:42 pm
#s 9 and 21 stole what might have been my thunder....
The reality of the wild card, as was obvious when the idea was introduced, is that you can expect either:
1) One really good team stuck behind another good team to run away with it, as often happens in the AL East
or
2) A bunch of so-so teams plod to the wire in a jumble, as so often happens in the NL.
The theory was that we'd benefit from the team in 1 making it to the playoffs (at the obvious expense of an exciting race) or be excited by 2 (at the obvious expense of having a so-so team make the playoffs).
It was doomed to suck, and it sucks. But the cool thing about baseball: you never know what will happen. So some years it works out OK not by design but by the luck of the baseball gods.
An additional thought: I'm a Yankee fan, and I see the Wild Card as the best thing big market teams could ask for. I mean, if we "falter" and finish second, we're still possibly in the playoffs? Say you're the O's and you have this brilliant season, beating out the Yanks and Sox and Rays to win the division. In the old days, you slew the dragon and moved on. Today, you still have to almost certainly have to accept that one of them will still be playing on. That's just not fair.
August 3rd, 2011 at 3:59 pm
# 1 - I would hate to see a scenario like Yanks v Rays in a single elimination game. Yanks are 10 games ahead of the Rays and it's ridiculous for them to play 1 for their playoff life.
August 3rd, 2011 at 4:34 pm
@34 - Then the Yankees should win the damn division. Teams are given 162 games to prove themselves the best, and only the one at the top of that food chain should gain favorable positioning in a playoff situation. Since playoffs are not about picking the best team so much as they are about picking the best team of the playoffs, the regular season champions deserve an edge and the losers do not.
August 3rd, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Lame that the Yankees used the Wildcard backdoor to basically throw the division last year. Perhaps Joe Girardi would consider the possibility that he is an idiot.
And perhaps baseball can just do what 1A college football does - just play a bunch of meaningless exhibitions six weeks after the season ends and then let the sportswriters choose a champion.
August 3rd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I hate the WC. I like Costas' suggestion ... division winner with best record gets a first-round bye.
August 3rd, 2011 at 5:26 pm
The whole system stinks. Be honest, if you are the Yankees and can decide if you should try to win the dividion and play the Tigers and Verlande in a 5-game series or NOT win and face Texas/LAA what would it be? I think they threw the dividion last eyar to avoid Lee in a 5-game series...and you knwo what it worked! (Too bad Girardi mismanaged Game 4 of the ALCS...)
One division, top 4, good night.
August 3rd, 2011 at 5:46 pm
How does having 1 division top 4 prevent the top team from deciding to tank if they want to play the 3 seed instead of the 4 seed? I like the divisional play because it means most games start at a good time to watch. If East Coast teams had to make 6 or 8 west coast trips that would be a ton of games starting at 10 local
August 3rd, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Listen to you people (not all)..all the "playoff" system is good for is to put money into the pockets of some very rich people. It's NOT about the "fans" enjoyment..IF you believe that..I suggest you get some professional help. 162 games are played to determine who is the "best" team is in each league..had been that way till 1969. Worked great as far as "most" baseball fans were concerned. If your team wasn't good enough to make it to the W.S....so be it..."most" would root for the league their lovable losers played in. Nothing complicated...twas straight foreward. What made the W.S. exciting was the fact the "best" teams played against each other AND they hadn't played against each other prior! Inter-league play killed that "fun" didn't it? No...I'm sorry to report..baseball has lost it's luster because the "fun" has been drained out..by GREED...and "many" fans have NO clue WHAT the 162 game schedule MEANS..and even more importantly..they also "bought" into this "better" type of baseball attitude by putting on blinders for not seeing it's all about cold hard cash..NOT for their enjoyment!!!
August 3rd, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Hasn't basically every single decision made by major league baseball since it was founded in 1876 or so been ABOUT MONEY? Wasn't the very founding of baseball as a professional enterprise about money? Wasn't the idea of having a Hall of Fame about money? Wasn't the idea of tolerating the American League by the National League about money? Wasn't the idea of fighting the American Association, Players League and Federal League about money? Wasn't the idea of having a World Series about money? Wasn't the idea of an All-Star Game every year about money? Wasn't the idea of expansion and relocation about money?
Just saying.
August 3rd, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Masternachos...absolutely! But it should be noted..that in "most" instances..rather than "preying" upon fans ignorance and excluding them as major "player' of HOW they made their revenue..they pretty much leaned toward a good product to make their living. Today's money is corporations VS fan based. Whereas in the not so distance past..baseball's revenue was basically from fans paying at the parks. Todays money is coming from TV contracts and the teams marketing skills of selling "group" tickets to businesses.Although I don't have the figures to back me up..however...I would be suprised IF "independant" fans make up more than a third of baseball's revenue. Thus, when you go to the park with a bud and see the stands half full...and to find out that "park" was sold out ticket wise....don't act suprised! Unfortunately...in the long run...fans become numb and corporations sales will tumble...NOT a good thing my friend! Just saying.
August 3rd, 2011 at 8:26 pm
The more teams you stuff into the playoff system, the more you lessen the importance of a 162 game season. That's 162 games of grinding it out, 162 games of managerial decisions, bad calls, heroics, blunders, great catches, awful errors, etc etc. That 162 game record is a distillation of everything that team has done. Maybe it's charming in football to have the scrappy underdog play David to Goliath. It's appalling to have an 83 win team take the World Series. We have the system we have, for better or worse. Let's not further cheapen it so the owners can pull down a few extra bucks. Making the playoffs and winning the World Series should mean something.
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:33 pm
@28 We don't need the wild card to create "wild" scenarios at the end of the season. Consider a few examples prior to 1969.
1959-with two games left to play, the Dodgers and Braves are tied and the Giants are 1.5 back. The possibility for a three way tie existed.
1964-with a week to go in the season, the Reds, Phils and Cards are all within 1.5 games of each other.
1967-with two games left the top 4 teams in the AL were within 2 games of one another.
I would argue that these wild races, like the WC in 07 that you cite, will occur without the wild card. This alone is not a reason to support.
Due to the $$$ the WC is here to stay.
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:48 pm
@44 Iron Horse-I agree it's here to stay. I'm just hoping the owners endless quest for revenues Bud doesn't set up some dinky farce.
August 4th, 2011 at 3:37 am
For those who hate my idea of (in my example) Yankees-Rays being a one-game playoff:
You would have the Yanks and Red Sox going all-out to avoid being in that one-game elimination scenario against a Rays team both are soundly ahead of. While if whoever lost the AL won that game would have home field against whoever won (as of this writing the AL West winner) in the Division round, you'd still have the Yanks and Sox in an all-out war to avoid that game. Meanwhile, the Tigers would be fighting to get ahead of who is in second in the AL West to avoid falling to the #5 seed and in the process having to play the Wild Card game on the road and at the same time trying to get in front of both the Angels and Rangers to get the #2 seed and the first-round bye that goes with it.
In my format, there will be years where all three division races in one league are determined by Labor Day, but you can just as easily have all three division leaders in a dogfight to avoid falling into the Wild Card round, making for some very meaningful September baseball from games that otherwise would not mean anything. This to me is very important in keeping casual fans interested.
August 4th, 2011 at 4:46 am
@44
Perhaps, but when my father was growing up, every single freaking year (practically) the Yankees were in the World Series. How thrilling.
I think people have this fondness for the good ol days, esp of no division baseball, and have forgotten just how crappy it was for most fans.
For every "exciting" pennant race, there were plenty of 1975 Reds (20 games ahead) type teams. Sure, that's an extreme but it definitely happened enough. How boring it must have been for every NL West team's fans knowing the season was over with a month to go.
August 4th, 2011 at 5:49 am
I agree with Rich that in general there is a tendency to recall the past as being better than it was. This is true in many areas, not just baseball. For its faults, I still think today's playoff system is better overall than any from the past, due to the simple fact that more teams make it, and more fans have reason to be excited about their teams. Yes, the playoffs are watered down with lesser teams---but you can't have one without the other.
August 4th, 2011 at 7:14 am
Points well taken @ 47 and 48...but it demonstrates the lack of understanding of baseball in general.There are 2 kinds of fans..ones that understand and appreciate the game itself..then there are ones that are team based only (if my team didn't make it..then what 's the use!) The latter type of fans have all but ignored what it takes to be a "true" winner...the 162 game schedule. The 5-7 game format (play-offs) is ONLY a micro look into a macro type system...thus, an inferior team has a better chance of winning in that atmosphere! TRUE baseball fans recognize this fact and sees this current type system as bogus as bogus can get. Sure I would LOVE to see my team make it to the WS more often...BUT I don't want them OR anyone to "back into it"...I want them to EARN it...that's WHY they play 162 games! Do you really want a NHL or NBA type system? C'mon this is baseball..the BEST game EVER to be played!
August 4th, 2011 at 7:55 am
MLS, that's a fair point for students of the game like readers of this blog, but I'm thinking more generally. We in this local community appreciate feats by all teams and players and tend to love the game for itself, beyond our personal allegiances to particular teams. But overall, most fans lose interest when their teams don't sniff the playoffs for 15-20 years.
August 4th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Andy I fully agree with you, as well as understand the "points" given. Also, I understand the game is actually in it's infancy and baseball as we know it today..will evolve into something entirely different that we know it today. If there is a point to be raised it is this: when do we as fans, make a statement to MLB..enough is enough? Case in point, the baseball "Gods" got together and developed a system for pitchers to pitch 100 pitchs a game and pitch every 5th game. This, we were told, would "save" a pitchers arm.( Speaking from experience my father was a starter for nearly 15 yrs, pitchers are freaks of nature). There has been absolutely NO proof this is the case. If so, please let me know. Yet, as fans, we allow this travesty to continue. As a paying fan, personally I'd like to get my moneys worth, how about you? Perhaps this will change...but I doubt it. It is way past time to be complacent. My biggest fear (if it hasn't happened already) is that youngsters will become "numb" to baseball. Rather than be viewed as the "elite" sport in America...it will be slipped into the catagory of WWA. Saddens me deeply.
August 4th, 2011 at 10:18 am
@51
There's 300 million people, plus, in the US. If only 10% of them even care about baseball that's still 30 million fans. Then factor in Latin America. Then factor in Japan. Then factor in increasing interest in Europe/Asia. I don't think baseball is going anywhere.
Football is king right now, but 80 years ago it was all about horse racing and boxing. There's an ebb and flow, to a degree, but the truth is that baseball has been culturally significant for more than 100 years.
I've gone to a number of HS/legion games in the past few years, and, at least in the area I live, there's no shortage of youth interest in baseball.
August 4th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Baseball is never going to do a balanced schedule, and there is one reason: money. Yankees v. Red Sox games make a lot more money, so baseball (and the yankees and red sox) want more of them. Any other set of teams that develop a rivalry or have contenders are in the same position, such as the Cubs and Cardinals, just to a lesser extent. Anytime you have a close pennant race, those team's games are making more money.
As for pennant races, there is an inherent balancing act between having great races and having all excellent teams represented. To some extent races are exciting in large part for the same reasons playoffs are exciting -- because they involve a great team who may have to go home. If you put too many wild cards in the playoffs, then there will rarely or never be any great teams in any danger of missing the playoffs. If you put too few, then you may well have some truly great teams performing excellent all year that get left out in favor of mediocre division winners.
AL 2005 was sort of the best of both worlds, you had a great 4 team race for 3 spots, with a very good team that went home (exciting), but you didn't have 2 of the top 3 or 4 teams left out, they way you might have (and often did) without any wild card.
Adding a second or third wild card would pretty much moot the possibility of a great team missing the playoffs. I don't know where the optimal place to draw the line is and a lot of it depends on your preferences -- would you prefer to see a great team go home because they lose the 162 game race to a similar team in their division -- even if some barely over .500 trash team is making it by winning a weak division, or would you rather see all or almost all the great teams get in?
My personal purist take is that you should get rid of divisions entirely, play a pure round robin or as close as you can get, and simply take the best 1, 2 or 4 teams over 162 seeded in order of finish(*). But that will never happen for the reasons in my first paragraph.
(*) And in my ideal fantasy world, you take 2 teams from each league, and the playoff is best of 9, with the world series best of 11. Next best would be 4 teams with series of 7, 9, 11 games.
August 4th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Of the X number of seasons before the Wild Card, How many seasons actually 'did' have an exciting pennant race of some kind? Giving examples of famous races doesn't help- I want to know what % of the time there actually WAS a 'pennant race.'
And if you look at the data, ballpark attendance in, say, the 1950s was AWFUL compared to today.
August 4th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Masternachos' question gets at my earlier point about recalling the past better than it was. People tend to cite a few examples that stick out in their mind and support their gut feeling, but often these examples often do not reflect the true average. In fact this is one of the roots of sabermetrics, where we try to apply real numbers instead of what Joe Morgan's eyes (and sample bias) tell us.
August 4th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Masternachos...is the "question" even relevant??? What really matters is that the BEST teams played in the W.S....there was NO guessing..NO what ifs....there was NO team just trying to make the playoffs...they had one task and one task ONLY...to win the most games in their respected leagues. Regardless of the attendance...that was THE goal..every team knew it. As I mentioned earlier...what made it really fun was that neither team had played prior to the fall classic! To think about it..All-Star games were fun then too...because it meant something! Today..they have the HR derby...LOL..what a joke! BTW,,sabermetrics was invented by some guy that had some crush on his childhood star and wanted to push his pencil to the limit to show the world his "star" was truly that!
August 4th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Sabermetrics was invented when Henry Chadwick decided to tally hits per at bat, rather than assume the best hitter was the guy with the prettiest swing.
August 4th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Yeah..but what did good old Henry say about OBP..LOL
August 4th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Don't really know why 'question' was in quotation marks...
As for 'made it fun,' isn't that just opinion? I mean, I don't watch the World Series and think, 'This is missing something...'
I watch the World Series and think, 'This is the World Series. This is awesome!' I HAVE FUN when I watch the playoffs, or the All-Star Game.