I disagree. The ALCS epics of '03 and '04 helped the Red Sox/Yankee rivalry tremendously. Without the Wild Card, they never would have happened. Without the Wild Card, there would be no chance of the Mets ever playing the Braves in a playoff series. That happening can only help that rivalry.
They play each other 19 times during the regular season. If you defeat a team over a 162 game period you shouldn't have to worry about them getting lucky in a shortened playoff series.
I agree completely with this position. I have no problem with the wild card (in fact, I like it), and while it would be nice if the better team could have a bigger advantage than the extra home game in a 7-game series, I doubt that any solution would be very easy to implement. The four wild card teams that have won the WS all had better records than at least one of the division champions in their league; the WS champions in the wild card era with the two worst regular season records were the 2006 Cardinals and 2000 Yankees, both of which were division champions; and the median winning percentages for wild card WS winners and division champion WS winners are exactly the same (.587). I don't see any evidence there that the wild card teams that won were any more or less deserving than the division champion teams that won.
Let's eliminate divisions then and just have the teams with the top 3 records make the playoffs. If you're going to have an 162 game season, having the best record in the league and in your division has to mean something and currently it doesn't. Personally, I'd rather a "deserving" team that didn't win their division miss the playoffs then have a situation like last year in the NL where the 2 best teams played each other in a 5 game series and the Cardinals skated by a lousy Padres team and then caught fire.
It's an interesting debate with the wild card. A few years ago, MLB tried putting great credibility to a division win by having those teams play each other 19 times per season. Although that does add some validity to a division win, it has made the wild card race totally unbalanced because the teams going for the WC are from different divisions and play different opponents different amount of times. So that takes a bit from the WC, as well as what 3rd is saying in regards to there only being a 1 home game advantage to winning the division (if you have home field advantage). I wonder if the best way to cover for this is by eliminating the "Can't play a team within your own division in the WC Round" rule, and then having the WC team play all 5 first round games on the road in the stadium of the team with the best record.
except that often times a team can win the season series, yet still finish second. Happened in 2004. Problem is that the schedules tend not to be even, and as such, why not let the best teams play.
The schedules aren't even because of interleague play. Also, it's not about just winning the head to head matchup. Maybe it's just a bad matchup, the team that wins the division shouldn't have to worry about a team they defeated for the regular season title coming back to beat them in a 7 game playoff series.
I have to say, I agree with every point 3rd has made in this thread. Undeserving teams make the playoffs and get lucky. Like he pointed out, the best teams don't even appear in the playoffs. Last year Philly was better than the Cards in the regular season, but went home while the Cards basically stole the title. (Let's be honest, the Mets should have murdered the Cards.) Why play all the games then? Add to all of the previous points, that we are talking about a 5 game series, rather than a 7, and it's an even bigger disadvantage to the top team. The #1 team has probably got the best record in the league thanks to a consistent starting rotation. That means 5 guys rotating around a 5 game section of games. In a 5 game series, your #s 1 and 2 are suddenly pitching twice in 5 games. (You can argue that the # of days rest is the same, but let's be honest, it's not the same psychologically, and pitching is perhaps only overshadowed by QBing as the most mentally taxing position in sports.) Plus, #s 4 and 5 are getting totally skipped in the first round, so they're probably off for 10 days between their last regular season start, and their first post-season start (if they advance at all.) There goes any consistency.
The bolded part is an argument FOR the Wild Card. The Cardinals won the division, so they made it. The Phillies may have been a better team, with a better record, but they played in a tougher division and missed the playoffs, but only because there was a team in the west with a better record than them. Without the Wild Card, the playoff teams in the NL are the Dodgers, Mets, and Cardinals. Either way, the Phillies weren't getting in, and that's because they happened to be in the division with the Mets. I do agree with the pitching thing, but my solution to that would be a best of 7 in the first round as well.
And I once again agree completely with you. (And before comments come that that would make the WS even later, the answer to that is to shorten the regular season by a few games.)
If they extended the first series to 7 games, that would be enough for me to reconsider my position on the subject of the wild card.
That would go a long way towards fixing it. Like devil pointed out, some team better than the ones that get to October will always get sent home, but at least a 7 game series makes it fair to the best teams.
