Expand the League and Kill the Wildcard?

[treebird]

I hate the Wild Card.

 

Here's an example why. Let's say that the A's and Angels both get hot and are on pace to win 100 games each in mid to late September. Let's also say (this is not realisitic, but go with me) that Curt Schilling moves back to the rotation and gets HOTHOTHOT for the Red Sox. The Yankees and all the other Wild Card contenders fall off.

 

Here's how things play out. White Sox have the best record in the league and will play the Wild Card team. Boston will play the winner of the west, regardless of the number of wins they have. Who would you rather play, the White Sox or the Red Sox? Suddenly, both the A's and Angels have pretty substantial incentive to lose as much as possible.

 

That's bad.

 

Then your problem is with the seeding of the playoffs, not necessarily the WC itself.

 

explain how to seed the teams with a wild card so that won't happen.

 

this wouldn't happen if there were four divisions or no divisions or two divisions or whatever.

 

If you seed the teams based on win-loss record without regard to division, then it won't happen.

 

that would help in scenarios in which the a's and angels both have better records than the red sox, but . . .

 

White Sox have best record.

Red Sox have second best record.

Lesser record of A's/Angels gets the White Sox.

[Mark_R]

that would help in scenarios in which the a's and angels both have better records than the red sox, but . . .

 

White Sox have best record.

Red Sox have second best record.

Lesser record of A's/Angels gets the White Sox.

 

are you still implying that teams would/should throw games to face the Sox? I don't think any team would do that under ANY circumstances.

 

Second of all, I don't get why teams wouldn't wanna face the BoSox. Their Starting pitching isn't all that great and all you ever hear is that teams with a strong 1-3 don't wanna be played. Sox have a strong 1-3... though their offense lacks what Boston's does, Boston's starting pitching isn't on par with the White Sox.

Edited August 9, 2005 by Mark_R

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I hate the Wild Card.

 

Here's an example why. Let's say that the A's and Angels both get hot and are on pace to win 100 games each in mid to late September. Let's also say (this is not realisitic, but go with me) that Curt Schilling moves back to the rotation and gets HOTHOTHOT for the Red Sox. The Yankees and all the other Wild Card contenders fall off.

 

Here's how things play out. White Sox have the best record in the league and will play the Wild Card team. Boston will play the winner of the west, regardless of the number of wins they have. Who would you rather play, the White Sox or the Red Sox? Suddenly, both the A's and Angels have pretty substantial incentive to lose as much as possible.

 

That's bad.

 

Then your problem is with the seeding of the playoffs, not necessarily the WC itself.

 

explain how to seed the teams with a wild card so that won't happen.

 

this wouldn't happen if there were four divisions or no divisions or two divisions or whatever.

 

If you seed the teams based on win-loss record without regard to division, then it won't happen.

 

that would help in scenarios in which the a's and angels both have better records than the red sox, but . . .

 

White Sox have best record.

Red Sox have second best record.

Lesser record of A's/Angels gets the White Sox.

 

Then that's no longer a problem of the wild card, it's a problem that the team with the best record isn't the most feared. There's no way to prevent that, unless you did something ridiculous like seeding based on record in September.

[NorthsideAvenger]

Anybody who hates the Wild Card apparently doesn't like intense baseball. Wild Card---as Snoop Dogg would say---"Is off the hizzle."

 

I would go 6 five team divisions, with 2 WC winners (don't matter from which division). I would shorten the season from 162 to about 140 games. Drop 2 weeks off of ST, and start the season around the 22/23 of March. I would ALSO drop the Interleague Series, cause that is now boring; Detroit .v. Arizona, TB .v. Colorado...come on, gimme a break. I rather baseball reestablish rivalries like the Cubs/Mets, the Braves/Cards etc.

 

Wild Card rules....outside the fact the Cubs have no shot at it this yr.

 

Doesn't that mean that every day that a team is off? That's bad revenue for baseball to have teams not playing on a Friday, Saturday Sunday. Not to mention it makes scheduling an even bigger headache than it already is.

 

Yes, i thought I already explained this earlier. You can't have odd numbered teams in each league.

 

Fine, make it three WC; with Top 2 seeds with byes and the seeds 3-6 playing in a best out of 3 series.

[cbbryan]

A few things come to mind while reading this thread. I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post!

 

First off, no way would I entertain the thought of expansion yet again. In fact, I think that 2 teams should be contracted (TB and COL.) and that the rosters should be expanded from 25/40 to 27/42, or 30/45. It would allow the players from the 2 contracted teams to find jobs, so the players union might go for it. I say TB and COL because neither franchise has really done anything to anchor itself in baseball history and what I mean mostly here is win a WS, or consistantly be in the playoffs..........which if they had been doing that they'd probably have great revenue streams and be quality clubs. I know, I know TB has alot of young talent..............they still haven't done anything.

 

Secondly, I don't know what all the fuss is about the wildcard. It generates so much excitement for baseball. Pre '94 our season would have been done at the ASG with the Cards out to a huge lead, instead we've been waking up every morning reading the boxscores of the teams ahead of us, or staying up late to catch the scores on ESPN to see where we're at. You're never going to have a perfect system, but the wildcard has put excitement in baseball. So, I would stand pat on the playoff system.

 

As far as alignment, by removing 1 team from both leagues, that would put the AL at 13 teams and the NL at 15. I would either move Milwaukee back to the AL, or I'd move Arizona to the AL. If Arizona wants to move obviously I'd go that route. I'd also switch Texas and Washington in leagues (assuming Washington stays in Washington.) I'd then go back to 2 divisions. They're would be the East and West in both. And I'd have 2 WC in each league that could come out of any division. So you could have 2 WC out of one division if it fell that way. The divisions would line out like this:

 

AL East

 

NY Yankees

Boston Red Sox

Toronto Blue Jays

Baltimore Orioles

Washington Nationals

Cleveland Indians

Detroit Tigers

 

AL West

 

Chicago White Sox

LAA Angels

Oakland A's

Arizona Diamondbacks

Seattle Mariners

Kansas City Royals

Minnesota Twins

 

 

NL East

 

NY Mets

Pittsburgh Pirates

Philadelphia Phillies

Chicago Cubs

St. Louis Cardinals

Milwaukee Brewers

Cincinnati Reds

 

NL West

 

Atlanta Braves

Houston Astros

Texas Rangers

Florida Marlins

San Francisco Giants

San Diego Padres

Los Angelos Dodgers

 

I know the geographical positioning isn't exactly right, but I think it would help to eliminate the team that has a .500, or under record that may hold on to a division for much of the year. Your division winner would obviously make it into the playoffs and then 2 WC would be awarded in both leagues. For example, if the Cards won 115 games in the East and the Braves won 98 games to win the West they would both get in. If the Astros were second w/ 90 wins and the Rangers were 3rd w/ 89 in the West, but the Cubs were second in the East with 85............both the Astros and Rangers would be wildcards. I would match the highest seed vs the lowest win total in the WC. In this case, the divisional playoffs would be Cards vs Rangers and Braves vs Astros.

 

 

 

For parity reasons, I would put in a minimum cap for spending on ballclubs. I don't believe that a salary cap would be effective in baseball as it is in the NFL, or NBA. I think the roster structure is too different. I would like to see the luxury tax continued along w/ a minimum cap that teams would HAVE to spend X amount to field a competative team and some type of revenue sharing to help supplement the smaller markets. I think this would also help with keeping some of the marquee players with the teams they come up with because the team has to spend a certain amount on players..................might as well spend it to keep the good ones!!!!!

 

 

Sorry for the blurb! Just alot of thoughts as I read through here.

[AlwaysaCub]

A few things come to mind while reading this thread. I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post!

 

First off, no way would I entertain the thought of expansion yet again. In fact, I think that 2 teams should be contracted (TB and COL.) and that the rosters should be expanded from 25/40 to 27/42, or 30/45. It would allow the players from the 2 contracted teams to find jobs, so the players union might go for it. I say TB and COL because neither franchise has really done anything to anchor itself in baseball history and what I mean mostly here is win a WS, or consistantly be in the playoffs..........which if they had been doing that they'd probably have great revenue streams and be quality clubs. I know, I know TB has alot of young talent..............they still haven't done anything.

 

This is true of TB, but Colorado is a cash cow, because they have large attendances. For that reason, I think that the Marlins should be contracted as well, because their attendances are just as lowsy as TB's.

[cbbryan]

A few things come to mind while reading this thread. I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post!

 

First off, no way would I entertain the thought of expansion yet again. In fact, I think that 2 teams should be contracted (TB and COL.) and that the rosters should be expanded from 25/40 to 27/42, or 30/45. It would allow the players from the 2 contracted teams to find jobs, so the players union might go for it. I say TB and COL because neither franchise has really done anything to anchor itself in baseball history and what I mean mostly here is win a WS, or consistantly be in the playoffs..........which if they had been doing that they'd probably have great revenue streams and be quality clubs. I know, I know TB has alot of young talent..............they still haven't done anything.

 

This is true of TB, but Colorado is a cash cow, because they have large attendances. For that reason, I think that the Marlins should be contracted as well, because their attendances are just as lowsy as TB's.

 

I don't think you can contract the Marlins. They've won 2 WS. They need a new stadium, good marketing, and a great rival.

[frostwyrm]

The Virginia tidewater region has been mentioned as a place that could support baseball. I don't know the exact population of the area but it's pretty big and Virginia Beach attracts lots of vacationers in the summer. An NL team there would be a nice rival for the Nats.

[mhuber92211]

Portland is a perfect place for a baseball team. If anyone has ever been or lived in Portland it would be able to support a team and be similar to a situation where a team can grow as the population grows.

 

Imagine a waterfront (Columbia/Willamette River) Ballpark (Nike Field?) and with the plentiful corporations nearby there would be plenty of corporate sponserships. Move the Diamondbacks into the AL West and put Portland in that Slot and it would give natural interleague rivilaries to Seattle to give that interest and it would develop a strong rivarly to SF during the regualr season.

[frostwyrm]

Has MLB ever considered putting a team in Mexico City? Some non-Spanish-speaking players might be reluctant to go there but some Latin players who don't speak good English might actually prefer Mexico.

[Derwood]

Has MLB ever considered putting a team in Mexico City? Some non-Spanish-speaking players might be reluctant to go there but some Latin players who don't speak good English might actually prefer Mexico.

 

The rumors I've heard are Monterrey (sp?), not Mexico City. Mexico City has a higher altitudethan Colorado!

[JC]

Admittedly, I haven't read this whole thread. However, I cannot see why you would want to expand the league? The talent seems pretty watered down to me. Further, internationalizing the sport to the degree of placing teams in Mexico, Puerto Rico, etc., doesn't feel right.

[Derwood]

Admittedly, I haven't read this whole thread. However, I cannot see why you would want to expand the league? The talent seems pretty watered down to me. Further, internationalizing the sport to the degree of placing teams in Mexico, Puerto Rico, etc., doesn't feel right.

 

I just started the thread as a hypothetical. I'm nto necessarily championing it as the right thing to do.

[frostwyrm]

Admittedly, I haven't read this whole thread. However, I cannot see why you would want to expand the league? The talent seems pretty watered down to me. Further, internationalizing the sport to the degree of placing teams in Mexico, Puerto Rico, etc., doesn't feel right.

 

I have no problem with moving south of the border. I wouldn't even mind seeing a team in Havana after Fidel is gone. Putting a team in a spanish-speaking city seems far more natural to me than a team in Montreal.

[Derwood]

Admittedly, I haven't read this whole thread. However, I cannot see why you would want to expand the league? The talent seems pretty watered down to me. Further, internationalizing the sport to the degree of placing teams in Mexico, Puerto Rico, etc., doesn't feel right.

 

I have no problem with moving south of the border. I wouldn't even mind seeing a team in Havana after Fidel is gone. Putting a team in a spanish-speaking city seems far more natural to me than a team in Montreal.

 

ha ha. My team is in Havana in my simulated baseball league

 

We're the Havana Diablos

[cbbryan]

Moving a team may be what is needed. Teams like Florida, or TB where attendance is low and revenues are down. The other thing not discussed is the Nationals.............will they stay there? No one has purchased them and it's just as likely that a buyer would want to move them as keep them there.

 

 

Was there any thoughts on the 4 division line-up w/ 2 Wild Card winners out of each league? Or the minimum spending limit?

[Jimy is a misspell]

The WC has been one of the best things for baseball in the modern era, IMHO. Wy would you want to change that? It's still very difficult to make the MLB postseason, it's not like we have the NBA or NHL here. Plus, we have expanded enough, I am tired of watering down the talent pool. There are already too many BS cities that can't or won't support a team already.

 

Baseball is fine, leave it alone! No realignment, no expansion, and no salary cap!

[JC]

 

Baseball is fine, leave it alone! No realignment, no expansion, and no salary cap!

 

Why would any fan be against a salary cap? It would provide a much, much greater guarantee of competitive balance and help fix the costs for the average fan of attending ballgames.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

Baseball is fine, leave it alone! No realignment, no expansion, and no salary cap!

 

Why would any fan be against a salary cap? It would provide a much, much greater guarantee of competitive balance and help fix the costs for the average fan of attending ballgames.

 

Make that 2 fans that are against a salary cap.

 

Do you really think that it would stop the greedy owners from raising prices JC?

[J.R.]

The WC has been one of the best things for baseball in the modern era, IMHO. Wy would you want to change that? It's still very difficult to make the MLB postseason, it's not like we have the NBA or NHL here. Plus, we have expanded enough, I am tired of watering down the talent pool. There are already too many BS cities that can't or won't support a team already.

 

Baseball is fine, leave it alone! No realignment, no expansion, and no salary cap!

 

We agree!