Time to dump the Wild Card?

No. For a reason someone stated above, the wild card has been a very effective way to bring a postseason-quality team into the playoffs, and said team is generally as good, if not better -- aside from a record -- than the division winners.

Since its inception, there have been 12 postseasons -- 1994, obviously is excluded. Only three times has each wild-card winner been ousted in the division series: 1995, 1998 and 2001. Through the 1999-2004 seasons, each wild-card winner found its way into the LCS. And eight of the 24 wild-card winners have been to the World Series -- including two in 2002, the Giants and Angels. Four teams have won titles: The 1997 Marlins, 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins and the 2004 Red Sox.

Through the course of 162 games, it should be obvious who the best team is. But if that were the case, why even have a postseason? And if you think the wild-card system is flawed, I disagree whole-heartedly. It seems to have upped the competitive balance quite a bit, not to mention spreading the fanbase and generated more revenue.

If every season the wild-card winners were dumped in three games, maybe I'd be on board with getting rid of it. But they're not. And when seven of the last 14 world-series teams are wild-card winners, I'd say this system is working all right.

 

Driving into the future looking into the rearview mirror.

 

Yeah, dump the wild card.

I'm sure the fans in cities that have teams battling for the wild card aren't paying any attention to it at all.

 

For the challenged among us, 12 of 32 NFL teams make the postseason, while 8 of 30 baseball teams do.

So yes, baseball still maintains the most exclusive postseason.

 

And it takes no where close to as long as the NBA or NHL -- which take 16 teams-- either.

I really don't see how this question even comes up after 12 years of practice with stellar results.

 

I look at it differently. I don't think it's a good thing that wild cards have been so successful in the postseason. If over 162 games another team in your division has proven itself better than you, it should be extremely difficult for you to win the World Series. It shouldn't be so easy for a second-place team to get hot for a couple of weeks and win the whole thing. Keep the wild card because of the regular season interest it creates, but make it so that a team has a real incentive to win its division rather than get in as a WC.

 

Mike hit it on the head. The wild card has been great for baseball. And whoever wrote about 1951 and 1967 (and 1993, the reason this nostalgia was so fresh in our minds when the wild card hit) were anomalies was absolutely right. Most years, there might be 2 teams fighting for the pennant in the final month but a lot of times it was already wrapped up. Never mind that 75 percent of MLB cities had nothing to cheer/play for. Bring back the purity? Please.

 

As usual, buckdub strokes one right back up the middle.

 

Joe, baseball's postseason is - and always has been - a crapshoot. It can't be helped; baseball, unlike basketball and hockey, is a totally different game at 162 than it is at best-of-7. Nature of the beast, which is why a team built to be the best over 162 is often not the best in 4-of-7. But baseball's season is special because it tests you at both. With rare exceptions (1973 NYM, 2006 STL), you still have to be very good over 162 to make it to the playoffs, and then you have to be even better in best-of-7 to win the championship. It works.

 

According to Bill James and his Ilk mlb should have a 250+ game season to truly determine the best team. I love the wild card and think it was a the best idea that "smoking" Bud came up with.

 

OK, I'll say it. I didn't like the wild card then and I don't love it now. If baseball went back to four divisions--or two leagues--I'd be thrilled.

It's never going to happen, and without the wild card, we don't have the 2004 Red Sox or the 2003 Marlins or the 2002 Angels. This, of course, presumes everything occurs in a vacuum. So does the following (because I grew up on the four-division, 26-team format and it's fun to see the standings this way again, fuck expansion!!!):

2007 AMERICAN LEAGUE EAST
Cleveland 90-62 --
Boston 90-63 1/2
New York 88-64 2
Detroit 83-70 7 1/2
Milwaukee 78-73 11 1/2
Toronto 77-75 13
Baltimore 64-87 25 1/2

2007 AMERICAN LEAGUE WEST
California 90-62 --
Seattle 81-70 8 1/2
Minnesota 75-77 15
Oakland 74-80 17
Texas 70-82 20
Chicago 66-86 24
Kansas City 65-86 24 1/2

2007 NATIONAL LEAGUE EAST
New York 84-67 --
Philadelphia 82-70 2 1/2
Chicago 80-73 3 1/2
St. Louis 71-80 13
Montreal 68-84 16 1/2
Pittsburgh 66-86 18 1/2

2007 NATIONAL LEAGUE WEST
San Diego 84-67 --
Los Angeles 79-73 5 1/2
Atlanta 79-73 5 1/2
Cincinnati 69-83 15 1/2
San Francisco 67-85 17 1/2
Houston 66-86 18 1/2

 

I grew up on that format, too. Always love seeing how the standings would look with the 26 teams I grew up on (and love that you changed it to Montreal and California.)

And love, love, love the old NL West. That brings back great memories, of 1991 and 1993. It was much more fun to see the Braves fighting the Dodgers, Reds and Giants for division supremacy than the stupid Mets (let alone Marlins and Expos).

One thing I'll never forgive MLB for is making me throw away my big standings board (came with dry-erase markers, and logo magnets for every team) that I updated every night; it hung on the wall in my bedroom. I got a new one in 1994, with the three divisions, and the expansion teams -- then, of course, I had to throw that away a few years later, when the D'backs and D-Rays came in and the Brewers moved to the NL Central and fucked it up again. For one season, I tried to make it work, splitting the last spot for the Brewers (5th) and Pirates (6th) and writing really small. But it was too much of a hassle, and by then I was 17 (and, surprisingly, not a virgin), so that was the end of my dry-erase standings board days.