Thoughts on the Wild Card
It's the thirteenth year of the wild card, and, despite it's wild success, people are still complaining. Nuts to them.
Jerry Crasnick has a column for ESPN on "fixing" the wild card. He starts with a quote from G.W. Bush on being the lone vote among ownership against the wild card, and how history will prove him right; it's a great set-up for a joke, but he blows it. He offered five options (including keeping the current format) to a front office person from each of the 30 teams, and tallies the results.
Before commenting on each of the options, I must say that I don't see the logic behind the supposed need to punish the wild card team and the inherent superiority of being a division winner. Let's face it, some of these divisions have been ... not so good over the last dozen years. The two central and two western divisions have taken their turns as the worst division in baseball, and I can recall fretting that three of those divisions (AL West, NL West, NL Central, in chronological order) would be won by a team without a winning record (so far, at least, that has not occurred). Is a division winner with an 82-80 record -- which, moreover, only has a winning record because the unbalanced schedule allows it to play extra games against its weaker division rivals -- really inherently better than a 90-win wild card? Thinking people everywhere respond with a resounding no. The people who think that's the case must be the same ones who think wins (or, for that matter, saves) are the best measure of the quality of a pitcher, irrespective of ERA or quality of the team they play for, let alone any of the more advanced metrics. One option I've heard proposed that was not in the column (due at least in part to it not being an option that could be implemented at any time in the near future) is to expand by another two teams and have each league move to four, four-team divisions and eliminate the wild card. This boneheaded plan practically guarantees that there will eventually be a playoff team with a losing record. As much as I love the Cubs, I have to admit that they were greatly helped by playing in a division where Milwaukee was the only other decent team, and the Rockies, who played in the much tougher West, are a more deserving playoff team. Actually, I've looked at it more tonight, and the Rockies are a much better team than I'd given them credit for. Right now, I'd say they're the favorites to represent the National League in the World Series. Of course, I'm still pulling for a Cubs comeback.
Back on topic, one option offered was to have the wild card team play four of the five opening series games on the road. This is the sort of dumb idea that people who believe in the inherent superiority of division winners would embrace, and my reasoning for why they're mistaken stands as my reasoning for why this is a bad idea. It received three votes.
Another idea is to follow old Japan League rules and let a team that won a division by five or more games win a "best of five" series with only two wins, while its opponent needed three (essentially making it a best of four series, with a tie going to the higher-seeded team). Same basic logic applies here, plus it's too gimmicky. Fans are already easily confused by tiebreakers and that would be too much for them. It received no votes.
A third option was adding a second wild card, and having the two play either a one-game play-in, or a best-of-three series. This scenario contains a bit of the previously mentioned biases, but they're less pronounced. If you want to talk fairness, would it be fair to make a team with the second-best record in the league defend its playoff spot against a team with the fifth-best record, when under the current system it might have won that spot by ten games? Yes, it's a scenario that won't nearly happen every year, but it will happen. I despise the one game play-in (except in the case of tiebreakers). Major League Baseball is a place where any team can beat any other team on any day of the week to a degree not found in the other major sports. A one-game play-in will, on average, give the better team only about a 55% chance of making the playoffs. It comes down more to who has the single best pitcher. As someone who dislikes the fact that two top starting pitchers is basically all you need to win the World Series (see the 2001 Diamondbacks), this is even more distasteful. A three-game playoff, while less of a crapshoot than a one-game one, is still more of one than a five-game series, and you already have people like Billy Beane complaining about that. Plus, you've got to figure that this scenario has the division winners resting for at least four days, and probably at least five. It's logistically problematic. This received seven votes (no word on any vote breakdown between one game and a three game series).
A reasonable and popular idea was expanding the opening series from five to seven games. Little surprise, Billy Beane supported this one. I think this is a decent idea, probably the best of the five options. A longer series tends to benefit the better team. Selig, an apparent opponent of the idea, whines that the calendar is a problem for this option. With the newly expanded calendar, this is laughable. You now have a travel day built in between games four and five of the division series (some people have complained about this; I'm more ambivalent), so that takes care of the extra travel day that would be "needed" for a seven game series compared to previous postseason schedules. This leaves you needing to find two more days. First, and most obviously, they decided to add a non-travel off day between games four and five of the league championship series this year, due to thinking that you can provide your own negative adjective for. For the benefit of anyone from MLB that might read this, I'll put the following statement in bold: Non-travel offdays in the middle of a series are bad. I hate them opening week, I hate them in the one division series that does it each year, and now I hate them in the LCS. The final extra day needed can be obtained by eliminating an off day between the LCS and World Series. Currently, one league is guaranteed at least two off days, and the other, three (this year, the American League, and National League, respectively, though it's scheduled to alternate years).Between this lag and the previously mentioned non-travel offday, a pair of sweeps in the LCS would mean a week without any baseball. Not good. So there are the extra days needed without lengthening the playoffs by another day. This option received thirteen votes.
The other option, as mentioned, was maintaining the current format. I'll admit that the added unpredictability of a five game series does tend to add a bit more excitement (compared to the seven game series, that is), which is the only thing keeping me from fully endorsing the previous option. This option received seven votes.
--------------------------------------------
I attended Game 2 of the Cubs-Diamondbacks series. The seats weren't great (my fault for waiting to order them, I guess), the game was so-so. Obviously, there's some bias in that I would have preferred a Cubs victory. The early innings were rather slow (the first 5 1/2 innings took nearly three hours), which led to a total game time that was not justified but offensive output, extra innings, or even a suspenseful regulation game. The Diamondbacks took a four run lead in the bottom of the fourth, and the Cubs never got closer than that. Four runs is small enough that you can hope and root for them to make it up (or hope and root against it, if you're the opposing team), but large enough that a tie or lead change is not likely. Suspense takes a bit hit between three and four runs. The game was lasting long enough that there was a large exodus after the fifth inning, when the Diamondbacks took an 8-2 lead. While six runs is a large lead, it's hardly the blowout that justifies leaving that early, especially in the playoffs. I'm left believing that a sizable percentage of those who left would have stayed longer if not for the time issue (and that previous half-inning was especially time consuming). It was probably a combination of the score and time for several fans, and I imagine that there was somebody who left who would not have if they'd known the Cubs would score a pair in the next inning. Of course, many more left after the sixth, anyways, but I still believe that at least one person out of all of those who left after the fifth would have stayed if he'd known the game would get closer.
The big three hitters for the Cubs have been a big disappointment so far this series, with Soriano 2-10, Lee 2-8 with a walk, and Ramirez 0-9, with each of them having four strikeouts, and all four hits being singles. That's a .148 average, .148 slugging, and .179 on-base percentage.
Not sure how much of it will make the highlights for those who didn't see the game, but defense was big for the Diamondbacks. Quick outfielders were able to catch a couple of balls that seemed destined for extra-base hits. There was the error on what probably would have been a double play, but that proved inconsequential, with neither runner advancing to score. I'm not saying the Cubs defense was bad, but there weren't any moments I can recall thinking what a good defensive move they made. There were only three hit balls from the Diamondbacks that landed in play for extra bases, so it's not like they had as much opportunity to steal those extra-base hits. I did not think they played Byrnes's triple well, they were too slow to field the ball on Davis's suicide squeeze play and should have tried for the out at first instead, and there was a double play they should have executed. That may sound like a lot of problems, but none of those were quite as bad as I may have made them sound, and none resulted in extra runs (unless Soriano had been able to catch Byrnes's triple, but I was faulting them more for the way it was played than the lack of a catch -- though I might change that if I see a replay of it).
All in all, the first professional playoff game for any of the major sports that I've attended is something I'll remember, but not much to reminisce about.
Oh, and my division series predictions are thus far doing every bit as good as last year's, with the teams I'd picked starting 0-6. It's hardly over, especially in the American League, but this start does not bode well. For those of you into betting, I'd say the odds are now about even of another 0 for 4. It did make me feel better to read that Keith Law was only 2 for 7 (I think it was) last year, and he's a reasonably informed professional. Oh, and one final note on my picks: I pick teams more like you'd pick an NCAA bracket for March Madness, or at least a small flavoring of that; I fully admit, for instance, and would have even before the series started, that the Red Sox are more likely than the Angels to win their series. It's good to pick an underdog or two along the way.
Jerry Crasnick has a column for ESPN on "fixing" the wild card. He starts with a quote from G.W. Bush on being the lone vote among ownership against the wild card, and how history will prove him right; it's a great set-up for a joke, but he blows it. He offered five options (including keeping the current format) to a front office person from each of the 30 teams, and tallies the results.
Before commenting on each of the options, I must say that I don't see the logic behind the supposed need to punish the wild card team and the inherent superiority of being a division winner. Let's face it, some of these divisions have been ... not so good over the last dozen years. The two central and two western divisions have taken their turns as the worst division in baseball, and I can recall fretting that three of those divisions (AL West, NL West, NL Central, in chronological order) would be won by a team without a winning record (so far, at least, that has not occurred). Is a division winner with an 82-80 record -- which, moreover, only has a winning record because the unbalanced schedule allows it to play extra games against its weaker division rivals -- really inherently better than a 90-win wild card? Thinking people everywhere respond with a resounding no. The people who think that's the case must be the same ones who think wins (or, for that matter, saves) are the best measure of the quality of a pitcher, irrespective of ERA or quality of the team they play for, let alone any of the more advanced metrics. One option I've heard proposed that was not in the column (due at least in part to it not being an option that could be implemented at any time in the near future) is to expand by another two teams and have each league move to four, four-team divisions and eliminate the wild card. This boneheaded plan practically guarantees that there will eventually be a playoff team with a losing record. As much as I love the Cubs, I have to admit that they were greatly helped by playing in a division where Milwaukee was the only other decent team, and the Rockies, who played in the much tougher West, are a more deserving playoff team. Actually, I've looked at it more tonight, and the Rockies are a much better team than I'd given them credit for. Right now, I'd say they're the favorites to represent the National League in the World Series. Of course, I'm still pulling for a Cubs comeback.
Back on topic, one option offered was to have the wild card team play four of the five opening series games on the road. This is the sort of dumb idea that people who believe in the inherent superiority of division winners would embrace, and my reasoning for why they're mistaken stands as my reasoning for why this is a bad idea. It received three votes.
Another idea is to follow old Japan League rules and let a team that won a division by five or more games win a "best of five" series with only two wins, while its opponent needed three (essentially making it a best of four series, with a tie going to the higher-seeded team). Same basic logic applies here, plus it's too gimmicky. Fans are already easily confused by tiebreakers and that would be too much for them. It received no votes.
A third option was adding a second wild card, and having the two play either a one-game play-in, or a best-of-three series. This scenario contains a bit of the previously mentioned biases, but they're less pronounced. If you want to talk fairness, would it be fair to make a team with the second-best record in the league defend its playoff spot against a team with the fifth-best record, when under the current system it might have won that spot by ten games? Yes, it's a scenario that won't nearly happen every year, but it will happen. I despise the one game play-in (except in the case of tiebreakers). Major League Baseball is a place where any team can beat any other team on any day of the week to a degree not found in the other major sports. A one-game play-in will, on average, give the better team only about a 55% chance of making the playoffs. It comes down more to who has the single best pitcher. As someone who dislikes the fact that two top starting pitchers is basically all you need to win the World Series (see the 2001 Diamondbacks), this is even more distasteful. A three-game playoff, while less of a crapshoot than a one-game one, is still more of one than a five-game series, and you already have people like Billy Beane complaining about that. Plus, you've got to figure that this scenario has the division winners resting for at least four days, and probably at least five. It's logistically problematic. This received seven votes (no word on any vote breakdown between one game and a three game series).
A reasonable and popular idea was expanding the opening series from five to seven games. Little surprise, Billy Beane supported this one. I think this is a decent idea, probably the best of the five options. A longer series tends to benefit the better team. Selig, an apparent opponent of the idea, whines that the calendar is a problem for this option. With the newly expanded calendar, this is laughable. You now have a travel day built in between games four and five of the division series (some people have complained about this; I'm more ambivalent), so that takes care of the extra travel day that would be "needed" for a seven game series compared to previous postseason schedules. This leaves you needing to find two more days. First, and most obviously, they decided to add a non-travel off day between games four and five of the league championship series this year, due to thinking that you can provide your own negative adjective for. For the benefit of anyone from MLB that might read this, I'll put the following statement in bold: Non-travel offdays in the middle of a series are bad. I hate them opening week, I hate them in the one division series that does it each year, and now I hate them in the LCS. The final extra day needed can be obtained by eliminating an off day between the LCS and World Series. Currently, one league is guaranteed at least two off days, and the other, three (this year, the American League, and National League, respectively, though it's scheduled to alternate years).Between this lag and the previously mentioned non-travel offday, a pair of sweeps in the LCS would mean a week without any baseball. Not good. So there are the extra days needed without lengthening the playoffs by another day. This option received thirteen votes.
The other option, as mentioned, was maintaining the current format. I'll admit that the added unpredictability of a five game series does tend to add a bit more excitement (compared to the seven game series, that is), which is the only thing keeping me from fully endorsing the previous option. This option received seven votes.
--------------------------------------------
I attended Game 2 of the Cubs-Diamondbacks series. The seats weren't great (my fault for waiting to order them, I guess), the game was so-so. Obviously, there's some bias in that I would have preferred a Cubs victory. The early innings were rather slow (the first 5 1/2 innings took nearly three hours), which led to a total game time that was not justified but offensive output, extra innings, or even a suspenseful regulation game. The Diamondbacks took a four run lead in the bottom of the fourth, and the Cubs never got closer than that. Four runs is small enough that you can hope and root for them to make it up (or hope and root against it, if you're the opposing team), but large enough that a tie or lead change is not likely. Suspense takes a bit hit between three and four runs. The game was lasting long enough that there was a large exodus after the fifth inning, when the Diamondbacks took an 8-2 lead. While six runs is a large lead, it's hardly the blowout that justifies leaving that early, especially in the playoffs. I'm left believing that a sizable percentage of those who left would have stayed longer if not for the time issue (and that previous half-inning was especially time consuming). It was probably a combination of the score and time for several fans, and I imagine that there was somebody who left who would not have if they'd known the Cubs would score a pair in the next inning. Of course, many more left after the sixth, anyways, but I still believe that at least one person out of all of those who left after the fifth would have stayed if he'd known the game would get closer.
The big three hitters for the Cubs have been a big disappointment so far this series, with Soriano 2-10, Lee 2-8 with a walk, and Ramirez 0-9, with each of them having four strikeouts, and all four hits being singles. That's a .148 average, .148 slugging, and .179 on-base percentage.
Not sure how much of it will make the highlights for those who didn't see the game, but defense was big for the Diamondbacks. Quick outfielders were able to catch a couple of balls that seemed destined for extra-base hits. There was the error on what probably would have been a double play, but that proved inconsequential, with neither runner advancing to score. I'm not saying the Cubs defense was bad, but there weren't any moments I can recall thinking what a good defensive move they made. There were only three hit balls from the Diamondbacks that landed in play for extra bases, so it's not like they had as much opportunity to steal those extra-base hits. I did not think they played Byrnes's triple well, they were too slow to field the ball on Davis's suicide squeeze play and should have tried for the out at first instead, and there was a double play they should have executed. That may sound like a lot of problems, but none of those were quite as bad as I may have made them sound, and none resulted in extra runs (unless Soriano had been able to catch Byrnes's triple, but I was faulting them more for the way it was played than the lack of a catch -- though I might change that if I see a replay of it).
All in all, the first professional playoff game for any of the major sports that I've attended is something I'll remember, but not much to reminisce about.
Oh, and my division series predictions are thus far doing every bit as good as last year's, with the teams I'd picked starting 0-6. It's hardly over, especially in the American League, but this start does not bode well. For those of you into betting, I'd say the odds are now about even of another 0 for 4. It did make me feel better to read that Keith Law was only 2 for 7 (I think it was) last year, and he's a reasonably informed professional. Oh, and one final note on my picks: I pick teams more like you'd pick an NCAA bracket for March Madness, or at least a small flavoring of that; I fully admit, for instance, and would have even before the series started, that the Red Sox are more likely than the Angels to win their series. It's good to pick an underdog or two along the way.
Labels: baseball
posted by DC | 1:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home