How the MLB Postseason might have looked without the wildcard

[kenyan_cheena]

Just went through the standings from '95 onwards and looked at who would have been in the postseason each year if there had been no wildcard and a two division per league setup.

The following was assumed:

Reds and Pirates in NL East, along with the Brewers when they moved over
Cubs, Cards and Astros in NL West

Tigers and Indians in AL East
Royals, Twins and White Sox in AL West

Now, we can say that there would have been different win-loss records with a different divisional alignment but seeing as we can't actually say what these would have been I am going with the actual records from each season. Based on that, these would have been the division winners each season:

Listed as AL East, AL West, NL East, NL West

1995: INDIANS, MARINERS, BRAVES, DODGERS
1996: INDIANS, RANGERS, BRAVES, PADRES
1997: ORIOLES, MARINERS, BRAVES, GIANTS
1998: YANKEES, RANGERS, BRAVES, ASTROS
1999: YANKEES, RANGERS, BRAVES, DIAMONDBACKS
2000: YANKEES, WHITE SOX, BRAVES, GIANTS
2001: YANKEES, MARINERS, BRAVES, ASTROS
2002: YANKEES, ATHLETICS, BRAVES, DIAMONDBACKS
2003: YANKEES, ATHLETICS, BRAVES, GIANTS
2004: YANKEES, TWINS/ANGELS,* BRAVES, CARDINALS
2005: YANKEES, WHITE SOX, BRAVES, CARDINALS
2006: YANKEES, TWINS, METS, PADRES
2007: INDIANS/RED SOX,* ANGELS, PHILLIES, DIAMONDBACKS
2008: RAYS, ANGELS, PHILLIES, CUBS
2009: YANKEES, ANGELS, PHILLIES, DODGERS
2010: RAYS, TWINS, PHILLIES, GIANTS

* indicates one-game playoff would have been required

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

J
1995: INDIANS, MARINERS, BRAVES, DODGERS
1996: INDIANS, RANGERS, BRAVES, PADRES
1997: ORIOLES, MARINERS, BRAVES, GIANTS
1998: YANKEES, RANGERS, BRAVES, ASTROS
1999: YANKEES, RANGERS, BRAVES, DIAMONDBACKS
2000: YANKEES, WHITE SOX, BRAVES, GIANTS
2001: YANKEES, MARINERS, BRAVES, ASTROS
2002: YANKEES, ATHLETICS, BRAVES, DIAMONDBACKS
2003: YANKEES, ATHLETICS, BRAVES, GIANTS
2004: YANKEES, TWINS/ANGELS,* BRAVES, CARDINALS
2005: YANKEES, WHITE SOX, BRAVES, CARDINALS
2006: YANKEES, TWINS, METS, PADRES
2007: INDIANS/RED SOX,* ANGELS, PHILLIES, DIAMONDBACKS
2008: RAYS, ANGELS, PHILLIES, CUBS
2009: YANKEES, ANGELS, PHILLIES, DODGERS
2010: RAYS, TWINS, PHILLIES, GIANTS

* indicates one-game playoff would have been required

are you a Braves, Indians or Yankees fan? because eliminating the wildcard only benefits those 3 teams.
cleveland got beat in the DS 3 times
Yankees also beat 3 times
Braves 6 times.
while the AL wild card has won the DS 9 times
NL 8 times
I like the wildcard, I know you dont, but the better team wins. If the Braves r so great how come they have 3 WS appearances with just 1 win?
and have been beaten in the NLCS 3 times? they had better pitching then anyone in the NL all of the yrs that they made the playoffs.
so to recap, since i think you are a braves fan (not sure) the Braves have been beaten in the playoffs 14 out of 15 times including 91-93

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

Now, we can say that there would have been different win-loss records with a different divisional alignment but seeing as we can't actually say what these would have been I am going with the actual records from each season.

Seeing as a balanced schedule was used in 1995 and 1996, you can pretty much rearrange the standings any way you want and the results would be just as legitimate. 1997-2000 also had a balanced schedule, but with interleague play and the difference in sizes between the leagues, the results of any rearrangement are not as legitimate.


As a counter-experiment, here are the clubs that would have qualified for the post-season in 1993 had the leagues been arranged into the three divisions they had in 1994. As the 1993 schedule was a balanced one, the final standings can be rearranged pretty much as one wishes with the results being just as legitimate.

1993 AL: Toronto, Chicago, Texas, New York (wild card)
1993 NL: Atlanta, St. Louis, San Francisco, Philadelphia (wild card)

[GMLoophole]

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

I like the wildcard, I know you dont, but the better team wins.

Actually, the "better team" has 154 or 162 chances to prove it during the year. There were 100 years of pennant races (including the divisional races when they came around) in which they did just that.

And complaining about the Yankees and Braves making the playoffs kind of forgets that the wild card in large part has ensured that the Red Sox or Yanks make the playoffs every year.

I don't mean to step into some brawl from another thread, and I definitely don't want to argue with you or LGO about anything, but I hate the wild card and will hate more wild cards (when they inevitably arrive) even more.

And, FWIW, I am a Giants fan and remember 1993 very well without being reminded in every one of these discussions on the internet

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by GMLoophole

Actually, the "better team" has 154 or 162 chances to prove it during the year. There were 100 years of pennant races (including the divisional races when they came around) in which they did just that.

And complaining about the Yankees and Braves making the playoffs kind of forgets that the wild card in large part has ensured that the Red Sox or Yanks make the playoffs every year.

I don't mean to step into some brawl from another thread, and I definitely don't want to argue with you or LGO about anything, but I hate the wild card and will hate more wild cards (when they inevitably arrive) even more.

And, FWIW, I am a Giants fan and remember 1993 very well without being reminded in every one of these discussions on the internet

KC and I are not brawling...wildcard was orig put in place so fans would have more pennant races later in the yr to keep interest. Yankees 7 Braves up until recently tended to win their division more often then not.

While i am a fan of the wildcard, i dont want to see any more wildcard teams, and would ultimately prefer AL all 14 teams with top 2 teams making playoffs and same for NL with the 16 teams. or if they could move 1 team to the AL and have more interleague games.
But I have heard Braves fan complain about the Wildcard for yrs, because they choke in postseason.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

KC and I are not brawling...wildcard was orig put in place so fans would have more pennant races later in the yr to keep interest.

The idea of expanding MLB's playoffs was made as early as 1974. At the owners' summer meeting that year, three different proposals were under consideration: (1) the top two teams in each division would qualify, with the first place team in one playing the second place team in the other; (2) two division winners and two wild card teams would qualify; (3) the leagues would be realigned into three divisions each, with three division winners and one wild card team qualifying. In the end none of the proposals passed.

In the summer of 1993, an MLB owner's committee recommended expanded playoffs for 1994. It was to have the top two teams in each division qualifying, though the exact matchup method was undetermined (i.e. either first versus second in the same division, or first in one division versus second in the other division). It was the Players Association which was reluctant about the idea, and any change needed to be negotiated with them. They didn't want to see too many non-division winners in the playoffs, so the three division format was more acceptable to them.

Which is what was adopted in the end. On Sept. 9, 1993, MLB voted 27-1 in favour of realigning into three divisions in each league. To make such a change palatable to the hesitant clubs, it was agreed a balanced schedule would be used. Thus clubs would keep the same number of dates against opponents as they had during the 1993 season.

The suggestion to split each league into three divisions was made as early as 1971. The proposal to split each league into three divisions was under serious consideration at the 1978 winter meetings. If adopted, it would have gone into effect for the 1980 season. The traditionalists carried the day, however, and nothing came of the proposal.

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

While i am a fan of the wildcard, i dont want to see any more wildcard teams...

Well, remember the point of adding a second wild card qualifier: to make it hard for wild card teams to advance. One of the criticisms of the wild card is that qualifying as one comes no disadvantage other than having one less game in each series, which is not much of a handicap.

The two wild card qualifiers would play each other while the three division winners had a bye. That means the wild card club doesn't get to rest its players, it has to play and win additional games to move on.

[GMLoophole]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Well, remember the point of adding a second wild card qualifier: to make it hard for wild card teams to advance. One of the criticisms of the wild card is that qualifying as one comes no disadvantage other than having one less game in each series, which is not much of a handicap.

The two wild card qualifiers would play each other while the three division winners had a bye. That means the wild card club doesn't get to rest its players, it has to play and win additional games to move on.

Indeed, especially with a 5-game series.

On the other hand, there's a non-zero chance that forcing a team to sit for 10 days is as much of a hindrance as having a play-in series. Baseball's different in many ways, and that conundrum is IMO one of them.

[kenyan_cheena]

I'm pretty sure that if they do introduce the second wildcard, the wildcard series will be no more than a best-of-3 to avoid that situation.

And in answer to Chicagofan, yes, I am a Braves fan. But that's not 100% behind the reason for my dislike of the wildcard. You say it allows more fans to be involved in following the league late into the season but it also eliminates the possibility of a really exciting, intriguing pennant race between two great teams.

We have a perfect example of this just last year, where the race between the Yankees and Rays for the AL East should have been (metaphorically) life or death but it wasn't because both knew that whichever one of them didn't win the division would make the postseason as the wildcard anyway.

The pennant races were the one thing that made baseball's season format different than that of the other pro sports, in that when a team qualified for the postseason you knew they had really earned it by finishing as the best team in their division (or the entire league before divisional play was introduced). With the realignment, smaller divisions and wildcards that has been lost.

However, if there is a second wildcard it actually has the effect of bringing some of that excitement back. Again, take last year as an example. Both the Yankees and Rays would have been a lot more desperate to win the division to avoid being involved in an additional playoff series before even making it to the divisional series. that would be a very strong incentive, IMO.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

I'm pretty sure that if they do introduce the second wildcard, the wildcard series will be no more than a best-of-3 to avoid that situation.

A one-game sudden-death playoffs is the easiest from a scheduling point of view, but the players and some owners think a best-of-three series is more appropriate. The trouble there is the scheduling since it means up to three days for the series. Add to that one or two days for possible tiebreaking playoffs, and now the division winners are getting four or five days off.

To minimize the scheduling impact and maximize the player usage, and especially pitcher usage, impact, I'd suggest playing the second and third games of the series as a day-night doubleheader. So if the series is split 1-1 after two games, the clubs have to play again later that same night to end the series. That would really mess up a wild card club's pitching rotation going into the division series.

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

You say it allows more fans to be involved in following the league late into the season but it also eliminates the possibility of a really exciting, intriguing pennant race between two great teams.

On the other hand, it adds the possibility of exciting wild card races. See the 1998, 1999, and 2007 seasons where two clubs ended in a tie for the wild card, forcing a tiebreaking playoff game. Or 2008, where the Mets missed the wild card by one game, or 2010 where San Diego missed it by one game.

[95Marinerschangedmylife]

It seems to me that the wildcard is at to much of a disadvantage. I would much rather have my team get eliminated then have to go through this early series that is just going to takes it toll on pitchers arms who would in no doubt want to pitch damn near every other day to make it possible for there team to move on. Another point to consider is that baseball is losing its medium fandom because of a long season and slow pace. Do you really think adding this new wildcard format is going to make it more exciting? I dont. Its the same reason why I am against to much replay in baseball. Slowing the game or extending the season is going to be bad. I love it and I would watch it but it would lose its mid tier fans. Just keep it the way it is.

[bwburke94]

The first post assumes there would have been a realignment in '94 anyway, just not into 3 divisions. Here's how the divisions likely would have turned out with the '98 expansion, in no particular order.

AL East: Red Sox, Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays, Tigers, Indians, Brewers pre-expansion, Rays post-expansion
AL West: Rangers, Angels, Mariners, A's, White Sox, Twins, Royals
NL East: Cardinals, Mets, Phillies, Marlins, Expos/Nationals, Pirates, Cubs, Brewers post-expansion
NL West: Rockies, Braves, Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Astros, Reds, Diamondbacks post-expansion

Here are the division winners under that alignment, plus what they would have been in 1994. Teams in italics missed the playoffs in real life. Asterisks indicate a one-game playoff would be needed.

1994: Yankees, White Sox, Expos, Braves
1995: Indians, Mariners, Cubs, Braves
1996: Indians, Rangers, Expos/Cardinals*, Braves
1997: Orioles, Mariners, Marlins, Braves
1998: Yankees, Rangers, Cubs, Braves
1999: Yankees, Rangers, Mets, Braves
2000: Indians, White Sox, Cardinals, Giants
2001: Yankees, Mariners, Cardinals, Astros
2002: Yankees, A's, Cardinals, Braves
2003: Yankees, A's, Marlins, Braves/Giants*
2004: Yankees, Twins/Angels*, Cardinals, Braves
2005: Yankees/Red Sox*, White Sox, Cardinals, Braves
2006: Yankees, Twins, Mets, Padres/Dodgers*
2007: Red Sox/Indians*, Angels, Phillies, Diamondbacks
2008: Rays, Angels, Cubs, Astros
2009: Yankees, Angels, Phillies, Dodgers
2010: Rays, Twins, Phillies, Giants

In 2003, the Braves finished 101-61 and the Giants finished 100-61. If the Giants won their make-up game, a one-game playoff would be necessary.

Going by season series followed by W-L record for LCS and one-game playoff results, the World Series matchups would be:

1994: White Sox vs. Expos
1995: Indians vs. Braves (Braves won World Series 4-2 IRL)
1996: Rangers vs. Braves (Expos would beat Cardinals in one-game playoff)
1997: Orioles vs. Marlins (Marlins swept interleague series 3-0)
1998: Yankees vs. Cubs
1999: Yankees vs. Braves (Braves won interleague series 2-1, Yankees swept World Series 4-0 IRL)
2000: White Sox vs. Giants
2001: Mariners vs. Astros
2002: Yankees vs. Braves
2003-a: A's vs. Giants (If Giants won make-up game, as they would win the one-game playoff with Braves; interleague series split 3-3)
2003-b: A's vs. Marlins (If Giants lost make-up game; Marlins won interleague series 2-1)
2004: Angels vs. Cardinals (Angels would beat Twins in one-game playoff)
2005: White Sox vs. Cardinals (Yankees would beat Red Sox in one-game playoff, Both LCS winners determined by W-L tiebreak)
2006: Yankees vs. Mets (Padres would beat Dodgers in one-game playoff, Yankees-Twins winner determined by W-L tiebreak, interleague series split 3-3)
2007: Red Sox vs. Diamondbacks (Red Sox would beat Indians in one-game playoff, Diamondbacks won interleague series 2-1)
2008: Rays vs. Astros (Astros won interleague series 2-1)
2009: Yankees vs. Dodgers (Yankees-Angels winner determined by W-L tiebreak)
2010: Rays vs. Phillies (Phillies-Giants winner determined by W-L tiebreak)

[kenyan_cheena]

So you really think that MLB would have kept the Braves in the west even AFTER re-aligning in '98, and WITH the Brewers moving over from the AL?

[bwburke94]

It's just an assumption that things would have stayed the same. Remember, the proposed move of the Braves to the East was vetoed only six years earlier.

[Carlton]

HATE, DESPISE

LOOOAATHHHE the wildcard

Divisional playoffs are bad enough...do you realize how many great August and Septembers we would have had, if there was ONLY the American and National LEAGUE?

As for the 'better' team winning, no...not at all.

Baseball has always been a marathon, where consistency gets you to the World Series. One injury late in September gets you knocked out by a team that gets 'hot' or lucky in a 5 game playoff...blah

Now they will add another one....why not just make the season 100 games then? $$$$

By the time I am 60 baseball playoffs will look like hockey and I will no longer be a fan of pro ball.

Anyway,, I guess Field of Dreams was right, baseball has always conformed to America

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Carlton

Divisional playoffs are bad enough...do you realize how many great August and Septembers we would have had, if there was ONLY the American and National LEAGUE?

I don't know, how many?

[jmm8356]

Interesting discussion.

I have notes from when I read Fair Ball by Bob Costas, and one of his proposals was to eliminate the wild card and give the #1 seed a bye into the LCS. In other words... #3 hosts #2 in a... well he said 5-game, but let's make it 3 so reduce the "rust factor" mentioned by LGO... 3-game LDS set, winner goes to #1 for the 7-game LCS.

Sounded like a good idea... though... eliminating six teams from the league seemed like a good idea too... and so does promotion/relegation ("Pirates? You're out! Bisons? You're in! See ya next season! =D)

Okay, that last one is just me and my "I wish I were in Chicago ERRRR London" brain talking...

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by jmm8356

... and so does promotion/relegation ("Pirates? You're out! Bisons? You're in! See ya next season! =D)

You can't have promotion/relegation unless you also eliminate the territorial monopolies clubs have. Of course, if you remove the territorial monopoly structure, smaller locales will likely lose their major league clubs as they move to larger markets which can support more than one club.

[jmm8356]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

You can't have promotion/relegation unless you also eliminate the territorial monopolies clubs have. Of course, if you remove the territorial monopoly structure, smaller locales will likely lose their major league clubs as they move to larger markets which can support more than one club.

I'm all for it, so long as I can watch the Cubs when they play the Pirates... It's hard to fathom that the blackout "territories" are still the same as they were when the new millennium began.