David Ortiz:
One game? That's kind of crazy. ... It'd make more sense for two wild cards to play at least a two-out-of-three series while the other teams take a break for three days because they won their divisions.Dustin Pedroia:
Can I actually know what it is before I comment on it? Let me get back to you, because I don't even know. I want to get the facts.Bobby Valentine:
The more the merrier. For fans, players, the energy at the end of the season, I don' mind. What will it be, a third of the teams (10 of 30)? I think it'll be good.Cody Ross:
Say you win a wild card and you have a five-game lead over the other wild card, and the other team ends up winning the game. That's going to be controversial. That is a problem. I'm not a fan so far. It could obviously change my opinion after a few years. ... It'll benefit the team that is the outright division winner, because chances are, you're going to be lining up your ace to win that wild-card playoff game. If you look at the standings at the end of the year, you're going to go, "OK, we really have a good chance to win one of the two wild-card spots. Let's mix up the rotation and get so-and-so to pitch the wild-card game." Then you go into the playoffs and you don't even have your ace for the Division Series.Kelly Shoppach:
It really takes the 162-game schedule out.Jarrod Saltalamacchia:
I guess what we need to concentrate on then is not making the wild card and just winning our division, so we don't have anything to worry about. I'm not a big fan of it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way it was before. ... It's revenue. It's another game. It'll be on TV. It's going to make more money. That's probably what it boils down to.Ross:
It could be less money. What if a team like Boston or New York is one of the wild cards and loses to a lower-market team? That's not going to be good.Evan Longoria:
I think it's exciting. I think it's exciting for all of us. I think the goal was to allow more teams to have a chance in the end -- hold on to those playoff hopes longer. ... We didn't take a vote in here, but I think it was pretty unanimous around the league. ... The more playoff spots the better. Once you get into the playoffs it's revenue for the ballclub and it's more excitement for the players. So I think it would be a no-brainer for everybody.J.P. Howell:
I love it. In our situation -- with our division -- it's the best thing ever. I don't see how it can work against anyone. ... I'm sure in the past there were some teams who were right there, but didn't advance. To me, there's never enough teams in the playoffs. There's so many in basketball. Football is like us. Just any way to get in is amazing.James Shields:
Bottom line is it's going to be really important to win the division, which I like because now you don't get anybody [coasting], because there are no guarantees. ... I think that's the way the game is supposed to be played -- win the division. I don't think being satisfied with the Wild Card is enough. Every year we want to win our division, that's our goal.Ben Zobrist
:[Last season] It would have been us and the Red Sox ... [W]hat would have happened? We're as good as anybody in a one-game playoff. I guess it's all conjecture. I just like our chances any time in a one-game playoff. Regardless of who pitched the day before for us, we're still really strong. ... We have five strong starters. ... I think it would be hard to take if you worked really hard to win the division then fell short and then the next Wild Card team was five or six games behind you. I think that would be difficult to accept.Derek Jeter:
It puts even more importance on winning the division, but that's always been the plan anyway. I think it's good. It will make things more interesting. ... I've always said the five-game series is the most difficult because it's shorter, so a one-game series will be even tougher. It's getting harder and harder, I guess.Mark Teixeira:
I said last year I wasn't in favor of it, but now that it's here, there's no reason to debate it any more. You just have to deal with it and we have to win the division. ... The wild card is no longer a safety net. You can win 10 games more than the team behind you, but you're going to have to play them in a one-game playoff — and anything can happen in one game. Nobody wants to be that wild card.Joba Chamberlain:
You try to take that same mentality in a five- or seven-game series, but unless it's Game 5 or Game 7, that's not necessarily the case. It will be a different feeling — but hopefully we won't put ourselves in that situation.Joe Girardi:
I'm not sure if there's any cons. It adds more teams to the mix, keeps more teams in it for a longer period of time. The one-game playoff, if you're in a division race, you don't want to be in that one-game playoff. Your motivation is to win the division because that becomes much, much tougher. That will provide a lot of excitement. I like it. The other thing it does is it gives more of an advantage to the division winners, which I think they deserve. ... I think the only way you could have a perfect system is if the schedules were completely balanced and you had four divisions or two divisions, and you had one team from each division to play. ... I don't think they're looking for [a perfect system]. I think they're looking to create excitement.Russell Martin:
It's like a Game 7 on the first day of the playoffs. That's pretty awesome. If you win your division, you'll have an advantage. That's the way it should be. If you finish second — or even third — you'll have to battle your way into it. To me, it makes sense.From where I sit, this actually removes a bit more common sense away from the playoffs. Zobrist hit on one of my problems with the new format. Say the Red Sox win the East with 101 wins and the Yankees finish second with 100 wins. They have the two best records in MLB, but the Yankees then lose the WC game to a 90-win team. I'd rejoice in the copious schadenfreude, naturally, but it would be clear that baseball's second-best team was not in the playoffs. (Of course, without any wild cards, that 100-win team would be out in the cold, but at least a lesser team would not be there instead.)
There is also the possibility that the tight schedule this October could be made even tighter by two teams tying for a division title. They would have to play a one-game playoff to see who won the division and who gets to play the WC one-game playoff!
Anyway, if the AL East crown is on the line, those three weekday games in the Bronx between the Red Sox and Yankees to close out the regular season (October 1-3) are going to be very intense.
15 comments:
So, by your logic, the whole wild card thing is bogus as is: If a 90 game winner takes the wild card, and the division winners are all 100+ game winners, then it'd be "controversial" if 90 win wild card team ended up taking out one of the division winners.
I'm not sure if additional WC teams are good, but I don't think this thread of logic proves it's bad.
Tom Verducci:
"Boston to me is third, because I don't like the shortstop situation. ... And they're going to need 90 starts from Buchholz, Lester and Beckett. Anything less than that and they are going to be really in trouble and be less than a 90-win team. ... I just don't know if [Crawford's] comfortable yet. ... In 2012, I think Valentine is the right guy. Especially to get them out from beyond the garbage of last September."
the whole wild card thing is bogus
I agree with this!
Part of me likes the idea of making winning the division more important, but I do not like the one-game idea. Making it a best-of-3 (like ye olde ALCS) would be far better.
I have no issue adding more playoff teams but they need to consider shortening the regular season by a week or so so that it doesn't take longer than a month to decide a champion. Along that vein, I would like to see the post-season schedule shortened with fewer "travel days."
Can I actually know what it is before I comment on it? Let me get back to you, because I don't even know. I want to get the facts.
Pedroia always wants to get the facts before running his mouth. The alternative would be plainly irresponsible.
I also had to chuckle at FY's reply. Who would have thought he'd be thoughtful? Of course, it also seems he is totally out of the loop. Could be either one.
I am not happy with this change. It does seem to make MLB more like the NFL or NBA (not that I know much about either of those).
And who is CODY ROSS?
(And how do we subscribe to comments in this new annoying Blogger format?)
CODY ROSS = RF
I think if you go down the right-hande side, after the Canada out of Afghanistan hand, you can subscribe to posts and all comments - but not via email, it seems.
Allan can add a widget to subscribe to posts and comments by email. Stay tuned.
MLB has eliminated the rule that the WC cannot play the team in its own division in the DS.
2012 only: Games 1-2 of the DS will be at the team with the worse record, and Games 3-4-5 at the team with best record. This will get rid of the travel day prior to Game 5. In 2013, things will go back to the 2-2-1 format.
There is a widget already.
154 games add the extra wild card, play 2/3 first round.
I changed the look of the comments to "embedded" and the "subscribe by email" option has returned.
I notice that both our blogs changed from embedded comments to full page. Blogger must have changed the default. I changed mine back, too.
I like it keeps so many more teams in the mix for so much longer.
Say in Sept. the Red Sox have a 2 game lead but the rays and yankees are tied in second place but the Jays are 5 games back of the Red Sox, and the Jays have 6 games left with the Yankees and 3 with the Rays, Anything can happen. All 162 finally become more important. We might think they are all important , but we all have watched as managers don't always feel that way.
Might be the reason the Red Sox and yankees essentialy employee more than one closer.
Say the Red Sox win the East with 101 wins and the Yankees finish second with 100 wins. They have the two best records in MLB, but the Yankees then lose the WC game to a 90-win team. I'd rejoice in the copious schadenfreude, naturally, but it would be clear that baseball's second-best team was not in the playoffs. (Of course, without any wild cards, that 100-win team would be out in the cold, but at least a lesser team would not be there instead.)
If the second best team is out in the cold (in any scenario), doesn't that mean that a lesser team is in the playoffs in their stead? That said, I'm indifferent to the new format. The best thing is to win the division.
Post a Comment