The new wild card format is about adding some late-season buzz by opening it up to 2 more teams.  I have heard some arguments that the new system is supposed to be fairer because it gives more of a reward for winning the division.  At first glance that argument may seem to have some merit, but if you look closer it's hogwash.

Under the old system the St. Louis Cards would have missed the playoffs this year with their 88 wins, and Atlanta would have been the wild card team.  Atlanta got jobbed in this new setup.  Not only did they have to go to a one-game play-in, but a horrible umpiring decision affected the outcome of that one game.

So now the Cards move on to play the Nats, the team with the best record in the league.  Was St. Louis at a disadvantage going into this series?  Not much in my opinion.  For one thing, they were the 'hotter' team, having just won a big game.  Maybe their pitching wasn't set up as well as the Nats.  But no big deal, as the series would prove.  Also, home field advantage for the Nats was no big deal.  Home field advantage doesn't mean much in the baseball playoffs anyway.  I think visiting teams are at least .500 so far this postseason.

My point is that the new setup has nothing to do with fairness.  Bud Selig did it to generate more buzz and more money.  He's somewhat of a huckster.  Interleague play, All-Star game deciding World Series home field, and now this.  He's getting economic results, no doubt about that.  But if he tries to sneak any arguments about fairness past us, don't buy it.

maybe if ther Nats had played their franchise player, ya think?  man talk about whining....self inflicted wouds are ALWAYS your own fault

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

So it's to reward the division winners, two of which will play each other in the first round?

Come on, it's to keep things exciting down the stretch. There's going to be a year when Wild Card #1 is 8 games a head of Wild Card #2, but Wild Card Contenders #3 and #4 are close to catching #2.

If you really want to reward the division winners - go to 2 divisions. 2 winners get a bye, four wild cards play 5 game series to get into the second round, like the football system.

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

I respectfully disagree with you.  :)

The Braves had three costly errors in that game.  One of them was Chipper throwing the ball away which was suppose to be an easy double play.

I feel bad for the Braves and I hate to see Chipper end his career like that, but all playoff teams and players have been adjusting to this year's playoff format and hectic schedule. 

Besides, this year's playoffs have been very exciting.  All of the ALDS and NLDS series went to a game five. 

 

 

In response to Yonkersman's comment:

The bigger benefit would be giving more teams a sniff of a playoff spot deeper into the season, thus keeping their fans interested longer, thus boosting attendance and TV ratings.

In response to georom4's comment:

As I explain in the other post, the only game he would appeared in, the Nats got shut out 8-0.  Strasburg wasn't going to win that game by himself.

My point is that the new setup has nothing to do with fairness.  Bud Selig did it to generate more buzz and more money.  He's somewhat of a huckster.  Interleague play, All-Star game deciding World Series home field, and now this.  He's getting economic results, no doubt about that.  But if he tries to sneak any arguments about fairness past us, don't buy it.

But,

1-If we wanted to be fair about it, you'd have no WC game, no ALDS, no ALCE, and no WS, and no two leagues.  The best regular season record wins.

2-Every sport has a playoff.  The NHL and NBA allow almost anyone with a .500 in, and the NFL allows 12 teams in.

3-At the end of the day, everything is economics.  But there is some fairness in allowing a few more teams in, otherwise, money would dominate, and it would still be unfair.

 

I like the playoff format now compared to two decades ago.

I remember in 1993 when the SF Giants won 101 games,..........but still did NOT make the playoffs because the Atlanta Braves won 103 games to win the AL West. 

Imagine how p*ssed off the Giants fans were then?  LOL

My late father was a Blue Jays fan.  He was upset after the 1987 season.  The Blue Jays won 96 games but not enough to make the playoffs because the Tigers won the division by winning 98 games. 

As you guys know, back then, only the division winners made the playoffs.  Thank God we do not have that anymore. 

I don't disagree with you guys (JoeB and IceCream).  I'm just trying to clarify what the extra wild cards are all about - more entertainment and more money.  It does not do anything to resolve any fairness issues, which is what some people have suggested the intent was.

 

Leave it to the Cardinals to stumble in being the very first team in mlb history to get a second wc, that never ever existed at any time before in baseball history, then have the Braves choke on their own vomit and hand them the game--with some help from the umpires with the worst call in PS history, then get the first two games of the nlds at home as a reward for their regular season mediocrity, and have their opponent sit their best player, then inexplicably and without precedent ghack the game up at the very end. Only the Cardinals. 

This post has been removed.

In response to pinstripezac's comment:

Zac, so what if division winners don't have to play in a play-in game this year?  They didn't have to play in a play-in game last year, did they?  Nothing has changed for division winners.  They still have to win 3 series just like before.

The team that got hurt by the new system was Atlanta.  Whereas the team that benefitted was St. Louis.  They would have missed the playoffs if not for the change.  They are the team that came into this with 'nothing to lose'.  It doesn't surprise me at all they 'upset' Atlanta and then 'upset' Washington.  Teams that catch a break like that often use it to their advantage.

Also I don't see why being a division winner should necessarily be rewarded with anything.  The divisions are unbalanced, we all know that.  Detroit won the weakest division with 88 wins.  Meanwhile Baltimore and Texas had to play off with 93 wins. 

The NFL's system makes more sense to me.  6 teams get in in both conferences and the 2 division winners with the best records get a complete bye the first round.  That's a legit reward system.

MLB has to get over their "Nov 1" hangup, make the new round best of 3, and allow the season to go a few more days. Is there really that much difference between Nov 1 and a week later?

In response to Ice-Cream's comment:

That was actually a historic last week collapse

The old system was fine as far as fairness goes.  3 division winners plus the other team with the best record.  Most of the time the wild card team had a better record than one of the division winners.  The new system is less fair, in my opinion.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

 

Some year a team is going to win the first wild card, with a better record than one or two of the division winners. Remember when the Sox would win the Wild Card with a healthy lead because the only team better than them was the Yankees? Well that's going to happen, only that wild card team will play the second wild card team who'll be 8 or 9 games behind them, and the second wild card team will fluke out a victory.

I don't see how that's fair. Interesting and exciting, but not fair.

In response to pinstripezac's comment:

You have a deal, Zac.

 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

It was fair.  The Braves had their chance to win.  They just didn't.  The idea was to stop treating Wild Card teams on the same level as division winners, and o keep more races alive in September.   Unfair was the 1981 post-season that took first half and second half winners and left the team with the best record in the NL (Cincinnati) outside looking in at the post-season.  This does not compare.

 

In Japan, the WC team enters their first round best of 5 down 1-0 before the series starts.  They could have used that option, too, but it means less baseball, and as a fan I want more....

In response to notin's comment:

Well OK notin, now you're going to have to explain to me why a team like Detroit, who won 88 games in a weak division, deserved to be treated any better than Baltimore and Texas, who won 93 games in stronger divisions.

Detroit Tigers: 2012 Central Division Winner!

I mean, gimme a break.  They won 88 games.  They got to play KC (72-90), Cleveland (68-94), and Minnesota (66-96) 18 times each.  If anything, Detroit should have had to win a one-game play-in to advance.