I want to be excited about tonight's Yankees/Rays game. I want to be pumped about the clash of the two best teams in baseball, separated by a half-game in the standings, with two of the best pitchers in the AL squaring off in the opener. I want to be invested in the outcome, either as a Yankee fan since childhood or a professional writer for about half that time. I want to believe.
I can't do it. The game just doesn't mean very much. I have no doubt that the players on both teams will go all out to win, and I am sure that Joe Maddon and Joe Girardi would rather win than lose, but I know the history. We have 16 years of evidence that suggests that teams that have locked up postseason berths treat winning the division rather than being the wild card as something nice to have, rather than something necessary.
Let's go back a year, to Joe Girardi's first time front-running as a manager. During a late-season West Coast trip, the Yankees' lead in the AL East had been shaved from nine games to five over less than two weeks. With the lead at six games, the Yankees' last game on the trip came in Anaheim, a getaway Wednesday afternoon game. Girardi sent A.J. Burnett to the mound. Burnett struck out 11 over 5 2/3 innings, then was pulled after surrendering a run on two hits and a walk in the sixth. Damaso Marte was called on to retire Chone Figgins, and did. Girardi went on to use Jonathan Albaladejo and Phil Coke to pitch the seventh, and Ian Kennedy — injury-riddled starter prospect making his first MLB appearance of the year — to protect a one-run lead in the eighth. Girardi stopped messing around in the ninth, getting Mariano Rivera in for the save. The entire pattern, though, screamed, "I really don't care about the outcome of this game." This is one example of many, by Girardi and by Joe Torre before him, of the Yankees putting preparations for October ahead of wins in September.
What about Joe Maddon? In 2008, his Rays had a big lead on the Yankees for the wild card, while locked in a close battle with the Red Sox. It's not quite as cut-and-dried, as he seemed to place some value on the Rays winning the division for the first time in their history. The rotation stayed in place (but for some movement due to the schedule) down the stretch, and his lineups remained mostly intact. His bullpen usage is hard to evaluate as he was changing things on the fly to account for the loss of Troy Percival. The changes he was making were in an effort to win games, not to keep players fresh.
The experience of 2008, though, is likely to inform 2010. The Rays have a division title under their belt, and that achievement won't nearly be enough this time around. Home-field advantage in the '08 postseason wasn't terribly important; they went 5-3 at home, and while they did win Game Seven at home against the Red Sox in the ALCS, they lost Game Six (and for that matter, Game One) in the same setting. Maddon's rotation features one starter, in David Price, headed well past his previous usage, and two others who have very recently been on the disabled list. His bullpen, a significant strength, is anchored by two hard-throwing right-handers with extensive injury histories.
I have no doubt that everyone wants to win, and that everyone will say all the right things. Both these managers know, though, that where they play games in October is much less important than who plays them and the condition they're in when they do. I'll watch tonight — well, at least until Padres/Rockies at 8:40 ET — and I'll appreciate the greatness of two left-handed starters and try and gauge just how many people have made it to St. Petersburg and think about how poorly the Yankees match up against good left-handed pitching.
I just won't confuse it for a real pennant race. That's what we're getting in the National League, and that's what going to get the blood pumping and the keys clacking throughout September.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Although it would seem to "dilute" the regular season even more, it actually would put more of an emphasis on winning your division, as "settling" for the wild card means you have to beat the other wild card just to get to the Division Series. I bet the Yankees and Rays would be battling a lot harder if the difference between 1st and 2nd is not having to play the Red Sox in a 1 game playoff in order to advance to the Division Series. And, presumably, the wild card teams would have to burn their best pitcher trying to win the "wild card round", and would then be traveling to the league's best division winner with a sub-optimal starting pitching configuration
The wild card is here to stay - there's too much $ for the owners to let it go - but this actually adds more playoff games, keeps more teams in contention (teams fighting for the 2nd wild card spot), and if it's a 3 game series, means 2 more teams get at least one home playoff game - so the owners get more $, plus, the division winners "get" something.
I don't think you've commented on such an idea - and I know you've been a fervent defender about the importance of the regular season and pennant races and how the wild card dilutes that.
So the Yankees and Rays have to kill themselves to stay out of that series, with the loser playing a short series against some team it was 10 games better than in the regular season, and the winner doing the same, but without the any of the benefits that being a division winner would usually convey.
It sounds like a great plan if you're the Rangers, though.
This doesn't make winning the division more valuable. It makes winning a weak division more valuable.
Also, "This doesn't make winning the division more valuable. It makes winning a weak division more valuable." is patently false.
As much as many of us would love to see a return to 2 divisions, no wild cards, I just don't see the wild card, and all the $ that it brings, going away. Do you see any way to keep the wild card but also put more emphasis on the regular season?
Or take the two teams with the best record, regardless of division or league, and have them play each other. If the Yankees and Rays are the two best teams in baseball at the end of the season, why shouldn't they play each other for the World Series title?
I understand the reasons behind not liking the wild card or expanded playoffs, but if we're trying to reserve the playoffs only for those teams who deserve it, getting rid of the wild card doesn't do much in that regard. Reducing the number of divisions, dissolving them entirely, or awarding playoff standing based solely on record would be better options to consider, although probably not popular ones.
But it's not going to happen. There's too much $ to be made in the playoffs, and the wild card adds another round of $ and also keeps more teams "alive" in September and that also means more $.
My question is, can you put more emphasis on winning your division / being the better team in the regular season, without getting rid of the wild card (or at least keeping 4 teams in each league in the playoffs)? The 2 wild card idea does have the downside that Joe pointed out, but it at least gives an incentive to winning the division.
I'm not kidding. There's no reason "30" is some magic number of teams, and frankly, there are leeches on the industry than can be pared with minimal loss. You could even get to 26 if you wanted, though the fourth team would be tough.
Contraction was a bad idea in 2001/02 because it was contracting the wrong teams as part of a labor strategy. Now, it would be a means to culling two useless ownership groups in markets that have more or less rejected baseball.
The wild card takes more away from September than it adds. See "crowds" in some of these parks tonight as evidence that it's not bringing people to games.
The wild card is here to stay. My point is that the two wild card format, to me, is better than the current format, and actually has a chance of happening.
Although I am a little confused - Joe, you said 4 divisions, top team in each league - do you mean top team in each division? The way you wrote it seems to imply that you'd have 4 divisions, say, AL East, AL West, NL East, NL West, but would only send 2 teams to the playoffs - the best team from the AL and NL. I assume you meant top team in each division, and that you'd "live with, unhappily", the top two teams in each division going to the playoffs.
I fail to see how 8 teams making the playoffs by way of 2 divisions, top 2 in each, is any sort of improvement over the current 3 divisions, top in each and one wild card. Both systems will lead to situations like Yankees/Rays where teams are merely fighting for playoff position, and the only pennant races would be races for the 2nd spot in the division. Unless I'm completely mis-understanding the proposal.
As for this year, I'd rather have both the Yanks and Rays (the two best teams in baseball) BOTH in the playoffs rather than have one of them miss out while clearly inferior teams play on.
Ooookaaayyyyy...
I also think the effect of moving, at least to the NY area, is overblown. The two NY teams mostly sell different products (AL and NL baseball), and you'd duplicate one of them. You'd be up against 50/110 years of entrenched fandom. It'd take a generation to get around that. It's not clear who would televise your games, if anyone, especially in light of the first point. I have no idea who's in the mood to spend a billion dollars on a ballpark, or where you might do so.
It's one of those ideas that, like an extra wild-card team, sounds great until you start looking at details. The details don't work.
(San Jose? Get there already.)
(I know it would dilute talent even further, but as the league expands and picks up more and more players from the international market -- and population grows in general -- this might be minimized somewhat, no?)
I think at 32, we get two leagues of four four-team divisions, winners only go. That works for me, as someone who likes races, but the broadcast partners will hate it.
Talent dilution isn't an issue for me at all. There are plenty of players and more coming.
And saying territorial waiving is "much less likely to happen"? If by that you mean .1% vs. .4%, I suppose I wouldn't quibble. Each is as likely as Lady Gaga going out with me. From which I derive great comfort.
By the way, attendance statistics are pretty easy to come by so it's not a resource issue.
As to conventional wisdom, arrogance is not the only reason to doubt it. The abundant history of conventional wisdom being false is evidence of the unreliability of such wisdom. Jerry Kenney gives an example of this (flat earth). It would be easy to come up scads of others.