I have always been a baseball purist. When the leagues split into two divisions in 1969, I was dismayed because it would now be possible for a team with the second-best winning percentage to win the pennant, and possibly the World Series.
The late Warren Giles, then the president of the National League, had an identical objection: The new system would destroy the integrity of the 162-game season. I kept watch. For the first three years there was no problem. The teams with the best records won the pennants.
Then, in the fourth year, Cincinnati, with won one fewer victory than Pittsburgh, qualified for the World Series. And I have a vivid recollection of what happened, or rather what didn’t happen. Everyone was so swept up in the excitement, nobody noticed. Which is why I didn’t object to the introduction of the wild-card procedure, which goes into effect for the first time Tuesday.
Because of the imbalance created by the change from two to three divisions, four teams in each league now qualify for postseason play–the three divisional winners along with the second-place team with the best record.
The principal idea was to sustain interest in September, when attendance drops after most teams have been eliminated. In this respect, the wild card has been successful. More than a half-dozen clubs–including the Cubs–that otherwise would have been deposited on the obituary page have had a shot at winning the wild card.
With the wild card has come much confusion. Because of many variables, the first round of the playoffs–who plays who and where–will not be fully determined until the bell rings Sunday night.
More Top Picks Best French Door Air Fryers
I assume this will be corrected next season. Changes must be made. Instead of a 2-3 series in the first round, it should be 2-2-1, which would require an additional day for travel. Also, the fourth-place team should play the team with the best record, regardless of whether they are in the same division.
The way it is now, Los Angeles and Colorado cannot meet in the first round because both are in the NL West. A similar situation could have existed in the AL East. If the Boston Red Sox had had the best record, they would not be allowed to play the Yankees, who appear to have the best chance to win the wild card.
I understand intradivisional pairings are undesirable. The first round, in effect, would be an extension of the regular season. But there would be a large advantage to the public. Many of the scheduling possibilities would be eliminated.
Andy MacPhail, the purist president of the Cubs, concedes he originally was “skeptical” of the new system. Among his objections was that the daily newspaper standings would be muddled. Traditionally, a club’s position could be quickly determined by the games-behind column; i.e., if the White Sox were two games behind Cleveland (dream on), two more Sox victories coupled with two Cleveland losses would tie them for the lead.
“The media came to our rescue,” MacPhail explained. “They created a fourth division by publishing separate standings on the wild-card race, without geographical considerations, listing only the teams in the race. It’s a logical thing to do, but nobody thought of it except the sports editors.”
MacPhail believes, as I do, that admitting a second-place team to the playoffs is not a major compromise.
“We have 28 teams and only eight will be eligible,” he said. “Eight out of 28 isn’t illogical. In football and basketball, half the teams qualify. But I don’t hear anybody complaining. Maybe they don’t have purists.”
I, too, have been puzzled why this is almost never mentioned. In football, 12 of the 30 teams advance; basketball, 16 of 29; hockey, 16 of 26. The baseball officials, I suppose, should be flattered. Like Caesar’s wife, they are expected to be more pure than the general sporting populace.
Which reminds me of what may be a little-known fact. Despite the shortened season, major-league baseball attendance will approach 50 million paid admissions. The NFL drew 14 million, the NBA 18.5 million. Professional hockey, which also had a shortened season, drew 9 million. Obviously, the grand old game isn’t dead.
Still, there has been some unforeseen fallout. There have been a large number of midseason deals. Because so many teams have been in a position for fame and glory, the general managers and owners have been telling each other, “One more good player is all we need.”
The Yankees acquired David Cone from Toronto, Cincinnati picked up David Wells from Detroit, Andy Benes went from San Diego to Seattle, Jim Abbott went from the White Sox to California, Bobby Witt went from Florida to Texas, Rick Aguilera went from Minnesota to Boston and Bobby Bonilla went from the Mets to Baltimore.
All of these deals, except the Bonilla trade, included established pitchers, all in the high-salary range, reason enough to say farewell. What they also have in common is the clubs tightening their purses received young players, many of them excellent prospects, in the exchange.
It has been a seller’s market. One front-office boss, Terry Ryan of Minnesota, sent Scott Erickson to Baltimore and Kevin Tapani and Mark Guthrie to the Dodgers and received six young players in return. Many baseball insiders insist the Twins will be improved, if not next year, then the year after.