The flip side to the Wild Card

[DavidGee24]

Like many of you, I like the wild card in MLB. But unfortunately it has taken so much away from the World Series.

If there's one thing the old timers can say about yesterday's game that was better, it was that the WS pretty much always featured the two best teams or at least two of the best three. Even when they went to divisional playoffs in 1969 this remained true. My first WS was in 1975 between the Reds and the Red Sox. While it also happened to be the right year, look at the rosters on those two teams, Hall Of Famers and near Hall Of Famers galore, legends of the game. And then in 1976, same thing with the Reds and Yankees, and then the next two years the Yankees and Dodgers, great teams full of great and legendary players.

Now, unfortunately we all too often get mid-playoff level teams in the WS and it just doesn't carry the same weight. Myself personally, if you were to ask me who won the WS every year, going all the way back I can just rattle them off but once I get to this century I start going "Uhhh..."

Look at this way: how many players can you name from the 1972 A's? Probably at least ten. How many players can you name from the 2012 Giants? Or the 2002 Anaheim Angels? Ten combined, if that?

I was hoping for a Yankees/Dodgers or Astros/Dodgers WS. I want to see the heavyweights. If we're going to get less than that, like Cardinals/Rays or Nationals/Rays, they'd better pull a 1991 or something.

[Juliooooo]

Like many of you, I like the wild card in MLB. But unfortunately it has taken so much away from the World Series.

If there's one thing the old timers can say about yesterday's game that was better, it was that the WS pretty much always featured the two best teams or at least two of the best three. Even when they went to divisional playoffs in 1969 this remained true. My first WS was in 1975 between the Reds and the Red Sox. While it also happened to be the right year, look at the rosters on those two teams, Hall Of Famers and near Hall Of Famers galore, legends of the game. And then in 1976, same thing with the Reds and Yankees, and then the next two years the Yankees and Dodgers, great teams full of great and legendary players.

Now, unfortunately we all too often get mid-playoff level teams in the WS and it just doesn't carry the same weight. Myself personally, if you were to ask me who won the WS every year, going all the way back I can just rattle them off but once I get to this century I start going "Uhhh..."

Look at this way: how many players can you name from the 1972 A's? Probably at least ten. How many players can you name from the 2012 Giants? Or the 2002 Anaheim Angels? Ten combined, if that?

I was hoping for a Yankees/Dodgers or Astros/Dodgers WS. I want to see the heavyweights. If we're going to get less than that, like Cardinals/Rays or Nationals/Rays, they'd better pull a 1991 or something.

Maybe it's your ability to remember things that has changed

[D-train]

75 WS was when I became a fan as well. Off the top of my head:

Red Sox

C Fisk
1B George Scott
2B Jerry Remy
SS Rick Burleson
LF Jim Rice
3B Butch Hobson
RF Dewey Evans
DH Yaz

Reds
C Bench
1B Tony Perez
2B Joe Morgan
SS Dave Concepcion
3B Rose
LF George Foster
CF Ceasar Geronimo (best name ever)
RF Dan Dreissen

Back up catcher: RG

Edit: Can't believe I forgot about Ken Griffey Sr.!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like Remy was on the 1978 team that lost the one game playoff.

[D-train]

Same with George Scott. He was also on the 78 team.

[DanielVogelbach]

The team with the most wins and most stars isn't necessarily the team playing the best ball at the end of the season. I think the current system works brilliantly. I was rooting for the Dodgers to win, but they lost. Kershaw blew it. So, it's Scherzer and Strasburg time.

In the NBA, they let all kinds of teams in, but many of them don't stand a chance. The WC path is extremely difficult in the NFL as well, and it provides zero chance to play a home game. The NCAA tournament lets in 64 teams, yet the Final Four still always has the stars from the big schools. MLB lets in 6 teams and gives the 1 seed the opportunity to play the WC team... I don't know... you're not convincing me of any flipside, as for me the current system seems far superior to any previous implementations. We're getting more post season, it's all super high quality level of play, and it also makes the regular season much more interesting. This system is truly superior than anything previous IMO. The Dodgers were just in two consecutive WS, so I see it as any big deal that they're not going to play in it this year... I actually think that's good... you don't want the same teams every year. Furthermore, it's too bad they didn't introduce the second WC earlier... the Ms would've made the post season like 3 times during their current drought. (too lazy to actually look it up)

[Dr Naysay]

Current system is fine imo, I would make the WC contest a best of three.

[Sibelius Hindemith]

It all needs to be put into perspective. Accruing the best record over a 162-game season is a greater accomplishment than winning a majority of games in a post-season tournament that consists of a maximum of 20 games. The playoffs are mostly hype and manufactured drama.

[D-train]

Current system is fine imo, I would make the WC contest a best of three.

Totally agree. That would make it perfect.

[D-train]

It all needs to be put into perspective. Accruing the best record over a 162-game season is a greater accomplishment than winning a majority of games in a post-season tournament that consists of a maximum of 20 games. The playoffs are mostly hype and manufactured drama.

That's what the do in the Premier league. I can't imagine a more anti climatic buzz kill way to end a season where even the league champ is playing meaningless games at the end of the season to play out the string.

[Sibelius Hindemith]

I suppose. There's no good solution really except award Pennants to the teams with the best records in each league and make it a big deal. Then have the playoffs.