A wild debate about baseball
The New York Post's Phil Mushnick rips Fox TV's Mark Grace for saying nice things about the wild card.
Mushnick is amazed that "Grace thinks it's a modern marvel that between the Brewers and the Mets -- two spectacularly deficient and richly undeserving teams -- one would end the weekend among the eight clubs starting at scratch in pursuit of winning the World Series ..."
But more "deficient" than whom? Are the National League wild-card Brewers (90-72) more deficient than the NL West champion Dodgers (84-78), or the American League wild-card Red Sox (95-67) more deficient than the AL Central champion White Sox (88-74)?
If wild-card teams were all that deficient, then they wouldn't go far in the playoffs. But they do go far in the playoffs.
The past seven times a wild-card team had a better record than at least one division winner in its league, the wild-card team went farther than the weak division winner(s). The seven include the World Series-winning 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins and 2004 Red Sox, and the pennant-winning 2007 Rockies, 2006 Tigers and 2005 Astros.
Yeah, all of we traditionalists liked it the simplicity and honor of the old way, where there were two divisions in each league and only the division winners advanced.
But if baseball had still been using that old format in the past four seasons, it would have barred from the playoffs four teams that actually won pennants (and a World Series) from wild-card slots.
If the goal is to have the best possible baseball in October, then you need the teams that are the most capable of playing it.
Year after year, wild-card teams prove they are.
About this blog
Kevin Modesti watches sports from a new angle since his promotion from sports columnist to sports editor for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group. In his new blog, Modesti not only comments on the big sports stories of the moment-- he talks about what makes them big. Think of it as a conversation with readers about how these stories should be covered.
Leave a comment