In Defense of an Expanded Postseason | Disciples of Uecker

Disciples of Uecker

We'd like to go to the Playoffs, that would be cool.

The Brewers lost both their split squad games yesterday, but Elvis Costello already wrote a whole song about what spring training records mean, so I’m not going to talk about that. Instead, I’m going to talk about one of the changes to the MLB landscape this season—the addition of an extra wild card team.  This is a move that has been criticized in several quarters for introducing more luck to the already watered down postseason, and making it less likely that the best team in baseball wins the World Series. I don’t think this criticism is factually incorrect, but I do think it misses the point, so I’d like to offer up a few notions in defense of the move.

1. The World Series isn’t about recognizing the best team.

Or at least it hasn’t been for decades now, since divisional play was introduced in 1969. In case there was any confusion over the matter, yes, 162 games against every other team does a better job of revealing a team’s true talent than 5 or 7 games against another good team. It’s not even close. When it comes to trying to identify the best team in baseball, the postseason is both inadequate and unnecessary, because the regular season generally does as good of a job identifying the best team as we can reasonably expect. The real value added from the postseason comes not from determining better teams, but from its entertainment value. It’s just plain fun to take the top few teams in any sport and toss them in a battle royale to see who comes out the other end (cf. March Madness). What’s more, it better allows for an underdog story; David actually stands a chance against Goliath in a seven game series, whereas Goliath will steamroll given 162 games to work with. Speaking of this:

2. Parity in baseball depends on a postseason with some randomness

Let’s take a glance at what the last ten World Series would have looked like with the pre-1969 system, where the pennant automatically went to the league leader in wins:

Year AL NL
2011 Yankees Phillies
2010 Rays Phillies
2009 Yankees Dodgers
2008 Angels Cubs
2007 Red Sox/Indians Diamondbacks
2006 Yankees Mets
2005 White Sox Cardinals
2004 Yankees Cardinals
2003 Yankees Braves
2002 Yankees Braves

In six of the ten years, the AL would have been represented by the Yankees. Meanwhile, the NL would’ve thrice had back to back representatives. Obviously, people can disagree about this sort of thing; some of you undoubtedly would prefer a system like this that properly reflects the Yankees’ dominance over the past decade. But personally, I find it way more enjoyable when a more diverse group of teams is making and winning the World Series. And, of course, there’s one particular team in this list I’d like to see with a chance:

3. Without a doubt, an extra Wild Card helps the Brewers

I am a Brewers fan. I would like to see them win the World Series, and it is unlikely they will be the best team in baseball any time soon, so honestly, it’s hard for me to be against something that gives weaker teams a chance in the postseason. The fear, I suppose, is that the World Series title loses its luster in this way. If it no longer actually recognizes the best team in baseball, why do I care if my team wins it? Because I want that moment of euphoria when the title is clinched. It’s less about what the title means and more about the joy of watching. As much as we mythologize this game, it is, in the end, a pastime. It’s meant to be an enjoyable diversion. We created the postseason for the thrills, and those are what keep us watching. I will fully admit my argument is extremely susceptible to a reductio ad absurdum, and could justify all sorts of bizarre machinations in the interest of making the World Series more entertaining. However, I do think there is a balance to be had, and I don’t think anything that introduces more luck is necessarily bad.

Share Our Posts

Share this post through social bookmarks.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Newsvine
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Comments

Tell us what do you think.

  1. Nathan says: March 17, 2012

    Well said.
    Really, it’s about getting folks involved, and TV dollars. As long as they don’t expand to 16 teams, I’m good.

  2. Rob says: March 17, 2012

    Very nice. I agree with all three of your points. I didn’t completely disagree with the article a few weeks ago that was anti-playoff expansion, but it is always more fun when more teams are involved. Major League Baseball still has the most exclusive playoff system of the 4 major sports.

    One argument I heard was that it would take away the chance of last season’s amazing ending. Not only does it not do that, it guarantees two win-or-go-home games on a single day immediately following the regular season. Pairing what happened in Game 162 last year with that? Talk about excitement.

    Finally, anything that gives the fans of more teams to experience the playoffs or playoff atmosphere can’t be all bad.

    • Nicholas Zettel says: March 18, 2012

      It takes away from late season drama in the sense that there are fewer 6-team races than 5-team races.

      Think about last season’s drama — what was amazing, beyond the last day, was the entire month leading up to it. If you add another playoff spot, pretty much all of those teams involved in the final day know they have the 1-game playoff. You’re left with 1-2 (maybe even 3-4) weeks of teams simply playing out their schedule, waiting their one day playoff.

      BUT, the good news is, this gives the Brewers one more shot at potential playoff revenue. Anything that accomplishes that, I’m going to cheer, even if it makes for more fabricated races.

  3. Ben says: March 21, 2012

    I’m not sure I agree with your third claim, Alex — if the Brewers make the postseason as a division winner, the expanded postseason is unlikely to affect their success in those years (as the two wild cards will have basically equivalent quality). On the other hand, if the Brewers make the postseason as the first wildcard, the expanded postseason definitely hurts them (they’ve got a coin-flip to make it to the NLDS, which they would have otherwise reached with certainty). Finally, if they make it as the second wildcard, it’s an unequivocal gain since they wouldn’t have otherwise made it. It’s not obvious to me that the expanded postseason will result in the Brewers making the playoffs sufficiently more often as the second wildcard as to offset all of the damage the one-game playoff does when they make it as the first wildcard.

    I also think the new system has the possibility to damage wildcard winners relative to division champs since they have to win an additional play-in game (and expend pitchers to do that).

Trackbacks

Websites mentioned my entry.

There are no trackbacks on this entry

Add a Comment

Fill in the form and submit.