Why MLB is the best

[valpo04]

I really don't understand the "the wild card invites substandard performance" argument.

Meanwhile, if I'm Tony LaRussa putting peddle to the medal from Opening Day, what's my reward for finishing like a dozen games ahead of Houston?  A best of 7 series between myself and a team I lapped twice during a long grueling regular season, with no advantage whatsoever unless the series goes to 7 games.

Why should I bother trying to dominate my division if that's my reward?

If you dominate your division, and the Wild Card comes out of your division as well, you don't play them.  You also get home field advantage and the weakest playoff team.  That is more than enough reason to try to dominate your division.  If you happen to meet the WC team in the NLCS like the Cardinals did with Houston, and you lapped them twice during the regular season, you should have no problem beating them again.  The series went 7 and the Cards had home field advange, thanks to beating them in the regular season.

The Astros may have piddled around until mid-May, but they still went 77-40 after that.  That is an amazing run, .658 baseball!!  They absolutely earned the wild card and IMO, a playoff berth!

I think the Wild Card should stay, but wouldn't mind the deck being stacked against them a bit more (no home games at all?)

[Valpo89]

I disagree about the DH...it should be abolished.  True, today's pitchers are not that good as hitters, but they don't grow up as hitters, not if they are only pitchers.

Have to question you on this one, rlh. Don't you think that the best kids growing up are best at all four - hitting, pitching, fielding and throwing? Usually the best player on a high school baseball team is the pitcher, and that kid is usually the best hitter on the team as well. And when he's not pitching, he's playing shortstop or centerfield because they need his athleticism and his bat in the lineup.
I think, once they get out of high school, then they only concentrate on pitching and hitting goes by the wayside. And then when you haven't taken swings at 90 mph fastballs and a pro curveball, you're going to look silly.
Without the DH, maybe pitchers would be forced to work on hitting more. But that's not why they're paying a guy like Zambrano $10 million a year. (Bad example, National League and Zambrano's a decent hitter).
I like the strategy that goes along with having to pinch hit for pitchers in late innings. After all, you really don't want Jeff Samardzija stepping to the plate in the 9th inning of a tight game.

[rlh]

I disagree about the DH...it should be abolished.  True, today's pitchers are not that good as hitters, but they don't grow up as hitters, not if they are only pitchers.

Have to question you on this one, rlh. Don't you think that the best kids growing up are best at all four - hitting, pitching, fielding and throwing? Usually the best player on a high school baseball team is the pitcher, and that kid is usually the best hitter on the team as well. And when he's not pitching, he's playing shortstop or centerfield because they need his athleticism and his bat in the lineup.
I think, once they get out of high school, then they only concentrate on pitching and hitting goes by the wayside. And then when you haven't taken swings at 90 mph fastballs and a pro curveball, you're going to look silly.
Without the DH, maybe pitchers would be forced to work on hitting more. But that's not why they're paying a guy like Zambrano $10 million a year. (Bad example, National League and Zambrano's a decent hitter).
I like the strategy that goes along with having to pinch hit for pitchers in late innings. After all, you really don't want Jeff Samardzija stepping to the plate in the 9th inning of a tight game.

Pitchers do not hit from college on.....they have the DH....so I think your argument looses validity from then on....I long for the days of Don Drysdale, Warren Spahn and people like that that I grew up with.  I realize I'm an idealist and getting older, but I truly think it was a better game then

[StlVUFan]

I really don't understand the "the wild card invites substandard performance" argument.

Meanwhile, if I'm Tony LaRussa putting peddle to the medal from Opening Day, what's my reward for finishing like a dozen games ahead of Houston?  A best of 7 series between myself and a team I lapped twice during a long grueling regular season, with no advantage whatsoever unless the series goes to 7 games.

Why should I bother trying to dominate my division if that's my reward?

If you dominate your division, and the Wild Card comes out of your division as well, you don't play them.  You also get home field advantage and the weakest playoff team.  That is more than enough reason to try to dominate your division.  If you happen to meet the WC team in the NLCS like the Cardinals did with Houston, and you lapped them twice during the regular season, you should have no problem beating them again.  The series went 7 and the Cards had home field advange, thanks to beating them in the regular season.

The Astros may have piddled around until mid-May, but they still went 77-40 after that.  That is an amazing run, .658 baseball!!  They absolutely earned the wild card and IMO, a playoff berth!

I think the Wild Card should stay, but wouldn't mind the deck being stacked against them a bit more (no home games at all?)

Bravo, and the Cardinals won 105 games that year, which in my book earns the Astros a "wait til next year, just not good enough this year."  I wanted to puke every time Steve Lyons and Tom Brenneman gushed over the fact that "Since May 15, the Astros had the best record in baseball."  Last I checked, the season starts at the beginning of April, not the middle of May.  Big deal.

Oh, the Cardinals definitely did not do their job in 2005 (like they did in 2004).  Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not making excuses for them.  And I'm not hating on the Astros either.  They played by the rules and most definitely earned the wild card.  My problem is with MLB (starting with Bud Selig) for weakening the value of a division title and sucking the life out of a true September pennant race -- substituting quantity for quality.  I'd love to jump into a time machine and change things so that the Dodgers and Padres in 1996 have to play all their regulars on that final Sunday, to say nothing of the final weekend, and pitch their best available starter instead of some guy brought up on September 1st.  It was one game for the division title and it was a yawner.

I do like your compromise proposal, and the realistic side of me would join you in that cause because I can get behind the idea of choosing a battle you have a chance to win over one you have no chance to win.

I know I'm sounding like a hard-ass here, but it should be obvious that I know I'm never going to get my way.  I'm just expressing my feelings about the game, that's all.  The wildcard isn't going away just because I'm being strident about it.

And obviously, 2005 was just one more reason for me to hate the Braves, as if I needed one more reason.  I always root against wild card teams (and that included rooting for the Twins last year, through gritted teeth, for all the good that did me), because I think they should be dispatched with prejudice as soon as possible so we can get on with first place teams.  The Cardinals lost the pennant because Mark Mulder picked the worst time to suck (or he was hurt and didn't say anything about it, a malady that has reached epidemic proportions in St. Louis these days) and because, save for game 1 and a 9th inning for the ages which turned a closer's name into a verb, the Cardinal offense sucked.

When I said their reward was having to play the Astros all over again, I meant the potential of having to play them again, which I think shouldn't happen.  And I think the same thing about the Braves in 97 and 03.  They shouldn't have had to take on the Marlins again since in both years they lapped them a few times too.

Of course, if not for the wild card, the apocalypse might have occurred in 2003, but that's an extraordinary measure that does not justify the wild card in general.

[valpotx]

I disagree about the DH...it should be abolished.  True, today's pitchers are not that good as hitters, but they don't grow up as hitters, not if they are only pitchers.

Have to question you on this one, rlh. Don't you think that the best kids growing up are best at all four - hitting, pitching, fielding and throwing? Usually the best player on a high school baseball team is the pitcher, and that kid is usually the best hitter on the team as well. And when he's not pitching, he's playing shortstop or centerfield because they need his athleticism and his bat in the lineup.
I think, once they get out of high school, then they only concentrate on pitching and hitting goes by the wayside. And then when you haven't taken swings at 90 mph fastballs and a pro curveball, you're going to look silly.
Without the DH, maybe pitchers would be forced to work on hitting more. But that's not why they're paying a guy like Zambrano $10 million a year. (Bad example, National League and Zambrano's a decent hitter).
I like the strategy that goes along with having to pinch hit for pitchers in late innings. After all, you really don't want Jeff Samardzija stepping to the plate in the 9th inning of a tight game.

Pitchers do not hit from college on.....they have the DH....so I think your argument looses validity from then on....I long for the days of Don Drysdale, Warren Spahn and people like that that I grew up with.  I realize I'm an idealist and getting older, but I truly think it was a better game then

In more cases than not, this is true, but using examples from personal experience that counter this argument: Mark Pedersen, Marc Boggio, Sean Peickert, and a few others.  I could name them from other colleges recently, but you do find that the best overall athletes find a way on the field even if they are a top pitcher.

[valporun]

I disagree about the DH...it should be abolished.  True, today's pitchers are not that good as hitters, but they don't grow up as hitters, not if they are only pitchers.

Have to question you on this one, rlh. Don't you think that the best kids growing up are best at all four - hitting, pitching, fielding and throwing? Usually the best player on a high school baseball team is the pitcher, and that kid is usually the best hitter on the team as well. And when he's not pitching, he's playing shortstop or centerfield because they need his athleticism and his bat in the lineup.
I think, once they get out of high school, then they only concentrate on pitching and hitting goes by the wayside. And then when you haven't taken swings at 90 mph fastballs and a pro curveball, you're going to look silly.
Without the DH, maybe pitchers would be forced to work on hitting more. But that's not why they're paying a guy like Zambrano $10 million a year. (Bad example, National League and Zambrano's a decent hitter).
I like the strategy that goes along with having to pinch hit for pitchers in late innings. After all, you really don't want Jeff Samardzija stepping to the plate in the 9th inning of a tight game.

Pitchers do not hit from college on.....they have the DH....so I think your argument looses validity from then on....I long for the days of Don Drysdale, Warren Spahn and people like that that I grew up with.  I realize I'm an idealist and getting older, but I truly think it was a better game then

In more cases than not, this is true, but using examples from personal experience that counter this argument: Mark Pedersen, Marc Boggio, Sean Peickert, and a few others.  I could name them from other colleges recently, but you do find that the best overall athletes find a way on the field even if they are a top pitcher.

I have to agree that some of your better hitters might be lingering around the dugout or bullpen recording pitches because they aren't being used in the field on days when they aren't going to pitch. Some of your better swingers and base stealers are pitchers, but due to the rules about how to handle pitchers, written or unwritten, most pitchers are spending their off days watching from the dugout or the stands.
I never played travel baseball, but I wonder if some of the pitchers were given the advice that their best position would be a pitcher because they could win games, but in reality, they should be catching or playing one of the other seven defensive positions, so their bat or foot speed could be utilized appropriately?

[valpo04]

Sounds like the addition of a second wild card team might give more incentive to win the division...

Selig disclosed that he's heard more support for a one-game wild-card playoff than he originally anticipated. That's a crucial piece of information, because the layoff between the end of the regular season and start of the Division Series was seen as one significant roadblock to expanding the postseason. If the wild-card "play-in" takes only one day, then it won't cross purposes with the stated desire for a tighter postseason schedule that ends before November.
...
So, it appears MLB and the MLBPA share plenty of common ground when it comes to playoff expansion. Frankly, I'm beginning to see the wisdom in that format, too. By forcing the two wild-card teams to play a one-game playoff, baseball would incentivize winning division titles — which guarantee passage to the best-of-5 Division Series.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/realignment-expanded-playoffs-collective-bargaining-agreement-big-changes-afoot-for-mlb-071411

[StlVUFan]

Sounds like the addition of a second wild card team might give more incentive to win the division...

Selig disclosed that he's heard more support for a one-game wild-card playoff than he originally anticipated. That's a crucial piece of information, because the layoff between the end of the regular season and start of the Division Series was seen as one significant roadblock to expanding the postseason. If the wild-card "play-in" takes only one day, then it won't cross purposes with the stated desire for a tighter postseason schedule that ends before November.
...
So, it appears MLB and the MLBPA share plenty of common ground when it comes to playoff expansion. Frankly, I'm beginning to see the wisdom in that format, too. By forcing the two wild-card teams to play a one-game playoff, baseball would incentivize winning division titles — which guarantee passage to the best-of-5 Division Series.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/realignment-expanded-playoffs-collective-bargaining-agreement-big-changes-afoot-for-mlb-071411

As compared to the single-wild card scenario, I agree.  As compared to the no-wildcard scenario, no.

In other words, Bud has stumbled into a half-way decent solution to one of the problems with his own invention -- knowingly or not.

[DMvalpo18]

to be perfectly honest, basketball is the only sport i care for on more than a surface level. college first (valpo), then pro (bulls). football, baseball, soccer, tennis, etc. i could really care less.

[covufan]

I disagree about the DH...it should be abolished.  True, today's pitchers are not that good as hitters, but they don't grow up as hitters, not if they are only pitchers.

Have to question you on this one, rlh. Don't you think that the best kids growing up are best at all four - hitting, pitching, fielding and throwing? Usually the best player on a high school baseball team is the pitcher, and that kid is usually the best hitter on the team as well. And when he's not pitching, he's playing shortstop or centerfield because they need his athleticism and his bat in the lineup.
I think, once they get out of high school, then they only concentrate on pitching and hitting goes by the wayside. And then when you haven't taken swings at 90 mph fastballs and a pro curveball, you're going to look silly.
Without the DH, maybe pitchers would be forced to work on hitting more. But that's not why they're paying a guy like Zambrano $10 million a year. (Bad example, National League and Zambrano's a decent hitter).
I like the strategy that goes along with having to pinch hit for pitchers in late innings. After all, you really don't want Jeff Samardzija stepping to the plate in the 9th inning of a tight game.

Pitchers do not hit from college on.....they have the DH....so I think your argument looses validity from then on....I long for the days of Don Drysdale, Warren Spahn and people like that that I grew up with.  I realize I'm an idealist and getting older, but I truly think it was a better game then

In more cases than not, this is true, but using examples from personal experience that counter this argument: Mark Pedersen, Marc Boggio, Sean Peickert, and a few others.  I could name them from other colleges recently, but you do find that the best overall athletes find a way on the field even if they are a top pitcher.

Wasn't there a pitcher that batted cleanup between Will Clark and Rafael Palmerio at Mississippi State in the '80s?  I think his name was Bobby Thigpen.