Room for Four More
Peter Gammons beat this article's intent to the punch. But as you can tell from sportsfanIQ's "Daily Discussion's" page, the following is an elaboration on a previous concern.
Come Week One of the NFL season, markets which produce both baseball and football see a change in viewership, as MLB fans quickly shift their attention toward the NFL.
It's understandable to see this pattern in areas like Kansas City, Cincinnati or Pittsburgh, where their respective teams are, for the most part, not in contention by September.
In major markets like New York and Boston, however, where the Yankees and Red Sox consistently prepare for October, fan interest drops off just as dramatically in the last month of the baseball calendar.
For the true fan whose team will be competing in October, their attention will refocus. But for the casual fan, the one that most sports depend on for added viewership, seasons like MLB's 2009 could become an issue.
So rather than sit by idly, MLB needs to be proactive.
Last year at this time, the Red Sox were within three of Tampa Bay; Minnesota and Chicago were neck and neck (they ended up playing a one-game playoff); the Mets were fighting for their wild card and divisional lives; and the Diamondbacks were only two games behind the Dodgers.
Fast forward to this year and the Yankees are 8.5 up on the Sox, who are six up on the Rangers in the wild card, who are six behind the Angels for the division. In the NL, the Phillies are five up on the Braves; the Cardinals are 8.5 up on the Cubs; and the Dodgers are five up on the Rockies.
The only two races worth watching are the Tigers and Twins, separated by two games; as well as the Rockies and Braves divided by 2.5.
Reacting to the current criticism the game is facing, MLB aims to prove this year an anomaly.
They responded with the following:
-From 2001-2008, only the Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals have made it to the World Series more than once.
-In this time, of the 30 MLB teams, 23 made the playoffs. In three of the six divisions, every team but one made it to October (AL Central, AL West & NL East) and in a fourth, the NL West, all five teams moved on to the post-season, including three World Series runs.
-From 2005-2006, only one team in both leagues made the playoffs back-to-back. (Not surprisingly, the Yankees.)
But parity isn't MLB's main concern.
The sport has seen variety in October, sure. But in a season of 162 games, when the casual fan decides to tune in with the hopes of catching exciting, down-to-the-wire baseball, if the product is suffering down the stretch, further revisions may be necessary.
Since most complain about the length of the season anyway, shorten it back to 154 games. Include two additional wild card teams per league (three total) and structure it according to the NFL standard - top two get a first round bye and so on.
If this system were in place this year, we'd see the Mariners, Twins and Rays all within two games of the final spot with the Rangers holding a four game lead for the fifth position.
In the NL, the Braves would hold a 2.5 game lead for the fifth slot, with the Marlins, Giants and Cubs jockeying for the sixth, all separated by only 1.5 games.
This suggestion may sound like it would water down the prospect of making the post-season, but so did the initial wild card format when it was implemented in 1994. And for that matter, the thought of adding two division winners per league probably didn't go over so well when first conceived in 1969.
In order to survive, leagues need to evolve.
Eventually, more than one wild card per league will become essential for MLB to do just that.
Friday, September 25, 2009 at 10:54AM
Reader Comments (1)
This is an awful awful awful idea (did I include enough "awful's")? The '95 wildcard change watered things down enough, now you want to take a 162-game season and make it even less meaningful? Ridiculous. A first round bye would not be beneficial in baseball, the way it is in football, because teams are not used to such long layoffs during the year. You would essentially penalize the best teams. Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows that it's a long-term game. You need long stretches to truly determine the best teams. Having a team win 80 games over 162 and give them a shot in a 5-game series against a team who won 100 is just wrong.
MLB's problem, when it comes to competing with the NFL, is it's economic system. Yes, they will point to a variety of teams making the WS. Means nothing, since as I mentioned, anyone can win in a short series if their pitching heats up. The point is that big market teams can maintain their teams over many seasons (look how many playoffs the Yanks and Sox have made since '95 as compared to, say, the Royals, Orioles, Pirates, et al.) A team like the Marlins can have great scouting and build a team over a few years who makes the playoffs. But when the contracts of their best players come due, they lose them to the big market teams and have to start over. (See Marlins 1997, 2003... and the cycle is repeating itself again).
Even the playing field - with a salary cap, or some other creative solution - so all teams compete fairly, a la the NFL, and then you might be on to something. Otherwise, you're just creating some gimmick to make your sport artificially attractive. Hell, why not have everyone make the playoffs and do it NCAA-tournament style. Think of the ratings!