Mild Card

Earlier this week, the L.A. Times had an article extolling the blessings of the wild card, citing the exciting pennant races in this year’s hunt for October. But is the wild card really responsible for the excitement? Hardly. Here’s the way things look in the current three-division format as of 3pm PDT on Sept. 22.

The Yanks lead the Red Sox by half a game in the AL east, Chicago’s up by 2.5 over Cleveland in the Central. One of these four teams is going to win the wild card, and one is going to stay home. In the west. the Angels lead the A’s by 2.5 games.

In the National League, St. Louis has had the central wrapped up since May, Atlanta is about to clinch the east, and San Diego is battling itself for king of the sub .500 teams in the west. The wild card is a three-way battle between Houston, Philadelphia, and Florida (Washington at this point has no more than an outside shot at it, from 6.5 games back.

Now here’s how things would look if there were two divisions and no wild card.
In the AL East, Cleveland would lead the Yankees by half a game and the Red Sox by a full game. In the West, Chicago would be up by five games over the surging Angels.

In the NL East, St. Louis would still be running away with the division. But the NL West would be a dogfight between the Braves and the Astros, two games back.

To be sure, fewer teams would be playing meaningful games in the last week of the season. Philadelphia, Florida, and Oakland (three teams that are still very much alive in the wild card format) would be mathematically eliminated by now, and the Angels would be close to done. But there would still be plenty of playoff-level excitement. I love the idea of a three-team race for the AL East. Best of all, San Diego, at 76-76, would not be in contention for anything. That’s how it should be.

There’s no arguing with the wild card. It’s here to stay. But let’s hope it doesn’t lead to interminable NBA-style playoffs. Four teams is plenty.