Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Wild-Card Arguments Are Dumb
Yet another essay detailing the benefits of the wild-card system. And true to form, it is fraught with bad logic.
If "the games were exciting" is a good reason to include wild-card teams, then why not just pick the playoff teams randomly? After all, your chances of getting an exciting series would be no different.
Enough for now. I guess I'm just going to have to deal with the new game of baseball.
A year ago, Anaheim and San Francisco produced a pulsating seven-game World Series. Without the wild card, neither team would have made it. It was an eloquent endorsement for the rule that was adopted in 1993 and put in place for the first time in 1995.So if the Series had been boring, it would have meant that the wild-card system was bad for baseball, then, I take it?
If "the games were exciting" is a good reason to include wild-card teams, then why not just pick the playoff teams randomly? After all, your chances of getting an exciting series would be no different.
In the National League, the wild card created a heated race this season even though two of the three divisions were runaways for Atlanta and San Francisco. Philadelphia battled Florida through the final month and Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston were in the thick of the wild card chase.Without the wild-card system, Atlanta and San Francisco would have been locked in yet another thrilling division title race. Both teams won over 100 games and would have been in the same division in the pre-1994 format. 1993, often referred to as containing The Last Great Pennant Race, would have happened all over again. And the battle between Philly and the Marlins would have been for first place.
Enough for now. I guess I'm just going to have to deal with the new game of baseball.
