Which teams would have been the AL "new wild card" if we'd had this system 1995-present? Would the Blue Jays ever have won it?

Yeah, you know, I don't know, don't you know.

Easier to get a wild card spot, but the wild card spot is less than half as valuable now.

The hard cold fact that MLB is trying to conceal is this: before this change, exactly one of thirty teams would win the World Series in a given year. After this change, exactly one of thirty teams will win the World Series in a given year.

If I'm Anthopoulos, I'm not giving the wheel any drastic spins after this news.

AL Second wild-card
2011 Boston (Toronto 9 GB)
2010 Boston (4 GB)
2009 Texas (12 GB)
2008 New York (3 GB)
2007 Detroit/Seattle (5 GB)
2006 Chicago (3 GB)
2005 Cleveland (13 GB)
2004 Oakland (24 GB)
2003 Seattle (7 GB)
2002 Seattle/Boston (15 GB)
2001 Minnesota (5 GB)
2000 Cleveland (7 GB)
1999 Oakland (3 GB)
1998 Toronto
1997 Anaheim (8 GB)
1996 Chicago/Seattle/Boston (11 GB)
1995 California (22 GB)

AG#1F just beat me to it, but the Jays of Jose Canseco, Craig Grebeck, Roger Clemens, and Dave Stieb would've won the second wild card in 1998.

Making the playoffs in 1998 might've changed the franchise's fortunes. Clemens might not have demanded a trade, the Mike Sirotka trade never happens, attendance hadn't cratered yet so maybe it never bottoms out. Gord Ash gets inducted into the Blue Jays Level of Excellence...

Come to think of it, it'd have been pretty surreal if a Jays team that had both Tony Fernandez and Dave Stieb had made the playoffs in the late 90s.

And as Matthew says, this news makes it much harder for the wild card to do any damage in the playoffs, so it probably hurts Toronto's chances of winning the World Series.

So is this second wild card team really going to be considered as having "made the playoffs?" It's more of a play-in game, really. There will still be 8 teams in the tournament, it's just that 2 of them will have to win a play-in first. I suppose the play-in game will be considered a "playoff" game for hype purposes, but is it really the same when you are knocked out after just one game?

Clearly everyone will come to think of it that way, which will make it even more ridiculous when 87-win teams beat 95-win teams to win the wild card.

Yeah, I know you won 95 games and they only won 87 games, but they won the one arbitrary extra game we decided to play, so they make the playoffs and you go home.

It's completely insane is what it is.

It's completely insane is what it is..

It happens all the time, and will happen regardless of what rules are in place. In 2006 the 83-win Cardinals won the World Series while the 90-win ChiSox didn't even make the playoffs. Every change will "fix" one problem and create another. Big deal.

Agreed.

When only two teams reached the World Series, sometimes the "insane" lesser team will win - especially insane when they have fewer wins AND play in an obviously inferior league.

A Wild Card team won THIS YEAR.

Besides, this is only one more change. Some old timers could be complaining about every time a team without the most wins in the league wins the WS...


I think this will make the end of season more exciting. Kind of like it was this year, but usually isn't. What is bad about that?

1996 Chicago/Seattle/Boston (11 GB)

If this actually happens, they'll be playing the World Series in January the following year. First three temas play to determine to who plays the play-in game, then you have the play-in game, then the "real" playoffs start. Jesus.

In that alternate history, the 1998 play-in game would have been a good one, with Roger Clemens facing Pedro Martinez. Clemens actually pitched game 162 that year, but since they won the 2nd wild card by 3 games over the Angels, he would have been held back.

I rather fancy the Red Sox chances of going all the way in 1996 and 2002. In '96, they would have had weakish opposition in the new Yankees and the fading Orioles, while Roger would have been at his very best seeking a new contract. 2002 was the best Sox team of all by Pythag, and the opposition wasn't that hot either, so it would have had a very good shot indeed, thus relegating Theo to the ash-heap of history, with credit being given mostly to Duquette but also to Mike Port.

Once you decide to have any sort of playoff system, rather than just awarding some kind of Best Team trophy to the team with the best record, you allow a seemingly lesser team to win a championship over a better team. This is unavoidable. It is the nature of playoffs, any type of playoff in any sport.

So here are the complete Wild-Card matchups had they instituted this in 1995:

AL
1995 California at New York; Houston at Colorado
1996 Boston/Seattle/Chicago at Baltimore; Montreal at Los Angeles
1997 Anaheim (84 wins) at New York (96 wins); Los Angeles/New York at Florida
1998 Toronto at Boston; San Francisco at Chicago
1999 Oakland at Boston; New York at Cincinnati (actually played a one-game playoff for the WC)
2000 Cleveland at Seattle; Los Angeles at New York
2001 Minnesota (85 wins) at Oakland (102 wins); San Francisco at St. Louis
2002 Boston/Seattle at Anaheim; Los Angeles at San Francisco
2003 Seattle at Boston; Houston at Florida
2004 Oakland at Boston; San Francisco at Houston
2005 Cleveland at Boston; Philadelphia at Houston
2006 Chicago at Detroit; Philadelphia at Los Angeles
2007 Detroit/Seattle at New York; San Diego at Colorado (actually played a one-game playoff for the WC)
2008 New York at Boston (Bud's wet dream!); New York at Milwuakee
2009 Texas at Boston; San Francisco at Colorado
2010 Boston at New York; San Diego at Atlanta
2011 Boston at Tampa Bay; Atlanta at St. Louis - no drama on last day of season!

It happens all the time, and will happen regardless of what rules are in place. In 2006 the 83-win Cardinals won the World Series while the 90-win ChiSox didn't even make the playoffs. Every change will "fix" one problem and create another. Big deal.

The rather enormous difference is that now a "lesser" team can advance past a better team by simply winning *one* game.

That's a big deal, this ain't football.

1998 Toronto at Boston; San Francisco at Chicago

They too played a 1 game playoff for the WC.

The rather enormous difference is that now a "lesser" team can advance past a better team by simply winning *one* game.

True, but the better team that can be advanced past is itself only a second-place team and, in the vast majority of cases, is not going to be that much better than the team that advances past it. There will be years where you can point at it and say, that that just happened, that was stupid. But there shouldn't be too many of 'em.

<i>And as Matthew says, this news makes it much harder for the wild card to do any damage in the playoffs, so it probably hurts Toronto's chances of winning the World Series.<i>

I don't see this at all. The winner of the play-in game is on exactly the same footing as the 1995-2011 wild card team. It hurts the chances of the #4 team, but massively helps the chances of the #5 team. Toronto has never been the #4 team, and doesn't appear to be very likely to be the #4 team any time in the future. So how does this hurt Toronto's chances of winning the World Series?

I would've preferred a 3-game wild-card to kick things off with each round getting progressively longer. It removes some of the one-game luck factor and is familiar because of its prevalence in the regular season. However, I understand the reasons against it (division winners waiting a long time for the series to finish and the potential for a very late end of the season). In any case, I'm happy to see a 5th team get a shot at the playoffs.

This will change the trading deadline pretty substantially, as the number of teams with a legitimate shot at the playoffs will be expanded.

In '96, they would have had weakish opposition in the new Yankees and the fading Orioles

It's pretty amusing to see two teams which finished ahead of the Red Sox described as "weakish opposition."

Regarding the list in number 3: no extra soup for Baltimore, Kansas City or Tampa Bay.

Kurt: Well, whichever team comes out of the wild card game, they've just burned (one must assume) a top starting pitcher and played an intense game, and now they have to go into the LDS against a first-place team that's just had an off-day. So I think they're at a disadvantage in the LDS.

I don't think it hurts Toronto's chances to win the Series because I figure their chances are 0% in the first place, but regardless of that, Anthopoulos's approach has to be to make the Jays as good as he can for as long as he can, and hope it works out. No point in aiming for the wild card whether it's one slot or two; he's got to be trying to make the Jays a potential division winner. I regard the specifics of the wild card as minor details in this endeavour.

Well, whichever team comes out of the wild card game, they've just burned (one must assume) a top starting pitcher and played an intense game, and now they have to go into the LDS against a first-place team that's just had an off-day. So I think they're at a disadvantage in the LDS.

Good point. A #5 team is still better off in the LDS having burned a top starter than they would have been from 1995-2011, but they are not always going to be on the same footing as a traditional WC team, which may have had a chance to set the rotation optimally. I stand corrected.

Will the loser of the one-game playoff be bold enough to hang a "Wild Card" pennant in their stadium?

Not really a fan of the extra WC, but it should be noted that just being in races would change the perception of the Blue Jays enormously in Toronto.

Despite being consistently awful, I don't think people around here view the Raptors, as being much different qualitatively than the Jays, because the Raptors have made the playoffs in living memory, even if it's a low seed in a crappy conference.

Not really a fan of the extra WC, but it should be noted that just being in races would change the perception of the Blue Jays enormously in Toronto.

Assuming you can get the Leaf zombie mattressflippers to pay any attention to the Jays in the first place.

Given how bad it's been the last 6 years for the Leafs (and Raptors), the Jays pretty much have everyone's undivided attention when April rolls around....

Given how bad it's been the last 6 years for the Leafs (and Raptors), the Jays pretty much have everyone's undivided attention when April rolls around....

Yeah, you'd think so, but I doubt it. I think that much of Toronto has completely tuned the Jays out and wouldn't notice if they did win the Series.

Will the loser of the one-game playoff be bold enough to hang a "Wild Card" pennant in their stadium?

The Wild Card pennants really irritate me.

Yeah, you'd think so, but I doubt it. I think that much of Toronto has completely tuned the Jays out and wouldn't notice if they did win the Series.

I do sense an optimism around here the past couple seasons and I think TV ratings are generally pretty good. But, when discussion turns to Toronto sports teams, the Jays are lumped in with the Raptors and Leafs, despite fielding some pretty decent teams the past five years.

2005 Cleveland at Boston; Philadelphia at Houston

In 2005, the Yankees and Red Sox had the same record. Yankees got the division in a tiebreaker because nobody really cared. After all, the Red Sox had "settled" for the WC one year earlier and that worked out OK for them.

With the stakes much higher, I assume you'd have to settle the division with a game 163 first, and then have the loser play one game against Cleveland.

I rather fancy the Red Sox chances of going all the way in 1996 and 2002.

As much as it would bother me to know the Red Sox won in an alternate universe, I'm not too worried. In 1996, they'd have to settle a 3 way tie just to get to a one game playoff, so they've got about a 17% chance of even making it to a real playoff (where they'd be at best a 1 in 8 shot). Then in 2002 they'd have to face the Mariners before the Angels had a chance to provide a beat down. In 1996, if Clemens went against the Mariners and won the next opponent would get to face a starter with an ERA over 5 - and then a terrible bullpen.

Good point. A #5 team is still better off in the LDS having burned a top starter than they would have been from 1995-2011, but they are not always going to be on the same footing as a traditional WC team, which may have had a chance to set the rotation optimally. I stand corrected.

I doesn't matter. The Cardinals used Carpenter in game 162 for a CG, and so they didn't get to set their rotation optimally for the Phillies. They won anyway. This has happened over and over through the years.

Once you get your ticket punched, you've got the same 12.5ish percent chance as everybody else. The only difference now is they will give the fifth place team a coin flip's chance at getting in.

But, when discussion turns to Toronto sports teams, the Jays are lumped in with the Raptors and Leafs, despite fielding some pretty decent teams the past five years.

Agreed, although the cut-off should be six years instead of five.

2010: 85-77
2008: 86-76
2006: 87-75

and a little further back
2003: 86-76 (Halladay's Cy Young year)

Some playoff teams over the same time span
2009: Minnesota Twins, 87-76 (86-76 heading into one-game playoff)
2008: Los Angeles Dodgers, 84-78
2007: Chicago Cubs, 85-77
2006: San Diego Padres, Los Angeles Dodgers and St. Louis Cardinals (88-74, 88-74 and 83-78)
2005: San Diego Padres, 82-80
2003: Chicago Cubs, 88-74

The Jays have had better records than a couple of playoff teams. And considering relative strength of schedule, they've been superior to several others. Yet they're working on a playoff drought that's close to 20 years. Even the NL East and AL West have had division winners with 89 or 90 wins. The Jays have been a pretty good team but absence a playoff appearance (and a system that makes it possible), they're treated as an afterthought.

Yup, if either the Leafs or the Raptors were as good as the Jays the past 5-6 years, there would be nothing at all wrong with Toronto sports, apart from the Jays.

2008 New York at Boston (Bud's wet dream!)

Not at all. That would mean they couldn't play each other in the ALCS.

The team and fans that should be up in arms against this whole plan is Boston. Each year, the team that stands to lose the most with the second wild card is the first wild card who gets an extra 50% chance of going home with nothing. And who wins that first wild card the most? Boston, 7 times since inception. And that's likely to keep happening well into the future, with Boston always having a strong payroll relative to the rest of the league but always behind the Yankees.

Does this now emphasize winning your division as the #4 spot is devalued?

Assuming you can get the Leaf zombie mattressflippers to pay any attention to the Jays in the first place.

I think Toronto has a pretty good track record of coming out to see the Jays if they're winning (see 1985-1994, SkyDome certainly helped, but fans were coming out at Exhibition Stadium too. Winning will bring fans). Considering 92-93 was the big Leafs return to relevancy (or as relevant as they ever get) I really don't think the Jays and Leafs are competing with one another for fans in any significant sense.

In 1996, if Clemens went against the Mariners and won the next opponent would get to face a starter with an ERA over 5 - and then a terrible bullpen.

To be fair, a 5.00 ERA in 1996 was about the equivalent of what, a 3.90 today?

The team and fans that should be up in arms against this whole plan is Boston. Each year, the team that stands to lose the most with the second wild card is the first wild card who gets an extra 50% chance of going home with nothing. And who wins that first wild card the most? Boston, 7 times since inception. And that's likely to keep happening well into the future, with Boston always having a strong payroll relative to the rest of the league but always behind the Yankees.

Ownership maybe, but I get the sense the fans want the Red Sox to step up to the big-boy table with the Yankee and try and win the damn division.

No reason at all Boston can't match the Yankees' payroll.