Cubs Ace Jake Arrieta trumps all in the upcoming wild card showdown with Pittsburgh, and one game should be plenty for Cubs fans and baseball fans in general.
The Cubs, Cardinals, and Pirates have clinched it. No matter what happens on the final day of the season, they will have the best three records in baseball. That much has been decided by the grind of the previous 161 games. What has also been decided is the brevity of their postseason existence. After the first playoff series, two of the top three records in baseball will be eliminated . . . golfing . . . barbecuing in October. It hardly seems fair in a sport where A) they play nothing but series all season long, B) the World Series used to be decided in a best-of-nine contest, and C) one game is far too small a sample to determine the better team, that two teams per league are subject to a one-game playoff to determine their fate.
The apparent unfairness in the current system is compounded by the rule that stipulates the winner of the wild card play-in will face the division champ with the best record instead of reseeding the teams after the wild card winner is decided. The Cardinals' reward for winning 100 games this year and besting all of baseball is to face, theoretically, the second best team in the world.
Is this fair? Of course not. But baseball is a lot like life, and neither one is ever all that fair. Count me among the original dissenters to pan the one-game playoff idea from its inception, but after further review, I like it just fine . . . especially this year.
At its face, that seems ridiculous and dismissive. Life isn't fair, so baseball shouldn't be? And a one-game playoff is especially fair when it's the 2nd and 3rd best records in baseball? Well . . . yes and yes.
First of all, baseball isn't a fair game, at least when it comes to samples of fewer than, I don't know, 100 games? One game isn't enough, but neither is seven. Neither is nine. Neither is 18. The Pirates are 7-11 against the Reds this year, 9-10 against the Brewers. Does anybody on the planet think either of those NL Central cellar dwellers are better than the Pirates? Of course not. But in their respective best-of-19 series with Pittsburgh, the Brewers and the Reds wrapped them up rather easily and convincingly before they even sniffed the 19th game. Is that fair? No, that's weird as hell. That's Milwaukee and Cincinnati winning the Little Lotto. That's just wrong. But it happened because baseball. isn't. fair.
Sure, a nine-game series would be fairer than a one-game nonseries, and even a three-game series would increase the fairness . . . but neither one would really improve it by much. Short of simply crowning the team with the best record as the champion, no playoff system is going to be fair. Even more, this year I truly believe the one-game playoff is the most judicious way of determining a winner. Let me explain.
We know the Cubs and Pirates are pretty much as even as it gets, don't we? They've played 161 games each, and we don't even know who gets homefield advantage. That's pretty damn even. Think about it: 161 games hasn't been enough to decide where they should play next Wednesday. The one-game playoff is ridiculously unfair in other cases, years in which one wildcard entry has 97 wins and the other has 85. That would be unfair. Can you imagine if the Pirates sucked this year and the Cubs' 96 wins (and counting) fell short of the Cardinals by just a game or two and, as a result, had to face an 85-win Mets team? That would be an injustice.
But this year, it's guaranteed to be two great teams with two phenomenal aces on the mound. After 162 games to decide the better team, it may very well be tied. TIED! How much fairer can you get? The World Series home field advantage was decided by an exhibition game, but the site of the wild card game destination is determined by 162, 19 of which are against each other. If the Cubs win today and the Pirates lose, the Cubs will have the slightest of edges. If either of those things doesn't happen, the Pirates will edge the Cubs by an almost equally slim margin. You can't really hope for a fairer resolution than one last 20th game featuring both teams' best players and pitchers.*
As for the matter of the Cardinals awaiting the winner of that game, conceivably pitting 198 wins worth of regular season greatness against each other in an early playoff round, well . . . that just kind of sucks. But it's not the worst thing in the world. I think it makes sense in some regard, mainly trying to maintain regional fairness. I think it makes a small amount of sense to have a rule that says the LCS will feature teams from two different regions of the country. A very small amount of sense. But, again, it will be the 20th through 24th times those two teams play each other. Having it be a round earlier, five games instead of seven, isn't obscenely unfair. Reseeding after the wild card game really isn't an option given the amount of travel uncertainty it would cause. It doesn't make sense to force a division winner to sit glued to their televisions, watching to see where they'll be flying off to for their first playoff matchup. Besides, I don't object to the SEC thinning its own herd to prevent a BCS filled with warm-weather professional schools, so I can't object to the NL Central doing the same. It's okay. It may very well be the best way.
Regardless, we're in for two weeks of amazing baseball between NL Central titans. This year has been an absolute joy to watch, and it boggles my mind to think it could actually improve in intensity and entertainment value.
*Holy crap, this game on Wednesday is going to be absolutely spectacular. I'll probably die. It was nice kinda knowing you all.
Comments
Excellent article.
mylesQuote Reply
Based on third order winning percentage, their expected wins would be 95. Cardinals, on the other hand, only expected to win 89, so their devil magic has been worth 11 wins. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
I’m hoping for Cubs and Dodgers so we get the two best teams by 3rd order winning percentage. Also, I don’t want to play the Mets in the lcs if they get that far.
@Adam, it’s as fair as it needs to be for the reasons you mentioned. I’d go with no divisions, but that won’t happen and you make a good point about regions being represented as late in the postseason as possible.
dmick89Quote Reply
Nice snark.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I agree, really. I’d like to see divisions go away. With 15 teams in each league, it would be so simple.
andcountingQuote Reply
The Cubs lineup today doesn’t exactly make winning an easier task.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
A Cubs/Dodgers NLCS would be pretty ridiculous. I’d love to see that.
While the Mets don’t scare me that much, it would be the most Cub thing ever to sweep them in the season series and get bounced in the NLCS.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Lies. Damn lies. And something else, too.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I want the regular season to matter more than it does in the playoffs. Where there are vast discrepancies in record, the club with multiples of ten more wins should be spotted a game for each multiple or get an unbalanced homefield advantage (say 5-2 or 6-1 with revenue sharing). That would at least make the crapshoot less crappy and make the regular season matter more while making the teams that backed into the playoffs really prove their worth.
ceruleanQuote Reply
andcounting,
and the very long season would become meaningless – kind of like basketball
SychophantQuote Reply
Is it too late to retroactively move The Cubs to the AL in place of The Astros?
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
It’s a beautiful day for a ballgame or 15.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Suburban kid,
Try 16 (Cards-Braves DH).
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
game thread: http://obstructedview.net/major-league-baseball/cubs-brewers-and-reds-pirates-game-threads/
dmick89Quote Reply