Soccer Dad

Wild about the Wild Card

Baseball Musings quoted a Joe Sheehan article complaining that the wild card ended great races in basebal. Maybe there won't be great races, but I used be bothered by something else: teams that weren't fit to be in first place.
Consider:
In 1973 the Mets were 17 games worse than the Cincinatti Reds and yet went to the World Series. In fact 3 teams in the NL West were better than the Mets.
In 1978 3 AL East teams (NY, Boston and Milwaukee) were better than KC.
In 1979, 4 AL East teams were better than the Angels, who were 14 games worse than the Orioles.
In 1984, the Royals were twenty games worse than the Tigers and five AL East teams were better than the Royals.
In 1987, Minnesota finished 13 games behind Detroit, which would have been good for fifth place in the AL East.
In 1989 the East and West traded dominance and Toronto finished ten games worse than Oakland and behind KC and California.
The point of the non-scientific survey above is that it shows my prejudics.
I know that there are plenty of purists who think that only first place teams should compete in the post-season. I was always resistant to the idea of a bad first place team getting an opportunity to compete in the post season. (None bothered me more than the 1987 Twins winning the WS and Toronto going home.)
I had ideas. If a first place team finished more than 10 games behind the first place team in the other division it would forfeit its place in the playoffs if the second place team in the better division had a better record. A little convoluted. But the wild card address that. The wild card assured that a desesrving team that didn't finish first would get a chance to compete. I don't want to see first place teams in the post-season I want to see the best teams in the post season. I guess the races don't mean as much to me.