Time To Re-think The Wildcard

[Crash Course]

Barring a repeat of what we saw in the 2004 ALCS, the Boston Red Sox will win the 2004 World Series.

When this happens, it will be the third year in a row that a "Wild Card" team has won the World Series. It's doubtful that this was what baseball had in mind when they came up with the wild card concept.

An extra season-end "race" and an extra round of playoffs was most likely the goal - and, to those ends, the wild card works. But, to have three "World Champion" teams in a row who were not good enough to finish first in their division is not a good thing for baseball.

What can be done about this?

The first thing that comes to mind is to make it a little tougher for the wild card in the post-season. By this, it's suggested here that the WC team should have to play all LDS games, as necessary, on the road.

This measure would give teams an extra incentive to try and finish first instead of "just being happy to make the playoffs."

The next change should happen in the LCS. The suggestion here is to only give the WC team one home game in the LCS (if they make it to the LCS) - and split the series into a 4/1/2 (game) format (with the WC team getting the one game in the middle).

Then, if the WC team survives this new gauntlet, and gets all the way to the World Series, they can get "back to normal" and get whatever home games the winner of the All-Star game dictates.

These two changes would spice up the wild card concept even more than it is now - and would mean that a WC team that wins the World Series really had to make up for the fact that they did not finish first during the season.

And, it would be very doubtful that we would ever see back-to-back-to-back Wild Card World Champions ever again.

[Jim Rice]

I'll state my views on this again, even though this was just debated. The assumption that the Wild Card team is somehow inferior to all division winners stems from the erroneous assumption that all divisions are created equally, and therefore all division winners must be better than all second place teams. Nothing can be further from the truth in baseball. Everyone acknowledges that some divisions are full of good teams (i.e., the AL West), and others are full of crappy teams (i.e., the AL Central). Unless the divisions themselves are aligned and scheduled in a way that makes it clear that it really is harder to win your division than it is to finish a close second in a tough division, I don't favor abolishing the Wild Card or making their playoff route any harder than it already is (no home field advantage in the first two playoff rounds). As long as we're going to have playoffs in each league, I strongly prefer having the two best teams in them, and the Wild Card is the only way to assure that. I doubt many would argue that the Yankees and Red Sox were the two best teams in the AL this year (actually, I think the Red Sox and Angels were the two best teams, but that's another story). Why should either of them be excluded from the playoffs simply because MLB aligned them in the same division because of something as arbitrary as geography?

What if the same schedule was played and the same results achieved, only MLB aligned the divisions by some other arbitrary means, like alphabetically by city name? Then the Red Sox would have been in a division with Anaheim, Baltimore, Chicago and Cleveland, and would have been a division winner. The Yankees would have won their division (over Detroit, Kansas City, Minnesota and Oakland), and Texas would have won a terrible division that included themselves, Seattle, Tampa Bay and Toronto. Anaheim and Minnesota would have had to play a one-game playoff to decide the wild card. It's just as arbitrary, and produces two different division winners and a different Wild Card team. Under that alignment, Minnesota would have missed the playoffs entirely in both 2002 and 2003, despite being a real-life division winner each year. The Yankees would have missed the playoffs entirely in 2000, their last title year, and yet they had home field advantage in the ALCS because they faced a "mere" Wild Card team - that had a better record than them in a harder division.

As long as the divisions are arbitrarily aligned, there will continue to be instances where the two best teams in each league happen to be in the same division, and I don't see why the winners of lesser divisions should be awarded with even more advantage in the playoff than they already enjoy (but didn't necessarily earn).

[Crash Course]

Is not the Wild Card team inferior to the team that it finished 2nd to in their own DIV?

[rc3000]

Well one thing is certain due to revenue there will need to be three rounds of post season. Since that is a defacto requirement what about something as simple as no divisions just two leagues, balanced schedules, no inter-league (throws off balanced schedules) top 4 teams make it from each league.

[Jim Rice]

Is not the Wild Card team inferior to the team that it finished 2nd to in their own DIV?

In most cases, yes. But in some cases, like this year in the AL, no. And, in many cases, like the AL in '04, '03, '02, '01, '00, '98, and '97, the Wild Card team is clearly better than the winner of one or both of the other divisions.

[Crash Course]

If the WC in the AL this year was better than the 1st place team, why did they not finish 1st then?

[Jim Rice]

If the WC in the AL this year was better than the 1st place team, why did they not finish 1st then?

Because luck happens, both good and bad. I'm talking about quality of team, not the standings. The Red Sox were as good as their record, the Yankees were not.

But I don't want to have another Red Sox/Yankees discussion. The Sox happen to be the most recent example of a WC team that is clearly as good as or better than any other team in their league, but there are other example that are just as valid. Say the '02 Giants or Angels, just to avoid the NY-BOS overtones from the discussion. That was the proper World Series for that year, because each team was arguably the best - not the best record, but the best quality team - in their league.

[RedSeat]

If the WC in the AL this year was better than the 1st place team, why did they not finish 1st then?
If the 1st place team was the better team, why did they lose the season series?

But that's not the point I want to make. The vagaries of which team is really the better team can always be debated. Although it really isn't an absolute measure, I'm willing to accept the fact that the better team is the team with the better record at the end of the regular season. This is one of the main reasons I am in favor of the wild card. That post-season berth is based solely on win total, which is the accepted measure for a successful team. As long as multiple teams make the post-season, I like a system which ensures the best teams will make it.

Many of the arguments against the wildcard, should really be directed at the post-season in general. Five and seven game series are not fair ways to determine the best team. This is a problem that has existed as long the as the playoffs. The problem is not the wildcard.

Only 8 times in the divisional era did the world series feature a matchup of the two "best" teams. Nine of the 24 WS champs were not the "best" team in their own league. I don't see the current system being all that different.

[Crash Course]

But, at the end of the day, it's about wins and losses - and not quality.

Now, most of the time, when a team has "quality" they will finish 1st. But, when such a team does not finish 1st - there has to be a reason. Is it luck? Luck over a six month season? I could agree that luck may come into play during a 5 or 7 game series. But, when two teams play 162 games, in the same DIV, with the basically the same schedule, and one team has more wins than the other, I think it's fair to say that the team who finished with more wins is a better team.

Look at it another way - away from baseball. PERSON ONE has an IQ of 160. PERSON TWO has an IQ of 120. "Quality" tells us that PERSON ONE is the winner in comparing the IQ of both people.

Now, if you were to ask each person 7 hard questions - to see who got the most right, in order to pick the smartest person - yes, luck could come into play with such a small sample size, I suppose.

But, if you were to ask both people the same 162 hard questions - and PERSON TWO got 101 right and PERSON ONE got 89 correct, then, in comparing the two people, it's safe to say "IQ (or quality) be damned, PERSON TWO is smarter than PERSON ONE."

Quality is only good if it ends with a successful result.

If you build a car with nothing but perfect parts, and, as a sum, it's a lemon, or not as good as the next car (after running it in the same race) who has less than perfect parts, then it is not the "best" car.

[Crash Course]

Well one thing is certain due to revenue there will need to be three rounds of post season. Since that is a defacto requirement what about something as simple as no divisions just two leagues, balanced schedules, no inter-league (throws off balanced schedules) top 4 teams make it from each league.

Is that basically having 3 wild cards in each league instead of one?

[Crash Course]

If the 1st place team was the better team, why did they lose the season series?

It was 19 games. Let them place 162 against each other and then make the call.

[Jim Rice]

But, at the end of the day, it's about wins and losses - and not quality...

I don't disregard wins, but I have a fundamental disagreement with considering them exclusively when the margin is close. I take a broader view, at the kind of team that plays well, not just the kind that racks up wins. Usually, those coincide, but sometimes they don't, and I want that safety net that's going to allow that close 2nd place finisher to prove themselves in the post-season. I'm looking for more than tally marks in the win column if they were largely compiled by beating the snot out of the bad teams while treading water against the good ones. I want to see the teams that played quality baseball against everyone, not just the league's patsies.

At the end of the day, I want the two teams in each LCS to be the two highest-quality teams. Take 1987, for example. I am pretty certain that if the Twins had played all 162 games against the Blue Jays that year, their record would have been something on the order of 70-92. Toronto was that league's best team, with the best pitching by a wide margin and the third-best offense. They had large, enthusiastic crowds, the league MVP, a pair of Gold Glovers, the guy who was 2nd in the Cy Young voting; it was just a wonderful team. And they didn't underachieve, or screw up. They played pretty much dead-on their projection for wins until the final weekend, but lost three one-run games on the road to another great team, the Tigers. Those were easily the two best teams in the AL, but we were denied seeing them play each other in the ALCS. Instead we had to watch one of those random playoff flukes with a team that had no business being there getting random home field advantage and knocking off a better team in a short series - in large part because Detroit had to use their three best starters just to get there from a vastly better division, while Minnesota had their awful division locked up a week early (not a single other AL West team had a winning record until the final week) and had their rotation rested for the playoffs.

To your point - if the 162 games is what matters most why would I want an 85-77 team in the playoffs when three teams with better records have to sit home? The Wild Card at least allows the best of those three to play for the big prize, after earning a shot to do so over the long haul of the season. I see no need to then handicap them beyond losing home field advantage once they get there.

[RedSeat]

It was 19 games. Let them place 162 against each other and then make the call.
I count 26. :D The point I was making was that there are several ways to define which team is actually the best team.

In my main point though, I'm willing concede that the team with the best record at the end of the season may be deemed the best team. Which is why I think it's important to look at the whole season when considering the other playoff teams.

To use your example, let me add a 3rd person to the mix, this one with an IQ of 85. Wouldn't you rather have the 160 and 120 IQ people get a chance to answer the 7 questions, even if they happen to live in the same town? Or would you like the 160 and 85 guys to square off, just because they happen to live far apart?

[KCBOOMER]

Why all this argument over a ludicrous proposal?

[Crash Course]

Why all this argument over a ludicrous proposal?

A. Because this is a discussion forum.
B. Why is it ludicrous?

[Crash Course]

I see no need to then handicap them beyond losing home field advantage once they get there.

And, that's where we differ - - but, it's OK to agree to disagree. If we all thought the same here, every post would be "I assent" or something boring like that.

[Crash Course]

I count 26. :D

Ouch.

To use your example, let me add a 3rd person to the mix, this one with an IQ of 85. Wouldn't you rather have the 160 and 120 IQ people get a chance to answer the 7 questions, even if they happen to live in the same town? Or would you like the 160 and 85 guys to square off, just because they happen to live far apart?

Did the 160 and 85 guy have to take the same exact test to get those scores? Or, did the 85 guy take a harder test and therefore his 85 in the "160" town would be more like 130?

[rc3000]

Is that basically having 3 wild cards in each league instead of one?

I don't think the wild card is a bad thing. The reality is the league wants the biggest TV contract they can get, the way to do this is adding a round to the playoffs because the playoffs are what attracts the ratings and the network contracts.

My thoughts were that I believe the best way is a balanced schedule and seeding the four top teams you call them wild cards, I call it the 2nd,3rd and 4th seed. The alternative is four divisions in each league if they want to do that then they need a few more teams.

[Jim Rice]

I think of it this way - in a non-Wild Card format, the two best AL teams in 1987 essentially had to play an elimination series at the end of the year for the "right" to face the fifth-best team, which didn't have to go through any elimination series. That's just stupid, and that makes the Wild Card necessary.

If anything, I would prefer to see the four teams seeded by wins to determine home field advantage in the playoffs, meaning that some Wild Card teams would actually get home field advantage, like the Sox this year, the A's in '01, the '98 Sox, the '97 Yankees, etc. If wins are what matters, why should they be seeded last if they won more games than two of the other three teams?

[nyy26wc]

If the 1st place team was the better team, why did they lose the season series?

If the Redsox were better than the Orioles, then why did they lose the season series to them?

[JamesI]

If the Redsox were better than the Orioles, then why did they lose the season series to them?
Orioles 2004 Champions!

Seriously, I have no problem with the wild card. Its point is to give more teams a shot. I would prefer getting rid of unbalanced scheduales, as that favors some teams. And, I would merge the divisions and just take the best 4 teams.

[PianoMonkey]

If the Redsox were better than the Orioles, then why did they lose the season series to them?

Look guys, I think we can ALL agree that the Orioles were better than the Red Sox. :D

[guidry49]

There are way to many points to try to respond to, so I'll be generic.

Wild Card- no matter how you look at it- is good for baseball. Keeps the interest level high when the first place teams have run away with it....ask the Astros and Cubs fans this year- and the numerous other teams who's season has been kept alive because of the chance at the wild card.

Without the wild card and the first round of the playoffs:
1) Mariners don't come back in 1995 to take 3 in a row from the Yankees in a memorable 5 game series
2) The Jeter "backhand flip" doesn't happen
3) Sox don't come back down 2-0 to the A's
(insert your own memory here)
etc...etc...etc....

Just like the NFL, NHL, NBA- the goal is to "get in to the playoffs- where anything can happen"- everyone starts 0-0. And if an "underdog" should take the trophy home....good for them.

Wild Card or not- the Sox were the best team this season...they beat the Yanks head to head in the regular season and the post-season...they have nothing more to prove.

The only think I would probably agree to is making the first round 7 games....to play 162 games, and have the season decided by a five game series is a bit abrupt....7 would give the edge (usually) to the better team- and not a team that catches lightning in a bottle.

[nyy26wc]

Wild Card- no matter how you look at it- is good for baseball. Keeps the interest level high when the first place teams have run away with it....ask the Astros and Cubs fans this year- and the numerous other teams who's season has been kept alive because of the chance at the wild card.

I disagree.

I've done an analysis that showed that the wild card system destroyed numerous actual pennant races, by taking teams out of the old 4 division setup and putting them into different divisions or by making it a who cares, they both go to the postseason situation, while creating very few additional races.

Just for 2004--

If you liked the idea of the AL West race included 4 teams battling down to the end, with the race so close that it needed a 1 game playoff between the Twins and the Angels, then the wild card isn't good for you.

If you wanted a legitimate Yankees/Redsox race instead of a who cares who wins the division one, then the wild card isn't good for you.

If you liked the idea of the NL West being so close that it featured a really good 3 team race between the Braves, Dodgers, Giants and Astros until the last days of the season, then the wild card's no good for you.

For 2003--

If you wanted a legitimate Yankees/Redsox race instead of a who cares who wins the division one, then the wild card isn't good for you.

If you wanted a Braves/Giants race so close that it was decided by a single game, then the wild card's no good for you. But, if you like the suspense of races being decided by having both of those teams win by double digits, then the wild card did an excellent job serving your purpose.

And we can go on and on down this line.

[nyy26wc]

Also, in addition to the pennant races that were destroyed, it is inevitable that the wild card destroyed exciting LCS moments that would have occurred if the east champion played the west champion, but those matchups were prevented from occurring by the wild card events. I don't believe there is any evidence that indicates that any increase in exciting postseason moments were greater than the number of exciting postseason moments that were wiped out of existence.

[guidry49]

Interesting points......I still can not be fully convinced that had it not been for the wild card, several teams seasons would have been over by the trade deadline. Plus- unless they go back to 2 divisions, or (gasp) 4 divisions in each league- there will be an odd number in the postseason if not for the W.C.

I don't have the resources to research this fully- but I know that the Astros wouldn't have even been a thought this year without the W.C.- and the fact that the Astros/Cubs/Giants (even Padres) were neck and neck playing meaningful games in September made it exciting (for me anyway)

I agree there is the risk of the "who cares" attitude "both teams will make it anyway"- but I guess that is something I can take with the good. So maybe going all the way back to Steve's first point- maybe you make it even more disadvantageous for the wild card team- like all games on the road...or even- to be bold- play a 7 game series with the #1 seed automatically up 1 game to none! OK- a bit extreme I guess

I'm guessing that you are not a fan of the W.C....so I was wondering- what would you propose instead? #2 plays #3 and the #1 seed gets a bye? Curious to hear your thoughts.

[captain_napalm]

I don't have the resources to research this fully- but I know that the Astros wouldn't have even been a thought this year without the W.C.- and the fact that the Astros/Cubs/Giants (even Padres) were neck and neck playing meaningful games in September made it exciting (for me anyway).


2004 NL West

W L WL% GB
ATL 96 66 .593 --
LAD 93 69 .574 3.0
HOU 92 70 .568 4.0
SFG 91 71 .562 5.0
SDP 87 75 .537 8.0

Astros would've been a thought. I'm not sure how interleague play would have affected the races

[nyy26wc]

Interesting points......I still can not be fully convinced that had it not been for the wild card, several teams seasons would have been over by the trade deadline.

If you need the wildcard to prevent your season from being over a couple of months before the end, that's a pretty good sign that you're not a championship caliber team.

[guidry49]

I'm not sure I follow....are you assuming that the Astros would be in it if there were still just two divisions? It's a tough comparison since there are too many things that would have changed (schedule, interleague, Brewers,etc)- but just to play along- I looked back at this year:

as of 9/1- Atlanta would have been 8.5 games up on houston
as of 9/15- Atlanta would have been 7 games up on houston both with 16 games left to play.....would you consider Houston "alive" to win the division?

And on the flip side- what about the Cubs/Cardinals in the NL East?
9/1- cubs 15.5 out (but they were leading the wild card race)
9/15- Cubs 15.5 games out (.5 out of the wild card)

you can't tell me the Cubs would have played any meaningful games in September...other than to be a spoiler!

[guidry49]

If you need the wildcard to prevent your season from being over a couple of months before the end, that's a pretty good sign that you're not a championship caliber team.

Not months, but more like weeks (like from 9/1 on)....but my point is that it brings extra excitement to teams, and to the fans, when they still have a shot at making the post season- when in the past- they would be out of it.
Again- without the W.C. the Cubs would have been 15 games out of first on 9/1 to the Card in the NL east...yet they were leading the wild card.

But, I'm sure for every example I find- there is another that proves the opposite

[nyy26wc]

Again- without the W.C. the Cubs would have been 15 games out of first on 9/1 to the Card in the NL east...yet they were leading the wild card.

But, I'm sure for every example I find- there is another that proves the opposite

It's not that for every example you find, there's some other example, my point is that for every example you find, that's an example that proves my point. When you're 15 games out on September 1, you've done an excellent job of proving you're not a championship caliber team. Championship caliber teams are not 15 games out on 9/1.

[nyy26wc]

you can't tell me the Cubs would have played any meaningful games in September...other than to be a spoiler!

A team that finishes 16 GB doesn't deserve to be playing meaningful games in September.

This isn't like summer camp, when every single person in the group has to be given an award every week of the summer.

[captain_napalm]

Not months, but more like weeks (like from 9/1 on)....but my point is that it brings extra excitement to teams, and to the fans, when they still have a shot at making the post season- when in the past- they would be out of it.
Again- without the W.C. the Cubs would have been 15 games out of first on 9/1 to the Card in the NL east...yet they were leading the wild card.

But, I'm sure for every example I find- there is another that proves the opposite

And you'd be right. So you'd have to ask, why did MLB decide to fix something that wasn't broken?

[o'jays]money,money,money,mon-ey... money[/o'jays] :D

Personally, I don't like the wildcard, I like interleague play even less. And I like "the league of the winner of the ASG gets home field advantage in the WS" even less.

But, these changes are here, they aren't going away, so I may as well get used to them. Well, not so much get used to them as tolerate them :)

[RedSeat]

If the Redsox were better than the Orioles, then why did they lose the season series to them?
Maybe I should've put it in bold. That was not the point I was making. I fully accept the idea that it is fair to consider the team with the most wins to be most deserving of a post-season berth. In the 12 full seasons from 1978 to 1990 (more or less my formative years), only twice did the two winningest teams in the AL meet in the playoffs. Before the idea of a wildcard team was mentioned, I knew this was not a fair system. Look at 1987. Playing a balanced schedule, the Twins finished with the 5th best record in the league. But by virtue of being located 300 mile west of Milwaukee, they made the post-season, in spite of having 6 fewer wins than the Brewers (11 fewer than Toronto, who also sat home).

I fully understand people not liking an expanded playoff, but the argument that Wild Card winners are any less deserving of their playoff spots than the old division winners just doesn't hold water.

[groverty]

Do I hear bitterness from a Yankee fan? If the Red Sox aren't a Championship caliber team...what does that say about the Yankees and Cards? Basically they were both swept by this 'inept Boston' team...

[TimmyB]

Tom Verducci has suggested making two wildcard teams (wait, don't scream yet) who have to have a single "play-in" game. In theory, they might have to send their best guy out to pitch it and that puts the stud at the back of the LDS rotation.

Think of this year's AL series... if Boston had a play-in game against (I'm not looking at the standings... so, from memory) Oakland, they would have started Schilling in that game, which might have changed the dynamic of the division series.

I don't know if I'm crazy about this, either, by the way. I've never been a huge fan of the concept of the wild card, but, my team has benefited from it a few times now.

No question, though... the last three post season were dominated by teams who weathered tough stretches and then took off and were not to be stopped. Yes, it dilutes the importance of the 162 game regular season just a little bit, but, this is the hand MLB has dealt. All teams have the chance to make mid-season adjustments and not be killed for it.

As to why Boston was the better team even though they finished behind NY... that's an easy one. The Baltimore Orioles. Boston lost the season series to Baltimore, yet, when the O's played NY, they rolled over and played dead. Lee Mazzilli must still be on the Yankee payroll. ;)

[Crash Course]

Do I hear bitterness from a Yankee fan? If the Red Sox aren't a Championship caliber team...what does that say about the Yankees and Cards? Basically they were both swept by this 'inept Boston' team...

Then why play the 162 game season at all? Why not just let the teams play a seven game series and crown whomever wins that is the champ?

[guidry49]

A team that finishes 16 GB doesn't deserve to be playing meaningful games in September.

I agree....but thats how it is.....and maybe 16 is a bit high...but there have been examples of double digit games back where teams made the playoffs-

So- if Houston wins 92 games and finishes in second to St Louis who wins 105 , they don't deserve to make it to the playoffs?

Also- the Marlins were 10 games out of first place last year at the end of the season....14 games out on 9/1....so- they didn't deserve a postseason either?

So- I'll ask again- what is the fix for this? Two divisions, four divisons? Three division winners where #2 plays #3 and #1 gets a bye?

[Jim Rice]

Maybe I should've put it in bold. That was not the point I was making. I fully accept the idea that it is fair to consider the team with the most wins to be most deserving of a post-season berth. In the 12 full seasons from 1978 to 1990 (more or less my formative years), only twice did the two winningest teams in the AL meet in the playoffs. Before the idea of a wildcard team was mentioned, I knew this was not a fair system. Look at 1987. Playing a balanced schedule, the Twins finished with the 5th best record in the league. But by virtue of being located 300 mile west of Milwaukee, they made the post-season, in spite of having 6 fewer wins than the Brewers (11 fewer than Toronto, who also sat home).

I fully understand people not liking an expanded playoff, but the argument that Wild Card winners are any less deserving of their playoff spots than the old division winners just doesn't hold water.

I agree completely. The combination of random division alignments and uneven schedules (particularly of interleague games), makes it highly likely that a team that finishes a close second in its division, despite playing a harder schedule, is actually the better of the two teams. And if they had the second-best record in the league, better even than two division winners, despite playing a more difficult schedule, why exclude them from the playoffs?

To use this year's AL as an example, 've seen the argument made here that Boston and New York played "essentially" the same schedule, so New York must be better since they finished with 3 more wins. Well, "essentially" doesn't cut it when the margin is that small. The primary difference in their schedules was in interleague play. Each played Colorado, Los Angeles and San Diego. But in their other 9 interleague games, New York got to face Arizona and the Mets twice (composite winning percentage of .397) while Boston had to face San Francisco, Philly and Atlanta (composite winning percentage of .562). If Boston gets to play those weaker teams, it's entirely possible they could have been 7-2 in those games, instead of going 4-5 against SF, Philly and Atlanta. There's your three game difference. With a margin that small, claiming that the 1st place team is better based solely on win totals against a weaker schedule seems very thin at best.

[nyy26wc]

So- I'll ask again- what is the fix for this? Two divisions, four divisons? Three division winners where #2 plays #3 and #1 gets a bye?

2 divisions per league.
You finish 1st, you go to the playoffs. You don't finish first, you go home.

[nyy26wc]

Do I hear bitterness from a Yankee fan? If the Red Sox aren't a Championship caliber team...what does that say about the Yankees and Cards? Basically they were both swept by this 'inept Boston' team...

It says small sample nothingness.

And as far as the Yankees are concerned, they've been the best team in baseball twice in the past quarter century. I don't care about how many "championships" they've won.

1980--Yankees were the best team in baseball. 3 games against the Royals in October can't change what happened over the course of a year.

1996--The Yankees winning the World Series does not change the fact that the Indians were the best team in baseball.

1998--The Yankees were the best team in baseball and one of the great teams of all time. But, that's because of what happened from games 1-162. It had absolutely nothing to do with anything that happened afterwards.

1999--The Yankees winning the World Series does not change the fact that the Braves were the best team in baseball.

2000--The idea that the Yankees could be considered the best team in baseball is a joke.

[TimmyB]

Believe me, the events of the past 2 weeks aside, there are many times where I think, hey, here's a novel idea... take the team from the NL with the best record and have them play the team from the AL with the best record and see what happens.

But, 1968 is getting to be a long time ago.