2006 MLB Thread

[Dan Gould]

Dan,

Why all the hostility?

Because I gave some honestly held opinions as a fan of the game and have gotten hostility back in my face.

[Brad]

I would go back to the way it was fifty years ago.

I would get rid of the divisions, get rid of the playoffs, get rid of interleague play, and get rid of unbalanced schedules.

This would reduce September ticket sales for those teams that are out of the pennant race. My solution to that would be to end the season on Labor Day. Play the World Series in September when it is cool, not cold.

Times have changed. It has been decades since baseball had a lock on people's interest. When Labor Day comes, the public's attention shifts to football. Labor Day was nearly two months ago, and they just finished playing baseball last night.

Of course, none of this will happen unless a television network pays for it to happen. If the Nielsen ratings continue to decline, maybe one day a network will do just that.

This makes the most sense to me. Of course, higher ticket prices would result. But I think it reflects the reality that attention turns to football in September. It just reflects badly on baseball that its World Series could dip into November.

As an alternative, go back to 2 divisions per league, a 7 game playoff between the 2 division winners, and a 7 game World Series. That would finish before the end of September. Alternate each season between AL and NL advantage of 4 games at home.

That's just not realistic and I think you know it. I liked the old system better but the wild card keeps teams who would be otherwise out of it in the fray. Plus, more importantly you keep the fans interested. Otherwise, you'll have a big interest drop off.

[Neal Pomea]

Well, some compromise might be in order, because if my proposal was unrealistic, so is the expectation of MLB that fans' interest will be held until November (fans unlike us, who remained interested).

If the wild card is what keeps people interested, then keep it the way it is with 3 division winners and a wild card in each league, but go 7 games for each round (possibly 21 in all), but shorten the regular season by 10-20 games.

Edited October 28, 2006 by It Should be You

[Brad]

Well, some compromise might be in order, because if my proposal was unrealistic, so is the expectation of MLB that fans' interest will be held until November (fans unlike us, who remained interested).

If the wild card is what keeps people interested, then keep it the way it is with 3 division winners and a wild card in each league, but go 7 games for each round (possibly 21 in all), but shorten the regular season by 10-20 games.

I dunno my interest was kept going from March until now. Selig said that 7 games for the LDS' is too long and you know they're not going to shorten the season by one game. You're talking about money: the owners losing money and the players losing money. "Money makes the world go 'round."

[Chuck Nessa]

Go Cubs.

[Dan Gould]

Your World Champion Cardinals:

After April, a losing record.

From mid-June to the end of the season, a worse record than the hapless Royals.

First division winning team to have three losing streaks of seven games or more, without falling out of first place.

I haven't seen it officially, but I'm willing to bet that no World Series champion has ever had three such losing streaks in the regular season.

[sheldonm]

Your World Champion Cardinals:

After April, a losing record.

From mid-June to the end of the season, a worse record than the hapless Royals.

First division winning team to have three losing streaks of seven games or more, without falling out of first place.

I haven't seen it officially, but I'm willing to bet that no World Series champion has ever had three such losing streaks in the regular season.

...put away your baseball stat books and go spend some time with your poor wife; get a life and get over it, the season is over, drop it!!!......... poor sport!

[Dan Gould]

Its so clear that the truth hurts, let's get the opinion of someone else:

Boston Herald columnist Tony Massarotti:

The current kings of baseball are the worst World Series winners in history ... for all of the praise the Cardinals deserve, there is one thing we simply can’t get past: They shouldn’t have been here at all. The baseball season is designed to weed out the weak, the mediocre, the inept and the brittle. The Cardinals simply slipped through the cracks.

[sheldonm]

Its so clear that the truth hurts, let's get the opinion of someone else:

Boston Herald columnist Tony Massarotti:

The current kings of baseball are the worst World Series winners in history ... for all of the praise the Cardinals deserve, there is one thing we simply can’t get past: They shouldn’t have been here at all. The baseball season is designed to weed out the weak, the mediocre, the inept and the brittle. The Cardinals simply slipped through the cracks.

...you are a poor loser and a poor sport....why would I care what Tony Massarotti writes....who is Tony Massarotti and who is Dan Gould.....go spend some time with your wife! Give it a rest, the season is over and so is this conversation.....poor loser!

m~

[Dan Gould]

It is so obvious that you know there is a big kernel of truth to all this, and its killing you. Why else do you keep bitching about me and others who have the same opinion? Go enjoy your championship. But you can't, because you know that it is true, that the team was pathetic in the regular season, won the division by a fluke, and had the World Series handed to it. The fact that I upset you so only demonstrates that you know in your heart of hearts that the truth has been spoken. You ought to be ignoring me and enjoying your championship yet you keep coming back.

Its a cliche because its true: The truth hurts.

[sheldonm]

It is so obvious that you know there is a big kernel of truth to all this, and its killing you. Why else do you keep bitching about me and others who have the same opinion? Go enjoy your championship. But you can't, because you know that it is true, that the team was pathetic in the regular season, won the division by a fluke, and had the World Series handed to it. The fact that I upset you so only demonstrates that you know in your heart of hearts that the truth has been spoken. You ought to be ignoring me and enjoying your championship yet you keep coming back.

Its a cliche because its true: The truth hurts.

Hey poor sport, the only truth is that they are the WS Champions. I can't believe you're making such a big deal over this......it's a dissagreement.....get over it; I don't care if you think you are right or ever if you are right......I don't care about you or your opinions. I am so far beyond the season and you; why don't you get a life and move on.....go take care of your wife! Put away the stat books and move on......the season is over!!!

btw, you have not upset me....!

[Dan Gould]

That would explain why you keep posting.

I'll have to explain that to my wife when she gets home and asks "so what did that idiot Cards fan say now?"

[sheldonm]

That would explain why you keep posting.

I'll have to explain that to my wife when she gets home and asks "so what did that idiot Cards fan say now?"

Here's a command for you....f*** you and your wife....poor sport! Enjoy the long winter!

m~

[Dan Gould]

That would explain why you keep posting.

I'll have to explain that to my wife when she gets home and asks "so what did that idiot Cards fan say now?"

Here's a command for you....f*** you and your wife....poor sport! Enjoy the long winter!

m~

Well that's certainly consistent with you "not caring about my opinion" and not being upset by my blathering.

Here's a thought for your long winter:

Enjoy it, because no one is concerned about "breaking up the Cards". It will take another 102 World Series for a piece of shit team like that to win again.

[Quincy]

Your World Champion Cardinals:

After April, a losing record.

From mid-June to the end of the season, a worse record than the hapless Royals.

First division winning team to have three losing streaks of seven games or more, without falling out of first place.

I haven't seen it officially, but I'm willing to bet that no World Series champion has ever had three such losing streaks in the regular season.

1) A losing record after April eh? Then that means they must have had a pretty good April. The played .680 ball in April (dare I say championship caliber ball) and went 66-70 the rest of the way. When you start hot you can get away with that if you're in the "right" division. Why were they hot? Well, they were playing with a lineup similar to the one you saw in the playoffs. Once May rolled around the injuries started steamrolling.

2) A worse record than the hapless Royals from "mid-June" on. Why mid-June? What is so magical about mid-June? Because mid-June is the end of a 4 game Royal's losing streak, that's why. Start from the beginning of June and the b.s. self-selected stat doesn't work. Also the "hapless" Royals were 1 game under .500 for Sept.-Oct. Or better than (gasp!) the Tigers too.

3) The losing streaks. Again, so what? Is there a losing streak qualification for a WS winner? Is there an explanation for the losing streaks. Maybe.

Take a look at the team on paper:

2006 World Champion Cardinals

Look at the top 4 starters. Hmm, where was Marquis for the playoffs? Where was Mulder? Probably a darn good thing they weren't around, but obviously the team had to adjust as the season went on. Saves leader Isringhausen went down too.

Pujols missed about 3 weeks and probably came back too early.

Eckstein played 123.

Edmonds 110.

Rolen was hurt too but played through it (as the above did some too.)

However, once the playoffs rolled around these guys were healthy, and the bench was deep - better than the Big Red Machine or Earl Weaver's teams, to name a couple of past dynasties. I'm serious, take a look at baseball-reference. Now on the one hand the '75 Reds didn't need a super deep bench, but nonetheless, the Cards was better. (Again, I'm just talking about the bench, not the starters.)

We know there are cases of teams with inferior regular season records that become world series champions, or get in the playoffs when teams with better records continue. It's been this way since divisions.

You want a partial list of champions whose championship is tainted in some way?

Wild card era

'05 White Sox over wild-card Astros. 82 win Padre team makes playoffs.

'04 Wild-card Red Sox beat 105 w Cardinal team.

'03 Wild-card Marlins with 91 wins win series. Braves & Giants, each with at least 100 wins falter.

'02 An all wild-card world series (though the Angels have 99 W, Giants 95)

'01 116 win Mariners lose in ALCS.

'00 87 win Yanks (worst of AL playoff teams) beat wild card Mets.

'99 Best teams Yanks & Braves face each other again.

'98 114 win Yanks win, but 106 win Braves falter in LCS

'97 Indians, with just 86 wins (worst of AL playoff teams) go 7 games with wild-card & world champ Marlins.

'96 Best teams Yanks & Braves face each other

'95- With 20 games knocked off the season, the 90 W Braves beat a 100 win/.694% Indian team.

Other years (partial):

'90 White Sox (94 W) left out of playoffs to 88 W Red Sox. Mets same record as Reds but left out of playoffs.

'87 85 win Twins beat beat up 95 win Cards. 4 AL East teams have more wins that the Twins.

'85 Royals win WS with 3rd best win total in AL.

'84 Royals make playoffs with 84 wins. 5 teams in the AL East have better records.

'81 Reds & Cardinals have best full season record but neither makes the split-season playoffs.

'80 Yankees (103 W) lose to Royals (97 W) in ALCS. 100 W O's left out of playoffs.

'74 102 win Dodgers lose to a 90 game winner A's

'73 82 win Mets push A's to a game 7.

By my account the last untainted championship belongs to the Yankees in '99. (Sorry White Sox, but you didn't face "the best" in the 'stros.)

With divisions, especially 6, teams with poor regular season records make the playoffs. One of these years we'll have a team with a losing record that will make it out of the 1st round. Maybe even win the whole damn thing.

But surprise surprise, what matters is the October record. The Cards went 11-5 in the playoffs. No one else won 11, so they're the champs. Inferior record, inferior division, doesn't matter.

[Dan Gould]

By any measure, this is the ultimate tainted championship and so many of your examples do not even qualify as "tainted":

The presence of the Padres nullifies what the White Sox achieved? The Astros were a legitimate contender. If the Padres had made the Series and then spit the bit, yeah, OK. But their presence? Tell me, if the Tigers had beaten the Mets, would you be talking about a "tainted championship" because the pathetic Cards were in the playoffs? Pot, meet kettle.

The Red Sox won 98 games in 2004 and were obviously of championship calibre. They kicked the crap out of their WS opponent and any team that comes back from 0-3 against the Yankees isn't any sort of "taint".

How does a 116 win team losing the LCS qualify as a "taint"? No one said that blow-out records give you a bye to the World Series.

There are more in your list, but this is boring me, so let's hear from Jayson Stark:

Teams that win 83 games are supposed to spend the last week of October tackling those nasty doglegs left -- not winning the World Series.

Teams that have worse records after the All-Star break than the Pirates aren't supposed to spend the last week of October winning the World Series.

Teams that let 8½-game September leads turn into half-game September leads aren't supposed to win the World Series.

Teams that have the 13th-best record in baseball aren't supposed to win the World Series.

Teams that don't figure out who the closer is until Sept. 27 aren't supposed to win the World Series.

BTW, that Pirates stat more than makes up for the so-called "bs" of the Royals comparison.

[sheldonm]

Your World Champion Cardinals:

After April, a losing record.

From mid-June to the end of the season, a worse record than the hapless Royals.

First division winning team to have three losing streaks of seven games or more, without falling out of first place.

I haven't seen it officially, but I'm willing to bet that no World Series champion has ever had three such losing streaks in the regular season.

1) A losing record after April eh? Then that means they must have had a pretty good April. The played .680 ball in April (dare I say championship caliber ball) and went 66-70 the rest of the way. When you start hot you can get away with that if you're in the "right" division. Why were they hot? Well, they were playing with a lineup similar to the one you saw in the playoffs. Once May rolled around the injuries started steamrolling.

2) A worse record than the hapless Royals from "mid-June" on. Why mid-June? What is so magical about mid-June? Because mid-June is the end of a 4 game Royal's losing streak, that's why. Start from the beginning of June and the b.s. self-selected stat doesn't work. Also the "hapless" Royals were 1 game under .500 for Sept.-Oct. Or better than (gasp!) the Tigers too.

3) The losing streaks. Again, so what? Is there a losing streak qualification for a WS winner? Is there an explanation for the losing streaks. Maybe.

Take a look at the team on paper:

2006 World Champion Cardinals

Look at the top 4 starters. Hmm, where was Marquis for the playoffs? Where was Mulder? Probably a darn good thing they weren't around, but obviously the team had to adjust as the season went on. Saves leader Isringhausen went down too.

Pujols missed about 3 weeks and probably came back too early.

Eckstein played 123.

Edmonds 110.

Rolen was hurt too but played through it (as the above did some too.)

However, once the playoffs rolled around these guys were healthy, and the bench was deep - better than the Big Red Machine or Earl Weaver's teams, to name a couple of past dynasties. I'm serious, take a look at baseball-reference. Now on the one hand the '75 Reds didn't need a super deep bench, but nonetheless, the Cards was better. (Again, I'm just talking about the bench, not the starters.)

We know there are cases of teams with inferior regular season records that become world series champions, or get in the playoffs when teams with better records continue. It's been this way since divisions.

You want a partial list of champions whose championship is tainted in some way?

Wild card era

'05 White Sox over wild-card Astros. 82 win Padre team makes playoffs.

'04 Wild-card Red Sox beat 105 w Cardinal team.

'03 Wild-card Marlins with 91 wins win series. Braves & Giants, each with at least 100 wins falter.

'02 An all wild-card world series (though the Angels have 99 W, Giants 95)

'01 116 win Mariners lose in ALCS.

'00 87 win Yanks (worst of AL playoff teams) beat wild card Mets.

'99 Best teams Yanks & Braves face each other again.

'98 114 win Yanks win, but 106 win Braves falter in LCS

'97 Indians, with just 86 wins (worst of AL playoff teams) go 7 games with wild-card & world champ Marlins.

'96 Best teams Yanks & Braves face each other

'95- With 20 games knocked off the season, the 90 W Braves beat a 100 win/.694% Indian team.

Other years (partial):

'90 White Sox (94 W) left out of playoffs to 88 W Red Sox. Mets same record as Reds but left out of playoffs.

'87 85 win Twins beat beat up 95 win Cards. 4 AL East teams have more wins that the Twins.

'85 Royals win WS with 3rd best win total in AL.

'84 Royals make playoffs with 84 wins. 5 teams in the AL East have better records.

'81 Reds & Cardinals have best full season record but neither makes the split-season playoffs.

'80 Yankees (103 W) lose to Royals (97 W) in ALCS. 100 W O's left out of playoffs.

'74 102 win Dodgers lose to a 90 game winner A's

'73 82 win Mets push A's to a game 7.

By my account the last untainted championship belongs to the Yankees in '99. (Sorry White Sox, but you didn't face "the best" in the 'stros.)

With divisions, especially 6, teams with poor regular season records make the playoffs. One of these years we'll have a team with a losing record that will make it out of the 1st round. Maybe even win the whole damn thing.

But surprise surprise, what matters is the October record. The Cards went 11-5 in the playoffs. No one else won 11, so they're the champs. Inferior record, inferior division, doesn't matter.

Quincy, don't piss off the poor sport! He has the only stat books that count.

m~

[Randy Twizzle]

Why not just do away with the whole post-season and give the team with the best win/loss record the trophy. If there's a tie they can play a one game playoff. That way the anal retentive statheads can go into the off season with a feeling of closure.

[Quincy]

By any measure, this is the ultimate tainted championship and so many of your examples do not even qualify as "tainted":

The list of "tainted" championships is merely to point out that someone can bitch about any championship that doesn't involve the best teams. Do I believe all those championships in my list are "tainted?" No. I consider the '85 Royal one to be tainted, though I accept it for what it is (a World Championship.) In fact the long run in the '80s where AL East teams with better records missed out on the playoffs to AL West teams bugged a great deal back then. But I got over it.

Tell me, if the Tigers had beaten the Mets, would you be talking about a "tainted championship" because the pathetic Cards were in the playoffs? Pot, meet kettle.

For the record despite my avatar I'm not a full-blooded Cardinal fan. I've never been good at rooting for laundry. When they traded away Torre & Jose Cruz they started breaking my heart (I didn't understand that in Torre's case, guys who aged declined in ability.) Trading Reggie Smith for Joe Ferguson was the last straw, and once Brock got old I defected to the Cubs. (Bad mistake as I enjoyed Whiteyball. ) When I moved to west coast by the late '80s I fell for those silly Mariners as my #1 team.

While championships won by seemingly lesser teams used to bug me, usually the teams win because they play good ball. Stunningly bad Tiger pitcher fielding aside, the Cards pitched well and got some clutch hits, along with some slick fielding too.

Like I said, when you slice leagues into many divisions teams with unimpressive win totals will get in. That's why I included the mention of the Padres record. With 8 divisions the NFL will run into the problem of losing teams reaching the playoffs more often than MLB.

How does a 116 win team losing the LCS qualify as a "taint"? No one said that blow-out records give you a bye to the World Series.

Which was kind of my point. There are plenty of cases in the past where the team with the best record doesn't win the world series. This year was another one of those. Maybe it was past your bedtime, but the '73 Mets were worse than STL. Yet they played a hell of a series vs. the A's.

The reason for my posting the list was to show that I find the outrage of the Cardinal championship to be a case of selective memory.

There are more in your list, but this is boring me, so let's hear from Jayson Stark:

Teams that win 83 games are supposed to spend the last week of October tackling those nasty doglegs left -- not winning the World Series.

Teams that have worse records after the All-Star break than the Pirates aren't supposed to spend the last week of October winning the World Series.

Teams that let 8½-game September leads turn into half-game September leads aren't supposed to win the World Series.

Teams that have the 13th-best record in baseball aren't supposed to win the World Series.

Teams that don't figure out who the closer is until Sept. 27 aren't supposed to win the World Series.

BTW, that Pirates stat more than makes up for the so-called "bs" of the Royals comparison.

Jayson Stark is an idiot. He's shown this to be the case for so many years I don't read him unless I want an unintentional laugh.

Despite people's perceptions the Pirates were a winning team after the break (38-35.) Almost every year you can play this game btw. I think last year the Indians were the best club from Income Tax Day to Labor Day. Of course they were a pretty good team. But one can often find teams that stink for the year because of a bad spring but have a winning record after the All-Star break. This year we had at least 2 teams that this happened to.

Tossing in another bone - the Cards had to face 2 playoff teams in interleague play (Twins & Tigers) and also had to face the 90 win White Sox squad. Had they faced the AL West this year instead it's likely their regular season record would have been better.

[Quincy]

Why not just do away with the whole post-season and give the team with the best win/loss record the trophy. If there's a tie they can play a one game playoff. That way the anal retentive statheads can go into the off season with a feeling of closure.

Never! We'd still find other stats to bitch about. The unfairness of the length of roadtrips, or one team having to face outdoor stadium teams in the spring while another gets to play indoors for instance.

Don't worry, I'll stop there.

[GA Russell]

Dan, I think you make good points, but I think you are living in the past. Of course, living in the past is a lot of what being a baseball fan is all about - comparing stats of players from bygone eras for example.

I believe that you are living in the past because you feel that a team's regular season record is relevant to the respect it deserves as a champion. I think that there would be a lot of merit to that - that's the way it was done before 1969.

But once a sport/league puts in a playoff system, the champion is whoever goes undefeated the last month of the season. Nothing else matters.

I've stated earlier that I think the MLB should do away with the playoffs. But the powers that run pro baseball choose to have playoffs. So I choose not to care about baseball. Easy.

My favorite sport is the Canadian league, in which almost everybody (six of eight) makes the playoffs. It is very common for the team with the best record to not win the Grey Cup. All the fans understand that. They enjoy the regular season games because they are exciting, not for the pennant race.

If baseball didn't have a pennant race, I think very few tickets would be sold during the regular season. I don't think that there are that many people who would enjoy watching a baseball game without post-season implications.

Edited October 29, 2006 by GA Russell

[Dan Gould]

Maybe it was past your bedtime, but the '73 Mets were worse than STL. Yet they played a hell of a series vs. the A's.

And they ultimately lost. That's what I find annoying about this result - a team only slightly less pathetic than those Mets - one more win - is now World Champions. Its a new low, and it obliterates the previous low, which was 88 (or was it 87?) wins by Minnesota. You ought to hope that we get an even worse team to win a championship - it will lessen the stank on this "champion".

I love how you start out this way:

You want a partial list of champions whose championship is tainted in some way?

Wild card era

'05 White Sox over wild-card Astros. 82 win Padre team makes playoffs.

'04 Wild-card Red Sox beat 105 w Cardinal team.

'03 Wild-card Marlins with 91 wins win series. Braves & Giants, each with at least 100 wins falter.

'02 An all wild-card world series (though the Angels have 99 W, Giants 95)

'01 116 win Mariners lose in ALCS.

'00 87 win Yanks (worst of AL playoff teams) beat wild card Mets.

'99 Best teams Yanks & Braves face each other again.

'98 114 win Yanks win, but 106 win Braves falter in LCS

'97 Indians, with just 86 wins (worst of AL playoff teams) go 7 games with wild-card & world champ Marlins.

'96 Best teams Yanks & Braves face each other

'95- With 20 games knocked off the season, the 90 W Braves beat a 100 win/.694% Indian team.

Other years (partial):

'90 White Sox (94 W) left out of playoffs to 88 W Red Sox. Mets same record as Reds but left out of playoffs.

'87 85 win Twins beat beat up 95 win Cards. 4 AL East teams have more wins that the Twins.

'85 Royals win WS with 3rd best win total in AL.

'84 Royals make playoffs with 84 wins. 5 teams in the AL East have better records.

'81 Reds & Cardinals have best full season record but neither makes the split-season playoffs.

'80 Yankees (103 W) lose to Royals (97 W) in ALCS. 100 W O's left out of playoffs.

'74 102 win Dodgers lose to a 90 game winner A's

'73 82 win Mets push A's to a game 7.

Yet after I point out only a couple of those cases and having no such "taint" you come back with

The list of "tainted" championships is merely to point out that someone can bitch about any championship that doesn't involve the best teams. Do I believe all those championships in my list are "tainted?" No.

Pick a story and stick to it.

[Quincy]

Pick a story and stick to it.

I already explained that - it was a list of faults that one can find with past champions. It was for illustrative purposes, not necessarily that I believe all of those were cases of poor champs. I also pointed out that with an unbalanced regular season schedule win-loss records don't mean as much. I've also pointed out the obvious - that injuries also explain the poor regular season record of the Cards. If you're going to parse the season records of the Royals & Pirates then why not recognize that the healthy April Cards were on pace to win 110. They played the same percentage ball in October.

I find it strange that one can accept wild-card champs but get outraged about low win total champs. Such a system will give you some of both.

I wouldn't mind going back to the olden days, but as noted there's too much money to made with the current system.

Edited October 30, 2006 by Quincy

[jazzypaul]

Dan,

I've been trying to stay out of this, but lets face it, if it's not the Cubs or the Red Sox, you're going to bitch. You complained that the White Sox won last year, even though they had the best record in the American League. Now you're complaining that a team didn't win enough during the regular season to be worthy of the championship.

The Cardinals won. Big deal. They made the playoffs, and even if they made the playoffs because they were the best team in a shitty division, they still made the playoffs. And once you've made it into October, you have just as much of a chance as anyone else. They went on a tear (much like last year's White Sox) and took out some teams that might have been better teams. Bottom line: the Cardinals wanted it more than the Tigers. End of story.

Personally, I'm glad that for two years in a row, that it wasn't teams with $200 million payrolls that won it all. I'm glad that teamwork and effort and heart won out over all-star teams (not that Detroit fit that mold at all, but you get my point...).

First the White Sox and now The Cardinals. Now both of my favorite teams have won back to back. Yippee!

[jazzypaul]

Pick a story and stick to it.

I already explained that - it was a list of faults that one can find with past champions. It was for illustrative purposes, not necessarily that I believe all of those were cases of poor champs. I also pointed out that with an unbalanced regular season schedule win-loss records don't mean as much. I've also pointed out the obvious - that injuries also explain the poor regular season record of the Cards. If you're going to parse the season records of the Royals & Pirates then why not recognize that the healthy April Cards were on pace to win 110. They played the same percentage ball in October.

I find it strange that one can accept wild-card champs but get outraged about low win total champs. Such a system will give you some of both.

I wouldn't mind going back to the olden days, but as noted there's too much money to made with the current system.

Wasn't Boston the Wild Card in 2004?