NL Wildcard; Surprising Teams Making a Push

Two teams that made the Playoffs in 2011 are making a surprising surge for the second Wild Card spot. 

Don't look now but the Philadelphia Phillies and Milwaukee Brewers are both sitting at 72-71 and find themselves 3 games behind the St. Louis Cardinals for that, new, second Wild Card spot. The Phillies have won 7 straight and 8 of 10 while the Brewers have won 3 straight and 7 of 10.

Both teams appeared to be an afterthought this season after they both won their respective divisions in 2011 (they both lost to the eventual World Champion Cardinals). On August 1st the Brewers were 11 games back of the Wild Card while the Phillies were 12 games back.

Now here we are on September 13th and both teams enter play with a realistic shot to advance to the one game playoff for the right to enter the NLDS. But can they do it?

Never mind that. Here's the real interesting story.

Bud Selig has accomplished exactly what he set out to do and that's create more playoff excitement in more cities for a longer period of time. If there was only the one Wild Card spot available the Atlanta Braves would hold it and have an 8.5 game lead over both teams with 19 games to play. It seems as though that lead would be a little bit more difficult to overcome at this point. So give Bud some credit there. Fans in Milwaukee and Philadelphia are getting a little September magic and even if their teams fall short of the Wild Card it's certainly more interesting to watch when there's something on the line (never mind the fact that both teams have been under .500 for the majority of the season and are still just .500 clubs now).

Here's my quarrel with the whole situation - and has always been my worry ever since the second Wild Card was announced - suppose the Phillies or Brewers do win that second spot and end up beating the Braves in the one gamer. Then what have we learned? Aside from the fact that MLB has created an artificially dramatic one game playoff in an effort to recapture the magical end to the 2011 season it is rewarding mediocrity. A one game playoff is an absolute crapshoot. The Braves who have been the far superior team all season long now have to face an added, inferior, obstacle in order to advance to the playoffs. Yet it is entirely possible that they could lose.

It seems to me that this system is in theory a great idea but in practice is problematic.

If you look at the AL it is working like a dream. Two games separate the Orioles/Yankees and leading A's. Out of those teams it's likely one will win the AL East and the other two will take the Wild Card spots. Fantastic. Both teams deserve to there they've had great seasons. In the old system one would obviously miss the playoffs in an heartbreaking end to their season. At least now they'll have one final shot to really make the playoffs. That's the good.

On the NL side you could potentially have a 90 win team (the Braves) facing off against a team that's floating around the .500 mark. The Braves clearly deserve to be in the playoffs. The team floating around the .500 mark, um, not so much. Yet here we are with the realistic possibility that the Braves could find themselves on the outside looking in at a team that should never even come close to making the playoffs but did because of the added Wild Card. To me, that's the bad.

I want the best teams in the playoffs. I want a team that's grinded out the best record over the 162 game schedule (or at least the second best record if we're talking Wild Card). Otherwise what's the point of the season? I don't want the team that had a great run in the final two weeks and just pushed their record above .500. Despite that they're still a mediocre team at best.

If we just want a dramatic finish let's just forget the whole season and just pit every team against each other in an NCAA March Madness style playoff.

The 162 game schedule is in place to weed out the pretenders from the true contenders, is it not? I guess not anymore.

In theory the added Wild Card is a fantastic way to allow more franchises an opportunity to compete and offers fans exciting, meaningful and quality baseball until the very end. In practice it rewards the undeserving and does little more than provide additional revenue.

Zack Greinke, Serial Killer

I'm not judging, well actually I am, but this gem was floating around twitter last night.

Zack Greinke getting a send off from some Brewers teammates. Not the most flattering picture. Could they not have retaken it before posting it for the world to see? Greinke looks deranged ... but maybe he's just happy to be leaving the Brewers.

Greinke off to the AL West

According to ESPN.com the Milwaukee Brewers are set to trade SP Zack Greinke to the Los Angeles Angels. Greinke has been the source of many trade rumors leading up to the July 31st Trade Deadline but the Brewers made an effort to re-sign him in recent days. Clearly those talks went nowhere and the Brewers felt the best move would be to trade Greinke.

Greinke returns to the AL after spending the last year and a half in the NL. Prior to his time with the Brewers Greinke spent 7 seasons pitching for the Kansas City Royals including the 2009 season when he was the AL Cy Young winner.

The Angels are in need of rotation help as Ervin Santana is struggling mightily this season. Through 19 starts and 111 IP Santana has an ERA of exactly 6.

MLB Uniform Policy ... Or Lack There Of

This is something that has been bothering me for quite some time. I decided someone else needed to hear about it. Why does MLB allow teams to have 4 uniforms? It actually drives me crazy as it seems so unnecessary. I get that it's an extra jersey that you can charge fans $100+ (US) for and that's a nice added revenue stream, but come on, isn't three enough? Don't think other league's are exempt either, I hate when NFL teams do it as well.

The whole idea to complain about this came recently when I was watching the Red Sox. They were wearing their alternate navy blue unis. I hate those shirts. They look like they belong in batting practice. Now I like the home whites, the road greys, and the alternate reds that the Sox wear. Three jerseys. That's enough. Even though I don't like the navy blue tops I'd be happy if they eliminated the red jersey then. Stick to three, please.

I just like the classic look. I hate the Yankees but I respect the fact that they only wear their pinstripes at home and their greys on the road. I find some sort of peace in knowing what they'll be wearing. If they added a third jersey to their rotation it just wouldn't feel right. What colour would it be, black? No, thanks. Imagine if they added two jersey's. A black one and a slightly off colour grey. Mmmm appealing.

Fans will buy your jerseys even if you only have three, I'm pretty sure. The Red Sox especially do not need that added revenue stream.

Before I go any further I should note that I am fine with throwback jersey's that teams wear once or even a few times a season. That's alright. A regular second alternate, or fourth uniform though, not cool.

Here are the teams that are guilty of HAVING TOO MANY JERSEYS:

AL
A's (white, grey, green, yellow)
Indians (white, off-white, grey, navy blue)
Mariners (white, grey, navy blue, green-ish)
Orioles (white, grey, orange, black)
Rangers (white, grey, red, blue)
Rays (white, grey, light blue, dark blue)
Red Sox (white, grey, red, navy blue)
Royals (white, grey, light blue, blue)
Twins (white, off-white, grey, navy blue x2)

NL
Astros (white, pinstripe white, grey, red)
Braves (white, off-white, grey, red, navy blue)
Brewers (white, pinstripe white, grey, navy blue x2)
Diamondbacks (white, grey, red, black)
Giants (white, grey x2, orange)
Marlins (white, grey, orange, black)
Mets (white, pinstripe white, grey, black)
Nationals (white, grey, red, navy blue)
Padres (white, grey, navy blue, camouflage)
Rockies (white, grey, black, purple)

That's 19. Yes ONE-NINE teams that have, at least, 4 jerseys they regularly wear. It's ridiculous.

I just don't get it. Why do you need a white jersey and an off-white jersey? Why do you need a jersey that's the same colour but has two different logos on it? The answer? YOU DON'T!!!

I wish MLB would step in and put a stop to this ridiculousness. I'm going to pick on a few teams in particular because they're uni's are just plain stupid.

Tampa Bay Rays - do you really need two different colour blues? Come on pick one, stick to it.

Minnesota Twins - hey you have two navy blue jerseys. One says Minnesota and the other says Twins. I don't think we could have figured out who you are so I'm glad you have options on your alternates depending on whether you are home or away. You have five, yes five, jerseys. Two are the same colour and two are some sort of white. Give me a break.

Milwaukee Brewers - You are guilty of the same offence as Minnesota. Two navy blues. Come on now. I will give you some credit for your throwback, pinstripe, white jersey, though. It's a beaut.

San Fransisco Giants - You might be guilty of the stupidest jersey offence. Who has two road grey's? You just introduced the grey with "SF" over the left chest. Let's hope you dump it after the one season.

Miami Marlins - I just hate your new uniforms and logos. Go back to Florida.

Padres - Camouflage, really? If it's a tribute jersey that's cool, but an everyday alternate? FAIL.

Now on the other hand I would like to give some major credit to the Cardinals, Dodgers, Tigers and Yankees. Historical teams remaining true to their roots. One home white and one road grey. Classic looks. A+.

Also the follow teams just run with three unis. Angels, Blue Jays, White Sox, Cubs, Phillies (even though you have two whites), Pirates and Reds. Good work, I'll still give you an A.

It's never going to happen - a rule against how many uniforms you can have - but now I feel better for having ranted about it.