Baseball, Anyone?

Last night, in Major League Baseball’s American League Wild Card Game, the Houston Astros defeated the New York Yankees, 3-0, earning the right to play the Kansas City Royals in the next round of the postseason. Three years ago, MLB decided to add a second Wild Card team to its postseason, with those two squads meeting in a one-game showdown. The winner would advance to face a division winner; the loser’s season would end on the spot.

For many sports fans, this might seem a bit unfair. The Yankees and Astros each played 162 regular-season games (the Yankees hosted last night’s game because of their superior 87-75 record, to Houston’s 86-76), but this singular game would determine their fates. The winner would move onto a best-of-seven series—a better overall assessment of a team, with less left to chance, and the manner in which most American professional sports’ playoffs are decided.

The Astros probably didn’t mind that, though, because of their imposing starting pitcher, Dallas Keuchel. The best pitcher on either team, Keuchel was the Astros’ trump card for a winner-take-all game. The left-handed and long-bearded ace went 20-8 in the regular season with a 2.48 earned-run average and tormented the Yankees this season, winning twice in The Bronx without allowing a run in the process.

Knowing this in advance, the Yankees made a peculiar decision. Jacoby Ellsbury, whom the team signed at a cost of $153 million in 2013, was kept on the bench to start the game. Yankee manager Joe Girardi instead played fellow outfielder Brett Gardner (who, as Girardi sharply pointed out, is making a good bit of money himself), because of his better batting average against left-handed pitchers.

View image | gettyimages.com

As it turned out, the Yankees’ bats were ineffective against Keuchel—including Gardner, who went 0-for-4 with three strikeouts. Keuchel threw six scoreless innings before giving way to his teams’ bullpen, which kept his shutout afloat through the end. Sitting Ellsbury was hardly the only reason for the Yankees’ loss; for a variety of reasons, Houston clearly deserved the victory.

Tennis fans—though perhaps not tennis-playing Yankee fans—should nod their head in approval and move on. For this was baseball’s version of a match point being played on the dirt and grass of Yankee Stadium. The analogy is far from perfect—both sides, instead of just one, could win the “match” by winning this “point”—but after many incremental steps, the stakes were now at their highest.

According to the data-rich website TennisAbstract, there are roughly 60 points played in a typical set of tennis. If you think of each of the 162 regular-season baseball games as one “point” in tennis terms that translates to 2.7 sets played—or a competitive best-of-three set match. So the Yankees and Astros were essentially playing deep into the third set of their tennis-baseball match, and had both arrived at match point.

While each point in a tennis match is played with the same rules and is worth the same to the score, the true value of a point varies greatly, depending on when it occurs during a match. A 40-0 point is worth more to a server than a 15-0 point—by winning it, the server not only wins a point, but a game. For the same reason, a 30-40 point is worth more to a returner than a 40-0 point. (Although the Yankees were the home team last night, I considered the Astros the “server,” since they had the strongest pitcher. It’s not unlike a server electing to go with his best serve, or hit to his preferred placement, on match point.)

View image | gettyimages.com

I found it fitting that baseball, a slow-moving sport that takes many steps to resolve, borrowed a concept from tennis with its one-game playoff. I also wonder, after watching last night’s baseball game and hundreds of tennis matches over the years, if more sports should adopt winner-take-all scenarios. Of the major U.S. pro sports, only the National Football League uses a do-or-die format for its playoffs, and the only other notable example that comes to mind is college basketball’s March Madness—perhaps the most exciting playoff there is in this country.

For baseball purists, the best-of-one playoff is the latest example of the pastime’s eroding tradition. But for tennis purists, it’s the only way to play: The sport takes winner-take-all to the extreme with single-elimination tournaments, even at the majors. There’s always another tournament the next week, but that doesn’t make them any less fascinating on their own.

I’m glad that the Astros will get a chance to prove themselves over a best-of-seven series—but I’m also looking forward to tonight’s Wild Card Game in the National League, between the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Chicago Cubs. The Pirates and Cubs owned the second- and third-best records in all of baseball, but because the St. Louis Cardinals were even better in their stacked division, one of these strong teams will have their season ended based on the result of one game.

Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. Is it dramatic? Fans of the Pirates and Cubs would probably call it torture. One thing is for sure: It’s what tennis does every day.