If MLB were to either add or subtract 2 teams, going back to 4 divisions. The East winner would play West runner-up, and vice-versa. Wouldn’t this be fairer, or at least more exciting?
There’s no objective definition of fair or exciting. Six playoff spots keeps more teams in the playoff race until later, and you could argue that that’s more fair and/or exciting- at least for some fans. You could also argue that fewer playoff spots is more exciting. I’m not sure what solution is the fairest. But I am positive MLB isn’t going to eliminate teams or playoff spots.
I agree, go back to a four-team playoff. On the other hand, it’s fun to listen to broadcasters say “Wild Card!”
No, contraction will not ever happen, ever, barring a major financial downturn in MLB’s fortunes. Baseball is still doing well as a regional attraction with occasional bursts of national interest. Congrats to the Royals and Pirates ending the two longest-standing franchise slumps in North American sports, small market/big market, you just need a good front office and you’ve got a chance.
Baseball just completed its most recent tradition demolition by finally fixing the 16/14 league split and having interleague games spread out throughout the season. Sorry Houston fans if you hate being in the American League, no one else cares. I rather like the do-or-die aspect of the current Wild Card matchup. I doubt baseball will be doing anymore tweaking for at least another decade.
Fiddle: You’re obviously correct expansion is more likely. I hate the “play-in” game. So my idea eliminates it. Two wild cards keeps the same # teams involved, so I think it’s an idea meritting study.
The number isn’t the same. Right now five teams make the playoffs, and you’re proposing that be cut to four.
By “involved”, I meant “contending”. Though that can probably be objectively proven/disproven
What would happen if you were to split the NL up into four divisions? I’ll just arbitrarily divide it and then insert the records:
2014
NL North-East
Washington 96-66
Pittsburgh 88-74
New York 79-83
Philadelphia 73-89
NL Central
St. Louis 90-72
Milwaukee 82-80
Cincinnati 76-86
Chicago 73-89
NL West
Los Angeles 94-68
San Francisco 88-74
San Diego 77-85
Arizona 64-98
NL South
Atlanta 79-83
Miami 77-85
Colorado 66-96
This gives us only one pennant race and it’s between two losing teams. Ouch.
The AL:
AL East Coast
Baltimore 96-66
New York 84-78
Tampa Bay 77-85
Boston 71-81
AL North
Detroit 90-72
Cleveland 85-77
Toronto 83-79
Minnesota 70-92
AL West
LA Anaheim 98-84
Oakland 88-74
Seattle 87-75
AL South
Kansas City 89-73
Chicago 73-89
Houston 70-92
Texas 67-95
At least now the four best teams in the league all made the playoffs but again there aren’t really any pennant races. The AL South was basically over in mid August.
Now, I did this totally off the top of my head. If you were to mix the cities around you might come up with a pennant race. However, I suspect it’s generally true that four-team divisions will result in
- A lot of divisions with no race, and
- Crappier teams in the playoffs
The fewer teams you have in a pennant race, the fewer good pennant races you have. The advantage of a wild card system is that it expands the number of teams that can chase a playoff spot by having spots across divisions.
My system still has 2 WC, they just come from fewer, larger divisions.
I actually like the current system, with the wildcard ‘play-in game’ better than the previous system in which the single wildcard team simply made it into the playoffs. I think it rewards winning the division, and the threat of a single-elimination game makes second that much scarier a place to be.
That said, I’d prefer getting rid of the wildcard altogether, so that teams had to win their division in order to make the playoffs. But to do that you need an even number of divisions in each league, and to make it fair you need an even number of teams in each division. That means they need to expand to 32 teams, or contract to 24. With 24 teams, you wind up with eight 3-team divisions, and I don’t see that working. So the only way to do it right would be to add another team to each league.
Now, if they put teams in, say, Vancouver/Portland (AL) and Nashville/Charlotte/Memphis/some-other-Southern-city (NL), they could realign into four 4-team divisions in each league, and problem solved. But I don’t know if that’s likely any time soon.
Plankton: going back to 28 would be 4 divisions with 7 teams.
But four 7-team divisions wouldn’t cut it if you wanted to eliminate the wildcard…unless you wanted to cut the playoffs down to only 4 teams total, which is never going to happen.
With 4 wildcards, then 28 teams would work (as you pointed out in your OP). But personally, I’d favor expansion rather than contraction, and ‘winners only’ in the postseason.
I just started working through a plan with 32 teams, eight-team divisions, and four wild cards in each league, and realized I was going down a rabbit hole that would consume the rest of my afternoon at work. Rest assured that it would be really cool, significantly better balanced than what we have right now, and it would cost a lot of key parties a lot of money so it’ll never happen.
In my head it’s really awesome, though.
I think the MLB suffers from an overload of teams in the playoffs as well as overly long playoff series. It’s alot like the NBA in that regard. There is absolutely no reason the 3rd round of the playoffs should be 7 games. Should be Wild Card round, 3 game round 2, 5 game round 3 and 7 game WS.
Of course, there is absolutely no reason for MLB to shorten anything as they would make less money. I won’t be surprised when they add another 8 teams to playoffs and each round goes best of 9.
Would it be fair to the two markets who would lose their teams?
There is enough of a talent base to expand to 32 teams, with four 8-team divisions, which would more sensibly be four 8-team leagues. I’d like to see two leagues consisting of the traditional MLB franchises from pre 1960, and the other two made up of the expansion teams. Home field advantage goes to team with best inter-league record, screw the All Star Game “that counts”. Screw artificial rivalries made up by the media, everybody plays equal schedule. You want fair?
In the post season, the four league leaders play a 7-game semifinal and a 7-game World Series. That’s enough. Screw the wild-card, that’s goofy stuff from the lesser sports like football, that needed novelties in order to compete for fans.
Trading deadline middle of May, you play with what you got.
I was skeptical of the Wild Card in the first place, then of the extra Wild Card spot, but I’m a convert. I usually enjoy the playoffs no matter who is playing, and the bonus is more games in September that mean something, which makes things more exiting, IMO.
I think the MLB could add teams at this point. Why not make it 32 teams in 4 divisions if you really want 4 divisions? Not as if 8 teams in a division is much worse than 7 teams in a division. (Add… Charlotte and Portland or something)
Your “system” was a pretty vague three sentences that didn’t really explain if you wanted to add/subtract 2 teams to each league, the entire league, or the playoffs. And whether or not “4 divisions” meant MLB-wide, or league-wide. Is forcing an economy of words on the front end worth several follow-up posts on the back end?
Anyway, no - the current system of 3 division winners and 2 wild card teams is an interesting and competitive way to run the system. And it offers slightly more intrigue, and competition (in the playoffs) (and revenue) than the alternative of no wild card game at the cost of a (-n arguably) minor decrease in competition, and competition (in the regular season) (and revenue).
And the WC play-in game puts the WC teams at a disadvantage in the LDS round, as it should be.
No more so than if there had not been a “tie breaker when there is no tie”. The WC team still has to play the winningest team. A single game in-or-out is a tie breaker. Would you consider a one-game World Series to be fair?