Would this MLB format be fairer/more exciting

The Game Room
21

Before the second WC the WC team had to play the team with the best record, yes. But they came in on equal footing, they could get there pitching rotation lined up and had a pretty decent chance of winning even though they won a “lesser” slot in the post-season.

Now, they have an additional game to play (not a huge burden to a team) but they are likely to use their best pitcher since it’s a one game series. That means going into the LDS they are not at their strongest. Without the play-in game a WC team with two great starters could have better odds at beating a strong team that doesn’t have two aces.

I don’t consider a one game WS to be fair, but teams that only win a WC spot shouldn’t have an easy road. The old road (that my beloved RS used to win their WS in 2004) was IMO easier than the current path.

22

I want to see a balanced schedule. Every team plays every other team the exact same number of times. Then the W-L standing will be a slightly better indicator.

The playoff teams will be the 5 best teams from each league, regardless of division.

23

I was sort of opposed to the division series back in the day but 1995 Seattle-New York sold me. You’ll never get me to give up the LDS. Playoff baseball rocks.

I have to admit that I like the three-divisions-and-one-wild-card system. I think 8 playoff teams is ideal, and I think the advantage of the 3-and-1 system is that the league’s second best team will always be in the playoffs; very worthy teams, like the 2002 Angels and 2004 Red Sox, have used that to go on and win the World Series.

My only objection to the current system is the crazily unbalanced and unsymmetrical schedule, but I cannot think of an easy solution without both expansion AND changing the number of games a team plays in a season.

For instance, suppose you expanded by six teams - for fun we’ll say Vancouver, Brooklyn, Charlotte, Portland, Montreal and Santo Domingo, DR, because it’s my fantasy and I can put a baseball team there if I want. I don’t know where you’re going to get six billionaires but whatever.

You can now dump interleague play (hooray) and go to a 162-game schedule where each team plays 18 games against divisional opponents, as they did in the 12-team league system, and 6 games against extradivisional opponents. It’s an even number of games, easily broken into 3-game series, no interleague so no weird differences, and 8 playoff teams out of 36 seems like a baseballish number to me.

If you wanted Typo Negative’s idea of just picking teams 1-5, you still need interleague play with 30 teams. Unfortunately, for a perfectly balanced schedule within a league, no number of games against every opponent works to create a schedule close to 162 games if you go to 32. If you drop to 28, 12*13 = 156, which is fine, but I don’t want to drop teams.

24

I agree with this. The interleague regional rivalries have run their course. Let the Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, Giants/A’s, etc., play each other every three years along with everybody else in the division.

25

I still kind of like interleague play, but I think it should be limited to your mirror division. As an Indians fan, I have no interest in seeing Cleveland take on San Francisco or LA. A series home and away against Milwaukee, St. Louis, the other Chicago team, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati are all somewhat interesting to me.

I am a huge fan of the one game wild card playoffs; It gives the game the urgency seen in NFL playoff games. As much as I like the best of 7 series, games 1,2, and even 3 don’t hold my attention the same way elimination games do.

26

On first glance, probably less fair and less exciting.

Imagine what would have happened in 2011 under this system (Detroit and Cleveland move to the East, Kansas City and Minnesota to the West, Chicago isn’t counted for either). Bolded playoff teams:

East:
1. NY Yankees 97-65
2. Detroit 95-67
3. Tampa Bay 91-71
4. Boston 90-72

West:
1. Texas 96-66
2. Anaheim 86-76
3. Oakland 74-88
4. Kansas City 71-91

Yikes. The East would have been monstrously better than the West, leaving Tampa Bay and Boston out of the picture (instead of the classic race we got) and giving the Angels a free ride (with 86 wins, still a huge lead over 3rd place!).

I think this illustrates why wild cards shouldn’t be forced to come from different divisions. More than “unfairness”, it just seems unnecessary and inelegant. It arbitrarily reduces the possible number of close races, and it exacerbates rather than alleviates the issue of one division being far better than another (the opposite of what a wild card using system should do).
3 divisions and 1 wild card is still the best system, though the first round should have been extended to 7 games. That way you get 8 teams, which is perfect (4 is too few for me, though I can see the argument, 16 is way too many). You guarantee you get to see the 2nd best team in MLB play a 7-game series (8 teams is way too many if you aren’t even guaranteed to include the 2nd best team!). And you have a good variety of ways to have exciting, all-or-nothing races.

The only other logically consistent systems are going back to a total of 4 or 2 playoff teams, all division winners. Those are too few for my taste, but they do make sense. With so few teams it isn’t ridiculous to leave out the 2nd best team in baseball.

27

You’d have to shorten the regular season or they’d be playing well into November.

28

Which is another reason not to have 2 wild cards. It extends the playoffs later into winter.

Making the first round 7 games would certainly be a more worthwhile reason to extend the playoffs than adding an extra wild card game, but you have a good point. Maybe neither are advisable.

29

Why would the playoffs go to November? The LDS is division winner v. runner-up. Same situation as now, # of rounds wise.

30

This was about extending the LDS series to 7 games. Your proposal was dismissed early on in the conversation, we’ve moved beyond that. :slight_smile:

31

They have to shorten, not lenghten the post-season, or at least start it earlier. Can you imagine playing a WS game in Minneapolis in late October? Whoever decided to put an open-air stadium there is certifiable.

32

The Vikings played in an open air stadium before the dome.

33

Yes, but football can be played in a snowstorm. Baseball, not so much.

34

Minneapolis isn’t exactly Iqualuit. Around this time of year it’s in the 50s and 60s - not exactly hot, but hardly arctic.