To me the solution is very simple - play fewer regular season games but make all playoff series' best of 7. NHL and NBA play half the regular season games but still do 4 best of 7 playoff rounds, so it makes no sense to me why MLB would have a best of 5 series (let alone best of 3). I don't think the 100 win teams need more home field or to start up a win, they just need a larger sample of games to play. If Seattle beat the Jays 4 out of 7 I would be much more content that the Jays didn't "deserve" to advance than I am right now. What's the argument against this? Who doesn't want more playoff games?
I think local/regional TV deals is the argument against. Or at least for owners and they’re the only ones that matter. Even small market teams have signed billion dollar deals with the appeal for broadcasters being the hundreds of hours of live content. Fewer games means fewer hours of ads to sell, which means smaller TV deals for owners of non playoff teams.
I agree with your overall take here. The issue with the new format seems to be that the 2nd and 3rd Wildcard teams aren't *that* disadvantaged against the likely much more deserving 1st wild card team and the lowest seeded division winner. Home field advantage just doesn't seem like a big enough deal in a short playoff series. Maybe that idea where the higher seed team gets an automatic win in the wildcard round if they finish the regular season with 10 or more wins would be a way to help with it.
For my part, I don't think it's so much that the 100-win teams deserve more, it's that the squeakers deserve less. You talked before about how the widening playoff field cheapens getting into the post-season a bit and dampens excitement, and I definitely felt and feel that.
The wildcard used to be just that - a wild card thrown into the mix. Now it's a whole extra series, and it makes the DS feel less special.
Interesting discussion. I completely agree. While part of me was excited by seeing all those great teams knocked out (who doesn't like the underdog?), the traditionalist felt a bit....cheated. It is such a LONG season and slog and to win 100+ games deserves...something more? Or maybe this year was just a freak outlier.
What's interesting is how the way baseball is managed in the post-season has changed in the last decade or so (maybe less?). Starters on a short leash. Ace starters being brought in to relieve. Crazy bullpen usage. The different approach compared to the regular season no doubt can lead to some unusual outcomes in a short series. It certainly amplifies the importance of how well managed a game is - or not.
I can't think of another sport where this is the case?
Couldn't agree more that the current playoff structure is deepy flawed.
The overall weak vibes surrounding the WC (and, let's be real, the DS), makes them feel like a play-in tournament for losers.
To me the solution is very simple - play fewer regular season games but make all playoff series' best of 7. NHL and NBA play half the regular season games but still do 4 best of 7 playoff rounds, so it makes no sense to me why MLB would have a best of 5 series (let alone best of 3). I don't think the 100 win teams need more home field or to start up a win, they just need a larger sample of games to play. If Seattle beat the Jays 4 out of 7 I would be much more content that the Jays didn't "deserve" to advance than I am right now. What's the argument against this? Who doesn't want more playoff games?
I think local/regional TV deals is the argument against. Or at least for owners and they’re the only ones that matter. Even small market teams have signed billion dollar deals with the appeal for broadcasters being the hundreds of hours of live content. Fewer games means fewer hours of ads to sell, which means smaller TV deals for owners of non playoff teams.
I agree with your overall take here. The issue with the new format seems to be that the 2nd and 3rd Wildcard teams aren't *that* disadvantaged against the likely much more deserving 1st wild card team and the lowest seeded division winner. Home field advantage just doesn't seem like a big enough deal in a short playoff series. Maybe that idea where the higher seed team gets an automatic win in the wildcard round if they finish the regular season with 10 or more wins would be a way to help with it.
For my part, I don't think it's so much that the 100-win teams deserve more, it's that the squeakers deserve less. You talked before about how the widening playoff field cheapens getting into the post-season a bit and dampens excitement, and I definitely felt and feel that.
The wildcard used to be just that - a wild card thrown into the mix. Now it's a whole extra series, and it makes the DS feel less special.
Interesting discussion. I completely agree. While part of me was excited by seeing all those great teams knocked out (who doesn't like the underdog?), the traditionalist felt a bit....cheated. It is such a LONG season and slog and to win 100+ games deserves...something more? Or maybe this year was just a freak outlier.
What's interesting is how the way baseball is managed in the post-season has changed in the last decade or so (maybe less?). Starters on a short leash. Ace starters being brought in to relieve. Crazy bullpen usage. The different approach compared to the regular season no doubt can lead to some unusual outcomes in a short series. It certainly amplifies the importance of how well managed a game is - or not.
I can't think of another sport where this is the case?