How should the MLB playoffs be structured?

3 Divisional winners, and 2 wild cards in each league.

The 2 wild card teams play each other in a one game playoff.

The playoffs would then proceed as it does now.

The advantages are that there's another team in the playoffs, division winners are rewarded by not having a one game playoff, and the wild card team is hurt by having to win a game to advance (and having to use its pitchers in a game).

Because winning the division rewards a team, there's more incentive to win the division. Right now, besides homefield, there's no difference between a division winner and a wild card team.

I've said it on here many times, but I love the idea Jayson Stark advocates: Add one Wild Card team to each league, and make the two face each other in a one-game playoff.

That accomplishes three things:

1. One game playoffs are exciting (Bucky Dent!)

2. 2 more teams get in the playoffs

3. Makes winning your division more important. Right now there's no difference between winning your division and being the Wild Card. That doesn't sit well with me. If the Wild Cards had to go through another round of playoffs, there's a rather big incentive to be a division winner and not a Wild Card team.

Damn.. Pistol beat me to it!!!

I love the idea Jayson Stark advocates

I must need coffee, which I normally don't touch, because I can't understand the previous phrase. I read and re-read it, and it just makes NO sense ...

How about this:

Expand the league to 32 teams, split each league into four divisions of four teams. From each league, the two division winners with the best records, plus the next four teams (by record) make the playoffs.

First round: Best two teams get a bye. Four teams have best-of-five series. How matchups are determined is left as an exercise.

Second round: Winners from round one meet divisional winners in best-of-seven. Same as ALCS and NLCS, essentially.

World Series: Randomly awarded by Bud to promote a fair chance for every team to win. Or, matchup the winners of the previous round. That could work too...

Of course, to ensure that clubs become as rich as possible, MLB may be averse to diluting the revenue distributed to each club by increasing the number of clubs. But that's a different matter.

So, you have 12 teams in the playoffs without expanding the playoffs at all. One drawback is that four teams will not get the gate revenue from the first round, so this proposal would never be adopted by MLB.

I must need coffee, which I normally don't touch, because I can't understand the previous phrase. I read and re-read it, and it just makes NO sense ...

I know what you mean. Earlier this week I read a somewhat academic piece by Paul Krugman, and I agreed with every word of it. I thought my head was going to explode.

I'd be okay with 32 teams, four four-team divisions in each league, three best-of-seven series, balanced schedule, no interleague play, no wild cards.

I like the Stark idea. Just to brainstorm a bit, howbout something similar to the NFL system:

3 division winners plus 3 wild card teams per league. Best 2 of the 3 division winners get a bye in the first round. Would require adding another best of five round of playoffs, extending the playoffs by about a week. Alternatively the regular season could be shortened by 5 games to compensate. Might be too many teams for the traditionalists, but it would still be signficantly less than half. 12 teams make it, 18 dont as oppose to now where 8 teams make it and 22 dont.

And ... try, try to answer this question objectively, not as a doom-saying Jay fan trying to figured out any possible way to get in the playoffs with NYY and BOS in the division.

Well, both objectively AND as a Jays fan, I am in favor of reducing the regular season and going to a playoff structure essentially identical to what is done in the NBA. In each league, the three division winners are the top three seeds. The five team with the best records not among the division winners also make the playoffs, and are seeded according to record. Three rounds of playoffs to determine the league champions, then the World Series.

Why? As a Jays fan, it would give us a much better shot, obviously. Objectively, it is in the best interest of any professional sports league to have as many as possible of its teams competitive, viable, and well-supported by their fan base. As well as MLB is currently doing as a whole, there are far too many teams whose fans know at the outset of each season that there is no chance they will make it to October.

As well as MLB is currently doing as a whole, there are far too many teams whose fans know at the outset of each season that there is no chance they will make it to October.

Two questions.

1. How many teams? Which ones?
2. Of those, how many aren't going to make it to October because they haven't done a good enough job of putting a team together, as opposed to those who have done a good job but it isn't enough?

no wild cards.

Just my opinion but I wouldnt want to get into a situation where there are never any wildcard teams. I dont see how that would be an improvement, I think it would be a step back. There'd always be the argument that Team X was the 2nd best team in the league and yet didnt make the playoffs because they didnt win their division. And there's always the chance that you run into a Yankee-like situation where one team just becomes so dominant for an extended period that the other teams in the division feel like they have no hope before the season even begins.

Just my opinion but I wouldnt want to get into a situation where there are never any wildcard teams. I dont see how that would be an improvement, I think it would be a step back. There'd always be the argument that Team X was the 2nd best team in the league and yet didnt make the playoffs because they didnt win their division.

That's the way it goes. To my way of thinking, you should have to win something in order to make the playoffs. The playoffs should not be for silver medalists.

And there's always the chance that you run into a Yankee-like situation where one team just becomes so dominant for an extended period that the other teams in the division feel like they have no hope before the season even begins.

Hey, nobody ever said it was going to be easy.

To my way of thinking, you should have to win something in order to make the playoffs. The playoffs should not be for silver medalists.

Fair enough, just remember that last year a silver medalist won the World Series. ;)

I am in favor of reducing the regular season and going to a playoff structure essentially identical to what is done in the NBA

I happen to think this would be a great idea, competitively, but the reason it would never happen has nothign to do with its competitive merits.

Baseball's history and its status as a "talkin' sport" put such a major emphasis on records that, imagine we went to a 144-game schedule (and it mighe need to be shorter, say 135) ... there would literally be no hope of anyone ever breaking Barry Bonds' single-season home run mark, Ichiro's single-season hit record never would have happend, and the 20-win season would be a thing of the past.

Yes, I know similar arguments were made with expansion, divisional play and the Wild Card, and haseball has survived. But this would hack off too many people, I think.

Fair enough, just remember that last year a silver medalist won the World Series. ;)

Hey, Mr. Delgado's employers have two rings and are still waiting on their first franchise division title.

just remember that last year a silver medalist won the World Series.

Yes. What about it?

Damn.. Pistol beat me to it!!!

But you nicely numbered your advantages.

2 leagues of 16. Top 4 make playoffs. Balanced schedule, no interleague.

Or

4 divisions of 8. Top 2 in each division make playoffs. Balanced schedule, no interleague.

just remember that last year a silver medalist won the World Series.

Yes. What about it?

Was Minnesota more deserving of a playoff spot than Boston last year? Or Oakland, for that matter?

I do understand your point of view, and it's a view that makes more sense with the current unbalanced schedule than it would with a balanced sched. But that's one of the many reasons the Starkian Proposal is great. Silver medalists get their shot, but they're at a distinct disadvantage to the gold medalists.

What I miss about the pre-wild card days is the excitement of a true pennant race. The tension can last for months. There's nothing like it.

I like the idea of two 16-team leagues, each divided into four divisions of four teams.

If you can't have that, and have to have one or more wild cards, I like the idea of making the ladder harder to climb for a wild card team. Two wild card teams with a one-game playoff would work.

You could even take it a step further and have four wild card teams; then, a team would have to win two one-game playoffs in order to advance. This (a) gives more teams a shot, (b) adds to the excitement of the postseason, and (c) ensures that teams that win a division have an advantage.

Mick, in regards to shortening the season, a good idea I heard from Paul Godfrey one time was to cut a week out of Spring Training in order to maintain the 162-game season and add more playoffs without extending the playoffs into November.

Not that I'm in favour of any more playoff expansion that the 1-game 2-wildcard playoff.

Mick,

Good point. The culture of baseball is very record- and stat-driven. Personally, that's the one thing I don't like about the sport; I wish people would just enjoy the game for what it is rather than being concerned about historical records, statistical plateaus, and other such nonsense that holds back development. But you're right, baseball seems very averse to that sort of change; I doubt it would ever happen.

The culture of baseball is very record- and stat-driven. Personally, that's the one thing I don't like about the sport; I wish people would just enjoy the game for what it is

Why then are we wasting any time with this playoff discussion? Let's just turn the season into a 162-game exhibition, and we won't even have to bother with keeping score.

a good idea I heard from Paul Godfrey one time was to cut a week out of Spring Training in order to maintain the 162-game season and add more playoffs without extending the playoffs into November.

Well, spring training could stand to be shortened a bit, but the problem is that we're talking about the last week of March here, and it often snows in northern cities during that week. I know Toronto's usually good for one more real snowfall at least after April Fool's Day.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-hardball-times-2005-ncaa-pre-season-all-america-team-part-two/
COMN for the 2nd installment of our man Burley's college pre-season All America team in today's THT.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-hardball-times-2005-ncaa-pre-season-all-america-team-part-two/
COMN for the 2nd installment of our man Burley's college pre-season All America team in today's THT.

It's doubly-good!

The reason that me Grimlock don't think that there should be expanded playoffs, is that baseball is a sport that lends itself to upsets far, far more than the other ones. It is not unheard of for Tampa Bay to defeat the Yanks on a given night. A team's quality changes day-to-day based on the starting pitcher. An expanded playoff would mean that BIG playoff matchups like New York-Boston last year would be much more rare.

Secondly, me Grimlock disputes the notion that too many teams have no hope. The teams that don't have hope are generally bad teams, and would have no hope no matter what the playoff structure is.

Put another way, even .500 teams are usually finish within 10 games of the wild card, and often less. Given that it takes 6 months accumulate a 15-game deficit, that's 2.5 games a month right? At the All-Star break, they're 6-7 games out. If you finish .500 in a given season, because of the number of divisions and playoff spots currently available, you were probably playing meaningful games as late as mid-August. Those games are de facto playoff games.

Why shouldn't the playoffs try to reward excellence? Me Grimlock liken it to the difference between the Baseball and the Hockey Hall of Fames. When more people get in, it cheapens the honour.

Back to the coal mines...

http://salon.com/news/sports/col/kaufman/2005/01/27/thursday/index.html
first time poster: There's no MYOR today, but COMN for an interesting article on Salon.com about Delgado's chances of getting into the Hall. Not groundbreaking, but interesting.

The world has gone mad, or else I have, or else said states of affairs have already existed. Whatever, I agree with him Grimlock: no more playoff teams, please.

Playoffs will keep expanding I'm sure. Once 1969 occured and we had 2 teams per league make the playoffs it was pretty much inevitable that we'd eventually get wild card teams and more playoff games. Fans love playoff games as it gives you hope for a title, even if your team is mediocre (1987 Twins always come to mind here). The 1987 playoff race was amazing between Toronto and Detroit, as were some other races (1985 vs Yankees, 1992 vs Brewers, 1989 vs Baltimore) but in the end it is the playoffs that sell the most for the teams. Hockey and basketball have proven that fans will come out no matter how many teams you put in.

So, what would I like? Personally I love the 4 divisions per league, division winners only make playoffs but know it won't happen. The wild card is here to stay and I expect it to move towards the hockey and basketball system sooner rather than later. Perhaps by cutting the season back to 154 games, maybe starting the season earlier too. I'd live with it, but will always be glad I was around for those great races from '85 to 93.

Just a "modest playoff proposal":

- Expand the majors to 32 teams, adding franchises in Vegas and Mexico City (or Havana, if applicable). Eight divisions of four teams each. No "leagues" per se.

- Play the regular season through July 30. Say,one three-game series against every team in MLB outside your division (alternating years hosting) -- that's 84 games. And two four-game series (home and home)against your three divisional rival; that's another 24 games for a total of 108, exactly two-thirds of the current season.

- Seasonal won-loss records are used solely to determine seeding in a 32-team tournament. The eight divisionwinners get seeds 1-8, based on best extra-divisional record with head-to-head (down to runs scored if necessary) determining overall seeding.

- Then play it out over the next several months of seven-game series; can the #29 Rays, who shocked the #4 Cardinals in the first roud, continue their success in the MLB Sweet 16 against their state-mate Marlins?

No re-seeding; that's too complex, where the above is just so simple and obvious. Play until a champion is determined. As for seasoal records, well, say the Giants play their 108 regular season games and go the full seven in the round of 32, Sweet 16, Elite Eight, Fall Four and World Series ... that's 35 games, taking the total games played to 143, meaning Barry might at least get to 60 homers.

And lost revenue? HA! With EVERY team in the playoffs, it'd more than make up for the missing 19 regular season games.

Just a "modest playoff proposal":

C'est magnifique... mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

Long time reader first time poster...I am actually surprised that this is the topic that would get me off my lazy arse and actually make a post but....

The way I see it the arguments in favour of an expanded playoff are that more teams compete for playoffs spots later into the season and therefore add more excitment.

The arguments against it seem to be that it lengthens the season and removes the incentive for finishing higher in the standings.

How about this then:
Have a system similar to the NBA where the 3 division winners get the top 3 seeds followed by the next 5 best teams in the league....but...

Have a 5 game series as the first round and start the first place team with 2 wins and the second and third place teams with one win. That way there is a significant advantage to winning the division(home field and wins) and it would make it much more unlikely that the 8th place team could advance but it would still allow more teams into the playoffs. The higher placed teams would likely have to play less games to advance and hence save their pitching...which just adds more incentive to finish higher.
After the first round just continue with the same format as is currently used.

To keep the playoffs from going later in the year why not shorten spring training by 2 weeks and expand the roster size to 30 for the first 2 weeks. That way you don't burn out pitchers and it would actually make cutting down to 25 a little easier as you could see the fringe guys in real competition.

This may be a little out there for the traditionalists but I think this would add a significant amount of excitement without cheapening the regular season.

I like the idea of adding a wild card team to each league and having a one game playoff between the two wild cards. It gives more importance to winning your division.

What I really would like is to expand the first round from 5 games to 7. A shorter series takes away some of the advantage from the 'better' team. It almost cheapens the 162 game regular season.

If time wasn't a factor I would actually prefer a 7-9-9 playoff format.

Or how about going back to the East-West divisions with 4 wild cards who play in a short series(1 or 3 games) to decide who advances to face the pennant winners.

I don't mean to double post on yesterday's and today's but here it is anyways:

Quoting part of a post from yesterdays QOTD/MYOR from 6-4-3 on his his ideas on a 4 team wildcard...

AL West teams like Seattle and Oakland benefit, as do the White Sox (three straight playoff appearances!), and even the Jays and Montreal.

Hey Mick, can I borrow those rose coloured glasses?...

Montreal makes the playoffs and crowds in the 40,000s come back. Money starts pouring in from ticket sales and merchandise. Local ownership sees investment opportunity and purchases them with hope of a new stadium...

I know it took alot more than losing for Montreal to lose the Expos, but a 4 team wildcard could have saved a franchise.

EXPANDING to 32 teams???
What, the pitching isn't bad enough already?

Grand Funk out.

Seeing as how there are 30 teams, we have to EXPAND to 32 teams, since we can't REDUCE to 32 teams from 30.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/
Back to PECOTA. Josh Willingham is listed as the NL catcher with the top projected VORP for next year. COMN. Josh Willingham? Am I missing something? He's 25, and has played 1/2 a season in double A, where he was good but not outstanding.

http://www.thegamelive.com/baseballmlb.html#fla
There will be a Carlos Delgado press conference at 2:00 today, presumably down in Miami. Anyone stuck at work who wants to listen -- COMN for Marlins radio stations. WQAM works the best for me.

EXPANDING to 32 teams???
What, the pitching isn't bad enough already?

The idea that expansion is responsible for bad pitching is a myth. First of all, I don't even think there is a scarcity of pitching in the major leagues; I think it's a hitter's era and pitcher usage is suboptimal, so you do get to see slugging titans teeing off on the twelfth man on the staff pretty often. Second, why would expansion affect the supply of pitchers but not the supply of hitters?

I like the idea of adding a wild card team to each league and having a one game playoff between the two wild cards. It gives more importance to winning your division.

Personally, I think it stinks that, since the new playoff format was introduced, a Wildcard team has won the WS three times, and the team with the best record in baseball has only won once.

So, any new format that makes it harder on wildcard teams is fine by me...

I'm a traditionalist. I'd just as soon have a return to a balanced schedule and four pennant winners, but these days will never return.

As long as you have an un-balanced schedule, massive revenue generating disparity, and no meaningfull income sharing, there by arbitrarily placing certain teams at a competetive dis-advantage, you have to do something.

Actually the more I think about it, Mick's idea which is totally radical, makes a lot of sense. Every team begins the year with hope, the "regular" season has a modicum of value, the David vs. Goliath underdog mentality, which drives a lot of our interest in sports would generate huge interest. I can tell you first hand, that the Calgary Flames run to the Stanley Cup last year absolutely galvanized the city , and totally reinvigorated a sport which was failing badly in this city. Mick's idea might be crazy , but I think it would work!

Yeah, about that radio station for the press conference?

Never mind, since it's on MLB.TV right now.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=107
Gary Huckabay answered my question on Prospectus chat; COMN.

The reason that me Grimlock don't think that there should be expanded playoffs, is that baseball is a sport that lends itself to upsets far, far more than the other ones. It is not unheard of for Tampa Bay to defeat the Yanks on a given night.

Grimlock, a few of things. First, what the heck is with the third person thing? It's somehow very odd. Second, upsets happen in every sport, and they aren't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think that the notion that upsets are more likely in baseball then, say, the NBA (sorry, I don't follow football or hockey) is a bit of a misconception resulting from the fact that teams in baseball play so many more games than in any other sport. To use your example, sure, the Rays will pull out a few over the Yanks in a given season, but that's largely because they play 19 games against each other. Over a seven game series, the "better" team will generally win at least four games the vast majority of the time, in any sport (last year's ALCS excepted, when the clearly vastly superior team was creaming its opposition for the first three plus games, then somehow fell apart).

- Expand the majors to 32 teams, adding franchises in Vegas and Mexico City (or Havana, if applicable). Eight divisions of four teams each. No "leagues" per se.

I don't like the expanded playoff format, but I do like the symmetry of 8 4-team divisions, with one division winner advancing from each division.

I wonder how things would lineup:

NL Central: PIT,CHC,CIN,MIL
NL East: NYM,FLA,WAS,PHI
NL Midwest: ATL,STL,HOU,COL
NL West: LAD,SFG,SDP,ARI

I like the idea of another New Jersey franchise. Let's give one to Portland, Oregon as well to balance things out:

AL West: POR,SEA,ANA,OAK
AL East: NJ,NYY,BOS,BAL
AL North Central: MIN,CLE,TOR,DET
AL South Central: KC,TEX,CWS,TB

Let's give one to Portland, Oregon as well to balance things out

I would like to see a franchise in Portland. The one thing baseball is clearly missing is an equivalent to the Jailblazers.

From Rotoworld:

According to Boston Dirt Dogs, the Red Sox have agreed to terms with Japanese reliever Denny Tomori.
Tomori didn't impress the Jays during a workout last month, but the Red Sox may hope the 37-year-old sidearmer can do a decent Shingo Takatsu impression for a year.

If Tomori performs well with the Sox, how's that for a bite in the ass? (and I'm not faulting or criticizing J.P., just considering where he signed if he does a good Takatsu impression it will hurt).

First, what the heck is with the third person thing? It's somehow very odd.

I have to assume that Grimlock is pretty much the same age as me, which is why I get it.

If Tomori performs well with the Sox, how's that for a bite in the ass? (and I'm not faulting or criticizing J.P.,[...] )

This is what 2004 has done to us. It's conditioned us to accept this pattern as routine:

1. The Jays make a decision.
2. It seems sensible.
3. The decision doesn't work out.
4. We commiserate.

So that now we're doing this (and I'm as guilty as anyone).

1. The Jays make a decision.
2. It seems sensible.
3. We prepare to commiserate.

Tomori's the guy who made Bobby Mattick want to grab a bat, right?

http://www.battersbox.ca/archives/00002609.shtml
Our own Thomas Ayers wrote a piece on Japan's best relievers some time ago, and included a profile of Denny Tomori. COMN.

Aw, man. Stop!

Better?

Got it?

a bit of a misconception resulting from the fact that teams in baseball play so many more games than in any other sport

Absolutely true. If baseball had the same schedule as football - 16 games, play once a week - Arizona might have been a contender. RJ would have started every game, after all.

The idea that expansion is responsible for bad pitching is a myth.

Also true - expansion favours neither hitter nor pitcher.

Over time, changes in the ratio of major league teams to the size of the population base from which the players are drawn... anyway, the population base has grown faster than the number of teams. Time was when 16 teams took their players from a population of... what, 150 million people? Minus all the black people?

Anyway, the 30 teams now draw from a US population of almost 300 million, not to mention the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, etc etc.

If there is a shortage of pitching, which is doubtful - this is just a hitter's era - it has more to do with the bizarre insistence by almost every team that 11 or 12 must be on the active roster at all times.

any new format that makes it harder on wildcard teams is fine by me...

I'm cool with that as well. The wild card, I think, should be a little more like a reprieve from elimination, than an engraved invitation. Two wild cards, one game, winner-take-all. Doesn't mess up the schedule. I'm also open to the concept of a wild card team playing a disproportionate number of its playoff games on the road, in the first round anyway.

There should be a reward for finishing first, but that reward shouldn't involve sitting around and doing nothing for a week. In football, that is a reward, because football hurts. In baseball, you just get rusty.

If there is a shortage of pitching, which is doubtful - this is just a hitter's era - it has more to do with the bizarre insistence by almost every team that 11 or 12 must be on the active roster at all times.

And not only that, but also that the 11th and 12th guys are to be given significant amounts of work.

http://www.yankeefan.blogspot.com/
I've just been surfing the blogs, and I don't know if anyone here has mentioned it yet, but Larry Mahnken of the Hardball Times and his own excellent Yankees site just met with some big-time misfortune. His apartment burned down to the ground this week, and he got out with basically the clothes on his back.

If anyone is in a position to chip in and help him out, there is a PayPal link on Larry's site - I think it's actually there just to help support his blog, but see for yourselves. COMN.

I have to assume that Grimlock is pretty much the same age as me, which is why I get it.

NFH, elaborate please?

Seems to me that the playoff expansion push comes from people who would like to see other teams than the big spenders make it into the playoffs. I say leave the playoffs as they are, just fix the real problem - that one team has a payroll of $30 million and another has one of $200 million.

Matthew E. - I don't particularily think that Tomori will do well, and that's what I tried to get across when I said I wasn't faulting J.P. because his decision did, indeed, seem like the right one. It was who Tomori signed with that I thought made it worth mentioning.

The general structure of the playoffs now is perfect. It's hard to make the playoffs but not impossible and it creates great matchups. The problem isn't with the structure it's with the unbalanced schedule which by definition makes the wildcard competition unfair. A problem that is only compounded by the absurd weakness of the AL central. Fix those problems and every team in the American League would have a legitimate shot at winning. I would argue that with a balanced schedule the Jays would have had a better record than the Twins in 2003 and should have made the playoffs. So to summarize.

1) Balanced Schedule
2) Balanced Divisions
3) No more playoff teams.

NFH, elaborate please?

What I suspect NFH is alluding to is that he (like me, and obviously Grimlock) watched the Transformers cartoon as a kid.

Jsoh has it.

Grimlock was a Dinobot, and frequently said things like "ME GRIMLOCK SMAAAASH!"

12 teams MIN, 16 Max - that allows any team to get on a hot streak and ride it into the finals. First 2 series are best of 5, next 2 best of 7.

If it was 12 teams: NFL system
If it was 16 teams: NHL system

Allows some smaller markets to have a fighting chance of getting into the playoffs.

Less Division opponents as well (reg season). (yeah EVERYONE has to play the Yanks/Sox not just us).

I agree that the playoffs don't need to be changed, even though it hurts the Jays in the current configuration. But you really want the long regular season to count most and have few teams make the short, luck based playoffs.

But there is a change I'd like to see in the playoffs:

- No off days in the middle of a series. No getting away with only 3 pitchers. If a series goes 7 days I want it to be 7 in a row so that you have to use the full starting rotation and bullpen more.

If you did go to the 3 division winners + 2 wild card winners (a bad idea) you have 5 teams in the playoffs in each division. The Australian Rugby League League had an interesting playoff structure 15 years ago (no idea if they still have it) where 5 teams played and the bracket went (home field to better "team" at each point):

Round 1:

Team 1 gets bye.

Team 2 plays 3 in game A, winner becomes A-W, loser becomes A-L.

Team 4 plays 5 in game B, winner becomes B-W, loser becomes B-L.

B-L is eliminated and heads home.

Round 2:

Team 1 plays A-W in game C, winner becomes C-W, loser becomes C-L.

Team A-L plays B-W in game D, winner becomes D-W, loser becomes D-L.

D-L is eliminated.

Round 3:

C-L plays D-W in game E, winner becomes E-W, loser becomes E-L.

E-L is eliminated.

Round 4:

C-W plays E-W in game F, winner becomes F-W, loser becomes F-L.

If F-L is E-W, then it is eliminated and F-W wins.
If F-L is C-W then there is a round 5.

Round 5 (if needed):

C-W plays F-W in game H.

Winner wins it all.

In essence this is a single elimination for teams 4 and 5 (need to go 5-0 to win). A double elimination tournament for teams 2 and 3 (need to go either 3-0 or 3-1 or 4-1 [depending on when you lose] to win). A double elimination with a first round bye for team 1 (need to go 2-0 or 2-1 or 3-1 [depending on when you lose] to win). Each of these games could be replaced with a series (of varying lengths or same lengths - I'd suggest 3 games, 5 games, 7 games, 9 games, (9 games if needed) where each series is played on consecutive days with offdays only between each series). The drawback is that some people feel that a baseball team might suffer from a week off with no scheduled games. Also a team might not like getting fewer post season games (because of ticket sales) to win the championship because they were better.

Actually the more I think about it, Mick's idea which is totally radical, makes a lot of sense.

Since a couple of you like the idea, I saw we get on this modest proposal and get it implemented! Swiftly!

Is that still too obscure?

Mick, we get it already! You were punning Swift's "A Modest Proposal." Don't make me go Joyce on your a--.

Me Grimlock love the Transformers!

Anyways, what me Grimlock should have said, is that the difference between the good teams and bad teams in baseball is much closer than in other sports. The best teams in baseball are generally .600 teams, while the best NFL/NBA teams are .700 or better. The difference between favourite and underdog is much closer than in other sports. It's easier for a .500 team (your typical 8 seed) to beat a .600 team than it is for one to beat a .700 team. Adding more teams doesn't really mean much, since those extra teams have pretty much no chance to win the whole thing.

Sports, and baseball especially, is a game of skill. Luck plays a role, sure, but me Grimlock think that we shouldn't unnecessarily be increasing the role of luck.

The World Champion is already the team that was hottest in October. The current system makes it such that teams have to be of a certain quality in order to have that chance to get hot.

Even though it would return pennant races, me Grimlcok am not in favour of 8 4-team divisions. With that many divisions, there are bound to be some really crummy division champs. The only change me Grimlock would put in would be to change the first round to 7 games.

New Box motto:
Batter's Box: We Got Transformers. We Got English Lit. What You Lookin' At? You Talkin' to US?

By the way, Gitz, I love hypertext fiction pioneer Michael Joyce's work, and I've actually been on a couple of conference panels with him. That IS the Joyce you're referring to, right?

Am I the only one who thinks we sound a little intolerant?

I mean, doesn't every sports fan assume THEIR sport takes the most skill/intelligence/dedication...I've even heard CURLING fans make this claim.

I think the assertion that baseball is any more inclined to upsets than basketball or football seems a little dubious, especially when coupled by a baseball fan's claim that the reason for this is the inherent "skill" involved in the game. I would assume that in any sport, the more games you play, the more winning percentages even out, and baseball just happens to play the most games

I'd be willing to bet that leagues ranked by average winning pct.'s of top teams would correlate closely to leagues ranked by how many games they play

I for one agree that baseball is a greater game than basketball, football and even curling...but just like to point out that we may be a little biased in saying so

And just a thought

Maybe the long season baseball has requires a shorter playoff run, not in the sense of it would take too many days if you added another round

But more towards the idea that some kind of tension is needed all season. Now I realize 8 playoff spots means less tension for us in Toronto or other similar towns...but think of the poor boys in Boston and New York. Imagine, KNOWING in April that you're guaranteed a spot in the playoffs (it's bad enough fans there are pretty sure of it now, you want to erase ALL unease from their minds?) Good teams have just as much a right to meaningful games in September as mediocre teams do!

It looks like the 'wildcard playoff round' is the most popular suggestion here, and count me in favour. It simultaneously puts more teams in the playoffs and makes it more important to win your division.

Trivia question: Which team last won a World Series and a Division Title in the same year?

http://media.sports.ign.com/articles/583/583112/vids_1.html
COMN for the Delgado from the Jays to the Marlins transformation brought to you by the great people over at EA Canada.

I don't think baseball should be expanding, especially if they just contracted teams.

I like the two wild card system, but I would like even more teams in the playoffs, it creates more excitement and generate more money for teams like Oakland, Minny, and the Jays. But definitely, MLB needs to push aside the tradionalist values and see the game from what it is now.

I like the NFL Format, have the three division winners in, add three wild cards, give the top two division teams byes and have a playoff among those four teams and then the two winners play the two teams recieving byes.

The NBA/NHL format sends way too many teams in, over half and the first round usually doesn't generate any excitement as it is usually the top seeds crushing the lower ones.

Trivia question: Which team last won a World Series and a Division Title in the same year?

Without looking it up, I'd say Arizona.

And after looking it up, I'll stick with Arizona. :)

I had this idea over a year ago, and pass it on for what it's worth.

With 30 teams in the Leagues and only 4 from each making the playoffs, the season and fan interest is over in many cities by June or July. The day of watching even a losing team just for the joy of watching the play is long gone among many fans; playoff contention is what creates the most interest.

Traditionalists may argue that the purity of the game should remain intact, ignoring that baseball playoffs haven't been "pure" since Divisional play began. Much as we like to think of baseball as being unchanged over the past 100 years or so, nothing could be further from the truth. The ball itself is different, strike zones have been changed and changed back, heights of mounds have been adjusted and player skills have altered the game dramatically.

A more valid point raised by the traditionalists is that the 162 game season must mean something. Certainly if 8 teams from each League make the playoffs, there is a real possibility that a team with a regular season record under .500 might make the post-season (as might well have happened with the Rangers in the AL West in 1994). Many are uncomfortable with the idea that more than half of the teams in the Leagues would make the playoffs.

This might be a good compromise. In each League, 7 teams make the playoffs - the first and second place teams in each Division plus one League-wide wild card. The team in each League with the best overall record gets a bye in a new first round, a best of five series in which the second overall team plays the seventh overall team and so on. Home field advantage goes to the team with the better record. If there is a tie in the standings for first or second place in each Division or for the wild card, a one-game playoff would be held to determine the final standings.

After the new first round, the playoffs continue as now, with the first place team joining in.

It might be necessary to shorten the regular season to 154 or 156 games to accomodate the extra week of playoffs while still finishing the World Series in October, although I would rather keep the 162 game season (so that modern records for home runs, hits, pitching wins etc. remain meaningful and easily compared) and shorten the pre-season by a week or so. There may be concern about starting the regular season a week early because of possible cold and bad weather in northern ballparks. However, starting a week earlier in most years is not likely to give worse conditions than those in the early season of the last two years. I remember watching the Jays in Fenway wearing balaclavas in the second week of the 2003 season. Everyone survived!

I think the suggested format accomplishes four things - it lets more teams in and keeps interest alive in more cities while preserving the fun of the wild card race. At the same time it does reward the teams with the best records, thus making the regular season meaningful, and also ensures that less than half of the teams in the Leagues make the playoffs.

A variation on the above would involve MLB going back to two Divisions in each League (which I would love to see, but think highly unlikely). The top three teams in each Division and one League-wide wildcard team proceed as above.

I like the two wild card system, but I would like even more teams in the playoffs, it creates more excitement and generate more money for teams like Oakland, Minny, and the Jays. But definitely, MLB needs to push aside the tradionalist values and see the game from what it is now.

Oakland (well not last season) and Minny ALREADY makes the playoffs. Why would they need to expand the playoffs to have more teams of that ilk get in?

As the NHL has shown, a weak division can sometimes produce an undeserving top seed. For example, the Carolina Hurricanes may finish 7th overall in the Conference, but they earn the 3-seed by winning the division. I'd hate to see that happen in baseball. So why not go back to two conferences. First place in each gets a bye into the Divisional Series, and a chance to rest the regulars. Number 2 and 3 play a best-of-three, with the 2-seed getting home field advantage. Each league has six teams qualify, and the best clubs are rewarded for excellence in a 162-game schedule. To make room for three additional playoff games, the spring schedule is trimmed by a week.

What was the playoff system that someone in the media (ESPN?) proposed that ended up with three teams in each LCS? I liked that one! :)

Basketball may end up in the top seed dominating the other

But I never bought this argument for hockey, it always seems like the first round is the most exciting and it loses it's flair from there on culminating in a lackluster final (last year being the exception)

Delgado will continue not to stand for God Bless America next year.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/51-01272005-440001.html

Anyone around here feel the need to retract some of their statements about him?

I work for one of the wild-card teams that won the World Series in the last decade, and let me tell you from experience that EVERY argument for expanded playoffs is complete B.S. and can be refuted with both facts and solid logic.

I'm not going to return my playoff share or anything, because that is the reality of the current system...but it doesn't make the current set up right. Somebody else was better than we were; they proved it over six months. Why should we have gotten an extra three weeks to do what we couldn't over the whole season?

MLB is a different sport with a different history, different standards, and a different method of evaluation. Playoffs should be a reward for winners, not a second chance for losers.

If you're so in need of more teams in the playoffs, go watch one of those other ridiculous sports that you don't need to follow until the playoffs starts. Just leave MLB alone.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I am sick and tired of casual fans trying to make MLB into a clone of the other sports. That is the LAST thing we need. You don't sell a product by making it a duplicate of every other similar product on the market.

Ok JD, bring me a CBA that will allow our team to reach the playoffs, JUST REACH without every single damned things going right for the Jays.

Otherwise JD you will NEVER, EVER see the Jays in the playoffs more than 1 year in a row and if we even make it once it will be a complete and utter fluke.

Fan Interest is going to decline even further and soon there wont be ANY team in Canada.

Transformers! You're kidding me!

Liam used to watch it when he was younger, and like a responsible and involved parental unit, I did my best to ignore it.

I always thought Grimlock was just... eccentric? I had no cultural context. I feel shame.

And don't get me started on "A Modest Proposal." That little eight page pamphlet, that I wrote forty thousand words about back in the day...

Hmm.. a modest proposal ,"This satirical essay by Jonathan Swift uses a certainly unthinkable
prospect to shock the reader into looking at the alternatives in order to
change the economic and social problems of the day".

Is it really unthinkable to allow everybody into the play-offs? If your going to utilize a patently unfair regular season structure to determine play-off nominees, why not scrap it entirely.

My understanding is that some have proposed the NCAA consider abolishing the convuluted RPI ranking system to decide who gets into the national basketball tourney , replacing it with a single knock-out national tournament involving ALL division 1 teams. Thats right, all teams. Now obviously seeding would be a bitch , but you'd have no more arguements about at large bids, preferential treatment for certain conferences and all this by simply expanding the tourney by one week.

And off-course we had the famous Indiana all-comers State high school basketball tourney, in which every team in the state regardless of size competes for the mythical Hoosier championship. I say had ,since they've switched to a classification tournament according to school size which has been an un-mitigated disaster.

I've also heard that if the NHL returns this year, they'll have a short regular season seeding schedule, followed by EVERY team then progressing to the play-off rounds. I predict (if they settle and I believe they will) this format will be a huge hit.

So Mick, I called your idea radical and crazy, still it has some obtuse merit. As I said in the outset of my original post, I'd be happy if they returned simply to a balanced schedule, failing that and given the inherent inequity of the current system ,why not blow the whole damn thing up?

Playoffs should be a reward for winners, not a second chance for losers.

Then lets not have any playoffs at all. Here's a proposal, One League, one division, 30 teams, balanced schedule. The team in 1st place after 162 games is crowned World Series champion. Simple really.

I'm with J.D. The worst thing about the other sports is their playoff structure. Too many teams make the playoffs and the playoffs take too long. Making the playoffs should be an accomplishment of a good team that played well for an entire season. Fans shouldn't expect playoff berths, they should hope for them, otherwise you just take them for granted and don't enjoy the ride. It comes down to two things 1) should the regular season mean something and 2) should the championship go to the best team. An expanded playoff dilutes both of these things in favour of mediocrity. Maybe you enjoy watching the mediocre call themselves good and then be satisfied with their product. Those who want more playoff teams don't care about baseball they just want to see their team win. Those who like the playoffs the way they are like baseball-in-itself and simply want their team to compete. Making the playoffs simply because they allow more teams isn't competing it's charity.

Gaelen your theory would work better in an environment like the NFL, where teams all start on a relatively even footing, with almost total revenue sharing, non-guaranteed contracts, a hard salary cap, and a schedule based in part on a teams record in a prior year.

If you did this in baseball your plan might work ,and your fan base might still show interest.

Please forgive me; I don't know how to quote other people's posts in the italics format.

For CaramonLS:

You're thinking selfishly of what is good for the Jays instead of what is good for everyone. That isn't the right way to make the decision. You must separate the two in case they conflict (which they do here), just as I separated my employer's winning via the wild card from the issue of whether the wild card is good or bad.

By the way, I seem to recall the Jays winning the division 3 years in a row under the older, even fewer playoff teams format. This current dominance by NYY is cyclical and will someday pass into history, maybe even sooner than you think. Don't forget that the expanded playoff format is SOLELY responsible for their 1996 and 2000 titles. Otherwise, they might be bordering on disappointment territory with just the back-to-back wins in 1998/1999 rather than 4 of 5.

All this franchise needs to rekindle fan interest is one season of contending into September, but let's face facts...it doesn't have anything to do with the system, the team simply hasn't been very good for over a decade.

For Ryan C:

MLB essentially had that format from 1903-1968. The system worked fine for many years, and would have been all right with me if they had kept to it. One playoff spot/8 teams is probably about the right ratio for baseball, anyway. That's why the two-division format continued to work well for another 25 years after the change. Now that ratio has been cut in half, and it has had many effects...some obvious and some not so apparent.

I believe that one of the most damaging results is that it has given teams illusory contention and fooled them into thinking they still have a chance, whereas under the old system they would have admitted otherwise much sooner in the season and accelerated the rebuilding process. Look at how El Gordo kept lying to himself and trying to squeeze another year of the late 90s cast, based on little more than one 11-game winning streak in late 1998.

How is an 8 team system BETTER for baseball? Its not.

And not its not selfish, hell the expos would still be in Montreal if there was a 16 team system.

Caramon, not sure if you misunderstood this point...but I'm not advocating having only that number of teams. I'm saying 1 playoff spot/8 teams is probably the best ratio for MLB. With the current number of teams (30), four playoff spots is better than eight.

How is it better for baseball? If Selig had kept to the old format, it would have drastically REDUCED the number of recent playoff appearances by both NYY and Boston. I think it's obvious that would be better for the other teams.

Also, note that the old smaller format would have resulted in the Expos tying for the NL East title AFTER the strike in 1996...a result that would not have happened under the expanded playoff system. Keep in mind that Montreal was still outdrawing the large-market Mets at that time.

The Expos didn't need more teams in the playoffs to survive; all they needed was an owner with more commitment than a door-to-door salesman.

I think I need to clarify my position. I call myself a baseball traditionalist, yet I'm prepared to accept Mick's half baked satirical proposals given the current sad play-off structure.

Here's what would make old Rosy happy;

-Hard salary cap. This would also include a salary floor. The cap would also have to include some sort of leverage on amatuer signings, otherwise Steinbrenner would simply buy every Japanese/Dominican/hold out American player in the marketplace.

-A balanced schedule within your division.

-Two divisions, American and National league, both having the same rules(I.E. re. the D.H.). The winner of each division plays in the World Series.(Pretty radical eh?)

-Guaranteed salaries and 6 year free agency. My system would place teams on an even footing, relying on managerial acumen for success. If you screw up by signing a bad free agent you can't walk away from that poor contract like in the NFL.

-A yearly World Cup of baseball featuring the best players from the top countries playing, with no interference from MLB goofballs tolerated.( I'll call this the Dan O'Dowd rule)

-If you like playoffs, do what the Brits do, cut back on the regular season, and have extraneous cup competitions such as the F.A Cup or the European Cup were a variety of teams compete for the golden chalice. Which reminds me where is the Pearson cup anyways?

Failing this, if your going to insist on a half-assed un-balanced playing schedule leading to an unfair play-off structure ,with massive revenue disparity the order of the day, I argue start over and let everybody be in the wild-card hunt.

Hopefully I finally made myself somewhat clear. I'm off to bed.

Wildrose, you are clear to me, and I couldn't diagree more on your first point.

Salary cap is wrong. Steinbrenner isn't the problem in baseball. The problem is too many of the owners are not like Steinbrenner and Selig and the other owners don't allow anyone who wants to, and can afford to, become an owner in an attempt to keep some control on the ownership ranks.

Normalizing the DH is a who cares for me.

Guaranteed salaries are a good thing. The NFL player treatment is a joke.

World cup of Baseball isn't so good a format. The rest of the world hasn't caught up to the US, and MLB baseball is better than national baseball.

I think it is a different Brit thing that would be good (and they don't have a playoffs for people unfamiliar, the regular season is the main thing and the team that finishes 1st wins the premiership), and that is relegation. It doesn't really work because of the AAA system and the length of time it takes to develop drafted baseball players. But if you wanted to force the owners to try and field competitive teams nothing would be more motivating than relegation. Your shiney MLB team becomes a not-major-league team if you mismanage it or don't fund it. And it democratizes the ownership as a smart rich owner could buy a division 2 team for a song and, if they manage it well and invest in it, have it get promoted through division 1 and into the majors. But it totally doesn't work given the realities of the ML setup.

Grimlock was a Dinobot, and frequently said things like "ME GRIMLOCK SMAAAASH!"

I remember that now! I used to love that show. But that was like 20 years ago, I'd completely forgotten...

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet because I just skimmed through the thread, but I'm a fan of Bob Costas' idea of "the 3-0 count." Three divisions, no wildcard, the team with the best record gets a bye into the LCS, the other two division winners play a best of five LDS.

I'm not sure anyone is still reading this thread, but I'd like to point out one thing that really ticks me off.

I'm sick and freaking tired of being called a 'traditionalist' just because I don't wholeheartedly embrace every one-buttocked idea that falls out of somebody's gob.

I'm not a traditionalist. I don't want baseball to be like it was in the old days. To hell with the old days. I want baseball to be good, and expanding the playoffs much more isn't, in my informed opinion, good.

--

Which brings me to another thing:

Traditionalists may argue that the purity of the game should remain intact, ignoring that baseball playoffs haven't been "pure" since Divisional play began. Much as we like to think of baseball as being unchanged over the past 100 years or so, nothing could be further from the truth.

So what are you saying here - that just because baseball has changed in the past, therefore nobody has any right to object to any other changes? That's like saying that once you lose your virginity, you have to become a prostitute.

--

And PRINT IT.

So what are you saying here - that just because baseball has changed in the past, therefore nobody has any right to object to any other changes?

No, he's saying that you cant object simply on the grounds that it's baseball and historical and traditional and "purity of the game" and all that jazz. Not that that is what you were saying. You can still object on the grounds that the idea sucks.

That's like saying that once you lose your virginity, you have to become a prostitute.

Good line. Maybe we should just end the thread there and award Matty a Boxy.

The answer is obvious. Toronto transfers to the AL Central and Kansas City to the AL West.

Very late to the party, I know...

How should the MLB playoffs be structured?

Exactly like the NHL and NBA playoffs, but without the top 3 seeds being reserved for the division winners. So - eight playoff teams in each league, a straight knockout playoff thereafter with three best-of-seven series to determine the World Series teams.

If you really are keen on preserving the divisions, then sure, knock yourself out and reserve seeds 1-3 in each league for the three division winners. It's a minor detail.

The only difference should be that unlike the NBA (but like the NHL), the playoffs should be a best-of-7 series in each of the four rounds.

I'm not a traditionalist. I don't want baseball to be like it was in the old days. To hell with the old days. I want baseball to be good, and expanding the playoffs much more isn't, in my informed opinion, good.

I respect that, I just think that ignores the experience of the other major professional leagues, and more to the point, ignores the experience of the typical baseball fan. I *love* the playoffs. I like the regular season, but not half as much as the playoffs. More playoffs is good for everyone.

More comments to come...

The answer is obvious. Toronto transfers to the AL Central and Kansas City to the AL West.

Toronto doesn't belong in the Central, and KC doesn't belong in the West; it's absurd to put a team in the Eastern Time zone into the Central and a team in the Central Time zone into the West.

Since you have seven teams in the Eastern Time zone in the AL, two have to move into the Central. The two westernmost are Cleveland and Detroit, so they get the Central.

I know that the more parochial Jays fans lust after the division which is temporarily weaker, but there's no sane reason for anyone who is not actually a Blue Jays partisan to support this idea.

And finally...

if you don't like the hockey-style playoffs, one way that you could come up with a wild-card that I've always supported is a high school-style tournament, like a conference tournament. Everyone qualifies and one wild card spot goes to the winner.

Have the three division winners qualify automatically for the Division Series. Then have the remaining eleven teams (we'll use the AL for this example; the NL would work similarly) play a knockout, single-elimination tournament for the wild card spot. Each team would play two games a day, over a two-day period, in two parks close together (ideally, you'd use cities where there were two major-league parks, like New York, LA or Chicago, or close-together cities where transportation between the game days was easy). So seeds 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would get first-round byes; and teams 9 through 14 would face off in the late morning and early afternoon of day one. The winners of those brackets and the five bye teams would play that late afternoon and evening.

Four winners of those games would play in the afternoon of Day 2 to determine a final pairing for that evening, who would play for the wild card spot.

It would essentially be like the opening days of the NCAA tournament - the bast day of the year for the hardcore sports nut - but many, many times more intense.

It'll never happen, but I always think how fun it would be.

It'll never happen, but I always think how fun it would be.

That sounds like a good idea. A very good idea, actually. I can't even imagine how intense those two days would be. Let's see how 2004 would have worked:

New York, Minnesota, Anaheim get byes through to the Division Series. Boston, Oakland, Texas, Chicago, Cleveland are the 4-8 seeds. That leaves Baltimore, Detroit, Tampa, Toronto, Seattle, Kansas City. Monday at noon, we have Orioles-Royals and Tigers-Mariners. Jays and Rays go later, about 3:00. For the sake of argument, let's say Baltimore, Detroit, and Toronto win.

Now you have:
BAL @ TEX (5:00)
DET @ OAK (after TB-TOR)
TOR @ BOS (after Texas game)
CLE @ CHI (after Oakland game)
There may be a problem with the scheduling, since you can't have three games at once. But I'm sure that would be worked out.

Then the winners: Boston, Oakland, Texas, Chicago -- again, just assuming they win -- play Tuesday at 2. Then the final Wildcard Game Tuesday night. The Divisional Series opens on Thursday, and goes Thu-Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon. LCS Wed-Thu-Sat-Sun-Mon-Wed-Thu. World Series to follow.

And it won't make the end of the season meaningless, either. Imagine a battle between two teams for 8th place, to see which one gets the advantage of not playing two games the next day.

In case anyone can't tell, I'm quite taken with this idea.

I said it before and I'll say it again. C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

Matthew, Gen. Bosquet knew a thing or two about cavalry, but he didn't know a thing about marketing.

Not a Jays fan, first-time poster, long-time reader, live in CA...

First, I'll say what I think WILL happen after the new CBA is negotiated in 2007:

I think we will get two wild-cards, and the division series will be best of 7. The schedule will be adjusted so that one of two things happens:

1. Either the regular season will end on a Thursday, and the wild-cards will play best-of-3 on FSS so Selig, with his envy of football, will have his own "wild-card weekend."
2. The schedule will end on Friday, with one-game playoffs on Saturday afternoon and night since Selig would be
chickenshit about going head-to-head with the NFL.

The Division Series will expand to best-of-7.

These moves will throw a bone to "traditionalists" who want the division titles to matter, and more importantly from Selig's POV, give the TV networks more post-season games.

Now, what I think SHOULD happen with four preface points:

First, I like the unbalanced schedule. I think divisional opponents SHOULD play each other more often and should play in September. However, from a competitive fairness standpoint, it obviously does not work with the WC and to some extent with three divisions.

Second, as Rob Neyer said, a little "injustice" is good for baseball from a dramatic standpoint. I don't see a huge problem with a 98-win team missing the playoffs if they finish second. The Red Sox earned their ring, as did the Marlins and Angels, but I also think the Red Sox SHOULD have to go home if they finish behind the Yankees and vice versa.

Third, all systems involve tradeoffs. A lot of people like the 2 wild-card idea. Well, if the AL had had that in 2004, the Red Sox would have had to beat the A's one game to move on, and the last weekend series between Oakland and Anahheim would have had a lot less meaning. That would have been lost, and, let's see--the Red Sox in Fenway for one game vs. Oak with Schilling going...I'd say that is about a 25% shot you don't see the Bos/NYY ALCS.

Speaking of which--it was exciting. But September in the AL East was a bore--both teams were in.

Fourth, I think the idea of a huge everybody-in tournament would be a massive mistake. I don't think it would help attendance or anything else.

I personally would like to see the old two-division with 7/8 teams and winner-moves-on set up, but that will never happen. When they decided to go to divisions in 1969, a lot of people must have bitched. Joe Cronin allegedly said "you can't sell a twelfth-place team." I think it would be hard to sell an eighth-place team today, and no way the networks and MLB agree to FEWER postseason games.
With three divisions, I would take an unbalanced schedule, and all three winners move on. Best record gets a bye. 2/3 records play one game, Monday night and Tuesday night dep on league, to move on. LCSs start the next day. This makes winning the division AND having the best record in the league a big deal.
Assuming we have to have wild-cards, I think the two-wild card set up is preferable, with the one game playoff. Then, the WC winner has to play games 1-3 and 6-7 if need be on the road against the top seed--even if that seed is in their division. If the DS is best of-five, WC winner has 1-3 on the road. They have to win to get home for Game 4, and Game 5 is back in the division winner's park.