Blue Jays Discussion: Post Non-Waiver Trade Deadline Edition

[Discoverer]

Difference of opinion i guess. It works out perfectly if you have 2-4 teams tied but if you have 5 then it isnt just 2 extra days. Plus what happens if you have a 5 way tie for the 1st and 2nd wildcard spots - you are looking at a scenario of more than 2 extra days.... where teams have to play for the 1st WC spot then the 2nd. Then what happens if it rains?

What happens to the rest of the playoffs? Does the NL move forward as scheduled or do they wait for everything to be settled? Usually they wait for one round to be settled and they move forward. Either way there is a disadvantage to some team.

You risk snow if the playoffs are delayed by more than a few days going into November. Or if the league is forced to play a game then you are looking at playing in potentially slick conditions which isnt ideal for player safety (Harper's injury). And/or long delays where games are going after midnight - not all that great for ratings or fans who bought tickets (one of the reasons why i think retractable roofs should be mandatory for any new stadiums but i know a lot of people would disagree with this).

I think that would be a disaster. The season is too long - i dont complain as the Rogers centre has a dome but if it gets delayed elsewhere then you are looking at pushing an already long season potentially further into November.

I just dont see a lot of value in elimination games for playoff spots when you have better and the more meaningful (of actually) playoff games coming up. If you want exciting baseball then you have playoff baseball coming. Playoff games vs. games to determine who gets in the playoffs... i know which ones i like/are more important.

This wasnt an issue in years past but the MLB has made a bigger effort with the IFA and luxury tax penalties and with players getting 30-40M salaries it really evens things out. Parity has caused this which is good (parity is great for the game but not under the current tie break system) but can be a potential disaster depending who you asked if you have a multiple team tied at the end of the season.

I know i might sound like a tinfoil conspirator but these are potentially real issues that the game might face at the end of this season that they havent seen before. A pre-wildcard tiebreaker has only happened 4 times in MLB history (2 out of the 4 times the game was played before October which lessen my concern) and only once since the 2nd wildcard spot was introduced. This might be a problem every year due to recent efforts to enhance parity.

-------

I just like the simple NHL/NBA/NFL format - you know who is in on the last day of the season. Gives teams time to prepare and rest - you have a well rest playoff team vs another well rested playoff team.

I think that is best for competition.

And, as a fan of baseball, I like the idea of teams playing a long season, ending up with an identical record, and then having them play an intense, high-stakes, do-or-die game against each other. And if it comes down to having a series of 3-4 of those games to see how things play out, that's even better.

It's well worth the tiny, tiny risk of having a 5-way tie that means adding three days to the schedule instead of two and leaves some of these teams tired heading into the playoffs, and it actually lends more weight to the regular season by making winning the division even more important.

The best thing for baseball is having more teams involved as long as possible and having more exciting, meaningful games. The games that come of a tie-breaker scenario are as exciting as they can possible get. It's a great system.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Well only 32K on a Monday night against the Rays. Lowest attendance all year has been 29,281, and assuming most of those were STH, the walkup crowd is dropped.

Even against the Pirates, the jays only got 36K on the Friday and 43K on the Sunday. Weekend games didn't sell-out and the bandwagon is dropping.

However, win a few games in a row, jump a few spots in the wild card standings, and who knows what will happen.

Last night was the first game in a long time where sections in the 200 level were practically empty.

The bandwagon will empty out fast if the Jays end up 5th in the AL East

Times are good if 32K is considered a tad low. I remember in 2011 there was a game in September where attendance was 11K.

 

[phillipmike]

Well only 32K on a Monday night against the Rays. Lowest attendance all year has been 29,281, and assuming most of those were STH, the walkup crowd is dropped.

Even against the Pirates, the jays only got 36K on the Friday and 43K on the Sunday. Weekend games didn't sell-out and the bandwagon is dropping.

However, win a few games in a row, jump a few spots in the wild card standings, and who knows what will happen.

Last night was the first game in a long time where sections in the 200 level were practically empty.

The bandwagon will empty out fast if the Jays end up 5th in the AL East

Nick Tepesch pitching probably had something to do with it too. When i have a choice in buying tickets i always looked for the best pitchers - i always went to 1-2 Halladay games a year.

 

[hockeywiz542]

 

[Patmac40]

Nick Tepesch pitching probably had something to do with it too. When i have a choice in buying tickets i always looked for the best pitchers - i always went to 1-2 Halladay games a year.

Yeah I'm in the city and had a chance to go to the game. Saw Tepesch was pitching and just went to a bar to watch instead. Plus I've seen them play Tampa a bunch of times.

 

[phillipmike]

And, as a fan of baseball, I like the idea of teams playing a long season, ending up with an identical record, and then having them play an intense, high-stakes, do-or-die game against each other. And if it comes down to having a series of 3-4 of those games to see how things play out, that's even better.

It's well worth the tiny, tiny risk of having a 5-way tie that means adding three days to the schedule instead of two and leaves some of these teams tired heading into the playoffs, and it actually lends more weight to the regular season by making winning the division even more important.

The best thing for baseball is having more teams involved as long as possible and having more exciting, meaningful games. The games that come of a tie-breaker scenario are as exciting as they can possible get. It's a great system.

Definitely a difference of opinion because most of what you described is cringe worthy for me. Not a fan of having a playoff spot dictated by 1 game vs the performance over the course of an entire season (the tiebreaker of head to head or say run differential). I like the emphasis on the 162 games not just the one.

Although they are exciting i never been a fan of the wildcard games. Too much at stake for 1 game - NFL has no choice due to the nature of the game and the time it takes to heal but for baseball i never liked it.

Something i wished would happen (which i have said on this board before and i know would never happen) is you chop the regular season down to 140 games... 8 teams make the playoffs like the NBA and NHL and you have 4 full series that is best of 7. 6 more playoff teams would do wonders for the league and the playoffs start in early September. More teams in it until the end and a better shot at making the playoffs. More playoff games equals more revenue sharing to the bad teams as well.

 

[theaub]

I enjoy the wildcard game because it gives a tangible benefit for winning your division. If you aren't even the best team in your division during the regular season, I don't think you can be fit to complain about having to deal with the unfairness of a one game playoff. There are some times where it is certainly more unfair than others (see: 2015 NL Central), but in the long run it evens out.

Also, meaningful games are good. The goal should be to reward good teams while doing as much as possible to maximize the number teams playing relevant games late into the season. The WC2 does a fantastic job of that.

 

[Cor]

How many homers could Stanton hit playing 81 games in the Skydome?

 

[phillipmike]

I enjoy the wildcard game because it gives a tangible benefit for winning your division. If you aren't even the best team in your division during the regular season, I don't think you can be fit to complain about having to deal with the unfairness of a one game playoff. There are some times where it is certainly more unfair than others (see: 2015 NL Central), but in the long run it evens out.

Also, meaningful games are good. The goal should be to reward good teams while doing as much as possible to maximize the number teams playing relevant games late into the season. The WC2 does a fantastic job of that.

I think the benefit of winning your division in an 8 team playoff is you would be guaranteed home field advantage which is probably a bigger advantage in baseball than hockey and basketball as you bat last.

I prefer more than a 1 game flip of a coin because it gives teams more of an opportunity to win. Small budget teams have even shorter windows like Oakland and Pittsburgh - they lose coin flip games that was it for their core. Whereas if they played a 5 or 7 game series and still lose they will get millions more in playoff revenue and likely gain more of a fan base with a playoff series lose than losing one game. Especially the Pirates who got shutout in back to back wildcard games.

Of course the argument can be made well no one should be complaining because in the old system there wasnt a wild card to begin with let alone 2 spots. But all i am advocating for is more playoff teams = more teams/parity = more revenue for more teams. A series = more baseball which might drive more fans in for those teams. Baltimore lost a game but if they lost a series in game 5 then i think that is worth a lot more to the players, the fans and to baseball from a financial and sentimental standpoint.

I definitely would've appreciated the Leafs losing to Washington in 6 games in a series vs losing to them in a 1 game playoff.

Let's say we are in a race at the end of the season and we have Stroman going on the last day of the season. Then we have to play 2 games in a row for tiebreaker and that is Estrada and Happ's start. If we advance to the wildcard game then we might have to use Tepesch/Rowley/Biagini against a rested Severino and the Yankees at Yankee stadium OR use Stroman on 3 maybe 4 days rest. If i am the Commissioner that isnt something i want to see in a 1 game playoff. The better well rest team with one of the best pitchers in baseball playing at home vs a tired team and their AAA starter.

Which brings us back to full circle because i expect someone to say "win your division and that wont be a problem." Well its not like your team wasnt trying to win... for me if i am a Commissioner i want my playoffs to be best on best which sets you up for better more intriguing games. I want to see Stroman vs Severino not potentially a #4 or 5 in playoff do or die. Imagine an NBA 1 game playoff where LeBron cant play or Crosby cant play in the NHL... not good for the sport. Where the game is evolving baseball is the only sport where you might not have your best player for a 1 game playoff which i think is horrible for the game.

In 2013 Cleveland lost a 1 game playoff with their 5th starter which Kluber, Jimenez and Masterson sitting on the bench - Price was on the bench for Tampa and had Tampa lost it would have been a bigger injustice. It hasnt happened often but with the increase of parity i think it opens the league up for a greater chance of tiebreakers at the end of a season which would water down the product of their playoffs mainly the wildcard game. You want to have best on best from day one of the playoffs.

 

[phillipmike]

How many homers could Stanton hit playing 81 games in the Skydome?

A lot but only way i take on Stanton's remaining 300M is if Miami picks up 100M of it and at that point you might have a bunch of teams interested. The contract was idiotic to begin with and less than 2 years later they want to move it. They should have moved him after the 2014 season and got a bounty for him.

Signing that contract in the beginning wasnt their MO and now they are paying for it. That being said i think someone is stupid enough to take on that contract because you would be getting a top 5 baseball player in hi prime for 3-4 more seasons.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Toss me in on the side of tiebreaker games are a far better way of breaking ties than going to a ridiculous tiebreaker that teams aren't even playing for during the season like run differential. You play to win, not to say, lets get 3 more runs here and lose by 3 instead of 6 so in case a run differential tiebreaker comes in at the end of the year we're not screwed. If you're tied you're tied, silly tiebreaking stats are fine to determine who's in a better spot for tiebreaking games but it's dumb to eliminate teams based on them. Teams play to win and we're exactly tied on that, all tied teams should still be in with a chance. H2H would be more reasonable, but in a WC situation where the schedule is drastically different you may be tied with a 2 teams 1 you played 19 times the other you played 7 it's a bit weird. Tying a team on the overall MLB goal in a season(to win games) and not get a chance to advance while they advance automatically would be one of the most stupid and painful things ever. It's dumb in every sport it happens in.

The 0.00001% chance of a 5 way tie for 1 spot at the end of the year and teams needing 3 days of tiebreakers before the WC game is a very small price to pay, and still fun for fans when it happens. Even in the 5 teams for 2 spots scenario I think they would go 2 teams play off for 1 spot, the other 3 play a bracket where 2 play each other, winner gets the 3rd to get in, and home field is determined somehow between the 2 teams that advance. So it's still only 2 days of tiebreakers.

 

[phillipmike]

Blue Jays righty Marco Estrada has been claimed on revocable waivers by an as-yet unidentified team, according to MLB.com’s Jon Morosi (via Twitter). It is not yet known whether he will end up changing uniforms.

The teams will have 48 hours from the point that the claim was awarded to attempt to work out a trade. If no deal can be completed, Toronto will be able to elect whether to allow the other team to take over Estrada’s contract or instead to pull him back. In the latter case, Estrada could not be traded without being exposed again to the waiver wire — this time without the right to revoke.

I wonder who it was.

 

[Canada4Gold]

I wonder who it was.

Interesting. Not sure why they didn't put him on waivers earlier, he probably wouldn't have cleared either way but he would have been more likely to clear earlier, though I guess they wanted to maximize value in trade, and value to team's chances by continuing to play him if he pitches well which he has.

We're sorta back into it now, by a small chance anyway, so we won't just give him away, it would have to make sense for us which it probably won't but we'll see I guess.

 

[phillipmike]

Toss me in on the side of tiebreaker games are a far better way of breaking ties than going to a ridiculous tiebreaker that teams aren't even playing for during the season like run differential. You play to win, not to say, lets get 3 more runs here and lose by 3 instead of 6 so in case a run differential tiebreaker comes in at the end of the year we're not screwed. If you're tied you're tied, silly tiebreaking stats are fine to determine who's in a better spot for tiebreaking games but it's dumb to eliminate teams based on them. Teams play to win and we're exactly tied on that, all tied teams should still be in with a chance. H2H would be more reasonable, but in a WC situation where the schedule is drastically different you may be tied with a 2 teams 1 you played 19 times the other you played 7 it's a bit weird. Tying a team on the overall MLB goal in a season(to win games) and not get a chance to advance while they advance automatically would be one of the most stupid and painful things ever. It's dumb in every sport it happens in.

The 0.00001% chance of a 5 way tie for 1 spot at the end of the year and teams needing 3 days of tiebreakers before the WC game is a very small price to pay, and still fun for fans when it happens. Even in the 5 teams for 2 spots scenario I think they would go 2 teams play off for 1 spot, the other 3 play a bracket where 2 play each other, winner gets the 3rd to get in, and home field is determined somehow between the 2 teams that advance. So it's still only 2 days of tiebreakers.

But how would you determine who are the 2 teams that "play for 1 spot, the other 3 play a bracket where 2 play each other"?

As unlucky as it seems i am gonna bet we see something wild where there is a few teams tied at the end of the year and it will get messy. It seems unlikely but this is only year 6 of the 2nd wildcard and the 1st year things have every been this close so late in the season and quite possibly a .500 team makes the playoffs. It has happened only twice in MLB history (both in the NL) with the Pads 2005 and Mets in 1973. The lowest win total to win an AL playoff spot was the 85 win Twins in 1987

 

[Loosie]

Soooo....will he pitch tonight has become the new story going into the game? I bet you it was the Rays just to **** with us

 

[phillipmike]

Well that throws water on that.

 

[theaub]

Toss me in on the side of tiebreaker games are a far better way of breaking ties than going to a ridiculous tiebreaker that teams aren't even playing for during the season like run differential. You play to win, not to say, lets get 3 more runs here and lose by 3 instead of 6 so in case a run differential tiebreaker comes in at the end of the year we're not screwed. If you're tied you're tied, silly tiebreaking stats are fine to determine who's in a better spot for tiebreaking games but it's dumb to eliminate teams based on them. Teams play to win and we're exactly tied on that, all tied teams should still be in with a chance. H2H would be more reasonable, but in a WC situation where the schedule is drastically different you may be tied with a 2 teams 1 you played 19 times the other you played 7 it's a bit weird. Tying a team on the overall MLB goal in a season(to win games) and not get a chance to advance while they advance automatically would be one of the most stupid and painful things ever. It's dumb in every sport it happens in.

The 0.00001% chance of a 5 way tie for 1 spot at the end of the year and teams needing 3 days of tiebreakers before the WC game is a very small price to pay, and still fun for fans when it happens. Even in the 5 teams for 2 spots scenario I think they would go 2 teams play off for 1 spot, the other 3 play a bracket where 2 play each other, winner gets the 3rd to get in, and home field is determined somehow between the 2 teams that advance. So it's still only 2 days of tiebreakers.

This is pretty much spot-on.

Using run differential would fundamentally change how the game is played. All of the sudden floating around for a couple innings and having a 12-2 game turn into a 12-7 game has the potential to have a dramatic impact on the season. Closer and top end reliever usage increases greatly - teams don't pull starters and continue to run/bunt etc deep into blowouts. And at the end of the day, does having a +15 higher run differential (that's less than 1 run every 10 games) really mean anything?

H2H fails to take into account pitching matchups, home field and injuries. Let's say the Jays and Seattle finish tied for the wildcard. The Jays crushed the M's 6-1 in H2H this year.

Jays SP: Estrada, Biagini x2, Stroman x2, Sanchez, Happ
Mariners SP: de Jong, Bergmann, Weber, Miranda x2, Gaviglio, Paxton

Now I'm not saying the Mariners have a good starting rotation or anything, but there's a lot of garbage there, and its not garbage that's being thrown out by Seattle every five days. Not to mention the Jays had an extra home game.

But how would you determine who are the 2 teams that "play for 1 spot, the other 3 play a bracket where 2 play each other"?

As unlucky as it seems i am gonna bet we see something wild where there is a few teams tied at the end of the year and it will get messy. It seems unlikely but this is only year 6 of the 2nd wildcard and the 1st year things have every been this close so late in the season and quite possibly a .500 team makes the playoffs. It has happened only twice in MLB history (both in the NL) with the Pads 2005 and Mets in 1973. The lowest win total to win an AL playoff spot was the 85 win Twins in 1987

There's nothing wrong with something like this being decided by a H2H tiebreaker (which IIRC it is), as otherwise it would just be a random draw. At least every team gets a chance to earn their spot on the field though. Like, the Jays tying for a WC spot and then not having a chance to play because Matt Dermody gave up about 1100 home runs to the Orioles on a Sunday in April is rather ludicrous, isn't it?

I, for one, welcome our new chaos overlords.

 

[Cor]

I still don't think we have a chance. The GB may not be huge itself, but the amount of teams we need to leapfrog is ridiculous.

If whoever claimed Estrada is willing to give us a decent prospect or two, I'd do it. We can always look to bring him back this winter

 

[Canada4Gold]

But how would you determine who are the 2 teams that "play for 1 spot, the other 3 play a bracket where 2 play each other"?

As unlucky as it seems i am gonna bet we see something wild where there is a few teams tied at the end of the year and it will get messy. It seems unlikely but this is only year 6 of the 2nd wildcard and the 1st year things have every been this close so late in the season and quite possibly a .500 team makes the playoffs. It has happened only twice in MLB history (both in the NL) with the Pads 2005 and Mets in 1973. The lowest win total to win an AL playoff spot was the 85 win Twins in 1987

The same way MLB went to teams last year and asked them which spot they wanted in the potential 3 way tiebreaker for 2 spots, spot A, spot B, or spot C. A and B were to play in A's ballpark, then the winner of that got in and C hosted the loser for the 2nd spot. Tiebreaker stats decide who gets first choice. Jays took the obvious A choice and Baltimore got quite ridiculed for choosing C for 1 shot at home instead of 2 on the road. I think the 3 team was the Tigers who didn't make the tie, and it was straight Jays and O'd tied for both WC spots so not tiebreaker was necessary.

They'd have 5 spots for 5 tied teams, label them A, B, C, D, E. Go through all the tiebreaking stats to determine who has first choice, and they'd go get the teams choices in advance of the tie even happening like they did last year. The likely choices would be A hosts B for 1 spot, and D hosts E with the winner to host C for the other.

Here is the MLB link, I don't believe they have gone to the point of listing scenarios for 5 way ties but I assume they have the scenarios that they would go through in those cases.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/59527184/playoff-tiebreaker-rules/

Here's the one that could have happened last year, along with the link to the story about the choices and how they went about it

After Clubs have been assigned their A, B and C designations, Club A would host Club B. The winner of the game would be declared one Wild Card winner. Club C would then host the loser of the game between Club A and Club B to determine the second Wild Card Club.

 

[Canada4Gold]

I still don't think we have a chance. The GB may not be huge itself, but the amount of teams we need to leapfrog is ridiculous.

If whoever claimed Estrada is willing to give us a decent prospect or two, I'd do it. We can always look to bring him back this winter

I look at the teams ahead of us and I feel very underwhelmed about any of their chances to get to 85-77 TBH. They're all very mediocre. It is of course very different than being 3.5 games behind 1 mediocre teams where they 5 or 6 mediocre teams have a much better chance 1 of them goes on a run to get to 85 or more. But honestly I don't see any of them getting to 85, Jays need to go 28-16 to get there which is a bit of a stretch sure, but it's quite possible nobody even gets to 83. Fangraphs I think is predicting 82 right now, which again with a big number of teams around that area variation makes it more likely just 1 team jumps above that compared to just chasing 1 team, but it wouldn't shock me that much if nobody does. 25-19 could be enough. We're pretty close to the best of these teams in the chase, and have been playing one of the best lately, even with how underwhelming we've played, just not sure we have enough time to play well enough to catch up.

 

[zeke]

Arden Zwelling @ArdenZwelling
now
Told of @jonmorosi report Marco Estrada was claimed on waivers, Blue Jays manager John Gibbons: "Nothing's going to happen. We need him."

 

[hoglund]

I look at the teams ahead of us and I feel very underwhelmed about any of their chances to get to 85-77 TBH. They're all very mediocre. It is of course very different than being 3.5 games behind 1 mediocre teams where they 5 or 6 mediocre teams have a much better chance 1 of them goes on a run to get to 85 or more. But honestly I don't see any of them getting to 85, Jays need to go 28-16 to get there which is a bit of a stretch sure, but it's quite possible nobody even gets to 83. Fangraphs I think is predicting 82 right now, which again with a big number of teams around that area variation makes it more likely just 1 team jumps above that compared to just chasing 1 team, but it wouldn't shock me that much if nobody does. 25-19 could be enough. We're pretty close to the best of these teams in the chase, and have been playing one of the best lately, even with how underwhelming we've played, just not sure we have enough time to play well enough to catch up.

I agree, there are a few teams to leap frog, but none of them are dominant teams, we'll see.

 

[Discoverer]

I prefer more than a 1 game flip of a coin because it gives teams more of an opportunity to win.

The alternative playoff format you've suggested is a different thing altogether. This isn't a "one-game coin flip vs. longer series" discussion. It's a "one-game coin flip vs. nothing" discussion.

You're arguing against something that no one is arguing for. No one has suggested that a shorter series is better. All anyone is saying is to leave it the way it is and add a couple more (highly intriguing and profitable) games if there's a tie rather than skipping those games altogether.

Small budget teams have even shorter windows like Oakland and Pittsburgh - they lose coin flip games that was it for their core. Whereas if they played a 5 or 7 game series and still lose they will get millions more in playoff revenue and likely gain more of a fan base with a playoff series lose than losing one game. Especially the Pirates who got shutout in back to back wildcard games.

Again... this is a "one-game coin flip vs. nothing" discussion, so the Oakland and Pittsburgh examples aren't really relevant.

Of course the argument can be made well no one should be complaining because in the old system there wasnt a wild card to begin with let alone 2 spots. But all i am advocating for is more playoff teams = more teams/parity = more revenue for more teams. A series = more baseball which might drive more fans in for those teams. Baltimore lost a game but if they lost a series in game 5 then i think that is worth a lot more to the players, the fans and to baseball from a financial and sentimental standpoint.

Playing those one-game play-ins means more revenue and more national interest than skipping them.

I definitely would've appreciated the Leafs losing to Washington in 6 games in a series vs losing to them in a 1 game playoff.

That's not a relevant comparison at all. Again... this is about a tie-breaker. Imagine NYI and TB had each gotten one more point this past season. Would you rather see a scenario where the three teams have a brief, two day play-in series (TOR vs. NYI, winner plays TB, winner goes on) or would you rather see TB move on and that's that?

Let's say we are in a race at the end of the season and we have Stroman going on the last day of the season. Then we have to play 2 games in a row for tiebreaker and that is Estrada and Happ's start. If we advance to the wildcard game then we might have to use Tepesch/Rowley/Biagini against a rested Severino and the Yankees at Yankee stadium OR use Stroman on 3 maybe 4 days rest. If i am the Commissioner that isnt something i want to see in a 1 game playoff. The better well rest team with one of the best pitchers in baseball playing at home vs a tired team and their AAA starter.

I like having discussions with you about this kind of stuff because your arguments are usually well thought out and reasonable, but you have a tendency to lean too heavily on hypotheticals, which never make good arguments. For example:

Your hypothetical: Jays use Stroman on the last day of the season to win and create the elusive four-way tie-breaker. Estrada wins a one-game playoff. Happ wins a one-game playoff. Jays head to the Wild Card game having to decide between Stroman on short rest, Rowley, Biagini, etc. against the other team's ace.

Your preferred scenario: What Stroman does on the last day of the season doesn't matter because the Jays run-differential is terrible and, even if they win, they lose the tie-breaker.

The scenario you DON'T like includes do-or-die wins from Stroman, Estrada, and Happ, but you don't want to see that because of the awkward scenario of not having best-on-best in the fourth do-or-die game? That's weird.

Which brings us back to full circle because i expect someone to say "win your division and that wont be a problem." Well its not like your team wasnt trying to win... for me if i am a Commissioner i want my playoffs to be best on best which sets you up for better more intriguing games. I want to see Stroman vs Severino not potentially a #4 or 5 in playoff do or die. Imagine an NBA 1 game playoff where LeBron cant play or Crosby cant play in the NHL... not good for the sport. Where the game is evolving baseball is the only sport where you might not have your best player for a 1 game playoff which i think is horrible for the game.

You can't keep comparing it to the NBA and NHL. They're not remotely similar. In baseball, your best pitcher pitches in 20% of the team's games. Poor matchups are just part of the game.

 

[Discoverer]

But how would you determine who are the 2 teams that "play for 1 spot, the other 3 play a bracket where 2 play each other"?

As unlucky as it seems i am gonna bet we see something wild where there is a few teams tied at the end of the year and it will get messy. It seems unlikely but this is only year 6 of the 2nd wildcard and the 1st year things have every been this close so late in the season and quite possibly a .500 team makes the playoffs. It has happened only twice in MLB history (both in the NL) with the Pads 2005 and Mets in 1973. The lowest win total to win an AL playoff spot was the 85 win Twins in 1987

What's "messy" about it? The "worst" case scenario is a crazy 5-way tie in which the playoffs are extended by three days and three or four teams that otherwise would have been eliminated get to play an exciting game that pretty much every baseball fan is interested in watching.

 

[deletethis]

Florida's traditional strategy of locking up their high end talent then trading it to the highest bidder appears to have backfired this time.