Reevaluating MLB’s Playoff Format: Are Higher Seeds Losing the Advantage?

Recreate this content while optimizing it for SEO, enhancing its creativity and uniqueness, improving syntax and tone, increasing perplexity and burstiness, and retaining the HTML tags

The five-day layoff between the end of the regular season and start of the Division Series is not the reason the Baltimore Orioles trail the Texas Rangers, two games to none. It is not the reason the Los Angeles Dodgers dropped Game 1 of their series to the Arizona Diamondbacks on Clayton Kershaw Saturday night. It might not be the reason any of the top seeds lose, if they even lose, in this round.

Still, a second straight elimination for the Atlanta Braves, in particular, would generate discussion about the fairness of the current postseason format, which began last season. There are no easy answers.

There have been no easy answers since 1969, the start of the divisional era. From that moment on, the teams with the best regular-season records in each league no longer were assured of playing in the World Series. Major League Baseball thought it accounted for everything with its new system — first-round byes for the two top division winners in each league, home games for only the higher-seeded teams in the wild-card round.

But the addition of the best-of-three wild-card series created a five-day layoff for the teams with byes. A layoff of that length might — repeat, might — be too much. For more than four decades in the divisional era, the threat of rust from an extended layoff did not exist. From 1969 to ‘93, the division champions advanced directly to the League Championship Series. From 1995 to 2011, each league had only one wild card, and the Division Series started right away.

The trouble began with the addition of a second wild card in each league, which led to the creation of the wild-card game and a three-day layoff for the division champions from 2012 to ‘19, and again in ‘21. The current five-day layoff is longer than teams get at the All-Star break, amounting to an anomaly for an everyday sport.

Austin Hays and the Orioles go to Texas down two games in the series after having the best record in the American League. (Patrick Smith / Getty Images)

A two-year sample is hardly large enough for anyone to form adequate conclusions. The bye teams still could end up winning the majority of the four Division Series. But as much as those clubs tried to create competitive environments during their respective layoffs — the Braves, Dodgers, and Orioles all played simulated games in front of fans — their efforts might prove futile.

The glaring example, at least for one game, was the Braves, who were shut out zero times at home during the regular season, but lost their Division Series opener to the Phillies, 3-0. The Braves won 104 games in the regular season, the Phillies 90. A year ago, the Braves won 101 games to the Phillies’ 87. But the Phillies won the Division Series in four games. Not all of that can be attributed to the format. In baseball, rarely is one thing to blame. The Braves’ rotation was not at full strength last October. It is not at full strength this October.

The Orioles, meanwhile, have even less reason to cite the layoff for their 0-2 start against the Rangers. They didn’t hit in Game 1, but that might merely have been an extension of their sporadic offensive performance down the stretch. And when they did hit in Game 2, their pitchers walked 11, resulting in an 11-8 defeat.

The Astros were the only bye team to win its opener, then lost Game 2 to the Twins, 6-2. If they lose the series, which now moves to Minnesota, it likely will be because their starting pitching is not as strong as it was in recent postseasons. If the Dodgers lose to the Diamondbacks, the reason probably will be the same.

Which isn’t to say the format should be above scrutiny. For starters, home-field advantage does not seem to be providing the edge the league envisioned, at least in the early rounds. As the Sporting News’ Ryan Fagan points out, five teams won 92 or more games in the regular season. Those teams — the Braves, Rays, Brewers, Dodgers and Orioles — are a combined 0-7 in the playoffs, and all seven losses were at home. Lower seeds, playing entirely on the road, have won five of eight wild-card series the past two seasons. The Astros and Yankees won their respective Division Series with home-field advantage a year ago; the Braves and Dodgers did not. This year, three of the four home teams lost their DS opener — no small thing, considering the loser of Game 1 goes on to win the series only 29 percent of the time.

All of this could be a small-sample oddity, but one immediate fix would be to re-seed after the first round. The No. 1 seed currently faces the winner of the wild-card series between the Nos. 4-5 seeds, while the No. 2 seed faces the winner of the Nos. 3-6 series. The idea is to ensure that the No. 1 season does not face another division winner in the DS while still preserving the original bracket. Hogwash. The No. 1 seed should face the lowest remaining seed. If a new bracket is required, big deal.

Then there is the question of further handicapping the wild cards. On Sunday’s FS1 broadcast of Game 2 of the Rangers-Orioles series, Hall of Famer John Smoltz suggested eliminating the off-day between Game 3 of the wild-card series and the start of the Division Series, an idea that might hold some merit. One problem: Game 3s likely would need to be played in the afternoon to ease the travel burden, an idea ESPN almost certainly would oppose. But under the Smoltz plan, a team could not bring back its Game 1 starter in the wild-card round for Game 2 of the DS, the way the Rangers did with Jordan Montgomery on Sunday and the way the Phillies will do with Zack Wheeler on Monday. And the only way for a winner of the wild-card series to get a day off before the DS would be to sweep.

Another possibility would be to borrow a concept from Korea’s KBO, and give the bye team an immediate 1-0 advantage in the Division Series. The bye team then would need to win only two games while the lower seed must win three (a potential loss of revenue for the league, though). The KBO, though, uses that system only at its postseason’s entry point, a best-of-three wild-card round. The higher seed is required to win one game, the lower seed two.

The problem with both the Smoltz plan and KBO plan is that neither would account for the layoffs, though Smoltz’s could reduce them by one day in at least one league. Then again, are the layoffs even a problem in need of a solution? Bye teams generally welcome them, to get their pitching in order and give banged-up players a rest. And in the future, maybe those teams will figure out better ways to stay sharp.

The ultimate answer might lie in expansion. Once the league goes from 30 to 32 teams, it could expand the postseason from 12 to 16 (too many, I know, in the eyes of many fans). The format would resemble the one the league adopted for the shortened 2020 season, starting with eight best-of-three, wild-card series. The danger, of course, would be devaluing the regular season. Imagine the outcry if a No. 16 seed knocked out a No. 1. Again, there are no easy answers. Even in the regular season, any team can win two of three or three of five from any other, as evidenced by the bottom-feeding A’s and Royals capturing series in September against the eventual AL West champion Astros. The teams in the playoffs are closer in quality. The possibilities of upsets are even greater. No matter how baseball slices it, the postseason always will be a crapshoot. No format following a six-month regular season ever will be truly fair.