The crying and gnashing of teeth about how unfair the MLB playoff format is needs to stop.

[Yavin4]

MLB has a few teams that are not seriously competing. So, some of these 100 win records are somewhat inflated. For example, 14 of the Dodgers' 100 wins came against the LA Angels and Colorado Rockies. Their record against playoff teams is somewhat more balanced. It's not that surprising that they got bounced in the first round bc their record overstated how good they actually were.

Maybe what MLB needs is what the Euro football leagues do, and that is relegation. If teams are not serious about competing, then they should be relegated to a lower league, maybe AAA or AAA+?

[Charging Triceratops]

1. Baseball is a game of streaks ...

for both teams and players. The more teams you let into the playoffs, the more those playoffs will be determined by who gets hot. The three-game series may be too short. If every series were best-of-7, streaks would have less to do with the final outcome. Oh, and the Dodgers are overrated. Go Phillies!

[MLAA]

2. Go Diamondbacks!

Looking forward to the game tonight!

[Yavin4]

3. True. But if the teams are relatively equal going in, no one would complain.

Folks are only complaining bc of the regular season records of the eliminated teams vs teams that are still in the playoffs. My point is that if good teams faced mostly good teams throughout the season, then there wouldn't be that many 100 win teams. The top teams would all have roughly the same records. Thus, it wouldn't be as shocking.

The Dodgers were really a 90~ win team, not 100 win team.

[awesomerwb1]

5. How are you gonna design a schedule for good teams to play only good teams???

[Yavin4]

6. Relegation!

Weaker teams get demoted to a lower league, leaving only top teams in MLB.

This may be impractical. So, I would re-balance the schedules so that the top teams play most of their games against other top teams. Next year, the Dodgers wouldn't play the Rockies 13 times. Instead, they would play the Diamondbacks more.

[awesomerwb1]

4. You could find the same argument for every team in MLB

That they get a few wins playing against poor teams. This is a silly argument. The angels are in the same division as the Trashtros and Rangers which means they played more games against them than the Dodgers did.

And the Dodgers lost because they didn't have any starting pitching. The past couple years they have lost Bauer (Cy Young winner previous year), Buehler (all star), Gonsolin (all star), Urias (personal issues) and Kershaw pitched hurt and then they had to pitch a rookie and a veteran who gives up home runs like it's Halloween candy (he gave up 4 in one inning vs Arizona lol). Oh yeah, and their hitting got cold.

But you don't win 100 games if you're "overrated". A team can barely make it into the playoffs and then get hot at the right time and it doesn't mean they underachieved for 162 games.

[Yavin4]

7. You can definitely be "overrated" in MLB.

There are enough really bad teams to run up your win total. When you eliminate wins against putrid teams, the disparity is not that great among the playoff teams.

Also, getting hot in MLB is entirely dependent on your schedule.

[awesomerwb1]

8. All teams play really bad teams throughout the year, every single one of them

So the record is what it is for all teams. And getting hot in the playoffs has nothing to do with a schedule. Silly points. Bye

[Yavin4]

9. How is it silly?

Some teams out perform other teams on poorer competition. Just bc you don't agree with the argument, you don't need to disparage it. Grow up.

[Auggie]

10. What's really needed: a true SALARY CAP and real REVENUE SHARING

[Yavin4]

11. MLB does have a very progressive luxury tax system

which does serve as a salary cap. The real problem is that there are owners who pocket the revenue instead of putting it back into the team. See the Oakland A's.

[Auggie]

12. A luxury tax means nothing to a team with billions

Either meet the cap or forfeit games. And all shared revenue must be spent on improving the team.

[Yavin4]

13. The Mets paid over $30 million in luxury taxes.

The A's entire payroll is $39 million.

[Auggie]

14. So?

[Yavin4]

15. The problem isn't a salary cap.

The problem is that there are owners who don't put the money back into their teams. A $30 million payroll for a professional sports team today is absurd.

Also, the Mets were horrible this year while the Rays with a payroll in the bottom 25% went to the playoffs. There's no correlation between what a team spends and if they win.

[Auggie]

16. The Athletics are an exception. Teams like Cleveland will never have the financial resources ...

to match the spending of the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, etc.

Sure, there are exceptions, and teams like Baltimore and Cleveland can make the playoffs through YEARS of rebuilding via the draft and exceptionally savvy trading. It's still the teams that spend big that are perennially in contention or near contention.

Audit revenue sharing if necessary. Mandate it be spent on farm systems, scouting, player salaries, etc.

[Yavin4]

17. Out of the top 10 payrolls, 6 teams made the playoffs.

Out of the bottom 10 payrolls, 5 teams made the playoffs. Payroll disparity is not the advantage that you think that it is.

Also, some of the bottom payrolls of teams in MLB are beyond absurd. Steph Curry (an NBA player) alone makes more than the entire payroll of the A's and almost as much as The Orioles' entire payroll.

The lack of competition is not due to payroll disparities. Rather, it's about poor ownership and management of teams which won't be fixed with a salary cap.

[Auggie]

18. I can't fix poor ownership and management decisions ...

but I bet well-run franchises -- like the Guardians -- would stand a better chance of contending given the resources.

[Yavin4]

19. In the last 10 years...

The Guardians have won their division four times and went to the World Series in 2016. Those are better results than what the Yankees did over that same time period.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Disagree, Yav

Baseball is set up as 50+ series per year, that are played with little downtime.
To turn a playoff round into essentially a series doesn't differentiate the marathoners from the sprinters.
I don't think any round of the playoffs should be under 5 games.
If MLB is going to expand playoffs they should set it up more as a second season. Otherwise that first round is nothing more than just another series. Except one team hasn't played for a week & baseball's rhythms don't work that way.

[Yavin4]

21. Point taken.

Make the final month of the season a round robin tournament that continues into the World Series.