Jayson Stark wrote a nice article on the Athletic highlighting some key points about MLB Expansion. The issues are things like:
-Resolution of Tampa Bay and Oakland stadium issues
-What two cities would get the MLB team?
-Realignment that might eliminate the AL and NL
-League wide adoption of the DH
-Reduced regular season (154 games), added playoff round
These are all topics and talking points that we can have in this thread, please feel free to discuss any of them. I will be discussing the idea of added playoff rounds in my post.
Personally, I've been a proponent of reducing the regular season in favor of more playoffs for quite some time. The added wild card game is a step in the right direction, and it makes for an exciting game indeed, but teams that do well enough to earn a Wild Card spot deserve far better than to have the fate of a 162 game season decided on one game alone.
Expanding to a 16 team playoff format ala the NHL is not a terrible idea, in my mind, especially if the league expands to 32 teams. This is a double edged sword however, as there would quite possibly be years in which teams with records under .500 would make the playoffs. This isn't going to be the best example because in a 16 team format leagues, divisions would be realigned, which would no doubt change where these teams do end up. But, in an arbitrary playoff format Top 1-8 in the league, the following AL teams would have qualified for the playoffs in 2017:
Indians 102-60
Astros 101-61
Red Sox 93-69
Yankees 91-71
Twins 85-77
Rays 80-82
Royals 80-82
Angels 80-82
Do the Rays, Royals and Angels really deserve to participate in the postseason if they lost more games than they won? This alone is a compelling argument against a 16 team playoff format.
On the other hand, if you look at the top 8 teams in the AL in 2016 you get this:
Rangers 95-67
Indians 94-67
Red Sox 93-69
Orioles 89-73
Blue Jays 89-73
Tigers 86-75
Mariners 86-76
Yankees/Astros 84-78
One could make arguments that the bottom 4 of the top 8 might deserve a playoff spot, for they did indeed win more games than they lost. The disparity in the league wasn't as great in 2016, and other teams had decent years.
For some, the records of the Tigers and Mariners in 2016 won't be considered 'enough' for them to deserve postseason berths. That is completely fair. For others, they might view the fact that those teams were able to get through the long season winning 10-11 more games than they lost, and a postseason berth should be available for them to get a chance to take down a team with a better record. Expanded postseason may have an advantage especially in seasons where the disparity between the top teams and the second tier teams is less significant. But in seasons like 2017 where there are 4 cream of the crop teams and the next tier is meh, could make for a less interesting postseason, or at the very least a highly predictable first round.
The other option is an NFL style playoff format, with 1 or 3 game wild card rounds. This may be a better fit for the MLB. With 3 game wild card rounds, the top teams would get a chance to rest up, and set their rotation. But again, this is a double edged sword as the top teams may also not be interested in having a 4-5 day break between their last game of the season and their first of the playoffs. Is that enough time for rust to settle in on a team? Again, I would argue that a team that does well enough to make the postseason deserves better than 1 game to decide their fate, so for me the 3 game wildcard round is more enticing.
There really doesn't seem to be any clear or right answer. Whatever the case is, Manfred will most certainly push to get an expansion/realignment and adjusted playoff format completed in his time as commissioner. Stark believes it is not a matter of if, but when. MLB will have some interesting decisions to make. At the end of the day, I am excited for the potential expansion of MLB playoffs, however they decide to go about it. I think it will be good for the game and ultimately more teams will "go for it" instead of rebuild, and some of those teams could end up being great stories like the 2005 White Sox. With such a constricted playoff format as is, teams are forced to try and become 95+ game winners to ensure that they make the playoffs. This is incredibly hard to do unless you amass a serious amount of young talent like the Cubs, Dodgers, Astros, Red Sox, Yankees, Indians... well you get the idea. As such, you end up with situations like the White Sox and Tigers have had to face. These teams could have theoretically put together 85-90 game winners if they continued with the status quo, but both of these teams had to take a long look in the mirror and face the fact that it is harder to put together a MLB playoff team year to year than ever before. The rebuilding strategy has produced teams that dominate the league, and are marginally better than teams that take a year to year approach, thus occupying most of the few available playoff positions. Look at the AL standings this year and you already know this, 4 of the 5 spots will be Boston, New York, Houston and Cleveland. Seattle and LA are the compelling teams that take a year to year approach that seem like they will vie for the 5th spot, but even then, may be relegated to 1 game to decide their fate.
With that in mind, it is clear that taking a year to year approach is incredibly risky, as you need to have an overachieving kind of year in order to potentially play only 1 playoff game. Rebuilding to become the next top team indeed becomes a better long term strategy. Assuming Houston wins the division this year but Seattle only falls slightly short of them in the standings, Seattle would deserve a far better fate than 1 game. Expanding the playoffs, eliminating 1 game wild card would go a long ways towards stopping teams from intentionally being bad in order to be good in the future. It would empower more teams to go for it, and not blow up their cores.
I guess us White Sox fans can be happy that an expanded playoff format is down the road, when we are supposed to be sustaining success, rather than having already happened and emboldening our front office to continue to try and win with the old core and year to year approach we took for so long.