What if the Playoffs were seeded by record?

MLB just came out when some interesting prospective changes to the season and postseason structure as part of a potential CBA. While I like a couple of the changes, it does nothing to address the disagreement between the owners and players around a potential salary cap, so I view it as little more than a distraction for the moment.

However, that doesn’t prevent us from taking a look at the changes they have proposed.

1. Move back to a 154-game schedule.
   This make sense to me. The playoffs have continued to expand, from a max of 12 games until 1993, to 19 in 1994 (actually 1995 due to the ’94 playoffs being cancelled), to 20 until 2021, to 22 games in 2022 if a team was in the Wild Card, and all the series went the maximum length. The playoffs now stretch almost into November. It’s time to pull back a little on the regular season, as 154 games is enough to determine who should make the playoffs. The only reason they won’t do it is money, as each team that does not make the playoffs loses 4 home games.
   
2. Have the division series go to best-of-7 games.
   I also agree with this. The different way in which teams manage their pitching in the playoffs makes it a very different sport than the regular season. Any way in which MLB can make it a little bit more fair to try to find the better team — in this case winning 4 games in the series instead of three — is a good step. They can’t extend the Wild Card due to creating a longer break for the teams who earn a bye, but I would love the division series to move to best of 7.
   
3. Allow the highest seeded team in each league to choose their opponent from the Wild Card winners.
   I really do not like this one. Not sport other than maybe boxing or MMA allows a person or team to choose their opponent. This is meant to prevent the top seed from getting a much tougher opponent than the number two seed. But the bigger issue is that sometimes the number four seed is much better than the two and three seeds, because the best two teams were in one division. 2026 was an extreme example of this, when the best 3 teams were all in one division.

I feel like there’s a fairly simple fix for this: just seed the layoffs based on record, regardless of who won the divisions. The only caveat to this would be that every division winner would be guaranteed at least a Wild Card spot. Here’s how this would have played out since the 3rd Wild Card team was added.

2026 AL
Wins are in parentheses

Actual:
1-Tampa Bay(98) vs winner of 4-New York(93)/5-Boston(87)
2-Cleveland(85) vs winner of 3-Houston(81)/6-Chicago(84)

Proposed
1-Tampa Bay vs winner of 4-Cleveland/5-Chicago
2-New York vs winner of 3-Boston/6-Houston

This would given us many of the same series, but Chicago/Cleveland would have been the Wild Card, Boston New York would have likely been in the ALDS, and we might have had a Rays/Yankees ALCS.

2026 NL

Actual
1-Milwaukee(103) vs winner of 4-San Diego (91)/5-Chicago(89)
2-Los Angeles(100) vs winner of 3-Atlanta(94)/6-Philadelphia(88)

Proposed
1-Milwaukee vs winner of 4-San Diego/5-Chicago
2-Los Angeles vs winner of 3-Atlanta/6-Philadelphia

This worked out perfectly this season, as the division winners were all better than the Wild Card teams.

2025 AL

Actual
1-Toronto(94) vs winner of 4-New York(94)/5-Boston(89)
2-Seattle(90) vs winner of 3-Cleveland(88)/6-Detroit(87)

Proposed
1-Toronto vs winner of 4-Boston/5-Cleveland
2-New York vs winner of 3-Seattle/6-Detroit

I’m not a Yankees fan, but they really have gotten screwed the last two season. In 2025 they tied the Jays for the most wins, and then had to play in the Wild Card round against the best other Wild Card team and then play the Jays.

2025 NL

Actual
1-MIlwaukee(97) vs winner of 4-Chicago(92)/5-San Diego(90)
2-Philadelphia(96) vs winner of 3-Los Angeles(93)/6-Cincinnati(83)

Proposed
1-MIlwaukee vs winner of 4-Chicago/5-San Diego
2-Philadelphia vs winner of 3-Los Angeles/6-Cincinnati

Two straight years of the perfect bracket from a record perspective. There’s just a great balance in the NL across divisions.

2024 AL

Actual
1-New York(94) vs winner of 4-Baltimore(91)/5-Kansas City(86)
2-Cleveland(92) vs winner of 3-Houston(88)/6-Detroit(86)

Proposed
1-New York vs winner of 4-Houston/5-Kansas City
2-Cleveland vs winner of 3-Baltimore/6-Detroit

Not a major change here, except for swapping the Wild Card games

2024 NL

1-Los Angeles(98) vs winner of 4-San Diego(93)/5-Atlanta(89)
2-Philadelphia(95) vs winner of 3-Milwaukee(93)/6-New York(89)

Actual (San Diego had tiebreaker over Milwaukee)
1-Los Angeles vs winner of 4-Milwaukee/5-Atlanta
2-Philadelphia vs winner of 3-San Diego/6-New York

Again, just a switch of Wild Card matchups. The Devin Williams meltdown against the Mets would not have happened, and all of the AL West teams would have been in the same side of the bracket.

2023 AL

Actual
1-Baltimore(101) vs winner of 4-Tampa Bay(99)/5-Texas(90)
2-Houston (90) vs winner of 3-Minnesota(87)/6-Toronto(89)

Proposed
1-Baltimore vs winner of 4-Texas/5-Toronto
2-Tampa Bay vs winner of 3-Houston/6-Minnesota

A 99-win team should not get only 2 games in the playoffs unless there were two 100-win teams in their same league. Sure, they might still have been swept out of the playoffs in the division series, but to be dumped into the Wild Card when they were 9 games better than the next best team in the AL is awful.

2023 NL

Actual
1-Atlanta(104) vs winner of 4-Philadelphia(90)/5-Miami(84)
2-Los Angeles(100) vs winner of 3-Milwaukee(92)/6-Arizona(84)

Proposed
1-Atlanta vs winner of 4-Philadelphia/5-Miami
2-Los Angeles vs winner of 3-Milwaukee/6-Arizona

No changes

2022 AL

Actual (Cleveland won tiebreaker over Toronto)
1-Houston(106) vs winner of 4-Toronto(92)/5-Seattle(90)
2-New York(99) vs winner of 3-Cleveland(92)/6-Tampa Bay(86)

Proposed
1-Houston vs winner of 4-Toronto/5-Seattle
2-New York vs winner of 3-Cleveland/6-Tampa Bay

No change, due to Cleveland having the tiebreaker.

2022 NL

Actual
Los Angeles(111) vs winner of 4-Mets(101)/5-San Diego(89)
Atlanta(101) vs winner of 3-St. Louis(93)/6-Philadelphia(87)

Proposed
Los Angeles vs winner of 4-St.Louis/5-San Diego
Atlanta vs winner of 3-New York/6-Philadelphia

The only change is that L.A. would not have the 101-win Mets on their side of the bracket. Of course, this was the season where underdogs owned the NL playoffs, with 6-seed Philadelphia beating 5-seed San Diego to win the NL Pennant.

Issues

Here are the biggest issues I can see with this plan:

1. It de-values winning a division. This is viewed as the primary regular season goal for most teams, and should provide a reward. But the initial move to two divisions watered down the value of finishing in first place, as it just provided a team the chance to compete for the pennant instead of winning the pennant. A move to three divisions per league watered things down even further.
2. It goes against tradition. This is true, but nearly every structural change to a season or league does this. Expansion of teams, expansion of playoffs, adding divisions, and teams moving to different league or divisions are all example of things that have happened.

Ultimately, I feel like this change adds value to the regular season, as rewarding the best teams with the best seeds is the fair thing to do. And hopefully, it also creates the best matchups as far along in the playoffs as possible.

I still will never get to a point where an NL and AL team could meet in the playoffs any time before the World Series – as sometimes all the best teams in a season are in the same league. And technically, the best World Series from a competitive standpoint might be two NL teams or two AL teams. But that is traditional barrier that I would never cross.