MLB Expands Playoff to 10 Teams In 2012

by GumpBrave on Mar 2, 2026 3:43 PM EST

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7638357/mlb-expand-playoffs-two-teams-10

So they ended up implementing it for this year. It really changes the landscape of the play-offs in my opinion by simplifying a 162 game body of work into 9 regulation innings.

There is a lot of strategy here in terms of positioning pitchers for the play-offs. It is possible that the two wild card teams are well ahead of the pack and have the chance to optimize pitching. That situation is simple and benefits the division winners significantly.

A more likely scenario is that an unlikely pitcher (not the ace of the rotation) ends up in this play-off game. While this benefits a team with the pitching depth of the Braves, it seems really silly to me that such factors decide your postseason future.

Anyway, there is a lot to discuss here, and we will be seeing a very strange occurrence in 7 months when 9 innings decides everything, without context or larger series. Thoughts?

This FanPost does not express the views or opinions of Talking Chop.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | Add comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I like it

but the inevitable creep won’t be as good.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Mar 2, 2026 4:12 PM EST reply actions

Screw you, MLB.

I realize it’s a business, boosting ratings for more teams at the same time is important, blah blah blah.

But this sucks for the game. If you end up with end-of-season standings where there are say, 5 games separating the #4 seed and the #5 seed, how is it fair that in a one-game playoff #4 can get eliminated?

What if the #4 seed and its division leader are very close, such that they are tied on the last day of the season after a tightrope division race the entire time. #4 seed pitches its ace, but loses. Meanwhile, the #5 seed, who has a cushion, lines up its pitching staff specifically for this—resting its entire bullpen and so on.

Garbage. The MLB season is awesome because it’s a marathon and not a sprint, and because in the end, that marathon matters.* If a team with a substantially worse record can get into the “full” playoffs due to a change in the playoff structure at the expense of a team that fared better in the marathon, that is a change that doesn’t need to be made.

- For this same reason, the Wild Card system is kind of lame because two great teams in a tough division should get priority over the overwhelmingly mediocre “winner” of a weak division. They should do away with division winners altogether and just take the four teams with the best record from each league.

by Ivan the Great on Mar 2, 2026 4:19 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

SBN formatting, I LOATHE YOU. Asterisks are not bullets!

by Ivan the Great on Mar 2, 2026 4:20 PM EST up reply actions

The same logic kind of applied with the old system as well. How is it fair that a divisional winner could finish 15 games up on the wild-card leader, but be afforded no advantage other than home-field? I like that it won’t just be the Yankees and Red Sox coasting for the last 2 weeks of the season because they know that they have a playoff spot locked up, with division or wild card basically being interchangeable.

Personally, I think it would be better just to scrap the whole division process and just let the top 4 teams from each league into the playoffs. Under this system however, it makes sense to have divisions count for something if you’re going to implement them in the first place.

by Andy Kim on Mar 2, 2026 4:49 PM EST up reply actions

Theres a big difference between having a huge gap at the end of the season on another team and having to play a 1 game playoff versus having home field advantage in best of 5 series.

by ToBeTooGreat on Mar 2, 2026 6:07 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed, but if having to play a play-in game is too severe of a punishment and having home field advantage is too small of a reward, then what would be a reasonable middle ground?

by Andy Kim on Mar 2, 2026 6:53 PM EST up reply actions

In my view, the answer to the points you raise is that the reward for having an awesome® regular season is getting to play the lowest playoff seed.

I mean, sure, some teams get hot in September and may carry that over, so maybe there are times when you wish you didn’t have to play the hot, fired up, just snuck into the playoffs after winning 10 of 11 games in the last two weeks team. But teams limp into (or out of, in our sad 2011 season) the playoffs just as many times, so it seems like it makes sense to make the reward exactly what it is. It’s not like the #1 through #4 seeds get randomly assigned to play one another—the “best” team, numerically, at season’s end, plays the “worst” team to qualify for the playoffs. I think that’s a fair system.

But yes, I wholly agree that divisions are somewhat ridiculous in the way they mess with playoff allotment. The problem is that if you scrap divisions, following baseball becomes annoying. With a balanced schedule, teams would go to the opposite coast a lot more, making east coasters stay up late (and thus not watch games or part of games) and making west coasters (like yourself) miss games because they can’t leave work as early as they need to. To me the current system seems like a good compromise without glaring issues. If Selig & friends want to upset that for a slightly bigger payday, there’s not much we can do about it, but I wanted to register my displeasure anyway.

by Ivan the Great on Mar 2, 2026 7:42 PM EST up reply actions

Good point about the playoff seeding being part of the built-in advantage, but in the past, that hasn’t even necessarily been the case, since the #1 seed wouldn’t play the WC team if it came from the same division. Then you’re left with #1 vs #3 and #2 vs WC. I agree that it was a fair system given the parameters, but I’m willing to roll the dice and see what this new system yields. I think the fact that so many WC winners were reaching and winning the World Series shows that the advantage of being a division winner was relatively miniscule once the playoffs arrived.

I guess it comes down to what you want the playoffs to represent. Should it just be a rock ‘em sock ’em sprint to the finish where everyone has a shot once they get in? Or should it be a microcosm of the regular season to crown a champion who is truly the best team in baseball? March Madness is incredibly exciting, but it also punishes favored teams by being such a giant crapshoot. On the other hand, the NBA playoffs rarely have an upset winner because it’s such a long drawn out postseason. There isn’t really a right or wrong answer, but it’s just kind of a matter of preference at that point. And interestingly, the new system will add both elements - 1 game do-or-die battles, as well as significant rewards for the teams who have demonstrated their quality over a 162 game schedule.

And that’s also a good point about following games. I never thought about that problem since I’m on the west coast, so I’m out of sync with Braves games to begin with.

by Andy Kim on Mar 2, 2026 10:23 PM EST up reply actions

Just things I pick up on being someone that used to live on the west coast and now lives on the east coast. I used to think I’d have to convince all my employers to let me leave work at 3:30 or 4:00 during half of the year…

In any case, I take your point about it being open to interpretation in that way. One interesting thing to note is that with 2012’s playoff revamp, they’re actually allowing the #1 seed to play the WC seed, even if they’re in the same division. So while it (by my interpretation) undoes fairness in one way (1-game playoff), it does reinsert some back by not letting divisional differences interfere with matchup advantages for the #1 seed.

Also, horrible-crazy playoff idea that wouldn’t work: standard double-elimination across both leagues. Seeds are 1 through 8. Winner of winners’ bracket and winner of losers’ bracket meet in finals, with the standard set-up where the winner of the winners’ bracket only needs to win one series to be crowned champion, but the winner of the losers’ bracket needs to win two series. Of course, there’s no time to schedule this, it draws out the playoffs horribly, and you’d probably have to move to 3-game or 5-game series to have any chance of getting it done before January, but it would be amusing.

by Ivan the Great on Mar 2, 2026 11:40 PM EST up reply actions

Use the Japanese system.

6 game series, better team has to win 3, worse team has to win 4.

by Broccoman on Mar 5, 2026 12:35 PM EST up reply actions

Big Rec 4 Ivan!

And I can’t believe this statement isn’t greener than last year’s chum. It’s bullsh*t gimmicks like this “5th team in” that continue to dilute the significance of the regular season, and further tarnishes the immaculate beauty of the MLB post season.

Seriously: Have an expansion and go to four divisions, or just let the teams with the top four records in each league into the post season. A one-and-done playoff series is trash, and let’s too much fluky sh*t happen.

I’m gonna toss my milk and cookies now. Peace, and Humptiness forever.

I see great things in baseball. It's our game - the American game. It will take our people out-of-doors, fill them with oxygen, give them a larger physical stoicism. Tend to relieve us from being a nervous, dyspeptic set. Repair these losses, and be a blessing to us. ~Walt Whitman

by Chopaholic on Mar 3, 2026 1:40 AM EST up reply actions

Stupid MLB

I wonder if they actually have focus groups that check to see how the fans feel about ideas like this before implementing them.

Braves will be fine. I'm not worried.

by Bronn on Sep 18, 2025 4:26 PM EDT

by Bronn on Mar 2, 2026 6:24 PM EST reply actions

I don't think fans are too much one side or the other

and we both know fans don’t matter. TV matters, and more importantly TV money. A pair of do-or-die playoff games to kick the post season off? Yeah, that’ll make both TV partners and the bean counters happy.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Mar 3, 2026 8:47 AM EST up reply actions

You mentioned this down below, but I just want to reiterate that it’s not just that game—the real benefit comes from the extra interest for teams. There’s an exponential-esque relationship between playoff spots and the amount of teams in the hunt. I read an article a long time ago (can’t find it now, sigh) that broke down “interest” in terms of teams with realistic playoff chances by looking at lots of prior seasons. Basically, there’s is generally a clump of similar-ranked teams a small amount over .500, and in many cases these teams are close to the #5 seed, so giving any of them a chance to make the playoffs expands the teams in the hunt in September from about 6-7 to about 10-12, per league. Sigh.

by Ivan the Great on Mar 3, 2026 11:01 AM EST up reply actions

So wait, hypothetically if the Braves had gone, say, 20-10 instead of 10-20 to finish the season and been, say, 8 games up in the WC over St. Louis at the end of 162, they would still have to play a one game playoff?

You shouldn’t sip liquor.
-justincredubil02

no, Jack Daniel is whiskey.
-ChopMaster

"Welcome to the show, Brandon Beachy. I think you’re going to stay a while."

by abraves257 on Mar 2, 2026 7:21 PM EST reply actions

Maybe not

I mean, if we’d gone 20-10 and beaten the Phillies 6 times, we’d have been sitting pretty and THEY would have had to play the Cardinals in a one game playoff-or maybe the Giants, if we’d also swept the Cardinals.

Instead, we lost all 9 games we played against those two teams. Whew. I’m glad I drank myself into a stupid and blacked out the whole month (I didn’t really, but I’m still working on it).

Braves will be fine. I'm not worried.

by Bronn on Sep 18, 2025 4:26 PM EDT

by Bronn on Mar 2, 2026 7:35 PM EST up reply actions

Well yeah, in the situation I made up, we went 20-10 but those 10 losses were to the phillies or whomever we had to lose to in order to still be up big on the Cardinals. Basically what I don’t like is that there is a one game playoff between teams 8 games apart from eachother in the standings? Seems like they just want to have some flukey upset, or a blowout where the team leading the WC wins, but lose a key player to injury during the game. Imagine Cam Newton getting knocked out of last years SECCG.

You shouldn’t sip liquor.
-justincredubil02

no, Jack Daniel is whiskey.
-ChopMaster

"Welcome to the show, Brandon Beachy. I think you’re going to stay a while."

by abraves257 on Mar 2, 2026 7:53 PM EST up reply actions

I think they don't care either way

it brings in money, and that’s the most important fact. Beyond that, if a Wild Card team gets unlucky to lose, they might not care, and might prefer a better situation for division champs to start winning series, and World Series, again.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Mar 3, 2026 8:49 AM EST up reply actions

One game playoff is an insult

How are you going to add a 5th team but then have one game decide who moves on to the next round? Some of this they got right: I like rewarding the division winners and the idea of a 5th team (more teams interested in the end of the season) but I think they should shorten the season to 144 games, have a 3 or 5 game round playoff for the wild card round and then 7 games for the rest of the series. Playoff baseball is wonderful, MLB just stinks it up by putting like 2 or 3 days between games - get rid of all those days off and you’d still finish at the same time of year or maybe even earlier.

by Solid Orange on Mar 2, 2026 11:02 PM EST reply actions

They’re seriously going to have problems shortening the season at this point. I think there would need to be a big sea change in the league for that to happen.

Fewer games means fewer ad revenues for TV networks, fewer ticket sales, and so on. Also, players and the players’ union may not like having fewer regular season games because it makes counting stats smaller than in the past.

by Ivan the Great on Mar 2, 2026 11:42 PM EST up reply actions

It can improve interest for a lot...

not only do you add emphasis to teams in the hunt for the 2nd wild card spot, but you increase big win division chases too. See Cashman’s statement earlier this spring, when the Yankees had a playoff spot locked up, and didn’t care whether they got the division or the wild card. They just wanted to be healthy, and didn’t care about the rest because they were in the playoffs regardless. Now, they’d care, because winning the division regains significance. So you wouldn’t have those fans taking naps saying wake me when the playoffs start, and I’ll watch some football in the meantime.

http://sportsandgrits.com/

by Mr. Sanchez on Mar 3, 2026 8:52 AM EST up reply actions

Why?

Just our luck.

If they had just implemented this experiment LAST season for a one-year only trial balloon…

our whole collapse would have been irrelevant.

Ugh.

Chicken pot, chicken pot, chicken pot pie!!

by HalleyGator on Mar 3, 2026 6:57 AM EST reply actions

Shhh we don't talk about that

Unless you’re talking about the Red Sox. Because they collapsed. And only them.

by Andy Kim on Mar 3, 2026 5:27 PM EST up reply actions

Like I said elsewhere, that seems like a horrible ritualistic sacrifice. Topping a 5 game losing streak with a 13 inning loss to Philly after sucking the proverbial big one all month. As hopeful as I was all September, that just seems like sadomasochism.

"But if you just talk, I've found your mouth comes out with stuff." -Karl Pilkington

by GumpBrave on Mar 4, 2026 2:58 AM EST up reply actions

Cool..

for the team that would’ve had a 5 game wildcard lead and then loses one game to miss the playoffs. Luckily we’re going to win the division and not have to worry about stuff like that…..

"Baseball, you play 162 games, people get hurt," McCann said.

by ConradsComrades on Mar 3, 2026 8:35 PM EST reply actions