Playoff format reminder

[Benjamin Grimm]

I wasn't sure of this, so I checked it out and am sharing here in case anyone else is wondering or forgot.



If the standings at the end of the season remain as they are today, the division winners would be seeded as Dodgers first, then Mets, then Brewers.



The three wild cards would be, in order, Braves, Padres, Phillies. (Phillies squeak past Cardinals based on their head-to-head record; Phils won 4 of 7.)



Mets and Dodgers would get a first-round bye, while the Brewers play the Phillies in Milwaukee and the Braves play the Padres in Atlanta. These are best-of-three series, with no home games for the lower seeed team. I think this will be called the "Wild Card Series" but I'm not sure of that. I'd prefer to call them the League Quarterfinal Series. (The NLQS.)



There is no reseeding for the next round, the NLDS. The Dodgers would play the winner of Brewers-Phillies and the Mets would play the winner of Braves-Padres. These are still best-of-five series and, I assume, will follow the 2-2-1 format, with the top seed hosting games 1, 2, and 5.

[Ceetar]

sorta invalidates best record, as long as you're top-2.

[Benjamin Grimm]

And you'd have the possibility of an NLCS between the Braves and the Phillies, the teams that finished second and third in the NL East.

[Chad ochoseis]

The best record would still get home field advantage in the LCS, so that's something.

[metsmarathon]

would the brewers-phillies winner play the dodgers, or the mets? basically, what determines the top-seededness in teh wild card series? does the division winner get the 3-seed, or is that round determined by record?



because i would think the 1-seed would play the winner of the 4-5 game, and not the winner of the 3-6 game. usually the 1-seed always the easiest of the available pairings. in this case, of course, the 4-5 matchup is gnarlier than the 3-6. i'm pretty sure i'd rather face the brewers (still no easy task) in the second round than either the braves or the padres!

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Brewers-Phillies winner would play the Dodgers. The seeding would be Dodgers-Mets-Brewers-Braves-Padres-Phillies throughout the postseason.



I agree, I'd rather see the Mets play the Brewers or Phillies, but they'd get the Braves or Padres.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Oops, I got that backwards! Sorry!

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Sporting News (they still exist) wrote: The No. 1 seed will play the winner of the No. 4-No. 5 series, while No. 2 will play the winner of No. 3-No. 6. This is to keep series balanced, and to ensure that No. 1 isn't stuck playing against a division winner under any circumstances in the second round.

So Mets would play the winner of Brewers-Phillies. Dodgers would play the winner of Braves-Padres. I like that a lot better.

[Fman99]

I feel like each round should be seeded after the results are in, the way NFL playoff games are. That makes more sense to me. You could have a division winner be a much weaker opponent than a wild card team like ATL.

[Ceetar]

MLB cries poor if you make 'em re-seed ,because they might potentially have to secure hotel/facilities in MORE cities.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Ceetar post_id=101444 time=1659112419 user_id=102]
MLB cries poor if you make 'em re-seed ,because they might potentially have to secure hotel/facilities in MORE cities.

[metsmarathon]

i think the division winner should outrank the wildcard teams, seedingwise, always. winning your division needs to mean something.

[Frayed Knot]

And it does. Even in the NFL, where they do re-seed, division winners, even ones with losing records, remain higher seeds than WC teams with better records.

[metsmarathon]

oh ok. i gotcha. yeah, i think i'm ok with that. like if the padres beat the brewers and the dodgers, the mets should be the home team in the NLCS. sign me up. there's no plausible reason that should be more of a scheduling encumberance on the teams or the league than the alternative.