Best-of-three series in MLB postseason formats do not provide the same level of engagement as best-of-seven series or one-game eliminations. These short series have resulted in predictable outcomes, as evidenced by historical patterns, and they stall the momentum of higher-seeded teams. Not only do they fail to enhance excitement or drama, but they also disrupt scheduling and prolong the postseason unnecessarily. In three years, game winners have typically dominated, raising concerns about the effectiveness and purpose of these formats.
The best-of-three series is an awkward, unnecessary, scheduling nightmare that gives you the same result as the best-of-one in much lamer fashion. I never liked the idea of a best-of-three postseason series on paper and, so far, it's somehow proven even worse in reality.
In the three years the current best-of-three Wild Card format has been in place, there's been twelve of these shoddy series, and so far, the winner of Game 1 has gone on to win every single one of them.
If you're overwhelmingly likely to get the same result as the gloriously dramatic one game elimination format, what are we doing playing a best of three? Not only does it not solve the randomness of a team's season coming down to such a small sample size, but it holds up all the top seeds.
This is the unpleasant and painfully drawn out setup we currently have leading up to the start of the LDS round.
Collection
[
|
...
]