It all comes down to money.
Major League Baseball reportedly submitted multiple proposals to the MLB Players Association yesterday as the sides continue to navigate the sport’s next collective bargaining agreement. The proposals cover the regular season, postseason format, and competitive incentives. Here’s my take on each:
Proposal: Reduce the regular season from 162 games to 154, beginning in 2029.
This is, in my view, the most defensible piece of the package. A 154-game schedule would give every team eight additional off days, potentially creating a meaningful health benefit over the course of a six-month season. MLB has also argued that a shorter schedule could reduce the number of weekday afternoon games, which can be unpopular with both players and fans.
There are obvious tradeoffs. Eight fewer games means eight fewer opportunities for clubs to generate ticket, concession, and local-media revenue. Players, meanwhile, would presumably want some protection against having their salaries reduced simply because there are fewer games on the schedule. That makes the economic side of this proposal considerably more complicated than the health argument.
There is also a baseball question. The 162-game schedule is deeply embedded in the sport’s history and statistical record. Eight fewer games would make it harder to compare modern players with those from previous eras, particularly when it comes to counting statistics such as home runs, hits, wins, and innings pitched. That may sound like a minor concern, but baseball’s statistical continuity is part of what makes the sport distinctive.
Proposal: Expand the Division Series from best-of-five to best-of-seven.
This one is easier to like. A longer Division Series would reduce the role of randomness and give the better team more opportunity to demonstrate that it actually is better. That matters in a sport where a short series can turn on a couple of bad pitches, an unusually hot opposing hitter, or an ace having one poor outing.
It would also make starting pitching more important. A best-of-seven gives teams more opportunities to deploy their best starters, while simultaneously testing the depth of their rotation and bullpen. That could reward clubs that build their rosters for October rather than simply accumulating regular-season wins.
The downside is mostly philosophical and logistical. If MLB cuts eight regular-season games while adding potential postseason games, it would further shift the center of gravity toward October. The postseason already receives an enormous amount of attention, and some fans and executives believe the regular season has become too much of a prelude to the playoffs.
There is also a practical issue: longer series mean a longer postseason, or a more compressed postseason calendar. Neither is particularly simple.
But if the goal is to make the playoffs a better measure of team quality, expanding the Division Series makes sense.
Proposal: Allow higher-seeded teams in the first two rounds of the postseason to select their opponents.
This is the proposal I’m most skeptical of. The underlying idea isn't crazy. MLB’s current postseason structure doesn't always provide a meaningful competitive advantage for the highest seeds. Giving a top seed the ability to choose its opponent would create an additional reward for winning games during the regular season and could make late-season games more consequential.
But I’m not convinced the benefit outweighs the gimmick factor. The possibility of a team publicly selecting its opponent would certainly create television drama. It would generate debate, headlines, and social-media conversation. It could also introduce an interesting layer of strategy: Does a team choose the opponent it considers weakest, or does it choose based on travel, pitching matchups, or other factors?
At the same time, there is something fundamentally strange about a playoff format in which a team gets to choose whom it has to beat.
It could also produce unintended incentives. A team might deliberately avoid selecting a club it believes is dangerous despite a lower seed, or choose an opponent based on factors that have little to do with the traditional competitive hierarchy. And once the selection becomes a television event, it risks feeling less like postseason baseball and more like a made-for-TV draft show.
The league is clearly betting that the strategy and spectacle would be worth it. I’m not sure.
The bigger issue is the money. As interesting as these proposals are, I suspect the salary-cap fight will ultimately determine how much of this package goes anywhere.