I guess I am a traditionalist

I realize that by writing this now I am very much late to the dance, but much like the last time the Pirates were good, remembering how things used to be can be cause for questioning the current status quo. 

With that in mind, let's once again take a trip in the wayback machine, circa 1992 and Major League Baseball.  Back then there were two divisions in each league, with both the American and National Leagues  having two divisions; one in the East and one in the West, though the terms were very loosely applied, as geography wasn't always considered when the teams were assigned.  For instance Cincinnati played in the National League West, while St Louis was in the National League East, even though even Miss Teen South Carolina (not everybody out there has a  map) would be able to tell you that St Louis is farther west than Cincinnati. 

That being said, all of the teams would play 162 games and the four division winners would qualify for post season play, with the winners of the NL East and NL West squaring off for the right to represent the National League in the World Series and the same would happen in the American League.  What was novel about this at the time was that off all of the major league sports, only baseball required that you actually had to win your division to make the post season, the NFL, NBA and NHL all had some version of wild card teams, teams that didn't necessarily win their respective divisions, but played well enough that they were given a playoff seeding of some sort.  For me, that was part of the charm, that of all of the sports only baseball required you to do more than simply play well enough, you had to be the best.  

In 1993, MLB added two teams to the National League, the Colorado Rockies and the Florida Marlins and for arguments sake we will located them geographically, and put the Rockies in the NL West and the Marlins in the NL East.  No harm in expanding the product, but what was to come in 1994 I would argue watered down the sport.  In 1994 baseball opted to go from two divisions to three divisions in each league and allow each division winner and one wild card team into post season play, killing off one of the unique aspects of baseball.  The argument was that by adding a wild card team and creating three divisions it would increase interest in the sport, with more teams having a shot at post season play and increasing revenue by providing more playoff games for TV.  While possibly making more money with an additional round of playoffs, did it really make baseball any more interesting?  Let's look at the numbers for a moment.  And if we take into consideration the subsequent expansion in 1998 (Tampa Bay in the American League and Arizona in the National League) and not moving Milwaukee from the American to the National League, which also occurred in 1998 (to even out the number of teams in each league at 15) lets take a look at how close the races might have been had realignment and the wild card not been added.

For arguments sake the division's probably would have looked like this

NL East - Philadelphia, NY Mets, Pittsburgh, St Louis, Florida, Chicago, Washington DC
NL West - Atlanta, Cincinnati, Arizona, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Houston, Colorado
AL East - NY Yankees, Boston, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit
AL West - Seattle, Texas, Anaheim, Chicago, Kansas City, Minnesota, Oakland, Milwaukee

So let's take a look at this year where with 8 games left to play, here is how close the races would be

2010 Standings (as of Saturday 9/25)
NL East - Philadelphia would have clinched the division, having a 13.5 game lead on St Louis
NL West - San Diego and San Francisco tied (87-67), Atlanta .5 game back, Cincinnati 1.5 games back and Colorado 4 games back

AL East - Tampa Bay would have a 1.5 game lead on the NY Yankees, 7 games on Boston
AL West - Minnesota would have a 6 game lead on Texas

So with one week left in the season we would have 10 teams still vying for three playoff spots, which I would argue certainly would generate interest, at least as much as the current format where for all intents and purposes 4 of the 8 spots are already clinched and we are determining  which is the best second place team in both leagues.  But one year is a very small sample size, so let's see if the argument bears out over previous seasons.

2009

NL East - Philadelphia wins by 2 games over St Louis
NL West - Los Angeles wins by 3 games over Colorado
AL East - NY Yankees win by  8 games over Boston
AL West - Anaheim win by 10 games over Texas

Certainly the National League races would have been competitive, instead all 4 teams mentioned above made the playoffs, which sort of kills the excitement of a pennant race.  While the American League races weren't nearly as close, Boston still got a playoff spot, as did Minnesota despite having the 5th best record in the American League.  By giving a playoff spot to Minnesota (87-76, they had to play a tie breaker game with Detroit for the 163rd  game) the current system all but rewarded mediocrity.

2008

NL East - Chicago Cubs by 5.5 games over Philadelphia
NL West - Houston by 2.5 games over Los Angeles
AL East - Tampa Bay by 2 games over Boston
AL West - Anaheim by 10 games over Milwaukee

Okay, one race is definitely a blowout, the AL West, but again because of the changes in baseball the Chicago White Sox made the post season, even though their record would have them placed 5th overall within the American League.  Again mediocrity is rewarded and if the goal of the post season is to determine who the very best is in any given year I would say inviting mediocre teams simply for a few extra dollars isn't the way to go about it.

2007
NL East - Philadelphia by 1 game over the NY Mets
NL West - Colorado by 1 game over Arizona and San Diego and 6 games over Atlanta
AL East - Cleveland by 1 game over Boston, 2 games over NY Yankees (technically Cleveland played one more game than Boston because they played in the "Civil Rights Game" to help celebrate the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in baseball, a game in which they lost.  I have taken the loss off of the books in this instance, as in 1992 no such game existed, though if we count it nothing changes save for the margins, Cleveland by .5 over Boston, 1.5 games over the Yankees)
AL West - Anaheim by 6.5 games over Seattle

So what we end up with is that all 4 races pretty much came down to the last week of the season we had 11 teams vying for 4 spots, which I would argue would make for some pretty damn interesting baseball.  Instead what we ended up with was just the opposite, other than the wild card contests where Boston and NY had all but qualified for the post season and we wre simply jockeying for position, one to be the division winner and one to be the wild card, and a playoff game between Colorado and San Diego to determine the NL wild card winner, none of the races were closer than those listed above, and once again a team, the Chicago Cubs, who had the 6th best record in the National League is nonetheless rewarded with one of the 4 playoff spots in the NL.

2006

NL East - NY Mets by 12 games over Philadelphia
NL West - San Diego and Los Angeles tied, Houston 6 games back
AL East - NY Yankees by 2 games over Detroit
AL West - Minnesota by 3 games over Oakland

True that the NL East race was not that close, but as it played out it was the same under the current format, the only difference being that St Louis also got a playoff spot, even though they would have been 13.5 games back under the old format.  We also would have had a one game playoff between San Diego and Los Angeles with the winner moving on and the loser going home, instead both teams made it (Philadelphia finished 3 games back in the wild card chase) thus killing interest in a pennant race, not creating it.  In the American League you would have had two races decided by 3 games or less, again I would argue that it would have been compelling baseball up until the end of the season. 

Now I could continue with this general theme but I think you get where I am going, that the idea that more interest was created by expanding the baseball playoffs was at best a misnomer, at worst an outright lie, one in which the benefit wasn't necessarily to the fans of baseball but to the wallets of the teams owners.  So when people ask me when I really stopped caring about baseball, it wasn't the steroid scandal, or the work stoppage, it was in 1994 when the product was diluted and the uniqueness of the sport, the idea that one had to be the best and not just good enough, was taken away.