The only difference is that Kansas City wouldn't have played Oakland (and nobody besides Oakland fans are complaining about that game. Probably the best game of the postseason so far). The Royals would have matched up directly with the Angels to start.

Most people didn't take the time to notice, but San Francisco would have played Pittsburgh under the old system as well, as a game 163, since the two teams tied for the wildcard lead. The tiebreaker (season series win between the two) under both systems was for location of the game, and wouldn't have changed.

I'd say that having two sub-90-regular-season-win teams is actually more a function of the increased parity that exists in the League now. With the right managing, and sure, the right amount of lucky ball bounces, any of the top 1/3 of baseball can win it.

I personally like it that way (confirmation bias notwithstanding), because it allows for good and well-managed teams to absorb mid-season injuries which affect record, and still be able to play high-level baseball if their team gets healthy in time.

The teams that can sustain wins, through injury, to put them around/over 95 wins consistently are the teams that have the cash to be able to pay enough not to see significant dropoff between starters and bench, or to be able to buy serviceable replacement players for hurt or underperforming ones.

I like that there's enough talent in baseball to go around that once October shows up, there's parity between the starters v. starters of as much as the top 1/3 of the teams. It keeps the Dodgers, Phillies, Yankees and Red Sox honest (and interestingly, only 25% of that top-4 even made the playoffs!).

Now admittedly, my Giants are in a position most to gain by the way of things, since, though the team spends LOADS less than the high rollers, they still rank 7 of 30. Some of that is residual payroll from revenue built up from two world series wins, but in general, you'd see the Giants land somewhere between the upper third and the upper half of overall payroll.

That gives them enough talent to be a consistent feature in playoff races (2010 came down to the last day, 2011 was within 4-ish games despite leading the League in DL days, by a LARGE margin, 2012 was more as "easy" a division win as it was because LA collapsed late than SF surged late, and this year being within a game of the lead with only a coupe weeks to play, and still tying for the wildcard lead), and good coaching taking over if/once they get there.

That's the reason you'll see a Kansas City or a Colorado or a Tampa Bay make an occasional run but not consistently be in the hunt. On the years they're good enough to be in, they've got enough talent in their starting dozen guys to toe-to-toe with anybody, but they don't have the funds to put that dozen guys together every year.

All that is the reason I don't mind seeing two sub-90s go at it for the trophy. If you've got a problem with this year's results so far, to be intellectually honest, you'd have to have had the same problem if it'd happened under the one-wildcard system. The ones who are there are playing exciting ball. I'm looking forward to an enjoyably frenetic series!