Can anyone explain the logic with MLB tie-breakers?

If this has already been discussed, can someone link me? If not, I'm curious. New York clinched the AL East over Boston yesterday despite the fact that the Sox could tie for first. Why? Head-to-head. Two days ago, the White Sox clinched the AL Central over Cleveland despite the fact that Cleveland could've tied for the lead (at the time). Why? Head-to-head. At worst, the 'Stros will be tied with the Phils after today, and they own the head-to-head... and we'd be headed to a one-game playoff in that scenario. Why?

I asked a friend about it yesterday, and he commented that the Red Sox and Yankees (and other in-division matchups) play more games and thus have a larger sample size than teams from different divisions competing for the WC. And that's true.

However, as I understand it, the 'Stros have played every team in the NL at least six times. Do the math... to have a majority, you'd have to win four games out of those six. I don't see how MLB can claim that winning four games isn't a large enough sample size to make a judgment considering that winning four games is the exact requirement to win the World Series!

Is there any reason other than the supposed small sample size (which I think is bogus) for these differences in tie-breaking procedures? It doesn't make a lot of sense. imo, all races should be determined through a one-game playoff, or all races should be determined through head-to-head record... but not flip-flopping between the two. It's really annoying that beating the Phils 6 out of 6 times isn't enough to give us the edge if the two teams do end up tied.

 

I see. I didn't know what the reason actually was... I was just speaking hypothetically on a friend's scenario. Thanks for the explanation.

That said, I still disagree with parts of MLB's premise. If I'm Boston, I'd prefer to play the extra game, even if they have the WC won, to take a shot at getting home-field in at least one round, as opposed to going on the road for both as the WC team.

Also, imo, head-to-head should play a bigger role if we're examining two teams where only one will make the postseason. If one of the two teams in the tie consistently beats the other throughout the season, I'd like for that to take precedent over a one-game playoff where homefield is determined by a coin flip and the starting pitchers are essentially luck of the draw (where your rotation ends up that day). I know it's more dramatic and fun for fans, but I don't think that's the best way to honestly determine the more deserving team.