Often, because the 2 best teams are in the same division, the second best team in a 16 team league doesn't always make the playoffs(even if they are 25 games or more better than the third best record. I feel that 2 divisions of 8 would be better. A play-in game or series between the second and third best teams in an 8 team divison would also be an improvement as it will hold player interest longer as more teams would stay in contention.

The format you seek — two 8-team divisions — already exists, albeit a 154-game schedule instead of 162 and without interleague play. Format 1904-1960. And just like in real life, as often as not the second-best team in the league does not go to the World Series.

The schedule in a typical, unbalanced 16-team league makes it hard to say whether the team with the second-best record is really the second-best team. You play 126 games in your own league and 36 against the other league. So if you're in the NL, your 100-62 record could be a product of 18 games against each of a couple weak or abandoned teams, while an AL team at 90-72 might have played a far tougher schedule, solely because more AL teams remained competitive deeper into the season. Just one no-show owner who never sets his lineup or staff, or a couple owners who realize they're out of it after 40 games, is more than enough to create a huge swing in records. A RL corrollary is the AL East during stretches when Tampa, Baltimore and Toronto knew they couldn't compete in the present and punted to build for the future. How many wild card berths did that hand the Red Sox in years when Cleveland, Minnesota, Detroit, Oakland, etc., might have been the better team? Without the wild card, the Red Sox could have made the same claim about being shut out of the playoffs despite having the second-best record, though in many of those seasons they might not have been the second-best team simply because every team in the Central or West was trying to win now?