New format is fine if lengthy (for the bucks of course). To remind: a .600 team has had a great season, winning 97 games. A .500 team has had a so-so to lousy season and won just 81 games and would finish 16 games--think of that, 16 games!!!!--behind the .600 team.
But guess what? In a 7 game series that difference of 10% (.600 vs. .500) doesn't mean much. It's more about matchups, rotations (first three starters, really), etc.
Somewhere in the movie Bull Durham, the Kevin Costner character talks about The Show and what it takes to stay there. He says the difference between a .300 hitter, who will definitely stay, and a .250 hitter, who might not, is just 1 hit a week. And he cites examples: a grounder with eyes, a little pop or flare, etc. Just one more of those each week and your life changes magically.
My point is the MLB season is incredibly long and magnifies small differences and especially differences in winning percentages. So to me there is nothing wrong with a team that won 100 games facing a team that won 80 games because in reality they probably aren't that far apart. And that difference grows even smaller if the 80 win team actually has just two very good starters and maybe three good arms in the bullpen.
Something like that did in fact happen to the Sox in 2013 when the Sox ERA was 2.59 in the postseason and our team OPS was, wait for it, .664. Lester had five starts with an ERA of 1.56, and Lackey had four with an ERA of 2.77. Buchholz and Peavy started 7 games between them with 1 quality start. Uehara pitched 13.2 innings and had 7 saves with an ERA of .66. Of course, that Sox team actually won 97 games in the regular season, not 80, but the point is there I think. In the postseason good pitching can make a huge difference.