See, I think S2, by far, did riskier stuff. More swing for the fences stuff for sure.
In S1, the only "swing for the fences/risky" episode I can recall was "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach." Maybe the comedy ep with "Spock Amok."
Meanwhile, S2 had a comedy episode with "Charades." A much riskier/darker ep than "Suffering" with "Under the Cloak of War." Darker and riskier because you have main cast going dark, not a guest star. "Subspace Rhapsody" is a huge swing for the fences. Like it or not, that isn't a episode of normal Trek. Huge risk. Much more so than anything S1 did. Likewise "Those Old Scientists." A crossover from LD was hugely risky. Would audiences unfamiliar with LD even get it/like it? And while I don't think "Ad Astra Per Aspera" was necessarily risky, it certainly was a big swing. They were trying for a home run there. And hit one, IMHO. YMMV, of course. Carol Kane is a big swing. Having a La'An/Kirk ep was a pretty big swing, and I thought that ep was wonderfully done.
I mean, I guess S1 had some swings too. "Elysium Kingdom" was a big swing. Making Una Illyrian?
What, specifically, do you guys think made S1 more swing for the fences and S2 more aiming for a B+?
For me, the argument for S1 being better is that there were more consistent B+ episodes and less potential misses. The only real misses for me in S1 were the B plot in Serene Squall and the beginning of Elysian Kingdom, before you know what is going on. If the big swings (mostly) landed for you, like they did for me, then you probably like S2 better. If not, then S1.
But I think both seasons were excellent. Top notch Trek seasons. TOS1, TOS2, TNG 3-6, DS9 3-6, ENT 3 & 4, PIC 3, PRO 1&2, SNW 1&2 + at least 1 seadon of LD. Those are murkier for me.