Re-alignment of the MLB? I hope so

**Knick9** · 06-04-2005, 09:03 AM

As Explorers has posted, Las Vegas probably would not be a good option for an MLB team, rather more suited for the NBA. When you talk about the sizzling heat of Vegas, not many people would want to go to a ballgame when it's hot over there, and for the ones that do, they would like to get a tan. Plus Vegas has been turned down by some big name sports leagues because it was overshadowed by the likes of gambling and shows. The only thing close to proffessional sports are the Las Vegas Gladiators of the Arena Football League, and note that the AFL is an indoor football league.

I'm leaning towards changing my thoughts on Monterrey. I would still like to see MLB expand internationally but I'm worried that Mexico won't have enough money to support a new stadium.

I'm interested in San Antonio, as I've said before, it's more possible for the city to get MLS than MLB or NFL, but anything is still possible.

**scrabblehack** · 06-04-2005, 06:32 PM

Thankfully, talk of contraction has gone away but I don't think expansion is the answer. I would like to see 15 teams in each league. I'm not sure how best to accomplish that -- one of the earlier posters thought that Colorado might move to the AL West.

It wouldn't require any more interleague play than there is now. I've worked on two schemes.

Each team would play other teams in its own division 19 times. = 76 games
Each team would play other teams in its own league, other divisions
6 times = 60 games
Each team would play five 4-game series and two 3-game series
in the opposite league = 26 games
Total 162

So that's 7 series in the opposite league, 20 in the same league, other divisions, and 24 series in the same division for a total of 51.

For the first 10 series of the season, teams would play their own division home and away, plus 2 series in the opposite league, same division. (This would make travel much easier.) Which team was playing in the opposite league would rotate by series.

For the next 15 series, teams would play a circuit around the league, including one series in the opposite league.

The 26th series, right before the All-Star break, would be entirely interleague.

Then after the all-star break, there would be another circuit around the league (15 series), followed by two circuits within the division (with the odd teams playing in the same division, opposite league).

I found
16 * 4 = 64
8 * 10 = 80
3 * 6 = 18
= 162

appealing as well, but unfortunately there were too many 4 game series when I tried to work out the details. I would not be opposed to this, but a lot of fans find a weekend series of Fri-Sat-Sun to be more appealing than a Thu-Fri-Sat-Sun or a Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon series.

Anyway, it's a more appealing schedule than they've got now.

**plask_stirlac** · 06-06-2005, 11:58 AM

nm nnnnnnnnn

**plask_stirlac** · 06-06-2005, 11:59 AM

Let's go all out. We already play 162 games from coast to coast and into Canada, including hard balls and small parks, so here's my aggressive plan (for fun) to make things pretty fair.

1. Move Kansas City to the AL West, move Milwaukee back to the AL Central. Texas already plays in the West in the Central time zone, Kansas City can probably manage. Milwaukee had some good NL moments and rivalries, but they can joing the AL.
30 teams, 15 per league, 5 per division

2. Experiment with a new way of doing things. Abolish the DH. Also institute a new rule in both leagues allowing players to be subbed in or out more than once, like every other team sport I can think of. So the pitcher hits and a hit/field combo takes one lineup spot. Boston can start Olerud in the field, bat Ortiz, and keep Olerud in the field, but Olerud doesn't bat if Ortiz does and the pitcher hits 9th. There's still the strategy of the pitcher spot and subs there. This would probably be limited to one spot that can be subbed in and out. Maybe this is just a designated fielder, taking out a position player in the field instead of a pitcher in the batting lineup as the DH does. Does that make sense?

Going by NL rules would be the "purest," no doubt. But if we're considering reality, the union would want to keep Ortiz, Hafner, etc.

Teams bring in pinch fielders and hitters in late innings and they stay until subbed out. That's baseball. But there was also a time when football players played both ways a lot. The game has prospered since that became much less common. Basketball teams (in the late stages, when there are lots of stoppages) sub in offense/defense for singular possessions, not entire half innings. That's just how it is.

3. Why not expand interleague play and have WS home-field advantage decided by best record?

4. Possible schedule
54 games intra division (14 vs. two teams, 13 versus the other two, rotate yearly)
54 games intra league (6 games against 7 opponents, 4 against the other three, rotate)
54 games interleague (3 games against 6 opponents, 4 games against 9 opponents, rotate)

**CubBlue** · 06-06-2005, 01:42 PM

^^^

youre a genius

wamby · 06-06-2005, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by whatswailing

Everyone keeps on posting about getting rid of the wildcard to get rid of the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS but in reality do you think baseball wants to get rid of the most watched series of the playoffs? Not damn likely! If you want the Red Sox vs. Yankees ALCS to be over your team's owner should pay the money and compete and beat them out. To win you have to pay quite a bit of money. The Red Sox finally started dishing out the money and they finally got their World Series. It's baseball, whiners aren't winners. Just keep the divisions the same. If MLB should change anything, have the owners of the low budget teams sell their teams to owners who are willing to pay lots of money to win a championship. Yes, players are overpaid but it isn't going to stop. If you can't beat them (big payroll teams) and trust me, small payroll teams can't, join them.

The wild card needs to go. Put a big, fat asterisk next to the Red Sox, Marlins and Angels WS championships. The only thing that got the Red Sox to the WS last year was the wild card. As a second place team, they should have been home watching the Series.

The Real Yankees/Junior Yankees post-season rivalry is phoney and contrived. It took a major (and unneeded) rule change to bring it about.

**efin98** · 06-06-2005, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by wamby

The wild card needs to go. Put a big, fat asterisk next to the Red Sox, Marlins and Angels WS championships. The only thing that got the Red Sox to the WS last year was the wild card. As a second place team, they should have been home watching the Series.

Funny, the Red Sox wound up with a better record than the other two division winners in the AL. Sox finished with a better record than Oakland and Florida finished with a better record than Chicago in 2003. Anaheim finished with a better record than Chicago in 2002. Cardinals finished TIED with Houston and Oakland finished with a better record than Cleveland in 2001. Those teams should have been out of the playoffs as well- they got in only on the backs of the weak opponents in their divisions.

You don't like the Wild Card format- fine. But how dare you try to take away Boston's, Florida's, or Anaheim's glory in the World Series.

wamby · 06-06-2005, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by efin98

Funny, the Red Sox wound up with a better record than the other two division winners in the AL. Sox finished with a better record than Oakland and Florida finished with a better record than Chicago in 2003. Anaheim finished with a better record than Chicago in 2002. Cardinals finished TIED with Houston and Oakland finished with a better record than Cleveland in 2001. Those teams should have been out of the playoffs as well- they got in only on the backs of the weak opponents in their divisions.

You don't like the Wild Card format- fine. But how dare you try to take away Boston's, Florida's, or Anaheim's glory in the World Series.

Second place teams do not belong in the World Series.

**efin98** · 06-06-2005, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by wamby

Second place teams do not belong in the World Series.

They made it into the playoffs, they beat two "better" teams to get there- they earned their right to play in the World Series.

Don't like it don't watch. Don't read about it. Sit in ignorance for a year. The rest of the world will watch two teams play.

wamby · 06-06-2005, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by efin98

They made it into the playoffs, they beat two "better" teams to get there- they earned their right to play in the World Series.

Don't like it don't watch. Don't read about it. Sit in ignorance for a year.

They had no business being in the playoffs. They should have had to win their division for the right to make it to the playoffs.

Second place must be comfortable for the Jr Yankees. How long have they been there? Going on eight years?

**efin98** · 06-06-2005, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by wamby

They had no business being in the playoffs. They should have had to win their division for the right to make it to the playoffs.

Forget it. It's arguing with a brick wall.

wamby · 06-06-2005, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by efin98

Forget it. It's arguing with a brick wall.

Boston brick?

**efin98** · 06-06-2005, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by wamby

Boston brick?

Alamaba..but then again that explains the hatred of anythign remotely new

wamby · 06-06-2005, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by efin98

Alamaba..but then again that explains the hatred of anythign remotely new

The Alabama is only temporary, I would hardly qualify as a typical Alabamian. I like a lot of new things. I dislike most of the new things in basebabll however.

**Knick9** · 06-06-2005, 03:18 PM

Moving on...

I still say expansion should happen, 4 divisions of 4 teams sound good. That would eliminate the Wild Card entirely, though I'm not against the Wild Card idea. I even heard that Bud Selig* is thinking about switching the DH and P rules in the two leagues. Hey, I got a good idea Bud, why don't you stick with one rule rather than juggling the two rules continously!??

Portland is agreed on and now where else?

Interleague and Interdivision play should happen more often I will agree.

**efin98** · 06-06-2005, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Knick9

Moving on...

I still say expansion should happen, 4 divisions of 4 teams sound good. That would eliminate he Wild Card entirely, though I'm not against the Wild Card idea. I even heard that Bud Selig* is thinking about switching the DH and P rules in the two leagues. Hey, I got a good idea Bud, why don't you stick with one rule rather than juggling the two rules continously!??

Portland is agreed on and now where else?

Interleague and Interdivision play should happen more often I will agree.

Wild Card gets eliminated in the 4 division format with the addition of two expansion teams, exactly the same format the NFL has for it's 32 team league. Only the 4 division winners play, leaving the same three series per post season format that is in place now.

Also New Orleans should be the next expansion city after Portland. New Orleans could allow for a southern division in one league to work, probably the NL.

**mojorisin71** · 06-06-2005, 07:44 PM

Is there a baseball audience in Louisiana? I was listening to the Herd on ESPNRadio a couple of weeks ago and a bunch of callers agree with Cowherd's statement that New Orleans is a party town, not a sports town. Anyone here from LA or from the South than can corroborate?

**sandlot** · 06-06-2005, 10:04 PM

For the quality of play, contraction is better than expansion. But if there is to be expansion, then get rid of both the wild card and inter-league play. A radical and practical restructuring would be to divide the divisions and leagues by time zones -- say, East and Central in American, Rocky Mountain and West in National. That would reduce travel time and cost, while increasing regional rivalries. My even-more-radical preference, which will get nowhere, is for relegation as in English football. You perform beneath a certain level, you get dropped into a second league and have to play your way back out. That would really light some competitive fires and rearrange the salary structure. But it won't get a look.

**scrabblehack** · 06-10-2005, 06:06 PM

Hmm...I thought my schedule idea would start more conversation....I guess not. As I say it would make more sense than the current schedule. Anyway, the 4*16,10*8,6*3 schedule would have only 50 series and a lot of them would be 4-game series, and others would be 2-game series. I think it would be possible to arrange the schedule such that no team was off for more than two days in a row though. (with most off days being Tuesday-Wednesday).

The basic scheme involves 6 series against divisional opponents, plus 2 series against each league opponent not in the division, plus 6 or 7 series against the opposite league. With the unbalanced schedule, I've noticed some really funky travel.

So, the possibilities for a balanced schedule:
19*4 = 76, 10*6 = 60, 4*5 = 20, 3*2 = 6.
(My preferred option would be to have each team play the opposite league, same division at least once -- the 6th series could be against the "favorite" team in the opposite league (such as Mets-Yankees or Cubs-White Sox), and the 7th series could rotate among the rest of the league (on a 10-year cycle).

18*4 = 72, 10*7 = 70, 3*6 = 18, 1*2 = 2
Hmm...maybe 5 games against the "favorite" team in the opposite league?

17*4 = 68, 10*7 = 70, 3*2 = 6, 4*4 = 16
16*4 = 64, 10*7 = 70, 4*7 = 28
16*4 = 64, 10*8 = 80, 6*3 = 18

**whatswailing** · 06-10-2005, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by scrabblehack

Hmm...I thought my schedule idea would start more conversation....I guess not. As I say it would make more sense than the current schedule. Anyway, the 4*16,10*8,6*3 schedule would have only 50 series and a lot of them would be 4-game series, and others would be 2-game series. I think it would be possible to arrange the schedule such that no team was off for more than two days in a row though. (with most off days being Tuesday-Wednesday).

The basic scheme involves 6 series against divisional opponents, plus 2 series against each league opponent not in the division, plus 6 or 7 series against the opposite league. With the unbalanced schedule, I've noticed some really funky travel.

So, the possibilities for a balanced schedule:
19*4 = 76, 10*6 = 60, 4*5 = 20, 3*2 = 6.
(My preferred option would be to have each team play the opposite league, same division at least once -- the 6th series could be against the "favorite" team in the opposite league (such as Mets-Yankees or Cubs-White Sox), and the 7th series could rotate among the rest of the league (on a 10-year cycle).

18*4 = 72, 10*7 = 70, 3*6 = 18, 1*2 = 2
Hmm...maybe 5 games against the "favorite" team in the opposite league?

17*4 = 68, 10*7 = 70, 3*2 = 6, 4*4 = 16
16*4 = 64, 10*7 = 70, 4*7 = 28
16*4 = 64, 10*8 = 80, 6*3 = 18

Look at all the pretty asterisks!

**Bluesteve32** · 06-10-2005, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by whatswailing

Look at all the pretty asterisks!

Ford Frick would be proud.

**scrabblehack** · 06-18-2005, 03:43 PM

Ah, I can see that most people don't have the desire for balanced divisions that I do....

**Bluesteve32** · 06-18-2005, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by scrabblehack

Ah, I can see that most people don't have the desire for balanced divisions that I do....

I would love a balance divisional situation. Until baseball adds or subtracts teams, the current alignment is necessary.

**scrabblehack** · 06-24-2005, 05:57 PM

I just outlined above that you CAN construct a 162-game schedule (there are several possibilities), with no team being off...it's just that you would intersperse interleague play throughout the season....

**Bluesteve32** · 06-24-2005, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by scrabblehack

I just outlined above that you CAN construct a 162-game schedule (there are several possibilities), with no team being off...it's just that you would intersperse interleague play throughout the season....

Interleague play was something the American League favored decades ago. With many still opposed to interleague play and even the DH, how would you have these same people allow an interleague game virtually every night of the season?

There will be no changes in the current alignment, despite what anyone says here or how much it makes sense to you or me, until MLB subtracts or adds two teams, period!

Those of you who think they would be able to suggest this really have no clue how "traditional" so many in baseball's upper echelon really are. Having Milwaukee switch leagues was only possible because Bug Selig had his own team switch, for none of the others were willing. You can have all this information about how you can do a 162 game schedule work out, but until baseball is willing, which it won't be, it is all for naught.