Realignment

[Benjamin Grimm]

There's apparently a realignment proposal on the table, and I don't think we've discussed it here.

The plan would be that, beginning in 2012, there would be 15 teams in each league (I think the Astros would move to the AL -- why not the Brewers?) and no divisions.

Five teams from each league would make the playoffs. In the first round, the 4th and 5th place teams would play each other, and the 1st through 3rd place teams would get a bye.

[ashie62]

My preference is for four divisions of six, two leagues.

[TransMonk]

I'm opposed. Interleague everyday sounds horrible to me.

[metirish]

Sounds crazy but apparently it's been talked about , one scenario I heard or read was the Marlins going to the AL. I don't like it , they should go back to the balanced schedule if they are going to change things, one thing I don't like about the 15 team league is teams shooting for fifth place , like the EPL in a way where some teams only strive for a top five finish because that brings the spoils of Champion League soccer.

[TransMonk]

metirish wrote: balanced schedule

I'd rather this as well.

[Gwreck]

I don't know. I think it would be ok. It would certainly offer the opportunity to balance the schedule more.

However, any proposal that INCREASES the number of playoff teams is unacceptable.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I... don't hate it.

I don't like the regular interleague play (although if this could be leveraged to eliminate the DH, which I doubt, it would be a plus) and I don't like ten playoff teams, but I think ten playoff teams is probably inevitable, and this would be a better way of doing it.

I don't like the balanced schedule; teams should play more games within their division. The best way to balance the schedule is by eliminating divisions. And this does that.

And I'd rather see a fourth- and fifth-place team play a sudden-death first round than two wild cards, where one of the wild cards might have 98 wins while one of the division winners, getting a bye, may have only 85. It sounds crazy, but it makes sense when you think about it.

I don't care which team goes to the AL, as long as it's not the Mets or one of the "legacy" franchises: Reds, Phils, Pirates, Cubs, Cardinals.

[Fman99]

No divisions is stupid. Interleague games all season is also a stupid idea.

You want to fix baseball? Throw the fucking DH away.

[Ceetar]

It's not really 'on the table' from what I've heard. just something someone threw out there.

I've always been in favor of year long interleague play. (or just keep NL at 16 and only do interleague in non-april/sept months)

Or, give the players an extra roster spot (more jobs) and ditch that stupid DH thing. Abandon any last semblance of separation between AL and NL and just go with it.

[Willets Point]

They can just dissolve the no-longer meaningful National and American Leagues for all I care. Create a 16-team Eastern League and 14-team Western League. Or three 10-team leagues. Or four leagues of 8,8,8, & 6. Or set free all the minor league teams to become independent teams in a promotion/relegation system.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I hate that the NL has 50 more players than the AL, and I've been over why. You all can disagree but back when the AL had more teams the NL was dominant.

I wouldn't mind that 15 per would require one IL series at all times, as I don't see any value in jamming them all at once (well not all thanks to the imbalance).

Is there something wrong with 15 team league, 3 divisions of 5 per? With 2 WCs per would be rare when a superior team misses out, yes?

[Frayed Knot]

The reason they went to 16/14 in the first place is that inter-league was always considered a temporary thing - or at least something that had to be approved on an ongoing basis - so that if it ever went away you'd be screwed with a 15/15 set-up. The other problem is that whatever problems they're looking to fix now were ones that were caused by the last realignment.

6 divisions x 5 teams each would work only if inter-league was set in stone as permanent and it would have to be virtually every day. Thing is, you can actually run it all season long and reduce the total number of IL games. The problem is you not only have to convince someone to move but make it so that extra team logically winds up in the AL West.

Most of the rest of these more complicated "fixes" being bandied about are solutions in search of problems.

[metsmarathon]

i actually like the idea of two 15-team leagues, with no divisions.

i think the biggest argument against it is that - gott-im-himmel! - you might have a team in contention playing an interleague game in the last week of the season.

how this is appreciably worse than a team playing an out-of-division game, well, i don't know. i guess you have the slight chance that the mets and reds could be battling for the wild card, but really, how often is that really a factor? besides, isn;t it only really important that all teh teams in contention face teh same things? and if your interleague game is in late september, or august, well, who the fuck really cares, so long as you still have to play the same amount of interleague games as anybody else.

and that's what's important - that it would offer an opportunity to get a fairly balanced schedule both in-league and interleague.

the current schedule is a joke. especially the interleague blocks. why the hell should those games be confined to special chunks of the season? wouldn't it be more interesting if every week there's an AL team in an NL park, or vice versa? each week, you have a special series. swell!

i've also heard how absurd it would be if you have an AL team in the thick of the pennant race forced to go at a disadvantage by batting their pitcher. and all i can think is that, hey, wouldn't that add to the drama, and add importance to a key skill - hitting? i mean, you could just do the fuck away with teh dh altogether and make me super-happy. but really it is teh nl team who is at a disadvantage in the dh games, as their 9th best hitter is usually a defensive utilityman, not a dedicated stick guy. but regardless, so long as the AL team is competing against other AL teams who've had to bat their pitchers, what does it matter if it comes late in the season or early?

i also think that with 5 teams making it per league, you've got at least six teams with something to play for. the first place team wants to feast on the weakened 4th/5th place winner who just had to use his best pitcher, if available, to advance through what i would hope would be a one-game playoff. the 2nd place team is desperately trying to climb into that catbird seat. the third place team will be playing to stay out of the play-in game, while the 4th place team will try their best to rise above it. the 5th place team will dig its teeth into that last spot, while the 6th place team will be clawing their way up, hoping against hope just to get a shot.

in teh current system, your division winners could salt away their spots early, and have nothing to play for but the victory lap late into september. if the sawx and mfys run away with the nl east, then there's no wild card drama either.

but if the 4-5 matchup is a one-game playoff, that adds a huge carrot to the pennant winner, and a big sigh of relief to the 3 seed. the longer that matchup is, the less impact it has, at least positively. a one-game, high drama play-in game would be a great way to kick off the playoffs, draw interest, and not ice the higher seeds. the one-seed would get the next series opener anyway, so its not like there would be any scheduling uncertainty.

[MFS62]

One of the baseball "experts" on ESPN radio mentioned today that the NL Central owners are causing these realignment thoughts. They've been bitching (my word) for years because there are 6 teams in their division, and it makes their division race tougher than in divisions with fewer teams. He added that the recent comments by the D-Backs ownership that they wouldn't oppose a move to the AL may cause the idea to grow some legs.

My comment - when some of the oldest teams like the Cubs and Cards are bitching, its going to get the commissioner's ear.
Later

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Part of me thinks this is a scam to give AL East teams besides the MFYs and the BoSox a shot at the playoffs -- or God forbid, the Rays, Orioles or Jays actually finish ahead of the MFYs and BoSox, to make sure they'd still get their rightful spot in the postseason. Hey, who wants to see the Mariners or Athletics in there!

Not saying there isn't room for some changes, but more divisions give more teams a shot at finishing first. Everyone likes to market a first-place finish.

[ashie62]

If this came to fruition I would not be surprised if the DH was then used in both leagues.

[Edgy MD]

MFS62 wrote: OThey've been bitching (my word) for years because there are 6 teams in their division, and it makes their division race tougher than in divisions with fewer teams. He added that the recent comments by the D-Backs ownership that they wouldn't oppose a move to the AL may cause the idea to grow some legs.

It's a perfectly rational complaint. On dumb luck, an AL west team has a 34.1% chance of making the playoffs, and an NL Central team has a 24.4% chance. That's the sort of unfair we should all be against. And yeah, I have no problem with spreading inter-league games over the course of the season to eliminate it.

[Ceetar]

Of course, this (no divisions)would just cause teams to clinch way earlier, and coast for even more of September. It'd probably cut down on the number of meaningful last week games.

[G-Fafif]

metsmarathon wrote: the current schedule is a joke. especially the interleague blocks. why the hell should those games be confined to special chunks of the season?

Just goes to show you how far Interleague has fallen, or how it never really got going. It was supposed to be a big deal when it came along (when it had a June component and a late August component). Now, throughout the current Mets road trip, when they run commercials to get out to Citi Field for the next homestand, they don't even bother mentioning the opponents. No "come see the Angels and A's who only show up once in a great while!" If anything, it's probably a liability, or no more appealing than "come see the Diamondbacks and Padres!"

[bmfc1]

"Come to Citi Field, home of International Soccer, and watch the Mets seek revenge for the loss of the 1973 World Series against the Oakland A's!"

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: Of course, this (no divisions)would just cause teams to clinch way earlier, and coast for even more of September. It'd probably cut down on the number of meaningful last week games.

What it would do is use the same logic that the NBA & NHL have fallen into.
Those leagues figure that the the best teams record-wise are usually the same teams that are strongest business-wise and therefore it doesn't matter if they clinch a playoff spot by New Years Day because the purpose of the remainder of the season is to manufacture "drama" between the .500-ish clubs who can (and often need to) sell their teams as playoff contenders and label each of their remaining games as crucial.

It's a stupid process even for hockey and it would be an even worse one for baseball.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, you'd get a late-season race between the fifth, sixth, and seventh best teams, rather then the top two or three teams, which is kind of what we have with the wild card anyway.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, you'd get a late-season race between the fifth, sixth, and seventh best teams, rather then the top two or three teams, which is kind of what we have with the wild card anyway.

Except that the current divisional set-up DOES also create races among the top teams, not always but usually*. The elimination of divisions would create "races" among the also-rans in place of races for the top.
With the 'winter sports' set-up, they may still divide things into divisions but it's really just two big conferences with a race for 8th place where the only carrot for the top teams is the somewhat dubious prize of a potential 4-3 home court/ice advantage in a certain round instead of a 3-4 disadvantage.










* and the odds of getting in-division races goes down as the number of teams in each division goes down - something the crowd who wants to add two more teams and go to an 8x4 set-up needs to consider.

[Theoldmole]

Go back to two 8-team leagues, get rid of the DH, bring back the player-manager, and bring the Dodgers back to Brooklyn.

[Theoldmole]

Oh, and have starting pitchers finish games.

[MFS62]

TheOldMole wrote: Go back to two 8-team leagues, get rid of the DH, bring back the player-manager, and bring the Dodgers back to Brooklyn.

When you go to your high school reunion, you don't still ask out the girl who turned you down every time you asked her out and then dated the captain of the football team.
Let them stay out West.

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

Here's how the last five years might have played out under the different proposed scenarios. (Not accounting, of course, for the fact that the won-lost records would have been different with a different schedule.)

For each year, in the first section I show, for each league, the four playoff teams, and in brackets who the fifth team would have been if there was provision for a second wild card.

I then show, in the "Single Division" section, who would have made the playoffs if the five teams with the best records qualified. In some years, there's no difference, but sometimes there are a few different teams qualifying. The 2007 NL race would have been incredible. 2010 in the NL would have been essentially unchanged.

2010
NATIONAL LEAGUE
1. Phillies (97)
1. Reds (91)
1. Giants (92)
W1. Braves (91)
{W2. Padres (90)}

Single Division:
1. Phillies (97)
2. Giants (92)
3T. Braves (91)
3T. Reds (91)
5. Padres 90


AMERICAN LEAGUE
1. Rays (96)
1. Twins (94)
1. Rangers (90)
W1. Yankees (95)
{W2. Red Sox (89)}

Single Division:
1. Rays (96)
2. Yankees (95)
3. Twins (94)
4. Rangers (90)
5. Red Sox (89)


2009
NATIONAL LEAGUE
1. Phillies (93)
1. Cardinals (91)
1. Dodgers (95)
W1. Rockies (92)
{W2. Giants (88)}

Single Division
1. Dodgers (95)
2. Phillies (93)
3. Rockies (92)
4. Cardinals (87)
5. Giants (88)

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1. Yankees (103)
1. Twins (87)
1. Angels (97)
W1. Red Sox (95)
{W2. Rangers (87)}

Single Division
1. Yankees (103)
2. Angels (97)
3. Red Sox (95)
4T. Twins (87)
4T. Rangers (87)


2008
NATIONAL LEAGUE
1. Phillies (92)
1. Cubs (97)
1. Dodgers (84)
W1. Brewers (90)
{W2. Mets (89)}

Single Division
1. Cubs (97)
2. Phillies (92)
3. Brewers (90)
4. Mets (89)
5T. Astros (86)
5T. Cardinals (86)

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1. Rays (97)
1. White Sox (89)
1. Angels (100)
W1. Red Sox (95)
{W2. Yankees (89)}

Single Division
1. Angels (100)
2. Rays (97)
3. Red Sox (95)
4T. Yankees (89)
4T. White Sox (89)

2007
NATIONAL LEAGUE
1. Phillies (89)
1. Cubs (85)
1. Diamondbacks (90)
W1. Rockies (90)
{W2. Padres (89)}

Single Division
1T. Diamondbacks (90)
1T. Rockies (90)
3T. Phillies (89)
3T. Padres (89)
5. Mets (88)

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1. Red Sox (96)
1. Indians (96)
1. Angels (94)
W1. Yankees (94)
{W2. Tigers or Mariners, (88)}

Single Division
1T. Red Sox (96)
1T. Indians (96)
3T. Angels (94)
3T. Yankees (94)
5T. Tigers (88)
5T. Mariners (88)


2006
NATIONAL LEAGUE
1. Mets (97)
1. Cardinals (83)
1. Padres (88)
W1. Dodgers (88)
{W2. Phillies (85)}

Single Division
1. Mets (97)
2T. Padres (88)
2T. Dodgers (88)
4. Phillies (85)
5. Cardinals (83)

AMERICAN LEAGUE
1. Yankees (97)
1. Twins (96)
1. Athletics (93)
W1. Tigers (95)
{W2. White Sox (90)

Single Division
1. Yankees (97)
2. Twins (96)
3. Tigers (95)
4. White Sox (90)
5. Angels (89)

[metsmarathon]

i think though that if you have a one-game playoff, then you will have a race for the top. it may not be nearly as intense, i'm sure, but being able to play against a team that just had a play-in game sounds like a bit of a carrot. its certainly better in my mind than a home-field advantage.

last year in the AL there were no races. well, i can't be sure. but each playoff spot was decided by at least 6 games. assuming all the teams would have had the same records in a divisionless format, you'd have three teams within a game of first, playing for the extra rest and the opportunity to feast on a weakened opponent, and you'd have three teams within a game of the last spot, trying to get in or stay in. and now your 7th place team is only four games out, too.

in the NL, the west had a race decided by two games. the loser, the padres, lost the wild card by one game. that would be lost in the new format as the pad's would've been the fifth team. but now you've got four teams within a game of the play-in game. the second place team would have something to play for here. and the sixth place team is only 4 games out of the last spot in the playoffs. drama abounds!

this season, baseball prospectus predicts the red sox and yankees to finish with 97 and 92 wins, respectively, trailed a bit by the rays at 84 wins. it may ruin the suspense to say that the yankees would run away with the wild card, winning it by those 8 games over the rays. in the other divisions, the tigers' 87 wins trump the white sox' 83 in the closest divisional race, while in the west, texas dominates a weak field with 86 wins over the 77-win oakland a's. not much drama there, eh? no real reason for the yankees and sox to battle it out, right? only the tigers have any real reason to sweat.

with no divisions, you still have the sox and yanks running away, but now they have a carrot. the rays are in the thick of things, a game ahead of the white sox for the last spot, while the rangers and tigers now play to avoid the play-in game.

in the nl, we start to run into some trouble though. right now, we're set up for two division races with the phils and braves projected to 92 and 89 wins respectively, and the cards and brewers at 89 and 87 wins. the giants are laughing away with the west at 92 wins over the 82 win rockies.

with no divisons, the phils and giants duke it out for the top spot, while the braves and cards try to avoid risking the one-gamer against the brewers. the reds finish 3 games out of the action with 84 wins. the fish sit back with the rockies at 82. this time, the drama is more with the teams that are in it, but the reds have the hope for some meaningful games.

...

in football, there seems to be ht biggest advantage to winning your division. you get the bye and/or home field. that can have a big impact in a single game. in basketball and hockey, the advantage is really just in the opponents, hoping to play either the weaker team or the team with the more favorable matchup, as the extra home game in a 7 game series really isn't all that big imo. in a divisonless baseball playoff, i think you get more of the football-style advantage, as i believe the team that has to play-in to get in has a disadvantage going forward, provided that play-in is limited to a single game.

if the wild card thing is a three-game series, then the top three teams could get iced sitting too long, while the wild card team just keeps humming along.

a one-game series lets those games be the sole focus of a day. the next day the 2-3 matchup begins, and the following day the 1-WC matchup begins. the top seed gets an extra day to rest and align their rotation, giving them a real reason to fight for the top spot, in addition to playing a weakened or drained opponent. i'd also have them get rid of all the bullshit off days in the schedules so that the seven game series get done in much closer to seven days, but that's with or without realignment.

and just think of all the amateur sports psychology you'd get to practice, debating endlessly whether the advantage goes to the wild card winner or the top seed, or maybe just the two and three seeds! sports talk radio fodder! finally something for espn to chatter on about!

... i see grimmy did some of what i was doing. how close is the sixth team in those years?

[Theoldmole]

There are some things you never give up pleading for, even if you don't want them any more.

Meanwhile, great work by Mr. Thing.

[Gwreck]

G-Fafif wrote: Just goes to show you how far Interleague has fallen, or how it never really got going. It was supposed to be a big deal when it came along (when it had a June component and a late August component). Now, throughout the current Mets road trip, when they run commercials to get out to Citi Field for the next homestand, they don't even bother mentioning the opponents. No "come see the Angels and A's who only show up once in a great while!" If anything, it's probably a liability, or no more appealing than "come see the Diamondbacks and Padres!"

The Mets' commercials aren't exactly the last word on this. Interleague play still results in attendance increases across MLB. Some of that is attributable to a few particularly high-drawing road teams (Yankees and Red Sox) but the novelty clearly hasn't worn off at the box office generally.