Realignment

[Frayed Knot]

As I mentioned in a thread right around the end of the season, 2011 was the first year in which the Astros/Colts lost 100 or more games - a fact which surprised me even though I knew they didn't have as many bad years as their NL birth-mates. By contrast they've also only won 100+ games once (1998) and have gone 21-35 in their nine playoff appearances including a ridiculous 2-14 stretch* and later their last four in a row, the only four WS games they ever played.


What's bad about this potential move isn't how it'll affect the strength of the AL-West or any other division for that matter - those things vary over time to the point where it's barely even worth discussing - but that MLB is, once again, shifting things around almost certainly against the will of one of their fan bases for the purpose of "fixing" something that was only "broken" because it got screwed up by the last round of supposed fixes.






* A stretch that started right after their win that Edgy just posted in the 1986 thread

[MFS62]

If the move to the AL doesn't work out, I hear the Big East is looking for some more teams.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

NYPost -- Potential Houston Astros owner Jim Crane is looking to cut $50 million from the purchase price of the team in exchange for the Astros switching leagues, The Post has learned.

The Houston businessman has been talking to Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig about moving the team to the American League from the National League if Crane is approved as the franchise�s new owner.
Sources told The Post that Crane -- who reached a deal in May to buy the Astros from Drayton McLane for $680 million -- is asking for a price reduction in the $50 million range to make the move.

On that front, the two sides are in the �ballpark� on the price, although a deal is far from certain, sources said.
Crane argues the move to the AL would hurt the value of the franchise because the Astros would be playing more late-night games against West Coast teams. For Selig�s part, the switch would foster a rivalry between the Astros and the Texas Rangers.

[Benjamin Grimm]

This may become official soon. The Daily News reported this morning that the new Houston owner is being required to accept a move to the American League for 2013 as a condition of having the sale of the team getting approved.

Each team would (for some reason) have to pay $1 million (to someone) in order to make this happen.

The realignment would include the dreaded second wild-card team in each league, and a one-game playoff between the two wild cards to see who could advance to the Division Championship Series.

[Edgy MD]

I don't dread that. If you have to have Wild Card teams, might as well make it a lesser prize.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'd rather it was a best of three rather than a best of one.

I also don't like the possibility that a 90-win team might have to play a sudden death game against a 83-win team. I'm not sure that that would happen all that frequently, and as long as the Mets are never the losing team in such a game, it really won't affect me at all.

[Edgy MD]

The postseason always included mismatches of teams with disparate win totals. But until the wild card came along, they were always champions of something. Now this one game downgrades their position.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: The postseason always included mismatches of teams with disparate win totals. But until the wild card came along, they were always champions of something. Now this one game downgrades their position.

Actually, it only increases the disparate win totals. This would theoretically make the wild card teams thrive for the division title a little more.

[metirish]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd rather it was a best of three rather than a best of one. I also don't like the possibility that a 90-win team might have to play a sudden death game against a 83-win team. I'm not sure that that would happen all that frequently, and as long as the Mets are never the losing team in such a game, it really won't affect me at all.

I agree with this.

[Edgy MD]

That's my point.

[Guest sharpie]

Apparently TV networks nixed a 3-game WC playoff. They want sudden death.

[metirish]

sharpie wrote: Apparently TV networks nixed a 3-game WC playoff. They want sudden death.

of course , replete with new graphics to add to the excitement.

[Ceetar]

I kinda wanted a three-game in two days series.

first game at second wild card team, then both fly to first wild card team home for a baseball all day doubleheader.

[Guest attgig]

Ceetar wrote: I kinda wanted a three-game in two days series. first game at second wild card team, then both fly to first wild card team home for a baseball all day doubleheader.

they wouldn't like the possibility of an elimination game being played in the afternoon on east coast and morning on west coast. That would mean they lose tons of tv ratings and ad $$$

[Frayed Knot]

metirish wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd rather it was a best of three rather than a best of one. I also don't like the possibility that a 90-win team might have to play a sudden death game against a 83-win team. I'm not sure that that would happen all that frequently, and as long as the Mets are never the losing team in such a game, it really won't affect me at all. I agree with this.

If you don't want your team in a one-game do-or die situation then they'll have to win the division. It's a great incentive, as opposed to now where there's essentially no difference between a division winner and a WC.

Apparently TV networks nixed a 3-game WC playoff. They want sudden death.

Not surprising.
There's already a potential for as many as 41 post-season games (there were 38 this year) with only a handful of them potential elimination games (and fewer still which are a game 5/7 double elimination) so the last thing the networks want is as many as six more games where several are just lead-ups to the lose-and-go-home contests.

And MLB shouldn't want them either. Between the length of the post-season, the possibility of going into November, and forcing the actual winners to sit around for the better part of a week* before re-starting there are enough reasons to want the one-gamer.



* Day after the season ends break + potential tie-breakers + the three games necessary to play + plus a travel day? = at least 5 maybe 6 days off for the division winners and that's if it don't rain and the creek don't rise.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: * Day after the season ends break + potential tie-breakers + the three games necessary to play + plus a travel day? = at least 5 maybe 6 days off for the division winners and that's if it don't rain and the creek don't rise.

That's why I proposed the silly three in two idea. cram it in. The only thing I really care about postseason schedule/series wise is trying to get baseball everyday and almost no off days.

How about doubleheader at WC1 the day after the season ends, then if needed, deciding game at the home of Seed #1 in the morning. winner stays and plays LDS game one that night, loser gets out of there.

wouldn't happen, I don't know if they could sell those games out last minute. Would you pay to see (and take off work presumably) Phillies-Rockies at Citi Field to see who you get to play that night?

[metsmarathon]

i love the one game playoff.

i also hate the idea that it's abhorrent to end th season trying to win a playoff spot by playing in an interleague game. how fucking ridiculous. first of all, how is that appreciably different than playing in an interdivision game? unless you're both playing for the wild card, you're not playing your direct opponent anyways. and unless you're in a one-game race, you're not playing your direct opponent even if you're playing within your division.

this very season, the playoffs were decided on the last day of the season. each of the four teams with something to play for played within their own divisions.

but did their opponents have anything to play for? what did it matter that the red sox were playing baltimore? would the marlins, cubs, or padres have laid down and let them win, whereas the 69-win orioles felt they had something to play for??

what the fuck did it matter that the cardinals played houston? the twins could have lost that game just as handily. did it add any excitement that the cards won that game against a, heh, bitter divison rival?

was the mets' final game against cincinnati somehow more meaningful because although both teams were out of the wild card, they still were jockeying for relative position against each other? (no, i don't think so at all)

and why is this not a dire concern in any other fucking sport? why is it not a huge concern that in the nba, if they ever have a season, that the pacers and t-wolves could decide their playoff fates against opponents whose win-loss records are utterly unrelated? well, maybe nobody cares about the nba... why is it not a big deal that the blue jackets play the hurricanes on the final day of the nhl season? well, maybe because it's the nhl and those teams suck... i mean, seriously. columbus ohio? damn.

but then can't we resolve the issue the same way in baseball?

if you suck the prior year, guess what. not only do you get the top draft pick, you also get the honor of finishing your season in an interleague matchup against your fellow cellarmate. problem solved, eh? if kansas city and pittsburgh play each other on the final day of the season next year, will anyone be up in arms? will anyone care? or more correctly, will fewer people care?

[Ceetar]

On the flip side, think about how interesting it would've been if the Cardinals had played the Rangers on the last day of the season this year?

[Vic Sage]

If you don't want your team in a one-game do-or die situation then they'll have to win the division. It's a great incentive, as opposed to now where there's essentially no difference between a division winner and a WC.

This. my problem with the WC was that the WC team didn't have a sufficient disadvantage vs division winners. There should be greater incentive to win a division if possible, and not just cruise into a WC slot. This 1-game play-in doesn't INCREASE the value of the WC, it diminishes it, even as it gives another team (and fan base) a chance at a brass ring. But then the winning WC team gets less rest, more travel, and has used its best pitching option already, and doesn't get to set up its rotation against the subsequent Divisional series, like the division winner does.

Also, everything that MM said about interleague play. We've crossed the Rubicon on that issue; let the bridge be burned behind us.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Wait a minute- whozimawhatwiththeinterleaguethingy, now? What's all this, then?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Define "whozimawhatwiththeinterleaguethingy".

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Wait a minute- whozimawhatwiththeinterleaguethingy, now? What's all this, then?

Astros switch to AL west, 3 divisions of 5, interleague all the time. (since uneven leagues)

[Benjamin Grimm]

Which doesn't necessarily require more interleague games... there could actually be fewer (if they choose to go that route) but they'd be spread throughout the season.

[Guest attgig]

but the mets will still play the yankees more times than the phillies, braves, marlins, or nats will have to....

[Fman99]

I love the sudden death/2nd wild card proposal. Make the division championships count for something more than the wild card.

I hate the Astros move because I hate interleague. And you can't get rid of interleague with two 15 team leagues.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Which doesn't necessarily require more interleague games... there could actually be fewer (if they choose to go that route) but they'd be spread throughout the season.

Right.
There are currently ~250 IL games each year - or between 15 & 18 per team. Usually teams play 15 OR 18 games in order to keep things in multiples of 3.

The new (starting in 2013) set-up will require that there be at least one IL series going on all the time which, with the occasional off-day, adds up to around 170-180 dates to be filled by an IL game. If they stuck with that it would mean closer to 12 per team per year. MLB could keep the total number of IL where it is now by having some weeks where three IL series are going on at once (two is not possible as it has to be an uneven number with the exception of an occasional overlap) but they could not do fewer than that 170-ish number.
IOW, this realignment means IL is definitely here to stay. One of the reasons they purposely went to the 16/14 set-up (by moving Milwaukee) was because, in the beginning, IL was considered experimental and was being approved on a year by year basis and there's no way to have 15/15 without it.

I hope they use this re-jiggering thing to cut back. I've long proposed a compromise of 10 IL games consisting of a 4-game home-and-home vs your "natural rival" plus two other series at random. The only reason it started at 15 games/year was that they first set it up as strictly an East-v-East, Central-v-Central, and West-v-West idea and 3 x 5 worked out to 15. Expanding the natural rival idea to two series/yr (once they figured out that one made the most money) made it 18. Now that the same division thing has pretty much fallen apart (it was never perfect to begin with) there's no reason to be married to that 18 game/yr target.

[Gwreck]

Actually, Jayson Stark of ESPN recently wrote that the new schedule may well eliminate those extra "rivalry" games.

Apparently, the schedule under consideration is:

18 games against each of the other 4 teams in your division (72)
6 games against each of the other 10 teams in your league (60)
3 games against each of the other 5 teams in the corresponding division in the other league (15)
3 games against each of the other 5 teams in another division from the other league (15)
Total: 162

[batmagadanleadoff]

Actually, Jayson Stark of ESPN recently wrote that the new schedule may well eliminate those extra "rivalry" games. Apparently, the schedule under consideration is: 18 games against each of the other 4 teams in your division (72) 6 games against each of the other 10 teams in your league (60) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in the corresponding division in the other league (15) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in another division from the other league (15) Total: 162

I like this proposal. Of course, I don't like interleague play at all. And I don't like that the leagues consist of an odd-number of teams. But given that we're stuck with those parameters, that schedule works for me.

[TransMonk]

This proposal actually increases IL games from 15-18 to 30, but whatevs.

It's always going to suck as long as there are 30 teams and we have those stupid "rivarlry" games. I still hate it and will every season.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It's a logical breakdown. I just don't like that the number of interleague games per team would increase to 30. But it does allow every team in a particular division to play the same slate of opponents, which is a good thing.

It seems that the "rivalry games" would no longer get any special treatment. The Mets would play the Yankees each year, but it would be three games, the same number played by the Nationals, Marlins, Braves, and Phillies.