Realignment

[G-Fafif]

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

Gads, the Mets found every way possible to not make the playoffs in 2007, including hypothetically. I understood this rationally since there was a one-game playoff and Mets weren't in it, but seeing it again here...gads.

[G-Fafif]

Gwreck wrote: 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.

I'm mostly thinking about the Mets here. But my cursory glances at attendance figures over the years tell me that if you factor out MFYs and Red Sox and the occasional extraordinary draw (McGwire and Sosa going into AL parks at the height of their mass, for example), these are not treated as anything more than three more games on the schedule by most teams or fans.

And I guess the question becomes is the disruption in the flow of the season and the loss of games to more traditional or relevant rivals worth the novelty and whatever boost a possible Red Sox/MFY or other extraordinary visit gains the average club? (Acknowledging the intracity rivalries are going to be a big deal.)

[TransMonk]

Well, you know interleague makes money for the majority of teams, otherwise the owners would nix it.

I still don't understand if this plan would balance out the schedule, and if so, how.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Someone check my math here:

I'm wondering about how 15 teams in each league would require interleague play throughout the season.

To simplify things, let's just say that there are 162 days of action in the season, and on each of those 162 days, every team is playing.

That means that of the 15 games played each day, 14 of them can be AL vs. AL and NL vs. NL. So the minimum number of interleague games that would have to be played during the season is 162.

That comes out to an average of 5.4 games per team.

Now, of course, they may opt to make interleague games more frequent, but they don't have to. It could be limited to five games for some teams and six games for other teams. It sucks that some of those games would have to be in late September, but no team would have to play more than three such games in September; not a huge impact on the pennant races at all.

[Ceetar]

Sure, 81 games against your divisional opponents. (probably fit in a nice 4 game series in there too, or even a 5 if they're ambitious. Imagine Mets-Phillies early Septemberish, 5 games. sorta like a mini-playoff in it of itself. )

60 games against your non-divisonal league opponents. 10 teams, two series. roughly what we do now anyway.

15 interleague games. one division. rotate. They wouldn't do this because want intercity every season.

6 more games. owners choice. trump up an opponent you like. Mets want to play the Cardinals 3 more times? request it.

[TransMonk]

I thought the new plan ditched the divisions...wouldn't games against the Dodgers be just as important as the Braves in this 15 team league scenario?

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: I thought the new plan ditched the divisions...wouldn't games against the Dodgers be just as important as the Braves in this 15 team league scenario?

hey, they're just making up stuff and haven't decided a thing. i'm going to make it up my own way. *Shrug* keep the divisions.

[Frayed Knot]

The are approximately 240 IL games each season under the current format.
The theoretical 15/15 split with just one IL series goinig on at all times would drop that number down to the 160-180 range or about 12 per team*.

It would be fine with me if IL went away entirely but I realize that's not going to happen.
But the whole idea of 15-18 per team was because divisions were 'matched up' [East v East etc]. That barely exists now so there's no reason why MLB needs to stubbornly cling to that amount.






* Remember that each game played involves two teams therefore 30 teams playing 12 IL games each equals 180 separate games [(30x12)/2 = 180]

[metirish]

Why not just scrap the NL and AL , have divisions based on East, Central and West?

MLB East
NY Mets
NY Yankees
Boston
Baltimore
Tampa
Miami
Toronto
Nats
Braves
Phillies

MLB Central

Royals
Indians
White Sox
Cubs
St.Louis
Twins
Tigers
Brewers
Pirates
Reds
Astros
Rangers


MLB West

Seattle
Dodgers
Angels
Oakland
San Fran
Colorado
Arizona
San Diego


Pirates could go to the East, Rangers to the Central or both Astros and Rangers to the West



I should note that this is hardly an original thought.

[Gwreck]

Eliminating the leagues is great but would require eliminating the DH in the American League (tough sell).

[TransMonk]

Gwreck wrote: Eliminating the leagues is great but would require eliminating the DH in the American League (tough sell).

I think it is more likely they would just use the DH for all teams (although, it's equally as tough a sell).

[metirish]

TransMonk wrote: Gwreck wrote: Eliminating the leagues is great but would require eliminating the DH in the American League (tough sell). I think it is more likely they would just use the DH for all teams (although, it's equally as tough a sell).

yeah this, the players for one wouldn't want it eliminated right?, it's a high paying position and players like Ortiz have thrived there.

[Willets Point]

metirish wrote: Why not just scrap the NL and AL , have divisions based on East, Central and West?

I'd totally go for this but I'd make them three ten-team leagues with no "interleague play" whatsoever. Each team would play 18-games each against the other teams in their leagues. Every single game would be against a league rival playing for the same title. The familiarity would breed rivalries which would increase attendance and viewership. Since all the teams in a league would be in roughly the same region it would also encourage fans traveling to more away games, again increasing attendance. TV scheduling would be easier since there wouldn't be games in distant time zones and thus games would start at consistent times, increasing viewership. National networks could schedule a game of the week for each league starting at time suitable to that time zone. Travel costs would be reduced as would wear & tear on the players. In fact MLB could promote reduced travel as a "green initiative".

Of course in my world there would be fewer rather than more postseason contenders. I would go with the the three league champions and then the second place teams would play a round-robin to determine the "wild card" team. The pennant winner with the best record would play the wild card and the other two pennant winners would face off in best-of-7 playoff series with the winners going to the World Series. But the alignment would allow for more postseason contenders as MLB would inevitably chose to do so.

[metsmarathon]

i think if you do a three division setup, the west is easy. if you're west of missouri, you're in the west.

the central and eastern divisions are a little trickier. if you do it strictly geographically, then cleveland, toronto and pittsburgh are in the east, with atlanta and tampa in the west.

i think it makes more sense to send toronto to the west, keeping atlanta in the east.

3 divisons, 10 teams each.

i wasn't sure how you'd do the playoffs, then i read willets idea. which i love.

[TransMonk]

Selfishly, Willet's 3x10 idea doesn't really work for me...or potentially other transplanted fans.

I'll go see the Mets every year when they're in Milwaukee...but I only make it to NYC every 3 or 4 years to see the Mets there.

[metirish]

Willets for Commissioner

[Valadius]

If you scrap divisions, I don't think teams would fight as hard to come in second, third, or fourth place. Thumbs down, though realignment could make sense under the right circumstance.

[metirish]

A 30 team league with relegation, teams play each other five times , season shortened to 150 games. This would require AAA to be aligned with the big league , bottom three get relegated with the top three AAA teams promoted.

Some of the best excitement in this scenario could be relegation and the champion decided on the last day of games, yes our Mets sucked but look they can stay in the top flight if they beat the MFY's in the last game and in the process stopping the yankees from being champions. You think Citi Field would sell out for that game?

[Willets Point]

metirish wrote: Willets for Commissioner

No way. I saw what that job did to A. Bartlett Giamatti. You have to be incredibly stupid to keep that position for a long time.

[HahnSolo]

Willets Point wrote: metirish wrote: Willets for Commissioner No way. I saw what that job did to A. Bartlett Giamatti. You have to be incredibly stupid to keep that position for a long time.

Who you tellin?

[G-Fafif]

Realign the fucking Braves to another fucking planet.

[MFS62]

G-Fafif wrote: Realign the fucking Braves to another fucking planet.

Amen!

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

I pulled this paragraph from an article on Yahoo.com:

Jeff Passan wrote: One positive step [toward realignment and an additional wild card] in recent weeks, sources said, is the softening of incoming Houston Astros owner Jim Crane on moving his team to the AL West under a realignment plan that would even out the leagues at 15 teams apiece and allow six five-team divisions. Crane�s reticence � playing three division foes in the Pacific time zone � is allayed by the Texas Rangers� ability to lock in a huge TV deal in spite of their AL West affiliation as well as the possibility of negotiations offering a more balanced schedule.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

The Astros would be the worst team in either league. Remove them and it'd be a bettle between the Padres and Cubs for top draft pick.

[metirish]

If I were an Astros fan I would be really pissed about my team going to the American League. As bad as they are now the Astros have a rich National League history, yeah they never won a WS but still, in my mind they are an NL team. Maybe I feel this way because of the shared history the Astros have with the Mets.

[Ceetar]

metirish wrote: If I were an Astros fan I would be really pissed about my team going to the American League. As bad as they are now the Astros have a rich National League history, yeah they never won a WS but still, in my mind they are an NL team. Maybe I feel this way because of the shared history the Astros have with the Mets.

I would just be pissed because they already suck and now there is another hole, DH, created that they need to fill.

[Guest sharpie]

Actually, in Carlos Lee DH is one of the few positions they would be set with.

[Ceetar]

sharpie wrote: Actually, in Carlos Lee DH is one of the few positions they would be set with.

Then they have to fill the position they would've played Lee in in the NL.

[Gwreck]

metirish wrote: If I were an Astros fan I would be really pissed about my team going to the American League. As bad as they are now the Astros have a rich National League history, yeah they never won a WS but still, in my mind they are an NL team.

I agree; I too would be infuriated if I was an Astros fan. There's little doubt in my mind that baseball screwed up by not putting the Diamondbacks in the AL West when they came into the league (and the Astros in the NL west).

Further, I recall that there was at least a several-year window after the Diamondbacks (and Devil Rays) came into existence that either could have been moved to another league if baseball wanted.

[DocTee]

There's little doubt in my mind that baseball screwed up by not putting the Diamondbacks in the AL West when they came into the league (and the Astros in the NL west).

Yup. The 'Stros as NL, in my mind. And I still think of the Brewers as an AL-club.