Realignment

[Guest attgig]

that would be nice. and i guess we'd alternate each year who gets home?

at least within the division, it's more 'even'.

but, it also makes me think of wild cards. if mets are in a race for the wild card, and we're left playing the yankees, redsox, tampa, jays, and o's while lets say the dodgers are playing the rangers, angels, mariners, A's, and Astros... well, it'll be interesting.

I suppose the games in the "other" division in the other league can even it out...

[Gwreck]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: 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.

I should have clarified -- this is the proposed schedule based on the Astros moving to the AL.

I can't do anything about your dislike for interleague play. How would you feel about contracting Oakland and Tampa, moving the Brewers back to the AL (along with the Astros), and going back to 2 divisions of 7 teams each?

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'd love it. Two divisions of six in each league would be even better. I can't even remember how the hell the Brewers got back into the NL to begin with. Was it one of those supedupertopsecret polls that only Bud Selig got to audit? The poll that only Bud Selig knew about? The poll that no one ever remembers even voting on? You know .. the one where "the fans voted for it". Now if you could do all that, then killing IL play should be a cinch for you.

[TransMonk]

Gwreck wrote: How would you feel about contracting Oakland and Tampa, moving the Brewers back to the AL (along with the Astros), and going back to 2 divisions of 7 teams each?

Best proposal I've heard yet.

[Guest attgig]

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. I should have clarified -- this is the proposed schedule based on the Astros moving to the AL. I can't do anything about your dislike for interleague play. How would you feel about contracting Oakland and Tampa, moving the Brewers back to the AL (along with the Astros), and going back to 2 divisions of 7 teams each?

and the astros WILL be moving.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7246443/houston-astros-sale-approved-mlb

[Frayed Knot]

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

Does anyone here suppose that fans walking around saying; 'Gee, wouldn't it be great if MLB were to virtually double the number of inter-league games to the point where those IL games accounted for nearly 1/5 of the total sked', represent even one percent of the total fan base?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Guest attgig]

Frayed Knot wrote: Does anyone here suppose that fans walking around saying; 'Gee, wouldn't it be great if MLB were to virtually double the number of inter-league games to the point where those IL games accounted for nearly 1/5 of the total sked', represent even one percent of the total fan base? Yeah, I didn't think so.

they're the 99%

[Ceetar]

I don't know about "Gee wouldn't it be great" but I like that proposed schedule breakdown better than the way it is now. I'd prefer they ditch the stupid DH so the AL didn't continue to have the advantage though, because this will somewhat significantly alter bench construction in the NL.

But that's because the Wild Card era encompasses most of my baseball watching life, and definitely the more aware periods of it. And there are plenty of serious fans younger than me. I don't have the same rivalry feel for the Cubs/Cardinals(though that one has obviously grown) that most of you do. Playing the Cubs isn't any more interesting to me than playing the As. Interleague was introduced nearly 15 years ago. the leagues aren't really separate anymore (Except for the stupid DH thing) so it's no big deal to me to mix it up a little more.

[Frayed Knot]

The choice of 'Please double the number of IL games' is currently running 6 points behind 'Rick Santorum' in the latest national polls.

[Gwreck]

I care far more about balancing the schedule than I do about keeping another 15-20 in the NL only. A balanced interleague schedule is FAR superior to the arbitrary mess that currently exists.

Note that I realize the interleague schedule as proposed above is not truly balanced but it's better than what exists now.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Note that I realize the interleague schedule as proposed above is not truly balanced but it's better than what exists now.

Balanced w/in division, i.e. emphasizing importance on division.


Not that 'balance' means anything when teams are often vastly different in April and September.

[Gwreck]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'd love it. Two divisions of six in each league would be even better. I can't even remember how the hell the Brewers got back into the NL to begin with. Was it one of those supedupertopsecret polls that only Bud Selig got to audit? The poll that only Bud Selig knew about?

I can reasonably see a situation in the future where Tampa and Oakland get contracted, but going down to 24 teams is a total fantasy.

Milwaukee was moved to the NL at the start of the 1998 season which is when Tampa and Arizona started play.

At the time, interleague play was still an "experiment" and the basic agreement with the players union wouldn't have permitted putting 15 teams in each league and interleague play on a daily basis, which meant that one of the two leagues was going to get 16 teams.

The West divisions of both the AL and NL had only 4 teams while the East and Central divisions had 5 each. Obviously, Arizona was going in one of those West divisions but Tampa was the trickier fit. I don't remember specifically if there was a provision that the two expansion teams had to go in different leagues, nor how it was decided that the NL would be getting 16 teams rather than the AL.

Tampa's spot was created by moving Detroit from the AL East to the AL Central, and then moving one of the AL Central teams to the NL Central. The White Sox, Indians and Tigers obviously weren't going to change leagues. Kansas City was offered the league switch first, and the Brewers accepted after KC declined to move. I don't recall if Minnesota was a candidate to move or not.

[Frayed Knot]

Arizona, at the time of the expansion, demanded that it enter as an NL club.
And while it was never clear what kind of leverage they had to make such a stipulation prior to even being admitted to the league, MLB went about that first realignment as if slotting the DBacks in the AL-West wasn't even an option.



And I fail to see how putting those "extra" ten games into cross-league play is any more balanced then distributing those games within the league.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: And I fail to see how putting those "extra" ten games into cross-league play is any more balanced then distributing those games within the league.

All divisional teams play the same schedule of teams.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And I fail to see how putting those "extra" ten games into cross-league play is any more balanced then distributing those games within the league. All divisional teams play the same schedule of teams.

They could do that if you made them in-league games too.
Bud seems to be laboring under the misconception that a game that involves teams from two different leagues is somehow automatically more interesting than an intra-league one.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Selig said today that the second wild card part of the plan may begin as early as 2012.

[Fman99]

Thirty IL games per year? Kill me.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: Bud seems to be laboring under the misconception that a game that involves teams from two different leagues is somehow automatically more interesting than an intra-league one.

I disagree both with your opinion and your framing of the issue.

[Frayed Knot]

Framing the issue to note that upping the number of IL games to 30 per/team is close to double what exists now, is about 18 or so more than what will be required by this new set-up, and is no closer to "balanced" than would others with fewer IL games could be is simply stating fact.

The part of this that's my opinion is that this seems to me to be coupled with Bud's ongoing campaign to blur the lines between the leagues and that the percentage of fans who prefer more IL play to less is countable on one hand and quite possibly one finger.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Framing the issue to note that upping the number of IL games to 30 per/team is close to double what exists now, is about 18 or so more than what will be required by this new set-up, and is no closer to "balanced" than would others with fewer IL games could be is simply stating fact. The part of this that's my opinion is that this seems to me to be coupled with Bud's ongoing campaign to blur the lines between the leagues and that the percentage of fans who prefer more IL play to less is countable on one hand and quite possibly one finger.

Does lesser work? For balance I mean. If you dropped it to 15 games, one series against a rotating AL division, each team would play 15 IL games. I'm failing on the math/schedule in my head, but could you do that exact many games and still maintain the one IL game a day necessary?

There may not be a ton of fans clamoring for more interleague, but I think you're underestimating the number of fans that really just don't care whether the Mets have another series against the Giants or the As.

[Edgy MD]

72 in division + 60 extradivisional + 30 interleague is a perfectly viable breakdown that adds up to 162. It would be way way cooler if they played it that way without the designated rivalry nonsense, but the Mets are ditching black and I can't have everything.

I'd enjoy it even more if the 30 interleague games weren't comprised of two three-game series against a particular division, but a barnstorm one-game stop against every team in the other league, with them barnstorming into your town later in the year. Ah, yeah!

[Ceetar]

but does 72, 75, 15? I know it adds to 162, but does it comfortably fit into a 54 series over ~182 days so that each team can play 5 series AND there is always an interleague series?



I think a 1-game barnstorming thing would be interesting for sure, but these one-game are not really the way things are done in a long season. already iffy about the 1-game playoff thingy, which is going to create a lot of 'collapse' type feelings with teams that are in it (particularly if they've got a good 4 game lead in the first WC or something) Like the Mets in 2007 or the Reds in 1999. I think that one game series creates a ton of heartbreak, but very little elation in the winner. not that that's necessarily bad.

[TransMonk]

Edgy DC wrote: I'd enjoy it even more if the 30 interleague games weren't comprised of two three-game series against a particular division, but a barnstorm one-game stop against every team in the other league, with them barnstorming into your town later in the year. Ah, yeah!

Great idea! I never thought of that. Now it's going to drive me nuts that they DON'T do this.

[Edgy MD]

There's plenty of opportunity to do this with only modest inconvenience. National League teams in town to face the Mets take a poke at the Yankees when they're done and then skate on up to Boston on the Metroliner. You playing the Angels? Make sure you catch the Dodgers and the Pads before you ramble on. One chance all year to see Josh Hamilton, kids.

[Ceetar]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7247519/major-league-baseball-some-major-changes

Stark's column breaks it down. Sounds like the exact scheduling is not quite decided.

[ashie62]

One League with 4 divisions. AL and NL does not mean much to me anymore.

DH allowed. I'm sick of pitchers that can't hit and the constant stream of relief pitchers in the NL.

Blow it up..

[Edgy MD]

Said Satan to Eve.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: Framing the issue to note that upping the number of IL games to 30 per/team is close to double what exists now, is about 18 or so more than what will be required by this new set-up, and is no closer to "balanced" than would others with fewer IL games could be is simply stating fact. The part of this that's my opinion is that this seems to me to be coupled with Bud's ongoing campaign to blur the lines between the leagues and that the percentage of fans who prefer more IL play to less is countable on one hand and quite possibly one finger.

My problem is your attribution of motive and your analysis of Selig's thoughts. Like that he is operating under a "misconception" about interleague play or is waging an ongoing campaign to blur the boundaries of the leagues.

I get what's your opinion, and can do the math too -- ie. going from 18 to 30 interleague games per team means that only an additional 7.5% of a teams' games per year will now be interleague. (See what I did there?).

[Gwreck]

TransMonk wrote: Great idea! I never thought of that. Now it's going to drive me nuts that they DON'T do this.

Scheduling a 1-game "series" is prohibited in the basic agreement with the players which would be the holdup here.

[metsmarathon]

going from 18 to 30 is closer to adding half as many interleague games than it is to doubling the number of interleague games.

18 + 9 = 27
18 + 18 = 36
30 - 27 = 3
36 - 30 = 6

3 < 6