Go "North" Mets Fans: Realignment Proposal

[bmfc1]

Baseball America has news of a new 32-team league--that's it, one league--with 4 divisions and the Mets in the "North" with six AL teams:

Consider four eight-team divisions with the addition of teams in Portland and Montreal: East: Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Washington. North: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Montreal, both New York franchises and Toronto. Midwest: Both Chicago franchises, Colorado, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, St. Louis and Texas. West: Anaheim, Arizona, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

Read more at http://www.baseballamerica.com/columnists/expansion-trigger-realignment-longer-postseason/#cE7FyIyUCs3Q5RTV.99

No thank you.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I could tolerate this if it means no DH rule, but I suspect that the opposite would be true.

[Guest 41Forever]

Cincinnati in the East seems like at odd placement to me, but I know someone is going to be in an odd place to keep the divisions equal.

Those April games are going to be chilly is we're only playing those teams in that month!

[Lefty Specialist]

No f'n way.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Something like this is probably happening sooner than later if it's got legs
on BA by TR. I don't like it but I don't like a lot of things as I get grumpier*.

*older

[Edgy MD]

I find it interesting that it's an operating assumption that Portland and Montreal have teams on the way.

[Guest 41Forever]

He's calling for a shorter season, too, which seems unlikely. Plus, it's Tracy Ringolsby.

[Guest d'Kong76]

He's not exactly a hack.
Longer po$t $eason.

[Frayed Knot]

Proposals like this are being floated all the time. Problem is, most of them are done for no reason other than someone thinking they've come up with a 'New and Improved' layout where the divisions
look neater when circled on maps and the final result winds up creating as many problems as it purports to solve.
This one is at least thinking about the kind of thing that would need to occur if and when the owners get the expansion bug again (they do like them some entrance fee cash).

That said, he loses me with the part about the 'Top Four Teams in Each Division advance' and is apparently under the impression that an increased inventory of post-season games is what baseball
fans -- many of whom often admit to, if not flat-out brag about, how little attention they pay to playoff baseball once their team is eliminated -- are clamoring for.

[Guest 41Forever]

I just realized the plan has the Mets and Phillies in different divisions. They're talking about cutting down on travel as a reason to do this, and have us playing a team in Minneapolis instead of the team an hour away?

[Frayed Knot]

41Forever wrote: I just realized the plan has the Mets and Phillies in different divisions.

That's part of what I mean by creating one problem for every one they supposedly solve.

I remember watching a game out of Pittsburgh during a time when one of these realignment plans was newly floating around, and the p-b-p and color guys (forget specifically who they were) kept
saying that all they wanted out of a plan was one that would get them back in a division with the Mets & Phils.
It's funny how one of the "fixes" virtually all of these have in common is putting StL & KC together as if both being in Missouri makes it virtually required that they be put together, but none of them
mention the breaking up of Philly & Pitt who are also in the same state and, oh yeah, had a century's worth of tradition with each other but somehow don't rate the same deal.

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

I like four leagues of 8 teams with a regional alignment, but we can come up with a better alignment than that.

[Edgy MD]

Given the parameter of adding Montreal and Portland, this is the best I can do:

Maple Tree Division Baltimore Boston Montreal New York (A) New York (N) Philadelphia Pittsburgh Toronto

=#FF0000]Bible Belt Division Atlanta Cincinnati Houston Kansas City Miami Tampa Bay Texas Washington

=#00BF00]Dairyland Division Chicago (A) Chicago (N) Cleveland Denver Detroit Milwaukee Minnesota St. Louis

=#FF8000]Calistoga Division Anaheim Arizona Los Angeles Oakland Portland San Diego San Francisco Seattle

It'd be a lot easier if Denver would move to Norfolk or something.

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

Can't imagine Montreal & Portland getting teams. They don't even have minor league teams right now.

I'm also in favor of two 15-team leagues (no divisions) or 3 10-team leagues, regionally aligned.

[Edgy MD]

Washington didn't have a minor league team when the Expos moved there. I think sometimes a city that thinks of itself as big-league won't pursue a minor league team, and would rather be team-less than condescend to host some other city's affiliate.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm surprised that I never seem to see any discussion of Tennessee or North Carolina getting big league teams.

[ashie62]

No effin way

[bmfc1]

I prefer Wayne Randazzo's idea of 8 4-team divisions:

[Edgy MD]

I like how Wayne thinks the comma delineation rule should be used in the northeast and midwest, but not in the south and far west.

[Benjamin Grimm]

He freaky like dat.

[Frayed Knot]

bmfc1 wrote: I prefer Wayne Randazzo's idea of 8 4-team divisions

Four team division plans suck for multiple reasons, the main one being that the odds of having ANY races for 1st place go way down.
Hell, only the AL East (2.0 games) and the NL Central (6.0) were under double digits this year. Not that this year alone proves the case, but
when you put fewer and fewer teams in each division the odds of having any two of them be good at the same time gets smaller and smaller.

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

Frayed Knot wrote: bmfc1 wrote: I prefer Wayne Randazzo's idea of 8 4-team divisions Four team division plans suck for multiple reasons, the main one being that the odds of having ANY races for 1st place go way down. Hell, only the AL East (2.0 games) and the NL Central (6.0) were under double digits this year. Not that this year alone proves the case, but when you put fewer and fewer teams in each division the odds of having any two of them be good at the same time gets smaller and smaller.

And the odds of a crappy team winning a weak division go up.

[MFS62]

Frayed Knot wrote: when you put fewer and fewer teams in each division the odds of having any two of them be good at the same time gets smaller and smaller.

Wouldn't that depend on how many times they play each other under the new alignment? Or some other variable?
Haven't as many as three teams from the same (small) division made the NFL playoffs (or at least have the same w-l record as teams that did)?
Just because there are few teams doesn't mean several can't be good at the same time.
Who a team is aligned with doesn't mean each team can't be good.
I don't think there is a direct correlation.

Later

[Edgy MD]

You would have to stack a terrific amount of games (24 each?) against the same three opponents, and the majority of your games would still be extra-divisional.

There are no good answers, except one big league, and no post-season.

[Ceetar]

Mets Willets Point wrote: And the odds of a crappy team winning a weak division go up.

I suspect baseball would be okay with this though, as it'd make it easier for one player to shine through, carry a team, and be 'marketable'.

[Frayed Knot]

MFS62 wrote: Wouldn't that depend on how many times they play each other under the new alignment? Or some other variable?

Partly, though, as Edgy notes, there's only so lopsided you can make a schedule when you have just three division opponents.

Haven't as many as three teams from the same (small) division made the NFL playoffs (or at least have the same w-l record as teams that did)?

Sure, but how is that any better?
There is always going to be only a handful of good teams in any sport in any one season and if three of them come out of one group then there are that many fewer spread among the
other seven. (see also: Willets' comment). And while it's tough to compare baseball to football because of their vastly different set-ups/seasons, why is the NFL model, which in some
years has seen multiple divisions clinched with 1/4 of the season still remaining and regularly produces years with .500 and sub-.500 teams in their playoffs, one MLB should want to emulate?

Just because there are few teams doesn't mean several can't be good at the same time ... Who a team is aligned with doesn't mean each team can't be good ... I don't think there is a direct correlation.

These are all really the same point and, as stated above, it's not that there CAN'T be two or more good team in one division but the odds of it go way down, and if it does occur it most likely
means a division, or quite possibly several, with NO good teams elsewhere.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Guest

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

Ceetar wrote: Mets Willets Point wrote: And the odds of a crappy team winning a weak division go up. I suspect baseball would be okay with this though, as it'd make it easier for one player to shine through, carry a team, and be 'marketable'.

But it's annoying. We already have superior teams playing the Wild Card knockout game while weak division teams coast into the ALDS.

[Fman99]

They should fix something that's actually broken, instead of this. This is just a big turd on a doily.

[Ceetar]

Nothing wrong with new teams. I'd kinda welcome them. How we align them is a different story.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I have no problem with expansion either. Hell, give me eight five-team divisions, where only the first place teams make the playoffs.

San Bernadino (California), Las Vegas, and Portland (Oregon) all have a larger metro population than Cleveland. San Antonio is between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Sacramento and San Jose are between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Orlando, Indianapolis, and Norfolk all have more people than Milwaukee. And Columbus, Austin, and Charlotte are very close to Milwaukee's population. And in Canada, Vancouver and Calgary also have large population centers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_population_centres_in_Canada