Brewers/Cubs 9@Wrigley 7@Miller Park

[trwi7]

Why not? There are three California teams in the NL West.

Two in the AL West as well.

[Shanke5]

this also factors into attendance and ticket revenue. maybe not this year because so many games have sold out, no matter who they are against. but in past years, the cubs games were some of the few that did sell out, and not having an equal number of home games against the cubs probably cost us ticket sales.

[homer]

I don't think the league would want two Texas teams in the same division.

Why not? There are three California teams in the NL West.

 

California's a completely different type of market. There are 5 teams out there - almost no way you can't have a few teams overlap leagues/divisions. You'll notice that two teams in the same city are never in the same league - that's similar to how MLB would treat Houston and Texas. - they could both be in the NL or AL but it'd be highly irregular to have them in the same league and same division.

[1992casey]

Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were in the same division from 1969-1993. Given that there were only five spots available in the NL East when realigning to three divisions, I'd have to think that geography was the overriding factor in splitting them up.

 

As far as the Texas teams go, I'd think that if a divisional move were being considered, MLB would want whatever the Astros and Rangers want.

[Invader3K]

Also, didn't Selig want the Astros to change leagues in the past, and they balked, or am I thinking of something else?

[berniebrewer4life]

Also, didn't Selig want the Astros to change leagues in the past, and they balked, or am I thinking of something else?

I know they wanted the Royals to go before we did. Donno about anybody else.

[1992casey]

There were several things going on at the time.

 

The Royals had expressed mild interest in moving to the National League. They were granted the first spot in line to volunteer for a switch. Selig was extremely concerned about the perception of conflict of interest if the Brewers switched, and there was no way they were going to the NL unless the Royals declined.

 

As far as the Texas teams go, Selig promised George W. Bush that he'd try to get the Rangers moved out of the American League West. Bush sold the team to Tom Hicks. Hicks said he'd be fine with staying in the AL West as long as his team could play annual home and home series with the Astros.

 

Moving the Astros to the AL West was a suggestion made in a book by Bob Costas. He felt that realigning the one team and going with two 15-team leagues was the way to go.

[Pack87Man]

Speaking of such things, I realize why the leagues are split into 16 and 14, but why are the Pirates in the Central? Is it because otherwise, the Reds would be the only team in the division in the Eastern Time Zone? To me, they would seem to fit better in the NL East than in the Central.

[1992casey]

I think the simplest answer is that the Pirates are crowded out by geography. If the Pirates were to move to the East, I don't know which team I'd move out to accommodate them. If the Marlins ever moved to a new city outside of the Eastern time zone, I'd bet that Pittsburgh would replace them in that division.

[Pack87Man]

I think the simplest answer is that the Pirates are crowded out by geography. If the Pirates were to move to the East, I don't know which team I'd move out to accommodate them. If the Marlins ever moved to a new city outside of the Eastern time zone, I'd bet that Pittsburgh would replace them in that division.

Yes, but they would be the sixth team in that division, same as they are in the Central. As it is now, they play the Phillies as often as the Brewers play the Twins, and the Twins are in the other league.

[jeffy]

Doing the math on IL all season, if there were 15 teams in each league. Since the season is 162 games, you would have to have at about that number of IL games at a minimum. Dividing 162 by 15 teams would mean about 11 IL games per team, which is less than they play now, so it seems it could work.

[Leinie Lodge]

Why is it that this only becomes an issue when the numbers go against you?

 

I'm sure that some team in the division is visiting Milwaukee more than you visit them.

And next year when the split goes in the other direction, you won't be complaining.

Upon further review, the Cubs have been granted home-field in 3 consecutive seasons:

 

2006: 7 games at Miller, 9 games at Wrigley

2007: 6 games at Miller, 9 games at Wrigley

2008: 7 games at Miller, 9 games at Wrigley

 

Rather than hastily dumping into the complaint bin, perhaps this is a baseball curiousity meriting open discussion. Sports schedulers' norm is balancing home fields every-other-year whenever possible, so Cubs/Brewers does appear a noteworthy exception.

[kramnoj]

Doing the math on IL all season, if there were 15 teams in each league. Since the season is 162 games, you would have to have at about that number of IL games at a minimum. Dividing 162 by 15 teams would mean about 11 IL games per team, which is less than they play now, so it seems it could work.

 

The issue isn't that there would be more IL games. The issue is that you would be playing IL in the last month of the season, when teams are chasing playoff spots. Obviously, a game in July matters the same as a game in September, but there are those who think that September baseball is different, and they would not allow this to occur. As it is now, the schedule tries to have division games to end the season, because the possible dramatic swings feel so much more important as the season comes to a close.

 

Right now that last 3 game series against the Cubs doesn't look like it will mean much. But with a few games swing over the next month it could, and even though there isn't a huge advantage of being a division winner over a WC winner, I'm sure there are plenty of Brewer fans that would love to see a Division banner hanging in MP next year (well, as a consolation if they didn't win the WS). The point being that a series against random IL opponent wouldn't have quite the same impact at the end of the season.

[Patrick425]

There was a thread about this exact same subject earlier in the year (I may have even started it, I don't remember) but this is what really upset me about the whole situation:

 

2006: 7 games at Miller, 9 games at Wrigley

2007: 6 games at Miller, 9 games at Wrigley

2008: 7 games at Miller, 9 games at Wrigley

[jeffy]

Right now that last 3 game series against the Cubs doesn't look like it will mean much. But with a few games swing over the next month it could...

 

Sure but would the games that preceed that series be any less meaningful if one of the opponenents were Baltimore, rather than Cincinatti and Pittsburgh? With IL throughout the season you would typically have one IL series per month, I think playing three games against the AL in September should be far less of an issue than having the teams in the AL West having a 50% greater shot at making the post season than the teams in the NL central, not to mention the unequal home-away splits against divisional opponents.

 

The ideal situation to me would be to add two teams and go to 4 divisions (and then go to maybe 18 games against division teams, 8 against the other 12 teams in the league, and 3 against each of 4 teams in one division in the other league). Until something like that happens I'd rather have 5 teams in each division.

[razzzorsharp]

I am ok with no Cubs games at Miller Park. I would rather they waste up all their away games at Wrigley where its a nice short drive.

[kramnoj]

Sure but would the games that preceed that series be any less meaningful if one of the opponenents were Baltimore, rather than Cincinatti and Pittsburgh?

 

In the standings? No, of course not, as I've already said. I'm presenting the argument that others have made that IL is bad, but it's acceptable in the middle of the year and would be unacceptable in September "when games count". There's enough resistance there that I don't think Selig will move to change until there is motivation to (say a season where the AL West Division champ has a below .500 record and the third team in the NL Central has the third best record in the division).

 

If they ever expanded to 32 teams, I would not be in favor of 4 divisions in each league. The chance that a bad team makes the playoffs and a good team misses it increases in scenarios like that. I would prever two divisions in each league with two wild cards in each league.

[jeffy]

I doubt you will see them go back to two divisions. If that were planned, then why have 3 divisions now, when they could have 2 divisions of 7 in the AL and 8 in the NL?

 

I actually think they will likely just stick with 3 and keep the single wild card format. They will just have 2 divisions of 5 and one of 6 in each league. That is not too bad as it only results in about a 3.3% difference in playoff chances. In the AL, I'm sure everyone would rather be in a division of 6 than a division of 5 that included NY and Boston.