mlb discussing reallignment (2 15 team leagues)

[DuWayne Steurer]

Don't like the idea of a one game knockout. 4 seed facing a 13 seed might have a #4 going, and the 13 seed might be positioned to have their ace going. Regular season record should count for something, and home field alone isn't it. One game (even a 3 or 5 game) series is too random to make up for that difference. 4 seed might have 95 wins, and the 13 seed could have 82 or so, and get lucky based on availability/matchups.

[ganz79]

Yeah, i realized you can have the 2nd best record in baseball and have your season come down to one home game. That's a flaw I didn't see offhand.

 

I like the 3 league structure. They're geographically perfect. Maybe you could rearrange the postseason somehow with 12 or 13 teams.

 

What I like about my proposal is that a decent Orioles team now has so many games against Yanks/Bos, and here they wouldn't have to play them as much. Plus you could have any world series matchup, such as Yankees vs Red Sox, Cubs vs Whitesox, not that I would want to see those.

[sbrylski]

I agree that there's really no reason to have two leagues or conferences anymore.

 

And if we are going radical, I would do three, five, or six divisions, with teams grouped by both geography and revenue. Six might be best, because you could have a high payroll and low payroll versions of the standard East-Central-West split.

 

East Rich - These five together make sense.

New York Yankees

Boston Red Sox

Philadelphia Phillies

New York Mets

Atlanta Braves

 

East Poor - I could see a Toronto/Washington/Baltimore triangle rivalry.

Washington Nationals

Baltimore Orioles

Toronto Blue Jays

Tampa Bay Rays

Florida Marlins

 

Central Rich - Twins (surprisingly to me) were 12th in revenue last season.

Chicago Cubs

Minnesota Twins

Chicago White Sox

St Louis Cardinals

Detroit Tigers

 

Central Poor - A little weak in rivalries aside from the intra-Ohio matchup.

Milwaukee Brewers

Cincinnati Reds

Cleveland Indians

Kansas City Royals

Pittsburgh Pirates

 

West Rich - Houston is actually sixth in revenue of the two west divisions, but I gave them a bump for rivalry purposes.

Los Angeles Dodgers

San Francisco Giants

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

Texas Rangers

Houston Astros

 

West Poor - Seattle was fifth in revenue of western teams, but we'll keep them with Oakland.

Seattle Mariners

Colorado Rockies

Arizona Diamondbacks

Oakland Athletics

San Diego Padres

[Warning Track Power]

I really like the idea of geographical realignment or the radical idea Sbrylski is proposing. The problem I see with my geographical realignment or Sbrylski's monetary realignment is that neither address the problem of having the best teams makes the playoffs. While the Rich East would undoubtedly put out a very good division winner every year, the Poor Central has the potential to put out a division winner in the low 80s in wins due to the economics of baseball. However, the health of the game though is ensuring all markets feel an opportunity at some time. How hard would it be to be a Toronto fan knowing that all of the farm development over 5 years can be outdone by Boston or New York in one offseason spending splurge like Boston's last season with Crawford and Gonzalez? To me, the geographical realignment or monetary realignment allows for comparable payrolls to compete with each other, while sacrificing some of the best teams. When devising realignment scenarios, it really becomes apparent how the issue of vastly different payrolls is the root of all MLB's problems.

[Oxy]

It's been said over and over again recently, but what is the aversion to adding more teams around NYC? I think the Jersey Shore Guidos and the Brooklyn Hipsters would be more financially viable than the Pirates, Royals, Reds, and Brewers. And in the long run I would guess they'd be better off than Portland/Vancouver, San Antonio or Las Vegas. Four NYC teams might give too much of an advantage to the BoSox, I suppose. In that case, how about the Jersey Shore Guidos and the Providence Privateers?

 

Of course the Yankees, Mets and BoSox would balk at this, but that is only 2 votes out of 30, right? Who else around the league could possibly be against this?

[bani1717]

Even it out to 15 and 15, 3 divisions in each (divisions pretty much preserved)

 

3 games vs 15 teams from other league = 45 games

6 games each vs 10 teams from other divisions in same league = 60 games

14-15 games each vs 4 teams in same division = 57 games

Total = 162 games

 

Then, if you want to have 5 teams make the playoffs, you definitely need more than a one-game playoff. I don't really like the first round being 5 games as it currently stands. You have the NBA and NHL taking 2 and a half weeks for their first round so that all sorts of bad teams can play 7 games, so I think that in a sport where it takes so much to make the playoffs after 162 games, 5 games isn't enough for a 1-4 or 2-3 matchup. Here's what I'd like to see if the playoffs went to 10 teams:

 

4 vs 5 seed (ie 2 wildcards) - 5 game series (2 home for lower seed, then 3 home for higher seed, ie 2-3 format), starting the 2nd day after season ends (ie one off-day between the season and this series), have no off days during the series, so that at the latest it finishes 6 days after the season ends

2 vs 3 seeds (2 lowest division winners) - 7 game series (2-3-2 format), beginning on the 5th or 6th day after the season ends (ie 4-5 off-days between the season and the start of this series), with 3 off-days during the series for travel and to space it out. This series may end as early as the 9th day after the season ends, or as late as the 15th day after the season ends

1 vs 4/5 - 7 game series (2-3-2 format), beginning the 2nd day after the wildcard series ends (ie the 8th day after the season ends). 2 days off during the series for travel. Could end as soon as the 12th day after the season ends, or as late as the 16th day after the season ends

LCS - 7 game series (2-3-2), starting the 18th or 19th day after the season ends

World Series after LCS

[sbrylski]

Raaadical idea, not going to happen, fun to think about:

 

Two leagues of 15.

 

Instead of 162/3 = 54 series per year, expand that to 58 by starting the season two weeks earlier.

 

Have intraleague, interleague, and international play against top clubs from Mexico, Japan, and Korea.

 

Intraleague: 14 teams * 9 games = 126 games

Interleague: 8 teams * 3 games = 24 games (One protected series, rotate through the other seven teams)

International: 8 teams * 3 games = 24 games

 

The international games don't count in MLB standings, but the best international records that don't qualify for the MLB postseason play in an international club postseason.

[jeffy]

Even it out to 15 and 15, 3 divisions in each (divisions pretty much preserved)

 

3 games vs 15 teams from other league = 45 games

6 games each vs 10 teams from other divisions in same league = 60 games

14-15 games each vs 4 teams in same division = 57 games

Total = 162 games

 

 

I'd just make it 14 division games and have a 161 game schedule. That way all teams in the division play the same season schedule.

 

Here's a 162 game variation, with 30 inter-league games:

 

18 games vs. division = 72 games

6 games vs. other divisions in league = 60 games

3 games vs. same division in other league (ie. Brewers play the teams in AL central every season) = 15 games

3 games vs. one other division in other league (ie. Brewers alternate playing either AL west or east each season) = 15 games

 

 

Another alternative, if they wanted to do some "pairity" scheduling:

 

18 games vs. division = 72 games

6 games vs. other division in league = 60 games

3 games vs. one division in other league = 15 games

3 games against the 5 teams that finished in the same spot in standings (ie. if you finish 3rd, play the other 3rd place teams) = 15 games

 

 

I think a 3 game playoff for the wild cards is fine, they didn't win the division...make it tougher on them, rather than having the division winners sit around for a week or more. After the season ends, one day off for division winner tie-breakers (or eliminate this and create tie breakers like: head-to-head results, division record, league record, etc.). Then 3 game wild card round with no off days...either 2-1 or 3 at the park of the team with better record. Then right to the next round with no off days.

 

This way it would be only 3-4 days from the end of the season to the start of second round of playoffs. Makes it much harder on the wild card and the team with the best record gets to play the wild card team, gaining an advantage. This adds something to play for in certain situations, you won't want to settle for getting in as a wild card, if you are comfortably leading your division but don't have the best record you may want to try to get their so you get to play a worn out wild card team instead of a rested division winner.

[joepepsi]

I think the solution is simple if we can get past traditionalists who don't want to mix the leagues. I used to be one of them.

AL WEST	AL NORTH	NL SOUTH	NL EAST
Seattle Mariners	Milwaukee Brewers	TB Rays	New York Yankees
San Francisco Giants	Chicago Cubs	Atlanta Braves	New York Mets
Oakland Athletics	Chicago White Sox	Miami Marlins	Philadelphia Phillies
Los Angeles Dodgers	Minnesota Twins	Texas Rangers	Boston Red Sox
Los Angeles Angels	Pittsburgh Pirates	Houston Astros	Toronto Blue Jays
San Diego Padres	Cleveland Indians	St. Louis Cardinals	Baltimore Orioles
Arizona Diamondbacks	Cincinnati Reds	Kansas City Royals	Washington Nationals
Colorado Rockies			Detroit Tigers

This would be pretty radical, but in the long run it could increase fan interest, by splitting national braodcasts into 4 distinct regions. I honestly think the ESPN/FOX love for Yankees-Red Sox hurts fan interest nationwide. It may boost ratings out East where advertising rates are set, but the rest of the country tunes it out.

[jeffy]

So long as one of the divisions is Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh, Washington, and Baltimore I'll be happy.

 

Unfortunately, probably more likely that we lose one or both of Houston and Pittsbugh and there could be nightmare scenarios where both Pittsburgh and Houston leave the NL Central. Pittsburgh is lobbying to move to the NL East, they could trade places with Atlanta. Meanwhile Houston could move to the either the NL west to take the place of AZ, if they move to the AL or they could go to the AL West themselves.

 

Reading several articles the three teams they have apparently been talking about moving to the AL are apparently FL, Houston or AZ. If it were FL, I assume they'd go to the AL east, Toronto to the central and KC to the west and Pittsburgh then goes to the NL East.

[paul253]

Because of this stupid DH no DH problem there will never be a perfect solution. I say just decide. DH or no DH. I don't care which it is but pick one. Then you can have three 5 team divisions in each league and mix the schedule up all year long like every other professional sport in America. Or just add two team and make four divisions with 4 teams each and figure out a better way to divide up the revenue amongst the teams so that one franchise doesn't have a payroll of $202 million while another team has a payroll of $36 million.

 

I love MLB, don't get me wrong. But there are so many glaring problems that don't exist in other sports that I just scratch my head and say "Why don't they just fix the stupid rule?". Can you imagine if, in the NHL, Alexander Ovechkin got to go to the highest bidder because he is from Russia while Sydney Crosby had to be drafted because he is from Canada? Can you imagine if, in the NFL, the New England Patriots were awarded 9 extra draft picks because of free agent losses and picked 10 times before Carolina got their second pick? Or what about in the NBA. Washington selects John Wall but he decides "you know what, they are not giving me as much money as I want so I will just go back college. I'll try it again in a few years and see if I can make more money then. If not, I'll just enter the draft again for a third time and keep doing it until I get what I want." What if Jerry Jones and his $2 billion dollars could just outbid every other team for any player he wanted and had no salary cap whatsoever? What if the NFC North had 5 teams and the AFC South had 3? Would you, as a Packer fan, think that was fair? I realize some of these comparisons aren't entirely fair, but you get my point. These problems are staring MLB right in the face and they aren't doing anything about them.

 

It's not that I don't like some of the ideas people are putting forth here. Some of them are very creative. But doesn't it say something about the state of MLB when realigning divisions based on payroll has about the same chance of happening as them finally picking between DH or no DH for every major league team?

[Invader3K]

paul, that's a very good post that draws some interesting comparisons for sure.

[jeffy]

Because of this stupid DH no DH problem there will never be a perfect solution.

 

Sure there is...no DH = perfect solution. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

You are right, that is the biggest barrier to moving any team from the NL to the AL.

 

With interleague play all season the DH rule becomes even more of a problem. I think if they do go 15 teams in each league it is going to lead to a elimination of this difference.

[jeffy]

Haudricourt promoting the awful no divisions idea.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/124139813.html?page=1

 

In order to be "fair" all teams would have to play as close to the same schedule as possible. This presumably would mean one 3 game series against each team in the other league, that's 45 games. That would leave only 8 games against each team in your own league to bring the total to 157 games. Whatever they would do with the other 5 games, I think there would be a lot of scheduling problems. If you play a team 8 times and want to avoid 2 game series, that means a 4 game series at each park, but then too many 4 game series are also difficult to schedule. If you play some teams 9 times then that probably means 6 at one park and 3 at the other, which does not really meet the fairness test, or you have an awkward 5/4 split meaning more 2 and 4 game series.

 

With Divisions, you only have to have each division have the same schedule and we have several posts here demonstrating that it is easy to do this in a number of ways with an unbalanced schedule and 5 teams in each division and also retain the baseball tradition of mostly 3 game series.

 

I like the divisional set up and having an unbalanced schedule. It's also been a model that has been successful in Football as well as Baseball...why switch to the model used by the less successful sports (NBA and NHL)? Competing in a league of 15, where the goal is to finish at least in 3rd and if you can't do that then try to finish 5th also just seems dumb.

[jeffy]

Danny Knobler, CBSSports.com Senior Writer picks up the schedule I proposed in post #57 http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

http://www.cbssports.com/...a-great-realignment-idea

 

I like the addition he has that teams stay in region early and late, so during those times you'd have 4 teams playing in division while the 5th plays interleague vs. teams in the same division of the other league.

[endaround]

Haudricourt promoting the awful no divisions idea.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/124139813.html?page=1

 

In order to be "fair" all teams would have to play as close to the same schedule as possible. This presumably would mean one 3 game series against each team in the other league, that's 45 games. That would leave only 8 games against each team in your own league to bring the total to 157 games. Whatever they would do with the other 5 games, I think there would be a lot of scheduling problems. If you play a team 8 times and want to avoid 2 game series, that means a 4 game series at each park, but then too many 4 game series are also difficult to schedule. If you play some teams 9 times then that probably means 6 at one park and 3 at the other, which does not really meet the fairness test, or you have an awkward 5/4 split meaning more 2 and 4 game series.

 

With Divisions, you only have to have each division have the same schedule and we have several posts here demonstrating that it is easy to do this in a number of ways with an unbalanced schedule and 5 teams in each division and also retain the baseball tradition of mostly 3 game series.

 

I like the divisional set up and having an unbalanced schedule. It's also been a model that has been successful in Football as well as Baseball...why switch to the model used by the less successful sports (NBA and NHL)? Competing in a league of 15, where the goal is to finish at least in 3rd and if you can't do that then try to finish 5th also just seems dumb.

Except that isn't fair, you'll need a home and home so that's at least 90 games against the other league. Except that only leaves 71 games for your own league. Which means we'll see 2 game interleague series for 60 games, and 3-4 games series against one's own league leading to a nightmare of scheduling and travel.

Or we can just add two teams, make owners richer and balance the leagues.

[JohnBriggs12]

I like the concept of two 15 team leagues. Of course I go back to the days when there were two 10 team leagues. I'd set it up as you'd play 132 games against teams in your own league. Play 6 of the teams 10 times, and 8 of the teams 9 times. Personally, I'm a little sick of seeing the Central teams all the time.

 

Then play home and home 3 game series against 5 of the teams from the other league, rotating the 5 every year so you play all 15 teams once every 3 years.

 

You can't make the schedules completely even, but you can separate having to play Boston and New York in the same season for instance, and you won't have a team getting to face a weak "rival" team year in and year out while another has to play a strong rival every year.