Astros to AL in 2013: It's official

[Raw Biz]

I'm pretty sure this is what they are discussing, except every division would play its counterpart every year. So the NL Central would play every team in the AL Central once every year and then they would rotate against the AL East/West every other year.

 

I don't think that is quite the plan. I think what I recall seeing is that they are planning to keep the number of interleague games about the same as now (15-18) and that they would do that by playing the 5 teams in one division of the other league, plus 3 against the "natural rival". So the Brewers would play each division once every 3 years and the Twins every year. I think it may have been that in the years that they play the AL Central they would play 6 against the Twins, instead of 3.

From Jayson Stark:

If this labor deal ever gets done, the schedule is about to undergo a dramatic change. We'll be heading for 15 teams in each league, five teams in each of the six divisions and an interleague game every day. But the biggest change could be nearly TWICE as many interleague games, because every team in a division would play exactly the same schedule. Here's the new format we've heard is on the drawing board:

 

Eighteen games against each of the other four teams in your division; six games against each of the other 10 teams in your league; three interleague games against each of the five teams in the corresponding division in the other league (i.e., AL East versus NL East); three more interleague games against each team in one of the other two divisions (i.e., AL East versus NL Central one year, NL West the next). Three interleague games against two divisions in the other league.

Add that up and you get 72 intra-division games, 60 more intra-league games and 30 interleague games a year -- up from the current 15 to 18 interleague games a year. The other net result of that change: Only three "rivalry" games (Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, etc.) every season instead of six.

[Flying Dutchman]

Here's my question. I was too young to notice, but were there similar complaints about unfairness when the AL had 14 teams and the NL had 12 teams during the late '70's through the '91 season? I know the leagues were set up differently back then, but I am just curious.

[owbc]

Here's my question. I was too young to notice, but were there similar complaints about unfairness when the AL had 14 teams and the NL had 12 teams during the late '70's through the '91 season? I know the leagues were set up differently back then, but I am just curious.

I'm not familiar with the situation but they didn't have a choice because there was no interleague play. It would be literally impossible to write that schedule.

[monty57]

Only three "rivalry" games (Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, etc.) every season instead of six.

 

I understand why baseball wants these "rivalries," as they make more TV money from these games. However, they lead to one team in a division having to play a good rival, while another team in the division has to play a bad rival. The Cardinals' rival is the Royals, so they've had an advantage by getting six games a year against them.

 

I'd certainly like to play the Orioles every year while my division rivals got the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays.

[jeffy]

Thanks for the Jayson Stark link. That is a schedule that I had suggested back in June: http://brewersfandemonium...nment-2-15-team-leagues-

 

Here's an article with the schedule proposal that I had seen a while back, this is reporting it as a USA Today proposal, but previously I had seen in reported as something MLB was leaning toward:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/s...oposal-astros/51212594/1

 

16 games (eight home, eight away) against the other four teams in your division.

Eight games (four home, four away) against the 10 teams in your league in other divisions.

One three-game series against all the teams in one division from the other league. The divisions would rotate each year.

One three-game series against your geographic rival from the other league.

 

Maybe they decided that it resulted in too many 2 game series? The article about this that I had seen before had indicated MLB did not want to increase the number of interleague games and that this was designed to create a somewhat more balanced schedule to appease teams that have to play a lot of games 2 time zones away. But if they went with playing 15 interleague games vs. the corresponding division each year, that also helps with the time zone issue.

[RockCoCougars]

Here's my question. I was too young to notice, but were there similar complaints about unfairness when the AL had 14 teams and the NL had 12 teams during the late '70's through the '91 season? I know the leagues were set up differently back then, but I am just curious.

I'm not familiar with the situation but they didn't have a choice because there was no interleague play. It would be literally impossible to write that schedule.

I don't remember complaining about unfairness between leagues, though I complained of unfairness between divisions. The A.L. West was pretty much brutal during most of that period.

[The Truth]

The concept of having an interleague game every day is yet another example of why Bud Selig is absolutely horrible for MLB

[dlk9s]

The concept of having an interleague game every day is yet another example of why Bud Selig is absolutely horrible for MLB

Does not compute. Explain, please.

[Raw Biz]

The concept of having an interleague game every day is yet another example of why Bud Selig is absolutely horrible for MLB

I don't understand why people are so against interleague. I like it. You get a chance to see teams that you normally never would. AL teams might have an advantage at home with the DH but they also could lose that bat on the road (unless they want to sacrifice defense). I get that there's a historical argument but sometimes things need to change.

[The Truth]

I don't understand why people are so against interleague. I like it. You get a chance to see teams that you normally never would. AL teams might have an advantage at home with the DH but they also could lose that bat on the road (unless they want to sacrifice defense). I get that there's a historical argument but sometimes things need to change.

Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist. But I do not see any way that this would be a positive change. Change just for change sake isn't usually good. This would change MLB is pretty dramatic ways by increasing interleague in a huge way. And I think it will lead to bringing a DH to the NL which I am adamantly opposed to. As it is the NL teams would be at a distinct disadvantage having to play so many more games using a DH

 

Astros fans are also almost unanimously angered by this proposal. Houston has always been an NL team, why should they just all of a sudden become an AL team?.

 

It is messing too much with the traditions of baseball, and the traditions are what sets MLB apart from the NBA & NFL

[rluzinski]

I don't understand why people are so against interleague. I like it. You get a chance to see teams that you normally never would. AL teams might have an advantage at home with the DH but they also could lose that bat on the road (unless they want to sacrifice defense). I get that there's a historical argument but sometimes things need to change.

Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist. But I do not see any way that this would be a positive change. Change just for change sake isn't usually good.

It is not a change just for change's sake. The reasons have already been laid out in this thread (different sized divisions and strength of schedule discrepancies within divisions being the two big ones I think). That's fine if you don't think they justify realignment but no need to ignore their existence.

As for change, I grew up on the NFL, so I'm used to things getting tweaked as time goes on.

 

[monty57]

And I think it will lead to bringing a DH to the NL which I am adamantly opposed to.

 

I think that's the biggest point. Personally, I "grew up with" a DH, as the Brewers were an AL team. I've since gotten used to seeing the pitchers hit. I'm sure I'd once again get used to a DH if it was instilled in the NL, but I agree that it would get a lot of arguement from a lot of people. The question baseball will have to deal with is whether or not it would be enough for fans to walk away from the game. Many fans like you are adamantly opposed to the DH, but would you stop watching baseball if the NL instilled the DH rule?

 

One thing that to me seems certain is that the Players Union would not be willing to lose the DH in the AL, as it allows big money contracts to go to players who would otherwise probably have to retire. Therefore, more interleague will probably eventually lead to a DH in both leagues.

 

As it is the NL teams would be at a distinct disadvantage having to play so many more games using a DH

 

True, but if the NL teams know that they will have more interleague games, I'm sure they'll adjust to it. As it stands, there's really not a reason to stash a DH-type guy on the bench or in AAA for 15 or so games, but it may make sense for 30+ games.

 

Astros fans are also almost unanimously angered by this proposal. Houston has always been an NL team, why should they just all of a sudden become an AL team?.

 

Have you seen a trustworthy poll, or is this just your opinion? I was happy to see the Brewers move to the NL, as (1) they were terrible and I thought it might breathe some life into the team and the fans (2) I live amongst a bunch of Cub fans, so I thought the rivalry would be fun.

 

There are probably a decent number of Astros fans who would like to get out of a 6-team division, and who would like a rivalry with the Rangers. They're nowhere close geographically to any of the NL Central teams, so there's not a natural rivalry like WI/IL, where people in each state just naturally hate teams from the other state. Rangers/Astros would be a great rivalry over the years.

[trwi7]

The Truth wrote:

---

The concept of having an interleague game every day is yet another example of why Bud Selig is absolutely horrible for MLB

Right, we should be happy to see the same 15 teams over a 162 game season.

[RightFieldCoder]

We could just make it easy. No interleague. No divisions. The best record in the AL faces the best record in the NL for the Championship. These newfangled playoffs and interleague are ruining the sport. Hell, let's bring back the racist rules and collusion while we're at it.

 

[/blue]

[The Truth]

Many fans like you are adamantly opposed to the DH, but would you stop watching baseball if the NL instilled the DH rule?

Good point. I would still watch MLB. It is my favorite sport. But I sure would grump and groan about it and I would really miss all the strategy of NL baseball as it currently stands

[RockCoCougars]

I'm not sure how you can be for interleague play and against the DH. I think that if you expand interleague play, you have to level the playing field and either do away with the DH (not gonna happen due to MLBPA) or institute it in the N.L. The DH rule seems to be to the advantage to the A.L. teams in interleague games, though teams like the Brewers aren't helped by the 8 man bullpens, which I feel are unnecessary even in N.L. play.

[Ennder]

There is no good reason major league pitchers should have to hit, so this leading to the DH is a good thing in my book. Even good hitters struggle to hit well after some time off, there is no reason some guy who doesn't get enough reps should be asked to try to hit once every 5 days. Traditionalist doesn't always mean good for the game. Yes the DH adds a very small amount of strategy to the game (I can't stress enough how little it really adds) but it also adds a lot of injuries and an unfair playing field. The sooner the leagues are the same one way or the other the better and I think if you look at the game with fresh eyes the clear choice is the DH in both leagues.

[RyDogg66]

I agree with Ender. It would be like having a defensive lineman return punts in the NFC vs. having a punt returner. Or something else as ridiculous as that.

[PKBadger]

One advantage of eliminating the DH would be not having to see baserunners wearing the dopey warmup jacket.

 

 

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/PJ-AX691_SP_FEA_D_20101027171850.jpg

 

 

 

I remember seeing Suppan call for the jacket when the temperature was in the mid-50s....infuriating.

[craigharmann]

There is no good reason major league pitchers should have to hit, so this leading to the DH is a good thing in my book. Even good hitters struggle to hit well after some time off, there is no reason some guy who doesn't get enough reps should be asked to try to hit once every 5 days. Traditionalist doesn't always mean good for the game. Yes the DH adds a very small amount of strategy to the game (I can't stress enough how little it really adds) but it also adds a lot of injuries and an unfair playing field. The sooner the leagues are the same one way or the other the better and I think if you look at the game with fresh eyes the clear choice is the DH in both leagues.

Agreed. You don't hear clamoring to go back to the 3 man rotation, getting away from the LOOGYs, the closers and the specialists that have become a part of the game in the past 40 years. There are changes, more specializations, and sometimes, it ends up bettering the game. Most of the time, it ends up bettering the game.

[topper09er]

There is no good reason major league pitchers should have to hit

 

There is no good reason major league pitchers should not have to hit, unless you want to increase offense. It is part of the game, you play offense and defense. Or look at it the other way, why should a guy be allowed to hit if he can't play the field? It was and is a gimmick to increase attendance, a dumb move by the owners to put butts in the seats. Just like nowadays you cant play defense in the NFL. Why? to increase offense. It ruins the game for real dedicated fans who are more interested in the on field play than who the players are dating, and makes it for fun for casual fans who care about dingers and TDs....when their favorite team is good that is.

 

Now we can't get rid of the DH because of a union that represents people with an average salary of $3.3 MM per year, obviously a very necessary union that is needed to fight for the poor mistreated MLB players.

 

Yes the DH adds a very small amount of strategy to the game (I can't

stress enough how little it really adds) but it also adds a lot of

injuries and an unfair playing field.

 

I assume you meant the DH takes away strategy? But I think your terminology of "very small amount" is pretty objective. Having the pitchers bat causes you to handle defense differently (pitch around the 8th hitter or not), offense differently (bunt or not with the pitcher, pinch hit or not for him), who to double switch for if the pitcher spot is coming up, and it allows you to use more bench players. I think overall it affects the strategy more often than just every 9 ABs if you include these other factors.

[logan82]

There is no good reason major league pitchers should have to hit, so this leading to the DH is a good thing in my book. Even good hitters struggle to hit well after some time off, there is no reason some guy who doesn't get enough reps should be asked to try to hit once every 5 days. Traditionalist doesn't always mean good for the game. Yes the DH adds a very small amount of strategy to the game (I can't stress enough how little it really adds) but it also adds a lot of injuries and an unfair playing field. The sooner the leagues are the same one way or the other the better and I think if you look at the game with fresh eyes the clear choice is the DH in both leagues.

I would argue that the DH takes strategy away from the game not adds it.

[Mr QL]

I don't really care about interleague play but completely against DH. I'd rather be at a disadvantage. NL teams would adjust.

[Sixtofan]

I have really enjoyed the NL style of play since the Brewers moved and truly believe the NL involves a lot more strategy as noted by topper. I have never before really heard anyone state there is not a significant strategic difference between NL and AL.

[logan82]

I assume you meant the DH takes away strategy? But I think your terminology of "very small amount" is pretty objective. Having the pitchers bat causes you to handle defense differently (pitch around the 8th hitter or not), offense differently (bunt or not with the pitcher, pinch hit or not for him), who to double switch for if the pitcher spot is coming up, and it allows you to use more bench players. I think overall it affects the strategy more often than just every 9 ABs if you include these other factors.

 

With the DH you can just leave a pitcher in until you want to pull him without weighing when he will bat again or if letting him bat outweighs pulling him for a pinch hitter.