Astros to AL in 2013: It's official

[jeffy]

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.

 

Why stop at one DH, then?

 

Why not go all-NFL and have separate offense and defense? Let's have 9 DH's.

[owbc]

Why stop at one DH, then?

 

Why not go all-NFL and have separate offense and defense? Let's have 9 DH's.

That argument is just as silly in this instance as when it is used in a similar fashion in certain political debates.

 

I do agree that in modern times, with the leagues soon to playing each other year round, it does make sense to have uniform rules. But the most important thing is that the rules are uniform in all levels of baseball. It is pointless to have a DH in the minor leagues of NL teams. They need to pick one rule, DH or not, and implement it from rookie ball up to MLB.

[Menotti80]

Official now per espn

[The Truth]

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.

OK...so now that the Astros moving to the AL is official, is the above breakdown official, too?

 

I was against this move, but if its a done deal there's no point in me whining about it and so looking on the bright side of things, it would be cool/interesting/intriguing to play the White Sox and other AL Central teams every year.

[Polish Falcons]

I think the DH debate is pretty just about evenly split amongst baseball fans. Based on this, it seems perfect that half the league has the DH and half the league doesn't. People arguing to expand on the DH are just greedy.

[1992casey]

Selig will not look good through this. Moving the Brewers to the NL and then someone else out smacks of favoritism, which is a bad thing for the Commish.

 

Well, the Brewers weren't offered any financial incentive to move, and as was pointed out above, the Royals were given first crack.

 

The situation now is a whole lot different than 1998. Back then, interleague play was in its infancy: one year old, to be exact. It would have been a huge gamble to implement it on a daily basis. Going with the uneven leagues and uneven divisions, while not desirable, was less of a gamble. Now that MLB has had over a decade to fiddle around with interleague play and there's a team willing to move, the time seems to be right to make the change.

 

Along with putting five teams in every division, the scheduling structure looks good. The fact that all teams in a division play the same opponents for the same number of games is huge.

 

I don't think the loss of home and home against "natural" rivals is a big enough loss not to be offset by the other improvements. A lot of teams didn't have a "natural" rival anyway. And some teams had more than one. Cleveland vs. both Cincinnati and Pittsburgh comes to mind as the obvious example. Others would be the Angels vs. the Dodgers and Padres along with the White Sox vs. the Cubs, Brewers, and Cardinals.

[The Truth]

The fact that all teams in a division play the same opponents for the same number of games is huge.

I agree and I don't think the importance of that can be stressed enough. Fairness in scheduling is very important to the integrity of the game, and in that way this change is a major improvement from the current set-up

 

I wonder how this will change NL teams' strategy in terms of player personnel. Suddenly, a player like Prince Fielder makes more sense for a NL team. As he ages he'll be less desireable at 1B but at least he can DH for the interleague games, etc. Maybe it won't make a huge difference, maybe it will. Carrying a Russell Branyon, aging David Ortiz/Jason Giambi type player on an NL squad makes more sense now though

[Invader3K]

I wonder how this will change NL teams' strategy in terms of player personnel. Suddenly, a player like Prince Fielder makes more sense for a NL team. As he ages he'll be less desireable at 1B but at least he can DH for the interleague games, etc. Maybe it won't make a huge difference, maybe it will.

This is a really huge and important point I hadn't even thought about yet.

[topper09er]

This is great for us, now we will always play the weaker AL Central and the NL East will always have to play the AL East, meaning it is easier for a central team to win a wild card slot.

[bork]

I'm glad we get to play everyone in the AL Central every year. I never understood MN as our "natural rival". I never considered them any more of a rival than anyone else in the AL Central.

 

But it does mean we don't get annual games against doormat Houston.

[Glennron]

I wonder how this will change NL teams' strategy in terms of player personnel. Suddenly, a player like Prince Fielder makes more sense for a NL team. As he ages he'll be less desireable at 1B but at least he can DH for the interleague games, etc. Maybe it won't make a huge difference, maybe it will.

This is a really huge and important point I hadn't even thought about yet.

It's definitely an interesting point, but is it that huge? All that means is he'd DH 15 games a year instead of 7-9. I'm not sure if that's a big enough difference for NL teams to change their personnel decisions.

[The Truth]

It's definitely an interesting point, but is it that huge? All that means is he'd DH 15 games a year instead of 7-9. I'm not sure if that's a big enough difference for NL teams to change their personnel decisions.

You are probably correct. 15 games a year would not weigh that heavily on a teams personnel moves.

[owbc]

The latest word is that there will be no increase in the number of interleague games at all. Still 18 just like now. 15 against a rotating division and 3 rivalry games. In addition, they are not decided on even balancing the intraleague portion of the schedule.

 

If that is the case, it would actually make it less likely for an NL team to carry a DH, since the interleague games will be spread all over the place.

[PKBadger]

The latest word is that there will be no increase in the number of interleague games at all. Still 18 just like now. 15 against a rotating division and 3 rivalry games.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/mad.gif

[Ennder]

Yeah I obviously messed up my post.

 

In the NL you make some small decisions about pitching around the 8th hitter and maybe once every 4 or 5 games you make a harder choice on whether or not to PH for a pitcher or not. It adds some strategy but it isn't this huge jump in strategy that people want to make it out to be.

 

To me the most important part of the discussion comes down to player safety and realistic situations. No baseball player can realistically stay sharp enough to hit at a major league level when they only get to bat every 5th game and every year a dozen pitchers in the NL get hurt running the bases or swinging. The argument that everyone needs to play offense and defense has a little merit, I mean baseball is the only game where you can't sub players in and out at will so it is kind of a unique sport in general and you do want to keep some of that uniqueness.

[dadofandrew]

No league plays the same schedule except soccer. It makes no difference if you play the same schedule as your division rivals when you will likely be up against another division for the wildcard anyway.

 

A 7-9 team made the NFL playoffs last year. If the Giants beat the Eagles, the Packers don't make the playoffs. Luck is part of the game.

[The Truth]

The latest word is that there will be no increase in the number of interleague games at all. Still 18 just like now. 15 against a rotating division and 3 rivalry games.

Is that even mathematically possible, considering that there will be an interleague game every day?

[owbc]

Is that even mathematically possible, considering that there will be an interleague game every day?

Yes, since there will be a total of 270 Interleague games. But there would rarely be more than one series going on at once.

[jeffy]

Rarity of more than one interleague series at a time will depend on how they do the scheduling, they could bunch most of the games or spread things out more evenly.

 

At one extreme, they potentially could have 13 interleague games on 9 dates and 153 dates with one interleague game. On the other end of the spectrum, they could have three interleague games on 51 dates and one on 117 dates.

 

Note that there will have to be an odd number of interleague games each day (neglecting the possibility of 1 team in each league having an off day).

 

If it is 18 interleague games, this most likely means they will go with 16 vs. each division opponent and 8 vs. each team in the rest of the league.

[monty57]

But there would rarely be more than one series going on at once.

 

This will eventually lead to interleague play being kind of forgotten about by the media/fans (it's just something that goes on throughout the year as opposed to being a big story when it happens all at once every year), which can lead to expanded interleague play in the future if that is what the MLB bosses want.

[joepepsi]

But there would rarely be more than one series going on at once.

 

This will eventually lead to interleague play being kind of forgotten about by the media/fans (it's just something that goes on throughout the year as opposed to being a big story when it happens all at once every year), which can lead to expanded interleague play in the future if that is what the MLB bosses want.

I suspect it will still matter at least on a regional level, for local matchups. Twins/Brewers, Yankees/Mets, Orioles/Nats, White sox/Cubs, those sorts of games will still bring the interleague angle to media coverage.

[monty57]

But there would rarely be more than one series going on at once.

 

This will eventually lead to interleague play being kind of forgotten about by the media/fans (it's just something that goes on throughout the year as opposed to being a big story when it happens all at once every year), which can lead to expanded interleague play in the future if that is what the MLB bosses want.

I suspect it will still matter at least on a regional level, for local matchups. Twins/Brewers, Yankees/Mets, Orioles/Nats, White sox/Cubs, those sorts of games will still bring the interleague angle to media coverage.

You'll have local coverage of Cubs/White Sox, Yankees/Mets, etc, but I doubt you'll see much fanfare when the Brewers play the Twins or in most of the non-intercity rivalries. Plus, you won't see the national coverage of "...it's that time again," which inevitably leads to "I hate interleague because..."

 

Interleague baseball is much more accepted than it was a decade ago, so they can now take this step. If MLB can get interleague to be the norm, than it will be able to take further steps. Making people forget that they have any problem with it helps. You can spur on getting people to forget about it if you can halt the National Griping Week which has annually begun shortly prior to interleague play each year. You'll see some stories the first year about what a travesty it is that there is an interleague game on Opening Day, but after the first year, Opening Day will be a far bigger story than who is playing who on Opening Day.

 

I say all of this as a positive for interleague play. MLB wants it, and I think overall it makes baseball better for the teams and fans, so they are marketing it in a long-term way so that they can get more interleague play without outraging fans.

[danzig6767]

Yeah I obviously messed up my post.

 

In the NL you make some small decisions about pitching around the 8th hitter and maybe once every 4 or 5 games you make a harder choice on whether or not to PH for a pitcher or not. It adds some strategy but it isn't this huge jump in strategy that people want to make it out to be.

 

To me the most important part of the discussion comes down to player safety and realistic situations. No baseball player can realistically stay sharp enough to hit at a major league level when they only get to bat every 5th game and every year a dozen pitchers in the NL get hurt running the bases or swinging. The argument that everyone needs to play offense and defense has a little merit, I mean baseball is the only game where you can't sub players in and out at will so it is kind of a unique sport in general and you do want to keep some of that uniqueness.

Tons of players get hurt every year for a wide variety of reasons. Just because a few pitchers each year miss some time while getting injured running the bases or at the plate doesn't mean baseball needs to further worsen the game by extending the DH to the NL also. Injuries are part of the game.

 

As for most pitchers not being good hitters, to that i say so what. They can bunt then when a runner/runners are on base and besides my liking of NL managers often enough being forced to make decisions on whether to keep in a starter doing well when their team is behind, i also enjoy the fun or frustration when pitchers do manage to get hits, especially when it drives in runs.

 

I'm old enough to remember watching quite a few years of the Brewers being in the AL and i don't regret one bit them switching to the NL. Ideally for me, the AL would drop the DH so both leagues played by the same rules, but the union clearly won't go for that. So while i'd prefer both leagues being uniform, i'll pass on that if it means bringing the DH to the NL.

 

FWIW, this has zero to do with "tradition" for me. I simply watch games played by the two leagues and find myself being glad the Brewers are in the NL. Then again, the DH debate is often useless because i can't remember seeing someone change their mind.