Al Yellon
Editor
It's Gotta Be The Hair - May 15
Grant Brisbee
Editor
Tarasco Sauce - May 16
Jeff Sullivan
Editor
Mission Accomplished - May 16
Rob Neyer
National Baseball Editor
Baseball is Unpredictable - May 12
Dan Moore
Contributor
Joey Votto And The Twilight Of The Giant First Basemen - Apr 14
Jason Brannon
Hot Corner Scribe
Len Kasper Has Been Over Into The Future... - May 15
Jim Baker
Contributor
eBay Item Of The Day - May 15
Marc Normandin
Contributor
The Royals And Pitcher Development - May 15
Wendy Thurm
Contributor
On Being Young And Brash In The Social Media Age - May 12
Major League Baseball's newest radical realignment plan isn't a terrible idea, writes Rob Neyer, and it might have something to do with moving on rather than running in place.
Jun 12, 2011 - So, on the subject of MLB realignment and other matters, let me get something out of the way ... Monday, when the nation's columnists and pundits and older radio hosts awaken from their weekend slumber, you're going to be treated to a great deal of skepticism, if not feigned outrage, regarding the possibility of realignment and (especially) eliminating the divisions. Some of these arguments will be rational, but most will come from the same basic impulse: conservatism.
Not all, but most of the arguments will essentially be this: We can't do it this new way, because I like the old way!
Just so you know, most of the people making that argument were also dead-set against realignment and the related changes in 1994. Then, like now, most of the arguments were fundamentally about fear of change, rather than what might be more entertaining, more profitable, more fair, etc.
I don't mean to dismiss the arguments and the complaints that will attend any change to the current protocol. I'm just saying that most of them will be driven by emotion rather than logic. Which is fine; without emotion, there wouldn't be professional sports and I wouldn't make a pretty good living writing stuff for you to read.
With all that in mind, I'll just say this ...
Baseball won't be any less entertaining if the Astros switch to the American League. Baseball won't be any less entertaining if there's an interleague game every day of the season. Baseball won't be any less entertaining if the divisions are eliminated, with the top five teams in each league qualifying for the postseason tournament.
In fact, it's that latter possibility that particularly intrigues me. I think it'll be a lot of fun, seeing the standings presented that way, with the top five teams -- the first division, just like in the old days -- highlighted, and the second division teams fighting their way toward the first division.
One objection that will certainly be raised ... With 15 teams in each league and the necessity of an interleague game almost every day, the possibility exists that a contending team will be playing out of its league during the last week of the season. To which I respond, 1) So what? and 2) With a bit of forethought, the possibility will be slight.
Yes, last season's final weekend was perfect, with the Giants facing the Padres for the National League West title. But the Giants could just as easily have been playing the Rockies or the Dodgers or the Diamondbacks, in which case the drama wouldn't have been significantly greater than if they'd been playing the Mariners or the Brewers or the Twins.
What's more, there's a simple solution: Schedule those interleague games in the last week between teams that finished with lousy records the season before. Yes, eventually one of those teams is going to be playing for a postseason berth in the last week. But it'll be rare, and we'll cope.
All this said, I don't think realignment is particularly likely. First, you have to find a team that wants to switch leagues, and in the past that's been problematic for the same old reason: fear of change. There was no good reason for the Royals to spurn the chance to join the National League in 1994; they were just afraid to change. There was no good reason for the Diamondbacks' refusal to join the American League a few years into their existence; they were just afraid to change. Maybe the Astros are willing; but if not, there aren't many (any?) other candidates. It obviously makes sense to have five teams in the National League West, and the Astros and D'backs are the best candidates. Which doesn't mean one of them will actually do it.
And there are, to be sure, scheduling issues. Serious scheduling issues, even more serious than the issues that have, to varying degrees, afflicted the game since 1995.
In the end, I suspect the biggest obstacle to substantive change might be Commissioner Allan H. Selig. Since the beginning of the current system, he has steadfastly maintained that 15-team leagues simply won't work because "Then you would have interleague play every day." Now, he's never once explained what would be so awful about that. But I think his "reasoning," if you pressed him on this, would be that what makes interleague games so special is that they don't happen every day ... except of course interleague games stopped being special when today's college students were in the second grade. We all know that the only special interleague games are those pitting the "natural rivals" against one another, and the occasional match-ups -- Red Sox vs. Braves, Yankees vs. Dodgers, etc. -- that tug at our historical heartstrings.
Most interleague games are just games, though. And the sooner Commissioner Bud admits that, the sooner we might have something that's even better, however slightly, than what we've already got.
71 comments
15
Oct 12
41
Jul 13
12
Jun 30
43
Jun 15
2
Jun 14
10
Jun 13
45
Jun 12
Rob Neyer:
MLB Realignment? Bring It On
71
Jun 12
38
Jun 11
Mickey Hatcher, Angels Hitting Coach, Relieved Of Duties
Vance Worley Has 'Soreness', Will Miss Wednesday Start
Justin Morneau Will Be Activated From DL Wednesday
Manny Ramirez Rehab Assignment Will Start Saturday In Albuquerque
Jon Jay Heading To Disabled List; Shane Robinson Recalled
Troy Tulowitzki Day-To-Day With Deep Leg Bruise
Matt Kemp Goes On 15-Day DL With Sore Hamstring
Jeff Niemann Likely Missing 'A Few Months' With Leg Injury
VIDEO: Bryce Harper's First Career Home Run
Torii Hunter Placed On Restricted List Following Son's Arrest
More News »
Comments
I feel like I should be allowed to want a team to move to the AL, and yet keep the 3 division + 1 wild card format.
"I make love to pressure."
-- Stephen Jackson
by USCKB on Jun 12, 2011 9:53 AM EDT reply actions
Just get the Astros to the AL West
Yeah, I’m with this. Just get the Astros to the AL West already. Oh, and also let’s eliminate the DH.
by Stephen Waterman on Jun 13, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Anyone who thinks “getting rid of the DH” is an idea worth considering obviously doesn’t understand economics or union movements. You seriously think that the MLBPA is going to allow (usually) aging sluggers earning $4-12m a year to be replaced by a bench player (defender or runner) or a bottom-feeding relief pitcher at or just above minimum salary? Will NEVER happen – the union agreeing to putting money in the owners’ pockets at the expense of players?
by Mike Trathen on Jun 13, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, I don’t think it will happen, but it definitely should. Or barring that, I guess adding the DH to the NL. But having half your teams plays by different rules is so ridiculous for a sports league.
by Stephen Waterman on Jun 14, 2011 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
But, nearly any DH who has atleast a couple hundred games there, would have gotten a contract as a position player, not left for dead.
Here are the guys with 200+ games at DH from 2001 to 2010:
David Ortiz 1168
Travis Hafner 820
Frank Thomas 724
Jim Thome 611
Edgar Martinez 480
Mike Sweeney 462
Jason Giambi 415
Aubrey Huff 396
Hideki Matsui 369
Vladimir Guerrero 369
Brad Fullmer 335
Jack Cust 322
Dmitri Young 312
Erubiel Durazo 303
Josh Phelps 300
Ellis Burks 288
Gary Sheffield 287
Jason Kubel 271
Carl Everett 260
Manny Ramirez 257
Jonny Gomes 245
Adam Lind 242
Ruben Sierra 238
Rafael Palmeiro 232
Matt Stairs 230
Garret Anderson 216
Raul Ibanez 210
Matt LeCroy 208
Luke Scott 203
How many of them would really have lost their jobs rather than pushing out someone else at some position in the Mjaors?
by erosen on Jun 14, 2011 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
avoiding interleague every day...
I saw this rumor break yesterday, and immediately it occurred to me that interleague everyday might not be inevitable in such a situation. With creative thinking, if every team had a day off once a week, you might be able to align the games to where every single day there are 14 games, 1 team in each league off. I don’t know. Or at least enough of the time to make it a bit more “traditional”. Shortening the season to 154 games, or scheduling some Sunday double headers might help as well. I like the idea of “first division”, etc. That’s what the old, old-timers used to talk about, so that’s cool. You need to make the top 5. Completely realistic. Divisions were the damnation in 1969, too, or so I’ve read.
Also, why don’t we just send the Brewers back to the AL? Give them some nice financial incentive to go, and Voila! Just some thoughts.
by Chad MacNeil on Jun 12, 2011 9:59 AM EDT reply actions
IMO
Personally I rather see this scenario:
1. Get rid of the Central Division and create North and South
2. Add two Wild Cards
3. Move the Brewers back to the AL
4. Shorten the regular season
Insert witty signature here
by BlueChill on Jun 12, 2011 10:13 AM EDT reply actions
What is this, the NFL?
I don’t think that’s going to work. Four teams in each division would just be too few, I think. I mean, I know the AL West does it, but it doesn’t really work.
Also, if you got rid of the Central and added north and south… who would be south? You’d have Houston. And that’s it. I guess you could THEORETICALLY put STL and KC in there, but then you just know they’d do something really dumb like put Pittsburgh and Milwaukee down there just to fill it out. Bad idea.
by jhitts08 on Jun 12, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Kind of forgetting about that team in Florida and the one in Georgia aren’t you? Those are certainly teams that would be worthy of being in the “south”.
by Scott A on Jun 12, 2011 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I was thinking that he was saying to break up the central divisions and adding north and south while keeping both east divisions the same. Guess I didn’t realize he meant change around the other divisions as well.
by jhitts08 on Jun 13, 2011 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Ok so its modeled after the NFL
It doesnt mean that its bad, my theory is that this change would be better for competition and help individual franchises.
Insert witty signature here
by BlueChill on Jun 12, 2011 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I think four team divisions work in the NFL because you only play each other divisional team twice a year, that’s it. In baseball, if you had four teams in each division, then you’d be playing even more games against divisional opponents than you already are. Which, I think, would be even worse. But that’s just me.
by jhitts08 on Jun 13, 2011 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
re: IMO
I like something more along these lines. Actually, I’m in favor of anything that would result in less interleague play. I just don’t like it at all. AL teams should get to keep the DH and the NL should adapt the DH. I know the tickets sales reflect that the novelty of interleague play has not worn off but it certainly has for me. Also, the two-game series are just ridiculous, thanks for that one interleague play. Ok, I’m off my soap box. Good night America.
""Baseball is a red-blooded sport for red-blooded men. It's no pink tea, and mollycoddles had better stay out. It's a struggle for supremacy, a survival of the fittest."
by drew22675 on Jun 14, 2011 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Baseball has enough off-days that you don’t need interleague every day. The thing I don’t like about the 2 giant divisions is that it kills rivalries. Right now, the braves are rivals with the marlins and phillies because those are the teams they have to contend with year in and year out. With one giant NL division, their rivals would just be whoever happened to be close to them in the standings. If you have some consistently great teams, some of those rivalries will develop at the top, but most other rivalries would have to be regional and most teams aren’t close enough to each other for that.
MASN Announcer: "Ususally they have what they call here 'the privilege,' and that's what bobby cox calls it when he let's the veteran guys swing away on 3-0. This is not such a hitter."
Jason Heyward: Single up the middle, ballgame.
by telemakhos on Jun 12, 2011 10:33 AM EDT reply actions
Rivalries are already based on standings...
…just within the division. For instance, you didn’t mention the Mets as Braves rivals, even though they have been in the past. The reason, obviously, is the Mets suck right now. Same goes elsewhere: last year the Giants and Padres had a great rivalry; now the Pads are bad so they don’t. So it wouldn’t necessarily be different in a one-big-league system.
by tomemos on Jun 12, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not really true. The Mets are terrible, but the respective fanbases still get up for a Mets vs Phillies series. Moreso than Phillies fans would “get up” for a series against the Cardinals, who are a much greater rival in the standings.
That said, if your team is good it probably won’t make that much of a difference. But if you’re a bad team like the Mets, your fans can actually look forward to trying to take a pound of flesh from the Phillies or Braves.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
by JasonB on Jun 12, 2011 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay
But I feel like those geographical rivalries would continue anyway, based on who would pack whose stadia. The A’s and Yankees have a pretty good rivalry (at least from the A’s perspective, Yanks might not care) which has little to do with geography or win-loss records.
by tomemos on Jun 12, 2011 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions
The thing is
There are only like three real rivalries anyway (not counting interleague rivalries, natch: Cubs/Cards, Sox/Yanks, Dodgers/Giants). The rest are really based on circumstance and divisions. I mean, the Tigers and the Jays used to be big rivals, but they’re not anymore. Why? The Tigers changed divisions. Now they’re not rivals at all, or at least, it’s not as fierce as it was back in the Jays’ heyday. Obviously, part of that rivalry to do with geography: Detroit and Toronto are like four hours away, nice weekend roadtrip distance, plus lots of Canadian Tigers fans in Windsor and that part of southwest Canada. But really, it was because the two teams played each other so often during divisional play. There was no real hate there. At least, not like Sox/Yanks hate.
The point here is, that rivalries will survive and new ones will be created. Dumb rivalries that don’t mean anything will fade if the teams aren’t good (like… say, Orioles/Red Sox. Won’t be playing each other as often, so no more dumb instances of O’s fans that it is one.)
by jhitts08 on Jun 12, 2011 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Explain how the so called “real rivalries” you mention are not based on “circumstance and divisions” given that all those rivalries involve teams in the same division?
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
by JasonB on Jun 12, 2011 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, mostly because all three of these rivalries started before divisions even existed. And all of them have been going strong for 100 years. I can’t think of any other ones that have that distinction (that aren’t inter league rivalries, which are a whole different animal).
by jhitts08 on Jun 13, 2011 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions
No divisions top 5 from each league make it.
"I'm coming after whoever who has it."
by Jeterian 2 on Jun 12, 2011 10:52 AM EDT reply actions
why
"seriously, why the fuck is Theriot still at short?" -VEP
my blog
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 12, 2011 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Expand first, then realign
I’ve written this up before, but all of the scheduling/playoff awfulness becomes moot if you just add 2 more teams to the league.
"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root
by Clutch16 on Jun 12, 2011 11:30 AM EDT reply actions
Agreed
I agree with expanding, and then either four four-team divisions or two eight-team divisions. I’d also like to see interleague play eliminated because outside of the rivalry games, I don’t think it really generates significant interest.
Ow! My oblique!
by Cantankerous on Jun 12, 2011 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I like this
Two 8 team divisions. I like division play, and playing more games against your division than the other division. Then shorten the regular season (to 154?) so the WS is played before Thanksgiving…
by Craig from Az on Jun 13, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Yuck
Interleague play every day? What a terrible idea. Isn’t this why the Brewers moved to the NL in the first place.
http://pinetarandbrickbats.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-about-radical-realignment.html
by Dan Berman on Jun 12, 2011 11:35 AM EDT reply actions
make it like soccer
and have the top 15 teams in 1 “league” and the worst 15 in the “other league”
after each season, the 5 worst from League 1 get moved down to league 2, and the 5 best league 2 get promoted to league 1.
thats just as wacky and crazy as any other idea.
by jaywishy on Jun 12, 2011 12:11 PM EDT reply actions
I would actually like that
Relegation like the EPL, but it isn’t going to happen
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
SB Nation Denver
Follow me on twitter!
Inside The Utes
by Jeremy Mauss on Jun 12, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't understand why anyone likes the idea of relegation
Look at what passes for parity in European soccer leagues and tell me that you think it’s a good system for baseball. If you think the Yankees always win now…
by tomemos on Jun 12, 2011 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Relegation and promotion are how you deal with a lack of parity
The reason why parity matters so much more in US sports than in European soccer is that there isn’t anything to play for in US sports other than the ring (well, OK, playoff places). If you’re consistently bad, then you never play a competitive match late in the season.
Ask a Kansas City Royal fan how much September baseball sucks, or a Detroit Lions fan about December football.
But with promotion and relegation, only the middle teams have boring uncompetitive games at the end of the season. Teams rarely stay in “mid-table mediocrity” for long periods of time; they’re usually competitive at the top or the bottom within two or three seasons.
Fighting to finish 17th to stay up can be every bit as exciting and nerve-shredding as fighting to finish 1st.
That’s not why promotion and relegation will never come to the US, though. The reason is that it would destroy the owners’ club. Any billionaire that’s left out, any city that’s left out could set up a new team, hire some players and try to work their way up to the higher levels of the sport.
Take a look at AFC WImbledon. Owners moved the old franchise to Milton Keynes (about a hundred miles away). Fans founded their own team in 2002, and have just been promoted to League Two (the fourth level of English football). This is a bit like the Cleveland Browns, except they earned their place back by winning games, not by begging the NFL management.
Quebec City, instead of trying to get an expansion team or get a franchise moved to their new arena, could just set up a new hockey team and try to win enough games to get into the NHL.
If Montreal wanted back into MLB, they could do the same.
The last time that things could have been done this way in baseball is the twenties, before the farm system got going. If the 1921 Baltimore Orioles had replaced one of the Philadelphia teams in the 1922 majors, then baseball could run with promotion and relegation. But not now.
The only American sport that could sensibly set up promotion/relegation systems now is NCAA Football. Have four conferences of 30 teams each, divided into three divisions, with promotion and relegation between the divisions, and have the four conference champions play each other for the championship. Easy.
by po8crg on Jun 13, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I would Modify this
to something like this:
Keep the same division format with 3 in each league and unbalanced schedules.
The best 6 teams in each league ( division seeding is based on the previous years win percentage with ties going to higher division teams, ties in the first year can be lottery or some other random selection) go into the winners division, and the top two teams are “division winners” and get home field throughout the playoffs, and the third best is a WC.
The next best 4 teams in each league are in the middle division and the winner is the 3rd “division champ” and runner up is a WC.
The final 6 (NL) 4 (AL) are in the “lower division” and the winner gets the 3rd WC.
The 3 WCs play a double elimination round robin with no days off between games for the losers (the WC from the low division gets the first day bye). The WC winner plays the #1 team from the winners division and the other 2 division champs play each other in 7 game series followed by another 7 game series for a WS berth.
Sure it is still tough for the lower tier teams to make the playoffs, but the Pirates and the Royals (for example) will have a much easier time making it to the playoffs under this format than competing against teams that outspend them by a 100 million bucks. Plus it might make them open up the pocket-books to compete for the playoff spot.
by vikedawg on Jun 12, 2011 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
barf
"seriously, why the fuck is Theriot still at short?" -VEP
my blog
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 12, 2011 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Selig probably doesn't want interleague play every day because it would ruin his biggest talking point.
People who point to the success of interleague play (Selig, Hawk Harrelson, and others I assume) point to the massive attendance difference between that and the intraleague games.
Problem is, the interleague games are set up to look better, because:
Put a game like Padres-Indians in April, when it’s 30something degrees in Cleveland, you might not draw 10,000. Selig likes to say the matchups matter and interleague is a draw in and of itself, but I’m not sure he believes that, and interleague games outside of that small window would probably expose it.
Whales! Squids! Sharks! They're everywhere! Hello, I am Poseidon! Now, when people told me I was crazy that thinly sliced roast beef would be a delicious fast-food option, I knew it was the greatest idea, and you can thank me later for Arby's.
by Jim Margalus on Jun 12, 2011 12:22 PM EDT reply actions
Just curious
Why are the Astros a more likely candidate to join the AL than any other NL teams?
by Egonz on Jun 12, 2011 12:43 PM EDT reply actions
From what I’ve heard the MLB can write into their new owners agreement that they have to agree to move to AL.
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Writer for Pinstripe Alley
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
by Brandon C. on Jun 12, 2011 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I would guess because it would make the most sense for NL Central to lose a team and the AL West to gain one, and with Texas already in the AL West . . .
but really, if they are getting rid of divisions, then I don’t see any particular reason why it should be Huston.
by quacker27 on Jun 12, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know. Isn’t it hard enough for the Orioles and Blue Jays to make the playoffs already? Now, they’d have to jump over the entire American League, and not just Boston, Tampa and New York. There’d be absolutely no parity, especially if they expand the field to 6 playoff teams like they’re talking. To me, it looks like a contingency plan to get the Red Sox and Yankees into the playoffs at all costs, as one or both might not get in if Tampa Bay continues to be pose problems.
I also like the idea of relegation, and it could be done conceivably by moving up a local minor league team to fill the spot of its floundering, big-league counterpart. But that’s just wishful thinking on my part.
Inhistoric -- the SB Nation blog devoted to sports history.
by ZombieMonta on Jun 12, 2011 12:44 PM EDT reply actions
This is exactly what’s bothering me about this proposal, and what I feel not enough people are talking about. Every discussion of realignment or expansion always comes back to “how does this affect the Red Sox and Yankees,” except, so far, this one. By eliminating the divisions without fixing the economic situation in baseball, the Red Sox and Yankees are going to be in the playoffs every year. Under the current system, when a team like Tampa manages to put up a big year, at least one of those teams is going to sit out the playoffs, but under this system? How likely is it that one or both of those two monsters will have the 6th best record in the league or worse? (I mean that question sincerely, I don’t know. I haven’t yet looked at the last decade and the top five AL teams every year, but I’d guess that both the Red Sox and Yankees would have made the playoffs under the proposed system even more times than they have already.)
I know we’re not supposed to be in the business of penalizing those teams for being who they are, but by eliminating the one realistic roadblock they have to inevitable playoff appearances, you’re taking a step backwards on the parity path that the 5th playoff team is supposed to be forging.
by averyslave on Jun 12, 2011 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
It would probably bring more equity actually.
Without divisions, teams would play just about the same schedule, with minor differences with what interleague teams they play. As a result the Blue Jays and Rays aren’t playing the Red Sox and Yankees 18 times a year; 9 or so of those games get replaced by teams from other divisions.
by Mariner John on Jun 12, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Uh, that's not responsive
All the AL East teams would benefit, sure. But the benefit is zero-sum. Every other AL team would be hurt. It would be 12 (or 13) teams for two (or three) spots, since the Red Sox and Yankees would make the postseason every year. All it would do is increase the number of teams chasing the rest of the postseason berths.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Jun 12, 2011 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Again
Not that it matters, but I don’t see how anyone could associate relegation with parity. When one team gets to play in the high-talent, big money league, and the other has to play in the opposite league, it exacerbates the richer team’s advantage.
by tomemos on Jun 12, 2011 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
The whole reason to expanding playoffs and/or division realignment is to maximize competition. Eliminating the divisions does the direct opposite.
Insert witty signature here
by BlueChill on Jun 12, 2011 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem with the no division scenario is that you will probably never see a pennant race between two great teams again
by Poochie on Jun 12, 2011 12:56 PM EDT reply actions
Why not?
There didn’t use to be divisions and there were plenty of great pennant races.
by tomemos on Jun 12, 2011 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s because there was only one playoff spot. Win the league or pick apples in October. The OP is saying that the only real race will be between 5th and 6th, so no GREAT teams will ever have a pennant race again. Great teams will have locked up the playoffs by July 31.
by averyslave on Jun 12, 2011 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
They'll still be jockeying for seeding, though.
The seeding will be crucial. Everyone wants to avoid those 4th and 5th slots, where you are in the “play-in” series.
And the benefit of being the one seed is getting to face a tired pitching staff that just threw its ace in the “play-in” game/short series.
So, there are very logical, tangible benefits to being the 1 seed rather than the 2 seed, the 3 seed rather than the 4 seed. And if the “4” seed gets to host the play-in game/play-in series, there’s tangible benefits to being the “4” seed instead of the “5”, too. seed.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Jun 12, 2011 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Playing for a seed ...
… is a lot less compelling than playing for a postseason berth
by thelifeofbenny on Jun 12, 2011 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Get rid of the playoffs entirely
Expand or contract to get an even number of teams in each league. Get rid of interleague play and divisions. The teams with the best record in each league meet in the world series. Won’t happen, but it would be perfect in my opinion.
Manager at BT Powerhouse a Big Ten basketball blog
@babaoreally
by babaoreally on Jun 12, 2011 1:03 PM EDT reply actions
Perfectly fair
But not perfect in terms of entertainment. With so many teams and no playoff, a lot of fans, maybe a majority, would never see their team go to the World Series in their lifetime. That hurts baseball.
by tomemos on Jun 12, 2011 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
It would make the regular season more meaningful, which I would like. The “win the championship or the season is a failure” philosophy of many fans gets on my nerves. I would like fans to watch games because winning a game in itself is important, not because there are so many playoff spots that every game means something to a playoff race.
I understand the drawbacks of this system, and know that it will never happen. But if someone is going to ask what I would like to see, this is what it would be.
Manager at BT Powerhouse a Big Ten basketball blog
@babaoreally
by babaoreally on Jun 13, 2011 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
That worked, ish, when there were eight teams in a league
But not with 16. They should have made the PCL a third major league in the fifties instead of moving the Dodgers and Giants and founded a fourth major league in the South once segregation was over (i.e. instead of the Braves going South in 1966).
Four eight-team leagues would work fine with no interleague, and an eight-team league should be relatively competitive in pennant races.
Four teams would get into the playoffs, which would have to be a random drawing, as there’s no way to seed them.
by po8crg on Jun 13, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
The Novelty of Inter-League Has Worn Off
…a long time ago for me. It’s overhyped, much like the Yanks-BoSox rivalry. I’d pefer to see some like this happen:
1. Inter-league games once every 4 seasons (like the olympics & WBC)
2. Divisions realigned yearly according to payroll.
Yeah, I think that, would make inter-league play special again and give teams & fans some bragging rights ’til next time. Plus, realigning like this, would ensure small market budgets will always make the playoffs, thus exciting fans in cities that normally brush their team off and generate extra revenue for the smaller budgeted clubs, until they have a year or two when they can truly spend.
Why not 15 team divisionless leagues?
Because the last thing I want to see is a 14th place team playing another 14th place team in June. Remember when we had 4 divisions? When a team sunk to 7th, a lot of interest was lost…. in June!
Why not daily inter-league play?
There’s just nothing special or unique about it anymore. I remember the first time I saw inter-league… Marlins @ Yankees in ‘97, and that was so cool. It felt like a World Series without it being a World Series, and bragging rights came with a win. "See, I told you we’re better than the Mets" type thing. Now, it’s like… well, “ok, you’re better than us THIS YEAR. See ya next summer” …what the fun with that? It’s lost on me nowadays. It removes baseball’s uniqueness among the major leagues… NFL, NBA, NHL, and even MLS, all play teams from all other divisions throughout the year. Why does baseball have to change to do that too?
by Soydevon on Jun 12, 2011 2:54 PM EDT reply actions
My Choice...
…. which isn’t one of the options given, is to keep the current NL/AL set-up but eliminate divisions. Just have an AL of 14 teams and an NL of 16 teams without divisions. It would be nice to eliminate inter-league play (which would help increase the interest in the All-Star Game, I think) along with this revision. Also, it would be great to eliminate multiple playoff teams, having only the best AL team play the best NL team in the World Series. Yes, it is going backwards and no, I am not one of those “fear of change fans”. I just think it would be super-groovy to bring that aspect back. But since MLB won’t get rid of the multiple playoff team format, which makes a lotta lettuce, just get rid of the divisions— they are worthless now, anyway. The NFL, NBA and the NHL should eliminate divisions, too.
Enough with divisionism…. lets’ become one in the world of sports, then become as one in the world of the world.
"We praise or blame as one or the other affords more opportunity for exhibiting our power of judgment." Friedrich Nietzsche, "Human,All Too Human" (1878)
by wgarrett on Jun 12, 2011 4:30 PM EDT reply actions
I find the idea of no divisions extremely distasteful
here is what should be done:
eliminate interleague play
send the Astros to the American League West which has 4 teams
keep it at only 1 wild card team… which is more than enough.
change the first round of the playoffs to 7 games. 5 games is a travesty
if they go forward with this idea, I will boycott all American League games. I really only care about the NL. it is much more entertaining to see the All Star Game and World Series without interleague play cheapening the game. Bud Selig is turning out to be baseball’s worst nightmare.
"seriously, why the fuck is Theriot still at short?" -VEP
my blog
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 12, 2011 7:48 PM EDT reply actions
seriously
MLB, if you want to lose a lot of old school fans, go ahead and eliminate the divisions and increase interleague play. I’d rather see contraction than what they’ve been talking about. no one will miss the Nats that much, and the 2 Florida teams hardly have any fans.
"seriously, why the fuck is Theriot still at short?" -VEP
my blog
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 12, 2011 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
If you move one team to the other league and go 15/15
you either have to have interleague play every week or teams will have 3 days off at a time. I would rather have interleague than 3 days off at a time
where the white women at?
by parkernutws05 on Jun 13, 2011 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
no more wildcards
and leave the divisions alone. making the leagues even makes a lot of sense though
I'd just as soon never hear another word from that fluttering asswheel. - RWShow
by blackoutsox on Jun 12, 2011 9:42 PM EDT reply actions
So 3 playoff teams per league?
How does that work?
by Mariner John on Jun 13, 2011 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions
the #1 seed in each league
gets a bye?
by LovelandRockie on Jun 13, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
In honor of Billy Beane and John Henry...
Like England’s Premier League & the UAEFA Cup, I propose:
And:
by jambolyajones on Jun 12, 2011 10:25 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
How would the minor leagues work then?
And how would the draft work? And on and on and on.
And then we could get rid of extra innings and have ties (just like that one All-Star game that everyone thought was great)!
Let’s not try to turn baseball into soccer. Let’s make it like it used to be: no interleague and no divisions. Best record in each league wins the pennant and they face off in the World Series. No playoffs other than that.
Manager at BT Powerhouse a Big Ten basketball blog
@babaoreally
by babaoreally on Jun 13, 2011 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions
You realize that minor league teams are affiliated with major league teams, right?
by Mariner John on Jun 13, 2011 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't want it this new way, because I like it the old way!
/was too young to remember ’94
Chicks dig the purple jersey.
"We believe in this team. Our best is still to come." ~ Huston Street
Does this signature make me look fat?
by prettyinpurple on Jun 13, 2011 12:57 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
It's not "fear of change," it's "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
And what’s so “broke” about it right now?
by Aly Edge on Jun 13, 2011 3:41 AM EDT reply actions
I like the idea of no divisions
The idea of only two leagues where top 5 or 6 make it could be very enjoyable. I read some of the comments until I got to the ones complaining that this would just help the Red Sox and Yankees. While I agree it would probably make it easier for both of them to make the playoffs, that’s a terrible reason not to do it. You can’t realign the divisions or not realign them because of TWO teams. There are 28 other teams in baseball that this will affect. The Red Sox and Yankees are good now, but they haven’t always been good and they won’t always be good. The worst thing that MLB can do is make a realignment decision based on two teams. MLB needs to look at the sport as a whole and not let two teams’ success control what it does.
by Joshbear on Jun 13, 2011 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
You're right, I opposed the changes in 1994
And I still do.
Interleague play is silly… you have no connection to a team you play once every three years and once at home every six. It’s just so… pointless.
But, in general, I think going back to pre-1994 playoffs would be idea. 4 divisions, two of 7 teams, two of 8 teams. Pretty much just like how baseball used to be with 1 playoff team per 8-team league. No wildcards. Just the four division winners.
That’s my ideal baseball season.
by cassander on Jun 13, 2011 1:24 PM EDT reply actions
Leave the Astros where they are, and expand the AL. New teams in Las Vegas and Salt Lake City, say, or Portland, or Vancouver or Edmonton or Madison or Santa Fe or any of a hundred other cities.
Re-align the teams into four 8-team divisions, best-of-seven LCS, best-of-seven WS.
Restrict interleague play to Yanks/Mets-esque series where there is a real rivalry. Don’t shoehorn the Phillies into playing the BoSox because they’re close together, and for the love of Pete, don’t make the Padres play the Indians in the spring!
by Phrozen on Jun 13, 2011 2:20 PM EDT reply actions
I like the idea of interleague games every day
The problem with the Wild Card is that your record is not only affected by the unbalanced schedule but also by the fact that you don’t play every team in the other league. I would suggest playing each team in home and away 2-game series. That would give you 60 games against the other league and 102 against your own. If the divisions are kept then the 102 could be split as home and away 3 game series against non-division opponents and 10 or 11 games against divisional opponents. If the divisions are removed then it would be 7 or 8 games against teams in your league.
AQBan
by AQBan on Jun 13, 2011 3:00 PM EDT reply actions
I'm happy with what we have now, but I wouldn't be against the suggested idea if it came up.
Doug Fister is Dexter. R.I.P. Dave Niehaus
by SeaKoala on Jun 13, 2011 4:57 PM EDT reply actions
2 15-team leagues, top 4 teams make playoffs, 7 game LDS and no DH is what i would do in my fantasy world.
by DodgersKings323 on Jun 16, 2011 7:32 AM EDT reply actions
A little tweaking, a lot more fairness
My plan:
For example, under this plan in 2012, the Nationals (the team I root for) would have six games vs. Baltimore (as now), 3 at home vs. the Yanks and Rays, 3 on the road vs. the Bosox and Jays (pairings would switch for 2013). The Nats would face four of the five AL Central teams in 2012, ’14, ’16, ’18 and ’20, four of the AL West in odd-numbered years through ’21. Over a 10-year stretch, every AL Central and West teams would visit Nationals Park twice (the Nats would return the favor twice), and every AL East team other than the Orioles would visit D.C. in alternate years.
This would eliminate many of the current inequities in scheduling, particularly in games outside your division.
by vp19 on Jun 16, 2011 6:14 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed