Master Index of Archived Threads


Realignment

Benjamin Grimm Jun 15 2011 06:41 PM

There's apparently a realignment proposal on the table, and I don't think we've discussed it here. The plan would be that, beginning in 2012, there would be 15 teams in each league (I think the Astros would move to the AL -- why not the Brewers?) and no divisions. Five teams from each league would make the playoffs. In the first round, the 4th and 5th place teams would play each other, and the 1st through 3rd place teams would get a bye.

Ashie62 Jun 15 2011 06:46 PM Re: Realignment

My preference is for four divisions of six, two leagues.

TransMonk Jun 15 2011 06:47 PM Re: Realignment

I'm opposed. Interleague everyday sounds horrible to me.

metirish Jun 15 2011 06:48 PM Re: Realignment

Sounds crazy but apparently it's been talked about , one scenario I heard or read was the Marlins going to the AL. I don't like it , they should go back to the balanced schedule if they are going to change things, one thing I don't like about the 15 team league is teams shooting for fifth place , like the EPL in a way where some teams only strive for a top five finish because that brings the spoils of Champion League soccer.

TransMonk Jun 15 2011 06:48 PM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: balanced schedule I'd rather this as well.

Gwreck Jun 15 2011 06:50 PM Re: Realignment

I don't know. I think it would be ok. It would certainly offer the opportunity to balance the schedule more. However, any proposal that INCREASES the number of playoff teams is unacceptable.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 15 2011 06:55 PM Re: Realignment

I... don't hate it. I don't like the regular interleague play (although if this could be leveraged to eliminate the DH, which I doubt, it would be a plus) and I don't like ten playoff teams, but I think ten playoff teams is probably inevitable, and this would be a better way of doing it. I don't like the balanced schedule; teams should play more games within their division. The best way to balance the schedule is by eliminating divisions. And this does that. And I'd rather see a fourth- and fifth-place team play a sudden-death first round than two wild cards, where one of the wild cards might have 98 wins while one of the division winners, getting a bye, may have only 85. It sounds crazy, but it makes sense when you think about it. I don't care which team goes to the AL, as long as it's not the Mets or one of the "legacy" franchises: Reds, Phils, Pirates, Cubs, Cardinals.

Fman99 Jun 15 2011 07:51 PM Re: Realignment

No divisions is stupid. Interleague games all season is also a stupid idea. You want to fix baseball? Throw the fucking DH away.

Ceetar Jun 15 2011 07:52 PM Re: Realignment

It's not really 'on the table' from what I've heard. just something someone threw out there. I've always been in favor of year long interleague play. (or just keep NL at 16 and only do interleague in non-april/sept months) Or, give the players an extra roster spot (more jobs) and ditch that stupid DH thing. Abandon any last semblance of separation between AL and NL and just go with it.

Willets Point Jun 15 2011 08:23 PM Re: Realignment

They can just dissolve the no-longer meaningful National and American Leagues for all I care. Create a 16-team Eastern League and 14-team Western League. Or three 10-team leagues. Or four leagues of 8,8,8, & 6. Or set free all the minor league teams to become independent teams in a promotion/relegation system.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 15 2011 08:50 PM Re: Realignment

I hate that the NL has 50 more players than the AL, and I've been over why. You all can disagree but back when the AL had more teams the NL was dominant. I wouldn't mind that 15 per would require one IL series at all times, as I don't see any value in jamming them all at once (well not all thanks to the imbalance). Is there something wrong with 15 team league, 3 divisions of 5 per? With 2 WCs per would be rare when a superior team misses out, yes?

Frayed Knot Jun 15 2011 08:57 PM Re: Realignment

The reason they went to 16/14 in the first place is that inter-league was always considered a temporary thing - or at least something that had to be approved on an ongoing basis - so that if it ever went away you'd be screwed with a 15/15 set-up. The other problem is that whatever problems they're looking to fix now were ones that were caused by the last realignment. 6 divisions x 5 teams each would work only if inter-league was set in stone as permanent and it would have to be virtually every day. Thing is, you can actually run it all season long and reduce the total number of IL games. The problem is you not only have to convince someone to move but make it so that extra team logically winds up in the AL West. Most of the rest of these more complicated "fixes" being bandied about are solutions in search of problems.

metsmarathon Jun 15 2011 09:13 PM Re: Realignment

i actually like the idea of two 15-team leagues, with no divisions. i think the biggest argument against it is that - gott-im-himmel! - you might have a team in contention playing an interleague game in the last week of the season. how this is appreciably worse than a team playing an out-of-division game, well, i don't know. i guess you have the slight chance that the mets and reds could be battling for the wild card, but really, how often is that really a factor? besides, isn;t it only really important that all teh teams in contention face teh same things? and if your interleague game is in late september, or august, well, who the fuck really cares, so long as you still have to play the same amount of interleague games as anybody else. and that's what's important - that it would offer an opportunity to get a fairly balanced schedule both in-league and interleague. the current schedule is a joke. especially the interleague blocks. why the hell should those games be confined to special chunks of the season? wouldn't it be more interesting if every week there's an AL team in an NL park, or vice versa? each week, you have a special series. swell! i've also heard how absurd it would be if you have an AL team in the thick of the pennant race forced to go at a disadvantage by batting their pitcher. and all i can think is that, hey, wouldn't that add to the drama, and add importance to a key skill - hitting? i mean, you could just do the fuck away with teh dh altogether and make me super-happy. but really it is teh nl team who is at a disadvantage in the dh games, as their 9th best hitter is usually a defensive utilityman, not a dedicated stick guy. but regardless, so long as the AL team is competing against other AL teams who've had to bat their pitchers, what does it matter if it comes late in the season or early? i also think that with 5 teams making it per league, you've got at least six teams with something to play for. the first place team wants to feast on the weakened 4th/5th place winner who just had to use his best pitcher, if available, to advance through what i would hope would be a one-game playoff. the 2nd place team is desperately trying to climb into that catbird seat. the third place team will be playing to stay out of the play-in game, while the 4th place team will try their best to rise above it. the 5th place team will dig its teeth into that last spot, while the 6th place team will be clawing their way up, hoping against hope just to get a shot. in teh current system, your division winners could salt away their spots early, and have nothing to play for but the victory lap late into september. if the sawx and mfys run away with the nl east, then there's no wild card drama either. but if the 4-5 matchup is a one-game playoff, that adds a huge carrot to the pennant winner, and a big sigh of relief to the 3 seed. the longer that matchup is, the less impact it has, at least positively. a one-game, high drama play-in game would be a great way to kick off the playoffs, draw interest, and not ice the higher seeds. the one-seed would get the next series opener anyway, so its not like there would be any scheduling uncertainty.

MFS62 Jun 15 2011 09:53 PM Re: Realignment

One of the baseball "experts" on ESPN radio mentioned today that the NL Central owners are causing these realignment thoughts. They've been bitching (my word) for years because there are 6 teams in their division, and it makes their division race tougher than in divisions with fewer teams. He added that the recent comments by the D-Backs ownership that they wouldn't oppose a move to the AL may cause the idea to grow some legs. My comment - when some of the oldest teams like the Cubs and Cards are bitching, its going to get the commissioner's ear. Later

metsguyinmichigan Jun 15 2011 10:08 PM Re: Realignment

Part of me thinks this is a scam to give AL East teams besides the MFYs and the BoSox a shot at the playoffs -- or God forbid, the Rays, Orioles or Jays actually finish ahead of the MFYs and BoSox, to make sure they'd still get their rightful spot in the postseason. Hey, who wants to see the Mariners or Athletics in there! Not saying there isn't room for some changes, but more divisions give more teams a shot at finishing first. Everyone likes to market a first-place finish.

Ashie62 Jun 15 2011 10:54 PM Re: Realignment

If this came to fruition I would not be surprised if the DH was then used in both leagues.

Edgy MD Jun 15 2011 11:49 PM Re: Realignment

MFS62 wrote: OThey've been bitching (my word) for years because there are 6 teams in their division, and it makes their division race tougher than in divisions with fewer teams. He added that the recent comments by the D-Backs ownership that they wouldn't oppose a move to the AL may cause the idea to grow some legs. It's a perfectly rational complaint. On dumb luck, an AL west team has a 34.1% chance of making the playoffs, and an NL Central team has a 24.4% chance. That's the sort of unfair we should all be against. And yeah, I have no problem with spreading inter-league games over the course of the season to eliminate it.

Ceetar Jun 16 2011 05:01 AM Re: Realignment

Of course, this (no divisions)would just cause teams to clinch way earlier, and coast for even more of September. It'd probably cut down on the number of meaningful last week games.

G-Fafif Jun 16 2011 05:31 AM Re: Realignment

metsmarathon wrote: the current schedule is a joke. especially the interleague blocks. why the hell should those games be confined to special chunks of the season? Just goes to show you how far Interleague has fallen, or how it never really got going. It was supposed to be a big deal when it came along (when it had a June component and a late August component). Now, throughout the current Mets road trip, when they run commercials to get out to Citi Field for the next homestand, they don't even bother mentioning the opponents. No "come see the Angels and A's who only show up once in a great while!" If anything, it's probably a liability, or no more appealing than "come see the Diamondbacks and Padres!"

bmfc1 Jun 16 2011 05:39 AM Re: Realignment

"Come to Citi Field, home of International Soccer, and watch the Mets seek revenge for the loss of the 1973 World Series against the Oakland A's!"

Frayed Knot Jun 16 2011 06:11 AM Re: Realignment

Ceetar wrote: Of course, this (no divisions)would just cause teams to clinch way earlier, and coast for even more of September. It'd probably cut down on the number of meaningful last week games. What it would do is use the same logic that the NBA & NHL have fallen into. Those leagues figure that the the best teams record-wise are usually the same teams that are strongest business-wise and therefore it doesn't matter if they clinch a playoff spot by New Years Day because the purpose of the remainder of the season is to manufacture "drama" between the .500-ish clubs who can (and often need to) sell their teams as playoff contenders and label each of their remaining games as crucial. It's a stupid process even for hockey and it would be an even worse one for baseball.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 16 2011 07:05 AM Re: Realignment

Well, you'd get a late-season race between the fifth, sixth, and seventh best teams, rather then the top two or three teams, which is kind of what we have with the wild card anyway.

Frayed Knot Jun 16 2011 07:15 AM Re: Realignment

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, you'd get a late-season race between the fifth, sixth, and seventh best teams, rather then the top two or three teams, which is kind of what we have with the wild card anyway. Except that the current divisional set-up DOES also create races among the top teams, not always but usually*. The elimination of divisions would create "races" among the also-rans in place of races for the top. With the 'winter sports' set-up, they may still divide things into divisions but it's really just two big conferences with a race for 8th place where the only carrot for the top teams is the somewhat dubious prize of a potential 4-3 home court/ice advantage in a certain round instead of a 3-4 disadvantage. * and the odds of getting in-division races goes down as the number of teams in each division goes down - something the crowd who wants to add two more teams and go to an 8x4 set-up needs to consider.

TheOldMole Jun 16 2011 07:36 AM Re: Realignment

Go back to two 8-team leagues, get rid of the DH, bring back the player-manager, and bring the Dodgers back to Brooklyn.

TheOldMole Jun 16 2011 07:37 AM Re: Realignment

Oh, and have starting pitchers finish games.

MFS62 Jun 16 2011 08:02 AM Re: Realignment

TheOldMole wrote: Go back to two 8-team leagues, get rid of the DH, bring back the player-manager, and bring the Dodgers back to Brooklyn. When you go to your high school reunion, you don't still ask out the girl who turned you down every time you asked her out and then dated the captain of the football team. Let them stay out West. Later

Benjamin Grimm Jun 16 2011 08:05 AM Re: Realignment

Here's how the last five years might have played out under the different proposed scenarios. (Not accounting, of course, for the fact that the won-lost records would have been different with a different schedule.) For each year, in the first section I show, for each league, the four playoff teams, and in brackets who the fifth team would have been if there was provision for a second wild card. I then show, in the "Single Division" section, who would have made the playoffs if the five teams with the best records qualified. In some years, there's no difference, but sometimes there are a few different teams qualifying. The 2007 NL race would have been incredible. 2010 in the NL would have been essentially unchanged. 2010 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Phillies (97) 1. Reds (91) 1. Giants (92) W1. Braves (91) {W2. Padres (90)} Single Division: 1. Phillies (97) 2. Giants (92) 3T. Braves (91) 3T. Reds (91) 5. Padres 90 AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Rays (96) 1. Twins (94) 1. Rangers (90) W1. Yankees (95) {W2. Red Sox (89)} Single Division: 1. Rays (96) 2. Yankees (95) 3. Twins (94) 4. Rangers (90) 5. Red Sox (89) 2009 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Phillies (93) 1. Cardinals (91) 1. Dodgers (95) W1. Rockies (92) {W2. Giants (88)} Single Division 1. Dodgers (95) 2. Phillies (93) 3. Rockies (92) 4. Cardinals (87) 5. Giants (88) AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Yankees (103) 1. Twins (87) 1. Angels (97) W1. Red Sox (95) {W2. Rangers (87)} Single Division 1. Yankees (103) 2. Angels (97) 3. Red Sox (95) 4T. Twins (87) 4T. Rangers (87) 2008 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Phillies (92) 1. Cubs (97) 1. Dodgers (84) W1. Brewers (90) {W2. Mets (89)} Single Division 1. Cubs (97) 2. Phillies (92) 3. Brewers (90) 4. Mets (89) 5T. Astros (86) 5T. Cardinals (86) AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Rays (97) 1. White Sox (89) 1. Angels (100) W1. Red Sox (95) {W2. Yankees (89)} Single Division 1. Angels (100) 2. Rays (97) 3. Red Sox (95) 4T. Yankees (89) 4T. White Sox (89) 2007 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Phillies (89) 1. Cubs (85) 1. Diamondbacks (90) W1. Rockies (90) {W2. Padres (89)} Single Division 1T. Diamondbacks (90) 1T. Rockies (90) 3T. Phillies (89) 3T. Padres (89) 5. Mets (88) AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Red Sox (96) 1. Indians (96) 1. Angels (94) W1. Yankees (94) {W2. Tigers or Mariners, (88)} Single Division 1T. Red Sox (96) 1T. Indians (96) 3T. Angels (94) 3T. Yankees (94) 5T. Tigers (88) 5T. Mariners (88) 2006 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Mets (97) 1. Cardinals (83) 1. Padres (88) W1. Dodgers (88) {W2. Phillies (85)} Single Division 1. Mets (97) 2T. Padres (88) 2T. Dodgers (88) 4. Phillies (85) 5. Cardinals (83) AMERICAN LEAGUE 1. Yankees (97) 1. Twins (96) 1. Athletics (93) W1. Tigers (95) {W2. White Sox (90) Single Division 1. Yankees (97) 2. Twins (96) 3. Tigers (95) 4. White Sox (90) 5. Angels (89)

metsmarathon Jun 16 2011 08:07 AM Re: Realignment

i think though that if you have a one-game playoff, then you will have a race for the top. it may not be nearly as intense, i'm sure, but being able to play against a team that just had a play-in game sounds like a bit of a carrot. its certainly better in my mind than a home-field advantage. last year in the AL there were no races. well, i can't be sure. but each playoff spot was decided by at least 6 games. assuming all the teams would have had the same records in a divisionless format, you'd have three teams within a game of first, playing for the extra rest and the opportunity to feast on a weakened opponent, and you'd have three teams within a game of the last spot, trying to get in or stay in. and now your 7th place team is only four games out, too. in the NL, the west had a race decided by two games. the loser, the padres, lost the wild card by one game. that would be lost in the new format as the pad's would've been the fifth team. but now you've got four teams within a game of the play-in game. the second place team would have something to play for here. and the sixth place team is only 4 games out of the last spot in the playoffs. drama abounds! this season, baseball prospectus predicts the red sox and yankees to finish with 97 and 92 wins, respectively, trailed a bit by the rays at 84 wins. it may ruin the suspense to say that the yankees would run away with the wild card, winning it by those 8 games over the rays. in the other divisions, the tigers' 87 wins trump the white sox' 83 in the closest divisional race, while in the west, texas dominates a weak field with 86 wins over the 77-win oakland a's. not much drama there, eh? no real reason for the yankees and sox to battle it out, right? only the tigers have any real reason to sweat. with no divisions, you still have the sox and yanks running away, but now they have a carrot. the rays are in the thick of things, a game ahead of the white sox for the last spot, while the rangers and tigers now play to avoid the play-in game. in the nl, we start to run into some trouble though. right now, we're set up for two division races with the phils and braves projected to 92 and 89 wins respectively, and the cards and brewers at 89 and 87 wins. the giants are laughing away with the west at 92 wins over the 82 win rockies. with no divisons, the phils and giants duke it out for the top spot, while the braves and cards try to avoid risking the one-gamer against the brewers. the reds finish 3 games out of the action with 84 wins. the fish sit back with the rockies at 82. this time, the drama is more with the teams that are in it, but the reds have the hope for some meaningful games. ... in football, there seems to be ht biggest advantage to winning your division. you get the bye and/or home field. that can have a big impact in a single game. in basketball and hockey, the advantage is really just in the opponents, hoping to play either the weaker team or the team with the more favorable matchup, as the extra home game in a 7 game series really isn't all that big imo. in a divisonless baseball playoff, i think you get more of the football-style advantage, as i believe the team that has to play-in to get in has a disadvantage going forward, provided that play-in is limited to a single game. if the wild card thing is a three-game series, then the top three teams could get iced sitting too long, while the wild card team just keeps humming along. a one-game series lets those games be the sole focus of a day. the next day the 2-3 matchup begins, and the following day the 1-WC matchup begins. the top seed gets an extra day to rest and align their rotation, giving them a real reason to fight for the top spot, in addition to playing a weakened or drained opponent. i'd also have them get rid of all the bullshit off days in the schedules so that the seven game series get done in much closer to seven days, but that's with or without realignment. and just think of all the amateur sports psychology you'd get to practice, debating endlessly whether the advantage goes to the wild card winner or the top seed, or maybe just the two and three seeds! sports talk radio fodder! finally something for espn to chatter on about! ... i see grimmy did some of what i was doing. how close is the sixth team in those years?

TheOldMole Jun 16 2011 08:13 AM Re: Realignment

There are some things you never give up pleading for, even if you don't want them any more. Meanwhile, great work by Mr. Thing.

Gwreck Jun 16 2011 08:51 AM Re: Realignment

G-Fafif wrote: Just goes to show you how far Interleague has fallen, or how it never really got going. It was supposed to be a big deal when it came along (when it had a June component and a late August component). Now, throughout the current Mets road trip, when they run commercials to get out to Citi Field for the next homestand, they don't even bother mentioning the opponents. No "come see the Angels and A's who only show up once in a great while!" If anything, it's probably a liability, or no more appealing than "come see the Diamondbacks and Padres!" The Mets' commercials aren't exactly the last word on this. Interleague play still results in attendance increases across MLB. Some of that is attributable to a few particularly high-drawing road teams (Yankees and Red Sox) but the novelty clearly hasn't worn off at the box office generally.

G-Fafif Jun 16 2011 08:53 AM Re: Realignment

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Here's how the last five years might have played out under the different proposed scenarios. (Not accounting, of course, for the fact that the won-lost records would have been different with a different schedule.) 2007 NATIONAL LEAGUE 1. Phillies (89) 1. Cubs (85) 1. Diamondbacks (90) W1. Rockies (90) {W2. Padres (89)} Gads, the Mets found every way possible to not make the playoffs in 2007, including hypothetically. I understood this rationally since there was a one-game playoff and Mets weren't in it, but seeing it again here...gads.

G-Fafif Jun 16 2011 08:59 AM Re: Realignment

Gwreck wrote: G-Fafif wrote: Just goes to show you how far Interleague has fallen, or how it never really got going. It was supposed to be a big deal when it came along (when it had a June component and a late August component). Now, throughout the current Mets road trip, when they run commercials to get out to Citi Field for the next homestand, they don't even bother mentioning the opponents. No "come see the Angels and A's who only show up once in a great while!" If anything, it's probably a liability, or no more appealing than "come see the Diamondbacks and Padres!" The Mets' commercials aren't exactly the last word on this. Interleague play still results in attendance increases across MLB. Some of that is attributable to a few particularly high-drawing road teams (Yankees and Red Sox) but the novelty clearly hasn't worn off at the box office generally. I'm mostly thinking about the Mets here. But my cursory glances at attendance figures over the years tell me that if you factor out MFYs and Red Sox and the occasional extraordinary draw (McGwire and Sosa going into AL parks at the height of their mass, for example), these are not treated as anything more than three more games on the schedule by most teams or fans. And I guess the question becomes is the disruption in the flow of the season and the loss of games to more traditional or relevant rivals worth the novelty and whatever boost a possible Red Sox/MFY or other extraordinary visit gains the average club? (Acknowledging the intracity rivalries are going to be a big deal.)

TransMonk Jun 16 2011 09:08 AM Re: Realignment

Well, you know interleague makes money for the majority of teams, otherwise the owners would nix it. I still don't understand if this plan would balance out the schedule, and if so, how.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 16 2011 09:14 AM Re: Realignment

Someone check my math here: I'm wondering about how 15 teams in each league would require interleague play throughout the season. To simplify things, let's just say that there are 162 days of action in the season, and on each of those 162 days, every team is playing. That means that of the 15 games played each day, 14 of them can be AL vs. AL and NL vs. NL. So the minimum number of interleague games that would have to be played during the season is 162. That comes out to an average of 5.4 games per team. Now, of course, they may opt to make interleague games more frequent, but they don't have to. It could be limited to five games for some teams and six games for other teams. It sucks that some of those games would have to be in late September, but no team would have to play more than three such games in September; not a huge impact on the pennant races at all.

Ceetar Jun 16 2011 09:58 AM Re: Realignment

Sure, 81 games against your divisional opponents. (probably fit in a nice 4 game series in there too, or even a 5 if they're ambitious. Imagine Mets-Phillies early Septemberish, 5 games. sorta like a mini-playoff in it of itself. ) 60 games against your non-divisonal league opponents. 10 teams, two series. roughly what we do now anyway. 15 interleague games. one division. rotate. They wouldn't do this because want intercity every season. 6 more games. owners choice. trump up an opponent you like. Mets want to play the Cardinals 3 more times? request it.

TransMonk Jun 16 2011 10:01 AM Re: Realignment

I thought the new plan ditched the divisions...wouldn't games against the Dodgers be just as important as the Braves in this 15 team league scenario?

Ceetar Jun 16 2011 10:07 AM Re: Realignment

TransMonk wrote: I thought the new plan ditched the divisions...wouldn't games against the Dodgers be just as important as the Braves in this 15 team league scenario? hey, they're just making up stuff and haven't decided a thing. i'm going to make it up my own way. *Shrug* keep the divisions.

Frayed Knot Jun 16 2011 10:12 AM Re: Realignment

The are approximately 240 IL games each season under the current format. The theoretical 15/15 split with just one IL series goinig on at all times would drop that number down to the 160-180 range or about 12 per team*. It would be fine with me if IL went away entirely but I realize that's not going to happen. But the whole idea of 15-18 per team was because divisions were 'matched up' [East v East etc]. That barely exists now so there's no reason why MLB needs to stubbornly cling to that amount. * Remember that each game played involves two teams therefore 30 teams playing 12 IL games each equals 180 separate games [(30x12)/2 = 180]

metirish Jun 16 2011 10:22 AM Re: Realignment

Why not just scrap the NL and AL , have divisions based on East, Central and West? MLB East NY Mets NY Yankees Boston Baltimore Tampa Miami Toronto Nats Braves Phillies MLB Central Royals Indians White Sox Cubs St.Louis Twins Tigers Brewers Pirates Reds Astros Rangers MLB West Seattle Dodgers Angels Oakland San Fran Colorado Arizona San Diego Pirates could go to the East, Rangers to the Central or both Astros and Rangers to the West I should note that this is hardly an original thought.

Gwreck Jun 16 2011 10:27 AM Re: Realignment

Eliminating the leagues is great but would require eliminating the DH in the American League (tough sell).

TransMonk Jun 16 2011 10:38 AM Re: Realignment

Gwreck wrote: Eliminating the leagues is great but would require eliminating the DH in the American League (tough sell). I think it is more likely they would just use the DH for all teams (although, it's equally as tough a sell).

metirish Jun 16 2011 10:41 AM Re: Realignment

TransMonk wrote: Gwreck wrote: Eliminating the leagues is great but would require eliminating the DH in the American League (tough sell). I think it is more likely they would just use the DH for all teams (although, it's equally as tough a sell). yeah this, the players for one wouldn't want it eliminated right?, it's a high paying position and players like Ortiz have thrived there.

Willets Point Jun 16 2011 10:42 AM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: Why not just scrap the NL and AL , have divisions based on East, Central and West? I'd totally go for this but I'd make them three ten-team leagues with no "interleague play" whatsoever. Each team would play 18-games each against the other teams in their leagues. Every single game would be against a league rival playing for the same title. The familiarity would breed rivalries which would increase attendance and viewership. Since all the teams in a league would be in roughly the same region it would also encourage fans traveling to more away games, again increasing attendance. TV scheduling would be easier since there wouldn't be games in distant time zones and thus games would start at consistent times, increasing viewership. National networks could schedule a game of the week for each league starting at time suitable to that time zone. Travel costs would be reduced as would wear & tear on the players. In fact MLB could promote reduced travel as a "green initiative". Of course in my world there would be fewer rather than more postseason contenders. I would go with the the three league champions and then the second place teams would play a round-robin to determine the "wild card" team. The pennant winner with the best record would play the wild card and the other two pennant winners would face off in best-of-7 playoff series with the winners going to the World Series. But the alignment would allow for more postseason contenders as MLB would inevitably chose to do so.

metsmarathon Jun 16 2011 10:45 AM Re: Realignment

i think if you do a three division setup, the west is easy. if you're west of missouri, you're in the west. the central and eastern divisions are a little trickier. if you do it strictly geographically, then cleveland, toronto and pittsburgh are in the east, with atlanta and tampa in the west. i think it makes more sense to send toronto to the west, keeping atlanta in the east. 3 divisons, 10 teams each. i wasn't sure how you'd do the playoffs, then i read willets idea. which i love.

TransMonk Jun 16 2011 10:49 AM Re: Realignment

Selfishly, Willet's 3x10 idea doesn't really work for me...or potentially other transplanted fans. I'll go see the Mets every year when they're in Milwaukee...but I only make it to NYC every 3 or 4 years to see the Mets there.

metirish Jun 16 2011 10:51 AM Re: Realignment

Willets for Commissioner

Valadius Jun 16 2011 10:51 AM Re: Realignment

If you scrap divisions, I don't think teams would fight as hard to come in second, third, or fourth place. Thumbs down, though realignment could make sense under the right circumstance.

metirish Jun 16 2011 11:01 AM Re: Realignment

A 30 team league with relegation, teams play each other five times , season shortened to 150 games. This would require AAA to be aligned with the big league , bottom three get relegated with the top three AAA teams promoted. Some of the best excitement in this scenario could be relegation and the champion decided on the last day of games, yes our Mets sucked but look they can stay in the top flight if they beat the MFY's in the last game and in the process stopping the yankees from being champions. You think Citi Field would sell out for that game?

Willets Point Jun 16 2011 11:38 AM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: Willets for Commissioner No way. I saw what that job did to A. Bartlett Giamatti. You have to be incredibly stupid to keep that position for a long time.

HahnSolo Jun 16 2011 12:29 PM Re: Realignment

Willets Point wrote: metirish wrote: Willets for Commissioner No way. I saw what that job did to A. Bartlett Giamatti. You have to be incredibly stupid to keep that position for a long time.[indent][/indent] Who you tellin?

G-Fafif Jun 16 2011 09:59 PM Re: Realignment

Realign the fucking Braves to another fucking planet.

MFS62 Jun 16 2011 10:12 PM Re: Realignment

G-Fafif wrote: Realign the fucking Braves to another fucking planet. Amen! Later

Benjamin Grimm Sep 08 2011 06:44 AM Re: Realignment

I pulled this paragraph from an article on Yahoo.com: Jeff Passan wrote: One positive step [toward realignment and an additional wild card] in recent weeks, sources said, is the softening of incoming Houston Astros owner Jim Crane on moving his team to the AL West under a realignment plan that would even out the leagues at 15 teams apiece and allow six five-team divisions. Crane’s reticence – playing three division foes in the Pacific time zone – is allayed by the Texas Rangers’ ability to lock in a huge TV deal in spite of their AL West affiliation as well as the possibility of negotiations offering a more balanced schedule.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 08 2011 08:39 AM Re: Realignment

The Astros would be the worst team in either league. Remove them and it'd be a bettle between the Padres and Cubs for top draft pick.

metirish Sep 08 2011 08:52 AM Re: Realignment

If I were an Astros fan I would be really pissed about my team going to the American League. As bad as they are now the Astros have a rich National League history, yeah they never won a WS but still, in my mind they are an NL team. Maybe I feel this way because of the shared history the Astros have with the Mets.

Ceetar Sep 08 2011 08:55 AM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: If I were an Astros fan I would be really pissed about my team going to the American League. As bad as they are now the Astros have a rich National League history, yeah they never won a WS but still, in my mind they are an NL team. Maybe I feel this way because of the shared history the Astros have with the Mets. I would just be pissed because they already suck and now there is another hole, DH, created that they need to fill.

sharpie Sep 08 2011 09:38 AM Re: Realignment

Actually, in Carlos Lee DH is one of the few positions they would be set with.

Ceetar Sep 08 2011 09:48 AM Re: Realignment

sharpie wrote: Actually, in Carlos Lee DH is one of the few positions they would be set with. Then they have to fill the position they would've played Lee in in the NL.

Gwreck Sep 08 2011 12:09 PM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: If I were an Astros fan I would be really pissed about my team going to the American League. As bad as they are now the Astros have a rich National League history, yeah they never won a WS but still, in my mind they are an NL team. I agree; I too would be infuriated if I was an Astros fan. There's little doubt in my mind that baseball screwed up by not putting the Diamondbacks in the AL West when they came into the league (and the Astros in the NL west). Further, I recall that there was at least a several-year window after the Diamondbacks (and Devil Rays) came into existence that either could have been moved to another league if baseball wanted.

DocTee Sep 08 2011 12:20 PM Re: Realignment

There's little doubt in my mind that baseball screwed up by not putting the Diamondbacks in the AL West when they came into the league (and the Astros in the NL west). Yup. The 'Stros as NL, in my mind. And I still think of the Brewers as an AL-club.

Fman99 Sep 08 2011 09:02 PM Re: Realignment

I realigned my testicles. I've now got a front and a back instead of a left and a right.

Willets Point Sep 09 2011 09:39 AM Re: Realignment

The AL and NL really don't exist anymore as practical entities. I still maintain that any realignment should be done regionally as I outlined earlier in the thread.

Ashie62 Sep 09 2011 09:51 AM Re: Realignment

Willets Point wrote: The AL and NL really don't exist anymore as practical entities. I still maintain that any realignment should be done regionally as I outlined earlier in the thread. Agreed...Personally I like the DH.

Edgy MD Sep 09 2011 09:54 AM Re: Realignment

The DH rule is a monstrosity that has thrown the universe out of balance.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 09 2011 09:54 AM Re: Realignment

Ashie62 wrote: Agreed...Personally I like the DH.

Frayed Knot Sep 09 2011 10:11 AM Re: Realignment

Does anyone realize the irony in that most of these proposed alignment/scheduling/post-season "fixes" are designed as attempts to fix the things that were thrown out of whack from the last time they tried to fix things?

Edgy MD Sep 09 2011 10:20 AM Re: Realignment

Well, I agree, but I would imagine the league countering that such readjustment is called "refinement," and that the products of previous "fixes" --- wild card races, designated inter-league rivals, 75% of the schedule played in the time zone of the home fan --- are wild successes, and teasing out the accidental byproducts is all just a natural part of the process. (As Frankensteinian as the process may look to you and me.)

Frayed Knot Sep 09 2011 10:57 AM Re: Realignment

Except that what you're referring to as "accidental byproducts" were totally foreseeable consequences yet were just as totally ignored by those who thought the upside of the changes rendered all other problems non-existent. Scheduling messes, the inequities caused by uneven divisions and inter-league play, the sport's premier games taking place in late-October/November, the virtual non-existence of the gap between WC and division winner, etc., didn't just happen when the leagues were rearranged they happened as a direct result of them.

Edgy MD Sep 09 2011 11:00 AM Re: Realignment

I agree they were totally foreseeable, but just undervalued as a consequence.

Frayed Knot Sep 09 2011 12:51 PM Re: Realignment

It just all leads me to wonder how many things will be screwed up (and warnings ignored) the next time things are fixed in the name of being able to use smaller circles when outlining divisions on a map.

Ashie62 Sep 09 2011 04:18 PM Re: Realignment

Four divisions of six please...

Willets Point Sep 09 2011 05:53 PM Re: Realignment

Ashie62 wrote: Four divisions of six please... Do the other six teams get relegated?

Valadius Sep 14 2011 10:18 AM Re: Realignment

Dear Bud, Please send the Marlins to the American League and rename them the Gators. Then we can wait with breathless anticipation for the inevitable World Series showdown in 2015 with the Chicago Cubs. Kindest Regards, People who love Back to the Future

metirish Sep 14 2011 10:21 AM Re: Realignment

Willets Point wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Four divisions of six please... Do the other six teams get relegated? I think he meant six divisions of four

Edgy MD Sep 14 2011 10:22 AM Re: Realignment

We're here talking with DC-based Cranepooler Valadius. Val, that was only your second post since July. It was the bicycle thread that brought you out of hiding. Is there something about cycling that caused you to surface, so to speak?

Valadius Sep 14 2011 10:36 AM Re: Realignment

Cycling makes my knees lock up, unfortunately. In general, I've been very busy at work, taking on added responsibilities, such as our website and Facebook page.

Willets Point Sep 14 2011 10:48 AM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: Willets Point wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Four divisions of six please... Do the other six teams get relegated? I think he meant six divisions of four That would still only be 24 teams.

metirish Sep 14 2011 10:51 AM Re: Realignment

I know that!.....having some fun.....reminds me of former ROI soccer international Jason McAteer ordering a pizza and when asked if he wanted it cut into eight slices he said "no, four please,I'm not that hungry".

Edgy MD Oct 12 2011 11:31 AM Re: Realignment

Peter Gammons tweets that November will see Houston change divisions, leagues, and ownership.

Ceetar Oct 12 2011 11:39 AM Re: Realignment

Edgy DC wrote: Peter Gammons tweets that November will see Houston change divisions, leagues, and ownership. I doubt this is a 'done deal'. Don't they have to vote/agree on it first, via new CBA, and release a new schedule and setup the whole interleague everyday thing?

Edgy MD Oct 12 2011 11:44 AM Re: Realignment

Peter Gammons assures me that the Astros would rather be in downtown Beirut than the National League Central. Seriously, I'm certain that (1) Gammons has solid inside information, but (2) that's just information, and it's not a done deal until it's a done deal.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 12 2011 11:45 AM Re: Realignment

I would think so. Maybe he's "predicting" and not "reporting". (And if so, he really should make that clear.)

Benjamin Grimm Oct 12 2011 12:38 PM Re: Realignment

This is from, believe it or not, The Sporting News: The Sporting News wrote: Astros' potential owner disputes reports of move to AL Not only are the Houston Astros for sale, they could be relocating to the American League. Current Astros owner Drayton McLane has accepted a bid from Houston businessman Jim Crane to sell the team for $680 million. However, that deal will require the approval of Major League Baseball. That process has stalled, fueling speculation that the holdup is the Astros' unwillingness to move from the six-team NL Central to the four-team AL West. In the realignment plan being considered by MLB, there would be two 15-team leagues and an extra wild card added in each league, perhaps as soon as the 2012 season. However, both McLane and Crane have voiced their opposition to such a move. On Wednesday, MLB.com columnist Peter Gammons tweeted that the sale would be approved in November and that the franchise would indeed move to the AL. A spokesman for Crane, however, told the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday that there have been no discussions with MLB about that move. Speaking about the possibility of the Astros and Texas Rangers developing an intradivional rivalry, Rangers president and CEO Nolan Ryan admitted the idea excited him. "It'd be good for baseball in Texas to have two teams in the same state vying for the division lead," Ryan told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Frayed Knot Oct 12 2011 01:20 PM Re: Realignment

I know that Crane was meeting with Selig in the last few days. Sounds like changing leagues was on the agenda or that MLB wants to leak that it was on the agenda, maybe as a way of gauging public reaction to such a move.

metirish Oct 12 2011 01:23 PM Re: Realignment

$680 million for the Astros?, nice to be rich.

seawolf17 Oct 12 2011 01:50 PM Re: Realignment

Let's not get too crazy about believing what comes out of Gammons' twitter account, as hilarious as it is.

Gwreck Oct 12 2011 03:15 PM Re: Realignment

"It'd be good for baseball in Texas to have two teams in the same state vying for the division lead," Ryan told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Gee, the worst team in MLB moving to your division is a good thing? You don't say.

Ashie62 Oct 12 2011 04:12 PM Re: Realignment

Gwreck wrote: "It'd be good for baseball in Texas to have two teams in the same state vying for the division lead," Ryan told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Gee, the worst team in MLB moving to your division is a good thing? You don't say. They will be good again...right?

Frayed Knot Oct 12 2011 05:37 PM Re: Realignment

"It'd be good for baseball in Texas to have two teams in the same state vying for the division lead," Ryan told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Would that be the same for teams in the state of Pennsylvania Nolan or does that only apply to your state?

TransMonk Oct 13 2011 07:38 AM Re: Realignment

Ashie62 wrote: They will be good again...right? They will be good again. They were the worst MLB team in 2011 and have been less than average in the past few seasons, but from 1994-2006, they finished either first or second in the NL Central in every season but one. Over that span, the Rangers only finished with more wins than the Astros in one season. Houston (as the Colt .45s and then the Astros) has a better W-L record than their 1962 expansion-mate Mets by 133 games. Two more playoff appearances, too.

Frayed Knot Oct 13 2011 11:15 AM Re: Realignment

As I mentioned in a thread right around the end of the season, 2011 was the first year in which the Astros/Colts lost 100 or more games - a fact which surprised me even though I knew they didn't have as many bad years as their NL birth-mates. By contrast they've also only won 100+ games once (1998) and have gone 21-35 in their nine playoff appearances including a ridiculous 2-14 stretch* and later their last four in a row, the only four WS games they ever played. What's bad about this potential move isn't how it'll affect the strength of the AL-West or any other division for that matter - those things vary over time to the point where it's barely even worth discussing - but that MLB is, once again, shifting things around almost certainly against the will of one of their fan bases for the purpose of "fixing" something that was only "broken" because it got screwed up by the last round of supposed fixes. * A stretch that started right after their win that Edgy just posted in the 1986 thread

MFS62 Oct 16 2011 11:00 AM Re: Realignment

If the move to the AL doesn't work out, I hear the Big East is looking for some more teams. Later

Frayed Knot Oct 20 2011 07:25 AM Re: Realignment

NYPost -- Potential Houston Astros owner Jim Crane is looking to cut $50 million from the purchase price of the team in exchange for the Astros switching leagues, The Post has learned. The Houston businessman has been talking to Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig about moving the team to the American League from the National League if Crane is approved as the franchise’s new owner. Sources told The Post that Crane -- who reached a deal in May to buy the Astros from Drayton McLane for $680 million -- is asking for a price reduction in the $50 million range to make the move. On that front, the two sides are in the “ballpark” on the price, although a deal is far from certain, sources said. Crane argues the move to the AL would hurt the value of the franchise because the Astros would be playing more late-night games against West Coast teams. For Selig’s part, the switch would foster a rivalry between the Astros and the Texas Rangers.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 17 2011 06:35 AM Re: Realignment

This may become official soon. The Daily News reported this morning that the new Houston owner is being required to accept a move to the American League for 2013 as a condition of having the sale of the team getting approved. Each team would (for some reason) have to pay $1 million (to someone) in order to make this happen. The realignment would include the dreaded second wild-card team in each league, and a one-game playoff between the two wild cards to see who could advance to the Division Championship Series.

Edgy MD Nov 17 2011 06:37 AM Re: Realignment

I don't dread that. If you have to have Wild Card teams, might as well make it a lesser prize.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 17 2011 06:40 AM Re: Realignment

I'd rather it was a best of three rather than a best of one. I also don't like the possibility that a 90-win team might have to play a sudden death game against a 83-win team. I'm not sure that that would happen all that frequently, and as long as the Mets are never the losing team in such a game, it really won't affect me at all.

Edgy MD Nov 17 2011 06:50 AM Re: Realignment

The postseason always included mismatches of teams with disparate win totals. But until the wild card came along, they were always champions of something. Now this one game downgrades their position.

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 06:59 AM Re: Realignment

Edgy DC wrote: The postseason always included mismatches of teams with disparate win totals. But until the wild card came along, they were always champions of something. Now this one game downgrades their position. Actually, it only increases the disparate win totals. This would theoretically make the wild card teams thrive for the division title a little more.

metirish Nov 17 2011 07:02 AM Re: Realignment

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd rather it was a best of three rather than a best of one. I also don't like the possibility that a 90-win team might have to play a sudden death game against a 83-win team. I'm not sure that that would happen all that frequently, and as long as the Mets are never the losing team in such a game, it really won't affect me at all. I agree with this.

Edgy MD Nov 17 2011 07:02 AM Re: Realignment

That's my point.

sharpie Nov 17 2011 07:07 AM Re: Realignment

Apparently TV networks nixed a 3-game WC playoff. They want sudden death.

metirish Nov 17 2011 07:09 AM Re: Realignment

sharpie wrote: Apparently TV networks nixed a 3-game WC playoff. They want sudden death. of course , replete with new graphics to add to the excitement.

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 07:20 AM Re: Realignment

I kinda wanted a three-game in two days series. first game at second wild card team, then both fly to first wild card team home for a baseball all day doubleheader.

attgig Nov 17 2011 07:25 AM Re: Realignment

Ceetar wrote: I kinda wanted a three-game in two days series. first game at second wild card team, then both fly to first wild card team home for a baseball all day doubleheader. they wouldn't like the possibility of an elimination game being played in the afternoon on east coast and morning on west coast. That would mean they lose tons of tv ratings and ad $$$

Frayed Knot Nov 17 2011 07:26 AM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd rather it was a best of three rather than a best of one. I also don't like the possibility that a 90-win team might have to play a sudden death game against a 83-win team. I'm not sure that that would happen all that frequently, and as long as the Mets are never the losing team in such a game, it really won't affect me at all. I agree with this. If you don't want your team in a one-game do-or die situation then they'll have to win the division. It's a great incentive, as opposed to now where there's essentially no difference between a division winner and a WC. Apparently TV networks nixed a 3-game WC playoff. They want sudden death. Not surprising. There's already a potential for as many as 41 post-season games (there were 38 this year) with only a handful of them potential elimination games (and fewer still which are a game 5/7 double elimination) so the last thing the networks want is as many as six more games where several are just lead-ups to the lose-and-go-home contests. And MLB shouldn't want them either. Between the length of the post-season, the possibility of going into November, and forcing the actual winners to sit around for the better part of a week* before re-starting there are enough reasons to want the one-gamer. * Day after the season ends break + potential tie-breakers + the three games necessary to play + plus a travel day? = at least 5 maybe 6 days off for the division winners and that's if it don't rain and the creek don't rise.

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 07:54 AM Re: Realignment

Frayed Knot wrote: * Day after the season ends break + potential tie-breakers + the three games necessary to play + plus a travel day? = at least 5 maybe 6 days off for the division winners and that's if it don't rain and the creek don't rise. That's why I proposed the silly three in two idea. cram it in. The only thing I really care about postseason schedule/series wise is trying to get baseball everyday and almost no off days. How about doubleheader at WC1 the day after the season ends, then if needed, deciding game at the home of Seed #1 in the morning. winner stays and plays LDS game one that night, loser gets out of there. wouldn't happen, I don't know if they could sell those games out last minute. Would you pay to see (and take off work presumably) Phillies-Rockies at Citi Field to see who you get to play that night?

metsmarathon Nov 17 2011 08:20 AM Re: Realignment

i love the one game playoff. i also hate the idea that it's abhorrent to end th season trying to win a playoff spot by playing in an interleague game. how fucking ridiculous. first of all, how is that appreciably different than playing in an interdivision game? unless you're both playing for the wild card, you're not playing your direct opponent anyways. and unless you're in a one-game race, you're not playing your direct opponent even if you're playing within your division. this very season, the playoffs were decided on the last day of the season. each of the four teams with something to play for played within their own divisions. but did their opponents have anything to play for? what did it matter that the red sox were playing baltimore? would the marlins, cubs, or padres have laid down and let them win, whereas the 69-win orioles felt they had something to play for?? what the fuck did it matter that the cardinals played houston? the twins could have lost that game just as handily. did it add any excitement that the cards won that game against a, heh, bitter divison rival? was the mets' final game against cincinnati somehow more meaningful because although both teams were out of the wild card, they still were jockeying for relative position against each other? (no, i don't think so at all) and why is this not a dire concern in any other fucking sport? why is it not a huge concern that in the nba, if they ever have a season, that the pacers and t-wolves could decide their playoff fates against opponents whose win-loss records are utterly unrelated? well, maybe nobody cares about the nba... why is it not a big deal that the blue jackets play the hurricanes on the final day of the nhl season? well, maybe because it's the nhl and those teams suck... i mean, seriously. columbus ohio? damn. but then can't we resolve the issue the same way in baseball? if you suck the prior year, guess what. not only do you get the top draft pick, you also get the honor of finishing your season in an interleague matchup against your fellow cellarmate. problem solved, eh? if kansas city and pittsburgh play each other on the final day of the season next year, will anyone be up in arms? will anyone care? or more correctly, will fewer people care?

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 08:24 AM Re: Realignment

On the flip side, think about how interesting it would've been if the Cardinals had played the Rangers on the last day of the season this year?

Vic Sage Nov 17 2011 08:28 AM Re: Realignment

If you don't want your team in a one-game do-or die situation then they'll have to win the division. It's a great incentive, as opposed to now where there's essentially no difference between a division winner and a WC. This. my problem with the WC was that the WC team didn't have a sufficient disadvantage vs division winners. There should be greater incentive to win a division if possible, and not just cruise into a WC slot. This 1-game play-in doesn't INCREASE the value of the WC, it diminishes it, even as it gives another team (and fan base) a chance at a brass ring. But then the winning WC team gets less rest, more travel, and has used its best pitching option already, and doesn't get to set up its rotation against the subsequent Divisional series, like the division winner does. Also, everything that MM said about interleague play. We've crossed the Rubicon on that issue; let the bridge be burned behind us.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 17 2011 08:37 AM Re: Realignment

Wait a minute- whozimawhatwiththeinterleaguethingy, now? What's all this, then?

Benjamin Grimm Nov 17 2011 08:39 AM Re: Realignment

Define "whozimawhatwiththeinterleaguethingy".

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 08:44 AM Re: Realignment

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Wait a minute- whozimawhatwiththeinterleaguethingy, now? What's all this, then? Astros switch to AL west, 3 divisions of 5, interleague all the time. (since uneven leagues)

Benjamin Grimm Nov 17 2011 08:53 AM Re: Realignment

Which doesn't necessarily require more interleague games... there could actually be fewer (if they choose to go that route) but they'd be spread throughout the season.

attgig Nov 17 2011 09:39 AM Re: Realignment

but the mets will still play the yankees more times than the phillies, braves, marlins, or nats will have to....

Fman99 Nov 17 2011 10:20 AM Re: Realignment

I love the sudden death/2nd wild card proposal. Make the division championships count for something more than the wild card. I hate the Astros move because I hate interleague. And you can't get rid of interleague with two 15 team leagues.

Frayed Knot Nov 17 2011 10:24 AM Re: Realignment

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Which doesn't necessarily require more interleague games... there could actually be fewer (if they choose to go that route) but they'd be spread throughout the season. Right. There are currently ~250 IL games each year - or between 15 & 18 per team. Usually teams play 15 OR 18 games in order to keep things in multiples of 3. The new (starting in 2013) set-up will require that there be at least one IL series going on all the time which, with the occasional off-day, adds up to around 170-180 dates to be filled by an IL game. If they stuck with that it would mean closer to 12 per team per year. MLB could keep the total number of IL where it is now by having some weeks where three IL series are going on at once (two is not possible as it has to be an uneven number with the exception of an occasional overlap) but they could not do fewer than that 170-ish number. IOW, this realignment means IL is definitely here to stay. One of the reasons they purposely went to the 16/14 set-up (by moving Milwaukee) was because, in the beginning, IL was considered experimental and was being approved on a year by year basis and there's no way to have 15/15 without it. I hope they use this re-jiggering thing to cut back. I've long proposed a compromise of 10 IL games consisting of a 4-game home-and-home vs your "natural rival" plus two other series at random. The only reason it started at 15 games/year was that they first set it up as strictly an East-v-East, Central-v-Central, and West-v-West idea and 3 x 5 worked out to 15. Expanding the natural rival idea to two series/yr (once they figured out that one made the most money) made it 18. Now that the same division thing has pretty much fallen apart (it was never perfect to begin with) there's no reason to be married to that 18 game/yr target.

Gwreck Nov 17 2011 10:28 AM Re: Realignment

Actually, Jayson Stark of ESPN recently wrote that the new schedule may well eliminate those extra "rivalry" games. Apparently, the schedule under consideration is: 18 games against each of the other 4 teams in your division (72) 6 games against each of the other 10 teams in your league (60) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in the corresponding division in the other league (15) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in another division from the other league (15) Total: 162

batmagadanleadoff Nov 17 2011 10:35 AM Re: Realignment

Actually, Jayson Stark of ESPN recently wrote that the new schedule may well eliminate those extra "rivalry" games. Apparently, the schedule under consideration is: 18 games against each of the other 4 teams in your division (72) 6 games against each of the other 10 teams in your league (60) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in the corresponding division in the other league (15) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in another division from the other league (15) Total: 162 I like this proposal. Of course, I don't like interleague play at all. And I don't like that the leagues consist of an odd-number of teams. But given that we're stuck with those parameters, that schedule works for me.

TransMonk Nov 17 2011 10:44 AM Re: Realignment

This proposal actually increases IL games from 15-18 to 30, but whatevs. It's always going to suck as long as there are 30 teams and we have those stupid "rivarlry" games. I still hate it and will every season.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 17 2011 10:45 AM Re: Realignment

It's a logical breakdown. I just don't like that the number of interleague games per team would increase to 30. But it does allow every team in a particular division to play the same slate of opponents, which is a good thing. It seems that the "rivalry games" would no longer get any special treatment. The Mets would play the Yankees each year, but it would be three games, the same number played by the Nationals, Marlins, Braves, and Phillies.

attgig Nov 17 2011 10:58 AM Re: Realignment

that would be nice. and i guess we'd alternate each year who gets home? at least within the division, it's more 'even'. but, it also makes me think of wild cards. if mets are in a race for the wild card, and we're left playing the yankees, redsox, tampa, jays, and o's while lets say the dodgers are playing the rangers, angels, mariners, A's, and Astros... well, it'll be interesting. I suppose the games in the "other" division in the other league can even it out...

Gwreck Nov 17 2011 11:16 AM Re: Realignment

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And I don't like that the leagues consist of an odd-number of teams. But given that we're stuck with those parameters, that schedule works for me. I should have clarified -- this is the proposed schedule based on the Astros moving to the AL. I can't do anything about your dislike for interleague play. How would you feel about contracting Oakland and Tampa, moving the Brewers back to the AL (along with the Astros), and going back to 2 divisions of 7 teams each?

batmagadanleadoff Nov 17 2011 11:31 AM Re: Realignment

I'd love it. Two divisions of six in each league would be even better. I can't even remember how the hell the Brewers got back into the NL to begin with. Was it one of those supedupertopsecret polls that only Bud Selig got to audit? The poll that only Bud Selig knew about? The poll that no one ever remembers even voting on? You know .. the one where "the fans voted for it". Now if you could do all that, then killing IL play should be a cinch for you.

TransMonk Nov 17 2011 11:37 AM Re: Realignment

Gwreck wrote: How would you feel about contracting Oakland and Tampa, moving the Brewers back to the AL (along with the Astros), and going back to 2 divisions of 7 teams each? Best proposal I've heard yet.

attgig Nov 17 2011 11:38 AM Re: Realignment

And I don't like that the leagues consist of an odd-number of teams. But given that we're stuck with those parameters, that schedule works for me. I should have clarified -- this is the proposed schedule based on the Astros moving to the AL. I can't do anything about your dislike for interleague play. How would you feel about contracting Oakland and Tampa, moving the Brewers back to the AL (along with the Astros), and going back to 2 divisions of 7 teams each? and the astros WILL be moving. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/72464 ... proved-mlb

Frayed Knot Nov 17 2011 11:52 AM Re: Realignment

Actually, Jayson Stark of ESPN recently wrote that the new schedule may well eliminate those extra "rivalry" games. Apparently, the schedule under consideration is: 18 games against each of the other 4 teams in your division (72) 6 games against each of the other 10 teams in your league (60) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in the corresponding division in the other league (15) 3 games against each of the other 5 teams in another division from the other league (15) Total: 162 Does anyone here suppose that fans walking around saying; 'Gee, wouldn't it be great if MLB were to virtually double the number of inter-league games to the point where those IL games accounted for nearly 1/5 of the total sked', represent even one percent of the total fan base? Yeah, I didn't think so.

attgig Nov 17 2011 11:54 AM Re: Realignment

Frayed Knot wrote: Does anyone here suppose that fans walking around saying; 'Gee, wouldn't it be great if MLB were to virtually double the number of inter-league games to the point where those IL games accounted for nearly 1/5 of the total sked', represent even one percent of the total fan base? Yeah, I didn't think so. they're the 99%

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 12:14 PM Re: Realignment

I don't know about "Gee wouldn't it be great" but I like that proposed schedule breakdown better than the way it is now. I'd prefer they ditch the stupid DH so the AL didn't continue to have the advantage though, because this will somewhat significantly alter bench construction in the NL. But that's because the Wild Card era encompasses most of my baseball watching life, and definitely the more aware periods of it. And there are plenty of serious fans younger than me. I don't have the same rivalry feel for the Cubs/Cardinals(though that one has obviously grown) that most of you do. Playing the Cubs isn't any more interesting to me than playing the As. Interleague was introduced nearly 15 years ago. the leagues aren't really separate anymore (Except for the stupid DH thing) so it's no big deal to me to mix it up a little more.

Frayed Knot Nov 17 2011 01:27 PM Re: Realignment

The choice of 'Please double the number of IL games' is currently running 6 points behind 'Rick Santorum' in the latest national polls.

Gwreck Nov 17 2011 01:30 PM Re: Realignment

I care far more about balancing the schedule than I do about keeping another 15-20 in the NL only. A balanced interleague schedule is FAR superior to the arbitrary mess that currently exists. Note that I realize the interleague schedule as proposed above is not truly balanced but it's better than what exists now.

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 01:36 PM Re: Realignment

Gwreck wrote: Note that I realize the interleague schedule as proposed above is not truly balanced but it's better than what exists now. Balanced w/in division, i.e. emphasizing importance on division. Not that 'balance' means anything when teams are often vastly different in April and September.

Gwreck Nov 17 2011 01:40 PM Re: Realignment

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'd love it. Two divisions of six in each league would be even better. I can't even remember how the hell the Brewers got back into the NL to begin with. Was it one of those supedupertopsecret polls that only Bud Selig got to audit? The poll that only Bud Selig knew about? I can reasonably see a situation in the future where Tampa and Oakland get contracted, but going down to 24 teams is a total fantasy. Milwaukee was moved to the NL at the start of the 1998 season which is when Tampa and Arizona started play. At the time, interleague play was still an "experiment" and the basic agreement with the players union wouldn't have permitted putting 15 teams in each league and interleague play on a daily basis, which meant that one of the two leagues was going to get 16 teams. The West divisions of both the AL and NL had only 4 teams while the East and Central divisions had 5 each. Obviously, Arizona was going in one of those West divisions but Tampa was the trickier fit. I don't remember specifically if there was a provision that the two expansion teams had to go in different leagues, nor how it was decided that the NL would be getting 16 teams rather than the AL. Tampa's spot was created by moving Detroit from the AL East to the AL Central, and then moving one of the AL Central teams to the NL Central. The White Sox, Indians and Tigers obviously weren't going to change leagues. Kansas City was offered the league switch first, and the Brewers accepted after KC declined to move. I don't recall if Minnesota was a candidate to move or not.

Frayed Knot Nov 17 2011 01:49 PM Re: Realignment

Arizona, at the time of the expansion, demanded that it enter as an NL club. And while it was never clear what kind of leverage they had to make such a stipulation prior to even being admitted to the league, MLB went about that first realignment as if slotting the DBacks in the AL-West wasn't even an option. And I fail to see how putting those "extra" ten games into cross-league play is any more balanced then distributing those games within the league.

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 02:07 PM Re: Realignment

Frayed Knot wrote: And I fail to see how putting those "extra" ten games into cross-league play is any more balanced then distributing those games within the league. All divisional teams play the same schedule of teams.

Frayed Knot Nov 17 2011 02:32 PM Re: Realignment

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And I fail to see how putting those "extra" ten games into cross-league play is any more balanced then distributing those games within the league. All divisional teams play the same schedule of teams. They could do that if you made them in-league games too. Bud seems to be laboring under the misconception that a game that involves teams from two different leagues is somehow automatically more interesting than an intra-league one.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 17 2011 02:42 PM Re: Realignment

Selig said today that the second wild card part of the plan may begin as early as 2012.

Fman99 Nov 17 2011 03:57 PM Re: Realignment

Thirty IL games per year? Kill me.

Gwreck Nov 17 2011 04:15 PM Re: Realignment

Frayed Knot wrote: Bud seems to be laboring under the misconception that a game that involves teams from two different leagues is somehow automatically more interesting than an intra-league one. I disagree both with your opinion and your framing of the issue.

Frayed Knot Nov 17 2011 05:08 PM Re: Realignment

Framing the issue to note that upping the number of IL games to 30 per/team is close to double what exists now, is about 18 or so more than what will be required by this new set-up, and is no closer to "balanced" than would others with fewer IL games could be is simply stating fact. The part of this that's my opinion is that this seems to me to be coupled with Bud's ongoing campaign to blur the lines between the leagues and that the percentage of fans who prefer more IL play to less is countable on one hand and quite possibly one finger.

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 05:26 PM Re: Realignment

Frayed Knot wrote: Framing the issue to note that upping the number of IL games to 30 per/team is close to double what exists now, is about 18 or so more than what will be required by this new set-up, and is no closer to "balanced" than would others with fewer IL games could be is simply stating fact. The part of this that's my opinion is that this seems to me to be coupled with Bud's ongoing campaign to blur the lines between the leagues and that the percentage of fans who prefer more IL play to less is countable on one hand and quite possibly one finger. Does lesser work? For balance I mean. If you dropped it to 15 games, one series against a rotating AL division, each team would play 15 IL games. I'm failing on the math/schedule in my head, but could you do that exact many games and still maintain the one IL game a day necessary? There may not be a ton of fans clamoring for more interleague, but I think you're underestimating the number of fans that really just don't care whether the Mets have another series against the Giants or the As.

Edgy MD Nov 17 2011 06:15 PM Re: Realignment

72 in division + 60 extradivisional + 30 interleague is a perfectly viable breakdown that adds up to 162. It would be way way cooler if they played it that way without the designated rivalry nonsense, but the Mets are ditching black and I can't have everything. I'd enjoy it even more if the 30 interleague games weren't comprised of two three-game series against a particular division, but a barnstorm one-game stop against every team in the other league, with them barnstorming into your town later in the year. Ah, yeah!

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 06:37 PM Re: Realignment

but does 72, 75, 15? I know it adds to 162, but does it comfortably fit into a 54 series over ~182 days so that each team can play 5 series AND there is always an interleague series? I think a 1-game barnstorming thing would be interesting for sure, but these one-game are not really the way things are done in a long season. already iffy about the 1-game playoff thingy, which is going to create a lot of 'collapse' type feelings with teams that are in it (particularly if they've got a good 4 game lead in the first WC or something) Like the Mets in 2007 or the Reds in 1999. I think that one game series creates a ton of heartbreak, but very little elation in the winner. not that that's necessarily bad.

TransMonk Nov 17 2011 06:43 PM Re: Realignment

Edgy DC wrote: I'd enjoy it even more if the 30 interleague games weren't comprised of two three-game series against a particular division, but a barnstorm one-game stop against every team in the other league, with them barnstorming into your town later in the year. Ah, yeah! Great idea! I never thought of that. Now it's going to drive me nuts that they DON'T do this.

Edgy MD Nov 17 2011 08:57 PM Re: Realignment

There's plenty of opportunity to do this with only modest inconvenience. National League teams in town to face the Mets take a poke at the Yankees when they're done and then skate on up to Boston on the Metroliner. You playing the Angels? Make sure you catch the Dodgers and the Pads before you ramble on. One chance all year to see Josh Hamilton, kids.

Ceetar Nov 17 2011 09:02 PM Re: Realignment

[url]http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7247519/major-league-baseball-some-major-changes Stark's column breaks it down. Sounds like the exact scheduling is not quite decided.

Ashie62 Nov 17 2011 09:15 PM Re: Realignment

One League with 4 divisions. AL and NL does not mean much to me anymore. DH allowed. I'm sick of pitchers that can't hit and the constant stream of relief pitchers in the NL. Blow it up..

Edgy MD Nov 17 2011 09:20 PM Re: Realignment

Said Satan to Eve.

Gwreck Nov 17 2011 11:55 PM Re: Realignment

Frayed Knot wrote: Framing the issue to note that upping the number of IL games to 30 per/team is close to double what exists now, is about 18 or so more than what will be required by this new set-up, and is no closer to "balanced" than would others with fewer IL games could be is simply stating fact. The part of this that's my opinion is that this seems to me to be coupled with Bud's ongoing campaign to blur the lines between the leagues and that the percentage of fans who prefer more IL play to less is countable on one hand and quite possibly one finger. My problem is your attribution of motive and your analysis of Selig's thoughts. Like that he is operating under a "misconception" about interleague play or is waging an ongoing campaign to blur the boundaries of the leagues. I get what's your opinion, and can do the math too -- ie. going from 18 to 30 interleague games per team means that only an additional 7.5% of a teams' games per year will now be interleague. (See what I did there?).

Gwreck Nov 17 2011 11:56 PM Re: Realignment

TransMonk wrote: Great idea! I never thought of that. Now it's going to drive me nuts that they DON'T do this. Scheduling a 1-game "series" is prohibited in the basic agreement with the players which would be the holdup here.

metsmarathon Nov 18 2011 07:05 AM Re: Realignment

going from 18 to 30 is closer to adding half as many interleague games than it is to doubling the number of interleague games. 18 + 9 = 27 18 + 18 = 36 30 - 27 = 3 36 - 30 = 6 3 < 6

Frayed Knot Nov 18 2011 07:31 AM Re: Realignment

Gwreck wrote: My problem is your attribution of motive and your analysis of Selig's thoughts. Like that he is operating under a "misconception" about interleague play or is waging an ongoing campaign to blur the boundaries of the leagues. Yes, I believe that Selig IS laboring under a misconception. Specifically, I believe that HE believes that IL games are good and that fans want more of them - something I'm basing on numerous statements made by him over the years. First there are the ones where he likes to imply that IL games are somehow in addition to other scheduled games rather than instead of them, and then particularly the ones where he cites IL attendance figures as proof of their popularity even though such figures are skewed by time of year and a heavy reliance on intra-city matchups. Nor do I have a lot of faith in the ability of his leadership to do things properly especially since virtually every "fix" in these realignment/scheduling/post-season proposals are measures that are designed to fix the things that were broken the last time his administration fixed things. I get what's your opinion, and can do the math too -- ie. going from 18 to 30 interleague games per team means that only an additional 7.5% of a teams' games per year will now be interleague. (See what I did there?). Yeah, bad math. The number of IL games under the 72-60-15-15 proposal will increase from 250 to 450. That is not a 7.5% increase (at least it wasn't when I went to school although admittedly that was a while ago).

batmagadanleadoff Nov 18 2011 07:49 AM Re: Realignment

I no longer approve of this scheme. I initially did, mainly because of the scheme's orderliness. But I hafta admit that I didn't look at it close enough to notice that the scheme requires each team to play 30 IL games. I don't know what the overall attendance figures (and ad revenues -- don't forget advertising) are for IL games, but hunching it, I'd hafta guess that the figures must be quite good. I guess this because these moves are driven by money first. And money second. And after that, some more money. Anything the league or Selig says that's different is total bs.

Gwreck Nov 18 2011 07:53 AM Re: Realignment

Frayed Knot wrote: I get what's your opinion, and can do the math too -- ie. going from 18 to 30 interleague games per team means that only an additional 7.5% of a teams' games per year will now be interleague. (See what I did there?). Yeah, bad math. The number of IL games under the 72-60-15-15 proposal will increase from 250 to 450. That is not a 7.5% increase (at least it wasn't when I went to school although admittedly that was a while ago). I didn't say it was a 7.5% increase.

metsmarathon Nov 18 2011 01:04 PM Re: Realignment

30 - 18 = 12 12 / 162 = 0.074 = 7.4%

Vic Sage Nov 18 2011 02:33 PM Re: Realignment

fun with math. sorry, FK, but i have absolutely no problem with the Mets playing 12 more IL games. And i think Selig, while providing dubious leadership on a host of issues, has data to suggest that its generally popular with fans. You have only your own rationalizations in reinterpreting the data to the contrary. Mets vs Athletics in 2013: ya gotta believe, baby!

Edgy MD Nov 18 2011 08:11 PM Re: Realignment

Gwreck wrote: TransMonk wrote: Great idea! I never thought of that. Now it's going to drive me nuts that they DON'T do this. Scheduling a 1-game "series" is prohibited in the basic agreement with the players which would be the holdup here. Yeah, I didn't seriously think it would be a layup.

bmfc1 Nov 19 2011 09:56 AM Re: Realignment

If this realignment meant that every team would play the same IL schedule, I'd be all for it. However, I have no doubt that Selig, and perhaps the Wilpons, will still want the fiction of extra games against the rival opponent (fiction, because not every team has that "rival"). This means (as Stark wrote) that the Mets will play the MFYs 3 more times than anybody else while the Nationals play the Orioles 3 extra times (some rivals--none of those games sell-out) thus putting the Mets at a competitive disadvantage.

metsmarathon Nov 19 2011 10:58 AM Re: Realignment

if those stupid fucking rivaly series are retained, then this whole realignment would be a sorry sorry mess. i'm hoping that with all of the lip service about evening up the schedules, that they realize that the rivalry series undo all of that. i'm also really hoping that they do away with that thought of having a super fantastic interleague block where everybody gets to play an interleague game at the same time. fold the damned things into the schedule all random-like, treat them as any other game, and the issue will disappear. make a big deal about this being the one time the mets get to go to seattle for the next four years or so. fine. that shit's cool. but don't try to sell me on the rivalry week, or the interleague week. because then i can't watch any other rivalry games, or any other interesting interleague matchups. plus if you have one or two interleague games going on a t a given time, then you can always highlight those.

Edgy MD Nov 19 2011 02:17 PM Re: Realignment

Yeah, well, all these (relatively) sensible moves can get framed as "we need to tweak our great idea --- you know, to make it greater." Trashing the designated rivalries would be acknowledging the truth that maybe that great idea was actually ill-conceived from the start. Maybe next commissioner.

Ceetar Nov 19 2011 02:26 PM Re: Realignment

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, well, all these (relatively) sensible moves can get framed as "we need to tweak our great idea --- you know, to make them greater." Trashing the designated rivalries would be acknowledging the truth that maybe that great idea was actually ill-conceived from the start. Maybe next commissioner. Bud Selig has basically been commissioner as long as I can remember. Will be interesting next year.

Frayed Knot Nov 19 2011 02:27 PM Re: Realignment

metsmarathon wrote: if those stupid fucking rivaly series are retained, then this whole realignment would be a sorry sorry mess. Count on it. Attendance matters and w/o a tilt towards intra-city games the idea that IL games are more popular simply because they're IL would be greatly diminished if not disappear entirely. i'm hoping that with all of the lip service about evening up the schedules, that they realize that the rivalry series undo all of that. It's not going to be even no matter which way they do it. Adding the rivalry series just makes things a little more uneven. i'm also really hoping that they do away with that thought of having a super fantastic interleague block where everybody gets to play an interleague game at the same time. fold the damned things into the schedule all random-like, treat them as any other game, and the issue will disappear. They virtually have to kill this in order to fill the minimum one-IL series all the time thing that two 15-team leagues requires. I don't think this will make the issue "disappear" since Bud's goal seems to be to set aside more games where your team plays against teams who are not fighting for the same prize as you and fewer against teams who are ... but perhaps that's another argument. make a big deal about this being the one time the mets get to go to seattle for the next four years or so. fine. that shit's cool. but don't try to sell me on the rivalry week, or the interleague week. because then i can't watch any other rivalry games, or any other interesting interleague matchups. plus if you have one or two interleague games going on a t a given time, then you can always highlight those. Again, see above. Also, there have to be an odd number of IL series going on at any one time except for those occasional days where numerous teams have the day off. But on your typical full-slate days, two IL series would mean 13 teams in each league to play each other leaving one team w/o a dance partner or four IL series would leave 11 each, etc., so those are not options. So with a minimum of one and an average somewhere between that and three (depending on how many total IL games they decide to go with) most days would have either 1 or 3 of the 15 match-ups as IL plus either 6 each or 7 each of AL/NL

Ceetar Nov 27 2011 05:16 PM Re: Realignment

Watched Back tothe Future this weekend. Shouldn't it have been the Cubs that moved to the AL? I don't know how else they're going to beat Miami in 2015.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 27 2011 10:33 PM Re: Realignment

I confess that I like the interleague games. It's fun to see different teams. And the Mets get to come to Detroit.

Frayed Knot Nov 28 2011 02:55 PM Re: Realignment

Except that if you wound up being 'Met Guy in St Louis' for example (or Chicago, or Pittsburgh) all these changes would have reduced your NYM visits over the years from three per season down to one, or from two visits to one in numerous other cities. For some reason the concept that IL games are instead of others rather than in addition to is frequently skipped over. Plus, if I'm fixing the schedule I want the highest percentage of games to come against other teams that are actually fighting for the same prize as mine. Bud seems to believe that the most games possible against teams whose outcomes don't affect yours is optimal.

Gwreck Nov 28 2011 10:01 PM Re: Realignment

Frayed Knot wrote: Bud seems to believe that the most games possible against teams whose outcomes don't affect yours is optimal. You're making stuff up again. He clearly doesn't, or else he would have suggested a totally balanced schedule in which a team plays the other 29 the same number of times.

metirish Dec 29 2011 03:31 PM Re: Realignment

Interesting ESPN’s Keith Law Interviewed For A Job In The Astros’ Front Office According to the estimable Ken Rosenthal, Keith Law of ESPN—last seen around these parts ragging on Moneyball—interviewed with the Houston Astros for a position (Rosenthal mentions scouting director) in their front office. Law just tweeted, "My day just got a lot more interesting." The transition from writing to scouting wouldn't be new to him—Law worked in the Blue Jays' front office from 2002-06, a gig he got after writing for Baseball Prospectus for several years—and Law already does a great deal of scouting for ESPN now. (Unfortunately, he spends most of his time behind the ESPN Insider paywall—you probably can't read him unless some well-meaning relative signed you up for an ESPN: The Magazine subscription with Insider benefits.) Rosenthal says the Astros haven't yet offered Law a position, but keep in mind that Law, 38, attended a selective undergraduate institution outside of Boston with a good track record in job placement. With any luck, he'll be freed from the Worldwide Leader, and we'll still have the Top Chef recaps. One hopes, anyway. ESPN's Law: On the move again? [MLB Buzz] http://deadspin.com/5871886/espns-keith ... ont-office

Nymr83 Dec 29 2011 05:04 PM Re: Realignment

I barely read Law's articles but I love him on the 'Baseball Today' podcasts also produced by ESPN. I selfishly hope he doesn't go to Houston

Ceetar Dec 29 2011 06:19 PM Re: Realignment

Nymr83 wrote: I barely read Law's articles but I love him on the 'Baseball Today' podcasts also produced by ESPN. I selfishly hope he doesn't go to Houston I find him extremely arrogant and annoying. I hope he gets the job so I see him retweeted less.

attgig Feb 29 2012 12:38 PM Re: Realignment

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Selig said today that the second wild card part of the plan may begin as early as 2012. it's now twitter official: Ken Rosenthal Sources: Additional wild cards a "go" for this season. Playoffs to expand from eight to 10 teams. Announcement tomorrow. #MLB https://twitter.com/#!/Ken_Rosenthal/st ... 8373942273

TransMonk Feb 29 2012 01:06 PM Re: Realignment

Fuckin' shocker. Who doesn't like more money? At least it puts a new wrinkle in the post-season prediction contest.

metirish Feb 29 2012 01:11 PM Re: Realignment

This should help the Mets!

Frayed Knot Feb 29 2012 02:33 PM Re: Realignment

attgig wrote: Selig said today that the second wild card part of the plan may begin as early as 2012. it's now twitter official: Ken Rosenthal Sources: Additional wild cards a "go" for this season. Playoffs to expand from eight to 10 teams. Announcement tomorrow. #MLB https://twitter.com/#!/Ken_Rosenthal/st ... 8373942273 Now we just need the details. I'm VERY MUCH hoping for 1-game play-ins between the four WC teams rather than a pair of two-of-three deals. This all should be easy to implement once you get it run past the player's union and secure the TV arrangement but I still fear the ability of Bud and co to screw up a one horse parade.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 29 2012 02:46 PM Re: Realignment

I'd prefer the best-of-three, but I don't think it's going to go that way.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 29 2012 03:28 PM Re: Realignment

You just know this'll be the year the MFYs would fail to qualify any other way but for the extra-team bonus. Thanks a lot, Bud.

Vic Sage Feb 29 2012 09:42 PM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: This should help the Mets! good one.

HahnSolo Mar 01 2012 06:37 AM Re: Realignment

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You just know this'll be the year the MFYs would fail to qualify any other way but for the extra-team bonus. Thanks a lot, Bud. Of course. First thing that popped in to my mind.

Ceetar Mar 01 2012 06:52 AM Re: Realignment

HahnSolo wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You just know this'll be the year the MFYs would fail to qualify any other way but for the extra-team bonus. Thanks a lot, Bud. Of course. First thing that popped in to my mind. They're one of the few teams that's won the World Series with the 5th best record in the league, so they've already got the practice.

SteveJRogers Mar 01 2012 09:46 AM Re: Realignment

Ceetar wrote: HahnSolo wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You just know this'll be the year the MFYs would fail to qualify any other way but for the extra-team bonus. Thanks a lot, Bud. Of course. First thing that popped in to my mind. They're one of the few teams that's won the World Series with the 5th best record in the league, so they've already got the practice. Cee, I'm trying very hard to imagine that the 2000 baseball season ended the night the Mets won the LCS vs the Cardinals. STOP REMINDING ME! And sadly, it wouldn't be the last time the Mets got beat by a team that won fewer than 90 on their way to a Worlds Championship...

Mets – Willets Point Mar 01 2012 10:22 AM Re: Realignment

I don't like it. The playoffs are bloated already. Before expansion, only 12.5% of the teams made it to postseason. After the introduction of divisions in 1969, 16.67% of the teams made it to postseason. Today, 26% of teams make it to the postseason and this proposal will bump it up to 31.25%. What's the point of playing 162 games if nearly a third of the teams are going to the playoffs with as good a chance of anyone else of winning the championship? If they modified the playoffs to reward the teams that showed excellent over the long season I might agree with this. Say the best team in each league gets an automatic bye to the League Championship Series and get to rest and watch the the other teams beat up on one another.

Frayed Knot Mar 01 2012 10:43 AM Re: Realignment

The way I look at this Willets is as a kind of subtraction by addition. By doubling the number of WC teams but then immediately throwing them into a single-game death match, no longer will the WC team head into the playoff as a virtually equal partner to division winners. This not only gives a great incentive to actually compete for the division rather than resting down the stretch but it also makes both WC teams have to make a risk-reward decision as to which pitcher to use for the play-in game. The winner is likely weakened as they go on to meet their next opponent, and the loser disappears the day after the reg season ends and we're left with the same number of teams competing for the ultimate prize as we've had for nearly 20 years now.

Mets – Willets Point Mar 01 2012 11:25 AM Re: Realignment

The results of one game can be pretty random. It's entirely possible that the #1 wild card team can have 95+ wins and be in a heated divisional race right up to the end of the season while the #2 wild card team can have fewer than 90 wins and not much to compete for in the final weeks of the season. A one-game lottery is just going to increase the odds that a weak team will make the final 8 while stronger wild card teams (who sometimes have better records than the winners of other divisions) will go home.

Edgy MD Mar 01 2012 11:27 AM Re: Realignment

I think the one-game randomness should lower the proposition that a weak team advances. Yeah, it's not about cheapening the playoffs, but cheapening that fourth spot --- which should be cheaper, as it was a acquired at the lowest price.

Ceetar Mar 01 2012 11:44 AM Re: Realignment

Edgy DC wrote: I think the one-game randomness should lower the proposition that a weak team advances. Yeah, it's not about cheapening the playoffs, but cheapening that fourth spot --- which should be cheaper, as it was a acquired at the lowest price. if we're defining 'weak' as 'team not the best in their own division' the chances they advance/win the series are roughly exactly the same. It's just that the best said weak teams can hope for is a ~50% to get that equal chance to advance. No system is perfect though. I happen to like this one more than any of the others that were proposed.

Edgy MD Mar 01 2012 11:49 AM Re: Realignment

A 50% chance to get a chance reduced by 50%.

Mets – Willets Point Mar 01 2012 11:53 AM Re: Realignment

Take the 2001 Oakland A's with 102 wins. Do they really need to play the 85 win Twins to prove that they're good enough to compete with the 95 win Yankees and 91 win Indians? Seriously, they lost to the freakin' Yankees anyhow, did they need to be weakened first by playing a roll-of-the-dice winner-takes-all game? Did we need a 50% shot of the Twins winning and then getting spanked by the Yankees to no one's entertainment?

metirish Mar 01 2012 11:56 AM Re: Realignment

Fuck it , make MLB like the NBA,NFL and MLS where everyone makes the playoffs it seems...

Mets – Willets Point Mar 01 2012 11:59 AM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: Fuck it , make MLB like the NBA,NFL and MLS where everyone makes the playoffs it seems... I generally am weary of slippery slope arguments, but I can kind of see that may happen here. "We've expanded to 10 playoff teams, why not 12, why not 16?" The thing with MLB is that they play 162 games in the regular season so I think the onus is even greater on MLB to make those 162 games means something compared to the shorter seasons played in NBA, NHL, MLS & NFL.

metirish Mar 01 2012 12:03 PM Re: Realignment

Mets – Willets Point wrote: metirish wrote: Fuck it , make MLB like the NBA,NFL and MLS where everyone makes the playoffs it seems... I generally am weary of slippery slope arguments, but I can kind of see that may happen here. "We've expanded to 10 playoff teams, why not 12, why not 16?" The thing with MLB is that they play 162 games in the regular season so I think the onus is even greater on MLB to make those 162 games means something compared to the shorter seasons played in NBA, NHL, MLS & NFL. yeah, taking the piss of course but shoot, Bud might say " hey why not have two teams from each division go to the playoffs?"

Benjamin Grimm Mar 01 2012 12:14 PM Re: Realignment

I'm with Willets on this one. If we have to have an additional wild card, I'd rather see it be a best of three. To compress it, you can even make the first day of the series a double-header. If there's not a sweep on day one, then there's another game the next day.

Ceetar Mar 01 2012 12:52 PM Re: Realignment

metirish wrote: Fuck it , make MLB like the NBA,NFL and MLS where everyone makes the playoffs it seems... I get this worry, but this is sorta the opposite. I know it's going to be promoted like the playoffs, but did the Reds in '99 feel like they "made the playoffs"? If the Glavine game was actually the playoff, would we have gone into 2008 thinking "At least we made the playoffs" no, it'd still be a terrible collapse. It's going to be sort of a 'tweener round no matter what. No one's walking away from the season having lost in the 'first' round saying "Playoffs are a crap shoot, we're good enough, better luck next year'. No. beat the division leader. For every example of a strongly superior team having to play a much weaker team to prove themselves there are other examples of weak division winnings not having to prove themselves. 2000 Yankees, '06 Cardinals. the 2001 Oakland Athletics are an outlier because the Mariners were just that amazingly good. Of course, that's partly because they won 10 games against the A's. So yeah, they deserve to play in a Wild Card round, because they failed to establish them as a first place team. This way we'll have three teams that have Won the division, plus the 'best' other team that had to defeat the coin flip game.

Vic Sage Mar 01 2012 03:12 PM Re: Realignment

Anything that gives a division winner an edge over a WC team is an improvement over the current system. a 1-game WC play-in does that. It requires the WC to win an extra game, likely requiring them to burn their best pitchers just to move on; it will also add travel for the WC, on short rest, while the division winner waits at home. A WC team isn't entitled to play a short series to decide its fate; let it be subject to the forces of randomness at play in a 1-game scenario.

metirish Mar 02 2012 12:29 PM Re: Realignment

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... b&c_id=mlb Addition of Wild Card berths formalized for 2012 The expansion of Major League Baseball's playoffs with the addition of two Wild Card teams and a play-in game in each league will begin this year. An agreement between MLB and the Players Association, finalized on Friday, adds a second Wild Card in each league, making for a postseason field of 10. The three division winners in each league will await the survivor of a one-game playoff between the Wild Card teams in each league, establishing the Division Series field of four teams in each league. The subsequent Division Series, League Championship Series and World Series formats will remain the same. For the 2012 postseason only, the five-game Division Series will begin with two home games for lower seeds, followed by up to three home games for higher seeds. This one-year change will eliminate a travel day prior to a decisive Game 5 of a Division Series and was necessary because the 2012 regular-season schedule was announced before the agreement on the new postseason was reached Next year, the Division Series will return to the 2-2-1 format used in previous years. Details on the scheduling of the new elimination games between each League's Wild Cards will be announced in the near future. Adding Wild Card teams this year created a logistical issue: The regular season is scheduled to end on Wednesday, Oct. 3, leaving two days for travel, weather problems, possible season-ending tiebreakers to decide division titles and Wild Card berths and the Wild Card play-in games prior to the start of the Division Series on Saturday, Oct. 6. The World Series is scheduled to begin on Wednesday, Oct. 24. The additional Wild Cards will place a premium on winning a division title. Division winners will get at least two days of rest before the start of the Division Series, while the Wild Card teams will possibly have to use their best pitchers to win a play-in game. "It used to be if a team had the Wild Card locked up, they could start setting their rotation for the playoffs," said the Rangers' Michael Young, whose team has won the AL West the past two seasons. "Now you have to do everything you can to win the division. You're in; you don't have to play a win-or-go-home game." The new format was agreed upon last year in the new five-year Basic Agreement between the owners and the players, to start by 2013 at the latest. The two sides then had two months to negotiate the logistics of beginning it a year early. This season's schedule was long set before collective bargaining ended with a new agreement on Nov. 21. MLB had been studying how to expand the playoffs for at least two years, and it became a topic of discussion among Commissioner Bud Selig's 14-member committee that has been studying on-field improvements of the sport. Last season, the eventual World Series-champion Cardinals made the playoffs by winning the NL Wild Card berth on the final day of the regular season. Had there been the additional Wild Card berths, the Cardinals instead would have had to play the Braves in a one-game playoff to gain entry into the Division Series. "Everybody remembers that day 162 last year and how exciting that was," said St. Louis manager Mike Matheny, a coach in the Cardinals system last season. "Anything you throw the fans at this point, we all see the benefit of how the Wild Card played out. There were a lot of people against it at the time and it proved to make some very meaningful games for some teams who otherwise wouldn't have had anything going on. I think they're making some good decisions. The decisions they've made in the past have proven to be right. It will be fun to watch how it all plays out." The expanded playoffs were linked to the sale of the Astros by Drayton McLane to Houston businessman Jim Crane and the team's move from the NL to the AL, effective for the 2013 season. The Astros' shift from the NL Central to the AL West will give each league 15 teams and all six divisions five clubs. The playoff and realignment matters had to be collectively bargained because they involved scheduling, and the union wanted any playoff expansion to be tied to moving a team from the six-team NL Central to the four-team AL West to create better competitive balance. Michael Weiner, the union's executive director, ultimately said that playoff expansion wouldn't have happened without the Astros' move to the AL. The previous format featuring three division winners and a Wild Card from each league was adopted in 1994 but wasn't actually used until the following year because a players' strike led to the cancellation of the '94 postseason. From 1969-93, there were two divisions in each league and a League Championship Series between the first-place teams as a prelude to the World Series. Prior to 1969, only the pennant winners, the first-place teams in each league, met in the World Series. Barry M. Bloom is national reporter for MLB.com and writes an MLBlog, Boomskie on Baseball. Follow @boomskie on Twitter. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 02 2012 12:46 PM Re: Realignment

"It used to be if a team had the Wild Card locked up, they could start setting their rotation for the playoffs," said the Rangers' Michael Young. Yeah, but in many cases they STILL can. Some teams will have locked up a Wild Card with no reasonable shot at the division title. Also, I'm still waiting to see the tie-breaking rules. What if two teams end in a tie for the division lead? Do they have to have a one-game playoff to determine who is the division winner and who is the wild card? In the past they resolved it with off-the-field tiebreakers, and that was okay because, as we know, the distinction between a division champ and a Wild Card didn't matter much. But now, it's a different story.

metirish Mar 02 2012 12:50 PM Re: Realignment

Benjamin Grimm wrote: "It used to be if a team had the Wild Card locked up, they could start setting their rotation for the playoffs," said the Rangers' Michael Young. Yeah, but in many cases they STILL can. Some teams will have locked up a Wild Card with no reasonable shot at the division title. Also, I'm still waiting to see the tie-breaking rules. What if two teams end in a tie for the division lead? Do they have to have a one-game playoff to determine who is the division winner and who is the wild card? In the past they resolved it with off-the-field tiebreakers, and that was okay because, as we know, the distinction between a division champ and a Wild Card didn't matter much. But now, it's a different story. Jon Heyman ? word is, no one wins a division on a tiebreaker/coin flip. there will be a playoff for that, too. #MLB

Ceetar Mar 02 2012 12:56 PM Re: Realignment

Too many tie-breakers might mean too much rest before division series for the top team though. I'm actually fine with basing it on head to head record, although I guess you could tie there (tie-breaker could be in-division record). If you've already established you can beat the other team(s) in your division in head to head matchups, isn't that enough edge to say you're the division champ?

Ceetar Mar 02 2012 01:10 PM Re: Realignment

Regardling the Trade Deadline. I wonder if it'll actually become quieter, not more active. More teams will be 'in it', but the financial payoff is not as guaranteed. With increased prices most teams make out very well if they make the postseason, with at least 1 guaranteed game plus merchandise and all that. Are teams going to spend in July when they're two games out of a second playoff spot when it could mean they don't even get a home game and even the first wild card team may only get the one. Will they be able to charge NLDS prices for that play-in? (probably, in fact the desperation of it probably spikes the price. I remember how fast tickets sold to the 2007 and 2008 possible play-in games)

metirish Mar 02 2012 01:12 PM Re: Realignment

Ceetar wrote: Regardling the Trade Deadline. I wonder if it'll actually become quieter, not more active. More teams will be 'in it', but the financial payoff is not as guaranteed. With increased prices most teams make out very well if they make the postseason, with at least 1 guaranteed game plus merchandise and all that. Are teams going to spend in July when they're two games out of a second playoff spot when it could mean they don't even get a home game and even the first wild card team may only get the one. Will they be able to charge NLDS prices for that play-in? (probably, in fact the desperation of it probably spikes the price. I remember how fast tickets sold to the 2007 and 2008 possible play-in games) good points....

Ceetar Mar 02 2012 01:21 PM Re: Realignment

The flip side being, fans probably don't care, and if you sell something when you're only 1 out of the second wild card, even if you're 10 out of the first spot, they might not be too happy with you.

Frayed Knot Mar 02 2012 02:19 PM Re: Realignment

Ceetar wrote: Too many tie-breakers might mean too much rest before division series for the top team though. Another reason why a one-game play-in for the WC teams is better than a two-of-three.