Major League Baseball considering expansion, radical realignment

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,284
12,583
South Mountain
The thing they got completely wrong with interleague play is using the home team rules. It should have been the visiting team rules from the start. Give the fans at the stadium something they're not used to experiencing--DH or pitchers batting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gnashville

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
Completely aside, but I find the DH rule really interesting. You have a rule that produces two different results depending on the level of play. In the professional game you have it so that you avoid having the pitcher bat (as they are a relatively bad batter), but at lower levels you use it so that your pitcher can bat while not pitching (as they are often the superior athlete). It's kinda paradoxical, which makes it funky when ideally in sports you have the same rulebook producing the same results for all levels of play.

It's also interesting that they invented an entire new player, when you can achieve the desired result by just having one less batter (the pitcher) in the batting order. (I don't know the intricacies of baseball well enough to know if that has any knock on effects else where in the game, I only watch for a few weeks after the summer cricket season has ended each year.)
The DH and Pitcher rule creates different strategies amongst the leagues.

If you have a pitcher doing well in an American League game he stays in and there is no reason to remove him.
But in the National League in the later innings he may be scheduled to bat and the situation may dictate if he comes out or not. The double switch can also occur where a fielder and pitcher are swapped simultaneously and it's possible the inserted fielder or pitcher can be the difference in the outcome of the game.
I personally prefer the NL game and watching pitchers hit. Plus most Pitchers actually say that hitting makes the better pitchers as they see the point of view of the hitter.


The AL Style is draw a couple of walks and jack a 3 run HR. AL games tend to take longer to play, because of the DH rule and the pitchers hitting speeds up the game.

The NL style is more stolen bases, hit and run, pitching.
Both leagues have some what descended into the boring AL style which adding the DH in the NL would speed up.

The thing they got completely wrong with interleague play is using the home team rules. It should have been the visiting team rules from the start. Give the fans at the stadium something they're not used to experiencing--DH or pitchers batting.
That would be a cool twist on interleague play. I kinda like that.
 
Last edited:

rojac

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 5, 2007
12,945
2,807
Waterloo, ON
The thing they got completely wrong with interleague play is using the home team rules. It should have been the visiting team rules from the start. Give the fans at the stadium something they're not used to experiencing--DH or pitchers batting.

Perhaps, but maybe they're fans of an AL team because they don't want to watch pitchers bat. Sure, you have to watch it on TV when your team visits an NL team but you're not having it shoved down your throat in your own park. Although, in glancing at the Wikipedia page for Designated Hitter, apparently Bud Sellig once suggested the idea you're pushing but it didn't gain much traction.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,284
12,583
South Mountain
Perhaps, but maybe they're fans of an AL team because they don't want to watch pitchers bat. Sure, you have to watch it on TV when your team visits an NL team but you're not having it shoved down your throat in your own park. Although, in glancing at the Wikipedia page for Designated Hitter, apparently Bud Sellig once suggested the idea you're pushing but it didn't gain much traction.

If you're attending lots of games live at the stadium then you probably didn't become a fan of the team because they were in the AL vs the NL. You're a fan of the team because they're your local team. What's wrong with adding some unique variety to your live game attendance options?

If you're just watching games on TV then what does it matter whether home or visiting team rules apply in interleague games?
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
Perhaps, but maybe they're fans of an AL team because they don't want to watch pitchers bat. Sure, you have to watch it on TV when your team visits an NL team but you're not having it shoved down your throat in your own park. Although, in glancing at the Wikipedia page for Designated Hitter, apparently Bud Sellig once suggested the idea you're pushing but it didn't gain much traction.
That would only apply in 4 cities/regions with both NL and AL teams. People in Atlanta are Braves fans because they are the local team not because they want to see pitchers hit.

The irony in all this is they are trying to change the game to appease younger fans but they don't realize it's driving away some fans. Baseball's biggest issue I see is it's on horrible cable channels that some people don't get along with the horrible start times to appease those same Networks. The Freaking ALCS is on mediocre FOXsport1. The New York Yankees are being shown on a network that no one gets or watches. FS1 is on some 3rd tier cable packages, plus with cord cutting taking place at least put it on over the air broadcast channels that they can watch with an antenna.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
.

As for Vancouver as expansion candidate, I don't think it would work. No ownership group is going to fork over 2+ billion (franchise fee and retractable roof stadium). With MLS and CFL, I think they're at capacity for Summertime sports spending for a metro of their size.

Also the population is going broke due to the housing bubble and lack of major corporate employers. I would hope one day they got back a AAA team -- they could upgrade the Nat to a 10k stadium.

Still iffy about Montreal too. Yes there was bad ownership but the Expos franchise had MANY MANY bad years at the gate long before Brochu and Loria. Personally, I think they get a relo of either the A's or Rays. They'd be much better off in the AL anyway against Toronto, Boston, and the Yankees in terms of fans showing up.
I think Montreal will be fine. They have everything but the stadium which is coming.

Vancouver would be fine, problem is the city is inept. The stadium and owner (galagardi?) Is there. They care more about being the most expensive city out there.
 

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,590
605
Martinaise, Revachol
As for expansion candidates maybe Sacramento as their AAA team has done well. Could also see Charlotte even with the newly built minor-league park. Look no further than Atlanta to see a city discard two stadia that were barely 20 years old.

If Sacramento gets a team I'll give away all my world possessions and join a monastic order where we cut out our tongues. They would instantly became one of the smallest markets in baseball, in a city where there isn't all that much money, and there isn't that much corporate support.[/QUOTE]
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,595
9,427
Your city leadership is the problem. If Gregor would do more then look at the mirrors in his house Vancouver would have an MLB and NBA team. Theleague would have already granted seattle a team if they had a partner. And the diamondbacks are having stadium issues, but Vancouver isn't playing attention.

Gregor has no influence on the NBA. That's on Aquilini to pursue if they ever wanted to. Plus, I recall the attitude of NBA players when the Grizzlies were around and Vancouver could have a team, but really could never go and sign free agents to ever get them to being a contender, even if they could draft and develop a couple of core young guys to build the franchise around.

As for MLB, as a Vancouverite, I have no idea where the city could build a stadium that would have easy access to public transit (aka, skytrain) near downtown. Only sites are the area beside the Cambie bridge near the new VPD office or the old Molson breweries right off the Burrard bridge at Kits (issue is public transit). Land is super expensive, so the cost would be prohibitive.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
Gregor has no influence on the NBA. That's on Aquilini to pursue if they ever wanted to. Plus, I recall the attitude of NBA players when the Grizzlies were around and Vancouver could have a team, but really could never go and sign free agents to ever get them to being a contender, even if they could draft and develop a couple of core young guys to build the franchise around.

As for MLB, as a Vancouverite, I have no idea where the city could build a stadium that would have easy access to public transit (aka, skytrain) near downtown. Only sites are the area beside the Cambie bridge near the new VPD office or the old Molson breweries right off the Burrard bridge at Kits (issue is public transit). Land is super expensive, so the cost would be prohibitive.
it's been almost 20 years now, times have changed. I'm sure people want to play there now
The baseball team can play at where the Lions are.
 

ponder719

Haute Couturier
Jul 2, 2013
6,415
8,281
Philadelphia, PA
AL East
Yankees / Red Sox/Blue Jays/Orioles/Rays/Indians/Tigers/Expansion team or White Sox

AL West

Expansion Team or White Sox/Royals/Twins/Rangers/Astros/Angels/Mariners/Athletics

NL East
Mets/Braves/Marlins/Reds/Pirates/Phillies/Expos/Nationals

NL West
Cubs/Cardinals/Rockies/Brewers/DiamondBacks/Dodgers/Giants/Padres

I'm not with you on getting rid of interleague play or some of the other rules changes, but setting up the divisions like this would work for me, if the league is going to 32. I get that they're mooting radical realignment, and it's interesting to see what that would look like, but it's not necessary; the leagues as constructed here would do just fine.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,595
9,427
it's been almost 20 years now, times have changed. I'm sure people want to play there now
The baseball team can play at where the Lions are.
I have to disagree with you on both parts.

NBA today is about super teams. Players want to play with the guys that they know off the court. That's why I said that even if the Vancouver NBA team were to draft a couple of core guys that they would be in tough to entice players to sign with them.

Who was the last big name free agent that the Raptors signed that was highly sought after by other teams?

No way can a baseball team play in BC Place Stadium. Temporary, yes, but not for the rest of their existence. They would need a baseball only facility and with land prices what they are right now, no way they can afford the land, along with buying up land for parking. The 2nd last gas station in downtown Vancouver (Chevron) sold for $72 million in the pricey coal harbour area. A stadium is several times the size of a gas station. Even in a cheaper part of the city, that's still a lot for just the land.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
If the motivations for going to 32 is "EASE of scheduling" -- which is what they claimed with Houston moving to the AL and are also saying with expansion to 32, then the radical realignment plan and adjustment of schedule to 156 games is totally ridiculous.

Even by moving Houston, with 5-5-5 model, we have a schedule matrix now of:
19 vs division teams
7 (vs 4 teams) or 6 (vs 6 teams) vs league teams.
4 (vs 2 teas) or 3 (vs 4 teams) of interleague.
That's 10 four-game series; 4 two-game series and the rest three-game series. It requires year-round interleague play.

With a 4-4-4-4 model can do this:
18 vs division (54), 9 vs league (108) = 162. All three-game series. No interleague required.

So you'd GET why they'd say 32 is better. Plus expansion fees. I'd guess the owners heard that and thought "But then we don't GET the big gate draws of NYY-NYM; LAA-LAD, CWS-CHC, OAK-SFG, STL-KC, some cool World Series rematches. How do we get BOTH?"

Radical realignment got tossed out there to maximize regional games (fewer road trips to other coasts) and because with the marquee matchups happening 16 times, they can draw 4x the large 42,000 a game crowds they get for the 4-game marquee matchups.

The two problems with that are:
#1 - It ticks off the fans. Destroying tradition and organizing like NBA/NHL makes you no different than those leagues, only with the sport that's SLOWER, without dunks, buzzerbeaters, hits, sudden-death overtime and fights.

#2 - Big gate draws for rivalry games in the regular season is a myth. HOU-TEX shows us. For a decade, HOU/TEX was drawing 43,500 for interleague series -- EVEN WHEN HOUSTON WAS LOSING 107 GAMES. In 2016, Texas won the AL West, Houston was 3 games back of the wild card with 2.5 weeks left, and the 18-game season series drew an average of 32,500. It went from "Circle the date" must-get ticket, to an ordinary series.

Oh I think my opinion is shared more than what you think. Interleague play was a gimmick and serves no purpose now... The best scenario would be 32 teams 2 leagues and 4 divisions. 162 game Schedule. 12 games interdivisional (84 games). 9 games out of division (72 games).

You're a wise sage. I think the "holdup" with that concept (8-8 / 8-8) is that you have 3 PTZ/MTZ teams in the AL, and 5 in the NL. Which means MIN-KC-CWS-TEX-HOU, STL-CHC-MIL would end up in the West divisions. That is double the West Coast trips they have now (And MORE if Portland or Vancouver is team #32) and they absolutely don't want that. So that's how we get from "Ease of scheduling" to "We want radical realignment."

I do not think I am overstating it in saying that the backlash to abolishing the AL and NL will be enormous across all age groups. Fans identify with them; ... The league pennants, while not what they used to be, I would argue are still the most valued of the runner up titles in sports. They're courting fan rebellion with abolishing the leagues imo. I'm not opposed to change, but that hardly means all change is for the better.

You're right. It's not JUST that, though. While I do think that over time, people would get used to it and adapt -- like they did with interleague play; and the one-game wild card -- you're removing over 116+ years of AL-NL tradition.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Phase out the DH in 5 years and get rid of the stupid intentional walk rule (lob up 4 pitches).

I still think you're a wise sage, but DH rule would be phased IN, not out. No way MLB goes to war with the MLBPA over THAT; not when the "worst that can happen" is NL owners pay a little bit more money for a better hitter, and end the risk of their $30 million ace running the bases.

It also makes roster CONSTRUCTION easier for the GMs: The difference between NL bench costs and AL DH spots are not that much. And the head-to-head W-L records in games of interleague and World Series are staggeringly in AL favor.

I'm anti-DH because of the principle of it, and I enjoy the NL late-game bullpen/lineup strategy decisions it presents. But I fully accept the reality that it's going to be "All DH" at some point. It's never ever be "No DH in MLB" again.


Also, have you MISSED watching the IBB pitches? 99.998% of the time, it's just wasted time while a pitcher (on a pitch count) tosses four times.
 

ponder719

Haute Couturier
Jul 2, 2013
6,415
8,281
Philadelphia, PA
You're a wise sage. I think the "holdup" with that concept (8-8 / 8-8) is that you have 3 PTZ/MTZ teams in the AL, and 5 in the NL. Which means MIN-KC-CWS-TEX-HOU, STL-CHC-MIL would end up in the West divisions. That is double the West Coast trips they have now (And MORE if Portland or Vancouver is team #32) and they absolutely don't want that. So that's how we get from "Ease of scheduling" to "We want radical realignment."

If the league expands to the East, instead of to Portland, you can fix that with a limited, 6-team realignment, though heads will still go boom.

NL West: COL/ARZ/LAD/SFG/SDP/LAA/SEA/OAK
AL West: CHC/CHW/STL/MIL/KCR/MIN/TEX/HOU
 

Bucky_Hoyt

Registered User
Dec 11, 2005
600
46
Singapore
I have to disagree with you on both parts.

NBA today is about super teams. Players want to play with the guys that they know off the court. That's why I said that even if the Vancouver NBA team were to draft a couple of core guys that they would be in tough to entice players to sign with them.

Who was the last big name free agent that the Raptors signed that was highly sought after by other teams?

No way can a baseball team play in BC Place Stadium. Temporary, yes, but not for the rest of their existence. They would need a baseball only facility and with land prices what they are right now, no way they can afford the land, along with buying up land for parking. The 2nd last gas station in downtown Vancouver (Chevron) sold for $72 million in the pricey coal harbour area. A stadium is several times the size of a gas station. Even in a cheaper part of the city, that's still a lot for just the land.

If it were purely a land issue, I would think something nearby Pacific Central train station as there is a lot of older industrial land / brownfield and underused rail yards.

Then again, it's more than just a land issue :)
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Mouser is Absolutely correct. If the whole point was "You get to see the other league!" you should show the NL fans the DH, or the AL fans the pitcher batting.

If the league expands to the East, instead of to Portland, you can fix that with a limited, 6-team realignment, though heads will still go boom.

NL West: COL/ARZ/LAD/SFG/SDP/LAA/SEA/OAK
AL West: CHC/CHW/STL/MIL/KCR/MIN/TEX/HOU

Right... there's very little reason to "radically realign" the western half of baseball, and not the eastern half. Because the NL-AL tradition is still getting messed up. CHC/STL have always been in the NL, while CWS/MIN have always been in the AL. You move CHC/STL to the AL West and you're messing with the AL-NL dynamics for the teams in the East. Just because it's not "Full scale nuclear destruction of AL/NL" doesn't mean it isn't destruction.


My "Four Major Leagues" idea IS CRAZY and I totally admit it. But giving everyone what they want is HARD/Impossible. Which might make it the Right Amount of Crazy:

It gives the radical realignment the Pacific needs to have more local start times WITHOUT having more trips to the West by Eastern Teams (Winning over the Central teams).

It keeps limited interleague play for the owners.

It retains AL / NL tradition of separate leagues for all the baseball fans who stop watching at 10:05 ET.

While a radical departure from baseball's history, it also kind of ADDS to the "history" of baseball in the sense that it would cause people to talk about how baseball was from 1901-1957 with 8 teams in AL/NL, ALL in the top right quadrant of the US from around St. Louis to Boston, and DC; how that changed from 1958 to 2017; and how the current system LOOKS like how the history of baseball COULD HAVE gone if the PCL became a major league and the Continental League got going.

The CBL is funky and weird. But I think it gives enough benefit to each team that those fans may get used to the change and over it. And we're talking about:

- Houston (who just switched leagues. They'd stay with Texas and ditch the AL West)
- Texas (who gets the same massive benefit of going from "CTZ team stuck with the PTZ" to "CTZ now with ETZ teams")
- Miami (Who has low attendance through 3 firesales, 3 ownership changes, a name change and uniform remodel and a new stadium in just 24 seasons).
- Tampa (who's one of the new franchises and has attendance problems)
- Montreal (who's getting a team back after 13 years without one and now gets WASH as a division foe)
- Washington (who got the Nats from Montreal 13 years ago after being an AL city until 1971).
- Toronto (who is younger than all but one AL franchise; Gains Montreal as a rival; Has Red Wings-Avalanche potential with Texas; ditches the Yankees/Red Sox financial powerhouses as division opposition and instead gets the Mets.
- NY Mets (who's fans would probably be the most upset by this of anyone. But Mets fans are always upset).

The point there is IF fans of THESE TEAMS don't get over this change, then MLB would be MASSIVELY SCREWED if they went full radical realignment, because the other 23 teams have a lot more history/tradition invested and NL-AL, and more total fans.

EVERYTHING is going to tick off a lot of people. I think my crazy plan -- which started as a fun exercise in revisionist history for me -- might have the right amount of crazy, because it's a radical realignment, but it's going radically "RETRO traditional."
 

Mike Louis

Registered User
Feb 7, 2010
106
26
Honolulu, HI
As a Cubs fan, I’m more partial to the NL style of play. However I’m enough of a realist to know that with increased interleague play MLB will want some sort of standardization of the DH rule. Therefore I propose a compromise that’s easy enough for everyone to understand. Instead of having the DH bat for the pitcher as the rule currently states, let’s make it so that the DH could bat for any of the defensive positions with the exception of the pitcher. That way the MLBPA and AL fans can keep the aging / defensively challenged slugger in the lineup and NL fans can still get to second guess the managerial moves in regards to the pitcher’s spot in the lineup. It could also have the unintended benefit of making defensive minded players and bench players more valuable.

As for a possible 32 team alignment I’m could see the following happen:

NL East
  • Montreal Expos
  • New York Mets
  • Philadelphia Phillies
  • Pittsburgh Pirates
NL South
  • Atlanta Braves
  • Miami Marlins
  • Tampa Bay Rays
  • Washington Nationals
NL Central
  • Chicago Cubs
  • Cincinnati Reds
  • Milwaukee Brewers
  • St. Louis Cardinals
NL West
  • Arizona Diamondbacks
  • Los Angeles Dodgers
  • San Diego Padres
  • San Francisco Giants
AL East
  • Baltimore Orioles
  • Boston Red Sox
  • New York Yankees
  • Toronto Blue Jays
AL Central
  • Chicago White Sox
  • Cleveland Indians
  • Detroit Tigers
  • Minnesota Twins
AL Midwest
  • Colorado Rockies
  • Houston Astros
  • Kansas City Royals
  • Texas Rangers
AL West
  • Los Angeles Angels
  • Oakland A’s
  • Portland Beavers
  • Seattle Mariners
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
Oh I think my opinion is shared more than what you think. Interleague play was a gimmick and serves no purpose now.
The best scenario would be 32 teams 2 leagues and 4 divisions.
AL East
Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Orioles
Rays
Indians
Tigers
Expansion team or White Sox

AL West

Expansion Team or White Sox
Royals
Twins
Rangers
Astros (should go back to the NL but whatever)
Angels
Mariners
Athletics

NL East
Mets
Braves
Marlins
Reds
Pirates
Phillies
Expos
Nationals

NL West
Cubs
Cardinals
Rockies
Brewers (should be in the AL but whatever)
DiamondBacks
Dodgers
Giants
Padres

162 game Schedule
12 games interdivisional (84 games)
9 games out of division (72 games)
6 interleague games vs rival (Mets-Yankees) (Expos-Jays) act
Start the season 2 weeks earlier or have Sunday Double Headers

156 game Schedule
12 games interdivisional (84 games)
9 games out of division (72 games)
Start season 1 week earlier

Playoffs
4 wild card teams playing best of 3 series (all 3 games at higher seed)
then divisional winners vs Wild Card best of 5
LCS best of 7
WS best of 7

Phase out the DH in 5 years and get rid of the stupid intentional walk rule (lob up 4 pitches).
It's 2017. there is nothing wrong with change or the DH. People pay to see RBIs and Home runs.
I have to disagree with you on both parts.

NBA today is about super teams. Players want to play with the guys that they know off the court. That's why I said that even if the Vancouver NBA team were to draft a couple of core guys that they would be in tough to entice players to sign with them.

Who was the last big name free agent that the Raptors signed that was highly sought after by other teams?

No way can a baseball team play in BC Place Stadium. Temporary, yes, but not for the rest of their existence. They would need a baseball only facility and with land prices what they are right now, no way they can afford the land, along with buying up land for parking. The 2nd last gas station in downtown Vancouver (Chevron) sold for $72 million in the pricey coal harbour area. A stadium is several times the size of a gas station. Even in a cheaper part of the city, that's still a lot for just the land.
Indiana and Sacramento don't get FAs. Should they lose their the Make sure the team is good. I don't think they can play at BC place forever but the bubble will pop in vancouver

If the motivations for going to 32 is "EASE of scheduling" -- which is what they claimed with Houston moving to the AL and are also saying with expansion to 32, then the radical realignment plan and adjustment of schedule to 156 games is totally ridiculous.

Even by moving Houston, with 5-5-5 model, we have a schedule matrix now of:
19 vs division teams
7 (vs 4 teams) or 6 (vs 6 teams) vs league teams.
4 (vs 2 teas) or 3 (vs 4 teams) of interleague.
That's 10 four-game series; 4 two-game series and the rest three-game series. It requires year-round interleague play.

With a 4-4-4-4 model can do this:
18 vs division (54), 9 vs league (108) = 162. All three-game series. No interleague required.

So you'd GET why they'd say 32 is better. Plus expansion fees. I'd guess the owners heard that and thought "But then we don't GET the big gate draws of NYY-NYM; LAA-LAD, CWS-CHC, OAK-SFG, STL-KC, some cool World Series rematches. How do we get BOTH?"

Radical realignment got tossed out there to maximize regional games (fewer road trips to other coasts) and because with the marquee matchups happening 16 times, they can draw 4x the large 42,000 a game crowds they get for the 4-game marquee matchups.

The two problems with that are:
#1 - It ticks off the fans. Destroying tradition and organizing like NBA/NHL makes you no different than those leagues, only with the sport that's SLOWER, without dunks, buzzerbeaters, hits, sudden-death overtime and fights.

#2 - Big gate draws for rivalry games in the regular season is a myth. HOU-TEX shows us. For a decade, HOU/TEX was drawing 43,500 for interleague series -- EVEN WHEN HOUSTON WAS LOSING 107 GAMES. In 2016, Texas won the AL West, Houston was 3 games back of the wild card with 2.5 weeks left, and the 18-game season series drew an average of 32,500. It went from "Circle the date" must-get ticket, to an ordinary series.



You're a wise sage. I think the "holdup" with that concept (8-8 / 8-8) is that you have 3 PTZ/MTZ teams in the AL, and 5 in the NL. Which means MIN-KC-CWS-TEX-HOU, STL-CHC-MIL would end up in the West divisions. That is double the West Coast trips they have now (And MORE if Portland or Vancouver is team #32) and they absolutely don't want that. So that's how we get from "Ease of scheduling" to "We want radical realignment."



You're right. It's not JUST that, though. While I do think that over time, people would get used to it and adapt -- like they did with interleague play; and the one-game wild card -- you're removing over 116+ years of AL-NL tradition.
This is good, but I like the eastern/western conference with DH. Having a DH guarantees more jobs.

Just like Vancouver then... ;-)

If it were purely a land issue, I would think something nearby Pacific Central train station as there is a lot of older industrial land / brownfield and underused rail yards.

Then again, it's more than just a land issue :)
How is Vancouver any worse then Denver?
I still think you're a wise sage, but DH rule would be phased IN, not out. No way MLB goes to war with the MLBPA over THAT; not when the "worst that can happen" is NL owners pay a little bit more money for a better hitter, and end the risk of their $30 million ace running the bases.

It also makes roster CONSTRUCTION easier for the GMs: The difference between NL bench costs and AL DH spots are not that much. And the head-to-head W-L records in games of interleague and World Series are staggeringly in AL favor.

I'm anti-DH because of the principle of it, and I enjoy the NL late-game bullpen/lineup strategy decisions it presents. But I fully accept the reality that it's going to be "All DH" at some point. It's never ever be "No DH in MLB" again.


Also, have you MISSED watching the IBB pitches? 99.998% of the time, it's just wasted time while a pitcher (on a pitch count) tosses four times.
Agreed.
 

EventHorizon

Bring Back Ties!
Now the realignment part. Personally, I don't think very many fans want the AL/NL to disappear. What we want is FAIR pennant races with lots of teams in the race for a long time. We don't want playoffs like the NBA, where half the league makes it.

As a realist, I understand that making balanced schedules is at odds with the modern TV start time problem. So here's my "Traditionalist" Radical Realignment concept.
I do NOT "favor" this radical realignment to a 16-NL, 16-AL, two divisions of 8 each. But I understand that an eight team division probably isn't going to happen; and this is my compromise if MLB is hell bent on joining the West together:

American League: BAL, BOS, NYY, CLE || DET, CWS, MIN, KCR
National League: CHC, STL, MIL, COL || CIN, PIT, PHI, ATL
Pacific League: SFG, LAD, SDP, ARZ || SEA, OAK, LAA, Portland
Continental League: TEX, HOU, MIA, TBR || NYM, WAS, TOR, Montreal

18 against your league (126 games)
36 games interleague games - 1 (three-game) series against each team in three of the other six divisions per year. (Play the whole league home/away every 4 years).


#1 - We get the West for TV purposes that the West needs.
#2 - Each division has THE EXACT SAME schedule.
#3 - Each LEAGUE has a schedule that's at maximum 24 games different. As of right now, it's 57 games different.

#4 - We do it with limited damage to the AL/NL structure. It's based on "revisionist history." Back in 1957, you had two eight-team leagues playing 154 games against each other, winner to the World Series. The Pacific Coast League was an open league with 8 teams doing the same thing. Instead of the Dodgers/Giants/Athletics' moving west and destroying the PCL, I'm just pretending they "joined it" and make it a third major league. The proposed Continental League becomes the "fourth major league."


In Baseball America's radical plan, there's a combined 2128 seasons of each city's team being in their current league totally wiped out.
In this concept, we're only changing ONE QUARTER of the combined tenure (568 seasons).

The top 12 teams by tenure in their city & league do not leave the AL or NL. 14 of the top 17 teams remain in their current league.

The remaining NL teams have an average of 99 seasons in their city in the NL.
The remaining AL teams have an average of 96 seasons in their city in the AL.
The PCL has only 41 years AVG in their AL or NL city (326 seasons)
The CBL has only 30 years AVG in their AL or NL city (242 seasons)


The most radical changes are obviously the PCL and CBL. The PCL would go from 110 games in the PTZ/MTZ to 126. No Central Time Zone teams in their division (AL West). Rivalry games with SF-OAK, LAA-LAD, LAA-SD, PORT-SEA.


The CBL includes six of the nine shortest tenures in their current city in their current league (including the bottom three).

HOU (5 AL Seasons) - just switched leagues. Stays with Texas. No longer in the AL West (win for them).

WAS (13 NL Seasons) - "just arrived" from Montreal. Washington baseball history was two versions of the American League Senators until 1973.

TB (20 AL Seasons) - is a one of the newest four franchises. They are 968 miles from their closest AL East "Rival" (BAL) and 1167 miles from NYY.
In this model, TB gets Miami and Washington (Closer than BAL), Houston and Texas (closer than NYY). The Mets instead of the Yankees (about the same), keeps Toronto.

MIA (25) is a one of the newest four franchises. They get Tampa as a rival. They keep former NL East foe NYM, and WAS, and MON.

MON (36) was in the NL from 1969-2004. They're coming back so it's almost at zero. They now have a division rivalry with Toronto, face Washington (who took their team), and the Mets who were their very first opponent in 1969.

TOR (41) Going to have an easier time winning their division by leaving the Yankees/Red Sox. Keeps a NY rival. Gains Montreal as a rival. Adds TEX as a rival, which is odd, but they've had a couple heated encounters the last few seasons, so that could go "Red Wings-Avalanche" style.
Texas (46) has never liked being in the West anyway for TV and travel reasons.

You have three pairs who've always been geographically isolated by distance or culture: HOU-TEX, MIA-TB, MON-TOR.


You may now lose your minds.



I've been thinking about baseball expansion and realignment for a long time. I'm a traditionalist when it comes to baseball and I like your ideas but I'd take them even a step further. I hate interleague play. I also don't think I'll ever get used to the Astros as an AL team (hell, I still have a hard time thinking of the Brewers as an NL team). So here is my alignment and schedule idea for regular season and playoffs.

I prefer 4 divisions of 8 teams so I'd do this:

AL East - BAL, BOS, CLE, DET, NYY, TB, TOR, WAS
AL West - CWS, KC, LAA, MIL, MIN, OAK, SEA, TEX

NL East - ATL, Carolina (or Indy, Louisville, Columbus, or some other eastern city), CIN, MIA, Montreal, NYM, PHI, PIT
NL West - ARI, CHC, COL, HOU, LAD, SD, SF, STL


Washington was an AL city for many years so I put them there. I put Houston and Milwaukee back into the leagues that I'm used to seeing them in. Weird to most people I'm sure, but I like it. Of course it can be adjusted depending on where expansion teams are. If a western city were the other expansion team I think there's some shifting around that could be done.

Now I know what you're thinking. There are some teams that really don't fit in their divisions, travel is going to be terrible for them. Well let me bring you to the part that I completely understand is a total pipe dream and the most radical part of my alignment. The extra travel is compensated by the fact that they don't have to travel to the other divisions. That's right. In my setup, not only is interleague play gone, interdivisional play is gone.

Here is my schedule:

Every team plays the other 7 teams in their own division 22 times, 11 home and 11 away for a 154 game schedule. That's it. Exactly the way baseball was when it was 2 leagues of 8 teams.

Now to the part of my setup that may be somewhat realistic. The playoff format (and the main reason I went with 4 divisions of 8). I realize you're never going back to the division winners being the only playoff teams and I wouldn't want that anyway, so I'd do this:

Division winners make the playoffs (quite obviously). The next 4 teams in the division qualify for the playoffs. Those 4 teams play a one game playoff (2 vs. 5 and 3 vs. 4) with those winners also playing a one game playoff. Winner of that mini 'play-in' tournament takes on the division winner in a best of 5 series for the division championship. Then a 7 game LCS and a 7 game WS in which the team with the better record has home field advantage. I like this because now 20 of the 32 teams will make it to the postseason, 16 in the play-in tournament and 4 to the playoffs proper. It gives teams something to play for all year long. That has to improve attendance league wide. And it also makes the pennant races important as you'll surely want to avoid a play-in game if you can (one of my favorite changes recently to baseball is the addition of that second wild card team).

So that's it. Again, pipe dream on the regular season schedule and alignment but I do really like the playoff format here.
 

OG6ix

Registered User
Apr 11, 2006
4,453
1,350
Toronto
If/When Montreal gets an expansion team it should be in the same division as Toronto, Boston and New York. The close proximity to all of these teams will create built in rivalries and travelling fans.
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
If the expansion fee is 1 billion.... how is Montreal a lock? Dont know who would put up the 2.25 billion cad (1.25 cad expansion fee + 1 billion for stadium) required for a Montreal baseball team.

You will have no problem finding investors for the franchise. A new stadium is a whole different story. I'm not against some public support but ultimately team owners will have to have more skin in the game than simply a franchise some sort of partnership is needed. Otherwise you have threats of moving if they don't get what they want.

Montreal still has to support he Big O which needs a new roof (300-400$m) and one day will need to be tore down anyway which was estimated to cost $700m a few years back. They have to take it down piece by piece and can't simply blow to pieces as a subway station/line is located underneath. I wish they could simply bite the bullet and tear it down instead of investing more + pay yearly operating costs while only organizing a handful of events per year and having only a few tenant offices.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
The problem of alignment seems to be that there are not enough Southeastern teams (only Atl, TB and Flo, really). Assuming that MONT and PORT get in, I think the best is like this (but, minor adjustments wouldn’t bother me at all if the teams involved feel it’s better for them):

NL East1: MONT, NY, Pit, Phl
NL East2: Atl, Flo, Cinc, Mil
NL West1: Stl, ChiC, Col, Hou
NL West2: Arz, LAD, SD, SF

AL East1: Tor, Det, NYY, Bos
AL East2: TB, Was, Bal, Cle
AL West1: Min, CWS, KC, Tex
AL West2: PORT, LAA, Oak, Sea

Div: 12 Games = 36
Geo Split Div: 9 Games = 36
(For the standings, there are only 2 divisions in each league. The 1 and 2 splits are for scheduling purposes).
Rest of League: 6 Games = 48
Same Div, Opp League: 6 Games = 24 (West2 vs West2 for example)
Other Interleague Designated Rival (Min-Mil eg), or special series: 12 Games

This is similar to KevFu’s idea for the NHL, although not as complete. I am keeping, for the most part, the current league structure in place. But, this gives extra interleague games within the time zone, which should make travel easier, and increase viewership on the local level because of comfortable start times.

That’s a 156 game schedule. I would then give the PA its choice: a) A guaranteed day off each week with 2 scheduled double-headers to make up for the AS break, or b) No double headers, and 2 weeks with no off days. They can have it either way….

Playoffs:
Division Winners + Next 4 teams in each league
Round 1: Div Winners byes…Best 2 of 3 for the Wild Card, all at home of better team
Round 2: Best 2 of 3, all at the home of the Div Winner
LCS: 4 of 7 on a 2/3/2 basis
WS: 4 of 7 on a 2/3/2 basis
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->