How MLB could have temporarily realigned its teams for 2020

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,535
353
Don't say anything at all
Baltimore, Boston, NY Mets, NY Yankees, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Washington

Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Miami, Tampa Bay

Chicago Cubs, Chicago Sox, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minnesota, St. Louis, Texas

Arizona, Colorado, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle

There has to be an even number of teams in each grouping, hence why three groupings have 8 teams but the other has only 6.

8-team groupings: 4*9 = 36 + 3*8 = 24 for a total of 60 games

6-team grouping: 5*12 = 60

4 division winners and 12 best overall runners up even if one division has more playoff teams than another, with teams crossing over to divisions if necessary to create 4 bubbles for postseason.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I thought they should have done quarantine ball, 6 teams in 5 sites:

NL East - NYM, WAS, PHI, ATL, MIA, TB
NL Central -MIL, CHC, STL, PIT, CIN, HOU
NL West -ARZ, COL, LAD, SD, SF, TEX
AL East - NYY, BOS, BAL, TOR, CLE, DET
AL West - LAA, OAK, SEA, CWS, MIN, KC

60 = 12 vs each opponent.
Playoffs - 1st & 2nd place advance, move to one site. Seed division winners 1-5, seed second place teams 6-10.
First round: 7 vs 10, 8 vs 9 (Wild Card games)
Division Series 1 vs 8/9/10, 2 vs 7/8/9, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5
Semis
World Series.
 

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,535
353
Don't say anything at all
The idea behind my alignment was to keep teams in the same time zone together. While I appreciate the thought behind your proposal, the West Divisions still span 3 time zones, plus you're sacrificing some regional rivalries.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
The idea behind my alignment was to keep teams in the same time zone together. While I appreciate the thought behind your proposal, the West Divisions still span 3 time zones, plus you're sacrificing some regional rivalries.

Right, time zones didn't matter to me, because instead of having a regional schedule and traveling to different parks like they are doing; I was putting each of those 6-team groups in a dome together and playing 3 games a day, back-to-back-to-back; like the NHL hub.

Plus the rivalries I broke up aren't big at all...

TB is geographically isolated from BAL, BOS, NYY, TOR and have been in a group with them for 22 years, while BOS/NYY for 117, BAL/NYY/BOS for 67, TOR/BAL/BOS/NYY for 43. And they get Miami and Atlanta as closer rivals for a year.

HOU used to be in that exact division staring in 1998. They "lose" a Texas rivalry that started like six years ago.

TEX loses their rivalries with everyone, but Texas was two time zones away from SEA, LAA, OAK since they got a team, and only got HOU like six years ago.

My new AL Wesst used to be in the old AL West... LAA, CWS, MIN, OAK together since 1969 when they made divisions. They were together in one AL before that. KC and SEA joining in 1977... until 1994 when they went to three divisions.
 

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,535
353
Don't say anything at all
Scheduling three games between different teams in one park on one day would not work. All 6 teams would need a lot of time to prepare. The turnaround between games would be too quick for it to work.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Scheduling three games between different teams in one park on one day would not work. All 6 teams would need a lot of time to prepare. The turnaround between games would be too quick for it to work.

I probably under-estimated how long between games it would take to be as safe as the NHL (which is 2 full hours between games)

However, the NHL started from a bubble concept; while MLB started from this "Let the COVID into Miami, Saint Louis, etc!" scenario they got going now.

I had a lengthy argument with someone on a baseball board which really helped me refine the concept.
- Locker rooms are basically "put cleats on rooms." These guys would be in a bubble. They dress at hotel, get on a bus, get off the bus, put their cleats on and warm up/go.

- You'd need a secondary field (or two) at each site for practice/warmups and to have the taxi squad guys play each other. Back then, I was thinking: Chase Field (Diablo Stadium), Marlins Park (U Miami Stadium), Tropicana Field (Closeby Spring Training Site), Globe Life (TCU), and Minute Made (UH or Rice).

Game 1 practices at MLB site, when that game starts, teams from Game 2 use the alt-site, the bus over. When they leave, Game 3 teams get the field. When Game 3 teams leave the practice site, all the taxi squad guys play a game.

I was thinking 40-man rosters = 15 players on taxi squad, minus injured list guys; and since over half would be pitchers, you'd be looking at 40 guys. They just divide up time and play ball for a while til everyone gets their work in.


But upon further review, I think three in a day could be rough. Maybe you do two games at one site and one at another. Which would mean you'd need to go:
NYC, San Francisco/Oakland, Chicago Cubs/White Sox, Texas (new park, old park) and finding a fifth would be tough without crazy distances like BAL/WAS or LAD/ANA... so I was thinking Omaha (TD Ameritrade and Werner Park). Omaha is basically an MLB Park but would need a few minor upgrades (massive amounts of space because it's used to doing 4 teams at a time for the College World Series) and Werner would need upgrades like Sahlen Field in Buffalo got.
 

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,535
353
Don't say anything at all
MLB might do the bubble for the postseason. They didn't do one for the regular season because they studied it and found out the requirements were too much, given that teams play almost every day of the week with far fewer off days compared to NBA and NHL.
 

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,516
2,813
NW Burbs
I'm fine with what they did.

Moving forward, I'd like to see them keep more of this cross-divisional play. I would rather the White Sox have the opportunity to visit Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cincinnati every season than play their four divisional rivals 19 times.

Something like:

Division: 12 games x 4 = 48
Cross-Division Interleague: 6 games x 5 = 30
Other Divisions in League: 6 games x 10 = 60
Other Interleague: 3 games x 8 = 24

Now you're playing all but 2 teams every year, visiting almost every park at least every 2 years, and you've gone from playing 76 divisional games to 78 division or cross-division games, so travel and start times will be similar to what they already are.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
MLB might do the bubble for the postseason. They didn't do one for the regular season because they studied it and found out the requirements were too much, given that teams play almost every day of the week with far fewer off days compared to NBA and NHL.

Nah, they did it for advertising money. No one would get their in-stadium signage or naming rights money if they played neutral site games.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I'm fine with what they did.

Moving forward, I'd like to see them keep more of this cross-divisional play. I would rather the White Sox have the opportunity to visit Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cincinnati every season than play their four divisional rivals 19 times.

Something like:

Division: 12 games x 4 = 48
Cross-Division Interleague: 6 games x 5 = 30
Other Divisions in League: 6 games x 10 = 60
Other Interleague: 3 games x 8 = 24

Now you're playing all but 2 teams every year, visiting almost every park at least every 2 years, and you've gone from playing 76 divisional games to 78 division or cross-division games, so travel and start times will be similar to what they already are.

I think that's bad for business. While you want to see your regional rivals more (because they're regional rivals!) the reason they are regional rivals is because it's possible for both to be good at the same time and fans to argue over who's better.

When you're in a division, you know who's better. So their limited meetings aren't as big of a deal. Mets/Yankees is a big deal because it's the battle for the city, you get 3 to 6 games for bragging rights. But in the same division, an 80-win Mets team winning the season series 10-8 over the 90-win Yankees means nothing.
 
Last edited:

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,516
2,813
NW Burbs
I think that's bad for business. While you want to see your regional rivals more (because they're regional rivals!) the reason they are regional rivals is because it's possible for both to be good at the same time and fans to argue over who's better.

When you're in a division, you know who's better. So their limited meetings aren't as big of a deal. Mets/Yankees is a big deal because it's the battle for the city, you get 3 to 6 games for bragging rights. But in the same division, an 80-win Mets team winning the season series 10-8 over the 90-win Yankees means nothing.

Think you misunderstood. Mets-Yankees, Cubs-Sox, Dodgers-Angels would still only be 6 games, as it was for 15 or so years and is every 3rd year now (and this season).

The difference is more Mets-Red Sox, Yankees-Phillies, Braves-Rays, etc.
 

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,535
353
Don't say anything at all
Think you misunderstood. Mets-Yankees, Cubs-Sox, Dodgers-Angels would still only be 6 games, as it was for 15 or so years and is every 3rd year now (and this season).

The difference is more Mets-Red Sox, Yankees-Phillies, Braves-Rays, etc.

Considering MLB will likely expand before the end of the decade your proposed schedule format might not be implemented. The expansion teams could very well be in Montreal and in either Memphis or Nashville in Tennessee (both cities have strong arguments to land a team).

The alignment I proposed here would adopt a new structure for MLB that is largely based on the history of the game up until the early 1960s. It divides the 24 Eastern and Central time teams into 3 8-team leagues with most of the AL and NL teams being located in Northeastern and Midwestern markets that had MLB at some point prior to the first west coast moves in 1958, and the third league is a realization of the proposed Continental League. The fourth league would contain all MT/PT teams and be a realization of the Pacific Coast League's major league dreams from the 1950s.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Think you misunderstood. Mets-Yankees, Cubs-Sox, Dodgers-Angels would still only be 6 games, as it was for 15 or so years and is every 3rd year now (and this season).

The difference is more Mets-Red Sox, Yankees-Phillies, Braves-Rays, etc.

Yeah, I did misunderstand. Sorry.

I think MLB does it better than everyone else with regard to scheduling (not that they don't have a ton of room to be better). MLB has the excuse they need to align in a maximized fashion. Leagues are too big to play everyone in a balanced schedule. And East/West conferences simply don't work. They're unbalanced and inequitable.

MLB has the excuse of forming as two separate leagues from coast to coast so you're playing 142 games against half the league and 20 against the other, which is better. If I can't make the AL playoffs, why am I playing AL teams?

Of course, back in the day, they had 16 teams in two leagues of 8 that never played and it was the "golden age" of baseball and everyone loved it. As Big Z and I have discussed, when they expand, they should just go back to that. So take the Old AL/NL, add two new leagues (all the West teams, all the South teams) and you're golden. Play only 4 game series, and you (reduce travel!) have 16 vs League (112) and 48 interleague, which is 12 teams, once each, 4 per division. Schedule is balanced in terms of travel each season.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->