MLB Expansion Realignment Ideas

[ohiodevil]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Why do so many like four-team divisions? They are way too small. Five teams at a minimum, and six is better.

I agree, every time I have gone to the 4 team divisions, a sub .500 team will make the playoffs more often because they win their division. I have either had one of the current divisions have 6 teams or went back to the 8 team East/West divisions and had 4 wild card teams in each league with division winners getting a bye.

[Brad K]

Compare "Win the pennant" with "Make the playoffs".

[Brad K]

"We want lots of teams in the playoffs but we don't want lesser teams to win."

I'm amused.

[progen]

Originally Posted by ohiodevil

I agree, every time I have gone to the 4 team divisions, a sub .500 team will make the playoffs more often because they win their division. I have either had one of the current divisions have 6 teams or went back to the 8 team East/West divisions and had 4 wild card teams in each league with division winners getting a bye.

Sub .500 team could win the lousy AL Central this year. Twins leading being a game under.500. To think the lowly Tigers are 10 under .500, and only four and a half out of first. I tried to watch the Tigers/Rockies the other night, and just some pathetic baseball. Would hate to be a Detroit fan.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Which, given the new 'balanced' schedule and the six teams in each league making the playoffs, would be effectively pointless. Instead of three division winners and three wildcards in each league, it'd be four division winners and two wildcards. Hardly seems like any sort of meaningful improvement.

My league will have 8 divisions based on the educated assumption that the MLB will add divisions when they expand. If you think my assumptions are wrong, that's fine, but this isn't really the place to gripe about the future of the MLB

[Brad K]

Does that mean no wild cards?

[dodgerblue88]

What I did with my expansion is eliminate the central divisions, and revert back to East/west divisions in each league, 8 teams each.

Playoff structure is similar to present day real world setup: 6 teams from each league make the playoffs: 2 division winners (with byes) and 4 wild cards. I like this because winning the division becomes meaningful, and very rarely do I see mediocre teams make the playoffs.

I hope MLB does this for the next expansion, but it's highly unlikely.

[ohiodevil]

Originally Posted by progen

Sub .500 team could win the lousy AL Central this year. Twins leading being a game under.500. To think the lowly Tigers are 10 under .500, and only four and a half out of first. I tried to watch the Tigers/Rockies the other night, and just some pathetic baseball. Would hate to be a Detroit fan.

I am a Guardians fan

I think that either the Twins or Guardians will figure it out and will both be above .500, even if the winner only has 84-88 wins.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

My league will have 8 divisions based on the educated assumption that the MLB will add divisions when they expand. If you think my assumptions are wrong, that's fine, but this isn't really the place to gripe about the future of the MLB

It's more a case of arguing certain arrangements are not optimal for competition purposes.

[CH1MA3RA]

There are two real ways the mlb will realign, imo. The NFL model with 4x4 in each subleague or the NHL model with geographic conferences and 2x8 divisions in each.

I think both have their own merit but baseball as a whole is huge on their history, so I lean more toward the AL and NL remaining intact rather than the East v West style of the NHL.

Even with 4 divisions of 4 in each league you can still have 6 teams make the playoffs with wildcards and a 3-game series for the Wildcard Round of [seed 3 v WC2] and [seed 4 v WC1]. This idea of a sub .500 team making the playoffs (rare) and not being "deserving" as a reason to not have expanded playoff brackets is a bunch of malarkey.

[garry1221]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I'm expanding my MLB save in the near future with the idea of Nashville, high likely as the next expansion city...
What are your thoughts?

As I was typing out a longer reply, a google seach caught my eye. I think it'd be workable.

AL North: CWS, CLE , DET, MIN
NL North: CHC, CIN, MIL, STL
AL East: BAL, BOS, NYY, TOR
NL East: NYM, PHI PIT, WSH
AL South: ATL, MIA, TB, TEX
NL South: COL, HOU, KC, NSH
AL West: OAK/LV, LAA, POR, SEA
NL West: ARI, LAD, SD, SF

the souths could swap leagues, i just didnt want 3 divisions of 1 league SO close together, i spaced em out as much as possible. I made 1 tweak to the original. The post I saw had Tex and Nsh switched. I flipped em to give each league 1 expansion team. Tex or Hou could be flipped IMO.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by dodgerblue88

What I did with my expansion is eliminate the central divisions, and revert back to East/west divisions in each league, 8 teams each.

Playoff structure is similar to present day real world setup: 6 teams from each league make the playoffs: 2 division winners (with byes) and 4 wild cards. I like this because winning the division becomes meaningful, and very rarely do I see mediocre teams make the playoffs.

I hope MLB does this for the next expansion, but it's highly unlikely.

I did two 8 team divisions the only time I expanded to 32.

What kind of schedule are you using?

[Lordofbrewtown]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Which, given the new 'balanced' schedule and the six teams in each league making the playoffs, would be effectively pointless. Instead of three division winners and three wildcards in each league, it'd be four division winners and two wildcards. Hardly seems like any sort of meaningful improvement.

Agree with you. With the current playoff format and balanced schedules, there's really no reason to have more than 2 divisions per league, since there are only 2 first round bye's in the playoffs.