MLB Geographical Realignment

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Shackdaddy

I am genuinely sorry for you because you have blinders on to everything baseball outside of Chicago. You cannot or refuse see the big picture. And that is sad.

You may very well be right.

Originally Posted by Shackdaddy

And you say it is hard to create a schedule. Are you creating a schedule? Am I? No. There are people who are paid to do that and they have a brand-new invention to help them do it. You may have heard of it. It is called a computer.

Actually, up until relatively recently the MLB schedule was done by hand. It's now done with the help of computers but it still needs to be finished by humans with pencils.

Originally Posted by Shackdaddy

I wish they would offer me the job I would love to take a crack at it.

Besides that I am 67 years old and on a fixed income. So I could use the extra money.

Then I won't advise you to keep your day job.

As far as I can tell, the main benefit of your proposal is to increase rivalries. But rivalries are tricky things to create. The Yankees and Red Sox, for instance, haven't always been bitter rivals. Back in the 1920s-30s, the Yanks had a big rivalry with the Philadelphia A's. The Red Sox, in contrast, were so bad that the Yankees probably didn't even give them a second thought. And the NY Giants never had a rivalry with the Boston Braves, even though they were in the same cities as the Yankees and Red Sox.

Likewise, some rivalries aren't bilateral. The Padres, for example, have a rivalry with the Dodgers, but the Dodgers don't consider the Padres to be their main rivals. The same goes for the Brewers and Cubs.

In fact, teams competing at the same level for the same prize makes for rivalries. I have a friend who is a Red Wings fan and he is always talking about the rivalry between his club and the Colorado Avalanche back in the 1990s. And they weren't even in the same conference. Similarly, the Yankees and the Royals had quite a rivalry in the Reggie Jackson/George Brett era. Just putting teams in the geographically compact divisions doesn't necessarily create rivalries.

Right now, the six games that the Cubs and White Sox play against each other are usually sell-outs. That's because the crosstown series is still a popular gimmick. Have them play 12 or 14 games against each other, however, and those become just another 12 or 14 games in the schedule. If one or both teams aren't competitive, fans won't turn out to see them play, regardless of any rivalry.

MLB has a lot of problems right now, and Rob Manfred, the owners, and the players' union are doing their best to make sure those problems get worse. I don't think the current alignment is one of those problems.

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Yeah, that's a good point. One thing I like about Chicago baseball is that a. it's usually set up so that the Sox are in town while the Cubs are away and vice versa and b. even when it's not, if you're in the mood to see a game you know you're going to get a wide variety of teams, not just the club that just played in Wrigley the night before. In fact, if your thing is "cutting down on travel costs" (which, why is this a factor in 2022?), then you'd have to specifically change the Cubs and White Sox and also the Dodgers/Angels and Giants/A's and Yankees/Mets schedules to make the teams more boring to follow in those metro areas. And frankly, those are 4 of the largest markets in the country; why are we making life harder for the largest fanbases in the game?

This was the natural result of two independent circuits that operated in parallel, such that almost anyone that cared enough to do it and had the luxury of time/money to do so could cross town (NY, SF, LA, CHI) or a state (PA, OH, MO) to "see" the other league, and at virtually any time. Now, the illusion of interleague play means at best once every six years the Padres will be in Texas, at all, and now even other cities in the same circuit only come to town once per year. Having Colorado and Phoenix in the same league means the same for people that want to "see" the AL. The inevitable piling of the same-city teams in the same division will flush that away forever too.*

And travel costs are a thing because the billionaires pulling Manfred's strings say they are. These are the same people that throw out ham sandwiches in minor league parks and arrange homestays to avoid paying for 70 nights at the Red Roof Inn for some kid.


*never mind that we all have devices in our pockets on which we can literally see any player on any night, which wasn't the case when merger/interleague/etc was conceived in the 1930s or whenever it was.

[Shackdaddy]

Originally Posted by kq76

You know, you started this thread off okay. But then you just went off the deep end and kept going and going.

Your idea of putting teams from the same city in the same division isn't crazy (other leagues do it) and Joefromchicago made an especially interesting point which I had never considered before, but it seems like somewhere along the line you took offense to the criticism and just couldn't deal with it. It's okay, not everyone loves it. Maybe more people will like your next idea more. I'd bet that most ideas, by anyone, get shot down. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have some merit or that all your ideas will always be shot down. Take a breath.

Actually I don’t take offense to any of this. In the grand scheme of things the alignment of major league baseball and it’s schedule means nothing.

The only thing that really bothered me was when a couple of people said I was splitting up the Cubs and the Cardinals. If they had bothered to read my original post they would’ve seen that that was not the case at all.

It’s just that I see baseball as a distant third in the United States and slipping. That is why they made all the rule changes. And that is why they’re following the NBA and NHL model of having every team play every other team in the same season. I am not making those decisions.

I don’t want to see MLB be like the NBA and NHL in terms of the playoffs. 12 teams are enough. And I am happy that the wildcard is the best of three instead of one and done. The only change I would make to that is make the divisional round best of seven.

And to show you that I can be a traditionalist I would like to see the schedule cut back to 154 games. Which it was for almost every season between 1901 and 1960.

Right now I’m going to turn away from baseball and focus on basketball, I live in Phoenix and the Suns are the number one team in the NBA. That is what I really care about right now.

Thanks for listening and commenting.

[nutt]

I'm not sure if this is a troll post that's going so bad, it's blown up into hilarity or if it was an actual new school approach to radical realignment.

Baseball will always have purists and those who do have a new wave approach that also have some purism to them (me, and I still hate the DH in the NL).

History exists for a reason... no, not to write more history but not to ignore it. Baseball thought about geographical realignment in the 90s and the majority of the owners nixed it as it was so bad, it was deemed toxic waste (refer to Baseball Weekly 1997 articles about it).

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by BBGiovanni

This was the natural result of two independent circuits that operated in parallel, such that almost anyone that cared enough to do it and had the luxury of time/money to do so could cross town (NY, SF, LA, CHI) or a state (PA, OH, MO) to "see" the other league, and at virtually any time. Now, the illusion of interleague play means at best once every six years the Padres will be in Texas, at all, and now even other cities in the same circuit only come to town once per year. Having Colorado and Phoenix in the same league means the same for people that want to "see" the AL. The inevitable piling of the same-city teams in the same division will flush that away forever too.*

And travel costs are a thing because the billionaires pulling Manfred's strings say they are. These are the same people that throw out ham sandwiches in minor league parks and arrange homestays to avoid paying for 70 nights at the Red Roof Inn for some kid.


*never mind that we all have devices in our pockets on which we can literally see any player on any night, which wasn't the case when merger/interleague/etc was conceived in the 1930s or whenever it was.

I haven't seen any evidence that the owners are pulling on Manfred to cut travel costs. Certainly this realignment thing is purely in the minds of fans at this point. To be perfectly honest, I feel like the OP pulled "travel costs" out of his butt and is using it as a debate point after the fact. He's being dishonest but then, we now have 3 pages of him getting butthurt by criticism so this is pretty par for the course.

[Shackdaddy]

Originally Posted by nutt

I'm not sure if this is a troll post that's going so bad, it's blown up into hilarity or if it was an actual new school approach to radical realignment.

Baseball will always have purists and those who do have a new wave approach that also have some purism to them (me, and I still hate the DH in the NL).

History exists for a reason... no, not to write more history but not to ignore it. Baseball thought about geographical realignment in the 90s and the majority of the owners nixed it as it was so bad, it was deemed toxic waste (refer to Baseball Weekly 1997 articles about it).

Let me assure you I am not a troll. I am 67 years old. I study history. Not just baseball history but all history involving the United States of America.

And geographical realignment is a legitimate idea to maybe improve the game of baseball to more people than just the purists. I have been a baseball fan for over 60 years. And not that it matters but I have played OOTP baseball for 20 years.

And just because I’m not a Hall of Famer like a lot of the people on this thread that.does not mean I love baseball any less or have any less knowledge of baseball than they do.

As far as geographical realignment in the 90s. That was a different story. Because back then was the very start of interleague play. 2022 is way different than 1997 besides the fact it happens to be in a different century. Baseball has fallen to third place in popularity in this country behind the NFL and the NBA. That is a fact.

Each team will be playing 46 interleague games next year. That is a fact. Whether purists like it or not that is the way it’s going to be. The American and National Leagues are going to be more blended than ever.

The way baseball is slipping in popularity something radical needs to be done In order to attract the casual fan and especially the younger generation.

If a 12-year-old kid is asked who LeBron James is or who Tom Brady is they will be able to tell you in a second. If you ask that same kid who Mike Trout is they will say “why would you put a microphone on a fish”.

The only thing constant in life is change. You either adapt to it or you get left behind. That is what is happening to Major league baseball right now.

Baseball purists are the best because they love and cherish the history of their sport. But they are also the worst because they are not willing to adapt to modern times and what the world is today.

I also have additional rule changes that could be made. Including one that would make the purists soil their undergarments. I will save that for another time.

[Gruber_Tagged_Him]

Originally Posted by Shackdaddy

Let me assure you I am not a troll. I am 67 years old. I study history. Not just baseball history but all history involving the United States of America.


I also have additional rule changes that could be made. Including one that would make the purists soil their undergarments. I will save that for another time.

Please tell me you'd like to change a walk to 3 balls instead of 4. I would love to have that discussion.

[calvin12]

Originally Posted by Shackdaddy

Looking at it from the outside they are both loser teams. Combined they have won a total of two World Series in the last 104 years. 2005 and 2016.

The fact that you said the White Sox are a loser team shows that you don’t like the White Sox therefore they can be a rival. If they played in the same division. Which is going to happen maybe as soon as next year whether you or I like it or not. We have no say in the decision.

Not liking them in no way makes them a rival. They are irrelevant in this town.

[snarls200]

Originally Posted by Shackdaddy

You are right. I made a mistake about the Guardians and the Indians. I just haven’t gotten used to it yet. But I did fix my original post regarding that. I changed Indians to Reds.

This may come as a surprise to you but the vast majority of baseball fans do not live in Chicago. There are 22 cities in the major leagues that only have one team. And once Oakland moves to Las Vegas within the next five years there will be 24.

How do you know that a schedule cannot be created that would have the White Sox and the Cubs not in Chicago at the same time except when they played each other. And even if it couldn’t, I don’t see what the big deal is.

The Cubs and White Sox are not rivals because they do not play in the same division. Or even in the same league. My plan would put them in the same division which would create a brand new rivalry.

Except its 24 or26 cities currently. Depends on how you classify the Angels

[Astil]

Not a sarcastic question: Why do we need divisions based on region?

As an NBA fan I'm all for eliminating both divisions and conferences in that sport. MLB having AL and NL plays on tradition so I would keep that, but would toss out divisions. 6 games against in League opponents, 4 against opposite League and start and end the season with 'rivalries week' where you play two rivals an additional 4 games (2 in Apr, 2 in Sep) for 8 total additional games.

152 games, say top 4 in each League make it in. Keeps tradition afloat while also stopping most lesser lights from stealing playoff spots.

[jg2977]

Originally Posted by Clovidequano Dovatha

Brewers fit better in the AL, not the NL, in my view. Astros do the same in the NL, as well. They started there, and that's where they should have always been kept, for sure. At least if we were to have between 24 and 32 teams in the overall MLB setup, anyway.

I'd rather have the Giants and Dodgers back in New York, but that's not likely going to ever happen again. Same thing with the Braves in Boston, or the Twins and/or Rangers back in Washington as the Senators, and the Nationals back in Montreal as the Expos, where they each belong.

I generally hold to a considerably more traditional view on where the teams should be placed, at least for the most part, if not entirely. I would be more in favor of having there actually be four major leagues connected to each other, as part of the MLB framework, with those being the National League, the American League, the Federal League, and the Continental League, in truth.

The 16 Classic Teams would each be in the leagues that were around prior to the expansion era of MLB history that they were each in, meaning the National League and the American League, respectively. While the Federal League would consist of eight teams primarily, if not entirely, east of the Mississippi River, and the Continental League would consist of eight teams primarily, if not entirely, west of it.

If MLB had 32 teams present for it, I'd favor this sort of configuration for it, or something like it, probably, although it's not likely to happen, if ever, of course.

Major League Baseball:

National League:

Boston Braves
Brooklyn Dodgers
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati Reds
New York Giants (New York City [Manhattan])
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
St. Louis Cardinals

American League:

Boston Red Sox
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
New York Yankees (New York City [Bronx])
Philadelphia Athletics
St. Louis Browns
Washington Senators

Federal League:

Chicago Whales
Florida Marlins (Miami)
Milwaukee Brewers
Montreal Expos
New Jersey Generals (Newark?)
New York Metropolitans (Mets)
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Toronto Blue Jays

Continental League:

Arizona Diamondbacks (Phoenix)
California Angels (Anaheim)
Colorado Rockies (Denver)
Houston Astros
Kansas City Royals
San Diego Padres
Seattle Mariners
Texas Rangers

Of course, many of you may disagree here, with the above, in regards to alignments and all, or with certain team names in question listed above, but that's just fine with me, in truth. But these are just some thoughts I have about things as they currently stand or may soon stand for MLB. And I don't think Las Vegas will get the Athletics either, in the next five years, for that matter, even if they did manage to get the Raiders away from Oakland in reality.

Thank you for your time and attention and all here, then, everyone. That's all for this post here, I think, at the very least. CD out.

Why five teams in the New York City area and two in Philadelphia? That would be seven teams within a two-hour drive from each other! But I don't see any teams in Los Angeles or San Francisco. That means no Dodger Stadium or Oracle Park.

[68pirate]

Any realignment needs to take into account market size, since MLB is so reluctant to introduce a salary cap. The OP suggests the Pirates share the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox. Competitively, they should probably be in a division with the Reds, Orioles, Guardians and Rays.

[Clovidequano Dovatha]

I'm a traditionalist, more or less, you might say. As for Los Angeles, and the surrounding area, at least in the above configuration, the Angels could cover that area, at least. Other leagues could easily cover San Francisco, among other areas, or they could perhaps be reserved for later expansion franchises in one or more of the four leagues listed above in my proposed configuration, jg2977.

Also I'd have the leagues all play 154-game schedules only against the other teams in their respective leagues, with no interleague play except during the All-Star Tournament and the postseason, ideally. Meaning NL teams only against NL teams, and so on and so forth for every league, as possible and all, for most, if not all, of the entire regular season.

But such a configuration is not likely to happen, if ever, in MLB for quite some time, at the very least, for sure. Even if it would be interesting to see, it won't happen, most likely, in the future, if ever.

Talk more later, as time permits and all here, of course. Thank you for your time and attention and all here, everyone. That's enough for this post here, at least, I think. CD out.

[mytreds]

Yes, 30$+ tickets, what a win for the fans.

MLB is slowly dying. Enjoy it while whatever shell of it lasts.

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by Astil

Not a sarcastic question: Why do we need divisions based on region?

Because some people love to change things, and see change every 5 to 10 years. Because they think no change is bad. Because tradition to them is old, worthless and “boring”.

[andyhdz]

Originally Posted by jg2977

Why five teams in the New York City area and two in Philadelphia? That would be seven teams within a two-hour drive from each other! But I don't see any teams in Los Angeles or San Francisco. That means no Dodger Stadium or Oracle Park.

Apparently the entire West coast only deserves like 3 mlb teams. The 50s would be proud

[Guy Desrosiers]

Originally Posted by Shackdaddy

Next year will be the first time in the history of baseball that every team will play each other in the same season. That was part of the deal between the players and the owners. That means fans of one team can see every other team at least once every two years.

Each team will play 14 games with each team in its division. 56 games. Six games with each team in the other two divisions in the league. 60 games. And 46 interleague games (Three games each with 14 teams in the other league and four games against one team in the other league).

Given that, the terms American League and National League are no longer relevant.

The next logical step to me is geographical realignment of the major leagues. Like the NBA and the NHL.

Here is my proposed major league baseball league structure.

There will be an eastern conference and Western Conference with three divisions in each conference each division consisting of five teams.

Eastern Conference Northeast division: Red Sox, Mets, Yankees, Phillies and Pirates.

Eastern Conference Southeast division: Orioles, Nationals, Braves, Rays and Marlins.

Eastern Conference Mideast division: Blue Jays, Guardians, Reds, Tigers and Twins

Western Conference Midwest division: Brewers, Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals and Royals.

Western Conference Southwest division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, D backs and A’s (I am putting Oakland in this division because I predict within the next five years they will be moving to Las Vegas).

Western Conference Pacific division: Padres, Angels, Dodgers, Giants and Mariners.

This is a win-win. No existing rivalries will be lost like the Red Sox and the Yankees, Dodgers and Giants, Cardinals and Cubs. And rivalries like Cubs and White Sox, Reds and Guardians, Royals and Cardinals will be created because they will be playing 14 games against each other. And they will be in the same division.

That is a win for the fans.

It’s a win for baseball because it creates more interest that baseball desperately needs. It is in third place behind the NFL and the NBA and slipping. And it will reduce the cost of travel.

Another idea:

With the expanded wild card playoffs pushing the baseball season into November. Another change that could be considered just cutting back to schedule from 162 games to 154 games. Which could simply be done by cutting back the number of games with a divisional opponent from 14 to 12.

And with that expand the divisional round of playoffs from from best of five to best of seven.

The bottom line is that MLB’s league structure needs to be brought into the 21st-century.

Any feedback will be appreciated.

The Eastern Conference NE Division would be a death sentence for the Pirates. They don't spend money now, could you imagine if the had both New York teams and the Red Sox in their division.:

[Shackdaddy]

Until a salary cap is instituted in Major league baseball teams like the Pirates are always going to be at the bottom of the barrel no matter what division they play in.

That’s one of the reasons why the NFL is more popular than MLB.

I predict realignment will be coming by the end of the decade. Especially if MLB expands to 32 teams.

[Syd Thrift]

If we're going by popularity of the sport, the NBA is still growing and has a much younger fanbase than either the NFL or MLB. A soft cap it is! And much, much more player autonomy, and a league that caters to the players, and for that matter a league where people actually know who the players are.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Shackdaddy

Until a salary cap is instituted in Major league baseball teams like the Pirates are always going to be at the bottom of the barrel no matter what division they play in.

That’s one of the reasons why the NFL is more popular than MLB.

The NFL was already more popular than MLB when the Pirates won their last world series, so there's much more to it than that.