MLB Expansion Realignment Ideas

[jpeters1734]

I'm expanding my MLB save in the near future with the idea of Nashville, high likely as the next expansion city, and Portland, MLB wants to move into new markets in the west. I'm assuming Oakland moves to Vegas, sorry Oakland, and Tampa resolves its stadium issues. Tampa is actually a huge market and if the stadium can be built downtown Tampa, their attendance problems would be solved.

We all know that the MLB will realign to 8 divisions of 4-teams. Based on my assumptions above, this is my proposed alignment (see screenshot).

I'm pretty happy with the alignment, but I switched KC and MIA since they seem to fit better with the new division.

What are your thoughts?

[CH1MA3RA]

It's a perfectly fine realignment for a sim. But irl they likely wouldn't split the Cards and Cubs rivalry up, just like they wouldn't split LAD/SFG and NYY/BOS.

[CH1MA3RA]

I would do something like this:

East
AL: NYY, BOS, TOR, BAL
NL: NYM, PHI, PIT, WSN

Midwest
AL: CWS, CLE, DET, MIN
NL: CHC, STL, MIL, CIN

Central
AL: KCR, COL, HOU, TEX
NL: ATL, TBR, MIA, NSH

West
AL: LAA, SEA, LVA, POR
NL: SDP, SFG, LAD, ARI

[Pelican]

I personally (somewhat old school) would like to see a return to eight-team leagues. In my sims I have one Wild Card in each League, so only 8 of 32 teams in the playoffs. MLB would never do that, of course. I guessed at Buffalo (the WildWings) and Charlotte (the Hive) as the two expansion teams.

NL East = ATL, PHL, NYM, CHA, WSH, PIT, CIN, MIA
NL West = LAD, SF, SD, COL, AZ, STL, MLW, CHC
AL East = BUF, NYY, BOS, CLV, BLT, TBY, TOR, DET
AL West = LV, LAA, SEA, KC, HOU, TEX, MIN, CWS

Problems here include the Chicago teams in the West, and the Florida teams isolated from mostly northern teams in their leagues. On the latter, could switch TBY and WAS, so that travel would be less, and build up regional interest with ATL, CHA, TBY, MIA. Could also group by north/south instead. Basically same distances flying, but with time zones.

NL North = NYM, PHL, PIT, CHC, MLW, SF, COL, CIN
NL South = ATL, CHA, WSH, MIA, LA, SD, ARZ, STL
AL North = BOS, NYY, BUF, CLV, DET, CWS, MIN, TOR
AL South = TBY, BLT, KC, HOU, TEX, LAA, LVA, SEA

Works great until you are down to finding one more southern team. Seattle? Much closer to LVA ad LAA than Toronto.

Maybe lose the league identifications?

Northeast = TOR, BOS, NYY, NYM, PHL, CLV, BUF, PIT
Southeast = ATL, MIA, TBY, CHA, CIN, WSH, STL, BLT
Northwest = SEA, SF, COL, MIN, CHC, CHW, MLW, DET
Southwest = SDP, LAA, LAD, ARZ, HOU, TEX, LVA, KCR

Looks great until you get to STL in the Southeast, and MLW and DET in the Northwest, plus KCR in the Southwest a bit of a stretch.

Maybe put the expansion teams in more convenient places?

[CH1MA3RA]

I think the balance works out rather nicely if you do away with the subleagues and go with 4 regional divisions of 8 teams:

East- NYY, BOS, NYM, PHI, BAL, WSN, TOR, PIT
North- MIN, MIL, CHC, CWS, DET, CLE, CIN, STL
Central- ATL, NSH, MIA, TBR, HOU, TEX, KCR, COL
West- LAD, LAA, SFG, SDP, ARI, SEA, POR, LVA

[Brad K]

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, and Portland, MLB wants to move into new markets in the west. I'm assuming Oakland moves to Vegas, sorry Oakland, and Tampa resolves its stadium issues. Tampa is actually a huge market and if the stadium can be built downtown Tampa, their attendance problems would be solved.

No, they won't. That "huge market" is spread around a bay and having a stadium in a different spot just changes who finds it inconvenient to go. But I still think you should leave the Rays in St Pete.

[garry1221]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

What are your thoughts?

Not horrible. I'd probably swap COL and ATL. I hate divisions that span 3 time zones. A couple other things stuck out to me. I like seeing in state teams in opposite divisions personally, overall, while odd to think of this happening, you're not too far off.

[zappa1]

I would have left Miami in the NL and KC in the AL.

[mgom27]

Geographical is what MLB needs to do Northeast,Centraleast,Altantic,Southeast and then Northcentral,Midwest,Northwest,Southwest.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by CH1MA3RA

I would do something like this:

East
AL: NYY, BOS, TOR, BAL
NL: NYM, PHI, PIT, WSN

Midwest
AL: CWS, CLE, DET, MIN
NL: CHC, STL, MIL, CIN

Central
AL: KCR, COL, HOU, TEX
NL: ATL, TBR, MIA, NSH

West
AL: LAA, SEA, LVA, POR
NL: SDP, SFG, LAD, ARI

Oh yeah, I think that is a better alignment, thanks!


I’m trying to keep this league realistic instead of fantasy. The MLB wants more division winners so they will go with 8 divisions. I don’t foresee them blowing up the AL/NL and aligning purely on geography.

[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.

[Brad K]

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.

Yes.

And with more games in than out.

[kq76]

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 with you, but the problem is while we may both prefer imbalanced schedules, with MLB going more balanced, does it really matter how many teams are in a division when the schedule is balanced? With a fully balanced schedule you might as well have 32 divisions of 1 team each. It's ridiculous, yes, but it doesn't matter. As offensive as an 8x4 structure may be to some of us, when jpeters1734 says, "MLB wants more division winners", he very well may be right. I mean, it's a lot easier to boast about being called a "division winner" than a "wild card", right? Give it enough time with a system like this and being a "division winner" will be as uncool as a "wild card".

What I think might be the key is, what structure keeps the maximum # of teams in the race for as long as possible? And unfortunately, I think 8x might do that. Just think, by the end of the season none of the teams in the AL Central might deserve to be in the playoffs record-wise (I think most people would probably agree sub .500 teams don't belong in the playoffs) yet right now the Twins lead the pack at 42-42 and I'd say all but KC has a shot at winning that division. So 4 of those 5 undeserving teams have a shot and that could very well hold down the stretch. And adding more divisions will only increase the chances of more divisions like that. With an 8x4 structure and a balanced schedule with a handful of wild cards, you could very well see no teams really out of it by September when years ago a lot of teams, maybe even most, would be well out of the race by then. It will suck, yes, but it will accomplish their likely goal.

I'm sure I'm not alone in foreseeing that there are going to be a lot more buyers than sellers at this trade deadline. The Rangers were smart to strike early as a lot of teams are likely to be left without a trade partner by the end. That isn't what I want to see. I want to see a handful of teams trade for some good players on bad teams to make themselves even better and then go on some awesome playoff runs. But I don't think MLB cares about that one bit. They're probably thinking, if more teams are in the hunt late, then more people will watch more games either in person or on tv and maybe they'll continue watching through the playoffs. It probably doesn't matter to them if no teams are seemingly head and shoulders above others leaving us with memories of great dynastic teams decades later. They're all about the now, even if the mediocrity of now leads to fans losing interest in the future.

I hated the As when they were good, but decades later I miss those days. As much as leagues love to promote parity, imparity is far more interesting. I'm not one who wants to go back to the old days of the postseason only consisting of the World Series (that's crazy by today's sensibilities), but I think there should be at least some prestige to making the postseason. And increasing the odds of .500 teams making the postseason just doesn't cut it.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by kq76

I agree with you, but the problem is while we may both prefer imbalanced schedules, with MLB going more balanced, does it really matter how many teams are in a division when the schedule is balanced? With a fully balanced schedule you might as well have 32 divisions of 1 team each.

A balanced schedule with a divisional structure is even worse than a small division. (I'm looking at you, 1979-1993 American League.)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by kq76

And increasing the odds of .500 teams making the postseason just doesn't cut it.

The professional sports record for worst won-lost team record in a league championship probably belongs to the 1981 CFL season.

That year saw the introduction of a balanced schedule, with each of the teams playing the eight other teams in the league twice. Edmonton ran away with Western Division title, finishing 14-1-1. Hamilton took the East with an 11-4-1 record.

The playoffs consisted of the top three teams in each division, with the first-place team getting a bye into the division final. Edmonton, as expected, won the West Division final. in the East, however, second-place Ottawa, which finished 5-11-0, won the division semi-final. It then upset Hamilton in the division final The Grey Cup thus consisted of a 14-1-1 club facing off against a 5-11-0 team.

What on paper would seem to be an inevitable Edmonton blow-out victory turned out to be very different. At half-time Ottawa led the game 20-1. But Edmonton rallied in the second half, and won the game 26-23 with a field goal with just three seconds left in the game, securing its fourth consecutive Grey Cup title.

[jpeters1734]

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 dont like 4 divisions at all, but it's a certainty if the MLB expands to 32 teams, each "league" will expand to 4 divisions.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I dont like 4 divisions at all, but it's a certainty if the MLB expands to 32 teams, each "league" will expand to 4 divisions.

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.

[PSUColonel]

The big trouble is re-alignment in terms of preserving geography and rivals is Colorado...it just doesn't fit in anywhere great.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by CH1MA3RA

I think the balance works out rather nicely if you do away with the subleagues and go with 4 regional divisions of 8 teams:

East- NYY, BOS, NYM, PHI, BAL, WSN, TOR, PIT
North- MIN, MIL, CHC, CWS, DET, CLE, CIN, STL
Central- ATL, NSH, MIA, TBR, HOU, TEX, KCR, COL
West- LAD, LAA, SFG, SDP, ARI, SEA, POR, LVA

4 divisions of 8 teams each with 8 WCs (preserving the current 12 PS teams) would be good, but it wouldn't maximize the # of teams staying in the race late like the 8x4 structure would and unfortunately MLB probably cares more about that than having the best teams make it.

[CH1MA3RA]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

The big trouble is re-alignment in terms of preserving geography and rivals is Colorado...it just doesn't fit in anywhere great.

A division with HOU, TEX, and KC makes the most geographic/proximity sense imo