32 team MLB alignment (please critique)

[Mike Lowe]

Looking to expand MLB to 32 teams and wanted to setup a system sort of like the divisions in the NFL. Tell me if you see any out of place:

AL East
Baltimore
Boston
New York Yankees
Toronto

AL South
Houston
Kansas City
Tampa Bay
Texas

AL North
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland
Detroit
Minnesota

AL West
Los Angeles Angels
Oakland
Portland (expansion)
Seattle

NL East
New York Mets
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

NL South
Atlanta
Florida
San Antonio (expansion)
St. Louis

NL West
Arizona
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego
San Francisco

NL North
Chicago Cubs
Cincinnati
Colorado
Milwaukee

Not crazy about Colorado's and St. Louis' placement...thanks for the input!

[Raffke]

That looks like good news for Tampa Bay to me.

[Afino]

Moving St. Louis away from Chicago is criminal.

Are the two expansion teams set in stone? If you're going to have San Antonio, you could just flip St. Louis and San Antonio.

Or -

Move Colorado to the AL West, change Portland to Nashville (or something), and do the above.

[kq76]

divs of 4 are too small IMO:

AL East
Baltimore
Boston
New York Yankees
Toronto
Chicago White Sox
Cleveland
Detroit
Minnesota

AL West
Los Angeles Angels
Oakland
Portland (expansion)
Seattle
Kansas City
Texas
San Antonio (expansion)
Houston

NL East
New York Mets
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Cincinnati
Atlanta
Miami
Tampa Bay

NL West
Arizona
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego
San Francisco
Chicago Cubs
Milwaukee
St. Louis
Colorado

Have the div winners make the playoffs plus the next best 2 as WCs.

[Athletics17]

Originally Posted by Afino

Moving St. Louis away from Chicago is criminal.

Are the two expansion teams set in stone? If you're going to have San Antonio, you could just flip St. Louis and San Antonio.

Or -

Move Colorado to the AL West, change Portland to Nashville (or something), and do the above.

Agreed. I would move cincinnati or milwaukee to the south and put st. louis back.

[White Sox]

I would have put a team in Las Vegas before I put one in Portland. Think of the gambling revenue!

[Mike Lowe]

Ok I moved Houston back to the NL and into the NL South. I moved Colorado to the AL South. St. Louis moved to the NL North with the Cubs.

I have the playoffs set for just the 4 division winners in each league to advance but I'm not sure that will be best. To think that Boston and New York could NEVER meet in the playoffs...I just don't want to make the tournament too big like the NHL or anything like that.

The only other option available is to have 4 division winners PLUS 4 wildcards per league. That would be half the league making the playoffs. This would mean 4 rounds and that's just too much.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Mike Lowe

The only other option available is to have 4 division winners PLUS 4 wildcards per league. That would be half the league making the playoffs. This would mean 4 rounds and that's just too much.

Like I said, "Have the div winners make the playoffs plus the next best 2 [between both divs of each league] as WCs.", which is still only 4 teams per league and 3 rounds. That way if 3 teams from the AL east are the best then all 3 get in (plus the AL west winner).

[Mike Lowe]

Originally Posted by kq76

Like I said, "Have the div winners make the playoffs plus the next best 2 [between both divs of each league] as WCs.", which is still only 4 teams per league and 3 rounds. That way if 3 teams from the AL east are the best then all 3 get in (plus the AL west winner).

Thanks kq, I didn't see your post until I already responded somehow.

[Le Grande Orange]

You could also elect to have each 16-team league operate with three divisions and then have three division winners plus one wild card qualifying for the post-season in each league.

Note that if you use OOTP's custom playoffs option you could choose to have the top two teams in each division qualify for the playoffs as opposed to the two division winners plus two wild card teams in each league qualifying. Note that a playoff format involving the top two teams in each division, with the second place team in one division playing the first place team in the other division, was considered by MLB in 1974 but was ultimately rejected. (It had also considered a two division winners plus two wild cards in each league playoff format, in addition to splitting the leagues into three divisions and having three division winners and one wild card qualifying for the post-season.)

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by kq76

divs of 4 are too small IMO:

Arent' we in a league with four team divisions?

[mgom27]

AL Northeast
Yankees
Mets
Red Sox
Blue Jays
AL Altantic
Washington
Phils
Pittsburgh
Balitmore
AL North Central
Minnesota
Brewers
Cubs
White Sox
AL Central
Indians
Reds
Tigers
Indiana

NL Southeast
Altanta
Florida
Orlando
Tampa Bay
NL Midwest
Royals
Cardinals
Rangers
Astros
Colorado
NL West
Hawaii
Arizona
Seattle
Portland
NL California
Dodgers
A's
Angels
Padres
Giants

[trreinhard]

Several seasons ago, I actually added Portland and San Antonio as expansion teams in the AL and realigned both leagues into 4 divisions of 4. The idea of moving a team from the NL to the AL, such as Houston, never was something I wanted to do.

Here is the initial division structure I used:

AL East: Baltimore, Boston, NY Yankees, Toronto
AL North: Chicago White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota
AL South: Kansas City, San Antonio Missions, Tampa Bay, Texas
AL West: LA Angels, Oakland, Portland Beavers, Seattle

NL East: NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
NL North: Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati, Milwaukee St. Louis
NL South: Atlanta, Colorado, Houston, Miami Marlins
NL West: Arizona, LA Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco

A season after having this alignment in place, I wanted to make a slight change because I thought the NL South covered to much space stretching from Denver to Miami. I wanted to move Colorado to the NL North, Cincinnati to the NL East, and Washington to the NL South. I didn't make this change because I had an independant 16-team league that I was planning on merging in to create a 48-team MLB with East and West Conferences.

[Muzamba]

Mine is pretty similar to trreinhard's above. I did one of these in another thread a few days ago, so I just moved a few teams around:

AL East: Baltimore, Boston, NY Yankees, Toronto
AL Central: Cleveland, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Minnesota
AL Midwest: Chi. White Sox, Kansas City, San Antonio*, Texas
AL West: LA Angels, Oakland, Portland*, Seattle

NL East: Atlanta, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Washington
NL Central: Cincinnati, Florida, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee
NL Midwest: Chi. Cubs, Colorado, Houston, St. Louis
NL West: Arizona, LA Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco

Again, my configuration keeps all the main intra-divisional rivalries (BOS/NYY, NYM/ATL, STL/CHC, LAD/SFO) and cross-divisional interleague rivalries (NYY/NYM, BAL/WAS, CLE/CIN, TBY/FLA, CHW/CHC, KCY/STL, TEX/HOU, LAA/LAD, OAK/SFO) intact, while generally maintaining correct geographical alignment.

[norva13x]

I love this kind of thing. I would do this if you want to keep the leagues as is:

AL East:
New York, Boston, Toronto, Baltimore
AL South:
Tampa Bay, Texas, Kansas City, San Antonio
AL North:
Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Cleveland
AL West:
Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Portland

NL East:
New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati
NL South:
Atlanta, Houston, Florida, Washington
NL North:
St. Louis, Chicago, Colorado, Milwaukee
NL West:
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Arizona, San Diego

I tried to find a way to put Milwaukee back in the American League were they were originally, but alas, I couldn't find a way to do it that made sense.

[Left-handed Badger]

Well, to make things simple I would just put the 2 extras in the AL.

So, the way I ended up with just now.

AL East: New York, Boston, Baltimore, Toronto (reluctantly)
AL North: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota
AL South: Kansas City, Texas, San Antonio, Tampa Bay
Al West: Anaheim, Oakland, Seattle, Portland

NL East: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York, Washington
NL North: Chicago, St. Louis, Cinncinnati, Milwaukee
NL South: Atlanta, Florida, Houston, Colorado (really not happy with Col here)
NL West: Arizona, LA, San Diego, SF

Really Colorado is the only one that doesnt quite sit right. But, I couldnt think of nowhere else to put them. Unless, for division realignment and they'd probably just trade with San Antonio which would still live them in a South division.

[Tony M]

Going slightly off-topic because the 2x4x4 reminds me of the NFL, but why if they have 'geographical' divisions are the Cowboys in the East and the Rams in the West even though Dallas is several hundred miles further west than St Louis?

[norva13x]

Originally Posted by Tony M

Going slightly off-topic because the 2x4x4 reminds me of the NFL, but why if they have 'geographical' divisions are the Cowboys in the East and the Rams in the West even though Dallas is several hundred miles further west than St Louis?

They wanted to keep the rivalries the Cowboys have with the Giants, Eagles, and Redskins. The one I think they should change is put Miami in the AFC South with Indy going to the AFC East. That makes much more sense to me. But idk

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Tony M

Going slightly off-topic because the 2x4x4 reminds me of the NFL, but why if they have 'geographical' divisions are the Cowboys in the East and the Rams in the West even though Dallas is several hundred miles further west than St Louis?

In additional to what norva13x mentioned, the NFL simply does not have a history where the divisions are strictly geographical in nature. Take a look at the 1953 NFL standings, for example. The "Western" Conference contains Los Angeles, San Francisco, and... Baltimore.

The AFL-NFL merger of 1970, as well as teams having moved to new cities, have both also played roles in creating somewhat geographical questionable divisional alignmennts.

[norva13x]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

In additional to what norva13x mentioned, the NFL simply does not have a history where the divisions are strictly geographical in nature. Take a look at the 1953 NFL standings, for example. The "Western" Conference contains Los Angeles, San Francisco, and... Baltimore.

The AFL-NFL merger of 1970, as well as teams having moved to new cities, have both also played roles in creating somewhat geographical questionable divisional alignmennts.

Or more recently, the NFC West before the last realignment, which included only one team west of the Rockies, San Francisco. The other 4 were St. Louis, Atlanta, Carolina, and New Orleans...While Arizona was in the NFC East