The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[Luigi74]

23 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

The Cardinals, Cubs, and Pirates have all been in the same division since divisions were created in 1969. I think Cincy (was in the West until '93) would be the better team to separate from the pack

The Pirates should be in the East, the Phillies, Nats, and Mets are all in the same time zone, geographically closer and there was a stretch when the Buccos and Phillies were one of the fiercest rivalries in baseball. It was malpractice by the Pirates ownership at the time to allow them to be moved to the Central.

[McCall]

3 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

The Cardinals, Cubs, and Pirates have all been in the same division since divisions were created in 1969. I think Cincy (was in the West until '93) would be the better team to separate from the pack

As long as the Cardinals and Cubs are in the same division, it's fine. Those two teams being in the same league with the Pirates is good enough.

[ManillaToad]

3 hours ago, Luigi74 said:

The Pirates should be in the East, the Phillies, Nats, and Mets are all in the same time zone, geographically closer and there was a stretch when the Buccos and Phillies were one of the fiercest rivalries in baseball. It was malpractice by the Pirates ownership at the time to allow them to be moved to the Central.

 

Didn't the Braves throw a fit about not wanting to be in the Central? I may have imagined that because of how much I disliked them in the 90s

[jlog3000]

MLB

 

American League:

 

* AL East:  NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Pittsburgh

* AL North:  Chicago White Sox, Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto

* AL South: Texas, Tampa Bay, Nashville* or Charlotte*, Kansas City

* AL West: Anaheim or LA Angels, Oakland or Las Vegas, Seattle, Arizona

 

National League:

 

* NL East: NY Mets, Montreal, Washington, Philadelphia

* NL North: Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Detroit

* NL South: Houston, Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis

* NL West: LA Dodgers, San Francisco, San Diego, Colorado

 

  

9 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

Didn't the Braves throw a fit about not wanting to be in the Central? I may have imagined that because of how much I disliked them in the 90s

 

That explains how the Braves move to the NL East from the NL West when the 1994 MLB season began.

[Luigi74]

48 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

Didn't the Braves throw a fit about not wanting to be in the Central? I may have imagined that because of how much I disliked them in the 90s

If I remember right the Bud and the Braves excuse was that they wanted to form a rivalry with the new Florida Marlins, but the main reason is they didn't want the Central Time starts that came with being in a division with the Astros, Cards and Cubs.

[McCall]

1 hour ago, jlog3000 said:

MLB

 

American League:

 

* AL East:  NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Pittsburgh

* AL North:  Chicago White Sox, Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto

* AL South: Texas, Tampa Bay, Nashville* or Charlotte*, Kansas City

* AL West: Anaheim or LA Angels, Oakland or Las Vegas, Seattle, Arizona

 

National League:

 

* NL East: NY Mets, Montreal, Washington, Philadelphia

* NL North: Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Detroit

* NL South: Houston, Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis

* NL West: LA Dodgers, San Francisco, San Diego, Colorado

 

  

 

That explains how the Braves move to the NL East from the NL West when the 1994 MLB season began.

No way would Detroit and Pittsburgh swap leagues. They are "original" teams in the AL and NL, respectively. Too storied to do a 1 for 1 swap. Only way either would is if it went straight geographical, East-West leagues.

[jlog3000]

35 minutes ago, McCall said:

No way would Detroit and Pittsburgh swap leagues. They are "original" teams in the AL and NL, respectively. Too storied to do a 1 for 1 swap. Only way either would is if it went straight geographical, East-West leagues.

 

Realistically they are. Unless you have a better idea to come up with the majority of most in-state natural interleague rivalries. Hence the reason being the following in context:

 

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; BOS/MTL; PIT/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; TOR/DET

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

 

Maybe put Detroit in the AL North and Toronto in the AL East; and Pittsburgh in the NL North?

 

Anyways, aside from that, the scheduling format would be the following:

 

* inter-league games - 1 series of 3 games each x 16 teams of other league (3x16 = 48 games); with each team switching home-and-home endeavors within a two-year span

* same-league inter-division games - 2 series of 3 games each x 12 teams outside of division (6x12 = 72)

* same-league same-division games - 4 series of 3 games each x 3 teams within division (12x3 = 36)

 

Total regular-season games = 156 (6 lesser than the regular threshold of 162)

Edited March 4 by jlog3000
trying to fit Detroit and Pittsburgh in the 2-league with 4-division of 4 teams each format, while remaining in their respective leagues without swapping

[McCall]

5 hours ago, jlog3000 said:

 

Realistically they are. Unless you have a better idea to come up with the majority of most in-state natural interleague rivalries. Hence the reason being the following in context:

 

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; BOS/MTL; PIT/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; TOR/DET

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

Are you saying you would swap Detroit and Pittsburgh purely for Interleague Rival purposes?

[jlog3000]

@McCall Based on the point I'm making, yes. What else can you think of? I did it from a standpoint of in-state and/or close proximity rivalries.

 

I also said this as an alternate format (SHOULD NOT Detroit and Pittsburgh being swapping leagues):

 

"Maybe put Detroit in the AL North and Toronto in the AL East; and Pittsburgh in the NL North?"

 

But how would it fair for the natural interleague rivalry pairings (asking in general by the way)? One of the things I can think of is this:

 

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; TOR/MTL; BOS/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; DET/PIT

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

 

With this modification, Detroit and Pittsburgh would be a natural rivalry while the Boston and Philly rivalry be retained (like if it was in the current 3-division realignment per league). Other than that, I don't know. But the regular-season schedule format based on what I explain would still be stood by. Just lesser games (taking off 6 games total), and no more 4-game series or 2-game series. And within a normal week between Monday to Sunday, there would be a 'break' (or day-off) in between separate series.

[McCall]

3 hours ago, jlog3000 said:

@McCall Based on the point I'm making, yes. What else can you think of? I did it from a standpoint of in-state and/or close proximity rivalries.

 

I also said this as an alternate format (SHOULD NOT Detroit and Pittsburgh being swapping leagues):

 

"Maybe put Detroit in the AL North and Toronto in the AL East; and Pittsburgh in the NL North?"

 

But how would it fair for the natural interleague rivalry pairings (asking in general by the way)? One of the things I can think of is this:

 

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; TOR/MTL; BOS/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; DET/PIT

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

 

With this modification, Detroit and Pittsburgh would be a natural rivalry while the Boston and Philly rivalry be retained (like if it was in the current 3-division realignment per league). Other than that, I don't know. But the regular-season schedule format based on what I explain would still be stood by. Just lesser games (taking off 6 games total), and no more 4-game series or 2-game series. And within a normal week between Monday to Sunday, there would be a 'break' (or day-off) in between separate series.

I'm not talking about the scheduling, but there is no reason Detroit should be in the NL and Pittsburgh in the AL. And how does what division they're in even effect their interleague rival pairings? It makes no sense.

[jlog3000]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

I'm not talking about the scheduling, but there is no reason Detroit should be in the NL and Pittsburgh in the AL. And how does what division they're in even effect their interleague rival pairings? It makes no sense.

 

What do mean it makes no sense? If it were from an interleague standpoint, Detroit and Toronto are somewhat close [as the Motor City is roughly close to Windsor, Ontario], despite not being in the same state or province , just like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are within Pennsylvania.

 

And for the record, it's only a 'What If' situation (NOT propaganda) in some sort of oversight or foresight, should the MLB would eventually get to 32 teams in the future, with 2 leagues having 4 divisions of 4 teams each instead of 2 divisions of 8 teams each (which would ruin the purposes of proper balanced scheduling).

 

Hence I added Montreal as the 31st and the 32nd being Charlotte (Carolina) or Nashville (Tennessee) in the AL South [alongside Texas, Tampa Bay and Kansas City] to pair up with Atlanta in the NL South [alongside Houston, Miami (Florida) and St. Louis].

[McCall]

8 minutes ago, jlog3000 said:

 

What do mean it makes no sense? If it were from an interleague standpoint, Detroit and Toronto are somewhat close [as the Motor City is roughly close to Windsor, Ontario], despite not being in the same state or province , just like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are within Pennsylvania.

 

And for the record, it's only a 'What If' situation (NOT propaganda) in some sort of oversight or foresight, should the MLB would eventually get to 32 teams in the future, with 2 leagues having 4 divisions of 4 teams each instead of 2 divisions of 8 teams each (which would ruin the purposes of proper balanced scheduling).

 

Hence I added Montreal as the 31st and the 32nd being Charlotte (Carolina) or Nashville (Tennessee) in the AL South [alongside Texas, Tampa Bay and Kansas City] to pair up with Atlanta in the NL South [alongside Houston, Miami (Florida) and St. Louis].

Who a team plays an extra game against in Interleague play would never justify the 1 for 1 swap of two of the longest tenured teams in each league. The Pirates have been in the National League since 1887. The Tigers in the American League since 1901. If anybody in the league office ever proposed this, they would literally be laughed out of a job. Interleague play is not the top priority when it comes to any realignment. Probably near the bottom. Historical rivalries first, geographical (within their respective leagues) second. Interleague rivals would just fall wherever they may. Especially now that everybody plays everybody.

[jlog3000]

36 minutes ago, McCall said:

Who a team plays an extra game against in Interleague play would never justify the 1 for 1 swap of two of the longest tenured teams in each league. The Pirates have been in the National League since 1887. The Tigers in the American League since 1901. If anybody in the league office ever proposed this, they would literally be laughed out of a job. Interleague play is not the top priority when it comes to any realignment. Probably near the bottom. Historical rivalries first, geographical (within their respective leagues) second. Interleague rivals would just fall wherever they may. Especially now that everybody plays everybody.

 

I'm not ignoring that fact when it comes to Detroit being in the AL and Pittsburgh in the NL since both of their inceptions. Hence I said the swapping part of both the Tigers and the Pirates in opposite leagues was only a "What If" situation, whether it would become a reality or not and if it's upto the league's management themselves. In the end, it's still about making profits with ticket sales. Which is why I like that each team should face the rest at least one series of 3 games maximum (hence the 48 total games for interleague competition, so that each team faces the other 16 of the opposite league for year A, and for year B with locations rotated to compete the 2-year spans of a home-and-road aspect); with the rest of the competition being games within the same league, as each team faces the other 3 4-team division teams (12 in total) twice (meaning a home and road series each), and the division play being just 12 games (or 4 3-game series) against the 3 division foes.

 

Also later I came up with an alternate situation under a format where a league has 4 divisions with 4 teams each that would retain Detroit in the AL and Pittsburgh in the NL, but only put in different divisions; which would be the Tigers and the Pirates in the same North Division for both of their respective leagues as a natural interleague rivalry. On a sidenote, 2-game and 4-game series are just lame to me. Traditionally 3-game series from a regular-season competition standpoint are proper.

 

Now if it's bad to talk about swapping Detroit and Pittsburgh to different leagues for realignment purposes, then how come there wasn't any outrage or backlash when Milwaukee went to the NL in 1998 (after competing in the AL that began in like 1970), and also Houston to the AL in 2013 (after competing in the NL that began in 1960 or 1961), which might I add that both are in their current leagues as we speak to this day? And I understand that those two in particular aren't super MLB originals like Pittsburgh and Detroit; they are expansion franchises, I get that.

[McCall]

5 minutes ago, jlog3000 said:

 

I'm not ignoring that fact when it comes to Detroit being in the AL and Pittsburgh in the NL since both of their inceptions. Hence I said the swapping part of both the Tigers and the Pirates in opposite leagues was only a "What If" situation, whether it would become a reality or not and if it's upto the league's management themselves. In the end, it's still about making profits with ticket sales. Which is why I like that each team should face the rest at least one series of 3 games maximum (hence the 48 total games for interleague competition, so that each team faces the other 16 of the opposite league for year A, and for year B with locations rotated to compete the 2-year spans of a home-and-road aspect); with the rest of the competition being games within the same league, as each team faces the other 3 4-team division teams (12 in total) twice (meaning a home and road series each), and the division play being just 12 games (or 4 3-game series) against the 3 division foes.

 

Also later I came up with an alternate situation under a format where a league has 4 divisions with 4 teams each that would retain Detroit in the AL and Pittsburgh in the NL, but only put in different divisions; which would be the Tigers and the Pirates in the same North Division for both of their respective leagues as a natural interleague rivalry. On a sidenote, 2-game and 4-game series are just lame to me. Traditionally 3-game series from a regular-season competition standpoint are proper.

 

Now if it's bad to talk about swapping Detroit and Pittsburgh to different leagues for realignment purposes, then how come there wasn't any outrage or backlash when Milwaukee went to the NL in 1998 (after competing in the AL that began in like 1970), and also Houston to the AL in 2013 (after competing in the NL that began in 1960 or 1961), which might I add that both are in their current leagues as we speak to this day? And I understand that those two in particular aren't super MLB originals like Pittsburgh and Detroit; they are expansion franchises, I get that.

You can't seriously be comparing the Brewers and Astros swap to a Tigers and Pirates swap. The years you listed are literally the reason why they weren't as up in arms (although the Astros switch DID get some push back). 27 years and even 50 years are nowhere near the same thing as 124 years and 137 years. You basically answered your own question. And neither had the historical footprint that the Tigers and Pirates did. Two original franchises vs 2 post 1950s expansion teams.

[jlog3000]

7 minutes ago, McCall said:

You can't seriously be comparing the Brewers and Astros swap to a Tigers and Pirates swap. The years you listed are literally the reason why they weren't as up in arms (although the Astros switch DID get some push back). 27 years and even 50 years are nowhere near the same thing as 124 years and 137 years. You basically answered your own question. And neither had the historical footprint that the Tigers and Pirates did. Two original franchises vs 2 post 1950s expansion teams.

 

Fine, I'll admit that I got the answer that I expected from said question. So I will drop the subject out by the end of this post momentarily. But before I do, however, I'm getting to a point. If having Detroit and Pittsburgh to remain in the AL and the NL respectively means SO much to an unequivocal and overwhelming majority of fans of the league from a standpoint of historical tradition, etc. (which again I get that, and I'm not dismissing it at all), then would the rest of the fans (and also you) ignore or dismiss this hypothetical alternate format (without the Tigers and the Pirates to swap to opposite leagues, might I add), should the MLB have 4-team divisions in both the AL and the NL; meaning that we could hypothetically see the Tigers in the AL North and the Pirates in the NL North, meaning that the Blue Jays would be in the AL East, and the rest would stay the same, based on that hypothetical proposed format of MLB division realignment? Which is all I ask, nothing more.

[Luigi74]

If you're going to try and reignite the Pirates-Phillies and Jays-Tigers rivalries they need to be in the same division, even if MLB would go back to the old style of inter league play those rivalries shouldn't be cast off to the gimmick series, they should be fighting it out for the division or playoff spot.

 

When MLB would schedule the Pirates and Tigers series on a summer weekend there was a large number of fans who'd make the trip to the other city for the games, plus as someone who's lived in both, the cities are very similar. Not everyone realizes that Detroit and Pittsburgh are a 5ish hour drive apart, PNC Park is actually closer to Comerica Park in Detroit (286 miles) than it is to Citizens Bank Park in Philly (310 miles).

 

[Walk-Off]

On 3/4/2024 at 12:42 PM, jlog3000 said:

MLB

 

American League:

 

* AL East:  NY Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Pittsburgh

* AL North:  Chicago White Sox, Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto

* AL South: Texas, Tampa Bay, Nashville* or Charlotte*, Kansas City

* AL West: Anaheim or LA Angels, Oakland or Las Vegas, Seattle, Arizona

 

National League:

 

* NL East: NY Mets, Montreal, Washington, Philadelphia

* NL North: Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Detroit

* NL South: Houston, Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis

* NL West: LA Dodgers, San Francisco, San Diego, Colorado

 

On 3/4/2024 at 2:19 PM, jlog3000 said:

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; BOS/MTL; PIT/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; TOR/DET

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

 

Since others have touched on the Detroit Tigers-Pittsburgh Pirates league swap, @jlog3000, I will focus on another flaw that I see in your proposal.

 

You have the National League have a team in Montréal again while keeping the Toronto Blue Jays in the American League, you insist that every MLB team have a prioritized interleague rival, and then ... you pass up the opportunity to create a Toronto vs. Montréal rivalry — an all-Canadian, seemingly no-brainer matchup — and instead give the new Montréal team a prioritized rivalry with ... the Boston Red Sox?  Why?  Is it just for the sake of having a baseball equivalent of Canadiens vs. Bruins?

 

If prioritized interleague rivalries in MLB must exist, I think that a saner approach with this particular alignment of teams would be the Blue Jays vs. the new Montréal club, the Red Sox vs. the Philadelphia Phillies, the Tigers staying in the AL, the Pirates staying in the NL, and the Tigers and the Pirates being each other's prioritized rivals.

[BrySmalls]

On 3/5/2024 at 5:14 AM, jlog3000 said:

AL/NL East: NYY/NYM; BAL/WSH; TOR/MTL; BOS/PHI

AL/NL North: CHW/CHC; MIN/MIL; CLE/CIN; DET/PIT

AL/NL South: TEX/HOU; TB/FLA; NSH or CHA/ATL; KC/STL

AL/NL West: ANA or LAA/LAD; OAK or LV/SF; SEA/SD; ARI/COL

 

This is perfect.

[jlog3000]

Thanks @BrySmalls At least you got that part of my point, as I was trying to move on from the 'swap' of Detroit and Pittsburgh. Hence I did this alternate variation in case a hypotethical realignment within the MLB would occur after possibly having two new franchises as expansion.

[McCall]

1 hour ago, BrySmalls said:

 

This is perfect.

Actually it's not. I just noticed he also separated the Cardinals and Cubs into different divisions. That will never happen.