MLB Changes 2020

[Silent Wind of Doom]

17 hours ago, KDubK414 said:

I agree wholeheartedly Gotham! At this point, I'm 38, and that means they've been in the National League longer in my lifetime, than in the AL. 18 years in the AL as opposed to 20 in the NL. People around here that were and are old enough to remember the Braves time here were ecstatic to hear the news, as the old rivalries could be restored. I love the division we play in, as it's always competitive. I know Pirates and Reds fans won't exactly agree as of late as it's pretty much been a combo of Brews, Cubs, and Cardinals. 

 

But would you prefer beating up on whichever three of the Twins, White Sox, Tigers, and Indians aren't good that year?

 

17 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

Honestly, if anyone should’ve switched leagues, it should’ve been the Diamondbacks. Astros to the NL West and AZ to the AL West. They had a World Series in the NL West, but I still feel like they haven’t really established much of a rivalry in the NL that anyone would really miss. The rivalry with the Dodgers is as fabricated as can be (and could be easily replicated with the Angels), and NOBODY is gonna miss 20+ Diamondbacks Rockies games a season. Houston has a bit of a history with the NL West already, anyway.

 

39 minutes ago, kroywen said:

I've never understood why the Diamondbacks didn't make the switch, rather than the Astros. The AL is relatively light on teams west of the Rockies, especially given that the two West Coast powerhouses (Dodgers and Giants) are in the NL. And the D-Backs didn't have a 50 year history in the NL.

 

Granted, if the D-Backs did move to the AL, the Astros would've had to move to the NL West to even out the divisions. But I think Houston in the NL West (where they were pre-1994) is much more natural than in the AL West.

 

If I recall correctly, a mixture of spring training/minor leagues and large chunk of retired Illinois transplants resulting in a big local Cubs fandom was the reason for Arizona wanting to be in the NL despite the original plan being an AL expansion.

 

15 hours ago, ThunderCeltic said:

For the love of Jimmy Carter just eliminate interlague play and the wild card. Go back to the 1969-1993 4 division format. If you don't win your division: TOUGH

 

In a time when people are complaining about baseball being boring and out of touch, you want to make it so that there are less playoff races down the stretch and less games.   The Wild Card Game and the races have infused a lot of excitement into seasons that would be missing it otherwise.

 

The Wild Card needs to stay.   It's the best tool to combat teams that don't deserve getting in making it on the strength of a weak division.   It's the college playoff of baseball.

 

Having the Texas teams in the West has always made sense of me culturally.   It's not until the recent posts about time zones that I rethought it.   That is a rough situation.   You could also split into four divisions for each league, punishing a team that performs worst and wins their division by having them partake in the Wild Card Game possibly.   

 

After shirking all of my responsibilities to try to work out some models that both keep everyone within one time zone and maintain very emotional rivalries, I'm really finding it tough without moving a team from one league to the other again and/or winding up with silly things like when Atlanta was in the West while the Reds and Cubs were in the East.

 

For that matter, I just realized how weird it is that Dallas is in the NFC East.   

[simtek34]

1 hour ago, Brandon9485 said:

If the Brewers and Padres unveil uniforms that are widely accepted, will there be a reason for this board to exist? (Sarcasm)

Well, there would still be the NBA City Uniforms and the NFL's Reebok/Nike Monstrosities

[Silent Wind of Doom]

9 minutes ago, simtek34 said:

Well, there would still be the NBA City Uniforms and the NFL's Reebok/Nike Monstrosities

 

Plus, we still have to argue over whether the Angels should be the Los Angeles Angels or the Anaheim Angels.

[Gothamite]

27 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

Plus, we still have to argue over whether the Angels should be the Los Angeles Angels or the Anaheim Angels.

 

You have been away a long time.  That one's long over.   

[dont care]

3 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

Plus, we still have to argue over whether the Angels should be the Los Angeles Angels or the Anaheim Angels.

California Angels...

[coco1997]

5 hours ago, jmac11281 said:

I would say maybe 1993 or 1994 but I may be forgetting about a certain look that didn't like

 

I'd lean towards '93, as that was the last year of the "BiG" era Brewers before they introduced their navy, forest green and metallic gold look the following season. 

[Digby]

4 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

Plus, we still have to argue over whether the Angels should be the Los Angeles Angels or the Anaheim Angels.

 

OC Angels. Not an abbreviation, just OC. 

[SFGiants58]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

You have been away a long time.  That one's long over.   

Oh, it’s not over. It’s never over. It’s not over until we can time travel to 2002 and I can keep Dusty Baker from flying into Anaheim. Of course, that would make the three-in-five less enjoyable.

[JayMac]

2 hours ago, coco1997 said:

 

I'd lean towards '93, as that was the last year of the "BiG" era Brewers before they introduced their navy, forest green and metallic gold look the following season. 

That's right. The Motre Bame look definitely wasn't as good as the BiG. 1993 is the right choice then.

[AstroCree]

7 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

For that matter, I just realized how weird it is that Dallas is in the NFC East.   

 

Arizona Cardinals were also part of the NFL East till 2002. 

 

2 hours ago, dont care said:

California Angels...

 

Anaheim Angels

[JayMac]

7 hours ago, insert name said:

 

Arizona Cardinals were also part of the NFL East till 2002.

That one at least made sense at one time as the Cardinals were in Chicago and then St. Louis until they moved to Arizona in 1988.

[The_Admiral]

10 hours ago, Digby said:

 

OC Angels. Not an abbreviation, just OC. 

 

Don't call it that.

[cajunaggie08]

18 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Having the Texas teams in the West has always made sense of me culturally.   It's not until the recent posts about time zones that I rethought it.   That is a rough situation.   You could also split into four divisions for each league, punishing a team that performs worst and wins their division by having them partake in the Wild Card Game possibly.      

How does it make sense culturally? I know we're all a bunch of sun belt states full of transplants, but Texas is also southern enough that its very distinct from the west. We have more in common with the Braves fan base than the Mariners or A's.

[dont care]

22 minutes ago, cajunaggie08 said:

How does it make sense culturally? I know we're all a bunch of sun belt states full of transplants, but Texas is also southern enough that its very distinct from the west. We have more in common with the Braves fan base than the Mariners or A's.

Texas is west of the Mississippi, viewed as the south west. Part of the “Wild West”. Ect.

[Gothamite]

True, but culturally, today, Texas is more South than West.

[SFGiants58]

Texas was in the Confederacy, so it’s the South.

[cajunaggie08]

9 minutes ago, dont care said:

Texas is west of the Mississippi, viewed as the south west. Part of the “Wild West”. Ect.

It may be viewed as that and the Rangers/Fort Worth may play that stereotype up, but for the majority of Texas' population doesnt view itself as western.

[dont care]

Just now, cajunaggie08 said:

It may be viewed as that and the Rangers/Fort Worth may play that stereotype up, but for the majority of Texas' population doesnt view itself as western.

The Deep South does though. They aren’t viewed in the same vein as as California Oregon and Washington. But they are veiled as the south west like Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Nothing wrong with that they just aren’t viewed as the south like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and the Carolinas 

[cajunaggie08]

10 minutes ago, dont care said:

The Deep South does though. They aren’t viewed in the same vein as as California Oregon and Washington. But they are veiled as the south west like Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Nothing wrong with that they just aren’t viewed as the south like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and the Carolinas 

There is a reason its always been tough to peg what region Texas falls into and often it can best just be viewed as being its own region. its not southern enough for the deep south. it doesnt have enough mid-plain qualities to fall into that midwest grey-area that kansas and the other plains states do. The populated parts of the state are nothing like new mexico and arizona so its not really western enough despite the "wild-west" persona being Texas' unique identifier in popular culture. 87% of Texans live east of I-35 so Texas' population is much more connected to Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mexico than our western neighbors.

 

its always been a pet peeve of mine to lump Texas sports teams in western divisions just because we're west of the mississippi river. There are thousands of miles between our cities and the next closest western sports cities and we rarely have any cultural bonds that cause rivalries to naturally happen. Its why the proposed Pac-16 expansion into Texas wouldn't have worked because Texas is not a west coast state. It just happens to be the southwestern-most section of the eastern US population so it will always seem different that than the middle of that population.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

19 hours ago, Gothamite said:

You have been away a long time.  That one's long over.   

 

It never really ends.   Just like NNOB v. NOB.   It always comes back around.

 

3 hours ago, cajunaggie08 said:

How does it make sense culturally? I know we're all a bunch of sun belt states full of transplants, but Texas is also southern enough that its very distinct from the west. We have more in common with the Braves fan base than the Mariners or A's.

 

1 hour ago, cajunaggie08 said:

There is a reason its always been tough to peg what region Texas falls into and often it can best just be viewed as being its own region. its not southern enough for the deep south. it doesnt have enough mid-plain qualities to fall into that midwest grey-area that kansas and the other plains states do. The populated parts of the state are nothing like new mexico and arizona so its not really western enough despite the "wild-west" persona being Texas' unique identifier in popular culture. 87% of Texans live east of I-35 so Texas' population is much more connected to Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mexico than our western neighbors.

 

its always been a pet peeve of mine to lump Texas sports teams in western divisions just because we're west of the mississippi river. There are thousands of miles between our cities and the next closest western sports cities and we rarely have any cultural bonds that cause rivalries to naturally happen. Its why the proposed Pac-16 expansion into Texas wouldn't have worked because Texas is not a west coast state. It just happens to be the southwestern-most section of the eastern US population so it will always seem different that than the middle of that population.

 

A bunch of people kinda explained the whole cultural thing.   While St. Louis is referred to the Gateway to the West, Missouri, Kansas, etc. seem to have more in common with Illinois, Iowa, and the Plains/Midwest area.   As for the distinction of which area Texas fits into, it's tough, but here's why I always think of it where I always think of it.

 

The South/Deep South/American Southeast I categorize by a hot, wet climate with forests and swamps and a lack of cultural and culinary effect from non-Northern/Western European cultures (German, French, Irish, British, Russian, Polish, etc) post the 15th century introduction of the idea of barbecue.   Florida is the exception to this as it is was originally owned by Spain and is highly affected by the cultures of Latin America, especially in its Southern reaches.   In fact, Florida is a distinct patchwork of a multitude of... well... everything!   But, it kinda hangs out down there surrounded by the South, so it's hard to put it in any other category other than by itself.

 

 

The Southwest I categorize by a hot, dry climate, a past of being held by the Spanish and afterward Mexico, and a much later history of Native residence (while they'd been mostly wiped out/displaced in the east).   The latter two have a large effect on food and architecture.

 

 

The truth about Texas is that given its large size that spans the location it does, the state is a lot of things and could easily just be called its own thing, but if we're categorizing it, it features the earmarks of the latter.   Only a quarter to a fifth of the state may be that arid climate with scrublands and red rocks, but you can't find that in any of the Southeastern states.   And that's without taking into account the Wild West stereotypes and cultural touchstones that have roots in the pioneer and cowboy spirit.   I've always found their rebellious nature planted firmly in their own sovereignty than the part they had in the Confederacy.

 

The one that trips me up is Oklahoma.   They seem even more of a hodgepodge of the cultures around them.