2 Problems With Major League Baseball

[fonz]

1) I think its stupid that the AL had a DH and the NL doesn't. Why should one conference/('league', whatever you wanna call it) play by different rules than the other in the same league (and playing for the same championship)?

2) Why is there only 4 teams in the AL West and 6 in the NL Central? Talk about ill balance. Its easier to make the playoffs in the AL West than the rest of the league and especially the NL Central which isn't fair.

[otherwilds]

It is baseball. It is unique, not cookie cutter just like eveybody else. Or you could say uber-traditionalists with their heads stuck in the sand refusing to embrace change.

[Dilbert]

We have said it multiple times already on these boards, because there cannot be 15 teams in each league. It would cause consecutive off days or an interleague game every day.

[Eye]

I agree with you on the DH. Either use it in both leagues or get rid of it completely. Well, there are 4 teams in the AL West because there are only 14 teams in the AL. There are 6 teams in the NL Central because there are 16 teams in the NL. There has to be an even number of teams in each league unless you want to have an interleague series played all the time.

[Mac the Knife]

I'm surprised you only found two problems with MLB, but I digress...

The DH:

I used to hate the DH, but now I'm a fan of it, simply due to the fact that there are no "gimme" outs for a pitcher in an opponent's lineup card.

The Alignment:

I hate the 5-5-4/5-6-5 alignment, but have a solution that most would initially shoot down: expand to 32 teams and go 4-4-4-4/4-4-4-4, same as the NFL.

I'd actually be in favor of a European-style promotion and relegation system also, despite being a fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates; it'd never fly, but we're talking about what we'd fix, right?

The Schedule:

Rework the schedule to facilitate 32 teams and place heavy emphasis on divisional play, with each team playing 27 games against the 3 teams in its division (81 total, or half the schedule), 5 against each of the 12 teams from the other divisions in the league (60 games), and a total of 21 interleague games, with opponents rotating by division each season (the AL East teams play the NL East in 2007, the NL South in 2008, NL Central in 2009, etc.)

The Post-Season:

Division champions make the playoffs only if they manage an 82-80 record or better. If four division champs make it, they're seeded #1 through #4 based on record. If only three make it, the #1 seed gets a 'bye' while the #2 and #3 seeds slug it out... or, alternately, give the #4 seed to a wild-card qualifier rather than the division champion as a reward.

The Money:

Impose a salary floor of $50 million per team, and a cap of $100 million at the MLB level, but in exchange for this concession by the union, impose a salary floor and cap at the AAA level as well - say $10 million and $25 million, respectively. Also allow unlimited shuffling between the MLB and AAA clubs, as in the old days - if a player isn't cutting the mustard, he's heading to AAA.

The MLB teams pay these salaries rather than the AAA clubs so it wouldn't hurt Minor League Baseball, and AAA fans would benefit from seeing MLB-level talent more frequently... as would AAA team owners, and players who currently see AAA-level salaries under "minor league" contracts.

Television:

The answer here isn't more TV, but far less. Limit teams to broadcasting no more than 100 games per season, home or away. The ability to watch every Cubs, Mets, Yankees, or Dodgers game on television severely dilutes the product and in other teams' cases keeps them from going to the ballpark. It would also make what TV product teams have to sell more valuable.

On the national level, redistribute the network TV money heavily in favor of those teams that make the playoffs, with them getting at least 50% of the total pool. Talk about incentive for your team to make the playoffs? How's an extra $10 million sound?

The Drugs:

Institute an olympic-depth screening/punishment program to eliminate or at least drastically reduce future offenses.

Immediately ban Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and anyone active or inactive that has even been implicated as having used steroids/illegal performance enhancers (illegal via baseball's rules, or rule of law). Put the onus on them to prove themselves innocent rather than for courts to prove them guilty - MLB's done this before (Pete Rose never went to trial over gambling on the Reds, but the evidence against him was enough for baseball to ban him without an admission or conviction), they can do so again.

[jkrdevil]

Because they are supposed to be 2 separate league leagues. The reason why the DH exists is because the American League voted for it. When it was adopted the 2 leagues ran themselves and MLB basically dealt with base as a whole and inter-league matters. I watched something on FSN last week on the DH, interesting note in the 80's the NL almost adopted the DH. The thing that happened was that it would have to wait a year before it was adopted. That ended up making the Phillies rep (who were the team to propose it) abstaining to vote on it because they didn't know about the year wit. The Pirates rep was told to vote the same Phillies so they abstained as well and the DH ended up being defeated.

But like I said they are supposed to be 2 independently run leagues with MLB looking over everything as whole and all inter-league matters. However Selig's reorganization of every thing screwed that up to where they are now just glorified conferences.

[Fred T. Jane]

Immediately ban Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and anyone active or inactive that has even been implicated as having used steroids/illegal performance enhancers (illegal via baseball's rules, or rule of law).  Put the onus on them to prove themselves innocent rather than for courts to prove them guilty - MLB's done this before (Pete Rose never went to trial over gambling on the Reds, but the evidence against him was enough for baseball to ban him without an admission or conviction), they can do so again.

Yeah, let's not let 6,000 years of legal tradition in Western Civilization get in the way of improving the game, right?

[Sport]

Television:

The answer here isn't more TV, but far less. Limit teams to broadcasting no more than 100 games per season, home or away. The ability to watch every Cubs, Mets, Yankees, or Dodgers game on television severely dilutes the product and in other teams' cases keeps them from going to the ballpark. It would also make what TV product teams have to sell more valuable.

The clubs make most of their money from TV revenues rather than ticket sales. If they broadcast 50 fewer games they would never be able to make up the difference on the new ticket sales alone.

[otherwilds]

The Alignment:

I hate the 5-5-4/5-6-5 alignment, but have a solution that most would initially shoot down: expand to 32 teams and go 4-4-4-4/4-4-4-4, same as the NFL.

Nope they over expanded in the 90's anf need to blackball Tampa and another franchise. But since some of the prime candidates (Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Minnesota) have or are about to build new ballparks they are safe. New ownership for Washington and KC keep them off the contraction chopping block abnd opf course MLB ain't gonna admit they made a mistake.

And the union wont' let it happen either nor will they stand by the removal of the DH on the basis of protecting jobs.

[TFoA]

I think someone said this earlier, but the differences between one league having the DH and the other not having it is due to the fact that they are really 2 separate leagues (AL/NL) under one governing body (MLB). Since AL runs itself, they adopted that rule themselves, and the NL, being the senior circuit, decided not to. So that answers that.

As for one league having 4 teams in a division in one league and 6 teams in a division on the other, idk. Maybe it keeps from there being an interleague game having to be played everyday, but I'm not sure.

[Original6]

Get my team out of the AL East! Tampa came in and all that reilignment happend. While it feels good when we beat the BoSox and Yankees, but It was great facing the Tigers, ChiSox, KC and Minnesota in the 80s and early 90s. MLB needs to fire selig and find a better Commishioner. If I was commishioner I'd do a better job of marketing, no wonder the NFL has kicked the out of the MLB lately. If they cannot do that, then atleast give us a more balanced schedule.

[HedleyLamarr]

Get my team out of the AL East! Tampa came in and all that reilignment happend. While it feels good when we beat the BoSox and Yankees, but It was great facing the Tigers, ChiSox, KC and Minnesota in the 80s and early 90s. MLB needs to fire selig and find a better Commishioner. If I was commishioner I'd do a better job of marketing, no wonder the NFL has kicked the out of the MLB lately. If they cannot do that, then atleast give us a more balanced schedule.

I think it's safe to say you're never going to be MLB's "Commishioner"....

[jkrdevil]

I don't see what Selig has doen to ruin baseball. Yes the NFL is more popular than baseball overall but it has nothing to do with Selig and how MLB markets. IT has everything to do with the way the NFL is setup.

The NFL is popular for this reason. It's a once a week sport that takes place usually on 1 day. Every game is an event you can throw a party for every game.

That's why the NFL has become has become popular, a little of it also has to do with it's segmented and thus a good tv sport. It has nothing to do with the salary cap or parity. Nor does it have to do with bad marketing by baseball. If baseball had the same setup it would actually be bigger than what football is now. But because it's an every day sport teams aren't going to get 50+ for every single game and they are not going to get the big tv ratings for every game.

[Original6]

I don't see what Selig has doen to ruin baseball. Yes the NFL is more popular than baseball overall but it has nothing to do with Selig and how MLB markets. IT has everything to do with the way the NFL is setup.

The NFL is popular for this reason. It's a once a week sport that takes place usually on 1 day. Every game is an event you can throw a party for every game.

That's why the NFL has become has become popular, a little of it also has to do with it's segmented and thus a good tv sport. It has nothing to do with the salary cap or parity. Nor does it have to do with bad marketing by baseball. If baseball had the same setup it would actually be bigger than what football is now. But because it's an every day sport teams aren't going to get 50+ for every single game and they are not going to get the big tv ratings for every game.

right, I understand every game is important and that an average NFL game will kill an average MLB games in Ratings. However, the Superbowl is KILLING the World Series in Ratings on both sides of the border. We don't even have an NFL team here either.

[rebelx]

Would it have been the worst idea to play an interleague game every day? Why not just distribute interleague play over the course of a season, rather than lumping it all together within a strict set of dates? Hell, if they bothered to introduce interleague play in the first place, they should have run with the concept, and made it equivalent to interconference play in the other sports. Go figure.

[Original6]

IMO they should just scrap Interleague play all together. It really doesn't make much difference, but with no interleague play the World Series gets that much more interesting.

[jkrdevil]

I don't see what Selig has doen to ruin baseball. Yes the NFL is more popular than baseball overall but it has nothing to do with Selig and how MLB markets. IT has everything to do with the way the NFL is setup.

The NFL is popular for this reason. It's a once a week sport that takes place usually on 1 day. Every game is an event you can throw a party for every game.

That's why the NFL has become has become popular, a little of it also has to do with it's segmented and thus a good tv sport. It has nothing to do with the salary cap or parity. Nor does it have to do with bad marketing by baseball. If baseball had the same setup it would actually be bigger than what football is now. But because it's an every day sport teams aren't going to get 50+ for every single game and they are not going to get the big tv ratings for every game.

right, I understand every game is important and that an average NFL game will kill an average MLB games in Ratings. However, the Superbowl is KILLING the World Series in Ratings on both sides of the border. We don't even have an NFL team here either.

Because football is an event sport. It's a bunch of events leading up to the big event the Super Bowl. Which is a one day event that the location is selected years in advance and the date is known for over a year. It's very easy for people to have Super Bowl because it's one day and you know in advance when that day is. None sport fans watch the Super Bowl because of the party aspect ot the event. The same can't be said for the World Series because it's a seven game series that takes place over a week and a half. Can many people hold a week and half party? No.

Football is a party sport. People use it as an excuse to gather with their friends for some sort of party. The actual game is almost secondary.

[Original6]

I don't see what Selig has doen to ruin baseball. Yes the NFL is more popular than baseball overall but it has nothing to do with Selig and how MLB markets. IT has everything to do with the way the NFL is setup.

The NFL is popular for this reason. It's a once a week sport that takes place usually on 1 day. Every game is an event you can throw a party for every game.

That's why the NFL has become has become popular, a little of it also has to do with it's segmented and thus a good tv sport. It has nothing to do with the salary cap or parity. Nor does it have to do with bad marketing by baseball. If baseball had the same setup it would actually be bigger than what football is now. But because it's an every day sport teams aren't going to get 50+ for every single game and they are not going to get the big tv ratings for every game.

right, I understand every game is important and that an average NFL game will kill an average MLB games in Ratings. However, the Superbowl is KILLING the World Series in Ratings on both sides of the border. We don't even have an NFL team here either.

Because football is an event sport. It's a bunch of events leading up to the big event the Super Bowl. Which is a one day event that the location is selected years in advance and the date is known for over a year. It's very easy for people to have Super Bowl because it's one day and you know in advance when that day is. None sport fans watch the Super Bowl because of the party aspect ot the event. The same can't be said for the World Series because it's a seven game series that takes place over a week and a half. Can many people hold a week and half party? No.

Football is a party sport. People use it as an excuse to gather with their friends for some sort of party. The actual game is almost secondary.

Another reason I believe the NFL is more popular is because that league has parity. What's better as fan of team than going into a new season knowing you have a chance to compete? A lot of MLB teams cannot say the same.

[jkrdevil]

I don't see what Selig has doen to ruin baseball. Yes the NFL is more popular than baseball overall but it has nothing to do with Selig and how MLB markets. IT has everything to do with the way the NFL is setup.

The NFL is popular for this reason. It's a once a week sport that takes place usually on 1 day. Every game is an event you can throw a party for every game.

That's why the NFL has become has become popular, a little of it also has to do with it's segmented and thus a good tv sport. It has nothing to do with the salary cap or parity. Nor does it have to do with bad marketing by baseball. If baseball had the same setup it would actually be bigger than what football is now. But because it's an every day sport teams aren't going to get 50+ for every single game and they are not going to get the big tv ratings for every game.

right, I understand every game is important and that an average NFL game will kill an average MLB games in Ratings. However, the Superbowl is KILLING the World Series in Ratings on both sides of the border. We don't even have an NFL team here either.

Because football is an event sport. It's a bunch of events leading up to the big event the Super Bowl. Which is a one day event that the location is selected years in advance and the date is known for over a year. It's very easy for people to have Super Bowl because it's one day and you know in advance when that day is. None sport fans watch the Super Bowl because of the party aspect ot the event. The same can't be said for the World Series because it's a seven game series that takes place over a week and a half. Can many people hold a week and half party? No.

Football is a party sport. People use it as an excuse to gather with their friends for some sort of party. The actual game is almost secondary.

Another reason I believe the NFL is more popular is because that league has parity. What's better as fan of team than going into a new season knowing you have a chance to compete? A lot of MLB teams cannot say the same.

I don't buy that one bit. For 2 reasons.

-NFL parity is a myth. More teams have a shot at making the playoffs but that's because more teams make the playoffs. But the Patriots, Colts of the world are in the playoffs year in year out. ESPN did an article a while back on it. If you made the baseball playoffs 12 teams and compared the last few years the numbers would be comparable as far as parity goes.

-The NFL was as popular before the so called parity era. When the Giants, Redskins, 49ers, and Cowboys won every year for a decade the NFL was still selling out stadiums and tv numbers were at all time highs for then. Sure the NFL has gained some fans since this time but I wouldn't think it's more than what baseball has gained.

[ZBoyer]

Running with the idea of promotion and relegation that's been mentioned on a couple of threads here, I figured out the following scenarios that would have happened over the past four seasons. Now, I know it would never work because one team would have its AAA team in the majors for a year or more, and vice versa, but since we're speculating here, I figure it's okay to look past that.

Pretty much, I decided that one team from each conference would be sent down and one promoted. The National League teams would be demoted to the Pacific Coast League, mostly because the league has 11 of 16 NL affiliates, while the American and International Leagues would have an exchange. Also, because we can't predict how well or how poorly a team would have done against a higher or lower level of competition, I did this all out independently.

Should anyone feel like taking it upon themselves to go back further a couple of years, be my guest. Enjoy!

2002:

Sent Down: NL - Milwaukee Brewers (56-106), AL - Detroit Tigers (55-106)

Brought Up: PCL - Las Vegas 51s (85-59), IL - Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Barons (91-53)

*NOTE: Detroit and Tampa Bay had same record; Detroit relegated due to losing head-to-head tiebreaker, 4-2.

2003:

Sent Down: NL - San Diego Padres (64-98), AL - Detroit Tigers (43-119)

Brought Up: PCL - Sacramento Rivercats (92-52), IL - Pawtucket Red Sox (83-61)

2004:

Sent Down: NL - Arizona Diamondbacks (51-111), AL - Kansas City Royals (58-104)

Brought Up: PCL - Portland Beavers (82-60), IL - Buffalo Bisons (82-61)

2005:

Sent Down: NL - Pittsburgh Pirates (67-95), AL - Kansas City Royals (56-106)

Brought Up: PCL - Oklahoma Redhawks (80-63), IL - Toledo Mud Hens (89-55)

*NOTE: Pittsburgh and Colorado had same record; Pittsburgh relegated due to losing head-to-head tiebreaker, 6-4.