Jump to content

Geography with MLB


wdm1219inpenna

Recommended Posts

All this talk about 4 divisions, etc. got me to thinking about the current alignment and the 1994-97 alignment.

I could never figure out why Detroit was not placed in the AL Central in 1994. Cleveland was, yet Cleveland is farther east than Detroit.

Another confusion one for me is having Pittsburgh in the central and Atlanta in the east, considering Pittsburgh is father east. Is it because Atlanta is closer to Miami, and Pittsburgh is close to Cincinnati? The rivalries are ok, but geographically speaking, aren't 100% accurate (but then, in most if not all sports, they aren't 100% accurate).

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the move to the 3 division format, Detroit was slated to go to the Central and Cleveland to stay in the East. Detroit didn't want to go for whatever reason so Cleveland volunteered in a sense. The Central teams of that time (Minnesota, ChiSox, Milwaukee, and Kansas City) weren't that great at the time and Cleveland stomped all over them for a few years. nwtrailtrekker is right too. Population densities play a role. Atlanta and Pittsburgh is really a toss-up, you could argue for either and so there really isn't any incentive to move them around. I think the MLB has a pretty decent setup with the alignements with respect to geography.

What is "all this talk about 4 divisions?" Where did you hear that? I doubt that the MLB is expanding nor realigning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw that. Do it footie style. Two leagues, one division each. Teams like the Royals, Pirates and Devil Rays deserve to have "16th" next to their name instead of "5th". Maybe that kind of humiliation could move their owners to improve those teams.

I think thats how it was before the Wild Card. It didnt work as well as the current set up because you saw teams (Giants being one of them) who picked up 100 plus wins and still missed the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw that. Do it footie style. Two leagues, one division each. Teams like the Royals, Pirates and Devil Rays deserve to have "16th" next to their name instead of "5th". Maybe that kind of humiliation could move their owners to improve those teams.

The Pirates owners will never ever raise the teams payroll .It makes no business sense to do that.Thier fans will fill the seats no matter what they put out there.If Pittsburgh wants to send MR C OGDEN NUTTING a message quit going to the games.Hitting him in the wallet is the only way he will notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw that. Do it footie style. Two leagues, one division each. Teams like the Royals, Pirates and Devil Rays deserve to have "16th" next to their name instead of "5th". Maybe that kind of humiliation could move their owners to improve those teams.

I think thats how it was before the Wild Card. It didnt work as well as the current set up because you saw teams (Giants being one of them) who picked up 100 plus wins and still missed the playoffs.

Ouch... that's painful remembering that season when my beloved Giants missed playoffs despite winning 100+ games. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember and seeing on Fox Sports Net around 1997 or 98, that the MLB had an idea proposed to divide the leagues by geographical lines (I think this was around the time Tampa and Arizona were coming in). The leagues were still named American and National but it was like one league was eastern cities and the other was western cities. I think it was something like this:

National

Atlanta

Baltimore

Boston

Chi Cubs

Chi White Sox

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Detroit

Florida

Montreal

NY Mets

NY Yankees

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Tampa Bay

Toronto

American

Anaheim

Arizona

Colorado

Houston

Kansas City

Los Angeles

Milwaukee

Minnesota

Oakland

St. Louis

San Diego

San Francisco

Seattle

Texas

I heard about only that day then I never heard of it again. They obviously scrapped the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember and seeing on Fox Sports Net around 1997 or 98, that the MLB had an idea proposed to divide the leagues by geographical lines (I think this was around the time Tampa and Arizona were coming in). The leagues were still named American and National but it was like one league was eastern cities and the other was western cities. I think it was something like this:

National

Atlanta

Baltimore

Boston

Chi Cubs

Chi White Sox

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Detroit

Florida

Montreal

NY Mets

NY Yankees

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Tampa Bay

Toronto

American

Anaheim

Arizona

Colorado

Houston

Kansas City

Los Angeles

Milwaukee

Minnesota

Oakland

St. Louis

San Diego

San Francisco

Seattle

Texas

I heard about only that day then I never heard of it again. They obviously scrapped the idea.

I remember that. Although I think the American and National league were switched with the east being the American League and the West being the National League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was so strange was the orginal divisonal alignments, where you had both Atlanta and Cincinnati playing in the NL Western division all those years, and the Cubs and Cardinals playing in the NL East. At least the divisions in the AL were a lot more geographically correctly, except the Brewers played in AL East most of their history, while 90 miles to the south, you had the White Sox in the AL West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Texas.

Dallas Cowboys: NFC East

Dallas Stars: Western Conference, Pacific Division

Dallas Mavericks: Western Conference, Southwestern Division

Texas Rangers: AL West

Houston Astros: NL Central

Houston Rockets: Western Conference, Southwestern Division

Houston Texans: AFC South

San Antonio Spurs: Western Conference, Southwestern Division

It's a South Southwestern East West Central State near the Pacific Ocean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB first went to divisional play in 1969 with the addition of 4 expansion teams

NL East - 1969

Chicago Cubs

Montreal Expos

New York Mets

Philadelphia Phillies

Pittsburgh Pirates

St. Louis Cardinals

NL West - 1969

Atlanta Braves

Cincinanti Reds

Houston Astros

Los Angeles Dodgers

San Diego Padres

San Francisco Giants

AL East- 1969

Baltimore Orioles

Boston Red Sox

Cleveland Indians

Detroit Tigers

New York Yankees

Washington Senators

AL West - 1969

California Angels

Chicago White Sox

Kansas City Royals

Minnesota Twins

Oakland A's

Seattle Pilots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, if they simply moved the Houston Astros to the AL Central, each league would be nice and tidy - two leagues of three divisions, each of five teams. Easy-peasy, Japanesy.

So what if there's interleague play throughout the season as a result? Interleague play isn't that special anymore, and besides, you can have a nice, easily understood scheduling formula with two leagues of 15:

(1) Each team plays the other four teams in its division 18 times each, for 72 games.

(2) Each team plays the other ten teams (from the league's other two divisions) 6 times each, for 60 games.

(3) Each team plays the five teams from a division in the other league (on a rotating basis) 6 times each (3 home, 3 away) for 30 games.

Voila: 162 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always liked the NFL style of alignment.

NL North: Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Cincinnati

NL South: Atlanta, Florida, Houston, Arizona

NL East: New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh

NL West: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Colorado

AL North: Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Cleveland

AL South: Kansas City, Texas, Tampa Bay, New Orleans

AL East: New York, Boston, Toronto, Baltimore

AL West: Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Las Vegas

Will never happen, but still a fun idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, if they simply moved the Houston Astros to the AL Central, each league would be nice and tidy - two leagues of three divisions, each of five teams. Easy-peasy, Japanesy.

Almost. You would need to put them in the AL West (or move another AL Central team to the AL West -- Kansas City?). The AL West is the division that currently has 4 teams, not the AL Central.

Otherwise, the only flaw in your plan is that is does away with the natural interleague rivalries. Under this plan, the Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, Orioles/Nationals, etc. would only play each other every three years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, if they simply moved the Houston Astros to the AL Central, each league would be nice and tidy - two leagues of three divisions, each of five teams. Easy-peasy, Japanesy.

So what if there's interleague play throughout the season as a result? Interleague play isn't that special anymore, and besides, you can have a nice, easily understood scheduling formula with two leagues of 15:

(1) Each team plays the other four teams in its division 18 times each, for 72 games.

(2) Each team plays the other ten teams (from the league's other two divisions) 6 times each, for 60 games.

(3) Each team plays the five teams from a division in the other league (on a rotating basis) 6 times each (3 home, 3 away) for 30 games.

Voila: 162 games.

Seriously, this is the best description for schedule realignment I have seen yet. I think you meant to say "AL West" for the Astros, since they have 4 teams in the division. I like your idea for the fact that it keeps in-division games at a plus (to keep the George Steinbrenner's of the world happy, along with the media outlets).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, if they simply moved the Houston Astros to the AL Central, each league would be nice and tidy - two leagues of three divisions, each of five teams. Easy-peasy, Japanesy.

So what if there's interleague play throughout the season as a result? Interleague play isn't that special anymore, and besides, you can have a nice, easily understood scheduling formula with two leagues of 15:

(1) Each team plays the other four teams in its division 18 times each, for 72 games.

(2) Each team plays the other ten teams (from the league's other two divisions) 6 times each, for 60 games.

(3) Each team plays the five teams from a division in the other league (on a rotating basis) 6 times each (3 home, 3 away) for 30 games.

Voila: 162 games.

Why not move the Brewers back to the AL where they belong, the Astros have a decent history in the NL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.