wdm1219inpenna Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 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 More sharing options...
nwtrailtrekker Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 it all goes back to overpopulation on the east coast. thats why we have teams in the "central" that are only a few hundred miles from the atlantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epiphanic Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 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 More sharing options...
CZzyzx41 Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 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 More sharing options...
the admiral Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 No, there was a West and East before the Central and Wild Card. Non-divisional play was around when the leagues only had eight teams each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildingmaint Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Swiss Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Fred T. Jane Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 Maybe that kind of humiliation could move their owners to improve those teams.If you say so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telemundo219 Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 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:NationalAtlantaBaltimoreBostonChi CubsChi White SoxCincinnatiClevelandDetroitFloridaMontrealNY MetsNY YankeesPhiladelphiaPittsburghTampa BayTorontoAmericanAnaheimArizonaColoradoHoustonKansas CityLos AngelesMilwaukeeMinnesotaOaklandSt. LouisSan DiegoSan FranciscoSeattleTexasI heard about only that day then I never heard of it again. They obviously scrapped the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 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:NationalAtlantaBaltimoreBostonChi CubsChi White SoxCincinnatiClevelandDetroitFloridaMontrealNY MetsNY YankeesPhiladelphiaPittsburghTampa BayTorontoAmericanAnaheimArizonaColoradoHoustonKansas CityLos AngelesMilwaukeeMinnesotaOaklandSt. LouisSan DiegoSan FranciscoSeattleTexasI 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 More sharing options...
MadmanLA Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 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 More sharing options...
EatSleepJeep Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Look at Texas.Dallas Cowboys: NFC EastDallas Stars: Western Conference, Pacific DivisionDallas Mavericks: Western Conference, Southwestern DivisionTexas Rangers: AL WestHouston Astros: NL CentralHouston Rockets: Western Conference, Southwestern DivisionHouston Texans: AFC SouthSan Antonio Spurs: Western Conference, Southwestern DivisionIt's a South Southwestern East West Central State near the Pacific Ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenShoe Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 MLB first went to divisional play in 1969 with the addition of 4 expansion teamsNL East - 1969Chicago CubsMontreal ExposNew York MetsPhiladelphia PhilliesPittsburgh PiratesSt. Louis CardinalsNL West - 1969Atlanta BravesCincinanti RedsHouston AstrosLos Angeles DodgersSan Diego PadresSan Francisco GiantsAL East- 1969Baltimore OriolesBoston Red SoxCleveland IndiansDetroit TigersNew York YankeesWashington SenatorsAL West - 1969California AngelsChicago White SoxKansas City RoyalsMinnesota TwinsOakland A'sSeattle Pilots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Anomalied Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I've always liked the NFL style of alignment.NL North: Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Cincinnati NL South: Atlanta, Florida, Houston, ArizonaNL East: New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh NL West: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, ColoradoAL North: Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Cleveland AL South: Kansas City, Texas, Tampa Bay, New OrleansAL East: New York, Boston, Toronto, BaltimoreAL West: Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Las VegasWill never happen, but still a fun idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the admiral Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 NO. you need to have a wild card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 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 More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Luigi74 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.