MLB Realignment

[McCall]

Does anybody know exactly how manY interleague games each team would play if it goes to 15 teams per league? If it's more than the current 15-18 games they already play, then no. If it actually doesn't add any more interleague games to an individual team than is being played now, then I might not have as big a problem with it. I'd rather see an end to interleague play, but it's here so I'm not gonna complain a lot. I just don't want to see it expanded more than it is at this time. I've always been annoyed with it being in a couple clumps in the schedule so I'd have no problem with teams just playing a series here and there throughout the season anyway. I just don't want it expanded. I'd try and figure it out but I'm working day and night all week so I don't really have any time.

[BBTV]

I think that the reason that you won't see MLB go to a East - West format is so they can sell the TV packages per league if they wanted to (obviously it's not done that way now, but it's nice for them to keep the option open.) They'd want an NY, LA, and CHI team in each league, and could probably (I haven't actually looked at this yet) use a Houston in the AL to balance out some of the bigger markets in the NL (PHI, SF, DC, etc.)

[bosrs1]

I hate the idea for a number of reasons, many of them include divisional rivalries, favoritism to a select few teams, and the separation of the leagues (and their rule sets). When the economy gets better, add two more teams, split them 16-16 between the leagues, and have four team divisions. It isn't that hard Bud.

Agreed on all counts. The system the have now seems to work fine for everyone but Toronto and Baltimore. Why screw with thte system that made MLB a cash cow on account of two poorly run AL East teams?

[pmoehrin]

I think that the reason that you won't see MLB go to a East - West format is so they can sell the TV packages per league if they wanted to (obviously it's not done that way now, but it's nice for them to keep the option open.) They'd want an NY, LA, and CHI team in each league, and could probably (I haven't actually looked at this yet) use a Houston in the AL to balance out some of the bigger markets in the NL (PHI, SF, DC, etc.)

I would just say see Hanlon's Razor for why the MLB doesen't switch over. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. In this case malice being financial gain and stupidity being tradition.

I don't think they keep the format for any reason other then its just the way we've always done it. Took interleague play nearly 100 years to develop. Baseball is so steeped in tradition that anything that tries to upset the status quo is immediately shunned.

I think getting rid of the AL/NL format as is would be an extremely unpopular move at first. I would think they would eventually get over it, and see the benefits of having more games against teams closer by. If your a Reds fan for instance why would you not want to play more games against the Indians and lose the Astros? If I'm the Giants give the A's and lose the Rockies.

Its just something that the MLB is afraid of doing. Nobody is really complaining about the AL/NL format as it and they will if you switch it. Why change even if it is logistically better? Problem with that is you never let tradition in itself ever dictate what your doing. If we had done that as a society we would still be stuck in the middle ages.

[Lights Out]

The Orioles are poorly run. The Jays aren't - most years, they'd have won several other divisions. Unfortunately, it's hard to win when you don't have the unlimited amount of money that the Yankees and Red Sox have or the ridiculously-loaded farm system that the Rays have. Also, common sense dictates that the Jays belong in the AL Central, not the AL East.

[crashcarson15]

The Orioles are poorly run. The Jays aren't - most years, they'd have won several other divisions. Unfortunately, it's hard to win when you don't have the unlimited amount of money that the Yankees and Red Sox have or the ridiculously-loaded farm system that the Rays have. Also, common sense dictates that the Jays belong in the AL Central, not the AL East.

Why does common sense dictate this...?

[RyanMcD29]

The Orioles are poorly run. The Jays aren't - most years, they'd have won several other divisions. Unfortunately, it's hard to win when you don't have the unlimited amount of money that the Yankees and Red Sox have or the ridiculously-loaded farm system that the Rays have. Also, common sense dictates that the Jays belong in the AL Central, not the AL East.

Toronto's east of everyone in the Central

[The_Admiral]

I think his point is that Toronto is a Great Lakes city like Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago (Twin Cities are a displaced cousin), and so an argument could be made for putting the Blue Jays with their inland brethren should another east coast team come about.

[McCall]

I think that the reason that you won't see MLB go to a East - West format is so they can sell the TV packages per league if they wanted to (obviously it's not done that way now, but it's nice for them to keep the option open.) They'd want an NY, LA, and CHI team in each league, and could probably (I haven't actually looked at this yet) use a Houston in the AL to balance out some of the bigger markets in the NL (PHI, SF, DC, etc.)

I would just say see Hanlon's Razor for why the MLB doesen't switch over. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. In this case malice being financial gain and stupidity being tradition.

I don't think they keep the format for any reason other then its just the way we've always done it. Took interleague play nearly 100 years to develop. Baseball is so steeped in tradition that anything that tries to upset the status quo is immediately shunned.

I think getting rid of the AL/NL format as is would be an extremely unpopular move at first. I would think they would eventually get over it, and see the benefits of having more games against teams closer by. If your a Reds fan for instance why would you not want to play more games against the Indians and lose the Astros? If I'm the Giants give the A's and lose the Rockies.

Its just something that the MLB is afraid of doing. Nobody is really complaining about the AL/NL format as it and they will if you switch it. Why change even if it is logistically better? Problem with that is you never let tradition in itself ever dictate what your doing. If we had done that as a society we would still be stuck in the middle ages.

This is all strictly your opinion. To most baseball fans, THIS defies common sense. There is nothing wrong with maintaining tradition.

[pmoehrin]

I think that the reason that you won't see MLB go to a East - West format is so they can sell the TV packages per league if they wanted to (obviously it's not done that way now, but it's nice for them to keep the option open.) They'd want an NY, LA, and CHI team in each league, and could probably (I haven't actually looked at this yet) use a Houston in the AL to balance out some of the bigger markets in the NL (PHI, SF, DC, etc.)

I would just say see Hanlon's Razor for why the MLB doesen't switch over. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. In this case malice being financial gain and stupidity being tradition.

I don't think they keep the format for any reason other then its just the way we've always done it. Took interleague play nearly 100 years to develop. Baseball is so steeped in tradition that anything that tries to upset the status quo is immediately shunned.

I think getting rid of the AL/NL format as is would be an extremely unpopular move at first. I would think they would eventually get over it, and see the benefits of having more games against teams closer by. If your a Reds fan for instance why would you not want to play more games against the Indians and lose the Astros? If I'm the Giants give the A's and lose the Rockies.

Its just something that the MLB is afraid of doing. Nobody is really complaining about the AL/NL format as it and they will if you switch it. Why change even if it is logistically better? Problem with that is you never let tradition in itself ever dictate what your doing. If we had done that as a society we would still be stuck in the middle ages.

This is all strictly your opinion. To most baseball fans, THIS defies common sense. There is nothing wring with maintaining tradition.

Well there is something wrong when the reasons for maintaining tradition are no longer relevant and all you have left is we do this simply because its always how its been done.

[McCall]

I think that the reason that you won't see MLB go to a East - West format is so they can sell the TV packages per league if they wanted to (obviously it's not done that way now, but it's nice for them to keep the option open.) They'd want an NY, LA, and CHI team in each league, and could probably (I haven't actually looked at this yet) use a Houston in the AL to balance out some of the bigger markets in the NL (PHI, SF, DC, etc.)

I would just say see Hanlon's Razor for why the MLB doesen't switch over. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. In this case malice being financial gain and stupidity being tradition.

I don't think they keep the format for any reason other then its just the way we've always done it. Took interleague play nearly 100 years to develop. Baseball is so steeped in tradition that anything that tries to upset the status quo is immediately shunned.

I think getting rid of the AL/NL format as is would be an extremely unpopular move at first. I would think they would eventually get over it, and see the benefits of having more games against teams closer by. If your a Reds fan for instance why would you not want to play more games against the Indians and lose the Astros? If I'm the Giants give the A's and lose the Rockies.

Its just something that the MLB is afraid of doing. Nobody is really complaining about the AL/NL format as it and they will if you switch it. Why change even if it is logistically better? Problem with that is you never let tradition in itself ever dictate what your doing. If we had done that as a society we would still be stuck in the middle ages.

This is all strictly your opinion. To most baseball fans, THIS defies common sense. There is nothing wring with maintaining tradition.

Well there is something wrong when the reasons for maintaining tradition are no longer relevant.

Irrelevant In your opinion.

[pmoehrin]

Well what reasons are there other then we do it because this is how its always been done?

[OnWis97]

Does anybody know exactly how manY interleague games each team would play if it goes to 15 teams per league? If it's more than the current 15-18 games they already play, then no. If it actually doesn't add any more interleague games to an individual team than is being played now, then I might not have as big a problem with it. I'd rather see an end to interleague play, but it's here so I'm not gonna complain a lot. I just don't want to see it expanded more than it is at this time. I've always been annoyed with it being in a couple clumps in the schedule so I'd have no problem with teams just playing a series here and there throughout the season anyway. I just don't want it expanded. I'd try and figure it out but I'm working day and night all week so I don't really have any time.

The Twins are schedule for 50 series this year. So that means there would be roughly 50 times that two teams would have to play interleague (or 100 team-series) minimum. Therefore, at a minimum, each team would have to play either three or four series (9 or 12 games). They could increase it to the current number by having two interleague series at a time at some times.

[bosrs1]

Well what reasons are there other then we do it because this is how its always been done?

Because more people than not like it the way it is. I don't want the A's playing the Giants any more than they already do. I have no interest in the A's playing the Padres, or the A's playing the Dodgers. Plus "they way it's always been done" IS a tradition. Why not maintain it. It's made the owners and players wealthy beyond their wildest dreams the majority of fans like things the way they are or even more like they used to be. Why screw with it?

[DarkJourney]

The realignment also depends on what happens with the A's and Rays. I would like to see new stadiums in both Bay Areas but it doesn't look likely.

[Lights Out]

I think his point is that Toronto is a Great Lakes city like Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago (Twin Cities are a displaced cousin), and so an argument could be made for putting the Blue Jays with their inland brethren should another east coast team come about.

Also, they already have somewhat of a rivalry with the Tigers, whereas they don't really have any rivalries worth keeping in the AL East.

[RyanMcD29]

I think his point is that Toronto is a Great Lakes city like Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago (Twin Cities are a displaced cousin), and so an argument could be made for putting the Blue Jays with their inland brethren should another east coast team come about.

Also, they already have somewhat of a rivalry with the Tigers, whereas they don't really have any rivalries worth keeping in the AL East.

I understand those points, but who's replacing them out East? Not to mention historically speaking they've had rivalries with the O's, Yanks, and Sox (mainly at its peak in the 90s, but still the rivalries are there should they get into playoff races again)

[McCall]

Does anybody know exactly how manY interleague games each team would play if it goes to 15 teams per league? If it's more than the current 15-18 games they already play, then no. If it actually doesn't add any more interleague games to an individual team than is being played now, then I might not have as big a problem with it. I'd rather see an end to interleague play, but it's here so I'm not gonna complain a lot. I just don't want to see it expanded more than it is at this time. I've always been annoyed with it being in a couple clumps in the schedule so I'd have no problem with teams just playing a series here and there throughout the season anyway. I just don't want it expanded. I'd try and figure it out but I'm working day and night all week so I don't really have any time.

The Twins are schedule for 50 series this year. So that means there would be roughly 50 times that two teams would have to play interleague (or 100 team-series) minimum. Therefore, at a minimum, each team would have to play either three or four series (9 or 12 games). They could increase it to the current number by having two interleague series at a time at some times.

Can't have 2 series at a time. Has to be an odd number. I'd prefer one series at a time and the minimum number of games per team. This doesn't make the 2 15 team leagues seem as bad.

[bosrs1]

The realignment also depends on what happens with the A's and Rays. I would like to see new stadiums in both Bay Areas but it doesn't look likely.

Which is insane since the A's new stadium is waiting for one word from Bud Selig, "yes". As soon as he says yes, it's a go. Nothing else is left holding it back.

[Drakonius26]

You know, after hearing all these divisional alignments, historical rivalries, and other theories, I say it. Single table format for both of the leagues and simply move either Milwaukee or Arizona into the AL and call it a day.