MLB Realignment

[AnythingChicago]

I'd prefer to see Arizona moved to the AL West, move Houston back into the NL West (where they were longtime rivals with the Dodgers, Giants & Padres). By doing this, most teams would have a natural/geographic interleague team.

AL East NL East

Yankees Mets

Red Sox Phillies

Orioles Nationals

Blue Jays Braves (Yes I know this is not a "natural" rivalry, but out of process of elimination, this is what's left)

Rays Marlins

AL Central NL Central

Tigers Pirates (Again, not the most natural geographic rivalry, but again process of elimination)

Indians Reds

Royals Cardinals

White Sox Cubs

Twins Brewers

AL West NL West

Diamondbacks Rockies (Semi-close geographically, and they are 2 of the newer teams as well)

Athletics Giants

Angels Dodgers

Mariners Padres

Rangers Astros

Keeping the 162 game regular season schedule, every team plays 18 divisional games vs. each of their 4 opponents. That's 72 games. 18 interleague games per season, 3 vs. your "natural" rival every year, and 15 games against one of the 3 divisions, on a rotating basis. This means for example the Yankees would play the Mets 3 times a year, but every 3rd year they'd play the Mets 6 times. That's 90. Then teams would play the other 10 teams in their own league 6 times (3 at home 3 on the road), for another 60 games, bringing us up to 150. The last 12 games would be played against last year's 1st place opponents in your own league. So for example, with this realignment, The Yankees would play 12 games instead of just 6 vs. the Texas Rangers & the Detroit Tigers. All 2nd place teams would play the other 2 2nd place teams, 3rd place teams vs 3rd place teams, and so on, similar to the way the NFL does it now.

Lastly, I would indeed have two wild card teams from each league qualify to play a 1 game playoff/play-in game. The #5 seed at the #4 seed for just 1 game. The winner of that game plays the #1 seed in the Division Series, even if the #1 seed is from the same division.

The first round would be a 7 game series. The 2nd & 3rd seeds would have to win 4 out of 7 to move onto the League Championship Series. Here's where I'd change the rule however. The #4 seed, the "Wild Card" would have to win 5 games while the top seed only has to win 3 games. The first 2 and the last 3 games would be hosted by the #1 seed in that series. So even if the wild card wins the first 4 games, they would not win the Division Series at home. This would in essence require the wild card to win 6 games to advance to the LCS, while the top seed would only have to win 3 games.

The LCS and World Series would still be best of 7. I myself would prefer to see the League Champion with the best regular season winning percentage get to host the World Series for games 1,2,6 & 7. In light of that however, I'd prefer to see them rotate like they used to.

I really like this for a short-term solution before the MLB expands. Good job.

[McCall]

I'd prefer to see Arizona moved to the AL West, move Houston back into the NL West (where they were longtime rivals with the Dodgers, Giants & Padres). By doing this, most teams would have a natural/geographic interleague team.

AL East NL East

Yankees Mets

Red Sox Phillies

Orioles Nationals

Blue Jays Braves (Yes I know this is not a "natural" rivalry, but out of process of elimination, this is what's left)

Rays Marlins

AL Central NL Central

Tigers Pirates (Again, not the most natural geographic rivalry, but again process of elimination)

Indians Reds

Royals Cardinals

White Sox Cubs

Twins Brewers

AL West NL West

Diamondbacks Rockies (Semi-close geographically, and they are 2 of the newer teams as well)

Athletics Giants

Angels Dodgers

Mariners Padres

Rangers Astros

Keeping the 162 game regular season schedule, every team plays 18 divisional games vs. each of their 4 opponents. That's 72 games. 18 interleague games per season, 3 vs. your "natural" rival every year, and 15 games against one of the 3 divisions, on a rotating basis. This means for example the Yankees would play the Mets 3 times a year, but every 3rd year they'd play the Mets 6 times. That's 90. Then teams would play the other 10 teams in their own league 6 times (3 at home 3 on the road), for another 60 games, bringing us up to 150. The last 12 games would be played against last year's 1st place opponents in your own league. So for example, with this realignment, The Yankees would play 12 games instead of just 6 vs. the Texas Rangers & the Detroit Tigers. All 2nd place teams would play the other 2 2nd place teams, 3rd place teams vs 3rd place teams, and so on, similar to the way the NFL does it now.

Lastly, I would indeed have two wild card teams from each league qualify to play a 1 game playoff/play-in game. The #5 seed at the #4 seed for just 1 game. The winner of that game plays the #1 seed in the Division Series, even if the #1 seed is from the same division.

The first round would be a 7 game series. The 2nd & 3rd seeds would have to win 4 out of 7 to move onto the League Championship Series. Here's where I'd change the rule however. The #4 seed, the "Wild Card" would have to win 5 games while the top seed only has to win 3 games. The first 2 and the last 3 games would be hosted by the #1 seed in that series. So even if the wild card wins the first 4 games, they would not win the Division Series at home. This would in essence require the wild card to win 6 games to advance to the LCS, while the top seed would only have to win 3 games.

The LCS and World Series would still be best of 7. I myself would prefer to see the League Champion with the best regular season winning percentage get to host the World Series for games 1,2,6 & 7. In light of that however, I'd prefer to see them rotate like they used to.

I really like this for a short-term solution before the MLB expands. Good job.

I prefer Colorado switching over Arizona, but either one makes more sense than Houston. Though the scheduling leaves a LOT to be desired. Playoffs need no changing whatsoever.

[wdm1219inpenna]

I'd prefer to see Arizona moved to the AL West, move Houston back into the NL West (where they were longtime rivals with the Dodgers, Giants & Padres). By doing this, most teams would have a natural/geographic interleague team.

AL East NL East

Yankees Mets

Red Sox Phillies

Orioles Nationals

Blue Jays Braves (Yes I know this is not a "natural" rivalry, but out of process of elimination, this is what's left)

Rays Marlins

AL Central NL Central

Tigers Pirates (Again, not the most natural geographic rivalry, but again process of elimination)

Indians Reds

Royals Cardinals

White Sox Cubs

Twins Brewers

AL West NL West

Diamondbacks Rockies (Semi-close geographically, and they are 2 of the newer teams as well)

Athletics Giants

Angels Dodgers

Mariners Padres

Rangers Astros

Keeping the 162 game regular season schedule, every team plays 18 divisional games vs. each of their 4 opponents. That's 72 games. 18 interleague games per season, 3 vs. your "natural" rival every year, and 15 games against one of the 3 divisions, on a rotating basis. This means for example the Yankees would play the Mets 3 times a year, but every 3rd year they'd play the Mets 6 times. That's 90. Then teams would play the other 10 teams in their own league 6 times (3 at home 3 on the road), for another 60 games, bringing us up to 150. The last 12 games would be played against last year's 1st place opponents in your own league. So for example, with this realignment, The Yankees would play 12 games instead of just 6 vs. the Texas Rangers & the Detroit Tigers. All 2nd place teams would play the other 2 2nd place teams, 3rd place teams vs 3rd place teams, and so on, similar to the way the NFL does it now.

Lastly, I would indeed have two wild card teams from each league qualify to play a 1 game playoff/play-in game. The #5 seed at the #4 seed for just 1 game. The winner of that game plays the #1 seed in the Division Series, even if the #1 seed is from the same division.

The first round would be a 7 game series. The 2nd & 3rd seeds would have to win 4 out of 7 to move onto the League Championship Series. Here's where I'd change the rule however. The #4 seed, the "Wild Card" would have to win 5 games while the top seed only has to win 3 games. The first 2 and the last 3 games would be hosted by the #1 seed in that series. So even if the wild card wins the first 4 games, they would not win the Division Series at home. This would in essence require the wild card to win 6 games to advance to the LCS, while the top seed would only have to win 3 games.

The LCS and World Series would still be best of 7. I myself would prefer to see the League Champion with the best regular season winning percentage get to host the World Series for games 1,2,6 & 7. In light of that however, I'd prefer to see them rotate like they used to.

I really like this for a short-term solution before the MLB expands. Good job.

I prefer Colorado switching over Arizona, but either one makes more sense than Houston. Though the scheduling leaves a LOT to be desired. Playoffs need no changing whatsoever.

Thank you for the kind replies. I too prefer to keep Houston as an NL team. I chose Arizona for 2 reasons. 1, they are the newest NL team. 2. Can you imagine Colorado's home games with the Designate Hitter batting instead of the pitcher?!?! They'd be outscoring the Broncos, and possibly the Nuggets too!!!

As for the 1 game play in, then a 7 game series for the first round of games, the Division Series, I believe it should be much harder for 1 wild card team to advance. Over the past 17 years, since the wild card has been used, there have been 34 World Series teams, and 10 of those 34 have been a wild card team, including 2 in 2002. To me, that's far too many and puts too much of an emphasis on teams who are "hot" and takes away the meaning of winning over the long haul (162 game regular season schedule). For this reason, I'd love to see them implement the 1 game play-in playoff game, then for the first round only, the #1 seed needs just 3 wins, the wild card needs 5 wins, and again, top seed in Round 1 of the playoffs gets to host games 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7.

[rams80]

Thank you for the kind replies. I too prefer to keep Houston as an NL team. I chose Arizona for 2 reasons. 1, they are the newest NL team. 2. Can you imagine Colorado's home games with the Designate Hitter batting instead of the pitcher?!?! They'd be outscoring the Broncos, and possibly the Nuggets too!!!

As for the 1 game play in, then a 7 game series for the first round of games, the Division Series, I believe it should be much harder for 1 wild card team to advance. Over the past 17 years, since the wild card has been used, there have been 34 World Series teams, and 10 of those 34 have been a wild card team, including 2 in 2002. To me, that's far too many and puts too much of an emphasis on teams who are "hot" and takes away the meaning of winning over the long haul (162 game regular season schedule). For this reason, I'd love to see them implement the 1 game play-in playoff game, then for the first round only, the #1 seed needs just 3 wins, the wild card needs 5 wins, and again, top seed in Round 1 of the playoffs gets to host games 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7.

1. Thanks to the humidor Coors is now a pitcher's park, and has been for close to a decade.

2. Since the baseball playoff format at moment places all 8 teams on a roughly equal footing, you've got a 1 in 4 chance of the Wild card team going to the World (yeah, they lose HFA, but the Wild Card can frequently be better than at least one of the division champions). Based on that one-in-four chance we should have seen 8-9 Wild Card teams in the World Series. 10 isn't so anomalous that massive rejiggering is needed.

3. That said, if we're going to nerf the Wild Card, I think the best option is 1 game Wild Card playoff, followed by no off day between Wild Card game and first game of the division series. That should give them enough of a hill to surmount in the playoffs. (You only get your ace for one game in the LDS this way).

[DaytonBlue]

Couple of thoughts:

1. Isn't the only reason Houston is being considered is because their being sold and MLB can use switching leagues as a condition for the sale?

2. If they add a 2nd wild card, here's how I would do it.

-Season ends on a Sunday...all games played in afternoon.

-Monday is wild card playoff.

-Tuesday is 1st game of the 2 vs. 3 series.

-Wednesday is 1st game of 1 vs. wild card series.

-No off days after that except for travel.

-Division champs play wild card from same division now since the wild card has played an extra game and used their best pitcher.

This setup also makes the 1 or 2 seed more important because it gives you an extra off day to set up your rotation.

Home field in World Series: I've read that MLB wants it set in advance. So if they insist on that, I would award it to the league that has the team with the best record. The All-star winner is lame.

[Viper]

1. Isn't the only reason Houston is being considered is because their being sold and MLB can use switching leagues as a condition for the sale?

Yes. Timing, as the saying goes, is everything.

[McCall]

But makes absolutely no sense when it comes to moving a team with a 50 year history in the NL instead of one of two teams that combine for only 33 years and geographically make much more sense.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Well, some of the Pac-12's interest in Oklahoma and Texas was supposedly to get more games in the Central Time Zone. Perhaps, in addition to getting the Rangers off an island, that's a reason for this as well. Also, moving Colorado or Arizona would just create the Texas problem in both leagues: one division spread across three time zones, as Houston would be moved to the NL West in that scenario.

[oaklandhusker]

I'm not sure how they should work it out, but if they want to realign, they need to expand. Just sayin'.

[McCall]

I'm not sure how they should work it out, but if they want to realign, they need to expand. Just sayin'.

Yeah, we know. It's called post-padding. They do not need to expand in order for realignment. I used to be against 15 in each league with interleague always be played, until I realized the minimum amount of games would be less than what's being played now, though I doubt they would decrease it to that, but it doesn't automatically add any interleague games, either.

[oaklandhusker]

I'm not sure how they should work it out, but if they want to realign, they need to expand. Just sayin'.

Yeah, we know. It's called post-padding. They do not need to expand in order for realignment. I used to be against 15 in each league with interleague always be played, until I realized the minimum amount of games would be less than what's being played now, though I doubt they would decrease it to that, but it doesn't automatically add any interleague games, either.

1. It's not post-padding. It's on-topic.

2. Leave me alone.

3. I was merely expressing my views. Welcome to the internet.

[mania]

Well, some of the Pac-12's interest in Oklahoma and Texas was supposedly to get more games in the Central Time Zone. Perhaps, in addition to getting the Rangers off an island, that's a reason for this as well. Also, moving Colorado or Arizona would just create the Texas problem in both leagues: one division spread across three time zones, as Houston would be moved to the NL West in that scenario.

It's definitely a reason why. At the moment, every single Rangers road division game is two time zones away. This would help, and I'm sure it's why the Rangers (and Fox Sports Net) are in favor of it.

For the Astros, at the moment, they're not good and they don't draw many fans, but they do always draw for Rangers games, even if a lot of the crowd is Rangers fans.

[McCall]

But if you switch the Rockies or D-Backs, then the two West divisions equally mirror each other; 3 pacific time zone teams, 1 mountain, and 1 Texas/central time zone team. I think this would make much more sense. Plus, the Astros long history of being in the NL, 17 years longer than Colorado and Arizona combined, should definitely be taken into account. At the moment, it doesn't seem as if the Astros themselves are on board, so I don't think they should be forced and especially when there are 2 other better options.

[BBTV]

I am against year-long interleague play. It would suck to take away the potential drama of settling a WC or division title fought out between two rivals and have it settled between a team like the Braves playing against the Royals or something like that. It would also suck if the world series was "previewed" less than a month before it's actually contested. I don't care much for interleague play anyway, but it really should be confined to the otherwise boring parts of the season, and not the end.

[oaklandhusker]

I am against year-long interleague play. It would suck to take away the potential drama of settling a WC or division title fought out between two rivals and have it settled between a team like the Braves playing against the Royals or something like that. It would also suck if the world series was "previewed" less than a month before it's actually contested. I don't care much for interleague play anyway, but it really should be confined to the otherwise boring parts of the season, and not the end.

Amen.

In other news, if they ARE going to realign (without expanding), I think it would be awesome if they were to go back to the original format, AL and NL without divisions, no playoffs, just champ vs. champ in the WS. It'll never happen, though. MLB makes too much money on the playoffs.

[McCall]

I am against year-long interleague play. It would suck to take away the potential drama of settling a WC or division title fought out between two rivals and have it settled between a team like the Braves playing against the Royals or something like that. It would also suck if the world series was "previewed" less than a month before it's actually contested. I don't care much for interleague play anyway, but it really should be confined to the otherwise boring parts of the season, and not the end.

I agree, but it's here to stay, unfortunately. And once I found out that the minimum number of interleague games is less than what they're playing now, I figured balancing out the leagues was necessary. Now I know they won't decrease the total number of interleague games, but it won't automatically increase the total either. They can easily schedule games that matter at the end, based on the final standings of the previous season, much like in the NFL. Sure, a team may underperform and the games become meaningless, but that could easily happen now. They could schedule like the Astros-Royals, or Padres-Mariners and other bad NL-AL teams as the final series of interleague play at the end of the season, that way they don't have anything really riding on them and the good teams are playing either divisional or at least intraleague games.

[CubsFanBudMan]

But if you switch the Rockies or D-Backs, then the two West divisions equally mirror each other; 3 pacific time zone teams, 1 mountain, and 1 Texas/central time zone team. I think this would make much more sense.

My point is that it's a bad setup in the AL, so why add it to the NL? Any division stretched across three time zones is a bad idea, but if you have to have it, you might as well take the hit in just one and at the same time soften the blow for Texas (and ultimately, Houston).

Ideally, they'd take those two Wests and divide them into West and South, but that's a hypothetical best suited for the pinned thread, so I won't draw it out here.

[McCall]

But if you switch the Rockies or D-Backs, then the two West divisions equally mirror each other; 3 pacific time zone teams, 1 mountain, and 1 Texas/central time zone team. I think this would make much more sense.

My point is that it's a bad setup in the AL, so why add it to the NL? Any division stretched across three time zones is a bad idea, but if you have to have it, you might as well take the hit in just one and at the same time soften the blow for Texas (and ultimately, Houston).

Ideally, they'd take those two Wests and divide them into West and South, but that's a hypothetical best suited for the pinned thread, so I won't draw it out here.

I disagree. I think it would make more sense to balance the two Wests. Colorado, being more north, can also help kind of bridge the gap between the Rangers and Mariners, being a little closer to Seattle, aswear Arizona remaining in the NL makes it more of a southern West division with San Francisco being the most northern.

[wdm1219inpenna]

Lots of new good arguments being posed here. I enjoy good "debate" such as this. Gives me other things to think about too, from time zones to humidors & having Colorado in the AL West instead due to geography, etc.

[DaytonBlue]

I personally would rather have one interleague series going on all the time instead of MLB trying to pretend that the special "Interleague" time is somehow more important. If they went 15-15, they could do something like this:

division opponents 18x=72 games

interleague=18 games (play one division each team 3x and play your "rival" 3x...yes you'd play the rival two series every 3rd year)

remaining 72 games intraleague (play every team 7 or 8 times)

Easy breazy and you'd play an almost identical schedule as your divisional rivals each year (except the 3 game rivals series)...It would make the inherent unfairness of the current interleague system go away for the most part.