Houston Astros to American League West

[Quillz]

I like the idea of expanded playoffs and the Astros moving to the NL West. I like seeing balanced divisions, five teams in each.

I guess the new first round is lacking both a name (Wild Card Series?) and a concrete execution (winner take all? best of three?), but overall, I like it.

But my only question (and maybe it's already been answered): will the second wild card team simply be the third best team in the league, even if they're from the same division as the first wild card, or will it have to be the second best team from the division that didn't produce the first wild card?

Say, for example, the AL wild card is from the AL East. The third best team (aka the second wild card) is also from the AL East. Would that be allowed (forcing division rivals to meet before the LCS), or would they go to the second best team from another division? (Say, the second best AL West team.)

[Quillz]

I thought about how the math lines up with an NFL-style rotation, too. But then that would take the rivalry series, the only things that produce much of a gate bump in interleague (unless the Yankees or Red Sox are in town), and makes them an every-third-year thing. So we'll probably see some sort of mishmash.

Exactly.

Are there any "rivalry" series that are across divisions (i.e. Mets and Yankees are both in East, Angels and Dodgers are both in West, etc.)? Because what they could do is just fix an East vs East, Central vs Central, West vs West every year, and then rotate one other division (like NFL) every three years.

I doubt it really exists anymore, but the Royals and Yankees used to have a pretty good rivalry, especially during the 1980s when both teams were constantly meeting in the ALCS.

And... that's about all I can think of.

[SFGiants58]

Quite frankly, I don't think that the move will negatively effect the Astros or the MLB as a whole. The post-Selig commissioner will probably not sanction expanded interleague (if there's intense negative fan reaction after one year of expanded interleague, it'll go back to a two or three week period broken up over the first half of the season), and the Astros need a fresh start.

In 50 years as a National League team, they've been beaten into the ground repeatedly in the playoffs (one pennant in 50 years), had a good portion of their fanbase dissipate,and have had poor General Managers and Ownership that have wreaked havoc on their farm system and market value. There is no future for the Astros in the National League, as their finances are crippled and they can no longer compete with the NL Central, much less the rest of the NL. In the AL West, they can find financial stability and start from the ground up, building a new Astros legacy in the American League that might not face with the same crushing disappointment 50 years in the NL created. If I'm waxing poetic, I apologize, but I do feel that this move could be a "rebirth" for the Astros. Also, I would suggest a complete rebranding for the 2013 season.

[Quillz]

Quite frankly, I don't think that the move will negatively effect the Astros or the MLB as a whole. The post-Selig commissioner will probably not sanction expanded interleague (if there's intense negative fan reaction after one year of expanded interleague, it'll go back to a two or three week period broken up over the first half of the season), and the Astros need a fresh start.

In 50 years as a National League team, they've been beaten into the ground repeatedly in the playoffs (one pennant in 50 years), had a good portion of their fanbase dissipate,and have had poor General Managers and Ownership that have wreaked havoc on their farm system and market value. There is no future for the Astros in the National League, as their finances are crippled and they can no longer compete with the NL Central, much less the rest of the NL. In the AL West, they can find financial stability and start from the ground up, building a new Astros legacy in the American League that might not face with the same crushing disappointment 50 years in the NL created. If I'm waxing poetic, I apologize, but I do feel that this move could be a "rebirth" for the Astros. Also, I would suggest a complete rebranding for the 2013 season.

I don't think they should rebrand. There is nothing wrong with "Houston Astros," and they've been around for a half century.

I don't even know what they would consider rebranding to.

[BBTV]

I thought about how the math lines up with an NFL-style rotation, too. But then that would take the rivalry series, the only things that produce much of a gate bump in interleague (unless the Yankees or Red Sox are in town), and makes them an every-third-year thing. So we'll probably see some sort of mishmash.

Exactly.

Are there any "rivalry" series that are across divisions (i.e. Mets and Yankees are both in East, Angels and Dodgers are both in West, etc.)? Because what they could do is just fix an East vs East, Central vs Central, West vs West every year, and then rotate one other division (like NFL) every three years.

I doubt it really exists anymore, but the Royals and Yankees used to have a pretty good rivalry, especially during the 1980s when both teams were constantly meeting in the ALCS.

And... that's about all I can think of.

I'm talking about the designated "interleague rivalry" series. Nobody other than George Brett cares about the Royals and Yankees.

[SFGiants58]

Quite frankly, I don't think that the move will negatively effect the Astros or the MLB as a whole. The post-Selig commissioner will probably not sanction expanded interleague (if there's intense negative fan reaction after one year of expanded interleague, it'll go back to a two or three week period broken up over the first half of the season), and the Astros need a fresh start.

In 50 years as a National League team, they've been beaten into the ground repeatedly in the playoffs (one pennant in 50 years), had a good portion of their fanbase dissipate,and have had poor General Managers and Ownership that have wreaked havoc on their farm system and market value. There is no future for the Astros in the National League, as their finances are crippled and they can no longer compete with the NL Central, much less the rest of the NL. In the AL West, they can find financial stability and start from the ground up, building a new Astros legacy in the American League that might not face with the same crushing disappointment 50 years in the NL created. If I'm waxing poetic, I apologize, but I do feel that this move could be a "rebirth" for the Astros. Also, I would suggest a complete rebranding for the 2013 season.

I don't think they should rebrand. There is nothing wrong with "Houston Astros," and they've been around for a half century.

I don't even know what they would consider rebranding to.

I didn't mean change the name, but change the logos, color scheme and uniforms. I've got no problem with the name.

[Gothamite]

How things change - that used to be a huge rivalry, so much so that the Royals chose to remain in the AL in 1997 and start a rivalry with the Cardinals.

But my only question (and maybe it's already been answered): will the second wild card team simply be the third best team in the league, even if they're from the same division as the first wild card, or will it have to be the second best team from the division that didn't produce the first wild card?

I'd be surprised if they put a divisional quota on it; would make sense to me if they just took the two best teams not to win a division.

[Quillz]

Quite frankly, I don't think that the move will negatively effect the Astros or the MLB as a whole. The post-Selig commissioner will probably not sanction expanded interleague (if there's intense negative fan reaction after one year of expanded interleague, it'll go back to a two or three week period broken up over the first half of the season), and the Astros need a fresh start.

In 50 years as a National League team, they've been beaten into the ground repeatedly in the playoffs (one pennant in 50 years), had a good portion of their fanbase dissipate,and have had poor General Managers and Ownership that have wreaked havoc on their farm system and market value. There is no future for the Astros in the National League, as their finances are crippled and they can no longer compete with the NL Central, much less the rest of the NL. In the AL West, they can find financial stability and start from the ground up, building a new Astros legacy in the American League that might not face with the same crushing disappointment 50 years in the NL created. If I'm waxing poetic, I apologize, but I do feel that this move could be a "rebirth" for the Astros. Also, I would suggest a complete rebranding for the 2013 season.

I don't think they should rebrand. There is nothing wrong with "Houston Astros," and they've been around for a half century.

I don't even know what they would consider rebranding to.

I didn't mean change the name, but change the logos, color scheme and uniforms. I've got no problem with the name.

Ah, I see. It's probably, but frankly, I don't think it's necessary. But I wouldn't be surprised if something like that did occur.

[TBGKon]

This story from MLB.com has some other theories on interleague play:

In a proposal advanced by USA TODAY, a team would play 16 games against each of its division rivals, eight games against each of the other 10 teams in its league, three games against each of the teams from a division in the opposite league, plus three games against a natural Interleague rival. The benefit of this scenario is that, besides three games, all of the teams in a division would play the same schedules.

Another possibility would be to eliminate the unbalanced schedule and go to 10 games against each of the other 14 teams in your league (144 games), plus 18 Interleague games.

[Mac the Knife]

This story from MLB.com has some other theories on interleague play:

In a proposal advanced by USA TODAY, a team would play 16 games against each of its division rivals, eight games against each of the other 10 teams in its league, three games against each of the teams from a division in the opposite league, plus three games against a natural Interleague rival. The benefit of this scenario is that, besides three games, all of the teams in a division would play the same schedules.

Another possibility would be to eliminate the unbalanced schedule and go to 10 games against each of the other 14 teams in your league (144 games), plus 18 Interleague games.

I think either of these would be preferable to anything else I've heard on the subject so far.

The wild cards in each league will, almost certainly, play in a single "win or go home" game. While the players union likes the idea of an expanded playoff format, even they don't want to see the season expanded by even a best-of-three "Wild Card Series:" as it is, in 2013 a team could (without a tie for the 2d wild card slot occurring) 182 games in total.

[Sodboy13]

Wait... 10 x 14 = 144?

Must be that new math.

[TBGKon]

Wait... 10 x 14 = 144?

Must be that new math.

Haha, glad I can't take claim to the quote.

[BrySmalls]

Wait... 10 x 14 = 144?

Must be that new math.

That's just a sample of MLB's Miscalculations 101 course offered for the Spring 2012 Semester.

[McCall]

Wait... 10 x 14 = 144?

Must be that new math.

Goes hand in hand with Astros 50 seasons < Arizona & Colorado combined 33 seasons. Ahh, MLB math.

[WJMorris3]

I think 18 games against your division (72), 6 against everyone else in the league (60), and 30 interleague games (15 against the across division, and 15 against another division - getting 30 against the cross division every three years) might be the best. Since everything is factored on the three game series, it might make scheduling easier - you can always turn divisional series from 3-3-3 at one venue to 4-3-2.

[DaytonBlue]

As first reported here by AstroBull

In a proposal advanced by USA TODAY, a team would play 16 games against each of its division rivals, eight games against each of the other 10 teams in its league, three games against each of the teams from a division in the opposite league, plus three games against a natural Interleague rival. The benefit of this scenario is that, besides three games, all of the teams in a division would play the same schedules.

This is what I would do. That last sentence is key.

30 games of interleague makes my stomach queasy.

And the two wild card series have to be one-game playoffs. Waiting for a three-game series could hurt the team with the best record, and I thought the whole point of a 2nd wild card (besides $) was to make it harder for the wild card to win it all (It's funny that I'm in favor of all this considering the Cards wont it all with the wild card this year.) They could even call them Wild Card playoffs because MLB likes the term postseason for the whole tournament. If they do this, I would have tiebreakers break ties for teams fighting for divsion/wild card spots so the team with the best record would not have to wait an extra day to start their series. The only time I would have a tiebreaker game 163 is between two teams for a division title where the loser is going home. That game could go on at the same time as the wild card playoff.

[WJMorris3]

I'd hope they'd start enforcing Rule 1.01 while they are at it, as it's been flaunted for 39 years now, I think.

[DaytonBlue]

And BTW just have to say it's great to have a place to discuss this with people. At work, the only sports people want to talk about are SEC football coaching hirings and Memphis basketball, not reallignment scenarios and new logos.

[McCall]

I think 18 games against your division (72), 6 against everyone else in the league (60), and 30 interleague games (15 against the across division, and 15 against another division - getting 30 against the cross division every three years) might be the best. Since everything is factored on the three game series, it might make scheduling easier - you can always turn divisional series from 3-3-3 at one venue to 4-3-2.

30 Interleague games is just way too many.

For 15 interleague games, go:

- 72 Division games (18 against each of the 4 other teams)

- 75 League games (9 against one division, 6 against the other)

- 15 Interleague games (3 games against each team in one rotating division from other league)

For 18 interleague games:

- 64 Division games (16 against each of the 4 other teams)

- 80 League games (8 against each of the 10 other teams)

- 18 Interleague games (3 against each team in one rotating division, plus 3 against interleague rival. On seasons rival's division is played, a home and away is played. Other two years, one series is home, the other year is away)

[DaytonBlue]

I don't think they will get rid of the interleague rival. I kind of wish they would. If those only happened every 3 years it would make it more meaningful.