Baseball re-alligment

Don't want realignment. As you say, with 15 teams in each league it would require one interleague game per day. This is a thin disguise to get the DH into the National League. For if there is one interleague game per day, plus the two sessions of interleague games every spring, there will be many more days of the aging veteran DH being unable to play in national league parks. I figure the players union wouldn't like those veterans sitting on the bench so the push would be on to get the DH unified in both leagues.

Don't want another wild card round. They would add one more wild card team to the playoffs, one in each league. There would be a three game playoff between the two wild card teams in each league with the winner advancing as the lowest seed against the division winners in their respective league. Though unlikely, we could actually see the day when a team with a losing record would make the playoffs.

Even more blasphemous is the talk of ELIMINATING DIVISION WINNERS ALTOGETHER and simply going with the top five teams in each league with the best W-L record. The two teams out of the five with the fewest number of wins would face off in a best of three game wild card round (similar to described above). The winner of this wild card round would play the team with the best W-L record in the league and the other two teams would play each other in a best of five series. The two teams that emerge from that would play in a seven game LCS.

Both those expanded playoff schemes dilute the meaning of playing 162 games during the regular season. I suppose teams like the Tampa Bay Rays would love the top five teams making the playoffs (and probably Toronto and Baltimore as well, since these three teams have to compete with the Yankees and Red Sox in their division.) Get rid of division winners and all sorts of weird scenarios could occur. For example, there would be no need to play an imbalanced schedule (more games against teams in your division than outside your division) so another likely change would be a balanced schedule, i.e. only 5 games against any one team in both leagues.

All of these proposals rub me the wrong way and would be throwing tradition out the window.

I'm also against three All Star games. There used to be two All Star games and they switched to only one for a reason. Consider how many no-shows we just had in yesterday's AS game. With three per year you would have even more players begging off.

 

I don't care for any of the proposals. However, I think the addition of WC teams is most likely.

Before we pile on too much, remember that many jumped up and down over having ONE WC team. Now, it's not that big a deal and it did not destroy baseball.

I plan on starting a thread about ASG no-shows. Don't get me started here.

 

Then you're ok with the teams in the NL Central having a 1 in 6 shot of making the playoffs while the teams in the AL West having a 1 in 4 shot of making the playoffs. The playing field isn't exactly level between all the divisions.

It's long past time either the DH becomes the rule in the NL or abolished in the AL. It's ridiculous that major league baseball is being played under different rules.

The player's union doesn't care about that, they care about the potential lost jobs if the DH goes away. This is why the DH is destined to become the rule in the NL. It may not happen in this particular CBA, but it's going to happen.

The proposal that I've heard is making it a 1 game wild card round, not 3, mostly because MLB is finally figuring out that possibly stretching the World Series into November is a bad thing.

Professional baseball was played for over 60 years without divisions, so spare me the argument about tradition.

 

Yes, I'm OK with it.

Both have been discussed. The one game playoff would probably never be accepted by the players union. They might want to rename the three game playoff into a 'double elimination showdown' for marketing purposes. This is the format that high school and college use.

Are you over 40 years old? (I am.) If not, then the only tradition you know is divisional play baseball.

 

Like CCrob, I'm not okay with the AL West being a 4 team division. That said, I've yet to hear a plan I'm thrilled with. Everything's come up: Arizona goes to ALW and Houston moves to NLW (like the NLW needs another bottom feeder). Houston to the ALW to give a rivalry to the Rangers and save the Rangers some travel in division; Colorado to the ALW makes a little more sense, but still, if you ever expand or contract, you have an issue here.

I absolutely do not want double-elimination in any form, verbal or otherwise, in MLB.

I agree. However:

I have been saying that for years. However, it hasn't happened yet. I don't think it will happen. There are maybe two pro leagues on the planet that don't have the DH (NL and a Japanese league). This is only one area where the rules between the leagues differ. However, lots of things about baseball are different (different fields, dimensions, etc.) so I'm not shocked. However, think about this: what if the AFC gave four points for a FG and the goal posts were on the goal line. And the field only 40 yards wide. And the end zones 30 yards deep. NFC would be like it is now. Would anyone stand for that? Welcome to baseball.

I hear this, yet people are mad that baseball is starting in March. In three years, they'll forget all about it. See my point?

Can't unring that bell. The divisions have to mean something. SEC has done away with divisions in basketball. However, not all of the coaches were in favor of that "scorched earth" move. They just didn't like the seeding in the SEC tourney. You have to have an "order" so to speak, especially when you have 14 or 16 teams in a league. Don't tell me you like the idea of a 14 team division, let alone 16?

 

Essentially that is just another way to designate a 3 game series. Do you object to the idea of a 3 game series? Or the term "double elimination"?

Double elimination would have more pizzazz for promoting the series.

 

Double-elimination would make it sound like college or HS ball. No way MLB wants that. They like product uniqueness, or USP if you're a marketing major.

 

Do you favor a three game series over a one-off game? I surely do.

 

I think the ideal situation is to get 2 more teams - 16 in each league, 4 divisions each - like the NFL. Not sure if baseball can afford 2 more teams, though. Not sure about playoffs - I like the idea of just 4 division winners and no WC. I don't like the idea of 2 teams sitting out the first round with a bye - that can actually hurt a team in baseball where you lose the ebb and flow after just playing 162 games.

That said, I like the current system better than any of the proposals.

 

You missed the point apparently. For the so-called tradition of divisional play, baseball was played for 60+ years without it. If it makes more sense to have divisional play, and I think it does, that's a real argument. Otherwise, your argument is "that's how it's always been done".

I know exactly what you mean. But, did you know that the season start date was moved this year to accommodate the World Series not extending into November? Only way they're ever going to confine the regular season to run from April to September anymore is to have fewer than 162 games, or play more double-headers, or eliminate more days off. Since none of those are going to happen, either starting in late March or ending in November are the only alternatives.

Unless MLB wants interleague play all season long, simple math says what we have now is about the best we can do.

 

Yep, for people under 50 years old, their tradition is divisional play. It's the only thing they've known. It's not a "so-called" tradition.

You seem to be arguing with me for recreational purposes and not to make a real point.

 

Should MLB want to go to 4 divisions, are you going to argue against it based on tradition? When the NFL realigned all the divisions, were there any complaints about the Atlanta Falcons not being in the NFC West because it was traditional for them to be in the West? Of course not, it made more sense for realignment to happen.

Arguments based on tradition are weak arguments, at best. Let's argue for, or against, something because it makes sense, not because we're bound by tradition.

 

Yep, you're arguing with me because you misinterpret my stance. The argument concerning divisional play is not about how many divisions there may or may not be, it is this:

Should MLB go to a playoff system whereby the top five teams from each league make the playoffs based solely on W-L records? (In other words, you would have divisions, or realignment in name only and there would be no benefit to 'winning' your division.)

I say no because I like division winners, I like unbalanced scheduling, and yes, I like the TRADITION of divisional winners.

 

CCROB wrote:

Yes. Not a fan, actually. I always liked watching the Reds and later on watching the championship game of the Final Four. Plus, you get a three-day holiday in Cincinnati

Agreed. I argued on the other one I like ending in early Nov because of weather concerns.

I like a 162 game schedule. But sliding back was a bad idea. I personally believe the season should start on a Monday so if that means going back to late March, okay. But otherwise, early April is fine.

I agree. Tradition can be part of a preferential argument, but not on some sort of evidenciary argument.

InTheLight:

The moment we say "I like...." we go to preferential arguments. I'm okay with that. I like what we have now. No way I'd want one giant division with 16 teams vying for 4 spots or whatever. We seem to forget that we can't compare a 30 team league with an 8-16 team league. Expansion created the need for divisions, etc.

 

No, I understood your position perfectly.

Tom put it best.

 

I don't qualify as a 'traditionalilst' in the minds of many fans in that I do strongly support having a Designated Hitter and I don't mind realigning divisions, or even leagues. On the other hand, I never preferred having interleague play, nor having more and more (and more) playoffs. After 162 games, 4 teams go back to a 0-0 record and start another mini-season. Thus, Seattle in 2001 won a record 116 games, then lost in the first round of that mini-season. But that's just the trend in pro sports, and baseball clearly has the 'simplest' playoff format of 8 teams; while basketball and hockey have 16, and the NFL has 12.

But no matter how much we may 'long for' it, the simpler days of 8-team major leagues with 2 pennant winners (no playoffs except to break a tie) and a World Series are too long gone to long for. The bottom line, as always, is money. Fans today think a big playoff extraveganza that lasts a month or 2 is an entitlement. I say they've been brainwashed to think so by money-grubbing owners. But the respective wishes 'even out,' I suppose...the fans want more action to watch, the owners give it to them in order to rake in more money. That was the reason for the original World Series of 1903, and it's the reason for obese playoff formats today.

 

If realignment is needed to even up leagues then do it. But, while their at it, make everyone play Baseball not some playing baseball. Get rid of the designated hitter or either add a courtesy runner and a 4th outfielder and a run rule per inning. :tonofbricks:

 

I know. I hate designated players who are specialists and don't really do much else. Like goaltenders, punters, FG kickers, kickoff specialists, Nickle-backs, Dime backs, Pinch hitters, pinch runners........:laugh:

 

Don't forget LOOGY's

Lefty One Out GuY - a left handed reliever specializing in getting one out.