U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-12-2011, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Long Island,New York
8,126 posts, read 8,017,991 times
Reputation: 2321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City View Post
I like the division and I do not want Milwaukee to leave to some other division. When Milwaukee was in the AL East there were times when Milw was 35 games above .500 and they were still in third place, I feel for the Rays my adopted AL Team. B.O. talked about splitting up the Sox and the Yanks one into the AL and one in the NL.
I understand totally. AL East is tough but I would forsee them going to the central if anything. The other thing being thrown around is no divisions just 2 leagues with the top 5 making it. I do agree that it is much tougher in the AL to make the playoffs. In the NL it's almost every year that a borderline .500 team makes the playoffs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2011, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
10,793 posts, read 6,516,732 times
Reputation: 7841
I wonder what the plan is for the playoffs in this five teams from each league system. If you began with 2 NL series featuring four NL teams, 2 AL series featuring AL teams, and one series featuring an AL team aganst a NL team, the second round would would have five teams and that won't work. So I guess before the first round, #4 would have to play # 5 in each league, the winners advancing to series against # 1, 2 or 3 in their leagues.

That wouldn't be so bad in terms of fairness, the teams with the lesser records should be required to do more in the playoffs to prove that they belong. It makes the regular season more meaningful as well since being # 1, 2 or 3 is a huge advantage over being # 4 or 5. What is bad is that it stretches the post season out even longer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2011, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Asheville
7,330 posts, read 3,717,059 times
Reputation: 6442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
I wonder what the plan is for the playoffs in this five teams from each league system. If you began with 2 NL series featuring four NL teams, 2 AL series featuring AL teams, and one series featuring an AL team aganst a NL team, the second round would would have five teams and that won't work. So I guess before the first round, #4 would have to play # 5 in each league, the winners advancing to series against # 1, 2 or 3 in their leagues.

That wouldn't be so bad in terms of fairness, the teams with the lesser records should be required to do more in the playoffs to prove that they belong. It makes the regular season more meaningful as well since being # 1, 2 or 3 is a huge advantage over being # 4 or 5. What is bad is that it stretches the post season out even longer.
this is why I don't like 5 teams per league in the playoffs, this isn't football bye weeks for baseball teams shouldn't be viewed as a reward.

If it's got to be 5 teams a one game or maybe a 3 game playoff is all they'll be able to do. and I think 3 games might be too long for the bye teams.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2011, 06:06 AM
 
Location: Elizabethton, TN
5,781 posts, read 2,279,484 times
Reputation: 1802
I would prefer a schedule that has every team playing every other team in the league the same number of games, even if this means shortening the regular season by a week or two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2011, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,302 posts, read 6,359,482 times
Reputation: 6513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
If someone has the motivation and energy, he or she may go back and look at all the adjusted races since MLB reached 30 teams and see how things would have been different. I suspect that the pattern will be sometimes the old way made for the better race, and sometimes the new set up would have been better.
How Would Realignment Affect Playoff Races? | FanGraphs Baseball
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Allen
There are is lots to consider with such a realignment — fairness, logistics, etc. — but I wanted to look at a single aspect: how will this plan would affect the number of competitive playoff races at the end of the season.

Year AL Current AL Realigned NL Current NL Realigned
1995 3 4 3 2
1996 4 5 3 0
1997 0 3 2 0
1998 2 4 3 0
1999 0 0 3 0
2000 5 2 0 3
2001 0 0 3 0
2002 0 3 2 0
2003 3 2 2 6
2004 3 5 4 3
2005 2 3 3 5
2006 0 3 6 2
2007 0 2 7 2
2008 2 5 5 3
2009 2 5 0 3
2010 0 3 3 0
Average 1.63 3.06 3.25 2.13

Over the past 15 years this new system would have made the AL almost twice as competitive and the NL about a third less competitive. Overall an extra 0.3 teams would be in a competitive race per year. So the realignment would have slightly, but not drastically, increased number of teams in playoff hunt. Although it would change which teams were in the hunt; the new system would make it easier for teams from good division, e.g. the AL East, to make the playoffs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2011, 12:34 PM
 
Location: The City
18,894 posts, read 15,415,554 times
Reputation: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
If it happens:

- Move San Diego over to the A.L.

- KEEP the three divisions.

Make it look like this:

AMERICAN

East: Baltimore, Boston, New York, Tampa Bay, Toronto
Central: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, K.C., Minnesota
West: L.A., Oakland, San Diego, Seattle, Texas

NATIONAL

East: Atlanta, Florida, New York, Philly, Washington
Central: Chicago, Cincinatti, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, St. Louis
West: Arizona, Colorado, Houston, L.A., San Francisco


Done.
makes sense and I think keeping a NL and AL team in TX also makes sense and SD moving to the AL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2011, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
10,793 posts, read 6,516,732 times
Reputation: 7841
Thanks for passing that along. If the realigned setup increases the number of temas which are having competitive years, I would think that MLB would very much wish to go for it since that would represent enhanced revenues. Games played between teams which have been eliminated are reduced to the status of exhibitions and of course do not draw as well as meaningful games.

I moved to the Bay Area in '73 and the first five seasons of watching the Giants were non competitive ones where SF was out of it by September. Then in 1978 they managed to hang in there and not be eliminated until the final few days. The difference between attending a September game '73-'77, and attending one in '78 was immense in terms of energy from the crowd, attention paid to the game, the emotions when leaving the park.

Having more teams with that September competitive feeling, will mean more $ for MLB. Against that will be traditionalists who argue that the game is being ruined by the changes, but then they are of an ilk who argue that all changes in anything anywhere are ruinous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2011, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
38,741 posts, read 36,383,228 times
Reputation: 28625
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
My dream divisions would be four 8-team leagues:
American : Bos, NYY, Tor, Clev, Det, CWS, KC, Minn
National: Mets, Phil, Pitts, Cin, Cubs, StL, Milw, Colo.
(The above two would preserve as close as possible the historic AL and NL.)
Southern: Balt, Wash, Atl, Fla, TB, Hou, Tex,
Western: Sea, SF, Oak, LA, Ana, SD, Ariz.
(An open space in the Southern and Western for expansion.)
The alignment I proposed above would lend itself pefectly to an identical schedule. Every team would play every other team in its own division an equal number of times. Inter-divisional games could be structured so that teams in one division, say American, would play three or four games each against every team in the National one year, Southern another year, Western another year, which would provide 24 or 32 Interleague games each year (which is plenty), all teams in a division playing the same opponents the same number of times.

I think it is crucially imperative that baseball balance the schedule, not just by some small and highly publicized increment, but bring it into perfect balance. It is now a joke. A large part of it due to interleague play, but I concede that MLB will never give that up, right down to its last dying gasp.

Post-season based on Apr-Sept merit---top team in each division in playoffs. Four is enough. Get the whole thing over with in 16 days, no days off. Playing every day is how the teams earned the right to be there. Finish one game out of first place, quit whining and teach that $5-million outfielder how to hit the cutoff man in May in a game you should have won. but didn't, too bad.

Quite honestly, with the perception of fairness and balance in the determination of the championship, I fail to see any justification in raising a lot of other silly considerations that impede balance, like imaginary and trumped-up rivalries, and "the fans want to see Derek Jeter", and it's good for cap and jersey sales. Balance the schedule, determine a championship on the basis of season-long merit, and stop the foolishness.

Last edited by jtur88; 06-13-2011 at 03:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2011, 03:16 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
9,989 posts, read 9,619,399 times
Reputation: 4275
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
makes sense and I think keeping a NL and AL team in TX also makes sense and SD moving to the AL
As soon as I saw the headline on ESPN, that came to mind in just about 3 seconds.

Thinking of any possible two expansion teams, I thought of the old NFL alignment when they had three divisions in both conferences. I know it's a loooooong shot and long way away, but I think that's best for the MLB (now for the re-alignment and later for expansion teams) if they really want to go through with it.

And San Diego, IMO, by default would be the team to move....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2011, 07:42 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,302 posts, read 6,359,482 times
Reputation: 6513
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I fail to see any justification in raising a lot of other silly considerations that impede balance,
Justification: More people will pay to see the Red Sox vs the Yankees than the Astros vs the Pirates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:49 PM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top