Baseball Realignment Proposal
I brought up something like this last year and it would lead to interleague play all the time but I would be in favor. I don't like the unbalanced divisions.
Email
PrintComments
I am 1,000,000% unalterably opposed to any such "radical realignment".
Destroy over 100 years of history and tradition. For what purpose, exactly?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
yeah, i don't know about that, i am sick of having to compete against more teams in order to make the
post season. i don’t feel it would be destroying any more of the traditiona and history than the interleague play did. The divisions should be split evenly, and so should the leagues. if it means putting in 2 more teams and moving one team from the NL central to the AL central (say the brewers again) and it evens everything out, i am down for it (guess we would go to the NFL style with 4 divisions of 4 in each league). i am sure the league could add 2 more teams, but it would just be easier to move Arizona to the AL west and Houston to the NL West…
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
You can't do that, because....
… then you’d have two leagues with 15 teams, and that would mean interleague play through the entire season.
No thanks.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Interleague games
I have zero problem with interleague games in September.
1) Rosenthal is right, if they are meaningful enough to be played in June, why not September?
2) More importantly, I am a big traditionalist, but we don’t live in the no division or 2 division world anymore. The Cub rivalry with the new NL teams, and even many of the older ones, is no richer than their rivalry with most AL teams.
Eamus Ursuli!
no doubt, a win is a win, doesn't matter who you play or when you play.
i understand the idea of playing your division later in the season, as the games seem to take on more meaning (2 game swing possible), but the idea is still to get to that 90 game win mark, and make it to the post season, the World Series is interleague, and we play that (well hopefully we) in October.
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
the biggest problem with interleague play
is how it makes schedules so different in terms of difficulty. Call me old school, but I think teams in the same division should play the same schedule, and with interleague play, they do not. For most of the time since the advent of interleague play, the Cards have had an advantage over the Cubs as they gotten to play the lowly Royals home and home while the Cubs have had to play the much tougher White Sox. In time this advantage could reverse and it will be the Cubs benefiting, but I still would prefer it just go away, but it is too big of a cash cow, so I am not holding my breath.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Feb 27, 2010 10:17 AM CST up reply actions
i have no problem with that, it would only be 2 teams playing interleague at a time (say August and Sept)
not like every team. I didn’t really like it in the NFL when they had one team with a bye every week, but it worked. and this woudl work until they decide for expansion. just makes the schedule makers life a little harder
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
I don't want interleague games all year.
There would have to be more of them, and I’m against that.
The current system is imperfect, but this proposal would be worse.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
i don't see where there would have to be more interleague series
what is there like 52-55 series per team? at the very least you would have to have at least one interleague series at every time. Right now we have like 6 interleague series a year. you could tweak the schedule enough in order not to have to play more interleague series, they would just be way more spread out. of course you would have to replace the series of the team that is moving out of the NL (prob with another interleague but you wouldn’t have to)
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
"Tweak"?
More like a giant jolt. There is no way you could have 15-team leagues without a huge increase in the number of interleague games.
No thanks.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
how? if you have 55 series per year that means there only has to be 110
interleage series (2 teams in each series). right now if each team has 6 (and i am just looking at the Cubs, some teams may have more) interleague series, that is 6 × 30 = 180 series. which means there are more games now than there would need to be. my math may be off, as i am just looking at one schedule, so please correct me if you see something wrong
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
If you have 15 teams per league
then one team per day is either off or playing an interleague game. The schedule won’t work with that many off days, so you need to have more interleague games.
"There are no curses here...Games are won and lost on the baseball field" - Lou Piniella
Mathematical fact: realignment would not create more interleague games
each team currently plays about 52 series each year. If each team plays 6 interleague series, that is 90 series to be played each year. Therefore, one interleauge series is always being played, with the remainder put in the schedule however. Saying realignment would create more interleague games is plain false. In fact,they could REDUCE interleague games to 4 per team, and still do realignment, if they so chose. I’m not making an argument either way, I am merely pointing out mathematical fact.
by holy mackeral on Feb 26, 2010 2:58 PM CST up reply actions
Create a 162-game schedule from that and post it.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
we are just saying you can do it mathmatically (see my post above as well)
Making a schedule to begin with is tough enough, so i am not going to spend hours of my life working on it. that is why we have computers!
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
Here is my proposal
Ship the Diamondbacks & Rockies to AL West, the Rangers and Astros would move to the NL West. Math was never my strongest but I think you can get by with each team playing 18 Interleague games and make the schedule work. The is roughly how many interleague games are played now. This would allow all division teams to play the same common number of games except for 3 Interleague games, this would be a big improvement for the teams that currently reside in the uneven NL central.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 26, 2010 8:47 PM CST up reply actions
Al I agree
I wouldn’t want to see rivalries and history be destroyed. I would be in favor of 15 NL & 15 AL teams with 3 divisions of 5 teams each.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 26, 2010 12:46 PM CST up reply actions
which would make it interleague all year around (at least for one series at a time)
who would your propose move into the AL to even it out?
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
I'm not opposed
I want balanced schedules.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Feb 26, 2010 12:58 PM CST up reply actions
Marlins Go From NL to AL
Move the Marlins to the AL East
Move the Blue Jays to the AL Central
Move the Royals to the AL West
Move the Pirates to the NL East
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
i am all about it, but it just seems easier to move
the AssTrolls to the west, and Diamondbacks to the AL west, as less teams have to be moved.
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
That's A Better Idea
The Rangers and Astros can be in the same division then.
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
so just move the Astros to the AL west?
i am fine with that too, but since they have been in the NL since the 60’s, they my be against that.
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
move the Astros, not the Pirates
we need those easy victories
by holy mackeral on Feb 26, 2010 2:42 PM CST up reply actions
Easier solution
Move to Red Sox to the NL East and the Mets to the AL East — if you’re going to do anything. That breaks up the Red Sox/Yankees crap in the AL East and the New Yorkers will be happy.
I’m far from a traditionalist on most things in baseball — bring on replay, Opening Day on Saturdays and more culpability for umpires, yay for the Wild Card, six divisions. I just don’t like this idea.
yeah, that would never happen, no way anyone breaks up that rivalry. if you move
a team, it has to be one without a huge history or following (like the Brewers again). no way the Cards, Cubs, Mets, Yanks, Red Sox or some other teams move, especially across leagues. it would be one of the new teams (Marlins, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Rays) if you needed to move a team
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
One of the reasons...
… the Cardinals and Cubs wound up in the original NL East, and the Reds and Braves in the original NL West, is because the original divisional proposal had it the other way around (which would have been correct geographically).
The Cubs objected to having to play more games on the west coast — which would have made for many more late night TV dates — and also did not want to be split up from their traditional rivalry with the Cardinals. They had enough clout to get it done the way it was.
Irony: had they been in the NL West in 1969, the first year of divisional play, they probably would have won the division and faced the Mets in the NLCS.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
that is irony...yikes. oh well, cannot live in the past, but would have been nice
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
Why Did the Reds and Braves Agree to That?
Why didn’t the Reds and Braves veto the idea? I’ve wondered about that for years. They are both in the eastern time zone and had to play all those games in California in the pacific time zone three time zones away. Did they not have the power to stay with the original proposed divisional alignment?
"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray
good question
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
The Reds and Braves ownerships in those days had little clout with the commissioner's office.
The Wrigleys and the Busches had more. It really is as simple as that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
remember when Vincent ordered the NL to be geographically consistent?
in 1992, Commissioner Faye Vincent got an Atlas for Christmas and noticed that Chicago and StL were both west of Atlanta and Cincy. He ordered the 4 teams to trade divsions. The Cubs sued in Cook County Court, and prevailed, allowing them to stay in the East. The point became moot when MLB agreed to the current 6 division setup that began in 1994.
As for the Braves, they were supposed to be in Milwaukee in 1969, so Al is right to say that nobody cared about what they thought.
by holy mackeral on Feb 26, 2010 8:08 PM CST up reply actions
The Braves were supposed to be in Milwaukee in 1969?
How would that have worked? They moved to Atlanta in 1966, three years before expansion.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
New Yorkers would hate that
See the ew York Yankees-New York Mets World Series in 2000. Can’t have that if they’re in the same division.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 26, 2010 9:49 PM CST up reply actions
I agree with reallignment, but this is silly..
It’s totally warped to put two teams from the same town in the same league, much less the same division – for both competitive and economic reasons. Also, the arbitrary need to break up the AL east because of NY and BOS, but then just switching BOS with NYM, doesn’t do anything either. Fox, in all it’s forms, is the stupidist source of information in America.
I think we wait until baseball’s profitable enough to add two teams, whenever that is (three if you rethink florida market at only 1 team)- because a reallignment will be necessary anyway. Though we can’t know for sure what teams will join, I support 4, 4 team divisions with a 12 team playoff format. Kick PIT or CIN and HOU out of the NL central. Not that it’s totally broken now, but this would be fun just to evaluate:
New divisions:
NL Central – CHC, MIL, STL, PIT/CIN
NL East -NYM, PIT/CIN, WA, PHI.
NL South – ATL, FLA/TB, HOU, EXP (Car/NO/TN)
NL West – LAD, SDO, ARI, SFO
AL Central – CHW, MN, DET, CLE
AL East – NYY, BOS, TOR, BAL
AL Mountain- COL, KC, TEX, Expansion (Vegas, SLC, San Ant)
AL West – SEA, ANA, OAK, Expansion (Vancouver, portland, sacramento)
The two best records get a bye in each post season, while the two-best non-conference winners get in the post season for a best of 5 playoff to add to the current schedule. Opening day starts a week sooner (because I always hate waiting) to allow for the schedule.
To AL, “historic” allignments are a misnomer – MLB baseball has been forced to reallign divisions over time to reflect competitive and economic context. This actually miniimizes the changes.
by DisCUBbobulated on Feb 26, 2010 1:49 PM CST reply actions
so, you are proposing the NFL post season? top 2 teams in each league get a bye, 4 division winners
and a 2 wild cards?
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
Yes. This will balance the divisions..
but ensure that really good teams in competitive divisions still have a chance to make the Post-season. E.g. Under this, Boston, NYY, AND Toronta, for example, could all make the post season.
by DisCUBbobulated on Feb 26, 2010 1:56 PM CST up reply actions
fine with it too, just don't know if the MLB is ready to expand again...
a couple of years ago, we were talking about taking teams out of FL
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
plus why is there 3 expansion teams, you would only need 2...
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
Oh... I assumed one of the florida teams was going away, as you mentioned.
Though, technically, the could still be in place of one of the expansion teams.
by DisCUBbobulated on Feb 26, 2010 2:00 PM CST up reply actions
no expansion, please
too many teams already
by holy mackeral on Feb 26, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions
I think that there's no need to reallign or expand right now..
That was just an exercise for some future date when MLB would economically be ready to expand. At this point, it’s just as likely that the would contract by two teams- with two 14 team Leagues emerging.
by DisCUBbobulated on Feb 26, 2010 3:02 PM CST up reply actions
Realignment is just shuflfing the deck chairs on the Titanic
Unless there is a salary cap, realignment is useless. You will not get competitive balance. The same teams with large advertising areas/fan bases for their TV and Internet broadcast will continue to dominate baseball over the long term.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
yes! and one of those teams is the Cubs!
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
Yeah, think of the $$ the Tribune Co siphonned away.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 26, 2010 2:29 PM CST up reply actions
ah, major league sports ...
the one place where most Americans would be OK with an anti-free market.
No offense to you, RB — I obviously know nothing about your political ideology. But I think it’s funny that fire-breathing conservatives (my mother, to name one) advocates a salary cap in baseball but is against tighter bank regulations, et. al.
It's Micro vs. Macro
I don’t view baseball teams as necessarily competing against each other outside of the baseball game itself. Free agency to some extent. That’s the Micro view.
But the real battle is for your disposable income. And that the MLB vs. NFL vs. NBA vs. the movie theater. This is the Macro view and what MLB is really focusing on.
Their goal should be that more competitive divisions will lead to better games which will lead to higher TV ad revenue.
I consider major sports unions as laughable. Millionaires in a union?? It’s an oxymora. But if they want the protection of a union why shouldn’t the owners want some control on salaries in order to make a more competitive league?
As for banks, nobody forced a bigger home on people who couldn’t afford it.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 26, 2010 2:28 PM CST up reply actions
not to get all political ...
but your last statement is only a part of what got us into our current financial situation.
As to your other point, you don’t want to rely on competition in the marketplace when it comes to competition on the field?
Agreed on the banking fun
Plenty of people had a hand in that debacle. It’s just the banks are the big easy target for politicians. Nobody makes political points by attacking a mortgage broker.
Back to Baseball. As to competition in the marketplace, has it really helped baseball? The NFL has a salary cap and it may be the most competitive and successful sport in the US. From Forbes, 19 of 32 teams are worth $1B or more. Far ahead of MLB.
I can’t say that the Cubs have been helped by free agency, competition in the marketplace. Better scouting, drafting, and player development would have proved more successful for the Cubs over the last 20 years.
I know that a salary cap is extremely unlikely in MLB. And I’m not saying that MLB and NFL are apples. The season structures make make them hard to compare to start. But I doubt any MLB realignment proposals will do much over the long term.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 26, 2010 9:26 PM CST up reply actions
how about contracting to 28 teams?
I suggest we eliminate the Cardinals and the Mets. I wouldn’t miss either one!
by holy mackeral on Feb 26, 2010 2:59 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
or the white hose...
Bob Brenly on Leo Nunez "Dan Uggla just saved Nunez’ life because Koyie would break him into a million pieces"
who cares about the Mets?
How about the Cardinals and the Reds?
well, if we get to choose which teams get contracted...
I go with the Cardinals and the Marlins. And in the “contraction” draft, we get Pujols and HRam.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I'm definitely in favor or realigning the divisions
I’ve actually been thinking MLB needs to do this for a while. Perhaps a system of categorizing teams by payroll, such as lumping the Rays, Pirates, Orioles, Marlins and Nationals, and the Astros, Reds, Royals, Rockies and Diamondbacks, or something to this effect. We know that there will always be big spenders, like the Cubs, Cards, Red Sox and Yankees, and year after year putting them up against teams that either won’t spend the money to bring in big players (Pirates), or won’t spend the money to keep their good players long-term (Marlins), is a competitive imbalance.
Maybe more than readjusting the divisions would be to introduce new rules into the salary cap. Perhaps something to the effect where a team can’t spend more than x% (say 25%) of their total revenue on any given player per season. Lets say that the Yankees would have had 25% of their revenue tied up in Rivera, Jeter and ARod going into the 2008 offseason. This would have prohibited them from signing CC, Burnett, and/or Teixeira, which obviously gives them an advantage. This could also be augmented for teams with varying payrolls. Teams that spend about $50mil could spend 50% on a player, $100mil teams could spend 35%, and 200mil teams could spend 25% on a player.
Andy R.
by WindisBlowingOut! on Feb 26, 2010 3:55 PM CST reply actions
Reactionary Realignment
What is this assumption that no teams beside the Red Sox and Yankees can ever compete again in the AL East? Sure, Boston and New York will probably always hold an economic advantage over the rest of the division. But it is not as if there has never been any competition in the division.
I would rather see MLB add two teams, balance out the leagues at 16 teams each, and split each league into 2 divisions, each with a wild card. Alternatively, you could do four 4 team divisions in each league with no wildcard.
That's a really good idea
There are several big cities that I’m sure would welcome a baseball team. OKC, Las Vegas, Omaha, Memphis, Portland, etc. I really like the idea of dividing each league into 4 divisions, and having each winner make the playoffs while getting rid of the wc team.
"Whenever one finds himself in the majority, it is time to step back and reflect," Mark Twain.
by WindisBlowingOut! on Feb 26, 2010 7:21 PM CST up reply actions
why not just re-create Les Expos de Montreal?
and a 2nd team in Detroit, owned by US taxpayers
by holy mackeral on Feb 26, 2010 7:58 PM CST up reply actions
Realignment? Only if it looks like this.
NL CENTRAL: Cubs, Royals, Nationals, Pirates and the Indians.
Some men learn through what they read. Some men learn through what they're told. Some men have to piss on the railroad tracks. And some men keep on pissin'.
Why not just address the root cause of the imbalance?
If the problem is lack of competitiveness due to the disproportionate payroll of the large market teams, implement a meaningful salary cap & floor to level the playing field. Force all of the teams to operate with a payroll in the $70-120M range would allow for normal rebuilding cycles, and instead of subsidizing small market teams contract any franchises that can’t maintain that level & be economically viable.
The resulting 24-26 team league would be much higher quality (look at all the dead weight now, particularly in bullpens) and not have “permanent” contenders & doormats. Traditional league & geographical alignments would be maintained with the exception of a few teams that might need to shift to maintain an even number of teams per league/similar sized divisions.
I think the best alignment in baseball history was the 12 teams, 2 divisions per league variant that was used between 1969 and 1976.
I know that there’s money involved, but I really think that that old alignment put a better product on the field for the fans.
by cubsforever on Feb 27, 2010 11:17 AM CST up reply actions
Three 9-team leagues for the purist, restablishing those great NY-Chicago rivalries...
A couple of years ago, Vin Scully said his plan for realignment would be 16 teams in two leagues, no interleague, no playoffs, and a World Series played in daylight. My plan may not be any more realistic than his, but it would produce fewer lawsuits.
First and foremost, let’s essentially reconstitute the classic National and American Leagues as undivided units. Nine leftover franchises then could be used to create a new Pacific Coast League.
Here’s the lineup:
National League: Atlanta, Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Washington.
American League: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Minnesota, New York, Toronto.
Pacific Coast League: Anaheim, Arizona, Colorado, Los Angeles, Oakland/San Jose, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Texas.
Florida would be decommisioned, with its assets going to the highest bidder.
Interleague play would be strictly early-season, with many National and American League teams playing late-March and early-April games on the West Coast. Spring training would be reduced by two weeks, and the regular season expanded to roughly 180 games. (Forget the impact on the Record Book – it’s already been damaged beyond recognition.)
There would be only two levels of playoffs: a seven-game World Series preceded by a four-team, seven-game Championship Series involving the three league champs plus a wild card. (Hey, if you can’t win something significant after 180 – or 162 – games, what’s the point?)
Finally, to honor Scully’s Dream, at least one World Series game each year would be played in daylight, most likely going up against the NFL on a pleasant Sunday afternoon in early October.
"C'mon Freeman, throw the ball somewhere!" Brickhouse, incensed, 5/15/58
"Welcome to Wrigley Field, Mr. Bah-oo-tah!" Brickhouse, rubbing it in, 7/6/60
Three nine-team leagues?
Ugly. 180-game regular seasons? Would destroy all existing counting stat records.
Nope. I would hate this.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Nine is ugly? You certainly have high standards...
But seriously, I think the record book is already a basket case as a result of the many ill-advised expansions since "69, and particularly since the widespread introduction of PED’s. What more damage could an extra 18 games do? At the very least, we could rid ourselves of any illusion that today’s game is a reasonable facsimile of baseball before free agency.
Along with restoring old rivalries and addressing some of baseball’s longstanding travel and weather concerns, my plan also would put some value back into a championship earned over a full schedule, just as it would properly devalue the quick and cheap “championships” we see produced by multi-level playoffs.
Look at it this way, if something similar to my realignment had existed in the last 25 years, we would have had at least three National League championships to fall back on, and could still view San Diego and Miami as the great resort towns they are, uncolored by the aggravations of ’84 and ’03.
"C'mon Freeman, throw the ball somewhere!" Brickhouse, incensed, 5/15/58
"Welcome to Wrigley Field, Mr. Bah-oo-tah!" Brickhouse, rubbing it in, 7/6/60
You could not guarantee those league championships.
Schedules would have been different, perhaps trades and signings would have been different, etc.
I would be completely opposed to another 18 regular season games, too.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Re-establish what great Chicago rivalry?
Chicago, unlike NYC, has never had a true baseball rivalry as the teams have always been in opposite leagues.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Feb 28, 2010 11:50 AM CST up reply actions
When I mentioned "great NY-Chicago rivalries" I meant the following...
Cubs vs. New York Giants, 1883-1957
Cubs vs. Brooklyn Dodgers, 1890-1957
Cubs vs. New York Mets, 1962-1993
White Sox vs. New York Yankees, 1903-1968
Obviously, the Cubs and Sox still play a few games against the Mets and Yankees every year, but the great rivalries died when each league moved Chicago and New York teams into separate divisions.
"C'mon Freeman, throw the ball somewhere!" Brickhouse, incensed, 5/15/58
"Welcome to Wrigley Field, Mr. Bah-oo-tah!" Brickhouse, rubbing it in, 7/6/60
The Cubs/Mets rivalry didn't start until 1969.
Unless you’re referring to the titanic battles for last place they had before that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Playing 18-22 games, with 3 series in each city spread over a full season,
the potential for great rivalry always exists. It’s only a guess, but annual attendance in Chicago for games against New York teams most likely was always higher than for any other opponent in those years I cited, even when bad teams were involved.
After all, who can forget that triple play started by Ken Hubbs to end the ‘62 season finale against the Mets in front of 3960 excited fans? (If I hadn’t been bussing tables at Hackney’s that Sunday afternoon, the crowd at Wrigley likely would have been 3961. As it was, I saw the play on the TV over the bar when the owner switched away from a Bears debacle in Green Bay.)
In any case, my hope is that any realignment will reflect traditional rivalries, especially in the northeast and upper midwest where baseball was invented, and where many fans still understand and care about the game. Let those cities where baseball is played in a mallpark entertainment center have their own leagues.
"C'mon Freeman, throw the ball somewhere!" Brickhouse, incensed, 5/15/58
"Welcome to Wrigley Field, Mr. Bah-oo-tah!" Brickhouse, rubbing it in, 7/6/60
FWIW...
… the triple play in the last game of ’62 was in the 8th inning.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You're absolutely right.
I also see it was the last play of Richie Ashburn’s HOF career.
"C'mon Freeman, throw the ball somewhere!" Brickhouse, incensed, 5/15/58
"Welcome to Wrigley Field, Mr. Bah-oo-tah!" Brickhouse, rubbing it in, 7/6/60
Thanks for the clarification
but I still fail to see how any of these were a great rivlalry.
Cubs and Giants were great rivals up until WW2
Cubs and Dodgers were never great rivals
Cubs and Mets did not become rivals until 1969, and the rivalry is not that big of a deal now.
White Sox and Yankees have never been great rivals primarily because the White Sox have been, historically, a bad team while the Yankees have been dominant.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Mar 1, 2010 12:42 PM CST up reply actions
In the immortal words of that great philosopher and Chicago legend Ral Donner,
"You Don’t Know What You’ve Got Until You Lose It." Back when I was going to White Sox-Yankees and Cubs-Dodgers/Giants games in the 50’s and 60’s, it certainly seemed as though we had rivalries with those New York, or former New York, teams. Crowds usually were bigger, media coverage was a little more extensive, and the quality of play often was better. As a kid, I assumed those conditions were as natural as Riverview or Frosty Malts, and couldn’t imagine a time when the Cubs and Sox would be playing New York only seven times each year in often-meaningless early or late-season games.
Of course, the rivalry in those days was especially intense on the south side, when those great Sox teams with Fox, Aparicio, Minoso, Wynn, and Pierce would meet the Mantle-era Yankees. Look at the final AL standings from 1951-1967, and you’ll find the Sox were contenders every year and, as you know, winners in 1959. Back then, winning a league championship was almost as good as winning the Series. That’s why Daley the Elder set off air-raid sirens all over the city the instant the Sox clinched – not only did it end a 40-year pennant drought, it meant we beat the Damn Yankees.
Sure, the rivalries on the north side were a little more muted in the midst of the Terrible Twenty years of P.K.’s executive paralysis. But for some Sunday double-headers against New York or Brooklyn, even old Phil would catch the spirit, and hire a band to sit in the upper deck behind home plate and play between innings. (Those may have been the games when old man Wrigley would put on a wig and mustache and mix it up with fans in the left field bleachers, as he occasionally claimed to do.)
Anyway, this is all ancient history, and if you started following the Cubs after ‘93, I’m sure it’s possible to enjoy a Cubs vs. Marlins, Rockies, D-Backs, Astros, or Padres game as much as I like watching Chicago vs. NY baseball. But for me, I find games against those Sunbelt expansion teams almost unwatchable. Only because it’s the Cubs, I’ll tune-in for the last couple of innings.
"C'mon Freeman, throw the ball somewhere!" Brickhouse, incensed, 5/15/58
"Welcome to Wrigley Field, Mr. Bah-oo-tah!" Brickhouse, rubbing it in, 7/6/60
Competitive imbalance
Whenever MLB adds two more teams, they should balance the schedule so that teams play each other the same number of times and teams within the division each play the same teams in other divisions / leagues the same number of times, etc. In close division races this stuff could matter and they could get rid of the wildcard too. The wildcard is an attendance booster and a competitive atrocity.
I don’t understand what gets better by realigning divisions around the fact that some markets have economic advantages over others.
I'd go back to two divisions in each league
and I’d have 4 WC teams. That way, it still means a lot to win the division. You’d get a first round bye. Then, the next 4 best teams in the league will get a WC berth. So, potentially, 3 or 4 WC teams could come from the same division.
I would favor divisional play. In the NL, I’d have 12 games against divisional opponents (84 games total), 6 games against the other league (48 total) which would leave 30 interleague or perhaps an extra series or two against a few of the other divisional teams.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 27, 2010 10:55 AM CST reply actions
I don't like extra wild card teams.
Eventually — and this will take years, because it can’t happen till the economy improves — the best idea would be to expand by two teams, making 32. Then you could have eight divisions of four teams each — and every playoff team would be a division champion. Would make divisional play far more meaningful.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'm with you on the wild card thing.
The wild card is lousy. But four teams just seems like too few for a division.
by cubsforever on Feb 27, 2010 11:09 AM CST up reply actions
We already have one of those.
And four others with five teams. I don’t have a problem with it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
True.
I do think that, of the plausible realignment options (read: not involving contraction), the 4 divisions/4 teams one is the best. It’s certainly better than the mess we have now.
i am all for evening the two leagues
and if you have to impose interleague games each day go for it. I know many do not agree, and we will disagree, and thats fine. I was against interleague games, the wild card, and the switching up of the leagues some 15 years ago, but those moves really did help MLB a lot, and brought a new excitement to the game. I say take it to the next level. It works in NHL and NBA it would work in MLB as well I am sure.
move one team to the AL and have 3 divisions in each league with 5 teams
play each team in the other oleague 2 games at home 2 games on road
so that would be 60 out of 162, leaving 102 for 14 other teams
7 games vs all NL teams (alt each season 4 home/3 away then next 3 home/4 away) leaving 4 games in the 162 game schedule. Use those for the four teams in the same division, (makng those 4 home and 4 away).
Again I know this will not be liked by many, and that is fine, but it is the most fair way to determine the Wild Card, and no one can point to a schecule being unfair for a team in a weak division, etc
Sunday Feb 28 at 7 PM CST free webcast of the live taping of The Austin Variety Show www.austinvarietyshow.com/
im sure
the rays would prefer not to play the yankees and red sox 40 times. they could definitley use a move elsewhere.
Fewer teams won't happen,
so balancing the leagues would require both to goto 16 teams?
Then, maybe, one could do 2 divisions of 8 teams each, c. 2/3 of the games against division opponents, c. 1/3 against non-division teams, no interleague play during the regular season, and first and second place teams go on to the playoffs.
Oh and ban the DH too…
"A waist is a terrible thing to mind." - Terry 'Fat Tub of Goo' Forster
@Twitter as @brommmietze
I'm totally with you on banning the DH.
I fear it will go the other way though. I don’t know if I will want to watch anymore if that happens.
"Fasten those seatbelts"-Pat Hughes
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
