Baseball Realignment
23 Dec 2006TSN reported yesterday that the NHL is considering realigning its teams. The league, which is currently in a six division format, is thinking about switching to just four divisions. The six division format has always been doomed from its inception. At least it’s an even number, but not when you crown division champions and are stuck with the problem of deciding which teams face each other, etc. It’s better in hockey than it is in baseball, though, because Western Conference teams face Eastern Conference teams all the time.
Baseball, ironically enough, reacted to its four division “problem” by switching to a six division format, then switching Milwaukee from one league to another. It was a simple enough solution: even number of teams in each league, and nobody even cares about Milwaukee anyway, right? Well, except for the commissioner. Anyway, the American League now has 14 teams, and the National League has 16. Why not round it out? The NCAA tournament starts with 64 teams, not 62.
It’s time for baseball to take a clue from the NFL: We need four divisions in each league, with an equal amount of teams. This would provide more competitive balance, a simpler schedule, and possibly more playoff teams. I’ll admit that I’m biased on this topic because I have a vested interest in the two divisions (AL West and NL Central) that have an abnormal amount of teams. In an age where the schedule makers are concerned about balance of schedule, the schedule is very unbalanced for the ten teams (1/3 of the league) in these two divisions.
In order to divide the teams into eight divisions of four teams each, two more teams are required. Both would have to be in the AL, unless the Brewers were to move back over (not advised). Before I talk about where the new teams should be located, let’s talk about the realignment of the National League, because we know where all those teams are. My proposed plan takes into account mostly geography, but also does its best not to split up truly historical rivalries – recent ones don’t count as much because they’re mostly based on recent success, which is pretty spotty when you’re trying to set up a system that should last for a while.
NL North
Chicago
Cincinnati
Milwaukee
St. Louis
NL South
Atlanta
Arizona
Houston
Florida
NL West
Colorado
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco
NL East
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
This method ensures that each team resides in a division that is actually descriptive of their location. The South division is probably most problematic, because it is large in scope and a hodgepodge of all three current divisions. At least the problem of the Pirates in the Central division is solved. Travel issues for each team are improved or at least the same, with the possible exception of the Diamondbacks. Rivalries such as LA-San Fran and Chicago-St. Louis are preserved.
Before we realign the American League, we must first address the issue of expansion. What cities should get the new teams? Here are the candidates.
Locations that were in contention for the Expos franchise: Arlington (Va.), Las Vegas, Monterrey (Mexico), Norfolk (Va.), Portland
Locations that have professional teams other than baseball: Buffalo, Calgary, Charlotte, Columbus, Edmonton, Green Bay, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Long Island (Uniondale), Memphis, Montreal, Nashville, New Jersey (East Rutherford), New Orleans, Oklahoma City (kind of), Orlando, Ottawa, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Jose, Vancouver
Other locations that might be capable of supporting a pro team: Albuquerque, Anchorage, Austin, Birmingham, Boise, Honolulu, Little Rock, Louisville, Omaha, San Juan, Tulsa, probably a bunch of Canadian cities (forgive me if I’ve forgotten any…if they’re not already on this overly extensive list, it ain’t happening)
Let’s assume, for the sake of my sanity, that new teams would be picked based solely on their geographical location in order to make realignment easier. Here’s what the American League might look like:
AL North
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Minnesota
AL South
Kansas City
Tampa Bay
Texas
New Team A, perhaps New Orleans or Nashville
AL West
Anaheim
Oakland
Seattle
New Team B, perhaps Portland or Las Vegas
AL East
Baltimore
Boston
New York
Toronto
Once again, travel is made easier for almost every team, again with the possible exception of Tampa Bay and Texas. Of course, Texas is no longer in a West Coast-only division, and Tampa Bay isn’t always going North, so it makes more sense nevertheless. Friends that I have proposed this system to maintain that my bias for Texas led to the considerably weak AL South, but these teams do not have to be perennially bad. A few years ago, the North division would have been considered very weak as well. Again, historic rivalries are preserved, for the most part.
Possible Problems
Any time the league is expanded (let alone realigned), the integrity of the game is called into question. One has to consider schedule expansion, although this is highly unlikely.
Nevertheless, the introduction of more teams means that the talent pool is going to be watered down a bit, calling statistics into question in an era where they are already on very shaky ground. However, these questions always end up being temporal. It is much more important to have an equality between the leagues, especially if so much emphasis is being placed on a “balanced schedule.” How can the schedule be balanced if the numbers are wrong?
The playoff question, in my mind, is the biggest obstacle to a realignment. Right now four teams from each league make it, meaning under a new system there would be no wild card. One thing I appreciate about the current playoff system is that only good teams make the playoffs. To be sure, some very good teams are often left out, but at least half the league doesn’t make it in, a la NBA or NHL. The reality is, though, that the player’s association has actually been pushing to let more teams in. Last year, they proposed a system where ultimately eight teams make it in, but there’s a play-in round. Certainly this and other proposals would have to be considered if MLB wanted to continue allowing Wild Card teams to make the playoffs. In my mind, whatever they came up with would be worth the switch to an eight division format – as long as they keep the playoff pool relatively shallow. I still want end of season pennant races to mean something.
There are several other logistic problems inherent with expansion. Ownership groups would have to be assembled, stadiums would have to built (I withdraw my nomination of New Orleans if they use the Superdome), minor league affiliations would have to be made, etc. It’s clear that such a system couldn’t happen overnight. But Mr. Selig is clearly on his way out. The new commissioner could start things off on the right foot by announcing a five-year or seven-year plan to expand and realign baseball, for the better integrity of the game.
Got a different plan for realignment, or an improved playoff system? Don’t think baseball should be realigned? Want to lobby for a specific city to get a team? Post a comment!
Just a thought: maybe Colorado and Arizona should be switched, so that Colorado can be lumped in with the more eastern teams while Arizona can be in the division with all of the West Coast teams.
Comment by Robert — 30 Dec 2006 @ 10:42 am
I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:
www.americanlegends.blogspot.com
If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.
Thanks,
David
Comment by David — 31 Dec 2006 @ 8:20 pm
I disagree with putting Kansas City and Tampa Bay in the same division because they are probably the two worst teams in all of baseball. Sales would be horrible when they played each other because not many people would want to see them play. And also having them in the same division gives the other two teams a much easier shot at winning the division. Throw in an expansion team too and odds are that the one team that isn’t a cellar dweller or an expansion will be winning the division a lot of times. But other than that I think it looks pretty good except for maybe the NL South because though they may all be in the South they are all pretty spaced out from one another so travel would be a pain for those inter-division matchups that happen alot.
Comment by Chad — 26 May 2007 @ 7:48 pm
You have exactly the right idea with respect to expanding MLB to thirty-two teams and following the NFL’s lead by dividing the two leagues into eight four-team divisions. Such a format, in my opinion, would be the one feasible realignment plan that has the most realistic chance of actually being implemented by MLB.
But here’s how I would do it:
As I see it, there are six strong candidates for the two proposed American League expansion teams: Buffalo, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Portland and San Antonio. The realignment scheme to be employed will dictate, in large measure, which of theses cities will be awarded the new franchises.
Once expansion has taken place, the leagues can be divided according to two possible geographical schemata:
ALIGNMENT A:
American League North: Chicago, Cleveland or Detroit, Kansas City and Minnesota.
American League South: Baltimore, Charlotte or San Antonio, Tampa Bay and Texas.
American League East: Boston, Cleveland or Detroit, New York and Toronto.
American League West: Anaheim, Las Vegas or Portland, Oakland and Seattle.
National League North: Chicago, Colorado, Milwaukee and St. Louis.
National League South: Atlanta, Florida, Houston and Washington.
National League East: Cincinnati, New York, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
National League West: Arizona, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.
ALIGNMENT B:
American League East: Baltimore, Boston, New York and Tampa Bay.
American League Central: Buffalo or Indianapolis, Cleveland, Detroit and Toronto.
American League Midwest: Chicago, Kansas City, Minnesota and Texas.
American League West: Anaheim, Las Vegas or Portland, Oakland and Seattle.
National League East: Florida, New York, Philadelphia and Washington.
National League Central: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh.
National League Midwest: Chicago, Colorado, Houston and St. Louis.
National League West: Arizona, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.
Thinking “outside the box”, so to speak, it would certainly be possible for one league to employ one alignment and the other league to employ the other alignment. In the alignment scenarios I have presented, for example, Alignment A would work best for the National League, while Alignment B would be the American League’s best option. There is no law, after all, that dictates that both leagues must align according to the same geographic formula.
With regard to scheduling, it doesn’t necessarily follow that expansion would automatically dictate an extension of the regular season. In fact, using an eight-division alignment, you could very easily abbreviate the schedule from the present 162 games to 144. And for the record, I would wholeheartedly recommend such an abbreviation, for reasons I will soon outline.
Under the eight-division alignment, each team could be slated to play its three division opponents twenty-four times apiece, for a total of seventy-two divisional games. Then each team could be slated to play the twelve non-divisional teams in its league six times apiece, for a total of seventy-two non-divisional games. There would be no inter-league play.
Three-game series would be the rule under this scheduling scheme. Each team would be scheduled to play six games a week, with an off day on either Monday or Thursday. All Thursday and Sunday games would be played in the afternoon, as would all Saturday games before June 1st and after August 31st. (This provision would be optional for Arizona, Atlanta and the Florida and Texas teams.)
The advantages of this alignment and schedule are numerous vis a vis the current format. The scheduling formula under the new plan is much simpler and more straightforward than the current system; by contrast, the present alignment necessitates a “crazy quilt” scheduling system that is very cumbersome, often defies logical explanation and results in numerous logistical headaches for many teams because of the travel requirements involved.
In addition to simplified scheduling, the new format would reduce travel time and travel expenses for every team. It would compress the pennant races into a shorter time frame, which would hold the fans’ attention much more easily than the current schedule does. It would be much less taxing on the players, both physically and mentally; thus, the players would be able to present a better quality game to the fans. It would alleviate the weather problems often encountered in many Northeastern and Upper Midwestern cities in April, September and October. And it would dramatically reduce the utterly perverse likelihood of having to stage World Series games on chilly nights in November.
As for the playoffs, I would structure them in three rounds, as is currently the case, but with a few significant changes.
The first round, the so-called “Division Series”, would consist of concurrent best-of-three series featuring the eight division winners. There would be no “wild cards”. To qualify for post season play, a team MUST win its division.
The four division winners in each league would be paired in a “1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3″ seeded format for the Division Series, determined by regular-season won/lost records.
The winners of the Division Series would advance to the League Championship Series, which would revert to the more sensible best-of-five format that was used from 1969 through 1984. The winners of the League Championship Series would then meet in the best-of-seven World Series.
All post season games would be afternoon contests, with the first pitch at 2:00 p.m. local time.
Comment by Jim Meyer — 18 Apr 2008 @ 11:38 pm
Chad,
I tend to agree with you, but as you know, how good teams are is somewhat cyclical, although Kansas City and Tampa Bay are notorious for their lack of funds. I think you’d agree with me that both teams look a little better this year. If the true goal is geographical alignment (and I think it should be), this is the only option for the American League, short of making teams hop over from league to league or relocating them. You are right about the NL South. Here’s an idea:
AL South
Arizona
Houston
Kansas City
Texas
NL South
Atlanta
Florida
Tampa Bay
New Team A (New Orleans or Nashville)
This means each league gets one expansion team, rather than the AL getting both. The divisions are closer geographically, but it makes 3 teams switch leagues. Also, most “geographic rivalries” (like Chicago/Chicago, New York/New York, Baltimore/Washington, SF/Oakland, etc.) are split up because of revenue concerns. I don’t think placing Houston and Texas in the same division is a huge issue since they’re 5 hours apart, but the idea may meet resistance.
Jim,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. This is one of my favorite baseball topics to discuss, especially since I spent so much time on this post. I’m sure you can relate.
I don’t like your “Alignment A” at all, simply because I don’t think Baltimore or Washington belong in the South division. Alignment B is good, except that I don’t like Chicago being split from Milwaukee or Cincinnati. I do like what you did with the AL Central and Midwest.
I haven’t decided if I like the idea of a 144 game schedule. I, unlike a lot of baseball purists, am a fan of Interleague play. The schedule can still be balanced if you use the remaining 18 games for Interleague. One final note: I agree that postseason games should be played in the afternoon.
Thanks for the posts, keep reading!
Comment by Robert — 24 Apr 2008 @ 12:15 am
I can see that everyone who has posted so far isn’t a particular fan of teams swapping leagues. My view, however, is that after 100 years of co-operation, the AL and NL are not going to drift apart, leaving former teams jettisoned to the opposing league.
That being said, I would propose a more timezone-based, four-division setup with the American and National Leagues essentially living on in name only. For my proposal to work, two expansion teams would be added: I chose Calgary and San Antonio, as Calgary has a Triple-A team and Alberta’s economy is incredibly strong, and San Antonio due to sheer population and the fact that they have only one professional team, and the Spurs play during the winter months.
In the American League (Eastern Conference, essentially), the divisions would be as follows:
ATLANTIC
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
New York Mets
New York Yankees
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
Toronto Blue Jays
Washington Nationals
CENTRAL
Atlanta Braves
Cleveland Indians
Chicago Cubs
Chicago White Sox
Cincinnati Reds
Detroit Tigers
Florida Marlins
Tampa Bay Rays
In the National League (Western Conference, essentially), the divisions would be as follows:
MIDWEST
Colorado Rockies
Houston Astros
Kansas City Royals
Milwaukee Brewers
Minnesota Twins
San Antonio expansion team
St Louis Cardinals
Texas Rangers
PACIFIC
Arizona Diamondbacks
Calgary expansion team
Los Angeles Angels
Los Angeles Dodgers
Oakland Athletics
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants
Seattle Mariners
Each team would play it’s divisional rivals 10 times a piece (10x7=70), it’s League rivals 6 times each (6x8=48), and two-game sets against each team from the other league (2x16=32). This gives a schedule length of 150 games.
This schedule styling would create weeks where a team plays two three-game sets (fifteen weeks), and weeks where a team plays three two-game sets (ten weeks). Off-days could be spread throughout the week, with weekend games for all teams.
This scheduling strikes a balance between in-division games, which are necessary to ensure that the best team in the division is crowned champion, and allowing fans to see each other team at least once every two years.
The playoff format would involve six teams from each league. The top three teams from each division would qualify, with the best receiving a bye to the Divisional Round, and the other two facing each other in a five-game series. The winners of each of those series would face the divisional champion of the opposing division in a five-game series. The winner of this series would play each other in a third five-game series for the pennant. Finally, the two League Champions would face each other in a seven-game World Series.
I believe this system would be the most balanced, fair and reasonable option available. Also, while I do not consider myself a purist, one league-related tradition I do support whole-heartedly is the NL’s take on the DH-rule. I would suggest it be removed from both leagues for the purposes of this realignment, as teams who have followed tradition since baseball’s inception should be able to continue to do so. Barring that, a second option would be to continue to allow the DH at the home fields of former AL teams, regardless of which league they belong to after realignment.
**For folks who don’t want to see St Louis and the Chicago Cubs in separate leagues/divisions, it could be worked so that Milwaukee and Minnesota take up residence in the AL Central, and the two Chicago teams move to the NL Midwest division.
Comment by Paul — 25 May 2008 @ 8:30 am
I Love all of the ideas to modify baseball and here is what I came up with as far as a plan. it just seems that about 15 of the teams are dead money and have no chance at the post season.
You can review my plan that i sent to Bud Selig and the MLB owners at:
http://thefairball.com/2009/06/mlb-realignment-plan/
I lobby for divisions based on Payroll and Geogragphy with adding 2 more teams to the playoffs to get a total of 6 per League.
Here is how the divisions would lay out to start.
Team Payroll
avr Rank
New York Yankees 1
Boston Red Sox 2
New York Mets 3
Philadelphia Phillies 9
Los Angeles Angels 4
Los Angeles Dodgers 5
Seattle Mariners 7
San Francisco Giants 13
Chicago White Sox 8
Chicago Cubs 6
St. Louis Cardinals 11
Houston Astros 14
Atlanta Braves 10
Baltimore Orioles 15
Toronto Blue Jays 16
Detroit Tigers 12
San Diego Padres 17
Arizona Diamondbacks 19
Oakland Athletics 22
Expansion #1 31Portland
Minnesota Twins 21
Milwaukee Brewers 23
Texas Rangers 18
Expansion #2 32 San Antonio
Cleveland Indians 25
Cincinnati Reds 20
Colorado Rockies 24
Kansas City Royals 26
Florida Marlins 29
Tampa Bay Rays 30
Washington Nationals 27
Pittsburgh Pirates 28
This way you would be groped with teams who have like payroll. So you would have 4 division winners and 2 wild cards.
Basically the more you spend on payroll that impacts who you play in your division.
Comment by The Fair Ball — 30 Jun 2009 @ 3:25 pm