YankeesRedSox.com

I like the interleague play and getting to see the NL teams throughout the year. The AL pitchers will have to be ready to hit and bunt and run the bases -- and will just have to practice it throughout the year. At least it will make them better for the World Series.

I'm not a fan of the wild card expansion. Even though the one game playoff is clever, each time you add playoff teams you dilute the integrity of the season. The defining characteristic of baseball is that the season is meaningful, and you get to watch it develop over the course of the year. Let's not reduce the season to meaningnlessness like hockey, where every decent team makes the playoffs.

Peter,

While I understand the sentiment that the "fair" thing to do would have been to move Milwaukee from the NL back to the AL, as their move to the NL created the imbalance in the first place, it wouldn't have been fair to their players (more flights to the West Coast relative to other teams) nor to their fans, who would have had to endure more late-ending night games. Geographically, Milwaukee belongs in the Central Division, not the Western division. Geographically, it is difficult to balance out the three division in both leagues "fairly" while maintaining 5 teams per division, because the locations of the teams doesn't easily allow it. It would be easier to devise a somewhat fairer (though imperfect) divisional split if they went back to two divisions:

NL East

ATL
MIA
NYM
PHI
WSH
PIT
CIN

NL Mid-West/West

CHC
HOU
STL
ARI
COL
LAD
SDP
SFG

AL East

BAL
BOS
NYY
TBR
TOR
CLE
DET

AL Mid-West/West

CWS
KCR
MIL
MIN
LAA
OAK
SEA
TEX

Yes, this would mean the divisions would not have the same number of teams, but we've been living with that since 1997. This would also kill the Wild Card, which I hate. I know, I know, it won't happen. Too much television money would be lost from the playoffs.

Or, to keep things simpler, move ARI or COL from the NL West to the AL West, as these teams have shorter histories and are less well established. This would have allowed them to move HOU to the NL West -- at least this way, the team with the longer history in the NL could have stayed there.

I don't like the addition of yet another season-diluting wild card. But, I concede it restores the importance of winning the division.

If they are going to insist on adding more interleague play (having two 15-team leagues pretty much mandates it, I think) then they need to decide one way or the other: both leagues have a DH or neither do. I prefer neither, but what we have now is the worst of both worlds.

Curmudgeon Alert!

As far as I'm concerned, they should eliminate the divisions altogether so that the team with the best record wins the pennant, drop the DH and kill interleague play. I'm also leaning towards killing lights in the stadiums so all games have to be played during the day, but I *might* be open to negotiation in this regard. That's my stance and I'm sticking with it.

Greg

No more night games? You might be the second coming of Andy Rooney! I don't like lights at Wrigley, but night games on weekdays allow me to see baseball, so I am not complaining.

You make a good point about geography, but Houston is in the same time zone as Milwaukee and I think a lot of the time zone concerns could be addressed by cutting down on the number of divisional games. Yankees-Red Sox is great, but 18 times a year is too much in my mind.

I will say, things are better than they were before expansion started. (Remember the Braves and Reds in the West and the Cubs and Cards in the East?)

I like your divisions a lot and baseball could make things very interesting by giving the two division winners guaranteed home playoff series and then having three wild cards in each league. Top wild card gets advanced to the ALDS against the division winner with the worse record and the other two wild cards have the one-game playoff.

no chance the extra wildcards are only a single game. Not with Bud and tv revenue in the way.

Peter,

Yes, I know Houston is in the same time zone as Milwaukee (that's one of the reason I described it as an imperfect divisional split).

Agreed -- 18 games is a bit much. I'm OK with playing more games in your own division -- it gives the divisions real meaning -- but I'd like to see them cut it back to no more than 15.

There is an interesting history regarding the Cards being assigned to the East in 1969. When the formats for the first divisional partitions of 1969 were proposed, the Cards were adamant they wanted to be in the NL East. Back then, there was no cable TV and gate receipts were by far the most significant component of a team's income. The Cards wanted to be in the East with the Mets, because the NYC teams generally draw more fans when they come to visit, and their vote was necessary to secure approval for the new format, so their wishes had to be met. Any time there is expansion, it has the potential to wreak havoc with divisional alignments and scheduling.

BL,

From what I've read, Selig wanted the three-game playoff, but all other interested parties (among those who got a vote) all wanted a one-game do-or-die match-up. Selig argued that deciding a season on one game wasn't fair. The others argues that a best 2-of-3 with travel day would eat too much time and that one-game do-or-die match-ups make great theater and have inherent TV appeal. Sort of like skipping straight to game 7.

I would love to watch interleague games if the NL had the DH. Failing that, watching an NL game is something I try to avoid. Having a dud come to the plate every 9th batter spoils it for me. Yeah, I know that the pitcher can surprise you but that's a bit like arguing that chimps can theoretically type Hamlet, I'd rather not wait around. So, anything that leads to, encourages or necessiates interleague play, WS excepted, is not something I like.

Second wild card? Seems like it cheapens the hard work that goes into winning the division over the length of the season.

IOW, shipping the Brewers back to the NL would have been my vote.

I can't wait for Selig to retire - man has all the imagination and vision of the aforementioned chimps. :-)

Night games? Love 'em, but need to start them a bit earlier so I can get my beauty rest before the next day's tasks.

Greg

That was very interesting about the Cards. I imagine that is why the Cubs ended up in the East as well- to preserve the rivalry?

As for intradivision scheduling, I think it used to be 12 games? That feel about right to me, two series at each venue.

Mitchell

Your chimps analogy reminded me of a great line from "A Fish Called Wanda" where Kevin Kline's character proudly proclaims, "Chimps can't read Nietzsche!" and Jamie Lee Curtis' responds, "Yes they can, they just don't understand it!"

Totally agree on the NL, I am an AL guy through and through.

Peter,

I am not sure why the Cubs ended up in the East and the Reds in the West. I believe The Braves ended up in the West because they were the ones chosen to swap divisions with the Cardinals, but again, I am not sure. I believe there were other factors at play. Whereas the AL tried to split the teams according to true geographical location, the NL was also interested in competitive balance between the divisions. At that time (1967-1968), the NL's top four teams (in the sense of Wins/Losses) were the Cardinals, Giants, Cubs (no, really) and Reds, and they didn't want three of those teams in the same division. Additionally, the locations of the Falcons in the NFL Western Conference, and the Bengals in the AFL West, and the St. Louis Cardinals in the NFL Eastern Conference, had also established precedents for the location of the baseball teams. A look at the The NFL's and AFL's nominally geographic conferences and divisions clearly demonstrates that they too struggled with the effect of adding teams to the geographical integrity of those conferences and divisions.

LOL !

Yeah, well Nietzche was a little dense at times, so I can sympathize with the chimps in that instance. :-D

Prediction: MLB will eventually expand to 32 teams and go with 8 divisions of four. I suppose that would be less gimmicky than a wild card.

Corey

I'll bet you are right, the question is where? I have always felt the NYC area could support a 3rd team, but I can't see the Yankees and Mets allowing that.

I would bet San Antonio gets a team in the next 10 years, but I don't know where the second team would go. Vegas would be the favorite if not for the gambling.

Corey - 32 teams with 8 divisions would work well. If that happens, it would mean that our game is growing.

Peter - I can see two problems with Vegas getting a team. The gambling is pretty manageable - they could refuse to make any sort of odds on the Vegas team. The weather would surely require an indoor stadium as it gets brutally hot in the summer. It can still be in the triple digits at midnight.

Peter and Corey,

Mathematically, I love two 32-team leagues of four divisions each because that eliminates the need for a wild card, but I'm not sure the talent base is there to support 32 teams. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose there is.

Observations:

1. I think four teams/division is too few. I think there needs to be at least five (preferably six) teams per division to help minimize the probability that a mediocre team (e.g/, a team with fewer than 85 wins) captures the division title.

2. Merely adding teams isn't enough -- for geographical/divisional balance, they're needed out West (i.e., in the Pacific and Mountain Time Zones). Where to put them? San Jose? The A's are trying to move there but SF doesn't want them to. Salt Lake City? I doubt it's big enough. Portland, OR? Perhaps too close to Seattle to be viable. Vancouver? Same as Portland, and I'm not sure the interest is there.

I can think of other cities that *might* be viable (based primarily on population): San Antonio easily tops the list, but others might include Jacksonville, FL; Indianapolis, IN; Austin, TX; Columbus, OH; Charlotte, NC; El Paso, TX; Memphis, TN; Nashville, TN, Not saying all can or should have MLB teams, just saying they might be viable. Note they all belong in the Eastern or Central Time Zones.

From a geographical perspective, Las Vegas would be a very good candidate, but as noted is off-limits because of the gambling, which I think is silly. Do they really believe there's going to be more baseball-related gambling in Vegas than there is now just because an MLB team is located there? Do they not understand the capabilities of modern communications technologies?

Come to think of it, Oklahoma City, OK, Albuquerque, NM and Omaha, NE could probably be added to the list above, too.

I too think NYC/North Jersey can support a third team, but as noted the Yankees and Mets won't allow a third team. Heck, LA and Chicago might be able to support one, too. While we're at it, why not just send the A's back to Philly if they no longer want to be in Oakland. Maybe even add a second team in Boston to replace the long-lost Braves!

There is no question that NYC could support a third team -- preferably in Brooklyn. There is a sports economist by the name of Zimbalist who has written some books on this. His theory is that anticompetitive rules prevent the mega markets from developing the several teams that would certainly emerge under truly free market conditions.

The Yankees and Mets will never allow it. For good reason -- I would switch allegiance to Brooklyn if they ever put a team there. My father was a Brooklyn Dodgers fan and I would have been too, if that #$%#* O'Malley hadn't moved the team.

I think the most likely sites for new teams would be Portland, Vancouver, Riverside (California), San Antonio, Memphis.

Greg

The mediocre team argument is a good one and we have certainly seen that problem in the NFL. But, 32 teams/8 divisions is such a clean solution that I can't see MLB rejecting it if they did expand by two more teams.

Corey

The really ironic thing about the Dodgers is that the place O'Malley wanted to build the ballpark in Brooklyn is about to become the future home of the Nets and most people are furious. But, I suspect that Brooklynites will eventually flock to the Barclay's Center

go the other way, 4 divisions of 8 teams each is the perfect solution. Gets division winners and next best 4 teams in each league, 6 total, 12 in mlb out of 32. Division winners get bye's.

Florida doesn't ever deserve another team so forget Jacksonville. I would vote Vegas for sure, if Phoenix can, why not Vegas.

From a business perspective O'Malley obviously knew what he was doing. The demographics just weren't there anymore for Brooklyn as the middle class fled the city.

But with the gentrification of Brooklyn, what a terrific market it would be for baseball now. Rip down that travesty of an apartment building they put on the old site of the park and call it Ebbetts Park. The Dodgers won't let us use the name they stole from the borough, but we could still call them the Brooklyn Robins, which is what the team was called earlier in the century.

Corey

There is actually still a piece of the Dodgers older ballpark, Washington Park, still standing on third avenue in Brooklyn. They could kick Con Edison out of the lot and rebuild that park! Name the team the Robins or Superbas or my personal favorite, Bridegrooms and watch Brooklynites flood the stands. It would never happen, but it is fun to think about.

The park they did build off the boardwalk on Coney Island is a pretty great place to catch a game too.

BL

I think Vegas deserves a team, but I don't think baseball will be the league that gives them one. Too much history with gambling problems in baseball to cross that bridge. Even if they didn't allow bets on the Vegas team I still don't think they would do it.

Maybe they could name them the WaitTilNextYears.