too many teams in the NL Central...
by NYSaint on Jun 10, 2009 12:37 AM EDT
28 comments
maybe its just cause i like the new (by new i mean created in my head since the trade) rivalry between ATL and PIT. or maybe its just cause its weird seeing 6 teams in the NL Central. either way...here is my proposal. let me know what you think.
1 - move PIT to the NL East
2 - move WAS to the AL Central
3 - move MIN & KC to the AL West
4 - move TEX to the AL Central
i know no one wants to make this big of a restructuring and there are a lot more important pertinent things to be talking about...BUTT, it would even out the divisions, make them slightly more true to their regional names (not by much though), and i like it when ATL can have a new rival.
this would give us:
NL East - ATL NYM PHI FLA PIT
AL Central - DET CWS CLE TEX WAS
AL West - LAD OAK SEA MIN KC
3 recs |
28 comments
Email
Print
Comments
we get Mclouth from the pirates and Gonzo for LaRoche 2 years ago and we have a rivalry? thats kinda like saying we have a rivalry with the Angels (GA and Kotch; traded them Tex)
AB: Jeff Francoeur
Pitching: Any pitcher in MLB
Runners: Escobar at 3rd, Chipper at 2nd, McCann at 1st.
Pitch 1: In play, out(s)
by mvhsbball on Jun 10, 2009 1:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s a terrible idea. I’m much more in favor of the status-quo rather than ridiculous realignment.
by 17843 on Jun 10, 2009 1:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm a fan of proper capitalization. Where's that option?
Oh, Bobby.
by sdp on Jun 10, 2009 1:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd be ok with reallignment and a balanced schedule at some point...
But why move Washington to the ALC in favor of Pittsburgh. Seems like an unnecessary complication to me.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 10, 2009 1:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
it would mess up NL/AL matchups
there would always be an interleague series going on if both leagues have an odd number of teams. i dont know what the answer is, but it is a little strange having 6 teams in one division and 4 in another… whatever the solution is, there needs to be an even number in each league
by We_Are on Jun 10, 2009 2:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That really wouldn't be so awful...
If you got the balance right, no team would be playing one of those “extra” IL series more often than every six months or so?
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 10, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why move Minny & KC west and Texas to the central? They’re all in the same time zone
by bigjoe on Jun 10, 2009 7:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there needs to be a bit of re-structuring
But Washington to the AL Central and Pitt to the NL East makes no sense, mostly because Washington isn’t centrally located.
The obvious solution is for one NL Central team to change divisions, and maybe even re-locate. Unfortunately, the only city that makes sense for relocation is Las Vegas, and Bud Selig won’t go for that (but turning a blind eye to the steroids era for 10 years was fine…).
by Andy Braves Fan on Jun 10, 2009 8:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hate it
Realigning the divisions makes no sense. If anything at all, they should expand to add two new teams, move the Houston Astros or Milwaukee Brewers (back) to the AL, and add another division to each league. I’m thinking like the NFL’s East, North, South, West structure. This would help regulate Interleague (which is a dumb, money driven idea in the first place), eliminate any weird imbalanced scheduling, and perhaps find a way to shave a few games off of 162. Even still, I don’t like that idea much either.
I’m finally getting used to the structure of a season how it is already, and would rather not see another complicated change.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Jun 10, 2009 10:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We already HAVE weird imbalanced scheduling...
Realignment could improve it somewhat.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 10, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m aware of the imbalance. Nobody will ever be able to congruently explain why the schedule is what it is beyond the fact that a designated NL division will play against a designated AL division cycling every three years, but why the Braves have to play the Reds 9 times (6 @ CIN, 3 @ ATL), and the Cubs 6 times.
Realigning it so that all teams have an equal five teams puts baseball in a situation where they need to add more games, or subtract games to have a semblance for balance. The way it is now, only two divisions get weird, because of the even number nature of the NL Central and AL West. Unless you want to see threats of another strike, don’t expect MLB to add more games to what’s already a long and grueling schedule.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Jun 10, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Best Shot.
This would be best served as its own FanPost because there were a lot of considerations that were taken into account in my realignment that I would love to elaborate on (namely history, geography, time zones, scheduling and an equitable distributive representation of the two leagues) but I’ll simply post the results here. If you have any questions or comments about this, I’d be happy to address them. Go Braves!
National League (14 teams)
East - Atlanta Braves, Florida Marlins, New York Mets, Pittsburgh Pirates and Philadelphia Phillies.
Central - Chicago Cubs, Cincinatti Reds, Minnesota Twins and St. Louis Cardinals.
West - Colorado Rockies, Houston Astros, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres and San Francisco Giants.
American League (16 teams)
East - Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Toronto Blue Jays and Washington Nationals.
Central - Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detriot Tigers, Kansas City Royals and Milwuakee Brewers.
West - Arizona Diamondbacks, Los Angeles Angels, Oakland A’s, Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers.
"The mystic chords of fandom, stretching from every trade and signing to every active account and guest all over this broadband, will yet swell the chorus of union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". ~ Abraham Lincoln-ish
"The tree of victory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of quarterbacks and coaches". ~ Thomas Jefferson-ish
by ejruiz on Jun 10, 2009 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Intriguing
I can kind of make guesses to why certain moves were made, but the biggest thing I’m curious about is your hypothetical AL East – more teams in “the strongest division in baseball” might make it more difficult for the Yankees and Red Sox to simply run away with it, or it could turn into “Let’s all pad our win totals against the Nationals.” Also the Nationals and Orioles being in the same division makes me think about the big stink Peter Angelos made to the Nationals even coming into existence in DC, and the fact that the Nationals were an NL team was one of the saving graces for pushing it through. I understand that 18-19 games between such close rivals could be profitable, but it’s kind of like the Angels and Dodgers never being in the same league/division.
So I guess what I’m asking is, what was your official rationale behind your restructured AL East?
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Jun 10, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
I didn’t take Angelos into account because, well, the man is off his rocker! Seriously though, internal MLB politics would have added yet another variable to balance and made the whole exercise virtually impossible.
The reasons why my AL East came out the way it did are varied. First, both the Baltimore Orioles AND the Washington Senators were charter American League franchises. Now, I know they moved to Minnesota to become the Twins (whom I have in the NL and should perhaps switch with the Royals…) and that the second encarnation of the franchise evolved into the Texas Rangers, but D.C. is nonetheless an original AL city and it seemed fitting to switch them back. I tried my darnedest to pair up and split teams from the same city, state and – barring those options – region/proximity, but some other factors compelled me to go against that at times.
It’s a fun, but extremely difficult thing to do! By the way, I found time also realigned MLB into two leagues and eight divisions with two additional, hypothetical franchises in Portland and Las Vegas, just in case you thought I wasn’t bored enough…
"The mystic chords of fandom, stretching from every trade and signing to every active account and guest all over this broadband, will yet swell the chorus of union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". ~ Abraham Lincoln-ish
"The tree of victory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of quarterbacks and coaches". ~ Thomas Jefferson-ish
by ejruiz on Jun 10, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to say I find this interesting
But it still comes with the problem of uneven divisions. The only change is which divisions are now uneven.
I just dont’ see why there aren’t 6 divisions of 5 baseball teams. Surely this should be a baseline for any logical restructuring, no?
by Andy Braves Fan on Jun 10, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scheduling.
Having an odd number of teams per league (15 NL and 15 AL, in your case) would necessity an interleague series all the time or “bye” series for one franchise in each league at a time…
"The mystic chords of fandom, stretching from every trade and signing to every active account and guest all over this broadband, will yet swell the chorus of union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". ~ Abraham Lincoln-ish
"The tree of victory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of quarterbacks and coaches". ~ Thomas Jefferson-ish
by ejruiz on Jun 10, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But, as I mentioned earlier...
If you scheduled this correctly, you could go about six weeks before your non-regularly scheduled IL game.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 10, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
???
If you have a league with 15 teams, then you’d have 7 pairs and one left over every time…
"The mystic chords of fandom, stretching from every trade and signing to every active account and guest all over this broadband, will yet swell the chorus of union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". ~ Abraham Lincoln-ish
"The tree of victory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of quarterbacks and coaches". ~ Thomas Jefferson-ish
by ejruiz on Jun 10, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right...
But 3 days X 15 series that would need to take place outside of the regular intRAleague matchups=45 days, or about 6 weeks between your “weird series.”
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 11, 2009 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i like it
but theres still a division with 6…why?
by NYSaint on Jun 10, 2009 12:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's My Answer From Above.
Having an odd number of teams per league (15 NL and 15 AL, in your case) would necessity an interleague series all the time or "bye" series for one franchise in each league at a time…
"The mystic chords of fandom, stretching from every trade and signing to every active account and guest all over this broadband, will yet swell the chorus of union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". ~ Abraham Lincoln-ish
"The tree of victory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of quarterbacks and coaches". ~ Thomas Jefferson-ish
by ejruiz on Jun 10, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My take:
American League
Superior Division: Yankees, Red Sox (play each other 72 times)
East: Baltimore, Toronto, Tampa, Baltimore, Cleveland
Central: Chicago, Minnesota, Kansas City, Detroit
West: Oakland, LA, Seattle, Texas
National League
Superior Division: Philly, Mets (play each other 72 times)
East: Atlanta, Washington, Florida, Pittsburgh
Central: Chicago, Cincy, St Louis, Milwaukee, houston
West: SF, LA, San Diego, Arizona
"Ohhhh Shit."-Bobby Cox, 3/28/09
by 10-4 on Jun 10, 2009 1:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
That’s a novel idea, at the very least. How does one get into the superior division? What happens if/when four western teams lead the league in whatever category that is (crazy, I know, but it could happen)?
"The mystic chords of fandom, stretching from every trade and signing to every active account and guest all over this broadband, will yet swell the chorus of union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". ~ Abraham Lincoln-ish
"The tree of victory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of quarterbacks and coaches". ~ Thomas Jefferson-ish
by ejruiz on Jun 10, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t matter. Those 4 are obviously the superior teams in baseball. Just ask ESPN.
"Ohhhh Shit."-Bobby Cox, 3/28/09
by 10-4 on Jun 11, 2009 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love the idea. surprised the Cubs aren’t in the Superior Division though in place of the Phills. The Mets and Cubs would be better cause they are the ultimate chokers.
by Sparhawk on Jun 12, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
