Word is being passed along from Buster Olney that part of the discussions between MLB and the Player’s Association over the CBA involves realigning the current six division format. This is not a new topic and has actually been talked about by bloggers and columnists for quite a while now. Big reasons for shuffling up the teams are creating more balanced schedules, eliminating the 6-team NL Central and short-stack, 4-team AL West, and generally making it more fair for teams to make the playoffs. I am all for that, but lets take a look at some possibilities.
Olney suggests that the primary team that would move would be the Houston Astros going from the NL Central to the AL West. This would create a rivalry with the other Texas team, the Rangers (Isn’t there already a rivalry? I mean I know the Silver Boot has been held by Texas the last few years, but it’s stilled called a “rivalry”), and would make two 15-team leagues. The problem with this would be there would always have to be an interleague set going on but this wouldn’t be the worse thing in the world. My bigger issue is it would set the Astros back in development quite a bit. The Astros are in the basement of the National League with a terrible farm system. Moving them to the AL, the current tougher league, would make it even worse. So let’s look elsewhere.
Instead of limiting ourselves to moving NL Central teams, let’s scrap the divisions. Now we have a 16-team league and a 14-team league and any NL team can be moved over. A few teams have a lot of history in the National League so we won’t move them: Cubs, Phillies, Braves, Cardinals, Reds, Dodgers, Pirates, Mets (bad history, but still history), and Giants. That leaves the Marlins, Nationals, Brewers, Astros, Rockies, Padres, and Diamondbacks. The Marlins and Nationals have regional rivalries but I like having those separated by league. The Astros have already been dismissed. That leaves the Brew Crew, Rockies, Pads, and DBacks. Any of those teams would work but I think the Diamondbacks fit the AL mold pretty well, so lets add them.
Scheduling becomes challenging with no divisions, but it does become more balanced. 14 in-league opponents equally scheduled could be set up as 4 home, 4 away. That’s 112 games. Ideally the interleague matchups will be balanced as well, but the easiest way to do that is 2 home, 2 away, equaling 60 games. 112 + 60 is 172, and that’s way more than we need in a season. If anything we should be reducing games so the playoffs stop going into November. Reducing intra-league games to 3 home, 3 away give us 84 games, plus the 60 interleague games, for 144 total. I’m a little disheartened by the split between inter- and intra-league games being so close, but if you want 15/15 leagues and balanced schedules there’s seemingly little else to do.
Personally I’m in favor of making a balanced schedule and league. While I’m happy the Rangers have the easier path to the playoffs every year I can understand how fans of the NL Central would be rightfully frustrated. Not playing intra-division opponents 19 times would also be a welcome change.
How those new 15 team leagues would format for the playoffs? I suppose I’ll have to write about that sometime.
---
h/t to Buster Olney’s reporting for ESPN and Hardball Talk who passed it along.
Olney suggests that the primary team that would move would be the Houston Astros going from the NL Central to the AL West. This would create a rivalry with the other Texas team, the Rangers (Isn’t there already a rivalry? I mean I know the Silver Boot has been held by Texas the last few years, but it’s stilled called a “rivalry”), and would make two 15-team leagues. The problem with this would be there would always have to be an interleague set going on but this wouldn’t be the worse thing in the world. My bigger issue is it would set the Astros back in development quite a bit. The Astros are in the basement of the National League with a terrible farm system. Moving them to the AL, the current tougher league, would make it even worse. So let’s look elsewhere.
Instead of limiting ourselves to moving NL Central teams, let’s scrap the divisions. Now we have a 16-team league and a 14-team league and any NL team can be moved over. A few teams have a lot of history in the National League so we won’t move them: Cubs, Phillies, Braves, Cardinals, Reds, Dodgers, Pirates, Mets (bad history, but still history), and Giants. That leaves the Marlins, Nationals, Brewers, Astros, Rockies, Padres, and Diamondbacks. The Marlins and Nationals have regional rivalries but I like having those separated by league. The Astros have already been dismissed. That leaves the Brew Crew, Rockies, Pads, and DBacks. Any of those teams would work but I think the Diamondbacks fit the AL mold pretty well, so lets add them.
Scheduling becomes challenging with no divisions, but it does become more balanced. 14 in-league opponents equally scheduled could be set up as 4 home, 4 away. That’s 112 games. Ideally the interleague matchups will be balanced as well, but the easiest way to do that is 2 home, 2 away, equaling 60 games. 112 + 60 is 172, and that’s way more than we need in a season. If anything we should be reducing games so the playoffs stop going into November. Reducing intra-league games to 3 home, 3 away give us 84 games, plus the 60 interleague games, for 144 total. I’m a little disheartened by the split between inter- and intra-league games being so close, but if you want 15/15 leagues and balanced schedules there’s seemingly little else to do.
Personally I’m in favor of making a balanced schedule and league. While I’m happy the Rangers have the easier path to the playoffs every year I can understand how fans of the NL Central would be rightfully frustrated. Not playing intra-division opponents 19 times would also be a welcome change.
How those new 15 team leagues would format for the playoffs? I suppose I’ll have to write about that sometime.
---
h/t to Buster Olney’s reporting for ESPN and Hardball Talk who passed it along.
No comments:
Post a Comment