RealGM

Ever since the NHL announced their major overhaul I've wondered what the MLB could/should do. I'd personally like to see 2 15 team conferences, shorten the season a little bit and expand playoffs to 16 teams top 8 from each conference. Make the 1st round best 2 out of 3, 2nd round 3 out of 5 and the final 2 rounds 4 out of 7.
Wondering what other peoples thoughts are

Millions of dollars could be saved in travel expenses each year if MLB switched to an East/West format rather than the AL/NL

I'd start there

UN-Owen wrote:Millions of dollars could be saved in travel expenses each year if MLB switched to an East/West format rather than the AL/NL

I'd start there

Except the 2 teams that are playing interleague on any given night lol.

I can't be the only one that doesn't care if they save money by travelling less. I'm not a shareholder, I'm a fan. I'd rather keep the AL/NL the way it is.

I'd like to see the top 4 teams from each league make the playoffs, and have three best-of-sevens in each league. Even if they had kept it to 14 and 16 teams for scheduling reasons. Makes too much sense though; it'd never happen. We need more divisions and wildcards and convolution to keep it exciting, apparently.

How much money would they actually save with a West vs East split? The amount you save on jetfuel expenditures is less than a drop in the bucket, there might be other minor savings but they're probably not worth getting rid of the history associated with the AL vs NL.

Avenger wrote:Would they actually save any money with a East/WEst alignment? The amount you save on jetfuel expenditures is less than a drop in the bucket, there might be other savings but they're minor and they're not worth getting rid of the history associated with the AL vs NL.

+1. Baseball is a game with a lot of history. I'm not in favour of making huge changes to the core structure of the game.

In truth they just need expanded video replay and I think baseball would be just about perfect at this point.

I don't really care if there's interleague all the time, it's the price that has to be paid for having 30 teams.

The one major change I'd like to see revolves around inter-league play.

It would be a lot more fun if they played by the visiting team's rules, rather than the home team's. I'm sure NL fans would love a weekend where they can watch the DH in action, and I know I'd be up for the occasional comic gold of seeing pitchers hit.

Parataxis wrote:The one major change I'd like to see revolves around inter-league play.

It would be a lot more fun if they played by the visiting team's rules, rather than the home team's. I'm sure NL fans would love a weekend where they can watch the DH in action, and I know I'd be up for the occasional comic gold of seeing pitchers hit.

That's a fantastic idea. I've never heard that one before and maybe it'd get tiresome, but if we're going to have interleague, then I'd prefer that to the current status quo.

Travel in baseball isn't so bad because a west coat roadrip can be close to two weeks long. There's no play at home thursday, in sea or van or wherever saturday, then down to sf for sunday and la for tuesday, then back home for friday. Those trips up the difficulty of the games so much in hockey or basketball, but I have no problem with the fly-out, then 3 games in a town, move over and 3 more, etc...

I would say that whether it's us going there or vice versa they should avoid 2 gamers at all costs (I think we had a couple with WC teams last year, but I can't remember if it was here or there).

Personally, I'd still be happiest losing interleague (obviously 15/15 leagues makes that impossible), but I do like the idea of giving fans a taste of the opposite league in their home park, that'd be more fun.

satyr9 wrote:

Parataxis wrote:The one major change I'd like to see revolves around inter-league play.

It would be a lot more fun if they played by the visiting team's rules, rather than the home team's. I'm sure NL fans would love a weekend where they can watch the DH in action, and I know I'd be up for the occasional comic gold of seeing pitchers hit.

That's a fantastic idea. I've never heard that one before and maybe it'd get tiresome, but if we're going to have interleague, then I'd prefer that to the current status quo.

Thanks. Not sure how much traction it would get, but I know I'd enjoy it.

Personally, I'd still be happiest losing interleague (obviously 15/15 leagues makes that impossible), but I do like the idea of giving fans a taste of the opposite league in their home park, that'd be more fun.

Okay, maybe somebody can explain this to me, but why does having 15 teams in each league mean that there needs to be inter-league play? Surely with 7 games going on at a time, plus giving teams occasional rest days (maybe shortening the season down to 154 to add 8 more rest days) they could giggle the schedule (having teams start series at different times, and etc...) to make it so that you always have seven games going on one team resting?

Parataxis wrote:Okay, maybe somebody can explain this to me, but why does having 15 teams in each league mean that there needs to be inter-league play? Surely with 7 games going on at a time, plus giving teams occasional rest days (maybe shortening the season down to 154 to add 8 more rest days) they could giggle the schedule (having teams start series at different times, and etc...) to make it so that you always have seven games going on one team resting?

Is there any mathematical way to offset 3-game series such that you always have at least one team off per day? I, like you, find it hard to believe there isn't a solution to that problem (although to be honest I haven't actually given it a good think, there may be something obvious as to why not), but the league has enough scheduling problems with stadiums and travel and whatever without adding that logistical chestnut into the equation. JMO

Really like that wrinkle to inter-league play. Would help even out the home team advantage (though I'm not sure they want to do that or that there is even a significant home team advantage as it is.)

I would like to see them go to two divisions in each league, and either have two WC teams (so they could both be from the same division) or four WC teams that would play 3 game series for the right to play the division winners.

They do have to keep the AL/NL in tact though.

baulderdash77 wrote:

Avenger wrote:Would they actually save any money with a East/WEst alignment? The amount you save on jetfuel expenditures is less than a drop in the bucket, there might be other savings but they're minor and they're not worth getting rid of the history associated with the AL vs NL.

+1. Baseball is a game with a lot of history. I'm not in favour of making huge changes to the core structure of the game.

In truth they just need expanded video replay and I think baseball would be just about perfect at this point.

I don't really care if there's interleague all the time, it's the price that has to be paid for having 30 teams.

Re-alignment (East/West) wouldn't alter the game or its history in any way, shape or form. Teams move. You would get over it


As for the financial incentives, it's not just a matter of saving on jet fuel, but hotel costs as well

TV viewership would also increase as teams would play an overwhelming majority of games within their own timezone

Plus, it can only help attendance to have natural rivals playing each other more frequently

Cleveland should be playing Cincy once a month, not once a year

A's vs Giants

Rays vs Marlins

Mets vs Yankees

Cubs vs White Sox

Cardinals vs Royals

Rangers vs Astros

Angels vs Dodgers

Nationals vs Orioles


There's no better way to stall progress than to keep things the way they are simply because that's the way it's always been

There would definitely be advantages to going East/West, and you would create at least as many new rivalries as you would lose, but I just don't see it happening.

I found this map which is a good tool to see how any divisional/league realignment would look.

http://billsportsmaps.com/wp-content/up ... hats_c.gif

expanding the playoffs to include 8 teams per league, and/or moving the jays to the al central. if you can't be 'em, change divisions!!

Drop the two leagues, keep the DH, and roll the 4 conference idea the NHL did. Also expand two more teams to make it an even 32 and 8 per conference. Top two teams in each conference make the playoffs.

Conference 1 "North East" - New Team (Maybe NE Based), Boston, NY-Y, NY-M, Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Pittsburgh

Conference 2 "Mid-West" - Detroit, Chicago-C, Chicago-W, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Milwaukee, TORONTO

Conference 3 "South-East "- Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, St Louis, KC, Houston, Texas, New Team (Maybe Tennessee based)

Conference 4 "Pacific" - LA-A, LA-D, SD, SF, Oakland, Seattle, Colorado, Arizona

Homer Jay wrote:Drop the two leagues, keep the DH, and roll the 4 conference idea the NHL did. Also expand two more teams to make it an even 32 and 8 per conference. Top two teams in each conference make the playoffs.

Conference 1 "North East" - New Team (Maybe NE Based), Boston, NY-Y, NY-M, Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Pittsburgh

Conference 2 "Mid-West" - Detroit, Chicago-C, Chicago-W, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Milwaukee, TORONTO

Conference 3 "South-East "- Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, St Louis, KC, Houston, Texas, New Team (Maybe Tennessee based)

Conference 4 "Pacific" - LA-A, LA-D, SD, SF, Oakland, Seattle, Colorado, Arizona

i like that idea just don't see 2 more teams being added to the league, would love to see them play with a DH for all 30 teams, personally don't get to much excitement out of pitchers striking out or laying down a bunt

Has it been confirmed that there going to be 2 extra teams making the playoffs? I kept hearing rumours and I assume it's included in the new labour contract and will happen for the 2013 season. I just never read the actual confirmation but I sure hope so for the Jays' sake.

turtle_15 wrote:

Homer Jay wrote:Drop the two leagues, keep the DH, and roll the 4 conference idea the NHL did. Also expand two more teams to make it an even 32 and 8 per conference. Top two teams in each conference make the playoffs.

Conference 1 "North East" - New Team (Maybe NE Based), Boston, NY-Y, NY-M, Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Pittsburgh

Conference 2 "Mid-West" - Detroit, Chicago-C, Chicago-W, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Milwaukee, TORONTO

Conference 3 "South-East "- Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, St Louis, KC, Houston, Texas, New Team (Maybe Tennessee based)

Conference 4 "Pacific" - LA-A, LA-D, SD, SF, Oakland, Seattle, Colorado, Arizona

i like that idea just don't see 2 more teams being added to the league, would love to see them play with a DH for all 30 teams, personally don't get to much excitement out of pitchers striking out or laying down a bunt

It's the strategy my man. You have double switches. It makes the manager think whether he should pull his starter too soon because the game's close and they have RISP or whether to use the closer late in the game if the pitcher's slot is up the next inning in a close game. So many situations arise because of it which makes much more fun to watch. In the AL the manager just has to fill out his batting order at the beginning. In the NL the manager has alot more to deal with.

They have more to think about but it doesn't mean it's better. I don't pay to see a manager, I pay to see players.

Also, I hate the ridiculous Conference setup. The NHL is going backwards in my opinion. Creating false rivalries to try and spice things up is so NFL. Blech. At least the AL/NL divide has some tradition. If it didn't, they could just go to a 30 team league with the top 8 making the palyoffs. Man, how much better would that be? One league, balanced schedule, best teams make the playoffs. Those "rivalry games" would mean more since they don't happen 20 times per season.