Could we realign baseball's divisions to eliminate interleague play?

Question

SInce I feel interleague play is a crock, could we change the divisions to look like this?

Division 1: Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Orioles, Nationals
Division 2: Blue Jays, Phillies, Pirates, Indians, Reds
Division 3: Braves, Marlins, Devil Rays, Rangers, Astros
Division 4: Twins, Brewers, Cubs, White Sox, Tigers
Division 5: Rockies, Diamondbacks, Royals, Cardinals, Mariners
Division 6: Padres, Angels, Dodgers, Giants, A's

The teams could then play unbalanced schedules and be able to work it so that they could play most all of there games in their half of the country.

Except for the Division 5, where the teams are a big splotch in three time zones, I think the basics of getting everyone in their best geography is taken care of here.

Before you go howling about the DH...it would go bye bye, with each team adding a roster spot to appease the Players Union, for 26 man rosters (probably another stinking relief pitcher...LOL

Your thoughts and comments, please

Answer 1

I don't think we need realignment to eliminate interleague play, as it could be eliminated without touching the divisions.

It was a neat idea when it first started, and I wouldn't have a problem with them doing it every few years, but it's now at the point where it's just annoying, especially since some teams end up with much more interleague schedules than do others.

Answer 2

If you have 15 teams in the AL and 15 in the NL there has to be at least 2 teams every day who don't play, or 2 teams will have to play interleague every day. It just doesn't work. I think the easiest way would be to just make interleague play more common.. The NFL and NBA don't have a special time for interleague play, why should the MLB? I think it would spice the game up because there would be more teams playing each other rather than a team playing a team every other 3 years in interleague. Just play half of your games against your division and the rest against the other divisions, AL or NL.

Answer 3

Interleague play existed for two reasons: Money and to set up Yankees-Mets in games that mattered. With those teams now having met in a World Series (and the Yankees ending all doubt by beating the Mutts decisively), it is meaningless except for money, which is why baseball won't do the right thing and end this abomination.

We already had interleague play. It was called the World Series. I may be a political liberal, but in baseball, segregation of the leagues was good.

As for the DH, I'd rather see David Ortiz play a position than see 99 percent of all pitchers come to bat. Every other league on Earth except the NL and one of the Japanese leagues uses the DH. Wake up and join the 20th Century, NL. And don't give me "nine men on a team." It's 25 men on a team, nine at a time.

I'd prefer to go to four Divisions a league, with only Division Champions making it. Teams are listed here by alphabetical order:

AL East: Baltimore, Boston, N.Y. Yankees, Toronto.
AL South: Kansas City, Nashville (better a baseball team than hockey), Tampa Bay, Texas.
AL Central: Chicago White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota.
AL West: Anaheim, Oakland, Salt Lake City (probably would be named "Utah"), Seattle.

NL East: N.Y. Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington.
NL South: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Florida, Houston.
NL Central: Chicago Cubs, Colorado, Milwaukee, St. Louis.
NL West: Arizona, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco.

The only tricky part is Denver, Colorado being in the NL Central, but it's the only way short of moving a team from one league to the other. I almost moved Arizona to the AL, but that would've bumped one of the expansion teams, and I couldn't think of a team east of the Rockies, other than a growing area like Nashville, where it would work. Not even Buffalo and Louisville, which are actually shrinking.

Yes, expansion to 32 teams. Don't tell me "the talent pool isn't there." It is. We're getting players from all over the world now. You think the pitching stinks now? Raise the mound from its current 10 to 12 inches. It won't be 15 like it was until 1968, but it will improve things, and maybe it'll help pitchers to the point where we can even go back to four-man rotations.

Answer 4

Personally, forget realignment....whipe out both the AL & the NL, and have one big league. Have each team, rather than play each other 19 times (if they are in the same division)...split the games up so that every team has to play at least one home or one away series with other teams. That's 87 games. Now, to fill in the rest, you let the teams that are rivals (NYY & NYM or PHI & PIT or BOS & NY) play more games against each other...let teams that are geographically near each other, play more often. That way, at least once every other year, everyone has the chance to see a Pujols or Carlos Lee or Beltran or Vlad...

Instead of having a wild card, just seed the top 8 finishers. That way, if a team has a great season and finishes 90-72, but happens to be in a division where one team goes 91-71 and another goes 93-69...they can still make the playoffs.

You just take the top 8 teams...#1 vs. #8 , 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs. 5. Team with the better record, gets homefield.

It's a shame that some people never get to see a Bonds, or A-Rod, or Haren or Ichiro.

And PS- get rid of the pitcher hitting. If a team wants to let their pitcher hit, fine...but the DH should be league wide, or both leagues get rid of it...one or the other.

Answer 5

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!! Please don't change MLB anymore. I like it the old way. I like those teams in AL to stay in AL and those in NL, stay in NL. I like the Cubs and Cards to stay in same division. There is toooo much history and tradition and everytime we change something, a piece of the game goes with it. Milwaukee in the NL now. Geesh. I hated the introduction of Interleague anyways, another change. HOWEVER, I am open to intrastate interleague play. Yanks/Mets, Reds/Indians, Cubs/Sox, Dodgers/Angels, Cards/Royals, Orioles/nationals, Rangers/Astros, A's/Giants. I could find some within a general area for the other clubs: Mariners/Giants, Brewers/Tigers, etc... But that is it. This would build some nice "new" rivalries and excitement to the game. But other than, please don't change things. You want to know what is wrong with MLB, look to those knuckleheads trying to the run the thing.

Answer 6

So the Mets/Braves are no longer in the same division, nor are the Cards/Cubs. What about the Tigers/Indians??

Baseball has a lot of tradition with age old rivalries. I think by having the two seperate leagues there is more interest in the season itself. In basketball the reg season doesn't even seem to matter b/c of the number of games. This could easily happen in baseball if all of the teams were jumbled together.

Answer 7

Its sounds good in theory but would never happen. Your realingment would leave divsion 1, 2, and 6 are very heavy with large market teams therefore eliminating tv revenue for the smaller teams. Nobody would vote for that.

Answer 8

MLB loves the extra income generated by interleague play. As long as the suckers, I mean the fans, keep paying, interleague play will go on.

Answer 9

How the hell did Seattle end up in your 5th(?) division?

I like the current alignment. It's unbalanced, sure. It doesn't even make much sense and has forced some pretty stupid match-ups the last few years, but it has also developed a lot more interest in baseball.

I say leave it, any new system would have detractors also.

Answer 10

I like interleague play, myself. Interleague play has made it possible to have rivalries we otherwise would not have. (i.e. Cubs White Sox, Dodgers-Angels, Yankees-Mets)