• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

MLB Realignment?

Houston would make a ton of sense. They move out of the 6 team NL Central into the 4 team AL West which balances all divisions at 5, create a natural in league rivalry with Texas, aren't steeped in NL lore or being removed from any other true rivals, and have an in-flux ownership situation such that MLB doesn't have to fight someone to do the move. I hate the idea of eliminating divisions, but would love to see Houston moved (and would be curious what actual Astro fans would think). Only caveat is the idea inter-league play getting stretched out; it would be disappointing to see inter-league games down the stretch of the season in the midst of playoff positioning battles and that close to the WS.
 
I'm not at all in favor of realignment, but if someone is going to move, wouldn't Milwaukee make sense considering there are still people who are upset they moved to the NL in the first place?
 
Dislike.

For years, baseball was the only fair sport in America. Everyone played the exact same schedule. At the end of the season, whichever team(s) has the best record against that exact same schedule gets to play for the World Series.

Selig ruined that. Unbalanced schedules and the Wild Card means you no longer have to be the best team over a 162-game schedule. You can be a good team in an awful division, beat up on your division-mates, suck against everyone else, and win the wild card. Awful.

Now we're looking at 5 out of 15 making the playoffs? Sweet, be more like the NBA. Great model to follow.
 
-I love the idea of getting rid of divisions
-I hate the idea of constant interleague play
-I hate the idea of expanding the number of postseason berths
 
Houston to the AL West would make a lot of sense. Constant meetings with the Texas Rangers? Yes please. I'd be sad to see us stop playing Milwaukee, Chicago, STL, Pittsburgh, and Cinci though. All those teams have really great ballparks and fans.
 
Yea, that's the obvious downside. A division with STL, CHC, PIT, CIN, and MIL is way better than STL, LAA, and KC.
 
stonzm9 said:
-I love the idea of getting rid of divisions
-I hate the idea of constant interleague play
-I hate the idea of expanding the number of postseason berths
Click to expand...

Upon further review, if we MUST stick with 4 postseason berths and all the other Selig crap, I would be open to arguments to get rid of divisions. It means we return to a balanced schedule. Top 4 teams in each league make postseason. If you have interleague play, go all the way with it and make each team play every team in the other league for one three-game series. It's the closest we can get to re-balancing the schedules.
 
Having an odd number of teams in each league means a longer season on constant inter-league games.
 
Despite purist outrage, not sure how you can argue against the expansion to 4 playoff teams per league being good for the game. 1)The old two team format would have eliminated many of our recent WS winners and runner-ups from the get-go. 2)More teams involved down the stretch=more fanbases involved=more relevancy in the national consciousness. I don't want to see the playoffs expanded any further, but, especially given how wide the financial gulf has grown between the big and small market teams since then, the one round expansion has proved necessary and beneficial for the overall health of the game by increasing the number of markets involved with each given season.

Interleague play I will agree on wanting to see go the way of the dodo, though I've grown more ambivalent on it over the years. I hate it from the standpoint that it does dilute the impact of the World Series and does unbalance schedules. On the flipside, while the attendance/viewership boost is overstated and has declined, it is still there, and does actually seem to prop up small market teams more than big market ones (interesting study on this, plus relevant commentary here). I'd prefer it gone, but there's enough of an argument that it does still hold a worthwhile financial and fan interest boost that I'm willing to live with it.
 
I am an Astros fan, so keep that in mind.

I've always thought playing in the only 6-team division was a clear disadvantage, particularly when the AL-West only has 4. That being said, I wouldn't want the Astros to be ones to leave. I've always felt the Brewers should go back where they came from.

I could probably get used to it, but I've long enjoyed hating the Cardinals and Braves. I know Houston doesn't have the highest profile rivalries or the most tradition, but as an Astros fan I would be a little bit sad to be leaving the NL. Taking the league as a whole, though, it probably makes sense and would be good for the Astros long-term success. It would just take a lot of getting used to.

I'm okay with year-long interleague play, but interleague play has been around for almost as long as I've been a semi-knowledgeable baseball fan. It always seemed weird to me that it didn't always exist, since every other pro sport has it, but I understand why that's attractive to old school baseball fans.

ETA: I do like the idea of a division or at least league rivalry with Texas. That would be fun.
 
Last edited:
Interleague play was fun the first few seasons when it was still more of a novelty. But now it seems like there is way too much of it.
 
One more thought - the only people who should really be against this would be the AL-West teams. I guess maybe the AL in general, but I imagine most of the AL would be okay with it. The Astros might object individually, but I doubt any other NL teams have any real reason to want to keep them. Astros fans might hate the Cardinals, Cubs, and Braves, but I don't think any of those teams care all that much about the Astros. The Astros are a lot like Wake is in North Carolina, in that regard.

I wonder how much of a consensus is required to get this done. Ultimately I think I could support it.
 
If they can figure out the inter-league play aspect, I'd actually think the NL to AL move is more likely than not to happen. No reason for the players to oppose it; if nothing else, it psuedo-creates another job with a new DH slot. No established ownership group in Houston to balk at it, actually MLB could just make it a requirement for ownership approval, and while I'm not sure just how attached Houston is to the NL, I'd have to imagine any rivalries are pretty one-sided like ZDeac said. If anything, I could see it paying off for new ownership by offering a fresh marketing opportunity coinciding with their arrival, especially starting up an in-state rivalry with Texas, plus getting to cash in on Yankee and Boston attendance on a regular basis.
 
Just wanted to point out that Milwaukee was a National League city from 1953 to 1965 when the Braves were there and the Brewers are now in their 14th season as a National League team. Also, Selig was a minority owner in the Braves and saw financial benefit to moving the Brewers to the NL.

IOW, the Brewers aren't moving back to the AL.
 
Last edited:
14th, I believe you mean. But yea, they've been NL for awhile, I just don't feel like they have any particularly strong ties to it.
 
I don't like the idea of eliminating divisions but I've always thought it was unfair that some divisions don't have 5 teams. The AL West teams have a 1 in 4 chance of winning their division (25.00%) while the NL Central teams have a 1 in 6 chance of winning their division (16.67%). That's a pretty ridiculous advantage to have year after year after year. And a pretty ridiculous disadvantage to have if you're an AL Central team.

I absolutely hate the idea of further expansion of the playoffs. But pro sports are all about money so I'm sure that part will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top