should MLB get rid of divisions?

E5 Yaz · Aug 13, 2015

If you only look at it through the lens of playoffs, then what Passan is arguing can make sense. But baseball, moreso than the other major sports, has always been a regional experience -- with the longstanding rivalries and the need over a 162 game season to play more games against closer opponents.

What he says about divisions not existing until 1969 leaves out a major point -- 1969 is when the expansion era truly took hold. The leagues have gone from 10 to 15 teams each since the start of divisions. Passan is arguing based solely on the top 5 teams in each league which, if necessary, can be re-arranged for the playoffs without killing divisions.

Look at the Red Sox this season: Until the post ASG road trip, there was still a fleeting hope that the fifth-place Red Sox could climb the ladder and get into contention. That hope all but disappears if they are in 13th place.

I'm old enough to remember the mad scramble in 1967 ... but those teams were fighting for one postseason berth. The last thing baseball needs is the NBA model of trying to maneuver into the "right" spot, so they can avoid a certain opponent in the first playoff round.

Max Power · Aug 13, 2015

We have this discussion every year. Until TV contracts are no longer the biggest source of revenue for a team, you'll never see a large increase in the number of games played outside of a team's home time zone. Divisions are staying aligned geographically and schedules are staying unbalanced.

Lose Remerswaal · Aug 13, 2015

Or you could just change the playoff seeding rules, since the divisions serve a number of valuable purposes:

1) They help build/maintain rivalries. Would anyone in Boston give a rat's ass about the Tampa Bay Rays if we played them as often as we play Houston?
2) They reduce travel time and expenses and make travel between series more reasonable. Would the Sox be a better team if they had twice as many trips to the West Coast than they currently do (with all the extra time, expense, time zone changes, and reduction in sleep time between games) and fewer trips to nearby cities?

Ale Xander · Aug 13, 2015

I'm all in favor of no divisions. Do a balanced schedule. top 4 teams make playoffs in each league. Can even do 5 with the current system with a wc. 2 game series against everyone in the other league, alternate H/A yr/yr with respective matchups. It's the fair thing to do, but you'll never see it. Subway/highway series teams will never agree to it anyway, and the teams that draw poorly will never reduced games against teams that actually fill the place.

14x9=126 (alternate yr/yr which team in a matchup gets 6) Can also do 5/4 I guess.
30 IL for 156 total. Remove 1 week from schedule (probably april, when it's cold/snowy in 1/2 the league)

jon abbey · Aug 13, 2015

Absolutely, my least favorite aspect of all three major sports (the NBA has essentially gotten rid of them now starting next season, but they need to get rid of conferences or at least seed all 16 playoff teams 1-16).

But MLB isn't interested in the best team/s emerging at the end, the ridiculous ASG result deciding home field advantage in the World Series is only one example.

jose melendez · Aug 13, 2015

jon abbey said:
Absolutely, my least favorite aspect of all three major sports (the NBA has essentially gotten rid of them now starting next season, but they need to get rid of conferences or at least seed all 16 playoff teams 1-16).

But MLB isn't interested in the best team/s emerging at the end, the ridiculous ASG result deciding home field advantage in the World Series is only one example.

1-16 seeding would make the NBA regular season even less interesting than it is now. It wouldn't be as bad for baseball, but it would still make the regular season less interesting.

glennhoffmania · Aug 13, 2015

jon abbey said:
Absolutely, my least favorite aspect of all three major sports (the NBA has essentially gotten rid of them now starting next season, but they need to get rid of conferences or at least seed all 16 playoff teams 1-16).

But MLB isn't interested in the best team/s emerging at the end, the ridiculous ASG result deciding home field advantage in the World Series is only one example.

Totally agree. The dumbest thing in baseball is that 40% of the playoff teams are wild cards, yet the schedules for each of the contenders can be totally different. The NFL doesn't have much of a choice since they can only play very few games. When your season is 162 games there is zero excuse to not at least try to make the system somewhat fair.

Plus I don't need to see Tampa 19 times per year. I'd rather see more of Detroit, Houston and Seattle.

jon abbey · Aug 13, 2015

jose melendez said:
1-16 seeding would make the NBA regular season even less interesting than it is now. It wouldn't be as bad for baseball, but it would still make the regular season less interesting.

It might make for fewer crucial games in the superior conference (the West currently), but on the flip side, the entire Eastern regular season schedule was pretty much pointless last season, a coronation for CLE who didn't even start playing well until half the season was over.40 or so games in.

But more importantly, it would make the playoffs way more fair/entertaining, and the playoffs are the important thing IMO (the season should also be shortened to 70 games, but all of this is slightly off-topic).

grimshaw · Aug 13, 2015

I loathe the unbalanced schedule. It's unfair for the two mountain time teams as well who play nearly 50% of their games out of their zone and for any team that travels significantly more than another team (Seattle/Florida). I wish they would:

-Move start times an hour up or down for games with 2-3 hour time differences. I realize traffic is an issue for some west coast cities, but my guess is that tickets will still be sold, and tv ratings will go up on the east coast.

-Consider occasional 5 game series or scheduled double headers with west vs east coast (try and get 10 games apiece). You do one long road trip at the start of the season, one after the All-star break or in September with expanded rosters. I realize none of these things will fly with the players union though.

I wonder if you polled players what the response would be about keeping the unbalanced schedule. I'm sure a big chunk like less travel, but some probably dislike it too.

Lars The Wanderer · Aug 13, 2015

Having a majority of teams playing meaningless baseball starting in late May is going to be a non-starter.

Saints Rest · Aug 13, 2015

This strikes me as one of those flukes that occurs once in awhile that makes the system seem bad. Sounds very similar to the people that wanted to throw out the NFL playoff system when it looked like a division winner (NFC South) might only have 6 wins.

Toe Nash · Aug 13, 2015

Lose Remerswaal said:
2) They reduce travel time and expenses and make travel between series more reasonable. Would the Sox be a better team if they had twice as many trips to the West Coast than they currently do (with all the extra time, expense, time zone changes, and reduction in sleep time between games) and fewer trips to nearby cities?

They did for a long time and things were OK. They used to take two west coast swings each year for 9-10 games each up into the 90s. Travel has probably gotten more comfortable since then. This isn't a good reason to not have balanced schedules.

glennhoffmania · Aug 13, 2015

Toe Nash said:
They did for a long time and things were OK. They used to take two west coast swings each year for 9-10 games each up into the 90s. Travel has probably gotten more comfortable since then. This isn't a good reason to not have balanced schedules.

Exactly. As far as the Sox are concerned there are three teams that would require cross country trips. And it's not like Houston and Texas aren't already making several long flights just to play their own divisional opponents. Houston to Seattle is almost 2,000 miles and somehow they survive.

jon abbey · Aug 13, 2015

Saints Rest said:
This strikes me as one of those flukes that occurs once in awhile that makes the system seem bad. Sounds very similar to the people that wanted to throw out the NFL playoff system when it looked like a division winner (NFC South) might only have 6 wins.

It doesn't matter how often it happens, it shouldn't ever happen.

Also, am I mistaken, or wouldn't the winner of PIT/CHC have to play the #1 seeds, STL, in the NLDS?

If so, that is absolutely ridiculous, the old rules about not playing a team from your own division in the DS made much more sense. This way you would have #1 playing the winner of #2/#3 while #4 plays #5 on the other side.

Edit: Never mind, that is addressed in the original article and is in fact the case. Crazy.

Max Power · Aug 13, 2015

grimshaw said:
-Move start times an hour up or down for games with 2-3 hour time differences. I realize traffic is an issue for some west coast cities, but my guess is that tickets will still be sold, and tv ratings will go up on the east coast.

What about the opposite? Should the Red Sox start games at 8pm on weeknights when the Mariners and A's are in town? They'll do that for the playoffs since attendance and TV ratings are guaranteed for those, but it would kill ticket sales and local viewership during the regular season.

grimshaw · Aug 13, 2015

Max Power said:
What about the opposite? Should the Red Sox start games at 8pm on weeknights when the Mariners and A's are in town? They'll do that for the playoffs since attendance and TV ratings are guaranteed for those, but it would kill ticket sales and local viewership during the regular season.

That's what I was getting at, yes. Or even 7:30 or 40 past like the Rockies or D-Backs sometimes do. It's not as critical on the east coast, since they are used to watching games earlier, but most people here are conked out by the 2nd inning for a west coast game. It's not a perfect compromise, but it's maybe 10 games a year depending on weekend days.

Ale Xander · Aug 13, 2015

Max Power said:
What about the opposite? Should the Red Sox start games at 8pm on weeknights when the Mariners and A's are in town? They'll do that for the playoffs since attendance and TV ratings are guaranteed for those, but it would kill ticket sales and local viewership during the regular season.

Friday night 8PM games would be a great thing IMHO. Against any team (in workaholic cities like Bos and NYC)

Rice4HOF · Aug 13, 2015

You can still keep divisions with their unbalanced schedules etc, and address Passan's issue, simply by reseeding the playoff teams.
All division winners + 2 teams with best records in each league make playoffs (what we have now). But now you reseed them based on wins. So in NL, St Louis is #1, Pitts. 2, Cubs 3, LA 4 and Mets 5 (or whatever - I didn't look up exact standings). Dodgers and Mets would have to play in the 1 game elimination wildcard game.
Problem solved without getting into issues with MLBPA, extra traveling, rivalries etc.

Kremlin Watcher · Aug 13, 2015

Why not keep the divisions for all the reasons cited, but you make it into the playoffs based strictly on overall record, not division outcome? So in theory you could win your division and not make the playoffs (unlikely but possible).

Ale Xander · Aug 13, 2015

The unfairness stems from the fact that the Cubs and Pirates play themselves and the Cardinals 38 times unlike, e.g. SF and Natstown

redsoxcentury · Aug 15, 2015

i have no problem with wild card round winner playing team in division in ds. i thought the old system precluding that until lcs was bonkers. if we are calling the wild card round winner the hypothetical "worst" playoff team (by seeding) then the team with best record in league should be playing them.

where baseball does it wrong is by having division winners always seeded higher than wild card teams even if they have worse record. keep the 3 divisions for each league with each winner guaranteed playoff spot. then 2 more wild card teams make it per league. then seed based on regular season record. even if it means a division winner has to play a "wild card" game then so be it. that is their punishment for not having a better record than a wild card team.

that said there is never going to be a perfect system but each team knows the set-up before the season and thus cant use it as an excuse if they miss out on playoffs

jon abbey · Aug 15, 2015

The Mets are 0-11 and counting against CHI/PIT this year, a system that forces those two into a one game playoff to advance to the same round as the Mets have already made (assuming they hold on over a fading NatsTown) is pretty obviously broken, even if it only happens once every 5 or 10 years.

Keep the unbalanced schedules for now, but then seed the five playoff teams 1-5 based on record. This still hurts the teams in the stronger division because they play a tougher schedule, but less so at least.

HriniakPosterChild · Aug 17, 2015

grimshaw said:
I loathe the unbalanced schedule. It's unfair for the two mountain time teams as well who play nearly 50% of their games out of their zone ....

I loathe it, too. But Phoenix is in the same time zone as California when summer comes, since they don't use DST in Arizona.

So the Rockies are the only ones who get that particular shaft.

getfoul · Aug 17, 2015

I hate divisions because they're stupid and unneeded when 5 of 15 teams from each league qualify for the postseason.

In this time of parity and few very good teams, the lack of a balanced schedule where the best teams earn their spot in the playoffs is terrible. If the Pirates and Cardinals are two of the three best NL teams, let them earn their spot, and not be subjected to a one-game playoff.

I've brought this up many times before, and I continue to be right- baseball would be better with no divisions, a close-to-balanced schedule, and the top 3 teams in the league earn their seed. And the 4th and 5th best teams play one game to get in.

Also, with the talk of a shortened schedule, I think a good starting point would be cutting 2 games to a 160-game schedule.

My proposal is a 2-year commitment for the 2017 and 2018 seasons. Here is how it would work:

Personally, I would like to see the Astros move back to the NL and have both leagues equal by time zones: 7 east, 4 central, and 4 pacific or mountain. (D-backs or Rockies move to the AL after 2018 season)

144 League Games
Play the four teams from your former division 11 games over 4 series (44 games)
Play the other ten teams in your league 10 games over 3 series (100 games)

16 Interleague Games
If you have a natural opponent (Cubs/White Sox, Yankees/Mets), you play six games per year, 3 home, 3 away.
The other ten are split 2 home, 3 home, 2 away, 3 away.
The two-game series would happen on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to give a couple extra off days on Mondays for travel purposes.
Other rule- for teams in the east and central, no more than one road interleague series in the west.

Going around the league once every 17 series
The season would still be 26 weeks/52 series.
There would still be one week where you play two 2-game series (former division teams) and a 3-game series.
Every 8.5 weeks you play every team in your league at least once. So after 17/18 series, you've played your 14 league opponents at least once, plus two interleague series, and an extra former division opponent.

So basically you play your league every 53-54 games. After the second time around the league, that's when the trade deadline should occur...on a Wednesday night at 9pm with about 8.5 weeks left in the season.

Homefield Advantage
The All-Star Game rule is beyond stupid. This cannot be debated.
So with a close-to-balanced schedule, earning your HFA would be based on seed within your own league--not record. Example--the Giants win the 2-seed with 90 wins, but the Royals win the 3-seed with 91 wins. In this case, the Giants have HFA because of the higher seed.
If two teams end up with the same seed and record, then it would go down to head-to-head if they played each other during the regular season, or better 144-game league record.

Having this based on seed will keep teams hungry to the end of the season even if they've clinched a "Top-3" spot.

Playing a close-to-balanced schedule will make the game more fair, it will develop more in-season rivalries, while maintaining the ones that already exist, and make the game more national rather than regional.

If Mike Trout was playing in the east (or even central), he would be a much bigger star nationally. Clayton Kershaw and Buster Posey would be bigger stars. There are people that don't know who Paul Goldschmidt is at all. That's a shame.

It's time to make MLB a more national game, and a close-to-balanced schedule would be a great way to get that done.

Sampo Gida · Aug 22, 2015

I kind of flip flop around on this, but at the moment I would prefer to see 2 leagues (no divisions) with a balanced schedule and no inter-league play. Chartered flights and first class accommodation help offset the longer travel times today, and the 2 game series due to interleague play would be eliminated, and more 4 game series would reduce the number of actual trips to the airport (much of the hassle in traveling is packing, bus trips to airport and sitting on the plane waiting for takeoff and then reversing the process to the hotel or home ). Players schedules are so irregular with so many day games among the night games that jet lag from 1-3 hr time zone differences is probably inconsequential. Its not like a 6-12 hr lag.

I don't expect it to happen, owners and players are probably both opposed to it for different reasons. After all, who wants more or longer trips to most of the Central division cities, so players on the WC and EC division teams would want none of that. Owners travel costs are reduced with divisions and an unbalanced schedule. No real driving force for a change here.

getfoul · Aug 23, 2015

Sampo Gida said:
I kind of flip flop around on this, but at the moment I would prefer to see 2 leagues (no divisions) with a balanced schedule and no inter-league play. Chartered flights and first class accommodation help offset the longer travel times today, and the 2 game series due to interleague play would be eliminated, and more 4 game series would reduce the number of actual trips to the airport (much of the hassle in traveling is packing, bus trips to airport and sitting on the plane waiting for takeoff and then reversing the process to the hotel or home ). Players schedules are so irregular with so many day games among the night games that jet lag from 1-3 hr time zone differences is probably inconsequential. Its not like a 6-12 hr lag.

I don't expect it to happen, owners and players are probably both opposed to it for different reasons. After all, who wants more or longer trips to most of the Central division cities, so players on the WC and EC division teams would want none of that. Owners travel costs are reduced with divisions and an unbalanced schedule. No real driving force for a change here.

It's kind of tough to prove that it would be successful. I think players are wussier than they used to be--probably because people are softer now, and the availability of greenies is gone. My feeling is that if they cut back a couple Monday's or Thursday's and took more 3-city trips with off days around them, travel wouldn't hurt as much. When it's a constant "week on the road/week at home", the "grind" word shows up a lot more.

should MLB get rid of divisions?

news aggravator

polka king

thai good. you like shirt?

Experiencing Furry Panic

Hamilton

Shanghai Warrior

Earl of Acie

meat puppet

Shanghai Warrior

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

meat puppet

Shanghai Warrior

thai good. you like shirt?

Member

Hamilton

Member

Member

Hamilton

Member

Shanghai Warrior

Member

New Member

Member

New Member