Thoughts on MLB Realignment

I'm sure everyone's heard the reports that Major League Baseball is considering realignment. I think it's refreshing that baseball is trying to evolve. Tradition is great, but it helps to listen to your fans and study feedback to make sure you stay ahead of the game. That's why NASCAR continues to grow in popularity. Sometimes baseball has made good decisions (the wild card and interleague play have both boosted attendance), and sometimes maybe not (All-Star game being for home field, but that's a topic for another blog).

Bourn and the Astros may bolt to the American League.

I think having 15 teams in each league makes sense. It balances out the two leagues, meaning the AL West no longer has just four teams and the NL Central no longer has six. Yes, it would mean there would be an interleague game every day, but I don't think that hurts the NFL or NBA. Perhaps the schedule could be arranged so last place teams from the year before are the ones playing interleague games in late September.

One issue people keep talking about is having a "balanced schedule." I think the idea of the schedule being balanced is a bit of an illusion because the strength of a team lies largely on the starting pitcher. Say the Rangers, Athletics, and Angels all play the Mariners 18 times. However, do they all face Felix Hernandez the same number of times? The Mariners with King Felix and the Mariners without King Felix are two different animals. You'll never have a perfectly balanced schedule, so I say you have to be a little flexible there.

Another rumored change is the elimination of divisions. The part of me that fears change is a little uncomfortable with this, but a closer look helps me understand it. Teams like the Tampa Bay Rays and Baltimore Orioles would welcome this. A more balanced schedule in which the Rays and O's play the Yankees and Red Sox a little less and the Royals and Athletics a little more would be a welcome change. That would mean they only have to be top five in the entire American League instead of top two in their own division, which has proven to be quite a challenge over the last decade. So, while I like having divisions and rivalries within those divisions, I might be open to trying one big league for the sake of those teams.

A team that dominates in the regular season should be rewarded.

However, I think there should be a major reward for a team that wins the regular season title if it's one fifteen-team league. Perhaps the overall regular season champion never has to leave its own park? In other words, if the Phillies finish first in the National League, then all seven games in a seven game series would be in Philadelphia. I'd be okay with that. Baseball plays a long, long season. A team that establishes itself as the best over that time frame should get a more significant bonus in the postseason than just one extra game at home.

Regarding the no divisions proposal, the biggest question I would have would be how they work out the schedule without leagues. Do you play every team in your own league six times? Eight? Ten? Part of me still wants to have divisions.

The one advantage to keeping divisions would be the schedule could balance out pretty easily:
- Play the other four teams in your division eighteen times (six three-game sets). That's 72 division games.
- You have three home and three road games against the other ten league teams. That's 60 more games.
- Now, on to interleague play. Two steps here. First, pair up the divisions geographically. AL East plays NL East, Central vs Central, etc. One three game series for each team. This happens every year because it pairs up rivals every season. (Home sites rotate each year. So, one year it's Cubs-White Sox at Wrigley. The next year, it's on the South Side.). So, that means a total of five three-game sets with your rival division. That's 15 games.
- Finally, part two of interleague: rotate with other divisions. One year, NL East also plays the AL Central. Next year, it's the AL West. And go back and forth. Again, one three-game set with each team. That's 15 games.
- 72 + 60 + 15 + 15 = 162 games.

Then at the end, you have three division champions and two wild cards in each league. I think you should reward the top overall seed. As I said earlier about the no division format, a team that establishes itself as the league's best over 162 games should be rewarded in the postseason.

I'm fine with wild card teams, but make their road tougher.

So, my playoff proposal: the two wild card teams meet in a best-of-three series. The winner faces the top overall seed, which never leaves its home park in a best-of-five (in other words, all five games would be at the top seed's park). The other two division champs meet in the same 2-2-1 best-of-five we've come to know. The league championships and World Series remain best-of-seven. The top overall seeds would have to go on the road as they traditionally have in the LCS and World Series. If a wild card upsets the top seed, then it would have home games as the underdog as it normally would under the current format. I just think a top seed should have a decided advantage against a wild card. Maybe that's just me.

That's my proposal. It's pretty close to balanced. It preserves rivalries, and it rewards regular season dominance.

It'll never happen.