AL West and NL Central: Imbalanced and Unfair

by Brent Beck on Jul 30, 2008 10:29 AM CDT

Hey Rangers fans, I wrote an article that I posted on Red Reporter about the uneven division sizes in Major League Baseball, a dilemma which effects NL Central fans the most by putting us at a disadvantage at the start of every season (in comparison to every other team in Major League Baseball). In my mind its an outrage but I would love for you guys to check it out, drop a vote in, or even make a comment! I would really love to hear Rangers fans take on this dilemma because in my opinion the only way to fix the imbalance is by moving the Houston Astros to the NL West and the Arizona Diamond Backs to the AL West, making every division in Major League Baseball have 5 teams.

Thanks!

by Brent Beck

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

That plan won't work

Then you have 15 teams in each league, and a constant interleague series.

I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles

by Dirk Diggler on Jul 30, 2008 10:40 AM CDT reply actions

Yep

There’s going to have to be 16 teams in one league or 14 in the other, or else you’re going to have to have year-round interleague play.

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 30, 2008 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions

What's wrong with that?

I’d think having (at least) one interleague series at all times wouldn’t be a huge deal.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Jul 30, 2008 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions

It would be a scheduling nightmare

And you’d probably have to dramatically increase the number of interleague games to do it.

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 30, 2008 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions

Why?

There are substantially more than 162 interleague games right now, aren’t there?

And why would it be a scheduling nightmare? It’d be just as easy to schedule those games as it would be to schedule any others. There might be some slight problems in there (such as always needing to have an odd number of interlague series), but I think you’re overstating the difficulty.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Jul 30, 2008 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions

Palabra

I think the whole “scheduling nightmare” conundrum is overblown, and I wouldn’t mind it a bit if they upped the number of interleague matchups.

Perspicaciousness, Huntressa.

Don't knock masturbation, it's sex with someone I love .

by Brian Thomas on Jul 30, 2008 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions

I've never had a problem ....

With the idea of constant interleague play to even out the leagues. Interleague play is kind of a late 20th century bastardization of the game anyway (think DH, wild card, etc). If we need to have these things then we may as well even up the numbers of teams in each division, even up the number of teams in each league. As a Rangers fan, I do find it unfair that there is a division in baseball where you have to overcome five other teams to win the division whereas we only have to defeat three other—and haven’t been able to do that for the past 10 seasons.

by rpv311 on Jul 30, 2008 11:17 AM CDT reply actions

You won't get any sympathy here

Texas has been screwed since the whole three division system took off by having to play a disproportionate number of games 2 time zones away.

That and the AL West has historically been far more competitive than other divisions (mostly the perennial NL West where a .500 record sends you into the playoffs). The NL is also far more egalitarian in its distribution of Wild Cards – East/Central/West have split 4/4/5 since it started, whereas in the AL the split is 9/1/3.

The ideal “solution” is to add two expansion teams, and go to 4 divisions / league with 4 teams each (and eliminate the wild card). This would never happen, as it would either move Boston and New York to different divisions, or eliminate the possibility of them playing each other in the playoffs (the true reason for the wild card…).

by JBImaknee on Jul 30, 2008 11:38 AM CDT reply actions

Just for fun

I put together 4 team divisions for each league, assuming expansion teams to fill in some geographic gaps…

AL: East – New York, Boston, Toronto, Baltimore
North – Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Minnesota
South – KC, Texas, Tampa Bay, Charlotte/Raleigh-Durham
West – Oakland, LAA, Seattle, Portland/Las Vegas
NL: East – Washington, New York, Philly, Pittsburgh
Midwest – Colorado, St Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee
South – Houston, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Florida
West – San Diego, LA, San Fran, Arizona

This seems pretty balanced to me, and keeps most of the good rivalries in place (St Louis/Chicago; NY/Boston). Cincy and Colorado don’t entirely fit into their geographic categories, but Cincy’s airport is in the South (Kentucky, I think), and Denver is almost in the plains. Note, a Portland/Seattle rivalry would be cool, as would the recently missing Philly/Pittsburgh. And I really want KC in our division (though not as much Tampa Bay)

by JBImaknee on Jul 30, 2008 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions

That makes so much sense...

it’s crazy. :)

I love it…and I wish that would happen.

I'd love for part of the "new look" to be a return to the red uniforms of the 1990s. - Ian Kinsler

by ortonius on Jul 30, 2008 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions

too bad

you can’t switch tampa with houston, to allow the rangers to play with two weak teams with weak farms and an expansion team for the next decade. hello playoffs!

by clark on Jul 30, 2008 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions

i think

you’ll see a team in San Antonio before another team in the Pacific NW or a team in Vegas to pull from the 3 So Cal teams. Marlins officials were in San Antonio before Miami coughed up the $ for a new stadium. San Antonio is on the cusp of bringing in another pro franchise whether it be MLB or NFL.

by texaschief on Jul 30, 2008 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Replace

Charlotte with San Antonio. Then put Tampa Bay in the NL South and put Houston in our division. Voila!

"There is nothing wrong with a good baseball argument, even if it gets a little personal now and then. If someone here get[s] their feelings hurt because of a blog post they really need to get a grip."

t ball

by booyahcaveman on Jul 30, 2008 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions

4 vs 6

I’ve always thought having 4 teams was a disadvantage because of the unbalanced schedule. The NL Central generally has 3 crappy teams each year to beat up on. This pads the records of the good teams in the division because they play them more. Compare this to the 2 crappy teams in the 5 team division and the 1 and only 1 crappy team in the 4 team division.

Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!

by DerekSTheRed on Jul 30, 2008 11:38 AM CDT reply actions

Expanding

I know this may sound crazy but is there ever talks of expanding? I know you would have to add two teams at once(nfl did with Carolina/Jacksonville), but with the sport being so flush with money these days is it even a possibility? I would think it would be much more difficult in baseball the way that minors are set up.

Just off the top of my head the Sacramento and maybe Portland area would/should be able to support MLB franchises. They lack other sports that the revenue could go to and need for teams in PST.

Sorry for the incoherent ramblings just really wondering if anything like this had even been thought of.

This is the Texas Rangers, professional destroyers of hope, we're talking about. - BAC

by nikpin on Jul 30, 2008 11:44 AM CDT reply actions

I think you have to look at an area like San Antiono or maybe Austin too.

Not sure though. I think that’s a feasible plan to add two teams, but I don’t know a whole lot that really backs that argument up.

Ian Kinsler has finally earned the right to be the third of my co-favorite players.

by utlonghorn24 on Jul 30, 2008 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Would never work in Austin.

Only thing Austin supports is UT Football.

by rcreative on Jul 30, 2008 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions

Popular myth

With no empircal support. Xpress games have had good turnout every time I’ve been. Which professional team in a popular sport has failed in Austin recently?

by Back Door Yakker on Jul 30, 2008 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions

Because why?

That argument carried some water 20-25 years ago when Austin was 1/3 the size it is now. Austin is as big or bigger than many cities that currently have pro teams.

Don't knock masturbation, it's sex with someone I love .

by Brian Thomas on Jul 30, 2008 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions

of course

San Antonio/Austin could pull a Dallas/Arlington/Fort Worth deal and put the stadium in San Marcos so that it pulls from San Antonio AND Austin. Call the team the South Texas Sluggers or somethin like that.

by texaschief on Jul 30, 2008 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions

I'd be all for it

(as my fun post above shows).

I think that while the league over-expanded in the ‘90s by going from 26 teams to 30 in six years or so, I think that its time to get to a round 32. The league is in stronger shape now (the labor disputes of the time are behind us, knock-on-wood), and the recent influx of more international talent from Asia is makes the risk of talent dilution smaller.

Also, I think that the revelation that steroids were as prominent as they were in the ‘90s diminishes the “expansion watered down talent” argument. Its still there, but not as strong.

by JBImaknee on Jul 30, 2008 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions

wasn't long ago

the league was talking contraction

Pitch counts are for the ignorant.

by SteveP on Jul 30, 2008 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Yep

They essentially did contract Montreal and add Washington. If I remember correctly the other team that was mentioned most often was Minnesota. They had a payroll of $71M and are in playoff contention with a stadium on the way. They are a huge success in one of the middle markets in baseball.

I don’t know if I’d consider Austin large enough but maybe San Antonio.

This is the Texas Rangers, professional destroyers of hope, we're talking about. - BAC

by nikpin on Jul 30, 2008 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions

The Stros

would fight that like crazy…

I think any new teams would have to go to a city like Portland or Raleigh—a major city, but not necessarily one in another team’s extended market.

I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles

by Dirk Diggler on Jul 30, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions

Portland makes a lot of sense

North Carolina (Charlotte and R-D) is a region that has trouble embracing pro sports cause of their ridiculous love of college sports. I wouldn’t want to put a team in there personally.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Jul 30, 2008 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Maybe Memphis/Nashville?

I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles

by Dirk Diggler on Jul 30, 2008 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions

I was thinking Memphis/Nashville might be good

And maybe SLC.

Or maybe try to find a smallish big city that doesn’t have a pro sports team yet. That has worked well for the NBA (SLC, Sacramento, San Antonio, Orlando, Portland, and now Oklahoma City). I can’t think of a good one off the top of my head, but surely there’s one out there to be found.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Jul 30, 2008 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions

Portland.....

would never support an MLB team enough for them to be competitive. This is not a town that could support MLB.

by bdavison94 on Jul 30, 2008 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think that works as well

I think small cities are good at supporting NBA teams because they can get away with having 15,000-20,000 fans at most games with only 40 or so home games. If you look at small cities with baseball teams, the success rate is not nearly as good – really small market teams are the ones that struggle the most (KC, Milwaukee). I don’t think it is competition as much as just size – you need a pretty big market to constantly bring 30,000+ fans in for 80+ games over 6 months.

San Antonio, North Carolina, Tennessee, Portland, and Las Vegas seem like the best options out there for expansion.

A team in north San Antonio could tap into the Austin market and would likely do very well (especially with Round Rock as its feeder minor league team, a la Frisco). Texas and Houston would likely keep this from happening, though Hicks could probably use the situation to get us out of the AL West.

A team in Las Vegas would be very successful, especially if they had a ballpark within walking distance of The Strip, but we all know the problems with pro sports teams there. But if they had a team, I guarantee they’d get 35000 fans a game. It’d be hard to build a loyal fan base though.

Portland doesn’t strike me as a sports town, but maybe it could work out.

Charlotte, NC is growing fast (as is Raleigh-Durham), but as you point out, college sports rule and it’d be hard to out the Braves in that part of the country.

I think the most successful choices would be San Antonio and Las Vegas – but MLB won’t allow those. So I’d guess Portland and NC would be the next try.

by JBImaknee on Jul 30, 2008 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Good points

Especially about the attendance. The sheer number of people needed to fill a baseball stadium 81 times a year is just massive. Didn’t really consider that as much as I should.

I think Vegas, San Antonio, Portland, NC and Tennessee could all be viable outlets for expansion.

There are options out there if MLB ever decides to go to the much easier 32 team format… though going to 8 four team divisions would likely mean the WC is out of the question, and I think MLB really likes the WC system.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Jul 31, 2008 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions

I've said for a while

that they should just move Houston to the AL West and have one rotating interleague game at all times.

Houston would probably object to moving to the AL, and I can’t imagine they’d like being screwed like we are in having to play so many of their games on the West Coast, but it’s the most fair way, imo. Plus Houston gets a little bonus in having an actual geographical rival in their own division, which couldn’t hurt attendance or interest.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Jul 30, 2008 12:57 PM CDT reply actions

Wack Job Divison

I know this would completely throw things out of wack and never work but 1 West of Colorado, Arizona, Texas, Houston, & San Diego. The other could have LAA, LAD, SFG, Seattle, and Oakland. Geographically it would make some sense but its never going to happen. To lazy to look this up but is Zona PST or Mountain?

This is the Texas Rangers, professional destroyers of hope, we're talking about. - BAC

by nikpin on Jul 30, 2008 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions