32 Team MLB Realignment

[PSUColonel]

I don’t love the idea of 8 team divisions at all. I would prefer four, 4 team divisions in each league.


National league:

Northeast: Philly, Mets, Washington, Pittsburgh

South; Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Nashville or Charlotte

Midwest: cardinals, Cubs, Reds Brewers

West: Padres, Giants, Diamondbacks, Dodgers

American League:

Northeast: Yankees, Boston, Orioles, Jays

South: astros, Rangers, Royals, San Antonio or Mexico City (Austin with a very outside chance)

Midwest:Indians, pale Hose (ChiSox) . Tigers, Twins


West: mariners, Angels, Athletics as Las Vegas, Rockies



This is just how I envision things…and I don’t think it’s too off from potential reality. For me..I’d only want division winners to be playoff qualifiers, but that is certainly never going to be reality.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don’t love the idea of 8 team divisions at all. I would prefer four, 4 team divisions in each league.

...

This is just how I envision things…and I don’t think it’s too off from potential reality. For me..I’d only want division winners to be playoff qualifiers, but that is certainly never going to be reality.

Do you know why so many people agree that 4 team divisions is about the worst thing MLB could do? Your last sentence about wanting only division winners leads me to believe that maybe you don't.

The reason why 4 team divisions would be so bad is you'd be increasing the odds by a lot that at least one division winner (or even more!) would be a bad team. We could define it differently, but for the sake of simplicity let's define a "bad team" as one that would go under .500 with a perfectly balanced schedule. How so? Again for the sake of simplicity, let's say no teams go 81-81 (or imagine we change the schedule to an odd # of games and still don't allow ties), that would mean teams can only go under .500 or over .500. If that was the case, how likely would it be in a 8 team division that a "bad team" would win the division? 0.39%, less than half a single percent. How do I get that? It's just .5^8 or .5x.5x.5x... so that there are eight .5s. Every team, all 8, would have to come up on the wrong side of a coin flip.

Now how likely would it be for a 4 team division to produce a bad team division winner? 6.25% (.5^4). Now you might say, "that's well less than 10%, that's good enough for me". But it's not nearly as good as "well less than 1%". Again, that's 0.39% vs 6.25%. Now again we could define a bad team however we want, but however we do it, there'd still be a pretty big gap between 8 team and 4 team divisions.

Let's look at it at least one other way. What if we would ideally like a team with a .600 or better winning % (97+ wins) to win a division? I'm not sure how to best do that math, but let's say on average 4 teams a year out of 32 (12.5%) end up with 97+ wins (looking back at the last 10 years of records I'd say that's not an unreasonable expectation, 30 teams of course, but our expansion is talking about 32). What would be the odds that any one division (of 4) wouldn't have one of these 97+ win teams? My combinations math is rusty, so let's cheat and use AI. Gemini says there's a 56.94% chance that a specific 4 team division wouldn't have an apple (I told Gemini that 97+ win teams were apples and the rest were oranges). That makes sense though. There are 8 divisions, but there are only 4 apples, plus you could have the small possibility that 1 or more divisions have 2 apples. What about 8 team divisions? Gemini says the odds go down to 29.55%. That's much much better! And it still makes sense because there are 4 divisions and 4 apples, plus again 1 or more divisions could have more than 1 apple.

Anyway, you can look at it however you want, but as long as you want better teams to make the postseason, I think it should be clear that 8 team divisions are better than 4. And one might say, "but you didn't talk about wild cards!". But I think it should be clear that if you have less teams winning divisions, but want the same # of teams making the postseason (let's say 12 of 32 as we could reasonably expect), then taking the best remaining 8 teams from the 28 non-division winning teams would result in better postseason teams than taking the best 4 wild cards from the remaining 24 non-division winning teams. That is, the lesser 4 division winning teams of the 8 (from 4 team divisions) would likely be worse than the lesser 4 wild cards of the 8 (from 8 team divisions). And this would be even more likely if the wild cards came from the total pool of teams like in my merger of the AL and NL than if you were instead taking wild cards separately from the AL and NL. Or one could say, "no, I don't wild cards at all!", in which case the 4 division winning teams would of course have much better odds of having a stronger field than the 8 division winning teams.

So, however you want to look at it, saying you'd like 4 team divisions is effectively saying, "I'm totally cool with dramatically increasing the odds of bad teams making the postseason". But is that really what you want? If you really don't care about greatly increasing the odds of bad teams making the postseason then okay, the rest of us will just have to accept that and move on, but whenever I see someone espouse 4 team divisions I can't help but think, "okay, they just haven't thought it through, maybe they will one day". Is there a reason for preferring 4 team divisions that trumps dramatically increasing the chances of a bad team making the postseason that I'm not seeing? The arguments I've seen for 4 team divisions haven't done it for me, but maybe I'm the one missing something.

[WhiskyTango]

Originally Posted by Carplos

Same dude earlier said to Garlon that baseball must be alien to him.

Prove it, otherwise don't slander.

[WhiskyTango]

Bluenoser is just upset that he feels ok about how in OOTP teenagers with (almost) zero current ability will perform decent enough in AAA even though they have the skillset of 14 year olds and how that doesn't raise questions with how the game generates stats and is played (like minor league development management) and you should just pretend you didn't see it and put your players in rookie ball as though it matters (which it would seem to not matter) (same thread where I didn't say baseball must be alien to Garlon, fwiw).

The point obviously still stands re the g' (k)nights! unless again Bluenoser feels that an expansion team making the playoff semis in it's inaug7ral season and winning the SC in it's _second_ season completely destroys the point. What the NHL did to the fans was crappy. Teams forced to give up deeper levels of talent so they could then get outperformed by the poaching team. The owners were thrilled because they could smell both expansion and vegas money. It's all organized crime, how many sports teams are just money-laundering fronts.

[WhiskyTango]

Furthermore, to the OP - moving the White Sox out of Chicago because they still have the Cubs.... it's like Bettman saying he was ok with the Nords leaving Quebec because the fans still have the Habs to cheer for. As commissioner, your name would be a household word by now with those decisions. Then after those fiascos you want to do a complete realignment, so for it to make sense you'd need to demonstrate how it does one thing: make money for the owners for clearly you have owner support or you'd be out by now.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by snarls200

how you get those logo versions?

I found them in the Mods Forum, but that was several years ago, maybe longer.

If you try doing a search in the Mods Forum for button logos you may be able to find them.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by WhiskyTango

Bluenoser is just upset that he feels ok about how in OOTP teenagers with (almost) zero current ability will perform decent enough in AAA even though they have the skillset of 14 year olds and how that doesn't raise questions with how the game generates stats and is played (like minor league development management) and you should just pretend you didn't see it and put your players in rookie ball as though it matters (which it would seem to not matter) (same thread where I didn't say baseball must be alien to Garlon, fwiw).

The point obviously still stands re the g' (k)nights! unless again Bluenoser feels that an expansion team making the playoff semis in it's inaug7ral season and winning the SC in it's _second_ season completely destroys the point. What the NHL did to the fans was crappy. Teams forced to give up deeper levels of talent so they could then get outperformed by the poaching team. The owners were thrilled because they could smell both expansion and vegas money. It's all organized crime, how many sports teams are just money-laundering fronts.

Heh, okay. Well...

If we just want to argue whether expansion teams should suck for several years or if we should set them up to at least be decent (somewhere around .500) right away, put me down for setting them up to be decent. When leagues charged comparatively very little for teams to join, I think it was more defensible to argue that they should suffer for years, but when you're charging several hundreds of millions of dollars to join the league (and when the NFL, NBA, or MLB next expand, probably billions), I think it's only right to set them up to be decent.

I'm not really a hockey fan anymore, but being Canadian I obviously know a lot of hockey fans and more specifically, Canuck fans. And Canuck fans, along with the fans of the other Pacific teams, probably had the most to lose with the NHL expanding to Vegas and Seattle because that decreased their chances of their team making them playoffs. But did I even once hear any Canucks fans I know grumble about the Knights or Kraken being good? If they did, I don't recall. And my FIL and BILs are also screaming at the tv as loud as they can hockey fans so you'd think if anyone might complain about it, they would.

No, I like to think most people realize there's no point in making a new fanbase suffer just because that's how it's always been done. Let's welcome others to our hobbies, not make them suffer. Just put yourself in the shoes of those expansion team fans. How would you feel if your city finally got a team in the sport you loved and they ended up being terrible for years? That happened to me with the Grizzlies and it was not an enjoyable experience. And I think it really hurt them in trying to build up a fanbase in general. Thankfully, I grew up a Sonics fan so I had them to fall back on until... well, IYKYK.

Nah, let expansions teams be decent. Give them a real chance, not a token chance.

Originally Posted by WhiskyTango

Furthermore, to the OP - moving the White Sox out of Chicago because they still have the Cubs.... it's like Bettman saying he was ok with the Nords leaving Quebec because the fans still have the Habs to cheer for. As commissioner, your name would be a household word by now with those decisions.

...

Well, I wouldn't be the one doing it, the owners would be. And if this was a real hypothetical, yeah, I wouldn't encourage a team to move. I'd have sympathy for White Sox fans. I'd try to fix whatever the problem was, likely try to get new owners. But if I thought I gave it a real shot at fixing the problem and still couldn't fix it, I also wouldn't stop the new owners from moving the team either. Like if that's what happens with the Rays, I've just had enough.

Besides, how many fans really want to watch that team if they continue to play as badly as these recent White Sox? At some point it'd be like putting them out of their misery, no? I looked and I have to hand it to them, their attendance numbers aren't as bad as I expected. Maybe a few more years like this and they'll be more like the A's and Rays numbers though.

[Carplos]

Originally Posted by kq76

So, however you want to look at it, saying you'd like 4 team divisions is effectively saying, "I'm totally cool with dramatically increasing the odds of bad teams making the postseason". But is that really what you want? If you really don't care about greatly increasing the odds of bad teams making the postseason then okay, the rest of us will just have to accept that and move on, but whenever I see someone espouse 4 team divisions I can't help but think, "okay, they just haven't thought it through, maybe they will one day". Is there a reason for preferring 4 team divisions that trumps dramatically increasing the chances of a bad team making the postseason that I'm not seeing? The arguments I've seen for 4 team divisions haven't done it for me, but maybe I'm the one missing something.

I don't think you're missing any arguments about it being a better option (I actually don't have a preference), but realistically, if/when MLB expands to 32, 4 4-team divisions is the way they'll go. I can't picture a scenario where they go to 8 team divisions. They could've done 2 7-team divisions back in 93 if they were interested in keeping larger decisions. I also imagine they'll expand the playoffs to 16 teams.

[Carplos]

Originally Posted by WhiskyTango

(same thread where I didn't say baseball must be alien to Garlon, fwiw

Oh?

[WhiskyTango]

Two questions - what specifically is that quote in relation to and are you Garlon's mom.

Please review and advise and I'll mail it out later:

Dear Garlon,

It isn't true.

Sincerely, etc

[WhiskyTango]

Originally Posted by kq76

Heh, okay. Well...

If we just want to argue whether expansion teams should suck for several years or if we should set them up to at least be decent (somewhere around .500) right away, put me down for setting them up to be decent. When leagues charged comparatively very little for teams to join, I think it was more defensible to argue that they should suffer for years, but when you're charging several hundreds of millions of dollars to join the league (and when the NFL, NBA, or MLB next expand, probably billions), I think it's only right to set them up to be decent.

I'm not really a hockey fan anymore, but being Canadian I obviously know a lot of hockey fans and more specifically, Canuck fans. And Canuck fans, along with the fans of the other Pacific teams, probably had the most to lose with the NHL expanding to Vegas and Seattle because that decreased their chances of their team making them playoffs. But did I even once hear any Canucks fans I know grumble about the Knights or Kraken being good? If they did, I don't recall. And my FIL and BILs are also screaming at the tv as loud as they can hockey fans so you'd think if anyone might complain about it, they would.

No, I like to think most people realize there's no point in making a new fanbase suffer just because that's how it's always been done. Let's welcome others to our hobbies, not make them suffer. Just put yourself in the shoes of those expansion team fans. How would you feel if your city finally got a team in the sport you loved and they ended up being terrible for years? That happened to me with the Grizzlies and it was not an enjoyable experience. And I think it really hurt them in trying to build up a fanbase in general. Thankfully, I grew up a Sonics fan so I had them to fall back on until... well, IYKYK.

Nah, let expansions teams be decent. Give them a real chance, not a token chance.



Well, I wouldn't be the one doing it, the owners would be. And if this was a real hypothetical, yeah, I wouldn't encourage a team to move. I'd have sympathy for White Sox fans. I'd try to fix whatever the problem was, likely try to get new owners. But if I thought I gave it a real shot at fixing the problem and still couldn't fix it, I also wouldn't stop the new owners from moving the team either. Like if that's what happens with the Rays, I've just had enough.

Besides, how many fans really want to watch that team if they continue to play as badly as these recent White Sox? At some point it'd be like putting them out of their misery, no? I looked and I have to hand it to them, their attendance numbers aren't as bad as I expected. Maybe a few more years like this and they'll be more like the A's and Rays numbers though.

I don't agree it's merely about sucking for several years. It's about earning it. From a purely financial sense - proving there's a substantial market. Fan base not willing to suffer the years of embarrassment? That doesn't make sense, at any level. You'd prefer your children to be born into the world as valedictorians, or perhaps already employed and into their first apartment without roommates before the age of 3? Aren't the nurturing years and, back in the parlance of the fan experience, the suffering years supposed to prove the fan and make the hope for winning seasons that much sweeter? That's how it used to be. Habs fans used to boo when the Habs didn't win, or had more than 5 goals scored against them, or lost a faceoff. Not sure what that has to do with it but probably about being a substantial fan vs just being happy to be there and have something to yell about, which is more about what it is today. The fan-base is tremendously diluted for every professional North American sports league, just look at baseball in recent years.

[NoOne]

the point about las vegas, even if they didn't win the first year, is still valid if you care about the message and not the exact details. Vegas was a beast year 1 and that is the point he was trying to make. I don't agree with what the nhl did, but i also don't think it should be set up so that expansion teams are bottom-feeders for years.

Some well-run nfl expansion teams did well pretty fast. I hestiate to guess due to someone saying the argument is invalid for some small detail being wrong, but didn't jacksonville win 12 games or so and go to conference championship within 2-3 years? Carolina also reached conference finals same year but fell off dramatically (one-hit wonder / i.e. lucky).

i think there is middle ground on this. and, if you think your preference is the only rational way, that's just narcissism, lol (again, i didn't read specific posts above when it got "catty")..Off and running weak to dominantt has real world examples.. pick and choose what you like.

the rest of this argument i didn't bother reading, lol.

--------

there are some incontrovertible mathematical probabilities of small divisions and such. these cannot be denied, but that doesn't mean they are 'bad'... just personal preferences that differ.

all sorts of things don't make sense mathematically -- like expanding the playoffs... more teams just means you lower the probabiity that the best two teams reach the world series or finals or win for that matter.

imbalanced schedules automatically add weak and strong schedules.. so each team does not have a fair shot to start the season. injuries do that too, but we can control a schedule, not injuries, so it's still fair to all.

ffs, for years multiple pro sports playoffs have been setup where a better team will get a lower seed just because of mostly irrelevant divisions, bwahah. Or, a better team will flat out miss the playoffs while a worse team gets in because of a weak division.

----

just for fun i'll say do a 3 division 10-team league with a balanced schedule played within each division. Now, the division winner actually means something and with a number of wildcards across the rest, virtually eliminates a better team missing the playoffs. whether you seed record or division winners 'first' is in the playoff settings, if i recall. dealer's choice.

unless you do a 28-team balanced schedule or some number of teams that allows for a balanced schedule (No remainder when you divide 162 by number of teams minus 1 -- must be seperated by divisions or league-total) it'll awlays be 'unfair' to several teams each year.

i have a customized schedule... not sure if it's in the forum here or not. i don't expect manany to want sucha league,but one less thing to make by hand, because the in-game schedule maker will not be able to do this as explained above. a balanced schedule within each division isn't an option for the generator.

The 28-team schedule should be in the forums and included with the game, i think?.. that's an older version when i was more invovled. 99% certain i added that one.

Not only that, you can put 10 teams into 3 regions comfortably.. no Detroit in the "Southeast" lol. No texes in the easy.. that's mountaintime, ffs. (jk travel doesn't matter in teh game ... one team can be on the moon if you want and play in an australian outback division)

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Of the two choices, I prefer A.

I was thinking about expanding/realigning but not getting rid of the AL/NL distinction, and here's what I came up with for that. (My expansion teams are Portland and Montreal.)

AL West

Angels
A's
Mariners
Astros
Rangers
Royals
Twins
Portland expansion team

AL East

Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Rays
Orioles
Guardians
Tigers
White Sox

NL West

Dodgers
Diamondbacks
Rockies
Padres
Giants
Cubs
Cardinals
Brewers

NL East

Phillies
Mets
Marlins
Nationals
Braves
Pirates
Reds
Montreal expansion team

Pretty self-explanatory. I was actually trying to fit Portland in the NL and Montreal in the AL, but the NL Central causes some problems: the Cubs-Cardinals-Brewers feel like they should go together, and that means to the west, since Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are located to the east. So the eastern expansion club should be in the NL, and the western one in the AL, with the Royals and Twins going west, which fits where they were historically. In one league, Chicago is the easternmost West team and in the other they are the westernmost East team.

[WhiskyTango]

Portland and Montreal get teams. Man, this is fantasy.

[WooBallFan43]

Here's my MLB Standings Realignment in a slideshow format: https://docs.google.com/presentation...d.p#slide=id.p

[Germaniac]

Definitely A

[madcowsmind]

I like A better. Cleveland and Detroit make more sense in the central. Houston and Texas should be in the southeast but rename it the Southern division. I may have missed it but did the Whitesox get relocated?

I asked the AI to to help realign once when I was expanding by 2 teams and it separated the Cubs & Cards.