There has been a proposed plan for 3 ten team divisions if baseball resumes this year. This could be the beginning of some type of realignment in the future. I have taken a shot of setting up six divisions with the current 30 teams. It is a little difficult due to the location of some of the teams.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
An Idea For Realignment
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
DemDog
An Idea For Realignment
252928737A737B76716E74430 wrote: There has been a proposed plan for 3 ten team divisions if baseball resumes this year. This could be the beginning of some type of realignment in the future. I have taken a shot of setting up six divisions with the current 30 teams. It is a little difficult due to the location of some of the teams.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
Sounds pretty logical fjk but I would trade off the Twinkies for either the Cubs or ChiSox. I prefer the Cubbies the Cards needing a long time rival I would settle for the ChiSox. The 2 Chicago teams are closer to Pgh than Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
Sounds pretty logical fjk but I would trade off the Twinkies for either the Cubs or ChiSox. I prefer the Cubbies the Cards needing a long time rival I would settle for the ChiSox. The 2 Chicago teams are closer to Pgh than Minneapolis-St. Paul.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3481
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
An Idea For Realignment
0E2F270E252D4A0 wrote: There has been a proposed plan for 3 ten team divisions if baseball resumes this year. This could be the beginning of some type of realignment in the future. I have taken a shot of setting up six divisions with the current 30 teams. It is a little difficult due to the location of some of the teams.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
Sounds pretty logical fjk but I would trade off the Twinkies for either the Cubs or ChiSox. I prefer the Cubbies the Cards needing a long time rival I would settle for the ChiSox. The 2 Chicago teams are closer to Pgh than Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Good idea to switch Twins for White Sox. I guess I was thinking to keep the 2 Chicago teams together. Also Ithought it would be best to keep the Brewers with the Cubs because their two cities are relatively close to each other.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
Sounds pretty logical fjk but I would trade off the Twinkies for either the Cubs or ChiSox. I prefer the Cubbies the Cards needing a long time rival I would settle for the ChiSox. The 2 Chicago teams are closer to Pgh than Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Good idea to switch Twins for White Sox. I guess I was thinking to keep the 2 Chicago teams together. Also Ithought it would be best to keep the Brewers with the Cubs because their two cities are relatively close to each other.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
An Idea For Realignment
232F2E757C757D70776872450 wrote: There has been a proposed plan for 3 ten team divisions if baseball resumes this year. This could be the beginning of some type of realignment in the future. I have taken a shot of setting up six divisions with the current 30 teams. It is a little difficult due to the location of some of the teams.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
I broached this subject a couple of weeks back, FJ. I did so because I think MLB has already decided that they're going to realign the teams, mixing the leagues together in order to create more geographical rivalries. They've been easing in that direction since the implementation of Interleague play and perhaps the virus situation will help speed it forward.
Your alignment is interesting. Ideally, a total of 32 teams would be best to work with. (I think expansion is also in their plans, and maybe even moving a franchise or two.) That would help with creating divisions, with an equal number of teams, that would make the most sense.
There are some cities that lie in places that can create arguments. Pittsburgh is one of them. We can be placed with eastern cities or with central cities. (Toronto is like that, too.) Where the league expands to will have a lot to do with how some divisions will be set up. I also wonder if they'll separate the two teams that exist in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
The day of realignment is coming. I hope with all that'll be involved, MLB gets it mostly right. They'll first cater to the big markets. I just hope the smaller ones aren't pooped on completely.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
I broached this subject a couple of weeks back, FJ. I did so because I think MLB has already decided that they're going to realign the teams, mixing the leagues together in order to create more geographical rivalries. They've been easing in that direction since the implementation of Interleague play and perhaps the virus situation will help speed it forward.
Your alignment is interesting. Ideally, a total of 32 teams would be best to work with. (I think expansion is also in their plans, and maybe even moving a franchise or two.) That would help with creating divisions, with an equal number of teams, that would make the most sense.
There are some cities that lie in places that can create arguments. Pittsburgh is one of them. We can be placed with eastern cities or with central cities. (Toronto is like that, too.) Where the league expands to will have a lot to do with how some divisions will be set up. I also wonder if they'll separate the two teams that exist in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
The day of realignment is coming. I hope with all that'll be involved, MLB gets it mostly right. They'll first cater to the big markets. I just hope the smaller ones aren't pooped on completely.
An Idea For Realignment
3C6A7C68677D6D666B7C4E69636F6762206D0E0 wrote: There has been a proposed plan for 3 ten team divisions if baseball resumes this year. This could be the beginning of some type of realignment in the future. I have taken a shot of setting up six divisions with the current 30 teams. It is a little difficult due to the location of some of the teams.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
I broached this subject a couple of weeks back, FJ. I did so because I think MLB has already decided that they're going to realign the teams, mixing the leagues together in order to create more geographical rivalries. They've been easing in that direction since the implementation of Interleague play and perhaps the virus situation will help speed it forward.
Your alignment is interesting. Ideally, a total of 32 teams would be best to work with. (I think expansion is also in their plans, and maybe even moving a franchise or two.) That would help with creating divisions, with an equal number of teams, that would make the most sense.
There are some cities that lie in places that can create arguments. Pittsburgh is one of them. We can be placed with eastern cities or with central cities. (Toronto is like that, too.) Where the league expands to will have a lot to do with how some divisions will be set up. I also wonder if they'll separate the two teams that exist in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
The day of realignment is coming. I hope with all that'll be involved, MLB gets it mostly right. They'll first cater to the big markets. I just hope the smaller ones aren't pooped on completely.
Back in my younger days I wanted as little re-alignment as possible. Even a year or so ago I wanted the AL and NL teams to at least stay in their leagues. Now I don't care. MLB can group the teams in any way that they want.
I'm a little surprised that I have evolved to this position, in some ways it is because I don't even think about the Pirates having rivals anymore so I don't care where they are grouped.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
I broached this subject a couple of weeks back, FJ. I did so because I think MLB has already decided that they're going to realign the teams, mixing the leagues together in order to create more geographical rivalries. They've been easing in that direction since the implementation of Interleague play and perhaps the virus situation will help speed it forward.
Your alignment is interesting. Ideally, a total of 32 teams would be best to work with. (I think expansion is also in their plans, and maybe even moving a franchise or two.) That would help with creating divisions, with an equal number of teams, that would make the most sense.
There are some cities that lie in places that can create arguments. Pittsburgh is one of them. We can be placed with eastern cities or with central cities. (Toronto is like that, too.) Where the league expands to will have a lot to do with how some divisions will be set up. I also wonder if they'll separate the two teams that exist in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
The day of realignment is coming. I hope with all that'll be involved, MLB gets it mostly right. They'll first cater to the big markets. I just hope the smaller ones aren't pooped on completely.
Back in my younger days I wanted as little re-alignment as possible. Even a year or so ago I wanted the AL and NL teams to at least stay in their leagues. Now I don't care. MLB can group the teams in any way that they want.
I'm a little surprised that I have evolved to this position, in some ways it is because I don't even think about the Pirates having rivals anymore so I don't care where they are grouped.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
An Idea For Realignment
5E78796E78681B0 wrote: There has been a proposed plan for 3 ten team divisions if baseball resumes this year. This could be the beginning of some type of realignment in the future. I have taken a shot of setting up six divisions with the current 30 teams. It is a little difficult due to the location of some of the teams.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
I broached this subject a couple of weeks back, FJ. I did so because I think MLB has already decided that they're going to realign the teams, mixing the leagues together in order to create more geographical rivalries. They've been easing in that direction since the implementation of Interleague play and perhaps the virus situation will help speed it forward.
Your alignment is interesting. Ideally, a total of 32 teams would be best to work with. (I think expansion is also in their plans, and maybe even moving a franchise or two.) That would help with creating divisions, with an equal number of teams, that would make the most sense.
There are some cities that lie in places that can create arguments. Pittsburgh is one of them. We can be placed with eastern cities or with central cities. (Toronto is like that, too.) Where the league expands to will have a lot to do with how some divisions will be set up. I also wonder if they'll separate the two teams that exist in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
The day of realignment is coming. I hope with all that'll be involved, MLB gets it mostly right. They'll first cater to the big markets. I just hope the smaller ones aren't pooped on completely.
Back in my younger days I wanted as little re-alignment as possible. Even a year or so ago I wanted the AL and NL teams to at least stay in their leagues. Now I don't care. MLB can group the teams in any way that they want.
I'm a little surprised that I have evolved to this position, in some ways it is because I don't even think about the Pirates having rivals anymore so I don't care where they are grouped.
Good points. I really miss the rivalries with the Phillies and Mets. Right now, I hate the Brewers the most but it just doesn't feel the same. The Cubs and Cardinals are superior to us in their abilities and desires to win that playing them seems like being shoved around by a big brother. I just want things to be equitable.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
I broached this subject a couple of weeks back, FJ. I did so because I think MLB has already decided that they're going to realign the teams, mixing the leagues together in order to create more geographical rivalries. They've been easing in that direction since the implementation of Interleague play and perhaps the virus situation will help speed it forward.
Your alignment is interesting. Ideally, a total of 32 teams would be best to work with. (I think expansion is also in their plans, and maybe even moving a franchise or two.) That would help with creating divisions, with an equal number of teams, that would make the most sense.
There are some cities that lie in places that can create arguments. Pittsburgh is one of them. We can be placed with eastern cities or with central cities. (Toronto is like that, too.) Where the league expands to will have a lot to do with how some divisions will be set up. I also wonder if they'll separate the two teams that exist in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
The day of realignment is coming. I hope with all that'll be involved, MLB gets it mostly right. They'll first cater to the big markets. I just hope the smaller ones aren't pooped on completely.
Back in my younger days I wanted as little re-alignment as possible. Even a year or so ago I wanted the AL and NL teams to at least stay in their leagues. Now I don't care. MLB can group the teams in any way that they want.
I'm a little surprised that I have evolved to this position, in some ways it is because I don't even think about the Pirates having rivals anymore so I don't care where they are grouped.
Good points. I really miss the rivalries with the Phillies and Mets. Right now, I hate the Brewers the most but it just doesn't feel the same. The Cubs and Cardinals are superior to us in their abilities and desires to win that playing them seems like being shoved around by a big brother. I just want things to be equitable.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
An Idea For Realignment
69484069424A2D0 wrote: There has been a proposed plan for 3 ten team divisions if baseball resumes this year. This could be the beginning of some type of realignment in the future. I have taken a shot of setting up six divisions with the current 30 teams. It is a little difficult due to the location of some of the teams.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
Sounds pretty logical fjk but I would trade off the Twinkies for either the Cubs or ChiSox. I prefer the Cubbies the Cards needing a long time rival I would settle for the ChiSox. The 2 Chicago teams are closer to Pgh than Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Interesting how geography's looked at.
One can draw a line from Cincinnati, OH to Atlanta, GA. It will be close to perpendicular.
One is thought of as "central." The other, "east." Atlanta's not as east as most people think. But, you have to place it somewhere.
Two Central Divisions: cardinals, White Sox, Cubs, Brewers, Royals
Other Central: Indians, Reds, Tigers, Twins, Bucs
Two East Divisions: Yanks, Mets, Red Sox, Phil’s, Jays
Other Division. Orioles, Nats, Braves , Rays , Marlins
Two West Divisions: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Oakland , Giants
Other Division: Astros, Rangers, Rockies, DBacks , Mariners
As I said due to the location of the teams it is tough placing some teams such as Mariners, but it is fun to attempt to organize the teams into divisions in which the teams are relatively close to each other.
Sounds pretty logical fjk but I would trade off the Twinkies for either the Cubs or ChiSox. I prefer the Cubbies the Cards needing a long time rival I would settle for the ChiSox. The 2 Chicago teams are closer to Pgh than Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Interesting how geography's looked at.
One can draw a line from Cincinnati, OH to Atlanta, GA. It will be close to perpendicular.
One is thought of as "central." The other, "east." Atlanta's not as east as most people think. But, you have to place it somewhere.
-
DemDog
An Idea For Realignment
Okay guys, assume we go with the original Divisions that fjk proposes. What about scheduling? Games can not be played just between teams in your own Division can they? I would propose that MLB schedule a majority of games within the Division and then other games against one of the other Divisions.
Say, in year one Central Division 1 plays the Central Division 2 and also some games against one of the other 4 Divisions.
Year 2 Same thing except you change which of the 4 Divisions a team plays.
This goes on from there much like Inter-League game go now.
One other thing I would do is when a Division plays one of the 4 other Divisons that each team gets a home and home series. For instance when the Bucs play the Division in which the Mariners are placed then they play a series in Pittsburgh and Seattle that year. This would allow my daughter and her kids who live in Seattle and just love the Bucs to see the Bucs at least every 3 years. And it would be a great excuse for my daughter and family to visit Pa to see Possum and Mrs. Possum and root for the Bucs.
Say, in year one Central Division 1 plays the Central Division 2 and also some games against one of the other 4 Divisions.
Year 2 Same thing except you change which of the 4 Divisions a team plays.
This goes on from there much like Inter-League game go now.
One other thing I would do is when a Division plays one of the 4 other Divisons that each team gets a home and home series. For instance when the Bucs play the Division in which the Mariners are placed then they play a series in Pittsburgh and Seattle that year. This would allow my daughter and her kids who live in Seattle and just love the Bucs to see the Bucs at least every 3 years. And it would be a great excuse for my daughter and family to visit Pa to see Possum and Mrs. Possum and root for the Bucs.
An Idea For Realignment
N :Doting that divisions would consist if AL and NL teams, how would DH be accounted for? When playng at an "AL" park use the DH and when playing at "NL" park no DH. I could actually like that, especially the long arguements [sorry, I meant actual sports talk] BTW, who is this Nutting guy I keep reading about. Gray boring day in Maine.
An Idea For Realignment
1E21383D353A1E352D540 wrote: N :Doting that divisions would consist if AL and NL teams, how would DH be accounted for? When playng at an "AL" park use the DH and when playing at "NL" park no DH. I could actually like that, especially the long arguements [sorry, I meant actual sports talk] BTW, who is this Nutting guy I keep reading about. Gray boring day in Maine.
I've been assuming (though I haven't read this anywhere) that they'd be using the DH universally. As is things aren't bad enough!
I've been assuming (though I haven't read this anywhere) that they'd be using the DH universally. As is things aren't bad enough!