Expansion Could Alter MLB's Landscape

Oh okay... and what happens to the DH? Are we really ready to start baseballs holy war? 

Would prefer 8 4-team divisions, aka NFC North (MIN, MIL, CHI, DET). 

Is this a serious thing?

Wow, read the link and I guess it is. 

Then again, having two 15-team leagues is problematic, and we all know what a magic number 32 is.

There's definitely a way to do this.  Wild card games are exciting, but somewhat unsatisfying in that, with baseball, one game is essentially meaningless over the course of a season.

Keep AL and NL as much as possible.  Give teams a chance to get into the playoffs.  The current system of playing Chicago and Detroit 19 games each, Blech!

Won't lie...dissapointed Nashville is not being considered. The South does need another team. I WILL NOT root for Atlanta. Cincy is too far north. St. Louis is not really a "Southern" city. Houston and Dallas are Texas. Then there are the Florida teams (give me a break).

Here's an idea...ad the additional two teams as mentioned, but also move the Rays to Nashville! Done!

If it was me, I'd keep each league as intact as possible.  I would have each league with 2 conferences - 2 divisions each, a total of 8 4-team divisions.

My Conferences and divisions would look as follows:

AL - Babe Ruth Conference:

East Division: NYY, Bos, Bal, Tor

Lakes Division: MN, Chisox, Cle, Det

AL - Walter Johnson Conference

Coastal Division: Anaheim, Oak, Sea, Portland

Plains Division: Hou, Tex, KC, Colorado

NL - Jackie Robinson Conference:

Metro Division: NYM, Phil, Wash, Montreal

Dixie Division: Miami, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Tampa

NL - Cy Young Conference:

Central Division: Cubs, Mil, St. L, Pitt

West Division: LA, SF, SD, AZ

48 games played within your division (16 games x 3 teams)

48 games vs other division in conference (12 games x 4 teams)

48 games vs opposite conference (6 games x 8 teams)

12 games vs 1 division opposite league (3 games x 4 teams - alternate over 4 seasons)

156 games total

Playoffs:

Playoff teams, 4 division winners in each league, 2 non-division winners with next best record (not necessarily second place teams) in each conference, a total of 16 playoff teams, 8 in each league

Round 1: Conference Semi-Finals - 2 division winners host (#1 record div winner vs #4 conf Wild Card) (#2 div winner vs #3 conf Wild Card); 3 game series

Round 2: Conference Finals - Winners of semi final series, best record (division winner priority gets home field advantage), 5 game series

Round 3: LCS, as currently laid out, 7 game series

Round 4: WS, as currently laid out, 7 game series

Baseball had about a 10 billion dollar revenue stream. Dropping 6 games would be a 3.7% drop in revenue, about 370 million. I do not think that mlb would save that much in travel costs, I doubt players will want to give up their per game income. A home and home series against a rotating team would likely be added to keep up the revenue. 

I like that there is no DH in the NL, and I don't like that it appears it will quickly and easily go away.

I like that they may go to 156 games and that the season may end a bit earlier than currently.

I like Portland. It's a neat city. I've never been to Montreal.

This has been things I like and don't like. See you next time.

Hate it!

Expansion to 32 is ok, but why not keep the structure we have had?

Hmm ... I have mixed feelings about this idea. I'm not totally against the idea of expansion and adding two teams. But I hate the thought of not having separate leagues, the traditional AL and NL, and personally, I'd prefer to do away with inter-league play too. Not a fan of that. I also wouldn't want the other leagues --or divisions of whatever they are going to call the new alignment --- to have to adopt the DH either. Call me a traditionalist, but I still like the "old" idea of having the pitcher having to hit ... at least in one league. But a new Southern team like Memphis or Nashville would be pretty cool.

As far as the DH rule. I've always thought it would be fun to have home team choose DH or not. Makes the rule same for every team and brings in a bit of strategy as well.

I hope the AL and NL can be retained, but expansion to 32 teams sounds OK.  Two square 16 team leagues would seem welcome for scheduling.  ScottyB has a nice scheduling plan laid out above.

Of course, I would like to see KC and the White Sox stick with the Twins, but I guess you can't have everything.  I'm not sure what I would think of being in a division with both New York teams and the Red Sox.  

I don't quite understand where the Baseball America article is getting all of the information for this proposal. I don't see anything on mlb.com other than the article about Portland desiring a baseball team.

I'm sure that all of these decisions will be made somewhat independent of each other, where the Baseball America makes it sound like a package deal.  In reality I think each topic should be considered on it's own merits:

• Should Baseball Expand?
• If it expands, what is the best divisional alignment?
• Given a new divisional alignment, how best should the playoffs be handled?
• How many games should teams play in division vs out of division?
• Should the number of games played change?
• What should be done with the DH?

I love the idea of expanding to 32 teams, but I don't like the idea of getting rid of the AL/NL split, or 4 division winners and 8 wild cards, and I don't see any reason why expanding to 32 teams means you have to get rid of leagues, have 4 divisions, or reduce the number of games.

Realigning divisions, more than a minor tweak here or there, is always a bad idea to me.

Expansion? Meh. 

Won't lie...dissapointed Nashville is not being considered. The South does need another team. I WILL NOT root for Atlanta. Cincy is too far north. St. Louis is not really a "Southern" city. Houston and Dallas are Texas. Then there are the Florida teams (give me a break).

Here's an idea...ad the additional two teams as mentioned, but also move the Rays to Nashville! Done!

Nashville would be a good option along with Charlotte, Raleigh, even Oklahoma City.  They need more teams in the south and central US.  Move the Rays out of Florida and if the A's can't secure a new stadium move them as well.

32 is a better number, no question. But I wonder if expansion creates more problems than it solves.

There is such a dearth of quality pitching already, and would be made that much worse with expansion. Further, the revenue imbalance persists and would, I propose, continue with 32 teams. Would any of the proposed markets prove viable long term financially through fan support and various radio and cable packages? Or would they be adding a pair of bottom market teams that perpetually struggle to compete, much like a few of the more recent NBA franchises?

I know it still comes down to ownership and the running of a team properly from top to bottom, but the means to acquire players, and keep them, is still heavily weighted at the top of MLB and I don't see a solution coming any time soon.

If it happens, keep both leagues, keep them as intact as possible, and have even divisions in both leagues.

32 teams is great from a scheduling and division alignment perspective. But it seems to me it would just further water down a sport that already doesn't have enough good players to field more than a 5-6 truly competitive teams at a time (and maybe another 5-6 borderline wildcard teams). Of course, that's true in every sport but it bothers me in the NFL and NBA as well. I know it's unrealistic but things would get really interesting if the talent were concentrated into 16 or 24 teams instead of 32. Maybe a relegation/promotion system to push the worst 16 teams into their own division? That would help take care of tanking as well, although I suppose then this wild Twins season wouldn't have happened. Oh well, in the end the bottom dollar always wins out.

I don't see a lack of quality pitching, I see a ball that is way too easy to hit over the fence. Strikeouts are at an all-time high (good pitching), batting average are slightly below historical averages (.255 v .260 to .265) and HR are way up. With fewer HR nobody would think there isn't enough good pitching.

Expansion would be a net bonus for revenue. National TV would be worth more as there would be more markets actively engaged in watching baseball. Attendance and other stadium revenue would just push nearly the same amount of people into 78 games instead of 81. Most people watch 1-5 games a year in person and they would still be able to do so.

I don't see a lack of quality pitching, I see a ball that is way too easy to hit over the fence. Strikeouts are at an all-time high (good pitching), batting average are slightly below historical averages (.255 v .260 to .265) and HR are way up. With fewer HR nobody would think there isn't enough good pitching.

The increase in K's and HRs are connected though. Hitters recognized the value in selling out to do damage on one swing instead of just trying to get on base in strikeout counts. Thus, more K's and more HRs. That's where your biggest spikes in numbers are coming from.

The increase in K's can also be attributed to the intentional focus on developing strikeout pitchers supplemented with more aggressive bullpen usage. I don't believe we're seeing an unusual abundance of elite starters mowing down the league 7-8 innings at a time. Teams are just going after the K with more intent because they recognize the value in it.