Toggle sidebar

New to Baseball (Questions, etc)

Ok so my trip to the states is over for this time. I did actually go to the wednesday game Sox-Twins and it was freeeeezing.. I had only been to Miller park which has a retractable roof which makes it warm!

But i have to admit that coming from hockey i still think the game of baseball is so slow..
 
Why does baseball split up teams that could have great rivalries? NY-NY, Philly-Pit, Chi-Chi, LA-LA, previously Mtl-Tor.
 
DyerMaker66 said:
Why does baseball split up teams that could have great rivalries? NY-NY, Philly-Pit, Chi-Chi, LA-LA, previously Mtl-Tor.
Click to expand...

The American League was founded in 1900 (became known as a major league in 1901) to rival the National League. Other than the World Series, they didn't play against each other until Interleague was started in 1997.

Do you think they should throw away 100+ years of history?
 
IU Hawks fan said:
The American League was founded in 1900 (became known as a major league in 1901) to rival the National League. Other than the World Series, they didn't play against each other until Interleague was started in 1997.

Do you think they should throw away 100+ years of history?
Click to expand...

I'm fine with the league set-up (though I'm probably one of the few people who think inter-league play is a must). My point is more about the composition of said leagues. It's not like the jays or expos existed in 1901, why not put them in the same division, or at the very least the same league?
 
DyerMaker66 said:
I'm fine with the league set-up (though I'm probably one of the few people who think inter-league play is a must). My point is more about the composition of said leagues. It's not like the jays or expos existed in 1901, why not put them in the same division, or at the very least the same league?
Click to expand...

This might seem ideal, but for that to happen teams would have had to move from division to division or from one league to another pretty frequently to accommodate what the MLB might try to shoehorn as a new rivalry as the league expanded in the '60s and '70s.

For example, the Washington Senators and the Angels came into the league in 1961, expanding the MLB team total from 16 to 18. They both became AL teams as MLB always kept the number of teams per league an even number up until year-round inter-league play so that there was never a team in each league idle at any given time. If there were 9 teams per league then, and they didn't play inter-league then 8 teams per league would face off against each other, leaving the 9th twiddling its collective thumbs.

They could've put the Angels in the NL to be a rival for the Dodgers, but then they'd lose out on a potential Washington/Baltimore rivalry. Or if they wanted to try and force both, they'd need to move a third team from one league to another to keep the team numbers in each league even.

The following season the Mets and the Astros came into the MLB. They could've put the Mets in the AL as another rival to the Yankees, but then they'd have to put the Astros in the AL as well, and the AL would've had 12 teams to the NL's 8, instead of 10 and 10. Or they could once again move teams from 1 league to another.

The MLB could've had to realistically rearrange divisions and leagues 6 times from 1961 to 1998 to try and manufacture rivalries with teams as they come into the league, breaking up established rivalries along the way. As steeped in tradition as baseball has been, that wouldn't fly. The addition of the DH in the AL in the early '70s would've further complicated matters if teams were forced to move back and forth to accommodate these newer rivalries.

Imagine if MLB had to rearrange its leagues/divisions and possibly break up the NYY/BOS rivalry or STL/CHC rivalry because they were forced to move 1 team to a different league to keep the teams per league an even number just so they can try to make a Miami/Tampa Bay rivalry. Would you have wanted that? I wouldn't.

Of course, if MLB really wanted to do this now, they could. They no longer require an even number of teams per league as year-round inter-league is (most likely) here to stay. MLB would make it a priority to not break up traditional rivalries in trying to create newer ones. Still, this would take a decent effort to re-align the divisions in a way that most find amenable and I don't really hear much clamoring for this.
 
Phileeguy said:
Imagine if MLB had to rearrange its leagues/divisions and possibly break up the NYY/BOS rivalry or STL/CHC rivalry because they were forced to move 1 team to a different league to keep the teams per league an even number just so they can try to make a Miami/Tampa Bay rivalry. Would you have wanted that? I wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Thank-you for the well thoughtout reply.

Small aside, but think about a potential World Series: Yankees-Red Sox would be crazy.
 
Great post, Phileeguy. Let me just make a small note to that by saying the MLB specifically wanted the Mets in the NL to make up for NYC's loss of an NL team in the Dodgers and Giants.
 
IU Hawks fan said:
The American League was founded in 1900 (became known as a major league in 1901) to rival the National League. Other than the World Series, they didn't play against each other until Interleague was started in 1997.

Do you think they should throw away 100+ years of history?
Click to expand...
DH :sarcasm:

Just me hating on the AL.
 
I'm more annoyed by the rivalries that were broken up because of the 1993 re-alignment. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia played together since 1887...but that was broken up because...Atlanta?

Atlanta, a team that had been in the NL West, had far less history (franchise dating back to 1876, but across three cities and only in Atlanta to prior 27 years with a World Series won in Boston in 1914 and another in Milwaukee in 1957 prior to re-alignment), and geographically is more than 4 degrees more western than Pittsburgh somehow got that 5th NL East spot over the Pirates. To put that in perspective, Atlanta and Cincinnati are almost perfectly aligned (8' difference).

I'm still bitter about that, and I'm still baffled by it.

I do like the different league element, though. Both leagues are technically still separate and have their own rulebooks. They're very similar, obviously, but until the umpire strike they even had separate umpires. You have to note that they're the National League and the American League, not the National Conference and the American Conference. It wasn't until 2000 that the two legally became one, but they're still maintained separately. Hell, in 3 of the 4 first seasons of the American League both leagues had a champion, with the winners of those leagues that year being listed as champion. As with NFL Championships they're not seen as being of the same merit now, but still (Pittsburgh won the NL 1901-03 and the New York Giants in 04; the Chicago White Stockings won the inaugural 1901 AL season, the Philadelphia Athletics in 02, and the Boston Beaneaters/Americans in 03-04). There was no World Series in 1904 because the Giants had no interest in participating in it, considering themselves champions of the superior league. The Pirates & Americans organized the first World Series themselves and it wasn't until 1905 that the World Series actually became something. The 1904 boycott initiated the World Series becoming an organized event with actual rules, rather than the effectively independent 1903 World Series.
Sorry for the tangent.
I love the competitive angle of it, and there are fans of each league that still view the other as inherently inferior...as a Pirates fan I find the DH to be abhorrent. AL fans will typically feel the opposite way and chastise the NL for having an inferior bat in the line-up. Obviously not all of the teams will share those decades of direct competition that the 16 oldest franchises enjoy, but it's still an important aspect of the game and I rather like the New York & Chicago teams being on the other side of things (and previously Philadelphia with the A's in the AL & the Phillies in the NL) giving the fans a choice of league in the major markets. The really weird thing is that both leagues have a team that originated in the other...I know politics played into it with the Astros being sold and all, but it still seems a bit weird that the Brewers weren't just moved back to the AL.

Like with the NHL with their early 90s re-alignment I thought the creation of a third division destroyed too many rivalries...but unlike the NHL I don't foresee MLB fixing that.
 
Last edited:
Well, with the Wild Card there is technically 10 now.

Baseball has never been a "playoff sport," if that makes sense. While the NHL had 4 teams make the playoffs in the Original 6 era, ending in 1967, baseball only had 2, the league champions, all the way until 1968. 4 out of 6 in the playoffs compared to 2 out of 20!

In 1969, baseball moved to 4 divisions and added the League Championship Series. So now 4 out of 24 were making it. Then in 1994 they moved to 6 divisions with 2 Wild Cards. So for the 1st 93 years of the 'modern era' only 2 or 4 teams made the "playoffs".

In short, baseball historically has been far more focused on regular season success than hockey has. Added 3 more teams per league would diminish that even further than it already has been.
 
it wasn't focused on regular season success as much as it sought to reward teams for roster construction and have quality baseball in the postseason.

as the playoffs have been watered down with teams, the quality of playoff games has suffered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordie Howe Army
I was listening to prime time sports the other day and it came to my attention that Mexico was once considered a place for expansion, specifically monterrey, Mexico. So with that said, how come the mlb doesn't expand to Mexico? The Latinos love their baseball and I'm sure stadiums in Mexico will be packed.

So how about it? I think expansion to Mexico makes perfect sense.
 
robert terwilliger said:
it wasn't focused on regular season success as much as it sought to reward teams for roster construction and have quality baseball in the postseason.

as the playoffs have been watered down with teams, the quality of playoff games has suffered.
Click to expand...

No, there just was basically no postseason :laugh:

The league champ was decided by the regular season for 7 decades. If that's not "focused on regular season success" what is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordie Howe Army
mlb used to "only" have two teams make the playoffs because they played sometimes between three and six times the number of games that the nhl played.

i took issue with the way that you dismissed baseball as "not being a playoff sport". it was a terrific playoff sport that rewarded the best team in each league with an opportunity to play for the championship.

the playoffs are watered down anymore. in just over 20 years, mlb has gone from four postseason teams to 10. the nhl and nba market the playoffs as a "separate season" which is a joke. it should be a showcase for your best teams. not a crapshoot for the last man standing. both the nhl and nba have >50% of their teams make the playoffs. that's not something i'd be bragging about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordie Howe Army
robert terwilliger said:
mlb used to "only" have two teams make the playoffs because they played sometimes between three and six times the number of games that the nhl played.

i took issue with the way that you dismissed baseball as "not being a playoff sport". it was a terrific playoff sport that rewarded the best team in each league with an opportunity to play for the championship.

the playoffs are watered down anymore. in just over 20 years, mlb has gone from four postseason teams to 10. the nhl and nba market the playoffs as a "separate season" which is a joke. it should be a showcase for your best teams. not a crapshoot for the last man standing. both the nhl and nba have >50% of their teams make the playoffs. that's not something i'd be bragging about.
Click to expand...

I think we agree, you just didn't get what I meant by "playoff sport" I meant that as "a sport where half the teams make it and the regular season has little meaning." Baseball was never a "playoff sport" from 1903-1994 under that definition, and it still isn't completely now.
 
There would be 70-75 win teams making the playoffs if there were 8 spots per league.

Aside from the stupid 1-game wildcard (said this well before the A's playing in it) baseball has he best format of the big 4.
 
I take it there is no July 1 moment in baseball FA, but it there a time frame when the higher profile players usually end up signing?
 
mlbtr
The Mariners are on the hunt for a right-handed bat, but they prefer Nelson Cruz to signing Hanley Ramirez or trading for Matt Kemp. Justin Upton is also somewhere on their wish list and is potentially available. Rosenthal writes that the Mariners “are going to do something” of significance to address that search.
Click to expand...
 
eyetest is useless said:
I take it there is no July 1 moment in baseball FA, but it there a time frame when the higher profile players usually end up signing?
Click to expand...

The Winter Meetings are somewhat similar, but it's stretched over 4 days instead of just 1...and it's a mix of trades and signings instead of almost exclusively signings. The rollout of free agency is always slow, much more like the NFL than the NHL in that regard.

The Winter Meetings are December 8-11 in San Diego this year, for the record. Once that ends things will slow down to a trickle until February.
 
Big McLargehuge said:
The Winter Meets are similar, but it's stretched over 4 days instead of just 1...and it's a mix of trades and signings instead of just signings. The rollout of free agency is always slow, unlike the NHL.

The Winter Meetings are December 8-11 in San Diego this year, for the record. Once that ends things will slow down to a trickle until February.
Click to expand...

Start date is the 7th.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom