Oakland Athletics relocation to Las Vegas thread: Move to Vegas approved by MLB owners - Will play in Sacramento for 3-4 years

[KevFu]

but MLB attendance was up almost 10% last year, the highest since 2017

It's not a vacuum, though. There's dozens or even hundreds of contributing factors. They added the pitch clock and shaved a half hour off games, making it a more enjoyable experience, which is a huge part of attendance going up.

They also have a season where the mix of how teams performed was pretty close to the best they can hope for to maximize attendance:
- You had big market teams sell tickets off preseason expectations (NY Mets, Chicago White Sox and San Diego Padres) and not suffer for really disappoint seasons.
- Teams used to struggling for attendance be the best they've been in a long time (Baltimore, Cincinnati, Arizona. Miami on field, but not gate).
- Big market, draw well teams hang around in the race long enough to not lose attendance (NY Yankees, Boston, San Francisco)
- A last place team being the most loyal fan base attendance wise (St. Louis).

 

[TheTotalPackage]

The whole situation just makes my head spin.

If this deal were to somehow fall apart, would it be because of the A's ownership's ineptitude, Las Vegas not really wanting the team, or a combination thereof? And if the A's were to stay in Oakland, how do they even repair that relationship?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

The whole situation just makes my head spin.

If this deal were to somehow fall apart, would it be because of the A's ownership's ineptitude, Las Vegas not really wanting the team, or a combination thereof? And if the A's were to stay in Oakland, how do they even repair that relationship?

They aren't going to Las Vegas until 2028, and they have another year left at the coliseum on their lease.

I think people are overreacting to the situation in terms of how dire it is and quickly things need to be done, they have time to figure things out, both where to play in the interim before LV and then getting Vegas done.

The relationship has always been tentative, there really isn't much to repair. They've had talks about extending the lease already for a few years before the move.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

It's not a vacuum, though. There's dozens or even hundreds of contributing factors. They added the pitch clock and shaved a half hour off games, making it a more enjoyable experience, which is a huge part of attendance going up.

They also have a season where the mix of how teams performed was pretty close to the best they can hope for to maximize attendance:
- You had big market teams sell tickets off preseason expectations (NY Mets, Chicago White Sox and San Diego Padres) and not suffer for really disappoint seasons.
- Teams used to struggling for attendance be the best they've been in a long time (Baltimore, Cincinnati, Arizona. Miami on field, but not gate).
- Big market, draw well teams hang around in the race long enough to not lose attendance (NY Yankees, Boston, San Francisco)
- A last place team being the most loyal fan base attendance wise (St. Louis).

But also, you have consider that these things take time. You can't necessarily expect an immediate spike in attendance between a Padres and Orioles game or Rangers vs Reds game. You're right in that teams performing well (with hopefully exciting players) will always be the biggest driver, but ideally you want to raise the baseball awareness of the general fan. Have them care about or be interested in teams/players league wide.

Baseball fans like watching baseball, so more exposure to all teams, players, storylines *should* hopefully grow that over the course of time. These hyper rivalries are great when they exist but they aren't sustainable unless it's something super specific and historic like NYY v BOS or LA vs SF. You need fans to care and show up even when there isn't a juicy storyline or punches being thrown. The only way to do that is to make them baseball fans rather than JUST fans of their team. Rising tide lifts all boats and all that.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

It's not a vacuum, though. There's dozens or even hundreds of contributing factors. They added the pitch clock and shaved a half hour off games, making it a more enjoyable experience, which is a huge part of attendance going up.

They also have a season where the mix of how teams performed was pretty close to the best they can hope for to maximize attendance:
- You had big market teams sell tickets off preseason expectations (NY Mets, Chicago White Sox and San Diego Padres) and not suffer for really disappoint seasons.
- Teams used to struggling for attendance be the best they've been in a long time (Baltimore, Cincinnati, Arizona. Miami on field, but not gate).
- Big market, draw well teams hang around in the race long enough to not lose attendance (NY Yankees, Boston, San Francisco)
- A last place team being the most loyal fan base attendance wise (St. Louis).

The White Sox average dropped by 3,000 because they were absolutely terrible and fans have checked out. One of the few teams that saw a decline.

 

[KevFu]

But also, you have consider that these things take time. You can't necessarily expect an immediate spike in attendance between a Padres and Orioles game or Rangers vs Reds game. You're right in that teams performing well (with hopefully exciting players) will always be the biggest driver, but ideally you want to raise the baseball awareness of the general fan. Have them care about or be interested in teams/players league wide.

Baseball fans like watching baseball, so more exposure to all teams, players, storylines *should* hopefully grow that over the course of time. These hyper rivalries are great when they exist but they aren't sustainable unless it's something super specific and historic like NYY v BOS or LA vs SF. You need fans to care and show up even when there isn't a juicy storyline or punches being thrown. The only way to do that is to make them baseball fans rather than JUST fans of their team. Rising tide lifts all boats and all that.

I think this sums it up nicely though: "You need fans to care and show up when there isn't a juicy story line or punches being thrown."

You do that via competitive balance and just having a good product on the field. Throwing a pitch every 18 seconds instead of 2 minutes, adding more singles without a shift and doubling stolen base attempts made a better product in 2023, and that's the most likely factor in a spike in attendance in 2023.

If a team is bad, then every game is an "ordinary game." If a team is good, then the games have stakes. Stakes is what makes a series a big one and fans come out to watch. The general disconnect is that the map creates stakes. It really doesn't. Miami and Tampa both being cities in Florida is the ordinary situation. (If one of them suddenly wasn't in Florida anymore, THAT'S a juicy story!)

Yankees/Red Sox and Dodgers/Giants aren't about the map, they're about 125+ years of games with stakes against each other.

This can be proven by "National League baseball in New York." -- The distance between the Dodgers & Giants changed in 1958, when they left New York (15 miles apart) for California (381 miles apart). The stakes were exactly the same, so the rivalry was the same.

And now with the Mets as the NL team in New York... If the map dictated rivalries, the Mets and Yankees fans would be united against Red Sox fans. Boston doesn't chant "New York Sucks." Mets and Red Sox fans are united against the Yankees:



Would that change in the same division if they radically align? Depends on the stakes. If only one of us can go to the playoffs and we keep knocking each other out, we'll turn on each other. But we're not joining the Yankees in hatred of the other.

 

[KevFu]

Now as this pertains to playing everyone in the league... Should teams like the Red Sox and Mets play each other more? Probably. But they're not really doing that. Compared to 2002-2019 it's more, but it's the same number of games as it was from 1997-2001.

1997-2001 - Rival Division only.
2002-2019 - All Divisions Cycle (everyone at least once every 3 years, Home and Away takes six years)
2023-Pres - All Divisions Once Each (Everyone once every season, Home and Away takes two years)

Wouldn't it be SMARTER to make interleague: Rivals every year (15 games) and Other Division Rotate (15 games, 4 year cycle instead of six).

Many baseball fans suspect that playing everyone is a precursor to radical realignment (a terrible idea). If MLB wants that to get 12 or 13 games between teams like Red Sox-Mets, why start by playing everyone every year FIRST, and giving us more Mets/Seattle and Boston/San Diego?


If you want to make radical realignment palatable from what we had in 2022...
- 15 vs rival division every year, and 15 vs rotation of other two division (30 interleague games, increased from 18-22 they had before.
- THEN add an extra series vs rival division and keep the rotation (45 interleague games) which is less than what they're doing now (48).

The people would be like "hey, Red Sox Mets has more juice than Red Sox-Tampa and Mets-Marlins! We should just shuffle divisions around and get 12 games of that instead of 6!"

Instead they're screwing it up by forcing games we don't want first, and then they're gonna start rivalry histories from scratch if they radically realign.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

I think this sums it up nicely though: "You need fans to care and show up when there isn't a juicy story line or punches being thrown."

You do that via competitive balance and just having a good product on the field. Throwing a pitch every 18 seconds instead of 2 minutes, adding more singles without a shift and doubling stolen base attempts made a better product in 2023, and that's the most likely factor in a spike in attendance in 2023.

If a team is bad, then every game is an "ordinary game." If a team is good, then the games have stakes. Stakes is what makes a series a big one and fans come out to watch. The general disconnect is that the map creates stakes. It really doesn't. Miami and Tampa both being cities in Florida is the ordinary situation. (If one of them suddenly wasn't in Florida anymore, THAT'S a juicy story!)

Yankees/Red Sox and Dodgers/Giants aren't about the map, they're about 125+ years of games with stakes against each other.

This can be proven by "National League baseball in New York." -- The distance between the Dodgers & Giants changed in 1958, when they left New York (15 miles apart) for California (381 miles apart). The stakes were exactly the same, so the rivalry was the same.

And now with the Mets as the NL team in New York... If the map dictated rivalries, the Mets and Yankees fans would be united against Red Sox fans. Boston doesn't chant "New York Sucks." Mets and Red Sox fans are united against the Yankees:



Would that change in the same division if they radically align? Depends on the stakes. If only one of us can go to the playoffs and we keep knocking each other out, we'll turn on each other. But we're not joining the Yankees in hatred of the other.

But in a 30+ team league you can’t build rivalry and history between fan bases like you could 125 years ago when there were only 8 teams. Unless by chance two teams end up playing each other in the playoffs 8 years in a row and it’s not like a Yankees murdering the Twins every time they meet type scenario, we probably won’t ever see any more ‘historic rivalries’ in baseball.

Bostonians and New Yorkers have an overall beef but Red Sox fans aren’t going to take issue with Mets fans and vice versa because they never played each other and they both hate or dislike the Yankees so the enemy of my enemy type thing comes into play.

Same thing with LA and SF. The teams have history but the cities also go at each other as well which helps. If the Giants moved to Oklahoma the same vitriol wouldn’t be there as it is now.

I think the East could be aligned much better. Especially with AL and NL being the same rules.

Maybe not perfect but I would love to see this…

East
NYY, NYM, BOS, PHI, BAL, WAS, ATL, TB, FLA, TOR

Central
DET, CLE, PIT, CIN, CWS, CHC, MIL, MIN, KC, STL

West
SEA, OAK, SF, COL, ARI, TX, HOU, LAD, LAA, SD

Playoffs
- Top team in each division get seeds 1-3
- Next 5 best records get seeds 4-8
- Seeds 1-3 pick their opponent
- Seed 4 plays remaining unpicked team
- Teams keep their seed number throughout
- In 2nd round highest seed plays lowest seed, middle seeds play each other
- Winners play in WS
- All series are best of 7

*Could figure out some sort of play in round if they want to add in 2 more teams.

** All-Star game would make no sense so you’d have to do some sort of Player A vs Player B and have them draft teams which honestly would be fine.

I get that there is still AL fans and NL fans but it’s kind of holding things back to some degree now that the leagues are the same

 

[IU Hawks fan]

But in a 30+ team league you can’t build rivalry and history between fan bases like you could 125 years ago when there were only 8 teams. Unless by chance two teams end up playing each other in the playoffs 8 years in a row and it’s not like a Yankees murdering the Twins every time they meet type scenario, we probably won’t ever see any more ‘historic rivalries’ in baseball.

Bostonians and New Yorkers have an overall beef but Red Sox fans aren’t going to take issue with Mets fans and vice versa because they never played each other and they both hate or dislike the Yankees so the enemy of my enemy type thing comes into play.

Same thing with LA and SF. The teams have history but the cities also go at each other as well which helps. If the Giants moved to Oklahoma the same vitriol wouldn’t be there as it is now.

I think the East could be aligned much better. Especially with AL and NL being the same rules.

Maybe not perfect but I would love to see this…

East
NYY, NYM, BOS, PHI, BAL, WAS, ATL, TB, FLA, TOR

Central
DET, CLE, PIT, CIN, CWS, CHC, MIL, MIN, KC, STL

West
SEA, OAK, SF, COL, ARI, TX, HOU, LAD, LAA, SD

Playoffs
- Top team in each division get seeds 1-3
- Next 5 best records get seeds 4-8
- Seeds 1-3 pick their opponent
- Seed 4 plays remaining unpicked team
- Teams keep their seed number throughout
- In 2nd round highest seed plays lowest seed, middle seeds play each other
- Winners play in WS
- All series are best of 7

*Could figure out some sort of play in round if they want to add in 2 more teams.

** All-Star game would make no sense so you’d have to do some sort of Player A vs Player B and have them draft teams which honestly would be fine.

I get that there is still AL fans and NL fans but it’s kind of holding things back to some degree now that the leagues are the same

I really don't understand this logic. The NFC & AFC have the same rules, no one is looking to combine them.

There certainly could be some shuffling of teams in a 32 team league to make the divisions more logical, but dropping the leagues, even if they're really just playoff designators, should be a nonstarter.

 

[GKJ]

This is further not in the topic but I don’t support the radical realignment. I don’t care if there’s a tweak like we saw with the Brewers and Astros, but a geographical separation isn’t necessary when you have 2-4 games in the same town at a time. A bigger issue with the scheduling is rescheduling rainouts is difficult.

 

[KevFu]

But in a 30+ team league you can’t build rivalry and history between fan bases like you could 125 years ago when there were only 8 teams.

Well, this is like the first thing I say when talking about what an alignment/schedule should be, only I phrase it as "30+ teams is too big to play everyone."

You WANT that rivalry and history between teams, don't you? Playing 25 teams each 6 or fewer times over 180 days doesn't give you the same juice as "We finished five games behind them and they won the season series 12-7."

If the Giants moved to Oklahoma the same vitriol wouldn’t be there as it is now.

See, I say "not necessarily" because it's history more than geography. And let's be honest: The Giants (or Red Sox or Mets) hate the Dodgers (or Yankees or Braves) a lot more than the other way around.

SF had pennant races with HOU, ATL and CIN in the old NL West. LA and the OKC Giants absolutely could be rivals still based on the Giants not being able to beat the Dodgers in the regular season very often, but the Dodgers winning like 15 division titles and one WS, while the Giants won 3 WS... you'd lose the SF city inferiority complex with LA, sure.

But I also think that ALL the rivalries are a lot less spicy because they used to play 12 to 19 games against the league and now it's 6 to 13.

 

[KevFu]

East - NYY, NYM, BOS, PHI, BAL, WAS, ATL, TB, FLA, TOR
Central - DET, CLE, PIT, CIN, CWS, CHC, MIL, MIN, KC, STL
West - SEA, OAK, SF, COL, ARI, TX, HOU, LAD, LAA, SD

I get that there is still AL fans and NL fans but it’s kind of holding things back to some degree now that the leagues are the same

I just don't get the view that rivalries are good for the game, but the desire to radically realign and start rivalries from scratch when teams have 125+ years of being in the same leagues together and interleague started in 1997.

I recognize that divisions are done geographically traditionally for time zones and TV start times and that makes sense. MLB created the Central Divisions because the CTZ teams being tied to the West crushed their TV contracts. All the sports leagues have a "Central Problem" - the CTZ teams want to be tied to the EAST, not West, because we really have 8 Western and 22 Eastern teams.

Financially the West together and three groups of CTZ/ETZ makes perfect sense to reduce 10 pm ET and 4 pm PT start times. That's why I usually suggest four leagues. Form the Pacific and Southern League and leave the AL/NL teams where they are if they don't leave. Ideally:

AL - MIN, CWS, DET, CLE, TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL
NL - COL, STL, CHC, MIL, PIT, CIN, PHI, NYM
PL - LAD, SF, SD, SEA, LAA, OAK/LV, LAA, ARZ, SLC
SL - HOU, TEX, NASH, KC, ATL, TB, MIA, WAS

(I originally came up with this for NASH/MON expansion with MON in NL).

Yes, I know I say "radical realignment is bad because it makes HOU/TEX and MIA/TB ordinary!" and then suggest THIS, which sounds hypocritical. I do believe in those principles, but there's no perfect solution, so it's Kantian time: Make it better for the most possible teams! Which also means the fewest votes to get to pass.

This also gives you options: teams moving divisions have full veto rights. Because the current 10 western teams would jump at this, and NASH/SLC will do whatever to get in, you need four volunteers. If ATL wants to stay NL, ask COL, BAL... someone might have a reason to want to move. You can name the fourth league the "Continental League" if you want.

And if the PL/SL sees a massive jump in attendance and rivalries, THEN you could do full geographic realignment if it looks like it works better.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Now as this pertains to playing everyone in the league... Should teams like the Red Sox and Mets play each other more? Probably. But they're not really doing that. Compared to 2002-2019 it's more, but it's the same number of games as it was from 1997-2001.

1997-2001 - Rival Division only.
2002-2019 - All Divisions Cycle (everyone at least once every 3 years, Home and Away takes six years)
2023-Pres - All Divisions Once Each (Everyone once every season, Home and Away takes two years)

Wouldn't it be SMARTER to make interleague: Rivals every year (15 games) and Other Division Rotate (15 games, 4 year cycle instead of six).

Many baseball fans suspect that playing everyone is a precursor to radical realignment (a terrible idea). If MLB wants that to get 12 or 13 games between teams like Red Sox-Mets, why start by playing everyone every year FIRST, and giving us more Mets/Seattle and Boston/San Diego?


If you want to make radical realignment palatable from what we had in 2022...
- 15 vs rival division every year, and 15 vs rotation of other two division (30 interleague games, increased from 18-22 they had before.
- THEN add an extra series vs rival division and keep the rotation (45 interleague games) which is less than what they're doing now (48).

The people would be like "hey, Red Sox Mets has more juice than Red Sox-Tampa and Mets-Marlins! We should just shuffle divisions around and get 12 games of that instead of 6!"

Instead they're screwing it up by forcing games we don't want first, and then they're gonna start rivalry histories from scratch if they radically realign.

Regardless of the sport, I'm in the "play your division mates more than everyone else". That breeds rivalry because the games against them matter than the others for standings and there's enough familiarity to breed hatred.

In baseball, as a Red Sox fan, please give me 19 Yankees games a year instead of boring who gives a F games against random NL teams like the Diamondbacks or Nationals. Same goes for hockey, I'd much rather play Montreal and Toronto 8x a year each than get the oh so popular duds against Phoenix or Winnipeg.

The NFL does it right (yes its a factor of the season length more than anything) with their scheduling.

6 of 17 games against division mates and you play 1 division per year from the other conference on a rotation

 

[AKL]

Basing this off the Diamondbacks as an example because they're my team:

3 games against all AL East teams = 15 games (switching home vs away every season)
3 games against all AL Central teams = 15 games
6 games against all AL West teams = 30 games (one home, one away series every season)
6 games against all NL East teams = 30 games
6 games against all NL Central teams = 30 games
10 games against all NL West teams = 36 games (five home, five away every season)

=160 games, maybe throw two more in against a team with recent history (the Diamondbacks might get the Dodgers, Phillies or Rangers, for example)

I think this is fairly close to what they're doing currently, and I like it. I like being able to see every team every year. You get additional games against other NL teams you'll see in the playoffs, and AL West teams that are geographically closer (easier for fan travel?). You get the most games against division opponents.

I absolutely don't need to see the Diamondbacks play the Dodgers 19 times a year, and in a lot of situations that would actually feel really bad. The Diamondbacks could be a playoff team, the Dodgers could still be much, much better, and the Diamondbacks could go 5-14 against the Dodgers, and that might be the difference between playoffs or not. Ugly.

The regular season schedule is not the time to force rivalries. Rivalries occur naturally through the playoffs.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

But I also think that ALL the rivalries are a lot less spicy because they used to play 12 to 19 games against the league and now it's 6 to 13.

IE: They play the same amount of games against division rivals as they DID when the rivalries were formed.

 

[KevFu]

IE: They play the same amount of games against division rivals as they DID when the rivalries were formed.

They played 12 in the AL during the 1977-1993 era with 14 teams. Actually, it was 14 vs division and 12 against the OTHER division (like, Brewers/White Sox). When the rivalries like BOS/NYY were forming, they played 22 games against everyone in their league.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

I really don't understand this logic. The NFC & AFC have the same rules, no one is looking to combine them.

There certainly could be some shuffling of teams in a 32 team league to make the divisions more logical, but dropping the leagues, even if they're really just playoff designators, should be a nonstarter.

NFL and MLB schedule and season are about as different as it gets. Playing one game a week you don’t even need East West North South divisions. It could be completely jumbled cross country and it wouldn’t matter. Having teams grouped geographically makes it easier for fans because then their rival teams are closer by which naturally breeds competition.

I also can’t imagine anyone truly caring about AFC vs NFC on the whole and if anyone does then I’d love to hear a reason why that is logical.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

I just don't get the view that rivalries are good for the game, but the desire to radically realign and start rivalries from scratch when teams have 125+ years of being in the same leagues together and interleague started in 1997.

I recognize that divisions are done geographically traditionally for time zones and TV start times and that makes sense. MLB created the Central Divisions because the CTZ teams being tied to the West crushed their TV contracts. All the sports leagues have a "Central Problem" - the CTZ teams want to be tied to the EAST, not West, because we really have 8 Western and 22 Eastern teams.

Financially the West together and three groups of CTZ/ETZ makes perfect sense to reduce 10 pm ET and 4 pm PT start times. That's why I usually suggest four leagues. Form the Pacific and Southern League and leave the AL/NL teams where they are if they don't leave. Ideally:

AL - MIN, CWS, DET, CLE, TOR, BOS, NYY, BAL
NL - COL, STL, CHC, MIL, PIT, CIN, PHI, NYM
PL - LAD, SF, SD, SEA, LAA, OAK/LV, LAA, ARZ, SLC
SL - HOU, TEX, NASH, KC, ATL, TB, MIA, WAS

(I originally came up with this for NASH/MON expansion with MON in NL).

Yes, I know I say "radical realignment is bad because it makes HOU/TEX and MIA/TB ordinary!" and then suggest THIS, which sounds hypocritical. I do believe in those principles, but there's no perfect solution, so it's Kantian time: Make it better for the most possible teams! Which also means the fewest votes to get to pass.

This also gives you options: teams moving divisions have full veto rights. Because the current 10 western teams would jump at this, and NASH/SLC will do whatever to get in, you need four volunteers. If ATL wants to stay NL, ask COL, BAL... someone might have a reason to want to move. You can name the fourth league the "Continental League" if you want.

And if the PL/SL sees a massive jump in attendance and rivalries, THEN you could do full geographic realignment if it looks like it works better.

I just think it would be great to have the Yankees and Mets be actual in season rivals. Same with Chicago teams and Dodgers + Angels, Baltimore + Washington, St Louis + KC, Minnesota + Milwaukee, Cleveland + Cincy.

Have to imagine that the close to reasonable proximity of those franchises would create for some natural interest between fan bases

As a Jays fan I’d love to be playing those NL east teams more.

100% agree with you that it doesn’t need to be a fully balanced schedule. Play within your division mostly but my idea of combining AL and NL and having 3 divisions just means that your division is bigger

 

[KevFu]

I just think it would be great to have the Yankees and Mets be actual in season rivals. Same with Chicago teams and Dodgers + Angels, Baltimore + Washington, St Louis + KC, Minnesota + Milwaukee, Cleveland + Cincy.

I understand that mentality completely. I get the WHY part of it -- it's absolute magic when it's time for Mets/Yankees. The vibe leading up to the series is fantastic.

But it's the anticipation and build up that makes it special. The vibe is absolutely bigger/better for the first series of the year than it is the second series of the year when we play two.

There's really only any kind of buzz for Mets/Phillies when it's late in the season and we're both good and it's a pennant race. When one or both of us suck, it's "here's another series."

I think radical realignment would be like turning Christmas into six bi-weekly "Presents Day" events between December 10th and Feb 7th. "What if we had six Christmases?" sounds like 6 times the presents, but you'd really end up with like one-sixth of a Christmas each time, and totally ruin Thanksgiving, New Years and Valentine's Day.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

I understand that mentality completely. I get the WHY part of it -- it's absolute magic when it's time for Mets/Yankees. The vibe leading up to the series is fantastic.

But it's the anticipation and build up that makes it special. The vibe is absolutely bigger/better for the first series of the year than it is the second series of the year when we play two.

There's really only any kind of buzz for Mets/Phillies when it's late in the season and we're both good and it's a pennant race. When one or both of us suck, it's "here's another series."

I think radical realignment would be like turning Christmas into six bi-weekly "Presents Day" events between December 10th and Feb 7th. "What if we had six Christmases?" sounds like 6 times the presents, but you'd really end up with like one-sixth of a Christmas each time, and totally ruin Thanksgiving, New Years and Valentine's Day.

So I would agree that when Yankees and Mets play each other now it’s ‘special’ but it’s not especially meaningful because they aren’t competing against each other overall.

They aren’t trying to beat each other out for the division and chances of them playing each other in the playoffs are astronomically low because it would only be in the World Series so the odds are abundantly against them.

Imagine Yankees Mets or White Sox Cubs battling each other in September for the division or the last playoff spot or meeting each other in the first round. THAT would be awesome and it’s something that could realistically happen in any given year.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

I’m certain he retired just so he could speak truth about the league.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

 

[KevFu]

So I would agree that when Yankees and Mets play each other now it’s ‘special’ but it’s not especially meaningful because they aren’t competing against each other overall.

They aren’t trying to beat each other out for the division and chances of them playing each other in the playoffs are astronomically low because it would only be in the World Series so the odds are abundantly against them.

Imagine Yankees Mets or White Sox Cubs battling each other in September for the division or the last playoff spot or meeting each other in the first round. THAT would be awesome and it’s something that could realistically happen in any given year.

Yes, a playoff race would be intense. But that's what makes it inefficient from a TV inventory standpoint: A playoff race series like that is gonna be rivalry-fueling with ANYONE in your division. And all your "non-league" games are going to have way less juice than Mets-Yankees.


Let's use NYM and NYI, and double the NHL schedule to fairly compare it to baseball:

Islanders/Rangers play 8 times.
In the old interlegue format, Mets got 25 games vs their most heated division rival (ATL) or their cross town rival.

Or look at it this way:

- The Islanders (doubling) would have 64 non-conference games vs teams outside their time zone AND that don't count as much in the standings because it's non-conference games.

When the MLB interleague rotation was East vs East (my argument is that should be the permanent format) -- the Mets had ZERO. Their 46 games vs teams from other time zones were all league teams. Their interleague games were all NYY, TOR, BOS, BAL, TB.


If you want to maximize the inventory of "most games that appeal to fans buying tickets and TV networks picking games" the absolute best way would be to have the MLB zipper format for leagues, the interleague schedule be like MLB's EvE, CvC, WvW... but play those teams the same amount of times as your division.

So basically you're playing 19 teams a lot, and the other 12 teams very few times per season and rotating. Instead of trying to play 31 teams "not enough or too much" each.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

When did this thread become about divisions/any other team besides the A’s?

Change the title, Marge

 

[John Price]