MLB World Series National League/American League Confusion

[bbtds]

As I was watching last night's World Series game I remembered that the last time the Houston Astros played in the WS was 2005 when they represented the National League against the American League's White Sox. This is the first time since teams started switching leagues that a team has represented both leagues in the WS. And only 12 years apart. The other team to switch leagues was the Milwaukee Brewers. The last time the Brewers were in the WS was 1982 when they represented the American League. If the Brewers ever face the Astros in the WS how much confusion would there be for fans about which team was representing which league and does it really matter?

I understand that the new commissioner, Rob Manfred, is thinking about expanding to 32 teams (adding 2 expansion teams) and dividing into 4 divisions of 8 teams each that are based solely on regions so as to help with travel expenses and distances of travel. He also said (very quietly) that he would eliminate the National and American League titles. The one thing that would have to change, finally for good, is the designated hitter rule. If the NL title is eliminated then those NL teams that would be put in four regional divisions would have to adopt the DH. The DH is not going away because the players union is not going to allow baseball ownership to eliminate 15 DH jobs in the AL.

I think MLB has been preparing the fans for the game of baseball without the pitcher having to hit but what do you National League fans truly think of having the DH for all the 30 to 32 teams in MLB?

[vu84v2]

"I believe that there oughta be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter"

-Crash Davis

[VULB#62]

As I was watching last night's World Series game I remembered that the last time the Houston Astros played in the WS was 2005 when they represented the National League against the American League's White Sox. This is the first time since teams started switching leagues that a team has represented both leagues in the WS. And only 12 years apart. The other team to switch leagues was the Milwaukee Brewers. The last time the Brewers were in the WS was 1982 when they represented the American League. If the Brewers ever face the Astros in the WS how much confusion would there be for fans about which team was representing which league and does it really matter?

I understand that the new commissioner, Rob Manfred, is thinking about expanding to 32 teams (adding 2 expansion teams) and dividing into 4 divisions of 8 teams each that are based solely on regions so as to help with travel expenses and distances of travel. He also said (very quietly) that he would eliminate the National and American League titles. The one thing that would have to change, finally for good, is the designated hitter rule. If the NL title is eliminated then those NL teams that would be put in four regional divisions would have to adopt the DH. The DH is not going away because the players union is not going to allow baseball ownership to eliminate 15 DH jobs in the AL.

I think MLB has been preparing the fans for the game of baseball without the pitcher having to hit but what do you National League fans truly think of having the DH for all the 30 to 32 teams in MLB?

I understand that those names have certain connotations, but in assembling the current NFL it chose to retain the National Conference and American conference  names while mixing old AFL and old NFL teams into 8 4-team team geographic divisions.  Why couldn't MLB do something similar with naming (not necessarily the division structure)? I have no strong opinion either way, just wondering.

[bbtds]

As I was watching last night's World Series game I remembered that the last time the Houston Astros played in the WS was 2005 when they represented the National League against the American League's White Sox. This is the first time since teams started switching leagues that a team has represented both leagues in the WS. And only 12 years apart. The other team to switch leagues was the Milwaukee Brewers. The last time the Brewers were in the WS was 1982 when they represented the American League. If the Brewers ever face the Astros in the WS how much confusion would there be for fans about which team was representing which league and does it really matter?

I understand that the new commissioner, Rob Manfred, is thinking about expanding to 32 teams (adding 2 expansion teams) and dividing into 4 divisions of 8 teams each that are based solely on regions so as to help with travel expenses and distances of travel. He also said (very quietly) that he would eliminate the National and American League titles. The one thing that would have to change, finally for good, is the designated hitter rule. If the NL title is eliminated then those NL teams that would be put in four regional divisions would have to adopt the DH. The DH is not going away because the players union is not going to allow baseball ownership to eliminate 15 DH jobs in the AL.

I think MLB has been preparing the fans for the game of baseball without the pitcher having to hit but what do you National League fans truly think of having the DH for all the 30 to 32 teams in MLB?

I understand that those names have certain connotations, but in assembling the current NFL it chose to retain the National Conference and American conference  names while mixing old AFL and old NFL teams into 8 4-team team geographic divisions.  Why couldn't MLB do something similar with naming (not necessarily the division structure)? I have no strong opinion either way, just wondering.

They would be regionally aligned divisions within MLB for ease of travel. Therefore most likely the Cubs, Cardinals and White Sox would be in the same division, the Mets, Yankees and Red Sox would also be in the same division. There is a lot more travel during a baseball season, generally 2 to 3 times per week than there is in the NFL where travel is generally only once per week.

[VULB#62]

They would be regionally aligned divisions within MLB for ease of travel. Therefore most likely the Cubs, Cardinals and White Sox would be in the same division, the Mets, Yankees and Red Sox would also be in the same division. There is a lot more travel during a baseball season, generally 2 to 3 times per week than there is in the NFL where travel is generally only once per week.

It would be fun to speculate on where teams would be assigned.  You mention Cubs, White Sox and Cards in the same division. 

Like maybe: 
(With 4 Divisions)
WEST
Mariners, SF, Oakland, Dodgers, Angels, SD, AZ and Rockies
NORTH
Twins, Brewers, Cubs, WSox, Tigers, Indians, Reds, and Pirates
EAST
Boston, Jays, Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Orioles, Nationals, and Charlotte (new)
SOUTH
Marlins, Rays, Braves, Rangers, Astros, Cards, Royals, and Nashville (new)

[bbtds]

The one thing they won't do is split up the rivalries. Therefore the biggest rivalries in MLB would not be split up. ie: Cardinals/Cubs, Yankees/Red Sox, Dodgers/Giants, Astros/Rangers, etc.

So in your scenario MLB would probably switch the Reds and the Cardinals around because Cincinnati is actually closer to the south and they had somewhat of a rivalry with the Braves when both those teams were in the NL West before there was an NL Central.

[VULB#62]

That makes perfect sense.  Didn't realize Cubs-Cards was that intense.

What do you think about possible new franchises: Nashville and Charlotte?   Or possibly another Texas team - Austin or San Antonio?  But basically I don't see many other viable options.  The northeast is saturated as is California.  Rocky Mountain states - too sparcely populated, but maybe Salt Lake City, except their metro area is not big enough I'm thinking.  One possibility might be Las Vegas.  In the south, New Orleans might be another possibility, except their metro area is tied for second smallest in the NFL, so, with only 1.1. million, that could be a show stopper.  And remember Louisiana is football country.

[bbtds]

That makes perfect sense.  Didn't realize Cubs-Cards was that intense.

What do you think about possible new franchises: Nashville and Charlotte?   Or possibly another Texas team - Austin or San Antonio?  But basically I don't see many other viable options.  The northeast is saturated as is California.  Rocky Mountain states - too sparcely populated, but maybe Salt Lake City, except their metro area is not big enough I'm thinking.  One possibility might be Las Vegas.  In the south, New Orleans might be another possibility, except their metro area is tied for second smallest in the NFL, so, with only 1.1. million, that could be a show stopper.  And remember Louisiana is football country.

I think it would all depend on which ownership groups or individuals emerge in which cities and which cities are willing to back the ownership group with a financing plan for a new or at least renovated baseball stadium, meaning public financing and tax breaks. Charlotte has a good history as the White Sox triple A affiliate, the Charlotte Knights. Very good possibility. Nashville also has a good history with the triple A Nashville Sounds. Memphis is also a possibility with the triple A Memphis Red Birds (they would probably change the nickname, though). Buffalo has a strong triple A team with the Buffalo Bisons. Indy has a nice history with the triple A Indianapolis Indians but unless MLB wants to be like the Canadian Football League which once had two teams nicknamed the Rough Riders (one was spelled Roughriders and the other with two words) they would also have to come up with a new nickname for an MLB Indy team. To balance things out in the west Portland has always been mentioned as a good city for a major league team. They have a history as the Portland Beavers in the Pacific Coast League but that franchise moved to El Paso in 2011. The problem in the Pacific Northwest is that they almost have to have a domed stadium because of all the rain they get. Seattle has Safeco Field, which has a retractable roof.

Sporting News story on Cardinals/Cubs rivalry that hasn't been nearly as tense as the other rivalries but has always been a friendly, good natured rivalry. 

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/cubs-cardinals-rivalry-win-loss-record-world-series-titles-chicago-st-louis/16hk1xfby76bz1ateojbxyqg3v

[VULB#62]

I'm also thinking geographic placement, based on the original premise, would be a very key factor.  The west has its 8 as do the NE and North/MW.  I'm thinking the next two would be in close proximty to what passes for the south.