MLB (Non Phillies) News and Discussion 2025 Season

[zambonir]

I agree bigger divisions (conferences) would be better. Even just having four "division" champions 'in each league not really preferable to current system as you'd probably have one really weak one and one team getting left out most years.

But this one is a little less drastic and puts the Phillies and Pirates back together while detaching us from the Braves and Marlins.

Projecting what MLB realignment might look like with expansion on the horizon

I do think the AL and NL are outdated, but putting the Mets and Yankees etc in to the same division and league just for geography seems extreme.

I would not underestimate the ability of Manfred and these owners to get whatever they want though especially if they think it will pay off (whether in savings or TV money or expansion fees or both. In the article bkox posted he talked about the value of doing away with games between Western teams and Eastern teams, TV-wise.

[andyb]

I like that better than the super division of the last proposal. Still hate 4-team divisions though. I doubt it even brings back the 3-series 18-19 game format as now there are more out of division teams to play. I am not wedded to the current 3-game series against every team schedule. The out of league stuff we have had the past month is a sign of that. If we played half of the other league every other year that would be fine with me.

[Philsmania]

The most harmonious thing would be 36 teams with six six team divisions.

My Modest Proposal

Eastern Conference

Atlantic Division (teams brutalizing each other)
PHL
NYM
NYY
BOS
WAS
BAL

Northeast Division (small markets galore)
TOR
MTL
BUF
PIT
DET
CLE

Southeast Division
CIN
NSH
CHAR
ATL
MIA
TB

Western Conference

Midwest Division
CHI C
CHI WS
MIN
MIL
STL
KC

Southwest Division
HOU
TEX
COL
ARI
LV
SLC

Pacific Division
LAD
LAA
SD
SF
SEA
POR

Of course, ther zillion dollar question is whether there is enough baseball talent--and more, specifically, pitching--on the planet to sustain this.

[allentown]

This much expansion will create more weak franchises. Las Vegas and SLC are both marginal individually and a disaster together Charlotte questionable. I think this is the commissioner's goal: use the prospect of instant $ from new franchises to get approval from owners to dilute the voting power of the stronger franchises.

[andyb]

I just don't know what the grand attraction is of having both NY or LA or Chicago teams in the same division. I guess the whole concept of leagues is not great, but being able to see teams from both leagues in one city is probably a good thing.

I think we are a long way to 36 teams, but 32 is certainly possible and is a nice round number for scheduling and divisions (4 or 8) and playoffs (giving real advantages to division winners). Also if expansion fees are like $5 billion this time around or even $3 billion, the owners have always been shown to be a greedy bunch.

[flyers19rw]

Makes you glad that the Phillies have an owner like Middleton. Sure he’s a businessman and wants to turn a profit. However he also is a sportsman who loves the game. There are too many owners who just want to make money and have little concern for the integrity of the sport.

[Docs]

being able to see teams from both leagues in one city is probably a good thing.

Exactly!

Makes you glad that the Phillies have an owner like Middleton. Sure he’s a businessman and wants to turn a profit. However he also is a sportsman who loves the game.

I tried finding the exact quote but he says something along these lines so often its hard to find the one I'm looking for. When asked about if the money he was spending on baseball was a good investment Middleton said something to the effect of "I made my money in my business life so that I could spend it on baseball"

found these looking for the ones I was looking for:

“the only reason to own a sports team is to win. And nobody gives a rat’s ass whether I make money or not. Or whether I lose money. They don’t care. They just care, as fans, about winning.”

"Nobody cares about whether I make money or not," Middleton told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "If my legacy is that I didn't lose any money owning a baseball team on an annual operating basis, that's a pretty sad legacy. It's about putting trophies in the cases."

[allentown]

Owning a baseball team is a good investment, if you can afford it. You may lose $millions each year (at least on paper, whether or not the net cash flow is negative may well be a totally different story), but you make a windfall profit when you sell the team and that profit is taxed at the lower capital gains tax rate It isn't the super winner investment that the NFL has been, but these guys aren't hurting.

[LoneStarPhan]

I favor playing every other team every year and having every team in a home series every other year.

I oppose expanding by more than two teams in any short period of time.

Having two teams from the same city (Mets and Yankees, White Sox and Cubs) in the same division is foolish. I hate the idea.

[zambonir]

I don't really like playing every team every year. I liked when there were more division games because winning the division still counts for a lot, and it would count even more if there were only two divisions. Now it just means usually the top wild card is a better team than the third division winner, and you can win the division without dominating the better teams within it. We're in the weak division this year, of course.

Now that interleague play is no longer special the leagues don't mean any more than the separate conferences in the NBA and NHL, and there aren't that many teams who absolutely still need to be in the same division. I like the idea of the Phillies being in division with the Pirates again more than the Sox or the Yankees.

[Docs]

If the Phillies were a small market team, I would be all in favor of a division with four of the biggest spenders in it. Teams that exceed the luxary tax all compete for a single playoff spot. But as a Phillies fan, please give us the Nationals and Pirates. As soon as you introduce a wild card, I think you need comparable schedules. If this eliminates the wild card, then unbalance the schedules.

[Philsmania]

I just don't know what the grand attraction is of having both NY or LA or Chicago teams in the same division. I guess the whole concept of leagues is not great, but being able to see teams from both leagues in one city is probably a good thing.

I think we are a long way to 36 teams, but 32 is certainly possible and is a nice round number for scheduling and divisions (4 or 8) and playoffs (giving real advantages to division winners). Also if expansion fees are like $5 billion this time around or even $3 billion, the owners have always been shown to be a greedy bunch.

I was just throwing a pie up in the sky with that 36 team thingy, even though on paper without considering the talent pool it all fit together nicely. But, truth be told, I would absolutely HATE eight four team divisions. If we go to 32, give me four eight team divisions.

[julio]

As soon as you introduce a wild card, I think you need comparable schedules. If this eliminates the wild card, then unbalance the schedules.

This. In particular, the latter. Unbalance the schedules. Four 8-team divisions, top two teams in each division enter the post-season. Eight post-season teams (25% of all clubs) is enough.

[andyb]

This. In particular, the latter. Unbalance the schedules. Four 8-team divisions, top two teams in each division enter the post-season. Eight post-season teams (25% of all clubs) is enough.

We are never going back to less than 12 postseason teams. I just like the 4 division winners plus 8 wild cards. We are staring at a 3 seed this offseason for instance if we finish behind the NL West leader (and a little because the Central winner has an easier division). Play 13 in division (91 games), 6 against the other division (48) and 23 against the other league in some fashion. The odd number of games in division is needed for division winner tie breaks. No time for 1-day playoffs with the wild card series.

[LoneStarPhan]

They will not go to eight team divisions. Won’t happen. Four team divisions much more likely.

[allentown]

Why not? It seems far better in practice. It will also reduce objections from fans and teams that they have been unfairly disadvantaged by the division they were assigned to.

When I started following the Phillies, baseball had only two 8- team divisions: the National League and the American League. You had to finish first to play in the WS. That lasted until 1961, and only the AL was larger that year.

I know the playoffs are a moneymaker and attract fans who don't watch during the regular season, but 12 teams in the playoffs really devalues the regular season.

[zambonir]

The why not is, clearly Manfred and whatever bloc of owners is behind him have already made up their minds, no doubt with the encouragement of the TV and streaming companies. You don't see these articles coming out with fantasy alignments for any other configuration. We'll just be lucky if it's only 12 teams rather than 16. It's now 20 in the NBA.

And the AL and NL being one-divison leagues didn't end until 1969! Though ironically the Cardinals were also in the NL East, so it wouldn't have helped in '64.

[zambonir]

Luckily we have two of them.

Year of the Southpaw: Inside the surge of MLB’s dominant — and historic —...

> In 2025, lefties have a collective 3.73 ERA. Righties? 4.30. It’s the greatest gulf between them since ERA became an official stat in 1913.

> Despite comprising only a quarter of the major league pitching population, left-handers account for five of the top seven qualified starters by ERA, and 11 of the top 23. By adjusted ERA, this is the most dominant left-handed season in the modern era — and it’s not particularly close.

[Philsmania]

This. In particular, the latter. Unbalance the schedules. Four 8-team divisions, top two teams in each division enter the post-season. Eight post-season teams (25% of all clubs) is enough.

We are never going back to less than 12 postseason teams.

The "only teams that finish first play in the Postseason" ship sailed thirty years ago and it is never coming back.

[Philsmania]

And the AL and NL being one-divison leagues didn't end until 1969! Though ironically the Cardinals were also in the NL East, so it wouldn't have helped in '64.

It's a bit of a fluke of history that the the Cubs and Cardinals ended up in the NL East. When the divisions were formed, it was obvious that common sense put them in the West. However, the last six years of NL play pre-divisions saw the pennant won by either the Cardinals or the Dodgers and the league feared that if both teams went west, there would be too big a talent imbalance between the divisions and that the big markets in the east (NYC and Philadelphia) would have more games against lesser opponents. So, the decision was made to break the Dodgers and Cardinals up division-wise with the Cubs being the Cards' travel partner and the Reds and Braves shifted West. Ironically, things didn't work out that way as the both the Cardinals and Dodgers entered Postseason droughts in the first few years of divisional play and things would have worked out fine with the Reds (an emerging powerhouse) and Braves in the East. However, it may not have worked out as well for the Phillies with the Big Red Machine in their way in 1976.