And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights

36 Comments

Rangers 6, Angels 5: They were up then down then bang! Jurickson Profar with the walkoff blast. This one would’ve been way easier, however, if Mitch Moreland, Ian Kinsler and Adrian Beltre all hadn’t committed errors in the second inning, allowing three unearned runs. But it was a must-win game and the Rangers won.

Indians 6, Twins 5: A win, sure, but the way Chris Perez nearly coughed up a 6-1 lead the day after getting a vote of confidence from Terry Francona has to make Cleveland nervous. Apart from mopup duty or innings eating in games where the Tribe has, like, a 12-run lead, he’ll likely be watching the rest of this series from the bullpen bench.

Rays 4, Yankees 0: The Rays finish off a sweep of the Yankees with ease — they outscored New York 17-3 — but the real story here was the farewell of Mariano Rivera. It wasn’t a save situation, but his final home game was pretty familiar stuff: zeros across the board apart from the innings pitched and pitch count. And the way he was taken out of the game was as touching as can be.

Braves 7, Phillies 1: Jason Heyward was 5 for 5 and David Hale allowed only one run over six innings. See, Brian McCann? That’s how you keep the opposition from crossing home plate.

Padres 3, Diamondbacks 2: Alexi Amarista hit an RBI single in the 11th inning, ending the home portion of the Padres season. They were 45-36 at home this year. Not bad for a team that, overall, has only won 75 games. Since I got back late Monday I’ve been trying to convince my bosses at NBC that I’d perform better in San Diego too, but they’re not buying it.

Orioles 3, Blue Jays 2: Miguel Gonzalez pitched seven innings of two-hit ball. Matt Wieters homered. After the game Wieters said “that was vintage Miggy” of Gonzalez’s performance. Gonzalez has one and a half years experience.

Brewers 4, Mets 2: Johnny Hellweg beaned David Wright in the head. Wright is OK, but damn, I hope these final meaningless games are worth it for Wright. The beaning wasn’t intentional. Afterward Hellweg said “That’s the last guy on the team I want to hit.” I’d be curious to see his list of priorities.

Giants 3, Dodgers 2: This could’ve been the final game for Tim Lincecum in a Giants uniform. If so, not too bad: seven innings, eight hits, two runs and a no-decision. Angel Pagan’s homer in the eighth broke a 2-2- tie.

Royals 3, White Sox 2: David Lough hit a two-run homer and Jeremy Guthrie pitched well. It was the Royals’ 84th win, which is their best total since 1993.

Major League Baseball considering expansion, radical realignment

Don Ryan/Associated Press
1 Comment

Tracy Ringolsby of Baseball America wrote yesterday about a “growing consensus” within baseball that expansion and realignment are inevitable. The likely expansion cities: Portland and Montreal. The 32-team league would then undergo a radical realignment that would also involve reducing the season from 162 to 156 games while expanding the playoffs to 12 teams.

To be clear, Ringolsby’s actual reporting here is limited to that “growing consensus” about expansion, and the most likely cities involved, not regarding the specific realignment or game reduction plan. That I take to be speculative — he refers to it as “one proposal” — though it seems like reasonable and informed speculation. The general idea is that, if you expand, you have to realign, and if you realign you have to change the playoff structure lest too many teams in any one division become also-rans. That, combined with the near impossibility of changing the early-April-to-late-October footprint of the season and the desire of players to have less arduous travel schedules and some extra time off, leads to the shorter season.

The details of the plan:

  • The American and National Leagues would be disposed of, with MLB putting all 32 teams into four, eight-team, regionally-based divisions: East, North, Midwest, West. This is designed to (a) maintain regional and traditional rivalries while (b) cutting way back on cross-time zone travel. Both New York teams and Boston are in the “North,” both Chicago teams and St. Louis are in the “Midwest,” etc. Texas and Houston are in the “Midwest” too, but we’ll let the Texans get mad about that later.
  • The playoffs would feature a LOT of play-in games. Specifically, Ringolsby would have the four division winners go to the Division Series, where they would play the winner of four different Wild Card games, the participants in which would come from the eight non-division winners with the best records, regardless of which division they came from.
  • The schedule would go back to 156 games, giving every team an off-day every week. Between that and the more compact, almost all single-time-zone divisions, the travel schedules would be far less taxing, with shorter flights and more flights which could leave the day after a night game as opposed to directly after a night game, causing teams to arrive in the next city in the wee hours of the morning.

Thoughts:

  • Obviously this would piss off the purists.  The elimination of the traditional leagues, the shorter season, a (slightly) altered standard for records and milestones, and a doubling of one-and-done playoff series would make a lot of fans dizzy. On the one hand, I could argue that baseball has NEVER been as pure and unchanging as people like to pretend it is so maybe people shouldn’t get too bent out of shape over this, but it’s simply unavoidable that this would rattle a lot of baseball fans, and not just the ones hopelessly stuck in the past. Baseball should not be slavishly devoted to its history, but it needs to recognize that its history is a selling point and an important touchstone for many, many fans.
  • Ringolsby’s specific realignment idea is kind of fun, but will inevitably lead to some winners and losers. For example, many traditional rivalries or regional rivalries would be maintained — Chicago and St. Louis and Boston and New York would remain division rivals — but other, less-sexy but very real rivalries would be disposed of. The Mets, for example, would have no old NL rivals in their division. There will also be some teams which get screwed logistically. Here, all of Minnesota’s division rivals would be Eastern Time Zone teams, so all of its road games would be played in a different time zone. You could fix that somehow, but someone else would likely be inconvenienced. There isn’t a perfect way to do it. As such, implementation could be pretty messy, with some owners opposing it, possibly vehemently.
  • The playoff idea would make for a lot of drama with four play-in games, but I don’t think it’s a sustainable model. Yes, division winners would all be guaranteed a five-game playoff series, but having two-thirds of all of the playoff teams subjected to a random one-and-done game as opposed to the current four of ten would inevitably lead to calls for longer Wild Card series. And it would likely, over time, diminish the cachet of the Wild Card itself. Now most people think of Wild Card teams as having made the playoffs, With this plan, I suspect fewer people will think of it that way as opposed to some sort of weird, non-quite-the-playoffs limbo, thus hurting late season interest among fans of non-division winners.
  • A 156-game season wouldn’t be the end of the world. We had a 154-game season for a little over half a century total and a 162 game season for 56 seasons so far. Changing it might cause people to get grumpy about records and milestones, but other changes in the game, be it pitcher usage patterns or juiced baseballs or integration or night games or any number of other things have already changed the context in such a way that such standards were never as set-in-stone as people tend to believe. At the same time, extra off days might very well improve the caliber of play as players are more rested and therefore sharper.

In the end, it’s important to recognize that Ringolsby’s article is, in all likelihood, a trial balloon leaked by Major League Baseball, so don’t take any one aspect of it too seriously, even if we should all take the idea of some radical shift involving expansion and realignment in the not-too-distant future seriously.

Why? Money mostly. There are huge financial incentives for baseball to do this. Part of this involves the cost-savings which would result from better scheduling and less travel that Ringolsby mentions. A much greater incentive would come from the franchise fees the owners of the two new teams would pay the 30 current owners in order to be allowed into the MLB fraternity.  In the last round of expansion, the Diamondbacks and Devil Rays owners paid $150 million each for their teams. Given that franchises have gone up in value by a factor of ten twenty, it’s not inconceivable that new owners in Montreal and Portland would have to fork over well north of a billion dollars each to enter the league. That’s a check for $66 million written to each owner in exchange for simply voting “yes” at some meeting in Scottsdale on some fine December afternoon.

So, while there may be no uncertainly on the “how” of it all, the very fact of expansion and subsequent realignment seems inevitable. Now is a good time for us to start thinking about how the details of it all would work.