Gibsonhobbs88, it seems like I'm dealing with many comments from you that are big fat rants. I think you really need to learn how to tone it down if you want to continue to participate.

Bluetahoe, my frustrations with you come every single day you post. It's almost beyond me why I haven't banned you yet - every day some of your comments seem to go out of their way to be provoke a hostile reaction. This is the absolute last time I'm going to ask you to think of the community here before you post.

I'm wondering if there is a way to set things up so that it would work with 15 teams in each league. I know without interleague play it would mean two teams would be off everyday, but is that really a bad thing? Or should they just expand the AL by two - maybe a team in Vegas and one in somewhere else (San Juan maybe?).

NL -> AL
Jim Thome
Troy Glaus
Vlad Guererro
Gary Sheffield
Randy Johnson
Curt Schilling
Ritchie Sexson
Adrian Beltre
Carlos Lee
Bobby Abreu
Dan Haren
Scott Kazmir
Liriano/Nathan*

AL -> NL
Nomar Garciaparra
Roger Clemens
Pedro Martinez
Carlos Beltran
Derek Lowe
Tim Hudson
Alfonso Soriano

*switched as minor-leaguers

My point is that I think that talent has been flowing to AL teams that expanded their payrolls - the Angels, Yankees, and Red Sox, most notably, moreso than NL teams. When people say that the NL is weak, I think this is one of the big reasons why. My list is totally inexhaustive and arbitrary, but I'd be curious to look up "Net Talent Flows" between leagues by WARP or something since 2003.

WWSH

Besides, I don't like the idea that pennant races are being decided by games where one team plays teams that another team is not playing. Ex: NL East teams get to play the D-Rays, NL Central teams get to play the Royals (in addition to getting to play the Pirates).

I'm actually more sympathetic to economic rule changes than most fans, so I can appreciate the Wild Card and logic behind an unbalanced schedule giving your team a chance to catch a division-leader. I just get sick of the same teams all the time. How much fun would it be to play the Mets or Cubs a few more times per year?

Additionally, humidor or not, Coors Field is not a good place for pitchers. The non-Rockie NL West teams must play 9-10 games there per year. Even without the ball flying all over the place and the resulting bullpen burnout, the altitude adversely affects a pitcher's metabolic recovery. The non-NL West teams only have to make one trip to Coors per season when the rest of them have to make three.

5 Bingo. I figured it out.

1) End interleague play.

2) Don't totally balance the schedule, but get it more balanced to where a wild card battle is more 'fair'.

NL West
Play 15 games in the division. 6 home, 9 away. Vice versa. Alternate each season.

Play 9 games against the NL East. 3 home. 6 away. Vice versa. Alternate each season. You will be playing +3 or (-3) home/road games verse the east.

Play 3 of the central teams 9 times and 3 of the central teams 10 times. (If you play an extra 3 road games against the east you would get 3 central teams at your place for a 4 game series. 4 at home. 6 on the road. The other 3 would be 6 at home, 3 on the road.)

NL East
Same principles as the NL West.

NL Central
Of the 10 teams out of division they would be playing 5 of then 10 times and 5 of them 9 times.

Within the division they would play 2 of the teams 14 times and 3 of the teams 13 times.

AL East
Play 3 of the central teams 12 times.
Play 3 of the central teams 9 times.

Play 2 of the west teams 12 times.
Play 2 of the west teams 9 times

Play 2 teams in yoour division 18 times.
Play 2 teams in your division 15 times.

AL Central
see AL East

AL West
Playing 5 of the 10 out of division 12 times.
Playing 5 of the 10 out of division 9 times.

Play each team in your division 19 times.

I found a link to the study, which may require a BP account:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3689

If, on the other hand, you are going to keep the division format (which I don't see going away), then a non-balanced schedule, where you play your division more, is OK. It does make sense, though to have divisions with equal numbers of teams so it works out equally. I also wouldn't mind ending interleague play to keep the schedule fair and to heighten the anticipation of WS matchups.

After which paragraph did most people give up?

According to the RIOT numbers site, the Giants would not be guaranteed a playoff spot even if they won all of their remaining games. But the Rockies can.

*I've learned not to trust ESPN's park factor figures, so if someone can point to a better resource to refute that statement, I'll gladly take it back.

Advantages:
More balanced in lots of ways.

Disadvantages:
2 teams must be idle every day
Playing 5 games against another team means having either a 5-game series or a 2-game series.

West: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Giants, Mariners, A's, D-Backs

Midwest: Chicago, Chicago, Milwaukee, Colorado, Texas, Houston, St. Louis, KC

ESPN-land: Boston, New York, New York, Philly, Baltimore, Washington, Pittsburgh, Atlanta,

Fertile Crescent: Toronto, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Florida, Tampa Bay, Detroit, Minnesota

It's not perfect, but the idea is:

You want natural rivalries? They're all there, and the ones that have yet to take hold will have a chance to grow.

You want to minimize brutal travel schedules, especially in the era of $100/barrel oil? Keep 'em near home.

The national media can't stop contemplating their navals? Give 'em what they want.

The "interleague" play under this scenario could be purely balanced, or close to it, and wouldn't be affected by the rivalry mandate. If the 8-team leagues played each other 12 times, that would leave 68 games (if you stay with 162) to parcel out among the other 22 teams, roughly one three or four game series each, with home and away alternating each season. (The seven-team leagues might add a game within their division.) So a Dodger fan would see each of the other western teams at home for two series, and then would see each of the other teams in the majors at home at least once every two seasons.

We would develop our own media outlets out here. ESPN could broadcast all the Boston/NY games its little heart desires; we'd have WSPN to flog the Dodgers/Giants.

Oh yeah, and the DH? Gone. David Ortiz would have to pick up a glove if he wanted to hit home runs off Jered Weaver.

The owners would never go for it.

The Dodgers have turned into a feast or famine proposition in the second half, which started by losing 13 of 14, followed by winning 17 of 18. Martin is similarly streaky. His 0-for-3 Wednesday night left him 1-for-20 on the trip and in jeopardy of losing playing time to veteran Toby Hall.

Shut up. Please.

27. Pittsburgh is sorely out of place in ESPN land. It is really more of a midwestern city than an eastern one and it's natural rivals are the Ohio Cities, not any east coast cities. You could just slide them into the fertile crescent without disrupting the 7 or 8 team set-up. I also hate to see the Florida teams in a different division than Atlanta, but the lack of southern teams makes it hard to make a Southern Division.

That actually would be very similiar to the major leagues in existence when I was young. I doubt that the people who run the game would agree to such a proposal.

Stan from Tacoma

But that too will never happen.

21 vs division opponents (84 games)
6 vs out of division opponents (60 games)
18 interleague games (18 games)

There would constantly have to be at least one interleague game going on (and always an odd number). There would also still be 81 home games and 81 road games.

The opening day interleague series could be anything from the last year's world series teams to the worst records in each league.

you must have kind eyes.

Also... from Henson this morning... shouldn't Grady have talked to Jim Rooker before saying this?

"So maybe the necessary number is closer to the 82 victories the Padres logged to win the watered-down division last season.

'That means we'd go 16-19 the rest of the way,' Little said.

He laughed and said, 'I'd shoot myself if we do that.'"

I think you could make a fairly persuasive case for Washington and Baltimore to be part of a hypothetical Southern Division. Both of these cities hung on by their fingernails (or at gunpoint) as part of the Union in the Civil War, and I still have grand-aunts from Maryland who have a distinctly Southern attitude.

I mean, ¡Yo la tengo!

East Coast Division
New York
New York
Boston
Philadelphia
Washington

Great Lakes Division
Minnesota
Milwaukee
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Toronto

Midwest Division
Chicago
Chicago
St Louis
Cincinnati
Kansas City
Colorado

Western Division
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Oakland
San Francisco
Seattle
San Diego
Arizona

The main problem is there's one too few Northeast teams and one too many West Coast teams.

Also, the economic imbalances of the country would come into play too much. The Great Lakes division would usually be terrible and the East Coast division would usually be really good.

There just isn't a real good way to divide them up evenly given the teams currently in existence.

Of course, I would probably go further than that and argue that it makes no sense to realign the leagues.

The integrity of the traditional league format must be preserved. The long history and tradition of the major leagues is one of the things that makes baseball stand out from the other sports. It connects the history of the teams, some going back more than 100 years. Yes, it gets tweaked from time to time, but the basic format has always been there. I thought Bud Selig got over his NBA-envy phase and dispensed with the geographical realignment nonsense back in the mid-90s.

(BTW, www.thesaurus.com is a very useful website.)

True dat. However, I would argue that the traditional AL-NL format was eliminated long ago. No league presidents, no separate umpiring staffs, no red and green books, interleague play... the only thing distinguishing the two leagues anymore is the DH. Which is the sole argument for the DH's existence -- and a relatively weak one at that.

http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
# is 501880
password is nomar

And, back on topic, goooo Maddux! Fingers are crossed...

Also, I think it should be pointed out that any system will have its own defects and flaws. Furthermore, everyone and their brother will have different criteria for what makes for competitive balance and the like. For that reason, it may not be such a bad thing to stick with the status quo.

WWSH

I think it was George Will who said that age sanctifies regarding the DH, so I think any further attempts to do away with it are pretty quixotic in all due honesty. For that reason, I think that in fact makes it the last, and a very powerful, distinction between the AL and NL.

WWSH

Stan from Tacoma

I should rephrase that. I think the historical distinction between the NL and the AL are still very important--it's just that the DH is now the only tangible (and a very important) difference between the leagues.

WWSH

Arghhh... replace "are" with "is"

WWSH

Andrew has survivor's guilt.

Or Stockholm Syndrome.

Campbell

Um, everybody?

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. I'm not in favor of any sort of realignment scheme, but it would hardly make people care less about baseball.

Definitely survivor's guilt.

So, Bob, if my Grandmother's brother adopts a child, who grows up to have three sons, is there a different word for my relation to each of those sons? Why not?

Furcal
Lofton
Nomar
Drew
Kent
Ethier
Betemit
Martin
Maddux

With a possible TYFN #9 on Josh (I don't know if the sportscaster exception applies here).

Furcal
Lofton
Nomar
Drew
Kent
Ethier
Betemit
Martin
Maddux

This is the message I should have sent yesterday. Jon - I apologize for my over-the-top, and, yes, presumptuous comment yesterday after yet another of these provocations. Even though I'm just a fellow traveler here, I feel protective of DT, and of you, because you've expressed more than once how bad behavior on DT hurts you personally. I guess I just felt like it was worthwhile to play "bad cop" and stick up for you (especially since it was you who was attacked). I even took my time with that comment - to word it exactly as strongly as I meant it. But I should not have presumed. You know what you're doing.

And thanks Andrew, for showing me the path to humility, which is way better than self-imposed exile.

Stepchildren are a different matter.

That's standard practice in hotels now. I think the theory is that when you're in the lobby, you can't sit there forever, but in your room, you will be hanging out all day long.

Also, the hotels want to help out people coming in for meetings.

I need to stay in those hotels. At the Renaissance in Seattle, I got dinged $10 a day to use the internet in my room and it was free in the lobby.

That was the same setup as the Claremont in Berkeley.

I've got to find hotels in Japan when I'm there that have access, but I don't think any have free access except VERY expensive hotels.

http://tinyurl.com/jrhc8

Babe Ruth was put through a series of cognitive and reflex tests at age 26. GQ magazine commissioned Washington University to put Albert Pujols through a battery of similar tests at the same age. Like Ruth, Pujols rocked the tests, scoring literally off the charts on some tests.

So my question is, could this battery of tests be given to potential draft picks to evaluate innate ability/potential?

The Vegas hotels usually charge $10/day, and their business center prices are much, much worse.

With regards to American hotels, things like free wireless, free local calls, free breakfast, etc., are usually only associated with midrange places (around 100 bucks/night) like Hampton Inn, Holiday Inn Express, etc. Places like Motel 6 won't even have that sort of thing available, but the logic seems to be that if you're staying at somplace like a Hilton (200 bucks/night and up), you'll be willing (and able) to pay for something like wireless.

Bob needs to hang out with the hoi polloi more. =)

WWSH

I agree, but I'm also in the "borderline" afford it category.

Generally, I only stay in a "nice" hotel if I'm traveling on business, and am at least comped for part of the cost, or I'm really giving myself a treat (then, I frequently don't have a computer with me at all). Otherwise, I'm in a midrange place like a Hampton Inn, where the wireless is free. But if I had the scratch to be able to put down 250/night for a room easy, then I probably wouldn't care that much about another 10 bucks a night for wireless.

WWSH

Either the Hopi or the Navajo use DST. But not both.

The rooms are small, but not horribly small. Just somewhat small.

I once stayed in a big hotel with a big room in Yokohama. I forgot to book a hotel for this one day of my trip and had no place to stay. Turned out that this fancy hotel just wanted to dump a room so I got a $400 room for $100.

I have a bushel of left-over Seething Hatred of all things Notre Dame athletics I've been meaning to send back. Do you have room in your carry-on?

I can carry any seething hatred for Notre Dame in my carry-on as long as it's in solid form.

Wow.

http://firejoemorgan.blogspot.com/

I froze my collegiate butt off for five years in Berrien county. The area grew on me after a while.

Don't worry, the seething hatred has set nicely, and is quite solid enought to pass security.

Baez had that part surgically removed recently.

Actually, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out where I'm going in Michigan if you just used Google.