How Realignment Could Improve the All-Star Game

During FanGraphs’ editorial weekend in Denver last month, this correspondent excused himself to spend some time in the Rockies clubhouse and Coors Field press box. There I found MLB.com Rockies beat writer Thomas Harding realigning baseball in his reporter’s notebook.

This contributor finds playing expansion czar to be an interesting thought exercise. Soon that afternoon, some Mets beats writers also joined the discussion, sharing their thoughts. Anytime there is a realignment-based post on this Web site or elsewhere, it tends to generate interest. Many of us like to play commissioner.

We’re almost certainly headed toward a future of 32 teams. MLB is in its longest expansion drought in the modern era. Rob Manfred has expressed a desire to expand — and preferably to add at least one international location. One of the major benefits Manfred has cited in the move to 32 teams is the ease of scheduling it would create. Namely, the game would not have to schedule a constant, rotating interleague series.

In fact, it would allow MLB to dramatically reduce the need for interleague play altogether.

This author is a realignment extremist, in favor of geographically based divisions that would not only stoke regional rivalries but reduce the need for interleague play. I was invited on Vince Gennaro’s radio show on Saturday, and he noted how regionally oriented baseball interest is compared to the NFL, born on national TV. Imagine, in this spirit, the introduction of a Rust Belt division (Indians-Reds-Pirates-Tigers) the meaningful rivalries it would cultivate. I proposed the idea to Reds reliever Jared Hughes last week and he discovered another virtue in it — namely, the possible reduction of travel. One of players’ greatest concerns in forthcoming realignment is what it means for air miles logged.

Interleague play has produced benefits, monetary and otherwise, but perhaps in its current form the returns are now diminishing.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

There are a number of reasons to argue against interleague, one of which is competitive fairness. In an era of multi Wild Cards and potentially even more Wild Cards in a 32-team future, teams ought to be playing more balanced schedules, more games against league foes. More intraleague action, more Brewers-Diamondbacks, more Dodgers-Brewers, more Phillies-Dodgers games would be good theatre this season. Moreover, in an age when every game is televised and every highlight is immediately accessible via social media and elsewhere, there’s little in the way of mystery.

Mystery can be valuable, though, and a quality from which the sport could benefit — which brings us to tonight’s event. The All-Star Game is important, if not to the standings, at least as far as television ratings and ad dollars are concerned. It was the game’s second-most watched event after the World Series last year. It is typically one of the most watched baseball games on the calendar, but its ratings have greatly diminished for a variety of factors. In a sampling of public opinion during Monday’s chat, however, the FanGraphs audience seems less and less interested in the game.

Many have suggested fixes for the game to heighten interest: a U.S.-vs.-World format, player-drafted teams (they select the majority of roster spots in the current format), and so. What the game could really benefit from is novelty, though — what it once possessed when it was drawing more than 30 million viewers.

Irregardless of your opinion of the band Coldplay, they’ve sold a lot of records, and one of their secrets — one of their rules — is to “always keep mystery.”

Mystery is, in part, what made Shohei Ohtani such a fascination. This generation of fans hadn’t seen this sort of dual-talent before; it had not existed in 100 years.

Mystery is, in part, also why we love prospects. What makes the Futures Game a great event is that it’s often our first look at top prospects in live action on television. (Modest suggestion: the Futures Game should perhaps be moved to a primetime slot, where it wouldn’t be lost on the Sunday regular-season sporting calendar.)

We live in an era when players — in part because of free agency, but also because of interleague — have often faced each other on prior occasions. There is a reasonable chance that this year’s World Series participants will have met in the regular season. We can measure the relative strength of each league via interleague play. Jeff looked at the NL’s domination of the AL this offseason.

To be different is one way to be interesting. Part of what set baseball apart from its North American professional sporting peers for so long is that its leagues did not intermingle. By reducing interleague play to just meaningful rivalries, or by just eliminating it altogether, there would be more intrigue, more of the unknown in one of the sport’s most-watched events.

With a camera on everything, with Statcast measuring everything, there are few secrets left. Baseball and its jewel events could use some more mystery.





A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.

43 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
stever20Member since 2017
8 years ago

So interleague play only be the rivalries? No thank you. if you are an NL team- never seeing a guy like a Mike Trout? Sorry, but that’s a joke.

Thomas
8 years ago
Reply to  stever20

It was that way for most of the history of Major League baseball, no joke.

stever20Member since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  Thomas

true, but that changed 25 years ago just about now. I have a really tough time seeing NL owners agreeing to never getting the Yankees at home, when they’ve been getting them every 6 years at home.

stever20Member since 2017
8 years ago

Would say for the sampling during the chat- that’s hard core baseball fans. They’re not going to be all that likely to enjoy the all star game no matter the format. I think the All Star game is a lot more with the casual fans than your hard core fans.

stever20Member since 2017
8 years ago

As far as the Futures game- move it to the Sunday night(now that there’s no Sunday night game All Star Week). Then Monday is HR Derby, and Tuesday is the game. That’s an easy fix.

tb.25
8 years ago
Reply to  stever20

Few fans who watch their teams that day will want to continue to watch the Futures game that evening. Wednesday is a perfect slot.

stever20Member since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  tb.25

I think though for attention, it being on that Sunday night would be the prime slot. The All Star game itself should be the final event of the weekend. And they aren’t going to move that to Wednesday as with the new CBA, they had to move the Sunday night game to Thursday Night.

Magician_531
8 years ago
Reply to  stever20

No one other than sports writers watch the futures game anyway

pedeysRSox
8 years ago
Reply to  Magician_531

Many people would, given more publicity

rhdx
8 years ago

I would be fine with eliminating inter-league play. But, I don’t want 32 teams and even more diluted talent. Really, 24 teams would be fantastic. You could drop all the garbage 5th starters and get rid of teams that nobody is willing to watch with owners who are not willing to spend. None of that makes the game more entertaining. And now that every game is televised you don’t need a local team to follow baseball and enjoy the sport. I know this will never happen but a guy can dream. Really every sport would be SO much better to watch if somewhere between 6-10 teams were dropped. There would be enough talent that even the last place teams would have several really good players worth watching and getting excited over. Nearly every team would go into the offseason thinking it is only a move or two away from the playoffs.

shortstop
8 years ago
Reply to  rhdx

Your implication that there are currently between 150 to 250 MLB players who don’t belong on any roster is laughable at best… Not to mention, there will always be a bottom. Cut the league to 24 teams, and you will still have the same problem of certain teams not spending/competing.

Turd Furgeson
8 years ago
Reply to  rhdx

I’m cool with less teams. Hockey should really be doing contraction. Put the rat on the table.

padsfan96Member since 2024
8 years ago
Reply to  Turd Furgeson

I don’t think league contraction is something that’s feasible in ANY of the major sports. You think the owners of those teams getting eliminated are just going to accept their Billion$+ asset being dissolved with nothing in return? You’d have to essentially buy them all out, which would be one hell of a price tag. These sports leagues are all in the business of making money, not losing it, and more teams means more money.

radiohead
8 years ago

Coldplay? Lol

Psychic... Powerless...
8 years ago
Reply to  radiohead

Coldplay is to mystery what Sherlock Holmes is to music.

KevinMember since 2017
8 years ago

Man the editing is starting to decline a bit on this site. The random to start a paragraph, the use of the non-word “irregardless” (debatable I know, but why not just use the actual word, “regardless”?).

Another article this morning had the word “soter” instead of “roster.”

Let me know if you guys are looking to hire an additional copy editor 🙂

londonstatto
8 years ago
Reply to  Travis Sawchik

“if you use “irregardless,” people will think you’re uneducated.”

tunglashrMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Travis Sawchik

Except that the publication that the author of that piece works for does not recognize the definition put forth in the link.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

It is listed as non-standard, which basically means “bad English”. It is regardless for the uneducated.

The guy above is totally right, and not just about this word. How many times do you need to say “this author”? Which author is that? Where are you pointing? How about you just say “I”?

bunslow
8 years ago
Reply to  Travis Sawchik

Even aside from the uneducated thing, which IMO isn’t a very good argument (social status dictating/”prescribing” language usage is always dumb), there’s the simple fact that *all* varieties of English use several kinds of suffixes and prefixes as abstraction markers, such as “-less” to mean the opposite of “-ful”, and “ir-” to show opposition of meaning.

Using *both* affixes at the same time to indicate the same sort of abstraction — “lacking regard for” — is totally redundant and totally different from *all* other uses of such abstraction markers in the language (aside from that cursed word “inflammable”, but that’s also been a “special” case, and not in the good way). And sure, English has lots of “rules” that really aren’t, but abstraction affixes are some of the most regularly used morphemes in this godforsaken language, and making their use more confusing than they currently are is the last thing this language needs.

For this reason alone, “irregardless” is indicative of a total lack of style and lack of understanding of typical English morphology (which is why this issue is typically cast as educated vs uneducated, but one need not have a formal academic education to have grasped the patterns in words in one’s native language). “Irregardful” would be a better word to make up, imo, even though its component “regardful” is itself made up — at least that made up word has a somewhat predictable meaning with its standard usage of an affix, to which the secondary affix “ir” also has a predictable meaning. On the other hand, “irregardless” engenders confusion on a basic morphological level, even if we’ve all internalized it as meaning the opposite of what it otherwise seems to. And perhaps its most damning condemnation is that “regardless” *already meant the exact same thing*, so why are we introducing an second word for the exact same concept?

Planet DustMember since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  Kevin

Is your second sentence missing a word after “random”?

RWinUT
8 years ago
Reply to  Planet Dust

Yeah, kinda rough to show a flaw while complaining about someone else’s flaw.

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
8 years ago

Re: Competitive fairness and the balanced schedule…

Isolating teams from playing one another is the opposite of that. If AL teams play only other AL teams, for example, then in years when there is more talent in the AL makes it hard (relatively) for AL wildcard contenders than it does for NL wild card contenders.

Now, I’m not particularly worried about this thing. But if you’re on the balanced schedule train then you want MORE cross-scheduling, not less.

“But the leagues!” you say. Sure, I reply, but there’s nothing particularly sacrosanct about them. It’s still just baseball. We have wildcards to handle the cases when a single division has two powerful teams but only one can win. Leagues are just a different level of arbitrary organization. No reason not to handle the case when one league has more powerful teams.

kula
8 years ago

I just hate that the braves practically only play against Al east teams every year.

stever20Member since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  kula

So I guess last year 4 vs Houston, 3 vs Angels, 3 vs Oakland, 3 vs Texas, and 3 vs Seattle never happened? Yes they did get 4 vs Toronto. But that was it.

shortstop
8 years ago

Abolishing the AL and NL in favor of purely geographic divisions sounds like change for the sake of change. There’d be nothing wrong with keeping the AL and NL and splitting into 4×4 team divisions per league, with the divisions sorted geographically within the league (as they are now).

stever20Member since 2017
8 years ago
Reply to  shortstop

I think the other thing going to 32 does is allow interleague to go back to maybe only 16 games (in years where not east/east central/central etc 4 games vs interleague rival, 3 games vs team in other division, or in years where it’s east/east 4 games vs interleague rival(2 in each park)).

The other thing it does is allows there to be just an interleague block and not interleague play all the time. I think that is something that would improve things quite a bit.

shortstop
8 years ago
Reply to  stever20

Agreed, I miss the days when Interleague Play was special, only taking a few weeks in May/June.

Free Clay Zavada
8 years ago

I just don’t really see any benefit to keeping the leagues fully separate. Perhaps there’s some novelty to the two world series teams not having played at all that year, but not worth the sea change which would be necessary.

NicklePickersMember since 2016
8 years ago

I agree that mystery has always been a big appeal of the all star game. A first chance to see all these greats I only knew from baseball cards and box scores. Which is also why I think it’s important to remember that the all star game more than any other on the baseball calendar is for kids, who are still discovering the game and its players, even if it no longer resonates with the fg community.

mprice11390
8 years ago

As someone who lives in the midwest, this makes a lot of sense

mike sixelMember since 2016
8 years ago

Strongly disagree. If you live in an AL city, you would never have seen Bonds play in person….sounds fun! If you live in an NL city, you don’t get to see Trout? How is that good for the game at all?

oozyalbies1
8 years ago

If there’s a viable city that could support a baseball franchise that doesn’t already have one, they should really move the Rays there before adding a new team (or teams).

Otherwise I’m with this. I personally like the distinction between the leagues, both in rules and competitive balance, and agree that reducing or eliminating interleague play would give the AS game more appeal (albeit not that much more).

Frankly I don’t think it makes much sense for teams to play such a high percentage of games against teams that they aren’t directly competing with for postseason berths. They should have an opportunity to play their direct competition as much as possible. I understand that this still exists in divisional play, but given the addition of a second wild card, there should be more of an emphasis put on inter-divisional play.

oozyalbies1
8 years ago
Reply to  oozyalbies1

But mostly just move the Rays out of Tampa Bay and that God awful stadium before expansion.

Llewdor
8 years ago

“Irregardless”? Really? Where is your editor?

Johnnie TMember since 2024
8 years ago

A big problem with going to 32 teams is that there is no big unserved market out there now. No Washingtons or Denvers. The candidate metros in the US (like Portland or Charlotte) are approximately the size of Pittsburgh, and the foreign spots (Mexico, Montreal) are a bit iffy for cultural, economic, or geographic — altitude and snow — reasons. They would only be adding two small market franchises, which baseball doesn’t need more of.

Thomas
8 years ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

San Antonio was 7th largest city in 2010 census.

Magician_531
8 years ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

What about a place like San Juan?

Simmons2020
8 years ago

Why reduce interleague play? It’s fun to watch your team play teams they rarely see

Thomas
8 years ago

There are 8 teams in the Pacific and Mountain time zones that could make up one 8 team league (SEA, OAK, SF, COL, ARI, SD, LAD, and LAA). The others would depend somewhat on who the two new teams were, but if one were San Antonio then SAT, HOU, TEX, KC, STL, ATL, TB, and MIA could make up another. The other two leagues would come from the other 15 plus 1 new one.

Turd Furgeson
8 years ago

Realignment would certainly be more fair for most west coast teams in terms of travel miles. I don’t really care about interleague it’d be fine to limit it to your geographic rival. My idea for realignment however would be to keep the NL/AL split as is, but realign divisions to include teams by geographic proximity. You could include 4 from each league in a division with 32teams , the home park would dictate the rules & you’d get better travel schedule for all while keeping interleague in division. teams would still play in their respective league on road.

DiscoJer
8 years ago

As it is, you rarely see teams from the other league. Maybe an extreme example, but the Angels signed Pujols in 2012, yet it’s not until next year the Angels will visit St. Louis, 7 years later.

CubsMLOrNah
8 years ago

I would be okay with no interleague play but only if a mix of AL and NL teams are in one particular area. For example, if I live in the midwest and want to see an AL game I can go to Kansas City or Minnesota to see my favorite AL players but if I want to see NL I can head to Chicago or Milwaukee.

If they split up into regional divisions and eliminated interleague play I may never get a chance to see players like Mike Trout (whom I got to see in Kansas City this year).