We talked about Manfred’s expansion floating last week, and lots of pundits out there are doing the same thought exercises related to where two new teams might pop up (Salt Lake City and Nashville … or maybe Portland and Charlotte), and then how we’d realign to go to an NFL-style 8 division format.
However, I got fed a little interview with John Smoltz, hall of fame Braves pitcher and now excellent broadcaster, and he had some awesome ideas.
Here’s his proposal:
Fewer Divisions, not More.
Don’t go 8 divisions of 4 teams each … go 4 divisions of 8 teams each. Then, keep the divisional focus in scheduling and make the adjustments so you’re more geographically sound. So, borrowing from my previous post, we could combine some of my proposed divisions to look something like this
- AL East/Southeast: Boston, Toronto, New York, Baltimore plus Kansas City, Colorado, Houston, Texas
- AL Central/West: Minnesota, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and Seattle, Salt Lake City, LA, Oakland/Las Vegas
- NL East/Southeast: Philly, Pittsburgh, New York, Washington and Miami, Tampa, Nashville, Atlanta
- NL Central/West: Milwaukee, Chicago, Cincinnati, St. Louis and LA, Arizona, San Diego, San Francisco
Honestly, i’d just abandon the geographical terms and go with some NHL-style division names. I’d probably pick four historical names for the divisions with ties to one of the teams in that division.
- the AL Ruth Division for the AL East
- the AL Cobb Division for the Central/West
- the NL Aaron Division for the NL East division
- the NL Mays Division for the NL Central/West
Each team in these divisions play each other in 3 home/away series (that makes for 18 games * 7 opponents = 126 games), then you get one 3-game set against each team in opposite AL division alternating home/away year by year (8*3 = 24 games), then that leaves 12 games/4 series that can either go against your designated NL rival or maybe like the NFL you rotate around chunks of the opposite league and play exactly 4 of them each year on a rotating basis. Something like this.
However, this isn’t the awesome part.
Declare First Half and Second half winners!
Brilliant. Winners of both halves get byes in the October playoffs, then are joined with Wild Cards determined somehow (that’s the hard part).
The real brilliance is this: by having a first half and a second half, you get stuff we don’t have now:
- A playoff race from Mid June to Mid July that we don’t have now with real implications.
- Another playoff race at the end of the year which we have now. We have a playoff race now of course in September, but this one won’t have the same feel since the first half winners won’t be part of it necessarily.
- Teams that finished dead last in the first half don’t have to “give up” at the trade deadline and can regroup. This is his big reason: he’s tired of seeing teams give up in July.
- If a team wins both halves, they get a playoff bye or some other incentive.
- Wild Cards can be given based on several factors; 2nd place teams in the races, or if a team manages to have the best overall record but doesn’t win either half they are guaranteed a playoff spot as well.
Let’s assume that we want the same number of playoff teams that the 32-team expansion/NFL style schedule dictates; that being 6 teams. Here’s how this could look:
- AL East 1st Half Winner
- AL East 2nd Half Winner
- AL West 1st Half Winner
- AL West 2nd Half Winner
- Two AL Wild Cards: the two teams with the best full season records, or perhaps the two teams with the best individual half records.
Playoffs could go like this
- Two best half records get byes. If they’re the same team, go to next best team.
- If same team wins both halves, you’d go with 2nd best team.
- Wild cards play into the two lowest ranked half winning teams.
It would take some noodling to figure out the wildcards honestly. Maybe you just go 1st half winner versus 2nd half winner and eliminate wildcards … though this is a revenue non-starter since playoffs generate so much cash for the owners.
Some thoughts.
what do you th ink? Do you like half winners?
I think it checks a lot of boxes. First-half and second-half winners feels like a bush-league stunt to me, but so does the DH, so okay.
I might have some quibbles about the locations of which cities go into which divisions, but that’s minor.
I really think 4-team divisions are a terrible idea. It’s easy enough to determine the best of the 4 teams in each division, but very hard to compare, say, the NL west’s top team with the AL central’s top team. With 4 divisions, you get a better idea of the relative strength of each division, and a better idea of the relative strength of each team.
Kevin R
24 Aug 25 at 11:58 am
I can think of one perverse incentive from this. A team that wins the first half of its division will want to trade at least two of its 3-4-5 starting pitchers for kids or to patch weak spots. IOW, it will want to weaken itself as a regular-season team, the better to retool for the playoffs, where the 4/5 pitchers are long relievers or spot starters.
However, 8-team divisions are much better than 4-team divisions. It reminds me of baseball the way God intended before the 1961 expansion.
Ebenezer Scrooge
24 Aug 25 at 1:31 pm
4-team divisions are too small, I agree. Especially when you can stack a division with teams with different spending patterns. Imagine an NL east division with Mets, Phillies, Washington … and Pittsburgh. Would Pittsburgh ever make the playoffs again? Would a DC team under Lerner’s penny pinching ways? In that respect, I like the 8-team divisions, roughly geographically aligned, which won’t be too hard to do.
1st half/2nd half winners is a gimmick. But damn it sounds cool.
Do I think a 1st half winner would tank the second half, knowing they’re in? Great question.
Todd Boss
24 Aug 25 at 4:16 pm
The NFL actually has 7 playoff teams per conference now, with only 1 bye. It’s convenient with 3 other division winners to host the wild cards, but I agree that 8 divisions in baseball is not ideal.
If geography is the priority and scraping the AL/NL is on the table you could have this alignment:
East – BOS NYY NYM TOR PHI PIT CLE CIN
North – DET MIL MIN CHC CWS KC STL COL
South – BAL WAS ATL TB MIA HOU TEX Nashville/Charlotte
West – SEA SF LV LAD LAA SD ARI Portland/Salt Lake City
Pretty tidy. Maintains most of the longest rivalries and should be fairly balanced with spending teams.
MG
25 Aug 25 at 8:56 am
I just can’t see scrapping the AL and NL, nor can I see them putting both NY and both LA teams in the same divisions. Maybe its easier with an 8 team division, but baseball can’t just throw away 150 years of history to save a few dollars on travel.
Can they?
Todd Boss
25 Aug 25 at 10:30 am
Todd, what does tradition matter when you’re entertaining outrageously untraditional things like playoff spots for half-season performance?
I’m of the opinion that we shouldn’t be changing the rules of baseball, i.e. the DH, extra innings, re-alignment, play off qualification, etc. But I am on board with changes to making the current rules better or easier to implement, i.e. replays/challenges, robot umpires, even pace of play. But that’s my opinion.
However, now that there is no difference between the AL and NL, and historically teams have bounced between leagues, what’s stopping Manfred from further blowing stuff up, and getting rid of two leagues? It’s an idiosyncrasy at this point.
Still, I don’t see the problem realignment is trying to solve (the cost savings of chartering a private jet from Washington to Los Angeles rather than to Chicago a couple fewer times isn’t justification enough for this), and the divisions it would create between owners would be far more harmful than sowing unity between them in the build up to the next CBA. I still think it’s a misdirection from the bigger issue of revenue sharing. But maybe if owners are hellbent on a lockout, they see this as the opportunity to push through a big package of reforms at the same time?
Will
25 Aug 25 at 11:07 am
A Cobb division ain’t gonna fly. Maybe Ted Williams or Frank Robinson.
If you go with four divisions of eight teams, I would echo what MG says and make them truly regional. NL/AL has very little meaning anymore with the universal DH. I wasn’t for that, but that ship seems to have sailed.
The concept of first half and second half winners brings to mind an intriguing thought about the beginning of the end of the Nat decade of excellence: what if the Nats, under that scenario, could have won the first half in 2021, then gotten Schwarber healthy for the playoffs? As of games #78 and 79, the Nats were only 2.5 games back, which seems amazing for a team that utterly fell apart (plus trades) and finished 65-97. But say the Nats make the playoffs for the first half even with second-half struggles. Obviously they wouldn’t have traded Max, Trea, and Schwarber. Perhaps they pony up to keep them all for 2022.
BTW, Smoltz was involved in one of the greatest pennant races in 1993 when the Braves won 104 and the Giants won 103 but had no postseason. It was the last year before the start of the wild card.
KW
25 Aug 25 at 5:37 pm
FOX Sports had the Nats in a 4 team division with Balt, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. That would put the Nats in with lower revenue teams, and fully ignite a Balt/Wash rivalry.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DNjez2aySE7/?img_index=1
Steve M.
26 Aug 25 at 7:49 am
@SteveM: i’ve seen alignment scenarios like this, and there’s just NO WAY MLB puts both NY teams, a Boston team, and Philadelphia into one division. Just no way. That’s basically a division with 4 of the top 6-7 payroll teams year after year, representing 3 of the biggest markets we have. The owners of these franchises would lead a boardroom revolt. Likewise, a division with Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, and an expansion team basically gives Atlanta 20 straight division titles, again something the rest of the owners won’t stand for.
It’s one of the biggest problems with the “NFC East” in Football: you have DC, Philly, Dallas, and NY in one division; that’s the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 7th largest markets. now, NFL can put a team in Podunk, Iowa and they’re competitive thanks to revenue sharing, but it still means one of these big teams is shut out of the playoff hunt every year.
Todd Boss
26 Aug 25 at 12:30 pm
@will: Yes this whole discussion is about “tradition” versus “progress” right? I heard a pundit say it best: Baseball is a slave to its history sometimes, and the kind of radical geographic realignment they’re talking about now probably should have happeend at the last expansion, or the introduction of divisions. I’m honestly not sure how i’d maintain tradition but be progressive either.
Todd Boss
26 Aug 25 at 12:32 pm
The Athletic today has a story with “progress reports” from 6 cities who are actively seeking an expansion team.
– East: Nashville, Raleigh, Orlando
– West: Salt Lake, Portland, Austin
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6577020/2025/08/27/mlb-expansion-cities-salt-lake-city-nashville-raleigh-portland/
A few nuggets in there that I found notable:
– Nashville seems like a leader from a city perspective but doesn’t really have a stadium plan or an owner
– Orlando has both, but people are wary of another floundering attendance team in Florida … though this is mitigated by the fact that the Rays are for sale and may leave the state. This is a wrinkle i hadn’t really thought about, so technically there could be more teams in teh “expansion” mix if the Rays leave town. Imagine a new team in Nashville/Orlando and then Rays moving to Raleigh or something.
– Raleigh: Tom Dundon leads the initiative, which should be notable b/c the guy is a sports juggernaut.
– Austin would be well funded, and the POCs note that Austin and San Antonio together are a bigger market than the entire STATE of Utah.
– Oregon already has a site purchased and $800m in public financing … which people should take note of. however …
– Salt Lake City is the most “turnkey” of anyone; has an owner, a site, AND public financing dedicated already.
Todd Boss
27 Aug 25 at 8:28 am
Where is Charlotte in all of this? It would seem to make more sense market-wise than the Research Triangle does.
Earlier articles that I’ve seen were making Nashville and Salt Lake City to be the favorites. With Nashville’s lag in actual prep, it would seem that MLB really wants Music City if it’s giving it that much of a pass in the process thus far.
And why don’t the Rays just move to Orlando? Presumably they already have an established fan base there.
KW
27 Aug 25 at 4:55 pm
I dunno; apparently Raleigh-Durham is “ahead” of Charlotte. I dunno why, especially since its Dundon involved and he’s got Charlotte connections (he owns the NHL team there, but lives in Dallas).
Everywhere i’m reading is Nashville and Salt Lake as well as leaders in the clubhouse. SLC group not only already has bought the land, they’re going to break ground on the complex with or without the ballpark. So that seems to be the slam dunk. Maybe Rays move to Orlando, maybe elsewhere. I struggle to believe a team works in Orlando, or anywhere in Florida.
Todd Boss
27 Aug 25 at 5:24 pm
The NHLs Canes are in Raleigh, not Charlotte. One angle that I’d be curious to understand better in expansion discussions is the impact on the minor league teams in those markets. I believe Nashville, Charlotte and Durham are all AAA locations right? Could those teams maintain viability with a new Majors team? Would their parent affiliate be able to muster opposition against that location? (Probably not with a $2-3B expansion fee!)
MG
27 Aug 25 at 7:19 pm
Crap, I conflated the NHL and the NFL teams. I always get those wrong.
Todd Boss
28 Aug 25 at 12:59 pm
@MG: what happens to a AAA team in a city that gets a new MLB team? Well, it depends. Last time this happened (expansion into Phoenix and Denver) those two cities’ AAA teams moved (Denver->New Orleans, and Phoenix->Tucson) and remained AAA affiliates.
I’ve got a draft post talking about what may happen if we get expansion, and it focuses on having existing lower-level teams “graduate” upwards. For example, Richmond has a AA team now but once was AAA; it’d make sense for them to go back to AAA if a need arose. Or, there could be an opportunity for an existing AAA team (if it was Nashville or Salt Lake for sake of argument) to move somewhere that “needs” a team. It’d take a bit of spreasheet but there’s definitely some markets in the US that fall just underneath the MLB size.
Todd Boss
28 Aug 25 at 1:11 pm
Todd, you don’t even need to look that far back. Sacramento kept their AAA team in addition to their MLB team 😉 (What an utter mess. I can’t believe the other MLB owners/Manfred let that happen)
Will
28 Aug 25 at 2:24 pm
I just did 10 minutes of building the Baseball Pyramid of cities compared to MSAs, running through AAA and AA. The biggest cities that don’t currently have either a AAA or AA team are:
– Riverside (yes I know its tecnically in the LA market, but it’s its own MSA)
– Orlando, which is actually bigger than Charlotte and Sacramento and several MLB teams
– San Jose, which of course has a High-A team and is “locked” by the SF territorial rights, but really deserves its own bigger team
– Providence, RI, who used to have the Redsox AAA affiliate before they moved.
– Raleigh/Cary, which is dis
– New Orleans, who lost their team to Wichita
– then some lesser cities like Grand Rapids, Tucson, Fresno, etc who may have lower level teams.
So, what’s interesting here is, if a place like Orlando or Raleigh doesn’t get a MLB team, would they take a displaced AAA team? Or, would it make more sense to put a displaced AAA team into a place like San Jose, a market with a current smaller affiliate? Or, would it make sense to take one of the larger AA markets (top 3 in order San Antonio, Richmond, Hartford, Birmingham, and Tulsa) and make them AAA teams?
None of this takes into account logistics, geographic lockouts, affiliations, or Minor league team ownership, all of which can be blockers.
Todd Boss
28 Aug 25 at 2:27 pm
@will: i don’t understand; “Sacramento kept their AAA team in addition to their MLB team?” Sacramento doesn’t have a MLB team. Are you talking about another team?
Todd Boss
29 Aug 25 at 11:10 am