Baseball realignment is worth considering

Phil Cobb

I always think of myself as a baseball traditionalist.

For the most part, I like the pace of play — the four-pitch intentional walk, old fashioned plays at the plate and at second base, stolen bases — I long for the time before the check-swing homerun emerged as “a thing.”

Most old men like me like things the way they used to be.

I will say, though, I do appreciate instant replay, so long as the umpires in New York don’t measure whether a runner’s foot came off the bag by a micro-millimeter.

I’m even open to an electronic strike zone if such a thing can be perfected.

Side note: Have you ever noticed that the strike zone graphic they typically use on television broadcasts never changes in size based on the height of the batter at the plate?

But with the recent discussion concerning a potential realignment in major league baseball, I find myself intrigued.

In a nutshell, here’s the idea:

The American League and the National League would dissolve (this is the hardest part for me to swallow) in place of one 32-team league with four eight-team divisions.

I can only assume this would mean the adoption of traditional American League rules, i.e., the designated hitter.

Not sure what they would do about the All-Star Game.

The divisions would be East, North, Midwest and West.

My beloved Kansas City Royals would be among the Midwest teams along with the St. Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Milwaukee Brewers, Houston Astros, Texas Rangers, and Colorado Rockies.

This would greatly cut down on travel and make it more of a reality for fans to travel to road games.

But I think what I like most is just being in a division with those teams.

Can you imagine the rivalries that would strengthen and develop?

I believe this would keep fans more interested throughout the six-month season.

This would also mean a slightly shortened schedule of 156 games instead of the current 162-game schedule, allowing each team one off day each week.

Teams would play each team in their division 12 times and each team outside of their division one three-game series. That means your team would play every team in baseball, every year.

The postseason would change dramatically, as well.

Obviously, there would be four division winners.

The next two-best teams in each division, based on record, would then be pitted in four “Wild Card-style” elimination games to determine who plays in the Division Series.

That means 12 teams out of 32 instead of 10 out of 30 currently.

The winners of those games would then play against the division winners to determine who would go to a four-team Championship Series, which would determine the World Series contenders.

A 32-team league would obviously indicate the addition of two more teams.

Those would most likely be placed in Montreal, which was home to the Expos until they moved to be the Washington Nationals beginning with the 2005 season, and Portland, which was most recently home to the Hillsboro Hops, and before that the Portland Beavers.

The remaining three divisions would be as follows:

West: Anaheim, Arizona, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle

North: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Montreal, both New York teams, and Toronto

East: Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, and Washington

I’m seeing a lot more positives than negatives to this plan. I can only imagine this would lead to better and more equitable television agreements and revenue sharing to further level the playing field between teams with payrolls like the Cubs, $164M and teams with payrolls like the Brewers, $51M.

The biggest attraction for me?

Twelve games a year against the St. Louis Cardinals.

And I’m guessing the opening weekend series would always be against the closest division rival.

Sign me up.

Phil Cobb is the owner and publisher of the Maryville Daily Forum and The Post.