Coonelly: Phillies, Mets Should Play More in Pittsburgh
The Post-Gazette, quoting Frank Coonelly:
Coonelly's first modification would be to get the Philadelphia Phillies and New York Mets to Pittsburgh more often, even if it means moving to the East Division.
"Our challenge, particularly in the NL Central, is that the combination of interleague play and the unbalanced schedule means that we only see rivals like the Phillies and the Mets one time a year in Pittsburgh," he said. "We need to have these rivals in Pittsburgh more often. That can be accomplished through realignment or a more balanced schedule."
His other modification, as he has stated often, would be to have Cleveland become a natural interleague rival. The Indians visit this year, June 23-25, but only because the divisions lined up...
I don't live in Pittsburgh and thus am not the best judge of what the fans would want. That said: the idea that the Pirates are "rivals" with the Phillies or Mets reminds me of when I went to William & Mary, which is a good public university in Virginia. It's similar in quality to the University of Virginia but far smaller, and my freshman hall echoed with tales of how so-and-so got a scholarship to UVA, or how so-and-so didn't get into UVA. People talked about UVA all the time. I highly doubt my brother, who went to UVA, ever heard anything about William & Mary on his freshman hall. Do you think Phillies fans or Mets fans are clamoring to play more games against the Pirates?
From a baseball point of view, realignment is an awful idea for the Bucs. The one nice thing about being a small-payroll team from the middle of the country in the current alignment is that you get to play other small-payroll teams from the middle of the country, like the Reds and Brewers. I've written about this before: generally speaking, it takes more wins to reach the playoffs if you play in the East. Also, the top team payrolls are higher in the East--the Mets, Phillies and Braves have the 3rd, 7th and 11th-highest payrolls, respectively, whereas the Cubs, Astros and Cardinals are 3rd, 8th and 13th.
It's true that the East also has two teams with extremely low payrolls. But the Marlins have a clear strategy of barely scraping by for a few years, and then jacking up payroll and going for the gold. And while the Nationals are in terrible shape now, they're in a good market and are still cleaning up messes that were made when they were still called the Expos. It's hard to say what they'll be like in five or ten years.
In the Pirates moved to the East today, they probably wouldn't take much of a hit in wins and losses this year. In fact, Central teams are eight games above .500 against the East this year and were 15 games above .500 last year. Still, the Pirates would have a tougher time squeezing into the playoffs because they'd have to beat out either the Mets or Phillies just to have a shot at the Wild Card. Obviously that's true in the Central as well, but the sort of season the Cardinals had in 2006, in which they won 83 games and the Central division and then the World Series, would be just about impossible if the Pirates played in the East. In the Central it's possible, because they're only one big-payroll team that takes itself seriously.
And if the Marlins become competitive again and the Nationals put themselves back together, the Pirates wouldn't just be reducing their chances of making the playoffs. It would be like turning up the setting on a treadmill--they'd have to run faster just to keep going nowhere.
Also, I said this last time this came up, but it's worth saying again. Pittsburgh is just not an East Coast city. In an earlier article on this same subject, the Post-Gazette ludicrously argued that "Culturally, Pittsburgh belongs to the Midwest as much as it belongs to Malawi." Pittsburgh is a rust-belt city, much like nearby Cleveland. This is one reason I agree with Coonelly that it would be nice if the Pirates were interleague rivals with the Indians. Is anyone clamoring for the Indians to be moved to the A.L. East? Culturally, Pittsburgh doesn't have a whole lot in common with, say, Houston, but it's much more similar to cities like Chicago, Milwaukee and Cincinnati than it is to New York, Miami or Atlanta. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of taste. (Personally, I have to go to New York a lot for my career, and it makes me feel like I'm about to break out in hives; I like Pittsburgh much better.) But I don't even see how it's debatable.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Out of my own selfishness
Since I am moving to Philly, I would love to see the Bucs play the Phils more. Just so I get to see them more
Moving to Philly?
I’m sorry to hear that. :-(
I agree a little bit.
I mean, I’d like to see more games against the Mets and Phillies.
Maybe just schedule some extra series against the Mets and Phills and fewer interleague games…
Charlie,
Living in Philly for most of the last 20 years, I always wanted to see the Phils and Pirates play more often, but a couple points you made don’t make a lot of sense to me.
The difference between the 3rd, 7th, and 11th vs the 3rd, 8th, and 13th payrolls is negligible at best.
Also, your point about “they’d have to beat out either the Mets or Phillies just to have a shot at the Wild Card.”….well, that’s true today, right?
That said, I agree with the point of the post and would love to see the schedule more balanced. Personally, I think it’s unfair that the teams in the Central have to beat out 5 other teams while the teams in the AL West only have to beat out 3 other teams. Obviously, it hasn’t come into play for the Pirates in a long time, but if I were the Brewers, Cards, or Cubs, I wouldn’t be thrilled with the current divisional alignment.
The difference between the 3rd, 7th, and 11th vs the 3rd, 8th, and 13th payrolls is negligible at best.
It’s less so when you consider that Drayton McLane, who has the 8th-highest payroll, is a pretty problematic owner.
Also, your point about "they’d have to beat out either the Mets or Phillies just to have a shot at the Wild Card."….well, that’s true today, right?
Yes, but my point was that they could have a 2006-Cardinals type season in the Central, but I think that’s much less likely in the East. That wasn’t very clear.
I agree that the six-team thing stinks. Moving the Pirates to the East does nothing to fix it, though.
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 25, 2009 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions
My bitch for years
“Personally, I think it’s unfair that the teams in the Central have to beat out 5 other teams while the teams in the AL West only have to beat out 3 other teams.”
-
All teams being equal, the Pirates would win the division 16.7 times in a 100-year span; the Rangers etc. would win the division 25 times. How baseball can live with itself, handicapping the teams in the NL Central, while all three other major pro leagues in North America long ago realigned to equalize their divisions is, to me, as disgraceful as the steroids scandal. I could come up with any number of sensible realignments (such as expanding by two more teams and splitting into four eight-team leagues, with two four-team divisions in each) and I could lay out how if we played one or two interleague series ALL THE TIME instead of having to lump them together twice a year we could easily have two 15-team leagues and eliminate this disparity, but of course baseball would just ignore me.
On another issue, I don’t care for a balanced schedule. One of the things I picked up from reading books about baseball history is how much more fun the fans seemed to have in the old eight-team leagues when the teams all played 22 games a year against each other, when they came to your town for 11 games every year and the fans could recognize the players and pick up on their quirks and foibles to heckle them and such. Familiarity breeds contempt, and as a Pirates fan I can work up a good contempt for the Cardinals and the Cubs, but why would I hate on the Padres? What do I care about the Marlins? How is playing them 10 times a year instead of six going to help me hate them any more? We (I) as a Pittsburgh native have little to nothing in common with people in Miami or San Diego (except for Charlie). What do I care about playing them? If I absolutely must see those teams, that’s what TV and the Internet are for.
Count me among those that think being in the East is a good idea for the Pirates. Granted we have a rich history with the Reds, but being able to play more games against Philadelphia alone makes up for that. Not to mention the fact we would get shots at the Mets and the Braves as well would be a plus. Also, I’m sure the players would like being able to play more games in their own home time zone. Most of our central opponents all play in another time zone.
A Rich History With The Reds?
Since when?
All the Pirates need to do to put fans in the stands, to paraphrase Al Davis, is “Win, Baby, Win”.
Come have a beer w/ my brother and I in Brooklyn, Charlie, and you won’t break out in hives; you’ll probably want to move here (not because of my brother and I, but because Brooklyn is so damn great).
One of the cool things about Pittsburgh is that it’s really neither midwest or east coast, but kind of a fascinating mixture of the two. Just a unique place, Pittsburgh. That said, and as much as I’d like the Bucs to be in the East so I could see them more in NY and Philly, I think we’re better off in the Central, at least until the economics of major league baseball is seriously restructured (by which I mean to say, until pigs fly). No matter how well NH and company turn things around, we’d always be facing an uphill slog against the Richie Riches (NY, Philly, Atlanta) of the world.
by brooklynpirate on May 24, 2009 11:47 PM EDT reply actions
I do like Brooklyn. That I can stand, if I don’t have to drive. Or pay rent.
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 25, 2009 2:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Make the team competitive and rivalries will develop regardless of whether the Pirates are playing the Phillies and Mets or Cards and Cubs.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on May 24, 2009 11:52 PM EDT reply actions
Personally...
I hate interleague play. I believe it takes too much away from the World Series and the All Star game. I’d rather see the Bucs play the Mets and Phillies more than two times a season, even if they crush us everytime.
Houston should be re-located...
To the AL West. That way, all 6 divisions would have 5 teams and, geographically, Houston is closer to the AL West (Rangers?) than any other team that could move. Competitive balance would be restored with the evening of the divisions and it would eliminate one of (if not the) longest trip the Pirates have as a member of the NL central.
Even better.
Add two more teams to the AL then there’ll be 16 teams in each league. Then divide up each league in four divisions and each of the division winners will go to the playoffs. No more Wild Card.
by IAPiratesFan on May 25, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I liked it before realignment and interleague play. Move Milwaukee back to the AL. I want to see more NL play. No more interleague. Four teams in the AL West makes no sense.
15 and 15
An odd number of teams in a league means you either have to have one idle team at all times, or one interleague series constantly going on.
Fun fact: Pittsburgh is further east than Atlanta.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on May 25, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
As a Phillies fan...
Growing up in the 1980s, I always considered the Phillies primary rivals to be the Cardinals, the Cubs, the Pirates, and the Expos. Realignment basically killed all of those. The intensity of the Phillies/Mets thing is a relatively new development.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
I think that if the Pirates had been decent at all, MLB might have made Pittsburgh/Cleveland a rivalry rather than Cleveland/Cincinnati (not that the Reds have been great either though). After all, Pittsburgh to Cleveland is 133 miles and Cleveland to Cincinnati is almost double that at 249 miles. As a Cleveland resident who grew up in Pittsburgh, my experience is that most people in Cleveland have been to Pittsburgh and vice versa. I’m not so sure about Cincinnati.
Cincinnati is so far south, that I know people who refer to it as Pennsyltucky.
The rivalry in the 70’s was great with the Redlegs, though..
I liked it with the Braves in the NL West.
I'd rather be dead than singing "Satisfaction" at forty-five. -- M. Jagger
by cocktailsfor2 on May 26, 2009 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d love the idea of the Pirates playing the Nationals a bunch of times in season. Though Charlie, they won’t be as good as a team according to your rational. Their owners the Lerners are known to be very cheap, they even asked the City of Washington to pay for the Nationals uniforms since they say Washington on them.
Haven't read the comments yet...
But here are my thoughts.
1. Putting the Bucs in the NL East would be a mistake. We have enough of an uphill battle as it is without needing to beat out the big fish in that division every year. Since we’re told that the goal is to win, let’s learn to win against the second division before we try to win against the first division.
2. As for the culture, I am much closer to Dejan than Charlie on this one. I have lived in Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, several Ohio towns including Columbus, Indiana, Minnesota & Idaho. I would suggest that Pittsburgh combines the regional passion and aggressiveness of the northeast with classic midwest values.
Frankly, I think that Pittsburgh is in many ways a combination of the best aspects of the two regions. And I strongly suspect that our natural rivals in Ohio are very similar.
The key difference is that when you go west of Ohio, the passion & learned devotion for regional subjects (primarily including sports) is markedly lower – the aw shucks attitude is far more prevalent – than when you look to the east. The percentage of Steelers/Bills/Browns fans that can name for you the back up left guard and who won’t go on vacation during football season is much higher than for Bears fans. (FYI, the Packers are an exception). I’m not saying its a good thing, just that the level of import that rust belt people assign to regional issues (a) blows away that of midwest people and (b) is far more similar to NE people. Thus, I lump Ohio (at least the central & NE part of the state) & western PA with northeastern cities.
Good day.
I prefer the term North Coast
“Rust Belt” has no cache. “Rust belt” implies broken down old industrial towns. North Coast implies… aaap, several (usually failed) attempts at revitalization, blight that some pols have big grand plans for, plus everything in Uncle Nate’s #2. Our slogans, if we had them, would be something like, “We’ve not losing as many jobs and people as 20 years ago, it’s still cold in the winter, and we care about sports more than anything else.”
I don’t know. “North Coast” makes sense for Cleveland, but Pittsburgh’s not on a coast. We do need something better than “rust belt,” though—I agree with that.
by Charlie Wilmoth on May 26, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed!
Pittsburgh is the best of both worlds (NE and Midwest). I wouldnt want to live anywhere else (except maybe Florida if insurance and taxes settle down).
Pittsburgh should be in the NL East like they were in the day. We had some fierce battles with the Mets in the late 80’s early 90’s. In addition, the Phillies were always our nemises.
I have often thought that since Pittsburgh is a ’tweener, that we could go in either direction. While I like playing the Cubs and Cards, I would trade it for a minute to have closer drives to watch the buccos in DC, Philly and NYC. The whole “playing in the league with bigger money” is crap. If we develop and do things right, we can compete. I mean look at the Mets over the past decade – they are always top 3 in payroll and have barely sniffed the playoffs. Take away the Phillies WS win this year and the only title to come from the NL East was the Marlins for goodness sake!
We can lose with the “second league” then we can lose with the big boys. Why not compete with the best! If you are going to be the best you have to beat the best.
the Phillies should play more than 1 series in Pittsburgh per year
it’s a Keystone State rivalry, fercryinoutloud… since two NL teams always play each other during interleague play, it should be a no-brainer that sometimes those two teams are the Pirates and the Phillies. and you don’t need to put the Pirates in the NL East to schedule these series.
and I would also like to see a regular home and home series vs. the Indians every year (the Mets, not so much).

by 














