Scheduling

by Just Rope Ball on Oct 5, 2007 12:24 PM EDT Comment 14 comments

Dear Diary,

I'm tired of talking about Walt leaving, I don't want to propose any crazy trade ideas to land us some stud pitcher/hitter, plus I saw this really cute boy the other day in the mall, we smiled at each other, wait, what?

No, I want to throw out my idea for a balanced league with balance schedules. The main problem is the difference in league size. My proposition would be to move either one NL Central team the AL (I would say ship MIL back), but I really think moving FLA to Las Vegas and putting them in the AL West would be the best. I don't want to argue whether they should or would move a team to Vegas lets assume they do. Then I would move PIT from the Central to the East so that every division in both leagues has 5 teams. Here is my proposed schedule breakdown:

Against your own division (4 teams): 4 - 3 game series with each team (2 home and 2 away) for a total of 48 games

Against you own league (10 teams): 2 - 3 game series (home and away) for a total of 60 games

Against the other league (14 teams plus your rival): 1 - 3 game series with each team plus an extra series against your rival (7 home and 7 away against the rest plus 1 home and 1 away against your rival) for a total of 48 games

That leaves an extra 6 total games to make 162. My plan is for every 3 game series to run tues-thur and fri-sun like they do now most of the time, with an occasional game on Mondays to make a 4 game set. Specifically on Memorial Day and Labor Day, opening day Monday plus spread the others around to give ESPN their Monday night baseball broadcast.

Advantages:
*    Every team plays the same opponents nearly equally. No crying about playing the AL East in interleague play.
*    A chance to see every AL opponent in your stadium at least every other year.
*    Regular off days on most Mondays.

Disadvantages:
* Interleague play is always going on. No specific interleague weekends.
* Reorganization of the league structure. If FLA doesn't move, who should get sent to the AL.

I also thought it would be fun if during interleague games that the DH would be used in NL parks with no DH in AL parks. But that would get too confusing, so we would just stick to the norm.

I know this will never happen and I was just talking out my back side, but it was fun. Now, commence telling me how stupid this idea was. Aaaannnnd GO!

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ha ha

I love that idea. Most of all the part about the dh. Never happen, but it would end the complaining about who you draw in interleague.

Save the Kipper don't make him go back out there.

by gibbyfan on Oct 5, 2007 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Selig...

... actually proposed the "flipping the DH" rule change for interleague play a year or two ago. Twas rejected though.

"The two most important things in life: good friends and a strong bullpen." - Bob Gibson

by birds 4 life on Oct 5, 2007 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too bad.

It's as good an idea one could have when thinking of the (spit) DH.

by liam on Oct 5, 2007 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A better idea

Would be to get rid of it altogether.

by stl tyler on Oct 5, 2007 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The DH

Is good for baseball. I am glad that the AL has it!. I am even more happy the NL doesn't! There was a time when there was quite a differance between the two leagues. Hell even the Umps had differant chest protectors resulting in differant strike zones.

Today most of these differances are gone: ball parks, tuff vs grass etc. So I say leave the DH where is belongs in the AL parks, and relish the differances it makes.

by nybirdfan on Oct 5, 2007 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's the idea

If you play AL rules in NL parks during interleague games, NL fans get to see the AL team's designated hitters, who would only pinch-hit otherwise or play first. Then in the AL parks, you'd play NL rules and the AL fans would get to see baseball as God intended it to be played—nine men per side, not eight and two half-men.

by liam on Oct 5, 2007 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Link

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmusa/is_200506/ai_n14739407

"The two most important things in life: good friends and a strong bullpen." - Bob Gibson

by birds 4 life on Oct 5, 2007 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

interleague

As much as I hated it originally, I kind of like interleague play now. I still don't like the way that it's all done at the same time though. I think it makes it seem like a novelty, like it's not "real baseball" or something. So I guess what I'm saying is that I think one of your disadvantages should be moved to the advantages section.

P.S. The DH sucks. It was a good idea for aging fielders and such, but now it seems like it's just become a place to put hitters so that they never have to learn a position. And who doesn't love a good double-switch anyway? :)

by john vb on Oct 5, 2007 4:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Move the marlins to portland?

Instead of Las vegas. All they have up there is the jailblazers, i'm sure they could support a baseball team. of course, most of them are just mariners fans...
but then the mariners would finally have a rival close to them and in the same league to boot.
in fact, i think i read an article recently about the idea of portland having a team... can't remember where it was though.

by mattybobo on Oct 5, 2007 4:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Move the Rockies, Shift the Astros

Excepting the possibility of this year's postseason, Colorado has never reached the World Series as a NL franchise, so there would be no fear of upsetting baseball's history. Moving them to the AL West brings them up to 5 teams in that division, but drops the NL West to 4. Also, the AL gains a Mountain time zone team. (Technically, AZ follows Pacific time zone during the middle months of the year, but it's more about a regional thing ... ok, enough about that.)

Shifting the Astros to the West puts them in parallel with the Rangers. Texas already deals with the scheduling conflicts of having all of their divisional games against teams two time zones away, so it should be a smooth transition for Houston. Depending on the interleague multi-season scheduling, this may be an advantage for them. Shaving off one team from the Central Division brings the total to 5 teams, the same as all of the others.

As for interleague, play home-&-home 3-game series against all of the teams from one division each season. Either rotate through each division (E-C-W-E-C-W) or flip-flop the pattern (E-C-W-C-E-C-W-C) for more regionalized interleague action. (This may also liven up the current rivalry option.) Plus, with 15 teams in each league, you'll have to play interleague games every day basically. But that's no problem really, as no one other than media or marketing types give a damn if the Blue Jays & Nationals are playing each other at the same time as the Mets & Yankees (or even more so, the Padres & Devil Rays).

The schedule would be 18 games against 4 divisional foes (72 total), 6 games against 10 league opponents (60 total), and 6 games against interleague foes (30 total). That makes 162 games in all. All 3-game series makes scheduling a little more simple. Limiting the number of interleague games makes more sense than playing nearly a third of the schedule against teams from the other league.
Playing more games against division opponents means that the division title actually means that you beat the other teams in the division. With your setup, you might as well not even have division winners and just pick the top 4 teams in the league for the postseason, because there would be little difference in schedules between the teams.

(A lot of this I gleaned from reading Bob Costas' book "Fair Ball". I agree with a lot of his ideas, so I appropriate them freely.)

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Oct 5, 2007 6:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I definitely think

the Marlins should be the team to move to the AL. The NL has three out of the four recent expansion teams.

by spants on Oct 5, 2007 6:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I would propose a different radical idea...

They need to simply expand to Portland and Las Vegas making 32 teams. Completely re-align divisions like the NFL has set up (4 divisions of four teams in each league). Set up the leagues completely redone by geography to save all kinds of money - thus salaries could go down.) Get rid of the DH so that it doesn't matter if you are AL or NL.

Then, you would play:

3 divisional foes 20 times each (60 games total), 3 games at a time twice and 4 games at a time once, 3 series home and away.

12 league foes 6 times each (72 games total), 3 games at a time, one series home and away.

8 interleague foes 3 times each (24 games total), 3 games at a time, 4 series at home, 4 away. See every team every other year - at home once every 4 years.

Add in 3 games against your NL rival once per year and 3 games against your AL rival once per year (one series home, one away - alternating by season) and you would have 162 games per season still.

Then, only the 8 division winners would make the playoffs, with the top team playing the fourth best team in the league and the second playing the third. Screw the home field advantage based on the All-Star game. To get home field, instead, have a breakdown of tiebreakers: