MLB Structure/Scheduling Ideas

[Sammys Boombox]

I'm a geek so I like to kick around different ideas for structuring and scheduling MLB. Here are some of my ideas and other ideas as well. Would love to hear yours. I envision this thread having both serious and theoretical discussion (why 162 games?, etc.).

 

FYI, I'm not really a big fan of some of these ideas (#4), I just wonder how an MLB season would play out if MLB was structured this way.

 

1. The Current Interleague Unbalanced System

 

Not much to say here. I'm not a fan. I think the "geography rivalries" are all that keep this system in place.

 

2. Current System Minus Interleague Play (Second Favorite)

 

Pretty self-explanatory. Divide the 18 or so extra games amongst teams from other divisions. Take away a few of the extra intradivisional games (Cubs play Stros 18 times instead of 15 this year, etc.) and make the schedule a little more balanced.

 

3. Bob Costas' Interleague Balanced System (My favorite)

 

Without going into all the details. Two leagues. Three divisions in each league. Five teams in each division.

 

Every team in each division has the exact same number of games (home and away) against the same teams. This is done with a 162-game schedule, in the same time-frame that MLB currently runs (roughly first week of April through last week of September).

 

Each team plays 30 interleague games. Interleague games are dispersed throughout the season instead of being played May/June.

 

He gives no wild card (based on the fact that the WC contenders could have vastly different interleague schedules) and the best division winner in each league gets a "bye." I would rather have the wild card and run the playoffs the same way.

 

4. Scrap the NL and AL.

 

1 league. 4 divisions (geographic, 2 with 8 teams, 2 with 7 teams). I do not like, just interesting to think about.

 

4 games vs. each opponent out of the division (2 home, 2 away). Use block scheduling to cut down on travel. i.e. Boston has MON off, @Cubs TUE/WED, @Sox THU/FRI, @Mil SAT/SUN. At the same time, the Cubs, Sox, Brewers are hosting Boston, NYM, and NYY.

 

7-team division: 92 games out of the division. 70 games in the division (11 or 12 vs. each divisional team)

8-team division: 88 games out of the division. 74 games in the division (10 or 11)

 

Have 4 division winners and 4 WC winners.

[ISUCubsFan]

I'd go with some form of #3 (with a WC, because there's no way that's going away). You'd probably have to keep the geographical rivalries to get it passed though. I also wouldn't mind balancing the intraleague schedules. And if we're balancing the leagues, would Milwaukee want to go back to the AL (pushing KC to the West) or would someone else be sent over?

[Sammys Boombox]

I'd go with some form of #3 (with a WC, because there's no way that's going away). You'd probably have to keep the geographical rivalries to get it passed though. I also wouldn't mind balancing the intraleague schedules. And if we're balancing the leagues, would Milwaukee want to go back to the AL (pushing KC to the West) or would someone else be sent over?

 

Yeah, the WC won't go away and I don't think it should. It would be kind of cool if the Cubs and Sox only played once every three years. It would make it more special. I feel like the games are already losing their significance.

 

I think the Astros should just move from the NL Central to the AL West. I think it makes sense for everybody involved and I don't really see why the Astros would decline.

[Schwarber Fan]

I'd go with some form of #3 (with a WC, because there's no way that's going away). You'd probably have to keep the geographical rivalries to get it passed though. I also wouldn't mind balancing the intraleague schedules. And if we're balancing the leagues, would Milwaukee want to go back to the AL (pushing KC to the West) or would someone else be sent over?

 

Yeah, the WC won't go away and I don't think it should. It would be kind of cool if the Cubs and Sox only played once every three years. It would make it more special. I feel like the games are already losing their significance.

 

I think the Astros should just move from the NL Central to the AL West. I think it makes sense for everybody involved and I don't really see why the Astros would decline.

 

Cause they already suck in the NL?

 

Also, you can't have Texas and Houston in the same division, it just throws the whole interleague rivalry thing off.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Replace the AL Centrals playoff berth with the best AAA team that doesnt make the playoffs.

[Sammys Boombox]

I'd go with some form of #3 (with a WC, because there's no way that's going away). You'd probably have to keep the geographical rivalries to get it passed though. I also wouldn't mind balancing the intraleague schedules. And if we're balancing the leagues, would Milwaukee want to go back to the AL (pushing KC to the West) or would someone else be sent over?

 

Yeah, the WC won't go away and I don't think it should. It would be kind of cool if the Cubs and Sox only played once every three years. It would make it more special. I feel like the games are already losing their significance.

 

I think the Astros should just move from the NL Central to the AL West. I think it makes sense for everybody involved and I don't really see why the Astros would decline.

 

Cause they already suck in the NL?

 

Also, you can't have Texas and Houston in the same division, it just throws the whole interleague rivalry thing off.

 

In this system interleague rivalries aren't weighted more important than any other series anyway. I think they could benefit from a divisional rivalry more than an interleague rivalry.

[Sammys Boombox]

I'd go with some form of #3 (with a WC, because there's no way that's going away). You'd probably have to keep the geographical rivalries to get it passed though. I also wouldn't mind balancing the intraleague schedules. And if we're balancing the leagues, would Milwaukee want to go back to the AL (pushing KC to the West) or would someone else be sent over?

 

I also heard somewhere recently that the Diamondbacks owners always wanted to be in the AL and would welcome a move to the AL West. Then you would just move the Astros to the NL West.

[Little Slide Rooter]

2 leagues. 2 divisions each. The best team in each division makes the playoffs as do 2 wild cards, the 2 teams with the best records in each league regardless of the division.

[Sammys Boombox]

2 leagues. 2 divisions each. The best team in each division makes the playoffs as do 2 wild cards, the 2 teams with the best records in each league regardless of the division.

 

I like this one. It's like #4 except you keep the two-league system, which I definitely support. Do you have any general ideas on scheduling? For or against interleague?

[apete6]

2 leagues. 2 divisions each. The best team in each division makes the playoffs as do 2 wild cards, the 2 teams with the best records in each league regardless of the division.

 

Agreed.

 

Let's just say in 7 team divisions (AL) you have:

 

1. 15 games against everyone in your division (6*15)=90 games.

2. 7 games against everyone in the other division (7*7)=49 games.

3. 3 games against an entire 8 team division from other league (8*3)=24 games

 

This is 163 games. I guess they could add a game or just take 1 game off of 1 opponent from the other division?

 

In the 8 team divisions (NL), you have:

 

1. 13 games against everyone in your division (7*13)=91 games

2. 7 games against everyone in the other division (7*6)=49 games

3. 3 games against an entire 7 team division from other league (7*3)=21 games

 

This is 161 games. I guess they could add a game or just add 1 game to 1 opponent from your own division.

 

Leagues/Divisions:

 

NL East:

Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Braves, Marlins, Pirates, Reds, BLUE JAYS

 

NL West:

Brewers, Cubs, Cardinals, Astros, Rockies, Padres, Giants, Dodgers

 

AL East:

Red Sox, Yankees, Orioles, Rays, Indians, Tigers, White Sox

 

AL West:

Twins, Royals, Rangers, Mariners, Athletics, Angels, DIAMONDBACKS

[Little Slide Rooter]

And another thing Ive said since they atarted making the All Star game count to WS home field advantage is that WS home field advantage should be decided by A. the team of the 2 with the better regular season record or B. whichever league as a whole has the better record during interleague play should get home field advantage. Its too important to be decided by an exhibition game.

[jersey cubs fan]

I've been a big proponent of 15/15 with interleague throughout the season for several years, but getting rid of WC isn't going to happen. This isn't 1966, there are 30 teams, limiting the playoffs to just 6 just doesn't fly. It would eliminate the vast majority of teams from contention by August and drive down attendence + ratings.

 

To add value to winning the division, I'd add a WC team in each league. Have the 2 WC teams play a 1 game playoff (great TV) for the right to play the #1 seed, and then the 2 and 3 face each other. This gives the team with the best record the benefit of facing a lesser team, presumably with a less than ideal starting rotation for the first round.

 

As for the interleague, I would stick with 1 "rival" series - rotating home and away every year - then try and match up teams with similar rankings from the previous year. The two WS teams would play each other, perhaps on opening day, or maybe right before or after the ASB. The two LCS losers would face each other, and I'd also save the matchups between the worst teams for the end of the season to try and limit the amount of "interleague games determining the division down the stretch" complaints as well as maybe keeping the potential WS teams from facing each other a couple weeks before the WS.

[Garwilly]

 

In the 8 team divisions (NL), you have:

 

1. 13 games against everyone in your division (7*13)=91 games

2. 7 games against everyone in the other division (7*6)=49 games

3. 3 games against an entire 7 team division from other league (7*3)=21 games

 

 

 

There would be 8 teams to play from the other division (#2)

[apete6]

 

In the 8 team divisions (NL), you have:

 

1. 13 games against everyone in your division (7*13)=91 games

2. 7 games against everyone in the other division (7*6)=49 games

3. 3 games against an entire 7 team division from other league (7*3)=21 games

 

 

 

There would be 8 teams to play from the other division (#2)

 

Good call. so it would be 8*6 for 48 games, leading to 160 games. Probably have to come up with 2 extra games somewhere.

[Sammys Boombox]

 

In the 8 team divisions (NL), you have:

 

1. 13 games against everyone in your division (7*13)=91 games

2. 7 games against everyone in the other division (7*6)=49 games

3. 3 games against an entire 7 team division from other league (7*3)=21 games

 

 

 

There would be 8 teams to play from the other division (#2)

 

Good call. so it would be 8*6 for 48 games, leading to 160 games. Probably have to come up with 2 extra games somewhere.

 

So it should read:

 

2. 6 games against everyone in the other division (8*6)=48 games

[Sammys Boombox]

I've been a big proponent of 15/15 with interleague throughout the season for several years, but getting rid of WC isn't going to happen. This isn't 1966, there are 30 teams, limiting the playoffs to just 6 just doesn't fly. It would eliminate the vast majority of teams from contention by August and drive down attendence + ratings.

 

To add value to winning the division, I'd add a WC team in each league. Have the 2 WC teams play a 1 game playoff (great TV) for the right to play the #1 seed, and then the 2 and 3 face each other. This gives the team with the best record the benefit of facing a lesser team, presumably with a less than ideal starting rotation for the first round.

 

As for the interleague, I would stick with 1 "rival" series - rotating home and away every year - then try and match up teams with similar rankings from the previous year. The two WS teams would play each other, perhaps on opening day, or maybe right before or after the ASB. The two LCS losers would face each other, and I'd also save the matchups between the worst teams for the end of the season to try and limit the amount of "interleague games determining the division down the stretch" complaints as well as maybe keeping the potential WS teams from facing each other a couple weeks before the WS.

 

I think we're all in agreement about the WC. I don't like the 1-game play-in though.

 

One tweak to #3 could be keeping the rivalry series and replacing one of the other teams you play in interleague. This could be based on previous finish, much like the NFL does with games 15 and 16.

 

i.e. NL Central is scheduled to play AL West in year B.

 

NL Central finishes in year A:

1. Cubs

2. Cardinals

3. Reds

4. Brewers

5. Pirates

 

AL West finishes in year A:

1. Angels

2. Astros

3. A's

4. Mariners

5. Rangers

 

In year B the Cubs would play home and away series with

1. Angels

2. Astros

3. A's

4. Mariners

5. White Sox

 

In year B the Cardinals would play home and away series with

1. Angels

2. Astros

3. A's

4. Royals

5. Rangers

 

Reds

1. Angels

2. Astros

3. Indians

4. Mariners

5. Rangers

 

etc.

[bukie]

Pipe dream scenario:

 

Move Houston to the AL west (natural rivalry with Texas, similar intradivisional travel overall, yes the trip to Seattle will suck, sorry). This creates 6 divisions of 15 teams each, forcing at least one interleague series each week. On average, there are 54 series in a year (54 * 3 = 162), so there will have to be at a bare minimum of 11 interleague games per team.

 

To make the most balanced schedule that still focuses on games within the division, this is what I would suggest:

 

16 games with each divisional opponent: 16*4 = 64

8 games with each league opponent outside the division: 10*8 = 80

3 interleague games with each team in a division that rotates every year + 3 games vs. interleague "rival": 6 * 3 = 18

 

64 + 80 + 18 = 162

 

This way you still get twice as many games within the division as outside the division, you get enough interleague games to spread out over the season while still having the ability to set up a "rivalry weekend" where every team plays their rival in an interleague matchup. Every team plays their rival at least 3 times a year, and in a year they play their rival's division, they even get a home and home with them.

 

The schedule is completely balanced within the division aside from the 3 rivalry games and home/away differences. It may appear to cause an increase in 4 or 2-game series (as each divisional series has 4 odd games and each interdivisional series has 2 odd games, making 36 games per team that don't fit into traditional 3-game series), but actually there would be less need for those series, as the Cubs are scheduled to play 42 games this year in such series.

 

As the playoffs go, I am also in favor of the extra wildcard team with a single wildcard game, although it would create an interesting scenario if 3 teams tied for a wildcard spot.

[Sammys Boombox]

Pipe dream scenario:

 

Move Houston to the AL west (natural rivalry with Texas, similar intradivisional travel overall, yes the trip to Seattle will suck, sorry). This creates 6 divisions of 15 teams each, forcing at least one interleague series each week. On average, there are 54 series in a year (54 * 3 = 162), so there will have to be at a bare minimum of 11 interleague games per team.

 

To make the most balanced schedule that still focuses on games within the division, this is what I would suggest:

 

16 games with each divisional opponent: 16*4 = 64

8 games with each league opponent outside the division: 10*8 = 80

3 interleague games with each team in a division that rotates every year + 3 games vs. interleague "rival": 6 * 3 = 18

 

64 + 80 + 18 = 162

 

This way you still get twice as many games within the division as outside the division, you get enough interleague games to spread out over the season while still having the ability to set up a "rivalry weekend" where every team plays their rival in an interleague matchup. Every team plays their rival at least 3 times a year, and in a year they play their rival's division, they even get a home and home with them.

 

The schedule is completely balanced within the division aside from the 3 rivalry games and home/away differences. It may appear to cause an increase in 4 or 2-game series (as each divisional series has 4 odd games and each interdivisional series has 2 odd games, making 36 games per team that don't fit into traditional 3-game series), but actually there would be less need for those series, as the Cubs are scheduled to play 42 games this year in such series.

 

As the playoffs go, I am also in favor of the extra wildcard team with a single wildcard game, although it would create an interesting scenario if 3 teams tied for a wildcard spot.

 

1. Putting Texas and Houston in the same division as the Mariners would actually help the Mariners travel plans because they could do 2 or 3 trips each season to Texas where they hit both teams. The Rangers already have to go to Seattle so I'm sure the Astros can.

 

2. I think I like this plan a lot because it cuts down on the number on interleague games, keeps the "rivalries," and is just about as balanced as you can get.

 

3. I don't like the two WC in a 1-game playoff for this reason alone. It creates the likely possibility of having to push back the start of the playoffs because two teams tie for the division and WC (like the Cards and Astros did a few years ago) would have to play a one-game playoff for a tie-breaker and then the loser would have to play another one-game playoff against a team that they had a better record. Assume Yankees and Red Sox have the two best records in the AL with 100 wins each and the next best WC team has 88 wins. They shouldn't get a 1-game shot at the loser of a 1-game playoff for the division between New York and Boston.

[Sammys Boombox]

Pipe dream scenario:

 

Move Houston to the AL west (natural rivalry with Texas, similar intradivisional travel overall, yes the trip to Seattle will suck, sorry). This creates 6 divisions of 15 teams each, forcing at least one interleague series each week. On average, there are 54 series in a year (54 * 3 = 162), so there will have to be at a bare minimum of 11 interleague games per team.

 

To make the most balanced schedule that still focuses on games within the division, this is what I would suggest:

 

16 games with each divisional opponent: 16*4 = 64

8 games with each league opponent outside the division: 10*8 = 80

3 interleague games with each team in a division that rotates every year + 3 games vs. interleague "rival": 6 * 3 = 18

 

64 + 80 + 18 = 162

 

This way you still get twice as many games within the division as outside the division, you get enough interleague games to spread out over the season while still having the ability to set up a "rivalry weekend" where every team plays their rival in an interleague matchup. Every team plays their rival at least 3 times a year, and in a year they play their rival's division, they even get a home and home with them.

 

The schedule is completely balanced within the division aside from the 3 rivalry games and home/away differences. It may appear to cause an increase in 4 or 2-game series (as each divisional series has 4 odd games and each interdivisional series has 2 odd games, making 36 games per team that don't fit into traditional 3-game series), but actually there would be less need for those series, as the Cubs are scheduled to play 42 games this year in such series.

 

As the playoffs go, I am also in favor of the extra wildcard team with a single wildcard game, although it would create an interesting scenario if 3 teams tied for a wildcard spot.

 

1. Putting Texas and Houston in the same division as the Mariners would actually help the Mariners travel plans because they could do 2 or 3 trips each season to Texas where they hit both teams. The Rangers already have to go to Seattle so I'm sure the Astros can.

 

2. I think I like this plan a lot because it cuts down on the number on interleague games, keeps the "rivalries," and is just about as balanced as you can get.

 

3. I don't like the two WC in a 1-game playoff for this reason alone. It creates the likely possibility of having to push back the start of the playoffs because two teams tie for the division and WC (like the Cards and Astros did a few years ago) would have to play a one-game playoff for a tie-breaker and then the loser would have to play another one-game playoff against a team that they had a better record. Assume Yankees and Red Sox have the two best records in the AL with 100 wins each and the next best WC team has 88 wins. They shouldn't get a 1-game shot at the loser of a 1-game playoff for the division between New York and Boston.

[jersey cubs fan]

3. I don't like the two WC in a 1-game playoff for this reason alone. It creates the likely possibility of having to push back the start of the playoffs because two teams tie for the division and WC (like the Cards and Astros did a few years ago) would have to play a one-game playoff for a tie-breaker and then the loser would have to play another one-game playoff against a team that they had a better record. Assume Yankees and Red Sox have the two best records in the AL with 100 wins each and the next best WC team has 88 wins. They shouldn't get a 1-game shot at the loser of a 1-game playoff for the division between New York and Boston.

 

There wouldn't be a likely possibility of moving the start of the playoffs. As it stands today, they don't start until Wednesday after the final Sunday, and one series starts on Thursday. Monday is currently for ties, you can schedule the 1 game play-in for Tuesday. I'm not sure how likely your scenario is, I doubt it's very high. But the point is rewarding the division win while at the same time maximizing interest from fan bases because more of them have a chance to be in it. If 1 out of 10 years some 100 win wild card team loses to a 85 win wild card team in a one game playoff (in the 100 win teams stadium) that's still 10 years where more teams had a chance to make the playoffs, more meaningful games are being played in September, more eyeballs are watching and more exciting games are being played. And I doubt it would happen every 10 years anyway.

[Guest]

I still say expand by two teams (once economy recovers) and go with four divisions of four teams each.

 

3 teams in division (14) = 42 games

4 teams in three other divisions (9 x 3) = 108 games

1 division in other league per year (4 x 3) = 12 games

 

is 162 games

 

Best team in each division makes the playoffs. Yes, I recognize benefit to the economics of the game with the wildcard. I just don't like it. Four division winners ought to keep enough cities interested in the progress of their team.

[jersey cubs fan]

I still say expand by two teams (once economy recovers) and go with four divisions of four teams each.

 

3 teams in division (14) = 42 games

4 teams in three other divisions (9 x 3) = 108 games

1 division in other league per year (4 x 3) = 12 games

 

is 162 games

 

Best team in each division makes the playoffs. Yes, I recognize benefit to the economics of the game with the wildcard. I just don't like it. Four division winners ought to keep enough cities interested in the progress of their team.

 

I don't think the economy could handle expansion within the next 10 years. And adding two more teams while keeping the same number of teams eligible for playoffs is just going to add unimportant games.

 

The Mets are in a brand new stadium this year. You can't give away tickets for free. Nobody wants to go. Two months of worthless baseball is a really tough sell.

[Sammys Boombox]

3. I don't like the two WC in a 1-game playoff for this reason alone. It creates the likely possibility of having to push back the start of the playoffs because two teams tie for the division and WC (like the Cards and Astros did a few years ago) would have to play a one-game playoff for a tie-breaker and then the loser would have to play another one-game playoff against a team that they had a better record. Assume Yankees and Red Sox have the two best records in the AL with 100 wins each and the next best WC team has 88 wins. They shouldn't get a 1-game shot at the loser of a 1-game playoff for the division between New York and Boston.

 

There wouldn't be a likely possibility of moving the start of the playoffs. As it stands today, they don't start until Wednesday after the final Sunday, and one series starts on Thursday. Monday is currently for ties, you can schedule the 1 game play-in for Tuesday. I'm not sure how likely your scenario is, I doubt it's very high. But the point is rewarding the division win while at the same time maximizing interest from fan bases because more of them have a chance to be in it. If 1 out of 10 years some 100 win wild card team loses to a 85 win wild card team in a one game playoff (in the 100 win teams stadium) that's still 10 years where more teams had a chance to make the playoffs, more meaningful games are being played in September, more eyeballs are watching and more exciting games are being played. And I doubt it would happen every 10 years anyway.

 

You may not get disparities as big as 100 wins to 85 wins very often, but I think 90 wins to 85 wins or 95 wins to 90 wins is very possible. The possibility of a team tying for the league lead in wins in the regular season and not going to the playoffs in a system where four teams go to the playoffs should not be considered. Also, you now force the two best teams in the league to play VERY meaningful extra games between the regular season and the playoffs. I understand the reasoning, but I think it makes a mockery of the 162-game season. Just my opinion though.

[Sammys Boombox]

I still say expand by two teams (once economy recovers) and go with four divisions of four teams each.

 

3 teams in division (14) = 42 games

4 teams in three other divisions (9 x 3) = 108 games

1 division in other league per year (4 x 3) = 12 games

 

is 162 games

 

Best team in each division makes the playoffs. Yes, I recognize benefit to the economics of the game with the wildcard. I just don't like it. Four division winners ought to keep enough cities interested in the progress of their team.

 

This brings up whole new topics. Expansion and contraction. What if they went back to 28 teams with two leagues and two divisions in each league? Do you have two WC or just scrap them?

 

I say you have two WC. Not sure who to contract, but I would pick Washington (never should have built that stadium) and Marlins (hurry up before they build that stadium). Won't happen, but I personally wouldn't miss the two teams.

 

Schedule:

16 games against the 6 other teams in the division = 96

9 games against 7 teams from the other division = 63

3 games against 1 interleague rival = 3

Total: 162

 

DS: Best of 5 played entirely at the division winners stadium.

CS: Current format, even if it's a division winner vs. a WC winner.

WS: Current format with home-field decided by best overall record.

[jersey cubs fan]

You may not get disparities as big as 100 wins to 85 wins very often, but I think 90 wins to 85 wins or 95 wins to 90 wins is very possible. The possibility of a team tying for the league lead in wins in the regular season and not going to the playoffs in a system where four teams go to the playoffs should not be considered. Also, you now force the two best teams in the league to play VERY meaningful extra games between the regular season and the playoffs. I understand the reasoning, but I think it makes a mockery of the 162-game season. Just my opinion though.

 

It absolutely does not make a mockery of a the 162, it emphasizes the importance of the 162 by rewarding you for winning your division. Right now, September is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you win the wild card or your division.

 

The 1 game playoff is part of the playoffs.