MLB Structure/Scheduling Ideas

[Exile on Waveland]

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.

 

Just curious -- and realizing for potential thread-hijacking -- but what two cities would you propose for expansion?

[TruffleShuffle]

if you're expanding, portland, oregon probably has to get one of the new franchises. there are over 2M people in the portland metro area and they support the basketball franchise well.

 

other options would include las vegas, salt lake city, either raleigh or charlotte, north jersey, san antonio, and if you really wanted to do something interesting/crazy, san juan or mexico city.

[Exile on Waveland]

if you're expanding, portland, oregon probably has to get one of the new franchises. there are over 2M people in the portland metro area and they support the basketball franchise well.

 

other options would include las vegas, salt lake city, either raleigh or charlotte, north jersey, san antonio, and if you really wanted to do something interesting/crazy, san juan or mexico city.

 

Portland has generally been one of the first cities mentioned recently. I've long been a supporter of a professional team in Las Vegas, but the timing may be inopportune (recession has hit tourism, and thus the economy, there pretty hard). A New Jersey team would work, but likely be pretty disappointing and seen by others as redundant -- not that such reason should be dispositive.

 

I am, however, intrigued by the interesting/crazy angle. Though not sure it's logistically possible right now.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Exile on Waveland

[SouthSideRyan]

You have absolutely have to expand in Jersey if you expand. I wouldn't mind putting a 2nd team in New England either.

[jersey cubs fan]

You have absolutely have to expand in Jersey if you expand. I wouldn't mind putting a 2nd team in New England either.

 

I can't think of a good population center in New England to put up a 2nd. But I think North Jersey, properly placed, would work really well.

 

But I still think expansion is a decade a way. In the meantime restructuring is possible with the current 30.

 

I'd put Florida in the AL East, move Toronto to AL Central, KC to AL West, Pittsburgh to NL East. Florida could benefit from games with Tampa as well as Boston/NYY moreso than they benefit from NYM, PHI and ATL.

[SouthSideRyan]

Hartford would seem to be the best bet, but it's within 2 hours of Jersey, Boston, and New York.

 

There's no chance at survival in the northern New England states, so I'd agree there's really not a great option.

[Sammys Boombox]

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.

 

Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division.

[bukie]

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.

 

Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division.

The point of the one-game wildcard playoff is to throw off those teams' rotations and make it more difficult for a wildcard team to make the World Series.

[Sammys Boombox]

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.

 

Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division.

The point of the one-game wildcard playoff is to throw off those teams' rotations and make it more difficult for a wildcard team to make the World Series.

 

I thought it was to keep more teams in the race in September.

[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.

 

Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division.

 

 

Weren't you the one who was complaing about pushing back the schedule of the playoffs?

 

 

The 1 game playoff rewards the #1 seed and "punishes" the teams that have to settle for the WC. It puts the emphasis on winning the regular season and not just cruising in on the WC which right now is essentially the same thing as winning your division.

[jersey cubs fan]

I thought it was to keep more teams in the race in September.

 

It accomplishes that as well.

 

1) More teams/fans involved late in the season.

2) Rewards the team with best record by getting to face a team that has not been able to reset it's rotation.

3) Gives motivation to wild card teams to fight for division crowns.

[Sammys Boombox]

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.

 

Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division.

 

 

Weren't you the one who was complaing about pushing back the schedule of the playoffs?

 

 

The 1 game playoff rewards the #1 seed and "punishes" the teams that have to settle for the WC. It puts the emphasis on winning the regular season and not just cruising in on the WC which right now is essentially the same thing as winning your division.

 

No, I wouldn't like pushing them back, but I dislike even more the idea that a team could have a 5-15 game advantage during the regular season but wipe that away with one win with some random starters on the hill for both teams. I'm choosing the lesser of two evils. Don't you think a 3-game set right before the playoffs (win or lose) would "punish" the WC team? That rotation will definitely not be ready for the playoffs.

[Sammys Boombox]

I thought it was to keep more teams in the race in September.

 

It accomplishes that as well.

 

1) More teams/fans involved late in the season.

2) Rewards the team with best record by getting to face a team that has not been able to reset it's rotation.

3) Gives motivation to wild card teams to fight for division crowns.

 

Just curious, say the Red Sox win the division and the Yankees win the WC, would you rather see the Yankees play 1 game to get into the playoffs or would you rather see the Yankees have to play at Boston all five games of the DS? This would reward the league winner, the other two division winners and "punish" the WC.

 

Answer with September AND October in mind.

Answer with October only in mind.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Sammy's Boombox

[Sammys Boombox]

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.

 

Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division.

The point of the one-game wildcard playoff is to throw off those teams' rotations and make it more difficult for a wildcard team to make the World Series.

 

Their rotation would be in shambles coming off a two- or three-game set while the other team had four days off.

[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.

 

Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division.

The point of the one-game wildcard playoff is to throw off those teams' rotations and make it more difficult for a wildcard team to make the World Series.

 

Their rotation would be in shambles coming off a two- or three-game set while the other team had four days off.

 

But you'd be pushing the playoffs back which you said was bad, and I'm trying to avoid. If the Yankees or Red Sox fail to win their division, I'm not going to feel bad for them if they lose in a 1 game playoff against a lesser team in their home stadium. Lesser teams win series all the time.

[chuckywang]

Expand to two more teams, 4 divisions in each league, 4 teams in each division, no wild card.

[ISUCubsFan]

I doubt we see the wild card eliminated for the simple reason that it eliminates the possibility of a Yankees-Red Sox playoff series.

[Guest]

Expand to two more teams, 4 divisions in each league, 4 teams in each division, no wild card.

I wish I had suggested that earlier. ;)

 

As for location, I'd prefer to put a team in Jersey and a team in the inland empire of CA (Riverside/San Bernadino).

[Proven Veteran]

I'd like to see two leagues, no divisions. Top 4 records make the playoffs. Move Arizona to the AL, have all teams play 11 games against their league, one interleague rival series (2 games each location), and two interleague series (2 games each location) against the team that finished in the same position the prior season. Home and away 4 game series with the rival could work also.

 

I'd be ok if they just had 11 games against league teams and shortened the season too. I guess you could add two more teams and add 3 games to the season as well.

[erik316wttn]

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.

 

I, for one, LOVE Interleague play, and don't want to see it leave. I'd love to see 15 teams per league, and a home-and-home interleague series against every team in an American League Division on a rotating yearly basis. Have interleague play all year round. Football, basketball, and hockey all do it. Why can't MLB?

[Derwood]

though I haven't sat down and tried it, I'm going to guess that sustaining one interleague series at all times (re: 15 teams per league) is logistically impossible

[Sammys Boombox]

though I haven't sat down and tried it, I'm going to guess that sustaining one interleague series at all times (re: 15 teams per league) is logistically impossible

 

There are a few systems where it works. There must be 1, 3, 5, etc. going on at once. The Bob Costas' system is one in which it does work. It is the major hurdle in the 15/15 system.

[jersey cubs fan]

though I haven't sat down and tried it, I'm going to guess that sustaining one interleague series at all times (re: 15 teams per league) is logistically impossible

 

There are a few systems where it works. There must be 1, 3, 5, etc. going on at once. The Bob Costas' system is one in which it does work. It is the major hurdle in the 15/15 system.

 

It works, and it's not that hard.

[Derwood]

though I haven't sat down and tried it, I'm going to guess that sustaining one interleague series at all times (re: 15 teams per league) is logistically impossible

 

There are a few systems where it works. There must be 1, 3, 5, etc. going on at once. The Bob Costas' system is one in which it does work. It is the major hurdle in the 15/15 system.

 

It works, and it's not that hard.

 

how many interleague series does each team have to play to do it?

[Guest]

though I haven't sat down and tried it, I'm going to guess that sustaining one interleague series at all times (re: 15 teams per league) is logistically impossible

 

There are a few systems where it works. There must be 1, 3, 5, etc. going on at once. The Bob Costas' system is one in which it does work. It is the major hurdle in the 15/15 system.

 

It works, and it's not that hard.

 

how many interleague series does each team have to play to do it?

 

There are 26 weeks in the season so that's 52 series if you take the average of two series per week, excluding the random but rare 2-2-3 weeks where a team faces three different opponents. Subtract one for the All-Star Break and there would be at least 51 total series if you played one each time. They'd probably raise it to 60 which would mean each team would play 4 or 75 in which each team would play 5.

 

It's certainly not impossible.

Edited September 29, 2009 by soccer10k