MLB Hotstove 2016-17

[ninersdd]

One thing that I don't like about interleague play is that they don't rotate the locations it seems like when teams play. For example the Giants hosted Minnesota and Cleveland in 2014, and will do so again in 2017. Why can't the league do what the NFL does and rotate the locations? I thought that the league would want its popular teams playing in different locales?

[The_Admiral]

If we ever get to 32 teams, interleague should be limited thus:

 

Mets-Yankees

Angels-Dodgers

Cubs-White Sox

Giants-Athletics

Nationals-Orioles

Astros-Rangers

Reds-Indians

Royals-Cardinals

Marlins-Rays

Brewers-Twins

Braves-Red Sox

Padres-Mariners

Phillies-Blue Jays

Pirates-Tigers

Rockies-expansion

Diamondbacks-expansion

 

Unless there's a Portland/Vancouver AL team in which case they'd get the M's, Montreal would get the Jays, I dunno. Interleague sucks and should only be against your nearest team (or current Boston versus old Boston, I did my best). 

[SFGiants58]

3 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

So not every team is part of revenue sharing?  I assumed all 30 shared...

 

Only the bottom 15 markets get revenue sharing checks. Oakland is #8 (out of 30), and "technically" in a market shared with the Giants.

 

This is an interesting development on several levels, namely with Lew Wolff selling his shares in the team, the arrival of Dave Kaval as team president, and more activity on the stadium front. I'm sure @dfwabel can provide us with more information.

 

What's also interesting is that the Giants' brass was really pushing for the A's to get off of revenue sharing. Some will say they're tired of paying their part of the revenue sharing checks to the A's, while others will say that this is a last-ditch effort by the Giants to force the A's ownership group to sell (with the slight hope that the new owner will push to move the team out of the Bay Area, however unlikely).

 

Things are about to get interesting in Oakland.

[Cujo]

3 hours ago, Thomas said:

Quote

Baseball's All-Star Game no longer determines World Series home-field advantage.

 

Very sorry to hear that

 

[cmm]

5 hours ago, Thomas said:

It shouldn't be hard to get tickets now since there won't be any incentive for either team to win...players will sit it out and rest cause it won't make any difference.

Even with it determining home field advantage for the World Series, the players still didn't care. See Adam Wainwright grooving a pitch to Yeah Jeets.

[Thomas]

On 12/1/2016 at 8:58 PM, DiePerske said:

Because the point is to play the teams in your league. 

 

Baseball has a long tradition of two separate leagues, and most if us want that to be the way it is. 

 

Interleague play ruins that. 

Sure, i love tradition, Not all traditions are awesome.

You play 162 games against only 14 or 15 other teams?

Isn't it time to come together, , and have some fun. Let the fans see the other teams and players.  

 

[cmm]

Yes, they play a 162-game season. But it's really more like a 54-series season (give or take, since there are a few 2- and 4-game series), if that makes sense. Because of interleague play, the Mets play some of their old rivals like the Cubs and Cardinals and Pirates just once at home and once on the road every year. I'd much rather see them play some more series against those teams instead of playing interleague games, including the ones against the other, inferior New York team. And that's especially true now since they're competing with non-divisional NL teams for a wild card spot.

 

Having extra series against intraleague opponents would also make it easier to re-schedule early season games when the weather isn't so nice. The Nationals are in Colorado this April. Even if it's snowing, the umpires will do everything in their power to get those games in since that's their only trip to Denver this year. If the Nats came back in July, games can be rescheduled easily and no one would have to worry about sitting through a three hour delay.

[bosrs1]

21 hours ago, cmm said:

Even with it determining home field advantage for the World Series, the players still didn't care. See Adam Wainwright grooving a pitch to Yeah Jeets.

 

And some did care and played hard even before it determined home field.

[HedleyLamarr]

12 hours ago, cmm said:

Yes, they play a 162-game season. But it's really more like a 54-series season (give or take, since there are a few 2- and 4-game series), if that makes sense. Because of interleague play, the Mets play some of their old rivals like the Cubs and Cardinals and Pirates just once at home and once on the road every year. I'd much rather see them play some more series against those teams instead of playing interleague games, including the ones against the other, inferior New York team. And that's especially true now since they're competing with non-divisional NL teams for a wild card spot.

 

Having extra series against intraleague opponents would also make it easier to re-schedule early season games when the weather isn't so nice. The Nationals are in Colorado this April. Even if it's snowing, the umpires will do everything in their power to get those games in since that's their only trip to Denver this year. If the Nats came back in July, games can be rescheduled easily and no one would have to worry about sitting through a three hour delay.

I dunno, I get pretty bored with seeing the same four teams for half the schedule.  I've gotten so tired of seeing the Mets, Phillies, Marlins, and Nationals here.  I like seeing other teams, both NL and AL.  38 of the 81 home games are the same four teams.  Those can be chopped down.

 

Ok, 54 3-game series in a season.  Dedicate 16 series to the opposite league (2 against your designated rival or rotated rival home/away, 1 against the other 14 teams either home or away).  Dedicate 20 series to the other teams in your league outside your division (one home, one away against each team).  Then, with the other 18 series (or 54 games), divide them up amongst your division (13 or 14 games against teams in your division...so this is where your 4-game series' can be fit into the schedule).  Plus, this allows every team's fanbase to either see a team at home or see them on the road on local TV.  If you live in Atlanta, you've hardly ever seen Mike Trout play, home games or out in Anaheim.  Now your team would play every team every season, as well as hosting every team within every two years.

 

Sucks for those that can't get enough Red Sox-Yankees, but the majority of the rest of the baseball world likes to see everyone.

[SFGiants58]

Meh, interleague as it is works fine.

 

Now, getting us off this tangent, here are a few developments:

 

This has not been a fun week for Pirates fans. I'm just happy the Giants aren't overtly pursuing McCutchen, especially with his negative defensive value last season.

[Kramerica Industries]

3 hours ago, HedleyLamarr said:

Sucks for those that can't get enough Red Sox-Yankees, but the majority of the rest of the baseball world likes to see everyone.

 

I'm pretty sure that's only Fox and ESPN. I know the rest of baseball is tired of them as well, but, to be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone is more tired of Yankees/Red Sox than Yankees and Red Sox fans. 

[2001mark]

Apparently Rosenthal asked Maddon on a panel why he left Chapman in with the big lead.  Maddon said he wanted to use Chapman, & save arms, with the lead rather than have to rely on him if somone else had opened the door for Cleveland.  Did not want to use Chapman during an even tighter scenario.

[OnWis97]

On 12/2/2016 at 4:14 PM, HedleyLamarr said:

I dunno, I get pretty bored with seeing the same four teams for half the schedule.  I've gotten so tired of seeing the Mets, Phillies, Marlins, and Nationals here.  I like seeing other teams, both NL and AL.  38 of the 81 home games are the same four teams.  Those can be chopped down.

 

Ok, 54 3-game series in a season.  Dedicate 16 series to the opposite league (2 against your designated rival or rotated rival home/away, 1 against the other 14 teams either home or away).  Dedicate 20 series to the other teams in your league outside your division (one home, one away against each team).  Then, with the other 18 series (or 54 games), divide them up amongst your division (13 or 14 games against teams in your division...so this is where your 4-game series' can be fit into the schedule).  Plus, this allows every team's fanbase to either see a team at home or see them on the road on local TV.  If you live in Atlanta, you've hardly ever seen Mike Trout play, home games or out in Anaheim.  Now your team would play every team every season, as well as hosting every team within every two years.

 

Sucks for those that can't get enough Red Sox-Yankees, but the majority of the rest of the baseball world likes to see everyone.

Sometimes I feel (though I feel like the only one)  a bit of an NFL "over-saturation" vibe with both inter-league "rivalries" and the unbalanced schedule.  I'll catch my non-consecutive innings of most Twins games on the tube regardless of who they are playing but my goodness, every time I decide to pick up some tickets, looking for dates that suit me...CWS, DET, KC, CLE. It's getting dry.  For every "Yankees/RedSox" (which bores me, but I acknowledge sells tickets" there's a  few Twins/Tigers, Reds/Pirates, Rockies/Dodgers that nobody wants to watch 19 times.  Also, pro sports (unlike college) are suppose to have schedule integrity.  The unbalanced schedule destroys that in the Wild Card race.  Balance the intra-league schedule, first and foremost.

 

My thought on interleague has always been to go NFL style (i.e., you'd face teams in the other league every three years; at home every six).  But I could deal with this "one series per year; opposite league teams come to town every-other year" idea...in fact it plays more into Wild Card integrity I advocate.  I'd still dump the "extra" for the "interleague rival" regardless.  I still think it's too much of a good thing (and schedule integrity when the Brewers get extra games vs. the hapless Twins).

 

So, in order of priority:

• Balance the intra-league schedule
• Systematize the interleague schedule so everyone visits everyone's ballpark
  • either NFL style (every-six years) or
  • every other year
• Dump the "interleague rivals"

 

I tend to doubt any of these will happen.  Then again, the NHL dumped the "see teams from the conference every few years" thing.  But in general, it seems that extra rivalry games sell well in certain high-profile areas...enough not to be offset by the slight boost by a rare Dodgers appearance to Target Field.

[cmm]

I disagree. If you have divisions, you need to have an unbalanced schedule. Otherwise, why even have divisions? The AL used a balanced schedule for years and it never made sense to me. Nineteen games may be too many, but teams should play their division rivals more often than they play other teams.

[tp49]

Giants get their closer signing Mark Melancon to a four year deal.

[SFGiants58]

13 minutes ago, tp49 said:

Giants get their closer signing Mark Melancon to a four year deal.

 

So, the Giants are serious about improving the disaster-pen, and they'll do it with one of the top closers (for now, at least) in the game.

 

 

Now, all they have to do is find a better set-up man, be it through a small free agent signing or through playing around with the guys under contract.

[2001mark]

Well, Jays have to prove it to me yet again on field.  Interesting more fans (social media) than I thought upset at EE's agent for turning down $80m & chance at a ring than at Rogers or EE himself.  

Perhaps it is for the best not to put all the eggs into one ageing basket, dunno.  

[2001mark]

Bryce Harper via Scott Boras want $400m/10yrs.

 

lols

[HedleyLamarr]

8 hours ago, cmm said:

I disagree. If you have divisions, you need to have an unbalanced schedule. Otherwise, why even have divisions? The AL used a balanced schedule for years and it never made sense to me. Nineteen games may be too many, but teams should play their division rivals more often than they play other teams.

If only the division winners made the playoffs, I'd be fine with more divisional games.  But since there's Wild Card spots involved, you're in competition with the entire league in collecting wins.  As such, there should be some equity when it comes to everyone's schedule.  The current 20-game interleague schedule schedule doesn't allow for that.  If my model gets used, you share 45 interleague games out of 48 with every team in your league.

 

With the remaining ledger, there's a closer number of games between division foes and the rest of the teams in your league.  Makes both the division races meaningful and the wild card races more fair.

[Brass]

On 12/2/2016 at 8:54 PM, Kramerica Industries said:

 

I'm pretty sure that's only Fox and ESPN. I know the rest of baseball is tired of them as well, but, to be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone is more tired of Yankees/Red Sox than Yankees and Red Sox fans. 

 

I'm over Red Sox/Yankees. To be honest, the "rivalry" just isn't there anymore like it was in 2003-2006ish. It's a shame; those were fun times to be a fan, but it's been oversaturated so bad that there isn't any "hatred" anymore. I'm 95% positive it was once legal to assault a Yankee fan in Fenway Park and vice versa.