A revised MLB schedule idea

[wdm1219inpenna]

With the 2007 MLB playoffs upcoming, I got to thinking about one of the things that bothers me about the current MLB format with regard to divisions and scheduling.

One thing that bothers me, each of the 4 American League West teams has a 25% chance of winning the division. 4 of the other 5 divisions have teams who each have a 20% chance of winning the division (all things being equal mind you), while the NL Central has SIX teams, giving only a 16.66% chance. This to me is wrong, and here is how I would remedy it...

Since interleague play seems to be so popular, my idea would incorporate requiring at least 1 interleague series to be played throughout the entire regular season. As many as 15 at once even.

I would have the Colorado Rockies leave the National League West and place them in the American League West. This would give the AL 15 teams, each division with 5 teams in it.

I would have the Houston Astros leave the National League Central and place htem in the National League West. This would give the NL 15 teams, each division with 5 teams in it.

By moving Colorado to the AL, the heavier hitting league, it would be a natural geographic rival to Arizona, since they are somewhat close together time-zone wise.

By moving Houston to the West, both they and Texas would be in their own leagues' western divisions, as it should be. Why one Texas team is West and another is Central is beyond me.

EAST GEOGRAPHIC INTERLEAGUE RIVALS: YANKEES/METS, RED SOX/BRAVES, ORIOLES/NATIONALS, BLUE JAYS/PHILLIES, DEVIL RAYS, OR JUST RAYS/MARLINS.

CENTRAL GEOGRAPHIC INTERLEAGUE RIVALS: TIGERS/PIRATES, INDIANS/REDS, ROYALS/CARDINALS, WHITE SOX/CUBS, TWINS/BREWERS

WEST GEOGRAPHIC INTERLEAGUE RIVALS: ANGELS/DOGERS, RANGERS/ASTROS, ATHLETICS/GIANTS, MARINERS/PADRES, ROCKIES/ DIAMONDBACKS

It bothers me that some teams play 12 interleague games per season, others 15, still others 18. It bothers me that some teams play 18 or 19 divisional games against 1 opponent while others play 15 vs. a division rival.

Here's how I would like to see it work:

Each team would play 18 games vs. their other 4 divisional rivals, 9 at home, 9 on the road. So the Phillies would host the Mets, Marlins, Braves & Nationals 9 games each, and play at the Mets, Marlins, Braves & Nationals 9 times each, each season.

Teams from one division would play the other 10 teams in their same league from the other 2 divisions 6 times, 3 at home 3 on the road. So the Yankees for example would play the Tigers, Indians, Royals, White Sox Twins, Angels, Rangers, A's Mariners & Rockies 6 times each, 3 at home, 3 on the road.

All 30 teams would play the SAME NUMBER of interleague games each season, 18. There would be a 3 year rotation. AL East vs NL East, AL Central vs NL Central, AL West vs NL West year 1, AL East vs NL Central, AL Central vs NL West, AL West vs NL East for year 2, and AL East vs NL West, AL Central vs NL East, Al West vs NL Central in Year 3. In year 4, the home & visiting teams would switch places.

Example: Yankees at Phillies (year 1), Philles at Yankees (year 4)

Also, in year one, with the AL East playing the NL East in interleague, the first place team in each division would play a home & away 3 game series vs their counterpart.

For example, if the Yankees finished in first place, and the Braves finished in first, the Yankees would play the Braves SIX times in year 1, 3 times at Yankee Stadium & 3 more times at Turner Field.

Similarly, first place teams in the league would play first place teams from the other 2 divisions in their own league for 6 additional games (3 at home 3 on the road).

So if the Marlins, Cardinals & Padres all finished in first, the Marlins would play the Cardinals TWELVE TIMES a year (instead of just 6) and the Marlins would play the Padres TWELVE TIMES a year, and the Cards and Padres would also face off 12 times in that same regular season year.

This adds up to 162 games total. Just throwing this idea out there, I'm ready for all the remarks, bad and good.

Bill McD.

[SgtCarp]

I like this. I'm sick of seeing my favorite team, the Braves, get their a$$es handed to them by the Red Sox 6 times every single year. Also, it just bothers me that the teams in each league are unequal. Its not that i care about the equal percent chance to win a division, its just something that's bothered me and I have no idea why they havent already made it equal.

I also like the thing with if you finish first in your division, you play the first place team from your interleague rival division. Going with the NFL mentality there.

If by saying you play each divisional team 9 times home and 9 times away, are you eliminating the 4-game series? That's the only question I have.

[wdm1219inpenna]

I like this. I'm sick of seeing my favorite team, the Braves, get their a$$es handed to them by the Red Sox 6 times every single year. Also, it just bothers me that the teams in each league are unequal. Its not that i care about the equal percent chance to win a division, its just something that's bothered me and I have no idea why they havent already made it equal.

I also like the thing with if you finish first in your division, you play the first place team from your interleague rival division. Going with the NFL mentality there.

If by saying you play each divisional team 9 times home and 9 times away, are you eliminating the 4-game series? That's the only question I have.

Thanks for the kind reply. Yes, that's what I'm saying in essence, get rid of the 4 game series altogether, either that, or have a 2 game series and a 4 game series (total of 6)...

[Bronxmet]

With the 2007 MLB playoffs upcoming, I got to thinking about one of the things that bothers me about the current MLB format with regard to divisions and scheduling.

One thing that bothers me, each of the 4 American League West teams has a 25% chance of winning the division. 4 of the other 5 divisions have teams who each have a 20% chance of winning the division (all things being equal mind you), while the NL Central has SIX teams, giving only a 16.66% chance. This to me is wrong, and here is how I would remedy it...

Since interleague play seems to be so popular, my idea would incorporate requiring at least 1 interleague series to be played throughout the entire regular season. As many as 15 at once even.

I would have the Colorado Rockies leave the National League West and place them in the American League West. This would give the AL 15 teams, each division with 5 teams in it.

I would have the Houston Astros leave the National League Central and place htem in the National League West. This would give the NL 15 teams, each division with 5 teams in it.

By moving Colorado to the AL, the heavier hitting league, it would be a natural geographic rival to Arizona, since they are somewhat close together time-zone wise.

By moving Houston to the West, both they and Texas would be in their own leagues' western divisions, as it should be. Why one Texas team is West and another is Central is beyond me.

EAST GEOGRAPHIC INTERLEAGUE RIVALS: YANKEES/METS, RED SOX/BRAVES, ORIOLES/NATIONALS, BLUE JAYS/PHILLIES, DEVIL RAYS, OR JUST RAYS/MARLINS.

CENTRAL GEOGRAPHIC INTERLEAGUE RIVALS: TIGERS/PIRATES, INDIANS/REDS, ROYALS/CARDINALS, WHITE SOX/CUBS, TWINS/BREWERS

WEST GEOGRAPHIC INTERLEAGUE RIVALS: ANGELS/DOGERS, RANGERS/ASTROS, ATHLETICS/GIANTS, MARINERS/PADRES, ROCKIES/ DIAMONDBACKS

It bothers me that some teams play 12 interleague games per season, others 15, still others 18. It bothers me that some teams play 18 or 19 divisional games against 1 opponent while others play 15 vs. a division rival.

Here's how I would like to see it work:

Each team would play 18 games vs. their other 4 divisional rivals, 9 at home, 9 on the road. So the Phillies would host the Mets, Marlins, Braves & Nationals 9 games each, and play at the Mets, Marlins, Braves & Nationals 9 times each, each season.

Teams from one division would play the other 10 teams in their same league from the other 2 divisions 6 times, 3 at home 3 on the road. So the Yankees for example would play the Tigers, Indians, Royals, White Sox Twins, Angels, Rangers, A's Mariners & Rockies 6 times each, 3 at home, 3 on the road.

All 30 teams would play the SAME NUMBER of interleague games each season, 18. There would be a 3 year rotation. AL East vs NL East, AL Central vs NL Central, AL West vs NL West year 1, AL East vs NL Central, AL Central vs NL West, AL West vs NL East for year 2, and AL East vs NL West, AL Central vs NL East, Al West vs NL Central in Year 3. In year 4, the home & visiting teams would switch places.

Example: Yankees at Phillies (year 1), Philles at Yankees (year 4)

Also, in year one, with the AL East playing the NL East in interleague, the first place team in each division would play a home & away 3 game series vs their counterpart.

For example, if the Yankees finished in first place, and the Braves finished in first, the Yankees would play the Braves SIX times in year 1, 3 times at Yankee Stadium & 3 more times at Turner Field.

Similarly, first place teams in the league would play first place teams from the other 2 divisions in their own league for 6 additional games (3 at home 3 on the road).

So if the Marlins, Cardinals & Padres all finished in first, the Marlins would play the Cardinals TWELVE TIMES a year (instead of just 6) and the Marlins would play the Padres TWELVE TIMES a year, and the Cards and Padres would also face off 12 times in that same regular season year.

This adds up to 162 games total. Just throwing this idea out there, I'm ready for all the remarks, bad and good.

Bill McD.

For interleague, why not have Detroit face the Reds and Pittsburgh against Cleveland?

Detroit faced the Reds in the 1940 World Series and everyone should know about Cleveland v. Pittsburgh.

[Swiss]

I like all this stuff.

Well minded, Bill.

[Mac the Knife]

I always thought a good plan would be to move the Houston Astros to the AL West to join Texas, then move either Cincinnati, Milwaukee or St. Louis to the NL West, creating three divisions of 5 teams each per league.

Each team plays 20 games against the four teams in its own division (10 home/10 away), for 80 games.

Each team plays 6 games against the 10 teams in its own league (3 home/3 away), for 60 games.

Each team plays 4 games against each of the 5 teams in a division of the opposing league (2 home/2 away in weekend 'mini-series'), for 20 games. Divisions would be rotated so that each team would face every team in the other league every third year.

and finally...

Each team gets a two-game 'mini-series' against a local interleague rival: Yanks/Mets, O's/Nats, Bucs/Tribe, A's/Giants, Cubs/ChiSox, Royals/Cards, etc.

Expand the post-season to include a second wild-card in each league, but reformat the playoffs. The two wild-card teams meet in a one-game playoff, with the winner immediately advancing to an LDS against the team with the league's best record. Then make the LDS a weekend, best-of-three affair. If you want to keep the LCS and WS at 7 games, fine.

[rams80]

I always thought a good plan would be to move the Houston Astros to the AL West to join Texas, then move either Cincinnati, Milwaukee or St. Louis to the NL West, creating three divisions of 5 teams each per league.

Umm...the NL West already has 5 teams without adding another to it.

[illwauk]

I'd like to see the 12 interleague games in your plan split between 2 teams. Basically, each team plays a home and away series against 2 teams in the other league.

For interleague, why not have Detroit face the Reds and Pittsburgh against Cleveland?

Detroit faced the Reds in the 1940 World Series and everyone should know about Cleveland v. Pittsburgh.

IIRC, the Michigan-Ohio rivalry is based on Cleveland's rivalry with Detroit, Ann Arbor's rivalry with Columbus and the various factory towns near the border (Battle Creek, Toledo, etc.) There's not any (or at least not as much) anti-Michigan sentiment once you go south of Columbus. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Cincinnati contingent)

[Mac the Knife]

I always thought a good plan would be to move the Houston Astros to the AL West to join Texas, then move either Cincinnati, Milwaukee or St. Louis to the NL West, creating three divisions of 5 teams each per league.

Umm...the NL West already has 5 teams without adding another to it.

I always forget Arizona... my bad.

[DEAD!]

I always thought a good plan would be to move the Houston Astros to the AL West to join Texas, then move either Cincinnati, Milwaukee or St. Louis to the NL West, creating three divisions of 5 teams each per league.

Umm...the NL West already has 5 teams without adding another to it.

I always forget Arizona... my bad.

... well, I always forget Colorado....

[Luigi74]

I'd like to see the 12 interleague games in your plan split between 2 teams. Basically, each team plays a home and away series against 2 teams in the other league.

For interleague, why not have Detroit face the Reds and Pittsburgh against Cleveland?

Detroit faced the Reds in the 1940 World Series and everyone should know about Cleveland v. Pittsburgh.

IIRC, the Michigan-Ohio rivalry is based on Cleveland's rivalry with Detroit, Ann Arbor's rivalry with Columbus and the various factory towns near the border (Battle Creek, Toledo, etc.) There's not any (or at least not as much) anti-Michigan sentiment once you go south of Columbus. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Cincinnati contingent)

Detroit & Cleveland have a rivalry? I have lived in the Detroit area for around 15 years and never really picked up a Detroit v Cleveland vibe, same goes the few times I went to Cleveland.

The pro sports Detroit rivalries seem to break down like this.

Lions - Bears and Packers

Tigers - Whoever they are in a pennant or playoff chase with

Pistons - Bulls and whoever is at the top of the Eastern Conference

Red Wings - Avalance and Maple Leafs

[JBPerry]

the problem i have with keeping the rangers in the west (same thing would go for the astros) since all of the other teams in our division are on the west coast, whenever the rangers play a game on the west coast, the telecast doesn't start till 9 here. That's when i'm trying to watch the news.

[njmeadowlanders]

It makes sense, but it'd never happen. Down the stretch, they're not going to make it so you're playing interleague games...

[HedleyLamarr]

It makes sense, but it'd never happen. Down the stretch, they're not going to make it so you're playing interleague games...

It wouldn't really matter, the game's importance isn't any lesser or greater if you play Interleague games in September as opposed to June. All the other leagues don't really let Interconference games play a part in schedule-making.

The only true fair way to create competitive balance would be for all the NL teams to play all the AL teams in a season, but that's likely not going to fly, because too many games will be used for Interleague Play (For NL teams playing 3-game series vs AL teams, that's 42 games; for AL teams, it's 48 Interleague games).

To try and make things a little fairer all around, I would divide each league into two "Interleague Groups" that give division teams a more-equal schedule, as far as playing common opponents is concerned. The Central Division teams in both leagues don't get a fair shake out of this, but they wouldn't be the lone team from their division playing a different schedule.

AL Group 1: Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, NY Yankees, Tampa Bay, Toronto

AL Group 2: Anaheim, CHI White Sox, Kansas City, Minesota, Oakland, Seattle, Texas

NL Group 1: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Florida, Houston, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

NL Group 2: Arizona, CHI Cubs, Colorado, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco

In this scenario, the teams in AL Group 1 would play the teams in NL Group 1 in one 3-game series (No one league would have all home games, they'd be divided as evenly as possible) in 2008 while AL Group 2 would play NL Group 2. In 2009, AL Group 1 would play NL Group 2 in a 3-game series, while AL Group 2 would play NL Group 1. In 2010, AL Group 1 would play NL Group 1 and AL Group 2 would play NL Group 2 again, but in the other team's ballpark. In 2011, AL Group 1 would play NL Group 2 and AL Group 2 would play NL Group 1 again, but in the other team's ballpark.

In another aspect, the Interleague games wouldn't be played in certain parts of the season, like the current schedule does. To help decrease the amount of travel, Interleague games would be played at any part of the season. For example, when Cleveland goes on a West Coast trip to play a couple of AL West teams, they could mix in an Interleague series or two against NL teams along the way, instead of making two seperate long road trips.

Finally, for Intraleague games, approximately 40% of the games would be set aside for Divisional opponents, while the other games would be played against league teams outside your division.

Positives: For the most part, teams in the same division would play the same opponents each season. Also, each AL team would visit each NL stadium (and vice-versa) once every 4 years. The number of Interleague games slightly increase (AL teams would play 24 Interleague games instead of the current 18; the NL teams would play 21.). The overall schedule among teams in the same division becomes a lot more equal than the current schedule allows.

Negatives: As mentioned earlier, the Central Division teams won't play an equal schedule. This Interleague set gets rid of the crosstown/crossstate rivalries (which affects MLB's current Interleague scheduling). Fewer Intraleague games, and slightly fewer games against teams in your division. In some cases, teams would have longer road trips and homestands (though, 12-game road trips and homestands aren't too uncommon to MLB, anyway).

[WJMorris3]

My plans start with the moving of Arizona to the AL West, and Houston to the NL West, leaving us with 15 and 15.

18 games against your division x 4 division opponents = 72 games.

6 games against the rest of the league x 10 other league opponents = 60 games.

Interleague = 30 games, to get us up to 162.

Interleague will be scheduled as follows.

Each year, every team will play 3 games against each team in the corresponding division of the other league, with home-field advantage switching each year.

Meanwhile, every team will play 3 games against each team in one division of the other league, including potentially their own division. It would rotate every three years, and home field advantage would switch each time through the three year rotation.

Year 1: NL East v AL East, NL Central v AL West, NL West v AL Central

Year 2: NL East v AL West, NL Central v AL Central, NL West v AL East

Year 3: NL East v AL Central, NL Central v AL East, NL West v AL West

In each six-year period, each team would play 6 games against each opposite league team (3 home, 3 away), with teams in opposing divisions playing each other for 24 games in that time (12 home, 12 away.)

[Alphabet Man]

So, why is there 162 games?

Surely its appeal would drag on and get boring at such a ridiculous number.