I thought it was annoying last year that two months into the season, there was too much discussion about a team's standing in the wildcard chase. At the beginning of the season I opined that the NL West would snag one of the wildcard spots away from the NL East, meaning there would be more pressure on the Mets to win the division or at least not fall into the hole they did by the end of May.
The bottom line is that they cannot afford to lose games to the crappy teams and have to dominate the White Sox, Rockies, Rays, Nationals, Marlins, Orioles, and Angels (who I am going to see on July 23 at Cit Field) because there are so many competitive teams out there that will give them a good battle. So evening up on the Dbacks means at least they don't lose out if they end the year with the same record.
made a similar point yesterday in the Gut Reaction comments. All wins are important, but especially those head to head against other contenders. Important early series with the Cubs ensues.
Every game is meaningful for the playoff position and a balance schedule is paramount if MLB wants to be fair. Headed to head records should be the primary way to break a tie at the end of the season.
13 games for divisional games: 13 × 4 = 52 games
7 games each league games: 7 X 10 = 70 games
Is will insure "head to head " games will determine the tie.
3 games for interleague (ie East vs East), 3 games for interleague games ( ie NL East vs AL Central) and interleague 2 games ( NL East vs AL West) for a total of 42 interleague games.
52+70+15+15+10 = 162 this would be the most balanced schedule.
My opinion is that there aren't going to be any tweaks to the schedule until the league expands to 32 and there are 8 divisions with 4 teams in each. And once that happens, the math is pretty easy.
Interleague - play all 16 teams in the AL three times - 48 games
Three NL non division - play all 12 teams six times -- 72 games
Division - play the other 3 teams 14 times - 42 games
I prefer the unbalanced schedule. But instead of making more division, why not less?
I did the math on this a few years ago, supposing two new teams enter, allowing us to reduce interleague and shorten the season by a few games to make up for the expanded playoffs.
Step 1: two expansion teams for a total of 32 MLB teams.
Step 2: distribute NL/AL Central teams to NL/AL East/West (16 in each league).
Step 3: 12 games against each of the 7 teams in the same division (84 games).
Step 4: 6 games against each of 12 of the 24 non-division teams (72 games).
Step 5: Games vs. non-division teams rotate every other year (probably with blocs being reshuffled after every two years so non-division opponents aren't predictable going forward).
This would make a 156 game schedule. I think I also envisioned a similar version that removes interleague entirely but I forget the numbers for that one.
Every league has divisions with fewer teams so no one has to be called a 7th or a 15th-placed team. It seems flimsy but it's been proven bad for business.
That's interesting. I could see how that could be demoralizing in less competitive markets. Never heard that one before, probably because I don't watch other sports beside baseball.
Great point! And the point-within-the-point: the Mets MUST beat up on Colorado, quite possibly the worst team in either league.
Please do not capitalize words in your post, as that is a violation of our Comment Policy.
I thought it was annoying last year that two months into the season, there was too much discussion about a team's standing in the wildcard chase. At the beginning of the season I opined that the NL West would snag one of the wildcard spots away from the NL East, meaning there would be more pressure on the Mets to win the division or at least not fall into the hole they did by the end of May.
The bottom line is that they cannot afford to lose games to the crappy teams and have to dominate the White Sox, Rockies, Rays, Nationals, Marlins, Orioles, and Angels (who I am going to see on July 23 at Cit Field) because there are so many competitive teams out there that will give them a good battle. So evening up on the Dbacks means at least they don't lose out if they end the year with the same record.
I think me and two of my buddies are also going to the July 23rd game against the Angels!
We will be in section 123! Look for the Soto shirt 🤣
made a similar point yesterday in the Gut Reaction comments. All wins are important, but especially those head to head against other contenders. Important early series with the Cubs ensues.
Every game is meaningful for the playoff position and a balance schedule is paramount if MLB wants to be fair. Headed to head records should be the primary way to break a tie at the end of the season.
13 games for divisional games: 13 × 4 = 52 games
7 games each league games: 7 X 10 = 70 games
Is will insure "head to head " games will determine the tie.
3 games for interleague (ie East vs East), 3 games for interleague games ( ie NL East vs AL Central) and interleague 2 games ( NL East vs AL West) for a total of 42 interleague games.
52+70+15+15+10 = 162 this would be the most balanced schedule.
My opinion is that there aren't going to be any tweaks to the schedule until the league expands to 32 and there are 8 divisions with 4 teams in each. And once that happens, the math is pretty easy.
Interleague - play all 16 teams in the AL three times - 48 games
Three NL non division - play all 12 teams six times -- 72 games
Division - play the other 3 teams 14 times - 42 games
I prefer the unbalanced schedule. But instead of making more division, why not less?
I did the math on this a few years ago, supposing two new teams enter, allowing us to reduce interleague and shorten the season by a few games to make up for the expanded playoffs.
Step 1: two expansion teams for a total of 32 MLB teams.
Step 2: distribute NL/AL Central teams to NL/AL East/West (16 in each league).
Step 3: 12 games against each of the 7 teams in the same division (84 games).
Step 4: 6 games against each of 12 of the 24 non-division teams (72 games).
Step 5: Games vs. non-division teams rotate every other year (probably with blocs being reshuffled after every two years so non-division opponents aren't predictable going forward).
This would make a 156 game schedule. I think I also envisioned a similar version that removes interleague entirely but I forget the numbers for that one.
Every league has divisions with fewer teams so no one has to be called a 7th or a 15th-placed team. It seems flimsy but it's been proven bad for business.
That's interesting. I could see how that could be demoralizing in less competitive markets. Never heard that one before, probably because I don't watch other sports beside baseball.