8 replies to this topic

[Metsfan980]

Peter Gammons sent out this information this morning:

Houston ownership change expected to go through in mid-November, w/ AL move.

http://twitter.com/#!/pgammo/status/124120265784442880

I haven't seen an in-depth look at this information yet (outside of would it be good or bad for the Astros), but I do know that this could mean interleague play throughout the regular season.

Here is a second link about the news:

http://www.mlbtrader...rce=twitterfeed

[Retire#17]

Wow, think how terrible they will be in the AL. They were bad this year in the NL central ... it will be brutal.

[Metsfan980]

Wow, think how terrible they will be in the AL. They were bad this year in the NL central ... it will be brutal.

There was actually a post to fangraphs about this not too long ago:

http://www.fangraphs...e-nl-to-the-al/

From the table above, we see that had the Astros played the 2011 season in the AL West — instead of the NL — we would have expected the ‘Stros to lose an additional 2.8 games. The Astros weren’t likely competing for a playoff spot this year, so losing three wins isn’t necessarily a game changer. But it’s certainly not meaningless, either.

[birtelcom]

I haven't seen an in-depth look at this information yet (outside of would it be good or bad for the Astros), but I do know that this could mean interleague play throughout the regular season.

6 divisions each with 5 teams could in theory make for a relatively straightforward and pretty well-balanced schedule. Each team could play its four intra-division rivals 18 times, nine home and nine away, for a total of seventy-two games. Then each team could play all the teams in three other divisions (the two other divisions in its own league plus one division from the other league) six times, three home and three away. That would make for 90 games (6 games times 15 teams). That's a total of 162 games. The interleague play would cover all teams on a three-year cycle, so the NL East teams would play the AL East teams one year, then the next year the NL East teams would play the AL Central teams, and the following year the NL East tams would play the AL West teams, and then the cycle would begin again. Besides being relatively fair and reasonably balanced, this cycle would have the nice effect of limiting the number of Mets/Yankees games, and similar interleague rivalry games, so that such contests regain their status as rare occurrences meriting great attention. I'm sure MLB won't go for that, because those intra-city (or intra-state) rivalry games are seen as an annual attendance and ratings boosters that the owners will not want to ration, but it still makes long-term sense to me.

As to having to play interleague games all season because of the uneven number of teams in each league, I wouldn't think that would be a big deal. With my suggested schedule above you would have to plan for 450 interleague games during the season, out of 2430 total games -- two or three of the fifteen series underway at any given time during the season would neeed to be of the interleague variety. I'm not sure why that would be a special problem.

One twist in this system I'd like to see but wil never happen is to have the inter-division wild card standings based just on the 84 games that would be comon for all teams in a particular league. So the Mets' record for interdivision wild card purposes would be based only the team's record in its thirty games vs. the NL Central, its thirty games vs. the NL West and its final six games against each of the four other members of the NL East. That would elimnate strength of schedule bias from competition for wild card spots. Of course that won't actually happen either,

[metsfanohio]

if a team was to move to the AL form the Nl, why not place the brewers back in the AL?

[Doc]

They want a team inin the West near the Rangers.

[Metsfan980]

As to having to play interleague games all season because of the uneven number of teams in each league, I wouldn't think that would be a big deal. With my suggested schedule above you would have to plan for 450 interleague games during the season, out of 2430 total games -- two or three of the fifteen series underway at any given time during the season would neeed to be of the interleague variety. I'm not sure why that would be a special problem.

I don't care for interleague play, so I'm not thrilled about a plan that increases the quantity interleague games.

I wonder what a plan like this would mean for national league teams, which would probably have to consider investing in a DH-type bench for the bat. Also, american league teams would probably have to work on bunting and hitting with their pitchers more than they currently do during spring training.

One twist in this system I'd like to see but wil never happen is to have the inter-division wild card standings based just on the 84 games that would be comon for all teams in a particular league. So the Mets' record for interdivision wild card purposes would be based only the team's record in its thirty games vs. the NL Central, its thirty games vs. the NL West and its final six games against each of the four other members of the NL East. That would elimnate strength of schedule bias from competition for wild card spots. Of course that won't actually happen either,

Wouldn't that give teams and players the incentive to conserve their best efforts for games outside of their own division and for their final six games against divisional opponents?

They want a team inin the West near the Rangers.

It also seems like Major League Baseball wants to increase the amount of Rangers-Astros games, which could increase attendance and fan interest for both teams.

[Doc]

It also seems like Major League Baseball wants to increase the amount of Rangers-Astros games, which could increase attendance and fan interest for both teams.

Cynic!

[birtelcom]

I don't care for interleague play, so I'm not thrilled about a plan that increases the quantity interleague games.

Part of what bothers me, and perhaps you, about interleague play today is its arbitrariness. Everybody plays different teams, some home, some away, without any coherent balance in scheduling. My proposed system would integrate interleague play much more smoothly into the normal schedule -- it would really be no different than inter-division play, except for the DH thing.

I wonder what a plan like this would mean for national league teams, which would probably have to consider investing in a DH-type bench for the bat. Also, american league teams would probably have to work on bunting and hitting with their pitchers more than they currently do during spring training.

The Mets currently play 9 games a season with the DH rules. Under my proposed schedule that would go to 15. I'm not sure an extra six games should make much difference in personnel strategy.

Wouldn't that give teams and players the incentive to conserve their best efforts for games outside of their own division and for their final six games against divisional opponents?

If the plan involves, as I'm assuming it would, two wild card teams per league, playing each other in a one-game playoff, a division championship is going to be considerably more desirable (as compared to the wild card) than it is today. A wild card spot becomes just a 50-50 lottery ticket chance of getting into the LDS, while a division championship will get you into the LDS. I don't think teams will be prioritizing wild card games at the expense of division games.