Unfair Schedules

Discussion in 'Sports' started by Andy T., Aug 16, 2007.

  1. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Indians get to play the Devil Rays 10 times this year, while the Tigers only get them 7 times. Meanwhile, the Indians only have to play the Yankees 6 times, while the Tigers get them 8 times. I figure that is about a 3 or 4 game swing in favor of the Indians. What luck. Why can't they have symmetrical schedules? The Indians have to beat the Tigers by at least 5 games, in order for it to be a bona fide division championship. Otherwise, this unfair schedule will forever be my bogeyman.

    They should go back to 2 divisions with 7 teams in each. Get rid of the Marlins - they draw no one. Probably the Devil Rays, too. Florida doesn't need a team, they have Spring Training. Everyone living there is a transplant anyways - they all root for their northern team that they left for no taxes and smoother joints.

    Then cut the schedule to 158 games. They can still have their beloved interleague play, too - 18 for each team. Then play your division foes 14 times each (84 games), and the other division teams 8 times each (56 games).

    Get rid of the wild card - only the two division winners in the LCS's. Play a 9 game series in the LCS and WS. Do a format of 3-4-2 with the team with the best record getting home field.

    Play more DH's and get the post-season done by October 15th.

    I should be Commissioner.
     
  2. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    who said the devil rays are a professional baseball team...:laugh:

    Let's see, if I remember correctly 1997 world series was won by whom? Over who? for the uninformed, like our future commissioner it was the Marlins over the Indians.

    And the Marlins won again in 2003.

    So I think that if we're going to eliminate teams, we ought to eliminate team that haven't won a world series in the last 80 or more years and push out the Indians! :tonofbricks: (said entirely with good humor)
     
  3. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, that is an even greater reason why the Marlins should be contracted. They have 2 championships in the last 10 years and they still cannot draw a crowd. They have no fan base - Florida never will have one in baseball.
     
  4. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the way, I get the impression from your post that you think I'm an Indians fan. Nothing could be further from the truth.
     
  5. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    They do the schedule this way because fans complained about the way they used to do it. A few years ago, the schedule was more balanced, but fans complained that teams didn't play their division rivals enough times in comparison to the number of times they played teams out of their division. Add in the expansion teams and that led to the unbalanced schedule.

    Every season, I hear some Tator say, "The Milwaukee Brewers only play the St. Louis Cardinals 3 more times this year, but they play the Arizona Diamondbacks 6 more times." Or whoever the leading teams are. The implication being that the "idiots" who make up the major league schedules screwed up by somehow not knowing that the Brewers were going to be good this year. Or whoever the surprise team is.

    I don't have any problem with your changes. I don't mind a 9 game series because we likely wouldn't see teams that barely made it past .500 in the regular season win the World Series, like the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals.

    I've never liked the wild card in baseball anyway.

    Of course, it's easy to say that I don't mind your changes because they're never going to be enacted anway. :)
     
  6. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    If anything, south Florida belongs to the Dolphins and I don't think that will ever change.
     
  7. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the idea of a 9-game series, because it would mean that teams actually need some pitching depth to win it. A team's 4th (and maybe 5th) starter will have pitch at least once, maybe twice. Plus, I think it would be exciting and would be a better determiner of which team is better.
     
  8. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see how the 5th pitcher would start and I only see the 4th starter going out once. For example, let's say that Selig decrees a 9 game series. If Boston is in it and their choices are Wakefield/Beckett in games 8/9, or Beckett/Schilling in games 8/9, the latter choice is the one they would take. I don't think the pitching depth argument is a compelling one, but the better argument is that the better team is more likely to win a 9 game series than a 7 game series.

    Again, it's all academic, because I just don't see MLB making that kind of a change.
     
  9. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're right. I just charted it out. Of course, I charted it out with the #1 pitcher starting game 1. Many times, teams don't have that luxury. If anything, a 9-game series would test the depth of a team's bullpen, but probably not their starters.
     
  10. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did the same thing because there's typically enough time between the end of the LCS and the World Series for a team to start their ace. And I don't think that should change either.

    That was one of my gripes about the NBA in the 80s was that they started the Finals so soon after the Conference Championship was decided. In particular, this pretty much killed the 1987 Celtics chances of winning the Finals. I don't think they would have won anyway considering they had 0 depth, but it was just an unnecessary roadblock to throw in front of them.

    Sorry, didn't mean to hijack. Sometimes bitterness comes out in the most unexpected places. :)
     
  11. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    The unbalanced schedules are what they are. Go out and win your games. Beat your divisional rivals. Besides, just because a team plays the Yankees more or less doesn't matter as when they played. A game against the Yankees now means a heckuva lot more than it did when the Yankees were in the tank earlier this year.

    Andy's world is never having to say your team just got beat. Instead, it's a world where the Metrodome is causative of all the world's ills...now the schedule-makers shall incur his wrath. Is there enough to spare, considering how much you hate the Metrodome? :laugh:

    That could work in the AL. You'd have to drop two NL teams to have 14 in the NL. I wouldn't cry too loud if we go back. Under the current format, I wish we could add one more team to the AL West and make it fairer all the way around. I would put Houston in the NL West, and send Arizona or the Padres to the AL West. A four-team division? Please.

    I would like to see the WS go to 9 games, but I don't know about the 3-4-2. I wish the NL would adopt the DH. I like your scheduling plan, though. However, there's no way the post-season can be finished by 10/15, especially if you're playing two (potentially) 9 game series.

    A lot of folks whine about the Cards last year. If they shouldn't be there, then beating them in a series shouldn't be so hard. But to placate these folks, I say the team with the league's lowest win pct in the playoffs (or the WC, or both) 5 in a best of 7 to advance (or 6 in the best of 9). That would never be adopted, though.
     
  12. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    The schedule-makers don't get my wrath. It is just dumb luck. Of course, why are they so unbalanced? I understand that IL games will be different, but you would think they could figure out a way to have divisional rivals plays the other AL teams the same number of times. It's stupid.

    Oh, and the Tigers get to play their 8 games against the Yankees starting tonight and going through next week. More grand luck for the Tigers! Meanwhile, the Indians get to beef up on their tilted schedule with the Devil Rays. Bottom line is, the Tigers are better than the Indians and deserve the Central way more. The Indians have been lucky this year.
     
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, how long has this 'conspiracy' been going on against the Tigers??:rolleyes:

    Ed
     
  14. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    To bring it down to 28 teams, get rid of the Florida teams and move the Brewers back to the AL.

    AL East

    Tigers
    Yankees
    Red Sox
    Indians
    Orioles
    Blue Jays
    White Sox

    AL West

    A's
    Angels
    Mariners
    Rangers
    Brewers
    Royals
    Twins

    NL East

    Phillies
    Cubs
    Cardinals
    Reds
    Nationals
    Mets
    Pirates

    AL West

    Dodgers
    Padres
    Giants
    Rockies
    D-backs
    Astros
    Braves
     
  15. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    No conspiracy. Just bad luck. (Of course, theologically, I don't believe in luck, but that's another matter.)
     
  16. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, come on, Tom, you know how these things work. The Cardinals were hot at the right time and the Tigers weren't. We all know, or should know, that baseball is a game where an inferior team can beat a better team in a series, such as the 1960 Pirates, 85 Royals and 87 Twins. This is not the NBA where the best team wins.
     
  17. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the Jazz were better than the teams they beat in the Playoffs? The Warriors were better than the Mavs?

    I understand getting hot...but if you're hot, you're the better team at that moment. Playoffs are not played in a vaccum. And they aren't played in the Regular season, or whenever. They're played right then and there, and that's the nature of the beast.
     
  18. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    More dumb luck for the Tigers - half the team has the flu. The flu? In August? What are the chances? Of course, Guillen hit a granner and Pudge homered, both of whom had a mild case of it. Can't complain since they won last night. But it's a long road ahead with 7 more against the Yankees, as the Indians play their cushy schedule.
     
  19. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the NFL, the teams that have the best records get the hardest schedule. Could it be the same in MLB?

    I am sure that the Players Association will be glad to toss out a bunch of teams. NOT

    To me going to a 9 game World Series is like adding the designated hitter, lights to Wrigley and all night games in the world series... all bad ideas. Leave the game alone.
     
  20. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the very first World Series was 9 games. So I guess my idea is more "traditional" than you gave credit for.
     

Share This Page

Loading...