Each league will have 15 teams, yes. I don’t think it makes scheduling harder. The season will be completed in the same amount of time. There will be interleague play throughout the season, which not everybody likes, but every team already gets off days. I am not sure how many times every single team is playing on the same day.
I think interleague throughout the season is much better than the way it had been done, when there was nothing but interleague for a couple blocks. For one thing, if you’re not keen on interleague, you can now avoid it entirely without avoiding baseball for weeks at a time.
ETA:
Since moving the Astros to achieve six five-team divisions was first prominently proposed by Bob Costas (about 13 years ago IIRC), I’ll be interested to see how much the resulting schedule also follows his idea.
Happens every weekend, at least. I don’t think off-days are ever scheduled on Friday to Sunday anymore.
In any case, it’ll still be 30 teams playing 15 games, so it shouldn’t be that big an adjustment – just that the interleague games won’t all be clustered in May and June. I agree with Peremensoe that that isn’t a bad thing.
If the end result is a fewer total number of interleague games, great. If it increases the number, I’m against it. They play too damn many interleague games now.
The only purpose to interleague play was to generate revenue off a few key series- Yankees-Mets, Dodgers-Angels, Cubs-White Sox, and maybe Giants-A’s. Other than that, most fans would rather see the rivals they already hate more often.
I believe it also happens every Wednesday, except during All-Star week and opening week, which are both pretty funky scheduling-wise.
I can’t believe I forgot about Milwaukee. So, ahem, yes…FIVE teams in the NL Central will be left.
As an aside, I too like that the interleague play is more interspersed throughout the season than the old format. I love interleague play and don’t feel like there’s a really compelling argument against it. I hear stuff like “it never USED to be that way!” or “that’s what the World Series is for” or that its somehow “unfair”. I just don’t get the resistance to it. To me, not having it would be like not letting AFC and NFC football teams play each other during the regular NFL season.
Gosh, I don’t think that’s true at all. Sometimes you get really tired of seeing your team play the same teams over and over again. Especially when you’re in a division with teams like the Astros and Cubs. And its so much fun when a team like the Yankees comes to your home town ballpark.
I think they unbalanced it too much. Way too many teams against your division rivals. I’d prefer minimal interleague play and a more balanced league schedule.
The NHL went down the same path with unbalancing the schedule, now the Canadiens come to Detroit just once every other year so we can feast on the Columbus Blue Freaking Jackets. Yech.
The unfairness claim is based on things like rivalry games and the rotating schedule (where the AL East plays the NL East one year, the NL Central another year, and so on). So some teams get to play extra interleague games against shitty teams while their competitors get extra games against good teams.
Right, but if the rotation lets those alleged advantages happen for everyone over due course then it isn’t really inherently unfair, is it?
Right. Every team is playing on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. You will have a weekend series (which will have games on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, with the occasional game on either the preceding Thursday, or the following Monday), and a weekday series (Tuesday and Wednesday, and nearly always a third game either on Monday or Thursday).
Monday and Thursday are travel days, and, most weeks, any particular team will be off on either Monday or Thursday (but usually not both days).
The way the overall schedule is done now, while there are fewer games on Mondays and Thursdays than on the other (full-slate) days, there are usually at least a few games being played on those days (with the exception of the days surrounding the All-Star Game).
Totally different.
Football isn’t worth watching in the first place, precisely because the teams don’t play every day. No way is it worth being a fan of a team and then having to wait for the better part of a week between opportunities to see them play.
And that IS what the World Series is for, btw (earning the opportunity to play against a team from the other league). Baseball is about earning the opportunity to do cool things. Like earning the right to take a turn at bat, by taking the field during the other team’s turn at bat.
Otherwise, it’s not really baseball; it’s just a bunch of self-indulgent millionaires cavorting around on the lawn in front of “fans” who are too apathetic to vote with their wallets and put a stop to this blasphemy.
ETA: And TAKE DOWN THOSE GOD-DAMNED LIGHTS AT WRIGLEY FIELD!
The biggest reason it troubles me is that a long, daily baseball season is supposed to do something that isn’t done in other sports – every team plays every other team an equal number of times, and that number is high enough for the real quality to shine through over the course of a season. So that when you get a final regular-season ranking, you know that each team has been given an equal chance against all other teams it’s being measured against.
The schedule right now is extremely unbalanced in that there isn’t that kind of balance. There are too many categories of matchups with varying numbers of games between them.
In baseball, “over due course” doesn’t mean anything unless it means “over the course of a single season.”
But it doesn’t, due to the “rivalry games” - for example, St. Louis gets Kansas City (who are always awful) every year, while Cincy gets Cleveland (who are occasionally decent) and over in the wild card race, the Mets get to play against the Yankees every year.
Well, doesn’t that happen in all of sports, just on a more micro level due to shorter seasons? There are divisions, you play your divisional teams more often than any other, and over the course of the season, no matter how long or short, the cream rises to the top? This sounds to me more like an argument for trying to be unique as a sport in terms of scheduling across the leagues.
And by over due course, yeah, I know what you mean but aren’t traditionally good teams pretty much always pretty good? So in that regard, if your rival draws a weaker interleague schedule than you do one year, won’t the situation be reversed within a couple seasons, with the net quality of the “good” teams still being “good”?
I forgot about the “rivalry” games. In your example I agree that its not fair because this isn’t an example of a rotating schedule from year to year and St Louis gets a series of “gimme” games every year under that scenario.
I blame Tony Larussa.
Yes, it’s what made baseball better than the NFL, for example.
(1) No, you can’t count on good teams being good every year and bad teams being bad every year. If you did, then you don’t really have a very interesting league. And, statistically, I doubt it holds up.
(2) What does it matter whether it evens out over time when your won-loss doesn’t carry over from one season to the next?
Agree to disagree on the first point. I really like baseball, but I LOVE he NFL…its not even close for me.
As to your other two points, I guess I can’t argue with any of that. I think MLB is a pretty damn good game just the way it is right now…except they need replay!
d&r
It’s just one of those preference things. One of the other reasons why I think baseball is superior to the NFL is also the same argument against the designated hitter. I believe that in a team sport, the same “team” should be doing all the playing for the majority of the game, that means offense and defense. I would find the NFL much more interesting if the same 11 guys had to play offense, defense, and special teams in a single game, just like in soccer.