PDA

View Full Version : Sox strange interleague schedule


downstairs
03-30-2011, 04:37 PM
Not that it matters that much... but I wonder why the Dodgers series is in late May, and then the rest of the interleague games are all in a row for a few weeks a full month later?

SephClone89
03-30-2011, 04:40 PM
They've been doing this for the last few years. It was Florida last year, and Pittsburgh the year before that.

Red Barchetta
03-30-2011, 04:59 PM
I know there have been whispers of contraction, re-alignment, etc., however I think the first thing they should do is even out the divisions to five teams each (vs. 6 for the NL Central and 4 for the AL West) and play inter-league all season. If the games count, they count.

I would rather open the season with an interleague opponent in a warm city than Cleveland where its 25 degrees.

SephClone89
03-30-2011, 05:19 PM
I know there have been whispers of contraction, re-alignment, etc., however I think the first thing they should do is even out the divisions to five teams each (vs. 6 for the NL Central and 5 for the AL West) and play inter-league all season. If the games count, they count.

I would rather open the season with an interleague opponent in a warm city than Cleveland where its 25 degrees.

I really hate the idea of year-round interleague play.

SoxThunder
03-30-2011, 06:12 PM
I know there have been whispers of contraction, re-alignment, etc., however I think the first thing they should do is even out the divisions to five teams each (vs. 6 for the NL Central and 4 for the AL West) and play inter-league all season. If the games count, they count.

I would rather open the season with an interleague opponent in a warm city than Cleveland where its 25 degrees.

I've thought of realignment to have 5 teams in each division.

My solution: Move Arizona to the AL West and Move Houston to the NL West.

Houston is the team that's furthest west in the NL Central, so it makes sense for them to move divisions. Arizona is the youngest franchise in the NL, so they get to change to the AL.

The only other possibility would be for the Brewers to come back to the AL Central and move Kansas City to the AL West. But, I don't see this happening since Cub fans sell out Miller Park all season for Bud's Brewers.

I like only a few interleague series per year. Playing every team would be way too much and take away from the division rivalries.

SoxThunder
03-30-2011, 06:15 PM
I've thought of realignment to have 5 teams in each division.

My solution: Move Arizona to the AL West and Move Houston to the NL West.

Houston is the team that's furthest west in the NL Central, so it makes sense for them to move divisions. Arizona is the youngest franchise in the NL, so they get to change to the AL.

The only other possibility would be for the Brewers to come back to the AL Central and move Kansas City to the AL West. But, I don't see this happening since Cub fans sell out Miller Park all season for Bud's Brewers.

I like only a few interleague series per year. Playing every team would be way too much and take away from the division rivalries.

However, since 6 teams in the NL Central makes it harder for the Cubs to win the division each year, it's not all bad.

boiker
03-30-2011, 06:52 PM
Move Arizona to the AL West

As a resident of the Phoenix area, I support this. Anything to get the Sox in town.

Daver
03-30-2011, 07:06 PM
As a resident of the Phoenix area, I support this. Anything to get the Sox in town.

Part of the premium the D=backs paid for their franchise fee was a guarantee that they would be a NL team, the ownership group was adamant about it, which is why the Brewers were moved to the NL to keep the leagues imbalanced.

At the time MLB was desperate for cash so I have little doubt the D-backs have a written agreement that does not allow them to be moved to the AL.

LongLiveFisk
03-30-2011, 07:12 PM
No Pittsburgh this year?

Damn.

SoxThunder
03-30-2011, 07:49 PM
I did some more research on why the AL has 14 teams and the NL has 16 (and why the AL West has 4 teams and the NL Central has 6).

In 1997, each league had 14 teams. Since this is an even number, it was easy to schedule games (since there could be 7 games in the AL and 7 in the NL on any given day).

When the Diamondbacks (NL) and (Devil) Rays (AL) joined in 1998, it put 15 teams in each league. Although it was balanced with 5 teams in each division, it created a scheduling nightmare since 2 teams (one AL, one NL) would have to be idle on any given day.

Since they didn't want the season to drag on forever, and they didn't want to have interleague play during the ENTIRE season, they put an even number of teams in each league (NL - 16, AL - 14) when the Brewers moved to the NL Central.

chisoxfanatic
03-30-2011, 07:52 PM
Part of the premium the D=backs paid for their franchise fee was a guarantee that they would be a NL team, the ownership group was adamant about it, which is why the Brewers were moved to the NL to keep the leagues imbalanced.

At the time MLB was desperate for cash so I have little doubt the D-backs have a written agreement that does not allow them to be moved to the AL.
Do you know what exactly was the reason? Slightly less major travel? Not in as direct competition with the Yankees? Anti-DH?

DumpJerry
03-30-2011, 08:21 PM
Do you know what exactly was the reason? Slightly less major travel? Not in as direct competition with the Yankees? Anti-DH?
Easier league since there is no danger of the Cubs making the World Series.

And, lo and behold, they not only made it to the World Series before the Cubs, they won the damn thing!

Frater Perdurabo
03-30-2011, 09:21 PM
I've thought of realignment to have 5 teams in each division.

My solution: Move Arizona to the AL West and Move Houston to the NL West.

Houston is the team that's furthest west in the NL Central, so it makes sense for them to move divisions. Arizona is the youngest franchise in the NL, so they get to change to the AL.

The only other possibility would be for the Brewers to come back to the AL Central and move Kansas City to the AL West. But, I don't see this happening since Cub fans sell out Miller Park all season for Bud's Brewers.

I like only a few interleague series per year. Playing every team would be way too much and take away from the division rivalries.

Why not just move the Astros to the AL West? This would give the Rangers a divisional rival from the same time zone.

I am OK with spreading interleague play throughout the season, thus allowing more possible early-season cold weather matchups in warm weather cities and/or domes, and for road trips to be consolidated. For instance, in a year the Sox are scheduled to visit San Francisco, that series would be scheduled immediately before or after a series in Oakland. This would increase attendance it two ways. First, fewer early season games in cold weather would mean more games in nice weather, raising attendance. Second, combined road trips to one metro area would draw in more visiting fans. For instance, if the Sox went to LA for six days to play three against the Angels and then three against the Dodgers, a lot of Sox fans might decide to take a week's vacation in Southern California to see all six games. The same is true for fans of teams that might come to Chicago to play both the Sox and Cubs on one trip. An added benefit would be slightly reduced travel costs and travel time.

Foulke You
03-30-2011, 09:23 PM
No Pittsburgh this year?

Damn.
Fear not! We host the Nationals at home this year. :tongue:

doublem23
03-30-2011, 09:39 PM
Why don't we just get rid of two teams?

Bye bye, Rays and Marlins.

Max Power
03-30-2011, 09:50 PM
Why don't we just get rid of two teams?

Bye bye, Rays and Marlins.

Marlins are just about to open a new stadium so they're not going anywhere. How about Rays and A's?

I'm still not a fan of interleague play, but if MLB insists on doing it they should go all the way and have every team play one series against every team in the other league, alternating home team every year. Also, even out the leagues to fifteen teams apiece. The way interleague scheduling is done now is just stupid.

FielderJones
03-31-2011, 12:10 AM
Why not just move the Astros to the AL West? This would give the Rangers a divisional rival from the same time zone.

I am OK with spreading interleague play throughout the season, thus allowing more possible early-season cold weather matchups in warm weather cities and/or domes, and for road trips to be consolidated. For instance, in a year the Sox are scheduled to visit San Francisco, that series would be scheduled immediately before or after a series in Oakland. This would increase attendance it two ways. First, fewer early season games in cold weather would mean more games in nice weather, raising attendance. Second, combined road trips to one metro area would draw in more visiting fans. For instance, if the Sox went to LA for six days to play three against the Angels and then three against the Dodgers, a lot of Sox fans might decide to take a week's vacation in Southern California to see all six games. The same is true for fans of teams that might come to Chicago to play both the Sox and Cubs on one trip. An added benefit would be slightly reduced travel costs and travel time.

That all makes so much sense that it guarantees MLB would never implement it.

russ99
03-31-2011, 11:26 AM
My solution: Move Arizona to the AL West and Move Houston to the NL West.

Houston is the team that's furthest west in the NL Central, so it makes sense for them to move divisions. Arizona is the youngest franchise in the NL, so they get to change to the AL.

Why not just move the Astros to the AL West? This would give the Rangers a divisional rival from the same time zone.


Every year this comes up - but that will never happen.

The amount of extra travel involved (likely ending up in the most travel of any big league club) makes a move of Houston to a west division cost (and performance) prohibitive, not to mention the elimination of 50-year long rivalries with the Cubs, Cardinals and Reds.

Maybe if the leagues go away and they make some kind of Midwest division with the Astros, Rangers, Rockies, Royals and Twins, and lots of games with their rivals, that would work. But no way are the Astros going to a division with west-coast teams.

ewokpelts
03-31-2011, 12:30 PM
Why don't we just get rid of two teams?

Bye bye, Rays and Marlins.and what do you do with the marlins NEW stadium?

and the iron-clad lease agreement in tampa?

doublem23
03-31-2011, 12:51 PM
and what do you do with the marlins NEW stadium?

and the iron-clad lease agreement in tampa?

Pfft, I don't care.

ewokpelts
03-31-2011, 12:53 PM
Pfft, I don't care.the substantial cost to "fix" those problems would come out of the other 28 franchises' pockets. so you should care when the sox get a $50 million bill to erase the marlins, pay off thier new stadium, AND pay off the lease for the rays.

LongLiveFisk
03-31-2011, 12:58 PM
and what do you do with the marlins NEW stadium?

and the iron-clad lease agreement in tampa?


There are always concerts, monster truck rallies, etc. You know, things like that.

doublem23
03-31-2011, 01:16 PM
the substantial cost to "fix" those problems would come out of the other 28 franchises' pockets. so you should care when the sox get a $50 million bill to erase the marlins, pay off thier new stadium, AND pay off the lease for the rays.

And yet... I still don't.

SoxThunder
03-31-2011, 03:05 PM
Schedule Analysis:

Currently:
White Sox play AL Central teams 72 games per year, or 18 games against each rival (44.4% of their schedule)
White Sox play AL East teams 37 games per year (22.8% of their schedule)
White Sox play AL West teams 35 games per year (21.6% of their schedule)
White Sox play NL teams 18 games per year (11.1% of their schedule)

I personally think we play division rivals way too many times. If I were Commissioner, here's how I'd change the schedule to even things up and generate more revenue. Houston would move to the AL West so that there would be 5 teams in each league, and 15 teams in each league.

Proposed changes:
White Sox would play AL Central teams 48 games per year, or 12 games against each rival (29.6% of their schedule)
White Sox would play AL East teams 33 games per year (20.4% of their schedule)
White Sox would play AL West teams 33 games per year (20.4% of their schedule)
White Sox would play NL East teams 15 games per year (9.3% of their schedule)
White Sox would play NL Central teams 18 games per year, including 6 total games against Cubs (11.1% of their schedule)
White Sox would play NL West teams 15 games per year (9.3% of their schedule)

Notice that 70.4% of the White Sox' games would be against American League Teams, so it's not like we'd go completely overboard with interleague play.

White Sox would play exactly 3 games against every NL team (except Cubs, which would be 3 home, 3 away). They would alternate the home/away team each season (i.e. the Giants would play 3 at the Cell one year, and the White Sox would play 3 in San Fran the next year).

At least one Interleague series would have to be played all season long (since there would be an odd number (15) of teams in each league).

White Sox road trips could consist of 3 games vs. BAL, 3 vs. WASH, and 3 vs. PHI, cities all very close in proximity. Fans could see the White Sox play in 3 stadiums during their week long summer vacation. MLB could offer discounted "stadium hopper" ticket packages if fans bought tickets in BAL, WASH, and PHI. Stadiums and hotels would be filled with out-of-town fans, increasing ticket revenues and local economies.

Finally, EVERY team would play their first 3 series of the season (approx. April 1-10) in a warm weather city or domed stadium: TB, TOR, LAA, OAK, SEA, TEX, HOU, ATL, FLA, MIL, STL, ARZ, LAD, SD, SF. Less rain outs, less 40 degree games, better attendance.

Since every team would play each other at least one series, it would dramatically even up the strength of the schedules.

TDog
03-31-2011, 03:34 PM
Do you know what exactly was the reason? Slightly less major travel? Not in as direct competition with the Yankees? Anti-DH?

I was living in Arizona at the time, and I recall the Diamondbacks people being adamant about wanting to be in the National League. Politicians who were talking about it were also demanding the Diamondbacks be an NL team. They didn't have any involvement, but their comments would have reflected what they were hearing from their constituents.

I'm not sure what the deal was with Diamondbacks management. I always believed it was the fact that Phoenix had a history of being a Giants and Dodgers town. The Giants had a AAA team in Phoenix for many years and, and Phoenix had developed into a sort of LA East. I think the short answer for management was that they believed NL rivalries were crucial for their team's success.

There also seemed a sort of arrogance that the NL was the superior league. Of course, the Phoenix area, especially the East Valley, was lousy with Cubs fans. Phoenix already seemed an NL city, and there there was some scorn for the DH. There are cost-saving reasons why a new team would want to play in a league without a DH, but I don't think the DH issue was central in the Diamondbacks demanding to be placed in the NL.

Zakath
03-31-2011, 04:11 PM
I was living in Arizona at the time, and I recall the Diamondbacks people being adamant about wanting to be in the National League. Politicians who were talking about it were also demanding the Diamondbacks be an NL team. They didn't have any involvement, but their comments would have reflected what they were hearing from their constituents.

I'm not sure what the deal was with Diamondbacks management. I always believed it was the fact that Phoenix had a history of being a Giants and Dodgers town. The Giants had a AAA team in Phoenix for many years and, and Phoenix had developed into a sort of LA East. I think the short answer for management was that they believed NL rivalries were crucial for their team's success.

There also seemed a sort of arrogance that the NL was the superior league. Of course, the Phoenix area, especially the East Valley, was lousy with Cubs fans. Phoenix already seemed an NL city, and there there was some scorn for the DH. There are cost-saving reasons why a new team would want to play in a league without a DH, but I don't think the DH issue was central in the Diamondbacks demanding to be placed in the NL.

Doesn't hurt that the only "close" AL team to them is the Angels, while the NL West is much more compact geographically. Having to go to Denver and San Francisco regularly as your longest intradivision trips probably beats having to go to Seattle and Dallas.