PDA

View Full Version : Sox schedule


LITTLE NELL
06-27-2006, 04:12 PM
The Sox in interleage action just play teams in the N.L. Central. Does anyone know why the Twins are playing the Dodgers. In fact I dont understand MLB schedules at all. For instance I believe the Sox do not play the teams in the AL west the same amount of times, what gives?

Ol' No. 2
06-27-2006, 04:19 PM
The Sox in interleage action just play teams in the N.L. Central. Does anyone know why the Twins are playing the Dodgers. In fact I dont understand MLB schedules at all. For instance I believe the Sox do not play the teams in the AL west the same amount of times, what gives?A balanced schedule is a mathematical impossibility. The Sox play 68 games against the ALE and ALW. That works out to 7.5 games against each team.

SouthSideSoxFan
06-27-2006, 04:23 PM
From Wikipedia entry on Interleague play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleague_play):

With the two leagues not having the same number of teams, and with one division (the National League Central) containing six teams while another (the American League West) has only four (the other two divisions in both leagues consisting of five teams each), various irregularities in scheduling result. Most notably, teams no longer play identical opponents as their divisional rivals, and even where they do, they don't always play them an identical number of times. This can lead to "strength of schedule" disparities like those the NFL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL) has to deal with on a yearly basis.

For example, in any given season, one NL Central team might play every AL East team except the (strong) first place team, while another NL Central team plays all but the (weak) last place team. Another scheduling problem is that because the leagues are not equal in size, there always has to be one national league game on interleague days (interleague is done with block scheduling like the NHL, so all the teams play interleague games on the same day, and all the interleague games are played in one part of the schedule (third weekend of may and most of June)

And...

The "rivalry" series that consist of six games a year for some teams leads to further scheduling inequities. For example, the Chicago Cubs play the Chicago White Sox (who are currently the defending World Series champions) six times a year, while their division rival St. Louis Cardinals play the currently poor Kansas City Royals six times a year.

Frater Perdurabo
06-27-2006, 04:47 PM
If we accept that interleague play is here to stay (and there's no reason to think that Selig would end it), and the MLB is not going to fold franchises, MLB ought to be a bit more creative and do away with the farce of a 16-team NL and a 14-team AL. It's OK with me if the interleague games are spread out throughout the season (as would be required with two 15-team leagues), because the marquee matchups would draw crowds throughout the year. This would help the attendance at early-season games. Right now, crowds start to swell anyway with the end of the school year and the warmer weather. Why waste the marquee matchups (the Yankees or Red Sox visiting virtually any NL city, or Royals-Cardinals, or Sox-Cubs, or Dodgers-Angels, or A's-Giants for example) during a month when teams are selling more tickets anyway?

Move Arizona to the AL West and Houston to the NL West and call it a day.

MrRoboto83
06-27-2006, 05:35 PM
If we accept that interleague play is here to stay (and there's no reason to think that Selig would end it), and the MLB is not going to fold franchises, MLB ought to be a bit more creative and do away with the farce of a 16-team NL and a 14-team AL. It's OK with me if the interleague games are spread out throughout the season (as would be required with two 15-team leagues), because the marquee matchups would draw crowds throughout the year. This would help the attendance at early-season games. Right now, crowds start to swell anyway with the end of the school year and the warmer weather. Why waste the marquee matchups (the Yankees or Red Sox visiting virtually any NL city, or Royals-Cardinals, or Sox-Cubs, or Dodgers-Angels, or A's-Giants for example) during a month when teams are selling more tickets anyway?

Move Arizona to the AL West and Houston to the NL West and call it a day.

I'm sure there will be a bit of a realignment if and when the Marlins relocate.

getonbckthr
06-28-2006, 12:51 AM
There are essentially 2 ways for us to have even interleague matchups. Either add 2 teams or get rid of 2 teams.

the gooch
06-28-2006, 08:48 AM
Move Arizona to the AL West and Houston to the NL West and call it a day.
i think San Diego is a better AL candidate, but then again i dont know if having a new park will complicate that. When the Marlins move to the AL West, Pittsburgh should go to the East.

i have written out schedules just like you described in your post while bored on the train, etc. i dont think changing it will decrease the amount of schedule bitching from teams at the end of the season:
"You mean we have to win 3 games in a NL Park to make the playoffs?"

edit: although it would be nice to spread out interleague play so our DH doesnt ride the pines for a week and a half.

Steelrod
06-28-2006, 08:50 AM
There are essentially 2 ways for us to have even interleague matchups. Either add 2 teams or get rid of 2 teams.
Union won't allow contraction and there are not two big league cities available for expansion.

CallMeNuts
06-28-2006, 08:52 AM
If we accept that interleague play is here to stay (and there's no reason to think that Selig would end it), and the MLB is not going to fold franchises, MLB ought to be a bit more creative and do away with the farce of a 16-team NL and a 14-team AL. It's OK with me if the interleague games are spread out throughout the season (as would be required with two 15-team leagues), because the marquee matchups would draw crowds throughout the year. This would help the attendance at early-season games. Right now, crowds start to swell anyway with the end of the school year and the warmer weather. Why waste the marquee matchups (the Yankees or Red Sox visiting virtually any NL city, or Royals-Cardinals, or Sox-Cubs, or Dodgers-Angels, or A's-Giants for example) during a month when teams are selling more tickets anyway?

Move Arizona to the AL West and Houston to the NL West and call it a day.

You are so right. Have some of the big matchups in April and you get a few more sell-outs. You also spread out the games that Fox & ESPN seem excited to broadcast.

6 divisions of 5 teams make races much more fair. Why do teams in the AL West only have to beat 3 teams to win their division, while teams in the NL Central have to beat 5. Makes no sense whatsoever.

In the realignment, I'd like to have a way to bring the Brewers into the AL Central. Moving the Brewers to the NL was a crime against the Sox. The Scrubs already have the Cards as a nearby rival. They don't need the Brewers, too.

Frater Perdurabo
06-28-2006, 09:24 AM
i dont think changing it will decrease the amount of schedule bitching from teams at the end of the season:
"You mean we have to win 3 games in a NL Park to make the playoffs?"

San Diego could work, too. It does not matter which clubs are moved, just as long as the finished product is six divisions of five teams each.

As for the complaints at the end of the season, make the last interleague series of the season between the two worst teams from the season before who have little or no hope of making the playoffs, and for extra security have the games played in the AL team's park so both can use the DH. Pittsburgh at Kansas City should work out well for Sept. 28-30, 2007! The only people who might complain would be the Royals and Pirates. Perhaps they could use the "insult" as motivation to play better.
:D:

Frater Perdurabo
06-28-2006, 09:27 AM
In the realignment, I'd like to have a way to bring the Brewers into the AL Central. Moving the Brewers to the NL was a crime against the Sox. The Scrubs already have the Cards as a nearby rival. They don't need the Brewers, too.

For sentimental reasons I agree, but who would move out of the AL Central to make room for the Brewers? Before the Expos moved to Washington, and before plans were announced for a new stadium in the Twin Cities, I thought the Twins should return to Washington, the city from which the franchise originated.

voodoochile
06-28-2006, 10:20 AM
If we accept that interleague play is here to stay (and there's no reason to think that Selig would end it), and the MLB is not going to fold franchises, MLB ought to be a bit more creative and do away with the farce of a 16-team NL and a 14-team AL. It's OK with me if the interleague games are spread out throughout the season (as would be required with two 15-team leagues), because the marquee matchups would draw crowds throughout the year. This would help the attendance at early-season games. Right now, crowds start to swell anyway with the end of the school year and the warmer weather. Why waste the marquee matchups (the Yankees or Red Sox visiting virtually any NL city, or Royals-Cardinals, or Sox-Cubs, or Dodgers-Angels, or A's-Giants for example) during a month when teams are selling more tickets anyway?

Move Arizona to the AL West and Houston to the NL West and call it a day.

They would have to play interleague everyday of the year. That is too much of a headache to schedule if it is even possible. Given the relatively few Interleague games, and the fact that at least two teams from each league would have to be involved. It's a massive headache. The obvious choice is to either add or kill off two teams.

Ol' No. 2
06-28-2006, 10:25 AM
Why does it make any difference that the two leagues don't have the same number of teams???:?:

the gooch
06-28-2006, 10:35 AM
They would have to play interleague everyday of the year. That is too much of a headache to schedule if it is even possible. Given the relatively few Interleague games, and the fact that at least two teams from each league would have to be involved. It's a massive headache. The obvious choice is to either add or kill off two teams.
it would only be one team from each league at a time. Adding or killing teams would force a realignment of the divisions, either back to two or even worse, adopt the NFL's 4 divisions.:o: This would also screw up the wildcard stuff, and i dont know your opinion on that.

voodoochile
06-28-2006, 10:52 AM
it would only be one team from each league at a time. Adding or killing teams would force a realignment of the divisions, either back to two or even worse, adopt the NFL's 4 divisions.:o: This would also screw up the wildcard stuff, and i dont know your opinion on that.
You are correct, I was doing the math based on 16/14 team leagues, but with 15/15 it would only be one from each.

Eventually, I expect them to add 2 teams and do exactly what you dread - going to an NFL style format with the 4 division winners going to the playoffs each year, but only if the current steroid scandal doesn't disrupt the income to a drastic degree. I don't expect that because most casual fans and corporate accounts really don't give a crap and that is still where the bulk of the money comes from. For them it is simply a way of spending entertainment dollars and that doesn't get affected by things like cheating nearly as much as it does for us diehards.

Frater Perdurabo
06-28-2006, 11:06 AM
They would have to play interleague everyday of the year. That is too much of a headache to schedule if it is even possible. Given the relatively few Interleague games, and the fact that at least two teams from each league would have to be involved. It's a massive headache. The obvious choice is to either add or kill off two teams.

Give me a week without distractions like school and work and I could create a full season schedule that would have at least one interleague series going on at all times.

Also, you don't HAVE to have interleague EVERY day of the season. There might be a smaller number of games on Mondays and Thursdays (just like now) to allow other teams to travel. Of course, there would have to be interleague play every weeked (Friday though Sunday) and every week during the Monday through Thursday period (just like now, some series might be Tuesday-Thursday, others might be Monday-Wednesday).

Still, no one has answered why all the interleague games MUST be in late May and throughout June, even with unequal number of teams in each league (other than that's the way Selig likes it). Teams would save money in travel costs if in the year they are scheduled to play the Western division in the opposite league, they could combine those interleague road games into their regular West coast swing against the Western division teams within their league. Same goes for the West Coast teams in the years that they play East Coast teams from the opposite league. More importantly, with longer but fewer road trips that make geographic (and thus financial) sense, players would be better rested and the quality of play would improve.

Why not have some interleague games in the dog days of August to spice things up for the teams that are hopelessly out of it? Why not have some in April and May to draw bigger crowds for an intriguing and rare matchup?

Finally, I really don't want to re-hash all the permutations for expansion or contraction. Needless to say they've been explored in serious depth in countless other threads. Expand or contract? I don't care either way. But spread out the interleague games already. Don't waste marquee interleague matchups during times when teams see a spike in attendance anyway.

caulfield12
06-28-2006, 11:18 AM
I think a big factor will also be how many times the Tigers and White Sox come up against Liriano, Santana and Sabathia. Those three lefties are probably going to have an .800 winniing percentage from here on out.

And I don't think the Tigers will wilt, I do think they might suffer another injury or two. But they are playing just as well or better than the White Sox were last season. Whether that lasts is open to conjecture, but they headed off some of the doubters over the last week and a half.

Lip Man 1
06-28-2006, 03:34 PM
An important point...take it for what it's worth. Proud To Be Your Bud Selig announced three weeks ago or so that contraction was now 'off' the table.

It was the first time since the threat was announced prior to the 2002 labor discussions that anything publicly was said on the subject one way or another.

Lip

CallMeNuts
06-28-2006, 10:55 PM
Give me a week without distractions like school and work and I could create a full season schedule that would have at least one interleague series going on at all times.

6 divisions of 5 teams each.
You play every team in your own division 18 times (x 4 = 72 games).
You play the rest of the teams in your league 6 times (x 10 = 60 games.
You play all the teams in the corresponding division of the opposite league 6 times (x 5 = 30 games.) (e.g. always AL Central vs NL Central).
Total = 162 games

30 interleague games equals 450 total, which van easily be spread over 180 days.

the gooch
06-29-2006, 10:53 AM
6 divisions of 5 teams each.
You play every team in your own division 18 times (x 4 = 72 games).
You play the rest of the teams in your league 6 times (x 10 = 60 games.
You play all the teams in the corresponding division of the opposite league 6 times (x 5 = 30 games.) (e.g. always AL Central vs NL Central).
Total = 162 games

30 interleague games equals 450 total, which van easily be spread over 180 days.
thats an obscene amount of interleague, and i dont like the weighted schedule.

nine teams per league would have this:
13 games x 4 division teams
12 games x 2 non-division teams
09 games x 3 non-division teams
10 games x 5 non-division teams

3 vs interleague rival
6 vs interleague

six teams would have this:
13 games x 4 division teams
12 games x 1 non-division teams
09 games x 4 non-division teams
10 games x 5 non-division teams

3 vs interleague rival
9 vs interleague

That leaves one interleague game going on all year.
I still doubt it will work out right and i dont want to waste any more time on it.

Iwritecode
06-29-2006, 11:44 AM
Why do teams in the AL West only have to beat 3 teams to win their division, while teams in the NL Central have to beat 5. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, the NL Central has the Cubs and Pirates. So the division winner really only has to worry about 3 other teams as well... :D: