What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but interleague play all year long necessarily mean MORE IL games? Basically every 14th series has to be an IL series, so theoretically, you could play just 4 per season.

I think preliminary scenarios had each team playing one series each against each team in another IL division, and perhaps 1 addition series each year against an obvious rival (As/Giants, Cubs/WSox, etc).

The way IL is done now is extremely unfair in terms of balancing the schedules. It isn't uncommon for two teams in the same division to have a very different IL slate. Didn't the Phils have a much easier set of AL opponents than the Braves? If you get 6-9 games against Baltimore and the Braves get 6-9 against New York or Tampa, who has an easier path? The way it should be done is for everyone to as similar a schedule as possible to maintain division integrity.

One of the things this tells me is that the true impact of IL play has diminished in terms of TV ratings and attendance. It was a big deal in the 90s (started in '97) but now maybe not so much. So no more big clusters of it in June when the season starts to drag for some teams.

Personally if I had my way, we'd get rid of the divisions entirely and everyone would play everyone their league an equal number of times and there would be no more IL play. This will never happen because baseball is oddly beholden to the number 162, like exactly 162 games is the perfect number. Well it was in the days of 10 team leagues and no divisions (just like 154 was in the days of 8 team ones).

If I had to make a schedule and it had to be 162 games, and there has to be divisions and we have to have some interleague play, here's what I'd like to see: 15 games against a division in the other league, 6 games against the other 10 teams in your own league, and 20 games each against your division foes. That's 155 games. To get to 162 add 7 games against your IL "rival" and there's your 162 game season. MLB would get to increase from 18 to 20 the number of games between the Yanks and BoSox every year, plus get at least 7 and possibly 10 games every year between the Yanks and the Mets. We all know ESPN and FOX would loooooove that, since those are the only series that get any real promotion anymore in the regular season.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but interleague play all year long necessarily mean MORE IL games? Basically every 14th series has to be an IL series, so theoretically, you could play just 4 per season.

I think preliminary scenarios had each team playing one series each against each team in another IL division, and perhaps 1 addition series each year against an obvious rival (As/Giants, Cubs/WSox, etc).

The way IL is done now is extremely unfair in terms of balancing the schedules. It isn't uncommon for two teams in the same division to have a very different IL slate. Didn't the Phils have a much easier set of AL opponents than the Braves? If you get 6-9 games against Baltimore and the Braves get 6-9 against New York or Tampa, who has an easier path? The way it should be done is for everyone to as similar a schedule as possible to maintain division integrity.

One of the things this tells me is that the true impact of IL play has diminished in terms of TV ratings and attendance. It was a big deal in the 90s (started in '97) but now maybe not so much. So no more big clusters of it in June when the season starts to drag for some teams.

Personally if I had my way, we'd get rid of the divisions entirely and everyone would play everyone their league an equal number of times and there would be no more IL play. This will never happen because baseball is oddly beholden to the number 162, like exactly 162 games is the perfect number. Well it was in the days of 10 team leagues and no divisions (just like 154 was in the days of 8 team ones).

If I had to make a schedule and it had to be 162 games, and there has to be divisions and we have to have some interleague play, here's what I'd like to see: 15 games against a division in the other league, 6 games against the other 10 teams in your own league, and 20 games each against your division foes. That's 155 games. To get to 162 add 7 games against your IL "rival" and there's your 162 game season. MLB would get to increase from 18 to 20 the number of games between the Yanks and BoSox every year, plus get at least 7 and possibly 10 games every year between the Yanks and the Mets. We all know ESPN and FOX would loooooove that, since those are the only series that get any real promotion anymore in the regular season.
You could do 21 vs division, 6 vs rest of league, 3 vs 1 of the other divisions, 3 vs a rival. The only variation from a balanced schedule within a division would be where you played the 15 IL games and the 3 rivalry games (every 3rd year, you'd get 6 vs your IL rival).
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

Since more divisions is just a product of wanting more playoff teams (they are flying regardless so its not about travel costs), we could fully balance the schedule to make sure all teams play equal schedules.

14 League opponents x 8 games = 112
14 Interleague opponents x 3 games = 42
1 Interleague rival x 6 games = 6

That's 160 games. So I have even shortened the season slightly to accomodate the extra 1-game playoffs. :)

It would mean the only variation in schedule difficulty from year-to-year is based on 3 extra games (1.8%) with your cross league rival.

Obviously this will never happen. ESPN would shut down with only 2-3 Red Sox-Yankee series a year to talk about.
 
Last edited:
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

What we really need is 2 more Red Sox-Yankees games, probably called by Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.

Shoot me now.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

The point of only allowing x teams into the playoffs was to reward the teams that made it through the 162-game haul. If they continue to add teams to the post-season then they should reduce the regular season by at least a dozen games because it no longer matters.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

The point of only allowing x teams into the playoffs was to reward the teams that made it through the 162-game haul. If they continue to add teams to the post-season then they should reduce the regular season by at least a dozen games because it no longer matters.

If there is a possibility of snow for a baseball game, the season is too long. Just saying.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

If there is a possibility of snow for a baseball game, the season is too long. Just saying.
It once snowed in Maine on the 4th of July. Guess MLB has to fold. :D
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

But, thanks to global warming, they're going to move the Super Bowl to Green Bay in 2050.

That might be too tropical by then...but it will be dry land.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

They HAVE to schedule more double-headers if they are going to do this.

No they won't, not if it is a 1 game playoff between the two wild card teams. There are already a couple of days off before the playoffs start. This does not need to add any days to the length of the season.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

The point of only allowing x teams into the playoffs was to reward the teams that made it through the 162-game haul. If they continue to add teams to the post-season then they should reduce the regular season by at least a dozen games because it no longer matters.

Ding ding.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

Verlander -- AL MVP.

Let the debate begin...
OK, i'll start. Can't be MVP of a league when you only impact 35 games a year.

ETA: Pitchers have the Cy Young, they shouldn't even be eligible for MVP. Think of the outcry there is when a position player misses 1 month with injury (<100 AB) and is in consideration for awards. Why no outcry when a pitcher basically misses 4.5 months of the season.
 
Last edited:
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

OK, i'll start. Can't be MVP of a league when you only impact 35 games a year.

Lets say the team was great in the games he pitched. Say 28-7. Team crawls into the playoffs at 91-71.

What then?

Just let the stupid writers do their thing, they probably won't pick a pitcher anyways.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

Lets say the team was great in the games he pitched. Say 28-7. Team crawls into the playoffs at 91-71.

What then?
Doesn't matter. You can make up any scenario and there is always an exception to it. For example, if JV was 10-19 this year, Detroit still would of made the playoffs by standings.

I think JV is great and deserves all the accolades he gets (minus MVP). I just don't see any situation where I can back a guy who plays in only 21% of his teams games.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

OK, i'll start. Can't be MVP of a league when you only impact 35 games a year.

ETA: Pitchers have the Cy Young, they shouldn't even be eligible for MVP. Think of the outcry there is when a position player misses 1 month with injury (<100 AB) and is in consideration for awards. Why no outcry when a pitcher basically misses 4.5 months of the season.

I could argue that a starting pitcher can impact more than just the games he starts. Especially a horse like Verlander. He pitches late in the game so much more frequently than a lot of other starters, including those on his team, and a pitcher like that lessens the burden on the bullpen significantly. If the Tigers have 2 or 3 days where a starter struggles, a guy like Verlander can throw 9 innings and give his bullpen a huge boost.

I would like to see baseball and the MLBWA implement and promote an award strictly for hitters like the Cy is for pitchers. I think there is an award like this but I'm not sure of the name of it and MLB doesn't promote it like they do with the MVP, rookie or Cy Young awards. Call it the Ted Williams award for the AL, the Henry Aaron award (or Mays) for the NL. If they still want to they can continue to award the MVP as well, but give both pitchers and hitters and equal look. Or have the duel MVPs for each league, one for the hitters and another for pitchers and do away with the MVP.
 
Re: MLB 2011 Post-Season: Who misses the NBA?

OK, i'll start. Can't be MVP of a league when you only impact 35 games a year.

ETA: Pitchers have the Cy Young, they shouldn't even be eligible for MVP. Think of the outcry there is when a position player misses 1 month with injury (<100 AB) and is in consideration for awards. Why no outcry when a pitcher basically misses 4.5 months of the season.

Counterpoint: Hitters now have the Hank Aaron Award, so the MVP should be available to anyone.
 
Back
Top