Expanding your OOTP MLB league to 32 teams

[Trebro]

Taking thing into an OOTP context: Does the AI plan to sell off its best players when it has a certain winning percentage or when it is X games from 1st?

I'd rather do whatever setup means I have as few player dumps as possible (and yes, I do set trading to low), because the AI in my experience will do things like trade Barry Bonds for 5 minor league guys just because the Giants were having one bad year, something I don't think is realistic.

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by panelpatter

Taking thing into an OOTP context: Does the AI plan to sell off its best players when it has a certain winning percentage or when it is X games from 1st?

I'd rather do whatever setup means I have as few player dumps as possible (and yes, I do set trading to low), because the AI in my experience will do things like trade Barry Bonds for 5 minor league guys just because the Giants were having one bad year, something I don't think is realistic.

Who wouldn't want 5 of him?

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Nonsense. There was a four team division in the MLB until 2012.

I love the idea of eight divisions of four teams each. No more bleeping wild cards. Win your division or go home.

Baseball will never, ever do away with a playoff team. They are more likely to expand to 16 playoff teams out of 32, then to dial back to eight out of 32.

What they could do, though, is to to have 12 playoff teams, give the two top records a bye, and then have 2 of 3 series in the first round. Then, 3 of 5 second round, 4 of 7 LCS and 4 of 7 WS. All first and second round games would be at the higher seed's home park, to cut travel days and to balance out the disadvantage to better teams that a short series naturally confers.

The main fly in that ointment is the lengthening of the playoff rounds, and of the season. So to do that, they could negotiate with the players union to cut the season from 26 to 25 weeks by accepting scheduling day night doubleheaders, in exchange for more generous contributions to pension funds.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The 2015 regular season starts on April 5 and ends on October 4th. In comparison, in 2014 the season started on March 30th and ends on Sept. 28th (excluding the overseas opening games played in Australia).

Assuming the same post-season schedule setup in 2015 as 2014, then next year the World Series will start on Oct. 27th. The seventh game would be played on Nov. 4th.

MLB could have avoided that by simply starting the 2015 regular season a week earlier: season opens Mar. 29th; ends Sept. 27th; World Series opens Oct. 20th; seventh game on Oct. 28th.

For whatever reason MLB decided it did not want to open the 2015 season in March.

Maybe that's because in most cities, it is colder in late March than it is in early October? By something like 15 degrees on average in midwest cities.

In fact, it is colder in late March than it is in early November in most cities, by a few degrees.

Why would Baseball want to move games out of warmer time periods into colder time periods?

[chucksabr]

I simply do NOT understand the sentiment behind shortening the season by a significant amount, e.g., down to 130 games, from 162. If you hate baseball so much that you want to see less of it, why not become a basketball or hockey fan instead? Those sports play only 80 games a season. Or better yet, become a football fan. They play only 16.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

I simply do NOT understand the sentiment behind shortening the season by a significant amount, e.g., down to 130 games, from 162. If you hate baseball so much that you want to see less of it, why not become a basketball or hockey fan instead? Those sports play only 80 games a season. Or better yet, become a football fan. They play only 16.

I don't think considering a shorter schedule means I hate baseball. I've always felt baseball would benefit by ending its season somewhere around August 31st. Go back to the 140 game schedule. Or, 154 games, but require teams to schedule more doubleheaders. September would be filled with championship baseball and best of all fans wouldn't be forced to attend games dressed in snowmobile suits.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I don't think considering a shorter schedule means I hate baseball. I've always felt baseball would benefit by ending its season somewhere around August 31st. Go back to the 140 game schedule. Or, 154 games, but require teams to schedule more doubleheaders. September would be filled with championship baseball and best of all fans wouldn't be forced to attend games dressed in snowmobile suits.

I obviously said what I said for its comic value, but in all seriousness, I just don't get why people who claim to love baseball want less of it. And that you specified the number 154, which is invariably the number the majority of season-shortening advocates cite as their ideal alternative schedule length, tells me that this desire is based mainly on nostalgia—because it was that way when they were kids, or because it's "old school"—rather than based on any practical and thoughtful consideration of what the optimum number should be.

I also don't see how baseball would benefit from a shorter season. I don't see how it would be advantageous to them from a business standpoint, and more to the point, how people would love the game any more. It's not as though baseball fans make it to game 155 and say, ah, the season's gone on too damn long, so **** it, I'm out of here. Or do they? Maybe they do and I'm just missing that. Perhaps I'm just watching baseball so intently at that point that I'm simply not hearing other fans checking out of the season because it's gone on too long for them.

Personally, I would love for there to be more baseball. I wish the season were 168 games, or 176 or 184 games. I wish that it lasted into Thanksgiving day weekend. I would be ecstatic. I love baseball so much I want more of it. It just baffles me when people who claim to love baseball say they want to see less of it. To them I say, if you don't like baseball in October, you can always change to channel and watch "The Amazing Race" or "The Vampire Diaries" or "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." instead.

And if your team is actually playing in October, then you don't have to go the ballpark watch them. You can go ... I don't know ... go ice fishing or dancing or bowling instead. I'll take your ticket for the game.

[OakDragon]

I'm not a fan of shortening the season, game-wise, though I do wish it ended earlier, for reasons similar to David's. Scheduling doubleheaders now and then would help a lot.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Maybe that's because in most cities, it is colder in late March than it is in early October? ...

It's hard to see how March 29th would be significantly colder than March 30th.

Originally Posted by David Watts

I don't think considering a shorter schedule means I hate baseball. I've always felt baseball would benefit by ending its season somewhere around August 31st. Go back to the 140 game schedule.

1903 (140 games)
AL: April 20 to Sept. 29 – 163 days
NL: April 15 to Sept. 27 – 166 days

1919 (140 games)
AL: April 23 to Sept. 29 – 160 days
NL: April 19 to Sept. 30 – 165 days

154-game season played over 24 weeks
Opening date: earliest, April 11; latest, April 21
Closing date: earliest, Sept. 25; latest, Oct. 3

Basically, MLB had historically closed its season in late September to early October. This wasn't much of an issue when the post-season consisted of only the World Series (typically starting the third day after the end of the regular season and the Series itself scheduled for seven to nine days). Now, of course, there are three rounds of playoffs, and even in its most reasonable compact form those three rounds require a 28-day schedule.

Originally Posted by David Watts

Or, 154 games, but require teams to schedule more doubleheaders.

Doubleheaders (of the single-admission kind) are no longer profitable, which is why they slowly disappeared from the schedule. One could use separate admission, day-night doubleheaders but players hate those which is why they are limited almost entirely to making up postponed games.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Baseball will never, ever do away with a playoff team. They are more likely to expand to 16 playoff teams out of 32, then to dial back to eight out of 32.

That's not likely either because it's the regular season which is the main source of revenue for clubs. And an 8-team post-season cannot be reasonably compacted into anything less than 28 days.

Originally Posted by chucksabr

What they could do, though, is to to have 12 playoff teams, give the two top records a bye, and then have 2 of 3 series in the first round. Then, 3 of 5 second round, 4 of 7 LCS and 4 of 7 WS.

That reasonably requires at least a 31-day schedule. 1 day after the end of the regular season (set aside for possible tie-breaking games) + 3 days for best-of-three series + 1 day after end of series + 6 days for best-of-five series + 1 day after end of series + 9 days for best-of-seven series + 1 day after end of series + 9 days for best-of-seven series = 31 days. The two highest-seeded clubs would get five days off after the end of the regular season before starting their first post-season series.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

I obviously said what I said for its comic value, but in all seriousness, I just don't get why people who claim to love baseball want less of it. And that you specified the number 154, which is invariably the number the majority of season-shortening advocates cite as their ideal alternative schedule length, tells me that this desire is based mainly on nostalgia—because it was that way when they were kids, or because it's "old school"—rather than based on any practical and thoughtful consideration of what the optimum number should be.

I also don't see how baseball would benefit from a shorter season. I don't see how it would be advantageous to them from a business standpoint, and more to the point, how people would love the game any more. It's not as though baseball fans make it to game 155 and say, ah, the season's gone on too damn long, so **** it, I'm out of here. Or do they? Maybe they do and I'm just missing that. Perhaps I'm just watching baseball so intently at that point that I'm simply not hearing other fans checking out of the season because it's gone on too long for them.

Personally, I would love for there to be more baseball. I wish the season were 168 games, or 176 or 184 games. I wish that it lasted into Thanksgiving day weekend. I would be ecstatic. I love baseball so much I want more of it. It just baffles me when people who claim to love baseball say they want to see less of it. To them I say, if you don't like baseball in October, you can always change to channel and watch "The Amazing Race" or "The Vampire Diaries" or "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." instead.

And if your team is actually playing in October, then you don't have to go the ballpark watch them. You can go ... I don't know ... go ice fishing or dancing or bowling instead. I'll take your ticket for the game.

Ah, I think you may have misunderstood my intentions when it comes to a shortened season. You see I may want a shorter season, but I'm 100% in favor of longer games. This year with the addition of replay the league took a step in the right direction with games averaging 3+ hours league wide. I see no reason that can't be stretched to 4 or maybe even 4 1/2.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It's hard to see how March 29th would be significantly colder than March 30th.


1903 (140 games)
AL: April 20 to Sept. 29 – 163 days
NL: April 15 to Sept. 27 – 166 days

1919 (140 games)
AL: April 23 to Sept. 29 – 160 days
NL: April 19 to Sept. 30 – 165 days

154-game season played over 24 weeks
Opening date: earliest, April 11; latest, April 21
Closing date: earliest, Sept. 25; latest, Oct. 3

Basically, MLB had historically closed its season in late September to early October. This wasn't much of an issue when the post-season consisted of only the World Series (typically starting the third day after the end of the regular season and the Series itself scheduled for seven to nine days). Now, of course, there are three rounds of playoffs, and even in its most reasonable compact form those three rounds require a 28-day schedule.

Doubleheaders (of the single-admission kind) are no longer profitable, which is why they slowly disappeared from the schedule. One could use separate admission, day-night doubleheaders but players hate those which is why they are limited almost entirely to making up postponed games.

Just because it's always been done, doesn't mean things can't change. Teams play roughly 25 games in September, so a 136 - 144 game schedule ending August 31st isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. Not a really big deal to me one way or another, just something I think would improve the Major League Baseball.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Ah, I think you may have misunderstood my intentions when it comes to a shortened season. You see I may want a shorter season, but I'm 100% in favor of longer games. This year with the addition of replay the league took a step in the right direction with games averaging 3+ hours league wide. I see no reason that can't be stretched to 4 or maybe even 4 1/2.

"Totaled up, the challenges this year have taken about 2,031 minutes — over 1.4 days. This sounds long, but the average challenge takes only about 1 minute and 48 seconds. And there have been only 0.48 challenges per game on average — just slightly less than one every other game. So, all else equal, expanded replay challenges add less than a minute to any given game (about 52 seconds, to be precise)." - Has Expanded Replay Worked Well In Baseball? Here?s Our Call | FiveThirtyEight

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

"Totaled up, the challenges this year have taken about 2,031 minutes — over 1.4 days. This sounds long, but the average challenge takes only about 1 minute and 48 seconds. And there have been only 0.48 challenges per game on average — just slightly less than one every other game. So, all else equal, expanded replay challenges add less than a minute to any given game (about 52 seconds, to be precise)." - Has Expanded Replay Worked Well In Baseball? Here?s Our Call | FiveThirtyEight

Well, they need to work on that. We as fans pay good money for tickets and sometimes it feels like no sooner do we sit down, the game is over. How do I tell little Johnny that it's time to go home so soon.

[The Wolf]

Fifty-two seconds? Really?

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Fifty-two seconds? Really?

I'm joking. You did see that Bud formed a committee yesterday that's supposed to come up with ideas to speed up the game? Personally I despise the replay system. Not because it delays the game, but I hate the whole challenge aspect. The purpose of replay is to correct mistakes. Instead we have some hairboy created nonsense that turns the whole process into a game.

[The Wolf]

I like it. A lot of bad calls have been corrected, we don't get angry managers throwing tantrums nearly as much, and all for only fifty-two seconds.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by david watts

ah, i think you may have misunderstood my intentions when it comes to a shortened season. You see i may want a shorter season, but i'm 100% in favor of longer games. This year with the addition of replay the league took a step in the right direction with games averaging 3+ hours league wide. I see no reason that can't be stretched to 4 or maybe even 4 1/2.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I like it. A lot of bad calls have been corrected, we don't get angry managers throwing tantrums nearly as much, and all for only fifty-two seconds.

I like the calls being right, I just don't like the challenge system.

[dunningrb]

If MLB expands to 32 teams, why not realign into two eight-team divisions in each league?

NL East: Atlanta, Charlotte*, Cincinnati, Miami, NY Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

NL West: Arizona, Chicago, Colorado, LA Dodgers, Milwaukee, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco

AL East: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, NY Yankees, Tampa Bay, Toronto

AL West: Houston, Kansas City, LA Angels, Minnesota, Oakland, Portland*, Seattle, Texas

*new franchises

No interleague. No wildcards. Teams play 14 games against their seven division opponents (98 games) and 7 games against their eight non-division opponents (56 games). 154 games total.

Seems perfect.