Expanding your OOTP MLB league to 32 teams

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I like that better Hope you feel better soon.

Thanks. If my friends are any indication I'll be well next week.

[hfield007]

Originally Posted by David Watts

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

Is it just me who enjoys the human error involved creating memories and moments? It's a game with a strike zone based on judgment.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by hfield007

Is it just me who enjoys the human error involved creating memories and moments? It's a game with a strike zone based on judgment.

I want the calls to be right so the game is fair and honest. I willing to support any reasonable trade-off to see that happen.

[Trebro]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I want the calls to be right so the game is fair and honest. I willing to support any reasonable trade-off to see that happen.

I don't get to watch too many MLB games, but I try to catch the free ones online if I can.

The last time I did, there were balls six inches outside the zone getting called strikes. If that's "human error" in umpires these days, then let's get more cameras on the game. That's an unacceptable level of mistake.

We have the tools to know if the game is being umpired correctly. Why not use them?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

That's what the format was called back when it was first implemented in 1978. Rather than the old rotation scheduling system that had been used from 1970-77, the system changed to factor in position of finish the previous season. The idea was to have most of the clubs in a division playing a common set of opponents to make the schedule more equitable, which sometimes wasn't the case under the old rotation method. The way that commonality was achieved was by using the position of finish the prior season.

Of course, nowadays only 2 of a club's 16 games have opponents decided by the position of finish the previous season. Back in the three-divisions-per-conference days it was either 8 or 10 games of a club's 16 games which had opponents decided by the position of finish the prior season, depending on whether it was in a five-team or four-team division.

Originally Posted by dunningrb

It doesn't *have* to be divisible into 52 series.

It does if the format is intended as a realistically plausible replacement for what MLB does now (with "realistically plausible" defined as something MLB would potentially accept as a not-too-radical departure from practices it has been using for several decades).

[OakDragon]

Originally Posted by hfield007

Is it just me who enjoys the human error involved creating memories and moments? It's a game with a strike zone based on judgment.

That's probably always been my least favorite aspect of the game itself. The strike zone is based on the umpire's whim. The rulebook strike zone ought to be enforced. It irritates me when someone says it doesn't matter where the strike zone is, as long as it's consistent throughout a game. You hear that all the time.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by OakDragon

That's probably always been my least favorite aspect of the game itself. The strike zone is based on the umpire's whim. The rulebook strike zone ought to be enforced. It irritates me when someone says it doesn't matter where the strike zone is, as long as it's consistent throughout a game. You hear that all the time.

I think if the strike zone is reasonable and consistent, that's OK. In other words, an inch or two off the corners isn't an awful thing. Eric Gregg in the 1997 NLCS is not OK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR3eK5gCChM

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

A little background on my semi-historical league, with 8-team divisions: Seems that Bud Selig, Brewers owner, died in 1978! Normally, if an owner dies before his real-life time, I just edit him back to life, but this time, I decided to do some historical "what-if" stuff instead.

So, 8-team divisions, and no interleague play. I'm also going to keep Milwaukee in the AL, and Houston in the NL. I will move Buffalo, one of two fictional 1986 NL expansion teams, to the AL East in 1998, and division swap a few others to accommodate the Rays and D-Backs. At least until MLB expands again in real life. Which, considering that I'm just finishing up the last month the 1995 season now, will be a while. Should be an interesting experiment.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

How does one divide 8 games against a specific opponent into three series?

3-3-2 is the one way. It's either 3-3 in one park and 2 in the other, or it's 3-2 in one park and 3 in the other. So that's either a 6-2 / 2-6 home-away split or a 5-3 / 3-5 home away split against clubs in the other division. The other way is 4-2-2. Now the home-away split is 4-4 against clubs in the other division, but the number of 2-game series is doubled.

The series breakdown for the first method is:

2-game series: 8
3-game series: 30
4-game series: 14

The series breakdown for the second method is:

2-game series: 16
3-game series: 14
4-game series: 22

Neither is not the kind of series distribution MLB likes. It prefers to maximize 3-game and minimize 2-game series. If you look at the current schedule the breakdown of the 52 series it is typically:

2-game series: 4
3-game series: 38
4-game series: 10

I think Baseball would find this workable:

2-game series: 8
3-game series: 30
4-game series: 14

... and not be remarkably different from this:

2-game series: 4
3-game series: 38
4-game series: 10

... assuming these are the limits of choice. I would agree your other scenario would be considered far less desirable.

This also assumes that reducing the schedule from 162 games is a non starter. The only way that would happen is for clubs to share in greater revenue resulting from a reduction in regular season schedule and expansion of playoffs schedule.

[dunningrb]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It does if the format is intended as a realistically plausible replacement for what MLB does now (with "realistically plausible" defined as something MLB would potentially accept as a not-too-radical departure from practices it has been using for several decades).

I certainly agree with this. I have no realistic hope of seeing four eight-team divisions with no inter-league play, and not just because of the scheduling issue. But I do believe the game would be better under that alignment.

In the meantime, does anyone know if there is an OOTP schedule file for this alignment? 14 games x 7 division opponents and 7 games x 8 non-division opponents? With no off days on weekend dates?

Can someone make one? Or help me make one? Pretty please?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

This also assumes that reducing the schedule from 162 games is a non starter. The only way that would happen is for clubs to share in greater revenue resulting from a reduction in regular season schedule and expansion of playoffs schedule.

The problem there is that revenue from the regular season is apparently far higher than that from the post-season. MLB's own figures from 2001 showed that the regular season brought in some $3.5 billion; the post-season, less than $46 million (net). That means the playoffs accounted for 1.3% of total revenue. In contrast, according to the NHL's own figures for the 2002-03 season, its playoffs accounted for 7.3% of total revenue.

It's not much different at the individual MLB team level, though of course there is more variety depending on how far into the post-season a club goes and whether the club is a good earner in general. In 2009 Anaheim's playoff run amounted to 5% of total club revenue. The year prior (a shorter run admittedly), it was only 1.8%. For Tampa in 2008—which made it to the World Series—the playoffs were more significant: 11% of total revenue came from post-season play. (On the other hand, nearly 22% of Rays' income was from revenue sharing.)

Originally Posted by dunningrb

I certainly agree with this. I have no realistic hope of seeing four eight-team divisions with no inter-league play, and not just because of the scheduling issue. But I do believe the game would be better under that alignment.

And that's fine. I'm not disputing what one's preferences are, just whether such preference is necessarily plausible. When one is commissioner in OOTP, of course, the plausible is whatever one wants it to be!

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The problem there is that revenue from the regular season is apparently far higher than that from the post-season. MLB's own figures from 2001 showed that the regular season brought in some $3.5 billion; the post-season, less than $46 million (net). That means the playoffs accounted for 1.3% of total revenue. In contrast, according to the NHL's own figures for the 2002-03 season, its playoffs accounted for 7.3% of total revenue.

Well, there you go: granting that your breakdown between regular season and postseason is accurate, there is no incentive to shorten the season from 162 games. Therefore, it will most assuredly not happen.

Whether that's a "problem", as you characterize it, is a matter of opinion. Me, I don't think that's a problem. I'd like to see 200 regular season games a year.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by panelpatter

I don't get to watch too many MLB games, but I try to catch the free ones online if I can.

The last time I did, there were balls six inches outside the zone getting called strikes. If that's "human error" in umpires these days, then let's get more cameras on the game. That's an unacceptable level of mistake.

We have the tools to know if the game is being umpired correctly. Why not use them?

There's no reason that balls and strikes should not be called electronically. Other sports use electronic sensors, why can't Major League Baseball?

I'd use sensors everywhere. The goal is an honest and fair game where human error and prejudice play no part.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

There's no reason that balls and strikes should not be called electronically. Other sports use electronic sensors, why can't Major League Baseball?

I'd use sensors everywhere. The goal is an honest and fair game where human error and prejudice play no part.

Endor Baseball League and Coruscant Baseball League use droids as umpires.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

There's no reason that balls and strikes should not be called electronically. Other sports use electronic sensors, why can't Major League Baseball?

I'd use sensors everywhere. The goal is an honest and fair game where human error and prejudice play no part.

But where's the heart? Where's the soul? It's slide protector-wearing autobots like you who ruin the game for us real fans.

[Tram2Whitaker]

The more you automate the game, to ensure accuracy over substance; you miss out on the Lou Pinellas and Sparky Andersons arguing calls, kicking dirt on the umpires. It's tradition. It's drama. It's entertainment.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

But where's the heart? Where's the soul? It's slide protector-wearing autobots like you who ruin the game for us real fans.

The heart and soul is in the pitcher-batter interaction, which would then be honest and fair, and in the fielding, which would also get honest and fair calls.

It would be a huge improvement, and the heart would still be there.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Tram2Whitaker

The more you automate the game, to ensure accuracy over substance; you miss out on the Lou Pinellas and Sparky Andersons arguing calls, kicking dirt on the umpires. It's tradition. It's drama. It's entertainment.

You forgot to mention that it's also pointless and stupid.

Let's get rid of the inattentive clowns in umpire suits (yes, Angel Hernandez, I'm looking at you) and make the game fair and honest.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

it's slide protector-wearing autobots like you who ruin the game for us real fans.

You clearly have me mixed up with LGO. Personally I'm all digital and never carry a pen.

[bwburke94]

4x4 with no interleague play:

18 games against each of 3 division opponents (54 total)
9 games against each of 12 non-division opponents (108 total)

(if this results in too many 3-game series, then 14 against the division / 10 against non-division is an acceptable alternative)