Expanding your OOTP MLB league to 32 teams

[OakDragon]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Doubleheaders (of the single-admission kind) are no longer profitable, which is why they slowly disappeared from the schedule

Knowing modern ticket and concession prices (at AT&T Park, at least), I find that hard to comprehend.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Just because it's always been done, doesn't mean things can't change.

Why are you against baseball tradition?

Originally Posted by dunningrb

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.

Doesn't work when actually making a schedule from that format: not enough series. MLB clubs in the 'modern' era have 52-54 series in the schedule. Your arrangement provides for only 44. That would mean series starts and endings would not tied to typical days of the week. While this practice is common in the minors, the majors don't structure their schedules that way.

One alternative is to use the 90-72 split of divisional-interdivisional games used in the 1969-92 NL and 1977-78 AL seasons. A club would play six of its divisional opponents 13 times and one opponent 12 times (90 games total), and 9 games against each club in the other division (72 games). The home-away splits in each series aren't equal, but that can be rotated annually (and MLB has been doing that for a long time).

A more divisionally-weighted option is to have a club play its seven division opponents 16 times each (112 games), one team in the other division 8 times and the other seven teams 6 times each (50 games). The division games would be split either 9-7 or 7-9 (i.e. five series), with one club played in an 8-8 split (6 series).

Originally Posted by OakDragon

Knowing modern ticket and concession prices (at AT&T Park, at least), I find that hard to comprehend.

Because one ticket sale pays for two games, rather than a separate ticket sale for each of the two games. With a separate ticket-purchasing crowd for the second game, that probably means more concessions sales as it's a new crowd of potentially hungry and thirsty people.

[dunningrb]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Doesn't work when actually making a schedule from that format: not enough series. MLB clubs in the 'modern' era have 52-54 series in the schedule. Your arrangement provides for only 44. That would mean series starts and endings would not tied to typical days of the week. While this practice is common in the minors, the majors don't structure their schedules that way.

So what? Who cares if series starts and endings aren't tied typically to the days of the week? I wouldn't care. I'd gladly sacrifice it for an alignment that creates real pennant races.

It seems to me the only really important schedule constraints are that we have no weekend off days, and no crazy travel situations.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by dunningrb

So what? Who cares if series starts and endings aren't tied typically to the days of the week? I wouldn't care.

MLB and its clubs care, or else they wouldn't have the schedules written the way the way they are.

[OakDragon]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Because one ticket sale pays for two games, rather than a separate ticket sale for each of the two games. With a separate ticket-purchasing crowd for the second game, that probably means more concessions sales as it's a new crowd of potentially hungry and thirsty people.

I get that, but prices being what they are, I still find it hard to believe. And surely many fans would go back for more food/drinks as the day wore on. "Not as profitable as possible" is more likely.

[The Wolf]

I suspect the only way they would go for it would be if they could double the ticket price for the day.

[bwburke94]

Originally Posted by dunningrb

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

(snip)

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.

Re: Number of series

Assuming the target number of series is 47 (two weeks shorter than MLB), and that teams play 16 series against non-division opponents, that leaves 31 series against 7 division opponents. Obviously a few two-game series are required to pull this off, but it works fine.

[The Wolf]

Two leagues, four divisions of teams each, no interleague play.

Games with each team's three other division members: 18 games/team x 3 teams = 54 games

Games with teams in the other three divisions: 12 games/team x 9 teams = 108

Total: 54 games + 108 games = 162 games

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by 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.

Or teams can play their division rivals 14 times, and play eight games against their non-division opponents. Total of 162 games.

Even more perfect.

[BMD]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Assuming no interleague play:

22 games against each division rival (66 games total)
12 games against each team in one of the other 4-team divisions (48 games total)
6 games against each team in the other two 4-team divisions (48 games)

The division which has its opponents played 12 times each can be rotated annually on a three-year cycle. Or you could keep it permanent in which case you have effectively divided each league into two conferences (particularly if you match up the respective division champions in the playoffs).

While impractical to try to use in OOTP, how about this set up?

Keeping with the 4 divisions and 162 games:
24 games played against teams in your division.
For the other divisions, 12 games against one team and 6 against the remaining three teams. The team you play 12 games against is determined by prior year standings. All division winners play each other 12 times, down to the last place teams doing the same. The NFL has been adjusting strength of schedule based on prior year record for years. Why not give it a try?

Summary:
Division games - 72
Non-division games - 90
Inter-league - 0
All series lengths - 3 games

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by OakDragon

"Not as profitable as possible" is more likely.

Fair enough.

The end point is that as long as two games for the price of one is not as profitable as two games for the price of two, two games for the price of one is not likely to return as a commonplace feature.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Two leagues, four divisions of teams each, no interleague play.

Games with each team's three other division members: 18 games/team x 3 teams = 54 games

Games with teams in the other three divisions: 12 games/team x 9 teams = 108

Total: 54 games + 108 games = 162 games

If I'm understanding this correctly, teams would only play 12 of the other 15 teams? Won't that lead to some really unfair schedules?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Or teams can play their division rivals 14 times, and play eight games against their non-division opponents. Total of 162 games.

Even more perfect.

Nope. Same series problem as before. The point that needs to be recalled is that whatever format one wishes to propose it has to be divisible into at least 52 series. At least, if one is proposing a plausible real-world alternative, that is. (Personal, idealized scenarios are a different matter. )

Originally Posted by BMD

The NFL has been adjusting strength of schedule based on prior year record for years. Why not give it a try?

Thanks for reminding me of this. I had contemplated a schedule file format system for BTS which would accommodate this sort of scheduling practice ("common opponents" in NFL parlance). I had not thought about adapting it to OOTP.

I may have to mull it over and see if it can work... (Well, it can surely work if OOTP schedule files can be made to handle alphanumeric rather than strictly numeric team IDs. I'm just not sure how difficult it would be for OOTP to make that transition for schedule file purposes.)

Originally Posted by David Watts

If I'm understanding this correctly, teams would only play 12 of the other 15 teams? Won't that lead to some really unfair schedules?

Yes, it seems our lupine poster is missing some clubs in the stated schedule format.

[bwburke94]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I had contemplated a schedule file format system for BTS which would accommodate this sort of scheduling practice ("common opponents" in NFL parlance).

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

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Two leagues, four divisions of teams each, no interleague play.

Games with each team's three other division members: 18 games/team x 3 teams = 54 games

Games with teams in the other three divisions: 12 games/team x 9 teams = 108

Total: 54 games + 108 games = 162 games

This would be THE most logical setup, IF Baseball would dump The Abomination That Is Interleague Play, of which there is no movement afoot to do so.

So assuming there is a mandate to maintain TATIIP, the more likely setup would be:

Own division: 3 teams * 18 games = 54
Other divisions/same league: 12 teams * 6 games = 72
3 of 4 divisions/other league: 12 teams * 3 games = 36
TOTAL: 162 games.

Now, the idea of playing 12 teams in the other league for 36 total games might strike even Baseball as being excessive. So one way to deal with that would be to ramp up the intra-division rivalry even more:

Own division: 3 teams * 22 games = 66
Other divisions/same league: 12 teams * 6 games = 72
Four teams in other league: 4 teams * 3 games = 12
TOTAL: 162 games.

With one of the four teams being your "designated rival" you face every year (like the White Sox and Cubs, Yankees and Mets, or Tigers and Pirates), and the other three teams being distributed so that you face them once every exactly five years for six games a year.

Does 22 games against a single team sound excessive? It didn't to Baseball when they created the 154-game schedule as an exercise in playing each of your seven league rivals 22 games a year.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Nope. Same series problem as before. The point that needs to be recalled is that whatever format one wishes to propose it has to be divisible into at least 52 series. At least, if one is proposing a plausible real-world alternative, that is.

14 games against seven division rivals = four series against each = 28 total series.

Eight games against eight non-division teams = three series against each = 24 total series.

That looks like 52 series to me.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

(Personal, idealized scenarios are a different matter. )

Must ... refrain ... from ... feeding ... patronizing ... troll ...

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Eight games against eight non-division teams = three series against each = 24 total series.

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

[dunningrb]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Nope. Same series problem as before. The point that needs to be recalled is that whatever format one wishes to propose it has to be divisible into at least 52 series. At least, if one is proposing a plausible real-world alternative, that is. (Personal, idealized scenarios are a different matter. )

It doesn't *have* to be divisible into 52 series. We're not talking about changing the number of outs in an inning, the number of innings in a game, or the number of bases in the infield. The number of series in the season and whether we allow a series to begin on a Saturday are not so intrinsic to baseball that we can't even consider changing things. We can at least consider it, and weigh positives vs. negatives to see if it might provide an overall better competitive environment and a more entertaining product.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by David Watts

If I'm understanding this correctly, teams would only play 12 of the other 15 teams? Won't that lead to some really unfair schedules?

I reversed it. 9 games/team x 12 teams. Every other team in the same league is played.

My bad and my apologies, I've been under the weather for a couple of days.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I reversed it. 9 games/team x 12 teams. Every other team in the same league is played.

My bad and my apologies, I've been under the weather for a couple of days.

I like that better Hope you feel better soon.