Thoughts and analysis of the unbalanced schedule

[spinowner]

As almost everyone is aware, the current MLB schedule is unbalanced. In 2015 every team played 19 games against each division opponent for a total of 76 games (except for one cancellation between Cleveland and Detroit), either 6 or 7 games against each team in the other two divisions of its league for a total of 66 games and either 3,4 or 6 games against teams from the other league for a total of 20 games.
There has been some criticism of the unbalanced schedule. An unbalanced schedule means that teams competing for wild card berths in the postseason can have quite different strengths of schedule. Some feel that a lower number of intradivision games and the resulting increase in the number of games against opponents outside the division would increase fan interest. On the other hand, some feel that a higher number of intradivision games increases fan interest by promoting stronger rivalries.
So how could MLB institute a completely balanced schedule?
Involving all 30 teams would probably mean each team playing every other team six times for a total of 174 games, leaving time for only one postseason series. Either the top team in each league would advance to the World Series or the two teams with the best records would advance. (Instituting this schedule would probably force MLB either to adopt the DH for every game or to eliminate it.) Keeping the leagues separate would not be possible with two 15-team leagues. Barring expansion or contraction that means returning to one 14-team league and one 16-team league. In the 14-team league it would probably mean each team playing every other team 12 times for a total of 156 games, and in a 16-team league it would probably mean each team playing every other team 10 times for a total of 150 games. Taking this even further, keeping the current divisions separate would probably mean each team playing every other team 40 times for a total of 160 games. Nostalgia for the pre-1969 era notwithstanding, I think most people would agree that none of these options is satisfactory.
So we’re left with the conclusion that an unbalanced schedule is inevitable. The issue, then, is how the games should be apportioned. There are many possible permutations.
Working from the premise that there would be no realignment I played with the numbers a little bit to come up with one alternative to the current schedule that reduces the number of intradivision games. In this plan every team plays 14 games against each team in its division for a total of 56 games, 9 games against each team in the other two divisions of its league for a total of 90 games and 16 interleague games. For the interleague games each division would be matched against one division in the other league. There would be 3 games against each of four of the teams in that division and 4 games against one team in that division.
For most teams, switching to this schedule means increasing the amount of travel across two or three time zones. (Texas and Houston are exceptions to this.) Not only is this more fatiguing for teams but TV and radio ratings drop for games aired earlier or later than during prime time. The fatigue issue is a bigger factor for teams located in the Eastern and Pacific time zones. Creative scheduling could make this more fair by requiring teams from the Central and Mountain time zones to have some road trips that incorporate traveling across three time zones.
I wondered how a change in schedule would have affected the 2015 standings. To get an idea of that I took the percentage of games each team won against each other team this year and applied that to this alternative plan. 29 of the 30 teams would have finished with a different record but there would have been only two shifts in the standings. In one case Boston would have finished fourth in the AL East and Tampa Bay fifth instead of the other way around. In the other case, a more significant one, Pittsburgh would have finished first in the NL Central and St. Louis second instead of the other way around. (This is primarily because Pittsburgh was .447 vs the NL Central and .744 in the rest of its games.) The same 10 teams would have advanced to the postseason, but obviously Pittsburgh would have been the NL Central winner and St. Louis would have been the first-seeded wild card team.
My interpretation of this analysis is that changing the current schedule would probably not be considered to be a significant enough improvement to warrant the making the change. The increase in cross-time-zone travel and the elimination of the so-called rivalry series in interleague play that MLB seems to love make it unlikely that MLB would consider such a change. It appears we will continue to see our current division rivals 19 times a year for the foreseeable future.

[Shaitan]

Hate the unbalanced schedule, though those terrible DET teams of the early 2000s did basically hand the Twins some playoffs births in the process.

[drock2190]

If you end up blaming the schedule for your team's failure to make the postseason, your team wasn't very good to begin with. 

 

Good teams overcome.

[twinsnorth49]

Good post, but may I suggest a Coles Notes (CliffsNotes for you 'Merkans), that simply says, " leave it the way it is"?

 

[jokin]

 

Good post, but can I suggest a Coles Notes (CliffsNotes for you 'Merkans), that simply says, " leave it the way it is"?

 

Oy... I concur, great post... but that's one mountainous Wall of Text too far. gone.   (And I thought I was a wee bit wordy!)

 

May I suggest more paragraph uniformity and double-space breaks between paras?

[spinowner]

Good post, but may I suggest a Coles Notes (CliffsNotes for you 'Merkans), that simply says, " leave it the way it is"?

 

Thanks, I think. I just wanted to share why I thought there would be no change in the schedule without advocating for either changing the schedule or leaving it as is.

[spinowner]

 

Oy... I concur, great post... but that's one mountainous Wall of Text too far. gone   (And I thought I was a wee bit wordy!)

 

May I suggest more paragraph uniformity and double-space breaks between paras?

Oh, dear. There goes my A in composition.

[Platoon]

Oh, dear. There goes my A in composition.

Great post. After reading some of the comments, I am so glad I did not pay attention in Mr. Jensens English class. Not knowing the difference between a participle, a preposition, or a proposition, has made my life easier, and in some cases much more exciting! Btw, thanks for not writing this in Canadian! Adding, eh, to the end of each sentence would have driven the word count above TD maximum levels.

[Craig Arko]

 

Oh, dear. There goes my A in composition.

That's what e e cummings said.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, even in a balanced schedule, it's not a completely "fair" competition. If you play a team early in the year, it isn't the same team after July. You can play a team when guys are injured, or healthy. There is likely little evidence that the unbalanced schedule is the key to success or not. I'd guess luck and who is healthy when plays a much larger role.

[jokin]

 

Thanks, I think. I just wanted to share why I thought there would be no change in the schedule without advocating for either changing the schedule or leaving it as is.

 

Oh, dear. There goes my A in composition.

 

I don't think either of us wanted to give you a grade or chastise, rather, just offer a couple random thoughts to help you more pithily "advocate" your position. 

[spinowner]

 

I don't think either of us wanted to give you a grade or chastise, rather, just offer a couple random thoughts to help you more pithily "advocate" your position. 

No offense taken in any post on this thread. I appreciate the input and I'll keep that in mind the next time I start feeling particularly verbose.

[Squirrel]

 

No offense taken in any post on this thread. I appreciate the input and I'll keep that in mind the next time I start feeling particularly verbose.

Sometimes blogs are good place to present these ... lengthier ideas. While some keep regular blogs and write frequently, not all blogs have to be like that. Just any time you have a thought that you really want to explore and expound on, a blog is a good place to do that. But here is fine, too. Just an idea.

[jokin]

 

 It appears we will continue to see our current division rivals 19 times a year for the foreseeable future.

 

Adding teams in Montreal and Monterrey (Mexico) and going to four 4-team divisions can serve to help lower some of the skewing effects of the unbalanced schedule. (MLB is actively looking into these two cities for expansion, timetable uncertain. Slightly off-topic, expansion seems very destined to happen- pitching is incredibly strong now, and team offenses have become nearly as anemic as they were in the late 60s- which in part prompted MLB to expand by FOUR teams in 1969).

 

Expansion and partial realignment also gives MLB the option to eliminate or cut back on interleague play, which also can skew the results if your team happens to draw the weakest or strongest division.

 

Here's one idea which would involve a little League switching (but not unprecedented), but optimally achieves better/tighter geographical integrity and greatly increases divisional time zone consistency, and lowered travel costs- and the compromise can still satisfy  MLB's vision for intra-division rivalry intensity through the unbalanced schedule:

 

 

Red teams:  League swtich

Blue teams: Expansion teams

Green teams: Division switch

 

AL East

Toronto

Boston

NY

Detroit

 

AL Central

 

Minnesota

KC

Chicago

Milwaukee

 

AL West

LA

Oakland

Seattle

Arizona or Colorado

 

AL South

Houston

Texas

Tampa Bay

Monterrey

 

NL East

NY

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Montreal

 

NL Central

Chicago

St Louis

Cincinnati

Cleveland

 

NL West

LA

SF

SD

Arizona or Colorado

 

NL South

Atlanta

Miami

Washington

Baltimore

 

 

Cutting back intra-divisional games to say, 14 games- a total of 42 games in all, this would leave 120 games to schedule. This would be a perfect match to fill the schedule with 10 games with each of the remaining 12 intra-league teams. 120 + 42 = 162.

 

Or if they made intra-divisional play to be 16 games per team- a total of only 48 games between divisional rivals- this would leave 114 games to schedule. If you then play each of the other 12 intra-league teams 8 times each for a total of 96 games- you'd have a grand total of 144 games  This still would help to balance out the schedule quite a bit. In a 162 game schedule, this would mean leaving 18 games left for some combination of more limited inter-league play and/or expanded intra-league play. Or they could cut the 162 game season back by a few games, and add another round of playoffs with 4 Wild Card teams instead of 2.

 

 

 

[h2oface]

All I have to say about composition suggestions is...... Mark Twain. In this day of tweeting twits, this post is refreshing. Thanks for your thoughts.