Realignment

[Frayed Knot]

Gwreck wrote: My problem is your attribution of motive and your analysis of Selig's thoughts. Like that he is operating under a "misconception" about interleague play or is waging an ongoing campaign to blur the boundaries of the leagues.

Yes, I believe that Selig IS laboring under a misconception.
Specifically, I believe that HE believes that IL games are good and that fans want more of them - something I'm basing on numerous statements made by him over the years. First there are the ones where he likes to imply that IL games are somehow in addition to other scheduled games rather than instead of them, and then particularly the ones where he cites IL attendance figures as proof of their popularity even though such figures are skewed by time of year and a heavy reliance on intra-city matchups.
Nor do I have a lot of faith in the ability of his leadership to do things properly especially since virtually every "fix" in these realignment/scheduling/post-season proposals are measures that are designed to fix the things that were broken the last time his administration fixed things.

I get what's your opinion, and can do the math too -- ie. going from 18 to 30 interleague games per team means that only an additional 7.5% of a teams' games per year will now be interleague. (See what I did there?).

Yeah, bad math.
The number of IL games under the 72-60-15-15 proposal will increase from 250 to 450.
That is not a 7.5% increase (at least it wasn't when I went to school although admittedly that was a while ago).

[batmagadanleadoff]

I no longer approve of this scheme. I initially did, mainly because of the scheme's orderliness. But I hafta admit that I didn't look at it close enough to notice that the scheme requires each team to play 30 IL games.

I don't know what the overall attendance figures (and ad revenues -- don't forget advertising) are for IL games, but hunching it, I'd hafta guess that the figures must be quite good. I guess this because these moves are driven by money first. And money second. And after that, some more money. Anything the league or Selig says that's different is total bs.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: I get what's your opinion, and can do the math too -- ie. going from 18 to 30 interleague games per team means that only an additional 7.5% of a teams' games per year will now be interleague. (See what I did there?). Yeah, bad math. The number of IL games under the 72-60-15-15 proposal will increase from 250 to 450. That is not a 7.5% increase (at least it wasn't when I went to school although admittedly that was a while ago).

I didn't say it was a 7.5% increase.

[metsmarathon]

30 - 18 = 12

12 / 162 = 0.074 = 7.4%

[Vic Sage]

fun with math.

sorry, FK, but i have absolutely no problem with the Mets playing 12 more IL games. And i think Selig, while providing dubious leadership on a host of issues, has data to suggest that its generally popular with fans. You have only your own rationalizations in reinterpreting the data to the contrary.

Mets vs Athletics in 2013: ya gotta believe, baby!

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: TransMonk wrote: Great idea! I never thought of that. Now it's going to drive me nuts that they DON'T do this. Scheduling a 1-game "series" is prohibited in the basic agreement with the players which would be the holdup here.

Yeah, I didn't seriously think it would be a layup.

[bmfc1]

If this realignment meant that every team would play the same IL schedule, I'd be all for it. However, I have no doubt that Selig, and perhaps the Wilpons, will still want the fiction of extra games against the rival opponent (fiction, because not every team has that "rival"). This means (as Stark wrote) that the Mets will play the MFYs 3 more times than anybody else while the Nationals play the Orioles 3 extra times (some rivals--none of those games sell-out) thus putting the Mets at a competitive disadvantage.

[metsmarathon]

if those stupid fucking rivaly series are retained, then this whole realignment would be a sorry sorry mess.

i'm hoping that with all of the lip service about evening up the schedules, that they realize that the rivalry series undo all of that.

i'm also really hoping that they do away with that thought of having a super fantastic interleague block where everybody gets to play an interleague game at the same time.

fold the damned things into the schedule all random-like, treat them as any other game, and the issue will disappear. make a big deal about this being the one time the mets get to go to seattle for the next four years or so. fine. that shit's cool. but don't try to sell me on the rivalry week, or the interleague week. because then i can't watch any other rivalry games, or any other interesting interleague matchups.

plus if you have one or two interleague games going on a t a given time, then you can always highlight those.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, well, all these (relatively) sensible moves can get framed as "we need to tweak our great idea --- you know, to make it greater." Trashing the designated rivalries would be acknowledging the truth that maybe that great idea was actually ill-conceived from the start.

Maybe next commissioner.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, well, all these (relatively) sensible moves can get framed as "we need to tweak our great idea --- you know, to make them greater." Trashing the designated rivalries would be acknowledging the truth that maybe that great idea was actually ill-conceived from the start. Maybe next commissioner.

Bud Selig has basically been commissioner as long as I can remember. Will be interesting next year.

[Frayed Knot]

metsmarathon wrote: if those stupid fucking rivaly series are retained, then this whole realignment would be a sorry sorry mess.

Count on it. Attendance matters and w/o a tilt towards intra-city games the idea that IL games are more popular simply because they're IL would be greatly diminished if not disappear entirely.

i'm hoping that with all of the lip service about evening up the schedules, that they realize that the rivalry series undo all of that.

It's not going to be even no matter which way they do it. Adding the rivalry series just makes things a little more uneven.

i'm also really hoping that they do away with that thought of having a super fantastic interleague block where everybody gets to play an interleague game at the same time. fold the damned things into the schedule all random-like, treat them as any other game, and the issue will disappear.

They virtually have to kill this in order to fill the minimum one-IL series all the time thing that two 15-team leagues requires.
I don't think this will make the issue "disappear" since Bud's goal seems to be to set aside more games where your team plays against teams who are not fighting for the same prize as you and fewer against teams who are ... but perhaps that's another argument.

make a big deal about this being the one time the mets get to go to seattle for the next four years or so. fine. that shit's cool. but don't try to sell me on the rivalry week, or the interleague week. because then i can't watch any other rivalry games, or any other interesting interleague matchups. plus if you have one or two interleague games going on a t a given time, then you can always highlight those.

Again, see above. Also, there have to be an odd number of IL series going on at any one time except for those occasional days where numerous teams have the day off. But on your typical full-slate days, two IL series would mean 13 teams in each league to play each other leaving one team w/o a dance partner or four IL series would leave 11 each, etc., so those are not options.
So with a minimum of one and an average somewhere between that and three (depending on how many total IL games they decide to go with) most days would have either 1 or 3 of the 15 match-ups as IL plus either 6 each or 7 each of AL/NL

[Ceetar]

Watched Back tothe Future this weekend. Shouldn't it have been the Cubs that moved to the AL? I don't know how else they're going to beat Miami in 2015.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I confess that I like the interleague games. It's fun to see different teams. And the Mets get to come to Detroit.

[Frayed Knot]

Except that if you wound up being 'Met Guy in St Louis' for example (or Chicago, or Pittsburgh) all these changes would have reduced your NYM visits over the years from three per season down to one, or from two visits to one in numerous other cities. For some reason the concept that IL games are instead of others rather than in addition to is frequently skipped over.
Plus, if I'm fixing the schedule I want the highest percentage of games to come against other teams that are actually fighting for the same prize as mine. Bud seems to believe that the most games possible against teams whose outcomes don't affect yours is optimal.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: Bud seems to believe that the most games possible against teams whose outcomes don't affect yours is optimal.

You're making stuff up again. He clearly doesn't, or else he would have suggested a totally balanced schedule in which a team plays the other 29 the same number of times.

[metirish]

Interesting


ESPN�s Keith Law Interviewed For A Job In The Astros� Front Office

According to the estimable Ken Rosenthal, Keith Law of ESPN�last seen around these parts ragging on Moneyball�interviewed with the Houston Astros for a position (Rosenthal mentions scouting director) in their front office. Law just tweeted, "My day just got a lot more interesting." The transition from writing to scouting wouldn't be new to him�Law worked in the Blue Jays' front office from 2002-06, a gig he got after writing for Baseball Prospectus for several years�and Law already does a great deal of scouting for ESPN now. (Unfortunately, he spends most of his time behind the ESPN Insider paywall�you probably can't read him unless some well-meaning relative signed you up for an ESPN: The Magazine subscription with Insider benefits.) Rosenthal says the Astros haven't yet offered Law a position, but keep in mind that Law, 38, attended a selective undergraduate institution outside of Boston with a good track record in job placement. With any luck, he'll be freed from the Worldwide Leader, and we'll still have the Top Chef recaps. One hopes, anyway. ESPN's Law: On the move again? [MLB Buzz]

http://deadspin.com/5871886/espns-keith-law-interviews-for-job-in-astros-front-office

[nymr83]

I barely read Law's articles but I love him on the 'Baseball Today' podcasts also produced by ESPN. I selfishly hope he doesn't go to Houston

[Ceetar]

Nymr83 wrote: I barely read Law's articles but I love him on the 'Baseball Today' podcasts also produced by ESPN. I selfishly hope he doesn't go to Houston

I find him extremely arrogant and annoying. I hope he gets the job so I see him retweeted less.

[Guest attgig]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Selig said today that the second wild card part of the plan may begin as early as 2012.

it's now twitter official:

Ken Rosenthal Sources: Additional wild cards a "go" for this season. Playoffs to expand from eight to 10 teams. Announcement tomorrow. #MLB

https://twitter.com/#!/Ken_Rosenthal/status/174934868373942273

[TransMonk]

Fuckin' shocker.

Who doesn't like more money?



At least it puts a new wrinkle in the post-season prediction contest.

[metirish]

This should help the Mets!

[Frayed Knot]

attgig wrote: Selig said today that the second wild card part of the plan may begin as early as 2012. it's now twitter official: Ken Rosenthal Sources: Additional wild cards a "go" for this season. Playoffs to expand from eight to 10 teams. Announcement tomorrow. #MLB https://twitter.com/#!/Ken_Rosenthal/status/174934868373942273

Now we just need the details.

I'm VERY MUCH hoping for 1-game play-ins between the four WC teams rather than a pair of two-of-three deals.
This all should be easy to implement once you get it run past the player's union and secure the TV arrangement but I still fear the ability of Bud and co to screw up a one horse parade.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'd prefer the best-of-three, but I don't think it's going to go that way.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

You just know this'll be the year the MFYs would fail to qualify any other way but for the extra-team bonus.

Thanks a lot, Bud.

[Vic Sage]

metirish wrote: This should help the Mets!

good one.

[HahnSolo]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You just know this'll be the year the MFYs would fail to qualify any other way but for the extra-team bonus. Thanks a lot, Bud.

Of course. First thing that popped in to my mind.

[Ceetar]

HahnSolo wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You just know this'll be the year the MFYs would fail to qualify any other way but for the extra-team bonus. Thanks a lot, Bud. Of course. First thing that popped in to my mind.

They're one of the few teams that's won the World Series with the 5th best record in the league, so they've already got the practice.

[stevejrogers]

Ceetar wrote: HahnSolo wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You just know this'll be the year the MFYs would fail to qualify any other way but for the extra-team bonus. Thanks a lot, Bud. Of course. First thing that popped in to my mind. They're one of the few teams that's won the World Series with the 5th best record in the league, so they've already got the practice.

Cee, I'm trying very hard to imagine that the 2000 baseball season ended the night the Mets won the LCS vs the Cardinals. STOP REMINDING ME! And sadly, it wouldn't be the last time the Mets got beat by a team that won fewer than 90 on their way to a Worlds Championship...

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I don't like it. The playoffs are bloated already. Before expansion, only 12.5% of the teams made it to postseason. After the introduction of divisions in 1969, 16.67% of the teams made it to postseason. Today, 26% of teams make it to the postseason and this proposal will bump it up to 31.25%. What's the point of playing 162 games if nearly a third of the teams are going to the playoffs with as good a chance of anyone else of winning the championship? If they modified the playoffs to reward the teams that showed excellent over the long season I might agree with this. Say the best team in each league gets an automatic bye to the League Championship Series and get to rest and watch the the other teams beat up on one another.

[Frayed Knot]

The way I look at this Willets is as a kind of subtraction by addition.
By doubling the number of WC teams but then immediately throwing them into a single-game death match, no longer will the WC team head into the playoff as a virtually equal partner to division winners. This not only gives a great incentive to actually compete for the division rather than resting down the stretch but it also makes both WC teams have to make a risk-reward decision as to which pitcher to use for the play-in game. The winner is likely weakened as they go on to meet their next opponent, and the loser disappears the day after the reg season ends and we're left with the same number of teams competing for the ultimate prize as we've had for nearly 20 years now.