|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 12, 2016 18:15:01 GMT -5
Me (Rangers): 4 AL West opponents twice each = 8 weeks 5 AL Central opponents once each = 5 weeks 5 AL East opponents once each = 5 weeks Total = 18 weeks Exactly, that is my #1 scenario. It's clean, no 'unfair' scheduling finger pointing. You can hate everyone in the AL almost evenly, just enough enmity within your division to make it worth while.
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 12, 2016 18:17:58 GMT -5
The idea of selecting two divisions per year makes sense, so as to avoid hand-picking teams. If we want to work interleague into the schedule though, some years will by necessity have 8 divisional and 10 interleague matchups. Or just have one of those 5 week ranges be against one interleague division. Opens you up to some finger pointing, but I feel like we should play the same type of schedule every year.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 12, 2016 18:25:26 GMT -5
As long as we play our own division 8 times, I really don't have a problem with any other method for how the remaining 10 weeks are scheduled. I would be completely fine with going old school and only playing your own league and never having interleague play. I'm a bit older than most of the folks here... old enough that it actually bothered me when they started playing night games at Wrigley. So take my opinion with a healthy dose of "get off my lawn" if you must.
I've made a few metagame moves based on the original scheduling, and geared specifically toward my scheduled opponents for this year and next. But it's nothing I couldn't adjust to if the group wanted to make a change...
|
|
|
Post by bryanm1982 (Bryan, WAS) on Feb 12, 2016 18:43:28 GMT -5
I think we should play our division twice and the rest of our own league once. It would of been nice if we could of somehow had 5 more weeks to play with we could of had a rotating 3 year schedule for interleagie games. Like first year NL Central played AL West. Next year they play AL East and so on. But I think it's best we go old school and play everyone in our league once. That would mirror MLB more cause the MLB teams play everyone in their own league each year.
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 12, 2016 18:48:31 GMT -5
As long as we play our own division 8 times, I really don't have a problem with any other method for how the remaining 10 weeks are scheduled. I would be completely fine with going old school and only playing your own league and never having interleague play. I'm a bit older than most of the folks here... old enough that it actually bothered me when they started playing night games at Wrigley. So take my opinion with a healthy dose of "get off my lawn" if you must. I've made a few metagame moves based on the original scheduling, and geared specifically toward my scheduled opponents for this year and next. But it's nothing I couldn't adjust to if the group wanted to make a change... OOHHHH, well I tailored MY team to beat everyone for the next THREE years. BURN. I can already feel the hatred building between us!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 18:52:58 GMT -5
I've made a few metagame moves based on the original scheduling, and geared specifically toward my scheduled opponents for this year and next. But it's nothing I couldn't adjust to if the group wanted to make a change... Seriously, if this throws a wrench into any plans, or investments that have been made, now would be the best time to speak up. That would be a legitimate factor that needs to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 12, 2016 19:36:00 GMT -5
I've made a few metagame moves based on the original scheduling, and geared specifically toward my scheduled opponents for this year and next. But it's nothing I couldn't adjust to if the group wanted to make a change... Seriously, if this throws a wrench into any plans, or investments that have been made, now would be the best time to speak up. That would be a legitimate factor that needs to be considered. It's true, I steered my moves a bit based on scheduled opponents, but it is not a significant factor for me. I would be just fine with sticking with an intraleague schedule.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 19:44:28 GMT -5
I would be just fine with sticking with an intraleague schedule. If we keep the 8 weeks against division rivals in tact, would you also be ok with potentially randomizing or incorporating inter-league matchups into the remaining 10?
|
|
|
Post by gepetto69 (Stuart, LAD) on Feb 12, 2016 20:00:21 GMT -5
I like the idea of playing your own division twice, and then everyone else in your designated league once. If there is a way of getting some interleague games mixed in every year on a rotating basis that would be even better.
As for building one's team, I personally didn't consider who I would be playing when putting together my roster. I saw what was given to me in the beginning and decided what the best strategy would be for me based on my starting point. Now that my team is structured to my preference I figure I would leave it up to my weekly opponent to worry about their own strategy. Overall strategy is subjective and changes quite often. I see each team making changes to their roster throughout the season because of injuries, trades, or ...
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 12, 2016 20:10:29 GMT -5
Re: Astros' question
Potentially, but I can tell you that such a schedule would be extremely difficult to make fair. An intraleague schedule is inherently balanced and fair. All your opponents for the pennant face a similar path to the playoffs. Every team in your own division faces the exact same opponents you do. If you make it random, you get really screwy results where one team in a division faces off against the Cubs and another faces the Padres. If I am in the AL Central, I think I would be a bit peeved if my playoff chances were that dependent on which random NL teams I happened to draw.
Personally I wish we could do a 21 week regular season. Schedule 18 weeks against your own league, and then 3 interleague matchups a year that were directly matched up with the teams who had your ranking the previous season. So the Division winners in the NL would have a week each against the previous year's division winners from the AL, the runners-up would play runners-up, third against third, fourth against fourth, and fifth against fifth. You'd get to see exciting well-balanced matchups in interleague play, there would be no randomness involved, and it would help promote parity because it would make it that much harder for winners to repeat.
You couldn't do that in season 1... unless you went off the real-life standings from 2015. But in 2017, you would have each of our Division winners from 2016 having a brutal gauntlet against the 3 Division winners from the other league. Personally I think that would be a blast...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 20:41:45 GMT -5
Re: Pirates idea.
That's actually a very cool idea. It sure beats the idea I was working on of pulling the first 150 matchups from the schedule generator to fill in the 10 non-divisional weeks.
As usual, there is a trade off. Three weeks could be siphoned from the World Series, LCS, and All-Star weeks, all of which currently use combined weeks. However, would it be acceptable to have a one week World Series, and a shortened All-Star week? Would the cost outweigh the cool schedule?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 21:00:16 GMT -5
Watering it down slightly:
Keep the combined WS weeks. Keep the combined All-Star week. Reduce the LCS to a single week. Use a 19 week schedule to play division rivals twice = 8 matchups, same league teams once = 10 weeks, with one interleague week. The interleague matchup could be governed by win percentage in their respective leagues in the previous year. The top AL and NL teams would meet, the team with the 5th best record in the AL would meet the team with the 5th best record in the NL...
This perhaps allows for a small dose of interleague play without costing the relative stability of the World Series or wreaking havoc from a short All-Star week.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 21:11:20 GMT -5
One additional note before proceeding discussion of cutting the LCS to a single week:
It is entirely plausible that a GM could have built his team around or invested in players based on their real-life schedule for the specific weeks of our playoffs. If this is the case, that would carry a lot of weight in any conversations about shortening the LCS. Perhaps it's too late to even consider such a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 12, 2016 21:39:17 GMT -5
I think any serious schedule change we discuss should take effect in 2017...
|
|
|
Post by bryanm1982 (Bryan, WAS) on Feb 12, 2016 21:43:49 GMT -5
I think most teams based their strategy on their division. I think we should keep the two week all star break since that week is only a 3 week schedule. I think we could do away with the 2 week LCS.
For the first year we could do one week interleague rivals as best as we can. Like Cubs/White Sox, Nationals/Orioles, Giants/Oakland, Marlins/Rays, Red's/Indians. The drawback to that is you should have Astros/Rangers which you guys would already play each other twice. And you have to be somewhat random on teams like the Twins, and Rockies who don't have a "rival".
|
|