- This topic has 28 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Is it really that husband and wife duo? The two that supposedly do it by hand?
Or is it computer generated?
r/Esteemed Rat
Rat, this is what I found on Google.
The Sports Scheduling Group LLC is responsible for creating the MLB schedule. This company, located in Butler, PA, handles not only the game schedule but also the travel schedule for MLB umpires. They utilize computer systems to optimize the schedule, considering various factors like the number of games per team, travel distance, and television broadcast needs.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:The Sports Scheduling Group LLC:
This company, specializing in sports scheduling, has been creating the MLB schedule since 2005.Computer-based optimization:
The schedule is generated using computer software that takes into account numerous constraints and factors to create a balanced and efficient schedule.Constraints and considerations:
Some of the key factors considered include:
Each team playing 162 games.
Balancing games across months and during the summer.
Minimizing single-series and four-series home stands and road trips.
Avoiding doubleheaders in the initial schedule.
Limiting travel distance for each team.Historical Context:
Prior to the Sports Scheduling Group, a husband-and-wife team, Henry and Holly Stephenson, held the role for over two decades. They used computers as well but emphasized the human element in the process.We talked about this recently, but I would like to see the schedule to back to more in-division games.
Out here in the Rocky Mountain west, back when the schedule was weighted more to divisional games fans and scribes were critical, saying they wish the Rockies schedule had more variety as it seemed fans would see the Dodgers and Giants every other week and rarely anyone else.
So I understand the trade offs. Still I would like a schedule where you maybe play your division rivals say 16 times, other league teams 6 times, then fill in the rest with inter-league. Maybe the logistics would not work on that; or would be tough and you would have to lower divisional rivals to 12 times. But a little more emphasis on divisional foes would be an improvement in my opinion.
I’m a weirdo who likes playing all teams at least once as it is entertaining to see each team at least once a year. I would quite confidently state MLB has plenty of data that also says the fans as a whole enjoy it more as well. I just am not interesting in watching the Cards spend 1/5th of their season playing the Reds and Pirates. I realize it helps with travel, but at the end of the day the league will do what draws ticket sales and TV viewership. I’ll admittedly watch whomever they play even if the Reds and Pirates all year, but that isn’t the case for the average fan.
I think the schedule format stays the way it is until 2 new teams are added and hte league most likely goes to 4 teams in 4 divisions of each league.
Which do you guys prefer from the following as I see these as the 2 candidates MLB would consider.
1. 14 games against division opponents, 6 against league, 3 against interleague
— 42 division games, 72 league games, 48 interleague games2. 18 games against division opponents, 5 against league, 3 against interleague
— 54 division games, 60 league games, 48 interleague gamesIt is worth noting as well that going to 32 team with that division format would manage the schedule easier in other ways having even numbers of teams in the divisions and leagues. Currently with odd in the division and league, you always have to have at least 1 team no playing intra-division in each division and at least 1 interleague series ongoing.
You could easily make the schedule where the first 3 series of the year are against division teams and the last 3 series of the year are against division teams as well. That would be a much welcome improvement to me.
Yeah, as you say ATM, the thoughts around here a few years ago were similar. People felt the Rockies were always playing the Dodgers, Giants, Padres and D-Backs and fans could only see the Yankees, Braves, Red Sox or Cubs every few years. Well the NL teams would get here once a year and still do, but other league teams were rarely here.
I would prefer the first scenario in your list. Actually I would pare back to a 154 game regular season and not start the season until the first week in April, and end before Halloween. But that won’t happen. We might be heading towards a neutral site World Series someday.
I’m not a big fan of interleague games so I would reduce those. One way to do that is to adopt the NFL model of only playing one division from the other leage/conference each year on a rotating basis.
With 16 teams in each league you could do 14 division games (42), 9 league games (108) and 12 interleague games (12). The only twist is that you should always get to play your designated rival each year. Cards/Royals, Mets/Yankees, Cubs/White Sox, etc…. Would have to figure that part out.
If it were my toy, I’d entirely eliminate inter-league play and restore the exclusive status and the distinct aura and atmosphere of both the NL/AL pennant and the WS. In my view, inter-league play has always been, and will continue to be, nothing more than a staged dog and pony show. I think of it as NFL lite.
Love your thoughts on this topic, Scotty & TD. How fun would it be to construct the entire schedule without any computers. I figure it would take two people about a month to do it correctly. A lot of tweaking until you get it just right. If I had the time, I’d love to try my hand at comprising one now. Maybe something for one of you retirees out there to try your hand at.
I’m with 1TD. Go back to the old days. Eliminate all interleague play, then have a WS of AL’s top dog against NL’s top dog.
This intermingling of the two leagues greatly detracts from the thrill and mystic of post season play, not to mention the All Star game.
Yeah, Pugs, I didn’t even think about the AS game which, at one time, was a first rate premier event without ever having to lean on anything like a “this time it counts” sort of promo. It stood on it’s own merit and the players from the two leagues played that game as if were a post-season contest. There was a tremendous amount of pride attatched to that game and the players of the two respective leagues were dead serious about emerging as winners.
I assumed most of the forum members here would likely be more on the no interleague format or at least less, but I highly doubt MLB does that as at the end of the day it is much better marketing and draws more viewership to have interleague games. I know there will be purists, but most of you still watch as it is now and MLB knows you will as well. They are more interested in getting extra views from people that wouldn’t watch as much though.
I’ll ask a somewhat schedule related question but also expansion as I seem it coming for sure in a few years after Tampa Bay and the Athletics have their situations resolved (Manfred has stated this multiple times).
If the league went to 4 divisions in each league with 4 teams, how would you line up the divisions in the NL for the former Central teams? Would you keep it as is an just drop one team or move multiple teams out to new divisions?
In regards to scheduling, it’s entirely clear to me that if it’s only a week prior to the month of July and the St. Louis, Cardinals and the Chicago Cubs have yet to play a solitary game against one another, whoever is afforded the responsibility of formulating the schedule is either a nit-wit or spends way too much time and money at the local dispensary.
Haha 1TD I think it is dumb, but I understand the complexity of generating the schedule with an odd number of teams in each division and league.
It would be much easier if there were even numbers there as you could easily make it where division teams line up and play each other at the same time and dedicate the beginning and end of the year to those match ups.
You’re absolutely correct, TD. One would think a prerequisite for being considered for this daunting position would first and foremost possess a complete understanding of the history (rivalries etc) of this great game.
Yeah, Pugs, in addition to requiring at least a rudimentary understanding of both historical and natural geographical rivalries, the schedule makers should be required to provide a biological specimen for the purpose of that specimen being subjected to a careful and thorough toxicology screening…”Dave’s not here, man”…
Albert, with four divisions in each league I would line up the NL as:
East- Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Pirates
North- Cardinals, Cubs, Reds, Brewers
South- Marlins, Braves, Nashville, Astros
West- Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Rockies
The Astros move back to the NL and the Dbacks move to the AL.
East- Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles
North- Tigers, Guardians, Twins, White Sox
South- Rays, Rangers, Royals, Dbacks
West- Mariners, Angels, A’s, Salt Lake
Not perfect but that would be my rough draft.
Kind of ironic – recently I picked up two years of Sporting News issues going from August 1964 to August 1966. Really enjoy perusing those and reading about things going on then in the world of baseball.
So I am looking at an issue from August of ‘64, and the “We Believe” column that CC Johnson Spink had every week is all about the possibility of inter-league play. TSN polled all 20 GMs and listed their comments. In total 8 AL GMs were for it, and 2 against. In the NL, 6 were against it, 2 for it, and 2 were non committal.
Most said it was inevitable that it would happen someday, with some saying they felt it would come about within 5 years. The reasoning was the same as we have discussed, with those in favor saying getting more variety of teams in the areas that had only one team would be better for fans and the game. The “nays” felt it would take away from the aura of the all-star game and World Series.
One GM, I think it was Lee Macphail of the Yankees had a crazy idea. He said maybe they should have two teams each year switch leagues and do it on a rotating basis. So maybe one year the Dodgers and Phillies play in the AL, and the Tigers and Senators play in the NL. Then the next year have two different teams switch, with the teams from last year going back to their traditional leagues. That is certainly an off-the-wall thought.
Gscottsr, most of your division layout is what I would pick as well. The Pirates would be my team to give up from this current group.
I think Nashville is the best choice for expansion, but I see the other team being Portland potentially.
Rather than having the Astros in the NL, I would keep them in the AL and swap the Rays over instead. Then you have a NL South that is more Southeast based and the AL South is more Southwest based which would help travel for both divisions.
The Royals are the most difficult for me to find a good placement on as I don’t like them being in the South, but there aren’t other divisions that make more sense for them to be in over the teams ther already.
NL
East- Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Pirates
North- Cardinals, Cubs, Reds, Brewers
South- Marlins, Braves, Nashville, Rays
West- Dodgers, Giants, Padres, RockiesAL
East- Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles
North- Tigers, Guardians, Twins, White Sox
South- Astros, Rangers, Royals, Dbacks
West- Mariners, Angels, A’s, PortlandI would go this way, using the Nashville and either Portland or SLC as expansion teams. This moves some teams from their current league affiliation, but creates more divisional, regional rivalries and would lend itself to weight the schedule a bit to intra-division games.
To have the regions make sense I have “Central” divisions, with no NL “North” and no AL “South”. Each divison has one or two natural rivals.
NLE – Mets, Phillies, Pirates, Braves
NLC – Cardinals, Cubs, Reds, Brewers
NLS – Marlins, Nashville, D-Backs, Rays
NLW – Dodgers, Padres, Giants, RockiesALE- Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Nationals
ALN – Tigers, Blue Jays, Twins, Guardians
ALC – White Sox, Royals, Astros, Rangers
ALW – Mariners, Angels, Athletics, Portland/SLCI chose Salt Lake City over Portland because Salt Lake has already approved $900M to build a new stadium. They are very aggressive as they just swiped up a NHL team.
The other thing I would ponder is that it might make sense to have two 8 team divisions in each league. The problem with four 4 team divisions is that there is the increased probabilty of one of the division winners having a losing record. I could see one of those AL West teams winning the division with 79 wins which would be ridiculous.
If SLC gets a team they would be a natural rival for the Rockies. In fact a good regional division of four would be SLC, Rockies, Royals and D-Backs. Not sure how that could be accomplished though.
Two eight team divisions would be a throw back to the days of two divisions, and the old 8-team leagues. I like that thought, but doubt MLB would do it. They won’t do my set up either, but it does make for more regional rivalries than what they will likely end up doing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.