18 divsional games, 9 home, 9 away * [4 divisonal rivals] = 72
6 league games, 3 home, 3 away * [10 league teams, not in division] = 60
2 interleague games, 1 home, 1 away * [15 interleague teams] = 30
72+ 60+ 30 + so 162 games
[or]
16 divsional games, 8 home, 8 away * [4 divisonal rivals] = 64
6 league games, 3 home, 3 away * [10 league teams, not in division] = 60
2 interleague games, 1 home, 1 away * [15 interleague teams] = 30
64+60+30 so 154 games
I propose 2 of those games be against interleague, geographic rivals
NL - AL Rival
1. Dodgers v. Angels (freeway series)
2. Giants v. A's (bay area series)
3. Mets v. Yankees (subway series)
4. Nationals v. O's (beltway series)
5. Cubs v. White Sox (crosstown classic)
6. Brewers v. Twins (badgers vs gophers)
7. Marlins v. Rays (citrus series)
8. Phillies v. Red Sox (teams with big budgets and roudy fans)
9. Reds v. Indians (ohio cup)
10. Cardinals v. Royals (I-70 series)
[everything else is geography, and up to discretion]
11. Pirates v. Blue Jays
12. Rockies v Mariners
13. Braves v. Tigers
14. Padres v. Astros
15. Dbacks v Rangers
= 2
and eliminate 2 games from the regular season, so 160 games in total. The free time could be spent on a second exhibition all-star game right before the World's Series start. That is so we can see favorite stars play against one another before baseball is wrapped up altogether and statisticans have a complete season on to which they can lobby for players. It'd be like a 6 inning game.
The winner of the second all-star game would determine the home field of the next all-star game (the mid season one). And the midseason all-star game would determine the home field of the end of season all-star game. Recursive.
With schedules balanced, the team with the most amount of wins gets homefield during the World Series. If tied for an equal amount of wins, advantage goes to team with most aggregate runs in the series faced.
In all, 30% vs divisonal opponents, 50% vs nondivisonal league opponent, 18.75 % interleague, 1.25% geographic interleague.
I know purists would puke, but Selig has changed the game. Let's hope the changers are for the better. My idea would offer a more logical, sensible approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment