Master Index of Archived Threads


Unbalanced schedule? (split from Schaefer business)

How do you feel about the unbalanced schedule?

In favor	6 votes
Against	10 votes
Don't care/undecided	0 votes

Fman99 Apr 23 2008 08:52 AM

Personally I'd rather see more games against the NL Central and West. Maybe still have more divisional games but less drastic of a difference than the 19 or so vs. each divisional opponent and 5-7 games against the other NL teams.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 23 2008 09:28 AM

In the old days it was 18 and 12, which was really good. The problem is that now there are now 11 out-of-division teams when there used to be 6. (That's offset a little bit by the fact that there are now four division rivals instead of the old five.) If you eliminate interleague play, you can make the schedule 16 and 9 (roughly) which would be a nice ratio.

metsmarathon Apr 23 2008 09:35 AM

i like the 16/9 ratio idea. or interleague play with an inverted dh rule or a total repeal of the dh rule, no matter what they do with the schedule.

MFS62 Apr 23 2008 10:39 AM

metsmarathon wrote: or a total repeal of the dh rule, no matter what they do with the schedule. Where do I sign up for that? Later

Frayed Knot Apr 23 2008 11:14 AM

The simple fact is that where we used to play against 11 opponents (pre-1993) we now see [u:dee455bcb0]twenty[/u:dee455bcb0] over the course of a season and there's no way you can make that jump and maintain the number of games per/team that you might like.

seawolf17 Apr 23 2008 11:15 AM

Make the regular season 200 games.

Fman99 Apr 23 2008 12:10 PM

metsmarathon wrote: i like the 16/9 ratio idea. or interleague play with an inverted dh rule or a total repeal of the dh rule, no matter what they do with the schedule. I like 16/9 also. To hell with interleague and the DH. I could even see a single 3 game interleague series per year. Just one. Give us Mets v MFY's and rotate it home/home. Or don't.

seawolf17 Apr 23 2008 12:25 PM

I like one seven-game interleague series every year; the WORLD SERIES. Eff the DH, add a 26th player to the roster to shut up the PA, stick the Brewers back in the AL, and make each league one huge division. I want to see someone finish sixty games back.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 23 2008 12:35 PM

I've been thinking that it is past time to expand the roster to 26 or even 27 players. That could be leveraged in conjunction with eliminating the DH, or not. But the way the use of pitchers has changed has spilled over into weakening the benches and the depths of the teams. A 26- or 27-man roster would bring back the third string catcher and allow for more pinch-hitting and pinch-running. Right now, with a 12-man pitching staff, and 8 starting players, we're left with only five reserves. One of them is the spare catcher, who's usually held back in case of emergency. So that leaves only four non-pitching substitutions for a manager to make over the course of a game. I'd like to see that number get back to six, so put me down in favor of a 27-man roster.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 23 2008 12:39 PM

Let's compromise at 26. Remember the 80s when it was "optional" to go 25 and nobody did it?

Frayed Knot Apr 23 2008 12:42 PM

They're probably afraid if they expand the rosters that LaRussa would start making 18 pitching changes per game.

sharpie Apr 23 2008 12:44 PM

I'm for capping the number of pitchers on a roster. I know it'll never happen but seeing 5 pitching changes in a game is getting tiring.

AG/DC Apr 23 2008 12:46 PM

I think the game will limit that eventually.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 23 2008 12:48 PM

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Let's compromise at 26. Remember the 80s when it was "optional" to go 25 and nobody did it? Yeah, that was a cheap-ass cost-saving measure. Each team got to save salary and travel expenses for one player. I'm glad that little experiment failed. Wasn't it determined that the teams colluded to all stick to 24 players? I think that went away after that farce of an offseason where no free agents were signed, except for Andre Dawson, who essentially dared the Cubs not to sign him. The timing seems right. I know the 1986 Mets had only 24 players, and the Tim Raines/Andre Dawson offseason was either the one before or the one after the 1987 season. (I think it was the before.)

TransMonk Apr 23 2008 07:10 PM

If we have to be unbalanced, can we play the Nationals 81 times a year? I DO NOT want to see rosters expanded unless we're going to contract 2-4 teams and realign again.

Nymr83 Apr 23 2008 07:24 PM

i dont think expanding rosters is good in itself but i wouldnt care if that was the compromise to eliminate the DH.

Nymr83 Apr 23 2008 07:29 PM

As for the unbalanced schedule i don't really like it as presently implemented. The Giants and Cardinals are already done for the year!! The Mets and Cubs only play 6 times! The Mets won't see Wrigley again this year! i'd eliminate interleague play, a silly diversion that has run its course, and do what yancy proposed above

Triple Dee Apr 23 2008 07:33 PM

Nymr83 wrote: i dont think expanding rosters is good in itself but i wouldnt care if that was the compromise to eliminate the DH. The Players Association won't accept this as a compromise, because the DH rule expands the longevity of veteran players (eg Frank Thomas would have retired years ago, but for the DH). If you expand the rosters, teams are just as likely to fill the extra roster spot with a player earning the league minimum.

Nymr83 Apr 23 2008 07:50 PM

but that player is another union member who now has a job. and its on all 30 teams not just 14 of them.

Triple Dee Apr 23 2008 07:56 PM

Nymr83 wrote: but that player is another union member who now has a job. and its on all 30 teams not just 14 of them. True, but my point is that veterans tend to exert more influence in the MLBPA.

Nymr83 Apr 23 2008 08:00 PM

well how many of the 14 DHs are aging veterans who would otherwise not have a job? I see Thomas and probably Thome. How many of the 30 extra major leaguers would be current union members who are presently either retired or languishing at AAA?

Triple Dee Apr 23 2008 08:29 PM

You also have to factor in players like Giambi, Sheffield and Guerrero who may have negotiated additional years in their contracts, on the pretense that they would eventually become DHs. In my view, a league wide 26 man roster wouldn't really aid a player like Piazza, unless he's willing to accept something close to the league minimum salary.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 23 2008 09:07 PM

Prolly new thread material but if they made it 26 starting tomorrow who do the Mets call up? I'd say Matt Wise if he's available.

AG/DC Apr 23 2008 09:15 PM

I'm not sure the DH helps more players than it hurts. Do the AL teams statistically have a higher median salary than NL teams?

Triple Dee Apr 23 2008 09:38 PM

AG/DC wrote: I'm not sure the DH helps more players than it hurts. I don't doubt that for a second. However, the MLBPA appears to be have the interests of higher profile players closer to heart, because it is obsessed with milking as much money out of the owners, as it can. So if Slappy gets an extra $40M on his contract because he DHs in his latter years*, that's equivalent to 40 players @ $1M on an expanded 26 man roster. *Assuming Slappy would play less games if there was no DH, and hence be worth less to the MFY.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 24 2008 07:08 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Prolly new thread material but if they made it 26 starting tomorrow who do the Mets call up? I'd consider Tatis.