|
||||
|
|
Earlier versions of OOTP: General Discussions General chat about the game... |
View Poll Results: Which schedule format should be used? | |||
Plan A | 1 | 4.00% | |
Plan B | 2 | 8.00% | |
Plan C | 3 | 12.00% | |
Plan D | 12 | 48.00% | |
Plan E | 7 | 28.00% | |
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
05-15-2004, 04:49 AM | #1 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,374
|
Schedule formats for two 15 team leagues - I need your opinion!
I need your opinions again, please. First you helped me pick the alignment I'd use for creating a schedule for two 15 team leagues, each split into three 5 team divisions. Now I need your feedback as to which schedule format I should use.
There are five candidates. Originally there were only three, but after going over things carefully and looking over the MLB schedules from 1997-2004, I made some adjustments and came up with two additional formats. Rather than just describing them, I'll post little charts which show how the games will be distributed amongst the league opponents. It's easier to see what I have in mind this way. Note that the teams are simply represented by letters for illustration purposes. PLAN A This is a balanced format. This is my least favourite of the plans, because I very much dislike the use of a balanced schedule when a league has a divisional structure, as it makes the divisions meaningless. If you're going to have divisions, then they ought to mean something. A balanced schedule does make the wildcard race fair, but since there are three division titles and only one wildcard, I feel preference should be given to making the divison races legitimate. Anyway, the plan is as follows: Code:
PLAN A A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O A -- 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 B 11 -- 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 C 11 11 -- 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 D 11 11 11 -- 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 E 11 11 11 11 -- 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 F 10 10 10 10 10 -- 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 G 10 10 10 10 10 11 -- 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 H 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 -- 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 I 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 -- 11 10 10 10 10 10 J 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 -- 10 10 10 10 10 K 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 -- 11 11 11 11 L 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 -- 11 11 11 M 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 -- 11 11 N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 -- 11 O 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 -- 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 Divisional games: 44 Interdivisional games: 100 Interleague games: 18 TOTAL GAMES: 162 PLAN B A mildy divisionally weighted format, and is very similar to the format that MLB would have actually used had it gone to a 3 divisions of 5 teams alignment in each league (the MLB format had all the other teams in the league being played 9 times each, and teams would've only played 16 interleague games). Code:
PLAN B A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O A -- 14 14 14 14 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 B 14 -- 14 14 14 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 C 14 14 -- 14 14 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 D 14 14 14 -- 14 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 E 14 14 14 14 -- 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 F 9 9 9 9 8 -- 14 14 14 14 9 9 9 9 8 G 9 9 9 8 9 14 -- 14 14 14 9 9 9 8 9 H 9 9 8 9 9 14 14 -- 14 14 9 9 8 9 9 I 9 8 9 9 9 14 14 14 -- 14 9 8 9 9 9 J 8 9 9 9 9 14 14 14 14 -- 8 9 9 9 9 K 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 -- 14 14 14 14 L 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 14 -- 14 14 14 M 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 14 14 -- 14 14 N 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 14 14 14 -- 14 O 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 14 14 14 14 -- 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 Divisional games: 56 Interdivisional games: 88 Interleague games: 18 TOTAL GAMES: 162 PLAN C A moderately divisionally weighed format. Code:
PLAN C A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O A -- 16 16 16 16 9 9 9 7 6 9 9 9 6 7 B 16 -- 16 16 16 9 9 6 9 7 9 9 7 9 6 C 16 16 -- 16 16 9 7 9 6 9 9 6 9 7 9 D 16 16 16 -- 16 6 9 7 9 9 7 9 6 9 9 E 16 16 16 16 -- 7 6 9 9 9 6 7 9 9 9 F 9 9 9 6 7 -- 16 16 16 16 9 9 9 7 6 G 9 9 7 9 6 16 -- 16 16 16 9 9 6 9 7 H 9 6 9 7 9 16 16 -- 16 16 9 7 9 6 9 I 7 9 6 9 9 16 16 16 -- 16 6 9 7 9 9 J 6 7 9 9 9 16 16 16 16 -- 7 6 9 9 9 K 9 9 9 7 6 9 9 9 6 7 -- 16 16 16 16 L 9 9 6 9 7 9 9 7 9 6 16 -- 16 16 16 M 9 7 9 6 9 9 6 9 7 9 16 16 -- 16 16 N 6 9 7 9 9 7 9 6 9 9 16 16 16 -- 16 O 7 6 9 9 9 6 7 9 9 9 16 16 16 16 -- 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 Divisional games: 64 Interdivisional games: 80 Interleague games: 18 TOTAL GAMES: 162 PLAN D A strongly divisionally weighted format, and my personal favourite. I like the symmetry of teams playing 72 games inside the division and 72 games against the rest of the league. I also like how each divisional opponent is played 18 times, which is the same number of matchups as used back in the 12 team, two 6 team division days. Code:
PLAN D A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O A -- 18 18 18 18 9 9 6 6 6 9 9 6 6 6 B 18 -- 18 18 18 9 6 9 6 6 9 6 9 6 6 C 18 18 -- 18 18 6 9 6 9 6 6 9 6 9 6 D 18 18 18 -- 18 6 6 9 6 9 6 6 9 6 9 E 18 18 18 18 -- 6 6 6 9 9 6 6 6 9 9 F 9 9 6 6 6 -- 18 18 18 18 9 9 6 6 6 G 9 6 9 6 6 18 -- 18 18 18 9 6 9 6 6 H 6 9 6 9 6 18 18 -- 18 18 6 9 6 9 6 I 6 6 9 6 9 18 18 18 -- 18 6 6 9 6 9 J 6 6 6 9 9 18 18 18 18 -- 6 6 6 9 9 K 9 9 6 6 6 9 9 6 6 6 -- 18 18 18 18 L 9 6 9 6 6 9 6 9 6 6 18 -- 18 18 18 M 6 9 6 9 6 6 9 6 9 6 18 18 -- 18 18 N 6 6 9 6 9 6 6 9 6 9 18 18 18 -- 18 O 6 6 6 9 9 6 6 6 9 9 18 18 18 18 -- 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 Divisional games: 72 Interdivisional games: 72 Interleague games: 18 TOTAL GAMES: 162 PLAN E A heavily divisionally weighted format, and my second favourite plan. It's a bit too strongly weighted in divisional play for my tastes when there are 3 divisions, as I like a bit more interaction with opponents in the other divisions. It does, however, have the advantage of having a very simple setup of interdivisional contests and is very similar to the arrangement of games currently used in the National League. Code:
PLAN E A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O A -- 21 21 21 21 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 B 21 -- 21 21 21 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 C 21 21 -- 21 21 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 D 21 21 21 -- 21 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 E 21 21 21 21 -- 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 F 6 6 6 6 6 -- 21 21 21 21 6 6 6 6 6 G 6 6 6 6 6 21 -- 21 21 21 6 6 6 6 6 H 6 6 6 6 6 21 21 -- 21 21 6 6 6 6 6 I 6 6 6 6 6 21 21 21 -- 21 6 6 6 6 6 J 6 6 6 6 6 21 21 21 21 -- 6 6 6 6 6 K 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 -- 21 21 21 21 L 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 21 -- 21 21 21 M 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 21 21 -- 21 21 N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 21 21 21 -- 21 O 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 21 21 21 21 -- 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 Divisional games: 84 Interdivisional games: 60 Interleague games: 18 TOTAL GAMES: 162 Last edited by Le Grande Orange; 05-15-2004 at 04:54 AM. |
05-15-2004, 05:17 AM | #2 |
Hall Of Famer
|
I have been wanting a plan D type schedule for a long time, but frankly I am too lazy to make one
you have previously stated the reasons for this type of schedule better than i ever could
__________________
. "Never confuse composure for ease" Was once Head Cheese of Corporate League Baseball |
05-15-2004, 05:35 AM | #3 |
Global Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 10,634
|
I like Plan E as the teams play the others the same amount of times according to division. However, I agree, it is a bit too heavily weighted. So, with D being the closest to E, I'd go with D as well. Oh, I should add that I don't like the others because they're not divisionally-weighted enough.
__________________
Last edited by kq76; 05-15-2004 at 05:37 AM. |
05-15-2004, 06:51 AM | #4 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ft Smith AR
Posts: 2,681
|
game plan
My choice is E.
We use unbalanced schedules in my two divisional online leagues. If playing against your division rivals isn’t important, what is the meaning of the division crown? Your schedule is one of your league’s pillars. |
05-15-2004, 07:01 AM | #5 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 846
|
I can't say I like any of 'em. I don't like the uneven unbalanced schedule, and E is pretty extreme. Plus I like to have even-numbered series lengths so the homes can even out.
I wonder about those 18 interleague games, though. That seems a strange number for a 3x5 setup. Why not a nice balanced 18/8/2 (72/80/10) setup, playing a single three-slot interleague series with each team in the corresponding division, home-and-home with a day off in the middle? I think you should be able to slot that in. 29 3-day series, 20 4-day, which leaves you a little extra time to sprinkle in extra off-days or split some of the 4-days.
__________________
"Only the utterly impossible, the inexpressibly fantastic, can ever be plausible again" Red Smith, New York Herald-Tribune, October 4, 1951 |
05-15-2004, 07:50 AM | #6 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,374
|
Well, in my original version of Plan D, the 36 games against another division were broken down in a 8-7-7-7-7 pattern. Thus, 8 of the 10 other teams in the league were played 7 times each while the other two were played 8 times each. This makes the interdivisional games more uniform.
However, there was a problem with this arrangement - it added up to only 50 series being played, and a current season needs at least 51 series. It was also somewhat heavy in four game series. The exact break down worked out to 0 two game series, 38 three game series, and 12 four game series. One solution would've been to take the 8 games played against an interdivisional opponent and instead of making a four game series at home and away, break it instead into 2 two game series and 1 four game series. That would've given me 51 series as a whole. But I didn't like the idea of making it two visits against one interdivisional team when all the others were only one visit. Also, after studying the 1998-2004 MLB schedules, it became apparent that MLB tries to work in three game series whenever possible. Therefore, it was actually more accurate to current MLB scheduling practices to break the 36 games against each of the other divisions into a 9-9-6-6-6 pattern. This also had the advantage of increasing the total number of series played to 54, while simultaneously lowering the number of four game series played. In fact, using this pattern meant that every series could theoretically be a three game series. Practically speaking though, there have to be some two game series. This is because with 54 series, there need to be 3 weeks during the season where three series are played in the week instead of the normal two. The only way you can get three series into one week is by playing 2 two game series and 1 three game series, i.e. 2-2-3. Reworking the distribution of games to add in some two game series winds up with the 54 series being broken down this way: 6 two game series, 42 three game series, and 6 four game series. This distribution of series lengths is exactly in line with the distribution used in the NL during its time as a 12 team league with two 6 team divisions (in 1989, for example, all the NL teams distibuted their 2, 3, and 4 game series as either 6-42-6, 7-40-7, or 8-38-8). The one thing interesting about recent MLB scheduling practices is that it will make the home and away splits of the games played against an opponent uneven if it maximizes the number of 3 game series played. MLB has reduced the occurrence of two game series to a bare minimum. In the 2003 schedule, for example, every team played 52 series, with MLB as a whole scheduling 780 series. Of that total, only 44 (5.6%) were two game series; 602 (77.2%) were three game series; and 134 (17.2%) were four game series. Last edited by Le Grande Orange; 05-15-2004 at 08:19 AM. |
05-15-2004, 08:10 AM | #7 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,374
|
Quote:
This is why the home-away splits for matchups are uneven now. 9 games is split 6-3 or 3-6; 10 games, 6-4 or 4-6; 16 games, 9-7 or 7-9; and 17 games 10-7 or 7-10. MLB does arrange things so that teams all do play the same number of home and away games for the season. Quote:
It works like this: a team plays each of the 5 teams in a division in the other league 3 times each, and then also plays 3 games against a "traditional" rival. This completes the 18 games. So, for example, when the NL East plays the AL East, the New York Mets play the Yankees 6 times and the other four AL East teams 3 times each. When the NL East plays the AL Central, the Mets play the 3 games against each of the five AL Central teams, and plays 3 games against the Yankees. When the NL East plays the AL West, the Mets play 3 games against each of the five AL West clubs, and plays 3 games against the Yankees. Just as MLB does, this system keeps the "traditional" rivals playing an interleague series against each other each year. For those teams lacking a "traditional" rival to play, I plan on rotating the extra 3 interleague games amongst the other teams also lacking a "traditional" rival over the seasons. This was the hardest part to figure out, given the alignment of teams I was using. I finally came up with a plan just the other day. It's not perfect, and is simpler than what I'd ideally like, but it does work and it has a certain geographical sensibility to it. The main advantage is that it's easy to integrate into a finished schedule; all I have to do is swap a couple of teams around rather than build an entirely new schedule from scratch. |
||
05-15-2004, 08:45 AM | #8 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,374
|
Quote:
The only way around that is to either have one matchup in interleague play be scheduled as 2 one game series, or, unevenly split one of the divisional or interdivisional series. Also, the 8 games against each interdivisional opponent is problematic. It breaks down into one four game series at home and one away, but this results in too few series overall (only 49, and at least 51 are needed for a conventional 26 week baseball season with an All-Star Break). Plus, too many four game series are a real pain to work with - there isn't nearly as much flexibility fitting them in while keeping off days limited to Mondays and Thursdays like there are when working with three games series. I ran into that problem on the Plan C format - the interdivisional games should be 8 games apiece, but it didn't work. I could've split the 8 games 5-3 or 3-5 instead of 4-4, but that would've resulted in too many two game series for what are realistically scheduled nowadays. That's why I used the varying numbers I did - it elminated the 2 game series and gave me the extra series overall that I needed. It comes down to either going more fictional in one's scheduling practices, or trying to stay more realistic. I was trying to stay as true as possible to the practices typically used in scheduling by MLB currently. That said, personally, I think the days of the NL's two 6 team divisions structure were the best for scheduling. The 1989-1992 season schedules are just about perfect... |
|
05-15-2004, 08:57 AM | #9 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,374
|
Re: game plan
Quote:
Man, four posts in a row! I think that's a personal record... |
|
05-15-2004, 10:48 AM | #10 |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 57
|
I'm sorry, but don't leagues have to be even?
|
05-15-2004, 03:58 PM | #11 |
Minors (Rookie Ball)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 25
|
Greetings, Le Grande Orange. I'm also blueshirt on the .400 board, and we talked there about interleague schedules once.
I gave you the first vote for B. I prefer mildly weighted schedules simply because for me, a game vs. a rival starts getting less important when it's the 18th one this season. Having 14 games vs. division rivals and 8-9 vs. league rivals is an excellent ratio. Also, 8-9 vs. league rivals instead of 6-9 ensures that your team plays virtually the same schedule as others in your division, another vital consideration in a fair division race. I realize I'm in the minority here. As a kid, the lack of interleague play just never seemed natural to me because it tended to make you care less about the league your team wasn't in. As a Brewers fan, the NL was less important to me than, say, the NFC was to me as a Dolphins fan. Speaking of the Brewers, did you give Milwaukee a traditional rival? I assume you had to pair the Cubs with the White Sox instead. |
05-15-2004, 06:29 PM | #12 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 554
|
"E"
I'll pick "E", since:
1. I dont like playoffs. 2. I dont like 'divisions' (see #1) 3. (I dont like interdivisional play) So i like the most games against those im trying to get ahead of. |
05-15-2004, 10:20 PM | #13 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Longmont, CO
Posts: 3,145
|
Question kind of off the point of this post - could you explain how the interleague schedule actually works out?
You have 18 interleague games per team, which I am assuming is 6 series, times 30 teams, divided by 2. So that is 90 interleague series and 51 half-week blocks in which to fit them, and you must have an odd number of interleague series happening in each series block. How exactly are you distributing those?
__________________
Making Baseball Schedules |
05-15-2004, 10:33 PM | #14 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Coral Springs, FL or Orlando, FL (UCF)
Posts: 7,988
|
Id go with C or D, divisional play should defintely be much more than interdivisional, but Im sure if the same amount of total games is necessary
__________________
All-Sports Fantasy League The ASFL 22 different games, 9 sports. Please check out the website (www.theasfl.com/asfl2/). The league is free- if you're interested please fill out the signup form and/or email the commissioner. Miami Talons (ABL): 2004, 2005 & 2008 Champs |
05-16-2004, 01:26 AM | #15 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,374
|
Quote:
The way it works is by using a couple of 2 game series and allowing some teams to have a single instance of 2 off days in a row. I don't feel this is too bad, particularly since teams can still get 2 off days in a row in the schedule. It's rare, but it does happen - it happened a couple of times in the 1998 original schedule I think it was. To illustrate this method, let's take one team from each of the three divisions, say, Boston, Minnesota, and Oakland from the AL, and Atlanta, Houston, and Los Angeles from the NL. That leaves four teams in each of the divisions, who all play divisional series. Two of the teams in each league play an interdivisional series, and the remaining two teams, instead of playing an interleague series, are idle. It would look something like this: Code:
BOS MIN OAK ATL HOU LAN ------------------------------------------------------------ Mon: at OAK --- BOS Mon: at LAN --- ATL Tue: at OAK --- BOS Tue: at LAN --- ATL Wed: at MIN BOS --- Wed: at HOU ATL --- Thu: at MIN BOS --- Thu: at HOU ATL --- Fri: at ATL at OAK MIN Fri: BOS LAN at HOU Sat: at ATL at OAK MIN Sat: BOS LAN at HOU Sun: at ATL at OAK MIN Sun: BOS LAN at HOU Minnesota and Houston are idle for the first part of the week instead of playing an interleague series against each other, Oakland and Los Angeles are idle for the second part of the week, and then at the end of the week Atlanta and Boston play an interleague series. The thing about this system is that it can be used more than once. I was originally thinking of using it for the first 4-6 weeks of the season so that interleague play was limited to only the weekends during the early part of the season. However, it seemed in prospect a rather difficult aspect to juggle, so I had thought I'd skip it. Thanks for pointing out the potential problem! It looks like I'll need to use it at least once. The start of the season looks good, because as I said, I didn't really want a team opening its season with an interleague series. |
|
05-16-2004, 04:23 AM | #16 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Where the deer and the antelope play
Posts: 924
|
Well, I voted for E, mainly because I strongly prefer the interdivisional series to be balanced - one three-gamer at home, and one away (or two of each, or whatever) because it seems to me an unfair advantage/penalty to a team that has to play a weak/strong team for an extra series, while a divisional opponent would get the opposite. It's only three games, sure, but three games can make a big difference.
I also agree with you that two six-team divisions per league makes for the best (or at least prettiest) schedules. An earlier post of yours describing the advantages of that setup were what inspired me to use it for my solo league. So thanks! |
05-18-2004, 03:48 AM | #17 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 846
|
You're right, it does come down to how much you want to stick to MLB's precedent. I can't say I would, because I think MLB's current scheduling is pretty moronic (too much interleague play, the whole "natural rival" thing, and way-too-uneven scheduling for competitors). I also prefer an old-style 25-week schedule, so 49 series is plenty.
I do still think my home-and-home interleague thing (stolen from the NHL) would work, but it certainly isn't something that has a track record. Still, if you could manage to slide the series in so that they were always the beginning or end of a roadtrip/homestand, it could be incredibly elegant. As for the wrong numbers of interleague series: do what MLB has done the last couple years, and have two teams start a week early playing games abroad. Then you just have six extra off-days to fit in somewhere, and they probably wouldn't ever have to be consecutive.
__________________
"Only the utterly impossible, the inexpressibly fantastic, can ever be plausible again" Red Smith, New York Herald-Tribune, October 4, 1951 |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|