lukethedrifter wrote:
Speaking of divisions, why is there no uproar about having 6 teams in the NL Central and 4 in the AL West? Seriously changes your odds for winning the division.
I complain about it from time to time. I'd prefer to move the Rockies to the AL West, the Astros to the NL West, and then play at least 1 interleague series at a time. But supposedly scheduling makes that really hard to do or something.
lukethedrifter wrote:They all play more games within to maintain rivalries, don't they?
I remember some years back when hockey essentially did away with the divisions completely and that didn't work out too well.
Speaking of divisions, why is there no uproar about having 6 teams in the NL Central and 4 in the AL West? Seriously changes your odds for winning the division.
Not really. There are 82 games, they play each of the 15 teams in the other conference twice: 2 x 15 = 30 games. In your own division, you play each of the 4 teams 4 times: 4x4=16. For the final 36 games, you play the remaining 10 teams in your conference. Six of those teams you play 4 times, four you play three. So you get shortchanged a game with four teams in your conference that can't be in your division, but other than that you play the teams the exact same number of times.
lukethedrifter wrote:
Speaking of divisions, why is there no uproar about having 6 teams in the NL Central and 4 in the AL West? Seriously changes your odds for winning the division.
I complain about it from time to time. I'd prefer to move the Rockies to the AL West, the Astros to the NL West, and then play at least 1 interleague series at a time. But supposedly scheduling makes that really hard to do or something.
--P--
There are complaints. popeye - it does make scheduling hard but not impossible. Like you say, there would be one IL series all the time so and apparently MLB wants this IL bonanza where they are all playing at once.
jim wrote:Like you say, there would be one IL series all the time so and apparently MLB wants this IL bonanza where they are all playing at once.
I'd prefer it spread out over the year. The all-at-one-time thing is more annoying than it is cool.
The NHL basically plays within the divisions, and only plays the other division a few times per year. I think last year was the first time the Canadiens had come to St. Louis since like 1992 or something.
Here's a beef I have with "conferences" in the NBA, NHL, and NFL:
Baseball evolved over the years in two branches: National League and American League....the history and rivalry between the leagues (represented by the ASG and World Series) is part of the fabric of pro baseball....
However, why in the world do the other major team sports separate out by conference at playoff time? I mean, why not simply seed teams by record in order to (at least encourage) the chances that the sport's two best teams meet for the championship??? Long ago, the NFL blended the old AFL and the established NFL, and hockey used to do the Cup playoffs by record, before inexplicably going to conference chanmpionships
We'd have avoided a LOT of crappy Super Bowls that way....Imagine a Packers V. Colts or a Cowboy-Redskin Title game, a Steeler/Raider clash in the 70s. or Parcells vs. Walsh in the 80s
THe NFC/AFC distinction, or the East/West distinction has no real purpose, other than to award a second-tier "pennant-type" trophy, IMO..
I still haven't figured out the original question. Best as I can tell, all divisions do is on the off chance that one division just sucks almost beyond what is possible, at least one team will get in. But since .500 gets you in usually, sometimes below .500, it's hard to imagine a division winner at that level.
