RUMOR: Marlins or Astros to move to AL

[Spider-Dan]

Give me an example of a "schedule disparity."

[Sunstroke]

^^^ Answer is obvious enough to make me wonder if you're being deadpan sarcastic...

NL team #1 plays an interleague schedule where the opponents' combined winning percentage is 60%.

AL team #2 plays an interleague schedule where the opponents' combined winning percentage is 48%

...That is a schedule disparity.

The other minutia I was referring to... Let's say that Team A has several top hitters and their staff ace on the DL during the interleague portion of their schedule. Your idea would penalize them in potential tiebreakers because they were at their weakest at some random point in the middle of the season?

Repetition be damned, the only fair way would be to alternate the WS home field advantage.

[Brian Fein]

^^^ play the world series at 7 different neutral sites.  I like that idea.

[Dave Gray]

^^^ play the world series at 7 different neutral sites.  I like that idea.

That would be cool as hell.

But I don't think it can happen.  You can't really have TBD games, where you are expecting people to travel and get hotels.  The city would have to do too much infrastructure prep to risk not having a game at all.

[raptorsfan29]

or you could have a stadium build solely for the purpose of playing the world series and all star game. probably wouldn't be good money wise, but just an idea.

BTW, i think what should happen (although i may show a little bias), move the mets to the AL east, Toronto to the AL Central, Pittsburgh to NL east, and KC to AL west.

[MikeO]

Home Field should be like it was forever until this silly rule change. Just switch every year,...NL, AL, NL, AL...it wasn't broke!! No need to change it. It was a unique way to do it. Neither league could complain.

[Spider-Dan]

^^^ Answer is obvious enough to make me wonder if you're being deadpan sarcastic...

NL team #1 plays an interleague schedule where the opponents' combined winning percentage is 60%.

AL team #2 plays an interleague schedule where the opponents' combined winning percentage is 48%

...That is a schedule disparity.

That doesn't matter, since (as I understand it) all teams play the same number of interleague games.

To clarify, I am saying that the homefield should be based on the record of the leagues (i.e. AL vs. NL) in interleague play, so that will necessarily include the best and worst teams of each league.  And if it so happens that the NL happens to have the "good teams" this year?  Then NL gets homefield, as they should.

The other minutia I was referring to... Let's say that Team A has several top hitters and their staff ace on the DL during the interleague portion of their schedule. Your idea would penalize them in potential tiebreakers because they were at their weakest at some random point in the middle of the season?

You mean like how they are already penalized if they happen to be injured while playing against divisional opponents?

Repetition be damned, the only fair way would be to alternate the WS home field advantage.

Then why give teams homefield advantage (based on record) at all, in any sport?  The most fair way to do it is to flip a coin or use a rotating schedule (as they used to in the NFL playoffs).

I mean, if you are interested in fairness, which no one is.  The entire concept of giving homefield advantage to the superior team (which is standard postseason practice in most every sport) contradicts the entire idea of fairness.

[Spider-Dan]

But I don't think it can happen.  You can't really have TBD games, where you are expecting people to travel and get hotels.  The city would have to do too much infrastructure prep to risk not having a game at all.

What are you talking about?  Under the current system, you have no idea if you're going to be hosting games until the LCS ends.

Stability of scheduling is an argument IN FAVOR OF rotating neutral sites.

[Sunstroke]

That doesn't matter, since (as I understand it) all teams play the same number of interleague games.

A right proper head-scratcher...I have no idea what that has to do with the schedule disparity issue I brought up.

To clarify, I am saying that the homefield should be based on the record of the leagues (i.e. AL vs. NL) in interleague play, so that will necessarily include the best and worst teams of each league.

Thanks for clarifying that, as it wasn't how I read your original comments. You still have the possibility of schedule disparities, but far fewer than if you went by the two WS teams' interleague records.

You mean like how they are already penalized if they happen to be injured while playing against divisional opponents?

Unless they snuck "divisional record" into the WS home field advantage process, I don't see how this applies.

Then why give teams homefield advantage (based on record) at all, in any sport?  The most fair way to do it is to flip a coin or use a rotating schedule (as they used to in the NFL playoffs).

Please see my ongoing comment theme about alternating the home field edge. It's the fair way.

I mean, if you are interested in fairness, which no one is. 

I can appreciate someone who is jaded, but I can assure you that there are people who are much more concerned with "all things being fair" than they are with "how can the teams I like gain an advantage with an unfair situation?" Case in point: Despite being a lifelong fanatical SF 49ers fan, I was pretty loud in my calling for the league to stop the rampant salary cap manipulation chaos that was going on back when SF was winning their first couple of Super Bowls...and my 49ers were arguably as guilty of those shenanigans as anyone.

[Spider-Dan]

A right proper head-scratcher...I have no idea what that has to do with the schedule disparity issue I brought up.

[...]

Thanks for clarifying that, as it wasn't how I read your original comments. You still have the possibility of schedule disparities, but far fewer than if you went by the two WS teams' interleague records.

If all teams play the same amount of interleague games, there's no such thing as a schedule disparity (at the league level).

Unless they snuck "divisional record" into the WS home field advantage process, I don't see how this applies.

A team being disproportionately penalized in tiebreakers based on exactly when they happened to have major injuries is nothing new, and is not a "problem" that needs fixing.

Please see my ongoing comment theme about alternating the home field edge. It's the fair way.

So what do you propose be done with every other round of the playoffs, where seeding (usually record) determines homefield?

[Sunstroke]

I swear, Spidey...I agree with you on so many basic issues, but I often feel that some of your posts should be preceded by the following slogan/disclaimer...

"This Ain't Your Father's Filibuster."

That said, I do enjoy the smell of sawdust and the sound of carnival music, so I guess I'll have one more turn on the Spidey-go-round... Where the loop-de-loops are all semantic, and anything can spin at any time!

If all teams play the same amount of interleague games, there's no such thing as a schedule disparity (at the league level).

The amount of games was never an issue, the strength of opponents was. Not sure why you keep checking down to this.

A team being disproportionately penalized in tiebreakers based on exactly when they happened to have major injuries is nothing new, and is not a "problem" that needs fixing.

Just to bring things back on track, we were talking about using interleague records to determine home field advantage in the world series...and since that isn't the system being used, OF COURSE it isn't a problem that needs fixing. At the moment, it's merely a hypothetical situation that bears chatting about. IF it became the system, THEN I'd consider it a problem, and we could talk more about fixing things.

(with humble apologies to MikeO for stealing his trademarked all-caps mojo...)

So what do you propose be done with every other round of the playoffs, where seeding (usually record) determines homefield?

Please insert your aforementioned "not a problem that needs fixing" here. Let it roll how it is now, by record, through the earlier rounds of the playoffs, but when you get to the World Series, the home field should (imo) alternate between the AL and the NL.

[Spider-Dan]

The amount of games was never an issue, the strength of opponents was. Not sure why you keep checking down to this.

Given that I've already clarified that I'm talking about league vs. league, the only way there would be an actual scheduling disparity is if, say, good AL teams (e.g. Yankees) played more interleague games than good NL teams (e.g. Brewers), based on market draw or what have you.

Just to bring things back on track, we were talking about using interleague records to determine home field advantage in the world series...and since that isn't the system being used, OF COURSE it isn't a problem that needs fixing.

...sigh...

You complained about poorly timed injuries having an impact on tiebreakers (in this case, WS homefield).
Poorly timed injuries already have an impact on many tiebreakers (e.g. division), and nobody (not even you!) wants to "fix" that.
Therefore, the impact of poorly timed injuries is not a problem that needs fixing (or it "needs fixing at every level," if you prefer?).

Please insert your aforementioned "not a problem that needs fixing" here. Let it roll how it is now, by record, through the earlier rounds of the playoffs, but when you get to the World Series, the home field should (imo) alternate between the AL and the NL.

Why do you believe that homefield should be tied to performance through the first two rounds of the playoffs, but then arbitrarily switch to alternation for the World Series?

If you are making the argument for fairness, why doesn't fairness matter during the LDS and LCS?

[Sunstroke]

^^^ Appreciate the ongoing banter, but without some dramamine, I have to get off this ride. My position's been expressed, ad nauseum, and my feet are too tired to dance any more.