Poll: Are we gonna do this? (Click the link first)

GoIrish · 10-29-2010, 03:51 PM

I like the idea but the realism is that someone will figure a way to manipulate this to their benefit.

10-29-2010, 04:14 PM

Isn't there already interleague play? The schedule works itself out completely even over a 3 year period (Minus the 2 extra NL teams). Each team plays 2 interleague series against their rivals (NYY-NYM, LAA-LAD, MIN-MIL) and then 4 series against an opposite division, rotating each year. So the AL West played the NL Central this year, and they will play the NL West and NL East over the next two years.

Now, I can understand you letting teams set who their "rivals" are, as GMs may want to face off against eachother, but you can still only pick one team. And by changing these teams around each season, your leading to easy manipulation. The reason it works so well is because teams don't typically win 100 games a year for 10 straight years. There are peaks and valleys, which make the "rival series" pretty even over time. If you switch them up each year, sooner or later, teams will start sweeping those series each and every year, leading to previously mentioned manipulation.

ezpkns34 · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2010, 04:29 PM by ezpkns34.)

i'd be up for each team picking a rival team to play each season except that there are more nl teams than al teams, meaning some teams will have 2 rivals (or none)

Jordan · 10-29-2010, 04:45 PM

(10-29-2010, 04:14 PM)40/40 Wrote: Isn't there already interleague play? The schedule works itself out completely even over a 3 year period (Minus the 2 extra NL teams). Each team plays 2 interleague series against their rivals (NYY-NYM, LAA-LAD, MIN-MIL) and then 4 series against an opposite division, rotating each year. So the AL West played the NL Central this year, and they will play the NL West and NL East over the next two years.

Now, I can understand you letting teams set who their "rivals" are, as GMs may want to face off against eachother, but you can still only pick one team. And by changing these teams around each season, your leading to easy manipulation. The reason it works so well is because teams don't typically win 100 games a year for 10 straight years. There are peaks and valleys, which make the "rival series" pretty even over time. If you switch them up each year, sooner or later, teams will start sweeping those series each and every year, leading to previously mentioned manipulation.

Yes there is already interleague play - the point of this would be to change the matchups. And thats because mogul does NOT do the rival matchups for some reason, there is no NYY-NYM every season, or LAD-LAA, or HOU-TEX, CIN-CLE ect. The point of this would be to at least add in those series, and then I thought why not expand it and let ppl request series. BAL v PIT, NYY v HOU, NYM v KC ect.

(10-29-2010, 04:29 PM)ezpkns34 Wrote: i'd be up for each team picking a rival team to play each season except that there are more nl teams than al teams, meaning some teams will have 2 rivals (or none)

Yes, two NL teams every year get jipped of one inter-league series.

'PR' · 10-29-2010, 05:28 PM

I like the idea of kicking Jordan's ass in a series.

Jordan · 10-29-2010, 06:49 PM

(10-29-2010, 05:28 PM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: I like the idea of kicking Jordan's ass in a series.

lol that doesn't help - you basicly said playing me would be an easy 3 wins and thats not the point of this!

'PR' · 10-29-2010, 06:54 PM

(10-29-2010, 06:49 PM)Ø§Ù„Ù‚Ø±Ø§ØµÙ†Ø© Wrote:
(10-29-2010, 05:28 PM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: I like the idea of kicking Jordan's ass in a series.

lol that doesn't help - you basicly said playing me would be an easy 3 wins and thats not the point of this!

I was just playing. The series we would make would have to be approved by the admins or something. It's just boring to play people we have no interest in playing. But I'm 50/50 for it. It's not that big a deal.

mike · 10-30-2010, 02:22 PM

If we do this then I think it should only be one series (to allow for the rival matchup) and once you have that team picked then you are stuck with them for at least 3 seasons. This way you can't maniuplate your scehdule to pick up easy wins. Otherwise we can't really do it because 3 wins are crucial. My division was decided by less than that, so if I have a chance to play someone I match up well against then I'm going to take it. Right now the mets and I are pretty even. We usually get a series every year anyway so its cool going head to head against my buddy.

Jordan · 10-31-2010, 06:42 PM

(10-30-2010, 02:22 PM)mike Wrote: If we do this then I think it should only be one series (to allow for the rival matchup) and once you have that team picked then you are stuck with them for at least 3 seasons. This way you can't maniuplate your scehdule to pick up easy wins. Otherwise we can't really do it because 3 wins are crucial. My division was decided by less than that, so if I have a chance to play someone I match up well against then I'm going to take it. Right now the mets and I are pretty even. We usually get a series every year anyway so its cool going head to head against my buddy.

Every year? I would think that its every three years right now if not more so that you would get a match with him. But yea the point of this would be to give you that matchup each season.

I could see:

NYY v HOU
KC v NYM
CHC v TOR
PIT v BAL

Idk about any others. LAA v SF might be interesting.

Hummingbird · 10-31-2010, 11:04 PM

I want PIT

Poll: Are we gonna do this? (Click the link first) You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes	41.67%	5	41.67%
No	58.33%	7	58.33%
Total		12 vote(s)	100%