In HBD, you only play each division mate ten times each year. Together 30/162 (or less than 19%) of your games are against division rivals. In real life, that number is (for every team I checked this year; there might be exceptions....) between 18-20 games between each divisional rival. Together, that's nearly half of your schedule against division rivals. That's why the Red Sox/ Yankees and Cubs/ Cardinals are such bitter rivals. When you only play 3 series a year against each divisional opponent in HBD (granted, I'm new at this. But I'm already itching to play them more.) it seems difficult to establish that familiarity, and subsequently, a rivalry.

I agree    I'd like to see a schedule like this:

14 games agains divisional rivals  3x14 = 42
9 games against the other 12 teams in your league  9x12=108
12 interleague games

Adds up to 162 games.

that looks good. i was even thinking more like.....
18.........................=54
8..........................=96
12........................=12

162 also.

Tankers create a problem with this.  If you've got a tanker in your division, then you and the other two teams have a distinct advantage over teams in the other three divisions in that you are playing more "easy" games then they are.  Throws off the integrity of the wild card races.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2010 9:01:00 AM (view original):
Tankers create a problem with this.  If you've got a tanker in your division, then you and the other two teams have a distinct advantage over teams in the other three divisions in that you are playing more "easy" games then they are.  Throws off the integrity of the wild card races.

It also has too much of an impact on first round bye's.

One thing it will fix is the frequency of sub-.500 division winners. Stuff like that can shut down worlds, and it was one of the reasons Stargell was shut down.

Stargell broke up because teams won their division with less than 81 wins?   I'd love to hear the explanation.

so, all in all, good or bad idea?

As long as there's a WC, there's going to be an issue of some sort.    I'd prefer to drop interleague and play 4 extra against your division.   That kills the entire "But if you have a bad team or two in your division" argument because you don't play the same teams in interleague.

Bad idea. The balanced schedule ensures that all teams have a fairly equal shot at the playoffs. Being in a strong division is already a disadvantage and this just makes it more so.

The schedule is not balanced now.   You have 12 games against teams that no one, other than your division, will play.   Changing those to divisional games will, at the very least, provide you a better opportunity to win your division.

If you aren't going to have an unbalanced schedule, just remove divisions and have the top 6 make the playoffs.  Divisions are window dressing (negative IMHO since you don't play those teams more than anyone else)

That doesn't seem like fun. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/19/2010 11:42:00 AM (view original):
That doesn't seem like fun. 

You're right.  And winning a playoff spot as the 11th best team in the league isn't fun either.  My point is it's a problem that needs to be resolved, as divisions are just bulky window dressing- so either make the schedule division based, or don't allow teams to get playoff bids because they are the only .500 team in their division.

I'll disagree on your characterization of divisions as "bulky window dressing".  You're still competing directly against your three division mates for one guaranteed playoff berth and a guaranteed home-field advantage in at least one playoff round.  Division titles mean more than a wild-card playoff spot.  Doesn't matter if you're in a weak division or a strong division, it's still something that has a fair amount of meaning, least of which is bragging rights.  Trivializing it as "window dressing" really isn't accurate.