What's Wrong With 162?

Ever since Rob Manfred hinted about potential MLB realignment when they inevitably expand to 32 teams, people have been coming up with their thoughts on what those new divisions should look like.  Even if they don't make any sense and run completely contradictory to what Manfred himself has said.  (I can't tell you how many times I've seen the Mets & Yankees, Cubs & White Sox and Dodgers & Angels in the same division, even though Manfred has made it abundantly clear that the two-team cities will continue to be in opposite leagues.)

I'm not saying MLB can't, won't or shouldn't expand.  And, when it does, realignment into four four-team divisions in each league makes the most sense for practical and logistical reasons.  Don't expect that realignment to be too drastic, though.  Depending on where the expansion teams are, I'm not even sure any teams would switch leagues.

Baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, is bound by its traditions.  Manfred knows this.  That's why, as much as some fans might not like it, any realignment will be minimal.  Because anything more than that would anger the traditionalists just as much, if not more.

One of those traditions is the schedule.  When asked about the possibility of an NBA-style in-season tournament, Manfred poured cold water on the idea.  While not completely ruling it out (probably to appease the reporter who asked the question), he essentially shut it down right then.  Baseball's season structure doesn't really allow for it.  Nor is there any sort of appetite to have an event of this type.  But that, of course, hasn't stopped people from suggesting it.

Another popular suggestion is shortening the season (presumably to accommodate this nonexistent in-season tournament).  The long season has long been one of Major League Baseball's defining characteristics.  After playing 154 games for the first half of the 20th Century, the American League went to a 162-game schedule in 1961 and the National League followed suit a year later.  It's been 162 games ever since.

Apparently, that's too many games for some people.  What I've found is that most of those people aren't baseball fans.  So why do they care how long the season is then?  Because real baseball fans don't think the season is too long at all.  Game 7 of the World Series was on November 1.  It was the most-watched baseball game in 35 years.  Clearly watching baseball in November wasn't an issue for the 35 million viewers.

Most of the suggestions around shortening the season seem to be stuck on the idea that it either starts too early, ends too late, or both.  The "ends too late" crowd clearly seem to think that baseball should be over in late September/early October so that it doesn't overlap with football season.  Because the two seasons overlapping for two months is apparently some sort of problem!  Likewise, the "starts too early" crowd uses the early April weather in certain cities as their excuse.  (That excuse is also used by the other side as their argument for not playing in late October...meanwhile, if your team's playing in late October, it means they've made it deep into the postseason.)

Yes, once upon a time, the World Series ended in early October.  That was a long time ago!  As MLB expanded and added extra rounds of playoffs, the postseason became longer.  Sometimes that will result in the World Series not ending until November.  Which, again, to actual baseball fans, isn't a problem at all.

Meanwhile, the entire baseball season, including the playoffs is only seven months long!  Yes, teams play practically every day for the first six of those months.  But the point remains, baseball season is actually shorter than the NBA and NHL, which follow their six-moth seasons with two months of playoffs!  Yet no one is complaining that those seasons are "too long."  Or is it just the 162 number that's "too many?"

And, while the advocates for a shorter season may think it's not that big a deal, reducing the number of games is nowhere near as easy as it sounds.  Even if they were to say, cut eight games and go from 162 back to 154, good luck on getting either the owners or players (let alone both!) to sign off.  For the owners, that would mean four fewer home games.  That means less revenue.  And that would also mean less money for the players, since the owners wouldn't be bringing in as much.  Can you really see them agreeing to lower salaries?  It would cause even more labor strife than what we're about to see after next season.

There's this, too.  I mentioned Baseball's respect for its traditions and history before.  Single-season baseball records are sacred.  So sacred, in fact, that when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's home run record, it carried an asterisk for 30 years because Maris did it in 162 games instead of 154.  If they were to go back to 154, it would be that much harder to ever challenge an MLB single-season record again.  And baseball's the one sport where everyone knows the single-season records at the top of their heads!

It isn't just individual records, either.  When the Dodgers won the World Series in 2020, it was completely legitimate.  But, because that was the COVID-shortened 60-game season, a lot of people (the Dodgers included) didn't consider it on par with a full-season championship.  It was one of their guiding motivations for the next four years until they finally got that full-season title in 2024.  No one could question it or attach any sort of qualifiers that time.

Reducing the schedule would also interfere with MLB's well-crafted formula.  When they played 154 games, it was because the math worked out (22 games against each of the other seven teams in your league).  The current schedule format was devised in 2023, when teams began playing every other team in the Majors each season.  That was a long time coming, and it came about after certain franchises had been requesting it for years.  Now that you've finally given it to them, good luck taking it back.  Especially since you want them to have fewer home games to begin with.

The current schedule format was set up for a 162-game season.  Slight adjustments will be necessary when they go to 32 teams, but those will be easy to make.  In fact, it would be much easier to do that than to figure out an entirely new formula which may or may not include playing every other team in the Majors.  No matter how you try to do that, the math doesn't work!

Any adjustments to the schedule would also need to be collectively bargained with the MLBPA.  The current CBA calls for 162 games in 186 days.  Excluding the All*Star break, the players get 20 off days during the season.  The CBA also defines the 26 1/2-week period during which those 162 games are played.  If you want to change that, the players would have to agree.  Which is easier said than done.

All of which brings me back to my original point.  Who involved with Baseball actually thinks any of these suggestions are good ideas?  The only people who are looking to "improve" the game don't even care.  So, why does it make a difference how many games teams play or how the divisions are set up then?  As the old adage goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  And the 162-game season ain't broke.  So stop trying to "fix" it.