Wednesday, September 12, 2012

MLB releases 2013 schedule

US Presswire photo
The Nationals and Orioles will play four head-to-head games next season.
NEW YORK -- The Nationals will open 2013 with a home series against the Marlins, the first step in a new-look schedule that includes more interleague play and some other new quirks.

Major League Baseball unveiled its 2013 slate this afternoon, revealing for the first time how the 162-game season will play out now that there will be 15 teams in both the National and American Leagues.

The Houston Astros' relocation to the AL brings a more balanced schedule, but it also increases the total number of interleague games to 20 and requires at least one interleague series to take place every day of the season.

Thus, the Nationals will get an early test against an AL powerhouse when the White Sox come to town April 9-11. Like all NL East clubs, they'll face every team from the AL Central next season, with home interleague series also scheduled for May 7-8 against the Tigers and June 7-9 against the Twins, and road series scheduled for June 14-16 at the Indians, July 30-31 at the Tigers and Aug. 23-25 at the Royals.

The Nationals still maintain their annual Battle of the Beltways with the Orioles, but that series has been reduced to four games from six, all played in succession between the two cities. The Orioles will be in Washington May 27-28, with the Nationals playing in Baltimore May 29-30.

After commencing this season on the road in Chicago, the Nationals get to celebrate Opening Day at home in 2013, with the Marlins in town on Monday, April 1. After a built-in day off to protect against a rain-out, the two teams finish their series April 3-4.

Other 2013 highlights include an Independence Day home game against the Brewers, and an unconventional final week of the regular season that will see the Nationals travel to St. Louis Sept. 23-25 and then Arizona (Sept. 27-29).

The full schedule...

Apr. 1, 3-4 vs. Marlins
Apr. 5-7 at Reds
Apr. 9-11 vs. White Sox (AL)
Apr. 12-14 vs. Braves
Apr. 15-17 at Marlins
Apr. 19-21 at Mets
Apr. 22-24 vs. Cardinals
Apr. 25-28 vs. Reds
Apr. 29-30, May 1-2 at Braves
May 3-5 at Pirates
May 7-8 vs. Tigers (AL)
May 10-12 vs. Cubs
May 13-15 at Dodgers
May 16-19 at Padres
May 20-22 at Giants
May 24-26 vs. Phillies
May 27-28 vs. Orioles (AL)
May 29-30 at Orioles (AL)
May 31-June 2 at Braves
June 4-6 vs. Mets
June 7-9 vs. Twins (AL)
June 11-13 at Rockies
June 14-16 at Indians (AL)
June 17-19 at Phillies
June 20-23 vs. Rockies
June 25-27 vs. Diamondbacks
June 28-30 at Mets
July 1-4 vs. Brewers
July 5-7 vs. Padres
July 8-11 at Phillies
July 12-14 at Marlins
July 16 All-Star Game at New York (NL)
July 19-21 vs. Dodgers
July 22-25 vs. Pirates
July 26-28 vs. Mets
July 30-31 at Tigers (AL)
Aug. 2-4 at Brewers
Aug. 5-7 vs. Braves
Aug. 9-11 vs. Phillies
Aug. 13-15 vs. Giants
Aug. 16-18 at Braves
Aug. 19-22 at Cubs
Aug. 23-25 at Royals (AL)
Aug. 27-29 vs. Marlins
Aug. 30-Sept. 1 vs. Mets
Sept. 2-4 at Phillies
Sept. 6-8 at Marlins
Sept. 9-12 at Mets
Sept. 13-15 vs. Phillies
Sept. 16-18 vs. Braves
Sept. 19-22 vs. Marlins
Sept. 23-25 at Cardinals
Sept. 27-29 at Diamondbacks


natsfan1a said...

Thanks, Mark. That's easier to read than the monthly calendar format that was on the team site.

MurrayTheRed said...

Cool the Tigers are coming!!! We could see a Verlander vs Strasburg match-up - I'm lovin-it

A DC Wonk said...

So, what's the overall structure? We play each team in the NL the same number of times? How many? (Too burnt out to count)

Melissa Rabey said...

Wonk: each teams plays 76 games within their division, 66 games within their league, and 20 interleague games. As it shakes out, we'll play each NL East team 19 times.

Eugene in Oregon said...

Mark Z. said: "The Houston Astros' relocation to the AL brings a more balanced schedule..."
Mark: What do you mean by 'more balanced' here? If I'm counting right, I'm still seeing 18 games vs. divisional opponents.

Candide said...

So the only AL east team we play is Baltimore. No Yankees, no Bosox, no Rays or Jays.

baseballswami said...

Oh, goodie - we really needed one more game against each of the other nl teams.....

Eugene in Oregon said...

Ok, Melissa's right: 19 times. So that's an additional game vs. division rivals. I was hoping -- and not just for selfish, Nats fans' interests -- for a return to more inter-division games within each league.

Section 222 said...

First thing I checked after the interleague matchups, was when we play in Pittsburgh. And YES, we play a weekend series, May 3-5! PNC Park here I come. :-)

baseballswami said...

Candide - we wouldn't have anyway under the current format. It's every three years and rotates. In 2011 we played the west, 2012 the east, 2013 the central. Only your " geographic rival" stays the same every year.

MicheleS said...

222.. I did the EXACT same thing. Making plans now!

hiramhover said...

Interesting that the Nats play the NL exclusively for almost a month, from Aug 27 to Sept 22, but then finish the season with 2 non-division series.

Anyone know if ending outside the division is at all usual under the new system? Certainly, isn't the norm under the existing one.

hiramhover said...

make that, "play the NL EAST exclusively..."

The Real Feel Wood. Accept no substitutes. said...

Eugene in Oregon said...
Mark Z. said: "The Houston Astros' relocation to the AL brings a more balanced schedule..."
Mark: What do you mean by 'more balanced' here? If I'm counting right, I'm still seeing 18 games vs. divisional opponents.

It's more balanced in that every team has the same number of opposing teams in its own division, namely four. It used to be that AL East, NL East, NL West and AL Central teams had four other teams in their divisions while AL West teams had only three and NL Central teams had five. This led to inequities in the interleague games when AL and NL divisions of different sizes were matched up gainst each other. That won't happen any more.

The Real Feel Wood. Accept no substitutes. said...

Anyone know if ending outside the division is at all usual under the new system? Certainly, isn't the norm under the existing one.

With an odd number of teams in a division, one team will always have to play an outside-the-division opponent on any given day. Since the current division lineup has four divisions with five teams, that means four teams have always had to begin and/or end their season with a non-division opponent. Next year with six divisions of five teams each, that means there will be six teams that have to do that.

Melissa Rabey said...

What I was really amazed at is that the Nats don't play the Phillies until Memorial Day weekend!

Hiram, I think it was Amanda Comak's article that pointed out how front and back loaded the Nats' schedule is with NL East opponents.

NatsFanGino said...

They should make it 24 Interleague, you could play 2 game home and home series with each of the 6 interleague teams you play. Just reduce the divisional games from 19 back to 18.

This way you host every team once every 3 years at least, rather than every 6 now. Not that I care about them, but the NYY won't be back for 5 more years..

natsfan1a said...

Hadn't noticed that but good call on the PNC weekend series. We really enjoyed our visit there last time. hmmm...

Melissa Rabey said...

NatsFanGino, I believe that interleague is already on a three-year schedule. We saw the AL East this year, we get the Central next year, to be followed by the West in 2014. So theoretically we should see the Yankees again in 2015.

(If I'm wrong here, someone correct me!)

Laddie Blah Blah said...

Will ALR be back next season? ALR, quoted by Kilgore in the WaPo:

"“I can’t answer that now,” LaRoche said. “We’ll see where it is at the end of the year. I throw that on my agent – what’s the right move here? He knows loud and clear that I would like to stay in Washington. On the other hand, I’m not going to do something stupid where I turn down what could be two or three more extra years somewhere else.

“I’m not saying I would pick [the option] up or turn it down. All I’m saying is, I would like to stay for more than one year if possible.”

Leaving his options open. Sounds like an opening position from which to start negotiations. And he is willing to renegotiate a new deal should the Nats be willing to tear up the old contract.

In other words, who knows?

hiramhover said...


I saw that too. The key line is:

"I’m not going to do something stupid where I turn down what could be two or three more extra years somewhere else."

I highlight that for those commenters who were predicting last week that ALR would turn down longer/better offers to stay with the Nats because he likes the chemistry.

He makes clear what he thinks of that idea.

MurrayTheRed said...

Maybe I'm missing something - as usual. But why all the excitement about playing an away series in Pittsburgh?

Section 222 said...

hh, as usual you have it exactly right. ALR would like to stay here, but only if he gets an offer that is commensurate with what he can get if he goes. Notice that he says "two or three extra years." He's not going to be here next year on a 1 or 2 year deal. Rizzo's decision is whether he offers ALR 3 or more years. If not, he almost certainly walks if another team does make that kind of offer. Can you blame him?

Steady Eddie said...

Melissa, while we indeed will play the AL East teams (including Yankees) in 2015, our games will be in NY because you alternate home and away. So in 2015 we'll get the Red Sox and Blue Jays at home, and go to NY and Tampa, because that's the opposite of what we did this year. Yanks and Rays don't come back until 2018, actually.

Section 222 said...

Murray -- because PNC Park is a really great place to watch baseball, tickets are readily available and reasonably priced, and its not far from DC. In 2010 and 2011, weekend series there were very well attended by Nats fans. This year, the series was mid week, which made heading up there problemmatic for most folks.

MurrayTheRed said...

Thanks for the answer 222

Melissa Rabey said...

Steady Eddie: thanks for the clarification! Good to know.

Ghost Of Steve M. said...

Laddie, that is exactly how I laid out ALR's plan last week and like I said, someone will be reactive on his great season and offer him 3 years.

Loyalty doesn't exist much but I could be wrong but I think he will jump for a big payday somewhere else. I don't expect him to remember last year as he got paid for being injured and possibly arrived that way last year.

Steady Eddie said...

222, As one of the commenters who think ALR will more likely stay here, I think you've highlighted the correct words, emphasis on "extra". That means if we offer him two years, his option year and one more (just hypothetically), he's saying he'd likely stay here unless someone else offers him at least four. If we offer him two more years on top of his option year, i.e., three years, he's saying he'd take that unless someone else offers him five or six.

He might get four years from someone else, but I don't see him getting five. Interesting question is if we initially offer him two (likely, but keeping him until 35 wouldn't be too rash) and he gets an offer of 4 somewhere else, would he come back to the Nats and -- continuing the "two or three extra years" term -- say "I'll stay if you give me three years", or walk unless we match it? Or just sign and not come back for a counter at all? (I doubt he'd do that, even if Rizzo says "two is our final offer". No offer is final until it's really final.)

i never wrote that he'd come back here no matter what, just that he wouldn't necessarily go for the best deal no matter where it was. And he confirmed that with his statement today, that it would have to be a better deal than the Nats offer by at least 2-3 years.

I assume the "or 3" is to give him wiggle room to not take a deal from a team he doesn't want to go to.

Section 222 said...

Wow, Steady, you're a real optimist, but I think you're misreading his quote. I read "not going to turn down ... 2 or 3 extra years somewhere else" as referring as a baseline to the mutual option year with the Nats, which is his bird in the hand. In other words, if he gets an offer for a 3 or 4 year deal (i.e., 2 or 3 extra years), he's going to take it, unless the Nats match that offer.

I agree with you that no one is going to offer him 5 or 6 years, but I expect someone will offer him 3. He's not going to turn that down for the option year with the Nats or even a 2 year deal.

Water23 said...

ALR does not need the Nats to tear up the deal. It is a mutual option so if he declines his half then the deal is over. Granted, the Nats will then probably make a Qualifying offer which in effect is a 1 yr $13 Million plus deal. If ALR declines that then he is a FA but the Nats get compensation and ALR looks a lot less of a good deal. A 1st round pick is pretty pricey and 3yr $30-36 million deal for a soon to be 33 yr old GG 1B. I think that is the way this plays out with him leaving. In the end, it may be time to move on. One of the driving factors is the 5yr $99 they still have left to pay Mr. Werth.

Anonymous said...

Count me as one who does not think ALR is coming back, especially with Tyler Moore looking like a potential replacement. The Nats will certainly be looking to save salary where they can as their young stars hit arbitration. I love ALR as much as the next guy, but this will be a cold, hard business decision.

Water23 said...

If I was ALR and got a longer offer you would have to take it. He would be foolish otherwise. A players career is only so long and since every contract is guaranteed then he would be taking care of his family. Especially, since it would be leveraging his solid performance from this year.
If the Nats offer 2yr 24 Million with Option vs 4 years 40 Million from another team I could see him leaving. His final contract will be a very small short one so strike while the iron is hot.

natsfan1a said...

Murray, in addition to what sec 222 said, we found some good eating in Pittsburgh. I've not visited all of the ballparks, but PNC is one of my faves. Just a beautiful riverside setting and the park fits in perfectly, imho.

hiramhover said...

I wouldn't blame ALR if he takes a substantially better offer elsewhere--this is his livelihood. There's no reason that a parting of the ways (if that's what it comes to) has to be bitter--if his interests and the Nats don't match up, then so be it--ALR's statements seem to suggest he's level-headed enough to understand that.

As for the "2 or 3 years" part--sec222, yours strikes me as the far more reasonable reading of that quote.

Candide said...

ALR's quote strikes me as being very diplomatically noncommital, subject to multiple interpretations - as we've seen here. In other words, he's leaving all the possibilities open.

With that kind of diplomatic tact, after his baseball career is over, he might want to consider asking whoever's president to be appointed ambassador to the Dominican Republic or Taiwan or (provided it hasn't turned into a total hellhole by then) Venezuela.

Steady Eddie said...

222 -- I don't think it's misreading the quote. It was clearly implicit in it that "two or three extra years" was "above whatever the Nats offer".

If we don't offer him more than the option year, I agree he's gone. In Rizzo I trust to decide how many more years to offer than that, but the key is much less his bat (compared to either of our M&M guys to replace him) than his glove. ALR's glove makes a really good infield much better, which is a big factor in the confidence of our pitching staff to challenge hitters, which in turn is a big factor in their success, especially with all the high velocity stuff they throw.

I do trust Rizzo not to take that for granted.

Manassas Nats' Fan said...

PNC May 3-5 and Marlin Park Jul 12-15 I think will be my road trips. You can get good seats at each.

btharner said...

Love the schedule, both for the Nats and MLB in general. Interleague play on most nights will add a little originality (like Philly opening at home vs KC) as opposed to the set interleague periods in past years, of which the only one in 2013 is Memorial Day week.

Sunshine_Bobby_Carpenter_Is_Too_Pessimistic_For_Me said...

ALR is as good as gone, despite his political doublespeak. He wants three years, minimum, probably in the $60 million range. In other words, what Dunn got. He gone.

Introducing your 2013 Washington Nationals first baseman ... Tyler Moore.

And I'm absolutely fine with that.

Post a Comment