David Schoenfield of ESPN wrote the first article I read on realignment in February. He proposed changing the teams in the divisions each season to improve competitiveness. He also blamed the Yankees for baseball's perceived lack of parity. I thought he was an idiot then and still do now.To my shock, Schoenfield's basic idea - that baseball somehow needs to realign the divisions - has caught on. MLB is said to be considering a realignment idea similar to what Schoenfield proposed. The basic appeal is that solid, competitive teams such as the Rays could shift out of the AL East and rebuilding, small-market teams in need of attendance, such as the Royals, could shift into the AL East. Theoretically this helps both types of teams. The Rays can compete for a playoff berth in the less competitive AL Central while the Royals could cash in on the Yankees/Sox bandwagon.
This, too, is really stupid. Unfortunately, it's what I've come to expect from the geniuses who run MLB. As far as I'm concerned, baseball's real problem isn't the perceived lack of balance, (which by the way, doesn't pan out -- number of different MLB champions in the last 10 years? 8. Number of different Super Bowl winners? 7) it's the fact that the sport views its two most lucrative franchises, the Yankees and Red Sox, as some kind of hindrance. That makes sense how? I've gone to games in Oakland and Detroit simply because I was passing through and could see the Yankees, most certainly not for the rockin' nightlife, but by all means, cut those two down a peg.
Setting aside the illogic of attacking the sport's most visible franchises, what really stuns me about this proposal is that it completely ignores the real problem with baseball's divisional setup, and that problem's obvious solution. That problem, by the way, is the 2008 Chicago White Sox.
In '08 the White Sox made the playoffs with an 89-74 record while the Yankees went home empty-handed, taking their superior 89-73 record with them. Baseball's divisional system does not reward the best teams in each league. Every so often a mediocre team wins its division, and gives the boot to a more deserving team that played in a tougher division, or in the case of the 82-80 2005 Padres, blocks several better teams, like the 2005 Phillies, Marlins and Mets.
The obvious solution to this problem is to grant playoff berths to the best four teams in each league, regardless of division. The playoff impact would be the same. Under these rules, instead of confusing everyone and moving the Rays into the AL Central for a season, the Rays would be able to make the playoffs on the strength of their record, not the weakness of their division. The effect on the AL Central would be the same. Instead of losing a playoff berth to the carpetbagging Rays (or some other out-of-region team) the AL Central would lose a playoff berth because most of its teams are crappy. Either way, a good team that struggles in a tough division makes the playoffs, while the AL Central's current roster of mediocre teams don't.
People will counter that this effectively eliminates divisions. I reply, so what? In the era of modern travel and amenities, divisions don't matter. Frankly, it drives me nuts that the current divisional setup doesn't reward the best teams in baseball.
That aside, the proposed floating realignment makes a mockery of divisions. Rather than changing the divisional alignment each year, the league could either keep them to dictate schedules, and keep profitable rivalries in tact, but ignore them for postseason implications, or simply make whatever schedule it wants for each team. This is similar to how the NFL already operates, and the NFL is said to be the model for baseball's considerations.
Rather than tinkering with divisions each year to create unbalanced schedules the league could keep things simple and ... create unbalanced schedules. Feel like punishing the Yankees with 20 games against the Red Sox? Great. I love the competition. Want to baby the Rays and let them play the Royals 20 times? Fine, go ahead; if that really helps them they'll just get their butts handed to them in the playoffs anyway.
The league could follow simple guidelines to avoid giving one team an overly punitive schedule, setup the most profitable regular season schedules for all teams, and then actually award playoff berths to the four best teams in each league. That makes more sense than the current system, and certainly makes more sense than changing the divisions each year.
I couldn't agree more; I'm 100% on board with dissolving the system and returning to the pre-1969 days of non-divisional play.
ReplyDeleteMy dream proposal is dumping the divisions and creating two 15-team super-leagues (which would require moving the Astros to the American League). Then award the four best teams playoff berths, and seed accordingly. This way a 90-win team like the Rays can still make the playoffs, while an 82-win AL Central also-ran will be properly shut out of the dance.
Exactly! The idea is so simple it seems inevitable that baseball would never embrace it. Divisions made some amount of sense when it was hard to watch out of region baseball and travel was uncomfortable for the teams. But now every team travels in style and we can watch any game anywhere. Bring on the Super Leagues. Also, thank you for pointing out the one issue I forgot: the NL needs to lose a team so there's balance between the leagues. That too makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteI agree to an extent. I believe that the divisions should remain intact for scheduling purposes - i.e. 18 games vs each team in your division. I do believe however, despite the cash cow that it is, interleague play should be cut down significantly. Keep one or two series vs "crosstown" rivals for revenue purposes, but the rest of those games should be played vs. other teams in your league. This way, when determining the best four teams in each league, every team plays every other team at least 6 times, providing a much greater sample size when determining the best 4 teams (tiebreakers can be decided by head to head record or a 1-game playoff).
ReplyDeleteLarry--the trouble with 15-team super leagues is that 15 is an odd number. Unless interleague play continues all year, one team from each league would have to sit out every night, and that can't work in baseball, so unless you are contracting (or expanding again), that won't happen
ReplyDeleteHa, great point JGS. In my excitement at abolishing the divisions I failed to take into account the math.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, the OCD in me hates that the AL has 14 teams and NL has 16. Since 15 in each league can't work, I'd be on board for further expansion to bring MLB to 32 teams.
Obviously this opens up an entirely new can of worms as far as further dilution of the talent pool, etc., and I acknowledge that the more practical solution would be contraction, but I just don't see any of the current franchises closing up shop anytime soon.
So, third team in NY and franchise in Vegas, anyone?
Eric, I agree completely regarding Interleague Play. Furthermore, I believe its only profitable because of those rivalries. By all means, have the Mets play the Yankees or the Cubs play the White Sox a bunch of times, but don't subject fans to the Yankees playing the Rockies or Pirates. No one cares. In general I advocate more draconian measures in choosing schedules.
ReplyDeleteJGS, great point. I completely overlooked that fact. That said, we don't need to contract or add teams. We could just schedule appropriate interleague play throughout the season.
Larry, I'm not sure how I feel about a third team in NYC. I know it worked in the fifties, but today I'm not sold.
I like it, the funny thing is Hank Steinbrenner wrote about this type of alignment in the Sporting News back in 2008. It made sense then and makes even more sense now. No way teams with better records shouldn't be in the playoffs.
ReplyDeleteI love the idea Mike.
ReplyDeleteIt's right along the lines of the NBA just times 2. NBA is 81 games I believe. 2 divisions with subdivisions but the best of the east(AL) and the best of the west(NL) make the playoffs.
I'm really not for adding 2 more teams to baseball as we already have teams that are struggling to compete and as larry said it will dilute the talent pool, which is why we got to this dilemma in the first place.
I think NY could certainly handle another baseball team if that was the case but it's better off to keep things the way they are..Hey, maybe give NJ a team so that they can have a team of their own.
In some f'd up scheduling way the 15 and 15 could work, there are plenty of teams who have off days that are used for travel from the east to the west coast. This would make their job more difficult but it is certainly something not impossible.
I'm glad so many people see the logic to the idea. The solution seems so obvious to me that I become upset when it escapes the powers that be in MLB.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it the more I feel 15 teams to a league would work fine. For example, we could either have regular interleague play throughout the season, or just give one team a night off each day, meaning that each team gets a day off roughly once every 15 days, something the teams would welcome.
This makes far, far too much sense for Bud Selig to embrace it. Expect instead a convoluted plan to penalize the Yankees even though they pump money into the rest of baseball.
As usual, I find myself worshiping at the church of MJ-R.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about this entire situation, the more I'm inclined to say that MLB should fold a team rather than add a team. Do we need organizations like the Royals and Pirates mucking up baseball? And that could make those teams that aren't terrible but never seem to get over the hump that much stronger.