MLB: Eliminate divisions in the name of fair play

[Swiss]

Eliminate divisions in the name of fair play

Jeff Passan

If Major League Baseball is serious about competitive balance, it needs to scrap divisional realignment and embrace something far more drastic.

Unalignment.

Get rid of divisions. Get rid of unbalanced schedules. Get rid of inequality.

It?s quite simple. Make two leagues, the American and National, with no geographical split. The AL has 14 teams and the NL 16 or, for true equitability, each league goes with 15 and baseball turns interleague play into a season-long event. Either way, the teams with the four best records in each league make the playoffs.

Short of a salary cap, to which the players? union will never agree, bringing socialism to alignment is the clearest way. Treat every team as equally as possible when it comes to scheduling, travel and pathway to the postseason.

This is not a novel concept. ESPN?s Buster Olney floated something similar. NBC?s Craig Calcaterra agrees with the concept. It has support ? albeit silent ? from players, managers and executives throughout the game. It?s a significantly better idea than the so-called floating realignment that allows teams to change divisions based on their predicted competitiveness. It?s better than simply adding another wild-card team, which creates two problems: a postseason that could stretch closer to Thanksgiving than Halloween, and a less meaningful regular season.

The plan takes the best part of the NBA and NHL?s postseason structure ? the rewarding of the best-performing teams, division be damned ? and applies it without the interminability of those leagues? playoffs.

Best of all, it rids baseball of what is best called the Tampa Bay problem, the impetus behind all this realignment talk anyway. Granted, the problem isn?t much of a problem this very minute. At 10-3, the Rays sport the best record in baseball. They have won seven in a row, including their last four at Fenway Park, in which they made the Boston Red Sox look like a small-market collection of compost. The Rays are a brilliantly constructed, deftly run, shrewdly managed, overflowingly talented team.

And yet their standing above the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, even a dozen or so games into the season, looks odd. The Yankees are a $1.6 billion franchise, the Red Sox an $870 million behemoth and the Rays worth just over $300 million, according to the latest numbers from Forbes. Though the revenue streams aren?t quite proportional, they illustrate that the Yankees and Red Sox live in penthouses and the Rays operate out of a one-room efficiency.

The Rays shouldn?t be damned to always chasing the Yankees and Red Sox because they play in a stadium on a particular coast. Excellent management deserves reward, not an impossible-to-sustain situation. Following my column on the inevitability of the Rays losing talent, I engaged in a friendly debate with Jonah Keri on the team?s long-term viability. He is writing a book on the Rays and believes they?ll continue to thrive. I?m a tad more skeptical.

This entire debate is unnecessary. A solution stares baseball in the face, and as the end of the current labor agreement approaches in December 2011, the conversation about distribution of revenue-sharing money may get ugly. The Yankees and Red Sox are tired of supporting the welfare system that props up the Rays and other low-revenue teams, and any suggestion that rich give more to poor will widen the rift. It?s going to be owners vs. players ? and, perhaps, owners vs. owners, too.

So blow it up. Start over. Unalign. Allow teams to keep the current sharing agreement while addressing the balance problem. Sacrifice the bonanza of Yankees-Red Sox 18 times a year ? sorry, ESPN ? for a schedule that evenly spreads games against them and gives every AL team a substantive piece of the New York-Boston ticket spike. As unfair as life is in the AL East, it?s downright comfortable in the other divisions.

The schedule is a gimme: AL teams would play everyone in the league 11 times a year, with 19 interleague games. Those in the NL would play eight teams 10 games each and seven teams nine games each, plus the 19 interleague contests. If a team goes somewhere twice one year, it would host that team twice the next season. The interleague games would rotate yearly. And if baseball prefers 15 teams in each league, it could move Milwaukee (or another willing participant) to the AL and use a schedule with at least one interleague game every day instead of confining them to two blocks a year.

Either way, it?s a significantly simpler schedule than the one baseball currently uses to encourage rivalries and limit travel. Baseball is a $6 billion industry and can easily cover extra travel costs ? and stop subjecting the world to Kansas City vs. Cleveland for 11 percent of the season. Ten or 11 games is enough to stomach bad matchups and enough to savor good ones.

Baseball is preparing for realignment, according to one source debriefed on negotiations, particularly if the revenue-sharing chasm persists. No shocker there. Baseball realigns as often as a chiropractor. Expansion teams want in? Realign! Game?s getting stale? Realign! Bud Selig caught a cold? Maybe realignment will cure it! From 1901 to 1969, baseball was the AL and the NL. It split each league into East and West divisions that year, then went to three divisions in 1994. Four years later, Milwaukee went from the AL to the NL and Detroit from the AL East to the Central to accommodate an expansion team: the Tampa Bay Rays.

When the Rays shocked baseball by going to the World Series in 2008, it highlighted the tenuous nature of their success. They need outside fortunes to align with theirs to make the postseason. And though it seems excessive to shake up the game on account of one division, that one division is a microcosm of the game?s greater issues.

Opponents of this plan will rally against the abolition of division competition. Playoff races would still exist, and seeding would be legitimately important. Today, the best team in a league could potentially face a wild-card team better than a division winner. Scrapping divisions altogether removes that inequity and guarantees four excellent teams from each league in October. The NFL allows 12 of 32 teams into its postseason, the NBA and NHL 16 of 30, and it?s nothing more than a hollow profit grab to which baseball should never dip, even if MLB does love a good hollow profit grab.

Unalignment?s effect would be subtle and preventative. Had there been no divisions in the 15 years since baseball went to three divisions, the NL playoff schedule would have changed seven times and the AL?s five. Two of the teams that would?ve been excluded: the 2006 Cardinals and 2000 Yankees, both World Series champions.

Which is fine. They got hot during the postseason. They used a flawed system to get there. Better to have the 85-win Phillies instead of the 83-win Cardinals, or the 90-win Indians instead of the 87-win Yankees. Just as good to have a one-game playoff between the Cardinals and Expos in ?96 and Toronto and Texas in ?98 as it was to see Minnesota the last two years or Colorado and San Diego in ?07.

The change is major and imperative. It may be difficult for some to accept. Of all the solutions, it is the simplest and best. It works in basketball and hockey. It?s how the English Premier League chooses its Champions League participants. Baseball doesn?t need to share more money. It doesn?t need to separate New York and Boston. It needs to think radically ? and pragmatically.

Unalignment is the way.

Source

MLB division changes

Any thoughts on it?

[Gary]

This sounds like something a member would post about re-alignment, maybe this is something for the Re-alignment Outpost thread

*Have a feeling we'll see re-alignment scenarios in this thread

[Gothamite]

I think it's a staggeringly weak argument. Not really sure where to start.

The Yankees are a $1.6 billion franchise, the Red Sox an $870 million behemoth and the Rays worth just over $300 million, according to the latest numbers from Forbes.

That has more to do with the Yankees and Red Sox being in good baseball markets than anything else. The Rays have the misfortune of playing in a lousy stadium in an even lousier market. If they could move someplace where people attended the games, they'd have a leg up. He bemoans the eventual loss of the Rays' young talent. Well, that's on the market. Ticket sales means increased revenues means you can pay to keep your home-grown players.

But that's not even really the point. Using team value is a terrible indicator of on-field success. The second-highest ranking team on the Forbes list? The Mets. His logic kinda falls apart there.

[Burmy]

Cue the rebus banner with the road sign, filmstrip, row of kids, and peppermint candies!

Seriously, I actually think each league should have 15 teams (move the Brewers back to the AL!) And the playoffs should be just like the NBA and NHL's (8 teams per league)-If that means we start the playoffs at the beginning of September, so be it!

[BBTV]

But that's not even really the point. Using team value is a terrible indicator of on-field success. The second-highest ranking team on the Forbes list? The Mets. His logic kinda falls apart there.

That's because the Mets are a horribly mismanaged team, and the Rays (seem to be at least) a very well run team. All things being equal, teams like the Mets should prevail over teams like the Rays by a good margin in the long run.

I don't like this plan, because it simply shifts the "problem" to all of the other teams. Right now, it's only the Rays, Orioles, and Black Jays that struggle to compete for a division title and are at a disadvantage for the wild card because of all of their games against the Yankees and Red Sox. By implementing this plan, you're essentially conceding two spots to the Yankees and Sox, which means that now 12 or 13 other teams (depending on if the leagues get balanced again) are competing for only 2 spots. It might be more fair, but it's still not "fair" (and by "fair" I mean in the way the article describes, not my own personal definition of "fair".) It simply spreads the problem from 3 teams to 12 or 13. You're still going to have teams complaining about wanting to go to the other league (unless the Mets ever get their act together and the Phillies and Cubs can start producing consistently dominating teams reflective of their market size.)

[BrySmalls]

Forget about realigning or "unrealigning" baseball, the hidden and loaded question here is if baseball should get rid of the unbalanced schedule and move to something more structured?

For instance, do division opponents need to play against each other 18, 19, or 20 times in a 162 game season?

[BBTV]

Forget about realigning or "unrealigning" baseball, the hidden and loaded question here is if baseball should get rid of the unbalanced schedule and move to something more structured?

For instance, do division opponents need to play against each other 18, 19, or 20 times in a 162 game season?

I would say yes, unbalanced is better, because of the rivalry aspect of it, and it enhances the division races.

I will agree though, that if you're going to let a team into the playoffs (the WC team) based on their record relative to other teams in their conference that aren't in their division, that a balanced schedule is more fair.

HOWEVER, to the point of the article, the balanced schedule would make the problem worse, because (assume that the Yankees are #1) the Red Sox wouldn't have to play the Yankees as much, so their chances of winning the ONLY wild card become enhanced, making it worse on all of the other teams in the Central and West, not just the East. Since three spots would be handed to division winners and there's only one wild card, "guaranteeing" (just work with me) that spot to the Red Sox would counteract everything that the unalignment proposal is seeking to create, which is essentially one division winner and three wild cards.

[BrySmalls]

Forget about realigning or "unrealigning" baseball, the hidden and loaded question here is if baseball should get rid of the unbalanced schedule and move to something more structured?

For instance, do division opponents need to play against each other 18, 19, or 20 times in a 162 game season?

I would say yes, unbalanced is better, because of the rivalry aspect of it, and it enhances the division races.

I will agree though, that if you're going to let a team into the playoffs (the WC team) based on their record relative to other teams in their conference that aren't in their division, that a balanced schedule is more fair.

HOWEVER, to the point of the article, the balanced schedule would make the problem worse, because (assume that the Yankees are #1) the Red Sox wouldn't have to play the Yankees as much, so their chances of winning the ONLY wild card become enhanced, making it worse on all of the other teams in the Central and West, not just the East. Since three spots would be handed to division winners and there's only one wild card, "guaranteeing" (just work with me) that spot to the Red Sox would counteract everything that the unalignment proposal is seeking to create, which is essentially one division winner and three wild cards.

In this situation, wouldn't the Red Sox want to play against other Wild Card contenders instead of catching up to the Yankees, since the Division would be almost out of reach?

[njmeadowlanders]

That's why I think you need to go back to 2 divisions in each league (an east and west) and only have 2 division champs and 2 at-large Wild Cards, of which both could be from one division or it could be 1-and-1.

There's only so much realignment can do though, there are other fundamentally flawed problems with the sport that need to be fixed.

[BaltimoreFan]

I don't like this plan, because it simply shifts the "problem" to all of the other teams. Right now, it's only the Rays, Orioles, and Black Jays that struggle to compete for a division title and are at a disadvantage for the wild card because of all of their games against the Yankees and Red Sox. By implementing this plan, you're essentially conceding two spots to the Yankees and Sox, which means that now 12 or 13 other teams (depending on if the leagues get balanced again) are competing for only 2 spots. It might be more fair, but it's still not "fair" (and by "fair" I mean in the way the article describes, not my own personal definition of "fair".) It simply spreads the problem from 3 teams to 12 or 13. You're still going to have teams complaining about wanting to go to the other league (unless the Mets ever get their act together and the Phillies and Cubs can start producing consistently dominating teams reflective of their market size.)

Very good point. As an Orioles fan I like the idea because it makes it easier for us. However everyone not in the AL East is hurt by it.

Unfortunately I'd rather see the "more fair" approach taken, since the solution (salary cap) doesn't seem to be a realistic option.

Forget about realigning or "unrealigning" baseball, the hidden and loaded question here is if baseball should get rid of the unbalanced schedule and move to something more structured?

For instance, do division opponents need to play against each other 18, 19, or 20 times in a 162 game season?

I think balanced schedules with divisions are contradictary. What's the point of aligning teams if they are going to play everyone equal. It also creates the problem where the 4 best teams, may not make the playoffs because of their division. If your going to balance the schedules I think you also need to eliminate divisions.

[Hat Boy]

HOWEVER, to the point of the article, the balanced schedule would make the problem worse, because (assume that the Yankees are #1) the Red Sox wouldn't have to play the Yankees as much, so their chances of winning the ONLY wild card become enhanced, making it worse on all of the other teams in the Central and West, not just the East.

That would not always be the case. The Red Sox 95 wins in 2009 were inflated by beating up on the lesser teams of the AL East. The Sox split with both Tampa and New York (9-9 vs each), but went 11-7 against Toronto and a whopping 16-2 against Baltimore. Their record against the Rangers was 2-7 (the Sox went 13-21 against the AL West, not including being swept by the Angels in the playoffs). If Rangers had a few more games vs Bsoton and the Sox had a few less games against the Orioles, then the Rangers may have made a run at the playoffs.

[BBTV]

Of course it will not always be the case, but all things (other than financial resources) being equal (equal levels of competency of front office and field management, which, while unrealistic, you have to assume if you're making rules such as this) in the long run, Boston will be stronger than the Rangers in the overwhelming majority of seasons. Stats like the ones you pulled from last season will certainly come up from time to time, but would not be anything close to typical.

[RyanMcD29]

I'm getting sick of all this floating realignment and stuff for the MLB. If anything, the only change I would approve would be adding 2 teams per league to the playoffs and do it NFL style with the top 2 division winners getting byes. But even then that's not that sensible with a weeks rest before that for the byes.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

[Swiss]

HOWEVER, to the point of the article, the balanced schedule would make the problem worse, because (assume that the Yankees are #1) the Red Sox wouldn't have to play the Yankees as much, so their chances of winning the ONLY wild card become enhanced, making it worse on all of the other teams in the Central and West, not just the East.

That would not always be the case. The Red Sox 95 wins in 2009 were inflated by beating up on the lesser teams of the AL East. The Sox split with both Tampa and New York (9-9 vs each), but went 11-7 against Toronto and a whopping 16-2 against Baltimore. Their record against the Rangers was 2-7 (the Sox went 13-21 against the AL West, not including being swept by the Angels in the playoffs). If Rangers had a few more games vs Bsoton and the Sox had a few less games against the Orioles, then the Rangers may have made a run at the playoffs.

Good point. I've been always supported the balanced schedule. Remember those good campaigns in the '90s.

[BrySmalls]

Thank you for your input.

[BrySmalls]

I'm getting sick of all this floating realignment and stuff for the MLB. If anything, the only change I would approve would be adding 2 teams per league to the playoffs and do it NFL style with the top 2 division winners getting byes. But even then that's not that sensible with a weeks rest before that for the byes.

If your playoff system was in place for this season (presuming that the first round series is a best of 5 and each series after wards is a best of 7):

1 - Division Winner 1: Bye

2 - Division Winner 2: Bye

3 - Division Winner 3: Hosts Wild Card Winner 3

4 - Wild Card Winner 1: Hosts Wild Card Winner 2

5 - Wild Card Winner 2: Visiting Wild Card Winner 1

6 - Wild Card Winner 3: Visiting Division Winner 3

Division Winner 1 vs. Winner of Wild Card Winner 1/Wild Card Winner 2

Division Winner 2 vs. Winner of Division Winner 3/Wild Card Winner 3

Winner of Division Winner 1/Wild Card Winner 1/Wild Card Winner 2 vs. Division Winner 2/Winner of Division Winner 3/Wild Card Winner 3

Note: I did not predict which division would have X amount of Wild Card teams, their records, or other factors that could further dilute the seeding process.

This would never happen unless MLB:

- implemented a shorter season instead of the usual 162 game season (then again, less games, means less revenue for each team); and

- minimizes the number of off days in a series in order for the playoffs to finish before Thanksgiving.

[infrared41]

The only thing I like about the plan is the balanced schedule. We really don't need The Royals and Indians playing each other 19 times. Low revenue teams need more games against teams that draw well and less games against the bottom feeders. No one is going to Kaufmann Stadium in August to watch The Royals battle The Indians but they just might go to see The Royals play The Yankees or Red Sox etc. It's hardly a fix but eliminating 8 games a season between bad teams can only help with attendance. I realize that those 8 extra games aren't always going to be against top teams nor are they guaranteed to draw any better. That said, it's still better than KC - Cleveland going at it for 19 games a season.

I'm really oversimplifying it but the point is that the unbalanced schedule probably hurts more financially than it helps competitively. Besides, if it takes beating up on KC and Cleveland to get you a playoff spot then maybe you shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Gary]

I don't think we need a new re-alignment plan, I think we just need some kind of salary cap. $300+ Million is just wrong for one team to have, I think if we could have some kind of system to play with that everyone has a chance teams may have a chance.

Or better yet we could just have new owners who doesn't pocket every penny in their pockets every chance they get, there are plenty of things wrong with the cap issue in the Major Leagues, but that is just one problem of many that are more important than new alignment

[charger77]

This is really adding nothing but thats a cool chart!

-Dan