This is a guest post from friend-of-the-blog Joe R., who can be found at @JoeRo23 on Twitter. It is a long post, but I encourage you to read it in its entirety, as Joe raises a very interesting hypothetical that should make for some fun discussion.
This piece is a more comprehensive examination of an idea I first discussed in a comment posted at RAB on September 24, 2009. That comment was my first stab at outlining an EPL-inspired relegation structure for MLB. While this subject has been discussed before and since I posted that comment, I think I can offer a different and more comprehensive look the topic. If you’ve had your fill of this discussion, then I thank you for your time and apologize for taking up some space on your computer screen for a brief moment in time. If not and you’re interested in a fun theoretical discussion and in what I might bring to this subject, then thanks…And here we go.
As a preface, I’d like to explain something important about what I’m about to discuss: I don’t think this plan will ever be implemented by MLB. The intent of this piece is not to argue that this plan should or could ever be implemented, it is simply to present what I hope you will agree is a well-reasoned answer to the following question:
Given what we know about the various and sometimes competing interests of MLB, its teams, and its fans, if we were to create a league/playoff structure for MLB today, from scratch, how could we do so to best serve those various and at times competing interests and pressures?
In order to answer that question, I’m going to first discuss the interests I seek to serve with my structure, I’m then going to describe the structure, and finally I’m going to explain why this structure achieves the goals of each of the identified interests and how it does so better than the current structure does.
1. Interests:
I’m just picking out a few ideas that I think are most germane to the creation of a league and playoff structure, and you’re free to disagree with me or add other interests in the comments section. The interests I’ve identified as most germane are as follows:
a) The system should reward the teams that are most successful during the course of the long regular season. Thus, the segment of the whole who, for example, wish MLB would go back to a four-team playoff system so that the best teams are rewarded, will be represented.
b) The system should allow more than just the top couple of teams from the regular season to have a reasonable chance at going on a run and winning a championship. Thus, the segment of the whole who wish, for example, for there to be some measure of surprise and some chance for a team to go on an unexpected run to a championship, will be represented.
c) The maximum number of teams possible, without hurting the integrity of the system, should be in situations that are compelling to their fanbases (i.e., we don’t want 20 of the 30 teams to appear to have nothing to play for over a long stretch of the season).
d) The maximum number of playoff series, without hurting the integrity of the system, should be played. MLB is a money-making venture and playoff series make money – however much some fans may not like it, it is in MLB’s best interests to add playoff series, not to have fewer of them. And, of course, there are also some fans who want more playoff series.
e) The interests of the “traditionalists” and the more progressive fans should be considered and addressed (i.e., controversial issues like the DH, interleague play, etc.), while keeping in mind the interests of MLB as a business entity.
So, ideally, we want a system that helps keep the maximum number of teams possible in some sort of a competitive race in the standings, provides the most bang for our playoff buck, and allows a relatively large number of teams to compete, while simultaneously rewarding the top performers from the regular season and not watering down the playoff structure so that less-than-superior teams win championships too often.
2. Structure:
As you know from my introduction, this will be a relegation-based system. My proposed structure is relatively simple; I don’t see the need to flirt with using any sort of points-based standings system or to introduce any extra, non-year-end tournaments to the mix, as others have done and as is seen in leagues like the EPL. Under my proposed system MLB will be split into two leagues, as it is today, except that one of these leagues will be the superior, or upper tier, and the second will be the inferior, or lower tier. Each season, teams in the lower tier will compete for promotion to the upper tier, while teams in the upper tier will compete for a World Series championship as well as to stave off demotion to the lower tier. For purposes of this discussion I’m going to go ahead and call the upper tier the American League and the lower tier the National League, but please don’t get caught up in the names as they’re quite irrelevant. The AL will be composed of 16 teams and the NL will be composed of the remaining 14 teams in any given season.
During the season, teams in the AL will play the other teams in the AL, and teams in the NL will play other teams in the NL. While I personally am not a fan of, and many fans are not in favor of, interleague play, I understand that it has been a financial success for MLB and that a large portion of the MLB fanbase enjoys it and would like to see it continue. In order to address these competing interests, interleague play will take place only during a short, maybe two- or three-week period, in the middle of the season, instead of occurring at a few different points during the season as it does today. Interleague play will gain back some of its specialness and novelty by only being played during a short and discrete period of time each season, either sandwiched around or immediately preceding and leading up to an All-Star Game that will represent the only other meeting between the AL and the NL (since the playoffs will not feature AL teams playing against NL teams). In that manner the All Star Game also gains some intrigue, as it becomes not only an annual showcase during which the AL and the NL meet on the field, but also represents a chance for the players from the lower tier NL to meet their AL foes on the field of play and fight for respect. (As an aside, I do propose that interleague games should only count as half-games in the standings, since they clearly alter the balance of the schedule, but I find that point to be of relatively minor importance to the point of this particular piece.)
Another elephant in the room is the DH, a subject I know people are pretty passionate about. If it were up to me, I’d impose the DH rule in both leagues. But since it’s not up to me I’d put it up to a vote of the owners (and I guess the MLBPA would have a say, I’m not sure how that decision would be made), but I’d advise them that, either way, they have to have a uniform rule. There must either be a DH through all of MLB, or there must not be a DH in any of MLB. We can’t have teams being promoted and demoted every season and have them face playing under different rules as a result.
That aside… Other than the changes to interleague play and the All-Star Game (which are just scheduling changes, really), the regular season will remain un-changed. Teams will play 162-game seasons, just as they do today. The substantive changes occur instead at the end of the season. At the conclusion of the regular season, twelve different teams will compete in eight playoff series, as follows:
(Immediately following the regular season:)
a) In the NL, (1) the first seed and the fourth seed will play a best-of-five series and (2) the second seed and the third seed will play a best-of-five series, with the two respective winners both earning promotion to the AL for play during the following season and (3) playing an additional best-of-five series for the NL Championship.
b) In the AL, (4) the thirteenth seed and the sixteenth seed will play a best-of-five series and (5) the fourteenth seed and the fifteenth seed will play a best-of-five series, with the two respective losers being demoted down to the NL for play during the following season.
(Starting on the sixth day after completion of the regular season:)
c) In the AL, (6) the first seed and the fourth seed will play a best-of-seven series and (7) the second seed and the third seed will play a best-of-seven series, with (8) the two respective winners meeting in the best-of-seven World Series.
I know it may seem strange at first but let it marinate for a minute, it’s really not complicated at all. Basically you’ve got a four-team mini-tournament at the top of the NL, a four-team mini-tournament at the bottom of the AL, and a four-team mini-tournament at the top of the AL. I’ve delayed the start of the “World Series playoffs” so that there will be no other games played while the World Series itself is played – the series that will take the place of the League Championship Series (the semifinals) will only compete with the NL championship, a series that will have ended earlier if the semifinals were to extend to six or seven games. Another way to stagger the playoffs so that the “World Series playoffs” would be granted their proper importance would be to have the National League start and end its regular season a week or two before the American League (again, a different way of doing things, but I think probably perfectly practical). Either way – this is a logistical issue that I think could and would be dealt with relatively easily, it’s not necessary to hammer out details like these right now.
3. Discussion:
What does this accomplish? At the top of the system, you’ve got only four teams advancing to the playoffs, like you had in the pre-Wild Card days, ensuring that the teams that most deserve to play for the championship will have that opportunity. Gone are the days of teams winning 83 games and winning the World Series. At the same time, though, you have significantly more playoff participation. This system would place a total of 12 teams into post-season play, while the current system places just 8 teams into postseason play. In addition, this system would, again, feature eight playoff series, as compared to 7 under the current system. Again, we’ve added more teams to the playoffs, kept more teams in contention, and added more playoff series…all while ensuring that the most deserving teams will play for the overall championship.
Not only do more teams reach some sort of postseason play under this structure, but more teams will be in the hunt for postseason play of some sort, as well. There is an inherent flaw in the numbers I’m about to present in that these records were attained in the current system, so every team was playing every other team (as opposed to my more segregated system in which better teams will play better teams and less talented teams will play less talented teams), but I think they’re still illustrative of my point… In 2009, for example, the Brewers (80 wins), ChiSox (79 wins), Reds (78 wins) and either the Padres or A’s (75 wins each) would have played in the postseason as top finishers in the NL, while under the current system the best of those teams finished 11 games back in its divisional race and 12 back in the Wild Card race and the worst of those teams finished about 20 games back in both the divisional and Wild Card races. In addition, the worst team in baseball in 2009, the Nationals, finished 34 games back in its divisional race and 33 back in its Wild Card race, while under the proposed relegation structure that Nationals would have finished just 16 games behind the Padres (the fourth-best team in this hypothetical National League and thus a playoff qualifier). The point is…these teams will all be in contention in their races and in contention for postseason play for much longer in the season, under this proposed plan, than they are under the current plan. While this may seem trivial to some, I think it’s pretty important to fans of those teams that are in the bottom half of the league standings. These teams will be much more successful (their records will improve greatly because they won’t face the top teams as often) and they will be in contention for the postseason just about every season.
That last point, about the teams in the middle- to lower-end of the standings winning more games and being in contention for, and playing in, playoff series, bowties nicely into a point about free agency. As I was preparing this piece, RAB’s Joe Pawlikowski raised concerns that a system like this might necessitate an overhaul of the current free agency system, since the teams relegated to the lower-tier wouldn’t be able to attract free agents. But, to the contrary, I believe this system leaves those teams in no worse a position than they are in today (KC Royals: Cliff Lee ain’t walkin’ through that door), and probably even puts them into a better position to attract free agents. Take the Royals, just for purposes of a hypothetical…would a premium free agent be attracted to them even if and as they improve and maybe hit the .500 mark or even a little above there? Maybe, but probably not. Would that same free agent be more attracted to them if they’d just come off a winning season and won playoff series to earn promotion to the upper-tier? I’d argue they would – I’m not saying they’d definitely go to KC under that scenario, but I think they’d be more likely to than they would under the current system. I’d also argue they’d be more attracted even prior to that promotion to the upper tier. I think the teams that would play in the lower tier would be more attractive to a free agent than they are today, because they could put together winning seasons, energize their fanbases, and offer the opportunity to be part of a team that will earn promotion and challenge the teams at the top of the heap. Today a bad team — or even a team that’s improving but still around .500 or so — just can’t offer that sort of excitement. Fanbases rally around winners, not .500 teams.
Another question I’ve received and contemplated regarding this plan is what would happen to the minor leagues, and the response is: nothing. There’s no reason to touch the structure of MiLB’s current system, it would work seamlessly with my plan just as it does with MLB today.
And it’s not just the worst teams that are helped by this system. A sampling of teams at the bottom, in the middle, and at the top will all be in races for postseason play under this system. We’re not just artificially buoying the hopes of the very worst teams here, we’re effectively offering teams throughout the standings the opportunity to have something fun to play for and something fun to sell to their fans, year in and year out, whether they’re competing for the World Series or not. We’re, effectively, spreading the wealth, while still rewarding the best performers. It’s a meritocracy that also allows teams at all levels to join in the fun.
Promotion to the upper tier may not seem like such an exciting goal to a Yankees or Red Sox or Angels fan, but ask a Pirates fan if she’d be excited about watching baseball for a season during which her team wouldn’t lose 90+ games and would have a realistic shot at participating in some sort of postseason play, and I’d guess that they might be pretty excited about that prospect. I hate to pick on my made-up Pirates fan friend, but what does she really have to look forward to this season? Her team isn’t going to compete, it’s not going to have a chance to win a championship. In my system, every team will compete and have a chance to participate in postseason play. I know people will argue that the teams in the lower tier won’t be able to attract fans and will lose money, but I disagree with that opinion. These teams will all have a fun product to sell to their fans, they’ll all have something to play for. Again…what is it exactly, that the Pirates can sell to their fans in 2010? They’re certainly not selling the prospect of real success or a championship. Under my system, they can sell the prospect of progress – real progress that will be borne out in real-life gains. The best teams will still come to town during interleague play, and they’re still playing against other MLB teams all season long. I think this system would create more excitement around these non-contending teams.
In the AL there would be excitement up and down the standings. While the top 8 or so teams would be in realistic contention for the playoffs (and, thus, a shot at the World Series), the bottom eight teams would be in a fight to stay out of the bottom four slots and thus avoid having to play with relegation on the line. Virtually every team in the AL would have something to play for all season long.
A note on salary-caps…I’m not a proponent for reasons that I won’t address here, and I think this system I’ve outlined would function well without one. What this system does is it deals with reality, and reality is that some teams are in markets that give them financial advantages and some teams are in smaller markets that make it harder for their front offices to build sustainable winning teams. What we’re doing here is living within that reality and creating a system that will best reward the different teams within that reality, without artificially restraining player salaries so that the owners can earn more millions to go on top of the billions in their Scrooge McDuck gold pools. In reality, there are underdogs, there are giants of industry…we can have a baseball league that addresses that reality and is organized in such a way that the fans are given a maximally fun experience; I don’t believe we have to enter this market and artificially level this playing field.
The dirty little secret of this system I’m proposing is that it’s probably less about the relegation aspect as it is about the egalitarian nature of its postseason structure. The relegation mechanism is a fun way to provide rewards and punishments for good and bad performances, and it’d provide some fun topics to discuss during the season and the offseason, but the playoff structure is really the meat of the system.
In conclusion…I know this is a relatively radical idea, and I’m sure there will be plenty of people leaving angry comments excoriating me for even daring to discuss this idea…and that’s OK, that’s the beauty of the internet. But, in my opinion, this system would work and be really cool and fun. This system would, more effectively than the current system, address the interests and goals outlined above. We would, in all likelihood, have the best team(s) winning the World Series more often than we do now, we’d have many more teams in contention late in the season than we do now, we’d have more teams in the playoffs than we do now, we’d have the added intrigue of having 2 teams promoted and 2 teams demoted every season… Heck, we’d even, I think, have a more exciting All-Star Game and give some juice to the whole concept of interleague play. This system doesn’t just provide opportunities for less successful teams to stay in contention and participate in pennant races, it actually works to remedy a pretty diverse set of problems and serve the interests of a pretty diverse set of people and entities.
So, that’s what I have for you. I hope you enjoyed this little examination of an off-the-wall idea that will never come close to seeing the light of day in real-life, and I’d be glad to discuss, in the comments section, any of these ideas or any other ideas anyone might have.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
16 Responses to Guest Post: A Soccer Style Relegation Plan For Baseball
Leave a Reply
-
TIQ IQ
Putting aside that relegation would never happen (more for financial reasons than anything) as you suggest, I think the concept isn’t worthwhile anyway. Relegation exists in many soccer leagues because the individual countries are not big enough to support full leagues. The reason the EPL has relegation isn’t to provide competitive balance, but so there will be enough teams to fill out the league. American sports leagues are not in the same boat because this country has enough distinct markets to support a non-relegation structure, and our smaller markets are served by the minor leagues.
I also don’t think a relegation structure would serve your stated goals. Subjugating half of MLB to a lower status would lessen interest in those games, not enhance it. I don’t think fans would get excited about the prospect of playing for a second tier championship with the chance at a promotion. What’s more, players would start to migrate toward teams that are ensured of remaining in the top division, creating a greater distinction between the two leagues, one that would be further enforced by the disparity in revenue available to the two groups. In other words, you’d wind up with a genuine minor league.
There’s no way to get around this scenario. No free agent is going to seek out the Royals because they just won promotion. More importantly, after suffering financially from years of being relegated, the Royals would probably have even less money to spend. What would result from this system is an elite group of teams that literally win every year. I know many people think that this exists in baseball, but I encourage you to check out the following link, which shows relative number of champions in American leagues versus European ones with relegation.
LsaoYCS
Another point to consider is you would be allowing four playoff teams out of 16 in the top division, which is much more lenient than the 4 out of 26 from the four division format, so the interest of purists’ wouldn’t be served. Also, why would the days of an 83-win champion be gone? After all, the Cardinals won 83 games in a 16-team league.
Finally, what exactly is egalitarian about the nature of this postseason structure? It is segmenting MLB in two distinct classes and likely creating a permanent elite. What could be less egalitarian than that?
Just going to pick a few points out and respond to them. Most of this is obviously highly subjective.
“American sports leagues are not in the same boat because this country has enough distinct markets to support a non-relegation structure, and our smaller markets are served by the minor leagues.”
I agree for the most part, but that’s why I’m not really suggesting a European-style relegation system. This is still a closed-system, it’s not as if minor league teams have the chance to be promoted to MLB in this proposed system. The 30 MLB markets remain the 30 MLB markets.
The driving force behind this idea isn’t that some markets can’t support a MLB team, which is what you point to as the driving force behind the more European relegation-model. Even the smallest MLB market, under my plan, remains an MLB market.
“Subjugating half of MLB to a lower status would lessen interest in those games, not enhance it. I don’t think fans would get excited about the prospect of playing for a second tier championship with the chance at a promotion.”
I think fans would be more excited about the prospect of their team playing for a second tier championship and promotion than they would about their team playing for nothing, no?
“What’s more, players would start to migrate toward teams that are ensured of remaining in the top division, creating a greater distinction between the two leagues…”
In recent years the Yankees have fielded teams with current or former All-Stars at just about every position on the field. I’m not sure my system creates that condition, and even if it doesn’t do enough to fix that condition (if it needs fixing), I’m not sure it exacerbates it and I think, as I explained in the post, that it might even ‘improve’ it a bit.
“…one that would be further enforced by the disparity in revenue available to the two groups. In other words, you’d wind up with a genuine minor league.”
This is just a point on which we disagree. I don’t think the teams in the lower-tier would necessarily see a reduction in revenues (again, as explained above, so I won’t bother repeating).
“There’s no way to get around this scenario. No free agent is going to seek out the Royals because they just won promotion.”
Ok, but what premium free agent is seeking out the Royals today?
“What would result from this system is an elite group of teams that literally win every year. I know many people think that this exists in baseball, but I encourage you to check out the following link, which shows relative number of champions in American leagues versus European ones with relegation.”
I’m not proposing this system to fix a perceived competitive balance problem, though. I don’t think there’s a huge competitive balance problem. I don’t think my system allows for better competitive balance, nor do I think that’s a big problem today. What my system tries to accomplish is a compromise different interests – keeping more teams in competitive races, giving more teams shots at postseason play, rewarding the best teams, etc. (as explained above). I specifically stated that one of my interests is in having the best teams rewarded for being the best and my system allows fewer teams to get into the “championship bracket” so to speak, I’m certainly not trying to accomplish what I think you think I’m trying to accomplish.
“Finally, what exactly is egalitarian about the nature of this postseason structure? It is segmenting MLB in two distinct classes and likely creating a permanent elite. What could be less egalitarian than that?”
Quibble with my word-choice if you will, but I thought the implication was clear – what I was getting at is that teams at different levels of competition will have something to play for and will have a shot at postseason play. Instead of just the best teams having something to play for at the end of the season and having postseason series to look forward to, teams at all levels of the standings get to enjoy those things.
I disagree that every team remains an MLB market because the lower division would be segregated. Your system is more akin to contracted 14 teams and then reforming them in another league. I simply don’t believe fans would be interested in watching a “second tier” (I guess the “NL” could adopt minor league prices and promotions, but that would further solidify them as financially weaker teams). I know I would much rather watch my team playing against the very best, then competing among the worst.
As for consolidation, the Yankees are more an exception in the current format, but I am suggesting there would be an even greater concentration among a larger group of elite teams (6-8, for example). This would replicate what you have in Euro leagues: a small ruling class; a permanent middle class; and a lower class that faces regulation.
I don’t see how could you think teams in a lower division would suffer from lower revenues, so we’ll just have to disagree there. In every other relegation league, however, the lower tiers (even the bottom half of the upper tier) all suffer from significant revenue disparities that would make the situation in baseball seem like communism.
I understand your aims, but I think they all would fail. As previously noted, I think creating a lesser tier would lead to reduced interest for all the reasons I cited. Also, your system does not reward better teams. It still allows the top 25% to make the playoffs (the current system allows a little more than 25%). What’s more, even if fans embraced a lower tier, there are still 8 teams making the combined playoffs, which is the same as it is now. I really don’t see the creation of a “loser’s tournament” appealing to the American sporting public.
Ok… Well we clearly just don’t see this through the same prism, which I think accounts for much of the disagreement. I think I covered how I feel about all this stuff in the post so I won’t continue rehashing just for the sake of responding. Just one minor point, though. You said:
“What’s more, even if fans embraced a lower tier, there are still 8 teams making the combined playoffs, which is the same as it is now.”
No, in my system 12 teams play in postseason series, not 8. I really didn’t want to say this, which is why I didn’t say it in my response to your initial comment, but I’m not sure you read the whole post. (Which is totally fine, we can still discuss the ideas, I know it’s a really long post. But I do think some of the things you’ve addressed in your comments were addressed in the post, so I’ll just let the post be my response, is I guess what I’m saying.)
I did read the whole post. I just don’t think it make sense to consider the four teams at the bottom of the top division as “making the playoffs” when the reward for “winning” would be avoiding a negative outcome (relegation). My concept of playoffs involves a positive reward, which would only exist for 8 teams (the four teams with a crack at the championship and the four with a chance for promotion). Do you really think those four teams seeking to avoid relegation should be considered “playoff teams”?
Well, yes, clearly I do. Under my proposal 12 teams would be playing in postseason series. Call it 8 playoff teams and 4 postseason series teams if you prefer.
I made this point more comprehensively below. The whole point of my system is that I’ve changed the structure so that “playoffs” don’t necessarily lead to the World Series. I’m not really interested in the semantics of whether we want to call a team a “playoff team” or a “postseason team” or something else, call them whatever you want… The point, to me, is that 12 teams play in postseason series (and enjoy the regular season races that lead to those series) while only 4 teams play in series that lead to a World Series championship.
One more point that you raised that wasn’t explicitly covered in my post… The whole idea that a similar percentage of teams play in the “World Series playoffs” under my system as under the current system… I disagree with your take on that one. I get that you’re saying 25% of the teams in the upper-tier play in the championship bracket, if you will, and “the current system allows a little more than 25%” but, on the other hand (and the way I see it), only a little more than 14% (4/30) of the total number of teams in MLB play in the ‘championship bracket’ in my proposed system, as opposed to about 27% (8/30) under the current system. It’s a bit of a tomato/tomato situation, I guess, I just wanted to clarify why I see that point differently than you do – I think what’s important is how many teams out of the whole get the chance to play for a World Series title each season.
That’s a misleading way to look at it because only 16 teams “can” play for the championship. What’s more, if you are going to consider the four teams that finish atop the lower division as being playoff teams, then you can’t ignore them by saying 4 of 30 teams make post season. When push comes to shove, I actually agree with the point that it would only be 4 of 30, but that’s because I think the relegation battle would hold little meaning.
“That’s a misleading way to look at it because only 16 teams “can” play for the championship.”
I disagree and just want to explain why again because I don’t think it’s fair to call anything I’m saying here “misleading.” You see it one way and I see it another way, but that doesn’t mean I’m trying to mislead anyone, I think there’s a pretty clear rationale behind my position. Yes, in any given year, only 16 teams will have the opportunity to get into the ‘championship bracket’ and play for a World Series championship. But all 30 teams are still playing for a World Series championship, it’s just that the 14 teams in the lower tier have to earn promotion before they can get into that championship bracket.
And it’s also not misleading because I’ve consistently drawn a distinction between ‘making the postseason’ and ‘playing for the championship.’ In the current system those two concepts are synonymous, but under my proposed system they are certainly not. I haven’t misled anyone by saying “only 4 teams make the postseason.” I’ve created additional postseason series that cannot lead to a World Series title and been very clear about that in my post and in this entire conversation. 12/30 teams make postseason play, 4/30 teams have the chance in postseason play to win a World Series title. I mean, that’s kinda the whole point of my system – finding a way to balance the interests I stated in the post by getting more teams into competitive races and postseason play while simultaneously reducing the number of teams that can play for the championship.
Look… My whole point here was to build what I consider a compromise system in order to meet varied and at times competing goals. I’m not trying to tell anyone this proposal is perfect – I don’t think there is a perfect system out there to be created.
“What’s more, if you are going to consider the four teams that finish atop the lower division as being playoff teams, then you can’t ignore them by saying 4 of 30 teams make post season.”
Yes, I most certainly can say that. Again – I didn’t say “4 of 30 teams make the postseason.” I said 4 of 30 teams play in the ‘championship bracket.’ I’ve been very consistent in drawing that distinction in the post and in my comments.
Not buying it at all.
Take Tampa Bay for example. In 2007 they went 66-96. Worst record in the AL. The next year they went 97-65 against the same competition, won the division over both the Yankees and Red Sox and went to the World Series. Under this scenario, a small market team that needs to spend a few years developing its players has no chance at a championship when everything finally clicks for them. Instead, they get to play with the big kids next year, completely unprepared for the higher level of competition. Sounds like AAAA to me.
So what if the ’06 Cardinals only won 83 games, they won the games that counted.
The TB example is something I’ve been thinking about the last day or two and something I intended to address in a comment here but I got sidetracked, it’s a very good point. My reaction to it is that you’re right, that’s a consequence of my proposal. It’s clear there are compromises being made in my proposal, it’s definitely not perfect in every way – like I said above, I don’t think it’s possible to fully serve every competing interest optimally.
Acknowledging that a team cannot have a huge single-year turn-around and go from last to first in my proposed system, then it just becomes a judgment call about whether that single ‘negative’ aspect, if you see it as a negative, is so important to you that you scrap the system completely. It’s not as if there are no ‘negative’ aspects of the current system, so I don’t think this one aspect is enough to throw out my proposal, but that’s just my opinion. The ’08 Rays, under my proposal, would probably have won the NL title and gained promotion to the AL where they could compete for a World Series title in ’09, there’s definitely no way a team can go from worst-to-first, so to speak, in my system.
“So what if the ’06 Cardinals only won 83 games, they won the games that counted.”
I disagree with this because I happen to place a higher value/emphasis on the regular season. MLB plays an incredibly long schedule, and I think performance during that schedule should have a very large influence on championships. This is the more ‘traditionalist’ side of me – I like the idea of the old system where teams played 154 or 162 games and then only the teams that performed best during that incredibly long war of attrition, the top 2 or 4 teams, had a chance to play for the overall championship.
Now, again, this is a judgment call, and we all value different interests differently. But what I’m asking people to do in considering my proposal is to weigh those different interest and see compromises. You may not value the regular season as much as I do, but a lot of people do. I may not value the extra playoff series or interleague play as much as someone else does, but a lot of people do. What I was trying to do was to create a system that would find as much middle ground as possible, a system that would serve as many different interests as possible, which obviously means some compromise is necessary.
Really interesting article. I love your concept, and I agree that MLB will never implement it, but if nothing else it was an awesome thought experiment to get in on, even the comments. That being said, I do have one concern that I don’t think you’ve addressed in the comments (which were equally interesting to read):
No matter how you classify teams, I don’t think that where the teams actually stand changes very much. For example, you’d still have the top six or so teams at the top of the AL competing for the World Series (Yanks, BoSox, Phillies, Braves, Twins, etc), and the same usual middle teams fighting for the AL/NL division line (Tigers, Reds, A’s, Mariners, etc), and the same bottom-barrel teams scraping at the bottom (Pirates, D-backs, Royals, Nationals). While the top of the NL and the bottom of the AL would be fighting for something, yes, they’d be fighting for the same thing every year, and I think that fighting for the same thing every year when it isn’t the World Series will eventually become just as dull as watching a team do nothing all year. When it becomes the expectation of the fans to accomplish some goal, it no longer puts asses in seats. “So what, the A’s can beat the Pirates, the Diamondbacks, and Royals, and the White Sox. Con-fucking-gratulations.”
Also, putting the Pirates in an inferior league won’t make them a better team. They suck, let’s be honest. Even if they do add an additional ten wins to their schedule, all the NL teams around them have the same weaker schedule. And if the Pirates, and say, the A’s have the same schedule, the A’s will also win those extra ten games (or even 20). And as a personal example, I think the A’s would be in the AL-NL race every year, but it wouldn’t be something that would be an accomplishment. If the A’s win promotion into the AL two out of ten years and then go on the next year to simply get annihilated by the AL teams, well, that’s not really much winning at all. It’s graduating to a higher level to get your morale and your ass kicked down again. Even a team that manages to hold on to one of those bottom spots for a number of years in a row (say, the White Sox), they’re still not fighting for anything. The White Sox would become “the Pirates of the AL,” and no one wants to be the Pirates of anything.
As a vaguely related thought, I think a lot of teams would structure themselves to remain where they are in the standings. For example, the NL-winning Oakland A’s would be built to win the NL, not compete for the World Series in the AL. This is probably a financial analysis thing: if the A’s make more money winning the NL title every other year and being promoted, why bother to make the team any better? This goes double if an NL team tries to climb the AL and, well, has a catastrophic failure. Like you said, more games = more money. Why would an NL team who basically goes to the playoffs in the NL even bother to struggle in the AL for four or five years? There’s no guaranteed return over winning the NL cup. There might be some financial way to offset this: say, perhaps, the team that wins the NL cup gets less money than the bottom-feeder AL team who won the cup last year, but it would have to offset any ticket losses that came from the loss of the playoff games.
If I’m running around in circles here, I apologize. Thoughts?
Thanks for joining the conversation.
“No matter how you classify teams, I don’t think that where the teams actually stand changes very much. For example, you’d still have the top six or so teams at the top of the AL competing for the World Series (Yanks, BoSox, Phillies, Braves, Twins, etc), and the same usual middle teams fighting for the AL/NL division line (Tigers, Reds, A’s, Mariners, etc), and the same bottom-barrel teams scraping at the bottom (Pirates, D-backs, Royals, Nationals).”
I hear you on this one – I have two reactions. The first is that, if we acknowledge there won’t be much movement (for the sake of the argument), we could tweak the proposal to add more postseason series at the top of the NL and bottom of the AL. I actually don’t have much of a problem with that – make it 6 teams in those mini-brackets, give the top 2 in each mini-bracket a first round bye, etc. Not necessary to fully flesh-out the details, just putting the concept out there. The point is – you can tweak the proposal to create more movement between the leagues, if that’s what is decided would be beneficial. My second reaction is two pronged: (a) I think you’re overstating the case a bit and not allowing for teams that do make relatively quick turnarounds (Rays, Reds, off the top of my head, etc.) and (b) I’m not so sure I have a problem with less movement – it might serve to make gaining promotion a more satisfying accomplishment.
Anyway… I guess my point is just that it’s totally a valid point to discuss, but it’s something I think we could come to some sort of agreement on, if we were running MLB and could actually do something like this and make William J.’s head explode.
“While the top of the NL and the bottom of the AL would be fighting for something, yes, they’d be fighting for the same thing every year, and I think that fighting for the same thing every year when it isn’t the World Series will eventually become just as dull as watching a team do nothing all year. “
I just disagree with you here. I just can’t agree that playing out the string for most of the season is the same as being in some sort of a competitive race with some sort of goal within reach.
“When it becomes the expectation of the fans to accomplish some goal, it no longer puts asses in seats.”
I also disagree with this one. The Yankees make the post-season every season, and do just fine putting butts in the seats, no? The Pirates, on the other hand, play out the string every season, and put no butts in the seats. I’m just not sure how it’s reasonable to assume giving the bad team more to play for would have a detrimental effect on attendance.
“Also, putting the Pirates in an inferior league won’t make them a better team. They suck, let’s be honest. Even if they do add an additional ten wins to their schedule, all the NL teams around them have the same weaker schedule.”
It won’t make them a better team, but it’ll make them, instantly, closer to the median, talent/ability wise. I don’t really think that can be argued. So, you won’t have the worst team getting pummeled by the best teams. If you don’t think that would be a little more enjoyable for a fan of a bad team, I just have to disagree with you there. Just to pick a random example, take the O’s. (Really, I just pulled up standings and took the first last-place team I saw.) The O’s were a .333 team against the best two teams in the AL last season, .385 against teams at or over .500, and .519 against teams under .500. Take out the pummeling a bad team takes from the cream of the crop, and I think you’re putting a more enjoyable product on the field (not a better team in absolute terms, but a more competitive team relative to its competition).
In addition, they’ll likely not be as many games behind playoff-position as they are under the current system. You’re giving the team and its fanbase hope for a longer stretch of the season. They’ll stay competitive in the standings for a longer stretch of the season.
“If the A’s win promotion into the AL two out of ten years and then go on the next year to simply get annihilated by the AL teams, well, that’s not really much winning at all. It’s graduating to a higher level to get your morale and your ass kicked down again.”
Maybe, but again, I think you’re taking one possible scenario and assuming that’s what’s going to happen to every team. Would the Rays have earned promotion just to get their asses handed to them immediately? Nope. And there will be teams in the AL that regress, it’s not like the promoted teams walk into a situation in which they’re instantly the bottom of the pile. Some teams have lucky/flukey seasons and those teams, if they earned promotion, probably wouldn’t last more than a season or two in the superior league (who knows). But it’s just as, if not more likely, that some teams will see real progress and improve themselves and fit in the superior league upon their promotion, and vice versa (some teams regress). I don’t think it’s reasonable to think you’d just have the same exact teams trading spots every season. Teams aren’t static – prospects progress, players hit their primes, guys get hurt, older players decline, any number of things are happening on a constant-basis, the system is constantly in motion.
“As a vaguely related thought, I think a lot of teams would structure themselves to remain where they are in the standings. For example, the NL-winning Oakland A’s would be built to win the NL, not compete for the World Series in the AL.”
Regarding this entire last paragraph… I don’t know, maybe some teams will want to be prefer to be in those series than to try to compete for a higher goal. But I ask you – how is that so different from today? Do you think every team today is trying to win a World Series every season? I mean, that’s clearly not true. I guess what I’m getting at is that sure, maybe that’s a flaw – but I’m not sure it’s a flaw that’s any worse than the current status of that particular aspect.
“Why would an NL team who basically goes to the playoffs in the NL even bother to struggle in the AL for four or five years? There’s no guaranteed return over winning the NL cup.”
I don’t know, I think you’re assuming a ton about financial aspect of this proposal that haven’t been addressed.
And if a team wants to play for the middle, so to speak, I’m not even sure that’s so bad. I mean, there are teams today that play for the bottom, in a sense. At least fans of those teams that play for the middle would be getting to watch competitive baseball, pennant races, postseason series, right?
For me that’s what this all comes down to. There’s no perfect system, but I do think there are ways to create a system that’s more fun for the fans. Instead of being a bottom-feeding team or even a middle of the road team for 10 years, voila, you get to be in competitive regular season races and maybe play a postseason series or two, maybe earn promotion or try to stave off demotion… I mean, there’s just a lot more going on here for teams that aren’t at the top, and I think those things are all fun, which is what it’s all about.
Sorry if I didn’t fully-address any of your points (like the financial stuff) or if I jumped around a bit… Lots going on in these comments.
I’m confused. You are against interleague play between what are now the established AL and NL, but are arguing in favor of a system that will completely demolish what we know of as the AL and NL.
Does that make sense to ANYONE ?
You’re assuming I don’t like interleague play because I’m a traditionalist, but that’s not why I don’t like it. I don’t like it because I think it’s an unnecessary intrusion in the season, creates further schedule imbalance, and just isn’t so interesting anymore (and never was that interesting for the teams that don’t have interleague rivalries, which is most of the teams).
Also, notice that I kept interleague play in my proposal.
Not sure how that part of my proposal doesn’t make sense. If I wanted to get rid of interleague play because I want to go back to the good old days, I’d just propose that we go to a two league system with the regular season winners playing in the World Series, no? That’s not what I was doing, though. I was trying to find compromise positions to serve varied, and competing, interests.