MLB Power Post - Part III

A lot of ideas have been bandied about regarding the MLB realignment and what should happen. Before jumping in with my own opinion, I think it's important to clearly outline the reasons realignment is being discussed, as well as the implications that would face the selection of the plan currently at the negotiating table.

The purpose of relignment - why is there a call for it to happen?

• There are an uneven number of teams in each league: 16 in the National League, 14 in the American League. Every other major pro league in the U.S. has an even number in each league/conference. This means that there are scheduling inequities, as well as decreased opportunities for NL teams to reach the postseason (more teams vying for the same number of playoff spots as the AL).

The players are the ones who have brought up this issue and are pushing for a change, but with realignment to two 15-team leagues, there are some implications:

1. Interleague play would have to occur throughout the year. 
• Otherwise a team in each league would be left without an opponent for any given set of games.
• "Baseball Purists" took issue with interleague play when it began in 1997 since the two leagues never played each other before then unless it was the World Series. The idea of having them play against each other all the time hurts their souls.
• If the two leagues played each other all season long, then the Designated Hitter rule would have to be adopted league-wide or eliminated. The latter would be far more likely to happen, since baseball didn't even have a DH until 1973, and not needing another strong bat lowers payroll.
• Continuing along those financial lines, interleague play generates higher attendance on average, but one would have to be concerned that the novelty of interleague games would be diluted by constant interleague play. One of the reasons for the boost in attendance is due to regional rivalries, e.g. a recent Giants-A's series sold out Oakland Coliseum, and that place is never sold out. The other main reason is that the most popular teams have fans that travel or live across the country, and they descend upon small market stadiums and inflate the host's attendance numbers. Here's an article demonstrating how attendance rises for certain games in interleague play.
2. There would be three 5-team divisions in each league (which I will call the "on the rocks" scenario) OR simply two 15-team leagues ("straight up").
• "On the rocks"
• Very similar to the current layout of three divisions in each league, except one NL team would have to join the AL West. The supposed top candidate is the Houston Astros, forming a geographic rivalry with Nolan Ryan's Texas Rangers. When asked if there was any truth to the rumors that the Astros might change leagues, Astros owner Drayton McLane said "Absolutely not." Another candidate I've heard is the Arizona Diamondbacks.
• "Straight up"
• Same deal, an NL team goes to the AL.
• Scheduling becomes an issue here. As it stands currently, the schedule is unbalanced so that there are more divisional games, heightening the impact of a division's teams on the record of their direct competition. This is good for enhancing rivalries, and also reduces travel costs since teams can stay in their geographic area for more of the year.
• Since divisions are eliminated, there are more teams vying for the same playoff spots, meaning there's less likelihood of one team running away with a playoff spot. Everyone likes late season intrigue, unless you're a Mets fan. 

I've also heard that there have been discussions for the top 5 teams in each league to make the postseason, but that doesn't directly follow from realignment, and it's stupid, so I'll forego discussing that and just opine on the proposed changes outlined above.

I have to admit, it does a reasonable job of eliminating scheduling and playoff contention inequities, but it stomps all over some of the things I like. I like having a slugging DH on my team, like Big Papi, even if it does create imbalance. I don't want interleague play year-round, and I prefer divisional rivalries and schedules that weight to that (especially with the Sox owning the Yankees this year). At 28 years old, I'm already a curmudgeonly baseball neo-purist perhaps.

Still, fair scheduling and playoff contention is only a piece of the puzzle. The following is my dream solution for a future collective bargaining agreement:

Rodney Fort, Ph.D.

1. Hard salary cap and salary floor - Invoking the sports economic findings of Rodney Fort, salary caps and floors are more effective at fostering competitive balance than luxury taxes or revenue sharing. The NFL and NHL have hard salary caps and seem to exhibit the most competitive balance, with nearly any (well-run) team having a shot to make the playoffs and even win it. These leagues are also financially successful. The NFL is the most successful pro league in the U.S., and the NHL is growing ($39 million cap in 2005, already up to $64 million for 2011 despite the recession). Meanwhile, the soft cap NBA supposedly has numerous teams in the red, and the disparity in payrolls for MLB teams is well-known, with several teams in financial trouble (Dodgers, Mets).
• Chances of happening: Zero. The player's union is too strong, and owners enjoy the freedom of spending as they will.
2. Contraction - Get rid of two teams. Not one of the Royals' starting pitchers is worthy of a rotation spot in this league (although I am a Bruce Chen fan). The Mariners team batting average is .226. I don't think there's enough talent in this league to justify so many teams. Alternatively, demote two teams to Triple A and have end-of-year promotion and relegation like European soccer leagues.
• Chances of happening: Zilch. The players union would never allow a shrinking of their job supply, and there's actually been discussion of expansion to make the leagues even. Shoot me.
3. Two divisions in each league - This scenario still allows for regional rivalry while providing more intense competition for playoff spots late in the season.
• Chances of happening: rather good, if you can believe some of the discussion surrounding realignment (the "Straight Up" scenario). This would be welcome for baseball purists who want the old East-West divisions back. The 3 division system would be unbalanced with two teams contracted as I proposed, so it has to go, but I hope numbers-wise that their can still be division-heavy scheduling.
4. No interleague play - Just personal preference. Given the financial incentives to owners, I could be made to suffer it, but not on a year-round basis. The World Series used to have more mystique for me when I was younger, because the teams that met never played one another unless it was in the World Series itself. For example, the 2000 Yankees-Mets series would have been more intriguing to me had the Yankees and Mets not played every year in the subway series. Granted, I'd still want to gouge my eyes out.

Ultimately, there's a bit of give and take here, given that both parties are focused on growing revenues, not simply creating a dream league format that never has to change. The unfortunate reality is that changes need to happen every once in a while to capture the casual audience. For that reason, I'm willing to accept the "on the rocks" scenario with the Astros joining the AL, because this will preserve more of the things I like: division-heavy schedules and the DH. The scheduling inequities will still be there (those Orioles just can't catch a break!), but this scenario allows for minimal change while acknowledging the financial benefits of division rivalries and novel interleague games.

What do you think of the realignment being discussed by MLB and the Players Association? What would you like to see happen?