This post is copied from my other blog I'm doing for class "Texts from Left Field" - where I focus mainly on baseball and social media and the intersection they cross. I haven't decided if I'm keeping the blog, but thought this post would be a good one to share on both of my blogs.
The other day I read this story regarding MLB talking about a floating realignment for teams that aren’t “ready” to compete or whatever the case may be. So, as the article states, a team like Cleveland, who clearly isn’t in any position to win this year, would rotate into the “East” so they could benefit from the crowds that the Yankees and Red Sox. And they can choose which division they want to be in from year to year.
…………
Let it sink in for a minute…..
………….
I don’t know about you, but I think this program is asinine. Another example of the stroke of stupidity that is Bud Selig, the man who called a tie for an All Star Game.
Teams shouldn’t be able to just rotate whenever the hell they want. Instead, I’ve spent the past few days coming up with my idea for what would be a potentially better idea for teams and the playoffs. It makes sense in my head, I hope I can translate it out onto text here.
THE NEW PLAN
I don’t claim to know everything about the European Premier League Soccer, but I understand that it’s split into two divisions – the “elite” teams and the “non-elite” teams. At the end of the season, the bottom X elite teams rotate with the top X elite teams IF THE RECORD OF THE “NON-ELITE” TEAM IS BETTER THAN THE “ELITE” TEAM, assuming that they will be able to “compete” with the “elites.” So not every year a team may switch.
I think this could work with the MLB – with a twist.
So let’s break it down
AL has 14 teams. NL has 16. 7 and 8 for each.
Let’s do the 7 right now based off last years standings
AL Elite: NY Yankees, LA Angels, Boston, Texas, Minnesota, Detroit, and Seattle
AL Non-Elite: Tampa Bay, Chicago White Sox, Toronto, Oakland, Cleveland, Kansas City, and Baltimore.
Outside of Tampa/Seattle, that list shouldn’t surprise any of us. Maybe make an argument for the White Sox pre-2009 season.
NL Elite: LA Dodgers, Philadelphia, Colorado, St. Louis, San Francisco, Florida, Atlanta, Chicago Cubs
NL Non-Elite: Milwaukee, Cincinnati, San Diego, Houston, Arizona, NY Mets, Pittsburgh, Washington DC
Again, this list shouldn’t surprise us. The NL is also characteristically weaker than the AL in my opinion.
So here’s my suggestion:
Keep the teams in their current division for traveling purposes. BUT have less divisional games, and let the teams in their respective elite divisions play each other. So instead of the Nationals and Phillies meeting 19 times a year, they only meet for 10 times, and let the Nationals have three more series versus their non-elites, and make the Phillies play three more series against their elite peers (preferably not within their division I.E. Braves/Marlins)
So in this instance, the Nationals would have 30 less games against the ‘elite’ inner division competition, which one would assume should be another 15-25 losses for the Nationals. Instead, they play several more series against other teams that are more in their skill level.
Let’s also lower the amount of times that teams outside their division play each other – right now I believe it is at 3 series per year. Cut it to two per team – one series at home and one away. The remaining X series will be against teams in their “elite” or “non-elite” brackets. Even MORE games against equal competition.
So, let’s look at the past few years to see how this would have played out, using the AL as our petri dish.
2004 AL Elites: NY Yankees, Boston, LA Angels, Minnesota, Oakland, Texas, Chicago White Sox — Top 2 Non: Cleveland, Baltimore
2005 AL Elites: Chicago White Sox, Boston, LA Angels, NY Yankees, Cleveland, Oakland, Minnesota — Top 2 Non: Toronto and Texas
2006 Al Elites: NY Yankees, Minnesota, Detroit, Oakland, Chicago White Sox, LA Angels, Toronto — Top 2 Non – Boston and Texas
2007 AL Elites: Cleveland, Boston, NY Yankees, LA Angels, Detroit, Seattle, Toronto — Top 2 Non – Minnesota and Oakland
2008 AL Elites: LA Angels, Tampa, Boston, NY Yankees, White Sox, Minnesota, and Toronto — Top 2 Non — Cleveland and Texas
2009 AL Elites: NY Yankees, LA Angels, Boston, Texas, Minnesota, Detroit, and Seattle — Top 2 Non — Tampa and Chicago White Sox
There’s quite a few teams that are competing ALMOST EVERY YEAR (Angels, Yankees, Minnesota, Chicago White Sox, Boston.) Doesn’t it make sense that they should paly each other more during the year?
Let’s look at which teams would rotate in and out year to year – starting from the 2004 season record
After 2005: Cleveland would switch with Texas into the elites for the 2006 season.
After 2006: Cleveland is then knocked out – along with Boston – and replaced by Detroit & Toronto
After 2007: Minnesota and Oakland are knocked out and replaced by Cleveland and Seattle
After 2008: Cleveland, Detroit, and Seattle knocked out. In comes Minnesota, Chicago White Sox, and Tampa
After 2009: Tampa, Toronto, and Chicago White Sox are out. Texas, Seattle, and Detroit are in.
Now let’s talk about the playoffs.
Same rules apply as now – divisional leaders get in. The wildcard however comes from the best team in the “non-elite” division. If the winner of the division is not in the “elite” league (like Tampa in 2008) then the second best team in the “non-elites” (which would have been Cleveland) would take the wildcard spot. Playoffs still play out in the same way as they always have – DS, CS, then WS.
HEAR ME OUT AS TO WHY THIS WORKS: I understand and personally love how the wildcard has determined the playoffs from the past several years. In 15 years of the wildcard system, only 4 teams have won the whole thing (97 Marlins, 02 Angels, 03 Marlins, 04 Red Sox.) A little under 33%.
Now if the elite teams were to play each other more during the regular season, the teams would have clearly defined which team is better. No more scrub games for Minnesota against the Royals. The Cardinals don’t get to beat up on the Pirates anymore. Instead, the Twins have to play more games against the Angels and Red Sox. They literally will beat up on each other. Meanwhile, if using the 2010 season as our example, Tampa will get to play the Royals/Athletics/Indians, and prove that they are worthy of competing in the playoffs.
It’s hard to use history to demonstrate this, because the records of each team would be different if 20-30 of their games were played against better teams. Let’s try this though:
In 2007, the playoffs would of been this: Cleveland, Boston, LA Angels, and Minnesota. Minnesota can’t play Cleveland because they are in the same division, so it would be Cleveland versus the Angels and the Red Sox versus Minnesota. The end result may be the same, but that 2007 Minnesota team with Santana, Mauer, and Morneau stood a great chance.
Finally, the system would give more revenue to the non-elite teams. I’m not a business major so I don’t know the numbers very well, but something like 60% to non-elite and 40% to the elite. It’s conceivable that most of the non-elite teams could use the money more for free agents and to re-sign their own talent. Eventually, we wouldn’t need a premiere league and everyone would be equal.
So I know the system isn’t perfect. It could probably use some tweaks (which I’m hoping some comments will help me with) I think it would provide a better, more honest, champion. So in 2009, the Yankees would have to play more against better teams like Minnesota, LA Angels, the White Sox, etc. It would create a level playing field and still give a chance for the other teams to win.
It looks alot better on my paper I’ve drawn out, but I really believe it would work. I’m not convinced we need to change it, but if we did, I would be down.
No comments:
Post a Comment