May 24, 2013

The Expanded MLB Playoffs and Plagiarizing Parity

February 6, 2012 by 25 Comments

Can you hear me, Bud?

Bud Selig, despite reaching the age when most dinosaurs are turned into fuel, is not retiring.  Again.

This seems mostly a product of inertia.  Bud doesn’t really want to retire, and the owners overwhelmingly believe that his tenure as a steward of the game (read: ‘increased revenues’) has been positive.  It seems like ages ago now, but Bud is the guy who reimagined the divisions after the 1994 strike.  He’s the one who made the All-Star Game “matter”.  He’s the one ushered in a system of revenue sharing, under the aegis of competitive balance.  He instituted semi-rigorous drug testing to appease the masses.  Baseball has changed a lot in the last 20 years, and for better or worse, Bud has been the instigator.

His latest instigation is to increase the number of teams making the playoffs, from four per league (three division winners and a wild card team) to five, wherein two wildcard teams will be pitted against one another in a one-game play-in/off.  The winner of the single game—played after the last game of the regular season—makes the playoffs.  The loser, as losers tend to do, goes home.

And there are really two ways to look at this change.  If we’re being generous, we might say that allowing another team into the mix increases “parity”.  Baseball, seemingly more than any other sport, is particularly vulnerable to small sample sizes.  If you look at the last few World Series winners, you can see that theory writ large.  Were the St. Louis Cardinals the best team in baseball last season, after sporting a measly .556 winning percentage last season in the execrable NL Central (good for 8th in MLB)?  What about the Giants the year before in the equally poor NL West (.568)?  I’d say probably not.  But the MLB playoffs aren’t really designed to award the World Series trophy to the best team.  So letting in more teams just increases the likelihood that these flukey teams might win.  And isn’t this what parity means?

Well, not really. Not if you ask me, anyway. Championships are great things, and I hope the Cleveland Indians win one before I get turned into fuel myself.  But expanding the playoffs doesn’t mean that there is more parity—not if parity means good teams and bad teams are relatively similar in overall talent and can easily move from one category to the other.  Rather, expanding the playoffs is just Bud’s way of putting a Band-Aid on the gunshot wound that is MLB’s competitive balance problem.  Don’t like that the Yankees consistently post the best record?  Just decrease the chance that they win the World Series every year by increasing the random fluctuation in the playoffs.  How do you do that?  Let more teams in.  Voila!  Parity!

Or so the argument goes. But I’m not completely sold, at least not on the parity problem.  Overall this change—one Bud still hopes to enact for the 2012 season—is probably a net positive for teams like the Indians, whose hopes are merely to make the playoffs and then roll the dice from there.*  But what if this allows the powers that be to claim that baseball’s parity problem is now fixed?  Isn’t that a more insidious problem than we currently have?  At least now, there are some voices trying to speak truth to power, reminding us that MLB is inherently broken in its ability to distribute talent.  If this change masks that truth, couldn’t that be a bad thing?  I dunno, but I get the feeling this change is more about optics than anything else.  And if political ads teach us anything, it’s that optics can be effective.  And dangerous.

*Can you imagine, on the other hand, any Yankees’ fan approving of this change? By inserting another layer of uncertainty into the mix, their chances of winning necessarily go down.  Which is just  to say the fact that they probably don’t like it makes me like a little bit more.

Before I go, we should at least think about the tangible effects this change would have.  Have a look at the chart below, which points out which team from each league would have made the one game playoff in a given season, were this rule in effect:

 

AL

  

NL

  
  TEAM W%   TEAM W%
2011 Boston

0.556

   Atlanta

0.549

  
2010 Boston

0.549

   San Diego

0.556

  
2009 Texas

0.537

   San Francisco

0.543

  
2008 New York

0.549

   New York

0.549

  
2007 Detroit

0.543

   San Diego

0.546

  
2006 Chicago

0.556

   Philadelphia

0.525

  
2005 CLEVELAND

0.574

   Philadelphia

0.543

  
2004 Oakland

0.562

   San Francisco

0.562

  
2003 Seattle

0.578

   Philadelphia

0.531

  
2002 Boston

0.574

   Los Angeles

0.568

  
             
AVERAGE W%

0.558

    

0.547

  
Implied Record 90-72     88-74  

 

You’ll notice that the Indians would have benefitted from this rule in the 2005 season, when they won 93 games, but blew their last weekend series of the year to fall a game short of the playoffs.  You’ll also notice that the Phillies and Red Sox would have been the two most common beneficiaries.  Parity indeed.

The other thing to notice here, though, is the target for entry.  Over the last ten years, we find an average winning percentage among AL teams who would have benefitted from the change to be about 55.8%—or about a 90-win team.  And when you think of it that way, it’s hard to think of this change affecting much at all, at least not for the Indians.  Typically, 90 wins will win the AL Central—in 2011 the Indians were below .500 and came in second place in the division.  It seems to me that whatever this change was designed to enact, it might just codify the status quo: more big market teams making the playoffs.Thanks Uncle Bud!

Related Posts

Zemanta
Filed Under: Indians Tagged With: , , ,
  • Anonymous

    well, the question is what is parity and what really matters as far as winning?  no way to really answer that as it’s different for every person.  

    the NFL claims to be the “parity king” yet the Pats, Steelers, and Giants have combined to win 7/11 of the past Superbowls and have been participants in other SBs in that timeframe as well.  in the NFL, if you have an elite QB, then you have a major competitive advantage that is tough to replicate. 

    the NBA is considered the worst for parity because a couple elite players can affect the game so much more than in other sports (only 5 players, you can mask some of the players on either end at times, etc).  

    MLB is a different beast.   the true ways that MLB tries to level parity is to have team-control on young “prime-year” players.  usually, a player doesn’t get to FA until the tail-end of their prime.   along with the draft, it had been how smart FOs tried to compete with the bigger market teams.   Bud insisting on a hard-slotting for the draft did more damage to the parity of MLB than adding a wild card team can help IMO.

    not being able to over-sell for slot is going to hurt getting talent later in draft.  but, at least “signability” may disappear from the lexicon.   teams should know which players are willing to sign and draft accordingly (though there will be bigger risk on guys who are truly undecided and slotted as high-round guys).   

    How to win?   FO has to scout better than other teams.  It is going to be more about talent evaluation than spending in the draft now (remember Indians were high-draft-spenders lately). 

     

  • Jack

    That’s not what ‘aegis’ means…

  • Anonymous

    Yep if Bud wanted to really do something he’d figure out a way to bring a more competitive balance as far as payroll goes, hint: it’s called a salary cap.  But it’ll never happen because baseball is probably the most corrupted of the professional sports when it comes to $$$.  These television contracts are absolutely insane.  Until then you’ll have the rich teams outspending their mistakes while middle market teams like the Indians, barely, tred water and the poor teams like the Pirates continuing to be AAAA teams for the rich.

    I finally saw “Moneyball” and it made me sad that baseball has degenerated like it has but hey, not according to BUD!  For every fluke that is Florida or Arizona there will be a few Oaklands, Clevelands and Tampa Bays sprinkled in while NY, Boston, LAA, Texas, Detroit and Philadelphia spend.  I guess I should probably root for Philly or Texas since they are more new money. 

  • Anonymous

    why were Florida or AZ flukes?   they spent years being bad, accumulating prospects, then went out and spent $$$ on veteran FAs to put them over the top (Florida twice) or to lead their team (AZ w/ Randy&Curt).  

    those are more like blueprints to smaller market teams than they are flukes (gotta hit right on those veteran deals though:  cmon Ubaldo, prove that you still have it this year :fingerscrossed:)

  • kjn

    I may be the only person in America not named Selig who likes baseball just the way it is.

    A salary cap is never going to happen. It would probably bankrupt a third of the teams in the league.

  • Foghorn Leghorn

    I cant tell if Im more upset that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies of the world exist, or that we dont have the owners capable of spending anything even remotely close to those teams.  We all know the rules of MLB.  The big market teams arent doing anything wrong.  They just use the assets they have to get better.  While we logistically cannot get the TV contracts of some of those teams, we are a pretty solid fan-base that will support any team thats a winner (or loser with the Browns).  I think if we invested a few more dollars to the talent on the field, the Dolans could recoup that investment through ticket sales, advertising, and everything else.  Gotta spend money to make money. 

  • Anonymous

    it would go in with more revenue sharing and would be brought along slowly, so I think the books could be balanced for all teams.

    the salary cap thing would be much different than in other sports though because of the minor league system.   how you deal with the influx of players from the minors and that whole thing would be complicated as there are going to be all kinds of weird scenarios that could play out.

  • Anonymous

    will the fan-base support a winner though?

    2011 24th  22K/game (big division lead early, contending through August)
    2010 LAST 17K/game (bad year all around)
    2009 25th 22K/game (CC and Victor trade year – non-contending)
    2008 22nd 27K/game (non-contending & trade CC year)
    2007 21st 28K/game (1 game away from WS)
    2006 25th 25K/game (disappointing and non-contending year)
    2005 24th 25K/game (fell apart last weekend to give-away division)2004 25th 22K/game (slow start doomed year – almost got to .500)
    2003 24th 21K/game (terrible season)
    2002 12th 32K/game (up and down year that fell apart)
    2001 4th 40K/game (last year of the old run – playoffs lost in 1st round)

    So, once the Browns were back and the Cavs got LeBron, the Indians didn’t vary much season-to-season no matter how well or poorly they did in the season.   Then, in the last couple of years with LeBron, the CC/Lee/Victor trades seemed to so demoralize the fanbase though it barely moved the attendance needle in either direction (after the 1year dropoff).

    And, the Dolans have tried to invest in the payroll hoping that it would be made back in ticket sales.  2009 was the year our payroll went up significantly and it backfired at the box office so poorly (yes, the team struggled, but spending does not auto-equal wins) we were left forced to sell-off not only Lee (as many expected we might in a non-contending year it turned out to be), but Victor too (though we got a great return on him it still soured the fanbase even more).

  • Anonymous

    checking on payrolls, we jumped from $61mil to $78 in 2008, then $81 in 2009.   lack of attendance bump w/ those increases has been cited as a reason for cutting the payroll at the end of 2009 and back to $61mil in 2010 (and then to $48 in 2011 – back to over $70 for 2012 if Fausto pitches, if not, then mid-to-high 60s)

  • kjn

    From my understanding, the huge disparities in revenue come from the individual TV deals that teams cut. I don’t see how you get rid of that. For a cap to work, you’d have to take tens of millions of dollars out of the Yankees’ pockets to subsidize the payrolls of the A’s, Pirates, etc. Frankly, I don’t see that happening. The required payrolls would bankrupt those teams and the rich teams would not want to pick up the tabs.

    I’m sure on paper you could create a system, but putting something together that pleases the rich teams, poor teams, and players union? Impossible, in my opinion.

    On top of all that, I don’t think any owner, rich or poor, is really that upset with the current system. The players seem pretty happy with it too. Even the fans, outside of some particular markets, seem to be okay with the system. There just isn’t any desire (and need, really) to mess with the system.

  • kjn

     When it comes to supporting the Indians, what I remember is the second to final home series in ’05 against the Devil Rays. Sure, it was week day games, but the attendance per game was about 24K. If a fan base doesn’t sell out those games…. well, I question how solid that support really is.

  • Roosevelt

    The reason why attendance doesn’t go up is because we have a two year window to compete, and that is not enough time to build up momentum for attendance. You need to be good for a little while to draw big crowds. 

  • Anonymous

    you cannot institute a salary cap and floor without first greatly expanding the current revenue sharing.  i agree that the big market teams (and there are more of those than people sometimes realize) would be very resistant and that a salary cap is likely not feasible anytime soon.

  • kjn

    I agree that most people look at it this way.

    “You need to be good for a little while to draw big crowds.”

    Unless you’re the Browns.

  • Anonymous

    that is sort of the point though.  Cleveland is not a baseball town.  if we were, then we wouldn’t need to build the momentum towards attendance that much. 

    it is what it is.

  • Anonymous

    Yes it is.  It’s a synonym for “auspices”, at least in the dictionaries/thesauri I use.  Look at definition #3: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aegis

    Boom goes the dictionary!

  • Steve

     So when the Indians are, say, in first place or close, they would theoretically do well in attendance, right? Except that is far from what has happened.

  • Foghorn Leghorn

    I think when everyone knows the team will be blown up in a year or two, and we have a proven track record of not keeping our star players (exception Hafner and that worked out sweet), you suffer from fan disinterest and thus lack of attendance.  Its obviously a difficult situation.  I dont blame the Dolans exclusively either.  Its a two-way street with the fans.  The thing about the 90′s run was obviously the winning and lack of Browns, but I think it was just as important that over a 5-6 year period you could count on about 10 players you knew being back every season.  The average fan couldnt name half our infield or more than 2 OFs, and 3 pitchers right now.  A star signing, or more importantly, resigning stars would go a long ways.  You cant look at the Hafner situation and be afraid to pull the trigger again.

  • Steve

     You can count on just as many guys (10+) being back over the recent run as you could during the 90s run. That fans remember the 90s lineups and not today’s is just a sign that this town is fairweather when it comes to baseball.

    And go ahead and describe how in MLB’s market, the Indians are signing a star, considering guys like Beltran and Pena turn down this city even when more money is offered.

  • Anonymous

    we also kept Westbrook and Sizemore.  miraculously all 3 spent seasons on the DL. doh!

    anyways, we lost Lofton, Belle, Ramirez, Thome, Murray, Matt Williams, Alomar, and plenty of others over the years then too.   the difference was 1. we had a more powerful lineup (and weaker pitching)  so more fans knew the hitters.    2. we replaced those guys with bigger names people knew (like Roberto and JuanGone, etc).   it helped that we were a top5 revenue team because the local TV deals had everybody under $90mil/season payrolls.  

  • saggy

    Let’s go Yankees!!

  • saggy

    Let’s go Yankees!!

  • Eric G

    Exactly what I was thinking. Great article

  • Anonymous

    Fluke was a bad choice of words because I was elluding to what you talked about in both Florida and Arizona being bad for so long in order to try and be good.  When they finally get good, like you said, they better win because it won’t be long before the big money teams come along and disembowel the roster.

  • Jack

    That’s not what ‘auspices’ means either…

    Usually, auspices. patronage; support; sponsorship: underthe auspices of the Department of Education.2.Often, auspices. a favorable sign or propitiouscircumstance.3.a divination or prognostication, originally from observing birds.Competitive balance is not a person or organization and cannot be a patron or sponsor the acts of Bud…aegis/auspices does not merely mean “in the name of” or “under the pretense of”…ae·gis/ˈējis/
    Noun:The protection, backing, or support of a particular person or organization: “negotiations were conducted under the aegis of the UN”.(in classical art and mythology) An attribute of Zeus and Athena usually represented as a goatskin shield.