In my opinion, if the realignment plan doesn't change the playoff teams then it hasn't served it's purpose because increasing fairness doesn't really matter to much if the Orioles go from 4th in the AL East to 3rd in the AL Central. Either way they don't make the playoffs so the end result is the same. So I will list each division winner and Wild Card winner as if the divisions were actually divided the way Schoenfield suggested from 2001-2009. I will then compare who would have been the Division/Wild Card winner under his alignment and who was the Division/Wild Card winner in actuality each year from 2001-2009. I will do this for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 alignment suggested by David Schoenfield.
I will have the new Division/Wild Card winner listed with the actual Division/Wild Card winner in parenthesis. Yes, I do realize that because the divisions will change the team's record would also change due to playing different teams in each division, but I don't know of an easy way to account for that, so I am using the historical data based on the standings for each year. I will also note any changes and how they make the game more "fair."
Here is David Schoenfield's 2010 alignment first:
2010 ALIGNMENT
AL East | Yankees | Red Sox | Indians | Tigers | |
| AL Central | Blue Jays | Rays | Orioles | Twins | Royals |
| AL West | Angels | A's | Mariners | Rangers | White Sox |
Let's start off with the 2001 results.
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Seattle (Seattle)
Wild Card winner: Oakland (Oakland)
The 91 win Cleveland Indians would be stuck in the AL East and the 85 win Twins would win the AL Central instead. This isn't really fair.
Now for the 2002 results.
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Now for the 2003 results.
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
Now for the 2004 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
On to the 2005 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Chicago)
AL West winner: Chicago (Anaheim)
AL Wild Card winner: Anaheim/Boston (Boston)- They have the same record and I won't go through the tie-breaker situations to determine who would win.
The playoffs would end essentially being the same with the changes made by realignment, it's just either Anaheim or Boston would get the Wild Card and one team would be eliminated while the Twins would get to make the playoffs. This is more "fair" according to David Schoenfield even though the Twins have 12 less victories than the Boston Red Sox and 93 win Cleveland would again (like they were in real life) be shut out of the playoffs.
The 2006 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
AL Wild Card winner: Detroit (Detroit)
The 2007 results:
AL East winner: Cleveland/Boston (Boston)
AL Central winner: Detroit (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston/Cleveland (New York)
The 88 win Detroit Tigers would win the AL Central division while the 96 win Cleveland or Boston team would have to settle for the Wild Card. On the plus side, New York would be eliminated completely from the playoffs. I would say there is no change in fairness given this trade-off, if the purpose is to make sure the Yankees don't make the playoffs and someone would consider it "fair" a team with 94 wins doesn't make the playoffs over an 88 win team.
The 2008 results:
AL East winner: Boston (Tampa Bay)
AL Central winner: Tampa Bay (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: New York (Boston)
Instead of Tampa Bay winning the AL East they would win the AL Central and the 89 win Chicago White Sox would be eliminated from the playoffs for the Yankees. This happens because the White Sox didn't have 89 wins until they won the one-game playoff with the Minnesota Twins. This is not fair because the Yankees would make the playoffs under the new alignment when they normally would not.
The 2009 results
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
Now for Schoenfield's 2011 alignment:
2011 ALIGNMENT
AL East | Yankees | Red Sox | Tigers | Royals | White Sox |
| AL Central | Blue Jays | Orioles | Indians | Rays | |
| AL West | Angels | A's | Mariners | Rangers | Twins |
2001 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Cleveland (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Seattle (Seattle)
Wild Card winner: Oakland (Oakland)
2002 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Toronto (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
A 78 win Toronto team would win the AL Central while teams that have won 93, 81, and 93 games miss the playoffs entirely. This is obviously not fair, no matter whether the team that benefits is from Canada or not.
2003 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Toronto (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
Again, an 86 win Toronto team would win the AL Central while a 90 win Twins team and 93 win Seattle Mariners team misses the playoffs entirely. This is not fair. Under this 2011 alignment Toronto all of a sudden becomes a powerhouse team don't they? I wonder if David Schoenfield is from Canada?
(Bengoodfella doing research)
There is no biography available for David Schoenfield. For lack of better knowledge, let's just assume he is Canadian and is trying to sell the world on this realignment in order to get the Toronto Blue Jays more division titles because he is Canadian and has been forced to do this by the Canadian Olympic Committee as part of the new "Own the World Series" initiative. We'll just assume this.
2004 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Cleveland (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim/Minnesota (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
An 80 win Cleveland team would win the AL Central while either a 92 win Anaheim or Minnesota team misses the playoffs entirely. This is not fair.
2005 results:
AL East winner: Chicago (New York)
AL Central winner: Cleveland (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: New York (Boston)
If the purpose was to kick Boston out of the playoffs for Cleveland, then this is considered fair.
2006 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Toronto (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Minnesota (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Detroit (Detroit)
So we kick out a small market team, Oakland, for Toronto. I don't think this would be considered incredibly fair...especially since Oakland won 93 games in 2006. This would fit Schoenfield's unspoken Canadian "Own the World Series" initiative though.
2007 results:
AL East winner: Boston (Boston)
AL Central winner: Cleveland (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: New York (New York)
2008 results:
AL East winner: Boston (Tampa Bay)
AL Central winner: Tampa Bay (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: New York (Boston)
Again, Chicago would miss the playoffs and the Yankees would make the playoffs. This is actually fair since the Yankees had more wins than the White Sox, but not what David Schoenfield really wanted since the "evil" Yankees made the playoffs in his new alignment when they didn't originally make the playoffs.
2009 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Tampa Bay (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
AL Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
One small market team, Minnesota, would be kicked out of the playoffs for another small market team, Tampa Bay. I am not sure this is an improvement.
Now for his 2012 alignment:
2012 ALIGNMENT
AL East | Yankees | Red Sox | Indians | Orioles | Rays |
| AL Central | White Sox | Twins | Blue Jays | Rangers | Tigers |
| AL West | Angels | A's | Mariners | Royals |
2001 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Seattle (Seattle)
Wild Card winner: Oakland (Oakland)
The 91 win Indians would be left out of the playoffs while the 85 win Twins would win the AL Central. This is not fair.
2002 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
2003 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
2004 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
2005 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Chicago (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
2006 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Minnesota (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Oakland (Oakland)
Wild Card winner: Detroit (Detroit)
2007 results:
AL East winner: Boston/Cleveland (Boston)
AL Central winner: Detroit (Cleveland)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston/Cleveland (New York)
One large market team with 94 wins, the Yankees, would not make the playoffs in this case and an 88 win team, the Detroit Tigers, would make the playoffs instead. This is more "fair" according to David Schoenfield, so it serves his purposes of the realignment.
2008 results:
AL East winner: Tampa Bay (Tampa Bay)
AL Central winner: Chicago (Chicago)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
2009 results:
AL East winner: New York (New York)
AL Central winner: Texas (Minnesota)
AL West winner: Anaheim (Anaheim)
Wild Card winner: Boston (Boston)
The impact of this change is negligible other than it doesn't allow a smaller market team, Minnesota, into the playoffs in favor of the Texas Rangers. The Rangers had 1 more win than the Twins did during the regular season so this could be seen as fair.
I have seen a couple times when the Twins have been knocked out and the Blue Jays have been put in the playoffs under David Schoenfield's "realignment every year" idea. Maybe because Minnesota is close to Canada there is a natural rivalry I don't know about this, but I think Schoenfield is finding ways to kick the Twins out of the playoffs and have the Blue Jays make the playoffs to further Canada's objectives. I am actually starting to believe this is true, sadly.
Basically what we have learned with David Schoenfield's 2010, 2011, and 2012 realignment of the American League is that his realignment really wouldn't change the order of the division winners that much and when it did change the order of the division winners, it seemed to do so for the worse. There are two occasions when teams with losing records would make the playoffs and multiple occasions when teams that have won 90+ games don't make the playoffs. Sure, this is part of baseball, but why change the divisions every single year if it isn't going to add some value to the divisional races? We can keep the division format how it is now and not change it every year and have teams get screwed out of the playoffs...we don't need to change the divisions every year if it won't somewhat fix this.
We could stick with the divisional format we have now, and not change it up every year, and I think MLB is going to be just fine. Trying to mess with the system to make it more "fair" will only cause there to be as many, if not more, inequities. Plus, many teams won't be able to have divisional rivalries because the divisions change up every year. I personally like divisional rivalries and consider this a big reason to not change up the divisions every single year.
Out of the possible 36 Wild Card and Division winners from 2001-2009, the 2010 alignment changes 8 of the Division/Wild Card winners and possibly 2 more Wild Card/Division winners depending on tie breakers. Of those 10 teams, 2 times the Division/Wild Card being replaced would make the playoffs anyway and 2 times it is up in the air due to tie breakers.
Out of the possible 36 Wild Card and Division winners from 2001-2009, the 2011 alignment changes 11 of the Wild Card/Division winners and possibly 1 more Wild Card/Division winner depending on tie breakers. Of those 12 teams, 3 times the Division/Wild Card winner being replaced would make the playoffs anyway and 1 time it is up in air the due to tie breakers.
Out of the possible 36 Wild Card and Division winners from 2001-2009, the 2012 alignment changes 4 of the Wild Card/Division winners and possibly 1 more Wild Card/Division winner depending on tie breakers. Of those 5 teams, 2 times the Division/Wild Card winner being replaced would make the playoffs anyway.
So basically what I am saying is not only will David Schoenfield's "realignment every year" idea not make the division races more fair, is not more logical based on geographic location, nor will it have a positive effect on baseball overall...it also most likely won't significantly change which teams make the playoffs from year-to-year. I not only don't like the idea, but I don't think it is will help Major League Baseball with the perceived competitive problem it has.
That is the end of my two day attack on David Schoenfield's "realignment every year" idea.
11 comments:
This idea is obviously very silly but I think you'd have to look at how certain teams did vs. certain other teams in their division. Like, since they introduced the unbalanced schedule, Baltimore has been COMPLETELY owned by both Boston and the Yankees. Put them in the AL Central, where they only have to face the Yankees and Red Sox ten times a year at most, not eighteen, and... I'm not saying they'd win the division. But they'd do better.
Orrrrr just recognize that the unbalanced schedule is kind of ridiculous and annoying (especially, as a Yankee fan, with the hysterical hype over Yankees/Red Sox games) and change it back. I would like this a lot more.
The point that seems to elude a lot of people is that the post-season is meant to be exclusive. Whether it's the BCS, the NCAA basketball tournaments, or any of the pro sports, there is almost always going to be a team (or two or three) that feels like it got unfairly left out. From AFC teams complaining about the Colts sitting their starters to NBA Western Conference teams with winning records missing the playoffs while losing teams in the East making it, to bubble teams and BCS #3s bitching in the NCAA, shit happens. And rotating division opponents on a yearly basis is one of the more retarded ways of 'fixing' the problem, if it even really is a problem.
I would like to look at how certain teams did against other teams in their division. I didn't choose to look at it that way, but just base it on old records. Baltimore would probably do better if they didn't have to face the Red Sox and Yankees 18 times a year.
I think MLB likes the unbalanced schedule and it probably won't change back any time soon, but you are right that would be a decent move. That hysterical hype is why it won't change any time soon.
Casey, you are right. I don't like it when my team is the one excluded but the point of the postseason is that someone gets left out every time.
I don't think rotating division opponents would even fix this problem, like you said, if it is a problem. Honestly, I don't know if it is a problem. It's weird that Schoenfield seemed to indicated the same thing in his ESPN Insider article but then he writes an entire column to fix the non-existent problem. Rotating division opponents is just stupid and I don't think it fixes anything.
The postseason is meant to be exclusive, and I don't really have a problem with this. But the problem is, and I don't know if it's like this in other sports, you pretty much know... like... four of the eight playoff teams before the season ever starts. Barring injuries or players performing at terrible levels beyond anything they've ever done, you'll generally be right.
That is a pretty fair criticism but I think you could say in some other sports as well you know half the teams that will be in the playoffs as well. I know that is the case for the NBA. You can name probably 10 of the 16 teams that make it before the season.
The NFL is a little bit different though, I will admit that. Unfortunately, that's the case in some sports and baseball is one of those sports.
I think the difference there says more about season length than anything else. One fluke game won or lost is a much, much bigger deal in the NFL than in MLB or in the NBA. With the long seasons, the Yankees or the Lakers can absorb a few losses to non-playoff teams better than, say, the Colts or Patriots. I'm not certain that the rosters in the NFL show more parity than MLB or NBA rosters do; just that the shorter season and the lose-once-and-go-home playoffs magnify the importance of single games.
Here is another very bad realignment article.
Specifically, it needs to blow up the AL East, which threatens to disintegrate into the Yankees, Red Sox and three baseball versions of the Washington Generals.
Uhhhhh except the Rays just won that division in 2008. And they're gonna be good this year. Also, how would this be HELPING competitiveness in baseball? The Yankees and Red Sox would run away with every other division.
Also, if I understand, this proposal would lead to the Yankees being in a division with the Orioles (they'll be decent in a few years, though), Nationals, Mets, and Jays. Uhhh, as a Yankee fan, I will happily take that.
What gets me is that both of these articles are basically only concerned with the AL East, which may or may not have a 'problem'. An actual issue is one divsion having 6 teams, one having 4, and the rest having 5.
Casey, that could be a good point. If the Yankees get swept by the Orioles they have more time to recover from that then the Colts if they get swept by the Jags. In baseball, I think the better teams tend to rise to the top because of this.
It's all about fixing the AL East apparently. I see the problem sort of like you do. There are 4 teams in one division and 6 in another.
I have come to the conclusion I don't like any realignment ideas at this point. They are a long term solution to fix a short term problem that the Yankees and Red Sox are good. Nobody was saying the NL East or West needed to be realigned when the Braves won that streak of division titles. That idea presented there weakens the East. I don't get it. The Rays won the East in 2008, so it is not like the Yankees and BoSox have completely dominated.
The Rays won the East in 2008, so it is not like the Yankees and BoSox have completely dominated.
AL East winners by year:
1993 Toronto
1994 x (was NYY before the strike)
1995 Boston (WC: NYY)
1996 NYY (WC: Baltimore)
1997 Baltimore (WC: NYY)
1998 NYY (WC: Boston)
1999 NYY (WC: Boston)
2000 NYY (WC: Seattle)
2001 NYY (WC: Oakland)
2002 NYY (WC: Anaheim)
2003 NYY (WC: Boston)
2004 NYY (WC: Boston)
2005 NYY (WC: Boston)
2006 NYY (WC: Detroit)
2007 Boston (WC: NYY)
2008 Tampa Bay (WC: Boston)
2009 NYY (WC: Boston)
I can absolutely understand people that feel the Yankees and Boston dominate that division. Tampa Bay got very lucky in 2008 that they happened to have a very healthy year from almost everyone on their team AND the Yankees were affected by a lot of injuries.
That said, things can change very quickly. In the 1990s, Cleveland was the class of the AL Central. In 2007, they were one game away from the World Series.
I have come to the conclusion I don't like any realignment ideas at this point. They are a long term solution to fix a short term problem that the Yankees and Red Sox are good.
Bingo. I don't know if it's necessarily "short term" because both these teams have been really good for a good while now (the Yankees since 1994 or so, and Boston from 1995-1999, with a down couple of years, only to emerge stronger in 2002-today), but eventually, they will not be as good as they are today.
Nice data. Tampa Bay may have gotten a little lucky but I think even if they don't win the division they will at least compete in the AL East.
Regardless of whether it is short term or not, I think teams need to learn to try and play against the other teams in their division. It sounds harsh, but changing the divisions around doesn't seem to be the solution to me.
Post a Comment