8 comments Baseball Doesn't Need To Expand the Playoffs

David Schoenfield thinks the MLB playoffs need to be expanded to create more excitement. I disagree. I think the MLB playoffs are exciting right now as they are and attempting to create false excitement in the playoffs by adding more teams. More chances for teams to make the playoffs would not create more excitement, but would only serve to make the playoffs longer and less exciting. Let's face it, many Americans don't have a long attention span and baseball already isn't the most popular sport in America, so creating a longer playoff system may not work to the advantage of baseball. David Schoenfield disagrees.

"I would say we're moving to expanding the playoffs, but there's a myriad of details to work out," Selig said Thursday. "Ten is a fair number."

Why not have 12 teams? Isn't it fair to give the two best teams in the American League and National League a week or so off so they can rest? The NFL does it and it works so successfully for them. I think twelve teams is a fair number.

I was not, nor am I currently against the Wild Card system. I really like the Wild Cary system because I did think MLB needed to expand the playoffs at some point. Right now I think the playoffs are exciting and the teams that have performed well all season are rewarded with a spot in the playoffs. Expanding the playoffs would only cause the postseason to drag along or would eliminate a team who had a great season-long body of work in a one game playoff, which isn't something I would like to see happen in baseball.

The details include the possible scenarios and issues for a new system:

Would the two wild-card teams play each other? A one-game playoff is the popular suggestion.

I'm not sure I could despise this suggestion more than I currently do. Why is it necessary for 162 games to be played and then need ONE MORE game to decide which of two Wild Card teams, when the two teams may not even have similar records, deserve an opportunity to advance into the next round of the playoffs? What is decided in one game that 162 games didn't decide in terms of which team was superior to the other?

Would it be fair to have a 95-win wild card play an 84-win wild card in a one-game elimination?

We're not about what's fair, we are all about excitement, right? Fuck fairness. What's exciting for the fans? The fans have no interest in seeing a team that wins 95 games in the regular season being rewarded for this, they want to see one game played where a team is decided as deserving of advancing based on that one game, not based on an entire body of work.

I do realize one of my favorite sports, college basketball, has a setup similar to a one game playoff in order to determine which teams in mid-major conferences may make the NCAA Tournament. It is called the conference tournament. There are two major differences in the college basketball system and the idea proposed here.

1. If Butler goes 25-7 during the season and loses in their conference tournament, they will still make the NCAA Tournament. They will lose the one game playoff, but still be rewarded for their body of work. This wouldn't happen in MLB. A team could win 95 games then not advance into the divisional round because they lost a one game playoff.

2. Baseball is a different team game from basketball. Say Schoenfield's example holds true and a team with 84 wins is matched up against a team with 95 wins on a one game playoffs. For example, Team A may be better overall than Team B and have proven it over the season with 95 wins, while Team B had 84 wins. Team B may have the best pitcher in baseball, while Team A may have 2-3 really good pitchers. In a one game playoff, simply because Team B's pitcher throws a complete game shutout and Team B wins does not mean Team A is a worse team than Team B. It means Team A's best pitcher is better than Team B's best pitcher, so I feel a one game playoff isn't the best way to determine which team is better. In a three or five game playoff series, Team A could very well win the series.

A one game playoff after a 162 game season not only isn't fair to teams that play well throughout the season, it doesn't make sense in the concept of baseball being a team game.

Should the two wild-card teams play a best-of-three series? But that means four off days for the other playoff teams.

Absolutely. If the playoffs are expanded, and I don't think they should be, the two wild-card teams should play a best-of-three series at the very minimum. In fact, this three game series (and please hold your anger at this crazy suggestion) should be played in a span of three or four days. Yes, that means there wouldn't be a break between every game played and there may only be one day for travel. Shocking and crazy I know. It's not like baseball teams don't do this during the regular season.

Should the best overall record get a "bye" while the other four teams play each other? But again, that means a bunch of off days.

No. This shouldn't happen.

Aside from the logistics, there are three important issues to be answered:

If I am not wrong, David Schoenfield is Bill Simmons' editor. If you can't tell, notice how Schoenfield creates questions about issues that need to be answered for the second Wild Card plan to work. He does the whole thing Bill Simmons tends to do where he thinks of a solution or an answer to an issue, creates the questions that need to be answered to fix this issue, shockingly his solution (mostly in this case) answers the questions that needed to be answered, and then tells us all how is his solution or conclusion is the best because it answers the questions he created. Well mostly Bill Simmons tends to do this, but David Schoenfield sort of does it here.

Of course to his credit, Schoenfield does a much better job of posing the questions that should be answered than Simmons sometimes does. In fact, I would say the questions he poses aren't terrible so I am just being overly-critical, which at this point is a knee-jerk reaction for me.

1. The sanctity and excitement of the regular season must be maintained.

The regular season in baseball matters. You have to play well over 162 games to make the playoffs. You don't want an NBA scenario, in which teams can coast and the only interesting playoff battles are for an eighth seed that is going to lose in the playoffs anyway.

By the way, Schoenfield wrote this back in late April before the Grizzlies as an 8th seed beat the Spurs in the first round of the playoffs. I'm not sure if the Grizzlies beating the Spurs invalidates this statement by Schoenfield or not. I don't think so. Most of the time an 8th seed does lose in the playoffs.

If the regular season is cheapened, you risk losing fans.

Which is why a one game playoff between the two Wild Card teams is a terribly, horrible, stupid-rific idea. I would say a one game playoff between two teams that (most likely) don't have similar records to see which team moves ahead into the next round of the playoffs is the very definition of cheapening the regular season. If I were a fan of a team that won 89 games and they had to play a 83 game winning team in a one game playoff I would be pissed off. Even if my team won the one game playoff I would be pissed it was a one game playoff. Over an entire season my team has proven to be better than the other team by six games, I don't see what a one game playoff would prove that 162 games did not prove.

2. The playoffs must remain important enough for fans to care.

World Series and playoff TV ratings haven't fared well in the past decade. Do you risk losing more viewers by adding playoff games or making a championship seem less relevant due to the randomness of the baseball playoffs?

I do think you do risk losing viewers by adding more playoff games. I think rather than enhance the MLB playoffs you just keep some fans longer because their team is in a one or three game playoff. It has already been theorized many, many times the slower pace of the game of the baseball doesn't work well with the public that has increasingly become ADD-afflicted with the "don't bore us, get to the chorus" approach to life and sports. I'm not immune from this myself. I think a one game playoff isn't fair or representative to what a team has done over a 162 game season and more playoff games will cause fans to lose focus prior to a World Series that has slowly crept into the month of November. I may be in the minority, but the World Series (when my team isn't in the World Series) is sort of anti-climatic for me. Not sure why I feel this way.

I don't think a championship will seem less relevant, specifically if a team is able to win a Wild-Card series (or have a record good enough to avoid the Wild-Card game), a Division Championship series, a League Championship series and a World Series. I don't think the cure for baseball's (supposed) ills is to make the season any longer though.

3. A new system should be fair to the players and teams.

I hope the commissioner's office factors this in.

I am sure this will be factored in, but what is "fair?" Is it fair to even allow one Wild-Card team in the playoffs when that team couldn't win their division? Is it fair to not allow three teams into the playoffs out of a strong division in the current format? Is it fair to have only two Wild-Card teams when the sixth best team in a league may have only lost 1-2 games less than the fifth-best team?

Before we answer those questions, here's a look back at the past five seasons. We'll list the actual wild-card team first (with wins in parentheses) followed by the team that would have been the second wild card and then the next-best record after that. Let's assume the one-game wild-card scenario.

I wish we could just assume this one game wild-card scenario will never exist.

2010
American League: Yankees (95) versus Red Sox (89). Next best: White Sox (88).
National League: Braves (91) versus Padres (90). Next best: Cardinals (86).

What we gain: Red Sox-White Sox wild-card race.
What we lose: NL West race between Giants and Padres becomes irrelevant.

So essentially 2010 would have been a trade-off in that we would lose the excitement of a division race, but gain the excitement of a wild-card race. I think we can all thank God there wasn't a Yankees v. Red Sox one game playoff last year. I'm getting a headache thinking about the coverage of that event.

This Red Sox v. Yankees games shows my very problem with the idea of having two Wild Card teams. The Yankees were a better overall team than the Red Sox last year (and yes, I know the Red Sox had injuries), so I don't see why the Yankees would have to play a one game playoff for the privilege of moving on to the next round. They won 95 games and had a better record in the same division as the Red Sox, what does one more game show?

The one game playoff format works well in the NFL because there are only 16 games, but in MLB I don't see it working as well. As it stands currently in MLB, there is a one game playoff in the event two teams end up with the exact same record in their division. I think that's fair to have a one game playoff in that instance.

2009
American League: Red Sox (95) versus Rangers (87). Next best: Tigers (86).
National League: Rockies (92) versus Giants (88). Next best: Marlins (87).

What we gain: Giants-Marlins-Braves (86) three-team wild-card race.
What we lose: Nothing. Twins-Tigers AL Central tiebreaker would have still existed.

So it seems this would work out...except for the small detail a 95 win (and a 92 win team) team again has to play themselves into the playoffs. Such a small detail, I know...

2008
American League: Red Sox (95) versus Yankees (89). Next best: Twins (88).
National League: Brewers (90) versus Mets (87). Next best: Astros (86).

What we gain: White Sox-Twins division race becomes a 3-for-2 playoff race with Yankees.
What we lose: Phillies-Mets NL East race (and Mets' collapse).

I'm a broken record, I realize this. 95 wins for the Red Sox and they have to play themselves into the playoffs against the Yankees.

In all, these playoffs would break even because the Mets-Phillies division race would be less dramatic and the AL playoff race would add one more team.

2007
American League: Yankees (94) versus Tigers/Mariners (88).
National League: Rockies (90) versus Padres (89). Next best: Mets (88).

What we gain: Yankees-Red Sox battle for AL East now becomes relevant; Tigers-Mariners wild-card race.
What we lose: Rockies-Padres one-game playoff that the Rockies won.

94 wins in a one game playoff against a team with a win total in the upper 80's again for the American League. Maybe I am the only one who has a problem with a team that has a mid-90's win total having to play one more game to play an entire series in the playoffs.

Otherwise in 2007, we would only lose that unmemorable Rockies-Padres one-game playoff with a two Wild Card format. Does anyone even remember this game? I am sure it was completely unexciting.

2006
American League: Tigers (95) versus White Sox (90). Next best: Angels (89).
National League: Dodgers (88) versus Phillies (85). Next best: Astros (82).

What we gain: Padres (88) and Dodgers both made playoffs, but would be fighting for a more important division title now. Same with Twins (96) and Tigers. White Sox-Angels-Blue Jays (87) wild-card race.
What we lose: Nothing.

Notice how many wins the Tigers have. 95. At least the White Sox had 90 wins as well, I guess. I wouldn't dislike this format so much if I didn't just know a one game playoff would be the setup between the two Wild-Card teams. I know MLB would make it a one game playoff. I wish they would make it a 3 game playoff at the minimum please.

We don't really gain anything by the Padres, Dodgers, Twins and Tigers fighting for a division title. Either way, they are in the playoffs. They are just fighting to avoid the shitty one game playoff format.

Back to our questions

1. The sanctity and excitement of the regular season must be maintained.

I am going to ruin the surprise. Most of the questions created by David Schoenfield are answered to the satisfaction of David Schoenfield.

I have to admit: I don't think you lose anything here. Yes, in some seasons -- like last year's NL West race -- you'll lose the excitement of a pennant race because both teams will be assured playoff berths.

I have to say, I don't think a one game playoff between two teams keeps the sanctity of the regular season when the two teams do not have the same record.

On the other hand, the one-game playoff scenario places a bigger reward on winning the division, so in theory you create exciting division races.

It does create a bigger reward for winning the division, but I don't know if this makes the division races more exciting. It would make them possibly mean more to avoid a one game playoff and win the division. The one game playoff to see which team gets the privilege of moving on to the division championship games seems to ignore regular season records in some ways.

Except ... imagine this scenario. The Rays and Yankees are tied for the division lead entering the final day of the season. David Price and CC Sabathia are both rested. Do you start them in hopes of winning the division title? If you win the division title, you move on to the best-of-five division series. But if you lose that game and the division title, you have one game to advance in the playoffs ... and you've burned your best pitcher.

Now imagine this scenario. The Yankees and Rays are still matched up. The Rays decide to go with David Price and try to win the division title. He pitches 8 innings of shutout ball, as does CC Sabathia, and in the bottom of the 9th Kyle Farnsworth gives up a home run to Robinson Cano and the Yankees win the game. Now the 94-win Rays play one day later at home against the 88-win Tigers in a one game playoff. The Tigers have Justin Verlander going on full rest while the Rays counter with James Shields. The Tigers win the one game playoff and the Rays go home for the winter.

So, as a baseball fan and a Rays fan, you know life isn't fair. Shit happens, but because the Rays are in the division with the Yankees they did not win the AL East outright. Let's say if they had played in any other division the Rays would not have had to play in the AL Wild Card game playoff, but their regular season record doesn't matter because of the division they play in.

So in the situation above, I don't think the Rays would ever pitch David Price against the Yankees, because they want to have him available in case they lose the game against the Yankees. There's no motivation for them to pitch Price in this game. If they lose the game, they still have Price in the one game playoff and if they win, they have Price pitching in Game 1 of the divisional round. So the exciting Sabathia v. Price game may never happen due to the Rays knowing they should hold Price back for the one game Wild Card playoff.

Sure, this whole "win or game home" format could happen today in a one game playoff between division rivals using the current playoff format, but at least those two teams have the same record.

Is it fair to play 161 games and then put teams in that scenario? One thing I know: Managers would vote 30 to zero against having a one-game wild-card playoff.

Who cares what the managers want? This is about excitement isn't it?

MLB officials would argue that allowing two more playoff teams creates additional September excitement because more teams have a shot at the playoffs.

I guess it would create more excitement by getting the fans of more teams involved over the short-term. Given MLB's short-term thinking ability, I guess they haven't factored in that by having four teams have one game playoffs to make it into the NLDS/ALDS, two of those teams and therefore the fan bases, will only have their excitement continue for one more game. So the September excitement would carry over for one more game and then it goes back to the playoff system as usual. I think the excitement factor is overrated on a long-term scale, meaning I don't think this format would increase viewership of the divisional/league championship round or the World Series.

2. The playoffs must remain important enough for fans to care.

I don't think one additional playoff game will really do anything to boost the TV ratings. You might get a little bump for that one game -- especially if it's the Red Sox or Yankees -- but adding two more playoff teams won't increase your World Series ratings.

So this idea of increasing fan interest in the playoffs (which should be the very idea of adding more teams to the playoffs, right? Why just increase the September excitement if it can't carry over into October?) really wouldn't pay off? Like I said above, after these one game playoffs are over, it is back to the playoffs as usual.

3. A new system should be fair to the players and teams.

This is the biggest issue I have with a one-game playoff: How can you ask players to grind it out for 162 games and then have their season come down to a one-game playoff?

My problem exactly with this idea.

So what to do? Look, the traditionalists who want only the best teams to make the playoffs so a championship means more are pining for a past that doesn't exist anymore.

Wild-card teams have won the World Series many times.

So, with all that, I have to say I like a second wild-card team even if I believe the overall impact is fairly minor, but this would be my scenario:

This is typical MLB thinking. They won't expand instant replay because they don't want to slow down an already slowed down game, but they are willing to make changes to the overall playoff structure even if it doesn't result in an increased interest in the playoffs, increased television ratings for the World Series, or even possibly an increase in the ratings of the Division and League Championship series'.

Let's change the things off-the-field that don't have a huge long-term impact, but not change the things on-the-field that could have a long-term impact like still using the All-Star Game to determine who gets homefield advantage (what is wrong with the team with the best record getting homefield advantage in the World Series?) using instant replay or forcing pitchers to not take half an hour between pitches.

1. Have the two wild-card teams play a three-game series. I think making the other teams have the extra days off isn't that major a factor compared to the one-game do-or-die scenario.

I 100% agree with David Schoenfield. I still don't like the idea of adding an extra wild-card team though. Maybe I just hate progress.

2. No off days in the playoffs, except for two days before the World Series. This gives an advantage to the deeper teams and keeps baseball from playing World Series games in mid-November.

What's interesting is that I started this post off hating the idea of a two team Wild Card and dissecting what David Schoenfield said about this, but I absolutely agree with this #2 point. I think there shouldn't be off days in the playoffs, even for travel. I think one of the problems with the playoffs is deep teams don't get as rewarded for their depth. Of course limiting the days off between games, would also be a benefit if more playoff games are added so the season isn't any longer than it already is.

3. And if the Florida Marlins sneak into the playoffs with 83 wins and go on to win another World Series ... well, there will always be next year.

I have no problem with a team sneaking in the playoffs and winning the World Series. If a team can win a five game series and then two seven game series' then they deserve to win the World Series. My problem is if the 83-win Marlins play a 91-win Dodgers team in a one game playoff and then the Marlins beat the Dodgers in that one game playoff. Even if this Marlins team wins the World Series, I would say they deserved it, but the Dodgers still got a raw deal. A one game playoff for a Wild Card team seemingly spits in the face of the regular season.

10 comments David Schoenfield Grades Every NBA Draft...I Grade His Grades

When I found the David Schoenfield article on realigning the divisions in MLB, I also found an archive of other articles he has written that I would have usually covered here. I don't like to go too far into the past to get material for posts here, but when I was doing a search for David Schoenfield to see if he was from Canada or not, I ran into this column where he grades every NBA Draft since the lottery began and lists how the Top 10 would look if done again today. Naturally, I have a few issues with how he re-grades the Top 10 and how he grades each draft year based on the players taken. This list doesn't include the 2009 draft since it is really too early to tell and the actual draft had not happened yet when Schoenfield originally wrote this article.

By the way, I love evaluating NBA Drafts. I used to re-draft entire NBA Drafts from Pick #1 to the end of the draft when I was young. I had very few friends obviously.

How did we get here? Contrary to the beliefs of conspiracy theorists, the lottery system was not created to steer Patrick Ewing to the Knicks, who had gone 24-58 in the 1984-85 season. In fact, the system was voted in after the 1983-84 season (in which the Knicks had won 47 games and reached the conference semifinals) in reaction to the perception that the Houston Rockets had tanked down the stretch.

Of course as NBA teams have evolved through the years they don't even care that there is a lottery and they may not get the #1, #2, or #3 pick if the team stinks...teams will still tank. At least if a team is going to tank, make sure it is for the purpose of getting a good player.

The Hawks missed the playoffs but didn't win the lottery. They drew the No. 5 pick and bypassed future All-Stars such as Karl Malone, Chris Mullin and Joe Dumars to draft the forgettable Jon Koncak (4.5 points per game in his career). The Clippers, predictably, didn't win the lottery either. Drafting third, they made a pick that would pretty much define the next two-plus decades of the franchise: Benoit Benjamin, a big man of immense talent, but best remembered for once trying to enter a game wearing two left shoes.

In Benoit Benjamin's defense he wasn't that terrible of a pick by the Clippers. Yes, there were terrible players but Benjamin played in the NBA until 2000 and he wasn't all that bad when he did play for the Clippers.

1985 DRAFT IN REVIEW

The first lottery proved to be one of the best, with three future members of the original Dream Team (Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullin, Karl Malone), quality All-Stars like Joe Dumars, championship role players like A.C. Green and Mario Elie, great durability (eight players with 1,000-plus career games) and the duo of Jon Koncak and Joe Kleine, the apparent inspiration for the movie "White Men Can't Jump." GRADE: A

This sets the bar for me on how David Schoenfield is grading these drafts. Three Hall of Fame players, one near-Hall of Fame player and several good role players give a draft an "A." Bad jokes are unfortunately also going to be present in this column.

How They'd Do It Now

6. Terry Porter, Wis.-Stevens Point (24th, Blazers)
7. A.C. Green, Oregon State (23rd, Lakers)
8. Charles Oakley
9. Xavier McDaniel
10. Wayman Tisdale

I realize he did not play on any NBA Title teams and his career was shorter compared to these other guys, but I think Wayman Tisdale should be higher up on the list if this draft was re-done. He should at least be ahead of A.C. Green. There was a time when he played in the NBA when Tisdale was a pretty good player, while A.C. Green was only a role player for pretty much his entire career.

1986 DRAFT IN REVIEW

Four of the top seven picks developed drug problems, the best player in the draft (Brad Daugherty) saw his career end at age 28 with back problems, and memorable flops like Kenny "Sky" Walker and Brad Sellers punctuated the list. The lone bright spot belonged to Cleveland, which picked three solid players in Daugherty, Ron Harper and Mark Price. GRADE: D-plus

A "D+" for this draft? It wasn't a great draft but it had 5 All-Stars and the flops were balanced out a little bit by the fact there was some great values in the 2nd round with Mark Price, Nate McMillan, Dennis Rodman, Kevin Duckworth, and Jeff Hornacek drafted there. Throw in the fact Drazen Petrovic was drafted in the 3rd round of this draft and it deserves better than a "D+." Yes, the lottery was absolutely terrible but the entire draft wasn't entirely terrible. This draft should have been a solid "C-" in my mind. Every draft has flops but there were key members to late 80's and early 90's playoff teams drafted in the 1986 draft.

How They'd Do It Now

4. Ron Harper
5. Mark Price, Georgia Tech (25th, Cavs)

Obviously we are valuing championships very highly if Harper is considered a better pick than Mark Price. What it doesn't explain is why David Schoenfield has John Salley behind Chuck Person. Price was a better player than Ron Harper, but yes, Harper was on more championship teams than Price. So if the criteria is "championships a player contributed to," then Harper should be above Price (I personally don't think that should be the criteria for a re-draft). Salley was on 4 NBA Championship teams so I think he either needs to move up past Person based on that or move off the Top 10 re-do list behind Petrovic or Johnny Dawkins.

Actually, no matter how the players are being evaluated, I think Mark Price should move ahead of Ron Harper.

1987 DRAFT IN REVIEW

David Schoenfield gives this draft an "A-." It's an almost mirror image of the 1985 draft in that there are 3 Hall of Fame players and 5 All-Stars who were drafted. I don't have a problem with the grade...but I do have a problem with his re-do list.

8. Derrick McKey
9. Armen Gilliam
10. Muggsy Bogues, Wake Forest (Bullets, 12th)

No Reggie Lewis? I realize the man died before he finished his career but if we are picking a list of where the players would be drafted if the draft was re-done, he would be above all 3 of these guys at least. These were good players, but Reggie Lewis had become a good second banana on a great playoff team. This opinion has nothing to do with the fact Reggie Lewis was my favorite Celtic...I don't think.

Which brings me to a quick story. I played a game of one-on-one with Reggie Lewis' 10 year old nephew when I was in college. Lewis' older nephew was being recruited by the school I attended and his young nephew wanted to play ball while his older brother went on the recruiting visit at the school, so he challenged me to a game of one-on-one. Here is how it went after I agreed to play him:

(Lewis' nephew) "Let's pick one player from the NBA we would pretend to be."

(Me) "Ok, I want to be Larry Bird or Reggie Lewis."

(Lewis' nephew) "I want to be Reggie Lewis."

(Me) "No, you can have whoever in the world you want, but those are the only two I want to be."

(Lewis' nephew) "He was my uncle."

(Me) "I don't believe that. Where did he go to high school?"

(Lewis' nephew) "Dunbar High School. He played with Muggsy Bogues. I am here because my brother is being recruited by your school."

(Me) "Oh."

He then proceeded to rattle off other information a 10 year old should not know about Reggie Lewis. Then I looked at his brother who looked enough like Reggie Lewis to make me believe this kid. Maybe he was scamming me but I still tell people that story (obviously) because I believe it. My point is that I would put Reggie Lewis REALLY high on the 1987 draft re-do list but I think he deserves to be in the Top 10 if the draft got re-done.

1989 DRAFT IN REVIEW

The first two picks flopped, but the Lakers pulled out one of the all-time draft gems: Vlade Divac with the 26th pick. After seven solid seasons with the Lakers, he was flipped for a high school kid named Kobe Bryant.

This really shouldn't have anything to do with whether Divac was a good pick or not. It is simple to play the "what-if" game with these players and say they are better picks based on who they eventually got traded for or something like that. This is also pretty stupid. I think Divac should be evaluated based on his own merits and not who he was eventually traded for.

GRADE: B-minus

No way. 8 of the top 10 picks were busts and there were some quality players but the 1st round is essentially just a list of busts. If the 1986 draft gets a "D+" then this draft is easily a "C-" based on the awfulness of some of these picks. Pervis Ellison, Danny Ferry, George McCloud, Randy White, and J.R. Reid being drafted in the lottery say this draft should be graded on the same tough scale the 1986 draft was. This was by all accounts a terrible draft and simply because Divac ended up getting traded to the Hornets for Bryant doesn't make it any better.

1991 DRAFT IN REVIEW

Only one player from this draft averaged 15 points per game in his career (Larry Johnson). Two of the best players -- Terrell Brandon and Steve Smith -- suffered injuries that hampered their careers. And Billy Owens sure looked like he had the total package. GRADE: C

How They'd Do It Now

1. Dikembe Mutombo
2. Steve Smith
3. Larry Johnson

I disagree. Larry Johnson would be chosen over Steve Smith if the draft was to be done over again. Sure he ended up being solely a three point shooter at the end of his career (due to back problems etc.), but early in his career he was one of the best players in the NBA. Come on, he was "Grandmama!"

9. Greg Anthony, UNLV (12th, Knicks)
10. Billy Owens

How about Darrell Armstrong in one of these spots...and not just because he was born in my hometown. He played in the league for 13 years and had a very quality span in the NBA from 1998 to 2004. Move Armstrong over Owens and Anthony.

1992 DRAFT IN REVIEW

The first two picks worked out. The rest of the draft? Not so much, although Christian Laettner was better than you realize, and Harold Miner had that awesome dunk contest. GRADE: B

I think this draft should get a B+. I know it feels like I am splitting hairs, but it's more of a B+ because this isn't as bad of a draft as you would all think. David Schoenfield ranks Jimmy Jackson as the #10 player if this draft was done over and that isn't too bad. When Jimmy Jackson is the 10th best player taken, that was a fairly quality draft.

I am pretty pumped about this draft and I honestly think it almost deserves an A-. I should probably calm down though, because it isn't that good of a draft and I know this subconsciously.

Worst pick: Harold Miner, Heat (12th).

I would have to go with Adam Keefe on this one. Atlanta passed up Latrell Sprewell, Robert Horry, Doug Christie, and P.J. Brown. At least Miner was a decent player but Adam Keefe was just useless.

1993 DRAFT IN REVIEW

How They'd Do It Now

This "how they'd do it now" is all jacked up.

3. Anfernee Hardaway
4. Vin Baker

In a seriousness, I would put Vin Baker over Anfernee Hardaway. Baker is a drunk and gained weight, but he was incredibly good for a while. Hardaway was a great player as well but I think Baker was better than Hardaway in each of their primes.

6. Bryon Russell, Long Beach St. (45th, Jazz)
7. Jamal Mashburn

Mashburn over Russell.

9. Shawn Bradley
10. Rodney Rogers

Two undrafted players, Bruce Bowen and David Wesley should be in the top 10 and I would possibly put one or both in place of Rodgers or Bradley. I like Shawn Bradley but he was a massive disappointment as the 2nd pick of the draft.

Worst pick: Calbert Cheaney, Bullets (6th).

Shawn Bradley is the winner here. Yes, Cheaney was a bad player but the 76ers passed up Hardaway and Mashburn as well as Houston, Sprewell, Cassell, and Van Exel, while the Bullets only passed up Houston, Sprewell, Cassell, and Van Exel.

1994 DRAFT IN REVIEW

This seems like a list of guys who put up OK numbers for bad teams (Glenn Robinson with the Bucks, Jalen Rose with the bad Bulls teams, Wesley Person with the pre-LeBron Cavs). Heck, Eric Piatkowski is seventh in this draft for career games played. GRADE: D-plus

Absolutely not. This is too low of a grade. This draft has one Hall of Fame player in Jason Kidd, one great player in Grant Hill, and regardless of whether these players put up good numbers on bad teams, it doesn't mean they are bad players. Jalen Rose was a key part of the Pacers playoff teams. Whether a player is high on a list for career games played or not doesn't necessarily indicate a player was good or not. I give this draft a "C-."

Worst pick: Sharone Wright, Sixers (6th).

No way. The Bucks had the chance to get Grant Hill or Jason Kidd and blew it, so I think any time a team takes a decent player but could have gotten a Hall of Fame player the original player was a bad pick. Sharone Wright is close to being the worst pick, I will admit that, but the Bucks could have changed their entire franchise with the choice of Jason Kidd and they didn't.

I think it is sad this draft was the one that ended up on "NBA Jam: Tournament Edition" because other than Grant Hill and Jason Kidd there wasn't too much to get excited about in regard to the rookies on that game.

1996 DRAFT IN REVIEW

Perhaps no team has pulled out more good players outside of the top-10 picks than the Lakers. In this draft, the Hornets drafted Kobe Bryant for L.A. with the 13th pick and traded him for Vlade Divac. The Lakers later added Arkansas Little-Rock guard Derek Fisher with the 24th pick. If you want to rank him ahead of Stephon Marbury, we won't argue. Oh, and a draft with four Hall of Famers rates a … GRADE: A

This draft was a definite "A+." I would almost call this the best lottery draft of all-time with the 1985 and 2003 draft being in contention as well for this title. Four Hall of Fame players and 11 All-Stars came from this draft.

How They'd Do It Now

Here is a list of players LEFT OUT of David Schoenfield's re-do of the 1996 NBA Draft.

Stephon Marbury, Derek Fisher and Kerry Kittles, Malik Rose. That's a pretty good draft, even if it feels a bit top-heavy.

Worst pick: Todd Fuller, Warriors (11th).

With all due respect to how bad Todd Fuller truly was, in a draft that had this many good players, I think the Clippers (go figure) pick of Lorenzen Wright #7 over Kobe Bryant, Peja, Nash, Jermaine O'Neal, Big Z, and Ben Wallace has to be the worst pick of the draft. It was the first pick that was a big miss and they passed over 2 Hall of Fame players.

This was a great draft.

1997 DRAFT IN REVIEW

This draft got a grade of "C" but it did also contain a man by the name of Marko Milic. He is not related to Darko Milic.

Other than that, this draft had big hits and some big misses. I would almost give this draft a "D." When Derek Anderson is the 6th best player in the draft...that can't be good.

How They'd Do It Now

10. Tony Battie

Battie over Austin Croshere or Anthony Parker? I don't know about this. Longevity aside, I may put one of those guys over Battie.

1998 DRAFT IN REVIEW

A draft with star talent at the top and excellent depth (17 players with career scoring averages in double digits). Of course, some of those double-digit scorers were one-dimensional gunners like Larry Hughes, Ricky Davis and Bonzi Wells. GRADE: B-plus

This draft has 2 Hall of Fame players and 6 All-Stars. I think the depth of this draft makes it better than a "B-." Though admittedly there isn't a bunch of great players there was a pretty deep field to choose from for teams and there were guys who ended up being head cases, like Hughes, Davis and Wells, but there were also guys who contributed to teams like Matt Harpring, Keon Clark, Rafer Alston, and Earl Boykins. I think it is a Grade "B" draft.

There are two ways to get a "B" draft for me. First, a draft where there are great players that come from the draft, or a top heavy draft, and the second way is for a draft to be deep with players that contribute in some fashion to a team while they are playing in the NBA. The draft may not quite have the talent base but a team choosing a player has a good chance of getting a contributor from the draft. I find the 1998 draft to be this way.

Except for Michael Olowokandi of course. He could never contribute because he sucked. What kind of center has a 43.5% career shooting percentage?

1999 DRAFT IN REVIEW

A draft deep with solid All-Star-caliber players. Meanwhile, the Knicks still await the debut of first-rounder Frederic Weis. GRADE: B

I actually agree with this grade of a "B." If this draft had a guy who could be considered a Hall of Fame-type guy then maybe I could bump up the grade a little bit. The draft does have a bunch of guys who are great contributors to teams and 9 All-Stars with guys who are almost All-Stars like Lamar Odom and Andre Miller (or were almost All-Stars at one time).

How They'd Do It Now

4. Andre Miller
7. Lamar Odom
8. Baron Davis
9. Andrei Kirilenko, Russia (24th, Jazz)
10. Ron Artest, St. John's (16th, Bulls)

Someone thinks very highly of Andre Miller. I like Andre Miller but I would almost draft him after all of these other guys. Miller is a good point guard but I don't know if he is any better than Baron Davis and I would probably take Lamar Odom over him as well.

Worst pick: Jonathan Bender, Pacers (5th).

I am going to defend this pick simply because injuries killed any shot he had of playing in the NBA. I would say the worst pick was Trajan Langdon. The Cavs passed over Maggette, Artest, Kirilenko, and Manu Ginobli. Langdon's only excuse for being bad in the NBA is that he went to Duke and was overvalued simply because of that. Bender at least had injuries to blame on his lack of production.

2000 DRAFT IN REVIEW

GRADE: F

There is no way I can argue with this grade. This was a terrible, terrible draft. Only three guys in this entire draft have ever made an All-Star team and the entire lottery is like a who's who of underachieving players and role players. Not surprisingly, the Clippers had 3 picks in this draft? Really why shouldn't they have three picks in the worst draft over the 25 years of the lottery? Yes, some of these guys are still in the NBA today, but that doesn't mean this wasn't a bad draft.

Worst pick: Marcus Fizer, Bulls (4th).

It's impossible to make a "worst pick" for this draft. Hell, I would almost go with Stromile Swift as the worst pick or any of the other picks behind him...but what were the other options for teams? There weren't any great players available.

2001 DRAFT IN REVIEW

The top 10 had more busts than an episode of "The Real Housewives of New Jersey," but there were some good finds later in the draft. GRADE: C-plus

I actually agree with this grade. I thought David Schoenfield would underrate this class a little bit, but I think he did a good job actually (look at me being complimentary). On some days you could have me give this class a "B-" but I am not feeling that generous today.

How They'd Do It Now

3. Richard Jefferson, Arizona (Nets)
4. Joe Johnson

No way. Those two guys should be switched. I feel fooled by Richard Jefferson. I thought he was going to be a big piece to the Spurs this year but he hasn't fit in at all. I feel like he has been a sort of fraud, playing 2nd/3rd banana on some teams making me think he was a little bit better player than he truly was. I would rank Joe Johnson over Jefferson if the draft was done over again.

7. Tyson Chandler
8. Jason Richardson
10. Troy Murphy, Notre Dame (14th, Warriors)

No Gerald Wallace or no Zach Randolph? As much as I love Chandler and Jason Richardson I think I would draft Wallace over both of them. Maybe, depending on who you are, Randolph should sneak in over Murphy. I am not that person but I see how an argument could be made.

2002 DRAFT IN REVIEW

The biggest this problem this class has faced has been staying healthy, from Jay Williams' career-ending motorcycle crash to Dajuan Wagner needing his colon removed to ailments suffered by Yao Ming (93 games missed), Amare Stoudemire (140), Mike Dunleavy (75) and Nene (204). GRADE: C

I have to say, this class feels a bit like a "B-" or a "C+" to me. I know you as the reader may think I am overrating these classes, but let me explain. While this class doesn't have Hall of Fame players that came out of it and only has 4 guys who have ever been voted onto an All-Star team, I think it makes up for it in guys later in the draft who contributed.

I bump this draft up a grade for the following guys who contribute to their teams in the NBA, weren't among the Top 10 players if the draft was re-done and were found in the 2nd round or were completely undrafted:

Roger Mason Jr.
Matt Barnes
Darius Songalia
Rasual Butler
Juan Carlos Navarro
Reggie Evans
Udonis Haslem
Devin Brown
Smush Parker

The last four of those guys weren't drafted at all. Many of those guys represent better value than a team would expect to get as undrafted free agents or in the 2nd round. I think that bumps this draft up a slight notch in conjunction with the fact it wasn't a bad first round draft either.

2003 DRAFT IN REVIEW

No denying the greatness of the top four, and the depth that includes guys like Mickael Pietrus, Boris Diaw and Kyle Korver, but it seems like it will fall a bit short of the immortal 1984 draft (Jordan, Olajuwon, Barkley, Stockton, Alvin Robertson, Kevin Willis, Otis Thorpe, Sam Perkins, Jerome Kersey and Michael Cage's Jheri curl). GRADE: A

I think I am going to go ahead and go there in comparing this to the 1984 Draft. I think the 2003 draft is better. I don't think it is better when comparing player to player, but I think overall in regard to depth and quality of the players drafted, the 2003 draft was better.

Plus, no players from the 2003 NBA Draft have been arrested for sex-trafficking.

The Top 15 players from the 1984 NBA Draft:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Charles Barkley
4. John Stockton
5. Alvin Robertson
6. Kevin Willis
7. Otis Thorpe
8. Sam Perkins
9. Jerome Kersey
10. Michael Cage
11. Sam Bowie
12. Rick Carlisle
13. Eddie Lee Wilkins
14. Vern Fleming
15. Jay Humphries

See the drop off there?

Now for the Top 15 players of the 2003 NBA Draft (Schoenfield's Top 10 plus 5 other players):

1. LeBron James
2. Dwayne Wade
3. Carmelo Anthony
4. Chris Bosh
5. David West
6. Josh Howard
7. Kirk Hinrich
8. Leandra Barbosa
9. Mo Williams
10. Chris Kaman
11. Mickael Pietrus
12. Boris Diaw
13. Kendrick Perkins
14. Kyle Korver
15. Jason Kapono

Sure there is a drop-off, but that's leaving off guys like Marquis Daniels, Nick Collison, and Luke Ridnour. I didn't leave that many guys off the 1984 team. I think depth-wise the 2003 NBA Draft will end up being better. You could almost fill in the entire 1st round with players who have contributed to their NBA teams. That's a pretty good draft.

2004 DRAFT IN REVIEW

The Magic took the right guy in high schooler Dwight Howard, Luke Jackson proved to be one of the all-time top-10 busts, and if Robert Swift ever develops this grade will go up. GRADE: B-minus

I feel like I am overrating these draft classes...but I think this class is a solid "B." The following players also came from this class that aren't in Schoenfield's "do-over" Top 10:

J.R. Smith, Andris Biedrins, Delonte West, Anderson Varejao, Trevor Ariza, and it wasn't like Josh Childress stunk before he went overseas to play.

Worst pick: Shaun Livingston, Clippers (4th).

I have a hard time criticizing a team for drafting a player who had 2 serious injuries that were essentially out of his control. Rafael Araujo contributed nearly nothing to the Raptors and they passed over Iguodala, Jefferson, Josh Smith and Jameer Nelson.

Worst pick: Fran Vazquez, Magic (11th).

I will agree this was a bad pick, but who did the Magic pass over? David Lee, Monta Ellis, or Danny Granger? Both Milwaukee and Atlanta passed over two franchise changing players in Deron Williams and Chris Paul for guys who aren't bad, are solid 4th/5th starters. I think it is worse to pass over a couple franchise changing players in this situation.

2007 DRAFT IN REVIEW

Ready for some idiocy? You better be.

How They'd Do It Now

1. Kevin Durant
2. Al Horford
3. Thaddeus Young, Georgia Tech (12th, Sixers)

I think this is a little high for Thaddeus Young in a re-do of the draft.

4. Greg Oden

Absolutely not. I don't like to count injuries against players but the fact is we know he has been injured all the time, which is the entire point of a re-draft, and we know there are other players who haven't been injured who have played well in the NBA. Schoenfield thinks Oden would go 4th in the draft? Ahead of the following guys?

5. Marc Gasol, Spain (48th, Lakers)
6. Jeff Green

Height and potential counts for something but I don't know if it counts for that much honestly to take Oden over Green and (Not Pau) Gasol.

Knowing what we know now, I would probably take the next two players over Oden also.

7. Spencer Hawes
8. Al Thornton

Oden is not terrible, but he has been injured all the time when he played and when re-doing the draft that has to count for something.

9. Mike Conley
10. Ramon Sessions, Nevada (56th, Bucks)

Not Rodney Stuckey, Aaron Brooks or Wilson Chandler over these two guys? I would personally think about replacing Brooks at least over these two guys.

Worst pick: Greg Oden, Blazers (1st).

What? So the guy who David Schoenfield would pick 4th if the 2007 NBA draft was re-done is also his choice for the worst pick of the 2007 NBA Draft? This doesn't make sense. He can't have it both ways. Either Oden was a bad pick or he wasn't a bad pick.

I know it is hard to predict the future but if Oden wasn't a bad pick then I would go with Acie Law for the worst pick. It was a bad pick because it was supposed to make up for not drafting Chris Paul a few years earlier. Which goes to prove the current Hawks team is good despite the front office's ability to judge talent. If Oden was a bad pick then he wouldn't go 4th if the draft was re-done.

2008 DRAFT IN REVIEW

Derrick Rose led a terrific rookie season for this class, with O.J. Mayo, Eric Gordon and Michael Beasley showing the potential to develop into big-time scorers. GRADE: B

I think this draft has the ability to be an "A-" draft when all is said and done. J.J. Hickson is currently developing fairly well in Cleveland, Mareese Speights needs to start staying healthy, and George Hill and Nicholas Batum are also becoming solid contributors to their teams.

Even Cole Aldrich's predecessor and probable NBA equivalent got drafted in the 2nd round. Maybe CSKA Moscow will sign Aldrich after he busts in the NBA and he and Kaun can be a fearsome frontline for a few years overseas with CSKA Moscow! I am kidding, of course, Cole Aldrich is going to be the greatest center of all-time in the NBA.

Worst pick: Hey, we're not ready to write off Danilo Gallinari just yet. Check back in a few years.

How about Joe Alexander? Go ahead and say he is the worst pick and write him off because he hasn't done anything in the NBA and the Bucks passed over talented players for him.

It's a bit too early to judge the 2009 draft class (and Schoenfield wrote this article before the draft)...but I will judge them anyway.

How They'd Do It Now (without paying to which team is actually drafting and the needs of that team)

1. Tyreke Evans
2. Stephon Curry
3. Blake Griffin
4. Ricky Rubio
5. Johnny Flynn
6. DeJuan Blair
7. Ty Lawson
8. Omri Casspi
9. James Harden
10. Darren Collison

Best pick: Tyreke Evans
Worst pick (of the last 10 years): Hasheem Thabeet

I would like to go through each draft since 1985 and find a way to rank each player to determine which draft since the lottery was started was actually the best. That sounds like fun, but it also sounds like it is pretty time consuming. This sounds like something a professional journalist (is there such thing?) should do.

At this point I would rank the top 3 drafts since 1985 as the 2003, 1985, and 1996 drafts.

11 comments Taking A Real Look At Schoenfield's Realignment

I did not have a chance yesterday to go through each baseball season since 2001 and determine how David Schoenfield's "genius" realignment plan would actually work out based on historical records of teams in each division. I thought I would do that today. Remember, the purpose of the realignment was to ensure more parity and give other teams in the American League (which is the league he focused on) a chance to win the division. He wants things to be fair, and as I explained yesterday, I am not sure how much more fair the divisions would be. So today, I am going to see how much more fair the divisions would have ended up being from the years 2001-2009 under David Schoenfield's 2010, 2011, and 2012 realignment plan.

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.

13 comments David Schoenfield Wants To Realign Major League Baseball

I feel a dark void in my soul today. It is because Gregg Easterbrook is not writing his TMQ anymore on Tuesday and I don't know what I am going to post on Wednesday. It's a dark void that only more bad sportswriting from ESPN.com will fix. Fortunately I have found some. David Schoenfield who have highlighted briefly in the past here when he gave the free agent signings of Scott Boras clients a rating using little Scott Boras heads. Ranking these signings, he proceeded to give Kevin Brown and Alex Rodriguez two "Scott Boras heads," which means he thinks both the Yankees and Dodgers got the same return on their investment when they signed A-Rod and Kevin Brown, respectively. I could not disagree more with this. So this is all I know of him before today's article.

Today, David Schoenfield wants to talk about realignment in baseball, which isn't in itself a bad idea. Unfortunately, he wants to realign just the American League, not a whole lot of the National League, and only certain teams in the American League.

Apparently he published this a few weeks ago and I just noticed it. Better late than never I guess. He calls it an "outside-the-box" recommendation to increase fairness and hope for more teams in baseball, even though I don't necessarily see it that way.

In this article, I explained why baseball's competitive balance is better than you realize, actually on par with the NFL's.

I am not an ESPN Insider because I am not going to pay to read online content from ESPN. If every sports site went to where you had to pay to read the online content, this blog would just be me talking about sports with no articles to link or anything. I will not pay for online content...at least not at this point.

The basic premise of the original article David Schoenfield had written (which I don't have access to) was that the Yankees, who play in the largest market in sports, won the World Series in 2009, while the Colts and Saints met in the Super Bowl and they both play in small markets. So naturally, David Schoenfield says everyone will assume there is no competitive balance in baseball compared to football. Then I am assuming he tries to disprove this theory in his column.
Based on the content of this article, I wonder if he was successful in proving both sports have good competitive balances?

Back to today's article...

This does not mean baseball is "fair" and it certainly seems most fans desire the sport to be more fair. And what makes baseball unfair, mostly, is the New York Yankees.

Well naturally. They dare to have their own network, an incredibly popular team, a ton of fans (bandwagon or otherwise) which buy their merchandise and then spend the money they make on baseball players. It's very unfair the Yankees have a deep revenue stream and then spend that money in an attempt to improve their team. Assholes.

As you probably know, the Yankees spend a lot of money and win a lot of games. They don't win it all every season, but they won it all last season, so now everybody is again hyper-concerned about fairness in baseball.

I actually agree with this comment. When the Marlins when the World Series again over the Anaheim Angels, everyone will be talking about how the competitive balance in baseball is great. The one time in the last decade the Yankees win the World Series, they have become evil again and are the reason baseball lacks competitive balance. As soon as they miss the playoffs again, the competitive balance will be restored in the eyes of many.

The lesson? It's fun to watch the Yankees spend money on Jaret Wright and suck, but when they start spending money intelligently on the best players available it's no fun anymore. I don't like it any more than the next person when the Yankees can spend money and go get the best free agents available. You think I like that Jason Heyward, Jair Jurrjens, and Tommy Hanson are probably all going to end up playing in New York? I do not like this, but it is the state of baseball today and I don't know how I feel about putting a cap on how much teams can spend on players.

Of course, leveling the playing field is a difficult task. How do you do it?

A salary cap.

Perhaps, allowing a team an exemption to where the team a player currently plays for can offer more money to him as a free agent than another team can. I have absolutely no idea how to do this though.

If you created a salary cap of $88 million -- the average MLB team payroll in 2009 -- several franchises would likely go bankrupt or possibly relocate.

I am not up-to-date on finances in MLB, and I don't want teams to have to go bankrupt, but if there are teams that are relying on revenue sharing and other streams of revenue for their team that would be affected by the salary cap, I honestly don't feel terrible for these teams. I am a jerk, but an organization has to put a team out on the field that is competitive and if that market can't support a team then perhaps the team should move elsewhere where they can make money. Maybe I am off point on this, but this isn't even really the issue here, but it is just how I feel.

the final eight playoff teams are not allowed to add any new players through free agency except to replace those they lose.

That's stupid. You are essentially penalizing a team for putting together a good team.

So, yes, it's a complicated situation without an easy (or realistic) solution. That's why I'm here. I have one.

Change the divisions. Each season.

Each season? I have to say this is a pretty dumb solution in my mind. There are certain advantages to having teams be in the same division year-after-year. Advantages like regional rivalries, rivalries that develop between teams in the same division every year, and it doesn't confuse everyone when a team changes divisions every year.

I hate this idea. Changing divisions may be a good idea, but not every year.

Why does baseball have to keep the same division format every year?

Because it make sense for the sake of continuity and developing rivalries among fans and perhaps even the players.

Why should Tampa Bay and Baltimore always have to beat out the Yankees and Red Sox while the AL Central teams duel each other to 87 wins?

I do agree it is not completely fair that the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Rays should have to try and beat out the Yankees and Red Sox every single year. But life is not fair and the Rays have proven the Yankees and Red Sox can be beaten for the division title and even in the playoffs. I don't think the situation is as dire as many want to believe it is.

As far as the AL Central teams dueling each other to 87 wins...that is exciting. I don't see how putting a team like the Rays in the AL Central will make baseball more exciting than the race to the end of the season, and even the one game playoff, the Tigers and Twins had last year. That was exciting. If you add the Rays to the AL Central, they are still the 3rd place team because they only won 84 games last year, so it's not like adding the Rays or any other team outside of Texas (they won 87 games) would have changed the result in the AL Central. Sure, hypothetically this would have changed if the divisions were realigned and every team played a different schedule, but no one can say for sure.

Realigning the divisions doesn't do a hell of a lot of good because whoever goes to the Red Sox or Yankees division will still be second fiddle and there is no guarantee the playoff races will be even more exciting than they currently are. This is assuming the Yankees and Red Sox will always be good of course, which is a fairly large assumption. It is also assuming the only rivalry in the American League that matters is the one between these two teams, which I naturally don't like.

Why should the Angels only have to beat out three teams instead of four in the AL West?

The record of the teams the Angels beat last year to win the AL West:

Texas: 87-75
Seattle: 85-77
Oakland: 75-87

Texas had the 5th best record in the American League last year and Seattle had the 6th best record in the American League last year. Though Anaheim "only" had to beat three other teams, they had to beat teams that were better top-to-bottom (in regard to record) than any other division in baseball.

So the plan is to realign the divisions after every season. For the American League, there would be three basic rules:

1. This premise is retarded.

2. Somehow make this premise more retarded.

3. In order to make the premise more retarded, propose the players dress like clowns when they are playing the field.

1. The Yankees and Red Sox always remain in the AL East. It makes sense and it's good for the game.

So the whole "it's not fair to have good teams being stuck behind the Red Sox and Yankees" thing just goes straight to hell when it comes down to it doesn't it? So rather than have the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Rays know they are in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox and design their team to compete accordingly, let's just make random teams each season be stuck behind these two teams.

I agree the Red Sox and Yankees should be in the same division...with 2-3 other teams that don't change every year.

2. Tampa, Toronto, Baltimore, Detroit and Cleveland can play only in the AL East or AL Central. All five cities are in the Eastern time zone and having them play in the West creates logistical and television issues.

So the Orioles and Blue Jays will only have a 50/50 chance every year of being in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox? What a brilliant idea that in the end really does nothing! There are 10 teams in the AL East and AL Central and 14 teams overall in the American League. David Schoenfield doesn't think 2 of the 14 teams should ever change division and 5 of these teams can only play in the AL East and AL Central. So basically this realignment would only serve the purpose of making sure Toronto, Baltimore and the Rays only get stuck in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees every other year on average, rather than every year.

If anyone can explain exactly how, regardless of Eastern time zone restrictions or whatever he is talking about here, Cleveland and Detroit can't be in the AL West but the White Sox and Twins can be considered more AL West-type teams then I would love to hear it. I don't care about time zones, Chicago and Minnesota really aren't that much further West than Detroit and Minnesota. They all seem more "Central" to me.

3. The Angels, Seattle and Oakland always remain in the AL West. This makes sense for logistical reasons, as well.

Wow, so out of the 14 teams, 5 of these teams can NEVER change division. Also, the AL West will only change by 1-2 teams every year. So it is not really American League realignment, but more of a 65% American League realignment that pays attention to certain rivalries (Boston-New York) and ignores other rivalries that aren't as cool or popular (Minnesota-Chicago) or (Tampa Bay-Boston/New York Yankees).

Any type of American League realignment that changes every year is dumb in my mind.

Now, how do we disperse the remaining teams? Simple. MLB holds a big telecast two days after the World Series ends.

Which no one will watch. Or if they do, they will be pissed their favorite team is changing divisions again. I bet the Rays fans of the world can't wait to start their collection of "Division Winner" jerseys that have AL Central written on them for one year and AL East for another year...because that makes sense and all.

We put all the team names in a big ball like during the NBA lottery selection show. Teams send their general manager and a star player and Hall of Famers like George Brett and Reggie Jackson draw out the team names.

But will there be clowns? I fucking hate clowns, so that's the only way I could think of me having less interest in this idea..and that's if clowns are present. If this lottery happened once a decade...maybe I could go for it, but every year is a bit of overkill. Plus, have I mentioned I think it is stupid to have the teams change divisions every year? There is no way to keep divisional continuity and rivalries alive. It sounds so bizarre to me to have some teams change divisions every year.

You wouldn't watch this?

Who are you? Bill Simmons?

You wouldn't love to see Dave Dombrowski throw up in his mouth when the Tigers draw the AL East?

No. I would like to see the Tigers play in the AL Central every single year and not move divisions. I guess I am just an asshole traditionalist.

You wouldn't get excited to see Andrew Friedman high-fiving Evan Longoria when the Rays draw the AL Central?

The Rays would have been 3rd in the AL Central last year, just like the Rays were 3rd in the AL East last year. I realize they had to play the two evil teams in the AL East repeatedly, but there is nothing that says the Rays would do any better in the AL Central. They may not get a chance to play the Orioles or Blue Jays multiple times per year and could instead get stuck playing two other good teams.

Each division would rotate as the four-team division once every three years.

Which under David Schoenfield's "The Red Sox and Yankees are better than anyone else" theory is completely fair to whatever team ends up in the 4 team AL East division.

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

This is David Schoenfield's 2010 alignment. Let's see how much more fair this would be if based on last year's standings:

AL East winner: Yankees
AL Central winner: Twins
AL West winner: Angels
Wild Card: Red Sox

Hey! That's exactly how the results were this past year. Sure, maybe other teams might move up from 4th to 3rd place, but if the entire purpose is to make MLB more competitively balanced it doesn't really matter if the playoff participants don't change does it?

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

Let's see how the playoffs would look with this 2011 alignment, based on last year's standings:

AL East winner: Yankees
AL Central winner: Rays
AL West winner: Angels
AL Wild Card winner: Red Sox

So instead of a 87 game winner in the AL Central, which David Schoenfield found boring, we have an 84 game winner in the AL Central with the 3 other teams being under .500. We also would have an 86 game winner in 3rd place in the AL East, an 87 game winner tied for 2nd place in the AL West and an 85 game winner in 3rd place in the AL West. None of these teams would be division winners, but instead the 84 win Rays team will be a division winner.

Wow! David Schoenfield really fixed this competitive problem in baseball!

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

Let's see the 2012 playoffs would shake out using last year's standings:

AL East winner: Yankees
AL Central winner: Rangers
AL West winner: Angels
Wild Card winner: Red Sox

Other than switching the 87 win Rangers for the 87 win Twins (they had 86 without the one game playoff), we have the same result as 2009 and 2010...except now the 86 win Detroit Tigers are 4th in their division while the Angels still only have to beat 3 other teams.

I would love to have the time to go back and figure out what each division race would look like if based on 2000-2008 standings as well, but I don't have the time to do that today. I may do that at another point if there is enough interest in seeing the results of this.

My point is the realignment won't really change that much and teams are still going to be screwed over by being in tough divisions or helped by being in easy divisions. It's just they are only in that situation for one year and then the divisions change again. So rather than knowing they are screwed and planning accordingly, they will have to rely on the luck-of-the-draw to know which division they are in. I think this is dumb.

Aren't things suddenly a lot more fair?

As I just showed, absolutely not.

Sure, the Yankees still have their big payroll advantage, but at least a team like the Orioles wouldn't be completely screwed by having to compete with New York every season.

It's just every other team that appears in the AL East would be screwed at that point. It's more like we are spreading the screwing around (insert Tiger Woods joke here) Major League Baseball, which apparently is more fair in the mind of David Schoenfield. This is of course assuming the Red Sox and Yankees will always be the best teams. This is a fairly large assumption.

This divisional realignment every year will also not allow other teams to develop rivalries with each other since they may not play each other every year. For example, the budding Tampa Bay/Boston rivalry (I feel like there is one) would be gone. I think this is a huge disadvantage in realigning AL teams every year.

Tampa Bay, with its plethora of young talent and low payroll, would suddenly be the favorite to win the AL Central in 2010 and 2011.

Yet statistically the only time Tampa Bay would have won the AL Central in their entire existence is 2008, which is the year they won the AL East from the "unbeatable" Red Sox and Yankees.

So regardless of the Rays future prospects, I don't think it makes sense to just automatically make them the favorites in the AL Central nor do I think it makes sense to move teams around so certain teams can thrive.

The AL West would have more competition with the White Sox or Twins joining the division.

Again, based on recent history, the Anaheim Angels would have won the division nearly every single year regardless of the infusion of competition with the Twins and White Sox joining the division.

The National League hasn't had the same disparity, primarily because the biggest spenders (the Mets, Cubs and Dodgers) haven't been as successful.

Let's ignore the fact the Phillies have made it to back-to-back World Series and they had the 5th highest payroll (higher than the Dodgers) in 2009. Let's also ignore the fact the 3 other highest payroll teams in the NL for 2009 have made the playoffs on a pretty consistent basis over the last couple of years. Out of the 12 slots available in the playoffs from 2007-2009, the Phillies, Mets, Cubs, and Dodgers have taken 7 of those slots. So more than half the time, the biggest spenders in the NL made the playoffs.

Obviously, this isn't as urgent of a problem as that in the American League in the mind of David Schoenfield...even though it may be. I feel like he just got lazy at the end of this article and just didn't feel like covering the National League, so he made an excuse for how realignment isn't a huge need in the National League.

But you could certainly do something similar; for example, the Cardinals move to the NL East for a season with the Marlins moving to the NL Central (where they become the favorite to win the division).

You could do this and it would be as idiotic as it being done in the American League.

No, this wouldn't solve all of baseball's problems. But it is a realistic solution to increasing fairness.

I don't think it is a realistic solution because it just replaces which teams are the ones that get "screwed over" from year-to-year by being in a tough division. This doesn't sound like a solution to me.

It provides more hope for more teams.

Actually, it doesn't really do this. It just jumbles the teams up from year-to-year and ensures there is no continuity within divisions, and divisional rivalries take a backseat to a sense of fairness that still won't exist.

Not to mention, I don't get why we would pay attention to why it is terrible for the Detroit Tigers to be in the AL West, but it is perfectly fine for the Rangers to be in the AL East or for the Orioles to be in the AL Central. It's a very disjointed idea in my opinion.

It's time for the sport to think outside the box.

I like how David Schoenfield wrote an entire article, that I can't read because you have to be an ESPN Insider, about how the competitive balance in MLB isn't a problem...then he writes an entire article about how to improve the competitive balance in baseball. So it's not a problem, except for when it is. I don't think changing the divisions in baseball every single year is the solution to the problem (?) of the competitive balance in baseball.