Punishing the lame

A month off, a tantalizing promise of boring posts about education and finance, and the first post back is about baseball? Such are the tortures of knowing me, sorry. Did you know you can block people's Facebook updates? You can block people's Facebook updates.

Fangraphs had a post about baseball adopting Premier League-style relegation, in which bad teams drop down to a minor league and fresh good minor league teams are promoted into the top league every so often. The way it's presented is patently ridiculous and would never happen for multiple reasons, the biggest one being that Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball are already symbiotically tied. There's already a relegation system; it's just built around individual players moving up and down instead of entire teams. 

But I like the concept of punishing eternally lame ownership groups who don't even (seemingly) try to compete. I also am warming to the idea of fluid division structures, so that baseball doesn't suffer from logjams like the current AL East, in which New York and Boston literally own the division and serfs like Tampa Bay, Toronto and Baltimore have to beg for table scraps. (The salary disparity is reminiscent of the Cold War, and the non-Yankees/Red Sox teams are like Greece, Poland, and Somalia. Like, the have an army, but the UN doesn't worry about it.)

With serious talk of increasing the number of playoff teams already underway, and the possible realignment that could entail, I think it's time to explore breaking down the strict AL/NL divide and adopt a five division structures, six teams each.

There would be an NL East, NL West, AL East, and an AL West. These four divisions and 24 teams would compete as normal, with the division winners and second-place teams entering the playoffs. Then there would be a Relegation Division composed of the six worst teams from the previous year. This Division would still compete in the major leagues against the other 4 divisions’ franchises, but would not have the opportunity to go to the playoffs or pursue a World Series championship.

The mechanics of this are fun to ponder. Do you try to maintain geographic sanity with the “West” and “East” divisions? How do you apportion relegation so that it doesn’t unduly punish sort-of bad teams in really tough divisions, or reward really terrible teams in mediocre divisions?

I'd say the "winner" of the relegation division sets a benchmark win total. Any team in the main divisions that wins less has to swap places with a former member of its division. In years where all the Relegation Division teams play below the standard of the major division, everything remains the same.

Let's imagine that this scenario was put in place in 2010. Obviously the unbalanced schedule creates an impediment to understanding the real ramifications, but it's still fun to show it playing out. Here were the final 2009 standings:

The Cleveland and Kansas City "tie" in the AL Central cellar points out one decision to be made. Should there be a one-game playoff to determine who avoids relegation, or should it be based on a tiebreaker of some sort (like the previous year's record)? In this case, however, since the Relegation Division needs to be "seeded" with six whole teams, they both get flushed. Here's how 2010 would have begun:

In this scenario, the Mets escape relegation by virtue of their 89 wins in 2008 (versus Arizona's 82). Now, I would imagine a new, balanced schedule from here on out, but let's do the ridiculous and assume the exact same 2010 schedule with the exact same results. Here's how 2010 would have looked:

Playoffs:

Texas @ Tampa Bay

New York Yankees @ Minnesota

Cincinnati @ Philadelphia

Atlanta @ San Francisco

These are all 7 game series, with NL matchups determined by in-season records (division winners get to square off against the team they had more success against). Yes, I just shrunk the playoff pool. I've seen proponents of a non-lockout version of relegation, where the "big" big leagues get automatic slots and the top relegation teams have a play-in for the remaining spot, but I couldn't figure out how to do that without a three-tier system and a complete abolishment of the AL and NL. While divisions have always been fluid through expansion and realignment, I don't see any reason to just jettison the ancient league split completely. After all, there's that pesky DH rule.

Look at that Relegation Division. That's why they don't get a playoff spot. The benchmark total is 69 wins, which means only Seattle is in danger of slipping. They swap with the best AL team, and the divisions are realigned, if necessary, for geography.

Now, for the 2011 alignment:

Teams that I imagine would swap divisions somewhat frequently are the two Chicagos, Milwaukee, Houston, St. Louis, Texas, Minnesota, Kansas City, and Cincinnati. Some of this would be on the Commissioner's desk, which is cool because it introduces an element of controversy and surprise at the start of every season. As long as the schedule is balanced, there's little practical point to divisions anyway, aside from the "ease" or "difficulty" of winning one for home field advantage in the playoffs. 

If you really love tables, here's how this alternate universe would have worked throughout the Wild Card era, if it had been put in place during the 1994 strike based on 1993 season results.

1995

Playoffs:

New York Yankees @ Cleveland

Boston @ Seattle

Los Angeles Dodgers @ Atlanta

Cincinnati @ Chicago Cubs

Notes: Pre-1998 expansion, the Relegation Division is seeded simply with the worst teams from '93's divisions. In the shortened '95 season, the nascent Relegation sets a high bar and creates heavy turnover. WS: Atlanta vs Cleveland still possible.

1996

Playoffs:

Baltimore @ Cleveland

New York Yankees @ Texas

Los Angeles Dodgers @ Atlanta

San Diego @ St. Louis

Notes: I'm just guessing the Cardinals would win the one-game playoff for the NL East crown because the Expos were destined to be cursed. Minnesota sets another high bar, but only high enough to capture three division losers, so the Giants are the first team to spend consecutive years out of the running. WS: Yankees vs. Atlanta still possible.

1997

Playoffs:

Cleveland @ Baltimore

New York Yankees @ Seattle

New York Mets @ Atlanta

Los Angeles Dodgers @ Florida

Notes: This would be a controversial year for the new system, with the Giants rebounding and then some. In fact, if it weren't for a preserved realignment quirk that kept Atlanta in the NL West, the entire Relegation Division would have outperformed a supposedly superior group. Let's say Selig stands firm for another season, convinced that relegation "rehabilitates" franchises like the rebranded Angels, and provides a good springboard for the forthcoming expansion teams. This is also the first year there's a tie at the bottom to resolve. Selig makes the executive decision to keep Philly down, realign Atlanta, and let the Padres and Reds remain up by virtue of their superior performance to Philly. He also keeps Toronto up, pushing KC and Oakland down and realigning Milwaukee west, which is much less drastic than its real-world league switch. WS: Florida vs. Cleveland still possible.

1998

Playoffs:

Cleveland @ Texas

Boston @ New York Yankees

San Francisco @ Atlanta

San Diego @ Houston

Notes: While people in Kansas City still mutter about "Selig's Revenge" since they got screwed by the rule-breaking precedent that a team could be relegation-eligible without outright losing a division, this is seen as a year of validation for the system. (From here on out, the win totals are absolutely specious, since Milwaukee is pretending to stay in the AL, so let's just engage in speculative fiction in the notes section.) Florida gets the punishment many believe it richly deserves for tanking its World Championship team. Selig codifies a team-by-team threshhold that keeps lesser franchises from rising up at the expense of mediocre ones. While the Cubs technically made all four losers eligible by the old rules, the new rule accommodates a six-team Relegation Division better, by not locking down the bottom two teams, unlikely as it might be that they outperform a main division team. Cincinnati escapes its fate two years running. No team has yet to get "stuck" in relegation more than two straight seasons. WS: Yankees vs Padres still possible.

1999

Playoffs:

Boston @ Texas

Cleveland @ New York Yankees

Cincinnati @ Atlanta

New York Mets @ Houston

Notes: Controversy returns as the Diamondbacks shock the system with 100 wins. Similar debates to the college football bowl controversy: does 100 wins in a weak division mean as much as 90-something wins in a tough one? Selig declares a formal end to the "threshhold" concept and announces he will consider expanding playoffs for the 2001 season to include eight wild cards, the best non-champion records across all five divisions squaring off to see who has the privilege of taking on the division champs. However, this would remove the main "punishment" of relegation, so he explores the concept of withholding revenue sharing from relegated teams. In any case, the system stands for 2000. WS: Braves vs Yankees still possible.

2000

Playoffs:

Seattle @ Cleveland

Oakland @ Chicago White Sox

New York Mets @ Atlanta

St. Louis @ San Francisco

Notes: Selig announces no changes to the playoff format or the relegation system, deciding instead to unbalance the schedule in the direction of more division play. This decision is widely seen as a cowardly attempt to cloak future Diamondback-type successes in an argument of schedule strength. WS: The Yankees don't get in! History is skewed. I believe the White Sox end their curse five years sooner, and beat the Mets in 6.

2001

Playoffs:

Cleveland @ Seattle

Oakland @ New York Yankees

Atlanta @ St. Louis

San Francisco @ Arizona

Notes: If Selig was hoping his unbalanced schedule to smooth out controversy, he was hugely mistaken. In an extremely lopsided year, the Mariner's set an all-time record for wins and the Relegation Division produces the most solid performance. Selig announces that 2002 will incorporate expanded playoffs as outlined back in 1999, with the caveat that only the Relegation Division champion will be eligible for the Wild Card round. For the first time ever, five teams are relegated, with only Tampa Bay remaining in the basement. WS: Arizona vs Yankees still possible.

2002

Playoffs:

1. Houston @ St. Louis

2. Los Angeles Dodgers @ San Francisco

3. Seattle @ Anaheim

4. Boston @ Minnesota

Boston/Minnesota @ New York Yankees

Seattle/Anaheim @ Oakland

Dodgers/Giants @ Atlanta

Houston/St. Louis @ Arizona

Notes: The timing of the new playoff system is perfect. The top relegation team doesn't qualify, and 93-win Seattle still gets a chance to compete thanks to the expansion. Relegation is less volatile but well-deserved for the three teams that get it. Tampa Bay is the first franchise to be relegated three years running, and has indeed only enjoyed one season of its existence in the AL East. WS: Angels vs Giants still possible.

2003

Playoffs:

1. Philadelphia @ Florida

2. Chicago Cubs @ Houston

3. Toronto @ Boston

4. Minnesota @ Seattle

Minnesota/Seattle @ New York Yankees

Toronto/Boston @ Oakland

Cubs/Houston @ Atlanta

Philadelphia/Florida @ San Francisco

Notes: A complicated tie-breaking process eliminates the White Sox while, across town, the Cubs become the first relegated team to enter the playoffs. The drama of the championship drought overshadows the controversy about the point of relegation realignment, at least until the Braves sweep the Cubs in the division series. Only two teams move up and down in a near-repeat of '02. WS: Florida vs Yankees still possible.

2004

Playoffs:

1. Chicago Cubs @ Atlanta

2. San Francisco @ Houston

3. Texas @ Boston

4. Oakland @ Minnesota

Minnesota/Oakland @ New York Yankees

Texas/Boston @ Anaheim

Cubs/Atlanta @ St. Louis

San Francisco/Houston @ Los Angeles Dodgers

Notes: The tenth year of this is... stupid. Seriously, I've done a lot of things in my life that are a complete waste of time, and this tops the list. Or at least gets into an arbitrary grouping of the top eight to vie for the chance to compete in a divisional series for the biggest waste of time ever. Thanks for reading this. WS: Yeah, okay, Boston vs St. Louis still possible.