In an effort to avoid yet another major labor dispute in professional sports, Major League Baseball has reportedly already agreed upon a new collective bargaining agreement between owners and players that should be announced by Tuesday.
Unlike the NFL and NBA, the greatest rumored changes involved in the new projected agreement have little to do with revenue sharing due to the lack of a salary cap in the MLB, but rather deal with competitive balance and playoff expansion.
Specifically, the Houston Astros will move from the National League Central to the American League West, evening the respective leagues at 15 teams for the start of the 2013 season. As a result,interleague play between the American and National leagues will occur all season, rather than just a select portion of the year.
Likewise, two more playoff teams will be added — one more wild card team for each league — giving the AL and NL five postseason representatives each. In this scenario, it is likely that the two wild card teams would play in a one-game playoff to determine who would play the league’s top team in the divisional series. Due to this change, wild card winners could play teams from their division in the first round of the playoffs, which is currently prohibited.
Other changes to the CBA include blood testing for human growth hormone, or HGH, as well as tweaks to the draft and international free agency.
But returning to the changes involved with competitive balance, are they good for the league?
On the face of it, evening out the two leagues is the most fair to give all teams an equal shot at reaching the postseason. AL clubs have always had it easier, battling two fewer teams than teams in the NL. Although the wild card teams from each league generally arrive at the same number of victories, the four teams in the AL West had an easier time than the six in the NL Central in winning their respected divisions.
A result to leveling out the divisions, however, is the necessity to have interleague play last throughout the whole season. Although many people are and have been opposed to it, I actually welcomeinterleague play as a chance to see teams I ordinarily wouldn’t see. It’s much more exciting as a fan of the Red Sox to watch a game against the Braves, for instance, than yet another against the Orioles.
Regardless, the timing of the games is all that’s going to change. Just because interleague play will last the entire season does not mean teams will play fewer games against their rivals; rather theinterleague schedule will be stretched out with at least a pair of teams from each league playing a series at all times. Ultimately, therefore, the shift to two 15-team leagues shouldn’t be a concern for fans, and is best for the competitive balance of the league.
Adding two wild card teams, on the other hand, will be interesting, and although I’m in favor of expansion, I’m not sure the proposed five-team-per-league plan will work.
Given the way baseball is naturally structured, it’s hard to logistically determine a proper increase in playoff teams. Unlike football, where bye weeks are welcomed with open arms, baseball is a very streaky sport. Thus, time off can actually be detrimental, and an expansion to six teams per league (with the top two teams having “bye series”) wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense.
I like that the five-team idea gives an additional team a shot at glory, but I believe a one-game playoff between the two wild card teams is misguided, especially if one team proved to be better than the other throughout the course of the 162 game season. It makes more sense to stick with the four-team per league system than the proposed expansion, but I would ultimately like to see a three-game series between the two wild card teams to determine who faces the league’s best.
In the end, the proposed changes are good for the league: Not only will more teams have a shot to make the playoffs, but interest will be extended later in the year as fans will have that much more hope that their team could potentially play in the Fall Classic.
