The State of Baseball Address: A Fan's Take

Our national pastime, baseball, is doing fairly well considering the current state of our national economy. I don't have any attendance figures currently to give an accurate account, but as I watch games, there doesn't seem to be as many fans going to the ballparks over the last 10 years. I could be wrong, but it's just my observation. But this article isn't to serve as a business overview, but how the game is progressing and changes that should be, need to be, and have to be made to bring the fan a better product. I would first like to start with baseball's realignment.

Everyone is calling for a shift in the landscape of baseball. The leagues aren't balanced, and the divisions aren't balanced. It's breeding lesser teams making the playoffs in terms of records, with the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals being a prime example. Here's our problem though: making each league with 15 teams creates one hell of a headache. An odd number of teams per league forces there to be one of two problems that must be addressed everyday from April to October: either there will always be an interleague series happening throughout the entire season, or an odd number of teams must go through a stretch of a few days without games.

If this were to happen, constant interleague play would be the favorable idea. This would, however, take away from the glory that is interleague play as we know it. You figure, each team will play 54 series a year. That leaves us with 54 opportunities for at least one interleague series to happen at all times. There needs to be balance in how many happen, so there will be a few weeks multiple interleague series will take place. Each team needs to play an even amount of interleague games, so we need a multiple of 15, and conveniently, 60 is nearby, creating 4 interleague series per team. Currently, each American League team plays 8 and National League teams play 7 interleague series per year, but they are done at set times every year. To do this though, one team has to go to the American League, and the two best options are Colorado and Milwaukee.

Milwaukee's case:

Milwaukee was the last team to switch leagues back in 1998 with the last expansion. The other choice that year was Kansas City. I wish Kansas City made the move because the ultimate regional division would have been created with Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Minnesota, and Milwaukee in the AL Central. If they were to move back, this division will finally come to fruition, and Kansas City would be bumped over to the AL West. That move would give Texas a non-west coast divisional rival and save on some of their traveling wear and tear.

Colorado's case:

Could you imagine what kind of scores we will see if Coors Field became an American League park? That field will become the home of the designated hitter, and we'll see double-digit totals by one or both teams on a near nightly basis. Last time I checked, chicks dug the long ball. Colorado would become the casual fan's team because it is offense that draws the casual fan to any sport. They would be a more natural fit to the AL West, but that would leave Houston as the candidate to take their place in the NL West, which won't be easy on them, but it is the same problem Texas has now, and we all made fine with that.

I would take Milwaukee. As I admitted with my hockey realignment article, I am a traditionalist, and this would be the traditional move to make. Plus, as I stated in making Milwaukee's case, a better sense of regionalism with the divisions will be born.

Option 2 would be extended time off. Pretty much whenever there would be an interleague series in my last scenario, there would instead be a team or teams not playing. This would mean instead of 4 interleague series a year, there will instead be 4 series or 12 games with the average series being 3 games of rest. The schedule will be only 150 games, which isn't much less, and looks more like the 154 game schedules prior to 1961. I'm sure the players and staff wouldn't mind a few extended breaks to spend with family and to rest injuries during professional sports' most mentally exhausting season. It may even decrease the number of people that back out of the All-Star Game so they can just relax since they'll have their opportunities throughout the season.

If the choice was mine, and I wish it was, I would vote for neither. My issues with constant interleague play is it takes away from what we already have, and that is a chunk of schedule that we build up excitement for when everyone is knee-deep in interleague play, and the buzz is everywhere. On the other side, the scheduling for "bye series" can be a nightmare, with trying to balance everything out, and figure out a way to make interleague work when teams that could be playing aren't for the sake of balancing the schedule. I say leave the American League alone, and find a way to make a 4 division National League, and give the leagues the independence they once had to conduct how they should be run. Sure, Atlanta-Colorado-Florida-Houston is an ugly looking division, but the 4 division setup would do away with the wild-card in the NL and let those teams go all-or-nothing as they fight for their divisional titles. I will admit, the wild-card is a thing of beauty, but something had to go to make this work, and I had to make the executive decision. I'm pretty sure I'm alone on this view, but that's what this is, an opinion piece. In reality, if a change is going to happen, the constant interleague play would make the most sense.

The second, and far easier, issue I would like to address is instant replay. For those unaware, there is instant replay, but it is reserved for disputed call concerning a ball along the border of play, such as if a home run either cleared the fence or not, or if a home run was fair or foul. It's a start, but there could be more. I believe that every manager should be given the right to challenge at the start of every game. That right may be exercised on any out-safe call during the game. If the call is reversed, then the team that challenged the call shall retain their right to challenge, and if the call stands, they lose their ability to challenge for the remainder of the game. Challenging balls and strikes will be too much of a hassle, so that will remain as is, and the border disputes shall remain an independent review from what a manager can challenge because those calls need to be correct no matter what. But this should help integrate the usefulness of technology while not taking too much away from the human element of baseball. It also makes the managers have to manage their challenges, especially on bang-bang plays, where they could very well be wrong with their challenge, so they must debate whether the timing is right to challenge. Unlike football though, if extra innings are necessary, the challenges won't be reset, so if a team lost the right to challenge earlier, then they still don't have the right to challenge.

There is something I would like to bring forth. We all know now about the Pittsburgh-Atlanta game back on July 26^th, and the clearly blown call made at home that decided a game. For the sake of integrity, if the other umpires feel that the wrong call was made on a play, they can call time on their own and confront the umpire who made the call and can overturn it after meeting with him. There is no need to address a replay, because this is reserved to overturn an obvious blown call like that one. This can only happen if two of the other three umpires call time after the play if they feel the wrong call was made. This should allow the umpires to hold themselves accountable for their calls.

It seems that steroid use is coming under control now. You hear less about players at the major league level using it, and those caught in the minors are being dealt with. Now that there is some control over it, I think it's time to up the punishment. I believe that for every offense a player has, they receive that many years of a suspension. For example, with Manny Ramirez's second pending infraction, if he were to stay in baseball, that offense would have cost him 2 years from the time he is found guilty. I would do away with the lifetime ban because come the third offense, which is a total of 6 years out of baseball, it is probably the end of your career anyway. To protect teams, if any player is found guilty of doping, then the team, at their option, may suspend his pay during the time of the suspension, and granted the ability to release any multiple offender from their contract without the need to provide any compensation to that player. On top of that, the guilty player should be subject to random testing during his suspension. If found guilty during a suspension, that player should be banned for life since it is apparent he isn't getting the message. Seems harsh, I know, but it gets the point across.

That is my State of Baseball Address. I covered the major concerns of baseball at this present time, and hope somebody with the initials of B.S. (for good reason), for God's sake, listens to them.