Since MLB’s intention to realign and contract the number of minor league affiliations was first revealed, criticism of the plan has reverberated throughout the game and even in the halls of Congress. The negative responses have accused MLB owners of being greedy and shortsighted and suggested that the rumored proposal would not only deprive fans of the game they love, but also exacerbate the cultural divide in the country. Do these reactions have merit, or has a hyperbolic narrative overwhelmed a sensible plan? Let’s consider the arguments.
The Impact of Realignment
First, some facts. While 25% of affiliates are slated for removal, this percentage is somewhat misleading, though useful if the intention is to portray a more dramatic upheaval. However, because most of the teams that would be disaffiliated play abbreviated schedules in front of small crowds, the impact on a per game and per fan basis is much more muted. That’s doesn’t justify contraction on its own, but does put the potential impact in a more proper perspective.
Affiliate Attendance by League: Remaining vs. Contracted Teams
There are currently 160 affiliated teams in 14 leagues covering six basic classifications. This excludes the independent Mexican League as well as team owned Rookie Leagues (Arizona, Gulf Coast and Dominican Summer), not to mention independent leagues that have no connection to MLB. That gives major league franchises as many as 300 players in their organization, which is well in excess of what’s required at the big league level. Obviously, many of these players are at various stages of development, and can be relied upon to supplement the major league club at some point in the future. But, even considering longer-term player development, the current minor league structure seems to be a bit of overkill.
Using 2010 as a proxy, 1,525 players were drafted, but only 248 eventually made it to the major leagues. Not surprisingly, the deeper you go in the draft, the smaller the percentage of players who played at least one big league game becomes. With only eight major league-bound players, on average, entering each organization in a given year, the need for 160 affiliates seems dubious. In many ways, a 40 round draft is almost as much about stocking an oversubscribed minor league system as finding future major leaguers.
Percentage of Players from 2010 Draft to Make the Majors
Instead of having a system designed to optimize player development, MLB has remained committed to a structure that prioritizes quantity over quality. That may have been an effective approach when teams had less scientific means for evaluating players, but with so many advanced tools at their disposal, MLB clubs are not only better equipped to identify more likely prospects, but there is greater incentive to expose those players to better technology, facilities, training and competition. Having fewer concurrently playing affiliates seems to be the optimal way to achieve that end
The Arguments Against the Plan
It’s hard to argue that MLB needs 160 affiliates. In fact, the most vocal critics of MLB’s realignment plan haven’t really approached the issue from the standpoint of player development. The thrust of their opposition has been twofold: (1) MLB can afford to maintain 160 affiliates, while making other improvements to the player development process and (2) MLB has an obligation to do so, not only because it is in the financial and social best interest of the communities that otherwise would be abandoned, but it is also in the long-term best interest of the game.
On the first point, the critics are correct. MLB can absolutely afford to maintain an inefficient minor league structure. Eliminating 40 affiliates should not be a pre-requisite for improving the conditions under which minor leaguers live and play. However, that alone is not a good reason to maintain the status quo. After all, not only does the current system have a financial cost, it has an opportunity cost. Any resource used to maintain an inefficient system is wasted because it could otherwise be put to better use. That’s true not only in terms of player development, but how MLB interacts with local communities around the country. And, that brings us to the second point.
As things currently stand, minor league affiliates enjoy great freedom to both change affiliation and relocate. According to MLB, nearly half of the 160 affiliates have picked up stakes in the last 30 years. Having that ability gives franchise owners great leverage when negotiating with localities. So, while it’s perfectly understandable to sympathize with small towns facing the prospect of losing their minor league team, the truth is that has long been the reality under the current system. There are plenty of examples of teams hopping around the country, abandoning communities that had previously welcomed them with open arms and open coffers. At the same time, this nomadic tendency has created sprawling leagues that require extensive travel. So, even for teams that have maintained roots in a community, the level of engagement must necessarily be compromised by the amount of time dedicated to logistics.
Travel in the Pioneer League
Another argument in opposition to the realignment plan centers around the impact that the lost exposure will have on the popularity of baseball in remote locations. According to fangraphs.com, 10 million people would fall outside 50 miles of an existing affiliate if the current proposal is enacted, and by shunning such a large number of people, MLB would effectively be stunting its growth. Although that concern is valid, the evidence supporting the argument falters under more careful scrutiny.
First off, although 10 million people isn’t an insignificant number, it still only represents approximately 3% of the U.S. population. Besides, under the existing system, the analysis calculates that over 50 million people are already outside the 50 mile zone. If anything, that’s a better argument for not maintaining the status quo. What’s more, the analysis does not account for many of the non-affiliated leagues that exist throughout the country, not to mention the hundreds of summer leagues and college teams that dot the landscape. As the map below (and linked here) shows, there are plenty of ways for remote and rural Americans to access the game of baseball, and many of the alternatives are on par with or even better than a short season Rookie league affiliate. Of course, there is also the Internet. With younger fans increasingly engaging with the game at a digital level, the paring back of affiliated outposts would seem less important, especially if more meaningful engagement was substituted. Toward that end, MLB could relax the television blackout restrictions in the remotest parts of the country. Although the current system of blackouts is often unfairly maligned, making exceptions for areas not served well by providers would seem to be a prudent way for MLB to compensate fans whose only connection to the game is through media.
The Baseball Landscape
The (Potential) Beneficiaries of the Plan
MLB owners are governed by self interest, so clearly, the realignment plan has a lot for them to like. Reducing costs that have little impact on major league operations is the most obvious advantage, but the true motive is a minor league system more efficiently designed to optimize player development. This would be accomplished by not only improving the logistical arrangement of affiliations, but also making it more practical to emphasize and integrate technology into the process. In other words, the plan would shift the purpose of the minor leagues away from subsidizing affiliates toward further emphasizing player development.
Players would share the same benefit of improved training techniques, but would likely also enjoy better travel, facilities and pay. Granted, there would be fewer affiliated jobs to go around, but those players would still have the option of exploring opportunities with independent leagues. In some ways, this might be more liberating for marginal prospects, who would go from organizational fodder to free agents. Under such a scenario, a true diamond in the rough wouldn’t find himself tied to an organization under the reserve requirements, but would instead get to negotiate with every team once his talent came to the fore. Finally, those players with no realistic chance of even playing in the high minors might be disabused of their dream more quickly, giving them more time to complete their education or build an alternative career.
Obviously, some of the 40 minor league franchise owners losing affiliation would suffer under the plan, but it seems likely that they would be compensated for their misfortune. Meanwhile, the remaining 120 franchise owners would stand to benefit from the increased scarcity of their product, better logistics, and, perhaps, additional financial support offered in exchange for their agreeing to the plan.
While the fans who host the surviving affiliates will likely enjoy a better experience due to improved facilities and better competition, those facing contraction could suffer. However, MLB can mitigate the impact by combining realignment with reinvestment. For example, MLB could invest in local initiatives that promote the game, such as encouraging youth participation, helping small town high schools fund their baseball programs and supporting college summer leagues in remote areas. In the long run, this level of direct engagement could have a more lasting and positive impact than stocking a short season affiliate that attracts fewer than 1,000 fans.
As Part of a Broader Plan, Realignment Could Usher In Positive Change
MLB’s leaked proposal isn’t perfect. The number and identity of teams slated for contraction may need to be adjusted, but the elimination of affiliates shouldn’t be portrayed as a draconian response inspired by greed. On the contrary, the changing dynamics throughout the game support realignment, but, only if the proposed changes are part of a broader plan of investment in player development, community engagement and fan experience. MLB does not have an obligation to maintain the status quo, but it does have a responsibility to make sure the enacted changes are an improvement in all of these regards. Although MLB can certainly afford to keep the current system in place, it can’t afford to miss the opportunity to make the minor league experience much better for all involved.
Leave a Reply