Hello, everyone! Long time, no write. Sorry about that; I’d like to make a complaint about being busy, but, A.) aren’t we all? and B.) so’s everyone else, so I’m sure there’s little sympathy for that. So let’s get to it.
This is a post about baseball. But it’s not a post about games or players. It is a post about teams, but probably not in the way you’re thinking. I want to talk about how many teams there are, and how many teams there should be in Major League baseball.
With this bizarre season wrapped up, I figure it’s probably a pretty good time to talk about all of this, while there’s nothing else going on. So here we go!
Excluding cosmetic changes (logo changes) and location names or stadiums renovations/rebuilds, have you realized that we’re in literally the most stable period in MLB since Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier? 2020 may have been a chaotic season, but I think we take too much for granted the stability of MLB.
1953 – Boston Braves become Milwaukee Braves
1954 – St. Louis Browns become Baltimore Orioles
1955 – Philadelphia A’s become Kansas City A’s
1958 – Brooklyn Dodgers become Los Angeles Dodgers; New York Giants become San Francisco Giants
1961 – Washington Senators (the first ones) become Minnesota Twins
1961 – Expansion: Los Angeles Angels and Washington Senators (part deux) are founded
1962 – Expansion: Houston Colt .45s (Astros) and New York Mets are founded
1966 – Milwaukee Braves become Atlanta Braves
1968 – Kansas City A’s become Oakland A’s
1969 – Expansion: Kansas City Royals, Montreal Expos, San Diego Padres and Seattle Pilots, are founded
1970 – Seattle Pilots become Milwaukee Brewers
1972 – Washington Senators become Texas Rangers
1977 – Expansion: Seattle Mariners and Toronto Blue Jays are founded
1993 – Expansion: Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins are founded.
1998 – Expansion: Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Devil Rays are founded
2005 – Montreal Expos become Washington Nationals
The longest stretch of time without any new teams being introduced or moving was 1978-1992 (15 seasons). We have now matched that streak (2006-2020). But that’s only because we’re counting franchise moves in the above tracking, not just expansion.
The last round of expansion was in 1998, with the introduction of the Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Devil Rays. If, however, you limit the discussion purely to expansion, here’s what you see.
1901 – 8-team expansion (American League)
1961 – 2-team expansion
1962 – 2-team expansion
1969 – 4-team expansion
1977 – 2-team expansion
1993 – 2-team expansion
1998 – 2-team expansion
Through 1997, that’s 20 teams in just under a hundred years, which is to say (essentially) a 2-team expansion each decade. Yet, we’re two decades into the new millennium, and even if you wanted to be inordinately generous and count the ’98 teams as being this century, we’re drastically behind that pace – at least 2 teams behind, depending on how you’d like to do the math. If you think about just the “expansion” era, you’re talking about adding two new teams somewhere in the neighborhood of once every 6-8 years. That means we’re missing three rounds of expansion, or six teams.
Another way to look at this would be to look at the number of Major League teams as a share of the population. How many fans are there for each team? That seems a relevant question to ask. After all, the savvy observer might say that the US population was booming in the 1950-1977 era as Baby Boomers were born and then came of age to play in MLB. After that, population growth slowed; so, naturally, did expansion. Let’s examine that.
I took official census results from each decade, then averaged the growth to be linear over each year of a decade. (For 2020, I took the number 331 million, which is what Google told me as an estimate for current population, and did the same for the last decade.) The years this method is most likely to miscalculate are in the 1940s, due to deaths in World War Two which were concentrated in the beginning of the decade vs. the beginning of the baby boom in the latter portion of the decade. Thankfully, that’s not particularly relevant, as there was no expansion in the 1940s. Anyway, Here’s the number of Americans per MLB team, beginning in 1900, including each expansion year, as well as each time a season reaches a new “million” number of Americans per MLB team:
1900: 9,526,521 Americans per MLB team
1901: 4,863,363 (start of American League)
1903: 5,063,567 (reaching 5 million)
1913: 6,022,901 (reaching 6 million)
1924: 7,055,873 (reaching 7 million)
1936: 8,036,237 (reaching 8 million)
1947: 9,098,589 (reaching 9 million)
1954: 10,157,797 (reaching 10 million)
1959: 11,032,715 (reaching 11 million)
1960: 11,207,698 (highest ever)
1961: 10,095,614 (AL expansion)
1962: 9,205,947 (NL expansion)
1969: 8,371,006 (4-team MLB expansion)
1976: 9,051,922 (re-reaching 9 million)
1977: 8,445,006 (AL expansion)
1984: 9,054,203 (re-reaching 9 million)
1993: 9,232,982 (NL expansion)
1998: 9,162,650 (MLB expansion)
2007: 10,018,282 (first time above 10 million since initial NL expansion)
2020: 11,033,333 (2nd highest of all-time)
2023: (projected) 11,255,878 (would-be highest of all-time)
Some interesting notes: the 1993 and 1998 expansions were perfectly timed; if MLB had waited until 1994, the ratio would’ve exceeded 10 million Americans/team; they would’ve gotten away with 1999 for the next round, but not 2000.
If you’d prefer to see every year graphed on a chart, it looks like this:
You’ll note, if you like looking at numbers, that from 1962-2006 (which is 45 years and probably covers the majority of baseball-watching for the audience of this website), the number was never lower than 8 million Americans per MLB team, and never greater than 10 million Americans per MLB team. So let’s call 9 million Americans per MLB team historically “normal.” With a current population of 331 million, that is a six or seven team expansion.
In other words, looking solely at population, and given that it takes a few years to get to a new franchise, the best way to return to that favored number of 9 million Americans per MLB team would be to have an expansion as big as the introduction of the American League, adding eight teams in the next few years!
A more modest proposal would be a gradual six-team expansion, creating three six-team divisions in each league. The scheduling choices become really fun after that: play your five division opponents 18 times each (three home series, three road series), and then each other team in your league one series at home, and one on the road, eliminating interleague play and keeping the 162-game schedule. Or you could keep one division from one league matched up with a division from the other league (similar to now), playing three interleague games; seven against non-division league opponents, and 12 against division opponents. Or you could go with a regional interleague game (as now) you’d play 4 games against every year (and four extra games the years your divisions matched up against one another), 6 games against each team from an interleague division, 6 games against non-division league opponents, and 10 games against each division opponent. Or you could play 8 division games, and four games against every other team, regardless of league (plus two extras with your interleague rival). The point is, the combinations are pretty fun to think through. At the very least, a 2-team expansion, getting us to 16 teams per league would be cool.
No matter what you think of the particularities of these expansion plans, I hope you can agree with me: we’re overdue for MLB expansion, whether measured by historic norms of timing or population size. Feel free to discuss below, including what possible sites could be good for expansion!
It’s interesting to use the number of teams vs. the population of the US as the metric. On the one hand, there are so many other sports, and baseball doesn’t attract top athletes as easily as it once did. On the other, for many years Black players weren’t allowed to play, and there are now more players from outside the US than ever before. Do those factors cancel out? I don’t know.
I’d certainly like to see an even number of teams in each league. Even if they don’t entirely eliminate interleague play, I’d like to not have it ALL the time. No one should be playing an interleague game on Opening Day or at the very end of the season.
It was the KC Athletics, not the Philadelphia Athletics, which became the Oakland Athletics in 1968. In 1955 the Philadelphia Athletics became the KC Athletics.
Awkwardly, I had the 1955 change in there correctly, but somehow just didn’t put in the 1968 one right. Whoops; thanks for the catch!
While we’re at it, why don’t we expand the playing field to make up for the average ML’er going from 5’11” and 180# to 6’1″ and 210# ? These are just guesstimates but, I’m pretty sure they’re not too far off. Maybe another 5% of distance from the plate to the fences? 330″ down the line becomes ~345; 375 becomes ~390; 400″ goes to 420″….maybe this generates less of the three true outcomes and more of the stolen base and hit and run?
I’m… pretty okay with that. I think we probably should do that. Actually, we should also mandate thicker bat handles and tighten the strike zone, too (eliminate the high strike; that seems pretty killer to a lot of hitters). It’s funny; people get ideas that baseball is now “fixed,” and should never change. But of course there was a time that the pitcher’s mound was a different location, and then a different height, and pitches were thrown underhand. I mean, stuff changes all the time; why shouldn’t it change? I think everyone who reads this site dislikes 2020, TTO-style baseball. The problem, of course, is that there’s no disincentive to that style. The rules should be fiddled with to make the game more enjoyable to watch. Moving back fences makes too much sense not to do. Whatever it takes to get the ball in play more. (BTW, I advocate for a tighter strike zone because I think pitchers need to be incentivized to take a couple of clicks off their fastballs and make them more hittable. I’m also okay with a 65′ mound, but I’m guessing a lot of people would be pissed if that happened.)
If they go to 32 teams, how about four 8-team divisions, no inter-league play? Teams would play their own division 14 times (one 3-game series; one 4 game series/home and away) and the other division’s eight teams 8 times. Then the four division winners play each other in some sort of interleague championship. Best record plays 9 games against worst of the division champions, first three at home to give them an advantage….championship is best of 11. Who cares if the ‘finalists’ are from the same league?
I mostly agree with you but I do think that the playoffs should be arranged such that there is 1 winner from each league, that is the division champs from each league play each other first.
Richard,
The “interleague playoffs” was my attempt to help eradicate current regular season interleague play. You know, throw the non-traditionalists a bone….. I find it kind of bizarre that, when it comes down to the wire, game 162 and all that, the NL Central can be decided (for example) by the Cardinals losing 2 of 3 to the 5th place team in the AL West back in July.
I’ve written it here before but, from 1969-1993 in the NL (and 1969-1976 in the AL) teams played 90 games (5 x 18) versus their own and 72 games (6 x 12) against the other division. And, to me, it made the most sense since those 90 games could carry a team to its division title
Yeah, I like the 4, 8-team league approach, too. I think it would be really nice, and you have the 2nd-place team from one league play a 1st-place team from another (see bottom of this post if you’re really curious what I’d do). But it wouldn’t have to be that way. I like the basic idea of the approach.
Mostly, I was just writing for fun, since MLB will never be interested in adopting any changes this “radical.” I do think it’s worth remembering, though, that we’re living in an unusually stable time. I actually did an earlier chart where I included a lot of other things, like cultural and rule changes – free agency, color barrier, DH, steroids, etc., etc. But it was hard to decide what goes in and what doesn’t. But no matter how you slice it, you come to this same conclusion: baseball is steady right now. Well, “steady” is the kind word for it. Some might go so far as to say “stagnant,” and when you open your mind to that idea, you can start to think about things like how you might really mess around, like having four leagues of 8 teams. Personally, I love it.
—
My actual, 4-league postseason idea:
We’ll call the four leagues A, B, C, and D. Two teams qualify from each league, the champ and runner up, which we’ll designate with the numerals 1 and 2. Let’s suppose that, in the regular season, since each league is matched up with one other, that league A and B were matched, while C and D were matched up. (If it were me, FYI, I’d rotate these on a three-year cycle.) Anyway, when it’s all said and done, you’d have 8 teams qualifying for the playoffs: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, and D2. I would arrange them like this:
Match I:A1 vs C2
Match II: B1 vs. D2
Match III: C1 vs. B2
Match IV: D1 vs. A2
Match I winner plays Match II winner;
Match III winner plays Match IV winner.
World Series features the two remaining teams.
I hope that makes sense. This way, it should work out that, in the first round, no two teams who’ve already played would play one another, ensuring some sense of “measuring” who the best team is. In the second round, you either end up with a novel matchup (if there’s an upset), or the two division champs who played one another all year settle their score. And in the final round, there’s either an interleague World Series, or even the possibility of two teams from the same division playing one another! (Or there’s just a weird upset thing going on, which is fine, too.) So that’s my scheme. Oh – and there are all sorts of fun possibilities for All-Star Games here, too, if you want to go down that route!
Not to take away from the whole piece (which is great!), Dr. Doom, you have thought through the scheduling aspects with elegance- and Paul, your schedule suggestions are snazzy, too. I think the possibilities for different schedule combinations are fascinating, whatever the length of season (although I’m a fan of 154+/- game schedules, even if they were before my time).
Does anyone have a good source for all of the different schedule combinations throughout 1901-present MLB history?
While admiring their construction, I’m glad that I’m not one of the people responsible for constructing MLB schedules…
Baseball Reference should have data indicating 3, 4, or 5 games in a series eventually totaling 11 at home and 11 on the road (7×22=154) from about 1920 through 1961. Lots of Sunday doubleheaders in there
Reducing the size of the strike zone would help reduce K’s, but could also increase HR and BB. To reduce HR and K, I think I would move the mound back 2 or 3, or even 5 feet, but also make the strike zone an inch or two wider and, perhaps, elevate the mound a few inches to keep a similar visual perspective of the plate for the pitcher. Hitters would have more time to recognize the pitch, but also more plate to cover; together, that should hopefully allow hitters to tailor their swing to the pitch and its location, rather than just swinging as hard as possible in case it’s a fastball somewhere near the middle of the plate.
But, to reduce HR significantly would also likely require the longer fences as discussed, but perhaps also some adjustments to the baseball so that it behaves much as it does now, other than how far it carries.
A very interesting post. What is the goal of expansion? Is it to keep baseball teams proportional to the population; provide equitable geographic access to MLB; to MLB stadiums; provide an equitable number of MLB opportunities to athletes; optimize total revenue . . .?
Until 1958, baseball was largely unavailable to Americans west of St. Louis. Are total US population figures relevant? Those left out were truly left out–even radio and TV, once they arrived, did not generally provide access. Rosters were much smaller too, in the early decades, so there were fewer opportunities for athletes to reach MLB levels (and fewer incentives, given the salary scale). (Providing more opportunities now could be accomplished with a modest roster expansion–Brett Alan’s point is good, however: can baseball draw enough “MLB-quality” players to sustain performance, given its current niche among big time sports.)
A few years ago discussion was about contraction. It was not total revenues that were at issue, but the unprofitability of the smallest market teams–sustainability of teams at the margins. Populations are not evenly distributed, nor is interest in MLB. If teams are added, population clustering might dictate the addition of a team in NYC (8.4 mil. for the city alone, pre-pandemic), rather than, say, Charlotte, which is the hub of the most populous metro area now teamless (2.6 mil. for the extended urbanized region). Is there a “need” for another NYC team? Is the dispersed metro area around Charlotte (or comparable places) capable of supporting a team?
Access to MLB stadiums may still be limited, but access to games is near-universal, given cable, internet, etc. Does an argument that team numbers should correlate to total population make the same sense now that it might have in 1901 or 1961/62?
There are costs as well as advantages to expansion. Expansion shifts the balance away from regular season towards the post-season. Is this a desirable trend. We saw a logical extension this “season.” If that looks like a possible future of MLB, is it one we should look forward to?
Welcome back Bob, we missed your commentary.
Hi Richard, and thanks. You and I can remember what it was like to grow up in a city with almost 20% of all Major League teams. When two-thirds of your fellow citizens are your intimate enemies, you have to learn tolerance. (Well, I don’t know about you Yankee fans, since you always won . . .)
18.75 percent
We should make the effort to use precise stats here, yes?
I am unworthy, Voomo.
Even more remarkable is the fact that the 16 teams were in only 10 cities (62.50000%). The aireoplane brought the west coast to major league baseball. In light of this technology, maybe we’re overdue to expand into Mexico and Central America, Venezuela, Columbia? Si’ o no?
That would be an awesome expansion- for a “World Series” that includes more than two countries! Also, including the Caribbean especially would include countries where baseball is at least something like the 1st or 2nd most popular sport (instead of something like the 3rd).
..and how cool would it be if the Caracas Cockroaches had guys like Johan Santana and Miguel Cabrera, Bobby Abreu….the Cartagena Cokers had Edgar Renteria? and so on and so forth. I think the Dominican Republicans might become the next dynasty. Don’t know how good that would be for the MLB and the USA, the source of the majority of the revenue.
… are you guys just proposing the World Baseball Classic? Because you know that already exists, right? And it is awesome, by the way. I’ve always enjoyed every inning of it that I’ve ever watched (which, admittedly, has been less than 100 innings – but still). Point is: watch the WBC – supposedly coming this March! (I remain skeptical that it’ll actually happen.)
No, I’m talking the real thing – 162 games all over North and South America. Just don’t know if you can get Americans to go 3rd world and fill out those rosters in Central and South American nations
Me neither, I meant the same thing as Paul E. I think Mexico (and Puerto Rico?) were considered when the Expos franchise was moved to DC, and that’s the kind of thing I mean- an expansion pool that doesn’t necessarily include U.S. cities. That would solve the problem of diluting MLB within the highly competitive U.S. sports market; also, it wouldn’t compete with (affiliated) MiLB franchises, as MLB is already giving them a hard enough time. Not sure how it would interact with the the Mexican League/Liga Mexicana de Beisbol, if Mexico were included, though…
There would be some logistical hurdles, but it might work.
It would be great to have the 5th WBC next year (or the year after since it’s already moved around once). It’s a ton of fun (and I can’t believe Team USA finally pulled it together in ’17!), but it’s more analagous with the soccer World Cup (and yes, I know baseball already has a World Cup of its own, although I don’t know much about it).
If Bob Eno is clocking in…
Isn’t a key problem for baseball expansion a relative lack of interest in some places? So many other distractions, including other major sports that were really secondary in the past. One to one ratio of increases in population to increase in number of teams may noy reflect fan preferences. OK, that’s my comment for 2020!
Ooooh, I was hoping someone would say something like this. I considered writing these counterarguments, but felt it took away from the spirit of the piece. Here are some of the counterpoints I would make:
“Relative lack of interest.” In 2019 (I’m not going to use 2020, for reasons which will become obvious), the average game drew 28,660 fans. Let’s look at it each decade:
2019 – 28,660
2009 – 32,382
1999 – 29,009
1989 – 25,235
1979 – 20,748
1969 – 13,991
1959 – 15,499
1949 – 16,287
1939 – 7,259
I bet the owners would prefer today’s popularity numbers to those of 30, 40, or 50 years ago, don’t you think?
But maybe you’re a savvier arguer; maybe you’re going to say, “Attendance doesn’t matter! The real money is in TV!” To which I’d say: yes. It’s true. And TV deals continue to set records. Live sports is maybe the only thing that actually drives advertisers to television.
So maybe you’re going to point out the decreased viewership of baseball games, yadda yadda. And if you look at national numbers, that’s true; baseball’s numbers for All-Star Games and World Series Games are way down. Of course, so is everything. And keep in mind that a heavy percentage of fans, myself, for one, A.) watch the live TV broadcast, but B.) watch it online, which means we don’t count, according to Nielsen. So while ratings are down, they’re not down as much as people think.
And again; while national numbers are down, regional numbers are good! They’re actually better than they were 30 years ago. So If you have A.) more fans in the stands, and B.) more fans watching… why would that mean the sport is less popular? It seems to me that there are some arguments that baseball may’ve reached its peak in popularity at some point. But the idea that compression is the best strategy, rather than expansion, strikes me as a particularly specious argument. Let’s think about it here; if you want a sport to be more popular, do you play in fewer markets? It seems to me that you’re engaging in some serious self-immolation there.
I think your point is very well-taken. However, I think that, even with some of the concerns you raise, for the long-term health of the game, expansion is not only wise, but potentially necessary.
All your points are good ones…but I’m still fascinated by the collapse of Minor League baseball. I’m definitely not suggesting contraction, although some teams could stand to move. Baseball teams aren’t rich men’s hobbies anymore, they are billion dollar+ businesses, and investors expect to make ROI. You can buy into a publicly traded interest in the Braves. If I were MLB I’d be investing in the minor leagues, not look to liquidate them.
TOTALLY agree about MiLB. Baseball’s conduct in regard to the minors is virtually the definition of penny-wise-pound-foolish.
Hi Mike L, Hi Doom. I agree that the financial aspect is the key to expansion promise. I’m not sure whether interest in baseball on all platforms is up or down, but I’m pretty sure that average figures don’t mean too much, unless baseball is prepared to make some radical changes in revenue sharing. The key figures would have to do with attendance and media revenues for marginal franchises, since additional franchises can expect, after an initial year or two, to be fighting to hold their own. Their local markets will be on the small end, their brands won’t be established until they see success on the field, and they will have virtually no prospect of becoming “national brands,” like the Yankees or Dodgers.
I agree with both of you when it comes to the Minors. “If you want a sport to be more popular, do you play in fewer markets?” No, but “play” doesn’t have to mean a Major League team, with a payroll that a small region may not be able to support. You can pay Minor League players equitably and make better use of them if MLB promotes them actively, better protects the integrity of their seasons, and appears in their parks and neighborhoods (e.g., for a spring exhibition or clinic for high school players). My impression was that MLB was focusing much more on cultivating a broad amateur player base that would spread baseball culture at the local level. I think that’s the right approach, and I don’t know why MLB hasn’t intervened to mandate certain minima in the relations between its teams and their farm systems that are directed towards those long-term ends.
And speaking of supporting MLB payrolls, looking at the exchange between Paul E and Hub Kid, I think it’s important to think about the implications of having 162-game MLB teams in counties with per capita GDP one-eighth (Mexico), one-tenth (Colombia), or one-fortieth (Venezuela) of the US. There may be home-grown players who will want to stay and play for the lower salaries that necessarily low ticket prices and radically lower media deals will require, retiring to their low cost-of-living countries, but some will prefer the wealth of signing with a US team, and to be MLB-competitive Central/South American/Caribbean teams will need to sign US players who plan to live in America after they retire, and equity will prevent paying a solid US player far more than a local star who is willing to sign locally (presuming the union covers all MLB players). It’s also necessary to think about political stability–imagine if MLB had had a team in Caracas during the Chavez-Maduro era . . .
But although I may sound contrarian, Doom’s post raised very interesting issues; fun to think about.
I think the current economics of MLB will make it difficult for potential expansion franchises which, of necessity, would have to be based in small(er) markets. What are the largest metropolitan areas without a ML franchise? These are the ones, in order, with 1.5M population (the smallest ML market is Milwaukee, with 1.6M metro population).
Montreal QC
Riverside/San Bernardino CA
Vancouver BC
Charlotte NC
Orlando FL
San Antonio TX
Portland OR
Sacramento CA
Las Vegas NV
Austin TX
Columbus OH
Indianapolis IN
San Jose CA
Nashville TN
Virginia Beach VA
Providence RI
Jacksonville FL
Calgary AB
Somehow, I’m not seeing most of these cities as potential ML markets.
To fill the lull in the action here how about this simple (?) quiz. What feat, since 1901, has been accomplished by only these players?
Johnny Evers
Charlie Gehringer
Johnny Pesky
Elmer Valo
I have no idea on the quiz. Three infielders, and one outfielder. Three American Leaguers and one NL guy. Three played in the World Series, one didn’t. Three played 1700+ games, one was more than 500 games short of the others. Three were regulars for most of their careers, one had just a single qualified season.
One of the few things that each accomplished was leading his league in RF/G and RF/9Inn in the same season – Pesky did it twice, and the others each had one such season.
Trivia tidbit: Valo and Tommy Holmes (both in 1942) are the last players to post a 3:1 BB to SO ratio in qualified (as currently defined) rookie seasons. Only three others have done so so since 1901: Joe Sewell (1921), Paul Waner (1926) and Otis Brannan (?) in 1928 (Brannan played only 23 more ML games after that age 29 debut season, then headed west to the Hollywood Stars; Brannan’s 10 HR in 1928 stood for 86 years as the Browns/Orioles record for rookie second basemen, until bested by Jonathan Schoop in 2014).
Doug: You’re warm.
There’s probably an easier formulation, but these career filters identify only the four designated players (since 1901).
5000+ PA
2.6+ BB:SO ratio
10% (of PA) or more BB rate
5% (of PA) or less SO rate
SB at least 3.5% of Hits
125 or less OPS+
There are four more players meeting all but the last criterion, all of them HoFers (Cochrane, Vaughan, Collins, Speaker).
It’s a seasonal feat.
One hundred BBs & fewer than twenty Ks.
That’s it, good work. Someone I follow on Twitter posted it.
Midway through this discussion (that is, the discussion before Richard took us on an entertaining detour), Mike L and Doom made some good points about the way MLB was handling the Minor Leagues. I don’t think about baseball much these days (I think the combination Astros-scandal/Covid-apocalypse pretty well knocked me out–I didn’t watch an inning of the season, even though Brooklyn finally won it all), but I spotted on Fangraphs a really interesting first analysis of the cuts to MiLB that are coming. You may all be aware of it already, but I just read it this evening and thought I’d flag it.
It was nice to stop by and see good discussion still going on here–and also to have Richard remind me that I never had any talent with quizzes on HHS. Best wishes for the new year: please, let it be better than 2020!
Happy New Year to you Bob.
Seems like a whole region of the country (from Utah and Colorado north to Canada) is losing its affiliated teams. If minor leagues are contracting, expanding major leagues is probably not a great idea, if the level of major league play is to be preserved.
Speaking of change, I read an interesting article on MLB that paints an alternate view of how baseball’s initial moves west could have happened quite differently, specifically:
What was the event that prevented the above scenario? Answer is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. A fun and interesting read.
Fascinating! That was an enjoyable article. Thanks for providing the link to it, Doug.