Why do so many favor contraction?

[Uncle Charlie]

I know this isn't exactly a hot-button issue like it was earlier this decade, but I still hear some baseball fans argue for contraction. I don't really get it myself; why should we just eliminate any team that isn't doing well at any given point? If contraction had been considered 20 years ago, three major candidates would have been the Braves, Indians, and Mariners. Baseball's always had bad teams, it doesn't mean they'll never be good.

[SamtheBravesFan]

People favor contraction simply because they think that 30 teams is too many; that many teams apparently dilutes the talent pool. The ones who tend to get talked about are bad teams, sure. But, that's just the way it goes.

[BenHertz]

I thought it had more to do with lack of attendance rather than W-L record.

[EdTarbusz]

To me, contraction always seemed more about getting rid of bad markets, rather than getting rid of bad teams.

[dgarza]

I though getting rid of wild card contenders was another goal of contraction-supporters.

It's not to get rid of bad teams, because there will always be bad teams, even in 8 team leagues. That's just a given in any league.

[bigtime39]

There's nothing wrong with the talent pool that better international scouting and raising the mound won't fix.
You could expand to 32 teams pretty easily if you implemented the suggestions above, and fixed the revenue distribution system.
Two leagues of four four-team divisions. Non-division winning team with the best record plays a short series against the division winner with the worst record for the right to enter the playoffs. Balanced schedules. No interleague play.
Cuba is eventually going to pull itself out of the Communist dark ages. When it does, MLB should land a team in Havana, pronto.
For the way they absolutely hosed Montreal, MLB owes that city a new team and stadium. Labor peace and a winning team would draw fans back.

[csh19792001]

Q: Why do so many favor contraction?

A: Because of the number of pitchers analogous in skill to Lance Cormier and Dennis Tankersley in the Major Leagues today.

Players (especially pitchers) such as this would have no shot at the big show with an 8, 10, or even 14 team league. These two had more than a cup of coffee.

There are way too many players and vastly too many pitchers in the league today. The competition would be greatly augmented- and the quality of the game would be much improved- with fewer players and less teams to spread them out on.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Q: Why do so many favor contraction?

A: Because of the number of pitchers analogous in skill to Lance Cormier and Dennis Tankersley in the Major Leagues today.

Players (especially pitchers) such as this would have no shot at the big show with an 8, 10, or even 14 team league. These two had more than a cup of coffee.

There are way too many players and vastly too many pitchers in the league today. The competition would be greatly augmented- and the quality of the game would be much improved- with fewer players and less teams to spread them out on.

I think the Cardinals used to have pitcher named Lance Cormier too. I remember him stinking as well.

Oh check that - that was Rheal Cormier. He stunk with STL, but got pretty good when he left.

[Pere]

Even if MLB expanded to 32 teams, the available talent pool, divided among those 32 organizations, would still be larger per-team than it was throughout most of MLB's history. The population has grown faster than baseball has, plus the end of major league segregation and the internationalization of the game, have created a "pool" vastly larger than was available to the 16-team majors. With respect to the modern game, "dilution" is a myth.

Bud Selig "favored" contraction as a threat, a tool of coercion, to use against cities that might not be keen on spending hundreds of millions on stadiums, to gain or keep an MLB franchise.

[csh19792001]

The population has grown faster than baseball has, plus the end of major league segregation and the internationalization of the game, have created a "pool" vastly larger than was available to the 16-team majors. With respect to the modern game, "dilution" is a myth.

Except the total talent pool means very little. Currently, about 1/3rd of all major leaguers come from 4 tiny island nations whose combined population is about the same as metropolitan NYC. These are indigent nations, at that.

This renders the whole "talent pool" argument moot. The best players often come (and have come) from very select constituencies.

Only about 7% of the ML roster spots are filled by African Americans, who completely dominate the two other major American sports, basketball and football. Drastically overrepresented. In 1975, African Americans comprised over 25% of all ML roster spots.

The best American athletes today tend to go to basketball and football, not baseball. 50 or 100 years ago, the salaries, benefits, and general prestige offered by baseball drastically outweighed that of the other two American pastimes. There were many Jackie Robinsons, Christy Mathewsons, and Frank Howards who today would end up in the NFL or NBA.

Thus, the best athletes were all channeled towards baseball. Generally speaking, the number of sports and distractions available today also conspire to dilute the overall American interest in the game. Simply put, baseball isn't dominant anymore, and isn't considered cool for the most part, either. Among blacks it is now basketball and football, and among whites it's the same, with the continuing advancement in popularity of sports like soccer and lacrosse.

Put another way- 50 years ago the game was regarded and played with the same incredible ardor that it is in Latin America today. Baseball is no longer a way of life and sandlot ball is now largely defunct.