The Campaign Continues

by Charlie Wilmoth on May 22, 2008 4:10 PM EDT

Dejan Kovacevic continues his quest to move the Pirates back to the NL East:

Maybe, if the Pirates never get back into the correct division, they can simply rename the existing one.

Oh, and yet another geography major -- couple of them, actually -- pointed out that Miami also is west of Pittsburgh, along with Atlanta.

"The correct division"? That's really presumptuous, I think, since at least a fair number of people (including me) don't agree with him at all. And I know he's half-joking in pointing out that Miami is west of Pittsburgh, but that's still pretty silly -- which of the two cities has more to do with the "central" part of the country? Miami, which has no meaningful geographical or cultural connection to the Midwest, or Pittsburgh, which is right on its border?

My main reason for being annoyed with this, though -- other than the fact that it seems to be an artificial controversy that's being generated by one person alone -- is that it would hurt the Pirates' chances of winning. As I pointed out before, in the last five years it has taken three more wins, on average, to finish first in the NL East than it has in the NL Central. The non-Pirates NL Central teams now have higher average salaries than NL East teams, but that's meaningless, since those numbers are skewed by the fact that the Marlins' extremely low payroll. Meanwhile, in the NL East, the Bucs would have to compete against a team in the New York market, along with an increasingly intelligently-run Phillies team and a proven franchise in Atlanta.

Leaving aside even the money for a second, take the Worst GM Competition. Obviously, it's mostly for fun and it's not scientific. But the only NL East GM among the twelve seeded was Omar Minaya, and he lost his first round matchup to the NL Central's Jim Hendry. There were two other NL Central GMs in there too, and one of them, Ed Wade, made it all the way to the championship.

Now, again, this isn't scientific. But given the choice, wouldn't you rather be in competition with teams like the Astros (who are going nowhere fast and have little in their farm system) and Reds (whose manager's approach to young talent is like a caffeinated nine-year-old's approach to a game of Whack-a-Mole)? Why would you want to insert yourself into a competition with the Mets, who currently have the third-highest payroll in baseball? Moving the Bucs to the NL East doesn't make much sense geographically, but it makes even less sense as a baseball move.

Poll

In which division should the Pirates play?

NL Central

68 votes

NL East

48 votes

116 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I still like my idea

for the Perennial Losers division.
And if one of the teams starts winning, you can kick them out and bring in a new one.

Fluid divisions… it’s a good idea.
Not based on location, but something else… similar teams together.

Overspending.
Perennial losers.
Teams that fall just short of the playoffs every year.
The teams that compete every year.

And then, as trends change, you can change the divisions as you desire.

Actually, it sounds kinda stupid. But whatever.

The Utah Jazz
A disillusioned Pirates fan in Utah...

by UtesFan89 on May 22, 2008 4:18 PM EDT reply actions

That goofy Dejan

Not to mention, with the unbalanced schedule, the Pirates would have to put better teams on the field just to keep going 65-97.

by scoreboard on May 22, 2008 4:27 PM EDT reply actions

the Bucs should stay in the NL Central...

... but they should play Philly much more often, and play at least one series with Cleveland every year in interleague play.

I like Dejan’s writing a lot, but I think he’s wrong on this one.

by gonfalon on May 22, 2008 4:29 PM EDT reply actions

I agree

I live in St. Louis currently and I feel that it is actually a very similar city to Pittsburgh as cities go. That aside though I’m not sure what Pittsburgh has in common with New York and Phillie or especially Miami and Atlanta.

Playing the Phillies more would be exciting and might inspire some more enthusiasm about the team. But moving the team to the East just doesn’t make any sense and I’m not sure why Dejan is so enthusiastic about it.

by Chester J Lampwick on May 22, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions

indeed, both St Louis and Pittsburgh are river cities

and both also have NHL and NFL teams, but not the NBA.

the NL East is is characterized by very large markets (NYC, Philly, DC, Atlanta, Miami), with all except Atlanta located on the east coast (or very close to it). the NL Central is a much better fit for the Pirates in this regard too.

IMHO, the only team in the current NL central that’s really out of place is the Astros.

by gonfalon on May 22, 2008 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions

I say

we go all Notre Dame on everybody and say “screw the divisional system!” Then we can always win our little indie division every year.

Really, though, I think we should stay in the central…

...but kick out the Cubs just because I hate the Cubs.

.500 or bust...

by phillybucco on May 22, 2008 5:27 PM EDT reply actions

If you kick out

the Cardinals, Astros, Brewers & Reds as well (without admitting other teams in), the team might win the division some time in the next 10 years. That’d be good.

The Utah Jazz
A disillusioned Pirates fan in Utah...

by UtesFan89 on May 22, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Go East

Those of us who have been around long enough to remember two ten team leagues and no divisions know that the relative strengths of divisions is not a constant.

As to the mighty Mets and their big payroll, who cares? They’ll have their ups and downs, just as the Yankees and Red Sox will. And don’t kid yourself: the Cubs can afford to match the Mets dollar for dollar. No team in the NL East scares me. A well run club can compete with anyone, and a badly run club can’t. Bring on those Phillies, and Muck the Fets!

by sisyphus on May 22, 2008 6:06 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah, I’m sure the Yankees will have their downs. Maybe they’ve already started. In the meantime, though, they’ve made the playoffs 13 years in a row. Why get yourself into a competition with a team like that? Why make your route to the playoffs harder? I’m kind of surprised you picked that example—the Yankees and Sox at the top of the division is the closest thing to a “constant” baseball has had.

by Charlie Wilmoth on May 22, 2008 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions

The Mets are not the Yankees, and the Cubs have at least as much cash on hand as the Mets. Besides, I’m not afraid of the Yankees or Red Sox either. I’m only 47 years old, so I probably have around 25 years left, and I expect that I’ll see the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Braves and Phillies all spending plenty of time under the .500 mark before I’m gone. The one constant in baseball is regression to the mean.

by sisyphus on May 22, 2008 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe, but a move to a tougher division could potentially screw the Pirates for a decade, at which point someone else will be proposing some cockamamie scheme to realign the divisions again. Relative division strength may not be permanent, but it may be as lasting as a division alignment is.

by Charlie Wilmoth on May 23, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions

since divisional play began (and I was born)...

... the economics of MLB have changed dramatically. the NY teams, the Red Sox, and the Cubs can largely buy their way out of any imbecilic player personnel decisions or poor draft choices, which means fewer lows. certainly, a smaller market team like the Pirates can compete with anyone if they are well-run, but the margin for error is much smaller (and probably a greater statistical likelihood of sustained lows, as in 15 consecutive losing seasons).

but I’ll second your sentiment about those pond scum—muck the fets, indeed!

by gonfalon on May 22, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions

If the Pirates aren’t well run it doesn’t matter what division they’re playing in. They won’t win. Cash does give you a bigger margin for error. Anybody who thinks that the new economics of baseball is permitting the Yanks, Red Sox, etc. to dominate isn’t paying attention to baseball history. The Yankees dominated baseball for decades before the term “free agent” was ever invented. Look at the current Yankee squad. Did all of their money help them to get a starting rotation? Nope. And I have great hopes for Steinbrenner the Younger. He seems to have all of his father’s mouth and impatience.

by sisyphus on May 22, 2008 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions

And significantly less

intelligence

by DITO on May 23, 2008 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Intelligence

I saw precious little evidence of intelligence in his father, either, at least as it applies to baseball. Remember that the foundation for the current Yankee powerhouse was laid while George was suspended from baseball. And remember who had the idea back in the early eighties to build his next Yankee dynasty around guys who could run fast instead of guys who could play baseball.

by sisyphus on May 23, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Dejan’s having hockey flashbacks. Last three seasons, the Central has been a total of 60 games under against the East.

by Arnold Rothstein on May 22, 2008 8:41 PM EDT reply actions

division

I’d just like to see the Pirates play in a five-team division. It amazes me that more isn’t made of the fact that there’s a four-team AL West and a six-team NL Central.

by bolton on May 22, 2008 10:37 PM EDT reply actions

I was going to comment about that, too

It’s a lot easier to be better than three (or four) other teams than it is to be better than five.

by matskralc on May 23, 2008 6:48 AM EDT up reply actions

simple solution

Move Milwaukee back to the AL Central and KC to the AL West. Seems like Bud should like the idea for his old club. With Braun, LaPorta and Gamel, they’re loaded with DHs.

So what if one team in each league had to be off each day, except for interleague play. That would just spread out off days during the week instead of bunching them on Mondays and Thursdays.

by rogero on May 23, 2008 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions

bucdaddy

has already spoken to this issue, and at great length, and will spare everyone a repeat.

But one point nobody’s brought up is that being in a tougher division forces YOU to get tougher. I thought this was a problem for the Steelers for many years, when they were annually going unchallenged in their division with the (at the time) terrible Bungles and awful Browns and I think the Ravens were bad too. The Steelers didn’t have to be REAL good to win that division year after year, they pretty much just had to show up.

This tactic did not work so well when they got in the playoffs against real teams.

Being good enough to beat the Reds and being good enough to beat the Phillies and Braves and Mets are two entirely different things. You get in with the big boys, you’d better be smart (like the Marlins) and you’d better spend money (like the Mets) or you’re going to get your head handed to you. I wonder if DL would have lasted so long if the team hadn’t been hanging its hopes for so long on winning a crappy division by being just a little bit better than crappy. That won’t fly in the East.

by bucdaddy on May 23, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't buy it

The playoffs, especially one-and-done playoffs like in the NFL, are largely crapshoots. Everybody knows the Giants were not the best team in the NFL last year, or the Cardinals the best team in baseball in ‘06. You don’t have to be good to win in the playoffs, just lucky and good enough to get to them.

by matskralc on May 23, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually,

I had that written, but decided the post was going off on a tangent and was long enough as it was, so deleted it. But I’ll go ahead and say here that, yes, almost anybody can get hot and make a run through the NFL playoffs. So how come that didn’t happen with the Steelers when they were ruling their division for like six straight years? How come much of Cowher’s career before he finally won a Super Bowl was a list of coulda woulda shoulda? How come it didn’t happen until a year when the rest of the Steelers’ division was much tougher, when they didn’t even WIN the division?

Because if you assemble a team that’s just good enough to win a crappy division, you’ll need extraordinary luck to get through the playoffs unscathed. If you’re forced to assemble a better team to put on the field against better competition, you’ll give yourself a better shot.

As it turns out, this post was a lot longer too, but I deleted a tangent about the Cowboys and the Steelers and Rod Woodson and Deion Sanders and the Super Bowl. I could flesh that out, if anyone’s interested.

by bucdaddy on May 23, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Six isn't a particularly large number

by matskralc on May 23, 2008 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions

history

Another piece not being mentioned is that the Pirates, Cubs, Cards and Reds have all been around since before 1900. There IS a lot of history between these clubs. The Pirates and Reds played in the NLCS several times in the 70s (plus 90) for the years they were not in the same division as the Pirates. The Cardinals were just as much of a rival as the Mets from 88-92. The Phillies have been a rotten team for their whole existence (except from about 1970-85 and the brief blips the last 15 years or so).

The 6 team division is definitely unfair, but that’s going to take going back to 28 teams or up to 32 to correct this flaw.

by puckman66 on May 23, 2008 2:00 PM EDT reply actions