One of the funniest things that I've seen lately has been the arguments
about how expansion has diluted sports. I say "Funniest" because many of the
people are saying the same things and most of those remarks originated in
some uneducated sportswriter's mind. Many of the fans and the sportswriters
would rather take the word of some person than actually do research or take
the time to actually THINK about how ludicrous the arguments are. I'm NOT
going to rehash some of the statistical info that has been used by both
sides of the issue, I'm going to look at each sport and their affect on
each other plus population considerations.
Let's look at the *dilution* effect. People say that 28 ML teams (or 30 NFL
or 29 NBA) teams are far too many. Would you believe that long before there
was expansion, there were 33 *major league* teams playing? In 1884 - yes,
that's EIGHTEEN EIGHTY-FOUR - 3 leagues had 33 teams playing (13 were in the
American Association, 8 were in the National League and 12 were in the Union
Association). Now, before you go and dismiss the AA and UA as inferior to
the NL, let's not forget that professional baseball was still in its infancy 
(3 of the present day teams played in the AA and one, Cincinnati, jumped from 
the NL to the AA and then back) and that there were MINOR LEAGUE (Hell, 
college) teams that were as good or better than some of the so-called MAJOR 
LEAGUE teams. The NL was no better than any league that popped up (and that 
includes the AL) until relatively recently when blacks were permitted to play 
in increasing numbers. Leagues failed because of an inability to draw fans 
not lack of talent. Unlike modern day sports franchises, there was no media 
revenue to fight off opposing leagues so it was often the ones with the more 
determined individuals that survived and not necessarily the ones with the 
best talent. Let's also not forget that for 49 years, professional baseball's 
competition for the best athletes (At that time, the standard being *white* 
males) wasn't from football or basketball but amateur sports (Professionals 
were looked down at for a great number of years). Playing for the "joy" and 
"purity" of competition was thought of as the right thing to do and 
professionals were considered as sleazy then as lawyers are today. Even with 
the formation of the NFL (and the NBA), MLB was still getting more 
competition for their talents from the amateurs (But, the Cleveland Browns 
and Brooklyn Dodgers were about to expand the talent pool for both sports. 
The NBA would be later join them and the beginning of the end for MLB's 
dominance would be set in motion and the *dilution* effect would become an 
even more laughable argument).
Oh, I mentioned that there were 33 ML teams in 1884, professional basketball
has 29 NOW but that's only 1 more than what was around in 1970, 1971 and 1974
and 2 more than what was around in 1972, 1973 and 1975 (BTW, for those that
believe in the fantasy that the NBA absorbed a lot of ABA players after the
merger -- don't. Most of the NBA teams wouldn't admit that these players were
good enough and most of the talent that made it into the "NBA" after the
merger were on former ABA teams, who went with the familiar. Had there not
been a merger and the ABA been allowed to die, it's doubtful that more than
20 former players would have found their way onto NBA rosters. It was only
after they competed on a nightly basis that former ABA players got their
dues from the Establishment). Before the NBA became the NBA (it was two
entities, the BAA and the NBL), there was between 19-23 teams in both leagues
and after the merger, there were 17 teams. 9 franchises (6 in the first year)
were dropped over the next 5 years because of *financial* NOT talent
considerations.
I didn't forget the NFL. Taking into consideration their ability to compete
at one time or the other, I identify the NFL, 4 incarnations of the AFL, the
AAFC, WFL, USFL and CFL (I dismiss Arena Football and the World League) as
the entities competing, at one time or another, for football's talent. There
were 39 franchises last year (30 NFL and 9 CFL), however, that *pales* in
comparison to 1983 (49), 1984 (55) and 1985 (51). When the NFL and AFL (1st)
were around in 1926, as many as 38 teams were competing (In fact, there were
17+ professional franchises in operation from 1920 to 1941. It wasn't until
after WW II that franchises were back to that level. When the AFL's 4th and
final incarnation arrived in 1960, there were 30 professional teams competing
for talent. The NFL and CFL were not that far from each other in *overall*
talent (The same thing could be said about the NFL and AFL. The CFL was on
slightly ahead of the AFL during the first 3 years) and the real gap was in
the front line stars (The CFL had its share of players that would have been
stars in the NFL but not nearly as many as the NFL). The gap between the NFL
and CFL NOW is far wider than it was during that '60s or even the '70s. The
NFL did not have the money to fend off raids from the AFL, let alone the CFL.
It was mostly a mom-and-pop operation so the money that they offered wasn't
so great that *any* league couldn't compete with them (Hugh TV contracts in
the future would change all that).
Ok, I rambled on in three paragraphs so it's time to start putting it all
together. If you count it up, there are 100 *big three* franchises competing
for talent. For many years, the Big Three was the Big One and it wasn't until
the NFL came into existence that MLB had some competition from another
*professional* league. If MLB, the NFL or even the NBA were *diluted* by
RECENT expansions then maybe those purists who are whining should understand
how the so-called Golden Eras of these sports were DILUTED compared to the
early days of their sports. MLB is the ultimate *diluted* sport. When the
Western League changed its name to the American League and culled away 100+
players from the National League, *something* had to be diluted by far more
than can be said about any other expansion since then. The NL retained 51%
of its hitters and 56% of its pitchers. In contrast to that, any of the
leagues that expanded retained well over 80% of its players during the
year that they expanded. When the AL declared itself a major league in 1901,
the number of players being used by a *major* league increased by 137%. In
contrast to this, expansions in 1961, 1962, 1969, 1977 and 1993 increased
the number of players by 9.5%, 8.9%, 30.2%, 11.5% and 11.7% respectively. All
but the 30.2% increase are NOT out of the ordinary for MLB since 1901. There
were increases of 10.5% in 1902 (it decreased by 13.3% in 1903), 15.5% in
1909, 11.0% in 1912, 9.5% in 1939, 17.0% in 1946 (dropped 15.0 in 1947) and
13.8% in 1955. During WW II (more so than WW I), the *quality* of the ML
player was no where near past standards YET their records are included and
their effect on the *diluted* majors aren't considered as great as today when
it was far greater (Modern players don't get a break until 30 or more years
pass).
If you look at the stats of the established teams before 1969, you'll see
little or no effect (removing any expansion teams stats from the stats of
established teams). In 1969, there was a hugh effect BUT that came from
the fact that they lowered the mound and closed up the strike zone and NOT
from expansion. 1977 and 1993 do show greater increases but you should know
that in 1977, ONLY the AL participated in the expansion draft (and kept all
the expansion booty) and the increase was seen in the NL as well. Seattle
and Toronto got very little quality for their draft moola so there's no
reason to believe that AL AND NL teams were raped of their best talent (If
they were then Toronto and Seattle were definitely short-changed). If you
look back several years, you'll see that both the NL and AL had seen a
decrease in scoring and other stats from 1973 until 1976 (went it was almost
back to 1972 levels). 1977 was unusual following 1976 but no so out of line
with 1973 to 1975. The 1993 expansion involved both leagues but really, like
previous drafts, saw very little significant talent get drafted.  The
expansion teams did use free agency more than Seattle or Toronto did but it
should be noted (sorry Big Cat fans) that they picked up players that might
suit their stadium and weren't necessarily in big demand (Galarraga and
Bichette had their careers turned around in Colorado). I think that 1993 was
a year that saw several young hitters begin to flex their muscle (Mo Vaughn
is one that comes to mind) and some teams were giving a lot of time to their
young pitchers (Look at what happened to Detroit last year. They were so
inept at pitching because they threw their youngsters into the fray but this
year, they're better pitchers for it). 1993 opened up more places for younger
talent at the every day positions but for the most part, the expansion teams
had very little effect on the quality of players on other teams. You're going
to have to look elsewhere if you're going to continue the talent.
I could go on and I could explain the NFL and NBA but I'm tired. If you were
to look at when blacks were allowed to play, increased population (and an
increase in the races that started participating), changes in strategy,
changes in physical makeup, etc., you'd see that this so-called dilution
effect is a load of crap. Expansion teams dig from the very bottom of any
league's roster and they merely clear out the deadwood. Free agency has 
allowed them to get better, faster but that's the ONLY thing that's been to 
their benefit.
--- TrekEd 1.00
---------------