Quirk in Major League Baseball Tiebreaker Rules Could Produce Surprise Post-Season Result

The addition of a second wild card team to the Major League Baseball playoffs, combined with an unusually large number of close division races, has created a blistering array of possibilities, even though there are, as I write this on Sunday morning, only four days left in the regular season.

The possibilities are greatest in the American League where eight teams are still in contention for the three division championships and the two wild card spots, and no team has clinched a place in the post-season.  (In contrast, in the National League, four of the five post-season qualifiers have been established.)

Not only is it possible that all three American League Divisions could end with ties for first place, it is also possible that as many as four teams could end up tied for the two wild card positions.

On September 9, a seemingly endless list of rules pertaining to playoff tiebreakers was posted on Major League Baseball’s webpage, www.mlb.com (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120907&content_id=38029316&vkey=news_mlb_nd&c_id=mlb).

The term “playoff game” is a more narrow term in baseball than it is in other professional team sports.  Major League Baseball uses the term “playoff games” to refer only to those extra games required to determine which teams qualify for “post-season” games like the League Championship Series and the World Series.

Moreover, it has long been the rule that “playoff games” count as part of the regular season, both in terms of player statistics and team won-lost records.  However, post-season wins and losses and individual player statistics are compiled separately from those of the regular season.

For example, in 1959, the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Milwaukee Braves ended the regular season tied for first place in the National League with identical records of 86-68 (in a 154 game season).  The Dodgers then won a best-two-of-three-game playoff by a margin of two games to none.  Consequently, the Dodgers were officially credited with a final won-lost record of 88-68, and the Braves, 86-70.  In addition, all pitching and batting performances in those two games were added into the players’ 1959 totals, although the statistics compiled by Dodger players during the subsequent World Series were not.

More recently, in 2007, the Colorado Rockies and the San Diego Padres tied for the then-one NL wild card spot with records of 89-73.  The Rockies defeated the Padres, 9-8, in a one-game playoff, a victory which raised their regular season record to 90-73.  In that game, Rockies left-fielder Matt Holiday went 2-6 with a triple and two rbi’s, which lowered his league-leading batting average from .3397 to .3396, but increased his league leading hit and rbi totals to 216 and 137, respectively.  Holliday’s league-leading totals included statistics from the playoff game.

How the application of the “playoff games count as regular season games” might affect the tiebreaker system can be seen in the following example.

Assume that the Baltimore Orioles and the New York Yankees both drop their four remaining contests, while Tampa Bay wins its final four games.  Assume also that Texas splits its Sunday double-header with the Angels and then takes two of three games in its regular-season-ending series with Oakland.  Add to this the assumption that Oakland wins only one of its final four games, while the Angels win four of their five remaining contests.

Should the above events come to pass, the following would be the end-of-season standings in the American League:

EASTERN DIVISION

Baltimore                  91-71

New York                  91-71

Tampa Bay                  91-71

CENTRAL DIVISION

Won by either Detroit or Chicago with no more than 90 wins

WESTERN DIVISION

Texas                                    95-67

Los Angeles                  91-71

Oakland                  91-71

So who goes to the playoffs?  Obviously Texas and the winner of the Central Division are in.  However, a playoff would have to be conducted to determine the winner of the Eastern Division before the wild card teams could be identified.

Under the rules posted at mlb.com, the championship of the Eastern Division would be determined by a two game playoff series with one team getting a first-round bye.  The team with the best intra-division record, which would be Tampa Bay (which under the above scenario would finish Eastern Division play with a 42-30 record, compared to Baltimore’s 41-31 and New York’s 37-35), would then choose either to accept the first round bye and play the second game on the home field of the winner of the first game, or elect to host the first game (and the second, if it prevailed).

For this example, let’s assume that Tampa elects to take the bye.  The first round game would then be played in Baltimore because it has a better intra-divisional record than New York.  Let’s further assume that Baltimore wins the first game but loses the second to Tampa Bay.

At this point, we now have an Eastern Division Champion (Tampa Bay), but the three teams involved in that Eastern Division play-off series would have now played either one or two more regular season games than any of the other American League teams.  Consequently, when we now move to determine the two teams with the best regular season records among the non-division winners, we have the following standings:

Los Angeles                   91-71   .562

Oakland                  91-71   .562

Baltimore                  92-72   .561

New York                  91-72   .558

If we apply another traditional rule — that winning percentage, not total victories, determines position in the standings — then Los Angeles and Oakland would be the two wild card teams, and the seasons of both New York and Baltimore would be over without any additional playoff games.

Is this the intended result?  Is it fair?  As far as I can tell, the posted rules do not address this issue, although presumably there is a document in the Commissioner’s Office that will eventually surface to provide an answer.

Interestingly enough, the tiebreaking rules posted on mlb.com cited above carry with them a curious disclaimer:  “This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.”

It is hard to believe that Major League Baseball does not control the content of its own website.  More likely, the addition of a second wildcard has created such a bizarre, byzantine world of possibilities that MLB itself is not sure that it knows what the rules are, hence the disclaimer.

 

Continue ReadingQuirk in Major League Baseball Tiebreaker Rules Could Produce Surprise Post-Season Result

How Art Modell’s Greed Changed the Concept of Sports Franchises

Former Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens owner Art Model died last Thursday (September 6). From the response to his death, it appears that he is still remembered as the owner who moved the Browns to Baltimore, and who thus became the most hated man in the history of Cleveland (at least until LeBron James orchestrated his departure for Miami). Although Modell maintained a home in Cleveland from 1961 to 1995, he never returned to city again in his life, at least in part because of fear for his safety.

When Modell announced on November 6, 1995, that he had entered into a deal with Maryland authorities to move the Browns to Baltimore, the Browns were still one of the NFL’s most passionately supported teams. Although the Browns under Modell’s ownership (1961-1995) were never able to replicate the success that they achieved in the 1940’s and 1950’s (seven league championships), the team remained one of the National Football League’s strongest franchises right up to 1995.

The Browns had an overall winning record under Modell (.519), and they advanced to the NFL play-offs 17 times in 34 years, winning the NFL championship in 1964 with an upset victory over the Baltimore Colts. In 1994, the last full season before the announcement of the move, the team had gone 11-5 in the regular season and had advanced to the second round of the play-offs. Moreover, the Browns finished fifth in the NFL in paid attendance that year, trailing only the Broncos, Giants, Bills, and Chiefs. The zeal of its end-zone fans, known as the “Dog Pound,” was legendary.

Nevertheless, Modell insisted that he was losing money in Cleveland due to the antiquated condition of Cleveland Municipal Stadium, which the Browns rented from the city. The new arrangement with Baltimore called for the construction of a new stadium at public expense and a lease to the Browns on extremely favorable terms. Although there was a plan in place to refurbish Cleveland Municipal Stadium, where the Browns had played since 1946, Modell decided to light out for new financial pastures.

Public outrage over the proposed relocation of a popular, successful franchise like the Browns was intense. The City of Cleveland filed suit against Modell and the Browns to try to enforce the remaining years on his stadium lease, and Ohio’s representatives in Congress initiated a movement to pass legislation regulating the circumstances under which a professional sports franchise could be relocated. Such a bill, the “Fan Freedom and Community Protection Act of 1995” was introduced in Congress On December 7, and was winding its way through committee hearing when such efforts came to an abrupt halt.

On February 9, 1996, the National Football League intervened with the promise that while Modell’s team would be allowed to move to Baltimore, a new Cleveland Browns team would take the field in 1998. The current players and coaches would leave, but the team name, its records, and its history would remain in Cleveland. Whether the new Browns would be an expansion team or a relocated existing team would be decided at a later date.

While the new Baltimore team, later named the Ravens, would have all of the former Browns players and coaches, it would technically be a new expansion team, taking the place of the now-on- hiatus Cleveland Browns. (There was precedent for NFL teams going on hiatus. In 1943, the Cleveland Rams, an earlier NFL team in Cleveland, suspended operations for one season and then rejoined the NFL the following year. However, the team that came back was the team that left, and when the Cleveland Rams departed for Los Angeles in 1946, they took their name and history with them.)

Rather than face the uncertainly of seeking legal redress, Cleveland’s representatives accepted the league’s compromise offer.

However, in separating the name “Browns” and other characteristics associated with the team from the franchise that Modell owned, the NFL radically altered the way in which professional sports leagues viewed their franchises.

Traditionally, a franchise enabled it owner to field a team in a particular league. While the franchise was usually issued with the understanding that the new team would play in a particular location, the geographic location was never permanently fixed. For example, in 1877, the second year of operation of the first modern professional team-sport league, baseball’s National League, the Hartford Blues relocated their team to Brooklyn. Having drawn poorly during their first year in Hartford, they sought better economic opportunities in a city with a much larger population.

Under league rules, team relocations were normally only permitted with the consent of other franchise holders, but the Raiders litigation of the 1980’s suggested that the federal antitrust laws placed limits on the ability of leagues to restrict the rights of individual franchise owners to move their teams. Since the 1980’s, professional sports leagues have been notoriously reluctant to veto requests for relocations out of fear of anti-trust liability. (Because of its antitrust immunity, baseball does not have this worry, and in the early 1990’s, major league owners successfully blocked an effort to transfer the San Francisco Giants to the Tampa-St. Petersburg area.

When teams did move, the understanding was that not just the current players and coaches relocated, but the team name, uniforms, trademarks, past records and history all went with the team as well. When the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles in 1958, the records and legacy of past Dodgers like Zack Wheat, Ducky Medwick, and Jackie Robinson went with them. They were still the same team with the same past; they were just playing in a different home city.

The NBA team that began life in 1948 as the Rochester Royals has moved frequently throughout its 60+ year history, but it has always been viewed a single team that switches its home city with some frequency. The team became the Cincinnati Royals in 1957, and remained in Cincinnati until 1972 when it became the Kansas City-Omaha Kings. (In Kansas City, the name Royals had already been taken by the city’s major league baseball team.) In 1977, home games in Omaha were discontinued, and the team became simply the Kansas City Kings. So it remained until 1985, when it relocated to Sacramento. Now there is talk of moving the team to the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area. But regardless of whether the team played in Rochester, Cincinnati, Omaha, Kansas City, or Sacramento, it was universally accepted that with each move the team remained the same.

Similarly, in 1961, the American League permitted the owner of the hapless Washington Senators to move his team to Minneapolis-St. Paul and to change the team name to the Minnesota Twins. That same year, to placate Congress and the fans in the nation’s capital, the AL added an expansion team also called the Washington Senators. However, no baseball fan in 1961 understood the “new Senators” to be a continuation of the previous team with the same name. All agreed that the pre-1961 history of the Washington Senators was now part of the history of the relocated Minnesota Twins.

But the traditional assumptions were turned on their heads in agreement of February, 1996. Although Modell initially wanted to call his 1996 team the Baltimore Browns, he was willing to relinquish that desire to settle the dispute. In the February 1996 agreement, for the first time, the right to operate a team was detached from the name, colors, trademarks, and history of the team.

Technically, of course, what happened in 1996 was that Modell transferred the Browns franchise that he had purchased in 1961 to the National Football League, and in exchange he received a new franchise that had not previously existed. With his new franchise, he was also given the right to all the players, coaches, and office personnel of his old team.

There was precedent for swapping teams—in 1972, Robert Irsay, the new owner of the Los Angeles Rams, traded the team to Carroll Rosenblum for Rosenblum’s Baltimore Colts, the defending Super Bowl champions. (It is interesting that as it turned out both of these teams were subsequently moved to a different city. After several years of declining attendance in Baltimore, Irsay moved the Colts to Indianapolis in 1984, and Rosenblum’s widow, Gloria Frontiere, moved the Rams to her hometown of St. Louis in 1995.) However, unlike the 1972 swap, which involved a real transfer of franchises, the 1996 swap was pure fiction.

Since 1995, the idea that the team does not necessarily go with the franchise has gained currency in the sports world. In 2005, the San Jose Earthquakes of Major League Soccer (winner of two MLS championships) were declared temporarily shut down, and the team’s players and coaches moved to Houston where they played in 2006 as the Houston Dynamo. At the time, it was announced that the Earthquakes franchise was not leaving San Jose and would return to the field of play at some point in the future. In 2008, a new San Jose team was created, and it was credited with the entire history compiled by its namesake from 1996 to 2005.

In 2006, in exchange for public funding of a new baseball stadium, the owners of the Minnesota Twins agreed with the state of Minnesota that if the team were ever to move out of state, the Twins name, colors, trophies and history (presumably including its history as the Washington Senators from 1901 to 1960) would be left behind. Similarly, in 2008, the departing Seattle Supersonics of the National Basketball Association agreed to leave behind its team name and colors. However, unlike the Twins agreement, the departing team would retain the Supersonics’ individual records and championship banners. Although the details were not clear, it appears that the Oklahoma City Thunder (the current name of the former Supersonics) will share the history of the old Supersonics with a new Supersonics team, when and if such a team is ever added to the NBA.

Not every team has that has relocated since 1995 has followed the approach adopted in the Browns case. When the Houston Oilers left Houston after the 1998 NFL season, they initially continued to use the Oiler name and colors as the Tennessee Oilers. Even though the name of the team was subsequently changed to Tennessee Titans, the Nashville-based franchise clearly holds itself out as a continuation of the old Houston Oilers, and the current Houston team in the NFL, the Texans, makes no claim to be a continuation of the Oilers.

Similarly, when Major League Baseball relocated the Montreal Expos to Washington, D.C., as the Washington Nationals, the new Washington team laid no claim to any sort of connection with either of the two twentieth century major league teams called Senators that played in that city. Nor did it deny that the Washington Nationals of 2005 (the first year in Washington) were simply the Montreal Expos of 2004, relocated to a different city and country with a slightly updated roster.

Moreover, when the Atlanta Thrashers of the National Hockey League were purchased by an ownership group intent upon moving the team to Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, the NHL permitted the relocated team to call itself the “Winnipeg Jets,” a name used by the previous NHL team in Winnipeg, now playing as the Phoenix Coyotes. However, the NHL made it clear that the new Winnipeg team could lay claim only to the history of the Atlanta Thrashers and not to that of the original Jets.

As a matter of full disclosure, I saw my first NFL game in person in Cleveland Municipal Stadium on October 15, 1972. My college roommate’s dad had somehow gotten tickets to this game from Pro Football Hall of Famer Sid Luckman, and we watched the Bears trounce the Browns 17-0 on a cool fall afternoon. The game itself was not exactly an aerial circus. Bears quarterback Bobby Douglass completed only two passes, but he personally rushed for 117 yards and several clouds of dust. The Browns offense seemed helpless in the face of the Bears defense which was led by legendary linebacker Dick Butkus.

In spite of a dismal performance that day, I became something of a Browns fan and followed the team for the next two decades.

I first heard of Art Modell’s plan to move the Browns while speaking at a conference in Washington, D.C., the day before its official announcement. As bad as I had felt a decade earlier when Baltimore lost the Colts, I was crushed to hear the news. I fervently hoped that the NFL or Congress would intervene to keep the team in Cleveland, but that did not happen.

I was not, however, fooled for a minute by the NFL’s plan that was supposedly going to keep the Browns in Cleveland. The team that has played there since 1998 has no real connection to the old Browns, regardless of what they call themselves or what color uniforms they wear or what photos and information they place in their media guide.

Like it or not, the Browns of Marion Motley, Otto Graham, Jim Brown, Leroy Kelley, and Bernie Kosar are now the Ravens of Baltimore and have been since 1996. When a franchise moves, the whole team moves with it.

Continue ReadingHow Art Modell’s Greed Changed the Concept of Sports Franchises

Punishing Paterno, Part II

I appreciate Gary Werkheiser’s comments on my earlier blog post, “Punishing Paterno.” Mr. Werkheiser’s observations can be found here. He is concerned that I too uncritically accepted the conclusions of the Freeh Report, the result of the investigation conducted by former FBI Director and federal judge Louis Freeh at the request of the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees.

There is no doubt that the NCAA penalty stage of the Sandusky-Paterno-Penn State affair developed with remarkable speed. It was that very fact that prompted me to publish the original blog post and to offer a similar recommendation on the SportsLaw Blog. I thought it was important to point out that punishments directed only at future football players and coaches would not adequately penalize those who were most responsible for the Penn State disaster. Nothing that Mr. Werkheiser mentions in his comment provides a reason to alter my original judgment regarding the culpability of Penn State Head Coach Joe Paterno.

Mr. Werkheiser, incidentally, is not just an ordinary Penn State alumnus, but is a leader of the Los Angeles Penn State alumni chapter and has been actively involved in fund-raising on behalf of Penn State and its Alumni Association. He earned a degree in accounting from Penn State in 1981, and, on his LinkedIn page, he describes himself as a “successful real estate professional, investment advisor and event producer.”

Mr. Werkheiser’s argument can be divided into three parts.

First, he insists that the Freeh Report contains no evidence that Joe Paterno was aware in 1998 of his friend Sandusky’s inappropriate conduct with young boys, and that the emails cited as evidence in the Freeh Report only contain references to “coach,” which Mr. Werkheiser suggests may refer to someone other than Joe Paterno.

Had Mr. Werkheiser read the Freeh Report more carefully, he would have noticed that the key May 5, 1998, email from Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley to University Vice President Gary Schultz and University President Grant Spanier had as its subject, “JOE PATERNO.”

This email, which involved an incident in which a mother had complained about Sandusky’s inappropriate physical contact with her son in the Penn State locker room showers, contained the statement, “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us [emphasis added] posted.” (Freeh Report, p. 48) To suggest that “coach” might be a reference to an assistant coach for the Penn State woman’s volleyball team, or some other Penn State coach rather than Paterno, whose name appears on the email subject line, is simply silly.

Moreover, in a May 13, 1998, email from Curley to Schultz entitled “JERRY,” Curley wrote, “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” (Freeh Report, p. 49) I suppose it is possible that by “Coach,” Curley was referring to the coach of the Penn State club bowling team, but I don’t think he was.

So, unless Curry was for some bizarre reason lying about having discussed the matter with Paterno, the two May emails indicate that Paterno had been informed of Sandusky’s alleged transgressions before May 5, 1998.

Secondly, Mr. Werkheiser also points out, correctly, that no criminal charges were filed against Sandusky as a result of the 1998 incident. Apparently, the state officials who investigated the complaint concluded that the lack of evidence that Sandusky, while cavorting in the nude with the 11 year-old boy, had touched the boy’s genitals made it unlikely that a criminal conviction could be obtained. (Freeh Report, pages 47-50.)

Whether or not this conclusion on the part of public officials was legitimate, or whether it was part of a widespread public effort to protect the reputation of the Penn State football program is still an unanswered question. However, the decision not to prosecute in no way relieved Joe Paterno of his moral and ethical duty to ensure that his coaches were not exploiting their connections to Penn State to the detriment of minors.

Even if Mr. Werkheiser’s arguments that the Freeh Report does not establish that Paterno had knowledge of the 1998 incident were correct, that fact would only push the date of Paterno’s culpability forward to 2001, when he clearly failed to take meaningful action upon evidence of continued abuses of young boys by Sandusky.

Finally, Mr. Werkheiser takes Judge Freeh to task for failing to interview Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, assistant coach Mike McQueary, Penn State Police Chief Harmon, and the Centre County district attorney. Again, had Mr. Werkheiser read the Freeh Report more carefully, he would have realized that Freeh’s investigators actually attempted to interview all of these individuals, except for the district attorney from 1998, who was already dead at the time the investigation began. (Freeh Report, p. 46.)

Paterno initially declined the interview request of the investigators, although he agreed to speak with them at a later time. Of course, his subsequent death made that impossible. (Freeh Report, p. 12.)

Both Curley and Schultz, who were under indictment for criminal offenses related to the Sandusky cover-up, refused to speak to the investigators, citing advice of counsel. (Sandusky himself refused to be interviewed for similar reasons.) McQueary and Police Chief Harmon were not interviewed, but only because of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s request that the two not be questioned because of the possibility that criminal charges might be filed against them as well. (Freeh Report, p. 12.)

Given the Fifth Amendment and the priority of state criminal proceedings over administrative investigations, Freeh and his team had no opportunity to interview the individuals cited by Mr. Werkheiser. Consequently, Mr. Werkheiser’s criticism of Judge Freeh on these grounds is either uninformed or disingenuous.

I understand that Mr. Werkheiser bleeds Penn State blue and that it can be emotionally wrenching to learn that a man that you have idolized all your life was capable of serious transgressions. However, even the most resolute Penn State fan should know that ad hominem attacks and misstatements of fact are not going to clear the name of Joe Paterno.

I do not believe that Joe Paterno was an evil man, although I think the proclamations of his saintliness in his lifetime were a bit exaggerated. (After all, how many actual saints earned millions of dollars on their way to canonization?) In a very human way, Paterno fell victim to the worship of an idol of his own creation—the Penn State football program and his vaunted “Joe Pa” image. Somewhere along the way, he unfortunately chose the protection of the reputation of his program and his image over his Christian obligation to care for those who could not protect themselves.

The Freeh Report can be found here.

Continue ReadingPunishing Paterno, Part II