NL Central: The toughest division

by CaughtInTheVines on Sep 6, 2007 7:50 AM CDT

There's been a lot of discussion this year about how the NL Central is a weak division, how 83 wins might be enough to get first place, how whoever wins the division will get chewed up in the playoffs, etc. Personally, I've already gotten a lot of pleasure out of this season's Cubs - but if they do manage to win the Central, I'll be very proud, because it is the toughest division in Major League Baseball.

I know you're thinking that I'm still giddy from last night's late rally. But let's look at a very basic fact about the NL Central - it has SIX TEAMS in it, while most others have five, and the AL West has a measly four.

This means that the Cubs (and their division rivals) have more teams to beat.

It means that in any given season, the Cubs have a greater chance of being in the same division as a "team of destiny" that just goes nuts and roars to a division championship.

It means that in a year like this one, when three divisional rivals are non-competitive, there are still three who ARE competitive, and that they will play a lot of games against one another. Heck, in the AL West, if you had three non-competitive teams, the other team would have a cakewalk - the Cubs will never, ever have a shot at this, as long as the current divisional lineup stays in place (and I think it oughta be changed ASAP).

None of this changes the facts on the ground, of course. Whichever of the Cubs/Brewers/Cards of 2007 wins, they're never going to be mentioned in the same breath at the '27 Yankees. But if you look at the big picture, any win of the NL Central is something to be proud of. And I, for one, have been enjoying the ride, and intend to continue doing so!

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I also

do not care about the division. While the division itself is pretty weak (in terms of quality of play), you make a good point. At any time in this "weak" division, there are more teams within reach of the title. Good point, still got a laugh but good point.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Sep 6, 2007 7:45 AM CDT reply actions

Appreciate your enthusiasm but...

Combined Record of NL Central:

vs. NL East: 81-102
vs. NL West: 86-98

Go Cubbies!

by NC Cubs Fan on Sep 6, 2007 8:14 AM CDT reply actions

argh!

you beat me to this!! good work!

by pollymerase on Sep 6, 2007 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions

Heh while I would love to agree...

The only team with a sub-.500 record vs Central (in the NL) is the Marlins at 15-20. And the Cubs have the best record against the W at 17-17, everyone else is sub .500. Brewers have the best record against the E at 15-14, everyone else is way below .500.

by GoCubbies34 on Sep 6, 2007 8:20 AM CDT reply actions

Agree a little

The Central is inherently unfair because of the shear number of teams, especially when you compare it to the AL West. It's absolutely crazy that MLB has allowed that to happen. iirc Arizona originally agreed to move to the AL after a certain number of years but when the time came they balked and MLB caved, and we have what we have. I think Houston was going to move to the NL West and then all divisions in both leagues would have 5 teams. As it is though every team in the NL Central starts out at a disadvantage.

That said, I'd much rather be in this division than say the AL East. Ask yourself this, would the Devil Rays rather be in the AL East or the NL Central? Nuff said...

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Sep 6, 2007 8:20 AM CDT reply actions

The problem with 15 team leagues

At least one team would have to have a day off everyday, unless there is interleague play everyday.

It is lopsided that there is a 6 team division and a 4 team division. To even it all up you could have add two teams to the AL and have 4 divisions in each league each with 4 teams.

Or drop a few teams so their is only 12 teams in each league split into 3 divisions of 4 teams a piece.

Neither is a good option IMO

by El Borto on Sep 6, 2007 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions

too solve the inbalance

If Arizona won't stick to their agreement than the league should induce Houston to the move to the AL West, setting up a natural in state rivalry with Dallas's franchise. That would be the cleanest move

Milw-09-24-98--Brown in for defense--bases loaded--flyball--HE DROPPED THE BALL!!!NO NO NO, cubs lose 8-7

by Ivy Walls on Sep 6, 2007 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions

And then what?

Have interleague games every day? C'mon, folks, think about the implications of having 15 teams in each league.

Arizona IS sticking to their original agreement. They never agreed to move after X number of years, they agreed to a window of time in which they would move to the AL had MLB told them that they had to. This window has since expired.

DmL

by dmlichte on Sep 6, 2007 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions

I like

Houston in the west personally.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Sep 6, 2007 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions

Won't happen

For much the same reason the Cubs went to court in the 90's to prevent MLB from moving the Cubs and Cards into the NL West before MLB went to the wild card and three divisions in each league. Moving a team from the central timezone into the west would double or triple the number of games starting at 9:00 PM. Ratings would take a hit and the fanbase would not be happy.

DmL

by dmlichte on Sep 6, 2007 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah I know

I just like the idea.

MMMMM...Mannys corned beef and a latke

by Kinky Reggae on Sep 6, 2007 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions

Remember when Cincinnati and Atlanta

were in the NL West? Having that many of your games starting at 10 p.m. Eastern time must have sucked.

by Not Bruce Froemming on Sep 7, 2007 12:21 AM CDT up reply actions

Yup

The Cubs did the unthinkable when the got an injunction to keep MLB from moving them and the Cards into the NL West. And this was only a two hour difference.

DmL

by dmlichte on Sep 7, 2007 1:10 AM CDT up reply actions

Not True

The deal with the Diamondbacks was not as you described. They originally wanted to go into the NL while MLB wanted to have them in the AL along with the other expansion team in 1998, the Devil Rays. Ultimately MLB decided to allow the Diamondbacks to enter the NL and the Brewers found themselves moving from the AL to the NL. One cavaet of the Diamondbacks being moved, however, was that there was a window of a few years where, if MLB decided, the Diamondbacks could be moved into the AL and the Diamondbacks had to abide by that decision. I know there are some specifics that I'm a little hazy on, but its not that Arizona was going to be moved, but rather the possibility existed and the team would have no recourse had MLB decided to move them within a certain timeframe.

DmL

by dmlichte on Sep 6, 2007 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions

Close enough

I guess I was a little hazy on the specifics as well which was probably why I started the statement with iirc... Anyway, my point was that the NL Central got hosed and MLB was responsible. 15 teams in a league may have it's pitfalls but so does being stuck in a division with more teams than any other division. I don't want to be around to hear the complaining when the Cubs finally put together a 90+ win season only to find themselves behind 5 other 90+ win teams. The realities of this division make that unlikely, but the realities of this division also make it a possibility. That's not happening in the AL West. Scheduling difficulties could be overcome a little more easily than 5 good teams I think with just a little creativity. I don't like being told something can't be done because something else can't be done. Figure it out, fix it, and level the playing field for everyone.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Sep 6, 2007 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions

what I can tell you...

... is that if you asked every team in the AL or NL West, along with pretty much every other division, they'd all love to be in the NL Central. This division has been pretty mediocre for quite a while and it has been there for the Cubs taking all season, along with in 2004. The Cubs may have more teams to jump over in certain years, but that means very little when jumping over those teams means jumping over teams that win 75 games a season.

I think the initial argument that this thread wants to advance seems to make logical sense. However, when you look at the realities as well as how the divisions have played out since the three division leagues came into play, the extra team in the NL Central has had no impact on fairness or unfairness.

DmL

by dmlichte on Sep 6, 2007 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Short-term vs. long-term

I think the distinction is between short-term factors, like which teams happen to be good now, and long-term ones about the fundamental structure of the game. DmL, I think you're right about the situation not having caused any apparent problems yet.

But I think in the long term, there has to be some effect. Is the Central Division somehow fated to always have three or four rotten teams? If not, there will be a time when a deserving team gets screwed. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge deal, but I have to agree with pageian that it's something that ought to be solveable, despite all the different factors.

Just for fun, and to see how much of a spread there is between "good" and "bad" franchises, I made a list of teams' all-time winning % (all include their predecessor teams, like the Nationals includes the Expos; info from http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/):

Team     Win%
Yankees    0.567
Giants    0.539
Dodgers    0.524
Cardinals    0.517
Red Sox    0.515
Cubs    0.513
Indians    0.511
Reds    0.508
Pirates    0.507
White Sox    0.506
Tigers    0.506
D-backs    0.504
Braves    0.499
Astros    0.499
Blue Jays    0.496
Angels    0.493
Royals    0.487
A's    0.486
Nationals     0.482
Twins    0.481
Mets    0.478
Orioles    0.476
Brewers    0.472
Mariners    0.472
Marlins    0.47
Phillies    0.469
Rockies    0.468
Rangers    0.468
Padres    0.463
Devil Rays    0.399

by CaughtInTheVines on Sep 6, 2007 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions

I think...

... that every division is, on the balance, fated to have three or four rotten teams. Now perhaps rotten is not the proper term, maybe mediocre is, but doesn't the cyclical nature of sports indicate that divisions will tend to have an overall spread in talent?

See, we can sit here and say that the Cubs or other NL Central teams are at a disadvantage because they're in a division with six teams, and therefore, they have to overcome more teams to make it to the playoffs. However, teams in the AL East could make the claim that their path to the playoffs is more difficult because they're in a division with the two teams who spend far and away the most on player salary. It's been ten years since a team out of the AL East not named the Yankees or Red Sox has made it to the playoffs. Teams from the two western and eastern divisions can claim that they have to overcome more than teams from the central divisions do because they have to complete more longer flights due to east to west coast flights.

Again, I think that logic seems to indicate that due to the added team, it is therefor harder to win the NL Central. I think that there is a lot more to it, however. Its not so black and white, and, IMO, this is not as solvable of a problem as one would think.

It would involve a team moving into the AL from the NL.
It would involve putting a team in the a Western division that currently is located in either the Central or Eastern timezone. This has implications on the start times of games and the travel stresses.
It would mean having interleague play every day and/or days off every day for teams.

So lets paint this scenario. We want six divisions of five teams each. Well, lets say we can force the Diamondbacks into the American League. OK, one problem solved. Still, a team from the NL Central needs to go to the NL West. The Astros may seem like an obvious choice, well, because we're not Astros fans, but there is no real logical reason why they should go there... so lets say all three teams have to draw straws and all of a sudden the Cubs lose, because, they are, after all, the Cubs. Well, while I'm looking forward to a few extra Rockies series a year and while I can get over not seeing folks in Cardinal Red come to Wrigley quite as often, those extra fifteen or twenty games that are now going to start at 9pm instead of at 7pm really are going to frustrate me.

So we may not like the five other teams in our division. I think the Devil Rays and Blue Jays are not particularly fond of the two teams at the top of their division who were 1-2 in MLB spending and outpaced the #3 team in that category by nearly $79M and $27M respectively.

DmL

by dmlichte on Sep 6, 2007 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions

The central division

The NL central may in fact be the toughest division to win, but that doesn't mean it's not a weak group of teams.

If you look at the NL central's cumulative records against the east and west it's not very pretty.

vs. East 80-102 .440%
vs. West 85-98 .464%

So while you may be correct in saying it's dang difficult to beat mediocrity with mediocrity, I disagree with you that the NL central isn't a weak division.

by pollymerase on Sep 6, 2007 8:24 AM CDT reply actions

oops

couple of other people beat me to this!

by pollymerase on Sep 6, 2007 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions

That theory only matters...

if you assume that all teams are equal (i.e., ignoring differences in talent). Obviously, that's not the case. The talent in the other divisions appears to be better, based on

The difficulty with winning the division is entirely relative to the difference in talent between teams within the division. If there was a strong team in the Central, they'd be pulling away right now. For example, if you put The Phillies, Braves, Dodgers, or Padres in our division, I'd argue that they'd likely have a comfortable lead. Given that none of those teams are in the Central, though, they aren't leading their division. Thus, I wouldn't argue that winning this division this year is that impressive.

The good news is that it doesn't matter whether or not winning the division is impressive. It just matters that whoever wins the division gets a chance to win the World Series. I don't much care that the Central is the worst division in baseball. I just care whether or not we happen to win it.

by SouthernCub on Sep 6, 2007 8:41 AM CDT reply actions

Frankly...

I don't care if the Cubs win the division with a losing record. Are they winning the division? YUP.

Further - the National League World Series representatives from the last three years and their division:
2004 - St. Louis Cardinals - NL CENTRAL
2005 - Houston Astros - NL CENTRAL
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals - NL CENTRAL

It's not about being the '27 Yankees anymore because you don't have to beat the whole league to make the World Series. The whole mantra is do what you have to do to advance. Survive and advance.

Proudly waving the Cubbie Blue in the middle of redbird inbreds!

by Tater01 on Sep 6, 2007 9:03 AM CDT reply actions

Exactly!!

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Sep 6, 2007 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions

Further reinforcement

(As if it's actually necessary.)

It's not necessarily the team with the best regular season record that does well in the postseason. The team that is playing the best baseball at the time succeeds in the playoffs.

Everyone starts the playoffs with a 0-0 record.

While I could toss in a whole string of additional baseball cliches, I think you guys get the picture.

by MN exile on Sep 6, 2007 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions

Emphasizing this point

Winning the division or being the best in the league is one strategy. Bobby Cox was best at this during the last two decades with ONE WS victory to show in 15 playoff appearances with 5 WS appearances.

The next strategy is winning the playoff series. Cardinals are the latest example, but previously Houston showed what it means to get hot in October. Other examples are Minnesota (2), but also there is the '73 Mets, Arizona in '01, where the final statement is that the WC qualifier has reached or even won the WS in the last five WS!

Milw-09-24-98--Brown in for defense--bases loaded--flyball--HE DROPPED THE BALL!!!NO NO NO, cubs lose 8-7

by Ivy Walls on Sep 6, 2007 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions

Record against "good" teams

It has seemed lately that every time the Cubs play a "good" team (at .500 or above), they can't get the job done. I ran the number post-All-Star Break, and they are a touch surprising. Since that time, we are 11-12 against teams at .500 or above. Not great, but a little better than it has seemed.

by park on Sep 6, 2007 11:09 AM CDT reply actions