Phoenix? A fast-growing city, but you'd need a domed stadium to stand the summer heat. Denver? Maybe, but the western states aren't densely populated enough to maintain a TV market. Miami? Washington, D.C.? Tampa Bay? They've already got a stadium. How about Buffalo, Vancouver, Orlando?
I decided to take a new tack. Instead of measuring the dispersal of teams through North America in terms of cities, I decided to list them in terms of states. What states have too many or too few teams? Where do we put two (or four) new teams?
Here is the current listing of teams by state:
State Population Teams
California 29.7 million 5 (A's, Dodgers, Angels,
Giants, Padres)
New York 17.6 2 (Yankees, Mets)
Texas 17.0 2 (Rangers, Astros)
Florida 12.9 0
Pennsylvania 11.9 2 (Phillies, Pirates)
Illinois 11.4 2 (Cubs, White Sox)
Ohio 10.8 2 (Reds, Indians)
Michigan 9.2 1 (Tigers)
New Jersey 7.7 0
North Carolina 6.6 0
Georgia 6.5 1 (Braves)
Virginia 6.2 0
Massachusetts 6.0 1 (Red Sox)
Indiana 5.5 0
Missouri 5.1 2 (Royals, Cardinals)
Wisconsin 4.9 1 (Brewers)
Tennessee 4.9 0
Washington 4.9 1 (Mariners)
Maryland 4.8 1 (Orioles)
Minnesota 4.4 1 (Twins)
Louisiana 4.2 0
Alabama 4.0 0
Kentucky 3.7 0
Arizona 3.7 0
South Carolina 3.5 0
Colorado 3.3 0
Canada has two teams, the Blue Jays and Expos.
As you can see, the national population has shifted south and west, and the most glaring hole in the list above is Florida. Florida could support two teams easily, according to the figures above.
From 1903 to 1952 the sixteen teams of major league baseball played in the same cities, and cities such as Boston, St. Louis, and Philadelphia had two teams each. The dispersal of teams fell far out of line with the population, and in the 1950s the teams started moving. The Boston Braves went to Milwaukee, the St. Louis Browns went to Baltimore, the Senators went to Minnesota, etc. For the most part, the franchise shifts were not the result of greedy owners lining their pockets, but of an industry belatedly adjusting to population trends.
No franchise in baseball has moved from one city to another since 1971, when the second Washington Senators moved to Texas. The club owners have tried to keep abreast of the shifting population by awarding new franchises, but the list above shows that we may be overdue for a new, but smaller, round of club-moving.
It may turn out, in the near future, that teams at the bottom of the list above, such as the Twins, Brewers, and Mariners, may move in the next few years. It seems that a state needs a population of 5.5 million to support a team; the teams in states below 5.5 million are the ones most often regarded as being in trouble.
There are exceptions, of course. In Maryland, the Orioles should be safe in drawing from the Washington, D.C. area also, a total of nearly a million more people in D.C. only 40 miles away. Missouri has two teams where one should fit, but both are in metro areas that spill over into neighboring states. However, the Kansas City Royals are often cited as being in trouble.
Also, if a state has 5.5 million, it should support a team just fine. Pennsylvania should support two teams, so why are the Pirates in such dire straits? A team in Pittsburgh should do well. Perhaps poor management and a lousy stadium have a lot to do with it.
So, where should new teams go? Arizona? Maybe, although there are eight states with more population that don't have teams. Arizona is a fast-growing state that will climb the standings like Florida has. Colorado? There are ten states above them. My suggestion is to put two teams in Florida (Tampa Bay and Miami) and then expand again before 2000 by two more teams.
If you expand in 1999 or 2000 by only two teams, each league would have 15 teams and one team in each league each day would have to be idle. The answer? Limited interleague play. Divide each league into three divisions and let each division play against the matching division in the other league.
AL West: California, Oakland, Texas, Seattle, Minnesota. AL Central: Chicago, Toronto, Kansas City, Detroit, Cleveland. AL East: Baltimore, New York, Boston, Miami, Virginia (moved from Milwaukee).
NL West: Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Houston NL Central: St. Louis, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte (moved from Montreal). NL East: New York, Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New Jersey.
This lineup gives one Florida team to each league. Doesn't it seem now that the AL should have put a team in Miami in 1977 instead of Seattle? Or that if the NL had to choose a Canadian city to move into in 1969, they should have picked Toronto instead of Montreal?
Also, cities have shown that building new stadiums (Texas, Cleveland, Baltimore) and/or winning (Seattle in 1995 and 1996) can invigorate a franchise. Cleveland and Seattle, former weak sisters of the AL, are safe now.
I guess Virginia, New Jersey, and Indianapolis will have to wait, but let's see how teams like Montreal and Pittsburgh fare in the next few years. In fact, I'll make a new prediction. At least three teams will move before 2002; I'm guessing Montreal, Pittsburgh (due to mismanagement and poor marketing, not a population shortage), and Milwaukee.