Smaller Fictional Leagues - 8 or 12 Teams?

[jb28]

There have been times in that clubs history that it had big help from local revenue through things like stocks sales and local taxes. I'm not trying to draw a comparison; I'm just making a point that a local community can maintain a club that it supports.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by jb28

There is no fully professional national Canadian baseball league and for many reasons. At some level this league is going to have to be a fiction.

Can you go into more detail on those reasons?

[84Hammy]

Two reason for no real professional league in Canada:
1. Available talent (we have a shorter season)
2. Hockey

They tried a few years ago, but I don't think it lasted a season. The Can-Am league that plays out of Windsor is full of former minor-leaguers and college players, and I suspect similar leagues exist around the country, but I wouldn't classify it as professional.

Currently there is a professional basketball league trying to get off the ground. The Windsor team typically draws 500-1,000. Halifax and London are drawing over 2,000 a game, but again, not much better than a Class A team.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Many people play with large leagues and huge universes, but I've never run fictional leagues other than for testing or as a mere observer. I'm finally getting close to creating a fictional historical league, and I would prefer to keep it smaller for realism and immersion.

The league will start in 1950 and will be based in Canada. I prefer to be as realistic as possible, and given the census figures of 1951, there are only about 8 cities that had sufficient metropolitan populations to support a professional baseball franchise.

That works perfectly for me, but I wonder whether it might be worth it to extend the number of franchises to 12 in order to avoid the league becoming too monotonous and to enhance the overall experience. I have no plans of ever expanding the league, so the starting number of clubs will likely remain the same for the next 60 years.

What do people recommend between having 8 teams vs. 12 teams in a fictional league? Does it make a significant difference in enjoyment or richness of the league? Does it help with competitive balance and perhaps the potential to make trades and transactions?

For me, I get bored playing the same 3-7 teams 30+ times a season. If you do 2 subleagues and use interleague then 12 is a good number. I doubt you would play 162 games. 8 teams I would guess you would use 70-110 games. That's not bad if they are all in one league or use intereleague. Do you plan on playing out all of your games?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by 84Hammy

They tried a few years ago, but I don't think it lasted a season.

That was the ill-fated independent Canadian League of 2003. It was forced to close up shop about half-way through its inaugural season (not all that unusual for an independent league). It didn't help that the Montreal franchise had no permanent home and thus operated as a road team, and with four clubs out west and four in the east, travel was going to be an issue.

[jb28]

Many provinces don't have a large enough population or corporate presence to support a professional baseball franchise. Many of the more populous areas already have established sports teams. By the numbers you posted above, and with the MLB across the border, a Canadian league could at best support baseball of an A level quality. A Canadian league would not have the financial power to draw players out of major league and affiliated baseball.

Would Canadians watch and support that level of baseball sufficiently to maintain a league when they have access to the MLB? This is something other sports leagues have had to address too. Major League Soccer have done this by allowing clubs to sign marquee players. This has brought players like David Beckham and Thierry Henry to the MLs. This has helped the league increase its popularity but profitability is still a big concern for the MLS.

The next issue is whether Canadian players themselves would want to play in a Canadian league. I assume most would rather join a major league organisation and play affiliated baseball with a chance of advancing the ranks than join an independent Canadian league. The Australian Baseball League is another league that has had this problem. They have addressed this by playing in the Australian summer with the season starting after the end of the United States baseball season. This means Australian players don't have to choose between playing in Australa and in the United States. Many Australian players play in both the affiliated minor leagues and in the ABL. Many internationals do too, coming to Australia for the winter league season.

This works in Australia for three reasons. #1 The Australian government is a big supporter of sports and provides assistance to the league. #2 The schedule allows for MLB affiliated players to play. #3 The MLB is another supporter the league. Without the support of the govenment and MLB professional baseball would not exist in Australia. Baseball is simply not popular enough in Australia to attract the fans and corporate sponsors needed to maintain a league.

That last point, popularity, is what killed the 2003 Canadian Baseball League after only half a season of play. As you mentioned neutral venues and travel were part of that but baseball is not sufficiently popular in Canada to support such a league. The schedule will also be an issue in Canada too. If a Canadian baseball league was to play in the Canadian winter it would compete directly with the NHL. If it were to play in summer it would have to compete with MLB organisations for players. If it were to play as an affiliated summer league the league would lose much of its local identity.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by The Game

For me, I get bored playing the same 3-7 teams 30+ times a season. If you do 2 subleagues and use interleague then 12 is a good number. I doubt you would play 162 games. 8 teams I would guess you would use 70-110 games. That's not bad if they are all in one league or use intereleague. Do you plan on playing out all of your games?

Just to clarify, I would be running one league with 12 teams. There is absolutely no point in ever using subleagues unless you're simulating MLB or want to run two sizable leagues and not allow interleague play. No league of just 12 teams is going to bother splitting into two subleagues. The *** did this, I suppose, but this was simply to mimic MLB.

I will have a 126-game schedule, but that becomes a big undertaking if I'm planning on managing a team. I'd like to do that, but I don't think I could invest the time over numerous seasons. So we'll see.

As far as Canada supporting a league is concerned, my league will start in 1950. So this is long before MLB came to Canada, and it's back when the PCL was a major entity and almost an independent league in a sense. Of course, such a league could never attract even PCL level talent. The question is whether an independent league might have formed to provide baseball entertainment on a relatively low budget and at a lower talent level. There were some regional leagues like this in real life. Mine would involve an assumed national effort with some major startup funding.

[jb28]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

The question is whether an independent league might have formed to provide baseball entertainment on a relatively low budget and at a lower talent level. There were some regional leagues like this in real life.

The answer is definitely yes. If it's not then you wont have a league to play.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Just to clarify, I would be running one league with 12 teams. There is absolutely no point in ever using subleagues unless you're simulating MLB or want to run two sizable leagues and not allow interleague play.

Not at all. There is one very simple and practical reason why subleagues might be used: to recreate a conference-like structure. With the eastern and western branches of the league placed into subleagues, you can easily keep track of the stats separately for each region. It gives you a little more freedom in how your league will operate as compared to using two divisions. (Remember, think of subleagues as conferences instead of leagues, which is really what they are.)

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

The question is whether an independent league might have formed to provide baseball entertainment on a relatively low budget and at a lower talent level. There were some regional leagues like this in real life.

There were few independent leagues prior to 1993. The only ones of note would be the Federal League of 1913 (which became a major league the following season), the Carolina League of 1936-38, and the Quebec Provincial League, which switched back and forth between operating as an independent circuit and as part of organized baseball. Other than these three, most leagues which were independent were only that way for a season or two before joining the National Association and becoming part of organized baseball.

So a 1950 league would almost certainly have sought to entry into organized baseball and affiliation for its member clubs. (Only about half of minor league clubs had a major league affiliation in 1950, the rest were independent; the number varied by league, with some leagues having all the members affiliated, others only some affiliated clubs, and some had no affiliations at all. But the leagues themselves were part of the National Association [i.e. were 'affiliated leagues' in OOTP parlance] and thus had protection for their territories and player contracts, with the players being subject to the Rule 5 draft.)

ETA: 1950 is a tough year to start with because that's when the crash in baseball attendance started, which hit the minors very hard. The number of minor leagues dropped rapidly in the early 1950s. The majors had to step in a few times to increase the money going to their affiliates in order to keep them afloat financially. Eventually this led to the Player Development Plan of 1963, which resulted in the reclassification of the minor leagues and the minors giving up most of their autonomy in exchange for financial security.

[Charlie Hough]

Conferences are useless to me personally when it comes to small leagues, so they're still pointless on my account. But they might be useful or meaningful to someone else.

I think you're neglecting the small, semi-pro minor leagues that have operated in Canada. Someone posted some related links for Western Canada earlier. Those are the sorts of leagues I mean. I'm not referring to better known independents that were part of the more formal minor league circuit.

One question, though, is whether regions or settings will be able to replicate how these leagues attracted talent. Most of the players were from the U.S. and had kicked around the minors or were coming from the college ranks. Many were marginal players at best.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Conferences are useless to me personally when it comes to small leagues, so they're still pointless on my account.

Not if you're interested in keeping your stats differentiated. You can call a subleague in OOTP a division if you want, and practically speaking it'll function pretty much identically.

[DreamTeams]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Not if you're interested in keeping your stats differentiated. You can call a subleague in OOTP a division if you want, and practically speaking it'll function pretty much identically.

Agreed.

[Charlie Hough]

I don't see the point in keeping divisional stats in a 12-team league, but some folks like having that level of detail. I tend to prefer a simplified, old school approach.

[DreamTeams]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I don't see the point in keeping divisional stats in a 12-team league, but some folks like having that level of detail. I tend to prefer a simplified, old school approach.

See what you mean Charlie Hough, especially if interdivision play is a mainstay of the league. Almost took that rout for my league. However, for those who do not favor interdivision/league play, then two sub leagues would seem a good approach (keeping the stats separate) as the teams in both divisions would not play each other in the regular season.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I don't see the point in keeping divisional stats in a 12-team league, but some folks like having that level of detail. I tend to prefer a simplified, old school approach.

I'd point out that, for the year you're starting with, any Canadian league would not have teams in the east and west playing each other during the regular season - the travel would be an enormous expense, and in 1950 the minors were very much regional in their composition, with that regional emphasis increasing the further down the minor league ladder one looks (even the majors only stretched from Boston to St. Louis).

It's much more plausible that separate eastern Canada and western Canada leagues would have been created, which then agree to have their respective champions play each other. Even the CFL didn't start having regular season east vs. west games until 1961* and the high minors in baseball didn't start becoming more transcontinental until the early 1960s.

Given this historical reality (based on geographic realities) the separation of your "divisions" in terms of regular season play and statistics makes sense.


*Even with the adoption of a partially interlocking schedule, the eastern and western conferences in the CFL still acted largely independent of each other. The west, for example, played a 16-game regular season while in the east it was 14 games. (This persisted until 1974.) The playoffs were similarly different - the west had a two-game, total point series for the semi-final (later reduced to a single game) and a best-of-three final; the east had a one-game semi-final and a two game, total points series for the final. (The playoffs didn't become standardized until 1973.)

[Charlie Hough]

This is why my league concept assumes a national approach with considerable financial backing. So there would be a high level of investment to help ensure stability and long-term viability. Maybe tax subsidies from the national government. Or maybe something from private investors. I haven't spent time thinking about it yet.

I have other league ideas as well, so if Canada proves too unrealistic, I might create one in Mexico or the U.S. But the key is keeping it small for enjoyment and immersion.

[Honorable_Pawn]

I can solve the dilemna.

Go entirely fictional universe and see if that works for you. Create your own region, cities, states etc.

If you want to play historical go play historical. If you want to play fictional go play fictional.

You are allowed to be a little pregnant with this game. Play it your way and be damned with logistics. Realism is not a requirement for immersion unless you are playing in a real league. Immersion is all about storylines.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

This is why my league concept assumes a national approach with considerable financial backing. So there would be a high level of investment to help ensure stability and long-term viability. Maybe tax subsidies from the national government. Or maybe something from private investors. I haven't spent time thinking about it yet.

That would seem at odds with your focus on realism in other areas, i.e. not wanting to boost attendance or use certain markets because they are too small.

Even the majors did not become transcontinental until 1958. So there's no way a minor league would in 1950. It makes more sense for there to be separate eastern and western leagues which develop largely independently but later on decide to have their respective champions play each other. (The CFL is really the best model upon which to base a fictional Canadian baseball league. It's something I want to do myself someday.)

[Charlie Hough]

The only reason the majors didn't become transcontinental sooner is because the owners would not allow expansion. It had little to do with transportation costs.

Let's be honest. The Cleveland Rams moved to Los Angeles in 1946 and, while they played far fewer games, it meant traveling across the continent to play every road game and opposing teams around the league traveling the same distance to play in LA. Then the 49ers joined the league in around 1950. That added further travel for all involved.

Baseball was a much bigger draw and generated vastly greater revenue, so I don't buy the notion that it would be cost prohibitive for it to do the same as the NFL did. In Canada it's a bigger issue because the popularity wasn't there. But the mere fact that baseball didn't allow expansion westward until 1961 doesn't amount to an issue of realism in my mind. I shouldn't have to adhere to the same sort of greed and stupidity that plagued MLB. Things could have easily been otherwise. And the same goes for the CFL and its insistence on sticking with an east/west divide for so long. That smacks of greed and tradition rather than practical realities.

For me, realism becomes more of an issue when we're talking about the size of cities and whether enough people could show up for a full season of baseball games. I'm less concerned about travel because teams already traveled by rail for 1000+ miles from the early days. And if city populations in the western U.S. had been greater in earlier decades and the selfishness of MLB owners wasn't so prevalent, I think we would have seen transcontinental play much sooner.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

The only reason the majors didn't become transcontinental sooner is because the owners would not allow expansion. It had little to do with transportation costs.

Costs were a factor. So was travel time. Take a look at the train schedules of the day - the jump from Chicago to Los Angeles required about three days to complete. (I could give you exact figures but I'm not on my regular computer at the moment.) Heck, even early airline flights were not quick - Chicago to LA involved nine hours of travel by aircraft.

The longest distance between cities in the majors at the time was about 1,200 miles. That increases to over 3,000 miles with Los Angeles. The Pacific Coast League, in order to reduce travel costs for its teams spread along the west coast, used week-long series and had a designated travel day (Monday).

As it was back then, major league clubs typically racked up between 8,000 to 12,000 miles of travel during a season, almost entirely by train. Adding a west coast team would have added an enormous amount to that.

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

The Cleveland Rams moved to Los Angeles in 1946 and, while they played far fewer games, it meant traveling across the continent to play every road game and opposing teams around the league traveling the same distance to play in LA. Then the 49ers joined the league in around 1950. That added further travel for all involved.

Football played one game per week, which allowed plenty of time for travel. Clubs also played almost entirely within their division, with very few interdivisional games, and thus games against eastern clubs could be combined into one road trip, and road trips were typically longer (three or four games was not unusual).

Baseball is completely different. It's played daily, with multiple visits to a city during a season (three or four separate series). To do that with a club in LA or San Francisco would have presented many logistical difficulties. At least two days of travel would have to be allotted when going to and from the coast to Chicago, which in turn likely would have meant only two series, and probably only one, would be played.

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Baseball was a much bigger draw ...

Not correct on a per game average basis. In 1950, for example, the NFL average per game attendance was over 25,000; MLB's was under 15,000.

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

...and generated vastly greater revenue...

In 1953 the MLB average club revenue was slightly over $2 million; in the NFL it was just under $793,000. However, that baseball revenue was generated over 77 home games while football revenue was generated over 6 home games. Thus MLB generated about $26,000 in income per game while the NFL generated $132,000 per game.

So on a per capita basis (i.e. per game) the NFL had both higher attendance and higher revenue.

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

...so I don't buy the notion that it would be cost prohibitive for it to do the same as the NFL did.

I trust some of the foregoing data disproves your notion.