Talk:Major League Baseball

What kind of entity is MLB?

The article defines MLB as "the organization that operates the National League and the American League" but it doesn't anywhere tell what MLB is. There are many kinds of organizations. Is it a corporation? If so, who owns it? For profit or non-profit? Or is it a partnership of the teams or the leagues? What does it own? Is it governed by a corporate board of directors? (I couldn't find the answers to these at mlb.com either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.165.165 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

ANSWER Your questions cannot be answered because there it is either: 1) obvious, 2) would provide too much detail to what is a general topic, or 3) there is no general consensus.

A) Is it a corporation? Likely, but that kind of discussion is detail, and needs to be in some subtopic, like, "the business of baseball." Not everything can, or should, be discussed in a general topic. The truth is that the legal basis for MLB is irrelevant. It is a business but, legally, it is considered a sport. Keep reading, and read the article, specifically when it discusses SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US).

B) Who owns it? There is no general consensus and, depending on who one talks to, lawyers or accountants, one might get entirely different answers. Like most professional, sporting leagues in the USA, baseball is not truly "owned" by any single entity. Operationally, it is an equal partnership among participating teams. In truth, it acts more like a fraternal organization with an all-encompassing dictator who has ultimate authority. The difference between a partnership and a fraternity, when it comes to MLB, pretty much answers your question. Everyone has a financial stake, but no one "owns" MLB. MLB exists as itself as a separate entity, which controls the actions of it's fraternal members--both teams and players--through adherence to what it dictates.

C) Is it for profit? It is a business that earned $8-billion in 2010. It is a professional sports organization, which means the players are paid athletes. I think you need to go back to my last two bullets.

D) What does it own? MLB Advanced Media, which does a number of things, including the streaming out-of-town broadcasts to paid subscribers. It negotiates TV contracts. It collects taxes from teams that spend too much on payroll. It "owns" the baseball hall of fame, though it is really a separate, not for profit entity by itself. One could argue that the league owns the teams as well. Go back to my second bullet for the rebuttal. Outside of MLB Advanced Media, there is no general consensus, unless one wants me to start listing buildings that are deeded to them...

E) Is it governed by a corporate board of directors? Each team has an equal vote on decisions involving issues like labor, expansion, rules, and transfer of ownership. But outside of those issues, MLB is a friendly dictatorship that tells fraternal members what it wants.

F) I couldn't find the answers to these at mlb.com either. I know, because there is no consensus to your question. --71.62.86.48 (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Is The World Baseball Classic considered a "World Championship"

An editor has in good faith been attempting to add the following text to the last sentence of the opening paragraph of this page:

"...(MLB also manages the World Baseball Classic), a major world championship for baseball."

Although it isn't by any stretch of the imagination something awful, both I and another editor have reverted this entry because we (separately) do not consider the WBC to be a "World Championship" for baseball. My opinion is that it is treated as akin to the Olympics - ok if we win, but since we rarely send our best players, it doesn't matter if we win or not. Although MLB has moved the WBC to March, none of the participants get ALL of their best players and since it is played in the spring, none of the MLB players are at the top of their game anyway. It appeared to me that Bud Selig and MLB were trying to make what was basically a "good will" tournament into something bigger, but it still isn't a true "WORLD" series. What do you all think? Ckruschke (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'd say it definitely is not a "major world championship". Spanneraol (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on it. However, World Baseball Classic defines it that way, citing the [[IBAF] (http://ibaf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Files_-_world_rankings/4221-IBAF_World_Rankings_Notes.pdf); it also appears in List of world championships.

To clarify Spanneraol, the line says it is a "major world championship for baseball," not a "major world championship." It ain't the FIFA World Cup, no.

Regardless, I think we ought to at least cursorily explain what the WBC is, as it's mentioned nowhere else in the article. Perhaps it should be moved from the lede and expanded in another section. Woodshed (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically it is the official world championship according to the IBF. Do people look at it that way yet, no probably not. But officially it is a world championship. I would also note a number of various world championships in other sports don't always send their best players either. Hockey is a very good example because the world championship occurs during the NHL playoffs so only players on teams that have been knocked out of the playoffs already tend to go. That doesn't mean its not the official world championship of the international federation of the sport. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the word "major" i have a problem with I guess... a world championship.. yea... major... i dont think so.Spanneraol (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I have two questions.

1. What do the sources say? As who cares what we think, only what the sources can confirm.

2. Shouldn't this be discussed at World Baseball Classic? Not sure that this is the right place for this discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Having read over the Baseball World Cup and associated articles, there is an interesting (and completely believable) comment that noted that many in the media mistakenly referred to the WBC as a "Baseball World Cup", with many probably not realizing that one already existed. I agree with Jojhutton in that sources should act as a guide, but it seems to me that a great deal of care has to be taken when looking at sources, as many of them may be mistaken in their assertions when they called the WBC a "World Cup" level tournament. For what it is worth, I don't think that the WBC is a world championship. It is not claimed by the IABF as such. It appears to be an international exhibition that was started by MLB to allow some of the better players to play. MLB looks like it has consistently denied its players an opportunity to play in the actual World Cup because of its timing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean there is a World Cup of baseball?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See Baseball World Cup; its a biennial tournament held in odd-numbered years. This year's is in Panama. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, from the above cited source (which is from the IBAF), it appears they do consider it a world championship. oknazevad (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So if the IBAF calls it a World Championship, then there should be no reason to not be referring to it as such in this article.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The IBAF web page on the World Baseball Classic does not call it the world championship, which would be odd if IBAF did indeed consider it as such. The PDF link lists three "Major World Championships", indicating that the IBAF does not consider the World Baseball Classic to be "the" world championship, but just one major tournament that is contested by global participants. Unfortunately, without context, using this phrasing alone is ambiguous in this article, as it seems that the WBC is being compared to world championships of other major sports. If it were to be worded as one of a number of major baseball world championships, or some thing similar, this would clarify the statement. isaacl (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think however it's worded, it should be done carefully and with respect to the World Series, as teams that win that still also call themselves World Champions. Beyond495 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of digression

This edit seems to be a reasonable one; it removed an off-topic digression that is not very significant for the subject of this article, Major League Baseball. Thus I propose that the edit be reinstated. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was about to delete this entire "bunny trail" myself but I got busy and blew it off. I don't understand either the point of the section or why it is even here as it appears it is making some backhanded comment about Bush and has zip to do about Montreal losing it's team. Ckruschke (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think I reverted reflexively on that one (an IP edit tagged "references removed" does set my vandal-sense tingling). I removed the digression, but didn't restore the rest of the edit, as mentioning the markets that haven't had teams since the 19th century is not a digression there. oknazevad (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Current franchises section

I have three issues with this section as it stands. Firstly, why is such an important aspect of MLB, namely the teams that it comprises, so low down in the article? The see also and refs sections are the only ones below it. Also, as the section is "current" franchises, why do the footnotes try to give the entire franchise history? None of the other major leagues have such excessive notes, they leave such details to the individual team articles. Finally, it seems obvious from looking at the main article linked in the hatnote that it was a larger section that got split off into a separate article. The problem is it was done poorly.

What I propose is that the "current franchises" chart, and the attendant map on the separate article, be moved up higher in the article and be stripped of the excessive historical notes, while the separate article be renamed History of Major League Baseball franchises, and become the repository of those details. oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

MLB Organizational Structure

The phrase at the end of this section is out of place. It is also entered in some strange, sneaky way so that it is hidden from view on the editing page.

Someone with lots of experience may want to fix it. I just accidentally stumbled upon it and cannot figure out how it was entered onto the page. 68.95.48.249 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The offending phrase was reverted by ClueBot, probably a split second before you entered the editing page, which would explain why you didn't see it there.--JayJasper (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Necklaces the players wear

Just wondering what the meaning behind the braided necklaces the players are wearing if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.181.80 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They're called Phiten Tornado Titanium Necklaces, and apparently it's some sort of new-age hippie bullcrap. The players believe the titanium makes them play better. ಠ_ಠ --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Future realignment

These edits are the latest set to modify the table of current major league franchises, placing the Astros in the AL West and reverting to the old name for the Oakland stadium. Given that the Astros will not move prior to 2013, this table should continue to reflect Houston's current division, the NL Central, until the end of the 2012 postseason, with a clarifying note specifying that the Astros are expected to move to the AL West in 2013. Also, the new name of the Oakland stadium should be used. I propose that the changes introduced in the referenced series of edits be reverted. isaacl (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Relegation

(copying from user talk page to article talk page)

I'm happy to discuss the edit relating to relegation. No major North American professional sports leagues do relegation, so I think that should be spotlighted.

Also, I don't understand the "closed shop" comparison since

A. - The European soccer pyramids are fairly similar in reality -- most of those Level 13 teams on the English soccer pyramid are never going to be in the Premier League, so those "professional levels" are fairly closed.

B. - Many of the large European teams are owned by multimillionaires, similar to North American sports franchises (see Malcolm Glazer)

C. - In theory, it's very difficult to get a new professional major league team in North America, but expansion has occurred multiple times, and if someone had several hundred million dollars and wanted a new team, it's not impossible that the leagues would accomodate them. Beyond495 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The current article does mention the absence of relegation. I don't believe a general comparison to the rest of the world is necessary though; it would require citations to back this up and I think it is better discussed in the relegation article.

I'm not well-versed in this, but I suspect the issue with the various Collective Bargaining Agreements for the major North American leagues as they are currently written is that they don't support the revolving door for union membership that relegation would require. Because this is unsourced, perhaps it should also be stricken from the article. Let's see what others think about both these points.

(On a side note, I'm not familiar with them, but I assume the European soccer pyramids consist of independent teams. With the minor leagues not being free in North America, there is no easy path for an owner to ramp up their investment spending on a club such that, for example, a triple-A facility could be easily comparable with an MLB facility. Until that happens, and there is a smoother continuum of revenues made at each step in the hierarchy, relegation would be financially impossible for owners.) isaacl (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment First, its not true that No North American professional sports league do relegation. They do in Mexico's Mexican Primera División. Last I checked Mexico is in North America. Second, why does the article have to state that the league doesn't do something? It doesn't serve tea and crumpets in the club house, but the article doesn't say that either.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, fair enough. No leagues in the United States or Canada.

And I agree on the second part. I don't see how the relegation part is even necessary to the article, I think it's self-explanatory that the 30 teams are the same teams year after year. If there was an article comparing U.S/Canadian sports leagues versus European sports leagues, then it would make sense, but here, it's POV. Beyond495 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness to discuss this matter. Just to clarify: have you changed your mind about spotlighting the information about relegation? If so, then we can float a proposal to remove the sentence on relegation from the article. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always happy to compromise if possible. I think you're right, removing the sentence is best in this situation to avoid confusion. I think MLB and European soccer are basically apples and oranges, the best way to compare might be not to compare at all, or at least in another article. Beyond495 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with the discussion above, I propose removing the last sentence from the first paragraph in the section "MLB organizational structure", which starts with "As is the case for sports leagues in the United States and Canada ..." isaacl (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No reason for that sentence to exist.. most people in America probably dont even know what relegation is and it has no relevance to baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought we put this to rest already? No need to mention something that is not done. MLB doesn't sell tacos in the bullpen either, but should this be mentioned in the article? Probably not.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just giving the opportunity for more people to comment, with an official proposal in place (since there was a dispute originally, I prefer to have an explicit proposal made on the talk page and consensus reached). I already considered your previously expressed opinion as being in favour of the proposal, but thanks for chiming in again. isaacl (talk)

I have implemented the proposal. isaacl (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Scheduling pre-1969

Did the teams on either leagues played each other the same number of times? –HTD 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to the Golden Age of New York Baseball, with 8 teams in each league, each team played every other team in its league 22 times each season for 154 games.50.10.90.15 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Technology in Baseball

Is there a section for instant replay under Major League Baseball? Kossmatt (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

World Series Champions

It's a chart on the MLB page (World Seris Champs). I've noticed that they have NFL teams listed on the chart-Pittsburgh Steelers, Baltimore Ravens and Green Bay Packers as winning the most MLB champonship, PLEASE correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.211.156.2 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)