Geography and a new paradigm of competition.

From 1903 through 1952 the 16 teams in the American and National Leagues played in 10 cities concentrated in the northeast and mid-west; five cities had multiple teams.  Now the 30 teams in the Major Baseball League (MBL) play in 28 cities.

From 1953 through 1958 these franchise moves occurred:

1953 Braves from Boston to Milwaukee through 1965 then moved to Atlanta.
1954 Browns from St. Louis to Baltimore to become the Orioles.
1955 Athletics from Philadelphia to Kansas City through 1967 then moved to Oakland.
1958 Giants from New York City to San Francisco.
1958 Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles.

The Dodgers are the only team to succeed after moving, even outdrawing the Yankees after leaving Brooklyn.

Teams moved because commercial air travel became viable, nationwide television networks formed, urban flight from the cities, blah, blah, blah.

Then came expansion into more minor league cities.  Small markets became more prevalent.  In the mid 1960s a player draft was created followed by many rules to even out, if not the quality of the teams, then the money that they could make.

The Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals are examples of small market, poorly run teams that do not compete, either on the field or in making money.  Pittsburgh last played post season ball in 1992 when they finished first in one of the two divisions.  Kansas City finished first and won the World Series in 1985, the last time they played post season ball.

So what to do if you run either of these perennial losers?  They still seem to think that they can compete against the Dodgers and Yankees by doing basically the same thing that those rich teams do but do it smarter and cheaper.  It's not happening.

Here's an idea of something they can try.  It may not work but what the heck.  They're losers, right?  Try SOMETHING!

Supposedly value and expense can be placed about 60/40: every day position players versus pitchers. Let's say that the Yankees and Dodgers spend about $200 million per year on players with that breakdown: about $80 million on pitchers, $120 million on every day players.  And let's imagine that Pittsburgh and Kansas City spend about half that.

Obviously, Pittsburgh and Kansas City cannot match that $120 million but they can match the $80 million pitching staffs.  Get the picture?  Load up on pitchers and do not compete on the other players.  Instead get inexpensive but really great fielders and spend only $20 million.  Put all that fielding analytics mumbo jumbo to work and see what happens.  It's the only chance that the loser teams have.

Try SOMETHING!  Try this.