The Los Angeles MSA is 44% Hispanic, based on 2009 Census data, and LA teams were 3rd and 5th in average home attendance in 2010. But I’d argue LA is big enough (nearly 13 million people) that it can fill a ballpark (or two) regardless.

So taking LA as an outlier, here are the next five MLB markets based on the percentage of people identifying as Spanish in the MSA, and their 2010 attendance rank.

Miami (40% Hispanic, 28th in attendance)
Houston (34%, 16th)
Phoenix (32%, 21st)
San Diego (31%, 18th)
Dallas (28%, 14th)

That would give me pause about expanding into a place like San Antonio. Also, while SA supports the Spurs, adding another team would bring it down to just 1 million people per team. Meantime, Omaha has no teams, so adding a team there would bring it to about 850,000 people per team. Not a huge difference. I think a more affluent and, yes, whiter, area like Omaha is actually where MLB should be looking. Population growth doesn’t necessarily equal revenue.

But you’re right, since the NHL has eliminated the tie (meaning one team gets two points in every game) — giving one point for an OT loss does incentivize playing to get to OT rather than winning in regulation.

What the NHL should do is switch to a system that awards 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win and 1 point for an OT loss. It’s likely fewer games would go to OT.

/off-topic

When I talk to people who aren’t baseball fans but are fans of other sports, the most common reason for why they can’t get into baseball is because they feel like teams are playing with a stacked deck.

1) Decreasing television revenue for cst and pst teams due to playing away games two hours later or earlier with greater frequency
2) An overall fall in fan support for western division teams due to such a widely varying schedule.
3) The high likelihood that the AL East will produce both wildcard teams and the very low likelihood that the AL West will
4) The potential for regional decline in league support due to the previous factors

I think it’s a given that teams have lower ratings the further away the start time is from that of their home game. On the second point, the more often that a casual fan just checks to see if there’s a game on now and finds that it’s already half over or that it hasn’t started yet, they are likely to “check if a game is on” less frequently and generally be less invested in their team. I think the third point is a given, considering the differences in wealth between the AL East and AL West teams and the author’s analysis.

These things disproportionately affect teams in the Western divisions whose teams are located in the south and southwest – the fastest growing regions of the country. These are also the markets with the most appealing demographics for expansion (not with more teams, but in market penetration). The people there are young and of hispanic descent. It would be foolish to weaken the MLB in Chicago, LA, Texas and the west coast just because, occasionally, an 86 win team makes the playoffs while an 89 win team does not.

My idea is that because baseball is different (plays 162) we have a league that does a great job separating the wheat from the chaff. That 162 game season should mean more.

In my opinion the #1 seed playoff team should get 4 games at home. in the first round. That would keep teams playing until the end. Now to advance to the ALCS the #4 see would need to at least win 3 of 4 in the #1 seeds stadium. SO now the difference between being a one seed and a four seed is huge. Likewise the difference between being one and 2 is huge. Teams will play hard to get that one seed, and they will play hard to avoid the four, and it does a better job making 162 mean something.