15 comments 3 Articles For Friday or How I Learned To Hate Realignment

There is one of my uncreative titles for a post again. Maybe I should think of more creative titles to draw in readers, but I sometimes don't have the energy to think of something uber-creative so somebody Googling a couple random terms can accidentally come upon this blog. It would be nice if that happened and I always encourage people to just check it out, but creative titles sometimes end up with the blog being found by people Googling terms like "Hitler," which I am not a fan of. So today I have three articles I want to cover.

There is still a few spots left in the Yahoo Fantasy Baseball league. Sign up if you would like to. The information to sign up is in yesterday's post.

Tom Verducci is covering the realignment plan that Bud Selig has. A good two years ago today I tackled my first Verducci column and going back and reading it is a mix of "that wasn't too bad" to "I am embarrassed to have this exist" so I am not sure why I just linked it again. Either way, two years later Verducci covers the realignment plan of MLB and I don't like this idea.

When baseball commissioner Bud Selig named a 14-person "special committee for on-field matters" four months ago, he promised that all topics would be in play and "there are no sacred cows."

Speaking of sacred cows, how about fixing the All-Star Game? I am tired of defending the All-Star Game for mattering because the winner gets home field advantage in the World Series. Isn't there another way to make the All-Star Game matter? I have defended the tying of the All-Star Game winner to World Series home field advantage before, and I would possibly do so again, but I am only one person. Fix this so I don't feel so alone.

The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.

I am not a traditionalist and I am adverse to change in my life so I may be predisposed to hate this idea, but doesn't this idea seem dumb? I like knowing the Braves are playing the Marlins, Nationals, Mets, and Phillies in their division from year-to-year. I like this. I don't want to find out before the season the Braves are now in a division with the Pirates, Cardinals and Padres now. I don't want to be in that division (well, competitively it would look better than playing the Phillies).

I feel like Bud Selig wants to not be seen as a conservative, traditionalist, behind-the-times commissioner so he floats out the idea of a radical change. "Floating realignment" sounds like something that would be done to my car by a mechanic in space or something out of a science fiction novel. Throw in the fact I think the idea is dumb and I am not in favor of this plan. Radical ideas are great, stupid radical ideas are not great.

The concept gained strong support among committee members, many of whom believe there are non-economic avenues that should be explored to improve competitive balance, similar to the NFL's former use of scheduling to help parity (in which weaker teams were awarded a weaker schedule the next season).

Fine. Let's compromise. Do that, but don't change the divisions every year. Let the Marlins play the Pirates every year and draw 4,500 per game or make the Yankees have a harder schedule, but leave the divisions alone. The NFL is able to use this scheduling parity and keep the same divisions, baseball should be able to do it as well. Great, its done. I am glad we decided this in a timely fashion.

As with most issues of competitive balance, floating realignment involves finding a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East.

As most things do in the world, this revolves around those two teams. Really, why shouldn't it? I am at the point I wish Boston-New York would just play each other all 162 games and the winner of that series can play the winner of the actual baseball season that happens during the year between the other teams in the American and National Leagues. The World Series wouldn't be the World Series because the winner would play the Yankees-Red Sox 162 game winner and THAT would be the World Series.

Why was no one concerned when the Braves won 14 straight division titles? Why wasn't there a call to end their reign in the NL East/NL West? Because it was just one team doing the winning and they would later choke in the playoffs?

In the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths.

The Colts, Patriots, and various other NFL teams have made the playoffs on many occasions over the past couple of years and no one gives a shit about this. Why is it such a problem in baseball? Because they spend the most money? Yes, that's the real problem. It has nothing to do with competition or anything other than the fact the Yankees and Red Sox spend more money and make the playoffs frequently.

The Yankees didn't always have the highest payroll in the majors every year and they won World Series doing this, but this didn't bother anyone until they started spending more money...even though when they spent more money they didn't get a whole lot of postseason results for a few years. If I have learned anything about baseball, it's always all about the Yankees and Red Sox.

Will Tommy Hanson or Jason Heyward end up on the Yankees or another high spending team in the future? Possibly. Will this eternally piss me off? Hell yes, it will. Does this mean I think the solution is to float divisions every year? No. The Yankees and other high spending teams are still going to sign players from my favorite team when/if they become free agents. From a competitive point of view, I think floating realignment may work because it will spread the Yankees and Red Sox around so other teams play them more often. It doesn't mean I like this idea. If the idea is the Yankees or Red Sox draw more fans than other teams, then this will help draw fans in Pittsburgh when the Yankees play them 9 times in Pittsburgh, but it won't do much about the Yankees having too much power overall when it comes to signing free agents or do much about them winning their division every year.

For those that don't like the constant stream of Yankees and Red Sox love that seems to come from places like ESPN, changing the entire divisional format of MLB in response to how good these teams are won't do anything to change this. "Tiger-proofing" doesn't work as well in baseball I don't believe.

The league has never conducted playoffs without the Red Sox or Yankees since that format began -- and in eight of those 15 years both teams made the playoffs. Since 2003 the Sox and Yankees have won at least 95 games 11 times in 14 combined seasons.

They have been good teams. There is no doubt about that. How many times in that span have teams like the Dodgers or the Cardinals made the playoffs? I know it isn't quite as much as the Yankees or Red Sox, but other teams have made the playoffs frequently since the Wild Card was instituted. The Yankees and Red Sox are good, that doesn't mean we change the divisions around to prevent them from making the playoffs...at least in my mind.

One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East.

Here's the thing about reduced payroll. It's not always permanent. The Twins for example...remember when they were a small market team with a low payroll? Next year, they are schedule to raise payroll to almost $95 million, which just happens to be the same payroll the Braves (who are not considered "small market") have been stuck on for the past 10 years. I am just saying that payroll and money matters aren't always permanent, so to base the movement of teams on payroll may not work as well as advertised...I don't hate the idea, but I really don't like it.

The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight.

So every team gets a chance to have better attendance when the Yankees and Red Sox come to town? That's the basis for this it seems.

A small or mid-market contender, such as Tampa Bay or Baltimore, could move to the AL Central to get a better crack at postseason play instead of continually fighting against the mega-payrolls of New York and Boston.

I know Tampa Bay has only won the AL East once, but they did win the division in 2008. Nothing says they couldn't do it again. Baltimore could also build a team that competes. It's not like Baltimore is afraid to spend money, they just haven't done it wisely of late.

I don't hate the Yankees or Red Sox, but I think it is stupid to build an entire divisional plan around them.

Divisions still would loosely follow geographic lines; no team would join a division more than two time zones outside its own, largely to protect local television rights (i.e., start times of games) and travel costs.

I'm just glad MLB is paying some lip service to the actual names of the divisions. But, the West Coast teams get screwed because they don't get 18 home dates against the Red Sox or Yankees. So the plan to help teams in regard to attendance only goes for teams in the AL Central.

Floating realignment also could mean changing the number of teams in a division, teams changing leagues and interleague games throughout the season, according to several sources familiar with the committee's discussions.

Teams changing leagues???? So one season the Cubs may have to build a team around having a DH, but then the next season they won't need a DH? If that happens, MLB has to either permanently get rid of the DH or use it throughout baseball. It's unfair to a team to make them change leagues, even if it is 1-2 teams every 5 years. American League teams build their roster slightly different from National League teams. Making teams change conferences doesn't make sense to me. I don't like this idea.

Interleague games doesn't bother me as much. I know those who don't like interleague play think it ruins the World Series. The ALCS and NLCS aren't ruined by those teams having played each other during the season, so I don't think the World Series would be ruined either by more interleague games.

"But if there is something that comes up we feel should be addressed during the season, we can make a recommendation then," said committee co-chair and Braves president John Schuerholz, referring to less complicated issues such as pace-of-game directives.

Let's take care of those less complicated issues, like the fact baseball games go too long alienating viewers and reducing fans' interest in the sport and games, later. Who cares if Andy Pettitte takes a fucking lunch break between pitches as he hides behind his glove and decides whether to throw to first base or just stare at the catcher for another 15 seconds...WE NEED TO MAKE SURE PITTSBURGH, A TEAM THAT HAS SHOWN NO INTEREST IN PUTTING TOGETHER A COMPETITIVE TEAM, DRAWS A GOOD CROWD FOR AT LEAST 18 GAMES IN A SEASON!

If MLB wants to deal with competitive issues, figure out a way to make the Pirates and Royals competitive, and then figure out why they insist on taking a crap all over their fan bases with shitty signings and even worse trades. Personally, I think the pacing of the game is a bigger issue at this point. It's not just Andy Pettitte or one certain team, pitchers and hitters take too fucking long between pitches. I know there is strategy involved, but the game would probably increase in popularity if it didn't take 3 commercial breaks to get through a late inning because of pitching changes or the pitcher is throwing to first base 4 times in a row. I don't find these issues to be that much "lesser" and I find them to be competitive issues as well.

The floating realignment idea is nothing more than a concept at this point, part of the brainstorming sessions that have occurred in the committee's one in-person meeting and occasional conference calls.

Well, I don't like this concept.

But what is important is that the committee is making good on its mission to look at absolutely any on-field idea that could make the game better.

Before realigning divisions, I think the committee should look at pace-of-game problems (especially in the playoffs) and finding a way to help other teams compete the way the Yankees and Red Sox have. I don't think changing the divisional alignment is the answer to this. I really don't think having teams change leagues (unless the AL West got another team, which I would actually think is a good idea) is a solution either.

Blowing up fixed divisions as we know them -- and even leagues -- certainly qualifies as radical thinking.

Radical thinking doesn't always mean "good thinking." I just don't like this idea of floating realignment.

-Bill Conlin has an article up talking about how the current Phillies infield may be the best infield ever. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but he says some things I feel like I need to talk about.

Imagine if Tinker, Evers and Chance had put up the kind of numbers that Rollins, Utley and Howard routinely put up.

That would have been awesome. Imagine if Tinker, Evers and Chance played in an era when the baseball being hit didn't have the density of a wet diaper. Imagine if they played when the ball when it with the bat would go about as far as a wet diaper also. Again, I don't want to sound like I am saying this isn't the best infield in the modern era, but I think to compare them to a 1906 team is a bit of a poor comparison.

In fact, I think this Phillies fan broke down the argument into numbers pretty well. I will let you see his numbers, while I pick apart what Conlin is writing with my words.

Now, Placido Polanco is back. Polly brings less arm to the position but is a career .300 hitter and will do some wonderful things in the No. 2 hole.

Is Polanco the #2 hitter for the Phillies? I know Victorino has been in that spot for all of last year and seemed to do pretty well there. He has speed and a .370 OBP in that spot from last year. I didn't know for sure and tried to find some factual information on this issue, but I think Victorino is going to stay at the #2 spot. Phillies fans, please correct me if I am wrong. I have looked at box scores for spring training and in some Polanco is in the #2 spot and in others Victorino is in the #2 spot.

My point is this may not happen. Polanco may not be the #2 hitter.

Polanco hit just 10 homers for the Tigers last year, playing in one of baseball's toughest home-run parks.

Ok, so we have Polanco with 10 home runs last year.

He has a chance to hit 15-plus in the friendly alleys of the Bank,

So Bill Conlin thinks Citizens Bank Park can add 50% more home runs to a player's total? This is where I am having the major problem with this column. Polanco has gone from a pitcher friendly park to a hitter friendly park, shouldn't this factor go into the "the best infield ever" argument? If Citizens Bank isn't a hitter friendly venue then how does Bill Conlin think Polanco will increase his home run total by 50% from last year?

J-Roll hit 21 homers last year in a season when he was MIA most of the first half. The Gold Glove shortstop has hit as many as 30.

I am not dismissing what Rollins has done here. Citizens Bank opened in 2004. Rollins' home run career high was 14 home runs before that point. After that point he has had 14, 25, 30, 11, and 21. Granted, this can be explained by Rollins being in the prime of his career from 2004-2010 also. Rollins has also hit as many home runs on the road as at home during every year of this period except 2006 and 2007. So Rollins doesn't seem to have benefited from Citizens Bank Park too much in regard to home runs he hit there. He has hit more home runs at Citizens Bank, but not too many more home runs.

The same thing goes for Ryan Howard and Chase Utley. They have pretty equal splits as well, so that theory has been debunked. So we can't really say playing in Citizens Bank Ballpark is the reason for these player's prolific home run totals. So basically if Polanco has similar splits to the other three parts of "the greatest infield ever" his home run totals won't be assisted too much by the move to Citizens Bank Ballpark. 15 home runs for him may be an overestimate.

Ok, moving on.

And ponder this . . . Has any non-expansion team ever had the three best players in franchise history at the same time?

WOW! Really Bill Conlin? Didn't Mike Schmidt ever play for the Phillies? Only for 18 years and can't he easily be considered the best third baseman of all-time? Isn't he one of the franchise's best players? Apparently not in the opinion of Bill Conlin. This is idiocy.

How about Robin Roberts, Chuck Klein, or Steve Carlton? I think it is a bit insane to call Rollins, Utley, and Howard the three best players in franchise history. Let's not get carried away.

The closest I could come was Roy Campanella, Jackie Robinson and Duke Snider from Brooklyn's Boys of Summer.

Still wrong. Sandy Koufax or Don Drysdale maybe? Why do they have to be hitters to be considered the best player in a franchise's history?

And how often have you seen a major league infield line up 1-2-3-4 in the batting order?

It's debatable if this is actually going to happen. I would put Victorino 2nd in the order personally.

it is hard to find infields that can match the Phillies' output. The Dodgers had two great ones in Brooklyn's Cox, Reese, Robinson and Hodges, then LA's Cey, Russell, Lopes and Garvey. But both fall far short in overall power.

And of course home runs and RBI's are the only way to determine whether a baseball player and infield is any good or not. There is no other statistic that can determine how good a baseball player truly is/was.

Pat Gillick was the Baltimore Orioles' GM in 1996, when an infield of B.J. Surhoff, Cal Ripken, Robbie Alomar and Rafe Palmeiro put up some sick numbers. With Rafe "With God As My Witness" Palmeiro leading the way by producing 39 homers and 142 RBI, that infield pounded 108 homers and drove in an amazing 420 runs, an average of 105 for each infielder. But, sorry, Palmeiro hangs an asterisk on those numbers.

Even though it was debatable as to whether Palmeiro was using steroids at that point. I searched and searched and couldn't find any actual proof that Palmeiro was on PEDs at that point in his career. It's possible of course.

It doesn't matter, we can't have the three best players in Phillies franchise history overshadowed by this Orioles infield. Conlin will just assume Palmeiro was using steroids at that point in his career. He probably did, but this is still a bit of speculation.

Feel free to argue. And maybe somebody can come up with an eight-line poem that begins:

"These are the saddest of possible words:

"J-Roll to Chase to Ryno." *

I am not arguing with or against the idea Phillies current infield is the best infield in modern baseball. A normal writer would try to back this up with actual statistics, but Bill Conlin is old school, he doesn't need proof for his assertions. I actually like the statistics the Phillies fan that I linked had put together. I tell you what I know for sure, Rollins, Utley and Howard are not the three best players in Phillies history though.

Also, did Conlin put an asterisk in there to insinuate either Rollins, Utley or Howard had used steroids at one point in their career? What's up with that?

-Mike Celizic has just noticed there is college basketball being played this season. This is one of my least favorite March sportswriting devices. The whole "I have paid attention to other sports since October but now I am going to pretend I am alerting you to the fact college basketball is currently being played now that it is March...even though I am the one who is behind the times on this issue."

It also shows that Celizic is behind the times because it is clear he hasn't followed what has happened this season.

It’s the first Sunday of March. And that means college basketball. It means Northern Iowa vs. Wichita State, a game most sports fans wouldn’t think twice about.

Of course. Because Mike Celizic doesn't care, obviously no other sports fan does either. By the way, I respect Northern Iowa, but I don't think they are a very good team. I have seen them play twice and they aren't bad, but they also haven't played a ranked team all year and otherwise the strength of schedule isn't great either. I am going to be interested to see how far they can go in the NCAA tournament.

This is the beauty of March. Wichita State and Northern Iowa are important.

I don't completely like college basketball polls, but I would argue that any ranked team is pretty important in a discussion on college basketball just based on their record. Northern Iowa has been ranked for a good portion of this year. In fact, they are currently ranked at #25.

My point? My point is that Mike Celizic just started paying attention to college basketball and thinks because the school name "Northern Iowa" isn't sexy, the team isn't any good. He would be wrong. They even had an entire Sports Illustrated article done on them. They have been fairly prominent this year and have had their games featured on ESPN a few times.

I am being a college basketball snob. If you haven't paid attention all year, don't write an article about what a great and beautiful thing this time of year is. That makes you a college basketball fair weather fan.

All but one has a conference tournament. Northern Iowa won, so the Panthers are in. Wichita State took a seat on the bubble.

If Mike Celizic had actually read the article he just linked, he would see that Wichita State isn't mentioned in that article at all. They are mentioned in an article that is linked on that same page, but it's pretty clear Wichita State is not realistically on the bubble. Barring a miracle, they are out.

When the smoke clears on Sunday, the tournament committee announces the brackets.

Thanks for the update Mike. It's nice to know this is when the tournament committee announces the brackets. Without Mike Celizic, I would be lost.

In some ways this week is even better than the NCAA tournament.

In no way is conference tournament week better than the NCAA Tournament. I love conference tournaments but I don't find them to be better than the NCAA tournament in many fashions.

There are more teams playing more games, and there’s more at stake.

There is more at stake, but there are also more games between teams that aren't very good teams. Also, there is just as much at stake in the NCAA tournament since if a team loses at that point, there is no other tournament for them to play in. The season is over once a team loses in the NCAA tournament.

Most have to win to get in to the big dance.

A lot of the drama is taken out of this because most of the teams that have to win to get into the big dance are eliminated fairly early in the conference tournaments. I can accept this argument more easily for mid-major conferences, because many of these conferences only get one bid, so the team that wins the conference goes to the NCAA tournament and the rest go home.

This is not a time of year when any team leaves anything in the locker room. It all gets spilled on the court.

Hyperbole alert!

For all but the nation’s elite teams, every game is a Game 7. There is nothing like it in sports. Game after game and day after day, the team that loses goes home.

Why is the conference tournament better than the NCAA tournament again? Because even for the nation's elite teams, every game is a Game 7? The same goes for the NCAA Tournament except generally good teams are playing good teams.

The games are shorter, and the shot clock is 35 seconds as opposed to 24 in the pros, which further shortens the game. Every possession becomes more precious, which ratchets up the intensity.

This column is useless. Mike Celizic is basically just reviewing the rules of college basketball in order to fill space.

Some college teams could play four games in four days. Most winners will play three games, sometimes in as many days.

This is the definition of a useless column. He isn't saying anything of substance here and hasn't done so yet.

And after this week is done and the field of 65 is announced, we get three days to get our office pools together. Then it’s Thursday and Friday, the two best sports days of the year, when we get 32 games at eight sites in two days.

So to review: In some ways the conference tournaments are better than the NCAA tournament, but the first two days of the NCAA tournament are the two best sports days of the year. Apparently Mike Celizic thinks the other 2 days and 2 weeks of the 1st weekend of the NCAA tournament are really boring. He sees the conference tournaments are in some ways more exciting, yet also thinks the first 2 days of the NCAA tournament are the two best sports days of the year.

This is not a completely contradictory statement, but really I think the first 4 days of the tournament are the two best sports days of the year. I would love to know in what ways the conference tournaments are better than the NCAA tournament? In both cases, if a team loses they are potentially done playing for the year, so that really doesn't make the conference tournaments better than the NCAA tournament.

Like the conference championships, they’re all fought tooth-and-nail: 32 Game 7s over two days. Where does it get any better than that? Don’t bother answering. It doesn’t.

Apparently the other 16 games over the next couple of days aren't nail-biters nor are they played like Game 7s. I guess in the world of Mike Celizic the other two weeks of games can't be described like this either even though they are all single elimination and in most cases involve teams with higher skill levels playing each other, as compared to the first 2 days of the NCAA tournament. Personally, I think the entire tournament is played in this Game 7 manner, I don't know why Mike Celizic only spotlights the first 2 days.

The selection committee is right. The tournament doesn’t need more teams. It’s not as if the added teams would be threats to win the tournament. Most would be threats to win one game. A few would win two.

I agree with Mike Celizic on this. Yes, the world may be ending. I did a previous post on this issue, but I think the tournament should in no way expand.

So if you’re not capable of winning it and didn’t win a conference, shut up and be happy there’s the NIT.

Of course how would a team really know if they are capable of winning the NCAA tournament until they actually play in the NCAA tournament? That would be the argument those who want to expand to the 96 team tournament would say. This was such a rambling article. It starts off with how good the conference tournaments are, delves into how good the NCAA tournament's first 2 days are, and finally ends with a fairly unpersuasive argument against tournament expansion.

The NCAAs and conference championship week is already the best month of any in sports. You can’t improve it. Don’t even try.

As I sometimes say in regards to many sports columnists, I can't believe he gets paid to write articles like this. It was rambling, pointless, useless, and provided us all with no new important information or a different point of view. It's just a typical Mike Celizic article.

I will have four more MLB previews up tomorrow.