14 comments Bill Conlin Joins Joe Morgan As a Member of the Ryan Howard Excessive Fan Club

Two things before I break down Bill Conlin's vehement defense of Ryan Howard:

1. We don't have a "Ryan Howard" tag on this blog? How is that possible? I'm pretty sure there were entire portions of Joe Morgan chats that dealt with Ryan Howard and Morgan's love of Howard. Very disappointing.

2. I think Ryan Howard is a great first baseman and one of the best first basemen in the National League. Nothing that follows is an indictment of how great of a first baseman he is. What follows is an indictment of Bill Conlin and his defense of Ryan Howard in light of Howard not making the All-Star team. Is that really worth getting worked up over Howard not making the All-Star team? It is an exhibition All-Star game. Granted he probably wants to play in it because, it is the best exhibition All-Star game in major sports, but that's another discussion.

Bill Conlin defends Ryan Howard against the evil doers in Philadelphia and he uses the most modern comparison to Howard, a player from the 1930's, as well as the non-all-encompassing statistic RBI's to help prove the point that Conlin may not know what decade it is. I'm shocked by the amount of comments who liked his methods and that were agreeing with Bill. You can agree with his sentiment, but his method was shockingly poor. A great example of this poor methodology to prove what a great player Howard is by going back to the 1930's.

Thanks to Matt for emailing me about this article. I always appreciate a good head's up on a bad article.

ON THE DAY AFTER the All-Star Game was played in Phoenix without Ryan Howard, this column is directed at the haters and bashers who have been coming out of the woodwork in larger numbers than usual.

They are predictable as smog in a heat wave.

My state is currently having a heat wave. The heat index was 108 a few days ago. It is currently sitting at a temperature in the 90's as I sit in my mom's attic and type this. (checks window) There's no smog. I'm confused now. Perhaps I should be a meteorologist so I can understand this reference better.

They pretend to be knowledgable baseball fans, but trip themselves up every time because they are dead wrong.

Bill Conlin misspelled the word knowledgeable in a sentence criticizing people for not being as smart as they think they are. Some would call this ironic.

Bill Conlin pretends to know who these haters are and pretends to know they aren't knowledgeable baseball fans, but he tripped himself up because he is dead wrong.

(There is nothing like a writer who takes a sentence containing an opinion and tries to pass it off as fact. It's like me saying, "There are people who think Albert Pujols isn't the best player in baseball. Those people are stupid and dead wrong." It's an opinion for God's sake, not a fact! I think maybe someone spit in Conlin's oatmeal the morning he wrote this, he's very angry)

And egregiously stupid.

And Bill is a poor speller. I will let you decide his level of egregious stupidity on this.

Boy, talk about a shot across the bow. Calling these Howard-haters not real knowledgeable (except misspelling this word) and then calling them egregiously stupid. It sounds like he took personal offense to Howard not making the All-Star game. Which, because it is an exhibition game, is egregiously stupid.

I hear the reason why he was not voted into the All-Star Game by the fans - and Phillies fans basically ignored him while stuffing the ballot box for an injured Shane Victorino - is because the National League has all these great first basemen.

I like how Bill puts "great" in parenthesis. It's not like the reigning NL MVP or All-Star game MVP play first base or anything. The National League does have some great first basemen, even Albert Pujols didn't make the All-Star game this year. Let's look at the NL first basemen using basic easy statistics that Bill Conlin prefers (he LOVES RBI's) and some more advanced statistics that more reasonable humans use. All stats are as of the All-Star break.

Gaby Sanchez: .293/.374/.472, 13 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 132
Ryan Howard: .257/.353/.475, 18 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 127
Prince Fielder: .297/.418/.575, 22 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 169
Joey Votto: .324/.438/.507, 13 home runs, 55 RBI's and an OPS+ of 159
Albert Pujols: .280/.357/.500, 18 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 140

So I know Bitter Bill is being sarcastic, but there was some competition for first base in the All-Star game this year. Fielder and Votto deserved to make it and perhaps Howard got snubbed in favor of Gaby Sanchez, but someone had to represent the Florida Marlins in the game, so that makes some sense to have him on the team. Adding Howard and having 4 first basemen on the roster probably doesn't make sense. So basically, shut the hell up and quit crying.

And RH is no longer one of them . . .

That's not at all what is being said. Bill is taking this a bit personal. What is being said is three first basemen in the National League are playing better than Howard through the first half of the year. It is easier for Conlin to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion rather than just accept this isn't a dig at Howard from now until the future, but just the facts based on his first half performance. Bill prefers to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion because then it makes it sound like those who are critical of Howard are that much more unreasonable. Bill passes this criticism of Howard as a complete indictment of his play when that may not be entirely true.

So, chew on this: Prince Fielder went to the All-Star Game and captained a Home Run Derby team that was blown out of the water by a couple of real hitters named Adrian Gonzalez and Robinson Cano, who put on one hell of a show.

Chew on this: The Home Run Derby doesn't fucking matter when pertaining to this discussion. So which league won is irrelevant.

Chew even harder on this: You don't put players on the All-Star team simply to participate in the Home Run Derby. Maybe Bill Conlin would, but a reasonable person wouldn't.

Chew even harder on this and try not to choke: Prince Fielder won the MVP award and hit a home run in the All-Star game. Clearly, he deserved to be there regardless of how his team performed in the Home Run Derby.

Chew even harder on this and I hope it eventually gives you the shits: The performance of a player in the Home Run Derby (which I don't watch for one reason...Chris Berman. The fat turd who pretty much makes all things unwatchable) isn't indicative of how well that player performed during the first half of the season. So Howard's hypothetical performance in the Home Run Derby doesn't support his case for making the All-Star team.

Not that Fielder is chopped liver. He is, after all, tied for the league RBI lead with some slipping, already over-the-hill guy named Ryan Howard.

Nobody said Ryan Howard was over-the-hill. He didn't make one All-Star team. Stop crying about it and just accept there were three better first basemen (or one first baseman who needed to represent his team on the squad) in the National League.

But let me mention that Howard bats cleanup for a first-place team that leads the majors in wins

This is so very, very irrelevant. Unless Ryan Howard started pitching, hitting and fielding with no other players on the Phillies team and I just happened to miss it. There is no one player that causes a team to lead the majors in wins. I'm guessing the Phillies pitching staff may have had something to do with the Phillies leading the majors in wins.

and has the biggest division lead at the break in either league.

Yet again, incredibly irrelevant. What always interests me is sportswriters who hate advanced statistics tend to use statistics like RBI's, wins, and (in this case) division leads to try and prove a point. What's interesting about this is these can be misleading statistics. Basically, I think Bill Conlin hates advanced statistics because they don't allow him to easily mislead his readers.

Based on Conlin's statement you would think, "Man, the Phillies are really dominating their division" when this is true, but the lead is only 3.5 games. The other divisions are really close at this point. So while acknowledging how dominant the Phillies are, having the biggest lead in a division at the All-Star break shows how close the other divisions are. In fact, the second place team in their own division has the third best record in all of baseball.

So while is factually correct and the conclusion he wants you to reach, the Phillies are a great team, is also correct, they haven't run away with the division quite yet. I'm getting way off-topic because none of this really has much to do with Ryan Howard not making the All-Star game and the Howard-haters that Bill Conlin spits venom at. So regardless of the Phillies division lead, it doesn't necessarily contribute to Howard's All-Star worthiness.

Oh, but he's a butcher with the glove (all of four errors),

Errors aren't the best way to determine how good a player is at a position. If I never go out of a five foot radius from my position then I may never commit a lot of errors, but I am also not getting to a lot of balls, which means I may not be a great defensive player. I'm not saying Ryan Howard is a bad defensive first baseman. I'm saying basing his defensive prowess only on how many errors he has committed is just so incredibly short-sighted. There's more to it, even if Bill Conlin wishes there weren't.

Therein lies the problem. Bill Conlin wants to continue to use some misleading statistics to back up his argument, while others (me) would prefer he supplement his argument with other statistics. That's the entire problem with the whole Sabermetrics v. Traditional statistics argument. We are yelling at each other in different languages, so there's no chance of an understanding being reached. Bill doesn't like UZR supplementing how many errors a player commits because he doesn't understand UZR and doesn't care to. I don't like just using errors because I know of other statistics which can supplement the "errors" statistics to determine a player's true defensive worth. Bill won't hear any of this and I dislike willful ignorance.

and is not providing close to acceptable return for the $125 million salary. (And since that contract just kicked in and he's on pace for 140 RBI, maybe you should wait a while on that.)

This tells me that Bill Conlin doesn't even understand the criticism of Howard's contract and why some people project it to end up being a poor contract. The entire point of much of the criticism of the contract is that it did just kick in and he turns 32 years old in the offseason. So while it is hard for any player to justify this large of a contract, the fact it just kicked in is what makes people question the intelligence of the contract. These people project Howard won't age well as when evaluating he is going to be paid $125 million for 5 years. So saying the contract just kicked in and telling us how many RBI's, as if this proves anything of value, is misunderstanding the criticism of Howard. It's not this year the critics have a huge problem with Howard's contract, but it is years 3-5 which seem to be their concern.

Here's a typical email from a regular who has been on Howard's case since Day 1. He posted it just as the Phillies were about to explode for that 14-1 destructo of the Braves Sunday:

The Phillies are paying Howard more than the Sox are paying Adrian Gonzalez a professional hitter. That would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing.

I do think this is a bit overboard. Howard isn't that bad, though at this point I would probably take Adrian Gonzalez over Howard.

I replied: " . . . There's not one [censored] player worth what he's being paid . . . That's why there should be a statue of Marvin Miller in front of the MLPA headquarters."

Actually, this is completely wrong. It is all relative to how much other players are paid to play the game of baseball professionally of course, but there are players on every MLB team worth what they are paid.

Jose Bautista makes $8 million this year. He has 31 home runs and an OBP of 0.468. I think he's worth what he is being paid.

Jair Jurrjens is paid $3.25 million to go 12-3 with a 1.87 ERA and 1.066 WHIP. He's not worth that amount of money?

Jacoby Ellsbury gets paid $2.4 million to hit .316/.377/.490 with 28 steals and 11 home runs. He's not worth that amount?

I could go on and on, but it is all relative to how much other players get paid for playing the game of baseball professionally, not to other professions. Bill Conlin is probably not worth as much as he gets paid if you compared his salary to every other profession. So the defense that "there's not one damn player worth what's he paid," isn't a great defense of Ryan Howard because it probably isn't true.

Didn't Bill Conlin just semi-defend Howard's contract by saying he was on pace for 140 RBI's? Now, Howard is like every other player and not worth this contract.

This was the generic chant from the Tab-and-Scrapple Choir.

Let's keep the references to the post-Richard Nixon era please.

He doesn't hit for high enough average, he never hits in the clutch (See Mike Schmidt abuse files from the 1970s). He needs to bunt or slap the ball to left against the shift. Yada, yada, yada . . .

Who are these people to criticize a player who Bill Conlin just said isn't worth his contract?

One guy even invoked the despicable, undecipherable WAR stat.

This despicable WAR stat is just so much worse than the completely misleading RBI stat that Bill Conlin will base his entire defense of Ryan Howard upon. We all know a statistic is only useful unless it is really, really easy to figure out how to calculate that statistic. You know, that's why Calculus and any higher math over basic algebra isn't taught in high schools anymore. Numbers used in Calculus are SO HARD to figure out, so the entire course is despicable and undecipherable.

That's a totally bogus acronym for "Wins Above Replacement."

It's not a bogus acronym. It actually is the acronym.

It presents a patentedly unsupported hypothesis that measures the "projected" performance of an "average" Triple A player called up to replace Major League regular A . . . I'm laughing too hard to continue.

Translation: I'm too old and lazy to figure this statistic out so it must be terrible.

WAR isn't perfect, but what it does is compared players to a baseline other player. It sets a definite standard upon which to compare two or more players. RBI's does not do that. This is an incredibly basic thing to understand. RBI's has other variables that impact it when comparing two players, or even the same player between two years, while WAR tries to measure a player's performance using the baseline of a replacement player. The replacement player may be hard to understand, but it is a consistent baseline being used, which is very helpful when objectively comparing two or more players.

For example, Adrian Gonzalez had 101 RBI's in San Diego last year and he currently has 77 RBI's. Is he just that much better of a hitter this year or has his RBI total increased because he's had more players on-base to drive in while playing for the Red Sox? I would argue he has more runners to drive in and that's why his RBI's have increased. He's on pace to smash his career record for RBI's in a season and that has to do with the amount of runners on-base he had the opportunity to drive in. Using only RBI's, you could come to the conclusion Gonzalez is a better hitter this year. This is because RBI's depends on how many runners are on-base, so comparing Gonzalez's RBI's to Jose Bautista's RBI's isn't going to be an easy comparison due to each player having had different RBI opportunities presented to them while at-bat.

You saw what happened last season when Howard missed 19 games with an ankle sprain and was off-form the rest of the season, yet still managed 31 homers and 108 RBI.

I will give the home runs to Conlin, but how many RBI's would Howard have had if he came up to the plate with no runners on-base? What if he came to the plate every at-bat with runners on-base? His RBI total would be affected by the variable of how many runners were available to drive in. This is an easy concept to understand, unless you are willfully ignorant about learning new things.

In the words of Edwin Starr at Woodstock: "WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin.' [Hunh!]"

In the words of Bengoodfella: "You are factually inaccurate yet again."

This another reason Bill Conlin probably hates new-age statistics, because they prove his pre-conceived notions or his assumptions incorrect. See, Bill is too fucking lazy to do research or learn new statistics. He is also too lazy to be accurate in his pop culture references. In this case, he quotes Edwin Starr who he claims was at Woodstock singing the hit "War." Bill passes up factual correctness in an attempt to be cute. He fails.

Edwin Starr was not only NOT at Woodstock, but the song "War" came out in June 1970. Woodstock was in 1969. The song was released by the Temptations, but not sung by Edwin Starr at Woodstock. So unless Edwin Starr has a time machine we haven't heard about and he was able to go back in time and play on-stage at Woodstock and erase all evidence of his appearance, then Bill Conlin is not only making a dated cultural reference, but he is also factually inaccurate...which is par for the course.

Sure, this is a nitpicky point, but it goes to the heart of what irritates me with sportswriters who hate new-age statistics. I think they hate them because it would prove many of that sportswriter's assumptions to be wrong.

So let's move on to some serious power hitting by the man considered to be the greatest all-around hitter in franchise history. That would be Hall of Famer Chuck Klein.

This is idiocy. Bill Conlin is comparing Ryan Howard to a guy who played 81 years ago. Jackie Robinson had not even broken the color barrier in 1944 when Chuck Klein retired.

Klein had a 1930 for the ages. So did the Phillies. He batted .386, but failed to win the batting title in a National League consumed by an orgy of offense. He scored 158 runs, flogged 250 hits, ripped 59 doubles, eight triples and 40 homers for a gargantuan 170 RBI.

They must have been playing slo-pitch softball because the Phillies' team batting average was an incredible .315. That offensive juggernaut managed to lose 102 games in a 154-game schedule.

If I had the time, I would say this is another reason why "wins" are a misleading statistic. How terrible was the Phillies pitching in 1930? It turns out it was pretty bad. Ray Benge won 16 games with a 4.78 ERA. Ray Benge won 11 games with a 5.70 ERA. I wish Joe Morgan and Murray Chass could see how these wins were completely dependent on the amount of offense the Phillies had. If the Phillies didn't hit the shit out of the ball, how many games would this team have lost? 120 games?

Howard is tied for the NL RBI lead despite being an island in the stream. Until Chase Utley came back after missing 2 months, there was a mostly inept revolving No. 3 hole in front of him and a No. 5 hole committee that underperformed.

Howard has 208 plate appearances with runners on-base out of 397 plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position 133 of those plate appearances. So Howard seems to have had plenty of opportunities to drive runs in. In fact, I read somewhere he led the majors in at-bats with runners on-base, but I don't have the data to support this (or couldn't find it).

For the sake of comparison, Adrian Gonzalez has 403 plate appearances with runners on-base in 217 of those plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position in 131 of those plate appearances. So Gonzalez and Howard have fairly similar plate appearances with runners on-base. I wouldn't say Howard has lacked for RBI opportunities.

So Howard has played very well, there's no doubt about that, but he's had plenty of opportunities to drive runners in, so it isn't like he was performing RBI miracles or anything.

In 1930, Klein had the best protection since the invention of the kevlar vest. He batted No. 3 with Lefty O'Doul hitting .383 in front of him. The cleanup hitter was third baseman Pinky Whitney, who batted .342.

I see what Bill Conlin is trying to prove here, that Klein had great numbers with great protection, while Howard has great numbers without protection. Ignoring the idea lineup protection is somewhat of a myth, Bill Conlin is still trying to compare Ryan Howard's modern day statistics to those of a player in a season 81 years ago. I'm not sure this comparison holds up at all. It was just a different game of baseball in the 1930's.

Klein was traded to the Cubs after his fifth full season:

* The Chucker drove in 693 runs for an average of 138.6.

* Howard has driven in 680 runs for an average of 136.

* The Chucker hit 180 homers for an average of 36.

* Howard has hit 229 homers for an average of 45.8.

I am not sure anyone will argue Ryan Howard doesn't hit enough home runs or doesn't drive in enough runs. Using home runs and RBI's to prove...whatever the hell Bill is trying to prove isn't the end-all-be-all in discussing Ryan Howard. Using statistics from 1930 doesn't help the case much either.

At this point, I really have no idea what Bill Conlin is trying to prove, other than everyone who criticizes Ryan Howard sucks.

I'd rest the defense right there, but feel compelled to add that Klein spent most of his seasons here on teams in or near last place.

See, here is another part of the problem. If we are comparing a single player against another single player we want to compare these two players based on their performance and try not to count in how well the rest of the team performed. So comparing two players based simply on RBI's is misleading because it drags in the team's performance when the comparison should be made based on the performance of each individual player.

I don't have to tell you where Ryan Howard has spent his five seasons.

Which this leads me to respond that Howard has had better players around him than Chuck Klein. Which means more players on-base, which means more RBI's for Howard, which means using only RBI's to justify his greatness may not be completely accurate. The Phillies lineup does contain two ex-MVP's hitting in front of Howard for the past couple of years, so that has to be acknowledged as well if Conlin insists on comparing him to Chuck Klein.

Ryan Howard is a great first baseman, but justifying his contract by saying no player is worth that much money, mentioning his contract is just kicking in and he hasn't declined yet, and then basing the entire defense of Howard on the number of RBI's he has doesn't do a defense of Howard very much justice.

I still have no idea, other than to suckle at Howard's teat and stop all criticism of Howard by fans, what Conlin wanted to prove in this article.

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.