1 comments Tom Verducci Also Thinks Jack Morris Should Be in the Hall of Fame

Well, Tom Verducci finally took me up on my challenge (sort of). He obviously didn't take me up personally, but happened to (sort of) write a column about Jack Morris's Hall of Fame candidacy that I didn't think could be written while making a good case for Morris to enter the Hall of Fame. Verducci tries to make a case for Morris to be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame without relying heavily on Game 7 of the 1991 World Series (well, he relies on it some). I feel like I am right, that Verducci tries to make a case, but ultimately the case for Jack Morris still fails without mentioning that Game 7 World Series victory. What's left is a bunch of discussion about how Morris used to complete games, how he was the best pitcher for a cherry-picked era of time, and he was just a real competitor. It's just not a strong case being based entirely on Morris completing a lot of games and Morris being the opening day pitcher for his team a lot. I struggle to think of a more arbitrary category than using "opening day starts" as a measure of whether a pitcher is Hall of Fame worthy or not. Tom Glavine pitched four opening day starts in his career. He would have pitched more opening days starts, but it was completely dependent on the strength of the pitching staff around him. That's why opening day starts is a very weak category to use in determining whether a pitcher should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

From 1971 through 1983, 615 pitchers made their first start in the major leagues. None of them have been elected to the Hall of Fame as a starting pitcher. It is baseball's Dark Ages for superb starting pitchers.

And oh yeah, Verducci bases part of his case for Morris to enter the Hall of Fame on the fact no pitcher from this randomly selected era has made the Hall of Fame. It's simply an arbitrary span of time. It's like saying "Jack Morris was the best pitcher of the 1980's" as if being the best pitcher from 1981-1991 means less. 

It is, by far, the longest and deepest drought in baseball history when it comes to the debut of a Hall of Fame starting pitcher.

It is also noteworthy, but ultimately meaningless as it pertains to whether Jack Morris should be inducted into the Hall of Fame or not. 

The Dark Ages has one last chance: Jack Morris, who gets his 15th and final opportunity on the baseball writers' ballot. The best of the rest of his contemporaries are long gone from the ballot: Dennis Martinez, Frank Tanana, Bob Welch, Rick Reuschel, Dave Stieb and Fernando Valenzuela, all of whom fell off the ballot after one or two years for failing to gain the minimum five percent support.

Let's just say invoking Jack Morris's name along with these six pitchers isn't going to help convince me that Morris deserves Hall of Fame induction. 

Morris is the last chance from an era of enormous change in how the game was played. The widespread use of the five-man rotation, the accepted wisdom of using relief specialists and the adoption of the designated hitter in 1973 combined to jump-start a trend that hasn't stopped its course: starting pitchers were asked to throw fewer starts, fewer complete games and fewer innings.

I smile as I write this because it sounds ridiculous...but basically Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame not because of his performance during his career, but because of what he represents? He's an ambassador to baseball from a different era and someone who has contributed to the game in ways that exceeds his contribution on the baseball field? This is what I am to take from this. That it is not just about Jack Morris and his performance, but about what Morris represents, and that's why he should be in the Hall of Fame. I feel like this is quite the reach to make a case for Morris.

The Dark Ages began with starters completing 28 percent of their starts in 1971. By 1983 the completion rate was down to 18 percent. By the time Morris threw his last pitch, in 1994, it was down to 8 percent. Today it is down to 2.6 percent.

Complete games are great. Every team wants a pitcher who will throw 25 complete games in a season. That's just not the current state of baseball though. Teams rely more on specialists out of the bullpen and pitchers just don't complete games like they used to. I don't see what this has to do with Jack Morris and whether he should be in the Hall of Fame. Morris should not be elected to the Hall of Fame as the Last Great Pitcher of Complete Games. 

As the game changed -- especially in the DH-infused American League -- no starting pitcher who debuted in that transitional era held up better than Morris.

Again, these superlatives don't mean that Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I'm not entirely sure what this means, but Morris being the best pitcher to hold up in the transitional era of the DH doesn't mean he should be in the Hall of Fame. Morris was consistently really good. He makes the Hall of Very Good, but he's not one of the best pitchers of all-time.

Plenty of pitchers posted better individual years, more than a few posted better peaks and many have Cy Young Awards or boast better run prevention metrics.

The translation I receive from this is that plenty of other pitchers were better at pitching than Jack Morris was during this time. So while Morris completed games and "held up" well during this time, he wasn't one of the best pitchers of his era, so he is not the type of player who should be in the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is not for pitchers who completed a lot of games or transitioned to the DH well. It is intended for the best pitchers in the history of baseball and Jack Morris by Tom Verducci's own admission wasn't one of the best pitchers of his era. 

But none of the 615 starting pitchers who debuted between 1971 and 1983 had the staying power that Morris did.

Jamie Moyer and Tim Wakefield had staying power. Are we electing them to the Hall of Fame anytime soon? 

Among all starting pitchers who debuted between Blyleven and Clemens, Morris won the most games (254) and completed the most games by far (175, or 22 percent more than the next closest pitcher, Tanana) and posted the second best winning percentage (.577, trailing only Bob Welch and his .591 among pitchers with 400 starts) and the second most strikeouts (2,478, second to the 2,773 of Tanana).

But there is no rule that says a pitcher who debuted between Blyleven and Clemens has to make it into the Hall of Fame. It's possible this was just a dry period for Hall of Fame-caliber starting pitching. Tom Verducci will soon mock those who say Jack Morris was the best pitcher of the 1980's by stating this is an overrated way to measure Morris's dominance, but he's using his very own set of cherry-picked dates to prove Morris was a Hall of Fame pitcher. 

The strength of Morris' candidacy derives mostly from the volume of his work measured against his peers through this transitional period.

And unfortunately in order to make the Hall of Fame, Jack Morris and his volume of work should be measured against his peers throughout baseball history. That's how we determine if Morris is one of the best pitchers of all-time and not the best pitcher of a cherry-picked era. 

He was a workhorse who gobbled up innings as an ace, not just as a rotation filler. Nobody else in his era equaled him in that regard, especially when you talk about the harsher duty in the American League.

You will read a lot of this from Verducci. Jack Morris was a workhorse. This is the main argument for Morris to make the Hall of Fame, along with Morris being the pitcher from 1971-1983 that held up the best. While Morris being a workhorse is true, I'm not sure how this makes him a Hall of Fame pitcher. Morris being one of the last workhorse pitchers is nice, but I think comparing Morris to all of his peers instead of just those from 1971-1983 is the best way to measure his Hall of Fame candidacy. 

The problem with Morris' candidacy, however, is that he gave up so many hits and runs that you don't find the superior quality of pitching you typically associate with a Hall of Famer.

Much like Dale Murphy, who didn't get enough hits or hit enough home runs that you find with the superior hitters that are typically in the Hall of Fame. Gee, I wonder what that means for a player's Hall of Fame candidacy when a player just doesn't have good enough statistics compared to current members of the Hall of Fame? If only there were an answer on what this means...

In his 14-year peak (1979-92), Morris ranked tied for 17th in adjusted ERA (109) among pitchers with 1,500 innings. He never finished among the top four in his league in ERA or WAR and only once did so for WHIP.

But these are advanced statistics, which don't tell the whole story. Jack Morris had a lot of complete games (as did many pitchers prior to the specialization of pitchers) and he won a lot of games (which is an individual award that based partly on how the team overall performs). He's a winner and a workhorse. 

Many of the baseball writers I know invest significant research and some angst in filling out their ballots. The accessibility and spread of information has served to create more informed ballots.

Well, for those voters who actively seek out this new information and care to use it to evaluate baseball players and their qualifications for the Hall of Fame. Meaning, not Murray Chass. 

I have come to believe that getting enough votes for election (75 percent) comes down to one simple question: How well can you sum up his candidacy in one sentence?

Well maybe that and for some of these Hall of Fame candidates it is quite clear they are worthy of the Hall of Fame. It doesn't take much to see Gregg Maddux deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, while voters have to start cherry-picking data and using superlatives to state why Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. 

The preferred candidates are those (non-PED-stained) guys who belong to the "magic number" clubs (i.e.: 300 wins, which will serve Tom Glavine well, and 3,000 hits, which will get Craig Biggio in). You get imprimaturs such as "most home runs by a second baseman (first Ryne Sandberg, and eventually Jeff Kent), "best at his position" of a certain era (Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Gary Carter) and "franchise player associated with one team" (Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Larkin, Sandberg, Biggio).

Many of these players are more than just the one sentence that Tom Verducci has created to describe them. Tom Glavine won 300 games, but he also won the Cy Young award twice and was in the Top 3 of the Cy Young voting four other times. Roberto Alomor, Barry Larkin, and Gary Carter were the best at their position in their era and their legacy holds up when compared to players at their position throughout baseball history. The same goes for Ripken and Tony Gwynn. They are more than just guys who were on one team for most of their career. They have a resume that holds up against the best players in the history of baseball, which should ultimately be the determiner of whether a player gets a writer's vote for the Hall of Fame or not. 

I also like how Verducci says he believes you can sum up a player's candidacy in one sentence, but he seems to use three separate sentences to advocate for Craig Biggio and two sentences for Alomar and Larkin. Maybe it's a compound sentence for those three players. 

Deserving players without those easy identifiers, especially Tim Raines and Fred McGriff, are woefully undersupported. It actually takes some context to appreciate their greatness.

I don't know if McGriff or Raines would have a better case if they had played for one franchise, but they certainly would have a better case if they could attach themselves to a specific record. I see where Verducci is going with this. He's going the "You just have to understand how good Morris was by getting some context," and by "context" I assume Verducci means "cherry-picking numbers from an era and then calling Morris a workhorse over and over again." 

With Morris, attempts to shrink his narrative to a sentence have done more harm than good. People rightly have derided labels such as "he has the most wins in the '80s" (overrated), "he pitched to the score" (not entirely true) and "he threw a 10-inning shutout in Game 7 of the World Series" (hello, Don Larsen).

Having the most wins in the 1980's is overrated, but being the pitcher that held up the best from 1971-1983 is the perfect criteria for judging Morris's Hall of Fame candidacy. 

You have to be brutally honest with Morris' candidacy and avoid the hagiography: He was a plowhorse who lived up to the demands of an ace like nobody else in his transitional era. He was a manager's dream for fulfilling that role, especially pitching exclusively against DH-loaded lineups, not for superlative rate statistics.

So why were other pitchers able to pitch against DH-loaded lineups and still have superlative rate statistics? There are pitchers from the DH era who will make the Hall of Fame. Why was it possible for other pitchers to do this, but not Morris? I would suggest this is because Morris wasn't an elite pitcher. Sure, he did a great job of hanging in there and pitching a lot of innings, but his statistics reflect the fact he wasn't elite. Elite pitchers make the Hall of Fame. 

If you still want a one-sentence summation of Morris, you can pick from among these:

You are the one who is all about the one-sentence summary of a player's career, not me. 

He won and completed the most games among all starting pitchers who debuted from 1971-83, by far the longest period without a Hall of Fame pitcher in baseball history.

So he pitched the most innings during a period when no pitchers made the Hall of Fame. This is about as relevant as saying Morris was the best pitcher of the 80's. So Morris was the best among a group of non-Hall of Fame pitchers, that doesn't make him a Hall of Fame pitcher himself. The best player in the D-League won't get named to the NBA All-Star team. 

He pitched eight or more innings in AL games more times than any pitcher in the history of the DH (248), a record unlikely even to be approached.

Over a 14-year peak (1979-92), Morris gave his manager eight or more innings more than half the time he took the ball (52 percent of his 464 starts).

He was a workhorse. It's simply being re-phrased over and over. 

In AL history since the DH debuted, Morris ranks first in Opening Day starts (14),

Irrelevant as it pertains to Hall of Fame voting because whether a pitcher has 14 opening day starts or 2 opening day starts depends on the pitching staff around him. 

first in starts of eight or more innings, second in starts of seven or more innings (to Clemens), second in complete games (to Blyleven)

Has Verducci mentioned he was a workhorse? If not, he was. This is very important to know. 

and third in wins (to Clemens and Mike Mussina, a deserved Hall of Famer).

That's fantastic too. I can't help but wonder where Morris ranks in losses since the DH debuted. 

Now you begin to understand that his 10-inning shutout in the 1991 World Series was about more than just one historic game. You have to go back to the first day of spring training that year, when Morris, signed the previous month by Minnesota as a free agent, walked into the camp of a team that finished in last place the previous season and announced, "Men, I'm going to get you guys to the World Series. I'm going to throw the most innings on this team, have the best ERA and win the most games. I will lead you."

Does Tom Verducci realize how many times an athlete promises a championship to his teammates and it doesn't turn out to be true? Also, what Morris said is irrelevant to his Hall of Fame candidacy. I hate to keep saying this, but what a baseball player states and is able to back up is not a part of his Hall of Fame resume. 

As it turned out, Scott Erickson had the most wins and Kevin Tapani had the best ERA, but Morris threw the most innings and was the undisputed leader.

So basically Morris is going to get credit for saying something that he didn't even completely back up? So now what Verducci wants Morris to get credit for is leading the 1991 Twins in innings pitched. He was a workhorse. It's now on repeat, simply re-stated. 

By then Morris owned a reputation as one of the best, if not baddest, dudes in the game. He was so stubbornly competitive that once in 1982 Tigers manager Sparky Anderson started walking to the mound to remove Morris on what would have been his second visit that inning. Morris ran over and stopped Anderson before he could cross the third-base line.

"Get the hell out of here," he told Anderson. "What you've got warming up is no better than what I've got right now."

"You're nuts," Anderson said.

The manager turned around and walked back to the dugout.

Wow, I didn't know we could use stories to get players into the Hall of Fame. One time Fred McGriff hit a home run so far it bounced off a man's head back into the field of play where McGriff caught the ball threw it back to the pitcher who threw McGriff another pitch that McGriff hit right back at the same man, who caught it this time. Everyone elect Fred McGriff into the Hall of Fame now. 

And so there was no way Morris was letting Tom Kelly take him out of a scoreless Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Morris was 36 years old at the time. He was making his fifth start of the postseason, including three of the last four on short rest. It was his third start in eight days. The 10 innings pushed his season total to 283 -- and none of the final eight batters he faced managed to get the ball out of the infield.

It turns out I lied. Tom Verducci can't make a case for Morris to enter the Hall of Fame without at least mentioning Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. See, I don't think it can be done. I don't think a case for Jack Morris to enter the Hall of Fame can be made without mentioning this World Series game. His candidacy centers around one (very important) game, that he was a workhorse, and if you cherry-pick a subset of time then Morris was one of the best pitchers during that time compared to other pitchers during that time. It's not a strong case for the Hall of Fame in my opinion. 

Twins GM Andy MacPhail called it "the most impressive pitching performance I ever have witnessed."

So the Twins GM appreciated the performance that helped his team win a World Series? How unforeseen. 

It wasn't just about the 10 innings Morris pitched that day. It was about a career of fulfilling the responsibility of an ace and refusing to give in. After that series, Sam Carchidi of the Philadelphia Inquirer noted that Morris had compiled a career similar to Hall of Famers such as Catfish Hunter, Herb Pennock and Jesse Haines, only with more superlative World Series numbers (4-0, 1.54 ERA). "It is a distinction that will probably send him to Cooperstown one day," wrote Carchidi.

The opinion of a sportswriter from 20 years ago immediately after a fantastic performance does not a Hall of Fame career make. It's not like sportswriters tend to overstate things due to the immediacy effect or anything. 

Also, as I have shown repeatedly, these World Series numbers are impressive but didn't look so impressive after his performance in the 1992 World Series or when factoring in his ALCS numbers. Of course, who cares about the ALCS, and Jack Morris can't be expected to pitch well in the World Series at the age of 37, so those numbers clearly shouldn't count nor be mentioned when discussing Morris's postseason achievements. 

Morris was never the same after 1991, which is to be expected when a 36-year-old pitcher throws 283 innings. He did lead the AL in wins the next season with 21 for Toronto, but mostly because the Blue Jays rolled out the second-highest scoring offense in the league.

So now the same pitcher who Verducci is building a Hall of Fame candidacy around being a workhorse can't expected to be a workhorse? It's a nice way to have it. Base Morris's candidacy on him being a workhorse and then state the Blue Jays shouldn't have expected Morris to be a workhorse after the 1991 season. Also notice how Verducci bases part of Morris's candidacy on him having the most wins of the DH era outside of Clemens and Mike Mussina, but dismisses wins as a relevant statistic when it is useful to show that Morris wasn't the same pitcher during the 1992 season. Wins are a team statistic when Verducci wants to show the struggles of Jack Morris, but magically become an individual statistic when Verducci wants to describe what a great pitcher Morris was. 

He also went 0-2 with an 8.44 ERA in the 1992 World Series for the Jays.

But this doesn't count because the workhorse was all worked out at this point. 

After the '91 World Series, Morris pitched to a 5.07 ERA in his final 84 regular season starts. The three-year decline phase raised his career ERA from 3.71 to 3.90, causing the "future Hall of Famer" Carchidi wrote about in 1991 to be recast dubiously as "the pitcher with what would be the highest ERA of any Hall of Famer," displacing Red Ruffing and his 3.80 mark compiled against an AL that was neither integrated nor turbo-boosted by the DH.

So Jack Morris, the great compiler of wins and other statistics over his 18 year career, shouldn't have the fact he didn't pitch well for the last three years of his career held against him? I guess that means the 38 wins and 24 losses, as well as 11 complete games don't count either? So Jack Morris ended his career with a 3.71 ERA, 216 wins, 162 losses (which lowers his career winning percentage to 57.1% compared to his real winning percentage of 57.7%) and he had 164 complete games. Does that get him in the Hall of Fame? If we took away the last three seasons of every pitcher's career when it comes time to evaluate that pitcher's Hall of Fame candidacy would that make sense? 

Since his third year on the ballot, Morris has gained 288 votes. (Blyleven gained 393 over his time on the ballot.) His gain of only three votes last year does not portend well toward picking up the 40 or so he needs on his last try. It is possible that Morris, after a 71-vote leap the previous year, simply has neared his ceiling of support, though it is also possible that the most mean-spirited campaigning against one player in the history of the Hall of Fame ballot has cost him votes.

And of course disagreeing that Morris should be in the Hall of Fame is mean-spirited. I'm not sure how pointing out a player doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame in response to many articles being written about why that player should be in the Hall of Fame is mean-spirited, but it's best to paint the anti-Morris crowd as being unreasonable rather than argue on the facts. 

I am both baffled and saddened to see how people continually lampoon Morris and those who support his candidacy.

I'd love to see examples of this lampooning of Morris's candidacy. I'm guessing I would see this lampooning as simple disagreement over Morris's candidacy, but again, it's better to paint the opposition to Morris being in the Hall of Fame as extremists who are mean bullies. 

Morris has received 2,873 votes, the most ever by anyone on the wrong side of election.

It looks like Morris even sticks around the Hall of Fame vote long enough to accumulate impressive numbers. I can't wait for the sportswriter to make the case that Morris should be in the Hall of Fame because he has received more votes than any other candidate who hasn't gained entry into the Hall of Fame. 

If you prefer a statistical autopsy to determine your Hall of Famers, you probably will find Morris lacking. Many of the rate numbers aren't pretty enough.

If you prefer non-anecdotal evidence, a candidacy based on Morris being the best pitcher in a cherry-picked selection of dates only against other pitchers during those dates, and Game 7 of the 1991 World Series as proof of Morris's candidacy then you are probably voting for him. In the end, his candidacy should be based on what he did as a pitcher during his time in the majors, not based on what he did from 1971-1983 versus the other pitchers during that time. 

But, using another set of numbers, there is no denying the volume and impact of what Morris did.

But you have to use numbers that compare him to other Hall of Fame pitchers and I just feel Morris is lacking in that department. 

The facts show that Morris was the most reliable ace of his generation whose ability to continually take the ball deep into AL games was unmatched and may never be seen again.

He was a workhorse. I'm pretty sure you have mentioned this once or eleven times already. 

What also is true is that he altered baseball history by going 7-0 with a 2.05 ERA in the 1984 and 1991 postseasons, pitching the Tigers and Twins to world championships. Neither franchise has won a World Series since then.

Whether these franchises have won a World Series since Morris played for them is, again, irrelevant. Morris pitched poorly in the 1992 World Series and the 1987 ALCS. Why doesn't this count?

If you view baseball from the viewpoint of the manager, as I like to do, Morris is a Hall of Famer.

If you view baseball from the viewpoint of the manager then a lot of players are Hall of Famers. Managers will think most of their best players should be in the Hall of Fame. 

Just imagine you are the manager, and for nearly a decade and a half -- in the AL, with the DH -- when you give the ball to Morris more times than not he is going to give you a minimum of eight innings, and over his career and from the inception of the DH to this day he will win more AL games than anybody except Clemens and Mussina.

That's great and I will be happy my team's offense scored enough runs for Morris to win all of these games, while noting it's good the offense scores runs because Morris certainly gives up more runs than your typical ace would give up. 

the most players elected in one year is three. Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas should be expected to clear 75 percent this year. If you get an unprecedented fourth player elected, it could be Biggio rather than Morris. Biggio finished ahead of Morris last year by three votes and has no one campaigning against him.

Yes, NO ONE is campaigning against Craig Biggio, which is why he made the Hall of Fame in his first year on the ballot, right? Wait, he didn't make the Hall of Fame in his first year on the ballot? But, no one is campaigning against him...so how did he not make it? 

Under current rules he would have to wait until December 2016 for a 16th try at enshrinement. That's when he would be eligible for consideration by the 16-person committee chosen by the Hall of Fame to vote on the next Expansion Era ballot.

I think Morris will get in the Hall of Fame at some point. I wouldn't be surprised if he makes it in December 2016. 

It shouldn't have to come to that. Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, and he has my vote.

Tom Verducci is being very mean-spirited in this discussion by disagreeing with me that Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame. So adding to the list of reasons Morris is a Hall of Famer (best pitcher of the 1980's, Game 7 of the 1991 World Series) is that Morris was a workhorse and the pitcher who has held up the best during a randomly selected point of time as compared to other pitchers during that era. As I expected, a great argument for Jack Morris to make the Hall of Fame can't be made without mentioning Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Verducci didn't initially rely on that game to back Morris's candidacy, but he rambled around calling Morris a workhorse multiple times until he fell back on the that World Series game.

I wonder if Verducci considers this take on whether Morris should be in the Hall of Fame to be mean-spirited in that is it well-thought out and reasonable?

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.

26 comments What's Irritating Me Today

I have to admit I am a little bit surprised that Orlando is beating Cleveland like they are. Dwight Howard has played well but the real reason they are beating the Cavs is the guys around him are just shooting the lights out with 17 three point shots last night. All the talk this year has been about how Mo Williams has been found as LeBron's running mate, but the problem is there is no one on the Cavs bench really chipping in at all. I don't know if LeBron is a certainty to stay in Cleveland after 2010 or not. If LeBron had not hit that shot at the end of Game 2 the Cavs would have been swept. The best team in basketball swept by an inferior team (according to many) like the Magic...I did not expect that at all.

Gregg Doyel has a great (meaning: bad) article up about LeBron James and how we need to appreciate him and I was going to cover that, but FJMariotti did a great job of that already (click on the FJMariotti link on the side of the old blog here and you can read it!), so there is no need to review what has already been said by them. So I was looking through a bunch of articles I have bookmarked and decided I would just list the string of words in the articles that are pissing me off today.

-After listing my "dream" baseball team on Monday I started to list my "nightmare" baseball team and then I realized my entire OF would be made of my favorite baseball team's outfielders, began to weep, and then quit. I would still like to do this at some point, but I can't handle the truth right now.

-This also has nothing to do with an article of any type but I am still pissed off that Chipper Jones lost Rookie of the Year to Hideo Nomo in 1995. Yeah, I know he had a great year and the award means nothing, it just irritated me about the media's fascination with him...and yes I know they had a reason to be fascinated and I have no point but I can still complain 14 years after the fact.

Meanwhile, the reigning Rookie of the Year in the National League Geovany Soto is hitting .214 and every player below him in the voting is having a better year. Can't they just call it the "Rookie Who Had the Best Year" Award and give another "Rookie That Will Have the Best Career" Award to someone else? I don't want to care that he had a better year. Bruce, Votto, and Jurrjens will have better major league careers, and I want that to count for something.

-Peter King, shockingly, is irritating me today for various reasons. Most of all because he did not answer my well written and thoughtful email for the 5 consecutive week in his MMQB Tuesday Edition.

I've reached this point in thinking about what Michael Vick should be and how he should be used in his possible NFL reincarnation: I think he should be Devin Hester, at least at the beginning.

Peter, do you mean using modern technology to remove Devin Hester's face and put it on Mike Vick's face and vice versa just like in the blockbuster Nicholas Cage-John Travlota movie "Face Off?" If so, brilliant idea.

I don't know if he can be, but that's what I'd think if I were the Saints, Patriots or Bills, or whoever might be interested in signing him if he is reinstated to the NFL.

Well, if Mike Vick is Devin Hester, then Devin Hester is not a free agent this year so he has to play for the Chicago Bears, so the Mike Vick/Devin Hester person would not have an option unless he forced a trade.

Sarcasm aside, is this idea of Peter's that revolutionary? I thought it was pretty much assumed by everyone that the team he signed with would use Vick in a similar capacity to how Hester is used in Chicago? Vick's clearly not coming back as a fucking fullback or an offensive lineman, everyone has been talking about how he would make a wonderful wildcat quarterback and teams could use his speed to get him the ball on offense. Why is Peter so late to the party on every idea?

"I've been doing some thinking, and I believe the Lions are going to try and get Matt Stafford some good receivers to catch the ball and improve the offensive line. I think that is the best way to help make him successful."

(I know everyone is asking "Who is Matt Stafford?" because we all know Mark Sanchez was the #1 pick in the draft this year. Maybe it just feels that way.)

Maybe he becomes a guy who touches the ball six to eight times a game, 100 to 120 times the entire 2009 season, as he works his way back to an expanded role in 2010 and beyond. He could be a Wildcat quarterback for four snaps, a slot receiver one or two, or a running back taking a pitch.

Holy shit, that is exactly what everyone who else has talked about this situation has said as well Peter. Thanks for bringing up the tail end of journalism ideas on this one. Hey, someone has to be last!

Imagine if the Saints put Vick and Reggie Bush in the backfield at the same time, with the most prolific quarterback of the past three years, Drew Brees, under center.

This would be the first time Peter would notice a team not in the Northeast plays in the NFL. Then, and only then, would Peter move the Saints up to #11 in his power rankings. An underachieving running back AND a quarterback fresh out of jail, in the game at the same time? The world hasn't seen such an enigmatic backfield since...ever. Fuck it, Peter will put the Saints up to #6 in his power rankings if this happens.

Norm Woodcock, of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: "I have a severed biceps tendon and after 18 months rehab have recovered 25 percent of my arm strength. I know Brett Favre is super human but as for being unaffected by a severed biceps tendon, I absolutely don't believe it. Sounds like agent talk.''

Norm, Peter King is about to call you a wimp. Prepare accordingly.

My understanding is Favre has been told that he'll be able to throw the ball without restriction or pain a month or so after surgery.

Translation: You Norm, are a wimp. Brett Favre is statistically 72 times more of a man than you are. He needs one month for full arm strength and you need 72 months for the same arm strength.

All I can go by is what medical sources tell me.

(I have $100 saying Peter's medical sources are Brett and Deanna Favre, PhD.)

Translation: You don't know Brett Favre, Norm. I do. He will be back and he is going to play football gloriously as millions of women and men fawn in adoration at his skills.

There was not a lot of interesting mail this week. Peter wasn't prepared to talk about football, he wanted to talk about mean dogs that bite humans.

-I am not a slave to a pitch count or anything like that, but does Dusty Baker intentionally try to ruin his pitchers?

I realize pitching to one batter is not going to ruin a pitcher, but are managers such slaves to wins that they would have a pitcher warm up for a game, cool down during the delay, then warm up again, pitch to one batter, and then be done for the day? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Yesterday afternoon/evening, he sent Aaron Harang back out to the mound to finish the fifth inning after a rain delay that lasted more than two hours. Harang only pitched to one batter after the delay and recorded a strikeout of Humberto Quintero to qualify for the win.

This is dumb. I know Harang probably wanted the win, but I can't believe it was worth it to put Harang out there for one batter.

"I'm just glad the delay wasn't any longer," Baker said. "He wanted it badly. He wanted very badly."

Baker felt the risk was minimal.

The risk to Harang's arm was minimal but the stupidity of having him warm up to pitch to one batter after throwing 83 pitches is overwhelming in my mind.

Really, this would not be a big story if Dusty Baker wasn't known as the Michael Myers of managers. After trying to kill Mark Prior and Kerry Wood's career by seeing if they can hit 200 pitches in a game, anything he does is going to be over-criticized. I am not criticizing, I just think this is stupid to have a pitcher go out after a 2 hour delay and pitch to one batter for the win.

Baker might have felt the risk was minimal, but I'm not sure anyone in their right mind would agree with him. He put a ton of extra and unnecessary stress on the arm of one of his best pitchers, just so that pitcher could pick up a cosmetic counting stat that he "wanted badly."

That's how I am thinking as well. Baker's job is to manage the team, which means dictate to the players their roles on the team, set the lineups and pitching rotation. Any pitcher is going to say that he wants a win badly because he wants to pick up the win, but the manager's job is to determine whether that stat is worth any other risk to the player. Manage the team and manage what is best for the team. That's what I would do if I were Dusty Baker and I don't know if making sure Harang gets to pad his win column is best for the team. I guess we are just lucky Joey Votta and Jay Bruce are not pitchers...yet.

-Tom Verducci, who I normally like, lists the 10 old players that are breaking through, and does a generally good job...except for a few. I have a very strict definition of "breaking through" as well. If an old player was a good player previously, then he is not breaking through now, he is merely having a career year in my mind. That's not breaking through.

1) Raul Ibanez

He has played his entire career in the American League with the Royals and the Mariners and now he is in the National League hitting behind Rollins, Howard, and Utley. That's a step up. Sure, he is has never hit like this before but I don't know if he is breaking through since he has had 100 RBI 4 out of the last 7 years and has an OBP always hovering near .355 over the past couple of years. He is having a career year in a new league, that's really all in my mind. I also think his numbers will eventually fall down a bit. He can't hit like this all year, can he?

Yes, he did hit 33 bombs and drive in 123 runs while playing in Seattle's airplane hangar in 2006, so he does have some pop.

Thanks for proving your first player choice wrong for me Tom.

7) Casey Blake,

The eighth spot in NL batting orders is notoriously difficult because of hitting in front of the pitcher, but Blake is having the best season of his life out of that spot. His .376 OBP is a huge improvement on his .330 career mark.

I am going to go ahead and chalk this up to a sample size of 152 at bats. I would look for Blake's end of year numbers to only be slightly ahead of his career numbers. His OBP was .326 for the month of April and the fact he is tearing it up in May really makes Blakes numbers inflated by a good margin. Why can't writers realize we are two months into the season and one good month will give a player inflated stats?

8) Joe Mauer, 26, Twins: Yes, he's a young guy,

I have so many problems with this selection. Mauer is young, he has broken through already and also the fact that because he is hitting more homeruns than usual doesn't mean he is actually breaking through, it means he is absolutely on fire through 84 at bats.

Joe Mauer has absolutely zero business being on this list. Zero. He's not old and he is not breaking through. He has already broken through. He's a great player. Just look at statistics.

This is Mauer with power.

OMFG! That rhymed! Hilarious. It still doesn't take away from the fact that Mauer is absolutely tearing it up right now and hitting for power in the 84 at bats he has accumulated this year, but that doesn't mean he is breaking out. He is on pace to have a career year, but he is widely considered the best catcher in baseball so there is no freaking way he is having a "breakthrough year," and he is not even old. The title of this article is "Breaking through is hard to do for old guys, but these 10 are doing it." Mauer is 26 years old.

-I hate it when writers are right. I don't even want to comment on this article because it was written May 10 and I have been saving it for when the Cavs beat the Magic and make the NBA Finals. I think the evil Gregg Doyel is right. I read the article and he seemed to pretty much have the Cavs team scouted pretty well.

-It irritates me pretty much anytime Woody Paige writes an article like he is a 6 year old.

Hey, Aunty Em, tell your wackadoo niece Dorothy Gale — and her little dog too — that home isn't such a grand and glorious place, after all.

Who reads this shit and thinks that it is top flight journalism? This is how he got on ESPN's "yelling at each other" shows. You actually have to be a complete moron to be allowed on Around the Horn and First Take/Cold Pizza/Whatever They Call It This Week. They accept nothing less than the stupidest journalists in America so they accept him easily as part of their network of nonsense talkers.

Sorry to say this, but this sentence Woody wrote is shit.

Maybe, though, given how the Nuggets played Saturday night (lethargically), they might have considered turning over the local arena tonight to pseudo-sport and playing in, oh, Salt Lake City.

Wherever the Nuggets and the Lakers meet, they are becoming cruder, more brutal and, well, raw. Their first two affairs were the most-watched pro or college basketball games in the history of ESPN. Tonight will be a ratings royale, and even the Cheetos-and-Ding Dongs crowd will TiVo the "wrestling thing."

I tried to read this article and can't even begin to understand it. This irritates me. How am I supposed to make fun of someone when I can't even understand what he is writing? I personally hate wrestling, so maybe it is the fake wrestling WWE/WWF thing he is talking about and I don't know enough to understand it. I was one of five male children in America who never watched wrestling when they were young so it may be above my head. I doubt it, and really think he may just be speaking nonsense.

Psst, George. The series is 2-1 Lakers, so you don't have to win two in Denver and two more in L.A. It's not best-of- nine.

Pay no attention to the coaches behind the curtains. Pay attention to the wizards of ahs — Melo and Kobe.

And, Denver, tap the heels of your ruby slippers together three times and repeat . . .

I can't believe someone read Woody Paige's work at some point in the past and thought, "we have to hire this guy." His writing can be so bad. Of course what do you expect from someone whose entire job on television is to come up with "controversial" points of view and debate them with other idiots who are trying to say something soundbite worthy? To think of him as a journalist may be to give him too much credit.

-It irritates me when Scoop Jackson can't leave race out of one of his columns. This is not a poorly written column and I was able to read it and not hate what it contained. He could have written the entire article without throwing in sentences like this one...

Every time I went to play hockey, and almost always being the only kid of color out there, it took me awhile to figure out why people (including some teammates) were always shooting the puck at me -- especially when I was never the goalie.

I bet at the age of 8 or 9 years of old, these kids had very little control over where the puck went and they were not actually shooting the puck at Lil' Scoop.

He could have easily left this sentence out, it really adds nothing and makes the reader think all of his friends hated Lil' Scoop when he was young.

It just irritates about how he can't write a single article without bringing up race. This article was decent and seemed well thought out, except for the parts where he wanted to make it clear he liked hockey and he was black, which inherently made him different in his own eyes.

-I thought the Hurricanes would lose to the Pens in 5 games, it irritates me that Cam Ward decided he was going to give up prior to Game 3. Last night was the only time in my small hockey history I have seen a goalie lose a puck in the lights.

-I am going to go ahead and apologize to Fred Trigger and Ivn, for this one. It annoys the shit out of me when a baseball player does dances and gets emotional after getting out of an inning (think John Rocker, Chamberlain, or any other closer who acts like he just dismantled an atomic bomb when he completes a save or gets out of the inning) and then when he blows the save gets pissy as the cameras watch him. I am talking about my dream team closer, Papelbon.

If you are going to act like you just saved the world and let the cameras pick up your antics after being a hero, you have to accept that you will look like an ass when you blow a save. Don't act like a bitch. Just look at that picture of Papelbon beside the story in the link. If you do shit like that, you can expect a camera on you after you fail also.

according to Causi, before throwing his towel at him It should be noted: Papelbon missed Causi. "I guess he missed with two pitches that night," Causi cracked.

Though to be fair, the camera man, based on that quote seems like an asshole so at some point in the future he should have something heavier thrown at him.