So you've probably heard by now that Mike Piazza had tied Carlton Fisk's major league record of 351 home runs as a catcher Tuesday night against his former teammates, the Dodgers. Well, the only problem is that he didn't.

Here's a picture of Piazza hitting the "record-tying" home run:

I wrote about this last April. Here's what I said back then:

The answer to the all-time leader in home runs by a catcher comes from Chuck Rosciam of the Encycolpedia of Catchers, but it's not at straightforward as I expected. Chuck explains that Fisk holds the "record" according to the SABR HR Encyclopedia at 351, but...

Fisk apparently holds the Record with 351 (out of 376 hit), BUT five of those non-catcher ones were hit between/during position changes. That is, Fisk's last defensive position was catcher in a game, then he came to bat and hit a HR and then he took up a different position in the bottom of the same inning. My logic tells me that he was still a catcher and that he didn't change positions until after he hit those five. That would make his Catcher-only total 356. However, there are 3 games in which he started as a non-catcher, then changed positions during the game with a HR being hit between changes (same rule as previous) and was WRONGLY CREDITED with a homer as a catcher. Now subtract 3 from 356 to make his Catcher Total = 353. Piazza's HR's as a catcher I believe stand at 342 unless he hit one in the past two days. That means that he needs 13 more to hold the record, which he will easily do plus some this season.

It gets kind of complicated. Besides as Chuck mentions, Piazza will obliterate the old "record" anyway, barring some catastrophe. So it won't matter by the time he retires if they count the home runs he hit just as a catcher or they count them all. He will still rank number one among all catchers.

Piazza only played 68 games in 2003, so he never did have the opportunity to set the new "record".

However, what I find interesting is that so many sports news services carried the news as if the record were kept officially. The record is something derived by baseball scholars using subjective (and I believe incorrect) assumptions.

If we use Chuck's value of 353, which is more based in basic baseball scoring—not to mention the old schoolyard rule that you have to play the field before you bat—Piazza is still dingers shy of the record. Of course, Piazza should go on to obliterate the record. But keep in mind his age, recent health issues, and the Mets' desire to move him to first. Let's say that the Mets and Piazza agree on a move to commence after his next home run. Piazza would then own the record and the Mets would be happy. However, in thirty years when some scholar redresses this error, Piazza will fall one home run short. And the long-retired Piazza will have to give back his secret decoder ring or whatever they give him for breaking the record. Let's just hope that Mike hits a bunch more before the inevitable transition to first base becomes fact.

Chula!

There was a little incident last Wednesday at—I was about to say the Vet—Citizens Bank Park that I failed to comment on. It was the second game in the Marlins-Phils series last week.

The game was tied with the Phils batting in the bottom of the ninth. Armando Benitez had just entered the game and Placido Polance took his first offering down the line in left on a rope. The ball skidded four times and came to rest on at the moment of the fourth bounce at the base of the wall in left directly to the right of the 329' sign. Left fielder Jeff Conine gave chase but stopped and raised his hands to get the umps' attention. Polanco was just rounding second and continued to round the bases. Third base umpire Ed Rapuano had called a ground-rule double once Conine raised his hands.

Manager Larry "If I Only Had A Brain" Bowa protested vehemently and somehow was not ejected from the game. The ball was easily extracted by Conine after the play was dead. Apparently, the wall at the new park has a small groove at its base which is, oddly enough, the exact size, depth and height, for a baseball to get wedged. I guess it's a space to store the copious amounts of batteries thrown on the field when, say, J.D. Drew is in town. The ball was clearly visible the entire time, but Conine never made an attempt to remove it from the wall. Actually, he signaled for a GR double before he was in a position to field the ball had it caromed off the wall. It was a smart play as Polanco probably would have gotten a triple had the ball not gotten wedged.

After the discussion Bowa told the umps that he was formally protesting the game, which drew Florida manager Jack "Don't call me Trader" McKeon out of his lair, though I don’t see what he possibly could have been arguing. Bowa is well within his rights to protest any game. Besides the umps were not the ones ruling on the protest. Bowa later summed up his argument in a cogent argument that was free of bleeps (wow!), "Just because he (left fielder Jeff Conine) throws his arms up, it doesn't matter. You have to play it"

Anyway, the next batter Bobby Abreu flied out to center, the Phils were eventually retired in the ninth without scoring a run, and the Marlins won, 8-7, in twelve as is their wont against the Phillies. One could argue that Abreu's fly could have plated Polanco as the winning run, had the ball not gotten stuck.

The protest was formally rejected by Bob Dupuy, of all people, this weekend. So now its officially official. However, I wanted to take a look at the Phils' ground rules to determine if a) the ump made the right call in the first place and b) if MLB should have ruled otherwise.

Here are the ground rules from the major league site:

Philadelphia Phillies - Citizens Bank Park

- Ball has to actually enter dugout area or hit the yellow bars or yellow line to be considered out of play.

- Ball entering open area above end of dugout inside yellow line is considered out of play.

- Glass areas of fence have openings at top. If ball sticks in opening it's a ground rule double. Ball off the yellow line at the top of fence is in play.

- In left and right field the stands protrude to a point near the foul lines. If ball lands in fair territory and bounces over the points and lands in the playing area, it is considered to be in the stands and ruled a ground rule double.

- A ball landing in fair territory and hitting pipe to right of right-field foul pole is in play.

Pretty sparse, eh? There's no mention of the groove at the base of the fence. However, is there a general rule that can be invoked in this case? There is rules 6.09(e) and 6.09(f), which seem to overlap a bit:

6.09(e) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases; (f) Any fair ball which, either before or after touching the ground, passes through or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through any opening in the fence or scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, or which sticks in a fence or scoreboard, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to two bases;

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out." (Monty Python and the Holy "Rich" Grail)

I guess it comes down to your definition of "sticks". Given that neither umpire nor the fielder was close to the ball when it got wedged in the fence, I do not see how that determination could be made. The ball was on the ground and visible. It's not like it disappeared in a wall of ivy. Nor did it get wedged in mid air.

Of course, it's a basic tenet of the game that the ump's judgment is sacrosanct. And if you need a rule for it, here's 9.02(a):

Any umpire's decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.

So could Bowa have technically protested? Let's look at that rule:

4.19 PROTESTING GAMES. Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game, when a manager claims that an umpire's decision is in violation of these rules. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire. In all protested games, the decision of the League President shall be final. Even if it is held that the protested decision violated the rules, no replay of the game will be ordered unless in the opinion of the League President the violation adversely affected the protesting team's chances of winning the game. Whenever a manager protests a game because of alleged misapplication of the rules the protest will not be recognized unless the umpires are notified at the time the play under protest occurs and before the next pitch is made or a runner is retired. A protest arising on a game ending play may be filed until 12 noon the following day with the League Office.

Keep in mind that there are no league presidents anymore, but that MLB has failed to update the rule. Bowa did notify the umps before the next pitch was thrown, so he's OK there. The ruling did adversely affect the protesting team's chances, so he's OK there. However, was any rule violated by the ump? Not really. I guess if it’s a judgment call, whether the ball was technically stuck or whether it was merely resting at the base of the wall. The protest was invalid and therefore, should have been rejected.

However, there are good judgment calls and there are bad judgment calls. Ask Jeffery Maier. The ball got out to left so quickly that neither Rapuano nor Conine was in a position to determine if the ball were truly stuck. And Rapuano made the call before Conine ever touched the ball. He, in fact, did not bother to touch the ball until the play was dead and Polanco had already circled the bases.

Basically, this comes down to a lazy, lousy call by the ump in a close and potentially important game and to a great appeal by a veteran player that staved off a Florida defeat. The play should stand, but Rapuano should be taken to task. The entire rule should be reexamined and better defined. Since it is easy to determine the results if the rule is applied (i.e., all runners and the batter advance two bases), play should continue until the ball is dead and then the umps should confer to get the right call. Force Conine to at least attempt to field the ball. If it is clear that he is making an honest attempt but cannot recover the ball, call a ground-rule double. If not, let the runners advance where they may. Judgment should be used for the gray area, but the judgment should be based on how the play unfolds not just the gestures of the nearest fielder.

There is one rule that should have guided Rapuano and didn’t. It is 9.05. Here is the section to which I refer:

[To the umpires] Carry your rule book. It is better to consult the rules and hold up the game ten minutes to decide a knotty problem than to have a game thrown out on protest and replayed.

I know that he didn’t do anything to violate the rules. But in the broader sense he didn’t do all that he could to ensure the right call was made. I know it's only April, but the Marlins and Phils look like they may have a battle on their hands for the division title. I would hate to see the it come down to a one-game difference after this one.

Mike's Baseball Rants went over 10 K hits for thr month of April earlier today. It's our (in the royal sense) first month breaking that barrier in almost two years of bloviating. Danke Sherm Lollar.

Hey, Ernie, you want a job?

—Tony Montana in Scarface to a former opponent's henchman right after obliterating the opponent's leadership, staring directly into Ernie's sweat-streaked face, and milking a pregnant pause (After which Ernie responds, "Sure, Tony," in relief. Then Montana sidekick Chi-Chi jokingly responds, "You got a job, mang," and Ernie takes a big swig of alcohol with his hand visibly shaking).

Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil.

— Elie "Walt" Wiesel

It means nothing to me. I have no opinion about it, and I don’t care.

—Pablo "Torrealba" Picasso, who according to Jonathan Richman was never called an A-hole, on the first moon-landing.

Diane Chambers: Everyone knows that hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is.

Sam Malone: Well, whatever you say. I really don't care.

—Cheers

A few years back Mystery Science Theater 3000, a show that would play old movies (or "experiments") and riff on them continuously, while recovering from a particularly nasty experiment, ran a segment that they called "They Just Didn't Care", meaning the makers of the film. Exhibit A in their declension was the title of the film, "The Attack of the The Eye Creatures"—that's right, with two "the". They didn't even bother to get the title right. They then pointed to zippers visible on monster costumes, some creatures supposedly covered head to toe in eyeballs wearing lycra body suits and sneakers, night scenes shot in bright daylight, successive scenes alternating between darkness and daylight even though they are supposed to occur at approximately the same time, a man inexplicably wearing a night-dress, and military men using their equipment to peep at teenagers necking at the local lovers' lane.

This past week, Blender magazine named its fifty worst songs of all time. At the top of the list was "We Built This City on Rock and Roll" by Jefferson Airplane cum Jefferson Starship cum Starship, a group created by a lawsuit by former member Paul Kantner over the name "Jefferson" (he and George and Weezie are still wrangling over that one. Blender calls it "the truly horrible sound of a band taking the corporate dollar while sneering at those who take the corporate dollar." However, singer Grace Slick (whom a burnout I knew in high school referred to as Grey Slick on one graffiti-riddled textbook) remembered the song fondly:

"This is not me," when the magazine reminds her of the tune. "Now you're an actor. It's the same as Meryl Streep playing Joan of Arc."

Meryl Streep played Joan of Arc?

She continued, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

Germans? Forget it. She's on a roll.

Obviously, Ms. Slick was applying heaping tons of sublimation along with her daily doses of illegal substances. Clearly she just didn't care.

And yet again you ask what the hex this has to do with Joe Morgan. Well, I have attributed many personality flaws to Morgan in trying to explain how a man who was so SABR-ific as a player (e.g., he always had a terrific OBP) could be so SABR poor as an analyst (e.g., he eschews OBP as a valid stat by which to evaluate players). I've explained this by accusing Morgan of being baseball's Andy Kaufman playing a joke on the entire world by his mere existence, of experimenting with his audience by exposing them to all sorts of gibberish, and worse things that I dare not repeat here.

However, I now at long last get Joe Morgan. He just doesn't care. And I hope to use exhibits from his last chat session to demonstrate his indifference towards us, the baseball audience. Order in the court. The first exhibit is that the chat session is cut short so that some upstart named Rob Neyer can hold his chat. Talk about not caring! Your honor, I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…

The Good—Caring Means Sharing

brendan (erskine MN): hey joe i was wondering if you have any tips on how to get rid of an uppercut in a swing if you can help me that would be great thanx

Well, I think the only way to get rid of it is to try and rotate your body (your hips and your weight) to your front side. Almost like a golf swing. This makes your swing more level. Staying on your back leg promotes and uppercut. You must shift it forward.

[Mike: Your honor, he cares if he gets a technical question.]

Randy (Houston): Hi Joe, you were always one of my favorite players, and are now my favorite broadcast guy. Wanted to ask a question regarding the Astros. Is it time to send Tim Redding down to New Orleans and get Carlos Hernandez back in Houston? Redding has great stuff but seems to lack the mentality to win.

I always liked Hernandez, personally, but I still think it's too early to give up on a guy at this point in the season. As long as they maintain contact with the Cubs -- which I think they have -- I think they'll be OK allowing him some time to see if he can become the star that they hope he can be. For now, I just think it's a little too early.

[Mike: Ah yes, if you butter him up, he cares. Of course, it's too early to write someone off, especially when he showed some promise last year (3.68 ERA in 33 games/32 starts).]

Jason (Utah): Several ESPN columnists are saying Bonds will hit .400 this season. Don't we all need to take a deep breath and evaluate where he's at in, say, July, and then make brash predicitions?

Well, I don't know if it's a lot of columnist, I heard Harold Reynolds make that prediction, but he backed it up by saying that he walked so much that he only has about 300 ABs and therefore, would need only 120 hits. I don't believe anyone will ever hit .400 again b/c of the specialization of pitchers. Now-a-days you face four good pitchers a game. I dont' think anyone could have a 56 game hitting streak or his .400 in today's baseball. But everybody is entitled to their own opinions.

[Mike: He cares if he can run down a modern player. Actually, I see the point of those opining that Bonds could hit .400. Given that he would qualify for the batting title with the lowest at-bat total probably on record, Bonds or anyone for that matter could hit .400 in the relatively small sample size. However, given that every pitching staff is keying on Bonds like no other individual, it seems unlikely that in reality he would be able to take advantage of the benefits of the smaller sample size.]

The Bad—Much like Phil Collins, Joe don't care anymore (Consider Sussudio)

Brent Seaborn (Alexandria, VA): Hi Joe! Do you have any predictions for the Yankees/Red Sox series this weekend? Thanks!

Well, I think after watching the games between NY and Boston last week, it proves the point I made earlier this morning. I think the Red Sox have the edge with their starting pitching. But, since the games are in NY, it wil even things out. But -- Boston has proven they can play well in New York. There is going to be a lot of pressure on A-Rod and Sheff from the Yankee faithful to deliver in a huge series. It should be an exciting series as always!

[Mike: Cover all those bases, Joe. I'm still not sold on the Red Sox rotation nor am I willing to throw in the towel on the Yankee rotation. The Red Sox certainly are playing much better than the Yankees right now. We'll have to see how the season plays out. It's unfortunate that these two series had to be played while New York was at seemingly their nadir for the season though.]

BoSox Fan, Beantown: I hear some talk about the Big Unit heading to the Big Apple this summer. Could "Theo and the Trio" pry him away from the desert to join schilling in breaking an 86 year old curse?

I haven't heard anything about Randy Johnson being traded, BUT, if the D'Backs aren't playing well they will cut their payroll and he does carry the biggest price tag. SO, it wouldn't surprise me if, after the first half of the seaon they aren't playing too well, they may have to move him. I'm not sure where he'll end up but he could certainly be dealt.

[Mike: Joe, ATFQ ("Answer the F'ing Question"). Could he go to Boston? Sure. Arizona is playing poorly and Johnson is 40 and has two years at $16 M due to him. Boston has been a player of late, but the Yankees, Phils, and potentially the Dodgers could be interested. They say his fastball has lost some speed but he is still averaging 11 K per nine innings.

By the way, the only 86-year-old curse in Boston is "Yankees suck!"]

Matt Baltimore,md: Joe, What do you think about the O's this year?? somemany people are focused on the Yanks and Sox, but it's the O's who are in first place in the AL East. Can they continue this trend through out the season?

I did the opening game of the season in Baltimore, I said at that time I really liked all the changes they've made with Tejada and Javy and Palmiero. I am very impressed with the Orioles, it's just a matter of how much pitching they get. IF they have the arms to keep them in the game, they will be in the race all year long. I definitely think they are a better team than Toronto.

[Mike: Just say "No", Joe. Let the guy down easy. If you cared, you would.

I still expect Toronto to pass Baltimore. Either way, they will have the worst rotation in the division and cannot expect to stick with the division elite (i.e., the Yankees and Sox) this year. ]

Doug Rhamy - Shreve, Ohio: Hi Joe, I was wondering what your take is on Ichiro these days. He is not stealing as much, or hitting at his usual rate for that matter. I know it's early, but we saw some of the same the second half last year. Do you think it's necessary for Seattle to get another bat for them to even have a chance in that division? Thanks.

I think Ichiro will be all right. I think everybody is pitching him a lot tougher now than when he first came over. They have made adjustments to his hitting style. BUT I do think Seattle needs another bat. Edgar Martinez is not as dominant as he was before.

[Mike: True, Joe, Ichiro will be "all right" but not in the way you meant it. I see him falling from superstar to marginal player in the next couple of years as he loses his speed and his skills give in to his limitations (inability to take a walk, lack of power, and extreme streakiness). He's 30. His numbers have been in decline in each successive season. He had a horrific second-half last year ) as is his wont (1st half: .352 BA, .390 OBP, .476 Slug, and .866.OPS. 2nd half: .259, .301, .383, .684). His numbers this April have been similarly poor. One point in his favor is that he had a poor April last year, too. He seems to be a May to July player, which does not bode well.

As far as Martinez not being as dominant: A) He's 41 and has a .310 BA, a .395 on-base percentage, and an .860 OPS. Yes, the home runs are down, but he's far from a drain on the lineup. Suzuki, Winn, Aurilia, and Boone have been though and John Olerud is showing his age much more than Martinez.

That said, I don't know if it's necessary for Seattle to get another bat. If they believe in the players they have. Their team ERA of 5.43 may be more of a concern. As is the fact that they have one starter with an ERA under 5.19.]

Ryan(Rochester, NY): Do you think the Marlins have enough to go wire to wire and repeat? It's starting to look that way.

Well, they proved last year, not just by winning the Wold Series but just by their performance in the second half of the season that they have what it takes. When young players with ability have confidence, the sky is the limit. That said, nothing surprises me that they are doing so well. I am surprised that the Phillies haven't challenged them more, however.

[Mike: Joe, they were the wild card last year after all. Do they have what it takes? It depends if all of the young players that are playing so well (Choi, Cabrera, and Willis in particular) can keep it up all season long. Willis was a pretty poor pitcher in the second half last year. Choi and Cabrera are playing tremendously better than last year. They could be maturing or they could be playing over their heads. Who knows? However, vets like Armando Benitez and Carl Pavano have a track record that demonstrates they are over-achieving.

The Marlins are playing over their heads right now. Can they keep it up? Maybe. They won't sustain a staff ERA of 2.81 though, And they are just 7-6 when not playing the Phils, who they have crushed. The Marlins could go wire-to-wire, but I think the odds are a bit long.]

The Ugly—Or as ex-Boston Bruin Vladimir Ruzicka said when asked about then first-time Cy Young award winner Tom Glavine practicing with his team, "No know, no care."

Jack: Did you see the toronto-boston game yesterday? There was no one in the stands! It's a disgrace! They had a huge victory and no one was left in the stadium to see it. What's wrong here Joe?!!

Well, the attendance has been suffering for the last couple of year from a time when they were chasing a world series and selling out games. Unless they are in contention and winning games, I expect this poor trend will continue -- especially during hockey season.

[Mike: That's a bit harsh, and incorrect. Toronto did draw just 16,480 fans to that game. They are 25th in the majors in average attendance this year (21,314 per game).

However, when you get swept in the opening series by a team that was historically bad last year (the Tigers), it doesn't bring out the fans, especially after 10 years of mediocrity. And to be fair, the Toronto fans supported the Jays after the dynasty years. They had the best attendance in the AL from the moment they moved into Skydome in 1989 through 1994. They were 55-60, 3rd in the AL East, in 1994. They were 3rd in attendance with a 56-88 record and 5th place finish in the AL East in 1995. From 1996 to 1999 they never finished above 3rd and never won more than 88 games, and yet drew at least two million fans (and ranked between 5th and 8th in the AL in attendance). They have finished third the last four years and won between 78 and 86 games, but have fallen to either tenth or eleventh in attendance. They seem to be suffering the most from the Yankee-Red Sox wars over the last 6-7 years.

And as far as the end of hockey season helping, the Flyers will soon end the Maple Leafs' season, so we shall soon see.

Marconi plays the mamba…]

Dave (Albany, NY): Good morning Joe--thanks for your time. I was wondering what your take on the multitude of injuries and guys (seemingly) spending more time on the DL now then as recently as 10 or 15 years ago. Why don't as many guys play hurt anymore? They're getting paid good money to sit around and nurse a hangnail?!?! Please. It didn't seem to affect the Gehrig's and Mays' of the past--and they weren't paid nearly as well. Thanks!

Yes Dave, this has been a trend. I think part of it is becuase the players make so much money that the ownerships are afraid of injuries may sideline them for a year or more so they are more cautious with them. Ownership allows the players to be more careful with their bodies to prevent this.

[Mike: One Joe Morgan #5 Special, players today are worse, weaker, etc. than in the past.

"Dave, I can feel it…I can feel it…I can feel my mind going." (HAL 2000 in "2001")

First, it's a good thing that teams are taking pitch counts seriously and are more protective of their investments. Second, has anyone noticed that there are players performing well at a very late age? E.g. Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Jamie Moyer, and Edgar Martinez. Third, Dave made some unfortunate picks. Mays never broke 150 games and was decidedly an inferior player over his last seven years. Lou Gehrig was permanently out of the game at 35.

…listen to the radio…]

Kevin (Mesa, AZ): Joe, good morning... Do you think that's an adjustment period going on with A-rod and Sheffield, being in NY now? They only have like 3 HR's between the two. I don't know if the Boss is going to tolerate for much longer, before he goes public about his frustrattions. What do you think?

For Sheff, there is a slight adjustment in going from the NL to the AL. For A-Rod, it's even bigger tyring to deal with all the publicity and hoopla and press. Yes, it is a transitory period, but both of them are such great talents that I see them each having tremendous seasons before it's all over.

[Mike: [A]ll the publicity and hoopla and press .Right, because no one knew who A-Rod was before he came to New York. It's not like he was a lightning rod for every Joe Lunchpail to vent his spleen (which is dangerous indeed).

Besides, Sheffield and Rodriguez are not doing that badly offensively. Both have their OPS's in the .770 range. That's not setting the world ablaze but it's competent. The problems with the Yankee offense are with Jeter and his .250 OBP and .455 OPS at the top of the order, Bernie Williams' .496 OPS, and Enrique Wilson's .396 OPS(!). Jeter should rebound and is getting over an injury. Wilson is just a bad player. Replacing him should be a top priority. At 35 Williams may be nearing the end of the line. He did miss training camp and still may be recuperating from the injury. Either way, maybe giving 27-year-old rookie Bubba Crosby a little more time or looking outside the system may make sense.

By the way, I think Joe meant a "transitional" period. Though "transitory" could make sense.

…don't you remember?]

Scott, Davenport, IA: Do you think the Cubs stand a chance without Mark Prior and how important is a quality pitcher these days?

They have a chance without him, but they are going to have to get a lot more production from Greg Maddux than they are getting. If Prior was who he was last year, I think the Cubs would win by a few games. Without him, I think it will go right down to the wire.

[Mike: And if a butterfly in Skokie flutters his wings, then the Cubs will win by 10 games. Look, the Pythagorean Formula can’t predict that well. It should be a good pennant race, but who knows.

If Prior was who he was last year: Is Joe hinting at something? Have the Astros abducted the real Mark Prior but no one in baseball is allowed to talk about it? If not, I think he's the same guy.

Also, I would think they need production from Prior's replacement, Sergio Mitre, not Maddux, who already had a job before Prior's injury.

…We built this city…]

Steve, Manchster, NH: Joe, Is this finally the year where the Red Sox are just plain better than the Yanks?

I thought before the Yankees acquired A-Rod that this might be the case. I think the board is even now, but starting pitchers with Shilling added in Boston, I'd give the Sox the edge, but it's not big enough that you can purchace your World Series tickets yet.

[Mike: Better how? Better one or better two? "My team can beat up your team, na, na, na na na!"

I would agree with Joe, the board is even, that is if we were playing checkers, which we're not. Who's the better team? How do you quantify that? Oh, wait, there's that new method. It's called, hm, let me see, oh yeah, wins and losses. The team that wins the division will be the "better" team. Trust me.

Now Joe's answer is waffling of the highest degree. The Sox had an edge. But the Yankees got A-Rod. So now it's equal. Except Schilling gives the Red Sox the edge, unless they don't have it. Then it's either even or the Yankees have the edge. And the Edge is a shaving cream. So the team with less facial hair will have the Edge. And I told two friends and so on and so on and so on…

…we built this city on rock and roll…

chris cartersville ga: hey joe the braves bullpen seems horrible do you think that they have to sure that up to have a chance at another division title?

I would never question the Braves. They've won 12 consecutive division titles. I trust their staff, they know what it takes to win and they've proven that point year in and year out. I'm going to leave it up to them.

[Mike: Hey, I didn't know that they named a town after the Eagles/Vikings receiver!

Follow Joe. Bow down to the Braves. They can do no wrong. They are perfect. "And put in your earplugs, put on your eyeshades You know where to put the cork."

…We built this city, we built this city on rock and roll…]

Robert, Evansville, Indiana: Hi Joe, the Reds are off to a good start so far. Do you think their starting rotation can hold up. If not, should they go after someone to bolster them for the long run?

Well, you can forget about them going after someone. They have proven that they are not going to spend any money on anything or anyone. THey'll have to do it with what they have, but I think they have a shot if they (Griffey) can stay healthy.

[Mike: Hey, I didn't know they named a town after the movie producer. The kid certainly does stay in the picture.

How many times does Joe have to repeat this tripe? It's just not true. The Reds acquired Aaron Harang and Todd Van Poppel last season and Ryan Dempster, Bruce Chen, Brian Moehler, and Shawn Estes. Yeah that's not the cream of the crop, but that may have to do more with the Reds' scouting talent than with their limited funds. Besides people will pay you to take a pitcher of their roster nowadays.

…Built this city, we built this city on rock and roll…

Indeed, words to live by.]

Other entries in the series:

Competitive Balancing Act I—The King James Version: An Overview of the Literature, Scenes I, II, III, and IV
Competitive Balancing Act II—This Is Pop: Redefining Large- and Small-Market by Population, Scenes I, II, and III
Competitive Balancing Act III—C'mon Freddy, Everyone into the Poo-el: Reviewing the Available Player Pool
Competitive Balancing Act IV—Natural Resources: Attendance and Competitive Balance

Next in my ongoing study on competitive balance in baseball, I would like to look at "quartiles", i.e., the performance of teams divided into four relatively equally sized groups based on highest to lowest revenue. Since I prefer to base the analysis on population given that revenue statistics are based largely on self-reports and are dependent to a large degree on the abilities of the team's ownership team. Population is the community's sole resource that is independent of the team itself.

Much was made of quartiles in the Blue Ribbon Panel report. The lack of playoff wins by teams in quartile three and four between the two CBAs, when the Yankee dynasty was at its strongest, was much reported by MLB shills like George Will. I thought that a thorough investigation of quartiles throughout baseball history would shed some light on their analysis.

I split up the major league teams per year into four groups whose number was determined by the total number of teams divided by four. I ordered the teams by the metropolitan area of their representative cities. Quartile 1 contains the teams from the largest metro areas and quartile 4, the smallest. If a team shared a metro area with another team or teams, they each got a share of the population. When the number of teams was not divisible by four or a multi-team city had to be split between two quartiles, I tried to arrange the groups the best that I could.

Anyway, here are the winning percentages by quartile per decade, with the ratio for each quartile relative to the smallest (quartile 4):

Decade	Q1 PCT	Q2 PCT	Q3 PCT	Q4 PCT	Q1:Q4	Q2:Q4	Q3:Q4
1870s	.482	.597	.475	.391	1.234	1.528	1.216
1880s	.551	.534	.493	.417	1.322	1.282	1.184
1890s	.522	.513	.537	.424	1.232	1.210	1.267
1900s	.537	.520	.496	.430	1.250	1.211	1.155
1910s	.523	.499	.505	.467	1.122	1.070	1.081
1920s	.538	.457	.531	.454	1.186	1.006	1.169
1930s	.542	.475	.497	.468	1.159	1.015	1.061
1940s	.545	.450	.493	.515	1.058	0.873	0.956
1950s	.549	.484	.490	.476	1.152	1.015	1.028
1960s	.495	.502	.513	.489	1.011	1.027	1.048
1970s	.508	.485	.521	.483	1.052	1.005	1.078
1980s	.517	.503	.488	.494	1.046	1.019	0.987
1990s	.505	.505	.505	.485	1.042	1.041	1.041
2000s	.515	.493	.535	.452	1.140	1.092	1.184
Total	.524	.496	.506	.471	1.114	1.053	1.076

Well, from that it looks like Quartile 1 has been doing worse than its historical average since free agency. Also, though the Blue Ribbon Panel claimed that Quartile 1 and 2 were kicking 3 and 4's hinder, Quartile 3 has passed Quartile 1 and 2 over the past three decades. The one cause for concern is the decrease in Quartile 4 winning percentage over the same period. However, we should keep in mind that until the 2000s, it was still above the average and given that we have a relatively small sample for this decade, it might change by the decade's end.

So I see no real cause for concern. Teams from the largest cities tend to do very well recently and historically. Teams from the smallest tend to do not as well, recently and historically. However, the next group (Quartile 2) tends to do worse than the next to last group (Quartile 3), historically and recently.

But, you say, the Blue Ribbon Panel was looking mainly at the postseason. Well, here's a table by quartile similar to the one above, but based on playoff performance:

Decade	Q1 PCT	Q2 PCT	Q3 PCT	Q4 PCT	Q1:Q4	Q2:Q4	Q3:Q4
1870s	.000	.000	.000	.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
1880s	.455	.360	.625	.667	0.682	0.540	0.938
1890s	.000	.615	.231	.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
1900s	.667	.200	.344	.625	1.067	0.320	0.550
1910s	.313	.750	.765	.632	0.495	1.188	1.211
1920s	.486	.800	.500	.364	1.337	2.200	1.375
1930s	.547	.538	.000	.379	1.443	1.420	0.000
1940s	.510	.429	.474	.528	0.966	0.812	0.898
1950s	.553	.200	.000	.500	1.106	0.400	0.000
1960s	.556	.483	.535	.267	2.083	1.810	2.006
1970s	.462	.600	.508	.529	0.872	1.133	0.959
1980s	.537	.397	.563	.465	1.156	0.855	1.212
1990s	.544	.472	.497	.481	1.130	0.980	1.032
2000s	.583	.446	.456	.476	1.225	0.938	0.958
Total	.516	.464	.498	.488	1.057	0.951	1.019

So historically and recently, Quartiles 2 through 4 have done about equally as well as each other. Actually, Quartile 4 has done better than Quartile 3 through most of the free agent era. Of course, Quartile 1 beats the rest by a good margin.

OK, winning percentage is one thing, but it is meaningless if Quartile 4 team hardly ever gets to the postseason. Here's a comparison based on the percentage of all postseason games per quartile:

Decade	Q1 G%	Q2 G%	Q3 G%	Q4 G%	G% Q1:Q4	G% Q2:Q4	G% Q3:Q4
1870s	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.000	0.000	0.000
1880s	44.00%	25.00%	16.00%	15.00%	2.933	1.667	1.067
1890s	0.00%	50.00%	50.00%	0.00%	0.000	0.000	0.000
1900s	37.50%	6.94%	44.44%	11.11%	3.375	0.625	4.000
1910s	55.17%	13.79%	14.66%	16.38%	3.368	0.842	0.895
1920s	60.00%	4.17%	26.67%	9.17%	6.545	0.455	2.909
1930s	49.07%	24.07%	0.00%	26.85%	1.828	0.897	0.000
1940s	42.50%	11.67%	15.83%	30.00%	1.417	0.389	0.528
1950s	77.05%	8.20%	3.28%	11.48%	6.714	0.714	0.286
1960s	34.09%	21.97%	32.58%	11.36%	3.000	1.933	2.867
1970s	32.50%	3.57%	45.71%	18.21%	1.784	0.196	2.510
1980s	34.38%	20.74%	24.72%	20.17%	1.704	1.028	1.225
1990s	25.00%	27.41%	35.75%	11.84%	2.111	2.315	3.019
2000s	34.78%	20.29%	37.32%	7.61%	4.571	2.667	4.905
Total	38.25%	17.85%	28.82%	15.09%	2.535	1.183	1.910

Quartile 4's games have been dwindling. However, Quartile 3 has done better than any other quartile basically throughout the free agent era.

For a point of reference, Here are the 2003 teams by quartile:

- Quartile 1 (7 teams): Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Orioles, Phillies, Red Sox.

- Quartile 2 (8 teams): Rangers, Tigers, Astros, Blue Jays, Cubs, White Sox, Braves, Marlins.

- Quartile 3 (8 teams): Mariners, Giants, A's, Diamondbacks, Expos, Twins, Indians, Padres.

- Quartile 4 (7 teams): Rockies, Cardinals, Devil Rays, Pirates, Reds, Royals, Brewers.

To be continued…

I took a little trip to the Phillies' new ballpark today for a BPS (Business Persons' Special for those non-schedule savvy).

Here's a little photo retrospective. I had to imbed the photos in an album to share them out. Here's the link. I hope it works better than Yahoo.

Quick boys, routine number 37

—The estimable Terence Aloysius 'Slip' Mahoney, as various Bowery Boys cavort and generally devour the scenery and somehow the effete Sach escapes injury by yet another hilarious means.

My misspent youth was split between watching heaping gobs of pointless TV and watching heaping gobs of baseball. I witnessed Little Rascals led by fiery, little Spanky "Don't drink the milk, it's spoiled" McFarland, Bowery Boys led by fiery, little Thesaurus-misquoting Slip, Stooges led by fiery, little, bowl-coiffed Moe "C'mere, knucklehead" Howard, and the Fightin' Phillies led by fiery, little Larry Bowa (or at least that's how he remembers it). It was all very entertaining.

Now that I've been mellowed by age, my tastes have turned to less frenetic yet more deeply disturbing forms of entertainment like the Sopranos, Bush press conferences, and the post-Schmidt Phillies. And yet there is one constant, Larry Bowa. Bowa is still little, at least vertically, and he's still fiery. Constancy is Bowa's trademark. His moves on and off the field demonstrate that. I guess I just find it a bit less entertaining than I did when I was a kid.

So it comes as no surprise that the embattled Bowa would avenge his perceived slights in the press after the Phils had finally enjoyed some degree of success, a four-game win streak. Last night Bowa laced into the Philadelphia media before the Phils went ahead and broke the streak against their kryptonite, the Florida Marlins.

"Two or three of you [writers] are doing everything in your power but sticking a [bleeping] knife in my back. I don't give a [bleep]. How's that?"

The funny thing is that the worst indictment of Bowa's management style is Bowa himself. It's not just that he invective that he spews on players and reporters alike. It's the open admission that he has no idea what he's doing. In Slip-ese, let us expectorate post chaste.

Bowa began his tantrum by confronting the "two or three of you", reporters Dennis Deitch and Paul Hagen, who had criticized his removal of Randy Wolf Sunday after only 86 pitches and the insertion of closer Billy Wagner for the fourth consecutive day. It is described brilliantly in the article:

With sheets of statistical evidence in his hands, Bowa started off the gathering by announcing that Phillies relievers pitched fewer innings in 2003 than most major league teams and have been among the most under-worked this season. He also mentioned that he wants to keep his starters' pitch counts down early this season because the entire rotation, especially Wolf, faded during last September's failed playoff chase.

Look, limiting the number of pitches that his starters throw is a good thing. The top four starters all had over 115 innings by the All-Star break last year and then experienced a severe dropoff in the second half. At least Bowa is trying to learn from his mistakes, but he clearly does not understand how to correct the problem. Everything that I have read (and Will Carroll is really the expert here) indicates that there is no difference between pulling Wolf after 86 pitches and pulling him after 100-110. Whatever damage has been done. It's far worse to overwork a closer by pitching him consecutive days.

When Deitch backed up his position by invoking Terry Adams' 2003 season-ending injury after four consecutive appearances Bowa responded:

"You can break down every team if you want. Do you know how many times guys [warm] up [in the bullpen]? I [bleeping] do. I keep a chart of it. That's why [Tim] Worrell wasn't used the other day because he threw 30 [bleeping] pitches [on Friday]. I'm telling you, before you [bleeping] rip, ask somebody. There's a reason why we do things. Billy Wagner came up to me [Sunday] and said, 'I have an inning for you.' "

Was that Grady Little or Larry Bowa? Every pitcher will tell you he has an inning left in the tank. It's the manager's job to determine if that fits the team's plan for how pitchers should be used. But clearly Bowa has no plan. He reacts based on the perceived failures of the past but never learns. Witness his brag that he knows Worrell three 30 pitches in the pen on Friday. Well, why is that a good thing? Worrell should be languishing in the pen wasting pitches that could be used in a game because Bowa does not know when to go him. He gets a pitcher up repeatedly "just in case".

That Bowa isn't learning is clear after his comments concerning pulling Wolf "who was leading, 4-3, after six innings and hadn't allowed a run since the first inning, because the move was part of a double switch that inserted Doug Glanville into the game."

"Glanville won the game," Bowa said. "That was a great [bleeping] move by me, wasn't it?"

That he inserted Glanville was a mistake to begin with because a) Wolf should have been given another inning and b) Glanville is the 25th man on the roster and should not be the go-to guy in that situation. Rheal Cormier came in to give up the tying run. That Glanville won the game with a walk-off home run was dumb luck given that he had eleven in almost 700 at-bats over the last two years. The Phils version of Neifi Perez or Rafael Belliard, Glanville has collected 11 at-bats, more than any other bench player on the roster. And frankly, as the sixth outfielder, Glanville shouldn't even have a spot on the roster.

Finally, the man Glanville replaced was erstwhile leadoff hitter Marlon Byrd who showed signs of coming out of his slump after being moved down in the order. Then Bowa stuck him back in leadoff on Saturday. Byrd went 0-for-4, was moved back to seventh Sunday, pulled in favor of Glanville, and then did not play Monday. This is a player who is young and showed himself to be fragile last year. Bowa is yanking him up and down like a yo-yo.

Bowa is truly his own worst enemy. After some modicum success, the prudent play would have been to lay low and ride out the winning wave. But Bowa has to try a gambit the second he has the upper hand. And he gives the appearance of a manager who would myopically overlook the importance of the series with the Marlins to slake his pride. This is a man almost daring people to take potshots at him, to find fault in how he's doing his job. Unfortunately for him, the next person to do that may be his boss, Ed Wade, especially if the Phils lose another series to their new arch rivals, the Marlins.

Repeat thy song, till the familiar lines
Are footpaths for the thought of Italy!
Thy flame is blown abroad from all the heights,
Through all the nations, and a sound is heard,
As of a mighty wind, and men devout,
Strangers of Rome, and the new proselytes,
In their own language hear thy wondrous word,
And many are amazed and many doubt.

—Henry Wadsworth "Don't Call Me Terrence" Longfellow, translating Dante "Bichette" Alighieri's Divina Commedia

Four seasons fill the measure of the year;
There are four seasons in the mind of man

—John "Tim" Keats

Q: "Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?"

A: "Repeat."

Q: "Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?"…

—Anon. "Slaughter", probably the same person who came up with the "Wash; Rinse; Repeat" instruction on shampoo bottles

So it didn't take very long for the baseball season to reassert the expected form. Those surprise teams, which seemed so plentiful in the first week or so of the season, are now starting to dwindle. The Phils have won four straight. The Brewers, Mets, Tigers, D-Rays, and Reds are sliding down in the standings. Sure, there are still a few surprise clubs (the Dodgers and Orioles in the over-achieving category and the D-Backs, M's, and Royals in the under-performing category).

It's like that old pair of shorts that you have to dust off once winter has become summer in the hour-long spring we've experienced at least here in the northeast. At first it feels odd to not even wear a jacket given that one was wearing gloves, scarves, boots, and parkas just a week or so before. But the summer togs are trudged out and after a while life, and the shorts, assume their usual form.

So too do Joe Morgan's chat sessions quickly return to their typical substance with the usual pace and cadence that one has become accustomed to over the years, like the muscle memory that helps you return to your mid-summer softball throwing form after a session or two of "catch" (though, boy, don't it hurt the next day!). They're lobbing them in and Joe's batting them out with his typical laundry list of solutions. Or better yet, he ignores the original question and picks the response to which he wants to pigeonhole it. It's Joe's second turn in the chat rotation and he's already at midseason form. It's actually a bit suspicious: maybe it's the extra stretching and the chat exercises that he did in the offseason, but did you notice how much larger this chat session has been than the first week's? I don't want to accuse someone of being on the juice, but since there is barely a stitch of circumstantial evidence, I would be willing to tell every media source available. Now that Jose Canseco is retired (again) and allegedly writing his autobiography, which is taking longer than it took Margaret Mitchell to pen Gone With the Wind, I hear that steroid use among baseball writers has skyrocketed.

Now without further ado, here's a chat session that feels like one cobbled together from last season's oeuvre and of course, they have to be qualified given the suspicion of steroid use.

The Good

Joey, Nj: Can Barry catch the Hammer by next season?

(10:36 AM ET ) I don't think he will next season. It's going to take at least 3 seasons .. or 2 and a half .. of great performances. We'll wait and see.

[Mike: Joey from Jersey? How you doin'?

Next season seems unlikely given that it would require his hitting almost 100 within two seasons. Can Bonds do that? Sure. Will he? Probably not given his age and the fact that he had only hit 91 over the last two seasons. Given that injuries and the opponents' strategy limit him to around 400 at-bats a year, hitting one hundred in 800 at-bats makes it that much less likely. Also, consider that Bonds' career AB-to-HR ratio is around 13.25. Averaging one homer in every eight at-bats over two seasons for any soon-to-be forty-year-old is a bit much to expect. Yes, he did it for a season (2001: 6.5 AB-to-HR), but a) he was healthy, b) it is probably one of greatest, if not the greatest offensive season in baseball history, and c) they game has changed immensely in the intervening seasons.

Boy, that was quick.]

The Bad

Mikek(Boston): Big Joe! Long Time fan here, no one calls a game like you (thankfully) I was wondering with Mussina and Brown both reaching the 200 win mark this week, who's got a better chance of making it to the hall of fame?

(10:35 AM ET ) I think both of them obviously have put themselves in position to make the Hall. It will depend on what they do the new few years. 200 wins is a great milestone. But it's what you do the lat 3-4 years of your career. 200 wins doesn't automatically get you in, just like 2,000 hits doesn't get you in.

[Mike: Big Joe? Oh yeah, remember when Joe and Robbie Rist were in that 70s sitcom, "Big Joe, Little Joe"? Joe would all of a sudden turn into Cousin Oliver at the most inopportune moments, like the seventh game of the World Series, or visa versa, say during a math exam. Hilarity tended to ensue. But it would come out alright in the end, and we would all learn a good lesson. Thank goodness for Sherwood Schwartz.

By the way, no one calls a game like you (thankfully)? To quote Archie Bunker, "Was that a shot? I think that was a shot."

Anyway, 200 wins doesn't automatically get you in…? 287 isn't even enough. Ask Bert Blyleven.

As for Brown and Mussina, they're both longshots at best. I think Brown's been a better pitcher all around, but Mussina is four years younger and can yeoman his way to 300. But when two pitchers have never won a Cy Young and have one twenty-win season between them, they aren't going to garner a lot of votes five years after they retire, especially given the unfairly high standard that recent retirees have been held up to in order to get into the Hall. They already have Blyeleven, Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Ron Guidry, Luis Tiant, and Jack Morris ahead of them, not to mention current guys like Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Glavine.]

Giovanni(San Diego,CA): The other guy asked about the "Moose" and K.Brown entering the hall that's not possbile. Will Tom Glavine make it into the Hall of Fame?

(10:39 AM ET ) I think Glavine has a best chance of them all. Glavine has Cy Young Awards and has been very consistent. But again, it will just depend on how he closes out his career.

[Mike: Don Giovaaaaaani, sheez, can't Brown and Mussina even buy tickets to the Hall? That's tough.

As for Glavine, he is, or should be, a lock. He has had a Hall-of-Fame caliber career. He is 47th all-time in pitching Win Shares ahead of Hall-of-Famers Newhouser, Marichal, Walsh, Bunning, Ford, and Wilhelm. He also qualifies as a slightly below average HoFer according to James' tests. He has two Cy Youngs, five 20-win seasons, and 8 All-Star appearances. He is not my favorite pitcher, but he fits the standards of the Hall no matter how he closes out his career.]

Ben, Coconut Grove, FL: It took three straight shutouts for someone to finally pay attention to my home team this season. Why do you think the Marlins have been so overlooked by the media and especially by the experts?

(10:37 AM ET ) Last year they sort of came out of nowhere to win it all. They weren't favored last year either. They are still a group of young guys that have to prove they can do it consistently. I've been a believer from the beginning because of Tony Perez. He told me they had a great rotation that would take them a long way. It takes time when you have young players without a long track record.

[Mike: Well, not to drop names, but I based my believe on Rene Lachemann's recommendation. What is this Gammons quoting his drinking buddies and passing it off as research? Add a couple of Susan Tedeschi lyrics and it's Gammons.

Why are the Marlins overlooked? Because they lost three starting position players and a closer over the offseason mostly due to money (and Miguel Cabrera's presence). They have a good young rotation but, historically, have abused those arms. Besides not many people, including me, are convinced that they were all that good last year. It's not that they're overlooked. It's that they are under-looked, I believe deservedly.]

Michael (Starkville, MS): Joe, is Atlanta's rotation as bad as it seems?

(10:38 AM ET ) Fans are worried because they are used to a rotation that dominates games. They don't have that anymore. Doesn't mean they will be horrible. They will have to find their niche. It just won't be the staff they are used to. They will have to adjust.

[Mike: Joe, answer the question. Yes, the probably have the worst rotation in the division even including the Mets and have very little prospects of improving much in the short term. These are, for the most part, veteran pitchers who have already found their "niche". ]

Adam, Monroe, WI: Joe, do you think that the Brewers will be the suprise team this year? How many wins do you predict they will have by seasons end?

(10:42 AM ET ) I think they are going to be a surprise, but I don't' think they will duplicate what the Marlins did. Nobody expects anything from them but they are certainly a better team with the additions and the pitching staff pitching better. But it's a long season. How will they handle the losing streak that will surely come their way at some point?

[Mike: Hey, I'm surprised that Milwaukee still has a team. Two words, Joe: Richie Sexson. But seriously folks, how many wins with they have? Oh, 65 or 66…or to quote Pete Puma, "A whole lot of lumps."

Oh, and before I forget: Adam from Monroe? "Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Rush." That is all.]

Mickey (Washington DC): Where do you think the Expos will end up, is MLB really gonna make the decision by the allstar break?

(10:43 AM ET ) I would like to think they will end up in DC but that's just my wishful thinking. The Washington area would be great.

[Mike: Will the owners make a decision by the All-Star break? To quote Geddy Lee, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Where will they end up? They have a limited field of candidates: Washington, D.C.; Northern Virginia; Portland; Monterrey, Mexico; Norfolk; San Juan, Puerto Rico; San Antonio; and Las Vegas. Northern Jersey tried to muscle in on the action late last week and were rebuffed. DC seems the most likely choice. I think finding a viable owner in Montreal would be the best solution, but that seems the most remote.

And thanks for the gumball, Mickey.]

Mike in Mechanicsburg, PA: As a small boy, I absolutely idolized the 1975-'76 Big Red Machine. What do you think of the idea of moving the outfield fences farther back, since so many guys can hit the ball over feet easily? Maybe they could make the left field wall 350 feet from the plate, the power alleys at 375 and straight away center at 400. And make the fences 20 feet high. This would create more doubles and triples, thus making for more action on the basepathes. What do you think?

(10:44 AM ET ) It might be what we would prefer but not what baseball prefers. People love the longball .. Maddux was right .. chicks dig the long ball. People watch SC to see HRs, not doubles and triples.

[Mike: Buttering up Joe with a reference to the Big Red Machine is a sure way to get your question answered. Bonus points for using "idolize" to define one's sycophancy.

To trade clichés, Joe, "size doesn't matter" (necessarily). The dimensions of Coors are 347' in left, 350' in right, 415' to straight-away center, and 390' to 420' and 375' to 424' in the power alleys. Sure they've built some real band boxes lately too, but imposing some new standard isn't the solution. And by the way, even though triples have died, there have been more doubles per at-bat (5.29%) from 2000-2003 than in any other decade (Next is the Thirties at 5.03% and the Nineties with 4.95%). Also, if you sum doubles and triples, 2000-2003 still is third (5.85%) behind the Twenties (6.23) and Thirties (6.19).]

Mike: Hey Joe. You gotta love the Mets turn around this year. With Reyes and Floyd set to return at the end of April, how do you like our playoff chances? Thanks.

(10:46 AM ET ) The great thing about the beginning of the season is everyone has a chance to get off to a good start and set the tone for their season. The Mets are like many teams that had tough seasons last year, they have come out of the gate well this year. Again, the key is how they bounce back from their first tough stretch. The good teams can handle those stretches.

[Mike: Playoff chances? Slim and none, and Slim just left town. Way to let him down easy, Joe. You're like a guy trying to break up with his girlfriend but ends up buying a diamond ring instead.

By the way, you don't gotta love anything about the Mets unless you enjoy the rumble of aircraft and enormous decorative apples.]

Abe(NH): Joe, What do you think of Pedro's terrible outing last night? Think Theo and the boys are relieved that they haven't signed him to a long term deal yet?

(10:50 AM ET ) Part of their reason for not signing him was his durability and health of his arm. He will have to prove that over the course of this season, at least by the All-Star break. He has to show he is the Pedro they saw a couple years ago before his arm started bothering him.

[Mike: And boy, are they rejoicing over Nomah's injury. Now if only all their other players were injured or underperforming, that would be nirvana.

I loathe Martinez but have to admit that he has pitched magnificently when healthy for the last seven or so years. There is no indication that this is anything more than an early season slump.]

Jason, Fredrick, Md: Joe, who will be the first team to win the AL East that is not named the Yankees or Redsox, who will it be and how many years will we have to wait?

(10:51 AM ET ) I think Baltimore. I like the additions they made this year. They are capable of hanging with them right now in a race. They made to add a pitcher or two to win in the next couple years. Baltimore is capable of being right there in the mix with the Yanks and Red Sox.

[Mike: I say the New Jersey Generals in 2015. Baltimore has improved but will be lucky to finish third in the division and to clear .500.]

Joey, Nj: Do you think Roger Clemens has what it takes to win the NL Cy Young this season?

(10:53 AM ET ) At the beginning of the season, everyone is fresh. Clemens is no exception. We'll have to wait until about 20 starts into the season and see how strong they are then. I expect him to have a great year in Houston. They will score some runs for him. To win the Cy Young Award would be a real accomplishment at his age.

[Mike: To get out of bed in the morning at his age is an accomplishment. Does he have what it takes? He has an arm and is pitching for a major-league team. That's all you need. That and the girl that makes the foam in the mouth, according to Latke Gravis.

I didn't expect much from Clemens after the last couple of years in New York and given his age. But, then again, the Red Sox thought he was done 8 years and three Cy Youngs ago.]

Mike (rochester, mi): Joe, realistically, how do you think the tiger's will do this year?

(10:55 AM ET ) Well, I see them a much improved team because they have brought in some new players with winning attitudes. I think they are going to be fun to watch and will win their share of games, esp. at home. They are much improved from last year.

[Mike: Realistically, they will be lucky top escape the basement in the worst division in baseball. Winning 70 games would be a feat.]

Jeff (NYC): Joe, can a team's injuries ever be a reflection on the training staff? Over the past few weeks on the Mets alone, Jose Reyes, Cliff Floyd, Scott Erickson, and now Mike Cameron (who was held out of last night's game for "precautionary" reasons) have all had leg injuries. Is this just some sort of cruel coincidence, or is it a reflection on the team's training staff's methods?

(10:56 AM ET ) I'm not close enough to the Mets habits to be able to say that is the problem in NY. But training absolutely has effects on performance and therby injuries. Some teams have better offseason regimens than others. But I'm not close enough to talk about the Mets.

[Mike: How about the condition of the field? Or luck?

By the way, what happened here?: But training absolutely has effects on performance and therby injuries. Ancient Chinese secret, huh?]

Alex (Chicago): Joe, we Cub fans are already worried about Greg Maddux after two outings in which he got shelled. Should we be worried?

(10:57 AM ET ) He got off to a slow start last year as well. That's part of age creeping in. Maddux always finds a way to win and I expect him to do that this year. His start this year is similar to last year when he won his usual 16 games.

[Mike: Well, it's not hard to win 16 games on a team that scores 5.6 runs per game. Maddux was just average last year (actually slightly better than average: he had an ERA 5% better than the park-adjusted league average).

Should the Cubs be concerned? If they think that they are getting Greg Maddux circa 1993, then they should. If they think instead that they are looking to upgrade the tail-end of their rotation from Shawn Estes and Juan Cruz, then no worries, mate.]

Dominick - CT: Joe - Is it too early for Yanks-Sox? The season just started. These teams should have met with more games under their belts. Agree?

(11:00 AM ET ) So, we'll just make the schedule for the Yanks-Red Sox? A lot of teams that are going to challenge each other are playing early .. the A's-Angels play this weekend. You don't change the schedule just for two teams.

[Mike: Actually, they do. They try to match up contending teams in September, especially in the season finale. And they have to gerrymander the schedule to fit intraleague games. But who's to say they didn’t set this up on purpose. The Red Sox-Yankees kick off the season and get some spring Fox audiences, why not?]

Joe, Chicago: Hi Joe...why no questions on the white sox??? Do you think they will contend in the Central?

(11:02 AM ET ) They are a tough team to get a handle on. They have blown some leads and win the game anyway. Consistency is not something I have seen from them recently. They look great at stretches and not at others. Consistency has been the problem and until that is corrected, they will just be a good team that we wonder about.

[Mike: Billy Joe, this is a question on the White Sox.

Lil Joe, was that a yes or a no? I say yes myself. Given that it's the weakest division and the amount of talent the Sox have, why not? I picked the Royals, but I imagine it will be at least a three-team race.]

Julian(Chapel Hill,NC): Joe, if Maddux wins 300 how high would you rate him among the gratest pitchers of all time?

(11:03 AM ET ) Yeah, if you win 300! That puts you right among the greats. He has been so consistent throughout his career, it automatically makes him a great. Consistency is what I look at in pitchers. Many others who have won 300 haven't been nearly as consistent.

[Mike: Yeah, if you win 300!? A) Maddux is 11 wins shy of 300. It's almost inconceivable that barring his being hit by a bus, he won't win 300. B) 300 wins does not mean the same now as it did 20 or 50 years ago. It's a nice feat, but not a be-all-and-end-all. Maddux will probably be ranked right behind Clemens as the best pitcher of the last 20 years. If Martinez stays healthy, he'll probably edge ahead of Maddux. And there will be those Randy Johnson devotees, who'll pipe in, too. Whatever, Maddux will be ranked in the top dozen or so pitchers of all-time, I would think.]

Jason, Boise, ID: What is your biggest suprise that you have seen in the early baseball season?

(10:47 AM ET ) I'm surprised the Marlins appear to be the best team in the NL right away. I'm surprised how well the Tigers have played. I'm a little surprised at the fact that ARod is off to such a slow start in NY. But there are a lot of surprising things in baseball. Those stand out.

[Mike: I'm surprised that everyone is keying on the unexpectedly fast/slow starts for teams like the Phils, Marlins, Tigers, Reds, and M's. I'm surprised that the writers who two years ago passed off propaganda justifying baseball's contraction euthanasia/Pohlad buyout as news while telling us that two-thirds of the teams don't have a chance before the season starts, haven't printed retractions after the parity that we've seen so far this year.]

The Ugly

Cody, Pulaski, VA: All this talk about who the greatest baseball player ever is wrong. Each Player (Bonds, Aaron, Ruth) defined their own era. What is your opinion on this?

(10:41 AM ET ) I agree it's become more difficult in the last 15 years to compare eras. It wasn't as hard from the 40s to 60's but it's become harder and harder. Each era defines itself. Definately more of a difference now than when Mays played. And Mays played in a different era than Ruth. The game has changed so much recently, you just can't judge stats against stats from previous eras anymore.

[Mike: Just lob 'em into Joe. Joe's response #15: "Baseball is worse today, and therefore so are the ballplayers, than in my day." Every era is different. Just adjust for the era and move on.

All this talk about who the greatest baseball player ever is wrong. Each Player (Bonds, Aaron, Ruth) defined their own era. Why are these mutually exclusive? Dan Brouthers defined his era, too. It's a separate argument. When you get to the top handful of players, it comes down to what and how finely tuned your criteria are. But when an analyst doesn't even trust on-base percentage, he's not getting very far.]

Rich (Waldorf, MD): Good morning, Joe. Do you think the assertion that a team with four solid turns in their rotation is a contender?

(10:49 AM ET ) If you have four good starters, you are head and shoulders above 90 percent of the teams. 4 is all you need in today's game.

[Mike: Yeah, keep lobbing 'em in, meat.

I tested this. I found all teams with four starting pitchers who started 20 games and had an ERA no worse than the league average. Then I summed up their win and losses per decade. Here are the results:

Decade	W	L	PCT	# Tms
1870s	1610	1067	.601	44
1880s	7531	6467	.538	124
1890s	8447	7614	.526	118
1900s	10346	9881	.511	138
1910s	12310	11857	.509	162
1920s	11686	11297	.508	150
1930s	11506	10948	.512	147
1940s	11760	11418	.507	151
1950s	11612	11171	.510	148
1960s	14772	14168	.510	180
1970s	18292	17915	.505	225
1980s	18774	18371	.505	236
1990s	19883	19616	.503	254
2000s	8605	8224	.511	104

Note that a) the number of teams that qualify has been gradually (the 2000s project to 260) and b) the winning percentage has been decreasing. We'll have to wait another 6 years to see if the rise in the 2000s is meaningful. However, there is some indication that having four quality starters has become more of an advantage in the last few years though it's far from the slam dunk that Joe makes it out to be (except in the George Tenet sense).]

Mickey (Washington DC): What is the Yankees biggest question mark right now?

(10:58 AM ET ) I think it's the starting pitching. And defens.

(10:59 AM ET ) Contreras, Brown, Vasques, Mussina .. will Brown hold up? Will the middle relief step up? Will the defense come through?

[Mike: How many biggest question marks is that?

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise. Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency. Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such diverse elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again…

—Monty "Stratton" Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch

How about a sub-par second baseman? I guess it's not a question mark. It’s a certainty. However, it's their greatest weakness.]

Brian (Baltimore, MD): Good Morning Joe, I'm a young fan only 21, but with the rule changes and testing that appear imminent in the future, Do you think Barry Bonds record of 73 HR's in a season is here to stay, I do.

(11:01 AM ET ) I thought McGwire's 70 was here to stay. So I definately think Bonds' record is here to stay. So I could be wrong. I sure thought 70 was the pinnacle.

[Mike: And I thought Ned Williamson's record would stand forever. The record is largely the result of the proper stars aligning. First, you need someone with the talent and then you need an environment that allows that person to excel. Those circumstances come and go. Who's to say that a player won't hit 80? Then again the pendulum will probably swing in the opposite direction first, towards guys hitting 35 and leading the league a la Mike Schmidt.

It's great that Joe doesn't even realize that he's contradicting himself though: I thought McGwire's 70 was here to stay. So I definately think Bonds' record is here to stay.]

JK (Cambridge, MA): Mr. Morgan: I have grown weary of the Steroids debate/acle, and do not need to ask who will win the NL East (the Mets, of course). Rather I would like to revive an old topic of discussion, and ask: Why won't MLB get rid of the DH???!!!

(11:06 AM ET ) Well, the DH was brought in to stimulate interest in the AL because they were losing their older stars and attendance was down. That's no longer the case now. But it's part of the league. The Player's Association doesn't want to see it go because it would take a job away. I'm not a fan but I don't see it leaving anytime soon.

[Mike: Mets…oh that's great! Now, that's comedy.

Actually, it was introduced to stimulate offense and therefore, attendance. It was also not surprising that it happened in the AL given its decrease in interest relative to the NL in the Sixties and early Seventies. One could argue that it a large extent that was due the Yankees and Red Sox eschewing African-American ballplayers. Whatever, the reason, the AL consistently outdrew or at least drew about as many fans as the NL from 1950-55. However, the AL would attract only about two-thirds the fans as the NL by 1965. The DH increased that to about 80% and it slowly returned to around the NL average by the early Eighties.]

It seems that maybe other fans are getting tired of the steroid issue as well. It doesn't come up as much anymore. Everything that can be said has been said. Let's wait unti the FBI figures out the Balco situation. If you read my column, I'm upset they haven't concluded this case. Just say these guys are guilty and they guys aren't!

[Mike: Gabby Johnson is right! I have no idea what Joe was saying here. "These guys are guilty and these guys aren't"? "You stay 'ere and make sure 'e doesn't leave"?

As for steroids, well, now that you've broached the issue, Joe. Here are some cherce moments from your article.]

The 660 milestone probably doesn't mean as much to fans nationwide as it does to fans in San Francisco, who have always identified No. 660 with Mays.

[Mike: Mays was with the Mets when he hit #660. He had just 646 when he left the Giants.]

Certain home-run numbers in baseball stand out to me: 755 and 714, of course, but also 521 (Ted Williams) and 512 (Ernie Banks), among others. I couldn't tell you (without checking) how many home runs Reggie Jackson or Mike Schmidt or Harmon Killebrew hit, but I know they each hit 500-plus.

[Mike: Jackson, 563. Schmidt, 548. Killebrew, 573. But you did successfully name nine of the 19 men to hit 500 home runs in their careers. That's batting almost .500. Way to research that article, Joe!]

If the FBI has proof that any players involved in the BALCO investigation are guilty, it should release the information outright instead of leaking information, as it has been doing.

[Mike: Huh? I haven't been following this issue to closely, but has the FBI been leaking info? Maybe they should just keep their mouths shut altogether and do their jobs. Besides, if they have proof, maybe they should arrest the individuals involved.]

But based on the numbers released by MLB from last year's testing during spring training, we know that 5-7 percent of players tested positive for steroids (this spring's numbers have yet to be released). And I believe the actual percentage is higher.

[Mike: Why? Because Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco said so? Yes, the tests were announced, but are you so inherently distrustful of the players? The Sox wanted to forego the tests to force the numbers to hit the threshold. Doesn't that deserve a modicum of respect?]

I would like to see a stronger testing policy, one which administers both scheduled and unscheduled tests. The current system employs only scheduled tests, but it's important to have tests where players have no advance notice -- not randomly at MLB's whim, but at a time players don't expect.

[Mike: Wrong. From Doug Pappas' CBA summary, "If more than 5% of players test positive, mandatory random testing starts in 2004 and continues until 2.5% or fewer test positive over two consecutive years."

If a player is guilty of two steroid-related offenses ... ban him from competition (not for life, but for a long time).

[Mike: Already done. Again from Pappas, "The first time a player tests positive, he is placed in a treatment program; subsequent positive tests bring suspensions of 30 days to two years." Does that qualify for a "long time"?]

I'll tell you what could solve the problem, though. If a player is guilty of two steroid-related offenses, he should be treated the same way the Olympic committee treats offenders: ban him from competition (not for life, but for a long time).

[Mike: Pete and Repeat were in a boat…]

Your not-so-humble servant got a mention in the York (PA) Sunday News today. And there was much rejoicing.

For you minor-league history buffs, over many years and in various leagues, the putative age-old rival of York, home of many iterations of the "White Roses", was the team from Lancaster, the Red Roses. There were dozens of teams across the country who had a local identity, a nickname, and a nearby rival (like the Springfield Isotopes and the Shelbyville Shelbyvillians on the Simpsons) and almost all are now gone. There's always the Rochester Red Wings, which have been in operation since 1895, and the San Diego Padres and the then Los Angeles Angels got to keep their long-held identities even when they were granted major-league teams.

Other entries in the series:

Competitive Balancing Act I—The King James Version: An Overview of the Literature, Scenes I, II, III, and IV
Competitive Balancing Act II—This Is Pop: Redefining Large- and Small-Market by Population, Scenes I, II, and III
Competitive Balancing Act III—C'mon Freddy, Everyone into the Poo-el: Reviewing the Available Player Pool
Competitive Balancing Act IV—Natural Resources: Attendance and Competitive Balance

The previous section contained an anecdotal history of the team movements and expansions to new markets, a nice and easy review. "Y' know, every now and then I think you might like to hear something nice and easy. But there's just one thing: you see, we never ever do nothing nice and easy. We always do it nice and rough. So…we're gonna do the finish rough." (Thank you, Tina)

What would one of my studies without heaping gobs of tables? So here goes. First is a comparison of large and small market teams using various stats:

Yr	#	PCT	POS	ATT/G	BA	OBP	SLUG	OPS	ERA
1871	0.50	1.47	0.43	N/A	1.03	1.03	1.01	1.02	0.85
1872	0.22	1.48	0.45	N/A	1.05	1.09	1.02	1.05	0.67
1873	0.80	1.10	0.71	N/A	0.94	0.95	0.91	0.93	0.91
1874	0.60	1.05	0.94	N/A	0.91	0.92	0.87	0.89	0.94
1875	0.44	1.05	0.95	N/A	1.07	1.06	1.07	1.07	0.99
1876	0.60	0.94	1.06	N/A	1.11	1.09	1.13	1.11	1.22
1877	0.20	0.86	1.56	N/A	1.03	1.03	1.01	1.02	1.25
1878	0.00	0.00	0.00	N/A	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
1879	0.14	1.19	0.88	N/A	1.02	1.02	1.03	1.03	0.98
1880	0.14	1.75	0.20	N/A	1.17	1.16	1.15	1.15	0.79
1881	0.14	1.40	0.20	N/A	1.16	1.14	1.14	1.14	0.86
1882	0.56	0.99	0.83	N/A	0.99	1.00	0.96	0.98	1.07
1883	1.29	1.12	0.74	N/A	1.01	1.00	1.03	1.02	0.92
1884	1.00	1.13	0.69	N/A	1.06	1.07	1.09	1.08	0.96
1885	1.29	1.15	0.82	N/A	1.04	1.04	1.07	1.06	1.00
1886	1.29	1.09	1.09	N/A	0.99	0.99	0.98	0.98	1.02
1887	1.67	1.24	0.67	N/A	1.03	1.04	1.04	1.04	0.93
1888	1.29	1.44	0.41	N/A	1.04	1.05	1.09	1.07	0.75
1889	1.29	1.51	0.41	N/A	1.04	1.06	1.08	1.07	0.79
1890	1.27	1.07	0.95	N/A	1.02	1.00	1.05	1.02	1.00
1891	0.70	1.14	0.68	N/A	1.03	1.02	1.05	1.03	1.00
1892	1.00	1.14	0.77	N/A	1.03	1.04	1.03	1.04	1.00
1893	1.00	1.08	0.86	N/A	1.02	1.00	1.05	1.02	0.92
1894	1.00	1.18	0.66	N/A	1.05	1.03	1.04	1.04	0.96
1895	1.00	1.02	0.95	N/A	0.99	1.00	0.99	1.00	1.07
1896	1.00	0.90	1.36	N/A	0.98	0.98	0.99	0.98	1.11
1897	1.00	0.93	1.17	N/A	1.00	0.99	1.01	1.00	1.09
1898	1.00	0.95	1.05	N/A	0.99	0.98	1.00	0.99	0.99
1899	1.00	1.30	0.59	N/A	1.03	1.04	1.04	1.04	0.83
1900	1.67	1.01	1.06	N/A	1.03	1.04	1.01	1.02	1.07
1901	1.29	1.02	0.92	1.15	1.03	1.02	1.02	1.02	1.02
1902	1.00	0.92	1.25	1.17	0.98	0.99	0.96	0.98	1.01
1903	1.29	1.17	0.70	1.24	1.03	1.05	1.02	1.03	0.98
1904	1.29	1.21	0.74	1.27	1.04	1.04	1.06	1.05	0.90
1905	1.29	1.28	0.62	1.49	1.06	1.05	1.06	1.06	0.86
1906	1.29	1.47	0.41	1.61	1.07	1.08	1.07	1.08	0.81
1907	1.29	1.33	0.52	1.50	1.00	1.03	1.01	1.02	0.87
1908	1.29	1.13	0.78	1.30	0.99	1.02	1.00	1.01	0.96
1909	1.29	1.25	0.70	1.34	1.00	1.00	1.04	1.02	0.81
1910	1.29	1.25	0.56	1.26	1.02	1.01	1.04	1.02	0.87
1911	1.29	1.26	0.59	1.45	1.02	1.00	1.05	1.03	0.84
1912	1.29	1.01	1.09	1.30	1.02	1.01	1.01	1.01	1.01
1913	1.29	1.15	0.70	1.71	1.03	1.02	1.04	1.03	0.92
1914	1.18	1.03	0.95	1.10	1.02	1.02	1.02	1.02	1.00
1915	1.18	0.92	1.18	1.19	0.99	1.00	1.01	1.01	1.15
1916	1.29	1.06	0.74	1.64	1.03	1.02	1.06	1.04	1.01
1917	1.29	1.11	0.82	1.77	1.01	1.02	1.02	1.02	0.92
1918	1.29	1.00	1.03	1.46	1.00	1.00	0.99	1.00	1.08
1919	1.29	1.07	0.78	1.57	1.03	1.01	1.06	1.04	1.04
1920	1.29	1.07	0.87	1.86	0.99	1.00	1.03	1.01	0.96
1921	1.29	0.92	1.30	1.58	1.01	1.03	1.03	1.03	1.10
1922	1.29	1.02	0.92	1.39	1.01	1.02	1.01	1.01	1.04
1923	1.29	1.05	0.87	1.68	1.03	1.04	1.05	1.05	1.04
1924	1.29	1.04	0.92	1.54	1.01	1.03	1.03	1.03	1.07
1925	1.29	0.96	1.46	1.31	0.99	1.00	0.99	1.00	1.04
1926	1.29	1.07	0.97	1.38	1.00	1.01	1.01	1.01	0.94
1927	1.29	1.07	0.92	1.52	1.02	1.03	1.05	1.04	0.97
1928	1.29	1.05	0.97	1.51	1.00	1.01	1.03	1.02	0.97
1929	1.29	1.14	0.70	2.12	1.04	1.04	1.11	1.08	1.00
1930	1.29	1.10	0.82	1.90	1.05	1.05	1.09	1.07	1.02
1931	1.29	1.08	0.82	1.72	1.04	1.06	1.09	1.07	1.03
1932	1.29	1.16	0.70	1.80	1.04	1.05	1.10	1.08	1.00
1933	1.29	1.02	0.82	1.49	1.01	1.03	1.04	1.04	1.05
1934	1.29	1.08	0.82	1.67	1.02	1.03	1.05	1.04	1.01
1935	1.29	1.13	0.74	1.57	1.02	1.02	1.05	1.03	0.94
1936	1.29	1.03	0.85	1.51	1.03	1.03	1.04	1.03	1.00
1937	2.20	1.18	0.67	1.83	1.00	1.02	1.05	1.04	0.95
1938	2.20	1.03	0.91	1.37	0.96	1.00	0.97	0.99	0.99
1939	2.20	1.07	0.97	1.44	0.98	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.98
1940	2.20	0.97	1.10	1.46	0.99	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.98
1941	2.20	0.92	1.03	1.44	0.99	0.99	1.02	1.01	1.04
1942	2.20	0.95	1.18	1.41	1.00	0.99	0.99	0.99	1.03
1943	2.20	0.84	1.88	1.15	0.98	0.98	0.95	0.97	1.12
1944	1.29	0.93	1.15	1.42	1.00	1.00	0.98	0.99	1.09
1945	1.29	0.99	0.97	1.60	1.01	1.02	1.02	1.02	1.05
1946	0.78	1.05	0.92	1.52	0.99	1.02	1.00	1.01	0.94
1947	0.78	1.06	0.77	1.45	1.02	1.03	1.06	1.05	1.03
1948	0.78	0.98	1.29	1.30	0.99	0.99	1.00	0.99	0.98
1949	0.78	1.03	0.97	1.38	1.00	1.00	1.01	1.01	0.98
1950	0.78	1.04	0.87	1.46	1.01	0.99	1.04	1.02	0.96
1951	0.78	1.11	0.82	1.46	1.02	1.02	1.06	1.04	0.97
1952	0.78	0.98	0.82	1.41	1.01	1.00	1.02	1.01	1.00
1953	1.00	1.03	0.95	1.25	1.01	1.02	1.02	1.02	1.04
1954	1.00	1.08	0.80	1.03	1.02	1.02	1.04	1.03	0.98
1955	1.29	1.16	0.74	0.96	1.01	1.02	1.04	1.03	0.88
1956	1.29	1.04	0.97	0.95	1.02	1.02	1.03	1.02	0.95
1957	1.29	1.08	0.87	0.94	0.98	1.02	0.98	0.99	0.91
1958	1.29	1.02	0.92	1.07	1.03	1.03	1.05	1.04	1.02
1959	1.29	1.10	0.66	1.26	0.99	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.96
1960	1.29	0.95	1.30	1.24	0.99	1.00	0.99	0.99	1.01
1961	1.25	1.03	0.82	1.13	1.00	1.01	1.03	1.02	1.02
1962	1.50	1.04	0.80	1.31	1.00	1.01	1.01	1.01	1.02
1963	1.50	1.03	0.89	1.29	1.01	1.00	1.01	1.00	0.96
1964	1.50	1.04	0.93	1.30	1.01	1.00	0.99	1.00	0.95
1965	1.50	0.96	1.00	1.05	0.97	0.98	0.95	0.96	0.96
1966	1.50	0.97	1.12	1.01	0.98	0.99	0.98	0.99	1.02
1967	1.22	1.02	0.85	1.06	0.96	0.99	0.95	0.97	0.94
1968	1.00	0.93	1.39	1.20	0.94	0.97	0.97	0.97	1.07
1969	1.18	0.99	1.07	1.32	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.96
1970	1.00	0.95	1.24	1.33	0.98	0.99	0.95	0.97	1.01
1971	0.85	0.96	1.13	1.34	0.99	1.00	0.98	0.99	1.02
1972	0.85	0.99	1.02	1.40	0.97	0.99	0.96	0.97	0.99
1973	0.85	0.96	1.18	1.28	0.98	0.99	0.95	0.97	0.97
1974	0.85	0.97	1.18	1.27	1.01	1.01	1.00	1.00	1.04
1975	1.00	0.93	1.33	1.16	0.99	0.99	0.97	0.98	1.06
1976	1.00	0.98	1.05	1.24	0.98	0.98	0.99	0.98	1.00
1977	1.17	1.04	0.89	1.29	1.01	1.01	1.03	1.02	0.94
1978	1.17	1.01	0.93	1.29	1.02	1.01	1.00	1.01	1.00
1979	1.17	1.01	1.14	1.31	1.01	1.00	1.01	1.01	1.00
1980	1.17	0.99	1.10	1.35	1.01	1.01	1.01	1.01	1.03
1981	1.36	1.03	1.06	1.42	1.01	1.02	1.01	1.01	0.96
1982	1.36	1.02	1.16	1.18	1.00	1.01	1.00	1.01	0.98
1983	1.36	1.07	0.80	1.23	1.01	1.01	1.03	1.02	0.95
1984	1.17	1.09	0.82	1.43	1.01	1.01	1.05	1.03	0.94
1985	1.17	1.13	0.76	1.40	1.01	1.02	1.05	1.04	0.94
1986	1.17	1.13	0.67	1.35	1.02	1.02	1.03	1.03	0.96
1987	1.17	1.02	1.30	1.24	0.99	0.99	1.01	1.00	0.97
1988	1.17	0.98	1.01	1.12	1.00	1.00	1.01	1.01	1.04
1989	1.60	1.05	0.77	1.22	1.01	1.01	1.02	1.01	1.00
1990	1.60	1.08	0.71	1.24	0.99	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.98
1991	1.60	0.95	1.11	1.16	0.97	0.98	1.00	0.99	1.05
1992	1.60	0.96	1.29	1.21	0.96	0.99	0.98	0.99	1.03
1993	1.80	1.14	0.64	1.16	1.00	1.02	1.02	1.02	0.89
1994	1.80	1.04	0.86	1.10	0.98	1.00	0.99	1.00	0.95
1995	1.80	1.00	1.03	1.12	0.98	1.00	0.98	0.99	0.97
1996	1.80	0.95	1.03	0.95	0.97	0.97	0.98	0.97	0.98
1997	1.80	1.09	0.79	1.09	1.00	1.02	1.00	1.01	0.94
1998	1.73	1.10	0.71	0.94	1.02	1.02	1.04	1.03	0.98
1999	1.73	1.05	0.77	1.02	0.99	1.00	1.01	1.01	0.97
2000	1.73	1.04	0.77	1.06	1.00	1.01	1.03	1.02	0.99
2001	1.73	1.10	0.76	1.02	0.99	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.92
2002	1.73	1.16	0.81	1.27	1.02	1.02	1.04	1.03	0.90
2003	1.73	1.13	0.62	1.33	1.00	1.00	1.02	1.01	0.89
Avg	1.22	1.07	0.89	1.34	1.00	1.01	1.01	1.01	0.97

Here are the minimum and maximum populations for all cities represented (prorated by team for multiple-team locations) as well as the cutoff and the percentage of the max each of the other two represents:

<

Yr	Max Pop	City	Min Pop	City	Min/Max	Cutoff Pop	City	% Max
1871	1,521,463	New York	11,257	Rockford	0.74%	319,398	Chicago	20.99%
1872	1,564,822	New York	6,904	Middletown	0.44%	318,795	St. Louis	20.37%
1873	1,608,182	New York	23,051	Elizabeth	1.43%	360,239	Chicago	22.40%
1874	1,651,541	New York	20,737	Hartford	1.26%	380,660	Chicago	23.05%
1875	1,694,901	New York	12,442	Keokuk	0.73%	306,533	Boston	18.09%
1876	1,738,260	New York	27,830	Hartford	1.60%	421,502	Chicago	24.25%
1877	441,923	Chicago	31,376	Hartford	7.10%	441,923	Chicago	100.00%
1878	462,343	Chicago	69,694	Indianapolis	15.07%	532,550	Brooklyn	115.18%
1879	482,764	Chicago	50,918	Syracuse	10.55%	482,764	Chicago	100.00%
1880	503,185	Chicago	56,747	Troy	11.28%	503,185	Chicago	100.00%
1881	562,852	Chicago	57,168	Troy	10.16%	562,852	Chicago	100.00%
1882	887,129	Philadelphia	57,589	Troy	6.49%	352,738	Baltimore	39.76%
1883	1,045,206	New York	62,598	Columbus	5.99%	267,670	Cincinnati	25.61%
1884	1,074,992	New York	23,961	Altoona	2.23%	152,154	Detroit	14.15%
1885	1,104,778	New York	118,502	Providence	10.73%	276,024	Cincinnati	24.98%
1886	1,134,564	New York	101,944	Kansas City	8.99%	280,200	Cincinnati	24.70%
1887	1,164,350	New York	96,322	Indianapolis	8.27%	284,377	Cincinnati	24.42%
1888	2,388,271	New York	99,360	Indianapolis	4.16%	288,554	Cincinnati	12.08%
1889	2,447,842	New York	84,500	Columbus	3.45%	292,731	Cincinnati	11.96%
1890	1,253,707	New York	81,434	Toledo	6.50%	242,039	New Orleans	19.31%
1891	2,600,393	New York	91,891	Columbus	3.53%	303,376	San Francisco	11.67%
1892	2,693,372	New York	145,849	Louisville	5.42%	470,960	Boston	17.49%
1893	2,786,350	New York	153,210	Louisville	5.50%	482,202	Boston	17.31%
1894	2,879,329	New York	160,570	Louisville	5.58%	493,443	Boston	17.14%
1895	2,972,308	New York	167,930	Louisville	5.65%	504,685	Boston	16.98%
1896	3,065,287	New York	175,290	Louisville	5.72%	515,926	Boston	16.83%
1897	3,158,266	New York	182,650	Louisville	5.78%	527,168	Boston	16.69%
1898	1,625,622	New York	190,011	Louisville	11.69%	538,409	Boston	33.12%
1899	1,672,112	New York	197,371	Louisville	11.80%	549,651	Boston	32.87%
1900	1,718,601	New York	321,616	Pittsburgh	18.71%	575,238	St. Louis	33.47%
1901	1,785,083	New York	283,953	Washington	15.91%	359,520	Buffalo	20.14%
1902	1,851,564	New York	289,188	Washington	15.62%	366,653	Buffalo	19.80%
1903	1,278,697	New York	294,423	Washington	23.03%	385,303	Pittsburgh	30.13%
1904	1,323,018	New York	299,658	Washington	22.65%	406,532	Pittsburgh	30.73%
1905	1,367,339	New York	304,894	Washington	22.30%	427,761	Pittsburgh	31.28%
1906	1,411,660	New York	310,129	Washington	21.97%	448,989	Pittsburgh	31.81%
1907	1,455,981	New York	315,364	Washington	21.66%	470,218	Pittsburgh	32.30%
1908	1,500,302	New York	320,599	Washington	21.37%	491,447	Pittsburgh	32.76%
1909	1,544,623	New York	325,834	Washington	21.09%	512,676	Pittsburgh	33.19%
1910	1,588,944	New York	331,069	Washington	20.84%	533,905	Pittsburgh	33.60%
1911	1,617,385	New York	339,166	Boston	20.97%	539,349	Pittsburgh	33.35%
1912	1,645,825	New York	343,040	Boston	20.84%	571,348	Detroit	34.72%
1913	1,674,266	New York	346,914	Boston	20.72%	611,087	Baltimore	36.50%
1914	1,277,030	New York	240,459	St. Louis	18.83%	452,818	San Francisco	35.46%
1915	1,298,360	New York	243,321	St. Louis	18.74%	461,794	San Francisco	35.57%
1916	1,759,587	New York	358,535	Boston	20.38%	663,690	Baltimore	37.72%
1917	1,788,028	New York	362,409	Boston	20.27%	681,224	Baltimore	38.10%
1918	1,816,468	New York	366,283	Boston	20.16%	698,758	Baltimore	38.47%
1919	1,844,909	New York	370,156	Boston	20.06%	716,292	Baltimore	38.83%
1920	1,873,349	New York	374,030	Boston	19.97%	733,826	Baltimore	39.17%
1921	1,917,029	New York	375,686	Boston	19.60%	740,931	Baltimore	38.65%
1922	1,960,709	New York	377,343	Boston	19.25%	748,036	Baltimore	38.15%
1923	2,004,389	New York	378,999	Boston	18.91%	757,998	Boston	37.82%
1924	2,048,069	New York	380,656	Boston	18.59%	762,245	Baltimore	37.22%
1925	2,091,749	New York	382,312	Boston	18.28%	769,350	Baltimore	36.78%
1926	2,135,429	New York	383,968	Boston	17.98%	776,455	Baltimore	36.36%
1927	2,179,109	New York	385,625	Boston	17.70%	783,560	Baltimore	35.96%
1928	2,222,789	New York	387,281	Boston	17.42%	790,664	Baltimore	35.57%
1929	2,266,469	New York	388,938	Boston	17.16%	797,769	Baltimore	35.20%
1930	2,310,149	New York	390,594	Boston	16.91%	804,874	Baltimore	34.84%
1931	2,327,634	New York	410,684	St. Louis	17.64%	821,369	St. Louis	35.29%
1932	2,345,119	New York	410,389	St. Louis	17.50%	827,020	Montreal	35.27%
1933	2,362,604	New York	410,093	St. Louis	17.36%	835,463	Montreal	35.36%
1934	2,380,089	New York	409,798	St. Louis	17.22%	843,906	Montreal	35.46%
1935	2,397,574	New York	409,502	St. Louis	17.08%	831,987	Baltimore	34.70%
1936	2,415,058	New York	409,206	St. Louis	16.94%	837,410	Baltimore	34.67%
1937	2,432,543	New York	408,911	St. Louis	16.81%	869,235	Montreal	35.73%
1938	2,450,028	New York	408,615	St. Louis	16.68%	877,678	Montreal	35.82%
1939	2,467,513	New York	408,320	St. Louis	16.55%	853,677	Baltimore	34.60%
1940	2,484,998	New York	408,024	St. Louis	16.42%	878,336	Cleveland	35.35%
1941	2,666,898	New York	454,988	St. Louis	17.06%	913,730	Baltimore	34.26%
1942	2,848,798	New York	501,953	St. Louis	17.62%	1,003,905	St. Louis	35.24%
1943	3,030,698	New York	548,917	St. Louis	18.11%	1,097,834	St. Louis	36.22%
1944