MLB Expansion Issues

Major League Baseball isn't in a hurry to expand.  That doesn't stop people from asking Rob Manfred about it, though.  At his All*Star Game press conference, the commissioner was once again asked about it, and he once again reiterated his position.  MLB won't consider expansion until the A's and Rays get their stadium situations figured out.  Progress has already started on the A's new ballpark in Las Vegas, but the Rays backed out of their plans for a new stadium because of the damage to Tropicana Field, so they're very much in limbo.

With all that in mind, expansion won't be on the agenda until Manfred's tenure as commissioner is over.  Will MLB eventually go to 32 teams, though?  Most likely.  Will that happen sometime in the 2030s?  Probably.  Even though expansion seems inevitable, figuring out how to work it isn't as easy as it sounds.

Let's start with "where?", which is obviously the most pressing question.  Nashville has been making a big push and would have to be considered a favorite to get one of the two expansion teams.  As for who gets the other one, Montreal is the obvious sentimental favorite.  Or do you put another team on the West Coast?  Portland would make sense as a geographic rival for Seattle.

Here's where our first problem comes in, however.  You'd have to figure that they'd go to four divisions of four in each league, so there would have to be some sort of realignment.  Portland could easily fit into the AL West.  Montreal could go back where the Expos were in the NL East.  Nashville could go into either league's newly-created South division, but that's where things get complicated.  Because who's moving divisions?  And will it be reluctantly?

For argument's sake, let's put the new teams in Montreal and Portland.  With Montreal in the NL East and Portland in the AL West, here's what the divisions might look like: AL East-Baltimore, Boston, Yankees, Toronto; AL North-White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota; AL South-Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Texas; AL West-Athletics, Angels, Portland, Seattle; NL East-Montreal, Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh; NL North-Cubs, Colorado, Milwaukee, St. Louis; NL South-Atlanta, Cincinnati, Miami, Washington; NL West-Arizona, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco.

As you can see, some of those divisions are somewhat awkward.  This is the same sport that had Atlanta in the NL West for 25 years, though, so it's not like they aren't used to that.  And I have Cincinnati in the NL South instead of St. Louis because there's no way the Cubs and Cardinals would agree to any divisional alignment where they aren't together.

Now let's try Montreal and Nashville, which makes things a bit trickier.  Because in this scenario, the eight westernmost teams are split 5/3.  As a result, one of the NL West teams has to shift to the AL.  Should that happen, I think the most likely candidate would be Arizona, which would then put both expansion teams in the National League and give us divisions that look like this: AL East-Baltimore, Boston, Yankees, Toronto; AL North-White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota; AL South-Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Texas; AL West-Arizona, Athletics, Angels, Seattle; NL East-Montreal, Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh; NL North-Cubs, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis; NL South-Atlanta, Miami, Nashville, Washington; NL West-Colorado, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco.

On paper, those divisions make the most sense.  Far more than the Montreal/Portland alignment and far more than the Nashville/Portland alignment you're about to see.  In this scenario, we've got Portland in the AL West and Nashville in the NL South: AL East-Baltimore, Boston, Yankees, Toronto; AL North-White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota; AL South-Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Texas; AL West-Athletics, Angels, Portland, Seattle; NL East-Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington; NL North-Cubs, Colorado, Milwaukee, St. Louis; NL South-Atlanta, Cincinnati, Miami, Nashville; NL West-Arizona, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco.

You'll notice that the divisions, by and large, are the same regardless of which two cities get the expansion teams.  And they're mostly staying as true as possible to the current divisional alignment.  So, I don't really foresee that being much of an issue no matter where the new teams play or how they figure out the divisions.  That's not really as much of a problem as the schedule. 

We're in the third season of the current schedule format where each team plays at least one series against everyone else in the Majors.  They tweaked it slightly this season so that you play six games against your interleague partner--three at home, three away--instead of four (two and two).  However, the math doesn't work to have the home & home with your interleague partner if two expansion teams are added, which I can see being an issue.  Because no team will want to lose the three guaranteed sellouts that come with hosting their interleague rival.

The math is otherwise pretty straightforward.  It basically keeps the current format with slight modifications: 4 series/13 games against your division opponents (12 series/39 games), 2 series/6 or 7 games against the remaining teams in your league (12 series/75 games).  That leaves 48 games left for interleague play, which divides perfectly into 16 three-game series.  However, that only accounts for one series against your rival, not two.

If teams only play six games against each non-division team in their own league, they'd only be at 159 games.  Those three games could, theoretically, be used for a second series against your interleague partner.  That's not as easy as it sounds, though.  Teams need to play a certain number of four-game series because they only have a set number of off days.  Turning three four-game series into an extra three-game series doesn't just add three off days, it pushes the season back (or up) three days because everybody's playing one additional series.  Again, easier said than done since they'd need the MLBPA's sign-off to extend the length of the season. 

Could it be done?  Yes.  But there would be pushback either way.  If you want to drop one of the two series against your interleague rival, the owners (especially those of certain teams) won't be happy.  If you want to extend the season, the players have to agree.  Some might appreciate the extra off days, but would they want the trade-off of playing more regular season games in late March/early October?  And, if the added games were tacked onto the end of the season, that pushes the playoffs and World Series back, potentially into November, which MLB doesn't like.

Is either of these things a big enough issue for MLB to not consider expansion?  Of course not!  They shouldn't be in a rush, either, though.  Because they're things that will need to be figured out when the time comes.  And that time isn't now.  Not when the current division alignment and schedule format is working out perfectly!

Not On the Same Page

The College Football Playoff will remain at 12 teams for the upcoming season, with expansion possible in 2026.  For a while, it seemed like the word attached to expansion was "likely."  Now, though, I'm not so sure.  Because, while the conferences are all pretty much in agreement that they want to go to 16 teams, they don't agree on how.  And that lack of agreement could result in the playoff staying put at 12 teams, which nobody expected when this whole thing started.

Actually, let me rephrase.  Everybody IS in agreement except for one conference.  The Big Ten.  They don't seem likely to budge, either.  So, it'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.  Will the addition of four teams really not happen simply because the Big Ten didn't get their way?  Or will they end up getting their way in the end?

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has indicated that he'll never accept the Big Ten's preferred plan.  The ACC and Big 12 are on the same page as Sankey.  They all prefer a 5+11 model that features five conference champions and 11 at-large teams.  The Big Ten wants 13 of the 16 bids preassigned by conference.  No one else supports this.  And, even though the CFP gives more of the decision-making power to the SEC and Big Ten, no conference has the power to unilaterally decide the path forward.  So, if the SEC doesn't agree, the Big Ten's preferred format won't get much traction.  Nor should it.

This really is such a blatant display of arrogance and elitism by the Big Ten.  They want half the bids in a 16-team field to automatically go to the Big Ten and SEC, who'd get four each.  The ACC and Big 12 are thrown a bone by getting two bids each, with one for the highest-rated conference champion and the remaining three at-large bids (meaning the SEC or Big Ten could, conceivably get as many as seven bids).  How good a team or their conference is doesn't matter.  It's the name of the conference that's important.  So what if the fourth-place team in the Big Ten is 8-4 overall and not even in the Top 25?!  They play in the Big Ten!

There are so many things not to like and so few to like about what the Big Ten wants.  For starters, it would make conference championship games completely irrelevant since both of those teams would be guaranteed a spot in the playoff regardless.  It also just assumes that the two current superconferences will perpetually be at the top and deserve to have four bids.  Even if one of the other conferences has a strong year, that's obviously just a blip on the radar.  At least in the Big Ten's eyes.

Meanwhile, all you need to do is look at basketball to know that isn't true.  This year, the SEC set a record with a whopping 14 NCAA Tournament teams, and Florida won the National Championship.  As recently as 2022, the SEC only had six NCAA Tournament teams (even considering the conference's expansion, it was six of 14 in 2022 and 14 of 16 in 2025).  The Big East (which counts as a power conference in basketball) went the other way from six in 2022 to three just two years later. 

While basketball and football are entirely different animals, that point illustrates how conference strength fluctuates from year to year.  It also seems like it's an unnecessary provision made simply to insulate the two biggest conferences from a down year.  And, if the Big Ten is as strong as it thinks it is, why would it need that protection?  There were four Big Ten teams in the inaugural 12-team playoff, so it would stand to reason that they'd get at least that many in a 16-team playoff on their own merit.  Ditto about the SEC.  If anything, they should both expect at least that many and hope for a fifth.  (The SEC would've had six if they had a 16-team playoff last season.)

Everybody else prefers the 5+11 model for a very simple reason.  It rewards the 16 best teams.  Yes, the rankings are subjectively made by a selection committee, but there's really no other way to do it.  There's gonna be questions and criticism regardless.  And that selection committee would still be choosing the at-large teams, ranking the field and setting the matchups under the Big Ten's method.  So, what's the difference then if they're seeding/ranking the field 1-16 either way?

At the root of the Big Ten's insistence on guaranteed bids per conference is the fact that not everybody plays the same number of conference games.  The Big Ten and Big 12 play nine conference games.  The SEC and ACC only play eight.  The Big Ten won't budge unless the SEC and ACC add that ninth game, thereby "leveling the playing field."  (Although, it should be noted that the ACC has a scheduling agreement with Notre Dame and there are also a number of annual in-state rivalry games between SEC and ACC schools.)

Whether the SEC should move to a nine-game conference schedule or not has been a regular topic of discussion for the past few years.  Sankey is in favor of it, but not enough of the schools support the change.  For various reasons.  Same thing with the ACC.  The individual conference members have different preferences and there's no agreement on the best path forward.  Both of those conferences also require their members to play at least one non-conference game against another Power 4 school or Notre Dame.  So, it's not like they aren't playing quality schedules.

Would it be nice if all four of the major conferences played the same number of conference games?  Yes.  Can the Big Ten do anything about what the SEC or ACC chooses to do?  No.  And they lack the leverage to make the other conferences do what they want.  Everybody else is fine with keeping the College Football Playoff at 12 teams if it comes to that.

It should be noted, too, that the only thing the SEC, ACC and Big 12 agree on is that they don't like the Big Ten's plan.  The SEC supports the 5+11 model that is favored by the ACC and Big 12, but nothing is set in stone.  They could expand to 14 teams and do 5+9.  They could keep it at the current 12-team, 5+7 model.  Or maybe another option will emerge, such as a straight 1-16 format with no automatic bids.  Everything is still on the table.  Everything, that is, except for the Big Ten's 4+4+2+2+1+3 system.

Which is why it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.  While Sankey has indicated publicly that he (and the SEC) would be OK sticking with the status quo, you'd have to figure that the preference is still to go to 16 and reap the financial benefit of those four additional games.  The Big Ten seems unwilling to blink on its preferred format.  The other three conferences and Notre Dame are ready to call their bluff.  Something's got to give if they're going to meet their self-imposed December 1 deadline to change the format.

Chances are still pretty high that they figure it out and the CFP expands to 16 teams for the 2026 season.  And, if I had to guess, the 5+11 format supported by the SEC, ACC and Big 12 (as well as Notre Dame) will win out.  As it should.  Not only because it makes more sense.  But because it's significantly fairer to everyone than the Big Ten's preference, which only favors them and the SEC.

Potential Trade Deadline Moves

Now that the All*Star Break has come and gone, the focus shifts to the second half of the season.  Specifically, it shifts to the end of this month and the trade deadline.  Every team that considers themselves a contender has multiple needs that they want to address, but the number of teams that are definite sellers is so small that their players will be in high demand, likely with multiple potential trade partners.

It really feels like whoever strikes first will get the pick of the litter.  The Orioles will probably be looking to move everybody not named Rutschman, Henderson or Holliday.  Likewise, if you play for the Diamondbacks and your last name isn't Carroll or Marte, there's a pretty good chance you might be headed elsewhere.  Then you have teams like Atlanta.  Would the Braves actually be sellers?  Would Texas?  How about Washington?  Cincinnati?

Of course, judging whether you're in it or not is an inexact science, too.  Look at the Tigers last year.  They were sellers at the deadline, only to go on a ridiculous run right after that and not only make the playoffs, they won a playoff series!  And now look at them this year!  Detroit will be a definite buyer in 2025.  In fact, there's one move that I think would be such a home run it would be stupid for them not to make it!

Yennier Cano, Orioles to Tigers: Everybody's gonna be looking for bullpen help.  Not everybody can get it.  The Tigers have a great 1-2 at the back of the bullpen in Tommy Kahnle and Will Vest, but you know they'll be in the market for another reliever.  And Yennier Cano is an elite setup man.  He's someone who can yield a big return for the Orioles, too.

Eugenio Suarez, Diamondbacks to Yankees: The Yankees have been in the market for a third baseman for about two years.  Last year, they got Jazz Chisholm at the deadline and put him there.  This year, I think they actually will get an actual third baseman.  And they've been linked to Suarez for a while.  I'd be surprised if this doesn't happen.

Merrill Kelly, Diamondbacks to Yankees: Can Brian Cashman swing a package deal that puts both Suarez and Kelly in pinstripes?  The Yankees are desperately in need of a starter.  Merrill Kelly fits the profile of exactly what they're looking for.  And, he's a free agent at the end of the season, so the likelihood of him being moved seems high.  He's the perfect rental, too, which means plenty of teams will be after him.

Charlie Morton, Orioles to Cubs: Another starter who seems destined to move is Charlie Morton.  He signed a one-year deal with Baltimore this season and it hasn't gone well, but he's a veteran who's a proven postseason performer (winning rings with Houston and Atlanta).  The Cubs are a team that'll be in the market for a starting pitcher and is all-in for a playoff run this season.  They'll also be in on Kelly.  If they don't get him, I can easily see a pivot to Morton.

Sandy Alcantara, Marlins to Mets: Sandy Alcantara has been rumored to be on the move at the trade deadline pretty regularly over the past few years.  This year, I think it might actually happen.  He's having a down year, so a change of scenery would do him well.  And the Mets are obviously familiar with him being in the same division.  As a bonus, he wouldn't be a rental.  Alcantara's contract extends thru next year.

Luis Robert Jr., White Sox to Astros: Despite numerous injuries, Houston is leading the AL West by a wide margin.  So, the Astros will be definite buyers.  And the outfield is an area they seem likely to address.  Luis Robert Jr. hasn't been great, but has anybody on the White Sox over the last two years?  He's one of their few tradable pieces somebody would want, though, and a free agent after this season.  I can see Houston plugging him into center field and considering whatever offense he gives them a bonus.

Kenley Jansen, Angels to Phillies: As great as the Phillies' rotation has been, they'll definitely be looking for bullpen upgrades.  They'll need it, too.  Especially if they want to hold off the Mets.  Philadelphia has 17! blown saves this season!  Sounds like they could use an elite closer.  Which Jansen still is, even at 37.  And you know the Angels ain't makin' the playoffs, so it would make sense to see what they can get for him.

Isiah Kiner-Falefa, Pirates to Blue Jays: IKF will be a hot commodity who's sought after by multiple teams.  He doesn't have the difference-making bat.  But, as a utility man you can put pretty much anywhere, he'd be invaluable to several different teams.  Last year, he was traded from Toronto to Pittsburgh at the deadline.  Wouldn't it be something, if this year they reverse it and he goes from Pittsburgh back to Toronto?

Tommy Pham, Pirates to Padres: Would it even be the trade deadline if Tommy Pham wasn't involved?  This guy gets traded at the deadline (usually to a contender) every year!  This time, I've got him going back to San Diego, where he actually spent two entire seasons in 2020-21.  The Padres have been looking for a left fielder all season.  Pham certainly fits the bill and could work into a platoon situation with Gavin Sheets.

Luis Severino, Athletics to Padres: San Diego also wouldn't mind some help in the starting rotation.  Severino hates it in Sacramento and badly wants out of there.  It's a swap that would make a lot of sense.  So would Severino going back to the Mets.  So would Severino going back to the Yankees.  The question is really where he'll get traded.  Not if he'll get traded.

Are these necessarily predictions for what will happen at the trade deadline?  No.  Some very realistically could.  Or these players could end up going somewhere else entirely.  And I doubt they'll be the only ones on the move, either.  I have a feeling we'll see a lot of movement leading up to the and at the trade deadline.

Start Preparing for 2028

Right after the Olympics last year, I wondered what the LA28 schedule might look like since so much will be different than Olympics past, and those changes will directly impact other sports.  Monday marked three years to go until the Opening Ceremony, and the LA28 organizers celebrated the occasion by releasing the competition schedule for the Games.  It didn't have specific events.  Those will come later.  All it had was days and approximate times for each sport.  Which answered some of those questions while raising a lot more.

One of the most noticeable things is that a record number of sports will begin before the Opening Ceremony.  This is nothing new.  There are always soccer games ahead of time, and rugby also started early in Paris.  In LA, though, it'll be a total of seven sports that get underway on Wednesday (Day -2 on the calendar).  All of them are team sports.

Interestingly, basketball is one of the sports that will start before the Opening Ceremony.  It's the first time since 1952 that basketball will start early, which makes sense.  Because basketball doesn't need the extra two days.  It looks like they're using the same schedule as Paris with four games a day, yet they extended it to give them two days off between the semis and final (as well as, it looks like, potentially three days between the quarter and semi!).  The gold-medal winning team will play six games across 18 days.  That's a lot of time between games!  (By contrast, the entire men's hockey tournament in Milan will take place across just 12 days...with the semifinalists playing either six or seven games.)

Water polo also starts early and is condensed.  Instead of running the entire duration of the Olympics, both tournaments end during the middle weekend.  I'm assuming that's because they want them done before swimming starts.  This isn't really an issue since the water polo tournament used to only be a week.  It'll be odd to not have the men's water polo gold medal game be one of the final events on the last day, though.  (Water polo is also sharing a venue with artistic swimming, so I suspect that's the real reason for the shorter tournaments.)

We already knew that track & field and swimming were being flipped since they're using SoFi Stadium (aka "2028 Stadium") for swimming.  What we didn't know was that the swimming competition will literally end the Olympics.  The final session of swimming is scheduled for 3 p.m. Pacific on the final Sunday (which was obviously an NBC request so that they could have something live all day on that final day).  The Closing Ceremony starts at 6:00 Pacific!  We'll essentially go right from those medley relays to the Closing Ceremony!

It looks like the swimming move affected the diving schedule, too.  The synchronized diving events are normally during the first week, followed by the individual events in the second week.  While it won't be official until the full event schedule is released, it appears that's been flipped.  Individual diving is first.  So, the men's platform final won't be the last diving event of the LA Games.

I like what they're doing with the two sports taking place in Oklahoma City.  They won't overlap at all.  Once slalom canoeing ends, softball will start.  There's actually competition in slalom canoeing on the day of the Opening Ceremony, which isn't too big a deal since they wouldn't be able to attend anyway.  And softball concludes the day before the Closing Ceremony, so they can easily get to LA for it should they choose.

During the All*Star Break, we found out some very interesting information about the baseball tournament, which will be played at Dodger Stadium.  First, Rob Manfred suggested that the 2028 All*Star Game could be in San Francisco.  He also indicated that they could extend the All*Star Break (the All*Star Game will be on July 11, the day before the first events in LA).  Both of those are indications that MLB players could participate.  So is the fact that they made it a short, six-day tournament that's over on July 20.  I still don't expect MLB to suspend the season for the Olympics (although, the Dodgers and Angels will obviously go on road trips), so I'm curious to see how it'd work.  But it sure looks like they're gonna try to figure something out (which I'm sure will be a topic during the next CBA negotiations).

They're also trying to figure out a way for NFL players to play in the flag football tournament.  Which still doesn't make any sense to me, but that's beside the point.  They've set it up so that it won't conflict with training camps.  The flag football gold medal games are scheduled for July 21 & 22.  So, players could conceivably go right from the Olympics to training camp.  (Since flag football and lacrosse will share a venue, the lacrosse tournaments will be in the second week of the Games.)

A mixed team event was added in gymnastics.  It looks like that will be at the end of the competition.  The gymnastics schedule is otherwise identical to previous Games, with an additional medal set to be awarded after the individual apparatus finals.  That clearly has to be the mixed team competition.  Then, they have one day to flip the Staples Center before it becomes the venue for the boxing finals.

Another sport where I was curious about the schedule was road cycling.  The early Olympics already meant the Tour de France will have to be moved much earlier than usual.  My concern was about when they'd set the road cycling events so that they get enough of a break after the Tour de France.  The time trial is in the middle of the first week and the road races are on the middle weekend, so they should get adequate rest while still not having road and track cycling conflict with each other.

While we won't know how many medals will be awarded each day until the detailed event-by-event schedule comes out, we do know that Saturday and Sunday of the middle weekend will be the busiest days of the Games.  In Paris, they had medal events in swimming, track & field and gymnastics on both of those days for the first time since 1988.  It'll happen again in LA.  And it's a good bet that'll be the case moving forward.

There will also be plenty of action on the final weekend.  Medal events in 23 different sports on Saturday, including one of the marathons (which are keeping their traditional place at the end despite track & field and swimming flipping weeks).  One of the surprising things about swimming being one of the seven sports in action on the final day of the Games is that it means the Closing Ceremony won't take place across two venues like the Opening Ceremony.  I wonder why they came to that decision.  (Is it simply because NBC wanted swimming finals to close the competition?)

LA's time zone was destined to make for a unique final day no matter what.  Whenever the Olympics are anywhere else, everything is done by the early afternoon the latest.  The Closing Ceremony in Paris started at 3:00 Eastern.  Because LA is on the West Coast, though, NBC can have live event coverage all day.  The marathon is at 10:15 Eastern.  That rolls right into the volleyball match at 1:00 Eastern.  Then the basketball game's at 3:45 Eastern, with the last session of swimming starting at 6:00 Eastern before the Closing Ceremony at 9:00 Eastern.  A vastly different final day than what we're used to!

Of course, that works the other way, too.  When the Olympics are in Asia or Europe, stuff starts early in the morning.  In the three Asian Olympics, events would start in the evening and go all night!  The earliest anything in LA will start is 7:00 am Pacific.  Which means the morning cable coverage will be almost entirely tape-delayed stuff from the night before.  Again, a vastly different experience!

But we already knew an Olympics in the U.S. would look and feel entirely different.  Now that we have an initial schedule, it's starting to become real.  The LA28 Olympics will be here before we know it.  Time to start planning your trips.

MLB Midseason Report

We've reached the All*Star Break, which is always a good time to sit and assess the MLB season so far.  There have been plenty of players and teams who've performed exactly as expected.  There are plenty that haven't, both good and bad.  But who have been the best (and worst)?

I always like to have some fun with these midseason award predictions.  In addition to the four major awards that are handed on at the end of the season, as well as Comeback Player of the Year, I throw in two others "honoring" the worst over the first half--Cy Old and LVP.  So, who do the very prestigious Joe Brackets Midseason Awards go to?  Well, without further ado, here we go...

AL MVP: Aaron Judge, Yankees-It's a two-horse race between Judge and Cal Raleigh.  Raleigh has more home runs and one more RBI, but Judge has the edge in every other category.  And, let's not forget, he was hitting over .400 well into May.  Plus his defensive numbers.  Want the one stat that really makes a difference, though?  Judge has been intentionally walked 24 times.  That's already a Yankees single-season record.  Opposing managers would rather just put him on than face him.  They respect him that much!  And he'll only continue getting the Barry Bonds Treatment as the season continues.

AL Cy Young: Tarik Skubal, Tigers-Skubal has picked up right where he left off after winning the AL Pitching Triple Crown and his first career Cy Young Award last season.  He'll be starting the All*Star Game, and rightfully so.  Skubal's the best pitcher in baseball right now.  His WHIP is a ridiculous 0.83.  He's also tied for the AL lead in ERA and second in strikeouts to go along with a 10-3 record for the team with the most wins in baseball at the Break.

AL Rookie: Jacob Wilson, Athletics-At the midway point of the season, the two leading candidates for AL Rookie of the Year are both A's.  Don't be surprised if it ends that way, either.  Jacob Wilson has been a revelation.  He's second in the American League in both hits and average, trailing only Aaron Judge, and he earned the All*Star Game start over Bobby Witt, Jr.  There's no reason to think he won't keep it up in the second half and run away with AL Rookie of the Year.

AL Manager: John Schneider, Blue Jays-Detroit being in first place isn't a surprise.  Neither is Houston being in first place.  Toronto, though?  No one saw that coming.  Not after the Blue Jays finished last in the AL East last season.  There are more talented teams and Toronto has a run differential of just +17.  Yet here they are.  Sitting in first place with a two-game lead at the All*Star Break.

AL Comeback: Jacob deGrom, Rangers-Remember when Jacob deGrom was the best pitcher in baseball?  It seems like so long ago, doesn't it?  That deGrom is finally back in his Age-37 season.  After making just nine starts in his first two seasons with the Rangers, he's made 19 this season and pitched to a 2.32 ERA.  This is the pitcher that Texas thought/hoped it was getting when deGrom signed.

AL LVP: Jorge Soler, Angels-There are plenty of candidates for who has the most useless contract on the Angels.  This is, after all, the team that's been paying Anthony Rendon to do absolutely nothing for the last five years.  But Jorge Soler gets the "honor" as the AL's first-half LVP because he's actually been in the Angels' lineup pretty much every day and is hitting a whopping .211, second-lowest among qualifiers.  He's struck out more times (91) than he's reached base (86).

AL Cy Old: Luis Severino, Athletics-When the A's signed Severino, it was a massive surprise.  He was getting the most guaranteed money for a pitcher in franchise history.  Severino's deal was for three years, aka the entire amount of time the team will spend in Sacramento.  He's been very vocal in his disdain for both Sacramento and pitching in a Minor League park, and the splits back it up.  Severino has been good on the road.  He's been awful at home.  It's added up to a 2-11 record and 5.16 ERA.  Not exactly what they were expecting from somebody who's being paid to be the staff ace (and badly wants to get traded at the deadline).

NL MVP: Pete Crow-Armstrong, Cubs-Ohtani is doing Ohtani things.  So, would it be surprising to win another MVP?  Of course not!  He's just the default selection at this point.  But what Pete Crow-Armstrong has done (while playing an outstanding center field) can't be overlooked.  The Cubs probably wouldn't be in first place without his breakout season.  That's why PCA will be starting the All*Star Game.

NL Cy Young: Zack Wheeler, Phillies-Paul Skenes has absurd numbers.  I'm not saying he doesn't.  And it really is pretty remarkable that he leads the NL in ERA, yet only has a 4-8 record because the Pirates don't score any runs for him.  It'll be a very interesting test case at the end of the season if Skenes is still under .500 overall.  So why doesn't he get my midseason NL Cy Young?  Because Zack Wheeler has been just as good for a Phillies team that's in first place primarily because of its pitching.  And, I've used this argument in the past in the Felix Hernadez/David Price and Max Scherzer/Jacob deGrom debates, and I'll use it again here.  Since the Phillies are good, every start Wheeler makes matters.  Since the Pirates aren't, the stakes when Skenes pitches aren't nearly as high.  That should matter.

NL Rookie: Jacob Misiorowski, Brewers-Do I think Jacob Misiorowski should be an All*Star after only five Major League starts?  No.  Do those five starts make him the early frontrunner for Rookie of the Year?  Absolutely!  Misiorowski has been outstanding in four of those five starts.  He's only been in the Majors for a month, but he's already made an impact.  He's this year's Paul Skenes.  And, seriously, can you name any other NL rookie?

NL Manager: Pat Murphy, Brewers-Murphy won this award last year.  Is it crazy to think he could take it back-to-back?  Not when you consider all of the Brewers' pitching injuries this season.  They've used 14 different starters and 28 total pitchers.  Yet they're only a game behind the Cubs, who most people thought would run away with the NL Central, and currently holding down the first wild card.  The Brewers really are the National League version of the Rays.  No matter what, they're gonna be there every year.

NL Comeback: Ronald Acuna Jr., Braves-Acuna missed, essentially, an entire year after tearing his left ACL last May.  He didn't make his debut this season until May 23...and homered in his first game back.  And his second!  Acuna will be starting the All*Star Game in his home park, and rightly so.  He's got 52 hits, including 12 home runs, in 45 games and is hitting a robust .323.  Just imagine what his numbers would look like if he hadn't missed the first two months of the season!

NL LVP: Jason Heyward, Padres-Alex Verdugo's Braves career was basically over before it started, but he didn't even make his debut until June and not much was expected of him.  Jason Heyward, meanwhile, was signed to be the Padres' starting left fielder.  That lasted until June, when he was DFA'ed then released.  Heyward played just 34 games for San Diego, hit all of .176 and his OPS was under .500 (you know my thoughts on OPS, both his on-base and slugging were in the .200s, which obviously isn't good).

NL Cy Old: Justin Verlander, Giants-Verlander signed with the Giants hoping to get closer to 300 wins.  It's the All*Star break, and he's just as close to 300 wins as he was when the season started.  Verlander has made 15 starts this season, so at least he's been healthy.  His record is 0-7, though.  There's no doubt that Verlander is a future Hall of Famer.  In 2025, however, he looks like a 42-year-old.

Like It Or Not, the Tournament's Expanding

Does the NCAA Tournament need to be expanded?  Absolutely not.  Does anyone outside of a handful of people involved with the conferences want it to be?  No.  Is it going to be?  Almost certainly.  Because, as we've seen, when the Power 4 conferences want something, it doesn't matter if anybody else thinks it's a good idea.  They're going to get their way.

The question is really whether they'll expand to 72 or 76 teams.  Those are the logistics that they're currently working out.  Make no mistake, though, it's highly likely that we'll see at least four additional teams in the NCAA Tournament soon, if not in 2026 then in 2027.  It's not a question of if.  It's a question of when.

Of course, expanding the NCAA Tournament isn't as easy as these conference officials would like to believe.  Expanding the tournament means adding games.  Figuring out when to play those games is really the biggest challenge.  Because they don't want to mess with the symmetry of three weekends and the 64-team bracket.  Beyond that, though, they know that Thursday and Friday of the first round, with 16 games all day, are the two best days in sports and they really don't want to mess with that!

Which really only leaves them with one option.  Tuesday and Wednesday.  The First Four is currently two games each night.  Don't be surprised if that turns into four, with another site joining Dayton as a second First Four host.  Likewise, TNT's losing the NBA means they've got some programming hours to fill.  Extra NCAA Tournament games could certainly help fill that void.  So, doubleheaders on both truTV and TNT seems like the logical solution there.

With that in mind, going from 68 teams to 72 wouldn't be too disruptive.  It would be easy to add those four games while otherwise keeping the same schedule.  Dayton has earned its status as the permanent-ish First Four host, but you obviously can't play all eight games there--especially if it's also a first/second round site.  That second site could rotate, but would also need to be somewhat centrally located since the winning teams will immediately need to travel.

Going to 76 teams, meanwhile, adds eight games.  That would be 12 total across the first two days of the tournament.  That's six on both nights.  TV-wise, you could easily do a tripleheader on both TNT and truTV, but that would also mean you'd need to start those tripleheaders at like 5:00.  Whoever has to play in those 5:00 Tuesday games would have a ridiculously quick turnaround after the Selection Show on Sunday night.

One suggestion I've seen would be that, along with expanding the tournament, they could move the Selection Show to earlier on Sunday.  That seems unlikely, however, since they're playing conference championship games until about an hour before the Selection Show.  Could they make it like football and have all the conference championship games on Saturday?  Sure.  But I'm not sure the TV partners would be too keen on that idea.  CBS uses the Big Ten Championship Game as their Selection Show lead-in.  And, if there were no games on Sunday, they'd all (CBS, ESPN, etc.) have to adjust their schedules for earlier in the week, and some conferences probably wouldn't like having their championship game moved to a less favorable time (or, worse, opposite another conference's championship game).

There's also the question of the First Four format.  Ever since it was created in 2011, the First Four has featured two matchups between 16-seeds (the four lowest-ranked teams in the tournament) and two matchups between the last two at-large teams.  That was a compromise, and it obviously worked out.  We've seen both VCU and UCLA go from the First Four to the Final Four, leaving no doubt about whether they belonged in the tournament.

Those additional four teams would, obviously, be at-larges.  It stands to reason that they'd more than likely come from the power conferences (that's why they're pushing for expansion in the first place).  Those additional at-large teams will be better than some of the automatic qualifiers.  So, why should they have to play an extra game when lower-rated teams don't?  Or so the argument goes.

But, the counterargument is that those four teams wouldn't even be in the tournament if not for the NCAA increasing the size of the field.  If they're capable of going on a VCU or UCLA-type run, playing an extra game shouldn't be that big of a deal.  It's also important to note that the First Four games featuring the final at-large teams usually involve at least one power conference.  They're attractive matchups.  Far more attractive than the two 16-seeds playing each other.  So, from a broadcast perspective, it would be a tough sell.  You want to make these games people want to watch.

If the power conferences had their way, the tournament would be seeded 1-72 and the bottom 16 teams would play in those eight games for the 15 & 16 seeds.  That would pretty much guarantee that no power conference teams end up in the First Four.  However, it would also mean that 16 mid-major and low-major conference champions have to play an extra game (as opposed to the four it is currently).  Yes, eight of them would be guaranteed a win.  But it would also go against the entire point of exactly what everybody loves about the NCAA Tournament--the potential upset of watching those little guys go toe-to-toe with Duke and Kansas.

It seems like another compromise could be in order here.  The bottom eight teams overall play for the four 16-seeds.  That actually solves the problem of two 1-seeds facing a 16-seed that came out of the First Four and the other two not.  Then, the other four games are between the final eight at-large teams.  I'd even be OK with having it predetermined where they get the 11-seeds (meaning they're the 41st-48th ranked teams in the field).  That way, all of the 6-seeds are likewise on equal footing in having to prepare for two possible opponents.

While the power conferences would stand to benefit the most, you'd have to think four extra NCAA Tournament teams could, theoretically at least, help the mid-majors, as well.  They've been the ones getting short-changed the most with at-large bids recently, so it's more opportunities for those bubble teams.  Even if they get only one of those four additional spots.  (Going back to 2021, when the Tournament returned after the COVID cancellation in 2020, six teams from outside the Power 4 and Big East have been among the first four out and theoretically would've been in a larger field.)

Let's be honest, though.  That's not why the power conferences are pushing this.  It's because they want more NCAA Tournament bids for themselves.  More bids means more tournament shares, which means more money.  That's all anything in college sports is about these days.  Especially at the Power 4 level.  So, even though it's unnecessary and an unpopular idea, it also seems inevitable that the NCAA Tournament is expanding.  Perhaps as soon as this season.

Overused, Overexposed and, Inevitably, Injured

The Yankees seem to be snapping out of their annual June swoon.  I say "annual" because it's certainly gotten to that point.  With the exception of 2023, when they sucked for the entire season, it's the same story every year.  They're good in April and May, awful in June and July, get their groove back in August, then go on a tear in September (in 2023, the September tear is the only reason they finished above .500). 

Why am I bringing this up?  Because the script is eerily similar each season.  They stop hitting for a little while, then, once they remember how to hit, the pitching becomes the problem.  The bullpen specifically.  Through a combination of overuse, injuries and a bunch of guys who, frankly, just aren't that good, June is usually when the bullpen becomes an issue.  Not just for the Yankees.  It's a situation that all good teams face at this point in the season.  Because they all do the same thing!

There's a direct correlation, too.  All managers have their handful of relievers that they trust in big spots.  That leads to those relievers being overused.  Then, when there's an injury to someone in that group, the number of relievers the manager trusts becomes smaller, which results in even more overuse.  And that overuse leads to overexposure, which leads to the reliever getting hit.  Or, even worse, that overuse leads to an injury and the whole cycle repeats itself.

I don't want to single out Aaron Boone because he isn't the only manager who does it, but his recent overreliance on Mark Leiter, Jr., is a prime example of what I'm talking about.  Mark Leiter, Jr. is a middle reliever.  He simply isn't good enough to be one of those trusted guys.  However, with Fernando Cruz (who is one of those guys) out with an injury, Leiter became somebody who Boone went to quite often, even though his performance didn't warrant it.  Even though Leiter continually wasn't getting the job done, Boone kept going to him.  That's on the manager just as much as it's on the pitcher.

Then we found out the reason for Leiter's struggles.  He'd essentially been pitching on a broken leg for two weeks!  Leiter suffered the injury covering first base during a game in Cincinnati at the end of June.  But, instead of doing anything about it, he kept pitching.  To disastrous results!  And where did he ultimately end up?  The injured list!  Two weeks too late!

Injuries are inevitable over the course of a six-month-long season.  Everyone understands that.  But some of these injuries are avoidable.  Especially injuries to relievers.  When they're overused, they become fatigued.  In addition to making them less effective, pitching while fatigued makes those relievers more susceptible to injury.  Whether it's to their arm, shoulder or leg, we've seen so many relief pitchers go on the injured list for extended periods of time because of something that was a direct result of pitching too much.

Of course, the way baseball is played nowadays hasn't helped, either.  The amount of bullpen usage (and how those relievers are utilized) simply isn't sustainable over the course of an entire season.  Especially for teams with postseason aspirations who'll be asking their top 2-3 relievers to pitch in high-pressure situations for a seventh month.  All of those pitches thrown in April and May add up.  Especially when the same pitcher is used over and over again, giving the league plenty of opportunities to see him.

It all comes back to how starting pitchers are being groomed in the lower levels now.  With a few exceptions, starters aren't expected (or allowed) to throw more than 100 pitches.  Once they get to 100, they know their day is done.  And that's if they even get to 100.  A lot of fourth or fifth starters get taken out at the first sign of trouble or as soon as they complete the second time through the lineup, even if they're at only 65-70 pitches.

An average of 15 pitches an inning is generally considered to be a reasonable estimate.  That would put a starting pitcher at 105 pitches over six innings, at which point you could expect the game to be turned over to the bullpen.  That's three innings out of the bullpen minimum.  If the starter averages 20 pitches an inning, that'll only get him through five.  Which means you're asking the bullpen to get 12 outs.  And that doesn't even include "bullpen games" when you're literally trying to piece together the entire game using nothing but relievers.

If your starter's only giving you six innings a night, that means you're using the bullpen for 1/3 of the game.  Every game.  You can't do that for 162 games.  If you try, your relievers WILL get hurt and WON'T be as effective.  Especially if the manager only trusts the same handful of guys in certain situations.

And, don't forget how pitchers are being taught to pitch at the lower levels.  It's all about velocity and maximum effort on every pitch.  They're trained to go all-out for short spurts of only 20-25 pitches.  Doing that two days in a row can be taxing, but is certainly doable.  These are professionals, after all.  Their bodies are trained to do just that.  Doing it repeatedly 3-4 times a week with only a day or two off in between is a very different ask, however.  That's what leads to injuries.

So, it really comes down to how much length teams get from their starters.  Which is why the de-emphasis on starting pitching is so ridiculous!  Because everyone understands the value of good starting pitching and how important it is.  That's why starters are often the No. 1 priority for teams in the winter and at the trade deadline, and that's why those starters end up getting signed to big-money contracts.  Shouldn't you want them pitching as long into the game as possible?  Six innings shouldn't be considered a "good" start.

Bullpen use has become such a significant part of the game that the graphic with all of the relievers' names and how many pitches they've thrown over the past several days is common on every broadcast.  You inevitably have the announcer rattle off the list of who isn't available because of the number of times they've been used or the number of pitches they've thrown.  And there's always that sense of dread when the starter gets hurt or knocked out of the game early when only the little-used middle relievers haven't been overused are available.  Or the sense of giddiness when the starter does give them length on a day when the bullpen is short.  Or, better still, how excited they get after an off day when, obviously, no relievers were used.

Teams will always need and use their bullpen.  I'm not suggesting they shouldn't.  But the amount of bullpen usage in April and May has a direct impact on the rest of the season.  So, those lulls in performance, whether they happen in June or later in the year, shouldn't be unexpected.  They should be predictable.  It's a long season, after all.