about MLB players not being as good as they used to be. When the hell was this great era when players were so much better? I've been hearing that since the 1970s, and frankly, its just not a thoughtful statement. Players are better fit, better trained and more competitive than ever before. Watered Down? Go make 16 teams of just American-born white guys ala 1927, then tell me whether those teams are more "watchable" or more "watered down" then current MLB. Clearly, they would be better baseball players then 1927, but not nearly at the overall level that we are used to watching.

Too far back? Even if we keep to post-1947, when talent clearly increased, what is that era that had no .190 hitters? 1961 was a great year - the Yanks are considered one of the best teams ever. How about those 61 KC A's, 61-100. Starting lineup included the unforgetable Bobby Del Greco at .230 and Jay Hankins at .185. (But frankly, .185 was not unusual for a Catcher in the 60s.) Why are the 03 Tigers so much less interesting then the 61 A's?

As for PB, reducing teams will not eliminate losing teams. All it will do is further diminish PB stats versus MLB stats, and further reduce the differences between the great players and the replacement players. The bad teams may have to grab a Reed Johnson. If you have to play him, you'll probably have a good shot at Joe Borchard when he comes up. Now if you don't know names like Borchard or Harden when they come up, then that's a different story - but be aware that the good players in your league know these guys.