The arguments against Jason Giambi — after departing the Oakland Athletics and joining the perennially-vaunted New York Yankees — was that his personality took a hit. He was no longer allowed to be himself. Giambi had to be who George Steinbrenner wanted him to be (which was nothing good; if anything was more evident of Giambi being unnatural in New York, he was always clean-shaven).

Giambi has now returned to the Athletics, and it seems the Giambi of old has returned. Case-in-point: a conversation with Jim Caple…

Caple: They’re talking about making a movie about the book “Moneyball” with Brad Pitt starring as Billy Beane. If they have a flashback scene in the movie, who should play you?

Giambi: I don’t know. Matt Damon is pretty good. I like Matt Damon. Although he would have to gain a little weight.

Caple: Is Brad Pitt a good fit for Billy?

Giambi: I don’t know if it’s a good fit. I think Billy is a little better-looking.

Caple: You’re just sucking up to your boss.

Giambi: I’m just trying to reach my contract incentives.

Classic — and contemporary — Giambi. Welcome back.

The pennant used to mean something. It was the result of playing 154 games over six months, and it was the invitation to the World Series. But with expansion and the creation of six odd-numbered divisions — and the advent of uneven scheduling — the pennant is now rewarded to the winner of a four-team tournament that provides minimal advantage to the best team throughout the season.

Where is the middle-ground between baseball purism and pragmatism? The pennant has been watered down, or said differently, the regular season has lost its significance. Meanwhile, the wild-card and expanded playoff format has arguably made the post-season more exciting.

The first fix is evening up the leagues. The addition of clubs in Phoenix and Tampa Bay was only detrimental to the league in that it created odd-numbered divisions and leagues. The Chicago Cubs play in a 6-team division in a 16-team league, whereas the Seattle Mariners play in a 4-game division in a 14-team league. Something has to give, and unfortunately, that is contraction. (Expansion is clearly not an option at this stage, but the addition of two teams would also be a remedy.)

It is too tough to pick two teams to contract, so I won’t. I’ll hint at the two Florida teams (with two World Series titles in the past twelve years), the Kansas City Royals and the Oakland Athletics, but any team without a modern stadium is at risk to some degree. Contracting two teams would bring back two 14-team leagues.

The second fix is the elimination of divisions. Since 1969, divisions have led to title claims by a growing number of inferior teams who do not even fall in the top four in their league at the end of the regular season. Often times, the race for the final wild-card spot is between two teams with a better record than an automatically-qualified division winner.

Two 14-team leagues — the American and National — would play an even schedule. The fate of interleague play in this concept has not been ironed out but the potential for an exhibition weekend between regional rivals does exist (maybe in a lead-up to the All-Star Game). Would this dilute interleague play? Yes it would, but that is probably a good thing. (That is the purist speaking, not the pragmatist.)

The top three teams in each league would make the playoffs. The team with the best record in each league would earn a first-round bye and an automatic appearance in the League Championship Series. The second- and third-place finishers in each league would fight to the death. That, or a best-of-five series. The team with the best regular season record would have home-field advantage in the World Series.

What this concept does is enhance the importance and status of the regular season while maintaining the current expanded playoff format (and wild-cards). There is a reason 162 games are played: after that many games, we should know who the best team is. This concept also allows for the best teams — regardless of their collected geographic location — to make the playoffs. With even scheduling, if the top three teams in the AL are the Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays, they should make the playoffs.

The regular season — its statistics, records and game-play — is what has made baseball the national pastime: the race for the pennant. This concept returns a league revolved around clubs chasing the pennant. The team with the best record moves on.

Mark McGwire hit 583 career home runs, including a then-record 70 home runs in 1998. No one has ever hit more home runs than Barry Bonds — in either a season (73) or throughout a career (762). Both of these players deserve a place in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

They may have cheated — along with seemingly an entire generation of players — but their actions on the field deserve recognition. It would be unfair to all players, not only those that played alongside them, but those who came before and those who will follow. We should not forget what the Hall of Fame is: a museum. (This idea has been discussed recently by Bill Simmons.) And what better way to cement the tainted records that wiped away the purity of an entire generation of baseball statistics than to enshrine the most notable players involved in the Hall of Fame? Can we simply forget the era as if it never happened (along with every other scandal in baseball history), a distinct branding of historical revisionism?

Another relevant question to ask is, What purity? Babe Ruth never faced the best pitchers of the Negro Leagues in his era. Bob Gibson was afforded a strike-zone from the letters to the knees and a few inches on either side of the plate in his era (compare that with today’s perceived strike zone). The mounds have been raised and lowered; the fences have been pushed back and moved in; the American League adopted the designated hitter rule; and teams introduced five-man pitching rotations. Free agency dramatically changed the landscape of baseball and continues to do so to this day. The fact is, all statistics are relative to the era in which they occurred.

In forty years, could you imagine a trip to Cooperstown without learning about Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens or Alex Rodriguez? Despite any controversies they bring (or brought), an evaluation of the league — and baseball itself — would be incomplete without these players. In many ways, they were the game, for good and for bad. The Hall of Fame is about the game, not only the best players that played by the rules, or the players that most likely played by the rules, or the players that cheated but were never caught.

The Hall of Fame needs to recognize the fallibility of baseball, and the rampant use of steroids would quite simply be an omission too big to miss.

The Pittsburgh Pirates have no chance. Sure, they have a brand new stadium that rivals the best the league has to offer, but come September — in the heat of a playoff race (hypothetical) — don’t plan on seeing much of anything reported on the Pirates on the de facto network of record, ESPN. The rule of the game in Bristol: New York, Boston, Los Angeles, or nothing.

The Boston Red Sox – New York Yankees rivalry is admittedly the best in the sport, however a mid-season three-game series between the two does not warrant an hour-long special beforehand and the first twenty minutes of a half-hour SportsCenter afterward. The fact is the game is played in many small- and medium-market cities — including Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kansas City and Minneapolis — but the network of record has made little effort to cover these teams. And the reason is plainly simple and obvious: revenue.

Revenue is not a dirty word in the sports world, and ESPN is — first and foremost — an entertainment company. At the same time, the network also makes the pitch that it has the authoritative voice on the game itself, both journalistic and opinion. But the only aspects of the game that ESPN truly covers well are the aspects that project greater revenue potential for The Worldwide Leader. And that means Red Sox – Yankees coverage — on-screen debates, pre-game interviews, post-game interviews, inning-by-inning highlights, pitch-by-pitch breakdowns — all at the expense of covering small- and medium-market teams.

ESPN does not do the sport justice. ESPN’s objective is increased revenues, not journalistic integrity in its coverage of the sport. If that were the case, you’d see commercials for an upcoming Pirates-Reds game, and not a teaser for an “exclusive” Alex Rodriguez interview. The A-Rod interview may bring ESPN better ratings, but the A-Rod interview does not constitute baseball. And contrary to ESPN, you can find baseball outside of New York, Boston and Los Angeles, and plenty of times, it is baseball worth watching.