Dexy's Midnight Maas

All-Star game thoughts

2008-07-16T16:47:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting there watching the All-Star game last night. A great pitching match-up between the best of the NL and the AL.

But, wait, if it is the best of the best, why is it a pitching duel? Couldn't it just as easily be a offensive slugfest? I mean, just the night before I watched Josh Hamilton hit 28 HRs in the first round of the Home Run Derby. I mean look at the AL hitters:

Mauer - .873 OPS

Navarro - .785 OPS

Varitek - .653 OPS

Morneau - .903 OPS

Youkilis - .933 OPS

Kinsler - .945 OPS

Pedroia - .816 OPS

Young - .777 OPS

Jeter - .740 OPS

Rodriguez - .972 OPS

Longoria - .861 OPS

Crede - .792 OPS

Guillen - .797 OPS

Drew - .984 OPS

M. Ramirez - .908 OPS

Sizemore - .913 OPS

Quentin - .900 OPS

Hamilton - .919 OPS

Suzuki - .737 OPS

Bradley - 1.049 OPS

Here's the NL:

Martin - .830 OPS

Soto - .891 OPS

McCann - .940 OPS

Berkman - 1.096 OPS

Pujols - 1.074 OPS

Gonzalez - .848 OPS

Utley - .955 OPS

Uggla - .978 OPS

H. Ramirez - .957 OPS

Tejada - .739 OPS

Guzman - .765 OPS

A. Ramirez - .901 OPS

Jones - 1.086 OPS

Wright - .878 OPS

Braun - .873 OPS

Fukudome - .791 OPS

Hart - .831 OPS

Holliday - .975 OPS

McLouth - .899 OPS

Ludwick - .962 OPS

These are some offensive juggernauts. Yet, they only scored a total of seven runs. In comparison, looking at the league totals, the average OPS is .740 and 9 runs per game have been scored by teams.

Only four hitters (Jeter, Tejada, Suzuki and Varitek) were at the league average for OPS or lower, and yet they scored two fewer runs than in a major league game.

What's the difference?

My hypothesis - it has something to do with the All-Star game format, in particular the way pitchers are used. But, before we get to that, let's look at the total number of runs for the past 30 games. (Why 30? Statistically, I remember that being a "magical" number for a normal distribution. Plus, it keeps us in more recent times.)

Total runs over 15 - 83, 92, 98 (Coors Field)

Total runs 13 - 15 - 79, 94, 02, 03, 04

Total runs 10 - 12 - 93, 05

Total runs 7 - 9 - 81, 85, 89, 00, 07, 08

Total runs 4 - 6 - 80, 82, 84, 86, 91, 95, 96, 97, 99, 01, 06

Total runs below 4 - 87, 88, 90

So, let's look at the distribution:

Over 15 - 3

13-15 - 5

10-12 - 2

7-9 - 6

4-6 - 11

Below 4 - 3

So 20 games have 9 runs or less and 10 games have 10 runs or more. (Obviously here I'm assuming that 9 runs per game is the average throughout this time period - will go with it for now, but could use more research on that point.) More than half of the games had between four runs and nine runs.

(Interesting sidebar - 02-05 have larger scores - interesting possibility for research on steroids and the ability to make elite players, or that elite players were using. Maybe a way to pinpoint widespread usage - especially if we look at Barry Bonds 2001 season as a spark to go for the needle. Also - how long do the effects of training combined with steroid use last?)

So, the difference is obviously that pitchers only have to pitch one (maybe two) innings at a time. My question is: why don't teams try this during the regular season?

Let's assume that the ninth inning is the most important inning - that's why we see one inning specialists - "closers" - that already just pitch one inning at a time. What about the eighth inning? Well, if you have a stud number one pitcher, you could use him there, then your number two pitcher in the seventh inning and on down the line.

Of course, I don't believe that it really works that way. If you get behind early, it could have a negative effect as well. So, let's mix it up a bit and set the daily lineup for pitchers, like we do for hitters.

Inning #1 - #3 SP

Inning #2 - #4 SP

Inning #3 - #5 SP

Inning #4 - #3 MR

Inning #5 - #2 MR

Inning #6 - #2 SP

Inning #7 - #1 MR

Inning #8 - #1 SP

Inning #9 - Closer

So, each day, like with the hitters, you would have a defined position within the baseball game. A pitcher would be used each day to get three outs. Of course, pitchers will need rest, so you would carry two other pitchers on your roster to "spot pitch" innings in order to rest the regular pitchers and serve as extra innings pitchers.

In this case, each pitcher would pitch approximately 162 innings per year (which I believe is around the IP restrictions for young pitchers to avoid injuries). This would be a large increase for some relievers, but a decrease for starters. If overuse is a problem, this would reduce it over the entire season and spread 7 innings over a week instead of on one day (or two, given the week and the order of the standard rotation of today's game, not counting "pitching on the side" or getting up multiple times to warm-up in the bullpen.) Every pitcher would be in the game each day and contribute to the team win - and the "win" statistic would become even less meaningful.

Of course, I doubt this would ever fly with conventional thinking. Not enough flexibility. Not the way things have been done. I know Tony LaRussa gets heckled a bit when he starts a reliever, and this is going well beyond that. Still, it could be interesting to see if this would tip the favor back toward the pitchers in upcoming years.

First Base Legend

2007-01-07T19:52:00.000-08:00

I've already detailed the statistical achievements of Mark McGwire in a previous post where I examined his place with the 1B hall of famers. There's no question that he has the win shares to be listed among the elite of his position.

Looking at his raw stats, you see 12 all-star selections, 10 years where he received MVP votes, 7th place all time in home runs, 10th in slugging average, 60th in RBIs and 78th in on-base average. Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey are 4th and 5th in his similarity scores.

However, all of this is irrelevant.

No one is talking of McGwire's achievements. No one is talking about his place in the history of the game. Voters just mention the magic word "steroids" and all the statistics, the bread and butter of the hall of fame, fall into the dustbin. Take away 20 home runs for every year he hit over 50 home runs (the signal of steroid use as we accuse Brady Anderson), he would still have over 500 home runs.

Well, let me tell you the story of another athlete who made it into the news in the last week, and who was one of the most hated men in the U.S. - and the most ridiculed. 30 years later, he is known as a great uniter.

Gerald Ford took over as President of the U.S. once Richard Nixon resigned due to Watergate. One month after he took office, Ford pardoned Nixon. A good deal of the country resented him for this action, and his political career never recovered. However, in 2002, a poll found that 60% of the people thought it was the right thing to do. Time heals all wounds, no matter how deep.

Where would the game of baseball be without the magical year of 1998, when McGwire and Sosa's home run chase captivated most of the nation? Would it be in the same position as hockey with all of the labor strife and lack of television ratings? Would it be more popular than it is today? I doubt it on both fronts, but I bet without McGwire, there wouldn't have been as quick of a healing time after the 1994 labor debacle.

McGwire is no saint. No man is - and I'll spare you the comparisons with other athletes, baseball or otherwise. All I know, is that one of my most memorable moments in a baseball stadium was game 1 of the 1998 season. I went to the game with Carolyn, a lovely girl from Australia who didn't know the first thing about baseball. I sat next to a gentleman in the bleachers whose visage is now dimming in my memory. During that game, McGwire hit a deep blast into the seats for a grand slam - his first home run on the way to 70. I stood and cheered and went crazy. Carolyn probably thought I was crazy. However, I turned to look at the gentleman beside me, who was there with his wife, and he looked at me as we were both lost in our celebrations. But, at that moment, we were brothers, smiles played across our faces, and the contact of our palms in a high five was just the outlet we needed to celebrate. I'll never forget that moment, and there are very few ballplayers who can create moments like that. 1998 was full of them for McGwire.

For every moment of doubt he has created with the tacit admission of steroid use, he has created a moment of joy in the game of baseball. The hall of fame is the chance for us to celebrate those great moments of the greats of the game - no matter their shortcomings.

However, no discussion of McGwire would be complete without mentioning McGwire's 2nd most similar player, the subject of the next analysis, and a name forever entwined with McGwire, on the field and off.

Biggest Influence in the Game

2007-01-07T19:36:00.000-08:00

Jose Canseco. Bash brother.

The mere mention of the name leads even the non-fan (skipping the casual analogy altogether) with opinions dancing about in their head. From reality show appearances to rumors with a single named popstar, Canseco has never shied away from publicity. But, the biggest piece of publicity involved a little book he wrote, "Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big."

Where would the game of baseball be without this book? The stone age as far as a comprehensive drug testing program? Probably. When this book was published, everyone immediately called him a liar and a cheat and promptly forgot about the book. Then the congressional hearing came about.

This was the forum that made Rafael Palmeiro a national joke and Mark McGwire a national hoax. "The game was tainted," yelled pundits from the rafters to any and all that would listen. Only grudgingly did they give credit to the man who gave the cry its initial credibility.

Did Canseco mean to start all of this? Or was he just looking to get his puss in the public eye again? (Speaking of which, has there ever been a more recognized baseball player than Jose Canseco since the Silver Age of Mickey Mantle? Only Derek Jeter in today's game would even come close.)

No matter his intentions, he got the game started on its path to a legitimate drug testing program with teeth, something needed since the days of Steve Howe. Just like McGwire helped to heal the game after labor difficulties, Canseco helped the game after the difficulties of the steroid issue, by exposing how rampant the abuse was.

Is Canseco a hall of famer without this addition? Probably not as my win share analysis put him closest to Andre Dawson and John Kruk. Still, he's close, as 30th all time in home runs and 61st all time in RBIs will attest. But, like Joe Torre, who is also very close, it is the other qualifications for the good of the sport (like managerial accomplishments or broadcasting skill) that make him a hall of famer.

Like him or not, as one of the most recognized ball players of the last 25 years, one of the most successful, and the one with the biggest impact on the future of the game, Jose Canseco belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Book review #9

2006-12-17T11:44:00.000-08:00

You know Babe Ruth and Gehrig and Murderers Row....
The Whiz Kids, the Cardinals and the 69 O's....
But do you recall, the worst baseball team of all?

Cleveland's 1899 Spiders,
played some lousy baseball games
And if you ever saw them
You would hide your face in shame

All of the local papers
Used to like and them call them names
Misfits, Orphans and Forsakens
Were some of the most tame

OK, enough attempts at rewriting the Rudolph lyrics. If you want to read good writing about a really bad, bad team, it is a moral imperative that you pick up a copy of Thomas Hetrick's Misfits!: Baseball's Worst Team Ever.

Hetrick's book follows the 1899 season where the Spiders were on the wrong side of a baseball syndicate formed by the Robison brothers. The Robisons were owners of both the St. Louis and Cleveland franchises. Following the 1898 season, the Robisons moved the majority of the talented players from Cleveland to St. Louis and put the lesser players with the Spiders.

The Spiders finished with a 20-134 record, 84 games out of first place and 35 behind the next closest team in the standings. The St. Louis Perfectos thwarted the syndicate plan by finishing 5th in the league.

A season full of hapless ballplayers struggling through game after game could be taken lightly. The Keystone Kop nature of their play would be easy to mock. For the most part, though, Hetrick takes the high road and applauds the valiant efforts, futile as they may have been, that the Spiders made.

Besides its coverage of the worst major league team in history, Misfits! also provides insight into the conditions, among them the syndicate ownerships in the league, that led to the formation of the American League two years later.

This is a splendid book that belongs in any baseball fans library. It was originally printed by McFarland Press and copies of this clothbound edition can be costly. Hetrick, however, has started his own publishing company, Pocol Press, and has reprinted the book in softcover.

Are strikeouts overrated?

2006-12-09T07:20:00.000-08:00

I have to take some time away to fully assimilate the in-depth analysis of Cal Ripken's Hall-worthiness my compatriot provided yesterday. While I do that I wanted to share some findings. I realized that the Kansas City Royals strikeout leader last season was Jimmy Gobble. He K'ed an incredible 80 (EIGHTY!!!!) batters last season.

Surprising, to me, is that six teams in non-labor stoppage seasons since 1990 have done the same thing:

2003 Cincinnati Reds led by Paul Wilson's 93
2000 Anaheim Angels (Scott Schoeneweis 78)
1997 Oakland Athletics (Steve Karsay 92)
1996 Oakland Athletics (Carlos Reyes 78)
1993 St. Louis Cardinals (Bob Tewksbury 97)
1992 Detroit Tigers (Frank Tanana 91)

Here are those respective teams' winning percentages starting with the Royals of last season and following chronologically: .383,.426,.506,.401,.481,.537,.463.

You'll also note that none of the above pitchers had much success in the following seasons.

There are two reasons that a team doesn't have a guy strike out one hundred batters. Either they don't have pitchers good or healthy enough to throw enough innings to accumulate 100 K's or they don't have someone with enough talent, either in power or command, to get that many. Or both.

For a team to succeed, they need to have a strikeout guy or at least someone with enough innings to get the opportunity. Look at what it took to get to the postseason for these teams:

1992 Tigers: It took fourteen years for the Tigers to make the postseason after their strikeout dearth. Needless to say everyone from the 1992 Tigers is long gone. The Tigers young pitching is what many people feel is what carried them to the playoffs this season. Jeremy Bonderman and Justin Verlander struck out 100+ at just age 23 while Nate Robertson got his hundred at age 28. Ancient wonder Kenny Rogers fell one short and young ace reliever Joel Zumaya missed by three.

1993 Cardinals: Donovan Osborne struck out 100 the year before and would not again until 1996, the first year the Cardinals reached the playoffs after the 1993 strikeout dearth. He would be joined by homegrown product Alan Benes who struck out 100 in his first full season with the team. His brother Andy and Todd Stottlemyre, both acquired during the pre-season also joined the hundred strikeout ranks giving them four pitchers in all.

1996 and 1997 Athletics: In 1999, the A's narrowly missed the playoffs. They had developed a pitcher in the minors by the name of Tim Hudson who led the team in strikeouts with 132 in his first major league season. The A's also got 100 from Gil Heredia, a fellow who had never had an opportunity to be a full-time starter until 1999 at age 33. The A's acquired Kevin Appier from the Royals to help make the playoff push. In 2000, all three struck out 100 as the A's reached the playoffs.

2000 Angels: Kevin Appier played a part in the quickest turnaround of this group of teams. The Angels acquired him from the Mets for Mo Vaughn before the 2002 season. Appier joined longtime Angels pitchers Ramon Ortiz and Jarrod Washburn in striking out 100. To this day I look at the 2002 Angels and wonder how the hell they became World Champions that season.

2003 Reds: They still suck. But they have Homer Bailey coming up. They have Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang. They might have some success.

2006 Royals: Gil Meche, Royal Savior. Everyone else on this list developed at least one pitcher who became an anchor of the staff. Who will that be on the Royals? Luke Hochevar?

Just some findings, no serious analysis. Take from it what you will.

What name rhymes with shoo-in?

2006-12-08T21:48:00.000-08:00

2632.
3184.
1695.
1078.
431.
19.
2.

If I may quote Marvel scribe Stan Lee in the form of cigar chomping Nick Fury, without his Howling Commandos, "Nuff said."

That was easier than bullseyeing womp rats in my T-16 back home.

The Seventh Ring of Baseball Hell?

2006-12-03T14:45:00.000-08:00

Here are the stats of two players as they played from the ages of 29-35:

Player 1:
Batting average greater than 0.296 every year
Averaged 86 runs per year
Averaged 95 RBI per year
Averaged 37 doubles per year
Averaged 17 home runs per year
Had two seasons of slugging over 0.500
Had 61 SBs
Seven-time all-star

Player 2:
Batting average greater than 0.298 every year
Averaged 95 runs per year
Averaged 118 RBI per year
Averaged 38 doubles per year
Averaged 29 HRs per year
Every season a slugging over 0.500
Had 105 SBs
Four-time all-star
Hit for the cycle
Member of 30/30 club

Player one is a hall of famer - Kirby Puckett. Player two is eligible for the first time this year, and I doubt he gets the requisite 5% to stay on the ballot - Dante Bichette. Why? He has two major prejudices working against him - playing in Colorado, and not putting up large career numbers. I would argue that he receive serious consideration though, for like Puckett, both of these things were beyond his control.

The key part of the above numbers are toward the end for both players - number of all-star selections. Puckett was a popular player, with a winning smile and the love of the major media. Bichette was a player that was aided and abetted to his numbers like a common criminal in the rarefied air of Denver. Did Kirby get points taken away for playing in a hitter's park with no weather effects (like snow during April)? No - because people liked him. Dante just faded into the background like a 13-year-old at his first junior high dance.

If you want another example of the bias - look at the MVP voting. Only four times in those years did Bichette get votes for the MVP - he did finish 2nd once, but finished 14th, 20th and 21st the other times. Puckett got MVP votes five times, finishing 2nd once, 7th three times, and 21st once. Is there really that big of a difference in their numbers to warrant that big of a difference in perception of value? Yes, defense plays a part on Puckett's value - but is it really that big of a part? Puckett had 58.4 fielding win shares for his career. Bichette had 34.1 for a difference of 24 win shares or 8 wins over 12 full years for both - less than a win per year.

If I may put words in the voter's mouths - Bichette's numbers were not impressive because he was SUPPOSED to put up huge numbers in Colorado, therefore it didn't mean anything. Strike one against Bichette.

Strike two is circumstance. Puckett got points for ending his career prematurely - injuries beyond his control. Same with Sandy Koufax. Hank Greenberg (and others) got points for not being able to play during wars. Members of the Negro Leagues deservedly got points because of the social rules which prohibited black players in the Major Leagues until Jackie Robinson busted through like a comet. What happens when you don't get a chance to start regularly until you're 29? Is that a player's fault?

Who did Puckett replace in the Twins outfield in 1984? Darrell Brown. Who was in front of Dante his first three years with California? Devon White. Chili Davis. Tony Armas. Claudell Washington. Dave Winfield. All multi-year veterans (or hot prospects) that GMs and managers have always played before young, unheralded players. It's the way of baseball. Like an injury, is that the fault of a player?

Bichette proved that given the chance he could put up Baseball Hall of Fame numbers. Unfortunately for him, he did it in a place that doesn't get any respect (Colorado) and at an age when he didn't get a chance to continue earning respect (29-35). Unfortunately, that's strike three, and he won't get another at-bat for the Hall.

The Baines of our existence

2006-12-03T07:29:00.000-08:00

For the first time in its 67 year history, the Baseball Hall of Fame is coping with the concept of player specialization and the criteria to be applied when assessing their qualifications to Hall of Fame induction. Last year Bruce Sutter became the first pitcher who was used exclusively in relief to be admitted to the Hall’s ranks. This season, another position takes center stage as a bevy of players who were designated hitters now are becoming eligible for induction.

The designated hitter (DH) is a very modern baseball creation. It was first instituted in the American League in 1973 in an effort to increase offensive output and thus, fan interest. By replacing the pitcher, usually the weakest hitting member of the lineup, with a player with greater offensive talent, fans would be able to see more runs score and theoretically have someone with a good chance of making a hit in every spot of the lineup. Purists of the game have argued that the designated hitter takes away the symmetry of the game. Before the DH, all nine players in the field also had a chance to bat. If one struggled in one facet of the game they could make up for it when they took the field or came to bat. There have been other arguments against the DH (encouraging beanball wars, causing injury to pitchers by having them pitch longer than they normally would since they cannot be removed for a pinch hitter) but there is no proof that these arguments hold water.

Although there continues to be those who would like the designated hitter to be eliminated, the position has remained for over thirty years and the DH was brought to the National League in 1997 upon the addition of interleague play. With the DH a permanent fixture of the baseball scene, it would be expected that those who perform well in the role would be accepted for their successes. Unfortunately this has not been true. The baseball writer community has seen fit to slight designated hitters as one-dimensional. This has been borne out in the Most Valuable Player voting and looks as if it will be a factor in the Hall of Fame voting as well.

This is unfortunate as there a number of great players who are on the Hall of Fame ballot who served significant time as a designated hitter. Among the players who were designated hitters, Harold Baines is the premiere candidate. No one in baseball history has played more games as a designated hitter than Baines’ 1652.

Baines falls a tad short on the numbers that are considered “automatic” induction into the Hall of Fame. He had 2866 hits, less than five percent off the magic 3000 mark. He had a career .289 batting average. His 386 home runs are impressive but not so much so as if he had added another fourteen for an even four hundred. But longevity is key to becoming a member of the Hall of Fame. Fully one-third of the players who have played 20 season in major league baseball are in the Hall of Fame. Voters are impressed by the accumulation of counting stats and the best way to achieve that is by playing a long time. Baines accumulated some impressive totals during his 22 seasons as a big leaguer.

Every Hall of Fame eligible player who has hit 350 homers, 450 doubles and 1000 walks is in the Hall of Fame with the exception of Dwight Evans and Harold Baines. Those who are in are Aaron, Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Williams, Reggie Jackson, Foxx, Kaline, Murray, Musial, Ott, Yastrzemski, Frank Robinson and Winfield. His Win Share total of 307 places him among the top 200 players of all-time.

Some of those players mentioned above played as a designated hitter (Murray, Jackson and Yastrzemski). But among Hall of Famers, only Paul Molitor has played more than 1000 games as a designated hitter. He did not become a full-time designated hitter until he had spent considerable time as a third baseman and an outfielder. It is likely that despite Baines’ totals, he will be frowned upon because of his role as a designated hitter. With any luck, though, voters will begin to view these “specialist” roles with an open mind and Baines will find his way into the Hall of Fame.

Hall of Fame analysis

2006-11-29T07:13:00.000-08:00

Every year around this time, baseball fans wait with bated breath to see who is included on the annual Hall of Fame ballot.

And every year around this time, various fans, wonks and self-professed “experts” hammer home the same thing about the same players. In the coming weeks, you’ll read about “Goose Gossage this….” and “Jim Rice that….”

People have written ad nauseum, ad infinitum and probably even ad hoc to get certain players enshrined.

This year, two candidates are shoo-ins, with Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn both first-year eligible.

But the ballot also provides some other interesting names — luminaries such as Scott Brosius, Devon White and Bobby Witt immediately jump out to me.

And that’s the point of this blog, at least for now. Over the next however many days, we will be analyzing each of the candidates on this year’s ballot and providing an argument on why they could or should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

We’re approaching this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because I don’t think anyone in his or her right minds thinks that Bobby Witt is a Hall of Famer. But this is also a way to hone our writing skills (OK, my cohorts’ writing skills, seeing as how I’m a professional and all), as well as our research and analytical skills, of which mine admittedly pale in comparison with Win-Share Boy (Jason McClain) and the Almighty Napoleon Dunklemite (Jon Dunkle).

Keep in mind that we are personally not advocating for each person’s inclusion — at least I’m not — the point is to try and see if there are any possible reasons for these people to be named on the ballot.

You’ll hear a lot about win-shares, perhaps some about VORP and also something about integrity and contributions to the game. Comments are welcome, and starting on Sunday, we should have our first post. So check back whenever you want and see what’s been written, if you agree, disagree or just have a good laugh (for which about 85 percent of the candidates will result in).

Before we go any further, here’s a quick recap of the eligibility requirements and what to consider when voting for a player:

3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
a) A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

b) Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (a).

c) Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.

d) In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.

e) Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

(These taken from the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum’s Web site, but I chose to omit the Veteran’s Committee rules).

And, here is the list of eligibles this year (note, this is not the list they will appear on the site – just who is eligible).

• Harold Baines • Albert Belle • Dante Bichette • Bert Blyleven • Bobby Bonilla • Scott Brosius • Jay Buhner • Ken Caminiti • Jose Canseco • Dave Concepcion • Eric Davis • Andre Dawson • Tony Fernandez • Steve Garvey • Rich Gossage • Tony Gwynn • Orel Hershiser • Tommy John • Wally Joyner • Don Mattingly • Mark McGwire • Jack Morris • Dale Murphy • Paul O'Neill • Dave Parker • Jim Rice • Cal Ripken Jr. • Bret Saberhagen • Lee Smith • Alan Trammell • Devon White • Bobby Witt

So, stop on by over lunch, first thing in the morning, whatever you want, and let us know your thoughts….

Game 4 ALCS

2006-10-14T17:01:00.000-07:00

Running diary of Game 4 of the ALCS.

430 Hey, the game is to start at 4:35 and the first pitch is thrown already. Have to love that Jason Kendall is leading off for the A’s. Maybe not, since he was struck out already but that is so Billy Beane. Putting your catcher leading off because he can walk.

432 I have always been a big Mark Kotsay fan. One of the best defensive rightfielders in the game when he was a Marlin and now that he is older, he’s playing a mean centerfield. Not something you see often, a guy shifting to center late in his career.

434 Milton Bradley up. Who is the best Milton in the history of the game? Thompson? Pappas? Eric?

435 Gerald Perry is the hitting coach for the A’s. There’s a guy who should have hit a lot better than he did. Nice mechanics. Fun player. Fifth in the league in batting in 1988.

437 Oh my! The Athletics score first. Granderson couldn’t catch up to Bradley’s double. Granderson is one of the worst looking fielders I have seen in some time. Always seems to break the wrong way and then have to catch up to the ball. And now Big Frank is up. If he were with the White Sox, he would draw a walk in this situation. No, I’m not bitter.

441 Oakland’s trainer looks like the manager from Major League. Just had Bradley move some whitewalls to loosen up his leg.

443 Big Frank fouls out and goes back to the dugout. Looks a little perturbed but still mostly composed. Pat Burrell drives me nuts with that. Strikes out and goes back to the dugout and tears everything up. Uh, Pat. Ease up. You strike out in one-third of your at bats. It’s the most common outcome of your playing baseball. Get used to it. You act like maybe your emotions aren’t under control. Like maybe you have heightened anger resulting from some sort of chemical imbalance in your body.

444 Get rid of him. Eject his ass! I hate fans who lean over and grab balls in play.

446 Lou Pinella doesn’t know what a GED is and he was going to replace Torre.

448 Brandon Inge should get a Gold Glove for this series. Great stop down the line and a cannon throw. Beaut. A-s up 2-0.

452 Dan Hairy-N on the mound. Looks like he got out of bed about the time Big Frank was up. Note to the A’s pitching coach….the mound is 60 feet six inches from home plate. Not 58 feet. There’s more bounces coming from A’s pitchers than Tigger.

455 Keys to the Game. A’s: Just win. Tigers: Do what you’ve been doing; win. Great analysis.

457 Ordonez stole Bonderman’s hair and glued it on to his. No other reason to explain the constant camera switching from Mags to the dugout and back and forth. Haren 24 outs away from a no-hitter.

502 Some play needs to be named for Marco Scutaro but I don’t know what. He just bounced to first on two pitches. Should that be it? He Scutaroed for the first out.

503 There should be a play named for D’Angelo Jiminez, too. I don’t think we can convince people to change the word out to D’Angelo Jiminez, though. He just grounded to second for the third Jiminez of the inning.

505 My roommate had bedbugs says the WebMD ad. Like to see the posting for that: Roommate wanted. Female, non-smoking, quiet. Must have bedbugs.

506 Creepy. A guy in a Tigger outfit in the stands on the cellphone. Must be the A’s pitching coach making a call to the bullpen.

507 Shhhh. Mike Maroth is talking about the weather. I’m glad they mic the players so I can learn more about the intricacies of the game.

510 Showing Gomez’s home run from earlier in the series. Says “There was very little doubt about that one.” There’s something for the Elias folk. Doubt percentage on home runs. So Taguchi had a Doubt Factor of 97 on his home runs. Big Frank has a Doubt Factor of 17. Gomez breaks up the no-hitter, damn it.

511 Haren throws a 37 footer for a wild pitch. Making Rick Ankiel look like a control pitcher.

512 WebMD ad again. Mom talking to her kid. “She had an ear infection…a double…was it a double ear infection?”. Yeah, come on 7 year old kid. Keep your Mom posted on your health. She’s obviously too busy to remember whether you had one or two ears infected. Leave her a message on her cellphone, please.

519 Big Frank 0 for 12 in the ALCS. He’s no Placido Polanco, that’s for sure.

521 Next half inning I’m going to note every company I see a product or ad of.

524 Curtis Granderson just looks awful. I’m looking forward to Cameron Maybin replacing him in a couple of years. Lou Pinella talks about the illusion of the strike. Billy Beane on phone to David Blaine.

525 Haren throws a fastball right down the middle for the K

527 Not buying a Chevy Silverado anytime soon. Not sure any of these companies have ad execs who have received their GED’s. Idiotic is about the best way to describe some of these ads.

528 And the Turkey Hill Advertising Half Inning begins. Chevy. Budweiser. Fox. Comerica. Tigers.com. MLB. Gatorade. AT&T. MGM Grand. New Era Cap. Jeep. Comcast. Verizon. General Motors. All companies or products viewed in game. Ridiculous.

530 Jay Payton crushes a ball for a homer. Doubt Factor 1.

534 Geez. Inge fields a ball on the second base side of the shortstop. He rocks.

540 56 major leaguers whose first and last names end in o

541 Ken Macha described as meat and potatoes and hailing from Pittsburgh. When will we hear about the sushi guy who hails from San Francisco?

542 Wonder how many bilingual switch-hitters there are in the majors.

544 Guy holds up an “eat ‘em tigers” sign. Taco Bell should hire him.

552 Kendall finally makes contact. Of course the contact was “Hey, I’m facing a major league pitcher because I’m here at fantasy camp and by golly, I’m going to get some wood on it one way or another”. Pathetic roller to short.

552 Where’s the AFLAC trivia question?

553 High fly down the right field line. Ordonez, Polanco and Guillen converged. I half expected Inge to come out of nowhere and make the play. Trying to think if there’s anyone who could rival him for favorite third baseman status. I like Rolen a bit. Zimmerman. Crede. Wright. Cabrera. None of them really grab me.

558 And Inge leads off the 5th with an infield single and takes second on third baseman Chavez’s throwing error. Inge would have made the play.

600 Granderson at the plate with man on third. I wager Granderson does not score him even with Oakland conceding Inge on a ground out. Why are they playing J. Geils’ Centerfold at the stadium? Lost my wager and he stretches it into a double. The Maybin Watch is put on hold.

604 Granderson struck out 170 times this year. The Maybin Watch continues.

605 Payton misses the dive and Monroe doubles. The Detroit crowd is alive for the first time since Kendall struck out to lead off the game. If Payton pulls up and plays it safe, it’s runners on the corners.

607 Line out double play to kill the crowd and the inning.

608 Plaque bugs? Plaque is really microscopic insects? I just don’t know that you can call a unicellular a bug. I hate advertising.

611 Frank Thomas’ favorite Halloween costume is a wrestler. Fascinating.

612 Some announcer points out that Thomas walks on four pitches and Chavez swings at the first pitch and almost hits into a double play. Not very smart. And then someone else, probably Lou without his GED, argues that it’s not a bad thing.

613 Bonehead mixup at second prevents a DP. Is it just me or does Nick Swisher look like an asshole jerk? I’m not one to judge on physical appearance but I just get that vibe.

617 Just got an e-mail reminding me that my all-time favorite horse, Hunca Munca, is running in the Maryland Million Distaff Starter. C’mon Hunca!!!! Even if the race is over already. I’m rooting for you. She was the second favorite on the morning line at 4-1. 13 horses in the race. Mile long. I don’t like it. I like her getting free early and it will be hard.

619 Mags showing himself to be the better former White Sock (than Thomas). Lines a homer, Doubt Factor 13, into the left field corner to tie the game

621 Guillen lines a single to right. Haren not fooling the Tigers at the moment. And that’s it for Haren. Macha not taking any chances in this all or nothing game.

625 Joe Kennedy in to pitch. One of my favorite ex-Devil Rays. There’s J. Geils band again. It’s like they think it’s Charge or something.

626 Chavez almost blows a play that Inge would have turned into a double play.

627 Guillen takes third on a wild pitch and is praised for his aggressive running. Of course, if he was out, he would have been criticized. I hate advertising.

629 Out to talk to Kennedy with Inge up. Inge is called “a dangerous guy”. He rocks, I’m telling you. Though that goofy facial hair thing costs him some fan points. They’re throwing to him. Kennedy bounces the first pitch. The wonderful things about A’s pitchers are A’s pitchers are wonderful things. They bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun. But the most wonderful thing about A’s pitchers is in three more innings they’ll be done.

631 Inge walked intentionally after some bad pitches.

633 2-2 on Santiago. Biggest pitch of the game right here. “Fouled away, we’ll do it again”. 2-2 on Santiago. Biggest pitch of the game right here. “And another foul ball. Pretty good battle here.” 2-2 on Santiago. Biggest pitch of the game right here. Ball way up in the strike zone. Full count to Santiago. Biggest pitch of the game right here. Fly out to left. Inning over.

635 I can’t believe they had no trivia question in this game. That’s an advertising opportunity right there. I even referred to it earlier as the AFLAC trivia question. It’s ingrained in my head.

639 What Devil Rays players have gone on to play in a World Series for the World Champion team?
Albie Lopez (1998-01) – 2001 Diamondbacks (.1 inning, 27.00 ERA. 0-1 record).
Bobby Witt (1999) – 2001 Diamondbacks (1 inning, 0.00 ERA)
Jose Canseco (1999-2000) – 2000 Yankees (1 AB)
Geoff Blum (2004) 2005 White Sox (1 AB, 1 HR)

Not feeling real good about Joe Kennedy and the A’s.

641 Jiminez is called Jiminez on strikes.

644 Kendall finally gets a hit by bouncing a shot off Bonderman’s foot. Piniella informs us that Bonderman goes “Ow!”. That’s it for Bonderman.

645 These weird cartoon ads for Charles Schwab. Don’t get them. Did I mention I hate advertising.

649 Kotsay crushes a ball just foul.

653 Granderson leads off. Shows bunt after a ball. 1-1. Not feeling good about him. Fouls off another. You can hear the crowd. MAYYYYYYYYBINNNNNNN. MAYYYYYYYBINNNNN. Lou says Granderson is playing with a lot of confidence. Hits a long fly the other way to the warning track but it’s a Jiminez.

658 Polanco shows that there is such thing as clutch, baby!!!! The real players step up in the postseason. Did you know Polanco is a career .300 hitter in the regular season? I sure as hell didn’t.

701 Kiko Calero pitching. Wow. Three of the 56 career guys with o at the end of their first and last names on the field right now. Marco Scutaro at short. Calero pitching. Polanco on first. For future playoff reference, the Mets have Julio Franco and Pedro Feliciano. The Cardinals have Davido Ecksteino but he doesn’t count.

704 Ordonez walks to load the bases. One out. Here comes Huston Street to lose the game. He’ll K Guillen but then Pudge will hit a two-run single. That’s what I’m feeling. I’m feeling all the gushing comments on Pudge being a professional and how he came to the Tigers and they lost 91 games. It’s just needed. What can you say about Carlos Guillen?

707 Jeff Suppan vs. Steve Trachsel is the pitching matchup tonight? Ugly.

708 Fouls off the first pitch. Street pausing to step off the mound and collect himself. WOW! An Ingelike play by Chavez. Fields the grounder, steps on third and throws to first to end the inning. Did not see that coming.

709 Hunca Munca went off at 5-1…..AND WIRED THE FIELD!!!!! WOOHOO!!!! Very nice!!!

712 Milton Bradley making his case for best Milton with a base hit to left.

714 Big Frank continues to be hitless with a double play ball. And Milt Pappas is not a Milton. He is a Miltiades. I can say without a doubt he is the best Miltiades ever to play baseball. Eric Milton is the only Milton to be an All-Star (disregarding middle names).

715 Jason Grilli throws four straight balls to Chavez. Does Payton have another homer in him? Not feeling it. Which means he will hit one. Ball one.

718 Two balls and Pudge goes out to the mound. 3-0. The announcers are talking about the A’s inability to play “smallball” as the source of their not being able to win in the postseason. Craziness. Eight straight balls for Grilli.

719 Swisher is up. Ball nine. Ball ten as Pudge shakes his glove at him. “Oh, throw the ball to where you put your glove.”.

720 Ball eleven. Ball twelve and the bases are loaded. There’s a mild booing. If this was in Philly, Grilli would have been hit by a battery by now.

724 Ledezma throws the first strike in ten minutes. Wow. Scutaro fouls out to end the inning.

729 Street gets a really iffy call on the outside of the plate. Most questionable call on the night and then Pudge gets punched out on a checked swing. More ugliness.

730 Both teams have walked five times tonight.

731 Wow. Another bad pitch call. This one below the knees. Fatigue settling in for Meriwether. Another strikeout for Street.

732 Inge at the plate. Can he follow Hunca Munca’s success? Nope. Grounds to short. Which means Kotsay will have to win it in the top of the ninth for a favorite to win the game for me.

737 Kielty, a switch-hitter, hits a pop fly for a Jiminez. The A’s have 5 switch-hitters on the team right now. Bradley, Swisher, Jiminez and Melhuse are the others.

738 Kendall gets a real, honest to goodness base hit.

739 The 2001 Phillies were the switch-hittin’est team of all-time. A dozen switch-hitters. Of course, five were pitchers. Talk about a useless skill. Being a switch-hitting pitcher. I hit equally poorly from both sides.

740 Kotsay down in the count 1-2. C’mon, Mark!!! Flies Jiminez.

743 Milton hits a shot that the wind looked like it might carry into the stands but Mags makes the play on the track. Still tied at 3.

746 Granderson up with one out. MAYYYYYYYYBINNNNNNN!!!!

747 Have you noticed I like Cameron Maybin a lot?

748 They throw up a figure that Huston Street has thrown more than an inning eleven times this season. That’s like saying Takeru Kobayashi has eaten more than two hot dogs five times this year. It should not be a big deal for a pitcher to get more than three guys out. That’s just sad.
749 Milton runs down a ball in the gap, hobbling all the way, to put Granderson Jiminez.

750 Base hit as a tiring Street serves up another hard hit ball.

751 Polanco hits a hard single to right. Piniella names Polanco his MVP of the series. Even though we could have four games to go.

753 Mags hits a homer with a Doubt Factor of –37. Series over. You can give your MVP to Polanco now, Lou.

No Cooperstown for Buck

2006-10-07T11:41:00.000-07:00

Cooperstown refused to admit Buck O'Neil last year after they commissioned a study to try to include many of the past Negro Leaguers not already in the Baseball Hall of Fame. I say, they made a correct decision - but probably for the wrong reasons.

Buck O'Neil was a pioneer in the game of baseball. He was a fantastic ambassador of the game. He helped to create a wonderful museum in the 18th and Vine district of Kansas City. As a contributor to the game, he belongs in the Hall of Fame, but he doesn't have the playing credentials of many of the players already there. (There are no scouts in the Hall, so we can't compare those achievements here.) So, I say if the Hall comes a callin', refuse.

Why? Because Buck already has a home in the Negro Leagues Hall of Fame, and if you want to see this great gentleman, you should have to make the trip to Kansas City. Have lunch at the Peachtree Restaurant before touring the museum. Enjoy the fantastic corn bread muffins, fried chicken, meatloaf and the wonderful sides. Then walk down the museum for the afternoon. For dinner, just a short drive down 18th Street is Arthur Bryant's - home of some of the world's best barbecue.

I would say spend the whole day at the Negro Leagues museum, but unfortunately, it is not as good as Cooperstown. It needs help. It needs more stories on placards by all of the great memorabilia. It needs more interactive exhibits. It needs more space period. If you want to get to know Buck, go to the museum - and with more support, it could rival Cooperstown with information on the game of baseball.

Listening to Joe Morgan and Jon Miller today during the Cardinals/Padres playoff game first gave me the idea, because of something Morgan said (and one of the few things with which I can remember agreeing, since he is such an established thinking guy). He said he had conversations with Negro Leaguers who never made the bigs - and they said they didn't miss a thing, which leads into the title of Buck's autobiography - "I Was Right On Time".

They had a blast competing in the Negro Leagues - and this museum chronicles those years and good times. (Maybe someday, California, home of the L.A. Stars and S.F. Seals, will have a Minor League Hall of Fame, and each section of the country will contain a shrine to the game - from the pastoral setting in upstate New York, to downtown Kansas City, to the coast of California.) Buck was the champion of those years. We should never forget him and we should bring those memories to the front. Though there is some shared history between the Negro Leagues and Majors - Buck will always be the beacon, standing tall and proud, that leads to the Negro Leagues and Kansas City and nowhere else.

20 game winners

2006-09-01T09:10:00.000-07:00

For the heck of it, the last time each of the current thirty franchises had a 20 game winner:

Angels: Bartolo Colon (21), 2005
Astros: Roy Oswalt (20), 2005
Athletics: Barry Zito (23), 2002
Blue Jays: Roy Halladay (22), 2003
Braves: Russ Ortiz (21), 2003
Brewers: Ted Higuera (20), 1986
Cardinals: Chris Carpenter (21), 2005
Cubs: Jon Lieber (20), 2001
Devil Rays: Never (Rolando Arrojo 14 in 1998)
Diamondbacks: Curt Schilling (23) and Randy Johnson (24), 2002
Dodgers: Ramon Martinez (20), 1990
Expos: Ross Grimsley (20), 1978
Giants: John Burkett (22) and Bill Swift (21), 1993
Indians: Gaylord Perry (21), 1974
Mariners: Jamie Moyer (21), 2003
Marlins: Dontrelle Willis (22), 2005
Mets: Frank Viola (20), 1990
Orioles: Mike Boddicker (20), 1984
Padres: Gaylord Perry (21), 1978
Phillies: Steve Carlton (23), 1982
Pirates: Doug Drabek (22), 1990
Rangers: Rick Helling (20), 1998
Reds: Danny Jackson (23), 1988
Red Sox: Curt Schilling (21), 2004
Rockies: Never (Pedro Astacio and Kevin Ritz 17 in 1999 and 1996)
Royals: Bret Saberhagen (23), 1989
Tigers: Bill Gullickson (21), 1991
Twins: Johan Santana (20), 2004
White Sox: Esteban Loaiza (21), 2003
Yankees: Andy Pettitte (21), 2003

Mindless Exercise

2006-07-23T12:22:00.000-07:00

I like Scott Kazmir. I mentioned that before here. Unless something tragic happens to him, he should become the all-time Tampa Bay Devil Rays leader in strikeouts sometime next month (likely against Toronto). For the fun of it, I decided to put together a list, by game, not season, of who the all-time leader in strikeouts in franchise history has been for the Devil Rays. So, of course, the first pitcher in history to strike out a batter by the Devil Rays (which happens to be Wilson Alvarez) is technically then the all-time leader in K's. Clear? Here's the progression:

Mar 31, 1998 (first game in franchise history) Wilson Alvarez 2
Mar 31, 1998 Scott Carlson (in relief of Alvarez) 3
Apr 1, 1998 Rolando Arrojo 6
Apr 2, 1998 Tony Saunders 7
Apr 12, 1998 Wilson Alvarez 11
Apr 27, 1998 Tony Saunders 23
Apr 29, 1998 Wilson Alvarez 24
May 2, 1998 Tony Saunders 31
May 10, 1998 Wilson Alvarez 36 (Alvarez proceeds to get hurt and never is the leader again)
May 13, 1998 Tony Saunders 43
Jun 1, 1998 Rolando Arrojo 63
Jun 3, 1998 Tony Saunders 68
Jun 12, 1998 Rolando Arrojo 77
Jul 5, 1998 Tony Saunders 100
Jul 22 1998 Rolando Arrojo 108
Jul 24, 1998 Tony Saunders 113
Jul 25, 1999 (one year later) Rolando Arrojo 204
June 13, 2001 Bryan Rekar 260
Sep 3, 2001 Esteban Yan (reliever) 288
Sep 7, 2001 Bryan Rekar 289
Sep 9, 2001 Esteban Yan 292
Apr 30, 2002 Ryan Rupe 305
Sep 12, 2002 Esteban Yan 349
Jun 28, 2004 Victor Zambrano 350

373 is the total Kazmir needs to pass Zambrano now. Kazmir struck out ten Baltimore Orioles earlier today to bring his total to 354. Today he passed Rupe and Yan and is now second in franchise history in strikeouts. His 10 K's now puts him on pace to become the leader in Seattle on August 7th. Once Kazmir breaks it, the total should be safe for some time. Travis Harper is next among active Rays players with 268 strikeouts.

Rock the Kazmir

2006-06-23T07:35:00.000-07:00

I'm developing a bit of a mancrush on the Tampa Bay Devil Rays' pitcher Scott Kazmir. He is quickly becoming the greatest pitcher in the history of the franchise. Of course, it is arguable that the current greatest pitcher in the history of the Devil Rays is the fellow for whom he was traded, Victor Zambrano. We're not exactly talking the Giants or the White Sox when we discuss the pitching legacy of the Devil Rays.

Kazmir is currently the fifth winningest pitcher for the Devil Rays and could feasibly tie Ryan Rupe for fourth by the All-Star break. He has nine wins this season, five short of the franchise mark for a single season held by Rolando Arrojo. (Arrojo?, Rupe? I told you the legacy wasn't there).

Rupe will probably be passed by Kazmir in career strikeouts in the near future as well as Kazmir but needs a mere 33 and 57 to pass Zambrano as the all-time Devil Rays leader.

Most amazing about Kazmir is his success at a young age. Barring injury, Kazmir will strike out 400 batters before his 23rd birthday. Only eleven left-handed pitchers have done that. The most notable is probably Frank Tanana which doesn't exactly bode well for the possibility of long-term success. On the other hand, it may just mean Kazmir is a unique individual who has the potential for a long and great career. I'm rooting for that option.

Book review #8

2006-06-15T06:39:00.000-07:00

In A Tale of Four Cities, Caillault takes newspaper coverage from Brooklyn, New York, Boston and St. Louis and portrays the exciting day-by-day story of the 1889 baseball season. The format that Caillault uses to “write” his book is nothing new in the world of baseball books. Preston Orem probably started the concept with his series of books, Baseball by the Newspaper Accounts. Gordon Fleming’s books also used contemporary newspaper accounts in order to tell the story of a bygone era. Nonetheless, this format is a great way to depict the daily excitement of two great pennant races and an important part of baseball labor relations.

The 1889 season was notable for its taut pennant races in both the National League and the American Association but also because of the labor disputes that caused John Montgomery Ward to start the Brotherhood of Professional Baseball Players who formed their own league, the Players League, in 1890. The Players League only lasted one season but the impact of the league led to the demise of the American Association a year later and left the country with a single major league until the twentieth century.

Fans of baseball in this century will note many similarities between the game today and the era Caillault covers. The biggest difference, though, which really shines through in the newspaper coverage, is the importance of the game to local culture. With comparatively limited entertainment and sporting options, and no means of global communication like we have today, professional baseball teams provided cities with a source of civic pride. This pride is evident in the coverage of the teams by their local newspapers. By using these accounts, Caillault also manages to capture the drama of the pennant races unfolding among the four teams and the passion of the fans as they root them on to the finish.

This is a terrific book for baseball fans but also for those who want to see how important a role sports played in a community in the nineteenth century. I recommend it highly.

Book review #7

2006-05-28T07:49:00.000-07:00

I wrote earlier that I felt that a lot of these regional baseball histories that I enjoy picking up so much tend to be self-published because of the limited interest in the topic matter. Thus, it was my contention, major publishers do not pick them up because they cannot generate enough revenue to make them profitable. After reading John Bell's Pickle It!, I wish to change my public opinion.

The reason publishers do not publish these regional publications is because they are poorly done. I had pretty high expectations for Bell's book because he had published a rather thorough-seeming statistical tome, The Georgia Class-D Minor League Baseball Encyclopedia. After reading Pickle It!, I'm left to wonder just how reliable a source the Encyclopedia is.

Bell introduced the book by explaining that the book's title, supposedly a term used by baseball fans to encourage a hitter to hit a home run, stems from the fact that there were pickle vats behind the fence at the Carrollton, Georgia ballpark (Carrollton baseball being the subject of the book) and fans would literally want hitters to put the ball over the fence into the vats. At no time does Bell explain what those vats were doing there. He also claims that the "Pickle it!" cheer is commonly used. In my 27 years of baseball fandom, I had never heard it before I picked up the book.

Those were just some problems I had with the introduction. Bell's book is littered with typographic errors. In addition, the text is rather dull and repetitive. The book is about 140 pages long, of which only 65 are about the history of baseball in Carrollton. In those 65, Bell touches on maybe a half-dozen items that would have merited from a more thorough exploration.

Instead Bell treats every season the same. He leads paragraphs off by inserting photocopied headlines from local newspapers. He talks about the opening game of every season in detail, as well as the playoffs. Bell might mention specifics of a couple games played each season. The most annoying aspect of his formulaic chapters are the insertion of photocopied standings followed by a redundant description of those standings by Bell.

To me, one of the most interesting things about regional baseball is the passion in the community for the game when it existed. Bell rarely covers off-field incidents and does not examine the economics of small-town baseball. He mentions teams coming and going from leagues but never details reasons.

Perhaps the individual who interested me most in the book, pitcher Buck Matthews, merita little consideration. Matthews (regularly referred to as Mathews by Bell), won his first 11 games in one season but finished with a 16-13 record and an ERA over 6. Or so the book claims. I am uncertain how a pitcher would merit regular usage if his ERA was that high. The following season, Matthews is referred to as the ace on the team. Then, mysteriously, Bell does not mention him again until the playoffs when he is pitching for the opposition! If he was the ace, why did Carrolton let him go? Did they receive anything in return? What happened to him afterwards?

The book does contain a large section of photographs, mostly posed or of headshots. Bell contains a large statistical record of all the players who played for Carrolton, a brief biographical look at those who played in the majors or who were deemed noteworthy, and some other minor factoids. All in all I found the book to be a disappointment, one that could have been remedied considerably by having someone actually look over the manuscript before it was published.

Welcome back

2006-05-11T08:24:00.000-07:00

I decided today that I was going to write on all my blogs. For some really dumb reason, I keep four blogs. I may rethink that decision since it cuts in on actual writing but sometimes it is nice to put something up for the world (or two people) to view and think about.

I had started a post back in March and just left it regarding the retirement of Kirk Rueter. Rueter was always one of my favorite pitchers. He was one of those guys who did so much with so little. Each year I always derived pleasure from looking at the STATS Major League Handbooks and seeing what goody categories Rueter would lead in. Despite having one of the slowest fastballs in the majors, he would throw it quite often. He never had a trick pitch or even a really above average second pitch. He just hit his spots and did all the little things right. He was excellent at fielding his position and holding runners. He was actually pretty good at the plate, able to sacrifice or get the ball into play better than his pitching brethren.

Mostly, he won. From 1997-2003, a time when Rueter was helping the Giants to four division titles and a World Series appearance, Rueter was 93-59, a .612 winning percentage. In games where Rueter did not get the decision, the Giants were a .566 team.

I'll miss Kirk. He was a special pitcher.

Book review #6

2006-04-07T05:59:00.000-07:00

Maybe one of these days I will write about something other than baseball books.

The most recent baseball book I have read is Trade Him! by Jim Enright. This is a unique book, published in the mid-1970's, which involved Enright contacting sportswriters from each major league city and asking them to write about the history of trades for that particular ballclub. He then compiled these team essays into the book. The appendix is neat, too, in that it has transactions involving Hall of Fame players.

Most of the essays are really good. Several of the writers explored the reasons behind the more lopsided trades (almost all financially related in some way, shape or form) and provided some behind the scenes looks at the genesis of these moves.

Some teams, such as the Astros or Expos, who had only been on the scene a handful of years, had some less than thrilling historic trades. I didn't mind that as much as the sportswriters who could not view the then-current era as being not as great as historic eras. In other words, some of the chapters spent too much time on recent trades involving third-rate pitchers who had not yet proven themselves as third-rate as being noteworthy simply because the writer felt there was potential of the trade being beneficial. Looking back thirty years later, though, you know that the trades were far more meaningless than the writer thought they were.

All in all it is a neat book and one worth taking a look at.

Book review #5

2006-03-21T17:37:00.000-08:00

Taking a break from the regional publications, I read John Morris' Bullet Bob Comes to Louisville. Morris is a former outfielder with the St. Louis Cardinals and his book is a collection of short tales from his career. There's not really anything too special in this book. Some mildly humorous tales, some mildly touching tales, but nothing that stands out as a "Ooh, you have to read this book" story. If you're a Cardinals fan and you remember John Morris, then maybe you might want to pick it up. Otherwise, I cannot really recommend it.

Book review #4

2006-03-19T13:24:00.000-08:00

In my continued quest to collect regional baseball publications, I asked for and received a copy of Pete Morris' Baseball Fever: Baseball in Early Michigan for Christmas back in 2004. Just recently got around to reading it. I had high expectations for the book because I know Pete through SABR and the caliber of research and writing he is capable of doing. My expectations were met. This book is a fascinating history of the game of baseball and its growth through Michigan during the 1860's-1880's.

Probably the best aspect of this book is Morris' examination of the role baseball played in society during this time period. Ball clubs were a means to create town pride and competitions between towns were an important part of the growth of baseball. It was interesting also to see how early games were very friendly. Being a good host to a traveling team was more important than the result of the game. As the popularity of the game grew and teams sought to improve their results, "professional" players were added, usually by offering someone a job in a particular town. Eventually this professionalism grew to the point where the Cincinnati Red Stockings formed the first professional team.

The effects of professionalism extended out to Michigan, even though it was one of the furthest west states and away from the hubbub of the major metropolitan areas of Philadelphia, New York and Boston. Another great aspect of Morris' research is his examination of how baseball spread despite being geographically removed and his evidence that contrary to some beliefs, the conclusion of the Civil War did not play much of a role in the growth of baseball, at least in Michigan but probably not elsewhere.

The only negative aspect of Morris' book is a tendency late in the book to provide details of virtually every tournament in Michigan. These tournament reviews tend to get a little dry and tedious but don't distract from the overall quality of the book. This is one of the best regional baseball books I have read and one that covers a distinctly unique time period as well as geographical area. I highly recommend it.

Book review #3

2006-02-17T05:44:00.000-08:00

Back in review #1 I mentioned how you essentially had two types of regional history. Usually they're done by someone passionate, yet not real talented in research and writing, and the book is a pretty lousy read. The other kind is when you get a writer, often a local sportswriter, who uses his journalistic skills to put together a really nice history.

The Giants of Oshkosh Baseball by Myles Strasser is an example of the latter. Strasser wrote a series of articles for the Oshkosh Northwestern newspaper and this book is a compilation of those articles. It covers the history of organized baseball in Oshkosh up until the 1950's when the minor league team, like so many others across the country that fell victim to the multitude of other entertainment options available to people through television and radio, folded.

Through a combination of interviews and solid research, Strasser puts together a lot of good information and narrates it so that it is interesting. No rote re-listing of batting averages or standings. No height and weight statements. Just solid reporting and story-telling. This is a very good history if you can find it.

Book review #2

2006-02-12T05:25:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned before, I am a long time member of The Society for American Baseball Research (SABR). As part of annual membership, you receive the publications The Baseball Research Journal (BRJ) and The National Pastime. The latter historically has been more of a history/photographic essay publication while the former has primarily been statistics and analysis.

A couple years ago, SABR got a new editor for their publications, Jim Charlton. The previous editor, Mark Alvarez, did a decent job but the publications were sort of stale. Charlton has brought some excitement back to SABR publications.

The most recent issue of the BRJ is the first that I read cover to cover. This is the 34th issue (I have 31 of them, I think) so that is saying something. This issue is geared towards analysis but does have a couple of historical National Pastime articles tossed in which gives a nice change of pace. The statistical pieces are really well done. Too often there are a number of pieces of contrived statistics where someone throws a mish-mash of numbers together to try and prove that Ty Cobb was the best player of all-time or Harland Clift belongs in the Hall of Fame or some such thing. Very little of that in this issue.

It is difficult to pick out which articles of the 23 are the best. Tom Ruane does his usual fantastic work with two pieces(!); one on the myth of clutch hitting, the other on whether reaching base on errors is a skill. The errors piece brings up more questions than it answers but certainly makes one think that it is a more likely skill than clutch hitting (not that that is Ruane's intent of writing the two pieces but the existence of clutch hitting is a topic that drives me nuts (it doesn't exist).

George Michael's Photo Mysteries are really cool. Cumulative Home Run Frequency by Gabriel Costa, Michael Huber and John Saccoman is also terribly interesting. Without getting into the morality of the steroid issue, it provides some measures that seem to indicate that something has been going on with the great power hitters of the 1990's-2000's.

Great articles abound in this publication and if you don't get a copy through SABR membership (if you're reading this blog, you should probably join SABR), at fifteen dollars, it is a bargain. That's 65 cents an article! I strongly recommend it.

Hall of Fame a Dunn Deal

2006-01-29T16:27:00.000-08:00

Sorry. Always wanted to write a corny name as a pun headline. I was reading this article about how Adam Dunn played last season with a broken hand. I've always liked Adam Dunn. He's a little guy like myself and he possesses such a unique set of baseball skills, he's fun to follow. Only 56 players in history have put together a 100 walk-100 strikeout season. Only two have done it twice before the age of 25 (Troy Glaus is the other. For his size, he runs well. But mostly, when he does hit a ball, he just pounds it.

I decided to break out an old thing of Bill James'; The Favorite Toy. It's a rough guide to determining the likelihood that a player will reach a certain milestone number in his career based on his age and his progress to date. I decided to run Dunn through the paces. According to my figuring, Dunn has an 11% chance of passing Hank Aaron as the all-time leader in home runs, a three percent chance of passing Rickey Henderson as the all-time leader in walks, and a 33% chance of passing Reggie Jackson as Strikeout King.

Given the career totals of everyone else, the number that Dunn has a 50% chance of reaching in each category would put him 93rd all-time in runs, 15th in home runs, 21st in walks, 2nd in strikeouts, 91st in OBP, 55th in slugging and 41st in OPS.

The big question with Dunn is whether he can raise his batting average. If he can do that, and stay healthy, I don't think there's much question that he will be in the Hall of Fame.

Book reviews

2006-01-23T06:38:00.000-08:00

I've been a member of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) for half my life and I own way too many books about baseball (closing in on 1000). In my late twenties, most of my reading was baseball books but over the last few years I have expanded my literary horizons. I wanted to return to reading more baseball this year and thought I would review the books I read here.

One of my particular interests in baseball books are regional publications. Books about players from a particular area or the history of the teams in a town, for example. These publications tend to be rather uneven in quality. Sometimes you luck into a really good one. Perhaps a local newspaper reporter does a little something. More often than not, however, these books are written by people with a passion for the history of baseball in their area who in all likelihood have little writing background. Sometimes these books are self-published or at best, are put out by smaller, local printing presses. Because of the specialty nature of these books, you don't have the big publishing houses with experienced editors looking over them. So you get a mix of the strength of the passion of the research tempered by some poor writing.

A case in point is Joseph DeLuca's Diamond Heroes of South Jersey. DeLuca worked on this for a dozen years and not only did he cover players born in South Jersey, he covered many who lived there at various points in their lives. The thoroughness of this book stops there. There are two types biographies DeLuca writes in this book. The type he writes is based on whether or not he interviewed the person. If he did, there is a comparatively lengthy biography, filled with the results of the same series of question he seemingly asked everybody; as the street the person lived on, how he met his wife, what he did after his baseball career was over. These facts are scattered throughout the biography in no coherent structure. An occasional baseball story is interspersed as well but for the most part, the coverage of the baseball career is limited to rote listing of his statistics from the Baseball Encyclopedia.

This is still better than the style ofbiography DeLuca writes for those players he did not or could not interview. Those biographies give the same Enecylopedia statistics plus the fascinating tidbits of height, weight, and handedness. It seems as if very little research was done through newspapers, secondary sources, or other oral histories (family members, teammates, etc.). For a book twelve years in the making, one would hope some of that time would be used to flesh out the biographies.

Still, the book would have some appeal if not for the incredible number of typographic and grammatical errors. I got the feeling as I read the book that I was the first person other than the author to look at it. There were 3-4 typos a page and an abuse of commas. It seemed impossible to read more than four words without encountering a comma. Because of all the errors it was a difficult read. It is a shame that DeLuca didn't ask someone to proof the book before he had it published.

Pitching Win Shares

2005-11-13T11:50:00.000-08:00

How would the following pitchers rank from top to bottom in Win Shares? (All of these pitchers pitched in 1947.)

ERA - 1.95; WHIP - 1.135
ERA - 2.80; WHIP - 1.273
ERA - 3.56; WHIP - 1.438
ERA - 4.32; WHIP - 1.455
ERA - 3.12; WHIP - 1.462
ERA - 3.82; WHIP - 1.479
ERA - 4.97; WHIP - 1.482
ERA - 4.40; WHIP - 1.564
ERA - 3.61; WHIP - 1.639
ERA - 3.82; WHIP - 1.658
ERA - 4.85; WHIP - 1.661

What about the following group of pitchers? (Same as above - all are from 1947.)

ERA - 3.03; WHIP - 1.272
ERA - 3.77; WHIP - 1.327
ERA - 4.38; WHIP - 1.383
ERA - 3.47; WHIP - 1.417
ERA - 3.58; WHIP - 1.453
ERA - 3.89; WHIP - 1.498

Lastly, here is another group from 1947.

ERA - 3.11; WHIP - 1.315
ERA - 3.22; WHIP - 1.321
ERA - 2.97; WHIP - 1.344
ERA - 3.48; WHIP - 1.349
ERA - 3.47; WHIP - 1.392
ERA - 4.32; WHIP - 1.419
ERA - 3.81; WHIP - 1.432
ERA - 3.64; WHIP - 1.451
ERA - 3.44; WHIP - 1.478
ERA - 4.04; WHIP - 1.527

So - of course there has to be a catch. Each of the groups above has the same number of win shares. What's kind of interesting is that the first group all have five win shares, the second all have nine and the last group all have 13. The worst ERAs and WHIPs are in the first group - but the best ones are spread out between the three - and can be a difference of eight win shares. Let's link some names and more information with these ratios. (BTW - an interesting aside - I was wanting to compare on-base average against and slugging average against for each of these players, figuring that would be a great way to compare. Unfortunately, that information is not around in the online databases.)

Johnny Rigney Chi - A 1.95 ERA; 50.2 IP; 188 ERA+
Johnny Murphy Bos - A 2.80 ERA; 54.2 IP; 139 ERA+
Earl Harrist Chi - A 3.56 ERA; 93.2 IP; 103 ERA+
Joe Coleman Phi - A 4.32 ERA; 160.1 IP; 88 ERA+
Bill Dietrich Phi - A 3.12 ERA; 60.2 IP; 123 ERA+
Bill Bevens NY - A 3.82 ERA; 165 IP; 92 ERA+
Jack Kramer StL - A 4.97 ERA; 199.1 IP; 78 ERA+
Al Benton Det 4.40 ERA; 133 IP; 86 ERA+
Hal White Det 3.61 ERA; 84.2 IP; 105 ERA+
Glen Moulder StL - A 3.82 ERA; 73 IP; 102 ERA+
Monte Kennedy NY - N 4.85 ERA; 148.1 IP; 84 ERA+

Here's the second group, all with nine win shares:

Ed Klieman Cle 3.03 ERA; 92 IP; 115 ERA+
Stubby Overmire Det 3.77 ERA; 140.2 IP; 100 ERA+
Hank Borowy Chi - N 4.38 ERA; 183 IP; 90 ERA+
Tommy Hughes Phi - N 3.47 ERA; 127 IP; 116 ERA+
Cliff Fannin StL - A 3.58 ERA; 145.2 IP; 109 ERA+
Harry Gumbert Cin 3.89 ERA; 90.1 IP; 106 ERA+

Lastly, the third group, all with 13 win shares.

Harry Taylor Bkn 3.11 ERA; 162 IP; 133 ERA+
Jim Hearn StL - N 3.22 ERA; 162 IP; 129 ERA+
Earl Johnson Bos - A 2.97 ERA; 142.1 IP; 131 ERA+
Dizzy Trout Det 3.48 ERA; 186.1 IP; 109 ERA+
Sam Zoldak StL - A 3.47 ERA; 171 IP; 112 ERA+
Schoolboy Rowe Phi - N 4.32 ERA; 195.2 IP; 93 ERA+
Kirby Higbe Pit 3.81 ERA; 240.2 IP; 111 ERA+
Mickey Haefner Was 3.64 ERA; 193 IP; 103 ERA+
Bob Lemon Cle 3.44 ERA; 167.1 IP; 101 ERA+
Boo Ferriss Bos - A 4.04 ERA; 218.1 IP; 96 ERA+

To my eye, it looks like that there is a tradeoff between time on the mound and quality of time on the mound. The better you are, obviously, the more win shares. However, if you only pitch 60 innings, that is equal to a lower quality performance of 140 innings. Kind of the same question we ask for potential hall of famers - is it better to be good for a real long period of time (or number of innings during a season) or great for a shorter period of time. Which is more valuable?

The more I look at the variety of pitchers with the lower number of win shares, the less I am convinced that it is a good measuring too for the average player. For the good and great ones it is fantastic - because you don't have to worry about players with high ABs or IPs being equal to guys with great ratios. The good and great play a lot and put up fantastic ratios. It is when they are smaller, that these problems become pronounced.

Why does this trouble me? I am drafting a team of players for a keeper league starting with the 1947 season. I exclusively used win shares to determine my draft. Out of the above lists, I have Moulder, Trout, Zoldak and Ferriss. Looking at a 37 point difference between ERA+ scores or 40 points in WHIP with the same win shares has me a bit distressed about my possibilities for success. Then again, it could be that I have the highest win shares of the teams and I will succeed no matter what the other drafting strategies. That's why we simulate the games.

Revalidate Win Shares Expectations

2005-10-31T07:12:00.000-08:00

Ok, before I start to question the whole validity of win shares after it shows that David Eckstein is the best shortstop in MLB, let's look at the MVP and Cy Young races in the NL. Why the NL? It stems from this email response that I penned on 10/4/05, before I saw any of the win share calculations. (Edited for content.)

"As a baseball fan, and a Cardinal fan, I feel that now that the season is over, it is time to weigh in on the NL races for MVP and Cy Young.

First off - HR and RBI are important stats, but they shouldn't be the end all be all. Same with ERA and Wins. However, those are the stats that folks examine the most. Right now, if that is the case, I would say that Andruw Jones and Dontrelle Willis will win the respective awards. However, I would argue for Albert Pujols and Roger Clemens. (Sorry Chris Carpenter, but the last couple of weeks took you out as far as I can tell.)

Why Albert? Two reasons - OPS and runs generated. Albert's OBP dwarfs Andruw's and Albert's SLG is higher as well - with 10 fewer HRs. So, obviously - OPS is greater as well. Runs generated (Runs + RBI - HR) are also heavily in favor of Albert. He may not have the RBIs that Andruw has, but he has way more runs which makes up for the deficit in RBIs and then some. To me, those are the important stats. (For those of you that still use the "valuable" part of this award - Rolen was out most of the year, same with Walker, and Sanders and Edmonds didn't exactly tear it up. I'm sure Atlanta has comparable offensive players to those remaining on the Cards. The Cards may have the pitching - but you still need to score to win - and the presence of Mulder and Carpenter should not take away from Pujols' offensive achievements. However, this is a separate debate, and one that I don't feel strongly about since the connotation of 'valuable' is highly variable.)

Why Roger? Whip, BAA and K/9. He beats the other two soundly in Whip and BAA and is very comparable to Carpenter in K/9 - off by only seven hundredths. Plus, he still has a sterling ERA - in a band box of a ball park. Wins are dependent on offensive support - and the Astros couldn't support a jock. The only difference is in CG and shutouts - but I would say that is more of a function of the offense as well - since an extra bat in the later innings is more important when you aren't getting any run support."

So, now let's look at the NL offensive player win shares and the NL pitching win shares. (I sorted on pitching along - I didn't want to include the negative hitting effects, since the award is for the best pitcher and not the pitcher who can also swing the bat a little bit.)

First off, Albert Pujols was the best player in the league. To me, that makes him the MVP. Now, if you are going to argue that he had other players to help him win like Jim Edmonds with 28 win shares and (shudder) David Eckstein with another 28, I think you are full of crap. Those two, as good of players as they are, do not strike fear into the hearts of men. Or women, for that matter. If you are going to argue you have to be the lone provider on a 'winning' team, you better be voting for Brian Giles - for the next closest win share total to his 35 on the Padres is 17. (Jake Peavy, Khalil Greene and Ryan Klesko.) If you try to use this argument for Andruw Jones - look at the Braves and the fact that Rafael Furcal and Marcus Giles both have more total win shares than Andruw and Chipper Jones, Furcal and Giles all have more offensive win shares. To me, it seems that Derrek Lee should be the closest in the race for the MVP - although he won't get votes since the Cubs were not a 'winning' team.

I found the NL pitching win shares to be fascinating. Clemens, Andy Pettitte and Roy Oswalt were all in the top four in the league, with Willis in second. The other surprising thing, Brandon Webb sneaks in at number five before Carpenter in sixth. The Astros had one hell of a rotation - too bad it wore out in the World Series. Anyway, the best pitcher in the league was Clemens - and the Cy Young should go to him, hands down. Now, we'll see how the voters go.

Comment spam and The Eck

2005-10-30T14:42:00.000-08:00

I was browsing our site, Rex, and saw we had a comment!!! Here it is in its entirety (minus the spammy link):

"The Jarvis Effect
Call it the Jarvis Effect. At an advertising conference today, someone asked me if Jeff Jarvis' recent rants on Dell measurably impacted sales.
I'm glad I ran across your blog. It's very good. I like it.

Sonny M.

I have a related site that focuses on symptom of depression you may like too...It pretty much covers symptom of depression related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)"

I'm sorry that your feelings towards Eckstein have led to this site being considered related to symptoms of depression. I, on the other hand, am giddy that my beloved Padres won the NL West and, oh yeah, THE WHITE SOX WON THE WORLD SERIES!!!!!!!!

I want to address the shot-putting shortstop of your Cardinals and your disbelief in the number of Win Shares he posted. But I find I cannot. The "problem" with Win Shares is that it is based on the number of games won by a team. Thus, Eckstein edges out Jeter in offensive performance as measured by Win Shares when in reality, there is no aspect of offensive production that Eckstein was better than Jeter in. But this same "flaw" in Win Shares tell us that if not for Eckstein, the Astros could well have won the Central, the Phils taken the Wild Card, and fans would be bemoaning the performance of Cabrera or Renteria or whoever might have been the shortstop who failed to perform as well as Eckstein.

So cheer up! You know he Eckstein cannot possibly match the numbers he put up this year in 2006 so you'll be able to rightfully bemoan him next season!

Uh, could I have some salt and ketchup with my crow?

2005-10-30T12:00:00.000-08:00

So, let's see if I can remember the way I analyzed the David Eckstein signing. Hmmm, oh yes, "Oh my gosh, I just stepped on a rusty nail in the middle of Antarctica, a storm is moving in, threatening several feet of snow, the wind is hurricane force, I have no more water and I had to eat my childhood pet to survive two days ago. THE ECKSTEIN SIGNING IS WORSE."

Live by win shares, die by win shares.

Let's go to the videotape, err, the 2005 win share totals for shortstops. Eckstein has 28 win shares to lead both leagues. Tied for second are Rafael Furcal and Michael Young - two younger and more heralded shortstops - at least in my eyes. I'd take either for my fantasy team before Eckstein. Wait, this is eating crow time. I'm saying I'd take two worse shortstops. Man, I have a problem.

Eckstein ranks second in batting win shares to Michael Young (see, I was right!) and just ahead of Miguel Tejada. Let me say that again. Miguel Tejada. I'm still rubbing my eyes. Former MVP and $11 million dollar player for the Baltimore Orioles ranks behind David Eckstein. Well, Eckstein did have a higher OBP.

Fielding win shares will show us the truth of David Eckstein. Nope. Fifth behind Juan Uribe, Jhonny Peralta, Furcal and Jack Wilson. This guy that heaves the ball worse than I do? Ranks ahead of Orlando Cabrera and Edgar Renteria? This has to be Bizarro Major League Baseball.

The other interesting thing - Uribe makes about $100K less. Peralta makes $2 million less in his first full year in the bigs. The others mentioned all make more. Worst signing? I think I am going to need some mustard as well.

One of the greatest

2005-09-27T19:02:00.000-07:00

The other morning I heard an announcer on the radio mention the Philadelphia Phillies' Bobby Abreu having a clutch hit. Suddenly, the realization hit me that Abreu has gone from one of the best trades the Phillies ever made (straight up for Kevin Stocker) to one of the best players the Phillies have ever had.

Entering tonight, here's where Abreu ranked on the all-time Phillies lists:

Games played: 19th (Top 5: Schimdt, Ashburn, Bowa, Taylor, Ennis)
At bats: 19th (Schmidt, Ashburn, Bowa, Delahanty, Ennis)
Runs: 10th (Schmidt, Delahanty, Ashburn, Klein, Thompson (Sam, not Milt))
Hits: 14th (Schmidt, Ashburn, Delahanty, Ennis, Bowa)
Doubles: 5th (Delahanty, Schmidt, Magee, Klein)
Home Runs: 7th (Schmidt, Ennis, Klein, Luzinski, Williams)
Runs batted in: 10th (Schmidt, Delahanty, Ennis, Klein, Thompson)
Steals: 7th (Hamilton, Delahanty, Magee, Fogarty, Bowa)
Walks: 4th (Schmidt, Ashburn, Thomas)
Batting Average: 11th (Hamilton, Delahanty, Lajoie, Flick, Thompson)
Slugging: 4th (Klein, Allen, Schmidt)
OBP: 2nd (Hamilton)

Pretty amazing. What Phillies are better than Abreu, especially if you factor in Abreu's defense? Schmidt, obviously. From there you have to make arguments for Delahanty, Ennis, Thompson, Ashburn and Klein. Maybe Cy Williams. But you have to think that Abreu is one of the top five position players of all-time for the Phillies.

Out from left field

2005-08-14T13:10:00.000-07:00

When I examined outfielders and their win shares, the first thing that struck me was just how awesome the all-time greats were. When you look at the top 10, all of them have average win shares per year of at least 27. Only Lou Gehrig and Jeff Bagwell (who would be my first base selection at the start of the 90s) in the other analyses could boast that level. Of those top 10, only one had fewer than ten thirty win shares seasons. (The exception - Joe DiMaggio with eight, who also lost 3 years to WWII. On the subject of losses to war, Ted Williams lost three full years to WWII and Stan Musial lost one. Williams also lost parts of two years to service in the Korean War. Yet, Williams still had ten thirty win shares seasons. Williams win shares before WWII - 46; after WWII - 49; before the Korean War - 34; after - 29 (with 2 and 9 in between.) DiMaggio before WWII - 32; after 24. Musial had a one-year gap between 38 and 44 win share seasons respectively.) Every one also had a high season above 40, with four having seasons above 50 (Bonds, Ruth, Mantle and Speaker). Only DiMaggio had a total below 550 (389). Mantle (565) and Williams (555) were the only ones with totals below 600. Let’s just look at the averages of these top 10.

Barry Bonds - 34.63
Babe Ruth - 34.36
Mickey Mantle - 31.39
Ty Cobb - 30.08
Joe DiMaggio - 29.77
Ted Williams - 29.21 (without the 2 and 9 seasons due to Korea - the average would be 32) Tris Speaker - 28.64
Hank Aaron - 27.96
Willie Mays - 27.91
Stan Musial - 27.45

The next highest average is Frank Robinson with 24.71 - a pretty big difference. (The difference is about the same as between Ruth and Mantle and Cobb and Musial, showing that there are even tiers among the greats.)

Frank Robinson - 24.71
Jesse Burkett - 24.31
Ralph Kiner - 24.20
Billy Hamilton - 24.07
Mel Ott - 24.00
Sam Crawford - 23.47
Kirby Puckett - 23.42
Rickey Henderson - 23.04
Pete Rose - 22.79
Joe Jackson - 22.62
Elmer Flick - 22.38
Ed Delahanty - 22.19

Admittedly, Rose could be part of the 3B, 2B, 1B or OF group, but I think the OF is where he probably belongs - though the defensive bonuses from the other positions probably help slightly. I just like the harmony of seeing him and Joe Jackson right next to each other. (Never having been a big Rose fan, I was also surprised at how well he ranked with the all time greats. He had a long career with 547 win shares, but he also had a high season of 37 and six seasons over 30. Jackson, on the other hand, could have just been warming up. He had 7 seasons over 30 win shares and a high of 39. He only had 294 total, but in his last season in 1920, his win share total was 37.) Puckett and Kiner also have relatively high averages - probably due to the fact that they never declined like the other players as they hung on for a few more seasons. Kiner only played 10 seasons, Puckett 12. Kiner was more dynamic in his short time with a high of 37 and four seasons above 30, while Puckett managed just two seasons over 30 and a high of 32. Lastly, there are three other players in this group with career win shares over 500 - Rickey Henderson (530), Mel Ott (528) and Frank Robinson (519). I think with those three, we can safely conclude personality has nothing to do with success.

Richie Ashburn - 21.93
Gary Sheffield - 21.59
Bobby Bonds - 21.57
Earl Averill - 21.54
Carl Yastrzemski - 21.22
Ken Griffey, Jr. - 21.19
Robin Yount - 21.15
Paul Waner - 21.15
Reggie Jackson - 21.14

This group is interesting for many reasons - one, it has the first guy that people would generally not assume to be a HOF quality OF - Bobby Bonds. Not only does he have a comparable average to HOFs, he had 4 seasons over 30 win shares and 302 total win shares, though his high is only 32. The second interesting thing is the person with the high number of 30 win share seasons in this group - Gary Sheffield with seven. Next was Paul Waner with six, Reggie Jackson with five and Robin Yount tied with the elder Bonds at four. The last interesting thing is that we have our first player with a high average never to have a season above 30 win shares - Richie Ashburn, whose high was 29. I’m not too sure what to think of this. On one hand, he never had an MVP caliber season by win share standards. On the other hand, he was so consistent, he had a higher average than folks with many more 30 win share seasons and still accumulated 329 total without multiple huge seasons. He is so unique, that the next person on the list not to have a 30 win share season is Reggie Smith, who averaged 19.12 a season, had a high of 29 as well and 325 total.

Roberto Clemente - 20.94
Harry Heilmann - 20.94
Billy Williams - 20.78
Larry Doby - 20.62
Ross Youngs - 20.60
Jimmy Wynn - 20.33
Albert Belle - 20.25
Al Kaline - 20.14
Zack Wheat - 20.00

I think I like this part of the list as some defensive guys are ruling the roost. (Notable exceptions, Albert Belle and Harry Heilmann.) Larry Doby had 17% of his win shares from fielding in the 50s. Jimmy Wynn had 15% of his from fielding in the 60s and 70s. Clemente had 16% of his win shares from fielding in the 60s. (By comparison, Mantle had 10% from fielding in the 50s, Musial 11%, Williams 8%, Duke Snider 16% and Ashburn 22% - WOW. )

Tony Gwynn - 19.90
George Davis - 19.90
Goose Goslin - 19.72
Duke Snider - 19.56
Sammy Sosa - 19.19
Reggie Smith - 19.12
Fred Clarke - 19.05
Earle Combs - 18.92
Harry Hooper - 18.88
Dave Winfield - 18.86
Hack Wilson - 18.67
Joe Medwick - 18.35
Lou Brock - 18.32

I think on this list we see the Dave Kingman of the 500 HR club - Sammy Sosa. I thought he would have a good year this year in Baltimore. I was wrong. I just see his win share average keep moving down. Besides the total of the HRs, he doesn’t really have any other accolades. He doesn’t have the hits of a Winfield or the steals of a Brock. He doesn’t have the championships of a Medwick (even though I don’t think that should be how you determine a HOFer - I have to admit that it is done.) Yes there are HOFers all around Sosa, but in his case, instead of seeing the high win shares and number of 30 win share seasons (42 and three respectively) as arguments for Sammy's future induction, I just see them as blips. (To be fair, Kingman only had 195 total win shares and a high of 24 - so Sosa is a lot better player.) It may just be the negative press surrounding Sosa right now - but as I am not much of the career mark folks getting in the hall (though I understand), I am not going to put up a big argument for or against Sammy - just state that his average win shares are not going to get any sunnier - even as his HR total grows. (I say this is a big group of season guys - the highest number of 30 win share seasons in this group is four by Duke Snider. Hack Wilson and Earle Combs only played 12 seasons. The rest had at least 17 seasons - with Winfield leading the way with 22.)

Al Simmons - 17.86
Tim Raines - 17.73
Jim Rice - 17.63
Willie Stargell - 17.62
Max Carey - 17.55
Willie Keeler - 17.53
Edd Roush - 17.44
King Kelly - 17.38
Brett Butler - 17.35
Dwight Evans - 17.35
Dave Parker - 17.21
Enos Slaughter - 17.00

First off, Enos Slaughter also missed three years during WWII. His win share season before he left was 37 - when he returned, 29.

Ok - which of the guys on this list deserves to make the HOF (if any)? Interestingly enough - I would argue for Tim Raines and Dave Parker- and here is why. Raines ties with Al Simmons in this group with four 30 win share seasons. Parker has three along with Edd Roush. Stargell is the only one with two, and Butler and Carey don’t have any. Raines is tied for third with Simmons, Stargell and Rice for the high season of 36 - Dave Parker and Enos Slaughter lead the way with 37. Parker had a career total of 327. Raines had a total of 390. Rice was only at 282. Evans, while at 347, only had one season over 30 win shares and it was 31. With that all said, these are very low average seasons - and very tough to argue for the hall at all.

Joe Kelley - 16.94
Jim O’Rourke - 16.94
Harmon Killebrew - 16.86
Sam Thompson - 16.86
Heinie Manush - 16.76
Fred Lynn - 16.47
Hugh Duffy - 16.39
Sam Rice - 16.35
Dale Murphy - 16.33
Kiki Cuyler - 16.22
Andre Dawson - 16.19
Jose Canseco - 16.00

I would say that it doesn’t help Dawson’s or Murphy’s chances much considering how close their averages are to Canseco’s average. The other interesting thing - Dawson never had a season above 30 win shares. Murphy and Killebrew both had four seasons over 30.

Last and least.

John Kruk - 15.60 (156 total)
Rusty Staub - 15.57 (358 total)
Chili Davis - 15.00 (285 total)
Joe Carter - 15.00 (240 total)
Brian Downing - 14.90 (298 total)
Freddie Lindstrom - 14.85 (193 total)
George Bell - 14.25 (171 total)
Chuck Klein - 14.00 (238 total)
Harold Baines - 13.95 (307 total)
Jesse Barfield - 13.83 (166 total)
Ken Griffey Sr. - 13.63 (259 total)
Lloyd Waner - 13.61 (245 total)
Chick Hafey - 13.29 (186 total)

This last list is the great way to close out the outfielders. It tells me that the HOF makes mistakes - and plenty of them - which is part of the magic. Sometimes our favorites get into the hall, when they don’t deserve it. (Go John Tudor!!) Also when we look at our favorites from our youth closer, as good as they were, and as much as we liked them, they just were very good, not great, though they will always be our heroes. (If you call me Ms. Midler, I'll kill you. Settle down Jeff Francis.)

You know, I’m already realizing I left off Willie McGee, Von Hayes, Tom Brunansky…….

So.....

2005-05-02T09:36:00.000-07:00

Say you were given a team in 1990 and were allowed to have one first baseman from that point until 2004. Who would you take?

I saw on ESPN.com that Gary Gillette had a column on why Frank Thomas is not Hall-worthy. It was an Insider column (shocked that Gary Gillette would write something for which money would have to exchange hands in order to have it read) so I'll never know what he has to say. I'm sure it's something along the lines of the last decade has produced so many superior hitters to Frank Thomas that he'll fall through the cracks. May well be. It's a crummy stance to take, though, as we have seen in recent postings.

Jim McCormick

NL First Base

2005-04-30T12:38:00.000-07:00

Ok, let's see how the first basemen in the NL fare - though I have to say that when I was compiling the numbers, I wasn't too impressed - then again to be thorough, I looked at the high first baseman win share total for every team - so I had some looks at Archi Cianfrocco and Orestes Destrade that made me think the NL wouldn't come close to comparing. Then again, we are only looking at the top three, so you won't see those names again.

1990: Eddie Murray 31, Dave Magadan 25, Will Clark 25

I'll tell you this is a fun exercise just to hear the name of Dave Magadan again.

1991: Will Clark 34, John Kruk 25, Fred McGriff 25

So begins the Crime Dog's San Diego career - and explaining why he dropped off of the AL lists. By the way, for my money, there was no cooler player at this time than John Kruk. I give Kent Hrbek the 80s. Maybe I have something for K's.

1992: Jeff Bagwell 29, Will Clark 28, McGriff 27

Mark it down, here comes Bags' run. All this for 22 IP of Larry Andersen?

1993: Gregg Jefferies 28, Kruk 25, McGriff/Mark Grace/Andre Galarraga 23

At least for a year, the Cardinals found someone that could take the place of Jack Clark. Surprisingly, for all of those hits, this is only one of two times that Grace appears in the top three.

1994: Bagwell 30, McGriff 22, Jefferies 17

As impressive as the Big Hurt is, Bagwell puts up an even more amazing total of win shares in the strike year.

1995: Eric Karros 25, Grace 23, Bagwell/McGriff 20
1996: Bagwell 41, Galarraga 25, Jeff King 22
1997: Bagwell 32, JT Snow 28, John Olerud 27

Three more years for Bagwell - and another crossover with Olerud. McGriff got his name in for the last time in the top 3 in the NL.

1998: Mark McGwire 41, Olerud 34, Bagwell 29
1999: Bagwell 37, McGwire 30, Olerud 26

That is basically three years of Bagwell, McGwire and Olerud. (McGwire had 25 win shares total in 1997 combined between the two leagues.) But, do you smell that? I think it is a cycle screeching to a halt.

2000: Todd Helton 29, Bagwell 25, Ryan Klesko 23
2001: Bagwell 30, Klesko 29, Helton 26
2002: Klesko 31, Helton 27, Derrick Lee 23

For the first two of the three years, Klesko played an overwhelming majority of games at 1B. Before and after it was a good bit of the outfield. This also marks the last hurrah for Bags in the top 3 and the first of many appearances for Helton.

2003: Helton 35, Jim Thome 30, Richie Sexson 26
2004: Albert Pujols 38, Helton 30, Sean Casey 28

Using the same assignations as Jon, here is the NL side:

Bagwell 21.5
Helton 11
Clark 6.5
Klesko 6
McGriff 5.33
McGwire 5
Jefferies 4
Olerud 4
Kruk 3.5
Murray 3
Karros 3
Pujols 3
Grace 2.33
Galarraga 2.33
Snow 2
Thome 2
Magadan 1.5
King 1
Lee 1
Sexson 1
Casey 1

Obviously the NL was more top heavy with Bagwell at this time, where as the AL has a greater cluster around the top. One last group of totals - a combined amount for the players in both leagues.

McGwire 11.5
Thome 9.5
Clark 8.5
Olerud 8
McGriff 6.83

As consistent as McGriff was for a long period of time, I think this is another mark against him for not being great and just being good.

AL First Base

2005-04-28T16:28:00.000-07:00

OK, I'm going to type as I research and see what comes of it. Season by season, the top first baseman by Win Shares:

1990: Cecil Fielder 29, Mark McGwire 27, Fred McGriff and George Brett 26

Right away a trio of overlooked first basemen. I forget that Brett moved to first when Seitzer came up. McGriff and Fielder were top first basemen.

1991: Fielder and Rafael Palmeiro 26, Wally Joyner 25
1992: Frank Thomas 33, McGwire 29, Palmeiro 24
1993: John Olerud 37, Thomas 32, Palmeiro 31.

Wow. Three 1B over 30 including Olerud's fantastic season.

1994: Thomas 25, Will Clark 19, Palmeiro and Mo Vaughn 17

Strike season and Thomas still posted 25.

1995: Thomas 28, Vaughn 24, McGwire 23
1996: Palmeiro 30, Vaughn and McGwire 29
1997: Thomas 39, Tino Martinez 27, Jim Thome 26

Thomas' total tied with Rickey Henderson (1991) for highest AL Win Shares of the 1990's.

1998: Vaughn 25, Palmeiro and Carlos Delgado 24
1999: Jason Giambi 30, Thome 26, McGriff 24

McGriff appears nine years later.

2000: Giambi 38, Delgado 36, Mark Sweeney 26
2001: Giambi 38, Thome 31, Palmeiro 25
2002: Thome and Giambi 34, Olerud 27
2003: Delgado 32, Giambi 28, Doug Mientkiewicz 20
2004: David Ortiz and Mark Texeira 25, Travis Hafner 22

A new regime in 2004.

Simply assigning three points for being top, two for second and one for third, with ties being shared:
Thomas 14
Giambi 13.5
Palmeiro 10.5
Thome 7.5
Vaughn 7
Delgado 6.5
McGwire 6.5
Fielder 5.5
Olerud 4
Ortiz 2.5
Texeira 2.5
W. Clark 2
T. Martinez 2
McGriff 1.5
Hafner 1
Joyner 1
Mientkiewicz 1
Sweeney 1
Brett .5

That run by Giambi was something else. But Thomas still ends up on top. Factor in his seasons where he played more games as a DH (1993 when he led the league in Win Shares, 1998 where his 25 Win Shares would have tied him with Vaughn and 2000 where his 34 ranked him third among 1B) and Thomas' domination is pretty clear.

Comments for Jason

2005-04-27T06:36:00.000-07:00

Been liking the Win Share analyses as they relate to eligibility for the Hall of Fame. I want to take issue with a couple things in your last post and thought I would post because 1. That's sort of the idea of this, 2. I haven't been moved to write anything related to baseball and 3. I'm still recovering from the tiger bite and need something to do.

First, what is Andre Dawson doing in that last post? 171 career games at DH as opposed to 2323 in the outfield qualifies him? The man never saw an inning at first base. I demand a retraction!

Second, you have fallen victim to that most cursed of baseball analysis fallibility, the fallacy of recency. Frank Thomas has never been a "consistently great" player. From 1991 to 1997 he put up seasons that were unparalleled. His combination of walks, average and power had only been seen in Ruth and Williams. He could have retired at age 29 and had a legitimate shot at the Hall with 257 career homers plus his astounding average.

In those seven years he won two MVP's, finished third twice in the voting and eighth the outher four seasons. Led the league in OBP four times and was never lower than fourth in the league. Was top ten in batting average in six of those seasons. Was top ten in homers in six of those seasons. 100+ runs and RBI in all seven seasons, even the strike-shortened one. For those seven years he was the best hitter in the American League and maybe the major leagues.

In the seven years hence he has developed into a more lackluster player. He strikes out more now. Doesn't hit for average and has health problems. I really think that if he had pulled a Barry Sanders and quit in 1997 his odds of being in the Hall would be greater than they are now.

As for Bagwell, I don't know that you can call two seasons consistently good. Oh wait, that's Bill Bagwell I'm looking at. Silly me. Although Bill hit .294 in his career and jeff is a .297 career hitter. Almost spooky. Jeff is consistently great. I'd be interested in seeing where he stands among first basemen in career steals. Did you know he's been a 30-30 guy twice?

Project for you and I. I'll take AL, you take NL. From 1990 to 2004, who had the best win share season for a first baseman in each season. I think that's one of the things that hurts a lot of these guys: Clark, Palmeiro, Mattingly, Grace. They were consistently the third or fourth best first baseman in their leagues. In another era, they'd be the tops but the 1990's were a great era for first basemen. Report back what you find, dude.

Cart before the Barrel

2005-04-17T12:06:00.000-07:00

I have to admit that I leapt ahead in my exploration of third basemen, since I still had some things to say about first basemen, win shares and the Hall of Fame - and more current players. I also have to say that this is an evaluation of players' stats through 2004 - not how their stats should be viewed through pharmaceutical glasses.

So - once again I used the same methodology as the past couple of weeks - I looked at total win shares, average win shares, high win shares and the number of years with win shares above 30. This time, I took the top tiers of HOF first basemen/DH (Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey, Mize, Murray, Connor, Killebrew, Greenberg, Molitor, Brouthers), added McGwire, Andre Dawson, Mark Grace, Edgar Martinez, Will Clark, Fred McGriff, Keith Hernandez and Darrell Evans - retired players who have had nice careers - and finally added Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro and Frank Thomas, current players who have already had nice careers as well. Then I threw them all into a tumbler, mixed well and here is what came out of the blender.

Here they are in terms of total win shares for their careers.
Gehrig - 489
Murray - 437
Foxx - 435
Molitor - 414
McCovey - 408
Bagwell - 384
Palmeiro - 384
Killebrew - 371
Connor - 363
Evans - 363
Thomas - 359
Brouthers - 355
McGwire - 342
Dawson - 340
Mize - 338
McGriff - 334
Clark - 331
Hernandez - 311
Martinez - 304
Grace - 277
Greenberg - 267

(Before I go any further - Dawson should probably be compared with outfielders and right fielders in particular - but since this is more about current players - I felt he fit in nicely. Plus, down the road it will be interesting to see if the same results found in comparing to first basemen apply to the right fielders as well.)

I like a few things about this total list - in particular how high Bagwell, Palmeiro and Thomas are already up the list - and the way Clark, McGriff, Dawson and McGwire flank Johnny Mize. If we were to just look at total Win Shares - it would be hard to argue against Clark and all those above him. But, the quality of those seasons is how the chaff is separated from the thousands of websites using this cliche. Maybe I should try starting how the monkey is separated from the banana. Onto the average per season!

Gehrig - 28.76
Bagwell - 27.43
Thomas - 23.93
Mize - 22.53
Clark - 22.07
Foxx - 21.75
McGwire - 21.38
Murray - 20.81
Greenberg - 20.54
Palmeiro - 20.21
Connor - 20.17
Molitor - 19.71
Brouthers - 18.68
McCovey - 18.55
Grace - 18.47
Hernandez - 18.29
McGriff - 17.58
Evans - 17.29
Martinez - 16.89
Killebrew - 16.86
Dawson - 16.19

WOW. I remember when I first made this spreadsheet and looked at the top five I was astounded. I still am. But, as I remember Matthew Lillard saying in Scream - here's the best part. You add those in the top five - Gehrig no longer holds all of the top marks by his lonesome. The top win shares year - Gehrig and Clark are tied with 44, Bagwell, Foxx and McGwire all have a season of 41 and Thomas and McCovey have a season of 39. As for the number of thirty win share seasons, Gehrig still leads, followed by Foxx, Mize and Greenberg, but Bagwell and Thomas now join McCovey and Killebrew with four 30 win share seasons and Clark and Palmeiro join McGwire, Connor and Murray with three.

So - with the addition of all of these players - how did the final rankings turn out?

Gehrig - 4.5
Foxx - 15

Same as before. Just a bigger gap between the two due to the excellence introduced.

Jeff Bagwell - 19
Frank Thomas - 27

This still floors me. I think I have to believe Andy "Oil Can" when he says I have a St. Louis bias. I always thought that McGwire was a HOFer and the best first basemen of his time - I'm not sure the stats bear that out. Of course, both of these guys have a couple more years to put up sub par numbers, but still, I didn't think of these two as hall material because they didn't set any major milestones yet. They've just been consistently great for a number of years.

McCovey - 32
Mize - 33.5
Clark - 34.5
Murray - 34.5
McGwire - 35

Interesting how McGwire moves down the list with the introduction of his peers. It also is interesting that Clark is on par with McGwire - the bay area sluggers appeared on the 4/4/88 cover of SI, played on the same 2000 St. Louis team, and are almost the same when looking at the hall from the view of win shares.

Connor - 40.5
Killebrew - 42.5
Greenberg - 44.5
Palmeiro - 45
Molitor - 46
Brouthers - 50.5

Palmeiro also looks to belong. Maybe not as strong of a candidate as the others in terms of win shares and win share quality, but he certainly has the career stats like Killebrew and Molitor who join him on this list.

Evans - 62.5
Hernandez - 65
McGriff - 69.5
Martinez - 71
Dawson - 75.5
Grace - 76.5

Unfortunately, as cool as these guys are, none look to be Hall material. They had good long careers with the operative word being good. The interesting thing is that the HOF analysis on baseballreference.com (see the links above for the players) give a lot more credit to the long careers and McGriff, Dawson and Martinez all appear to be Hall material by the standards listed at the bottoms of their individual pages. Clark is not listed as one according to those standards and his similarity scores. Gracie and Keith are listed as the most similar - so they got that going for them. Hey - they're Mark Grace and Keith Hernandez and they don't have to worry about slump-busting anymore.

Third Basemen

2005-04-09T11:04:00.000-07:00

So, a friend asked me the question - "Should I really listen to all of these Chicago hack writers and believe that Ron Santo belongs in the Hall of Fame?" So, I pondered. When that didn't get me very far, I grabbed my copy of Win Shares and said, "Let's take a look at the numbers!" And I did. Here they are.

First, I looked at Hall of Fame Third Basemen (minus Negro Leaguers Ray Dandridge and Judy Johnson since I don't have Win Shares numbers for this analysis.) Then I added Ron Santo to the comparison. For good measure, I wanted to look at Dick Allen (since he is also on my Gott team) and Ken Boyer as well - two third basemen that were contemporaries of said Santo. So, the first thing in my mind to examine is the total number of Win Shares that each of these third basemen accumulated. Here is that in a nice column form.

Mike Schmidt - 467
Eddie Mathews - 450
George Brett - 432
Wade Boggs - 394
Brooks Robinson - 356
Dick Allen - 342
Ron Santo - 324
Frank Baker - 301
Ken Boyer - 279
Jimmy Collins - 274
Pie Traynor - 274
George Kell - 229
Fred Lindstrom - 193

I think the total number of Win Shares always sets the stage. Kind of like a big curtain - that slowly separates to reveal more of the story. In this case - as in the first base analysis - it is the Win Shares per season. Here is that group of numbers.

Eddie Mathews - 26.47
Mike Schmidt - 25.94
Frank Baker - 23.15
Dick Allen - 22.80
Wade Boggs - 21.89
Ron Santo - 21.60
George Brett - 20.57
Jimmy Collins - 19.57
Ken Boyer - 18.60
Pie Traynor - 16.12
Brooks Robinson - 15.48
George Kell - 15.27
Fred Lindstrom - 14.85

For the final parts of my analysis, I looked at the number of 30 Win Share seasons (Schmidt led the way with nine, followed by Mathews at eight, Allen and Boggs with five each and Baker, Brett and Santo with four each. All the rest had one or zero) and the high season win share (Allen had a 41 Win Share season, Schmidt, Mathews and Baker were all next with 39.) Then ranking each of these categories one to thirteen and summing them up per player, I got the following list.

Schmidt - 7
Mathews - 8

Obviously just by looking at the lists, this was obvious. Plus, students of the game usually start and end conversations about the all time best third basemen with these two players. However, the next group would also have some votes for best all time, especially if you were a deadball era fan.

Allen - 14.5
Boggs - 19
Baker - 20
Brett - 22.5
Santo - 24

I could also see Boggs and Brett on the top of some people's list as well. Obviously both Santo and Allen represent themselves well in the company of the other third basemen. Here is the last group (although I could see it being broke into two groups - I'll keep it one for brevity's sake.)

Robinson - 34.5
Collins - 35.5
Boyer - 38.5
Traynor - 45.5
Lindstrom - 45.5
Kell - 49.5

I think it would be safe to say that looking at how Santo and Allen compare to Hall of Famers that both belong there. I would ay that Allen being left out might be a bigger crime than Santo - but since he was that generation's Barry Bonds (or as this website describes him as Dennis Rodman) and he played a good part of his career at first base and DH - I would doubt he ever makes it - deserving or not. Santo has more popularity - and has just as good of stats - makes him more of a possibility - but the fact that his similarity scores (see explanation - a formulation also created by Bill James) don't put him with any HOFers - it may take a bit before Win Shares hits the mainstream and the Hall invites him into its corridors. (Here is Dick Allen's page - same problem.)

Alas, Ken Boyer, I can't say the same for you. Yes, he compares favorably with other third basemen in the Hall of Fame and exceeds most major leaguers, but just because good players are in the hall doesn't mean there should be another - it should just be reserved for the great ones.

McGwire Correction

2005-03-28T22:15:00.000-08:00

As I was sitting around today thinking, as I am wont to do, I thought, wait a moment - comparing McGwire to Bonds is a bit unfair. I mean, if only players as good as Bonds made it into the Hall of Fame, it would be a club more exclusive than my bedroom.

So, I thought to myself, I should compare McGwire to the other first basemen in the hall before judging him so harshly. Just like looking at his numbers compared to Bonds, this surprised me as well. When I think of first basemen, I think of the strongest offensive position in the game. Either the Hall doesn't represent that, or McGwire is really one of the best all time. But, let's get to the analysis and let you judge for yourself.

First off, there are 20 first basemen or DHs in the hall. I took out Buck Leonard since I don't have win shares information for him and added McGwire to the comparison. Then, I looked at four categories: total win shares, win shares per season, high win share season and number of 30 win share seasons.

As we saw in my last post, McGwire had 342 total win shares, a high of 41 and three seasons of 30 or more win shares. Compared to Bonds that was extremely average. But, in the context of the other first basemen, it was pretty decent - but the big category where McGwire shined was WS per season. Here is the list:

Lou Gehrig - 28.76
Johnny Mize - 22.53
Jimmie Foxx - 21.75
Mark McGwire - 21.38
Eddie Murray - 20.81
Hank Greenberg - 20.54
Roger Connor - 20.17
Bill Terry - 19.86
Paul Molitor - 19.71
George Sisler - 19.47
Dan Brouthers - 18.68
Willie McCovey - 18.55
Orlando Cepeda - 18.24
Cap Anson - 17.32
Harmon Killebrew - 16.86
Jim Bottomley - 16.13
Jake Beckley - 15.90
Tony Perez - 15.17
Frank Chance - 13.94
George Kelly - 12.06

Not looking closely at the others to give you details, I just know that McGwire's first year was one win share, his last was eight and he had two in the middle of only six win shares. The fact that the other 12 seasons brought him up to fourth place is pretty impressive.

(Here I'd like to make a note - it should be obvious, but Lou Gehrig led every category. By a wide margin. He had 12 seasons with over 30 win shares. His high was 44. He had 489 total. Next high in those categories were Jimmie Foxx with eight 30 win share seasons, Foxx and McGwire at 41 for a season, and Eddie Murray with 437. The average you can see above.)

If you take all of the categories and rank them 1-20 with equal weights here is what you get:

Lou Gehrig - 4
Jimmie Foxx - 10.5

To me this is the first group. These guys are the elite at their position. Like Ruth, Bonds, Cobb, Mays and Aaron in the outfield. Here is the second group:

Mark McGwire - 26
Willie McCovey - 26.5
Johnny Mize - 27
Eddie Murray - 29
Roger Connor - 29.5
Harmon Killebrew - 32.5
Hank Greenberg - 36

I include Greenberg in this group since he lost some of his best years to the war. But, truthfully, he belongs there with his limited playing time. Third group:

Paul Molitor - 42
Dan Brouthers - 42.5
Orlando Cepeda - 49.5
Tony Perez - 50
Bill Terry - 50.5
Cap Anson - 54.5
George Sisler - 55.5
Frank Chance - 58

Last group:

Jim Bottomley - 68.5
Jake Beckley - 69.5
George Kelly - 78.5

So, as you can see, McGwire is among elite company. Of course, that is assuming we keep the post steroid numbers. But, even if we downgrade those numbers, there is still something special about him - in context.

Steroids and the Hall

2005-03-27T11:10:00.000-08:00

Ok, Jon and Andy (along with a horde of our minions) were discussing the steroid controversy earlier this week and whether or not players would merit the hall if the stats after steroids wouldn't have existed. (Well, truthfully, I was more interested in discussing the Congressional and media coverage at the time, but it got me thinking. Which is always dangerous. Especially to rabbits.) So, last night, I decided to whip out my volume of "Win Shares" and see where each of the players were in terms of win shares at the end of each year and whether they would merit the hall at that point. I have to give Andy his due. We was spot on with relation to Bonds. I also have to give him credit for saying McGwire's early career would not merit election. I may have to take him one further - and say that his whole career may be a little lacking.

So, let's start at the beginning. Would Bonds and McGwire make the Hall if their careers would have ended after the 1996 season? Why 1996? Three reasons.

1. This is between the years where I have heard the steroids started. I have heard cynics say as early as 1994. I have also heard 1998 - the year McGwire broke the home run record. I figured I would compromise.

2. This represents for both athletes 11 years since their debut in MLB. Kirby Puckett and Sandy Koufax both made it to the hall with excellence in twelve year careers and Hank Greenberg made it with only 13 (but war reasons shortened his time as well.)

3. (And the real reason I chose it) This is the first year that I feel Barry Bonds would make it to the Hall of Fame.

At the end of the 1996 season, Mark McGwire had 218 win shares - or the same as Kirk Gibson over the course of his career. A good career, but not Hall of Fame. Barry Bonds had 348 win shares. This put him on the level of Lou Brock - a Hall of Famer. To me, even more telling, at this point in his career, McGwire had only one season where he had at least 30 win shares - his rookie season of 1987. (He had exactly 30 win shares.) MVP type seasons are defined as those over 30, where 20-29 are all-star seasons. He had six more of these. Again - more like a good solid Kirk Gibson than a Hall of Famer. On the other hand, Bonds had six seasons over 30 win shares by 1996. (37, 37, 41, 47, 36 and 39.) He also had four all-star type seasons. Only his first year (1986) where he had 15 win shares was not at least an All-Star season. I would be hard pressed to argue that is not Hall of Fame at that moment.

But, let's continue to look at the picture. By the end of 1997, Bonds had 384 win shares - same as Rod Carew. 1998 got him to 418 - Dave Winfield is at 415. 1999 matched him with Eddie Murray at 437. 2000 saw him pull past Mike Schmidt - 469 to 467. Bonds has ended 2004 with 13 seasons over 30 win shares and a total of 658. This is third to only Babe Ruth (756) and Ty Cobb (722). I don't think I hear anyone saying Bonds is not a great player (if they are saying that, they should be beaten with a riding crop - well, unless they like that kind of thing) but this is just one of the many proofs for that as well as adding fuel to the fire of being the greatest ever. (To round out the top players, Honus Wagner has 655, Hank Aaron has 643, Willie Mays has 642, Cy Young has 634, Tris Speaker has 630 and Stan Musial has 604 - the only players with over 600 win shares.)

McGwire had 243 win shares at the end of 1997, bringing him even with Jay Bell and Albert Belle. (No relation.) 1998, his record setting season, brought McGwire to 284, one behind Chili Davis and nine behind Mark Grace. 1999 saw his total grow to 314 - same as Bill Dickey, Edd Roush and Pee Wee Reese - all Hall of Famers, but at more strenuous defensive positions. 2000 brought him even with Nolan Ryan and Jim McCormick. (Had to look up Jim in Baseball reference - a 19th century pitcher from Scotland with 265 wins in 10 years.) Finally, McGwire's last year of 2001 brought him exactly even with Dick Allen at 342 win shares. McGwire had only three seasons where he had over 30 win shares. (McGwire's career total, let me point out, was lower than Bonds' 1996 total.)

After looking at these numbers, knowing McGwire's era and the reduced value of the home run, I would be prepared to go one step further than my buddy Andy and say that McGwire doesn't belong in the hall at all - steroids or not. I used to think that he wasn't a one dimensional player, that his on-base average made up for his other deficiencies - but I don't know if I can say that anymore. For, when you look further at today's modern players, if you include McGwire at 342 win shares - what about the following folks?

Jeff Bagwell - 384 win shares
Rafael Palmeiro - 384
Darrell Evans - 363 (albeit in 21 seasons compared to McGwire's 16)
Frank Thomas - 359
Fred McGriff - 342
Andre Dawson - 340
Will Clark - 331
Keith Hernandez - 311 (Of course Jon would tell you he should be there already)

(Of course, in his defense, I have to list Orlando Cepeda at 310 win shares is in the Hall of Fame.)

Call me cynical, but I don't think of these players as Hall of Famers. I think of them as great players that were fun to watch - but nothing special. (I'll also say I don't remember Keith's play in the field to head off a cutting response from Jon.) McGwire also brought me a lot of joy as a Cardinals fan in 1998. But, in this time of inflated offenses, it may be time to scale back on what we view as career levels necessary for induction. Maybe 600 should be the new 500.

Anyway, Bonds is clearly the man. To remove him from Cooperstown, you'd have to establish that he started steroids after 1994 - when he had only nine seasons and 273 win shares - one more than Jose Canseco in his career - and we all know he is not Hall of Fame material. Steroids or not.

584

2005-02-04T13:40:00.000-08:00

$584 million.

$584,000,000.

Five hundred and eighty-four million dollars. This is the amount Washington D.C. plans to raise to pay for a new stadium for the Washington Nationals. Why? Why do this for Major League Baseball and the new owners of the team? The argument that you heard and will continue to hear on this issue is that the team will bring jobs and many other positive benefits to the community - externalities in the economic world. The Nationals are a public good. Therefore, it falls to the local governments to pay for the right to reap all of these benefits that come from MLB putting their public goods in a community - by ponying up money to build a stadium.

The first question - are the Washington Nationals a public good? I would argue yes. Anyone can listen to a game on the radio, watch it on TV or just follow highlights in newspapers or television and doing so does not harm anyone else's ability to do so - if I am watching Nationals 24-hours a day, others can as well. (Non-rivalrous.) At the same time, it is impossible to prevent people from following the team through means already available to them as mentioned above. (Non-excludable.) However, the team can capture some of these benefits - by selling rights to air games on TV and radio (which they recoup with advertising). They cannot charge the media for allowing them to cover the game - so the public can still follow a team and have enjoyment without the owners benefiting. (Though if you can bring the public to your paper or broadcast by how you cover a team, you can reap some of those rewards through advertising dollars - bringing money to more people - and more of that public benefit.)

The next question - is a stadium a public good? I would emphatically say no. You can exclude people by selling tickets. If a person is sitting in a seat, that means you can't sit in that same seat, unless you are both not that big, very comfortable with each other and the usher is busy talking to that cute blonde down in the front row with the cotton candy.

So, you can't have a beneficial public good team, without a private good stadium. The question then becomes are the benefits of the public good enough so the public should provide a private good?

Obviously there will be an increase in jobs that connect to the stadium - concessions, tickets, parking, security. I would contend that this will just be a switch from other areas - for the entertainment dollar is not unlimited - people will change from another venue, whether it is sports (Redskins, Capitals, Wizards or Orioles), movies or other entertainment options. (Though I doubt that baseball and ballet are even somewhat close to being substitutable.) The good folks in D.C. may not care about business taken from the Orioles, but if the settlement reached with Peter Angelos is tied to the business he does, it could increase operating costs for the Nationals (and other teams) and cause ticket prices to rise - crowding out more entertainment if people still choose to go to Nationals games. This is before the increased taxes on "big business" to fund the stadium. With those increases in taxes to fund the stadium - what impact will that have on the bottom line costs and the jobs of people at those companies? (It's so nice we have big business in the U.S. to tax because they make so much money and we can increase their costs and wait.....why are you going to Mexico? Come back!)

Then there are the obvious benefits like rent (article also discusses the tax plans to recoup costs) detailed to be about $5 million a year in RFK. Let's say that rent doubles to $10 million a year in the new stadium. Just on that alone, it would take over 50 years to pay for the stadium. How long did Busch Stadium last? Riverfront? Three Rivers? The Astrodome? Veterans? Kingdome? Obviously some lasted longer - and maybe the new stadiums will have longer lives than those created under infatuations with domes and multi-use stadiums in the 60s. Maybe they will keep pursuing private financing and find some to cover the costs. They might get $100 million for the parking concession. In the end though, most of the costs will be paid through the taxes and the rent.

Maybe the city will see huge benefits in the time it takes to pay for the stadium. Maybe the dollars of revenue from ads, restaurants and other businesses linked to the stadium will benefit the general populace. Maybe the general public won't have to pay any of these costs directly or indirectly. My two cents say the only real winner is MLB and the new owners. If it ever stops being that way - hello Portland Hoods or Las Vegas Lizards.

My Nemesis

2005-01-29T13:00:00.000-08:00

I think I have been shocked into hiding by the signing of one David Eckstein. Once that happened, my view of the Cardinals deteriorated rapidly. I thought it was shrewd not to sign Mike Matheny - there was a capable backup and that money can go to pitching. I thought it was shrewd not to sign Edgar Renteria - a great player, but due to the overvaluing of SS, way too expensive @ $10 mil per. I thought it was fantastic to resign Matt Morris for $2.5 million - because he is still relatively young, and if he is healthy he can have a huge upside. Morris signed for one million less than Woody Williams - and is eight years younger. I have definitely come around to the Mark Grudzielanek signing, even though as a part-time Dodgers fan, I still don't trust him. But, for only $1 million dollars, he is a capable bat and decent fielder - possibly even an upgrade over Womack.

I also like the Mark Mulder deal. Now we can have X-Files commercials to promote the Cardinals. I think that Billy Beane got a lot of talent for Mulder, but for a true ace like him (if healthy) it is a very small price, both in terms of the talent traded and the amount of money he makes for the next two years. Then again, when it comes to pitching there are no guarantees. Mulder could be injured and Haren and Calero could be the next Andy Pettite and Mariano Rivera. I think it was a good calculated chance, though if I had my druthers, I think I would have preferred keeping the young talent. However, I won't complain about that trade.

What I will complain about, and complain from the top of the rooftops and the shores of Tripoli, is that the David Eckstein signing has to be the WORST EVER. No ma'am, I am not prone to hyperbole. WORST EVER. Where is the comic book guy when you need him? WORST EVER. Given a choice between a seasick crocodile and Eckstein, I'll take the seasick crocodile. WORST EVER. Simeon and Sammie Haley have nothing on David Eckstein. WORST EVER. Oh my gosh, I just stepped on a rusty nail in the middle of Antarctica, a storm is moving in, threatening several feet of snow, the wind is hurricane force, I have no more water and I had to eat my childhood pet to survive two days ago. THE ECKSTEIN SIGNING IS WORSE.

Ok, let's look at a couple of things. Where does David Eckstein rank defensively in terms of Win Shares? 24th out of all the shortstops. Where does he rank offensively? 26th. Total? 25th. WOW, that's a peach, hon! All this for only $3.4 million a year? Oh my gosh, where can I get one? You know, as successful as Elmer J. Fudd was, he owned a mansion and a yacht, he never had a bright new shiny Eckstein.

Am I being hard on the little hustler? He works so hard and positions himself so well, maybe I should respect him? This has nothing to do with respect. I am sure the little fellow is nice and able to take care of himself. I bet he even goes to the store on his own to buy his groceries. But, let's look at the money. THE FREAKISHLY large amount of money spent to get this man with the size and mobility of a garden gnome. He is paid just under Mike Matheny - at least Matheny is EXCELLENT at something - he is just about the best glove man behind the plate right now.

I can't go on. You can look for yourself at the players signed for less than Eckstein here. Highlights are Pokey Reese and Craig Counsell who signed for less than half of Eckstein. I think this was a panic signing. Yes, I am sure it will be fine with the rest of the team, but the first bad move always seems to lead to more. I mean, look at the Royals.

Where'd everybody go?

2005-01-28T10:27:00.000-08:00

Regular readers of this site (of which there are none) may have been wondering what happened. It's been about three weeks since anything has been posted. Where's the baseball insight? Where's the controversial opinions? Where's the waste of space that the internet has opened in abundance to anyone who wants?

I don't know about other folks' waste, but us here at Dexy's Midnight Maas have been busy with a Diamond Mind baseball league. Well, that's the Can's excuse. He runs the website and has been doing a terrific job at it. Jason lets his job prevent him from using the internet during the week which leaves his Sunday cafe jaunts as his time to write. Me? I've been working on offline baseball projects which I'll share someday.

Nonetheless, the league has been a lot of fun and very interesting so far. The Can simulates three days of games every weeknight and posts the results on the website. The twelve owners in the league are scattered across the countryside so we communicate via e-mail and keep abreast of the season through The Can's work.

Being as we are all scattered and many of us have families and all of us have about two billion other things going on in our lives, we found it difficult to establish a time to hold a draft or auction. We decided we wanted to do an auction to bring in the extra element of putting a value on talent.

An aside....we ran a league last winter which The Can completely dominated. We had a vast number of players from which to select and we all sort of lost interest rather quickly into the season. We limited the talent pool this time to 45 historic teams which made player selection a bit more challenging.

Having a more limited pool, we turned to determining how to distribute said players. We wanted an auction but we couldn't meet to do it. We decided on everyone submitting a player for auction each day and then maximum bids being made by everyone on each player that the owner desired. For example, maybe I suggested Roberto Clemente as a player. Maybe five owners had an interest in him. Each submitted how much they were willing to pay based on desire for the player, positional needs, players remaining, money remaining and value (and maybe some other criteria). Since no one knew how much anyone else was bidding, it made the process much more challenging, especially early on. You didn't know whether you were bidding too high, too low, or right in line.

Thirty games into the season, we still don't know. One of the fun parts of this league is that it pits players from different eras against each other. Since we're using a higher caliber of opposition than a player would normally encounter, performances are modified in that manner as well as era. We also have different stadiums than what were used by each player in real life. That creates variability as well.

Thirty games in and all three of us have winning records. More notably, in terms of run differential, The Can leads the league, I am second, and Jason is 4th (of 12).

I had a strategy going in that I fouled up. I went with an all lefthanded lineup, batters and pitchers, with an intent on playing in a home stadium that favored lefties, thereby improving my chances at home while diminishing my opponents. Only I didn't research the stadium factors well enough and chose a really poor season of Yankee Stadium. Fortunately, I drafted a fairly talented team and we've overcome my error. It has been very interesting seeing how a team can do that completely throws the idea of lefty-righty platoon advantage out the window. If a right-handed batter is up, I cannot bring a righty specialist in from the bullpen to pitch to him.

The one exception is one of my starting pitchers, Jim Rooker. He bats right-handed and batted very well for the season of his I am using. I have him set up as the pinch-hitter against lefties. He is 0-3 this season in that spot so it is too hard to tell if there is any benefit/loss to doing this.

It seems like everyone is enjoying this season more than last and hopefully that continues.

GOTT Baseball

The rotation that time forgot

2005-01-07T10:09:00.000-08:00

With the Yankees recent potential trade that has almost gone through for Randy Johnson, many folk, including ESPN.com, have been proclaiming the Yankees as having one of the best rotations ever. Johnson will be joining Mike Mussina, Carl Pavano, Kevin Brown, Catfish Hunter, a robot clone of Whitey Ford and Tommy John, who in an effort to revive his career, had Curt Schilling surgery performed on his ankle.

ESPN went so far as to list some of the all-time great pitching rotations ever. While actually touting a White Sox rotation (the 1964 staff of Gary Peters, Juan Pizarro, Joel Horlen and John Buzhardt) one of the more historic staffs garnered nary a mention.

The 1920 White Sox were a talented team. After dominating the American League in 1919 they lost the World Series in what soon became known as the Black Sox scandal. The Sox would continue their dominance in 1920 but late in the season, owner Charles Comiskey benched several players involved in the scandal which led to the White Sox finishing two games behind the Cleveland Indians in the standings.

The rotation that season set a mark that has only been equalled once in history. The four members of the rotation each won twenty games apiece. The 1971 Baltimore Orioles would also match that mark. Furthermore, the staff was poised for even greater success if not for the suspensions of the eight members of the team accused of being involved in fixing the World Series.

The 1920 staff was led by Urban "Red" Faber. Faber had established himself as one of the top pitchers in the league but was limited in role during the 1919 season because of injuries. In 1920, he started more games than any pitcher in the league and was one of the top pitchers, going 23-13 with an ERA of 2.99. Faber continued on as a successful pitcher, spending twenty seasons in all with the White Sox, winning twenty games four times before being elected to the baseball Hall of Fame.

The number two man was young southpaw Claude "Lefty" Williams. Despite an ERA near the league average, Williams posted a 22-14 record at the age of 27. The diminutive pitcher (a listed 5'9", 165 pounds) had established himself as one of the premiere control pitchers in baseball, throwing a difficult curve that was able to drop in at the batter's knees. After his suspension from baseball, Williams operated a bar in Chicago where he played semi-pro baseball for many years. His 82-48 record is the highest winning percentage of any White Sox pitcher in history.

Whereas the career of Lefty Williams was shortened and the potential greatness unrealized, the same can not be said of Eddie "Knuckles" Cicotte. In 1920, at the age of 36, Cicotte went 21-10, winning 20 games for the third time in four seasons. He also three 300 innings for the third time in four years. With his advanced age (he would have been the second oldest pitcher in the league in 1921), there is a question of how much longer the chronically sore-armed pitcher would continue. Cicotte's success was as much psychological as physical, though. Cicotte was one of the last pitchers who legally threw a "shineball", a pitch where the application of shoeshine to the ball would cause the ball to move with an unexpected trajectory. Like the legendary Hall of Famer and spitballer Gaylord Perry, Cicotte was as successful not throwing the pitch as he was doctoring the ball. With feints and gestures Cicotte would keep opposing batters guessing as to whether or not the shineball was being thrown. Add in the knuckleball which earned him his nickname and Cicotte had a reperotire that did not involve taxing his arm. He may have been able to post several more years which may have made him a candidate for the Hall.

The fourth and final member of the rotation was Dickie Kerr. Kerr is known mostly for winning the third and sixth games of the 1919 Series and wreaking financial havoc amongst those involved in the fixing of the Series. Kerr, 26, went 21-9 in 1920. In 1921, with Williams and Cicotte gone as well as star players Buck Weaver, Joe Jackson and Hap Felsch, Kerr was thrust into the role of the number two starter behind Faber. With a decimated defense and a lack of offensive punch, the Sox finished seventh in the league with a 62-92 record. In the offseason, Comiskey offered Kerr a new contract with a five hundred dollar paycut (in a time when a pitcher of Kerr's service likely earned about $2000 annually). Kerr refused to sign and sat out the season. Despite not being involved in the Black Sox scandal, Kerr still found himself blacklisted for his refusal to sign. He played semi-professional baseball for several years before negotiating a return to the White Sox in 1925. Kerr appeared in twelve games before retiring.

It's difficult not to wonder the what-ifs of this group. Faber, one of the Clean Sox, followed the management line and found himself in the Hall of Fame (although his lack of involvement in the scandal may have aided in his selection. It's not unreasonable to think that Cicotte could have won 92 games over the next four or five seasons which would have given him three hundred career victories and guaranteed a spot in Cooperstown. Williams, given his young age and track record to that point, seems as if he, too, could have had a Hall-worthy career. And Kerr, if able to pitch in the fourth position on the team, could surely have been successful for years to come.

What-ifs aren't what happened and the group without Faber had one full season in the major leagues after 1920. Still, the 1920 season was a great one for the White Sox, and provided baseball with one of the best rotations ever.

New Year, Old Players

2005-01-03T11:00:00.000-08:00

I had been meaning for some time to contribute my thoughts on the upcoming (read: tomorrow) Hall of Fame election results. If I had all the time and nothing to do, I probably would have done it sooner. As it stands, I'm doing it hours before the official announcement.

Part of the delay was my continued struggle to write about the 1984 Tigers. If I had a HOF ballot, two of the four names on it would be members of that team; Jack Morris and Alan Trammell. Because I do intend to write more about them later, I will write nary a word about them now other than they should be in the Hall of Fame.

The third name on my list will likely be the only player elected tomorrow. Wade Boggs. Boggs and Tony Gwynn were the premier hitters of the 1980's. Every season it was a given that both would be among the leaders in batting average. Rather, it was expected they would win the batting title and a surprise when they would not.

One of the things I enjoyed about Boggs was his willingness to put himself in a hole to the pitcher to get a look at what the pitcher had. Boggs rarely swung at the first pitch he saw. He waited for a pitch he could stroke for a hit.

There was also the chicken consumption eccentricity. His steadiness in eating poultry, taking pitches, and knocking hits was impressive. There was the Marla Hooch Penthouse thing but I have no recollection of it other than being in Boston, calling my high school friend in Pennsylvania and asking him what he wanted me to bring him back from Boston, being asked to bring this nationally circulated publication, and doing so. Go figure.

The final name on my ballot and the one of which I am least certain is Bert Blyleven. Over the years, as my understanding and appreciation of the game of baseball has increased, I've come to think of Blyleven as an underappreciated talent. He was successful for some bad teams but had a nasty habit of serving up home runs. I don't ever remember watching him pitch and feeling like I was seeing a great pitcher (something I certainly felt with Morris) but that may have had to do with not getting to see him because he was toiling for teams that weren't weekend Game of the Week candidates (or opponents of the locally televised Phillies (ah, the days of pre-cable television)). Also, by the time my interest in baseball was engaged to the point of appreciation, Blyleven was already in his thirties.

He never won a Cy Young, made the All-Star team just twice in 22 seasons.

I'm starting to second guess myself. I have always felt that Pete Rose should not be in the Hall of Fame, not because of his alleged gambling and subsequent lying, but rather because he was a good player who played an extraordinarily long time as a good player. The more I look at Blyleven, the more I see a similar situation.

I never would have voted Tommy John or Don Sutton or Jim Kaat in (and only Sutton is in) for similar reasons. So why Blyleven?

I can't think of a reason why. Make my ballot three.

Divisions

2004-12-26T20:21:00.000-08:00

Ok, I was wanting to run this idea up the flagpole to see if it sticks. (I apologize, I couldn't come up with the exact quote - but I still remember William Peterson saying something like it in that jury room.) We've heard all the talk about the differences and inequities between teams that spend a lot and those who don't. Obviously, the players don't want a salary cap. Obviously, the owners don't want to share revenue. The monetary structure won't be changed due to the power on both sides. So, if we want to make things better between teams that spend a lot and those who don't, we would have to change something else. I say we change the divisions.

This idea came about because of the distance I saw between the spending of the Yankees and Red Sox (57 million) and then the difference between the Red Sox and the Angels (27 million) where most of the rest of the teams were on a more even distribution with only a maximum of 7 million dollars separating one team from the next. I thought, well, if these two long rivals are that far above everyone, let's give them their own division. Winner takes all. The rest of the AL playoff teams come from the remaining three divisions. Kind of puts a damper on the spending.

But, then I thought that would obviously be unfair to both the Yankees and Red Sox (no cheering from the peanut gallery) so, what about divisions based on salary? Two divisions in each league. Seven teams in each in the AL, 8 in each in the NL. Instead of a wild card, you give it to the top two teams in each division. The top division in each league would contain the 7 (or 8) largest payrolls as of March 25th of the year of the season. The lower division would then contain the remaining teams with lower payrolls.

There would be two consequences with going with March 25th. One, it is so close to the start of the season, schedules couldn't be altered. So, we'd have to go to a balanced schedule - playing every team the same number of times. This would obviously take away some of the great rivalry games. Two, to keep the balance, we would have to get rid of interleague play. (I love saying that.) If you are going to keep things balanced, you can't have schedule makers putting in interleague games where you don't play everyone so that one NL team plays the Yankees and Red Sox and another in the same NL division just plays the Royals and the Devil Rays.

The great thing about March 25th is that it gives every team time to jockey for division placement before the start of the season. Once the 25th hits, you can't change divisions. Now, for some fun economic incentives. Once the divisions are set, if any team falls below the lowest payroll in a division as of March 25th, they pay the difference at the end of the season to anyone in their division. (Is this a salary floor? You betcha.) So, in 2004 if an NL team in the lower division fell below the Brewers $27,528,500 to $26,528,500 - they would have to pay each team in their division $1 million - bringing their payroll back up to $33,528,500. On the converse side, if any team goes above the highest payroll in their division as of March 25th, they have to pay each team in their division the same amount of the overage - serving as a kind of luxury tax cap.

Well, I'm tired of talking in hypotheticals, let's look at what the divisions would have been in 2004. (I don't have salaries as of March 25th - so I am just going to use the same link numbers to craft divisions.)

AL Top Division
New York Yankees - $184 million
Boston Red Sox - $127 million
Anaheim Angels - $101 million
Seattle Mariners - $81 million
Chicago White Sox - $65 million
Oakland Athletics - $59 million
Texas Rangers - $55 million

Salary floor - $55 million; salary ceiling $184 million

AL Second Division
Minnesota Twins - $54 million
Baltimore Orioles - $52 million
Toronto Blue Jays - $50 million
Kansas City Royals - $48 million
Detroit Tigers - $47 million
Cleveland Indians - $34 million
Tampa Bay Devil Rays - $30 million

Salary floor - $30 million; salary ceiling $54 million

(Some of you might be wondering about the salary ceiling in the second division - that is to keep teams from dropping artificially low and then outspending their division to win it - assuming money has a good correlation with winning.)

NL Top Division
New York Mets - $97 million
Philadelphia Phillies - $93 million
Los Angeles Dodgers - $93 million
Chicago Cubs - $91 million
Atlanta Braves - $90 million
St. Louis Cardinals - $83 million
San Francisco Giants - $82 million
Houston Astros - $75 million

Salary floor - $75 million; salary ceiling $97 million

NL Second Division
Arizona Diamondbacks - $70 million
Colorado Rockies - $65 million
San Diego Padres - $55 million
Cincinnati Reds - $47 million
Florida Marlins - $42 million
Montreal Expos - $41 million
Pittsburgh Pirates - $32 million
Milwaukee Brewers - $28 million

Salary floor - $28 million; salary ceiling $70 million

So, if we assume there were balanced schedules last year, here is how the divisions would have looked if we use last years standings.

AL Top Division W-L
New York Yankees - 101 - 61
Boston Red Sox - 98-64
Anaheim Angels - 92-70
Oakland Athletics - 91-71
Texas Rangers - 89-73
Chicago White Sox - 83-79
Seattle Mariners - 63-99

AL Second Division
Minnesota Twins - 92-70
Cleveland Indians - 80-82
Baltimore Orioles - 78-84
Detroit Tigers - 72-90
Tampa Bay Devil Rays - 70-91
Toronto Blue Jays - 67-94
Kansas City Royals - 58-104

NL Top Division
St. Louis Cardinals - 105-57
Atlanta Braves - 96-66
Los Angeles Dodgers - 93-69
Houston Astros - 92-70
San Francisco Giants - 91-71
Chicago Cubs - 89-73
Philadelphia Phillies - 86-76
New York Mets - 71-91

NL Second Division
San Diego Padres - 87-75
Florida Marlins - 83-79
Cincinnati Reds - 76-86
Pittsburgh Pirates - 72-89
Colorado Rockies - 68-94
Milwaukee Brewers - 67-94
Montreal Expos - 67-95
Arizona Diamondbacks - 51-111

The AL races would not have been as good - Anaheim would have been eliminated from the playoffs, replaced by Cleveland. But, the season could have been different with the different schedules and divisions - this is just an approximation. All the NL playoff teams would have been in one division - and that division would have been fun to watch. St. Louis and Atlanta would have made it, with San Diego and Florida rounding out the four. But, if you keep the wild card, the AL is the same and the NL replaces Houston with the Padres. Great races are still there, and a small-salary team gets an automatic bid. It's not two bids, but it might be a better solution.

It could be interesting to see - but, the sad thing is that there are only three teams above .500 in the second divisions. I would wonder if it is really a money thing - or more of a management thing that keeps those teams from developing talent they eventually have to pay or are willing to pay. The teams may be permanently bad and not just suffering from the oppression of the high spending teams.

It's time for Supermarket Sweep!

2004-12-23T19:58:00.000-08:00

What GM is the best at getting a bargain? How are you at telling what are the biggest bargains of the offseason - and the priciest purchases? Let's start with the first episode of Supermarket Sweep!

First, the FAs and their salaries I obtained from an ESPN page which updates continuously. So, I may not have the most current numbers to go with all of the signings, but I will revisit through the offseason. The FA signings I have are as of 12/17/04, for this particular blog.

Second, we have to evaluate bargains. You may only spend $300,000 on Stanley Jefferson, but if he doesn't do a thing, is it really a bargain? With potato chips and soft drinks, we can always rely on quality and taste to determine if it is worth the money - so we have to find a measure of value for major league players. Hmmmmmm. How about Win Shares!

So, here is what I did. I looked at all of the players signed to major league contracts that have public amounts. Then I looked at their win shares for the past three years. Instead of just taking last year, I figured a weighted average of the last three years would give a better idea of a player's performance - and give an idea of what a GM is buying. The formula I used was 0.55*2004 WS + 0.35*2003 WS + 0.15*2002 WS. I figured this would put more of an emphasis on current levels of production, but still take on quality (or lack of quality) the previous two years to balance out any one year boost or drop for whatever reason. I don't feel anyone looks at a player and says that performance in 2002 is more relevant to performance in 2005 than performance in 2004, but the multipliers have nothing behind them other than weighting the amounts at different levels.

So - what did I get? First of all, let me start off by saying that I have a few different ways of looking at this information, so bear with me as I hit each one.

$ per Win Share per position high and low:
C - Henry Blanco - Cubs paid $333,333.33 per the weighted average win shares (4.05)
C - Todd Pratt - Philadelphia - $140,186.92 (5.35)
1B - Richie Sexson - Seattle - $889,679.72 (14.05)
1B - Julio Franco - Atlanta - $110,497.24 (9.05)
2B - Jeff Kent - Los Angeles - $349,075.98 (24.35)
2B - Damion Easley - Florida - $145,631.07 (5.15)
3B - Troy Glaus - Arizona - $957,446.81 (11.75)
3B - Vinny Castilla - Montreal - $230,483.27 (13.45)
SS - Edgar Renteria - Boston - $466,200.47 (21.45)
SS - Neifi Perez - Cubs - $132,450.33 (7.55)
OF - Jermaine Dye - White Sox - $548,648.65 (9.25)
OF - Eric Young - San Diego - $114,285.71 (8.75)
RP - Bob Wickman - Cleveland - $1,222,222.22 (2.25)
RP - Antonio Alfonseca - Florida - $42,857.14 (7.00)
SP - Kris Benson - NY Mets - $1,079,136.69 (6.95)
SP - John Halama - Boston - $178,571.43 (5.60)

Average per position:
C - $227,476.04 (5.90)
1B - $378,846.86 (9.17)
2B - $193,771.72 (12.51)
3B - $496,653.22 (17.41)
SS - $271,579.05 (13.67)
OF - $254,009.87 (9.44)
RP - $347,181.63 (5.71)
SP - $559,690.87 (9.68)

Very interesting, because as I was preparing this information, I came across this blog entry on December 19th, and I think there is an inefficiency. Obviously, GMs are paying the highest average amount per win share for starting pitching - and they have the 4th highest average WS total. (I will give you that these are small sample sizes for most positions, but SPs have the most with 17 players. Meaning that there are a lot of big numbers pulling up John Halama and Dennys Reyes.)

Next, I wanted to see about how teams were doing, since my blogging buddies and I have been talking about the worst GMs. So, here you go - due to small numbers, it may not give you much. I only used averages when there was more than one player signed.

Cleveland - average Dollar per WS - $702,020.20
NY Mets - $679,902.92
Seattle - $529,279.44
White Sox - $490,859.76
Philadelphia - $478,660.23
NY Yankees - $478,225.32
Arizona - $464,356.39
Anaheim - $434,581.03
Cincinnati - $387,554.11
Minnesota - $375,728.42
San Francisco - $362,606.71
Texas - $346,411.81
Boston - $282,362.81
Florida - $277,774.38
Cubs - $272,000.81
Toronto - $251,620.11
Los Angeles - $244,552.22
San Diego - $227,752.17
St. Louis - $214,637.03
Montreal - $213,785.57
Houston - $167,225.95

Now, all this is showing what we may perceive as bargains, but are they really? Is it really better to sign a guy with seven win shares for a cheap price or a guy with 21 win shares for an outrageous price? The answer lies somewhere in the middle. So, I decided to look at the average dollar per win share for the top win share folks - and see what kind of prices were paid. Plus, instead of weighting across years, I weighted their biggest win share total the highest and on down the line using the same formula as above. I am going to assume that GMs are thinking that the players will return to their best season for their new team - otherwise they wouldn't sign them.

Jeff Kent - Los Angeles - $313,075.51 (27.15)
Adrian Beltre - Seattle - $474,953.62 (26.95)
Edgar Renteria - Boston - $392,927.31 (25.45)
Nomar Garciaparra - Cubs - $316,831.68 (25.25)
Richie Sexson - Seattle - $556,792.87 (22.45)
Steve Finley - Anaheim - $327,868.85 (21.35)
Pedro Martinez - NY Mets - $632,458.23 (20.95)
Corey Koskie - Toronto - $279,146.14 (20.30)
Todd Walker - Cubs - $135,869.57 (18.40)
Omar Vizquel - Cleveland - $223,744.29 (18.25)

For my last list, here are all of the players that were paid over $600,000 per win share using my original methodology.

Bob Wickman - $1,222,222.22 (2.25)
Kris Benson - $1,079,136.69 (6.95)
Jon Lieber - $1,068,702.29 (6.55)
Troy Glaus - $957,446.81 (11.75)
Richie Sexson - $889,679.72 (14.05)
Jaret Wright - $869,565.22 (8.05)
Pedro Martinez - $699,208.44 (18.95)
Paul Byrd - $687,022.90 (6.55)
Al Leiter - $680,851.06 (11.75)
Carl Pavano - $676,156.58 (14.05)
Troy Percival - $618,556.70 (9.70)

All but two pitchers. Hmmm. Do you see something beginning to develop? I'll give you a hint - of the next 6, 4 are pitchers and the other two are Jermaine Dye and Adrian Beltre.

Beyond Democratic

2004-12-11T13:30:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking about the Baseball Hall of Fame voting for the past week, and I have to say, I like it. First of all, the rules are pretty simple. If you are a voter, you can vote for whoever is on the ballot for whatever reason. (Kind of like the MVP award.) But, the only way to get to the Hall of Fame is to get 75% of the votes. Not the majority - 75%. The only way to stay on the ballot is to get at least 5% of the votes. You have 15 years to get 75% while maintaining 5% otherwise it goes to the veteran's committee. Simple stuff.

The most important factor though is the 75% rule. Imagine what anything would be like without a rule for simple majorities. I would think that if a presidential candidate had to get 75% of the vote, he would have to be a hell of a candidate who would appeal to both democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives and it might be next to impossible with years of interim presidents. However, with the HOF, it just ensures that only the best reach the top, which is how it should be.

Yes, we can make arguments for lots of players, probably because they were a favorite of ours, or excelled in an area that we consider overlooked, like defense at a key position, or heck, even a position that you feel is underrepresented. The fact that you have to make an argument for them signifies that they aren't without a doubt, which is proved in the voting if they don't receive three-quarters of the vote. Check out the voting results for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Even within this short time frame, there are only a couple that just squeak into the hall with between 75 and 80% of the vote. Of course, there are only a few that even make it into the hall, so that couple is significant when speaking of small numbers.

That is the beauty of the Baseball Hall of Fame. It is exclusive. Here is the complete list of players in the Hall of Fame due to election by the BBWAA. I've seen many columns on the worthiness of the players within the hall and using the least player in the Hall as a bench mark for election at that position, so there are obviously some that may not be Gehrig like in stature. You can use that as your voting criteria, if you are a voter. "If the person up for election has a higher slugging average than George Kell, I believe they should be in the HOF." Do what you want. Then you have to get 75% of the people to agree with you. Therein lies the rub.

You can harp on people that deserve it or people that don't. Somehow if they were elected, 75% said yes. If they weren't, at least 26% said no for 15 years. That's pretty powerful stuff for keeping it exclusive. Will they be right 100% of the time? I hope not - that will take out the fun of discussions - but we will always have the Veterans Committee to liven up things. (Here's an index of more Veteran's Committee links.)

Here is the current ballot of eligible candidates with their lifetime statistics. The cool thing is that I remember most all of them playing and I had more than a few of them on Strat-o-matic teams of the past. Some of them even have Strat nicknames that barely reside out of my memory. Each one brings out a memory, whether it is Willie McGee stepping up to the plate, batting lefty in that inimitable style of his or the big bearded grin of Blyleven. Do they all belong in the HOF? Unfortunately, no. But, their feats will live forever in the tales we tell of baseball that we saw and remember. For those special few, we will visit them in Cooperstown once every few years or once in a lifetime, and see those same memories through a museum's eyes, and it will be special.

Be proud, ye hypocrites

2004-12-10T07:05:00.000-08:00

Why are we outraged? Why are we shocked? Even if we never saw the steroid issue coming to a head, we should have envisioned something similar, some other form of nefarious activity taking place in clubhouses around the land.

Why? It’s simple, really. Because ours — for better, or more often, for worse — is a society based on people cheating their way to the top. Yeah, I’m sure some people in the 1950s found ways around rules — NASCAR drivers have been doing it for years.

Even the Oakland Raiders of the 1970s would beat you physically, mentally and emotionally before wiping the Stickum off of their hands at the end of a game.

So why, then, is everyone outraged at Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Jason Giambi and the other 5-7 percent of those who tested positive in 2003? (Realize right now that I don’t condone steroid use and think it’s bad for the game — but at the same time, I see why the players took that route).

How can our nation honestly be upset over players doing whatever they can to endure and prevail – legal or not - when the leader of the free world cheated to get into his current position? (At least the first time around, but we all know there are serious issues with the 2004 election process as well).

The daughter of a multi-billionaire cheats her way through USC (thankfully, it turns out, so we could get her damn name off of our new basketball arena). If anyone ever DIDN’T need to cheat, it would be her – she never has to hold a real job, never has to do anything herself – and wanted that to carry over into her college years.

See the pattern here? Cheating is rampant in our society. I would venture that every single one of us have cheated at something at least once in our lives, whether it’s a high school exam, our taxes or, ahem, fantasy baseball.

All the outcry does is make every one of us a hypocrite. No one bellowed about Sheffield when he said basically the same thing as Bonds. Why? Because people don’t like Bonds and this is just more fodder for their canon of anti-Bondsian rants.

This is all kind of amusing if it weren’t so sad – Bonds has never gotten in trouble off the field in any way, shape or form, yet he’s being vilified worse than a man who, in a six-month span about 10 years ago, had:

1) a murder-for-hire plot against his mother
2) allegations that he left threatening notes for his son's mother
3) a stalking by a fan and harassment by anonymous callers
4) his car and house broken into
5) been pulled off a team flight while Broward County (Fla.) sheriff's deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, searched his carry-on bag for drugs.
6) He has had an aggravated battery complaint filed against him
7) And he has been shot in the shoulder.

Yet, when he admits to using something he didn’t know the true components of, no one bats an eye – and when Bonds does the same, we immediately start talking ‘asterisk.’

Shame on us.

Roids should only be the stuff that Preparation H cures

2004-12-03T11:00:00.000-08:00

Ok, now the guano is hitting the proverbial spinning thing, and we are seeing the sports world react to steroids is various ways. But, the one thing that no one is talking about is - how does this affect the owners?

Come now, you are probably thinking, who really cares about the owners? I mean if they cared about drugs they wouldn't keep hiring Darryl Strawberry or Steve Howe. I would like to say that steroids are far worse than any other recreational drugs - especially for the owners - here's why.

1) The players are fabricating their talents.

Just like Tim Johnson telling tall inspirational tales about Vietnam or George O'Leary fudging his resume, players who take steroids are misrepresenting themselves. They are saying that they are strong, healthy, great players and the moment there is a drug testing policy, negative press or a criminal investigation, their abilities change. They are no longer the player that an owner paid to serve his team. They change from 50 HR guys back into 15 HR spray hitters, if they are lucky enough not to still send fly balls into the air to only fall short at the warning track.

Just like Johnson and O'Leary, they should be subject to immediate dismissal and in addition a complete voiding of their contract. The steroided ones have created a false resume - statistics that are not built on the reality of their talents, but on the artificial base of chemistry. I am sure any kind of action like that will probably get players attention a lot quicker than asterisks.

2) There seems to be an abrupt drop off immediately when a player stops taking steroids

Jose Canseco was great. Ken Caminiti was great. Jason Giambi was great. All three admitted to taking steroids. All three plunged off the face of the earth, when most careers seem to be extended in this day and age. Canseco had his last good year at the age of 34. Caminiti's last full good year was at the age of 35. Giambi was only 33 this year as he dropped to all time lows and spent a good deal of the season on the DL. All of the sudden injuries come to the forefront, and the gladiator is only able to limp into position or the batter's box. Power numbers drop precipitously.

So, if you're an owner and you just gave these guys a long term contract based on false information, why should you honor it? You may get one or two good years, but after that, their statistics are barely worth league average. The MVPs would be lucky to win a player of the week award.

3) Early death.

This has less to do with owners and more to do with being a human being. As much as we love to watch players achieve magic on the field by hitting bombs to the upper deck, we certainly don't want to see them end up dead before they are 50. Caminiti died when he was 41. I have no clue if steroids played a part, but they certainly couldn't help. Watching the deaths roll up in professional wrestling makes me think that it won't be long and we will be seeing the same thing happen with MLB stars. We won't be able to see another scene like Ted Williams at the All-Star Game speaking the gospel of hitting. The owners will see the ratings for their summer classic drop.

As dangerous as drunk driving and recreation drug use are, we have societal punishments and well defined laws that spell out fines and jail time. The leagues have created policies for these problems as well. (Some would argue they aren't tough enough, but they are at least in place.) For steroids we don't have that. BALCO was investigated for tax fraud. I haven't heard about Canseco serving time for steroid use. I could be wrong, but I think it is up to MLB to create a punishment to fit the crime. So, owners, if you are listening, I doubt the player's union will let you void any contracts any time soon. Caveat Emptor! The best way for you to avoid these problems is to put a very stringent steroid policy in place. At least a year suspension without pay for the first offense. Get involved with the IOC testing group - they seem to be at the forefront for investigating new designer drugs. Keep up with the technology so that there won't be as long of a learning curve and the possibility for that first punishment will be a greater risk for a player. That will stop the use and maybe save a couple lives.

Three plus one for the Hall

2004-12-03T08:40:00.000-08:00

If I had a vote in the Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, I would, as a matter of principle, write in Pete Rose and leave the rest of my ballot blank.

Understand that I abhor the man, his actions, his attitude, his philandering ways – I think he is the biggest jerk to ever step on a field (well, second after Don Zimmer). Yes, he broke the cardinal rule of baseball. However, that was as a manager – and he should be inducted for what he did on the field.

Did he stick around a little too long? Probably. But when he broke Ty Cobb’s record, he was still somewhat productive – it’s not like he was going all Rickey on us.

But, since this Rose thing is pretty much beating a dead horse, here is how I’d vote this year:

1) Bruce Sutter
2) Goose Gossage
3) Wade Boggs

And that would be about it.

I don’t subscribe to the theory that you have to be the dominant player at your position for an era – that’s why I don’t think Jack Morris or Ryno gets in. Sandberg was a very, very good second baseman – next to Tommy Herr, perhaps the best of his generation. But to me, that’s not good enough. You can be the best of your generation, or second best, and still not be Hall worthy -- look at shortstop before Nomar and A-Rod came along - people ridiculed the position for its dearth of talent. Does that mean Barry Larkin is automatic for the Hall?
There are enough non-Hall worthy already enshrined.

Sutter goes in for two reasons – one, he was a dominant closer – just dominant – for I’d argue eight years. People point out to his relatively short careeer (12 years, with four ERAs over 4.00) as a detriment. But I’ll say this – show me five closers who were dominant for more than eight years, and I’ll show you five Hall of Famers. Not merely good, but dominant. When Sutter came into a game in his prime, it was over. Done. You knew it. Kind of like Mariano Rivera these days.

The second reason for Sutter is that he pioneered the use of the split-finger as an effective weapon. Sure, other pitchers used it before Sutter. But he perfected it – he threw it ahead in the count, behind or even. Hitters knew it was coming and could do nothing with it. He paved the way for the next generation – where would Schilling be without his split? Clemens? Etc. This might be a weaker argument than his dominance, but hey, if Candy Cummings can be inducted for pioneering the curve, and Curt Flood has arguments in his favor for challenging the reserve clause (yet still losing!), this is just as valid.

Goose goes in for similar reasons as Sutter – dominant and overpowering. Goose redefined the closer’s role by throwing 120 innings a year, then when the overall role was adapted further in the mid to late-1980s, he threw his 50-70 innings equally well. To me, Goose was the first of the 'true' closers. For 22 years, Gossage instilled fear in hitters. The Red Sox KNEW in 1978 that the playoff game was lost when Gossage came in. He pitched for 22 years – 12 of them he posted a sub-3.00 ERA. In one, he had a 0.77 ERA. He threw almost 2,000 innings – as a closer. Unheard of. Of course, he goes in as a Padre, though.

Boggs is an easy choice. Best pure hitter, with George Brett and Tony Gwynn of the 1980s. Worked at his fielding to the point of winning two Gold Gloves. There’s not much to argue with Boggs, so I won’t even try. If he’s not first-ballot, I will be stunned.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing

2004-11-22T04:25:00.000-08:00

I wish we had gone with Colemangoojoo.

The Can and I have not posted lately because we are obsessing over our upcoming Diamond Mind Baseball league. Jason's part of it, too, but has subconsciously resigned himself to finishing out of the playoff picture and so is spending his time trying to make Pat Listach feel bad about not ever having developed into more of a ballplayer.

I plan to report on the results of the player auction which will begin after the Thanksgiving holiday. I also plan to expand my thoughts on the 1984 Tigers, and a wealth of other ideas.

All this just because I wanted to say I like Colemangoojoo.

MVP? Who cares?

2004-11-20T16:54:00.000-08:00

Yes, you heard me correctly, who cares? You hear about the voting for the Hall of Fame and one of the things people mention the most is how many MVPs or where the hitter fell in the voting for MVP. Right now there is all of the debate that happens every year about whether or not Player A should have won, or whether Player B got the short shrift. You hear people discuss the meaning of "valuable", although if they explore that meaning, I also think "most" and "player" should be debated as well.

It's also time for Manager of the Year, Rookie of the Year, Gold Gloves and Cy Young. The debate over the meaning of these doesn't extend as far as the debate on "valuable" but there is some contention over the meaning of "rookie". There is also little insight into how the Gold Gloves are selected since the best defensive player rarely wins the award by most objective measures.

Well, my position is that they are all irrelevant. It is just a way to keep baseball in the news between the end of the season and the winter meetings. I mean, wouldn't it make sense to give the manager award to the manager of the team with the most wins? Nah, because he may have had the best players, and the manager with the best players SHOULD win. Why give an award to a first year player? Does it have any later relevance? I mean this blog could have been called "The Hamelin Academy" or "Colemangoogoo" or "Listach and the Banshees" for all the relevance some of the past winners have had.

Nowadays we have a great metric like Win Shares and we can use it to evaluate players' performance in all areas. Why do we need voters to tell us who is the best and brightest when we can see for ourselves? So, without any further ado, here are the top five players and pitchers in each league according to Win Shares. If you want to declare one of them the best, the brightest, the most valuable, the best on a team that got to the playoffs, the player that made the biggest difference on a team or whatever, go ahead. For me, I'll just look at those five and say, wow, they had some pretty impressive seasons.

Top Five AL Win Shares
1. Gary Sheffield 31
2. Alex Rodriquez 30
2. Hideki Matsui 30
2. Miguel Tejada 30
5. Vladimir Guerrero 29

Top Five NL Win Shares
1. Barry Bonds 53
2. Albert Pujols 40
3. Scott Rolen 38
4. Adrian Beltre 37
4. Bobby Abreu 37

Top Five AL Pitcher Win Shares
1. Johan Santana 27
2. Curt Schilling 22
3. Brad Radke 19
3. Mark Buehrle 19
5. Jake Westbrook 17
5. Ryan Drese 17
5. Pedro Martinez 17

Top Five NL Pitcher Win Shares
1. Randy Johnson 25
2. Ben Sheets 21
3. Roger Clemens 20
3. Carl Pavano 20
5. Carlos Zambrano 19
5. Jason Schmidt 19
5. Livan Hernandez 19
5. Roy Oswalt 19

For defensive categories, try this link. I have sorted this database for the highest fielding Win Shares at shortstop for both leagues. (I was really surprised to see how many Derek Jeter had.) You can use it to look and see who has the most fielding Win Shares at every position. Then you can look further into the lists and see where other players total Win Shares are. (Like for me, seeing that Jim Edmonds was sixth in total Win Shares in both leagues.) Trust me, it will be more fun and useful that any votes or awards you will see. If you want to think about the meaning and use of words, read William Safire's weekly column "On Language" in the New York Times Magazine. (Subscription required.)

As for HOF voting, I hope to tackle that next week.

The Myth of Big Markets

2004-11-15T13:40:00.000-08:00

Ok, I'll admit that even the title to the blog is a bit misleading. How can I say that there is no correlation with market size and the current salary structure in Major League Baseball? Well, just like the manager is the first to get the blame, so is the size of the market.

Now, I'm not saying that the Yankees don't have a HUGE advantage. In the 2000 census, the New York MSA had over 21 million people listed. Kansas City and Milwaukee, on the other hand, were both under two million, which puts New York at ten times the size of the smallest markets. Even if you factor in a second team in the New York MSA, and that the MSA is divided equally between the Mets and Yankees, it is still five to six times bigger than the smallest markets. Truthfully, that is about the multiple you see between the smallest and largest salaries as the Yankees spend over 180 million dollars and the smallest payroll is just a shade under 30 million. The Yankees are the 800 pound gorilla - they can do whatever they want as they have history, success and a population base. I looked at the past five years and did some averages - wins, salary and attendance. The Yankees were first in every one. However, when you look at average revenue (average attendance over the past five years times the average ticket price) they fall to second. Let's get to the numbers.

First, I wanted to look at the most simple analysis - how do salaries rank according to the population of the MSA of the team? I decided to divide up metropolitan areas 50/50 as to the population base that supports the team. Yes, it is a little arbitrary - but I feel it puts those cities more in tune with the smaller MSAs. So, even though Chicago is the third largest MSA and San Francisco is the fifth, they fall into the middle range of population since they have two teams. Since New York and L.A. are so big, even with two teams each, they still tower over the other MSAs. With this change, I found that five (Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox, Rangers) of the largest average MLB payrolls over the past five years are in the top 10 of the MSA populations. None of the smallest average payrolls were in the top 10 MSAs. In the bottom 10 MSAs, there was 1 of the highest average payrolls (St. Louis) and seven of the lowest (Minnesota, San Diego, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City and Milwaukee.) (Montreal, per the Canadian 2001 census, has a metropolitan population of 3.4 million, putting them over Phoenix into the middle population range.) So, obviously, there is something here, but I don't think we're seeing the whole picture.

Next, I looked at attendance per population. Of the top 10 MSAs, there were four of the highest attendance amounts (Yankees, Dodgers, Orioles and Astros) and one of the lowest (Tigers). In the bottom ten, there were two of the top ten attendance figures (Colorado, St. Louis) and five of the lowest (Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Milwaukee). There is a lower correlation here, but still there is something.

Then, I looked at average ticket revenue per average payroll. (Average ticket revenue was calculated using the average ticket price for the last five years and multiplying by the average attendance.) Here, if you look at the top 12 average payrolls, you get ten of the highest revenues. If you look at the top 15 average payrolls, you get 14 of the highest revenues. The only exception are the Angels who are thirteenth in average payroll and 20th in revenue. This is where you see the highest correlation - if fans come to the game, and ticket demand is high (taken into account with the average price - e.g. the Red Sox are 11th in attendance due to the confines of their stadium, but with the highest average ticket price, they are first in average revenue) then the team makes money. Now, the attendance doesn't correlate exactly with population, so I decided to look at the major component - winning.

Looking at winning and attendance figures, we see something clearer. The top ten teams as far as average number of wins per year (in order) are the Yankees, A's, Braves, Cardinals, Giants, Mariners, Red Sox, Dodgers, Twins and Astros. (Jon - you'll be happy to know the White Sox are 11th.) Six of these teams are in the top ten in attendance. The Twins are 26th, the Braves are 12th and the A's are 20th. In the bottom ten of average wins, there is one of the highest attendance averages (the Orioles) and six of the lowest (Brewers, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Tampa Bay and Montreal). (I think that you can look at stadiums and expectations as the reasons the A's and Twins are so low, the Orioles are so high and the Braves, for all of their success, are in the middle of the road.)

The thing that everyone cares about though, is how much higher payrolls contribute to wins. I saved this for last. The top ten in average salaries are the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Mets, Braves, Rangers, Arizona, St. Louis, Seattle and Cubs. Six of these teams were in the top 10 in wins (in order, Yankees, Braves, Cardinals, Mariners, Red Sox and Dodgers.) The Diamondbacks were 13th, Cubs 17th, Mets 19th, and Rangers 20th. The bottom ten in average salaries are Cincinnati, San Diego, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, Montreal, Kansas City, Minnesota and Florida. In the bottom ten, two of them were in the top 10 in wins (A's and Twins) and seven were in bottom 10 (Reds, Padres, Montreal, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Tampa Bay).

There are going to be differences from year to year - right now the Diamondbacks and Rangers are divesting themselves of the bigger contracts as they try to make salaries more in line with revenue. Expectations change so that the amount spent changes. I think looking at five years for the success, the attendance and salaries, it gives a good idea of how the organization works and smooths out the impact of new stadiums and one year pushes.

So - if I may summarize, there is some factor in the size of your market on salaries, but even more important is attendance and ticket demand. People want to go Wrigley and Fenway. People love to follow the Cardinals, Cubs, Red Sox and Yankees. Therefore, you can have higher ticket prices. That means higher ticket revenue. Which leads to higher payrolls. If 14 of the 15 highest payrolls also have the highest revenues - that is a strong correlation. That comes from high attendance and high demand. Those come from history. History comes from winning. (Well, there are other factors, but I would say that is the largest - though stadiums come into play like at Wrigley Field and Camden Yards.) By the way, the 16th highest salary was the 15th largest revenue (Colorado).

What is the cause of winning? You could say spending has a part (as seen above) but, I would put forth that management is the bigger key. Signing the right players - if you do it for a million or fifteen million - is very important. Without good players, you can't win. If you don't win, people don't come to the stadium. If people don't come to the stadium, you don't bring in revenue. If you don't bring in revenue, you can't sign good players. So, there is some intercorrelation. But, if your team's management makes shrewd moves, they can succeed, albeit with a much smaller margin of error than the 800 pound Steinbrenner. Like the case with managers, don't blame your market size - it is the easy excuse. Take it to your GM - for his drafting, his minor league development and his roster choices. It is a tough job, but that is where the buck should stop.

Talking MVP Blues...

2004-11-15T07:36:00.000-08:00

Today, given that this is the week the leagues’ MVP awards will be announced, we are going to tackle the subject of the MVP.

No arguing about what the MVP means, whether it’s the best or literally most valuable to his team; whether bringing fans into the seats counts as value (one of the most prevalent arguments for Butt-Rod in years past).

Nah, today we’re just going to look at the stats and break them down slightly, in my decidedly less-than-theoretic manner.

And I’m here to talk about one player.

Yes, Jesus himself – Johnny Damon. Hear me out on this, because hopefully after reading this, no matter which side of the MVP definition you fall on, you can at least see my point of view.

This year, as the leadoff batter, Damon:

a) had more walks than strikeouts for the first time since 2000 and just the third time in his career;
b) had an on-base percentage of .380 and reached base 267 times, which was third in the league;
c) banged out 20 home runs and slugged .477, the second-highest mark of his career
d) drove in 94 runs.

Yeah, I didn’t talk about defense, because no one does these days – when throwing around names like Gary Sheffield, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz for the MVP, it’s apparent that defense doesn’t play much of a role in determining the most valuable player.

It’s interesting, because Damon had a decidedly down year for him — he made five errors this past season, as many as he’s made in the previous three years combined.

Anyway, looking at Damon’s numbers, I would argue that his season is one of the best all-around seasons for a leadoff hitter in recent memory. I discount the efforts of Nomar and Brady Anderson, because they weren’t typical leadoff hitters – there was no other place to hit them, so lead off they did.

Obviously, Rickey Henderson still is held in high esteem regarding the leadoff position, as well he should. With his combination of power, patience and speed, he was one of the best.

But Damon’s job — as it is for all leadoff hitters — is to set the table for the mashers. I’d say that finishing third in the A.L. in times on base would qualify. Even with the black hole of Bellhorn hitting behind him, Manny Ortez combined for 269 RBIs – and I’d bet about 100 of those came from Damon, who scored 123 runs this year – second-most of his career.

Say what you want about the massive attack put forth by the Red Sox this year. But it all wouldn’t have happened without Damon at the top. It would be nice to see that reflected in the MVP voting this week.

How the media shape our mistaken beliefs

2004-11-10T04:48:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure I really know how, I just see lots of evidence that it's going on.

First, I want to cite a football example. I lost interest in football right after the demise of the USFL. I'm not entirely sure that that was the root cause of my lack of interest because I was also entering the high school years and all the other interests that that entailed. But watching any football game after seeing Jim Kelly and the Flying Midgets of the Houston Gamblers seemed quite boring in comparison.

Things started to change for me last fall. Two years before that I had thought about trying to find a way to be interested in football again and I felt the best way for me to do that was to find a talented young football player to be a fan of and try to enjoy the game through his exploits. My sights initially set on Joey Harrington. When he went to the Detroit Lions I thought that that could be a team I could get behind. Alas, it became obvious to me quickly that Harrington did not have the gifts to be a great quarterback and so my interest never really picked up.

Returning to last fall. Somehow or another I stumble across this fellow Ben Roethlisberger of the University of Miami. Yes, that Miami, not that crummy school in Florida. I actually started watching some of his games on ESPN. I liked him. I made up my mind that I would root for whatever pro team drafted him and even watched the NFL draft to see what team I would be rooting for for the next decade.

Lo and behold, I became greatly excited when my pre-USFL favorite team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, drafted him (I was born in western PA). I have enjoyed his success immensely and have even watched some Steelers football this season.

Roethlisberger is extremely talented, no question. But the media has it all wrong. An MVP candidate? The guy has thrown for 200 yards once! You could find dozens of quarterbacks in the last decade, including many backups, who have posted similar performances over a six game span. Just because he's been the de facto leader for a TEAM who has won every game he has started doesn't make him the MVP. It's foolish.

Returning to baseball, we have seen it twice already in the awards being given out; awards voted on by the same goofy sportswriters who mold how we view things. Khalil Greene not the Rookie of the Year?!?!?! He excelled at the most demanding position in the field while batting extremely well. The Padres were playoff contenders until he broke his finger. The fact that Greene was born in Western PA (Butler) has nothing to do with it.

Because if it had something to do with Pittsburgh, then I'd be all for the Pirates Jason Bay winning the award. Really I have no idea why Bay won. There's no recent historical precedent. The NL winner has been a pitcher in most years. Heck, Rafael Furcal won it in 2000 with numbers similar to Greene's. It's not a small-market thing. Maybe it's religious in nature (Greene is of the Baha'i faith).

It may have to do with a number of sportswriters moving to Canada after the presidential election and wanting to see one of "their own" winning it.

Worse, though, was the NL Cy Young voting, where the best pitcher in the National League was third on his team in voting and garnered only a single third place vote. Why? Because he didn't have enough wins or saves, despite being the absolute best pitcher in the league.

Brad Lidge deserved the Cy Young award. He started the season in a setup role and moved to closer and by the postseason was easily the most important pitcher on the Astros. No one was more dominating over the course of the season. No one understands "holds" and saves are convoluted. Look at Lidge compared to Clemens and Randy Johnson:

ERA R/9 IP OBA K/9
Lidge 1.90 8.28 .174 14.93
Johnson 2.60 8.10 .197 10.62
Clemens 2.98 10.44 .217 9.15

Clemens and Johnson are "old men" and not expected to perform at the high levels they did. When and how are people going to realize how to think out of the box and make their own opinions and analyze things when the majority of the media are lemmings and repeat the same mistruths over and over?

When will Jack Morris and Keith Hernandez be inducted into the Hall of Fame? Why didn't Rico Brogna ever win a Gold Glove. How, horror of horrors, can more people think Ripken's games played streak is a greater accomplishment than DiMaggio's hitting streak (as recently depicted in an online poll at the advertisement-laden ESPN.com)? How could George Bush have been re-elected?

I feel like the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind.

The Cardinals, The Offseason and Me

2004-11-06T20:29:00.000-08:00

You've just come off a crushing defeat to the Boston Red Sox and have ten free agents. As Dennis Hopper says, "What do you do? What do you do?" Well, Keanu, don't get on the bus, or even drop off the key - I'm here to set your mind free (and you don't need the red or green pills.)

But, before I start with what to do with the Cardinals FAs, I think I should start building from the bottom, and try to let you see the method to my madness. I am going to assume that the Cardinals are going to be revenue neutral so that they won't spend much more or less than the previous year. Second, I will take into account the fact the Rockies are paying $7.5 million of Larry Walker's contract in 2005 and that the Mets will be paying most of Roger Cedeno's contract leaving the Cardinals on the hook for only $700,000. I will also assume that the guaranteed contracts of Rolen, Pujols, Walker, Edmonds, Suppan and Sanders will all increase by about 9 million dollars over the next year. Carpenter's option pays him 2 million so that goes in the total. Let's add another 2 million for increases for the rest of the roster and the payroll should be around $59 million with 6 spots to fill. (I think my assumptions are pretty realistic without some more research on the contracts structures.) Now, the first move I will suggest will either make my colleagues think I have had my body switched with a space alien named Fizzy or lost my mind.

1. Sign Pokey Reese.

Yeah, I know. No bat. Obviously. However, I would make this the first move of the offseason just so that the Cardinals could take some chances. Last year his salary was one million, so I don't think it would be unreasonable to sign him for 1.25 mil.

2. Sign Ben Grieve.

Oh, I am bringing out the big guns. Whooeee, I am crazy with the money and crazy with power. So, to me one of the big weaknesses of the Cardinals was the lack of any power off the bench. This would give the Cards another left-handed bat for the bench with some pop as well as another outfielder to go with defensive replacement So Taguchi and then they could release Roger Cedeno. Plus, Grieve is only going to be 29 this next year. Last year he made 700k. So, if you pay him a cool million, you would have your fifth outfielder for $1.7 (combining him with the payment that would still need to be made to Roger Cedeno.)

3. Sign Valerio de los Santos.

Ok, I will now mention the first Cardinal free agent in this column: Steve Kline. It looks like his relationship with LaRussas has soured and I doubt he will be back. If de los Santos is healthy, he has a BA against of .232 against lefties and could be a valuable second lefty in the bullpen. This would be the biggest stretch in the first three moves, since he is turning 33 and is more than likely on the downward slope of his career. I would want to make it a minor league deal with a chance to make the major league club so as not to risk any money.

4. Use Carpenter, Suppan, Marquis and Ankiel/Haren in the starting rotation.

Truthfully, I have little problem with this being the second through fifth spots in the starting rotation. If it came to desperation time, you could go first through fifth, but that would be putting a lot of pressure on the young pitchers. We would have Adam Wainwright in AAA just in case, but that is another young pitcher to throw in the fire. However, we are saving a lot of money (to be used later), because my next suggestions are good cost saving measures.

5. Promote Al Reyes and Carmen Cali to the bullpen.

Both pitched well in the minors last year - even in the rarefied air of the Pacific Coast League. Admittedly, Cali only pitched twenty innings, but was promoted from the AA in mid-season and had 20 Ks to go with only four walks in those innings. This way you would have as a long reliever Haren or Ankiel (preferably Haren); Cali, de los Santos and Ray King from the left side; Kiko Calero and Reyes from the right with Isringhausen as the closer. So, the Cardinals would be carrying twelve pitchers in this plan. I think eleven would be the perfect number, with fourteen position players, meaning that de los Santos and Reyes should be the ones battling for the last spot. (Reyes will be turning 35, so he is not exactly a prospect - but could be serviceable. Cali will be 27, not a young pup either, but definitely a longer possible path.)

6. Do not resign any of the Cardinals free agents.

Am I crazy? No Edgar? No Matt? No Ray-Ray? Darn tootin. As I've already said, we will be losing Kline. I can't say that I would be unhappy to lose Cal Eldred, Ray Lankford, John Mabry, Tony Womack, Woody Williams, Matt Morris, Mike Matheny or Edgar Renteria. Williams is getting old. Lankford's return was a nice story, but didn't really offer too much after the first couple weeks of the season. Morris will probably cost too much. John Mabry did some nice things but will be 35 at the end of next season. Tony Womack doesn't really offer any offense. Neither does Mike Matheny, though with the catchers on the market, although I am perfectly happy with Yadier Molina, I would resign him for two to three million just to avoid having Cody McKay as the backup. (I am assuming that the Cardinals will not be in the market for Varitek.) So, we get to Edgar Renteria, which leads to my pentultimate point.

7. Sign Nomar Garciaparra.

Yes, he is injury prone. (That is why I made Pokey Reese the first signing. Pokey as the backup is nice. Heck, even as the starting second baseman, he is certainly not much worse than Tony Womack offensively and a much better defensive player. I just think the only good offensive second baseman on the market is Jeff Kent and he is past ripe. Additionally, you can keep Hector Luna as the guy to back up both positions, because I don't think he is ready to play full time.) Now, some of you might be wondering about the ages and the defense. Yes, Nomar is going to be 32. Edgar will be 30. However, last seasons OPS of 728 looks to be about where Edgar should be, while Nomar is up at 842 last season, and has potential to be better. The amount of total chances both had during their last full year is comparable with Nomar only making a few more errors. Edgar had a fielding percentage of .983 this year - Nomar while not really healthy was at .982. Renteria had a range factor of 4.41, Nomar 4.02. (If you look at Reese's last full year - he blows them both out of the water.) I would hope that Nomar's range would increase if he was healthy. Maybe I'm hoping against hope. I would also think that like other malcontents on other teams (Edmonds, Rolen) he could find a home in St. Louis. I would think a three year deal for 30 million would be possible. A little over what Renteria makes now, but I still think it would be a value for the increase in offense.

So, that brings the total to 72 million dollars, or about 10 million more to spend to equal this years salary total. Let's say we add five million to that total to make it about $15 million to go. There is one true possible #1 out there. That is Pedro Martinez. I'm not sure if that would be the best signing, but I think that could be exactly what the rotation needs. That may not be realistic, so I think a Radke, a Milton or a Derek Lowe could all be signed for about $10 million a year in today's market and could also make nice additions to the rotation and be true number ones.

Geez, not only do I have to hear it from Andy, now I am saying that I want three ex-Red Sox players on the Cardinals. If that is not admitting superiority, I don't know what is.

Philling in the blanks

2004-11-06T03:54:00.000-08:00

After re-reading what I wrote about the White Sox and what The Can scribed for the Bloody Hose, I have a theory. You can predict the perceived level of competitiveness of a team based on the number of free agents they have. Logically, this makes sense. A competitive team usually is a veteran team. A non-competitive team is often composed of younger players who are not eligible for free agency. Here's a list of the teams with ten or more free agents:

Boston, Yankees, Texas, Arizona, Cubs, Florida, Los Angeles and St. Louis.

With the exception of the debt-laden Diamondbacks, you could feel pretty comfortable about the chances of any of the remaining teams making the postseason next year. Granted, a lot of it has to do with how they cope with those free agents, but all these teams know how to spend money.

How about four or fewer free agents:

White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Seattle, Milwaukee, District of Columbia, Pittsburgh.

Which of those teams do you think will make the playoffs next year? If you said Cleveland, I'd congratulate you for your ability to think out of the box but the true answer is none of these.

There's also something to be said about the market size of the teams listed above. For the most part, big-market equals free agents. Little market, no.

That puts us back at the familiar tale, big market teams buy the players to win while small market teams have to develop talent and make the run while they're players are all under contract (a la Twins and A's).

What about the middle market teams that don't fit in either place? If they can mix both aspects, home grown with a few good signings, they can make a run.

The Phillies are one of those mid-level teams. The additions of Thome, Millwood, and Milton were supposed to supplement the Phillies own Abreu, Wolf et al. Didn't work. Now they have a new manager and nine free agents to make decisions on for next season.
A third of these free agents made up the bullpen for the Phillies: Rheal Cormier, Roberto Hernandez, and Todd Jones. They all were modestly effective but they are 37, 39 and 36 years old, respectively. Cormier and Jones have both openly discussed retirement. It would be a surprise to see any of the trio back. Again, though, don't discount the Phillies ability to do something stupid and re-sign them all.

Another trio of Phillies free agents come from the starting rotation. Ouch. Milton, Millwood and Lidle are no longer under contract. I doubt Millwood will be back. He'll want too much and the Phillies aren't thrilled with him because they thought he was ace caliber. Milton might be retained. Lidle will go somewhere where the GM thinks like me. "Lidle always has shown potential. Maybe he'll hit his stride with us". Then you look at his age, "He's 32 already?", and look somewhere else. Lidle makes a good #4 starter. I wouldn't mind seeing him on the Phils since they won't be contending anyway.

Hometown humorist Doug Glanville is a free agent. Doug hit .210. The only reason to have him on a team is because you like him. Baseball-wise, he's done.

Todd Pratt will enter his 43rd year of being a backup catcher in the major league. I hope it's with the Phils. He does everything you could want from a backup catcher.

Lastly, Placido Polanco is a free agent. The Phils have to re-sign him and that frightens me. Like Cory Lidle, he's functional, maybe even pretty good. You don't win championships with him. He is 29 and improving and may surprise me.

Pitching is obviously a concern for the Phillies. Without Milton, you're looking at Wolf, Floyd, Padilla and Myers in the rotation. Milton could replace Myers or Floyd. Still, there's no ace, no single guy to anchor the rotation. If you score runs like the Cardinals, you don't need one. The Phils need one. I don't know that they would make a run at Pavano, the best pitcher available. Radke, Pedro, Lowe. None of these guys are currently a number one.

If I were running the Phils, I would accept that 2005 is not my year, sign Radke and Milton, let Myers regain his talent in the minors, let Wolf be the number four where he belongs for a championship caliber team, wait for Floyd to develop in an Oswaltian fashion into the ace for 2006 and try to find takers for Pat Burrell and get a leftfielder who is more than a pretty boy.

What will really happen, though, is they'll sign Kris Benson and Terry Mulholland in the hopes of winning it this year.

If I had to spend the White Sox dollars

2004-11-06T03:35:00.000-08:00

The offseason can be as much fun for a baseball fan as
the regular season, particularly for a non-winning
team. There are the possibilities of acquiring the
players to make a run at a championship next season,
the questions over whether a player will make a
comeback from a poor season or repeat success from the
previous year.

As salaries in professional sports continue to
escalate and financial concerns play as much of a role
in the decisions to sign and retain players, it
becomes a little more difficult to envision the makeup
of your team durign the winter.

I asked my blogging compatriots to do just that,
though, beginning with the players of our favorite
teams who are free agents. While I am a White Sox fan,
I also root for the local Phillies so am looking at
what I would do if I were in the shoes of the
management of these teams.

Before I go into my decision, some caveats. One, I
like young players, especially pitchers. I'm a
potential guy. This is especially so compared to major
league executives who seem to like the "proven
quantity", especially for role players, regardless if
the player in question played for the Houston Colt
45's.

Second, I'm not real thrilled with the savvy of the
gentlemen running the front offices of these two
teams. They have a tendency towards making moves that
I would consider illogical. As best possible, I will
try to portray my decisions and express how I think
reality will differ.

Lastly, I want to be realistic. I'm not going to say
the White Sox should sign Beltre and Nomar and
Renteria and then trade Nomar for Randy Johnson.

Without further ado....

The White Sox. The White Sox in their movement toward
youth have themselves in a nice situation as far as
contracts go this winter. Only four players are free
agents. Sandy and Roberto Alomar, Magglio Ordonez and
Jose Valentin.

My thought last winter was that the White Sox should
try and do whatever possible to try and keep Maggs for
years to come. After the knee injury, I'm not so sure.
While one of the premier players in the American
League, a serious knee injury could have lingering
consequences. Also, Ordonez is thirty years old now
and should be on the decline. He'll be wanting a
multi-year deal for big bucks and I cannot see the
White Sox ponying up the dough. I don't think they
should.

What should they do, though? Assuming Frank Thomas is
healthy, he'll be the DH which means Carl Everett
plays the field. Him in right and Carlos Lee (despite
all the hard work and improvement he has made in left,
he can be a bit scary at times in the field), this is
not a great defensive outfield. Joe Borchard looked
like he might never be ready for the majors. There's
not many in-house options.

If I felt the White Sox were close to being
competitive in 2005, I'd say go after J.D. Drew. he
would be a great fit offensively and defensively and
would probably be a bit cheaper than Ordonez (and is
two years younger).

The White Sox need pitching help, though, and I can
see the money being spent on pitching.

But wait! What about the other three? The White Sox
would be fools to re-sign either Alomar. I'd say
there's about a 60% chance they will sign one and 20%
chance of both. Why? Because the White Sox (Ken
Williams) does dumb things like that. Likewise with
Valentin. I think the Sox may be through with him but
you never know.

If there is one position player I think the White Sox
have to sign in free agency, it is Cristian Guzman.
Budgetwise and talentwise, he would be a terrific
acquisition. It would help my faith in the team
immensely if they were to sign him. Despite his low
OBP, I think he brings a lot to a team.

There is potentially the revenge factor to consider as well with Guzman getting to go against his former teammates in Minnesota. I tend to discount that as a reason but you never know.

So in a nutshell, don't resign anybody and use the money to get Guzman and a pitcher.

Red Sox offseason moves

2004-11-05T13:27:00.000-08:00

You know, I first started feeling old when Playmates and All-Stars were younger than I was. Now, general managers are younger than me. Wow, how your perspective changes with age.

Since I was always taught to listen to my elders, perhaps Theo Epstein will read this and act accordingly. After all, this is what the Red Sox need to do this offseason:

1) Re-sign Jason Varitek: This one is a no-brainer. Yeah, he's pretty solid offensively for a catcher, perhaps in the top two in the AL. But it's how he handles the staff that matters. This pitching staff runs the gamut of personalities, from prima donna Pedro, to superstar Schilling, to blue-collar Wakefield (OK, so Varitek doesn't catch Wakefield, but I'm on a roll here) to head-case Lowe. Leadership in the locker-room can't really be understated -- Varitek is the rock, the guiding light, the glue that holds the band of merry idiots together. Alternate Plan should Varitek leave: Do whatever it takes to sign Mike Matheny.

2) Offer Pedro $10-12 million for three years: If he takes it, great. If he wants a longer deal or more money, let Steinbrenner or Arte Moreno overpay for him. Pedro is still a very, very good pitcher -- but he's no longer the No. 1, especially on the Red Sox, and he shouldn't be paid as much. Yeah, he looked good in the postseason, but a good start in the Series doesn't erase four horrendous starts to end the regular season. Which brings us to...

3) Pay for Derek Lowe's ticket out of town: Yeah, I really liked Lowe - even more now that he won three postseason series clinchers. Liked the 21 wins, the 2.27 ERA, the no-hitter, the 42 saves. Can't stand the up-and-down nature. After the Yankees shelled him in the Stadium in the regular season, I said he would never, ever beat the Yankees again. Thank goodness I was wrong. But who feels confident when this guy is pitching anymore? Can't say with any conviction that I do.

Alternate plan for re-tooling the pitching staff: Get Carl Pavano, throw in the incentive of making his parents dry-cleaning business the official laundry of the Red Sox. Yeah, he's done it for just one+ years, but he's 28 years old (I think), wants to go back to Boston, and will have more run support and better defense than he's ever imagined in Montreal or Florida. Then, go sign Matt Clement or Eric Milton. Brad Radke would be a nice option, too -- especially in that park. Throws ground balls, works fast, throws strikes and is in the Tim Wakefield mold mentally. All business.

4) Sign Orlando Cabrera for whatever he wants: The reason here is simple - the excuse for not giving him a 6-year deal is because Hanley Ramirez is "just" one or two years away. Yeah, and Hanley Ramirez is 20 years old. Look, I'm all for home-grown talent and developing players and such, but it's been a long time since highly-touted prospects have worked out (can you say Josh Hamilton?) With Cabrera, you know what you are getting -- very good defense, .280, 20 HRs and 75 RBIs. If Hanley is all he's cracked up to be, ship him off for Randy Johnson or something. Alternate plan: Sign Edgar Renteria. Do NOT sign Barry Larkin. I'd even accept Omar Vizquel for a year or two.

5) Go get Troy Glaus: Yeah, Bill Mueller is at 3b. But if he's healthy, Troy Glaus was the player made for Fenway. Above average defense, great work ethic, absolute masher and a fan favorite. Think the Sox had a stacked lineup this year and last? Add Glaus to the mix in place of either Bellhorn or Mueller (who have high trade value after the Series) and watch the fireworks.

Aside from that, things seem pretty normal -- perhaps go get Steve Kline, because he's madder than heck at the Cards and Boston is closer to his Pennsylvania home, and Mike Myers didn't exactly do the job as the lefty; stay away from Beltran - a 10-year deal? c'mon. Yeah, he's a great player and all. That's another one for Steinbrenner to have. Plus, we have no place for him in our outfield. Damon had a fantastic season, Manny is one of the best pure hitters in the game and Trot is the best defensive outfielder we have.

So, the Sox Christmas wish list looks like this: Varitek, Pedro (for a reasonable price), Pavano, Cabrera and Glaus. I think I like it.

Pain don't hurt

2004-11-01T08:08:00.000-08:00

OK, so Curt Schilling’s post-season performance ranks right up there with Achilles last stand, or any other fable or parable you want to equate with it.

But why? Well, for me, it’s because he’s a Red Sock, and beat both the Yankees and the Cardinals and brought us to the Promised Land.

But I have to wonder about others’ perception of his outings.

What is society’s fascination with pro athletes (or pro anythings) playing through pain and hurt? People tend to put these sorts of performances on a pedestal of some sort. I always figured that the ability to throw 95-mph darts on the outside corner was reason enough to be elevated to Godhood.

Willis Reed? He limped onto the floor, scored four points in the entire game and people say it’s the greatest performance ever in the NBA until Jordan and his flu came along.

People talk about Jack Youngblood playing on a broken leg. Talk about Ronnie Lott having his pinky chopped off at the knuckle instead of being placed in a splint, just so he could go out and play.

Did they contribute to the success, or lack thereof, of their teams? Perhaps. I certainly thought Schilling was torpedoing any shot the Sox had after his Game 1 outing against the Yankees.

Where is the line between hubris/stupidity and common sense? Hey, if I get drugged up enough, I can forgo any pain as long as it helps me beat McClain in a game of DMB.

But it’s not just limited to athletes. Pete Townsend, while wind-milling some power chords, wracked his pick hand on his whammy bar. Had to have it all taped up and bandaged.

And he kept on playing throughout the duration of the tour. Now, with the egomaniacal, money-centric person that Pete is, I think we can all agree that the only reason he did that was to make more money than the Rolling Stones that year.

But was it a smart decision? Who am I to say? In retrospect, Schilling’s doctors knew what they were doing, at least for the time being, and millions in Red Sox Nation are very appreciative.

I just wonder why the general public is so enamored with playing through pain.

Heck, my kids get little certificates if they make it through the entire school year without missing a day. Same goes for Sunday School at church. Some parents pride themselves on this stuff — in any given rush hour, you’ll find 10 cars with “My child is….” bumper stickers.

Uh, sorry, but if your kid has pinkeye or chicken pox, I sure as hell don’t want him or her anywhere near my kids just so you can get a stupid little sticker.

Same goes for sports – if you are hurt, and my team is in position to make history, I would tend to view you with a little suspicion if you tried to play through the pain just because you think you can.

How many Sox fans thought it was over when Schilling was drilled?

Maybe it’s just a reflection of society’s misguided sense of priorities and appreciation. Yeah, I appreciate what Schilling did. But I also appreciate what Johnny Damon, Bill Mueller and Orlando Cabrera did — and I would argue what they did was almost as unexpected as what Schilling did.

Where's the love?

2004-10-31T03:28:00.000-08:00

Many weeks ago I sent Andy and Jason an e-mail about the 1984 Tigers. I forget how the idea came to me but it was one of the things that spawned the idea of this blog. The three of us think about baseball a lot and wanted an outlet to share these ideas. We do some e-mailing but never take a lot of time for any deeper looks.

Frankly, we're all probably too busy right now to do deep analysis anyway, even with the outlet. Nonetheless, I wanted to write a little bit about the 1984 Tigers, a fantastic team that I feel has been overlooked.

For Boston fans, it's understandable. That Detroit has not won a World Series in 20 years, well, who cares? Red Sox fans don't even recognize that White Sox fans have waited 87 years. And that will be my last gripe on this issue. :)

The Tigers started the 1984 season by steamrolling everyone in their path. Through May they were 37-9 and were ten games ahead of everyone in their division except for the Blue Jays. They were dominating in every fashion, leading the league in run scored and fewest runs allowed. They went a very respectable 67-49 the rest of the season taking the division by fifteen games and then defeating the Royals and Padres in the postseason.

Right there may be part of the reason this team is forgotten. The Padres and the Royals? Neither team has had a legacy of postseason success. Also, with the lack of a pennant race interest during the season from folks who were fans of AL East teams may have been minimal. Oh, for the want of a wild-card game!!!

That Tigers team had four players who can present cases for Hall of Fame induction; ace starting pitcher Jack Morris, batterymate Lance Parrish and the longtime double play combo of shortstop Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker. Designated hitter Darrell Evans is arguably qualified as well.

Jack Morris was a pitcher who knew how to win. Season after season he would post lackluster numbers compared to peers considered more dominant but every year he would have plenty of wins. Morris won ten or more games fourteen times in his career, including twenty three times. He wasn't pretty. He didn't overpower hitters (the only time he led the league in strikeouts was a season where he pitched almost 300 innings). He wasn't a control artist. He surrendered a ton of home runs. You look at his numbers and you have to wonder how he won over 250 games.

Morris had a knack for pitching well enough to keep his team in the game. He could throw nine innings start after start. Morris, maybe more than any pitcher of his era, exhibited a desire to let his team win the game for him. Morris was a conduit of success, not the source of it. He could let hitters put the ball in play knowing he had great fielders like Whitaker and Trammell and Gibson behind him. He could give up a home run because his teammates would get it back, or more likely had already given him the lead. What made Morris a great pitcher can not be displayed statistically. We don't know the thought processes he went through. All we can do is recognize that he was an anomaly, aa person who could get a win when it mattered.

If not for the 1992 playoffs, one in which Morris pitched as a "hired gun" for the Toronto Blue Jays, he may be better remembered for getting the wins that mattered. Until 1992, Morris was 7-1 in playoff appearances, including 4-0 in the World Series. His 1-0, ten inning victory in game 7 of the 1991 World Series for the Minnesota Twins was legendary. The next season he lost three games in the playoffs including both World Series games he pitched.

Maybe if he could have ended his career after 1991, he would have been a lock for the Hall. Even still, he should be in. So let's take some time to show Jack the love and remember his fantastic pitching accomplishments.

The end of an era

2004-10-30T12:34:00.000-07:00

My Cardinals lost. The Red Sox won. Two crushing developments, and I'm not just talking about changing a Farrelly brothers movie ending. One of the most interesting stories in baseball is over, and everyone is celebrating. Well, I for one am not.

Alas, poor Red Sox Nation, I knew them well Horatio. A group of infinite hope, they bore their team upon their back a thousand times.

Now, they are winners. There is no tragedy. Hamlet has survived and fought off Fortinbras' legions to save Denmark. And they all live happily ever after. Yeah, a regular Spielbergian adventure. E.T. gets to go home!

Give me Kubrick or Scorsese anytime.

The Red Sox were the losing team that never deserved to lose. The success of the Yankees was initially created by a loser owner who needed cash. Not the fault of the players or the fans, but they were the ones who suffered. And it's not like they had bad players. They had arguably the best hitter of all time, Ted Williams. They had Doerr, Tiant, Yaz, Clemens, Boggs, Oil Can, Lynn, Rice, Dewey, Pedro and many more, those are just the few that come to mind for me as I sit here in my coffeshop listening to Miles Davis. I'm not even a Red Sox fan. (Probably obvious since I am still listing Clemens as a Red Sox player.)

No offense to my esteemed colleague, but who cares about the White Sox? This is a team more known for its promotions than its products on the field. Plus, they brought it on themselves - by having the players betray them in the notorious Black Sox scandal of 1919. You gamble, you deserve to lose, and that seems like a worthy argument, though not necessarily fair.

Sissyphus has finally rolled the boulder to the top of the hill. He is free! He is normal! He is pedestrian. The Red Sox are no longer that fun, unique team. They are now enshrined in the recent winners of the World Series club. Since 1980, this group includes the Phillies, the Dodgers, the Cardinals, the Orioles, the Tigers, the Royals, the Twins, the Mets, the Reds, the Athletics, the Braves, the Marlins, the Blue Jays, the Diamondbacks and the Angels. Now the Red Sox. Once they were a team without peer - now they are the same as 50% of major league baseball teams. Once they were one of the storied teams elevated by the mystery of a 'curse' and incredible bad luck, now they are like the Reds, Tigers or Pirates. Teams with great players and great histories that have won championships. Yippee! Be like the Reds!

But, I am sure the fans are happy with their trade of a championship for their unique status. They are happy and satisfied for the first time in many fans lifetimes. But, now in your moment of euphoria, please, don't get rid of Fenway now that you have a winner. Please. I know the owners will try to convince you, but I haven't been yet. I want to be able to see a game there and witness the most unique ball park in baseball. I will try to make it in the next year, because I doubt that Red Sox Nation will be able to hold out for very long.

Well, congratulations to the Red Sox. Now the teams to root against has shrunk as the tragedy of the world of baseball finally has a happy ending. Well, at least I can still follow the comedy of baseball - the Cubs. Believe me, I hope that bit of comedy lasts longer than the careers of Bob Hope, Jerry Lewis and Redd Foxx combined.

Cards fans are slightly delusional

2004-10-29T07:54:00.000-07:00

As one would expect, my first post to this site will concern the Red Sox. And so will my second, and probably my third. After all, 34 years of waiting (not gonna say 86 because I haven’t been around that long, and that’s a silly argument anyway) provides a lot of material.

First, let me say that I am a Cardinals fan – I have been since getting married to a Cardinals fan nine years ago. I like the team, the tradition, most of the players and sometimes the manager.

But after the Red Sox sweep (hang on a sec, gotta let that sink in….OK), Cards fans were saying three things – 1) our pitching let us down; 2) our MV3 (as the local media has tagged Rolen, Edmonds and PooHoss) let us down; 3) it’s too bad people didn’t get a chance to see the real Cardinals.

There is no arguing with option 2 above – those three players certainly didn’t come through when needed, or even when not needed. I would argue (and will in a later post) that part of that a reflection of facing a) one of the best pitchers of this generation, at least for a stretch; and b) one of the best ‘big-game’ pitchers of the past five years.

However. It’s option No. 1 that kind of troubles me. The pitching didn’t let the Cardinals down – I would argue that the pitching performed about as well as expected, at least from a starters point of view.

Overall, the St. Louis Cardinals had a 3.75 ERA this year. But their starters came in at 4.08 in slightly fewer than 1,000 innings.

The best offense in the National League was, not surprisingly, the Cardinals. In terms of runs scored, the Giants were the best, but could manage no better than sixth overall in MLB. The Cards were seventh. The Phillies were ninth. All other teams in the top 10 were from the A.L.

Point being – the Cardinals pitchers didn’t face any offense this year even remotely as potent as the Boston Red Sox, which led the MAJORS with 949 runs, a .360 on-base percentage and a .472 slugging percentage. Not led the AL, not led the group of teams with foul lines less than 315 feet – led the entire major leagues.

Now, of the two other NL teams in the top 10 overall in runs scored, the Cards played just six games against each – admittedly a small sample size. But against Philadelphia, the Cards were 3-3 with a 4.74 ERA.

Against the Giants, the Cards were 3-3 with a 4.17 ERA.

But, against the top two offensive teams in their own division, against whom the Cards played a total of 37 games (a much greater sample size), the Cards were 11-8 against Chicago with a 4.93 ERA, and were 8-10 against Houston, with a 4.33 ERA.

Houston was 14th in the majors with 803 runs, and 12th in both on-base (.342) and slugging (.436), while Chicago was 16th with 789 runs, 23rd in OBP at .328, but third in slugging at .458. The other teams in the Cards' division don’t even warrant a mention, placing no higher than 19th in any one category.

The simple answer would be to say yeah, but NL teams feature pitchers in the lineup, so of course their runs and averages will be lower.

That is only partially correct. While watching the Astros/Cards series, after Jeff Kent batted, it was all over for the Astros – with the black holes that are Vizcaino, Ausmus and whichever pitcher batting, pitchers knew they were facing a six-man lineup – sometimes even five, given the way Ensberg was hitting this year. None of those four guys do you have to pitch overtly carefully to.

Same goes for the Dodgers – with just two and a half hitters dangerous, pitchers could save some of their best stuff for later.

Look around the NL – the worst offenses can all be found there (Arizona, Milwaukee, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Montreal) and you can’t blame it all on the pitchers.

What it boils down to is that the Red Sox, this year, featured one of the most explosive offenses in recent years. There were no easy outs. No Vizcainos, No Robby Hammacks. The Cards hadn’t faced that all season, and responded accordingly.

Top Ten Reasons why the Red Sox World Series Victory Shouldn't Count

2004-10-28T04:09:00.000-07:00

10. Because they won it the New York Yankees way (ka-ching), and certainly no Red Sox fan can tolerate that.
9. The Red Sox reached the World Series because of the Bud Selig-created bastardization of playoff games, the wild-card.
8. No one even talked about thawing out Teddy Ballgame so he could celebrate
7. The effects of the Curse of Pedro's midget haven't kicked in yet
6. Too strange to think of Boston fans going outside this afternoon and saying "Is it me or does the sky look wicked blue today?"
5. No drug test results back from Curt Schilling yet. "Painkillers". Mmmhmm.
4. I don't get teary eyed hearing Orlando Cabrera thanking "Beautiful".
3. Overshadowed the big baseball news last night: Rafael Palmeiro resigned with the Orioles.
2. Because Johnny Damon is starting to think he really is Jesus
1. Because the White Sox deserve one first

Days of old

2004-10-25T04:32:00.000-07:00

I haven't watched a whole lot of the playoffs. Maybe that's why I have been able to make such unsuccessful predictions. Baseball doesn't interest me a whole lot nowadays. I am far more interested in the history of the game. Some of that has to do with the way the game is played. Some of it has to do with my feeling like I was born a hundred years too late. I think a lot of what is missing from baseball comes from societal trends.

From the aspect of game play, I hate the home run. There has been one decent pitcher's duel in the playoffs this year, the game I chose to watch over the Red Sox-Yankees drama. It was so much fun watching Brandon Backe, a former positional player, thrive in the clutch and carry the Astros to victory both at the end of the regular season and in the playoffs.

Home runs are boring. I hate these slugfests where you sit and wait until someone gets served a mistake that can be crushed into the seats. Teams are foolish nowadays to have anybody in the lineup who cannot take a walk. When so many people can hit home runs with ease, why would you not want a player who can get on base? Who cares about speed anymore? What difference does good defense really make on balls hit over the fence. Baseball is largely miserable to watch nowadays. Bring back the steal, the sacrifice and the hit and run.

As much as I am a fan of the Deadball Era, I wouldn't mind the baseball of my childhood. When thirty home runs in a season was impressive. When you had guys like Willie McGee and Rickey Henderson and John Cangelosi who were fun to watch scamper around the bases, who impacted a game with their natural gifts instead of the artificial muscle-bound players we watch now.

Bring back the Astrodome and the Busch Stadium turf. Bring back Whitey Herzog. And Fernando. And Dave Rozema. Sigh.

I read a book this weekend by Dan Adams entitled Major Leaguers of Clinton County, Pennsylvania. Nine players have been born in Clinton County, which lies in the middle of PA. None have played in sixty years. The heydays were the 1880's when the county produced five players. Why was it such a hotbed then? Part of it was the local sewing machine company that existed there. The company had one of the top semi-pro baseball teams in the region, which produced several of the pitchers from Clinton County that played in the majors. When you had a team like that around, it made it easy for scouts and the baseball network to locate talent. It brought recognition to the town, the company and the region. There was a sense of community that does not exist today. What companies do anything beyond providing the most basic of benefits today? How many benefit the community beyond providing jobs and the occasional corporate sponsorship of a community event?

Can you imagine your employer giving you time to play baseball? Can you imagine feeling enough pride about your place of employemnt to want to do so? I'm sure there are probably some instances, especially among smaller companies, where such consideration for the area around the company is as important as the number of dollars profited. It's just not like it used to be.

Sure, things weren't perfect in the 1880's. Or the 1980's. But why are we so quick to let go of the good things that did exist? Is this really progress?

Managers

2004-10-23T08:40:00.000-07:00

Well, my phine pheathered Phillie phan, I see the worm has turned on Delta Guru. Truthfully, I understand your prediction. Roger Clemens is a great pitcher. The difference lay in someone you mentioned - Phil Garner. Now, his double switch to gain one place in the batting order for his pitcher in Game 7 didn't come back to haunt him, and it could be argued that Orlando Palmeiro is a better outfielder than Biggio, but it is still a very questionable move. The previous night he doubled switched for Lance Berkman so that Brad Lidge could pitch longer. Lidge is awesome, but for Berkman? If Lidge had pitched less on Wednesday, would he have been available to come in to face Rolen? Not sure - but those are moves that a manager controls directly. However, most of the blame that managers get is just undeserved.

As a Cardinal fan, I hear about the return to small ball, Whitey ball, bunting and the hit and run. Dagnabit, if your manager isn't doing these things, then he isn't trying. He's just sitting there. Doing nothing. Let's fire the good for nothing guy. Bring back Herzog!

The role of the manager, while important, is vastly overrated. I would say that the role of the GM is the biggest part of the success of the team, followed by the players and lastly the manager. Yet, here in Kansas City, and most everywhere, the first person on the chopping block is the manager (in this case Tony Pena, after he was a Manager of the Year candidate last year) followed by star players like Mike Sweeney. Why is this backwards?

1. The manager is the visible head of the club. Everyone sees him as the leader of the team (the exception might be Oakland's GM Billy Beane) and therefore the head of the club. If the team/company is doing poorly, you fire the leader. Easy. Everyone does it. At work, if things aren't going well, we blame it our bosses, or our bosses' boss and on down the line. Why? Well, for one thing, we read comics like Dilbert, which have a lot of truth in them from the view of the employee. But, they also teach us that our bosses are not needed and that the world would be better if we all ran things ourselves. Talk radio reinforces this in the sports world by giving the everyman a chance to say, "Here is what I would have done in that situation, because I am a learned man of the game." What are those actions suggested by the armchair manager? Well, they boil down to two basic kinds of decisions - the pre-game decisions and the game decisions.

2. The manager's decisions are easy to evaluate in terms of success. Let's say we are looking at Phil Garner. He made some interesting decisions in his starting rotation during the playoffs. In the divisional series he started Roger Clemens and Roy Oswalt on three days rest. There were a lot of questions on these decisions. He won - those questions were forgot. Questions about the rotation surfaced again, this time because he DIDN'T use Roger Clemens on short rest to pitch game 6 against the Cardinals and this time he lost - albeit in extra innings. So - this was a move that could be questioned. Why? The Astros lost. Easy to figure out if it was a success or not. Those successes and failures always seem to boil down to a single move or decision. (27 outs per side? I can't be expected to remember all of those. I just know the one out we did/didn't get that matters.)

Besides the starting pitcher, the manager is also responsible for the starting lineup. Who is in and in what order are open for questions. If a player hits extra base hits from a position in the lineup where there was no one on base in front of him - and he is not driven home - well then his spot in the lineup is wrong. You always put speed at the top of the order, power in the middle and your lesser hitters at the bottom of the order. If a manager deviates from this (Brian Downing leading off the game? Are you crazy?) well then fans can second guess the lineup. If a manager tries something new, he is open to the criticisms of talk radio - and so all managers conform nicely. Tony Womack has a 0.349 OBA? Well, he's fast, so put him at the top of the lineup. Case closed.

The manager's last pre-game responsibility is chemistry. Doesn't really have to do with playing the game, but I think you can look at the success of Joe Torre and the lack of success of Larry Bowa and see the importance of the perception of chemistry. Just like you can look at the A's of the 70s and fun loving Harvey Wall-banger Brewers of the late 70s and 80s and see how important chemistry is in winning championships.

So we move to game decisions. The fan can evaluate these at the drop of the hat. Grady Little didn't take out Pedro in time? He gave up a home run? Well, then it is Grady's fault obviously. The manager asked for a bunt and the batter wasn't successful in moving the runner to second? Well, everyone knows that you should swing away there and not give up an out. Man on first, no one out and the team doesn't score? Why don't you try the hit and run, Mr. Manager? My goodness, do something. We're not paying you to sit there and rock back and forth like Rain Man. Manage. Do anything, because if we don't win, it's your fault. Bring in a new pitcher. No, let him stay in - he's been great for us all year. He's a gamer.

So, there is an instant where we know if a manager is a success or not. Some decisions everyone seems to agree were wrong (see Grady Little.) But, I would say that most would have the honest viewing fan split down the middle. There are arguments to be made for leaving in Roger Clemens instead of going to a decimated bullpen, and there is the argument that once he gave up the double, it was obvious that he had lost his edge. We now know which one was right. There is no uncertainty principle like there is at that perfect moment before a manager makes his decision. But after, there is plenty of time to second guess, because we all knew in our heart what would, and eventually did, happen.

To get to the point, these decisions are important. No question. (My favorite sports response, by the way. "Did you think that the hit by Player A was important in starting the rally?" "Oh, there's no question." "Wait, didn't I just ask you a question?" "Oh, there's no question." I could go on for days.) I can't leave the manager completely blameless. But, there are more important factors.

1. The players that a manager gets to manage. I think we can safely say that before he got to New York, Joe Torre was viewed as an average manager. Now, he is a Hall of Fame candidate. If you get to manage some of the players he has managed, and they all perform up to their potential, then it looks fantastic. Yes, part is due to the fact that the Yankees have unlimited cash and are a big market team (I'll explore that next week) but also that they had a nice core nucleus and more in the minors to trade for talent to plug holes. They haven't won the World Series in a few years, but they have been in the playoffs. The general manager has to be able to get the team to the playoffs and hope that the players can win it all. Which is the last point......

2. The players have to perform. If Pedro gets an out, what happens? If Mariano Rivera doesn't blow a save in this year's post season, and is successful like in the majority of past years, what happens? Players are fallible (see that 33% success is deemed great in the history of hitting in the game) and are excused. Who else can do what Mariano Rivera has done? Didn't Pedro get us to that point in the game? Look at what Mulder, Zito and Hudson did all year. I couldn't do that. They are special individuals with special talents. However, I know enough to get them out of the game. I can see when they are tired, and that is all I need to see. Everyone can see that.

Managers aren't given a chance to make a mistake. We can do what they can do and talk about it by the water cooler or on the phone to our new friends at KFANS or whatever your local radio call letters are. They have to be perfect. If not, it is obviously their pre-game and game decisions that led to defeat. Not the players that we have - that's a given - you have to make do with what you have. Not the players performance - hey he's a great player, just having an off night, week, month or year.

I started the post by pointing out a couple of moves that Garner made that I thought were questionable. If the Astros would have won either of the last two games, they would have been irrelevant. Maybe they took the Astros out of a position to win the game. But, a 3-run HR would have solved the same problems in those games as they did in Game 5.

Remember what the players say whenever they accept an award - "I accept this award on behalf of the team, because it is a team effort." It is also a team effort to lose - and the manager is the last in line for both winning and losing.

How the Red Sox will lose the World Series

2004-10-21T04:06:00.000-07:00

At this point, I don't kno who the Red Sox will play in the World Series. I do know that for all the "momentum" the Sox will be riding, the National League team will counter with the "lack of respect" emotional motivation as I may have been the only person, at least who is not a fan of any of the four Championship Series teams, who preferred watching the Cards-Stros game.

Frankly, I don't believe in emotion winning ballgames, especially over a multiple game series. Maybe Curt Schilling willed himself to be able to pitch Game 6, but whole teams? I don't see it.

My personal opinion is that the Astros will beat the Cardinals tonight. I see Clemens being able to shut down the Cardinals and I expect Phil Garner to unleash the run and gun Astros like he did to take out the Braves.

Regardless, the Red Sox don't have much of a chance and it comes down to pitching. Which Red Sox starter do you have confidence in leading the team to it's first World Series in 86 years? Pedro, now that he got his Daddy off his back? Schill the Gimp? Bronson "Don't call me Brandon, Tim McCarver" Arroyo? Derek Lowe?

I can see Lowe, especially if you're still running around with your head in the clouds after Game 7, but Lowe goes as far as his head takes him. Right now it's a tough call as to which is more fragile, his head or Schilling's ankle. Contrast that pair to the confidence of Brandon "Don't call me Bronson" Backe and the Astros aged power pitcher, Roger Clemens. Add in Oswalt over Pedro. I just cannot see the Red Sox winning.

I do think Manny has to perform better (0 RBI's against the Yankees) and Ortiz has to come down to normal levels a bit (which is still terrifying). Both NL teams have potent lineups as well and I don't think either NL team has a player that makes you cringe when the ball is hit into him in the field (but then again, maybe Manny is channeling the playoff greatness of Lonnie Smith). Mark Bellhorn at second base doesn't instill confidence in me either.

I've avoided addressing the Cardinals rotation for two reasons. One, I don't think they will move on. And two, who understands the Cardinals rotation? They get outs.

Well, welcome to this site. My co-bloggers, who root for the Cardinals and the Red Sox, may have something to say about my initial entry. I expect to have better analyses in the future but I wanted to be on record with my prediction of the Astros in five games over the Red Sox (Munro takes a loss).

Jon