The mighty Pujols wields the flaming bat of jealousy, and whining.
So all the claims I made earlier that Albert Pujols is not a dick turned out to not be true. According to newsday.com:
"I see it this way: Someone who doesn't take his team to the playoffs doesn't deserve to win the MVP," Pujols said in Spanish at a news conference organized by the Dominican Republic's sports ministry.
And then there's this bit of immaturity, courtesy of Diario Libre:
"Sé que fue doloroso (lo de) el premio MVP porque yo creo que tuve mejores numeritos que él (Ryan Howard), pero esas son cosas que pasan", dijo Pujols ayer en conferencia de prensa celebrada en la Secretaría de Estado de Deportes. "Dije el año pasado que si podía cambiar el premio por el anillo de la Serie Mundial lo haría de una vez, que no lo pensaba dos veces y ese fue el cambio que hice".
Yes, Albert, you should have won the MVP. But no, it's not because your crappy-ass team made the playoffs. I mean, I can't begin to talk about how wrong that is. Readers of this blog know that I don't believe a team's performance should affect the MVP race, so that's one thing. But Albert, Albert, if you're going to argue that a deserving MVP candidate must be from a playoff team, don't use your own as an example against Ryan Howard, whose team finished two games ahead of yours in a better division.
As to the second point, if you really, honestly cared more about winning a World Series than the MVP, then I doubt you'd be bringing it up, pissed off, to the Dominican Media at this point. I still think you should have won it, but grow the **** up.
I got a 36 out of 50. Most of the questions are stuff that someone who knows a lot about baseball would know; I'd say three baseball-heads combined could get a 50/50 handily. But some questions are a little ridiculous: Where Vin Scully went to college? Was college even invented when Vin Scully was 18? Here's a couple more questions I couldn't answer:
-What newspaper first dubbed baseball the "national pastime" on December 5, 1856?
-What Hall-of-Famer caught a record four no-hitters in his career?
-Who holds the record for most home runs by a pitcher?
-Who is the only player to hit 50 home runs and strike out fewer than 50 times in a season?
-Who is the only player to win the Rookie of the Year, MVP and Cy Young awards?
To name just a few.
The REALLY cool thing about this quiz is that they gave the same thing to a bunch of players and "experts", and let you see how you compared. I think we really need more opportunities to prove just how not-that-much-smarter than the average fan these "experts" really are. I'm serious about that.
Dumbest players? Brad Ausmus, Mike Lowell and Dave Roberts. Smartest? (And the only one that scored better than me?) Kevin Mench. I guess that enlargedhead isn't just for show.
Smartest "expert"? Gary Gillette. Rob Neyer let me down, missing by two. I managed to tie Jerry Crasnick, beat Eric Karabell, and destroy Steve Phillips, by far the dumbest expert. Seriously, Steve Phillips is dumber than a cat. Everything he says or does is awful. How anyone let him ever run a baseball team is a mystery, and I don't mean that in the colloquial "it's a mystery to me" sense, I mean someone should really hire a fucking detective to find out how the hell that happened.
What were we talking about? Oh yeah. Take the quiz, motherfuckers. Carnival owns you.
A very interesting quote from Bill James about Mike Lowell
It still boggles my mind that some people think Sabermetricians only look at numbers and don't enjoy watching baseball.
Mike Lowell is the best defensive third baseman in baseball. He’s extremely interesting to watch. He keeps his glove hand, his left hand, very relaxed, and he doesn’t appear to anticipate the hop at all. What I am saying is. .. the announcers, the veteran baseball people will tell you that the key to making the plays is to get your body in the proper position to make the play. But in fact, if you actually watch the fielders, very often they can’t handle a tough hop or a line drive at an awkward angle precisely because they’re trying to play the ball with their whole body. They’re relying on positioning their body to make the play, and when something happens that makes that impossible, they’re just SOL. Lowell, if you watch him, seems to be saying “it is easier to react with my left arm than it is to re-position my whole body in anticipation of the play.” He stays balanced, stays loose, reacts late and has extraordinary confidence in his ability to snag the ball with his glove at the last moment. I’ve never really seen anything like it before, but this looseness and unusual confidence, for example, gives him a remarkable ability to charge a ground ball. He can change a slow grounder top speed because he knows that, bad hop or good hop, in-between stride or on stride, he can slap at the ball with his glove and pick it out of the air.
He also has a remarkably good arm...throws easy, not much motion, but on target. He’s not fast, obviously, and he doesn’t move to his left well.
A terrible journalist by any other name would be as bad at being a journalist
Hard to believe Shakespeare wrote those immortal words over one million years ago.
Joe Sheehan over at BP thinks we should change the name of the BBWAA to the BBRAA; that is, the Baseball Reporters Association of America. Can't say I disagree with his logic:
The organization of professionals who cover baseball games and lay claim to the voting process for the major awards and the Hall of Fame is, to me, the Baseball Reporters Association of America. That’s not to denigrate what those people do; it’s to better describe it. The organization has made it clear that it exists as an advocacy group for the people who cover baseball games on a daily basis for print publications.
My argument is simply that they don’t get to co-opt the term “writer,” not in this era, not when they actively exclude talents like Rob Neyer and Steven Goldman and Christina Kahrl and Alex Belth and so many other people who cover baseball by means other than traveling with teams and relaying quotes to the public.
Hall of Fame breakdown, an opinion nobody is going to like, and some thoughts on parity
The ballot for the 2007 Baseball Hall of Fame inductions has been released, and it looks like this (the numbers after the commas are the years the player has been on the ballot, including this year):
Harold Baines, 1 Albert Belle, 2 Dante Bichette, 1 Burt Blyleven, 10 Bobby Bonilla, 1 Scott Brosius, 1 Jay Buhner, 1 Ken Caminiti, 1 Jose Canseco, 1 Dave Concepcion, 10 Eric Davis, 1 Andre Dawson, 6 Tony Fernandez, 1 Steve Garvey, 15 Rich "Goose" Gossage, 8 Tony Gwynn, 1 Orel Hershiser, 2 Tommy John, 13 Wally Joyner, 1 Don Mattingly, 7 Mark McGwire, 1 Jack Morris, 8 Dale Murphy, 9 Paul O'Neill, 1 Dave Parker, 13 Jim Rice, 11 Cal Ripken, Jr., 1 Bret Saberhagen, 1 Lee Smith, 5 Alan Trammell, 6 Devon White, 1 Bobby Witt, 1
Without doing any thinking about it, these are the players I would vote for (in alphabetical order):
1. Belle 2. Gwynn 3. McGwire 4. Ripken
This is live, folks! Now, I will do some research, and see if that changes anything.
*Okay, I am really, really torn on these three. The pitchers are pretty much your opposite ends of the spectrum on HOF arguments. Blyleven represents a kind of excellence combined with longevity that is rare, especially for pitchers, but Saberhagen represents utter dominance for a shorter period of time. Think of it as a scaled down version of Seaver vs. Koufax. I won't go into the specifics here, but I would LOVE to get a discussion in the comments going about these two if anyone is interested. I feel like they should either both make it or both be left out. I'm leaning towards left out, can anyone convince me otherwise? (Or convince me I'm right?)
Belle is another interesting one. I'd like to open the debate on him because NOBODY is talking about him. That is, of course, because Belle was a major-league asshole, and not white. As my boss put it, "Belle was a better asshole than he was a hitter; and he was a pantheon-level hitter." Plus he made a lot of money, which no one seems to like. But the only hitter putting up even close to the numbers Belle was putting up during his peak was Frank Thomas, a pretty sure HOFer, who was useless with a glove. Belle was no Gold Glover himself, but he at least managed to register 61 FRAR over his career, compared to Thomas's -12.
I honestly think Belle is a borderline case, although perhaps not as borderline as Blyleven or Saberhagen. But it brings me to a later point, which I will get to later.
There is no dispute about Gwynn or Ripken. Besides Ripken's streak, which is almost enough to get him in alone, he also has excellent HOF numbers for a shortstop. Never a league-leading hitter, he was above-average enough that to be that good for 162 games a year for however many years is outstanding.
Let's talk about McGwire.
Let's talk about the similarities between Mark McGwire and Pete Rose. When Rose's ban came down, it had not been proven that he bet on baseball, as it has not been proven that McGwire was on steroids. Baseball banned him anyway, just as the writers are about to blackball McGwire. Of course in both cases it was pretty obvious that they were guilty; Rose would later admit his guilt, and McGwire would later look like an idiot during a bigger waste of Congressional time than all the applause of all the State of the Unions put together. I happen to believe that Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame, with a mention on his plaque that he was banned from baseball. To me, banned from baseball does not mean banned from the Hall of Fame, because Major League Baseball does not own or operate the Hall of Fame, some family in Cooperstown does. (For more information read Bill James' seminal book, Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?) The Hall of Fame has more of a partnership than an affiliation with Major League Baseball, and exists to honor the game, not the league. For this reason, accomplishments in the game should be honored there, whether or not the player is at odds with MLB.
Some differences between Rose and McGwire: one was a slugger, one was a hustler. Like it or not, writers love hustlers, and don't love sluggers. That's why Tony Perez is in the Hall, that's why Dave Concepcion is in the Hall, that's why Andre Dawson is on the ballot, and that's why David Eckstein will be too. (Just kidding, I hope.) Another major difference: ifMcGwire was on steroids in the 90's (again, like it or not, he is still innocent until proven guilty, and that charade in front of the House does not count as proof), IF he was on steroids, the Major League Baseball rules at the time were foggy at best. No one knew what the rules were, what the punishments were, what was illegal and what wasn't. It wasn't really an issue; if it was, the summer of '98 wouldn't have been so carefree. Technically speaking (or any kind of speaking, really), McGwire didn't break any Major League Baseball rules. The rule that Rose broke is written in every clubhouse in every stadium in Major League Baseball. It was the subject of the most famous trial in baseball history. If you want to, you can believe that ifMcGwire was on steroids, he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Much tougher to believe that about Rose.
And now for the hypocrisy of baseball writers. There are so many self-important "I won't vote for McGwire" columns out there it makes me want to throw up. Jim Caple (I can't believe I'm saying this) wrote a great column on the issue, some of which I will reproduce here:
Without proof one way or the other, it is simply wrong to judge a player on mere suspicion.
What are our concerns with McGwire, really?
If we're worried about letting cheaters into Cooperstown, then how come we voted in Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford, who we know doctored baseballs?
If we're worried about illegal drug use, then how come we happily voted in Paul Molitor, who once had a bad cocaine habit?
If we're worried about performance-enhancing drugs, how come we voted in so many players from the '60s, '70s and '80s without a second thought when we knew how widespread amphetamines use was during that era?
Further, bear in mind that steroids were not specifically banned by baseball when McGwire was a player. I know, I know. Steroid use was (and is) illegal in this country without a medical need. Many writers make the convenient argument that the rulebook doesn't specifically ban arson, racketeering and kidnapping, either, yet that doesn't mean baseball allows those crimes. True. But the rulebook doesn't ban income tax evasion or spousal abuse, either, and yet Darryl Strawberry was allowed to play despite being arrested for both. Breaking the law does NOT mean the same thing as breaking the rules.
What this essentially comes down to is not what we might suspect, but what we know for a fact. And what we know for a fact is that McGwire hit 583 home runs in his career -- more than all but six players -- including 70 in one magic summer.
This brings me to my other point. I have never, EVER heard a whisper that suggested Albert Belle was on steroids. I've heard it about every slugger since McGwire, every one, with the possible exception of Alex Rodriguez. Even media darling Ryan Howard! If you want to keep McGwire out of the Hall because he had an unfair advantage, then you should put in the Hall who WOULD be there without others having that advantage. Albert Belle without question falls into that category. But he won't be talked about, because he was an asshole, because he was a black asshole (which, like it or not, is worse for media relations), and because his accomplishments were overshadowed by a scandal of which he was never part. Now he's not even getting the honor of having masturbatory columns written about why writers are so proud NOT to vote for him, as McGwire is getting.
Steroid testing is at a level now where I believe it has come under control. No more "examples" need to be set. I would vote for McGwire, and I would vote for Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa. If one of them has proven steroid use on his record, put it on the plaque. But for the reasons Caple mentions, to not vote for them is a slippery slope as well as utter hypocrisy.
What's all this about parity?
The National Football League was the first to boast of parity brought about through free agency and the salary cap. Baseball's huge pennant race this year showed symptoms of the same thing. Now we have writers lamenting that there are so few NFL powerhouses, and Joe Morgan has been bitching for years about all the "mediocre" teams in baseball. What gives?
The talent level in these sports has NOT gone down. The problem is NOT free agency and it is NOT the salary cap. The only problem is expansion. More teams = more players = more players that wouldn't normally be in the league. Just because the talent is not concentrated in one place doesn't mean it's not there anymore, it's just more difficult to see (and cover, which might be why the writers are whining about it [sheesh, I'm anti-writer today]). If we truly want fiercely competitive leagues from top to bottom, what we need is fewer teams, so that only the best of the best of the best are competing.
But beyond that, what is so wrong with parity? Sure, there are few dominant teams in football, but what is better for the NFL? Three or four teams at the top so we don't have to pay attention until January, or a slew of teams in all different markets that have a chance all season and keep fans entertained to the end? A more dynastic trend may be better for corralling the "casual fan", but we're talking about three or four weeks a year for that. It's better to keep more-than-casual fans invested for the whole season.
In baseball, St. Louis won the World Series with the worst record of any Series team since the 70s. It's not because of parity that this occurred; it's because of baseball's flawed playoff system. The regular season showed who the best teams were; the playoffs are a free-for-all tournament where anything can happen. This is not a comment on the talent level in the game.
The talent level in both leagues, on average, is not as good as the early 90s because there are more players involved. But the benefit of having more markets open to the game (and keeing them competitive with a cap) outweighs the detriment of having fewer dynamite, powerhouse teams. There may be fewer great teams, but there has been no lack of exciting football or baseball, and after all, ain't that the point of it?
BORAS: Monetary Embellishments of Player Value for Make Benefit Glorious Agent of Base Ball
I am about to post a post that contains a lot of assumptions, so anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Assumption number one:
An agent makes ten percent of his client's salary.
That's pretty common knowledge, isn't it? I remember being told that growing up, and I believe it was mentioned on Curb Your Enthusiasm at some point. I'm sure there are many stipulations in the contract between agent and client, but it seems like ten percent is a good number to go with. Today I got to wondering just how much money Scott Boras makes, and if it was more than the huge contracts he lands for his big-name player that everyone is always up-in-arms about.
Using Boras'Wikipedia page as well as BaseballReference.com's salary data, I did some estimating. I estimate that for the year 2006, Boras' salary came it at around much more than $30,138,977. In case you are too lazy or stupid to figure it out, yes, that is much more than Alex Rodriguez made this season.
This estimate includes:
1) No-longer clients whose current contracts were negotiated by Boras. (Barry Bonds, Miguel Cabrera, and Carlos Zambrano).
2) Young big-leaguers currently making close to league minimum that will eventually get huge deals. (Bobby Hill, Scott Kazmir, Zach Miner (I think), Xavier Nady, David Newhan, Anthony Reyes, Jered Weaver.)
This estimate DOESN'T include:
1) Daisuke Matsuzaka. (Boras will see none of the posting fee, but that's another eight-figure salary to tack on.)
2) Marketing and merchandising revenue, and all revenue that is not salary (including signing bonuses).
3) Extremely good prospects that will eventually get huge deals. (Stephen Drew, Luke Hochevar, Mike Pelfrey.)
4) New clients this offseason. (Barry Zito.)
I'm guessing Boras makes close to if not well over $40,000,000 a year, and that number will only go up. The funny thing is, if he had had even moderate success as a big-leaguer (Boras never advanced past AA in the Cubs' and Cardinals' systems), he wouldn't have made close to that kind of money; not only because no one in baseball makes that kind of money, but also because if it weren't for the revolutionary advances in player salary made by many of his negotiations, baseball salaries might still be close to where they were years ago. There's a reason Drew Henson tried baseball first, and Boras is a big part of that.
This is straight from the BBWAA, the criteria for "Most Valuable Player":
There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.
The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:
1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. 2. Number of games played. 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. 4. Former winners are eligible. 5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
All right. A couple comments:
1. "The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier". It seems to me that if this were specially noted, in 1931, that it indicates a strong suggestion to not consider a team's finish in the MVP voting. It CERTAINLY indicates that a team's good standing need not affect the voting.
2. "Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense." This, also, to me indicates an attempt to seperate player from team in the voting.
Last season, according to WARP, AL MVP Alex Rodriguez was responsible for nearly 11 wins. That's 11 wins whether he played for the Yankees or the Royals. 11 wins is 11 wins. Whether you trust WARP or not, Rodriguez's contributions are still the same, no matter what uniform you Photoshop onto his body. If Rodriguez is on the Royals and puts up the same numbers, he doesn't win. If he is on a fringe team and puts up the same numbers, he might win. I cannot understand this.
There are so many conflicting ideas put across about the MVP. Why do the same people who maintain that MVP does not mean "best player" (including the character and games stipulations above), use MVP's as a Hall of Fame criterion? If an MVP-type performance on a non-playoff team is meaningless, why are the Giants thinking of re-signing Barry Bonds despite the improvements they could make to their team without him? The playoffs exist because of baseball, it's not the other way around. Crowning a team "World Champions", having a season-ending tournament, hell, having a season at all; these are all secondary priorities of the game of baseball. The game of baseball exists first and foremost to entertain the fans (and to a certain extent the players). The idea of a playoffs, a World Series, end-of-season awards; these are all just things to make the game more fun for the fans. Can you imagine the impact a player like Ryan Howard would have had in Kansas City, in terms of putting butts in seats? You could argue that in 2005, since the Yankees have such a high attendance rate no matter what, Rodriguez would have been much MORE valuable to a team like Pittsburgh or Tampa Bay. This is a lot to think about, but my point is that if writers are going to take the criteria I've displayed above and stretch it to accomodate their personal preferences, these are things they should consider as well. The Florida Marlins were in the pennant race until mid-September, and boasted MLB's 27th-highest attendance in 2006. The Seattle Mariners posted MLB's 12th-highest figure. Using those figures you could throw actual baseball performance out the window and say that Ichiro Suzuki was a far more valuable player than Miguel Cabrera. If you're going to weigh some factors not based on performance (and NOT stipulated in the BBWAA rules), why not weigh all of them.
I would choose not to weigh those factors, which drives me hard to the conclusion that baseball's BEST player would be the MOST VALUABLE player to have on a team. Unless he is a severe clubhouse cancer that actually hurts the team's performance (and I don't think any of this year's MVP candidates come close to that), it's tough for me to come to any other answer. And even when sportswriters DO make it apparent that they are using a team's standing in their criteria, they STILL manage to fuck up just how to do that!
"I had an MVP vote and cast it for Ryan Howard. I just thought he meant more to his team this season than any other player in the National League this season. While Albert Pujols was extraordinary, the Cardinals kept on going when he missed time with injuries. But I thought Howard carried the Phillies as they made their late-season push that ultimately fell short, a push they couldn't possibly have made without him." -Don Burke, Newark Star-Ledger
This is a classic example of the last thing I mentioned. If you believe that Pujols and Howard both contributed about nine wins to their respective teams, this is what would have happened without them: St. Louis would have missed the playoffs, and Philadelphia would STILL have missed the playoffs. Is a win in late-season more important? When St. Louis won 13 of 15 games in late July, Pujols OPSed about 1.5. Could they have made that push without him? When the Phillies lost 15 of 17 in June, Howard hit five home runs and knocked in 14. What was he doing differently then that wasn't "winning his team games"? NOTHING.
"But the Phillies had a better RECORD than St. Louis, so Burke is actually picking the RIGHT team's player!" Well, if having a better record is more important than making the playoffs, wouldn't being a better ballplayer also be more important?
EDIT: A lot of people are making the claim that Ryan Howard "carried the Phillies on his back" during "the stretch run". Well, after September 8, Howard hit two home runs in 21 games. Seven of those games were decided by three runs or less; five by two runs or less. The Phillies missed the playoffs by three games. Why couldn't Howard get hot at the right time? He had an *incredible* August, but it seems to me he faltered in "the stretch run".
Of course that's all bullshit and an incredible August is just as valuable as an incredible September. But if the late-season "stretch-run" carries more weight when determining MVP, why in God's name doesn't the late "stretch-run" carry more weight than the early "stretch-run"? (END EDIT.)
"I think Ryan Howard epitomizes the MVP award. He carried the Phillies on his back, put up monster numbers in the middle of a playoff race, and was a first-class citizen. He is my MVP, narrowly ahead of Albert Pujols. To me, an MVP has to come from either a playoff team or a team in playoff contention. If the Phillies weren't a factor in the race, the nod would go to Pujols, but since they stayed alive until the final weekend, the vote swings to Howard. I also believe he might be the classiest young player in the game today and should be baseball's next great role model." -Bob Nightengale, USA Today
Let's go to the "first-class citizen" argument, which is valid, because it is a criterion. How is Howard classier than Pujols? Neither has had any *serious* allegations of steroid use, neither mouths off, both are minorities thriving in the U.S.... so what is it? "Howard might be the classiest young player in the game today and should be baseball's next great role model." If he and Pujols are equally classy, and Pujols is one year younger... never mind. Also, let's pretend for just a minute that Pujols has been putting up these kinds of numbers for five years now, whereas this was the first full season for the older "next great role model."
"I've never had an MVP vote. But if I did I'd lean toward a guy on a contending or championship team unless someone had numbers off the charts (Andre Dawson 1987, for instance)." -Pat Borzi, New York Times
This one makes my brain hurt. First of all, the MVP is based on regular season performance, so that championship team comment strikes me as terribly odd. But after that there's a bigger problem: "unless someone had numbers off the charts."
So a player is only really valuable if he's helping a contending team... unless he's really really valuable. THEN he can be most valuable to anyone. This doesn't make any sense.
Player A OPS's .950 for a playoff team. Player B OPS's .999 for a middle-of-the-pack team. Player C OPS's 1.600 for a 68-win team. This is how Pat Borzi's ballot would look:
1. Player C 2. Player A 3. Player B
THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
"[I] have not voted for MVP in a few years, but I always voted for people in the postseason. The award is not like the Cy Young Award for the most outstanding pitcher... It's for the most outstanding player." -Bob Elliott, Toronto Sun
Good luck with that one. I'm not sure where to start. I don't think I'm going to bother.
"To me, the player who is judged most valuable to his team must almost out of necessity play on a team that contends for a postseason spot, unless the weight of his statistics are so overwhelming." -Jeff Blair, Toronto Globe and Mail
This, again, is nonsensical.
"I don't have an MVP ballot but in writing about the MVP Award, I hardly ever give a first-place vote for a player who isn't in the playoffs. It would have to be an extreme case with no other standout candidates, because the word "valuable" to me connotes value to a winner.
Andre Dawson won it when the Cubs finished sixth and they would have finished sixth with an average player in that position.
In that light, Pujols beat out Howard for me. In a year when the Cardinals were savaged by pitching injuries, lineup injuries and general inconsistency, Pujols basically took them to the NL Central title. The fact that he has made himself a Gold Glove first baseman cannot be diminished either.
Howard's numbers speak for themselves and he would be the Player of the Year if such an award existed." -Mark Whicker, Orange County Register
This is a real gem. Individually:
-"The word 'valuable' to me connotes value to a winner."
Unless you're using a different dictionary than me, I don't see it.
-"Andre Dawson won it when the Cubs finished sixth and they would have finished sixth with an average player in that position."
If St. Louis had lost a player of that caliber that season, they would have missed the playoffs. It's not Andre Dawson's fucking fault the Cubs blew ass in 1987. (By the way, Andre Dawson... other than his HR and RBI totals, where are these "incredible numbers" he put up in '87? .287/.328/.568? Dawson was 10th in the league in OPS that year.)
-"In a year when the Cardinals were savaged by pitching injuries, lineup injuries and general inconsistency, Pujols basically took them to the NL Central title."
The Cardinals had the fewest victories of any World Series team since 1973. They fell ass-backwards into the playoffs. Should THIS be a consideration if you're going to consider a playoff team? He's wrongly contradicting a wrong opinion.
-"Howard's numbers speak for themselves and he would be the Player of the Year if such an award existed."
Howard's numbers show that he did not have as good a year as Pujols. So you're wrongly wrong on this one, too. Oh, if ONLY a "Player of the Year" award existed!
Okay, there is so much in this article to rebuke that I have run out of patience. Of all 17 writers interviewed, one, one stated that it was unfair to judge a player based on the performance of his teammates. He was Bob Dutton of the Kansas City Star. Maybe he knows just how valuable a great player can be to a team that has little else going for it.
I'm not saying that every person should have an equal perspective on the MVP voting. What I am saying is that if you are going to argue one way or the other, arguing that a team's performance should have an effect on MVP voting takes you down a road filled with circular logic and conflicting points. If I were starting a ballteam, I would want the best player first. He, to me, would be the most valuable. There are many different ways of determining who is the best player; THIS is a debate that is worthwhile. Not this "is he on a playoff team" crap. If you think that this "takes away from the team aspect of the game", well, I'll bet there are very few players that would rather win an MVP than a World Series. Very, very few. No kid in Texas or Japan or the Dominican Republic is bouncing a ball off the side of his house for eight hours a day dreaming of winning an MVP award. Contending teams' players are rewarded greatly by their teams' success. Individual player awards should, on a smaller scale, reward individual success.
A look at the senior circuit's MVP race, using some BP stats.
VORP
1. Albert Pujols, 85.4 2. Ryan Howard, 81.5 3. Miguel Cabrera, 78.7 4. Roy Oswalt, 72.4 5. Lance Berkman, 70.1 6. Brandon Webb, 68.9 7. Carlos Beltran, 68.5 8. Chris Carpenter, 67.8 9. Chase Utley, 65.2 10. Bronson Arroyo, 64.9
VORP comes closest to displaying what everyone seems to be thinking about the NL MVP race. It also brings to light the following questions:
-Is Miguel Cabrera the next Alex Rodriguez? (No, he's not as good a fielder as Rodriguez.... was.)
-Should Roy Oswalt have won the Cy Young? (Maybe.)
-Was Chase Utley's season unfairly overshawdowed by Dan Uggla? (Yes.)
-Bronson Arroyo? (ERA+ of 146, 184 Ks, 1.18 WHIP and by far the most innings of his career.)
WARP
1. Pujols, 11.9 2. Beltran, 10.4 3. Cabrera, 10.0 4. Arroyo, 9.1 T5. Berkman, 9.0 T5. Webb, 9.0 7. Jason Bay, 8.8 T8. Alfonso Soriano, 8.6 T8. David Wright, 8.6 T8. Howard, 8.6 T8. Oswalt, 8.6
Howard takes the expected big hit with WARP; he registered a -5 FRAR in 2006, earning the label of an NL DH. Like I said below, I'd vote for a DH, but only if his hitting outweighs the other candidates' hitting and fielding combined. And according to WARP, Arroyo is the most valuable pitcher in the National League. His fielding wasn't much better than Oswalt's or Webb's, and he had the lowest EqA of the three. Interesting. I wish I knew more about WARP.
Chipper Jones? Nick Johnson? Brian McCann? Surprising years at the plate for those three. Johnson is just a much better ballplayer than he looks like. We also have Mr. Bonds' first appearance, but it helps that it is a rate stat.
Wait... we're at the end, and Ryan Howard doesn't lead Albert Pujols in any meaningful category except for home runs? Why Ryan Howard again?
My ballot:
1. Albert Pujols 2. Ryan Howard 3. Miguel Cabrera 4. Brandon Webb 5. Roy Oswalt 6. Carlos Beltran 7. Lance Berkman 8. Bronson Arroyo 9. Matt Holliday 10. Alfonso Soriano
It pains me to give any ink to Soriano after the ridiculous contract he signed today. And there's just no way Howard had a better season than Pujols. I just don't see it; the "better team" argument doesn't even apply. Albert Pujols is still number one. And he's younger.
Baseball Is A Business. Repeat. Baseball Is A Business.
I promise I'll keep myself in check before this turns into a full-scale rant, but I am a little peeved at the sentiment that is floating around about the Red Sox' astronomical $51.1 million bid for the negotiating rights to Daisuke Matsuzaka. To summarize, many BoSox fans (most recently Bill Simmons) are bitching about how their team used to "do things the right way", or a personal favorite from Simmons, "play by the rules". And now they're just another free-spending team like the Yankees.
Whether you want to criticize the Yankees for overspending is one thing. I think it's been two years straight they've lost money, and that's not a good strategy no matter what your business is. But this idea that paying less money for a good team somehow morally elevates you above the competition strikes me as completely naïve and ludicrous.
Baseball is a business. The owners seek to make money. Money is made by making customers happy. Customers need a good product, i.e. a good ballteam. Now, in sports, so-called "brand loyalty" is obviously much more common. The Pirates still have fans and the management has been actively dismantling that team for years. But why, WHY in God's name are Red Sox fans feeling "dirty" because of an agressive off-season strategy? You can criticize the logic to it, you can criticize the figures. But don't criticize the sentiment. Would you honestly rather have Jeffrey Loria running your team, having firesales every five years and ending up with a payroll less than $15 million? Would you rather be Billy Beane circa 2001, and be told "we are spending exactly this [small amount] much. Have fun." Why not be thankful that your team is committed to putting money into the product? I've always felt that this is how Yankee fans should view Steinbrenner; whether or not he's a raging lunatic, he cares about the Yankees winning, which is more than can be said for a lot of other owners out there.
Spending conservatively is not "moral high ground" in baseball or any other business. It is an anti-progressive strategy that, unless you've got some great prospects in the wings (which the Red Sox don't), will not bring your team success without some help. Be happy to root for a team that cares about its team and therefore its fans.
If you want something to be angry at the Red Sox for, be angry that box seats are over $100 for regular season games. That is a legitimate gripe. "We're just like the Yankees now" is not. The Yankees have won the division every year since 1998. There's a reason for that.
A look at some of the all-inclusive sabermetric stats, and what they have to say about this year's MVP races. (A good, funny glossary.)
VORP (Value Over Replacement Player)
1. Derek Jeter, 80.5 2. Travis Hafner, 79.7 3. Johan Santana, 79.6 4. David Ortiz, 76.8 5. Grady Sizemore, 69.1 6. Roy Halladay, 68.0 7. Joe Mauer, 66.9 8. Carlos Guillen, 66.3 9. Manny Ramirez, 66.1 10. Miguel Tejada, 65.9
Add in defense and Jeter skyrockets above the rest. Also, keep in mind that he is a shortstop. What's more valuable, a DH with the second-highest VORP, or a shortstop (above-average defensively, at least this year) at first?
WARP does account for defense, and gives Santana the edge. So what's more valuable? A shortstop that's the best hitter in the league, or a unanimous Cy Young ace? I'm tempted to go with the ace, especially given the standout quaility of Jeter's year compared to his career. But then, should that quality negatively or positively affect the voting? I'm going with negative; give the award to the guy who is least likely to be a fluke, but only go to that in a dead heat.
EqA (Equivalent Average)
1. Hafner, .355 2. Ramirez, .342 3. Ortiz, .334 4. Jim Thome, .328 5. Jason Giambi, .326 6. Mauer, .321 7. Dye, .320 8. Jeter, .316 9. Vladimir Guerrero, .314 10. Alex Rodriguez, .311
An A-Rod sighting! But more importantly, Jeter takes a hit. His lack of power hurts him in this category. This stat is getting a lot more notice, by the way. It will be interesting to see in the next couple years if one of these breaks the foil of mainstream coverage, much like the "Passer Rating" in the NFL. Why are football fans so ready to accept that complex formula, but baseball fans can't handle this stuff?
The most crude of the four; I still can find no reason Justin Morneau is actually getting ink for this award. How many RBI would he have had hitting in front of Mauer? Not to mention that you have two points difference in OPS, except the higher one is coming from the catcher position, as opposed to first base. Morneau should be dropped off the ballot.
I don't think DH's are ineligible by any means. If they can help their team hitting as much as other players can help with hitting+defense, more power to them. Sure, some of them might not make an NL roster, but this ain't the NL.
Biggest surprise: if someone had told you Grady Sizemore was the fifth-or-so-best hitter in the AL this year, would you have believed them? What is wrong with the Indians?
Here is what my ballot would look like, and keep in mind I could care less about the team that surrounds the MVP:
1. Johan Santana 2. Derek Jeter 3. Joe Mauer 4. David Ortiz 5. Grady Sizemore 6. Travis Hafner 7. Roy Halladay 8. Miguel Tejada 9. Manny Ramirez 10. Jermaine Dye
Fuck. I have to tell you I had Jeter in the number one spot and Santana in number two, and I spent some time staring and thinking. I honestly asked myself "If I'm starting a baseball team, who would I pick first?" The answer is Santana. (Trivia: the last pitcher to win MVP? Dennis Eckersley, 1992. The last starting pitcher? Roger Clemens, 1986. The last Twin? Rod Carew, 1977.)
I only think the first four are legitimate candidates, but I was going to do a top five, and then I couldn't put Sizemore on without putting Hafner on, and it ballooned from there. (I think Hafner may have been one of the most overlooked players this season... of course his injury didn't help.)
My ballot is not purely based on the numbers. It is mostly based on the numbers. But I'm human too, and little things came down to the gut and thinking about "intangibles" and crap like that.
The most-watched and yet least-consequential manager search is over. GM Billy Beane hired former high school teammate Bob Geren to replace the fired Ken Macha at the helm of the A's. If Beane just wants a manager that will listen to him, a high school buddy is a good place to start. His deal is through 2008, with a team option for 2009.
The Big Hurt, eh?
Frank Thomas has signed a two-year, $18 million deal with the Toronto Blue Jays. After playing in only 34 games in 2005, Thomas enjoyed a fantastic season with Oakland, putting up great numbers and becoming a team-leader. For a team that split DH team between Frank Catalanotto, Eric Hinske, Greg Zaun, and yes, Shea Hillenbrand in 2005, the Big Hurt could give Toronto one more push towards being a contender in the AL East after a second-place finish (didn't know that, did you?) in 2006.
Theo Epstein: Money Shot (Plus, A Lil' Somethin' About Rey Ordoñez!)
So the Boston Red Sox won the Matsuzaka sweepstakes with a $51.1 million dollar bid to the Seibu Lions to negotiate with the righty.
That's $51,100,000.
EDIT: This is the largest posting bid since the Mariners spent $13.1 million for the right to negotiate Ichiro Suzuki away from the the Orix BlueWave. Ichiro won the MVP his first year in the bigs.
This brings up the interesting point of how to structure a contract when such a hefty bid is involved. How does a team reconcile a) the total amount of money it spends on a pitcher with b) the amount of money Matsuzaka (and, more importantly, Scott Boras) believes himself to be worth.
At Baseball Prospectus, Christina Kahrl demonstrated that Matsuzaka's numbers in Japan, when translated, equal out to Roger Clemens' numbers from 2003-06. Clemens earned an average of $11.4 million during those years; an equal contract for Matsuzaka would be, over a five-year period, five years for $55 million. A good Hardball Times article puts forth that with the workload Matsuzaka had been under so far in his career, anything after age 31 is not a guarantee. A three-year contract would be the smartest thing, and that is probably around what Boras will be looking for, so that his client doesn't lose value before his next negotiation period.
EDIT: I've re-thought a lot of this. Clemens' contract over the past three years is not one to judge anything by, considering he made $10 million in '03, $5 million in '04, and $18 million in '05. BUT if you think the top pitcher on this year's market (has to be Barry Zito) will get five years for $75 million, that's not THAT much more than what we projected for Matsuzaka. But we (I) will use that figure if it makes everyone more comfortable.
The Red Sox can get a pitcher worth $45 million over three years. So far they've paid $50 million and they haven't said a word to him yet.
Other things that must be considered are the specificities of Boston's situation.
1) The AL East
Did the Red Sox splurge on Matsuzaka just to keep him away from the Yankees? This would be their best excuse. The Red Sox and Yankees both have rotations that are big question marks for 2007, but the Yankees' lineup is far and away better. Taking away this seemingly easy option for New York was a good move towards being competitive in the East in 2007 for Boston.
2) Boston's Image in the Japanese Market
This is another big plus for the Red Sox. Teams that have firmly implanted themselves with big signings in Asia include the Dodgers (Hideo Nomo), Mariners (Ichiro Suzuki), White Sox (Tahidito Iguchi) and Yankees (Hideki Matsui). If Boston wants to be competitive on a global-marketing level, this is an excellent move for the franchise. Matsuzaka is the highest-profile player to come out of Japan... maybe ever.
3) The Ballpark
This is the big question mark. Since 2003, four high-profile pitchers have come to Boston:
Of those seven man-seasons (Clement's 2006 can effectively be called a half-season), one produced a pitcher pitching at or under his career ERA: Schilling's 2004. Either Boston has not made smart signings, or Boston is just not a place where pitchers do well. The latter we know to be true; Fenway is perennially one of the best hitter's parks in the game. Only Beckett saw his home run rate go noticably upward, but then, these are all righties; many of the home runs they give up are not affected by the monster. Has Fenway taken a toll? If so, it's hard to imagine the same effect would not appear with Matsuzaka. Another thing worth noting is that Schilling, Clement, and Beckett were all coming off of predominantly National League careers. This can be viewed as a parallel to coming out of Japan. (Not a DIRECT parallel, NL fans, but a similar circumstance.)
Money in Boston is (almost) like money in New York; it's not a pressing issue. Matsuzaka deserves his three years $30 million, even if the BoSox went overboard on the post. More than that, however, and Boston is SERIOUSLY overpaying for someone that's never pitched a game against major-league hitting.
Now, I promised you some Rey Ordoñez didn't I?
Seattle has signed him to a minor-league contract.
Here are some of Ordoñez's career numbers, in the equivalent of almost seven full seasons:
Is the Mariners' farm system so depleted that their best backup plan for Yuniesky Betancourt is this? They've got an Australian named Dean Zorn, whose minor league numbers are... hmmm, maybe this wasn't a bad signing. And if this wasn't a bad signing, that is a real bad sign. Can Ichiro play short??
You know what, at Ordoñez's age (35), I can see no logical reason for this signing. He was a pretty good fielder, but not playing a major league game since 2004 can't help, and he ain't getting any younger, and no matter how you slice it, his hitting will hurt you more than his defense will help you, by a long shot, especially in the AL. Just no logic here.
The Baltimore Sun is reporting that the Orioles will send reliever Chris Britton to the Yankees for starter Jaret Wright and cash (reportedly $4 million, or what the Yankees would have paid to buy out Wright's contract).
Britton is the guy we know less about. Well, with the addtion of Britton and Humberto Sanchez, the Yankees have added a listed 508 pounds to their pitching roster. Britton is a righty that sports a low-90s fastball, and put up some good numbers in 53 2/3 innings out of the pen with Baltimore last season:
The WHIP, OBPA and ERA+ are each better than Jaret Wright has ever had, and last season Wright's VORP was fewer than four runs higher in almost 90 more innings. Wright is 31 and injury-prone, Britton is 24 and time will tell.
The Yankees lose a starter, but Wright was never a sure thing (one might say at least some of the Yankees' bullpen woes could be chalked up to Wright's tendency to not give more than five innings or so), and we're still waiting to hear what the final Matsuzaka bidding is. This helps the Orioles out in that Wright joins six other pitchers vying for a rotation spot next season, at least one of whom could be traded for some hitting. Of course, if the O's want hitting, they could always just sign this blast from the past.
Free agency starts today. Let the hot stove begin.
This isn't baseball, but it is the first two sentences of a story from the Detroit News about the Detroit hockey Red Wings' recent shutout- and winning-streaks:
What's going to happen first? The Red Wings losing another game or allowing a goal?
1. The San Diego Padres traded second-baseman Josh Barfield to the Cleveland Indians for infielder Kevin Kouzmanoff and right-hander Andrew Brown.
Barfield had a good rookie year; despite an underwhleming .318 OBP, he was still about an average hitter with a 94 OPS+. Barfield also plays a good second base. If he can become more patient and develop a little more power, and if Jhonny "Not a Typo" Peralta can scrape back together his dynamite season of 2005, the Indians would boast an impressive lineup that also includes Travis Hafner, Grady Sizemore, Victor Martinez and Casey Blake. Ryan Garko could also make the Benjamin Broussard trade look great for the Indians with a big 2007.
The Padres receive the much-touted Kevin Kouzmanoff, who went absolutely ape in the minors last season, OPSing 1.109 in AA and 1.056 in AAA before disappointing in 16 games at the big-league level. So far in the Arizona Fall League, Kouzmanoff is continuing to put up great numbers, going .409/.490/.682 with two homers. The Padres are hoping that getting him out of Cleveland will remove whatever curse it looked like they were playing with last season, and he will develop beyond his projection as the 13th-best prospect at third in 2006.
In Brown the Padres receive a good young starting pitcher with a 96 mph fastball that put up nice numbers in the minors last season, going 5-4 with a 2.60 ERA and .228 BAA. He struck out 53 batters in 62 1/3 innings, which doesn't look as overpowering as the Padres would like, but at age 25 Brown could be a valuable pickup.
My take on the trade? Good for both sides. Cleveland has enough young lineup talent to let Kouzmanoff go for a more sure-thing Barfield, and San Diego gets two very good prospects in return for the somewhat overrated-in-his-rookie-year second baseman. Let's face it, Barfield could have a Jeff Francoeur-type 2007 and really hurt his team, or he could shift more towards the Dan Uggla side of things. My first reaction to the trade was that Cleveland gave up too much, but looking at their lineup they still figure to be a contender in the Central next season.
2. The Detroit Tigers traded right-handed pitching prospects Humberto Sanchez, Kevin Whelan, and Anthony Claggett to the New York Yankees for right-fielder Gary Sheffield.
"Yankees win! Theeeeeeeeee Yankees win!"
That's my take on the deal, right up front. There was no spot for Sheffield on the Yankees, they had seemingly no upper hand in trade negotiations because everybody knew that they had to get him and his huge contract outta there. Everyone except Dave Dombrowski, apparently. Of course, a small tip of the cap goes to Dombrowski for bringing in Sheffield without giving up ace-of-the-staff Jeremy Bonderman.
Sanchez has been compared, not always favorably, to Bartolo Colon. He was named 41st-best prospect in 2006 by scout.com, which also provides us with this analysis:
He also throws a bit like [Colon], which is to say hard, and occasionally wild, and often up in the zone.
"If he had that nasty curveball every start, and spotted his fastball every start, he'd win 20 at any level," our NL Scout said.
In Sanchez's last start of the AFL season, he showed why. Against a Phoenix Desert Dogs lineup that included studs Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Stephen Drew, and Andy LaRoche Sanchez threw seven shutout innings, allowing just three hits and striking out four. That came after a five shutout inning stint against the Grand Canyon Rafters the week before. Sanchez's AFL ERA was a sparkling 2.15 for the season. Among the league leaders.
"He's the real deal," our Senior scout said, "if he can stay healthy he could dominate."
In 11 starts in the Eastern League (AA) this year, Sanchez dominated, with a 1.76 ERA, a .190 BAA and 86 K's in 71 2/3 innings. He did end his season with a minor injury, bringing back memories of injury-marred 2005, but all reports were that Sanchez was nasty this year. He continued to impress in nine starts in AAA, posting a 3.86 ERA and .260 BAA. Next season he will be 24.
Whelan is not as strong a prospect, but is beginning to blossom as a pitcher, to which he converted from catcher in college at Texas A & M. He recorded 27 saves in the Florida State League in 2006, posting a 2.67 ERA and .178 BAA. He throws four different fastballs, and is comparable to Brent Cox, a reliever the Yanks took in the second round as a possible successor to Mariano Rivera. Whelan 22 years old, which means he's been pitching for less than five years. This prospect could have tremendous upside for the Yankees. Won't see any pinstripe time in '07, but you gotta like having this guy in the works if you're a Yankee fan.
After a less-than-impressive 2005 in the New York-Penn league, Claggett has bounced back in 2006. With West Michigan of the Midwest League (A), he put up a 0.91 ERA and .174 BAA in 59.1 innings, striking out 58 and collecting 14 saves and 14 holds. He's the youngest of the three pitchers in the deal, and also the only one still in A-ball, so again, don't expect to see him in pinstripes any time soon. But with three pitchers putting up these numbers, the odds that at least one or two will work out for New York are pretty good.
And then there's Gary Sheffield. The last time Sheffield was a below-average hitter was when he was an infielder with Milwaukee in 1991. That being said, with Sheffield missing most of the season in 2006, we didn't get a real good look at just how fast he is regressing at this point. His numbers have been going steadily downward since a career season with Atlanta in 2003, but not downward enough to make him not worth a gamble. (That was quite a sentence.) 2006 was the first season since 2002 in which Sheffield did not finish in the top ten in MVP voting. If Sheffield had played a whole season in 2006, he would have been in line to hit 23 or 24 home runs, less than normal but still impressive. His EqA? Above .300 every year since 1993. The Tigers know what they're getting, and what they're getting should help out their lineup, provided he can stay healthy. Sheffield has been a slightly below-average fielder for most of his career, but he has a storied throwing arm, and his hitting more than makes up for his fielding.
Again, a good deal in principle for both teams, both getting what they wanted. But Dave Dombrowski is right when he says "we gave up a lot." The Tigers want to win now, and they are showing it with this deal. And the Yankees are the closest to (gulp) rebuilding as they will ever be with the Boss at the helm. This could turn out to be one of Brian Cashman's defining moves in office.
"I know there are several teams that are interested and I'll go with the one that most appropriately evaluates my ability." -Matsuzaka
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Seriously, would anybody fault the guy if he said "I'll go with the one that gives me the best offer"? That's what people do. It's not "not playing for the love of the game" or shit like that if you take the most money offered to you. That's just common sense.
But I love the idea of Scott Boras announcing, "While the Yankees have offered Daisuke a five-year, $85 million contract, we believe that when you take into consideration posting fees, as well as the fact that Barry Zito, who is not as nasty but is more proven in the bigs, will likely get five-for-75, the Yankees have over-estimated Daisuke's ability. We've decided to go with the Angels' four-year, $50 million dollar offer instead, just to keep things fair."
Apparently Julio Franco is a coach for the team of MLB all-stars that's playing in Japan this month. Franco has said that he wants to play until he's 50 and then coach; he turned 48 in August and is signed through 2007 with the Mets.
Though he has played 22 seasons in the bigs, Franco doesn't lead the league in career anything, or even active anything. He ranks fourth among active players with 2,472 games played and fifth among active players with 8,587 at bats. (Barry Bonds leads both categories.) Wait, check that, Franco is the active leader in GIDP, with 310.
Here's hoping he makes it to 5-0, but Julio's no star.
For those unaware, Daisuke Matsuzaka is the next big thing from Japan. A righty with a low-to-mid-90s fastball and much heralded "Gyroball", he first gained international attention after being named MVP of the World Baseball Classic this spring. His Japanese team, the Seibu Lions, is putting the rights to negotiate with Matsuzaka up for bid; the winning bid is expected to be between $20-30 million. Earlier today Mariners' owner Hiroshi Yamauchi announced that Seattle would not take part in the bidding. Matsuzaka is represented by Scott Boras. Yay.
These are Matsuzaka's career stats with Seibu:
Year Team W L IP H ER BB K ERA 1999 SL 16 5 180 124 52 87 151 2.60 2000 SL 14 7 167⅔ 132 74 95 144 3.97 2001 SL 15 15 240⅓ 184 96 117 214 3.60 2002 SL 6 2 73⅓ 60 30 15 78 3.68 2003 SL 16 7 194 165 61 63 215 2.83 2004 SL 10 6 146 165 47 42 127 2.90 2005 SL 14 13 215 172 55 49 226 2.30 2006 SL 17 5 186⅓ 138 44 34 200 2.13
Sorry for the formatting. But whatever font you're reading, that is an impressive career for someone that just turned 26. As Jeff Sackmann put it, it's like Johan Santana, only younger. Those numbers have to be taken in the context of Japanese baseball, generally thought to be between the level of AAA and the majors. Sackmann penned a good article for the Hardball Times about just what they might translate to, and therefore how much Matsuzaka is worth.
But what got me interested in Matsuzaka was not his numbers... it was that breaking ball. Here's a highlight reel from (what I think was) a 14-strikeout complete-game shutout this May:
They seem to first be highlighting the fastball, which has some zip, even if it's no Rivera cutter. But watch the break on the pitch that comes at around 0:47, and the two after that. Is that not the definition of niz-asty? It has the break of a Barry Zito curve, but goes almost 85 mph.
If the Yankees don't win the war for Matsuzaka, they're idiots (which I think they are, but not such idiots). Major leaguers know what Zito's curve looks like. That "gyroball", or whatever the hell it is, will light some pants on fire.
