The Ol' Ballfield

Josh Hancock Tragically Killed In Car Accident

2007-04-29T12:02:00.000-04:00

This is the kind of news you never want to hear. I have to make it brief, because I'm blogging from work, but Cardinals righty Josh Hancock, was killed this morning in a car accident outside the city. Hancock was the workhorse of the Cardinal's championship team in 2006, enjoying his first breakout year with 62 appearances, a 4.09 ERA and a 1.21 WHIP. He is the second pitcher in less than a year to be killed at a young age, as the Yankees' Cory Lidle died in a plane crash in October.

Tonight's Cardinals game against the Cubs has been cancelled. Our thoughts of course go out to Hancock's family and friends.

Read the mlb.com story here and see Hancock's career stats here.

LiveBlogging the Phenom

2007-04-26T18:58:00.000-04:00

Tonight is Phil Hughes' first appearance in the majors. Long-regarded as one of the top prospects in baseball, Hughes' has also served as a vindication for defenders of the New York Yankees' oft-maligned farm system. Tonight is by no means the be all end all on Hughes; it is merely an exciting event, as all call-ups of "the next big thing" are.

I will be liveblogging the first 30 minutes of the game, at which point I will sign off. A lifelong Detroit Red Wings fan, my allegiances lie elsewhere when the puck drops on Round 2 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs at 7:30.

Lost in all of this is that Hughes is facing an excellent pitcher in A.J. Burnett. A solid start by Burnett, combined with the Blue Jays' underrated offense and the Yankees' current slump, could spoil the first major league start for young Hughes.

TOP 1ST

-Here comes the first pitch. Low for a ball. Clearly doesn't have what it takes.

-A line drive to Rios, and he's given up his first hit. Good to get that out of the way.

-No throw from Posada on the steal by Rios, and we have a runner in scoring position with no outs.

-Niiice 12 to 6 curve. That right there is potential, and he's got a delivery that's twice as deceptive as Barry Zito's.

-And the first major league K comes on a 94 mph heater.

-The kid certainly looks like he has all the resolve I keep hearing about. Check, glare in, reach back, strikeout.

-Number 65? Booooooring.

-Johnny Damon is a nightmare. Not that Bernie Williams would have caught that, but Damon truly looks lost in center.

-They said on YES (or MY9, whatever) that Vernon Wells is the best hitter Hughes has ever faced. I would rank Frank Thomas as much more intimidating, 2006 or no.

-Close call on an inside fastball that could have rung up Thomas, but who do think is going to get the call in this situation?

-He's making The Big Hurt work for it.

-There's the obligatory "nice piece of hitting" comment from Michael Kay, which usually means "lucky piece of hitting." Still only one hard hit ball in this inning, and it came from Vernon Wells. Two runs are in, but Hughes has been solid.

-Nasty changeup with really nasty screwball-type movement at the end. That pitch will serve him well. Shades of Pedro.

-The pressure finally gets to him, makes his first bad pitch of the inning, a 55-foot fastball that goes to the screen. Runner on second, one out.

-Stupid little groundout by Overbay on that great curve. Michael Kay has said that Hughes is "struggling", but I've been impressed so far.

-This Liveblog is taking my attention off how worried I am about the Wings. I like that.

-Oh yeah, Mientkiewicz is good at defense. WHO CARES.

-Overall a very solid inning from Hughes. The only hitter he didn't win the battles with was Wells; some other stuff squeaked through.

Okay, that's all I'm going to have time for. My diagnosis: bad babysitting! No, seriously, he looked great. The fastball has life, the curve is deadly, the two seamer moves about four to six inches, and the change looks to be his best-kept secret. Maybe the call-up wasn't such a bad idea, but the fact that he was kept at below 90 pitches for his whole career is a bit worrisome. Expect the occasional meltdown this year if he stays with the big club, but overall Hughes looks as good as advertised.

Re-thinking RBI

2007-03-22T01:18:00.000-04:00

First of all, I'd like to state that the plural of RBI is: RBI. I can't stress that enough. "RsBI" looks and sounds stupid, and "RBIs" really messes with my brain. The "R" stands for "runs", not "run". It's like saying "Rio Grande River" or "ATM Machine". Please, everyone in the baseball community, let's make a stand. The plural of "RBI" is: "RBI".

Now, RBI, to me, is a very minor part of a baseball player's performance. What is more important than the number of runs a player... bats in is the number of times a player can safely reach base (one of the primary reasons being that when a batter-runner reaches base safely with runners in scoring position, an RBI is likely to result). Beyond that, extra-base hits are the next-most-desirable result, being that extra-base hits will almost certainly score RISP, as well as place the batter-runner in scoring position himself.

RBI measures up to all this as simply a peripheral and somewhat chance-oriented manifestation of overall offensive production. It is true that to some extent, the players with the most RBI are also the most productive hitters; hitters that have the skill to take advantage of RBI-scoring opportunites simply because they reach base safely and productively a greater percent of the time. There are, however, factors not under the batter's control, the two most prominent being a) whether there are actually runners on base and b) the batter's place in the order, which both determines how many plate appearances a batter will have and which batters will hit ahead of him, each of whom have their own skill levels and therefore likelihood of reaching base.

Thus it stands to reason that at a local level, RBI tells us very little about a hitter's production. It is obvious that someone that had 100 RBI had a better year than someone that had 20, but what I mean by a local level is that in a group of hitters of similar skill, RBI alone would be useless in separating hitters within the group. There are too many factors that are out of the batter's control. What would be better would be if players could be compared as to how many times they create RBI when they have the opportunity. This is crude at best and is not even close to being a new, interesting stat, but hell, it's better than RBI. The sample I took to examine is the top 50 RBI-getters of 2006. The table below shows their RBI, their plate appearances with RISP, and finally how many RBI they created per such plate appearance. This system also rewards players that create RBI without RISP by considering it additionally in the division. Here's the chart (due to me not being an HTML whizz, the three pages of it will appear with a slight separation):

Now here's the chart sorted by RBI/OPP:

Now my motives might start to sneak through. Last fall I argued ad nauseum that Albert Pujols should have been the NL MVP instead of Ryan Howard, and that anyone should have been the AL MVP instead of Justin Morneau. Interestingly enough, I didn't properly emphasize the extreme favor the writers seem to give to RBI during the voting, ignoring all of the evidence above. When I sort the players by RBI/OPP, Pujols shoots to the top, and six American League players move in front of Morneau. This is, of course, not to say that Howard and Morneau are not great players. They are. This isn't even to say that they shouldn't have won their respective MVP awards; besides the fact that the MVP award is essentially meaningless, there are many more factors to consider anyway.

The last chart sorts the players by the amount of spaces on the list they were displaced with the new criteria:

An interesting thing is that on each pole of the chart, we see players that had uncharacteristic seasons. (A career year for Brian McCann and an off-year for Alex Rodriguez.) On each extreme, we see that the new way of looking at RBI re-enforces common opinion rather than disproves it. It is more towards the middle of the chart that we see players unfairly represented by their RBI totals (Adam Dunn, Travis Hafner, Jeff Francoeur, Howard, Morneau, Derek Jeter). This speaks to the simplicity of the improvement and the crudity of any evalutaion derived from RBI. This method is only slightly better than looking at pure RBI (which leads me to wonder what use RBI has at all). Even the intangible idea of clutch hitting has better evaluators attached to it.

Of course, RBI being a cumulative stat, it falls victim to things like injuries. This is just another indicator that stats like OBP and SLG are much, MUCH better indicators of overall production than RBI. Every stat should be considered alongside games played, but at least with the more over-arching rate stats you don't have to do as much thinking to really figure out what's going on.

Epilogue

Oh and also: now, I'm a big fan of Rodriguez. But anyone that tries to rationalize his 2006 by saying "well look, he still drove in 121 runs" is officially barking up the wrong tree, or even forest. His lineup helped his numbers tremendously in 2006.

Oh please, PLEASE let this happen...

2007-02-28T12:13:00.000-05:00

Ladies and Gentlemen, he's not going away. RadarOnline reports that outspoken Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is putting forth a serious effort to buy the Chicago Cubs. While Cuban was quoted on February 9 at TheStreet.com as saying "I'm always interested in iconic teams or teams from my hometown, but it's a 'nice to do,' not a 'have to do,'", Radar says that a source close to the matter commented that "Mark is desperate to buy the Cubs. He wants this so bad." Cuban recently was also reportedly interested in buying the Pirates, but the deal did not happen for whatever reason.

This would be AMAZING for Major League Baseball. In no other sport are the owners so publicly crotchety, old, Machiavellian, stubborn, and old. The seemingly biennial labor wars are no help to this cause. Despite Bud Selig's best effort to "internationalize" the game, the sport is losing the popular culture war to both the NFL and the NBA, and, God help us, the NHL can't be far behind. An animated, flamboyant owner like Cuban would to more to take baseball to the casual-to-simply-aware fans than Selig or Donald Fehr ever could. And for him to take the helm of one of the game's most storied, high-profile franchises in the Chicago Cubs, well...I...excuse me, I gotta wipe all this drool off my keyboard.

dxfghjklp;'';lkj';lkjh

Sorry. My point is that Major League Baseball should be really excited about this deal, but they no doubt won't be. The old guard is firmly entrenched in one of the most ridiculous monopolies in American history, and Mark Cuban is just the kind of new face they DON'T want to see. Maybe that's why I'm so excited about it.

----

I will not be posting for about a week due to a serious amount of work I have to put into other matters. "How is this different from normal," you may ask? "Shut up," is how I would respond to that. Mr. Walsh and I will be back once March gets past this "lion" stage with season previews and predictions. Just four and a half weeks until Opening Day!

Apologies to All Mets Fans...

2007-02-24T12:12:00.000-05:00

...for posting this, but there's a lot about this video that I love:

First of all, it's a classic moment every baseball fan remembers (mostly because it was only four months ago... four months?! Is that all?!) from a different angle. And even though it's on video, watching such an important pitch from that angle really reminds you of what it's like to be at a game, and a game like that. Secondly, there's the huge crowd buildup and then... red herring. Mets lose. What deflation. And finally, nothing like the guys around the cameraman, going through the six out-of-order, circular stages of sports-related grief:

1) Stunned silence. (Denial)
2) Booing. (Anger)
3) "Cardinals are going to the World Series." (Acceptance)
4) "Hope your plane crashes!" (Bargaining [with a hint of malice])
5) "This sucks." (Depression)
6) "I'm not watching this." (Denial)

After constructing this list, it really does strike me that denial comes at the beginning and at the end for sports fans, probably because there's always a new season coming (except for fans of any NHL team but Tampa Bay in 2004).

Case in point: My former boss, a Yankees fan, turned off his TV before Luis Gonzalez's game-winning single off Mariano Rivera hit the ground, and then avoided ESPN for a week afterwards. He claims still never to have seen the Texas-leaguer land. A couple years later, when the Yankees went back to BankOne (Chase?) for an interleague matchup, I remarked, "It's going to be tough to get a game in around all their former selves still frozen in time," just to make him feel better.

THEORY REVISION: In some cases anger comes before denial, as evidenced by my hat that no longer has a top-button, or my buddy's 135-degree angle TV antenna.

DISCLAIMER: I hereby pre-emptively rebut all charges that this rips off Bill Simmons' "Levels of Losing" column. 1) This is a different idea, and 2) Bill Simmons blows.

By the way, ya gotta love the guy that says "Hope your plane crashes!" I classified it as "bargaining" because honestly, the idea of the Cardinals' plane crashing is about the only thing that would make that guy feel better right now.

Top Ten List(s) of the Day

2007-02-21T19:36:00.000-05:00

Again courtesy of Baseball Reference, here are the top ten active WHIP leaders:

1. Pedro Martinez, 1.0258
2. Johan Santana, 1.0985
3. Curt Schilling, 1.1322
4. Greg Maddux, 1.1362
5. Randy Johnson, 1.1641
6. John Smoltz, 1.1688
7. Roger Clemens, 1.1697
8. Mike Mussina, 1.1765
9. Roy Oswalt, 1.1787
10. Ben Sheets, 1.2055

Fully SIX members of this list of active leaders in a rate stat are over 35 years old (actually, places three through eight), and Martinez is 34. A testament to the brilliance of each of those pitchers.

Now, courtesy of Prospectus, let's look at the luckiest and unluckiest pitchers of 2006 as measured by BABIP (batting average on balls in play *[explanation below]):

Unluckiest:

1. Ryan Madson, .364
2. Victor Santos, .362
3. Byung-hyun Kim, .350
4. Sheets, .342
5. Joe Blanton, .341
6. Brian Moehler, .340
7. Zach Duke, .336
8. James Shields, .334
Paul Maholm, .334
10. Andy Pettitte, .333

A couple things about this list:

1. Smart fantasy owners, meet Ben Sheets. Ben Sheets, smart fantasy owners.

2. The Yankees made a good move.

3. THREE of the top ten are Pirates pitchers. Nothing is going Pittsburgh's way lately.

4. Blanton has been the biggest disappointment of the Moneyball draft so far, and here's part of the reason.

Overall, fantasy owners, this list is a good one to look at for bargains that will slip under the rug. As Voros McCracken theorized and later proved, pitchers have little to no control over where the ball is going once it's hit. Pitchers with a high BABIP have been, therefore, unlucky, and will likely regress to the mean the following year.

And now the top ten LUCKIEST pitchers of 2006:

1. Chris Young, .232
2. Jered Weaver, .239
3. Anibal Snachez, .243
4. Chuck James, .250
Scott Elarton, .250
6. Michael O'Connor, .254
7. Taylor Bucholz, .258
8. Carlos Zambrano, .259
9. Josh Beckett, .265
Kenny Rogers, .265

Now, don't get me wrong, these are all very good pitchers. Just don't expect quite the production out of them this year. They had a lot of help from a combination of good defense and luck that kept their WHIPs ridiculously low.

Six days until the first spring training game!

Some Rethinking, and Some Great Writing

2007-02-21T19:19:00.000-05:00

A lot of my steroids rhetoric has been based on the "innocent until proven guilty" idea. I recently read an article in Prospectus' seminal book Baseball Between the Numbers that spins that argument into a more accurate light, which I think nails on the head why I argue that we shouldn't be so quick to indict Bonds or Giambi. The article, called "What Do Statistics Tell Us About Steroids", was written by Nate Silver. This is the concluding paragraph:

However, it is best to reserve judgment on these players. Not in the "innocent until proven guilty" spirit; the evidence that Giambi, Palmeiro, and Bonds have used steroids would hold up in a court of law (though Bonds has testified that he used one such substance contrary to how a player seeking performance enhancement would use it). Rather, I mean it in the conservative sense of the scientific method: We cannot reject the null hypothesis that the spectacular performances of players like Barry Bonds is the result of something far different than steroids use, such as good, old-fashioned determination and hard work. One of the beauties of baseball is its unpredictability. Every time we thought we'd seen everything, we see something else, whether it's the Red Sox and White Sox winning the World Series in consecutive seasons or a thirty-six-year-old shattering the home run record. In the Juiced Era, we have the right to be skeptical, but it would be a shame if we've become so cynical that we can no longer enjoy these achievements.

That last sentence there is pretty much exactly how I feel about the whole issue. The article is inconclusive about steroids, but provides some insightful data and asks some very original questions. Again, if you want to get an introduction to sabermetrics, insight into modern baseball thought, or even if you're a seasoned statistician, this book is an absolute must-read, broaching topics from Joe Torre's skill as a manager to players' performance in walk years to Alex Rodriguez's true financial worth to a ballclub. Info on buying the book is here, but it's also probably available at your local library.

More Antagonism!

2007-02-21T15:51:00.001-05:00

I'm back at it with the unnamed sportswriter! Remember, I may be wrong, he does bring up some good points. Not enough, though! Let's watch:

Hello, it's me again!

I just took a little issue with your flippant reply to Bengie Molina in this excerpt:
Action: New San Francisco Giants catcher Bengie Molina says Barry Bonds is "probably the best player of all time. ... For me, it's exciting just to share the same field and be in the same lineup with a guy who changed the game."

Reaction: Molina obviously is no student of baseball history and isn't aware of how Babe Ruth dominated the sport in the 1920s. Bonds is the best player of the steroids era, possibly because he had the best steroids. He didn't "change the game" until, many of us believe, he began using performance-enhancing drugs.
Now, let me start off by saying that I totally agree with the fact that Babe Ruth, not Barry Bonds, is the best baseball player of all-time. Not, however, for the reasons you think. What I take issue with here is your seeming assumption that Bonds doesn't even come close to having the effect Ruth did on their respective leagues. This is just not true. He comes very close. Damn close.

You're also assuming (this is something I'm just now realizing; honestly this gets more interesting as I go along) that Molina has the same definition of "best player" that you do. Maybe Molina doesn't give a damn about who dominated the sport, he just wants to see who the best, objective player was in baseball, something that will always be changing. Now, this is something that I also happen to agree with you on, but who knows what Bengie thinks. I assume you've never spoken to or met Bengie Molina (please correct me if I'm wrong on this), but him saying something that you don't agree with hardly means that he is no "student of baseball history".

Let's compare Bonds and Ruth by the numbers, eschewing for the moment the steroid argument because, as I'm sure you know, Barry Bonds has never been proven to have taken steroids and, unfortunately for sportswriters, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty. Modern baseball research has enabled us to compare players from different eras, so I'm going to use some of those methods right now. Perhaps the easiest to use and most straightforward is BaseballReference.com's new "neutralize stats" feature. Basically they take the numbers from any given season and reconfigure them as though they had taken place in a year with average offense, ballparks, etc.

So: Barry Bonds' best year was 2002, in which he hit .370/.582/.799 with 46 HR in the NL's worst offensive year since 1991. Babe Ruth's best season came in 1920, when he hit .376/.533/.849, his career high slugging percentage, with 54 HR. Using BBRef to neutralize the stats, we get this:

Bonds: .385/.597/.831, 49 HR
Ruth: .359/.515/.812, 53 HR

If Bonds and Ruth had been playing in the same time, Bonds would have outperformed Ruth in each of their best seasons (hitting-only, of course). How about career numbers?

Bonds: .299/.433/.608, 734 HR
Ruth: .342/.474/.690, 714 HR

Ruth with the advantage. But using the neutralize feature:

Bonds: .303/.446/.614, 761 HR
Ruth: .333/.463/.669, 720 HR

Notice how, in order to even the playing field, Bonds' numbers go up and Ruth's come down. This indicates that Ruth had the advantage of a much more offensive-happy era than Bonds. This feature even adjusts so that Ruth's figures project to a 162-game schedule.

WARP3, Baseball Prospectus' stat, calculates how many wins a given player is worth, adjusting for era, over the average AAA player of the time. This is just a quickie, but Ruth's career WARP3 was 234.2, while Bonds' is 233.1. Note that this is a cumulative stat, and Bonds' career is not over. And this includes fielding, in which the Babe was quite good, probably as good as or better than Bonds, and baserunning, in which Bonds is much better.

The biggest reason that Ruth is a superior ballplayer was his pitching. Prospectus' seminal book, Baseball between the Numbers, does an extensive study comparing the two players. On hitting and fielding merits alone, Bonds comes out on top. But the Babe's pitching contributions push him ahead. I said earlier that Ruth's best season was 1920. In a way that's true, but look at 1916: Ruth threw an ERA of 1.75 with NINE shutouts, as many as Nolan Ryan's 1972 career high, and one shy of Cy Young's 10 (also a career high) in 1904. That is why Ruth is undoubtedly the better player. If you want to talk about out-homering teams, that's fine, but then take a look at Bonds' IBB numbers in the early 2000s for a similar reflection

Now let me ask you: are you a student of baseball history? I assume that you are, which means that you must surely know that the only era in which offense was as favored as the so-called "steroid era" of approximately 1993-2002 was the so-called "live ball era" of the 1920s, when Babe Ruth was in his prime. You say that Bonds is the best player of the "steroids era" very dismissively. Well, Ruth was the best player of the live ball era, the only era that favored offense more than the one Bonds played in. Were steroids a part of Bonds' rise? Maybe. Probably, even. But that doesn't mean the balls didn't leave the park. So much of the offense in the 90s also has nothing to do with steroids: expansion led to depleted pitching staffs, and ballparks got smaller and smaller along with the strikezones.

When Ruth played, three countries were represented in MLB. Now there are players from over 10. Not to mention the hundreds of African-Americans that couldn't play in MLB until 12 years after Ruth retired. How much would he have "dominated" were he forced to play against the best pitchers and alongside the best hitters from the Negro Leagues?

The answer is nobody knows. Just like nobody knows how much worse Bonds would have been without steroids. The only events we can judge are the ones that happened. Even with all those comparative numbers up there, they're not perfect. An extra 8 games per season could have been Ruth's downfall, who knows. But your dismissing Molina's statement so readily is simply irresponsible, and further indicative of your goal, along with countless other sportswriters, to make a scapegoat out of and assassinate the career of Barry Bonds, the greatest baseball player since Babe Ruth.

Carnival Matleuse

The response!

Hey, Carnival, I'm a "flippant" guy. ... In 1921, Babe Ruth hit 59 of the AL's 477 HRs...1922, Ruth hit 35 (bad year for him) of the AL's 525 HRs....in 1923, Ruth hit 41 of the AL's 442 HRs...In 1924, he hit 46 of the AL's 397 HRs....I 1925, he was sick much of the season and only had 25 of the AL's 533 HRs....In 1926, he hit 47 of the AL's 424 HRs....In 1927, he hit 60 of the AL's 439 HRs...In 1928, he hit 54 of the AL's 483 HRs....In 1929, he hit 46 of the AL's 595 HRs....If that was the "live ball era", Ruth must have been swinging at the XXXX-juice balls....His percentage of total HRs is off the charts and Bonds doesn't come close. Measured against their peers, Ruth was far away the better power hitter EVEN AFTER BONDS BEGAN CHEATING!!!!...I don't recall Bonds being rated among the all-time four of five all-time ELITE players until after he took advantage of several years of performance-enchancing drugs. For a guy who loves stats, if you can't see the power surge that defies all logic....Regarding "innocent until proven guilty", no one is talking about throwing Bonds in jail for cheating. He might serve some time for other things but not for using steroids...no offense, if you don't think Bonds used the juice, YOU'RE the one who is naive. There's a guy sitting in a cell who could turn Bonds' world upside down simply by telling us who BB is on all his records...If Bengie Molina says something I absolutely disagree with and defies logic, my job is to respond. Sorry you seem offended. Well, not really sorry, but more like incredulous.

"XXXX-juiced balls??" What?!

The response!

I think Bonds used steroids, but what I think doesn't matter until it's proven that he did. And I believe that the way he played, steroids or no, from 2000-2004 is amazing. That's all I'm saying. And yes, Babe Ruth's home run numbers compared to Bonds' are much more impressive. But what's more important for the "best player of all-time", bald home run numbers, or overall production? On the latter point there can be a fine debate between the two. And you saying objectively that Bonds "cheated" as though there is no argument to the contrary is just as irresponsible as if I were to say there was no argument that he DID cheat, which I never did.

How can you say that Bonds played in such an easier offensive era? I'll do the work for you:

1920-1935: 4.854 runs per game
1993-2002: 4.859 runs per game

.005 runs per game more in the 'steroid era'. I'd call them pretty comparable, wouldn't you? And consider that while Babe Ruth outhomered every team in his era, Barry Bonds out-IBBed every team in his. Now what if he had had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him instead of Jeff Kent?

As far as the cheating argument goes, you obviously don't think Mark McGwire should be in the hall... I don't know if you feel that way about Bonds or not. Do you think Whitey Ford and Gaylord Perry should have their plaques removed? Keep in mind that Perry goes on national tours bragging about how he cheated. That, to me, is far more of a stain on the game than Barry Bonds wowing a generation of baseball fans with a little hormonal augmentation.

Check back for updates as the feud continues!

D3sports.com Launches Baseball Site

2007-02-16T10:26:00.000-05:00

Nobody will likely care about this but me, but the highly popular and respected d3sports.com has launched a new branch: d3baseball.com. What Pat Coleman's brainchild brought to the world of people that actually care about, follow and are knowledgable about Division III Football and Basketball now comes to the less popular baseball. The site features recaps, previews, articles and, perhaps most exciting for yours truly, the same message board feature that makes DIII Football season such a hoot. For me. (The message board for baseball has always existed, but hopefully this will bring more traffic.)

The technical aspects of the site are overseen by "guru" Coleman, while Jim Dixon will be the main content supervisor. I don't know if there's going to be a poll the way there is on d3football and d3hoops (these polls are actually the most respected by media outlets in Division III), but it would probably better than the coaches poll, which follows the "top eight in the national poll have to be number ones in each of the eight regions" policy, which is dumb.

So I encourage you to go follow your alma mater (if you happen to have gone to a DIII baseball school) and give support to what really can be some good baseball. If you're wondering where MY allegiances lie, I will only say that you may be able to see me in this picture:

Find what school that group of fans belongs to and you will find your answer.

THT Takes a Look at Outfield Arms

2007-02-15T11:10:00.000-05:00

John Walsh (not the same Walsh that now graces this blog) over at The Hardball Times has released his annual analysis of outfield arms for 2006. Here's quick blow-by-blow.

What Walsh did was pick situations in which an outfielder has the most leeway to make a difference on a play by throwing someone out. He used:

1. Single with runner on first base (second base unoccupied).
2. Double with runner on first base.
3. Single with runner on second base.
4. Fly out with runner on third base, fewer than two outs.
5. Fly out with runner on second base, fewer than two outs (third base unoccupied).

He then compared how each outfielder fared in those situations against the league average. Some results:

Right Field

Best: Alexis Rios
Worst, actually worst in any outfield position: Shawn Green
Interesting: Brad Hawpe comes in at number two, and actually played more than Rios. J.D. Drew showed up fourth from the bottom, much worse than Trot Nixon, whom he is replacing. Drew (ironically) played more, though.

Center Field

Best: Willy Taveras
Worst: Johnny Damon
Interesting: Juan Pierre and Torii Hunter land squarely in the middle of the pack. Mike Cameron? Third-last. Johnny Damon brings nothing to the Yankees. Put Hideki Matsui in center and Melky Cabrera in left. Lead off Derek Jeter. There, I fixed the Yankees.

Left Field

Best: Andre Ethier
Worst: Scott Podsednik
Interesting: People weren't just BSing about Manny Ramirez, he comes in at third. A very impressive rookie season for Ethier. And it turns out no amount of stolen bases makes up for the fact that Scott Podsednik is a left fielder with no power that can't field.

Book Review: Luckiest Man: The Life and Death of Lou Gehrigby Jonathan Eig

2007-02-13T22:13:00.000-05:00

As the author quotes, the phrase "never get to know your heroes" does not apply to Lou Gehrig. A biography can often become suspected of revisionist history when painting its subject to be an irrepressible, hard-working, all-around swell guy, but Jonathan Eig's 2005 account of Gehrig's life (cover: $26.00; list: $15.00; amazon.com: $9.09) is more than thorough enough as to the source of its material that one knows this not to be the case.

To get the crticisms over with first: when I began the book I feared the overly clunky writing would be really annoying throughout. This paragraph describing Gehrig's father's background illustrates what I mean:

Heinrich left Germany at the age of twenty. He may have emigrated illegally, since there appear to be no records of his journey in either Germany or the United States. He settled first in Chicago, didn't like his prospects there, and soon tried New York. Long after most men his age had married, Heinrich remained single. No doubt his pokey work habits made him something short of a princely catch. He had no known family in the United States and probably lived alone, renting a bed or sofa from a family that needed whatever pittance he could afford to pay. In 1901, at the age of thirty-four, he finaly met the woman he would marry.

It has a real "Sentence. Sentence. Clause, clause. Sentence." feel to it. It would prove, however, to merely be reflective of the utilitarian nature of the passage. The rest of the book was a nicer read, with a few exceptions.

Those exceptions lie in one major facet and one minor facet. The major facet is Eig's tendency to fall into the romantic, as biographers are wont to do. Eig doesn't get as drippy as many (such as the to-be-discussed Mitch Albom), but it's there. The worst offense is documented below:

Traveling with the Yankees in 1932 was like traveling in a time machine with the dial stuck on "Good Old Days."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The minor facet has to do with Eig's other tendency to, um, describe Gehrig's body in a detailed manner. Observe:

His torso formed a perfect V. His shoulders and forearms were as taut as a rope. His chest looked like a hunk of marble. His stomach revealed not an ounce of fat. Yet while his upper body looked like something out of an anatomy textbook, his lower body appeared to belong to another species, neither man nor ape. Each thigh was bigger than many a man's waist, each calf the size of a Christmas ham. Here was the hidden source of his tremendous power and durability.

It's as if Eric Byrnes was temporarily inhabiting the author.

But it's time to return to a more serious tone. The above is unfair. Eig has provided a delicate, sincere, and informative account of Gehrig's life and death. Throughout the first half of the book, Gehrig's modesty, naïvete, work ethic and desire to please all those that counted on him are described and reiterated just the right amount. His unwavering drive to not let the success that surrounded him engulf his easy-going personality is a foreground theme in the book, to the point that Eig depicts many cases in which Gehrig's shyness cost him opportunities and prevented him from warming to many of his colleagues. This effort finds its huge payoff during the second half, when Gehrig's slow but inevitable disintegration pushes itself painfully into the limelight. Every stumble is painful to read about, and equally tough is each account of Gehrig's steadfast resolve throughout the ordeal. This paragraph itself seems to have devolved into rambling lip-service, but, as this book as confirmed for me, if any man deserves it, it's Gehrig.

The research within helps clear up a lot of details; for instance, Gehrig's Wikipedia article maintains that his wife, Eleanor kept the sordid details of his disease from him until the end. Luckiest Man debunks at least the dogmatic part of this theory:

By now, [Gehrig and his doctor Paul O'Leary] had probably discussed the details and dynamics of ALS. Gehrig had probably begun reading literature on the disease. He was beginning to get a sense of what would happen to him.

It may be true that Eleanor never told Gehrig that ALS was fatal.

The book of course comes to a head on Lou Gehrig Appreciation Day (pictured above). I'm just going to reproduce the speech here, in full. It is one of the most meaningful speeches I have ever heard, read, or heard about, especially when considering how much effort it took him to give it.

"Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth. I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans.

"Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn't consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day? Sure, I'm lucky. Who wouldn't consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball's greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy? Sure, I'm lucky.

"When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift - that's something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies - that's something. When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter - that's something. When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so you can have an education and build your body - it's a blessing. When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed - that's the finest I know.

"So I close in saying that I may have had a tough break, but I have an awful lot to live for."

A perfect, perfect farewell.

My final praise for the book comes at this chronological point as well. For most baseball fans, and indeed most Americans, the legend of Gehrig stops there. But the biography, and Lou's life did not. You read about opening his car door and just crumbling out of it. You read about asking photographers to prop pencils in his fingers so it looked like he could use one. You read about him losing the power to speak, and ultimately the (for me) quintessential haunting image of the brash, unflappable Babe Ruth pushing to the front of the line at Gehrig's wake and weeping at his casket.

For fans of Yankee history and of the Iron Horse himself, this book is a must-read. For baseball fans, it's a must get-around-to. For regular Americans looking at a profile in courage, it's top notch. I wrote a couple months ago about how Steve Yzerman was my hero. This book left me wishing I had grown up seventy years earlier so that I could idolize this man. ALS has claimed thousands, but no accounts are more courageous than this. Other prominent cases are the famous Dr. Stephen Hawking, who has lived incredibly long with the disease, and Morrie Schwartz was the featured afflicted individual in Albom's best-selling book, Tuesday's With Morrie, in which another incredibly courageous and touching individual is portrayed.

I'll close here with streak-breaker Cal Ripken, Jr.'s words on the night he broke the Iron Horse's consecutive games record.

Tonight, I stand here, overwhelmed, as my name is linked with the great and courageous Lou Gehrig.

Good book.

Top Ten List of the Day

2007-01-28T23:28:00.000-05:00

The top ten active leaders in on-base percentage.

1. Barry Bonds (41), .4429
2. Todd Helton (32), .4300
3. Frank Thomas (38), .4242
4. Albert Pujols (26), .4186
5. Lance Berkman (30), .4161
6. Jason Giambi (35), .4134
7. Bobby Abreu (32), .4124
8. Manny Ramirez (34), .4110
9. Jim Thome (35), .4089
10. Brian Giles (35), .4083

One name conspicuously absent? Ichiro Suzuki, who it turns out almost never walks.

And if there's one disclaimer about rate stats, it's that shorter careers have the advantage. Can I then get one big "holy shit" for Bonds and Thomas, still getting on base at an outstanding rate. It's too bad Dusty Baker would never have those two "clogging up" his basepaths! Yes-sir-ee.

Swift Boat Veterans for Bloodsockgate

2007-01-26T17:51:00.000-05:00

Are you a Massachusetts resident? Are you sick of high taxes, illegal immigrants, the BIG DIG, and queers marrying queers at a rate that would put any Vegas chapel to shame? Are you sick of John Kerry flip-flopping his shit all over your beautiful state constitution? Are you sick of the hours of C-SPAN footage of Ted Kennedy falling asleep on the senate floor? Does Cape Cod look just a little too phallic for your liking? Would you push your own Grandmother down the stairs just to get JFK back in office? Do you think the Pawtucket Red Sox are the only redeeming feature of Rhode Island? Do you get pissed off at the constant stream of hippies commuting to and from Maine? Do you wake up every morning and think to yourself "Man, FUCK Connecticut." Do you read Bill Simmons more regularly than... do you only read Bill Simmons? Most importantly, registered voter in Massachusetts, DO YOU LOVE THE RED SAWX AND HATE THE FUCKING YANKEES?

Registered voter in Massachusetts, when you pick up the paper on November 5, 2008, to read about the previous night's senatorial race results, what do you want to see? What image would give you the most hope? Would it look something, anything, like this?

That's right, Curt Schilling. Whispers of him taking on Kerry in '08 are... whispering. And why not? If there's one non-baseball thing Schilling is famous for, it's siring two children that developed melanoma, a skin cancer that makes sunlight rather dangerous, and then taking a contract in Phoenix, the sunniest city in the United States*. But if there are TWO things, he's famous for his stumping, support, and everything short of physical romantic passion for George W. Bush.

At least we hope he stopped short of physical romantic passion. Because we know that if there's one thing you hate, registered Massachusetts voter, it's queers.

Let's use Wikipedia's Curt Schilling article to help us illustrate, in a Stephen Colbert-ish manner, just why Schilling would be right for Massachusetts.

-We need someone with a cool head.

During a game as a Diamondback in 2001, he destroyed a camera with a bat because he disagreed with their intended purpose.

-We need someone that isn't afraid to tell it like it is.

When Red Sox relief pitcher Scott Williamson began to experience arm pain mid-way through the 2004 season, Schilling reportedly told Williamson to stop "acting." Williamson then lost the remainder of the season to reconstructive arm surgery.

-We need someone that will support the administration.

While with the Phillies, Schilling was a vocal critic of team management, stopping just short of calling the front office incompetent...Schilling campaigned for President George W. Bush in 2004, while the ownership of the Red Sox campaigned for the challenger, Senator John F. Kerry.

-We need someone that will stand behind his colleagues.

He was called to Capitol Hill to testify about steroid use in March of 2005, not as a suspected user but rather as a vocal opponent. However, many were disappointed as he equivocated on his position. Later, he supported having Rafael Palmeiro's stats erased from the record books.

-We need a Pittsburgh Steelers fan that lives in Drew Bledsoe's old house.

Today, Schilling lives in Medfield, Massachusetts, in Drew Bledsoe's old house.

Schilling is a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.

But the real point of this is of COURSE Schilling would be better than Kerry. I mean, which of these images strikes you as more courageous? This one or this one? This one or this one?

You, Massachusetts voter, will have to decide in 2008. You will have to decide which is a more important issue: fewer tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, or to “fire everybody and anybody who had anything to do with the Big Dig”?

In an election like this, it may very well come down the character and makeup. And we all know that of the two of them, Kerry has never won the big one. And true Massachusettsites aren't measured in experience on the senate floor, they're measured in moments.

One Schilling quote that didn't make it into the article: "I can't wait to tell 49 percent of the electorate to shut up."

*Yeah, yeah, it's his hometown. We still think this is funny.

A Closer Look at the 2006 Arizona Fall League All-Prospects Team, Part I: Pitchers

2007-01-25T14:29:00.000-05:00

The Phoenix Desert Dogs were darlings of a nation as they closed the book on the 2006 Arizona Fall League season, defeating the Grand Canyon Rafters 6-2 to take home the crown. Some say it was fate, some say it was luck, others claim that Phoenix was the only team that finished the regular season with a winning record. But we're not here to talk about any of that. We're here to see what players took advantage of playing nearly every day for two months in front of a slew of scouts and coaches deciding their major league fates for 2007. In this post and a couple to follow, I'll be breaking down the 2006 All-Prospects team, hopefully shedding some light on what we can expect in 2007 from these lil' rascals. I'm starting today with the hurlers.

Starters

Kyle Yates (Toronto) - RHP, Phoenix Desert Dogs
1/08/1983, 5'11", 190, Univ. of Texas
Selected by Toronto in the 13th round of the 2004 amateur draft.

2006:
A+ Dunedin (Florida State League): 2-0, 0.64, 14.0 IP, 0 HR, 8 H, 0 BB, 13 K, BAA .163
AA New Hampshire (Eastern League): 6-9, 3.75, 1 SHO, 1 SV, 127.1 IP, 10 HR, 118 H, 38 BB, 115 K, BAA .246
AFL: 2-0, 1.13, 24.0 IP, 1 HR, 19 H, 6 BB, 25 K, BAA .224

2007 Projections:
PECOTA: 5-7, 5.8, 104.3 IP, 19 HR, 39 BB, 62 K, 1.54 WHIP, 0.8 VORP, 1.3 WARP
ZiPS: 8-10, 5.29, 165.0 IP, 29 HR, 48 BB, 95 K
Marcels: N/A

At age 24 as of a couple weeks ago, Yates appears to be on the right track. A short stint at high-A led to a successful season at AA (record's not much to look at, but check out the K/BB), and he finished it off pitching for the champion Desert Dogs and being named to the all-AFL team, leading the league with his 25 strikeouts.

Firstinning.com has this to say about Yates:

Yates had an eye-catching 1.91ERA at Dunedin last year, but his component statistics suggests he won't repeat that level of success in the near future. His strikeout-to-walk ratio is good, but Yates is too hittable to have much success in the upper minor leagues.

Not very optimistic; they project Yates to be a back-end starter for the Jays in 2008. Toronto, however, is stocked with starting pitching, so if Yates' productivity doesn't increase somewhat, look for him to be headed back to the pen (after the recent conversion to starter) before he hits the AL.

Yates is a meat-and-potatoes fastball, curveball, changeup pitcher with a fastball that tops out at about 90 or 91 and his changeup is 79-81. Some people that have watched Yates think there may be some problems with his delivery (short-arming the release, shaky throwing arm), but the reports I'm reading are from a couple years ago, so I'm sure if there was anything wrong it's been caught by now, and the numbers he put up this year agree with that. Look for him to get a real chance at AAA in 2007; that could be a do-or-die situation for Yates.

Matt Albers (Houston) - RHP, Mesa Solar Sox
1/20/1983, 6'0", 205, San Jacinto Community College (Texas)
Selected by Houston in the 23rd round of the 2001 amateur draft.

2006:
AA Corpus Christi (Texas League): 10-2, 2.17, 116.0 IP, 4 HR, 96 H, 47 BB, 95 K, BAA .223
AAA Round Rock (Pacific Coast League): 2-1, 3.96, 25.0 IP, 2 HR, 24 H, 10 BB, 26 K, BAA .253
MLB Houston: 0-2, 6.00, 15.0 IP, 1 HR, 7 BB, 11 K, 1.60 WHIP, BAA .298
AFL: 0-1, 3.94, 16.0 IP, 1 HR, 14 H, 6 BB, 9 K, .241

2007 Projections:
PECOTA: 7-9, 4.84, 127.7 IP, 16 HR, 64 BB, 95 K, 1.50 WHIP, 9.0 VORP, 1.9 WARP
ZiPS: 8-10, 4.90, 156.0 IP, 19 HR, 156 H, 75 BB, 106 K
Marcels: 2-3, 4.50, 50.0 IP, 6 HR, 19 BB, 38 K, 1.40 WHIP

Okay, before I say anything I have to point out that Wikipedia has Albers's middle name incorrectly listed as "Kip." Moving on: Albers spent some time on the big league roster this season; his best appearance came July 27 against Cincinnati, when he came in in the third in relief of Taylor Bucholz. Albers proceeded to go five innings, giving up two hits, walking three, striking out four and allowing no runs. His other three appearances weren't as stable.

Albers boasts a fastball, slider, and changeup. He has excellent command of the low-90s heater and the slider has potential. Kevin Goldstein at Prospectus rates him as the seventh-best Astros prospects ("good"), and offers the following criticism:

A little short, and his pitches tend to come in straight. He began to nibble as he moved up levels, walking too many batters at Triple-A and a brief big league stint. He can overthrow his slider at times, causing it to flatten out, while also giving him trouble against lefties.

Albers's stint in the bigs puts him on the map, but something revolutionary will have to happen for him to be a force. I expect Albers to be back and forth next season, but ultimately find a place on the Astros by the end of the year. He is commonly projected as a future back-of-the-rotation starter.

Relievers

Billy Sadler (San Francisco) - RHP, Scottsdale Scorpions
9/21/1981, 6'0", 190, Louisiana State
Selected by San Francisco in the sixth round of the 2003 amateur draft.

2006:
AA Connecticut (Eastern League): 20 SV, 2.56, 45.2 IP, 1 HR, 23 H, 29 BB, 67 K, BAA .146
AAA Fresno (Pacific Coast League): 1 SV, 1.80, 10.0 IP, 1 HR, 5 H, 2 BB, 12 K, BAA .156
MLB San Francisco: 0 SV, 6.75, 4.0 IP, 2 HR, 2 BB, 6 K, 1.75 WHIP, .294 BAA
AFL: 3 SV, 1.29, 14.0 IP, 0 HR, 9 H, 4 BB, 22 K, BAA 1.84

2007 Projections:
PECOTA: 1 SV, 4.54, 56.0 IP, 5 HR, 41 BB, 52 K, 1.59 WHIP, 5.6 VORP, 1.0 WARP
ZiPS: 4.72, 80.0 IP, 10 HR, 76 H, 45 BB, 69 K
Marcels: 4.67, 27.0 IP, 4 HR, 10 BB, 21 K, 1.37 WHIP

No, that is not Billy Sadler on the CD cover, but it's the best picture I could come up with that would fit. Thank Blogspot for that one. Sadler was the first pitcher I profiled in my midseason AFL roundup, and he kept up his pace... for his remaining six innings of work. Sadler's four big league innings are obviously a small sample size, but he was decent enough to get some looks for '07, his best outing coming in the seventh inning on September 21 against Milwaukee; Sadler faced five batters, walking one, allowing one hit and striking out the rest (Tony Graffanino, Geoff Jenkins, and Drew Anderson). After striking out 22 in 14 innings in Arizona, Sadler should get some good looks for the Giants' pen, even as full as it already is.

As far as Sadler's stuff, there is some disagreement; undisputed is his 93-95 mph tailing fastball, but Prospectus says he features a "plus curve", while Baseball America has said that his "hard-biting slider" is whiffing people. Prospectus also says that he can get into trouble with his curve; he probably has both pitches, one better than the other.

Either way, he should see significant big-league time next year. But with the crowded bullpen, full rotation, and plethora of pitching prospects the Giants have, that's hardly a guarantee. It's amazing what a clusterfuck SF's roster is.

Jesse Chavez (Pittsburgh) - RHP, Grand Canyon Rafters
8/21/1983, 6'1", 160, Riverside CC (Calif.)
Selected by Texas in the 42nd round of the 2002 amateur draft.

2006:
AA Frisco (Texas League): 4 SV, 4.42, 59.0 IP, 5 HR, 54 H, 28 BB, 70 K, BAA .245
AAA Oklahoma (Pacific Coast League): 0 SV, 4.50, 2.0 IP, 0 HR, 3 H, 0 BB, 3 K, BAA .333
AAA Indianapolis (International League): 0 SV, 4.24, 17.0 IP, 0 HR, 18 H, 9 BB, 15 K, BAA .273
AFL: 4 SV, 0.64, 14.0 IP, 1 HR, 6 H, 3 BB, 11 K, BAA .122

2007 Projections:
PECOTA: N/A
ZiPS: N/A
Marcels: N/A

It's tough to find info about Chavez; as you can see above, there are no projections for him, plus Prospectus doesn't even list him as a top ten prospect in their Pirates article. There was some speculation that he was eligible for the Rule 5 draft... turned out he wasn't. Ummm, I've heard he has a good fastball... should see some time with the Pirates in 2007. 24 years old. That's all I got for you folks. More would take extensive Googling, which, to be honest, I'm not up for.

There are 18 more members of the All-Prospects team; needless to say it will take me a while to get around to all of them. But hey, that's why Walsh is here; to pick up the slack!

This Ballfield Just Got a Little Ol'er...

2007-01-22T00:29:00.000-05:00

Folks, I am pleased to announce that this blog has a new member: Mr. Brian Walsh. Walsh will provide somewhat of a different perspective on many issues, although I'm sure you'll find that the viewpoints are well-presented and the analysis thoughtful. I am aware that by doing this I am literally cutting my readership in half, but it should be worth it for some of the lively debate this will start. And if you don't believe me, just read his first post, which will shortly follow.

So welcome, Mr. Walsh, and let's keep truckin' through this offseason.

Fun With BBRef's Streak Finder

2007-01-20T21:50:00.000-05:00

Baseball Reference is doing some amazing things, and I highly recommend the new PI feature. Today's fun:

An indication of just how dominant Mark Prior was, and could be again. He holds the second-longest streak of games pitched with five or more strikeouts (since 1957), with 50. Prior has started 106 games in his major league career, and 50 of those, in a row, contained five or more strikeouts.

Yes, I do have a non-sexual crush on Mark Prior. Oh, please be good again! Curse you Dusty!

The longest streak? Randy Johnson with 69. If you look at the streak leaders for 10 or more, Johnson's name shows up an amazing amount.

Big news coming up with the next post.

I Can't Decide Who I Hate More: The Actual Maris Family or the Actors That Portrayed Them in 61************

2007-01-13T12:38:00.000-05:00

Rich Maris, son of former Yankee legend Roger Maris, is saying some stupid things, most recently in an interview with our favorite SI writer, Jon Heyman:

Maris is a man who chooses his words carefully but leaves little doubt as to where he stands on issues involving his father, including whom he believes is still the true single-season home run record holder. "If everything comes out the way it looks like it's going to come out, I feel my dad is," Maris told me.

For someone whose father was so dogged by claims that his record was illegitimate that he was driven to chain smoking which aided the lung cancer that killed him, this seems to me to be a confusing claim. Roger Maris had the following to say about his treatment:

They acted as though I was doing something wrong, poisoning the record books or something. Do you know what I have to show for 61 home runs? Nothing. Exactly nothing.

We don't know exactly what effect steroids has on one's ability to hit a home run. We do know the exact effect of having eight extra games to do it in. Mark McGwire, of course, hit his 61st in 143 games, leaving no doubt.

Just for fun, here's everyone that's hit 60 home runs, and the amount of games their team had played to that point, and when they hit their 61st (respectively):

Babe Ruth (1927): 154
Roger Maris (1961): 158, 162
Sammy Sosa (1998): 149, 150
Mark McGwire (1998): 141, 143
Sammy Sosa (1999): 148, 149
Mark McGwire (1999): 155, 156
Sammy Sosa (2001): 157, 158
Barry Bonds (2001): 141, 144

It seems like there are a lot of possible answers to that question, and none of the most interesting ones would involve Maris, steroids or not. Heyman (or as I call him, Verducci-for-a-day) makes it clear in the article that Rich Maris has made a very nice life for himself. I think he should let this one go.

It's Officially the Offseason: Brian Cashman Finally F***s Up (And, Amazingly, So Does Terry Ryan)

2007-01-04T16:06:00.000-05:00

The Yankees have, pending a physical, agreed to a short-term contract with first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz. This move ostensibly helps the Yankees' defense by giving Jason Giambi more opportunities to DH. How good a fielder, though, is Mientkiewicz really? The one thing he's always had to his credit was the 2001 Gold Glove Award, but as we've learned, Gold Gloves, especially at first base, are pretty flimsy awards at best, because they're voted on by managers that don't see people play unless they're in the opposing dugout. But is his professed prowess enough to make up for what the Yankees would lose in offensive production? Let's look at some stats (BRAR=Batting runs above replacement; FRAR=Fielding runs above replacement):

Mientkiewicz BRAR, 2006: 12
Giambi BRAR, 2006: 55

So Mientkiewicz gave the Royals about one win with the bat last season, Giambi gave the Yankees about five and a half.

Mientkiewicz FRAR, 2006: 0
Giambi FRAR, 2006: -4

That's right; Prospectus says that Mientkiewicz was actually a AAA-level fielder in 2006. The difference of 33 runs in batting is not nearly made up for by the four runs in fielding. Let's look farther back:

Mientkiewicz BRAR, 2004-06: 21
Giambi BRAR, 2004-06: 121

That's including an 80-game 2004 for Giambi.

Mientkiewicz FRAR, 2004-06: 4
Giambi FRAR, 2004-06: -1

This is telling me that Mientkiewicz--who had three great seasons from 2001-03 before his production took a big hit--is not that much better a fielder than Giambi (compare 7 errors in the past two seasons to 14; twice as many, but not a huge figure cumulatively), while being a far inferior hitter. His batting stats actually took a jump in Kansas City; he EqA'd .265, giving him an above-average figure for the first time since 2003. Giambi, of course, has not EqA'd less than .300 in a full season since 1998.

Of course, a good argument for getting Giambi off of first is durability; more games DHing means more games he's not straining his hand, or whatever. But this is money wasted when Andy Phillips could be giving the Yankees their replacement-level hitting and fielding for cheaper. Hell, if people are so up in arms about Melky Cabrera having nowhere to go, teach him to play first, or Hideki Matsui, as has been suggested. Dumb move in New York.

---

Twins agree to minor-league deal with Sydney Ponson

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?!

Ponson, since 2003:

Seasons with an ERA under 5.30: ZERO
Seasons with an ERA+ over 100: ZERO
Seasons with a WHIP under 1.55: ZERO
Seasons with above-average pitching runs: ZERO
Number of judges assaulted in his native Aruba: One

The numbers don't lie.

Tribute to Steve Yzerman

2007-01-02T17:30:00.000-05:00

Again, this isn't even close to baseball news, but tonight the Detroit Red Wings will be retiring the number 19 of my all-time favorite athlete, Steve Yzerman. Since I, you know, don't have any other websites, this is where I'm putting my tribute. I don't have much to say about Yzerman that hasn't already been said, but he was truly an admirable athlete and special hockey player. The longest-tenured captain in NHL history, he transformed from a star rookie (drafted fourth overall in 1983) to an elite player (65 goals and 90 assists in 1988-89) to one of the great team leaders in the history of sports (three Stanley Cup championships as captain [1997, 98, 2002], Conn Smythe Trophy winner [1998], Selke Award winner [2000], Bill Masterson Memorial Trophy winner [2003]). Yzerman also attained success in international play, playing for two Canadian Olympic teams (1998, 2002), winning the gold in 2002. Wayne Gretzky announced in late 2005 that no one would ever again wear number 19 for the Canadian national team.

My favorite personal memory of Yzerman encompasses basically all of the first half of 2002. During the regular season he had reaggravated a knee injury that would cost him 30 games and require immediate post-season surgery. He still finished the season sixth on the team in scoring, and helped team Canada to a gold medal. (As an American I wasn't really rooting for Canada, but seeing Stevie win one was consolation enough.) He then went on to finish second among all players in scoring that playoff season en route to his third and final Stanley Cup victory. I watched every game that playoff, to the point where I was in a school play and had hooked up a TV backstage to watch game seven of the Conference Final when I wasn't on. Every time Yzerman fell or was pushed to the ice, it required the utmost effort to get back on his feet, using his stick for leverage and support every time. It was truly painful to watch, and yet this man finished second in scoring and first in faceoff percentage. (Finishing first in scoring that playoffs was Peter Forsberg, who later admitted to playing with a broken wrist. That was a year for battlers.)

As a leader Yzerman was soft-spoken, but all who played under his captaincy speak to the attention he commanded when he had something to say. He was the epitome of a leader by example, someone who let his playing and effort do the talking. He never did many ads, never held out for salary, never seemed to lose his focus as an entire city went nuts for him.

Yzerman finished with 1,755 career points, good for sixth all-time; he is one of two players in the top ten (Mario Lemieux) to have scored all his points for one team. His totals for career goals, assists, and playoff points also all register in the top ten all-time. Hell, he even had a couple fights (ugly though they were).

I feel extremely fortunate to have been able to follow a player like Stevie Y and even see him play in person a couple times. I wrote to him as a child and he sent me a signed card, which was a thrill. He will always be a hockey legend, and one of my personal heroes. Thanks for a great career, Stevie.

There are a bunch of tribute videos on YouTube, but I freakin' hate how they put a stupid song along with every one, so pick your poison.

---

And in case anyone was wondering, Lou Gehrig is my all-time favorite baseball player. Never got to see him play, though.

The next post will be far less sappy and lip-service-y, I promise.

Prove Joe Morgan Something

2007-01-01T15:47:00.000-05:00

Happy new year to everyone from The Ol' Ballfield! 2007 should be a great year for baseball, especially if 1907 is any indication! It was the year the 107-win Cubs defeated Detroit in the first of three straight World Series' Detroit would lose, in an Atlanta Braves-like run. Chicago won the series in five games, 4-0-1. That's right, you read that right, the 1907 World Series featured the first of two ties in modern postseason history. (This, of course, does not count the 2002 All Star Game.) In game one, the two teams were locked at 3-3 when the game was called on account of darkness in the 12th inning.

I doubt the Cubs will have 107 wins in 2007, or even smell third place, but with the signing of Gary Sheffield, the Tigers are in prime position to lose a couple more World Series'.

Where was I? Ah, yes, the title of this post. I posted today because of something Joe Morgan said that I thought was stupid, and I was going to try to prove him wrong. But I thought I would post first, and then try to prove him wrong, so that if I turned out to be wrong, I wouldn't be able to get out of it.

The quote in question concerns this happy character:

Dave Concepcion, whose passing over for the Hall makes baby Jesus cry year after year. Before we get to Joe's comment, there are a couple things to point out:

1) In this picture Concepcion looks like he's way to young to be holding a bat, much less playing for Cincinnati. Honestly, is it me, or are there pimples on his chin? Would we have to re-create those for the plaque? And the extra-long last name doesn't exactly help the fact that his jersey looks five sizes too large.

2) In this article, Concepcion says the following about choosing a jersey number:

"The 58 jersey was too big, and I wanted 8, 11, 17 and a bunch of others, but they were all gone," former Reds great Dave Concepcion said during breakfast at his home on Thursday. "I thought about my mom and how she was born in 1913. I am glad because that No. 13 has brought me good luck. Nineteen was gone, too."

A true hall-of-famer puts his family foremost in his mind. Or after 58, eight, 11, 17 and a bunch of others. But it was his mother that truly inspired his choice. Oh, 19 was gone too. (By the way, who wrote that article? What kind of number formatting is that? Can you manage to be consistent within one paragraph, at least?)

3) In this article, Davey has this to say:

"I know some people who had good stats are coming up, like Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn," Concepcion said. "But I only have two more opportunities to get in or I'll have to sit out for years and wait for the veterans to vote."

Boo-fucking-hoo! It doesn't matter who has more of a chance to get into the Hall. What matters is that the right people get in. And it's gonna take a lot of convincing to convince me that you're the right person. Concepcion's WARP3 was 109.7, very impressive, but not as good as Gwynn or Ripken, or Joe Morgan or Paul Molitor or even Ozzie Smith. His FRAR, adjusted for all-time, was 712, also very impressive, in fact better than Ripken's but still not drop-dead enough to guarantee admission on fielding alone. Not to mention that Concepcion's EqA was a dismal .257, worse than a LOT of people, plenty of whom are nowhere near Cooperstown.

Besides the fact that Concepcion is a borderline case at best, it sickens me to see athletes campaigning like this. Whatever happened to the phrase "I let my playing do the talking"? I think a lot of players realized later that their playing, it turns out, doesn't really dig this whole public speaking thing, and they'd better add some whining of their own.

But, uh, I'm glad to see Concepcion is eating breakfast, the most important meal of the day, especially for hall-of-famers.

Anyway, on to what Joe Morgan, who should be and is a hall-of-famer, had to say:

"During my era, Davey was the best shortstop in baseball," Morgan said in a statement. "He was a Gold Glove winner and one of the best clutch hitters on the best team in baseball. He has been overshadowed by the new generation of sluggers at the shortstop position. If he played in the home run era, he would have hit 20-30 homers per year. He is definitely a Hall of Famer."

Now, Morgan is right about the fielding. Concepcion was an incredible fielder. Really, even by the numbers. But there is just no way this guy, who averaged seven home runs a season, would have hit 20-30 in the late nineties. The mound was lowered after the 1968 season, two years before Concepcion's debut, so it ain't like he piled up those numbers in a tight defensive era. The "home run era" saw about half a run more per game than Concepcion did during his career. Using BaseballReference's fantastic new neutralizing feature, let's see what the analysts say about Davey's chances to be a Derek Jeter-type hitter while fielding much, much, much much better.

Concepcion hit 101 home runs in his career, or 65 more than Phil Rizzuto, if you're an idiot supporting his candidacy. His career high was 16 in 1979. Adjusted so that his totals reflect seasons played at the historical average 4.63 runs per game (rather than the 4.22 that was the average during Concepcion's career), we see his totals leap to 109 on his career, 17 in 1979. You can also use this feature to choose a particular year. Let's choose 2000, which saw 5.14 runs per game, the most since 1936. You can also adjust for league and ballpark. The NL scored .3 runs fewer per game than the AL that year, so in the interest of proving Joe really wrong, we'll say AL, even though Davey was a Red. We'll also go with a neutral park. What happens?

Concepcion's total skyrockets to 117 on his career, and a high of... 18 in 1979! We're getting closer to making Morgan's prediction even relevant, if not fathomable. Let's put those same stats into the Metrodome, the most hitter-friendly park this feature offers. Concecpcion's career total becomes 122, with a career-high of.... 19 in 1979! We're getting closer!

To sum up, there's no freakin' way this guy would have hit 20-30 home runs in the late nineties/early 2000s, and he probably wouldn't even have hit 20 once. This power-hungry, roided up shortstop would have averaged eight dingers a year. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have proved Joe Morgan wrong!

Concepcion was a good enough shortstop that there should at least be some discussion about the Hall. But the only other shortstop to get in based purely on defense was Ozzie Smith, and even he was a better hitter, and a much better fielder.

I would write a longer conclusion, but I'm getting tired. Happy New Year!

Zito, In An Unexpected Move, Signs a F***ing Huge Contract

2006-12-29T11:25:00.000-05:00

The San Francisco Giants have signed Barry Zito to a seven-year $126 million contract. That is $1 million per year more (on average) than Alfonso Soriano will receive from the Cubs. I am a big Zito fan. This is insane.

Regardless of insanity, this is the first move that GM Brian Sabean has made that resembles any kind of a commitment to winning since acquiring Jason Schmidt in 2001 for Armando Rios and Ryan Vogelsong (translation: Ryan Birdsong). The irony here is that if he had just tried harder to nail down Schmidt (who signed a three-year, $47 million deal with Los Angeles), he would have a better pitcher for much less money. I believe Sabean is a candidate for worst GM in the game, along with Jim Hendry and Ned Colletti (who, not by coincidence, have all doled out dumbass contracts this offseason). I'd say the Zito deal actually is very reminiscent of the Soriano deal; way too much money for a great player, but not as great as you obviously think he is, and will end up costing your team more than he brings in.

The Giants needed pitching help, but not this badly. Zito gets thrown to the front of a rotation that will likely include Matt Cain, Matt Morris, Noah Lowry and Brad Hennessey. In 2006, only Lowry and Hennessey had ERAs below the league average; none had an ERA under 4.

Zito had both of those things but also posted a WHIP of 1.40, highest among the four pitchers that will be following him. Experts have stated that this will hurt Zito, who is leaving an assumedly better defense in Oakland. John Dewan's plus/minus system, however, ranks San Francisco's defense ahead of Oakland's in every category for 2006. The Giants posted a DER of .703 to the A's .690; Prospectus has San Francisco leading Oakland .705 to .694 in team defensive effeciency. Zito, however, was the benefactor of a .713 DEF EFF while he was on the mound. I think it is reasonable to believe that Zito will have a similar year to 2006 in 2007, hopefully posting an ERA of around 3.6 or 3.7. That is worse than what Schmidt did in 2006 (3.59). What helps Zito here is his age; he is 28 to Schmidt's 33. That is a solid number two starter for the next seven years, especially considering that Zito has never missed a start due to injury, obviously not true for Schmidt. But this is a huge amount of money to invest in guy you want to help you win down the road. To save a lot of typing, I'll just say that San Francisco's depth chart looks like this at this point. They have three great prospects in Kevin Frandsen (second base), Tim Lincecum (righty), and Angel Villalona (third base, and sixteen years old, so doesn't factor in immediately). Add to that lefty Jonathan Sanchez who may very well beat Hennessey out for a spot in the rotation next year and you've got a team that will contend in the division for a few seasons. The Giants still need plenty more pieces, however (!OUTFIELD¡), and this much money going Zito's way hurts their ability to lock it up. I think this signing will, in the long run, hurt San Francisco more than it helps.

One thing is for sure: a lot of big-name players are headed to the NL West. Every team but Colorado has been involved in big offseason moves (counting Arizon's Randy Johnson trade talks), and this division could be a tight one, and not for reasons of mediocrity like this year's NL Central.

EDIT: Add $1.8 million per year (!) to Scott Boras' salary discussed below, plus $1 million for Matsuzaka. Holy shit.

Caddying for Jesus; In the Huddle with God

2006-12-27T13:58:00.000-05:00

Former President Gerald Ford died Tuesday at the age of 93. This ain't really sports news, but it's always a big deal when a President dies, and Ford was arguably the most famously athletic president in our history. He also restored dignity to the White House before it was cool.

Although I'm pretty much the opposite of a Republican, I always for some reason liked Ford, and send my best wishes to his friends and family.

---

In baseball-related news, a collective sigh of relief for Yankee fans as Shea Hillenbrand has signed with another team.

Coming soon: a closer look at the 22-man all-Arizona Fall League team.

Happy Holidays!

2006-12-24T21:00:00.000-05:00

[This Headline Has Been Removed Due to Legal Considerations]

2006-12-15T16:44:00.000-05:00

So a couple days ago a site, I think it was Primer, linked to a YouTube video about a baseball-playing robot. I immediately wanted to post the video with a GREAT headline about "Sabermatricians Finally Get Their Way" or something sarcastic like that. But YouTube's search function wasn't working, and it slipped my mind. Then Deadspin has to use the headline, without asking. Well, it sucks. (Note: I am kidding.) But here is the video, in case anyone that reads this doesn't read Deadspin or Primer (you should). This is pretty amazing, and was created by Robocross.com:

July at Christmas: Red Sox and Matsuzaka Reach Deal Before Deadline

2006-12-13T23:06:00.000-05:00

It's official. The Red Sox and Daisuke Matsuzaka have come to terms on a six-year, $52 million deal. Incentives can bring the total up to $60 million. The deal will put Matsuzaka in Boston until age 32.

This is an interesting one to analyze. My first instinct tells me that Boston has gotten the better deal here. If Matsuzaka is as good as advertised, they have locked up a top-tier starter through his prime, for a salary below what top-notch starters are making, especially in this market.

If Matsuzaka falters, however, the Red Sox could end up with the kind of albatross contract that is often born out of these signings. Keep in mind that Matsuzaka has thrown an incredible workload for his age, including an especially brutal high school senior season. If he starts to wear down (and big league hitters start to figure him out) within three or four years, the Red Sox could have spent a lot more money than will be returned, and would be hard-pressed to move him.

I had heard that originally Scott Boras was seeking a three-year deal for his pitcher, hoping to get more money per season and also to get Matsuzaka back on the market in the middle of his prime. This is obviously impossible now, and Matsuzaka is faced with a real "make it or break it" situation over the next three years. (Not REALLY, since he gets the money either way. I'm speaking in terms of legacy and role with the Sox, I suppose.) I don't think Matsuzaka will be another Hideki Irabu, but I don't see him turning out to be Sidd Finch either.

One more comment: I think it's unfair to just throw around the negative implications behind the accusation that "Boston is investing over $100 million in this guy!" It technically is true, but what Boston did was what was necessary to lock him up. You can't say they really overspent; the posting fee was a blind process, and though Theo Epstein did outbid Brian Cashman by about $20 million, you can't fault him for making sure he had some clearance in hurdling the Yankees' bid. The Yankees have a much larger reputation for overspending, and if Epstein had let Matsuzaka get away to New York, he'd never have heard the end of it, as he still hasn't over Johnny Damon. As far as the actual contract is concerned, Boras had every right to contest that the posting fee should not significantly negatively affect Matsuzaka's earnings, since Matsuzaka will see none of that money and it doesn't count towards the Red Sox's reported salary. Considering that the Sox would have paid more for Barry Zito, or even Jason Schmidt, this contract strikes me as reasonable. (I personally would have cut it by a few years.)

Boston is taking a gamble, but it strikes me as a very reasonable one. Until Barry Zito finds a new home, Boston has the most sought-after signed player of the offseason, and for less than $10 million a year, a price they can surely afford. With Toronto making sensible moves as well (although not as many as you'd like to see), the AL East should be another wild ride in 2007.

You or I Could Be A Sportswriter

2006-12-12T11:22:00.000-05:00

...because sportswriters are no smarter than you or me. I'm serious about this. Sportswriters are people that happened to major in journalism or something, and mouth off in an entertaining enough way to be published. That's the only explanation for how awful they are at their own jobs.

A columnist in my hometown paper has been mouthing off recently about how much we need to punish Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa for their steroid use. As those who read this know, I have a very specific opinion about steroid use, which I outlined in this e-mail to said columnist this morning (you don't have to read the whole thing, skimming will suffice):

Dear [sportswriter]-

I have wanted to write in for a long time about a lot of things, but the steroids issue is finally what brought it on. I believe an entire nation of sportswriters is taking an illogical and hypocritical stance on Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame eligibility, which they are using to write a myriad of self-important columns that fall all over themselves to proclaim how proud they are not to vote for McGwire, or for that matter Sammy Sosa. Now I am certainly not accusing you of the latter, but readers in most papers, including ours, do not get both sides of this issue.

There are a few facts here:

1) Mark McGwire has never been proven to have taken steroids.
2) At the time of McGwire's career, steroids were not banned by Major League Baseball.

So I'll start with the basics: until we have proof otherwise, Mr. McGwire is innocent on the counts both of breaking the law and breaking the rules. Now, I think he took steroids. That messy tap dance in front of congress was certainly indicitave of something, but it was not proof. In the United States, this is a seminal aspect of our justice system. Why is this principle being abandoned by so many writers? Until it is proven, the writers should not let it affect their ballots.

This morning you mentioned that Bud Selig and Donald Fehr may be feeling guilty that they did not address the problem sooner. I believe it is the writers who should be feeling guilty. It is their job to report. I believe that the reason writers are so quick to persecute McGwire is that they HAVE proof. They were in the locker rooms in the late 90s, they saw the acne, the swelling, the andro, hell probably even the needles. The reason the proof writers have now is not coming out is that they know THEY will have to face the public on why they didn't report on it when it was happening. Selig and Fehr may be the baseball brass, but they do not spend time in locker rooms, faced with all the evidence.
The writers do, and could have brought all of this up, but for the "magical summer of 98" that changed baseball that wasn't to be interfered with. And now they are writing that McGwire and Sosa should be punished for being dishonest to baseball.

There are a number of other points I'd like to make beyond these, and these points are valid even if it is assumed that McGwire was a steroid user.

First, the National Baseball Hall of Fame is not owned by nor affiliated with Major League Baseball. It is by no means under any obligation to honor only MLB players, or honor MLB rules. But, all the best players play in MLB, and they are the only ones the Hall would honor anyway. Even if McGwire had broken a MLB rule (which he didn't), that should have no bearing on his enshrinement in the hall. Whitey Ford is in the hall, as is Gaylord Perry. Perry goes around bragging about how he cheated, which I believe is and always has been a slap in the face of MLB, and no one pays him a second thought. This is, I believe, also the main argument for putting Pete Rose in the hall. It is perfectly acceptable, as has been proposed, to include on these players' plaques their career shames. But the Hall exists to honor baseball achievements, whether or not it has MLB's blessing. Baseball as a sport owes a lot to McGwire and Sosa, plus they both had Hall of Fame careers.

You also mentioned in this morning's column that it is not drug use we are concerned with, but performance-enhancing drug use. Mr. [sportswriter], I am surprised at the naïvete you display with this comment. Surely a sportswriter of your stature has been aroud long enough to remember the epidemic use of amphetamines in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Even if you hadn't been around then, you must have read "Ball Four", Jim Bouton's game-changing book that contains scores of mentions of just how prevalent "greenies" were in the game. Dozens of players from this era have been voted in without a second thought. Steroids are more powerful and more dangerous, to be sure, but the idea that performance-enhancing drugs are okay "to an extent" is a hypocritical and dangerous idea.

I return to the fact that McGwire broke no rules while in Major League Baseball, as steroids were not banned by the organization. Yes, they were and are illegal in the United States for these purposes, but as I am sure you know, breaking the law is NOT the same as breaking the rules. Just ask Darryl Strawberry, Paul Molitor, Steve Howe, or Ruben Rivera about that. These are all players that were given second chances after law-breaking problems (Molitor was voted into the Hall of Fame, mind you).

To summarize, cheating has been around, law-breaking has been around, performance-enhancing drugs have been around, long before this debate ever took hold. You'll some from each column with bright bronze faces in the Hall, and none are in danger of getting the boot. THe final, most important argument is the subject of what a bad example these steroid-users are setting for the young people of America. I would respond to this in two ways. The first is that the steroid problem is, in the Majors, under control. Guillermo Mota has just been suspended for 50 games, and the public and officials of baseball have never been more aware or privy to the situation as they are now. Examples do not need to be made of McGwire and Sosa; it will accomplish nothing. The kids you are worried about endangering are not old enough to have been following the summer of 98; the current steps being taken are enough. Secondly, as you know, if you walk into a room of pro athletes and spit, you will hit three or four bad examples for kids. Ben Wallace's gun problem, Ray Lewis' murder trial, Dominik Hasek's assault trial, Juan Uribe's arrest; off the top of my head, there's an example from each of the four major sports. People romanticize sports to such an extent that crimes "against the game" as McGwire has supposedly commited are worse than crimes against humanity. This, right here, is the real problem.

I know a lot of these arguments are based on "this is okay because of all these precedents" kind of thinking, and that's not the idea I'm trying to get across. I just think that McGwire is an unfair scapegoat of an era that is only getting this treatment because he was THAT good, Hall-of-Fame good, and therefore that much more in the public eye. Sportswriters throw around lines that "he cheated" so much without looking into what really connotates cheating, as well as what connotates cheating that is "okay". (I notice Kenny Rogers hasn't been banned from baseball recently.) Your column is based on short opinions without the space to get into it in depth, this I understand. But I think that means you should think more carefully about the issues you spearhead within it.

Thank you for your time, and best wishes for the Holiday season,

Carnival Matleuse

Here is his response. I have edited nothing, it contained no salutation or farewell, and I'm going to try to get it to show up in the lovely blue text it came to me in:

Are you wearing blinders? There is lots of evidence that McGwire used steroids and probably heavily for most of his career. Start with Canseco's book. If Canseco made it up, why hasn't McGwire sued for libel or slander? McGwire's name was prominent in a federal steroids investigation in the 1990s. If McGwire didn't cheat, why didn't he deny it at the steroid hearings? For your information, in 1991, Commissioner Fay Vincent issued baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program, prohibiting the use of all illegals drugs -- INCLUDING steroids (without a doctor's prescription). Baseball writers aren't assigned to investigate the use of performance-enhancing drugs. There are other people who do that sort of work. It wasn't the responsibility of the baseball writers to blow the whistle on McGwire, Bonds, Giambi, etc. They reported what happened on the field. When they are asked to vote for the Hall of Fame, character and sportsmanship are supposed to be considered. If they believed a candidate cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs, it is reasonable to consider that a negative. Bonds was a Hall of Fame calibre player before he began using steroids in 1999 (in my opinion), but he never would've hit 73 HRs in a season or won his last four of seven MVP awards without a BIG boost from steroids. Amphetamines don't help turn decent sluggers into super sluggers. Steroids and human growth hormone do. The Hall of Fame voters aren't sending McGwire to prison. They are likely to keep him out of the Hall of Fame -- at least for now. The Hall of Fame vote in an individual thing. If a writer believes cheating turned a very good player into a Hall of Famer, it is reasonable for that voter to reject McGwire as a legitimate Hall of Famer. The only diffrerence between McGwire and Ragael Palmeiro is that Palmeiro got caught.

You see what I mean? Blow-by-blow:

-His first six sentences are a waste, because I admit in my letter that I BELIEVE McGwire took steroids. I just said there isn't any proof, which there isn't. "McGwire won't sue Canseco" is not proof.

-The next sentence puts me in my place a little. Didn't know that about Faye Vincent. But I still contend that the rules were ambiguous enough to merit question. And he STILL doesn't rebut my "cheaters" argument.

-We then have these six sentences, which make me throw up:

Baseball writers aren't assigned to investigate the use of performance-enhancing drugs. There are other people who do that sort of work. It wasn't the responsibility of the baseball writers to blow the whistle on McGwire, Bonds, Giambi, etc. They reported what happened on the field. When they are asked to vote for the Hall of Fame, character and sportsmanship are supposed to be considered. If they believed a candidate cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs, it is reasonable to consider that a negative.

"BASEBALL WRITERS AREN'T ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE THE USE OF PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS"??? "THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO DO THAT SORT OF WORK"??? What the hell are you talking about? Journalists investigate! That's the freakin' point! And it's okay if journalists ignore the shit during a player's career, but then it's okay afterwards to come out and bash the guy when he can no longer sever your ties with the organization? JOURNALISTS ARE SPINELESS ROBOTS THAT DO WHATEVER THEIR BOSS TELLS THEM TO, AND YOU ARE RIGHT NOW SAYING YOU'RE PROUD OF THAT, AS A JOURNALIST.

-The next sentence about Barry Bonds is weird. Is saying he would still vote for Bonds? Wouldn't? I honestly can't tell.

-Remember in my letter when I mentioned that a really good justification is needed for a "some performance-enhancing drugs are okay" argument? Well, the next two sentences provide that argument, with no justification. Thanks for reading my letter, asshole.

-The following four sentences are a conclusion in which he basically states the points I am arguing against, without arguing for them. "If a writer believes cheating turned a very good player into a Hall of Famer, it is reasonable for that voter to reject McGwire as a legitimate Hall of Famer." That is actually a good sentence. But he still fails to address the hypocrisy of letting SOME cheaters into the hall, but not the BAD ones.

-I think my favorite part of his whole response is the out-of-the-blue last line: "The only diffrerence between McGwire and Ragael Palmeiro is that Palmeiro got caught." Rafael Palmeiro? What?! Who brought that up? Did I say I thought Palmeiro shouldn't be in the hall because of steroids? No, I didn't. Where did this come from?

So, we have 21 total sentences, two of which are worth anything. This guy has a coveted job in a metropolitan newspaper. It's not in a major-league market, but it's no cow town. (It is in a AAA market.) This is a lesson for everyone: Don't take crap from writers just because of their position. They are, honestly, no smarter than you or me, no better at writing, and no more knowledgable about sports or, apparently, ethics.

---

And now for an undeserved attack on Bill Simmons:

Bill Simmons has said that bloggers are just wannabe sportswriters. Well, I think I could say the same thing about Bill Simmons. The only difference is that he gets paid. And he doesn't talk about sports.

Stupid, Stupid Headline of the Day (And it's not even from MLB.com)

2006-12-06T21:20:00.000-05:00

From the front page of ESPN.com:

Schmidt Will Happen in L.A.

With this offseason, you'd better believe it.

Winter BLUNDERLAND?!?!: A Free-for-All of MLB News and Notes

2006-12-06T17:25:00.000-05:00

Just making sure everyone noticed the title of this post. Pretty good, huh?

Bet ya didn't see that one coming.

SO much is happening at the winter meetings. There are a couple good places to follow the action:

-ESPN.com's continually updating wire directly from the winter meetings.

-Prospectus has a similar thing going on.

-Charlie over at Bucs Dugout usually posts updates, even non-Pirates related, in a timely fashion and with excellent thoughts.

-And there's always the Baseball Primer newsblog.

I'll make some comments myself here, in chronological order. Starting with, oh, I don't know,

Red Sox ink Drew for 5 years, $70 million

Red Sox Fans everywhere are throwing up in their mouths. This is a great move for Drew, who gets to play on a primo-stage for $3 million more than he would have gotten in Los Angeles. Many people see Drew as a selfish prima donna who is always hurt and is getting on in years. This has some truth to it, although Drew has had three great seasons in a row, including the shortened-by-injury-which-was-obviously-Paul Depodesta's-fault 2005. Since he got to the league, Drew has, literally, alternated between healthy and hurt seasons, with 2007 looking grim if the pattern holds. But in those last three healthy years he's posted EqAs of .335, .334 and .300, and WARP3's of 8.6 and 9.2 in those last two. With the silly, silly market right now, I think this is a good move for the Sox, who need a good fielder in right field (which Drew is) and a five-hole hitter that can.... hit at all. Last year the Sox ranked 30th, and by no small margin, in five-hold OPS. Drew has a great swing for Fenway park, and this deal could be integral to the Sox's success next season. If he stays healthy, and doesn't let the Boston media get to him. Which he likely won't, and will, respectively. Sigh.

Maddux signs with Padres

Greg Maddux's last awesome season was in 2002, when he posted an ERA of 2.62, good for an ERA+ of 157. He's gone way downhill since then, although had a weirdly successful season in 2006 posting average numbers with Chicago and very good numbers with Los Angeles. Now the Padres have given him $7 million (up to $10 million if he achieves numerous innings incentives) to try and recreate that SoCal magic in 2007. It's a lot of money for a pitcher... not of Maddux's caliber, of course, but of Maddux's recent production. PETCO Park is every pitcher's dream, and so is the NL West (especially if Bonds departs San Francisco), so the odds seem to be in his favor to at least have a decent season in 2007 at age 41. But don't look for him to bring what a REAL $10 million pitcher would.

Red Sox sign Julio Lugo for 4 years, $36 million

Well, the Red Sox needed a shortstop, and that's exactly what they got. Not sure if he's worth the money... Lugo is serviceable in the field, and not wince-inducing with the bat. Most of his career highs came in 2005, and OPS+ of 105 and an OBP of .362; both of those totals have not come close to being equalled by any other seasons in his career. He also posted a FRAR of 45 that year, never scoring above 26 any other. As Charlie points out, the Sox probably thought Dustin Pedroia would be better at second, but a good second baseman can be had on this market for a much more reasonable price than this.

Mets deal Brian Bannister to the Royals for Ambiorix Burgos

Both teams get something they need here. The Mets trade away a serviceable starter for a decent relief arm, and the Royals get a starter that will help remove the word "abominable" from many descriptions of their rotation.

Burgos has always been touted as being better than he's pitched, but he will only be 23 next year. Surrounded by a shitload of good pitchers, as he will be in New York, is a good place for a young pitcher to learn the ropes (See: Rivera, Mariano, circa 1995).

Bannister pitched well in his rookie season, although he got some help from his defense. Kansas City might drown him as it did Zack Greinke, both because he is moving to the American League and because he is playing for an awful team.

Schmidt signs with Los Angeles for three years, $47 million

This is a huge relief for Dodger fans after the idiotic signings of Juan Pierre and Randy Wolf. Three of Schmidt's last four seasons have been great, and 2003 can only be described as fabuloso. After an injury-laced 2005 Schimdt came back to form last season, and three years is a very reasonable amount of time to lock him up for (ages 34, 35, and 36). The word is that the Dodgers will now trade a starter, possibly Brad Penny, for a bat.

Indians sign Joe Borowski to a one-year, $4.25 million deal

Borowski had a hell of a season in 2006, but didn't pass a physical in Philadelphia recently. This is a gamble for Cleveland, but if that shoulder is all right, they got themselves a good closer.

Dodgers sign Mike Lieberthal

One-year deal for a good backup. Good move.

Check the links above for rumors, updates, etc.

A Few Funnies

2006-12-05T16:30:00.000-05:00

I watched a bunch of The Simpsons Season Three on DVD last night. A couple notable things:

-In the commentary for "Homer at the Bat", show-runner Al Jean mentions that "all the players were really great to work with. Except for one whose name I won't mention, but it rhymes with 'Manseco'."

-In "Bart's Friend Falls in Love", Bart takes advantage of Milhouse's otherwise-occupied attention to rip him off in some baseball card trades. My favorite part: "I'll take your Ozzie Smith rookie card for my Vizquel." Back when these two were actually playing, people realized their respective values. Now that Smith is a distant memory, this helps bring into clearer context the idiocy of writers who want Vizquel in the hall because "he is almost as good in the field as Ozzie and he can hit better", to sum it up. 1) He is NOT almost as good as Ozzie was, and 2) WHO CARES.

Here's a great article from the Onion, presumably written by Ned Colletti. I'm glad the Onion is doing sports now; before all we had was the Brushback, which had laugh-out-loud headlines but terrible writing. The Onion's writing as always been top-notch.

And also, here's some info on Toronto Star columnist Richard Griffin's sex life, completely unsolicited.

I won't be posting for a couple days, but keep checking out Prospectus' updates on the winter meetings. Maybe the next time I see you, Manny Ramirez will have been traded. Maybe.

Let's All Bash the BBWAA

2006-12-01T15:24:00.000-05:00

Seriously, it's fun. The Hardball Times' John Brattain (whose stuff I generally like, but is a little fluffy, although he's an admitted Jays fan so that's worth some points) has written a great indictment of the BBWAA members that will proudly not be voting for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame. Here are the best parts:

Mark McGwire was part of an era, an era that happened with owners, general managers, managers, agents, the MLBPA and the media acting as willing accomplices. The Yankees struck a steroid clause that could void the deal on Jason Giambi’s massive contract. Teams offered major money to these juiced-up behemoths to put runs of the board. The MLBPA fought tooth and nail to protect players ‘right’ to take steroids. Managers never invoked the ‘probable cause’ provision in the labour agreement to have a player tested for performance enhancing drugs. Agents gleefully cashed commission checks from their ‘roided up clients. The media saw the players balloon up in a way they never saw major leaguers before and saw unprecedented performances. They were in the locker room. They saw the body acne and other physical symptoms characteristic of steroid use.

(...)

They could’ve blown the whistle but guess what? To do that would’ve risked backlash, access, and their relations with players. They chose to wimp out and not do their jobs and report.

Now that they don’t have to face these players any more and answer to them for what they write, now they’re acting like tough guys, standing up to protect the integrity of the game and saying there’s no way they’d vote a “cheater” into the Hall of Fame. It’s like bad-mouthing the class bully two years after he’s moved 3,000 miles away.

Hear, hear, John.

It's December baseball, folks!

Turns out Pujols Really Is A Dick

2006-11-30T23:25:00.000-05:00

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".

Hope you have Babel Fish or something.

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.

What did people know before there were internet quizzes?

2006-11-29T21:42:00.000-05:00

This is a really good, succinct quiz from ESPN.com on the history of baseball. Give it a shot, see how you do.

Baseball History Quiz

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 enlarged head 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

2006-11-29T02:25:00.000-05:00

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.

Read the rest of the interview here.

A terrible journalist by any other name would be as bad at being a journalist

2006-11-28T16:53:00.000-05:00

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.

Don't forget all the awful MVP ballots, Joe!

Hall of Fame breakdown, an opinion nobody is going to like, and some thoughts on parity

2006-11-28T12:07:00.000-05:00

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.

(Go ahead and do something else.)

All right, I'm back. New Ballot:

1. Belle*
2. Blyleven*
3. Gwynn
3. McGwire
4. Ripken
5. Saberhagen*

*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: if McGwire 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 if McGwire 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

2006-11-27T00:41:00.000-05:00

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.

Most Valuable Player

2006-11-19T20:37:00.000-05:00

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!

But you're probably sick of hearing from me. Let's here from some real-life sportswriters:

"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.

The NL MVP By The Numbers

2006-11-19T16:47:00.000-05:00

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.

EqA

1. Pujols, .346
2. Howard, .337
3. Barry Bonds, .335
4. Cabrera, .333
5. Berkman, .331
6. Chipper Jones, .326
7. Nick Johnson, .325
8. Beltran, .320
9. Brian McCann, .315
10. Garret Atkins, .310

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.

OPS

1. Pujols, 1.102
2. Howard, 1.084
3. Berkman, 1.041
4. Jones, 1.005
5. Bonds, .999
6. Cabrera, .998
7. Beltran, .982
8. Matt Holliday, .973
9. Atkins, .965
10. McCann, .961

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.

2006-11-17T19:38:00.000-05:00

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.

The AL MVP By The Numbers

2006-11-17T15:18:00.000-05:00

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 (Wins Above Replacement Player)

1. Santana, 10.6
2. Jeter, 9.8
3. Mauer, 8.9
T4. Jermaine Dye, 8.5
T4. Sizemore, 8.5
T6. Halladay, 8.4
T6. Tejada, 8.4
8. Jonathon Papelbon, 8.2
9. Michael Young, 8.1
T10. Hafner, 8.0
T10. Joe Nathan, 8.0

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?

OPS (On Base Plus Slugging)

1. Hafner, 1.097
2. Ramirez, 1.058
3. Ortiz, 1.049
4. Thome, 1.014
5. Dye, 1.006
6. Giambi, .971
7. Mauer, .936
T8. Vladimir Guerrero, .934
T8. Morneau, .934
10. Paul Konerko, .932

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.

Back with the NL later.

MLB News and Notes

2006-11-17T13:23:00.000-05:00

A's Hire Geren as Manager

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.

Webb Wins NL Cy Young, Santana Takes Home AL

Duh and duh-er.

Theo Epstein: Money Shot (Plus, A Lil' Somethin' About Rey Ordoñez!)

2006-11-14T23:06:00.000-05:00

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:

-Curt Schilling, 2004-06
-David Wells, 2005-mid '06
-Matt Clement, 2005-06
-Josh Beckett, 2006

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:

.246/.289/.310
12 HR
28 SB, 24 CS
60 OPS+
.214 EqA

Here is his best season, 1999:

.258/.319/.317
24 2B
1 HR
69 OPS+
.227 EqA

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.

Picture of the Day

2006-11-13T16:52:00.000-05:00

Can you dig it?

Ow! The Stove is Too Hot!

2006-11-12T15:17:00.000-05:00

Aramis Ramirez and Kerry Wood are staying put in Chicago. Here's a link to ESPN's free agent tracker:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/freeagents

Why, It's Another Trade!

2006-11-12T12:17:00.000-05:00

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:

3.35 ERA, 1.17 WHIP, 41 K, 17 BB, .286 OBPA, 3.49 FIP, 133 ERA+, 13.9 VORP

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.

Just for Fun

2006-11-12T11:37:00.000-05:00

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?

I can guarantee you which will happen first.

Trade Breakdowns

2006-11-11T17:44:00.000-05:00

The stove just got a little hotter:

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.

A Daisuke Matsuzaka Quickie

2006-11-02T12:47:00.000-05:00

"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."

A Julio Franco Post

2006-11-02T00:46:00.000-05:00

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.

A Daisuke Matsuzaka Post

2006-11-01T21:05:00.000-05:00

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.

Do-Do--Do--Do... ya have it?

2006-10-31T12:15:00.000-05:00

GUTS!

This was brought up over on FJM (imagine that), but it turns out that David Eckstein's wife of almost a year, Ashley Drane (an actor), was a Silver Medal winner on GUTS in 1994. I can't imagine how gritty that performance must have been.

More Options than Springfield College; MLB News and Notes

2006-10-31T11:04:00.000-05:00

Gooooooooooood morning!

-Red Sox Pick Up Wakefield's option

Wakefield's contract is structured so that every time the Sox pick up a team option, another one magically appears for the following year. Each is worth $4 million.

Wakefield 2006: 7-11, 4.63, 90 K, 51 BB, 1.33 WHIP, 100 ERA+, 14.6 VORP

The Red Sox know what they are getting for their money; Wakefield is by far the longest-tenured player on the team. Of course, he will be 40 next season, and 2006 was not a good year; he threw his fewest number of innings since he spent part of the year as a closer in 1999, and didn't impress. 2005 was an excellent season for Wakefield, but 2006 looks a lot like 2004, if you get my drift. Which seasons do you think are lying to us?

-Padres Decline Option on Piazza

At first, one may look at Piazza's not bad 120 OPS+ and his not bad 27.1 VORP and wonder why. Then when one sees that his .501 slugging pct. (his best since 2002) is holding up his .342 OBP (excluding 2005, his worst since his pre-rookie year of 1992), and one adds in that Piazza was a worse-than-replacement-level fielder this year (-2 FRAR), one might begin to understand... Guys that only slug and don't play a good defense become much less valuable in PETCO Park. Piazza's buyout price was $750,000.

-White Sox Pick Up Options on Dye, Buehrle and Iguchi

No surprises there. Dye got a few yells for MVP this season, putting up a 1.007 OPS, the highest of his career, and a 64.6 VORP, ninth in the AL. His option is worth $6.75 million, which could rise to $7 million based on MVP voting results. Buehrle, entering his prime, had by far the worst season of his career in 2006, and there is little reason to believe he won't return to form in 2007; his Achilles' heel in '06 was home runs; he gave up .8 or so more home runs per game in 2006 than he did in 2005. His line drive rate sunk, though, and I don't see any evidence that he didn't just have an off year. His option was worth $9.5 million. Iguchi's numbers went up in most categories except slugging pct. and line drive pct. His option was worth $3.25 million.

-Free Agency City

Here is a list of all the players that have filed for free agency. I'm working on a more detailed list that I'll get out before the bidding starts on November 12th.

-Alfonso Soriano Apparently Cuckoo

According to the Washington Post, Soriano "is seeking a deal similar to the seven-year, $119 million deal given to center fielder Carlos Beltran by the New York Mets before the 2005 season." Despite having the best season of his career (by far) in 2006, Soriano's numbers are still not as good as Beltran's were, plus he is three years older than Beltran was at the time of his deal. Add to the equation that Beltran is a better fielder... I don't know Alfons. Someone will probably pay it, though.

That's all for today. Boo!

Arizona Fall League Pitchers Update

2006-10-27T00:32:00.000-04:00

Here's some info on some pitchers that are performing well in Arizona so far:

(NOTE: These are all relievers. No starters have had particularly great starts in the AFL, and they are only left in for about four innings anyway. Go figure.)

Billy Sadler (San Francisco) - RHP, Scottsdale Scorpions
9/21/1981, 6'0", 190, Louisiana State
Selected by San Francisco in the sixth round of the 2003 amateur draft.

Sadler currently ranks second in the AFL with 12 strikeouts, and this with only eight innings pitched. In his first five games, appearing for one inning even in each, he registered three, two, two, two, and two strikeouts. He holds an impressive WHIP of 0.68, and only two walks. Baseball America has this to say about Sadler:

Giants righthander Billy Sadler, who took home AFL pitcher of the week honors this past week, was consistently in the 93-94 mph range with his fastball, and his hard-biting slider was impressive in his one inning of work Monday.

Sadler made 44 appearances with double-A Connecticut of the Eastern League in 2006 where he registered 20 saves and a 2.56 ERA. He was promoted to AAA Fresno of the Pacific Coast League where he was equally impressive (his ERA in 10 innings was an even better 1.80) before his contract was purchased by the parent club. In San Francisco he threw four innings, allowing five hits and two walks, while striking out six. Sadler is blooming, look for him to spend more time at new Candlestick in '07.

Lincoln Holdzkom (Chicago Cubs) - RHP, Mesa Solar Sox
3/23/1982, 6'4", 240, Arizona Western CC
Selected by Florida in the seventh round of the 2001 amateur draft.

After missing all of 2004 because of Tommy John surgery, and struggling in his comeback year of 2005, Holdzkom appears back on track to become a major league pitcher. He has only pitched eight innings in the AFL so far this season, but the WHIP he has to show for it? 0.25. A lot of that is due to his giving up no walks, and striking out a batter an inning. Opposing batters are hitting .083 off of him.

Holdzkom was dealt to the Cubs in spring training with Zach McCormack for Todd Wellemeyer. He was the Marlins' rop relief prospect before the surgery, which knocked him down to #23. Holdzkom has a good fastball and hard-breaking curveball (which has also been described as a "wicked slider") that could develop into closer stuff. He does, however, tend to suffer when the game is on the line and many scouts thing he is more suited to the setup role.

Holdzkom spent some time on the DL in 2006, but in 32.1 innings pitched with West Tennessee in the Southern League (AA) he posted a 1.96 ERA, 1.09 WHIP and 27 strikeouts. With the shape the Cubs' staff is in, Holdzkom could be throwing for Sweet Lou at least part time by the end of 2007.

Zach Segovia (Philadelphia) - RHP, Peoria Seguaros
4/11/1983, 6'2", 245, Forney High School (Texas)
Selected by Philadelphia in the second round of the 2002 amateur draft.

Segovia is another former hot prospect whose career was put on hold for Tommy John surgery. He, like Holdzkom, missed 2004 and struggled in 2005. He is punctuating a successful 2006 with a 1.04 ERA and 0.73 WHIP in 8 2/3 innings pitched with Peoria. A walk and a single were all it took for Segovia to take the loss in a one-inning appearance against Grand Canyon on Wednesday; before that he had not allowed an earned run. He has walked a batter in each of his last three appearances.

In 107 innings pitched with Reading of the Eastern League (AA) this year, Segovia recorded a 3.11 ERA and 1.06 WHIP, as well as 75 strikeouts. He threw three complete games and one shutout. Segovia was optioned mid-way through spring training in '06; expect him to last longer this year, and at least start the season with Ottawa (AAA).

Jesse Chavez (Pittsburgh) - RHP, Grand Canyon Rafters
8/21/1983, 6'1", 160, Riverside CC (Calif.)
Selected by Texas in the 42nd round of the 2002 amateur draft.

Chavez has not allowed a run in 7 2/3 innings for Grand Canyon; he has struck out seven and walked only one for a WHIP of 0.78. Chavez has a good fastball, and struck out 88 batters in 78 innings this year split between Frisco of the Texas League (AA), Oklahoma of the Pacific Coast League (AAA) and Indianapolis of the International League (AAA). His ERA hovered around 4.50 for the whole season, which seems to be about where he was last season. He was brought over at the deadline in the deal that sent Kip Wells to Texas. Chavez may eventually be useful in long relief with that fastball, but I don't see much more coming from him at this point. We'll see where the AFL success is at the end of the season.

Kyle Yates (Toronto) - RHP, Phoenix Desert Dogs
1/08/1983, 5'11", 190, Univ. of Texas
Selected by Toronto in the 13th round of the 2004 amateur draft.

Yates is the only pitcher on this list that has started a game; he went three innings giving up five hits and one run. Yates has only made two other appearances this season, but each was for at least three innings, which tells me this guy is being groomed as a starter, switching his role from when he was drafted, which I've heard he is comfortable with. In Yates' first appearance this season he went three innings, striking out six and allowing but one hit; five of those strikeouts were over a stretch of six batters. Yates' 13 strikeouts lead the AFL.

Yates started out the year with Dunedin of the Florida State League, which he dominated for four games. He was promoted to New Hampshire of the double-A Eastern League, where he held batters to a .246 average while registering 102 strikeouts as well as a 3.75 ERA and 1.23 WHIP. 2007 could be a breakout year for Yates, at whatever level.

I noticed as I finished this list that I didn't choose any left-handers, which is disappointing. After perusing the league leaders once again, I found a few lefties that were having okay seasons marred by a bad appearance or two. They include Mark McLemore (Houston) and Neal Musser (Unaffiliated). I'll do another round of five from each side of the plate when the season ends in late November. Between now and then, there'll be plenty to talk about between the World Series and inevitable award injustices.

For information on what players your team sent to the AFL this year, check out your team's official website and sort of hunt around for a press release. That's what I did. There may be an easier way to find out, but all I can see now is just sifting through the rosters on the AFL webpage. At any rate, keeping up with prospects is just one of the many ways to stay entertained when your team isn't playing.

Quick Thoughts on WS Game Four

2006-10-27T00:23:00.000-04:00

1) Kudos to Tony LaRussa for bringing Adam Wainwright in when he did. Man on third in the eighth with a one-run lead was the situation where they needed their best reliever, and that was what Tony gave them.

2) This marks the fourth throwing error in this World Series by a Tiger pitcher, and the third with huge connotations. Take your time, boys.

3) David Eckstein finally had a game that could be acceptably fawned over by sportswriters. Too bad they will praise the sac bunts of the game instead.

4) Speaking of sac bunts, that's what Placido Polanco should have been doing in the eighth. Runner on second with no outs is one of the only situations in which it is even sabermetrically acceptable to sac bunt, and Polanco swings into an easy groundout. What has Jim Leyland doing in this series? Is there any chance this will all come out later as a retroactive scandal, like much of the Kennedy administration?

Arizona Fall League Hitters Update

2006-10-26T12:15:00.000-04:00

Who knows how long it will be until we see Major League ball again, so let's take a look at who's performing well in the southwest winter league:

Batting

Chip Cannon (Toronto) - 1B, Phoenix Desert Dogs
DOB: 11/30/1981, B:L T:R, 6'5", 225, The Citadel
Selected by Toronto in the eighth round of the 2004 amateur draft.

Cannon is hitting .372/.472/.767 in 12 games, and shares the league lead with five home runs, two of which have come in his last two games. On Wednesday he went 4-for-6 with a home run, a double, and three RBI in a 23-9 rout of the Peoria Javelinas. It could be inferred that Cannon is playing a bit over his head, as in 135 games with New Hampshire in the Eastern League this year, his OBP was only .335, and he strikes out more than once a game. He did hit 27 home runs with New Hampshire, however.

Most impressive are Cannon's numbers in big situations: with runners on he is 9-for-17 with three home runs and 12 RBI. His number with RISP are almost as impressive.

Cannon put up numbers close to this with Dunedin of the Class A-Advanced Florida State League last season, but again suffered when he faced the pitching of AA New Hampshire. A third straight mediocre season in AA would be a bad sign for Cannon, who turns 25 at the end of the month.

Ryan Braun (Milwaukee) - 3B, Scottsdale Scorpions
DOB: 11/17/1983, B:R T:R, 6'2", 200, Miami (FL)
Selected by Milwaukee in the first round of the 2005 amateur draft.

Braun has been moving up through the minors at a steady pace since being drafted fifth overall in 2005. Starting last year with Helena in the Rookie ball Pioneer league, he was promoted to West Virginia of the South Atlantic league. He started 2006 with Brevard County of the Florida State League and finished with 59 games with Huntsville of the Southern League. He hit .303/.367/.589 with Huntsville, and hit 15 home runs. This fall with Scottsdale he is .311/.385/.756 with five home runs in 45 at-bats. Braun has also been called "by far the top Jewish prospect in baseball", for what it's worth.

Interesting about Braun is the fact that he has 500 points more of OPS against righties than lefties this fall. I don't know enough about the minors to say definitively why this is, but I'd guess that either a) the LHP talent in A ball and below is not very good, so he's finally seeing some good pitches from a southpaw, or b) he's just naturally a better righties hitter. Braun also has impressive situational numbers, OPSing 1.556 with runners on and 1.524 with RISP. And only .446 (that's an OPS) with the bases empty...

I would guess (CONJECTURE WARNING) that Braun will start the season with Huntsville next year, but expect to see him in Nashville (AAA) at least once before the season is out. And hey, if the Brewers' three-deep at third continues to look like this, who knows?

Kevin Frandsen (San Francisco) - 2B, Scottsdale Scorpions
DOB: 5/24/1982, B:R T:R, 6'0", 175, San Jose State
Selected by San Francisco in the 12th round of the 2004 amateur draft.

Frandsen, Braun's teammate at Scottsdale, caught my attention because of one number: .537, his on base percentage. He also leads the league with a .406 batting average. (.406! .406!) This has to be heartening to Giants brass who saw Frandsen hit .215/.284/.323 in 41 games in the majors this season. That's not an overly discouraging start for a 24-year-old (especially with his two home runs), but a hot season in Arizona could solidify his status as the successor to Ray Durham. Frandsen has equalled that home run total in nine games with Scottsdale, and is OPSing over 1.000 in every split except home games. He was used primarily as a pinch-hitter down the stretch for San Fran after returning from a fractured jaw, but started the Giants' final three games. He is also a blogger.

Josh Whitesell (Washington) - 1B, Peoria Saguaros
DOB: 4/14/1982, B:L T:L, 6'3", 220, Loyola Marymount
Selected by Montreal in the sixth round of the 2003 amateur draft.

Whitesell is posting a .394/.488/.758 line with Peoria this fall, with two home runs, 11 RBI, and nine strikeouts in nine games. He is DESTROYING left-handers with a 1.848 OPS, albeit in only 11 at-bats. Still, maybe my guess about Ryan Braun seeing better lefties in Arizona was way off the mark...

After tearing it up with Potomac of the Carolina League (A+) last season, Whitesell regressed significantly in 2006, going .264/.354/.433 with double-A Harrisburg of the Eastern League. While his PECOTA projections are, um, less than flattering, Whitesell is impressing down in Arizona. Don't, however, expect him to crack the majors next year; unless he can produce like this for a long period of time in the minors proper, there's no way Whitesell will see RFK any time soon.

Hunter Pence (Houston) - LF, Mesa Solar Sox
DOB: 4/13/1983, B:R T:R, 6'4", 220, University of Texas-Arlington
Selected by Houston in the second round of the 2004 amateur draft.

Pence, long thought to have been drafted too highly by Houston, is hitting .340/.386/.566 in Arizona, with two home runs and six stolen bases in 13 games. After being listed as a centerfielder, many scouts thought he lacked agility despite his good speed, and suggested he'd be better off in one of the corners, where he is now. Pence's speed was demonstrated in a three-stolen base game a week ago against Scottsdale.

After an incredible start with Lexington of the Carolina League (A), and a slightly disappointing promotion to Salem of the Carolina League (A+) in 2005, Pence hit well in 2006 with the AA Corpus Christi Hooks of the Texas league, going .283/.357/.533 with 28 dingers, 95 RBI and 31 doubles, as well as 17 stolen bases. Pence has an "ungainly" swing, and chokes up a bit too much for a big hitter, but he apparently takes instruction well and will work on getting his walk total up. Look for him in Round Rock (AAA) at some point next year, but, barring a lost season for Houston in '07, I don't see him getting significant time until 2008. It could happen towards then end of next season, though.

That's your five hitter profiles in the Arizona Fall League. I'll be back with five hurlers tomorrow.

LiveBlogging the World Series, Game Four

2006-10-25T19:25:00.000-04:00

Let's try not to let Jeff Suppan's political views (see below) distract us one way or the other; it's time for game four! The game could be suspended by rain, but there is no word yet. According to weather.com, there's a 50% chance of rain throughout the game. No official ruling on MLB.com, we'll just have to tune in.

UPDATE: Media liason Joe Buck has said that the rain is due to let up at about 9:20 EDT, and the game should start shortly after that. Oh well, I don't mind waiting a bit for ball. More analysis will follow during the delay.

NEW UPDATE: Now they're saying 10:15 EDT. Late night baseball! Also, blogger sucks and is really giving me trouble with publishing. Not sure if the LiveBlog will be so live tonight, folks.....

FINAL UPDATE: Game's rained out. Won't be able to do a LiveBlog tomorrow, but everything you find below still stands.

Lineups

DETROIT:

1. Curtis Granderson, CF
2. Craig Monroe, LF
3. Carlos Guillen, SS
4. Magglio Ordoñez, RF
5. Sean Casey, 1B
6. Ivan Rodriguez, C
7. Placido Polanco, 2B
8. Brandon Inge, 3B
9. Jeremy Bonderman, P

ST. LOUIS:

1. David Eckstein, SS
2. Chris Duncan, RF
3. Albert Pujols, 1B
4. Jim Edmonds, CF
5. Scott Rolen, 3B
6. Preston Wilson, LF
7. Yadier Molina, C
8. Aaron Miles, 2B
9. Jeff Suppan, Hidden Political Agenda, I mean P

The big story, that is, what warranted a headline on MLB.com, is the dropping of Placido Polanco to the eight-spot. The ALCS MVP, it has been well-documented, is hitless in this World Series. Guillen had normally been hitting fifth, and has earned his spot at number three as (arguably) the Tigers' best hitter this season. His OPS of .920 was the only of Tiger regular above .900. For St. Louis there are few surprises; the inclusion of slugger Chris Duncan is a no-brainer; his OPS against righties is nearly .600 points higher than against lefties. Preston Wilson kept his spot after going 1-for-3 last night with two walks.

Pitching Matchup

Jeremy Bonderman
14-8, 4.08, 202 K, 64 BB, 1.30 WHIP, .312 OBPA, 38.3 VORP
Postseason: 1-0, 3.00, 7 K, 3 BB, 0.93 WHIP, .237 OBPA
Last Start: vs. OAK (W 6-3), ND, 6 2/3 IP, 6 H, 3 ER, 3 K, 2 BB, 1 HR

vs.

Jeff Suppan
12-7, 4.12, 104 K, 69 BB, 1.45 WHIP, .343 OBPA, 26.9 VORP
Postseason: 1-1, 1.86, 9 K, 9 BB, 1.03 WHIP, .269 OBPA
Last Start: @ NYM (W 3-1), ND, 7 IP, 2 H, 1 ER, 2 K, 5 BB, 0 HR

Suppan is having a really good postseason, despite a frightening walk total. Bonderman, however, has trumped him. Bonderman was perfect through five against New York in what would be the deciding game of the ALDS, and was solid in the start displayed above, although his ass would later be saved by the most famous home run of the 2006 postseason (Sorry, So). Suppan at first glance matches up good with the Tiger offense, as he can keep the sluggers off balance with good command of his cutter, curve and change. He has trouble getting a strikeout when he needs one, though, with no real "go-to" pitch. Suppan is very able to keep St. Louis in the game, but don't expect him to dominate; in fact a couple mistakes in a row could lead to a big inning for the Tigers faster than Suppan maybe have displayed on the way to his NLCS MVP. Bonderman has more dominant stuff, and is getting better control of it all the time. His fastball is mid-90s, but has been known to hit 98 when he reaches back, and he controls it well at his age. Bonderman has a hot slider and a somewhat ineffective changeup. If his control is spot-on as it was in New York, the Tigers could easily even the series tonight. If, however, he has some problems with his location as Justin Verlander did in game one, St. Louis could be looking at the commanding 3-1 lead. With Duncan, Pujols, and Edmonds stacked at the top of that lineup, things could go wrong if Bonderman is off at the wrong time.

-The World Series gives us a certain something we only get for two other weeks out of the year, and before that not at all: AL pitchers batting. Whether or not a pitcher's mound contribution is far greater than at the plate, that is a spot in the order, and it is valuable. How do the starters, who figure to be in the game the longest, stack up against each other?

Jeremy Bonderman
2006: 0-4, 4 K, 0 SH
Career: 0-19, 12 K, 0 SH

Jeff Suppan
2006: .218/.295/.236, .198 EqA, 5 BB, 11 K, 1 2B, 9 SH
Career: .195/.241/.223, .170 EqA, 12 BB, 53 K, 4 2B, 1 HR, 35 SH

I'd say ol' Soupy has the edge! He's even enjoying a better year at the plate than he's used to.

-In an earlier post about the Tigers, I made the claim (based on data from The Hardball Times) that Detroit had the best fielding team in the league. At that point, Brandon Inge set out to destroy my reputation. His fielding numbers during the season were excellent; despite having 22 errors, fourth among third basemen, he ranks sixth in double plays turned, first in range factor, and put up 38 FRAR. In the playoffs he's muffed balls, missed throws, and gotten bowled over by Scott Rolen, giving up a run. Is he the Alex Rodriguez of fielding? No, because that is stupid. He is, however, doing badly enough to have Jim Leyland put in a defensive replacement for him in the form of Neifi Perez, in a rather nonsensicle double-switch. Of course, Inge's numbers may be inflated by a Tiger pitching staff that induced many ground balls during the season. Inge does rank fourth in the AL with 5.5 defensive win shares, however.

The Tigers have come to Inge's "defense" (har!), saying publicly that "hell, he gets ta mar balls then them other fielders, sos he makes more errors thereon, quandary!" That's not a direct quote, but I'm skeptical of the claim that Inge's increased range causes more errors. The bottom line for a scorer deciding what is an error is: If the play was made correctly, what would the outcome have been? If Inge is getting to balls an average fielder wouldn't, his mishandling of those particular balls shouldn't really count against him in the error department, unless he does things like hurry a throw, as he has already done more than once this postseason.

I think the evidence points to Inge as being an above average but undisciplined fielder. This is his second full year at third, and it can be expected that he will become more and more comfortable with the position as time goes on, unless he's the Alex Rodriguez of third base! Inge is an inconsistent fielder that for whatever reason had a great year in 2006 for a great defense in Detroit.

Save Us, Jeff Suppan and Mike Sweeney! Save Us From Ourselves!

2006-10-25T18:02:00.000-04:00

In a response to Michael J. Fox's campaign ad in favor of stem cell research, seen here:

EDIT: It has been postulated to me by a few people that Fox was "obviously faking" in that ad. For the record, none of these people are doctors. One person who is a doctor put it to me that Fox's excessive swaying in the ad is indeed not a symptom of Parkinson's, which causes rigidity; the swaying you see there is dyskinesia, which is a symptom of medication that combats the rigidity and sends dopamine to the brain to free things up a little. If Fox had taken no medication, as Rush Limbaugh suggested, he would have been unable to talk. A recent video of Fox can be seen here; his swaying, though subdued, is obviously still there. The effects of the medication can vary from hour to hour; whether the ad-makers chose an hour that was particularly bad is up for debate. But whether Fox was faking, at this point, is not. And anyway, none of this has to do with the point of this post, which, I swear, will get to baseball.

An opposing ad has been made that will air during the World Series tonight, featuring some ballplayers, seen here:

WOW.

So the best way to counter an ad about stem cell research, featuring a famous person that has Parkinson's disease (his easily identifiable connection to the issue) is to run an ad featuring other famous people (Their connection to the issue? Oh, right, some of them are loosely affiliated with Missouri.). Better yet, we'll use LOTS of famous people! Fox has a legitimate reason to be concerned, and I find myself believing that because of his disease and his well-documented desire to return to acting he has put a lot of thought into the issue of how to find a cure. WHY DO I CARE ABOUT JEFF SUPPAN, KURT WARNER, PATRICIA HEATON, OR MIKE SWEENEY IN RELATION TO STEM CELLS? MOST OF THEM JUST PLAY BALL IN MISSOURI!

I won't analyze the ad, except to say that the only person that makes any kind of good point is Patricia Heaton, although I'm not sure what her connection to stem cell research OR the state of Missouri is.

And I don't care about Mike Sweeney's career anymore, now all I'll remember him for is staring at the camera and bellowing "25 women have died."

I hate campaign ads.

Matleuse Outage

2006-10-25T11:22:00.000-04:00

Sorry I haven't posted in a week... DIII football season has been taking a lot of my time. Don't believe me? Fine, but it's true. Here are a few quick thoughts, and tonight I will LiveBlog game four of the Series:

-Kenny Rogers is cheating, but I always thought it was kind of cool how pitchers doctored the ball. If he got caught, he should have been ejected. He wasn't caught (technically), and everyone knows about it now, so he'll be more careful next time. Everybody does it, and it's not a huge problem.

-Gaylord Perry is a gigantic douche. He takes his status as a greaser and uses it to elevate him, sort of staking a claim to the art of doctoring. Who do you have more respect for, Whitey Ford, who had a great career with some doctoring and kept quiet about it, or Perry, who had a great career with some doctoring, and keeps shooting his mouth off in a bragging manner about how he "beat the system", even though countless pitchers have done it since the beginning of time, and who has chosen for this to be his legacy to baseball. How many baseball fans know Perry won two Cy Youngs? Not as many compared to the factions that know him for his doctoring.

-An interesting payroll/performance graphic. The most effeciently-run teams? Minnesota and Oakland. No surprise there. Kudos also to Florida, who come in at third with a $15 million payroll. WOW. And reverse kudos to the Cubs. Dusty Baker needed to go, but I think Jim Hendry needs to go even worse. (Warning to Firefox users: sometimes this link makes my browser close, don't know why. Fair warning.)

-Billy Beane and Tony LaRussa are suffering from the same disease: "A-little-bit-overrated-because-a-book-came-out-about-how-great-you-are-but-as-a-result-
the-backlash-has-been-overcompensating-and-now-you-are-somewhat-underrated-itis." Beane, in addition to suffering the wrath of crotchety sportswriters everywhere, has incurred more criticism for firing Ken Macha. Beane has been labeled as too controlling over the team, not giving his manager enough sway or power, as well as overruling his decisions and diminishing the manager's standing with the players. A number of A's player have gone on record saying Macha was not a good handler of the team's needs, but people have speculated that Beane forced them to say it. My thoughts:
Look, Michael Lewis may have polished Billy Beane's knob a little much in Moneyball, but that doesn't change the fact that Beane has done a remarkable and revolutionary job at the helm of Oakland. The A's, under Beane, have more collective victories than any team in baseball apart from the Yankees, and have made the playoffs more than any AL team apart from the Yankees. With a payroll that has never been in the top ten in baseball, this is a remarkable feat. And it wasn't because of Art Howe or Ken Macha; it was because of the players put on the field by Billy Beane. Managers going into Oakland should know that this is Beane's team, and he calls the shots. That's not the way it has been done in baseball, and it's not the popular method even now. But Beane's rejection of these standards is what has made him successful.
As far as LaRussa is concerned, George Will's Men at Work is also a bit of a knob-polisher. It led people to view LaRussa as some sort of law-school-trained deity of baseball thinking, and when he didn't win a World Series since 1989, that led to his labelling of "overrated". The people that do this labelling are the same people that fell for Will's romanticization; i.e. THE ONLY ONES THEY'RE REACTING TO ARE THEMSELVES. Tony LaRussa may not be a God of managing, but he gets respect from his players and the media, handles his pitching staff well and plays the percentages as best he can. That's really all that can be asked of a good manager.

But I guess we'll find out tonight!

LiveBlogging the NLCS, Game Six

2006-10-18T19:27:00.000-04:00

Tonight could be the clincher for St. Louis, and I'll be providing you with half-assed commentary the whole way. Here are the starting lineups:

St. Louis
1. David Eckstein, SS
2. Scott Spiezio, LF
3. Albert Pujols, 1B
4. Jim Edmonds, CF
5. Juan Encarnacion, RF
6. Scott Rolen, 3B
7. Ronnie Belliard, 2B
8. Yadier Molina, C
9. Chris Carpenter, P

New York
1. Jose Reyes, SS
2. Paul Lo Duca, C
3. Carlos Beltran, CF
4. Carlos Delgado, 1B
5. David Wright, 3B
6. Shawn Green, RF
7. Jose Valentin, 2B
8. Endy Chavez, LF
9. John Maine, P

Edmonds is bumped up to cleanup, where he was for the Cardinals' 9-6 victory in game two. Disgruntled Rolen is in the lineup, albeit at sixth. No argument here; Rolen is a sure thing at third, but is OPSing a paltry .494 in the postseason. I would like to see Chris Duncan in the place of Spiezio; despite a couple big hits, Spiezio is one of the few Cardinal regulars batting worse than Rolen. Duncan is also a left-handed bat against the right-handed Maine; why not use Spiezio's switch-hitting in a matchup situation later against the Mets' powerful bullpen?

Pitching matchup:

Chris Carpenter
Reg. Season: 15-8, 3.09, 184 K, 43 BB, 1.07 WHIP, .279 OBPA, 68.0 VORP
Postseason: 2-0, 3.93, 25 K, 15 BB, 1.42 WHIP, .346 OBPA
Last start: @ NYM (W, 9-6) ND, 5.0 IP, 6 H, 5 ER, 1 K, 4 BB, 2 HR

vs.

John Maine
Reg. Season: 6-5, 3.60, 71 K, 33 BB, 1.13 WHIP, .287 OBPA, 20.1 VORP
Postseason: 0-0, 4.32, 8 K, 7 BB, 1.80 WHIP, .395 OBPA
Last start: vs. STL (L, 6-9) ND, 4.0 IP, 2 H, 3 ER, 3 K, 5 BB, 1 HR

These two last met in game two, and neither pitcher fared particularly well then. Maine has a real problem with his strikeout-to-walk ratio, and Carpenter also exhibited control problems last week. Willie Randolph is hoping to get a lot of time out of Maine, especially since long-reliever Darren Oliver is a possibility to start a deciding game seven. The Cardinals are very, very beatable, but Maine can't allow the Redbirds' lineup to get good spurts against him.

If any lineup can beat Carpenter, it's the Mets'. With some good left-handed hitting, this could be another long night for last year's Cy Young winner. They could, however, go anemic as they did against righty Jeff Suppan in game three.

Should be a good game, check back for updates.

Pre-game:

-Oh, goody, an interview with Todd Jones coming up! Yuck.

-"I'm rollin' with my rims"? Yeesh. Why is FOX always trying to combine sports with pop culture? It's like if Bill Simmons had his own network. I shudder at the thought of it.

-I'm sorry, did Kevin Kennedy just say that both of Kenny Rogers' postseason starts were on the road?! Yankee and Athletic fans will tell you that is not true. How hard is it to be right about this stuff, seriously?

-When comparing Maine and Carpenter, FOX uses Carpenter's 4-0 postseason record, and Maine's four innings from last week. Carpenter's postseason has been shaky despite his record, but even if you are going to use a stupid stat, why not make it even and mention Maine's 0-0 record?! I hate hate HATE FOX.

TOP 1st:

-Glad to see the Mets are going with the pinstripes. I don't like the basic whites as much... although both are much better than the blacks, which look like BP jerseys.

-I was waiting until after the Pujols at-bat to comment on Maine. It wasn't a badly-pitched at-bat. If you can throw five straight heaters at Pujols and not get hit, you're locating them well. And even though Tim McCarver said that Maine "hung" the curveball, it actually was a good pitch; Pujols dug it out from his ankles, as Pujols is known to do.

-Great block by Lo Duca. Calm down, meat. Make your pitches. I swear this lineup is not as scary as it looks.

-Got out of it. Let's see if Maine can build off that.

0 R, 2 H, 0 E, 3 LOB

St. Louis 0, New York 0

BOTTOM 1st:

-There's that left-handed hitting.... Cy Carpenter is hiding in this series. I love Reyes' golf home run swing.

-"'Legit' #1 starter" and "First things first" do not mean anything. How is that a scouting report? I hate hate hate HATE FOX.

1 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

New York 1, St. Louis 0

TOP 2nd:

-Another supid scouting report. Also, McCarver doesn't even elaborate, he just reads the text off the screen.

-Aaaaaaagggghhhh the "keys to the game" are even worse aaaaaagggghhhhhh. Wow, Maine is the sixth rookie pitcher to start an LCS game with his team facing elimination. I italicized all the modifiers in that sentence. WHO CARES? Okay, I'll stop complaining about FOX for a while.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

New York 1, St. Louis 0

BOTTOM 2nd:

-I wonder how much Carpenter's great numbers are inflated by his division? The answer later.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

New York 1, St. Louis 0

TOP 3rd:

-Not much. He has a sick 0.92 ERA against Pittsburgh, but he also has a 6.00 ERA against Milwaukee. He has bad and good numbers against other teams from around the league. Boring answer, sorry.

-The first walk for Maine. This could open up the floodgates.

-McCarver just said that Cardinal hitters have to lay off Maine's "high-riding" fastball, and wait for him to get the ball down. I don't know, if that high-riding fastball is anything but great, it could be a home run ball pretty easily. How close was Pujols on those two fouls straight back?

-Lo Duca having a great game behind the plate so far. If I cared, I'd want him to win the Gold Glove.

-No, no, no, Willie! Why are you walking Pujols to get to Edmonds, who hit a home run off of Maine last game, while Pujols has been having a sub-par series? Why are you walking anyone at all when you have a one-run lead?

-Edmonds just missed that one. I stand by my criticism of Randolph.

-Encarnacion did not "just" miss that one. Chalk one up to McCarver on the "lay off the high fastball" strategy. Hey, that reminds me of A League of Their Own. "Lay off the high ones!" "I like the high ones!" Oh, Geena Davis!

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 2 LOB

New York 1, St. Louis 0

BOTTOM 3rd:

-Carpenter has a terrible pickoff move. He might as well take a three-step drop. Maybe that's why Molina's CS numbers are so high.

-Lo Duca's walking-to-the-plate music is "Stayin' Alive"! There are so many reasons to like this guy.

-Ever notice how the best any kind of player any former player has ever seen played at the same time as the commenter? That was a convoluted sentence.

-I don't care who you are, no man deserves to have Ronnie Belliard fall on him.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

New York 1, St. Louis 0

TOP 4th:

-Maine is starting to put it all together. After a shaky first couple, he is starting to buckle down and take my advice about the Cardinals' lineup.

-McCarver: "A bad walk for John Maine and the Mets, but not for the Cardinals." Thank you.

-Why, we've got ourselves a mini-pitchers' duel, with neither pitcher being particularly dominant. All it's gonna take is one team breaking it open to decide the game.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

New York 1, St. Louis 0

BOTTOM 4th:

-Jeez Chris, where's that deuce been all night?

-Yes, Joe Buck, Delgado could have hit that harder. He could have hit it so hard that it went over the fence.

-Shawn Green gets lucky to the tune of an RBI. That's two hits that have gotten through to Eckstein's right. Maybe he's shading a little too far.

1 R, 2 H, 0 E, 2 LOB

New York 2, St. Louis 0

TOP 5th:

-The ol' behind-the-back and Maine is starting to look like a big-leaguer.

-That pitch to Pujols was a lot like the one Pujols hit in the 1st... only better. Last week I said that Maine had to have more strikeouts than walks to win the game. Tonight: 5 K, 3 BB.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

New York 2, St. Louis 0

BOTTOM 5th:

-Chad Bradford was warming up in the pen at the end of that last inning. In 13 1/3 career postseason innings pitched, Bradford has never allowed an earned run. His rate stats: .308 OBPA and 1.05 WHIP.

-Met fans will get mad at me for this, but Reyes is having a Derek Jeter-type game, spraying hits all over the field.

-Not a great play by Belliard. If Eckstein catches that he has a very real chance at a double play. I should give him credit, though, for not trying to cut the lead runner after grabbing it.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

New York 2, St. Louis 0

TOP 6th:

-Maine's line: 5.1 IP, 2 H, 0 ER, 4 BB, 5 K

Still too many walks, but you can't argue with 5 1/3 of scoreless ball. Nice job to the rookie. With Bradford coming in, look for the Mets to get out of this one. Rolen is a prime GIDP candidate.

-Bradford on the season has inherited 53 runners, and only 10 have scored. That ain't bad. Looks like he's found a niche on his third team in three years.

-And there's the GIDP. Once Carpenter leaves the game, I want to see Rolen out, Spiezio to third, and Chris Duncan in the game.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

New York 2, St. Louis 0

BOTTOM 6th:

-Carpenter is really starting to remind me of Justin Verlander, only with more hardware. If that curve is working, it is nigh unhittable. Big If.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

New York 2, St. Louis 0

TOP 7th:

-If Molina gets on here, you gotta pinch-hit with Duncan and do the double-switch. Take care of this game TONIGHT.

-Bradford's pickoff move is also submarine! I never noticed that.

-I might still put Duncan in. The Cardinals' bullpen is good.

-I am a cot-damn genius. Here comes Feliciano. This series: 4.2 IP, 1.93 ERA, 0.86 WHIP, .222 OBPA. Duncan is OPSing a cool .593 against lefties this year, without that HR last night of course.

-WHAT?! Okay, the homer last night, sure, but you are looking at a difference of .600 in OPS! This is dumb. Get Feliciano out there.

-This NLCS crew should be censured. The strike zones are terrible.

-Still dumb, GIDP notwithstanding.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

New York 2, St. Louis 0

BOTTOM 7th:

-Randolph's handling of the pitching staff is actually quite good. The Mets lead the NL (in a tie with Houston) in shutouts this season; only three of those came on complete games.

-So how do people like Luis Gonzalez, Al Leiter, Vernon Wells, Eric Byrnes, or even Bret Boone get these gigs when their teams are out? Are they selected? Or is there actually an application process, and these guys are legitimately interested?

-I can't BELIEVE LaRussa didn't double switch. Get Rolen out of the damn game, Duncan will be much, much more useful.

-Braden Looper lives for this.

-Prospectus is right. It is really unbelievable that Lastings Milledge is not on this postseason roster.

-Spiezio, 2006: 4 FRAR
Duncan, 2006: 6 FRAR

Not a big difference, but who knows about that catch....?

Of course, most will argue that Rolen's sparkling glove should be in at third. I'll bet more of the Mets' lineup will spray opposite field shots to LF than rockets to third.

-Molina usually gets that one. Sometimes I don't know about the pitch-out on a steal, it seems to upset the rhythm of a catcher used to throwing people out from the squat, or at least having to get out of it. But it works more often than not.

-I also don't know about the fake-to-third-look-to-first move. What does it accomplish? If you do mess someone up, and you put it in play, you are risking a run no matter what. That is more likely to fall in the runners' favor than the fielders'.

-Lo Duca comes up huge. That Reyes steal just makes things worse. And there's really nothing a catcher can do about it (even if the middle infielders are covering). I always thought on that play that catcher should make a convincing fake throw to second and see if he can catch the runner off third.

-Braden Looper does not live for this.

2 R, 3 H, 1 E, 2 LOB

New York 4, St. Louis 0

TOP 8th:

-Uh oh, here comes another HP Player Personality! And no, Joe Buck, we don't all remember when Scott Spiezio was on "She Spies". I certainly don't.

-So much for Heilman being a candidate to start tomorrow. I don't think it was such a bad idea, myself.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

New York 4, St. Louis 0

BOTTOM 8th:

-Thank you, Tim McCarver, for expressing the opinion that Tyler Johnson was not throwing at Shawn Green. I'm sure if he wanted to send a message to Green, the top of the 8th in game six of the NLCS is not when he would have done it.

-Valentin has left four runners on base today. So has Scott Rolen.

-Thank you, Tim McCarver, for being one of the first people I've ever heard use the word "bevy" without the word "veritable" in front of it.

-I think there's at least a small part of every baseball fan that wants to see Julio Franco do well. How do you not root for a 48-year-old? Unless you're a Mets fan, I mean.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

New York 4, St. Louis 0

TOP 9th:

-I don't have any baseball-related commentary left in me. All I can think of is Billy Wagner looks like a turtle.

-Oops, that gives me something. After my last LiveBlog, I stated that Wagner's next outing would be a quality one. Please don't prove me wrong. and WHY IS SCOTT ROLEN STILL PLAYING AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

-Sorry about that. Everyone is proving me wrong tonight. Wagner is hanging more shit than a framer.

-Sorry about that.

-So... Taguchi? Randolph made the Mota move based on one recent performance... will LaRussa's pay off?

-WOW Gary Darling. You are a veteran. Can't pull that shit.

-There it is for Taguchi. Clutch player of the decade?

-McCarver is actually right here. Why slider after slider? Something must be up with the fastball, they are setting it up way too much.

-All the pluckiness in the world couldn't save Eckstein on that one.

2 R, 3 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

FINAL: New York 4, St. Louis 2

A seven-game series is the only true justice in the baseball postseason. So much luck comes into play either way, but at least when you get a bigger sample size, you feel less cheated.

The biggest decision is obviously on Willie Randolph for tomorrow evening. He has two choices for starting pitcher:

Oliver Perez: 3-13, 6.55, 102 K, 68 BB, 1.75 WHIP, .370 OBPA (w/ NY), -14.3 VORP
Darren Oliver: 4-1, 3.44, 60 K, 21 BB, 1.12 WHIP, .284 OBPA, 21.7 VORP

This postseason:

Perez: 5.2 IP, 1-0, 7.94, 3 K, 1 BB, 1.76 WHIP, .385 OBPA
Oliver: 7.1 IP, 0-0, 3.68, 3 K, 1 BB, 0.95 WHIP, .269 OBPA

I mean, is there even a decision to make here? Kevin Kennedy seemed to think that not having started in a couple years will shake Oliver's confidence, and also that he is more valuable coming out of the pen than Perez. I definitely agree with the second point, but I also believe that Randolph giving him the ball will do wonders for his confidence. Perez can be dominant, but he is a veritable heart monitor, and you never know what you're going to get. In game seven, go with the guy that's given you quality innings all year. Go with Oliver. If he gets in trouble, get a couple innings out of Glavine until you get to your excellent bullpen. This should be Randolph's game plan.

The Cardinals will have Jeff Suppan throwing, who pitched eight shutout innings against New York in game three. This was a stark contrast to his start against the Mets on May 16, when he gave up four earned over 6 2/3. He also had a shaky start against San Diego in the LDS, giving up six hits and three earned over 4 1/3. I am inclined to believe that the Mets will be energized by tonight's win, and won't fall victim to Suppan in game seven.

My prediction: New York 7, St. Louis 3. Of course, what I think will happen is that Oliver Perez will start, because I don't trust Randolph. But I think it will just be a matter of where those three runs come from. In my experience, a team that doesn't close out a clinching game six on the road is a team that has made a big mistake. Combine that with the fact that New York is a better baseball team and St. Louis shouldn't have even made the playoffs, and I place my money on the Mets.

A Ryan Howard Quickie

2006-10-18T12:13:00.000-04:00

Sure, Ryan Howard is a great hitter. But some of that has to be inflated by playing in that bandbox of a bandbox, Citizen's Bank Park, right?

Home: .309/.452/.626, 29 HR, 9 2B, 1 3B
Away: .318/.427/.662, 29 HR, 16 2B

Wrong.

Y-I-K-E-S, David Wright

2006-10-17T11:46:00.000-04:00

"I'm very independent, and I need my own time, so I can't have somebody really clingy."

and, later:

"The guys give me a hard time about how the girls are all like, 10, 11, 12 years old. Women show me pictures of their daughters and granddaughters."

-David Wright

Well gee, David, it sounds like you've found the perfect situation. During the baseball season you'll be independent with a game every day and road trips every two weeks, and during the offseason you'll still have your independence from 9-3 when your girlfriend is busy with the fifth grade.

Y-I-K-E-S.

Quote(s) of the Day

2006-10-17T11:19:00.000-04:00

"How long is Jim Hendry going to be there? What if Jim Hendry goes and they bring in some 26-year-old guy with a computer who says, 'We don't need a manager. I can run the club and see what happens.'"

-Bruce Bochy's agent Mark Attanasio

Look at the product the Cubs have put on the field. Now look at their $94.5 million payroll. My money says that Bochy would be just as frustrated with Hendry as he would with any "26-year-old guy with a computer." Could computers have told Hendry that Juan Pierre was not worth the money, or that Dusty Baker was destroying Mark Prior's arm?

"They need guys like Paul O'Neill, like Joe Girardi, like me."

-Jim Leyritz

Paul O'Neill, career: .288/.363/.470
Joe Girardi, career: .267/.315/.350
Jim Leyritz, career: .264/.362/.415
2006 New York Yankees: .285/.363/.461

So, what you meant was, the Yankees could probably use Paul O'Neill. Also, if they had Joe Girardi, there would be absolutely no use for you.

Your postseason OBP was .319, but you slugged .607. So if Torre could figure out which one or two at bats every three games you'd be useful for then yeah, you might have been something less than dead weight.

Jim Leyritz, shut the hell up.

A's Fire Macha; Piniella Headed to ChiTown

2006-10-16T17:07:00.000-04:00

Oakland A's manager Ken Macha was relieved of his duties by general manager Billy Beane today, wrapping up an eight-year tenure on the staff. He compiled a 368-280 record in four years at the helm of one of the American League's most consistently successful teams. Macha's first job as a manager was impressive; the team's worst finish came last season at 88-74, good for 2nd in the AL West, and their trip to the 2006 ALCS was the organization's first since 1992.

The opening in Oakland will be viewed somewhat warily by potential candidates. Since 2000, The A's have compiled 664 victories and qualified for the playoffs four times, second only in the AL to the Yankees in both categories. They have also fallen in the bottom 50% of major league payrolls each of those years. The potential for success for any manager that takes the job is great; the 2007 team should look a lot like the 2006 team, apart from the likely absence of staff ace Barry Zito. However, many feel the team is under the control of Beane, not the manager, and that whoever takes the job will be restricted to carrying out orders from above. This is a bit overblown; while Beane is a notorious control freak, his commitment to winning is very real, and he knows good baseball when he sees it. That said, his definition of good baseball changes every year in order to squeeze as many outs as possible out of his dollars, and this can create friction between him and managers that are set in their ways.

No one has been mentioned as a possible successor to Macha; the only name that jumps out at me would be third-base coach Ron Washington, who is currently being courted by many teams with open managerial positions. Oakland has a reputation as being a great atmosphere on the field and off, and if it's Beane's fancy, it might not take much to lure Washington back.

Another name that may come up if Oakland's trend of soft-spoken skippers is to continue (Tony LaRussa, Art Howe, Macha) is Buck Showalter, recently fired from the Texas Rangers. Showalter has been the victim of some bad timing; he had two jobs before Texas, and was fired from both the year before his respective teams went on to win the World Series (New York in 1995 and Arizona in 2000). He did manage each of those teams to a first-place finish (including the strike-shortened season of 1994), and he has won two Manager of the Year awards (1994 and 2004). As an added bonus, Showalter was voted the most popular manager in baseball earlier this year by the MLBPA.

Showalter's laid-back style would be a great fit in Oakland; his youth (he'll turn 51 in May) and short, unsuccessful playing career are two more indications that he would mesh with Beane's progressive philosophy. Whatever happens, the Athletics are always one of the most interesting teams to follow in baseball, and the announcement will be a big deal in the AL West.

--

In other news out of baseball today, the Chicago Cubs are expected to hold a press conference Tuesday naming Lou Piniella as manager. Piniella's fast style of play should be a good match for Chicago, but he also likes to win. The Cubs had the seventh-highest payroll in the majors this year and finished dead last in the NL. Piniella says he feels "refreshed" after two years off after a disastrous managing tenure in Tampa, with bad blood on both sides. It's easy to imagine that happening again with the Cubs and GM Jim Hendry, but Chicago has what Tampa didn't: loyal fans that will always come out to see baseball. Any player will tell you that there is nothing worse for morale than playing for empty seats, and that's a scourge Sweet Lou won't have to deal with on the north side. Another thing that irks Piniella is having to teach the mental aspect of the game to more than one or two players. This will also likely not be a big problem in Chicago, which is young but not inexperienced.

--

Remaining manager positions open:

San Francisco
Oakland
Texas
Washington

Prediction/conjecture: If St. Louis falls to the Mets in the NLCS this week, look for Tony LaRussa to be on the hot seat. His very distinct style is wearing out its welcome in championship-starved St. Louis; the Cardinals have been playing in October six of the past seven years, only advancing to the World Series in 2004 where they were swept by the Boston Red Sox. Another failure may be enough for LaRussa's ouster. They might want to look into starting pitching, but, you know, that's too hard. LaRussa, one of the most respected managers in the game and a prominent subject of George Will's seminal book Men at Work, should have no trouble finding another job.

--

Game five of the NLCS has been officially postponed due to rain. There won't be a LiveBlog tomorrow night, but it's a possibility for game six on Wednesday. Enjoy the four hours of FOX reruns.

Advice for Brian Cashman

2006-10-16T00:43:00.000-04:00

As we enter the 2006-07 offseason, I have one piece of advice for the Yankees' general manager: don't, don't, DON'T fall back on your old plan of hiring old Yankees, thinking they've all got some magic fairy dust that will lead New York back to the World Series (or at least a seven-gamer).

Not sure what I mean?

Here are some Yankees that played during their primes in the nineties and came back withered under Cashman's request in the 2000s, God knows why:

Tino Martinez
David Wells
Ramiro Mendoza
Mike Stanton
Jeff Nelson
Luis Sojo
Shane Spencer (never made team 2nd time)
Ruben Sierra
Miguel Cairo*
Orlando Hernandez
Karim Garcia*
Sterling Hitchcock
Gerald Williams
Dwight Gooden
Luis Polonia
Roberto Kelly
Jim Leyritz
Al Leiter**
Lee Mazzilli***

*first stint was also in 2000s.
**first stint was prior to 1994.
***just kidding.

Granted, Wells is an ageless wonder, and a lot of the guys towards the end did play in a Series winning year. But Cashman, buy some damn binoculars and take a look outside your video room that's stocked with film from the glory years. Be creative! Don't trade Alex Rodriguez!

FOX Fires Lyons for Racial Remark (or: Y-I-K-E-S, Steve Lyons)

2006-10-15T10:19:00.000-04:00

Steve "Psycho" Lyons was fired after Friday's game for making racially insensitive comments about hispanics. According to ESPN.com:

[Lou] Piniella had made an analogy involving the luck of finding a wallet, then briefly used a couple of Spanish phrases during Friday's broadcast.
Lyons said that Piniella was "hablaing Espanol" -- butchering the conjugation for the word "to speak" -- and added, "I still can't find my wallet."
"I don't understand him, and I don't want to sit too close to him now," Lyons continued.

Now at first I must say I thought this was overreactive on the part of FOX. But the more I look at those comments, the more I realize that they are things that a human with a normal brain-to-mouth filter would never say on the air. This goes way beyond the World Baseball Classic announcers continually referring to the Cuban team as "fiery" and the Japanese team as "calculating". It's one thing (still wrong) to make light of personality traits associated with race; it's a very different thing to make a stolen wallet joke on network television.

And, what a surprise, this is of course not Lyons' first offense. In 2004, after noted jewish ballpayer Shawn Green sat out an important game down the stretch against the Giants, Lyons had this to offer, again on the air:

[Green is] not a practicing Jew. He didn’t marry a Jewish girl. And from what I understand, he never had a bar mitzvah, which is unfortunate because he didn’t get the money.

And of course who could forget the nearly blind fan at Shea Stadium for the NLDS, whose vision-assisting device was mocked on air by Lyons and broadcast partner Thom Brenneman. According to the New York Times:

What was he wearing, they wondered?
“A Psycho-meter,” Brennaman said, to welcome Lyons to town.

“Maybe he’s in virtual reality,” Lyons said. If he is, Lyons explained, “he should stay there.”
And maybe, Lyons suggested, the Dodgers should don the contraptions to better hit Tom Glavine. Lyons then hit on the most logical puerile explanation: “He’s got a digital camera stuck to his face.”

Los Angeles Angels announcer Jose Mota was called upon to replace Lyons for the remainder of the series.

Before signing off, I'd like to offer two more criticisms, this time on how the media presented the Lyons debacle. In the AP article linked above, Lyons' many on-air goofs are punctuated with this final statement before moving on to his playing stats: "He also once pulled his pants down on the field during his playing days." Lyons undid his pants to brush dirt off after a slide. They make it sound like he whipped it out at the stands. He quickly realized where he was and pulled them back up.

Before Lyons' most recent remarks happened, there was a very good article in the Times about (ironically) the lackluster performance of Lyons and Brenneman in the booth. It is soured, however, by this ridiculous last section:

Lyons...has mastered the art of the absolute statement but falters at factual precision. Alex Rodriguez had an “unbelievable” season, he said, but he clearly did not. Derek Jeter had his best year, he said, but his numbers were better in 1999.
As the Yankees succumbed to Detroit’s Jeremy Bonderman on Saturday, Lyons ignored mounting evidence that the Yankees’ potency was more the stuff of fantasy baseball than of postseason reality, to say they comprised “arguably the best offensive lineup that’s ever been produced.”

Alex Rodriguez did not have an "unbelievable" season, but he had a very good one. Whether this or 1999 was Jeter's best year is completely arguable, and I would say that this one trumps it, although I believe I am looking at different numbers than the Times. Anyone who didn't think the Yankees' lineup entering this season was the best in history was fooling themselves. It is complete hindsight editorializing for the Times to call it "more the stuff of fantasy baseball than of postseason reality." I would love to know who would be in Murray Chass' ideal lineup. This season the Yankees outscored everyone in the league by a large, large margin, without the Matsui and Sheffield bats they were to have in the postseason. It would be tough to argue that the Yankees' lineup, one to nine, wasn't the best ever. Perhaps three games of slump are too few to judge nine players' potential performance on.

The point is that these are not comments a broadcaster should be chided for making, when announcers everywhere make stupider statements every day. Has the Times ever seen Baseball Tonight? It's the only sports show on television where the anchor is a lot better at analyzing than the analysts.

Enough ranting. Farewell, Psycho. You won't be missed.

Quote of the Day

2006-10-15T09:44:00.000-04:00

’’Hey, the game of baseball is not rocket-science stuff. As a manager, you let the players play and you keep percentages on your side as much as possible.’’

-Lou Piniella, leading candidate to become manager of the Chicago Cubs.

And the damndest thing about it is... he's right. If more managers could get a feel for what percentages really mattered, well... then they'd be better managers.

LiveBlogging the NLCS, Game 2

2006-10-13T20:17:00.000-04:00

Same deal as last time, but completely DH-free, for your convenience. Keep checking back for updates.

TOP 1st:

-Remember last night when Eckstein walked late in the game, and sprinted down the line? I'm all for hustle, but that really annoys me. You're not special because you run after a walk. I appreciate that you run out grounders, but when you run on a walk, you look like a douche.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

New York 0, St. Louis 0

BOTTOM 1st:

-After Reyes' hits a nice double off of Carpenter, I am reminded of an "ESPN The Magazine" cover that referred to Reyes as "the best shortstop in New York". I can't begin to foam at the mouth about how wrong that is, but this is statistically accurate:

Jose Reyes, Postseason 2006:
.125/.222/.125
1 SB, 1 CS
0 XBH (until just now)

Look, I like Jose Reyes. And I know postseason is a pitiful sample size. But the regular season stats don't stand in his favor. This isn't so much a Reyes vs. Jeter argument as a "Everybody calm the hell down about Jose Reyes, and yes I'm even talking to you Peter Gammons" kind of argument.

-McCarver: "Reyes hydrofoils around 1st base."

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

hy·dro·foil (hdr-foil)
n.

A winglike structure attached to the hull of a boat that raises all or part of the hull out of the water when the boat is moving forward, thus reducing drag.
A boat equipped with hydrofoils. Also called hydroplane.

There is no verb definition.

-Although the sight of a good hitter bunting makes me throw up a little in my mouth, runner on second with no outs is actually an ideal situation to sacrifice. According to studies done by Prospectus, put into layman's terms by me, a runner on second with one out increases your team's chances only a little over 1st with no outs. A runner on third with one out increases your chances much more over 2nd with no outs.

-That home run proves that I am right, and Webb, not Carpenter, should be the Cy Young winner.

-That last bullet was a joke.

-Great slide by Wright. A little reassurance that umpires actually do watch the play and don't just go with what should have happened.

3 R, 2 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

New York 3, St. Louis 0

I'm going to take this opportunity to Bitch Like Hell about Thom Brenneman. The last two innings or so of Kenny Rogers' *amazing* start this afternoon were spent just fawning over his "resolve" and "eyes" and "readiness", not to mention that Brenneman spent a couple minutes talking about how Rogers spent 10 minutes (this is what he said) shaking hands with and apologizing to the cameraman he slugged last year. Do you think any of this would have come up if Rogers got lit up? I'm not saying that FOX is biased towards the Tigers, I just think they are pure frontrunners, adding romanticization to whoever is winning to increase the "story" potential and therefore ratings. Keep watching, and see if you notice. They will always lick the balls of whoever is out in front.

TOP 2nd:

-That's gotta be an error. Delgado got there and pulled up before the ball even arrived. He just muffed it.

-Bad pitch leads to good hit by Molina. Those signs that say "Glavine and Maine and pray for rain" are half-right.

-Buck: "The one guy who would be in the category of long reliever is Darren Oliver." Don't forget Oliver Perez, Joe. There's a PERFECT long relief guy.

-Beautifully placed fastball by Maine to get Carp.

2 R, 1 H, 1 E, 2 LOB

New York 3, St. Louis 2

BOTTOM 2nd:

-So FOX has a split screen comparing Reyes at stealing to Molina at throwing runners out. They use percentage of runners caught for Molina, and total number of steals for Reyes. That, folks, is classic data manipulation. In fact, that's not even as clever as classic data manipulation. That's just unhelpful.

-Couldn't see from the cameras, but my money says that LoDuca has a chance to beat that throw if he's runnin'.

1 R, 2 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

New York 4, St. Louis 2

TOP 3rd:

-Chris Duncan, 2006:

.293/.363/.589
25.3 VORP
.307 EqA
4.3 WARP3

That's, uh, really good. I had no idea he was having this kind of season. Color me misinformed about the league's worst divison. (Except the Pirates, thanks to Charlie.)

-I'm not going to pick apart whatever Gonzo was just talking about, but A HOME RUN IS THE BEST POSSIBLE THING AN OFFENSE CAN PRODUCE AT ANY TIME AND IS THEREFORE THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN TO THE DEFENSE.

-Big bad inning from Maine. Get your bullpen in there Willie, you can get still get out of New York with two if you're lucky.

2 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

St. Louis 4, New York 4

BOTTOM 3rd:

-It's halfway through three, and 9:10 PM. Odiously unmanagable.

-McCarver praising the Cardinals for their patience with Carpenter. They signed him before 2003, knowing he wouldn't pitch. He had a decent '04, and then won the damn Cy Young award. Why, they oughtta change their names to the Saints!

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 2 LOB

St. Louis 4, New York 4

TOP 4th:

-You wanna see a weird line? Here's Carpenter's hitting stats for 2005:

5-for-77, 5 H, 5 BB, 7 R

Isn't that weird?

-Eckstein does it again. I HATE THAT STUPID SPRINT. If I were David Eckstein, I would want to put more effort towards not looking like a 12-year-old.

-Good stolen base by the aforementioned. How many articles will we see tomorrow about Eckstein and the little things and speed and pluckiness? I wish LaRussa would think of the fans when he made these decisions. Regardless, the Cardinals have a big chance here with Duncan up and Pujols on deck.

-Never mind.

0 R, 0 H, 1 E, 1 LOB

St. Louis 4, New York 4

BOTTOM 4th:

-Belliard with the one-timer. You can't turn a double-play better than that; that's where Reyes' speed is very very helpful. Belliard, with -7 FRAA on the season, is no star on the field, but that was a nice play.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

St. Louis 4, New York 4

TOP 5th:

-I don't like to "toot my own horn" (he's lying), but two posts ago I wrote this:

Look for Maine to get feasted upon. His strikeouts will likely be more than made up for by his walks, and the Cardinals will take advantage.

Maine's line today: 4.0 IP, 2 H, 3 ER, 5 BB, 3 K

Toot toot!

-Bradford this year:
2.90 ERA, 45 K, 1.15 WHIP, .254 BAA, 151 ERA+ (!)

vs. STL: 3.2 IP, 7.36 ERA, 1.91 WHIP, .385 BAA

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

St. Louis 4, New York 4

BOTTOM 5th:

-Big inning here for Carpenter: Beltran, Delgado, Wright.

-Carpenter's still got some tail on his two-seamer.

-Carlos Delgado to Chris Carpenter: Good night, and good luck. Where does Delgado stand on multi-HR games? I read earlier today that his 100th, 200th, 300th, and 400th home runs all came in multi-HR games.

-Questionable call on Belliard's muff... here's the replay... oh wait that's a Delgado replay. Another replay, that doesn't even show the ball entering Pujols' mitt, and Buck says "Wright was safe." See above.

-Two bad starts, three home runs, three errors... this game is officially a shoot-out.

-Both of Delgado's home run swings tonight have been without a real leg-kick or a real shift of weight to his front foot, and both went to the opposite field. Those are some strong Puerto Rican arms. Only 4 of Delgado's 17 home runs at Shea this season went to left.

1 R, 2 H, 1 E, 2 LOB

New York 5, St. Louis 4

TOP 6th:

-The pitcher with the highest 2006 VORP that is also named "Pedro" is up in the pen for New York.... don't get excited, Martinez fans...

-I gotta imagine that when a batter argues a strike call on a Bradford pitch, the ump is thinking "Buddy, I'm tryin' just as hard as you."

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

New York 5, St. Louis 4

BOTTOM 6th:

-Anderson Hernandez, career OBP: .151
Pedro Feliciano, career OBP: .143
Guillermo Mota, career OBP: .212

Why waste a bench player? Bring in Mota to pinch-hit for Feliciano, leave him in to pitch! (This is also manipulation of data, but at least it's funny.)

-Mets: 78-4 when leading after six. Y-I-K-E-S.

-A lot of this stuff isn't as interesting after the inning is finished, so I'll publish more often.

-Great hit on a pitch that had a lot of break on it. Lo Duca saw it all the way, and Reyes, of course, is a lock.

-Josh Hancock goes all "Paul O'Neill" on that water cooler. I love intensity, but that is just not helpful. It makes your teammates feel awkward.

-WHAT a play by Belliard. Buck says that St. Louis "knew Belliard was a good second baseman." You saw his FRAA; I'll bet he made that up. Two great plays tonight, though.

1 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

New York 6, St. Louis 4

TOP 7th:

-Pujols' struggles against the Mets aren't a huge surprise, his .836 OPS against them this year was his third-lowest against an NL team. He is, however, OPSing 1.231 at Shea this year, and is two-for-five with one double against Mota in his career.

-Make that three-for-six.

-I have been dragged kicking and screaming into the idea of replay in baseball. I think the conferences take a big step towards remedying some of the problems, but they're obviously not perfect. I feel that in plays where the announces slow it down to 1/10th the speed and they're debating, then replay is not needed, any play that close can go either way. I wouldn't be opposed to video replay on home runs, but how would we do that? Can any of you at home tell most of the time what the true call is? It's real tough unless you're next to the pole.

-McCarver questions the pitch-selection on the triple, and I agree with him. Spezio has been hot, and giving him an 0-2 pitch to smoke is pretty inexcusable.

2 R, 2 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

St. Louis 6, New York 6

BOTTOM 7th:

-The Mets have used five pitchers tonight, with at least two innings left to throw. Granted, two of those pitchers threw less than five pitches, but there are three games in a row left to play, with two very questionable starters starting those games. This does not bode well for Willie n' Rick.

-Back to the discussion of the 0-2 fastball to Spezio. A popular myth is that it is easier to hit a long ball off a faster pitch than a slower one, due to the elasticity and rebound of the ball. This is simply not true. The slower the pitch, the easier to hit it hard, because the bat must first decelerate the ball's velocity to zero before even putting it forward. This translates to a lot less work on a slow pitch.

HOWEVER, this is not necessarily true in baseball for the following reason: the default setting for a hitter is to be sitting fastball. A change-up throws off that timing, causing the hitter to re-think his action, and that affects his bat-speed. Bat-speed is the key to home runs; the faster the bat, the farther the ball will go.

So, pick your poison. Judging from how Spezio looked on those changeups, I think a change-up away from the middle of the plate would have been just what the doctor ordered.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

St. Louis 6, New York 6

TOP 8th:

-Holy crap. Joe Buck crafted an able and useful response to some idiocy by McCarver, who stated that LaRussa should pinch-run for Molina. Good work, Joe. You still stuck at announcing baseball. Ever notice how Joe Buck just doesn't say anything at huge points in the game? He's not good at translating emotion to the fans. This probably has something to do with him being a better football announcer, but I don't know what.

-Gooood pitch by Heilman. Few things in baseball are as beautiful as a knee-buckling change-up. Few things are as ugly as the Mets hockey-style jersey they just showed in the stands.

-Aaarrrrggghhh. Now I know how FJM feels. McCarver, on Eckstein: "When swinging, he makes contact on 93% of pitches thrown to him." How many of those are groundballs? How many go backwards? Why does everyone focus on the positives of this guy and shift focus away from the many many negatives? It's hard to strike him out. Great. Luckily, it's not hard to get him out, via a myriad of other possibilities. His OBP is .350. That's not bad, and not great. It's pretty average. So calm down, everybody.

-Oh, Gonzo is still in the booth. He chimes in once every three innings or so.

-Holy Heilman, where the hell was that one? Fine, Eckstein makes pitchers work. I still think Heilman has done a lot more work than he needs to.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

St. Louis 6, New York 6

BOTTOM 8th:

-So... Taguchi?

-Gonzo brings nothing to this broadcast. Maybe they should have gotten a player more than three years younger than McCarver.

-It's time to stop pulling out Beltran's five home runs in NLCS play. Four of those were in one NLCS, it's not like he's pre-disposed to the format. It's like bizarro Alex Rodriguez.

-When I was studying music in high school, I figured out that if I didn't know what an instrument that I heard was, it was probably a trombone. I now think that if I don't know what a pitch is, it's probably a two-seam fastball.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

St. Louis 6, New York 6

TOP 9th:

-Bringing Taguchi in looks stupid now. How much better a fielder is he than Duncan?

Taguchi 2006 FRAA: 2
Duncan 2006 FRAA: 2

How much better a hitter is Duncan?

Taguchi 2006 EqA: .246
Duncan 2006 EqA: .307

Now, of course, literally, as I typed that, Taguchi went deep. That doesn't mean it wasn't still a bad decision. I don't buy into that Jim-Leyland-everything-turns-to-gold crap. Now, Duncan has a miserable .536 OPS against lefties, whereas Taguchi is OPSing .726 against them. That's not a huge difference considering Duncan hits left and Taguchi hits right. Stack all this up with the fact that Taguchi and Duncan are comparable in the field....I wouldn't have done it. But like I said, it sure as hell worked out for Tony. I have to give him credit for knowing Taguchi would face Wagner in the first at-bat of the inning, even though that's the reason I would have kept Duncan in.

-Bad time for Wagner to have one of his nights... the home run by Taguchi was the warning sign, but doubles by Pujols and Spiezio (right now) aren't an indication of a bad pitcher. Then Encarnacion gets the RBI annnnnnd you're pretty sure Wagner is having one of his nights.

-Last night I think they said something about Wagner not blowing a save against St. Louis since 1998. Yeesh. Annnnnnd you're done. Oh shit, they boo the hell out of him. I don't know about that. Don't cry Mets fans, it was Carpenter vs. Maine, and you entered the ninth tied. That's something.

-Fuckin' great play by Wright to fake Encarnacion out, and then an airtight rundown by the Mets. Good fundamentals.

-Judging from the reaction on the Cardinal bench, I'm guessing they weren't expecting the Taguchi shot any more than anyone else.

3 R, 4 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

St. Louis 9, New York 6

BOTTOM 9th:

-Buck compliments the turnaround of the St. Louis bullpen. Addition by subtraction, perhaps?

-Is that it?

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Final: St. Louis 9, New York 6

Series tied, 1-1

Earlier I wrote that if the Mets come out of the first four games at 2-2, they should be content with that. They split at home, getting the win they needed out of Glavine, and losing the game I thought they would against Carpenter, even though Carpenter ended up not being effective. New York's lineup is and remains more potent than St. Louis', but is it potent enough to make up for:

Suppan vs. Trachsel
Reyes vs. Perez

Are you all ready for that?! Anthony Reyes vs. Oliver Perez in NLCS Game four?! I don't think you're ready.

One good thing for the Mets: Don't count on Billy Wagner pitching like that again. That was the first loss he's taken since August 1; the second since June 21. It was the first time he's given up more than two runs since May 20 against the Yankees. He's been a closer for a long time, and he'll bounce back from that.

13 pitchers were used between the two teams tonight; 10 threw fewer than 30 pitches. The teams' bullpens have been comparably effective, and are comparably fatigued. The starting pitching falls in the favor of St. Louis, the lineup in the favor of New York. The way it works is like this: New York's lineup needs to bust their ass to get a win out of either Trachsel or Perez. St. Louis has the luxury of not being so co-dependent.

This is a pretty evenly-matched series, although neither team looks like they could tame the Tigers right now. Whoever wins better hope they do it quick; a very rested Tiger team that is playing as well as it's played all season is just around the corner. (Maybe.)

LiveBlogging the ALCS, Game 2

2006-10-11T20:24:00.000-04:00

I'll be posting comments and analysis during the game every half inning or so, so keep checking for updates. Again, the baseball community is greatly saddened by the sudden death of Cory Lidle, please send your prayers to his family.

Neifi Perez is in the lineup for Detroit, as Carlos Guillen has been moved to first for an injured Sean Casey. Uh oh.

TOP 1st:

-Perez is hitting second. Second-half OBP of .248. You tell me. He strikes out looking in an awful at-bat. Why, Jim?

-Loaiza looks sharp, blows a four-seamer by Magglio Ordoñez to end the inning.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

Detroit 0, Oakland 0

BOTTOM 1st:

-Kotsay sits dead red on a Verlander heater, a misplay by Ordoñez leads to a double, he advances to third on a WP. That is a ball Pudge usually handles.

-Verlander just hit 100 for the first time against Bradley.

-Leyland takes a gamble by playing the infield in with Kotsay on third; Bradley throws the bat at the ball and gets an RBI and a hit. Half of Bradley's hits this year have been ground balls, so I don't think it was a bad decision at this point in the game. Bradley, however, was 2-for-4 this season against Verlander. Are these things that Leyland pays attention to?

-Verlander balks. I love balks.

-Another 100 heater. Now 101, but nowhere near the zone.

-Okay, a general thought on Verlander. I, personally, don't give a flip about a triple-digit fastball. I mean, FOX's little flame graphic is cool, but other than that, I don't think it should be a pitch to fall back on. The A's hitters can hit a damn fastball. Verlander needs to make smart pitches like he did to Thomas; he threw different speeds all over the zone, and Thomas didn't know what was coming. Compare that to the Kotsay at bat where he didn't throw one pitch out of the strike zone, all fastballs. Kotsay's NOT going to get a hit in that at-bat? Pudge needs to take control in this game.

1 R, 2 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

Oakland 1, Detroit 0

TOP 2nd:

1 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Oakland 1, Detroit 1

BOTTOM 2nd:

-I hate FOX.

-A nasty curveball to get Swisher; best one from Verlander all game. Same thing to get Scutaro. Again, If I'm Oakland, I'm a lot more afraid of Uncle Charlie than the big 1-0-0 from Verlander.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Oakland 1, Detroit 1

TOP 3rd:

-Before the game, Lou Piniella, bless his heart, commented that Perez is mostly a defensive player, which was okay because the Tigers "have enough power in their lineup." To me, Magglio Ordoñez and Craig Monroe is not enough power to make up for Perez batting second. Marcus Thames would help, but he was left out of the lineup. Chris Shelton would help, but he was left off the roster, which is the reason Perez is playing in the first place. I think Lou is wrong, and that Leyland should mostly focus on motivating his team, and leave the lineup stuff to the bench or hitting coach.

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Oakland 1, Detroit 1

BOTTOM 3rd:

-Another great at-bat for Kotsay. He's been the only Oakland hitter to not do Verlander any favors.

-As I type that, Bradley launches a YAK. How did Bradley get the timing on that off-speed first pitch of the at-bat? Great hit.

2 R, 2 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Oakland 3, Detroit 1

SIDE NOTE: Anyone else take offense to Chevrolet making money purely off being "very American, like apple pie" or some shit? No one else thinks this is ridiculous? Okay, back to baseball...

TOP 4th:

-Lyons: "How much of a rock star is Swisher?!" I don't know, a fair amount?

-Piniella: "I wish I could dance like that!" Sigh. Meanwhile, Loaiza is in a jam.

-Piniella also thinks Polanco should have run on Bradley's arm, possibly making the first out at third base. (Lyons: "I'm with you!") I don't really agree with him, with Carlos Guillen coming up, but if the Tigers want to scratch away (Har!), I guess try it... nah, don't try it. Guillen-Pudge-Monroe? No outs? Loaiza shaky this inning? Take your chances from 2nd. (These are all easy decisions to make from a couch, rather than while running.)

-Lyons: "They say that he hits balls so deep into the upper deck, no matter where they go!" He wasn't cut off, that was the end of his thought.

-A rare defensive miscue from Chavez leads to two more runs. Chavez has 17 FRAA this year, second-highest in his Gold Glove-studded career. Interestingly, it is scored a hit. It was a towards the edge of his range, but he seemed to miss it because he was hurrying to get the DP. Chavez should have gotten at least one out on the play.

4 R, 4 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

Detroit 5, Oakland 3

BOTTOM 4th:

-FOXTRAX sucks compared to K-Zone. Can't they afford something better? FOX is the flagship of Newscorp, and ESPN can't be higher than fifth on Disney's list of priorities...

-Verlander is dealing. Macha must be thinking "When does Kotsay come up again...."

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

Detroit 5, Oakland 3

TOP 5th:

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

Detroit 5, Oakland 3

BOTTOM 5th:

-Have you ever heard of D'Ángelo Jiménez? Me neither. This season: .183/.333/.268. A team of D'Ángelo Jiménez's would score a run every two games or so. I guess when you're the defensive backup for a defensive backup for Marco Scutaro, you ain't gonna be much of a hitter.

-The baseball coach at my college, a great coach, would bench any player that swung on 3-0. Not a bad philosophy. I think I would bench any player that swung on 3-0 and didn't get a hit. Subjective? You betcha. But I'm trying to win games here. (I mention this because Jason Kendall did not swing on 3-0. Good boy.)

-This game is, ironically, a much bigger test for Verlander than game two against New York. He has now gone 3-0 on two consecutive batters with a man on... and now he walks Kotsay to get to Bradley. It's been interesting, in this game you can really see when Verlander is being smart and when he isn't, in terms of pitch selection. The difference between how the batters handle the at-bats is night and day. (By the time I finished writing that sentence, Verlander had gone to 2-0 on Bradley. Let's watch.)

-Bad Frank Thomas! Do not swing on the first pitch when Verlander has gone 2-0 to the last three consecutive batters! Bad, bad Frank Thomas!

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Detroit 5, Oakland 3

TOP 6th:

-Steve Lyons and Lou Piniella are officially the worst broadcasting duo in baseball. Thom Brenneman is inoffensive.

-Holy shit, these guys are bad. The baseball analysis is not terrible, but I hate the banter, it's at McCarver or Kay level right now.

-Kendall and Loaiza need to be a little more comfortable with each other. Loaiza was shaking him off during the jam in the fourth, and now Kendall comes out to talk at 1-1 with two outs and no one on on Monroe. And Monroe hits a gapper.

-Earlier I criticized Leyland for leaving Marcus Thames out of the lineup. Well, Alexis Gomez now has four RBI after a big dinger off Loaiza. I'll tip my hat to you on this one, Jim.

2 R, 2 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Detroit 7, Oakland 3

BOTTOM 6th:

-After the Yankees' early exit from the playoffs, that "A-Rod, if you're interested, there's a future for you in the beverage distribution industry" commercial seems a lot less ironic. (DISCLAIMER: I am a big A-Rod fan and think he should stay in NY if the Yankees know what's good for them. I just think this is funny considering all the speculation.)

-Why does the whole infield need to have a mound conference after the solo home run? I'm a fan of team unity and all that bullshit, but that seems a little touchy-feely.

-Jay Payton smokes a liner off of Verlander that is caught by Monroe. Leyland still comes to get him. I remember once when I was a young baseball fan, someone hit a hard liner off of a Yankee reliever that was caught by Paul O'Neill. Torre came out to make a switch and I turned around to my Dad and said "I think he's changing the pitcher because even though he got him out, that was a good hit." I like to think of that moment as my introduction to sabermetrics.

-Speaking of which, Leyland brings in a lefty to force Swisher to hit righty

Swisher hitting left: .241/.360/.489
Swisher hitting right: .291/.406/.504

Swisher is 1-for-2 against Ledezma, and only seven of his 35 home runs are from the right side. Me, I'll take the chance he'll hit a home run over his forty point higher OBP from the right side, thank you very much.

-Bad Marco Scutaro! Do not swing at the first pitch when Ledezma just walked the man before you! Bad, bad Marco Scutaro!

-Thom Brenneman just called Batting Average on the First Pitch "the most misleading stat in baseball", because they only count balls put in play. What about RBI? While it is true that many batters who swing and miss may get lucky on the occasional first pitch and get more hits than they should get credit for, that is one parameter that everyone who would look at that stat would know. SO MANY MORE factors go into RBI that are not considered, such as lineup, quality of baserunners, the way the pitcher will pitch you depending on where the runners are, etc. I'm not saying RBI is the most misleading stat in baseball, but I know it ain't "Batting Average on the First Pitch".

1 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

Detroit 7, Oakland 4

TOP 7th:

-Loiaza out, Audin in. Loaiza line: 6.0 IP, 9 H, 7 R, 7 ER, 1 BB, 5 K, 1 HR

-I'm sorry, wasn't Moneyball about the A's? Then why the hell is Macha putting Polanco on base with one out?! Even Piniella is critical of this. Ordoñez, Guillen, and Rodriguez are coming up, are any of them ground ball hitters?

-Joe Kennedy brought in to face Carlos Guillen, forcing him to hit righty.

Guillen hitting left: .332/.417/.537
Guillen hitting right: .291/.354/.473

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a good example of playing the matchups.

0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB

Detroit 7, Oakland 4

BOTTOM 7th:

-I love the idea of Nomar swinging a carving knife at an airborne lemon in his day-to-day kitchen activities. Anyway, back to baseball.

-Ugh. Fan sign: "Frank's Oakland's X-Factor." I hate those sellouts.

-FOX has informed us that "Gladiator" is Kendall's favorite movie, and Stone Cold Steve Austin is his favorite wrestler. What a scouting report.

-Holy Milton Bradley. Bradley has as many home runs in this game as in the previous seven postseason games he's played, which encompasses his whole career. Good-bye, Ledezma.

1 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Detroit 7, Oakland 5

TOP 8th:

-Jiménez boots one. What is this guy's upside?

0 R, 0 H, 1 E, 1 LOB

Detroit 7, Oakland 5

BOTTOM 8th:

-Swisher, Thomas and Scutaro now 0-10 this series. That's not good. However, Thom Brenneman just said that if they don't knock in runs, Oakland has "no chance". Is there actually a hyperbole class in sportscasting school?

0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Detroit 7, Oakland 5

TOP 9th:

-I like the move by Macha bringing Street in here. Didn't pitch yesterday, off-day tomorrow, and Oakland is still in this game. Pinch-hit for Jiménez, and you've got the top of the order in the bottom.

-Curtis Granderson, apparently, does not agree with me. What a home run swing, he didn't even have a leg kick. That's some bat speed. And the fans threw it back! Love it.

1 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB

Detroit 8, Oakland 5

BOTTOM 9th:

-Marco? Scutaro! Marco? Scutaro! Do you think this actually happened? Nah, probably didn't have it in Venezuela.

-The injuries to both Ellis and Crosby are huge here. I don't envy Ken Macha having to pinch-hit for Jiménez with Adam Melhuse.

-I know Todd Jones is your closer, and you don't want to hurt his confidence, but Joel Zumaya has been the better pitcher this season, that's all. Where is Zumaya?

-Hearts must have stopped for all kinds of fans on the Bradley squirt. (Squirt? Eh, I'll keep it.) Mine did, and I am completely neutral. (Officially.)

0 R, 3 H 0 E, 3 LOB

FINAL: Detroit 8, Oakland 5

Well, I didn't think it, I was sure it wasn't true, but it might be true. Detroit might be a World Series team. Their pitching is, officially, the best in the playoffs now that Zito and Loaiza have put forth back-to-back bad outings. (It probably was before, but I had faith in the Oakland staff to step up. They still could step up, but now they are in a huge hole.) And it just goes to show that maybe Thom "I hate typing that first name" Brenneman may have been right, if Frankie and Swish are not driving in runs, the A's may be meat. If they can break out in frigid Detroit, with Bradley and Kotsay keeping up their pace, the A's may not be out of this series. Those are big ifs. I still believe Oakland is a team that can beat the Tigers, but four out of six might be too much to ask.

Lidle Dies in Plane Crash

2006-10-11T17:34:00.000-04:00

A plane registered to Yankees Pitcher Cory Lidle collided with an apartment building in Manhattan today. Lidle is believed to have been flying the plane, and has been declared dead by a city official. His passport was found in the street below. Lidle was 34.

Lidle's major league career spanned nine years and included stints with the Mets, Devil Rays, Athletics, Blue Jays, Reds, Phillies and Yankees. He was 82-72 with a 4.57 ERA on his career.

Our deepest sympathies go out to Lidle's family and friends, and the entire Yankees and Major League Baseball community.

This is the first death of an active player since Cardinal pitcher Darryl Kile died of a sudden heart attack in June of 2002.

Meet the Mets! Meet the Mets! Can-the-Card-nals-BEAT the Mets?!

2006-10-10T00:35:00.000-04:00

That question will not be answered tonight. Four other questions, however, will. They are, in order of appearance:

Tom Glavine (?)
John Maine (?)
Steve Trachsel (?)
Oliver Perez (?!)

Or, as the critics see them:

A losing postseason record.
An unproven rookie.
The slowest pitcher in baseball, long past his prime, that gave up #62 to McGwire.
You've got to be kidding.

Pitching was to be the big problem for the Mets, a big enough problem that their star-studded lineup might not make it past the Dodgers. Pedro Martinez, the ace of the staff, would not return until mid-2007 due to injury, and noted playoff performer Orlando Hernandez went down with a calf tear the morning of game one. New York, however, swept right past L.A., outscoring their opponents 19-11. 11 runs in three games... not bad, but not necessarily World Series caliber. Riding a seven-game winning streak, just how can the Mets do behind this rotation of question marks?

Tom Glavine

The name for game one should come as no surprise. With over 200 postseason innings pitched, Glavine is by far the most seasoned playoff veteran of this year's field. What has come into question, however, has not been his experience but his performance. Here are his career postseason numbers:

13-15, 3.34, 3 CG, 139K/82BB, 1.26 WHIP

The record is nothing to brag about, but the ERA is solid. In fact, check out these splits for Glavine:

Career LDS ERA: 4.61
Career LCS ERA: 3.31
Career WS ERA: 2.16

In his career, Glavine seems to have gotten better and better as the games got more important. More of his gems, however, came towards the beginning of his career. And what's important is not history, it's the present. Glavine's numbers in 2006:

15-7, 3.82, 131 K, 62 BB, 1.33 WHIP, 115 ERA+, 37.8 VORP

Glavine has been declining slowly for the last four years or so, but he is still, as shown here, an above average pitcher; in fact, his 37.8 VORP is the best among Mets' pitchers this season. He bookended a sub-par June and awful July with stellar opening and closing months; in ten starts since July 30, he allowed more than three earned runs only once. Glavine is a much better pitcher in Shea than away, with a road ERA of nearly two runs higher than at home. Most importantly, Glavine's last two starts, including the win in game two of the NLDS, have been stellar:

Sept. 30 @ Washington: 6.0 IP, 3 H, 0 ER, 0 BB, 3 K

Not that New York needed the help in the 13-0 win. In those six innings, Glavine threw only 71 pitches, 49 for strikes.

Oct. 6 vs. Los Angeles: 6.0 IP, 4 H, 0 ER, 2 BB, 2 K

Glavine ain't strikin' anyone out at an alarming rate, but he is pitching effectively. His pitch count was significantly higher in this one, throwing 93 pitches, 59 for strikes, but he was getting the corners and changing speeds as well as he ever does. Tommy was perfect through three in this game, and got Kenny Lofton to ground out with runners on first and third and two out in the fifth. The Mets won, 4-1.

Glavine has had only one start this season against the Cardinals:

May 17 @ St. Louis: 6.0 IP, 7 H, 3 ER, 1 BB, 2 K

This game came right at the beginning of Glavine's mid-season struggles, but he still got the win, even after throwing 104 pitches, and only 60 for strikes. He allowed no hits to the top of the Cardinals' order, however, as Pujols went 0-for-4.

Glavine only had one start against St. Louis last year as well, allowing four hits and no runs in seven innings.

The playoffs are about clutch situations, and Glavine has put up good numbers this year in that arena as well. His BAA with RISP is better than otherwise, although his BAA with bases loaded is .278, not great for your top lefty. BAA with a full count: .176.

I expect Glavine to pitch well during this series; he is in the middle of a period when he should have a lot of confidence, and the St. Louis lineup has had little success against him. Don't expect him to go more than six innings, especially in a close game, as once he hits 60 pitches his BAA hits .300. Glavine, however, certainly represents the Mets' best chances in this series. For a 40-year-old lefty to be pitching this well is exactly what the decimated Mets need.

John Maine

Another man very few counted on came through for the Mets in the NLDS, and that man was rookie John Maine. Maine's 2006 numbers:

6-5, 3.60, 71 K, 33 BB, 1.15 WHIP, 122 ERA+, 15.7 VORP

Again, not dominant, but certainly above average. His ERA+ makes him look better than his VORP, but the ERA and WHIP each give signs of a good young pitcher. Maine, a 25-year-old righty, made his Mets debut in May and pitched poorly. After being sent down, he bounced back with a stellar July; although his record was 1-2 he posted a 1.63 ERA, 0.90 WHIP, and .179 BAA. The final two months of the season he came back to earth, but remained a solid part of the Mets' rotation.

Maine is also riding into the NLCS on the heels of two big starts: he gave up three hits and two earned runs against Washington September 29, earning a no decision in a 4-3 win. In game one of the NLDS, unquestionably the biggest start of his career, Maine went only 4 1/3, but allowed only one earned run. The media praised Maine and were quick to question Willie Randolph's decision in relieving him, but Maine had thrown 80 pitches in those 4 1/3, and allowed nearly two baserunners an inning. Two innings later Guillermo Mota had blown the save, allowing three runs. I cannot say that Maine would have fared much better at that rate.

Maine has had the best fielding of his career on his side; his FIP for the season is 1.34 higher than his ERA. Before Wednesday, he had not allowed fewer than two runs in a start since August 6; he has not gone more than 6 1/3 since then either. In short, I don't think it's reasonable to expect any domination from Maine in this year's playoffs. His one start against St. Louis this season is also a harbringer of doom:

8/22 vs. St. Louis: 5.0 IP, 6 H, 7 ER, 2 BB, 5 K

The sight of Albert Pujols should send shivers down Maine's spine. Pujols followed a three-run tater in the fourth inning of that game with a two-out grand salami in the fifth. Maybe he was pissed after Maine struck him out in the first. In any case, the playoff atmosphere gives Pujols an even greater advantage.

Maine has an excellent .169 BAA with RISP. His BAA with the bases loaded? A hefty .500.

Look for Maine to get feasted upon. His strikeouts will likely be more than made up for by his walks, and the Cardinals will take advantage.

There's more good news after this.

Steve Trachsel

15-8, 4.97, 79 K, 78 BB, 1.60 WHIP, 88 ERA+, 15.8 VORP

Trachsel is less than a month away from his 36th birthday, and he is losing street cred fast. He is coming off a September where he walked 11 batters and stuck out six. He has taken advantage of Shea as a pitcher's park to the tune of a 5.52 ERA and .297 BAA. And he just made the first postseason start of his career, which was not a success.

Well, that's being a bit harsh. Trachsel actually pitched a good first three innings. Three singles in a row in the fourth led to two Dodger runs, and when young star Andre Ethier pinch-hit for Greg Maddux, Randolph pulled Trachsel in favor of Darren Oliver. Etier lined a hard-hit ball, straight at Oliver, who caught it and caught Wilson Betemit off of third for a double play to end the inning. The Mets were still up, 4-2. The bullpen gave up three more runs, but the Mets put up five more, and took the series.

To put it bluntly, Randolph got really lucky on this one. He was lucky that this was the day after an off day, so he had a rested bullpen, and he was lucky that the Mets were up 2-0 in the series, so he could go for broke and bring in Oliver in a match-up situation in the fourth. He was also lucky his team put up nine runs in the game. With the game Trachsel had been pitching to that point, I doubt Willie takes him out in that situation in the regular season.

With THAT said, Trachsel is not a great pitcher. His ER in starts before that one look like this:

3-0-4-3-3-6-3

His record during that stretch? 4-3. Trachsel has been the beneficiary of the Mets' third-in-the-NL offense, behind only Philadephia and Atlanta with 5.15 runs a game. If the Mets DON'T score a lot of runs in this game against, say, Cy Young winner and candidate Chris Carpenter, who is scheduled for this game, Trachsel might not benefit. Glavine can out-pitch Jeff Weaver, and Maine might be able to hold his own against Jeff Suppan, but Trachsel will need a miracle to be the hero of this one.

Trachsel has two starts against St. Louis this season:

May 17 @ St. Louis: 7.0 IP, 4 H, 1 ER, 3 BB, 2 K
Aug. 23 vs. St. Louis: 5.0 IP, 6 H, 6 ER, 3 BB, 1 K

A gem in May for a loss; a disaster in August for a win. Go figure. The August lineup also did not feature Jim Edmonds, although Edmonds was ineffective against Trachsel in May, along with the rest of the Cardinals. This is also a tale of two ballparks, as we have shows that Trachsel has pitched terribly in Shea. Game three will be played in St. Louis. The more important story is that since the break, Trachsel has an ERA of 5.40, a BAA of .289, and more walks than strikeouts. Not good. Look for Trachsel to get knocked out early in St. Louis. It will be after an off day, though, so maybe Willie will get lucky again.

Oliver Perez

Perez came to the Mets in a waiver deal for Xavier Nady. If you showed Mets fans this name in the rotation in, oh, August, each one would have suffered a fatal heart attack. Here's why:

3-13, 6.55, 102 K, 68 BB, 1.75 WHIP, 68 ERA+, -1.6 VORP

Perez has been a worse-than-AAA pitcher this year, except for July and August, when he was actually a AAA pitcher. His VORP comes in at 22nd on the Mets this year. If the Mets were to make a 25-man roster of only pitchers, Oliver would come in at 22nd on the VORP depth chart.

Perez, however, is an enigma wrapped in a riddle. In September he held hitters to a .244 BAA while posting a 4.74 ERA. His K/BB was a very good 28/9. The biggest mystery of Perez' season, however, is this:

Sept. 6 vs. Atlanta: 9.0 IP, 5 H, 0 ER, 1 BB, 6 K

A complete game shutout against one of the top offensive teams in the league. True, it was the second game of a doubleheader, but the Braves did not play their scrubs: Marcus Giles, Andruw Jones, and Jeff Francoeur each got at least three-at bats. Perez threw 107 pitches, 75 for strikes. The Mets, meanwhile, scored eight runs. The next time Perez pitched against Atlanta, he was chased for six ER in 5.1 IP.

Perez' season certainly got better in New York, but not much. He didn't allow more walks than strikeouts once, but he allowed more than three ER four times. More importantly, outside of the shutout, Perez has not gone more than 5 1/3 since June 18. In the game following Trachsel, this could be big trouble.

Perez had three starts against St. Louis this season:

April 18, vs. St. Louis: 6.2 IP, 5 H, 3 ER, 4 BB, 2 K
April 24, @ St. Louis: 5.0 IP, 10 H, 5 ER, 2 BB, 4 K
June 13, vs. St. Louis: 7.0 IP, 7 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 4 K

The last start was in June, with the Pirates. But it was good. Pujols, however, killed Perez this year, going three-for-six with a double and two home runs. Rolen is four-for-nine with three doubles. Even David Eckstein is hitting .333 off him. Right-handers in general are hitting .300 off the kid. With runners on? .332 BAA. With RISP? .340. Nearly 25% of batted balls hit off Perez this year are line drives. One of every seven fly balls he gives up leaves the park.

There is the chance that the 6-3 210 lb. lefty could pull out another gem, but I don't like that chance. The Mets' lineup needs to come through BIG TIME in this series.

Conclusions

Weaver 2006 ERA vs. NY: 7.20
Suppan 2006 ERA vs. NY: 5.40
Carpenter 2006 ERA vs. NY: No games
Marquis 2006 ERA vs. NY: 5.27

To me that looks like 2-2 after four at best for the Mets. The loss of Hernandez is much bigger than a lot of people think, compared to the loss of Pedro. The Mets did just as well post-Pedro (50-34) as they did during (47-31). Hernandez had a great September, and his postseason prowess is legendary (9-3, 2.55). His VORP of 20.0 is four runs higher than Pedro's. The Mets will be hard pressed to get two wins out of Maine, Trachsel, and Perez. They did outscore St. Louis 35-27 this season; the lineup needs to get it done for New York to have a chance. I remember saying the same thing about the other New York team pretty much exactly one week ago; for Queens' sake, and for the sake of not having a .516 team in the World Series, I hope the Metropolitans fare much, much better.

They do have this going for 'em, which is nice.

EDIT: It was announced today (10/11) that Jason Marquis is being left off of St. Louis' NLCS roster in favor of rookie Anthony Reyes. Reyes has not faced the Mets this year, and boasts a 5.06 ERA after an abysmal second half. He has peppered a few quite good starts in with some really bad ones, and I see him as being a big downgrade under a healthy Marquis. The fans in St. Louis for game four ought to get their money's worth; neither Reyes nor Perez may last more than four or five....

The Last Manager Post

2006-10-09T22:28:00.000-04:00

- Joe Girardi interviewed for the managerial job in Chicago today. Girardi would seem to be a good fit to light a fire under the team with the seventh-highest payroll and third-worst record in baseball. Girardi is a strong candidate for Manager of the Year; no manager has ever been fired the same year he won the award. Bobby Cox left the Blue Jays to become GM of the Braves in 1985, and Davey Johnson resigned from Baltimore in 1997 amid disagreement with management.

- There's too much manager news to keep up with here, but the largest story has been the possible dismissal of beloved Yankee manager Joe Torre. A borderline HOFer as a player, many believe his tenure with the Yankees, which includes six pennants, four championships, and nine straight division titles will secure his ticket to Cooperstown. A record of 1079-699 with New York drew his career record up to 1973-1702. Needless to say, Torre was a sub-.500 manager before his stint with New York. Torre has drawn support from many of his players, including Johnny Damon and Chien-Ming Wang, criticism from Gary Sheffield, and nothing from Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, or Bernie Williams, who have been on the team with Torre the longest. Carnival has always thought that Joe Torre was a good manager, ably handling both the clubhouse personailities of the Yankees as well as the New York media and pressure from above. 2006, however, seems to have been the exception. The discord in the clubhouse was well documented in the second-half of the season, and Torre made several questionable if not crippling managerial moves in the ALDS against Detroit, including leaving top team slugger Jason Giambi out of the lineup and bringing the team's best relief pitcher of late, Brian Bruney, in for only one batter in the deciding game four. Torre has been at the helm of the Yankees for ten seasons; it may be time for a change. Carnival wouldn't be disappointed either way.

More Managerial Goings On...

2006-10-06T15:50:00.000-04:00

Some updates on open manager posts and their suitors:

This article on MLB.com reports that ousted Florida Marlins manager Joe Girardi as well as good manager/mediocre broadcaster Lou Piniella are being contacted by the Nationals. Both of these candidates seem unlikely; as reported before, Piniella will likely only head some place he knows can win, and if the Nats can't hold on to Alfonso Soriano, they might not meet his standards. Girardi is an Illinois native, and might like to return home to Chicago, and manage a team with a higher payroll that would probably pay him more as well. The Nationals have also contacted Tony Peña, first-base coach for the Yankees, and Manny Acta, who is coaching somewhere now, but I forget where (Mets?).

No sooner was that reported than this was, adding Dusty Baker and Terry Pendleton to the list of Nationals manager candidates. A lot of the Cubs' problems were in the management, but you have to believe at least some lay with the manager. After taking much of the blame for riding Kerry Wood's and Mark Prior's arms into the ground, it would surprise me if Jim Bowden jumps on Baker. Pendleton is a hitting coach with the Braves and has long ties to Nats President Stan Kasten from Pendleton's years as a player with Atlanta.

The Nationals have also reportedly NOT contacted Buck Showalter about the job; in a player poll about a month ago, Showalter was voted the most popular manager. Seems like a logical successor to the votee for least popular manager in Frank Robinson. I guess Bowden wants to avoid the polls entirely.

And speaking of Showalter, is anyone else puzzled by his firing? He had three years left on his contract, and the Rangers, though finishing in third, had a pythagorean W-L of 86-76, best in the AL West. A lot of luck went against the Rangers this season, I'm not sure what GM Jon Daniels wants from a manager. Showalter went 319-329 in four seasons with Texas.

Y-I-K-E-S, Eric Byrnes.

2006-10-04T22:41:00.000-04:00

This is the launch of a segment that I hope to continue, called "Y-I-K-E-S". Today's edition of Y-I-K-E-S centers around the new & improved Baseball Tonight, with 50% more current ballplayers (Eric Byrnes and Vernon Wells), and 50% less fat idiot (John Kruk counts as two fat idiots). The following exchange happened between Karl Ravech and Eric Byrnes, quoted to the best of my memory:

Ravech: "Eric, you offered a unique perspective this afternoon on Derek Jeter, do you think you could, do you think you could re-state what that was for those who may have missed it?"
Byrnes: "Man-love."
Ravech: "Man-love?"
Byrnes: "Man-love."
[At this point Vernon Wells is starting to look *really* weirded out, and Tim Kurkjian has nearly fallen under the desk laughing.]
Ravech: "Do you think you can define this concept of man-love?"
Byrnes: "He's my favorite player. He's my favorite athlete."

To quote Dave Barry, I am not making any of this up. Byrnes then launched into a huge soliloquy about just how much he "man-loves" Derek Jeter, talking about all the usual great guy, intangibles, blah blah blah. Then he manages to top himself:

"He's the only guy in the league that, when I get around him... he just has this aura about him."

The "..." is not jumping around in the quote, it just represents a pause during which Byrnes got a look in his eye that made me think gallons of raw emotion were going to spill out of his mouth and onto the floor, like a seventh-grade pre-pubescent girl tearily emoting that someday, dammit, she would marry Aaron Carter.

But seriously, "When I get around him"?!

Y-I-K-E-S.

CH-CH-CH-CH-CHANGES!

2006-10-04T19:54:00.000-04:00

Time to face the strange....

Buck Showalter, famous for being the best sports-related actor on Seinfeld (sorry Keith), was the latest in a string of managers to be relieved of their posts. Jim Hickey was also fired as Houston's pitching coach, but honestly, a pitching coach in Houston can't have much to do anyway.

"Well, Rocket, I think what's going on is there's a problem with--"
"Shut up."

Yesterday rookie Marlin manager Joe Girardi was fired after a season for which he could very well win manager of the year, presumably because he couldn't change time. Has that ever happened before? Maybe, but it's 7:52 right now, and I don't trust myself to get the research done before the Tigers-Yankees game, so you'll have to wait or find out yourselves. SO for those of you keeping score at home, the following managers have been fired or not re-upped:

Felipe Alou (San Francisco)
Frank Robinson (Washington)
Dusty Baker (Chicago Cubs)
Joe Girardi (Florida)
Buck Showalter (Texas)

Of these, I believe only Robinson has said that he is done with baseball. Here is some information/completely unsubstantiated rumor about offseason managerial moves:

1. Joe Girardi

Writers have been forecasting Girardi's move to Chicago since the first tiff with Jeffrey Loria transpired. Girardi worked wonders in Florida with a rag-tag bunch of league-minimum earners that, to be fair, included MVP candidate Miguel Cabrera and at least five or six ROTY candidates. The Cubs are a rag-tag bunch of... really overpaid role players, save for D-Lee, Carlos Zambrano, and three of Mark Prior's limbs. Girardi has been said to be able to jump-start such a team, and he may be able to supply the spark they need in Wrigley. Dusty's a baseball guy, but he didn't seem to have a lot of "spunk", nor did he give the impression of being a hard-ass of any kind. Cubs fans want Joe, but whether Joe wants the Cubs remains to be seen.

Willie Randolph was Joe Torre's hand-picked successor for years, turning down offer after offer to sit next to Torre on the bench and wait for him to retire. When the Mets came calling, Willie couldn't refuse and Girardi took that spot on the bench. Rumors say that Torre wanted Girardi to be his NEW successor, and told him to take the Florida job for a few years to get his credentials up. Well, now Girardi's out of a job after a great season, and Torre is old enough that retiring after a championship is not completely out of the question. You do the math.... Of course, there is another, TRUER YANKEE on that bench waiting to be a manager, and his name rhymes with Ron Shaddingly. Also, Joe Torre might want to manage in New York until he dies. Like I said, these are just ideas....

2. Ron Washington

Washington is the 3rd-base coach of the Oakland A's, and for some time has been getting press about becoming a manager. I don't know much about him, but expect him to take some interviews, if only to act as a minority candidate. Sad, but true.

3. Lou Piniella

Sweet Lou is one of the worst broadcasters I've ever heard, and word out of Tampa is that he is itchin' to get back to the bench. Sounds like a win-win: no more Lou in the booth, and more bases thrown into the outfield. But Lou has very specific tastes... he likes to run, and likes to have a couple big bats. The Cubs are fast, and have a couple bats, so they fit that formula. What Lou hate hate HATES, however, is having to teach the fundamentals (key word: mental) to more than one or two bench guys. (Lou in Tampa: "Can you believe this shit! We look like a bunch of fuckin' Russians that have never seen a fuckin' baseball before!") The Cubs have a lotta guys that need some head work. Put it simply, Lou would probably only go to the Cubs if he were very confident they could win. He very much wants to be back in New York, but those two jobs may be tied up for a while. Another place that might be a good fit for Lou, and might be losing a current manager? Philadelphia. Conjecture, but not unreasonable conjecture.

4. Bob Brenly

I was watching a Cubs game, and during an interview with Tommy Lasorda, Lasorda chided him for being in the booth and not with a team. Brenly did not seem opposed to the idea either, and the guy did win a World Series not ten years ago. Could be a Jim Leyland comeback situation in the works.

Gotta go watch baseball on TV. Kudos to Mark Kotsay for hitting an inside-the-park home run FOUR YEARS TO THE DAY after Ray Durham last hit a postseason inside-the-park job for the A's. Extra kudos to Jose Valentin for getting two assists with one throw to home. Anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, watch Sportscenter tonight. Now THAT'S comedy.

2006 CBA Update; Dolphins Stadium = Deathtrap

2006-10-04T11:27:00.001-04:00

With the current collective bargaining agreement between Major League Baseball and the MLBPA set to expire in December, it started to worry me that we had heard nothing about pending negotiations. I sent an e-mail to Maury Brown over at The Biz of Baseball, who responded with the following comforting, albeit not exciting information:

Meetings have been happening regularly for the past couple of months. The key area has been talks around revenue sharing. There has also been rumors of draft pick compensation being removed, but that was simply a rumor.

All in all, the sides have been very quiet. That said, the one thing we're hearing repeatedly is that negotiations have gone well and that there is little concern of a work stoppage.

Sounds good to me. MLB will likely set a new attendance record this year, and the majority of Bud Selig's new wrinkles this offseason will probably come more from stadium and relocation issues (read: MARLINSMARLINSMARLINS) than from labor.

Speaking of relocation issues, the Marlins may be moving north, although not very far north. The South-Florida Sun-Sentinel is reporting that the Marlins are in discussions with Pompano Beach in Broward County to build a stadium at the Pompano Park Harness Track. Nothing close to a finalized deal has been presented, however. This comes on the heels of a story that a woman attending the last game of the season at Dolphins Stadium was hit by falling concrete in the fourth inning. The Miami Herald reports:

George Torres, director of corporate communications for the stadium speculated the accident may have been caused by some rebar that had rusted, causing a piece of concrete to give way and fall approximately 20 feet into the seating area. Torres said the piece of concrete weighed less than a pound, though it was described by other fans in the stands as being "the size of a football."

Of course, if this were to happen at the new stadium, it wouldn't be more unusual than any other normal, local events.

And could someone please tell Kyle Farnsworth about this?!