Whenever does something nice, there's often a reason for it. A very non-philanthropic, self-interested reason for it. If a millionaire gives $10,000 to charity, people will say how nice he is. They don't realize that he might have done it just so people will say how nice he is. There's such a thing as "Corporate Image." What you or I would call "giving to charity," an executive would call "investing in the Corporate Image." Ronald McDonald House is an investment in the Corporate Image. The question is, are these charitable acts done mainly out of a feeling of charity, or as a shrewd attempt to improve the corporate image? While I can't deny that charity plays a part, I feel that most of these charitable acts are done, first and foremost, for the sake of Corporate Image. Because what's $10,000 to a man who owns 5 cars?
This was my reaction when I heard that Major League Baseball was sponsoring a "Latino Legends" team. Fans would vote, as in the All-Star Game, for their favorite Latin players in baseball history. This entire exercise is a heartless and insincere ploy for MLB to create good publicity around its racial image, which has taken quite a hit recently. I do not have any evidence for my claims, except for an astute if admittedly cynical view of the "business world." And if you think that Major League Baseball formed the Latino Legends team first and foremost because they sincerely wanted to honor these players, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
Let me say, right off, that the idea of the team in and of itself seems like a fine idea. I don't think that Latin players have gotten enough recognition for their huge role in shaping the modern game, nor do I think we as fans realize (or even care to consider) the singular difficulties Latin players face in the game today. If the approach were undertaken with good motives, I think it would be a good start toward embracing MLB's growing Latin flavor.
But a good thing isn't so sweet if done for selfish reasons. Baseball has dealt with several racial crises in the past 20 years, and the treatment and attitudes toward Latinos has been one of the more recent issues. The most famous incident would be the comments of a San Francisco radio host about the "braindead" Latin hitters on the Giants. In a move straight out of a sterile conference room, MLB literally cobbled together the idea of a Latino Legends team and announced it, with voting to take place before the World Series. This was a move not borne of a sincere appreciation for thousands of baseball players, but an artifical creation borne out of someone's PowerPoint presentation amongst very rich people looking to cover their own asses.
It's not actually referred to as the Latino Legends team. It's officially the "Chevrolet Presents the Major League Baseball Latino Legends Team." I actually tried to vote for the team earlier, but declined when they asked for my mobile phone number. Having voted for the All-Star team, I know that MLB is not above sending you a mass of official MLB e-mails informing you that the new Raul Ibanez Elbow Warmers are now on sale for $29.95. How sincere was the sentiment. It further offended me that MLB decided to sell off rights to the team. How insincere and brutally profit-seeking is that? At the risk of becoming hopelessly political, our world has become far too interested in making money and completely uninterested in doing what is right. This is nothing new for baseball. Whereas in the past it was 16 fierce, corner-cutting bigots fighting for a bigger slice of the pie, it is now 30 corner-cutting closet bigots under the umbrella of one multi-million dollar company run by Bud Selig, a man who looks like the failed attempt to clone Bill Gates.
The greatest honor we can give the great Latino players in history is to remember them, not exploit them for good publicity. Roberto Clemente died on a relief mission to his native country. Perhaps the best way to remember him is not to sell reproduction jerseys to the upper-middle class for $400, but to consider the example he set as a human being.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
88 years
Congratulations to the White Sox, who swept the Astros in what was still a close, entertaining series. In fact, as the ever-astute Rob Neyer points out, this series is one of the closest sweeps in World Series history. In the 4 games, the White Sox outscored the Astros by 6 runs, which isn't very much at all. It suggests that the Series was much closer than the 4-game sweep would indicate, and I think that's true. It ties with the 1950 Series (Yankees/Phillies) for closest sweep in World Series history.
The Series is being slammed for being low-rated, but I don't think that's exactly fair. Ratings are VERY down from last year, but that's an unfair comparison, since last year's Series was a mainstream media field day with the Red Sox chasing history. Espn.com reports that Series ratings are just 2% lower than the 2002 Series, which saw lesser-known teams Anaheim .vs. San Francisco. This was the lowest-rated Series ever, although 2005 might take that title.
What does this indicate? It indicates that baseball no longer occupies the dominant role in American sports. Baseball has let itself get passed up by the NBA and NFL and is trying haltingly to catch up. The emphasis on getting large-market teams in the postseason is an ugly example; very few people watch the baseball playoffs unless their team is playing. But everyone watches the Super Bowl, regardless of who's playing. It used to be like that in the Series, but not anymore. Getting large-market teams to spike ratings is a short-term fix for a larger problem, the fact that baseball is no longer America's pastime.
As far as the Series goes, what was the main reason the White Sox won? Everyone will say pitching and defense, and that is indeed somewhat true. But did you know that the White Sox scored 5 runs per game, much better than their regular season mark? All of their hitting stats were excellent; the Sox just hit well, despite the fact that they're not a good-hitting team. Their defense was great, and their pitching was good, although it wasn't so much the starters as the bullpen. Freddy Garcia was the only Sox pitcher to make a really good start, but the bullpen picked up the slack, and the team sported a great 2.63 ERA for the Series.
How much of this was great Sox pitching, and how much of it was bad Astro hitting? It's hard to see where the one ends and the other begins. But while I can't take anything away from the White Sox' great pitching, I must point out that the Astros were just awful at the plate. The only two Astro hitters who had anything like a good Series were Willy Taveras and Lance Berkman. And the Series exposed a problem that the Astros suffered from all season but really got stung with in the postseason: a lack of depth in the lineup. The Astros had a decent 1-5 in the lineup; Biggio, Taveras, Berkman, Ensberg, Lane. Granted, only Taveras and Berkman actually produced in the Series, but it's a not-too-awful top of the order. But below that, the Astros had nothing. They actually used Mike Lamb in some games, because he's a left-handed hitter. It's nice to have a left-handed hitter in the lineup, but it's much better to have a good hitter in the lineup. Garner actually pinch-hit for Lamb tonight, and I was struck by how unlikely that was. Has any manager in World Series history ever pinch-hit for his #5 hitter? Below him, they had Ausmus, Everett, and Chris Burke. That's just a step above having 4 pitchers in your lineup. Ausmus barely hit .200 for the Series, whereas Burke went hitless. Everett only got 1 hit in all 4 games. And this is about what you would expect from their regular season performance.
Everyone will look at this Series and say, "This proves that pitching and defense win championships." And I admit that the White Sox were a pitching and defense team, and they did win the championship. But if a smallball team did win the Series this year, a smallball team lost the Series as well. At least the White Sox have a good offense beyond smallball, but no one talks about that, because it ruins the image. The Astros had nothing. Even Morgan Ensberg was a dud. The Sox kept walking Berkman to get to Ensberg, and Ensberg kept doing nothing. And with their pitching not quite as good as advertised, the Astros just couldn't pick up the slack at the plate.
On a completely unrelated subject, I recently started reading Mind Game, an account of the Boston front office's revolutionary approach to baseball and how it won them the World Series. It's written by the Baseball Prospectus staff, which is the premiere baseball "think tank." It's a good book so far, but it's also interesting in light of recent events.
The Yankees signed Brian Cashman to a 3-year deal to return as their GM today. It pays $5 million a year. That's a lot of money, but I have a lot of respect for Cashman, and God bless him for taking such a difficult job. It;s not out of line for the top executive in a multi-million dollar enterprise to be paid as such. Then I read today that Theo Epstein turned down the Red Sox' latest contract offer to extend him. The Red Sox were offering $1.5 million a year.
WHAT THE F***?
I have all the respect in the world for Cashman, as I said. But the last time I checked, he hadn't ended any 86-year World Series droughts and dispatched the most popular curse/myth in sports history. Theo Epstein did that. The 2004 season aside, there is ample evidence to believe that Epstein is one of the best general managers in baseball. Did he do a perfect job this year? No, he didn't. He made his share of mistakes, and I'll be the first to point them out. But the fact that the Red Sox would actually insult Epstein by low-balling him so obviously is an insult to him, to all Red Sox fans, and any self-respecting baseball fan. I know the Red Sox aren't as rich as the Yankees; so I would expect a reasonable offer to be in the $4-million-per-year range. But if $1.5 million is as far as they got after all these negotiations, I don't even want to think about where the Red Sox started out.
This just makes me think that team president Larry Lucchino is slime. Both he and owner John Henry have been around the baseball block before, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is part 0f some power play to get rid of Epstein. Not only that, but Epstein's right-hand man Josh Byrnes is one of the top candidates for the vacant position of Arizona GM. So the Red Sox may have their upper management gutted. And if Red Sox fans are intelligent at all, they will cry out against a power play that could send the franchise spiralling back to the Dan Duquette years of incompetence and utter futility. The Red Sox were just another franchise for nearly 100 years. Theo Epstein was the main force behind changing that. And now Larry Lucchino wants to undo all of that and sink the team because of his ego. Have you no shame, sir?
The Red Sox are starting something wonderful, and there have been speedbumps on the way, but Epstein has his World Championship and deserves some respect for being efficient, bold, and thoroughly intelligent. He, and the Red Sox Nation, deserve better than this.
The Series is being slammed for being low-rated, but I don't think that's exactly fair. Ratings are VERY down from last year, but that's an unfair comparison, since last year's Series was a mainstream media field day with the Red Sox chasing history. Espn.com reports that Series ratings are just 2% lower than the 2002 Series, which saw lesser-known teams Anaheim .vs. San Francisco. This was the lowest-rated Series ever, although 2005 might take that title.
What does this indicate? It indicates that baseball no longer occupies the dominant role in American sports. Baseball has let itself get passed up by the NBA and NFL and is trying haltingly to catch up. The emphasis on getting large-market teams in the postseason is an ugly example; very few people watch the baseball playoffs unless their team is playing. But everyone watches the Super Bowl, regardless of who's playing. It used to be like that in the Series, but not anymore. Getting large-market teams to spike ratings is a short-term fix for a larger problem, the fact that baseball is no longer America's pastime.
As far as the Series goes, what was the main reason the White Sox won? Everyone will say pitching and defense, and that is indeed somewhat true. But did you know that the White Sox scored 5 runs per game, much better than their regular season mark? All of their hitting stats were excellent; the Sox just hit well, despite the fact that they're not a good-hitting team. Their defense was great, and their pitching was good, although it wasn't so much the starters as the bullpen. Freddy Garcia was the only Sox pitcher to make a really good start, but the bullpen picked up the slack, and the team sported a great 2.63 ERA for the Series.
How much of this was great Sox pitching, and how much of it was bad Astro hitting? It's hard to see where the one ends and the other begins. But while I can't take anything away from the White Sox' great pitching, I must point out that the Astros were just awful at the plate. The only two Astro hitters who had anything like a good Series were Willy Taveras and Lance Berkman. And the Series exposed a problem that the Astros suffered from all season but really got stung with in the postseason: a lack of depth in the lineup. The Astros had a decent 1-5 in the lineup; Biggio, Taveras, Berkman, Ensberg, Lane. Granted, only Taveras and Berkman actually produced in the Series, but it's a not-too-awful top of the order. But below that, the Astros had nothing. They actually used Mike Lamb in some games, because he's a left-handed hitter. It's nice to have a left-handed hitter in the lineup, but it's much better to have a good hitter in the lineup. Garner actually pinch-hit for Lamb tonight, and I was struck by how unlikely that was. Has any manager in World Series history ever pinch-hit for his #5 hitter? Below him, they had Ausmus, Everett, and Chris Burke. That's just a step above having 4 pitchers in your lineup. Ausmus barely hit .200 for the Series, whereas Burke went hitless. Everett only got 1 hit in all 4 games. And this is about what you would expect from their regular season performance.
Everyone will look at this Series and say, "This proves that pitching and defense win championships." And I admit that the White Sox were a pitching and defense team, and they did win the championship. But if a smallball team did win the Series this year, a smallball team lost the Series as well. At least the White Sox have a good offense beyond smallball, but no one talks about that, because it ruins the image. The Astros had nothing. Even Morgan Ensberg was a dud. The Sox kept walking Berkman to get to Ensberg, and Ensberg kept doing nothing. And with their pitching not quite as good as advertised, the Astros just couldn't pick up the slack at the plate.
On a completely unrelated subject, I recently started reading Mind Game, an account of the Boston front office's revolutionary approach to baseball and how it won them the World Series. It's written by the Baseball Prospectus staff, which is the premiere baseball "think tank." It's a good book so far, but it's also interesting in light of recent events.
The Yankees signed Brian Cashman to a 3-year deal to return as their GM today. It pays $5 million a year. That's a lot of money, but I have a lot of respect for Cashman, and God bless him for taking such a difficult job. It;s not out of line for the top executive in a multi-million dollar enterprise to be paid as such. Then I read today that Theo Epstein turned down the Red Sox' latest contract offer to extend him. The Red Sox were offering $1.5 million a year.
WHAT THE F***?
I have all the respect in the world for Cashman, as I said. But the last time I checked, he hadn't ended any 86-year World Series droughts and dispatched the most popular curse/myth in sports history. Theo Epstein did that. The 2004 season aside, there is ample evidence to believe that Epstein is one of the best general managers in baseball. Did he do a perfect job this year? No, he didn't. He made his share of mistakes, and I'll be the first to point them out. But the fact that the Red Sox would actually insult Epstein by low-balling him so obviously is an insult to him, to all Red Sox fans, and any self-respecting baseball fan. I know the Red Sox aren't as rich as the Yankees; so I would expect a reasonable offer to be in the $4-million-per-year range. But if $1.5 million is as far as they got after all these negotiations, I don't even want to think about where the Red Sox started out.
This just makes me think that team president Larry Lucchino is slime. Both he and owner John Henry have been around the baseball block before, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is part 0f some power play to get rid of Epstein. Not only that, but Epstein's right-hand man Josh Byrnes is one of the top candidates for the vacant position of Arizona GM. So the Red Sox may have their upper management gutted. And if Red Sox fans are intelligent at all, they will cry out against a power play that could send the franchise spiralling back to the Dan Duquette years of incompetence and utter futility. The Red Sox were just another franchise for nearly 100 years. Theo Epstein was the main force behind changing that. And now Larry Lucchino wants to undo all of that and sink the team because of his ego. Have you no shame, sir?
The Red Sox are starting something wonderful, and there have been speedbumps on the way, but Epstein has his World Championship and deserves some respect for being efficient, bold, and thoroughly intelligent. He, and the Red Sox Nation, deserve better than this.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
5 hours, 41 minutes ...
Due to work issues tonight was the only World Series game I knew I would see in its entirety. So I decided to go ahead with something I'd been kicking around in the back of my mind for a while. I decided to grab a tape recorder and announce the game. I'd always been annoyed by most announcers (especially FOX announcers) and just wanted to see what it was like. 14 innings, 5 hours and 41 minutes later, the game was over, and I felt like I'd just fought World War II.
It was the longest World Series game in history. Game 3 of the 2005 World Series was one for the ages, and I have myself on tape (3 full tapes, to be exact) calling the whole thing. I did the whole routine, reading up on the press info (handily available online) and keeping it all handy for quick reference. I had some interesting things to say and some clever commentary. But the most important thing I learned was that it's a whole lot harder than it looks. I fancy myself a good talker, and I sounded like a complete nincompoop on more than one occasion. That anyone could talk for 3 hours (let alone 5) without saying at least 15 completely stupid things is amazing. Think baseball is a slow game? Try announcing it, and it's never felt so fast in your life. Particularly in the late innings, with all the switches, double-switches and new pitchers.
My scorecard looks like Pencil's Last Stand. I somehow made it all 14 innings (due to some imaginative adaptations to the card itself) without giving up. But I'm a Whitehead, and a Whitehead doesn't admit defeat. I always enjoyed keeping score, because of the organizational satisfaction one gets from it. Well, this card isn't quite as organized as I had hoped, as I had to write players into margins, and my list of pitchers ran down into the rosters listed at the bottom of the page. But I made it.
Here's a tally of the game, most of which I'm sure are World Series records: 17 pitchers used (9 for Chicago, 8 for Houston), 43 players used overall, 100 ABs (which is a month for 1 player), 21 walks (12 for Chicago, 9 for Houston) and 24 K. The first pitch was at 8:39 PM Eastern time, and the last out was recorded at 2:20 AM Eastern. In between, I was running the recorder, keeping score, and swimming amongst the paperwork, while constantly checking the webcast on my laptop to make sure I didn't miss anything.
So what were my observations of the game?
1. Houston fans are committed. Some of them probably had to be at work 5 or 6 hours after the game, but there was still a huge crowd there.
2. Roy Oswalt finally short-circuited. During my time "on air," I noticed that this was Oswalt's worst start since the All-Star break. I have no earthly idea (and said so) why Phil Garner left Oswalt in so long. I guess it was because Oswalt is a "hoss" who "goes the distance." Which is fine, but silly me, I thought winning ballgames was more important. Oswalt was shaky from the start, but was obviously done in the 5th inning. By the time I was talking about taking Oswalt out, Garner didn't even have anyone warming up in the bullpen. Oswalt faced 11 batters in the 5th and threw 46 pitches, and he shouldn't have listed past the 7th or 8th. Then, to compound absolute stupidity, Garner left Oswalt in the game after the 5th inning of doom. He did well in the 6th, but Garner sent him out for the 7th inning, after 107 pitches where he displayed that he wasn't good enough to beat Chicago. Garner finally took him out after he walked Paul Konerko to lead off the inning. Garner has an excellent bullpen; what was he smoking? Luckily, Russ Springer came in and set down the White Sox. But damn!
3. The Astros have a really, really good bullpen. Before Ezequiel Astacio came in (I'll get to him later), the Houston bullpen threw 7 innings, allowing just 2 hits and 0 runs, striking out 7 and walking 2. It was a dominant performance that kept the Astros in the game much longer than they deserved. If the Astros had won, I would have called Chad Qualls the player of the game. He pitched 3 scoreless innings, allowing the Sox only 1 hit.
4. The Astros had every opportunity in the world to score the winning run (both Houston and Chicago stranded 15 baserunners in Game 3). They had the winning run in scoring position in 5 of the 7 innings after the game was tied. But it never scored. Ozzie Guillen brought in Orlando Hernandez in the 9th (and everyone, including Ozzie, has a far-too-generous opinion of Orlando's abilities), and Hernandez walked 3 batters. But he was able to strike out Taveras with 2 on, and after walking Berkman, was able to strike out Morgan Ensberg with the winning run at third. El Duque walked the first batter in the 10th, but Luis Vizcaino came in and retired the next 2 batters. But after walking Adam Everett (?), Chris Burke grounded out with the winning run at second. In the 11th, Bobby Jenks hit a batter and gave up a walk with 1 out. But Ensberg popped out and Palmeiro grounded out. Then, in the 14th, Houston had runners at the corners with 2 out. But Everett grounded out, and the White Sox won.
5. Why in the world so many hitters were walked, I don't know. But it's bad enough that so many hitters were walked (and so many bad hitters who would have made outs anyway), but no one was able to take advantage of them. Of the 21 hitters walked in this game, only one came around to score. Some people would call this clutch hitting. I'd say that the Astros don't have enough power in their lineup. And when forced to string 3 or 4 hits together to score a run, the Astros always seemed one hit short. And by the time they got runners in position, they were down to the Death Valley known as the bottom of the order. But even Morgan Ensberg, who has to hit homers, because only he and Berkman can, was a dud in this game. The White Sox just didn't really do anything well, the 5th inning notwithstanding. Yes, Geoff Blum homered, but something was bound to happen eventually; you can't keep 2 teams scoreless forever, no matter how disappointing their offense.
6. Ezequiel Astacio? This guy isn't even a good pitcher (5.61 regular season), what's he doing in there with the game on the line? It was time to get desperate and use a starter. Garner sent Backe out to the bullpen when the Astros were trying to rally in the 14th, but that was oh, say, A WEE BIT LATE? How about Clemens? Yeah, he's supposed to start Game 5, but I got news for ya -- IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A GAME 5! The White Sox got it right by sending in Buehrle. Yeah, he's supposed to start Game 6, but is there really going to be a Game 6? You have to worry about Game 3 long before you start worrying about Games 5 and 6. Garner was just outmanaged tonight. He was cursing and throwing things, but had no one but himself (and his offense) to blame.
7. Will the White Sox sweep? I don't see how they won't. It's Freddy Garcia .vs. Brandon Backe tomor-- er, tonight. And if that ain't a mismatch, what is? Garcia is one of the 10 or 15 best starters in the AL, whereas Backe doesn't make the top 30 in the NL. Both bullpens are savaged, but then the White Sox bullpen was at least well-rested. The Astros are doomed. And if it doesn't happen in Game 4, it will probably happen in Game 5, with an old and injured Roger Clemens against Jose Contreras. And if by some miracle the Astros can force the Series back to Chicago, Buehrle will put out their lights in Game 6.
It was the longest World Series game in history. Game 3 of the 2005 World Series was one for the ages, and I have myself on tape (3 full tapes, to be exact) calling the whole thing. I did the whole routine, reading up on the press info (handily available online) and keeping it all handy for quick reference. I had some interesting things to say and some clever commentary. But the most important thing I learned was that it's a whole lot harder than it looks. I fancy myself a good talker, and I sounded like a complete nincompoop on more than one occasion. That anyone could talk for 3 hours (let alone 5) without saying at least 15 completely stupid things is amazing. Think baseball is a slow game? Try announcing it, and it's never felt so fast in your life. Particularly in the late innings, with all the switches, double-switches and new pitchers.
My scorecard looks like Pencil's Last Stand. I somehow made it all 14 innings (due to some imaginative adaptations to the card itself) without giving up. But I'm a Whitehead, and a Whitehead doesn't admit defeat. I always enjoyed keeping score, because of the organizational satisfaction one gets from it. Well, this card isn't quite as organized as I had hoped, as I had to write players into margins, and my list of pitchers ran down into the rosters listed at the bottom of the page. But I made it.
Here's a tally of the game, most of which I'm sure are World Series records: 17 pitchers used (9 for Chicago, 8 for Houston), 43 players used overall, 100 ABs (which is a month for 1 player), 21 walks (12 for Chicago, 9 for Houston) and 24 K. The first pitch was at 8:39 PM Eastern time, and the last out was recorded at 2:20 AM Eastern. In between, I was running the recorder, keeping score, and swimming amongst the paperwork, while constantly checking the webcast on my laptop to make sure I didn't miss anything.
So what were my observations of the game?
1. Houston fans are committed. Some of them probably had to be at work 5 or 6 hours after the game, but there was still a huge crowd there.
2. Roy Oswalt finally short-circuited. During my time "on air," I noticed that this was Oswalt's worst start since the All-Star break. I have no earthly idea (and said so) why Phil Garner left Oswalt in so long. I guess it was because Oswalt is a "hoss" who "goes the distance." Which is fine, but silly me, I thought winning ballgames was more important. Oswalt was shaky from the start, but was obviously done in the 5th inning. By the time I was talking about taking Oswalt out, Garner didn't even have anyone warming up in the bullpen. Oswalt faced 11 batters in the 5th and threw 46 pitches, and he shouldn't have listed past the 7th or 8th. Then, to compound absolute stupidity, Garner left Oswalt in the game after the 5th inning of doom. He did well in the 6th, but Garner sent him out for the 7th inning, after 107 pitches where he displayed that he wasn't good enough to beat Chicago. Garner finally took him out after he walked Paul Konerko to lead off the inning. Garner has an excellent bullpen; what was he smoking? Luckily, Russ Springer came in and set down the White Sox. But damn!
3. The Astros have a really, really good bullpen. Before Ezequiel Astacio came in (I'll get to him later), the Houston bullpen threw 7 innings, allowing just 2 hits and 0 runs, striking out 7 and walking 2. It was a dominant performance that kept the Astros in the game much longer than they deserved. If the Astros had won, I would have called Chad Qualls the player of the game. He pitched 3 scoreless innings, allowing the Sox only 1 hit.
4. The Astros had every opportunity in the world to score the winning run (both Houston and Chicago stranded 15 baserunners in Game 3). They had the winning run in scoring position in 5 of the 7 innings after the game was tied. But it never scored. Ozzie Guillen brought in Orlando Hernandez in the 9th (and everyone, including Ozzie, has a far-too-generous opinion of Orlando's abilities), and Hernandez walked 3 batters. But he was able to strike out Taveras with 2 on, and after walking Berkman, was able to strike out Morgan Ensberg with the winning run at third. El Duque walked the first batter in the 10th, but Luis Vizcaino came in and retired the next 2 batters. But after walking Adam Everett (?), Chris Burke grounded out with the winning run at second. In the 11th, Bobby Jenks hit a batter and gave up a walk with 1 out. But Ensberg popped out and Palmeiro grounded out. Then, in the 14th, Houston had runners at the corners with 2 out. But Everett grounded out, and the White Sox won.
5. Why in the world so many hitters were walked, I don't know. But it's bad enough that so many hitters were walked (and so many bad hitters who would have made outs anyway), but no one was able to take advantage of them. Of the 21 hitters walked in this game, only one came around to score. Some people would call this clutch hitting. I'd say that the Astros don't have enough power in their lineup. And when forced to string 3 or 4 hits together to score a run, the Astros always seemed one hit short. And by the time they got runners in position, they were down to the Death Valley known as the bottom of the order. But even Morgan Ensberg, who has to hit homers, because only he and Berkman can, was a dud in this game. The White Sox just didn't really do anything well, the 5th inning notwithstanding. Yes, Geoff Blum homered, but something was bound to happen eventually; you can't keep 2 teams scoreless forever, no matter how disappointing their offense.
6. Ezequiel Astacio? This guy isn't even a good pitcher (5.61 regular season), what's he doing in there with the game on the line? It was time to get desperate and use a starter. Garner sent Backe out to the bullpen when the Astros were trying to rally in the 14th, but that was oh, say, A WEE BIT LATE? How about Clemens? Yeah, he's supposed to start Game 5, but I got news for ya -- IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A GAME 5! The White Sox got it right by sending in Buehrle. Yeah, he's supposed to start Game 6, but is there really going to be a Game 6? You have to worry about Game 3 long before you start worrying about Games 5 and 6. Garner was just outmanaged tonight. He was cursing and throwing things, but had no one but himself (and his offense) to blame.
7. Will the White Sox sweep? I don't see how they won't. It's Freddy Garcia .vs. Brandon Backe tomor-- er, tonight. And if that ain't a mismatch, what is? Garcia is one of the 10 or 15 best starters in the AL, whereas Backe doesn't make the top 30 in the NL. Both bullpens are savaged, but then the White Sox bullpen was at least well-rested. The Astros are doomed. And if it doesn't happen in Game 4, it will probably happen in Game 5, with an old and injured Roger Clemens against Jose Contreras. And if by some miracle the Astros can force the Series back to Chicago, Buehrle will put out their lights in Game 6.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Current players (final)
P
Roger Clemens
There is an argument to be made that Roger Clemens is the best pitcher in baseball history. His raw numbers don't compare with the likes of Cy Young and Walter Johnson, but it's my belief (along with many others) that this reflects a change in the circumstances of pitching rather than the quality of pitching. Looking at the raw numbers, one would assume that all the best pitchers played in the 1870s and 1880s. If you look at the top 100 pitchers in career ERA, you will find exactly one pitcher who is active in the majors (Pedro Martinez). Do you really believe that modern pitchers are just awful, and that all old-timers were better? Was Pedro Martinez really no better than Ned Garvin?
Of course not. The circumstances of pitching have changed. Strikeouts and walks are at historically high levels in modern baseball. What does this mean? It means that modern pitchers throw more pitchers per inning than at any other time. So we can't exactly blame pitchers for not throwing 300 innings a year anymore.
In the 1885 NL, the Giants pitching staff led the league with 519 K. They also allowed a league-high 266 walks. In the 2005 NL, the Cubs led the league with 1256 K. And Pittsburgh allowed a league-high 612 walks. So that's a 142% increase in strikeouts and a 130% increase in walks. Pitching is astronomically different than it used to be. We cannot let the raw numbers become more important than the context that created them.
Cy Young won 511 games. He was an excellent pitcher. Let's use his 1901 season as an example. Young started 41 games and completed 38 of them. In the 1901 AL, pitchers completed 85% of their starts. In the 2004 AL, that number dropped to 3%. Is this because pitchers nowadays are lily-livered weaklings who aren't man enough to finish what they start? Well, I suppose that's possible, and it's the explanation you hear from every old-timer. But my explanation is that the game changed, and the pitchers (and managers) adapted to the change. The pitchers didn't change the game; the game changed the pitchers. While there's no evidence to disprove the fact that personal weakness is why complete games are down, I think it's simply due to the changing game. You can't blame pitchers nowadays for not winning 300 games. How many games nowadays are decided by the bullpen, compared to just 20 years ago? What percentage of overall wins and losses go to starting pitchers now, compared to the era of Bob Gibson? The growing reliance on relief pitchers is a change in the way the game has played; it has come as much from managers as from pitchers. To sum up, we just can't compare a pitcher to another pitcher from a different era based on raw stats. We have to look at what the pitcher accomplished compared to his peers.
So what did Roger Clemens do, compared to his peers? Roger won 7 Cy Young Awards, although I think he was the best pitcher in his league 9 times, counting this year. Clemens has won more games, by far, than any of his contemporaries. He is second only to Warren Spahn as the winningest pitcher since World War II, an amazing stat when you consider all that has changed, even since Spahn retired in 1965. His .665 winning percentage is tied for 18th all time, with Pedro Martinez the only active pitcher above him (among those with a significant career). He is 2nd all-time in strikeouts with 4,502 (although Randy Johns0n may pass him before all is said and done), and sports a 3.12 career ERA. Even more important, his Adjusted ERA is 143, which ties him with Jim Devlin (?) for 8th all-time. Other than Pedro Martinez, the only pitchers since World War II with a better career Adjusted ERA are Hoyt Wilhelm and Dan Quisenberry, both relief pitchers who threw significantly fewer innings. And Pedro has yet to enter the decline phase of his career, which will lower his ERA perhaps even past Roger. And Roger has a huge edge in career innings pitched (2,513 for Pedro, 4,704.1 for Roger). So Roger is definitely the best pitcher of his time. And, as I demonstrated earlier, we could argue that he is the best pitcher of all time.
Greg Maddux
Maddux has not quite been Roger's equal, all told. Don't get me wrong, Maddux is definitely one of the 15 best pitchers ever, and probably in the top 10. He just hasn't had Roger's ungodly staying power. Maddux has been a great pitcher, but has started to look mortal at age 39. Which is what happens to pitchers not named Clemens.
But I could argue that Maddux's 2 best years were better than anything a pitcher has done since 1972. Here's what Maddux did in 1994 and 1995:
1994: 16-6, 1.56 ERA, 273 ERA+, 202 IP, 31:156 BB:K ratio, 4 HR allowed
1995: 19-2, 1.63 ERA, 259 ERA+, 209.2 IP, 23:181 BB:K ratio, 8 HR allowed
These are both historically good seasons. Let's compare them to Clemens' two best seasons, which oddly enough came in his two seasons in Toronto:
1997: 21-7, 2.05 ERA, 226 ERA+, 264 IP, 68:292 BB:K ratio, 9 HR allowed
1998: 20-6, 2.65 ERA, 176 ERA+, 234.2 IP, 88:271 BB:K ratio, 11 HR allowed
All four seasons naturally earned Cy Young Awards for both men. They're 4 of the best seasons by any pitcher in the past 30 years. Maddux has a pretty big edge in adjusted ERA, but Clemens' edge in Innings Pitched and strikeouts would seem to negate that. But is Clemens' edge in Innings Pitched really what it seems? Does anybody remember anything about 1994 and 1995? Perhaps you'll recall that a baseball strike shortened both seasons. So Maddux accomplished all that he did while making 25 and 28 starts, respectively, in 1994 and 1995. He averaged about 35 starts in the surrounding seasons, so what would Maddux's work look like adjusted for 35 starts? It draws him pretty even with Clemens. Maddux's Win Shares in the two seasons were 26 in '94 and 30 in '95, both historic numbers for a pitcher. Clemens got 32 in '97 and 25 in '98. It makes them look pretty even, but when you adjust for the strike, Maddux gets the clear edge. Assuming 35 starts for Maddux in both years, he would have earned 36 WS in '94 and 38 in '95. Those 38 Win Shares would be the best single-season for any pitcher since 1972.
So can we give Maddux extra credit for the bad luck of pitching his two greatest seasons in years shortened by a strike? Yes, but not much. It doesn't change my opinion that Clemens was the better pitcher, but it gives us insight into just how good Maddux was at his peak. And, in my opinion, Greg Maddux was, at his peak, an even better pitcher than Clemens was at his peak. Where Clemens has Maddux beat is in overall quality. Maddux was one of the 10 best pitchers in the NL each season from 1988-2002. That's a record of consistency that no one in modern history can match. While Clemens doesn't have that, Clemens did have more periods of dominance than Maddux did. It gives Clemens the edge, but not by a whole lot. So if Clemens is the best pitcher of his time (and he is), Maddux is a close second.
Pedro Martinez
I've already spoken about a pitcher's best two seasons. Is it possible that Pedro can match Clemens and Maddux? Yes, and it's possible that he has them both beaten. Here's an excerpt from the analysis of Pedro's career I put together recently:
In 1999, Pedro posted a historically good season. I can only list the stats to do it justice: He posted a miniscule 2.07 ERA (the league ERA in 1999 was 4.86). His adjusted ERA was 245, the 9th-best all-time. He notched 313 strikeouts against an amazing 37 BB and 9 HR allowed. He pitched 213.1 innings. Pedro’s 13.21 K/9 IP was the best ever until it was broken by Randy Johnson in 2001. It was now time to start speaking of Pedro as not just a great pitcher, but a historically great pitcher. Pedro became only the 15th unanimous winner of the Cy Young Award, and even finished a very close 2nd in the MVP race to Ivan Rodriguez.
Pedro’s 1999 performance looked like some pitcher’s ultimate career year. So Pedro went out and had an even better year in 2000. An ERA of 1.74 (the league ERA was 4.91; the 3.17 gap between them is the best ever by a starting pitcher). His adjusted ERA of 285 ranks as the best ever by a pitcher since 1900. Only Tim Keefe’s 294 in 1880 was better. Pedro struck out “only” 284 against 32 BB and 17 HR in 217 IP. He threw 7 complete games and 4 shutouts. He was, once again, the unanimous Cy Young, and this time finished 5th in the MVP voting.
Among active pitchers, Pedro ranks 9th with 197 career wins (despite being much younger than anyone above or close behind him), 1st in career winning percentage (.701), 1st in hits allowed/game (6.82), 4th in strikeouts (2861), 3rd in strikeouts/9 IP, 1st in ERA (2.72, with Greg Maddux’s 3.01 being the next-closest), 1st in Adjusted career ERA (166), and 6th in career Win Shares (243).
But hey, forget active pitchers. Where does Pedro rank all-time? He is third all-time in winning percentage (.701, although this should decrease as he gets older), 14th all-time in strikeouts (2861), 3rd all-time in K/9 IP, tied for 78th all-time in ERA (he’s the only active player in the top 100), and to top it all of, Pedro Martinez ranks 1st all-time in career Adjusted ERA at 166. Lefty Grove is second at 148, and Walter Johnson is third at 146. Now granted, adjusted ERA doesn’t account for the fact that Grove and Johnson pitched a whole lot more innings than Pedro, nor does it account for the fact that Pedro’s number will fall as he declines with age. Still, it’s an amazing achievement. The next-highest pitcher on the career ERA+ list is 8th-place Roger Clemens at 143.
Pedro Martinez is one of the greatest pitchers ever. He, along with Maddux, Clemens, and Johnson, deserve to enter not just into the Hall of Fame, but into the realm of the all-time great baseball players.
Randy Johnson
These guys are the Big 4 among active pitchers in baseball. If Carlton and Seaver were the dynamic duo of the 70's and 80's, then these 4 are the dominant quartet of their time; 4 pitchers who aren't just Hall-of-Famers, but among the top 20 pitchers ever.
Johnson got off to a relatively late start compared to the other three. He was, as a Seattle Mariner, a sharp young pitcher with a great fastball and slider. But he was amazingly wild, and his strikeouts were matched by a huge number of walks (90+ for 5 straights seasons). It was in 1993 (at the relatively advanced age of 30) that Johnson started to look like more than just another good, wild pitcher. His ERA dropped to a career-best 3.24, and he joined the short list of pitchers with a 300-K season, notching 308 in 255.1 IP. After a good '94, Johnson won the 1995 Cy Young with a 2.48 ERA and 294 K in just 214.1 IP.
But it wasn't until he came to the National League that Johnson became a historically good pitcher. It's not very common for a pitcher to reach this level at the age of 34 (Johnson's age when he came to the NL in 1998), but Johnson accomplished it. After an amazing half-season in Houston (10-1, 1.28 ERA, 116 K in 84.1 IP), Johnson signed a contract with Arizona and became the best pitcher in baseball. He spent 6 seasons in Arizona and won 4 Cy Young Awards (and deserved another one in 2004).
From 1999-2004, Johnson went 103-49, posted a 2.65 ERA, and struck out an ungodly 1,832 batters in 1389.2 IP against just 359 BB. It was a record for the ages that entered Johnson into the realm of the immortals and punched his ticket to Cooperstown.
Curt Schilling
It was a surprise for me to see Schilling rank higher on my list than guys like Tom Glavine and Kevin Brown. But while Schilling didn't get famous until he went to Arizona, he had a fine early career in Philadelphia. He didn't post amazing ERAs, but he had 2 300+ K seasons in Philadelphia, in 1997 and 1998. He did emerge to a new level when he joined Arizona in mid-2000, although he didn't reach the heights that Randy Johnson did. Schilling is, without a doubt in my mind, the best active pitcher never to win the Cy Young. While he probably needs another good season to really get noticed by Hall voters, I think he's already earned his spot. If the Phillies had been worth a damn in the early 90's (1993 notwithstanding), Schilling would have a better rep.
Tom Glavine
Glavine is a tough case, because he has really benefited from playing for the best team of the 90's. But he's been one heck of a pitcher for quite a long time, and his 275 wins are golden nowadays. He's already made it in the minds of the voters, and I would have to agree.
John Smoltz
I wasn't really sure about Smoltz until he reemerged with a fine 2005. Smoltz may have been better than Glavine at his peak, but he didn't have Tom's uncanny consistency and good health. Smoltz is often compared to Eckersley, although the comparison is a bit backward. Eckersley was a much better closer, and Smoltz was a much better starter. I think Smoltz will get into the Hall with Eckersley setting the precedent, and I think he's contributed enough both as a starter and as a reliever to deserve it.
Kevin Brown
Brown has had a fine career as a major league starter, but there's just nothing to really convince me that he's a Hall-of-Famer. Brown had two very good seasons in 1996 and 1998 (with Florida and San Diego, respectively), and has had some other good seasons, but he hasn't had that quality with a good degree of consistency. He's also bounced around to a lot of teams and suffered many injuries, both of which will hurt his standing with the voters. He spent 8 years with Texas, 1 with Baltimore, 2 with Florida, 1 with San Diego, 5 with L.A. and 2 now with the Yankees. He'll be 41 years old next year, and he's coming off lots of injury trouble. He's basically finished.
Mike Mussina
I'd argue that "Moose" is one of the more underrated pitchers of his era. He never really got the credit he deserved in Baltimore and always seemed to be in someone else's shadow in New York. He's had one heck of a career, better than some Hall-of-Famers, but I just don't think he belongs. He'll be 37 next season and is also troubled with injuries. He doesn't have a whole lot left.
Mariano Rivera
It's difficult to measure relievers against starting pitchers, and even against relievers of other eras. The "save" stat is pretty useless when compared to other eras. Our data for save opportunities goes back less than 10 years, so we have no clue how many chances for saves Goose Gossage had, let alone someone like Hoyt Wilhelm. And we can't give Trevor Hoffman a ton of credit for getting 400 saves if he had 100 more save chances than Gossage, which is more than likely. Managers nowadays tend to use their closers more and more exclusively in save opportunities, often to the detriment of the team. It's an odd case of a statistic changing the game. Managers see "save opportunities" as the most important time of the game, so they'll use their closer in a save opportunity whenever they can. But this can be counter-productive. There's no need to waste your best relief pitcher to protect a 3-run lead with 1 inning to play. A closer would be more effective pitching in a tied game, or a even game where his team is behind. The dominance of the save has grown far out of proportion. It also means that relievers like Gossage, who did come in to pitch in more tied-game or losing contests (and also pitched more than an inning much more often) actually lose out, because they don't have more saves (which you can't get without save opportunities). It's a classic case of people taking a statistic directly to heart without taking into account what it's really measuring.
That may not have much to do withy Mariano Rivera, but I thought it was important. Rivera is an interesting case, because he didn't reach the majors until he was 25, and didn't become a closer until age 27. But Rivera has been baseball's premiere closer (more or less) since 1997. I don't think his postseason work alone should get him into Cooperstown, but it's certainly quite the icing on the cake. I would vote for Rivera, but reserve it for closers like Trevor Hoffman.
Other active (or ineligible) pitchers with significant careers are: David Cone, Chuck Finley, David Wells, Orel Hershiser, Kenny Rogers and Al Leiter. None of them are Hall-of-Famers, although Cone probably comes the closest.
Roger Clemens
There is an argument to be made that Roger Clemens is the best pitcher in baseball history. His raw numbers don't compare with the likes of Cy Young and Walter Johnson, but it's my belief (along with many others) that this reflects a change in the circumstances of pitching rather than the quality of pitching. Looking at the raw numbers, one would assume that all the best pitchers played in the 1870s and 1880s. If you look at the top 100 pitchers in career ERA, you will find exactly one pitcher who is active in the majors (Pedro Martinez). Do you really believe that modern pitchers are just awful, and that all old-timers were better? Was Pedro Martinez really no better than Ned Garvin?
Of course not. The circumstances of pitching have changed. Strikeouts and walks are at historically high levels in modern baseball. What does this mean? It means that modern pitchers throw more pitchers per inning than at any other time. So we can't exactly blame pitchers for not throwing 300 innings a year anymore.
In the 1885 NL, the Giants pitching staff led the league with 519 K. They also allowed a league-high 266 walks. In the 2005 NL, the Cubs led the league with 1256 K. And Pittsburgh allowed a league-high 612 walks. So that's a 142% increase in strikeouts and a 130% increase in walks. Pitching is astronomically different than it used to be. We cannot let the raw numbers become more important than the context that created them.
Cy Young won 511 games. He was an excellent pitcher. Let's use his 1901 season as an example. Young started 41 games and completed 38 of them. In the 1901 AL, pitchers completed 85% of their starts. In the 2004 AL, that number dropped to 3%. Is this because pitchers nowadays are lily-livered weaklings who aren't man enough to finish what they start? Well, I suppose that's possible, and it's the explanation you hear from every old-timer. But my explanation is that the game changed, and the pitchers (and managers) adapted to the change. The pitchers didn't change the game; the game changed the pitchers. While there's no evidence to disprove the fact that personal weakness is why complete games are down, I think it's simply due to the changing game. You can't blame pitchers nowadays for not winning 300 games. How many games nowadays are decided by the bullpen, compared to just 20 years ago? What percentage of overall wins and losses go to starting pitchers now, compared to the era of Bob Gibson? The growing reliance on relief pitchers is a change in the way the game has played; it has come as much from managers as from pitchers. To sum up, we just can't compare a pitcher to another pitcher from a different era based on raw stats. We have to look at what the pitcher accomplished compared to his peers.
So what did Roger Clemens do, compared to his peers? Roger won 7 Cy Young Awards, although I think he was the best pitcher in his league 9 times, counting this year. Clemens has won more games, by far, than any of his contemporaries. He is second only to Warren Spahn as the winningest pitcher since World War II, an amazing stat when you consider all that has changed, even since Spahn retired in 1965. His .665 winning percentage is tied for 18th all time, with Pedro Martinez the only active pitcher above him (among those with a significant career). He is 2nd all-time in strikeouts with 4,502 (although Randy Johns0n may pass him before all is said and done), and sports a 3.12 career ERA. Even more important, his Adjusted ERA is 143, which ties him with Jim Devlin (?) for 8th all-time. Other than Pedro Martinez, the only pitchers since World War II with a better career Adjusted ERA are Hoyt Wilhelm and Dan Quisenberry, both relief pitchers who threw significantly fewer innings. And Pedro has yet to enter the decline phase of his career, which will lower his ERA perhaps even past Roger. And Roger has a huge edge in career innings pitched (2,513 for Pedro, 4,704.1 for Roger). So Roger is definitely the best pitcher of his time. And, as I demonstrated earlier, we could argue that he is the best pitcher of all time.
Greg Maddux
Maddux has not quite been Roger's equal, all told. Don't get me wrong, Maddux is definitely one of the 15 best pitchers ever, and probably in the top 10. He just hasn't had Roger's ungodly staying power. Maddux has been a great pitcher, but has started to look mortal at age 39. Which is what happens to pitchers not named Clemens.
But I could argue that Maddux's 2 best years were better than anything a pitcher has done since 1972. Here's what Maddux did in 1994 and 1995:
1994: 16-6, 1.56 ERA, 273 ERA+, 202 IP, 31:156 BB:K ratio, 4 HR allowed
1995: 19-2, 1.63 ERA, 259 ERA+, 209.2 IP, 23:181 BB:K ratio, 8 HR allowed
These are both historically good seasons. Let's compare them to Clemens' two best seasons, which oddly enough came in his two seasons in Toronto:
1997: 21-7, 2.05 ERA, 226 ERA+, 264 IP, 68:292 BB:K ratio, 9 HR allowed
1998: 20-6, 2.65 ERA, 176 ERA+, 234.2 IP, 88:271 BB:K ratio, 11 HR allowed
All four seasons naturally earned Cy Young Awards for both men. They're 4 of the best seasons by any pitcher in the past 30 years. Maddux has a pretty big edge in adjusted ERA, but Clemens' edge in Innings Pitched and strikeouts would seem to negate that. But is Clemens' edge in Innings Pitched really what it seems? Does anybody remember anything about 1994 and 1995? Perhaps you'll recall that a baseball strike shortened both seasons. So Maddux accomplished all that he did while making 25 and 28 starts, respectively, in 1994 and 1995. He averaged about 35 starts in the surrounding seasons, so what would Maddux's work look like adjusted for 35 starts? It draws him pretty even with Clemens. Maddux's Win Shares in the two seasons were 26 in '94 and 30 in '95, both historic numbers for a pitcher. Clemens got 32 in '97 and 25 in '98. It makes them look pretty even, but when you adjust for the strike, Maddux gets the clear edge. Assuming 35 starts for Maddux in both years, he would have earned 36 WS in '94 and 38 in '95. Those 38 Win Shares would be the best single-season for any pitcher since 1972.
So can we give Maddux extra credit for the bad luck of pitching his two greatest seasons in years shortened by a strike? Yes, but not much. It doesn't change my opinion that Clemens was the better pitcher, but it gives us insight into just how good Maddux was at his peak. And, in my opinion, Greg Maddux was, at his peak, an even better pitcher than Clemens was at his peak. Where Clemens has Maddux beat is in overall quality. Maddux was one of the 10 best pitchers in the NL each season from 1988-2002. That's a record of consistency that no one in modern history can match. While Clemens doesn't have that, Clemens did have more periods of dominance than Maddux did. It gives Clemens the edge, but not by a whole lot. So if Clemens is the best pitcher of his time (and he is), Maddux is a close second.
Pedro Martinez
I've already spoken about a pitcher's best two seasons. Is it possible that Pedro can match Clemens and Maddux? Yes, and it's possible that he has them both beaten. Here's an excerpt from the analysis of Pedro's career I put together recently:
In 1999, Pedro posted a historically good season. I can only list the stats to do it justice: He posted a miniscule 2.07 ERA (the league ERA in 1999 was 4.86). His adjusted ERA was 245, the 9th-best all-time. He notched 313 strikeouts against an amazing 37 BB and 9 HR allowed. He pitched 213.1 innings. Pedro’s 13.21 K/9 IP was the best ever until it was broken by Randy Johnson in 2001. It was now time to start speaking of Pedro as not just a great pitcher, but a historically great pitcher. Pedro became only the 15th unanimous winner of the Cy Young Award, and even finished a very close 2nd in the MVP race to Ivan Rodriguez.
Pedro’s 1999 performance looked like some pitcher’s ultimate career year. So Pedro went out and had an even better year in 2000. An ERA of 1.74 (the league ERA was 4.91; the 3.17 gap between them is the best ever by a starting pitcher). His adjusted ERA of 285 ranks as the best ever by a pitcher since 1900. Only Tim Keefe’s 294 in 1880 was better. Pedro struck out “only” 284 against 32 BB and 17 HR in 217 IP. He threw 7 complete games and 4 shutouts. He was, once again, the unanimous Cy Young, and this time finished 5th in the MVP voting.
Among active pitchers, Pedro ranks 9th with 197 career wins (despite being much younger than anyone above or close behind him), 1st in career winning percentage (.701), 1st in hits allowed/game (6.82), 4th in strikeouts (2861), 3rd in strikeouts/9 IP, 1st in ERA (2.72, with Greg Maddux’s 3.01 being the next-closest), 1st in Adjusted career ERA (166), and 6th in career Win Shares (243).
But hey, forget active pitchers. Where does Pedro rank all-time? He is third all-time in winning percentage (.701, although this should decrease as he gets older), 14th all-time in strikeouts (2861), 3rd all-time in K/9 IP, tied for 78th all-time in ERA (he’s the only active player in the top 100), and to top it all of, Pedro Martinez ranks 1st all-time in career Adjusted ERA at 166. Lefty Grove is second at 148, and Walter Johnson is third at 146. Now granted, adjusted ERA doesn’t account for the fact that Grove and Johnson pitched a whole lot more innings than Pedro, nor does it account for the fact that Pedro’s number will fall as he declines with age. Still, it’s an amazing achievement. The next-highest pitcher on the career ERA+ list is 8th-place Roger Clemens at 143.
Pedro Martinez is one of the greatest pitchers ever. He, along with Maddux, Clemens, and Johnson, deserve to enter not just into the Hall of Fame, but into the realm of the all-time great baseball players.
Randy Johnson
These guys are the Big 4 among active pitchers in baseball. If Carlton and Seaver were the dynamic duo of the 70's and 80's, then these 4 are the dominant quartet of their time; 4 pitchers who aren't just Hall-of-Famers, but among the top 20 pitchers ever.
Johnson got off to a relatively late start compared to the other three. He was, as a Seattle Mariner, a sharp young pitcher with a great fastball and slider. But he was amazingly wild, and his strikeouts were matched by a huge number of walks (90+ for 5 straights seasons). It was in 1993 (at the relatively advanced age of 30) that Johnson started to look like more than just another good, wild pitcher. His ERA dropped to a career-best 3.24, and he joined the short list of pitchers with a 300-K season, notching 308 in 255.1 IP. After a good '94, Johnson won the 1995 Cy Young with a 2.48 ERA and 294 K in just 214.1 IP.
But it wasn't until he came to the National League that Johnson became a historically good pitcher. It's not very common for a pitcher to reach this level at the age of 34 (Johnson's age when he came to the NL in 1998), but Johnson accomplished it. After an amazing half-season in Houston (10-1, 1.28 ERA, 116 K in 84.1 IP), Johnson signed a contract with Arizona and became the best pitcher in baseball. He spent 6 seasons in Arizona and won 4 Cy Young Awards (and deserved another one in 2004).
From 1999-2004, Johnson went 103-49, posted a 2.65 ERA, and struck out an ungodly 1,832 batters in 1389.2 IP against just 359 BB. It was a record for the ages that entered Johnson into the realm of the immortals and punched his ticket to Cooperstown.
Curt Schilling
It was a surprise for me to see Schilling rank higher on my list than guys like Tom Glavine and Kevin Brown. But while Schilling didn't get famous until he went to Arizona, he had a fine early career in Philadelphia. He didn't post amazing ERAs, but he had 2 300+ K seasons in Philadelphia, in 1997 and 1998. He did emerge to a new level when he joined Arizona in mid-2000, although he didn't reach the heights that Randy Johnson did. Schilling is, without a doubt in my mind, the best active pitcher never to win the Cy Young. While he probably needs another good season to really get noticed by Hall voters, I think he's already earned his spot. If the Phillies had been worth a damn in the early 90's (1993 notwithstanding), Schilling would have a better rep.
Tom Glavine
Glavine is a tough case, because he has really benefited from playing for the best team of the 90's. But he's been one heck of a pitcher for quite a long time, and his 275 wins are golden nowadays. He's already made it in the minds of the voters, and I would have to agree.
John Smoltz
I wasn't really sure about Smoltz until he reemerged with a fine 2005. Smoltz may have been better than Glavine at his peak, but he didn't have Tom's uncanny consistency and good health. Smoltz is often compared to Eckersley, although the comparison is a bit backward. Eckersley was a much better closer, and Smoltz was a much better starter. I think Smoltz will get into the Hall with Eckersley setting the precedent, and I think he's contributed enough both as a starter and as a reliever to deserve it.
Kevin Brown
Brown has had a fine career as a major league starter, but there's just nothing to really convince me that he's a Hall-of-Famer. Brown had two very good seasons in 1996 and 1998 (with Florida and San Diego, respectively), and has had some other good seasons, but he hasn't had that quality with a good degree of consistency. He's also bounced around to a lot of teams and suffered many injuries, both of which will hurt his standing with the voters. He spent 8 years with Texas, 1 with Baltimore, 2 with Florida, 1 with San Diego, 5 with L.A. and 2 now with the Yankees. He'll be 41 years old next year, and he's coming off lots of injury trouble. He's basically finished.
Mike Mussina
I'd argue that "Moose" is one of the more underrated pitchers of his era. He never really got the credit he deserved in Baltimore and always seemed to be in someone else's shadow in New York. He's had one heck of a career, better than some Hall-of-Famers, but I just don't think he belongs. He'll be 37 next season and is also troubled with injuries. He doesn't have a whole lot left.
Mariano Rivera
It's difficult to measure relievers against starting pitchers, and even against relievers of other eras. The "save" stat is pretty useless when compared to other eras. Our data for save opportunities goes back less than 10 years, so we have no clue how many chances for saves Goose Gossage had, let alone someone like Hoyt Wilhelm. And we can't give Trevor Hoffman a ton of credit for getting 400 saves if he had 100 more save chances than Gossage, which is more than likely. Managers nowadays tend to use their closers more and more exclusively in save opportunities, often to the detriment of the team. It's an odd case of a statistic changing the game. Managers see "save opportunities" as the most important time of the game, so they'll use their closer in a save opportunity whenever they can. But this can be counter-productive. There's no need to waste your best relief pitcher to protect a 3-run lead with 1 inning to play. A closer would be more effective pitching in a tied game, or a even game where his team is behind. The dominance of the save has grown far out of proportion. It also means that relievers like Gossage, who did come in to pitch in more tied-game or losing contests (and also pitched more than an inning much more often) actually lose out, because they don't have more saves (which you can't get without save opportunities). It's a classic case of people taking a statistic directly to heart without taking into account what it's really measuring.
That may not have much to do withy Mariano Rivera, but I thought it was important. Rivera is an interesting case, because he didn't reach the majors until he was 25, and didn't become a closer until age 27. But Rivera has been baseball's premiere closer (more or less) since 1997. I don't think his postseason work alone should get him into Cooperstown, but it's certainly quite the icing on the cake. I would vote for Rivera, but reserve it for closers like Trevor Hoffman.
Other active (or ineligible) pitchers with significant careers are: David Cone, Chuck Finley, David Wells, Orel Hershiser, Kenny Rogers and Al Leiter. None of them are Hall-of-Famers, although Cone probably comes the closest.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Current players Pt. 4
RF
Gary Sheffield
Sheffield's personality is such to keep people from admitting he's a Hall-of-Famer. He's also played several different positions with several different teams, so it's hard to get a clear picture of him. But he's one of the 10 best hitters of the 90's and probably ranks even higher than that.
Tony Gwynn
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Gwynn shouldn't have any trouble getting into Cooperstown. Nor should he.
Manny Ramirez
Manny's a Hall-of-Famer. I know I called Edgar Martinez the best right-handed hitter of the 90's, but Manny just might have something to say about that. Manny's not just a good hitter; he's an excellent hitter, and has been for quite some time. For some reason, his attitude hasn't kept people from still liking him, at least generally. I'd be interested to find out why.
Sammy Sosa
Well, Sosa certainly isn't a sure thing anymore. His career may come to a crashing halt sooner than we anticipated. Sammy turns 37 in November, and his last two seasons have been injury-plagued. And this season is the worst season by far that he's had since he left the White Sox. Do I think he belongs in the Hall? That's a tough question. Sosa is not the all-around ballplayer most people think he is. I think his numbers should get him in, but barely. And that's if he can contribute some more before he retires. Then there's the thorny question of steroids and his ugly departure from Chicago. If Sammy doesn't have another good season, I honestly don't think he'll get inducted.
Larry Walker
You can't really examine Walker's career without knowing pretty accurately how much Coors Field helped him. During his time in Colorad0 (1995-2004), Walker hit 425/618/334. Anybody who hits that well over a 10-year period probably belongs in Cooperstown . . . unless they played at Coors Field.
Everyone knows that Coors Field helped Walker. But how much? That is the question. Everyone will quote Walker's career stats when he comes up for induction, but very few people will make any attempt to unmuddy the waters so polluted by Coors. What will likely happen is that people will just make a blanket statement that he's a Hall-of-Famer anyway, or that he can't be one because of Coors. But that's the stupid way out. We have to know how good Larry Walker was, not how good Coors made him look.
There are several metrics to adjust for ballparks. Win Shares is one. They give Walker credit for 187 Win Shares during his years in Colorado. That's very good -- but it's not Hall-of-Fame material. 300 Win Shares is a rough baseline for Hall-of-Fame induction. Some people with less than 300 are in, but very few. Walker has compiled 311 during his whole career. His best season was a 32-Win Share campaign in 1997. 32 Win Shares is quite good, but it's not good on any sort of historic level. And that was the only time Walker topped 30 Win Shares during a single season.
But Walker did spend a great deal of time injured. If he hadn't been so injury-prone, would he be a Hall-of-Famer. Probably. But we can't make that argument to get someone into the Hall. We can't induct players based on what they would have done if they hadn't gotten injured. Or else Orel Hershiser, Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden, and Cesar Cedeno would all be in.
The basic gist of my argument is that Coors Field made Larry Walker look like a Hall-of-Famer. But to the best of my knowledge, he was actually not that good. Coors Field makes good players look great and great players look historic. It's been around for over 10 years now, and you'd think people would have learned. But they haven't. And when Walker gets strong consideration for the Hall (and possibly gets in), it will just prove that people still have no damn idea what they're doing.
Bobby Abreu
Abreu is underrated on a historical level. He has been an excellent, top-10 player since 1998, when he joined the Phillies. Abreu, at the age of 31, has 230 career Win Shares, well on the way to a Cooperstown-caliber career. If he can just keep his career on track, I think he'll deserve a plaque in the Hall. He's a career 411/512/303 hitter, which is just plain amazing. He's a rine right fielder, and he has 241 career stolen bases (with a 76% success rate). And yet no one really noticed him until he won the Home Run Derby this year. What is wrong with people?
Vladimir Guerrero
Is Bobby Abreu really a better player than Vlad? Yeah, I think so, but it's very close. Abreu has the advantage of being 2 years older than Vlad, so he's had more time to accomplish things. But would you believe that Abreu is a better right fielder? Yes, Vlad has an amazing arm. But, uh, it takes more than arm to play defense. People have created this image of Vlad as a great defender just because of his arm. He's actually a bit clumsy, otherwise. But, in what seems to be a recurring theme, people make decisions based on what they want to see, not based on the underlying reality.
But I think Vlad will earn a spot in Cooperstown, especially now that he's moved to a contending team, won an MVP, and gotten noticed.
Harold Baines
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
People think that Harold belongs in the Hall because he has a lot of big career numbers. But if you'd hung around for 22 seasons, well after you were valuable at all, you'd have big numbers, too. Harold was a good player for a long time. But he really wasn't that good. In fact, he was just barely above average as a hitter, and contributed nothing to the defense. He had some strong seasons, back in his early years in Chicago, but Harold's last really effective year came in 1991, but he played 10 more seasons regardless.
This is where people sometimes get caught up in the stats. It's not just a matter of who has the biggest numbers over a career; it was who was the best player. We award pretty good players who play for a long time and shortchange excellent players with unimpressive career numbers. The importance is to find a balance; there has to be some good combination of quality and quantity. And the simple fact is that being a great player is far more valuable than being a good player for a long time. Even though Harold was pretty good for 22 years, he's a much less valuable player, overall, than someone like Albert Belle, who had a short, productive burst of a career. But, with the exception of Sandy Koufax, people with short careers tend to get shortchanged in Cooperstown. This is because of the insane fixation on high career numbers (3,000 hits, 500 HR, 300 wins), without anyone recognizing the fact that, all told, quality is much more important than quantity.
Jose Canseco
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Yeah, this one's pretty funny now. But even before he wrote his tell-all book and appeared on a VH1 reality show, Canseco wasn't a Hall-of-Famer. He was a very good player, but his peak was quite short. Although he had a bit of a renaissance toward the end of his career, Canseco's Cooperstown chances went down the tubes when he was traded to Texas, at the young age of 28.
Paul O'Neill
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Paul was a beloved member of the Yankees who had a fine career, but he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.
Other active players with significant careers are: Juan Gonzalez, Tim Salmon, Shawn Green, and Ichiro Suzuki. None of them are really qualified, although Ichiro has had a good, short career. I just don't think he'll get credit for his time in Japan, leaving him short.
C
Mike Piazza
Yes, Piazza is a great-hitting catcher. He was probably even better at his peak than Berra or Bench. But he is not the best-hitting catcher in baseball history. That honor goes to Mr. Josh Gibson, and no, it is not a trivial point.
Piazza's in given what he's already accomplished. He could certainly use a few more productive years as, say, a DH. But he was such a good hitter at his peak that it doesn't really matter, and he's one of the best players never to win an MVP.
Ivan Rodriguez
Pudge's career is slowing down, which isn't unusual for a soon-to-be 34-year-old catcher, although it took the Tigers by surprise. Of course, a sunrise probably takes the Tigers by surprise.
Signing old catchers to long-term contracts is like peeing on a pit bull; only dumb people think it's a good idea. Pudge was good last year, but took a big step down this season. He has already played well enough to make the Hall, but it would certainly help his chances if he could produce a couple more impact seasons.
The only other active catchers with significant careers are Javier Lopez, Jorge Posada, and Jason Kendall. None of them are Hall-of-Famers, although Posada is much, much better than anyone realizes. Jason Varitek has had some good seasons recently, but he's frickin' 33, and that doesn't bode well for his future.
The last chapter, the pitchers, will be posted soon.
Gary Sheffield
Sheffield's personality is such to keep people from admitting he's a Hall-of-Famer. He's also played several different positions with several different teams, so it's hard to get a clear picture of him. But he's one of the 10 best hitters of the 90's and probably ranks even higher than that.
Tony Gwynn
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Gwynn shouldn't have any trouble getting into Cooperstown. Nor should he.
Manny Ramirez
Manny's a Hall-of-Famer. I know I called Edgar Martinez the best right-handed hitter of the 90's, but Manny just might have something to say about that. Manny's not just a good hitter; he's an excellent hitter, and has been for quite some time. For some reason, his attitude hasn't kept people from still liking him, at least generally. I'd be interested to find out why.
Sammy Sosa
Well, Sosa certainly isn't a sure thing anymore. His career may come to a crashing halt sooner than we anticipated. Sammy turns 37 in November, and his last two seasons have been injury-plagued. And this season is the worst season by far that he's had since he left the White Sox. Do I think he belongs in the Hall? That's a tough question. Sosa is not the all-around ballplayer most people think he is. I think his numbers should get him in, but barely. And that's if he can contribute some more before he retires. Then there's the thorny question of steroids and his ugly departure from Chicago. If Sammy doesn't have another good season, I honestly don't think he'll get inducted.
Larry Walker
You can't really examine Walker's career without knowing pretty accurately how much Coors Field helped him. During his time in Colorad0 (1995-2004), Walker hit 425/618/334. Anybody who hits that well over a 10-year period probably belongs in Cooperstown . . . unless they played at Coors Field.
Everyone knows that Coors Field helped Walker. But how much? That is the question. Everyone will quote Walker's career stats when he comes up for induction, but very few people will make any attempt to unmuddy the waters so polluted by Coors. What will likely happen is that people will just make a blanket statement that he's a Hall-of-Famer anyway, or that he can't be one because of Coors. But that's the stupid way out. We have to know how good Larry Walker was, not how good Coors made him look.
There are several metrics to adjust for ballparks. Win Shares is one. They give Walker credit for 187 Win Shares during his years in Colorado. That's very good -- but it's not Hall-of-Fame material. 300 Win Shares is a rough baseline for Hall-of-Fame induction. Some people with less than 300 are in, but very few. Walker has compiled 311 during his whole career. His best season was a 32-Win Share campaign in 1997. 32 Win Shares is quite good, but it's not good on any sort of historic level. And that was the only time Walker topped 30 Win Shares during a single season.
But Walker did spend a great deal of time injured. If he hadn't been so injury-prone, would he be a Hall-of-Famer. Probably. But we can't make that argument to get someone into the Hall. We can't induct players based on what they would have done if they hadn't gotten injured. Or else Orel Hershiser, Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden, and Cesar Cedeno would all be in.
The basic gist of my argument is that Coors Field made Larry Walker look like a Hall-of-Famer. But to the best of my knowledge, he was actually not that good. Coors Field makes good players look great and great players look historic. It's been around for over 10 years now, and you'd think people would have learned. But they haven't. And when Walker gets strong consideration for the Hall (and possibly gets in), it will just prove that people still have no damn idea what they're doing.
Bobby Abreu
Abreu is underrated on a historical level. He has been an excellent, top-10 player since 1998, when he joined the Phillies. Abreu, at the age of 31, has 230 career Win Shares, well on the way to a Cooperstown-caliber career. If he can just keep his career on track, I think he'll deserve a plaque in the Hall. He's a career 411/512/303 hitter, which is just plain amazing. He's a rine right fielder, and he has 241 career stolen bases (with a 76% success rate). And yet no one really noticed him until he won the Home Run Derby this year. What is wrong with people?
Vladimir Guerrero
Is Bobby Abreu really a better player than Vlad? Yeah, I think so, but it's very close. Abreu has the advantage of being 2 years older than Vlad, so he's had more time to accomplish things. But would you believe that Abreu is a better right fielder? Yes, Vlad has an amazing arm. But, uh, it takes more than arm to play defense. People have created this image of Vlad as a great defender just because of his arm. He's actually a bit clumsy, otherwise. But, in what seems to be a recurring theme, people make decisions based on what they want to see, not based on the underlying reality.
But I think Vlad will earn a spot in Cooperstown, especially now that he's moved to a contending team, won an MVP, and gotten noticed.
Harold Baines
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
People think that Harold belongs in the Hall because he has a lot of big career numbers. But if you'd hung around for 22 seasons, well after you were valuable at all, you'd have big numbers, too. Harold was a good player for a long time. But he really wasn't that good. In fact, he was just barely above average as a hitter, and contributed nothing to the defense. He had some strong seasons, back in his early years in Chicago, but Harold's last really effective year came in 1991, but he played 10 more seasons regardless.
This is where people sometimes get caught up in the stats. It's not just a matter of who has the biggest numbers over a career; it was who was the best player. We award pretty good players who play for a long time and shortchange excellent players with unimpressive career numbers. The importance is to find a balance; there has to be some good combination of quality and quantity. And the simple fact is that being a great player is far more valuable than being a good player for a long time. Even though Harold was pretty good for 22 years, he's a much less valuable player, overall, than someone like Albert Belle, who had a short, productive burst of a career. But, with the exception of Sandy Koufax, people with short careers tend to get shortchanged in Cooperstown. This is because of the insane fixation on high career numbers (3,000 hits, 500 HR, 300 wins), without anyone recognizing the fact that, all told, quality is much more important than quantity.
Jose Canseco
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Yeah, this one's pretty funny now. But even before he wrote his tell-all book and appeared on a VH1 reality show, Canseco wasn't a Hall-of-Famer. He was a very good player, but his peak was quite short. Although he had a bit of a renaissance toward the end of his career, Canseco's Cooperstown chances went down the tubes when he was traded to Texas, at the young age of 28.
Paul O'Neill
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Paul was a beloved member of the Yankees who had a fine career, but he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.
Other active players with significant careers are: Juan Gonzalez, Tim Salmon, Shawn Green, and Ichiro Suzuki. None of them are really qualified, although Ichiro has had a good, short career. I just don't think he'll get credit for his time in Japan, leaving him short.
C
Mike Piazza
Yes, Piazza is a great-hitting catcher. He was probably even better at his peak than Berra or Bench. But he is not the best-hitting catcher in baseball history. That honor goes to Mr. Josh Gibson, and no, it is not a trivial point.
Piazza's in given what he's already accomplished. He could certainly use a few more productive years as, say, a DH. But he was such a good hitter at his peak that it doesn't really matter, and he's one of the best players never to win an MVP.
Ivan Rodriguez
Pudge's career is slowing down, which isn't unusual for a soon-to-be 34-year-old catcher, although it took the Tigers by surprise. Of course, a sunrise probably takes the Tigers by surprise.
Signing old catchers to long-term contracts is like peeing on a pit bull; only dumb people think it's a good idea. Pudge was good last year, but took a big step down this season. He has already played well enough to make the Hall, but it would certainly help his chances if he could produce a couple more impact seasons.
The only other active catchers with significant careers are Javier Lopez, Jorge Posada, and Jason Kendall. None of them are Hall-of-Famers, although Posada is much, much better than anyone realizes. Jason Varitek has had some good seasons recently, but he's frickin' 33, and that doesn't bode well for his future.
The last chapter, the pitchers, will be posted soon.
Momentum is bunk
I intended to write an article debunking the popular theory that "momentum" is an important factor in the postseason. Of all the evidence we have of momentum meaning bupkus, people still yell about it. It's a classic example of people not letting their beliefs be affected by reality. Everyone said that the Astros were "finishing" heading into Game 6 of the NLCS, because the Cardinals had the momentum on their side. Then the Astros won, and everyone was proven wrong. I'm still waiting for all the "Hey, I was wrong" articles. I'll be waiting for a while.
I was going to write this article, but then Brian Gunn over at The Hardball Times beat me to it. So, Mr. Gunn's fine article notwithstanding, I'll do the best I can to dispel the myth of "momentum." I'll look at the most recent examples, since they're the ones you all remember.
2004 ALCS: Red Sox .vs. Yankees
Remember this one? The Yankees won the first three games of the ALCS. Not only that, but their Game 3 victory was an absolute skunking, 19-8, at Fenway Park. If ever a team had momentum in a series, the Yankees had it last year. And that momentum got them diddly-squat, as the Red Sox won anyway.
2003 NLCS: Cubs .vs. Marlins
If you'll recall, the Cubs took a 3-games-to-1 lead in this Series. If they had won, everyone would have said that the Cubs were "destined" to win, and that the Marlins couldn't overcome their momentum. But, of course, that's not what happened. Steve Bartman caught the ball, and the Cubs lost. No one points out that someone (not Steve Bartman) stood on the pitcher's mound and allowed those 8 runs, and someone was doing a good job of hitting to score them. But Bartman gets the blame, because it makes for a good story. Thus is the negative influence of journalism on baseball.
2001 World Series: Diamondbacks .vs. Yankees
The Yankees, down 2 games to 1 in New York, were losing Game 4 when Tino Martinez hit a game-tying homer and Derek Jeter hit a walk-off shot in the 10th. The next day the Yankees were losing Game 5 when Scott Brosius tied the game with a homer, and the Yankees won in the 12th. The Yankees, just 6 weeks after September 11, were destined to win a victory. Not just a victory for New York . . . but a victory for America.
Luckily, good pitching trumps jingoism. The D-Backs said "F*** momentum" by winning Game 6 in a lopsided victory, then came back to Win Game 7. The Yankees had the momentum, but it didn't get them anywhere. And every reporter was writing about how the Diamondbacks were finished after Game 5. And none of them were brave enough to write a column after the Series and say, "Everything I said about momentum was a big ol' crock of poop. I'm incredibly stupid."
Think these are the only examples? Read the Gunn article to find out about similar stories in the 1999 NLCS, the 1975 World Series (Fisk hit the homer, but the Red Sox still lost), the 1972 ALCS, the 1947 World Series, and the 1911 World Series.
Momentum is bunk.
I was going to write this article, but then Brian Gunn over at The Hardball Times beat me to it. So, Mr. Gunn's fine article notwithstanding, I'll do the best I can to dispel the myth of "momentum." I'll look at the most recent examples, since they're the ones you all remember.
2004 ALCS: Red Sox .vs. Yankees
Remember this one? The Yankees won the first three games of the ALCS. Not only that, but their Game 3 victory was an absolute skunking, 19-8, at Fenway Park. If ever a team had momentum in a series, the Yankees had it last year. And that momentum got them diddly-squat, as the Red Sox won anyway.
2003 NLCS: Cubs .vs. Marlins
If you'll recall, the Cubs took a 3-games-to-1 lead in this Series. If they had won, everyone would have said that the Cubs were "destined" to win, and that the Marlins couldn't overcome their momentum. But, of course, that's not what happened. Steve Bartman caught the ball, and the Cubs lost. No one points out that someone (not Steve Bartman) stood on the pitcher's mound and allowed those 8 runs, and someone was doing a good job of hitting to score them. But Bartman gets the blame, because it makes for a good story. Thus is the negative influence of journalism on baseball.
2001 World Series: Diamondbacks .vs. Yankees
The Yankees, down 2 games to 1 in New York, were losing Game 4 when Tino Martinez hit a game-tying homer and Derek Jeter hit a walk-off shot in the 10th. The next day the Yankees were losing Game 5 when Scott Brosius tied the game with a homer, and the Yankees won in the 12th. The Yankees, just 6 weeks after September 11, were destined to win a victory. Not just a victory for New York . . . but a victory for America.
Luckily, good pitching trumps jingoism. The D-Backs said "F*** momentum" by winning Game 6 in a lopsided victory, then came back to Win Game 7. The Yankees had the momentum, but it didn't get them anywhere. And every reporter was writing about how the Diamondbacks were finished after Game 5. And none of them were brave enough to write a column after the Series and say, "Everything I said about momentum was a big ol' crock of poop. I'm incredibly stupid."
Think these are the only examples? Read the Gunn article to find out about similar stories in the 1999 NLCS, the 1975 World Series (Fisk hit the homer, but the Red Sox still lost), the 1972 ALCS, the 1947 World Series, and the 1911 World Series.
Momentum is bunk.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Who's eligible
I meant to add this to the last post but forgot. It's a list of who will be eligible for induction in the upcoming Hall of Fame elections. The list of all eligible candidates is usually narrowed down to whomever has an outside shot at the Hall; this is what gets voted on. Here, then, is a list of all remotely reasonable candidates for Hall induction, by year of eligibility:
2005
Rick Aguilera
Albert Belle
Will Clark
Gary Gaetti
Dwight Gooden
Ozzie Guillen
Orel Hershiser
Gregg Jefferies
Lance Johnson
This coming election is interesting, because I don't think any of these candidates will be inducted. The only one I'd vote for is Will Clark, but he'll never make it. I guess Gooden and Hershiser will get the biggest nibble from the voters, but nothing like 50%. Because of this, I think 2005 will be the year some candidates from the past get in. Judging from recent voting, Ron Santo, Gil Hodges, Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter, and Andre Dawson would be the most likely candidates. They'll elect somebody, because the city of Cooperstown would be very mad if they didn't.
2006
Harold Baines
Bobby Bonilla
Jay Buhner
Jose Canseco
Eric Davis
Tony Fernandez
Tony Gwynn
Mark McGwire
Paul O'Neill
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Bret Saberhagen
Ripken will get a monstrous percentage of the vote, and Gwynn won't be far behind him. We'll just have to see about McGwire; I don't think he'll make the first ballot the way people feel about him now, although the good news is that Palmeiro has replaced him as whipping boy of the media. Baines and O'Neill will get a good nibble, but they won't be inducted. Canseco? HA! My vote would go to Gwynn, Ripken, and McGwire, and I'd take a close look at Tony Fernandez.
2007
Chuck Finley
Travis Fryman
David Justice
Chuck Knoblauch
Tim Raines
Good news for Tim Raines after all! There's no one here who'll get any sort of support, leaving Raines as the best candidate in the field! And unless the voters just decide to elect some old faces like Rice or Dawson, Raines stands a fair chance of getting inducted!
2008
Jay Bell
David Cone
Ron Gant
Mark Grace
Rickey Henderson
Jesse Orosco
Mo Vaughn
Matt Williams
I think Rickey will get in here, unless he succeeds in making a comeback to baseball. Grace has an outside shot, but I don't agree with that. Orosco's the only one who stands a chance, and that's highly unlikely.
2009 (tentative): Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin
2010 (tentative): Larry Walker?
2005
Rick Aguilera
Albert Belle
Will Clark
Gary Gaetti
Dwight Gooden
Ozzie Guillen
Orel Hershiser
Gregg Jefferies
Lance Johnson
This coming election is interesting, because I don't think any of these candidates will be inducted. The only one I'd vote for is Will Clark, but he'll never make it. I guess Gooden and Hershiser will get the biggest nibble from the voters, but nothing like 50%. Because of this, I think 2005 will be the year some candidates from the past get in. Judging from recent voting, Ron Santo, Gil Hodges, Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter, and Andre Dawson would be the most likely candidates. They'll elect somebody, because the city of Cooperstown would be very mad if they didn't.
2006
Harold Baines
Bobby Bonilla
Jay Buhner
Jose Canseco
Eric Davis
Tony Fernandez
Tony Gwynn
Mark McGwire
Paul O'Neill
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Bret Saberhagen
Ripken will get a monstrous percentage of the vote, and Gwynn won't be far behind him. We'll just have to see about McGwire; I don't think he'll make the first ballot the way people feel about him now, although the good news is that Palmeiro has replaced him as whipping boy of the media. Baines and O'Neill will get a good nibble, but they won't be inducted. Canseco? HA! My vote would go to Gwynn, Ripken, and McGwire, and I'd take a close look at Tony Fernandez.
2007
Chuck Finley
Travis Fryman
David Justice
Chuck Knoblauch
Tim Raines
Good news for Tim Raines after all! There's no one here who'll get any sort of support, leaving Raines as the best candidate in the field! And unless the voters just decide to elect some old faces like Rice or Dawson, Raines stands a fair chance of getting inducted!
2008
Jay Bell
David Cone
Ron Gant
Mark Grace
Rickey Henderson
Jesse Orosco
Mo Vaughn
Matt Williams
I think Rickey will get in here, unless he succeeds in making a comeback to baseball. Grace has an outside shot, but I don't agree with that. Orosco's the only one who stands a chance, and that's highly unlikely.
2009 (tentative): Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin
2010 (tentative): Larry Walker?
Current players Pt. 3
LF
Barry Bonds
Yes, Bonds was a Hall-of-Famer before his career mysteriously revitalized in 2001. In fact, I could argue that the best player of the 1990s was not Ken Griffey, Jr.; it was Barry Bonds. This was true and readily apparent even before their careers went zooming off in opposite directions in 2001. This is fodder for another article, but suffice to say that Bonds' career was Cooperstown-worthy before he hit 73 HR and became one of the most dominant players in sports history.
We can't question Bonds' quality; if he's not a Hall-of-Famer, no one is. It's a matter of steroids. Bonds' temperament and demeanor really kept people from recognizing his long-term value, as they just didn't accept that such a difficult person was better than good ol' Junior. But it's true.
So steroids it is. In short, Bonds was such an enormously amazing player, we have to have more evidence to keep him out of the Hall. Yeah, I know, no one really doubts that he did steroids. His is the only case where the statistical evidence itself is proof enough of steroid use (no one has ever brought their career to a whole different plane at age 35).
But even with all of this, can we really keep Barry out of the Hall? I'm not going to throw out the sensational garbage about Barry being an "insult to the game." It's not as simple as that. Much as I might dislike him and all that he stands for, I just can't make a good enough case to keep him out of Cooperstown. He was just that damn good.
Rickey Henderson
Retired 2003 Eligible for Hall December 2008
Why is everyone suddenly not sure if Rickey Henderson is a Hall-of-Famer? Hall voters typically overestimate the importance of stolen bases and "small-ball." Why in the world isn't Rickey Henderson getting his due as one of the 15 or 20 best players ever? He was the best leadoff hitter of all time, with a .401 career OBP (against a league average of .334), stole an all-time record 1406 bases (with an 81% success rate) and even had pretty good power, hitting 297 career HR and sporting an above-average .419 career slugging percentage. He's the all-time leader in runs scored, has 3,055 career hits, and his second all-time with 2,190 walks.
What's the problem?
Tim Raines
Retired 2002 Eligible for Hall December 2007
Somebody asked me once who the best player not in the Hall of Fame was. I said something like Bert Blyleven or Dick Allen at the time. But in 2007, the answer will be Tim Raines. And it won't even be close.
Raines wasn't just a great player, he was an excellent player. The problem was that his skills were nearly identical to Rickey Henderson's; stolen bases, walks, and a great leadoff hitter. This wouldn't be such a problem, except that their careers coincided almost perfectly. Henderson played from 1979-2003. Raines played from 1979-2002. It's some bizarre coincidence that two amazing players with almost the exact same skills would be in the major leagues at exactly the same time.
But it's bad news for Raines. Bad news because Raines wasn't as good as Rickey. I'd rate Rickey the 4th-best LF of all time (behind Ted Williams, Bonds, and Stan Musial), and Raines would probably be 6th (behind Carl Yastrzemski and ahead of Willie Stargell). Raines just wasn't quite as good as Rickey, and that's how people think of him: not good enough. Raines never won an MVP (although he deserved to woin at least one, maybe two), whereas Rickey was the AL MVP in 1990 (and he deserved probably two more). And if the voters aren't sure about letting Rickey in, Raines doesn't stand a chance. And that's an absolute tragedy, but Tim Raines is a Hall-of-Famer just as much as anybody.
Luis Gonzalez
No, Luis doesn't belong in the Hall, but he's had a fine career. Even before he had a breakout year with Arizona in 2001, Luis was a quality hitter for quite a while. He's at the top of the list of "Guys who Aren't Hall-of-Famers, But We Like Them a Lot Anyhow."
Albert Belle
Retired 2000 Eligible for Hall: December 2005
No, I don't think Albert belongs in the Hall of Fame. But if he'd played a full career, he probably would have earned a spot. As it is, he retired at age 34 with some good seasons still left in him. As it is, he hit at a career 369/564/295 clip. People let Albert's attitude get in the way of their opinion of him. And while it's true that Albert had one heck of an attitude problem early in his career, I don't remember hearing anything really negative about him after he left Cleveland and went to the White Sox. And as I mentioned earlier, a player's personality doesn't have as much effect on wins and losses as we think.
I mentioned race in passing as an issue in the Dick Allen comment. I think it applies to Albert as well. No, I don't think everyone hated Albert just because he was black. But I think that a lot of people (whether they admit it or not) see black people as violent and scary. When we see someone or meet them, we project onto them all of our opinions about their race, sex, ethnicity, etc. When we see a black man, our thinking about all black men will color our perceptions of the individual. This is an unfortunate psychological fact, which is further compounded by everyone's refusal to admit it, especially about themselves.
When Albert Belle comes along and has an attitude, we look down upon him and see him as a menace. This is not just because of Albert, but because of our subconscious beliefs about all black people. If Albert were Norwegian, we would be much less likely to draw conclusions about his attitude, because we don't have a preconceived notion of Norwegians. It is not race exclusively; no one (well, almost no one) looks at Albert and says, "I hate him because he's black." But we let the fact that he is black color our opinions and the conclusions we draw about him.
We're much more likely to see a black man as a threat and an attitude problem; police are more likely to shoot a fleeing suspect who is black. Albert's actions and attitude would be, in my opinion, much less of a problem if he were white. Albert would not have gotten nearly as much negative publicity if he were white. We tend to excuse, and sometimes admire, white people who are fierce or show a bit of an attitude. Quick, think of a white person in sports accused of being an "attitude problem." Can't think of one? How many blacks can you think of? Allen Iverson, Dick Allen, Albert, Milton Bradley, Bonds, etc. This is because a double standard exists for blacks and whites. Get an image in your head: a player who constantly fights, sometimes even physically, with teammates, someone whose tirades on the baseball field are violent spectacles, someone who is considered to be quick to anger and even physically threatening. Now, am I describing Milton Bradley . . . or Billy Martin? One is a disgraced player seen as a big problem who will likely be traded. The other is a hero, whose antics are tolerated and even celebrated (imagine Bradley getting a job as a manager). Of course, these are just two examples. They don't prove anything. But imagine one thing for me -- imagine if Billy Martin were black. Would he be seen as a gutsy fighter? Or as a menace to the game and a felon to be prosecuted?
These thoughts do not make us sleep sound in our beds. They make us question ourselves to see if, perhaps, we ourselves are part of the problem. Few people are brave enough to do so, as evidenced by the millions of white people who refuse to admit that they harbor even a tinge of racism, and even scoff at those who look to point it out. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say, "I'm not racist, but..." and then reel off a racist remark.
Baseball is not in the business of solving problems. It is in the interest of covering them up so it can make money. Baseball will never admit to a race problem, and if it does pop up (Al Campanis), it is said to be just one person's view. This may not have much to do with Albert Belle, but it's something that needs to be said. I wish someone had said it before now.
Other active left fielders with notable careers are Moises Alou and Brian Giles. Giles, despite being one of the most underrated players in history, does not look like he'll earn a Cooperstown spot. Alou's had a good career, but ain't even close.
CF
Bernie Williams & Ken Griffey, Jr.
What if I were to tell you that Bernie Williams belongs in the Hall of Fame? Would you believe me? I don't think I can convince you otherwise if you don't agree. But look at what Bernie done in his career. Compare his career to Ken Griffey, Jr.'s. They are so close as to be disturbing. Williams' career hitting line (thru 2004) is 388/488/301. Griffey's is 377/560/292. Griffey has a big edge in slugging, but Bernie has a better OBP and average (which is more important). Griffey has played in much friendlier hitting parks than Bernie, who doesn't get a lot of help from Yankee Stadium, despite being a switch-hitter. Griffey has a small edge and baserunning and a big edge in defense. But Griffey's defense has been horribly overrated by people who decided he was the next Willie Mays when he came up as a rookie and haven't let his actual play in the field change their minds. Griffey is a perfect example of marketing out of control; I'm sure he sells a lot of tennis shoes, but people actually started believing he was the best baseball player in years. But I'll say this: It doesn't matter how many things you do well; it matters how well you do them. Griffey was a 5-tool player, but NOT ALL TOOLS ARE CREATED EQUAL. Hitting is the most important thing BY FAR that anyone can do, and if Griffey was a better hitter, it wasn't by much. But Williams was actually more consistent; while Griffey has had a lot of trouble with injuries (even before Cincinnati), Bernie has been (before this year), a consistently great player. He hasn't had any one season better than Griffey's best, but the whole might be better than the sum of the parts.
So I'll agree that Griffey was the better player. And I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame. But so does Bernie Williams.
Rant Detour
Now I'll tackle the subject I mentioned earlier: the myth that Griffey was the best player of the 90's. Forget about what's happened since 1999; forget that Barry Bonds became the best player since Ruth and that Griffey became a colossal disappointment in Cincinnati. Considering what we knew after the 1999 season: who had the better career, Griffey or Bonds?
Barry Bonds, and it's not even close. And wouldn't you know it, the MVP voters agree with me? I count 1 for Griffey and 3 for Bonds, a pretty commanding lead. And yet the same people who voted on these awards were calling Griffey the Player of the 90's in unison. Why?
Well, if you mean the best player of the 90's, it's Bonds, as I said. But I think they really mean the player they liked the most. And these two are often confused. Even sportswriters are confused into thinking that exciting players are good players. You'd think, from listening to commentators, that two of the most high-impact players in the game are Dave Roberts and Scott Podsednik. Because they both lay down bunts, steal bases, and do "all of the little things." This may be true, but there's a reason they call them the "little" things. The reason that Podsednik and Roberts do these things is that they can't do the most important thing: THEY CAN'T HIT! Roberts has never been an above-average player, let alone an excellent one. And Podsednik gets caught stealing too often for even his stolen bases to mean a whole lot. So give me big ol' boring Adam Dunn any day.
So let's agree that we mean the best player, not the player who is really nice and much more likely to lead an ad campaign and answers my questions in the locker room. Here is my proof that Bonds was the player of the 1990s.
Hitting-wise it's not even close. Bonds did everything well. He was a great slugger, he hit for a high average, he drew lots of walks, and he didn't strike out often. His hitting stats are similar to Ted Williams'; everything looks good. He was also a good base stealer; he stole 460 bases with a 78% success rate. He had 8 Gold Gloves, although this is an egregious case of a player winning a Gold Glove with his bat. Bonds was above-average in left field, but it's a fantasy to suggest that he deserved 8 Gold Gloves.
So this is our picture of a pre-2000 Bonds. He was an all-around amazing hitter with very good base-stealing and above-average defense. Through the 1999 season, Bonds had a career 409/559/288 hitting line (league average 334/407/266). He had 445 career HR, 460 SB, 2,010 hits and 1,430 BB against 1,112 K. He had won 3 MVPs and 8 Gold Gloves.
Ken Griffey, Jr. was a good hitter. He was an excellent slugger, but he was not an all-around threat. He hit for a high average, but not that high. He drew walks, but not that many. And he struck out much more often than Bonds. Griffey stole some bases, but not that many (Griffey's speed was the most-exaggerated part of his game). He was a fine center fielder, but he was not that great. The metric of Fielding Runs gives Griffey a total of 27 through the year 1999. Bonds has 51, nearly twice as many. Griffey won 10 Gold Gloves, although he and Bonds both benefited from their hitting prowess in this department.
So here is our picture of a pre-2000 Ken Griffey, Jr. He was a true slugger who otherwise hit pretty well with decent stealing abilities and solid defense. He had a career 380/569/299 hitting line (league average 338/415/268). He had 398 career HR, 167 SB (for a 74% success rate), 1,742 hits and 747 BB against 984 K.
Are there any other factors to take into account? The most important is that Bonds was hitting in the National League, Griffey in the American. So we must adjust Griffey's hitting stats downward to get an accurate picture. Another important point is that Bonds is 5 years older than Griffey; he got to the majors in 1986, Griffey in 1989. So we would expect Bonds' raw numbers (HR, SB, etc.) to be a little higher for this reason. But we would expect Griffey's percentages (OBP, SLG, AVG) to be higher, since he was younger by the time the decade ended. Griffey had not spent many years declining, whereas Bonds was 35 years old, and his declining years had brought down his OBP/SLG/AVG from where they were in his prime.
Given all of this information, what is our decision?
BONDS: 409/559/288, 445 HR, 460 SB (78%), 51 Fielding Runs, 1430 BB:1112 K, 3 MVP, 8 GG.
GRIFFEY: 380/569/299, 398 HR, 167 SB (74%), 27 Fielding Runs, 747 BB:984 K, 1 MVP, 10 GG.
It's a landslide folks. Griffey doesn't even have a clear advantage in defense, the one aspect even I anticipated he would get the edge. Even if you think the defensive stats are wrong and Griffey really was great (remote but possible considering the accuracy of defensive stats), Bonds has a strong edge in baserunning, with a huge advantage in stolen bases and even an advantage in success rate. But the hitting is ludicrous; Bonds wins easily. The advantage of 29 points in OBP are almost enough, but when you consider that Griffey hadn't entered his decline phase yet and had the advantages of the AL, even his slim lead in SLG and AVG are rendered insignificant. There is simply no other reasonable conclusion to the question of who the greatest player of the 90's was.
The conventional wisdom is that Griffey was the greatest player of his era and then struggled in Cincinnati, whereas Bonds was just plain good before his breakout 2001. This is hogwash. Bonds was the best player of the 90's far and away, and Griffey's reputation is based on the bizarre fixation for well-rounded players. People decided Griffey was the best player in baseball when he arrived in Seattle in 1989. And he played well enough to keep that lie alive, in spite of what Barry Bonds was doing. I'm in the business of destroying misconceptions, and I hope this one dies someday. If I've played any part in bringing that about, then this blog has not been for nothing.
OK, so I went on a bit there. To sum up the center fielders:
Jim Edmonds
I think he belongs in the Hall so long as he keeps up what he's doing now for a few more years. He was one of the 10 best players in baseball even back in Anaheim, combining great defense with superb hitting (just check out his hitting stats). The one thing he didn't have was a big, MVP-caliber year, which he furnished in 2004. Too bad two other guys did it on the same team.
Other active center fielders with significant careers are Steve Finley and Andruw Jones. Finley is good, but no Cooperstown. Andruw will probably get there, because he stands a good chance at 500 homers. But his defense is starting to seep away, and we'll soon be left with a one-dimensional slugger who hits .260 and strikes out a lot. And unless Andruw can hold onto his defense, he'll just be another, less valuable, Sammy Sosa. And was Andruw as good defensively as they say he was? It's just possible that he was better.
Back tomorrow with RF and C. Who knew I could fit 2 rants in one entry?
Barry Bonds
Yes, Bonds was a Hall-of-Famer before his career mysteriously revitalized in 2001. In fact, I could argue that the best player of the 1990s was not Ken Griffey, Jr.; it was Barry Bonds. This was true and readily apparent even before their careers went zooming off in opposite directions in 2001. This is fodder for another article, but suffice to say that Bonds' career was Cooperstown-worthy before he hit 73 HR and became one of the most dominant players in sports history.
We can't question Bonds' quality; if he's not a Hall-of-Famer, no one is. It's a matter of steroids. Bonds' temperament and demeanor really kept people from recognizing his long-term value, as they just didn't accept that such a difficult person was better than good ol' Junior. But it's true.
So steroids it is. In short, Bonds was such an enormously amazing player, we have to have more evidence to keep him out of the Hall. Yeah, I know, no one really doubts that he did steroids. His is the only case where the statistical evidence itself is proof enough of steroid use (no one has ever brought their career to a whole different plane at age 35).
But even with all of this, can we really keep Barry out of the Hall? I'm not going to throw out the sensational garbage about Barry being an "insult to the game." It's not as simple as that. Much as I might dislike him and all that he stands for, I just can't make a good enough case to keep him out of Cooperstown. He was just that damn good.
Rickey Henderson
Retired 2003 Eligible for Hall December 2008
Why is everyone suddenly not sure if Rickey Henderson is a Hall-of-Famer? Hall voters typically overestimate the importance of stolen bases and "small-ball." Why in the world isn't Rickey Henderson getting his due as one of the 15 or 20 best players ever? He was the best leadoff hitter of all time, with a .401 career OBP (against a league average of .334), stole an all-time record 1406 bases (with an 81% success rate) and even had pretty good power, hitting 297 career HR and sporting an above-average .419 career slugging percentage. He's the all-time leader in runs scored, has 3,055 career hits, and his second all-time with 2,190 walks.
What's the problem?
Tim Raines
Retired 2002 Eligible for Hall December 2007
Somebody asked me once who the best player not in the Hall of Fame was. I said something like Bert Blyleven or Dick Allen at the time. But in 2007, the answer will be Tim Raines. And it won't even be close.
Raines wasn't just a great player, he was an excellent player. The problem was that his skills were nearly identical to Rickey Henderson's; stolen bases, walks, and a great leadoff hitter. This wouldn't be such a problem, except that their careers coincided almost perfectly. Henderson played from 1979-2003. Raines played from 1979-2002. It's some bizarre coincidence that two amazing players with almost the exact same skills would be in the major leagues at exactly the same time.
But it's bad news for Raines. Bad news because Raines wasn't as good as Rickey. I'd rate Rickey the 4th-best LF of all time (behind Ted Williams, Bonds, and Stan Musial), and Raines would probably be 6th (behind Carl Yastrzemski and ahead of Willie Stargell). Raines just wasn't quite as good as Rickey, and that's how people think of him: not good enough. Raines never won an MVP (although he deserved to woin at least one, maybe two), whereas Rickey was the AL MVP in 1990 (and he deserved probably two more). And if the voters aren't sure about letting Rickey in, Raines doesn't stand a chance. And that's an absolute tragedy, but Tim Raines is a Hall-of-Famer just as much as anybody.
Luis Gonzalez
No, Luis doesn't belong in the Hall, but he's had a fine career. Even before he had a breakout year with Arizona in 2001, Luis was a quality hitter for quite a while. He's at the top of the list of "Guys who Aren't Hall-of-Famers, But We Like Them a Lot Anyhow."
Albert Belle
Retired 2000 Eligible for Hall: December 2005
No, I don't think Albert belongs in the Hall of Fame. But if he'd played a full career, he probably would have earned a spot. As it is, he retired at age 34 with some good seasons still left in him. As it is, he hit at a career 369/564/295 clip. People let Albert's attitude get in the way of their opinion of him. And while it's true that Albert had one heck of an attitude problem early in his career, I don't remember hearing anything really negative about him after he left Cleveland and went to the White Sox. And as I mentioned earlier, a player's personality doesn't have as much effect on wins and losses as we think.
I mentioned race in passing as an issue in the Dick Allen comment. I think it applies to Albert as well. No, I don't think everyone hated Albert just because he was black. But I think that a lot of people (whether they admit it or not) see black people as violent and scary. When we see someone or meet them, we project onto them all of our opinions about their race, sex, ethnicity, etc. When we see a black man, our thinking about all black men will color our perceptions of the individual. This is an unfortunate psychological fact, which is further compounded by everyone's refusal to admit it, especially about themselves.
When Albert Belle comes along and has an attitude, we look down upon him and see him as a menace. This is not just because of Albert, but because of our subconscious beliefs about all black people. If Albert were Norwegian, we would be much less likely to draw conclusions about his attitude, because we don't have a preconceived notion of Norwegians. It is not race exclusively; no one (well, almost no one) looks at Albert and says, "I hate him because he's black." But we let the fact that he is black color our opinions and the conclusions we draw about him.
We're much more likely to see a black man as a threat and an attitude problem; police are more likely to shoot a fleeing suspect who is black. Albert's actions and attitude would be, in my opinion, much less of a problem if he were white. Albert would not have gotten nearly as much negative publicity if he were white. We tend to excuse, and sometimes admire, white people who are fierce or show a bit of an attitude. Quick, think of a white person in sports accused of being an "attitude problem." Can't think of one? How many blacks can you think of? Allen Iverson, Dick Allen, Albert, Milton Bradley, Bonds, etc. This is because a double standard exists for blacks and whites. Get an image in your head: a player who constantly fights, sometimes even physically, with teammates, someone whose tirades on the baseball field are violent spectacles, someone who is considered to be quick to anger and even physically threatening. Now, am I describing Milton Bradley . . . or Billy Martin? One is a disgraced player seen as a big problem who will likely be traded. The other is a hero, whose antics are tolerated and even celebrated (imagine Bradley getting a job as a manager). Of course, these are just two examples. They don't prove anything. But imagine one thing for me -- imagine if Billy Martin were black. Would he be seen as a gutsy fighter? Or as a menace to the game and a felon to be prosecuted?
These thoughts do not make us sleep sound in our beds. They make us question ourselves to see if, perhaps, we ourselves are part of the problem. Few people are brave enough to do so, as evidenced by the millions of white people who refuse to admit that they harbor even a tinge of racism, and even scoff at those who look to point it out. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say, "I'm not racist, but..." and then reel off a racist remark.
Baseball is not in the business of solving problems. It is in the interest of covering them up so it can make money. Baseball will never admit to a race problem, and if it does pop up (Al Campanis), it is said to be just one person's view. This may not have much to do with Albert Belle, but it's something that needs to be said. I wish someone had said it before now.
Other active left fielders with notable careers are Moises Alou and Brian Giles. Giles, despite being one of the most underrated players in history, does not look like he'll earn a Cooperstown spot. Alou's had a good career, but ain't even close.
CF
Bernie Williams & Ken Griffey, Jr.
What if I were to tell you that Bernie Williams belongs in the Hall of Fame? Would you believe me? I don't think I can convince you otherwise if you don't agree. But look at what Bernie done in his career. Compare his career to Ken Griffey, Jr.'s. They are so close as to be disturbing. Williams' career hitting line (thru 2004) is 388/488/301. Griffey's is 377/560/292. Griffey has a big edge in slugging, but Bernie has a better OBP and average (which is more important). Griffey has played in much friendlier hitting parks than Bernie, who doesn't get a lot of help from Yankee Stadium, despite being a switch-hitter. Griffey has a small edge and baserunning and a big edge in defense. But Griffey's defense has been horribly overrated by people who decided he was the next Willie Mays when he came up as a rookie and haven't let his actual play in the field change their minds. Griffey is a perfect example of marketing out of control; I'm sure he sells a lot of tennis shoes, but people actually started believing he was the best baseball player in years. But I'll say this: It doesn't matter how many things you do well; it matters how well you do them. Griffey was a 5-tool player, but NOT ALL TOOLS ARE CREATED EQUAL. Hitting is the most important thing BY FAR that anyone can do, and if Griffey was a better hitter, it wasn't by much. But Williams was actually more consistent; while Griffey has had a lot of trouble with injuries (even before Cincinnati), Bernie has been (before this year), a consistently great player. He hasn't had any one season better than Griffey's best, but the whole might be better than the sum of the parts.
So I'll agree that Griffey was the better player. And I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame. But so does Bernie Williams.
Rant Detour
Now I'll tackle the subject I mentioned earlier: the myth that Griffey was the best player of the 90's. Forget about what's happened since 1999; forget that Barry Bonds became the best player since Ruth and that Griffey became a colossal disappointment in Cincinnati. Considering what we knew after the 1999 season: who had the better career, Griffey or Bonds?
Barry Bonds, and it's not even close. And wouldn't you know it, the MVP voters agree with me? I count 1 for Griffey and 3 for Bonds, a pretty commanding lead. And yet the same people who voted on these awards were calling Griffey the Player of the 90's in unison. Why?
Well, if you mean the best player of the 90's, it's Bonds, as I said. But I think they really mean the player they liked the most. And these two are often confused. Even sportswriters are confused into thinking that exciting players are good players. You'd think, from listening to commentators, that two of the most high-impact players in the game are Dave Roberts and Scott Podsednik. Because they both lay down bunts, steal bases, and do "all of the little things." This may be true, but there's a reason they call them the "little" things. The reason that Podsednik and Roberts do these things is that they can't do the most important thing: THEY CAN'T HIT! Roberts has never been an above-average player, let alone an excellent one. And Podsednik gets caught stealing too often for even his stolen bases to mean a whole lot. So give me big ol' boring Adam Dunn any day.
So let's agree that we mean the best player, not the player who is really nice and much more likely to lead an ad campaign and answers my questions in the locker room. Here is my proof that Bonds was the player of the 1990s.
Hitting-wise it's not even close. Bonds did everything well. He was a great slugger, he hit for a high average, he drew lots of walks, and he didn't strike out often. His hitting stats are similar to Ted Williams'; everything looks good. He was also a good base stealer; he stole 460 bases with a 78% success rate. He had 8 Gold Gloves, although this is an egregious case of a player winning a Gold Glove with his bat. Bonds was above-average in left field, but it's a fantasy to suggest that he deserved 8 Gold Gloves.
So this is our picture of a pre-2000 Bonds. He was an all-around amazing hitter with very good base-stealing and above-average defense. Through the 1999 season, Bonds had a career 409/559/288 hitting line (league average 334/407/266). He had 445 career HR, 460 SB, 2,010 hits and 1,430 BB against 1,112 K. He had won 3 MVPs and 8 Gold Gloves.
Ken Griffey, Jr. was a good hitter. He was an excellent slugger, but he was not an all-around threat. He hit for a high average, but not that high. He drew walks, but not that many. And he struck out much more often than Bonds. Griffey stole some bases, but not that many (Griffey's speed was the most-exaggerated part of his game). He was a fine center fielder, but he was not that great. The metric of Fielding Runs gives Griffey a total of 27 through the year 1999. Bonds has 51, nearly twice as many. Griffey won 10 Gold Gloves, although he and Bonds both benefited from their hitting prowess in this department.
So here is our picture of a pre-2000 Ken Griffey, Jr. He was a true slugger who otherwise hit pretty well with decent stealing abilities and solid defense. He had a career 380/569/299 hitting line (league average 338/415/268). He had 398 career HR, 167 SB (for a 74% success rate), 1,742 hits and 747 BB against 984 K.
Are there any other factors to take into account? The most important is that Bonds was hitting in the National League, Griffey in the American. So we must adjust Griffey's hitting stats downward to get an accurate picture. Another important point is that Bonds is 5 years older than Griffey; he got to the majors in 1986, Griffey in 1989. So we would expect Bonds' raw numbers (HR, SB, etc.) to be a little higher for this reason. But we would expect Griffey's percentages (OBP, SLG, AVG) to be higher, since he was younger by the time the decade ended. Griffey had not spent many years declining, whereas Bonds was 35 years old, and his declining years had brought down his OBP/SLG/AVG from where they were in his prime.
Given all of this information, what is our decision?
BONDS: 409/559/288, 445 HR, 460 SB (78%), 51 Fielding Runs, 1430 BB:1112 K, 3 MVP, 8 GG.
GRIFFEY: 380/569/299, 398 HR, 167 SB (74%), 27 Fielding Runs, 747 BB:984 K, 1 MVP, 10 GG.
It's a landslide folks. Griffey doesn't even have a clear advantage in defense, the one aspect even I anticipated he would get the edge. Even if you think the defensive stats are wrong and Griffey really was great (remote but possible considering the accuracy of defensive stats), Bonds has a strong edge in baserunning, with a huge advantage in stolen bases and even an advantage in success rate. But the hitting is ludicrous; Bonds wins easily. The advantage of 29 points in OBP are almost enough, but when you consider that Griffey hadn't entered his decline phase yet and had the advantages of the AL, even his slim lead in SLG and AVG are rendered insignificant. There is simply no other reasonable conclusion to the question of who the greatest player of the 90's was.
The conventional wisdom is that Griffey was the greatest player of his era and then struggled in Cincinnati, whereas Bonds was just plain good before his breakout 2001. This is hogwash. Bonds was the best player of the 90's far and away, and Griffey's reputation is based on the bizarre fixation for well-rounded players. People decided Griffey was the best player in baseball when he arrived in Seattle in 1989. And he played well enough to keep that lie alive, in spite of what Barry Bonds was doing. I'm in the business of destroying misconceptions, and I hope this one dies someday. If I've played any part in bringing that about, then this blog has not been for nothing.
OK, so I went on a bit there. To sum up the center fielders:
Jim Edmonds
I think he belongs in the Hall so long as he keeps up what he's doing now for a few more years. He was one of the 10 best players in baseball even back in Anaheim, combining great defense with superb hitting (just check out his hitting stats). The one thing he didn't have was a big, MVP-caliber year, which he furnished in 2004. Too bad two other guys did it on the same team.
Other active center fielders with significant careers are Steve Finley and Andruw Jones. Finley is good, but no Cooperstown. Andruw will probably get there, because he stands a good chance at 500 homers. But his defense is starting to seep away, and we'll soon be left with a one-dimensional slugger who hits .260 and strikes out a lot. And unless Andruw can hold onto his defense, he'll just be another, less valuable, Sammy Sosa. And was Andruw as good defensively as they say he was? It's just possible that he was better.
Back tomorrow with RF and C. Who knew I could fit 2 rants in one entry?
Thursday, October 20, 2005
White Sox .vs. Astros
More talk about pitching, pitching, pitching. The Houston Astros posted a 2.72 ERA for the entire NLCS, striking out 42 in 53 IP and allowing just 3 HR. More importantly, the Astros allowed 0 unearned runs (compared to 5 allowed by the Cardinals) and the Astros were able to hold the Cardinal offense to 16 runs in 5 games -- just barely more than 3 runs/game. During the regular season, the Cardinals scored nearly 5 runs/game. So the credit goes to the excellent Astros pitching staff and defense. The Cardinals hit 276/289/209 for the entire NLCS. That's a truly amazing accomplishment for the Astros. The Astros didn't hit that well themselves (329/409/278), but they didn't have to. The Cardinals pitched well, but not well enough. Kudos to the Astros for playing very well, and congratulations on winning the first pennant in franchise history. The only franchise older than the Astros never to get to the World Series is the Senators/Rangers, who've been around since 1961 and never won a pennant. Now that the Astros have won their first, the next oldest franchise without a pennant is the Washington Nationals, since 1969. The World Series will be good for one franchise either way; the White Sox haven't won a World Series since 1917, and the Astros have never won one since they started play in 1962.
It will be very interesting to see how the World Series plays out. I'm inclined to favor the White Sox, because of their fearsome starters. But if the NLCS taught us anything, it's that momentum means absolutely nothing.
It will be very interesting to see how the World Series plays out. I'm inclined to favor the White Sox, because of their fearsome starters. But if the NLCS taught us anything, it's that momentum means absolutely nothing.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Current players Pt. 2
SS
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Ripken is, in my opinion, the third-best shortstop ever. He's a Hall-of-Famer, not that anyone really disagrees. Ripken's reputation is mighty, and his numbers back it up absolutely. He should sail into the Hall, and rightfully so.
Alex Rodriguez
It will be interesting to see what happens to A-Rod if he finishes his career as a third baseman. There's not going to be anything keeping him from Cooperstown, but it will be more difficult to define his career in the historical sense if he splits his career evenly between short and third. As a shortstop, he's really second only to Honus Wagner. As a third baseman, he's right up there with Schmidt and Brett. If his career keeps going as planned (and this year is a very good sign), A-Rod will be among the elite in the Hall of Fame.
Barry Larkin
Retired 2004 Eligible for Hall: December 2009
Larkin really doesn't get enough credit for what he did. He's been underrated for two main reasons. One, he was multi-talented, but there was no one thing he was truly great at. Was he a good shortstop? Yes, he was a very good shortstop, if not an amazing one. Was he a good basestealer? Absolutely. Yes, only stole 377 career bases, but he did it with an impressive 83% success rate. Did he hit for a high average? Yes, a career .295 hitter, with 5 full seasons above .300. Was he a disciplined hitter? Yes, he had a career .371 OBP, with 939 career walks against just 817 career strikeouts. Was he a slugger? For a shortstop, absolutely. He slugged a career .444, whereas the league average for shortstops during that period was .361.
There is no one number that makes Barry look like a Hall-of-Famer. But when you put together all the things he did so well, there's no doubt in my mind that he deserves a plaque in Cooperstown.
The other, perhaps more significant reason, that Barry is underrated, is that he was always overshadowed by someone else. He began his career in the shadow of Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken, Jr. He wasn't as good a hitter as Ripken, and he wasn't as good at defense as Ozzie was. Then, when Ripken and Ozzie started to fade and Barry entered his prime, three guys named Jeter, A-Rod, and Nomar showed up and redefined how we saw the shortstop position. So there was never any significant amount of time where Barry was regarded as the best shortstop in baseball. But this is just an accident of history. When you compare Barry's career with other shortstops, he rates very well. He's not at the level of A-Rod, Robin Yount, or Luke Appling, but he's a notch above guys like George Davis, Ozzie Smith, and Joe Cronin. He is indeed a deserving Hall-of-Famer. I don't think there's any way he'll get in on the first ballot, but hopefully the voters will give him his due in time, as they did with Sandberg.
Tony Fernandez
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Tony's no Hall-of-Famer, but he was a darn good shortstop for a long, long time. He was even among the 10 best players in the league for a couple of years. He doesn't get his credit, I think, because he bounced around to so many teams. But he was a very good shortstop and a fine hitter. His career hitting line is 347/399/288, compared to a league average of 332/407/264. The average for a shortstop over the same period was 321/370/260, so Tony was a valuable commodity: a good defensive shortstop who hit quite well for the position.
But after playing 8 seasons with the Blue Jays, Tony played two with the Padres, half a season with the Mets (he was traded back to Toronto in mid-season), one season with the Reds, one with the Yankees, one with the Indians, two more with the Blue Jays, and half a season with Milwaukee before being traded back to Toronto to finish his career. In this sense, he was similar to Bobby Bonds; someone whose true value was obscured by the raw number of teams he played for.
Julio Franco
There's been a good deal of attention focused on Julio since his renaissance in Atlanta. While I can't deny that Julio is the best old non-pitcher ever, it doesn't make him a Hall-of-Famer. Julio does have a lot of hits (2521), but that's really his only true talent. He emerged as more of a slugger as his career went on, but the truth is that Julio spent most of his career as a below-average shortstop/second baseman. He's a fine hitter, and might be one of the 30 or 40 best shortstops ever, but he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.
Derek Jeter
Jeter isn't a Hall-of-Famer yet, but if he keeps his career going at a strong pace, he'll make it with ease. The sportswriters might just waive the 5-year waiting period to vote in their favorite son. Jeter was actually named baseball's poster child by Tim Kurkjian earlier this year. While I can't deny that Jeter calls his manager "Mr. Torre" and passes the butter without being asked, his qualities as a player have been overrated. Jeter has the reputation of being a great shortstop, but the truth is that his early career saw him as being below-average at his position. This goes against what most people think; they see Jeter make flashy plays and call him the second coming of Christ. But good fielding isn't about being flashy. You can't just trust your eyes, nor can you trust your biases. Jeter gets extra credit for being a Yankee. He gets extra credit for being "clutch," despite the fact that he plays on a team that gives its players more chances to play in clutch situations (like the World Series) than any other. Maybe the most clutch World Series performer in baseball is Frank Thomas, but we don't know it, because his team has never gotten there. There isn't equality of opportunity in "clutch." And of course, we all notice when Jeter makes great plays in "clutch" situations. But if he strikes out in the same situtation, our mind blocks it out because it doesn't fit with our pre-determined ideas. We should stop talking about Jeter being "clutch" and start talking about how good a hitter he is for a shortstop (386/461/314 career).
Jay Bell
Retired 2003 Eligible for Hall: December 2008
No, he's not Cooperstown-worthy, but Jay Bell was one of the most underrated players of the past 20 years.
Omar Vizquel
I could tell you that Omar Vizquel is not a good defensive shortstop, but you simply wouldn't believe me. Everyone believes that he is, and nothing I say will change the fact. But the ugly truth is that Omar is not nearly as strong defensively as people think. Steve Phillips advanced the argument that Omar is a Hall-of-Famer because his lifetime fielding percentage is higher than Ozzie Smith's. But that's the most bone-headed thing Steve Phillips has ever said. Lefty O'Doul's lifetime batting average is higher than Hank Aaron's; does that make him a Hall-of-Famer? Dave Kingman has more career home runs than Carlton Fisk. Does that make him a Hall-of-Famer? You can't apply this standard to any reasonable Hall-of-Fame argument. Ozzie Smith was more than just a fielding percentage, as is Omar. And when you consider the fact that Omar was not a great shortstop, and that he was a below-average hitter, we have to conclude that he's not a Hall-of-Famer.
(It was an odd week on espn.com when Steve Phillips composed his list of most underrated players, and Rob Neyer composed his list of the most overrated. Vizquel made both of them).
Nomar Garciaparra & Miguel Tejada
If Tejada can put together some more MVP-caliber campaigns and keep his career on the right path, he stands a good chance to make Cooperstown. Nomar was off to a Hall-of-Fame start, but will have to get his career going again if he wants to make it. And considering the nosedive his reputation has taken in the past 2 years, he might not make it even then.
The only other active shortstops with notable careers are Edgar Renteria and Jose Valentin. If they want to get in the Hall of Fame, they'll have to buy a ticket like everyone else.
3B
Chipper Jones
Chipper's not much in the defense department (and that's an understatement), but he's been an excellent hitter for quite a long time now, and I think he's worked his way into the top 10 third basemen of all time. He would be better served now as a left fielder; I don't really know why the Braves insist on playing him at third.
Edgar Martinez
Retired 2004 Eligible for Hall: December 2009
I don't really have a category for DHs, so I'll put Edgar here. The argument against Edgar is that as a DH, he can't really make the Hall since he didn't play every day. Well, it's patently silly to automatically exclude the DH from the Hall. It's a question of how much you help your team, and a DH just has to hit that much better to make up for the fact that they aren't playing the field.
Did Edgar hit that much better? You're damn right he did. Edgar was the best right-handed hitter of the 1990s. He compiled a 418/516/312 hitting line over 18 seasons, which is about as automatic an induction into Cooperstown as you can get. We still have to make up for the fact that Edgar contributed 0 to his team's defense. But here's a question for you: how much did Frank Thomas contribute to his team's defense? Or Harmon Killebrew? The answer, I think, is 0. My argument is that Edgar was more valuable to his team as a DH than he would have been in the field. Edgar was a much better asset to the Mariners contributing 0 to his team's defense than someone like Thomas or Killebrew, who actually had a negative effect on the team with their defense. If Edgar had played the field, he would have been less valuable, because his defensive negatives would have counteracted his offensive positives. To say that someone has to play the field to make the Hall is silly; we must look at the overall effect they had on team wins. These people think that Edgar would be a Hall-of-Famer if he had played the field, but the truth is that Edgar's absence from the field was not a detriment to his club, but an asset. While most teams are forced to deal with a hitter's negatives in the field to get his positives at the plate, the Mariners got all the positive and none of the negatives. So while some hitters might merit say, 300 points at the plate and take away 50 points in the field, Edgar was 300 at the plate and a 0 in the field. Any way you slice it, Edgar's hitting is enough in and of itself to get him into Cooperstown. But, sadly, he will never make it because the voters still hold a childish, petulant grudge against the DH rule.
Scott Rolen
Rolen is not, I repeat, not the second coming of Mike Schmidt, as some people think. Rolen is indeed an excellent third baseman, although he has (with the exception of his 2004 season) never been a really excellent hitter. The good news is that if he keeps fielding like this, he doesn't have to be excellent; just very good hitting will be enough to get him a plaque in Cooperstown. And he has enough credibility with the voters to get in easily.
Robin Ventura
Ventura is one of those guys that you just hate admit isn't a Hall-of-Famer. He had some truly excellent seasons in Chicago, and then with the Mets, but it's just not enough. He deserves to be remembered more than he is, because he was baseball's greatest third baseman between Wade Boggs and Chipper Jones. But he's not a Hall-of-Famer.
Other third basemen with notable careers include: Bobby Bonilla, Gary Gaetti, and active players such as Eric Chavez and Edgardo Alfonzo
Back tomorrow with the outfield ...
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Ripken is, in my opinion, the third-best shortstop ever. He's a Hall-of-Famer, not that anyone really disagrees. Ripken's reputation is mighty, and his numbers back it up absolutely. He should sail into the Hall, and rightfully so.
Alex Rodriguez
It will be interesting to see what happens to A-Rod if he finishes his career as a third baseman. There's not going to be anything keeping him from Cooperstown, but it will be more difficult to define his career in the historical sense if he splits his career evenly between short and third. As a shortstop, he's really second only to Honus Wagner. As a third baseman, he's right up there with Schmidt and Brett. If his career keeps going as planned (and this year is a very good sign), A-Rod will be among the elite in the Hall of Fame.
Barry Larkin
Retired 2004 Eligible for Hall: December 2009
Larkin really doesn't get enough credit for what he did. He's been underrated for two main reasons. One, he was multi-talented, but there was no one thing he was truly great at. Was he a good shortstop? Yes, he was a very good shortstop, if not an amazing one. Was he a good basestealer? Absolutely. Yes, only stole 377 career bases, but he did it with an impressive 83% success rate. Did he hit for a high average? Yes, a career .295 hitter, with 5 full seasons above .300. Was he a disciplined hitter? Yes, he had a career .371 OBP, with 939 career walks against just 817 career strikeouts. Was he a slugger? For a shortstop, absolutely. He slugged a career .444, whereas the league average for shortstops during that period was .361.
There is no one number that makes Barry look like a Hall-of-Famer. But when you put together all the things he did so well, there's no doubt in my mind that he deserves a plaque in Cooperstown.
The other, perhaps more significant reason, that Barry is underrated, is that he was always overshadowed by someone else. He began his career in the shadow of Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken, Jr. He wasn't as good a hitter as Ripken, and he wasn't as good at defense as Ozzie was. Then, when Ripken and Ozzie started to fade and Barry entered his prime, three guys named Jeter, A-Rod, and Nomar showed up and redefined how we saw the shortstop position. So there was never any significant amount of time where Barry was regarded as the best shortstop in baseball. But this is just an accident of history. When you compare Barry's career with other shortstops, he rates very well. He's not at the level of A-Rod, Robin Yount, or Luke Appling, but he's a notch above guys like George Davis, Ozzie Smith, and Joe Cronin. He is indeed a deserving Hall-of-Famer. I don't think there's any way he'll get in on the first ballot, but hopefully the voters will give him his due in time, as they did with Sandberg.
Tony Fernandez
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Tony's no Hall-of-Famer, but he was a darn good shortstop for a long, long time. He was even among the 10 best players in the league for a couple of years. He doesn't get his credit, I think, because he bounced around to so many teams. But he was a very good shortstop and a fine hitter. His career hitting line is 347/399/288, compared to a league average of 332/407/264. The average for a shortstop over the same period was 321/370/260, so Tony was a valuable commodity: a good defensive shortstop who hit quite well for the position.
But after playing 8 seasons with the Blue Jays, Tony played two with the Padres, half a season with the Mets (he was traded back to Toronto in mid-season), one season with the Reds, one with the Yankees, one with the Indians, two more with the Blue Jays, and half a season with Milwaukee before being traded back to Toronto to finish his career. In this sense, he was similar to Bobby Bonds; someone whose true value was obscured by the raw number of teams he played for.
Julio Franco
There's been a good deal of attention focused on Julio since his renaissance in Atlanta. While I can't deny that Julio is the best old non-pitcher ever, it doesn't make him a Hall-of-Famer. Julio does have a lot of hits (2521), but that's really his only true talent. He emerged as more of a slugger as his career went on, but the truth is that Julio spent most of his career as a below-average shortstop/second baseman. He's a fine hitter, and might be one of the 30 or 40 best shortstops ever, but he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.
Derek Jeter
Jeter isn't a Hall-of-Famer yet, but if he keeps his career going at a strong pace, he'll make it with ease. The sportswriters might just waive the 5-year waiting period to vote in their favorite son. Jeter was actually named baseball's poster child by Tim Kurkjian earlier this year. While I can't deny that Jeter calls his manager "Mr. Torre" and passes the butter without being asked, his qualities as a player have been overrated. Jeter has the reputation of being a great shortstop, but the truth is that his early career saw him as being below-average at his position. This goes against what most people think; they see Jeter make flashy plays and call him the second coming of Christ. But good fielding isn't about being flashy. You can't just trust your eyes, nor can you trust your biases. Jeter gets extra credit for being a Yankee. He gets extra credit for being "clutch," despite the fact that he plays on a team that gives its players more chances to play in clutch situations (like the World Series) than any other. Maybe the most clutch World Series performer in baseball is Frank Thomas, but we don't know it, because his team has never gotten there. There isn't equality of opportunity in "clutch." And of course, we all notice when Jeter makes great plays in "clutch" situations. But if he strikes out in the same situtation, our mind blocks it out because it doesn't fit with our pre-determined ideas. We should stop talking about Jeter being "clutch" and start talking about how good a hitter he is for a shortstop (386/461/314 career).
Jay Bell
Retired 2003 Eligible for Hall: December 2008
No, he's not Cooperstown-worthy, but Jay Bell was one of the most underrated players of the past 20 years.
Omar Vizquel
I could tell you that Omar Vizquel is not a good defensive shortstop, but you simply wouldn't believe me. Everyone believes that he is, and nothing I say will change the fact. But the ugly truth is that Omar is not nearly as strong defensively as people think. Steve Phillips advanced the argument that Omar is a Hall-of-Famer because his lifetime fielding percentage is higher than Ozzie Smith's. But that's the most bone-headed thing Steve Phillips has ever said. Lefty O'Doul's lifetime batting average is higher than Hank Aaron's; does that make him a Hall-of-Famer? Dave Kingman has more career home runs than Carlton Fisk. Does that make him a Hall-of-Famer? You can't apply this standard to any reasonable Hall-of-Fame argument. Ozzie Smith was more than just a fielding percentage, as is Omar. And when you consider the fact that Omar was not a great shortstop, and that he was a below-average hitter, we have to conclude that he's not a Hall-of-Famer.
(It was an odd week on espn.com when Steve Phillips composed his list of most underrated players, and Rob Neyer composed his list of the most overrated. Vizquel made both of them).
Nomar Garciaparra & Miguel Tejada
If Tejada can put together some more MVP-caliber campaigns and keep his career on the right path, he stands a good chance to make Cooperstown. Nomar was off to a Hall-of-Fame start, but will have to get his career going again if he wants to make it. And considering the nosedive his reputation has taken in the past 2 years, he might not make it even then.
The only other active shortstops with notable careers are Edgar Renteria and Jose Valentin. If they want to get in the Hall of Fame, they'll have to buy a ticket like everyone else.
3B
Chipper Jones
Chipper's not much in the defense department (and that's an understatement), but he's been an excellent hitter for quite a long time now, and I think he's worked his way into the top 10 third basemen of all time. He would be better served now as a left fielder; I don't really know why the Braves insist on playing him at third.
Edgar Martinez
Retired 2004 Eligible for Hall: December 2009
I don't really have a category for DHs, so I'll put Edgar here. The argument against Edgar is that as a DH, he can't really make the Hall since he didn't play every day. Well, it's patently silly to automatically exclude the DH from the Hall. It's a question of how much you help your team, and a DH just has to hit that much better to make up for the fact that they aren't playing the field.
Did Edgar hit that much better? You're damn right he did. Edgar was the best right-handed hitter of the 1990s. He compiled a 418/516/312 hitting line over 18 seasons, which is about as automatic an induction into Cooperstown as you can get. We still have to make up for the fact that Edgar contributed 0 to his team's defense. But here's a question for you: how much did Frank Thomas contribute to his team's defense? Or Harmon Killebrew? The answer, I think, is 0. My argument is that Edgar was more valuable to his team as a DH than he would have been in the field. Edgar was a much better asset to the Mariners contributing 0 to his team's defense than someone like Thomas or Killebrew, who actually had a negative effect on the team with their defense. If Edgar had played the field, he would have been less valuable, because his defensive negatives would have counteracted his offensive positives. To say that someone has to play the field to make the Hall is silly; we must look at the overall effect they had on team wins. These people think that Edgar would be a Hall-of-Famer if he had played the field, but the truth is that Edgar's absence from the field was not a detriment to his club, but an asset. While most teams are forced to deal with a hitter's negatives in the field to get his positives at the plate, the Mariners got all the positive and none of the negatives. So while some hitters might merit say, 300 points at the plate and take away 50 points in the field, Edgar was 300 at the plate and a 0 in the field. Any way you slice it, Edgar's hitting is enough in and of itself to get him into Cooperstown. But, sadly, he will never make it because the voters still hold a childish, petulant grudge against the DH rule.
Scott Rolen
Rolen is not, I repeat, not the second coming of Mike Schmidt, as some people think. Rolen is indeed an excellent third baseman, although he has (with the exception of his 2004 season) never been a really excellent hitter. The good news is that if he keeps fielding like this, he doesn't have to be excellent; just very good hitting will be enough to get him a plaque in Cooperstown. And he has enough credibility with the voters to get in easily.
Robin Ventura
Ventura is one of those guys that you just hate admit isn't a Hall-of-Famer. He had some truly excellent seasons in Chicago, and then with the Mets, but it's just not enough. He deserves to be remembered more than he is, because he was baseball's greatest third baseman between Wade Boggs and Chipper Jones. But he's not a Hall-of-Famer.
Other third basemen with notable careers include: Bobby Bonilla, Gary Gaetti, and active players such as Eric Chavez and Edgardo Alfonzo
Back tomorrow with the outfield ...
Current players
As promised, a look at active players (and players not yet eligible) and their chances to make Cooperstown.
1B
Jeff Bagwell
Bagwell is, in my opinion, easily one of the 10 best first basemen ever, and he's approaching the top 5. Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey, and Murray are ahead of him. But who else? It's pretty hard to argue Killebrew or Palmeiro or someone like Roger Connor or Dan Brouthers ahead of him. Bagwell's overall numbers were severely deflated due to the fact that he played his best years in the AstroDome, a significant pitcher's park. Of course, he has been lucky enough to move to a hitter's park in his declining years. But Bagwell's been awesome. He is the best first baseman of his time. He wasn't quite as good as Frank Thomas at his peak, but then Bagwell's been much more durable and consistent than the Big Hurt.
Bagwell won the MVP in 1994 and possibly deserved it in 1996 and 1999. In '96, Bagwell hit 461/750/368 in the AstroDome to put together one of the best non-Bonds seasons of the past 20 years. But Ken Caminiti was "clutch" for the Padres and won the MVP (steroids and all).
Bagwell hasn't always been perceived as a Hall-of-Famer, but I would argue that this is the fault of the people doing the perceiving. I once heard a baseball announcer say that if you have to think about a candidate, they're not really a Hall-of-Famer. Well, isn't that sound advice! Go with your first impression, no matter how stupid, uninformed, biased or misguided it may be. Hopefully, the voters will see Bagwell as the offensive juggernaut he was and put him in on the first ballot.
Frank Thomas
Thomas is a tough case. He's actually similar to Ken Griffey, Jr.; a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer until the injuries came. But I'd say that Thomas was a better player than Griffey at his peak, even considering defense. He's one of the ten-best first basemen of all time, and his run from 1991-2000 was as good a 10-year stretch as any AL player has had in years. The injuries have cut his career short, limiting his playing time in recent years. But I would argue that when you look at Frank's career as a whole, he is still a Hall-of-Famer.
Rafael Palmeiro
Well, isn't this a hairy question? Mark McGwire now looks positively dignified when compared to Raffy. At least McGwire didn't perjure himself and try to blame a teammate. It's very unclear as to what extent steroids played in Palmeiro's development. We really have no idea when he started using them and for how long.
After Palmeiro got his 3,000th hit, I argued that he was a Hall-of-Famer. And based on the numbers, I still think he is. Skip Bayless wrote an article for espn.com advancing the preposterous argument that because Palmeiro didn't inspire fear and awe, he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. I'd say that Mr. Bayless has no idea who is actually in the Hall of Fame. Because when you look at the actual inhabitants, you realize that Rafael Palmeiro is no insult to the institution that inducted Freddie Lindstrom, Chick Hafey, Tommy McCarthy, and Candy Cummings. The idea that players like Willie Mays are the standard has never been the case. Players like Mays and Ruth are the elite. The average Hall-of-Famer is someone like ... I don't know, Harmon Killebrew or Hal Newhouser. And Palmeiro compares very favorably to them. Palmeiro is sort of like the hitting version of Don Sutton; he was never amazingly good, but he was really good for so long that he earned a spot in the Cooperstown. Based solely on his numbers, Palmeiro is a Hall-of-Famer, with no doubt in my mind.
Then came the stanozolol. How do we factor this into the discussion? I refuse to dismiss Palmeiro out of hand. It's the self-righteous thing to do, and it's done by people who don't want to spend time thinking when they could be out judging people. The only thing we know for sure is that Palmeiro tested positive this year. It's possible (though admittedly not likely), that Palmeiro didn't start using steroids until recently. It wouldn't be out of the question at all to assume that Palmeiro used steroids to bolster his declining career in order to get 3,000 hits and reach Cooperstown. We don't know for sure what he tested positive for (the stanozolol report has never been confirmed), and we can't say for sure that the steroids actually made him a better player (everyone assumes this to be true. While steroids do enhance certain physical aspects such as recovery time, that doesn't automatically make someone hit for a higher average). And we must also face the fact that steroids weren't even outlawed in baseball until recently. So the issue becomes much more difficult the more we think about it (which is why the talking heads on TV don't like to think).
My personal opinion is that our limited knowledge of Palmeiro's steroid use is enough to disqualify him from the Hall. I say this with grave misgivings, especially since we cannot be sure that anyone we enshrine in the next 20 years is steroid-free. We cannot focus all of our vitriol upon Raffy just because he got caught while unconsciously giving others a free ride to do the same thing.
But Palmeiro is, I believe, a fairly borderline case for the Hall of Fame. So much so that this little steroid issue is enough to raise a reasonable doubt towards my inducting him into the Hall. The good thing is that we don't have to decide now; we have five years to learn more about Raffy and his peers and make a more reasoned decision. But given what I know now, I just don't think we can let Raffy in.
Mark McGwire
Retired 2001; Eligible for Hall December 2006
I think Mark McGwire is a Hall-of-Famer. Now I'll try to defend myself from the charge that I'm a flip-flopper with a double standard.
First of all, McGwire never got caught using steroids. There has never been any conclusive proof that he used them. Yes, we all drew the same conclusions from his Capital Hill testimony, but the simple fact is that if we know the bare minimum about Palmeiro, we know absolutely nothing about McGwire. We don't know how often he used, or when he used it, or even what he used. He may have been a grievous offender, or he may just been a small-time dabbler. We will never know. The most important issue to my mind is that McGwire's alleged steroid use occured before baseball outlawed it. The oft-repeated saying about Pete Rose is that Rose wasn't banned because he gambled; he was banned because he broke the rule against gambling. But, unlike Palmeiro, Mark McGwire never broke any MLB rule against steroids, because no such rule existed. So McGwire may be guilty of chicanery or a minor federal drug law, but seeing as he retired in 2001, he could not have broken baseball's drug policy.
Am I splitting hairs? Perhaps I am. But I refuse to automatically hate, disdain, and turn my nose up at every steroid user. Those who think that steroids are bad, and therefore everyone who uses them is just plain bad, lives in a fantasy world of Care Bears and Dick and Jane. The real world is much more complicated, and people are much more complicated. We can say with some certainty that both McGwire and Palmeiro are steroid users. But, as far as we know, that's where the similarity ends. Palmeiro violated MLB's substance abuse policy and then perjured himself; McGwire did neither. Palmeiro blamed a teammate; McGwire didn't. Palmeiro is a marginal Hall-of-Famer; McGwire is not (in my opinion). Palmeiro used (if the source can be believed) stanozolol, a powerful anabolic steroid; we don't have a clue what McGwire used, except for andro, the supplement that was perfectly legal at the time. Every aspect of the question favors McGwire rather than Palmeiro. And that more than anything is why I think that Mark McGwire is still a Hall-of-Famer.
Will Clark
Retired 2000; Eligible for Hall December 2005
Nobody has any love for Will. Which is too bad, considering that he spent his prime years in a pitcher's park and hit like few people ever have. Clark's 1989 season, where he hit 412/546/333 in a very unfriendly park, is one of the best seasons of the past 20 years. But the ignorance of the voters was exposed when they gave the MVP to teammate Kevin Mitchell.
Clark's talents were never fully appreciated. He had several truly great years in San Francisco, and then had good years for the rest of his career. He finished with a 384/497/303 career hitting line, compared to the 335/410/266 league average. He was also an above-average first baseman. It's a tough call, I msut admit, but I think Will belongs in the Hall. Just because no one thinks of him that way doesn't alter the essential truth.
Jason Giambi
Well, back to the steroids. There's no chance that Giambi will make Cooperstown, and I don't think he'll probably earn it either. The steroids are a hairy question here, too, since we can't give much credit for Giambi's hitting to them. It's entirely possibly that they didn't help him a bit (Giambi didn't think so). But, steroids or not, it doesn't look like he'll ever regain the form in Oakland that made him, for a short while, the best baseball player in the world not named Barry.
Jim Thome
Thome is a different question. While Thome doesn't have seasons quite as big as Giambi's, he does have a very impressive career and no steroids casting a shadow over it. Thome was one of the 10 best hitters in the league pretty much all the way from 1995 to 2004. His 2002 season was likely his best, but he was the second-best player in the league behind Giambi. Thome will have to regain his good hitting form again to fight his way into Cooperstown, but I think it's entirely possible that he'll earn his way there. But I don't see him actually getting elected; baseball men don't like 1-dimensional players (even though Thome isn't 1-dimensional, but that's a whole other rant...).
Carlos Delgado
Look at what Delgado's done over his career, and it will surprise you. The knock against him is that he's been in a hitter's park in the AL for his whole career, and he's worthless on defense. But I think he's one of the 5 best hitters of the 1990s, and if he finishes out his career well, he might just be worth a plaque. But he won't get one, for the same reason Thome won't. People have already made up their minds, and they have far too much pride and bluster to admit when they're wrong.
John Olerud
People probably don't realize what a fine career John Olerud has had. He's had two near-MVP seasons, in 1993 and 1999. He was the best player in the AL in 1993, but Frank Thomas won the MVP. Olerud has been a darn good player for one heck of a long time. He wasn't as popular as someone like Mark Grace, but he actually was a better overall player. He's no Hall-of-Famer, but he's better than people give him credit for.
Mark Grace
Retired 2003; Eligible for Hall December 2008
Grace was a good player for quite a while. But he was never great, and it wasn't quite as long as people think. He did have more hits than anyone else in the 1990s, but that's an accident of history and no argument for induction. Just because somebody else got all their hits between 1985-1995, Grace gets more credit for putting it together in an even decade?
Future Prospects: Todd Helton, Albert Pujols
2B
Craig Biggio
Biggio is, after Barry Bonds and perhaps Roger Clemens, the best baseball player still active. He has been an excellent hitter, a solid defender, and a master of the "little things," such as SBs and HBPs. The AstroDome hurt him as it did Bagwell. But Biggio stands a chance of making it to 3,000 hits, whereupon he should get in on the first ballot. He deserves it, because only 5 second basemen in baseball history were better.
Roberto Alomar
Retired 2004; Eligible for Hall December 2009
It's too bad that Alomar's career crashed to a halt when he went to the Mets. But I feel that, even before his career died, he put together enough of a fabulous run to make the Hall of Fame. He's one of the best-hitting second basemen ever, and he had the great defense to back it up. As it is, he's just behind Biggio all-time.
Jeff Kent
Kent is an odd case; he didn't have a really good season until he was 29 and didn't break out with a great year until age 32, when he won the 2000 MVP Award. Do I think he belongs in the Hall? It's a tough choice, but I think so. Kent has put together a good combination of really strong offense and good defense. He's managed to keep performing well at an advanced age (his 2005 season was one of his best), and he is the all-time HR leader among 2B. If he has another couple good years, I think he'll get in eventually.
Chuck Knoblauch
Retired 2002; Eligible for Hall December 2007
Remember him? Knoblauch was a Hall-of-Famer, without a doubt, from 1991-1999. After the 1999 season, Knoblauch was just 31 years old, had won 4 World Series rings, and had never had a bad season in his career. It looked like nothing could stop him from getting to Cooperstown.
But Knoblauch's career died a sudden, tragic death. Everyone remembers Knoblauch's trouble throwing to first; few remember that he stopped hitting, too. But Knoblauch soon became a bad-hitting left fielder, and he retired after a year in Kansas City at the age of 34. Sure-fire Hall-of-Famers don't just stop hitting and fielding at the age of 31; it just doesn't happen. Except that it did happen to Knoblauch. He wasn't able to complete his Hall-of-Famer career, and I still have no idea what caused it.
The only other active second basemen with careers of any note are Bret Boone, Ray Durham, and Mark Loretta, and they're a few light years away from Cooperstown.
Seeing as this is taking longer than I imagined, I'll split it up into parts. I'll be back with the shortstops and third basemen tomorrow ...
1B
Jeff Bagwell
Bagwell is, in my opinion, easily one of the 10 best first basemen ever, and he's approaching the top 5. Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey, and Murray are ahead of him. But who else? It's pretty hard to argue Killebrew or Palmeiro or someone like Roger Connor or Dan Brouthers ahead of him. Bagwell's overall numbers were severely deflated due to the fact that he played his best years in the AstroDome, a significant pitcher's park. Of course, he has been lucky enough to move to a hitter's park in his declining years. But Bagwell's been awesome. He is the best first baseman of his time. He wasn't quite as good as Frank Thomas at his peak, but then Bagwell's been much more durable and consistent than the Big Hurt.
Bagwell won the MVP in 1994 and possibly deserved it in 1996 and 1999. In '96, Bagwell hit 461/750/368 in the AstroDome to put together one of the best non-Bonds seasons of the past 20 years. But Ken Caminiti was "clutch" for the Padres and won the MVP (steroids and all).
Bagwell hasn't always been perceived as a Hall-of-Famer, but I would argue that this is the fault of the people doing the perceiving. I once heard a baseball announcer say that if you have to think about a candidate, they're not really a Hall-of-Famer. Well, isn't that sound advice! Go with your first impression, no matter how stupid, uninformed, biased or misguided it may be. Hopefully, the voters will see Bagwell as the offensive juggernaut he was and put him in on the first ballot.
Frank Thomas
Thomas is a tough case. He's actually similar to Ken Griffey, Jr.; a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer until the injuries came. But I'd say that Thomas was a better player than Griffey at his peak, even considering defense. He's one of the ten-best first basemen of all time, and his run from 1991-2000 was as good a 10-year stretch as any AL player has had in years. The injuries have cut his career short, limiting his playing time in recent years. But I would argue that when you look at Frank's career as a whole, he is still a Hall-of-Famer.
Rafael Palmeiro
Well, isn't this a hairy question? Mark McGwire now looks positively dignified when compared to Raffy. At least McGwire didn't perjure himself and try to blame a teammate. It's very unclear as to what extent steroids played in Palmeiro's development. We really have no idea when he started using them and for how long.
After Palmeiro got his 3,000th hit, I argued that he was a Hall-of-Famer. And based on the numbers, I still think he is. Skip Bayless wrote an article for espn.com advancing the preposterous argument that because Palmeiro didn't inspire fear and awe, he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. I'd say that Mr. Bayless has no idea who is actually in the Hall of Fame. Because when you look at the actual inhabitants, you realize that Rafael Palmeiro is no insult to the institution that inducted Freddie Lindstrom, Chick Hafey, Tommy McCarthy, and Candy Cummings. The idea that players like Willie Mays are the standard has never been the case. Players like Mays and Ruth are the elite. The average Hall-of-Famer is someone like ... I don't know, Harmon Killebrew or Hal Newhouser. And Palmeiro compares very favorably to them. Palmeiro is sort of like the hitting version of Don Sutton; he was never amazingly good, but he was really good for so long that he earned a spot in the Cooperstown. Based solely on his numbers, Palmeiro is a Hall-of-Famer, with no doubt in my mind.
Then came the stanozolol. How do we factor this into the discussion? I refuse to dismiss Palmeiro out of hand. It's the self-righteous thing to do, and it's done by people who don't want to spend time thinking when they could be out judging people. The only thing we know for sure is that Palmeiro tested positive this year. It's possible (though admittedly not likely), that Palmeiro didn't start using steroids until recently. It wouldn't be out of the question at all to assume that Palmeiro used steroids to bolster his declining career in order to get 3,000 hits and reach Cooperstown. We don't know for sure what he tested positive for (the stanozolol report has never been confirmed), and we can't say for sure that the steroids actually made him a better player (everyone assumes this to be true. While steroids do enhance certain physical aspects such as recovery time, that doesn't automatically make someone hit for a higher average). And we must also face the fact that steroids weren't even outlawed in baseball until recently. So the issue becomes much more difficult the more we think about it (which is why the talking heads on TV don't like to think).
My personal opinion is that our limited knowledge of Palmeiro's steroid use is enough to disqualify him from the Hall. I say this with grave misgivings, especially since we cannot be sure that anyone we enshrine in the next 20 years is steroid-free. We cannot focus all of our vitriol upon Raffy just because he got caught while unconsciously giving others a free ride to do the same thing.
But Palmeiro is, I believe, a fairly borderline case for the Hall of Fame. So much so that this little steroid issue is enough to raise a reasonable doubt towards my inducting him into the Hall. The good thing is that we don't have to decide now; we have five years to learn more about Raffy and his peers and make a more reasoned decision. But given what I know now, I just don't think we can let Raffy in.
Mark McGwire
Retired 2001; Eligible for Hall December 2006
I think Mark McGwire is a Hall-of-Famer. Now I'll try to defend myself from the charge that I'm a flip-flopper with a double standard.
First of all, McGwire never got caught using steroids. There has never been any conclusive proof that he used them. Yes, we all drew the same conclusions from his Capital Hill testimony, but the simple fact is that if we know the bare minimum about Palmeiro, we know absolutely nothing about McGwire. We don't know how often he used, or when he used it, or even what he used. He may have been a grievous offender, or he may just been a small-time dabbler. We will never know. The most important issue to my mind is that McGwire's alleged steroid use occured before baseball outlawed it. The oft-repeated saying about Pete Rose is that Rose wasn't banned because he gambled; he was banned because he broke the rule against gambling. But, unlike Palmeiro, Mark McGwire never broke any MLB rule against steroids, because no such rule existed. So McGwire may be guilty of chicanery or a minor federal drug law, but seeing as he retired in 2001, he could not have broken baseball's drug policy.
Am I splitting hairs? Perhaps I am. But I refuse to automatically hate, disdain, and turn my nose up at every steroid user. Those who think that steroids are bad, and therefore everyone who uses them is just plain bad, lives in a fantasy world of Care Bears and Dick and Jane. The real world is much more complicated, and people are much more complicated. We can say with some certainty that both McGwire and Palmeiro are steroid users. But, as far as we know, that's where the similarity ends. Palmeiro violated MLB's substance abuse policy and then perjured himself; McGwire did neither. Palmeiro blamed a teammate; McGwire didn't. Palmeiro is a marginal Hall-of-Famer; McGwire is not (in my opinion). Palmeiro used (if the source can be believed) stanozolol, a powerful anabolic steroid; we don't have a clue what McGwire used, except for andro, the supplement that was perfectly legal at the time. Every aspect of the question favors McGwire rather than Palmeiro. And that more than anything is why I think that Mark McGwire is still a Hall-of-Famer.
Will Clark
Retired 2000; Eligible for Hall December 2005
Nobody has any love for Will. Which is too bad, considering that he spent his prime years in a pitcher's park and hit like few people ever have. Clark's 1989 season, where he hit 412/546/333 in a very unfriendly park, is one of the best seasons of the past 20 years. But the ignorance of the voters was exposed when they gave the MVP to teammate Kevin Mitchell.
Clark's talents were never fully appreciated. He had several truly great years in San Francisco, and then had good years for the rest of his career. He finished with a 384/497/303 career hitting line, compared to the 335/410/266 league average. He was also an above-average first baseman. It's a tough call, I msut admit, but I think Will belongs in the Hall. Just because no one thinks of him that way doesn't alter the essential truth.
Jason Giambi
Well, back to the steroids. There's no chance that Giambi will make Cooperstown, and I don't think he'll probably earn it either. The steroids are a hairy question here, too, since we can't give much credit for Giambi's hitting to them. It's entirely possibly that they didn't help him a bit (Giambi didn't think so). But, steroids or not, it doesn't look like he'll ever regain the form in Oakland that made him, for a short while, the best baseball player in the world not named Barry.
Jim Thome
Thome is a different question. While Thome doesn't have seasons quite as big as Giambi's, he does have a very impressive career and no steroids casting a shadow over it. Thome was one of the 10 best hitters in the league pretty much all the way from 1995 to 2004. His 2002 season was likely his best, but he was the second-best player in the league behind Giambi. Thome will have to regain his good hitting form again to fight his way into Cooperstown, but I think it's entirely possible that he'll earn his way there. But I don't see him actually getting elected; baseball men don't like 1-dimensional players (even though Thome isn't 1-dimensional, but that's a whole other rant...).
Carlos Delgado
Look at what Delgado's done over his career, and it will surprise you. The knock against him is that he's been in a hitter's park in the AL for his whole career, and he's worthless on defense. But I think he's one of the 5 best hitters of the 1990s, and if he finishes out his career well, he might just be worth a plaque. But he won't get one, for the same reason Thome won't. People have already made up their minds, and they have far too much pride and bluster to admit when they're wrong.
John Olerud
People probably don't realize what a fine career John Olerud has had. He's had two near-MVP seasons, in 1993 and 1999. He was the best player in the AL in 1993, but Frank Thomas won the MVP. Olerud has been a darn good player for one heck of a long time. He wasn't as popular as someone like Mark Grace, but he actually was a better overall player. He's no Hall-of-Famer, but he's better than people give him credit for.
Mark Grace
Retired 2003; Eligible for Hall December 2008
Grace was a good player for quite a while. But he was never great, and it wasn't quite as long as people think. He did have more hits than anyone else in the 1990s, but that's an accident of history and no argument for induction. Just because somebody else got all their hits between 1985-1995, Grace gets more credit for putting it together in an even decade?
Future Prospects: Todd Helton, Albert Pujols
2B
Craig Biggio
Biggio is, after Barry Bonds and perhaps Roger Clemens, the best baseball player still active. He has been an excellent hitter, a solid defender, and a master of the "little things," such as SBs and HBPs. The AstroDome hurt him as it did Bagwell. But Biggio stands a chance of making it to 3,000 hits, whereupon he should get in on the first ballot. He deserves it, because only 5 second basemen in baseball history were better.
Roberto Alomar
Retired 2004; Eligible for Hall December 2009
It's too bad that Alomar's career crashed to a halt when he went to the Mets. But I feel that, even before his career died, he put together enough of a fabulous run to make the Hall of Fame. He's one of the best-hitting second basemen ever, and he had the great defense to back it up. As it is, he's just behind Biggio all-time.
Jeff Kent
Kent is an odd case; he didn't have a really good season until he was 29 and didn't break out with a great year until age 32, when he won the 2000 MVP Award. Do I think he belongs in the Hall? It's a tough choice, but I think so. Kent has put together a good combination of really strong offense and good defense. He's managed to keep performing well at an advanced age (his 2005 season was one of his best), and he is the all-time HR leader among 2B. If he has another couple good years, I think he'll get in eventually.
Chuck Knoblauch
Retired 2002; Eligible for Hall December 2007
Remember him? Knoblauch was a Hall-of-Famer, without a doubt, from 1991-1999. After the 1999 season, Knoblauch was just 31 years old, had won 4 World Series rings, and had never had a bad season in his career. It looked like nothing could stop him from getting to Cooperstown.
But Knoblauch's career died a sudden, tragic death. Everyone remembers Knoblauch's trouble throwing to first; few remember that he stopped hitting, too. But Knoblauch soon became a bad-hitting left fielder, and he retired after a year in Kansas City at the age of 34. Sure-fire Hall-of-Famers don't just stop hitting and fielding at the age of 31; it just doesn't happen. Except that it did happen to Knoblauch. He wasn't able to complete his Hall-of-Famer career, and I still have no idea what caused it.
The only other active second basemen with careers of any note are Bret Boone, Ray Durham, and Mark Loretta, and they're a few light years away from Cooperstown.
Seeing as this is taking longer than I imagined, I'll split it up into parts. I'll be back with the shortstops and third basemen tomorrow ...
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Time to leave
Now for the ten players I would remove from Cooperstown. Again, this is not intended as a practical plan of action; it would be cruel to take down someone's plaque and insult his descendants. It's meant as a look at the ideal Hall, which would involve the removal of some not-too-deserving inhabitants.
Instead of listing my players in the 1-10 format as I did below, I'll deal with them individually as best I can.
George Sisler
Sisler is a famous player who has received a lot of attention for his accomplishments. He hit over .400 twice and finished with a lifetime .340 batting average. It is for this that he is enshrined in Cooperstown. But if I had to describe Sisler's major league career, I would say that he had half of a Hall-of-Fame career and then became just a good player. And half a Hall-of-Fame career is 50% short of actual greatness.
From 1916-1922, Sisler was a Hall-of-Famer. It was during this period with the St. Louis Browns that Sisler hit .407 and .420, twice led the league in hits, and averaged about 40 stolen bases per year. At the end of the 1922 season, Sisler was 29 years old. There was every reason to believe that he would continue on the road to greatness.
Except that he didn't. He never hit higher than .345 again. While he did have some good seasons still left, he never had another season where he was even close to being the best player in the league. For whatever reason, Sisler stopped hitting for a high average. It's even more marked when you realize that hitting stats all over baseball went up in the 1920's, and yet Sisler's were going down. So it was a precipitous drop for the former hitting genius, who just didn't do anything else on the ballfield to make up for his drop in batting average. Sisler's lifetime stats are very good (career 379/468/340 hitter), but the league batting average over Sisler's career was .287, a very high figure. So Sisler actually wasn't as good a hitter as his era makes him look. And while he did steal bases, he also got caught stealing a lot (although the stats for CS are incomplete). He wasn't much on defense, so that leaves us with an average first baseman with little power who sometimes hits for a high average.
The Cooperstown rules specifically prohibit honoring a player for his production in one season (so that electing Roger Maris for his 61 HR would go against Hall rules). But, in a broader sense, that's what they did for Sisler. I can't deny that he had 7 really good seasons, but it takes more than that to make a Hall-of-Famer. The idea that 7 Hall-of-Fame quality seasons merit election would mean that Dale Murphy, Orel Hershiser, Jimmy Wynn and many others would merit induction. Sisler just doesn't meet the criteria, no matter what his legendary status may be.
Tinker & Evers
Let's just admit that these two got into the Hall because someone wrote a poem about them. History remembers them as great not because of their ballfield production but because of the legend that grew around the poem. While I feel that Frank Chance was a good selection, I guess the Hall decided to throw in the two people so closely associated with them, utilizing the dreaded Coattails Clause to induct them into the Hall.
Joe Tinker was a very good defensive second baseman. But he was no kind of hitter. Even accounting for the fact that he played during the dead ball era, Tinker's 308/353/262 line is right in line with the league average (only the SLG is above-average). I cannot deny his defensive prowess, but it takes more than just defense to get into the Hall. If Bill Mazeroski, perhaps the most valuable defensive player ever, just barely squeaks into the Hall then it's difficult to argue for someone 100 years ago who was less valuable defensively.
Evers is a similar story. He was actually a better hitter than Tinker, with a 356/334/270 career line. That OBP well above the league average of .326 for the same period, so Evers emerges as a much stronger candidate there. But Evers just wasn't Tinker's equal defensively. The information we have suggests that while he was an exceptional second baseman at the start of his career, his defensive value suffered a sharp decline as he entered his 30s. So while Tinker is a better hitter, his defense isn't up to the mark.
All told, it's very difficult to argue that these two are among the best players ever at their position. They do not rank favorably with the best eligible players who've been denied admission to the Hall (Lou Whitaker and Bobby Grich, Bill Dahlen and Alan Trammell), so we must realize that their election was based upon a poem. It's too bad that no one ever wrote a poem entitled "Trammell-to-Whitaker-to-Evans."
Luis Aparicio & Nellie Fox
The most exciting player to watch is not necessarily the best player. Aparicio & Fox were certainly exciting, and their go-go style of play is the kind that baseball men froth over, but we just can't get past the fact that neither man was a good hitter, and while they were good defensively, they weren't good enough to make up for their lack of production at the plate.
There is a feeling in baseball that if a shortstop doesn't hit, that doesn't matter. A shortstop's job is to be good on defense, so their hitting is irrelevant. So I guess that their at-bats don't count? The 8,110 career outs Aparicio made at the plate weren't real outs? You can't just ignore a part of someone's game; every element must be taken into account. But, you might say, most shortstops don't hit that well. I would reply (as Bill James did) that most shortstops are not in the Hall of Fame.
A player contributes on both offense and defense. You must determine how much they contributed to the offense and defense and put them together to see how much a player contributed to the overall team performance. I just revealed that Luis Aparico made 8.110 career outs (sporting an ugly .310 OBP). Did he do anything anywhere else in the game to make up for the huge negative this created for his team?
Aparicio played good defense. Was it good enough to make up for his offensive woes? Seeing as offense is about 50% of the game and defense is 5-10%, it would be very difficult to do so. Defense is horribly overvalued, and you'd have to be as good as Bill Mazeroski to contribute positively to your team's success as a dreadful hitter. Aparicio was good defensively . . . but not that good. The metric of Batting Runs and Fielding Runs are instructive; Aparicio finished his career with 60 fielding runs, but was 195 batting runs below average. So no, Aparicio's defense did not make up for his hitting problems.
Nellie Fox was better, but he has the same problem. He hit 349/343/288 (compared to a league average of 340/399/265), so he was an above-average hitter. Defensively, he was good, like Aparicio. But he was not great, like Bill Mazeroski or Bobby Grich. He was simply good. And his poor hitting and good fielding don't make for a Hall-of-Fame combination.
Hughie Jennings
For 5 seasons, from 1894-1898, Hughie Jennings was a Hall-of-Famer, no questions asked. Before and after that, he contributed basically nothing to his team. Hughie only played about 8 full years of baseball, although he was technically around for 17 seasons. If you play 8 years, you'd better be Babe Ruth to get in the Hall. Jennings wasn't. He was darn good for about 5 of those years, and spent the rest of his career as a nothing. Most players will have a peak of greatness, before and after which they are merely good. But few people are like Jennings, who went from being okay to great for 5 years and then became poor. But he stuck around as a manager and got into the Hall because of that, and because of his reputation as one of the original Baltimore Orioles. Reputation is more powerful than reality.
George Kell
I am completely perplexed as to how the Veteran's Committee could look at a list of unelected third basemen to put in the Hall and choose George Kell. What in the world does Kell have over the likes of Ron Santo or Ken Boyer?
The short answer is nothing. There were about four of five seasons where you could call Kell one of the ten best players in the AL. Other than that, he had a good career but not a great one. There are about 100 players like the one I just described who had really good careers, but aren't in Cooperstown (Dave Parker, Jimmy Wynn, Don Mattingly, Jose Cruz). What was it that made Kell, whose credentials are much lesser than most unelected third basemen, jump out at the committee? I haven't a clue, but they inducted him in 1983 all the same. Cronyism cannot be ruled out when considering Veteran's Committee decisions.
Ralph Kiner & Earle Combs
Imagine a player who spends 10 seasons in baseball. Just 10, that's all. Wouldn't he have to be some kind of historic player to be able to reach Cooperstown in 10 years? I think so. But Kiner played ten years, and he's in. But I don't think he deserves it. Kiner is kind of like the hitting version of Sandy Koufax. His career was unnaturally short, but pretty good. Although it would be more accurate to say that Kiner would be the hitting version of Koufax if he had played longer and been a lot better.
Kiner was never the best player in the National League, although he was close for about 4 seasons (with 1949 and 1951 being darn good years). He was only a good player for about 8 of the 10 seasons. None of this is enough to give him enough career credibility to make it to Cooperstown in 10 years, 1400 games, and 5205 ABs.
But Kiner was the only really good Pirate between Honus Wagner and Roberto Clemente, so people always rememberd him, especially after he became a broadcaster. The kicker, though, is that Kiner led the NL in home runs for 7 straight seasons. That's very good, but it's a classic example of cherry-picking stats. What else did Kiner do besides that? We don't elect parts of a player, we elect the whole player, and we need to put these randomly selected stats in context? Perhaps the fact that Forbes Field was a very friendly place for hitters should be taken into account? Then perhaps we'll start to see Kiner for what he was; a good player for a very short amount of time.
Earle was the same basic story. He wasn't as good as Kiner, but he actually played for 12 years, 9 of them full seasons. Was he an elite, MVP-quality guy who earned his spot in a short amount of time? No. He was really good, but never great.
Oh yeah, Earle played for the '27 Yankees and spent his whole career in pinstripes. If he'd spent it with the St. Louis Browns, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Lloyd Waner
Legend has it that when the Veteran's Committee elected Lloyd, they actually did it based on his brother Paul's career stats, which are much more impressive. It's probably an apocryphal story, but it's more complimentary than believing that the Committee just lost their wits when they elected him.
Well, Lloyd got off to one heck of a start. Five of his first six seasons were very good; none of them MVP-esque, but quite good. After that he had five years where he was a decent, above-average player. Then he spent six seasons just trying to hang on. Sound like a Hall-of-Famer? Nope. But hey, he had a cool nickname; he was "Little Poison." And if you elect "Big Poison" to the Hall (his brother Paul, who does deserve it), ya gotta have "Little Poison" too, right? Right?
Hack Wilson
As I said, the rules preclude the Hall from inducting a player based on one good season, but Hack Wilson got in anyway. Everybody remembers him as the guy who knocked in 191 runs in 1930. Of course, the NL as a whole hit .303 in that particular year, but no one makes allowances for the era in baseball.
Hack did have a good career; the problem is that it lasted about 7 seasons, making him sort of a modern Darryl Strawberry. The rest of the time, he was just hanging on. The 191 RBIs got Wilson in the door to Cooperstown. If it weren't for that season, he probably wouldn't have gotten in. Maybe Stan Hack, another member of the 30's-era Cubs with better credentials, would have gotten in.
Chuck Klein
Well, we've got to have somebody from the Phillies in Cooperstown. Because before Robin Roberts and Richie Ashburn came along, the best Phillies of all time were guys like Cy Williams and Gavvy Cravath. Klein, who is one of the only good Phillies from the first half of the 20th century, also won a Triple Crown. He was sort of like Lloyd Waner; he got off to a great start, but only had 5 superior years before it all went downhill. Cesar Cedeno could say that same thing.
Tommy McCarthy
I haven't really heard of Tommy McCarthy, and I'll just be generous and say that the Veteran's Committee must have had some reason to elect someone who played 13 decent seasons in the 1880s and 1890s.
Ray Schalk & Red Faber
The best things these two guys have going for them is that they were both on the 1919 Chicago White Sox and did not accept a bribe to throw the Series. Maybe Landis awarded them with election to Cooperstown at some later date.
Jack Chesbro
Chesbro set a modern record with 41 wins in 1903. Other than that, I defy you to find a Hall-of-Famer here.
Don Drysdale
This would easily be the biggest surprise, for me as well as you. I had the same image of Drysdale everyone else had, of one of the best pitchers of the 1960s. But I'm here to suggest that what everyone thinks about Drysdale just does not gel with what he actually did.
First of all, Drysdale played in a pitcher's park in a pitcher's league in the best era for pitchers in the last 75 years. We must take this into account when examining his pitching numbers. He did lead the league in strikeouts 3 times and struck out at least 200 in 6 seasons. But Drysdale (like Koufax) had a short career; he only played 14 seasons. He was 33 years old. If he could have put together a few more dominant years, maybe he would have legitimately made it. The problem is that when you consider the era and context, Drysdale doesn't look incredibly better than a lot of other pitchers who aren't in the Hall, and his short career makes it look even worse.
Rollie Fingers
Sportswriters really don't have a clue how to compare starting pitchers to relievers and, as I've said before, sabermetrics isn't all that certain either. But we can do a pretty good job of measuring relievers against each other. And so it's really hard to see what the voters saw in Fingers that pushed him ahead of Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, and several others.
What likely happened here is that the Hall voters used a past mistake to justify a future one. The fact that Fingers won the MVP in 1982 (a rarity for a reliever) was mentioned often as justification for his induction. Was that what set him apart from those other guys? Or is it possible that the '82 MVP was itself a mistake, and using it to justify a future one is not such a good idea.
Burleigh Grimes
Grimes' numbers are enough to make him just barely edge into Cooperstown consideration. But consider that for the last 14 seasons of his career, Grimes had a huge unfair advantage over opposing hitters and most other pitchers. Yes, Grimes was the last legal spitball pitcher. So while other pitchers couldn't legally use it, Grimes had an unfair advantage, which much have helped him to some extent during his career. The fact that it was sanctioned by the MLB does not mean we can dismiss it.
Catfish Hunter
Catfish is perhaps baseball's best example of a good player whose teams made him look great. And he played on some darn good teams. The Oakland dynasty of the mid-70's and then the Bronx Zoo Yankees. So while sportswriters stare at W-L record (unaware that it's influenced as much by the time as by the pitcher himself), they saw a great pitcher where a good one really existed.
The Frisch Effect:
Jim Bottomley, George Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Freddie Lindstrom, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Ross Youngs, Rube Marquard
The "Frish Effect" is what happened to the Veterans' Committe when Frankie Frisch took over in 1967. From 1970-1976, the Veterans Committee selected 19 players. This is probably far too many players to just throw into the Hall of Fame, but we'll set that aside. The most important fact is that, with everyone in baseball history to choose from, 9 of 19 were Frisch's old teammates. In an institution with rampant cronyism, Frankie Frisch essentially ruined the Veteran's Committee and perhaps the Hall of Fame, by electing en masse all of his old friends. But how many of Frisch's old friends actually deserved the honor? None of Frisch's 9 teammates were even remotely qualified. Several of the other players selected, Earl Combs, Harry Hooper, Jake Beckley, and others were also ill-qualified. But what makes it even more odious is that the Giants of the '20s and the Cardinals of the '30s, already full of legitimate Hall-of-Famers, were expanded to outmatch even the 1927 Yankees in terms of players represented in the Hall. Although Frisch himself was a deserving inductee, he ravaged the process during his tenure as Chairman of the Veteran's Committee.
I'll be back tomorrow with my thoughts on the Cooperstown chances of current and recently-retired players tomorrow ...
Instead of listing my players in the 1-10 format as I did below, I'll deal with them individually as best I can.
George Sisler
Sisler is a famous player who has received a lot of attention for his accomplishments. He hit over .400 twice and finished with a lifetime .340 batting average. It is for this that he is enshrined in Cooperstown. But if I had to describe Sisler's major league career, I would say that he had half of a Hall-of-Fame career and then became just a good player. And half a Hall-of-Fame career is 50% short of actual greatness.
From 1916-1922, Sisler was a Hall-of-Famer. It was during this period with the St. Louis Browns that Sisler hit .407 and .420, twice led the league in hits, and averaged about 40 stolen bases per year. At the end of the 1922 season, Sisler was 29 years old. There was every reason to believe that he would continue on the road to greatness.
Except that he didn't. He never hit higher than .345 again. While he did have some good seasons still left, he never had another season where he was even close to being the best player in the league. For whatever reason, Sisler stopped hitting for a high average. It's even more marked when you realize that hitting stats all over baseball went up in the 1920's, and yet Sisler's were going down. So it was a precipitous drop for the former hitting genius, who just didn't do anything else on the ballfield to make up for his drop in batting average. Sisler's lifetime stats are very good (career 379/468/340 hitter), but the league batting average over Sisler's career was .287, a very high figure. So Sisler actually wasn't as good a hitter as his era makes him look. And while he did steal bases, he also got caught stealing a lot (although the stats for CS are incomplete). He wasn't much on defense, so that leaves us with an average first baseman with little power who sometimes hits for a high average.
The Cooperstown rules specifically prohibit honoring a player for his production in one season (so that electing Roger Maris for his 61 HR would go against Hall rules). But, in a broader sense, that's what they did for Sisler. I can't deny that he had 7 really good seasons, but it takes more than that to make a Hall-of-Famer. The idea that 7 Hall-of-Fame quality seasons merit election would mean that Dale Murphy, Orel Hershiser, Jimmy Wynn and many others would merit induction. Sisler just doesn't meet the criteria, no matter what his legendary status may be.
Tinker & Evers
Let's just admit that these two got into the Hall because someone wrote a poem about them. History remembers them as great not because of their ballfield production but because of the legend that grew around the poem. While I feel that Frank Chance was a good selection, I guess the Hall decided to throw in the two people so closely associated with them, utilizing the dreaded Coattails Clause to induct them into the Hall.
Joe Tinker was a very good defensive second baseman. But he was no kind of hitter. Even accounting for the fact that he played during the dead ball era, Tinker's 308/353/262 line is right in line with the league average (only the SLG is above-average). I cannot deny his defensive prowess, but it takes more than just defense to get into the Hall. If Bill Mazeroski, perhaps the most valuable defensive player ever, just barely squeaks into the Hall then it's difficult to argue for someone 100 years ago who was less valuable defensively.
Evers is a similar story. He was actually a better hitter than Tinker, with a 356/334/270 career line. That OBP well above the league average of .326 for the same period, so Evers emerges as a much stronger candidate there. But Evers just wasn't Tinker's equal defensively. The information we have suggests that while he was an exceptional second baseman at the start of his career, his defensive value suffered a sharp decline as he entered his 30s. So while Tinker is a better hitter, his defense isn't up to the mark.
All told, it's very difficult to argue that these two are among the best players ever at their position. They do not rank favorably with the best eligible players who've been denied admission to the Hall (Lou Whitaker and Bobby Grich, Bill Dahlen and Alan Trammell), so we must realize that their election was based upon a poem. It's too bad that no one ever wrote a poem entitled "Trammell-to-Whitaker-to-Evans."
Luis Aparicio & Nellie Fox
The most exciting player to watch is not necessarily the best player. Aparicio & Fox were certainly exciting, and their go-go style of play is the kind that baseball men froth over, but we just can't get past the fact that neither man was a good hitter, and while they were good defensively, they weren't good enough to make up for their lack of production at the plate.
There is a feeling in baseball that if a shortstop doesn't hit, that doesn't matter. A shortstop's job is to be good on defense, so their hitting is irrelevant. So I guess that their at-bats don't count? The 8,110 career outs Aparicio made at the plate weren't real outs? You can't just ignore a part of someone's game; every element must be taken into account. But, you might say, most shortstops don't hit that well. I would reply (as Bill James did) that most shortstops are not in the Hall of Fame.
A player contributes on both offense and defense. You must determine how much they contributed to the offense and defense and put them together to see how much a player contributed to the overall team performance. I just revealed that Luis Aparico made 8.110 career outs (sporting an ugly .310 OBP). Did he do anything anywhere else in the game to make up for the huge negative this created for his team?
Aparicio played good defense. Was it good enough to make up for his offensive woes? Seeing as offense is about 50% of the game and defense is 5-10%, it would be very difficult to do so. Defense is horribly overvalued, and you'd have to be as good as Bill Mazeroski to contribute positively to your team's success as a dreadful hitter. Aparicio was good defensively . . . but not that good. The metric of Batting Runs and Fielding Runs are instructive; Aparicio finished his career with 60 fielding runs, but was 195 batting runs below average. So no, Aparicio's defense did not make up for his hitting problems.
Nellie Fox was better, but he has the same problem. He hit 349/343/288 (compared to a league average of 340/399/265), so he was an above-average hitter. Defensively, he was good, like Aparicio. But he was not great, like Bill Mazeroski or Bobby Grich. He was simply good. And his poor hitting and good fielding don't make for a Hall-of-Fame combination.
Hughie Jennings
For 5 seasons, from 1894-1898, Hughie Jennings was a Hall-of-Famer, no questions asked. Before and after that, he contributed basically nothing to his team. Hughie only played about 8 full years of baseball, although he was technically around for 17 seasons. If you play 8 years, you'd better be Babe Ruth to get in the Hall. Jennings wasn't. He was darn good for about 5 of those years, and spent the rest of his career as a nothing. Most players will have a peak of greatness, before and after which they are merely good. But few people are like Jennings, who went from being okay to great for 5 years and then became poor. But he stuck around as a manager and got into the Hall because of that, and because of his reputation as one of the original Baltimore Orioles. Reputation is more powerful than reality.
George Kell
I am completely perplexed as to how the Veteran's Committee could look at a list of unelected third basemen to put in the Hall and choose George Kell. What in the world does Kell have over the likes of Ron Santo or Ken Boyer?
The short answer is nothing. There were about four of five seasons where you could call Kell one of the ten best players in the AL. Other than that, he had a good career but not a great one. There are about 100 players like the one I just described who had really good careers, but aren't in Cooperstown (Dave Parker, Jimmy Wynn, Don Mattingly, Jose Cruz). What was it that made Kell, whose credentials are much lesser than most unelected third basemen, jump out at the committee? I haven't a clue, but they inducted him in 1983 all the same. Cronyism cannot be ruled out when considering Veteran's Committee decisions.
Ralph Kiner & Earle Combs
Imagine a player who spends 10 seasons in baseball. Just 10, that's all. Wouldn't he have to be some kind of historic player to be able to reach Cooperstown in 10 years? I think so. But Kiner played ten years, and he's in. But I don't think he deserves it. Kiner is kind of like the hitting version of Sandy Koufax. His career was unnaturally short, but pretty good. Although it would be more accurate to say that Kiner would be the hitting version of Koufax if he had played longer and been a lot better.
Kiner was never the best player in the National League, although he was close for about 4 seasons (with 1949 and 1951 being darn good years). He was only a good player for about 8 of the 10 seasons. None of this is enough to give him enough career credibility to make it to Cooperstown in 10 years, 1400 games, and 5205 ABs.
But Kiner was the only really good Pirate between Honus Wagner and Roberto Clemente, so people always rememberd him, especially after he became a broadcaster. The kicker, though, is that Kiner led the NL in home runs for 7 straight seasons. That's very good, but it's a classic example of cherry-picking stats. What else did Kiner do besides that? We don't elect parts of a player, we elect the whole player, and we need to put these randomly selected stats in context? Perhaps the fact that Forbes Field was a very friendly place for hitters should be taken into account? Then perhaps we'll start to see Kiner for what he was; a good player for a very short amount of time.
Earle was the same basic story. He wasn't as good as Kiner, but he actually played for 12 years, 9 of them full seasons. Was he an elite, MVP-quality guy who earned his spot in a short amount of time? No. He was really good, but never great.
Oh yeah, Earle played for the '27 Yankees and spent his whole career in pinstripes. If he'd spent it with the St. Louis Browns, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Lloyd Waner
Legend has it that when the Veteran's Committee elected Lloyd, they actually did it based on his brother Paul's career stats, which are much more impressive. It's probably an apocryphal story, but it's more complimentary than believing that the Committee just lost their wits when they elected him.
Well, Lloyd got off to one heck of a start. Five of his first six seasons were very good; none of them MVP-esque, but quite good. After that he had five years where he was a decent, above-average player. Then he spent six seasons just trying to hang on. Sound like a Hall-of-Famer? Nope. But hey, he had a cool nickname; he was "Little Poison." And if you elect "Big Poison" to the Hall (his brother Paul, who does deserve it), ya gotta have "Little Poison" too, right? Right?
Hack Wilson
As I said, the rules preclude the Hall from inducting a player based on one good season, but Hack Wilson got in anyway. Everybody remembers him as the guy who knocked in 191 runs in 1930. Of course, the NL as a whole hit .303 in that particular year, but no one makes allowances for the era in baseball.
Hack did have a good career; the problem is that it lasted about 7 seasons, making him sort of a modern Darryl Strawberry. The rest of the time, he was just hanging on. The 191 RBIs got Wilson in the door to Cooperstown. If it weren't for that season, he probably wouldn't have gotten in. Maybe Stan Hack, another member of the 30's-era Cubs with better credentials, would have gotten in.
Chuck Klein
Well, we've got to have somebody from the Phillies in Cooperstown. Because before Robin Roberts and Richie Ashburn came along, the best Phillies of all time were guys like Cy Williams and Gavvy Cravath. Klein, who is one of the only good Phillies from the first half of the 20th century, also won a Triple Crown. He was sort of like Lloyd Waner; he got off to a great start, but only had 5 superior years before it all went downhill. Cesar Cedeno could say that same thing.
Tommy McCarthy
I haven't really heard of Tommy McCarthy, and I'll just be generous and say that the Veteran's Committee must have had some reason to elect someone who played 13 decent seasons in the 1880s and 1890s.
Ray Schalk & Red Faber
The best things these two guys have going for them is that they were both on the 1919 Chicago White Sox and did not accept a bribe to throw the Series. Maybe Landis awarded them with election to Cooperstown at some later date.
Jack Chesbro
Chesbro set a modern record with 41 wins in 1903. Other than that, I defy you to find a Hall-of-Famer here.
Don Drysdale
This would easily be the biggest surprise, for me as well as you. I had the same image of Drysdale everyone else had, of one of the best pitchers of the 1960s. But I'm here to suggest that what everyone thinks about Drysdale just does not gel with what he actually did.
First of all, Drysdale played in a pitcher's park in a pitcher's league in the best era for pitchers in the last 75 years. We must take this into account when examining his pitching numbers. He did lead the league in strikeouts 3 times and struck out at least 200 in 6 seasons. But Drysdale (like Koufax) had a short career; he only played 14 seasons. He was 33 years old. If he could have put together a few more dominant years, maybe he would have legitimately made it. The problem is that when you consider the era and context, Drysdale doesn't look incredibly better than a lot of other pitchers who aren't in the Hall, and his short career makes it look even worse.
Rollie Fingers
Sportswriters really don't have a clue how to compare starting pitchers to relievers and, as I've said before, sabermetrics isn't all that certain either. But we can do a pretty good job of measuring relievers against each other. And so it's really hard to see what the voters saw in Fingers that pushed him ahead of Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, and several others.
What likely happened here is that the Hall voters used a past mistake to justify a future one. The fact that Fingers won the MVP in 1982 (a rarity for a reliever) was mentioned often as justification for his induction. Was that what set him apart from those other guys? Or is it possible that the '82 MVP was itself a mistake, and using it to justify a future one is not such a good idea.
Burleigh Grimes
Grimes' numbers are enough to make him just barely edge into Cooperstown consideration. But consider that for the last 14 seasons of his career, Grimes had a huge unfair advantage over opposing hitters and most other pitchers. Yes, Grimes was the last legal spitball pitcher. So while other pitchers couldn't legally use it, Grimes had an unfair advantage, which much have helped him to some extent during his career. The fact that it was sanctioned by the MLB does not mean we can dismiss it.
Catfish Hunter
Catfish is perhaps baseball's best example of a good player whose teams made him look great. And he played on some darn good teams. The Oakland dynasty of the mid-70's and then the Bronx Zoo Yankees. So while sportswriters stare at W-L record (unaware that it's influenced as much by the time as by the pitcher himself), they saw a great pitcher where a good one really existed.
The Frisch Effect:
Jim Bottomley, George Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Freddie Lindstrom, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Ross Youngs, Rube Marquard
The "Frish Effect" is what happened to the Veterans' Committe when Frankie Frisch took over in 1967. From 1970-1976, the Veterans Committee selected 19 players. This is probably far too many players to just throw into the Hall of Fame, but we'll set that aside. The most important fact is that, with everyone in baseball history to choose from, 9 of 19 were Frisch's old teammates. In an institution with rampant cronyism, Frankie Frisch essentially ruined the Veteran's Committee and perhaps the Hall of Fame, by electing en masse all of his old friends. But how many of Frisch's old friends actually deserved the honor? None of Frisch's 9 teammates were even remotely qualified. Several of the other players selected, Earl Combs, Harry Hooper, Jake Beckley, and others were also ill-qualified. But what makes it even more odious is that the Giants of the '20s and the Cardinals of the '30s, already full of legitimate Hall-of-Famers, were expanded to outmatch even the 1927 Yankees in terms of players represented in the Hall. Although Frisch himself was a deserving inductee, he ravaged the process during his tenure as Chairman of the Veteran's Committee.
I'll be back tomorrow with my thoughts on the Cooperstown chances of current and recently-retired players tomorrow ...
Monday, October 17, 2005
Cooperstown worthy?
I spent some time a few months ago looking back through the record books and considering those elected to the Hall of Fame. As part of my ongoing attempt to refine my aptitude for statistical analysis, I decided to formulate my own personal Hall of Fame. My results are still in an early phase; I'm trying to take a number of factors into account. However, I can go ahead and give a tentative list of the top 10 people I would put into the Hall and the top 10 people I would take out.
Let me add that this is not a concrete plan I wish to see put into effect; the last thing Cooperstown needs is a mass election, however deserving the candidates. This is more of an idealized version of what the Hall of Fame should be, not a practical solution to the problems facing the current Hall. Although there are several players on here whose candidacy I would support, I'm not advocating a sudden game of musical chairs in Cooperstown. Keep that in mind, and enjoy:
(The references to HOF Standards & HOF Monitor are the metrics devised by Bill James as a way to measure where a candidate stands in his HOF candidacy. They were obtained from the always-handy http://www.baseball-reference.com).
PEOPLE I WOULD PUT IN:
10. Lou Whitaker
Whitaker is an easier case, since most people remember him. Lou doesn't have overpowering credentials for the Hall, but I see him as a fine candidate for election. He was a good hitter; not exactly excellent, but well above-average. He hit for a .276 career average with a .366 career OBP (which meant something back in the 80's and early 90's). He also had significant power for his position; 244 career HR. But what elevates his game even more is that he was a very good second baseman. Is Whitaker the best second baseman not in the Hall? Other than Biggio and Alomar, yes absolutely. He would not be on the bottom fringes of the players in the Hall; he would be an admirable selection.
9. Ted Simmons
Simmons was, in my mind, the 7th- or 8th-best catcher in major league history. Given that the current Hall includes some 13 catchers, it would not be unreasonable to elect "Simba." He is the best full-time catcher not in the Hall, and his career performance meets Hall-of-Fame standards.
Catchers are not usually held to the same standards of statistical accomplishment, simply because it is the nature of their job to break down early and experience a shorter peak, especially in terms of defense. So we must take into account that Simmons' decision to stay a full-time catcher untl the age of 35 hurt his Hall-of-Fame chances by cutting his career short and affecting an incalculable toll on his body.
Simmons was, if not the best player in baseball (his 1978 season notwithstanding), was quite often the best player on his team. He was the best player on the Cardinal teams of the mid-late 70's (after Bob Gibson's & Lou Brock's decline), with the period 1975-1980 especially productive. Was he the best in baseball at his position? Well, no. But then he played at the same time as Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk, 2 of the best 4 or 5 catchers ever. Simmons "merely" ranks in the top 10. He had about 4 seasons that could be considered MVP-caliber (1973, 1975, 1977-8) and several All-Star caliber seasons. Of his most-comparable players, 4 are in the Hall (Fisk, Carter, Cronin, Sandberg?) and 4 more should be (Trammell, Torre, Whitaker, Larkin).
8. Alan Trammell
Trammell is forever paired with Whitaker, so it would be wonderful if they could both make it to the Hall. However, if given a choice, I would pick Trammell. His managerial misadventures nothwithstanding, he was a heck of a hitter on some darn good teams. He is (after Bill Dahlen) the best shortstop not in the Hall. He finished 2nd in the 1987 AL MVP voting (although his snub in favor of George Bell is laughable now). He hit 185 career HR, stole 236 career bases, and was an adequate defender. The reason Trammell isn't in the Hall is that he became eligible at the same time a few guys named A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar emerged and redefined the role of the shortstop. It's not Alan's fault he wasn't a slugger, but history has lost him in the glow surrounding the big three. Barry Larkin will likely suffer a similar fate.
7. Bobby Grich
Grich just came around far too early. He hit for a poor average (.266 career), and that's just enough to get most people to dismiss you in 1980. But we now have a growing appreciation for Grich's defense (the best defensive shortstop of his era) and his ability to get on base (.373 career mark). We realize that his power (224 career HR, averaging 18 every 162 games) was much more irreplaceable at second base, especially in the 1980s. Grich made it to the postseason 5 times as well. His particular talents weren't appreciated at the time, and as a result, he has unfairly been shunted into the background of history.
6. Joe Torre
Bill James has speculated that Torre has gotten the shaft from Cooperstown because his career has been too hard to define. What position did he play? Well, he played 903 career games at catcher, 787 at first, and 515 at third. That's pretty evenly divided into three. Which team did he play for? Well, he spent half his career with the Braves (first in Milwaukee, then Atlanta), then a good portion with St. Louis (where he won his MVP), and a few years with the Mets. Add in the fact that most people now remember him as a manager, and it's no wonder that people don't elect him. They can't remember his career with any sort of clarity. We remember Willie Mays: Giants, center field. We remember Ryne Sandberg: Cubs, second base. But Joe Torre? Umm ... Braves and Cardinals, Yankees too (wait, he didn't play for them) and he played . . . god, he played everywhere.
But Torre was one heck of a player; what he lacked in defense he made up for with hitting: 367/452/297 career line, 315 career Win Shares, and a 1971 season that was simply incredible.
5. Bill Dahlen
Dahlen slips through the cracks for many reasons. He played from 1891-1911. If history is divided into BC and AD, then baseball is divided into BB and AB: Before Babe and After Babe. And far too much of baseball history Before Babe is lost or marginalized, at least in general. Bill Dahlen falls into this category. He's not an unfamiliar type of player; Dahlen was slap-hitting on-base specialist with superb defense at shortstop. Sound vaguely like Ozzie Smith? Perhaps. Ozzie is actually the 10th-most similar player to Dahlen. Of the top 10, 7 are Hall-of-Famers, with George Davis and Bid McPhee numbers 1 and 2, Luke Appling number 5, Luis Aparicio number 6, and Frankie Frisch number 7. Dave Concepcion is number 8, although he's not in Cooperstown. This doesn't necessarily prove anything, although it's a point in Dahlen's favor. And considering that his hitting stats are partially deflated by his era, it's even more notable.
Dahlen began his career on the post-Cap Anson Cubs. He left the Cubs (before they became the 106-win dynasty) and went to the Brooklyn Dodgers. Not exactly a brilliant career move. He did spend four seasons with the New York Giants, making his only World Series appearance as the starting shortstop on the 1905 World Champions. He was, however, past his prime by then. He finished out his career with 2 years in Boston (with the Braves) and 2 more in Brooklyn. So he a good player on bad teams, which is never a good chance to get noticed in Cooperstown.
What are Dahlen's strengths? He was an absolutely top-notch defensive shortstop. He is credited with 219 fielding runs for his career, which is just brilliant. While defensive statistics are hairy, we can certainly conclude that Dahlen was an excellent defensive shortstop and possibly among the elite during his time.
Dahlen was not a great hitter, but he was certainly a good one. His career .358 OBP is pretty good for his era, as is his .272 average. He was no kind of slugger, finishing with 84 career homers. He was amazingly disciplined, however, averaging 71 BB/162 G. Strikeout information is incomplete, but what we do have suggests he struck out less often than he walked. He stole 547 career bases, although we don't know how often he was caught stealing. He is credited with 394 Win Shares and 39.8 Total Player Wins. Here's the kicker: every other eligible player with 394 Win Shares is in the Hall of Fame. It would n0t be a detriment to the Hall to put Dahlen in. I don't know of any off-the-field reasons that Dahlen was disliked or disrespected. There doesn't seem to be anything keeping him out of Cooperstown. And unlike Pete Rose or Joe Jackson, Dahlen's election to the Hall would not be strongly opposed by, well, anyone.
4. Ron Santo
I think Ron Santo will get in, one of these days. I just hope it happens before he passes away.
There's really no good reason to keep him out. He is (apart from Darrell Evans), the best third baseman not in the Hall, and he's the 4th-best player period not in the Hall. He was a very good hitter for quite a while, as well as being a fine third baseman. If he had played for the Yankees, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
3. Darrell Evans
Bill James said that Darrell Evans was the most underrated player in baseball history. I would tend to agree. While many of the players on this list would pop up on other peoples' lists, only the most ardent sabermetrician would put forth Evans' name for candidacy. And if there is an Evans on their ballot, it's probably Dwight. Evans' problem was that, as James pointed out, he embodied every aspect of the underrated player. He played very good defense, but no one noticed. He had great plate discipline, but never hit for a high average. He did many things well, but not any one thing very well. He spent his most productive years on nowhere teams (San Francisco, Atlanta) and by the time he did reach a contender (Detroit), his best years were behind him, and everyone had already made up their minds he wasn't Cooperstown-worthy.
2. Dick Allen
Well, let's dispense with the obvious right off the bat. Allen hit like a Hall-of-Famer. In fact, he hit like he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But then he played with nowhere teams (Philadelphia, Chicago). He also compiled his hitting numbers during a pitcher's era. So while his 381/534/292 career line would be in the neighborhood if 400/600/300 nowadays, most BBWAA voters are clueless when it comes to adjusting for eras. So Allen was a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer on the field. This we can agree on.
But of course it's what happened off the field that has kept Allen out of the Hall. He was a terrible irritant to his team, often demanding trades and giving the front office severe headaches. He was a selfish player who did not have the best interest of his teams in mind. He would often use racism to justify his actions. While racism was (and still is) an underappreciated element in sports, it did not justify someone behaving like a boorish ass. So why am I arguing to put Allen in the Hall?
It's hard for me to accept that Allen's off-the-field shenanigans significantly overshadowed his on-the-field performance. It's just possible that Allen was a bit misunderstood, taking the blame as the problem child/whipping boy of his era. Not to say that he didn't do what he did, but that it was blown out of proportion in terms of its effect on the team. And studies show that we tend to overestimate one person's impact on the performance of a team. So while it may seem, in a subjective sense, that Allen's attitude cost his team some wins, there is no real evidence that this is true to any significant degree. Sure it didn't help matters, but I just don't believe it outweighed his brilliance on the baseball diamond.
I will admit freely that it's easy for me to argue on behalf of Allen 30 years after his prime; if I had lived through his tirades, I would likely feel differently. But perhaps this distance and objectivity can be a strength as well? I'll certainly say that I may be too far away from the events to judge their effect, but I will also point out that some may have been to close to the events to do the same. And we cannot, repeat, cannot let our perceptions of someone be entirely colored by their presentation in the media.
Having said all of that, can I still put somone of admittedly shady personal character into the Hall? It bothers me somewhat, but he's not exactly alone. Many people use the Ty Cobb example when discussing Pete Rose, but it applies more to Allen. Cobb was not a favorite with his teammates, and some more daring souls have suggested that Cobb's selfish, fend-for-yourselves attitude might have cost the Tigers a World Championship. And Allen was never seriously suspected of throwing a baseball game, whereas there were some rather serious allegations towards Cobb and Tris Speaker. So there is a sizable precedent for enshrining players who valued themselves far more than they valued their team (ahem, Babe Ruth, ahem).
1. Bert Blyleven
Poor Bert was cursed to play for bad teams. He was also cursed by the fact that most Hall voters still see Wins and Losses as the chief measure of a pitcher's quality. Bert's career W-L is 287-250. 287 is a lot of wins, but 250 is a lot of losses. So Bert will not get in until the writers change their attitudes about Wins and Losses and look more toward other measures. Measures such as ERA (career 3.31 for Bert), strikeouts (3701, 4th all-time) or neutral wins and losses, or wins and losses measured simply by the pitcher's performance rather than the team performance. Bert's neutral won-loss record is 313-224. The short-sightedness of others has cost Bert his well-earned spot in Cooperstown. No other eligible pitcher is even close.
I'll be back tomorrow with the top 10 I would take out of the Hall ...
Let me add that this is not a concrete plan I wish to see put into effect; the last thing Cooperstown needs is a mass election, however deserving the candidates. This is more of an idealized version of what the Hall of Fame should be, not a practical solution to the problems facing the current Hall. Although there are several players on here whose candidacy I would support, I'm not advocating a sudden game of musical chairs in Cooperstown. Keep that in mind, and enjoy:
(The references to HOF Standards & HOF Monitor are the metrics devised by Bill James as a way to measure where a candidate stands in his HOF candidacy. They were obtained from the always-handy http://www.baseball-reference.com).
PEOPLE I WOULD PUT IN:
10. Lou Whitaker
Whitaker is an easier case, since most people remember him. Lou doesn't have overpowering credentials for the Hall, but I see him as a fine candidate for election. He was a good hitter; not exactly excellent, but well above-average. He hit for a .276 career average with a .366 career OBP (which meant something back in the 80's and early 90's). He also had significant power for his position; 244 career HR. But what elevates his game even more is that he was a very good second baseman. Is Whitaker the best second baseman not in the Hall? Other than Biggio and Alomar, yes absolutely. He would not be on the bottom fringes of the players in the Hall; he would be an admirable selection.
9. Ted Simmons
Simmons was, in my mind, the 7th- or 8th-best catcher in major league history. Given that the current Hall includes some 13 catchers, it would not be unreasonable to elect "Simba." He is the best full-time catcher not in the Hall, and his career performance meets Hall-of-Fame standards.
Catchers are not usually held to the same standards of statistical accomplishment, simply because it is the nature of their job to break down early and experience a shorter peak, especially in terms of defense. So we must take into account that Simmons' decision to stay a full-time catcher untl the age of 35 hurt his Hall-of-Fame chances by cutting his career short and affecting an incalculable toll on his body.
Simmons was, if not the best player in baseball (his 1978 season notwithstanding), was quite often the best player on his team. He was the best player on the Cardinal teams of the mid-late 70's (after Bob Gibson's & Lou Brock's decline), with the period 1975-1980 especially productive. Was he the best in baseball at his position? Well, no. But then he played at the same time as Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk, 2 of the best 4 or 5 catchers ever. Simmons "merely" ranks in the top 10. He had about 4 seasons that could be considered MVP-caliber (1973, 1975, 1977-8) and several All-Star caliber seasons. Of his most-comparable players, 4 are in the Hall (Fisk, Carter, Cronin, Sandberg?) and 4 more should be (Trammell, Torre, Whitaker, Larkin).
8. Alan Trammell
Trammell is forever paired with Whitaker, so it would be wonderful if they could both make it to the Hall. However, if given a choice, I would pick Trammell. His managerial misadventures nothwithstanding, he was a heck of a hitter on some darn good teams. He is (after Bill Dahlen) the best shortstop not in the Hall. He finished 2nd in the 1987 AL MVP voting (although his snub in favor of George Bell is laughable now). He hit 185 career HR, stole 236 career bases, and was an adequate defender. The reason Trammell isn't in the Hall is that he became eligible at the same time a few guys named A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar emerged and redefined the role of the shortstop. It's not Alan's fault he wasn't a slugger, but history has lost him in the glow surrounding the big three. Barry Larkin will likely suffer a similar fate.
7. Bobby Grich
Grich just came around far too early. He hit for a poor average (.266 career), and that's just enough to get most people to dismiss you in 1980. But we now have a growing appreciation for Grich's defense (the best defensive shortstop of his era) and his ability to get on base (.373 career mark). We realize that his power (224 career HR, averaging 18 every 162 games) was much more irreplaceable at second base, especially in the 1980s. Grich made it to the postseason 5 times as well. His particular talents weren't appreciated at the time, and as a result, he has unfairly been shunted into the background of history.
6. Joe Torre
Bill James has speculated that Torre has gotten the shaft from Cooperstown because his career has been too hard to define. What position did he play? Well, he played 903 career games at catcher, 787 at first, and 515 at third. That's pretty evenly divided into three. Which team did he play for? Well, he spent half his career with the Braves (first in Milwaukee, then Atlanta), then a good portion with St. Louis (where he won his MVP), and a few years with the Mets. Add in the fact that most people now remember him as a manager, and it's no wonder that people don't elect him. They can't remember his career with any sort of clarity. We remember Willie Mays: Giants, center field. We remember Ryne Sandberg: Cubs, second base. But Joe Torre? Umm ... Braves and Cardinals, Yankees too (wait, he didn't play for them) and he played . . . god, he played everywhere.
But Torre was one heck of a player; what he lacked in defense he made up for with hitting: 367/452/297 career line, 315 career Win Shares, and a 1971 season that was simply incredible.
5. Bill Dahlen
Dahlen slips through the cracks for many reasons. He played from 1891-1911. If history is divided into BC and AD, then baseball is divided into BB and AB: Before Babe and After Babe. And far too much of baseball history Before Babe is lost or marginalized, at least in general. Bill Dahlen falls into this category. He's not an unfamiliar type of player; Dahlen was slap-hitting on-base specialist with superb defense at shortstop. Sound vaguely like Ozzie Smith? Perhaps. Ozzie is actually the 10th-most similar player to Dahlen. Of the top 10, 7 are Hall-of-Famers, with George Davis and Bid McPhee numbers 1 and 2, Luke Appling number 5, Luis Aparicio number 6, and Frankie Frisch number 7. Dave Concepcion is number 8, although he's not in Cooperstown. This doesn't necessarily prove anything, although it's a point in Dahlen's favor. And considering that his hitting stats are partially deflated by his era, it's even more notable.
Dahlen began his career on the post-Cap Anson Cubs. He left the Cubs (before they became the 106-win dynasty) and went to the Brooklyn Dodgers. Not exactly a brilliant career move. He did spend four seasons with the New York Giants, making his only World Series appearance as the starting shortstop on the 1905 World Champions. He was, however, past his prime by then. He finished out his career with 2 years in Boston (with the Braves) and 2 more in Brooklyn. So he a good player on bad teams, which is never a good chance to get noticed in Cooperstown.
What are Dahlen's strengths? He was an absolutely top-notch defensive shortstop. He is credited with 219 fielding runs for his career, which is just brilliant. While defensive statistics are hairy, we can certainly conclude that Dahlen was an excellent defensive shortstop and possibly among the elite during his time.
Dahlen was not a great hitter, but he was certainly a good one. His career .358 OBP is pretty good for his era, as is his .272 average. He was no kind of slugger, finishing with 84 career homers. He was amazingly disciplined, however, averaging 71 BB/162 G. Strikeout information is incomplete, but what we do have suggests he struck out less often than he walked. He stole 547 career bases, although we don't know how often he was caught stealing. He is credited with 394 Win Shares and 39.8 Total Player Wins. Here's the kicker: every other eligible player with 394 Win Shares is in the Hall of Fame. It would n0t be a detriment to the Hall to put Dahlen in. I don't know of any off-the-field reasons that Dahlen was disliked or disrespected. There doesn't seem to be anything keeping him out of Cooperstown. And unlike Pete Rose or Joe Jackson, Dahlen's election to the Hall would not be strongly opposed by, well, anyone.
4. Ron Santo
I think Ron Santo will get in, one of these days. I just hope it happens before he passes away.
There's really no good reason to keep him out. He is (apart from Darrell Evans), the best third baseman not in the Hall, and he's the 4th-best player period not in the Hall. He was a very good hitter for quite a while, as well as being a fine third baseman. If he had played for the Yankees, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
3. Darrell Evans
Bill James said that Darrell Evans was the most underrated player in baseball history. I would tend to agree. While many of the players on this list would pop up on other peoples' lists, only the most ardent sabermetrician would put forth Evans' name for candidacy. And if there is an Evans on their ballot, it's probably Dwight. Evans' problem was that, as James pointed out, he embodied every aspect of the underrated player. He played very good defense, but no one noticed. He had great plate discipline, but never hit for a high average. He did many things well, but not any one thing very well. He spent his most productive years on nowhere teams (San Francisco, Atlanta) and by the time he did reach a contender (Detroit), his best years were behind him, and everyone had already made up their minds he wasn't Cooperstown-worthy.
2. Dick Allen
Well, let's dispense with the obvious right off the bat. Allen hit like a Hall-of-Famer. In fact, he hit like he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But then he played with nowhere teams (Philadelphia, Chicago). He also compiled his hitting numbers during a pitcher's era. So while his 381/534/292 career line would be in the neighborhood if 400/600/300 nowadays, most BBWAA voters are clueless when it comes to adjusting for eras. So Allen was a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer on the field. This we can agree on.
But of course it's what happened off the field that has kept Allen out of the Hall. He was a terrible irritant to his team, often demanding trades and giving the front office severe headaches. He was a selfish player who did not have the best interest of his teams in mind. He would often use racism to justify his actions. While racism was (and still is) an underappreciated element in sports, it did not justify someone behaving like a boorish ass. So why am I arguing to put Allen in the Hall?
It's hard for me to accept that Allen's off-the-field shenanigans significantly overshadowed his on-the-field performance. It's just possible that Allen was a bit misunderstood, taking the blame as the problem child/whipping boy of his era. Not to say that he didn't do what he did, but that it was blown out of proportion in terms of its effect on the team. And studies show that we tend to overestimate one person's impact on the performance of a team. So while it may seem, in a subjective sense, that Allen's attitude cost his team some wins, there is no real evidence that this is true to any significant degree. Sure it didn't help matters, but I just don't believe it outweighed his brilliance on the baseball diamond.
I will admit freely that it's easy for me to argue on behalf of Allen 30 years after his prime; if I had lived through his tirades, I would likely feel differently. But perhaps this distance and objectivity can be a strength as well? I'll certainly say that I may be too far away from the events to judge their effect, but I will also point out that some may have been to close to the events to do the same. And we cannot, repeat, cannot let our perceptions of someone be entirely colored by their presentation in the media.
Having said all of that, can I still put somone of admittedly shady personal character into the Hall? It bothers me somewhat, but he's not exactly alone. Many people use the Ty Cobb example when discussing Pete Rose, but it applies more to Allen. Cobb was not a favorite with his teammates, and some more daring souls have suggested that Cobb's selfish, fend-for-yourselves attitude might have cost the Tigers a World Championship. And Allen was never seriously suspected of throwing a baseball game, whereas there were some rather serious allegations towards Cobb and Tris Speaker. So there is a sizable precedent for enshrining players who valued themselves far more than they valued their team (ahem, Babe Ruth, ahem).
1. Bert Blyleven
Poor Bert was cursed to play for bad teams. He was also cursed by the fact that most Hall voters still see Wins and Losses as the chief measure of a pitcher's quality. Bert's career W-L is 287-250. 287 is a lot of wins, but 250 is a lot of losses. So Bert will not get in until the writers change their attitudes about Wins and Losses and look more toward other measures. Measures such as ERA (career 3.31 for Bert), strikeouts (3701, 4th all-time) or neutral wins and losses, or wins and losses measured simply by the pitcher's performance rather than the team performance. Bert's neutral won-loss record is 313-224. The short-sightedness of others has cost Bert his well-earned spot in Cooperstown. No other eligible pitcher is even close.
I'll be back tomorrow with the top 10 I would take out of the Hall ...
All about the pitching ...
Just for a second, the baseball media isn't talking about "smart ball," small ball, or Moneyball. They're not talking about stats. They're talking about pitching, becuase the Chicago White Sox put on an unprecedented pitching display in the ALCS. And on this point, the media and I are in total agreement.
Okay, so I picked the Angels to win in 7. Didn't work out that way, I admit. Maybe I didn't make enough allowance for the absence of Bartolo Colon. But the truth is, I never dreamed that the White Sox rotation, good as it was during the regular season, would put on a display of pitching dominance that should rightfully go down as one of the best in postseason history.
Oh, the Angels didn't do too poorly. They held the Sox to 23 runs in 5 games, about 4.5 runs per game. This is a little better than the Sox did during the regular season, but not exactly unexpected. The Angel starters did a good job, and the relievers fared well, although they were overworked.
But the pitching line for the White Sox is absurd. They held the Angels to 11 runs in 5 games, or just barely more than 2 runs per game. The Angels could have had Bartolo Colon and Cy Young in their rotation, but they couldn't win the Series scoring 2 runs per game. The White Sox threw 45 innings, striking out 22 batters and allowing just 4 HR. They also allowed an ungodly low 4 walks. Four walks in five games. That's really amazing.
Of course, the prime movers and shakers behind this pitching mastery were the Sox' starting four: Contreras, Buehrle, Garland, and Garcia. The Sox threw4 complete games in a postseason series for the first time since the Yankees did it in the '56 World Series. The Sox bullpen pitched 0.2 innings in the entire series. That's phenomenal; it's nearly impossible in this day and age. If I could give out the MVP, it would be a 4-way tie between the Four Horsemen of the Sox pitching staff.
Game 1: Contreras (L), 8.1 IP, 7 H, 3 ER, 0 BB, 4 K, 1 HR
Game 2: Buehrle (W), CG, 5 H, 1 ER, o BB, 4 K, 1 HR
Game 3: Garland (W), CG, 4 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 7 K, HR
Game 4: Garcia (W), CG, 6 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 5 K, 0 HR
Game 5: Contreras (W), CG, 5 H, 3 ER, 2 BB, 2 K, 0 HR
Wow.
The Sox' style has been referred to as "smart ball." It would more accurately described in a much more complimentary (to my eyes) way: Pitching, Defense, and the 3-Run Homer.
This would be amazingly accurate if the Sox didn't spoilt it by wasting so many outs (Podsednik goes 4/7 in steals, etc.). The Sox got historically good pitching, good defense (3 E in 5 G), and big home runs (2 for Crede, 2 for Konerko). It should serve them well in the World Series (where they will have home field advantage). It will only be until the Astros seal the deal in the NLCS, then we will be planning the Series. And yes, I know I blew the Astros series, too. I ain't perfect.
Okay, so I picked the Angels to win in 7. Didn't work out that way, I admit. Maybe I didn't make enough allowance for the absence of Bartolo Colon. But the truth is, I never dreamed that the White Sox rotation, good as it was during the regular season, would put on a display of pitching dominance that should rightfully go down as one of the best in postseason history.
Oh, the Angels didn't do too poorly. They held the Sox to 23 runs in 5 games, about 4.5 runs per game. This is a little better than the Sox did during the regular season, but not exactly unexpected. The Angel starters did a good job, and the relievers fared well, although they were overworked.
But the pitching line for the White Sox is absurd. They held the Angels to 11 runs in 5 games, or just barely more than 2 runs per game. The Angels could have had Bartolo Colon and Cy Young in their rotation, but they couldn't win the Series scoring 2 runs per game. The White Sox threw 45 innings, striking out 22 batters and allowing just 4 HR. They also allowed an ungodly low 4 walks. Four walks in five games. That's really amazing.
Of course, the prime movers and shakers behind this pitching mastery were the Sox' starting four: Contreras, Buehrle, Garland, and Garcia. The Sox threw4 complete games in a postseason series for the first time since the Yankees did it in the '56 World Series. The Sox bullpen pitched 0.2 innings in the entire series. That's phenomenal; it's nearly impossible in this day and age. If I could give out the MVP, it would be a 4-way tie between the Four Horsemen of the Sox pitching staff.
Game 1: Contreras (L), 8.1 IP, 7 H, 3 ER, 0 BB, 4 K, 1 HR
Game 2: Buehrle (W), CG, 5 H, 1 ER, o BB, 4 K, 1 HR
Game 3: Garland (W), CG, 4 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 7 K, HR
Game 4: Garcia (W), CG, 6 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 5 K, 0 HR
Game 5: Contreras (W), CG, 5 H, 3 ER, 2 BB, 2 K, 0 HR
Wow.
The Sox' style has been referred to as "smart ball." It would more accurately described in a much more complimentary (to my eyes) way: Pitching, Defense, and the 3-Run Homer.
This would be amazingly accurate if the Sox didn't spoilt it by wasting so many outs (Podsednik goes 4/7 in steals, etc.). The Sox got historically good pitching, good defense (3 E in 5 G), and big home runs (2 for Crede, 2 for Konerko). It should serve them well in the World Series (where they will have home field advantage). It will only be until the Astros seal the deal in the NLCS, then we will be planning the Series. And yes, I know I blew the Astros series, too. I ain't perfect.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Worst award selections
Another long-range project of mine involves working my way back through history analyzing and recording each season's individual achievements. Having now made it back through 1985, I thought I'd offer up my opinion on the worst award selections of the past 20 years (keeping in mind that a few might be made in this seasons awards):
Honorable Mention: Larry Walker (1997 NL MVP), Miguel Tejada (2002 AL MVP), Dennis Eckersley (1992 AL Cy Young), Kerry Wood (1998 NL Rookie of the Year)
#10: Mark Davis, 1989 NL Cy Young
Baseball people just don't really know how to measure a relief pitcher against starting pitchers. I will grant you that Davis was the best closer in the NL. He had a 1.85 ERA with 44 saves and 92 K in 92.2 IP. He won the award because, as often happens, sportswriters gradually convinced themselves that Davis's season was "special" and that he was carrying the NL Champion Giants.
Davis' season was darn good for a reliever, but I think he got the award because the voters didn't see a viable starting pitcher as a candidate. Mike Scott led the league with 20 wins (and 10 losses), but his 3.10 ERA wasn't near the top ten, and the Astros finished 3rd. Scott finished 2nd in the voting. Greg Maddux came in 3rd, which wasn't such a bad choice. Maddux went 19-12 with a 2.95 ERA for the division-winning Cubs. He's actually a better candidate than Davis.
But the best NL pitcher in 1989 was, in my opinion, Orel Hershiser. Hershiser's 2.31 ERA was 2nd in the league. He threw 256.2 IP, allowing only 9 HR and 77 BB against 178 K. Not only that, but Hershiser threw 256.2 IP, which completely obliterates Davis' advantage in ERA, as far as I see it.
But Hershiser didn't win because his record was 15-15. Even today, in the era of Moneyball, a pitcher couldn't win the Cy Young with a 15-15 record. So it was laughable to suggest such a thing in 1989. Hershiser got exactly 7 votes (compared to 107 for Davis).
#9: Ivan Rodriguez, 1999 AL MVP
This was another case of the voters convincing themselves (in spite of any actual evidence) that a player's contribution went above and beyond. Also, given that Pudge hadn't gotten an MVP award yet, he was due. He "led" the Rangers to an AL West title with a 356/558/332 line. This, of course, was good but certainly not great for a hitter in the AL's premiere hitting park during the hitting renaissance ofthe '90s. Rodriguez was, of course, a fine defensive catcher. But does that outweight the gulf in hitting between him and the other candidates? Pedro Martinez finished a close second to Pudge and would have made a much better choice for MVP. Roberto Alomar finished 3rd and Manny Ramirez finished 4th, all fairly representative of their contribution. But the AL's best player in 1999 finished 6th in the voting, which is a major surprise considering that he is a media darling and a perpetually overrated player. Yes folks, the real AL MVP in 1999 was none other than Derek Jeter.
In the much less hitter-friendly Yankee Stadium, Jeter posted a 438/552/349 line, a huge step above Pudge. Rodriguez does have the clear edge in defense, but it would take a gargantuan defensive difference to make up for Jeter's edge in hitting. And would the sportswriters actually argue that Jeter's leadership was less than valuable than Pudge's in the year where Jeter's Yankees swept the Rangers in the ALDS on the way to an easy World Championship?
#8: Mo Vaughn, 1995 AL MVP
Let's start out by saying that Mo was at least the 3rd-most valuable 1st baseman in the AL. Frank Thomas hit 454/606/308 and Rafael Palmeiro hit 380/583/310. Vaughn hit 388/575/300. It doesn't even touch Thomas. You might be able to argue him past Palmeiro, except that Raffy played better defense in a tougher park for hitters. There is the steroids question, but that's a hazy question for 1995. Even if you can get him past Palmeiro (and Mark McGwire, who hit 441/685/274, albeit in limited work), you've still got a problem. You cannot get Vaughn past the massive obstacle that is Frank Thomas, effectively blocking his MVP. Vaughn had 15 more RBI than Thomas, and 1 more double. Of course, he hit one less home run and struck out 76 more times. So how in the world can you picture Vaughn leaping the gap between his 388/575/300 hitting line and Frank's 454/606/308? You could say that Frank had already won 2 MVPs, and it was Mo's turn. But the MVP award is not an Elementary School Participation ribbon. If someone deserves multiple MVPs, they get them. The sportswriters, of course, just decided that Vaughn was better for no apparent reason. Vaughn's team made the playoffs, whereas Frank's didn't. But that's an extremely silly argument that I'm surprised people still make (well, not that surprised).
But it gets better -- Frank Thomas probably wasn't even the best player in the AL. Was it Edgar Martinez, who hit 479/628/356, albeit as a DH? Or maybe it was Albert Belle, whose 401/690/317 line would have won him the award, were he not such a hothead. Or perhaps it was Tim Salmon, who hit 429/594/330. It's a tough question (my vote's for Edgar), with many options. But I'll tell you one thing for sure. It was not Mo Vaughn.
#7: Juan Gonzalez, 1998 AL MVP
Conventional wisdom in baseball is often contradictory. Most "baseball men" distrust 1-dimensional players. But these same people also LOVE guys who rack up lots of RBIs. So what happens when a 1-dimensional player racks up a lot of RBIs? His name is Juan Gonzalez, and he won 2 MVP Awards he didn't deserve.
Giving a 1-dimensional player the MVP isn't such a bad idea, so long as that one dimension is pretty damn good. Juan Gonzalez was lucky to be on a team that gave him a lot of RBI opportunities, and he took advantage of them. He had a MLB-leading 157 RBIs. But other than that? He hit 366/630/318, a good mark, but not great for someone in a hitter's paradise during a hitter's era. Gonzalez was below-average defensively and offered nothing apart from his slugging (50 doubles, 45 HR, .630 SLG). But his team won the division, and the voters went ga-ga.
Compare his numbers to Albert Belle's 399/655/328 mark in a less-friendly ballpark. Albert even drove in 152 runs of his own, making it odd how the voters gave Gonzalez any clear edge. Although his Chicago days were much less volatile, Albert was never a supreme joy. So you argue that Albert's "chemistry" (without even knowing whether it was particularly bad that year, or even what Juan-Gone was like) makes him unfit for the MVP? Okay. What about Ken Griffey, Jr.? Can't argue against his chemistry. He led baseball with 56 HR and hit 365/611/284 in a tougher park for hitters with good defense and 20 SB. Even if you can't accept Albert as better than Juan, you must accept Griffey. Either way, you've got two guys who are demonstrably better than Gonzalez, and that doesn't even take into account Edgar Martinez, Mo Vaughn, Alex Rodriguez, Bernie Williams, Carlos Delgado, Nomar Garciaparra, and even Roger Clemens, all of whom probably had a better season than Juan.
But would you believe that Juan won another MVP award that he deserved even less? See below.
#6: Bob Welch, 1990 AL Cy Young
Cy Young voters are absolutely mesmerized by Wins. It doesn't matter that a 5th-grader could debunk the myth that Wins are the best indicator of a pitcher's quality. It doesn't matter that intelligent baseball fans have distrusted wins for over 50 years. The sportswriters love them, and they have misled voters toward awarding a bad Cy Young more often than any other single factor. Just as RBIs have the power to make MVP voters suspend reality, Wins have the power to make otherwise intelligent men argue not just against specific evidence, but against the very concept of evidence.
Having said this, my case can be made that Bob Welch was a dud. Here is Welch compared to Pitcher X:
Welch: (27-6, 2.95 ERA, 77 BB:127 K, 28 HR, 238 IP)
Pitcher X: (21-6, 1.93 ERA, 54 BB:209 K, 7 HR, 228.1 IP)
Pitcher X is Roger Clemens, and he makes Bob Welch look like Rick Vaughn. Bob Welch was, in my estimation, the 9th-best pitcher in the AL in 1990. Clemens finished second in the voting, but it wasn't that close. Dave Stewart finished 3rd, followed by Bobby Thigpen (with his all-time record 57 saves) and Dennis Eckersley (with his 0.61 ERA). Any of the 4 would have been a much better choice than Welch. Oddly enough, the voters wouldn't reward Eckersley's fantastic 0.61 year with a Cy Young Award. They'd wait until he had a worse year and give him the Cy Young and the MVP as well (see below).
#5: George Bell, 1987 AL MVP
At least this award has gained the reputation it deserves as being silly. It is, of course, RBIs that once again led the BBWAA astray. Bell led the league with 134, and his team made the postseason. He hit 352/605/308 and was about average on defense. Wade Boggs hit 461/588/363, although he wasn't fabulous on defense either. So I have evidence that Wade Boggs was a far, far better hitter than George Bell. What is the argument that makes Bell a more valuable player? RBIs? We've already been there, and that won't cut it. Or maybe you favor Alan Trammell, who finished 2nd in the MVP race. He hit "only" 402/551/343 in a tougher hitter's park. In my opinion, Bell is 14th, behind Boggs, Trammell, Mark McGwire, Kirby Puckett, Roger Clemens, Paul Molitor, and many more.
#4: Steve Bedrosian, 1987 NL Cy Young
Again, the BBWAA decided to pick (apparently at random) a relief pitcher to win the Cy Young. They again convinced themselves by the "Bullshit Snowball Effect" (whereby a bad idea gathers steam if enough people repeat it) that Bedrosian had something "special" beyond his numbers. Did he really?
Well, he did lead the league in saves with 40. We don't know how many save opportunities he had, but I'd speculate it was enough to make his raw number of saves of less importance. His ERA was 2.83, light-years behind Montreal closer Tim Burke, whose ERA was 1.19. Burke only had 18 saves, but perhaps that's because he was pitching for the Expos. There's no reasonable way (beyond saves) to argue Bedrosian past Burke . . . or Todd Worrell, or Dave Smith. Or maybe even John Franco. Bedrosian had a worse ERA than all of them. He allowed 11 HR, much more than any of them. His 28:74 BB:K ratio was good, but not significantly better than his compatriots. So we can't demonstrate with any certainty that "Bedrock" was the most valuable relief pitcher in the NL. He was probably the 3rd-most valuable closer (4th, if you count John Franco), making him a puzzling choice for the Cy. And, of course, this doesn't take into account good starting pitchers like Orel Hershiser (3.06 ERA, 264.2 IP, 74 BB: 190 K), Nolan Ryan (2.76 ERA, 211.2 IP, 87 BB:270 K) or Mike Scott (3.23 ERA, 247.2 IP, 79 BB: 233 K). Or Rick Reuschel, Bob Welch, Rick Sutcliffe, Dwight Gooden ...
#3: Andre Dawson, 1987 NL MVP
People continue to insist that Andre Dawson was an elite player. The growing insistence upon on-base percentage has threatened this perception. Of course, when confronted with evidence that may disprove their belief, people will reject the evidence out of hand. So Dawson's career OBP (.323) is dismissed.
Dawson's 1987 season wasn't any better than any of his other good seasons . . . except that he led the league in RBI (137) on a last-place team. And he hit 49 HR, which is impressive . . . unless it's in Wrigley Field in 1987 (an aberrantly hitter-friendly year). Dawson's defense wasn't bad, but his knees weren't what they used to be. He stole 11 bases, too. All this to go with a 329/568/287 hitting line. You'd have to be Ozzie Smith to even be considered for the MVP with a hitting performance like that. And considering that it took place in a hitter's park in a hitter-friendly year, it becomes a pretty disappointing line.
But no one looked past the RBI when making Dawson's case for MVP. And for good reason, since every other number argued against his candidacy. Dawson was, in my opinion, clearly the 4th-best right fielder in the NL in 1987. Tony Gwynn (447/511/370), Dale Murphy (417/580/295), and Darryl Strawberry (398/583/287) all had far superior seasons. You might even be able to argue Mitch Webster (361/435/281) past Andre, honest to God. Where does Andre rank among all NL players? I don't really know; I stop ranking at 20th place.
It's funny how often people use past voting in the MVP race to justify future voting. Which is a very effective way to keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Some years people say that an MVP has to come from a contending team. Then some years they'll completely change their minds and reward guys like Dawson or Alex Rodriguez for being on bad teams. There is absolutely no good sense involved in any of this, and anyone making such arguments should be avoided at all costs (that means you, Joe Morgan).
#2: Juan Gonzalez, 1996 AL MVP
I mentioned earlier that Gonzalez's 1998 MVP was an excellent idea compared to his 1996 honor. It all comes back to RBIs again. But Juan didn't even lead the league; Albert Belle did (of course he wasn't getting the MVP). But Juan hit 47 HR and 144 RBI the same year the Rangers won their first-ever division title. So the voters gave him the MVP.
So often in these discussions, people try to quote statistics and argue about how good a player is. But that's not really the question. The question isn't whether Juan Gonzalez, or Andre Dawson, is a good player; is he better than these other guys? It's not a question of simple quoting of statistics -- it's entirely comparative. Statistics are meaningless unless placed in context; Gonzalez's 47 HR and 144 RBI look much less impressive when you consider the context of his lineup, his ballpark, his league, and his era. It's also an infamous example of cherry-picking evidence; using the bits that serve your purpose while ignoring the other parts of the whole. If someone tries to sell you a house, you want to see the whole house. You don't just want a tour of the outside while the realtor tells you what the inside looks like. Because the part doesn't always accurately represent the whole. But the reality is that the "baseball men" sold the voters (in Juan Gonzalez) the house from The Money Pit; it looked really great at first, but once you actually get to the root an reality of the entire subject, it all crumbles into dust. Of course, the baseball men won't admit the house has fallen down around them. They'll just move on to the next huckster who makes them look silly.
And after that pained analogy, I present, in order, a list of the best right fielders in the AL in 1996:
1. Manny Ramirez (399/582/309), neutral park, no defense
2. Paul O'Neill (411/474/302), neutral park, above-average defense
3. Tim Salmon (386/501/286), neutral park, average defense
4. Jay Buhner (369/557/271), neutral park, no defense
5. Juan Gonzalez (368/643/314), hitter's park, no defense
Gonzalez doesn't make my list of the 20 best players in the league that year, and he's probably orbiting 30. Where's the argument?
#1: Dennis Eckersley, 1992 AL MVP
Dennis Eckersley: 1.91 ERA, 51 saves, 80 IP, 11:93 BB:K ratio - wins MVP & Cy Young
Roger Clemens: 2.41 ERA, 246.2 IP, 62:208 BB:K ratio -- doesn't even win Cy Young
So Eckersley has a slight edge in ERA, considering that Clemens pitched in a much tougher park. But Clemens has . . . 3 TIMES AS MANY INNINGS PITCHED. But wait, friends, it gets worse.
Dennis Eckersley: 1.91 ERA, 51 saves, 80 IP, 11:93 BB:K ratio - wins MVP & Cy Young
Frank Thomas: 439/536/323, league-leading 46 doubles, 122 walks
Roberto Alomar: 405/427/310, excellent defense, league-leading 34 Win Shares
This is the height of folly. And if I thought the voters had learned anything from this odious dereliction of duty, then I might be able to laugh at this award. But folks, the next colossal blunder like this is just waiting around the corner. This is what happens when you throw evidence, the scientific method, and every modicum of common sense straight out the window. Arrggh.
With that said, I'd like to post a list of the awards I agree with completely. Just to give you a sense that the BBWAA and I do see eye-to-eye every once in a while. All awards are since 1985.
AL MVPS I agree with:
Vladimir Guerrero (2004), Jason Giambi (2000), Frank Thomas (1994), Rickey Henderson (1990), Robin Yount (1989), Jose Canseco (1988).
NL MVPS I agree with:
Barry Bonds (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), Jeff Kent (2000), Jeff Bagwell (1994), Barry Bonds (1990, 1992, 1993).
AL Cy Youngs I agree with:
Johan Santana (2004), Pedro Martinez (1999, 2000), Roger Clemens (1997, 1998), Pat Hentgen (1996), Randy Johnson (1995), David Cone (1994), Roger Clemens (1991), Bret Saberhagen (1989), Roger Clemens (1986, 1987).
NL Cy Young I agree with:
Eric Gagne (2003), Randy Johnson (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), Pedro Martinez (1997), Greg Maddux (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995), Tom Glavine (1991), Orel Hershiser (1988), Mike Scott (1986), Dwight Gooden (1985)
Having gone through all of this, I must admit that no way of voting, including my own tabulations, are perfect. I'm sure if I made a close examination of my calculations and analysis (some of which is 2 years old), I'd find some conclusions that I've changed my mind about already. The point is to learn from past mistakes and progress. And any system that fails nearly 50% of the time is not being run by the most effective voting machine.
Peace out ...
Honorable Mention: Larry Walker (1997 NL MVP), Miguel Tejada (2002 AL MVP), Dennis Eckersley (1992 AL Cy Young), Kerry Wood (1998 NL Rookie of the Year)
#10: Mark Davis, 1989 NL Cy Young
Baseball people just don't really know how to measure a relief pitcher against starting pitchers. I will grant you that Davis was the best closer in the NL. He had a 1.85 ERA with 44 saves and 92 K in 92.2 IP. He won the award because, as often happens, sportswriters gradually convinced themselves that Davis's season was "special" and that he was carrying the NL Champion Giants.
Davis' season was darn good for a reliever, but I think he got the award because the voters didn't see a viable starting pitcher as a candidate. Mike Scott led the league with 20 wins (and 10 losses), but his 3.10 ERA wasn't near the top ten, and the Astros finished 3rd. Scott finished 2nd in the voting. Greg Maddux came in 3rd, which wasn't such a bad choice. Maddux went 19-12 with a 2.95 ERA for the division-winning Cubs. He's actually a better candidate than Davis.
But the best NL pitcher in 1989 was, in my opinion, Orel Hershiser. Hershiser's 2.31 ERA was 2nd in the league. He threw 256.2 IP, allowing only 9 HR and 77 BB against 178 K. Not only that, but Hershiser threw 256.2 IP, which completely obliterates Davis' advantage in ERA, as far as I see it.
But Hershiser didn't win because his record was 15-15. Even today, in the era of Moneyball, a pitcher couldn't win the Cy Young with a 15-15 record. So it was laughable to suggest such a thing in 1989. Hershiser got exactly 7 votes (compared to 107 for Davis).
#9: Ivan Rodriguez, 1999 AL MVP
This was another case of the voters convincing themselves (in spite of any actual evidence) that a player's contribution went above and beyond. Also, given that Pudge hadn't gotten an MVP award yet, he was due. He "led" the Rangers to an AL West title with a 356/558/332 line. This, of course, was good but certainly not great for a hitter in the AL's premiere hitting park during the hitting renaissance ofthe '90s. Rodriguez was, of course, a fine defensive catcher. But does that outweight the gulf in hitting between him and the other candidates? Pedro Martinez finished a close second to Pudge and would have made a much better choice for MVP. Roberto Alomar finished 3rd and Manny Ramirez finished 4th, all fairly representative of their contribution. But the AL's best player in 1999 finished 6th in the voting, which is a major surprise considering that he is a media darling and a perpetually overrated player. Yes folks, the real AL MVP in 1999 was none other than Derek Jeter.
In the much less hitter-friendly Yankee Stadium, Jeter posted a 438/552/349 line, a huge step above Pudge. Rodriguez does have the clear edge in defense, but it would take a gargantuan defensive difference to make up for Jeter's edge in hitting. And would the sportswriters actually argue that Jeter's leadership was less than valuable than Pudge's in the year where Jeter's Yankees swept the Rangers in the ALDS on the way to an easy World Championship?
#8: Mo Vaughn, 1995 AL MVP
Let's start out by saying that Mo was at least the 3rd-most valuable 1st baseman in the AL. Frank Thomas hit 454/606/308 and Rafael Palmeiro hit 380/583/310. Vaughn hit 388/575/300. It doesn't even touch Thomas. You might be able to argue him past Palmeiro, except that Raffy played better defense in a tougher park for hitters. There is the steroids question, but that's a hazy question for 1995. Even if you can get him past Palmeiro (and Mark McGwire, who hit 441/685/274, albeit in limited work), you've still got a problem. You cannot get Vaughn past the massive obstacle that is Frank Thomas, effectively blocking his MVP. Vaughn had 15 more RBI than Thomas, and 1 more double. Of course, he hit one less home run and struck out 76 more times. So how in the world can you picture Vaughn leaping the gap between his 388/575/300 hitting line and Frank's 454/606/308? You could say that Frank had already won 2 MVPs, and it was Mo's turn. But the MVP award is not an Elementary School Participation ribbon. If someone deserves multiple MVPs, they get them. The sportswriters, of course, just decided that Vaughn was better for no apparent reason. Vaughn's team made the playoffs, whereas Frank's didn't. But that's an extremely silly argument that I'm surprised people still make (well, not that surprised).
But it gets better -- Frank Thomas probably wasn't even the best player in the AL. Was it Edgar Martinez, who hit 479/628/356, albeit as a DH? Or maybe it was Albert Belle, whose 401/690/317 line would have won him the award, were he not such a hothead. Or perhaps it was Tim Salmon, who hit 429/594/330. It's a tough question (my vote's for Edgar), with many options. But I'll tell you one thing for sure. It was not Mo Vaughn.
#7: Juan Gonzalez, 1998 AL MVP
Conventional wisdom in baseball is often contradictory. Most "baseball men" distrust 1-dimensional players. But these same people also LOVE guys who rack up lots of RBIs. So what happens when a 1-dimensional player racks up a lot of RBIs? His name is Juan Gonzalez, and he won 2 MVP Awards he didn't deserve.
Giving a 1-dimensional player the MVP isn't such a bad idea, so long as that one dimension is pretty damn good. Juan Gonzalez was lucky to be on a team that gave him a lot of RBI opportunities, and he took advantage of them. He had a MLB-leading 157 RBIs. But other than that? He hit 366/630/318, a good mark, but not great for someone in a hitter's paradise during a hitter's era. Gonzalez was below-average defensively and offered nothing apart from his slugging (50 doubles, 45 HR, .630 SLG). But his team won the division, and the voters went ga-ga.
Compare his numbers to Albert Belle's 399/655/328 mark in a less-friendly ballpark. Albert even drove in 152 runs of his own, making it odd how the voters gave Gonzalez any clear edge. Although his Chicago days were much less volatile, Albert was never a supreme joy. So you argue that Albert's "chemistry" (without even knowing whether it was particularly bad that year, or even what Juan-Gone was like) makes him unfit for the MVP? Okay. What about Ken Griffey, Jr.? Can't argue against his chemistry. He led baseball with 56 HR and hit 365/611/284 in a tougher park for hitters with good defense and 20 SB. Even if you can't accept Albert as better than Juan, you must accept Griffey. Either way, you've got two guys who are demonstrably better than Gonzalez, and that doesn't even take into account Edgar Martinez, Mo Vaughn, Alex Rodriguez, Bernie Williams, Carlos Delgado, Nomar Garciaparra, and even Roger Clemens, all of whom probably had a better season than Juan.
But would you believe that Juan won another MVP award that he deserved even less? See below.
#6: Bob Welch, 1990 AL Cy Young
Cy Young voters are absolutely mesmerized by Wins. It doesn't matter that a 5th-grader could debunk the myth that Wins are the best indicator of a pitcher's quality. It doesn't matter that intelligent baseball fans have distrusted wins for over 50 years. The sportswriters love them, and they have misled voters toward awarding a bad Cy Young more often than any other single factor. Just as RBIs have the power to make MVP voters suspend reality, Wins have the power to make otherwise intelligent men argue not just against specific evidence, but against the very concept of evidence.
Having said this, my case can be made that Bob Welch was a dud. Here is Welch compared to Pitcher X:
Welch: (27-6, 2.95 ERA, 77 BB:127 K, 28 HR, 238 IP)
Pitcher X: (21-6, 1.93 ERA, 54 BB:209 K, 7 HR, 228.1 IP)
Pitcher X is Roger Clemens, and he makes Bob Welch look like Rick Vaughn. Bob Welch was, in my estimation, the 9th-best pitcher in the AL in 1990. Clemens finished second in the voting, but it wasn't that close. Dave Stewart finished 3rd, followed by Bobby Thigpen (with his all-time record 57 saves) and Dennis Eckersley (with his 0.61 ERA). Any of the 4 would have been a much better choice than Welch. Oddly enough, the voters wouldn't reward Eckersley's fantastic 0.61 year with a Cy Young Award. They'd wait until he had a worse year and give him the Cy Young and the MVP as well (see below).
#5: George Bell, 1987 AL MVP
At least this award has gained the reputation it deserves as being silly. It is, of course, RBIs that once again led the BBWAA astray. Bell led the league with 134, and his team made the postseason. He hit 352/605/308 and was about average on defense. Wade Boggs hit 461/588/363, although he wasn't fabulous on defense either. So I have evidence that Wade Boggs was a far, far better hitter than George Bell. What is the argument that makes Bell a more valuable player? RBIs? We've already been there, and that won't cut it. Or maybe you favor Alan Trammell, who finished 2nd in the MVP race. He hit "only" 402/551/343 in a tougher hitter's park. In my opinion, Bell is 14th, behind Boggs, Trammell, Mark McGwire, Kirby Puckett, Roger Clemens, Paul Molitor, and many more.
#4: Steve Bedrosian, 1987 NL Cy Young
Again, the BBWAA decided to pick (apparently at random) a relief pitcher to win the Cy Young. They again convinced themselves by the "Bullshit Snowball Effect" (whereby a bad idea gathers steam if enough people repeat it) that Bedrosian had something "special" beyond his numbers. Did he really?
Well, he did lead the league in saves with 40. We don't know how many save opportunities he had, but I'd speculate it was enough to make his raw number of saves of less importance. His ERA was 2.83, light-years behind Montreal closer Tim Burke, whose ERA was 1.19. Burke only had 18 saves, but perhaps that's because he was pitching for the Expos. There's no reasonable way (beyond saves) to argue Bedrosian past Burke . . . or Todd Worrell, or Dave Smith. Or maybe even John Franco. Bedrosian had a worse ERA than all of them. He allowed 11 HR, much more than any of them. His 28:74 BB:K ratio was good, but not significantly better than his compatriots. So we can't demonstrate with any certainty that "Bedrock" was the most valuable relief pitcher in the NL. He was probably the 3rd-most valuable closer (4th, if you count John Franco), making him a puzzling choice for the Cy. And, of course, this doesn't take into account good starting pitchers like Orel Hershiser (3.06 ERA, 264.2 IP, 74 BB: 190 K), Nolan Ryan (2.76 ERA, 211.2 IP, 87 BB:270 K) or Mike Scott (3.23 ERA, 247.2 IP, 79 BB: 233 K). Or Rick Reuschel, Bob Welch, Rick Sutcliffe, Dwight Gooden ...
#3: Andre Dawson, 1987 NL MVP
People continue to insist that Andre Dawson was an elite player. The growing insistence upon on-base percentage has threatened this perception. Of course, when confronted with evidence that may disprove their belief, people will reject the evidence out of hand. So Dawson's career OBP (.323) is dismissed.
Dawson's 1987 season wasn't any better than any of his other good seasons . . . except that he led the league in RBI (137) on a last-place team. And he hit 49 HR, which is impressive . . . unless it's in Wrigley Field in 1987 (an aberrantly hitter-friendly year). Dawson's defense wasn't bad, but his knees weren't what they used to be. He stole 11 bases, too. All this to go with a 329/568/287 hitting line. You'd have to be Ozzie Smith to even be considered for the MVP with a hitting performance like that. And considering that it took place in a hitter's park in a hitter-friendly year, it becomes a pretty disappointing line.
But no one looked past the RBI when making Dawson's case for MVP. And for good reason, since every other number argued against his candidacy. Dawson was, in my opinion, clearly the 4th-best right fielder in the NL in 1987. Tony Gwynn (447/511/370), Dale Murphy (417/580/295), and Darryl Strawberry (398/583/287) all had far superior seasons. You might even be able to argue Mitch Webster (361/435/281) past Andre, honest to God. Where does Andre rank among all NL players? I don't really know; I stop ranking at 20th place.
It's funny how often people use past voting in the MVP race to justify future voting. Which is a very effective way to keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Some years people say that an MVP has to come from a contending team. Then some years they'll completely change their minds and reward guys like Dawson or Alex Rodriguez for being on bad teams. There is absolutely no good sense involved in any of this, and anyone making such arguments should be avoided at all costs (that means you, Joe Morgan).
#2: Juan Gonzalez, 1996 AL MVP
I mentioned earlier that Gonzalez's 1998 MVP was an excellent idea compared to his 1996 honor. It all comes back to RBIs again. But Juan didn't even lead the league; Albert Belle did (of course he wasn't getting the MVP). But Juan hit 47 HR and 144 RBI the same year the Rangers won their first-ever division title. So the voters gave him the MVP.
So often in these discussions, people try to quote statistics and argue about how good a player is. But that's not really the question. The question isn't whether Juan Gonzalez, or Andre Dawson, is a good player; is he better than these other guys? It's not a question of simple quoting of statistics -- it's entirely comparative. Statistics are meaningless unless placed in context; Gonzalez's 47 HR and 144 RBI look much less impressive when you consider the context of his lineup, his ballpark, his league, and his era. It's also an infamous example of cherry-picking evidence; using the bits that serve your purpose while ignoring the other parts of the whole. If someone tries to sell you a house, you want to see the whole house. You don't just want a tour of the outside while the realtor tells you what the inside looks like. Because the part doesn't always accurately represent the whole. But the reality is that the "baseball men" sold the voters (in Juan Gonzalez) the house from The Money Pit; it looked really great at first, but once you actually get to the root an reality of the entire subject, it all crumbles into dust. Of course, the baseball men won't admit the house has fallen down around them. They'll just move on to the next huckster who makes them look silly.
And after that pained analogy, I present, in order, a list of the best right fielders in the AL in 1996:
1. Manny Ramirez (399/582/309), neutral park, no defense
2. Paul O'Neill (411/474/302), neutral park, above-average defense
3. Tim Salmon (386/501/286), neutral park, average defense
4. Jay Buhner (369/557/271), neutral park, no defense
5. Juan Gonzalez (368/643/314), hitter's park, no defense
Gonzalez doesn't make my list of the 20 best players in the league that year, and he's probably orbiting 30. Where's the argument?
#1: Dennis Eckersley, 1992 AL MVP
Dennis Eckersley: 1.91 ERA, 51 saves, 80 IP, 11:93 BB:K ratio - wins MVP & Cy Young
Roger Clemens: 2.41 ERA, 246.2 IP, 62:208 BB:K ratio -- doesn't even win Cy Young
So Eckersley has a slight edge in ERA, considering that Clemens pitched in a much tougher park. But Clemens has . . . 3 TIMES AS MANY INNINGS PITCHED. But wait, friends, it gets worse.
Dennis Eckersley: 1.91 ERA, 51 saves, 80 IP, 11:93 BB:K ratio - wins MVP & Cy Young
Frank Thomas: 439/536/323, league-leading 46 doubles, 122 walks
Roberto Alomar: 405/427/310, excellent defense, league-leading 34 Win Shares
This is the height of folly. And if I thought the voters had learned anything from this odious dereliction of duty, then I might be able to laugh at this award. But folks, the next colossal blunder like this is just waiting around the corner. This is what happens when you throw evidence, the scientific method, and every modicum of common sense straight out the window. Arrggh.
With that said, I'd like to post a list of the awards I agree with completely. Just to give you a sense that the BBWAA and I do see eye-to-eye every once in a while. All awards are since 1985.
AL MVPS I agree with:
Vladimir Guerrero (2004), Jason Giambi (2000), Frank Thomas (1994), Rickey Henderson (1990), Robin Yount (1989), Jose Canseco (1988).
NL MVPS I agree with:
Barry Bonds (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), Jeff Kent (2000), Jeff Bagwell (1994), Barry Bonds (1990, 1992, 1993).
AL Cy Youngs I agree with:
Johan Santana (2004), Pedro Martinez (1999, 2000), Roger Clemens (1997, 1998), Pat Hentgen (1996), Randy Johnson (1995), David Cone (1994), Roger Clemens (1991), Bret Saberhagen (1989), Roger Clemens (1986, 1987).
NL Cy Young I agree with:
Eric Gagne (2003), Randy Johnson (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), Pedro Martinez (1997), Greg Maddux (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995), Tom Glavine (1991), Orel Hershiser (1988), Mike Scott (1986), Dwight Gooden (1985)
Having gone through all of this, I must admit that no way of voting, including my own tabulations, are perfect. I'm sure if I made a close examination of my calculations and analysis (some of which is 2 years old), I'd find some conclusions that I've changed my mind about already. The point is to learn from past mistakes and progress. And any system that fails nearly 50% of the time is not being run by the most effective voting machine.
Peace out ...
Pedro Martinez
One of my long-term projects is mapping out the major league career of all the significant players in the major leagues. I've currently worked my way through 2 teams (Braves and Marlins) and am about halfway through the Mets. I'll post some summaries and excerpts of this work (which I hope to have published) as I see fit. Here is an extract from my discussion on Pedro Martinez concerning Pedro's reputation as "injury-prone" and a "short-timer," or a pitcher who doesn't go deep into games:
From 2002-2004, Pedro earned the reputation as a pitcher who couldn’t go deep into games. His constant injury troubles and sometimes prickly personality made some fans turn against him. And while it’s possible that Pedro didn’t push as hard as he could have, he was still quite possibly the best American League pitcher in that particular 3-year period. He made 30, 29, and 33 starts during that period, all of them perfectly reasonable numbers for a starter. He averaged 201 innings per year during that span, which isn’t amazing, but only 7 AL starters pitched more innings during that stretch. The truth of the matter is that Pedro’s reputation grew far out of proportion to what he was actually doing on the field. People perceived that Pedro’s injuries and attitude made him a “short-timer,” when he was in fact one of the more durable pitchers in the game at the time. It’s actually entirely legitimate for someone who pitched so much at such a young age to take it just a bit easy as he gets older; keeping him out of situations that might have been abusive to his arm might have kept him from missing even more time to injury. The fact is that Pedro has, since 1995, started at least 29 games every single year (with the exception of his injury-shortened 2001). Pedro’s reputation is, in fact, a complete hoax. People made up their minds based on limited information without looking to see whether their conclusions held true over the long run. Pedro may not be a “gamer,” who stays in games long after he is effective, but this attitude, while not exactly endearing to teammates or reporters, has made him an abnormally durable starting pitcher. And anyone who still holds onto the theory of Pedro as a “short-timer” or injury-prone player is doing so in spite of all the available evidence.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
ALCS, NLCS
ALCS: Chicago White Sox .vs. Los Angeles Angels
There's not really a clear favorite here. The White Sox had the better regular season record, but it's not clear that they were the better team. Chicago has had a good rest before the Series, whereas the Angels are running on very little sleep. But who is really better?
The White Sox have the edge in starting pitching. Contreras/Buehrle/Garcia/Garland is a pretty solid bunch, although the Red Sox managed to get to Buehrle and Garcia. They're not indestructible, but they're a pretty sound bunch. The Angels will probably send out Byrd/Lackey/Colon (with I guess Santana a possible starter, if Washburn is still sick or if Colon's injury is significant). That's a pretty good troika as well, although a step below the Sox.
I'll give the Angels the edge in the bullpen, but not by as much as you'd think. K-Rod is good, but not as good as everyone's been led to believe. And Bobby Jenks has been darn good so far. The Angels have great inning-plus guys like Shields and Escobar, whereas the Sox can throw out superb 1-inning men like Cotts and Politte. There won't be a whole lot of late-inning scoring in this Series, I fear.
The offense goes to the Angels. Even hitting in a much tougher ballpark, the Angels outscored the Sox during the regular season, at 4.70 R/G compared to Chicago's 4.57. So while the Sox have "smart ball" and homers, the Angels actually have a decent bunch of hitters. It's entirely possible that one offense or the other will be shut down by opposing pitching. But it's worth noting that both teams did a good job of hitting in the ALDS (albeit against two sub-par pitching staffs).
It's a close bet, but I'll cast my lot with the Angels. I don't think the Sox's HR-happy offense will last as much as the Angel bunch will. It would be nice to see the Sox make it to the Series for the first time SINCE 1959 or win their first World Series SINCE 1917. But I see Los Angeles making a return to the Fall Classic.
Prediction: Angels in 7
NLCS: St. Louis Cardinals .vs. Houston Astros
We've got an NLCS rematch here. This is the first time two teams have faced off in consecutive NLCS since the Braves beat the Pirates in 1991 and again in 1992. So is there any reason to think that the Astros have gained the extra step since last year?
Well, neither team is what it was a year ago. And while the Astros have gained the edge in starting pitching, I don't think they're as good as the Cardinals. That doesn't mean they won't win the Series. It's possible that the Houston pitching will dominate and send them to their first World Series ever. The Astros are the oldest NL franchise never to make the World Series (the Senators/Rangers are a year older). This year may be their best chance, as the Cardinal offense is weakened with the loss of Rolen and the effects of age on Larry Walker, Jim Edmonds, & Co. And I don't think (especially after their NLDS troubles) that the Cardinal pitching staff is as good as it was last year. They do have Chris Carpenter, who was great during the regular season, but Carpenter has just not been himself lately. We can't be too surprised that he turned out to be mortal, and sadly the rest of the staff is shaky. It's possible that Mark Mulder, Matt Morris, and Jeff Suppan will all be above-average and quality. But it's almost certain that one of them will stumble, and it's entirely possible that more than one will stumble, given their good-but-not-that-good regular season performance.
Having said that, I just don't see Houston winning. Their offense is just not that good. And it will have to be good to keep up with the Eckstein-Walker-Pujols-Edmonds-Sanders Cardinals. It's all about Ensberg and Berkman, with maybe Craig Biggio pitching in. But Brad Ausmus and Chris Burke simply aren't as good as they looked in the NLDS. And Willy Taveras and Jason Lane are pretty one-dimensional hitters. So who's going to score runs?
I will say that it's entirely possible that the Houston pitching will take control, enabling the Astros hitters to survive. Or the hitters might enjoy the same good luck they did against the Braves. But I've got to make a prediction based on the best available evidence, and the best available evidence says that the Cardinals are just the better team.
Prediction: St. Louis in 6
There's not really a clear favorite here. The White Sox had the better regular season record, but it's not clear that they were the better team. Chicago has had a good rest before the Series, whereas the Angels are running on very little sleep. But who is really better?
The White Sox have the edge in starting pitching. Contreras/Buehrle/Garcia/Garland is a pretty solid bunch, although the Red Sox managed to get to Buehrle and Garcia. They're not indestructible, but they're a pretty sound bunch. The Angels will probably send out Byrd/Lackey/Colon (with I guess Santana a possible starter, if Washburn is still sick or if Colon's injury is significant). That's a pretty good troika as well, although a step below the Sox.
I'll give the Angels the edge in the bullpen, but not by as much as you'd think. K-Rod is good, but not as good as everyone's been led to believe. And Bobby Jenks has been darn good so far. The Angels have great inning-plus guys like Shields and Escobar, whereas the Sox can throw out superb 1-inning men like Cotts and Politte. There won't be a whole lot of late-inning scoring in this Series, I fear.
The offense goes to the Angels. Even hitting in a much tougher ballpark, the Angels outscored the Sox during the regular season, at 4.70 R/G compared to Chicago's 4.57. So while the Sox have "smart ball" and homers, the Angels actually have a decent bunch of hitters. It's entirely possible that one offense or the other will be shut down by opposing pitching. But it's worth noting that both teams did a good job of hitting in the ALDS (albeit against two sub-par pitching staffs).
It's a close bet, but I'll cast my lot with the Angels. I don't think the Sox's HR-happy offense will last as much as the Angel bunch will. It would be nice to see the Sox make it to the Series for the first time SINCE 1959 or win their first World Series SINCE 1917. But I see Los Angeles making a return to the Fall Classic.
Prediction: Angels in 7
NLCS: St. Louis Cardinals .vs. Houston Astros
We've got an NLCS rematch here. This is the first time two teams have faced off in consecutive NLCS since the Braves beat the Pirates in 1991 and again in 1992. So is there any reason to think that the Astros have gained the extra step since last year?
Well, neither team is what it was a year ago. And while the Astros have gained the edge in starting pitching, I don't think they're as good as the Cardinals. That doesn't mean they won't win the Series. It's possible that the Houston pitching will dominate and send them to their first World Series ever. The Astros are the oldest NL franchise never to make the World Series (the Senators/Rangers are a year older). This year may be their best chance, as the Cardinal offense is weakened with the loss of Rolen and the effects of age on Larry Walker, Jim Edmonds, & Co. And I don't think (especially after their NLDS troubles) that the Cardinal pitching staff is as good as it was last year. They do have Chris Carpenter, who was great during the regular season, but Carpenter has just not been himself lately. We can't be too surprised that he turned out to be mortal, and sadly the rest of the staff is shaky. It's possible that Mark Mulder, Matt Morris, and Jeff Suppan will all be above-average and quality. But it's almost certain that one of them will stumble, and it's entirely possible that more than one will stumble, given their good-but-not-that-good regular season performance.
Having said that, I just don't see Houston winning. Their offense is just not that good. And it will have to be good to keep up with the Eckstein-Walker-Pujols-Edmonds-Sanders Cardinals. It's all about Ensberg and Berkman, with maybe Craig Biggio pitching in. But Brad Ausmus and Chris Burke simply aren't as good as they looked in the NLDS. And Willy Taveras and Jason Lane are pretty one-dimensional hitters. So who's going to score runs?
I will say that it's entirely possible that the Houston pitching will take control, enabling the Astros hitters to survive. Or the hitters might enjoy the same good luck they did against the Braves. But I've got to make a prediction based on the best available evidence, and the best available evidence says that the Cardinals are just the better team.
Prediction: St. Louis in 6
Angels win?
Well, 2 out of 4 ain't bad. I got the NLCS on the nose, but missed the ALCS by a pretty penny. My Red Sox guess went horribly awry, and my guess that the Yankees would win in 4 didn't exactly come to pass. I called the Yankees rough favorites to win tonight, and when I saw Bartolo Colon go down in the 2nd inning, I officially pronounced the Angels dead. I was wrong.
Ervin Santana is being anointed some sort of hero, although he pitched 5.1 IP and allowed 3 runs. It's not bad, but slow down, hoss, he ain't Cy Young. The biggest story was that the Angels got to Mussina (poor Mike has been inconsistent lately). Randy Johnson pitched 4.1 scoreless innings -- a fact that should be given full attention. If I see the Yankees down by 2 or 3 runs with a few innings left, and Randy Johnson comes in? I predict Johnson holds them scoreless and the Yanks score some runs.
But scoring runs was exactly what the Yankees did not do. This was the story of the ALDS; their hitting line was 351/392/253. So while they did an admirable (and predictable) job of getting runners on base, they were terrible at getting them in. The Yankees hit 4 HR in 5 games. The Angels hit 6. If you had told me going in that the Angels would out-homer the Yankees, I would have laughed in your face. But that's exactly what happened; the Angels were able to hit, and the Yankees were not.
The Yankees' team ERA in the ALDS was 4.40. Their regular season ERA was 4.53. Considering they were throwing their best pitchers out there (for the most part), the Yankees pitched exactly like they did during the regular season. The exception here is that they did not hit like they did during the regular season. This is possibly due to their own ineptitude, although the excellent Angel pitching deserves its share of the credit. They held the Yankees to a 3.89 team ERA, and despite allowing a truly obscene 24 walks (the Yankee staff allowed 5), they only allowed 4 HR. As I've said, the Yankees did a fine job getting on base, but the Angels shut down their power game almost completely.
And now for the LCS ...
Ervin Santana is being anointed some sort of hero, although he pitched 5.1 IP and allowed 3 runs. It's not bad, but slow down, hoss, he ain't Cy Young. The biggest story was that the Angels got to Mussina (poor Mike has been inconsistent lately). Randy Johnson pitched 4.1 scoreless innings -- a fact that should be given full attention. If I see the Yankees down by 2 or 3 runs with a few innings left, and Randy Johnson comes in? I predict Johnson holds them scoreless and the Yanks score some runs.
But scoring runs was exactly what the Yankees did not do. This was the story of the ALDS; their hitting line was 351/392/253. So while they did an admirable (and predictable) job of getting runners on base, they were terrible at getting them in. The Yankees hit 4 HR in 5 games. The Angels hit 6. If you had told me going in that the Angels would out-homer the Yankees, I would have laughed in your face. But that's exactly what happened; the Angels were able to hit, and the Yankees were not.
The Yankees' team ERA in the ALDS was 4.40. Their regular season ERA was 4.53. Considering they were throwing their best pitchers out there (for the most part), the Yankees pitched exactly like they did during the regular season. The exception here is that they did not hit like they did during the regular season. This is possibly due to their own ineptitude, although the excellent Angel pitching deserves its share of the credit. They held the Yankees to a 3.89 team ERA, and despite allowing a truly obscene 24 walks (the Yankee staff allowed 5), they only allowed 4 HR. As I've said, the Yankees did a fine job getting on base, but the Angels shut down their power game almost completely.
And now for the LCS ...
Monday, October 10, 2005
Here we go again ...
Yeah, the Braves lost. I expected it and even predicted it perfectly: Astros in 4. I guess it's the fact that it took 18 innings that depresses me. As fate would have it, I was not watching. I was at work from 4-9. When I left home, it was 6-1 Braves. McCann had just homered. I was feeling pretty good; the Braves had this one in the bag, and Smoltz at home in Game 5 might actually give them a chance.
I signed up for MLB's postseason game updates via text message to my cell phone. So every once in a while at work, I'd flip out the phone and check for confirmation that the Braves had won. I was waiting quite a while; it usually takes just 15-20 minutes for them to send out the message. I don't always get great reception at work (in the bowels of the museum), so I guessed that was it. At 7:00, I figured the game had been over for three hours, so I must have just missed the message. Then, as I went on break, my phone buzzed. I looked, and I had a message that was positively surreal. It said that the Astros had taken a 7-6 lead over the Braves in the bottom of the 18th. This would, of course, mean that the Astros had won. I sat there, puzzled. I got another message later confirming that the Astros had won (with Roger Clemens the winning pitcher). I never saw that one coming ...
It still hurts. Any sports fan knows it. I guess I'll just have to soldier on . . . but it's been 10 years. Not 10 years of never having a chance (a la Cubs fans). 10 years of having a chance (even a good chance) and seeing it just slip away. Another season of saying, "We were so close." Except this year we weren't close. It was the worst postseason since we got swept in 2000 by the Cardinals. We won in 2001 and lost in 5 from 2002-2004. That 1996 team should have done it. The '97 team was the best team in baseball, they just couldn't beat the Marlins. The '98 team was the best team in the NL, but I guess they would have lost to the Yankees anyway. In '99 they did lost to the Yankees. Since then, it hasn't even been close. The closest it got was in 2001 in the NLCS against the Diamondbacks. Luckily, I didn't have to watch that one either (I was in England for the semester). It's just not fair.
As for the Yankees and Angels, the only series still pending, it's a toss-up. It's Mussina and Colon in a rematch from Game 1. I give the Yankees a slight edge, since they did beat Colon in Anaheim in Game 1. And if something happens to Mussina, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Randy Johnson come out of the bullpen.
The NLCS is close. Both teams are a step worse than last year. But the Astros have a strong edge in starting pitching, even stronger than I at first thought, given the Padres series. The Cards have the edge in the bullpen, but the Astros have a better closer in Lidge. Offense all belongs to the Cardinals, although the Astros have been unusually productive recently. I'll wait and make my official prediction later, when my mind isn't preoccupied with my losing-ass team.
I signed up for MLB's postseason game updates via text message to my cell phone. So every once in a while at work, I'd flip out the phone and check for confirmation that the Braves had won. I was waiting quite a while; it usually takes just 15-20 minutes for them to send out the message. I don't always get great reception at work (in the bowels of the museum), so I guessed that was it. At 7:00, I figured the game had been over for three hours, so I must have just missed the message. Then, as I went on break, my phone buzzed. I looked, and I had a message that was positively surreal. It said that the Astros had taken a 7-6 lead over the Braves in the bottom of the 18th. This would, of course, mean that the Astros had won. I sat there, puzzled. I got another message later confirming that the Astros had won (with Roger Clemens the winning pitcher). I never saw that one coming ...
It still hurts. Any sports fan knows it. I guess I'll just have to soldier on . . . but it's been 10 years. Not 10 years of never having a chance (a la Cubs fans). 10 years of having a chance (even a good chance) and seeing it just slip away. Another season of saying, "We were so close." Except this year we weren't close. It was the worst postseason since we got swept in 2000 by the Cardinals. We won in 2001 and lost in 5 from 2002-2004. That 1996 team should have done it. The '97 team was the best team in baseball, they just couldn't beat the Marlins. The '98 team was the best team in the NL, but I guess they would have lost to the Yankees anyway. In '99 they did lost to the Yankees. Since then, it hasn't even been close. The closest it got was in 2001 in the NLCS against the Diamondbacks. Luckily, I didn't have to watch that one either (I was in England for the semester). It's just not fair.
As for the Yankees and Angels, the only series still pending, it's a toss-up. It's Mussina and Colon in a rematch from Game 1. I give the Yankees a slight edge, since they did beat Colon in Anaheim in Game 1. And if something happens to Mussina, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Randy Johnson come out of the bullpen.
The NLCS is close. Both teams are a step worse than last year. But the Astros have a strong edge in starting pitching, even stronger than I at first thought, given the Padres series. The Cards have the edge in the bullpen, but the Astros have a better closer in Lidge. Offense all belongs to the Cardinals, although the Astros have been unusually productive recently. I'll wait and make my official prediction later, when my mind isn't preoccupied with my losing-ass team.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Quickly to the NLCS
Just to recap what proved to be a disappointing if completely expected NLDS loss by the Padres. I was, it seems, too generous to give them even one win. I thought St. Louis was a bit overrated and that Jake Peavy & Co. could steal one somewhere. I still think St. Louis is slightly overrated, but San Diego still got the broom.
And my prediction about Woody Williams came true. He is a "warrior," according to Joe Morgan, and that's why they started him in the must-win Game 3. Just when I was ready to get the "I am the Warrior" t-shirts printed (with Williams' face), he's already out of the game, pitching less than 2 innings. Now I'll just put Joe Morgan's face on the t-shirts as a symbol of his absurd use of logic. Whaddaya know! Williams isn't so hot after all ...
Houston has the easy advantage over Atlanta. Although tomorrow's John Thomson .vs. Brandon Backe matchup is good news ... for the offense. It'll be ugly, and I have the sneaking suspicion that Houston will win it. Once again, the Braves let a possible win dribble away at the hands of the bullpen. (But no thanks to Jorge Sosa, either). Although it's certainly possible that the Braves will sneak out a win tomorrow, just to lose in Game 5, as has become their habit recently.
So I'm guessing a Cardinals-Astros rematch in the NLCS. Neither team is as good as it was last year, and despite Houston's killer rotation, I think I'd have to give St. Louis the edge. 6 games or 7?
And my prediction about Woody Williams came true. He is a "warrior," according to Joe Morgan, and that's why they started him in the must-win Game 3. Just when I was ready to get the "I am the Warrior" t-shirts printed (with Williams' face), he's already out of the game, pitching less than 2 innings. Now I'll just put Joe Morgan's face on the t-shirts as a symbol of his absurd use of logic. Whaddaya know! Williams isn't so hot after all ...
Houston has the easy advantage over Atlanta. Although tomorrow's John Thomson .vs. Brandon Backe matchup is good news ... for the offense. It'll be ugly, and I have the sneaking suspicion that Houston will win it. Once again, the Braves let a possible win dribble away at the hands of the bullpen. (But no thanks to Jorge Sosa, either). Although it's certainly possible that the Braves will sneak out a win tomorrow, just to lose in Game 5, as has become their habit recently.
So I'm guessing a Cardinals-Astros rematch in the NLCS. Neither team is as good as it was last year, and despite Houston's killer rotation, I think I'd have to give St. Louis the edge. 6 games or 7?
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Random awards
And now, as promised, some more eclectic and sometimes humorous awards for the 2005 season:
BEST AL OFFENSE: New York Yankees
Thanks very much to the re-emergence of Jason Giambi, the Yankees were able to field a pretty potent lineup for most of the season. With Giambi, A-Rod, Matsui, and Sheffield, the Yankees had 4 great hitters lined up in their lineup. Jeter had a fine year, Posada had a good but slightly off year, and Tino Martinez was about average. All this was necessary to make up for some trouble in certain spots: 2B (Womack and Cano), CF (Williams & Lawton) and sometime DH Ruben Sierra.
The Yankees scored 5.47 runs/game, which ranked them 2nd in the AL to the Red Sox, who scored 5.62 R/G. However, when you account for the fact that Yankee Stadium is one of the league's best pitching parks and Fenway Park is the opposite, you must conclude that the Yankees are then the more productive offense. Boston had more doubles (339 to 259, thanks Fenway) and Texas had more HR (260 to 229). Boston also had more BB (653 to 637), but the Yankees struck out less frequently (989 to 1044). The Yankee team hitting line was 355/450/276, compared to 357/454/281 for Boston and 329/468/267 for Texas. When you take ballparks into account, the Yankees come out looking tops.
2nd place: Boston, 3rd place: Texas
BEST NL OFFENSE: St. Louis Cardinals
The Cardinals scored 4.97 R/G, which actually ranks them 3rd in the league. Cincinnati scored 5.03/game to lead the league, and Philadelphia was second with 4.98. But the difference in ballparks (St. Louis not being nearly as hitter-friendly as the other two) edges the Cardinals past the short deficit. The Reds hit more doubles (335 to 287) and HR (222 to 170). They also drew more walks (611 to 534), but Cincinnati led the league in strikeouts (1303) by a huge margin, whereas the Cardinals fanned only 947 times as a team. St. Louis sported a 339/423/270 line. Cincinnati managed a 339/446/261 pace. Again, when considering ballparks, St. Louis gets the easy edge.
2nd place: Cincinnati, 3rd place: Atlanta
BEST AL PITCHING: Chicago White Sox
The Sox actually missed leading the league in ERA by a hair, with their 3.61 ERA just a few percentage points below Cleveland's 3.61. So what gives Chicago the edge? The fact that they play in one of the best hitter's parks in the AL (perhaps the very best). Cleveland, on the other hand, is more neutral. Cleveland did allow fewer HR (157 to 167) with a better BB:K ratio (413:1050 for CLE, 459:1040 for CWS). But you can't get past the fact that the White Sox faced a much greater challenge from their ballpark while achieving almost the same effect. So you can't just take the numbers and choose Cleveland. In fact, I would give the Minnesota Twins the edge over Cleveland as well. Minnesota's ERA was a strong 3.71, which is also better then Cleveland when considering the hitter-friendly MetroDome. And Minnesota managed an amazing 348 BB (against 965 K). So I'll give the Twins the #2 slot.
2nd place: Minnesota, 3rd place: Cleveland
BEST NL PITCHING: Houston Astros
My lesson in ballparks continues. The Cardinals have a better team ERA (3.49 to Houston's 3.51), but the difference in ballparks negates that. What really negates it is the difference in strikeouts, with Houston allowing 3 fewer walks (440 to 443) while racking up 190 more strikeouts (1164 to 974). They only allowed 2 more HR despite pitching in a much more homer-happy ballpark. So it's Houston going away in the NL.
2nd place: St. Louis, 3rd place: New York
BEST AL DEFENSE: Oakland Athletics
The A's new obsession is not OBP; it's defense. The A's are doing all they can to quantify defense so that they can discover undervalued defensive talents (hello, Mark Kotsay) now that the market for OBP has corrected itself. The A's have strong defense in the infield (other than 1B), with Mark Ellis, the Scutaro/Crosby pairing, and Eric Chavez all above-average. Catcher Kendall isn't a whole lot on defense, but the pitchers like him. Kotsay is the only defensive star in the outfield, having slipped through the cracks to Oakland and recently signing a long-term deal.
2nd place: Chicago, 3rd place: Cleveland
BEST NL DEFENSE: Houston Astros
With the best pitching comes the best defense. It better, since the Astros couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat.
Ensberg-Everett-Biggio is a pretty strong double play troika, with Lance Berkman manning first base as best he can. Taveras is a very strong center fielder, and Brad Ausmus is an excellent catcher, giving Houston a lot of strength up the middle.
2nd place: Philadelphia, 3rd place: St. Louis
OZZIE GUILLEN AWARD (AL): Angel Berroa
This award goes to the player with the worst plate discipline. Congratulations, Angel Berroa, on making the Royals look even dumber than usual for rewarding your rookie season with lots of wasted money. Those 18 BB and 108 K are just an illusion; you've got intangibles. Hopefully so, cause you hit 305/375/270 this year.
Other candidates: Jorge Cantu, Alfonso Soriano, Ivan Rodriguez
OZZIE GUILLEN AWARD (NL): Corey Patterson
On the list of worst possible candidates for the leadoff spot is this Chicago center-fielder (so where did Dusty Baker bat him? You guess. I guess he's got intangibles like Jose Macias ...). Patterson had an absolutely dreadful season, and everyone who thought he would be the next big thing should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing the obvious evidence to the contrary and getting the Chicago fans' hopes up. Corey had to endure booing in Chicago, as he struck out time and again with nothing to show for it in the offense department (254/348/215). But he's fast ...
Other candidates: Adam Everett, Willy Taveras
HARD-LUCK PITCHER AWARD (AL): Kevin Millwood
How can you possibly lead the league in ERA (2.86) and have a 9-11 record?
HARD-LUCK PITCHER AWARD (NL): Roger Clemens
Clemens is a hard-luck pitcher of historical proportions. When a starting pitcher gets a 1.87 ERA, he should be swept off to the Cy Young Award. But one year after snubbing Randy Johnson, Clemens is the snub-ee, as his terrible Astro hitters stuck him with a 13-8 record.
THE JIM ROSS "HOSS" AWARD (AL): Scot Shields
Shields was Mike Scioscia's bitch, throwing 91.2 innings out of the bullpen, getting7 saves to boot. He struck out an amazing 98 batters and allowed only 5 HR.
Other candidates: Mark Buehrle, David Ortiz, Michael Young
THE JIM ROSS "HOSS" AWARD (NL): Dontrelle Willis
Willis led the league in shutouts (with 5) and tied with Carpenter for the CG lead (7). Oh, he was also damn good. Let's just hope his arm doesn't fall off at age 26 ...
Other candidates: Livan Hernandez, Aaron Heilman, Roy Oswalt
THE EYE-POPPER AWARD (AL): Carlos Silva's 9 BB
How can someone possibly throw 188.1 IP and allow 9 BB? Silva had as many wins as walks with a nice 3.44 ERA and 71 K (low number until you realize he allowed 9 freakin' walks). Yes, that is the modern record for a pitcher who qualified for the ERA title. Congratulations, Carlos, for bringing control to a whole new level.
Other candidates: Giambi's .440 OBP, Foulke's 5.91 ERA, Pudge's 11 BB and .290 OBP
THE EYE-POPPER AWARD (NL): Roger Clemens' 1.87 ERA
There really isn't any comparison here. Clemens posted a 1.87 ERA against a league average of 4.22. Compare that to Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA against a league average of 2.90. Hmm ...
Other candidates: Eric Milton's 6.47 ERA and 40 HR allowed, Russ Ortiz's 6.89 ERA and 65:46 BB:K ratio, Brian Giles' 119:64 BB:K ratio.
THE GREATEST SEASON NO ONE NOTICED (AL): Kevin Millwood
This of course goes along with the above entry about Millwood being hard-luck. People notice his 9-11 record and not his league-leading 2.86 ERA with 20 HR allowed and a 52:146 BB:K ratio in 192 IP. And Cliff Lee (3.79 ERA), who had an 18-5 record, got in the Cy Young discussion despite looking all-around worse.
Other candidates: Johan Santana, Joe Mauer, Brian Roberts
THE GREATEST SEASON NO ONE NOTICED (NL): Brian Giles
No one noticed Giles' season, because his ballpark deflates his offensive numbers, people still don't look at OBP, and everone thought all the Padres sucked. But Giles hit 423/483/301. He was 3rd in the NL in OBP, despite playing in a desperate hitting environment. He hit 38 doubles and 15 HR in said environment. But the kicker is his league-leading 119 walks against just 64 strikeouts. I think he's the #3 player in the league, but he'll probably finish 18th in the voting.
Other candidates: Carlos Delgado, Andy Pettite, Jason Bay
THE OVERRATED AWARD (the player, not the award itself ) (AL): S. Podsednik
Dear God, he's going to finish in the top 10 in the MVP, I just know it. Yes, he stole 59 bases, but with 23 CS for a 72% success rate. This means that the CS almost totally outweight the stolen bases. So his value is as a decent defender who hits 351/349/290 in an AL hitter's haven?
Other candidates: Darin Erstad, Alfonso Soriano, Bob Wickman, Bartolo Colon
THE OVERRATED AWARD (the player, not the award itself ) (NL): Andruw Jones
We've had this discussion (see below if you missed it).
Other candidates: Jose Reyes, Jason Isringhausen, Ryan Dempster, Livan Hernandez
More to come later, kiddies ...
BEST AL OFFENSE: New York Yankees
Thanks very much to the re-emergence of Jason Giambi, the Yankees were able to field a pretty potent lineup for most of the season. With Giambi, A-Rod, Matsui, and Sheffield, the Yankees had 4 great hitters lined up in their lineup. Jeter had a fine year, Posada had a good but slightly off year, and Tino Martinez was about average. All this was necessary to make up for some trouble in certain spots: 2B (Womack and Cano), CF (Williams & Lawton) and sometime DH Ruben Sierra.
The Yankees scored 5.47 runs/game, which ranked them 2nd in the AL to the Red Sox, who scored 5.62 R/G. However, when you account for the fact that Yankee Stadium is one of the league's best pitching parks and Fenway Park is the opposite, you must conclude that the Yankees are then the more productive offense. Boston had more doubles (339 to 259, thanks Fenway) and Texas had more HR (260 to 229). Boston also had more BB (653 to 637), but the Yankees struck out less frequently (989 to 1044). The Yankee team hitting line was 355/450/276, compared to 357/454/281 for Boston and 329/468/267 for Texas. When you take ballparks into account, the Yankees come out looking tops.
2nd place: Boston, 3rd place: Texas
BEST NL OFFENSE: St. Louis Cardinals
The Cardinals scored 4.97 R/G, which actually ranks them 3rd in the league. Cincinnati scored 5.03/game to lead the league, and Philadelphia was second with 4.98. But the difference in ballparks (St. Louis not being nearly as hitter-friendly as the other two) edges the Cardinals past the short deficit. The Reds hit more doubles (335 to 287) and HR (222 to 170). They also drew more walks (611 to 534), but Cincinnati led the league in strikeouts (1303) by a huge margin, whereas the Cardinals fanned only 947 times as a team. St. Louis sported a 339/423/270 line. Cincinnati managed a 339/446/261 pace. Again, when considering ballparks, St. Louis gets the easy edge.
2nd place: Cincinnati, 3rd place: Atlanta
BEST AL PITCHING: Chicago White Sox
The Sox actually missed leading the league in ERA by a hair, with their 3.61 ERA just a few percentage points below Cleveland's 3.61. So what gives Chicago the edge? The fact that they play in one of the best hitter's parks in the AL (perhaps the very best). Cleveland, on the other hand, is more neutral. Cleveland did allow fewer HR (157 to 167) with a better BB:K ratio (413:1050 for CLE, 459:1040 for CWS). But you can't get past the fact that the White Sox faced a much greater challenge from their ballpark while achieving almost the same effect. So you can't just take the numbers and choose Cleveland. In fact, I would give the Minnesota Twins the edge over Cleveland as well. Minnesota's ERA was a strong 3.71, which is also better then Cleveland when considering the hitter-friendly MetroDome. And Minnesota managed an amazing 348 BB (against 965 K). So I'll give the Twins the #2 slot.
2nd place: Minnesota, 3rd place: Cleveland
BEST NL PITCHING: Houston Astros
My lesson in ballparks continues. The Cardinals have a better team ERA (3.49 to Houston's 3.51), but the difference in ballparks negates that. What really negates it is the difference in strikeouts, with Houston allowing 3 fewer walks (440 to 443) while racking up 190 more strikeouts (1164 to 974). They only allowed 2 more HR despite pitching in a much more homer-happy ballpark. So it's Houston going away in the NL.
2nd place: St. Louis, 3rd place: New York
BEST AL DEFENSE: Oakland Athletics
The A's new obsession is not OBP; it's defense. The A's are doing all they can to quantify defense so that they can discover undervalued defensive talents (hello, Mark Kotsay) now that the market for OBP has corrected itself. The A's have strong defense in the infield (other than 1B), with Mark Ellis, the Scutaro/Crosby pairing, and Eric Chavez all above-average. Catcher Kendall isn't a whole lot on defense, but the pitchers like him. Kotsay is the only defensive star in the outfield, having slipped through the cracks to Oakland and recently signing a long-term deal.
2nd place: Chicago, 3rd place: Cleveland
BEST NL DEFENSE: Houston Astros
With the best pitching comes the best defense. It better, since the Astros couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat.
Ensberg-Everett-Biggio is a pretty strong double play troika, with Lance Berkman manning first base as best he can. Taveras is a very strong center fielder, and Brad Ausmus is an excellent catcher, giving Houston a lot of strength up the middle.
2nd place: Philadelphia, 3rd place: St. Louis
OZZIE GUILLEN AWARD (AL): Angel Berroa
This award goes to the player with the worst plate discipline. Congratulations, Angel Berroa, on making the Royals look even dumber than usual for rewarding your rookie season with lots of wasted money. Those 18 BB and 108 K are just an illusion; you've got intangibles. Hopefully so, cause you hit 305/375/270 this year.
Other candidates: Jorge Cantu, Alfonso Soriano, Ivan Rodriguez
OZZIE GUILLEN AWARD (NL): Corey Patterson
On the list of worst possible candidates for the leadoff spot is this Chicago center-fielder (so where did Dusty Baker bat him? You guess. I guess he's got intangibles like Jose Macias ...). Patterson had an absolutely dreadful season, and everyone who thought he would be the next big thing should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing the obvious evidence to the contrary and getting the Chicago fans' hopes up. Corey had to endure booing in Chicago, as he struck out time and again with nothing to show for it in the offense department (254/348/215). But he's fast ...
Other candidates: Adam Everett, Willy Taveras
HARD-LUCK PITCHER AWARD (AL): Kevin Millwood
How can you possibly lead the league in ERA (2.86) and have a 9-11 record?
HARD-LUCK PITCHER AWARD (NL): Roger Clemens
Clemens is a hard-luck pitcher of historical proportions. When a starting pitcher gets a 1.87 ERA, he should be swept off to the Cy Young Award. But one year after snubbing Randy Johnson, Clemens is the snub-ee, as his terrible Astro hitters stuck him with a 13-8 record.
THE JIM ROSS "HOSS" AWARD (AL): Scot Shields
Shields was Mike Scioscia's bitch, throwing 91.2 innings out of the bullpen, getting7 saves to boot. He struck out an amazing 98 batters and allowed only 5 HR.
Other candidates: Mark Buehrle, David Ortiz, Michael Young
THE JIM ROSS "HOSS" AWARD (NL): Dontrelle Willis
Willis led the league in shutouts (with 5) and tied with Carpenter for the CG lead (7). Oh, he was also damn good. Let's just hope his arm doesn't fall off at age 26 ...
Other candidates: Livan Hernandez, Aaron Heilman, Roy Oswalt
THE EYE-POPPER AWARD (AL): Carlos Silva's 9 BB
How can someone possibly throw 188.1 IP and allow 9 BB? Silva had as many wins as walks with a nice 3.44 ERA and 71 K (low number until you realize he allowed 9 freakin' walks). Yes, that is the modern record for a pitcher who qualified for the ERA title. Congratulations, Carlos, for bringing control to a whole new level.
Other candidates: Giambi's .440 OBP, Foulke's 5.91 ERA, Pudge's 11 BB and .290 OBP
THE EYE-POPPER AWARD (NL): Roger Clemens' 1.87 ERA
There really isn't any comparison here. Clemens posted a 1.87 ERA against a league average of 4.22. Compare that to Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA against a league average of 2.90. Hmm ...
Other candidates: Eric Milton's 6.47 ERA and 40 HR allowed, Russ Ortiz's 6.89 ERA and 65:46 BB:K ratio, Brian Giles' 119:64 BB:K ratio.
THE GREATEST SEASON NO ONE NOTICED (AL): Kevin Millwood
This of course goes along with the above entry about Millwood being hard-luck. People notice his 9-11 record and not his league-leading 2.86 ERA with 20 HR allowed and a 52:146 BB:K ratio in 192 IP. And Cliff Lee (3.79 ERA), who had an 18-5 record, got in the Cy Young discussion despite looking all-around worse.
Other candidates: Johan Santana, Joe Mauer, Brian Roberts
THE GREATEST SEASON NO ONE NOTICED (NL): Brian Giles
No one noticed Giles' season, because his ballpark deflates his offensive numbers, people still don't look at OBP, and everone thought all the Padres sucked. But Giles hit 423/483/301. He was 3rd in the NL in OBP, despite playing in a desperate hitting environment. He hit 38 doubles and 15 HR in said environment. But the kicker is his league-leading 119 walks against just 64 strikeouts. I think he's the #3 player in the league, but he'll probably finish 18th in the voting.
Other candidates: Carlos Delgado, Andy Pettite, Jason Bay
THE OVERRATED AWARD (the player, not the award itself ) (AL): S. Podsednik
Dear God, he's going to finish in the top 10 in the MVP, I just know it. Yes, he stole 59 bases, but with 23 CS for a 72% success rate. This means that the CS almost totally outweight the stolen bases. So his value is as a decent defender who hits 351/349/290 in an AL hitter's haven?
Other candidates: Darin Erstad, Alfonso Soriano, Bob Wickman, Bartolo Colon
THE OVERRATED AWARD (the player, not the award itself ) (NL): Andruw Jones
We've had this discussion (see below if you missed it).
Other candidates: Jose Reyes, Jason Isringhausen, Ryan Dempster, Livan Hernandez
More to come later, kiddies ...
Terrence Long is available? Whoopty doo!
There have been some interesting developments in the LDS. First of all, I'll discuss the only one that's gone final so far.
So the White Sox swept the Red Sox. This comes as a surprise to me, since I picked the Red Sox in 5. So what exactly happened? I said that the Red Sox had to do two things to win in this Series: get some good starting pitching and find a way to score off the tough Chicago pitching. They failed at both, so it's small wonder that they were swept.
The Red Sox had a team hitting line of 295/413/240. Chicago's line was 355/567/289. It's not really unreasonable to expect the White Sox to hit well against a sub-par pitching staff, but they outdid themselves in this series. So yes, the White Sox hit well, even better than we could have expected against the Sox.
But if there's one stat that defines this Series, it's this: 3.00 ERA for Chicago; 7.56 ERA for Boston. Not only were the Red Sox pitchers unable to rise to the occasion; they got absolutely tomahawked. Matt Clement got bombed, Wells was good until that 5-run inning, and Wakefield just didn't have it. Whereas the White Sox got a fine start from Jose Contreras. But the story doesn't end with the starters; Boston was actually able to get to Mark Buehrle and Freddy Garcia. It was a story of bullpens. The Boston bullpen allowed 7 runs in 9.1 IP for a 6.75 ERA. The White Sox bullpen -- allowed a grand total of 0 runs over 7.1 IP.
The Red Sox missed Pedro and Schilling, and the White Sox had all their cylinders working and even threw in some genuinely good hitting for good measure.
In San Diego, the Foregone Conclusion takes place tomorrow night at 11 PM. Seriously, though, Jake Peavy was about the only thing the Padres had going for them. Not only did they lose his first start, but he's extremely unlikely to return in Game 4 or ever. The pitching matchup for Game 3 is Matt Morris .vs. Woody Williams. Formerly the anchors of the Cardinal rotation, they took a separate career path this season:
Morris: 4.11 ERA, 192.2 IP, 22 HR, 37 BB/117 K
Williams: 4.85 ERA, 159.2 IP, 24 HR, 51 BB/106 K
So while Morris hasn't exactly been golden, Williams has just been awful in San Diego. I don't know if Adam Eaton is hurt or anything, but if they think that Williams' postseason experience will suddenly reverse the effects of aging he felt this year, they've got another thing coming.
But the Padres do stand the chance of at least winning a game. What makes me say that? Their hitting line over the first two games was 400/414/329. It's just two games, yes, but it was against Chris Carpenter and Mark Mulder. Not only does this tell us something about Carpenter and Mulder, but it makes me think that the Padre offense hasn't been as weak as the 7 R in 2 games would make it seem. So while they might scrape across a victory tomorrow, their chances of winning the Series have to be less than 1%.
The Yankees lost in New York tonight, which was not what I expected when Randy Johnson went up against Paul Byrd. But the Angels got to Randy Johnson and scored 11 runs. Erk? Well, the Yankees scored 7 runs, which was about what you could expect. But, as Yankee fans don't need to be reminded, it sometimes takes more than 7 runs to win this year. Not only did the Angels catch Randy on an off-night, they were able to feast on the Yankee middle relief, which is just dreadful. Why Al Leiter is out on the mound in such an important game, I have no idea, but I guess it's true that the Yankees just don't have anyone else. New York still has a chance to win the Series, certainly. But with the deciding Game 5 against Bartolo Colon in Anaheim (with Mussina how reliable?), we have to call the Angels slight favorites now. Either way, it certainly won't be the 4-game Yankee victory I predicted.
So the White Sox swept the Red Sox. This comes as a surprise to me, since I picked the Red Sox in 5. So what exactly happened? I said that the Red Sox had to do two things to win in this Series: get some good starting pitching and find a way to score off the tough Chicago pitching. They failed at both, so it's small wonder that they were swept.
The Red Sox had a team hitting line of 295/413/240. Chicago's line was 355/567/289. It's not really unreasonable to expect the White Sox to hit well against a sub-par pitching staff, but they outdid themselves in this series. So yes, the White Sox hit well, even better than we could have expected against the Sox.
But if there's one stat that defines this Series, it's this: 3.00 ERA for Chicago; 7.56 ERA for Boston. Not only were the Red Sox pitchers unable to rise to the occasion; they got absolutely tomahawked. Matt Clement got bombed, Wells was good until that 5-run inning, and Wakefield just didn't have it. Whereas the White Sox got a fine start from Jose Contreras. But the story doesn't end with the starters; Boston was actually able to get to Mark Buehrle and Freddy Garcia. It was a story of bullpens. The Boston bullpen allowed 7 runs in 9.1 IP for a 6.75 ERA. The White Sox bullpen -- allowed a grand total of 0 runs over 7.1 IP.
The Red Sox missed Pedro and Schilling, and the White Sox had all their cylinders working and even threw in some genuinely good hitting for good measure.
In San Diego, the Foregone Conclusion takes place tomorrow night at 11 PM. Seriously, though, Jake Peavy was about the only thing the Padres had going for them. Not only did they lose his first start, but he's extremely unlikely to return in Game 4 or ever. The pitching matchup for Game 3 is Matt Morris .vs. Woody Williams. Formerly the anchors of the Cardinal rotation, they took a separate career path this season:
Morris: 4.11 ERA, 192.2 IP, 22 HR, 37 BB/117 K
Williams: 4.85 ERA, 159.2 IP, 24 HR, 51 BB/106 K
So while Morris hasn't exactly been golden, Williams has just been awful in San Diego. I don't know if Adam Eaton is hurt or anything, but if they think that Williams' postseason experience will suddenly reverse the effects of aging he felt this year, they've got another thing coming.
But the Padres do stand the chance of at least winning a game. What makes me say that? Their hitting line over the first two games was 400/414/329. It's just two games, yes, but it was against Chris Carpenter and Mark Mulder. Not only does this tell us something about Carpenter and Mulder, but it makes me think that the Padre offense hasn't been as weak as the 7 R in 2 games would make it seem. So while they might scrape across a victory tomorrow, their chances of winning the Series have to be less than 1%.
The Yankees lost in New York tonight, which was not what I expected when Randy Johnson went up against Paul Byrd. But the Angels got to Randy Johnson and scored 11 runs. Erk? Well, the Yankees scored 7 runs, which was about what you could expect. But, as Yankee fans don't need to be reminded, it sometimes takes more than 7 runs to win this year. Not only did the Angels catch Randy on an off-night, they were able to feast on the Yankee middle relief, which is just dreadful. Why Al Leiter is out on the mound in such an important game, I have no idea, but I guess it's true that the Yankees just don't have anyone else. New York still has a chance to win the Series, certainly. But with the deciding Game 5 against Bartolo Colon in Anaheim (with Mussina how reliable?), we have to call the Angels slight favorites now. Either way, it certainly won't be the 4-game Yankee victory I predicted.
Friday, October 07, 2005
More awards ...
Now to go ahead and run the gamut of the other sundry awards given out in baseball ...
NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Jeff Francoeur
As I see it, this race is basically between Francoeur and Ryan Howard. Some people are talking about Willy Taveras, but the only advantage Taveras has is playing time. He is the only significant rookie to play the full season (617 PAs), but he has played so poorly (325/341/291) that he's been surpassed even by the half-season rookies. People like Taveras because he's fast, hits for a good average, and plays good defense. All these are true, but that's literally all he does. He has a below-average OBP and almost no power. Average and defense alone are okay, but okay isn't good enough to be the Rookie of the Year this year.
Francoeur's hitting line is (336/549/300), while Howard's is (356/567/288). Howard would seem to have a slight edge, but he plays in a much friendlier hitter's ballpark. Also, Francouer plays a more valuable defensive position (RF to Howard's 1B) very well. This edges Francouer past him. The knock on Francouer is his small amount of playing time (268 PAs compared to Howard's 345) and the fact that he got off to an awesome (ahem lucky) start before spiralling back down to earth. Howard, on the other hand, has played longer and more consistently. If there are any intangibles to be taken into account, I can't see as how one player has the advantage. Both men took the place of injured players on contending teams and played very well, helping the team stay in contention (although Howard admittedly replaced a much more important player in Jim Thome).
It's a very close call, and I couldn't really disagree with someone who voted for Howard. But my vote goes to Francoeur.
My top 3:
What about Blanton and Chacin? I'm afraid we'll have to eliminate them. Both have pitched pretty well. Blanton compiled a 3.53 ERA in 201.1 IP with 23 HR allowed and a 67:116 BB:K ratio. Chacin posted a 3.72 mark in 203 IP with 20 HR allowed and a 70:121 BB:K ratio. When you take into account that Chacin pitches in a tougher ballpark, they're closer candidates. But I think we have to let them go. Neither one could really be considered among the top 20 starters in the league, and although their ERAs are fine, their BB:K ratios are both pretty suspect.
This leaves Iguchi and Jonny Gomes to go with Street. Gomes has been a much better hitter (372/534/282) than Iguchi (342/438/278), although the gap really narrows when you take into account Iguchi's defense. If they had played an equal amount of time, I'd take Gomes. But Iguchi has a pretty large margin in terms of playing time (558 PAs to Gomes' 387). So while I think it's a close call, I'll take Iguchi.
So Iguchi is the main challenger to my pick of Huston Street. I'll just reiterate that Iguchi is a fair hitter with solid defense who has played the whole year. This gives him an edge over the short-timers like Gomes and Swisher, as well as the not-quite-brilliant pitchers such as Chacin and Blanton. So has Street been good enough to beat him?
Street has gone 5-1 with a 1.72 ERA and 23/27 in saves. He's thrown 78.1 IP (not too shabby for a closer) allowing just 3 HR with an impressive 26:72 BB:K ratio. Street has been just excellent as a closer, the best in the league after Rivera. And although he hasn't had such a significant impact in terms of playing time, I'll pick him over Iguchi.
It's a very tough process, weighing quality against quantity. Sometimes a player's quality outweights the lack of quantity, and sometimes the opposite is true. We have statistics to guide us, but we often have to make a judgment call based on our best understanding of the evidence. Francoeur and Street are tough choices; if you were to pick Howard and Iguchi, I couldn't make a huge argument against them. Such is baseball.
My top 3:
NL MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Bobby Cox
I'm going with the majority on this one. Cox has proven able to win under almost any circumstances, and this year is a very good example of that. The only other serious challenger to Bobby is, in my opinion, Tony LaRussa. But while LaRussa's team did win more games, I don't think he faced nearly as much adversity as Cox. It's a tough choice between two Hall-of-Famers, but I'll take Bobby.
My top 3:
AL MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Eric Wedge
Ozzie Guillen will most likely win this award, for the brand of "smart ball" that got the White Sox the AL Central Division title. Except that what I just said was a lie; Ozzie's brand of baseball didn't help the Sox get to the playoffs; if anything it hurt their chances. Ozzie's "smart ball" gets all the credit for Chicago's turnaround. Which is an example of people seeing two things together and assuming one causes another. But if Ozzie's smart ball helped the White Sox to the division title, how come they scored fewer runs this year than last year, when they didn't make the playoffs? Ozzie's style isn't helping the Sox score runs; it might be hurting them. The White Sox scored 4.57 runs/game this year. Last year, they scored 5.33 runs/game. So in a year that they go from also-rans to 99-game winners, the White Sox became a significantly worse offensive team. If an executive's style is seen as making a business more successful, shouldn't someone actually check the bottom line to make sure the business is more successful before slobbering affection all over him?
So how come the White Sox are such a better team this year? Well, their ERA this year was 3.61, just a hair worse than Cleveland's in the entire American League. Last year, their ERA was 4.91. So while their hitting got worse, their pitching got a whole lot better. "Smart ball" and Scott Podsednik didn't help the Sox in the run column this year; their amazing pitching staff did. Which, I must admit, Guillen deserves his share of credit in the handling of. Guillen did a good job handling the pitching staff. But he's being hijacked by the anti-Moneyball squad as the poster child for old-fashioned baseball. But no one has pointed out that el presidente has no clothes.
So yeah, instead my pick is Eric Wedge.
My top 3:
NL ROLAIDS RELIEF MAN AWARD: Billy Wagner
This award pretty much belonged to Chad Cordero for most of the year. But then he stumbled down the stretch. He finished with a 1.82 ERA (3rd-best among NL closers), despite pitching in one of the most pitcher-friendly parks in baseball. He did lead the league with 47 saves, but he also led the league with 54 save opportunities. We don't give the batting title to the guy with the most hits, right? Because some guys get a lot more ABs (or chances) to get hits. So why do we celebrate the guy with the most saves without recognizing that some guys get a lot more chances to get saves, just like hits. So is save percentage more important than number of saves? You bet your sweet patoot.
Cordero had 7 blown saves (47/54 = 87%). Billy Wagner had 3 blown saves (38/41 = 93%). Wagner's 1.51 ERA was best among all NL closers despite pitching in a very tough home ballpark. His 6 HR allowed are not excessive (especially considering the ballpark), and his 20:87 BB:K ratio (in 77.2 IP) is pretty darn good. There's no Eric Gagne among this year's candidates, but Billy Wagner was the best.
Oh, and if you're wondering about Todd Jones, he too had a bad September, stumbling to a 2.10 ERA (despite a very friendly ballpark), going 40/45 (89%) in saves.
My top 3:
NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Jeff Francoeur
As I see it, this race is basically between Francoeur and Ryan Howard. Some people are talking about Willy Taveras, but the only advantage Taveras has is playing time. He is the only significant rookie to play the full season (617 PAs), but he has played so poorly (325/341/291) that he's been surpassed even by the half-season rookies. People like Taveras because he's fast, hits for a good average, and plays good defense. All these are true, but that's literally all he does. He has a below-average OBP and almost no power. Average and defense alone are okay, but okay isn't good enough to be the Rookie of the Year this year.
Francoeur's hitting line is (336/549/300), while Howard's is (356/567/288). Howard would seem to have a slight edge, but he plays in a much friendlier hitter's ballpark. Also, Francouer plays a more valuable defensive position (RF to Howard's 1B) very well. This edges Francouer past him. The knock on Francouer is his small amount of playing time (268 PAs compared to Howard's 345) and the fact that he got off to an awesome (ahem lucky) start before spiralling back down to earth. Howard, on the other hand, has played longer and more consistently. If there are any intangibles to be taken into account, I can't see as how one player has the advantage. Both men took the place of injured players on contending teams and played very well, helping the team stay in contention (although Howard admittedly replaced a much more important player in Jim Thome).
It's a very close call, and I couldn't really disagree with someone who voted for Howard. But my vote goes to Francoeur.
My top 3:
- Jeff Francoeur
- Ryan Howard
- Ryan Langerhans
AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Huston Street
This is another close race, although it's much more difficult to narrow down the field. The other contenders would be Tadahito Iguchi, Jonny Gomes, Robinson Cano, Nick Swisher, as well as Joe Blanton and Gustavo Chacin. Add in Street, and we've got a very crowded field. Whom can we eliminate?
What about Blanton and Chacin? I'm afraid we'll have to eliminate them. Both have pitched pretty well. Blanton compiled a 3.53 ERA in 201.1 IP with 23 HR allowed and a 67:116 BB:K ratio. Chacin posted a 3.72 mark in 203 IP with 20 HR allowed and a 70:121 BB:K ratio. When you take into account that Chacin pitches in a tougher ballpark, they're closer candidates. But I think we have to let them go. Neither one could really be considered among the top 20 starters in the league, and although their ERAs are fine, their BB:K ratios are both pretty suspect.
This leaves Iguchi and Jonny Gomes to go with Street. Gomes has been a much better hitter (372/534/282) than Iguchi (342/438/278), although the gap really narrows when you take into account Iguchi's defense. If they had played an equal amount of time, I'd take Gomes. But Iguchi has a pretty large margin in terms of playing time (558 PAs to Gomes' 387). So while I think it's a close call, I'll take Iguchi.
So Iguchi is the main challenger to my pick of Huston Street. I'll just reiterate that Iguchi is a fair hitter with solid defense who has played the whole year. This gives him an edge over the short-timers like Gomes and Swisher, as well as the not-quite-brilliant pitchers such as Chacin and Blanton. So has Street been good enough to beat him?
Street has gone 5-1 with a 1.72 ERA and 23/27 in saves. He's thrown 78.1 IP (not too shabby for a closer) allowing just 3 HR with an impressive 26:72 BB:K ratio. Street has been just excellent as a closer, the best in the league after Rivera. And although he hasn't had such a significant impact in terms of playing time, I'll pick him over Iguchi.
It's a very tough process, weighing quality against quantity. Sometimes a player's quality outweights the lack of quantity, and sometimes the opposite is true. We have statistics to guide us, but we often have to make a judgment call based on our best understanding of the evidence. Francoeur and Street are tough choices; if you were to pick Howard and Iguchi, I couldn't make a huge argument against them. Such is baseball.
My top 3:
- Huston Street
- Tadahito Iguchi
- Jonny Gomes
NL MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Bobby Cox
I'm going with the majority on this one. Cox has proven able to win under almost any circumstances, and this year is a very good example of that. The only other serious challenger to Bobby is, in my opinion, Tony LaRussa. But while LaRussa's team did win more games, I don't think he faced nearly as much adversity as Cox. It's a tough choice between two Hall-of-Famers, but I'll take Bobby.
My top 3:
- Bobby Cox
- Tony LaRussa
- Ned Yost
AL MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Eric Wedge
Ozzie Guillen will most likely win this award, for the brand of "smart ball" that got the White Sox the AL Central Division title. Except that what I just said was a lie; Ozzie's brand of baseball didn't help the Sox get to the playoffs; if anything it hurt their chances. Ozzie's "smart ball" gets all the credit for Chicago's turnaround. Which is an example of people seeing two things together and assuming one causes another. But if Ozzie's smart ball helped the White Sox to the division title, how come they scored fewer runs this year than last year, when they didn't make the playoffs? Ozzie's style isn't helping the Sox score runs; it might be hurting them. The White Sox scored 4.57 runs/game this year. Last year, they scored 5.33 runs/game. So in a year that they go from also-rans to 99-game winners, the White Sox became a significantly worse offensive team. If an executive's style is seen as making a business more successful, shouldn't someone actually check the bottom line to make sure the business is more successful before slobbering affection all over him?
So how come the White Sox are such a better team this year? Well, their ERA this year was 3.61, just a hair worse than Cleveland's in the entire American League. Last year, their ERA was 4.91. So while their hitting got worse, their pitching got a whole lot better. "Smart ball" and Scott Podsednik didn't help the Sox in the run column this year; their amazing pitching staff did. Which, I must admit, Guillen deserves his share of credit in the handling of. Guillen did a good job handling the pitching staff. But he's being hijacked by the anti-Moneyball squad as the poster child for old-fashioned baseball. But no one has pointed out that el presidente has no clothes.
So yeah, instead my pick is Eric Wedge.
My top 3:
- Eric Wedge
- Mike Scioscia
- Ozzie Guillen
NL ROLAIDS RELIEF MAN AWARD: Billy Wagner
This award pretty much belonged to Chad Cordero for most of the year. But then he stumbled down the stretch. He finished with a 1.82 ERA (3rd-best among NL closers), despite pitching in one of the most pitcher-friendly parks in baseball. He did lead the league with 47 saves, but he also led the league with 54 save opportunities. We don't give the batting title to the guy with the most hits, right? Because some guys get a lot more ABs (or chances) to get hits. So why do we celebrate the guy with the most saves without recognizing that some guys get a lot more chances to get saves, just like hits. So is save percentage more important than number of saves? You bet your sweet patoot.
Cordero had 7 blown saves (47/54 = 87%). Billy Wagner had 3 blown saves (38/41 = 93%). Wagner's 1.51 ERA was best among all NL closers despite pitching in a very tough home ballpark. His 6 HR allowed are not excessive (especially considering the ballpark), and his 20:87 BB:K ratio (in 77.2 IP) is pretty darn good. There's no Eric Gagne among this year's candidates, but Billy Wagner was the best.
Oh, and if you're wondering about Todd Jones, he too had a bad September, stumbling to a 2.10 ERA (despite a very friendly ballpark), going 40/45 (89%) in saves.
My top 3:
- Billy Wagner
- Derrick Turnbow
- Scott LinebrinK
AL ROLAIDS RELIEF MAN: Mariano Rivera
Well, here's one we can pretty much all agree on. Rivera just ran away with the AL, at least in terms of closers. The only guys who got close were the aforementioned Street (who did just have 23 saves) and Dustin Hermanson (whose injuries got to him -- or maybe it was his 17:33 BB:K ratio in 57.1 IP).
Rivera finished with a 1.38 ERA (best among all AL relievers with at least 40 IP), went 43/47 in saves (91%) in 78.1 IP, and allowed just 2 HR to go with 18 BB and 80 (count 'em) strikeouts. That's a fine season, and no other AL closer was better.
My top 3:
- Mariano Rivera
- Huston Street
- Dustin Hermanson
And now for a few more random awards, to be discussed tersely ...
NL EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR: John Schuerholz
Granted he didn't do a whole lot this year (although that Farnsworth trade looks mighty nice), but this year saw the fruition of his historically brilliant farm system. The Braves' organization as a whole is just the class of baseball. Other candidates include Omar Minaya, Walt Jocketty, and Doug Melvin.
AL EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR: Mark Shapiro
Speaking of someone whose plans came to fruition ... Shapiro's amazingly quick rebuilding of the Cleveland Indians nearly got them into the postseason just 3 years after their collapse. He shunned free agents (with some exceptions, such as the best bargain of the off-season, Kevin Millwood) and built up a stable of kids. Now he's got a killer lineup of Travis Hafner, Jhonny Peralta, Victor Martinez, Grady Sizemore and others such as Coco Crisp and Ron Belliard that will carry him for years. The bullpen is strong, although Bob Wickman can't last forever, but the starting pitching is a little shaky. However, being able to put a dynasty back together this quickly and then scare the daylights out of the AL's winningest team deserves some major kudos. Other candidates: Brian Cashman, Billy Beane.
NL COMEBACK PLAYER OF THE YEAR: Ken Griffey, Jr.
You've gotta give Griffey the love here, especially considering everything that he's come back from. Although he may not have been the best player of the 1990's, he probably was the best player of the 1990's (non-steroid class). Other candidates include Andy Pettitte, Todd Jones, Troy Glaus.
AL COMEBACK PLAYER OF THE YEAR: Jason Giambi
Well this award is fraught with implications. To make a long story short, we can't convincingly connect Jason Giambi's rise and fall with steroids. He admittedly started taking them after his MVP season, and he thereupon got worse every year from 2002-2004. So we can't really say that steroids is behind this award, or that he's "coming back" from using steroids.
I certainly don't think Giambi is a "hero" for admitting that he used steroids. Neither is he the anti-Christ. Just as no one was willing to stand up and defend accused Communists (until Edward R. Morrow), no one is going to stand up and say that we're being too hard on the steroid users. But the holier-than-thou attitude of the mainstream media is sickening. If most of them had the opportunity to reach the major leagues if it meant taking steroids, how many of them would do it? How many of us would do it? We can't celebrate Giambi, but we must admit that he has taken all of the heat for something a whole lot of people have done. And I will say that it was an amazingly brave thing to admit that in front of the grand jury. Others weren't quite so forthright ...
Other candidates: Kevin Millwood, Richie Sexson
I'll be back tomorrow with some more frivolous and fun end-of-2005 awards. Cross your fingers for Jorge Sosa! Hell, cross everything ya got.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Pitching in a Pinch
Here, now, the Cy Youngs:
NL CY YOUNG: Roger Clemens
Boy, every award selection I make comes with a very complicated explanation, doesn't it? So I'll make this one very short: ERA is a much more reliable indicator of a pitcher's quality than Wins and Losses.
In brief: A Win is awarded to the pitcher who is in the game when his team takes the lead for good. A loss goes to the pitcher who allows that deciding run. In every major league baseball game, one pitcher will get a win and one will get a loss. It does not matter how well they pitch or how many pitchers pitch well; one gets a loss, one gets a win. People think that a guy with a 20-10 record pitched 20 good games and 10 bad ones. I challenge you to go to mlb.com and count up good games and bad ones. The odds are astronomical that it will be 20-10; it could be 10-20 or worse or better. Pitchers get awarded a win or a loss all the time when they don't pitch that well or that poorly. In a game where two pitchers pitch brilliant, one of them will get the loss. And don't even get me started on bullpens; they screw up our ideas of good wins and bad losses completely. So Wins and Losses don't indicate how good a pitcher is, and if you think they do, you're a moron.
I know what you think: a pitcher who wins games with a bad ERA is still doing something right; he's a "proven winner." Well, can I show you how many "proven winners" went to bad teams and became "proven frauds"? A won-loss record says much more about a team's quality than the pitcher, especially in the age where starting pitchers pitch so few innings.
It takes (at least) 9 men to win or lose a baseball game. Giving all the credit or blame to one pitcher is just plain stupid. If you want to know how many good games a pitcher pitched, look at Quality Starts. ERA is imperfect; you have to adjust for ballparks and the league context, and even defense. A defense can have a strong impact on a pitcher's ERA, even without considering unearned runs. But it's the best (basic) pitching statistic we have.
Okay, so that wasn't so short, but now that I've established that, I'll tell you why I think Roger Clemens was the best pitcher in the NL. Here's a comparison of the three leading candidates:
Chris Carpenter (21-5, 2.83, 241.2 IP, 18 HR, 51 BB/213 K)
Dontrelle Willis (22-10, 2.63, 236.1 IP, 11 HR, 55 BB, 170 K)
Andy Pettitte (17-9, 2.39, 222.1 IP, 17 HR, 41 BB, 171 K)
&
Roger Clemens (13-8, 1.87 ERA, 211.1 IP, 11 HR, 62 BB, 185 K)
Clemens has an absolute gulf of an advantage in ERA. It looked a lot closer until Carpenter self-destructed down the stretch. It's virtually impossible that, ballparks aside, a pitcher with an ERA 1 full run higher is actually better. And Clemens pitches in a much tougher ballpark than either Willis or Carpenter!
The argument for Carpenter (barring the stupid one for wins) is that he pitched more innings with a better BB:K ratio. This is actually a pretty good argument, and if Carpenter's ERA were about 2.20 or lower, I might accept it. But Carpenter's small edge in IP (30.1 more than Clemens) and BB:K ratio (11 fewer walks, 28 more K) just cannot account for the gulf in ERA. A pitcher's job is to prevent runs from scoring, and Roger Clemens did that better than anyone else in the league by a substantial margin.
What about Dontrelle Willis? He's better than Carpenter, but still doesn't have enough to match Clemens. He has a better ERA (somewhat accounted for by his pitcher-friendly ballpark) in a similar number of innings, but a sizeable gap in strikeouts (43 less). While I might accept Carpenter over Willis as an argument, Willis is the better hitter (which may or may not matter in the voting) and Carpenter's stumble down the stretch can't be ignored. I also look at the 7 fewer HR allowed. I give Willis the edge over Carpenter, just barely.
But why did I put Andy Pettitte's name up there? He's not considered a serious candidate for the Cy Young? No, but he's had a better year than Carpenter and Willis in ERA, substantially so when you consider his home ballpark. He's allowed fewer HR than Carpenter (again despite the ballpark), and has a better BB:K ratio than Willis. Yeah, he's my #2.
Any other candidates? I actually will take Roy Oswalt over Carpenter (that September stumble sent him reeling), considering a similar ERA (2.94 for Oswalt) and similar peripherals despite Oswalt's ballpark. Any relievers to consider? Chad Cordero looked like a possibility (although his home ballpark made him look a lot better than he was), but both he and Todd Jones stumbled down the stretch. I think Billy Wagner was the best reliever in the league, but he wasn't Eric Gagne-good, i.e. good enough to merit Cy Young consideration.
So here are my Top 10 for the NL Cy Young:
NL CY YOUNG: Roger Clemens
Boy, every award selection I make comes with a very complicated explanation, doesn't it? So I'll make this one very short: ERA is a much more reliable indicator of a pitcher's quality than Wins and Losses.
In brief: A Win is awarded to the pitcher who is in the game when his team takes the lead for good. A loss goes to the pitcher who allows that deciding run. In every major league baseball game, one pitcher will get a win and one will get a loss. It does not matter how well they pitch or how many pitchers pitch well; one gets a loss, one gets a win. People think that a guy with a 20-10 record pitched 20 good games and 10 bad ones. I challenge you to go to mlb.com and count up good games and bad ones. The odds are astronomical that it will be 20-10; it could be 10-20 or worse or better. Pitchers get awarded a win or a loss all the time when they don't pitch that well or that poorly. In a game where two pitchers pitch brilliant, one of them will get the loss. And don't even get me started on bullpens; they screw up our ideas of good wins and bad losses completely. So Wins and Losses don't indicate how good a pitcher is, and if you think they do, you're a moron.
I know what you think: a pitcher who wins games with a bad ERA is still doing something right; he's a "proven winner." Well, can I show you how many "proven winners" went to bad teams and became "proven frauds"? A won-loss record says much more about a team's quality than the pitcher, especially in the age where starting pitchers pitch so few innings.
It takes (at least) 9 men to win or lose a baseball game. Giving all the credit or blame to one pitcher is just plain stupid. If you want to know how many good games a pitcher pitched, look at Quality Starts. ERA is imperfect; you have to adjust for ballparks and the league context, and even defense. A defense can have a strong impact on a pitcher's ERA, even without considering unearned runs. But it's the best (basic) pitching statistic we have.
Okay, so that wasn't so short, but now that I've established that, I'll tell you why I think Roger Clemens was the best pitcher in the NL. Here's a comparison of the three leading candidates:
Chris Carpenter (21-5, 2.83, 241.2 IP, 18 HR, 51 BB/213 K)
Dontrelle Willis (22-10, 2.63, 236.1 IP, 11 HR, 55 BB, 170 K)
Andy Pettitte (17-9, 2.39, 222.1 IP, 17 HR, 41 BB, 171 K)
&
Roger Clemens (13-8, 1.87 ERA, 211.1 IP, 11 HR, 62 BB, 185 K)
Clemens has an absolute gulf of an advantage in ERA. It looked a lot closer until Carpenter self-destructed down the stretch. It's virtually impossible that, ballparks aside, a pitcher with an ERA 1 full run higher is actually better. And Clemens pitches in a much tougher ballpark than either Willis or Carpenter!
The argument for Carpenter (barring the stupid one for wins) is that he pitched more innings with a better BB:K ratio. This is actually a pretty good argument, and if Carpenter's ERA were about 2.20 or lower, I might accept it. But Carpenter's small edge in IP (30.1 more than Clemens) and BB:K ratio (11 fewer walks, 28 more K) just cannot account for the gulf in ERA. A pitcher's job is to prevent runs from scoring, and Roger Clemens did that better than anyone else in the league by a substantial margin.
What about Dontrelle Willis? He's better than Carpenter, but still doesn't have enough to match Clemens. He has a better ERA (somewhat accounted for by his pitcher-friendly ballpark) in a similar number of innings, but a sizeable gap in strikeouts (43 less). While I might accept Carpenter over Willis as an argument, Willis is the better hitter (which may or may not matter in the voting) and Carpenter's stumble down the stretch can't be ignored. I also look at the 7 fewer HR allowed. I give Willis the edge over Carpenter, just barely.
But why did I put Andy Pettitte's name up there? He's not considered a serious candidate for the Cy Young? No, but he's had a better year than Carpenter and Willis in ERA, substantially so when you consider his home ballpark. He's allowed fewer HR than Carpenter (again despite the ballpark), and has a better BB:K ratio than Willis. Yeah, he's my #2.
Any other candidates? I actually will take Roy Oswalt over Carpenter (that September stumble sent him reeling), considering a similar ERA (2.94 for Oswalt) and similar peripherals despite Oswalt's ballpark. Any relievers to consider? Chad Cordero looked like a possibility (although his home ballpark made him look a lot better than he was), but both he and Todd Jones stumbled down the stretch. I think Billy Wagner was the best reliever in the league, but he wasn't Eric Gagne-good, i.e. good enough to merit Cy Young consideration.
So here are my Top 10 for the NL Cy Young:
- Roger Clemens
- Andy Pettitte
- Dontrelle Willis
- Roy Oswalt
- Chris Carpenter
- Pedro Martinez
- Jake Peavy
- John Smoltz
- Carlos Zambrano
- Brandon Webb
My AL Cy Young argument is what you just read above: ignore Colon's wins, because they mask the fact that he's just not that good a pitcher. Here are the leading candidates and their essential stats:
Bartolo Colon (21-8, 3.48, 222.2 IP, 26 HR, 43 BB/157 K)
Johan Santana (16-7, 2.87, 231.2 IP, 22 HR, 45 BB/238 K)
Mark Buehrle (16-8, 3.12, 236.2 IP, 20 HR, 40 BB/149 K)
Mariano Rivera (7-4, 1.38 ERA, 43/47 SV, 78.1 ip, 2 HR, 18 BB/80 K)
Yeah, once you get past Colon's win, you see that he can't hold a candle to Johan. And after hearing my rant about ERA, I'm sure you can guess that Johan is my choice. Other than the wins, he's inarguably the best starting pitcher in the league (it ain't his fault the Twins can't hit).
But what about Rivera? This is a tough question. How can you compare a closer to a starting pitcher? Sabermetricians aren't exactly positive, but they've got a much better idea than mainstream analysts. Really, mainstream baseball commentators have no clue how to compare a good starter to a good reliever. Just look at Rollie Fingers and Dennis Eckersley getting the Cy Young. I'm not even going to mention Mark Davis and Steve Bedrosian ...
In my opinion, Rivera has been good -- very good. But he just can't trump Johan. If you're going to pitch 155 fewer innings (albeit more important innings), they have to be a huge leap better than the starters. I pick Rivera as my #3. Win Shares generally agrees, giving Rivera 17 WS against 23 for Santana (although they give 21 to Jon Garland for no apparent reason, so take from that what you will). If you've got the RSAA numbers or VORP numbers, feel free to send them in. The subscription to baseball prospectus is not exactly within my budget (I'm an actor), so Win Shares are the only free statistics I've got.
Here are my AL Top 10 in the Cy Young Award voting:
- Johan Santana
- Mark Buehrle
- Mariano Rivera
- Kevin Millwood
- Bartolo Colon
- Jon Garland
- Roy Halladay
- Carlos Silva
- Kenny Rogers
- John Lackey
Just you wait for my Rookie of the Year and other random awards analyses ...
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
No love for Papi
Thus I continue my own personal 2005 awards:
AL MVP: Alex Rodriguez
The AL MVP debate is much the same "intangibles debate" that rages in the NL, except that the two candidates (A-Rod and David Ortiz) are much closer. So I cannot dismiss out of hand David Ortiz as the MVP, but I can make a very good case that this distinction goes to A-Rod.
In terms of numbers, it all goes to Alex. His 421/610/321 line as a right-handed hitter in Yankee Stadium is amazing. Ortiz's line is 397/604/300, which is certainly impressive, but less so in Fenway Park. So when you take parks into account, A-Rod has an edge in hitting. And when you take into account that A-Rod is a good third baseman and Ortiz contributes nothing to the defense, it becomes a much easier choice. It's not that DH can't win the award -- he just has to hit that much better to make up for the 0 contribution on defense. And Ortiz is actually hitting worse than A-Rod. So thus I cast my vote.
The argument for Ortiz is (again) not based on stats, at least not on these stats. It's based on Ortiz being "clutch." Clutch isn't intangible; it is measurable. The only question is whether we can give a player credit for hitting inthe clutch.
The question of whether clutch hitting is an actual ability possessed by hitters or simply luck is a hairy question even in the sabermetric world. Your anti-Moneyball faction believes in clutch absolutely, but there is a growing feeling among stat-heads (with Bill James the most visible), that there actually does exist an ability to hit better in clutch situations.
As for myself, I've not seen any evidence to convincingly contradict the accepted sabermetric notion that clutch hitting is not an ability. Some people hit better in the clutch, yes. Some people hit better on Wednesdays; it doesn't mean there is an innate ability to do so. The fact that a hitter's performance in clutch situations tends to deviate widely from season to season is a strong suggestion that it is determined more by luck; if some people were good clutch hitters, we would expect them to do so with some degree of regularity. This is not the case.
But we cannot simply discount the fact that Ortiz has done well in clutch situations. I can't dispute this. Everyone arguing for Ortiz will quote you a list of stats describing his clutch ability, with the latest example being that 20 of Ortiz's homers either tied the game or gave the Red Sox the lead. But this is not the question. The question is not if David Ortiz is a good clutch hitter; Is he a better clutch hitter than A-Rod? Because he would have to be a much better clutch hitter to make up for the fact that he's a noticeably worse hitter in non-clutch situations. No one of the Ortiz faithful have looked to see how good A-Rod is; they don't know. So no one can say for sure if Ortiz is such a better clutch hitter than A-Rod. The answer is yes, but not by as much as you'd think. 18 or 19 (depending on the source) of A-Rod's homers either tied or gave his team the lead. That's not exactly enough to make up the difference between them, is it?
And we must point out that not all clutch situations are created equal. The problem with stats like RBI is that they gave an individual credit for a team accomplishment. They give Ortiz all the credit for those 148 RBI without mentioning that he was lucky enough to play on a team that gave him 148 chances for RBIs. If Ortiz played on the Royals, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Ortiz wouldn't be able to win all those close games in the late innings if the rest of the team weren't keeping the game close in the first place. Maybe Adam Dunn has as many clutch homers as Ortiz, except that his team was already too far behind for it to make a difference. We are once again giving Ortiz all the credit for a team accomplishment.
But none of this will convince the Ortiz faithful. They will say (as the otherwise reliable Peter Gammons did in ESPN The Magazine) that "no one can carry a team like Ortiz." This is to say that Ortiz makes the other people around him play better. This is another bit of baseball conventional wisdom with absolutely no evidence to back it up. On the contary, research tells us that we tend to wildly overestimate the impact one player has on his team's success. There is no proof that the Red Sox would be a significantly worse team without Ortiz, other than the lack of his hitting skills.
But everybody likes David Ortiz. I'm sure if I met him, I'd like him too. I have nothing against him as a person; I'm sure he's as wonderful and vibrant a character as everyone says he is, and I'm sure he really brightens up the clubhouse. And we'd all like to think that this makes his team win more games. But I'm sorry to say that there's no proof that this is true.
Nobody likes A-Rod. I don't really know why. It's probably because he's more withdrawn and polished; he says everything that is supposed to be said and goes about his business. And that will hurt him in the MVP race. A player's personality and the affection he merits from the media should have no bearing on the MVP balloting, but of course they do. Voters vote for people they like; they tell themselves that it's because of "chemistry." Albert Belle deserved to win at least 1 MVP Award, but he didn't because everybody hated him. This is true. Can you prove that Belle's attitude stopped his team from winning more games? No, and neither can you prove that Ortiz's attitude helps the Red Sox win.
Ortiz is a fine hitter; one of the 10 best in baseball, I would say. But while I will give him some extra credit for his personality, I will not give him a huge boost past A-Rod's obviously greater value on the baseball field.
Having said that, here are my top 10 players in the AL this season. My MVPs are:
AL MVP: Alex Rodriguez
The AL MVP debate is much the same "intangibles debate" that rages in the NL, except that the two candidates (A-Rod and David Ortiz) are much closer. So I cannot dismiss out of hand David Ortiz as the MVP, but I can make a very good case that this distinction goes to A-Rod.
In terms of numbers, it all goes to Alex. His 421/610/321 line as a right-handed hitter in Yankee Stadium is amazing. Ortiz's line is 397/604/300, which is certainly impressive, but less so in Fenway Park. So when you take parks into account, A-Rod has an edge in hitting. And when you take into account that A-Rod is a good third baseman and Ortiz contributes nothing to the defense, it becomes a much easier choice. It's not that DH can't win the award -- he just has to hit that much better to make up for the 0 contribution on defense. And Ortiz is actually hitting worse than A-Rod. So thus I cast my vote.
The argument for Ortiz is (again) not based on stats, at least not on these stats. It's based on Ortiz being "clutch." Clutch isn't intangible; it is measurable. The only question is whether we can give a player credit for hitting inthe clutch.
The question of whether clutch hitting is an actual ability possessed by hitters or simply luck is a hairy question even in the sabermetric world. Your anti-Moneyball faction believes in clutch absolutely, but there is a growing feeling among stat-heads (with Bill James the most visible), that there actually does exist an ability to hit better in clutch situations.
As for myself, I've not seen any evidence to convincingly contradict the accepted sabermetric notion that clutch hitting is not an ability. Some people hit better in the clutch, yes. Some people hit better on Wednesdays; it doesn't mean there is an innate ability to do so. The fact that a hitter's performance in clutch situations tends to deviate widely from season to season is a strong suggestion that it is determined more by luck; if some people were good clutch hitters, we would expect them to do so with some degree of regularity. This is not the case.
But we cannot simply discount the fact that Ortiz has done well in clutch situations. I can't dispute this. Everyone arguing for Ortiz will quote you a list of stats describing his clutch ability, with the latest example being that 20 of Ortiz's homers either tied the game or gave the Red Sox the lead. But this is not the question. The question is not if David Ortiz is a good clutch hitter; Is he a better clutch hitter than A-Rod? Because he would have to be a much better clutch hitter to make up for the fact that he's a noticeably worse hitter in non-clutch situations. No one of the Ortiz faithful have looked to see how good A-Rod is; they don't know. So no one can say for sure if Ortiz is such a better clutch hitter than A-Rod. The answer is yes, but not by as much as you'd think. 18 or 19 (depending on the source) of A-Rod's homers either tied or gave his team the lead. That's not exactly enough to make up the difference between them, is it?
And we must point out that not all clutch situations are created equal. The problem with stats like RBI is that they gave an individual credit for a team accomplishment. They give Ortiz all the credit for those 148 RBI without mentioning that he was lucky enough to play on a team that gave him 148 chances for RBIs. If Ortiz played on the Royals, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Ortiz wouldn't be able to win all those close games in the late innings if the rest of the team weren't keeping the game close in the first place. Maybe Adam Dunn has as many clutch homers as Ortiz, except that his team was already too far behind for it to make a difference. We are once again giving Ortiz all the credit for a team accomplishment.
But none of this will convince the Ortiz faithful. They will say (as the otherwise reliable Peter Gammons did in ESPN The Magazine) that "no one can carry a team like Ortiz." This is to say that Ortiz makes the other people around him play better. This is another bit of baseball conventional wisdom with absolutely no evidence to back it up. On the contary, research tells us that we tend to wildly overestimate the impact one player has on his team's success. There is no proof that the Red Sox would be a significantly worse team without Ortiz, other than the lack of his hitting skills.
But everybody likes David Ortiz. I'm sure if I met him, I'd like him too. I have nothing against him as a person; I'm sure he's as wonderful and vibrant a character as everyone says he is, and I'm sure he really brightens up the clubhouse. And we'd all like to think that this makes his team win more games. But I'm sorry to say that there's no proof that this is true.
Nobody likes A-Rod. I don't really know why. It's probably because he's more withdrawn and polished; he says everything that is supposed to be said and goes about his business. And that will hurt him in the MVP race. A player's personality and the affection he merits from the media should have no bearing on the MVP balloting, but of course they do. Voters vote for people they like; they tell themselves that it's because of "chemistry." Albert Belle deserved to win at least 1 MVP Award, but he didn't because everybody hated him. This is true. Can you prove that Belle's attitude stopped his team from winning more games? No, and neither can you prove that Ortiz's attitude helps the Red Sox win.
Ortiz is a fine hitter; one of the 10 best in baseball, I would say. But while I will give him some extra credit for his personality, I will not give him a huge boost past A-Rod's obviously greater value on the baseball field.
Having said that, here are my top 10 players in the AL this season. My MVPs are:
- Alex Rodriguez
- Brian Roberts
- Derek Jeter
- Mark Teixeira
- Miguel Tejada
- David Ortiz
- Manny Ramirez
- Michael Young
- Grady Sizemore
- Jhonny Peralta
I'll be back later with Cy Youngs.
The Awards go to ...
I guess it's time for me to weigh in with my two cents about who wins what award. When it comes down to it, the result of the MVP or Cy Young Awards are not that huge, but it's really just an extension of the on-going "stats .vs. intangibles" debate that's consuming baseball. It's not really an argument over who was better, but an argument about how to determine who was better. And so I'll reveal where I stand ...
NL MVP: Albert Pujols
Well, this can't be seen as such a surprise. Albert's batting line was 430/609/330. The only person who comes close is Derrek Lee, with his 418/662/335, but of course Lee hits in a much friendlier home ballpark. On the other hand, Lee has an edge over Pujols in defense. It's a close call, I admit, but I'll go with Albert and his superior hitting.
Okay, so what do I think about Andruw Jones? He's the other candidate, along with Lee and Pujols?
I think Andruw Jones was the 16th-best player in the National League. And considering that he's probably going to win the MVP Award, I'll be facing down mainstream baseball writers (and my fellow Braves fans) unless I can come up with a damn good reason for rating him there.
We can throw away the numbers. No one is making Andruw's case with his numbers, because his numbers aren't that good: 347/575/263. He has a lot of HR and RBI, and bully for him, but the most valuable thing a hitter can do is get on base. Pujols' OBP is 430, Jones' is 347. And Pujols has an edge in slugging and a huge edge in batting average. Andruw is a good center fielder, but it does not make up for the absolute gulf in quality between him and Pujols. Statistically, Andruw Jones isn't even close to being the best player in the NL.
But no one is using stats to make Andruw's argument. Andruw is the favorite for the MVP because he "carried the team on his back to the postseason." I'll make it simple: Can anyone prove this?
The answer is no. People are saying that Andruw is the MVP, because that's the conclusion they've come to, and when simple-minded people make up their minds, they close them to any alternate explanations, regardless of evidence. Did Andruw carry the team on his back? Or was the team saved by the arrival of many talented rookies (remember them?) who replaced the dreadful Brian Jordan and Raul Mondesi with quality in the lineup? Why have we given Andruw all the credit for the accomplishments of an entire team?
The Braves are struggling, Andruw hits, the Braves win. So did the Braves win because Andruw hit? Or from some other reason? No one can prove that Andruw did anything to cause the team to win other than play baseball. Can you prove that it was Andruw that made the Braves win? Because I can prove that it was Andruw combined with several other players that did it. I can prove my point. Can you prove yours?
But everyone will still say that Andruw is the MVP, because what he did as a person was more valuable than anyone else in the league. I'll ask a question: How valuable was Andruw's leadership? Was it more valuable than Albert's hitting? Can you prove that Andruw's leadership had any concrete effect on wins? I can prove that Albert's hitting did, more so than Andruw's. So what the hell argument is left?
The concept that "leadership" and "chemistry" are valuable has been convincingly debunked by statistical analysis. There are certainly instances where qualities other than pure baseball play come into account in the game. But statistics tells us that we regularly overestimate the actual impact that "intangibles" have on the game by a factor of roughly 3 billion.
If "chemistry" is important, how can teams who hate each other (Bronx Zoo, Moustache Gang) establish dynasties? How can teams that love each other (the '02 Reds, any number of others) not win it all? Chemistry is a factor, but it is a phenomenally smaller factor than hitting, pitching, and defense. And despite evidence to the contrary, no one wants to believe it. Everyone wants to believe that an average player can use determination and guts to turn himself into a star. It's a pretty lie. And most people would rather believe a pretty lie than confront an uncomfortable and complex truth. And because statisticians often come bearing these truths, it makes us unpopular with the majority.
The problem with analysis in baseball today is that people just believe what they're told. There is conventional wisdom in baseball; things that everyone believes for no reason other than the fact that it's what everyone has always believed. This is true in any arena: sports, economics, philosophy, politics, morality. Conventional wisdom is a powerful force.
Well I (and my SABR brethren) hate conventional wisdom. Because it's often wrong and also sometimes harmful. I want to know the truth, and you'll forgive me if I don't trust other people to do my thinking for me. I don't like to believe something just because someone tells me to. I'm funny that way. As a wise man once said, "We have faith in God. All others must bring statistics."
But all this will not convince those who do not wish to be convinced. They say that you can't measure value in baseball. It's something that you just have to feel; it can't be measured.
Well, this may be true in art or ethics, where there is no quantitative goal. When it comes to "entertainment" or "feeling good" there is no right answer, and I'm as broad-minded as the next guy when it comes to that. But winning baseball games is very measurable. And finding out who does the most towards helping his team win games is also very measurable. Our tools are sometimes crude, but they're the best we've got. So does winning really matter? Or does someone who feels like an MVP, feels like a Hall of Famer matter more than who actually realistically helped his team win?
I know I haven't convinced the doubters. They're not here to be convinced. They find something and believe in it. They exercise the psychological fallacy whereby you look for evidence (however specious) that supports what you already believe and subconsciously ignore or discount anything contradictory. A good sabermetrician (and a good thinker) looks at the evidence and then decides. Making decisions contrary to evidence would get you killed in real life; in baseball it gets you a job as a color commentator.
But still there are those who remain unconvinced. That's why I've saved my best argument for last. You say that Andruw deserves the MVP because he went above and beyond the call of duty by taking the team on his back and carrying them to victory through adversity. Well, Albert Pujols did the exact same thing, and he did it better and under more extreme circumstances than Andruw.
What "adversity" were the Braves facing that Andruw helped them through? Chipper Jones was injured, yes. Chipper's a darn good hitter, All-Star quality. They lost some pitchers, too, but the last time I looked, Andruw's forkball needed some work. They were also wasting time with Mondesi and Jordan, but the credit for cutting them and bringing up Langerhans, Johnson, and Francoeur goes to Scheuerholz, not Andruw. So Chipper gets injured, Jones has a career year. Did Albert accomplish even more than this, intangibly speaking?
Absolutely. The Cardinals last year had 3 MVP-quality players: Pujols, Rolen, and Edmonds. They lost Scott Rolen (just as valuable, if not moreso than Chipper) for almost the whole season to injury (and he wasn't hitting like himself when he did play). Jim Edmonds missed 20 games due to injury, the steady-hitting Reggie Sanders missed 69, and the still-potent Larry Walker missed 62. Catcher Yadier Molina also got on the injury bandwagon, with 48 games missed.
So not only did the Cardinals lose more players and much more production from their lineup, Albert "carried" the team with even better offense than Andruw was able to supply. And here's the kicker: The Braves without Andruw are a better-hitting club than the Cardinals without Albert. So I guess you could say that Albert is more "valuable" than Andruw ...
There is no good reason to support Andruw Jones for MVP. He's just been lucky enough to get a lot of good publicity for doing exactly what Pujols did. It's just luck that the voters focused on him instead of Pujols, and luck (and stupidity) are not exactly strangers to MVP voting.
So you still want to vote for Andruw? Go ahead. Just promise me you won't vote in the next presidential election ...
And after all that, I am plum tuckered. I'll give you my list for the ten best players (in order) in the NL this year. This list is still fluid, as I want to give it some time to sit and digest before I put my absolute stamp of approval on it. But, to the best of my knowledge, here are the NL's 1-10 MVPs this season (more awards to come tomorrow, with hopefully less vitriol):
NL MVP: Albert Pujols
Well, this can't be seen as such a surprise. Albert's batting line was 430/609/330. The only person who comes close is Derrek Lee, with his 418/662/335, but of course Lee hits in a much friendlier home ballpark. On the other hand, Lee has an edge over Pujols in defense. It's a close call, I admit, but I'll go with Albert and his superior hitting.
Okay, so what do I think about Andruw Jones? He's the other candidate, along with Lee and Pujols?
I think Andruw Jones was the 16th-best player in the National League. And considering that he's probably going to win the MVP Award, I'll be facing down mainstream baseball writers (and my fellow Braves fans) unless I can come up with a damn good reason for rating him there.
We can throw away the numbers. No one is making Andruw's case with his numbers, because his numbers aren't that good: 347/575/263. He has a lot of HR and RBI, and bully for him, but the most valuable thing a hitter can do is get on base. Pujols' OBP is 430, Jones' is 347. And Pujols has an edge in slugging and a huge edge in batting average. Andruw is a good center fielder, but it does not make up for the absolute gulf in quality between him and Pujols. Statistically, Andruw Jones isn't even close to being the best player in the NL.
But no one is using stats to make Andruw's argument. Andruw is the favorite for the MVP because he "carried the team on his back to the postseason." I'll make it simple: Can anyone prove this?
The answer is no. People are saying that Andruw is the MVP, because that's the conclusion they've come to, and when simple-minded people make up their minds, they close them to any alternate explanations, regardless of evidence. Did Andruw carry the team on his back? Or was the team saved by the arrival of many talented rookies (remember them?) who replaced the dreadful Brian Jordan and Raul Mondesi with quality in the lineup? Why have we given Andruw all the credit for the accomplishments of an entire team?
The Braves are struggling, Andruw hits, the Braves win. So did the Braves win because Andruw hit? Or from some other reason? No one can prove that Andruw did anything to cause the team to win other than play baseball. Can you prove that it was Andruw that made the Braves win? Because I can prove that it was Andruw combined with several other players that did it. I can prove my point. Can you prove yours?
But everyone will still say that Andruw is the MVP, because what he did as a person was more valuable than anyone else in the league. I'll ask a question: How valuable was Andruw's leadership? Was it more valuable than Albert's hitting? Can you prove that Andruw's leadership had any concrete effect on wins? I can prove that Albert's hitting did, more so than Andruw's. So what the hell argument is left?
The concept that "leadership" and "chemistry" are valuable has been convincingly debunked by statistical analysis. There are certainly instances where qualities other than pure baseball play come into account in the game. But statistics tells us that we regularly overestimate the actual impact that "intangibles" have on the game by a factor of roughly 3 billion.
If "chemistry" is important, how can teams who hate each other (Bronx Zoo, Moustache Gang) establish dynasties? How can teams that love each other (the '02 Reds, any number of others) not win it all? Chemistry is a factor, but it is a phenomenally smaller factor than hitting, pitching, and defense. And despite evidence to the contrary, no one wants to believe it. Everyone wants to believe that an average player can use determination and guts to turn himself into a star. It's a pretty lie. And most people would rather believe a pretty lie than confront an uncomfortable and complex truth. And because statisticians often come bearing these truths, it makes us unpopular with the majority.
The problem with analysis in baseball today is that people just believe what they're told. There is conventional wisdom in baseball; things that everyone believes for no reason other than the fact that it's what everyone has always believed. This is true in any arena: sports, economics, philosophy, politics, morality. Conventional wisdom is a powerful force.
Well I (and my SABR brethren) hate conventional wisdom. Because it's often wrong and also sometimes harmful. I want to know the truth, and you'll forgive me if I don't trust other people to do my thinking for me. I don't like to believe something just because someone tells me to. I'm funny that way. As a wise man once said, "We have faith in God. All others must bring statistics."
But all this will not convince those who do not wish to be convinced. They say that you can't measure value in baseball. It's something that you just have to feel; it can't be measured.
Well, this may be true in art or ethics, where there is no quantitative goal. When it comes to "entertainment" or "feeling good" there is no right answer, and I'm as broad-minded as the next guy when it comes to that. But winning baseball games is very measurable. And finding out who does the most towards helping his team win games is also very measurable. Our tools are sometimes crude, but they're the best we've got. So does winning really matter? Or does someone who feels like an MVP, feels like a Hall of Famer matter more than who actually realistically helped his team win?
I know I haven't convinced the doubters. They're not here to be convinced. They find something and believe in it. They exercise the psychological fallacy whereby you look for evidence (however specious) that supports what you already believe and subconsciously ignore or discount anything contradictory. A good sabermetrician (and a good thinker) looks at the evidence and then decides. Making decisions contrary to evidence would get you killed in real life; in baseball it gets you a job as a color commentator.
But still there are those who remain unconvinced. That's why I've saved my best argument for last. You say that Andruw deserves the MVP because he went above and beyond the call of duty by taking the team on his back and carrying them to victory through adversity. Well, Albert Pujols did the exact same thing, and he did it better and under more extreme circumstances than Andruw.
What "adversity" were the Braves facing that Andruw helped them through? Chipper Jones was injured, yes. Chipper's a darn good hitter, All-Star quality. They lost some pitchers, too, but the last time I looked, Andruw's forkball needed some work. They were also wasting time with Mondesi and Jordan, but the credit for cutting them and bringing up Langerhans, Johnson, and Francoeur goes to Scheuerholz, not Andruw. So Chipper gets injured, Jones has a career year. Did Albert accomplish even more than this, intangibly speaking?
Absolutely. The Cardinals last year had 3 MVP-quality players: Pujols, Rolen, and Edmonds. They lost Scott Rolen (just as valuable, if not moreso than Chipper) for almost the whole season to injury (and he wasn't hitting like himself when he did play). Jim Edmonds missed 20 games due to injury, the steady-hitting Reggie Sanders missed 69, and the still-potent Larry Walker missed 62. Catcher Yadier Molina also got on the injury bandwagon, with 48 games missed.
So not only did the Cardinals lose more players and much more production from their lineup, Albert "carried" the team with even better offense than Andruw was able to supply. And here's the kicker: The Braves without Andruw are a better-hitting club than the Cardinals without Albert. So I guess you could say that Albert is more "valuable" than Andruw ...
There is no good reason to support Andruw Jones for MVP. He's just been lucky enough to get a lot of good publicity for doing exactly what Pujols did. It's just luck that the voters focused on him instead of Pujols, and luck (and stupidity) are not exactly strangers to MVP voting.
So you still want to vote for Andruw? Go ahead. Just promise me you won't vote in the next presidential election ...
And after all that, I am plum tuckered. I'll give you my list for the ten best players (in order) in the NL this year. This list is still fluid, as I want to give it some time to sit and digest before I put my absolute stamp of approval on it. But, to the best of my knowledge, here are the NL's 1-10 MVPs this season (more awards to come tomorrow, with hopefully less vitriol):
- Albert Pujols
- Derrek Lee
- Brian Giles
- Jason Bay
- David Wright
- Miguel Cabrera
- Jeff Kent
- Bobby Abreu
- Morgan Ensberg
- Chase Utley
Monday, October 03, 2005
Pre-season predictions
Here I'd like to look back upon the predictions I made before the 2005 season started. Espn.com posted a poll for every MLB team, asking questions about how the team would fare. I answered them for each team and then recorded them. Now, I'll look back and see what I really got right, what I really got wrong, and what I (nor anyone) saw coming.
NL EAST
I predicted this:
NL EAST
I predicted this:
- Atlanta Braves (91-95 wins)
- Philadelphia Phillies (89-93 wins)
- Florida Marlins (82-86 wins)
- New York Mets (81-85 wins)
- Washington Nationals (76-80 wins)
Hooray for me! I got the finishing order exactly right (although the Marlins and Mets technically tied for 3rd). I missed the Braves by just 1 win (they won 90), the same margin I missed the Phillies by (they won 88). The Marlins and Mets finished within my prediction, and the Nationals finished just 1 game above (81 wins). The NL East was probably my best-predicted division, as I got every team within 1 win of my 5-game Win Range.
NL CENTRAL
I predicted this:
- St. Louis Cardinals (97-101 wins)
- Chicago Cubs (87-91 wins)
- Houston Astros (84-88 wins)
- Cincinnati Reds (77-81 wins)
- Milwaukee Brewers (74-78 wins)
- Pittsburgh Pirates (69-73 wins)
I got the Cubs wrong, big-time. I also put the Reds too high and the Brewers too low. But I didn't do too bad. The Cardinals fell within my Win Range, although the Cubs missed big (79 wins, 8 off my guess). I just missed the Astros (they won 89) but again missed the Reds by a notch (they won 73, 4 off my Range). And I underestimated the Brewers, who outperformed my guess by 3 (81 wins). I overestimated the Pirates, who fell short of my guess by 4 (65 wins).
NL WEST
I predicted this:
- San Francisco (89-93 wins)
- Los Angeles (87-91 wins)
- San Diego (87-91 wins)
- Colorado (67-71 wins)
- Arizona (62-66 wins)
This would be my most embarassing division. Although in my defense, it was right in line with the predictions everyone else was making before the season started. The Giants and Dodgers were colossal disappointments, and the Giants only contended because the rest of the division fell with them. And although you may not believe me, I changed my guess to the Padres (just on a hunch) when I got around to writing my preseason report. So if the Phillies had clinched the Wild Card, I would have correctly predicted all 4 NL postseason teams.
So San Francisco missed my mark by 14 games (they won 75), and the Dodgers missed by 16 (71 wins, my worst prediction of the preseason). San Diego didn't miss by much (they won 82, 5 off my guess), but Arizona did (77 wins, 11 off my guess), although I must say that the Pythagorean standings show Arizona as an extremely lucky team. Colorado fell right in line with 67 wins.
AL EAST
I predicted this:
- New York Yankees (104-108 wins)
- Boston Red Sox (100-104 wins)
- Baltimore Orioles (82-86 wins)
- Toronto Blue Jays (78-82 wins)
- Tampa Bay Devil Rays (66-70 wins)
Now on a realistic level, I knew that the Yankees and Red Sox weren't that good. But those were the numbers my Win Shares analysis brought back, and I was unable to find a major fault with them. So I missed New York by 9 (95 real wins), and Boston by 5 (95 as well). Baltimore won 74, which was a big 8 off my guess. The Blue Jays, however, are the only team I predicted exactly. Their actual wins (80) falls right in the middle of my range. And I just barely missed hitting a bullseye with the Devil Rays (they won 67).
AL CENTRAL
I predicted this:
- Minnesota Twins (96-100 wins)
- Chicago White Sox (85-89 wins)
- Cleveland Indians (81-85 wins)
- Detroit Tigers (74-78 wins)
- Kansas City Royals (66-70 wins)
I was off on the Twins, but at least I didn't think they were going to win the World Series (unlike many high-placed commentators). It's amazing how people say that pitching and defense wins championships, and then when teams like the Twins come along, they don't even notice the contradiction. The only pitching and defense team anyone remembers is the '88 Dodgers, who won the World Series, and all the similar teams who didn't win the World Series or even get there are conveniently forgotten.
But pitching does win in the postseason. Just look at the Braves . . .
Back to the point, though, I didn't foresee the complete shutdown of the Minnesota offense. And although I was more generous to the Indians and especially the White Sox than some commentators, they both exceeded even my expectations, with guys like Jon Garland and Grady Sizemore unexpectedly becoming stars. So I missed Minnesota by 13 games (they won 83), and shortchanged Chicago by 14 (99 wins) and Cleveland by 12 (93). I came close with the Tigers (they won 71), and actually overestimated the Royals (won finished 10 games worse than I expected at 56-106).
NL WEST
I predicted this:
- Texas Rangers (91-95 wins)
- Los Angeles Angels (89-93 wins)
- Oakland Athletics (88-92 wins)
- Seattle Mariners (78-82 wins)
Boy, that Rangers guess doesn't make me look too smart. Again, I was clever enough to change my guess to Los Angeles (on a hunch) while preparing my preseason report. But I still predicted 90 wins for Texas. Although looking back on my numbers, I don't know what the hell I was smoking to think their pitching staff (or their outfield) was anywhere near that good. So I missed them by 12 (79 wins). I narrowly missed the Angels (who won 95) and got the A's in my sights (they won 88). I overestimated Adrian Beltre, which almost single-handedly shot up my prediction for the Mariners. I also gave their starters too much credit. Yes, the Mariners pitchers actually did worse than I originally predicted. So they fall 9 wins off my mark (69 wins).
My best predictions
Here are some examples from the espn.com surveys of questions I answered (as it turned out) correctly:
If Andy Pettite is healthy, where does the Houston rotation rank? Better or worse than average?
My answer: "Better then average." Well, I think that would be correct. The Astros had the best 1-2-3 combination in baseball, with Clemens, Pettitte, and Oswalt all having excellent years. The back end of the rotation was predictably weak (with Brandon Backe and some guy named Rodriguez not setting the world on fire), but it still ranks overall as "better than average."
Between Victor Zambrano and Kris Benson, will one or both be effective for the Mets?
My answer: "Only Benson will be effective." This was basically true, as Zambrano's non-production (70:99 BB:K ratio) got him sent to the bullpen. Benson was effective (4.09 ERA in 160.2 IP), although he admittedly wasn't that effective (45:92 BB:K ratio, 23 HR allowed in Shea Stadium).
Who will win the NL West?
My answer: "The Padres." As I said, my predicted Win Shares indicated that, even without Bonds, the Giants were the favorites to win the West. But this is where my B.S.-check locked in. The Giants just aren't that good at hitting (Alou being the only truly above-average guy, except maybe Durham), and their pitching was even worse (even when we thought Schmidt was going to be good). I didn't think much of Brett Tomko or Kirk Rueter, so I went with my hunch that the Padres would win. I saw that they essentially had a good offense (although Khalil Greene and Mark Loretta spent most of the year on the sidelines), and I thought Brian Giles had another good year left in him. I knew Jake Peavy was an ace, but I was concerned about the rest of the rotation (rightfully so, as it turned out). I just thought the Padres had fewer problems than anyone else, and it turned out to be true.
Who will be the Giants' most effective starter after Schmidt?
My answer: "Noah Lowry." Although it wasn't "after" Schmidt ...
If last year's St. Louis middle infield was 5 stars, then what about this year's?
My answer: "3 stars." And that turned out to be true. Eckstein was one of the better all-around shortstops in the league, and Grudzielanek filled in quite nicely for Womack (who became a laughingstock in the Bronx). But I must say that suggesting that the Renteria-Womack infield was "5-star" is beyond ludicrous; it's hysterically insane. I don't know where everyone got the idea that Edgar Renteria was a 5-star player ... well, actually I do. He had a career year in 2003 (398/480/330), and everyone's forgotten that his career line is actually 345/399/276, and his defense is amazingly overrated. And Tony Womack in 2004 had what we call a "career year." It's a fairly routine occurence in baseball, and yet it has the hypnotic effect of making everyday baseball announcers sound like blithering idiots; and anyone who uses the words "Renteria, Womack and 5-star" in the same sentence could be described as a blithering idiot.
Will Alan Trammell last the season as Tiger manager?
My answer: "Yes." And I was right by one day ...
What do you expect from Joe Mauer?
My answer: "He'll stay healthy and be one of the best catchers in the A.L." Correct, and yet for some bizarre reason, no one talks about him ...
What do you expect from Richie Sexson?
My answer: "At least 30 HR but not among the league's elite." He hit 37 HR and actually came close to approaching the elite. Did everyone forget that Richie Sexson is still a good hitter?
My worst predictions
Which team has the best 1-2 punch?
My answer: "The Cubs: Prior and Wood." Combine that with another question, where I predicted that Prior and Wood would combine for at least 50 starts. I wish I could tell you what the hell I was inhaling that day.
Is Andruw Jones primed for a career year?
My answer: "No." Oops.
Who will be Cincinnati's most effective starter?
My answer: "Eric Milton." Ouchie. Milton was actually the Reds' worst starter . . . IN TEAM HISTORY. But then, really, who on that staff looked better at the time?
How many games for J.D. Drew?
My answer: "130-140." Try half that -- 72. Although it was mainly due (at least as far as I know) to being hit in the hand by a pitch. But I still gave him the benefit of the doubt.
How will Oliver Perez fare?
My answer: "Better than 2004." Well, in 2004 Perez had a 2.98 ERA and 239 K in 196 IP. This year he had a 5.85 ERA with 97 K in 103 IP (and 70 BB). So that would be wrong.
Which Orioles starter will have the best season?
My answer: "Rodrigo Lopez." But I don't think "Bruce Chen" was even an option.
Which SS will have a better year: Renteria, Cabrera, or Nomar?
My answer: "Renteria." Not a bad choice at the time, but all 3 have been pretty lousy. I guess Cabrera was the best of the bunch.
What do you expect from Grady Sizemore this year?
My answer: "Enough to stay in the lineup, but no breakout year." If you look up breakout year in the dictionary, you'll see Sizemore's 2005 stats listed next to it. Yikes!
Who has a better rotation: Boston or Minnesota?
My answer: "Boston." What the hell was I thinking?
Who will be the Yankees' best starter after Johnson and Mussina?
My answer: "Kevin Brown." Which was a stupid answer, but how was I supposed to know about Shawn Chacon?
So what does all this tell me? It tells me that I'm not perfect when it comes to predicting baseball games. The good news is, though, that no one else is perfect. And hopefully I can learn from some of these mistakes and do a better job this year. Some of these eventualities were pretty much unpredictable (the White Sox, for example), while I should have seen others coming (the Ranger realities, the Cub hitting problems). So when I make my predictions for next year, maybe I'll get just a bit closer.
My stats background
If you are new to me and my blog (as most of you are), I wanted to just share with you a short tale of my background in baseball analysis. This is not just a biography (although partially that), but a way to let you know how I approach my work, so you can get a sense of where I come from and what my particular biases or advantages may be.
I've been a baseball fan as long as I can remember. I've just always enjoyed the game on a basic level, apart from statistics, as a game to played, watched and enjoyed. I played baseball in my backyard in Somerset, KY all through childhood. I played in my hometown all the way through little league before having to quit due to my theatre commitments (which is another blog entirely).
My first interest in baseball statistics is rooted in the 1986 Fleer baseball card set. If I had a prized possession as a precocious little 5-year-old, it was the complete set of 1986 Fleer that my brother and I collected. Oh, we had Topps as well, and even a few Donruss, but it was the Fleer that stuck out in my mind.
This would be the first evidence of my mania for organization and understanding. My brother and I would go through every team (Fleer being the only company that organized its sets by team, tho why others did not I'm clueless) and make out starting lineups based on who we thought the best player was. We'd pick a hitter from each position with the best batting average, and the pitcher with the most wins. But after a while, we altered this system. We noticed that some utility guys hit .350 in 12 games, and they certainly weren't what we had in mind. Brad Komminsk wasn't going to take Dale Murphy's place in my lineup, by God. So we instituted a 100-game minimum. We also started to notice that ERA was maybe as important as wins (and we had to take losses into account as well). That's where my stats mind started. The 86 Fleer set still rests in the cupboard with thousands of other cards. It is not in any sort of mint condition, but it holds a special place in my heart. And my brother and I can still recognize the names of even the most random players from the '86 set (Jeff Dedmon pitched for the Braves, and he's holding his glove in the picture; Ronn Reynolds was a backup catcher for the Mets; he's squatting in his picture).
Other than the fact that I would sort the cards into alphabetical order and back again, my stats passion stayed dormant for a while. We compiled a complete set of every major card company in 1989 (except Upper Deck, which was more expensive. Of course, that means that it's worth more now while the 1989 Score set is less valuable than the gum that came with it). My next foray into stats was when I bought Ken Griffey, Jr. Baseball for my Super Nintendo. It had the real stats of every major league player from the 1993 season. But (I guess due to contracting issues), they didn't have the players' real names. Darren Daulton looked like Darren Daulton and had Darren Daulton's stats, but his name was Rocky Balboa. So I went through and corrected every player (to the best of my knowledge) to the real name, with the help of a well-thumbed 1993 Athlon Sports Annual. I played a full season on that game as the Chicago White Sox, and I think I enjoyed keeping track of my stats as much as playing the actual games. I couldn't get Frank Thomas to break Maris' HR record, but he did hit .400 one year.
My baseball interest was still no more than any other fans with a slight interest in stats. And it pretty much stayed that way until 2002. I was getting back into baseball and started compiling lists of statistics myself just for kicks. I also started reading some baseball books. I noticed that my Dad had a book called "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?" by some guy named Bill James. I read it, and it changed my baseball life.
I guess most people can recall the moment they were "born again" as baseball fans, with a Bill James book usually the key. I came along too late for the abstracts, but Bill's Hall of Fame book was great. I enjoyed the common-sense analysis, the historical appreciation, and especially Bill's straightforward tone and sense of humor. But the thing that got me most was that he gave me new ways to quantify baseball that I never had before. I was frustrated by having to use the same old HR, Wins, etc. that I had used in 1986. Bill had things like the Black Ink Test, that I calculated myself for all the Hall of Fame hopefuls. Soon I had to have these new baseball books, with Bill's Historical Abstract at the top of the list. He introduced me to Win Shares, a form of measurement that I loved at the time and still enjoy (tho to a lesser extent) now. Of course, as some of you may remember, this was about the same time as a book called "Moneyball" came out. I read (devoured) Moneyball. I read it twice. Critics of the book get distracted by the specifics; I saw the essential story of the book, which was that of someone who didn't just take conventional wisdom at face value; he did his own thinking, pioneering a new way of baseball, and using it to great effect. The use of enlightening logic and evidence to dispel nagging old wives' tales about baseball gave me energy. It made me want to do it myself.
Well, to make a long story short, I started keeping track of players' statistics, compiling and updating them myself, halfway through 2003. I'm still doing it now, although I keep learning more and more about how to get wiser. Reading and watching Peter Gammons has given me new insight into the real world of baseball, and Rob Neyer's espn.com column kept teaching me new things while it never stopped entertaining me.
Now, I'm entering into the more advanced scientific level of analysis. I consider myself to be pretty good at math; I got an A+ in AP Calculus in high school and got a 5 on the AP Test. But some of this statistical work (the book Curve Ball, Tangotiger's essay on how runs are created, sorting out VORP, WARP1, WARP2, and RCAA and DHK3.5c2) is just mind-boggling.
My approach is to use these stats for a greater understanding, but still stick to the basics (HR, OBP, ERA, etc.) to communicate a basic understanding of my argument. The problem in baseball isn't that people are using the wrong statistics so much as that people's basic understanding of statistics is wrong. That and the fact that many people refuse to even accept logic and evidence make me feel sometimes like Galileo trying to convince the Pope that the earth revolves around the sun. It's not a matter of analysing evidence differently. It's a matter of analysing it at all. If we can just get people to start looking at baseball from an entirely new angle, then the road to the acceptance of OPS, RCAA, VORP and their descendants will be much smoother.
I get a kick out of a .400 OBP. And I get a kick out of seeing my Braves win. I hope I never lose either one.
I've been a baseball fan as long as I can remember. I've just always enjoyed the game on a basic level, apart from statistics, as a game to played, watched and enjoyed. I played baseball in my backyard in Somerset, KY all through childhood. I played in my hometown all the way through little league before having to quit due to my theatre commitments (which is another blog entirely).
My first interest in baseball statistics is rooted in the 1986 Fleer baseball card set. If I had a prized possession as a precocious little 5-year-old, it was the complete set of 1986 Fleer that my brother and I collected. Oh, we had Topps as well, and even a few Donruss, but it was the Fleer that stuck out in my mind.
This would be the first evidence of my mania for organization and understanding. My brother and I would go through every team (Fleer being the only company that organized its sets by team, tho why others did not I'm clueless) and make out starting lineups based on who we thought the best player was. We'd pick a hitter from each position with the best batting average, and the pitcher with the most wins. But after a while, we altered this system. We noticed that some utility guys hit .350 in 12 games, and they certainly weren't what we had in mind. Brad Komminsk wasn't going to take Dale Murphy's place in my lineup, by God. So we instituted a 100-game minimum. We also started to notice that ERA was maybe as important as wins (and we had to take losses into account as well). That's where my stats mind started. The 86 Fleer set still rests in the cupboard with thousands of other cards. It is not in any sort of mint condition, but it holds a special place in my heart. And my brother and I can still recognize the names of even the most random players from the '86 set (Jeff Dedmon pitched for the Braves, and he's holding his glove in the picture; Ronn Reynolds was a backup catcher for the Mets; he's squatting in his picture).
Other than the fact that I would sort the cards into alphabetical order and back again, my stats passion stayed dormant for a while. We compiled a complete set of every major card company in 1989 (except Upper Deck, which was more expensive. Of course, that means that it's worth more now while the 1989 Score set is less valuable than the gum that came with it). My next foray into stats was when I bought Ken Griffey, Jr. Baseball for my Super Nintendo. It had the real stats of every major league player from the 1993 season. But (I guess due to contracting issues), they didn't have the players' real names. Darren Daulton looked like Darren Daulton and had Darren Daulton's stats, but his name was Rocky Balboa. So I went through and corrected every player (to the best of my knowledge) to the real name, with the help of a well-thumbed 1993 Athlon Sports Annual. I played a full season on that game as the Chicago White Sox, and I think I enjoyed keeping track of my stats as much as playing the actual games. I couldn't get Frank Thomas to break Maris' HR record, but he did hit .400 one year.
My baseball interest was still no more than any other fans with a slight interest in stats. And it pretty much stayed that way until 2002. I was getting back into baseball and started compiling lists of statistics myself just for kicks. I also started reading some baseball books. I noticed that my Dad had a book called "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?" by some guy named Bill James. I read it, and it changed my baseball life.
I guess most people can recall the moment they were "born again" as baseball fans, with a Bill James book usually the key. I came along too late for the abstracts, but Bill's Hall of Fame book was great. I enjoyed the common-sense analysis, the historical appreciation, and especially Bill's straightforward tone and sense of humor. But the thing that got me most was that he gave me new ways to quantify baseball that I never had before. I was frustrated by having to use the same old HR, Wins, etc. that I had used in 1986. Bill had things like the Black Ink Test, that I calculated myself for all the Hall of Fame hopefuls. Soon I had to have these new baseball books, with Bill's Historical Abstract at the top of the list. He introduced me to Win Shares, a form of measurement that I loved at the time and still enjoy (tho to a lesser extent) now. Of course, as some of you may remember, this was about the same time as a book called "Moneyball" came out. I read (devoured) Moneyball. I read it twice. Critics of the book get distracted by the specifics; I saw the essential story of the book, which was that of someone who didn't just take conventional wisdom at face value; he did his own thinking, pioneering a new way of baseball, and using it to great effect. The use of enlightening logic and evidence to dispel nagging old wives' tales about baseball gave me energy. It made me want to do it myself.
Well, to make a long story short, I started keeping track of players' statistics, compiling and updating them myself, halfway through 2003. I'm still doing it now, although I keep learning more and more about how to get wiser. Reading and watching Peter Gammons has given me new insight into the real world of baseball, and Rob Neyer's espn.com column kept teaching me new things while it never stopped entertaining me.
Now, I'm entering into the more advanced scientific level of analysis. I consider myself to be pretty good at math; I got an A+ in AP Calculus in high school and got a 5 on the AP Test. But some of this statistical work (the book Curve Ball, Tangotiger's essay on how runs are created, sorting out VORP, WARP1, WARP2, and RCAA and DHK3.5c2) is just mind-boggling.
My approach is to use these stats for a greater understanding, but still stick to the basics (HR, OBP, ERA, etc.) to communicate a basic understanding of my argument. The problem in baseball isn't that people are using the wrong statistics so much as that people's basic understanding of statistics is wrong. That and the fact that many people refuse to even accept logic and evidence make me feel sometimes like Galileo trying to convince the Pope that the earth revolves around the sun. It's not a matter of analysing evidence differently. It's a matter of analysing it at all. If we can just get people to start looking at baseball from an entirely new angle, then the road to the acceptance of OPS, RCAA, VORP and their descendants will be much smoother.
I get a kick out of a .400 OBP. And I get a kick out of seeing my Braves win. I hope I never lose either one.
Well, let's start with a look at the postseason, shall we?
Of course, it's amazingly difficult to predict the postseason. It's hard to tell who's a better team in the first place, and then of course the better team doesn't always win. The best we can do is try to determine which team has the advantage and what the most important factors may be.
Red Sox .vs. White Sox
Here we have a classic hitting .vs. pitching matchup. I think the most important thing in this series will be how the Red Sox pitch. We can take the Red Sox hitting as a given, and we can take the White Sox pitching pretty much as a given. I think the Red Sox will be able to score off the ChiSox, especially Garcia and Garland, but not as much as we may think. So it all depends on what Wells, Clement, Schilling and Wakefield can do. The White Sox offense is not that potent, but it does have power. And guys like Wakefield are susceptible to the long-ball.
I think that since the Red Sox pitchers have looked better recently, and since they have Timlin installed as the closer, that Boston has a slight advantage. The White Sox are not as good as their record would indicate (at least according to the Pythagorean standings), but then the same could be said of the Red Sox. This will NOT be a pretty, 3-2 sacrifice bunt series. It will be a 10-6 affair more often than not, I feel.
Prediction: Boston in 5
Yankees .vs. Angels
This is a tough one to call. It's just a question of a) whether the strong L.A. pitching can tame the Yankee bats, and b) how the Yankees will pitch. Although I am admittedly not a fan of the Yankees, I must say that I think they have the advantage here. Not that I think Aaron Small is really this good, but Randy Johnson is (and I'm starting to think Shawn Chacon is, too). If the Yankees can get 2 or 3 good starts in this series, they stand a darn good chance of winning with relative ease. The Angels just don't have the offense to keep up with New York. After Vlad, what have they got? Chone Figgins? Adam Kennedy? Bengie Molina? Plus, they'll have guys like Garret Anderson, Darin Erstad, and the unproductive rookies clogging the lineup.
I just don't see the Angels pulling this one off. I like their pitching, and Colon/Lackey/Washburn is a pretty good troika, but not good enough to keep A-Rod, Giambi, and Sheffield in tow.
Prediction: New York in 4
Braves .vs. Astros
I'll go ahead and admit that I'm a Braves fan. Being a Braves fan is like being married to the most beautiful woman in the world -- but every October, she cheats on you. After a while, you just learn to live with it and enjoy the other 6 months.
That said, is there any reason to believe the Braves can succeed where they failed last year? Well, the Astros' offense is paltry; it's Ensberg, Berkman, and pray for . . . uh, Work-man? But in truth, the Astros don't have much punch at all, especially with Bagwell limited to pinch-hit duty. So what does Houston have?
How about the best 1-2-3 punch in baseball? With Clemens/Oswalt/Pettitte cycling through the postseason, the Astros can score 3-4 runs a game and win going away. The Braves have good offense and decent pitching, but neither one is that good. I can easily see Furcal, Giles, the Jones boys and Francouer stifled through the LDS, held to some .200 batting average while the Astros hit .220 and win the Series.
And we haven't even mentioned Atlanta's pitching. Problems: Smoltz might still be hurting, Hudson is having his worst year since 1999, and after that it gets really ugly. I ain't bettin' my hard-earned dollars on John Thomson, Horacio Ramirez, and Jorge Sosa. Farnsworth is good (but hurt a little?), although the rest of the bullpen is a shambles. Don't worry. I'm used to it.
Prediction: Houston in 4
St. Louis .vs. San Diego
This one seems so easy to call that it makes me wonder. The Cardinals are the best team in the postseason, and the Padres are the worst. It's almost like in a horror movie, when everything is quiet . . . too quiet. The Cardinals are an easy pick . . . too easy.
In all seriousness, it would take a feat of Herculean strength for San Diego to beat the Cardinals. St. Louis has a better offense by far than any other NL postseason team, and they have a solid pitching staff, with Carpenter at the fore (although the Mulder-Suppan-Morris-Marquis quartet looks shaky). But they've also got a killer bullpen, although Isringhausen is no Mariano Rivera . . . hell, he's no Aloysius Rivera, for that matter.
The Padres have a good offense; Petco Park just makes it look bad. Brian Giles has been one of the 10 best players in the NL this year; Ramon Hernandez and Khalil Greene are healthy, and they've gotten good production from Klesko and Dave Roberts as well. But the pitching? I'll give you Peavy as a sure-fire ace. I'll even grant you Adam Eaton as a decent #2. But Pedro Astacio? Jeepers!
And don't place too much money on Trevor Hoffman. Much as I admire the Padres for their pluckiness, they just ain't good enough. But I'll be generous and predict that they'll win a game.
Prediction: St. Louis in 4
More to come with thoughts about the MVP races, Cy Young, etc. and my own personal background.
Of course, it's amazingly difficult to predict the postseason. It's hard to tell who's a better team in the first place, and then of course the better team doesn't always win. The best we can do is try to determine which team has the advantage and what the most important factors may be.
Red Sox .vs. White Sox
Here we have a classic hitting .vs. pitching matchup. I think the most important thing in this series will be how the Red Sox pitch. We can take the Red Sox hitting as a given, and we can take the White Sox pitching pretty much as a given. I think the Red Sox will be able to score off the ChiSox, especially Garcia and Garland, but not as much as we may think. So it all depends on what Wells, Clement, Schilling and Wakefield can do. The White Sox offense is not that potent, but it does have power. And guys like Wakefield are susceptible to the long-ball.
I think that since the Red Sox pitchers have looked better recently, and since they have Timlin installed as the closer, that Boston has a slight advantage. The White Sox are not as good as their record would indicate (at least according to the Pythagorean standings), but then the same could be said of the Red Sox. This will NOT be a pretty, 3-2 sacrifice bunt series. It will be a 10-6 affair more often than not, I feel.
Prediction: Boston in 5
Yankees .vs. Angels
This is a tough one to call. It's just a question of a) whether the strong L.A. pitching can tame the Yankee bats, and b) how the Yankees will pitch. Although I am admittedly not a fan of the Yankees, I must say that I think they have the advantage here. Not that I think Aaron Small is really this good, but Randy Johnson is (and I'm starting to think Shawn Chacon is, too). If the Yankees can get 2 or 3 good starts in this series, they stand a darn good chance of winning with relative ease. The Angels just don't have the offense to keep up with New York. After Vlad, what have they got? Chone Figgins? Adam Kennedy? Bengie Molina? Plus, they'll have guys like Garret Anderson, Darin Erstad, and the unproductive rookies clogging the lineup.
I just don't see the Angels pulling this one off. I like their pitching, and Colon/Lackey/Washburn is a pretty good troika, but not good enough to keep A-Rod, Giambi, and Sheffield in tow.
Prediction: New York in 4
Braves .vs. Astros
I'll go ahead and admit that I'm a Braves fan. Being a Braves fan is like being married to the most beautiful woman in the world -- but every October, she cheats on you. After a while, you just learn to live with it and enjoy the other 6 months.
That said, is there any reason to believe the Braves can succeed where they failed last year? Well, the Astros' offense is paltry; it's Ensberg, Berkman, and pray for . . . uh, Work-man? But in truth, the Astros don't have much punch at all, especially with Bagwell limited to pinch-hit duty. So what does Houston have?
How about the best 1-2-3 punch in baseball? With Clemens/Oswalt/Pettitte cycling through the postseason, the Astros can score 3-4 runs a game and win going away. The Braves have good offense and decent pitching, but neither one is that good. I can easily see Furcal, Giles, the Jones boys and Francouer stifled through the LDS, held to some .200 batting average while the Astros hit .220 and win the Series.
And we haven't even mentioned Atlanta's pitching. Problems: Smoltz might still be hurting, Hudson is having his worst year since 1999, and after that it gets really ugly. I ain't bettin' my hard-earned dollars on John Thomson, Horacio Ramirez, and Jorge Sosa. Farnsworth is good (but hurt a little?), although the rest of the bullpen is a shambles. Don't worry. I'm used to it.
Prediction: Houston in 4
St. Louis .vs. San Diego
This one seems so easy to call that it makes me wonder. The Cardinals are the best team in the postseason, and the Padres are the worst. It's almost like in a horror movie, when everything is quiet . . . too quiet. The Cardinals are an easy pick . . . too easy.
In all seriousness, it would take a feat of Herculean strength for San Diego to beat the Cardinals. St. Louis has a better offense by far than any other NL postseason team, and they have a solid pitching staff, with Carpenter at the fore (although the Mulder-Suppan-Morris-Marquis quartet looks shaky). But they've also got a killer bullpen, although Isringhausen is no Mariano Rivera . . . hell, he's no Aloysius Rivera, for that matter.
The Padres have a good offense; Petco Park just makes it look bad. Brian Giles has been one of the 10 best players in the NL this year; Ramon Hernandez and Khalil Greene are healthy, and they've gotten good production from Klesko and Dave Roberts as well. But the pitching? I'll give you Peavy as a sure-fire ace. I'll even grant you Adam Eaton as a decent #2. But Pedro Astacio? Jeepers!
And don't place too much money on Trevor Hoffman. Much as I admire the Padres for their pluckiness, they just ain't good enough. But I'll be generous and predict that they'll win a game.
Prediction: St. Louis in 4
More to come with thoughts about the MVP races, Cy Young, etc. and my own personal background.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
