Los Angeles Angels
2007 W-L: 94-68
2007 pW-pL: 90-72
Strengths: Pitching staff, Vlad Guerrero
Weaknesses: Overpaid $50 million+ outfield, lack of offensive punch
Biggest Change from '07: Torii Hunter and Jon Garland
One Reason:
One reason the Angels will win in '08 is that no team in the division is within 10 wins of them.
One reason the Angels will lose in '08 is if they change divisions.
Notes:
The $50 million outfield referred to above is Torii Hunter ($16MM), Vladimir Guerrero ($14.5MM), Garret Anderson ($12MM) and Gary Matthews, Jr. ($9MM). Hunter is signed for 4 more years, Matthews for 3 more, and Guerrero and Anderson have 1-year club options for 2009. This pretty pickle means that somebody (Anderson and/or Guerrero) will play DH, sharing time with Juan Rivera (who's making just a little more than $2MM). Here's how these guys did last year, listed with their age in the forthcoming 2008 season:
T. Hunter (32): 287/334/505 w/ Twins
V. Guerrero (32): 324/403/547
G. Anderson (36): 297/336/492 (108 G)
G. Matthews (33): 252/323/419
J. Rivera (29): 279/295/442 (14 G)
Anderson's power surge isn't likely to continue. His SLG the three previous seasons was .433, .435, and .446, totally unacceptable for a corner outfielder with limited range and health problems. Hunter's defense makes him a good (if expensive) choice for center field, but he's not the hitter people think. He's a career 271/324/469 hitter in a pretty friendly hitter's park. With his defense, that's a good player, but not a $16 million player that you want to keep paying through his age 36 season. Matthews was a big mistake, and Hunter's signing indicates that the Angels are aware of that. Good for them, except you've still go to pay him. Guerrero's the only one who's a lock to earn his money, and with it probably a contract extension. As for Rivera, it's too bad that the youngest and cheapest option is the only left on the bench. But, as last year's stats indicate, Rivera's health is always a question. He's only played three seasons in his career of 100 or more games ... In the infield, the team is counting on Casey Kotchman and Howie Kendrick to keep progressing forward and make the left side of the infield potent offensively (and stable defensively. On the right side, Chone Figgins will be starting at third base, but he's really better suited for the super-sub role. And with Brandon Wood rising through the minors and an overstocked outfield, the Angels should consider trading the overrated Figgins for what they can get ... The Halos have two catching prospects, Mike Napoli and Jeff Mathis, but neither one has been consistently productive in the bigs ... The addition of Jon Garland to the back of the rotation gives the Angels one of the best in the league. John Lackey is a true ace, so no problem there. Kelvim Escobar pitched like a #2 last year, but he's turning 32 and still hasn't found consistency as a starter. Jered Weaver is a fine choice as #3, and Garland is as solid a #4 as you'll find. That leaves Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana to fight over the fifth spot. The club is well-protected in case of an injury in the rotation and may even consider trading someone (Santana's name has alwayd popped up in rumors) ... Outfielder Reggie Willits may be SOL as the 6th outfielder on the team. No team carries six outfielders nowadays, and maybe some desperate team can get Willits as a role-player down the stretch ... Some people have expected Francisco Rodriguez's mechanics to give him trouble at some point during his career, but while he can be volatile (in many senses of the word) on the mound, he's still been one of the best closers in the game since he came up. But there may be a fight brewing over the terms of a contract extension ... I disagreed with former GM Bill Stoneman from time to time (especially on the Matthews contract), but on the whole, he did a fine job of building up a long-term contender with relatively little fanfare. The Angels may not have had any success in October since they won it all in '02, but at least they're there at the end of the race every year. This franchise needed to be turned around, and it has been. For better or worse, Bill Stoneman has been one of the key figures in doing it.
Oakland Athletics
2007 W-L: 76-86
2007 pW-pL: 79-83
Strengths: Young prospects freshly culled from other teams
Weaknesses: Everything else
Biggest Change from '07: The loss of key contributors Dan Haren and Nick Swisher; the death of Joe Kennedy
One Reason:
One reason the A's will win in '08 is -- sorry, this is a rebuilding year.
One reason the A's will lose in '08 is that their roster has been stripped to its barest essentials. The A's have one or two reliable starters (Joe Blanton, Chad Gaudin), one converted reliever with injury troubles (Justin Duchscherer) one walking wounded (Rich Harden) and some spare parts. If Blanton gets traded that becomes even worse. Their bullpen has Huston Street (who may also be traded), a lot of duct tape, and high hopes. The offense is in tatters. Eric Chavez is the big star, but he hasn't played like one in quite a while. Mark Ellis is getting older, and "future MVP" Bobby Crosby is just hoping to stay healthy for a full season above the replacement level. You can pin some hopes on Jack Cust, Travis Buck, Carlos Gonzalez, and Kurt Suzuki, but not "AL contender" hopes.
Notes:
Given the market, I think that Blanton will be gone. He's really not a great pitcher at all; he's a decent guy in a pitcher's park who is helped by a good defense despite poor strikeout numbers. Yes, he'll go 200+ innings, but he's not worth a Grade-A prospect. And putting him somewhere like Cincinnati, where all his environmental help is gone, would ruin his value ... The A's did a fine job of restocking the farm system with their trades, but they've still got a ways to go if they want to rebuild a contender ... Drafting and developing should be at the top of their priority list. It would be nice to have a winner when they move into their new ballpark in Fremont (still no firm date on that), but not if it means sacrificing long-term goals. In other words, don't get too attached to Ellis or Chavez, as Ellis in particular is an attractive player with an affordable contract ... The AL West looks like a plum division right now, but the Angels are firmly established on top with more hot prospects coming, and the Rangers have one of the best farm systems in baseball. In the years to come, the A's will have a tough battle fighting off the Angels, and the Rangers, too, if their development plans come to fruition. The only team that's not set for the future is Seattle, who is hopelessly clinging to the short-term and has a terrible record of developing prospects, especially pitchers.
Seattle Mariners
2007 W-L: 88-74
2007 pW-pL: 79-83
Strengths: Ace Pitchers
Weaknesses: Woeful Infield, Aging Players
Biggest Change from '07: Trading the future (Adam Jones) for the present (Erik Bedard)
One Reason:
One Reason the Mariners will win in '08 is that there's just enough talent here to contemplate a dark horse run for the playoffs. The M's don't have much in the lineup, but they could be decent, and with a rotation of Bedard-Hernandez-Washburn-Batista-Silva combined with closer J.J. Putz, they just might be able to pitch their way into contention.
One reason the Mariners will lose in '08 is that the lineup is just a paper tiger. Ichiro Suzuki is still a legitimate star, but he's the only one in the entire batting order. Don't get me wrong, I expect decent production from Kenji Johjima, Adrian Beltre, and maybe Raul Ibanez, but that's about it. Right field became a weakness with the trade of Jones, DH is a big hole if they think Jose Vidro is really that good, and the infield (apart from Beltre) is a mess. I expect Richie Sexson to bounce back somewhat from his hellacious 2007, but he may not be much better than average, and the M's desperately need more from him, especially power-wise. The middle of the infield is a horrific mess, with hitless wonders Jose Lopez and Yuniesky Betancourt yet to earn their fielding chops. And when you hit like they do, you'd better be a Gold Glover. Lopez may be on the way out, but there's not a clear upgrade, unless the M's want to bite on Brian Roberts.
Notes:
Even calling the starting rotation a strength is a stretch. Carlos Silva is adequate at best at this point in his career, and he's walking proof that the real overpaid free agents aren't the superstars, but the mid-level stars. Jarrod Washburn is also proof of that, and proof as well that the M's don't learn from their mistakes. Washburn hasn't been a star in Seattle and never will. Miguel Batista is probably the best of the three, but he's also the oldest (37). Felix Hernandez and Erik Bedard are a possibly dominant 1-2 punch, but Bedard has to prove that he can stay healthy, and Hernandez still has to take that giant step from star to superstar. I'm more optimistic about the latter ... The bullpen is no great shakes after closer J.J. Putz. If Putz misses any time (as he did last year), the end of the game becomes a lot more interesting in Seattle ... Prospect-wise, the biggest difference-makers are probably catcher Jeff Clement and outfielder Wladimir Balentien. Clement's bat is superior to Johjima's, even if he's a bit raw as a receiver. Still, if he's ready, Johjima would be a valuable trade chip come July ... Balentien should eventually move up to take over full-time status in right field. Projections on his major league performance are inconclusive, but he'll at least be better than Brad Wilkerson. I should also mention glove man Yung-Chi Chen. Chen is no great shakes as a hitter, but carries a fine glove, and if Jose Lopez continues to wander around aimlessly, the M's may just cut him loose and take the glove man ... The M's surprise run last year was, by all accounts, a fluke, but it had the effect of keeping Bill Bavasi in the GM's chair and dropping the "interim" label from manager John McLaren. But if the Mariners disappoint, both men are on the hot seat. Bavasi has earned it with a poor performance since inheriting a franchise that was once a powerhouse winner, and McLaren has earned it with decisions that leave even the casual fan scratching his head. The M's need to start over from the beginning, but that won't happen while Bavasi is still around. Which is why I don't expect him to still be around for very long.
Texas Rangers
2007 W-L: 75-87
2007 pW-pL: 79-83
Strengths: Top prospects, low-risk acquisitions of Milton Bradley & Josh Hamilton
Weaknesses: Pitching staff, lineup in disarray
Biggest Change from '07: Not much has changed. Maybe a full season of Jarrod Saltalamacchia?
One Reason:
One reason the Rangers will win in '08 is that they have such low expectations, much lower than their real level of talent. It's easy to dump on the Rangers, but they were a 75+-win team last year and have some big-time prospects movin' on up. Looking at the roster, you may not see a contender, but neither do you see a push-over.
One reason the Rangers will lose in '08 is that most of those prospects are too far away to help. 2009 or 2010 is the arrival date of most of their young studs, meaning this season is just an attempt to fight off mediocrity. And with this pitching staff, that's quite a challenge.
Notes:
The good news with the pitching staff is that's it's hard to imagine it being much worse than it was last year. Kevin Millwood (5.16 ERA in 172.2 IP), Vicente Padilla (5.76 ERA and 71 K in 120.1 IP), and Brandon McCarthy (4.87 ERA in 101.2 IP) were all pitching at or near the bottom of their talent level in 2007. It would be hard not to improve on the awful numbers they posted, especially since Millwood is still talented, somewhere deep down, as is young McCarthy. The Rangers are optimistic about Kason Gabbard, acquired from the Red Sox in the Eric Gagne trade/steal, and Jason Jennings should be adequate as a #4 or #5 starter ... The bullpen is another matter. C.J. Wilson has been pencilled in as closer after the loss of Gagne and Akinori Otsuka. Wilson is no Mariano Rivera, but he should be at least adequate. The Rangers signed Eddie Guardado as a tutor and as insurance. Joaquin Benoit deserves note, too, as someone who may finally have found his niche, but after that, it's still pretty dicey ... About four years ago, I said that the Rangers had the best young infield in all of baseball and perhaps the best overall since the late-90's Mets. They had four legitimate All-Stars and possible MVP candidates in Mark Teixeira, Alfonso Soriano, Michael Young, and Hank Blalock. Sadly, things have only gone downhill since then. Soriano was traded to Washington in a move that I defended at the time (but that turned out to be a disaster). Teixeira, nearing a big free-agent payday, was sent to Atlanta for seem impressive prospects last year. That leaves just Young and Blalock. Young is a solid player. I don't think he's an MVP guy, like a lot of Ranger fans, but even if he is a below-average defender, his offense is a blessing from the shortstop spot. As for Blalock, he went into one of the most mysterious slumps in recent memory. It seems like just yesterday that he hit the game-winning homer in the All-Star game. Ever since then, he's been a shadow of his former self, and injuries are only slightly to blame. The good news is that he hit well in limited action last year (293/358/543 in 58 games) and may yet manage a comeback ... As for the left side of the infield, the Rangers produced solid (if unspectacular) Ian Kinsler from their own system, recently signing him to a contract extension to keep him in Arlington. Kinsler hit 263/355/441 last year, and while he also isn't a great defender, he's good enough to keep around while he's cheap. At first base this year, the Rangers are planning to go with Ben Broussard. Broussard is a lefty platoon hitter who needs protection in the lineup. In Seattle last year, he hit 275/330/404 as a first baseman, even though he was almost exclusive platooned (only facing lefties in 19 of 164 PAs). He's not any sort of answer there, but then he's cheap, and it's not like he's the thing keeping the Rangers down. The Rangers may still experiment with Jarrod Saltalamacchia at first base, even though his bat, while great for a catcher, is only decent as a first baseman. But their hand may be forced if "Salty" struggles behind the plate and gets pushed by catching prospect Taylor Teagarden. Either way, my guess is there's a %15 chance Broussard finishes the season as the everyday first baseman ... The Texas outfield has been a black hole for years. The last time they had even two decent outfielders was eight years ago, in 2000, when Rusty Greer and Gabe Kapler hit well (Ricky Ledee did not, although backup Chad Curtis was decent). The last time they had a good outfield was in 1999, not coincidentally the last time they made the playoffs. Rusty Greer and Juan Gonzalez had excellent years, which offset the execrable year by center fielder Tom Goodwin. Generally speaking, it's easier to find a good outfielder than a good infielder. But the Rangers have been stymied in the outfield, even as they've fielded some fine infields. This year may mark a change, as the projected starters are Marlon Byrd, Josh Hamilton, and Milton Bradley. Now, there's enough risk here to give Lloyd's of London a heart attack, but it's cheap risk and there's also strong potential. Hamilton and Bradley are both worth taking a cheap risk on. If they fail, so what? 2008 doesn't matter. As for Marlon Byrd, he's a bad-body former center fielder who had a career year in 2007 (307/355/459). Don't count on another ... Mistakes have been made, but I'm becoming a fan of the Jon Daniels regime in Texas. The horrible Kevin Millwood contract may have represented a watershed, because since then the Rangers have faced up to the fact that they need to rebuild and have avoided the horrible contracts that have become associated with owner Tom Hicks. The Rangers have very quickly assembled a set of prospects that has a great deal of potential, and the wise way in which they do spend money (1 year for Gagne, 1 year for Bradley, trading for Hamilton) is enough to merit genuine optimism. And even if that promise doesn't bear fruit in 2008, it will soon. And the Rangers may soon move up in a division that includes another rebuilding team (Oakland) and an old team that's facing a quick fall if it doesn't rebuild (Seattle).
Having covered all the divisions now, my next effort will be my official predictions: who will win and lose in 2008, by how much, who will win the World Series, and who will take home the awards. I've been making these predictions for some years now, and while I'm no Carnac, at least I'm getting better. (It's sad to think that the clock is ticking on that particular pop culture reference ...)
Friday, February 29, 2008
AL Central Preview
Chicago White Sox
2007 W-L: 72-90
2007 pW-pL: 67-95
Strengths: Star Power
Weaknesses: Age, Contrition, Wrong Division
Biggest Change from '07: Shuffling of some names, but not enough to matter
One Reason:
One reason the White Sox will win in '08 is that there is some upside here. The lineup has some holes, but it's not hard to imagine Jim Thome, Nick Swisher and Paul Konerko putting up good numbers. And maybe Bobby Jenks, Jermaine Dye, A.J. Pierzynski, Orlando Cabrera, and young Carlos Quentin can, too. The rotation is still solid, headed by Mark Buehrle and Javier Vazquez, but it got much thinner with the departure of Jon Garland.
One reason the White Sox will lose in '08 is I'm not very optimistic about most of those names. Thome and Swisher are the only ones that are pretty much a lock for All-Star production, although keeping Thome healthy is an issue. Konerko is still strong, but is on a slippery slope towards becoming offensively average at first. Pierzynski is -- and has been -- average for years, and I wouldn't expect much more than that from Dye, who's getting older (34) and farther removed from a career year in 2006. And I'm not buying Bobby Jenks as the next big thing -- he's as volatile a closer commodity as there is, meaning his ERA is just as apt to be 4.00 as 2.50.
Notes:
The Sox are another team that's been wheeling and dealing like they're contenders, although they're not within shouting distance of Cleveland and Detroit. Swisher is a solid pick-up, and Orlando Cabrera is certainly an upgrade over Juan Uribe, but at what cost? The Sox lost much of what was already a very slim group of prospects in those trades, which means that even if they shoot up to 80 or 85 wins, they've hit their ceiling. Most of they key contributors on this team are on the wrong side of 30, and will either be gone or unproductive by the time the Sox can surround them with a stronger base. You don't break the bank to shoot for 82 wins. Actually, I think that the Sox see themselves as much better than they are. But like it or not, they were a 90-loss team last year (95 according to the Pythagorean record), and they're not going to break past Cleveland and Detroit in the near future ... I've publicly praised GM Kenny Williams for his guts in the past, but now he needs to use his brains. Quit while you're ahead; you won the Series, so you can afford to get younger ... I wasn't the biggest fan of Jon Garland, but even I won't deny that he's valuable, and that without him, the Sox rotation got seriously worse. Buehrle and Vazquez should be fine at 1-2, but can they match up with Verlander-Bonderman or Sabathia-Carmona? I doubt it. And it's even worse as you go back in the rotation to Jose Contreras, John Danks, and Gavin Floyd ... Garland was lost in exchange for Orlando Cabrera, a player that management seems to have a crush on. Cabrera is a good defender, but so was Juan Uribe, the man he's replacing. Cabrera's bat (average or slightly above) is an upgrade over Uribe's (terrible), but does it make up for the hole in the rotation created by losing Garland? In 2005, the Sox could spare a starting pitcher, but that was no longer true by the 2007-8 offseason. And Cabrera, 33 and expensive, just isn't enough to bridge the gap ... I really think Ozzie Guillen is crazy. I just don't know if he hurts the team more than he helps it. I'm inclined to say the latter, and Ozzie's personality is such that he's going to be even more intolerable as the Sox keep losing ... The Scott Linebrink contract will prove to be one of the worst signed this off-season, and one that is just indefensible. If the Sox are really that ignorant, it doesn't bode well ... The only young player on the team who still has significant upside to attain is outfielder Carlos Quentin, although he didn't look ready last year in Arizona.
Cleveland Indians
2007 W-L: 96-66
2007 pW-pL: 91-71
Strengths: Offense, youth, CC, and depth
Weaknesses: Bullpen, outfield corners
Biggest Change from '07: None of note
One Reason:
One reason the Indians will win in '08 is that they did in '07, and they've got every chance to be just as good this season.
One reason the Indians will lose in '08 is that they may get passed up by the Tigers, and the AL Wild Card race will be very, very tough.
Notes:
There's really no reason to worry about CC anymore (except that his contract is up after the season), but there is much worrying to do about Fausto Carmona. How for real was his 2007 campaign? It's hard to say. He does have the potential to be that good, but whether he can be that good consistently is hard to say, and that's true of any young pitcher. The Indians can always hope ... The back of the Tribe's rotation should be okay, but after Jake Westbrook there are major questions about Paul Byrd and Cliff Lee. Byrd is just getting too old to fool people anymore, and Lee is so maddeningly inconsistent, both with health and performance, that's it's hard to predict what he'll do. Aaron Laffey and top prospect Adam Miller are good back-ups in case someone goes boom ... Travis Hafner will return ... The Indians' offense should be as good as it was last year, if not even better. They'll get a full season of up-and-comers Asdrubal Cabrera and Franklin Gutierrez, a healthy Travis Hafner, and (likely) more solid work from Grady Sizemore, Victor Martinez, Jhonny Peralta, and Ryan Garko. Trouble spots could be third base (Casey Blake mans it now, and it doesn't look like Andy Marte's going to take over anytime soon) or left field (manned by some combination of Jason Michaels, David Dellucci, and Shin-Soo Choo) ... With Victor Martinez and Kelly Shoppach, the Indians have the best-hitting catching squad in baseball. Several teams seem desperate for a catcher, and while he's not going to win an MVP, I'd be more satisfied with a bargain like Shoppach than I would with somebody like Yorvit Torrealba ... The C.C. Sabathia contract situation will hang like a lead balloon over most of the Indians' season. My guess is that they get him re-signed, but not before some feathers are ruffled on both sides ... I was witness to Joe Borowski's Yankee Stadium meltdown last May, and so can personally attest to the dangers of putting him in high-leverage situations. (To be fair, the Yankee Stadium meltdown wasn't a high-leverage situation at all until Borowski started pitching BP.)
Detroit Tigers
2007 W-L: 88-74
2007 pW-pL: 89-73
Strengths: Killer offense, deep pitching staff
Weaknesses: Bullpen
Biggest Change from '07: His name is Miguel, he'll be 25 in May, and he's a career 313/388/542 hitter.
One Reason:
One reason the Tigers will win in '08 is that adding Miguel Cabrera and (to a lesser extent) Dontrelle Willis to a team that nearly won 90 games makes them the team to beat in the AL Central.
One reason the Tigers will lose in '08 is that they're relying a lot on some dodgy players for big contributions. Willis wasn't such a great pitcher in an NL pitcher's park (5.17 ERA after 3.87 mark in '06, BB's increasing and K's decreasing both years), so a fair assessment of his chances in the AL are an ERA between 4.00 and 4.50; 4.25 if he's lucky. He's simply not as good as people think he is, and the Tigers were crazy to sign him to a contract extension before he'd ever thrown a pitch in the AL. We can't assume that 43-year-old Kenny Rogers will be as good as he was two years ago, and we can't assume that closer Todd Jones (40 in April) will be as lucky as he's been as a Tiger. The Tiger bullpen (and Jones especially) will miss Joel Zumaya dearly. And I'm not about to bet money on Gary Sheffield playing much more than 100 games or Ivan Rodriguez being much better than replacement level.
Notes:
The Tigers will also have to deal for some major "readjustments" in their lineup. Placido Polanco, a career 305/350/416 hitter, batted 341/388/458 last year. At age 32, he's not likely to keep that up. Ditto for 34-year-old Magglio Ordonez, whose 2007 stats were so far out of line (363/434/595 for a career 312/370/522 hitter) that we should expect him to come crashing back to earth. We all expect Miguel Cabrera to be a big improvement over Brandon Inge, but take this into account; Cabrera loses a lot of that advantage when defense is considered, and his contributions may be nearly wiped out by the regression experienced by Polanco and Ordonez ... Carlos Guillen loses a good deal of his value when his offense comes as a first baseman, but he's still a lot better than Sean Casey. That will be a major "what were they thinking?" for future generations ... Chad Durbin, the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is replacing in the Tiger rotation, actually had a better season last year. But Willis should still rack up more K's and innings than Durbin, even if his ERA is not significantly better. Considering the salary they're paying him, I hope for the Tigers' sake that Willis sells a lot of T-shirts ... I'd love to predict Jeremy Bonderman as a sure thing for All-Star caliber production, but it's getting harder and harder to explain the poor results he gets (career 4.78 ERA in 5 seasons) with such fine stuff ... It's sad that an otherwise impressive lineup should be spoiled by the presence of Jacque Jones. The Tigers have a fair amount of money in their pockets; there are so many better choices for the role than Jones (who turns 33 in April) ... If the bullpen looks like I think it will, it won't be long before you'll see "Zumaya Clocks" at Comerica counting down his return.
Kansas City Royals
2007 W-L: 69-93
2007 pW-pL: 74-88
Strengths: More young assets
Weaknesses: Starting rotation
Biggest Change from '07: Jose Guillen, that old jokester
One Reason:
One reason the Royals will win in '08 is that they weren't really so bad in '07, and there's a lot of room for improvement, especially from young Alex Gordon.
One reason the Royals will lose in '08 is that their best starting pitchers last year were Gil Meche and Brian Bannister. Meche had a fine season in '07, but that doesn't mean that his history prior to that has disappeared. Everyone else has gotten amnesia about the old Gil Meche, but don't rule out the possibility that he returns, even if it's just in small doses. And Bannister deservedly won a lot of praise for his pitching in '07, but he did so while notching just 77 strikeouts in 165 IP. Unless that number goes up dramatically, he's as big a risk for a nosedive as anyone.
Notes:
Signing Jose Guillen for 3 years and $36 million isn't awful, but it's also just not that good ... With some prospects finally emerging from the system, we can expect to see the Royals improve all around and resist the temptation to fix a 90-loss team by signing some C-level free agents ... 2007 was a rough year, but keep your eye on Alex Gordon. And Billy Butler, too ... It's great to see Zack Greinke return from off-field problems that looked like they might derail his young career. But despite a long absence from baseball, he showed last season that he can still be a key member of the pitching staff ... As usual, try to avert your eyes from the bullpen, although rookie Joakim Soria did a fine job as closer in '07. He'll get the chance to prove he's for real this year.
Minnesota Twins
2007 W-L: 79-83
2007 pW-pL: 80-82
Strengths: Young starting rotation
Weaknesses: An offense that wouldn't scare your local high school team
Biggest Change from '07: Bye-bye Johan, bye-bye contention
One Reason:
One reason the Twins will win in '07 is if they post a team ERA of 2.50.
One reason the Twins will lose in '07 is because they won't, and with their offense, they won't win many high-scoring games.
Notes:
I like Michael Cuddyer, but he's not much more than just "good," which doesn't really rate a big pay-raise or the #5 spot in any lineup other than this one ... It looks like Denard Span might make the Twins' starting rotation, if only to provide a laugh for the sabermetric community. Seriously, as good as the Twins have been at developing pitchers over the last 8-10 years, that's how bad they've been at developing hitters ... Trading for Delmon Young was a good move; they dealt from an area of strength (young pitchers) to address an area of need (offense) ... Adam Everett may be a worse hitter than Jason Bartlett, but he's a genuine Gold Glover. Too bad this lineup doesn't have any spots to waste on punchless glove men ... Other than Justin Morneau, the Twins' infield of Everett, Mike Lamb, and Alexi Casilla/Brendan Harris may be the worst in the league. If Nick Punto gets any playing time, replace "may be" with "is" ... The Twins have a lot of talent in their young pitching staff, but a lot of it is still raw and inexperienced, so while the talent may be there (and it is), don't expect it to go smoothly. Since the Twins will basically be battling the Royals and White Sox for last place, there's no need to risk anyone's arm, especially the returning Francisco Liriano ... The Twins' new ballpark should give them an influx of cash that could bring in some good talent. Like, for instance, a #1 starter with a great changeup. Maybe somebody from Venezuela, say. With a goatee. Wait a minute ... Closer Joe Nathan's contract is up after this season, and the Twins are currently negotiating an extension. I wouldn't be so eager. If you're willing to trade away the best pitcher in baseball, why hold onto an expensive closer? Nathan should and would net good value on the trade market, but not if he's tied down to an expensive extension. Nathan probably won't be around when the Twins start winning again, so there's no need to keep him.
2007 W-L: 72-90
2007 pW-pL: 67-95
Strengths: Star Power
Weaknesses: Age, Contrition, Wrong Division
Biggest Change from '07: Shuffling of some names, but not enough to matter
One Reason:
One reason the White Sox will win in '08 is that there is some upside here. The lineup has some holes, but it's not hard to imagine Jim Thome, Nick Swisher and Paul Konerko putting up good numbers. And maybe Bobby Jenks, Jermaine Dye, A.J. Pierzynski, Orlando Cabrera, and young Carlos Quentin can, too. The rotation is still solid, headed by Mark Buehrle and Javier Vazquez, but it got much thinner with the departure of Jon Garland.
One reason the White Sox will lose in '08 is I'm not very optimistic about most of those names. Thome and Swisher are the only ones that are pretty much a lock for All-Star production, although keeping Thome healthy is an issue. Konerko is still strong, but is on a slippery slope towards becoming offensively average at first. Pierzynski is -- and has been -- average for years, and I wouldn't expect much more than that from Dye, who's getting older (34) and farther removed from a career year in 2006. And I'm not buying Bobby Jenks as the next big thing -- he's as volatile a closer commodity as there is, meaning his ERA is just as apt to be 4.00 as 2.50.
Notes:
The Sox are another team that's been wheeling and dealing like they're contenders, although they're not within shouting distance of Cleveland and Detroit. Swisher is a solid pick-up, and Orlando Cabrera is certainly an upgrade over Juan Uribe, but at what cost? The Sox lost much of what was already a very slim group of prospects in those trades, which means that even if they shoot up to 80 or 85 wins, they've hit their ceiling. Most of they key contributors on this team are on the wrong side of 30, and will either be gone or unproductive by the time the Sox can surround them with a stronger base. You don't break the bank to shoot for 82 wins. Actually, I think that the Sox see themselves as much better than they are. But like it or not, they were a 90-loss team last year (95 according to the Pythagorean record), and they're not going to break past Cleveland and Detroit in the near future ... I've publicly praised GM Kenny Williams for his guts in the past, but now he needs to use his brains. Quit while you're ahead; you won the Series, so you can afford to get younger ... I wasn't the biggest fan of Jon Garland, but even I won't deny that he's valuable, and that without him, the Sox rotation got seriously worse. Buehrle and Vazquez should be fine at 1-2, but can they match up with Verlander-Bonderman or Sabathia-Carmona? I doubt it. And it's even worse as you go back in the rotation to Jose Contreras, John Danks, and Gavin Floyd ... Garland was lost in exchange for Orlando Cabrera, a player that management seems to have a crush on. Cabrera is a good defender, but so was Juan Uribe, the man he's replacing. Cabrera's bat (average or slightly above) is an upgrade over Uribe's (terrible), but does it make up for the hole in the rotation created by losing Garland? In 2005, the Sox could spare a starting pitcher, but that was no longer true by the 2007-8 offseason. And Cabrera, 33 and expensive, just isn't enough to bridge the gap ... I really think Ozzie Guillen is crazy. I just don't know if he hurts the team more than he helps it. I'm inclined to say the latter, and Ozzie's personality is such that he's going to be even more intolerable as the Sox keep losing ... The Scott Linebrink contract will prove to be one of the worst signed this off-season, and one that is just indefensible. If the Sox are really that ignorant, it doesn't bode well ... The only young player on the team who still has significant upside to attain is outfielder Carlos Quentin, although he didn't look ready last year in Arizona.
Cleveland Indians
2007 W-L: 96-66
2007 pW-pL: 91-71
Strengths: Offense, youth, CC, and depth
Weaknesses: Bullpen, outfield corners
Biggest Change from '07: None of note
One Reason:
One reason the Indians will win in '08 is that they did in '07, and they've got every chance to be just as good this season.
One reason the Indians will lose in '08 is that they may get passed up by the Tigers, and the AL Wild Card race will be very, very tough.
Notes:
There's really no reason to worry about CC anymore (except that his contract is up after the season), but there is much worrying to do about Fausto Carmona. How for real was his 2007 campaign? It's hard to say. He does have the potential to be that good, but whether he can be that good consistently is hard to say, and that's true of any young pitcher. The Indians can always hope ... The back of the Tribe's rotation should be okay, but after Jake Westbrook there are major questions about Paul Byrd and Cliff Lee. Byrd is just getting too old to fool people anymore, and Lee is so maddeningly inconsistent, both with health and performance, that's it's hard to predict what he'll do. Aaron Laffey and top prospect Adam Miller are good back-ups in case someone goes boom ... Travis Hafner will return ... The Indians' offense should be as good as it was last year, if not even better. They'll get a full season of up-and-comers Asdrubal Cabrera and Franklin Gutierrez, a healthy Travis Hafner, and (likely) more solid work from Grady Sizemore, Victor Martinez, Jhonny Peralta, and Ryan Garko. Trouble spots could be third base (Casey Blake mans it now, and it doesn't look like Andy Marte's going to take over anytime soon) or left field (manned by some combination of Jason Michaels, David Dellucci, and Shin-Soo Choo) ... With Victor Martinez and Kelly Shoppach, the Indians have the best-hitting catching squad in baseball. Several teams seem desperate for a catcher, and while he's not going to win an MVP, I'd be more satisfied with a bargain like Shoppach than I would with somebody like Yorvit Torrealba ... The C.C. Sabathia contract situation will hang like a lead balloon over most of the Indians' season. My guess is that they get him re-signed, but not before some feathers are ruffled on both sides ... I was witness to Joe Borowski's Yankee Stadium meltdown last May, and so can personally attest to the dangers of putting him in high-leverage situations. (To be fair, the Yankee Stadium meltdown wasn't a high-leverage situation at all until Borowski started pitching BP.)
Detroit Tigers
2007 W-L: 88-74
2007 pW-pL: 89-73
Strengths: Killer offense, deep pitching staff
Weaknesses: Bullpen
Biggest Change from '07: His name is Miguel, he'll be 25 in May, and he's a career 313/388/542 hitter.
One Reason:
One reason the Tigers will win in '08 is that adding Miguel Cabrera and (to a lesser extent) Dontrelle Willis to a team that nearly won 90 games makes them the team to beat in the AL Central.
One reason the Tigers will lose in '08 is that they're relying a lot on some dodgy players for big contributions. Willis wasn't such a great pitcher in an NL pitcher's park (5.17 ERA after 3.87 mark in '06, BB's increasing and K's decreasing both years), so a fair assessment of his chances in the AL are an ERA between 4.00 and 4.50; 4.25 if he's lucky. He's simply not as good as people think he is, and the Tigers were crazy to sign him to a contract extension before he'd ever thrown a pitch in the AL. We can't assume that 43-year-old Kenny Rogers will be as good as he was two years ago, and we can't assume that closer Todd Jones (40 in April) will be as lucky as he's been as a Tiger. The Tiger bullpen (and Jones especially) will miss Joel Zumaya dearly. And I'm not about to bet money on Gary Sheffield playing much more than 100 games or Ivan Rodriguez being much better than replacement level.
Notes:
The Tigers will also have to deal for some major "readjustments" in their lineup. Placido Polanco, a career 305/350/416 hitter, batted 341/388/458 last year. At age 32, he's not likely to keep that up. Ditto for 34-year-old Magglio Ordonez, whose 2007 stats were so far out of line (363/434/595 for a career 312/370/522 hitter) that we should expect him to come crashing back to earth. We all expect Miguel Cabrera to be a big improvement over Brandon Inge, but take this into account; Cabrera loses a lot of that advantage when defense is considered, and his contributions may be nearly wiped out by the regression experienced by Polanco and Ordonez ... Carlos Guillen loses a good deal of his value when his offense comes as a first baseman, but he's still a lot better than Sean Casey. That will be a major "what were they thinking?" for future generations ... Chad Durbin, the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is replacing in the Tiger rotation, actually had a better season last year. But Willis should still rack up more K's and innings than Durbin, even if his ERA is not significantly better. Considering the salary they're paying him, I hope for the Tigers' sake that Willis sells a lot of T-shirts ... I'd love to predict Jeremy Bonderman as a sure thing for All-Star caliber production, but it's getting harder and harder to explain the poor results he gets (career 4.78 ERA in 5 seasons) with such fine stuff ... It's sad that an otherwise impressive lineup should be spoiled by the presence of Jacque Jones. The Tigers have a fair amount of money in their pockets; there are so many better choices for the role than Jones (who turns 33 in April) ... If the bullpen looks like I think it will, it won't be long before you'll see "Zumaya Clocks" at Comerica counting down his return.
Kansas City Royals
2007 W-L: 69-93
2007 pW-pL: 74-88
Strengths: More young assets
Weaknesses: Starting rotation
Biggest Change from '07: Jose Guillen, that old jokester
One Reason:
One reason the Royals will win in '08 is that they weren't really so bad in '07, and there's a lot of room for improvement, especially from young Alex Gordon.
One reason the Royals will lose in '08 is that their best starting pitchers last year were Gil Meche and Brian Bannister. Meche had a fine season in '07, but that doesn't mean that his history prior to that has disappeared. Everyone else has gotten amnesia about the old Gil Meche, but don't rule out the possibility that he returns, even if it's just in small doses. And Bannister deservedly won a lot of praise for his pitching in '07, but he did so while notching just 77 strikeouts in 165 IP. Unless that number goes up dramatically, he's as big a risk for a nosedive as anyone.
Notes:
Signing Jose Guillen for 3 years and $36 million isn't awful, but it's also just not that good ... With some prospects finally emerging from the system, we can expect to see the Royals improve all around and resist the temptation to fix a 90-loss team by signing some C-level free agents ... 2007 was a rough year, but keep your eye on Alex Gordon. And Billy Butler, too ... It's great to see Zack Greinke return from off-field problems that looked like they might derail his young career. But despite a long absence from baseball, he showed last season that he can still be a key member of the pitching staff ... As usual, try to avert your eyes from the bullpen, although rookie Joakim Soria did a fine job as closer in '07. He'll get the chance to prove he's for real this year.
Minnesota Twins
2007 W-L: 79-83
2007 pW-pL: 80-82
Strengths: Young starting rotation
Weaknesses: An offense that wouldn't scare your local high school team
Biggest Change from '07: Bye-bye Johan, bye-bye contention
One Reason:
One reason the Twins will win in '07 is if they post a team ERA of 2.50.
One reason the Twins will lose in '07 is because they won't, and with their offense, they won't win many high-scoring games.
Notes:
I like Michael Cuddyer, but he's not much more than just "good," which doesn't really rate a big pay-raise or the #5 spot in any lineup other than this one ... It looks like Denard Span might make the Twins' starting rotation, if only to provide a laugh for the sabermetric community. Seriously, as good as the Twins have been at developing pitchers over the last 8-10 years, that's how bad they've been at developing hitters ... Trading for Delmon Young was a good move; they dealt from an area of strength (young pitchers) to address an area of need (offense) ... Adam Everett may be a worse hitter than Jason Bartlett, but he's a genuine Gold Glover. Too bad this lineup doesn't have any spots to waste on punchless glove men ... Other than Justin Morneau, the Twins' infield of Everett, Mike Lamb, and Alexi Casilla/Brendan Harris may be the worst in the league. If Nick Punto gets any playing time, replace "may be" with "is" ... The Twins have a lot of talent in their young pitching staff, but a lot of it is still raw and inexperienced, so while the talent may be there (and it is), don't expect it to go smoothly. Since the Twins will basically be battling the Royals and White Sox for last place, there's no need to risk anyone's arm, especially the returning Francisco Liriano ... The Twins' new ballpark should give them an influx of cash that could bring in some good talent. Like, for instance, a #1 starter with a great changeup. Maybe somebody from Venezuela, say. With a goatee. Wait a minute ... Closer Joe Nathan's contract is up after this season, and the Twins are currently negotiating an extension. I wouldn't be so eager. If you're willing to trade away the best pitcher in baseball, why hold onto an expensive closer? Nathan should and would net good value on the trade market, but not if he's tied down to an expensive extension. Nathan probably won't be around when the Twins start winning again, so there's no need to keep him.
Monday, February 25, 2008
AL East Preview
Baltimore Orioles
2007 W-L Record: 69-93
2007 pW-pL Record: 71-91
Strengths: Nick Markakis, Adam Jones, Brian Roberts**-- if they don't trade him
Weaknesses: Pitching, Pitching, Pitching ... and the rest of the offense
Biggest Change from '07: Bye-Bye Bedard
One Reason:
One reason the Orioles will win in '07 is an act of God.
One reason the Orioles will lose in '07 is . . . just one? In 2007, only the Devil Rays (5.83) allowed more runs than the Orioles (5.36). The Devil Rays are getting better, or at any rate have an embarassment of riches in young pitching prospects. The Orioles, on the other hand, are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to young pitchers. Their best young hurler, 21-year-old Troy Patton, was just diagnosed with an injury that may be a labrum tear. It's hard to project the Orioles to manage even an adequate pitching staff in the next 3-5 years without either big luck or a major overhaul.
Notes:
If you project the Orioles' lineup in 3-5 years, things don't look too bad at all. Baseball America lists the clubs #1 prospect as catcher Matt Wieters, who does look like a future star. Their starting outfield would include potential superstar Adam Jones and future All-Star Nick Markakis. They would field prospects Billy Rowell and Brandon Snyder at the infield corners, and if they can hold onto Brian Roberts, would actually have an above-average offense. That's assuming, of course, that all the prospects develop into everyday players (some are still a distant projection) and they don't make silly mistakes like signing bottom-level free agents like Jay Payton and Aubrey Huff to screw things up . . . The O's have the money to compete on the free agent market, which is good news, except that for nearly ten years they've all but squandered it on either high-profile mistakes (Javy Lopez, Danys Baez), blow-outs (Albert Belle), or overpaid role-players (the above-mentioned Huff and Payton, as well as middle relievers Baez, Chad Bradford and Jamie Walker). The good news here is that the new man in charge (after Peter Angelos, of course), Andy MacPhail, has made none of those mistakes this offseason. You could argue about the return he got in trading away Miguel Tejada or Erik Bedard, but in the scheme of things, the Orioles really should be in sell mode, five or six years after the fact. MacPhail is the first guy in years to energetically pursue a rebuilding program and admit that the club can't compete in the near-term. That said, MacPhail's tenure is young yet, and Baltimore faces as steep an uphill climb as any team in the league ... The departure of Leo Mazzone left an unfortunate blot on what was once an outstanding career. You can't blame everything on Mazzone, but it's also hard to make an argument that he was much of a help ... Can we just give up on Daniel Cabrera, already? He'll be 27 next year; rub that lamp all you want, but I doubt there's a genie in there ... Few moves were as harmful to the team's long-term prospects as the decision to give a contract extension to Melvin Mora. Mora turns 36 next year and has never been a defensive asset. And his offense is going, too -- Mora played just 126 games last year and hit 274/341/418, which was actually an improvement over his 2006 line of 274/342/391. Only a glove wizard could hold down a job at third base in the AL hitting like that, and Mora is no wizard. He's only going to get oldder and (hopefully) end up as a bench player/pinch hitter making over $8 million dollars the next two years, plus a 2010 option to buy out. The Mora demands were conducted in public, and the team gave in to a player who's not even good enough to start any more. We can take it as good news that the previous front office is gone, but will things ever really change with Angelos still around? We may not find out for quite a while ... The loss of Bedard does mean we'll get to see more of "Hey, Hey, Hey, It's" Matt Albers. And no, I won't rest until that nickname sticks.
Boston Red Sox
2007 W-L Record: 96-66
2007 pW-pL Record: 101-61
Strengths: Just about everything
Weaknesses: Middle relief (maybe)
Biggest Change from '07: A healthy Manny; Injured Schilling
One Reason:
One reason the Red Sox will win in '07 is that they won the World Series last year and have pretty much everyone back and ready. What else do you need?
One reason the Red Sox will lose in '07 is that they're still in a strong division, and competition for the Wild Card will be just as stiff as it was last year.
Notes:
Barring a minor miracle, it looks like the potential AL playoff field is Boston-New York-Cleveland-Detroit-Los Angeles. Four will go to October, one will not. And if I had to bet on one as a sure thing, I just might take Boston, even considering that the Angels have a much easier division. Potential "surprises" are pretty much confined to the Blue Jays and maybe the Mariners, unless the Devil Rays hire Gil Hodges as their manager ... David Ortiz was "injured" last year, playing in 149 games. The "injury" resulted in a career-high batting average (.332) and OBP (.445), with a SLG (.621) the second-highest of his career. The press thought Ortiz was slumping because he hit "just "35 homers, but he also socked 52 doubles and drew 111 walks. Some stats list 2007 as the best of his career. Would that we were all so "injured" ... Manny Ramirez was also "injured," hitting just 296/388/493 with 20 HR. Manny will be 36 next year, but don't be at all surprised if Manny still has some elite hitting left in him ... The Sox had to over-pay Mike Lowell to get him back. Lowell did have a career year in '07 (324/378/501), but even if he's just an All-Star in '08, it was worth the money considering the other third base options available. ... The Sox face an even tougher decision with Jason Varitek, who will be a free agent after this season. Catching is always at a premium, but if I were the Sox, I wouldn't take the gamble. Varitek may be a good game-caller, but he's not as ageless as Jorge Posada. If the Sox thought they would regret this contract (which extends through his age-36 season this year), just wait till they sign another one. But again, they may just bite the bullet and deal with the familiar ... I'd expect a bounceback from Julio Lugo, who was dreadful last year. But if it's not a big enough bounceback, Lugo could be out of town. The club wasn't patient with Edgar Renteria, the last free agent shortstop they tried, and Renteria didn't have a prospect like Jed Lowrie pushing him ... The injury to Curt Schilling certainly hurts the team, but this is where the wisdom of carrying six or seven starters is vindicated. Schilling is replaced by Clay Buchholz, who won't pitch 200 innings, but shouldn't be significant worse than Schilling and, all told, might have a better season than Schilling would have at age 41 ... I'm not hanging my hat on the "Josh Beckett as God" bandwagon, but even if he slips, there's plenty of room to make it up.
New York Yankees
2007 W-L Record: 94-68
2007 pW-pL Record: 97-65
Strengths: The Offense ... boy, it gets tiresome writing that year after year
Weaknesses: First base, musical chairs in the outfield, heavy reliance on young pitching
Biggest Change from '07: Starting rotation is one year older, for better and worse
One Reason:
One reason the Yankees will win in '08 is that they've got the offense to contend with just an adequate pitching staff, and odds are they'll have much more than that. It's hard to live up to sainthood, but if anybody can, it's Joba Chamberlain.
One reason the Yankees will lose in '08 is that none of their young pitching comes without caveats. Chamberlain is slated to start in the bullpen in order to keep his workload down and ease him into the rotation. Health has been an issue for Phil Hughes. Strikeouts are always an issue for Chien-Ming Wang. And the veteran starters are Mike Mussina, fully showing his age at 39, or an increasingly brittle (and HGH-less) Andy Pettitte.
Notes:
I'm not worried about HGH, but Pettitte really is older and less of a reliably commodity than people think. He'll be 36 next season, and since missing most of 2004 with Houston, he had one great season (2005) and two good ones ('06 and '07). Pettitte's HR allowed dropped when he moved back to New York last year (from 27 to 16), but worryingly, so did his strikeouts, from 178 to 141, despite pitching 1 inning more. Most every report I read or hear about the Yankees refers to Pettitte as the "sure thing" or "reliable" part of the Yankee rotation, but I'm not as sure about that. And even if he is reliable, he's 4.15-4.30 ERA reliable with maybe 150 strikeouts, which is good, but not the safety net some people think he is ... I applaud the club for its increasing conservatism when it comes to giving up prospects and signing expensive, old free agents, but really, couldn't we do something better at first base? You have to get Jason Giambi's bat in the lineup, and while I would tolerate his defense at first, I don't have to watch the man every day or make a living throwing baseballs at him ... The Yankees should be (and probably are) planning for the future of their offense. Seven of their nine projected spots in the lineup will be at least 32 years old next year, and six of them will be at least 34. It's great to have Robinson Cano and Melky Cabrera, but who else, besides A-Rod and Jeter, will still be productive in 3-5 years? On the plus side, the team will have a lot of money coming off the books in the years to come and should be less likely to overpay for the next Johnny Damon (or, I hate to say it, Mike Mussina) ... Is it some sort of team policy to employ terrible backup catchers? Even among that light-hitting group, Jose Molina is depressing (and don't forget John Flaherty, Sal Fasano, et al). Or maybe it just shows how good they've got it with Posada on the team ... How 'bout that Kei Igawa? ... The day will come when Mariano Rivera stops being effective. No, really -- I swear.
Tampa Bay Rays
2007 W-L Record: 66-96
2007 pW-pL Record: 67-95
Strengths: More young talent than any club in the past ten years
Weaknesses: Pitching and defense
Biggest Change from '07: Hello, Matt Garza ... and maybe Jeff Niemann... or David Price ...
One Reason:
One reason the Rays will win in '08 is that they've got a huge load of young prospects and finally, finally some of them can pitch.
One reason the Rays will lose in '08 is that they've got a looooong way to go with that team pitching and defense.
Notes:
The Rays have spent the past couple years trying to elevate their franchise from the depths of hell, so it's fitting that they should finally drop the "devil" from their name ... Third baseman Evan Longoria, who should start the season at third, is something of a mystery; scouts aren't sure if he's the best prospect in baseball or just on his team ... Longoria gives a giant boost to the lineup, but there's still some worry about the supporting characters. Akinori Iwamura ran hot and cold last season; he could be a strong second baseman or he could be a bust. And while Carlos Pena certainly earned his Comeback Player of the Year award, I just can't in good faith predict a repeat season of 282/411/627. But he might come close. The two spots of most concern are at catcher and shortstop. Shortstop isn't such a big deal; Jason Bartlett can't really hit, but he's a strong glove on a team that desperately needed one. And the club still has Reid Brignac in the system. Catcher is more of a worry, as the team is stuck hoping 24-year-old Dioner Navarro finally puts it all together ... Scott Kazmir is a good #1 and James Shields is a good #2, but this rotation will really get interesting when you've got Matt Garza, Andy Sonnanstine, David Price, and Jeff Niemann fighting for the other spots ... The team committed 2 years and $8 million to Troy Percival, which isn't such a good long-term plan, but you can forgive the Rays for being desperate for bullpen help. But an improved starting rotation will take a lot of the pressure off ... Adding Jason Bartlett and Evan Longoria should help what was a historically bad defense in 2007, but there's still work to be done. B.J. Upton should be a better fit in center, and whatever's left of Rocco Baldelli should be able to handle right field whenever he's upright ... Another savvy 1-year contract of the offseason was the Rays' pickup of Cliff Floyd, who is still an effective hitter and good platoon partner and also just insurance against Rocco Baldelli going down.
Toronto Blue Jays
2007 W-L Record: 83-79
2007 pW-pL Record: 87-75
Strengths: Roy Halladay, Young Pitching
Weaknesses: Lineup with a ton of "Ifs"
Biggest Change from '07: Glaus out, Rolen in
One Reason:
One reason the Blue Jays will win in '08 is that their starting rotation could really surprise. Behind Roy Halladay and A.J. Burnett (who could opt out and enter the free agent market after this year) are Dustin McGowan, Shaun Marcum, and Casey Janssen.
One reason the Blue Jays will lose in '08 is that their lineup asks a lot to be taken seriously. There's no guarantee that David Eckstein will be worth a darn, no evidence that Scott Rolen will stay healthy (and productive) or that Vernon Wells will ever have another MVP year or if Frank Thomas will finally break down. If you're a team without an elite offensive player you need your offense to work with all parts moving, and if you lose just one or two, you're lost.
Notes:
The Jays are hoping that a change of scenery (and manager) will help Scott Rolen. It's a choice between Rolen's inconsistent brilliance or Glaus' reliable production. Personally, I prefer the latter, especially when the latter is much cheaper ... Maybe this is the year that everyone gets over their man-crush on David Eckstein ... Should I really be that excited by Alex Rios? ... The Jays' J.P. Ricciardi stuck to the old ways long after mentor Billy Beane had moved on. But lately, the team has been putting more of a stress on combining pitching with defense. If only they could get offense, or get more creative at the draft board ... Can everyone please remember B.J. Ryan and Keith Foulke when teams offer the moon to even the best of closers? ... The sad thing is that now the Red Sox and Yankees aren't just out-spending the Jays, they're out-developing and outsmarting them. The division is a problem, but it's also a scapegoat for a franchise whose postseason drought is the third-longest in the AL.
2007 W-L Record: 69-93
2007 pW-pL Record: 71-91
Strengths: Nick Markakis, Adam Jones, Brian Roberts**-- if they don't trade him
Weaknesses: Pitching, Pitching, Pitching ... and the rest of the offense
Biggest Change from '07: Bye-Bye Bedard
One Reason:
One reason the Orioles will win in '07 is an act of God.
One reason the Orioles will lose in '07 is . . . just one? In 2007, only the Devil Rays (5.83) allowed more runs than the Orioles (5.36). The Devil Rays are getting better, or at any rate have an embarassment of riches in young pitching prospects. The Orioles, on the other hand, are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to young pitchers. Their best young hurler, 21-year-old Troy Patton, was just diagnosed with an injury that may be a labrum tear. It's hard to project the Orioles to manage even an adequate pitching staff in the next 3-5 years without either big luck or a major overhaul.
Notes:
If you project the Orioles' lineup in 3-5 years, things don't look too bad at all. Baseball America lists the clubs #1 prospect as catcher Matt Wieters, who does look like a future star. Their starting outfield would include potential superstar Adam Jones and future All-Star Nick Markakis. They would field prospects Billy Rowell and Brandon Snyder at the infield corners, and if they can hold onto Brian Roberts, would actually have an above-average offense. That's assuming, of course, that all the prospects develop into everyday players (some are still a distant projection) and they don't make silly mistakes like signing bottom-level free agents like Jay Payton and Aubrey Huff to screw things up . . . The O's have the money to compete on the free agent market, which is good news, except that for nearly ten years they've all but squandered it on either high-profile mistakes (Javy Lopez, Danys Baez), blow-outs (Albert Belle), or overpaid role-players (the above-mentioned Huff and Payton, as well as middle relievers Baez, Chad Bradford and Jamie Walker). The good news here is that the new man in charge (after Peter Angelos, of course), Andy MacPhail, has made none of those mistakes this offseason. You could argue about the return he got in trading away Miguel Tejada or Erik Bedard, but in the scheme of things, the Orioles really should be in sell mode, five or six years after the fact. MacPhail is the first guy in years to energetically pursue a rebuilding program and admit that the club can't compete in the near-term. That said, MacPhail's tenure is young yet, and Baltimore faces as steep an uphill climb as any team in the league ... The departure of Leo Mazzone left an unfortunate blot on what was once an outstanding career. You can't blame everything on Mazzone, but it's also hard to make an argument that he was much of a help ... Can we just give up on Daniel Cabrera, already? He'll be 27 next year; rub that lamp all you want, but I doubt there's a genie in there ... Few moves were as harmful to the team's long-term prospects as the decision to give a contract extension to Melvin Mora. Mora turns 36 next year and has never been a defensive asset. And his offense is going, too -- Mora played just 126 games last year and hit 274/341/418, which was actually an improvement over his 2006 line of 274/342/391. Only a glove wizard could hold down a job at third base in the AL hitting like that, and Mora is no wizard. He's only going to get oldder and (hopefully) end up as a bench player/pinch hitter making over $8 million dollars the next two years, plus a 2010 option to buy out. The Mora demands were conducted in public, and the team gave in to a player who's not even good enough to start any more. We can take it as good news that the previous front office is gone, but will things ever really change with Angelos still around? We may not find out for quite a while ... The loss of Bedard does mean we'll get to see more of "Hey, Hey, Hey, It's" Matt Albers. And no, I won't rest until that nickname sticks.
Boston Red Sox
2007 W-L Record: 96-66
2007 pW-pL Record: 101-61
Strengths: Just about everything
Weaknesses: Middle relief (maybe)
Biggest Change from '07: A healthy Manny; Injured Schilling
One Reason:
One reason the Red Sox will win in '07 is that they won the World Series last year and have pretty much everyone back and ready. What else do you need?
One reason the Red Sox will lose in '07 is that they're still in a strong division, and competition for the Wild Card will be just as stiff as it was last year.
Notes:
Barring a minor miracle, it looks like the potential AL playoff field is Boston-New York-Cleveland-Detroit-Los Angeles. Four will go to October, one will not. And if I had to bet on one as a sure thing, I just might take Boston, even considering that the Angels have a much easier division. Potential "surprises" are pretty much confined to the Blue Jays and maybe the Mariners, unless the Devil Rays hire Gil Hodges as their manager ... David Ortiz was "injured" last year, playing in 149 games. The "injury" resulted in a career-high batting average (.332) and OBP (.445), with a SLG (.621) the second-highest of his career. The press thought Ortiz was slumping because he hit "just "35 homers, but he also socked 52 doubles and drew 111 walks. Some stats list 2007 as the best of his career. Would that we were all so "injured" ... Manny Ramirez was also "injured," hitting just 296/388/493 with 20 HR. Manny will be 36 next year, but don't be at all surprised if Manny still has some elite hitting left in him ... The Sox had to over-pay Mike Lowell to get him back. Lowell did have a career year in '07 (324/378/501), but even if he's just an All-Star in '08, it was worth the money considering the other third base options available. ... The Sox face an even tougher decision with Jason Varitek, who will be a free agent after this season. Catching is always at a premium, but if I were the Sox, I wouldn't take the gamble. Varitek may be a good game-caller, but he's not as ageless as Jorge Posada. If the Sox thought they would regret this contract (which extends through his age-36 season this year), just wait till they sign another one. But again, they may just bite the bullet and deal with the familiar ... I'd expect a bounceback from Julio Lugo, who was dreadful last year. But if it's not a big enough bounceback, Lugo could be out of town. The club wasn't patient with Edgar Renteria, the last free agent shortstop they tried, and Renteria didn't have a prospect like Jed Lowrie pushing him ... The injury to Curt Schilling certainly hurts the team, but this is where the wisdom of carrying six or seven starters is vindicated. Schilling is replaced by Clay Buchholz, who won't pitch 200 innings, but shouldn't be significant worse than Schilling and, all told, might have a better season than Schilling would have at age 41 ... I'm not hanging my hat on the "Josh Beckett as God" bandwagon, but even if he slips, there's plenty of room to make it up.
New York Yankees
2007 W-L Record: 94-68
2007 pW-pL Record: 97-65
Strengths: The Offense ... boy, it gets tiresome writing that year after year
Weaknesses: First base, musical chairs in the outfield, heavy reliance on young pitching
Biggest Change from '07: Starting rotation is one year older, for better and worse
One Reason:
One reason the Yankees will win in '08 is that they've got the offense to contend with just an adequate pitching staff, and odds are they'll have much more than that. It's hard to live up to sainthood, but if anybody can, it's Joba Chamberlain.
One reason the Yankees will lose in '08 is that none of their young pitching comes without caveats. Chamberlain is slated to start in the bullpen in order to keep his workload down and ease him into the rotation. Health has been an issue for Phil Hughes. Strikeouts are always an issue for Chien-Ming Wang. And the veteran starters are Mike Mussina, fully showing his age at 39, or an increasingly brittle (and HGH-less) Andy Pettitte.
Notes:
I'm not worried about HGH, but Pettitte really is older and less of a reliably commodity than people think. He'll be 36 next season, and since missing most of 2004 with Houston, he had one great season (2005) and two good ones ('06 and '07). Pettitte's HR allowed dropped when he moved back to New York last year (from 27 to 16), but worryingly, so did his strikeouts, from 178 to 141, despite pitching 1 inning more. Most every report I read or hear about the Yankees refers to Pettitte as the "sure thing" or "reliable" part of the Yankee rotation, but I'm not as sure about that. And even if he is reliable, he's 4.15-4.30 ERA reliable with maybe 150 strikeouts, which is good, but not the safety net some people think he is ... I applaud the club for its increasing conservatism when it comes to giving up prospects and signing expensive, old free agents, but really, couldn't we do something better at first base? You have to get Jason Giambi's bat in the lineup, and while I would tolerate his defense at first, I don't have to watch the man every day or make a living throwing baseballs at him ... The Yankees should be (and probably are) planning for the future of their offense. Seven of their nine projected spots in the lineup will be at least 32 years old next year, and six of them will be at least 34. It's great to have Robinson Cano and Melky Cabrera, but who else, besides A-Rod and Jeter, will still be productive in 3-5 years? On the plus side, the team will have a lot of money coming off the books in the years to come and should be less likely to overpay for the next Johnny Damon (or, I hate to say it, Mike Mussina) ... Is it some sort of team policy to employ terrible backup catchers? Even among that light-hitting group, Jose Molina is depressing (and don't forget John Flaherty, Sal Fasano, et al). Or maybe it just shows how good they've got it with Posada on the team ... How 'bout that Kei Igawa? ... The day will come when Mariano Rivera stops being effective. No, really -- I swear.
Tampa Bay Rays
2007 W-L Record: 66-96
2007 pW-pL Record: 67-95
Strengths: More young talent than any club in the past ten years
Weaknesses: Pitching and defense
Biggest Change from '07: Hello, Matt Garza ... and maybe Jeff Niemann... or David Price ...
One Reason:
One reason the Rays will win in '08 is that they've got a huge load of young prospects and finally, finally some of them can pitch.
One reason the Rays will lose in '08 is that they've got a looooong way to go with that team pitching and defense.
Notes:
The Rays have spent the past couple years trying to elevate their franchise from the depths of hell, so it's fitting that they should finally drop the "devil" from their name ... Third baseman Evan Longoria, who should start the season at third, is something of a mystery; scouts aren't sure if he's the best prospect in baseball or just on his team ... Longoria gives a giant boost to the lineup, but there's still some worry about the supporting characters. Akinori Iwamura ran hot and cold last season; he could be a strong second baseman or he could be a bust. And while Carlos Pena certainly earned his Comeback Player of the Year award, I just can't in good faith predict a repeat season of 282/411/627. But he might come close. The two spots of most concern are at catcher and shortstop. Shortstop isn't such a big deal; Jason Bartlett can't really hit, but he's a strong glove on a team that desperately needed one. And the club still has Reid Brignac in the system. Catcher is more of a worry, as the team is stuck hoping 24-year-old Dioner Navarro finally puts it all together ... Scott Kazmir is a good #1 and James Shields is a good #2, but this rotation will really get interesting when you've got Matt Garza, Andy Sonnanstine, David Price, and Jeff Niemann fighting for the other spots ... The team committed 2 years and $8 million to Troy Percival, which isn't such a good long-term plan, but you can forgive the Rays for being desperate for bullpen help. But an improved starting rotation will take a lot of the pressure off ... Adding Jason Bartlett and Evan Longoria should help what was a historically bad defense in 2007, but there's still work to be done. B.J. Upton should be a better fit in center, and whatever's left of Rocco Baldelli should be able to handle right field whenever he's upright ... Another savvy 1-year contract of the offseason was the Rays' pickup of Cliff Floyd, who is still an effective hitter and good platoon partner and also just insurance against Rocco Baldelli going down.
Toronto Blue Jays
2007 W-L Record: 83-79
2007 pW-pL Record: 87-75
Strengths: Roy Halladay, Young Pitching
Weaknesses: Lineup with a ton of "Ifs"
Biggest Change from '07: Glaus out, Rolen in
One Reason:
One reason the Blue Jays will win in '08 is that their starting rotation could really surprise. Behind Roy Halladay and A.J. Burnett (who could opt out and enter the free agent market after this year) are Dustin McGowan, Shaun Marcum, and Casey Janssen.
One reason the Blue Jays will lose in '08 is that their lineup asks a lot to be taken seriously. There's no guarantee that David Eckstein will be worth a darn, no evidence that Scott Rolen will stay healthy (and productive) or that Vernon Wells will ever have another MVP year or if Frank Thomas will finally break down. If you're a team without an elite offensive player you need your offense to work with all parts moving, and if you lose just one or two, you're lost.
Notes:
The Jays are hoping that a change of scenery (and manager) will help Scott Rolen. It's a choice between Rolen's inconsistent brilliance or Glaus' reliable production. Personally, I prefer the latter, especially when the latter is much cheaper ... Maybe this is the year that everyone gets over their man-crush on David Eckstein ... Should I really be that excited by Alex Rios? ... The Jays' J.P. Ricciardi stuck to the old ways long after mentor Billy Beane had moved on. But lately, the team has been putting more of a stress on combining pitching with defense. If only they could get offense, or get more creative at the draft board ... Can everyone please remember B.J. Ryan and Keith Foulke when teams offer the moon to even the best of closers? ... The sad thing is that now the Red Sox and Yankees aren't just out-spending the Jays, they're out-developing and outsmarting them. The division is a problem, but it's also a scapegoat for a franchise whose postseason drought is the third-longest in the AL.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
NL West Preview
ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS
2007 W-L Record: 90-72
2007 pW-pL Record: 79-83
Strengths: Maturing young blue-chippers, Brandon Webb
Weaknesses: Inconsistent offense, tough division
Biggest Change from '07: Dan Haren
One Reason:
One reason the Diamondbacks will win in '07 is the drastic room for improvement among their young hitters. Arizona finished 14th in the NL in hitting last year, a disgrace in their ballpark. But if they can get better work from Stephen Drew, Chris Young, and Justin Upton, that should make a pretty big difference. And they also don't have any one gaping hole in their offense; their worst everyday player is probably Eric Byrnes (who is also their most expensive; go figure).
One reason the Diamondbacks will lose in '07 is that they were really just an 80-win team last year, and they're playing in the most competitive division in the majors. Last year, the Padres won 89 games and missed the playoffs; I wouldn't be at all surprised for something similar to happen this year, with a team having a fine year but finishing 3rd in the West. The D-Backs will need advancement from their young hitters and continued excellence from their pitching staff to make the postseason.
Notes:
Brandon Webb is an ace. Danny Haren isn't really an ace, but he's solidly above-average and should be reliable for 200 innings. That's a big step up all the other guys the D-Backs tried as a #2 starter last year ... Even with the acquisition of Haren, the back end of the D-Backs' rotationis spotty. As it stands, the rotation is Webb-Haren-Micah Owings-Doug Davis and whatever's left of Randy Johnson. Best-case scenario, that's a solid bunc. Worst-case, you're looking for spare parts to take over from Davis and Johnson in July.
COLORADO ROCKIES
2007 W-L Record: 90-73
2007 pW-pL Record: 91-72
Strengths: Best pitching staff in Colorado history; sufficient offense
Weaknesses: Lack of depth; underestimating the Coors effect on hitters' stats
Biggest Change from '07: Everybody's a year older and a year wiser
One Reason:
One reason the Rockies will win in '08 is the same reason they won in '07. They've got an underrated starting rotation of Jeff Francis-Aaron Cook-Franklin Morales-Ubaldo Jimenez-Jason Hirsh/Kip Wells that's a lot better than it looks in the thin air of Denver. They've got a lineup with some star players (Holliday, Hawpe, Tulowitzki, Helton) who can cover for the weak spots.
One reason the Rockies will lose in '08 is that in many ways everything went right for them in 2007, and you can't reasonably predict that to happen for two straight years. There's room for improvement here, as I said before, with young players such as Tulowitzki, Morales, Jimenez, Manny Corpas and their big prospects, but it will be hard to get everything working at the same level it was down the stretch last year. And in the NL West, that's a problem.
Notes:
Can we jump off the Matt Holliday bandwagon already? The guy's a fine hitter, but he's not among the ten best players in the NL. Just because he's young, white, and Christian doesn't mean we can start building his statues ... The Rockies need the versatility to be able to work in their good young prospects. That wasn't a problem in the rotation last year, because the cupboard was bare; it's a different story when you've got two or three viable third basemen and no openings in the outfield or at first base ... The sooner Chris Iannetta pushes Yorvit Torrealba out of a job, the better ... 2007 wasn't just a pennant-winning year, it was an incredible job-saving experience for GM Dan O'Dowd and manager Clint Hurdle, at least for the foreseeable future.
LOS ANGELES DODGERS
2007 W-L Record: 82-80
2007 pW-pL Record: 82-80
Strengths: Elite young talent, Stacked pitching staff
Weaknesses: Injuries, Age, and Joe Torre's sweet tooth for veterans
Biggest Change from '07: Andruw Jones
One Reason:
One reason the Dodgers will win in '08 is that they're the best team on paper. Their projected lineup includes seven lineup spots that could potentially produce an All-Star, and a stacked starting rotation that doesn't even factor in #1 prospect Clayton Kershaw.
One reason the Dodgers will lose in '08 is that they've been the best team on paper for several years now and have nothing but two NLDS losses to show for it. Gross mismanagement, laughable free agent signings, and injuries have kept down the team that should be the favorites in the NL West, especially with their full stock of prospects. But who can say that this year will be any different, or that Joe Torre won't make the same mistakes that Jim Tracy and Grady Little did? Torre's a big name, but it will take something more substantive to solve the Dodgers' problems.
Notes:
If Torre has cojones, he'll use Juan Pierre as a part-timer or bench player; I don't care how much he's getting paid, there's three or four more talented outfielders on the roster ... Health will be a pretty big issue in the starting rotation. Derek Lowe is reliable, but Brad Penny and especially Jason Schmidt are no sure things. The good news is that this opens up the door to Chad Billingsley ... The team's middle infield bears watching, as both Jeff Kent and Rafael Furcal have done great things in the past, but haven't been as consistent in their Dodger years ... Any team that can crank out young talent with such quality and quantity as the Dodgers has a huge advantage over the competition.
San Diego Padres
2007 W-L Record: 89-74
2007 pW-pL Record: 89-74
Strengths: Jake Peavy
Weaknesses: Aging/Inconsistent offense
Biggest Change from '07: Rookie Chase Headley
One Reason:
One reason the Padres will win in '08 is their pitching staff. Even adjusted for Petco, these guys have a chance to be really strong, especially out of the bullpen.
One reason the Padres will lose in '08 is that it's hard to see their offense keeping up with the division rivals. A projected outfield of Kevin Kouzmanoff/Jim Edmonds/Brian Giles could be a strong offensive force, but if injuries and old age take their toll, it'll be Kouz & his band of stragglers. A lot of hopes rest on the corner infielders; rookie Chase Headley has a lot of promise and should take over at third, and offensive leader Adrian Gonzalez is a necessary cog at first.
Notes:
With their lack of internal solutions and the age/injury risk of so many key players (Edmonds, Giles, Greg Maddux, Trevor Hoffman, Khalil Greene) the Padres can contend in the West if everything goes right, but their downside is much worse than their division rivals due to the lack of viable alternatives ... Considering the dark shadow thrown over Roger Clemens, we may see a greater aura of historical significance surround Greg Maddux as he continues to pass huge pitching milestones ... Here's hoping that Jim Edmonds still has some good leather left in him, because Petco is a big park and there's a lot of ground to cover between Kevin Kouzmanoff and Brian Giles ... I'm a bit down on the Pads' middle infield of Tadahito Iguchi and Khalil Greene, but both could surprise me, even if it's just a season of consistently average play.
San Francisco Giants
2007 W-L Record: 71-91
2007 pW-pL Record: 77-85
Strengths: Young Pitching
Weaknesses: Absolutely everything else
Biggest Change from '07: His name rhymes with "Jerry Fronds"
One Reason:
One reason the Giants will win in '08 is that the MLB institues a policy giving over-40 players an automatic 2-run head start.
One reason the Giants will lose in '08 is because without Barry Bonds, their offense will be bad -- I mean scary bad.
Notes:
The San Francisco Bonds become the San Francisco Bombs ... The signing of Aaron Rowand was the baseball equivalent of putting lipstick on a hog, except the lipstick really isn't that good after all ... Can you believe that a major league team is entering Spring Training with an infield of Dan Ortmeier/John Schierholtz at first base, Ray Durham at second, Omar Vizquel at short, and some unknown quantity at third? Vizquel will win out just by being the only one above the Mendoza line ... The Giants' starting rotation of Matt Cain-Tim Lincecum-Barry Zito-Noah Lowry-Jonathan Sanchez isn't half bad. But the good news ends there, and their bullpen reeks ... No team was more embarassed by the Mitchell Report than the Giants. However, I should note that the name of GM Brian Sabean popped up in all the debates, whereas the name of owner Peter Magowan did not ... This team has been constructed in a terrible fashion for several years now, and it's a shame that it may take an entirely unrelated issue (steroids) to kick the bums out of the front office.
Next up, the AL, as pitchers, catchers, and vultures have reported ...
2007 W-L Record: 90-72
2007 pW-pL Record: 79-83
Strengths: Maturing young blue-chippers, Brandon Webb
Weaknesses: Inconsistent offense, tough division
Biggest Change from '07: Dan Haren
One Reason:
One reason the Diamondbacks will win in '07 is the drastic room for improvement among their young hitters. Arizona finished 14th in the NL in hitting last year, a disgrace in their ballpark. But if they can get better work from Stephen Drew, Chris Young, and Justin Upton, that should make a pretty big difference. And they also don't have any one gaping hole in their offense; their worst everyday player is probably Eric Byrnes (who is also their most expensive; go figure).
One reason the Diamondbacks will lose in '07 is that they were really just an 80-win team last year, and they're playing in the most competitive division in the majors. Last year, the Padres won 89 games and missed the playoffs; I wouldn't be at all surprised for something similar to happen this year, with a team having a fine year but finishing 3rd in the West. The D-Backs will need advancement from their young hitters and continued excellence from their pitching staff to make the postseason.
Notes:
Brandon Webb is an ace. Danny Haren isn't really an ace, but he's solidly above-average and should be reliable for 200 innings. That's a big step up all the other guys the D-Backs tried as a #2 starter last year ... Even with the acquisition of Haren, the back end of the D-Backs' rotationis spotty. As it stands, the rotation is Webb-Haren-Micah Owings-Doug Davis and whatever's left of Randy Johnson. Best-case scenario, that's a solid bunc. Worst-case, you're looking for spare parts to take over from Davis and Johnson in July.
COLORADO ROCKIES
2007 W-L Record: 90-73
2007 pW-pL Record: 91-72
Strengths: Best pitching staff in Colorado history; sufficient offense
Weaknesses: Lack of depth; underestimating the Coors effect on hitters' stats
Biggest Change from '07: Everybody's a year older and a year wiser
One Reason:
One reason the Rockies will win in '08 is the same reason they won in '07. They've got an underrated starting rotation of Jeff Francis-Aaron Cook-Franklin Morales-Ubaldo Jimenez-Jason Hirsh/Kip Wells that's a lot better than it looks in the thin air of Denver. They've got a lineup with some star players (Holliday, Hawpe, Tulowitzki, Helton) who can cover for the weak spots.
One reason the Rockies will lose in '08 is that in many ways everything went right for them in 2007, and you can't reasonably predict that to happen for two straight years. There's room for improvement here, as I said before, with young players such as Tulowitzki, Morales, Jimenez, Manny Corpas and their big prospects, but it will be hard to get everything working at the same level it was down the stretch last year. And in the NL West, that's a problem.
Notes:
Can we jump off the Matt Holliday bandwagon already? The guy's a fine hitter, but he's not among the ten best players in the NL. Just because he's young, white, and Christian doesn't mean we can start building his statues ... The Rockies need the versatility to be able to work in their good young prospects. That wasn't a problem in the rotation last year, because the cupboard was bare; it's a different story when you've got two or three viable third basemen and no openings in the outfield or at first base ... The sooner Chris Iannetta pushes Yorvit Torrealba out of a job, the better ... 2007 wasn't just a pennant-winning year, it was an incredible job-saving experience for GM Dan O'Dowd and manager Clint Hurdle, at least for the foreseeable future.
LOS ANGELES DODGERS
2007 W-L Record: 82-80
2007 pW-pL Record: 82-80
Strengths: Elite young talent, Stacked pitching staff
Weaknesses: Injuries, Age, and Joe Torre's sweet tooth for veterans
Biggest Change from '07: Andruw Jones
One Reason:
One reason the Dodgers will win in '08 is that they're the best team on paper. Their projected lineup includes seven lineup spots that could potentially produce an All-Star, and a stacked starting rotation that doesn't even factor in #1 prospect Clayton Kershaw.
One reason the Dodgers will lose in '08 is that they've been the best team on paper for several years now and have nothing but two NLDS losses to show for it. Gross mismanagement, laughable free agent signings, and injuries have kept down the team that should be the favorites in the NL West, especially with their full stock of prospects. But who can say that this year will be any different, or that Joe Torre won't make the same mistakes that Jim Tracy and Grady Little did? Torre's a big name, but it will take something more substantive to solve the Dodgers' problems.
Notes:
If Torre has cojones, he'll use Juan Pierre as a part-timer or bench player; I don't care how much he's getting paid, there's three or four more talented outfielders on the roster ... Health will be a pretty big issue in the starting rotation. Derek Lowe is reliable, but Brad Penny and especially Jason Schmidt are no sure things. The good news is that this opens up the door to Chad Billingsley ... The team's middle infield bears watching, as both Jeff Kent and Rafael Furcal have done great things in the past, but haven't been as consistent in their Dodger years ... Any team that can crank out young talent with such quality and quantity as the Dodgers has a huge advantage over the competition.
San Diego Padres
2007 W-L Record: 89-74
2007 pW-pL Record: 89-74
Strengths: Jake Peavy
Weaknesses: Aging/Inconsistent offense
Biggest Change from '07: Rookie Chase Headley
One Reason:
One reason the Padres will win in '08 is their pitching staff. Even adjusted for Petco, these guys have a chance to be really strong, especially out of the bullpen.
One reason the Padres will lose in '08 is that it's hard to see their offense keeping up with the division rivals. A projected outfield of Kevin Kouzmanoff/Jim Edmonds/Brian Giles could be a strong offensive force, but if injuries and old age take their toll, it'll be Kouz & his band of stragglers. A lot of hopes rest on the corner infielders; rookie Chase Headley has a lot of promise and should take over at third, and offensive leader Adrian Gonzalez is a necessary cog at first.
Notes:
With their lack of internal solutions and the age/injury risk of so many key players (Edmonds, Giles, Greg Maddux, Trevor Hoffman, Khalil Greene) the Padres can contend in the West if everything goes right, but their downside is much worse than their division rivals due to the lack of viable alternatives ... Considering the dark shadow thrown over Roger Clemens, we may see a greater aura of historical significance surround Greg Maddux as he continues to pass huge pitching milestones ... Here's hoping that Jim Edmonds still has some good leather left in him, because Petco is a big park and there's a lot of ground to cover between Kevin Kouzmanoff and Brian Giles ... I'm a bit down on the Pads' middle infield of Tadahito Iguchi and Khalil Greene, but both could surprise me, even if it's just a season of consistently average play.
San Francisco Giants
2007 W-L Record: 71-91
2007 pW-pL Record: 77-85
Strengths: Young Pitching
Weaknesses: Absolutely everything else
Biggest Change from '07: His name rhymes with "Jerry Fronds"
One Reason:
One reason the Giants will win in '08 is that the MLB institues a policy giving over-40 players an automatic 2-run head start.
One reason the Giants will lose in '08 is because without Barry Bonds, their offense will be bad -- I mean scary bad.
Notes:
The San Francisco Bonds become the San Francisco Bombs ... The signing of Aaron Rowand was the baseball equivalent of putting lipstick on a hog, except the lipstick really isn't that good after all ... Can you believe that a major league team is entering Spring Training with an infield of Dan Ortmeier/John Schierholtz at first base, Ray Durham at second, Omar Vizquel at short, and some unknown quantity at third? Vizquel will win out just by being the only one above the Mendoza line ... The Giants' starting rotation of Matt Cain-Tim Lincecum-Barry Zito-Noah Lowry-Jonathan Sanchez isn't half bad. But the good news ends there, and their bullpen reeks ... No team was more embarassed by the Mitchell Report than the Giants. However, I should note that the name of GM Brian Sabean popped up in all the debates, whereas the name of owner Peter Magowan did not ... This team has been constructed in a terrible fashion for several years now, and it's a shame that it may take an entirely unrelated issue (steroids) to kick the bums out of the front office.
Next up, the AL, as pitchers, catchers, and vultures have reported ...
Monday, February 18, 2008
NL Central Preview
CHICAGO CUBS
2007 W-L Record: 85-77
2007 pW-pL Record: 87-75
Strengths: Strong Offense, Solid Pitching
Weaknesses: OBP, Depth
Biggest Change from '07: Fukudome and his .400+ OBP
One Reason:
One reason the Cubs will win in '08 is that the best is set low in the NL Central. The Cubs won the division last year, have managed to improve over the offseason (without spending $1 billion), and aren't facing any rivals presenting serious challenges. They're not absolutely safe from Milwaukee or even possibly Cincinnati, but they're easy favorites.
One reason the Cubs will lose in '08 is that a lot of their production is precarious. The best-case scenario for their lineup is good, but if Fukudome struggles in his first U.S. season, or if Aramis Ramirez and/or Alfonso Soriano take a step back to mediocrity, the Cubs will be hard-pressed to replace them. There aren't a lot of backup plans for the lineup, and the same could be said for the rotation, where an inordinate amount of pressure rests on Carlos Zambrano and Ted Lilly. The Cubs do have some backups here in Jon Lieber and Sean Marshall, but neither of them can replace an injured or ineffective Zambrano.
Notes:
Chicago's offseason strategy for 2007-08 was the exact opposite of the previous year's. They played a conservative hand, knowing that their core ballclub was good enough to win, and their only major financial commitment was to Kosuke Fukudome, a valuable player who's even more valuable to the Cubs, a team whose 2007 team OBP (.333) was below the league average (.334). They're going to hit home runs, but apart from Fukudome, Derrek Lee and perhaps Ramirez, no one's going to be getting on base at a superior rate ... I must also point out that the biggest improvement in the Cubs' lineup is an internal promotion; the difference between a full season of Geovany Soto at catcher and the rogues' gallery of options the team ran through last year is significant ... Don't hold any high hopes for Ryan Dempster as a member of the starting rotation ... The biggest difference-maker in the batting order is Felix Pie, whose success or failure could mean the difference between making the playoffs.
Cincinnati Reds
2007 W-L Record: 72-90
2007 pW-pL Record: 75-87
Strengths: Impact Rookies
Weaknesses: Poor player evaluation, back end of the pitching staff
Biggest Change from '07: Jay Bruce
One Reason:
One reason the Reds will win in '08 is that the addition of Jay Bruce, Joey Votto, Johnny Cueto, and a healthy Homer Bailey could shoot them up to contender status easily. And the core guys surrounding these rookies isn't too bad after all. With Harang-Bailey-Cueto-Arroyo-Volquez, the Reds could have their best starting rotation in recent memory. And impact players like Bruce and Votto are surrounded in the lineup by Adam Dunn, Brandon Phillips, Ken Griffey, and Edwin Encarnacion.
One reason the Reds will lose in '08 is that it's a lot to expect that all these rookies become All-Stars at the same time. Homer Bailey went into 2007 with breakout potential, but he didn't reach it. That's not his fault, necessarily, it's just a face of life with rookies. As good as Jay Bruce is, he may not start the season hitting like an All-Star. The Reds will, without doubt, be a better team in 2008, but it's a lot to ask for them to jump from 72 wins to 88 or so all at once.
Notes:
The Reds' baseball ops team is still not at the top of my list, but they avoided any major catastrophes this offseason. The signing of closer Francisco Cordero helps the team, but he's such a risky investment that it could still turn out poorly for the team ... Other than that, the team has wisely stuck with the top rookies they have on hand, trading Josh Hamilton (who's not any kind of sure thing) to make room for Jay Bruce) ... the return of Ryan Freel to a super-utility role is the best move for everyone involved, including Freel ... the worst things the Reds could do right now is to trade some of their A-prospects for Oakland pitcher Joe Blanton. Blanton is a decent innings-eater, but if you put him in the Cincinnati ballpark, he's not likely to be any better than Bailey or Cueto, even considering the growing pains the latter will undoubtedly suffer. The only way the front office could torpedo their chances at Wild Card contention in 2008 is to pull the trigger on a Blanton trade that loses Bruce, Bailey, or Cueto for a C-level starter ... For the sake of everyone involved, let's hope that Dusty Baker just stays out of the way and doesn't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ... The Reds would be well-told to address their gaping holes at shortstop (Jeff Keppinger?!) and catcher (David Ross).
Houston Astros
2007 W-L Record: 73-89
2007 pW-pL Record: 72-90
Strengths: A slim handful of above-average players
Weaknesses: Everyone else, including the front office
Biggest Change from '07: Miguel Tejada
One Reason:
One reason the Astros will win in 2008 is by bribing their opponents.
One reason the Astros will lose in '08 is that Wandy Rodriguez is their #2 starter.
Notes:
Last season, Miguel Tejada (who turns 32 this season) hit 296/357/442. That's pretty good for a shortstop, except that Tejada earned -15 FRAA, one of the lowest marks for an AL shortstop. He should get a boost from moving to the NL, where the short porch in Minute Maid Field will give him a power boost, but his defense will be a liability, as the Astros have stubbornly insisted he stay at shortstop rather than moving him to third. That, plus his advancing age, declining offense, and rumors that he's actually older than his listed age, make him something less than a grand prize of the offseason hot stove. Tejada's EQA last year was .270, which isn't bad, but isn't even All-Star level. Combine that with his offense, and the Astros gutted their already-bare cupboard of prospects for something less than they thought they were getting. Oh, and after six straight seasons of 162 games, Tejada finally dropped off to 133 last year. Is he an improvement over Adam Everett? All in all, yes. Is it enough to add the 15 wins necessary for the Astros to contend? Not on your life ... I'm seriously wondering if the Astros can actually find five living human beings to start games for them. After Roy Oswalt, we've got Wandy Rodriguez, Woody Williams, and a recovering Brandon Backe. It would take an elite offense to contend with that starting rotation ... Speaking of which, the Astros have Lance Berkman, Carlos Lee, Hunter Pence, and perhaps Miguel Tejada as hitter who we can reliably predict to be above-average. Not great, mind you -- just above average. Kaz Matsui will get comfortable with replacement level at second base, ditto for Ty Wigginton at third, and Michael Bourn will show what happens when a fourth outfielder is stretched as a starter. And the Brad Ausmus/J.R. Towles platoon at catcher is just scary ... Some have referred to the Astros as having the worst minor league system in baseball, because after Hunter Pence's graduation to the majors, there's just not much there. That's bad news for a club that needs big help from a variety of different positions and can't afford to fill all those holes on the free agent market. Plus, they're soon going to be dealing with the big-money years from the Berkman, Lee, and Oswalt contracts just as they're starting to decline. Normally, this would make them prime candidates for a trade, but unfortunately, the Astros front office has deluded themselves into thinking that they're contenders. And that is the real bad news with this team ... Look for a lively race between Houston and Pittsburgh for last place.
Milwaukee Brewers
2007 W-L Record: 83-79
2007 pW-pL Record: 83-79
Strengths: Same cast of characters from last year
Weaknesses: Quantity in the starting rotation may not result in quality
Biggest Change from '07: Perhaps a full season from Ben Sheets, Yovani Gallardo and Manny Parra?
One Reason:
One reason the Brewers will win in '07 is defense. By signing Mike Cameron to center field and shifting Bill Hall to third and Ryan Braun to left, the Brewers will drastically improve their fielding. There's also the prospect that Rickie Weeks will improve at second. This will have the added benefit of strengthening the pitching staff, especially soft-tossers Jeff Suppan and Dave Bush.
One reason the Brewers will lose in '07 is pitching. The Milwaukee lineup as it stands is one of the best in the NL, if not the very best -- but there's a lot of risk in that pitching staff. Ben Sheets isn't a sure thing for 30+ starts, Manny Parra is just making the move into the rotation, and just today news came out that Yovani Gallardo will be out for four weeks with an injury that could limit him somewhat. And those are the good options. The replacements for these guys are Suppan, Bush, Claudio Vargas and Chris Capuano.
Notes:
The Cameron signing is the sort of low-risk contract that teams like the Brewers should always be on the lookout for. Even if Cameron is only so-so offensively, he improves the defense dramatically just by being there ... The Brewers will win the division if Sheets and Gallardo go 180+ innings ... Picking up a catcher couldn't hurt.
Pittsburgh Pirates
2007 W-L Record: 68-94
2007 pW-pL Record: 70-92
Strengths: Strong new executive leadership
Weaknesses: Same ol' franchise of despair
Biggest Change from '07: New leadership
One Reason:
One reason the Pirates will win in '08 is . . . OK, I try to be optimistic, but I have my limits.
One reason the Pirates will lose in '08 is why stop now?
Notes:
Another losing season gives the Pirates 16 in a row, tying them for the major league record (they would be tied with the 1933-1948 Philadelphia Phillies) ... The Pirates should actually be something better than dreadful; their 1-2-3 of Tom Gorzellany, Ian Snell, and Paul Maholm is pretty impressive. But while they do have one or two prospects headed to the bigs, the offense basically stinks.
St. Louis Cardinals
2007 W-L Record: 78-84
2007 pW-pL Record: 71-91
Strengths: Albert Pujols, bounce-back year from young rotation, Colby Rasmus
Weaknesses: Utter lack of depth, uncertain health of Chris Carpenter, Middle Infield
Biggest Change from '07: Loss of Rolen and Edmonds
One Reason:
One Reason the Cards will win in '08 is that their pitching staff will unexpectedly gel together just enough to support a decent offense centered around Albert Pujols.
One reason the Cards will lose in '08 is they've got gaping holes in their lineup and no sure things in their rotation.
Notes:
This is the bottoming out of a team built to win in the short term since 1998 ... The health of Albert Pujols and Chris Carpenter could mean the difference of 10 games in the win column ... Troy Glaus may not have the starry history of Scott Rolen but, over the short term, he's a better bet. And he's also stayed pretty healthy, which you can't say for Rolen ... Hopefully Tony LaRussa doesn't plan to throw any other teammates under the bus in front of a horde of reporters ... I'll be watching carefully to see the effect of the absence of Walt Jocketty ... (Sing along) "I've got Chris Carpenter and a pocket-full-of-miracles, pocket-full-of-miracles, pocket-full-of-miracles ..."
2007 W-L Record: 85-77
2007 pW-pL Record: 87-75
Strengths: Strong Offense, Solid Pitching
Weaknesses: OBP, Depth
Biggest Change from '07: Fukudome and his .400+ OBP
One Reason:
One reason the Cubs will win in '08 is that the best is set low in the NL Central. The Cubs won the division last year, have managed to improve over the offseason (without spending $1 billion), and aren't facing any rivals presenting serious challenges. They're not absolutely safe from Milwaukee or even possibly Cincinnati, but they're easy favorites.
One reason the Cubs will lose in '08 is that a lot of their production is precarious. The best-case scenario for their lineup is good, but if Fukudome struggles in his first U.S. season, or if Aramis Ramirez and/or Alfonso Soriano take a step back to mediocrity, the Cubs will be hard-pressed to replace them. There aren't a lot of backup plans for the lineup, and the same could be said for the rotation, where an inordinate amount of pressure rests on Carlos Zambrano and Ted Lilly. The Cubs do have some backups here in Jon Lieber and Sean Marshall, but neither of them can replace an injured or ineffective Zambrano.
Notes:
Chicago's offseason strategy for 2007-08 was the exact opposite of the previous year's. They played a conservative hand, knowing that their core ballclub was good enough to win, and their only major financial commitment was to Kosuke Fukudome, a valuable player who's even more valuable to the Cubs, a team whose 2007 team OBP (.333) was below the league average (.334). They're going to hit home runs, but apart from Fukudome, Derrek Lee and perhaps Ramirez, no one's going to be getting on base at a superior rate ... I must also point out that the biggest improvement in the Cubs' lineup is an internal promotion; the difference between a full season of Geovany Soto at catcher and the rogues' gallery of options the team ran through last year is significant ... Don't hold any high hopes for Ryan Dempster as a member of the starting rotation ... The biggest difference-maker in the batting order is Felix Pie, whose success or failure could mean the difference between making the playoffs.
Cincinnati Reds
2007 W-L Record: 72-90
2007 pW-pL Record: 75-87
Strengths: Impact Rookies
Weaknesses: Poor player evaluation, back end of the pitching staff
Biggest Change from '07: Jay Bruce
One Reason:
One reason the Reds will win in '08 is that the addition of Jay Bruce, Joey Votto, Johnny Cueto, and a healthy Homer Bailey could shoot them up to contender status easily. And the core guys surrounding these rookies isn't too bad after all. With Harang-Bailey-Cueto-Arroyo-Volquez, the Reds could have their best starting rotation in recent memory. And impact players like Bruce and Votto are surrounded in the lineup by Adam Dunn, Brandon Phillips, Ken Griffey, and Edwin Encarnacion.
One reason the Reds will lose in '08 is that it's a lot to expect that all these rookies become All-Stars at the same time. Homer Bailey went into 2007 with breakout potential, but he didn't reach it. That's not his fault, necessarily, it's just a face of life with rookies. As good as Jay Bruce is, he may not start the season hitting like an All-Star. The Reds will, without doubt, be a better team in 2008, but it's a lot to ask for them to jump from 72 wins to 88 or so all at once.
Notes:
The Reds' baseball ops team is still not at the top of my list, but they avoided any major catastrophes this offseason. The signing of closer Francisco Cordero helps the team, but he's such a risky investment that it could still turn out poorly for the team ... Other than that, the team has wisely stuck with the top rookies they have on hand, trading Josh Hamilton (who's not any kind of sure thing) to make room for Jay Bruce) ... the return of Ryan Freel to a super-utility role is the best move for everyone involved, including Freel ... the worst things the Reds could do right now is to trade some of their A-prospects for Oakland pitcher Joe Blanton. Blanton is a decent innings-eater, but if you put him in the Cincinnati ballpark, he's not likely to be any better than Bailey or Cueto, even considering the growing pains the latter will undoubtedly suffer. The only way the front office could torpedo their chances at Wild Card contention in 2008 is to pull the trigger on a Blanton trade that loses Bruce, Bailey, or Cueto for a C-level starter ... For the sake of everyone involved, let's hope that Dusty Baker just stays out of the way and doesn't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ... The Reds would be well-told to address their gaping holes at shortstop (Jeff Keppinger?!) and catcher (David Ross).
Houston Astros
2007 W-L Record: 73-89
2007 pW-pL Record: 72-90
Strengths: A slim handful of above-average players
Weaknesses: Everyone else, including the front office
Biggest Change from '07: Miguel Tejada
One Reason:
One reason the Astros will win in 2008 is by bribing their opponents.
One reason the Astros will lose in '08 is that Wandy Rodriguez is their #2 starter.
Notes:
Last season, Miguel Tejada (who turns 32 this season) hit 296/357/442. That's pretty good for a shortstop, except that Tejada earned -15 FRAA, one of the lowest marks for an AL shortstop. He should get a boost from moving to the NL, where the short porch in Minute Maid Field will give him a power boost, but his defense will be a liability, as the Astros have stubbornly insisted he stay at shortstop rather than moving him to third. That, plus his advancing age, declining offense, and rumors that he's actually older than his listed age, make him something less than a grand prize of the offseason hot stove. Tejada's EQA last year was .270, which isn't bad, but isn't even All-Star level. Combine that with his offense, and the Astros gutted their already-bare cupboard of prospects for something less than they thought they were getting. Oh, and after six straight seasons of 162 games, Tejada finally dropped off to 133 last year. Is he an improvement over Adam Everett? All in all, yes. Is it enough to add the 15 wins necessary for the Astros to contend? Not on your life ... I'm seriously wondering if the Astros can actually find five living human beings to start games for them. After Roy Oswalt, we've got Wandy Rodriguez, Woody Williams, and a recovering Brandon Backe. It would take an elite offense to contend with that starting rotation ... Speaking of which, the Astros have Lance Berkman, Carlos Lee, Hunter Pence, and perhaps Miguel Tejada as hitter who we can reliably predict to be above-average. Not great, mind you -- just above average. Kaz Matsui will get comfortable with replacement level at second base, ditto for Ty Wigginton at third, and Michael Bourn will show what happens when a fourth outfielder is stretched as a starter. And the Brad Ausmus/J.R. Towles platoon at catcher is just scary ... Some have referred to the Astros as having the worst minor league system in baseball, because after Hunter Pence's graduation to the majors, there's just not much there. That's bad news for a club that needs big help from a variety of different positions and can't afford to fill all those holes on the free agent market. Plus, they're soon going to be dealing with the big-money years from the Berkman, Lee, and Oswalt contracts just as they're starting to decline. Normally, this would make them prime candidates for a trade, but unfortunately, the Astros front office has deluded themselves into thinking that they're contenders. And that is the real bad news with this team ... Look for a lively race between Houston and Pittsburgh for last place.
Milwaukee Brewers
2007 W-L Record: 83-79
2007 pW-pL Record: 83-79
Strengths: Same cast of characters from last year
Weaknesses: Quantity in the starting rotation may not result in quality
Biggest Change from '07: Perhaps a full season from Ben Sheets, Yovani Gallardo and Manny Parra?
One Reason:
One reason the Brewers will win in '07 is defense. By signing Mike Cameron to center field and shifting Bill Hall to third and Ryan Braun to left, the Brewers will drastically improve their fielding. There's also the prospect that Rickie Weeks will improve at second. This will have the added benefit of strengthening the pitching staff, especially soft-tossers Jeff Suppan and Dave Bush.
One reason the Brewers will lose in '07 is pitching. The Milwaukee lineup as it stands is one of the best in the NL, if not the very best -- but there's a lot of risk in that pitching staff. Ben Sheets isn't a sure thing for 30+ starts, Manny Parra is just making the move into the rotation, and just today news came out that Yovani Gallardo will be out for four weeks with an injury that could limit him somewhat. And those are the good options. The replacements for these guys are Suppan, Bush, Claudio Vargas and Chris Capuano.
Notes:
The Cameron signing is the sort of low-risk contract that teams like the Brewers should always be on the lookout for. Even if Cameron is only so-so offensively, he improves the defense dramatically just by being there ... The Brewers will win the division if Sheets and Gallardo go 180+ innings ... Picking up a catcher couldn't hurt.
Pittsburgh Pirates
2007 W-L Record: 68-94
2007 pW-pL Record: 70-92
Strengths: Strong new executive leadership
Weaknesses: Same ol' franchise of despair
Biggest Change from '07: New leadership
One Reason:
One reason the Pirates will win in '08 is . . . OK, I try to be optimistic, but I have my limits.
One reason the Pirates will lose in '08 is why stop now?
Notes:
Another losing season gives the Pirates 16 in a row, tying them for the major league record (they would be tied with the 1933-1948 Philadelphia Phillies) ... The Pirates should actually be something better than dreadful; their 1-2-3 of Tom Gorzellany, Ian Snell, and Paul Maholm is pretty impressive. But while they do have one or two prospects headed to the bigs, the offense basically stinks.
St. Louis Cardinals
2007 W-L Record: 78-84
2007 pW-pL Record: 71-91
Strengths: Albert Pujols, bounce-back year from young rotation, Colby Rasmus
Weaknesses: Utter lack of depth, uncertain health of Chris Carpenter, Middle Infield
Biggest Change from '07: Loss of Rolen and Edmonds
One Reason:
One Reason the Cards will win in '08 is that their pitching staff will unexpectedly gel together just enough to support a decent offense centered around Albert Pujols.
One reason the Cards will lose in '08 is they've got gaping holes in their lineup and no sure things in their rotation.
Notes:
This is the bottoming out of a team built to win in the short term since 1998 ... The health of Albert Pujols and Chris Carpenter could mean the difference of 10 games in the win column ... Troy Glaus may not have the starry history of Scott Rolen but, over the short term, he's a better bet. And he's also stayed pretty healthy, which you can't say for Rolen ... Hopefully Tony LaRussa doesn't plan to throw any other teammates under the bus in front of a horde of reporters ... I'll be watching carefully to see the effect of the absence of Walt Jocketty ... (Sing along) "I've got Chris Carpenter and a pocket-full-of-miracles, pocket-full-of-miracles, pocket-full-of-miracles ..."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A Lesson in Hyperbole
I've kept up with the Roger Clemens fiasco only enough to have a sense of what is going on. Unlike the rest of the mainstream media, I take no delight in crucifying an ex-hero for "letting us all down," especially since the media never really liked him in the first place, which matters more than any PED accusation. I also have no interest in watching someone aggressively and obnoxiously try to force back the tides of suspicion, as if the truth can be defeated by sneers, press releases, and unbelievably inappropriate taped phone conversations. The offensive cult of celebrity and empty controversy is attracting all of the scavengers and hangers-on to be expected where free publicity is to be given away.
So it was with some dismay that I read Howard Bryant's espn.com column today. I live in the real world, and I know that the media has a profits-driven duty to make any news event seem far more important and controversial than it actually is. The 2008 primaries are proving that, as each cable news outlet is competing for most obtuse metaphor for the process. Most of them use the old standards of fight, either in boxing terms or "horse race" ones, but my favorite is the "Ballot Bowl," which tries to make the primaries some sort of super-football contest. And we wonder why our country watches three or four 24-hour news networks and yet learns absolutely nothing substantive. Such is the ultimate goal of marketing.
Anyways, ESPN is guilty of this in the sports arena, but the dot-com columnists usually aren't as bad. As for Howard Bryant, he's a relatively new addition to the staff, and I haven't read much of his work. I did read his book Juicing the Game, but there was nothing overly sensationalized about that; if anything, it could have used a bit more vim and vigor.
So I was amazed to read Bryant's Feb. 12th column, a horrifying example of blurring the facts and realities of a situation to make it seem life-and-death. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about:
Bryant: "As titillating, tawdry and undignified as the blood feud between Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee has been, the real showdown Wednesday before Congress is not between Clemens and McNamee, but between Clemens and former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell."
Me: Note the adjectives and the violent choice of words: "blood feud," "showdown." And, although this is the main theme of Bryant's article, I think it's very inaccurate to claim that the showdown in the hearings will be between Clemens and Mitchell. In the most literal sense, this is of course untrue; Clemens and Mitchell won't face off in a rancorous debate, but be questioned by the congressional committee. But even in the sense that Bryant implies, the "showdown" will be between Clemens and, respectively, Brian McNamee and Andy Pettitte, the two people who are most likely to directly refute his claims of innocence. Pettitte will not testify, because he was a good little boy and gave a deposition. He will not be required to face the committee and vigorously defend his public statements, as Clemens will. McNamee will have to appear and defend his claims, but I hereby predict that the committee will not attack and cross-examine McNamee's claims nearly as much as they will Clemens. This is because a) they (and America) have already decided that McNamee is telling the truth, and b) Brian McNamee hasn't won 300 games.
So it will be Clemens who gets the grilling from Congress. But Bryant's implication that this will somehow be a "showdown" with Mitchell is silly. In the very same article, Bryant details how the committee treated George Mitchell reverently the last time he testified, failing to seriously question his methods or the legal propriety of his "investigation." Mitchell will get another cakewalk. There will be no confrontation with Clemens, because it's not Mitchell who can directly implicate Clemens with anything other than hearsay.
Bryant: "For [George Mitchell's] report to be accurate and truthful means McNamee has been telling the truth, which by extension means Clemens is not. For Clemens to be telling the truth means McNamee is not. And if that's the case, Mitchell and the law enforcement agencies that produced the information from McNamee will have been guilty of serious incompetence and possible misconduct, and any shred of credibility the Mitchell report once had would go up in smoke."
Me: Nothing nearly as interesting as that is going to happen. There's virtually no chance that George Mitchell, or any other baseball official, is going to be accused of "serious incompetence and possible misconduct" and see their credibility shattered. So long as Brian McNamee's story holds, Mitchell will be fine. And if the story doesn't hold, then McNamee was a liar, and the worst thing Mitchell did was to believe him. I personally think Mitchell was far too ready to believe the uncorroborated accusations of McNamee and Radomski, but neither the Congress nor the public has thus far shown any interest in fairness or due process. And they're not going to start anytime soon. The only thing going up in smoke tomorrow is Roger Clemens' seat.
Bryant: "There is no way each entity can walk out of Wednesday's hearing with his story intact. Somebody is going to take a career-ending, legacy-destroying fall."
Me: I think that gross hyperbole speaks for itself. Of COURSE both sides can walk out of tomorrow's hearings in stalemate. If both McNamee and Clemens stick to their stories, there's nothing the committee can do but point out inconsistencies or inaccuracies in their stories. And if both Clemens and McNamee didn't already have an explanation/excuse/lie for every statement the other one has made, they wouldn't be appearing before Congress in the first place. Bryant is cheerleading the ESPN coverage of the hearings with doomsday language that's inexcusably hyperbolic for a responsible journalist.
Bryant: "Do not forget that the only reason this hearing is being conducted is that Clemens had the nerve to challenge Mitchell's findings after the report was released Dec. 13."
Me: This is somewhat true, but no other accused athlete has been forced into the entrenched denials that Clemens had to make due to his superstar status. It's also true that the committee's choice of witnesses to testify is hilariously inconsistent. Some accused of PED use get called, others don't. What's enlightening is that none of the baseball players actually suspended for use under MLB rules have ever been called to testify, even though these are the people who got caught and would presumably have something to say. The only admitted PED user called before Congress was Jose Canseco (called for reasons having nothing to do with truth or justice). And the only other admitted users to get close scrutiny are Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch, and that only because they are directly related to the Clemens/McNamee discussion.
And in the big picture, let's not really open the can of worms and ask why these hearings are being conducted. To do so would be to admit the mockery that our national legislature has become.
Bryant: ". . . committee members assumed McNamee was credible because Mitchell was credible. They assumed this with the knowledge that even as the Jan. 15 hearing had taken place, Clemens already had appeared on "60 Minutes" and had held a passionate -- if not bizarre -- news conference defending himself against McNamee's charges. Yet, when Mitchell appeared before the committee, members treated him as if he were Gandhi or the pope."
Me: True enough, but this only reminds us that the central conflict is between McNamee's statements and Clemens' statements. Mitchell is, in this case, ancillary. Bryant's characterization of his soft handling by the committee is spot-on, but that again just goes to show that if there is a showdown here, it will be a decidedly one-sided one.
Bryant: ". . . if Mitchell was wrong, that would mean the Mitchell report was wrong and the committee showed great naivete by not questioning a highly controversial document. It would mean the report cannot be trusted and that Mitchell could not, to a large extent, be trusted. If Clemens, the biggest name in the report, was wrongly accused, Mitchell would have to come forward and explain himself and repudiate his work. Scheeler's testimony would be viewed carefully by the baseball hierarchy."
Me: Translation: "If Mitchell was wrong, the earth will open up and feral creatures will feast on his entrails." There's only two actual "ifs" in the previous passage but about 900 implied ones. Making a direct connection between Mitchell being wrong and his public humilation is questionable and, again, an inflammatory attempt to make the hearings seem important.
Bryant: "Clemens has dug in so deeply and with such angry conviction that these proceedings can only result in his vindication."
Me: Umm ... what? Where in the hell does this claim come from? It immediately follows the previously quoted passage, so I was incredibly startled by it. Not only is it an absolute statement of predicted fact, it's completely unsupported by the rest of the article and doesn't even follow his previous thought. Here's what follows in the paragraph led by that sentence:
Bryant: "If he wavers, he will have destroyed himself."
Me: In which case, the proceedings would not have resulted in his vindication. It takes a lot of skill to offer a statement and a direct contradiction in two sentences; it's efficient.
Here's how Bryant wraps up the paragraph:
Bryant: "Since the report's release, there has been nothing equivocal about his defense. Therefore, he cannot plead the Fifth Amendment if he is cornered. One of his lawyers, Rusty Hardin, already has said Clemens will not take the Fifth on any questions. It will be interesting to see if that extends to the question as to McNamee's latest grenade, that he injected Clemens' wife, Debbie, with growth hormone. It's a charge that so far has not been denied by anyone in the Clemens camp."
Me: Again, Bryant spends the rest of the paragraph repudiating its lead sentence. I can only guess that the opening sentence wasn't meant to be taken literally. I think he meant something like "the proceedings have to result in his complete vindication if he wants to survive." Or maybe he meant to stress the word complete. Either way, I don't think he meant it as a definite statement, since he refutes it for the rest of the paragraph. Someone should have caught that, or maybe I'm just confused.
I also have to point out that statements like "It's a charge that so far has not been denied" just make me want to vomit. This is the sort of disregard for due process and honest journalism that has turned this whole issue into such a sham. The implication with statements like these is "they haven't denied it yet, so it must mean that they have something to hide." It's a loaded statement which intentionally misleads the reader. First of all, Roger Clemens and his wife have no duty to issue a media response to every personal attack, and it's unfortunate that the media takes its revenge with biased innuendo. And secondly, he just may not have had time. Those charges only emerged recently, and Clemens has a lot on his mind. I'm not saying that Clemens or his wife are innocent; I'm just saying that the lack of a public statement is no excuse to suggest guilt.
Bryant: "Clemens is asking the public to believe that his once-trusted personal trainer obtained and distributed growth hormone; that his friend and most loyal protégé, Pettitte, admitted using growth hormone administered by McNamee; and that Clemens' wife used growth hormone, also administered by McNamee … but Clemens himself did not."
Me: These sorts of theories make sense and can convince the public, but legally they're not on solid ground. If my friend sold drugs to all my other friends, I cannot be prosecuted by implication. If everyone else in my office was bribing public officials, I cannot be prosecuted for bribery just for that. Guilt by association always works to convince the public of someone's guilt, but it's not a sound legal argument. It's suspicious to say the least, but based on that alone we cannot assume someone's guilt. And neither Bryant nor the committee can prove all of those conditional statements beyond any sort of doubt. All Bryant can prove is that Roger Clemens' former personal trainer has claimed that he gave HGH to Clemens and Pettitte. Pettitte confirms getting it, but we don't know yet how he's responding to the charges against Clemens. If he doesn't have any direct evidence of Clemens getting it, it's irrelevant. Unless he saw Clemens getting it or Clemens told him about it, it's all circumstantial.
And here's a great example of Congress setting up a de facto courtroom without basic legal protection for "witnesses." My understanding (from watching TV) is that there is a legal standard of husband-wife confidentiality. A spouse is not obligated to reveal knowledge of criminal activity revealed under the spousal relationship. There are exceptions, I believe, such as if a third party is present or if the spouses are accomplices. But my understanding, and I could be wrong, is that if Clemens told his wife he took HGH, she is not legally bound to say so. If Clemens knew his wife was on HGH, he is not legally obligated to say so. I guess you could get around that by arguing that they, along with McNamee, were accomplices, but to go further would just expose my ignorance of the criminal code.
Bryant: "And then there is Pettitte, who will not attend the hearing but remains key. Pettitte already has been deposed, and if he said he believes Clemens used growth hormone, Clemens is finished. If Pettitte lied to the committee, then he soon will be finished. And if he knew Clemens did not use and said so, then the veracity of the Mitchell report again goes on trial."
Me: Translation: "Somebody's getting their ass whupped tomorrow. Watch it live!"
Bryant: "Going forward, McNamee is the least important player in the act. He already is finished. If he lied to Mitchell and law enforcement officials, then he likely will go to jail. If not, he retains his credibility to what he has testified about Clemens, but will remain ruined professionally, for no athlete in the country with half a brain would work with him again or take him into his confidence."
Me: I've already stated that I think McNamee is not the least important player here. Because he's the biggest weapon the government has against Clemens, unless Pettitte directly implicates him in his deposition. He's not done, because the veracity of his statements will go through the wringer tomorrow and again in the civil suits to follow.
Bryant: "Regardless of the collateral damage to baseball or Clemens, the most important outcome of these proceedings is if McNamee has told the truth. If he has not, then every citizen in this country has reason to fear the motives and competence of the justice system."
Me: So "the most important outcome of the proceedings" is coming from "the least important player in the act?" Again, Bryant contradicts himself with remarkable efficiency.
Bryant: "Wednesday will be a day of reckoning with numerous reputations at stake. Interpreting the significance of the steroid era has always been about the integrity of the institutions and individuals involved. It is only fitting that after months of defiance from Clemens and haughtiness from Mitchell, one will be forced to admit he isn't exactly what he's seemed."
Me: Day of reckoning, my ass.
Once again, check the adjectives for hyperbole. At least Bryant finishes with what he began -- the bizarre statement, contradicted by his own article, that the fight is between Clemens and Mitchell and someone is going down.
Look, as I said before, I'm aware of the unfortunate realities of our modern media. I'm aware that this is particularly true with ESPN, which has a symbiotic set of common interests with the major sports that make its journalistic intentions sometimes suspect. I just hate to see it so obviously manifested on the micro level.
I hate to pillory Bryant, and I can't say that he's doing this as a cynical way to hype the hearings. Maybe it's subconscious, or maybe he really does believe all 0f this. But either way, it's still reprehensible.
It's articles like this that drive me away from the mainstream media, with its outrageously conflicted interests, toward independent news outlets.
So it was with some dismay that I read Howard Bryant's espn.com column today. I live in the real world, and I know that the media has a profits-driven duty to make any news event seem far more important and controversial than it actually is. The 2008 primaries are proving that, as each cable news outlet is competing for most obtuse metaphor for the process. Most of them use the old standards of fight, either in boxing terms or "horse race" ones, but my favorite is the "Ballot Bowl," which tries to make the primaries some sort of super-football contest. And we wonder why our country watches three or four 24-hour news networks and yet learns absolutely nothing substantive. Such is the ultimate goal of marketing.
Anyways, ESPN is guilty of this in the sports arena, but the dot-com columnists usually aren't as bad. As for Howard Bryant, he's a relatively new addition to the staff, and I haven't read much of his work. I did read his book Juicing the Game, but there was nothing overly sensationalized about that; if anything, it could have used a bit more vim and vigor.
So I was amazed to read Bryant's Feb. 12th column, a horrifying example of blurring the facts and realities of a situation to make it seem life-and-death. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about:
Bryant: "As titillating, tawdry and undignified as the blood feud between Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee has been, the real showdown Wednesday before Congress is not between Clemens and McNamee, but between Clemens and former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell."
Me: Note the adjectives and the violent choice of words: "blood feud," "showdown." And, although this is the main theme of Bryant's article, I think it's very inaccurate to claim that the showdown in the hearings will be between Clemens and Mitchell. In the most literal sense, this is of course untrue; Clemens and Mitchell won't face off in a rancorous debate, but be questioned by the congressional committee. But even in the sense that Bryant implies, the "showdown" will be between Clemens and, respectively, Brian McNamee and Andy Pettitte, the two people who are most likely to directly refute his claims of innocence. Pettitte will not testify, because he was a good little boy and gave a deposition. He will not be required to face the committee and vigorously defend his public statements, as Clemens will. McNamee will have to appear and defend his claims, but I hereby predict that the committee will not attack and cross-examine McNamee's claims nearly as much as they will Clemens. This is because a) they (and America) have already decided that McNamee is telling the truth, and b) Brian McNamee hasn't won 300 games.
So it will be Clemens who gets the grilling from Congress. But Bryant's implication that this will somehow be a "showdown" with Mitchell is silly. In the very same article, Bryant details how the committee treated George Mitchell reverently the last time he testified, failing to seriously question his methods or the legal propriety of his "investigation." Mitchell will get another cakewalk. There will be no confrontation with Clemens, because it's not Mitchell who can directly implicate Clemens with anything other than hearsay.
Bryant: "For [George Mitchell's] report to be accurate and truthful means McNamee has been telling the truth, which by extension means Clemens is not. For Clemens to be telling the truth means McNamee is not. And if that's the case, Mitchell and the law enforcement agencies that produced the information from McNamee will have been guilty of serious incompetence and possible misconduct, and any shred of credibility the Mitchell report once had would go up in smoke."
Me: Nothing nearly as interesting as that is going to happen. There's virtually no chance that George Mitchell, or any other baseball official, is going to be accused of "serious incompetence and possible misconduct" and see their credibility shattered. So long as Brian McNamee's story holds, Mitchell will be fine. And if the story doesn't hold, then McNamee was a liar, and the worst thing Mitchell did was to believe him. I personally think Mitchell was far too ready to believe the uncorroborated accusations of McNamee and Radomski, but neither the Congress nor the public has thus far shown any interest in fairness or due process. And they're not going to start anytime soon. The only thing going up in smoke tomorrow is Roger Clemens' seat.
Bryant: "There is no way each entity can walk out of Wednesday's hearing with his story intact. Somebody is going to take a career-ending, legacy-destroying fall."
Me: I think that gross hyperbole speaks for itself. Of COURSE both sides can walk out of tomorrow's hearings in stalemate. If both McNamee and Clemens stick to their stories, there's nothing the committee can do but point out inconsistencies or inaccuracies in their stories. And if both Clemens and McNamee didn't already have an explanation/excuse/lie for every statement the other one has made, they wouldn't be appearing before Congress in the first place. Bryant is cheerleading the ESPN coverage of the hearings with doomsday language that's inexcusably hyperbolic for a responsible journalist.
Bryant: "Do not forget that the only reason this hearing is being conducted is that Clemens had the nerve to challenge Mitchell's findings after the report was released Dec. 13."
Me: This is somewhat true, but no other accused athlete has been forced into the entrenched denials that Clemens had to make due to his superstar status. It's also true that the committee's choice of witnesses to testify is hilariously inconsistent. Some accused of PED use get called, others don't. What's enlightening is that none of the baseball players actually suspended for use under MLB rules have ever been called to testify, even though these are the people who got caught and would presumably have something to say. The only admitted PED user called before Congress was Jose Canseco (called for reasons having nothing to do with truth or justice). And the only other admitted users to get close scrutiny are Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch, and that only because they are directly related to the Clemens/McNamee discussion.
And in the big picture, let's not really open the can of worms and ask why these hearings are being conducted. To do so would be to admit the mockery that our national legislature has become.
Bryant: ". . . committee members assumed McNamee was credible because Mitchell was credible. They assumed this with the knowledge that even as the Jan. 15 hearing had taken place, Clemens already had appeared on "60 Minutes" and had held a passionate -- if not bizarre -- news conference defending himself against McNamee's charges. Yet, when Mitchell appeared before the committee, members treated him as if he were Gandhi or the pope."
Me: True enough, but this only reminds us that the central conflict is between McNamee's statements and Clemens' statements. Mitchell is, in this case, ancillary. Bryant's characterization of his soft handling by the committee is spot-on, but that again just goes to show that if there is a showdown here, it will be a decidedly one-sided one.
Bryant: ". . . if Mitchell was wrong, that would mean the Mitchell report was wrong and the committee showed great naivete by not questioning a highly controversial document. It would mean the report cannot be trusted and that Mitchell could not, to a large extent, be trusted. If Clemens, the biggest name in the report, was wrongly accused, Mitchell would have to come forward and explain himself and repudiate his work. Scheeler's testimony would be viewed carefully by the baseball hierarchy."
Me: Translation: "If Mitchell was wrong, the earth will open up and feral creatures will feast on his entrails." There's only two actual "ifs" in the previous passage but about 900 implied ones. Making a direct connection between Mitchell being wrong and his public humilation is questionable and, again, an inflammatory attempt to make the hearings seem important.
Bryant: "Clemens has dug in so deeply and with such angry conviction that these proceedings can only result in his vindication."
Me: Umm ... what? Where in the hell does this claim come from? It immediately follows the previously quoted passage, so I was incredibly startled by it. Not only is it an absolute statement of predicted fact, it's completely unsupported by the rest of the article and doesn't even follow his previous thought. Here's what follows in the paragraph led by that sentence:
Bryant: "If he wavers, he will have destroyed himself."
Me: In which case, the proceedings would not have resulted in his vindication. It takes a lot of skill to offer a statement and a direct contradiction in two sentences; it's efficient.
Here's how Bryant wraps up the paragraph:
Bryant: "Since the report's release, there has been nothing equivocal about his defense. Therefore, he cannot plead the Fifth Amendment if he is cornered. One of his lawyers, Rusty Hardin, already has said Clemens will not take the Fifth on any questions. It will be interesting to see if that extends to the question as to McNamee's latest grenade, that he injected Clemens' wife, Debbie, with growth hormone. It's a charge that so far has not been denied by anyone in the Clemens camp."
Me: Again, Bryant spends the rest of the paragraph repudiating its lead sentence. I can only guess that the opening sentence wasn't meant to be taken literally. I think he meant something like "the proceedings have to result in his complete vindication if he wants to survive." Or maybe he meant to stress the word complete. Either way, I don't think he meant it as a definite statement, since he refutes it for the rest of the paragraph. Someone should have caught that, or maybe I'm just confused.
I also have to point out that statements like "It's a charge that so far has not been denied" just make me want to vomit. This is the sort of disregard for due process and honest journalism that has turned this whole issue into such a sham. The implication with statements like these is "they haven't denied it yet, so it must mean that they have something to hide." It's a loaded statement which intentionally misleads the reader. First of all, Roger Clemens and his wife have no duty to issue a media response to every personal attack, and it's unfortunate that the media takes its revenge with biased innuendo. And secondly, he just may not have had time. Those charges only emerged recently, and Clemens has a lot on his mind. I'm not saying that Clemens or his wife are innocent; I'm just saying that the lack of a public statement is no excuse to suggest guilt.
Bryant: "Clemens is asking the public to believe that his once-trusted personal trainer obtained and distributed growth hormone; that his friend and most loyal protégé, Pettitte, admitted using growth hormone administered by McNamee; and that Clemens' wife used growth hormone, also administered by McNamee … but Clemens himself did not."
Me: These sorts of theories make sense and can convince the public, but legally they're not on solid ground. If my friend sold drugs to all my other friends, I cannot be prosecuted by implication. If everyone else in my office was bribing public officials, I cannot be prosecuted for bribery just for that. Guilt by association always works to convince the public of someone's guilt, but it's not a sound legal argument. It's suspicious to say the least, but based on that alone we cannot assume someone's guilt. And neither Bryant nor the committee can prove all of those conditional statements beyond any sort of doubt. All Bryant can prove is that Roger Clemens' former personal trainer has claimed that he gave HGH to Clemens and Pettitte. Pettitte confirms getting it, but we don't know yet how he's responding to the charges against Clemens. If he doesn't have any direct evidence of Clemens getting it, it's irrelevant. Unless he saw Clemens getting it or Clemens told him about it, it's all circumstantial.
And here's a great example of Congress setting up a de facto courtroom without basic legal protection for "witnesses." My understanding (from watching TV) is that there is a legal standard of husband-wife confidentiality. A spouse is not obligated to reveal knowledge of criminal activity revealed under the spousal relationship. There are exceptions, I believe, such as if a third party is present or if the spouses are accomplices. But my understanding, and I could be wrong, is that if Clemens told his wife he took HGH, she is not legally bound to say so. If Clemens knew his wife was on HGH, he is not legally obligated to say so. I guess you could get around that by arguing that they, along with McNamee, were accomplices, but to go further would just expose my ignorance of the criminal code.
Bryant: "And then there is Pettitte, who will not attend the hearing but remains key. Pettitte already has been deposed, and if he said he believes Clemens used growth hormone, Clemens is finished. If Pettitte lied to the committee, then he soon will be finished. And if he knew Clemens did not use and said so, then the veracity of the Mitchell report again goes on trial."
Me: Translation: "Somebody's getting their ass whupped tomorrow. Watch it live!"
Bryant: "Going forward, McNamee is the least important player in the act. He already is finished. If he lied to Mitchell and law enforcement officials, then he likely will go to jail. If not, he retains his credibility to what he has testified about Clemens, but will remain ruined professionally, for no athlete in the country with half a brain would work with him again or take him into his confidence."
Me: I've already stated that I think McNamee is not the least important player here. Because he's the biggest weapon the government has against Clemens, unless Pettitte directly implicates him in his deposition. He's not done, because the veracity of his statements will go through the wringer tomorrow and again in the civil suits to follow.
Bryant: "Regardless of the collateral damage to baseball or Clemens, the most important outcome of these proceedings is if McNamee has told the truth. If he has not, then every citizen in this country has reason to fear the motives and competence of the justice system."
Me: So "the most important outcome of the proceedings" is coming from "the least important player in the act?" Again, Bryant contradicts himself with remarkable efficiency.
Bryant: "Wednesday will be a day of reckoning with numerous reputations at stake. Interpreting the significance of the steroid era has always been about the integrity of the institutions and individuals involved. It is only fitting that after months of defiance from Clemens and haughtiness from Mitchell, one will be forced to admit he isn't exactly what he's seemed."
Me: Day of reckoning, my ass.
Once again, check the adjectives for hyperbole. At least Bryant finishes with what he began -- the bizarre statement, contradicted by his own article, that the fight is between Clemens and Mitchell and someone is going down.
Look, as I said before, I'm aware of the unfortunate realities of our modern media. I'm aware that this is particularly true with ESPN, which has a symbiotic set of common interests with the major sports that make its journalistic intentions sometimes suspect. I just hate to see it so obviously manifested on the micro level.
I hate to pillory Bryant, and I can't say that he's doing this as a cynical way to hype the hearings. Maybe it's subconscious, or maybe he really does believe all 0f this. But either way, it's still reprehensible.
It's articles like this that drive me away from the mainstream media, with its outrageously conflicted interests, toward independent news outlets.
Friday, February 08, 2008
My baseball bookshelf
Often after I've read a baseball book, I'll share a few thoughts about it in my blog. But because I often have so much to say, and I try to read as many baseball books as possible, I decided to write an actual review of each baseball book I read in this space to help give my readers an idea of what's out there, good and bad.
My first review will be the book I just finished, Weaver on Strategy by Earl Weaver with Terry Pluto. That will come later. But first, here's a quick look at my baseball bookshelf. I value my shelf very much, except that my baseball-only shelf has started to spill over elsewhere. But I love them all. So here is, in no particular order, my personal baseball library:
Total Ballclubs: The Ultimate Look at Baseball Teams by Donald Dewey & Nicholas Acocella. This is one of the best baseball books I've ever read, and it's also one of the foremost references I've ever come across. It focuses more on the behind-the-scenes activity among owners, executives, and the public, dealing with every single major league baseball team. It's a great source of historical reference and fabulous anecdotes. I used this book extensively for my blog series on the history of expansion teams.
I have two problems with the book: the first is that there is no index. Granted, it would be a gigantic index for a book of this sort, but without one it can be an impossible task to find a certain reference or story page-by-page. My more substantive complaint, but one that's more understandable, is the lack of any footnotes or more specific citing of sources. There is a general bibliography, which is quite helpful, but I find it difficult as a writer to judge the veracity of a statement or story if I don't know where it came from, especially if it's a particularly controversial statement or a direct quote. But as I said, this is understandable in a book released for a commercial audience that doesn't want a 200-page index/bibliography/footnotes section.
Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Lineups and Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Blunders both by Rob Neyer.
Rob Neyer is my favorite baseball columnist and is one of the people who fed the flames of my obsession with new baseball knowledge. He's like Bill James in the sense that his writing is usually based on firm logical ground, but is still accessible and often humorous. The book of lineups is great fun for fans of trivia, but it's nearly five years old now and so a lot of the entries would have changed considerably since then. The book of blunders is more timeless and, since it's just a series of anecdotes and logical examination is a quick and fun read that you can pick up several times. I don't always agree with Rob, but it's always interesting to hear his side of things, not to mention very enlightening.
Baseball's Great Experiment by Jules Tygiel.
This is, to my understanding, the definite account of the breaking of the color line by Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey in 1947. I've read Tygiel's work before and enjoy his ability to take historical fact and animate it with a lively narrative without compromising its content or his underlying theme. Tygiel covers all the bases, making this an essential read for anyone interested in baseball history.
A side note: I paid a fair amount of money at a New York City used bookstore to get my edition, thinking it was out of print. Since then, I've seen it several other places at bargain prices. Oopsie.
Shades of Glory: The Negro Leagues and the Story of African-American Baseball by Lawrence D. Rogan. Sponsored by the National Baseball Hall of Fame and National Geographic.
This is the standard, colorless, cover-the-bases history of the Negro Leagues. That's probably too harsh a statement; there is a good deal of valuable information here and it is based firmly in fact. But the information is not presented in a compelling way at all, which is odd, since the stories themselves are so compelling. Shades of Glory may be larger and have the official seal of approval, but my recommendation goes to Only the Ball Was White, which we'll get to in a minute.
If at First . . .A Season with the Mets by Keith Hernandez and Mike Bryan
I don't usually go in for player autobiographies, unless there's something particularly noteworthy about them. Here's why: they're usually written mid-career after a particularly steallar season and don't have anything really substantive to say, apart from some funny stories. Case in point: Hernandez wrote this book as a diary of his 1985 season with the New York Mets, a year they almost made the postseason. A much more interesting (and lucrative) book would be about the 1986 Mets, who did win the World Series in historic fashion. So Hernandez jumped the gun by a year.
None the less, my Dad got this book used and loaned it to me. And I did enjoy it. Hernandez does come off as a bit of a jerk at times, but what he says makes sense, and he and Bryan do a good job of constructing an interesting narrative from what was an interesting season. It was particularly interesting to hear Hernandez's take on his trade from the Cardinals and his feelings about Whitey Herzog.
The Old Ball Game by Frank DeFord.
DeFord is one of the most respected baseball writers out there, and I enjoyed this book quite a bit. It takes a look at the relationship, both baseball and personal, of New York Giants manager John McGraw and star pitcher Christy Mathewson. DeFord not only takes us into the thrilling days of turn-of-the-century baseball, but he does a good job of examining a deep friendship between two men who otherwise seemed polar opposites. I keep finding stories in baseball that I think would make a great movie, and this is one of them.
Veeck - As in Wreck by Bill Veeck.
Speaking of which, how in the name of hell has no one made a movie about Bill Veeck? Well, I call dibs on this one; just as soon as I get out to Hollywood and become famous.
Veeck is like all great storytellers; not everything he says is completely accurate, but you don't really care. This outsider's view of inside baseball is invaluable for what it says about the game. And Veeck himself is an endless supplier of interesting anecdotes. The most interesting is one (which has been largely dismissed) that, in the years before Jackie Robinson, Veeck planned to buy the dreadful Philadelphia Phillies franchise and stock it with Negro League players. Veeck claims that he had every intention of doing it, but out of respect, he did run the idea by Kenesaw Mountain Landis. The Phillies were sold to someone else. Now, several historians have poked holes in that story, but even if it isn't true, it's really interesting to imagine "What if?"
Sandy Koufax by Jane Leavy.
When I was a kid, there was an old VHS tape of the history of the Dodgers that my brother and I would rent over and over again. As a result, I memorized the words to Danny Kaye's "D-O-D-G-E-R-S" song and grew to like Sandy Koufax.
I respected his dominance as a pitcher. I respected his quiet demeanor, as I was a pretty shy child myself. And I appreciated his personal dignity. I learned more about that after I grew up; how Koufax refused to pitch on Yom Kippur, how he and Don Drysdale held out the Dodgers for more money, and how he somehow find the bravery to quit baseball at age 30 to save his arm.
Jane Leavy's book isn't a "baseball" book per se, it focuses more on Koufax's life than on counting his strikeouts. But the great part about the book is that Koufax's life story is told concurrently with a play-by-play account of what many people call the best game ever pitched: Sept. 9, 1965, Dodgers .vs. Cubs. Koufax threw a perfect game and K'ed 14 to beat Bob Hendley -- who threw a one-hitter -- 1-0.
Faithful by Steven King & Stewart O'Nan.
Your review of Faithful usually depends on where your rooting interests lie. I was never particularly a fan of the Red Sox, but I've always hated the Yankees, so we kind of drifted together. And I, like nearly every other non-Yankee or Cardinals fan, was rooting for them passionately in 2004. King and O'Nan are good writers, and their book gives you a sense of the ups and downs of the season. The drawback here is that the writers suffer the same problem as a lot of beat writers and columnists -- they can't see the forest for the trees. Yesterday's moron is tomorrow's genius with one swing of the bat. They're total front-runners, but then most fans are. And it really is a thrill to read their entries as the Sox go into their epic comeback.
A Well-Paid Slave: Curt Flood's Fight for Free Agency in Professional Sports by Brad Snyder
This was a notable book, since Flood's case and its ramifications weren't in the popular consciousness as much as they should have been. Snyder does a good job of examining Flood's case as a person and a ballplayer and documenting the monumental trial that finished his career and took years off his life. He lost. But because Curt Flood stepped forward and took the vitriolic ridicule of America, it made it easier for the next guy to step forward.
Game of Shadows by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams
This is the book about Barry Bonds and BALCO, that did more to shed light on the PED problem in baseball than the Mitchell Report could even dream to. With a book so full of potential lawsuits, the authors had to make their case a tight one, and they succeeded. As a work of investigative reporters, it is quite remarkable. To a baseball fan, it's depressing.
Feeding the Monster by Seth Mnookin
Mnookin was given inner-office access to the Red Sox as they made their way from 2004 World Champions forward. It's a very interesting look at the inner workings of a baseball front office but is mainly, as you may expect, an account of the relationship between John Henry, Larry Lucchino, and Theo Epstein (and the court jester, Manny Ramirez). Neither Lucchino nor Epstein come out of the book smelling like daisies, but at least Lucchino isn't demonized as the bad guy like he was by those more sympathetic to Epstein. It's fascinating to see what was meant to be the most well-run machine in baseball grind to a halt for the same reasons baseball teams have suffered for years. Mnookin's work isn't as accessible to the average fan as something like Moneyball, but it's well worth reading.
Where's Harry? by Steve Stone with Barry Rozner
I grew up loving Harry Caray and Steve Stone. I loved watching Cubs games and grew to love the Cubs thanks in no small part to Harry and Steve. It was always comforting to come home from school, turn on the TV, and see the Cubs on.
This book tells a lot of funny stories and nice anecdotes about Harry Caray and Steve's time with him. Unfortunately, it's also the most obviously ghost-written book I've ever read. Yes, I know that a great deal of sports books are ghost-written, but most of them at least take someone's thoughts and stories and construct them into a readable narrative, or at least categorize them. But Where's Harry? is really just a list of Steve's old stories recorded in no particular order. It's still fun, but disappointing for a book with such potential.
Brushbacks and Knockdowns by Allen Barra.
This is Barra's second book of tackling controversial baseball arguments with new insights. Unfortunately, it's not nearly as good as his first one, which I don't have. Sigh.
Hank Aaron and the Home Run That Changed America by Tom Stanton.
This is another good read, that follows Aaron's quest to break Babe Ruth's all-time home run record and overcome a vehement minority who tried to threaten him into quitting. The book's title may be more than a bit of hyperbole, but it does address a lot of issues that we don't consider much anymore, such as the lives of black players with the Braves, the first major league franchise in the deep south in the 20th century.
Moneyball by Michael Lewis.
Heard of this one? I have to say that I'm new to the sabermetrics party; Moneyball was one of the first books I read (or, more accurately, devoured) leading me to my great interest in new baseball stats. And the resulting hoopla over the book was quite interesting (and may earn a book of its own someday). It's remarkable, though, to consider that right now, Moneyball just can't be considered controversial anymore. Its essential messages (undervaluing the market, open-mindedness to new baseball knowledge, skepticism of received wisdom) have been, more or less, accepted into even the most conservative havens of baseball wisdom. The book is a bit dated now and some of the statistical claims it makes have since been challenged, but it's still one of the best baseball books I've ever read.
A Whole Different Ball Game by Marvin Miller.
Well, I had to read this one, didn't I? Miller's recollections aren't exactly gripping, but they're historically important and still relevant today. The most enjoyable part is that one of Miller's main issues in the book is to rebut Bowie Kuhn's book, Hardball. Some feuds just never die.
Eight Men Out by Eliot Asinof.
So many years later and still one of the best baseball books ever written. Damn good movie, too.
The Pitch That Killed by Mike Sowell.
A surprisingly good book about the 1920 season and the turning point it represented in baseball history. 1920 marked not only the death of Ray Chapman from a pitch thrown by Carl Mays, it marked Babe Ruth's first season as a Yankee (and his record-shattering 54 home runs), and the breaking story of the Black Sox' fix of the 1919 World Series, resulting in their suspensions (later expulsions) and the hiring of baseball's first Commissioner. It also reflected a true feel-good story in a tight pennant race, with Chapman's team, the Indians (led by Tris Speaker) beating out the Yankees and the Black Sox-less White Sox to win the pennant and beat the Dodgers in the World Series.
This one is worth the read, but is hard to find. My main fault is that it's a bit too detailed. I love a play-by-play description of a ballgame, but a season is a long time, and it's hard to get that enthused about game recaps in May.
This one would also make a great movie, or -- since there are so many intertwining narratives -- a mini-series.
Ball Four by Jim Bouton.
This is one of the most famous baseball books ever and was, in its time, the best-selling. Bouton's book is of course tame by today's standards -- although in the 21st century you can still be shocked by "beaver-shooting." The great attention this book got has resulted in some backlash against Bouton, and some contrarian declarations that the book really isn't all that good.
I beg to differ. 30 years on, and I tore through it. It's not only a series of great (and f'ing HILARIOUS) stories, it's a great look into the real lives of ballplayers. And not the tabloid BS of sex and drugs, but the simple, human stuff, like what pitchers say to each other when they're out there shagging flies. Or how to act horny around your wives after a long road trip. You know, basic American stuff.
This one would not make a good movie and, apparently, did not make a good TV show, although Bouton's afterword about the dismal saga of making the show are fun.
I don't recommend the sequel -- I'm Glad You Didn't Take It Personally (and it's out of print, so I doubt you'll just happen across it). Bouton said most of what he had to say in Ball Four.
I Never Had It Made by Jackie Robinson.
I said before that I rarely player autobiographies, but for obvious reasons, this is different. Robinson's book is extremely compelling for a number of reasons that I can't fully list here. Just as important as his account of breaking into baseball are his stories about his son's difficult life and early death and his controversial role as a representative of the Republican Party during the 1960's.
Jackie certainly comes off as an imperfect human being in this book, and he's pretty honest and brutal about his own shortcomings. But you finish this book with a tremendous amount of respect for Robinson -- a respect you just don't have for any public figures anymore.
Only the Ball Was White by Robert Peterson.
Peterson's book is a bit outdated with what we know now, but everything in it is still spot-on, and it's a great and accessible introduction into the history of Negro League Baseball.
Josh Gibson by William Brashler.
There's not a widely distributed book about Gibson, so I had to go to Amazon for this one. It's not of the highest quality, but it's a good introduction into the life of one of the great forgotten heroes of baseball. I bought it because someday I want to write a play (or screenplay) about Gibson.
Maybe I'll Pitch Forever by Satchel Paige.
Paige is, like Bill Veeck, an excellent storyteller. And, like Veeck, don't hold Satch to everything he says. But, though he may have "worn the mask" as a public figure, I think Paige was one of the smartest men to play the game. Not to mention successful. Few people are as popular as Satch was; fewer still are smart enough to play into that image and exploit that popularity. Put Satch and Babe Ruth on that short list of baseball players.
Paige's book is interesting not as verbatim history, but for his stories. His stories of growing up poor in the South are especially interesting. And it's really eye-opening to read Satchell tell about his time as a misbehaving, angry teenager in Alabama. It gives credence to the poem about the raisin in the sun. If not for baseball, ol' Satch probably would have exploded.
October Men by Roger Kahn.
Kahn is a great reporter and does a very good job examining the Yankees' 1978 season (that's the season after The Bronx is Burning). It's the Bronx Zoo, so of course there's plenty to talk about.
Branch Rickey's Little Blue Book by Branch Rickey, John J. Monteleone, ed.
See this entry for my thoughts on this book.
Heroes of the Negro Leagues by Mark Chiarello & Jack Morelli
A great quick-reference book on the biggest stars of the Negro Leagues. It's amazingly handy for me, since I'm not as familiar with some of the more obscure Negro League stars, and now I have a picture and a quick reference to remedy that.
2007 Official Rules of Major League Baseball
At one point, I applied for one of those jobs as a game-logger/data entry tech for the MLB. Their requirements are, of course, pretty strict as far as knowing the rule book. I bought one and realized that damn, there are a lot of things I don't know. It's not often that the ball hits a rafter, goes into the bullpen, gets touched by a player, substituted for another ball, spat upon, and carried off by a pigeon. But if it does happen, and you don't know what to do, you're in deep sh*t.
Total Baseball, 2003 Ed.
This was the last baseball encyclopedia I bought, because the things are freakin' expensive. It was also the last one published by Total Baseball. Some of the staff moved on to ESPN, who are I think the only people still publishing a strict baseball encyclopedia. But they come wrapped in plastic, so I can't look inside and see if I like it without plunking down enough money for the Starz/Cinemax Combo Package PLUS! This one is still accurate through 2003, and it lists Win Shares and some other saber-head stats, so I hold onto it. And there is a great satisfaction in owning a baseball book that weighs as much as a large cat. I may not be manly enough to play baseball, but watch me carry this bad boy around . . .
Baseball Prospectus Annual 2006 & 2007
I ordered the 2008 annual; it ships in a week. Baseball Prospectus really is the best spot for baseball analysis on the web. I know it's become pretty hip among this generation of sabermetricians, but it still has the substance to back it all up. The Annuals are my favorite part of the off-season. I don't just get them for the PECOTA predictions (those are fun, but not my lifeline) but also for the prose. Everything that's in there is pretty on-target, or at least is well-justified.
The Hardball Times Annual 2006 & 2007
THT is releasing two publications this off-season: one is a 2007 season report and the other is a 2008 season preview. If I had more disposable income, I would buy them both, but I don't, so I doubt I'll get either one. The prose in THT isn't as smooth as it is at BP, but there's a greater sense of creativity and exploration in what they're doing that makes them different and well worthwhile. They also use a wide variety or graphs and visual aids to add to their articles, which can be very illuminating.
The Brushback Report
Selected articles from The Brushback.com, a website of satirical sports headlines and articles, a la The Onion. Hilarious reading.
The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, Revised Ed. by Bill James
I've heard some people insist that if you're going to read James' Historical Abstract, that you should read the original. Some people aren't too fond of Bill's Win Shares, his catch-all stat to measure a player's full contribution, and Win Shares are a centerpiece of his new book.
I don't really care. The book is a great read, with a lot of great articles about players, eras, and methods of analysis.
This Time Let's Not Eat the Bones by Bill James
This book was an attempt to sell James to people who are scared of numbers. It's notes and selections from his annual abstracts discussing all sorts of baseball things. Many of them are humorous and interesting. And it's a lot cheaper than trying to buy up all the original abstracts.
Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame? by Bill James
James' look at the Hall and the realities behind what gets people elected, how people are honored, and what makes us under- or over-rate someone. It's a great read, even if you don't agree with all of James' points. And yes, he does go too far with the whole Drysdale-Gibson thing.
The Juice by Will Carroll and William Carroll
This is by far the best book about PED use in baseball yet written. Carroll looks at all angles of the issue without having to resort to moral posturing or grandstanding. Required reading for anyone who actually has to discuss these things for a living -- you know who you are.
Juicing the Game by Howard Bryant
This book also purports to be the story of the steroid era. It's not. It's a general history of baseball over the past 15-20 years. Steroids play into it somewhat, but only vaguely. The good news is that this book contains a lot of facts, but the bad news is that it's horribly organized, poorly edited, and not at all what it purports to be.
Coming Apart at the Seams by Jack Sands & Peter Gammons
This book, detailing everything that was wrong with baseball, was written right before the 1994 strike. So both authors have earned an "I told you so." It's dated now, but I should note that when I read this book about five or six years ago, it was the first time I had ever heard of collusion. Didn't I feel like a fool? And why doesn't every schoolboy know about the collusion scandal, just like they remember the '94 strike? Good questions, both.
Baseball Between the Numbers by the Baseball Prospectus Staff
I know it's more of a marketing point, but I hate when a book tells me that "everything I know is wrong." Well, after reading the book, I found out that most of the things I knew were right. This book breaks very little new ground, but it does explore and solidify a lot of basic questions about baseball. I'd recommend it as a great introduction to sabermetrics if it weren't for all the numbers and such.
It Ain't Over Til It's Over by the Baseball Prospectus Staff
An interesting read, but it's hard to see where the BP "team of experts" can contribute a lot to mythology, when one of their reasons for being is to apply rational thought to mythology. Don't get me wrong, they tell a lot of good stories and look at some old stories with new eyes, but it's not really a must-read.
Winners: How Good Baseball Teams Become Great Ones (And It's Not What You Think) by Dayn Perry
Actually, it is what you think.
The Numbers Game: Baseball's Lifelong Fascination with Statistics by Alan Schwarz
This is one of my favorite baseball books in recent years, because it tells a story that needed to be told in an interesting and pertinent way. There's a lot here to answer questions and pique your curiosity. The only slight fault is that Schwarz writes the book more as a reporter than a historian. Here are some of his "hooks;" chapter openers that would be more appropriate as the lead in a news story:
"Chapter 2. Ernie Lanigan could barely breathe. The young Philadelphia bank clerk had been frail since childhood, with lungs like damp balloons."
"Chapter 4. The Georgian Bay off Lake Huron lay peaceful and still, tall trees standing sentry over the scene's verdant tranquility."
"Chapter 6. The old widow was in her seventies, maybe even her eighties. She lived on Illinois Avenue ..."
Schwarz is a fine writer, but he has a tendency to mistake himself for either F. Scott Fitzgerald or a young newshound writing a human interest story.
The Baseball Economist by J.C. Bradbury
Let me say for the record that few things bore me like economics. Bradbury's book received almost universal praise, so it may just be that his book didn't tickle my fancy. But it didn't really tell me anything new about baseball or strictly explore its economics, it just discussed the game in economic terms, focusing on "incentives" and suchlike. If that's your bag, so be it. But it ain't mine.
Baseball Dynasties: The Greatest Teams of All Time by Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein
This book is fodder for argument, and I started out insulted that my Atlanta Braves weren't there. But the book focused more on a team's high peak than its longevity, although it did try to combine the two, so that "one-year wonder" teams like the '84 Tigers missed the cut. Still, it's a very interesting read.
The Last Nine Innings by Charles Euchner
A very interesting examination of a variety of modern baseball issues in the context of Game 7 of the 2001 World Series. An excellent read.
The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball by Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman & Andrew Dolphin
If you don't have an appetite for numbers, stay FAR AWAY from this book. I can wrap my head around basic statistical analysis, but when you take 18 numbers and adjust for 5 variables consecutively over 4 pages of graphs, you've lost me (I made up those numbers, by the way). There are some interesting issues and conclusions here, but this book was written for extremely math-savvy people, not me.
Mind Game: How the Boston Red Sox Got Smart, Won a World Series, and Created a New Blueprint for Winning by the Baseball Prospectus Staff
This was the first book produced by BP apart from their annuals, and in my opinion it's still the best. They examine a variety of different issues concerning the Red Sox, new baseball knowledge, and how they went about constructing their 2004 World Championship team.
Past Time: Baseball as History by Jules Tygiel
This is a marvelous book by a marvelous writer. Past Time is a collection of essays about the development of baseball through the ages. It's a great insight, a wonderful read, and a great addition to the sport's lexicon.
The Baseball America 2007 Prospect Handbook
I am not a scout. I have enough trouble telling what pitch a guy is throwing, so my skills at studying prospects and arguing over their merits is nearly non-existent. I tend to go with the opinions of people I trust, and I trust the staff at Baseball America. Purchasing this book was a step toward familiarizing myself with the world of the minor and amateur leagues. It also makes me much better at analyzing trades. Money willing, I'll pick up the 2008 version, which is already out.
Lords of the Realm by John Helyar
It's possible that I learned more from this book than any other baseball book I've ever written. An absolutely invaluable and irreplaceable behind-the-scenes look at baseball, especially in the modern, unionized era. I'm just disappointed that Helyar didn't write more, especially about the early days. And I'd also love to read something about the 10 years since he published the book (I do have the paperback version, which includes an afterword about the '94 strike).
That's all I've got. There are several other baseball books that I enjoyed, but don't own (notably Buck O'Neil's autobiography, and the companion book to Ken Burns' Baseball documentary), and many more that I want to read but haven't had a chance to yet. If you have any suggestions for a great baseball book, I'll add it to the pile; I've already got about 20 or 30 written down that I want to read someday.
My first review will be the book I just finished, Weaver on Strategy by Earl Weaver with Terry Pluto. That will come later. But first, here's a quick look at my baseball bookshelf. I value my shelf very much, except that my baseball-only shelf has started to spill over elsewhere. But I love them all. So here is, in no particular order, my personal baseball library:
Total Ballclubs: The Ultimate Look at Baseball Teams by Donald Dewey & Nicholas Acocella. This is one of the best baseball books I've ever read, and it's also one of the foremost references I've ever come across. It focuses more on the behind-the-scenes activity among owners, executives, and the public, dealing with every single major league baseball team. It's a great source of historical reference and fabulous anecdotes. I used this book extensively for my blog series on the history of expansion teams.
I have two problems with the book: the first is that there is no index. Granted, it would be a gigantic index for a book of this sort, but without one it can be an impossible task to find a certain reference or story page-by-page. My more substantive complaint, but one that's more understandable, is the lack of any footnotes or more specific citing of sources. There is a general bibliography, which is quite helpful, but I find it difficult as a writer to judge the veracity of a statement or story if I don't know where it came from, especially if it's a particularly controversial statement or a direct quote. But as I said, this is understandable in a book released for a commercial audience that doesn't want a 200-page index/bibliography/footnotes section.
Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Lineups and Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Blunders both by Rob Neyer.
Rob Neyer is my favorite baseball columnist and is one of the people who fed the flames of my obsession with new baseball knowledge. He's like Bill James in the sense that his writing is usually based on firm logical ground, but is still accessible and often humorous. The book of lineups is great fun for fans of trivia, but it's nearly five years old now and so a lot of the entries would have changed considerably since then. The book of blunders is more timeless and, since it's just a series of anecdotes and logical examination is a quick and fun read that you can pick up several times. I don't always agree with Rob, but it's always interesting to hear his side of things, not to mention very enlightening.
Baseball's Great Experiment by Jules Tygiel.
This is, to my understanding, the definite account of the breaking of the color line by Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey in 1947. I've read Tygiel's work before and enjoy his ability to take historical fact and animate it with a lively narrative without compromising its content or his underlying theme. Tygiel covers all the bases, making this an essential read for anyone interested in baseball history.
A side note: I paid a fair amount of money at a New York City used bookstore to get my edition, thinking it was out of print. Since then, I've seen it several other places at bargain prices. Oopsie.
Shades of Glory: The Negro Leagues and the Story of African-American Baseball by Lawrence D. Rogan. Sponsored by the National Baseball Hall of Fame and National Geographic.
This is the standard, colorless, cover-the-bases history of the Negro Leagues. That's probably too harsh a statement; there is a good deal of valuable information here and it is based firmly in fact. But the information is not presented in a compelling way at all, which is odd, since the stories themselves are so compelling. Shades of Glory may be larger and have the official seal of approval, but my recommendation goes to Only the Ball Was White, which we'll get to in a minute.
If at First . . .A Season with the Mets by Keith Hernandez and Mike Bryan
I don't usually go in for player autobiographies, unless there's something particularly noteworthy about them. Here's why: they're usually written mid-career after a particularly steallar season and don't have anything really substantive to say, apart from some funny stories. Case in point: Hernandez wrote this book as a diary of his 1985 season with the New York Mets, a year they almost made the postseason. A much more interesting (and lucrative) book would be about the 1986 Mets, who did win the World Series in historic fashion. So Hernandez jumped the gun by a year.
None the less, my Dad got this book used and loaned it to me. And I did enjoy it. Hernandez does come off as a bit of a jerk at times, but what he says makes sense, and he and Bryan do a good job of constructing an interesting narrative from what was an interesting season. It was particularly interesting to hear Hernandez's take on his trade from the Cardinals and his feelings about Whitey Herzog.
The Old Ball Game by Frank DeFord.
DeFord is one of the most respected baseball writers out there, and I enjoyed this book quite a bit. It takes a look at the relationship, both baseball and personal, of New York Giants manager John McGraw and star pitcher Christy Mathewson. DeFord not only takes us into the thrilling days of turn-of-the-century baseball, but he does a good job of examining a deep friendship between two men who otherwise seemed polar opposites. I keep finding stories in baseball that I think would make a great movie, and this is one of them.
Veeck - As in Wreck by Bill Veeck.
Speaking of which, how in the name of hell has no one made a movie about Bill Veeck? Well, I call dibs on this one; just as soon as I get out to Hollywood and become famous.
Veeck is like all great storytellers; not everything he says is completely accurate, but you don't really care. This outsider's view of inside baseball is invaluable for what it says about the game. And Veeck himself is an endless supplier of interesting anecdotes. The most interesting is one (which has been largely dismissed) that, in the years before Jackie Robinson, Veeck planned to buy the dreadful Philadelphia Phillies franchise and stock it with Negro League players. Veeck claims that he had every intention of doing it, but out of respect, he did run the idea by Kenesaw Mountain Landis. The Phillies were sold to someone else. Now, several historians have poked holes in that story, but even if it isn't true, it's really interesting to imagine "What if?"
Sandy Koufax by Jane Leavy.
When I was a kid, there was an old VHS tape of the history of the Dodgers that my brother and I would rent over and over again. As a result, I memorized the words to Danny Kaye's "D-O-D-G-E-R-S" song and grew to like Sandy Koufax.
I respected his dominance as a pitcher. I respected his quiet demeanor, as I was a pretty shy child myself. And I appreciated his personal dignity. I learned more about that after I grew up; how Koufax refused to pitch on Yom Kippur, how he and Don Drysdale held out the Dodgers for more money, and how he somehow find the bravery to quit baseball at age 30 to save his arm.
Jane Leavy's book isn't a "baseball" book per se, it focuses more on Koufax's life than on counting his strikeouts. But the great part about the book is that Koufax's life story is told concurrently with a play-by-play account of what many people call the best game ever pitched: Sept. 9, 1965, Dodgers .vs. Cubs. Koufax threw a perfect game and K'ed 14 to beat Bob Hendley -- who threw a one-hitter -- 1-0.
Faithful by Steven King & Stewart O'Nan.
Your review of Faithful usually depends on where your rooting interests lie. I was never particularly a fan of the Red Sox, but I've always hated the Yankees, so we kind of drifted together. And I, like nearly every other non-Yankee or Cardinals fan, was rooting for them passionately in 2004. King and O'Nan are good writers, and their book gives you a sense of the ups and downs of the season. The drawback here is that the writers suffer the same problem as a lot of beat writers and columnists -- they can't see the forest for the trees. Yesterday's moron is tomorrow's genius with one swing of the bat. They're total front-runners, but then most fans are. And it really is a thrill to read their entries as the Sox go into their epic comeback.
A Well-Paid Slave: Curt Flood's Fight for Free Agency in Professional Sports by Brad Snyder
This was a notable book, since Flood's case and its ramifications weren't in the popular consciousness as much as they should have been. Snyder does a good job of examining Flood's case as a person and a ballplayer and documenting the monumental trial that finished his career and took years off his life. He lost. But because Curt Flood stepped forward and took the vitriolic ridicule of America, it made it easier for the next guy to step forward.
Game of Shadows by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams
This is the book about Barry Bonds and BALCO, that did more to shed light on the PED problem in baseball than the Mitchell Report could even dream to. With a book so full of potential lawsuits, the authors had to make their case a tight one, and they succeeded. As a work of investigative reporters, it is quite remarkable. To a baseball fan, it's depressing.
Feeding the Monster by Seth Mnookin
Mnookin was given inner-office access to the Red Sox as they made their way from 2004 World Champions forward. It's a very interesting look at the inner workings of a baseball front office but is mainly, as you may expect, an account of the relationship between John Henry, Larry Lucchino, and Theo Epstein (and the court jester, Manny Ramirez). Neither Lucchino nor Epstein come out of the book smelling like daisies, but at least Lucchino isn't demonized as the bad guy like he was by those more sympathetic to Epstein. It's fascinating to see what was meant to be the most well-run machine in baseball grind to a halt for the same reasons baseball teams have suffered for years. Mnookin's work isn't as accessible to the average fan as something like Moneyball, but it's well worth reading.
Where's Harry? by Steve Stone with Barry Rozner
I grew up loving Harry Caray and Steve Stone. I loved watching Cubs games and grew to love the Cubs thanks in no small part to Harry and Steve. It was always comforting to come home from school, turn on the TV, and see the Cubs on.
This book tells a lot of funny stories and nice anecdotes about Harry Caray and Steve's time with him. Unfortunately, it's also the most obviously ghost-written book I've ever read. Yes, I know that a great deal of sports books are ghost-written, but most of them at least take someone's thoughts and stories and construct them into a readable narrative, or at least categorize them. But Where's Harry? is really just a list of Steve's old stories recorded in no particular order. It's still fun, but disappointing for a book with such potential.
Brushbacks and Knockdowns by Allen Barra.
This is Barra's second book of tackling controversial baseball arguments with new insights. Unfortunately, it's not nearly as good as his first one, which I don't have. Sigh.
Hank Aaron and the Home Run That Changed America by Tom Stanton.
This is another good read, that follows Aaron's quest to break Babe Ruth's all-time home run record and overcome a vehement minority who tried to threaten him into quitting. The book's title may be more than a bit of hyperbole, but it does address a lot of issues that we don't consider much anymore, such as the lives of black players with the Braves, the first major league franchise in the deep south in the 20th century.
Moneyball by Michael Lewis.
Heard of this one? I have to say that I'm new to the sabermetrics party; Moneyball was one of the first books I read (or, more accurately, devoured) leading me to my great interest in new baseball stats. And the resulting hoopla over the book was quite interesting (and may earn a book of its own someday). It's remarkable, though, to consider that right now, Moneyball just can't be considered controversial anymore. Its essential messages (undervaluing the market, open-mindedness to new baseball knowledge, skepticism of received wisdom) have been, more or less, accepted into even the most conservative havens of baseball wisdom. The book is a bit dated now and some of the statistical claims it makes have since been challenged, but it's still one of the best baseball books I've ever read.
A Whole Different Ball Game by Marvin Miller.
Well, I had to read this one, didn't I? Miller's recollections aren't exactly gripping, but they're historically important and still relevant today. The most enjoyable part is that one of Miller's main issues in the book is to rebut Bowie Kuhn's book, Hardball. Some feuds just never die.
Eight Men Out by Eliot Asinof.
So many years later and still one of the best baseball books ever written. Damn good movie, too.
The Pitch That Killed by Mike Sowell.
A surprisingly good book about the 1920 season and the turning point it represented in baseball history. 1920 marked not only the death of Ray Chapman from a pitch thrown by Carl Mays, it marked Babe Ruth's first season as a Yankee (and his record-shattering 54 home runs), and the breaking story of the Black Sox' fix of the 1919 World Series, resulting in their suspensions (later expulsions) and the hiring of baseball's first Commissioner. It also reflected a true feel-good story in a tight pennant race, with Chapman's team, the Indians (led by Tris Speaker) beating out the Yankees and the Black Sox-less White Sox to win the pennant and beat the Dodgers in the World Series.
This one is worth the read, but is hard to find. My main fault is that it's a bit too detailed. I love a play-by-play description of a ballgame, but a season is a long time, and it's hard to get that enthused about game recaps in May.
This one would also make a great movie, or -- since there are so many intertwining narratives -- a mini-series.
Ball Four by Jim Bouton.
This is one of the most famous baseball books ever and was, in its time, the best-selling. Bouton's book is of course tame by today's standards -- although in the 21st century you can still be shocked by "beaver-shooting." The great attention this book got has resulted in some backlash against Bouton, and some contrarian declarations that the book really isn't all that good.
I beg to differ. 30 years on, and I tore through it. It's not only a series of great (and f'ing HILARIOUS) stories, it's a great look into the real lives of ballplayers. And not the tabloid BS of sex and drugs, but the simple, human stuff, like what pitchers say to each other when they're out there shagging flies. Or how to act horny around your wives after a long road trip. You know, basic American stuff.
This one would not make a good movie and, apparently, did not make a good TV show, although Bouton's afterword about the dismal saga of making the show are fun.
I don't recommend the sequel -- I'm Glad You Didn't Take It Personally (and it's out of print, so I doubt you'll just happen across it). Bouton said most of what he had to say in Ball Four.
I Never Had It Made by Jackie Robinson.
I said before that I rarely player autobiographies, but for obvious reasons, this is different. Robinson's book is extremely compelling for a number of reasons that I can't fully list here. Just as important as his account of breaking into baseball are his stories about his son's difficult life and early death and his controversial role as a representative of the Republican Party during the 1960's.
Jackie certainly comes off as an imperfect human being in this book, and he's pretty honest and brutal about his own shortcomings. But you finish this book with a tremendous amount of respect for Robinson -- a respect you just don't have for any public figures anymore.
Only the Ball Was White by Robert Peterson.
Peterson's book is a bit outdated with what we know now, but everything in it is still spot-on, and it's a great and accessible introduction into the history of Negro League Baseball.
Josh Gibson by William Brashler.
There's not a widely distributed book about Gibson, so I had to go to Amazon for this one. It's not of the highest quality, but it's a good introduction into the life of one of the great forgotten heroes of baseball. I bought it because someday I want to write a play (or screenplay) about Gibson.
Maybe I'll Pitch Forever by Satchel Paige.
Paige is, like Bill Veeck, an excellent storyteller. And, like Veeck, don't hold Satch to everything he says. But, though he may have "worn the mask" as a public figure, I think Paige was one of the smartest men to play the game. Not to mention successful. Few people are as popular as Satch was; fewer still are smart enough to play into that image and exploit that popularity. Put Satch and Babe Ruth on that short list of baseball players.
Paige's book is interesting not as verbatim history, but for his stories. His stories of growing up poor in the South are especially interesting. And it's really eye-opening to read Satchell tell about his time as a misbehaving, angry teenager in Alabama. It gives credence to the poem about the raisin in the sun. If not for baseball, ol' Satch probably would have exploded.
October Men by Roger Kahn.
Kahn is a great reporter and does a very good job examining the Yankees' 1978 season (that's the season after The Bronx is Burning). It's the Bronx Zoo, so of course there's plenty to talk about.
Branch Rickey's Little Blue Book by Branch Rickey, John J. Monteleone, ed.
See this entry for my thoughts on this book.
Heroes of the Negro Leagues by Mark Chiarello & Jack Morelli
A great quick-reference book on the biggest stars of the Negro Leagues. It's amazingly handy for me, since I'm not as familiar with some of the more obscure Negro League stars, and now I have a picture and a quick reference to remedy that.
2007 Official Rules of Major League Baseball
At one point, I applied for one of those jobs as a game-logger/data entry tech for the MLB. Their requirements are, of course, pretty strict as far as knowing the rule book. I bought one and realized that damn, there are a lot of things I don't know. It's not often that the ball hits a rafter, goes into the bullpen, gets touched by a player, substituted for another ball, spat upon, and carried off by a pigeon. But if it does happen, and you don't know what to do, you're in deep sh*t.
Total Baseball, 2003 Ed.
This was the last baseball encyclopedia I bought, because the things are freakin' expensive. It was also the last one published by Total Baseball. Some of the staff moved on to ESPN, who are I think the only people still publishing a strict baseball encyclopedia. But they come wrapped in plastic, so I can't look inside and see if I like it without plunking down enough money for the Starz/Cinemax Combo Package PLUS! This one is still accurate through 2003, and it lists Win Shares and some other saber-head stats, so I hold onto it. And there is a great satisfaction in owning a baseball book that weighs as much as a large cat. I may not be manly enough to play baseball, but watch me carry this bad boy around . . .
Baseball Prospectus Annual 2006 & 2007
I ordered the 2008 annual; it ships in a week. Baseball Prospectus really is the best spot for baseball analysis on the web. I know it's become pretty hip among this generation of sabermetricians, but it still has the substance to back it all up. The Annuals are my favorite part of the off-season. I don't just get them for the PECOTA predictions (those are fun, but not my lifeline) but also for the prose. Everything that's in there is pretty on-target, or at least is well-justified.
The Hardball Times Annual 2006 & 2007
THT is releasing two publications this off-season: one is a 2007 season report and the other is a 2008 season preview. If I had more disposable income, I would buy them both, but I don't, so I doubt I'll get either one. The prose in THT isn't as smooth as it is at BP, but there's a greater sense of creativity and exploration in what they're doing that makes them different and well worthwhile. They also use a wide variety or graphs and visual aids to add to their articles, which can be very illuminating.
The Brushback Report
Selected articles from The Brushback.com, a website of satirical sports headlines and articles, a la The Onion. Hilarious reading.
The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, Revised Ed. by Bill James
I've heard some people insist that if you're going to read James' Historical Abstract, that you should read the original. Some people aren't too fond of Bill's Win Shares, his catch-all stat to measure a player's full contribution, and Win Shares are a centerpiece of his new book.
I don't really care. The book is a great read, with a lot of great articles about players, eras, and methods of analysis.
This Time Let's Not Eat the Bones by Bill James
This book was an attempt to sell James to people who are scared of numbers. It's notes and selections from his annual abstracts discussing all sorts of baseball things. Many of them are humorous and interesting. And it's a lot cheaper than trying to buy up all the original abstracts.
Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame? by Bill James
James' look at the Hall and the realities behind what gets people elected, how people are honored, and what makes us under- or over-rate someone. It's a great read, even if you don't agree with all of James' points. And yes, he does go too far with the whole Drysdale-Gibson thing.
The Juice by Will Carroll and William Carroll
This is by far the best book about PED use in baseball yet written. Carroll looks at all angles of the issue without having to resort to moral posturing or grandstanding. Required reading for anyone who actually has to discuss these things for a living -- you know who you are.
Juicing the Game by Howard Bryant
This book also purports to be the story of the steroid era. It's not. It's a general history of baseball over the past 15-20 years. Steroids play into it somewhat, but only vaguely. The good news is that this book contains a lot of facts, but the bad news is that it's horribly organized, poorly edited, and not at all what it purports to be.
Coming Apart at the Seams by Jack Sands & Peter Gammons
This book, detailing everything that was wrong with baseball, was written right before the 1994 strike. So both authors have earned an "I told you so." It's dated now, but I should note that when I read this book about five or six years ago, it was the first time I had ever heard of collusion. Didn't I feel like a fool? And why doesn't every schoolboy know about the collusion scandal, just like they remember the '94 strike? Good questions, both.
Baseball Between the Numbers by the Baseball Prospectus Staff
I know it's more of a marketing point, but I hate when a book tells me that "everything I know is wrong." Well, after reading the book, I found out that most of the things I knew were right. This book breaks very little new ground, but it does explore and solidify a lot of basic questions about baseball. I'd recommend it as a great introduction to sabermetrics if it weren't for all the numbers and such.
It Ain't Over Til It's Over by the Baseball Prospectus Staff
An interesting read, but it's hard to see where the BP "team of experts" can contribute a lot to mythology, when one of their reasons for being is to apply rational thought to mythology. Don't get me wrong, they tell a lot of good stories and look at some old stories with new eyes, but it's not really a must-read.
Winners: How Good Baseball Teams Become Great Ones (And It's Not What You Think) by Dayn Perry
Actually, it is what you think.
The Numbers Game: Baseball's Lifelong Fascination with Statistics by Alan Schwarz
This is one of my favorite baseball books in recent years, because it tells a story that needed to be told in an interesting and pertinent way. There's a lot here to answer questions and pique your curiosity. The only slight fault is that Schwarz writes the book more as a reporter than a historian. Here are some of his "hooks;" chapter openers that would be more appropriate as the lead in a news story:
"Chapter 2. Ernie Lanigan could barely breathe. The young Philadelphia bank clerk had been frail since childhood, with lungs like damp balloons."
"Chapter 4. The Georgian Bay off Lake Huron lay peaceful and still, tall trees standing sentry over the scene's verdant tranquility."
"Chapter 6. The old widow was in her seventies, maybe even her eighties. She lived on Illinois Avenue ..."
Schwarz is a fine writer, but he has a tendency to mistake himself for either F. Scott Fitzgerald or a young newshound writing a human interest story.
The Baseball Economist by J.C. Bradbury
Let me say for the record that few things bore me like economics. Bradbury's book received almost universal praise, so it may just be that his book didn't tickle my fancy. But it didn't really tell me anything new about baseball or strictly explore its economics, it just discussed the game in economic terms, focusing on "incentives" and suchlike. If that's your bag, so be it. But it ain't mine.
Baseball Dynasties: The Greatest Teams of All Time by Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein
This book is fodder for argument, and I started out insulted that my Atlanta Braves weren't there. But the book focused more on a team's high peak than its longevity, although it did try to combine the two, so that "one-year wonder" teams like the '84 Tigers missed the cut. Still, it's a very interesting read.
The Last Nine Innings by Charles Euchner
A very interesting examination of a variety of modern baseball issues in the context of Game 7 of the 2001 World Series. An excellent read.
The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball by Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman & Andrew Dolphin
If you don't have an appetite for numbers, stay FAR AWAY from this book. I can wrap my head around basic statistical analysis, but when you take 18 numbers and adjust for 5 variables consecutively over 4 pages of graphs, you've lost me (I made up those numbers, by the way). There are some interesting issues and conclusions here, but this book was written for extremely math-savvy people, not me.
Mind Game: How the Boston Red Sox Got Smart, Won a World Series, and Created a New Blueprint for Winning by the Baseball Prospectus Staff
This was the first book produced by BP apart from their annuals, and in my opinion it's still the best. They examine a variety of different issues concerning the Red Sox, new baseball knowledge, and how they went about constructing their 2004 World Championship team.
Past Time: Baseball as History by Jules Tygiel
This is a marvelous book by a marvelous writer. Past Time is a collection of essays about the development of baseball through the ages. It's a great insight, a wonderful read, and a great addition to the sport's lexicon.
The Baseball America 2007 Prospect Handbook
I am not a scout. I have enough trouble telling what pitch a guy is throwing, so my skills at studying prospects and arguing over their merits is nearly non-existent. I tend to go with the opinions of people I trust, and I trust the staff at Baseball America. Purchasing this book was a step toward familiarizing myself with the world of the minor and amateur leagues. It also makes me much better at analyzing trades. Money willing, I'll pick up the 2008 version, which is already out.
Lords of the Realm by John Helyar
It's possible that I learned more from this book than any other baseball book I've ever written. An absolutely invaluable and irreplaceable behind-the-scenes look at baseball, especially in the modern, unionized era. I'm just disappointed that Helyar didn't write more, especially about the early days. And I'd also love to read something about the 10 years since he published the book (I do have the paperback version, which includes an afterword about the '94 strike).
That's all I've got. There are several other baseball books that I enjoyed, but don't own (notably Buck O'Neil's autobiography, and the companion book to Ken Burns' Baseball documentary), and many more that I want to read but haven't had a chance to yet. If you have any suggestions for a great baseball book, I'll add it to the pile; I've already got about 20 or 30 written down that I want to read someday.
I HAVE RETURNED
First off, greetings from never-never land. After a much-too-long hiatus, I have returned to the land of Whizdom. My time away from baseball was against my will, as I've had a pile-up of medical problems over the past six weeks, including being diagnosed with diabetes. A lot has changed since then, and I've found it difficult to generate the energy to pursue my former hobbies, among them this website. But I have returned to start my full-scale preview of the 2008 season. I'll blog again soon to cover all the news I missed while I was gone (something about Roger Clemens).
Before I open up my 2008 preview with a close look at the Alanta Braves, two quick notes:
Before I open up my 2008 preview with a close look at the Alanta Braves, two quick notes:
- Reader "t ball" comented on my last blog, where I mentioned reliever Akinori Otsuka, that apparently some teams were scared away by his medical reports. Thanks to t ball for the heads-up. I checked mlbtraderumors.com (which despite the domain name is very respectable). They quote an mlb.com report that says a potential trade of Otsuka to the White Sox was nixed after the Sox saw his medical reports. The site does add that, despite this, Otsuka is getting some interest from some NL teams, including the Padres, his first stop in the US.
I've also heard more than once in the past that Otsuka's pitching style is pretty easy to adjust to. While he's had great success his first year in a new league, some wonder if he would be that good if hitters had more time to see him. I'm sure that's also in the back of everyone's mind. - And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the big trade today. Rumored for weeks and finally consummated, the Orioles traded ace Erik Bedard to the Mariners for star prospect Adam Jones and some prospects.
I don't really know enough about the prospects to offer an expert analysis, although I do know that Jones is a potential superstar who will be major-league ready sometime this season.
I find myself in agreement with Keith Law, who posted his analysis of the trade online today. For the Mariners, giving up a potential A-list talent like Jones for an A- pitcher like Bedard would be acceptable if the Mariners were contenders, or on the verge of contending. The big problem is that they're not. They've given up Jones, who would have been a big asset for them long-term for chump change, to get two years of Erik Bedard, who's a potential ace, but one who has trouble staying healthy. If the Mariners were a veteran team with a short window to make the playoffs, I'd be fine with the trade. But the M's aren't good enough to mortgage their future for Erik Bedard. Bedard will certainly improve them, and will likely be more valuable than Jones in the short run, but if that doesn't push the Mariners into the playoffs (and I doubt it will, not in the American League), then the M's will be SOL as they watch Jones became a star in Baltimore. - Now on to my season preview, starting with the NL East.
2008 Season Preview
ATLANTA BRAVES
2007 W-L Record: 84-78
2007 pW-pL Record: 88-74
Strengths: Well-balanced attack, MLB-ready youth
Weaknesses: Spotty lineup; top-heavy rotation
Biggest Change from '07: Bye-bye Andruw
One Reason:
One reason the Braves will win in '08 is that they were a better team than they looked in 2007 and there's room for improvement. The bullpen should be strong from Day One, and they'll have a full season of Mark Teixeira.
One reason the Braves will lose in '08 is that their starting rotation is a house of cards. It all depends on John Smoltz pitching like an ace at age 41 and not wearing down in September. They also must get another good year from Tim Hudson, which is anything but a guarantee. If Smoltz and/or Hudson stumble, there's no one behind them to jump in and pick up the pieces. The skeletal remains of Tom Glavine and Mike Hampton can't be expected to do much, and young pitchers like Chuck James, Jo-Jo Reyes and Jair Jurrjens either aren't ready or aren't able to provide anything but fair performances. The lineup is good, but not good enough to carry a weakened starting rotation.
Notes:
I really can't stress how much of the Braves' success depends on Smoltz and Hudson . . . The Braves do have some young players who could make a difference in '08, namely Yunel Escobar (slated as the starting shortstop), Brent Lillibridge (who could jump in at center field if Mark Kotsay's skills continue to erode), and there's still room for improvement among young stalwarts Kelly Johnson, Jeff Francoeur, and Brian McCann . . . The Braves have some great outfield prospects, and here's hoping they move quickly through the minors; the projected 2008 squad of Matt Diaz/Mark Kotsay/Jeff Francoeur is pretty disappointing, unless Francoeur catches fire.
FLORIDA MARLINS
2007 W-L Record: 71-91
2007 pW-pL Record: 72-90
Strengths: Cheap young talent that's just really cheap, I mean just absolutely cheap. These guys are the Bob Cratchitts of the National League. And did I mention they were cheap?
Weaknesses: "Cheap" and "young" doesn't always mean "good" and "ready."
Biggest Change from '07: They've replaced one one of the best hitters in baseball with Jose Castillo and lost the only marketable player they had left.
One Reason:
One reason the Marlins will win in '08 is that the potential is there. With a lineup including Hanley Ramirez, Jeremy Hermida, Dan Uggla, Cameron Maybin, Luis Gonzalez, and Mike Jacobs, they should be able to score some runs. And their pitching staff, while short on experience and long on DL time, includes some great raw talent.
One reason the Marlins will lose in '08 is that the likelihood of all that potential coming together is almost nil. I don't think they'll be awful. The loss of Dontrelle Willis isn't nearly as bad as people think . . . but the loss of Miguel Cabrera is actually worse than people think, because there is just no way they can replace his offense. Cameron Maybin may help, but everything I've heard is that he's not ready for the majors yet. The Marlins could give a sh*t, though, and will stick him in center field and hope he doesn't drown.
Notes:
Maybe someday Jeffrey Loria will realize that treating the taxpayers well is a much better tactic to get their approval for a stadium plan. Hitting someone over the head with a club and then demanding $300 million for a few more whacks doesn't usually work . . . I've heard a lot of complaints about the Marlins' ability to keep players healthy. Pitcher Anibal Sanchez even had to file a grievance against his own team. This makes it even less likely that the Marlins will be able to help these young pitchers reach their potential . . . the Marlins have become the modern-day Kansas City Athletics, except they deal with any team that asks.
NEW YORK METS
2007 W-L Record: 88-74
2007 pW-pL Record: 86-76
Strengths: His name rhymes with Bo-han
Weaknesses: Depth
Biggest Change from '07: See above
One Reason:
One reason the Mets will win in '08 is Johan Santana. Well, that's the easy answer. The good answer is that the Mets were a darn good team in 2007 that almost made the playoffs without Johan. Johan is a big improvement over Tom Glavine, but the other good news is that it's hard to see one spot where the club will get worse. They're not going to get much from the catcher (Brian Schneider) and the bottom of the pitching staff is a bit murky, but that's true of anyone. There's a lot less to go wrong here than in Philadelphia or Atlanta.
One reason the Mets will lose in '08 is age. While the Mets are held together by David Wright and Jose Reyes, they're really counting on a significant contribution from Carlos Delgado, Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez, Orlando Hernandez, Luis Castillo, and Billy Wagner. While it's not likely that all these players will be stricken with age at once, the Mets already know that just because something's "unlikely" doesn't mean it won't happen.
Notes:
The Mets gave up a lot to get Johan, but they're a team that can afford to do so. They've got a pretty good young core already in the majors and can afford to buy on the trade and free agent markets . . . Don't forget Carlos Beltran, who's always got an All-Star up his sleeve . . . The Mets still have time to solve their catching problem; the trouble is that, with Brian Schneider, they think they already have.
PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES
2007 W-L Record: 89-73
2007 pW-pL Record: 87-75
Strengths: Offense
Weaknesses: Starting Pitching
Biggest Change from '07: Very little ... Brad Lidge as closer, I guess.
One Reason:
One reason the Phillies will in in '08 is offense. The Phillies still have a top-notch offense, even though their starting pitching leaves much to be desired. The good news is that they had the same "problem" last year and made the playoffs.
One reason the Phillies will lose in '08 is pitching. Getting Brett Myers back in the starting rotation is a plus, but other than Cole Hamels, there's not much here to separate this starting rotation from Atlanta's, let alone New York's. I would normally give Brad Lidge a good bet to bounce back as a good closer, except he's moved into another bandbox where fly balls quickly become souvenirs. A lot depends on find out how much Jamie Moyer has left in the tank and finding out if Adam Eaton still has a tank.
Notes:
I respect what Pat Gillick has done with other clubs, but I'm just not a big fan of what he's done in Philadelphia. This may seem an odd comment to make about a team that just won their division, but all of the key cogs in that win were in the organization before Gillick came along, with the exception of mid-level stars Aaron Rowand and Jamie Moyer. Gillick's personnel moves (the woeful Bobby Abreu trade, the Adam Eaton experiment, the bottomless pit at third base and behind the plate) are, on the whole, not a good reflection on him. He did make a good move this offseason to get a potentially good closer (Brad Lidge) for a fourth outfielder (Michael Bourn), but the Phillies have, at both the major and minor league levels, not gotten a whole lot better under Gillick. Once the Utleys and Howards of the world start to get older, this team is going to fall quickly, unless they can draft themselves a safety net . . . Really, guys, Jimmy Rollins is not that good . . . and neither is Pedro Feliz, for the love of God.
WASHINGTON NATIONALS
2007 W-L Record: 73-89
2007 pW-pL Record: 70-92
Strengths: An amorphous blob that could be a decent lineup.
Weaknesses: A no-name pitching staff left to atrophy
Biggest Change from '07: Lend Me Your Malcontents! Dukes, Milledge, Pena, Lo Duca welcome!
One Reason:
One reason the Nats will win in '08 is that Jim Bowden finally convinces us that he's crazy like a fox, instead of just crazy. Maybe it's just the people around him, but Bowden's low-risk/high-reward acquisitions this offseason like Dukes, Milledge, and Pena are the signs of someone who's savvy enough to win on a budget. And if just one of them works out, it gives the club extra leverage to spend some of their stadium money on the free agent market.
One reason the Nats will lose in '08 is a spontaneous clubhouse combustion. Seriously, though, can you picture in your wildest dreams a postseason rotation of Jason Bergmann, Shawn Hill, Matt Chico, and Tim Redding?
Notes:
Either the Nats are crazy, or they know something about their pitching staff that I don't. Or maybe it's just a simple fact that we both know: they're cheap as hell . . . This team is going to be pretty ugly defensively, with the notable exception of Ryan Zimmerman at third . . . Speaking of which, I read one analysis that predicts the Nats' new park will really help Zimmerman offensively. And if Zimmerman can add another level to his offensive game, he's in the running for the MVP . . . Here's hoping that Bowden has a Plan B for the infield of Dmitri Young, Ron Belliard, Felipe Lopez, and Zimmerman.
Next up, the NL Central. And it won't take six weeks.
Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
