NL West as we near the halfway point

[The first part of this blog was written two days ago. Instead of going through and changing all the stats I mention on account of two freakin' days, I'll just let you know ahead of time that the first part of this blog was written on Tuesday.]
So much can happen in two weeks.

• Seattle GM Bill Bavasi finally got fired, after much lobbying to that effect in this space. Seattle also fired manager John McLaren in what will hopefully be the beginning of a housecleaning in that franchise. It's lucky that the Mariners play in Seattle, because rarely has a team with such a high payroll been so bad.
• The Mets aren't nearly as bad off as the Mariners are, but you wouldn't know that to pick up a paper in the metropolis. The Mets' front office waffled like a tower of Jenga as the media forced them into firing Randolph. Blame the media for being so pugnacious, obnoxious, and ignorant (for a firing that didn't need to happen) and blame the upper levels of team ownership for refusing to take a firm stand to stave off attacks. Randolph was doomed the minute ownership showed that it wasn't ready to fully commit to him, and once the blood was in the water, the media sharks attacked and attacked until the team's already weak resolve was obliterated. It was a very bad showing for a team that isn't nearly as bad as everyone thinks it is, and a poor reflection of what life is like as a baseball figure in New York.
• Toronto also fired its manager, if only to give J.P. Ricciardi more room to fight for his own job (which was in jeopardy before he embarassed himself on the radio). People in Toronto have much more reason to gripe over Ricciardi's performance, which includes a spotty track record, a sometimes huffy public manner, and the failure to develop even the hint of an offense. This isn't a defense of John Gibbons per se; I think he should have been fired after getting into a physical altercation with a player last season. But firing the manager to save yourself rarely works.
• And with that said, on to the NL West, where the Diamondbacks aren't really that good, the Padres aren't really that bad, and the Giants aren't really there.

ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS

As mentioned, the Diamondbacks have been settling back down to reality. They're now at 40-37 for the year, which is pretty dismal considering that just a few weeks ago they were right there with the Cubs on top of the world. But the team's performance has fallen. Brandon Webb is a good example; after winning his Opening Day start, he finished April at 6-0, with an ERA under 2.00. In May, he regressed back toward his normal level of quality pitching, going 4-2 with a 3.38 ERA. But so far in June, he's gone 1-2 with a 5.24 ERA. His seasonal mark is now 3.40, which is good, but belies the ups and downs within. Setting aside their recent troubles, though, how good are the Diamondbacks, and can they win their division?
Well, their pitching and defense have been quite good, even considering the present dry patch. They've allowed just 4.46 R/G, which ranks 5th in the NL. This is even better considering that the 'Backs play in one of the NL's top hitters' parks. Their ERA+ (which takes ballpark into account) is 113, which is 3rd in the league.
With Webb's recent struggles, he's now just the 2nd-best pitcher the 'Backs have had this year (which is still pretty darn good). The best has been Dan Haren, who's got a 3.26 ERA and a 10:84 BB:K ratio. He's allowed just 10 home runs, which is great for him -- a home run pitcher in a high-offense park -- although it also means he's probably been a bit lucky. But even allowing for some luck, Haren has been terrific, and he and Webb should continue to be one of the game's top 1-2 punches throughout the season.
But the 'Backs have had a heck of a time finding good starters to fill in the back of the rotation. Micah Owings' ERA is now 5.11, but the good news is that apart from some homers (11 in 88 IP), his peripherals suggest that the number should be lower. But still, he's been a more valuable hitter than pitcher so far this year (255/327/362, about average for a utility infielder, but great for a pitcher). Doug Davis has pitched well -- especially considering his season was interrupted by a bout of thyroid cancer -- but you can't take his 3.65 ERA at face value. Bottom-line, Davis is a back-of-the-line guy, especially if he keeps walking people like he has so far (25 in 44.1 IP). And while Randy Johnson has been healthy and on the mound, that's about the best you can say for him (5.09 ERA). To be fair, though Johnson seems to be going through the same bad luck as Owings; his peripherals (22:71 BB:K ratio, 9 HR allowed in 76 IP) look fine.
Closer Brandon Lyon may not be this good (2.43 ERA), but he's not at all bad, either. He also proves the great value of trading away non-superstar closers before they become expensive; saves are much more fungible than people think, and even though Jose Valverde was a quality arm, he's expendable when you've got three or four more just like him (a lesson that Astros GM Ed Wade -- who traded for Valverde -- should have learned long ago).
The Arizona bullpen has been solid behind Lyon. They've gotten quality work out of Tony Pena and Chad Qualls, and decent work from the rest.
Pitching-wise, I'm probably being too pessimistic about the 'Backs. Brandon Webb will be fine, and the stats say that Micah Owings and Randy Johnson should (emphasis added) do better in the second half with their peripherals. And having Doug Davis as your 5th-best starter is a lot better than having him as your 3rd-best. The 'Backs don't seem to be panicking about their pitching staff, and neither should they. They've got the best staff in the division and one of the best in the league.

Offense was Arizona's big problem last year (even though it waited until the NLCS to rear its ugly head). This year, they're ranked 7th of 16 in runs scored. So considering their hitter-friendly home park, they're somewhere around average.
The trouble is that they should be better than average. Coming into this season, everyone expected another step forward for young outfield studs Chris Young and Justin Upton. Instead, both have suffered, and left fielder Eric Byrnes has gone from tolerable to terrible, thanks to injury. Young is hitting a bare 233/304/430, which is similar to but slightly worse than last year's performance (237/295/467), where he was surviving on raw power alone. Both scouts and statheads agree that Young should progress into an all-around hitter, and he is a fine defender. But for Arizona's chances in 2008, they might not have the luxury of waiting.
The same is true of right fielder Justin Upton, who's hitting (241/356/430). Upton got off to a terrific start, hitting 340/385/577 at the end of April. But his stroke was off a bit in May (216/367/409), and he's been a catastrophe in June (118/318/235). One hopes this is just part of the growing pains of a talented youngster who still looks like a future superstar. But as with Young, the Diamondbacks would love for the future to get here in time for the pennant race.
The top 4 Diamondbacks as ranked by VORP are their infield in order: 1B Conor Jackson, 2B Orlando Hudson, SS Stephen Drew, and 3B Mark Reynolds. Which would be great if their performance were sustainable, but that's doubtful.
Jackson is leading the team by hitting 310/400/491. But he's a career 286/370/450 hitter, and while he may be a late bloomer at 26, finally developing into the legitimately dangerous first baseman everyone hoped he would be, I wouldn't count on All-Star numbers all year long.
Second baseman Orlando Hudson (293/356/465) is the veteran of the group, so it's easier to believe that his hitting is for real. And his defense is still stellar enough to keep him in the lineup anyhow.
Shortstop Stephen Drew (268/306/472) could be placed in the same category as Young and Upton, that of struggling future superstar. But Drew has been around longer, and more people are starting to wonder if he'll ever be as good as he was "supposed" to be. It's also telling that his batting line, which is pretty pitiful except for some park-inflated power, shouldn't rank 3rd on any team fancying itself a pennant contender.
Third baseman Mark Reynolds (252/333/496) is a similar hitter to Young; raw power, hits fastballs well but not those curvy things (think Pedro Cerrano). Except he doesn't have Young's youth, raw athleticism, or projectability. Take away his power (thank you, Chase Field), and he's basically just your average third sacker. What you see with Reynolds is probably what you get, which isn't such a bad thing, I guess.
Within the offense there is simultaneously room for improvement (the outfield) and reason to doubt (the infield). If the two can just average themselves out for long enough, I think this team can pitch its way back to the postseason. Especially considering the rest of the teams in this division.

Los Angeles Dodgers

Let's start with the 2nd-place Dodgers. If the D-Backs have been mildly disappointing, the Dodgers have been majorly disappointing. They're at 35-40, 4 games back in a division that they stood a decent chance of winning coming into the season. They've still got a chance, but once Arizona gets its ship righted again, that chance becomes smaller.

The Dodgers are scoring 4.24 R/G, which is tie d for 12th in the NL. The silver lining, I guess, is that of the four teams at or below that number, three are NL West rivals (Colorado, San Francisco, and San Diego).
The easy way to do this is to say who's NOT to blame for the team's offensive woes: Rafael Furcal (336/448/597) isn't to blame, although an injury and simple gravity will bring him back to earth. Russell Martin (315/412/451) isn't to blame, as he's become one of the best all-around catchers in baseball. And even James Loney (310/368/469) isn't to blame. He's stats aren't so great for a first baseman, but they're not bad, and Loney is young yet, and besides, the Dodgers don't have anyone who could take his place.
Now let's talk about who is to blame: pretty much everbody else. It's hard to include Matt Kemp (290/333/450) on that list, but in his second big league season he was expected to progress more, and his potential is much higher than that batting line indicates.
Lineup Millstone #1 is Andruw Jones. Jones was hitting 165/273/231 before hitting the DL. I'm not sure as to the extent of his injury; I don't know if his injury was causing his slump (which started a year ago) or if it was just an excuse to get him on the DL and free roster space. But the Dodgers better hope they can figure him out, because he's their cash cow this year.
Lineup Millstone #2 is Chin-Ling Hu. With Furcal injured, Hu was called up to play shortstop (insert Abbott & Costello routine here). The team had a good reason to give him the job; he's an excellent defender. But there's a better reason to give the job to someone else: Hu is hitting 159/224/206, and that's not exactly out of line with his minor league numbers.
Lineup Millstone #3 is Juan Pierre. This was the totally predictable one. Pierre's hitting 284/337/328 which is absolutely unacceptable from a left fielder. With Jones out of the lineup they can play him in center, where his offense is only slightly repugnant. Meanwhile, Pierre's erstwhile replacement, Andre Ethier, is batting 277/340/424.
Credit also goes to Jeff Kent (255/294/416 and at the end of the line) and Blake DeWitt (268/335/391, and I hope you enjoyed it). The Dodgers' replacements have been, for the most part, inadequate, and the blame for that lies squarely with Ned Colletti. He was forced into using DeWitt at the start of the season, but with a healthy Andy Laroche, there's no reason to stick with him other than bizarre baseball loyalty. Colletti should have had a backup plan for the aging Kent from the beginning, but that hasn't worked out either. I think that Hu was supposed to be the backup to rest Kent, but with Hu stuck at shortstop, the Dodgers have employed such middle infielders Garciaparra (226/314/323) and Angel F'n Berroa (214/298/398) in an effort to fix their problems. What GM in his right mind thinks that acquiring Angel Berroa will solve any problems?

Well, can the Dodgers pitch their way to the playoffs, a la Arizona? Not likely. Their best starter so far has been young Chad Billingsley (3.64 ERA). Derek Lowe (3.90) and Hiroki Kuroda (4.04) have pitched well enough, but not a whole lot better than average, all told. And neither one is likely to surge in the second half, unless Kuroda can kick it up a notch. After them, there's not a lot of hope. The team did bring up rookie sensation Clayton Kershaw (out of desperation as much as anything), but he's looked wild and raw (18 BB, 26 K, and 3 HR in 29 IP) and may not be able to offer much help this season. And the team has gotten desperate in search of answers. So desperate, in fact, as to turn to Chan Ho Park. Park, reunited with the team that imported him, actually pitched well in relief and has gotten two starts as a result (2.83 ERA altogether). But unless Brad Penny can get it together (5.88 ERA in 85.2 IP, 36:47 BB:K ratio), this team will most likely face another October home alone with the remote control.

Colorado Rockies

Well, I look pretty darn foolish now, having predicted the Rockies to win the NL West in my preseason review. Simply put, I was fooled; I wasn't smart enough to recognize that the Rockies had too many young players exceed expectations last year for them to count much on 2008. And that's basically what's happened.
The Rockies are scoring 4.24 R/G, which ties them with the Dodgers for 12th in the league. Considering the difference in ballparks, and that's just dreadful. As I said before, the Rockies experienced a lot of good luck in 2007, and not only have they lost it in 2008, they've been given a generous dose of bad luck to boot. The sad truth is that other than Matt Holliday (325/405/519), Brad Hawpe (256/372/456) and Todd Helton (275/402/401), every other big contributor has struggled in 2008.
Among the suffering are:
Yorvit Torrealba ('07: 255/323/376; '08: 244/281/378)
Troy Tulowitzki ('07: 291/359/479; '08: 168/228/256)
Willy Taveras ('07: 320/367/382; '08: 247/300/305)
Tulowitzki, at least, has an injury to blame for his drop in performance. The only guys on the roster who are doing better than '07 are Clint Barmes (343/376/582) and Ryan Spilborghs (299/409/472). Barmes is almost entirely an illusion, and he'll have to hit for longer than 39 games to impress me. Spilborghs is a decent hitter, but he too is due to drop back to earth.
So the Colorado offense is pretty bad and isn't likely to get much better this year. And even if they do, it's probably too late. They're seven games back of a team that's in the middle of a major slump.

The story with the Rockie pitching is even more tragic. Here's what happened to the superb staff that pitched them into the Series last year:
Jeff Francis: '07: 4.22 ERA, 63:165 BB:K ratio in 215.1 IP; '08: 5.22 ERA, 35:62 BB:K ratio in 89.2 IP
Ubaldo Jimenez: '07: 4.28 ERA, 37:68 BB:K in 82 IP; '08: 4.52 ERA, 48:71 in 89.2 IP
Franklin Morales: '07: 3.43 ERA, 14:26 in 39.2 IP; '08: 6.39 ERA, 17:9 in 25.1 IP
Manny Corpas: '07: 2.08 ERA, 20:58 in 78 IP; '08: 6.03 ERA, 17:21 in 37.1 IP
The only Rockie pitchers matching last year's performance are Aaron Cook and reliever (now closer again) Brian Fuentes. Francis has enough of a track record that you can expect his 5.22 ERA to improve, but it's hard to say what Jimenez, Morales, and Corpas will do. Even if they are still good young talents, the odds that even two of the three can turn it around in time are slim to none.

The Rockies had a great run last year. Now it's somebody else's turn. They've got enough talent on their roster and in their system that they can afford to wait 'til next year.

[This begins the blog proper, written after Wednesday's games.]

San Francisco Giants

In the day and half that has passed since I began this entry, the Giants have moved ahead of the Rockies and into third place with a 33-44 record. This is the high water mark for this team, especially if they start trading away spare parts (as they should).
The Giants are scoring 4.12 R/G, 14th in the NL. This is actually something of an accomplishment. I expected the Giants to be the worst offensive team in the league. That they aren't is nothing short of a miracle.
Most of the young players the Giants have tried out have failed; the team's farm system is barren of hitting prospects at the upper levels. The exception, though, is Fred Lewis (286/364/466). That's not great for a left fielder, but Lewis can play all outfield positions (though he doesn't play them all well. Lewis is 27, and he would have gotten a chance earlier if the Giants hadn't blocked him with the likes of Dave Roberts and Randy Winn. With Roberts and Barry Bonds gone, Lewis has proven that he can be as good an outfielder as guys making 20 times his salary. If you're a franchise going downhill, it's worth giving the Fred Lewises of the world a fighting chance. If they fail, so be it. If they succeed, then they'll give you good work at low prices, or serve as a trade chit. The only other youngster who's really worked out is 24-year-old first baseman Travis Bowker (273/315/454). But those aren't good numbers, especially for a first baseman, and Bowker's not a real breakout candidate. Still, you take your breaks where you can get them.
In general, though, the best-hitting Giants have been the veterans. Which isn't a compliment to the veterans, but more of a statement about the team's farm system. Free agent Aaron Rowand (302/366/468) got off to a terrific start, but has cooled off a bit since then. Rowand's a good defender, and that's a fine batting line for a center fielder. But he's only going to get worse as his (expensive) contract goes on, and he's also not going to hit .302 for a whole lot longer. He's basically a good center fielder who's about to turn into a fair (but expensive) center fielder.
Randy Winn is already well down the path of deteriorating skills, but he's actually done well for himself this year (307/370/449) and even in recent years, while he's been decent at best, he's one of the few Giants who can be relied upon not to suck. I heard a rumor recently that the Braves might be interested in him. That would be great for the Giants; they don't have anything to play for in the near future, Winn is expensive and aging, and the Braves have a lot of good young players. We'll see if that happens.
I really thought Bengie Molina was washed up a couple of years ago after his difficult stint with the Blue Jays. But he hit well last year, and is doing a good job (311/336/450). Granted, Molina's mobility about equal to that of your average desk lamp, but even if he's just a lump of stone, he's a lump that can still hit.
Ray Durham hasn't been too bad (290/382/396), but he's been injured (of course) and just can't go on for much longer. The drop in slugging is worrisome. Jose Castillo (262/316/419) has actually done a decent job of replacing Pedro Feliz at third base. But considering Feliz, that's not saying much.
So the Giants have gotten some good work from some surprising sources, even if there is a bit of luck involved (like with Rich Aurilia's .289 batting average). But they've gotten absolutely dreadful production from one position, and it cannot escape notice.
The Giants planned to start the year with Omar Vizquel at short. Vizquel hit (246/305/316) last year and is a shell of his former self. But his semi-stardom, along with a chance to break the record for games played at shortstop, gave the team enough reasons to bring him back. That plus the fact that they had no one to replace him.
Well, Vizquel has been even worse this year (167/252/194) in what must surely be his last as a major leaguer. He's also been injured and has missed a chunk of time. Remember what I said about the Giants not having a replacement for Vizquel? At the beginning of the season, with Vizquel out, the team went with Brian Bocock at shortstop. At the age of 22 last year, Bocock hit a respectable 292/354/379 in 39 games with the Giants' Class-A affiliate. He was promoted to their High-A affiliate, where he hit the skids, batting 220/293/328 in 87 games. But Bocock is a fine defender; and he's probably a better hitter than those High-A stats suggest. But there is no defensible reason why the Giants should lift Bocock, coming off of a bad season in High-A directly into the major leagues. Even great hitters don't jump two levels in one season. Under the circumstances, Bocock's performance in the majors (143/258/156 in 93 PAs) could have been a lot worse. He's since been demoted to Triple-A, where -- surprise -- he still isn't good enough. What kind of major league franchise willingly goes into a season with a depth chart at shortstop that reads: (Omar Vizquel, Brian Bocock)? I guess the Ball Girl would fill in if Bocock got injured. Sheesh.

But while the predictions for the Giant offense were always bad, a lot of people felt that they would find some relief in the performance of their young pitching staff, especially young aces Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum. Instead, the Giants rank 9th in the league in runs allowed per game, at 4.70. But considering their poor defense, maybe we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the pitching staff has been about average.
Lincecum has proven himself and thensome so far in 2008: in 102.2 IP, he sports a 2.54 ERA and a 40:103 BB:K ratio. He's also allowed a mere 5 homers. Now those walks should hurt him eventually, and I doubt he'll be able to keep the ball in the park that well for a full season. But even if his ERA creeps up to 3.00 or so, this is a definite success story for the franchise, as Lincecum is only going to get better. He's the best young pitcher the franchise has produced since . . . since . . . Shawn Estes? Mike Krukow? You might have to go back to the 1970's to find a Giant pitcher as good and as young as Lincecum. The Giants were pumping out future stars like clockwork from their farm system in the 70's, but only a handful actually found success with the team. In fact, the ratio of wins to good players produced might be the lowest of any franchise in modern history. But that's a historical column for another day . . .
Cain has been less successful. Cain's ERA is 4.31. But, when you look at his peripherals, they're not a lot different than Linecum's. Cain has allowed more homers (12 in 100.1 IP). But his BB:K ratio of 42:93 is only slightly worse than that of his teammate. My opinion is that Lincecum has been ERA-lucky and Cain has been ERA-unlucky. There's no reason to stop looking at them as future stars, and I guess the good news is that they get to experience their ups and downs out of the pressure of a pennant race.
Jonathan Sanchez, the distant #3 pitching prospect on the team, got off to a fine start this year, rivalling even the Big Two. Sanchez's ERA was 3.98 through 95 IP, and his BB:K ratio (46:96) was right in line with his staff-mates. There were some medical concerns about Sanchez that sidelined him previously, but I haven't been able to locate the specifics, and anyways, he's still pitching quite well. With Lincecum/Cain/Sanchez as a 1-2-3, the Giants are doing pretty darn well from themselves, pitching-wise.
Their 4th starter, Barry Zito, was supposed to provide veteran stability. Instead, he's been worse than even I could have predicted, posting a 6.32 ERA and being demoted to the bullpen for a short while. When the richest pitcher in history is demoted to the bullpen on a club as bad as the Giants -- there are problems. Granted, everybody but Brian Sabean knew that the Zito contract was a laughably bad idea. But I at least expected a couple years of decent work before he started to degenerate. This makes me think that there must be something wrong with Zito, either in terms of health or mechanics. Zito was never as good as people thought he was, and he was getting even worse than that in recent years. But it's hard to believe that his career would just nosedive like this without a reason.
The bullpen hasn't been too bad, all things considered, but it seems that for the past few years, everybody they name as closer suddenly starts pitching worse than he used to. That's never good.

Realistically, the Giants have a great core of young pitching talent and absolutely nothing else of significant value in the majors. The silver lining here is that they have, after many years of terrible drafting, managed to get some people excited about the prospects they have in the low minors. But, as the Bocock Incident illustrates, help is still a long time in coming, especially for the offense.
This creates a quandary. Do you try to win now, while Cain & Lincecum are still incredibly cheap? Or do you wait and try to rebuild around them, hoping that you can cobble together a decent lineup before they leave for free agency or start earning 10 figures in arbitration? Brian Sabean's M.O. has been the former; except that it's failed for several years running, and now there's no Barry Bonds to distract attention from his roster mismanagement.
But it seems like Sabean is finally getting the idea that the Giants are too far gone to fix with a few free agents. They simply can't buy their way out of this problem. So their only choice is to get the fans excited about their young pitchers, trade away all their useless parts for some building blocks, and try to contend within 3-4 years. It will be tough, but it's the right thing to do. Let's hope that ownership and upper management don't jump the gun and drop another Barry Zito on us before the rebuilding plans come to fruition.

San Diego Padres

For the past few years, the Padres have survived on a tenuous balance of good young pitching, patchy veteran hitting, and a solid mix of old and young. But without a lot of good prospects coming out of the system, the team is already falling behind the Diamondbacks, Dodgers and Rockies. And now that their veterans are reaching the end of their rope, they're left to depend on a small core of useful players. And when one of them goes down (like Jake Peavy), the team cannot sustain the loss.
The Padres are 15th in the NL in runs scored (3.72 R/G). Their ballpark isn't to blame; taking it into account only narrows the gap between them and team #14 (the Giants).
Even going into the season, the San Diego offense was a work in progress. The only player who could really be counted on was Adrian Gonzalez (296/367/557), a very underrated player. They were putting a lot of faith in aging right fielder Brian Giles, alleged third baseman Kevin Kouzmanoff, and streaky shortstop Khalil Greene.
Their luck hasn't paid off at all; after Gonzalez, the only really useful hitter on the team has been Giles (296/399/436). Kouzmanoff has struggled (263/311/419) and short-term solution Tadahito Iguchi, a free agent second baseman, is hitting a bare 259/324/343. Greene is starting to look more and more like an overmatched hitter at the plate (232/280/354) and stopgaps such as Jim Edmonds, Michael Barrett, Scott Hairston, Paul McAnulty, and Tony Clark have been basically useless.

Has the vaunted Padre pitching at least lived up to the hype? They're allowing 4.60 R/G, 7th in the NL, but when you take ballpark into account, their ERA + of 94 is 12th in the NL. Jake Peavy has been Jake Peavy, and Greg Maddux is actually looking better than he did last year. After that? Not so much. Chris Young, formerly the strong #2 behind Peavy, has struggled with injuries, posting a 4.50 ERA. Cheap pick-up Randy Wolf has given the team a good return on its money, managing a 4.09 ERA, but that's not as good as it sounds in Petco. And while the bullpen as a whole hasn't been too bad, former stalwarts Trevor Hoffman (4.85 ERA), Cla Meredith (4.58 ERA) and Joe Thatcher (7.40 ERA) have been plenty bad.

The Padres haven't had the most raw talent in their division since 1998. But they've won two division titles since then, mainly because they had a disparate team, assembled at the last minute, that managed to somehow outperform their seemingly more-talented adversaries. But as the Diamondbacks, Dodgers, and Rockies start to see great success coming from within the farm system, the Padres' short-term outlook seems dim.

I'll be back soon with my look at the American League, as we prepare for the All-Star Break, and try to determine just how tall a tale one baseball player can tell.

How's it Going at the 1/3 Mark? NL Central

Well, the NL Central is always full of surprises, which is fun if you're a fan, but can be pretty frustrating if you're an analyst. My predictions went along with the prevailing wisdom: the Cubs were the team to beat, the Brewers stood a good chance, the Reds were a dark horse, the Cards would finish fourth, and the Astros and Pirates would fight over last place. Well, it hasn't exactly worked out like that so far.
The one thing that has worked out is the Cubs as favorites. The Cubs have the best record in baseball despite dealing with some injury issues and some guys who haven't performed up to snuff. This is actually good news; if the Cubs can post a .645 winning percentage with flaws, what will they do if they can get everything fixed?
Offensively, the Cubs have had pretty much everything go their way. And, even better, they don't seem to be playing too far over their heads. They lead the league in scoring, with Aramis Ramirez (303/416/496) and presumptive Rookie of the Year Geovany Soto (288/376/532) leading the way offensively. Mark DeRosa may be hitting over his head (305/390/473), but even if his batting average settles down, he's still an asset.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about the Cub offense is that it hasn't had all the pieces clicking simultaneously. Derrek Lee has had some mild struggles (286/345/511, which is great for most people but just decent for him). Kosuke Fukudome (295/405/430) has played very well, but without the 20 HR-power he was supposed to have. And Alfonso Soriano (283/332/547), who's had injury troubles before, just got hit in the hand with a pitch. Soriano was actually getting booed some at Wrigley Field, which I find hard to understand, since he's hitting right in line with his career numbers.
If you dig deep enough, you can find some Cubs who are having enormously good luck that isn't likely to last, especially up the middle. Ryan Theriot is a fine ballplayer, but he's hitting 311/389/375, and when that batting average comes back down to earth, so will everything else, because he can't do much else at the plate. Ronny Cedeno, who got off to a blistering start, is already returning to his former hitless ways (287/357/386). In center field, Reed Johnson has turned back into a pumpkin (263/340/374) and while new addition Jim Edmonds has been pretty good thus far (297/333/500 in 69 PAs), you can't count on him to stay both healthy and productive.
So the Cubs are in good shape offensively, which is good news, because their pitching staff isn't as strong. Carlos Zambrano is pitching like an ace again, which is no surprise. But the only other starter off to a really good start is Ryan Dempster, who just can't be counted on with his history. Ted Lilly has been having terrible luck. He's got a 26:77 BB:K ratio in 79 innings, which is excellent. But he's also allowed 14 HR in that span. Lilly's always been prone to the long ball, but this year it's ballooned his ERA up to 5.13. I would expect Lilly to return to form this year, at least to some degree.
The Cubs have also had trouble filling out the back end of the rotation with consistently good workers. Jason Marquis has been decent (4.24 ERA), but with his strikeout numbers, he's due for a big fall. Rich Hill and Sean Gallagher have done decent work, but they can't get them both to stick. If I were the Cubs, I wouldn't be obsessing so much over the outfield; I'd look into getting a one-year rental on a reliable starting pitcher. Because if Ryan Dempster does revert to form and Ted Lilly keeps struggling, their rotation is going to be Carlos Zambrano and the Four Horsemen.
On the bright side, the bullpen has been good. Kerry Wood (2.48 ERA) has been excellent (and healthy) as closer, and may have finally found his niche. This has the ripple effect of keeping Carlos Marmol (2.14 ERA) in the multi-inning setup role that he thrived in last year. In fact, the Cubs have gotten good work up and down their bullpen. The only reliever who's really been a liability has been Bobby Howry (5.08 ERA in 33.2 IP). Their success may not continue forever, but at least they're in a strong position now, with a fair lead in their division.

Speaking of which, it's hard at this point to see any team passing the Cubs. The Cardinals are currently in second place and, I must admit, are playing far better than I ever anticipated (even though they're outplaying their Pythagorean record by 3+ wins). A whole lot of things are going right for them. Albert Pujols (347/475/631) has been excellent and Troy Glaus (264/368/443) has been pretty good. That I expected. But who in the world expected Ryan Ludwick (312/384/654) and Skip Schumaker (308/375/432), former bench players, to be vying for spots on the All-Star team? Not only that, but Rick Ankiel is hitting well (250/333/466), and Yadier Molina has actually been somewhat better than awful at the plate (299/358/382). The only real holes in the lineup are in the middle infield, and boy are they holes.
The trouble is that even though overachieving is inspiring, it doesn't last forever. Schumaker's relying a lot on a batting average that it's hard to see him sustaining. He's a promising player who got a late break into the majors, but I just don't see him staying at All-Star caliber all season long. Ludwick's been around since 2002, and his career batting mark is 266/335/497, and that's including this season.
What about the pitchers? Can they pick up the slack? As good as the pitching staff has been, I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that they'll be able to sustain it. Here is the Cards' current rotation, along with their ERAs:

Adam Wainwright (3.14)
Kyle Lohse (3.77)
Todd Wellemeyer (3.67)
Braden Looper (4.34)
Joel Pineiro (4.41)

The only one of those guys who's really that good is Wainwright, and even then a 3.15 ERA is a bit above his head. I suppose that Looper and Pineiro might continue giving the team yeoman work at the back of the rotation, but I cannot in good conscience predict that, when the season is over, Kyle Lohse or Todd Wellemeyer will have an ERA below 4.00 (or 4.25, for that matter). I respect Tony LaRussa and Dave Duncan for their ability to reinvent starters who've been cast off from other organizations, but there's a limit to what two men can do.
Their bullpen has been pretty good, but there's no one there who inspires great confidence in their ability to continue (especially closer Ryan Franklin).

The Brewers were supposed to be the team to challenge the Cubs for NL Central supremacy, as they did last year. They were anchored by one of the best young, homegrown infields in the game. Here's how that infield stands now:
1B -- Prince Fielder (286/377/482)
2B -- Rickie Weeks (210/325/358)
SS -- J.J. Hardy (248/323/352)
3B -- Bill Hall (217/283/392)
You can forget any other aspect of this team. If these guys don't get their asses in line and start hitting, this team will never make the postseason. Outfielders Ryan Braun, Corey Hart, and Gabe Kapler are doing fine, but they can't make up for the terrific struggles of Weeks and Hardy.
The pitching staff had a chance to be good, but when they lost Yovani Gallardo for the season, that was a bad omen. Ben Sheets (2.72 ERA) has been excellent, but he's also made of glass. And behind him, the team hasn't been able to find anybody other than Jeff Suppan who can even keep the team in ballgames. And don't ask about the bullpen; it's worse.
This was a team that had a great chance this year, but my God, they've had almost everything go wrong. They're still contenders in the long wrong, but if this season continues on to a disastrous ending, it's going to cost some people their jobs (starting with you, Mr. Yost).

Would you believe that the Pittsburgh Pirates are 34-36 and in 4th place? It won't last, but it's nice enough that they've lasted this long as a relevant franchise. If you want to know how they're doing it, look no further than their outfield:

LF -- Jason Bay (283/393/526)
CF -- Nate McLouth (293/381/556)
RF -- Xavier Nady (314/376/510)

These guys have been a godsend, because other than catcher Ryan Doumit, the rest of the batting order stinks. And this isn't all smokes and mirrors. Bay really is this good, and McLouth is at least partly this good. Nady isn't this good at all, but it doesn't really matter; I've heard the Pirates are shopping Nady and maybe Bay (whose contract is up soon) in trade offers. It may disappoint the fans, but it would be great for the team to restock their think farm system by trading away a superstar free-agent-to-be, and a superstar-in-disguise.

The Houston Astros are 33-37, just 1/2 game out of the league basement. But honestly, they're doing better than I expected. Lance Berkman, already an MVP-caliber hitter, is having a career year (360/445/704), and the quickly aging Miguel Tejada hasn't been as bad at shortstop as I'd feared (300/334/480). But after that, the cupboard is pretty bare. Carlos Lee is having a good year, although not by his standards, and Ty Wigginton is hitting well, but that's not likely to last. Hunter Pence has struggled, and the rest of the team is a series of predictable disappointments. If the Phillies make the playoffs this year, the Houston fans really need to rub Ed Wade's nose in the Brad Lidge-for-Michael Bourn trade. Because Lidge has rediscovered himself in Philadelphia whereas Bourn, a one-dimensional outfield whose one dimension isn't hitting, is batting 234/290/314.
Ranked by VORP (Value Over Replacement Player), 4 of the top 5 Houston pitchers are relievers. And while it's true that they've gotten some good work out of journeyman guys (Doug Brocail, Geoff Geary), it says a lot more about their woeful starting pitching.
Coming into the season, I expected that the Houston rotation would be Roy Oswalt and his band of fools. The problem is that even Oswalt is struggling (5.06 ERA), and there's certainly no one there to take his spot.
The best-case scenario for this team in 2008 is 4th place. And remember -- this is a team built to win now.

The one time I actually pick the Reds to do something good, and they disappoint me. So what went wrong? Why are the Reds in last place?
Problem #1 is that they're 9th in the league in runs scored, even in their bandbox ballpark.
Problem #2 is that they're the 3rd-worst team in the league at preventing runs, which indicates both a bad pitching staff and a bad defense.
So who are the culprits?
Edwin Encarnacion gets a lot of bad press, but he's really not the Reds' worst problem. His hitting is decent (248/332/457) even if his defense is atrocious. Ken Griffey, Jr. (248/361/397) and Ryan Freel (298/340/359) have been worse. All this trade talk surrounding Griffey makes me wonder why anyone would really want him? He's not the worst player out there, but he is the worst player out there making $16 million. He's just about done and needs to leave gracefully. Freel isn't as old as Griffey, but he is in his 30's, and considering his injury history, he's not going to be much more useful in the future than Junior.
But there have been two big drags on the Cincinnati offense. One has been well-documented: Corey Patterson. Patterson hit 194/231/350 before the Reds finally brough up Jay Bruce, who could hit better than that with one hand lopped off. Dusty Baker is to blame for paying him, but then Dusty isn't the one who signs the checks and promotes players from the minors; management deserves just as much blame for letting the Patterson fiasco occur.
But there's another problem, nearly as big, that hasn't gotten much attention. That is that the Reds catchers have been awful. Just dreadful. And this was just as predictable as the Patterson debacle. Paul Bako is hitting (241/318/411), which is poor even for a catcher. And David Ross (wh0 was supposed to be the everyday guy) is hitting 231/351/323. It was no surprise coming into the season that these guys sucked. The only difference is that the rest of the lineup isn't producing enough to cover for them like they did in years past.
Hearing that the Reds are having pitching problems is nothing new. But it's different this year. Aaron Harang has been the staff anchor, pitching 101 innings, and while he has had some long-ball trouble (14 allowed), his BB:K ratio (20:89) shows that he's done much better work than his 4.10 ERA would indicate. Plus, the Reds have unleashed Edinson Volquez on the world. I'm very skeptical that Volquez will keep up his ERA (1.64) in GABP with his walk rate (44 in 88 IP), and I also think he's been homer-lucky to have only allowed 3 so far this year. But if you strike out 105 guys in 88 IP, it's hard to argue that you're anything but legit.
I thought the Reds would have good support behind these two coming into the season with Johnny Cueto, Bronson Arroyo, and maybe Homer Bailey, but that hasn't worked out. Cueto has a 5.42 ERA, and while he's better than that, he is still maturing as a pitcher, so he may not get much better this year. Bronson Arroyo's 5.31 ERA may get better, but we just have to accept that Arroyo's only league average at his best. And Homer Bailey still has a long way to go on the journey from the minors to the majors.
The Reds' bullpen has been drastically improved this year, not just with the signing of Francisco Cordero (2.64 ERA in 13 SV), but also with better work from Jared Burton, Bill Bray, Kent Mercker, and Jeremy Affeldt. That's small consolation if you're in last place, but it's a start.

So it looks like the drama in the National League will not be coming out of the Central, where the Cubs looked poised for a cakewalk even if they do stumble along the way.

Next up: the NL West, or Why the Rockies Are Making Me Look Like a Damn Fool.

I Am Ozzie, Hear Me Roar

There's been a lot of interesting things happening in baseball lately. The Reds finally called up Jay Bruce to fill the center field spot, just in time for them to realize that this season is pretty much done. Thanks to Dusty Baker and Wayne Krivsky for screwing up what could have been a Wild Card contender. One of them is fired, and the other should be.

• The Mariners' situation is just awful. They're 21-39, 15.5 games out of the AL West, dead last and well behind the 3rd-place Rangers. The prevailing optimism about the 2008 Mariners was something I never agreed with. Their performance last year was largely a fluke, and I didn't expect them to do more than finish a distant 2nd. It turns out that even I may have been too optimistic about the team. There's always the chance that they'll turn things around, but my goodness, they just suck. Of their five main starting pitchers, the only one who's played above replacement level has been Felix Hernandez, whose 15.8 VORP is tops among Seattle pitchers and second on the team only to Ichiro (16.3). (That's above replacement level -- not above average. Four of the Mariners' starters are pitching about as well as Rob Bell or Mark Redman for 10-15 times the salary.) King Felix has a 3.29 ERA along with 69 K in 82 innings. After that, the rotation (the very expensive rotation) is a horrific disaster. Erik Bedard has only made 10 starts, but his 4.47 ERA and 26:49 BB:K ratio aren't in line with the ace reputation he brought over from Baltimore.
  But that's the good news. The other three starters in the rotation are among the worst in the league. Carlos Silva has a 5.96 ERA and has struck out just 28 batters in 77 innings. That ERA will probably come down, but not by much; Silva is a pretty average starter and a risky proposition when he's at his best; the Mariners are seeing what his worst looks like, and it ain't going to get much prettier for the remainder of the contract. 37-year-old Miguel Batista has a 5.90 ERA in 12 starts, with a sad 38:39 BB:K ratio. The bad news is that he may not get much better. If he finishes with an ERA below 4.75, I'll be very surprised. Jarrod Washburn has an ERA of 6.56, but he's likely to get some better, even if he's never above average. And for the record -- Felix Hernandez is getting paid $540,000 this year. The other four are getting about $33 million combined -- and they're all much older.
  Their offense is only slightly better. They rank 10th in the AL in Equivalent Average, which takes into account their pitcher-friendly ballpark. But while the offense is better, there's not as much room for improvement as there is with the pitchers. They're getting about all that could be expected out of most of their players. The only guys that are significantly underperforming are Ichiro (288/350/388), Kenji Johjima (221/262/302) and rookie Wladimir Balentien (207/277/380). Richie Sexson and Jose Vidro are about as bad as you'd expect (only the Mariners are surprised there); Adrian Beltre Raul Ibanez are about where you'd expect; and the middle infield combo of Jose Lopez and Yuniesky Betancourt might actually be over-performing at the plate, even if their defense still sucks (-10 FRAA for Betancourt, -8 for Lopez).
• But the worst part of this whole tragedy is in the management's response. Manager John McLaren chewed the team out yesterday, and team president Chuck Armstrong tore into the coaching staff (Armstrong refused to specify his comments for the record). McLaren's outburst is understandable, especially since the team's disappointment puts his ass on the line.
  But the most despicable of all was General Manager Bill Bavasi, who ordered the players to sit in front of their l0ckers and take responsibility for the team's poor play. Here's how the espn.com report describes it:
  
  "Before McLaren went off, Bavasi ordered each of the 25 Mariners players to sit at his locker immediately after the game to take full responsibility publicly for having the worst record in the major leagues despite a $117 million payroll that is just below the richest in baseball."
  
  Who in the hell does Bill Bavasi think he is to make 25 baseball players take responsibility for his incompetence? Bill, did Carlos Silva force you to sign to him a stupid contract? Did Miguel Batista? Was Mark Lowe or Brad Wilkerson responsible for hiring the obviously overmatched McLaren as interim manager and then keeping him on the job after a dismal 2007 finish?
  The players are responsible for their own actions. McLaren and others accused many of the players of being lazy and not giving their full effort. I'll allow that this may be true, but I must also consider that nearly every manager of a disappointing team says the same thing to cover his ass. And besides, isn't it part of a manager's job to keep players motivated when they start to give up? Think about this: a player is burned at the stake for discussing clubhouse problems in public and told that such problems should be discussed "in house." But it's perfectly acceptable for a manager or GM to literally put their players on the spot and make them say that the team is a bunch of lazy losers instead of trying to solve these problems rationally, without the destructive public rancor and histrionics.
  Whatever happened to being a man? To being able to look people in the eye and admit your own responsibility and your own mistakes, despite the adverse affect this may have on your career? When did blaming your subordinates and staging their public humiliation become an acceptable reponse to failure? And what ever happened to doing what is best for the team and the organization, rather than doing the best for yourself? We hold baseball players to that standard rigidly, perhaps too rigidly. If we're going to force baseball to take responsibility for their own actions, we should force their bosses to do the same. Anything else is hypocritical and ethically corrupt.
  Bill Bavasi is a frightened, pathetic man desperate to hold onto his job, and he's also a spineless son of a bitch for staging a public stunt like this. He's destroying the faith and goodwill of the team in an effort to scapegoat them for problems that are mainly his, McLaren's, and Armstrong's fault. I disagree with someone professionally when they make reckless mistakes in baseball management, as Bavasi has done for years. But I am personally disgusted when someone tries to escape the blame for their mistakes and pin it on someone else. And that never applied to Bill Bavasi until now.
• Speaking of disgust, Ozzie Guillen went on another wild tirade, saying that if GM Kenny Williams didn't do something about the team, then he would. It's just a matter of the White Sox losing for a long enough time for the team to get rid of this guy. Whatever tactical skills he may have are more than counterbalanced by the fact that he's absolutely bananas. Besides, who goes on a tirade to belittle a first-place team? The White Sox are doing better than anyone really expected, especially considering the scarcity of talent on the South Side. Guillen should be tickled pink, and he should give Carlos Quentin a big, sloppy kiss for carrying the offense.


• On a side note, it's silly that the Diamondbacks let Quentin get away. He had a rough debut in the majors, but there was every sign that he was going to be a top-notch corner outfielder. The 'Backs just didn't have any room for him after signing Eric Byrnes to a contract extension. They've already got homegrown studs in center and right field with Chris Young and Justin Upton, and they aren't going anywhere. So why didn't they cut Byrnes loose and give themselves one of the best young outfields in recent memory?
  Because Eric Byrnes is one of those guys. He's a kooky guy who's great to have around, is a blast in the clubhouse, appears on TV, and is considered to "know how to win" in ways other than hitting and fielding. All of that's a pile of stinking bullshit, of course, especially since Quentin has such an edge over Byrnes in talent and price. Last year, Byrnes hit 286/353/460. That's about average for a left fielder in a hitter's park in the NL. He also played in 160 games, so bully for him. But he's a career 264/326/447 hitter, is 32 years old, and has a propensity for running into walls. Byrnes this season is hitting 219/285/388. Quentin, age 25, is hitting 295/403/585 with 15 HR. Now, I don't think either man's performance will continue to be this extreme, but it's a sign. The Diamondbacks will probably win the division in spite of Byrnes (as they did last year), but will they win the World Series? And would the difference between a poor left fielder and a great left fielder have been the difference? It's a corner the 'Backs should never have forced themselves into.

There have been a lot of milestones reached recently, which have sparked Hall of Fame debates. We'll start with the most recent milestone: Manny Ramirez's 500th HR.

MANNY RAMIREZ

Manny is a Hall-of-Famer, and I don't really doubt that at all. Manny debuted with the Cleveland Indians in 1993, playing 22 poor games. He had a great 91-game debut in 1994 (269/357/521, 2nd place in Rookie of the Year voting), and then took off in 1995, hitting 308/402/558.
He hasn't stopped since. There have been some minor detours, but in short, Manny Ramirez has been a superior hitter since 1995. He's had some injuries, but even those have been minor and modest. He appeared in just 118 games in 2000 and only 120 in 2002. He has slowed down in recent years, playing 130 and 133 games in the last two seasons, respectively. Still, that's pretty damn good. In the 13 seasons from 1995-2007, he appeared in at least 150 six times and at least 130 games eleven times.
How did he do in those years? He was a consistently excellent hitter. Not just good -- excellent. He's a career 312/408/591 hitter. To illustrate Manny's amazing consistency, consider this: from 1995 through 2007, his lowest batting average was .292 in 2005, his lowest OBP was .377 in 1998, and his lowest SLG was his .493 mark from last year (his second-lowest SLG during the period was .538 in 1997). Manny has slugged in the .580s in ten of the thirteen seasons in question and slugged over .600 six times. So, Manny Ramirez worst (composite) year was 292/377/493. That's an All-Star outfielder right there, and that was Manny at his worst. If you can hit like Manny for 10-12 years, you're a Hall of Famer. If you can do it for 15 (this is Manny's 16th season), then you go in on the first ballot.
What can we hold against Manny? His numbers came in a hitter-friendly era. Check. He spent the last half of his career in Fenway Park, a hitter-friendly place for righties. Check. And, of course, his defense is execrable.

Still, if you look at Manny compared to other right fielders (Manny's played more career games in right than left, although that should change soon), his numbers hold up even if you adjust for his era and his defense. Here's a snapshot (all stats shown here are through the 2007 season only; they do not include his 295/372/532 start to this season):

Win Shares:
...
13. Roberto Clemente (377)
14. Rusty Staub (358)
15. Harry Heilmann (356)
16. Manny Ramirez (354)
17. Dwight Evans (347)
If Manny finished the season with 20 more Win Shares (which is a fair guess), then he'll pass Staub, and then every other player in front of him is a Hall-of-Famer (except Pete Rose). Win Shares take defense, ballpark, and era into account.

WARP3
...
T-11. Tony Gwynn & Reggie Jackson (124.1)
13. Dwight Evans (117.4)
14. Sam Crawford (116.8)
15. Manny Ramirez (114.4)
16. King Kelly (113)
Again, Manny ranks favorably. WARP3 is a Baseball Prospectus stat that, like Win Shares, attempts to take as many factors into account as possible. A score of over 100 generally indicates a Hall-of-Famer. And here again, after this season Manny is likely to pass Dwight Evans, and then everyone in front of him is a Hall-of-Famer (except Rose). And if he plays for one or two more seasons, he could crack the top 10 right fielders of all time.

EQA
1. Babe Ruth (.368)
2. Manny Ramirez (.331)
3. Mel Ott (.329)
4. Hank Aaron (.326)
5. Frank Robinson (.324)
This statistic is what we call "eye-popping." EQA is a number that attempts to take a hitter's total offensive contribution and put it into a number roughly resembling batting average. So, according to EQA, the only right fielder in history who could hit better than Manny was Babe Ruth. To be fair, it should be said that Manny's EQA will likely drop as he gets older and his skills fade, leaving him most likely behind Mel Ott and Hank Aaron. And, too, EQA includes a steep bias in favor of modern hitters, based on the theory that the quality of play in baseball has improved over time. Even still, this is a great review of Manny's hitting ability.

What else can we hold against Manny? He's got two World Series rings. He's moody and fickle, but there's a whole room full of those guys already in Cooperstown. He hasn't won an MVP, and that sticks in the minds of some voters. That is actually a somewhat valid point to be made; while Manny has been consistently excellent, he's never had a year where he's stepped beyond his established levels and been a superstar. But I really don't see how we can hold that against him. A lot of Hall-of-Famers had similar careers, where they were consistently great without any one year that was good enough to net them the MVP. I don't think we should blame Manny for his consistent excellent and reward someone who is alternately excellent and average. There's no one year where you can point out Manny Ramirez as the best hitter in baseball, but when you step back and look at his era, he was one of the top 5 players in the game, bar none. And that's more than good enough for induction.

KEN GRIFFEY, JR.

Junior is sitting on 599 home runs even as I speak. There's no doubt in anyone's mind that Junior is a Hall of Famer. He's also being called the best player on the 1990's, which is demonstrably false. Check my blog archives for my entry debunking this mythical claim and restoring the title to its rightful owner: Barry Bonds.
But where does Griffey rank, all-time, among center fielders? Griffey was an excellent and vastly superior player when he was with the Mariners. He struggled upon being traded to Cincinnati, but has actually managed to recover from a freakish series of injuries to play above-average ball the past few years. His ability to stay above-average at the plate and stay in the lineup will keep his counting stats going up and keep inching him up the chart of all-time center fielders.

Let's see how Griffey's career compares to that of other center fielders (all stats are through the 2007 only):

Win Shares:
1. Ty Cobb (722)
2. Willie Mays (642)
3. Tris Speaker (630)
4. Mickey Mantle (565)
5. Joe DiMaggio (387)
6. Ken Griffey, Jr. (387)
7. Duke Snider (352)
8. Max Carey (351)
Well, simply judging from the company he's keeping here, Griffey's not just a Hall-of-Famer, but should get in on the first ballot, no question. Win Shares confirms my impression that there are the four Great Center Fielders: Cobb, Mays, Speaker, Mantle, and then the rest.
Is it is possible that Griffey, had he not suffered such injury trouble in Cincinnati, could have risen higher to join the Great 4 and make it the Great 5? I think that's possible, but not likely. As great as Griffey was, he simply wasn't as historically great as the Great 4.
Okay, so he isn't among the Great 4. Is he the best of the rest? That sounds about right. As good as Duke Snider, Max Carey, Billy Hamilton, and others were, Griffey was simply better. I'll take him above the Duke without any argument. But to put Griffey ahead of Joe DiMaggio is another story. In the scheme of things, there's not much difference between the 5th-best and 6th-best center fielders of all time. But debating the merits of Ken Griffey .vs. Joe DiMaggio is intriguing. Let's look at some other metrics, and see where they weigh in.

WARP3:
1. Willie Mays (207)
2. Ty Cobb (194.3)
3. Tris Speaker (177.1)
4. Mickey Mantle (151.6)
5. Ken Griffey, Jr. (136.4)
6. Joe DiMaggio (120.5)

This is a strikingly similar result. The Great 4 are still intact (just in a different order), except that the divide between them and the other center fielders is smaller. By this metric, Griffey could conceivably pass Mantle before he retires. And again, there he is, ahead of Joe DiMaggio with more baseball yet to play.

EQA:
1. Mickey Mantle (.340)
2. Ty Cobb (.329)
3. Willie Mays (.328)
4. Joe DiMaggio (.327)
5. Tris Speaker (.320)
6. Ken Griffey, Jr. (.313)

Hey, hey, the gang's all here. EQA, along with WARP, includes a steep timeline factor, which is part of what moves Mantle ahead of Cobb. But it's also true that we just forget what a damn good hitter Mickey Mantle was. EQA doesn't penalize someone for a lack of playing time; it's like batting average in that way, so Mickey's shortened career and deteriorating defense aren't reflected.
DiMaggio ranks ahead of Griffey here by a fair margin, which is surprising. This must mean that DiMaggio was a better hitter than Griffey on a per-game basis. But he wasn't a better player overall? How do we explain that?
Well, there's one big factor I haven't mentioned yet: World War II. Joe DiMaggio missed three prime seasons (1943-1945, his age 28, 29, and 30 seasons) to the Big One. DiMaggio played just 1,736 games, whereas Griffey's at 2,434 and counting.

Let's take a look back at Win Shares, but adjust them to a per-season basis. This measure determines how good a player was when he played, regardless of how often he played:

Win Shares/162 Games:
1. Ty Cobb (38.55)
2. Mickey Mantle (38.12)
3. Tris Speaker (36.59)
4. Joe DiMaggio (36.11)
5. Willie Mays (34.76)
6. Billy Hamilton (34.31)
...
17. Carlos Beltran (27.00)
18. Hack Wilson (26.91)
19. Duke Snider (26.6)
20. Ken Griffey, Jr. (26.36)
WOW! That's a lot different than anything else we've looked at? What does it mean? It means -- if you trust Win Shares -- that Ken Griffey really wasn't that excellent -- he was just excellent for a lot longer than most other guys. This also confirms our suspicions that DiMaggio would rank better than Griffey if he hadn't missed three prime seasons to WW2; the other numbers aren't saying that Griffey was better, just that he was around longer to accumulate more value. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Is Ken Griffey, Jr. really the 20th-best center fielder ever on a per-game basis. I find that hard to believe. But one of the main reasons may be that Griffey's defense just wasn't as great as people remember. He's a lot like Torii Hunter; people love him for the flashy plays, but he's not really as good as his highlights would suggest. That would seem to be reflected in his low number of Win Shares -- the upper tier of the Hall of Fame is not populated by people with less than 400 Win Shares; hell, Craig Biggio finished his career with 431 and Gary Sheffield had 420 going into this season. To look at another statistic, Baseball Prospectus' Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA) has Griffey at -71 for his career. That's actually pretty poor. Looking at his record, the numbers suggest that Griffey was a decent and sometimes good defender in Seattle, but his years roaming center in Cincinnati cost his team a lot. In 2001, Griffey managed -20 FRAA despite playing in 111 games. In other words, the Reds would have gained 2 extra wins in '01 if they'd replaced Griffey with a league-average defender in center field. Griffey didn't become a full-time right fielder until just last season, but the numbers suggest that he should have been moved out of center right after his injury trouble started in 2001. So Griffey roamed center field for 6 seasons killing his career defensive numbers. The Reds were really negligent in not moving him earlier, especially since playing center field can only have exacerbated his injury problems. But the list of the stupid things the Reds did from 2001-2006 is a long one, so let's not dwell on that.
DiMaggio, on the other hand, finished his career with 46 FRAA. That's not as great as his defensive reputation would suggest (and it's possible that FRAA is short-changing him), but it's pretty darn good, especially if you add in the three prime seasons lost to WW2.

And so, I must come to the conclusion that, all in all, Joe DiMaggio was a better player than Ken Griffey, Jr. (And I'm starting to reconsider Duke Snider). Now if Griffey had stayed healthy, he may very well have passed DiMaggio, even if we give him credit for his missing war years. But he did not. The idea that Ken Griffey, Jr. would have been as good as Willie Mays if not for injuries is just not viable. He probably would have broken Hank Aaron's record, but I don't think Griffey was ever destined to break into the Great 4 center fielder of all time. But even so, he's a Hall-of-Famer. No doubt.

OMAR VIZQUEL

Omar Vizquel recently broke Luis Aparicio's record of most games played at shortstop. Vizquel got a great deal of praise for that, and deservedly so. Other than catcher, shortstop is the most demanding positions to play on the diamond, and Vizquel's feat is extremely impressive.
The milestone also got more people talking about Omar Vizquel as a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer. This, I thought, was a stretch. Omar's been perceived as a Hall-of-Famer by most mainstream commentators for a few years now. The sabermetric community, myself included, has been a lot more skeptical. Yes, he's been a good defensive shortstop. And yes, he's been around a long time. But is that enough to make it into the Hall?
It was for Luis Aparicio, who also had some gaudy stolen base numbers. But Aparicio doesn't belong in the Hall, as I've argued before. So we're going to need more than that.
Vizquel's Hall-of-Fame argument basically boils down to three points:

1. "Vizquel was as good as Ozzie Smith/Luis Aparicio/etc., and they're in the Hall of Fame.
We can dismiss such reasoning out of hand. If we go down that road, then everyone who's better than the worst Hall-of-Famer automatically gets in, and then we've got 500 inductions (or more) to make. The lowest common denominator should not be the standard.
2. "Vizquel was a good hitter for his position."
It's very tough for decent hitter with a great glove to get into the Hall; it happens rarely. Bill Mazeroski is an example, and he wasn't even a decent hitter. But determining how good Vizquel's offense really was is central to getting him into the Hall. Having golden hands and nothing else doesn't cut it, or else Mark Belanger would be in.
3. "Vizquel was one of the best defensive shortstops of all time."
That's another assertion that we can seek to verify with facts. Reason #2 or #3 alone won't get him into the Hall. But if he was a pretty good hitter and a great defender for such a long time, then he would probably deserve induction.

Let's start by checking on Omar's offense. Here are his career numbers:
274/339/356
That's not good. Not in any context. The league average (park-adjusted) during Omar's career was 269/339/425. Omar's career OPS+ (OPS adjusted for park effects) is 84. That's not even decent. That's well below average.
This is the problem with comparing Omar to Ozzie Smith (as people often do). Ozzie hit 262/337/328 in his career. Worse than Omar, right? Wrong. The league average (park-adjusted) during Ozzie's career was 262/328/390. That's a big notch lower than Omar's era, where hitters were kings. So, adjusted for park, how good was Omar compared to Ozzie.
Omar's OPS+ was 84. Ozzie's? 87.
So not only was Omar a below-average hitter, he was worse than Ozzie Smith. Which means that Omar's going to have to make up the difference on defense if he's really as good as Ozzie. Yeah, that's right: we have to try and prove that Omar Vizquel was a better defender than Ozzie Smith.

Which takes us to Reason #3. Was Omar one of the best defensive shortstops of his time? Ozzie Smith accumulated 287 FRAA in his career, the best among all shortstops with at least 200 Win Shares.
Omar accumulated 119 FRAA. That's quite good; it ties him with Dick Bartell f0r 10th among players with 200 Win Shares or more.
Wait -- Dick Bartell? He's not in the Hall of Fame. He was just as good, defensively, as Omar Vizquel. And not only that, he was a better hitter. By a good margin. Bartell hit 284/355/391 in his career for an OPS+ of 96. He even won three pennants and hit 294/360/426 in three World Series (Omar won two pennants and hit 208/288/283 in the World Series; 250/327/316 in the postseason altogether). Omar's played 2,608 career games, an amazing number. But Bartell isn't far behind; he played 2,016 career games and would have played more if he hadn't missed all of 1944 and 1945 to the war (Bartell doesn't have as many career games at shortstop, as he also filled in at third and second).
So at first we were trying to argue that Omar Vizquel was a better player than Ozzie Smith, and we failed. Now we're having a tough time proving that he was a better player than Dick Bartell?!

Let's take a look at the modern stats to give us a sense of their overall career:
Win Shares:
...
T-26th: Herman Long & Vern Stephens (265)
T-28th: Jim Fregosi & Jack Glasscock (261)
30. Omar Vizquel (259)
31. Joe Tinker (258)
32. Maury Wills (253)
33. Dick Bartell (252)
Naturally, fate brings Vizquel and Bartell close together. And if not for Win Shares' allowance for the increased quality of play over time (Bartell played from 1927-1946), Bartell would likely win.
Wow. Omar's the 30th-best shortstop according to Win Shares. He might move up toward the #25 spot, but considering that he's 41 years old and hitting 197/275/239 this year, I wouldn't count on many more Win Shares before he retires.
Just to note, there are ten -- count 'em -- ten players ahead of Vizquel on this list who aren't in the Hall of Fame. Bill Dahlen has 393 Win Shares and isn't it. Shouldn't the line for eligible shortstops start somewhere behind him and Alan Trammell?
Okay, let's play the devil's advocate. Remember what see Griffey and DiMaggio apart? Quality of play, rather than quantity. Maybe Omar is really better than these stats would indicate on a per-game basis.

WS/162 Games:
I'll make this short: 51 shortstops throughout history have achieved at least 200 Win Shares. Listed by WS/162 Games, Vizquel ranks 50th ... out of 51. Which probably means that there are a lot of guys with less than 200 Win Shares who were better than Vizquel on a per-game basis.
This means that Vizquel is even worse -- much worse -- than we thought before (For the record, Dick Bartell managed 20.25 WS/162 G).

Let's give Omar one more chance. Win Shares aren't perfect. Let's see if we can't get at least one measure to indicate that Vizquel is a Hall-of-Famer.

WARP3:
...
14. Lou Boudreau (109.6)
15. Dave Concepcion (108.4)
16. Omar Vizquel (106.9)
17. Jack Glasscock (105.9)
T-18. Tony Fernandez & Pee Wee Reese (105.5)
20. Dick Bartell (103.6)
There's that Dick again. But finally -- finally, we've found one measure that puts Vizquel at least in the top 20 shortstops of all time.
But I'm sorry Omar, WARP3 alone can't outweigh everything else we've seen. And even there, your most impressive showing, you're still not the best shortstop not in the Hall. With the exception of guys who aren't eligible yet (Alex Rodriguez and Barry Larkin), Bill Dahlen, Alan Trammell, and Dave Concepcion are still in line ahead of you waiting to get into the Hall. And Dahlen (134.8 WARP3) again looks like the best shortstop not in the Hall. Even WARP3, the friendliest measure, puts Omar just on the wrong side of the border, only 4.8 wins ahead of Dick Bartell.
(I also must say, with the caveat that Win Shares have biased me, that WARP3 seems to do a poor job of ranking shortstops, at least compared to other measures. They list Ozzie as the 4th-best of all time, which is a real stretch for me, and indicates that WARP really likes defense from their shortstops, offense be damned.)

So by the friendliest available measure, Omar Vizquel is a borderline Hall-of-Famer, but by every other measure he's far behind Ozzie Smith and somewhere next to Dick Bartell, Jack Glasscock, and a bunch of other guys who won't be getting into the Hall anytime soon. Sportswriters and announcers will try to wow you into supporting Omar's candidacy, either by mentioning one isolated, linear statistic (hits, runs, fielding percentage) or by making broad, unsupported claims of "great defense," "good hitting" or "leadership."
You can make up your own mind, but the way I look at it, the facts don't leave any room for argument: Omar Vizquel doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame any more than Dick Bartell does.

I'll be back soon (hopefully) with more reviews on the state of baseball, division-by-division.