I Miss Skip and Pete

World Champions – Best Player = ?

2012-01-01T00:57:00.001-05:00

So I wanted to take a quick at World Champion teams that lost their best player in the same off-season. Seeing Albert Pujols go the Angels makes the fate of the 2012 Cardinals interesting. The team has signed Carlos Beltran to fill in somewhere, and they will also be getting back ace starter Adam Wainwright from Tommy John surgery. Will this be enough to keep them in contention?

I couldn’t think, off-hand, of any other World Champion teams that lost their best player before they even had a chance to defend their title.

My idea is to look at a team’s best player, as determined by rWAR, (which isn’t perfect, but neither are you), and see if he came back to the team the following year. If he did not, why not? Free agency? Trade? Injury? And what happened to his old team? What happened to his new team? All fair questions.

Let’s start asking them, beginning with the first World Champions to lose their best player. But first, a chart showing every World Champion ever to lose its best player in the ensuing offseason:

Year	MVP (rWAR)	Team	How?
1915	Tris Speaker	Boston (AL)	Trade
1931	Chick Hafey	St. Louis (NL)	Trade
1942	Enos Slaughter	St. Louis (NL)	War
1943	Charlie Keller & Spud Chandler*	New York (AL)	War/ Injury
1944	Stan Musial	St. Louis (NL)	War
1997	Kevin Brown	Florida	Trade
2011	Albert Pujols	St. Louis	Free Agency

* – The Yankees did lose Keller in ‘44, but while Chandler’s injury was severe, he did manage to make one start during the year.

Quickly, the Almost Department:

The 1914 Braves’ best player, starter Bill James, made just 13 appearances in 1915 due to injury. James’s career was essentially over, apart from one game pitched in 1919.
The 1918 Red Sox’ best player was, not surprisingly, Babe Ruth. Ruth was infamously traded two years after that, after setting a new single-season home run record in 1919.
After winning the 1926 World Series, Cardinals GM Branch Rickey finally got his wish (and a few death threats) when he traded franchise icon Rogers Hornsby to the Giants for Frankie Frisch and Jimmy Ring. Hornsby was the only player I KNEW would show up on this list – except that, according to rWAR, Hornsby wasn’t the most valuable Cardinal in ‘26. An off-year (by his standards) put him 0.1 WAR behind third baseman Les Bell.
The ‘65 Dodgers’ ace, Sandy Koufax, only pitched one more year before being forced into retirement at age 30. He would have made the list if the Dodgers had won the ‘66 Series (they were swept by Baltimore).

Back to the master list. '

1915: Boston Red Sox trade Tris Speaker to Cleveland Indians for Sad Sam Jones, Fred Thomas and $55,000.

Fifty-five grand was a lot of money back then. Almost enough to justify giving up a 27-year-old center fielder with a career batting line of 337/414/482 (in the deadball era!) and defense that ranks somewhere between “elite” and “best-ever.”

To be fair, the Red Sox did get more than just cash. Sad Sam Jones was a 22-year-old pitching prospect who went on to throw 1000+ innings with a decent 3.39 ERA in six seasons in Boston (a year after the Babe Ruth trade, the Sox sent Jones, Joe Bush and Everett Scott to the Yankees for Jack Quinn, 100 grand and some washed-up players. Ouch, again).

As for the other guy, Fred Thomas was a middle infielder didn’t make the major leagues until 1918, when he hit .257 with one homer in 44 games.

Why in the world were the Red Sox so eager to get rid of Speaker? Cash was a factor; as later trades would show, Red Sox owner Harry Frazee, while a wealthy man, had issues with liquidity (and no, he wasn’t trying to fund a Broadway play).

The Red Sox in 1915 were plagued by internal conflict. It didn’t hurt their winning percentage, but the club was made up of two warring factions trying to get their favorite appointed as manager.

One faction was made up of Catholics, mostly the children of immigrants. This included Heinie Wagner, Duffy Lewis, Bill Carrigan and others. Speaker and Smoky Joe Wood were members of the opposing faction, the Protestant, middle-American freemasons (and, allegedly, KKK members). It wasn’t exactly unusual for a ballclub to split into two cliques, but the religious and cultural issues made this an especially tricky brand of infighting.

Ownership was helpless to resolve the crisis, and it didn’t help that the manager’s seat was the prize both sides fought for, with the losers then doing their best to undermine the manager. When Carrigan was named manager halfway through the 1913 season, this predictably upset the Protestant wing of the clubhouse. I can’t say for sure without reading the mind of owner Frazee (or GM Ed Barrow), but this must have played a part in Speaker’s ouster.

Tris Speaker isn’t just a Hall-of-Famer, he’s an inner-circle Hall-of-Famer. The only comparable center fielders in major league history are guys like Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio and Ken Griffey, Jr. None of those players, you will note, were traded away at age 27 for a quick fix of cash and a durable starting pitcher. Many great players are traded either before, or after, their prime years. Few are dealt away just as they’re entering their prime. Given Speaker’s sterling performance in Cleveland (which included a World Series victory in 1920 as player-manager), this has to be considered one of the worst trades in baseball history.

1932: St. Louis Cardinals trade Chick Hafey to Cincinnati Reds for Benny Frey, Harvey Hendrick and cash.

Any deal by Branch “The Mahatma” Rickey, then GM of the Cardinals, may be assumed to include the phrase “and cash.”

The 1931 Cardinals went 101-53 and won the World Series. Most teams would take that opportunity to reward the players who got them there, especially a 29-year-old star outfielder. Instead, the Cardinals traded batting champion Chick Hafey, who hit 349/404/569 in 1931, to the Reds for two marginal players who would be sold back to the Reds before the year was out.

What was Rickey thinking? Well, one cornerstone of Rickey’s philosophy was to trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late. He also preferred to replace players who got too expensive with products of his thriving farm system.

As to the latter point: In 1932, 20-year-old Joe “Ducky” Medwick made his debut with the Cardinals on the way to a Hall-of-Fame career. Medwick would eventually be better than Hafey ever was, and at a far cheaper price (until he too was traded; to the Dodgers for four nobodies and $125,000).

But was it the right time to get rid of Hafey? Absolutely. Rickey didn’t see Hafey as the defending NL batting champion; he saw a left fielder no longer able to patrol center whose value rested on a high batting average and decent power. He also saw a less-than-durable player who’d only played more than 120 games three times in his career. Such players are great to have, but they’re also pretty replaceable – especially in an era when offense is cheap.

Hafey still could have embarrassed RIckey if he’d had three or four All-Star years still left in him, but that was not to be. He hit well with his new team in ‘32 – but played just 83 games. Hafey bounced back to have two solid seasons in ‘33 and ‘34, but injury problems limited him to just 114 games after the age of 31. Hafey’s last year in the majors was 1937, the same year that 25-year-old Joe Medwick won the Triple Crown and the MVP Award.

The Mahatma strikes again.

1942-44: The players go to war.

It’s not a surprise that World War II accounts for most of this list. War is one of the few things that can take an MVP out of the league overnight.

The default answer for “best player on the Cardinals” during this era is Stan Musial. But in 1942, as the Cardinals cruised to a World Championship, Musial (still just 21) had a very good year (315/397/490), but one that was still below his lofty standards (career 331/417/559). Slaughter, meanwhile, was having the best year of his career. He hit 318/412/494 with a team-leading 13 HR (Musial had just 10).

Defending a World Series title is hard enough without a star like Slaughter, but the Cards also lost center fielder Terry Moore, leaving them with 2/3 of an outfield to come up with for 1943. The team succeeded by giving a full-time job to bench player Harry “The Hat” Walker and acquiring Danny Litwhiler from the Phillies in a trade. Neither man was a star, but they were good enough to get the Cards back to the Series, where they lost to the Yankees.

Speaking of those ‘43 Yankees, they had two players tie for the team lead in WAR: outfielder Charlie “King Kong” Keller and ace pitcher Spud Chandler. Keller was in the army during the ‘44 season, and Chandler was sidelined with an injury that limited him to just one game.

Chandler’s 1943 – 20-4, 1.64 ERA – was good enough to win the MVP Award. Keller didn’t any awards, but the underrated, unibrow-sporting outfielder mashed at the plate, to the tune of 271/396/525. How could the Yankees replace these two?

Well, they are the Yankees. First of all, Chandler’s MVP season was really just a nice surprise. He was 35 years old and had only been decent for two seasons in his major league career. The injury didn’t help things, but it’s doubtful that the Yanks were relying on another MVP season from Chandler. The ‘43 team’s pitching staff was pretty darn slim to begin with, with Chandler backed up by non-household names such as Tiny Bonham, Butch Wensloff and Atley Donald. Some of these guys were decent – and would be again in ‘44 – but there’s a reason the Bronx Bombers finished 83-71 and missed the World Series that year.

The Yankees outfield that lost DiMaggio in ‘42 now had another set of Kong-sized shoes to fill. Hersh Martin – making his first big-league appearance in four years – actually performed well, hitting 302/371/445. But other than stalwart Johnny Lindell, all the Yanks could muster in the outfield was Bud Metheny, who hit 239/316/355. If Ruth hadn’t had lung cancer at this point, he might have been Plan C …

The last player on the war list is Stan Musial. I mentioned that Musial had an off-year as a 21-year-old in ‘42 (351/397/490). In 1943, Stan Musial the all-time great showed up, hitting 357/425/562 (all of which led the league) and winning the MVP. He was the best player in the league by far again in 1944, but the voters decided to go for the “scrappy” guy, and fellow Cardinal Marty Marion won (a gold glover, yes, but the man was 116 points of OBP behind Musial).

Musial was 24 when he sat out the 1945 season in the service, and there’s simply no replacement for a 24-year-old Stan Musial. The Cardinals improvised pretty well, though, bringing up rookie infielder Red Schoendienst and putting him in the outfield to fill the void. The Cards still managed to win 95 games in 1945, but they finished second to the Cubs.

1997: Florida Marlins trade Kevin Brown to San Diego Padres for Derrek Lee, Rafael Medina and Steve Hoff

The champagne on the clubhouse floor was barely dry when the 1997 World Champion Florida Marlins began gutting their team. I’ve spilled a lot of ~~ink~~ megabytes over the destruction of the ‘97 Marlins in the past, most notably here. So I won’t recap that dark era of baseball history again.

Brown had one year left on his contract, and the Marlins sure as hell weren’t paying him, so they traded him to someone who wanted to win in 1998 (as the Padres did, taking the NL Pennant). In return, they did get a serviceable first baseman who turned out to be a good deal better than that. Lee was a good glove man with solid secondary skills who only became a star after he was traded to the Cubs (in a deal that netted the Marlins Hee-Seop Choi. Oops.) That’s still not enough for an elite pitcher in his prime, even for one year, but it’s one of the more balanced trades the Fish made during the purge.

2011: Albert Pujols leaves the St. Louis Cardinals to sign a 10-year, $254 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels.

Obviously I can’t say how this one will turn out. From the Angels’ point of view, I was hesitant at first, but I’ve largely come around to it. It’s not a bargain by any means, and it relies on the fact that a) Pujols really is 31 and b) 2011 was just a bump in the road, and he has a pleasant, Musial-esque aging curve ahead of him. Since the deal is heavily back-loaded, the aging curve is important.

Still, as Joe Sheehan has pointed out, Albert Pujols is the reason you spend big bucks on the free agent market. The truly elite players are not, generally, overpaid on the free agent market. The real lost money is in paying big bucks to mid-level talent. Compare: the contract that the Rangers signed A-Rod to in 2001 would have ended prior to this season, had A-Rod not opted out and negotiated a new deal with the Yankees. That deal, very nearly identical to the contract Pujols signed, was a blockbuster – and a bargain. A-Rod won multiple MVP Awards, and he even brought home a World Series win. Of course, A-Rod was just 25 when that deal was signed and a shortstop. For the Angels, you have to be prepared to pay a 41-year-old (DH?) a ghastly amount of money.

But if the Angels win a World Series during the life of the contract, that heals wounds AND brings in cash, so everybody’s happy. Plus, as Sheehan pointed out, Albert will be chasing a number of records during the life of the contract. He’s already got 2000 hits, so it’s only going to be about six years before he gets to 3,000, and after that he’s likely going to end up with more hits than anyone since Pete Rose. He’s also got a realistic shot at becoming the all-time home run king, challenging the record held by Barry Bonds (or, in a few years, perhaps Alex Rodriguez).

From the Cardinals’ point of view this is bad news. No, I don’t charge money for such insights.

Since he’s gone, let’s not talk about what the Cardinals could have done and instead stress what they will do. Not having to pay Pujols means they can easily bring back Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter without really feeling it in the pocketbook. Lance Berkman, who “played” right field last year, moves back to ~~his best position~~ the position where he can do the least damage, first base. The Cards signed Carlos Beltran to a reasonable two-year deal to replace Berkman in right field. Along with Matt Holliday*, Jon Jay, and Allen Craig, the Cardinals have plenty of guys to fill the corner outfield spots – and no true center fielder. But I digress …

* – If I may borrow the “Pozterisk” from Joe Posnanski, do you remember a few years ago when everyone was debating who the better free agent was: Matt Holliday or Jason Bay? That seems like a LONG time ago.

The Cardinals are lucky to play in the NL Central, where no team looks like a favorite right now. They’re stuck there with the Reds and Brewers somewhere between 85 and 90 wins, and it may just be up to chance who wins the division. The Cardinals would be advised to take steps to remedy this, but even if they don’t, they’ve still got a fighter’s chance to repeat as division champions.

****

If there’s anything to be learned from this exercise, it’s this:

A) Good teams get over the loss of a superstar surprisingly well. They’re typically good at finding undervalued replacements (either through the draft or through trades) and can also improvise and patch up holes in the short-term, as the Cardinals did in the 1940’s when their Hall-of-Famers were called overseas.

B) Teams don’t let their superstars get away easily. I really expected three or four more names to pop up in the free agency era, but to my immense surprise, Albert Pujols was the first World Series team MVP (as determined by WAR) to leave his team via free agency. I’m sure I could get more results if I broadened the parameters – as I noted in the “almost division” – but I think great players tend to stay with teams for quite a while, in spite of the common view of free agency.

So take heart, Cardinal fans; the Yankees lost DiMaggio to the army in 1942 and won the World Series in 1943.

2011 in Review

2011-12-11T14:49:00.001-05:00

In which I look back at my pre-season predictions with wonder and/or shame:

My NL East predictions:

Philadelphia Phillies (95-67)
Atlanta Braves* (89-73)
Florida Marlins (84-78)
New York Mets (79-83)
Washington Nationals (75-87)

The real 2011 NL East:

Philadelphia Phillies (102-60) +7 wins
Atlanta Braves (89-73) exactly right!
Washington Nationals (80-81) +5 wins
New York Mets (77-85) –2 wins
Florida Marlins (72-90) –12 wins

* – denotes Wild Card

I was exactly right about the Braves except that they tragically did NOT win the Wild Card. The Phillies and Nats were a little better than I expected; the Mets were slightly worse. The only team I missed big on were the Marlins, who really seemed like they were better than a 90-loss club.

My NL Central predictions:

Milwaukee Brewers (87-75)
Cincinnati Reds (86-76)
St. Louis Cardinals (84-78)
Chicago Cubs (81-81)
Houston Astros (72-90)
Pittsburgh Pirates (63-99)

The real 2011 NL Central:

Milwaukee Brewers (96-66) +9 wins
St. Louis Cardinals* (90-72) +6 wins
Cincinnati Reds (79-83) –7 wins
Pittsburgh Pirates (72-90) +9 wins
Chicago Cubs (71-91) –10 wins
Houston Astros (56-106) –16 wins

I picked the Brewers to win the division, but I wasn’t at all close to any of the win-loss records. I thought the Cubs would be decent, thought the Pirates still had a ways to go and didn’t think the Astros were ready to plummet yet. I was wrong all around.

My NL West predictions:

San Francisco Giants (86-76)
Colorado Rockies (85-77)
Los Angeles Dodgers (84-78)
San Diego Padres (76-86)
Arizona Diamondbacks (70-92)

The real 2011 NL West:

Arizona Diamondbacks (94-68) +24 wins
San Francisco Giants (86-76) exactly right!
Los Angeles Dodgers (82-79) –2 wins
Colorado Rockies (73-89) –12 wins
San Diego Padres (71-91) –5 wins

I did pretty well here (even getting the Giants’ decent record spot-on), but missed big on two teams. I’m still a bit shocked that everything came together for Arizona in 2011, especially the great improvement in their pitching. As for the Rockies, I’m puzzled by their return to mediocrity. And if their offseason behavior is any indication, they’ll be sticking with mediocrity for a few years to come.

My NL awards predictions:

NLCS: Phillies over Brewers

If the Phillies could have gotten past the Cardinals in the NLDS, this may well have happened.

World Series: Phillies over Red Sox

And Boston weeps.

NL MVP: Ryan Braun, Brewers

You’re welcome.

NL Cy Young: Roy Halladay, Phillies

I think Halladay deserved it, but Kershaw had a darn good year. I picked Kershaw to win the Cy Young last year, so I was just a tad early there.

NL Rookie of the Year: Aroldis Chapman, Reds

The potential was there, but then he lost it completely for a few months in the summer.

My AL East predictions:

Boston Red Sox (96-66)
New York Yankees* (91-71)
Tampa Bay Rays (87-75)
Toronto Blue Jays (78-84)
Baltimore Orioles (78-84)

The real 2011 AL East:

New York Yankees (97-65) +6 wins
Tampa Bay Rays* (91-71) +4 wins
Boston Red Sox (90-72) -6 wins
Toronto Blue Jays (81-81) +3 wins
Baltimore Orioles (69-93) –9 wins

At various time over the past 6 years, I’ve said that “this” was the year the Orioles would finally take a big step forward. They had the talent to do it this year. And a fat lot of good it did them.

My AL Central predictions:

Minnesota Twins (90-72)
Chicago White Sox (87-75)
Detroit Tigers (83-79)
Cleveland Indians (69-73)
Kansas City Royals (65-97)

The real 2011 AL Central:

Detroit Tigers (95-67) +12 wins
Cleveland Indians (80-82) +11 wins
Chicago White Sox (79-83) –8 wins
Kansas City Royals (71-91) +6 wins
Minnesota Twins (63-99) –27 wins

Disaster.

My AL West predictions:

Texas Rangers (87-75)
Los Angeles Angels (82-80)
Oakland Athletics (80-82)
Seattle Mariners (73-89)

The real 2011 AL West:

Texas Rangers (96-66) +9 wins
Los Angeles Angels (86-66) +4 wins
Oakland Athletics (74-88) –6 wins
Seattle Mariners (67-95) –6 wins

Once again, this was NOT the year that the A’s won the division with a pathetic offense and unproven pitching. What a shock. /s

My AL Awards predictions:

ALCS: Red Sox over Yankees

And again, Boston weeps.

AL MVP: Adrian Gonzalez, Red Sox

I was close.

AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez, Mariners

A safe bet, at least.

AL Rookie of the Year: Jeremy Hellickson, Rays

Anybody who starts the year in the majors has an edge.

More to come, as I discuss MY picks for all the major awards.

NBR: Laurel & Hardy

2011-10-30T23:10:00.001-04:00

I have finally found the crown jewel of my DVD collection:

The films of Laurel & Hardy have been tragically absent from DVD, with the notable exception of this collection from Turner Classic Movies. The complete films of Laurel & Hardy number 106, although three of those films are considered lost. I own every commercially available Laurel & Hardy film on VHS (including a few tapes bought in England that I had to pay to convert to Region 1). But getting them all together – the best available transfers along with newly-discovered and never-released footage and films – has been a dream I thought may never come to pass.

My understanding is that a complete Laurel & Hardy release was impossible because the video rights are owned by several different entities. The silent films are held by one such entity, most of the MGM features they made are only available on the TCM set, two features (The Flying Deuces and Utopia) are in the public domain and the post-Hal Roach travesties are contained in another set.

The DVD set above, though, has everything else. And that everything includes more than I ever dreamed. It includes every short film done with sound. It includes the basic feature films made entirely at the Hal Roach Studios (Pardon Us, Pack Up Your Troubles, Saps at Sea, etc.). It ALSO includes all of the Laurel & Hardy guest appearances and cameos, one of which – an Our Gang short called Wild Poses – I’ve never been able to track down. There is also bonus material, including a short film with the works of Laurel & Hardy discussed by film historians and famous fans such as Dick Van Dyke.

The most amazing inclusion are about a half-dozen of the foreign-language versions of several early short comedies. In brief, Hal Roach hit upon an expensive yet profitable way to keep his market share in foreign countries in the early days of sound film, when the English language suddenly became a barrier to a truly international film company. Roach filmed several Laurel & Hardy shorts in different languages – as many as three or four – to give fans all over the world their own Laurel & Hardy films.

Don’t misunderstand; these were not dubbed films. Stan, Ollie and one or two key supporting players would re-learn their lines in several different foreign languages, aided by speech coaches who would teach them their lines phonetically. The rest of the cast would be native speakers. As expensive and time-consuming as this was, it made foreign audiences adore Laurel & Hardy even more, preferring these films much more than the cheaply-dubbed films from the major studios. (Word is that Roach discontinued the practice because it was showing up his distributor, MGM). If the boys’ stilted speech sounded awkward in a different language, then it proved a perfect fit for their characters. (Although it must be said that Ollie takes to Spanish quite well, whereas Stan speaks it with a Midlands British accent).

So you have entirely new versions of pre-existing films, many of which are extended with all-new footage and gags so that they could be sold as feature films abroad. I was aware that some of these survived, but had never seen one before. This DVD collection contains about six of these foreign-language Laurel and Hardy films. It’s a positive delight to see new footage of Stan and Ollie. Ollie’s long-suffering cry of “Why don’t you do something to help me?” becomes “Porque no me ayudas?”

*****

I really can’t overemphasize how important the films of Laurel & Hardy have been to me. I’ve been laughing at them for as long as I can remember. They bring such a charm and joy to their work that actually makes you feel better after watching them, a quality that is almost impossible to reproduce nowadays without being sappy or arch.

I also liberally steal from Laurel & Hardy, something I am not really ashamed of; I consider it more of a “tribute,” seeing as Stan – my muse – passed away more than 50 years ago. I would give my right eye (and here I’m only slightly exaggerating) to be able to play Stan in a film biopic of the team. If only I were taller, skinnier, gawkier and had red hair (or any hair, really).

I always hesitate to show Laurel & Hardy films to my friends. One reason is that they’ll realize where I’m stealing all of my comic inspiration and bits of business. The main reason is that I’m afraid they won’t like them as much as I do. And that’s difficult, because they mean so very much to me. If I am funny at all today, it is because of Laurel & Hardy.

When I still had an ounce of idealism, I always pictured myself accepting the Academy Award for Best Actor and dedicating it to Stan Laurel, a comic genius who has tragically never been given the respect or admiration of “auteurs” like Keaton and Chaplin.

This is what I did as a child; I watched and learned. I scoured every film shop and video rental store (this was before the internet, kiddies) to see if they had any new Laurel & Hardy films released on video. Even after the advent of eBay and the internet, my only hopes of improving upon my existing VHS collection was to buy existing 8mm film prints along with my own projector.

I’d like to continue this later with my thoughts on each of the short films contained on the collection. If, that is, I can find the right words to express my unqualified happiness.

Miracle Teams Part 1: Miracle Braves

2011-09-12T19:12:00.001-04:00

An idea occurred to me out of nowhere – as they so often do – that most of the great teams that people write about are the dynasties. So I thought, “What about the non-dynasties?” That is, what about the teams that were really good for one year, and then receded into the fog of history? It seemed like these teams – out-of-nowhere success stories – would be just as interesting to write about, if not more so.

So I compiled my list of teams with a few caveats. One is that I generally wanted teams that made the postseason. That may seem unfair at first, but then who would read a series of essays about “Worst-to-Third” teams? Secondly, I wanted teams that were not very good before and after their season of success, since this would make their one good season an interesting oasis of winning. And thirdly, I’ll admit that I was biased toward teams that were a good story and potentially fun to write about. Hopefully then, they will also be fun to read about.

The series will run in chronological order. This sets up a potential anticlimax, since the first team in the series just might be the biggest miracle story in baseball history: the 1914 Miracle Braves.

****

In the first thirteen seasons of baseball’s modern era (1901-1913), only three different teams won the National League pennant. Any modern columnist complaining about the lack of competitive balance in baseball is clearly ignorant of the facts of life in the early 20th century NL. The Cubs, Giants and Pirates were kings of the senior circuit for more than a decade at the dawn of the century. Not only did these three teams have a monopoly on first place, they had a near-monopoly on the top three places in the league; these three teams finished 1-2-3 in some fashion in eight of these thirteen seasons.

Fans of the Phillies, Braves, Cardinals, Dodgers and Reds would be forgiven for giving up on their respective teams, knowing that fourth place was the most you could hope for, unless lightning struck and the team finished second.

That started to change in the mid-1910s. It’s difficult to pinpoint one specific reason for the rise of competitive balance at the time. The birth of the outlaw Federal League in 1913 served to violently upset the status quo. But the key reason, I think, was that NL teams were finally recovering from the devastating player raids of the American League from 1901-1903. It’s no coincidence that the three dominant teams of the 1900s were the teams that best managed to keep their players from jumping to the AL.

And no team suffered player losses quite like the Boston Braves.

****

The Red Stockings, as they were known at the time, had a glamorous entrance into the National League when it was formed in 1876. The founding brothers of the franchise were George and Harry Wright, who so famously inaugurated professional baseball in Cincinnati with another team known as the Red Stockings. Their move to Boston, bringing along several key players, pushed the Beantowners to NL pennants in 1877 and 1878.

But the true glory days of the franchise were the 1890’s. Known by then as the Beaneaters, they dominated the NL, winning five pennants in the decade. They were driven primarily by three Hall-of-Fame pitchers: John Clarkson and Vic Willis, who were quite good, and Kid Nichols, who was easily the best pitcher of the 19th century. Their lineup was based around Boston folk hero Mike “King” Kelly, along with other, younger Hall-of-Famers such as Hugh Duffy, Tommy McCarthy, Billy Hamilton and Jimmy Collins.

But along came the American League’s Boston Red Sox. The 1901 Sox took two-thirds of the Beaneaters’ starting outfield, solid players Chick Stahl and Buck Freeman. The third member, Billy Hamilton, retired after 1901. The 1902 Beaneaters started an outfield of Billy Lush, Duff Cooley and Pat Carney, none of whom would likely be touring the vaudeville circuits to wow the multitudes with tales of their on-field exploits.

As if that weren’t enough, the Red Sox also made off with 24-year-old pitching phenom “Big” Bill Dinneen, who would, along with many former Beaneaters, play a big part in the team’s 1903 World Series victory.

By the time the league wars were settled in 1903, the Beaneaters’ cupboard was bare. The team had come up with a decent catcher, Pat Moran, but the stars were all but gone. Pitching ace Nichols threw his last pitch for the team in 1901 and then was out of the majors for two years. The only good hitter left from the 1890’s dynasty was first baseman Fred Tenney.

The last pitcher standing was Vic Willis, who stayed with the team through 1905 and then was traded to the Pirates for spare parts after he led the league in losses, only to enjoy a career renaissance in the Steel City.

After losing Willis, the team finally dropped from 7th all the way to last place in the eight-team National League. They changed names three times along the way, from Doves to Rustlers to Braves (in 1912), but the cosmetic changes couldn’t bump the team into the first division. In fact, the team finished last for four straight years from 1909 to 1912 before moving up to a surprising 5th place in 1913 (69-82), the smallest of omens that their luck might just change in 1914.

****

Who presided over this monstrosity? Other teams lost big names to the American League without being thrown into a death spiral. What sort of management geniuses did the Braves have to turn the ship around?

For quite a while, there was no one. Al Buckenberger was hired in 1902 to replace Hall-of-Fame manager Frank Selee but soon realized that he had few options. In their book Total Ballclubs, Donald Dewey and Nicholas Acocella attribute this to a) management’s cozy relationship with star Fred Tenney, whom they saw as the manager-in-training, and b) ownership’s mandate that cutting costs was more important than winning ballgames. Arthur H. Soden had owned the team almost since its inception; he had seen the premature detonation of his dynasty and seen the Red Sox, staffed with his players, turn Boston into a solidly American League town. It was after the 1906 season that Soden decided to sell out to one George B. Dovey (hence the team’s new nickname: the “Doves”).

Despite starting off with a strong determination to repair the public relations mess left by Soden, the Dove years quickly degenerated into the sort of drama typical to moribund franchises: Tenney was traded to the Giants despite still owning stock in the Braves, the league promised an investigation but never followed through, Tenney was brought back to the team when Dove’s partner sold out, and then Tenney was fired as manager after the team went 44-107 under him.

Management turnover was the story in Boston, both on the field and in the executive offices. Things finally stabilized in 1912 when the team was sold to a syndicate with a pure baseball pedigree, represented by Hall-of-Famer John Montgomery Ward. The money man was one James Gaffney, whose personal fortune owed much to his Tammany Hall connections. Gaffney, not a man who favored power-sharing, soon replaced Ward as team president with himself.

Despite all this, there was one managerial change that proved to be positive. In 1913, Gaffney brought in George Stallings as manager. Stallings didn’t have a great pedigree, but he had done well in short stints managing the Phillies, Tigers and Yankees. It was in 1913, Stallings’s first season at the helm, that the team surged forward to 5th place.

Stallings was also, even by the standards of baseball managers, an eccentric. He was nicknamed “Gentleman George” for his snappy dress and was one of the most nervous men of his day. An exhaustive list of his peccadilloes is impossible, but among other things* he: slid up and down the bench so much that he wore out his pants, he hated seeing peanut shells of pieces of paper on the field, and if his team started a rally, he would freeze in one spot, comfortable or not. But second baseman Johnny Evers said of him, “Mr. Stallings knows more base ball than any man with whom I have ever come in contact during my connection with the game.”

* – The anecdotes in this paragraph are owed to the wonderful article on Stallings by Martin Kohout in SABR’s Deadball Stars of the National League.

****

The team’s 5th-place showing in 1913 owed something to the stability in the front office, of course, but there was also an undeniable uptick in the quality of players on the field. There were some veterans on the team who could still play: thirty-seven-year-old John Titus hit a robust (for the era) 297/392/420 while longtime Giant Art Devlin held down third base.

More important to the team’s long-term future was the arrival of some good, young talent. The key man was 21-year-old Rabbit Maranville, a future Hall-of-Famer and defensive marvel at shortstop. Maranville was never much of a hitter, even for a shortstop, but his tremendous defense, daring baserunning and expert clowning gave the team a presence on the field and in the clubhouse.

There were some other key contributors as well. Joe Connolly, salvaged from the minor leagues at the age of 29, continued to crush the ball, serving as the team’s best hitter in 1914. The team then dipped back into the minors to find a solid first baseman in Butch Schmidt, who’d been out of the majors for years. Also worth noting is catcher Hank Gowdy, pilfered from John McGraw in a trade for Buck Herzog, and later to become famous as the first major leaguer to enlist after the United States entered World War I.

The pitching staff was led by three aces no older than 25. Lefty Tyler was purchased from the minors in 1910 and finished 1913 with a league-leading 28 complete games and a 2.79 ERA. Dick Rudolph washed out of the New York Giants, but did well in his first season as a Brave, posting a 2.92 ERA.

But the man who would step forward as the ace of the Miracle Braves was “Seattle Bill” James. In 1913, James went straight from minor-league Seattle to the majors at the age of 21, notching a 2.79 ERA in 135.2 innings as a starter and reliever. But his best work was yet to come.

The Braves made a number of moves during the 1914 preseason in their efforts to build a pennant-winner, but none was more important than the trade that brought in Hall-of-Fame second baseman Johnny Evers. Evers, known as the “Crab” for his style of defense and his prickly personality, was a veteran of the Chicago Cub dynasty of the previous decade. But after a rough stint as player-manager, Evers’s departure from Chicago was acrimonious and complicated. The Cubs tried to trade him to the Braves, and Evers eventually went, though only after the trade was nullified and he was declared a free agent.

The Braves had successfully plugged a number of holes in their roster, potent though it already was, and had even added a Hall-of-Fame second baseman and team leader. With stable money in the owner’s box and a committed on-field tactician, this looked like a team that was going places.

****

Where they were going, it turned out, was back into the cellar. Not just the cellar, but dead last. The team stank it up for the first half of the season, bottoming out at 11 games behind the first place Giants, with six teams in between.

And then, the Miracle.

The Braves finished July by going 10-2 and reaching the .500 mark, at 45-45. This shifted them up to 4th place, but they were still 8 games out. Things started getting serious in August, when the team went on an 18-6 romp that put them in 2nd place, just 1/2 game behind the Giants. For two weeks, the squads traded first and second place. As late as September 18, the Giants were still in it, just 3 games out. But the Braves left them in the dust by ending the season at a 17-4 clip. The race degenerated into a farce, with the second-place Giants finishing 10.5 games back.

The Braves had won their first pennant of the century and were going to their first-ever World Series.

****

It’s impossible to credit the miracle pennant to any one person. The Braves got solid offense and defense up and down the lineup. Evers and Maranville worked wonders in the middle infield, and Joe Connolly again proved to be the team’s top hitter, finishing at 306/393/494.

If anything, the real Miracle in Boston in 1914 was the Braves’ pitching staff.

The Braves rode their top three starters, James, Rudolph and Tyler, for 940 total innings, or about 2/3 of the season total. James went 26-7 with an ERA of 1.90. Rudolph went 26-10 with a 2.35 ERA. Tyler “only” managed to go 16-13 with a 2.69 ERA, which was above average even by the standards of the day.

The Braves had found the perfect balance of veterans, rookies, leadership and good management. They had won the NL pennant back when winning the pennant alone was still cause for a ticker-tape parade. The only thing they weren’t was the best team in baseball.

That was the Philadelphia Athletics. The team the Braves would be facing in the World Series.

****

At the turn of the century, bad baseball in Philadelphia was sort of like coming down with a head cold; if you didn’t get too upset about it, it would be gone before you knew it.

Granted, this was only true of one of the city’s franchises; the Phillies had been a joke ever since the American League ransacked them at the turn of the century, pilfering future Hall-of-Famers such as Nap Lajoie, Elmer Flick and Ed Delahanty.

But for the A’s - led since their inception by manager/president Cornelius “Connie Mack” McGillicuddy - winning was a habit. It was a habit borne of hard work, discipline and high standards in an era where few baseball teams could master even two of those concepts.

The Mackmen (as the A’s were commonly called) were born in 1901 with the seeds of a dynasty already in place. After a strong 4th-place finish in 1901, the A’s won the pennant in 1902. They slipped to second in ‘03 and then fifth in ‘04, then roared back to win the pennant again in 1905 before losing a heartbreaking World Series at the hands of the New York Giants (or, specifically, the right hand of Christy Mathewson, who threw three shutouts).

The next four years saw no pennants, but the team finally righted itself in 1910 with an astounding 102-48 record, leaving the rest of the American League (and, in the World Series, the Cubs) in the dust. The 1911 club “fell” to 101 wins, but still dispatched McGraw’s Giants in the series with some ease.

In 1912, the club’s 90-62 record was only good enough for a strong third place, but they quickly retooled and won the World Series in 1913, again over the Giants.

The 1914 Philadelphia Athletics had five future Hall-of-Famers on their roster: pitchers Eddie Plank, Chief Bender, and Herb Pennock; second baseman Eddie Collins and third baseman Frank “Home Run” Baker. That’s not including their Hall-of-Fame manager, who dwarfed “Gentleman George” Stallings not just with his six-foot-two stature but with his considerable resume: six pennants to just one for Stallings.

The only controversy swirling amongst the bookmakers prior to the series was whether the A’s would sweep the series or win it in five.

****

For Game 1, Mack started Chief Bender, according to Mack “the greatest money pitcher in baseball.” But Bender departed in the sixth after allowing six runs (a performance that would haunt him for some time), while Braves hurler Dick Rudolph pitched a complete game; he allowed just one run on five hits with eight strikeouts.

For Game 2, the A’s started another Hall-of-Famer, Eddie Plank. Plank held a shutout through eight innings, which was not nearly as surprising as the fact that Bill James was doing the same thing. The Braves broke the scoreless tie in the ninth, when Charlie Deal doubled, stole third and was singled home by Les Mann. The Braves had taken the first two games in Philadelphia from the defending champions.

The Athletics sent their third ace, “Bullet” Joe Bush, to the mound for Game 3 against Lefty Tyler. Again, the underdog Braves were able to match the A’s vaunted pitching, battling them to a 2-2 tie after nine innings. Both teams allowed two runs in the 10th, and the Braves brought in Game 2 starter Bill James to seal the deal. While Tyler was relieved, Joe Bush did go out for the 11th and then the 12th inning. Hank Gowdy led off with a ground-rule double (which was nearly a home run), and then Bush intentionally walked pinch-hitter Larry Gilbert to set up the double play. The next man up, leadoff batter Herbie Moran, laid down a bunt. Bush made the fateful decision to throw to third to get the lead runner Gowdy, but the throw was wide, and Gowdy raced home with the winning run.

By Mack’s own admission, the first three losses had nearly broken the spirit of his team. It was up to another top-notch pitcher, Bob Shawkey, to turn the tide in Game 4. Shawkey only made it through five innings, allowing three earned runs. His replacement, Hall-of-Famer Herb Pennock, shut out the Braves the rest of the way, but three runs turned out to be enough for Dick Rudolph, who picked up his second win of the series with his second complete game victory of the series. An estimated 35,000 Bostonians came out to Fenway Park (a better and more modern venue than the Braves’ South End Grounds) to see the David and Goliath myth played out on a baseball diamond.

****

The myth of the Miracles Braves was only enhanced by their failure to recreate the magic of 1914 in subsequent years. Stallings’s team finished 2nd in 1915 before falling to 3rd in 1916 and then back down to 6th in 1917. They wouldn’t finish higher than 4th again until 1947.

Where did the talent go? Some, such as Charlie Deal and Les Mann, jumped to the Federal League, which started poaching major leaguers the very year the Miracle Braves won the Series. Johnny Evers, the team’s only name player, just got old. If that weren’t enough, the team shot itself in the foot by dealing Rabbit Maranville to the Pirates in 1921 for pennies on the dollar.

As for the pitching staff, it just seemed to burn out. Bill James threw just 73.1 innings after 1914 and was out of the majors at age 27, the victim of a sore arm. Dick Rudolph’s arm held up for three more years before fading out, despite a slight resurgence in 1919. Lefty Tyler was the only one whose arm survived 1914 intact. As if to punish him for such insolence, he was traded away in 1918 in a series of moves that ultimately landed infielder Buck Herzog in Boston. (Herzog had been a star, but he was an old 32, and his lone full season in Boston was a dud.)

To replace the departed stars, the Braves found … well, no one really. Until the end of the World War II, the Braves were pathetic in player development. The list of useful young players the team acquired in those years – Tony Cuccinello, Wally Berger, Johnny Cooney, Tommy Holmes, Vince DiMaggio – isn’t nearly as impressive as the list of the washed-up stars of yesteryear employed by the team – George Sisler, Rogers Hornsby, Rabbit Maranville (reacquired at age 37), Al Simmons, Paul Waner and, of course, Babe Ruth.

The strategy of Braves ownership in the intervening years seemed to be acquiring star players at the end of their careers to boost ticket sales. The utter failure of this plan did not deter them from continuing to pursue it. The most reliable way to sell tickets – winning – was not just beyond them, but often seemed to be of secondary importance entirely.

Building a winning baseball team takes great patience and a great investment in that most unpredictable of assets – young baseball players. This was especially true in the days before the amateur draft and the widespread adoption of farm systems. Successful teams had to invest money in scouting and, if they didn’t have much of a minor league system (and the Braves did not), they had to be willing to pony up cash to buy the best minor league players on the free market. The Braves’ unwillingness (or inability) to do some or all of these things sent the franchise into a downward spiral that took 30 years to correct, and even then wasn’t completely renewed until the franchise left Boston for Milwaukee in 1953.

There were some managers who tried and failed. There were even some executives who tried and failed (Christy Mathewson served as team president before a fatal case of tuberculosis forced him out of the game). It would take a bold ownership group (led by Lou Perini) and a bumper crop of young talent (Spahn, Sain, Aaron, Mathews, Burdette, Crandall, Torre) to erase the decades-long stigma associated with the Boston Braves.

All of this makes the fact that the 1914 team won it all even more breathtaking. In all fairness to Stallings, there was no master plan that put the team together. There weren’t even many players on the team who were all that good.

But they became, for one year at least, the greatest Cinderella story in baseball history. No one has surpassed it, nor will they ever.

Sources:

Baseball-Reference.com. Multiple sources, including stats for noted players and play-by-play for 1914 World Series.

SABR Bio Project. From SABR.org.

Chief Bender’s Burden: The Silent Struggle of a Baseball Star by Tom Swift. Bison Books.

Connie Mack and the Early Years of Baseball by Norman Macht & Connie Mack III. University of Nebraska Press.

Deadball Stars of the National League Ed. Tom Simon. Specifically, “Johnny Evers” by David Shiner, “Fred Tenney” by Mark Sternman, “Lefty Tyler” by Wayne McElreavy, “George Stallings” by Martin Kohout, “Bill James” by David Jones and “Dick Rudolph” by Dick Leyden. Brassey’s, Inc.

My Sixty-Six Years in the Big Leagues by Connie Mack. Dover Press.

Total Ballclubs by Donald Dewey & Nicholas Acocella. Sport Classic Books.

Organizational Rankings Pt. 2 (11-20)

2011-05-06T21:10:00.001-04:00

The problem with taking a one-month break in between installments of a series containing analysis is that your clever pre-season work can be made to look silly in a month. No, the Indians aren’t nearly this good, but I also may have spoken too soon when I dropped the “pathetic” tag on the franchise.

Still, continuing where I left off, at #20 in my organizational rankings:

20. Seattle Mariners

Ranked 17th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: C
Present Talent: D
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: C

Given that this team has lost more than 100 games in two of the past three seasons, ranking at #20 isn’t such a terrible thing. The main problem is that despite the furious work put in by new GM Jack Zduriencik and his staff, the team is clinging to a small core of impact talent (basically Ichiro and King Felix). They do have some big-time prospects on the move; second baseman Dustin Ackley and starting pitcher Michael Pineda have star potential, and both of them should affect an immediate improvement. Even considering that, though, the M’s will still have a small core of useful talent that will get a lot smaller when (if?) Ichiro’s batting average starts to slip.

I like a lot of what Jack Z has done in Seattle, so I feel kind of bad throwing out that “C” in operations. It hasn’t been all roses for the new GM, but what really affected my rating was a difficult clubhouse environment that doesn’t reflect kindly on the on-field personnel.

As 100-loss teams go, the Mariners have some promise, but they’re still the fourth-best team in a four-team division.

19. Baltimore Orioles

Ranked 15th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: C
Present Talent: D
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: C

The Orioles franchise is in better shape than it’s been in a decade. This is mainly represented by the strong talent the organization has on hand, both at the major league level and in the high minors. It’s also an indication of the good work done by team executive Andy MacPhail, as well as the non-interference by feisty owner Peter Angelos.

Still, the Orioles are the fifth-best team in a five-team division. Sure, I guess you could argue them past the Blue Jays, but their best-case scenario is finishing third, and that’s assuming that a tremendous catastrophe befalls one of the division’s powerhouses.

The Orioles do have an impressive array of young talent and low-cost veterans. The days of splurging on C-level players like Jay Payton and Kevin Millar seem to be a thing of the past, with a new emphasis on low-cost talent. The Orioles start the season with nine good position players and no obvious hole anywhere in the starting lineup (unless you’re really pessimistic about Vlad Guerrero). They’ve got three or four legitimate pitching prospects in the majors, with at least one more on the way. In any other division, they’d be contenders. Unfortunately, they’re stuck behind the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays.

18. Los Angeles Dodgers

Ranked 23rd by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: C
Present Talent: C
Baseball Operations: D
Future Talent: C

The Dodgers are facing two major, potentially fatal problems heading into the 2011 season. The first, and most obvious, is the battle for ownership of the team, a contentious public display that has limited the ability of the front office to properly utilize the still-potent team revenues.

The more immediate problem is that the core talent developed by Logan White is getting ever-closer to free agency with little sign that it will be enough to push the team into contention. This isn’t to say that there aren’t some really bright spots on the team. Clayton Kershaw has the upside of a #1 starter, and by that I mean the #1 starter in all of baseball. Chad Billingsley is a solid #2, and the team has some strong relief options, starting with closer Jonathan Broxton. The front office was also able to add some good depth to the starting rotation, re-signing the underrated Hiroki Kuroda and picking up Ted Lilly. If the Dodgers do contend in the next three-to-five years, it will probably be on the strength of their pitchers.

The starting lineup is something else entirely. Player development of position players has been almost uniformly disastrous. Catcher Russell Martin was broken (probably by Joe Torre) and discarded, but not before the team also traded away a potential superstar replacement in Carlos Santana (in exchange for non-superstar Casey Blake). Center fielder Matt Kemp has shown the ability to turn his potent tools into run production, but not with consistency, leaving many to wonder if he’ll ever really be that guy.

Perhaps the most amazing thing here is that the Dodgers were supposed to have a dynamic, homegrown infield. The idea was that James Loney would play first, with Andy LaRoche manning third. The middle infield would be covered by some combination of Chin-Ling Hu, Ivan DeJesus, Jr., Blake Dewitt and Delwyn Young. Three of those middle-infield guys have already bombed out of the organization, as has LaRoche. DeJesus, age 24, still could be a contributor, whereas James Loney looks like a capable if utterly uninspiring first baseman (career 286/346/435).

The Dodgers’ Plan B for dealing with this failure hasn’t been uniformly bad. They picked up Andre Ethier in a steal of trade from Oakland. They signed Rafael Furcal to a free agent deal. And while he’s not as good as Santana, Casey Blake has been pretty useful. But the combination of brittle veterans, busted prospects and a woeful defensive outfield leaves the Dodgers placing all their faith in the pitching staff to get them back to October.

It may seem a stretch to give the Dodgers a “D” in Baseball Operations, especially since the team was able to develop a tremendous crop of young talent in a short period of time (their big-league performance notwithstanding). The drag on this rating isn’t just the batsh*t-crazy McCourts, but bumbling GM Ned Colletti. If not for the work of White’s minor league machine, Colletti’s time in L.A. would have been a dismal failure, punctuated as it was by the terrible contracts handed out to the likes of Juan Pierre, Jason Schmidt and Andruw Jones, not to mention the unforgivable loss of Carlos Santana to the Indians.

The Dodgers’ window of opportunity has probably closed, and while they did manage to make a couple of trips to the NLCS, it will probably be looked upon as a failure in light of the tremendous potential that was squandered.

17. Detroit Tigers

Ranked 16th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: C
Present Talent: C
Baseball Operations: B
Future Talent: D

The Tigers are squeezing the last drops of contention out of the team that won the 2006 pennant. And while Justin Verlander and Miguel Cabrera are two guys you can build a franchise around, the Tigers’ list of impact players ends there.

Like many teams that experience unexpected success, the Tigers spent a lot of money rewarding the team that went to the ‘06 World Series. Contract extensions were handed out to Verlander, Jeremy Bonderman, Brandon Inge, Carlos Guillen and Nate Robertson. Other than Verlander’s deal, those contracts have been uniformly embarrassing. Bonderman and Robertson are out of the organization, and Guillen will be soon. But instead of taking the opportunity to find a new core of young talent, the Tigers seem obsessed with wringing one last year of contention out of the present group, spending big money on mid-level guys like Jhonny Peralta, Joaquin Benoit and Jose Valverde. The commitments to these players have left the team with a few stars surrounded by several gaping holes filled by marginal major-league talents such as Brennan Boesch and Brad Penny.

The Tigers have consistently fielded a payroll that seems to suggests a bigger market than they currently enjoy. Those numbers are coming down, though, and given the current state of the city of Detroit, I can’t anticipate any great increase in revenues. I wouldn’t expect the Tigers to outspend the Red Sox again in the near future.

16. Milwaukee Brewers

Ranked 22nd by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: C
Present Talent: B
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: D

I think I’m much higher on the Brewers than most people. I seem to have them a letter grade higher than the general consensus. I’ll try to justify that in a few short words.

As to financial resources, the Brewers do reside in one of baseball’s smallest media markets, but they’ve also managed to average about 3 million in attendance over the past four years. They also have an owner who has proven willing to commit money to the team to keep key talent in place. Their payroll is a bit low this year (~$80 million), but I feel safe in giving the team a rating above what you’d expect based simply on the size of their market.

I picked the Brewers to win the NL Central, so it should come as no surprise that I like their present talent. Even with Zack Greinke on the DL, the Brewers have a fine starting rotation of Greinke, Yovani Gallardo, Shaun Marcum, Randy Wolf and Chris Narveson. I don’t think the bullpen is as bad as many are expecting, and while the defense is bad, I think there are enough bright spots there to prevent a catastrophe. When you consider that the Brewers have a potent middle of the order, and I don’t see why everyone considers this to be a third-place team.

While I think GM Doug Melvin has made his share of mistakes on the player acquisition front (namely Randy Wolf and Jeff Suppan), he’s also done an awful lot to bring a formerly moribund franchise back to life. He presided over the drafting and development of an impressive nucleus of talent, made some very impressive trades (none moreso than the Richie Sexson deal) and managed to acquire some very useful veteran pieces (Doug Davis, Ray Durham, Mike Cameron) without having to commit to ten-figure annual salaries. I don’t want to marginalize his errors, but surely this is what a small market franchise is supposed to do.

Future talent includes all talent contributing to the team in the near future, not just the farm system. This helps the Brewers, who have (by acclamation) the worst farm system in baseball, having cleaned house to acquire Shaun Marcum and Zack Greinke. The Brewers won’t be adding a lot of new talent in the new few years, but they will still have Ryan Braun, Yovani Gallardo, Rickie Weeks, Corey Hart and Casey McGehee.

15. Cincinnati Reds

Ranked 9th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: D
Present Talent: B
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: B

The Reds end up at #15 because they play in one of the smallest media markets in baseball and, despite notching a division title last year, have had trouble attracting fans to a lovely ballpark.

Last year, the Reds drew 2,060,551 fans to Great American Ballpark. This was an 18% increase over 2009, which looks great until you put it in context; in 2009 attendance dropped 15% from 2008 levels. So the division title win in 2010 only got the Reds a minor boost over 2008 levels, a bounceback that still saw them ranked 12th in the NL.

It’s true that a winning team typically sees their biggest attendance increase in the following season. According to ESPN.com, however, the Reds are drawing fewer fans this year; they’re on pace to draw a little over 1.8 million fans, which would be a 12% decrease from last year’s high. Even if you account for the league-wide drop in attendance this year, this can’t be too encouraging for the Reds. It will take a while for the franchise to erase memories of the forgotten decade from 2000-2009, and until it does, cash will be hard to come by.

The Reds get a B in Present and Future Talent, and neither rating seems too far-fetched to me. The Reds probably aren’t a 90-win team, but they’re a strong contender in the NL and should be for a while longer. They’ve got a very strong core of young talent (the best in their division by far) which should serve them quite well for the near future.

I’m not the biggest fan of what Walt Jocketty’s done so far as Cincinnati GM, as a lot of his moves seem like they stem from a basic misunderstanding of roster construction. This has been offset somewhat by a strong crop of young talent (most of which was in place before he came. To be fair, though, it was Jocketty who won the bidding for Aroldis Chapman, and he also made moves to lock up Joey Votto and Jay Bruce to team-friendly contracts. I do have confidence in Jocketty’s management abilities, having seen him do a lot of good work in St. Louis. My optimism is tempered, though, by the continued presence of Dusty Baker, holding a talented crop of young pitchers in his scissor-hands.

This may seem like a low ranking for the Reds, but I’m really optimistic about the team in most things not involving cash flow.

14. Los Angeles Angels

Ranked 12th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: B
Present Talent: C
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: C

When I started this list, I gave the Angels an “A” in Financial Resources. It was a stretch, sure, but I thought they were a top-tier team when it came to cash. After the Vernon Wells deal, I downgraded them to a “B.” I just can’t ignore a team that throws that much cash down a sinkhole.

I did not downgrade the team’s baseball operations after the Wells deal, although you could argue that I should have. The grade didn’t so much reflect confidence in Tony Reagins and his staff, who have done little of note outside of vulturing Dan Haren from the Diamondbacks. I stuck to my “C” rating because, despite his narrow-minded attitude toward team-building, I do think Mike Scioscia is an asset.

The Angels aren’t a bad team now and probably won’t be anytime soon. But even with the arrival of uber-prospect Mike Trout, I think they’ll be stubbornly mediocre for some time to come. It’s hard to look at the colossal failure of their infield prospects and still be upbeat about their future.

13. Chicago Cubs

Ranked 19th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: A
Present Talent: C
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: C

How in the world could you rank the Cubs as the 19th-best franchise in baseball when financial resources are such a large part of your formula? Considering the financial troubles currently plaguing the Mets and Dodgers, the Cubs are the highest-rated team in their league when it comes to money. That’s important, even if every other factor surrounding the team is average at best.

The current iteration of the Cubs isn’t really a bad team at all. Their offense isn’t great, certainly, but Alfonso Soriano isn’t dead yet, and they’ve got two key young talents in Geovany Soto and Starlin Castro. Depth is non-existent until some prospects arrive, but compared to the rest of the NL Central, their short- and long-term prospects aren’t too bad, especially with the possibility that they add Albert Pujols in the offseason.

12. Minnesota Twins

Ranked 6th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: B
Present Talent: B
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: C

The big surprise here is giving the Twins a “B” in Financial Resources. Surprising, since former owner Carl “Penury” Pohlad was reluctant to put money into the team. But with a new ballpark finally ~~extorted from~~ approved by the taxpayers, the Twins have shown that they’re ready to spend money by plunking down Yankee-esque money to keep Joe Mauer in town. 3.2 million fannies in the seats will change things.

I feel I might have overrated the team by giving them a “B” in Present Talent. This was influenced, obviously, by the presence of Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau. Plus, I think they’re in pretty good shape, returning as they are the same club from last year plus Joe Nathan and a healthy Morneau. What makes me pause is the number of things that could go wrong (these have already begun in earnest).

11. Colorado Rockies

Ranked 10th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: C
Present Talent: B
Baseball Operations: B
Future Talent: B

Did you notice that the Rockies became one of the best franchises in the National League? It happened without any great fanfare, maybe because they’re so un-sexy and un-magnificent. They don’t get an A in anything, but they’re surprisingly good in every aspect. The only thing that keeps them out of the top 10 is a lack of cash.

The Rockies have stars aplenty in Troy Tulowitzki, Ubaldo Jimenez and Carlos Gonzalez. The bottom of the lineup is thin (Jose Lopez?), as is the bottom of their rotation, but there are no juggernauts in the NL West, making it anyone’s game.

It surprised me as much as anyone to give this team a “B” in Baseball Operations, but haven’t they built a darn good team? The only good reason I could think of to give them a “C” was the always-infuriating manager, Jim Tracy. The Rockies don’t have a catchy turn of phrase to describe their organizational philosophy, but it’s worked pretty darn well for them over the past few years, and it should continue to do so for some time to come.

UP NEXT: The Top 10

Organizational Rankings

2011-03-26T23:33:00.001-04:00

You may have recently come across this at fangraphs.com. Basically, the Fangraphs writers were asked to rank each major league organization according to four factors. The resulting organizational rankings are being posted at Fangraphs (they’re halfway through as I write this.

I saw this as an opportunity to rank the organizations myself and then see how my rankings compared to those of the Fangraphs team of experts.

The four factors used to determine the rankings are (with their weighted value in parentheses):

1. Financial Resources (30%)

Pretty self-explanatory.

2. Present Talent (30%)

Also pretty self-explanatory.

3. Baseball Operations (25%)

Refers to the front office, major and minor league staff and all contained therein.

4. Future Talent (15%)

Refers not to just to minor-league talent, but talent that will contribute for a significant period into the future.

And, in descending order*, here are my rankings:
* – In case of a tie, I used the team’s 2010 record as a tiebreaker.

30. Houston Astros

Ranked 30th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: D
Present Talent: F
Baseball Operations: F
Future Talent: F

In my NL Central recap, I referred to the Astros as the most pathetic franchise in baseball. Others may be inclined to favor the Pirates, the Orioles, the Nationals, or some other team with a long history of losing. The Astros may not have the history, but this ranking is about where they are right now: dead last.

The only bright spot here is the “D” I gave the team in Financial Resources. Normally, I would give the Astros a “C”; they’re a mid-market team with a mid-market payroll that’s not afraid to roll out the bucks under the right circumstances. But given the pressing financial situation of owner Drayton McLane and his subsequent decision to put the team up for sale, I have to knock this rating down to a “D”.

I gave the Astros an F in Present Talent somewhat reluctantly. The team does have some promising starting pitchers, among them the capable Brett Myers, Wandy Rodriguez, Bud Norris and J.A. Happ. But none of those guys is a front-line talent, and really, the rest of the team is bad enough to drag the ranking down to the cellar. I gave just four teams an “F” in present talent, so this really does represent the bottom. Future talent goes along the same lines, as the team is starting to replenish its farm system, but any hope is very far away, which means that the major league team will be wretched for the next 3-5 years, at least.

The two-fisted villain that’s clubbing this franchise into a coma is owner McLane on the left and General Manager Ed Wade on the right. The Astros have been penny-foolish and pound-foolish, doling out the crippling Carlos Lee contract while cutting back spending in the amateur draft. This long-term problem made the club very top-heavy, and with the trades of Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt, the top is gone, and we’re left with dreck.

GM Wade, left to sign mid-level free agents to float the payroll up to $100 million, has made a dazzling series of blunders, picking up the desiccated remains of Pedro Feliz, a less-than-youthful Miguel Tejada and any number of overpaid part-time players such as Jason Michaels, Darin Erstad and (admittedly inherited) albatross Brad Ausmus.

When you’re looking up at the Pirates – in any situation – you’re screwed.

29. Pittsburgh Pirates

Ranked 28th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: F
Present Talent: F
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: C

It may be painful, but the Pirates are moving away from the bottom of this list. The team has capable front-office talent, even if that hasn’t yet translated into any progress at the major league level (hence my split-the-difference “C” rating). But if there’s anything to brighten the hopes of Pirate fans, it’s that “C” the team rates for future talent. Not only is there a growing nucleus of talent in the majors (McCutchen, Alvarez, Tabata, Walker), there’s some high-end talent on the way.

I don’t really think of the Pirates as the 29th-best franchise in the majors, but it’s hard to do much better when you get an “F” in the two most important categories. Even there, present talent is improving to the point that they could merit a “D” as soon as next year, and any growth in that regard will improve the team’s access to ready cash.

Ranking 29th may be a dubious victory, but any victory at all is a comfort to Pirate fans.

28. Cleveland Indians

Ranked 26th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: D
Present Talent: F
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: D

It was a tough decision to give the Indians an “F” for present talent. After all, they do have Grady Sizemore, Carlos Santana and Shin-Soo Choo. And if you asked me again tomorrow, I might change my mind and give them a D-minus. But when I sat down to make my preseason picks, I had to think long and hard before I decided to rank the Indians ahead of the Royals. And that tells you all you need to know.

The “D” in financial resources doesn’t just refer to the team’s small, recession-damaged media market, but also to the fact that they’re having a tough time drawing fans. The Indians have under-performed expectations for half a decade now. Many fans may have forgotten the mini-dynasty of Manny, Thome and Albert Belle, but they have NOT forgotten the superstars (Cliff Lee, C.C. Sabathia, Victor Martinez) sold off for a questionable return. Until the Tribe starts winning again, they’re going to have to keep creatively mining new revenue streams.

The Indians experienced a minor shift in baseball operations recently, with longtime General Manager Mark Shapiro moving up to become president, with longtime assistant Chris Antonetti now in the GM’s chair. Shapiro’s legacy includes few highlights – mainly the team’s near-pennant run in 2007 – and a lot of disappointments, such as the team’s endemic underperformance and tragic decision to sell early on so many stars. With no new talent coming in from the minors (a fact that may come to define the Indian teams of the 00’s), Shapiro needed to get a brilliant return for Sabathia, Lee, et al. He did not. His best trade actually involved mid-level star Casey Blake, bringing back Carlos Santana from the Dodgers. I’m struggling now to think of one* homegrown star that appeared in Cleveland during Shapiro’s tenure as GM. Sabathia and Martinez came into the system under former GM John Hart. Lee, Sizemore, Hafner, Santana, Choo, Ronnie Belliard, Jake Westbrook and even Asdrubal Cabrera were all trade acquisitions. That leaves … who, exactly? I guess Shapiro’s last hope is that Lonnie Chisenhall makes it in the bigs.

* – Notable players drafted by the Indians from 2001-2010:

2001: Luke Scott (traded to Houston for Jeriome Robertson)

2002: Jeremy Guthrie (pitched 16 games for Cleveland before being lost on waivers to the Orioles. Became mid-level innings-eater for Baltimore, and thus would be #2 pitcher on the Indians’ staff); Ben Francisco (traded with Cliff Lee to Phillies)

2003: Michael Aubrey (bust. Now with Washington); Ryan Garko (fair 1B traded to Giants for Scott Barnes); Kevin Kouzmanoff (decent third baseman traded to Padres for mega-bust Josh Barfield); Aaron Laffey (5th starter)

2004: Jeremy Sowers (mega-bust)

2005: Trevor Crowe (4th outfielder); Jensen Lewis (spare arm); Desmond Jennings (too bad he didn’t sign); Tim Lincecum (umm … ditto)

2006: David Huff (not to repeat myself, but: spare arm)

2007: Beau Mills (college 1B hit 241/312/377 as a 23-year-old in AA last year)

2008: Lonnie Chisenhall (here’s hopin’)

2009 & 2010: (It’s too early to judge the last few drafts)

It would be unfair to blame this poor showing entirely on Shapiro. But as de facto head of baseball ops, this does reflect poorly on him as well as the entire organization. Small market franchises don’t survive dry spells like this. Here’s hoping Antonetti breaks free of the glass (low-)ceiling.

27. Arizona Diamondbacks

Ranked 29th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: D
Present Talent: D
Baseball Operations: D
Future Talent: D

These rankings reflect a franchise that is consistently mediocre, which is pretty much how the press has described the Diamondbacks’ spring training. The “D” for baseball operations isn’t a reflection on the highly-qualified Kevin Towers; Towers hasn’t been on the job for long, so that rating is a reflection of the dismal state of the team before he got there.

If there’s one place I might have short-changed the team, it’s on future talent. The D-Backs’ farm system was ranked middle-of-the-road by most pre-season projections, but I think it’s weighed down by a lack of impact talent at the big-league level, at least until Justin Upton turns it around.

26. Kansas City Royals

Ranked 25th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: D
Present Talent: F
Baseball Operations: D
Future Talent: A

“One of these things is not like the other …”

As bad as the Royals are, and as frighteningly inept as the baseball ops staff has proven itself, one simply cannot discount a farm system that many say is the best in recent memory. This only slightly counters the raging incompetence displayed by GM Dayton Moore at the big-league level.

25. Florida Marlins

Ranked 27th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: F
Present Talent: C
Baseball Operations: D
Future Talent: C

Simply by giving a damn, the Marlins could propel themselves ten spots up this list. If they were to spend a decent amount on a ballclub (enough to rate a “C”) and stop sabotaging the club from above (enough to rate at least a “C” in baseball ops), they would rank 17th on my list. And when you consider that this act of giving a damn would result in a commensurate rise in present or future talent, the Marlins would easily be among the top half of baseball clubs. But the arch-villainy of the Florida ownership is an old, old story …

I should say that my low rating for baseball ops is not a reflection on the talent of the team executives. Larry Beinfest does a good job with the team, especially considering what he has to deal with from above. But the owners are, unfortunately, also a big part of baseball ops, and so Beinfest and his staff get a rating that it doesn’t really deserve.

I have the Marlins listed higher than FG, I think, because I’m slightly more enthusiastic about their present and future talent. Twist my arm, and I could say that the team’s prognosis isn’t too bright. The farm system isn’t in great shape and, of course, the team isn’t in the habit of keeping the good players it has. But with Hanley Ramirez, Josh Johnson, Ricky Nolasco, Mike Stanton and Logan Morrison in the fold for the near future (as well as Matt Dominguez), I think the Marlins can at least remain decent.

24. Washington Nationals

Ranked 24th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: C
Present Talent: D
Baseball Operations: D
Future Talent: C

It says a lot about this franchise that they only merit a “C” in future talent, despite the fact that they’ve got both Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg in the fold. Other than those two, though, who else will be helping this team will in the years to come? Ryan Zimmerman and Jordan Zimmermann (or as I call them, Thomson and Thompson). Derek Norris and the handful of prospects on the farm? None of these are really viable answers, and the GDP of Ecuador the team owes to Jayson Werth won’t help anything.

GM Mike Rizzo has brought the farm system along from the days when it was run into the ground by the MLB and then sprinkled with magic beans by Jim Bowden. But there’s still a long way to go, and the moves made at the major league level aren’t encouraging. I don’t know if it’s Rizzo or his bosses who want to throw away money turning a 70-win team into a 75-win team, and for the purposes of this rating, it doesn’t matter.

23. Oakland Athletics

Ranked 18th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: F
Present Talent: C
Baseball Operations: B
Future Talent: D

I’m no longer a believer in the Billy Beane magic. That’s a relative statement, of course, as evidenced by the “B” rating, no kind of insult. But while I have a great deal of respect for David Forst and the staff, I can’t be nearly as optimistic about this team as so many of my colleagues.

I think it started a couple of years ago, when the team decided to win now (Matt Holliday trade) and win later (Haren, Blanton, etc. deals) at the same time. Maybe I’ve been listening too much to those rumors that Beane is more interested in soccer now.

I think I’ve just been swayed by the fallow nature of the Oakland farm system for nearly a decade. Since the (in)famous Moneyball draft that saw the A’s pick up Nick Swisher, the team has done an abysmal job at drafting and developing position players. They’ve done only marginally better with pitchers, although that’s been helped by some canny trades, the one thing you can still depend upon the A’s for.

I hate to put too fine a point on this, and I freely acknowledge the shadow cast by that solitary “F” upon every part of this franchise. And sure, we’d all be better off if the MLB finally decided what the f*ck to do with this team. But the A’s are getting better by very small degrees (I cannot get too excited by David Dejesus and Brian Fuentes), and no small-market franchise can win like that.

22. New York Mets

Ranked 21st by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: C
Present Talent: D
Baseball Operations: C
Future Talent: D

The Mets are in serious financial trouble. As with the A’s above, that status casts a serious shadow over every other aspect of the franchise. Normally, the Mets would get an easy “A” for finances; they’re in the nation’s #1 market and regularly sport one of the league’s top payrolls. But given the uncertainty of the current situation as well as a possible sale on the horizon, I think a “C” might actually be charitable.

That the owners (with an assist from the outgoing baseball operations staff) got the team into this mess carries over into my “C” rating for baseball ops as a whole. I have a great deal of respect for Sandy Alderson and Paul DePodesta; it’s because of them that baseball ops doesn’t rate an “F.”

The Mets do have some promising talent in the minors, but it’s not enough to replace the talent that is hemorrhaging from the roster. In the next three years, the only players the Mets will really be able to count on are David Wright, Jason Bay and whatever’s left of Johan Santana. The Jennry Mejias of the world will offer some assistance, but this is a team whose best-case scenario for the near future is 3rd place.

21. San Diego Padres

Ranked 20th by Fangraphs

Financial Resources: D
Present Talent: D
Baseball Operations: B
Future Talent: C

Despite their amazing showing in 2010, the Padres are still dealing with the financial disruption caused by Tom Werner’s fire sale. The Adrian Gonzalez deal swapped out present talent for future talent, and it’s there (along with a clever front office) that the Padres’ hopes reside.

UP NEXT: Part 2 (#11-20)

NBR: The Best of the 00’s (Film)

2011-03-18T00:04:00.001-04:00

I’ve spent a lot of time preparing my article on the best baseball players of the 2000’s (2000-2009). I’ve put a lot of time and thought into it, so it’s taken me longer than I expected. Then I got the idea to list the best films of the 2000’s. It didn’t take nearly as long as I expected and was fun to put together.

I’ll start by naming my favorites by genre, and then I’ll finish with the best acting performances of the decade. The following is based solely on my opinion, of course. Keep in mind that I haven’t seen everything, even including some really notable films that everyone ELSE has seen, but I haven’t gotten around to yet. Feel free to leave a comment if you wish to dispute my rankings.

The Best Action/Adventure Films:

#5: The Dark Knight

This was as nasty and brutish as anything Thomas Hobbes could have envisioned. It was also pretty brilliant. I only had a few problems with it, notably the fact that it was crammed with a little too much plot. But Heath Ledger was an inspiration. I doubt he would have won the Oscar had he survived, but in any case I think he deserved it.

#4: Iron Man

I really don’t know what to say about Iron Man that hasn’t been said. Every bit of it was just a good movie, superhero or not. You can’t say that about many “franchise” movies.

#3: Kill Bill Vol. 1

I’ve never been so truly delighted by a film that used so many buckets of blood. It walks the line between fantasy and irony with perfect aplomb. I didn’t care as much for Volume 2, as it was more of a character study (especially at the end), and that didn’t really work for me given the context.

#2: Children of Men

I’m always frustrated when a great movie like Children of Men merits nothing more than a passing notice at the Oscars (in this case, a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay). Granted, I’m much more cynical about the Oscars than I used to be, but I still like to see brilliance rewarded. I don’t know that I could single out one individual part of the film for praise, but I have to mention the superb use of one long, continuous shot in the action scenes. It really makes you realize how over-cut most action films are, and it does nothing but reduce the human impact.

#1: Sin City

Sin City was made for my generation. It’s not so much a film as a tremendous gift of utter visual brilliance. I enjoyed watching this so much that I was literally bouncing in my seat. Yes, this movie was about boobs and bullets, but I’m not ashamed to say that I loved every bit of it.

Action/Adventure Summary:

Sin City
Children of Men
Kill Bill Vol. 1
Iron Man
The Dark Knight

Honorable Mentions:

Casino Royale was a terrific addition to the Bond franchise. As much as I miss the old Bond movie formula, it was time to break the mold … Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was phenomenal … Enemy at the Gates isn’t as good as the other films on this list, but there’s something about it that I find very appealing. It’s the history nerd in me … Hero is easily my favorite Jet Li film … The Incredible Hulk was good enough to make me forget Ang Lee’s Hulk, and that’s saying something … V for Vendetta left me feeling a bit iffy, but I’ve really warmed to it since then. Plus, I’ve got a soft spot for strong supporting characters, so I loved Steven Rea and Stephen Fry … The X-Men Trilogy gets inducted as one, even if the third movie was a bit disappointing. Studio executives: see what happens when you cast legitimate actors in superhero films?

The Best Comedies:

#5: A Mighty Wind
There was something very sentimental and human about A Mighty Wind that set it apart from the other Guest/Levy comedies and made it, in my opinion, the best of them all. I wouldn’t have guessed that adding more sentiment to the mockumentary format would work so well. But it did. Thanks also to some fabulous original songs.

#4: Rat Race
My all-time favorite movie is It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. It’s no surprise, then, that I was unusually fond of Rat Race. The cast wasn’t the all-star affair you’d expect for a chase comedy, but they worked out quite well. And I kind of fell in love with Amy Smart …

#3: Hot Fuzz
I actually liked this a lot better than Shaun of the Dead. I thought Shaun was spotty and unusually serious towards the end. Hot Fuzz, though, was just plain old fun. Dark humor done well.

#2: Love, Actually
Romantic comedy is, actually, my least favorite genre. Which tells you all you need to know about this film.

#1: O Brother, Where Art Thou?
I cannot begin to describe how delighted I was to watch this film. It connected to me on a personal level, being from the south and a diehard fan of classic bluegrass and gospel music. I tend to run hot and cold on the films of the Coen brothers (as you’ll see below), but here they managed to make one of the most charming films of all time.

Comedy Summary:

O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Love, Actually
Hot Fuzz
Rat Race
A Mighty Wind

Honorable Mention:

There have been a lot of movies like Dodgeball recently, and I usually don’t like them. But this was an absolute pleasure. Thank you, Ben Stiller … Juno almost didn’t make my list, but although I wasn’t as crazy about it as some were, I genuinely enjoyed it (once I got used to the friggin' dialogue) … , Mrs. Henderson Presents was just charming and delightful. No surprise there from old favorites Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins … Sideways was a great deal of fun, even if I don’t understand why I liked it so much. Maybe I identified too much with Paul Giamatti’s character … Tropic Thunder was just … words cannot describe it. As outrageous and hilarious as everything was, nothing – but nothing – compares to Robert Downey, Jr. “I don’t read the script – the script reads me.” Comic brilliance … Up in the Air really was a treat. That was one movie where everything came together pretty seamlessly to form a really enjoyable film experience. The star turn here was by Anna Kendrick.

The Best Documentaries:

#2: Super Size Me
This is just a top two list. I don’t watch a whole lot of docs, and I didn’t want to fill out the list with movies I didn’t think belonged there. That said, Morgan Spurlock’s breakthrough film easily earns its spot here, especially since it’s inspired so many other comic docu-health films.

#1: Sicko
Michael Moore knows how to push buttons. I’m a leftist myself, so I generally agree with what he has to say. What I dislike is his over-simplification of the issues. For example, the potential problems of a state-run health care system are never mentioned, nor does he bat an eye at the great hospitality shown him by Cuba. But Sicko was, to me, his best film of all. There weren’t as many useless stunts, and more time was spent talking to people and actually using a sensible approach to evaluating the problem.

Honorable Mention: Fahrenheit 9/11 made me angry, as does much of recent history … The Fog of War was a really fascinating look at former Secretary of Defense McNamara. I’m really amazed he allowed the filmmakers to essentially conduct a study of him.

The Best Dramas:

#5: Brokeback Mountain
This will forever be known as The Gay Movie. But the best compliment I can possibly put forward is that the film would have been brilliant if the characters were gay or straight. This was simply a great film with an unbelievable, Oscar-worthy performance by Heath Ledger. The fact that it deals with issues of homosexuality is not the only thing that makes it noteworthy.

#4: Munich
After watching Munich, I wondered why in the hell I’d never heard more about this film. It was absolutely excellent and timely and controversial and everything that usually gets a lot of press. Surely a Spielberg film has never been so quietly received – even if you consider the Oscar nomination for Best Picture.
I saw the answer to my question in the DVD introduction by Spielberg himself. Actually, it wasn’t so much an introduction as a disclaimer. Spielberg clarified what the film was meant to be and tried to calm some more hysterical interpretations of it. The only time I’ve ever seen a disclaimer before a film warning of its controversial nature was before watching some old cartoons with offensive racial stereotypes.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. Any movie that engages in an honest discussion about terrorism, retribution and the state of Israel is just hitting too many hot buttons. I’m not implying some vast Jewish conspiracy to silence the film, just a typical Hollywood attempt to distance itself from any real controversy, controversy that hurts rather than helps a film.

#3: Letters from Iwo Jima
As the credits rolled on Letters from Iwo Jima, I wondered if this might be the greatest war movie I’d ever seen. In retrospect, I don’t know if I’d go that far. And yet the film is so marvelously unique that I can’t help but single it out for praise.

What really makes LFIJ stand out is its hybrid Japanese-American production. Director Clint Eastwood is, of course, an American, but the film still manages to offer a uniquely Japanese look at World War II, something heretofore unheard of in American cinema.

LFIJ pulls of a rare feat; it takes on larger issues of war, culture and morality but presents them through the lives of very specific characters. This gives us new insight into the Japanese experience during World War II.

Some common war movie themes emerge, such as the conflict between duty to one’s country and duty to what’s right. LFIJ goes one step further, examining the clash between traditional mores and the emerging neo-samurai subculture of honor that prevailed in the military/political spheres in imperial Japan.

I really can’t tie together all the positive things I have to say about this film. I hate to rate it as low as number three, but then it’s got some stiff competition.

#2: Downfall
Downfall has to be considered the best film study of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. It takes us inside Hitler’s bunker during the final days of World War II (and his life), giving us a shocking look at the grotesque decay of fascism on one hand, and Hitler’s personal descent into some sort of madness.

Bruno Ganz is an absolute revelation as Hitler. How he escaped an Oscar nomination is amazing (well, it’s unfortunately not that amazing). Ganz brilliantly portrays Hitler’s delicate, personable side while also manifesting an ego and mental state of profound malignancy.

We also get a glimpse into the life of those around Hitler, pathetically stroking his ego and jockeying for position. Albert Speer is the only one who retains a shred of dignity, and even that’s because the film seems to accept Speer’s version of the events of the final days. We get to see Martin Bormann, more powerful even than Hitler toward the end, conniving until the end to turn Hitler against Goring, Himmler and others. And most importantly, we have the ordinary German citizens and workers (notably Hitler’s secretary) who find themselves stuck in some grotesque tragicomedy.

The most memorable scene, though, may belong to Josef and Magda Goebbels, who poison their six children before taking their own lives.

#1: In the Valley of Elah
You know you’re talking about a special film indeed when words fail you completely. So it is with In the Valley of Elah, a film that defies any attempt to do it justice in print.

Elah tells the story of an army veteran (Tommy Lee Jones) and his wife (Susan Sarandon) dealing with the death of their son, an Iraq War veteran. The unusual aspect of the case is that the soldier doesn’t die in Iraq; he’s murdered on a deserted road near his base. The father, a former Army investigator, stubbornly seeks to find out what happened, with the grudging assistance of a police detective (Charlize Theron).

There was every chance that this film would be generically anti-war. I am anti-war myself, but I don’t enjoy seeing these things presented as a melodramatic morality play where good an evil are easy to tell apart. Fortunately, the film was nothing like that. Jones gives the best performance of his career in presenting this very complicated man trying to make sense of insensible things. The dead soldier’s comrades are neither glorified nor demonized. They’re just real.

That’s the best world to describe this film: real. It deals with so many complex and troubling issues. Not just broad ones like war and peace, but the very real complexities of this family. This refreshingly realistic portrait of humanity shows us again what movies can do.

And I LOVED the ending.

Drama Summary:

In the Valley of Elah
Downfall
Letters from Iwo Jima
Munich
Brokeback Mountain

Honorable Mention

Too many to discuss in detail, so I’ll cut my comments short … Atonement; Capote; Good Night, and Good Luck; Gosford Park; Hotel Rwanda; The Hurt Locker; The Last King of Scotland; Notes on a Scandal; The Pianist; The Queen; There Will Be Blood; The Wrestler

The Best Horror Films:

#3: The Grudge

The Grudge was the first horror movie in years to really – pardon the phrase – freak my shit out. I can’t say what it was about the “ghosts” specifically that kept me up nights. But the if the filmmakers wanted to scare/haunt me, they succeeded – ridiculously so.

One specific thing I can point out is how the film eliminates “safety zones.” In every horror movie, there are several scenes in which somewhat spooky things may happen, but no big scares are coming. Scenes with big scares are usually given a big build-up. That’s not always so in The Grudge. And if you’re not expecting this, it can cause you to yell out an obscenity in a crowded theater (not that such a thing could happen to me …).

#2: The Others

If The Grudge was scary in new and unpredictable ways, The Others was just a classic suspense film. It manages to combine the best of horror and suspense, without the gore of the former. It manages to use subtlety to create a truly suspenseful atmosphere, thereby making the scary moments even more effective.

The moral of the story is that, even with all the CGI monsters in the world, we’re still more scared of dark corners in rooms or footsteps in the night. Sometimes the scariest thing of all is silence.

#1: Dawn of the Dead

The re-make of George Romero’s classic zombie flick uses more action-horror than suspense. The result is a film that is, apologies to Mr. Romero, better than the original.

A cast of very effective actors and a well-tuned script creates a variety of new situations that don’t just involve shooting the undead in the face. Different characters create different dynamics that gives the film a depth unmatched in other splatter films.

Not that there isn’t a lot of splatter here – they’re zombies, duh – but there’s a lot more here for the viewer to appreciate, and it’s pulled off with a very skilled hand.

Honorable Mention: Paranormal Activity comes a close second to The Grudge on the freak-your-shit-out meter. It also has perhaps the biggest scare I’ve ever experienced in the theater … Grindhouse: Planet Terror knows what it is and who it is for, and just goes with it. If that doesn’t sound like fun, trust me – it’s an absolute blast.

The Best Musicals:

#3: De-Lovely

There’s a real charm about De-Lovely, even if there’s not any one thing you can point to that’s really outstanding. Kevin Kline is good, but maybe not at his best. The film is interesting, but not entirely compelling. Perhaps it’s just good ol’ Cole Porter that makes this film such a treat.

#2: Chicago

Chicago really isn’t a good musical. The music is great, sure, but as a production, it’s just a poorly-connected series of musical numbers whose tone is hard – if not impossible – to fathom. Imagine my surprise, then, that the film version of such a poor musical could be this good.

Director Rob Marshall makes the songs work by setting them off slightly from the world of the characters. Most of the songs take place in an imaginary world that depicts the inner lives of the characters. This together with a number of brilliant concepts for each song – namely the puppet number – makes Chicago a great deal of fun. The stars are all good, but none as good as Marshall, who keeps things moving quickly, so that you don’t notice how paper-thin the whole thing is until long after you’ve left the theatre.

#1: Moulin Rouge!

Moulin Rouge! is one of those magical movie experiences that a review simply cannot do justice. I could talk about what a memorable, charming and dynamic experience that film was as a whole. Or I could focus on the details – I can’t think of any film in the past 20 years that got the details so right.

Therefore, my attempt to review Moulin Rouge! will inevitably sound like an Oscar acceptance speech. I’d like to thank Jim Broadbent, first of all, for being such a fantastically talented actor and a brilliant, inspired comedian. I’d like to thank Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor for kicking it up a notch. I’d like to thank the design team for creating the most memorable visual experience of any film in recent memory. I’d like to thank whomever chose those wonderful, wonderful songs.

Last, but not least, I’d like to thank Baz. For the magic.

Honorable Mention: If anything, Sweeney Todd. The film was good, but then I came into it with impossible expectations. I think Sondheim’s seminal work is the best musical of all time, so any film adaptation – even a good one – will inevitably disappoint me.

The Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy:

#3: Star Trek

Star Trek probably wasn’t a great film. But it was a fresh one, and I truly didn’t think such a thing was possible. There were a lot of small things about this film that bugged me, but overall I was thrilled watching it and thrilled when I left the theater.

#2: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

This was, I think, the best of the Potter films so far. There’s a great narrative underpinning this story, and I thought it was really well-captured here. The last couple Potter films seemed in too much a hurry to cram in as many details as possible. Half-Blood Prince somehow managed to believably condense a huge book into a mid-sized movie while still telling the story well.

#1: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Choosing just one film from the trilogy is tough, but I’ll agree with the Academy that they saved the best for last. Any superlatives that might be used to define this trilogy have been exhausted already. I can only think that it will take its place among the great and iconic film series of all time. And honestly, after barely ten years, I think it’s already there.

Honorable Mention: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the films before Half-Blood came along … LOR: The Fellowship of the Ring and LOR: The Two Towers should probably rank #2 and #3 on this list, but I opted for a bit more variety … Minority Report annoyed me, probably because it was a good movie that was oh SO close to being a really good movie. I found the denouement to be a thorough disappointment, turning a unique and exciting movie into just another action/thriller, albeit a good one.

The Best Thrillers:

#1: Michael Clayton

I hesitate to make this a category unto itself because, as you can see, most films that are thrillers are better listed under another genre. It’s rare that I see a true “thriller” that isn’t really an action/adventure or sci-fi/fantasy at heart.

That said, I picked a good place to start with Michael Clayton. When I first tried to rank this movie, I didn’t see any one exceptional thing to make it one of the best of the decade. But when I tried to pick out the things they did wrong, I was stumped. This is just a really fun time, a movie that does its job and does it well. I guess if anything here is exceptional, it’s the work of Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton. And yes, I am an Anglophile when it comes to actors.

Honorable Mention: I enjoyed Memento; I just didn’t see it as a real game-changer. The unique plot structure made it a good watch, but it didn’t appeal to me a great deal beyond that … Red Dragon was a really pleasant surprise, especially after sitting through the dud known as Hannibal. Without copying The Silence of the Lambs, the filmmakers were able to present a truly compelling film that was far ahead of my expectations. And here again, we have very good (English) actors: Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson.

The Best Leading Actors of the 2000s

#10: David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck

It’s always inspiring to see great non-“star” actors like Strathairn get the recognition they deserve. Strathairn has been doing good work for years, anchoring Eight Men Out, providing strong support in Memphis Belle and Sneakers, and even propping up otherwise disappointing efforts such as Dolores Claiborne. As Edward R. Murrow, Strathairn was appropriately understated, a tactic that works for the role but rarely brings nominations.

#9: Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

Speaking of understated, Renner did a great job as the star of a great movie without resorting to the histrionics that so often typify the big “acting” roles.

#8: Tommy Lee Jones, In the Valley of Elah

Jones has always been a great actor, but he shone in this film. In yet another extremely reserved performance (I swear I didn’t plan it this way), Jones manages to portray an utterly believable character whose lack of big emotional swings doesn’t prevent him from being tremendously compelling.

#7: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Capote

Hoffman made this film work. Not only did he manage a great impression of Capote, he did so while still being able to define the character within the bounds of the film – no easy task.

#6: Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland

Whitaker is another actor who’s been doing good work on the fringes without ever getting a real chance to shine. I think Good Morning, Vietnam was the first time I saw him, and I was duly impressed. He impressed me further as the heart of an otherwise unexceptional film, Panic Room.

Few roles offer an actor the chance to break out like Idi Amin. Whitaker took advantage of the opportunity and then some. He was exactly what he needed to be, and yet he was still so dynamic and creative that he was always a joy to watch.

#5: Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain

Ledger lost the Best Actor Oscar to Hoffman’s Truman Capote. They both made the list, so it’s not like either choice was wrong . . . but I really think Ledger did something really special in this film. I came into this movie thinking of Ledger as just another generic movie star, but I came away thinking of him as one of the best actors in the business. He was not unlike Tommy Lee Jones in his ability to create an intriguing, complex character with a minimalistic style. And hell, he just was the character.

#4: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

I’m not sure what I can say that hasn’t already been said, except to point out that as a long-time wrestling enthusiast, I think Rourke captured everything about wrestling in one performance. And yet he was still believable as an individual. Breathtaking.

#3: Bruno Ganz, Downfall

Best. Hitler. Ever.

#2: Sean Penn, Milk

I used to think Sean Penn was a good actor. But after seeing this film, I think he’s been slacking. Has he always had the abilities of a chameleon? I didn’t know Penn – or anyone, really – could transform themselves so completely.

#1: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood

Is Daniel Day-Lewis the best actor of his generation? If so, then he’s done it without becoming an iconic name on the level of, say, Robert Duvall.

Not that it matters, I guess. It’s impossible to imagine anyone else doing what he does.

Leading Actor Summary:

Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
Sean Penn, Milk
Bruno Ganz, Downfall
Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland
Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Tommy Lee Jones, In the Valley of Elah
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck

The Best Leading Actresses of the 2000s

#5: Helen Mirren, The Queen

Yet another understated performance by an English person. Maybe I should give them their own category …

#4: Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married

This film was like a clinic on good acting. Someday we’ll look back at The Princess Diaries and realize, to our surprise, that that was the same Anne Hathaway. And I’m kind of in love with her (don’t judge!).

#3: Cate Blanchett, Notes on a Scandal

As beautiful and talented as she is, I don’t think Blanchett is appreciated enough, and that’s taking into account her elite status and Oscar win. This film just took the character study to a whole new level, thanks to Blanchett and another lady on this list.

#2: Imelda Staunton, Vera Drake

GR.U.P.E.P: GReat Understated Performance by an English Person. Even among a top-notch ensemble cast, Staunton defined this film, an underrated gem.

#1: Judi Dench, Notes on a Scandal

The other people on this list are great actresses. Dench inhabits a plane one step above that.

The Best Supporting Actors of the 2000s

#7: Eddie Marsan, Happy-Go-Lucky

Marsan is British, but I wouldn’t call this performance understated. There was something very angry and very modern about this character, which is a challenging combination. Marsan met the challenge and made the character seem like a believable inhabitant of the Mike Leigh universe.

#6: Toby Jones, W.

Toby Jones is probably most famous for starring in the other Truman Capote film. As such, he’s somehow missed out on the reputation of a top character actor, but that’s what he is. His work as Karl Rove in W. was excellent, the best performance in an otherwise disappointing film.

He was also excellent in The Painted Veil, an unjustly forgotten film with several fine actors at their peak.

#5: Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton

Yet another great character actor who finally got an Oscar nomination. And if it were up to me, he would have won.

#4: Robert Downey, Jr., Tropic Thunder

One of the great comic performances of recent years. You must see it; nothing I say can do it justice.

#3: Jim Broadbent, Moulin Rouge!

I simply delight in the work of Jim Broadbent. It seems like he’s been in everything over the past ten years, but his best work came in a charismatic, charming and multi-faceted performance that anchored one of the decade’s great films. “Like a Virgin …”

#2: Willem Dafoe, Shadow of the Vampire

Shadow of the Vampire had one of the best set-ups for any film of the 2000’s. And while it was good, it largely failed to deliver on that promise … except for Dafoe, who was both hilarious and haunting in one of the most unique performances I’ve ever seen.

#1: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

If he were still alive, perhaps I (and everyone else) wouldn’t have been so crazy about this performance.

But crazy we were.

It’s almost like he wasn’t really acting, as such. What he was doing was something different, something I can’t really describe. And it came in a superhero movie. How very delicious.

The Best Supporting Actresses of the 2000s

#5: Emily Watson, Gosford Park

The most talented film actress whose name wouldn’t ring a bell for 95% of filmgoers.

#4: Amy Adams, Doubt

Maybe the fastest-rising stock in Hollywood.

#3: Rosemarie Dewitt, Rachel Getting Married

She’s never heard of you, either. She was great in this film, as was pretty much everyone.

#2: Mo’Nique, Precious

Words? They fail me. The only thing that comes to mind is … catharsis.

#1: Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton

Did I really say that there was nothing exceptional about this film? Perhaps I spoke too soon.

The WORST Pictures of the 2000s

#10: Mirrors

I probably shouldn’t put this on the list, since it wasn’t meant to be anything but B-level horror. Even by that standard, though, it was pretty sorry.

#9: The Spirit

If I may present a metaphor: think of the film Sin City as an apple. Now, hollow out that apple so that there’s nothing left but the skin and a stem. That’s The Spirit. The only redeeming qualities here are the occasional bits of acting that are bad enough to produce a good belly laugh.

#8: A Scanner Darkly

Phillip K. Dick’s novels have been adapted into some high-quality, successful films: Total Recall, Blade Runner, Minority Report. But I’d yet to see a film that took me inside Phillip K. Dick’s head.

Then I saw A Scanner Darkly. I can report that the inside of this man’s head is not fit for human consumption. Watching this movie was like swallowing a spike laced with meth.

Imagine what it would have been like without Robert Downey, Jr.

#7: Ready to Rumble

This was the film vehicle for the now-defunct wrestling company World Championship Wrestling (WCW). WCW was notorious for its failures, and this film continues in that proud tradition. Just consider these two phrases: “David Arquette” and “starring vehicle.”

The wrestlers – even Sid Vicious – were the best actors.

#6: Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

I try to give every movie a fair shake when I watch it. I gave Walk Hard fifteen minutes – which was MORE than fair.

#5: Hairspray

Maybe I didn’t give this one a fair shake. But I honestly couldn’t recognize the appeal here – not at all.

#4: 30 Days of Night

Vampires in Alaska? How could that possible go wrong?

Oh … like this. Where the filmmakers somehow managed to avoid the appeal that even most terrible horror films offer.

#3: Hamlet 2

I didn’t finish this one, but I did give it more time than I gave Walk Hard. And that’s time that I will never, EVER get back. Let’s just say that I don’t automatically think that obnoxious = funny.

#2: Halloween 2

I thought Zombie’s first Halloween was all right, but that the things he changed tended to be the parts that most appealed to me. The sequel lacked any redeeming qualities; it was just awfulness. So much so that it upset me.

#1: Drag Me to Hell

I walked out on this one. It’s the only time I’ve EVER done that at a movie theater.

The Most Disappointing Films of the 2000s

#10: 300

Peter Griffin’s complaint about The Godfather was that “it insists upon itself.” I always thought that was an odd thing to say until I saw 300. Sure enough, this film insists upon itself. It presents a sweeping, epic quality to the story that it never earns – at ALL. The result is mindless spectacle and unintentional comedy.

#9: Van Helsing

There was the seed of a good idea here, but it was overwhelmed by the blight of the screenplay.

#8: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

“Nuking the fridge” has entered our vocabulary. It’s one step beyond “jumping the shark.”

It’s only fitting that this film’s only contribution to the world of film was a new verbal representation of awfulness, unbelievability and decay.

#7: Gods and Generals

One of the key questions Roger Ebert asks about a film is if it would be more interesting to watch the actors have lunch. I’d like to propose a similar question: would it be more interesting to watch the author read the book aloud?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

#6: Sleuth

I’m a tremendous fan of both the stage play and the 1982 film that this was adapted from. Jude Law and Michael Caine are great actors. Kenneth Branagh is a great director. And screenwriter Harold Pinter … fucked it all up in the third act. In fact, I think it would be more apt to say that Pinter took a brilliant script and “Pinter-ized” it.

#5: Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man’s Chest

The first Pirates film was pretty good, I thought; not great, but good.

In cancer patients, a tumor starts inside otherwise healthy tissue and grows to grotesque sizes, stretching the original organ to an obscene mockery of its former self.

The first Pirates of the Caribbean grew an odious, 200-minute tumor that became this sequel.

#4: The Village

Why beat a dead horse/directorial career?

#3: Avatar

Pass.

#2: The Black Dahlia

This was a noir film in the sense that it was often quite dark onscreen. Otherwise, bleh.

#1: Crash

One of the worst things I’ve ever seen, and I’m not just talking about movies.

I tried this one twice. The first time, I made it just 15 minutes in before my sense of shame forced me to turn it off. The second time, I made it as far as 45 minutes before my soul became nauseous. Crash is a fairy tale intended to scare simple-minded liberals.

And I say this as a left-wing radical myself.

FIN

Up next: The 1990’s

2011 MLB Predictions

2011-03-14T23:10:00.001-04:00

AL EAST

Boston Red Sox (96-66)

New York Yankees* (91-71)

Tampa Bay Rays (87-75)

Toronto Blue Jays (78-84)

Baltimore Orioles (78-84)

AL CENTRAL

Minnesota Twins (90-72)

Chicago White Sox (87-75)

Detroit Tigers (83-79)

Cleveland Indians (69-93)

Kansas City Royals (65-97)

AL WEST

Texas Rangers (87-75)

Los Angeles Angels (82-80)

Oakland Athletics (80-82)

Seattle Mariners (73-89)

ALCS: Red Sox over Yankees

WS: Phillies over Red Sox

AL MVP: Adrian Gonzalez, Red Sox

AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez, Mariners

AL Rookie of the Year: Jeremy Hellickson, Rays

NL EAST

Philadelphia Phillies (95-67)

Atlanta Braves* (89-73)

Florida Marlins (84-78)

New York Mets (79-83)

Washington Nationals (75-87)

NL CENTRAL

Milwaukee Brewers (87-75)

Cincinnati Reds (86-76)

St. Louis Cardinals (84-78)

Chicago Cubs (81-81)

Houston Astros (72-90)

Pittsburgh Pirates (63-99)

NL WEST

San Francisco Giants (86-76)

Colorado Rockies (85-77)

Los Angeles Dodgers (84-78)

San Diego Padres (76-86)

Arizona Diamondbacks (70-92)

NLCS: Phillies over Brewers

WS: Phillies over Red Sox

NL MVP: Ryan Braun, Brewers

NL Cy Young: Roy Halladay, Phillies

NL Rookie of the Year: Aroldis Chapman, Reds

NBR: Satyagraha

2011-02-24T09:17:00.002-05:00

To see autocratic regimes overthrown by non-violent direct action is the greatest thing that we, as citizens of the world, can hope for. We must hope that the rebuilding is constructive - and also non-violent - but we can celebrate the power of the so-called "powerless." Somewhere, the great Howard Zinn is smiling.

Best Right Fielders by Team

2011-02-13T16:59:00.001-05:00

I started with a simple question: What team has had the best right fielders (or catchers, or shortstops) in its history? The following is my best answer to the question. See the first post in the series for a full explanation.

The best right fielders by team:

10. Seattle Mariners

Al Cowens, Jay Buhner, Ichiro Suzuki

Buhner and Ichiro save what would have been an otherwise dull group.

9. San Francisco Giants

Mike Tiernan, Red Murray, Ross Youngs, Mel Ott, Don Mueller, Felipe Alou, Bobby Bonds, Bobby Murcer, Jack Clark, Chili Davis, Randy Winn

A fair collection of talent gets boosted onto the top ten list thanks to Ott, one of the all-time greats.

8. Los Angeles Angels

Leroy Stanton, Bobby Bonds, Tim Salmon, Vladimir Guerrero, Bobby Abreu

The Angels haven’t gotten poor production from right field since the late 80’s, and even then, they were getting some help from regular DH Reggie Jackson.

7. Toronto Blue Jays

Jesse Barfield, Joe Carter, Shawn Green, Raul Mondesi, Alexis Rios

This is great consistency, but nobody here is an all-time great.

6. Houston Astros

Rusty Staub, Jimmy Wynn, Jose Cruz, Terry Puhl, Derek Bell, Moises Alou, Richard Hidalgo, Hunter Pence

Like the Blue Jays, the Jays have great consistency but little excellence. Houston gets the edge because of the underrated work of Wynn and Cruz.

5. Philadelphia Phillies

Sam Thompson, Elmer Flick, John Titus, Gavy Cravath, Chuck Klein, Johnny Callison, Bake McBride, Jim Eisenreich, Bobby Abreu, Jayson Werth

It’s a tough call here between the Phillies and Astros. I give the Phillies the edge since they’ve fielded a fine group of right fielders for more than a century, against just 50 years for Houston.

4. Pittsburgh Pirates

Patsy Donovan, Chief Wilson, Paul Waner, Bob Elliott, Gus Bell, Roberto Clemente, Richie Zisk, Dave Parker, Bobby Bonilla, Orlando Merced

Waner and Clemente are inner-circle Hall-of-Famers, which puts the Buccos in my top five. Plus, guys like Parker, Elliott and Bonilla would make the Hall of Very Good.

3. Cincinnati Reds

Sam Crawford, Mike Mitchell, Curt Walker, Ival Goodman, Wally Post, Frank Robinson, Pete Rose, Ken Griffey, Dave Parker, Paul O’Neill, Reggie Sanders, Austin Kearns, Ken Griffey, Jr., Jay Bruce

This is an overwhelming collection of talent, yet almost none of these guys spent their whole career with the Reds. Crawford went to Detroit as a young man, Frank Robinson was traded away at age 30, and Junior didn’t move to right field until he was nearly done.

2. New York Yankees

Willie Keeler, Babe Ruth, Tommy Henrich, Hank Bauer, Roger Maris, Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield, Jesse Barfield, Paul O’Neill, Gary Sheffield, Bobby Abreu

We’ve got four Hall-of-Famers here (Keeler, Ruth, Reggie and Winfield), one more that should go in (Sheffield), five members of the Hall of Very Good and Roger Maris. Not bad.

The Yankees would probably be number two without the Babe. With them, they’re just a hair away from number one.

1. Detroit Tigers

Sam Crawford, Ty Cobb, Harry Heilmann, Pete Fox, Vic Wertz, Al Kaline, Jim Northrup, Kirk Gibson, Chet Lemon, Rob Deer, Bobby Higginson, Magglio Ordonez

The Tigers don’t have as many big names as the Yankees, but getting Crawford, Heilmann and Kaline for almost their entire career is amazing; those are three of the eight or ten best ever at their position. Plus, you’ve got a couple years of Cobb, great years from Gibson and Lemon as well as strong complimentary players such as Vic Wertz. Yankee fans will likely disagree, but I think this is the best collection of right fielders in history.

Bottom 3 Teams

28. Chicago White Sox

Shano Collins, Harry Hooper, Wally Moses, Jim Rivera, Floyd Robinson, Harold Baines, Magglio Ordonez, Jermaine Dye

No offense to Shano Collins, but Sox right fielders were a sorry bunch before Harold Baines came along. Hooper was a great player, and Moses was good, but neither one spent their prime years with the team. Ordonez and Dye came along to bump the team up a few spots.

29. Milwaukee Brewers

Sixto Lezcano, Rob Deer, Jeromy Burnitz, Corey Hart

Lezcano actually had one or two impressive seasons. Deer was the patron saint of Three True Outcomes, and Burnitz and Hart were good if never great. Hart, the incumbent, could change things and push them up past the Sox. As it is, he’s the only thing keeping them out of last place.

30. Tampa Bay Rays

Dave Martinez, Ben Grieve, Gabe Gross

I know, I know – they’ve only been around for 12 years. But seriously? Maybe Desmond Jennings will end up in right field and turn things around, but until then – Yecch!

Up Next: The Catchers

2010 NL Central in Review

2011-01-30T01:15:00.000-05:00

Chicago Cubs

W-L: 75-87 (5th place in NL Central)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 73-89

Payroll: $124.9 million (2nd in NL)

R/G: 4.23 (10th in NL)

ERA: 4.24 (13th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .679 (12th in NL)

Team MVPs: Geovany Soto, Carlos Marmol, Ryan Dempster

Team LVPs: Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez

Defensive Stars: Marlon Byrd, Alfonso Soriano, Derrek Lee

What Went Right: It wasn’t all bad news for this fifth-place club. The Cubs had six starters make as many as 18 starts. The highest ERA of the bunch was the respectable 4.22 mark compiled by Carlos Silva. The club also had two ace relievers in strikeout machine Carlos Marmol (138 K in 77.2 IP) and starter-turned-situational reliever Sean Marshall (90 K in 74.2 IP).

There were a couple bright spots in the lineup. Geovany Soto bounced back from a dismal 2009 to reclaim his credentials as a superstar catcher, hitting 280/393/497. Free agent signee Marlon Byrd did better than expected, hitting 293/346/429 and acquitting himself well in center field. Kosuke Fukudome, considered a failure considering his high salary, contributed well offensively, hitting 263/371/439 and providing some much-needed on-base work for the team.

What Went Wrong: The Cubs fell remarkably short on both sides of the ball. While they’ve got a strong enough pitching staff to weather the storm, the future of their lineup isn’t too promising.

Above, I mentioned the fine ERAs compiled by Chicago starting pitchers. The problem was that only two of them – Ryan Dempster and Randy Wells – pitched more than 150 innings. Some of this was due to injuries (Carlos Silva’s heart problem) that are not likely to recur. Then there was the Carlos Zambrano incident, which saw the mercurial hurler banished to the bullpen despite his status as one of the team’s best starters. Although in light of his behavior on the field – and in the dugout – it’s easy to see why he didn’t get the benefit of the doubt.

Looking ahead, the Cubs have, I think, three reliable starters: Matt Garza, Dempster and Zambrano. Dempster is good, but he’s also going to be 34 next year and is expensive. Zambrano is good, but God only knows what’s going to happen next with him. They’ve gotten lucky with the work done by Carlos Silva, plus they’ve got a useful guy in Randy Wells. Still, it’s hard to predict much of a bounce-back from the returning 2010 starters, meaning a lot of responsibility falls on Garza.

Another big problem with the 2010 pitching staff was that the non-key players were almost uniformly terrible. But they’re not bound to be so bad again next year, especially since some of the ugly ERAs posted by relievers seem out of line with their actual performance (such as Andrew Cashner’s 4.80 ERA despite impressive work).

However, it’s much harder to be optimistic about the starting lineup. The lineup is losing Derrek Lee and replacing him with Carlos Pena. Pena’s not going to help the Cubs like Lee did in his prime, and actually runs the risk of being a drag on the offense. Granted, a lot of production should be made up by a healthy Aramis Ramirez, plus good work from young Starlin Castro. But the success of the infield rides on the production of the risky Pena, unless the team upgrades at second base (Blake DeWitt, currently).

The outfield isn’t terrible, but it isn’t great, either. Soriano is decent in left, Byrd should be about average in center, and Fukudome would be great if he could just find another 10-15 homers.

The trouble is that the Chicago outfield will make $37 million in 2011 ($18 MM for Soriano alone). The Cubs were 2nd in the NL in payroll last year and finished fifth. They’re not going to climb out of that hole until they can remove some of those “toxic assets” from their balance sheet. And it would help if they had a few more guys like Castro to replace them.

Notes: The free-spending days of the Cubs seem to be behind them. Jim Hendry’s shopping spree did help propel the Cubs to back-to-back division titles, but it also helped place them in their current mess. … Maybe the new owners were scared by those empty seats at Wrigley Field. They should be. Cubs fans used to be counted on for good attendance even in the down years. But all this success in recent years – and yes, this is what qualifies as success for this franchise – the fanbase may have been spoiled, now wanting to win every year … If the Cubs do return to contention, it will be because of Castro, Cashner and some young blood. Cubs fans may like it when the team drops $100 million on a free agent, but the results haven’t been pretty in the past. Of Hendry’s big free-agent deals, only the Ted Lilly contract really worked out for the team.

Cincinnati Reds

W-L: 91-71 (1st in NL Central)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 92-70

Payroll: $73.4 million (10th in NL)

R/G: 4.88 (1st in NL)

ERA: 4.02 (8th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .699 (3rd in NL)

Team MVPs: Joey Votto, Scott Rolen, Jay Bruce

Team LVPs: Orlando Cabrera, Aaron Harang

Defensive Stars: Jay Bruce, Scott Rolen, Brandon Phillips

What Went Right: The Reds’ offense wasn’t really that good. They didn’t have the raw talent to back up their standing as the top-scoring team in the league.

But for one year, at least, it worked fine. Joey Votto won the MVP with a career year, batting 324/424/600. Scott Rolen stayed (relatively) healthy AND productive, at a 285/358/497 clip. Jay Bruce was the most valuable outfield defender in baseball, plus he hit 281/353/493. The team got solid work from veterans like Brandon Phillips and Ramon Hernandez, plus some young talent like Drew Stubbs. There were still some trouble spots, but the lineup should be quite good again in 2011.

What Went Wrong: Not a whole lot went wrong. The Reds looked like an 85-win team and went 91-71, so there wasn’t a whole lot of room for disappointment. The real troubling aspect of the 2010 team was that the pitching staff was good rather than great.

The young pitching talent that was supposed to fuel the Reds’ comeback was instead a mixed bag. Johnny Cueto pitched well, finishing with a 3.64 ERA in 31 starts. But his 138 strikeouts in 185.2 innings don’t bode well for a future ERA under 4.00. Plus, the 24-year-old has been used a bit roughly by Dusty “The Mangler” Baker.

Mike Leake got off to a fine start, but his ERA eventually caught up to his middling peripherals, and he’ll have to fight for a spot in the stacked rotation. Homer Bailey showed flashes of greatness, but until he shows any kind of consistency or durability, it’s tough to project him as a future stud.

The news wasn’t all bad, though. Travis Wood made just 17 starts, but they were quite good. He struck out 86 batters (against just 26 walks) in his 102.2 innings, for an ERA of 3.51. Edinson Volquez made a promising return from Tommy John surgery, striking out 67 batters in 62.2 innings despite showing a wild streak typical of TJ survivors. Plus, there was that Aroldis Chapman kid you may have heard about, whose fastball flashes anywhere from 100 MPH to Mach 1.

Overall, the progress made by the Reds’ young pitchers is encouraging. I’m hesitant, though, to pencil in any great leap forward in 2011. Wood looks poised to break out, but there are still questions about Bailey, and Cueto may end up fading a bit. The Reds won’t be able to count on stalwart Aaron Harang, whose injuries consigned him to ERA massage therapy at Petco Park. Bronson Arroyo got a shiny, new contract, but he’s living on the edge with his low strikeout rate.

Hopes for a return to contention in 2011 rely on the pitching staff’s ability to make up the ground lost by an offensive regression. And I’m not comfortable making that assumption just yet.

Notes: Despite significant issues at shortstop and left field, the Reds failed to address either issue in their offseason. If you want to upgrade over Paul Janish, that’s fine – but is Edgar Renteria really an upgrade? … Chapman would be an ace if he could handle a starter’s workload, but there’s good reason to be skeptical that he can. I’d love to see the Reds try, but wouldn’t be too disappointed if he were just a lights-out closer … There’s nothing wrong with settling for Jonny Gomes in left field if you have to. There is a problem if you don’t realize that you’re settling.

2011 Prognosis: The Reds will be contenders, but will need the pitching staff to live up to its hype if they want to hold off the Cardinals.

Houston Astros

W-L: 76-86 (4th place in NL Central)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 69-93

Payroll: $71.3 million (11th in NL)

R/G: 3.77 (15th in NL)

ERA: 4.09 (7th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .678 (14th in NL)

Team MVPs: Lance Berkman

Team LVPs: Tommy Manzella, Carlos Lee

Defensive Stars: Michael Bourn

What Went Right: Well, the stadium didn’t burn down.

There’s very little hope for this franchise. Any good news from 2010 is marginal when considering the future. Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt played well enough to get traded away and get the Astros some useful parts, though not anybody they can build the team around. If they’d been traded three years ago, maybe they would have brought back such a return.

Many people (myself included) wondered why Houston, a hopeless team, bothered to spend money on a B-level starter like Brett Myers. The Astros were vindicated, though, when Myers pitched like his old self, notching 180 strikeouts for an ERA of 3.14. That gave the Astros an opportunity to trade the reinvigorated ex-Phillie. Instead, they re-signed him to a new contract. Here’s hoping that he stays reinvigorated and gives them another chance to trade him. Not that they will, I guess.

Wandy Rodriguez had another good season, pitching nearly 200 innings with a 3.60 ERA. The Astros just signed him to an extension, giving them another good-but-not-great pitcher over the age of 30.

What Went Wrong: For years, the Astros built their team around a handful of veterans and some luck. Now the veterans are gone.

The lineup went from bad to Pirate-ish, thanks mainly to Carlos Lee’s bat-astrophic season (246/291/417). He was supposed to be the foundation of the batting order, along with the since-traded Berkman. The 2011 team will just have to rely on Hunter Pence’s return to decency and Michael Bourn’s speed.

Bud Norris, supposed to shore up the pitching staff, instead finished with an ERA of 4.92, although his peripherals were better than that. Ditto for Felipe Paulino’s mark of 5.11, although any hope for his improvement will have to come in the unforgiving Denver atmosphere.

Notes: I’ve read several articles this offseason about teams needing starting pitching. Should I send Ed Wade a link, perhaps? … With the Rangers in ascendance, this marks the first time in team history that they’ve been better than the Astros for any significant length of time.

2011 Prognosis: The Astros probably won’t finish in last place, but it won’t be long before they fall behind the Pirates – that’s the Pirates. With the team now for sale and no hope in the upper minors, the Astros are the most hopeless franchise in the National League.

Milwaukee Brewers

W-L: 77-85 (3rd in NL Central)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 76-86

Payroll: $75.9 million (9th in NL)

R/G: 4.56 (4th in NL)

ERA: 4.59 (14th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .673 (15th in NL)

Team MVPs: Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, Yovani Gallardo

Team LVPs: Alcides Escobar, Doug Davis, Trevor Hoffman

Defensive Stars: Jim Edmonds, Carlos Gomez

What Went Right: There weren’t any big surprises in Milwaukee, but the ongoing excellence of the offense is worth remarking upon. In addition to a fine season from Prince Fielder (261/401/471), the Brewers fielded a strong outfield. Ryan Braun (304/365/501), Jim Edmonds (286/350/493) and Corey Hart (283/340/525) all struck the ball fairly well. Rickie Weeks finally stayed healthy, showing a hint of what he’s capable of at 269/366/464 for 160 games. The Brewers don’t lack for offense …

What Went Wrong: … but they do lack most everything else.

The starting rotation was a big disappointment. Randy Wolf provided a poor return as a free agent investment, posting a 4.17 ERA (95 ERA+) with a staff-leading 87 walks in 215.2 innings. Yovani Gallardo led the club in strikeouts with 200, but even his season was somewhat disappointing, thanks to 75 walks of his own in just 185 innings.

The rest of the rotation was, predictably, a mess. Jeff Suppan finally got run out of town, with a Boeing-esque ERA of 7.84 in 15 games. Doug Davis, with a 7.51 mark in 8 starts, was little better. Manny Parra once again proved a disappointment (5.02 ERA) despite notching more than one strikeout per inning (129/122). Dave Bush and Chris Narveson were some better, but just enough to prevent total catastrophe.

The bullpen was a work in progress. The end of Trevor Hoffman’s career (5.89 ERA) opened the door for Jon Axford to be the team’s closer. Axford carpe’d the diem, posting a 2.48 ERA with 24 saves and 76 K’s in 58 innings. There was some good news, as the ERA’s posted by Todd Coffey (4.76) and Carlos Villanueva (4.61) were belied by relatively solid peripherals, although both did their part to contribute to the staff’s 582 walks allowed, second-most in the league.

The defense was pretty dreadful, a performance that accurately reflects the underlying talents. Fielder, Braun and Casey McGeehee are all professional hitters who only play defense out of necessity. Corey Hart and Rickie Weeks are functional at best. Plus, the most promising gloves on the team (Carlos Gomez, Alcides Escobar) belong to the most hopeless hitters. This will be a big issue for the team in 2011, especially since they’ve traded Escobar for Yuniesky “The Albatross” Betancourt.

Notes: Kudos to GM Doug Melvin for realizing that 2011 is the year for the Brewers to go for it. Fielder and Weeks will be free agents after the season, with Zach Greinke likely departing after 2012. Braun and Gallardo are two great pieces to build around, but that’s assuming the farm system doesn’t collapse like a flan in a cupboard … The team’s decision to go all in makes their decision to extend Corey Hart (3 yrs/$27 MM) a bit puzzling. Hart doesn’t have a consistent track record, and even at his best he’s not a superstar. Still, if he performs well, the contract should be easy enough to trade … Despite the fact that he didn’t dominate in 2010, Gallardo is the Brewers’ best pitcher, not Greinke.

2011 Prognosis: Greinke and Shaun Marcum will make the Brewers strong contenders. Apres, le deluge.

Pittsburgh Pirates

W-L: 57-105 (6th in NL Central)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 54-108

Payroll: $37.4 million (16th in NL)

R/G: 3.62 (16th in NL)

ERA: 5.00 (16th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .669 (16th in NL)

Team MVPs: Honus Wagner, Ralph Kiner, Willie Stargell

Team LVPs: They lost 105 frickin’ games.

Defensive Stars: See above.

What Went Right: The results at the major league level were ugly. Not just ugly -- baboon-butt ugly.

But the Buccos did see some encouraging work by their young stars. Andrew McCutchen continued his good work at the plate, hitting 286/365/449 and going 33/43 in stolen bases. His defense rates as poor (-15.5 runs according to UZR*), but there’s still plenty of upside there.
* – Ultimate Zone Rating

Two other key prospects reached the majors: 3B Pedro Alvarez and OF Jose Tabata. Alvarez ranks as the stud of the group, hitting pretty well (256/326/461) in his rookie season. Tabata didn’t fare quite as well, finishing at 299/346/400. His ceiling in the majors is much more iffy, but he’s young and cheap and should at least be useful. Neil Walker also rates as a promising guy, hitting an impressive 296/349/462 as the team’s second baseman. But Walker’s defense at the keystone is still very much a work in progress.

The good news is that the Pirates have a plan. It’s not a really complicated plan. They’re spending top dollar in the amateur draft and in the international amateur market. The results are starting to creep up to the majors, and they’re quite promising. The previous Pirate regime never would have allowed the team to lose 105 games. They would have panicked, spending money on C-level free agents or trading away young talent in order to field a much less offensive 70-win team. It’s what they did for years. But this group has the balls to lose 105 games, because they know it’s best for the team. I can respect that.

What Went Wrong: In the scheme of things, very little went wrong. When you field a replacement-level team, you can’t be surprised when you finish dead last. Not just dead last, but last across the board – last in offense, pitching and defense. I’m sure the Pirates would have liked more improvement from their top prospects. They would have really liked to see signs of life from their starters, a group of guys who are too old to be called prospects anymore. But they can’t be too shocked. They must have suspected that Paul Maholm and Zach Duke wouldn’t be around to see the Pirates’ return to contention.

Notes: The five pitchers who made the most starts for Pittsburgh in 2010 managed just 408 strikeouts. Put all five of them together, and they just beat out Nolan Ryan’s 1973 season (383 K’s) … According to DER, the Pirates barely edge out the Brewers for last in National League defense. But if you account for their ballpark, as BP’s Park-Adjusted Defense Efficiency does, they rank last by a healthy margin, nearly twice as bad as the number-fifteen team … The Pirates cornered the market on busted top prospects in 2010, playing Andy LaRoche, Jeff Clement, Delwyn Young, Lastings Milledge, Bobby Crosby and Hayden Penn. It’s worth trying out these guys, though, even if just one of them pans out. Together, they made about as much as a free agent middle reliever.

2011 Prognosis: Barring a revelation of pitching adequacy, last place again.

St. Louis Cardinals

W-L: 86-76 (2nd in NL Central)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 92-70

Payroll: $113.2 million (5th in NL)

R/G: 4.54 (6th in NL)

ERA: 3.57 (T-3rd in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .692 (6th in NL)

Team MVPs: Albert Pujols, Adam Wainwright, Chris Carpenter

Team LVPs: Skip Schumaker, Brendan Ryan, Kyle Lohse

Defensive Stars: Brendan Ryan, Yadier Molina

What Went Right: If you just look at the Cards’ best five or six players, they match up with any other team in the league. Other teams would love to have a lineup with Pujols, Holliday and Rasmus combined with a rotation led by Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright and Jaime Garcia. But there was a big difference between these six stars and the other guys on the Cardinals. We’ll get to that later, though.

Albert Pujols had an off year; he was just the second-best player in the league. Albert hit 312/414/596, tossing in 14 steals and fine defense as well. For most folks that’s a career year, but Albert hit 327/443/658 in 2009. There’s no need to worry, though. He should “bounce back” in 2011.

Even with the comfort of a long-term contract, Matt Holliday managed to put up top-notch numbers in his first full season in St. Louis. He hit 312/390/532 with strong defense in left field. It’s an encouraging sign for the Cardinals, who are banking on the fact that this late-bloomer can stay at this level for a few more years.

Center fielder Colby Rasmus was rumored to be in Tony LaRussa’s doghouse, which isn’t such a bad thing when you consider how many good players have been there in the past. Cardinal fans worry, though, that LaRussa will deem young Rasmus expendable, and they’ll lose the only promising young position player in the whole system. Rasmus hit well in 2010, but his potential goes beyond his 276/361/498 showing. Hopefully LaRussa won’t send him Rolen out the door.

The starting rotation returned the two studs from 2009, Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright, and both men once again rated as two of the best pitchers in baseball. They were joined, unexpectedly, by 23-year-old Jaime Garcia. Garcia was considered to be a promising prospect, but even the Cardinals must have been surprised when he got off to a red-hot start. He cooled off a bit as the season progressed, but still finished with an ERA of 2.70 in 163.1 innings. Garcia probably isn’t as good as that ERA, but he should be one of the best #3 starters in the league.

What Went Wrong: Even considering the success of Garcia and Rasmus, the Cardinals are having a tough time finding players to fill the holes in their roster. LaRussa was left to sift through several unpalatable options, especially in the infield. In all fairness to GM Jon Mozeliak, LaRussa seems to be getting even more prickly as he gets older, with an all-or-nothing attitude to many players, not necessarily commensurate with their on-field value.

After Pujols, the Cardinals infield was a mess. Third baseman David Freese hit fairly well (296/361/404), but he’s not the long-term solution there. Glovely shortstop Brendan Ryan was much worse, finishing the season at 223/279/294, a hitting performance that not even Ozzie Smith could salvage. Still, Ryan’s skills on defense are valuable. Not that he’ll be around in St. Louis to show them off, having been shipped to Seattle.

The worst offender, though, was second baseman Skip Schumaker. Schumaker hit 265/328/338 while looking like the converted outfielder he is on defense. In spite of this, he may yet be the team’s second baseman in 2011. No one really knows why.

The back end of the rotation suffered as well, though this was harder to foresee. Kyle Lohse struggled through the season, limping to the finish line with a 6.55 ERA that reflected the fact that he was less than 100%. Ditto for Brad Penny, who looked pretty sharp before injuries cut his season short at just 9 games started.

In their place, the Cards turned first to Jeff Suppan, then Jake Westbrook. Suppan failed to inspire great hope, while Westbrook did a fine job of picking up the slack. The Cards re-signed him to be their fourth starter, a position he should fill quite well.

The pitching staff should be set for a rebound in 2011, with a healthy Kyle Lohse rounding out the best starting staff in the division. Hopes for the offense are more cautious, since it’s hard to count on Lance Berkman being healthy or Ryan Theriot being anything better than adequate.

Notes: It’s fun to watch Yadier Molina snap off throws to first base, catching baserunners napping. It’s much less fun to watch this career 268/327/361 hitter wield a bat. Even a small drop in defensive value will quickly make him a backup catcher … Watching Tony LaRussa manage the team’s marathon loss to the New York Mets was maddening in the extreme. Has any manager since Billy Martin been so good and at the same time so infuriating? … The Cardinals needed another hitter last year, so they traded for Pedro Feliz. They still needed a hitter, but at least Feliz could make his prize-winning blueberry muffins, or whatever it is he does at this point.

2011 Prognosis: Their stacked rotation and offensive fire power may give them a slight edge over the Reds, but things would be a lot safer if they added another bat.

Next Up: The NL West

Best Center Fielders by Team

2011-01-29T00:08:00.001-05:00

I started with a simple question: What team has had the best center fielders (or catchers, or shortstops) in its history? The following is my best answer to the question. See the first post in the series for a full explanation.

The best center fielders by team:

10. Toronto Blue Jays

Lloyd Moseby, Devon White, Jose Cruz, Jr., Vernon Wells

Nothing spectacular here, but a lot of consistently good work.

9. Philadelphia Phillies

Ed Delahanty, Billy Hamilton, Roy Thomas, Dode Paskert, Cy Williams, Richie Ashburn, Tony Gonzalez, Garry Maddox, Lenny Dykstra, Doug Glanville, Shane Victorino

Looking at this list of names makes me wonder if I underrated them. Possibly, although things have slowed down a bit in recent years.

8. Houston Astros

Jimmy Wynn, Cesar Cedeno, Steve Finley, Michael Bourn

People have forgotten how good Wynn and Cedeno really were.

7. Kansas City Royals

Amos Otis, Willie Wilson, Brian McRae, Carlos Beltran, David DeJesus

6. Boston Red Sox

Chick Stahl, Tris Speaker, Ira Flagstead, Doc Cramer, Dom DiMaggio, Jimmy Piersall, Reggie Smith, Fred Lynn, Ellis Burks, Johnny Damon

More consistency. The key here is Speaker, even if only for half his career.

5. New York/San Francisco Giants

John Montgomery Ward, Jim O’Rourke, George Van Haltren, Benny Kauff, Willie Mays, Garry Maddox, Dan Gladden, Brett Butler, Darren Lewis

Mays alone puts the Giants in the conversation. But it’s been slim pickin’s since he retired.

4. Pittsburgh Pirates

Jake Stenzel, Ginger Beaumont, Tommie Leach, Max Carey, Lloyd Waner, Vince DiMaggio, Bill Virdon, Matty Alou, Al Oliver, Andy Van Slyke, Andrew McCutchen

Only Carey was really excellent, but the Pirates have rarely gone very long without a good center fielder (except for the dry spell between Van Slyke and McCutchen).

3. Cleveland Indians

Joe Birmingham, Tris Speaker, Earl Averill, Larry Doby, Jimmy Piersall, George Hendrick, Rick Manning, Brett Butler, Kenny Lofton, Grady Sizemore

Speaker, Doby and Averill are Hall-of-Famers. Center field has traditionally been a strong position for the Tribe.

2. Atlanta Braves

Jim O’Rourke, Hugh Duffy, Billy Hamilton, Ginger Beaumont, Ray Powell, Wally Berger, Tommy Holmes, Bill Bruton, Dale Murphy, Andruw Jones

The first three on the list are Hall-of-Famers, and Andruw might make it in before all is said and done. Berger and Holmes had some great years for bad teams. And don’t forget Murph.

1. New York Yankees

Earle Combs, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Bobby Murcer, Mickey Rivers, Rickey Henderson, Bernie Williams

Does anybody question this? The Yanks had two of the top five center fielders (DiMaggio and Mantle) for their whole careers, plus two more Hall-of-Famers in Combs and Rickey.

Bottom 3

28. Florida Marlins

Devon White, Preston Wilson, Juan Pierre

Not too bad, I guess.

29. Colorado Rockies

Juan Pierre, Preston Wilson

Two of the same players? Freaky …

30. Texas Rangers

Don Lock, Oddibe McDowell, Josh Hamilton

The Rangers are REALLY happy to have Hamilton.

Up Next: The Right Fielders

Best Left Fielders by Team

2011-01-23T00:45:00.001-05:00

I started with a simple question: What team has had the best left fielders (or catchers, or shortstops) in its history? The following is my best answer to the question. See the first post in the series for a full explanation.

10. Tampa Bay Rays

Carl Crawford

The Rays started out in 1998, and Crawford came up in 2002. That’s nine seasons out of thirteen with an excellent left fielder.

9. Houston Astros

Bob Watson, Jose Cruz, Luis Gonzalez, Lance Berkman, Carlos Lee

Never a dull left fielder in Houston (except Eric Anthony).

8. Detroit Tigers

Matty McIntyre, Davy Jones, Bobby Veach, Fats Fothergill, Goose Goslin, Hank Greenberg, Dick Wakefield, Charlie Maxwell, Rocky Colavito, Willie Horton, Steve Kemp, Larry Herndon, Bobby Higginson

There are a lot of very good players here. But the only really great one is Greenberg, who spent most of his career at first base.

7. New York/San Francisco Giants

Jim O’Rourke, George Burns, Irish Meusel, Jo-Jo Moore, Monte Irvin, Willie McCovey, Gary Matthews, Jeffrey Leonard, Kevin Mitchell, Barry Bonds

This is a good group, but Bonds is what gets them to #7. I may still be underrating them.

6. Chicago Cubs

Abner Dalrymple, Jimmy Slagle, Jimmy Sheckard, Frank Schulte, Riggs Stephenson, Augie Galan, Hank Sauer, Billy Williams, Jose Cardenal, Dave Kingman, Gary Matthews, Henry Rodriguez, Moises Alou, Alfonso Soriano

There’s no Barry Bonds here, but rather a long list of capable players. Only Billy Williams is enshrined in Cooperstown.

5. New York Yankees

Bob Meusel, Ben Chapman, George Selkirk, Charlie Keller, Gene Woodling, Roy White, Lou Piniella, Dave Winfield, Rickey Henderson, Hideki Matsui, Johnny Damon

This is a model of quiet consistency. Charlie Keller, for one, was a tremendous hitter who’d be in Cooperstown if his 30’s had been anything like his 20’s.

4. Philadelphia Phillies

Billy Hamilton, Ed Delahanty, Sherry Magee, Lefty O’Doul, Del Ennis, Greg Luzinski, Gary Matthews, Pat Burrell

As good as Luzinski and Burrell were, the Phillies are at #5 because of the first three guys on the list. Hamilton and Delahanty are top-level Hall-of-Famers, and Magee is easily the best outfielder without a plaque.

3. St. Louis Cardinals

Tip O’Neill, Jesse Burkett, Austin McHenry, Ray Blades, Chick Hafey, Joe Medwick, Enos Slaughter, Stan Musial, Rip Repulski, Lou Brock, Lonnie Smith, Vince Coleman, Bernard Gilkey, Ray Lankford, Albert Pujols

There are six Hall-of-Famers here, and Albert will make seven. Still, they rate a bit low on the list because some of these guys (Hafey, Medwick, Slaughter, Brock) are on the low end of the Hall-of-Fame scale. Had either Musial or Albert spent their whole careers in left, the Cards would be in my top two.

2. Pittsburgh Pirates

Fred Clarke, Max Carey, Carson Bigbee, Ralph Kiner, Bob Skinner, Willie Stargell, Mike Easler, Barry Bonds, Al Martin, Brian Giles, Jason Bay

True, the Pirates don’t have as many big names as the Cardinals. But they had almost every game played by Clarke, Kiner and Stargell. Plus, Max Carey is a Hall-of-Famer, and then there’s the work of a young Barry Bonds.

1. Boston Red Sox

Duffy Lewis, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski, Jim Rice, Mike Greenwell, Troy O’Leary, Manny Ramirez

Boston’s amazing run of excellence in left field from Williams to Yaz to Jim Rice is pretty much unparallelled. They’ve got three of the top 10 left fielders of all time (Williams, Yaz and Manny) plus a borderline Hall-of-Famer in Rice and some strong work from Lewis and Greenwell.

And now, the teams with an amazing run of mediocrity:

28. Kansas City Royals

Lou Piniella, Willie Wilson, Bo Jackson

The Royals have been around for forty years, and these are the highlights. That’s not to insult Wilson, who was a darn good player and keeps K.C. from being number 30.

29. San Diego Padres

Gene Richards, Carmelo Martinez, Greg Vaughn, Ryan Klesko

Vaughn and Klesko salvage this roster of forgettables.

30. Seattle Mariners

Phil Bradley, Raul Ibanez

Neither Bradley nor Ibanez were with the Mariners for that long. And yet they’re still more valuable than the rest of the list combined.

Next up: Center Field

Best Third Basemen by Team

2011-01-17T22:24:00.001-05:00

I started with a simple question: What team has had the best third basemen (or catchers, or shortstops) in its history? The following is my best answer to the question. See the first post in the series for a full explanation.

10. Baltimore Orioles/St. Louis Browns

Jimmy Austin, Harlond Clift, George Kell, Brooks Robinson, Doug DeCinces, Cal Ripken, Melvin Mora

This is a nice array of talent. What puts it over the top is 6 years of Cal Ripken and 23 years of Brooks Robinson.

9. Milwaukee Brewers

Tommy Harper, Don Money, Sal Bando, Paul Molitor, Jeff Cirillo

The Brewers don’t have the big names that the O’s have, but they too have had a long run of top-notch work at the hot corner.

8. Washington Senators/Texas Rangers

Ken McMullen, Toby Harrah, Buddy Bell, Steve Buechele, Dean Palmer, Hank Blalock, Michael Young

There are no Hall-of-Famers here, but this is a great run of excellence over 50 years.

7. Chicago Cubs

Ned Williamson, Harry Steinfeldt, Heinie Zimmerman, Charlie Deal, Stan Hack, Randy Jackson, Ron Santo, Bill Madlock, Ron Cey, Steve Buechele, Aramis Ramirez

No Hall-of-Famers here, although Santo belongs (and Stan Hack, possibly). But the Hall of Very Good is well-represented, thanks to Steinfeldt, Madlock and Cey.

6. St. Louis Cardinals

Arlie Latham, Milt Stock, Les Bell, Whitey Kurowski, Ken Boyer, Joe Torre, Ken Reitz, Terry Pendleton, Todd Zeile, Gary Gaetti, Placido Polanco, Scott Rolen

Again, there are no Hall-of-Famers here – at least until Rolen retires.

5. San Francisco Giants

George Davis, Art Devlin, Heinie Zimmerman, Heinie Groh, Freddie Lindstrom, Hank Thompson, Jim Davenport, Jim Ray Hart, Darrell Evans, Matt Williams, Bill Mueller, Edgardo Alfonzo

Have I mentioned yet that there aren’t many third basemen in the Hall? Davis is the only one on this list who’s been enshrined*, and he was primarily a shortstop. Should the Hall decide to induct one or two third sackers, they could do a lot worse than to start with Darrell Evans.

* – My mistake. I forgot that Freddie Lindstrom is in Cooperstown. We should try to forget this.

4. Boston Red Sox

Jimmy Collins, Larry Gardner, Billy Werber, Johnny Pesky, George Kell, Frank Malzone, Rico Petrocelli, Carney Lansford, Wade Boggs, John Valentin, Bill Mueller, Mike Lowell

Among third basemen, the difference between the Sox and Yankees is quite small. Boston fans may feel that I’ve shorted them, but read on:

3. New York Yankees

Frank Baker, Joe Dugan, Joe Sewell, Red Rolfe, Clete Boyer, Graig Nettles, Mike Pagliarulo, Wade Boggs, Scott Brosius, Robin Ventura, Alex Rodriguez

Finally, we have Hall-of-Famers in abundance: Baker, Sewell and Boggs are in, and A-Rod surely will be someday. The Yanks’ third basemen typically haven’t been their “superstars,” at least until very recently.

2. Cleveland Indians

Bill Bradley, Terry Turner, Larry Gardner, Joe Sewell, Willie Kamm, Ken Keltner, Al Rosen, Graig Nettles, Buddy Bell, Toby Harrah, Brook Jacoby, Jim Thome, Travis Fryman, Casey Blake

The Indians only have one Hall-of-Famer (Sewell) to the Yankees’ three, but their list is much longer and their depth at the hot corner is fantastic. The only thing that could top this is …

1. Atlanta Braves

Billy Nash, Jimmy Collins, Bob Elliott, Eddie Mathews, Clete Boyer, Darrell Evans, Bob Horner, Terry Pendleton, Chipper Jones

All of Chipper Jones'’s career and almost all of Eddie Mathews’s career is enough to put the Braves right at the top. Also, Collins is a Hall-of-Famer, and Evans probably should be. And the Hall of Very Good is well-represented by Elliott, Boyer and Pendleton.

From the highs to the lows, here are the worst franchises for third basemen:

28. Houston Astros

Bob Aspromonte, Doug Rader, Enos Cabell, Phil Garner, Ken Caminiti, Morgan Ensberg

These guys aren’t bad, but they just don’t stack up. Garner was done by the time he made it to Houston, Caminiti’s best season came in San Diego, and Ensberg only had one or two big years before he fell off the map.

29. Seattle Mariners

Jim Presley, Edgar Martinez, Russ Davis, Adrian Beltre

Edgar was only at third for a few years before becoming a full-time DH. So it’s Adrian Beltre who almost single-handedly saves the M’s from last place.

30. Chicago White Sox

Lee Tannehill, Buck Weaver, Willie Kamm, Jimmy Dykes, Pete Ward, Bill Melton, Robin Ventura, Joe Crede

The White Sox’ historic inability to develop a third baseman between Kamm (debuted 1923) and Ventura (debuted 1989) has been noted before. Guys like Ward and Melton had some good seasons with the club, but didn’t last. Dykes was good, but basically washed up by the time he left the A’s.

Next Up: The Left Fielders

Best Shortstops by Team

2011-01-17T02:29:00.001-05:00

I started with a simple question: What team has had the best first basemen (or catchers, or shortstops) in its history? The following is my best answer to the question. See first post for full explanation.

10. Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins

George McBride, Roger Peckinpaugh, Joe Cronin, Cecil Travis, Pete Runnels, Zoilo Versalles, Leo Cardenas, Roy Smalley, Greg Gagne, Cristian Guzman

That’s a long list of fine players, but none of them save Cronin was really excellent.

9. New York Yankees

Kid Elberfeld, Roger Peckinpaugh, Frankie Crosetti, Phil Rizzuto, Gil McDougald, Tony Kubek, Bucky Dent, Derek Jeter

It’s surprising to see the Yankees rate this poorly (relatively speaking) for any position. But while there are a lot of capable players there, there’s no real excellence after Jeter (historically speaking). Plus, the last 50 years have produced only Jeter, Bucky Dent and … Rafael Santana?

8. Chicago Cubs

Ned Williamson, Bill Dahlen, Joe Tinker, Charlie Hollocher, Billy Jurges, Ernie Banks, Don Kessinger, Ivan DeJesus, Shawon Dunston

A couple of these guys are excellent, but that’s about it. Banks is great, of course, and the other excellent one is Bill Dahlen, one of the most overqualified players not yet inducted into the Hall of Fame. Joe Tinker, on the other hand, is one of the most underqualified players who has been inducted. And here again, the past 40 or 50 years haven’t been too kind.

7. Texas Rangers/Washington Senators

Ed Brinkman, Toby Harrah, Scott Fletcher, Alex Rodriguez, Michael Young

Ed Brinkman was a terrible hitter, but a fantastic glovesmith. Harrah was the exact opposite; terrific hitter, marginal fielder. A-Rod was great, of course, but was only with the team for three years. That’s a pretty good run, from 1961 to present.

6. Los Angeles Dodgers

Tommy Corcoran, Bill Dahlen, Pee Wee Reese, Maury Wills, Bill Russell, Jose Offerman, Cesar Izturis, Rafael Furcal

Ask me again, and I might rate these guys lower. But there are some really good players here, representing a lot of years.

5. Pittsburgh Pirates

Honus Wagner, Rabbit Maranville, Glenn Wright, Arky Vaughan, Dick Groat, Gene Alley, Frank Taveras, Jay Bell, Jack Wilson

Bill James ranked Wagner and Vaughan as, respectively, the #1 and #2 shortstops of all time. This alone gets the Pirates to the #5 slot, as the rest of the players aren’t so hot.

4. St. Louis Cardinals

Bobby Wallace, Leo Durocher, Marty Marion, Dick Groat, Dal Maxvill, Garry Templeton, Ozzie Smith, Edgar Renteria, David Eckstein

There are two Hall-of-Famers here, Wallace and Ozzie, plus some guys like Groat and Templeton who would make the Hall of Very Good.

3. Baltimore Orioles/St. Louis Browns

Bobby Wallace, Wally Gerber, Vern Stephens, Luis Aparicio, Mark Belanger, Cal Ripken, Mike Bordick, Miguel Tejada

To see the former St. Louis Browns rate highly at any position is a surprise. But they got off to a great start when Bobby Wallace jumped from the aforementioned Cardinals. Also, Vern Stephens is one of the best shortstops not in Cooperstown. Still, the Baltimore Orioles have had a remarkable run of shortstops. If I considered just the Orioles without the Browns attached, they would be #1.

2. New York/San Francisco Giants

John Montgomery Ward, George Davis, Bill Dahlen, Art Fletcher, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Dick Bartell, Alvin Dark, Chris Speier, Johnny LeMaster, Jose Uribe, Rich Aurilia, Omar Vizquel

There are four Hall-of-Famers here: Ward, Davis, Bancroft and Jackson. Dahlen should be in the Hall (if you haven’t noticed, he’s popped up three times on this top ten list), and Vizquel probably will be someday. With the possible exception of Speier, the Giants left all their really good shortstops behind in New York. Otherwise, they’d be an easy #1 pick.

1. Boston Red Sox

Freddie Parent, Everett Scott, Joe Cronin, Johnny Pesky, Vern Stephens, Rico Petrocelli, Luis Aparicio, Rick Burleson, John Valentin, Nomar Garciaparra

This list doesn’t have the eye-popping excellence of the Giants, but there’s also not much of a weak spot. Again, ask me tomorrow and I might change my mind. But guys like Pesky, Stephens, Petrocelli and Burleson are underrated. Cronin and Aparicio are in the Hall, and Nomar was headed there until he left Boston.

And just to round things out, here are my bottom three shortstop franchises:

28. Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals

Tim Foli, Chris Speier, Hubie Brooks, Mark Grudzielanek, Orlando Cabrera

All of these guys have their strong points. But the Expos have been around for 40 years and have only had two or three pretty good shortstops.

29. New York Mets

Bud Harrelson, Kevin Elster, Rey Ordonez, Jose Reyes

Harrelson was an occasional All-Star. Ordonez was a defensive whiz, and Reyes looked like a future megastar until he got hurt. I threw in Elster just to have somebody there to represent the 80’s.

30. Kansas City Royals

Freddie Patek, U L Washington, Kurt Stillwell, Greg Gagne, Angel Berroa

Yeeeeeeaaaaahhh.

Next up: The Third Basemen

Best 2B by Team

2011-01-16T22:17:00.001-05:00

I started with a simple question: What team has had the best first basemen (or catchers, or shortstops) in its history? The following is my best answer to the question. See Previous Post for full explanation.

10. Los Angeles Angels

Bobby Knoop, Sandy Alomar, Jerry Remy, Bobby Grich, Gary DiSarcina, Adam Kennedy, Howie Kendrick

This group doesn’t exactly blow you away. I may regret placing the Angels at number ten, but believe me when I say that second base has not been a glorious position in baseball history. That said, these guys are underrated. They’re all pretty good, and Grich was pretty great. None of them are Hall-of-Famers, although Grich should be.

9. Boston Red Sox

Hobe Ferris, Bobby Doerr, Billy Goodman, Pete Runnels, Jerry Remy, Marty Barrett, Jose Offerman, Dustin Pedroia

Here again we have no superstars, although Bobby Doerr is in the Hall of Fame. Still, this is a respectable record, and the run of players from Doerr to Goodman to Runnels is pretty impressive.

8. Chicago Cubs

Fred Pfeffer, Johnny Evers, Billy Herman, Glenn Beckert, Ryne Sandberg, Mickey Morandini

There are long dry spells at second base in Cubs history (they’ve been in one since Sandberg retired). But when a good players pops up, it’s pretty notable. Evers, Herman and Sandberg are Hall-of-Famers.

7. New York/San Francisco Giants

Kid Gleason, Frankie Frisch, Eddie Stanky, Tito Fuentes, Robby Thompson, Jeff Kent, Ray Durham

If you take out the forty years separating Stanky from Thompson, the Giants would be at the top of the list. Frisch is in the Hall of Fame, and Kent likely will be. Gleason, Stanky and Durham especially are all underrated.

6. Cleveland Indians

Napoleon Lajoie, Bill Wambsganss, Joe Gordon, Bobby Avila, Duane Kuiper, Tony Bernazard, Carlos Baerga, Roberto Alomar, Ronnie Belliard

Here again, we’ve got a long period of mediocre players that lasts essentially from Avila to Baerga (almost 40 years). There are some legitimate stars here, but what really boosts the Indians is 13 years of Lajoie, one of the top four second basemen of all time.

5. Los Angeles Dodgers

George Cutshaw, Tony Cuccinello, Billy Herman, Eddie Stanky, Jackie Robinson, Jim Gilliam, Davey Lopes, Steve Sax, Delino DeShields, Jeff Kent

Robinson and Herman are the Hall-of-Famers, but this is a pretty stellar list, even if you’ve never heard of Tony Cuccinello.

4. Cincinnati Reds

Bid McPhee, Miller Huggins, Hughie Critz, Lonny Frey, Johnny Temple, Pete Rose, Tommy Helms, Joe Morgan, Ron Oester, Bret Boone, Brandon Phillips

The stars here are Rose and Morgan, but the other guys on the list had some fine seasons as well. Morgan and McPhee are in the Hall of Fame as players, Huggins as a manager.

3. Houston Astros

Joe Morgan, Tommy Helms, Bill Doran, Craig Biggio, Jeff Kent

This is a long, fairly uninterrupted period of fantastic production. Morgan didn’t have his best years in Houston, but a pretty good year from Joe Morgan is a career year for anyone else on this list. It’s 20 years of Craig Biggio, though, that shoots the Astros to #4.

2. St. Louis Cardinals

Miller Huggins, Rogers Hornsby, Frankie Frisch, Pepper Martin, Red Schoendienst, Julian Javier, Ted Sizemore, Tom Herr, Fernando Vina

The Cards got the first half of Rogers Hornsby’s career and the second of of Frankie Frisch’s (the two were traded for one another after the 1926 season). Put them together, and the Cardinals almost top the list, despite a less impressive supporting cast.

1. New York Yankees

Del Pratt, Aaron Ward, Tony Lazzeri, Joe Gordon, Snuffy Stirnweiss, Jerry Coleman, Billy Martin, Gil McDougald, Bobby Richardson, Willie Randolph, Pat Kelly, Chuck Knoblauch, Alfonso Soriano, Robinson Cano

Only two of these players – Lazzeri and Gordon – have been inducted into Cooperstown, and neither one is a top-level Hall-of-Famer. The Yankees are here not on star power, but rather because they’ve had All-Star-level production at second base almost continuously for a century.

And here are the bottom three franchises in second basemen:

28. Tampa Bay Rays

Miguel Cairo, Ben Zobrist

I’ve given the Rays credit for the fact that they’ve only been around for twelve years. Still, this is sorry. They would have easily been last until Zobrist had a fantastic year in 2009.

29. New York Mets

Ron Hunt, Felix Millan, Wally Backman, Jeff Kent, Edgardo Alfonzo, Luis Castillo

Alfonzo is the best of the pack here. The Mets had Kent before he entered his prime and Castillo after he’d passed it.

30. San Diego Padres

Tim Flannery, Roberto Alomar, Quilvio Veras, Mark Loretta

Loretta had an amazing season in 2004, the best by any Padres second basemen. But other than that and a few good years by young Roberto Alomar (who was traded away at age 23), the Padres have had a gaping hole at second base. What’s really scary is all the players who came before Tim Flannery, from 1969-1979.

Best 1B by Team

2011-01-16T21:43:00.001-05:00

The question I started with here was: Which team has had the best first basemen over its history? So, with the help of Baseball-Reference.com, I decided to try to answer that question.

First of all, two caveats in this “study.” One is that I wasn’t interested so much in a collection of names as a collective contribution. In other words, I’m not going to highly rank a team like the Mets that has had a lot of Hall-of-Famers – when they were past their prime. I’m more interested in production than name recognition.

Secondly, I decided to weigh my rankings to give some credit to expansion franchises. The Giants and Cardinals have a lot of great players in their histories, but that’s partly because they’ve been around for 100-plus seasons. So a franchise’s age is taken into account when looking at a list of players.

So who had the best first basemen of all time? Here’s my own personal Top 10, in reverse order. Note that the players listed under each team are just some of the highlights in team history.

10. Boston Red Sox

Jake Stahl, Stuffy McInnis, George Scott, Carl Yastrzemski, Mo Vaughn, Kevin Youkilis

Only Stahl and McInnis make it in from the first half of the 20th century. Both were good, but not great, and McInnis had better years with the A’s. Yaz was indeed great, but his best seasons came as a left fielder. A good crop, but nothing overwhelming. And who would have guessed that Kevin Youkilis is perhaps the third-best first basemen in franchise history already?

9. Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins:

Joe Judge, Joe Kuhel, Mickey Vernon, Harmon Killebrew, Rod Carew, Kent Hrbek, Justin Morneau

There are two Hall-of-Famers on this list: Killebrew and Carew. But both men spent their time with the team at more than one position; Carew started as a second basemen, while Killebrew spent significant time at third and in the outfield. They’re supported by several guys that may not be Hall-of-Famers, but would all make it into the Hall of Very Good. Plus, everyone on the list but Carew spent the vast majority of their careers with the franchise.

8. Houston Astros

Lee May, Bob Watson, Glenn Davis, Jeff Bagwell, Lance Berkman

The Astros have only been around half as long as most teams on the list, but the list of names above is impressive. The Astros have never gone very long without a top-notch player manning first. The key here is Bagwell, a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer (no matter what the voters say) who spent his whole career in Houston.

7. Detroit Tigers

George Burns, Harry Heilmann, Lu Blue, Dale Alexander, Hank Greenberg, Rudy York, Norm Cash, Jason Thompson, Darrell Evans, Cecil Fielder, Tony Clark, Miguel Cabrera

There are two Hall-of-Famers here: Greenberg, who also spent some time as a left fielder, and Heilmann, who was primarily a right fielder. I placed the Tigers ahead of the Astros based on the fact that first base has almost never been in poor hands, at least not for long. And there are many names on this list that are just one notch below the Hall of Fame; and Evans is, arguably, a notch above.

6. Chicago Cubs

Cap Anson, Frank Chance, Fred Merkle, Charlie Grimm, Phil Cavarretta, Ernie Banks, Bill Buckner, Leon Durham, Mark Grace, Derrek Lee

This is a cavalcade of stars, headed by one of the elite first basemen ever in Cap Anson. Chance and Banks are also Hall-of-Famers, and guys like Cavarretta and Lee offered MVP-caliber seasons while with the club.

5. Los Angeles Dodgers

Dave Foutz, Dan Brouthers, Jake Daubert, Jack Fournier, Dolph Camilli, Gil Hodges, Frank Howard, Wes Parker, Steve Garvey, Pedro Guerrero, Eddie Murray, Eric Karros

Brouthers, Daubert and Murray are Hall-of-Famers. This list is notable for the number of guys who are just one notch below Cooperstown, like Camilli, Hodges, Howard and Garvey.

4. Colorado Rockies

Andres Galarraga, Todd Helton

The Rockies have only had two regular first basemen in their 17-year history. One of them, Helton, has had a Hall-of-Famer career. The other, Galarraga, had a terrific career of his own. On a per-year basis, few teams can match the production the Rockies have gotten from first base.

3. Cincinnati Reds

John Reilly, Charlie Comiskey, Jake Beckley, Hal Chase, Jake Daubert, Wally Pipp, Jim Bottomley, Frank McCormick, Ted Kluszewski, Frank Robinson, Lee May, Tony Perez, Dan Driessen, Pete Rose, Sean Casey, Joey Votto

A plethora of potent players. I count five Hall-of-Famers, not including Comiskey (inducted as an executive) or Pete Rose (who, on the field, is a Hall-of-Famer). Plus, there are guys like Pipp, McCormick and Kluszewski who had outstanding careers.

2. New York Yankees

Hal Chase, Wally Pipp, Lou Gehrig, Del Ennis, Johnny Mize, Moose Skowron, Mickey Mantle, Chris Chambliss, Bob Watson, Don Mattingly, Tino Martinez, Jason Giambi, Mark Teixeira

The Yankees don’t have as many big names as the Reds, but they do have Lou Gehrig’s whole career, which boosts them all the way to #2. Mize and Mantle were Hall-of-Famers, but Mize only spent a few years as a Yankee, whereas Mick only spent a few years at first base.

1. St. Louis Cardinals

Charlie Comiskey, Roger Connor, Jake Beckley, Ed Konetchy, Jack Fournier, Jim Bottomley, Johnny Mize, Stan Musial, Bill White, Orlando Cepeda, Joe Torre, Keith Hernandez, Jack Clark, Gregg Jefferies, Mark McGwire, Albert Pujols

To give you an idea of how great this array of players is, they’d probably be number one even without Albert. There are seven Hall-of-Famers here (if you count Comiskey), and there will eventually be at least nine once Torre is inducted (as a manager) and Albert sails in.

After I finished this list I found myself wondering who was at the bottom. In case you’re also curious, here are my bottom three:

28. Philadelphia Phillies

Kitty Bransfield, Fred Luderus, Dolph Camilli, Dick Allen, Pete Rose, John Kruk, Jim Thome, Ryan Howard

They’ve been around for 120-something years and have yet to produce a full-time* Hall-of-Famer at first.

* -- I would be remiss if I did not note that megastar Mike Schmidt finished his career at first base.

There’s nothing wrong with Kitty Bransfield and Fred Luderus. But if they’re the best first basemen you’ve ever had for the majority of their career, it’s a bit embarrassing (Ryan Howard will probably take that title in years to come). Allen was great, but started at third base and soon left the team, and Rose and Thome were only there for a handful of seasons.

29. Florida Marlins

Greg Colbrunn, Jeff Conine, Derrek Lee

If your moment of glory is the weaker half of Derrek Lee’s career, that’s pretty sad even if you’ve just had 17 years.

30. Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals

Tony Perez, Al Oliver, Andres Galarraga, Nick Johnson

None of the players here a) spent a good chunk of their careers with the team, or b) had their best years there. The rest of the 40-year franchise record is filled with names like Wil Cordero and Lee Stevens.

Up Next: The Second Basemen

2010 in Review

2010-11-27T04:11:00.001-05:00

Time again to revisit my preseason predictions. Sorry to say.

AL EAST PREDICTED:

New York Yankees (98-64) 96-100 win range

Boston Red Sox *WC* (94-68) 92-96 win range

Tampa Bay Rays (88-74) 86-90 win range

Baltimore Orioles (74-88) 72-76 win range

Toronto Blue Jays (66-96) 64-68 win range

And here’s what actually happened …

AL EAST ACTUAL:

Tampa Bay Rays (96-66) +8 wins

New York Yankees *WC* (95-67) –3 wins

Boston Red Sox (89-73) –5 wins

Toronto Blue Jays (85-77) +19 wins

Baltimore Orioles (66-96) –8 wins

It seemed to me that the Orioles, with their strong base of young talent, would take a step forward this year. I was very wrong. I also badly underestimated the Blue Jays, who did just fine without Roy Halladay. I didn’t think the Rays had the high-end talent to match Boston and New York and, there again, I was wrong. But who could have predicted the wave of injuries that hit Boston?

AL CENTRAL PREDICTED:

Minnesota Twins (86-76) 84-88 win range

Chicago White Sox (82-80) 80-84 win range

Detroit Tigers (79-83) 77-81 win range

Kansas City Royals (72-90) 70-74 win range

Cleveland Indians (67-95) 65-69 win range

AL CENTRAL ACTUAL:

Minnesota Twins (94-68) +8 wins

Chicago White Sox (88-74) +6 wins

Detroit Tigers (81-81) +2 wins

Cleveland Indians (69-93) +2 wins

Kansas City Royals (67-95) –5 wins

I didn’t miss big on anybody here, except the Twins. I thought they’d be good, but I failed to account for their high-end offense or the return of Francisco Liriano. I’m still not sure how the White Sox won 88 games with that roster.

AL WEST PREDICTED:

Los Angeles Angels (89-73) 87-91 win range

Seattle Mariners (86-76) 84-88 win range

Texas Rangers (84-78), 82-86 win range

Oakland Athletics (74-88), 72-76 win range

AL WEST ACTUAL:

Texas Rangers (90-72) +6 wins

Oakland Athletics (81-81) +7 wins

Los Angeles Angels (80-82) –9 wins

Seattle Mariners (61-101) –25 wins

Yeah, so I missed on the Mariners, but so did most people. As for the Rangers, I didn’t think they had the pitching to win 90. But C.J. Wilson and Colby Lewis were great, and they traded for Cliff Lee.

I’ve been predicting the imminent decline of the Angels for a few years now. I just never thought their talent level matched their win output. Well, this time I just took the safe route and picked the Angels to repeat their magic. Bad timing on my part.

NL EAST PREDICTED:

Philadelphia Phillies (96-76) 94-98 win range

Atlanta Braves *WC* (92-70) 90-94 win range

Florida Marlins (85-77) 83-87 win range

New York Mets (80-82) 78-82 win range

Washington Nationals (69-93) 67-71 win range

NL EAST ACTUAL:

Philadelphia Phillies (97-65) +1 win

Atlanta Braves (91-71) –1 win

Florida Marlins (80-82) –5 wins

New York Mets (79-83) –1 win

Washington Nationals (69-93) Exactly Right!

I didn’t take any big risks here, and it paid off. I expected a little too much out of Florida, but I also saw that the Mets were due for something of a rebound.

NL CENTRAL PREDICTED:

St. Louis Cardinals (92-70) 90-94 win range

Chicago Cubs (83-79) 81-85 win range

Milwaukee Brewers (81-81) 79-83 win range

Cincinnati Reds (77-85) 75-79 win range

Houston Astros (71-91) 69-73 win range

Pittsburgh Pirates (64-98) 62-66 win range

NL CENTRAL ACTUAL:

Cincinnati Reds (91-71) +14 wins

St. Louis Cardinals (86-76) –6 wins

Milwaukee Brewers (77-85) –4 wins

Houston Astros (76-86) +5 wins

Chicago Cubs (75-87) –8 wins

Pittsburgh Pirates (57-105) –7 wins

I thought last year was the Reds’ year to break through. My timing sucks. I also thought that 83 wins was a bearish prediction for the Cubs. Not bearish enough it would seem. Ditto the Pirates.

NL WEST PREDICTED:

Los Angeles Dodgers (93-69) 91-95 win range

Colorado Rockies (89-73) 87-91 win range

Arizona Diamondbacks (83-79) 81-85 win range

San Francisco Giants (78-84) 76-80 win range

San Diego Padres (67-95) 65-69 win range

NL WEST ACTUAL:

San Francisco Giants (92-70) +14 wins

San Diego Padres (90-72) +23 wins

Colorado Rockies (83-79) –6 wins

Los Angeles Dodgers (80-82) –13 wins

Arizona Diamondbacks (65-97) –18 wins

Except for the Rockies, I screwed the proverbial pooch here.

Postseason/Awards Predictions

NLCS: Phillies over Braves (Nearly happened).

ALCS: Red Sox over Yankees (Or one of those “R” teams).

WS: Red Sox over Phillies

AL MVP: Joe Mauer, Twins (Mauer had a good year, but nothing like his ‘09 campaign).

NL MVP: Chase Utley, Phillies (Injuries again.)

AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez, Mariners (You’re welcome.)

NL Cy Young: Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers (I’m probably 2-3 years ahead of the curve here. But he did have a fine year.)

AL Rookie of the Year: Neftali Feliz, Rangers (a-HEM.)

NL Rookie of the Year: Jason Heyward, Braves (He wuz Robbed.)

A Giant Step

2010-11-26T03:47:00.001-05:00

Quick note: The title of this blog refers to the underrated musical stylings of The Monkees, whose TV show I was a big fan of as a kid (and yes, I’m serious). I should also note that, thanks to a typo, this was almost titled “A Giant Strep.” Make of that what you will.

Question: When was the last time the Giants had two pitchers as good as Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain? (And I don’t just mean for one year. I mean two legitimately excellent, still-in-their-prime pitchers for a fair amount of time).

Short Answer: About 35-40 years.

And now for the long answer …

********

I really could have asked this question two years ago, when Lincecum won his first Cy Young Award with the still-excellent Cain by his side. But that was just one year. The Giants have had several impressive-looking pitching performances that lasted one year, but these two have worked wonders together since the husky 21-year-old Cain first established himself in 2006.

In 2009, the Giants had two pitchers (Lincecum and Cain) finish in the top 10 in the NL in WAR*. The last time the Giants had two pitchers finish in the top 10 in this category was in the strike year of 1981, when the two stars on the list were a young Doyle Alexander (he finished 8th; Doyle’s probably not the name you were expecting, and even I forgot he ever played for the Giants) along with a 31-year-old Vida Blue (9th place).
* – This is the version of WAR compiled by Baseball-Reference.

Here are a couple more facts to put that in perspective:

During the 1990s, the Giants only had one pitcher make the top 10 in WAR – in the entire decade. In fact, between 1988 and 2001, the only San Francisco Giant to crack the top 10 in WAR was Bill Swift, tying for 6th place in 1992.
The Giants made the playoffs three times during that stretch (1989, 1997, 2000) and just missed them in 1993 despite 103 wins. If you were to deduce that these Giants were some offensive-minded muthatruckers, you would be right.
Tim Lincecum led the league in WAR in back-to-back years in 2008 and 2009. He was the first Giant to do so in a century, the last being Hall-of-Famer Christy Mathewson in 1907 and 1908.
Four times in San Francisco has a Giant pitcher led the league in WAR. Lincecum did it twice (2008 and 2009), Juan Marichal did it once – in 1965 - and John Montefusco did it in 1976. (I’ll speak more on Montefusco later. But if I’d asked you to name the three S.F. Giant pitchers to lead the league in WAR, you’d likely have come up with Lincecum and Marichal right away. How many names would you then have gone through before you came to Montefusco?)
If you look at Giant pitchers who finished in the top five in WAR, Lincecum is joined in recent years by Jason Schmidt, who came in second to Mark Prior in 2003. To find the next Giant starting pitcher* to make the top five in WAR, you have to go back to 1980, when Vida Blue finished exactly 5th.
* -- Relief ace Greg Minton tied for 5th in 1982, thanks to a 1.83 ERA in an ungodly 123 innings. He did this despite a mere 58 strikeouts and 42 walks (although 17 of those were intentional. Minton’s intentional walk totals from 1982-1986 are 17, 13, 20, 18 and 15 despite averaging just over 100 innings. Was manager Roger Craig always so generous with first base?)
Minton finished a fine career with a 3.10 ERA (118 ERA+) in 1,130.2 career innings. This is quite impressive for someone who issued more walks (483) than strikeouts (479).

My next question, then, was: who was the Giants’ last stud pitcher? By that I mean a legitimate ace still in the prime of his career who spent more than a cup of coffee with the organization? Well, their last stud before Lincecum was Jason Schmidt, who was with the team from 2001-2006. Before that, it was easily the forgotten rookie sensation John Montefusco, who pitched for the team from 1974 through 1980.

But a word on Jason Schmidt first, if I may …

The Jason Schmidt Story (Abridged)

Jason Schmidt was drafted by the Atlanta Braves in the 8th round of the 1991 draft. He wasn’t considered an elite prospect, but he made a solid showing in AA in 1994, with a 3.65 ERA and 131 Ks in 140.2 innings. He broke through in 1995, starting in Triple-A with a 2.25 ERA in 19 starts. He made 9 appearances in the big leagues that year, taking home a World Series share despite not pitching in the postseason.

Going into the 1996 season, Baseball America ranked Schmidt as the #11 prospect in the minors. But he wouldn’t capitalize on that promise in Atlanta. Schmidt was one of the key players going to Pittsburgh in a trade-deadline deal that brought star pitcher Denny Neagle to Atlanta. It looked like a pretty big steal for Atlanta, as Schmidt had just a fair season with Pittsburgh in 1997, whereas Neagle won 20 games as part of the greatest starting rotation in modern history (Neagle, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz and Kevin Millwood).

Schmidt was 25 years old in 1998, when he finished with an above-average 4.07 ERA in 214.1 innings. His strikeout numbers were good – 158 – but he also allowed 71 walks. 1999 was a very similar year, if slightly worse; Schmidt’s ERA and walks ticked up while his strikeout numbers dipped.

Schmidt missed most of 2000 due to injury and entered 2001 as a decent 28-year-old starter recovering from injury. He was making just over $3 million, and the Pirates understandably thought that middling starters weren’t worth holding onto once they got expensive. So Schmidt left town in another trade deadline deal, this time heading off to the postseason hopefuls in San Francisco. The Pirates sent along utility man John Vander Wal in exchange for a fourth outfielder (Armando Rios) and a pitching prospect that never panned out (Ryan Vogelsong).

It’s unclear if the Giants saw great untapped potential in Schmidt, or if they just needed a reliable arm in the rotation. Either way, Schmidt pitched well for them down the stretch (3.39 ERA in 11 starts), but the Giants missed the playoffs by two games.

It’s beyond my own insight to explain how a good pitcher becomes great, especially at age 29. But that’s precisely what Schmidt did in 2002. Schmidt’s ERA dropped to 3.45, despite being limited to just 29 starts. His secret was easy to see – his strikeout rate went through the roof. His 196 K’s were good enough for 7th in the NL, despite throwing just 185.1 IP. Schmidt ranked just behind the elite pitching tandem of Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling in strikeouts per nine innings.

Schmidt started his first postseason against the team that drafted him, and the Braves lit him up for 4 ER in 5.1 innings. The Giants won the series, though, and Schmidt spun a beauty in Game 2 of the NLCS as San Francisco romped to the pennant.

Schmidt didn’t pitch very well in the World Series against the Angels (5.23 ERA, albeit with 14 K’s in 10.1 IP). But then, nobody pitched well in that series; the Giants’ team ERA was 5.55 and the Angels’ was 5.75. The Barry Bonds-led Giants bashed the Angels, but got slightly out-bashed in the end.

Schmidt roared back to post what was by far his best season in 2003, leading the league in ERA (2.24) and finishing second in WAR (5.9). His 208 strikeouts were 4th-best in the league, and his walks allowed dropped from 73 in 2002 to 46 in 2003, despite even more innings pitched. The Giants won 100 games but were stopped by the underdog Marlins in the NLDS, losing 3 games to 1 (the lone victory going to Schmidt in a Game 1 shutout).

Schmidt’s 251 strikeouts in 2004 were a career-high, but a simultaneous uptick in walks (and a little less luck, perhaps) saw his ERA drop from great to merely good (3.20). 2005 was, unfortunately, the beginning of the end. Injuries limited him to 29 starts and a 4.40 ERA. But a return to form in 2006 (3.59 ERA in 213.1 IP despite a drop in strikeout rate) convinced the Los Angeles Dodgers that the 34-year-old free agent Schmidt was a good investment, and they signed him to a 3-year deal worth about $46 million.

At the time, I felt that it was a wise investment for the Dodgers. Schmidt seemed to be over his injury problems, and the best news was that they didn’t commit four or five years to the aging hurler. And the 2006 version of Schmidt was worth $15 MM per year.

In Los Angeles, though, Schmidt was beset by injuries that limited him to less than 50 innings over the entire three-year contract. He was out of baseball in 2010 and, with his 38th birthday coming up, appears to be done.

Still, from 2001-2006, Schmidt was the best pitcher Giants fans had seen since John Montefusco. That’s right – John Montefusco.

The John Montefusco Story (abridged)

Montefusco signed with the Giants as an amateur free agent back in 1972, going completely undrafted by the big leagues. He silenced any doubters with a fine debut season in A-ball in 1973. He zipped through Double-A and Triple-A in 1974, even making 7 appearances with the Giants. His ERA was 4.81, but he did manage to strike out 34 batters in 39.1 innings.

1975 was the big breakthrough. The Giants finished 80-81, but Montefusco went 15-9 with a 2.88 ERA and 215 strikeouts in 243.2 innings (albeit against 86 walks). Those 215 K’s were second only to Mets ace Tom Seaver, who notched 243. (Montefusco actually led the league in strikeouts per 9 IP). This was good enough to earn Rookie of the Year honors, as well as a 4th-place finish in the Cy Young voting.

Montefusco took yet another step forward in 1976 when he was, according to WAR, the best pitcher in the National League. It must be said, though, that his numbers actually look worse on the surface than they did in ‘75. His ERA dropped to 2.84, but his strikeouts also dropped – by a fair margin – to 172 despite throwing 9.2 more innings.

1977 saw Montefusco experience the first of the arm problems that would soon end his days as an elite starter. He pitched well, with a fine 3.49 ERA and a strikeout rate on par with the previous year – but in just 157.1 innings. By 1978, Montefusco was healthy enough to make 36 starts and last 238.2 innings, but his ERA swelled to 3.81 (an ERA+ of 90, below average). He struck out 177 batters, good enough for 5th in the league, but still well below the rate established during his rookie year.

In 1979, Montefusco made just 22 starts, and his ERA rose to 3.94. The next year, it was even fewer starts (17) and an even higher ERA (4.37). He was 30 years old by now, and the injuries had made him a below-average hurler. In the offseason, he was traded to the Braves (with a minor leaguer) for Doyle Alexander, a move that worked quite well for San Francisco but the Braves – well, the Braves at the time weren’t known for their savvy work in baseball operations.

With his injury history, the Braves moved Montefusco into the bullpen, and he did fairly well for them in 1981. His 3.49 ERA was about average (ERA+ of 104), but his strikeout rate dropped still further, to just 34 in 77.1 innings. Montefusco the strikeout artist was no more.

The Padres – Montefusco’s new employers as a free agent – tried him as a starter again with predictably disastrous results. His ERA was 4.00 (which was below-average in 1982), and his strikeout rate was still pedestrian. A return to the bullpen in ‘83 shifted his numbers back towards average, resulting in a mid-season deal to the pennant-hopeful Yankees. (The Yankees sent their own busted prospect – Dennis Rasmussen – in return). The Yankees, puzzlingly, shifted him back to the rotation. Montefusco did make six (decent) starts down the stretch, and the Yankees won 91 games, but finished 7 games behind Baltimore in the AL East.

Montefusco only made 11 starts in 1984, but they weren’t bad. His ERA remained right around the league average (ERA+ of 107) despite a strikeout rate that was terrible even by 1984 standards. Unfortunately, Montefusco pitched just short of 20 innings for the Yankees over the next two seasons, and was out of baseball after 1986 at the age of 36.

Some guys never come back from their big arm troubles, but Montefusco stuck around for nearly 10 seasons after he was first stricken in 1977. He was a completely different pitcher, but he was still going none the less.

And Now, The Answer …

The last time the Giants had two pitchers as good as Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain, they were lucky enough to develop two Hall-of-Famers out of their farm system in less than a year.

They were Juan Marichal and Gaylord Perry.

Marichal

Juan Marichal signed with the Giants out of the Dominican Republic in 1957, just a few weeks after the team finished its final season in New York. Marichal would debut for the team across the continent in San Francisco in 1959.

Marichal pitched well in 11 starts in ‘59 (2.66 ERA), but struggled during his first full season the following year. But the “Dominican Dandy,” already known for his elaborate wind-up and impressive stuff, was just getting started.

Marichal came into his own in 1962, just in time to pitch the Giants to the pennant. His 3.36 ERA was good, if not great, during that pitcher’s era, but he hung in there for 262.2 innings, striking out 153 to go with 90 walks. Marichal started Game 4 of the World Series against the Yankees, shutting them out for four innings before being lifted for Bobby Bolin (the Giants lost the game, and the Series, without Marichal throwing another pitch).

Marichal improved again in 1963, going from promising rookie to staff ace thanks to 25 wins (best in the NL) and a 2.41 ERA (4th-best). His 321.1 IP led the league, and his 248 strikeouts ranked 4th. When it came time to vote for the Cy Young Award, though, Marichal didn’t even get a vote; Sandy Koufax also won 25 games, but with a better ERA (1.88) and more K’s (306). This would be the start of a pattern for Marichal, who was utterly overshadowed during his career – first by Koufax and then, after the lefty’s premature retirement, by Bob Gibson.

1964 represented a small step back for Marichal. His ERA inched up to 2.48 (again 4th-best in the NL), his strikeouts dropped to “just” 206 (7th-best), and he threw “only” 269 innings. This was his chance, though, to take home the Cy Young, with the rival Koufax missing time due to injury. But in 1964, there was just one Cy Young Award for both leagues, and the unheralded Dean Chance of the Los Angeles Angels took it home.

1965 was more of the same: 22 wins, 295.1 innings, 240 K’s. Marichal did take home the only “big” award of his career that year, being named the All-Star Game MVP. Once again, Sandy Koufax took home the Cy Young, having set a new major league record for strikeouts in a single season (382). If it’s any consolation, though, WAR shows Marichal as having the better season (9.2, against 8.2 for Sandy).

This steady brilliance would characterize Marichal’s career until he hit his mid-30’s. In 1970, the 32-year-old Marichal’s strikeout rate took a nosedive to just 123 K’s, bumping his ERA up to 4.12. He seemed to be back to normal, though, in 1971, with his ERA dropping to 2.94 and his strikeouts moving up to 159 (although this was still a smaller rate than during his prime). Marichal capped off the season by making his second (and last) postseason start. In Game 3 of the NLCS, Marichal threw a complete game, allowing just 2 runs while striking out 6. He took the loss, though, against Bob Johnson of Pittsburgh. The Giants lost the series in four games.

1972 saw the 34-year-old Marichal struggle again. Whether it was the same problem as before or something new, I cannot tell. His strikeout rate plummeted, and he posted the worst ERA (adjusted for context) of his career so far while making just 24 starts. 1973 was almost exactly the same, although Marichal did hang in there for 32 starts.

Marichal would be 36 in 1974, and the Giants had lost enough faith in him to sell him to the Boston Red Sox, looking for one last boost to their pennant hopes. But Marichal made just 11 appearances and compiled a 4.87 ERA. He got one last shot with the Dodgers in 1976, making two starts and allowing nine runs. It was the end of the line.

Marichal finished his career with a record of 243-142, an ERA of 2.89 (123 ERA+), 2,303 strikeouts and just over 3500 career innings pitched. These aren’t the numbers of an elite Hall-of-Famer, but they’re the numbers of a Hall-of-Famer, no question. Unless you’re the Baseball Writers Association of America, who made Marichal wait three years before inducting him into Cooperstown.

This resulted in something of a backlash from Marichal’s supporters, and understandably so. Marichal had played in the shadow of Koufax, Drysdale and Gibson. He was hampered by the fact that a) he didn’t produce any numbers as gaudy as those of Gibson and Koufax, and b) his teams weren’t as good. Koufax won four pennants and three World Series, as did Drysdale. Gibson won three pennants and two World Series. Marichal made just two postseason starts in his whole career, and his team lost the 1962 World Series in down-to-the-wire seven-game series against the Yankees. Sandy Koufax set a modern record for strikeouts in a single season. Bob Gibson set a modern record for single-season ERA. Marichal holds no such records.

Just to get some perspective, here’s a look at the fellows we’re talking about. How different are they?

Pitcher	Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	IP	K’s
Juan M.	243	142	2.89	123	3507.0	2303
Bob G.	251	174	2.91	128	3884.1	3117
Sandy K.	165	87	2.76	131	2324.1	2396
Don D.	209	166	2.95	121	3432.0	2486

I’m confused; why doesn’t Juan Marichal belong in the same discussion as the other men? And are you as surprised as I am that Marichal’s career ERA is so close to Sandy Koufax’s? And consider that Koufax retired at age 30; if his career had wound down like Marichal’s, would their ERAs be the same?

Koufax was, I must admit, better than Marichal in his prime, mainly because of the strikeouts. But he wasn’t quite as great as they say he was. And when consider that he threw 1000 innings less than the other guys on the list, you wonder why Sandy Koufax’s name comes up on the list of the best pitchers ever. On a per-season basis? Sure. But if we’re talking careers, Koufax has a lot more in common with Addie Joss than Juan Marichal or Bob Gibson.

Perry

Gaylord Perry will forever be remembered as the guy who threw the spitter. This isn’t entirely fair, since a lot of other guys threw it and just lied more convincingly. Perry’s wet one was the worst-kept secret in baseball.

This does present a few pressing questions to anyone looking to analyze Perry’s career: How much did the spitter help him? How good would a non-spitball version of Perry have been? How often did he really throw it? Did he throw it a lot more as he got older? Since I don’t have any really good answers to these questions, it necessarily limits how much I can analyze the greatness of Gaylord Perry.

But he was sure as hell somethin’.

Perry was signed by the Giants in 1958, about a year after they inked Marichal. This is fitting, since Perry is about a year younger than Marichal (~11 months).

Perry made his debut for the pennant-winning Giants in 1962, but only in 13 games and with a 5.23 ERA. That team was loaded with good pitchers: Marichal, Billy O’Dell, veterans such as Billy Pierce, Don Larsen and Jack Sanford, and rookies like Perry, Mike McCormick and Bobby Bolin. It was no surprise, then, that Perry and his 5.23 ERA didn’t pitch in the Giants’ World Series loss.

After another forgettable year in ‘63, Perry broke through in ‘64. His 12-11 record belied the quality of his 2.75 ERA (9th in the NL) to go with 155 strikeouts in 206.1 innings. He took a step back in ‘65, before coming back in ‘66 to his previous form.

1967, though, was when Perry became a star. His 2.61 ERA was 5th in the league. He threw an incredible 293 innings (2nd in the NL) to go with 230 strikeouts (3rd). Not only was Perry great, he was becoming a real workhorse. My own guess is that, hey, the spitter takes less out of your arm, but then there were other non-spitball pitchers throwing insane numbers of innings in this era.

Perry’s ERA lowered to 2.45 in 1968. However, despite a slight rise in ERA (2.49), 1969 was a better year, because he led the league with 325.1 innings pitched and set a new career high with 233 strikeouts (3rd in the NL). 1970 saw Perry’s ERA bump up to 3.20, but no matter – he led the league in wins (23), innings (328.2), and games started (41). He would finish second in the Cy Young race, despite the fact that his ‘69 season was probably better.

1971 was another really good year for Perry, although it was a step down from his illustrious run in the years prior. He won just 16 games (on a team that won 90), his innings pitched fell to 280 (still good enough for 4th in the NL) and his strikeouts dropped to 158. To top it off, he got beat up in the NLCS against Pittsburgh, posting a 6.14 ERA in two starts (those two starts would be his only postseason appearances in a career that saw him log 5,350 regular-season innings).

What happened next is hard to explain: for some reason, the Giants started wondering what life would be like without Gaylord Perry. I can only speculate, but maybe it was the bad postseason that got to them. Maybe they were wary of a season perceived as a step back. Maybe they were worried that Perry turned 33 in September. Maybe they didn’t like the spitter. Or maybe Perry was an asshole, and I’m just not aware of it.

There is one other possibility, though. Maybe the Giants weren’t thinking about trading him at all until they found out who they might get in return: The Indians were offering Sam McDowell.

Not only was “Sudden Sam” one of the best pitchers in the American League, a fire-baller that led the league in strikeouts – and walks – five times, he was nearly five years younger than Perry. McDowell, who’d spent his whole career in Cleveland, looked like he might be the scion of the iconic Indian pitcher of all time, Bob Feller. How could the Giants not be interested in that?

Again we have to ask why Cleveland was willing to trade such a star pitcher, and again I can’t give an exact answer. Like Perry, McDowell had had a disappointing 1971. His won-loss record dropped from 20-12 in 1970 to 13-17, and it wasn’t just bad luck. I don’t know how much injuries played a part in it, but McDowell’s innings also fell from 305 to 214.2. His strikeouts fell, too – and not just as a function of fewer innings pitched – from a league-leading 304 to 192. His walks, on the other hand, increased to a career-high 153.

Again, I don’t know how much anyone knew at the time about McDowell’s injury. Maybe it was just seen as a sore arm, maybe not. Maybe the Indians knew more than they were ready to reveal publicly – the Giants must have been suspicious. Could they pass up this offer?

On November 29, 1971 the deal was done: McDowell to the Giants for Perry (and Frank Duffy, a former first-round draft pick who never panned out).

Sam McDowell, a 29-year-old San Francisco Giant, threw just 164.1 innings with a 4.33 ERA, 122 strikeouts and 86 walks. He was done. After a similar start to 1973, the Giants sold McDowell outright to the Yankees. He threw less than 150 innings for the Yankees, 34.2 for the Pirates, and then was out of baseball at age 33.

Gaylord Perry, on the other hand, made the Indians look like geniuses for the first and only time in a 20-year period encompassing most of the 1970’s and 1980’s. Not only did Perry have the best year of his career upon joining the tribe in 1972, it was one of the best seasons by any pitcher in modern memory. All this for a team that went 72-84.

I can’t do it justice. Bold indicates the league leader:

	W-L	ERA	CG	IP	BB	K	ERA+	WAR
Perry ‘72	24-16	1.92	29	342.2	82	234	170	10.5

Perry took home the Cy Young Award. He probably deserved the MVP, too, but that went to Dick Allen of the White Sox.

After the historic ‘72 season, Perry went back to being his reliable, extraordinary self. He didn’t really slow down with age – he even led the league in wins again, notching 21 with the 1978 Padres at the age of 39.

The first really below-average year for Perry came in 1981 at the age of 42, with Atlanta. He only made 23 starts, and his 3.94 ERA was below average for the league (91 ERA+). He bounced back with a full-time season in 1982 with a decent Mariner team, but was just another guy in 1983 with the Mariners, and then the Royals after getting his release in June.

Perry could have held on a while longer – continuing as a hired gun, a pitcher still with some value but never again as durable. But he had 314 wins and a pretty clear shot at the Hall of Fame. He retired and was inducted into Cooperstown in 1991, his third year of eligibility.

********

If you go year-by-year and look at the Giants who pop up on the single-season leaderboards, there are only a couple familiar names surrounded by a bunch of guys you’ve probably never heard of. Maybe they just go lucky one year, or maybe they really were that good and just never got famous.

You’ll see the names of some quality guys, like the ones discussed here, and a few others. Rick Reuschel. Bob Knepper. Vida Blue. Johnny Antonelli. “Toothpick” Sam Jones. Then there are the guys who got off to a great start but never made it much further than that. John Montefusco. Mike McCormick. And then there are the guys whose names I did not – I swear – make up. Kirk Rueter. John D’Acquisto. Atlee Hammaker.

But for a pair of aces, you’re talking about Perry and Marichal. Or, if you go back a little further, Mathewson and McGinnity. And maybe the next duo to climb that mountain is Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain.

They’re off to one hell of a start.

2010 NL East in Review

2010-11-18T00:45:00.001-05:00

Note: This article was completed before I learned of the trade sending Dan Uggla from the Marlins to the Braves. Instead of starting this entry over, I’ll just say that the deal really helps the Braves while providing little other than money saved for Florida.

Atlanta Braves

W-L: 91-71 (2nd in NL East; NL Wild Card)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 93-69

Payroll: $90.3 million (7th in NL)

R/G: 4.56 (5th in NL)

ERA: 3.57 (4th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .687 (T-8th in NL)

Team MVPs: Jason Heyward, Brian McCann, Tim Hudson, Tommy Hanson, Martin Prado

Team LVPs: Melky Cabrera, Nate McLouth, Kenshin Kawakami

Defensive Stars: Jason Heyward, Yunel Escobar

What Went Right: The Braves’ pitching staff, a combination of budding youngsters and seasoned veterans, came together quite nicely. 34-year-old Tim Hudson put together a shiny 2.83 ERA to lead the staff, despite a mediocre strikeout rate. Derek Lowe bounced back from a forgettable debut year in Atlanta to post an ERA of an even 4.00, returning to form as a durable, if unspectacular, groundball artist. And in the bullpen, 38-year-old Billy Wagner spun what a fine farewell season, notching 37 saves with a brilliant 104 K’s in just 69.1 innings.

The Braves also started debuting some of their illustrious young pitching talent. 23-year-old Tommy Hanson was super in his first full season, finishing with an ERA of 3.33 and 173 K’s in 202.2 IP. In the bullpen, rookie Jonny Venters managed a 1.95 ERA with more than one K per inning, and 24-year-old (future closer?) Kris Medlen made a strong showing as well. The Braves pitching staff is well positioned for the future, with even more exciting young talent in the lower minors. The only concern is that help arrives before the guys in their mid 30’s start to break down (Hudson, Lowe, Kawakami even more so).

The Braves got just what they needed from budding 20-year-old megastar Jason Heyward, who showed a great approach at the plate (91 BB, .393 OBP) to go with 18 HR, a number that should spike in the coming years. 26-year-old Martin Prado stepped forward as a franchise cornerstone, hitting 307/350/459 to go along with solid defense at second. Prado missed the postseason due to injury, a loss the Braves keenly felt as career minor-leaguer Brooks Conrad fumbled his way through the NLDS.

What Went Wrong:

There’s not much fault to find with the 2010 Braves, who have rebuilt themselves quickly to challenge the Phillies in the NL hierarchy. But the Braves’ offense sputtered in the postseason, and this is where there isn’t much help coming from the minors.

No team functions well when half their starting infield is lost to injury, and we shouldn’t have been surprised to see the Braves looking lost without Martin Prado and Chipper Jones. But while Prado will be back, there’s some question as to whether Chipper Jones will ever return to his Hall-of-Fame form, and if he does how temporary such a return to form could be for the oft-injured team icon. What was exposed in the playoffs was an underlying weakness in the team’s offense, manifested mainly in the team’s struggles to fill out the outfield.

The arrival of Jason Heyward couldn’t have come too soon for a team that’s wasted a great deal of time on the likes of Garret Anderson, Rick Ankiel, Jeff Francoeur and others. Heyward was supported in the outfield mainly by the likes of Melky Cabrera (255/317/354), Ankiel (210/324/328), Matt Diaz (250/302/438) and Nate McLouth (190/298/322). While McLouth almost has to bounce back from his wretched 2010 campaign (he’s a career 252/337/438 hitter), that still leaves one corner outfield spot glaringly open. The Braves have been linked to some big bats in trade talks and on the free agent rumor mill, but they need to get serious about finding a new outfielder, either in left or in center (with McLouth shifting to left).

The other hole for Atlanta is at first base. The team started 2010 with Troy Glaus, who looked older than his years (240/344/400). They got some solid work from utility man Eric Hinske (256/338/456) before acquiring Derrek Lee from the Cubs (287/384/465 with the team). The long-term solution here may be top prospect Freddie Freeman, who hit 319/378/521 in Triple-A before a September call-up. Still, the Braves may want another experienced hand to solidify the position. The good news is that the market for first baseman is deep and cheap this offseason, so long as you’re not looking for superstars.

Notes: The Braves need another starter to step up in the #4 or #5 slot. One of those slots will be filled by Jair Jurrjens, hoping to prove that his fantastic 2009 was the real deal … I wrote in this space two years ago that Brian McCann might be the most underrated player in the league. Getting the game-winning hit in the All-Star Game has raised his status, though … Consider how good Jason Heyward is at age 20. It’s a short list of superstars that are that good that young … The Braves are transitioning nicely from a team of last-shot veterans to a young, pitching-heavy team. The Phillies, on the other hand, have pretty much given up any transition, meaning they’re stuck with their stars for the long haul. This isn’t good news for the Braves now, but once those expensive Phillies start to get older, this Braves team will be ready to surpass them.

Florida Marlins

W-L: 80-82 (3rd in NL East)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 81-81

Payroll: $48.8 million (14th in NL)

R/G: 4.44 (7th in NL)

ERA: 4.09 (10th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .678 (13th in NL)

Team MVPs: Josh Johnson, Hanley Ramirez, Dan Uggla

Team LVPs: Chris Coghlan, Cameron Maybin

Defensive Stars: Mike Stanton, Cody Ross

What Went Right: The Marlins’ interpretation of team loyalty may be a ruthless one, but it does show the value of not getting too attached to name players for their own sake. Mid-level players like Cody Ross and Jorge Cantu got traded away this year, and while both of them ended up playing in the World Series, it will be someone else who overpays them as free agents, not Florida. Meanwhile, the team’s player development marches on, this year spitting out talented, free-swinging Mike Stanton. Stanton is a 20-year-old potential stud, whose huge power potential (22 HR in 100 games) is only rivaled by his propensity to strike out (123 times). It is a concern whether Stanton can keep swatting homers with such holes in his swing, but if he can reach his potential, nobody will care if it comes with 175 K’s per year.

Reigning Rookie of the Year Chris Coghlan sought to prove that his performance last year wasn’t a fluke, but was not successful (268/335/383). He was replaced by 22-year-old Logan Morrison (283/390/447) who shows much more potential than the elder Coghlan (25).

The Marlins returned their All-Star middle-infield tandem of Dan Uggla (287/369/508) and Hanley Ramirez (300/378/475; an “off” year by his standards). The only drawback (not to get ahead of myself) is their defense; they’re not helping that woeful team DER.

The long-term marriage between the Marlins and ace Josh Johnson was finally achieved with a new contract (with Michael Weiner, head of the players’ union, providing the shotgun). Johnson responded with a Cy Young-caliber season, finishing with a 2.30 ERA and 186 strikeouts in 183.2 innings. Johnson was supported by a healthy Anibal Sanchez (3.55 ERA, 157 K’s in 195 IP), although the rest of the staff disappointed.

The Marlins traded incumbent closer Kevin Gregg to Toronto and seamlessly replaced him with Leo Nunez (acquired from the Royals for Mike Jacobs, if you can believe that). Nunez notched 30 saves, finishing with a 3.46 ERA and 71 K’s in 65 IP.

What Went Wrong: It’s hard to say that anything really went wrong, since the Marlins aren’t really aspiring to win so much as develop a winning team for their next ballpark. In this, at least, they succeeded in 2010. Lineup stalwarts Uggla and Ramirez were given new support by rookies Stanton, Morrison and first baseman Gaby Sanchez (273/341/448). Sure, there are some holes here yet, but what’s the hurry?

Notes: The Marlins have a solid offensive foundation with more to come from the farm. But if they want to be contenders (and they really don’t, yet) they need to develop more arms to back up their ace, Johnson … If you still don’t believe that cheap relief help is available, look at what the Marlins did with unknowns like Leo Nunez (3.46 ERA), Clay Hensley (2.16), Burke Badenhop (3.99), Brian Sanches (2.26) and Jose Veras (3.75) … The Marlins have so burned out their fanbase (such as it is) that when they finally do try and draw crowds in their new ballpark, they will be sorely disappointed. Even if the on-field talent is there, fans have long memories when it comes to fire sales and a team culture of mediocrity. Just ask the Rays.

New York Mets

W-L: 79-83 (4th in NL East)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 81-81

Payroll: $118 million (4th in NL)

R/G: 4.05 (13th in NL)

ERA: 3.73 (6th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .690 (7th in NL)

Team MVPs: David Wright, Angel Pagan, R.A. Dickey, Johan Santana

Team LVPs: Oliver Perez, Jeff Francoeur, Luis Castillo

Defensive Stars: Angel Pagan, Ike Davis

What Went Right: The Mets’ pitching staff actually ended up much better than expected. The Mets have mostly neglected their pitching staff over the past 8-10 years, developing very few young hurlers and then occasionally signing a big-name free agent (Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana, Oliver Perez). It’s not a strategy that’s generally served them well.

But in 2010, the Mets did quite well with some of their own stars. Homegrown Mike Pelfrey led the team with 15 wins, although his 3.66 ERA and a dismal strikeout rate (113 in 204 IP) indicate that this was more luck than skill. Homegrown starter Jonathon Niese did a decent job as well, finishing with a 4.20 ERA and 148 K’s in 173.2 IP.

The best pitcher on the team was free agent signee Johan Santana, who posted a 2.98 ERA in 199 innings before being shut down due to injury. It should be noted, though, that Santana no longer looks like the elite hurler from his Minnesota days. Age and injury seems to have left him as simply “very good.”

The biggest surprise of the staff was knuckleballer R.A. Dickey, who finally got his floater floating in all the right places, finishing with an ERA of 2.84 in 26 starts. Another pleasant surprise was Japanese free agent Hisanori Takahashi, who moved smoothly into the rotation in mid-season, shoring up the staff for the Mets.

The only real good news on offense came from David Wright’s return to form (283/354/503). The team was also satisfied with the debut of Ike Davis, the rookie first baseman who impressed both with his bat (264/351/440) and his glove, as well as the surprisingly good work put up by defensive whiz Angel Pagan, who managed to hit a valuable 290/340/425 with 37 steals.

What Went Wrong:

Oliver Perez, the $12 MM man, made 17 appearances with the big club, lighting fires to the tune of a 6.80 ERA and more walks (42) than strikeouts (37). This was admittedly a slight improvement over his 2009 season, when his ERA was 6.82. There’s some doubt as to whether the ultimate problem is in Oliver’s head or his arm. There’s little doubt, though, that the team can just write off the $12 MM he’'ll make in 2011.

Francisco Rodriguez’s rocky season highlighted the Met bullpen, (which actually performed very well, likely beyond their actual skill set – viz, Elmer Dessens’s 2.30 ERA). On the pitcher’s mound, Rodriguez did quite well, saving 25 games with a 2.20 ERA and more strikeouts (67) than innings pitched (57.1). K-Rod’s season ended early, though, when he was arrested in connection with a brawl that resulted in a restraining order keeping him away from his girlfriend. The situation gave the Mets a cover story to pursue voiding his contract, which pays the closer $11.5 MM in 2011 and would require a $3.5 MM buyout of his 2012 option. This could never pass the laugh test in front of the player’s union, but if nothing else it will warn teams about the wisdom of signing any non-elite closer to a big-money deal.

Offensively, the Mets are still the train wreck they’ve been since their big-name free agents (Delgado, Castillo, Beltran) started getting old and/or injured. While David Wright was able to return to form (for the most part), the team was again disappointed with the numbers managed by Jose Reyes (282/321/428) who was still battling injuries.

A return to form by Jason Bay or Beltran (at least somewhat) would be a big help, but the team is still pretty top-heavy, relying on a handful of big stars while still playing with some holes in the lineup at catcher, second base and right field.

Notes: The front office may look like the Oakland A’s Alumni Club, but the presence of Sandy Alderson in particular should give the team a firm base of operations. There are still questions about meddling from ownership, but I doubt Alderson would have taken the job unless he’d been assured to his satisfaction that it was his team to run … The Mets do have money to spend, but in the future perhaps they can be more choosy on where to spend it, looking for the next R.A. Dickey out there and not rolling the dice on another Oliver Perez … What the team really needs is offense. While the addition of Bay, Davis and Pagan is encouraging, it still left the team near the back of the pack in offense (although the ballpark, of course, plays a part in that).

Philadelphia Phillies

W-L: 97-65 (1st in NL East)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 94-68

Payroll: $142.9 million (1st in NL)

R/G: 4.77 (2nd in NL)

ERA: 3.68 (5th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .697 (4th in NL)

Team MVPs: Roy Halladay, Jayson Werth, Chase Utley, Cole Hamels

Team LVPs: No one stands out; maybe Moyer and Blanton

Defensive Stars: Chase Utley, Placido Polanco, Jimmy Rollins

What Went Right: Once the team traded for Roy Oswalt, they had the best 1-2-3 in the league. Oswalt posted a 1.74 ERA in 13 games in Philly, joining Cole Hamels and Cy Young favorite Roy Halladay atop the rotation.

The bullpen was again solid, and this is soon becoming a regular part of the team’s success. Brad Lidge may not have been quite his old self, but he was at least a good closer again, saving 27 games with a 2.96 ERA and a 24:52 BB:K ratio. The only full-time reliever who really struggled was Danys Baez (5.48 ERA), a free agent pick-up the Phils must have regretted.

The offense was right there with the best, as usual. Injuries may have cut down on Chase Utley’s playing time, but he still managed to hit quite well (275/387/445). Ryan Howard hit well at first base (276/353/505), but not up to the standard of “franchise player,” which is unfortunately how he’ll be paid for quite a while yet. The MVP of the bunch was actually free agent Jayson Werth, who hit 296/388/532 while playing solid defense and even nabbing 13 bases. Werth was essentially pushed out when the team committed three years to the fading Raul Ibanez, and then offered an extension to good-but-not-great Shane Victorino (259/327/429). With the arrival of top prospect Domonic Brown, there’s now no room for Werth, which is absurd when you consider the players Philly chose to take his place.

What Went Wrong:

The offense was pretty golden, although it did suffer from the regression of Raul Ibanez (275/349/444), the injuries to the Utley-Rollins dynamic duo and the mediocre bat of (the admittedly good-glove) Placido Polanco (298/339/386).

The back of the rotation is still a blur, although things were stabilized by the arrival of Oswalt. Joe Blanton may not be what the Phillies were hoping for in a #4 starter (4.82 ERA), and he’s certainly not what they’re paying for, having signed him when they went bananas for contract extensions (3 yrs/24 MM, with 2 years left now).

The only real downside to these Phillies is that they’ve got almost all of their resources tied up in players in their 30’s. Now, most of these players are still very good, but the Phillies are committed to paying them for a long time, i.e. quite likely after they’re not good anymore. Once Howard, Utley, Rollins, Oswalt, and Halladay get old, there’s no safety net for this franchise. But as we saw in 2010, they’re still one of the league’s best teams yet.

Notes: How long before the Phils recognize the sunk cost of playing Ibanez? Because the mistake has been made, now they just have to admit it. A straight platoon with Ben Francisco wouldn’t hurt … Cole Hamels will be 27 next year. Every other core member of the team will be over 30. Halladay turns 34, Polanco turns 35, Ibanez turns 39, and Ryan Howard is 31 … but a very old 31.

Washington Nationals

W-L: 69-93 (5th in NL East)

Pythagorean W-L (pW-pL): 71-91

Payroll: $54.7 million (13th in NL)

R/G: 4.04 (14th in NL)

ERA: 4.13 (11th in NL)

Defense Efficiency Ratio (DER): .682 (10th in NL)

Team MVPs: Ryan Zimmerman, Adam Dunn, Josh Willingham

Team LVPs: Cristian Guzman, Jason Marquis, Nyjer Morgan

Defensive Stars: Ryan Zimmerman, Alberto Gonzalez, Nyjer Morgan

What Went Right: Not a lot went really right for the Nats in 2010. But then, not a whole lot went really wrong. 69-93 isn’t great, but when you’re rebuilding it’s really the little things that count.

And there were some good signs among the “little things” in 2010. Ryan Zimmerman took another step forward as the face of the franchise, hitting 307/388/510 with sterling defense at the hot corner. Stephen Strasburg’s injury casts a big cloud over his performance, but it’s worth noting just how good he was: 92 K’s (and just 17 BB) in 68 IP, with a 2.91 ERA.

There were some decent performances among the supporting players, but guys like Adam Dunn, Nyjer Morgan and Josh Willingham aren’t going to be around when Washington is ready to contend.

The rest of the good news was mostly confined to the minor leagues. One exception was Drew Storen, Washington’s top pick in the 2009 draft, who made it swiftly to the majors and pitched well in 55.1 big-league innings. The Nats also picked up Wilson Ramos, a top catching prospect, from Minnesota in the deal for Closer© Matt Capps.

What Went Wrong:

The Nats’ young pitchers failed, by and large, to make a big difference. The non-star prospects (John Lannan, et al) have youth on their side, but little else.

Help for the starting lineup is not forthcoming from the minors. The Nats have done a pretty decent job of papering together a decent lineup with cheap pick-ups like Morgan, Willingham and Adam Kennedy, but eventually someone younger will have to take over for the stopgap veterans. The Nats gave 24-year-old Ian Desmond the starting job at shortstop and while he wasn’t exactly a “star'” prospect, he still fell well below expectations (269/308/392).

The farm system is leaps and bounds better than the scorched earth the owners left behind in Montreal, but that’s not saying much. The Nats need quantity and quality if they want to compete in the league’s best division.

Notes: The silver lining in regards to Strasburg’s injury is that pitchers can often return from Tommy John surgery with most of their previous “stuff.” In other words, there is less risk of a continuing problem. The Nats will still, no doubt, be uber-vigilant … Here’s to one more year of the Ivan Rodriguez retirement tour. How many tickets is that selling again? … For a brief time under the Bush administration, middle infielder Alberto Gonzalez bore the nickname “Attorney General.”

Hall of Fame Player = Hall of Fame Manager?

2010-08-27T18:23:00.001-04:00

Since Lou Piniella’s retirement, it’s become clear that former Cub Ryne Sandberg is the favorite for his replacement. This isn’t coming from the team so much as from fans and commentators. In fact, the impression I’ve gotten from the relevant commentary is that it would be a huge blunder to offer the job to anyone but Sandberg.

The rationale behind Sandberg’s candidacy is that a Hall of Fame player is supremely qualified to be a major league manager. At the risk of overusing my favorite word, I must call this rationale pure hogwash.

That’s not to say that I know for a fact that Sandberg won’t be a good manager. He’s been managing in the minor leagues for a few years now, and he may in fact be a perfect fit for the job. But I don’t know that. And, more importantly, neither does anyone else making this claim. Being a Hall of Fame player doesn’t automatically make you a great manager. Sandberg’s candidacy should be judged by his skill as a manager, not his skills as a player.

To further illustrate this point (which has been absent from most of the commentary I’ve come across), I’d like to list the best managers in baseball history and consider their skills as players. These are the best managers, in terms of career wins:

Connie Mack: 3,731 Wins (HOF)

The winningest manager of all time was, at best, a decent player. Mack was the classic “good glove-no hit” backstop. I’ve just started reading Norman Macht’s biography on the longtime Athletics manager, and Mack himself is honest about his offensive shortcomings. When he broke into baseball, the rules still allowed a hitter to call for either a high pitch or a low pitch. Soon into his career, though, the modern strike zone was implemented. This spelled trouble for Connie, who was strictly a high-ball hitter. Or as Macht quotes him as saying, “If they kept the ball low on me I couldn’t hit for sour apples.”

And neither did he for an 11-year career as a player. Mack’s career batting line is 244/305/300, which was terrible even by the standards of the era. The only thing that kept Mack around that long was his well-regarded defensive skill and general baseball acumen. The latter had more to do with his subsequent managerial success than any skill (or lack thereof) he showed with the bat.

John McGraw: 2,763 Wins (HOF)

John McGraw, on the other hand, was a legitimate Hall-of-Fame talent before he became a full-time manager in 1899. McGraw’s career on-base percentage of .466 is the third-best of all time, behind only Ted Williams and Babe Ruth.

If he had never managed and finished his career as a player, McGraw would likely be considered the best third baseman of all time before Eddie Mathews showed up. As it is, McGraw’s playing time decreased when he became the manager of the Orioles in 1899, and fell away to a handful of at-bats per year as manager of the Giants.

Therefore, the Little Napoleon played his last full season at age 29 and finished with just 1099 career games played. But he was a Hall-of-Fame quality player, and if he hadn’t taken up managing he likely would have made the Hall purely on the merits of his skills as a player. As it is, McGraw is easily the best player of all the managers inducted into Cooperstown. But as we shall see, he is the exception that proves the rule.

Tony LaRussa: 2,620 Wins (Active)

LaRussa played 132 career games in the major leagues between 1963 and 1973. A middle infielder, his career batting line was 199/292/250. Despite his status as a marginal major leaguer, LaRussa is #3 on the all-time wins list and could easily pass McGraw before he’s done.

Bobby Cox: 2,486 Wins (Active)

Bobby Cox was supposed to be a phenom. He was a highly-touted third baseman in the Yankees system in the mid 1960’s. He reached the majors in 1968, and 628 at-bats later, he was gone. He was doomed by a career batting line of 225/310/309, which was poor even for a pitcher’s era. Of course, the Yankees’ track record with prospects in the late 1960’s is pretty sorry all around.

Joe Torre: 2,312 Wins (Active)

I mentioned before that John McGraw was the best player among all the managers enshrined in Cooperstown. But that’s just until Joe Torre gets elected.

There’s a good argument that Torre belongs in the Hall of Fame as a player. Torre was a great-hitting catcher/third baseman for most of his career. Despite playing in a pitcher’s era, Torre managed a career batting line of 297/365/452. True Average (TAv) is a measure created by Baseball Prospectus to express a player’s total offensive output, adjusted for things such as ballpark and era (True Average was formerly known as Equivalent Average). Torre’s career True Average is .298. Only two catchers in history posted a better career mark: Mike Piazza and the unheralded Gene Tenace. Torre edges out Hall-of-Famers Ernie Lombardi and Bill Dickey by .003 and .005 points, respectively.

I don’t mean to say that Torre the player has a great case for induction. Despite the other catchers in the top ten list, Torre spent more of his career at first and third base (1302 games) than behind the plate (903 games). This makes his Hall-of-Famer case tougher to make, spending so much time at more offense-oriented positions.

Still, for the purposes of this argument, Torre was a Hall-of-Fame quality player, like McGraw.

Sparky Anderson: 2,194 Wins (HOF)

Anderson spent one year in the majors; in 1959, he played 152 games as the Phillies’ primary second baseman. Then, nothing. It’s extremely rare for a player to play one full season – as an everyday guy – and then never play again. Especially if they’re just 25 years old.

While such things are unusual, they’re not surprising – at least, not when the player hits 218/282/249. Sparky makes Ozzie Smith look like a home run king.

Bucky Harris: 2,158 Wins (HOF)

Harris was neither a Hall-of-Fame talent nor a marginal player. For about ten years, Harris was the Washington Senators’ everyday second baseman. He was a well-regarded defender and a capable hitter, to the tune of career 274/352/354 mark; not bad in cavernous Griffith Stadium.

Starting in 1924, Harris became player-manager of the Senators. He’s the first man on this list to hold down both jobs for a significant period of time. And he did quite well for himself, leading Washington to its only World Series title in 1924 and repeating the feat as manager of the Yankees in 1947. Oddly, though, despite two seasons of 90+ wins with the Yankees, Harris lost his job to Casey Stengel in 1949, a move which makes sense now but was quite puzzling at the time.

Harris was no Ryne Sandberg at second base, but he was a useful guy – sort of a Robby Thompson type – who went on to a fine managerial career.

Joe McCarthy: 2,125 Wins (HOF)

McCarthy never played in the majors. The manager with the best career winning percentage (.615), considered by some to be the best of all time, never made as much as a pinch-hitting appearance in the big leagues.

As an outfielder/second-baseman, McCarthy made it as high as the American Association (there was no AAA at the time), but never to the majors. He spent the last six years of his career with Louisville, where his batting average ranged from .259 to .278, with little power (walks totals from that era are sketchy).

It’s odd though, that a player like McCarthy never made the majors, even in the deadball era (Joe was in the minors from 1907 through 1921). He was no star, but it seems like he was good enough to be a backup for a big-league club, unless his defense was just terrible. And he must have gotten visibility playing for a top team like Louisville (this was before the advent of farm systems).

For whatever reason, McCarthy still never made it to the majors. He became one of the best managers in baseball history despite his status as a career minor-leaguer.

Walter Alston: 2,040 Wins (HOF)

Alston’s major league career consists of one game for the Cardinals in 1936. He came to bat once and struck out, and he made one error in two chances at first base. Not much to tell the grandkids about.

Leo Durocher: 2,008 Wins (HOF)

Durocher wasn’t a very good player, but he was a pain the ass, and I guess that counts for something. He was known for his scrappiness and determination as the quintessential undersized shortstop. His career batting line is 247/299/320, which is terrible by any estimation. Someone should have told his managers that the deadball era was over; Durocher wrecked otherwise productive offenses with the Yankees, Reds, Cardinals and Dodgers.

Whatever his skills as a player, though, he did come away with a Hall-of-Fame career as a manager – and, perhaps, Babe Ruth’s watch.

Casey Stengel: 1,905 Wins (HOF)

Stengel was famous as a flake and a goof, despite his remarkable run with the Yankees. Just think of what his reputation would be without those glory days in the Bronx.

Stengel wasn’t a bad player at all, but he wasn’t a star. He was often the best hitter on his team, but when you consider that he was with the Dodgers, Phillies and Braves in the '10’s and 20’s, that’s a dubious compliment. To be fair, his career batting line of 284/356/410 is actually quite good given the context. And he was seen as something of a leader, even if he was a boob.

Gene Mauch: 1,902 Wins

Among managers eligible for the Hall of Fame, Mauch has more wins than any of them. In fact, he’s got nearly 300 more than the next-winningest non-Cooperstown manager, Ralph Houk. But he’s also got about 450 more losses than Houk, which is basically why he’s not in.

Mauch was a utility infielder during his 9-year major league career, hitting 239/333/312, which isn’t terrible by utility standards. He played for some pretty good teams, but never won a shot as an everyday player. His career high for at bats in a season is 151, in 1948.

******

To save time, I’ll finish up in bullet-point format:

Bill McKechnie: 1896 wins. McKechnie hit 251/301/313 in 11 years as an infielder, and even then his best season came with the semi-major Federal League.
Lou Piniella: 1835 wins. Piniella was certainly good. A 291/333/409 batting line is nothing to sneeze at, even though it’s disappointing for a left fielder.
Ralph Houk: 1619 wins. Houk had a poor year with the Yankees in 1947 and never got more than 30 at bats in the next seven seasons.
Fred Clarke: 1602 wins. Clarke was inducted into the Hall as a player, thanks to an impressive 312/386/429 batting line over 21 seasons.
Tommy LaSorda: 1599 wins. LaSorda posted an ERA of 6.48 in 58.1 major league innings with the Dodgers and A’s.
Dick Williams: 1571 wins. Williams was an all-around utility man whose glove helped compensate for a career 260/312/392 batting line.

In conclusion, we’ve got two or three legitimately great players as opposed to about a dozen utility guys and one or two “blink-and-you’ll-miss-it” careers. If being a great player was a strong qualification for being a great manager, then surely we’d see more great players among the all-time best managers, right? And even the Hall-of-Fame talents we see here were mostly marginal guys rather than the elite, first-ballot players.

If that’s not enough, I’m not even going to begin discussing the Hall-of-Fame talents who proved to be bad -- or at least marginal – managers. Sure, guys like Hornsby, Speaker and Cochrane did okay, but what about Jimmie Foxx? What about Eddie Collins, Alan Trammell, Willie Randolph, Buddy Bell, Walter Johnson, George Sisler, Joe Adcock and Maury Wills?

I don’t want to get ahead of myself and say that being a great player makes you a bad manager. And in the scheme of things, I think experience as a productive player is a point in someone’s favor. But that’s all it is – a point. If the names listed above tell us nothing more, it’s that you have to be more than just a great player to be even a good manager.

In case Sandberg doesn’t get the job, Cub fans (and ESPN analysts) should keep this in mind before rioting.

No Year of the Pitcher

2010-07-28T18:38:00.006-04:00

There was an article in the morning paper today entitled "2010: The Year of the Pitcher." The article claims that, with Matt Garza notching the fifth no-hitter of the season this week, 2010 can be claimed as a new "Year of the Pitcher." Their argument was that with those five no-hitters, not to mention several near-no-hitters (and one near-perfecto) there was a new dominance of pitchers after over 15 years of hitter supremacy.

Hogwash.

The term "Year of the Pitcher" is most famously associated with 1968, and 2010 is has as much in common with the real Year of the Pitcher as I do with Jennifer Love-Hewitt.

The basis of the argument, that five no-hitters indicates pitching supremacy, is understandable if erroneous. Consider, though, that there were five no-hitters in 1990 and 1991. Do either of those years qualify as the year of the pitcher? To test that theory, let's look at some indicators of pitching prowess in the years mentioned: 1968, 1990, 1991, 2010, and I'll add 1996 as a frame of reference for the steroid era. Here's how they compare:

Year	1968	1990	1991	1996	2010
Runs/G	3.42	4.26	4.31	5.04	4.45
HR/9IP	0.6	0.8	0.8	1.1	1.0
K/9IP	5.9	5.7	5.8	6.5	7.0
ERA	2.98	3.86	3.91	4.61	4.15
No-Hitters	5	5	5	3	5

As the chart makes clear, 1968 is the real outlier. 2010 represents a small decline in offense that's been going on for the a few years now. The so-called steroid era is over -- statistically, if not medically -- and things are returning to the relative calm of the early 1990's.

But 2010 still represents a full run of scoring above 1968 levels. In terms of runs scored per game, 2010 is still a lot closer to 1996 than 1968. The mental malaise cast over the mainstream sports media is making them confuse a few memorable individual moments with a broader trend (such is the life of the media).

But, you might ask, what about all those strikeouts? Well, the rise in strikeouts is a historical trend. That means that strikeouts have been rising over the past century, and the overall run environment only affects it somewhat. Look at the difference between 1968 and 1990. With the rise in run scoring, you'd expect a decline in strikeouts. But there's only a minor difference.

Okay, so we've discounted the overeager sports media's use of the phrase "Year of the Pitcher." So what? Is there a larger issue here?

Yes. Every time this discussion comes up (including in my morning paper), the introduction of steroid/PED testing is given as a reason for the decline in offense. We've seen that there is a decline, even if it has been ridiculously overstated. Can this be attributed to better testing?

Maybe, but anyone making this argument betrays a fundamental ignorance of the central issues. The assumption here is that steroids = offense. However, the majority of players who have tested positive under the system (as well as those implicated in the Mitchell Report) were pitchers. If the testing is any indication, pitchers use PEDs more than hitters. Which makes the argument for testing as an aid to pitching thoroughly ridiculous. Despite the efforts of many to educate the public (and the press), people still think of steroids as muscle-builders and power-juicers. And that may be the case, especially with anabolic steroids. But the public needs to realize that anabolic steroids are a relatively minor issue in baseball, if only because they're pretty easy to test for. What we've seen, most notably from Andy Pettitte, is players using not out of some cartoonish desire to be the next Jose Canseco, but as A) just another step in the rehab process, B) a way to combat the fatigue of the 162-game season and C) another edge to be pursued. How does that apply only to hitters? Wouldn't it be, as the tests suggest, even more important to the pitchers?

Sure. The snag is that we've abandoned all common sense when discussing doping in sports. If I make a big deal out of this "Year of the Pitcher" thing, I suppose it's because I'm disappointed to see how well ignorance persists..

Booknotes (NBR): H.G. Wells

2010-06-21T18:22:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading a collection of H.G. Wells' short fiction, called A Dream of Armageddon: The Complete Supernatural Tales. The following passage struck me; it's from a story entitled "The Queer Story of Brownlow's Newspaper." One morning, instead of receiving a newspaper for the current year, 1931, he receives a paper from the future: 1971. His maid accidentally throws it away, and so he can only describe bits and pieces of it to the narrator. Here's the narrator's response after hearing that the idea of individual nations was more or less obselete in 1971:

Now to me this is a very wonderful thing indeed. It means, I take it, that in only forty years from now the great game of sovereign states will be over. It looks also as if the parliamentary game will be over, and as if some quite new method of handling human affairs will have been adopted. Not a word of patriotism or nationalism; not a word of party, not an allusion. But in only forty years! While half the human beings already alive in the world will still be living! You cannot believe it for a moment.

It's fascinating to look at Wells' work in 2010 and see what he got right about the future. On the other hand, it's disheartening to see which problems still plague us.

Where Does Griffey Rank?

2010-06-06T19:25:00.001-04:00

Since Ken Griffey, Jr. retired a few days ago, he’s been referred to consistently as a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer. I’m not so deluded as to disagree with this. What I’d like to know is where he ranks all-time.

Because of an injury-ridden second half of his career, I don’t really think we can call Griffey one of the best players of all time. A more substantive question is whether or not Griffey is the best center fielder of all time. He’s got some stiff competition for that title, but let’s take a look at the facts and see if we can’t shed some light on the subject.

I figured that a good point of comparison would be to rank Griffey against the center fielders currently enshrined in the Hall of Fame (excluding Negro Leaguers, for whom the statistical record is spotty).

Here is a list of the MLB Hall-of-Famers who spent most of their careers as a center fielder:

Richie Ashburn, Phillies
Earl Averill, Indians
Max Carey, Pirates
Ty Cobb, Tigers
Earle Combs, Yankees
Joe DiMaggio, Yankees
Larry Doby, Indians
Hugh Duffy, Braves
Billy Hamilton, Phillies
Mickey Mantle, Yankees
Willie Mays, Giants
Kirby Puckett, Twins
Edd Roush, Reds
Duke Snider, Dodgers
Tris Speaker, Red Sox
Lloyd Waner, Pirates
Hack Wilson, Cubs

That’s 17 guys. The best center fielders not enshrined in Cooperstown would be guys like Jimmy Wynn, Dale Murphy, George Van Haltren and Bernie Williams. I’d like to add them to the list, just so we can be thorough. There are a couple of active players who might be here by the time they retire (Edmonds, Andruw Jones, Beltran), but since they’re still going we’ll put them aside for the moment).

With this list of now 21 players, is there anyone we can dismiss right away? A few, yes. Lloyd Waner is one of the poorer players in Cooperstown, a guy who was a great singles hitter for a few years and didn’t offer a whole lot else. Kirby Puckett, Earl Averill and Hack Wilson all had some fine seasons and solid careers, but none were around long enough to rival Griffey. Earle Combs and Edd Roush were fine players, but they’re two of the lesser names on this list, to be sure. Van Haltren has some impressive numbers, but they were compiled in a different era, not quite up to snuff in the 20th century.

What does our list look like with these deletions?

Richie Ashburn, Phillies
~~Earl Averill, Indians~~
Max Carey, Pirates
Ty Cobb, Tigers
~~Earle Combs, Yankees~~
Joe DiMaggio, Yankees
Larry Doby, Indians
Hugh Duffy, Braves
Ken Griffey, Jr., Mariners
Billy Hamilton, Phillies
Mickey Mantle, Yankees
Willie Mays, Giants
Dale Murphy, Braves
~~Kirby Puckett, Twins~~
~~Edd Roush, Reds~~
Duke Snider, Dodgers
Tris Speaker, Red Sox
~~George Van Haltren, Giants~~
~~Lloyd Waner, Pirates~~
Bernie Williams, Yankees
~~Hack Wilson, Cubs~~
Jimmy Wynn, Astros

Let’s start the ranking process with a look at a few metrics to indicate career value: WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player), WAR (Wins Above Replacement) and Win Shares. They come courtesy of Baseball Prospectus, Fangraphs and Bill James Online, respectively.

Player	WARP	WAR	WS
Willie Mays	161.3	163.2	642
Ty Cobb	139.1	163.9	722
Tris Speaker	122.6	142.6	630
Mickey Mantle	112.5	123.1	565
Joe DiMaggio	98.0	92.0	387
Ken Griffey, Jr.	74.5	85.4	403
Billy Hamilton	66.2	68.9	337
Richie Ashburn	61.6	67.5	329
Bernie Williams	57.3	47.8	312
Jimmy Wynn	57.1	60.7	305
Duke Snider	53.6	71.7	352
Dale Murphy	45.3	47.3	294
Larry Doby	43.8	56.6	268
Hugh Duffy	40.5	46.5	295
Max Carey	40.3	66.6	351

This is a little hard to digest (it’s sorted by WARP, from highest to lowest). There’s some disagreement here and there between the metrics. However, all three measures indicate that there is a pretty big gap between the top six players on this list – that includes Griffey – and the rest.

Can we safely eliminate the rest of this list? Yes, with some reservations. WARP seems to indicate that Hamilton and Ashburn are within shouting distance of the top. WAR seems to favor Duke Snider, as does Win Shares (along with Max Carey).

If there’s one player on here that threatens to turn the Gang of Six into the Gang of Seven, it’s Snider. My impression of Snider is that while he was consistently great, he never had one truly excellent season. I think that his best seasons wouldn’t quite compare with the rest of these guys. Let’s test that theory, listing each player’s three best seasons according to WARP:

Player	Best	2nd	3rd
Willie Mays	11.3 (1964)	11.0 (1965)	10.8 (1963)
Ty Cobb	12.1 (1917)	11.3 (1909)	11.1 (1910)
Tris Speaker	10.2 (1914)	9.0 (1912)	8.7 (1916)
Mickey Mantle	12.3 (1957)	11.6 (1956)	10.4 (1961)
Joe DiMaggio	11.1 (1941)	10.5 (1937)	9.6 (1939)
Ken Griffey, Jr.	8.7 (1997)	8.1 (1998)	7.7 (1993)
Duke Snider	8.6 (1956)	7.6 (1955)	6.4 (1953)

Well, I was right about Snider, but the same could be said of Griffey. Even when Griffey was young and healthy, he was never as good as Mays, Cobb, Speaker, Mantle or DiMaggio at their best.

How is that possible? I think there are two factors: one is that Griffey, while a good defender, was never the second coming of Willie Mays. The hype is what made his very good defense seem game-changing. Plus, a lot of Griffey’s great work was countered by his status as a defensive liability for the last seven or eight years of his career.

The second reason for this ranking is that while Griffey was a great hitter, he was never an elite hitter, certainly not compared to the top four guys on the list. Griffey’s best full season at the plate came in 1993, when he batted 309/408/617, with 45 homers. (He did steal 17 bases, but he was caught 9 times, which means he was actually a liability on the basepaths.)

Here’s a bit of perspective, though: Griffey’s offense peaked at the same time that offense across baseball was peaking. In 1991, the entire American League hit 260/329/395. In 1992, offense actually declined a bit, to 259/328/385. Then in ‘93, things increased a bit. League-wide offense rose to 267/337/408 (which doesn’t sound like a big increase, but it’s pretty significant for an entire league). After that, offense went crazy. Viz:

Year	AVG	OBP	SLG
1991	260	329	395
1992	259	328	385
1993	267	337	408
1994	273	345	434
1995	270	344	427
1996	277	350	445

We should view Griffey’s batting record in light of the league-wide surge in offense. In the strike-shortened 1994, Griffey hit 323/402/674 compared to a league average of 273/345/434. Compare that to Tris Speaker, who hit 383/464/567 in 1912, when the AL as a whole hit a paltry 265/333/348. Griffey bested the league average by a point total of +50/+57/+240. Speaker’s equivalent for 1912 would be +118/+131/+219. Speaker was just on another planet that year. Similar numbers can be found for Cobb and Mantle, who were even better hitters than Speaker.

Speaker’s 1912 season really enters another galaxy when you consider his defense. His defense was as good as people thought Griffey’s was. Speaker was, I think, the greatest defensive center fielder in major league history until the arrival of Willie Mays. Speaker was famous for playing so shallow that he often ran to second for a pick-off play, or even (so I’ve heard) to record a putout. The list of elite center fielders (defensively) in MLB history begins with Speaker, Mays, Curt Flood and Andruw Jones.

I think we can safely say that there is, in fact, a Gang of Four center fielders, with no one else even really close to challenging them. And if they do have a challenger, it isn’t Griffey; it’s Joe DiMaggio.

Keep in mind that the numbers above don’t account for the fact that DiMaggio missed three full seasons to World War II. And this was while he was still in his prime: he was 27 when he left and 31 when he got back. In 1942, the year before he went to war, DiMaggio compiled 6.5 WARP. In 1946, his first year back, he managed 5.3. Even with the conservative estimate of 15 WARP lost to the army, DiMaggio would move up to 113 WARP, much closer to Mantle than to Griffey. So if I may torture this catchphrase even further, we can end with the title “Gang of Four + Joe.”

So I must conclude by ranking Ken Griffey, Jr. the 6th-best center fielder of all time (with apologies to Oscar Charleston). But considering the guys ranking above him, that’s no insult. Griffey will sail into the Hall with as much as 95% of the vote.

And well he should.

NBR: Pop Music IQ

2010-04-29T23:22:00.001-04:00

I just took a quiz on Sporcle that asks you to listen to a series of short clips and then identify the song. The songs are #1 hits in the US between 1958 and 2009. They're in chronological order and offered a nice glimpse of my pop music IQ. Here are the songs. The ones I got right are in bold/italics:

Volare
Mack the Knife
The Twist
The Lion Sleeps Tonight
Monster Mash
My Boyfriend's Back
I Wanna Hold Your Hand
I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch)
Respect
Mrs. Robinson
Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In
The Tears of a Clown
Joy to the World
American Pie
Crocodile Rock
Nothing from Nothing
Shining Star
Silly Love Songs
You Make Me Feel Like Dancing
If I Can't Have You
Heartache Tonight
It's Still Rock and Roll to Me
Jessie's Girl
Centerfold
Flashdance
Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go
St. Elmo's Fire (Man in Motion)
Invisible Touch
I Wanna Dance with Somebody
Red Red Wine
Like a Prayer
It Must Have Been Love
Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)
Baby Got Back
I Would Do Anything for Love
The Sign
Have You Ever Really Loved a Woman
Because You Loved Me
MMMBop
I Don't Want to Miss a Thing
Believe
It's Gonna Be Me
It Wasn't Me
Ain't It Funny
In Da Club
Yeah!
Hollaback Girl
Sexy Back
Hey There Delilah
Bleeding Love
Down

You may have noticed a pattern there. Here's how it breaks down: I got 14 of the first 16 (60's) and then missed the next 6 (70's). Then I got 11 of the next 14 (80's and early 90's) before missing the last 16. That's streaky, but it's a good read on my pop music IQ -- I've got it down from Volare through Respect, go blank between Crocodile Rock and Jessie's Girl, pick up the 80's and then get lost after I Would Do Anything For Love.
That's actually a pretty accurate read of my musical interests. Granted, this represents the mainstream, especially as the years went on and musical genres became more fragmented. Also, as a child of the late 80's and early 90's, the mammoth number of bands and musical styles that are now easily accessible to anyone is overwhelming. It seems like there's about 5000 bands out there that seem pretty standard for my generation, and they've all got bizarre names like Death Cab for Cutie.
It's no wonder, then, that I've spent the past 15 years retreating backwards, first to the showtunes and big band music of the pre-war era, and then catching up on the classic rock/hard rock of the 70's and 80's. I've never bothered to catch up on Green Day, Sublime, Jason Mraz or any other band that I know nothing of beyond the name.

Speaking of big band, I'd do pretty well if this quiz went back to the 30's and 40's. Heck, I've even brushed up on the 20's, including the vaudeville songs of the era. (I wonder how a girl would react if we got in my car and I started pumping "Some of These Days" or "The Darktown Strutter's Ball." There's a serious learning curve for anyone who wants to date me.)
I first got interested in big band by watching old movies. I was particularly impressed by the Andrews Sisters, who I saw in several Abbott & Costello movies. Once I got involved, of course, I fell in love with Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman and Duke Ellington. It wasn't long before I started moving ever backward into the glorious world of the Gershwins, and eventually even into some ragtime. I actually bought the soundtrack to the film The Aviator not because I liked the film (it was OK), but rather because I loved the soundtrack. There was a great recording of the Ink Spots' "Do I Worry?" (which is in an Abbott & Costello film, but I'd never found it on CD). And there are some great songs from the post-ragtime era, such as "Shake That Thing" and "I'll Build a Stairway to Paradise," nailed as it is by Rufus Wainwright.

My interest in the "oldies" music of the 50's and 60's comes primarily from my Dad. This was the music of his childhood, and I developed a very early appreciation for The Everly Brothers and the Beach Boys. This was supplemented a bit later with the music of Motown, coming mainly from the soundtrack from The Big Chill. In fact, a lot of my musical education has happened in connection with movies, especially on soundtracks. In fact, if you wanted an introduction to this era, you could do no better than to pick up the soundtrack from American Graffiti.
My love for the oldies was only intensified by the great resurgence it enjoyed in the 80's. The Beach Boys reappeared in Teen Wolf (it's the only scene I actually remember from the movie) and then recorded the fabulous "Kokomo." The Monkees made a comeback, thanks in no small part to the reruns being shown on Nick at Nite (Then & Now: The Best of the Monkees, is the first tape I actually remember buying, in 1986). Truth be told, I learned most everything I know about classic TV from Nick and Nite. Such is probably true for most of my generation.
My parents weren't into classic rock quite as much, even in the ubiquitous Beatles and Stones. I didn't really get into this music until I was much older. Even now, I'm only familiar with the Beatles' really big hits, and there are maybe 5 Stones songs I can name.
But I do still enjoy the late 60's-early 70's classic rock period, even if I'm not entirely familiar with it. Really, how much Jimi Hendrix do you have to hear to realize how good it is?

The first tape of contemporary music I really remember is Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet, which my brother got as a birthday present. The true awesomeness of this album has held up remarkably over time. And much as people love "Livin' on a Prayer," I'm actually partial to "You Give Love a Bad Name."
But we (my brother and I) really didn't get into hard rock quite so much. It wasn't until my teens that I gave Poison, Kiss and Guns n' Roses a serious listen. We were more likely to enjoy more of the "soft rock" that my parents listened to, particularly Billy Joel. And we, like every other member of our generation, had a Thriller LP.
But I kept in touch with popular music roughly through middle school in the mid-90's. It was no coincidence that the mid-90's also saw the explosion in popularity of the grunge/alternative genre. I hated it. I hated hated hated hated it. Even day, whenever I see someone with a Kurt Cobain t-shirt -- as if the Nirvana singer were a modern-day Gandhi -- I want to punch them in the throat. I despise people playing acoustic guitar and screaming. Or, even worse, playing acoustic guitar and singing those bullshit ballads. As Family Guy cleverly pointed out, douchebags have ruined the guitar.

As if that weren't bad enough, hard rock and metal generally deteriorated into death metal. I may be making a somewhat arbitrary distinction between Alice Cooper and Marilyn Manson, but it seems pretty huge to me. And I was never big on the more hardcore satanic metal of Ozzy Osbourne and the like. And there was no refuge in pop music, except to listen to the still-potent music of Billy Joel or Elton John.
Sure, I got caught up in some of the crazes. I was certainly big into the white-boy rap of Vanilla Ice and (to a lesser extent) MC Hammer. But I do not now, nor have I ever, owned a Marky Mark tape.
The swing revival of the mid-90's was great for me. I was, as I said, retreating fully into the 30's and 40's in my musical taste, and the fact that I could now say so openly was amazing. It didn't last long, although I still enjoy listening to Brian Setzer and the Big Bad Voodoo Daddy. Biased thought I may be, I think the trouble started with the bullshit ex-ska (and I f***ing HATE the word "ska") bands like the Cherry Poppin' Daddies.

It was about the same time that I parted ways with country music. I still enjoyed the classics -- Johnny Cash, the Oak Ridge Boys, the Statler Brothers, Hank Williams and the like -- but the past 20 years have been, in my opinion, a wasteland. I loved Garth Brooks -- and still do -- but I hate what he caused, which was the blended country-pop movement that still plagues us. If I ever again have to listen to Faith Hill talk about "This MotherF***ing Kiss" I'm going to perforate my eardrums with some chopsticks.
Just as I did with mainstream music, I worked my way back in history to discover more classic country. Bluegrass and Gospel also caught my attention, thanks to my bluegrass- and gospel- loving Dad.

And so I'm left with an iTunes full of Garth Brooks, Johnny Cash, Meat Loaf, Billy Joel and Kiss. I have maybe 1/2 dozen rap/r&b songs from the past 15 years out of 4000+ songs. I sometimes wonder whether, if my iTunes were accidentally switched with someone else my age, they would break down and weep. God knows I would if I had to listen to Nelly.

Book Review: Satch, Dizzy & Rapid Robert

2010-04-29T18:42:00.002-04:00

For his new book Satch, Dizzy & Rapid Robert, Timothy Gay chose the following subtitle: The Wild Saga of Interracial Baseball Before Jackie Robinson. The text, however, doesn't really support the promise of a "wild saga." Instead, Gay's retrospective on mixed-race baseball games serves more as an amusing scrapbook of a bygone era.

Gay's subject is a series of exhibition games between all-black teams and all-white teams in segregated America. This "barnstorming" was not officially sanctioned by Major League Baseball and was, in fact, often frowned upon. But independent operators across the country found it very appealing to pit Negro League stars against Major League stars. This proved to be not just popular — but profitable. Fans would pay good money to see Joe DiMaggio face Satchel Paige's "drop ball," or Josh Gibson unleash his mighty swing at Dizzy Dean's blazing fastball.
Satch, Dizzy & Rapid Robert focuses, as the name implies, on a memorable series of exhibitions that pitted Negro League star Satchel Paige (and his team of black players) against a group of white major leaguers headed by star hurler Dizzy Dean and, later, wunderkind pitcher Bob Feller. Feller didn't start barnstorming until the late 30's, but Dean and Paige set the standard with their memorable match-ups of 1933-34.
"Satch" and "Dizzy" weren't just the two best pitchers in baseball — they were the two most famous. This wasn't just due to their baseball skill (which was elite); both men consciously cultivated their public image. The free-spirited Dean, with the help of promoter-manager Ray Doan, made sure all of his kooky escapades were well-documented, making him one of the first sports stars to exploit the sports marketing possibilities that are now an inherent part of the game. Paige, on the other hand, became legendary among African-Americans for the stunts he would pull on the field, such as calling in his outfielders to face an opposing team's best hitter. Fittingly, the two men were just as good at promoting themselves and making money as they were at throwing a sharp curve. And so it was that Dean decided to defy convention (as was his wont) and barnstorm across the country facing off against the ageless Satchel Paige.

Gay has done an admirable job of researching these storied match-ups, collecting a wealth of primary source information from many witnesses to this unique hybrid of sports and entertainment. Stories of each man's comedic antics and pitching brilliance — exaggerated, to be sure, for the sake of the story — were big news on every stop of the tour, all the way from Los Angeles, California to Versailles, Kentucky.
As a collection of news clippings and anecdotes, Gay's book serves its purpose well. The wealth of detail sometimes detracts from the larger story, but that alone makes it of great interest to baseball historians.
For the rest of his readers, though, Gay's book is rarely engaging. This is mainly due to the recurring themes of race and culture. To Gay, these simple games of baseball represented a great step forward in the nation's journey toward racial equality. But this reader wasn't convinced that the games really meant that much in the grand scheme of things.
To be fair, Gay does address some of these misgivings. For one thing, he is realistic about the cynical motives of those involved. While Dizzy Dean did have some very enlightened racial attitudes, Gay admits that this may have been a secondary factor next to Dean's quest to get rich. Bob Feller, too, was willing to make money with Negro League players, but when the time came for integration, he made the preposterous claim that none of the black players he saw were good enough to make it in the big leagues.
And this is, I think, what undermines Gay's quest to make this exhibitions mean more than they really did. While any interaction between blacks and whites was significant — especially in Depression-era middle America — there's little to support Gay's claim that these efforts either improved the racial climate or sped up the process of integration on the major league level.
The lives of the black players involved in these tours didn't get much better as time went on. They still had to stay in separate hotels, if they could find hotels at all. They still had to eat in separate restaurants, unless they could convince a white restaurant to slip them some sandwiches out the back door. And while many white players involved in the tours claim that these games changed their attitudes toward blacks, it still meant that blacks experienced great resentment when they finally did play on the same team.

If there was one significant change brought about by these exhibitions, it was to see black baseball players more than hold their own against their white counterparts. Players unknown to white audiences — Mule Suttles, Turkey Stearnes, Bullet Joe Rogan — were able to face the best players in the white major leagues and excel — putting the lie to the claim by Feller (and many others) that black players just weren't good enough.
I admit that I can't entirely dispute Gay's claims of racial progress. But it is difficult to accept since these games still took place within the rigid social order of American society. There were some minor victories to be sure — some ballparks finally let blacks and white sit together in the stands, a few brave souls even tried integrating the teams themselves, with blacks and whites in the same lineup — but by and large, the racial attitudes of baseball remained largely unchanged by the pioneering efforts of Dean, Paige and Feller. It would take bold action on the major league level — rather than on the peripheries of society — to change the minds of both baseball executives and racist Americans.

Satch, Dizzy & Rapid Robert is a worthwhile collection of anecdotes. If you take the stories one by one, they form a sort of textual scrapbook, offering a number of curious reflections of the world of baseball in the 1930's and 1940's. But the author's efforts to present these efforts as part of a larger racial struggle ultimately falls short.

****

This article was first published on Blogcritics.org. This is the link.

Play My Sporcle Quizzes!

2010-04-26T22:03:00.002-04:00

If you haven't yet experienced the wonder that is Sporcle, I urge you to do so right now. Sporcle allows users to build their own quizzes, allowing others to take them and test their knowledge on just about anything. Think you can name the countries of the world? Try it. Want to try and name all of Shakespeare's plays? Give it a shot. Or maybe you'd just like to name the different flavors of Jelly Belly jelly beans. From the academic to the inane, it's all here.
By the way, don't blame me if you lose weeks -- perhaps months -- of your life to the wily temptress called Sporcle. The word "timesuck" does not even begin to describe it.

As you might imagine, this offers no end of amusement for the baseball fan. So I've listed below the quizzes I have created on Sporcle. Have fun!

BASEBALL QUIZZES

Name the 1960 Opening Day Lineups: AL or NL
Name the 1968 Opening Day Lineups: AL or NL
Name the 1986 Opening Day Lineups: AL
Name the AL ERA Leaders By Season: 1960 - 1979 or 1980 - 2009
Name the NL ERA Leaders by Season: 1980 - 2009
Name Every Atlanta Braves All-Star: (link)
Name the MLB Teams in Order of Winning Percentage: 1990s or 2000s
Name the MLB OPS+ Leaders by Team: (link)
Name the MLB OBP Leaders by Team: (link)
Name each Braves hitter with at least one season of 25 HR or more: (link)
Name each Braves pitcher with at least one season of 150 K or more: (link)
Name each Phillies hitter with at least one season of 25 HR or more: (link)
Name the starting pitchers for each World Series Game 7: (link)
The Ultimate Baseball Nickname Quiz: (link)

NON-BASEBALL QUIZZES:

Name the best acting performances of the 2000s (in my opinion): (link)
Name these notable film comedy teams: (link)
Name the tracks from the first five Johnny Cash albums on American Records: (link)
Name all of the Laurel & Hardy films: (link)
Name the classic country song with these opening lyrics: (link)
Name the winners of the Pulitzer Prize for Drama: 1975-2009
Who was king/queen of England when the following events took place: (link)

Happy hunting.

NBR: Conrad, Briefly

2010-04-26T10:20:00.001-04:00

On Tourism ... and Imagination

"An outward-bound mail-boat had come in that afternoon, and the big dining-room of the hotel was more than half full of people with a hundred pounds round-the-world tickets in their pockets. There were married couples looking domesticated and bored with each other in the midst of their travels; there were small parties and large parties, and lone individuals dining solemnly or feasting boisterously, but all thinking, conversing, joking or scowling as was their wont at home; and just as intelligently receptive of new impressions as their trunks upstairs."

*****

"The danger, when not seen, has the imperfect vagueness of human thought. The fear grows shadowy; and Imagination, the enemy of men, the father of all terrors, unstimulated, sinks to rest in the dullness of exhausted emotion."

-- Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim

Soriano a Disappointment?

2010-04-22T19:37:00.002-04:00

In this article, Dan McGrath reflects on the Cubs' disappointment in the performance of Alfonso Soriano. This is certainly understandable -- Soriano's career hitting stats before joining the Cubs were 280/325/510. Since joining the Cubs, he's hit 277/329/512.

Wait -- what?

That's right, fans. The Alfonso Soriano with the Cubs is the exact same fellow he was before.
Okay, that's not entirely true -- he's been trending steadily downward ever since. His first year in Chicago was about as good as the Cubs could expect: 299/337/560. He benefited from the move to the weaker league and from Wrigley Field, although it should be said that Soriano enjoyed the benefits of the Ballpark in Arlington -- making some terrible seasons actually look decent.
Since then, however, it's been ugly. Soriano hit well in 2008 (280/344/532), despite being limited to just 109 games. He hit bottom in 2009, though -- 241/303/423. There's nothing pretty about that.
It should be noted, though, that all this talk about Soriano's offensive decline is based entirely on one season, during which he was dealing with several injuries. My own impression is that the public is seriously overreacting to Soriano's ugly defense and, because of that, are just now noticing his offensive shortcomings.
Soriano's OBP has always been bad, folks -- ALWAYS. He drew a career-high 67 walks in 2005 simply because he was the only decent hitter on the Nationals; 16 of those walks were intentional, and many more were likely semi-intentional.
You'll hear a lot of talk about Soriano's great power-speed combination. But -- and I hate to have to tell you this -- good power-speed players aren't necessarily good players. Power-speed guys are always overrated, because their OBP is generally terrible. Whatever good Soriano did with his power has almost entirely been taken back by a sorry walk rate.

But Dan McGrath -- the author of the New York Times piece linked to above -- has a rosier opinion of Soriano's past. I'll let him speak for himself:

With the Cubs in town Monday to play the Mets, New York fans may not recognize Soriano as the fleet, powerful young second baseman who batted .287 with 95 home runs, 266 R.B.I. and 119 stolen bases and played on two Yankees pennant-winners from 2001 to 2003 before being traded to Texas in the Alex Rodriguez deal.
He was nearly as good with the Rangers — .274, 64 homers, 195 R.B.I., 48 steals in 2004-5 — and he had his 40-40 season with the Washington Nationals in 2006 after moving to the outfield.

First of all, I hate when people compile counting stats over a number of seasons, because there's no frame of reference. 95 home runs? What the hell does that mean? Does McGrath want us to pull out our calculators and divide all these numbers by three? And is 64 homers with the Rangers -- 32 HR/year -- really that impressive in Arlington when every other aspect of your game is dreadful?
And of all the disappointing numbers Soriano has compiled, McGrath cites the ones that make him look good: HR and steals. Well, he does mention his batting averages -- which are indeed, average. He does cite OBP when he mentions how bad Soriano was last year (.303 OBP), but his point is minimized when you point out that his career mark is .327.

No, I'm absolutely convinced that the anger against Soriano is rooted in his ugly defense. If he looked grand in left field, the grumbling about his offense would be reduced by half, at least. He was much worse as a second baseman -- MUCH worse -- but because he didn't look as bad, people didn't mind so much. He's hearing a lot from the boo-birds in Wrigley Field this year, because he's already made three errors. The man is hitting 327/365/612 -- but NOW, all of a sudden, people are realizing what a terrible contract he has.
I don't really blame the Cubs, because they were really clueless when they signed the contract. But the mainstream media -- not just McGrath -- has been asleep at the switch if they're just now noticing all of these things. I understand that OBP has only recently been introduced into the wider sports world -- 60 years after the work of Branch Rickey and Allen Roth -- but ignorance only works as an excuse for so long.
Alfonso Soriano has a reputation as a less-than-100% player, and he makes a lot of dumb-looking plays in left field. That is what really ticks people off. It's after they've already decided to dislike him that they look up all of the evidence to support that opinion. I wish I could say that it's a surprise to see people looking for evidence after making up their minds -- rather than the other way around -- but I live in the real world.

And as a side note, Soriano's defense in left field isn't as bad as it looks. He has a really great arm, which actually made him an asset in left for a while. Now, people aren't testing it as much, so it's not as important. But Soriano has an uncanny knack for screwing up the easy plays. That's unforgivable in baseball.
So the Cubs are stuck with him, and they deserve it; maybe they'll learn something before overpaying another marginal outfielder like Marlon Byrd ... wait a minute.

I would discuss the team's decision to put Carlos Zambrano in the bullpen after 4 starts -- during which he's struck out 26 batters in 19 and 1/3 innings -- but I can only manage so much righteous indignation in one sitting.

Introducing the NBR (Non-Baseball wRiting)

2010-04-13T19:29:00.000-04:00

The beginning of the baseball season is the leanest time for me as a baseball writer. You'd expect the opposite, I guess. But as someone who's more of an analyst than a scout, I'm much better at talking about what has happened rather than what's going to happen. Plus, I try to resist the temptation to draw sweeping conclusions from a week and half of baseball games, or less than ten percent of an actual season.
So let me take the opportunity to unify all of my various writing efforts in this one place. Baseball will take up most of my time. But I'd like to fill the gaps with a number of other projects, efforts and things that I just wanna talk about. I figured there's no sense in creating 8 separate blogs for my various interests; I'll just change my baseball blog to "baseball plus." To make things easier for my readership (both of you), any non-baseball blog will be clearly labeled NBR: Non-Baseball wRiting.
I'm working on my first effort, which should be up in a few days.

Happy Spring. The Jason Heyward era has begun.

2010 Final Predictions

2010-04-04T17:51:00.001-04:00

AL EAST

New York Yankees (98-64)

Boston Red Sox *WC* (94-68)

Tampa Bay Rays (88-74)

Baltimore Orioles (74-88)

Toronto Blue Jays (66-96)

AL CENTRAL

Minnesota Twins (86-76)

Chicago White Sox (82-80)

Detroit Tigers (79-83)

Kansas City Royals (72-90)

Cleveland Indians (67-95)

AL WEST

Los Angeles Angels (89-73)

Seattle Mariners (86-76)

Texas Rangers (84-78)

Oakland Athletics (74-88)

ALCS: Red Sox over Yankees

WS: Red Sox over Phillies

AL MVP: Joe Mauer, Twins

AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez, Mariners

AL Rookie of the Year: Neftali Feliz, Rangers

NL EAST

Philadelphia Phillies (96-76)

Atlanta Braves *WC* (92-70)

Florida Marlins (85-77)

New York Mets (80-82)

Washington Nationals (69-93)

NL CENTRAL

St. Louis Cardinals (92-70)

Chicago Cubs (83-79)

Milwaukee Brewers (81-81)

Cincinnati Reds (77-85)

Houston Astros (71-91)

Pittsburgh Pirates (64-98)

NL WEST

Los Angeles Dodgers (93-69)

Colorado Rockies (89-73)

Arizona Diamondbacks (83-79)

San Francisco Giants (78-84)

San Diego Padres (67-95)

NLCS: Phillies over Braves

WS: Red Sox over Phillies

NL MVP: Chase Utley, Phillies

NL Cy Young: Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers

NL Rookie of the Year: Jason Heyward, Braves

A.L. East Off-Season: Team by Team

2010-04-04T15:35:00.002-04:00

Baltimore Orioles

Dec. 9: Orioles trade Chris Ray and a PTBNL (Ben Snyder) to the Rangers for Kevin Millwood and cash.
Are 75 wins really that much better than 70? I’m not being sarcastic; I really wonder. How much difference does it make having Millwood on the roster? Does it help season ticket sales that much? Is he really going to tutor the young pitchers enough to make it worthwhile? Or is he there to take the pressure off of them? If so, is that really practical, or is it just another one of those things people say? Is that enough rhetorical questions for ya?

Dec. 18: Orioles sign Mike Gonzalez to a two-year contract worth $12 MM.
I’m much more skeptical of this than I am of the Millwood deal. Does a fourth-place team really need a B-level closer? The team’s record with free agents relievers is discouraging.

Dec. 22: Orioles sign Garrett Atkins to a one-year contract worth $4.5 MM, with a club option for 2011.
Atkins’ bat is legit, but how will it play away from Coors? He’s a career 252/324/411 hitter on the road. And how much of his terrible 2009 (226/308/342) will carry over? The dollars here aren’t significant enough to worry about too much, but it looks like Atkins will just be another placeholder.

Jan. 26: Orioles sign Miguel Tejada to a one-year contract worth $6 MM.
It looks like Tejada will shift to third, since his glove isn’t really shortstop-caliber anymore. And hey, he can still hit: he managed 313/340/455 in Houston last year. He’ll have to keep hitting .300, though, because his walk rate has plummeted since he last played for the O’s.

Boston Red Sox

Nov. 10: 1) Red Sox exercise their 2010 option on Victor Martinez. 2) Red Sox sign Tim Wakefield to a two-year contract worth $5 MM.
1) Boston’s catcher situation becomes even more confusing by the minute. Not that I disagree with this move: if Victor Martinez is available for one year @ $7 MM, you take him. He’s not the long-term solution at catcher, but you can’t move him to first base because Kevin Youkilis is there. And you can’t move Kevin Youkilis to third base, because Mike Lowell and Adrian Beltre (see below) are there. So I guess he’s their catcher/first baseman for now. But if the Sox succeed in trading for 1B Adrian Gonzalez, then it gets really confusing.
2) Wakefield’s time may be nearing an end. But the Sox still want him around as a long relief man/emergency starter/possible reliever. There’s not a lot of glory when you’re sitting around waiting for a starting pitcher to get injured, but that spot is Wake’s to lose.

Nov. 12: Red Sox announce that Jason Varitek has exercise his contract option for 2010.
This was a mutual option; since the Sox declined their end of it, Tek’s salary comes out to about $3 MM (as opposed to $5 MM). That’s not bad for a backup catcher, but Tek’s skills on offense and defense have almost completely disappeared in recent years. With Victor Martinez as your starter, you’d like to have a strong arm backing him up. Tek is not that guy, and his bat no longer makes up for it.

Dec. 4: Red Sox sign Marco Scutaro to a two-year contract worth $12.5 MM, with a mutual option for 2012.
I doubt the Sox expect Scutaro to reproduce his career year from 2009 (282/379/409). But they’re not paying him to. They’re paying him to hold down the fort at shortstop, an organizational weakness since they parted ways with Nomar. Scutaro’s a career 265/337/384 hitter. That’s not bad for a shortstop with a good glove. He may be overpaid, but it’s nothing like the deals given out to Edgar Renteria or Julio Lugo.

Dec. 16: Red Sox sign John Lackey to a five-year contract worth $82.5 MM, plus a conditional club option for 2015.
This is what a guy like Lackey is worth. He’s not really an ace, but he’s a strong #2 or #1-A, and this is the going rate for that level of talent. He’s been pretty reliable, but the Sox do have some concerns about health. Those concerns are evident in the “conditional” option: if Lackey misses significant time due to an elbow injury in the first five years of the contract, the 2015 option is a club option for the major league minimum. Fascinating.

Dec. 16: Red Sox sign Mike Cameron to a two-year contract worth $15.5 MM.
There was some talk this off-season that, if you take into account Cameron’s defense, he’s actually a more valuable player than Matt Holliday or Jason Bay, high-priced free agents both. I don’t know that agree with that, even before taking into account that Cameron’s got at least six years on both of them.
Even so, when you consider the difference in the deals each of those guys got this off-season, Cameron emerges as the best value by far. He’ll likely be taking over in center field (with the speedy but raw Jacoby Ellsbury moving to left), giving the team a much-needed defensive boost. My only concern here is that the strikeouts start to eat him up as he ages.

Jan. 7: Red Sox trade Casey Kotchman to the Mariners for Bill Hall.
As I mentioned before, the Sox have more corner infielders than they know what to do with, even without considering Kotchman. Ol’ Casey carries a fine glove, but he just doesn’t hit well enough to survive as a backup first baseman. Hall’s glove isn’t the equal of Kotchman’s, but it’s versatile enough to fit in all over the infield, which is more important for the defensively-challenged Sox. Plus, Hall’s no slouch as a hitter (2009 aside).

Jan. 7: Red Sox sign Adrian Beltre to a one-year contract worth $10 MM, with a player option for 2011.
Here again the Sox beef up the defense, snatching up the best third base glove on the market. This probably means a step down in offense from Mike Lowell (who could still hit even when injured), but it’s not a big step. Beltre should enjoy Fenway a lot more than spacious Safeco Field. Lowell, meanwhile, becomes a very expensive man without a position.

Jan. 26: Red Sox Jeremy Hermida to a one-year contract worth $3.35 MM.
Theo Epstein snatched up the disappointing Hermida, who had worn out his welcome in south Florida. The Sox aren’t counting on him to be a star, but they are looking for an offensive boost moving from a pitcher-friendly park to good ol’ Fenway. Hermida is a career 276/359/456 hitter on the road (253/328/393 in Miami). Plus, he’s hit righties to the tune of 274/351/441. Put those two things together, and you’ve got a guy who could really blossom as your top lefty pinch-hitter. Plus, he’s a guy who could fill in for eternal injury risk J.D. Drew without losing too much offense.

New York Yankees

Dec. 9: Yankees complete a three-team trade with Arizona and Detroit. The Yankees send Austin Jackson and Phil Coke to the Tigers, receiving Curtis Granderson. The Yankees also send Ian Kennedy to the Diamondbacks.
Refer back to my article on the NL West for more on this trade. But suffice to say, Granderson is a good (and cheap) fit for the Yankees, helping them become younger and more athletic.

Dec. 9: Yankees sign Andy Pettitte to a one-year contract worth $11.75 MM.
Pettitte provides the Yankees with a reliable, mid-level starting pitcher at an utterly reasonable salary. The acquisition of Javier Vazquez means the Yankees won’t have to rely on the 37-year-old Pettitte as much as they did in 2009, which should work out better for all concerned.

Dec. 22: Yankees trade Melky Cabrera, Michael Dunn, Arodys Vizcaino and cash to the Braves for Javier Vazquez and Boone Logan.
The Yanks are acquiring Vazquez after a career year, so don’t count on him to be an elite-level starter again. But Vazquez has been reliably above-average since … well, the last time he was a Yankee.
Vizcaino is the prize for Atlanta here (along with the salary reduction), as a potentially high-end arm. The Yanks, of course, don’t like to deal in potential.

Dec. 23: Yankees sign Nick Johnson to a one-year contract for 5.75 MM, with a mutual option for 2011.
I was surprised to see the Yankees sign Johnson. Not because he isn’t good, but because they’ve already got several injury-prone guys and don’t need someone blocking up the DH slot. However, Nick “Brigadoon” Johnson is highly productive whenever he emerges from the mists of injury; at this price he’s a bargain, and it’s not like the offense rests on his shoulders.

Feb. 8: Yankees sign Randy Winn to a one-year contract worth $1.1 MM. Yankees sign Marcus Thames to a one-year contract worth $900,000.
And so with about $2 million, the Yankees replace Johnny Damon at a fraction of his asking price. But will the Thames/Winn platoon replaced his productivity?
Thames’ tendency to strike out can be maddening at times, but he’s got significant starboard power, hitting southpaws for a 256/329/516 mark in his career. Getting that as the short side of a platoon for less than a million is pretty nifty.
The signing of Winn puzzles me, since he doesn’t show a really exploitable platoon split. A switch-hitter, Winn isn’t really better in his career versus righties (280/332/426) than lefties (289/348/417). Those numbers aren’t bad for a center fielder, but they’re pretty mediocre for a corner outfielder. And while Winn isn’t bad defensively, he’s not the top-notch sort of guy who can make up for some pitiable offense (262/318/353 in ‘09).
My only guess is that the Yankees will fill the left field role with some combination of Winn, Thames and young Brett Gardner. All three are worthwhile guys who have their strengths, but I really don’t think there’s a starting left fielder there.

Feb. 28: Yankees sign Chan Ho Park to a one-year contract worth $1.2 MM.
Park rejuvenated his career in the bullpen. In 2008 with the Dodgers, he threw 95.1 innings with a 3.40 ERA and a respectable strikeout rate. His ERA mushroomed to 4.43 with the Phillies last year, despite a sharp reduction in homers allowed. The real Park is probably somewhere in the middle which, at that price, makes him an uncharacteristic bargain for the Yankee ‘pen.

Tampa Bay Rays

Nov. 4: Rays trade Akinori Iwamura to the Pirates for Jesse Chavez.
The emergence (and then some) of Ben Zobrist in 2009, along with the acquisition of Sean Rodriguez, made Iwamura and his relatively high salary expendable. He goes to a team that desperately needs an infielder above replacement level.

Nov. 10: Rays exercise 2010 option on Carl Crawford.
Crawford’s contract and his status as a potential 2011 free agent made him trade bait in Tampa. It’s still possible that the Rays will trade him during the 2010 season rather than let him walk, but that’s only if they’re not contending. As it is, Crawford looks to be the prize of the 2011 market (Bronx-bound?).

Dec. 11: Rays trade Jesse Chavez to the Braves for Rafael Soriano.
The Braves took a chance by offering Soriano arbitration, thinking that he certainly wouldn’t take it. He certainly did, giving the Braves two (expensive) closers along with newcomer Billy Wagner. The Rays, who haven’t had an “established” closer since Roberto Hernandez, came a-calling and got a quality guy without having to give up much.

Toronto Blue Jays

Nov. 26: Blue Jays sign John McDonald to a two-year contract worth $3 MM.
The Jays have been uncharacteristically thrifty this off-season, with this contract a glaring exception. Not that $3 million is a reason to get up in arms, but it’s puzzling that a team that’s obviously rebuilding would give a two-year contract to a good-field/no-hit guy who’s fielding is becoming less awesome by the year.

Nov. 26: Blue Jays sign Alex Gonzalez to a one-year contract worth $2.75 MM, with an option for 2011.
Did these two deals get approved by the same person? Or was it a case of “You just bought a shortstop? I just bought a shortstop!” I guess the Jays are damn serious about improving their defense.

Dec. 16: Blue Jays trade Roy Halladay and cash to the Phillies for Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor and Travis D’Arnaud.
and:

Dec. 16: Blue Jays trade Michael Taylor to Athletics for Brett Wallace.
It’s never a good thing to lose a guy like Halladay, but this would have been his last year in Toronto, and it’s not like the Jays are contenders anyhow. They got back a pretty good return for one year of Halladay, with Drabek profiling as a front-line starter.
Flipping Taylor for Wallace is a little puzzling. Yes, the Jays have more room in the infield than they have in the outfield, but my understanding from the prospect mavens is that Taylor has a higher ceiling than Wallace. But of course, that view isn’t universal. And Wallace seems to be closer to the big leagues anyhow.

Feb. 5: Blue Jays sign Kevin Gregg to a one-year deal worth $2.75 MM, with club options for 2011 and 2012.
Do the Jays really need a closer this badly? Gregg was so disappointing last year that he lost the closer’s job to Carlos Marmol, which is impressive when you consider the relative confidence Marmol inspires in his managers. It’s not a lot of money, yes, but every little bit helps if you’re Toronto.

NEXT UP: Final 2010 Predictions

As always, credit for all contract info comes from the invaluable Cot’s Baseball Contracts.