Now for the ten players I would remove from Cooperstown. Again, this is not intended as a practical plan of action; it would be cruel to take down someone's plaque and insult his descendants. It's meant as a look at the ideal Hall, which would involve the removal of some not-too-deserving inhabitants.
Instead of listing my players in the 1-10 format as I did below, I'll deal with them individually as best I can.
George Sisler
Sisler is a famous player who has received a lot of attention for his accomplishments. He hit over .400 twice and finished with a lifetime .340 batting average. It is for this that he is enshrined in Cooperstown. But if I had to describe Sisler's major league career, I would say that he had half of a Hall-of-Fame career and then became just a good player. And half a Hall-of-Fame career is 50% short of actual greatness.
From 1916-1922, Sisler was a Hall-of-Famer. It was during this period with the St. Louis Browns that Sisler hit .407 and .420, twice led the league in hits, and averaged about 40 stolen bases per year. At the end of the 1922 season, Sisler was 29 years old. There was every reason to believe that he would continue on the road to greatness.
Except that he didn't. He never hit higher than .345 again. While he did have some good seasons still left, he never had another season where he was even close to being the best player in the league. For whatever reason, Sisler stopped hitting for a high average. It's even more marked when you realize that hitting stats all over baseball went up in the 1920's, and yet Sisler's were going down. So it was a precipitous drop for the former hitting genius, who just didn't do anything else on the ballfield to make up for his drop in batting average. Sisler's lifetime stats are very good (career 379/468/340 hitter), but the league batting average over Sisler's career was .287, a very high figure. So Sisler actually wasn't as good a hitter as his era makes him look. And while he did steal bases, he also got caught stealing a lot (although the stats for CS are incomplete). He wasn't much on defense, so that leaves us with an average first baseman with little power who sometimes hits for a high average.
The Cooperstown rules specifically prohibit honoring a player for his production in one season (so that electing Roger Maris for his 61 HR would go against Hall rules). But, in a broader sense, that's what they did for Sisler. I can't deny that he had 7 really good seasons, but it takes more than that to make a Hall-of-Famer. The idea that 7 Hall-of-Fame quality seasons merit election would mean that Dale Murphy, Orel Hershiser, Jimmy Wynn and many others would merit induction. Sisler just doesn't meet the criteria, no matter what his legendary status may be.
Tinker & Evers
Let's just admit that these two got into the Hall because someone wrote a poem about them. History remembers them as great not because of their ballfield production but because of the legend that grew around the poem. While I feel that Frank Chance was a good selection, I guess the Hall decided to throw in the two people so closely associated with them, utilizing the dreaded Coattails Clause to induct them into the Hall.
Joe Tinker was a very good defensive second baseman. But he was no kind of hitter. Even accounting for the fact that he played during the dead ball era, Tinker's 308/353/262 line is right in line with the league average (only the SLG is above-average). I cannot deny his defensive prowess, but it takes more than just defense to get into the Hall. If Bill Mazeroski, perhaps the most valuable defensive player ever, just barely squeaks into the Hall then it's difficult to argue for someone 100 years ago who was less valuable defensively.
Evers is a similar story. He was actually a better hitter than Tinker, with a 356/334/270 career line. That OBP well above the league average of .326 for the same period, so Evers emerges as a much stronger candidate there. But Evers just wasn't Tinker's equal defensively. The information we have suggests that while he was an exceptional second baseman at the start of his career, his defensive value suffered a sharp decline as he entered his 30s. So while Tinker is a better hitter, his defense isn't up to the mark.
All told, it's very difficult to argue that these two are among the best players ever at their position. They do not rank favorably with the best eligible players who've been denied admission to the Hall (Lou Whitaker and Bobby Grich, Bill Dahlen and Alan Trammell), so we must realize that their election was based upon a poem. It's too bad that no one ever wrote a poem entitled "Trammell-to-Whitaker-to-Evans."
Luis Aparicio & Nellie Fox
The most exciting player to watch is not necessarily the best player. Aparicio & Fox were certainly exciting, and their go-go style of play is the kind that baseball men froth over, but we just can't get past the fact that neither man was a good hitter, and while they were good defensively, they weren't good enough to make up for their lack of production at the plate.
There is a feeling in baseball that if a shortstop doesn't hit, that doesn't matter. A shortstop's job is to be good on defense, so their hitting is irrelevant. So I guess that their at-bats don't count? The 8,110 career outs Aparicio made at the plate weren't real outs? You can't just ignore a part of someone's game; every element must be taken into account. But, you might say, most shortstops don't hit that well. I would reply (as Bill James did) that most shortstops are not in the Hall of Fame.
A player contributes on both offense and defense. You must determine how much they contributed to the offense and defense and put them together to see how much a player contributed to the overall team performance. I just revealed that Luis Aparico made 8.110 career outs (sporting an ugly .310 OBP). Did he do anything anywhere else in the game to make up for the huge negative this created for his team?
Aparicio played good defense. Was it good enough to make up for his offensive woes? Seeing as offense is about 50% of the game and defense is 5-10%, it would be very difficult to do so. Defense is horribly overvalued, and you'd have to be as good as Bill Mazeroski to contribute positively to your team's success as a dreadful hitter. Aparicio was good defensively . . . but not that good. The metric of Batting Runs and Fielding Runs are instructive; Aparicio finished his career with 60 fielding runs, but was 195 batting runs below average. So no, Aparicio's defense did not make up for his hitting problems.
Nellie Fox was better, but he has the same problem. He hit 349/343/288 (compared to a league average of 340/399/265), so he was an above-average hitter. Defensively, he was good, like Aparicio. But he was not great, like Bill Mazeroski or Bobby Grich. He was simply good. And his poor hitting and good fielding don't make for a Hall-of-Fame combination.
Hughie Jennings
For 5 seasons, from 1894-1898, Hughie Jennings was a Hall-of-Famer, no questions asked. Before and after that, he contributed basically nothing to his team. Hughie only played about 8 full years of baseball, although he was technically around for 17 seasons. If you play 8 years, you'd better be Babe Ruth to get in the Hall. Jennings wasn't. He was darn good for about 5 of those years, and spent the rest of his career as a nothing. Most players will have a peak of greatness, before and after which they are merely good. But few people are like Jennings, who went from being okay to great for 5 years and then became poor. But he stuck around as a manager and got into the Hall because of that, and because of his reputation as one of the original Baltimore Orioles. Reputation is more powerful than reality.
George Kell
I am completely perplexed as to how the Veteran's Committee could look at a list of unelected third basemen to put in the Hall and choose George Kell. What in the world does Kell have over the likes of Ron Santo or Ken Boyer?
The short answer is nothing. There were about four of five seasons where you could call Kell one of the ten best players in the AL. Other than that, he had a good career but not a great one. There are about 100 players like the one I just described who had really good careers, but aren't in Cooperstown (Dave Parker, Jimmy Wynn, Don Mattingly, Jose Cruz). What was it that made Kell, whose credentials are much lesser than most unelected third basemen, jump out at the committee? I haven't a clue, but they inducted him in 1983 all the same. Cronyism cannot be ruled out when considering Veteran's Committee decisions.
Ralph Kiner & Earle Combs
Imagine a player who spends 10 seasons in baseball. Just 10, that's all. Wouldn't he have to be some kind of historic player to be able to reach Cooperstown in 10 years? I think so. But Kiner played ten years, and he's in. But I don't think he deserves it. Kiner is kind of like the hitting version of Sandy Koufax. His career was unnaturally short, but pretty good. Although it would be more accurate to say that Kiner would be the hitting version of Koufax if he had played longer and been a lot better.
Kiner was never the best player in the National League, although he was close for about 4 seasons (with 1949 and 1951 being darn good years). He was only a good player for about 8 of the 10 seasons. None of this is enough to give him enough career credibility to make it to Cooperstown in 10 years, 1400 games, and 5205 ABs.
But Kiner was the only really good Pirate between Honus Wagner and Roberto Clemente, so people always rememberd him, especially after he became a broadcaster. The kicker, though, is that Kiner led the NL in home runs for 7 straight seasons. That's very good, but it's a classic example of cherry-picking stats. What else did Kiner do besides that? We don't elect parts of a player, we elect the whole player, and we need to put these randomly selected stats in context? Perhaps the fact that Forbes Field was a very friendly place for hitters should be taken into account? Then perhaps we'll start to see Kiner for what he was; a good player for a very short amount of time.
Earle was the same basic story. He wasn't as good as Kiner, but he actually played for 12 years, 9 of them full seasons. Was he an elite, MVP-quality guy who earned his spot in a short amount of time? No. He was really good, but never great.
Oh yeah, Earle played for the '27 Yankees and spent his whole career in pinstripes. If he'd spent it with the St. Louis Browns, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Lloyd Waner
Legend has it that when the Veteran's Committee elected Lloyd, they actually did it based on his brother Paul's career stats, which are much more impressive. It's probably an apocryphal story, but it's more complimentary than believing that the Committee just lost their wits when they elected him.
Well, Lloyd got off to one heck of a start. Five of his first six seasons were very good; none of them MVP-esque, but quite good. After that he had five years where he was a decent, above-average player. Then he spent six seasons just trying to hang on. Sound like a Hall-of-Famer? Nope. But hey, he had a cool nickname; he was "Little Poison." And if you elect "Big Poison" to the Hall (his brother Paul, who does deserve it), ya gotta have "Little Poison" too, right? Right?
Hack Wilson
As I said, the rules preclude the Hall from inducting a player based on one good season, but Hack Wilson got in anyway. Everybody remembers him as the guy who knocked in 191 runs in 1930. Of course, the NL as a whole hit .303 in that particular year, but no one makes allowances for the era in baseball.
Hack did have a good career; the problem is that it lasted about 7 seasons, making him sort of a modern Darryl Strawberry. The rest of the time, he was just hanging on. The 191 RBIs got Wilson in the door to Cooperstown. If it weren't for that season, he probably wouldn't have gotten in. Maybe Stan Hack, another member of the 30's-era Cubs with better credentials, would have gotten in.
Chuck Klein
Well, we've got to have somebody from the Phillies in Cooperstown. Because before Robin Roberts and Richie Ashburn came along, the best Phillies of all time were guys like Cy Williams and Gavvy Cravath. Klein, who is one of the only good Phillies from the first half of the 20th century, also won a Triple Crown. He was sort of like Lloyd Waner; he got off to a great start, but only had 5 superior years before it all went downhill. Cesar Cedeno could say that same thing.
Tommy McCarthy
I haven't really heard of Tommy McCarthy, and I'll just be generous and say that the Veteran's Committee must have had some reason to elect someone who played 13 decent seasons in the 1880s and 1890s.
Ray Schalk & Red Faber
The best things these two guys have going for them is that they were both on the 1919 Chicago White Sox and did not accept a bribe to throw the Series. Maybe Landis awarded them with election to Cooperstown at some later date.
Jack Chesbro
Chesbro set a modern record with 41 wins in 1903. Other than that, I defy you to find a Hall-of-Famer here.
Don Drysdale
This would easily be the biggest surprise, for me as well as you. I had the same image of Drysdale everyone else had, of one of the best pitchers of the 1960s. But I'm here to suggest that what everyone thinks about Drysdale just does not gel with what he actually did.
First of all, Drysdale played in a pitcher's park in a pitcher's league in the best era for pitchers in the last 75 years. We must take this into account when examining his pitching numbers. He did lead the league in strikeouts 3 times and struck out at least 200 in 6 seasons. But Drysdale (like Koufax) had a short career; he only played 14 seasons. He was 33 years old. If he could have put together a few more dominant years, maybe he would have legitimately made it. The problem is that when you consider the era and context, Drysdale doesn't look incredibly better than a lot of other pitchers who aren't in the Hall, and his short career makes it look even worse.
Rollie Fingers
Sportswriters really don't have a clue how to compare starting pitchers to relievers and, as I've said before, sabermetrics isn't all that certain either. But we can do a pretty good job of measuring relievers against each other. And so it's really hard to see what the voters saw in Fingers that pushed him ahead of Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, and several others.
What likely happened here is that the Hall voters used a past mistake to justify a future one. The fact that Fingers won the MVP in 1982 (a rarity for a reliever) was mentioned often as justification for his induction. Was that what set him apart from those other guys? Or is it possible that the '82 MVP was itself a mistake, and using it to justify a future one is not such a good idea.
Burleigh Grimes
Grimes' numbers are enough to make him just barely edge into Cooperstown consideration. But consider that for the last 14 seasons of his career, Grimes had a huge unfair advantage over opposing hitters and most other pitchers. Yes, Grimes was the last legal spitball pitcher. So while other pitchers couldn't legally use it, Grimes had an unfair advantage, which much have helped him to some extent during his career. The fact that it was sanctioned by the MLB does not mean we can dismiss it.
Catfish Hunter
Catfish is perhaps baseball's best example of a good player whose teams made him look great. And he played on some darn good teams. The Oakland dynasty of the mid-70's and then the Bronx Zoo Yankees. So while sportswriters stare at W-L record (unaware that it's influenced as much by the time as by the pitcher himself), they saw a great pitcher where a good one really existed.
The Frisch Effect:
Jim Bottomley, George Kelly, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Freddie Lindstrom, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Ross Youngs, Rube Marquard
The "Frish Effect" is what happened to the Veterans' Committe when Frankie Frisch took over in 1967. From 1970-1976, the Veterans Committee selected 19 players. This is probably far too many players to just throw into the Hall of Fame, but we'll set that aside. The most important fact is that, with everyone in baseball history to choose from, 9 of 19 were Frisch's old teammates. In an institution with rampant cronyism, Frankie Frisch essentially ruined the Veteran's Committee and perhaps the Hall of Fame, by electing en masse all of his old friends. But how many of Frisch's old friends actually deserved the honor? None of Frisch's 9 teammates were even remotely qualified. Several of the other players selected, Earl Combs, Harry Hooper, Jake Beckley, and others were also ill-qualified. But what makes it even more odious is that the Giants of the '20s and the Cardinals of the '30s, already full of legitimate Hall-of-Famers, were expanded to outmatch even the 1927 Yankees in terms of players represented in the Hall. Although Frisch himself was a deserving inductee, he ravaged the process during his tenure as Chairman of the Veteran's Committee.
I'll be back tomorrow with my thoughts on the Cooperstown chances of current and recently-retired players tomorrow ...
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Monday, October 17, 2005
Cooperstown worthy?
I spent some time a few months ago looking back through the record books and considering those elected to the Hall of Fame. As part of my ongoing attempt to refine my aptitude for statistical analysis, I decided to formulate my own personal Hall of Fame. My results are still in an early phase; I'm trying to take a number of factors into account. However, I can go ahead and give a tentative list of the top 10 people I would put into the Hall and the top 10 people I would take out.
Let me add that this is not a concrete plan I wish to see put into effect; the last thing Cooperstown needs is a mass election, however deserving the candidates. This is more of an idealized version of what the Hall of Fame should be, not a practical solution to the problems facing the current Hall. Although there are several players on here whose candidacy I would support, I'm not advocating a sudden game of musical chairs in Cooperstown. Keep that in mind, and enjoy:
(The references to HOF Standards & HOF Monitor are the metrics devised by Bill James as a way to measure where a candidate stands in his HOF candidacy. They were obtained from the always-handy http://www.baseball-reference.com).
PEOPLE I WOULD PUT IN:
10. Lou Whitaker
Whitaker is an easier case, since most people remember him. Lou doesn't have overpowering credentials for the Hall, but I see him as a fine candidate for election. He was a good hitter; not exactly excellent, but well above-average. He hit for a .276 career average with a .366 career OBP (which meant something back in the 80's and early 90's). He also had significant power for his position; 244 career HR. But what elevates his game even more is that he was a very good second baseman. Is Whitaker the best second baseman not in the Hall? Other than Biggio and Alomar, yes absolutely. He would not be on the bottom fringes of the players in the Hall; he would be an admirable selection.
9. Ted Simmons
Simmons was, in my mind, the 7th- or 8th-best catcher in major league history. Given that the current Hall includes some 13 catchers, it would not be unreasonable to elect "Simba." He is the best full-time catcher not in the Hall, and his career performance meets Hall-of-Fame standards.
Catchers are not usually held to the same standards of statistical accomplishment, simply because it is the nature of their job to break down early and experience a shorter peak, especially in terms of defense. So we must take into account that Simmons' decision to stay a full-time catcher untl the age of 35 hurt his Hall-of-Fame chances by cutting his career short and affecting an incalculable toll on his body.
Simmons was, if not the best player in baseball (his 1978 season notwithstanding), was quite often the best player on his team. He was the best player on the Cardinal teams of the mid-late 70's (after Bob Gibson's & Lou Brock's decline), with the period 1975-1980 especially productive. Was he the best in baseball at his position? Well, no. But then he played at the same time as Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk, 2 of the best 4 or 5 catchers ever. Simmons "merely" ranks in the top 10. He had about 4 seasons that could be considered MVP-caliber (1973, 1975, 1977-8) and several All-Star caliber seasons. Of his most-comparable players, 4 are in the Hall (Fisk, Carter, Cronin, Sandberg?) and 4 more should be (Trammell, Torre, Whitaker, Larkin).
8. Alan Trammell
Trammell is forever paired with Whitaker, so it would be wonderful if they could both make it to the Hall. However, if given a choice, I would pick Trammell. His managerial misadventures nothwithstanding, he was a heck of a hitter on some darn good teams. He is (after Bill Dahlen) the best shortstop not in the Hall. He finished 2nd in the 1987 AL MVP voting (although his snub in favor of George Bell is laughable now). He hit 185 career HR, stole 236 career bases, and was an adequate defender. The reason Trammell isn't in the Hall is that he became eligible at the same time a few guys named A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar emerged and redefined the role of the shortstop. It's not Alan's fault he wasn't a slugger, but history has lost him in the glow surrounding the big three. Barry Larkin will likely suffer a similar fate.
7. Bobby Grich
Grich just came around far too early. He hit for a poor average (.266 career), and that's just enough to get most people to dismiss you in 1980. But we now have a growing appreciation for Grich's defense (the best defensive shortstop of his era) and his ability to get on base (.373 career mark). We realize that his power (224 career HR, averaging 18 every 162 games) was much more irreplaceable at second base, especially in the 1980s. Grich made it to the postseason 5 times as well. His particular talents weren't appreciated at the time, and as a result, he has unfairly been shunted into the background of history.
6. Joe Torre
Bill James has speculated that Torre has gotten the shaft from Cooperstown because his career has been too hard to define. What position did he play? Well, he played 903 career games at catcher, 787 at first, and 515 at third. That's pretty evenly divided into three. Which team did he play for? Well, he spent half his career with the Braves (first in Milwaukee, then Atlanta), then a good portion with St. Louis (where he won his MVP), and a few years with the Mets. Add in the fact that most people now remember him as a manager, and it's no wonder that people don't elect him. They can't remember his career with any sort of clarity. We remember Willie Mays: Giants, center field. We remember Ryne Sandberg: Cubs, second base. But Joe Torre? Umm ... Braves and Cardinals, Yankees too (wait, he didn't play for them) and he played . . . god, he played everywhere.
But Torre was one heck of a player; what he lacked in defense he made up for with hitting: 367/452/297 career line, 315 career Win Shares, and a 1971 season that was simply incredible.
5. Bill Dahlen
Dahlen slips through the cracks for many reasons. He played from 1891-1911. If history is divided into BC and AD, then baseball is divided into BB and AB: Before Babe and After Babe. And far too much of baseball history Before Babe is lost or marginalized, at least in general. Bill Dahlen falls into this category. He's not an unfamiliar type of player; Dahlen was slap-hitting on-base specialist with superb defense at shortstop. Sound vaguely like Ozzie Smith? Perhaps. Ozzie is actually the 10th-most similar player to Dahlen. Of the top 10, 7 are Hall-of-Famers, with George Davis and Bid McPhee numbers 1 and 2, Luke Appling number 5, Luis Aparicio number 6, and Frankie Frisch number 7. Dave Concepcion is number 8, although he's not in Cooperstown. This doesn't necessarily prove anything, although it's a point in Dahlen's favor. And considering that his hitting stats are partially deflated by his era, it's even more notable.
Dahlen began his career on the post-Cap Anson Cubs. He left the Cubs (before they became the 106-win dynasty) and went to the Brooklyn Dodgers. Not exactly a brilliant career move. He did spend four seasons with the New York Giants, making his only World Series appearance as the starting shortstop on the 1905 World Champions. He was, however, past his prime by then. He finished out his career with 2 years in Boston (with the Braves) and 2 more in Brooklyn. So he a good player on bad teams, which is never a good chance to get noticed in Cooperstown.
What are Dahlen's strengths? He was an absolutely top-notch defensive shortstop. He is credited with 219 fielding runs for his career, which is just brilliant. While defensive statistics are hairy, we can certainly conclude that Dahlen was an excellent defensive shortstop and possibly among the elite during his time.
Dahlen was not a great hitter, but he was certainly a good one. His career .358 OBP is pretty good for his era, as is his .272 average. He was no kind of slugger, finishing with 84 career homers. He was amazingly disciplined, however, averaging 71 BB/162 G. Strikeout information is incomplete, but what we do have suggests he struck out less often than he walked. He stole 547 career bases, although we don't know how often he was caught stealing. He is credited with 394 Win Shares and 39.8 Total Player Wins. Here's the kicker: every other eligible player with 394 Win Shares is in the Hall of Fame. It would n0t be a detriment to the Hall to put Dahlen in. I don't know of any off-the-field reasons that Dahlen was disliked or disrespected. There doesn't seem to be anything keeping him out of Cooperstown. And unlike Pete Rose or Joe Jackson, Dahlen's election to the Hall would not be strongly opposed by, well, anyone.
4. Ron Santo
I think Ron Santo will get in, one of these days. I just hope it happens before he passes away.
There's really no good reason to keep him out. He is (apart from Darrell Evans), the best third baseman not in the Hall, and he's the 4th-best player period not in the Hall. He was a very good hitter for quite a while, as well as being a fine third baseman. If he had played for the Yankees, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
3. Darrell Evans
Bill James said that Darrell Evans was the most underrated player in baseball history. I would tend to agree. While many of the players on this list would pop up on other peoples' lists, only the most ardent sabermetrician would put forth Evans' name for candidacy. And if there is an Evans on their ballot, it's probably Dwight. Evans' problem was that, as James pointed out, he embodied every aspect of the underrated player. He played very good defense, but no one noticed. He had great plate discipline, but never hit for a high average. He did many things well, but not any one thing very well. He spent his most productive years on nowhere teams (San Francisco, Atlanta) and by the time he did reach a contender (Detroit), his best years were behind him, and everyone had already made up their minds he wasn't Cooperstown-worthy.
2. Dick Allen
Well, let's dispense with the obvious right off the bat. Allen hit like a Hall-of-Famer. In fact, he hit like he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But then he played with nowhere teams (Philadelphia, Chicago). He also compiled his hitting numbers during a pitcher's era. So while his 381/534/292 career line would be in the neighborhood if 400/600/300 nowadays, most BBWAA voters are clueless when it comes to adjusting for eras. So Allen was a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer on the field. This we can agree on.
But of course it's what happened off the field that has kept Allen out of the Hall. He was a terrible irritant to his team, often demanding trades and giving the front office severe headaches. He was a selfish player who did not have the best interest of his teams in mind. He would often use racism to justify his actions. While racism was (and still is) an underappreciated element in sports, it did not justify someone behaving like a boorish ass. So why am I arguing to put Allen in the Hall?
It's hard for me to accept that Allen's off-the-field shenanigans significantly overshadowed his on-the-field performance. It's just possible that Allen was a bit misunderstood, taking the blame as the problem child/whipping boy of his era. Not to say that he didn't do what he did, but that it was blown out of proportion in terms of its effect on the team. And studies show that we tend to overestimate one person's impact on the performance of a team. So while it may seem, in a subjective sense, that Allen's attitude cost his team some wins, there is no real evidence that this is true to any significant degree. Sure it didn't help matters, but I just don't believe it outweighed his brilliance on the baseball diamond.
I will admit freely that it's easy for me to argue on behalf of Allen 30 years after his prime; if I had lived through his tirades, I would likely feel differently. But perhaps this distance and objectivity can be a strength as well? I'll certainly say that I may be too far away from the events to judge their effect, but I will also point out that some may have been to close to the events to do the same. And we cannot, repeat, cannot let our perceptions of someone be entirely colored by their presentation in the media.
Having said all of that, can I still put somone of admittedly shady personal character into the Hall? It bothers me somewhat, but he's not exactly alone. Many people use the Ty Cobb example when discussing Pete Rose, but it applies more to Allen. Cobb was not a favorite with his teammates, and some more daring souls have suggested that Cobb's selfish, fend-for-yourselves attitude might have cost the Tigers a World Championship. And Allen was never seriously suspected of throwing a baseball game, whereas there were some rather serious allegations towards Cobb and Tris Speaker. So there is a sizable precedent for enshrining players who valued themselves far more than they valued their team (ahem, Babe Ruth, ahem).
1. Bert Blyleven
Poor Bert was cursed to play for bad teams. He was also cursed by the fact that most Hall voters still see Wins and Losses as the chief measure of a pitcher's quality. Bert's career W-L is 287-250. 287 is a lot of wins, but 250 is a lot of losses. So Bert will not get in until the writers change their attitudes about Wins and Losses and look more toward other measures. Measures such as ERA (career 3.31 for Bert), strikeouts (3701, 4th all-time) or neutral wins and losses, or wins and losses measured simply by the pitcher's performance rather than the team performance. Bert's neutral won-loss record is 313-224. The short-sightedness of others has cost Bert his well-earned spot in Cooperstown. No other eligible pitcher is even close.
I'll be back tomorrow with the top 10 I would take out of the Hall ...
Let me add that this is not a concrete plan I wish to see put into effect; the last thing Cooperstown needs is a mass election, however deserving the candidates. This is more of an idealized version of what the Hall of Fame should be, not a practical solution to the problems facing the current Hall. Although there are several players on here whose candidacy I would support, I'm not advocating a sudden game of musical chairs in Cooperstown. Keep that in mind, and enjoy:
(The references to HOF Standards & HOF Monitor are the metrics devised by Bill James as a way to measure where a candidate stands in his HOF candidacy. They were obtained from the always-handy http://www.baseball-reference.com).
PEOPLE I WOULD PUT IN:
10. Lou Whitaker
Whitaker is an easier case, since most people remember him. Lou doesn't have overpowering credentials for the Hall, but I see him as a fine candidate for election. He was a good hitter; not exactly excellent, but well above-average. He hit for a .276 career average with a .366 career OBP (which meant something back in the 80's and early 90's). He also had significant power for his position; 244 career HR. But what elevates his game even more is that he was a very good second baseman. Is Whitaker the best second baseman not in the Hall? Other than Biggio and Alomar, yes absolutely. He would not be on the bottom fringes of the players in the Hall; he would be an admirable selection.
9. Ted Simmons
Simmons was, in my mind, the 7th- or 8th-best catcher in major league history. Given that the current Hall includes some 13 catchers, it would not be unreasonable to elect "Simba." He is the best full-time catcher not in the Hall, and his career performance meets Hall-of-Fame standards.
Catchers are not usually held to the same standards of statistical accomplishment, simply because it is the nature of their job to break down early and experience a shorter peak, especially in terms of defense. So we must take into account that Simmons' decision to stay a full-time catcher untl the age of 35 hurt his Hall-of-Fame chances by cutting his career short and affecting an incalculable toll on his body.
Simmons was, if not the best player in baseball (his 1978 season notwithstanding), was quite often the best player on his team. He was the best player on the Cardinal teams of the mid-late 70's (after Bob Gibson's & Lou Brock's decline), with the period 1975-1980 especially productive. Was he the best in baseball at his position? Well, no. But then he played at the same time as Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk, 2 of the best 4 or 5 catchers ever. Simmons "merely" ranks in the top 10. He had about 4 seasons that could be considered MVP-caliber (1973, 1975, 1977-8) and several All-Star caliber seasons. Of his most-comparable players, 4 are in the Hall (Fisk, Carter, Cronin, Sandberg?) and 4 more should be (Trammell, Torre, Whitaker, Larkin).
8. Alan Trammell
Trammell is forever paired with Whitaker, so it would be wonderful if they could both make it to the Hall. However, if given a choice, I would pick Trammell. His managerial misadventures nothwithstanding, he was a heck of a hitter on some darn good teams. He is (after Bill Dahlen) the best shortstop not in the Hall. He finished 2nd in the 1987 AL MVP voting (although his snub in favor of George Bell is laughable now). He hit 185 career HR, stole 236 career bases, and was an adequate defender. The reason Trammell isn't in the Hall is that he became eligible at the same time a few guys named A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar emerged and redefined the role of the shortstop. It's not Alan's fault he wasn't a slugger, but history has lost him in the glow surrounding the big three. Barry Larkin will likely suffer a similar fate.
7. Bobby Grich
Grich just came around far too early. He hit for a poor average (.266 career), and that's just enough to get most people to dismiss you in 1980. But we now have a growing appreciation for Grich's defense (the best defensive shortstop of his era) and his ability to get on base (.373 career mark). We realize that his power (224 career HR, averaging 18 every 162 games) was much more irreplaceable at second base, especially in the 1980s. Grich made it to the postseason 5 times as well. His particular talents weren't appreciated at the time, and as a result, he has unfairly been shunted into the background of history.
6. Joe Torre
Bill James has speculated that Torre has gotten the shaft from Cooperstown because his career has been too hard to define. What position did he play? Well, he played 903 career games at catcher, 787 at first, and 515 at third. That's pretty evenly divided into three. Which team did he play for? Well, he spent half his career with the Braves (first in Milwaukee, then Atlanta), then a good portion with St. Louis (where he won his MVP), and a few years with the Mets. Add in the fact that most people now remember him as a manager, and it's no wonder that people don't elect him. They can't remember his career with any sort of clarity. We remember Willie Mays: Giants, center field. We remember Ryne Sandberg: Cubs, second base. But Joe Torre? Umm ... Braves and Cardinals, Yankees too (wait, he didn't play for them) and he played . . . god, he played everywhere.
But Torre was one heck of a player; what he lacked in defense he made up for with hitting: 367/452/297 career line, 315 career Win Shares, and a 1971 season that was simply incredible.
5. Bill Dahlen
Dahlen slips through the cracks for many reasons. He played from 1891-1911. If history is divided into BC and AD, then baseball is divided into BB and AB: Before Babe and After Babe. And far too much of baseball history Before Babe is lost or marginalized, at least in general. Bill Dahlen falls into this category. He's not an unfamiliar type of player; Dahlen was slap-hitting on-base specialist with superb defense at shortstop. Sound vaguely like Ozzie Smith? Perhaps. Ozzie is actually the 10th-most similar player to Dahlen. Of the top 10, 7 are Hall-of-Famers, with George Davis and Bid McPhee numbers 1 and 2, Luke Appling number 5, Luis Aparicio number 6, and Frankie Frisch number 7. Dave Concepcion is number 8, although he's not in Cooperstown. This doesn't necessarily prove anything, although it's a point in Dahlen's favor. And considering that his hitting stats are partially deflated by his era, it's even more notable.
Dahlen began his career on the post-Cap Anson Cubs. He left the Cubs (before they became the 106-win dynasty) and went to the Brooklyn Dodgers. Not exactly a brilliant career move. He did spend four seasons with the New York Giants, making his only World Series appearance as the starting shortstop on the 1905 World Champions. He was, however, past his prime by then. He finished out his career with 2 years in Boston (with the Braves) and 2 more in Brooklyn. So he a good player on bad teams, which is never a good chance to get noticed in Cooperstown.
What are Dahlen's strengths? He was an absolutely top-notch defensive shortstop. He is credited with 219 fielding runs for his career, which is just brilliant. While defensive statistics are hairy, we can certainly conclude that Dahlen was an excellent defensive shortstop and possibly among the elite during his time.
Dahlen was not a great hitter, but he was certainly a good one. His career .358 OBP is pretty good for his era, as is his .272 average. He was no kind of slugger, finishing with 84 career homers. He was amazingly disciplined, however, averaging 71 BB/162 G. Strikeout information is incomplete, but what we do have suggests he struck out less often than he walked. He stole 547 career bases, although we don't know how often he was caught stealing. He is credited with 394 Win Shares and 39.8 Total Player Wins. Here's the kicker: every other eligible player with 394 Win Shares is in the Hall of Fame. It would n0t be a detriment to the Hall to put Dahlen in. I don't know of any off-the-field reasons that Dahlen was disliked or disrespected. There doesn't seem to be anything keeping him out of Cooperstown. And unlike Pete Rose or Joe Jackson, Dahlen's election to the Hall would not be strongly opposed by, well, anyone.
4. Ron Santo
I think Ron Santo will get in, one of these days. I just hope it happens before he passes away.
There's really no good reason to keep him out. He is (apart from Darrell Evans), the best third baseman not in the Hall, and he's the 4th-best player period not in the Hall. He was a very good hitter for quite a while, as well as being a fine third baseman. If he had played for the Yankees, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
3. Darrell Evans
Bill James said that Darrell Evans was the most underrated player in baseball history. I would tend to agree. While many of the players on this list would pop up on other peoples' lists, only the most ardent sabermetrician would put forth Evans' name for candidacy. And if there is an Evans on their ballot, it's probably Dwight. Evans' problem was that, as James pointed out, he embodied every aspect of the underrated player. He played very good defense, but no one noticed. He had great plate discipline, but never hit for a high average. He did many things well, but not any one thing very well. He spent his most productive years on nowhere teams (San Francisco, Atlanta) and by the time he did reach a contender (Detroit), his best years were behind him, and everyone had already made up their minds he wasn't Cooperstown-worthy.
2. Dick Allen
Well, let's dispense with the obvious right off the bat. Allen hit like a Hall-of-Famer. In fact, he hit like he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But then he played with nowhere teams (Philadelphia, Chicago). He also compiled his hitting numbers during a pitcher's era. So while his 381/534/292 career line would be in the neighborhood if 400/600/300 nowadays, most BBWAA voters are clueless when it comes to adjusting for eras. So Allen was a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer on the field. This we can agree on.
But of course it's what happened off the field that has kept Allen out of the Hall. He was a terrible irritant to his team, often demanding trades and giving the front office severe headaches. He was a selfish player who did not have the best interest of his teams in mind. He would often use racism to justify his actions. While racism was (and still is) an underappreciated element in sports, it did not justify someone behaving like a boorish ass. So why am I arguing to put Allen in the Hall?
It's hard for me to accept that Allen's off-the-field shenanigans significantly overshadowed his on-the-field performance. It's just possible that Allen was a bit misunderstood, taking the blame as the problem child/whipping boy of his era. Not to say that he didn't do what he did, but that it was blown out of proportion in terms of its effect on the team. And studies show that we tend to overestimate one person's impact on the performance of a team. So while it may seem, in a subjective sense, that Allen's attitude cost his team some wins, there is no real evidence that this is true to any significant degree. Sure it didn't help matters, but I just don't believe it outweighed his brilliance on the baseball diamond.
I will admit freely that it's easy for me to argue on behalf of Allen 30 years after his prime; if I had lived through his tirades, I would likely feel differently. But perhaps this distance and objectivity can be a strength as well? I'll certainly say that I may be too far away from the events to judge their effect, but I will also point out that some may have been to close to the events to do the same. And we cannot, repeat, cannot let our perceptions of someone be entirely colored by their presentation in the media.
Having said all of that, can I still put somone of admittedly shady personal character into the Hall? It bothers me somewhat, but he's not exactly alone. Many people use the Ty Cobb example when discussing Pete Rose, but it applies more to Allen. Cobb was not a favorite with his teammates, and some more daring souls have suggested that Cobb's selfish, fend-for-yourselves attitude might have cost the Tigers a World Championship. And Allen was never seriously suspected of throwing a baseball game, whereas there were some rather serious allegations towards Cobb and Tris Speaker. So there is a sizable precedent for enshrining players who valued themselves far more than they valued their team (ahem, Babe Ruth, ahem).
1. Bert Blyleven
Poor Bert was cursed to play for bad teams. He was also cursed by the fact that most Hall voters still see Wins and Losses as the chief measure of a pitcher's quality. Bert's career W-L is 287-250. 287 is a lot of wins, but 250 is a lot of losses. So Bert will not get in until the writers change their attitudes about Wins and Losses and look more toward other measures. Measures such as ERA (career 3.31 for Bert), strikeouts (3701, 4th all-time) or neutral wins and losses, or wins and losses measured simply by the pitcher's performance rather than the team performance. Bert's neutral won-loss record is 313-224. The short-sightedness of others has cost Bert his well-earned spot in Cooperstown. No other eligible pitcher is even close.
I'll be back tomorrow with the top 10 I would take out of the Hall ...
All about the pitching ...
Just for a second, the baseball media isn't talking about "smart ball," small ball, or Moneyball. They're not talking about stats. They're talking about pitching, becuase the Chicago White Sox put on an unprecedented pitching display in the ALCS. And on this point, the media and I are in total agreement.
Okay, so I picked the Angels to win in 7. Didn't work out that way, I admit. Maybe I didn't make enough allowance for the absence of Bartolo Colon. But the truth is, I never dreamed that the White Sox rotation, good as it was during the regular season, would put on a display of pitching dominance that should rightfully go down as one of the best in postseason history.
Oh, the Angels didn't do too poorly. They held the Sox to 23 runs in 5 games, about 4.5 runs per game. This is a little better than the Sox did during the regular season, but not exactly unexpected. The Angel starters did a good job, and the relievers fared well, although they were overworked.
But the pitching line for the White Sox is absurd. They held the Angels to 11 runs in 5 games, or just barely more than 2 runs per game. The Angels could have had Bartolo Colon and Cy Young in their rotation, but they couldn't win the Series scoring 2 runs per game. The White Sox threw 45 innings, striking out 22 batters and allowing just 4 HR. They also allowed an ungodly low 4 walks. Four walks in five games. That's really amazing.
Of course, the prime movers and shakers behind this pitching mastery were the Sox' starting four: Contreras, Buehrle, Garland, and Garcia. The Sox threw4 complete games in a postseason series for the first time since the Yankees did it in the '56 World Series. The Sox bullpen pitched 0.2 innings in the entire series. That's phenomenal; it's nearly impossible in this day and age. If I could give out the MVP, it would be a 4-way tie between the Four Horsemen of the Sox pitching staff.
Game 1: Contreras (L), 8.1 IP, 7 H, 3 ER, 0 BB, 4 K, 1 HR
Game 2: Buehrle (W), CG, 5 H, 1 ER, o BB, 4 K, 1 HR
Game 3: Garland (W), CG, 4 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 7 K, HR
Game 4: Garcia (W), CG, 6 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 5 K, 0 HR
Game 5: Contreras (W), CG, 5 H, 3 ER, 2 BB, 2 K, 0 HR
Wow.
The Sox' style has been referred to as "smart ball." It would more accurately described in a much more complimentary (to my eyes) way: Pitching, Defense, and the 3-Run Homer.
This would be amazingly accurate if the Sox didn't spoilt it by wasting so many outs (Podsednik goes 4/7 in steals, etc.). The Sox got historically good pitching, good defense (3 E in 5 G), and big home runs (2 for Crede, 2 for Konerko). It should serve them well in the World Series (where they will have home field advantage). It will only be until the Astros seal the deal in the NLCS, then we will be planning the Series. And yes, I know I blew the Astros series, too. I ain't perfect.
Okay, so I picked the Angels to win in 7. Didn't work out that way, I admit. Maybe I didn't make enough allowance for the absence of Bartolo Colon. But the truth is, I never dreamed that the White Sox rotation, good as it was during the regular season, would put on a display of pitching dominance that should rightfully go down as one of the best in postseason history.
Oh, the Angels didn't do too poorly. They held the Sox to 23 runs in 5 games, about 4.5 runs per game. This is a little better than the Sox did during the regular season, but not exactly unexpected. The Angel starters did a good job, and the relievers fared well, although they were overworked.
But the pitching line for the White Sox is absurd. They held the Angels to 11 runs in 5 games, or just barely more than 2 runs per game. The Angels could have had Bartolo Colon and Cy Young in their rotation, but they couldn't win the Series scoring 2 runs per game. The White Sox threw 45 innings, striking out 22 batters and allowing just 4 HR. They also allowed an ungodly low 4 walks. Four walks in five games. That's really amazing.
Of course, the prime movers and shakers behind this pitching mastery were the Sox' starting four: Contreras, Buehrle, Garland, and Garcia. The Sox threw4 complete games in a postseason series for the first time since the Yankees did it in the '56 World Series. The Sox bullpen pitched 0.2 innings in the entire series. That's phenomenal; it's nearly impossible in this day and age. If I could give out the MVP, it would be a 4-way tie between the Four Horsemen of the Sox pitching staff.
Game 1: Contreras (L), 8.1 IP, 7 H, 3 ER, 0 BB, 4 K, 1 HR
Game 2: Buehrle (W), CG, 5 H, 1 ER, o BB, 4 K, 1 HR
Game 3: Garland (W), CG, 4 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 7 K, HR
Game 4: Garcia (W), CG, 6 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 5 K, 0 HR
Game 5: Contreras (W), CG, 5 H, 3 ER, 2 BB, 2 K, 0 HR
Wow.
The Sox' style has been referred to as "smart ball." It would more accurately described in a much more complimentary (to my eyes) way: Pitching, Defense, and the 3-Run Homer.
This would be amazingly accurate if the Sox didn't spoilt it by wasting so many outs (Podsednik goes 4/7 in steals, etc.). The Sox got historically good pitching, good defense (3 E in 5 G), and big home runs (2 for Crede, 2 for Konerko). It should serve them well in the World Series (where they will have home field advantage). It will only be until the Astros seal the deal in the NLCS, then we will be planning the Series. And yes, I know I blew the Astros series, too. I ain't perfect.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Worst award selections
Another long-range project of mine involves working my way back through history analyzing and recording each season's individual achievements. Having now made it back through 1985, I thought I'd offer up my opinion on the worst award selections of the past 20 years (keeping in mind that a few might be made in this seasons awards):
Honorable Mention: Larry Walker (1997 NL MVP), Miguel Tejada (2002 AL MVP), Dennis Eckersley (1992 AL Cy Young), Kerry Wood (1998 NL Rookie of the Year)
#10: Mark Davis, 1989 NL Cy Young
Baseball people just don't really know how to measure a relief pitcher against starting pitchers. I will grant you that Davis was the best closer in the NL. He had a 1.85 ERA with 44 saves and 92 K in 92.2 IP. He won the award because, as often happens, sportswriters gradually convinced themselves that Davis's season was "special" and that he was carrying the NL Champion Giants.
Davis' season was darn good for a reliever, but I think he got the award because the voters didn't see a viable starting pitcher as a candidate. Mike Scott led the league with 20 wins (and 10 losses), but his 3.10 ERA wasn't near the top ten, and the Astros finished 3rd. Scott finished 2nd in the voting. Greg Maddux came in 3rd, which wasn't such a bad choice. Maddux went 19-12 with a 2.95 ERA for the division-winning Cubs. He's actually a better candidate than Davis.
But the best NL pitcher in 1989 was, in my opinion, Orel Hershiser. Hershiser's 2.31 ERA was 2nd in the league. He threw 256.2 IP, allowing only 9 HR and 77 BB against 178 K. Not only that, but Hershiser threw 256.2 IP, which completely obliterates Davis' advantage in ERA, as far as I see it.
But Hershiser didn't win because his record was 15-15. Even today, in the era of Moneyball, a pitcher couldn't win the Cy Young with a 15-15 record. So it was laughable to suggest such a thing in 1989. Hershiser got exactly 7 votes (compared to 107 for Davis).
#9: Ivan Rodriguez, 1999 AL MVP
This was another case of the voters convincing themselves (in spite of any actual evidence) that a player's contribution went above and beyond. Also, given that Pudge hadn't gotten an MVP award yet, he was due. He "led" the Rangers to an AL West title with a 356/558/332 line. This, of course, was good but certainly not great for a hitter in the AL's premiere hitting park during the hitting renaissance ofthe '90s. Rodriguez was, of course, a fine defensive catcher. But does that outweight the gulf in hitting between him and the other candidates? Pedro Martinez finished a close second to Pudge and would have made a much better choice for MVP. Roberto Alomar finished 3rd and Manny Ramirez finished 4th, all fairly representative of their contribution. But the AL's best player in 1999 finished 6th in the voting, which is a major surprise considering that he is a media darling and a perpetually overrated player. Yes folks, the real AL MVP in 1999 was none other than Derek Jeter.
In the much less hitter-friendly Yankee Stadium, Jeter posted a 438/552/349 line, a huge step above Pudge. Rodriguez does have the clear edge in defense, but it would take a gargantuan defensive difference to make up for Jeter's edge in hitting. And would the sportswriters actually argue that Jeter's leadership was less than valuable than Pudge's in the year where Jeter's Yankees swept the Rangers in the ALDS on the way to an easy World Championship?
#8: Mo Vaughn, 1995 AL MVP
Let's start out by saying that Mo was at least the 3rd-most valuable 1st baseman in the AL. Frank Thomas hit 454/606/308 and Rafael Palmeiro hit 380/583/310. Vaughn hit 388/575/300. It doesn't even touch Thomas. You might be able to argue him past Palmeiro, except that Raffy played better defense in a tougher park for hitters. There is the steroids question, but that's a hazy question for 1995. Even if you can get him past Palmeiro (and Mark McGwire, who hit 441/685/274, albeit in limited work), you've still got a problem. You cannot get Vaughn past the massive obstacle that is Frank Thomas, effectively blocking his MVP. Vaughn had 15 more RBI than Thomas, and 1 more double. Of course, he hit one less home run and struck out 76 more times. So how in the world can you picture Vaughn leaping the gap between his 388/575/300 hitting line and Frank's 454/606/308? You could say that Frank had already won 2 MVPs, and it was Mo's turn. But the MVP award is not an Elementary School Participation ribbon. If someone deserves multiple MVPs, they get them. The sportswriters, of course, just decided that Vaughn was better for no apparent reason. Vaughn's team made the playoffs, whereas Frank's didn't. But that's an extremely silly argument that I'm surprised people still make (well, not that surprised).
But it gets better -- Frank Thomas probably wasn't even the best player in the AL. Was it Edgar Martinez, who hit 479/628/356, albeit as a DH? Or maybe it was Albert Belle, whose 401/690/317 line would have won him the award, were he not such a hothead. Or perhaps it was Tim Salmon, who hit 429/594/330. It's a tough question (my vote's for Edgar), with many options. But I'll tell you one thing for sure. It was not Mo Vaughn.
#7: Juan Gonzalez, 1998 AL MVP
Conventional wisdom in baseball is often contradictory. Most "baseball men" distrust 1-dimensional players. But these same people also LOVE guys who rack up lots of RBIs. So what happens when a 1-dimensional player racks up a lot of RBIs? His name is Juan Gonzalez, and he won 2 MVP Awards he didn't deserve.
Giving a 1-dimensional player the MVP isn't such a bad idea, so long as that one dimension is pretty damn good. Juan Gonzalez was lucky to be on a team that gave him a lot of RBI opportunities, and he took advantage of them. He had a MLB-leading 157 RBIs. But other than that? He hit 366/630/318, a good mark, but not great for someone in a hitter's paradise during a hitter's era. Gonzalez was below-average defensively and offered nothing apart from his slugging (50 doubles, 45 HR, .630 SLG). But his team won the division, and the voters went ga-ga.
Compare his numbers to Albert Belle's 399/655/328 mark in a less-friendly ballpark. Albert even drove in 152 runs of his own, making it odd how the voters gave Gonzalez any clear edge. Although his Chicago days were much less volatile, Albert was never a supreme joy. So you argue that Albert's "chemistry" (without even knowing whether it was particularly bad that year, or even what Juan-Gone was like) makes him unfit for the MVP? Okay. What about Ken Griffey, Jr.? Can't argue against his chemistry. He led baseball with 56 HR and hit 365/611/284 in a tougher park for hitters with good defense and 20 SB. Even if you can't accept Albert as better than Juan, you must accept Griffey. Either way, you've got two guys who are demonstrably better than Gonzalez, and that doesn't even take into account Edgar Martinez, Mo Vaughn, Alex Rodriguez, Bernie Williams, Carlos Delgado, Nomar Garciaparra, and even Roger Clemens, all of whom probably had a better season than Juan.
But would you believe that Juan won another MVP award that he deserved even less? See below.
#6: Bob Welch, 1990 AL Cy Young
Cy Young voters are absolutely mesmerized by Wins. It doesn't matter that a 5th-grader could debunk the myth that Wins are the best indicator of a pitcher's quality. It doesn't matter that intelligent baseball fans have distrusted wins for over 50 years. The sportswriters love them, and they have misled voters toward awarding a bad Cy Young more often than any other single factor. Just as RBIs have the power to make MVP voters suspend reality, Wins have the power to make otherwise intelligent men argue not just against specific evidence, but against the very concept of evidence.
Having said this, my case can be made that Bob Welch was a dud. Here is Welch compared to Pitcher X:
Welch: (27-6, 2.95 ERA, 77 BB:127 K, 28 HR, 238 IP)
Pitcher X: (21-6, 1.93 ERA, 54 BB:209 K, 7 HR, 228.1 IP)
Pitcher X is Roger Clemens, and he makes Bob Welch look like Rick Vaughn. Bob Welch was, in my estimation, the 9th-best pitcher in the AL in 1990. Clemens finished second in the voting, but it wasn't that close. Dave Stewart finished 3rd, followed by Bobby Thigpen (with his all-time record 57 saves) and Dennis Eckersley (with his 0.61 ERA). Any of the 4 would have been a much better choice than Welch. Oddly enough, the voters wouldn't reward Eckersley's fantastic 0.61 year with a Cy Young Award. They'd wait until he had a worse year and give him the Cy Young and the MVP as well (see below).
#5: George Bell, 1987 AL MVP
At least this award has gained the reputation it deserves as being silly. It is, of course, RBIs that once again led the BBWAA astray. Bell led the league with 134, and his team made the postseason. He hit 352/605/308 and was about average on defense. Wade Boggs hit 461/588/363, although he wasn't fabulous on defense either. So I have evidence that Wade Boggs was a far, far better hitter than George Bell. What is the argument that makes Bell a more valuable player? RBIs? We've already been there, and that won't cut it. Or maybe you favor Alan Trammell, who finished 2nd in the MVP race. He hit "only" 402/551/343 in a tougher hitter's park. In my opinion, Bell is 14th, behind Boggs, Trammell, Mark McGwire, Kirby Puckett, Roger Clemens, Paul Molitor, and many more.
#4: Steve Bedrosian, 1987 NL Cy Young
Again, the BBWAA decided to pick (apparently at random) a relief pitcher to win the Cy Young. They again convinced themselves by the "Bullshit Snowball Effect" (whereby a bad idea gathers steam if enough people repeat it) that Bedrosian had something "special" beyond his numbers. Did he really?
Well, he did lead the league in saves with 40. We don't know how many save opportunities he had, but I'd speculate it was enough to make his raw number of saves of less importance. His ERA was 2.83, light-years behind Montreal closer Tim Burke, whose ERA was 1.19. Burke only had 18 saves, but perhaps that's because he was pitching for the Expos. There's no reasonable way (beyond saves) to argue Bedrosian past Burke . . . or Todd Worrell, or Dave Smith. Or maybe even John Franco. Bedrosian had a worse ERA than all of them. He allowed 11 HR, much more than any of them. His 28:74 BB:K ratio was good, but not significantly better than his compatriots. So we can't demonstrate with any certainty that "Bedrock" was the most valuable relief pitcher in the NL. He was probably the 3rd-most valuable closer (4th, if you count John Franco), making him a puzzling choice for the Cy. And, of course, this doesn't take into account good starting pitchers like Orel Hershiser (3.06 ERA, 264.2 IP, 74 BB: 190 K), Nolan Ryan (2.76 ERA, 211.2 IP, 87 BB:270 K) or Mike Scott (3.23 ERA, 247.2 IP, 79 BB: 233 K). Or Rick Reuschel, Bob Welch, Rick Sutcliffe, Dwight Gooden ...
#3: Andre Dawson, 1987 NL MVP
People continue to insist that Andre Dawson was an elite player. The growing insistence upon on-base percentage has threatened this perception. Of course, when confronted with evidence that may disprove their belief, people will reject the evidence out of hand. So Dawson's career OBP (.323) is dismissed.
Dawson's 1987 season wasn't any better than any of his other good seasons . . . except that he led the league in RBI (137) on a last-place team. And he hit 49 HR, which is impressive . . . unless it's in Wrigley Field in 1987 (an aberrantly hitter-friendly year). Dawson's defense wasn't bad, but his knees weren't what they used to be. He stole 11 bases, too. All this to go with a 329/568/287 hitting line. You'd have to be Ozzie Smith to even be considered for the MVP with a hitting performance like that. And considering that it took place in a hitter's park in a hitter-friendly year, it becomes a pretty disappointing line.
But no one looked past the RBI when making Dawson's case for MVP. And for good reason, since every other number argued against his candidacy. Dawson was, in my opinion, clearly the 4th-best right fielder in the NL in 1987. Tony Gwynn (447/511/370), Dale Murphy (417/580/295), and Darryl Strawberry (398/583/287) all had far superior seasons. You might even be able to argue Mitch Webster (361/435/281) past Andre, honest to God. Where does Andre rank among all NL players? I don't really know; I stop ranking at 20th place.
It's funny how often people use past voting in the MVP race to justify future voting. Which is a very effective way to keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Some years people say that an MVP has to come from a contending team. Then some years they'll completely change their minds and reward guys like Dawson or Alex Rodriguez for being on bad teams. There is absolutely no good sense involved in any of this, and anyone making such arguments should be avoided at all costs (that means you, Joe Morgan).
#2: Juan Gonzalez, 1996 AL MVP
I mentioned earlier that Gonzalez's 1998 MVP was an excellent idea compared to his 1996 honor. It all comes back to RBIs again. But Juan didn't even lead the league; Albert Belle did (of course he wasn't getting the MVP). But Juan hit 47 HR and 144 RBI the same year the Rangers won their first-ever division title. So the voters gave him the MVP.
So often in these discussions, people try to quote statistics and argue about how good a player is. But that's not really the question. The question isn't whether Juan Gonzalez, or Andre Dawson, is a good player; is he better than these other guys? It's not a question of simple quoting of statistics -- it's entirely comparative. Statistics are meaningless unless placed in context; Gonzalez's 47 HR and 144 RBI look much less impressive when you consider the context of his lineup, his ballpark, his league, and his era. It's also an infamous example of cherry-picking evidence; using the bits that serve your purpose while ignoring the other parts of the whole. If someone tries to sell you a house, you want to see the whole house. You don't just want a tour of the outside while the realtor tells you what the inside looks like. Because the part doesn't always accurately represent the whole. But the reality is that the "baseball men" sold the voters (in Juan Gonzalez) the house from The Money Pit; it looked really great at first, but once you actually get to the root an reality of the entire subject, it all crumbles into dust. Of course, the baseball men won't admit the house has fallen down around them. They'll just move on to the next huckster who makes them look silly.
And after that pained analogy, I present, in order, a list of the best right fielders in the AL in 1996:
1. Manny Ramirez (399/582/309), neutral park, no defense
2. Paul O'Neill (411/474/302), neutral park, above-average defense
3. Tim Salmon (386/501/286), neutral park, average defense
4. Jay Buhner (369/557/271), neutral park, no defense
5. Juan Gonzalez (368/643/314), hitter's park, no defense
Gonzalez doesn't make my list of the 20 best players in the league that year, and he's probably orbiting 30. Where's the argument?
#1: Dennis Eckersley, 1992 AL MVP
Dennis Eckersley: 1.91 ERA, 51 saves, 80 IP, 11:93 BB:K ratio - wins MVP & Cy Young
Roger Clemens: 2.41 ERA, 246.2 IP, 62:208 BB:K ratio -- doesn't even win Cy Young
So Eckersley has a slight edge in ERA, considering that Clemens pitched in a much tougher park. But Clemens has . . . 3 TIMES AS MANY INNINGS PITCHED. But wait, friends, it gets worse.
Dennis Eckersley: 1.91 ERA, 51 saves, 80 IP, 11:93 BB:K ratio - wins MVP & Cy Young
Frank Thomas: 439/536/323, league-leading 46 doubles, 122 walks
Roberto Alomar: 405/427/310, excellent defense, league-leading 34 Win Shares
This is the height of folly. And if I thought the voters had learned anything from this odious dereliction of duty, then I might be able to laugh at this award. But folks, the next colossal blunder like this is just waiting around the corner. This is what happens when you throw evidence, the scientific method, and every modicum of common sense straight out the window. Arrggh.
With that said, I'd like to post a list of the awards I agree with completely. Just to give you a sense that the BBWAA and I do see eye-to-eye every once in a while. All awards are since 1985.
AL MVPS I agree with:
Vladimir Guerrero (2004), Jason Giambi (2000), Frank Thomas (1994), Rickey Henderson (1990), Robin Yount (1989), Jose Canseco (1988).
NL MVPS I agree with:
Barry Bonds (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), Jeff Kent (2000), Jeff Bagwell (1994), Barry Bonds (1990, 1992, 1993).
AL Cy Youngs I agree with:
Johan Santana (2004), Pedro Martinez (1999, 2000), Roger Clemens (1997, 1998), Pat Hentgen (1996), Randy Johnson (1995), David Cone (1994), Roger Clemens (1991), Bret Saberhagen (1989), Roger Clemens (1986, 1987).
NL Cy Young I agree with:
Eric Gagne (2003), Randy Johnson (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), Pedro Martinez (1997), Greg Maddux (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995), Tom Glavine (1991), Orel Hershiser (1988), Mike Scott (1986), Dwight Gooden (1985)
Having gone through all of this, I must admit that no way of voting, including my own tabulations, are perfect. I'm sure if I made a close examination of my calculations and analysis (some of which is 2 years old), I'd find some conclusions that I've changed my mind about already. The point is to learn from past mistakes and progress. And any system that fails nearly 50% of the time is not being run by the most effective voting machine.
Peace out ...
Honorable Mention: Larry Walker (1997 NL MVP), Miguel Tejada (2002 AL MVP), Dennis Eckersley (1992 AL Cy Young), Kerry Wood (1998 NL Rookie of the Year)
#10: Mark Davis, 1989 NL Cy Young
Baseball people just don't really know how to measure a relief pitcher against starting pitchers. I will grant you that Davis was the best closer in the NL. He had a 1.85 ERA with 44 saves and 92 K in 92.2 IP. He won the award because, as often happens, sportswriters gradually convinced themselves that Davis's season was "special" and that he was carrying the NL Champion Giants.
Davis' season was darn good for a reliever, but I think he got the award because the voters didn't see a viable starting pitcher as a candidate. Mike Scott led the league with 20 wins (and 10 losses), but his 3.10 ERA wasn't near the top ten, and the Astros finished 3rd. Scott finished 2nd in the voting. Greg Maddux came in 3rd, which wasn't such a bad choice. Maddux went 19-12 with a 2.95 ERA for the division-winning Cubs. He's actually a better candidate than Davis.
But the best NL pitcher in 1989 was, in my opinion, Orel Hershiser. Hershiser's 2.31 ERA was 2nd in the league. He threw 256.2 IP, allowing only 9 HR and 77 BB against 178 K. Not only that, but Hershiser threw 256.2 IP, which completely obliterates Davis' advantage in ERA, as far as I see it.
But Hershiser didn't win because his record was 15-15. Even today, in the era of Moneyball, a pitcher couldn't win the Cy Young with a 15-15 record. So it was laughable to suggest such a thing in 1989. Hershiser got exactly 7 votes (compared to 107 for Davis).
#9: Ivan Rodriguez, 1999 AL MVP
This was another case of the voters convincing themselves (in spite of any actual evidence) that a player's contribution went above and beyond. Also, given that Pudge hadn't gotten an MVP award yet, he was due. He "led" the Rangers to an AL West title with a 356/558/332 line. This, of course, was good but certainly not great for a hitter in the AL's premiere hitting park during the hitting renaissance ofthe '90s. Rodriguez was, of course, a fine defensive catcher. But does that outweight the gulf in hitting between him and the other candidates? Pedro Martinez finished a close second to Pudge and would have made a much better choice for MVP. Roberto Alomar finished 3rd and Manny Ramirez finished 4th, all fairly representative of their contribution. But the AL's best player in 1999 finished 6th in the voting, which is a major surprise considering that he is a media darling and a perpetually overrated player. Yes folks, the real AL MVP in 1999 was none other than Derek Jeter.
In the much less hitter-friendly Yankee Stadium, Jeter posted a 438/552/349 line, a huge step above Pudge. Rodriguez does have the clear edge in defense, but it would take a gargantuan defensive difference to make up for Jeter's edge in hitting. And would the sportswriters actually argue that Jeter's leadership was less than valuable than Pudge's in the year where Jeter's Yankees swept the Rangers in the ALDS on the way to an easy World Championship?
#8: Mo Vaughn, 1995 AL MVP
Let's start out by saying that Mo was at least the 3rd-most valuable 1st baseman in the AL. Frank Thomas hit 454/606/308 and Rafael Palmeiro hit 380/583/310. Vaughn hit 388/575/300. It doesn't even touch Thomas. You might be able to argue him past Palmeiro, except that Raffy played better defense in a tougher park for hitters. There is the steroids question, but that's a hazy question for 1995. Even if you can get him past Palmeiro (and Mark McGwire, who hit 441/685/274, albeit in limited work), you've still got a problem. You cannot get Vaughn past the massive obstacle that is Frank Thomas, effectively blocking his MVP. Vaughn had 15 more RBI than Thomas, and 1 more double. Of course, he hit one less home run and struck out 76 more times. So how in the world can you picture Vaughn leaping the gap between his 388/575/300 hitting line and Frank's 454/606/308? You could say that Frank had already won 2 MVPs, and it was Mo's turn. But the MVP award is not an Elementary School Participation ribbon. If someone deserves multiple MVPs, they get them. The sportswriters, of course, just decided that Vaughn was better for no apparent reason. Vaughn's team made the playoffs, whereas Frank's didn't. But that's an extremely silly argument that I'm surprised people still make (well, not that surprised).
But it gets better -- Frank Thomas probably wasn't even the best player in the AL. Was it Edgar Martinez, who hit 479/628/356, albeit as a DH? Or maybe it was Albert Belle, whose 401/690/317 line would have won him the award, were he not such a hothead. Or perhaps it was Tim Salmon, who hit 429/594/330. It's a tough question (my vote's for Edgar), with many options. But I'll tell you one thing for sure. It was not Mo Vaughn.
#7: Juan Gonzalez, 1998 AL MVP
Conventional wisdom in baseball is often contradictory. Most "baseball men" distrust 1-dimensional players. But these same people also LOVE guys who rack up lots of RBIs. So what happens when a 1-dimensional player racks up a lot of RBIs? His name is Juan Gonzalez, and he won 2 MVP Awards he didn't deserve.
Giving a 1-dimensional player the MVP isn't such a bad idea, so long as that one dimension is pretty damn good. Juan Gonzalez was lucky to be on a team that gave him a lot of RBI opportunities, and he took advantage of them. He had a MLB-leading 157 RBIs. But other than that? He hit 366/630/318, a good mark, but not great for someone in a hitter's paradise during a hitter's era. Gonzalez was below-average defensively and offered nothing apart from his slugging (50 doubles, 45 HR, .630 SLG). But his team won the division, and the voters went ga-ga.
Compare his numbers to Albert Belle's 399/655/328 mark in a less-friendly ballpark. Albert even drove in 152 runs of his own, making it odd how the voters gave Gonzalez any clear edge. Although his Chicago days were much less volatile, Albert was never a supreme joy. So you argue that Albert's "chemistry" (without even knowing whether it was particularly bad that year, or even what Juan-Gone was like) makes him unfit for the MVP? Okay. What about Ken Griffey, Jr.? Can't argue against his chemistry. He led baseball with 56 HR and hit 365/611/284 in a tougher park for hitters with good defense and 20 SB. Even if you can't accept Albert as better than Juan, you must accept Griffey. Either way, you've got two guys who are demonstrably better than Gonzalez, and that doesn't even take into account Edgar Martinez, Mo Vaughn, Alex Rodriguez, Bernie Williams, Carlos Delgado, Nomar Garciaparra, and even Roger Clemens, all of whom probably had a better season than Juan.
But would you believe that Juan won another MVP award that he deserved even less? See below.
#6: Bob Welch, 1990 AL Cy Young
Cy Young voters are absolutely mesmerized by Wins. It doesn't matter that a 5th-grader could debunk the myth that Wins are the best indicator of a pitcher's quality. It doesn't matter that intelligent baseball fans have distrusted wins for over 50 years. The sportswriters love them, and they have misled voters toward awarding a bad Cy Young more often than any other single factor. Just as RBIs have the power to make MVP voters suspend reality, Wins have the power to make otherwise intelligent men argue not just against specific evidence, but against the very concept of evidence.
Having said this, my case can be made that Bob Welch was a dud. Here is Welch compared to Pitcher X:
Welch: (27-6, 2.95 ERA, 77 BB:127 K, 28 HR, 238 IP)
Pitcher X: (21-6, 1.93 ERA, 54 BB:209 K, 7 HR, 228.1 IP)
Pitcher X is Roger Clemens, and he makes Bob Welch look like Rick Vaughn. Bob Welch was, in my estimation, the 9th-best pitcher in the AL in 1990. Clemens finished second in the voting, but it wasn't that close. Dave Stewart finished 3rd, followed by Bobby Thigpen (with his all-time record 57 saves) and Dennis Eckersley (with his 0.61 ERA). Any of the 4 would have been a much better choice than Welch. Oddly enough, the voters wouldn't reward Eckersley's fantastic 0.61 year with a Cy Young Award. They'd wait until he had a worse year and give him the Cy Young and the MVP as well (see below).
#5: George Bell, 1987 AL MVP
At least this award has gained the reputation it deserves as being silly. It is, of course, RBIs that once again led the BBWAA astray. Bell led the league with 134, and his team made the postseason. He hit 352/605/308 and was about average on defense. Wade Boggs hit 461/588/363, although he wasn't fabulous on defense either. So I have evidence that Wade Boggs was a far, far better hitter than George Bell. What is the argument that makes Bell a more valuable player? RBIs? We've already been there, and that won't cut it. Or maybe you favor Alan Trammell, who finished 2nd in the MVP race. He hit "only" 402/551/343 in a tougher hitter's park. In my opinion, Bell is 14th, behind Boggs, Trammell, Mark McGwire, Kirby Puckett, Roger Clemens, Paul Molitor, and many more.
#4: Steve Bedrosian, 1987 NL Cy Young
Again, the BBWAA decided to pick (apparently at random) a relief pitcher to win the Cy Young. They again convinced themselves by the "Bullshit Snowball Effect" (whereby a bad idea gathers steam if enough people repeat it) that Bedrosian had something "special" beyond his numbers. Did he really?
Well, he did lead the league in saves with 40. We don't know how many save opportunities he had, but I'd speculate it was enough to make his raw number of saves of less importance. His ERA was 2.83, light-years behind Montreal closer Tim Burke, whose ERA was 1.19. Burke only had 18 saves, but perhaps that's because he was pitching for the Expos. There's no reasonable way (beyond saves) to argue Bedrosian past Burke . . . or Todd Worrell, or Dave Smith. Or maybe even John Franco. Bedrosian had a worse ERA than all of them. He allowed 11 HR, much more than any of them. His 28:74 BB:K ratio was good, but not significantly better than his compatriots. So we can't demonstrate with any certainty that "Bedrock" was the most valuable relief pitcher in the NL. He was probably the 3rd-most valuable closer (4th, if you count John Franco), making him a puzzling choice for the Cy. And, of course, this doesn't take into account good starting pitchers like Orel Hershiser (3.06 ERA, 264.2 IP, 74 BB: 190 K), Nolan Ryan (2.76 ERA, 211.2 IP, 87 BB:270 K) or Mike Scott (3.23 ERA, 247.2 IP, 79 BB: 233 K). Or Rick Reuschel, Bob Welch, Rick Sutcliffe, Dwight Gooden ...
#3: Andre Dawson, 1987 NL MVP
People continue to insist that Andre Dawson was an elite player. The growing insistence upon on-base percentage has threatened this perception. Of course, when confronted with evidence that may disprove their belief, people will reject the evidence out of hand. So Dawson's career OBP (.323) is dismissed.
Dawson's 1987 season wasn't any better than any of his other good seasons . . . except that he led the league in RBI (137) on a last-place team. And he hit 49 HR, which is impressive . . . unless it's in Wrigley Field in 1987 (an aberrantly hitter-friendly year). Dawson's defense wasn't bad, but his knees weren't what they used to be. He stole 11 bases, too. All this to go with a 329/568/287 hitting line. You'd have to be Ozzie Smith to even be considered for the MVP with a hitting performance like that. And considering that it took place in a hitter's park in a hitter-friendly year, it becomes a pretty disappointing line.
But no one looked past the RBI when making Dawson's case for MVP. And for good reason, since every other number argued against his candidacy. Dawson was, in my opinion, clearly the 4th-best right fielder in the NL in 1987. Tony Gwynn (447/511/370), Dale Murphy (417/580/295), and Darryl Strawberry (398/583/287) all had far superior seasons. You might even be able to argue Mitch Webster (361/435/281) past Andre, honest to God. Where does Andre rank among all NL players? I don't really know; I stop ranking at 20th place.
It's funny how often people use past voting in the MVP race to justify future voting. Which is a very effective way to keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Some years people say that an MVP has to come from a contending team. Then some years they'll completely change their minds and reward guys like Dawson or Alex Rodriguez for being on bad teams. There is absolutely no good sense involved in any of this, and anyone making such arguments should be avoided at all costs (that means you, Joe Morgan).
#2: Juan Gonzalez, 1996 AL MVP
I mentioned earlier that Gonzalez's 1998 MVP was an excellent idea compared to his 1996 honor. It all comes back to RBIs again. But Juan didn't even lead the league; Albert Belle did (of course he wasn't getting the MVP). But Juan hit 47 HR and 144 RBI the same year the Rangers won their first-ever division title. So the voters gave him the MVP.
So often in these discussions, people try to quote statistics and argue about how good a player is. But that's not really the question. The question isn't whether Juan Gonzalez, or Andre Dawson, is a good player; is he better than these other guys? It's not a question of simple quoting of statistics -- it's entirely comparative. Statistics are meaningless unless placed in context; Gonzalez's 47 HR and 144 RBI look much less impressive when you consider the context of his lineup, his ballpark, his league, and his era. It's also an infamous example of cherry-picking evidence; using the bits that serve your purpose while ignoring the other parts of the whole. If someone tries to sell you a house, you want to see the whole house. You don't just want a tour of the outside while the realtor tells you what the inside looks like. Because the part doesn't always accurately represent the whole. But the reality is that the "baseball men" sold the voters (in Juan Gonzalez) the house from The Money Pit; it looked really great at first, but once you actually get to the root an reality of the entire subject, it all crumbles into dust. Of course, the baseball men won't admit the house has fallen down around them. They'll just move on to the next huckster who makes them look silly.
And after that pained analogy, I present, in order, a list of the best right fielders in the AL in 1996:
1. Manny Ramirez (399/582/309), neutral park, no defense
2. Paul O'Neill (411/474/302), neutral park, above-average defense
3. Tim Salmon (386/501/286), neutral park, average defense
4. Jay Buhner (369/557/271), neutral park, no defense
5. Juan Gonzalez (368/643/314), hitter's park, no defense
Gonzalez doesn't make my list of the 20 best players in the league that year, and he's probably orbiting 30. Where's the argument?
#1: Dennis Eckersley, 1992 AL MVP
Dennis Eckersley: 1.91 ERA, 51 saves, 80 IP, 11:93 BB:K ratio - wins MVP & Cy Young
Roger Clemens: 2.41 ERA, 246.2 IP, 62:208 BB:K ratio -- doesn't even win Cy Young
So Eckersley has a slight edge in ERA, considering that Clemens pitched in a much tougher park. But Clemens has . . . 3 TIMES AS MANY INNINGS PITCHED. But wait, friends, it gets worse.
Dennis Eckersley: 1.91 ERA, 51 saves, 80 IP, 11:93 BB:K ratio - wins MVP & Cy Young
Frank Thomas: 439/536/323, league-leading 46 doubles, 122 walks
Roberto Alomar: 405/427/310, excellent defense, league-leading 34 Win Shares
This is the height of folly. And if I thought the voters had learned anything from this odious dereliction of duty, then I might be able to laugh at this award. But folks, the next colossal blunder like this is just waiting around the corner. This is what happens when you throw evidence, the scientific method, and every modicum of common sense straight out the window. Arrggh.
With that said, I'd like to post a list of the awards I agree with completely. Just to give you a sense that the BBWAA and I do see eye-to-eye every once in a while. All awards are since 1985.
AL MVPS I agree with:
Vladimir Guerrero (2004), Jason Giambi (2000), Frank Thomas (1994), Rickey Henderson (1990), Robin Yount (1989), Jose Canseco (1988).
NL MVPS I agree with:
Barry Bonds (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), Jeff Kent (2000), Jeff Bagwell (1994), Barry Bonds (1990, 1992, 1993).
AL Cy Youngs I agree with:
Johan Santana (2004), Pedro Martinez (1999, 2000), Roger Clemens (1997, 1998), Pat Hentgen (1996), Randy Johnson (1995), David Cone (1994), Roger Clemens (1991), Bret Saberhagen (1989), Roger Clemens (1986, 1987).
NL Cy Young I agree with:
Eric Gagne (2003), Randy Johnson (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), Pedro Martinez (1997), Greg Maddux (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995), Tom Glavine (1991), Orel Hershiser (1988), Mike Scott (1986), Dwight Gooden (1985)
Having gone through all of this, I must admit that no way of voting, including my own tabulations, are perfect. I'm sure if I made a close examination of my calculations and analysis (some of which is 2 years old), I'd find some conclusions that I've changed my mind about already. The point is to learn from past mistakes and progress. And any system that fails nearly 50% of the time is not being run by the most effective voting machine.
Peace out ...
Pedro Martinez
One of my long-term projects is mapping out the major league career of all the significant players in the major leagues. I've currently worked my way through 2 teams (Braves and Marlins) and am about halfway through the Mets. I'll post some summaries and excerpts of this work (which I hope to have published) as I see fit. Here is an extract from my discussion on Pedro Martinez concerning Pedro's reputation as "injury-prone" and a "short-timer," or a pitcher who doesn't go deep into games:
From 2002-2004, Pedro earned the reputation as a pitcher who couldn’t go deep into games. His constant injury troubles and sometimes prickly personality made some fans turn against him. And while it’s possible that Pedro didn’t push as hard as he could have, he was still quite possibly the best American League pitcher in that particular 3-year period. He made 30, 29, and 33 starts during that period, all of them perfectly reasonable numbers for a starter. He averaged 201 innings per year during that span, which isn’t amazing, but only 7 AL starters pitched more innings during that stretch. The truth of the matter is that Pedro’s reputation grew far out of proportion to what he was actually doing on the field. People perceived that Pedro’s injuries and attitude made him a “short-timer,” when he was in fact one of the more durable pitchers in the game at the time. It’s actually entirely legitimate for someone who pitched so much at such a young age to take it just a bit easy as he gets older; keeping him out of situations that might have been abusive to his arm might have kept him from missing even more time to injury. The fact is that Pedro has, since 1995, started at least 29 games every single year (with the exception of his injury-shortened 2001). Pedro’s reputation is, in fact, a complete hoax. People made up their minds based on limited information without looking to see whether their conclusions held true over the long run. Pedro may not be a “gamer,” who stays in games long after he is effective, but this attitude, while not exactly endearing to teammates or reporters, has made him an abnormally durable starting pitcher. And anyone who still holds onto the theory of Pedro as a “short-timer” or injury-prone player is doing so in spite of all the available evidence.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
ALCS, NLCS
ALCS: Chicago White Sox .vs. Los Angeles Angels
There's not really a clear favorite here. The White Sox had the better regular season record, but it's not clear that they were the better team. Chicago has had a good rest before the Series, whereas the Angels are running on very little sleep. But who is really better?
The White Sox have the edge in starting pitching. Contreras/Buehrle/Garcia/Garland is a pretty solid bunch, although the Red Sox managed to get to Buehrle and Garcia. They're not indestructible, but they're a pretty sound bunch. The Angels will probably send out Byrd/Lackey/Colon (with I guess Santana a possible starter, if Washburn is still sick or if Colon's injury is significant). That's a pretty good troika as well, although a step below the Sox.
I'll give the Angels the edge in the bullpen, but not by as much as you'd think. K-Rod is good, but not as good as everyone's been led to believe. And Bobby Jenks has been darn good so far. The Angels have great inning-plus guys like Shields and Escobar, whereas the Sox can throw out superb 1-inning men like Cotts and Politte. There won't be a whole lot of late-inning scoring in this Series, I fear.
The offense goes to the Angels. Even hitting in a much tougher ballpark, the Angels outscored the Sox during the regular season, at 4.70 R/G compared to Chicago's 4.57. So while the Sox have "smart ball" and homers, the Angels actually have a decent bunch of hitters. It's entirely possible that one offense or the other will be shut down by opposing pitching. But it's worth noting that both teams did a good job of hitting in the ALDS (albeit against two sub-par pitching staffs).
It's a close bet, but I'll cast my lot with the Angels. I don't think the Sox's HR-happy offense will last as much as the Angel bunch will. It would be nice to see the Sox make it to the Series for the first time SINCE 1959 or win their first World Series SINCE 1917. But I see Los Angeles making a return to the Fall Classic.
Prediction: Angels in 7
NLCS: St. Louis Cardinals .vs. Houston Astros
We've got an NLCS rematch here. This is the first time two teams have faced off in consecutive NLCS since the Braves beat the Pirates in 1991 and again in 1992. So is there any reason to think that the Astros have gained the extra step since last year?
Well, neither team is what it was a year ago. And while the Astros have gained the edge in starting pitching, I don't think they're as good as the Cardinals. That doesn't mean they won't win the Series. It's possible that the Houston pitching will dominate and send them to their first World Series ever. The Astros are the oldest NL franchise never to make the World Series (the Senators/Rangers are a year older). This year may be their best chance, as the Cardinal offense is weakened with the loss of Rolen and the effects of age on Larry Walker, Jim Edmonds, & Co. And I don't think (especially after their NLDS troubles) that the Cardinal pitching staff is as good as it was last year. They do have Chris Carpenter, who was great during the regular season, but Carpenter has just not been himself lately. We can't be too surprised that he turned out to be mortal, and sadly the rest of the staff is shaky. It's possible that Mark Mulder, Matt Morris, and Jeff Suppan will all be above-average and quality. But it's almost certain that one of them will stumble, and it's entirely possible that more than one will stumble, given their good-but-not-that-good regular season performance.
Having said that, I just don't see Houston winning. Their offense is just not that good. And it will have to be good to keep up with the Eckstein-Walker-Pujols-Edmonds-Sanders Cardinals. It's all about Ensberg and Berkman, with maybe Craig Biggio pitching in. But Brad Ausmus and Chris Burke simply aren't as good as they looked in the NLDS. And Willy Taveras and Jason Lane are pretty one-dimensional hitters. So who's going to score runs?
I will say that it's entirely possible that the Houston pitching will take control, enabling the Astros hitters to survive. Or the hitters might enjoy the same good luck they did against the Braves. But I've got to make a prediction based on the best available evidence, and the best available evidence says that the Cardinals are just the better team.
Prediction: St. Louis in 6
There's not really a clear favorite here. The White Sox had the better regular season record, but it's not clear that they were the better team. Chicago has had a good rest before the Series, whereas the Angels are running on very little sleep. But who is really better?
The White Sox have the edge in starting pitching. Contreras/Buehrle/Garcia/Garland is a pretty solid bunch, although the Red Sox managed to get to Buehrle and Garcia. They're not indestructible, but they're a pretty sound bunch. The Angels will probably send out Byrd/Lackey/Colon (with I guess Santana a possible starter, if Washburn is still sick or if Colon's injury is significant). That's a pretty good troika as well, although a step below the Sox.
I'll give the Angels the edge in the bullpen, but not by as much as you'd think. K-Rod is good, but not as good as everyone's been led to believe. And Bobby Jenks has been darn good so far. The Angels have great inning-plus guys like Shields and Escobar, whereas the Sox can throw out superb 1-inning men like Cotts and Politte. There won't be a whole lot of late-inning scoring in this Series, I fear.
The offense goes to the Angels. Even hitting in a much tougher ballpark, the Angels outscored the Sox during the regular season, at 4.70 R/G compared to Chicago's 4.57. So while the Sox have "smart ball" and homers, the Angels actually have a decent bunch of hitters. It's entirely possible that one offense or the other will be shut down by opposing pitching. But it's worth noting that both teams did a good job of hitting in the ALDS (albeit against two sub-par pitching staffs).
It's a close bet, but I'll cast my lot with the Angels. I don't think the Sox's HR-happy offense will last as much as the Angel bunch will. It would be nice to see the Sox make it to the Series for the first time SINCE 1959 or win their first World Series SINCE 1917. But I see Los Angeles making a return to the Fall Classic.
Prediction: Angels in 7
NLCS: St. Louis Cardinals .vs. Houston Astros
We've got an NLCS rematch here. This is the first time two teams have faced off in consecutive NLCS since the Braves beat the Pirates in 1991 and again in 1992. So is there any reason to think that the Astros have gained the extra step since last year?
Well, neither team is what it was a year ago. And while the Astros have gained the edge in starting pitching, I don't think they're as good as the Cardinals. That doesn't mean they won't win the Series. It's possible that the Houston pitching will dominate and send them to their first World Series ever. The Astros are the oldest NL franchise never to make the World Series (the Senators/Rangers are a year older). This year may be their best chance, as the Cardinal offense is weakened with the loss of Rolen and the effects of age on Larry Walker, Jim Edmonds, & Co. And I don't think (especially after their NLDS troubles) that the Cardinal pitching staff is as good as it was last year. They do have Chris Carpenter, who was great during the regular season, but Carpenter has just not been himself lately. We can't be too surprised that he turned out to be mortal, and sadly the rest of the staff is shaky. It's possible that Mark Mulder, Matt Morris, and Jeff Suppan will all be above-average and quality. But it's almost certain that one of them will stumble, and it's entirely possible that more than one will stumble, given their good-but-not-that-good regular season performance.
Having said that, I just don't see Houston winning. Their offense is just not that good. And it will have to be good to keep up with the Eckstein-Walker-Pujols-Edmonds-Sanders Cardinals. It's all about Ensberg and Berkman, with maybe Craig Biggio pitching in. But Brad Ausmus and Chris Burke simply aren't as good as they looked in the NLDS. And Willy Taveras and Jason Lane are pretty one-dimensional hitters. So who's going to score runs?
I will say that it's entirely possible that the Houston pitching will take control, enabling the Astros hitters to survive. Or the hitters might enjoy the same good luck they did against the Braves. But I've got to make a prediction based on the best available evidence, and the best available evidence says that the Cardinals are just the better team.
Prediction: St. Louis in 6
Angels win?
Well, 2 out of 4 ain't bad. I got the NLCS on the nose, but missed the ALCS by a pretty penny. My Red Sox guess went horribly awry, and my guess that the Yankees would win in 4 didn't exactly come to pass. I called the Yankees rough favorites to win tonight, and when I saw Bartolo Colon go down in the 2nd inning, I officially pronounced the Angels dead. I was wrong.
Ervin Santana is being anointed some sort of hero, although he pitched 5.1 IP and allowed 3 runs. It's not bad, but slow down, hoss, he ain't Cy Young. The biggest story was that the Angels got to Mussina (poor Mike has been inconsistent lately). Randy Johnson pitched 4.1 scoreless innings -- a fact that should be given full attention. If I see the Yankees down by 2 or 3 runs with a few innings left, and Randy Johnson comes in? I predict Johnson holds them scoreless and the Yanks score some runs.
But scoring runs was exactly what the Yankees did not do. This was the story of the ALDS; their hitting line was 351/392/253. So while they did an admirable (and predictable) job of getting runners on base, they were terrible at getting them in. The Yankees hit 4 HR in 5 games. The Angels hit 6. If you had told me going in that the Angels would out-homer the Yankees, I would have laughed in your face. But that's exactly what happened; the Angels were able to hit, and the Yankees were not.
The Yankees' team ERA in the ALDS was 4.40. Their regular season ERA was 4.53. Considering they were throwing their best pitchers out there (for the most part), the Yankees pitched exactly like they did during the regular season. The exception here is that they did not hit like they did during the regular season. This is possibly due to their own ineptitude, although the excellent Angel pitching deserves its share of the credit. They held the Yankees to a 3.89 team ERA, and despite allowing a truly obscene 24 walks (the Yankee staff allowed 5), they only allowed 4 HR. As I've said, the Yankees did a fine job getting on base, but the Angels shut down their power game almost completely.
And now for the LCS ...
Ervin Santana is being anointed some sort of hero, although he pitched 5.1 IP and allowed 3 runs. It's not bad, but slow down, hoss, he ain't Cy Young. The biggest story was that the Angels got to Mussina (poor Mike has been inconsistent lately). Randy Johnson pitched 4.1 scoreless innings -- a fact that should be given full attention. If I see the Yankees down by 2 or 3 runs with a few innings left, and Randy Johnson comes in? I predict Johnson holds them scoreless and the Yanks score some runs.
But scoring runs was exactly what the Yankees did not do. This was the story of the ALDS; their hitting line was 351/392/253. So while they did an admirable (and predictable) job of getting runners on base, they were terrible at getting them in. The Yankees hit 4 HR in 5 games. The Angels hit 6. If you had told me going in that the Angels would out-homer the Yankees, I would have laughed in your face. But that's exactly what happened; the Angels were able to hit, and the Yankees were not.
The Yankees' team ERA in the ALDS was 4.40. Their regular season ERA was 4.53. Considering they were throwing their best pitchers out there (for the most part), the Yankees pitched exactly like they did during the regular season. The exception here is that they did not hit like they did during the regular season. This is possibly due to their own ineptitude, although the excellent Angel pitching deserves its share of the credit. They held the Yankees to a 3.89 team ERA, and despite allowing a truly obscene 24 walks (the Yankee staff allowed 5), they only allowed 4 HR. As I've said, the Yankees did a fine job getting on base, but the Angels shut down their power game almost completely.
And now for the LCS ...
Monday, October 10, 2005
Here we go again ...
Yeah, the Braves lost. I expected it and even predicted it perfectly: Astros in 4. I guess it's the fact that it took 18 innings that depresses me. As fate would have it, I was not watching. I was at work from 4-9. When I left home, it was 6-1 Braves. McCann had just homered. I was feeling pretty good; the Braves had this one in the bag, and Smoltz at home in Game 5 might actually give them a chance.
I signed up for MLB's postseason game updates via text message to my cell phone. So every once in a while at work, I'd flip out the phone and check for confirmation that the Braves had won. I was waiting quite a while; it usually takes just 15-20 minutes for them to send out the message. I don't always get great reception at work (in the bowels of the museum), so I guessed that was it. At 7:00, I figured the game had been over for three hours, so I must have just missed the message. Then, as I went on break, my phone buzzed. I looked, and I had a message that was positively surreal. It said that the Astros had taken a 7-6 lead over the Braves in the bottom of the 18th. This would, of course, mean that the Astros had won. I sat there, puzzled. I got another message later confirming that the Astros had won (with Roger Clemens the winning pitcher). I never saw that one coming ...
It still hurts. Any sports fan knows it. I guess I'll just have to soldier on . . . but it's been 10 years. Not 10 years of never having a chance (a la Cubs fans). 10 years of having a chance (even a good chance) and seeing it just slip away. Another season of saying, "We were so close." Except this year we weren't close. It was the worst postseason since we got swept in 2000 by the Cardinals. We won in 2001 and lost in 5 from 2002-2004. That 1996 team should have done it. The '97 team was the best team in baseball, they just couldn't beat the Marlins. The '98 team was the best team in the NL, but I guess they would have lost to the Yankees anyway. In '99 they did lost to the Yankees. Since then, it hasn't even been close. The closest it got was in 2001 in the NLCS against the Diamondbacks. Luckily, I didn't have to watch that one either (I was in England for the semester). It's just not fair.
As for the Yankees and Angels, the only series still pending, it's a toss-up. It's Mussina and Colon in a rematch from Game 1. I give the Yankees a slight edge, since they did beat Colon in Anaheim in Game 1. And if something happens to Mussina, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Randy Johnson come out of the bullpen.
The NLCS is close. Both teams are a step worse than last year. But the Astros have a strong edge in starting pitching, even stronger than I at first thought, given the Padres series. The Cards have the edge in the bullpen, but the Astros have a better closer in Lidge. Offense all belongs to the Cardinals, although the Astros have been unusually productive recently. I'll wait and make my official prediction later, when my mind isn't preoccupied with my losing-ass team.
I signed up for MLB's postseason game updates via text message to my cell phone. So every once in a while at work, I'd flip out the phone and check for confirmation that the Braves had won. I was waiting quite a while; it usually takes just 15-20 minutes for them to send out the message. I don't always get great reception at work (in the bowels of the museum), so I guessed that was it. At 7:00, I figured the game had been over for three hours, so I must have just missed the message. Then, as I went on break, my phone buzzed. I looked, and I had a message that was positively surreal. It said that the Astros had taken a 7-6 lead over the Braves in the bottom of the 18th. This would, of course, mean that the Astros had won. I sat there, puzzled. I got another message later confirming that the Astros had won (with Roger Clemens the winning pitcher). I never saw that one coming ...
It still hurts. Any sports fan knows it. I guess I'll just have to soldier on . . . but it's been 10 years. Not 10 years of never having a chance (a la Cubs fans). 10 years of having a chance (even a good chance) and seeing it just slip away. Another season of saying, "We were so close." Except this year we weren't close. It was the worst postseason since we got swept in 2000 by the Cardinals. We won in 2001 and lost in 5 from 2002-2004. That 1996 team should have done it. The '97 team was the best team in baseball, they just couldn't beat the Marlins. The '98 team was the best team in the NL, but I guess they would have lost to the Yankees anyway. In '99 they did lost to the Yankees. Since then, it hasn't even been close. The closest it got was in 2001 in the NLCS against the Diamondbacks. Luckily, I didn't have to watch that one either (I was in England for the semester). It's just not fair.
As for the Yankees and Angels, the only series still pending, it's a toss-up. It's Mussina and Colon in a rematch from Game 1. I give the Yankees a slight edge, since they did beat Colon in Anaheim in Game 1. And if something happens to Mussina, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Randy Johnson come out of the bullpen.
The NLCS is close. Both teams are a step worse than last year. But the Astros have a strong edge in starting pitching, even stronger than I at first thought, given the Padres series. The Cards have the edge in the bullpen, but the Astros have a better closer in Lidge. Offense all belongs to the Cardinals, although the Astros have been unusually productive recently. I'll wait and make my official prediction later, when my mind isn't preoccupied with my losing-ass team.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Quickly to the NLCS
Just to recap what proved to be a disappointing if completely expected NLDS loss by the Padres. I was, it seems, too generous to give them even one win. I thought St. Louis was a bit overrated and that Jake Peavy & Co. could steal one somewhere. I still think St. Louis is slightly overrated, but San Diego still got the broom.
And my prediction about Woody Williams came true. He is a "warrior," according to Joe Morgan, and that's why they started him in the must-win Game 3. Just when I was ready to get the "I am the Warrior" t-shirts printed (with Williams' face), he's already out of the game, pitching less than 2 innings. Now I'll just put Joe Morgan's face on the t-shirts as a symbol of his absurd use of logic. Whaddaya know! Williams isn't so hot after all ...
Houston has the easy advantage over Atlanta. Although tomorrow's John Thomson .vs. Brandon Backe matchup is good news ... for the offense. It'll be ugly, and I have the sneaking suspicion that Houston will win it. Once again, the Braves let a possible win dribble away at the hands of the bullpen. (But no thanks to Jorge Sosa, either). Although it's certainly possible that the Braves will sneak out a win tomorrow, just to lose in Game 5, as has become their habit recently.
So I'm guessing a Cardinals-Astros rematch in the NLCS. Neither team is as good as it was last year, and despite Houston's killer rotation, I think I'd have to give St. Louis the edge. 6 games or 7?
And my prediction about Woody Williams came true. He is a "warrior," according to Joe Morgan, and that's why they started him in the must-win Game 3. Just when I was ready to get the "I am the Warrior" t-shirts printed (with Williams' face), he's already out of the game, pitching less than 2 innings. Now I'll just put Joe Morgan's face on the t-shirts as a symbol of his absurd use of logic. Whaddaya know! Williams isn't so hot after all ...
Houston has the easy advantage over Atlanta. Although tomorrow's John Thomson .vs. Brandon Backe matchup is good news ... for the offense. It'll be ugly, and I have the sneaking suspicion that Houston will win it. Once again, the Braves let a possible win dribble away at the hands of the bullpen. (But no thanks to Jorge Sosa, either). Although it's certainly possible that the Braves will sneak out a win tomorrow, just to lose in Game 5, as has become their habit recently.
So I'm guessing a Cardinals-Astros rematch in the NLCS. Neither team is as good as it was last year, and despite Houston's killer rotation, I think I'd have to give St. Louis the edge. 6 games or 7?
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Random awards
And now, as promised, some more eclectic and sometimes humorous awards for the 2005 season:
BEST AL OFFENSE: New York Yankees
Thanks very much to the re-emergence of Jason Giambi, the Yankees were able to field a pretty potent lineup for most of the season. With Giambi, A-Rod, Matsui, and Sheffield, the Yankees had 4 great hitters lined up in their lineup. Jeter had a fine year, Posada had a good but slightly off year, and Tino Martinez was about average. All this was necessary to make up for some trouble in certain spots: 2B (Womack and Cano), CF (Williams & Lawton) and sometime DH Ruben Sierra.
The Yankees scored 5.47 runs/game, which ranked them 2nd in the AL to the Red Sox, who scored 5.62 R/G. However, when you account for the fact that Yankee Stadium is one of the league's best pitching parks and Fenway Park is the opposite, you must conclude that the Yankees are then the more productive offense. Boston had more doubles (339 to 259, thanks Fenway) and Texas had more HR (260 to 229). Boston also had more BB (653 to 637), but the Yankees struck out less frequently (989 to 1044). The Yankee team hitting line was 355/450/276, compared to 357/454/281 for Boston and 329/468/267 for Texas. When you take ballparks into account, the Yankees come out looking tops.
2nd place: Boston, 3rd place: Texas
BEST NL OFFENSE: St. Louis Cardinals
The Cardinals scored 4.97 R/G, which actually ranks them 3rd in the league. Cincinnati scored 5.03/game to lead the league, and Philadelphia was second with 4.98. But the difference in ballparks (St. Louis not being nearly as hitter-friendly as the other two) edges the Cardinals past the short deficit. The Reds hit more doubles (335 to 287) and HR (222 to 170). They also drew more walks (611 to 534), but Cincinnati led the league in strikeouts (1303) by a huge margin, whereas the Cardinals fanned only 947 times as a team. St. Louis sported a 339/423/270 line. Cincinnati managed a 339/446/261 pace. Again, when considering ballparks, St. Louis gets the easy edge.
2nd place: Cincinnati, 3rd place: Atlanta
BEST AL PITCHING: Chicago White Sox
The Sox actually missed leading the league in ERA by a hair, with their 3.61 ERA just a few percentage points below Cleveland's 3.61. So what gives Chicago the edge? The fact that they play in one of the best hitter's parks in the AL (perhaps the very best). Cleveland, on the other hand, is more neutral. Cleveland did allow fewer HR (157 to 167) with a better BB:K ratio (413:1050 for CLE, 459:1040 for CWS). But you can't get past the fact that the White Sox faced a much greater challenge from their ballpark while achieving almost the same effect. So you can't just take the numbers and choose Cleveland. In fact, I would give the Minnesota Twins the edge over Cleveland as well. Minnesota's ERA was a strong 3.71, which is also better then Cleveland when considering the hitter-friendly MetroDome. And Minnesota managed an amazing 348 BB (against 965 K). So I'll give the Twins the #2 slot.
2nd place: Minnesota, 3rd place: Cleveland
BEST NL PITCHING: Houston Astros
My lesson in ballparks continues. The Cardinals have a better team ERA (3.49 to Houston's 3.51), but the difference in ballparks negates that. What really negates it is the difference in strikeouts, with Houston allowing 3 fewer walks (440 to 443) while racking up 190 more strikeouts (1164 to 974). They only allowed 2 more HR despite pitching in a much more homer-happy ballpark. So it's Houston going away in the NL.
2nd place: St. Louis, 3rd place: New York
BEST AL DEFENSE: Oakland Athletics
The A's new obsession is not OBP; it's defense. The A's are doing all they can to quantify defense so that they can discover undervalued defensive talents (hello, Mark Kotsay) now that the market for OBP has corrected itself. The A's have strong defense in the infield (other than 1B), with Mark Ellis, the Scutaro/Crosby pairing, and Eric Chavez all above-average. Catcher Kendall isn't a whole lot on defense, but the pitchers like him. Kotsay is the only defensive star in the outfield, having slipped through the cracks to Oakland and recently signing a long-term deal.
2nd place: Chicago, 3rd place: Cleveland
BEST NL DEFENSE: Houston Astros
With the best pitching comes the best defense. It better, since the Astros couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat.
Ensberg-Everett-Biggio is a pretty strong double play troika, with Lance Berkman manning first base as best he can. Taveras is a very strong center fielder, and Brad Ausmus is an excellent catcher, giving Houston a lot of strength up the middle.
2nd place: Philadelphia, 3rd place: St. Louis
OZZIE GUILLEN AWARD (AL): Angel Berroa
This award goes to the player with the worst plate discipline. Congratulations, Angel Berroa, on making the Royals look even dumber than usual for rewarding your rookie season with lots of wasted money. Those 18 BB and 108 K are just an illusion; you've got intangibles. Hopefully so, cause you hit 305/375/270 this year.
Other candidates: Jorge Cantu, Alfonso Soriano, Ivan Rodriguez
OZZIE GUILLEN AWARD (NL): Corey Patterson
On the list of worst possible candidates for the leadoff spot is this Chicago center-fielder (so where did Dusty Baker bat him? You guess. I guess he's got intangibles like Jose Macias ...). Patterson had an absolutely dreadful season, and everyone who thought he would be the next big thing should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing the obvious evidence to the contrary and getting the Chicago fans' hopes up. Corey had to endure booing in Chicago, as he struck out time and again with nothing to show for it in the offense department (254/348/215). But he's fast ...
Other candidates: Adam Everett, Willy Taveras
HARD-LUCK PITCHER AWARD (AL): Kevin Millwood
How can you possibly lead the league in ERA (2.86) and have a 9-11 record?
HARD-LUCK PITCHER AWARD (NL): Roger Clemens
Clemens is a hard-luck pitcher of historical proportions. When a starting pitcher gets a 1.87 ERA, he should be swept off to the Cy Young Award. But one year after snubbing Randy Johnson, Clemens is the snub-ee, as his terrible Astro hitters stuck him with a 13-8 record.
THE JIM ROSS "HOSS" AWARD (AL): Scot Shields
Shields was Mike Scioscia's bitch, throwing 91.2 innings out of the bullpen, getting7 saves to boot. He struck out an amazing 98 batters and allowed only 5 HR.
Other candidates: Mark Buehrle, David Ortiz, Michael Young
THE JIM ROSS "HOSS" AWARD (NL): Dontrelle Willis
Willis led the league in shutouts (with 5) and tied with Carpenter for the CG lead (7). Oh, he was also damn good. Let's just hope his arm doesn't fall off at age 26 ...
Other candidates: Livan Hernandez, Aaron Heilman, Roy Oswalt
THE EYE-POPPER AWARD (AL): Carlos Silva's 9 BB
How can someone possibly throw 188.1 IP and allow 9 BB? Silva had as many wins as walks with a nice 3.44 ERA and 71 K (low number until you realize he allowed 9 freakin' walks). Yes, that is the modern record for a pitcher who qualified for the ERA title. Congratulations, Carlos, for bringing control to a whole new level.
Other candidates: Giambi's .440 OBP, Foulke's 5.91 ERA, Pudge's 11 BB and .290 OBP
THE EYE-POPPER AWARD (NL): Roger Clemens' 1.87 ERA
There really isn't any comparison here. Clemens posted a 1.87 ERA against a league average of 4.22. Compare that to Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA against a league average of 2.90. Hmm ...
Other candidates: Eric Milton's 6.47 ERA and 40 HR allowed, Russ Ortiz's 6.89 ERA and 65:46 BB:K ratio, Brian Giles' 119:64 BB:K ratio.
THE GREATEST SEASON NO ONE NOTICED (AL): Kevin Millwood
This of course goes along with the above entry about Millwood being hard-luck. People notice his 9-11 record and not his league-leading 2.86 ERA with 20 HR allowed and a 52:146 BB:K ratio in 192 IP. And Cliff Lee (3.79 ERA), who had an 18-5 record, got in the Cy Young discussion despite looking all-around worse.
Other candidates: Johan Santana, Joe Mauer, Brian Roberts
THE GREATEST SEASON NO ONE NOTICED (NL): Brian Giles
No one noticed Giles' season, because his ballpark deflates his offensive numbers, people still don't look at OBP, and everone thought all the Padres sucked. But Giles hit 423/483/301. He was 3rd in the NL in OBP, despite playing in a desperate hitting environment. He hit 38 doubles and 15 HR in said environment. But the kicker is his league-leading 119 walks against just 64 strikeouts. I think he's the #3 player in the league, but he'll probably finish 18th in the voting.
Other candidates: Carlos Delgado, Andy Pettite, Jason Bay
THE OVERRATED AWARD (the player, not the award itself ) (AL): S. Podsednik
Dear God, he's going to finish in the top 10 in the MVP, I just know it. Yes, he stole 59 bases, but with 23 CS for a 72% success rate. This means that the CS almost totally outweight the stolen bases. So his value is as a decent defender who hits 351/349/290 in an AL hitter's haven?
Other candidates: Darin Erstad, Alfonso Soriano, Bob Wickman, Bartolo Colon
THE OVERRATED AWARD (the player, not the award itself ) (NL): Andruw Jones
We've had this discussion (see below if you missed it).
Other candidates: Jose Reyes, Jason Isringhausen, Ryan Dempster, Livan Hernandez
More to come later, kiddies ...
BEST AL OFFENSE: New York Yankees
Thanks very much to the re-emergence of Jason Giambi, the Yankees were able to field a pretty potent lineup for most of the season. With Giambi, A-Rod, Matsui, and Sheffield, the Yankees had 4 great hitters lined up in their lineup. Jeter had a fine year, Posada had a good but slightly off year, and Tino Martinez was about average. All this was necessary to make up for some trouble in certain spots: 2B (Womack and Cano), CF (Williams & Lawton) and sometime DH Ruben Sierra.
The Yankees scored 5.47 runs/game, which ranked them 2nd in the AL to the Red Sox, who scored 5.62 R/G. However, when you account for the fact that Yankee Stadium is one of the league's best pitching parks and Fenway Park is the opposite, you must conclude that the Yankees are then the more productive offense. Boston had more doubles (339 to 259, thanks Fenway) and Texas had more HR (260 to 229). Boston also had more BB (653 to 637), but the Yankees struck out less frequently (989 to 1044). The Yankee team hitting line was 355/450/276, compared to 357/454/281 for Boston and 329/468/267 for Texas. When you take ballparks into account, the Yankees come out looking tops.
2nd place: Boston, 3rd place: Texas
BEST NL OFFENSE: St. Louis Cardinals
The Cardinals scored 4.97 R/G, which actually ranks them 3rd in the league. Cincinnati scored 5.03/game to lead the league, and Philadelphia was second with 4.98. But the difference in ballparks (St. Louis not being nearly as hitter-friendly as the other two) edges the Cardinals past the short deficit. The Reds hit more doubles (335 to 287) and HR (222 to 170). They also drew more walks (611 to 534), but Cincinnati led the league in strikeouts (1303) by a huge margin, whereas the Cardinals fanned only 947 times as a team. St. Louis sported a 339/423/270 line. Cincinnati managed a 339/446/261 pace. Again, when considering ballparks, St. Louis gets the easy edge.
2nd place: Cincinnati, 3rd place: Atlanta
BEST AL PITCHING: Chicago White Sox
The Sox actually missed leading the league in ERA by a hair, with their 3.61 ERA just a few percentage points below Cleveland's 3.61. So what gives Chicago the edge? The fact that they play in one of the best hitter's parks in the AL (perhaps the very best). Cleveland, on the other hand, is more neutral. Cleveland did allow fewer HR (157 to 167) with a better BB:K ratio (413:1050 for CLE, 459:1040 for CWS). But you can't get past the fact that the White Sox faced a much greater challenge from their ballpark while achieving almost the same effect. So you can't just take the numbers and choose Cleveland. In fact, I would give the Minnesota Twins the edge over Cleveland as well. Minnesota's ERA was a strong 3.71, which is also better then Cleveland when considering the hitter-friendly MetroDome. And Minnesota managed an amazing 348 BB (against 965 K). So I'll give the Twins the #2 slot.
2nd place: Minnesota, 3rd place: Cleveland
BEST NL PITCHING: Houston Astros
My lesson in ballparks continues. The Cardinals have a better team ERA (3.49 to Houston's 3.51), but the difference in ballparks negates that. What really negates it is the difference in strikeouts, with Houston allowing 3 fewer walks (440 to 443) while racking up 190 more strikeouts (1164 to 974). They only allowed 2 more HR despite pitching in a much more homer-happy ballpark. So it's Houston going away in the NL.
2nd place: St. Louis, 3rd place: New York
BEST AL DEFENSE: Oakland Athletics
The A's new obsession is not OBP; it's defense. The A's are doing all they can to quantify defense so that they can discover undervalued defensive talents (hello, Mark Kotsay) now that the market for OBP has corrected itself. The A's have strong defense in the infield (other than 1B), with Mark Ellis, the Scutaro/Crosby pairing, and Eric Chavez all above-average. Catcher Kendall isn't a whole lot on defense, but the pitchers like him. Kotsay is the only defensive star in the outfield, having slipped through the cracks to Oakland and recently signing a long-term deal.
2nd place: Chicago, 3rd place: Cleveland
BEST NL DEFENSE: Houston Astros
With the best pitching comes the best defense. It better, since the Astros couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat.
Ensberg-Everett-Biggio is a pretty strong double play troika, with Lance Berkman manning first base as best he can. Taveras is a very strong center fielder, and Brad Ausmus is an excellent catcher, giving Houston a lot of strength up the middle.
2nd place: Philadelphia, 3rd place: St. Louis
OZZIE GUILLEN AWARD (AL): Angel Berroa
This award goes to the player with the worst plate discipline. Congratulations, Angel Berroa, on making the Royals look even dumber than usual for rewarding your rookie season with lots of wasted money. Those 18 BB and 108 K are just an illusion; you've got intangibles. Hopefully so, cause you hit 305/375/270 this year.
Other candidates: Jorge Cantu, Alfonso Soriano, Ivan Rodriguez
OZZIE GUILLEN AWARD (NL): Corey Patterson
On the list of worst possible candidates for the leadoff spot is this Chicago center-fielder (so where did Dusty Baker bat him? You guess. I guess he's got intangibles like Jose Macias ...). Patterson had an absolutely dreadful season, and everyone who thought he would be the next big thing should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing the obvious evidence to the contrary and getting the Chicago fans' hopes up. Corey had to endure booing in Chicago, as he struck out time and again with nothing to show for it in the offense department (254/348/215). But he's fast ...
Other candidates: Adam Everett, Willy Taveras
HARD-LUCK PITCHER AWARD (AL): Kevin Millwood
How can you possibly lead the league in ERA (2.86) and have a 9-11 record?
HARD-LUCK PITCHER AWARD (NL): Roger Clemens
Clemens is a hard-luck pitcher of historical proportions. When a starting pitcher gets a 1.87 ERA, he should be swept off to the Cy Young Award. But one year after snubbing Randy Johnson, Clemens is the snub-ee, as his terrible Astro hitters stuck him with a 13-8 record.
THE JIM ROSS "HOSS" AWARD (AL): Scot Shields
Shields was Mike Scioscia's bitch, throwing 91.2 innings out of the bullpen, getting7 saves to boot. He struck out an amazing 98 batters and allowed only 5 HR.
Other candidates: Mark Buehrle, David Ortiz, Michael Young
THE JIM ROSS "HOSS" AWARD (NL): Dontrelle Willis
Willis led the league in shutouts (with 5) and tied with Carpenter for the CG lead (7). Oh, he was also damn good. Let's just hope his arm doesn't fall off at age 26 ...
Other candidates: Livan Hernandez, Aaron Heilman, Roy Oswalt
THE EYE-POPPER AWARD (AL): Carlos Silva's 9 BB
How can someone possibly throw 188.1 IP and allow 9 BB? Silva had as many wins as walks with a nice 3.44 ERA and 71 K (low number until you realize he allowed 9 freakin' walks). Yes, that is the modern record for a pitcher who qualified for the ERA title. Congratulations, Carlos, for bringing control to a whole new level.
Other candidates: Giambi's .440 OBP, Foulke's 5.91 ERA, Pudge's 11 BB and .290 OBP
THE EYE-POPPER AWARD (NL): Roger Clemens' 1.87 ERA
There really isn't any comparison here. Clemens posted a 1.87 ERA against a league average of 4.22. Compare that to Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA against a league average of 2.90. Hmm ...
Other candidates: Eric Milton's 6.47 ERA and 40 HR allowed, Russ Ortiz's 6.89 ERA and 65:46 BB:K ratio, Brian Giles' 119:64 BB:K ratio.
THE GREATEST SEASON NO ONE NOTICED (AL): Kevin Millwood
This of course goes along with the above entry about Millwood being hard-luck. People notice his 9-11 record and not his league-leading 2.86 ERA with 20 HR allowed and a 52:146 BB:K ratio in 192 IP. And Cliff Lee (3.79 ERA), who had an 18-5 record, got in the Cy Young discussion despite looking all-around worse.
Other candidates: Johan Santana, Joe Mauer, Brian Roberts
THE GREATEST SEASON NO ONE NOTICED (NL): Brian Giles
No one noticed Giles' season, because his ballpark deflates his offensive numbers, people still don't look at OBP, and everone thought all the Padres sucked. But Giles hit 423/483/301. He was 3rd in the NL in OBP, despite playing in a desperate hitting environment. He hit 38 doubles and 15 HR in said environment. But the kicker is his league-leading 119 walks against just 64 strikeouts. I think he's the #3 player in the league, but he'll probably finish 18th in the voting.
Other candidates: Carlos Delgado, Andy Pettite, Jason Bay
THE OVERRATED AWARD (the player, not the award itself ) (AL): S. Podsednik
Dear God, he's going to finish in the top 10 in the MVP, I just know it. Yes, he stole 59 bases, but with 23 CS for a 72% success rate. This means that the CS almost totally outweight the stolen bases. So his value is as a decent defender who hits 351/349/290 in an AL hitter's haven?
Other candidates: Darin Erstad, Alfonso Soriano, Bob Wickman, Bartolo Colon
THE OVERRATED AWARD (the player, not the award itself ) (NL): Andruw Jones
We've had this discussion (see below if you missed it).
Other candidates: Jose Reyes, Jason Isringhausen, Ryan Dempster, Livan Hernandez
More to come later, kiddies ...
Terrence Long is available? Whoopty doo!
There have been some interesting developments in the LDS. First of all, I'll discuss the only one that's gone final so far.
So the White Sox swept the Red Sox. This comes as a surprise to me, since I picked the Red Sox in 5. So what exactly happened? I said that the Red Sox had to do two things to win in this Series: get some good starting pitching and find a way to score off the tough Chicago pitching. They failed at both, so it's small wonder that they were swept.
The Red Sox had a team hitting line of 295/413/240. Chicago's line was 355/567/289. It's not really unreasonable to expect the White Sox to hit well against a sub-par pitching staff, but they outdid themselves in this series. So yes, the White Sox hit well, even better than we could have expected against the Sox.
But if there's one stat that defines this Series, it's this: 3.00 ERA for Chicago; 7.56 ERA for Boston. Not only were the Red Sox pitchers unable to rise to the occasion; they got absolutely tomahawked. Matt Clement got bombed, Wells was good until that 5-run inning, and Wakefield just didn't have it. Whereas the White Sox got a fine start from Jose Contreras. But the story doesn't end with the starters; Boston was actually able to get to Mark Buehrle and Freddy Garcia. It was a story of bullpens. The Boston bullpen allowed 7 runs in 9.1 IP for a 6.75 ERA. The White Sox bullpen -- allowed a grand total of 0 runs over 7.1 IP.
The Red Sox missed Pedro and Schilling, and the White Sox had all their cylinders working and even threw in some genuinely good hitting for good measure.
In San Diego, the Foregone Conclusion takes place tomorrow night at 11 PM. Seriously, though, Jake Peavy was about the only thing the Padres had going for them. Not only did they lose his first start, but he's extremely unlikely to return in Game 4 or ever. The pitching matchup for Game 3 is Matt Morris .vs. Woody Williams. Formerly the anchors of the Cardinal rotation, they took a separate career path this season:
Morris: 4.11 ERA, 192.2 IP, 22 HR, 37 BB/117 K
Williams: 4.85 ERA, 159.2 IP, 24 HR, 51 BB/106 K
So while Morris hasn't exactly been golden, Williams has just been awful in San Diego. I don't know if Adam Eaton is hurt or anything, but if they think that Williams' postseason experience will suddenly reverse the effects of aging he felt this year, they've got another thing coming.
But the Padres do stand the chance of at least winning a game. What makes me say that? Their hitting line over the first two games was 400/414/329. It's just two games, yes, but it was against Chris Carpenter and Mark Mulder. Not only does this tell us something about Carpenter and Mulder, but it makes me think that the Padre offense hasn't been as weak as the 7 R in 2 games would make it seem. So while they might scrape across a victory tomorrow, their chances of winning the Series have to be less than 1%.
The Yankees lost in New York tonight, which was not what I expected when Randy Johnson went up against Paul Byrd. But the Angels got to Randy Johnson and scored 11 runs. Erk? Well, the Yankees scored 7 runs, which was about what you could expect. But, as Yankee fans don't need to be reminded, it sometimes takes more than 7 runs to win this year. Not only did the Angels catch Randy on an off-night, they were able to feast on the Yankee middle relief, which is just dreadful. Why Al Leiter is out on the mound in such an important game, I have no idea, but I guess it's true that the Yankees just don't have anyone else. New York still has a chance to win the Series, certainly. But with the deciding Game 5 against Bartolo Colon in Anaheim (with Mussina how reliable?), we have to call the Angels slight favorites now. Either way, it certainly won't be the 4-game Yankee victory I predicted.
So the White Sox swept the Red Sox. This comes as a surprise to me, since I picked the Red Sox in 5. So what exactly happened? I said that the Red Sox had to do two things to win in this Series: get some good starting pitching and find a way to score off the tough Chicago pitching. They failed at both, so it's small wonder that they were swept.
The Red Sox had a team hitting line of 295/413/240. Chicago's line was 355/567/289. It's not really unreasonable to expect the White Sox to hit well against a sub-par pitching staff, but they outdid themselves in this series. So yes, the White Sox hit well, even better than we could have expected against the Sox.
But if there's one stat that defines this Series, it's this: 3.00 ERA for Chicago; 7.56 ERA for Boston. Not only were the Red Sox pitchers unable to rise to the occasion; they got absolutely tomahawked. Matt Clement got bombed, Wells was good until that 5-run inning, and Wakefield just didn't have it. Whereas the White Sox got a fine start from Jose Contreras. But the story doesn't end with the starters; Boston was actually able to get to Mark Buehrle and Freddy Garcia. It was a story of bullpens. The Boston bullpen allowed 7 runs in 9.1 IP for a 6.75 ERA. The White Sox bullpen -- allowed a grand total of 0 runs over 7.1 IP.
The Red Sox missed Pedro and Schilling, and the White Sox had all their cylinders working and even threw in some genuinely good hitting for good measure.
In San Diego, the Foregone Conclusion takes place tomorrow night at 11 PM. Seriously, though, Jake Peavy was about the only thing the Padres had going for them. Not only did they lose his first start, but he's extremely unlikely to return in Game 4 or ever. The pitching matchup for Game 3 is Matt Morris .vs. Woody Williams. Formerly the anchors of the Cardinal rotation, they took a separate career path this season:
Morris: 4.11 ERA, 192.2 IP, 22 HR, 37 BB/117 K
Williams: 4.85 ERA, 159.2 IP, 24 HR, 51 BB/106 K
So while Morris hasn't exactly been golden, Williams has just been awful in San Diego. I don't know if Adam Eaton is hurt or anything, but if they think that Williams' postseason experience will suddenly reverse the effects of aging he felt this year, they've got another thing coming.
But the Padres do stand the chance of at least winning a game. What makes me say that? Their hitting line over the first two games was 400/414/329. It's just two games, yes, but it was against Chris Carpenter and Mark Mulder. Not only does this tell us something about Carpenter and Mulder, but it makes me think that the Padre offense hasn't been as weak as the 7 R in 2 games would make it seem. So while they might scrape across a victory tomorrow, their chances of winning the Series have to be less than 1%.
The Yankees lost in New York tonight, which was not what I expected when Randy Johnson went up against Paul Byrd. But the Angels got to Randy Johnson and scored 11 runs. Erk? Well, the Yankees scored 7 runs, which was about what you could expect. But, as Yankee fans don't need to be reminded, it sometimes takes more than 7 runs to win this year. Not only did the Angels catch Randy on an off-night, they were able to feast on the Yankee middle relief, which is just dreadful. Why Al Leiter is out on the mound in such an important game, I have no idea, but I guess it's true that the Yankees just don't have anyone else. New York still has a chance to win the Series, certainly. But with the deciding Game 5 against Bartolo Colon in Anaheim (with Mussina how reliable?), we have to call the Angels slight favorites now. Either way, it certainly won't be the 4-game Yankee victory I predicted.
Friday, October 07, 2005
More awards ...
Now to go ahead and run the gamut of the other sundry awards given out in baseball ...
NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Jeff Francoeur
As I see it, this race is basically between Francoeur and Ryan Howard. Some people are talking about Willy Taveras, but the only advantage Taveras has is playing time. He is the only significant rookie to play the full season (617 PAs), but he has played so poorly (325/341/291) that he's been surpassed even by the half-season rookies. People like Taveras because he's fast, hits for a good average, and plays good defense. All these are true, but that's literally all he does. He has a below-average OBP and almost no power. Average and defense alone are okay, but okay isn't good enough to be the Rookie of the Year this year.
Francoeur's hitting line is (336/549/300), while Howard's is (356/567/288). Howard would seem to have a slight edge, but he plays in a much friendlier hitter's ballpark. Also, Francouer plays a more valuable defensive position (RF to Howard's 1B) very well. This edges Francouer past him. The knock on Francouer is his small amount of playing time (268 PAs compared to Howard's 345) and the fact that he got off to an awesome (ahem lucky) start before spiralling back down to earth. Howard, on the other hand, has played longer and more consistently. If there are any intangibles to be taken into account, I can't see as how one player has the advantage. Both men took the place of injured players on contending teams and played very well, helping the team stay in contention (although Howard admittedly replaced a much more important player in Jim Thome).
It's a very close call, and I couldn't really disagree with someone who voted for Howard. But my vote goes to Francoeur.
My top 3:
What about Blanton and Chacin? I'm afraid we'll have to eliminate them. Both have pitched pretty well. Blanton compiled a 3.53 ERA in 201.1 IP with 23 HR allowed and a 67:116 BB:K ratio. Chacin posted a 3.72 mark in 203 IP with 20 HR allowed and a 70:121 BB:K ratio. When you take into account that Chacin pitches in a tougher ballpark, they're closer candidates. But I think we have to let them go. Neither one could really be considered among the top 20 starters in the league, and although their ERAs are fine, their BB:K ratios are both pretty suspect.
This leaves Iguchi and Jonny Gomes to go with Street. Gomes has been a much better hitter (372/534/282) than Iguchi (342/438/278), although the gap really narrows when you take into account Iguchi's defense. If they had played an equal amount of time, I'd take Gomes. But Iguchi has a pretty large margin in terms of playing time (558 PAs to Gomes' 387). So while I think it's a close call, I'll take Iguchi.
So Iguchi is the main challenger to my pick of Huston Street. I'll just reiterate that Iguchi is a fair hitter with solid defense who has played the whole year. This gives him an edge over the short-timers like Gomes and Swisher, as well as the not-quite-brilliant pitchers such as Chacin and Blanton. So has Street been good enough to beat him?
Street has gone 5-1 with a 1.72 ERA and 23/27 in saves. He's thrown 78.1 IP (not too shabby for a closer) allowing just 3 HR with an impressive 26:72 BB:K ratio. Street has been just excellent as a closer, the best in the league after Rivera. And although he hasn't had such a significant impact in terms of playing time, I'll pick him over Iguchi.
It's a very tough process, weighing quality against quantity. Sometimes a player's quality outweights the lack of quantity, and sometimes the opposite is true. We have statistics to guide us, but we often have to make a judgment call based on our best understanding of the evidence. Francoeur and Street are tough choices; if you were to pick Howard and Iguchi, I couldn't make a huge argument against them. Such is baseball.
My top 3:
NL MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Bobby Cox
I'm going with the majority on this one. Cox has proven able to win under almost any circumstances, and this year is a very good example of that. The only other serious challenger to Bobby is, in my opinion, Tony LaRussa. But while LaRussa's team did win more games, I don't think he faced nearly as much adversity as Cox. It's a tough choice between two Hall-of-Famers, but I'll take Bobby.
My top 3:
AL MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Eric Wedge
Ozzie Guillen will most likely win this award, for the brand of "smart ball" that got the White Sox the AL Central Division title. Except that what I just said was a lie; Ozzie's brand of baseball didn't help the Sox get to the playoffs; if anything it hurt their chances. Ozzie's "smart ball" gets all the credit for Chicago's turnaround. Which is an example of people seeing two things together and assuming one causes another. But if Ozzie's smart ball helped the White Sox to the division title, how come they scored fewer runs this year than last year, when they didn't make the playoffs? Ozzie's style isn't helping the Sox score runs; it might be hurting them. The White Sox scored 4.57 runs/game this year. Last year, they scored 5.33 runs/game. So in a year that they go from also-rans to 99-game winners, the White Sox became a significantly worse offensive team. If an executive's style is seen as making a business more successful, shouldn't someone actually check the bottom line to make sure the business is more successful before slobbering affection all over him?
So how come the White Sox are such a better team this year? Well, their ERA this year was 3.61, just a hair worse than Cleveland's in the entire American League. Last year, their ERA was 4.91. So while their hitting got worse, their pitching got a whole lot better. "Smart ball" and Scott Podsednik didn't help the Sox in the run column this year; their amazing pitching staff did. Which, I must admit, Guillen deserves his share of credit in the handling of. Guillen did a good job handling the pitching staff. But he's being hijacked by the anti-Moneyball squad as the poster child for old-fashioned baseball. But no one has pointed out that el presidente has no clothes.
So yeah, instead my pick is Eric Wedge.
My top 3:
NL ROLAIDS RELIEF MAN AWARD: Billy Wagner
This award pretty much belonged to Chad Cordero for most of the year. But then he stumbled down the stretch. He finished with a 1.82 ERA (3rd-best among NL closers), despite pitching in one of the most pitcher-friendly parks in baseball. He did lead the league with 47 saves, but he also led the league with 54 save opportunities. We don't give the batting title to the guy with the most hits, right? Because some guys get a lot more ABs (or chances) to get hits. So why do we celebrate the guy with the most saves without recognizing that some guys get a lot more chances to get saves, just like hits. So is save percentage more important than number of saves? You bet your sweet patoot.
Cordero had 7 blown saves (47/54 = 87%). Billy Wagner had 3 blown saves (38/41 = 93%). Wagner's 1.51 ERA was best among all NL closers despite pitching in a very tough home ballpark. His 6 HR allowed are not excessive (especially considering the ballpark), and his 20:87 BB:K ratio (in 77.2 IP) is pretty darn good. There's no Eric Gagne among this year's candidates, but Billy Wagner was the best.
Oh, and if you're wondering about Todd Jones, he too had a bad September, stumbling to a 2.10 ERA (despite a very friendly ballpark), going 40/45 (89%) in saves.
My top 3:
NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Jeff Francoeur
As I see it, this race is basically between Francoeur and Ryan Howard. Some people are talking about Willy Taveras, but the only advantage Taveras has is playing time. He is the only significant rookie to play the full season (617 PAs), but he has played so poorly (325/341/291) that he's been surpassed even by the half-season rookies. People like Taveras because he's fast, hits for a good average, and plays good defense. All these are true, but that's literally all he does. He has a below-average OBP and almost no power. Average and defense alone are okay, but okay isn't good enough to be the Rookie of the Year this year.
Francoeur's hitting line is (336/549/300), while Howard's is (356/567/288). Howard would seem to have a slight edge, but he plays in a much friendlier hitter's ballpark. Also, Francouer plays a more valuable defensive position (RF to Howard's 1B) very well. This edges Francouer past him. The knock on Francouer is his small amount of playing time (268 PAs compared to Howard's 345) and the fact that he got off to an awesome (ahem lucky) start before spiralling back down to earth. Howard, on the other hand, has played longer and more consistently. If there are any intangibles to be taken into account, I can't see as how one player has the advantage. Both men took the place of injured players on contending teams and played very well, helping the team stay in contention (although Howard admittedly replaced a much more important player in Jim Thome).
It's a very close call, and I couldn't really disagree with someone who voted for Howard. But my vote goes to Francoeur.
My top 3:
- Jeff Francoeur
- Ryan Howard
- Ryan Langerhans
AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Huston Street
This is another close race, although it's much more difficult to narrow down the field. The other contenders would be Tadahito Iguchi, Jonny Gomes, Robinson Cano, Nick Swisher, as well as Joe Blanton and Gustavo Chacin. Add in Street, and we've got a very crowded field. Whom can we eliminate?
What about Blanton and Chacin? I'm afraid we'll have to eliminate them. Both have pitched pretty well. Blanton compiled a 3.53 ERA in 201.1 IP with 23 HR allowed and a 67:116 BB:K ratio. Chacin posted a 3.72 mark in 203 IP with 20 HR allowed and a 70:121 BB:K ratio. When you take into account that Chacin pitches in a tougher ballpark, they're closer candidates. But I think we have to let them go. Neither one could really be considered among the top 20 starters in the league, and although their ERAs are fine, their BB:K ratios are both pretty suspect.
This leaves Iguchi and Jonny Gomes to go with Street. Gomes has been a much better hitter (372/534/282) than Iguchi (342/438/278), although the gap really narrows when you take into account Iguchi's defense. If they had played an equal amount of time, I'd take Gomes. But Iguchi has a pretty large margin in terms of playing time (558 PAs to Gomes' 387). So while I think it's a close call, I'll take Iguchi.
So Iguchi is the main challenger to my pick of Huston Street. I'll just reiterate that Iguchi is a fair hitter with solid defense who has played the whole year. This gives him an edge over the short-timers like Gomes and Swisher, as well as the not-quite-brilliant pitchers such as Chacin and Blanton. So has Street been good enough to beat him?
Street has gone 5-1 with a 1.72 ERA and 23/27 in saves. He's thrown 78.1 IP (not too shabby for a closer) allowing just 3 HR with an impressive 26:72 BB:K ratio. Street has been just excellent as a closer, the best in the league after Rivera. And although he hasn't had such a significant impact in terms of playing time, I'll pick him over Iguchi.
It's a very tough process, weighing quality against quantity. Sometimes a player's quality outweights the lack of quantity, and sometimes the opposite is true. We have statistics to guide us, but we often have to make a judgment call based on our best understanding of the evidence. Francoeur and Street are tough choices; if you were to pick Howard and Iguchi, I couldn't make a huge argument against them. Such is baseball.
My top 3:
- Huston Street
- Tadahito Iguchi
- Jonny Gomes
NL MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Bobby Cox
I'm going with the majority on this one. Cox has proven able to win under almost any circumstances, and this year is a very good example of that. The only other serious challenger to Bobby is, in my opinion, Tony LaRussa. But while LaRussa's team did win more games, I don't think he faced nearly as much adversity as Cox. It's a tough choice between two Hall-of-Famers, but I'll take Bobby.
My top 3:
- Bobby Cox
- Tony LaRussa
- Ned Yost
AL MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Eric Wedge
Ozzie Guillen will most likely win this award, for the brand of "smart ball" that got the White Sox the AL Central Division title. Except that what I just said was a lie; Ozzie's brand of baseball didn't help the Sox get to the playoffs; if anything it hurt their chances. Ozzie's "smart ball" gets all the credit for Chicago's turnaround. Which is an example of people seeing two things together and assuming one causes another. But if Ozzie's smart ball helped the White Sox to the division title, how come they scored fewer runs this year than last year, when they didn't make the playoffs? Ozzie's style isn't helping the Sox score runs; it might be hurting them. The White Sox scored 4.57 runs/game this year. Last year, they scored 5.33 runs/game. So in a year that they go from also-rans to 99-game winners, the White Sox became a significantly worse offensive team. If an executive's style is seen as making a business more successful, shouldn't someone actually check the bottom line to make sure the business is more successful before slobbering affection all over him?
So how come the White Sox are such a better team this year? Well, their ERA this year was 3.61, just a hair worse than Cleveland's in the entire American League. Last year, their ERA was 4.91. So while their hitting got worse, their pitching got a whole lot better. "Smart ball" and Scott Podsednik didn't help the Sox in the run column this year; their amazing pitching staff did. Which, I must admit, Guillen deserves his share of credit in the handling of. Guillen did a good job handling the pitching staff. But he's being hijacked by the anti-Moneyball squad as the poster child for old-fashioned baseball. But no one has pointed out that el presidente has no clothes.
So yeah, instead my pick is Eric Wedge.
My top 3:
- Eric Wedge
- Mike Scioscia
- Ozzie Guillen
NL ROLAIDS RELIEF MAN AWARD: Billy Wagner
This award pretty much belonged to Chad Cordero for most of the year. But then he stumbled down the stretch. He finished with a 1.82 ERA (3rd-best among NL closers), despite pitching in one of the most pitcher-friendly parks in baseball. He did lead the league with 47 saves, but he also led the league with 54 save opportunities. We don't give the batting title to the guy with the most hits, right? Because some guys get a lot more ABs (or chances) to get hits. So why do we celebrate the guy with the most saves without recognizing that some guys get a lot more chances to get saves, just like hits. So is save percentage more important than number of saves? You bet your sweet patoot.
Cordero had 7 blown saves (47/54 = 87%). Billy Wagner had 3 blown saves (38/41 = 93%). Wagner's 1.51 ERA was best among all NL closers despite pitching in a very tough home ballpark. His 6 HR allowed are not excessive (especially considering the ballpark), and his 20:87 BB:K ratio (in 77.2 IP) is pretty darn good. There's no Eric Gagne among this year's candidates, but Billy Wagner was the best.
Oh, and if you're wondering about Todd Jones, he too had a bad September, stumbling to a 2.10 ERA (despite a very friendly ballpark), going 40/45 (89%) in saves.
My top 3:
- Billy Wagner
- Derrick Turnbow
- Scott LinebrinK
AL ROLAIDS RELIEF MAN: Mariano Rivera
Well, here's one we can pretty much all agree on. Rivera just ran away with the AL, at least in terms of closers. The only guys who got close were the aforementioned Street (who did just have 23 saves) and Dustin Hermanson (whose injuries got to him -- or maybe it was his 17:33 BB:K ratio in 57.1 IP).
Rivera finished with a 1.38 ERA (best among all AL relievers with at least 40 IP), went 43/47 in saves (91%) in 78.1 IP, and allowed just 2 HR to go with 18 BB and 80 (count 'em) strikeouts. That's a fine season, and no other AL closer was better.
My top 3:
- Mariano Rivera
- Huston Street
- Dustin Hermanson
And now for a few more random awards, to be discussed tersely ...
NL EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR: John Schuerholz
Granted he didn't do a whole lot this year (although that Farnsworth trade looks mighty nice), but this year saw the fruition of his historically brilliant farm system. The Braves' organization as a whole is just the class of baseball. Other candidates include Omar Minaya, Walt Jocketty, and Doug Melvin.
AL EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR: Mark Shapiro
Speaking of someone whose plans came to fruition ... Shapiro's amazingly quick rebuilding of the Cleveland Indians nearly got them into the postseason just 3 years after their collapse. He shunned free agents (with some exceptions, such as the best bargain of the off-season, Kevin Millwood) and built up a stable of kids. Now he's got a killer lineup of Travis Hafner, Jhonny Peralta, Victor Martinez, Grady Sizemore and others such as Coco Crisp and Ron Belliard that will carry him for years. The bullpen is strong, although Bob Wickman can't last forever, but the starting pitching is a little shaky. However, being able to put a dynasty back together this quickly and then scare the daylights out of the AL's winningest team deserves some major kudos. Other candidates: Brian Cashman, Billy Beane.
NL COMEBACK PLAYER OF THE YEAR: Ken Griffey, Jr.
You've gotta give Griffey the love here, especially considering everything that he's come back from. Although he may not have been the best player of the 1990's, he probably was the best player of the 1990's (non-steroid class). Other candidates include Andy Pettitte, Todd Jones, Troy Glaus.
AL COMEBACK PLAYER OF THE YEAR: Jason Giambi
Well this award is fraught with implications. To make a long story short, we can't convincingly connect Jason Giambi's rise and fall with steroids. He admittedly started taking them after his MVP season, and he thereupon got worse every year from 2002-2004. So we can't really say that steroids is behind this award, or that he's "coming back" from using steroids.
I certainly don't think Giambi is a "hero" for admitting that he used steroids. Neither is he the anti-Christ. Just as no one was willing to stand up and defend accused Communists (until Edward R. Morrow), no one is going to stand up and say that we're being too hard on the steroid users. But the holier-than-thou attitude of the mainstream media is sickening. If most of them had the opportunity to reach the major leagues if it meant taking steroids, how many of them would do it? How many of us would do it? We can't celebrate Giambi, but we must admit that he has taken all of the heat for something a whole lot of people have done. And I will say that it was an amazingly brave thing to admit that in front of the grand jury. Others weren't quite so forthright ...
Other candidates: Kevin Millwood, Richie Sexson
I'll be back tomorrow with some more frivolous and fun end-of-2005 awards. Cross your fingers for Jorge Sosa! Hell, cross everything ya got.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
