Here's a quick rundown of the big free agents this off-season and my analysis of such. Players are listed in order of relative importance:
* - indicates that there is a 2006 option on the player's contract. This could be a player option (the player decides to stay for another year), a team option (the team decides) or a mutual option (they both have to agree). Options must be exercised soon, or players will become free agents.
First Base
Paul Konerko, Tino Martinez*, Kevin Millar, Frank Thomas, John Olerud
Konerko will probably get big money, and I think he probably deserves it. He'll be just 30 years old when the season starts, and he's one of the more reliable sluggers in the AL. He's a career 349/488/279 hitter, which is great until you consider that New Comiskey Park is a good hitter's park. So while Konerko is a good slugger and a fine defensive third baseman, he doesn't really deserve huge money. But since he's one of the best hitters on the market, he'll probably get good money from some teams that need a bat at first base (i.e. the Mets).
Frank Thomas still has some life left in him. If he can stay healthy (which is a huge if), he's still productive as a DH or bench player. Millar is a decent hitter, but not for a 1B. Olerud and Martinez would make good backups or bench fixtures.
Second Base
Mark Loretta*, Mark Grudzielanek, Mark Bellhorn, Tony Graffanino
I can't see why the Padres wouldn't exercise their option on Loretta, one of the best 2B in baseball. So that leaves Grudzielanek as the only real solution for a team that needs a 2B, and I think the Cardinals will likely re-sign him unless someone like Boston steps in. So for the other teams that need a 2B (Seattle), they better get creative.
Shortstop
Rafael Furcal, Nomar Garciaparra, Alex Gonzalez, Royce Clayton
Furcal will likely be the most sought-after free agent in the offseason, and rightfully so. He's not a great hitter, but he's good enough, since he's probably the best defensive shortstop in baseball. He still steals bases, and he's also just 28 years old. Good news for whichever team signs him, with the Cubs looking like early favorites. Even if Furcal gets $12 million a year, it's probably a good deal.
Third Base
Bill Mueller, Joe Randa, Jose Valentin
Mueller is still a fine 3B, but he's also going to be 35 next season. He's a great short-term solution for some team, but there just isn't an impact player available at the hot corner, unless some team wants to get creative with a trade. Randa and Valentin are decent stop-gaps, but nothing to invest a lot of money in.
It will be interesting to see what the Red Sox do about Mueller. He's a big part of their clubhouse, but there's absolutely no reason to re-sign him when you've got a younger, cheaper, major-league ready player like Kevin Youkilis waiting in the wings. The Red Sox need to spend all available money on Johnny Damon. and pitching.
Outfield
Johnny Damon, Brian Giles, Hideki Matsui, Jose Guillen*, Jacque J0nes, Mark Kotsay*, Reggie Sanders, Jeromy Burnitz, Sammy Sosa, and others ...
Brian Giles will likely be a better player than Damon over the short-term, say the next year or so. But Giles will be 35 in 2006, whereas Damon will be 32. Damon is not a really sound long-term investment. He's a player who's had two uncharacteristically good years in 2004 and 2005, and he's also an aging center fielder. But if a team wants the 2006-7 top-notch Damon, they're going to have to get the 2008-10 mediocre Damon as part of the deal.
Giles is just an amazingly underrated player, even now. He'd be a great fit for the Cardinals, although St. Louis is a pretty old team already, and they don't want to become in 2006 what the Giants became in 2005, the league's old-folks home. But if you want a left fielder to contribute big-time for a year or two, Giles is your man. He is, without a doubt in my mind, the best hitter on the free agent market. But his age and dwindling defensive skills make him a less preferable alternative to Damon and Furcal.
The Yankees will likely make a move to re-sign Matsui if they don't get Damon. And even if they do get Damon, they'll need somebody to play left field. A Matsui/Jacque Jones package deal wouldn't be a bad move, as it would shore up two positions for about as much money as Damon alone would command. By the way, there's every reason to believe the options on Guillen and Kotsay will be exercised.
If you're looking for a one-dimensional bat to stick in a corner outfield position, Reggie Sanders and Jeromy Burnitz aren't too shabby, even at their age. Sammy Sosa may have had a dreadful year in Baltimore, but I just have to believe that he's got some good slugging still left in him, and if a team took a flyer on him as a DH, I don't think they'd be disappointed.
Catcher
Bengie Molina, Ramon Hernandez, Mike Piazza, Brad Ausmus
Molina is the only real solution to a team's catching problem. He's a good if not great hitter who's a solid defensive backstop. Hernandez is a vastly overrated catcher both offensively and defensively, and some team's going to waste good money on a contract for him. Piazza's catching days are done, although he can still contribute with the bat as a DH. Ausmus isn't really worth the trouble, as he's just getting older and even worse at the plate.
Starting Pitcher
A.J. Burnett, Kevin Millwood, Jarrod Washburn, Roger Clemens, Matt Morris, Paul Byrd, Jeff Weaver, Kenny Rogers, Tom Glavine*, Esteban Loaiza*
Burnett is thus far the biggest pitcher on the market. But he's really not that good. He's shown potential, but he's also shown a lot of control trouble (averaging 96 BB/season), and none of that is likely to improve now that he's 29. He's a B-level starter who's going to get paid like an A-level starter because he's just the best thing out there.
Both Kevin Millwood and Jarrod Washburn are much, much smarter investments than Burnett. The only reason Burnett will get more money and attention is because he's younger (both Millwood and Washburn will be 31 next season). Millwood is still a top-quality pitcher, even at age 31, and Washburn has been a reliable, above-average starter for several years now, even approaching true excellence at times. They may not be as reliable over the long-term, but considering the money Burnett is likely to receive, they're much better bargains.
If Roger Clemens comes back (who knows?), it will be with the Astros, so he can pitch to his son, a catching prospect in the organization. Roger's end-of-season injury troubles might finally be the sign that his long career is coming to a close. While I can't rule out a 2006 return (he would turn 44 next August), there's simply no way he'd be as good as he was in 2005. And 2007 is out of the question.
Matt Morris isn't quite at the level of Millwood and Washburn, but he's a great arm for a team that can't afford the big boys. As is Paul Byrd, although he'll be 35 next season, and much tougher to rely on. Jeff Weaver is a real enigma who could be a great buy for somebody. But he just can't seem to get everything together, and could just as easily be an all-out bust.
Kenny Rogers would be a good buy for a low-end contract, 40 years old or not. Glavine will likely return to the Mets, unless his 2006 option is just too expensive. And I can't imagine why the Nationals wouldn't want Loaiza back.
Relief Pitcher
Billy Wagner, B.J. Ryan, Kyle Farnsworth, Tom Gordon, Ugueth Urbina, Julian Tavarez, Octavio Dotel, Trevor Hoffman
There is no A-level closer available on the market, although it's always tough to tell just who an A-level closer is. Wagner is probably the best option, even though he turns 35 next year and isn't what he used to be. The best bet here just might be B.J. Ryan, who's had 3 straight excellent seasons out of the Baltimore bullpen, with his strikeout rates off the charts. And he'll just be 30 next year.
Kyle Farnsworth has a high ceiling, but has yet to put together 2 good years back-to-back in his career. Tom Gordon will be the bargain buy for a team that wants to convert him back into a closer, as he's been baseball's best setup man over the last 2 seasons. The Yankees would be very wise to re-sign him, as the Rivera/Gordon tandem is the most fearsome in the game. Urbina is another setup man who could close, although his mercurial attitude leaves him questionable. He did have a fine 2005 split between Detroit and Philadelphia.
Julian Tavarez is a valuable setup man, but no closer. Dotel probably shouldn't be a closer, although someone will likely try. And Trevor Hoffman is just done, as every peripheral stat would suggest. He will be this year's Troy Percival; an aging closer who gets a good contract on name recognition and then just falls apart. Hoffman will be 38 next year, and the Padres are very wise not to re-sign him when they've got incredibly cheap options in their own bullpen.
Well, that's what's out there this year. A lot has been said about the poor quality of this year's free agent market. While I guess that's true, I think a lot of people are shortchanging the number of B-level pitchers out there, as well as underrated players like Furcal and Brian Giles. What they mean is that there's no superstar free agent, which is true. Although we must point out that superstars are created by the media, not always in accordance with their performance on the field. Carlos Beltran is maybe the 20th- or 25th-best player in baseball, but he became a superstar because the media made him so. And he paid the price when the New York fans bought into the marketing.
But the main reason that there's no superstars out there is because the intelligent teams aren't letting their big superstars get away. More and more often now teams are signing good players, especially good young players, to long-term contract extensions before they even reach free agency. Teams are finally learning that obtaining players through free agency requires you to overpay. So they're overpaying their superstars a little right off the bat to avoid the big payday that free agency would bring about.
The Twins recently signed Johan Santana to a contract extension, which was a fantastic move for them. They'd never be able to afford him on the open market. Santana is so good that only the Yankees, Red Sox, and maybe the Dodgers or Mets could afford him as a free agent. The Brewers did the same thing with their wunderkind pitcher, Ben Sheets. And the Cardinals signed Albert Pujols to a huge 10-year deal to keep him in St. Louis. Because nobody could afford Albert on the open market.
It's not just these superstars, but more B-level stars that small-market teams are snatching up. The Rangers signed Hank Blalock to a long-term deal, and the A's recently signed Dan Haren to one. I could go on and on. What this does is that it takes a lot of top-notch talent off the market. Therefore, the teams that survive on free agency, like the Yankees or Red Sox, are still spending top dollar to bid on free agents, even though the quality of those free agents is lower. The Yankees have to get A.J. Burnett simply because they have no other options outside of a trade. And, as they learned during the Randy Johnson deal, they don't have enough prospects to get a really good player, and the Commissioner's office won't let them just buy them off with money.
More and more teams now, even the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox, are trying to revive their farm systems to wean themselves off free agency. I think the skyrocketing prices we saw in the early 2000s are pretty much a thing of the past, at least for the foreseeable future. Teams are actually starting to see the long-term costs of relying on free agency, as even the Yankees can't afford to staff their team entirely on free agents if they expect to compete. This is good news for baseball.
Although I must say this: Isn't it hilarious to hear the country's foremost capitalists arguing against the free market system? Wouldn't you love to hear the head of some other industry talk about revenue sharing? It just tells you that when these rich assholes are involved, principles don't matter -- money matters. Wouldn't Karl Marx have found this hysterical? Ah, America.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Silly trade
I don't really have time to say a lot, but I'll drop a quick line about a recent trade. The Nationals traded 3B Vinny Castilla to the Padres for P Brian Lawrence. My first reaction is: Good move for Washington. Bowden signed two silly big-$ contracts last year, and Castilla was one of them. Lawrence isn't much, but he's something, whereas Castilla was bascially nothing (319/403/253) last year. It seemed odd that the Padres would get the lesser AND more expensive player (in Castilla), but then I figured the Nats might have taken on some of Castilla's salary ($3 mil). So I checked the story -- and the Padres actually paid the Nationals money. They traded Lawrence and cash to get Castilla -- an over-the-hill, well below-average third baseman. This was a silly move by San Diego. They could have signed a serviceable free agent (Rich Aurilia, say) for much less than what they paid for Castilla -- and still had Brian Lawrence. Lawrence is no great shakes (4.10 career ERA, and not likely to improve at age 29), but he's a guy who can pitch innings. And the Padres need guys who can pitch innings, because they ain't got anything after Jake Peavy in their rotation, whereas Washington now has a very cheap, low-level innings-eater in Lawrence. What's next? Trading Cristian Guzman to the Cubs for Todd Walker and cash?
Kevin Towers' reaction was pure Stupid GM: he said that he thought Castilla was one of the best defensive third baseman in baseball, which is an asburd notion. Castilla is not a very good 3B, and since he turns 39 next year, he's not apt to get any better. Towers also said that it seemed like Castilla was always hitting homers against the Padres. Well, maybe 6 or 7 years ago that was the case, but here's a hint, Kevin: Vinny hit 12 HR all last season, and you play in the most pitcher-friendly park in baseball. I don't think he's REALLY that much of a threat.
I'll keep you posted on all the other silly moves. My next update will probably be a look at the free agents this offseason; what I think will happen, and my analysis of such.
I also recently completed a nifty little spreadsheet that charts run production throughout baseball history. My studies have revealed some interesting facts, and I've drawn a few conclusions as well. I'll be sharing soon.
Kevin Towers' reaction was pure Stupid GM: he said that he thought Castilla was one of the best defensive third baseman in baseball, which is an asburd notion. Castilla is not a very good 3B, and since he turns 39 next year, he's not apt to get any better. Towers also said that it seemed like Castilla was always hitting homers against the Padres. Well, maybe 6 or 7 years ago that was the case, but here's a hint, Kevin: Vinny hit 12 HR all last season, and you play in the most pitcher-friendly park in baseball. I don't think he's REALLY that much of a threat.
I'll keep you posted on all the other silly moves. My next update will probably be a look at the free agents this offseason; what I think will happen, and my analysis of such.
I also recently completed a nifty little spreadsheet that charts run production throughout baseball history. My studies have revealed some interesting facts, and I've drawn a few conclusions as well. I'll be sharing soon.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
GMs down and out
Since my last post, there have been some pretty significant hirings and firings in the GM world. The hiring of note is that of Josh Byrnes, Asst. GM with the Red Sox, who will be taking over the vacant GM job in Arizona. This is good news for the Diamondbacks, who need something better at the head of their organization, one year after the Russ Ortiz horror show.
The firing of note is that of Paul DePodesta in Los Angeles. This is pretty obviously a case of owners looking for somebody to scapegoat. It wasn't enough to fire manager Jim Tracy, they had to jettison DePodesta. I can't say anything really good about the Dodgers in 2005; as much credit as DePodesta gets for taking the Dodgers to a division title in 2004, he deserves his share of the blame for the 2005 collapse. But he certainly doesn't deserve all of the blame, and the media is quick to blister him because of his Moneyball pedigree.
The simplest question to ask about DePodesta's firing is this: is there a better choice for the Dodgers? For me, it's hard to argue that the Dodgers are really better off without DePodesta. While I can't speak for his administrative skill, I think his brand of common sense is exactly what the far-flung Dodgers need. He was sitting on some very impressive prospects, with a good chance to form a really good team. I think he was pressured into making too many free agent signings in the pre-season while he should have stayed with the plan and kept on track for the arrival of the rookies. But no one is that patient, and it's hard to imagine anyone being able to stand up to that pressure.
This is not good news for the Dodgers. Their two most likely candidates for the post seem to be Pat Gillick and Orel Hershiser. Gillick is not a bad GM, but it would be a step in the wrong direction to abandon sabermetrics for Gillick's more traditional, scouting-based approach. Hershiser, on the other hand, just may not be qualified for the GM job. I think he's a fine candidate for the managing position, but it's hard for me to see him stepping from pitching coach to GM and seeing good success. It would be a headline-grabbing move that would just hurt the team in the long run.
But the biggest news on the GM front is the resignation of Theo Epstein from the position of Boston GM. Theo was one of the best GMs in baseball and had the track record of success to back it up. My previous entry blaming Larry Lucchino may have been a bit premature, but it's certainly someone's fault that the negotiations reached such an ugly stage. The Red Sox are not at all in good shape, with Epstein going as well as possibly Manny Ramirez and David Wells. Again, there's no one that would do a better job than Theo Epstein, and Boston will suffer because of it. It will be interesting to see if Boston's progressive front office, with the likes of Bill James and Voros McCracken, will survive Epstein's firing. My guess is that the Red Sox will go with a more traditional GM, and the progressive ideas will slowly die on the vine. While the Yankees managed to retain Brian Cashman, the Red Sox lost their wunderkind GM. And this will easily be the biggest victory the Yankees score over the Sox in the off-season.
Don't shed too many tears for Theo. He doesn't need baseball, but my guess is some baseball team will really pursue him. Probably not this off-season, but sometime in the near future a team will come calling. And Theo's willingness to join his brother in social work will make the team come to him with an attractive offer. DePodesta will not be quite so sought-after, but I think he'll be able to execute an effective strategy in a less media-intensive environmeny.
The firing of note is that of Paul DePodesta in Los Angeles. This is pretty obviously a case of owners looking for somebody to scapegoat. It wasn't enough to fire manager Jim Tracy, they had to jettison DePodesta. I can't say anything really good about the Dodgers in 2005; as much credit as DePodesta gets for taking the Dodgers to a division title in 2004, he deserves his share of the blame for the 2005 collapse. But he certainly doesn't deserve all of the blame, and the media is quick to blister him because of his Moneyball pedigree.
The simplest question to ask about DePodesta's firing is this: is there a better choice for the Dodgers? For me, it's hard to argue that the Dodgers are really better off without DePodesta. While I can't speak for his administrative skill, I think his brand of common sense is exactly what the far-flung Dodgers need. He was sitting on some very impressive prospects, with a good chance to form a really good team. I think he was pressured into making too many free agent signings in the pre-season while he should have stayed with the plan and kept on track for the arrival of the rookies. But no one is that patient, and it's hard to imagine anyone being able to stand up to that pressure.
This is not good news for the Dodgers. Their two most likely candidates for the post seem to be Pat Gillick and Orel Hershiser. Gillick is not a bad GM, but it would be a step in the wrong direction to abandon sabermetrics for Gillick's more traditional, scouting-based approach. Hershiser, on the other hand, just may not be qualified for the GM job. I think he's a fine candidate for the managing position, but it's hard for me to see him stepping from pitching coach to GM and seeing good success. It would be a headline-grabbing move that would just hurt the team in the long run.
But the biggest news on the GM front is the resignation of Theo Epstein from the position of Boston GM. Theo was one of the best GMs in baseball and had the track record of success to back it up. My previous entry blaming Larry Lucchino may have been a bit premature, but it's certainly someone's fault that the negotiations reached such an ugly stage. The Red Sox are not at all in good shape, with Epstein going as well as possibly Manny Ramirez and David Wells. Again, there's no one that would do a better job than Theo Epstein, and Boston will suffer because of it. It will be interesting to see if Boston's progressive front office, with the likes of Bill James and Voros McCracken, will survive Epstein's firing. My guess is that the Red Sox will go with a more traditional GM, and the progressive ideas will slowly die on the vine. While the Yankees managed to retain Brian Cashman, the Red Sox lost their wunderkind GM. And this will easily be the biggest victory the Yankees score over the Sox in the off-season.
Don't shed too many tears for Theo. He doesn't need baseball, but my guess is some baseball team will really pursue him. Probably not this off-season, but sometime in the near future a team will come calling. And Theo's willingness to join his brother in social work will make the team come to him with an attractive offer. DePodesta will not be quite so sought-after, but I think he'll be able to execute an effective strategy in a less media-intensive environmeny.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Latino Legends
Whenever does something nice, there's often a reason for it. A very non-philanthropic, self-interested reason for it. If a millionaire gives $10,000 to charity, people will say how nice he is. They don't realize that he might have done it just so people will say how nice he is. There's such a thing as "Corporate Image." What you or I would call "giving to charity," an executive would call "investing in the Corporate Image." Ronald McDonald House is an investment in the Corporate Image. The question is, are these charitable acts done mainly out of a feeling of charity, or as a shrewd attempt to improve the corporate image? While I can't deny that charity plays a part, I feel that most of these charitable acts are done, first and foremost, for the sake of Corporate Image. Because what's $10,000 to a man who owns 5 cars?
This was my reaction when I heard that Major League Baseball was sponsoring a "Latino Legends" team. Fans would vote, as in the All-Star Game, for their favorite Latin players in baseball history. This entire exercise is a heartless and insincere ploy for MLB to create good publicity around its racial image, which has taken quite a hit recently. I do not have any evidence for my claims, except for an astute if admittedly cynical view of the "business world." And if you think that Major League Baseball formed the Latino Legends team first and foremost because they sincerely wanted to honor these players, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
Let me say, right off, that the idea of the team in and of itself seems like a fine idea. I don't think that Latin players have gotten enough recognition for their huge role in shaping the modern game, nor do I think we as fans realize (or even care to consider) the singular difficulties Latin players face in the game today. If the approach were undertaken with good motives, I think it would be a good start toward embracing MLB's growing Latin flavor.
But a good thing isn't so sweet if done for selfish reasons. Baseball has dealt with several racial crises in the past 20 years, and the treatment and attitudes toward Latinos has been one of the more recent issues. The most famous incident would be the comments of a San Francisco radio host about the "braindead" Latin hitters on the Giants. In a move straight out of a sterile conference room, MLB literally cobbled together the idea of a Latino Legends team and announced it, with voting to take place before the World Series. This was a move not borne of a sincere appreciation for thousands of baseball players, but an artifical creation borne out of someone's PowerPoint presentation amongst very rich people looking to cover their own asses.
It's not actually referred to as the Latino Legends team. It's officially the "Chevrolet Presents the Major League Baseball Latino Legends Team." I actually tried to vote for the team earlier, but declined when they asked for my mobile phone number. Having voted for the All-Star team, I know that MLB is not above sending you a mass of official MLB e-mails informing you that the new Raul Ibanez Elbow Warmers are now on sale for $29.95. How sincere was the sentiment. It further offended me that MLB decided to sell off rights to the team. How insincere and brutally profit-seeking is that? At the risk of becoming hopelessly political, our world has become far too interested in making money and completely uninterested in doing what is right. This is nothing new for baseball. Whereas in the past it was 16 fierce, corner-cutting bigots fighting for a bigger slice of the pie, it is now 30 corner-cutting closet bigots under the umbrella of one multi-million dollar company run by Bud Selig, a man who looks like the failed attempt to clone Bill Gates.
The greatest honor we can give the great Latino players in history is to remember them, not exploit them for good publicity. Roberto Clemente died on a relief mission to his native country. Perhaps the best way to remember him is not to sell reproduction jerseys to the upper-middle class for $400, but to consider the example he set as a human being.
This was my reaction when I heard that Major League Baseball was sponsoring a "Latino Legends" team. Fans would vote, as in the All-Star Game, for their favorite Latin players in baseball history. This entire exercise is a heartless and insincere ploy for MLB to create good publicity around its racial image, which has taken quite a hit recently. I do not have any evidence for my claims, except for an astute if admittedly cynical view of the "business world." And if you think that Major League Baseball formed the Latino Legends team first and foremost because they sincerely wanted to honor these players, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
Let me say, right off, that the idea of the team in and of itself seems like a fine idea. I don't think that Latin players have gotten enough recognition for their huge role in shaping the modern game, nor do I think we as fans realize (or even care to consider) the singular difficulties Latin players face in the game today. If the approach were undertaken with good motives, I think it would be a good start toward embracing MLB's growing Latin flavor.
But a good thing isn't so sweet if done for selfish reasons. Baseball has dealt with several racial crises in the past 20 years, and the treatment and attitudes toward Latinos has been one of the more recent issues. The most famous incident would be the comments of a San Francisco radio host about the "braindead" Latin hitters on the Giants. In a move straight out of a sterile conference room, MLB literally cobbled together the idea of a Latino Legends team and announced it, with voting to take place before the World Series. This was a move not borne of a sincere appreciation for thousands of baseball players, but an artifical creation borne out of someone's PowerPoint presentation amongst very rich people looking to cover their own asses.
It's not actually referred to as the Latino Legends team. It's officially the "Chevrolet Presents the Major League Baseball Latino Legends Team." I actually tried to vote for the team earlier, but declined when they asked for my mobile phone number. Having voted for the All-Star team, I know that MLB is not above sending you a mass of official MLB e-mails informing you that the new Raul Ibanez Elbow Warmers are now on sale for $29.95. How sincere was the sentiment. It further offended me that MLB decided to sell off rights to the team. How insincere and brutally profit-seeking is that? At the risk of becoming hopelessly political, our world has become far too interested in making money and completely uninterested in doing what is right. This is nothing new for baseball. Whereas in the past it was 16 fierce, corner-cutting bigots fighting for a bigger slice of the pie, it is now 30 corner-cutting closet bigots under the umbrella of one multi-million dollar company run by Bud Selig, a man who looks like the failed attempt to clone Bill Gates.
The greatest honor we can give the great Latino players in history is to remember them, not exploit them for good publicity. Roberto Clemente died on a relief mission to his native country. Perhaps the best way to remember him is not to sell reproduction jerseys to the upper-middle class for $400, but to consider the example he set as a human being.
88 years
Congratulations to the White Sox, who swept the Astros in what was still a close, entertaining series. In fact, as the ever-astute Rob Neyer points out, this series is one of the closest sweeps in World Series history. In the 4 games, the White Sox outscored the Astros by 6 runs, which isn't very much at all. It suggests that the Series was much closer than the 4-game sweep would indicate, and I think that's true. It ties with the 1950 Series (Yankees/Phillies) for closest sweep in World Series history.
The Series is being slammed for being low-rated, but I don't think that's exactly fair. Ratings are VERY down from last year, but that's an unfair comparison, since last year's Series was a mainstream media field day with the Red Sox chasing history. Espn.com reports that Series ratings are just 2% lower than the 2002 Series, which saw lesser-known teams Anaheim .vs. San Francisco. This was the lowest-rated Series ever, although 2005 might take that title.
What does this indicate? It indicates that baseball no longer occupies the dominant role in American sports. Baseball has let itself get passed up by the NBA and NFL and is trying haltingly to catch up. The emphasis on getting large-market teams in the postseason is an ugly example; very few people watch the baseball playoffs unless their team is playing. But everyone watches the Super Bowl, regardless of who's playing. It used to be like that in the Series, but not anymore. Getting large-market teams to spike ratings is a short-term fix for a larger problem, the fact that baseball is no longer America's pastime.
As far as the Series goes, what was the main reason the White Sox won? Everyone will say pitching and defense, and that is indeed somewhat true. But did you know that the White Sox scored 5 runs per game, much better than their regular season mark? All of their hitting stats were excellent; the Sox just hit well, despite the fact that they're not a good-hitting team. Their defense was great, and their pitching was good, although it wasn't so much the starters as the bullpen. Freddy Garcia was the only Sox pitcher to make a really good start, but the bullpen picked up the slack, and the team sported a great 2.63 ERA for the Series.
How much of this was great Sox pitching, and how much of it was bad Astro hitting? It's hard to see where the one ends and the other begins. But while I can't take anything away from the White Sox' great pitching, I must point out that the Astros were just awful at the plate. The only two Astro hitters who had anything like a good Series were Willy Taveras and Lance Berkman. And the Series exposed a problem that the Astros suffered from all season but really got stung with in the postseason: a lack of depth in the lineup. The Astros had a decent 1-5 in the lineup; Biggio, Taveras, Berkman, Ensberg, Lane. Granted, only Taveras and Berkman actually produced in the Series, but it's a not-too-awful top of the order. But below that, the Astros had nothing. They actually used Mike Lamb in some games, because he's a left-handed hitter. It's nice to have a left-handed hitter in the lineup, but it's much better to have a good hitter in the lineup. Garner actually pinch-hit for Lamb tonight, and I was struck by how unlikely that was. Has any manager in World Series history ever pinch-hit for his #5 hitter? Below him, they had Ausmus, Everett, and Chris Burke. That's just a step above having 4 pitchers in your lineup. Ausmus barely hit .200 for the Series, whereas Burke went hitless. Everett only got 1 hit in all 4 games. And this is about what you would expect from their regular season performance.
Everyone will look at this Series and say, "This proves that pitching and defense win championships." And I admit that the White Sox were a pitching and defense team, and they did win the championship. But if a smallball team did win the Series this year, a smallball team lost the Series as well. At least the White Sox have a good offense beyond smallball, but no one talks about that, because it ruins the image. The Astros had nothing. Even Morgan Ensberg was a dud. The Sox kept walking Berkman to get to Ensberg, and Ensberg kept doing nothing. And with their pitching not quite as good as advertised, the Astros just couldn't pick up the slack at the plate.
On a completely unrelated subject, I recently started reading Mind Game, an account of the Boston front office's revolutionary approach to baseball and how it won them the World Series. It's written by the Baseball Prospectus staff, which is the premiere baseball "think tank." It's a good book so far, but it's also interesting in light of recent events.
The Yankees signed Brian Cashman to a 3-year deal to return as their GM today. It pays $5 million a year. That's a lot of money, but I have a lot of respect for Cashman, and God bless him for taking such a difficult job. It;s not out of line for the top executive in a multi-million dollar enterprise to be paid as such. Then I read today that Theo Epstein turned down the Red Sox' latest contract offer to extend him. The Red Sox were offering $1.5 million a year.
WHAT THE F***?
I have all the respect in the world for Cashman, as I said. But the last time I checked, he hadn't ended any 86-year World Series droughts and dispatched the most popular curse/myth in sports history. Theo Epstein did that. The 2004 season aside, there is ample evidence to believe that Epstein is one of the best general managers in baseball. Did he do a perfect job this year? No, he didn't. He made his share of mistakes, and I'll be the first to point them out. But the fact that the Red Sox would actually insult Epstein by low-balling him so obviously is an insult to him, to all Red Sox fans, and any self-respecting baseball fan. I know the Red Sox aren't as rich as the Yankees; so I would expect a reasonable offer to be in the $4-million-per-year range. But if $1.5 million is as far as they got after all these negotiations, I don't even want to think about where the Red Sox started out.
This just makes me think that team president Larry Lucchino is slime. Both he and owner John Henry have been around the baseball block before, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is part 0f some power play to get rid of Epstein. Not only that, but Epstein's right-hand man Josh Byrnes is one of the top candidates for the vacant position of Arizona GM. So the Red Sox may have their upper management gutted. And if Red Sox fans are intelligent at all, they will cry out against a power play that could send the franchise spiralling back to the Dan Duquette years of incompetence and utter futility. The Red Sox were just another franchise for nearly 100 years. Theo Epstein was the main force behind changing that. And now Larry Lucchino wants to undo all of that and sink the team because of his ego. Have you no shame, sir?
The Red Sox are starting something wonderful, and there have been speedbumps on the way, but Epstein has his World Championship and deserves some respect for being efficient, bold, and thoroughly intelligent. He, and the Red Sox Nation, deserve better than this.
The Series is being slammed for being low-rated, but I don't think that's exactly fair. Ratings are VERY down from last year, but that's an unfair comparison, since last year's Series was a mainstream media field day with the Red Sox chasing history. Espn.com reports that Series ratings are just 2% lower than the 2002 Series, which saw lesser-known teams Anaheim .vs. San Francisco. This was the lowest-rated Series ever, although 2005 might take that title.
What does this indicate? It indicates that baseball no longer occupies the dominant role in American sports. Baseball has let itself get passed up by the NBA and NFL and is trying haltingly to catch up. The emphasis on getting large-market teams in the postseason is an ugly example; very few people watch the baseball playoffs unless their team is playing. But everyone watches the Super Bowl, regardless of who's playing. It used to be like that in the Series, but not anymore. Getting large-market teams to spike ratings is a short-term fix for a larger problem, the fact that baseball is no longer America's pastime.
As far as the Series goes, what was the main reason the White Sox won? Everyone will say pitching and defense, and that is indeed somewhat true. But did you know that the White Sox scored 5 runs per game, much better than their regular season mark? All of their hitting stats were excellent; the Sox just hit well, despite the fact that they're not a good-hitting team. Their defense was great, and their pitching was good, although it wasn't so much the starters as the bullpen. Freddy Garcia was the only Sox pitcher to make a really good start, but the bullpen picked up the slack, and the team sported a great 2.63 ERA for the Series.
How much of this was great Sox pitching, and how much of it was bad Astro hitting? It's hard to see where the one ends and the other begins. But while I can't take anything away from the White Sox' great pitching, I must point out that the Astros were just awful at the plate. The only two Astro hitters who had anything like a good Series were Willy Taveras and Lance Berkman. And the Series exposed a problem that the Astros suffered from all season but really got stung with in the postseason: a lack of depth in the lineup. The Astros had a decent 1-5 in the lineup; Biggio, Taveras, Berkman, Ensberg, Lane. Granted, only Taveras and Berkman actually produced in the Series, but it's a not-too-awful top of the order. But below that, the Astros had nothing. They actually used Mike Lamb in some games, because he's a left-handed hitter. It's nice to have a left-handed hitter in the lineup, but it's much better to have a good hitter in the lineup. Garner actually pinch-hit for Lamb tonight, and I was struck by how unlikely that was. Has any manager in World Series history ever pinch-hit for his #5 hitter? Below him, they had Ausmus, Everett, and Chris Burke. That's just a step above having 4 pitchers in your lineup. Ausmus barely hit .200 for the Series, whereas Burke went hitless. Everett only got 1 hit in all 4 games. And this is about what you would expect from their regular season performance.
Everyone will look at this Series and say, "This proves that pitching and defense win championships." And I admit that the White Sox were a pitching and defense team, and they did win the championship. But if a smallball team did win the Series this year, a smallball team lost the Series as well. At least the White Sox have a good offense beyond smallball, but no one talks about that, because it ruins the image. The Astros had nothing. Even Morgan Ensberg was a dud. The Sox kept walking Berkman to get to Ensberg, and Ensberg kept doing nothing. And with their pitching not quite as good as advertised, the Astros just couldn't pick up the slack at the plate.
On a completely unrelated subject, I recently started reading Mind Game, an account of the Boston front office's revolutionary approach to baseball and how it won them the World Series. It's written by the Baseball Prospectus staff, which is the premiere baseball "think tank." It's a good book so far, but it's also interesting in light of recent events.
The Yankees signed Brian Cashman to a 3-year deal to return as their GM today. It pays $5 million a year. That's a lot of money, but I have a lot of respect for Cashman, and God bless him for taking such a difficult job. It;s not out of line for the top executive in a multi-million dollar enterprise to be paid as such. Then I read today that Theo Epstein turned down the Red Sox' latest contract offer to extend him. The Red Sox were offering $1.5 million a year.
WHAT THE F***?
I have all the respect in the world for Cashman, as I said. But the last time I checked, he hadn't ended any 86-year World Series droughts and dispatched the most popular curse/myth in sports history. Theo Epstein did that. The 2004 season aside, there is ample evidence to believe that Epstein is one of the best general managers in baseball. Did he do a perfect job this year? No, he didn't. He made his share of mistakes, and I'll be the first to point them out. But the fact that the Red Sox would actually insult Epstein by low-balling him so obviously is an insult to him, to all Red Sox fans, and any self-respecting baseball fan. I know the Red Sox aren't as rich as the Yankees; so I would expect a reasonable offer to be in the $4-million-per-year range. But if $1.5 million is as far as they got after all these negotiations, I don't even want to think about where the Red Sox started out.
This just makes me think that team president Larry Lucchino is slime. Both he and owner John Henry have been around the baseball block before, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is part 0f some power play to get rid of Epstein. Not only that, but Epstein's right-hand man Josh Byrnes is one of the top candidates for the vacant position of Arizona GM. So the Red Sox may have their upper management gutted. And if Red Sox fans are intelligent at all, they will cry out against a power play that could send the franchise spiralling back to the Dan Duquette years of incompetence and utter futility. The Red Sox were just another franchise for nearly 100 years. Theo Epstein was the main force behind changing that. And now Larry Lucchino wants to undo all of that and sink the team because of his ego. Have you no shame, sir?
The Red Sox are starting something wonderful, and there have been speedbumps on the way, but Epstein has his World Championship and deserves some respect for being efficient, bold, and thoroughly intelligent. He, and the Red Sox Nation, deserve better than this.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
5 hours, 41 minutes ...
Due to work issues tonight was the only World Series game I knew I would see in its entirety. So I decided to go ahead with something I'd been kicking around in the back of my mind for a while. I decided to grab a tape recorder and announce the game. I'd always been annoyed by most announcers (especially FOX announcers) and just wanted to see what it was like. 14 innings, 5 hours and 41 minutes later, the game was over, and I felt like I'd just fought World War II.
It was the longest World Series game in history. Game 3 of the 2005 World Series was one for the ages, and I have myself on tape (3 full tapes, to be exact) calling the whole thing. I did the whole routine, reading up on the press info (handily available online) and keeping it all handy for quick reference. I had some interesting things to say and some clever commentary. But the most important thing I learned was that it's a whole lot harder than it looks. I fancy myself a good talker, and I sounded like a complete nincompoop on more than one occasion. That anyone could talk for 3 hours (let alone 5) without saying at least 15 completely stupid things is amazing. Think baseball is a slow game? Try announcing it, and it's never felt so fast in your life. Particularly in the late innings, with all the switches, double-switches and new pitchers.
My scorecard looks like Pencil's Last Stand. I somehow made it all 14 innings (due to some imaginative adaptations to the card itself) without giving up. But I'm a Whitehead, and a Whitehead doesn't admit defeat. I always enjoyed keeping score, because of the organizational satisfaction one gets from it. Well, this card isn't quite as organized as I had hoped, as I had to write players into margins, and my list of pitchers ran down into the rosters listed at the bottom of the page. But I made it.
Here's a tally of the game, most of which I'm sure are World Series records: 17 pitchers used (9 for Chicago, 8 for Houston), 43 players used overall, 100 ABs (which is a month for 1 player), 21 walks (12 for Chicago, 9 for Houston) and 24 K. The first pitch was at 8:39 PM Eastern time, and the last out was recorded at 2:20 AM Eastern. In between, I was running the recorder, keeping score, and swimming amongst the paperwork, while constantly checking the webcast on my laptop to make sure I didn't miss anything.
So what were my observations of the game?
1. Houston fans are committed. Some of them probably had to be at work 5 or 6 hours after the game, but there was still a huge crowd there.
2. Roy Oswalt finally short-circuited. During my time "on air," I noticed that this was Oswalt's worst start since the All-Star break. I have no earthly idea (and said so) why Phil Garner left Oswalt in so long. I guess it was because Oswalt is a "hoss" who "goes the distance." Which is fine, but silly me, I thought winning ballgames was more important. Oswalt was shaky from the start, but was obviously done in the 5th inning. By the time I was talking about taking Oswalt out, Garner didn't even have anyone warming up in the bullpen. Oswalt faced 11 batters in the 5th and threw 46 pitches, and he shouldn't have listed past the 7th or 8th. Then, to compound absolute stupidity, Garner left Oswalt in the game after the 5th inning of doom. He did well in the 6th, but Garner sent him out for the 7th inning, after 107 pitches where he displayed that he wasn't good enough to beat Chicago. Garner finally took him out after he walked Paul Konerko to lead off the inning. Garner has an excellent bullpen; what was he smoking? Luckily, Russ Springer came in and set down the White Sox. But damn!
3. The Astros have a really, really good bullpen. Before Ezequiel Astacio came in (I'll get to him later), the Houston bullpen threw 7 innings, allowing just 2 hits and 0 runs, striking out 7 and walking 2. It was a dominant performance that kept the Astros in the game much longer than they deserved. If the Astros had won, I would have called Chad Qualls the player of the game. He pitched 3 scoreless innings, allowing the Sox only 1 hit.
4. The Astros had every opportunity in the world to score the winning run (both Houston and Chicago stranded 15 baserunners in Game 3). They had the winning run in scoring position in 5 of the 7 innings after the game was tied. But it never scored. Ozzie Guillen brought in Orlando Hernandez in the 9th (and everyone, including Ozzie, has a far-too-generous opinion of Orlando's abilities), and Hernandez walked 3 batters. But he was able to strike out Taveras with 2 on, and after walking Berkman, was able to strike out Morgan Ensberg with the winning run at third. El Duque walked the first batter in the 10th, but Luis Vizcaino came in and retired the next 2 batters. But after walking Adam Everett (?), Chris Burke grounded out with the winning run at second. In the 11th, Bobby Jenks hit a batter and gave up a walk with 1 out. But Ensberg popped out and Palmeiro grounded out. Then, in the 14th, Houston had runners at the corners with 2 out. But Everett grounded out, and the White Sox won.
5. Why in the world so many hitters were walked, I don't know. But it's bad enough that so many hitters were walked (and so many bad hitters who would have made outs anyway), but no one was able to take advantage of them. Of the 21 hitters walked in this game, only one came around to score. Some people would call this clutch hitting. I'd say that the Astros don't have enough power in their lineup. And when forced to string 3 or 4 hits together to score a run, the Astros always seemed one hit short. And by the time they got runners in position, they were down to the Death Valley known as the bottom of the order. But even Morgan Ensberg, who has to hit homers, because only he and Berkman can, was a dud in this game. The White Sox just didn't really do anything well, the 5th inning notwithstanding. Yes, Geoff Blum homered, but something was bound to happen eventually; you can't keep 2 teams scoreless forever, no matter how disappointing their offense.
6. Ezequiel Astacio? This guy isn't even a good pitcher (5.61 regular season), what's he doing in there with the game on the line? It was time to get desperate and use a starter. Garner sent Backe out to the bullpen when the Astros were trying to rally in the 14th, but that was oh, say, A WEE BIT LATE? How about Clemens? Yeah, he's supposed to start Game 5, but I got news for ya -- IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A GAME 5! The White Sox got it right by sending in Buehrle. Yeah, he's supposed to start Game 6, but is there really going to be a Game 6? You have to worry about Game 3 long before you start worrying about Games 5 and 6. Garner was just outmanaged tonight. He was cursing and throwing things, but had no one but himself (and his offense) to blame.
7. Will the White Sox sweep? I don't see how they won't. It's Freddy Garcia .vs. Brandon Backe tomor-- er, tonight. And if that ain't a mismatch, what is? Garcia is one of the 10 or 15 best starters in the AL, whereas Backe doesn't make the top 30 in the NL. Both bullpens are savaged, but then the White Sox bullpen was at least well-rested. The Astros are doomed. And if it doesn't happen in Game 4, it will probably happen in Game 5, with an old and injured Roger Clemens against Jose Contreras. And if by some miracle the Astros can force the Series back to Chicago, Buehrle will put out their lights in Game 6.
It was the longest World Series game in history. Game 3 of the 2005 World Series was one for the ages, and I have myself on tape (3 full tapes, to be exact) calling the whole thing. I did the whole routine, reading up on the press info (handily available online) and keeping it all handy for quick reference. I had some interesting things to say and some clever commentary. But the most important thing I learned was that it's a whole lot harder than it looks. I fancy myself a good talker, and I sounded like a complete nincompoop on more than one occasion. That anyone could talk for 3 hours (let alone 5) without saying at least 15 completely stupid things is amazing. Think baseball is a slow game? Try announcing it, and it's never felt so fast in your life. Particularly in the late innings, with all the switches, double-switches and new pitchers.
My scorecard looks like Pencil's Last Stand. I somehow made it all 14 innings (due to some imaginative adaptations to the card itself) without giving up. But I'm a Whitehead, and a Whitehead doesn't admit defeat. I always enjoyed keeping score, because of the organizational satisfaction one gets from it. Well, this card isn't quite as organized as I had hoped, as I had to write players into margins, and my list of pitchers ran down into the rosters listed at the bottom of the page. But I made it.
Here's a tally of the game, most of which I'm sure are World Series records: 17 pitchers used (9 for Chicago, 8 for Houston), 43 players used overall, 100 ABs (which is a month for 1 player), 21 walks (12 for Chicago, 9 for Houston) and 24 K. The first pitch was at 8:39 PM Eastern time, and the last out was recorded at 2:20 AM Eastern. In between, I was running the recorder, keeping score, and swimming amongst the paperwork, while constantly checking the webcast on my laptop to make sure I didn't miss anything.
So what were my observations of the game?
1. Houston fans are committed. Some of them probably had to be at work 5 or 6 hours after the game, but there was still a huge crowd there.
2. Roy Oswalt finally short-circuited. During my time "on air," I noticed that this was Oswalt's worst start since the All-Star break. I have no earthly idea (and said so) why Phil Garner left Oswalt in so long. I guess it was because Oswalt is a "hoss" who "goes the distance." Which is fine, but silly me, I thought winning ballgames was more important. Oswalt was shaky from the start, but was obviously done in the 5th inning. By the time I was talking about taking Oswalt out, Garner didn't even have anyone warming up in the bullpen. Oswalt faced 11 batters in the 5th and threw 46 pitches, and he shouldn't have listed past the 7th or 8th. Then, to compound absolute stupidity, Garner left Oswalt in the game after the 5th inning of doom. He did well in the 6th, but Garner sent him out for the 7th inning, after 107 pitches where he displayed that he wasn't good enough to beat Chicago. Garner finally took him out after he walked Paul Konerko to lead off the inning. Garner has an excellent bullpen; what was he smoking? Luckily, Russ Springer came in and set down the White Sox. But damn!
3. The Astros have a really, really good bullpen. Before Ezequiel Astacio came in (I'll get to him later), the Houston bullpen threw 7 innings, allowing just 2 hits and 0 runs, striking out 7 and walking 2. It was a dominant performance that kept the Astros in the game much longer than they deserved. If the Astros had won, I would have called Chad Qualls the player of the game. He pitched 3 scoreless innings, allowing the Sox only 1 hit.
4. The Astros had every opportunity in the world to score the winning run (both Houston and Chicago stranded 15 baserunners in Game 3). They had the winning run in scoring position in 5 of the 7 innings after the game was tied. But it never scored. Ozzie Guillen brought in Orlando Hernandez in the 9th (and everyone, including Ozzie, has a far-too-generous opinion of Orlando's abilities), and Hernandez walked 3 batters. But he was able to strike out Taveras with 2 on, and after walking Berkman, was able to strike out Morgan Ensberg with the winning run at third. El Duque walked the first batter in the 10th, but Luis Vizcaino came in and retired the next 2 batters. But after walking Adam Everett (?), Chris Burke grounded out with the winning run at second. In the 11th, Bobby Jenks hit a batter and gave up a walk with 1 out. But Ensberg popped out and Palmeiro grounded out. Then, in the 14th, Houston had runners at the corners with 2 out. But Everett grounded out, and the White Sox won.
5. Why in the world so many hitters were walked, I don't know. But it's bad enough that so many hitters were walked (and so many bad hitters who would have made outs anyway), but no one was able to take advantage of them. Of the 21 hitters walked in this game, only one came around to score. Some people would call this clutch hitting. I'd say that the Astros don't have enough power in their lineup. And when forced to string 3 or 4 hits together to score a run, the Astros always seemed one hit short. And by the time they got runners in position, they were down to the Death Valley known as the bottom of the order. But even Morgan Ensberg, who has to hit homers, because only he and Berkman can, was a dud in this game. The White Sox just didn't really do anything well, the 5th inning notwithstanding. Yes, Geoff Blum homered, but something was bound to happen eventually; you can't keep 2 teams scoreless forever, no matter how disappointing their offense.
6. Ezequiel Astacio? This guy isn't even a good pitcher (5.61 regular season), what's he doing in there with the game on the line? It was time to get desperate and use a starter. Garner sent Backe out to the bullpen when the Astros were trying to rally in the 14th, but that was oh, say, A WEE BIT LATE? How about Clemens? Yeah, he's supposed to start Game 5, but I got news for ya -- IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A GAME 5! The White Sox got it right by sending in Buehrle. Yeah, he's supposed to start Game 6, but is there really going to be a Game 6? You have to worry about Game 3 long before you start worrying about Games 5 and 6. Garner was just outmanaged tonight. He was cursing and throwing things, but had no one but himself (and his offense) to blame.
7. Will the White Sox sweep? I don't see how they won't. It's Freddy Garcia .vs. Brandon Backe tomor-- er, tonight. And if that ain't a mismatch, what is? Garcia is one of the 10 or 15 best starters in the AL, whereas Backe doesn't make the top 30 in the NL. Both bullpens are savaged, but then the White Sox bullpen was at least well-rested. The Astros are doomed. And if it doesn't happen in Game 4, it will probably happen in Game 5, with an old and injured Roger Clemens against Jose Contreras. And if by some miracle the Astros can force the Series back to Chicago, Buehrle will put out their lights in Game 6.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Current players (final)
P
Roger Clemens
There is an argument to be made that Roger Clemens is the best pitcher in baseball history. His raw numbers don't compare with the likes of Cy Young and Walter Johnson, but it's my belief (along with many others) that this reflects a change in the circumstances of pitching rather than the quality of pitching. Looking at the raw numbers, one would assume that all the best pitchers played in the 1870s and 1880s. If you look at the top 100 pitchers in career ERA, you will find exactly one pitcher who is active in the majors (Pedro Martinez). Do you really believe that modern pitchers are just awful, and that all old-timers were better? Was Pedro Martinez really no better than Ned Garvin?
Of course not. The circumstances of pitching have changed. Strikeouts and walks are at historically high levels in modern baseball. What does this mean? It means that modern pitchers throw more pitchers per inning than at any other time. So we can't exactly blame pitchers for not throwing 300 innings a year anymore.
In the 1885 NL, the Giants pitching staff led the league with 519 K. They also allowed a league-high 266 walks. In the 2005 NL, the Cubs led the league with 1256 K. And Pittsburgh allowed a league-high 612 walks. So that's a 142% increase in strikeouts and a 130% increase in walks. Pitching is astronomically different than it used to be. We cannot let the raw numbers become more important than the context that created them.
Cy Young won 511 games. He was an excellent pitcher. Let's use his 1901 season as an example. Young started 41 games and completed 38 of them. In the 1901 AL, pitchers completed 85% of their starts. In the 2004 AL, that number dropped to 3%. Is this because pitchers nowadays are lily-livered weaklings who aren't man enough to finish what they start? Well, I suppose that's possible, and it's the explanation you hear from every old-timer. But my explanation is that the game changed, and the pitchers (and managers) adapted to the change. The pitchers didn't change the game; the game changed the pitchers. While there's no evidence to disprove the fact that personal weakness is why complete games are down, I think it's simply due to the changing game. You can't blame pitchers nowadays for not winning 300 games. How many games nowadays are decided by the bullpen, compared to just 20 years ago? What percentage of overall wins and losses go to starting pitchers now, compared to the era of Bob Gibson? The growing reliance on relief pitchers is a change in the way the game has played; it has come as much from managers as from pitchers. To sum up, we just can't compare a pitcher to another pitcher from a different era based on raw stats. We have to look at what the pitcher accomplished compared to his peers.
So what did Roger Clemens do, compared to his peers? Roger won 7 Cy Young Awards, although I think he was the best pitcher in his league 9 times, counting this year. Clemens has won more games, by far, than any of his contemporaries. He is second only to Warren Spahn as the winningest pitcher since World War II, an amazing stat when you consider all that has changed, even since Spahn retired in 1965. His .665 winning percentage is tied for 18th all time, with Pedro Martinez the only active pitcher above him (among those with a significant career). He is 2nd all-time in strikeouts with 4,502 (although Randy Johns0n may pass him before all is said and done), and sports a 3.12 career ERA. Even more important, his Adjusted ERA is 143, which ties him with Jim Devlin (?) for 8th all-time. Other than Pedro Martinez, the only pitchers since World War II with a better career Adjusted ERA are Hoyt Wilhelm and Dan Quisenberry, both relief pitchers who threw significantly fewer innings. And Pedro has yet to enter the decline phase of his career, which will lower his ERA perhaps even past Roger. And Roger has a huge edge in career innings pitched (2,513 for Pedro, 4,704.1 for Roger). So Roger is definitely the best pitcher of his time. And, as I demonstrated earlier, we could argue that he is the best pitcher of all time.
Greg Maddux
Maddux has not quite been Roger's equal, all told. Don't get me wrong, Maddux is definitely one of the 15 best pitchers ever, and probably in the top 10. He just hasn't had Roger's ungodly staying power. Maddux has been a great pitcher, but has started to look mortal at age 39. Which is what happens to pitchers not named Clemens.
But I could argue that Maddux's 2 best years were better than anything a pitcher has done since 1972. Here's what Maddux did in 1994 and 1995:
1994: 16-6, 1.56 ERA, 273 ERA+, 202 IP, 31:156 BB:K ratio, 4 HR allowed
1995: 19-2, 1.63 ERA, 259 ERA+, 209.2 IP, 23:181 BB:K ratio, 8 HR allowed
These are both historically good seasons. Let's compare them to Clemens' two best seasons, which oddly enough came in his two seasons in Toronto:
1997: 21-7, 2.05 ERA, 226 ERA+, 264 IP, 68:292 BB:K ratio, 9 HR allowed
1998: 20-6, 2.65 ERA, 176 ERA+, 234.2 IP, 88:271 BB:K ratio, 11 HR allowed
All four seasons naturally earned Cy Young Awards for both men. They're 4 of the best seasons by any pitcher in the past 30 years. Maddux has a pretty big edge in adjusted ERA, but Clemens' edge in Innings Pitched and strikeouts would seem to negate that. But is Clemens' edge in Innings Pitched really what it seems? Does anybody remember anything about 1994 and 1995? Perhaps you'll recall that a baseball strike shortened both seasons. So Maddux accomplished all that he did while making 25 and 28 starts, respectively, in 1994 and 1995. He averaged about 35 starts in the surrounding seasons, so what would Maddux's work look like adjusted for 35 starts? It draws him pretty even with Clemens. Maddux's Win Shares in the two seasons were 26 in '94 and 30 in '95, both historic numbers for a pitcher. Clemens got 32 in '97 and 25 in '98. It makes them look pretty even, but when you adjust for the strike, Maddux gets the clear edge. Assuming 35 starts for Maddux in both years, he would have earned 36 WS in '94 and 38 in '95. Those 38 Win Shares would be the best single-season for any pitcher since 1972.
So can we give Maddux extra credit for the bad luck of pitching his two greatest seasons in years shortened by a strike? Yes, but not much. It doesn't change my opinion that Clemens was the better pitcher, but it gives us insight into just how good Maddux was at his peak. And, in my opinion, Greg Maddux was, at his peak, an even better pitcher than Clemens was at his peak. Where Clemens has Maddux beat is in overall quality. Maddux was one of the 10 best pitchers in the NL each season from 1988-2002. That's a record of consistency that no one in modern history can match. While Clemens doesn't have that, Clemens did have more periods of dominance than Maddux did. It gives Clemens the edge, but not by a whole lot. So if Clemens is the best pitcher of his time (and he is), Maddux is a close second.
Pedro Martinez
I've already spoken about a pitcher's best two seasons. Is it possible that Pedro can match Clemens and Maddux? Yes, and it's possible that he has them both beaten. Here's an excerpt from the analysis of Pedro's career I put together recently:
In 1999, Pedro posted a historically good season. I can only list the stats to do it justice: He posted a miniscule 2.07 ERA (the league ERA in 1999 was 4.86). His adjusted ERA was 245, the 9th-best all-time. He notched 313 strikeouts against an amazing 37 BB and 9 HR allowed. He pitched 213.1 innings. Pedro’s 13.21 K/9 IP was the best ever until it was broken by Randy Johnson in 2001. It was now time to start speaking of Pedro as not just a great pitcher, but a historically great pitcher. Pedro became only the 15th unanimous winner of the Cy Young Award, and even finished a very close 2nd in the MVP race to Ivan Rodriguez.
Pedro’s 1999 performance looked like some pitcher’s ultimate career year. So Pedro went out and had an even better year in 2000. An ERA of 1.74 (the league ERA was 4.91; the 3.17 gap between them is the best ever by a starting pitcher). His adjusted ERA of 285 ranks as the best ever by a pitcher since 1900. Only Tim Keefe’s 294 in 1880 was better. Pedro struck out “only” 284 against 32 BB and 17 HR in 217 IP. He threw 7 complete games and 4 shutouts. He was, once again, the unanimous Cy Young, and this time finished 5th in the MVP voting.
Among active pitchers, Pedro ranks 9th with 197 career wins (despite being much younger than anyone above or close behind him), 1st in career winning percentage (.701), 1st in hits allowed/game (6.82), 4th in strikeouts (2861), 3rd in strikeouts/9 IP, 1st in ERA (2.72, with Greg Maddux’s 3.01 being the next-closest), 1st in Adjusted career ERA (166), and 6th in career Win Shares (243).
But hey, forget active pitchers. Where does Pedro rank all-time? He is third all-time in winning percentage (.701, although this should decrease as he gets older), 14th all-time in strikeouts (2861), 3rd all-time in K/9 IP, tied for 78th all-time in ERA (he’s the only active player in the top 100), and to top it all of, Pedro Martinez ranks 1st all-time in career Adjusted ERA at 166. Lefty Grove is second at 148, and Walter Johnson is third at 146. Now granted, adjusted ERA doesn’t account for the fact that Grove and Johnson pitched a whole lot more innings than Pedro, nor does it account for the fact that Pedro’s number will fall as he declines with age. Still, it’s an amazing achievement. The next-highest pitcher on the career ERA+ list is 8th-place Roger Clemens at 143.
Pedro Martinez is one of the greatest pitchers ever. He, along with Maddux, Clemens, and Johnson, deserve to enter not just into the Hall of Fame, but into the realm of the all-time great baseball players.
Randy Johnson
These guys are the Big 4 among active pitchers in baseball. If Carlton and Seaver were the dynamic duo of the 70's and 80's, then these 4 are the dominant quartet of their time; 4 pitchers who aren't just Hall-of-Famers, but among the top 20 pitchers ever.
Johnson got off to a relatively late start compared to the other three. He was, as a Seattle Mariner, a sharp young pitcher with a great fastball and slider. But he was amazingly wild, and his strikeouts were matched by a huge number of walks (90+ for 5 straights seasons). It was in 1993 (at the relatively advanced age of 30) that Johnson started to look like more than just another good, wild pitcher. His ERA dropped to a career-best 3.24, and he joined the short list of pitchers with a 300-K season, notching 308 in 255.1 IP. After a good '94, Johnson won the 1995 Cy Young with a 2.48 ERA and 294 K in just 214.1 IP.
But it wasn't until he came to the National League that Johnson became a historically good pitcher. It's not very common for a pitcher to reach this level at the age of 34 (Johnson's age when he came to the NL in 1998), but Johnson accomplished it. After an amazing half-season in Houston (10-1, 1.28 ERA, 116 K in 84.1 IP), Johnson signed a contract with Arizona and became the best pitcher in baseball. He spent 6 seasons in Arizona and won 4 Cy Young Awards (and deserved another one in 2004).
From 1999-2004, Johnson went 103-49, posted a 2.65 ERA, and struck out an ungodly 1,832 batters in 1389.2 IP against just 359 BB. It was a record for the ages that entered Johnson into the realm of the immortals and punched his ticket to Cooperstown.
Curt Schilling
It was a surprise for me to see Schilling rank higher on my list than guys like Tom Glavine and Kevin Brown. But while Schilling didn't get famous until he went to Arizona, he had a fine early career in Philadelphia. He didn't post amazing ERAs, but he had 2 300+ K seasons in Philadelphia, in 1997 and 1998. He did emerge to a new level when he joined Arizona in mid-2000, although he didn't reach the heights that Randy Johnson did. Schilling is, without a doubt in my mind, the best active pitcher never to win the Cy Young. While he probably needs another good season to really get noticed by Hall voters, I think he's already earned his spot. If the Phillies had been worth a damn in the early 90's (1993 notwithstanding), Schilling would have a better rep.
Tom Glavine
Glavine is a tough case, because he has really benefited from playing for the best team of the 90's. But he's been one heck of a pitcher for quite a long time, and his 275 wins are golden nowadays. He's already made it in the minds of the voters, and I would have to agree.
John Smoltz
I wasn't really sure about Smoltz until he reemerged with a fine 2005. Smoltz may have been better than Glavine at his peak, but he didn't have Tom's uncanny consistency and good health. Smoltz is often compared to Eckersley, although the comparison is a bit backward. Eckersley was a much better closer, and Smoltz was a much better starter. I think Smoltz will get into the Hall with Eckersley setting the precedent, and I think he's contributed enough both as a starter and as a reliever to deserve it.
Kevin Brown
Brown has had a fine career as a major league starter, but there's just nothing to really convince me that he's a Hall-of-Famer. Brown had two very good seasons in 1996 and 1998 (with Florida and San Diego, respectively), and has had some other good seasons, but he hasn't had that quality with a good degree of consistency. He's also bounced around to a lot of teams and suffered many injuries, both of which will hurt his standing with the voters. He spent 8 years with Texas, 1 with Baltimore, 2 with Florida, 1 with San Diego, 5 with L.A. and 2 now with the Yankees. He'll be 41 years old next year, and he's coming off lots of injury trouble. He's basically finished.
Mike Mussina
I'd argue that "Moose" is one of the more underrated pitchers of his era. He never really got the credit he deserved in Baltimore and always seemed to be in someone else's shadow in New York. He's had one heck of a career, better than some Hall-of-Famers, but I just don't think he belongs. He'll be 37 next season and is also troubled with injuries. He doesn't have a whole lot left.
Mariano Rivera
It's difficult to measure relievers against starting pitchers, and even against relievers of other eras. The "save" stat is pretty useless when compared to other eras. Our data for save opportunities goes back less than 10 years, so we have no clue how many chances for saves Goose Gossage had, let alone someone like Hoyt Wilhelm. And we can't give Trevor Hoffman a ton of credit for getting 400 saves if he had 100 more save chances than Gossage, which is more than likely. Managers nowadays tend to use their closers more and more exclusively in save opportunities, often to the detriment of the team. It's an odd case of a statistic changing the game. Managers see "save opportunities" as the most important time of the game, so they'll use their closer in a save opportunity whenever they can. But this can be counter-productive. There's no need to waste your best relief pitcher to protect a 3-run lead with 1 inning to play. A closer would be more effective pitching in a tied game, or a even game where his team is behind. The dominance of the save has grown far out of proportion. It also means that relievers like Gossage, who did come in to pitch in more tied-game or losing contests (and also pitched more than an inning much more often) actually lose out, because they don't have more saves (which you can't get without save opportunities). It's a classic case of people taking a statistic directly to heart without taking into account what it's really measuring.
That may not have much to do withy Mariano Rivera, but I thought it was important. Rivera is an interesting case, because he didn't reach the majors until he was 25, and didn't become a closer until age 27. But Rivera has been baseball's premiere closer (more or less) since 1997. I don't think his postseason work alone should get him into Cooperstown, but it's certainly quite the icing on the cake. I would vote for Rivera, but reserve it for closers like Trevor Hoffman.
Other active (or ineligible) pitchers with significant careers are: David Cone, Chuck Finley, David Wells, Orel Hershiser, Kenny Rogers and Al Leiter. None of them are Hall-of-Famers, although Cone probably comes the closest.
Roger Clemens
There is an argument to be made that Roger Clemens is the best pitcher in baseball history. His raw numbers don't compare with the likes of Cy Young and Walter Johnson, but it's my belief (along with many others) that this reflects a change in the circumstances of pitching rather than the quality of pitching. Looking at the raw numbers, one would assume that all the best pitchers played in the 1870s and 1880s. If you look at the top 100 pitchers in career ERA, you will find exactly one pitcher who is active in the majors (Pedro Martinez). Do you really believe that modern pitchers are just awful, and that all old-timers were better? Was Pedro Martinez really no better than Ned Garvin?
Of course not. The circumstances of pitching have changed. Strikeouts and walks are at historically high levels in modern baseball. What does this mean? It means that modern pitchers throw more pitchers per inning than at any other time. So we can't exactly blame pitchers for not throwing 300 innings a year anymore.
In the 1885 NL, the Giants pitching staff led the league with 519 K. They also allowed a league-high 266 walks. In the 2005 NL, the Cubs led the league with 1256 K. And Pittsburgh allowed a league-high 612 walks. So that's a 142% increase in strikeouts and a 130% increase in walks. Pitching is astronomically different than it used to be. We cannot let the raw numbers become more important than the context that created them.
Cy Young won 511 games. He was an excellent pitcher. Let's use his 1901 season as an example. Young started 41 games and completed 38 of them. In the 1901 AL, pitchers completed 85% of their starts. In the 2004 AL, that number dropped to 3%. Is this because pitchers nowadays are lily-livered weaklings who aren't man enough to finish what they start? Well, I suppose that's possible, and it's the explanation you hear from every old-timer. But my explanation is that the game changed, and the pitchers (and managers) adapted to the change. The pitchers didn't change the game; the game changed the pitchers. While there's no evidence to disprove the fact that personal weakness is why complete games are down, I think it's simply due to the changing game. You can't blame pitchers nowadays for not winning 300 games. How many games nowadays are decided by the bullpen, compared to just 20 years ago? What percentage of overall wins and losses go to starting pitchers now, compared to the era of Bob Gibson? The growing reliance on relief pitchers is a change in the way the game has played; it has come as much from managers as from pitchers. To sum up, we just can't compare a pitcher to another pitcher from a different era based on raw stats. We have to look at what the pitcher accomplished compared to his peers.
So what did Roger Clemens do, compared to his peers? Roger won 7 Cy Young Awards, although I think he was the best pitcher in his league 9 times, counting this year. Clemens has won more games, by far, than any of his contemporaries. He is second only to Warren Spahn as the winningest pitcher since World War II, an amazing stat when you consider all that has changed, even since Spahn retired in 1965. His .665 winning percentage is tied for 18th all time, with Pedro Martinez the only active pitcher above him (among those with a significant career). He is 2nd all-time in strikeouts with 4,502 (although Randy Johns0n may pass him before all is said and done), and sports a 3.12 career ERA. Even more important, his Adjusted ERA is 143, which ties him with Jim Devlin (?) for 8th all-time. Other than Pedro Martinez, the only pitchers since World War II with a better career Adjusted ERA are Hoyt Wilhelm and Dan Quisenberry, both relief pitchers who threw significantly fewer innings. And Pedro has yet to enter the decline phase of his career, which will lower his ERA perhaps even past Roger. And Roger has a huge edge in career innings pitched (2,513 for Pedro, 4,704.1 for Roger). So Roger is definitely the best pitcher of his time. And, as I demonstrated earlier, we could argue that he is the best pitcher of all time.
Greg Maddux
Maddux has not quite been Roger's equal, all told. Don't get me wrong, Maddux is definitely one of the 15 best pitchers ever, and probably in the top 10. He just hasn't had Roger's ungodly staying power. Maddux has been a great pitcher, but has started to look mortal at age 39. Which is what happens to pitchers not named Clemens.
But I could argue that Maddux's 2 best years were better than anything a pitcher has done since 1972. Here's what Maddux did in 1994 and 1995:
1994: 16-6, 1.56 ERA, 273 ERA+, 202 IP, 31:156 BB:K ratio, 4 HR allowed
1995: 19-2, 1.63 ERA, 259 ERA+, 209.2 IP, 23:181 BB:K ratio, 8 HR allowed
These are both historically good seasons. Let's compare them to Clemens' two best seasons, which oddly enough came in his two seasons in Toronto:
1997: 21-7, 2.05 ERA, 226 ERA+, 264 IP, 68:292 BB:K ratio, 9 HR allowed
1998: 20-6, 2.65 ERA, 176 ERA+, 234.2 IP, 88:271 BB:K ratio, 11 HR allowed
All four seasons naturally earned Cy Young Awards for both men. They're 4 of the best seasons by any pitcher in the past 30 years. Maddux has a pretty big edge in adjusted ERA, but Clemens' edge in Innings Pitched and strikeouts would seem to negate that. But is Clemens' edge in Innings Pitched really what it seems? Does anybody remember anything about 1994 and 1995? Perhaps you'll recall that a baseball strike shortened both seasons. So Maddux accomplished all that he did while making 25 and 28 starts, respectively, in 1994 and 1995. He averaged about 35 starts in the surrounding seasons, so what would Maddux's work look like adjusted for 35 starts? It draws him pretty even with Clemens. Maddux's Win Shares in the two seasons were 26 in '94 and 30 in '95, both historic numbers for a pitcher. Clemens got 32 in '97 and 25 in '98. It makes them look pretty even, but when you adjust for the strike, Maddux gets the clear edge. Assuming 35 starts for Maddux in both years, he would have earned 36 WS in '94 and 38 in '95. Those 38 Win Shares would be the best single-season for any pitcher since 1972.
So can we give Maddux extra credit for the bad luck of pitching his two greatest seasons in years shortened by a strike? Yes, but not much. It doesn't change my opinion that Clemens was the better pitcher, but it gives us insight into just how good Maddux was at his peak. And, in my opinion, Greg Maddux was, at his peak, an even better pitcher than Clemens was at his peak. Where Clemens has Maddux beat is in overall quality. Maddux was one of the 10 best pitchers in the NL each season from 1988-2002. That's a record of consistency that no one in modern history can match. While Clemens doesn't have that, Clemens did have more periods of dominance than Maddux did. It gives Clemens the edge, but not by a whole lot. So if Clemens is the best pitcher of his time (and he is), Maddux is a close second.
Pedro Martinez
I've already spoken about a pitcher's best two seasons. Is it possible that Pedro can match Clemens and Maddux? Yes, and it's possible that he has them both beaten. Here's an excerpt from the analysis of Pedro's career I put together recently:
In 1999, Pedro posted a historically good season. I can only list the stats to do it justice: He posted a miniscule 2.07 ERA (the league ERA in 1999 was 4.86). His adjusted ERA was 245, the 9th-best all-time. He notched 313 strikeouts against an amazing 37 BB and 9 HR allowed. He pitched 213.1 innings. Pedro’s 13.21 K/9 IP was the best ever until it was broken by Randy Johnson in 2001. It was now time to start speaking of Pedro as not just a great pitcher, but a historically great pitcher. Pedro became only the 15th unanimous winner of the Cy Young Award, and even finished a very close 2nd in the MVP race to Ivan Rodriguez.
Pedro’s 1999 performance looked like some pitcher’s ultimate career year. So Pedro went out and had an even better year in 2000. An ERA of 1.74 (the league ERA was 4.91; the 3.17 gap between them is the best ever by a starting pitcher). His adjusted ERA of 285 ranks as the best ever by a pitcher since 1900. Only Tim Keefe’s 294 in 1880 was better. Pedro struck out “only” 284 against 32 BB and 17 HR in 217 IP. He threw 7 complete games and 4 shutouts. He was, once again, the unanimous Cy Young, and this time finished 5th in the MVP voting.
Among active pitchers, Pedro ranks 9th with 197 career wins (despite being much younger than anyone above or close behind him), 1st in career winning percentage (.701), 1st in hits allowed/game (6.82), 4th in strikeouts (2861), 3rd in strikeouts/9 IP, 1st in ERA (2.72, with Greg Maddux’s 3.01 being the next-closest), 1st in Adjusted career ERA (166), and 6th in career Win Shares (243).
But hey, forget active pitchers. Where does Pedro rank all-time? He is third all-time in winning percentage (.701, although this should decrease as he gets older), 14th all-time in strikeouts (2861), 3rd all-time in K/9 IP, tied for 78th all-time in ERA (he’s the only active player in the top 100), and to top it all of, Pedro Martinez ranks 1st all-time in career Adjusted ERA at 166. Lefty Grove is second at 148, and Walter Johnson is third at 146. Now granted, adjusted ERA doesn’t account for the fact that Grove and Johnson pitched a whole lot more innings than Pedro, nor does it account for the fact that Pedro’s number will fall as he declines with age. Still, it’s an amazing achievement. The next-highest pitcher on the career ERA+ list is 8th-place Roger Clemens at 143.
Pedro Martinez is one of the greatest pitchers ever. He, along with Maddux, Clemens, and Johnson, deserve to enter not just into the Hall of Fame, but into the realm of the all-time great baseball players.
Randy Johnson
These guys are the Big 4 among active pitchers in baseball. If Carlton and Seaver were the dynamic duo of the 70's and 80's, then these 4 are the dominant quartet of their time; 4 pitchers who aren't just Hall-of-Famers, but among the top 20 pitchers ever.
Johnson got off to a relatively late start compared to the other three. He was, as a Seattle Mariner, a sharp young pitcher with a great fastball and slider. But he was amazingly wild, and his strikeouts were matched by a huge number of walks (90+ for 5 straights seasons). It was in 1993 (at the relatively advanced age of 30) that Johnson started to look like more than just another good, wild pitcher. His ERA dropped to a career-best 3.24, and he joined the short list of pitchers with a 300-K season, notching 308 in 255.1 IP. After a good '94, Johnson won the 1995 Cy Young with a 2.48 ERA and 294 K in just 214.1 IP.
But it wasn't until he came to the National League that Johnson became a historically good pitcher. It's not very common for a pitcher to reach this level at the age of 34 (Johnson's age when he came to the NL in 1998), but Johnson accomplished it. After an amazing half-season in Houston (10-1, 1.28 ERA, 116 K in 84.1 IP), Johnson signed a contract with Arizona and became the best pitcher in baseball. He spent 6 seasons in Arizona and won 4 Cy Young Awards (and deserved another one in 2004).
From 1999-2004, Johnson went 103-49, posted a 2.65 ERA, and struck out an ungodly 1,832 batters in 1389.2 IP against just 359 BB. It was a record for the ages that entered Johnson into the realm of the immortals and punched his ticket to Cooperstown.
Curt Schilling
It was a surprise for me to see Schilling rank higher on my list than guys like Tom Glavine and Kevin Brown. But while Schilling didn't get famous until he went to Arizona, he had a fine early career in Philadelphia. He didn't post amazing ERAs, but he had 2 300+ K seasons in Philadelphia, in 1997 and 1998. He did emerge to a new level when he joined Arizona in mid-2000, although he didn't reach the heights that Randy Johnson did. Schilling is, without a doubt in my mind, the best active pitcher never to win the Cy Young. While he probably needs another good season to really get noticed by Hall voters, I think he's already earned his spot. If the Phillies had been worth a damn in the early 90's (1993 notwithstanding), Schilling would have a better rep.
Tom Glavine
Glavine is a tough case, because he has really benefited from playing for the best team of the 90's. But he's been one heck of a pitcher for quite a long time, and his 275 wins are golden nowadays. He's already made it in the minds of the voters, and I would have to agree.
John Smoltz
I wasn't really sure about Smoltz until he reemerged with a fine 2005. Smoltz may have been better than Glavine at his peak, but he didn't have Tom's uncanny consistency and good health. Smoltz is often compared to Eckersley, although the comparison is a bit backward. Eckersley was a much better closer, and Smoltz was a much better starter. I think Smoltz will get into the Hall with Eckersley setting the precedent, and I think he's contributed enough both as a starter and as a reliever to deserve it.
Kevin Brown
Brown has had a fine career as a major league starter, but there's just nothing to really convince me that he's a Hall-of-Famer. Brown had two very good seasons in 1996 and 1998 (with Florida and San Diego, respectively), and has had some other good seasons, but he hasn't had that quality with a good degree of consistency. He's also bounced around to a lot of teams and suffered many injuries, both of which will hurt his standing with the voters. He spent 8 years with Texas, 1 with Baltimore, 2 with Florida, 1 with San Diego, 5 with L.A. and 2 now with the Yankees. He'll be 41 years old next year, and he's coming off lots of injury trouble. He's basically finished.
Mike Mussina
I'd argue that "Moose" is one of the more underrated pitchers of his era. He never really got the credit he deserved in Baltimore and always seemed to be in someone else's shadow in New York. He's had one heck of a career, better than some Hall-of-Famers, but I just don't think he belongs. He'll be 37 next season and is also troubled with injuries. He doesn't have a whole lot left.
Mariano Rivera
It's difficult to measure relievers against starting pitchers, and even against relievers of other eras. The "save" stat is pretty useless when compared to other eras. Our data for save opportunities goes back less than 10 years, so we have no clue how many chances for saves Goose Gossage had, let alone someone like Hoyt Wilhelm. And we can't give Trevor Hoffman a ton of credit for getting 400 saves if he had 100 more save chances than Gossage, which is more than likely. Managers nowadays tend to use their closers more and more exclusively in save opportunities, often to the detriment of the team. It's an odd case of a statistic changing the game. Managers see "save opportunities" as the most important time of the game, so they'll use their closer in a save opportunity whenever they can. But this can be counter-productive. There's no need to waste your best relief pitcher to protect a 3-run lead with 1 inning to play. A closer would be more effective pitching in a tied game, or a even game where his team is behind. The dominance of the save has grown far out of proportion. It also means that relievers like Gossage, who did come in to pitch in more tied-game or losing contests (and also pitched more than an inning much more often) actually lose out, because they don't have more saves (which you can't get without save opportunities). It's a classic case of people taking a statistic directly to heart without taking into account what it's really measuring.
That may not have much to do withy Mariano Rivera, but I thought it was important. Rivera is an interesting case, because he didn't reach the majors until he was 25, and didn't become a closer until age 27. But Rivera has been baseball's premiere closer (more or less) since 1997. I don't think his postseason work alone should get him into Cooperstown, but it's certainly quite the icing on the cake. I would vote for Rivera, but reserve it for closers like Trevor Hoffman.
Other active (or ineligible) pitchers with significant careers are: David Cone, Chuck Finley, David Wells, Orel Hershiser, Kenny Rogers and Al Leiter. None of them are Hall-of-Famers, although Cone probably comes the closest.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Current players Pt. 4
RF
Gary Sheffield
Sheffield's personality is such to keep people from admitting he's a Hall-of-Famer. He's also played several different positions with several different teams, so it's hard to get a clear picture of him. But he's one of the 10 best hitters of the 90's and probably ranks even higher than that.
Tony Gwynn
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Gwynn shouldn't have any trouble getting into Cooperstown. Nor should he.
Manny Ramirez
Manny's a Hall-of-Famer. I know I called Edgar Martinez the best right-handed hitter of the 90's, but Manny just might have something to say about that. Manny's not just a good hitter; he's an excellent hitter, and has been for quite some time. For some reason, his attitude hasn't kept people from still liking him, at least generally. I'd be interested to find out why.
Sammy Sosa
Well, Sosa certainly isn't a sure thing anymore. His career may come to a crashing halt sooner than we anticipated. Sammy turns 37 in November, and his last two seasons have been injury-plagued. And this season is the worst season by far that he's had since he left the White Sox. Do I think he belongs in the Hall? That's a tough question. Sosa is not the all-around ballplayer most people think he is. I think his numbers should get him in, but barely. And that's if he can contribute some more before he retires. Then there's the thorny question of steroids and his ugly departure from Chicago. If Sammy doesn't have another good season, I honestly don't think he'll get inducted.
Larry Walker
You can't really examine Walker's career without knowing pretty accurately how much Coors Field helped him. During his time in Colorad0 (1995-2004), Walker hit 425/618/334. Anybody who hits that well over a 10-year period probably belongs in Cooperstown . . . unless they played at Coors Field.
Everyone knows that Coors Field helped Walker. But how much? That is the question. Everyone will quote Walker's career stats when he comes up for induction, but very few people will make any attempt to unmuddy the waters so polluted by Coors. What will likely happen is that people will just make a blanket statement that he's a Hall-of-Famer anyway, or that he can't be one because of Coors. But that's the stupid way out. We have to know how good Larry Walker was, not how good Coors made him look.
There are several metrics to adjust for ballparks. Win Shares is one. They give Walker credit for 187 Win Shares during his years in Colorado. That's very good -- but it's not Hall-of-Fame material. 300 Win Shares is a rough baseline for Hall-of-Fame induction. Some people with less than 300 are in, but very few. Walker has compiled 311 during his whole career. His best season was a 32-Win Share campaign in 1997. 32 Win Shares is quite good, but it's not good on any sort of historic level. And that was the only time Walker topped 30 Win Shares during a single season.
But Walker did spend a great deal of time injured. If he hadn't been so injury-prone, would he be a Hall-of-Famer. Probably. But we can't make that argument to get someone into the Hall. We can't induct players based on what they would have done if they hadn't gotten injured. Or else Orel Hershiser, Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden, and Cesar Cedeno would all be in.
The basic gist of my argument is that Coors Field made Larry Walker look like a Hall-of-Famer. But to the best of my knowledge, he was actually not that good. Coors Field makes good players look great and great players look historic. It's been around for over 10 years now, and you'd think people would have learned. But they haven't. And when Walker gets strong consideration for the Hall (and possibly gets in), it will just prove that people still have no damn idea what they're doing.
Bobby Abreu
Abreu is underrated on a historical level. He has been an excellent, top-10 player since 1998, when he joined the Phillies. Abreu, at the age of 31, has 230 career Win Shares, well on the way to a Cooperstown-caliber career. If he can just keep his career on track, I think he'll deserve a plaque in the Hall. He's a career 411/512/303 hitter, which is just plain amazing. He's a rine right fielder, and he has 241 career stolen bases (with a 76% success rate). And yet no one really noticed him until he won the Home Run Derby this year. What is wrong with people?
Vladimir Guerrero
Is Bobby Abreu really a better player than Vlad? Yeah, I think so, but it's very close. Abreu has the advantage of being 2 years older than Vlad, so he's had more time to accomplish things. But would you believe that Abreu is a better right fielder? Yes, Vlad has an amazing arm. But, uh, it takes more than arm to play defense. People have created this image of Vlad as a great defender just because of his arm. He's actually a bit clumsy, otherwise. But, in what seems to be a recurring theme, people make decisions based on what they want to see, not based on the underlying reality.
But I think Vlad will earn a spot in Cooperstown, especially now that he's moved to a contending team, won an MVP, and gotten noticed.
Harold Baines
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
People think that Harold belongs in the Hall because he has a lot of big career numbers. But if you'd hung around for 22 seasons, well after you were valuable at all, you'd have big numbers, too. Harold was a good player for a long time. But he really wasn't that good. In fact, he was just barely above average as a hitter, and contributed nothing to the defense. He had some strong seasons, back in his early years in Chicago, but Harold's last really effective year came in 1991, but he played 10 more seasons regardless.
This is where people sometimes get caught up in the stats. It's not just a matter of who has the biggest numbers over a career; it was who was the best player. We award pretty good players who play for a long time and shortchange excellent players with unimpressive career numbers. The importance is to find a balance; there has to be some good combination of quality and quantity. And the simple fact is that being a great player is far more valuable than being a good player for a long time. Even though Harold was pretty good for 22 years, he's a much less valuable player, overall, than someone like Albert Belle, who had a short, productive burst of a career. But, with the exception of Sandy Koufax, people with short careers tend to get shortchanged in Cooperstown. This is because of the insane fixation on high career numbers (3,000 hits, 500 HR, 300 wins), without anyone recognizing the fact that, all told, quality is much more important than quantity.
Jose Canseco
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Yeah, this one's pretty funny now. But even before he wrote his tell-all book and appeared on a VH1 reality show, Canseco wasn't a Hall-of-Famer. He was a very good player, but his peak was quite short. Although he had a bit of a renaissance toward the end of his career, Canseco's Cooperstown chances went down the tubes when he was traded to Texas, at the young age of 28.
Paul O'Neill
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Paul was a beloved member of the Yankees who had a fine career, but he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.
Other active players with significant careers are: Juan Gonzalez, Tim Salmon, Shawn Green, and Ichiro Suzuki. None of them are really qualified, although Ichiro has had a good, short career. I just don't think he'll get credit for his time in Japan, leaving him short.
C
Mike Piazza
Yes, Piazza is a great-hitting catcher. He was probably even better at his peak than Berra or Bench. But he is not the best-hitting catcher in baseball history. That honor goes to Mr. Josh Gibson, and no, it is not a trivial point.
Piazza's in given what he's already accomplished. He could certainly use a few more productive years as, say, a DH. But he was such a good hitter at his peak that it doesn't really matter, and he's one of the best players never to win an MVP.
Ivan Rodriguez
Pudge's career is slowing down, which isn't unusual for a soon-to-be 34-year-old catcher, although it took the Tigers by surprise. Of course, a sunrise probably takes the Tigers by surprise.
Signing old catchers to long-term contracts is like peeing on a pit bull; only dumb people think it's a good idea. Pudge was good last year, but took a big step down this season. He has already played well enough to make the Hall, but it would certainly help his chances if he could produce a couple more impact seasons.
The only other active catchers with significant careers are Javier Lopez, Jorge Posada, and Jason Kendall. None of them are Hall-of-Famers, although Posada is much, much better than anyone realizes. Jason Varitek has had some good seasons recently, but he's frickin' 33, and that doesn't bode well for his future.
The last chapter, the pitchers, will be posted soon.
Gary Sheffield
Sheffield's personality is such to keep people from admitting he's a Hall-of-Famer. He's also played several different positions with several different teams, so it's hard to get a clear picture of him. But he's one of the 10 best hitters of the 90's and probably ranks even higher than that.
Tony Gwynn
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Gwynn shouldn't have any trouble getting into Cooperstown. Nor should he.
Manny Ramirez
Manny's a Hall-of-Famer. I know I called Edgar Martinez the best right-handed hitter of the 90's, but Manny just might have something to say about that. Manny's not just a good hitter; he's an excellent hitter, and has been for quite some time. For some reason, his attitude hasn't kept people from still liking him, at least generally. I'd be interested to find out why.
Sammy Sosa
Well, Sosa certainly isn't a sure thing anymore. His career may come to a crashing halt sooner than we anticipated. Sammy turns 37 in November, and his last two seasons have been injury-plagued. And this season is the worst season by far that he's had since he left the White Sox. Do I think he belongs in the Hall? That's a tough question. Sosa is not the all-around ballplayer most people think he is. I think his numbers should get him in, but barely. And that's if he can contribute some more before he retires. Then there's the thorny question of steroids and his ugly departure from Chicago. If Sammy doesn't have another good season, I honestly don't think he'll get inducted.
Larry Walker
You can't really examine Walker's career without knowing pretty accurately how much Coors Field helped him. During his time in Colorad0 (1995-2004), Walker hit 425/618/334. Anybody who hits that well over a 10-year period probably belongs in Cooperstown . . . unless they played at Coors Field.
Everyone knows that Coors Field helped Walker. But how much? That is the question. Everyone will quote Walker's career stats when he comes up for induction, but very few people will make any attempt to unmuddy the waters so polluted by Coors. What will likely happen is that people will just make a blanket statement that he's a Hall-of-Famer anyway, or that he can't be one because of Coors. But that's the stupid way out. We have to know how good Larry Walker was, not how good Coors made him look.
There are several metrics to adjust for ballparks. Win Shares is one. They give Walker credit for 187 Win Shares during his years in Colorado. That's very good -- but it's not Hall-of-Fame material. 300 Win Shares is a rough baseline for Hall-of-Fame induction. Some people with less than 300 are in, but very few. Walker has compiled 311 during his whole career. His best season was a 32-Win Share campaign in 1997. 32 Win Shares is quite good, but it's not good on any sort of historic level. And that was the only time Walker topped 30 Win Shares during a single season.
But Walker did spend a great deal of time injured. If he hadn't been so injury-prone, would he be a Hall-of-Famer. Probably. But we can't make that argument to get someone into the Hall. We can't induct players based on what they would have done if they hadn't gotten injured. Or else Orel Hershiser, Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden, and Cesar Cedeno would all be in.
The basic gist of my argument is that Coors Field made Larry Walker look like a Hall-of-Famer. But to the best of my knowledge, he was actually not that good. Coors Field makes good players look great and great players look historic. It's been around for over 10 years now, and you'd think people would have learned. But they haven't. And when Walker gets strong consideration for the Hall (and possibly gets in), it will just prove that people still have no damn idea what they're doing.
Bobby Abreu
Abreu is underrated on a historical level. He has been an excellent, top-10 player since 1998, when he joined the Phillies. Abreu, at the age of 31, has 230 career Win Shares, well on the way to a Cooperstown-caliber career. If he can just keep his career on track, I think he'll deserve a plaque in the Hall. He's a career 411/512/303 hitter, which is just plain amazing. He's a rine right fielder, and he has 241 career stolen bases (with a 76% success rate). And yet no one really noticed him until he won the Home Run Derby this year. What is wrong with people?
Vladimir Guerrero
Is Bobby Abreu really a better player than Vlad? Yeah, I think so, but it's very close. Abreu has the advantage of being 2 years older than Vlad, so he's had more time to accomplish things. But would you believe that Abreu is a better right fielder? Yes, Vlad has an amazing arm. But, uh, it takes more than arm to play defense. People have created this image of Vlad as a great defender just because of his arm. He's actually a bit clumsy, otherwise. But, in what seems to be a recurring theme, people make decisions based on what they want to see, not based on the underlying reality.
But I think Vlad will earn a spot in Cooperstown, especially now that he's moved to a contending team, won an MVP, and gotten noticed.
Harold Baines
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
People think that Harold belongs in the Hall because he has a lot of big career numbers. But if you'd hung around for 22 seasons, well after you were valuable at all, you'd have big numbers, too. Harold was a good player for a long time. But he really wasn't that good. In fact, he was just barely above average as a hitter, and contributed nothing to the defense. He had some strong seasons, back in his early years in Chicago, but Harold's last really effective year came in 1991, but he played 10 more seasons regardless.
This is where people sometimes get caught up in the stats. It's not just a matter of who has the biggest numbers over a career; it was who was the best player. We award pretty good players who play for a long time and shortchange excellent players with unimpressive career numbers. The importance is to find a balance; there has to be some good combination of quality and quantity. And the simple fact is that being a great player is far more valuable than being a good player for a long time. Even though Harold was pretty good for 22 years, he's a much less valuable player, overall, than someone like Albert Belle, who had a short, productive burst of a career. But, with the exception of Sandy Koufax, people with short careers tend to get shortchanged in Cooperstown. This is because of the insane fixation on high career numbers (3,000 hits, 500 HR, 300 wins), without anyone recognizing the fact that, all told, quality is much more important than quantity.
Jose Canseco
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Yeah, this one's pretty funny now. But even before he wrote his tell-all book and appeared on a VH1 reality show, Canseco wasn't a Hall-of-Famer. He was a very good player, but his peak was quite short. Although he had a bit of a renaissance toward the end of his career, Canseco's Cooperstown chances went down the tubes when he was traded to Texas, at the young age of 28.
Paul O'Neill
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Paul was a beloved member of the Yankees who had a fine career, but he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.
Other active players with significant careers are: Juan Gonzalez, Tim Salmon, Shawn Green, and Ichiro Suzuki. None of them are really qualified, although Ichiro has had a good, short career. I just don't think he'll get credit for his time in Japan, leaving him short.
C
Mike Piazza
Yes, Piazza is a great-hitting catcher. He was probably even better at his peak than Berra or Bench. But he is not the best-hitting catcher in baseball history. That honor goes to Mr. Josh Gibson, and no, it is not a trivial point.
Piazza's in given what he's already accomplished. He could certainly use a few more productive years as, say, a DH. But he was such a good hitter at his peak that it doesn't really matter, and he's one of the best players never to win an MVP.
Ivan Rodriguez
Pudge's career is slowing down, which isn't unusual for a soon-to-be 34-year-old catcher, although it took the Tigers by surprise. Of course, a sunrise probably takes the Tigers by surprise.
Signing old catchers to long-term contracts is like peeing on a pit bull; only dumb people think it's a good idea. Pudge was good last year, but took a big step down this season. He has already played well enough to make the Hall, but it would certainly help his chances if he could produce a couple more impact seasons.
The only other active catchers with significant careers are Javier Lopez, Jorge Posada, and Jason Kendall. None of them are Hall-of-Famers, although Posada is much, much better than anyone realizes. Jason Varitek has had some good seasons recently, but he's frickin' 33, and that doesn't bode well for his future.
The last chapter, the pitchers, will be posted soon.
Momentum is bunk
I intended to write an article debunking the popular theory that "momentum" is an important factor in the postseason. Of all the evidence we have of momentum meaning bupkus, people still yell about it. It's a classic example of people not letting their beliefs be affected by reality. Everyone said that the Astros were "finishing" heading into Game 6 of the NLCS, because the Cardinals had the momentum on their side. Then the Astros won, and everyone was proven wrong. I'm still waiting for all the "Hey, I was wrong" articles. I'll be waiting for a while.
I was going to write this article, but then Brian Gunn over at The Hardball Times beat me to it. So, Mr. Gunn's fine article notwithstanding, I'll do the best I can to dispel the myth of "momentum." I'll look at the most recent examples, since they're the ones you all remember.
2004 ALCS: Red Sox .vs. Yankees
Remember this one? The Yankees won the first three games of the ALCS. Not only that, but their Game 3 victory was an absolute skunking, 19-8, at Fenway Park. If ever a team had momentum in a series, the Yankees had it last year. And that momentum got them diddly-squat, as the Red Sox won anyway.
2003 NLCS: Cubs .vs. Marlins
If you'll recall, the Cubs took a 3-games-to-1 lead in this Series. If they had won, everyone would have said that the Cubs were "destined" to win, and that the Marlins couldn't overcome their momentum. But, of course, that's not what happened. Steve Bartman caught the ball, and the Cubs lost. No one points out that someone (not Steve Bartman) stood on the pitcher's mound and allowed those 8 runs, and someone was doing a good job of hitting to score them. But Bartman gets the blame, because it makes for a good story. Thus is the negative influence of journalism on baseball.
2001 World Series: Diamondbacks .vs. Yankees
The Yankees, down 2 games to 1 in New York, were losing Game 4 when Tino Martinez hit a game-tying homer and Derek Jeter hit a walk-off shot in the 10th. The next day the Yankees were losing Game 5 when Scott Brosius tied the game with a homer, and the Yankees won in the 12th. The Yankees, just 6 weeks after September 11, were destined to win a victory. Not just a victory for New York . . . but a victory for America.
Luckily, good pitching trumps jingoism. The D-Backs said "F*** momentum" by winning Game 6 in a lopsided victory, then came back to Win Game 7. The Yankees had the momentum, but it didn't get them anywhere. And every reporter was writing about how the Diamondbacks were finished after Game 5. And none of them were brave enough to write a column after the Series and say, "Everything I said about momentum was a big ol' crock of poop. I'm incredibly stupid."
Think these are the only examples? Read the Gunn article to find out about similar stories in the 1999 NLCS, the 1975 World Series (Fisk hit the homer, but the Red Sox still lost), the 1972 ALCS, the 1947 World Series, and the 1911 World Series.
Momentum is bunk.
I was going to write this article, but then Brian Gunn over at The Hardball Times beat me to it. So, Mr. Gunn's fine article notwithstanding, I'll do the best I can to dispel the myth of "momentum." I'll look at the most recent examples, since they're the ones you all remember.
2004 ALCS: Red Sox .vs. Yankees
Remember this one? The Yankees won the first three games of the ALCS. Not only that, but their Game 3 victory was an absolute skunking, 19-8, at Fenway Park. If ever a team had momentum in a series, the Yankees had it last year. And that momentum got them diddly-squat, as the Red Sox won anyway.
2003 NLCS: Cubs .vs. Marlins
If you'll recall, the Cubs took a 3-games-to-1 lead in this Series. If they had won, everyone would have said that the Cubs were "destined" to win, and that the Marlins couldn't overcome their momentum. But, of course, that's not what happened. Steve Bartman caught the ball, and the Cubs lost. No one points out that someone (not Steve Bartman) stood on the pitcher's mound and allowed those 8 runs, and someone was doing a good job of hitting to score them. But Bartman gets the blame, because it makes for a good story. Thus is the negative influence of journalism on baseball.
2001 World Series: Diamondbacks .vs. Yankees
The Yankees, down 2 games to 1 in New York, were losing Game 4 when Tino Martinez hit a game-tying homer and Derek Jeter hit a walk-off shot in the 10th. The next day the Yankees were losing Game 5 when Scott Brosius tied the game with a homer, and the Yankees won in the 12th. The Yankees, just 6 weeks after September 11, were destined to win a victory. Not just a victory for New York . . . but a victory for America.
Luckily, good pitching trumps jingoism. The D-Backs said "F*** momentum" by winning Game 6 in a lopsided victory, then came back to Win Game 7. The Yankees had the momentum, but it didn't get them anywhere. And every reporter was writing about how the Diamondbacks were finished after Game 5. And none of them were brave enough to write a column after the Series and say, "Everything I said about momentum was a big ol' crock of poop. I'm incredibly stupid."
Think these are the only examples? Read the Gunn article to find out about similar stories in the 1999 NLCS, the 1975 World Series (Fisk hit the homer, but the Red Sox still lost), the 1972 ALCS, the 1947 World Series, and the 1911 World Series.
Momentum is bunk.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Who's eligible
I meant to add this to the last post but forgot. It's a list of who will be eligible for induction in the upcoming Hall of Fame elections. The list of all eligible candidates is usually narrowed down to whomever has an outside shot at the Hall; this is what gets voted on. Here, then, is a list of all remotely reasonable candidates for Hall induction, by year of eligibility:
2005
Rick Aguilera
Albert Belle
Will Clark
Gary Gaetti
Dwight Gooden
Ozzie Guillen
Orel Hershiser
Gregg Jefferies
Lance Johnson
This coming election is interesting, because I don't think any of these candidates will be inducted. The only one I'd vote for is Will Clark, but he'll never make it. I guess Gooden and Hershiser will get the biggest nibble from the voters, but nothing like 50%. Because of this, I think 2005 will be the year some candidates from the past get in. Judging from recent voting, Ron Santo, Gil Hodges, Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter, and Andre Dawson would be the most likely candidates. They'll elect somebody, because the city of Cooperstown would be very mad if they didn't.
2006
Harold Baines
Bobby Bonilla
Jay Buhner
Jose Canseco
Eric Davis
Tony Fernandez
Tony Gwynn
Mark McGwire
Paul O'Neill
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Bret Saberhagen
Ripken will get a monstrous percentage of the vote, and Gwynn won't be far behind him. We'll just have to see about McGwire; I don't think he'll make the first ballot the way people feel about him now, although the good news is that Palmeiro has replaced him as whipping boy of the media. Baines and O'Neill will get a good nibble, but they won't be inducted. Canseco? HA! My vote would go to Gwynn, Ripken, and McGwire, and I'd take a close look at Tony Fernandez.
2007
Chuck Finley
Travis Fryman
David Justice
Chuck Knoblauch
Tim Raines
Good news for Tim Raines after all! There's no one here who'll get any sort of support, leaving Raines as the best candidate in the field! And unless the voters just decide to elect some old faces like Rice or Dawson, Raines stands a fair chance of getting inducted!
2008
Jay Bell
David Cone
Ron Gant
Mark Grace
Rickey Henderson
Jesse Orosco
Mo Vaughn
Matt Williams
I think Rickey will get in here, unless he succeeds in making a comeback to baseball. Grace has an outside shot, but I don't agree with that. Orosco's the only one who stands a chance, and that's highly unlikely.
2009 (tentative): Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin
2010 (tentative): Larry Walker?
2005
Rick Aguilera
Albert Belle
Will Clark
Gary Gaetti
Dwight Gooden
Ozzie Guillen
Orel Hershiser
Gregg Jefferies
Lance Johnson
This coming election is interesting, because I don't think any of these candidates will be inducted. The only one I'd vote for is Will Clark, but he'll never make it. I guess Gooden and Hershiser will get the biggest nibble from the voters, but nothing like 50%. Because of this, I think 2005 will be the year some candidates from the past get in. Judging from recent voting, Ron Santo, Gil Hodges, Jim Rice, Bruce Sutter, and Andre Dawson would be the most likely candidates. They'll elect somebody, because the city of Cooperstown would be very mad if they didn't.
2006
Harold Baines
Bobby Bonilla
Jay Buhner
Jose Canseco
Eric Davis
Tony Fernandez
Tony Gwynn
Mark McGwire
Paul O'Neill
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Bret Saberhagen
Ripken will get a monstrous percentage of the vote, and Gwynn won't be far behind him. We'll just have to see about McGwire; I don't think he'll make the first ballot the way people feel about him now, although the good news is that Palmeiro has replaced him as whipping boy of the media. Baines and O'Neill will get a good nibble, but they won't be inducted. Canseco? HA! My vote would go to Gwynn, Ripken, and McGwire, and I'd take a close look at Tony Fernandez.
2007
Chuck Finley
Travis Fryman
David Justice
Chuck Knoblauch
Tim Raines
Good news for Tim Raines after all! There's no one here who'll get any sort of support, leaving Raines as the best candidate in the field! And unless the voters just decide to elect some old faces like Rice or Dawson, Raines stands a fair chance of getting inducted!
2008
Jay Bell
David Cone
Ron Gant
Mark Grace
Rickey Henderson
Jesse Orosco
Mo Vaughn
Matt Williams
I think Rickey will get in here, unless he succeeds in making a comeback to baseball. Grace has an outside shot, but I don't agree with that. Orosco's the only one who stands a chance, and that's highly unlikely.
2009 (tentative): Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin
2010 (tentative): Larry Walker?
Current players Pt. 3
LF
Barry Bonds
Yes, Bonds was a Hall-of-Famer before his career mysteriously revitalized in 2001. In fact, I could argue that the best player of the 1990s was not Ken Griffey, Jr.; it was Barry Bonds. This was true and readily apparent even before their careers went zooming off in opposite directions in 2001. This is fodder for another article, but suffice to say that Bonds' career was Cooperstown-worthy before he hit 73 HR and became one of the most dominant players in sports history.
We can't question Bonds' quality; if he's not a Hall-of-Famer, no one is. It's a matter of steroids. Bonds' temperament and demeanor really kept people from recognizing his long-term value, as they just didn't accept that such a difficult person was better than good ol' Junior. But it's true.
So steroids it is. In short, Bonds was such an enormously amazing player, we have to have more evidence to keep him out of the Hall. Yeah, I know, no one really doubts that he did steroids. His is the only case where the statistical evidence itself is proof enough of steroid use (no one has ever brought their career to a whole different plane at age 35).
But even with all of this, can we really keep Barry out of the Hall? I'm not going to throw out the sensational garbage about Barry being an "insult to the game." It's not as simple as that. Much as I might dislike him and all that he stands for, I just can't make a good enough case to keep him out of Cooperstown. He was just that damn good.
Rickey Henderson
Retired 2003 Eligible for Hall December 2008
Why is everyone suddenly not sure if Rickey Henderson is a Hall-of-Famer? Hall voters typically overestimate the importance of stolen bases and "small-ball." Why in the world isn't Rickey Henderson getting his due as one of the 15 or 20 best players ever? He was the best leadoff hitter of all time, with a .401 career OBP (against a league average of .334), stole an all-time record 1406 bases (with an 81% success rate) and even had pretty good power, hitting 297 career HR and sporting an above-average .419 career slugging percentage. He's the all-time leader in runs scored, has 3,055 career hits, and his second all-time with 2,190 walks.
What's the problem?
Tim Raines
Retired 2002 Eligible for Hall December 2007
Somebody asked me once who the best player not in the Hall of Fame was. I said something like Bert Blyleven or Dick Allen at the time. But in 2007, the answer will be Tim Raines. And it won't even be close.
Raines wasn't just a great player, he was an excellent player. The problem was that his skills were nearly identical to Rickey Henderson's; stolen bases, walks, and a great leadoff hitter. This wouldn't be such a problem, except that their careers coincided almost perfectly. Henderson played from 1979-2003. Raines played from 1979-2002. It's some bizarre coincidence that two amazing players with almost the exact same skills would be in the major leagues at exactly the same time.
But it's bad news for Raines. Bad news because Raines wasn't as good as Rickey. I'd rate Rickey the 4th-best LF of all time (behind Ted Williams, Bonds, and Stan Musial), and Raines would probably be 6th (behind Carl Yastrzemski and ahead of Willie Stargell). Raines just wasn't quite as good as Rickey, and that's how people think of him: not good enough. Raines never won an MVP (although he deserved to woin at least one, maybe two), whereas Rickey was the AL MVP in 1990 (and he deserved probably two more). And if the voters aren't sure about letting Rickey in, Raines doesn't stand a chance. And that's an absolute tragedy, but Tim Raines is a Hall-of-Famer just as much as anybody.
Luis Gonzalez
No, Luis doesn't belong in the Hall, but he's had a fine career. Even before he had a breakout year with Arizona in 2001, Luis was a quality hitter for quite a while. He's at the top of the list of "Guys who Aren't Hall-of-Famers, But We Like Them a Lot Anyhow."
Albert Belle
Retired 2000 Eligible for Hall: December 2005
No, I don't think Albert belongs in the Hall of Fame. But if he'd played a full career, he probably would have earned a spot. As it is, he retired at age 34 with some good seasons still left in him. As it is, he hit at a career 369/564/295 clip. People let Albert's attitude get in the way of their opinion of him. And while it's true that Albert had one heck of an attitude problem early in his career, I don't remember hearing anything really negative about him after he left Cleveland and went to the White Sox. And as I mentioned earlier, a player's personality doesn't have as much effect on wins and losses as we think.
I mentioned race in passing as an issue in the Dick Allen comment. I think it applies to Albert as well. No, I don't think everyone hated Albert just because he was black. But I think that a lot of people (whether they admit it or not) see black people as violent and scary. When we see someone or meet them, we project onto them all of our opinions about their race, sex, ethnicity, etc. When we see a black man, our thinking about all black men will color our perceptions of the individual. This is an unfortunate psychological fact, which is further compounded by everyone's refusal to admit it, especially about themselves.
When Albert Belle comes along and has an attitude, we look down upon him and see him as a menace. This is not just because of Albert, but because of our subconscious beliefs about all black people. If Albert were Norwegian, we would be much less likely to draw conclusions about his attitude, because we don't have a preconceived notion of Norwegians. It is not race exclusively; no one (well, almost no one) looks at Albert and says, "I hate him because he's black." But we let the fact that he is black color our opinions and the conclusions we draw about him.
We're much more likely to see a black man as a threat and an attitude problem; police are more likely to shoot a fleeing suspect who is black. Albert's actions and attitude would be, in my opinion, much less of a problem if he were white. Albert would not have gotten nearly as much negative publicity if he were white. We tend to excuse, and sometimes admire, white people who are fierce or show a bit of an attitude. Quick, think of a white person in sports accused of being an "attitude problem." Can't think of one? How many blacks can you think of? Allen Iverson, Dick Allen, Albert, Milton Bradley, Bonds, etc. This is because a double standard exists for blacks and whites. Get an image in your head: a player who constantly fights, sometimes even physically, with teammates, someone whose tirades on the baseball field are violent spectacles, someone who is considered to be quick to anger and even physically threatening. Now, am I describing Milton Bradley . . . or Billy Martin? One is a disgraced player seen as a big problem who will likely be traded. The other is a hero, whose antics are tolerated and even celebrated (imagine Bradley getting a job as a manager). Of course, these are just two examples. They don't prove anything. But imagine one thing for me -- imagine if Billy Martin were black. Would he be seen as a gutsy fighter? Or as a menace to the game and a felon to be prosecuted?
These thoughts do not make us sleep sound in our beds. They make us question ourselves to see if, perhaps, we ourselves are part of the problem. Few people are brave enough to do so, as evidenced by the millions of white people who refuse to admit that they harbor even a tinge of racism, and even scoff at those who look to point it out. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say, "I'm not racist, but..." and then reel off a racist remark.
Baseball is not in the business of solving problems. It is in the interest of covering them up so it can make money. Baseball will never admit to a race problem, and if it does pop up (Al Campanis), it is said to be just one person's view. This may not have much to do with Albert Belle, but it's something that needs to be said. I wish someone had said it before now.
Other active left fielders with notable careers are Moises Alou and Brian Giles. Giles, despite being one of the most underrated players in history, does not look like he'll earn a Cooperstown spot. Alou's had a good career, but ain't even close.
CF
Bernie Williams & Ken Griffey, Jr.
What if I were to tell you that Bernie Williams belongs in the Hall of Fame? Would you believe me? I don't think I can convince you otherwise if you don't agree. But look at what Bernie done in his career. Compare his career to Ken Griffey, Jr.'s. They are so close as to be disturbing. Williams' career hitting line (thru 2004) is 388/488/301. Griffey's is 377/560/292. Griffey has a big edge in slugging, but Bernie has a better OBP and average (which is more important). Griffey has played in much friendlier hitting parks than Bernie, who doesn't get a lot of help from Yankee Stadium, despite being a switch-hitter. Griffey has a small edge and baserunning and a big edge in defense. But Griffey's defense has been horribly overrated by people who decided he was the next Willie Mays when he came up as a rookie and haven't let his actual play in the field change their minds. Griffey is a perfect example of marketing out of control; I'm sure he sells a lot of tennis shoes, but people actually started believing he was the best baseball player in years. But I'll say this: It doesn't matter how many things you do well; it matters how well you do them. Griffey was a 5-tool player, but NOT ALL TOOLS ARE CREATED EQUAL. Hitting is the most important thing BY FAR that anyone can do, and if Griffey was a better hitter, it wasn't by much. But Williams was actually more consistent; while Griffey has had a lot of trouble with injuries (even before Cincinnati), Bernie has been (before this year), a consistently great player. He hasn't had any one season better than Griffey's best, but the whole might be better than the sum of the parts.
So I'll agree that Griffey was the better player. And I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame. But so does Bernie Williams.
Rant Detour
Now I'll tackle the subject I mentioned earlier: the myth that Griffey was the best player of the 90's. Forget about what's happened since 1999; forget that Barry Bonds became the best player since Ruth and that Griffey became a colossal disappointment in Cincinnati. Considering what we knew after the 1999 season: who had the better career, Griffey or Bonds?
Barry Bonds, and it's not even close. And wouldn't you know it, the MVP voters agree with me? I count 1 for Griffey and 3 for Bonds, a pretty commanding lead. And yet the same people who voted on these awards were calling Griffey the Player of the 90's in unison. Why?
Well, if you mean the best player of the 90's, it's Bonds, as I said. But I think they really mean the player they liked the most. And these two are often confused. Even sportswriters are confused into thinking that exciting players are good players. You'd think, from listening to commentators, that two of the most high-impact players in the game are Dave Roberts and Scott Podsednik. Because they both lay down bunts, steal bases, and do "all of the little things." This may be true, but there's a reason they call them the "little" things. The reason that Podsednik and Roberts do these things is that they can't do the most important thing: THEY CAN'T HIT! Roberts has never been an above-average player, let alone an excellent one. And Podsednik gets caught stealing too often for even his stolen bases to mean a whole lot. So give me big ol' boring Adam Dunn any day.
So let's agree that we mean the best player, not the player who is really nice and much more likely to lead an ad campaign and answers my questions in the locker room. Here is my proof that Bonds was the player of the 1990s.
Hitting-wise it's not even close. Bonds did everything well. He was a great slugger, he hit for a high average, he drew lots of walks, and he didn't strike out often. His hitting stats are similar to Ted Williams'; everything looks good. He was also a good base stealer; he stole 460 bases with a 78% success rate. He had 8 Gold Gloves, although this is an egregious case of a player winning a Gold Glove with his bat. Bonds was above-average in left field, but it's a fantasy to suggest that he deserved 8 Gold Gloves.
So this is our picture of a pre-2000 Bonds. He was an all-around amazing hitter with very good base-stealing and above-average defense. Through the 1999 season, Bonds had a career 409/559/288 hitting line (league average 334/407/266). He had 445 career HR, 460 SB, 2,010 hits and 1,430 BB against 1,112 K. He had won 3 MVPs and 8 Gold Gloves.
Ken Griffey, Jr. was a good hitter. He was an excellent slugger, but he was not an all-around threat. He hit for a high average, but not that high. He drew walks, but not that many. And he struck out much more often than Bonds. Griffey stole some bases, but not that many (Griffey's speed was the most-exaggerated part of his game). He was a fine center fielder, but he was not that great. The metric of Fielding Runs gives Griffey a total of 27 through the year 1999. Bonds has 51, nearly twice as many. Griffey won 10 Gold Gloves, although he and Bonds both benefited from their hitting prowess in this department.
So here is our picture of a pre-2000 Ken Griffey, Jr. He was a true slugger who otherwise hit pretty well with decent stealing abilities and solid defense. He had a career 380/569/299 hitting line (league average 338/415/268). He had 398 career HR, 167 SB (for a 74% success rate), 1,742 hits and 747 BB against 984 K.
Are there any other factors to take into account? The most important is that Bonds was hitting in the National League, Griffey in the American. So we must adjust Griffey's hitting stats downward to get an accurate picture. Another important point is that Bonds is 5 years older than Griffey; he got to the majors in 1986, Griffey in 1989. So we would expect Bonds' raw numbers (HR, SB, etc.) to be a little higher for this reason. But we would expect Griffey's percentages (OBP, SLG, AVG) to be higher, since he was younger by the time the decade ended. Griffey had not spent many years declining, whereas Bonds was 35 years old, and his declining years had brought down his OBP/SLG/AVG from where they were in his prime.
Given all of this information, what is our decision?
BONDS: 409/559/288, 445 HR, 460 SB (78%), 51 Fielding Runs, 1430 BB:1112 K, 3 MVP, 8 GG.
GRIFFEY: 380/569/299, 398 HR, 167 SB (74%), 27 Fielding Runs, 747 BB:984 K, 1 MVP, 10 GG.
It's a landslide folks. Griffey doesn't even have a clear advantage in defense, the one aspect even I anticipated he would get the edge. Even if you think the defensive stats are wrong and Griffey really was great (remote but possible considering the accuracy of defensive stats), Bonds has a strong edge in baserunning, with a huge advantage in stolen bases and even an advantage in success rate. But the hitting is ludicrous; Bonds wins easily. The advantage of 29 points in OBP are almost enough, but when you consider that Griffey hadn't entered his decline phase yet and had the advantages of the AL, even his slim lead in SLG and AVG are rendered insignificant. There is simply no other reasonable conclusion to the question of who the greatest player of the 90's was.
The conventional wisdom is that Griffey was the greatest player of his era and then struggled in Cincinnati, whereas Bonds was just plain good before his breakout 2001. This is hogwash. Bonds was the best player of the 90's far and away, and Griffey's reputation is based on the bizarre fixation for well-rounded players. People decided Griffey was the best player in baseball when he arrived in Seattle in 1989. And he played well enough to keep that lie alive, in spite of what Barry Bonds was doing. I'm in the business of destroying misconceptions, and I hope this one dies someday. If I've played any part in bringing that about, then this blog has not been for nothing.
OK, so I went on a bit there. To sum up the center fielders:
Jim Edmonds
I think he belongs in the Hall so long as he keeps up what he's doing now for a few more years. He was one of the 10 best players in baseball even back in Anaheim, combining great defense with superb hitting (just check out his hitting stats). The one thing he didn't have was a big, MVP-caliber year, which he furnished in 2004. Too bad two other guys did it on the same team.
Other active center fielders with significant careers are Steve Finley and Andruw Jones. Finley is good, but no Cooperstown. Andruw will probably get there, because he stands a good chance at 500 homers. But his defense is starting to seep away, and we'll soon be left with a one-dimensional slugger who hits .260 and strikes out a lot. And unless Andruw can hold onto his defense, he'll just be another, less valuable, Sammy Sosa. And was Andruw as good defensively as they say he was? It's just possible that he was better.
Back tomorrow with RF and C. Who knew I could fit 2 rants in one entry?
Barry Bonds
Yes, Bonds was a Hall-of-Famer before his career mysteriously revitalized in 2001. In fact, I could argue that the best player of the 1990s was not Ken Griffey, Jr.; it was Barry Bonds. This was true and readily apparent even before their careers went zooming off in opposite directions in 2001. This is fodder for another article, but suffice to say that Bonds' career was Cooperstown-worthy before he hit 73 HR and became one of the most dominant players in sports history.
We can't question Bonds' quality; if he's not a Hall-of-Famer, no one is. It's a matter of steroids. Bonds' temperament and demeanor really kept people from recognizing his long-term value, as they just didn't accept that such a difficult person was better than good ol' Junior. But it's true.
So steroids it is. In short, Bonds was such an enormously amazing player, we have to have more evidence to keep him out of the Hall. Yeah, I know, no one really doubts that he did steroids. His is the only case where the statistical evidence itself is proof enough of steroid use (no one has ever brought their career to a whole different plane at age 35).
But even with all of this, can we really keep Barry out of the Hall? I'm not going to throw out the sensational garbage about Barry being an "insult to the game." It's not as simple as that. Much as I might dislike him and all that he stands for, I just can't make a good enough case to keep him out of Cooperstown. He was just that damn good.
Rickey Henderson
Retired 2003 Eligible for Hall December 2008
Why is everyone suddenly not sure if Rickey Henderson is a Hall-of-Famer? Hall voters typically overestimate the importance of stolen bases and "small-ball." Why in the world isn't Rickey Henderson getting his due as one of the 15 or 20 best players ever? He was the best leadoff hitter of all time, with a .401 career OBP (against a league average of .334), stole an all-time record 1406 bases (with an 81% success rate) and even had pretty good power, hitting 297 career HR and sporting an above-average .419 career slugging percentage. He's the all-time leader in runs scored, has 3,055 career hits, and his second all-time with 2,190 walks.
What's the problem?
Tim Raines
Retired 2002 Eligible for Hall December 2007
Somebody asked me once who the best player not in the Hall of Fame was. I said something like Bert Blyleven or Dick Allen at the time. But in 2007, the answer will be Tim Raines. And it won't even be close.
Raines wasn't just a great player, he was an excellent player. The problem was that his skills were nearly identical to Rickey Henderson's; stolen bases, walks, and a great leadoff hitter. This wouldn't be such a problem, except that their careers coincided almost perfectly. Henderson played from 1979-2003. Raines played from 1979-2002. It's some bizarre coincidence that two amazing players with almost the exact same skills would be in the major leagues at exactly the same time.
But it's bad news for Raines. Bad news because Raines wasn't as good as Rickey. I'd rate Rickey the 4th-best LF of all time (behind Ted Williams, Bonds, and Stan Musial), and Raines would probably be 6th (behind Carl Yastrzemski and ahead of Willie Stargell). Raines just wasn't quite as good as Rickey, and that's how people think of him: not good enough. Raines never won an MVP (although he deserved to woin at least one, maybe two), whereas Rickey was the AL MVP in 1990 (and he deserved probably two more). And if the voters aren't sure about letting Rickey in, Raines doesn't stand a chance. And that's an absolute tragedy, but Tim Raines is a Hall-of-Famer just as much as anybody.
Luis Gonzalez
No, Luis doesn't belong in the Hall, but he's had a fine career. Even before he had a breakout year with Arizona in 2001, Luis was a quality hitter for quite a while. He's at the top of the list of "Guys who Aren't Hall-of-Famers, But We Like Them a Lot Anyhow."
Albert Belle
Retired 2000 Eligible for Hall: December 2005
No, I don't think Albert belongs in the Hall of Fame. But if he'd played a full career, he probably would have earned a spot. As it is, he retired at age 34 with some good seasons still left in him. As it is, he hit at a career 369/564/295 clip. People let Albert's attitude get in the way of their opinion of him. And while it's true that Albert had one heck of an attitude problem early in his career, I don't remember hearing anything really negative about him after he left Cleveland and went to the White Sox. And as I mentioned earlier, a player's personality doesn't have as much effect on wins and losses as we think.
I mentioned race in passing as an issue in the Dick Allen comment. I think it applies to Albert as well. No, I don't think everyone hated Albert just because he was black. But I think that a lot of people (whether they admit it or not) see black people as violent and scary. When we see someone or meet them, we project onto them all of our opinions about their race, sex, ethnicity, etc. When we see a black man, our thinking about all black men will color our perceptions of the individual. This is an unfortunate psychological fact, which is further compounded by everyone's refusal to admit it, especially about themselves.
When Albert Belle comes along and has an attitude, we look down upon him and see him as a menace. This is not just because of Albert, but because of our subconscious beliefs about all black people. If Albert were Norwegian, we would be much less likely to draw conclusions about his attitude, because we don't have a preconceived notion of Norwegians. It is not race exclusively; no one (well, almost no one) looks at Albert and says, "I hate him because he's black." But we let the fact that he is black color our opinions and the conclusions we draw about him.
We're much more likely to see a black man as a threat and an attitude problem; police are more likely to shoot a fleeing suspect who is black. Albert's actions and attitude would be, in my opinion, much less of a problem if he were white. Albert would not have gotten nearly as much negative publicity if he were white. We tend to excuse, and sometimes admire, white people who are fierce or show a bit of an attitude. Quick, think of a white person in sports accused of being an "attitude problem." Can't think of one? How many blacks can you think of? Allen Iverson, Dick Allen, Albert, Milton Bradley, Bonds, etc. This is because a double standard exists for blacks and whites. Get an image in your head: a player who constantly fights, sometimes even physically, with teammates, someone whose tirades on the baseball field are violent spectacles, someone who is considered to be quick to anger and even physically threatening. Now, am I describing Milton Bradley . . . or Billy Martin? One is a disgraced player seen as a big problem who will likely be traded. The other is a hero, whose antics are tolerated and even celebrated (imagine Bradley getting a job as a manager). Of course, these are just two examples. They don't prove anything. But imagine one thing for me -- imagine if Billy Martin were black. Would he be seen as a gutsy fighter? Or as a menace to the game and a felon to be prosecuted?
These thoughts do not make us sleep sound in our beds. They make us question ourselves to see if, perhaps, we ourselves are part of the problem. Few people are brave enough to do so, as evidenced by the millions of white people who refuse to admit that they harbor even a tinge of racism, and even scoff at those who look to point it out. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say, "I'm not racist, but..." and then reel off a racist remark.
Baseball is not in the business of solving problems. It is in the interest of covering them up so it can make money. Baseball will never admit to a race problem, and if it does pop up (Al Campanis), it is said to be just one person's view. This may not have much to do with Albert Belle, but it's something that needs to be said. I wish someone had said it before now.
Other active left fielders with notable careers are Moises Alou and Brian Giles. Giles, despite being one of the most underrated players in history, does not look like he'll earn a Cooperstown spot. Alou's had a good career, but ain't even close.
CF
Bernie Williams & Ken Griffey, Jr.
What if I were to tell you that Bernie Williams belongs in the Hall of Fame? Would you believe me? I don't think I can convince you otherwise if you don't agree. But look at what Bernie done in his career. Compare his career to Ken Griffey, Jr.'s. They are so close as to be disturbing. Williams' career hitting line (thru 2004) is 388/488/301. Griffey's is 377/560/292. Griffey has a big edge in slugging, but Bernie has a better OBP and average (which is more important). Griffey has played in much friendlier hitting parks than Bernie, who doesn't get a lot of help from Yankee Stadium, despite being a switch-hitter. Griffey has a small edge and baserunning and a big edge in defense. But Griffey's defense has been horribly overrated by people who decided he was the next Willie Mays when he came up as a rookie and haven't let his actual play in the field change their minds. Griffey is a perfect example of marketing out of control; I'm sure he sells a lot of tennis shoes, but people actually started believing he was the best baseball player in years. But I'll say this: It doesn't matter how many things you do well; it matters how well you do them. Griffey was a 5-tool player, but NOT ALL TOOLS ARE CREATED EQUAL. Hitting is the most important thing BY FAR that anyone can do, and if Griffey was a better hitter, it wasn't by much. But Williams was actually more consistent; while Griffey has had a lot of trouble with injuries (even before Cincinnati), Bernie has been (before this year), a consistently great player. He hasn't had any one season better than Griffey's best, but the whole might be better than the sum of the parts.
So I'll agree that Griffey was the better player. And I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame. But so does Bernie Williams.
Rant Detour
Now I'll tackle the subject I mentioned earlier: the myth that Griffey was the best player of the 90's. Forget about what's happened since 1999; forget that Barry Bonds became the best player since Ruth and that Griffey became a colossal disappointment in Cincinnati. Considering what we knew after the 1999 season: who had the better career, Griffey or Bonds?
Barry Bonds, and it's not even close. And wouldn't you know it, the MVP voters agree with me? I count 1 for Griffey and 3 for Bonds, a pretty commanding lead. And yet the same people who voted on these awards were calling Griffey the Player of the 90's in unison. Why?
Well, if you mean the best player of the 90's, it's Bonds, as I said. But I think they really mean the player they liked the most. And these two are often confused. Even sportswriters are confused into thinking that exciting players are good players. You'd think, from listening to commentators, that two of the most high-impact players in the game are Dave Roberts and Scott Podsednik. Because they both lay down bunts, steal bases, and do "all of the little things." This may be true, but there's a reason they call them the "little" things. The reason that Podsednik and Roberts do these things is that they can't do the most important thing: THEY CAN'T HIT! Roberts has never been an above-average player, let alone an excellent one. And Podsednik gets caught stealing too often for even his stolen bases to mean a whole lot. So give me big ol' boring Adam Dunn any day.
So let's agree that we mean the best player, not the player who is really nice and much more likely to lead an ad campaign and answers my questions in the locker room. Here is my proof that Bonds was the player of the 1990s.
Hitting-wise it's not even close. Bonds did everything well. He was a great slugger, he hit for a high average, he drew lots of walks, and he didn't strike out often. His hitting stats are similar to Ted Williams'; everything looks good. He was also a good base stealer; he stole 460 bases with a 78% success rate. He had 8 Gold Gloves, although this is an egregious case of a player winning a Gold Glove with his bat. Bonds was above-average in left field, but it's a fantasy to suggest that he deserved 8 Gold Gloves.
So this is our picture of a pre-2000 Bonds. He was an all-around amazing hitter with very good base-stealing and above-average defense. Through the 1999 season, Bonds had a career 409/559/288 hitting line (league average 334/407/266). He had 445 career HR, 460 SB, 2,010 hits and 1,430 BB against 1,112 K. He had won 3 MVPs and 8 Gold Gloves.
Ken Griffey, Jr. was a good hitter. He was an excellent slugger, but he was not an all-around threat. He hit for a high average, but not that high. He drew walks, but not that many. And he struck out much more often than Bonds. Griffey stole some bases, but not that many (Griffey's speed was the most-exaggerated part of his game). He was a fine center fielder, but he was not that great. The metric of Fielding Runs gives Griffey a total of 27 through the year 1999. Bonds has 51, nearly twice as many. Griffey won 10 Gold Gloves, although he and Bonds both benefited from their hitting prowess in this department.
So here is our picture of a pre-2000 Ken Griffey, Jr. He was a true slugger who otherwise hit pretty well with decent stealing abilities and solid defense. He had a career 380/569/299 hitting line (league average 338/415/268). He had 398 career HR, 167 SB (for a 74% success rate), 1,742 hits and 747 BB against 984 K.
Are there any other factors to take into account? The most important is that Bonds was hitting in the National League, Griffey in the American. So we must adjust Griffey's hitting stats downward to get an accurate picture. Another important point is that Bonds is 5 years older than Griffey; he got to the majors in 1986, Griffey in 1989. So we would expect Bonds' raw numbers (HR, SB, etc.) to be a little higher for this reason. But we would expect Griffey's percentages (OBP, SLG, AVG) to be higher, since he was younger by the time the decade ended. Griffey had not spent many years declining, whereas Bonds was 35 years old, and his declining years had brought down his OBP/SLG/AVG from where they were in his prime.
Given all of this information, what is our decision?
BONDS: 409/559/288, 445 HR, 460 SB (78%), 51 Fielding Runs, 1430 BB:1112 K, 3 MVP, 8 GG.
GRIFFEY: 380/569/299, 398 HR, 167 SB (74%), 27 Fielding Runs, 747 BB:984 K, 1 MVP, 10 GG.
It's a landslide folks. Griffey doesn't even have a clear advantage in defense, the one aspect even I anticipated he would get the edge. Even if you think the defensive stats are wrong and Griffey really was great (remote but possible considering the accuracy of defensive stats), Bonds has a strong edge in baserunning, with a huge advantage in stolen bases and even an advantage in success rate. But the hitting is ludicrous; Bonds wins easily. The advantage of 29 points in OBP are almost enough, but when you consider that Griffey hadn't entered his decline phase yet and had the advantages of the AL, even his slim lead in SLG and AVG are rendered insignificant. There is simply no other reasonable conclusion to the question of who the greatest player of the 90's was.
The conventional wisdom is that Griffey was the greatest player of his era and then struggled in Cincinnati, whereas Bonds was just plain good before his breakout 2001. This is hogwash. Bonds was the best player of the 90's far and away, and Griffey's reputation is based on the bizarre fixation for well-rounded players. People decided Griffey was the best player in baseball when he arrived in Seattle in 1989. And he played well enough to keep that lie alive, in spite of what Barry Bonds was doing. I'm in the business of destroying misconceptions, and I hope this one dies someday. If I've played any part in bringing that about, then this blog has not been for nothing.
OK, so I went on a bit there. To sum up the center fielders:
Jim Edmonds
I think he belongs in the Hall so long as he keeps up what he's doing now for a few more years. He was one of the 10 best players in baseball even back in Anaheim, combining great defense with superb hitting (just check out his hitting stats). The one thing he didn't have was a big, MVP-caliber year, which he furnished in 2004. Too bad two other guys did it on the same team.
Other active center fielders with significant careers are Steve Finley and Andruw Jones. Finley is good, but no Cooperstown. Andruw will probably get there, because he stands a good chance at 500 homers. But his defense is starting to seep away, and we'll soon be left with a one-dimensional slugger who hits .260 and strikes out a lot. And unless Andruw can hold onto his defense, he'll just be another, less valuable, Sammy Sosa. And was Andruw as good defensively as they say he was? It's just possible that he was better.
Back tomorrow with RF and C. Who knew I could fit 2 rants in one entry?
Thursday, October 20, 2005
White Sox .vs. Astros
More talk about pitching, pitching, pitching. The Houston Astros posted a 2.72 ERA for the entire NLCS, striking out 42 in 53 IP and allowing just 3 HR. More importantly, the Astros allowed 0 unearned runs (compared to 5 allowed by the Cardinals) and the Astros were able to hold the Cardinal offense to 16 runs in 5 games -- just barely more than 3 runs/game. During the regular season, the Cardinals scored nearly 5 runs/game. So the credit goes to the excellent Astros pitching staff and defense. The Cardinals hit 276/289/209 for the entire NLCS. That's a truly amazing accomplishment for the Astros. The Astros didn't hit that well themselves (329/409/278), but they didn't have to. The Cardinals pitched well, but not well enough. Kudos to the Astros for playing very well, and congratulations on winning the first pennant in franchise history. The only franchise older than the Astros never to get to the World Series is the Senators/Rangers, who've been around since 1961 and never won a pennant. Now that the Astros have won their first, the next oldest franchise without a pennant is the Washington Nationals, since 1969. The World Series will be good for one franchise either way; the White Sox haven't won a World Series since 1917, and the Astros have never won one since they started play in 1962.
It will be very interesting to see how the World Series plays out. I'm inclined to favor the White Sox, because of their fearsome starters. But if the NLCS taught us anything, it's that momentum means absolutely nothing.
It will be very interesting to see how the World Series plays out. I'm inclined to favor the White Sox, because of their fearsome starters. But if the NLCS taught us anything, it's that momentum means absolutely nothing.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Current players Pt. 2
SS
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Ripken is, in my opinion, the third-best shortstop ever. He's a Hall-of-Famer, not that anyone really disagrees. Ripken's reputation is mighty, and his numbers back it up absolutely. He should sail into the Hall, and rightfully so.
Alex Rodriguez
It will be interesting to see what happens to A-Rod if he finishes his career as a third baseman. There's not going to be anything keeping him from Cooperstown, but it will be more difficult to define his career in the historical sense if he splits his career evenly between short and third. As a shortstop, he's really second only to Honus Wagner. As a third baseman, he's right up there with Schmidt and Brett. If his career keeps going as planned (and this year is a very good sign), A-Rod will be among the elite in the Hall of Fame.
Barry Larkin
Retired 2004 Eligible for Hall: December 2009
Larkin really doesn't get enough credit for what he did. He's been underrated for two main reasons. One, he was multi-talented, but there was no one thing he was truly great at. Was he a good shortstop? Yes, he was a very good shortstop, if not an amazing one. Was he a good basestealer? Absolutely. Yes, only stole 377 career bases, but he did it with an impressive 83% success rate. Did he hit for a high average? Yes, a career .295 hitter, with 5 full seasons above .300. Was he a disciplined hitter? Yes, he had a career .371 OBP, with 939 career walks against just 817 career strikeouts. Was he a slugger? For a shortstop, absolutely. He slugged a career .444, whereas the league average for shortstops during that period was .361.
There is no one number that makes Barry look like a Hall-of-Famer. But when you put together all the things he did so well, there's no doubt in my mind that he deserves a plaque in Cooperstown.
The other, perhaps more significant reason, that Barry is underrated, is that he was always overshadowed by someone else. He began his career in the shadow of Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken, Jr. He wasn't as good a hitter as Ripken, and he wasn't as good at defense as Ozzie was. Then, when Ripken and Ozzie started to fade and Barry entered his prime, three guys named Jeter, A-Rod, and Nomar showed up and redefined how we saw the shortstop position. So there was never any significant amount of time where Barry was regarded as the best shortstop in baseball. But this is just an accident of history. When you compare Barry's career with other shortstops, he rates very well. He's not at the level of A-Rod, Robin Yount, or Luke Appling, but he's a notch above guys like George Davis, Ozzie Smith, and Joe Cronin. He is indeed a deserving Hall-of-Famer. I don't think there's any way he'll get in on the first ballot, but hopefully the voters will give him his due in time, as they did with Sandberg.
Tony Fernandez
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Tony's no Hall-of-Famer, but he was a darn good shortstop for a long, long time. He was even among the 10 best players in the league for a couple of years. He doesn't get his credit, I think, because he bounced around to so many teams. But he was a very good shortstop and a fine hitter. His career hitting line is 347/399/288, compared to a league average of 332/407/264. The average for a shortstop over the same period was 321/370/260, so Tony was a valuable commodity: a good defensive shortstop who hit quite well for the position.
But after playing 8 seasons with the Blue Jays, Tony played two with the Padres, half a season with the Mets (he was traded back to Toronto in mid-season), one season with the Reds, one with the Yankees, one with the Indians, two more with the Blue Jays, and half a season with Milwaukee before being traded back to Toronto to finish his career. In this sense, he was similar to Bobby Bonds; someone whose true value was obscured by the raw number of teams he played for.
Julio Franco
There's been a good deal of attention focused on Julio since his renaissance in Atlanta. While I can't deny that Julio is the best old non-pitcher ever, it doesn't make him a Hall-of-Famer. Julio does have a lot of hits (2521), but that's really his only true talent. He emerged as more of a slugger as his career went on, but the truth is that Julio spent most of his career as a below-average shortstop/second baseman. He's a fine hitter, and might be one of the 30 or 40 best shortstops ever, but he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.
Derek Jeter
Jeter isn't a Hall-of-Famer yet, but if he keeps his career going at a strong pace, he'll make it with ease. The sportswriters might just waive the 5-year waiting period to vote in their favorite son. Jeter was actually named baseball's poster child by Tim Kurkjian earlier this year. While I can't deny that Jeter calls his manager "Mr. Torre" and passes the butter without being asked, his qualities as a player have been overrated. Jeter has the reputation of being a great shortstop, but the truth is that his early career saw him as being below-average at his position. This goes against what most people think; they see Jeter make flashy plays and call him the second coming of Christ. But good fielding isn't about being flashy. You can't just trust your eyes, nor can you trust your biases. Jeter gets extra credit for being a Yankee. He gets extra credit for being "clutch," despite the fact that he plays on a team that gives its players more chances to play in clutch situations (like the World Series) than any other. Maybe the most clutch World Series performer in baseball is Frank Thomas, but we don't know it, because his team has never gotten there. There isn't equality of opportunity in "clutch." And of course, we all notice when Jeter makes great plays in "clutch" situations. But if he strikes out in the same situtation, our mind blocks it out because it doesn't fit with our pre-determined ideas. We should stop talking about Jeter being "clutch" and start talking about how good a hitter he is for a shortstop (386/461/314 career).
Jay Bell
Retired 2003 Eligible for Hall: December 2008
No, he's not Cooperstown-worthy, but Jay Bell was one of the most underrated players of the past 20 years.
Omar Vizquel
I could tell you that Omar Vizquel is not a good defensive shortstop, but you simply wouldn't believe me. Everyone believes that he is, and nothing I say will change the fact. But the ugly truth is that Omar is not nearly as strong defensively as people think. Steve Phillips advanced the argument that Omar is a Hall-of-Famer because his lifetime fielding percentage is higher than Ozzie Smith's. But that's the most bone-headed thing Steve Phillips has ever said. Lefty O'Doul's lifetime batting average is higher than Hank Aaron's; does that make him a Hall-of-Famer? Dave Kingman has more career home runs than Carlton Fisk. Does that make him a Hall-of-Famer? You can't apply this standard to any reasonable Hall-of-Fame argument. Ozzie Smith was more than just a fielding percentage, as is Omar. And when you consider the fact that Omar was not a great shortstop, and that he was a below-average hitter, we have to conclude that he's not a Hall-of-Famer.
(It was an odd week on espn.com when Steve Phillips composed his list of most underrated players, and Rob Neyer composed his list of the most overrated. Vizquel made both of them).
Nomar Garciaparra & Miguel Tejada
If Tejada can put together some more MVP-caliber campaigns and keep his career on the right path, he stands a good chance to make Cooperstown. Nomar was off to a Hall-of-Fame start, but will have to get his career going again if he wants to make it. And considering the nosedive his reputation has taken in the past 2 years, he might not make it even then.
The only other active shortstops with notable careers are Edgar Renteria and Jose Valentin. If they want to get in the Hall of Fame, they'll have to buy a ticket like everyone else.
3B
Chipper Jones
Chipper's not much in the defense department (and that's an understatement), but he's been an excellent hitter for quite a long time now, and I think he's worked his way into the top 10 third basemen of all time. He would be better served now as a left fielder; I don't really know why the Braves insist on playing him at third.
Edgar Martinez
Retired 2004 Eligible for Hall: December 2009
I don't really have a category for DHs, so I'll put Edgar here. The argument against Edgar is that as a DH, he can't really make the Hall since he didn't play every day. Well, it's patently silly to automatically exclude the DH from the Hall. It's a question of how much you help your team, and a DH just has to hit that much better to make up for the fact that they aren't playing the field.
Did Edgar hit that much better? You're damn right he did. Edgar was the best right-handed hitter of the 1990s. He compiled a 418/516/312 hitting line over 18 seasons, which is about as automatic an induction into Cooperstown as you can get. We still have to make up for the fact that Edgar contributed 0 to his team's defense. But here's a question for you: how much did Frank Thomas contribute to his team's defense? Or Harmon Killebrew? The answer, I think, is 0. My argument is that Edgar was more valuable to his team as a DH than he would have been in the field. Edgar was a much better asset to the Mariners contributing 0 to his team's defense than someone like Thomas or Killebrew, who actually had a negative effect on the team with their defense. If Edgar had played the field, he would have been less valuable, because his defensive negatives would have counteracted his offensive positives. To say that someone has to play the field to make the Hall is silly; we must look at the overall effect they had on team wins. These people think that Edgar would be a Hall-of-Famer if he had played the field, but the truth is that Edgar's absence from the field was not a detriment to his club, but an asset. While most teams are forced to deal with a hitter's negatives in the field to get his positives at the plate, the Mariners got all the positive and none of the negatives. So while some hitters might merit say, 300 points at the plate and take away 50 points in the field, Edgar was 300 at the plate and a 0 in the field. Any way you slice it, Edgar's hitting is enough in and of itself to get him into Cooperstown. But, sadly, he will never make it because the voters still hold a childish, petulant grudge against the DH rule.
Scott Rolen
Rolen is not, I repeat, not the second coming of Mike Schmidt, as some people think. Rolen is indeed an excellent third baseman, although he has (with the exception of his 2004 season) never been a really excellent hitter. The good news is that if he keeps fielding like this, he doesn't have to be excellent; just very good hitting will be enough to get him a plaque in Cooperstown. And he has enough credibility with the voters to get in easily.
Robin Ventura
Ventura is one of those guys that you just hate admit isn't a Hall-of-Famer. He had some truly excellent seasons in Chicago, and then with the Mets, but it's just not enough. He deserves to be remembered more than he is, because he was baseball's greatest third baseman between Wade Boggs and Chipper Jones. But he's not a Hall-of-Famer.
Other third basemen with notable careers include: Bobby Bonilla, Gary Gaetti, and active players such as Eric Chavez and Edgardo Alfonzo
Back tomorrow with the outfield ...
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Ripken is, in my opinion, the third-best shortstop ever. He's a Hall-of-Famer, not that anyone really disagrees. Ripken's reputation is mighty, and his numbers back it up absolutely. He should sail into the Hall, and rightfully so.
Alex Rodriguez
It will be interesting to see what happens to A-Rod if he finishes his career as a third baseman. There's not going to be anything keeping him from Cooperstown, but it will be more difficult to define his career in the historical sense if he splits his career evenly between short and third. As a shortstop, he's really second only to Honus Wagner. As a third baseman, he's right up there with Schmidt and Brett. If his career keeps going as planned (and this year is a very good sign), A-Rod will be among the elite in the Hall of Fame.
Barry Larkin
Retired 2004 Eligible for Hall: December 2009
Larkin really doesn't get enough credit for what he did. He's been underrated for two main reasons. One, he was multi-talented, but there was no one thing he was truly great at. Was he a good shortstop? Yes, he was a very good shortstop, if not an amazing one. Was he a good basestealer? Absolutely. Yes, only stole 377 career bases, but he did it with an impressive 83% success rate. Did he hit for a high average? Yes, a career .295 hitter, with 5 full seasons above .300. Was he a disciplined hitter? Yes, he had a career .371 OBP, with 939 career walks against just 817 career strikeouts. Was he a slugger? For a shortstop, absolutely. He slugged a career .444, whereas the league average for shortstops during that period was .361.
There is no one number that makes Barry look like a Hall-of-Famer. But when you put together all the things he did so well, there's no doubt in my mind that he deserves a plaque in Cooperstown.
The other, perhaps more significant reason, that Barry is underrated, is that he was always overshadowed by someone else. He began his career in the shadow of Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken, Jr. He wasn't as good a hitter as Ripken, and he wasn't as good at defense as Ozzie was. Then, when Ripken and Ozzie started to fade and Barry entered his prime, three guys named Jeter, A-Rod, and Nomar showed up and redefined how we saw the shortstop position. So there was never any significant amount of time where Barry was regarded as the best shortstop in baseball. But this is just an accident of history. When you compare Barry's career with other shortstops, he rates very well. He's not at the level of A-Rod, Robin Yount, or Luke Appling, but he's a notch above guys like George Davis, Ozzie Smith, and Joe Cronin. He is indeed a deserving Hall-of-Famer. I don't think there's any way he'll get in on the first ballot, but hopefully the voters will give him his due in time, as they did with Sandberg.
Tony Fernandez
Retired 2001 Eligible for Hall: December 2006
Tony's no Hall-of-Famer, but he was a darn good shortstop for a long, long time. He was even among the 10 best players in the league for a couple of years. He doesn't get his credit, I think, because he bounced around to so many teams. But he was a very good shortstop and a fine hitter. His career hitting line is 347/399/288, compared to a league average of 332/407/264. The average for a shortstop over the same period was 321/370/260, so Tony was a valuable commodity: a good defensive shortstop who hit quite well for the position.
But after playing 8 seasons with the Blue Jays, Tony played two with the Padres, half a season with the Mets (he was traded back to Toronto in mid-season), one season with the Reds, one with the Yankees, one with the Indians, two more with the Blue Jays, and half a season with Milwaukee before being traded back to Toronto to finish his career. In this sense, he was similar to Bobby Bonds; someone whose true value was obscured by the raw number of teams he played for.
Julio Franco
There's been a good deal of attention focused on Julio since his renaissance in Atlanta. While I can't deny that Julio is the best old non-pitcher ever, it doesn't make him a Hall-of-Famer. Julio does have a lot of hits (2521), but that's really his only true talent. He emerged as more of a slugger as his career went on, but the truth is that Julio spent most of his career as a below-average shortstop/second baseman. He's a fine hitter, and might be one of the 30 or 40 best shortstops ever, but he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.
Derek Jeter
Jeter isn't a Hall-of-Famer yet, but if he keeps his career going at a strong pace, he'll make it with ease. The sportswriters might just waive the 5-year waiting period to vote in their favorite son. Jeter was actually named baseball's poster child by Tim Kurkjian earlier this year. While I can't deny that Jeter calls his manager "Mr. Torre" and passes the butter without being asked, his qualities as a player have been overrated. Jeter has the reputation of being a great shortstop, but the truth is that his early career saw him as being below-average at his position. This goes against what most people think; they see Jeter make flashy plays and call him the second coming of Christ. But good fielding isn't about being flashy. You can't just trust your eyes, nor can you trust your biases. Jeter gets extra credit for being a Yankee. He gets extra credit for being "clutch," despite the fact that he plays on a team that gives its players more chances to play in clutch situations (like the World Series) than any other. Maybe the most clutch World Series performer in baseball is Frank Thomas, but we don't know it, because his team has never gotten there. There isn't equality of opportunity in "clutch." And of course, we all notice when Jeter makes great plays in "clutch" situations. But if he strikes out in the same situtation, our mind blocks it out because it doesn't fit with our pre-determined ideas. We should stop talking about Jeter being "clutch" and start talking about how good a hitter he is for a shortstop (386/461/314 career).
Jay Bell
Retired 2003 Eligible for Hall: December 2008
No, he's not Cooperstown-worthy, but Jay Bell was one of the most underrated players of the past 20 years.
Omar Vizquel
I could tell you that Omar Vizquel is not a good defensive shortstop, but you simply wouldn't believe me. Everyone believes that he is, and nothing I say will change the fact. But the ugly truth is that Omar is not nearly as strong defensively as people think. Steve Phillips advanced the argument that Omar is a Hall-of-Famer because his lifetime fielding percentage is higher than Ozzie Smith's. But that's the most bone-headed thing Steve Phillips has ever said. Lefty O'Doul's lifetime batting average is higher than Hank Aaron's; does that make him a Hall-of-Famer? Dave Kingman has more career home runs than Carlton Fisk. Does that make him a Hall-of-Famer? You can't apply this standard to any reasonable Hall-of-Fame argument. Ozzie Smith was more than just a fielding percentage, as is Omar. And when you consider the fact that Omar was not a great shortstop, and that he was a below-average hitter, we have to conclude that he's not a Hall-of-Famer.
(It was an odd week on espn.com when Steve Phillips composed his list of most underrated players, and Rob Neyer composed his list of the most overrated. Vizquel made both of them).
Nomar Garciaparra & Miguel Tejada
If Tejada can put together some more MVP-caliber campaigns and keep his career on the right path, he stands a good chance to make Cooperstown. Nomar was off to a Hall-of-Fame start, but will have to get his career going again if he wants to make it. And considering the nosedive his reputation has taken in the past 2 years, he might not make it even then.
The only other active shortstops with notable careers are Edgar Renteria and Jose Valentin. If they want to get in the Hall of Fame, they'll have to buy a ticket like everyone else.
3B
Chipper Jones
Chipper's not much in the defense department (and that's an understatement), but he's been an excellent hitter for quite a long time now, and I think he's worked his way into the top 10 third basemen of all time. He would be better served now as a left fielder; I don't really know why the Braves insist on playing him at third.
Edgar Martinez
Retired 2004 Eligible for Hall: December 2009
I don't really have a category for DHs, so I'll put Edgar here. The argument against Edgar is that as a DH, he can't really make the Hall since he didn't play every day. Well, it's patently silly to automatically exclude the DH from the Hall. It's a question of how much you help your team, and a DH just has to hit that much better to make up for the fact that they aren't playing the field.
Did Edgar hit that much better? You're damn right he did. Edgar was the best right-handed hitter of the 1990s. He compiled a 418/516/312 hitting line over 18 seasons, which is about as automatic an induction into Cooperstown as you can get. We still have to make up for the fact that Edgar contributed 0 to his team's defense. But here's a question for you: how much did Frank Thomas contribute to his team's defense? Or Harmon Killebrew? The answer, I think, is 0. My argument is that Edgar was more valuable to his team as a DH than he would have been in the field. Edgar was a much better asset to the Mariners contributing 0 to his team's defense than someone like Thomas or Killebrew, who actually had a negative effect on the team with their defense. If Edgar had played the field, he would have been less valuable, because his defensive negatives would have counteracted his offensive positives. To say that someone has to play the field to make the Hall is silly; we must look at the overall effect they had on team wins. These people think that Edgar would be a Hall-of-Famer if he had played the field, but the truth is that Edgar's absence from the field was not a detriment to his club, but an asset. While most teams are forced to deal with a hitter's negatives in the field to get his positives at the plate, the Mariners got all the positive and none of the negatives. So while some hitters might merit say, 300 points at the plate and take away 50 points in the field, Edgar was 300 at the plate and a 0 in the field. Any way you slice it, Edgar's hitting is enough in and of itself to get him into Cooperstown. But, sadly, he will never make it because the voters still hold a childish, petulant grudge against the DH rule.
Scott Rolen
Rolen is not, I repeat, not the second coming of Mike Schmidt, as some people think. Rolen is indeed an excellent third baseman, although he has (with the exception of his 2004 season) never been a really excellent hitter. The good news is that if he keeps fielding like this, he doesn't have to be excellent; just very good hitting will be enough to get him a plaque in Cooperstown. And he has enough credibility with the voters to get in easily.
Robin Ventura
Ventura is one of those guys that you just hate admit isn't a Hall-of-Famer. He had some truly excellent seasons in Chicago, and then with the Mets, but it's just not enough. He deserves to be remembered more than he is, because he was baseball's greatest third baseman between Wade Boggs and Chipper Jones. But he's not a Hall-of-Famer.
Other third basemen with notable careers include: Bobby Bonilla, Gary Gaetti, and active players such as Eric Chavez and Edgardo Alfonzo
Back tomorrow with the outfield ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
