Searching for why Santana's no longer dominant
Monday, June 30, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Saturday, the Yankees beat the Mets 3-2 when Andy Pettitte outpitched Johan Santana (who lasted six innings and 113 pitches, walking four Yankees). Santana's now 7-7, the Mets are one of the biggest disappointments in the game, and it's certainly fair to wonder if the Mets are getting their money's worth from the sport's highest-paid pitcher. Certainly, Newsday's Ken Davidoff is wondering:
That's five straight starts without a victory, for either Santana or his team, and we're at the point now where it's all right to point gently at the Mets' ace and say that so far, he hasn't quite lived up to the hope and hype with which he arrived.
Santana's 7-7 mark doesn't faze this space; we're all intelligent enough to know that won-loss records can be terribly misleading. No, it's more the sense that Santana isn't what he once was. And that he doesn't, or can't, put the team on his back and carry it the way you would expect from someone of his caliber. Not in actions and not in words.
"It seems like you have to be perfect every time you go out there," he lamented Saturday night after the game. "I know I'm not perfect."
No, as a matter of fact, the whole "he's only human" theme is getting a little tired. He was only human when he seemed to get thrown off by plate umpire Mike Everitt during the Yankees' two-run fourth inning, walking Derek Jeter and Bobby Abreu to kick off the rally. Then he committed a balk when Alex Rodriguez broke for second base in the sixth inning, which led to the difference-making run.
--
Look, the guy has a 3.01 ERA, and his 103 strikeouts rank third in the National League. Nevertheless, there's something missing.
We know the Mets' offense largely stinks. But couldn't Santana just once get a 1-0 lead, as he did Saturday, and carry the baton to victory? Of this five-game stretch, the only one for which he couldn't have done any more was the June 12 start here against Arizona, when the bullpen gave up his 4-0 advantage. Otherwise, he's getting outperformed in low-scoring games.
He picked up eight strikeouts Saturday, expending 113 pitches in six innings against the Yankees' deep, patient lineup. Yet here's what a veteran scout, present at the game, said in his evaluation:
"That's not the Santana that I remember seeing. The fastball isn't as lively. He touched 92. The slider wasn't great. He had a decent changeup. It was good enough to win -- on a better team, with more support on offense and defense, he'd win 15, 16, 18 games -- but he's not the Santana the Mets went out and paid all of that money to get."
|
Two things:
1. A sample size of 114 innings is not gigantic.
2. I was wrong about the Mets, and I may well have been wrong about Santana.
In his three phenomenal seasons, 2004-2006, Santana averaged 9.7 strikeouts and 1.9 walks per nine innings. Among the 63 major leaguers who pitched at least 500 innings spanning those three years, Santana's strikeout rate was the highest and his walk rate was the ninth lowest. His 5.12 strikeout-to-walk ratio was second best (behind only
Curt Schilling, with many fewer innings). His adjusted ERA was also second best (behind only
Roger Clemens, with many fewer innings). By any reasonable standard, Santana was the best pitcher in the majors and nobody else was close to him.
This year? Santana's strikeout rate, while still excellent, is 16th best in the majors. His SO/BB ratio, while still fine, is 18th best in the majors. The veteran scout's (mostly) subjective evaluation is interesting, and in conjunction with the (mostly) objective statistics tells a powerful story. Before this season, I believed that Santana's subpar (for him) performance in 2007 was aberrational, and that he would immediately become the best pitcher in the inferior National League.
Obviously, that has not happened. I also believed -- largely because of Santana -- that the Mets would be the best team in the National League. Obviously, that has not happened, either.
There's definitely a lesson in here somewhere, though I'm not yet sure what it is. I do recall reading something, probably last August or September, that included a different scout -- well, I'm assuming it was a different scout -- questioning whether Santana was the same pitcher he used to be, and whether he'd ever get back to being that pitcher. The problem, of course, is that there are hundreds of scouts, and we have little way of knowing if this one scout's anonymous opinion represents a sort of subjective consensus. If 100 scouts had been polled last fall and 75 were skeptical about Santana, that would have been a pretty powerful data point. But one out of one?
Like I said, there's a lesson in here somewhere.
Monday Mendozas
Monday, June 30, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• Oh, the humanity! Update: Final Edition ... Friday, the American League trounced the National League 10-3. Saturday, the Nationals topped the Americans 7-6. Sunday, the AL trumped the NL 8-6. So the final tally for 2008? Junior Circuit 149, Senior Circuit 102. Well, nearly final; the Yankees and Pirates owe us one more game on July 10.
In 2006, the Americans won 61 percent of the 152 interleague games. Last year, the Americans won 54 percent and it seemed that perhaps the tide had turned. So, this year, the Americans won 59 percent, and it seems that 2007 rather than 2006 may have been the aberration. Why does this matter? Because if you're an American League team thinking about acquiring a National League player, you need to know the guy hasn't been facing top competition.
• Joe Posnanski's writing about
the Hall of Fame's first class, as if we were starting over again. I was one of the "25 people" who responded to Joe's initial inquiry. My choices were Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Willie Mays. It's been argued that Babe Ruth would not be a great player if he were somehow reincarnated today. I happen to believe that's true. But the question's not who are the greatest players, or would be. The question is who belongs in the Hall of Fame, first. And I don't see how you have a Hall of Fame without Babe Ruth. (And now that I think of it, I don't see how you have a Hall of Fame without Satchel Paige, too. I'm just not sure whose place he should take.)
• My "plan" is to write a wrap of the SABR convention today -- we'll see if I actually get home this afternoon, as I've already been bumped from two flights during this trip -- but until then you could do a lot worse than
ShysterBall's overview and
The Pastime's solid blow-by-blow (just start with June 28 and work backward).
•
Tough news for the Tigers, losing Maggio Ordonez just as they reached .500. But I'm sticking to my recent prediction that the Tigers will wind up winning the Central, mostly because I'm not convinced that
John Danks and
Gavin Floyd can keep doing what they're doing.
• After Sunday's disaster,
Joe Blanton is now 4-11 with a 4.97 ERA. Blanton's A's are 44-37. It's not easy accounting for nearly 30 percent of your team's losses. And as David Pinto points out, if the A's want to trade Blanton now,
it might be tough to get much.
• You know, Tommy John was a real good pitcher for a long time. He was not, however, nearly as good as
he thinks he was.
• I was in Cleveland on
Saturday night when Sal Fasano -- who, by the way, looks like
this -- picked up his first hit in more than a year
and threw out two runners in
one inning. In honor of Fasano -- and because after three games in Cleveland I'm sick to death of Chief Wahoo -- I shall now be referring to the local club as the "Fasanos" until the Chief is retired. Or the Fasanos have a winning record. Whichever comes first.
• Quick movie review: Thanks to my latest canceled flight, Sunday night I finally watched "
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story." Now I can't believe this movie was a box-office dud because pretty much every minute is funny (including a subtle dig at "
Field of Dreams"; oh, and also,
Jenna Fischer has never looked better). Next up: "Wall-E," along with my all-time rankings of Pixar movies (all of which I sincerely like or love, so there's no danger of me running afoul of corporate policy).
Friday Filberts
Friday, June 27, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• ShysterBall's here in Cleveland at the SABR convention. Or so he says. The Daily Fungo's Mike McClary is here, too. And Mike caught me making a rash prediction yesterday: The Tigers will win the Central.
• Score one for the scouts. As David Pinto points out, Cuban defector/refugee
Alexei Ramirez has really
picked his game up since April.
•
Oh, the humanity! Update: American League 124, National League 84. Last night was another NL wipeout; it probably would have been 9-1 for the AL if not for the
rain in Pittsburgh.
• I agree with Joe Sheehan's
every word & except I think the A's still have a legitimate shot at the playoffs, and shouldn't start selling off parts & unless somebody blows them away with an offer for
Rich Harden or
Joe Blanton.
• Did you know that George Carlin was a
big Dodgers fan way back in the 1940s? I didn't.
• Courtesy of Home Run Derby, the
Jheri Curl All-Stars.
• The Rangers are
calling up their No. 1 prospect, first baseman Chris Davis. This guy's gone from fifth-round draft choice to the majors in just slightly over two calendar years, which is pretty impressive. Still only 22, he's already hit 23 home runs this season: 13 in Double-A, 10 in Triple-A. The Rangers say first base is
Hank Blalock's when he's healthy enough to play. But I suspect Davis is better than Blalock right now. And the Rangers are too close to first place to play inferior players.
• Joe Posnanski thinks
the Royals should sign Barry Bonds. Seriously. The point? Joe thinks Bonds would give the Royals a legitimate shot at winning the AL Central. I disagree. Joe thinks Bonds would turn the franchise into a circus. I agree. And I think the Royals could use a circus. I'm just not sure this would be a good circus. I'm afraid it might become the sort of circus where monkeys hurl excrement and there's a good reason to fear the clowns.
• Fascinating stuff from David Gassko on the financial value of
winning a World Series game.
• It's long been said that in 1941 the St. Louis Browns were poised to move to Los Angeles in 1942, but those plans were dashed when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I've repeated the story a few times over the years. Well, at this moment I'm sitting in a ballroom in a big hotel in Cleveland, listening to researcher Norman Macht heap a healthy dollop of doubt upon this long-accepted story. Which is exactly the sort of thing that brings me to the SABR convention ever summer; there's just no better place in the world for a guy like me to geek out.
Don't rush to judge Chacon
Thursday, June 26, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
To the surprise of absolutely nobody, Shawn Chacon's been suspended:
Chacon, upset after getting demoted to the bullpen over the weekend, told the Houston Chronicle this problem began when [general manager Ed] Wade saw him in the dining room before the game against Texas. Wade wanted to meet with Chacon in manager Cecil Cooper's office, the pitcher said.
"I sat down to eat and Ed Wade came to me and very sternly said, 'You need to come with me to the office,'" Chacon said. "I said, 'For what?' I said, 'I don't want to go to the office with you and Cooper.' And I said, 'You can tell me whatever you got to tell me right here.' He's like, 'Oh, you want me to tell you right here?' And I said, 'Yeah.' I'm not yelling. I'm calm."
Chacon said things went downhill from there.
"He started yelling and cussing," Chacon said of Wade, according to a story on the Chronicle's Web site. "I'm sitting there and I said to him very calmly, 'Ed, you need to stop yelling at me.' Then I stood up and said, 'You better stop yelling at me.' I stood up. He continued and was basically yelling."
Chacon said that after Wade told him he needed to "look in the mirror," it got worse.
"So at that point I lost my cool and I grabbed him by the neck and threw him to the ground. I jumped on top of him," he said. "Words were exchanged."
Chacon said players quickly came and separated the two. He recalled outfielder Reggie Abercrombie pulling him away from Wade.
|
All we've got here is Chacon's side of the story. So when Chacon claims that he spoke "very calmly" to Wade, we have to leaven that information with a shaker of salt. And of course there's no good excuse for a 6-foot-3, 200-pound professional athlete wrestling a 52-year-old man to the ground by his neck. I would like to mention just one thing in passing, though:
We were not there.
All of us -- well, most of us -- like to think that when faced with verbal aggression we shall remain calm and collected, able to maintain our usual Zen-like state of being. Unfortunately, we're not all built that way. Many of us are not. Many of us have a button somewhere, and if you push that button we're going tilt. Might even
smash a few things.
That doesn't mean it's
right, what Chacon did. Nowhere close to right. Considering that he assaulted one of his employers, he's lucky. Most of us would simply be fired, looking for work the next day, and perhaps hauled into a courtroom. Chacon's going to face some consequences and they'll probably be serious (especially since he's not all that great a player), but because he's wealthy and talented he'll probably continue to enjoy the lifestyle to which he's become accustomed.
Still, let's be careful about sticking labels to Chacon like "bad guy" and "thug."
Unless of course you've made it through your whole life without doing something that wasn't
right. In which case, fire away.
Deciding who gets to stay in the Hall
Thursday, June 26, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
On Wednesday, I drove, with two friends, from Cooperstown to Cleveland.
It's a long drive. About halfway through, I announced (from the back seat): "I'm bored."
Jeff said (from the passenger seat), "OK, let's do the Hall of Fame thing."
When we -- Jeff, Mark and I -- were driving to Cooperstown, Mark described me as a "45 percent guy," meaning that if I had my way I'd expel 45 percent of the guys in the Hall of Fame. Granted, I have some issues with the membership. But 45 percent seemed awfully high to me. We figured we'd put me to the test when we were actually
in the Hall. I mean, the actual room with the
plaques. Except, by the time we got around to the actual room, it was almost closing time.
Which brings us to Wednesday afternoon, when I was bored in the back seat.
Jeff pulled out his Hall of Fame yearbook, which lists every Hall of Famer, and we set to work. Yea or nay, up or down, for every Hall of Famer enshrined on the basis of his work in the major leagues (we left out the Negro Leaguers because, quite frankly, I don't have the slightest idea whether or not
Ray Brown and
Pete Hill belong in the Hall).
So we went through all 192 Hall of Fame major leaguers. This took a couple of hours. I won't bother you with the details. But when we finished I was far, far short of kicking out 45 percent of the major leaguers with plaques.
I did kick out 26 percent, though: 50 out of 192. But I was going from memory, mostly. I'm sure I could be convinced to let two of the marginal candidates keep their plaques. Which makes 48 -- exactly 25 percent.
So I guess that's me: Mr. 25 Percent.
To some, that probably seems like an extreme position, that one-fourth of the current Hall of Famers don't deserve to be Hall of Famers. But before you assume that I'm a "small-Hall guy," I should hasten to add that I do not think there should be 144 major leaguers in the Coop. I suspect the number is more like 160, perhaps 165 (which would make me Mr. 14 Percent). Because there are plenty of players who should be in the Hall of Fame who aren't.
Yes, I would eject third basemen
George Kell and (especially)
Freddie Lindstrom. But I would add
Ron Santo and (perhaps)
Darrell Evans.
Yes, I would eject four or five second basemen. But I would add Joe Gordon and Bobby Grich (and of course Roberto Alomar and Craig Biggio when they're eligible).
I'm not a small-Hall guy. I'm a
great-Hall guy. By most reasonable standards, Lindstrom was not a great player; Santo was. Lindstrom demonstrably lowers the standards of the Hall of Fame; Santo would maintain them.
We drove to Cleveland for the SABR convention, which begins in earnest Thursday. On Friday, non-members are welcome at the Cleveland Public Library where I'll be participating in a panel discussion, and if you're in town I'd love to see you.
A mini Cooper, then a visit to The Hall
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Last week I visited the traveling Baseball as America exhibit, which currently resides at Boston's Museum of Science. It's really a wonderful exhibit; for Red Sox fans there's Curt Schilling's bloody sock, the baseball Doug Mientkiewicz caught for the final out in the 2004 World Series, and the last bat Ted Williams swung in anger. For the rest of us,
there's Eddie Gaedel's jersey, and Robert Redford's New York Knights jersey, Walter Johnson's glove from 1927, and of course a bunch of other stuff.
But it's more than just
stuff, as the exhibits makes a good go of justifying its title. Two of my favorite items were a
mechanical scoreboard (of sorts) and a home plate, made of wood, from the
Gila River internment camp.
But Baseball as America was just a warmup.
Until yesterday, my first and last visit to Cooperstown was in 1993. In the dead of winter. On a weekday. I had a job interview (didn't get the job) and a good deal of research to get done, so I had only a couple of hours in the museum. But that was enough for me that afternoon. As impressive as one artifact from a long-ago World Series might be, I quickly became a bit overwhelmed.
Well, the museum is still overwhelming. The last ball pitched in the 1903 World Series, the first ball pitched in the 1919 World Series, Satchel Paige's 1952 Browns jersey, Joe DiMaggio's shoes … in a sense they're just more static objects, but each of them summons images of the history that I've been studying since I was eight or nine years old. Now multiply those objects by a few hundred.
After a couple of hours of this, I had to take a break, get outside and gulp some of that crisp Lake Otsego air. Then it was back inside for a tour of the library and the museum's storage area, in the basement. I've been reading stories about "the basement" for years, and was expecting something reminiscent of the last shot in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Well, it's not exactly that. But it's impressive nonetheless. Along one wall, boxes stacked from floor to ceiling, labeled with the names of Hall of Famers and full of pants and sweaters and socks and jerseys. There are archival shelves loaded with signed baseballs, and old gloves, all the other ephemera that won't fit in the display cases upstairs. While curator Ted Spencer was spinning yarns from his 27 years at the Hall, I glanced over and noticed a box containing Greg Harris' six-fingered glove. I mentioned lefty-throwing catchers, and Spencer retrieved Dale Long's catcher's mitt. Lying on a cart somewhat (but not really) haphazardly, we spied Yogi Berra's 1951 Most Valuable Player Award plaque (being readied for shipment to New York for the All-Star Game).
This was of course just a flavor. Again, it's all a bit overwhelming and just whets the appetite for more. Which is true about Cooperstown, generally. Do you remember Halloween Town, in The Nightmare Before Christmas? Before Jack Skellington went off the reservation for a while? That's what Cooperstown is like in June. If suddenly "Cooperstown" weren't a viable name, "Baseball Town" would be quite fitting. I know you probably don't need me to tell you this, but if you haven't been to Cooperstown lately, it really is worth the trip. And if you can't be there in the summer, February's OK, too.
Wednesday Wangdoodles
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Just a few Wangdoodles, as I'm still on the road -- off to Cleveland for the SABR convention -- and I still have to write something about my wonderful day in Cooperstown …
• When I was in New York last weekend, I made my way to the site of the old Polo Grounds, where the New York Giants played for so many years. There's little remaining evidence of the stadium, except the public housing that's there now is called the
Polo Grounds Towers. I was there eight years ago, but the first time around I missed the
John T. Brush Stairway that leads to the top of Coogan's Bluff. Unfortunately, for many years the stairway has been in terrible shape. The Times ran
this story more than a year ago, and -- after climbing the stairs myself -- I can report that nothing's changed since. Though it's just a few dozen steps, apparently the cost of repairing the structure today might run to nearly $1 million. The city doesn't have the money, and it's not likely that anyone else does, either. I'd hate to see this last visible remnant of the Polo Grounds disappear, but sometimes you just have to say enough is enough and let the history become history.
• On Tuesday, MLB's Safety and Health Advisory Committee held its
first meeting in which dangerous bats were discussed. Coincidentally, later on Tuesday, umpire Brian O'Nora was skulled by a shattered maple bat. Supposedly, one option is the outright banning of maple. I doubt if the players will agree to that. Maybe I'm wrong. But why stop with maple? Why not ban
all bats that are likely to shatter, in favor of bats that probably won't? They probably
exist already. And if they don't, they could be made to exist. All these knuckleheads spent years screwing up the steroids thing. So how's about being proactive, just this once?
• Biggest story that nobody seems to be talking about? Exactly one month ago today, the Brewers lost to the Nationals, which dropped them to 23-27. In many quarters (and perhaps this one), the Brewers were given up for dead. Since then? They've won 20 of 27, lifted their record to 43-34, and they're quite obviously a solid contender for a playoff spot. Granted, their run differential (+2) is far from special … But of course, this is the National League, where a +2 run differential qualifies you for a gold star
and a smiley face.
• Over at Dodger Thoughts, a
great interview with Jaime Jarrin, who's been broadcasting Dodger games since the Dodgers arrived in Los Angeles.
• Speaking of fantastic interviews, I can't heartily enough recommend Ducksnorts' recent interview with Sandy Alderson, in three parts:
one,
two and
three.
•
Oh, the humanity! Update: AL 109, NL 76. Last night the Americans whipped the Nationals 10-4. You keep thinking the carnage will stop, but it doesn't.
Wild night at Shea
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
I didn't realize until Sunday night that I would, when visiting Shea Stadium on Monday night, be seeing one of the best pitching matchups of the season. I certainly didn't realize that one of the pitchers would allow perhaps the most unlikely home run of the year and that the other would be forced from the game (perhaps) just one pitch away from winning it.
But those things did happen, which is why we keep coming back for more.
The two pitchers were
Felix Hernandez and
Johan Santana. Santana was the best pitcher in the game two years ago; Hernandez might be the best in two years.
In the bottom of the second inning, the M's got a couple of runners on base. But there were two outs, and
Willie Bloomquist was coming up. No problem. Except Bloomquist hit an easy grounder to
David Wright, who booted the ball and then sort of lollygagged a throw to first base, a step behind Bloomquist. Bases loaded? No problem. Hernandez was coming up. Hernandez had batted only nine times in his professional career, with just a lone single to show for his efforts.
No problem?
Someone's head was in my way, so I didn't see the swing as well as I'd have liked. I got the impression of a high fastball, followed by a line drive that would -- it quickly became apparent -- clear the right-field fence. With plenty of room to spare. Grand slam.
We all knew we'd just seen something unlikely. We had no idea
how unlikely:
The opposite-field shot to right-center was the first home run by a pitcher in Mariners history, and the first slam by an AL hurler since Cleveland's Steve Dunning went deep against Oakland's Diego Segui on May 11, 1971, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.
"He had a pretty good swing," Santana said. "The pitch was out of the strike zone, it was up like it was supposed to be, and all of a sudden the ball leaves the park. There's nothing you can do about it."
|
That's pretty unlikely. I certainly would not have guessed that it'd been more than 37 years since an AL pitcher hit a grand slam (granted, they weren't hitting much of anything from 1972 through 1996).*
* When Hernandez rounded first base after hitting the homer, he clapped his hands together with obvious glee. When Hernandez came up again in the fifth, we wondered whether Santana might send a message. He didn't, perhaps because when Hernandez stepped to the plate, he touched the bill of his helmet in a small salute as if to say, "Hey there, I wasn't trying to show you up back there. Honestly."
You certainly don't want to attach any great
significance to Hernandez's home run. He closed his eyes and swung as hard as he could, and he's a big, strong guy. These things happen. Still, over the past season and a half, Santana has been giving up more home runs than he did during what now looks like his prime, 2004 through 2006. This year, despite facing pitchers in most of his starts, his strikeout rate is his lowest since he reached the majors to stay in 2002.
Santana remains a fine pitcher, fully capable of winning 15-18 games with a good team. But that guy who struck out more than nine batters per nine innings, won two Cy Young awards and should have won another? I'm beginning to wonder whether we're going to see that guy again.
I opened the game with a fine spot in the lower deck, above and slightly beyond first base, maybe 40 rows from the field. After the second inning, though, a friend was able to move me closer: second row, right behind the plate. So I was
right there when it happened in the bottom of the fifth.
King Felix had been cruising. The Mets didn't get a hit until the fourth -- and a scratch hit at that -- but thanks to a double play, Hernandez faced only three batters in that inning. In the fifth,
Carlos Beltran lined a double to the wall in center field. A few moments later, he stole third and stood on that sack with two outs. Hernandez got two quick strikes on
Ramon Castro. But then Hernandez got cute. He buried a slider in the dirt. Catcher
Jeff Clement blocked it. He buried another slider in the dirt. Clement blocked it again, but this time, the ball bounced maybe eight feet away, to his left and into foul territory. Beltran is one of the smartest baserunners around, and when he saw Clement was confused, he took off for the plate.
Clement eventually found the ball, and you could see them all coming together: Clemente, Beltran and Hernandez. Clement was so close to the plate, there wasn't any point in throwing the ball. He dove toward Beltran. Beltran sprinted plateward. And somehow Hernandez managed to get his left ankle in the middle of everything.
Beltran was safe, and Hernandez was down. After a few minutes, Hernandez threw a warmup pitch and immediately hopped off the mound in obvious agony. But he wasn't giving up. He held up his index finger --
just one more! -- and we all assumed he meant he wanted to try another warmup pitch. But I think he might have meant something else: one more strike, or perhaps one more out. Because either would have given him five innings and made him eligible for the win.
But he couldn't go and was helped off the field while keeping all the weight off his left leg. Supposedly it's just a sprain, and Hernandez "expects to make his next start."
We'll see. It's hard to believe this kid is only 22. He's won 36 games, and he's younger than
Joba Chamberlain and
Evan Longoria and just about every other great young player who comes to mind. It'll be a real shame if something nasty happens to him.
Tuesday morning I'm off to Cooperstown for the second time ever (and the first since 1993). While I'm away, I'll propose this discussion for the Conversation: Why is Willie Bloomquist playing center field for the Mariners, and (more topically) why is Jeff Clement catching while Richie Sexson is playing first base?
Things looking up for Vlad, Angels
Monday, June 23, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
In the wake of the Angels' sweep of the Phillies, the Times' Justin Sablich points to the Angels' rotation, plus the resurgence of a certain superstar outfielder:
With a major league-leading 38 wins and 484 innings pitched, second in the American League, you can make a case that the Angels have the deepest and best rotation in the game. Saunders leads the American League in wins with 11 and Santana is not far behind with 9 victories.The rotation has flourished despite injuries to ace John Lackey, who is 4-1 with a 1.74 ERA but was sidelined until mid-May. And the team has been without Kelvim Escobar's 18 wins and 3.40 ERA from 2007 due to a shoulder tear. But Escobar has now started throwing in simulated games as part of his rehab. What should scare teams is that the Angels have done what they've done with an under-performing offense that batted .284 and was fourth in the A.L. in runs last season and is batting .259 this season and is 11th in the league in scoring. A resurgent Vladimir Guerrero is one sign of hope at the plate. He is batting .433 with 6 home runs in the month of June after a slow start. "My knee wasn't feeling that good in May, but it's better now," Guerrero told the L.A. Times. "That's why I look more comfortable now."
|
Last week I wrote about the Angels' run differential, which at that time was in the red. Now at +13, it's still not good … but it's getting better. Which is what we would expect, considering the talent on the roster.
I've been asked a few times about Vladimir Guerrero, who got off to a slow start this season. Signs of aging, perhaps?
Perhaps. But probably not. Players don't typically just stop hitting when they hit 32. I mean, it happens. But usually there's an injury. When we see a player get off to a slow start like Guerrero did, it's usually temporary, due to either bad luck or a minor injury that's not enough to keep him out of the lineup. Or both. Like most players do, Guerrero peaked in his late 20s. But Guerrero's got Hall of Fame numbers, and at least a few excellent seasons ahead of him.
Which of course means good things for the Angels. They're incredibly fortunate to be 46-30 with their run differential, but looking ahead there's no reason to think they won't outscore their opponents and cruise to the division title. Which leaves the A's hunting for the wild card, along with the Rays, the Yankees, and whoever doesn't win the Central.
Conspiracies and agent rivalries
Monday, June 23, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
The best thing I've ever read about sports agents was Jerry Crasnick's book, "License to Deal." If you haven't read the book, you should. And for a nice primer we offer It's About the Money, Stupid's interview with agent Matt Sosnick, the key figure in the book …
IIATMS: Do you think owners are united in their stand against guys like Sosa, Bonds, Gibbons and some of the other Mitchell Report guys? Or is it simply a matter of teams trying to get younger/cheaper?MS: It's a joke to think that there is a conspiracy. I have no doubt that Barry could be a productive hitter right now. But the risk doesn't equal the reward. It's not the on-the-field production for these guys, but the off-the-field distractions, headaches. There's a lack of continuity as well and no GM will stick his ass out on the line for that risk. --snip-- IIATMS: How bitter can rivalries between agents get when competing over players, draft picks, etc.? MS: Worse than you can ever imagine. There are a ton of amoral guys out there, dying to make their numbers. With so many millions on the line, some guys would stop at nothing to steal a client or smear your name, guys with no barometer in their morality. Just look at the guy who sent excerpts from the book to every player in the Cape Cod League. Players who want to be wow'd with hookers and strippers will go somewhere else, to the LA firms. That's fine by me. We're looking for a different player to represent.
|
There's plenty of more of this in the interview. I think I might have written this at some point before, but if my son were a young baseball player with a future, I believe I'd steer him toward Sosnick.
Monday Mendozas
Monday, June 23, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• George Carlin died Sunday night. I was born a few years too late to really appreciate him, but I've always loved his bit about baseball and football (video).
• Last Thursday night in Boston, Bill James and I did a thing at the Museum of Science. Here's a
pretty good wrap, mostly featuring Bill, which is appropriate as I played
Abbott to his Costello.
• The Red Sox do almost everything right. But I was at Fenway Park on Friday night, and wearing
green spring-training jerseys was just oh so wrong. (Especially with the navy caps and red undershirts.)
• Last Friday, I wrote about switch-pitcher Pat Venditte's professional debut, which included a confusing confrontation with a switch-hitter. Here's
video.
• Can someone tell me exactly when "scrub" became
a dirty word?
• Larry Stone looks at the
desirability of the Mariners' eventual openings for the manager and general manager jobs. From my perspective, only two things really matter: 1. Seattle's a good-sized market with a fantastic ballpark and excellent local TV revenue; and 2. If you could choose one city in which to spend a baseball season, you would choose Seattle.
• I don't know that there's anything
particularly interesting in
Answer Man's interview with Zack Greinke, but I don't believe I've ever read anything quite like it. So, bonus points for that.
•
Oh, the humanity! Update: American League 96, National League 71. Over the weekend, the NL held its own, winning 20 of 42 games. But, of course, that still leaves them far behind. Last week, a commenter wondered why I seem to take such glee in the AL's dominance. I don't feel gleeful. But I do enjoy the difference. It's an interesting phenomenon. Also, I have to admit that when I was growing up in an American League city, I heard a great deal about the National League's superiority. That rankled. For years. So, maybe, I am just a bit gleeful. Subconsciously.
• Lou Piniella.
Rapping with Ozzie Guillen. You've been warned.
Gaston deserving of another chance
Friday, June 20, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
So yesterday J.P. Ricciardi's in trouble for slamming Adam Dunn, and today he fires manager John Gibbons.
Coincidence? Perhaps. Gibbons's firing has been expected for a week or two. But will firing Gibbons keep the media wolves at bay for a while? Not if this recent exchange between a reader and the Toronto Star's Richard Griffin is any indication:
Q: Hi Richard,Another "personal" question. Do you think that speaking your mind (as you do in these mailbags) hurts your relationship in gleaning knowledge from the great J.P. Riccardi and/or John Gibbons? For example, in your June 4th mailbag: "But J.P. is a genius so who are we to question him?" I personally love the cutting sarcasm, since you write what we as fans are feeling (in my opinion), but do you find it makes your job more difficult? Nik Jones, Port St. Lucie, FL A: Good question and I'm not sure of the answer. What I do know is that if I believe what I'm writing it makes it easier to walk through the door into the clubhouse or the pressbox and deal with the Jays' front office and manager. And I do believe in what I'm offering to readers as opinion. As for the sometimes sarcasm, sometimes I just can't help myself. Between the two Jays' men, Ricciardi and Gibbons, the manager has a far better grasp on the situation than J.P. seems to. After some rocky moments with Gibby, the relationship has settled into one of arm's length mutual respect. In fact I think Gibbons enjoys answering questions that challenge his baseball intelligence and make him think. He gives thoughtful, detailed answers, rather than those brushed-off questions from casual media that are one dimensional and treat him like a country bumpkin which he's definitely not. As for J.P., he still believes that he's in Canada to teach us all about baseball which is quite irritating.
|
Griffin didn't like Ricciardi from Day 1, because Ricciardi came from the A's and the A's were run by Billy Beane and Billy Beane wrote that damn book and ... well, you know. At one point, early in Ricciardi's tenure, Griffin suggested that sabermetrics was somehow racist, and if sabermetricians had their way, Jackie Robinson never would have gotten a chance to play.
Seriously.
But Griffin eventually warmed up to Ricciardi, especially when the Jays played well (funny how that works). Now he seems to have turned around on the subject again. And if Griffin sees the firing of Gibbons as Ricciardi passing the buck, I think we'll have to forgive him. Because that's sort of what it looks like to me, too.
Gibbons will always be best remembered for a couple of kerfuffles in 2006, first with Shea Hillenbrand and later with Ted Lilly. Funnily enough, that team finished at 86-76, Gibbons' best record.
It's good to see Cito Gaston get another shot. At one point, Gaston was looking like a Hall of Fame manager.
Remember that?
Beginning in 1989, Gaston managed the Jays for most of nine seasons. In his first season, he took over in May when the club was 12-24. They went 77-49 the rest of the season to grab the division title. In his second season, the Jays finished two games out of first place. In his third, fourth, and fifth seasons they won division titles, and of course in those latter two seasons they won the World Series, too. Has any modern manager done better in his first five seasons?
That's not a rhetorical question; I really don't know. It's not that surprising that Gaston was fired near the end of his ninth season; the Jays hadn't been competitive since his fifth season. What's surprising is that he hasn't managed in the 11 years since. What's even more surprising is his next chance comes, finally, with his old team.
And it's a team that could make some noise. What happened in 1989 is a once-in-a-career sort of thing. But you know, these last-place Jays are probably better than their 35-39 record. As I suggested earlier today, they need to get Adam Lind into the lineup. But otherwise Gaston just has to make out the lineup card and hope for the best. The Jays are 12th in the league in scoring but probably have the talent to move up three or four spots. And considering their pitching, this team's capable of a decent second-half run.
Red Sox, Schill's Hall chances unaffected
Friday, June 20, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
So Curt Schilling's out for the season, and maybe forever:
Curt Schilling revealed this morning that he will have season-ending surgery on his right shoulder on Monday, saying there was a "pretty decent chance that I've thrown my last pitch forever."The 41-year-old Red Sox righthander made the disclosure during his weekly interview on WEEI's Dennis and Callahan show, sounding very much like a player whose career could be over. --snip-- Even in a best-case scenario, Schilling said, he wouldn't try to return to the mound for a full season in 2009, but rather make an attempt to be a hired gun for some team during the stretch run. To even get there, however, Schilling acknowledged he'd have to clear a lot of hurdles.
|
There's much more if you're interested in all the grisly details.
Two questions come immediately to mind:
1. What does this mean for the Red Sox?
2. What does this mean for Schilling's Hall of Fame chances?
For the Red Sox, it means they tossed $8 million into a rabbit hole and they're not getting it back, but that's the price you pay for winning, and for peace of mind. Schilling won nine games in the regular season last year, then three more in October as the Sox won another championship. So they basically had to bring him back this year, and in 2008 $8 million isn't an awful lot of money for this franchise.
This doesn't do much to hurt the Red Sox on the field. This season, seven Red Sox pitchers have started more than five games. Six of them have ERAs below 4.20. The seventh, Clay Buchholz, pitched a no-hitter last season and currently has a 2.45 ERA in five starts since returning to Triple-A Pawtucket. Buchholz is 23, and going through the sort of thing that 23-year-old pitchers often go through.
While the Red Sox have not locked up a playoff spot yet, they do have the best record in the American League and the second-best run differential, and enough prospects to trade for any help they might need down the stretch. As I write this, I'm sitting in a hotel room in Cambridge, and I'm guessing that right now things are still humming along quite nicely at Fenway Park, just across the Charles River.
And what about Schilling's legacy? If anything, today's news helps his Hall of Fame candidacy. He's 41, turns 42 in November. He's won 216 games in his career. If he'd come back this season, maybe pitched next season, he might have added, what, 25 wins to that total. Practically, Hall of Fame voters don't make a distinction between 216 wins and 240. If you don't win more than 250 games -- shoot, if you don't win 300 -- you need bonus points.
Schilling's got plenty of bonus points. Three 20-win seasons. Three Cy Young runner-up finishes. A truly brilliant postseason record: 11-2, 2.23 ERA. And yes, the bloody sock. And if Schilling's finished, the memories of the voters won't be clouded by a couple of extra seasons in which he's just sort of hanging on.
Bottom line? As a fan, I was hoping to see Schilling pitch again. And maybe he will. But his inability to pitch this season has a minimal impact on Red Sox and won't hurt his Hall of Fame prospects at all.
Ricciardi's blind spots
Friday, June 20, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Have you heard? Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi is not Adam Dunn's biggest fan. From yesterday's National Post:
Dunn, who plays for the Cincinnati Reds, is often mentioned in trade rumours, but Ricciardi was adamant that the Jays have zero interest in the 28-year-old outfielder.Ricciardi slammed Dunn on his Wednesday night phone-in show on The Fan 590, a Toronto radio station. His comments came after a caller suggested the Jays acquire Dunn, who is hitting .227 with 18 homers and 43 RBIs with the Reds. "Do you know the guy doesn't really like baseball that much?" Ricciardi said to the caller. "Do you know the guy doesn't have a passion to play the game that much? How much do you know about the player? "There's a reason why you're attracted to some players and there's a reason why you're not attracted to some players. I don't think you'd be very happy if we brought Adam Dunn here. … "We've done our homework on guys like Adam Dunn and there's a reason why we don't want Adam Dunn. I don't want to get into specifics." Ricciardi was generally sympathetic as callers vented following the Jays 5-4 loss to Milwaukee. But Ricciardi's demeanour changed when a caller mentioned Dunn as a hitter who might "save" the Jays' moribund offence. "He's a lifetime .230, .240 hitter that strikes out a ton and hits home runs," Ricciardi said. "Yes, he hits home runs, which none of the Toronto Blue Jays are doing," the caller replied. That retort triggered Ricciardi's shot at Dunn as a player who "doesn't really like baseball that much."
|
Since joining the Brewers on May 25, Russell Branyan has hit 10 home runs. No Blue Jay has more than eight home runs all season.
Oh, and the guy who has eight? Matt Stairs. Vernon Wells has seven. No one else has more than five. The Blue Jays are power-starved and could really, really use a guy like Adam Dunn, warts and all. Granted, $13 million is a big chunk of change. Ricciardi could have just said that. I appreciate his honesty. I just think he's wrong, and it's offensive to me when a baseball man seems to equate strikeouts with some sort of character deficiency.
Ricciardi has put together an excellent pitching staff with the third-lowest ERA in the American League, but the Blue Jays are in last place because they're 12th in the league in scoring. The Hardball Times' John Brattain has seen enough. In an essay titled "Let There be Blood in the Streets" he concludes:
The status quo regarding the offense has shown the lineup is far less than the sum of its parts and a change is required. I'm not going to suggest what that change should be, but I will suggest that a change is needed regarding who decides what change is needed. Here are my three articles of impeachment for J.P. Ricciardi:1) He has created a lineup that is less than the sum of its parts and almost the entire lineup's situational hitting is far below their career norms. 2) He is completely oblivious to the fact that the Blue Jays' lineup is badly flawed and has been unable to find even league-average offensive performers for left field and designated hitter. 3) If he is aware of these flaws, then he should be fired for not addressing them. A general manager who cannot find two league-average bats for non-crucial defensive positions among 30 major league organizations is clearly incompetent. The fact that Adam Lind is crushing the ball in Triple-A but Ricciardi feels he cannot outhit eight players who have batted a collective .234/.319/.316 (the Jays' 2008 production from left field) is evidence of this. You can Google everything I've written since J.P. Ricciardi was hired and this is the first time you will read this sentiment: I have lost all confidence in his ability to put together a winning team, and it's time for a new direction for the Toronto Blue Jays. I don't blame John Gibbons -- he can only play the cards he's dealt. The Jays need a new dealer, somebody who likes playing with a full deck. He should join Bill Bavasi in the unemployment line and be replaced by somebody who will take a proactive approach in getting the team at least as far as league average in left field, DH and with RISP. There is still enough time to salvage the situation, but action has to be taken without delay. As of June 17, 2008 I am officially off the J.P. Ricciardi bandwagon.
|
I suppose I'm off the bandwagon, too -- if only because this is Ricciardi's seventh season as GM, and it just never seems to happen for the Jays. They've been up; they've been down; they've been up again; but since Ricciardi took over, the franchise has won 522 games and lost 529. I'm not willing to label Ricciardi as "clearly incompetent," but he does seem to have some blind spots, as suggested by his comments about Dunn and the continuing presence of Lind in Triple-A. And it seems that his blind spots have consigned the Blue Jays to a continuing and uninspiring level of mediocrity.
(Bonus link: Posnanski on baseball players who like baseball.)
Friday Filberts
Friday, June 20, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• Today is Bill Werber's 100th birthday. A lot of times, the oldest living major leaguer is some guy who made little impression in the majors, which makes sense because most major leaguers make little impression. But Werber had a career. He batted against Bob Feller and Lefty Grove and Carl Hubbell, and he played for Hall of Fame managers Joe McCarthy, Bucky Harris, Connie Mack and Bill McKechnie (he also played for Hall of Fame outfielder Mel Ott). In today's Times, Ray Robinson remembers his visits with Werber, and recently the Washington Post's Dave Sheinin spent some quality time with Werber and got plenty of good stories. Just think: One of Babe Ruth's teammates is still around and sound enough to talk about it. The mind reels.
• Thursday would have been George Lederer's 80th birthday. Lederer covered the Dodgers for 11 years, mostly in the 1960s, and
this remembrance by his son is the best thing you'll read today.
• Remember
Pat Venditte? Last night he made his professional debut with the Staten Island Yankees and … he pitched with both arms! Of course, this was nothing new for Venditte, who was a switch-pitcher at Creighton. The Yankees drafted him in the 45th round but he didn't sign. This year they drafted him in the 20th round and he did. Here's
everything you need to know about Venditte, and
here's old video). Of course, last night in his very first appearance, the switch-pitcher faced a switch-hitter. What happened? They both kept switching. But there is a rule about this sort of thing -- Venditte's
not the first switch-pitcher (see the top of the ninth inning), so there is a protocol: eventually the hitter had to choose a side and stay there. And Venditte struck him out.
• In case I haven't mentioned this lately, my favorite baseball movie is "Bull Durham." It is No. 1, and three or four other movies are tied for a distant No. 2. It's like on the scale scouts use; "Bull Durham" is a 70 -- would be 75 if Tim Robbins could have looked just a
little like a pitcher -- and the others are in the 55-60 range. At best. It's the only baseball movie I watch every year. Anyway, it was released 20 years ago, and I still remember where I saw it, who I saw it with and how it made me feel. CNNSI.com's Richard Deitsch has a
good interview with Shelton, and the good news is that rumors of a sequel are unfounded. Other potentially good news: Shelton's trying to line up financing for a new baseball movie, this one about a spoiled pitcher who ends up pitching in Mexico (and I say "potentially" because it's been 12 years since Shelton's last
good movie).
• Terry Pluto says the
Indians are finished, and I'm inclined to agree with him. I know, I just said the opposite a few days ago, but that was before the Indians got swept while everybody else in the league was feasting on the National League. Yes, the Indians do still have that positive run differential, but they're 8 1/2 games out of first place and even further behind the Rays in the wild-card standings.
• King Kaufman, one of the two best columnists you can read for free,
talks to the Saberscouting.com guys.
• I spent some time with Bill James last night. He didn't mention that he's looking for help. I guess he learned his lesson the first time. Anyway, maybe
you can use
this information (sub. only):
Are you interested in writing for Bill James Online?
Here's the deal. At this point, we can't afford to pay you. We have 1,500 subscribers as of now and expenses averaging about $8,000 a month, so … do the math; we're losing money.
It is difficult for us to pay you, or pay you very much, as long as we are losing money. Also, we are reluctant to make promises that, in the nature of the world, it may not be easy to pay off.
--snipped--
I want you to understand that what we're offering you is a chance to publish some of your stuff and get reaction to it, and anything beyond that is kind of speculative. We hope to find some young writers who are worthy of being paid, and we hope to make enough money to pay you a little bit. It is the literal embodiment of the audacity of hope.
If, on that unpromising premise, you would like to publish some of your stuff here and get some reaction to it, then send me an e-mail (see that "contact us" link?) and I'll get back to you with an article outlining what it is that we are looking for. Thanks.
|
The part I snipped is the part where Bill tells a story about getting paid nothing for a while, by a sketchy outfit many years ago, but eventually getting paid $10 per column. Three times. I snipped that story because otherwise I'd have excerpted the entire page, and then it's not an excerpt. Anyway, this is the sort of material that Bill James Online should offer for free. Not that 1,500 subscribers isn't pretty good, but it's a little odd to ask people to pay for an article in which you ask people if they want to write well enough to be paid, but not be paid.
I kid Bill because I love him. And speaking from experience, I have to say that being associated with Bill James has never hurt anyone's career.
•
What's wrong with Joe Blanton? Bonus Question: How good would the A's be if there wasn't something wrong with Joe Blanton?
• Good stuff from Beer Leaguer about Pat Burrell and his fat contract, which since last June
doesn't actually look so fat.
•
Oh, the humanity! Update: American League 74, National League 51. Next update in 72 hours.
McLaren couldn't fix GM's mistakes
Thursday, June 19, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
First the general manager, and now the manager:
Well, at least Riggleman is not Buddy Bell. And it's not like things can get any worse than they are.
For the record, Riggleman has managed seven full seasons in the majors, during which his teams finished seventh, fourth, third, fourth, fifth, second and sixth. In his sixth season, his Cubs jumped all the way from 68-94 to 90-73 … then fell back to 67-95 the next season. After which he was fired. (In Riggleman's defense, the Cubs did even worse in Don Baylor's first season.)
Riggleman probably will be gone after this season unless the Mariners play .600 ball the rest of the way. And even that might not be enough to save his job, as the next general manager -- assuming interim GM Lee Pelekoudas won't keep the job -- probably will want to hire his own guy.
As for McLaren, he finishes his career with a 68-88 record -- 43-41 last season, 25-47 this season. Like nearly every other manager in major league history, he wasn't smart enough to fix the mistakes his general manager made. But I wonder whether he could have fought harder for the young players he managed, particularly Adam Jones and Jeff Clement.
Dodgers showing signs of desperation
Thursday, June 19, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
You think maybe the Dodgers are getting desperate?
When Rafael Furcal went down in early May, the Dodgers turned to Chin-Lung Hu.
Hu didn't hit. Hu didn't hit at all. So they sent Hu down.*
*Insert your own version of Abbott & Costello routine here.
Next up: Angel Berroa, a Royals castoff. Before the Dodgers acquired Berroa two weeks ago, he was doing pretty well in Triple-A. Then again, he's 30, he's five years removed from his last good major league season, and as a shortstop he has the mobility of a parking meter.
Oh, and in nine games so far he's batting .154.
Next up? Believe it or not, the Dodgers are (or were) considering Nomar Garciaparra. From the L.A. Times last week:
The Dodgers plan to move Nomar Garciaparra back to shortstop, giving them another option as they learned that injured incumbent Rafael Furcal was expected to sit out at least another three weeks. Manager Joe Torre said he hoped Garciaparra could begin a minor league rehabilitation assignment within the next week."The only thing I told him was, with the news with Raffy, go play shortstop," Torre said. Garciaparra, a six-time All-Star including five times as a shortstop, has not played the position in three years. He has not played at all since April 26 because of an injured left calf, his eighth stint on the disabled list in the last five seasons. Torre said the Dodgers would see how Garciaparra responded on his rehabilitation assignment before determining whether he could play there on a full-time basis. "Let's wait until he plays some games," Torre said. "We'll see where we are at that point in time. "If he's healthy, I think that can certainly be a benefit for us. He feels he can [play there], and that's good enough for us."
|
Garciaparra played his first game Tuesday night. He started at shortstop, hit a home run, and came out after four innings. Wednesday morning he woke up with "discomfort" in the right calf that landed him on the DL in the first place. Suffice it to say, if we see Garciaparra playing shortstop for the Dodgers this year, it'll be an upset.
All of which is going to wind up little more than a footnote for everyone involved. But the Dodgers' various shortstops exemplify this team that seems to be going nowhere.
Andruw Jones is out, indefinitely. Furcal is still out, indefinitely. Brad Penny's out with a shoulder injury. Now Hiroki Kuroda is out with a sore shoulder, too.
If I were running the Dodgers, there's one move I would make, right now. I would get Blake DeWitt out of the lineup, and get Andy LaRoche in. DeWitt's been below average this season; aside from his little hot streak last month he's been well below average. Granted, LaRoche is no savior. But so many things have gone wrong for the Dodgers this season that if they do wind up in the playoffs, it'll be a very close-run thing. So they have to take the runs, right now, wherever they can find them.
Cubs in trouble? Maybe not
Thursday, June 19, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
The Cubs have a big lead, so there's no reason to panic about Zambrano's injury, right?
Well, I guess that depends on who
you ask ...
A serious injury to Zambrano would be devastating to the Cubs' pennant push in a season in which they've produced the best record in baseball to date and been mentioned prominently as National League favorites.
It's unclear whether Zambrano's discomfort can be traced to stiffness he experienced at the base of his neck that ran down into the back of his shoulder a month ago. He awoke with the stiff neck the morning of his May 17 start against Pittsburgh, and it lingered into midweek.
|
I'm writing this early Thursday morning, with zero information about the severity of Zambrano's injury.
But unless Zambrano's out for at least a couple of months, this is
not devastating to the Cubs' pennant push.
Thanks to a nifty new (color-coded!) feature on our
standings page, we find that the Cubs have the best run differential in the National League, and easily the best in their division. Also, I know
Rich Hill is still fighting his control at
Triple-A, but the guy finished fifth in the NL in strikeouts last year, and I have to think he's going to give the Cubs some good innings this year. And if not Hill, then
Sean Marshall may do quite nicely in the rotation.
Obviously, the Cubs are better with Zambrano than without him. But when I look at what the Cubs have done this season, and when I look at their competition, and when I look at the options available if they have to replace Zambrano in the rotation, I'm led to conclude that if there's one team in the majors for which the loss of their ace is
not devastating, it's the Cubs.
Geeks vs. scouts
Thursday, June 19, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
I recall, some years ago, noticing that the Kane County Cougars, then a Marlins farm club, were loaded. How loaded were they? Check out Bert Flex's interview with Baseball Prospectus' Kevin Goldstein:
6. Some of my best friends are stat geeks. What is one thing they would be wise to learn from scouts?
To get out of the house more, and to kiss a girl. Seriously though, SOME (not everyone is anti-scout) need to realize that tools and skills are important, especially in the minor leagues and the value of statistics one finds in the minors can range greatly from really telling to totally irrelevant. There are certain types of players that can put up great numbers in the minors but because of the type of player they are, it's just not going to work in the big leagues. I used to be a number geek myself, and then I learned that scouts do a better job of projecting prospects than the numbers do.
I'll share with you a story that I always do with questions like this. In 2001, I was at a Kane County Cougars game. They had a good team that year, with Adrian Gonzalez, a No. 1 overall pick, at first base, Josh Willingham in the outfield, and some others. After the game, a scout told me that the best player on the field was the shortstop, who hit .268/.327/.382 that year. Not only was he the best player for the scout, but the best hitter he'd seen in the league for years. It made no sense to me at all, as the guy didn't hit for average, didn't hit for much power, and didn't walk much. That player was Miguel Cabrera. That's why you listen to scouts.
|
Great story. I wish I had one like it.
But as a commenter over at BTF
points out, "Cabrera was also 18 years old, and his .709 OPS was better than league average (.706) before taking position into account." What's more, Gonzalez was 19; at that level, one year (let alone three) makes a huge difference (and Willingham was 21).
Now, I should hasten to mention that we don't know when Goldstein was at that Kane County game; maybe when he saw Cabrera and talked to the scout, Cabrera's stats were actually worse than league average. Maybe quite a bit worse. Then again, they might have been better. My point is, that if you've got an 18-year-old shortstop in the Midwest League with hitting stats right around the league average, you've probably got yourself a prospect. Even if you haven't actually seen him.
Which I'm sure Goldstein would acknowledge. What bothers me more is the notion that there are "stat geeks" who don't care about tools and skills. Have you ever met anybody like that? I haven't. Have you ever met anyone who's "anti-scout"? I haven't. And I've met a lot of stat geeks.
The "anti-scout stat geek"? He's a straw man. Doesn't really exist, at least not in any meaningful numbers. As for scouts doing "a better job of projecting prospects than the numbers do" … Well, we don't really know that, do we? When scouts evaluate players, even Class A players, they can't help but notice the numbers. And when number geeks evaluate players, they read the scouting reports.
This whole geeks-vs.-scouts meme is tired and isn't at all productive, and Goldstein's too smart to keep hammering on it. But then, you know the old saying: Nobody's more devout than a convert.
M's need to wave goodbye to Sexson
Wednesday, June 18, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Is Richie Sexson about to follow Bill Bavasi out the door?
According to the Everett Daily Herald's Kirby Arnold,
probably:
One day after general manager Bill Bavasi was fired, interim GM Lee Pelekoudas and club executives held meetings throughout the day Tuesday to set the course for the final 3½ months of the season.
Among the hottest topics: Sexson.
According to one person familiar with moves that are planned, Sexson will be let go, possibly within days. The timing is not set because the team is dealing with other personnel issues that go beyond the procedures for moving Sexson.
There also is the delicate process involved with getting rid of Sexson, who's making $14 million this season in the final year of a four-year, $50 million contract.
Because Sexson has more than five years of major league service, he could decline an assignment to the minor leagues if he clears the 48-hour waiver process and isn't claimed by another team. It's unlikely other teams would be interested because of his high salary, about $7 million for the rest of this season.
Because of the power his service time gives him, Sexson could choose to refuse the Mariners' attempt to make him a free agent and remain with the team. In that case, he would sit the bench, collect what remains of his salary this season and watch others play first base.
--snip--
While there are options on the current roster -- left fielder Raul Ibanez, DH Jose Vidro and utility player Miguel Cairo have started there this season -- the team is leaning toward calling up Bryan LaHair from the Class AAA Tacoma Rainiers.
LaHair entered Tuesday's game at Las Vegas batting .260 with 11 home runs and 41 RBI. Those numbers were second on the team to catcher Jeff Clement, who was called up to the Mariners on Tuesday.
Clement's callup was the first of what will create a new look to the Mariners' lineup.
Manager John McLaren said Clement would catch a majority of the games, putting current catcher Kenji Johjima's playing time in question. Johjima, who signed a three-year $24 million contract extension on April 25, entered Tuesday with a .227 average, two home runs and 17 RBI, also disappointing numbers.
|
Really? Sexson can refuse becoming a free agent?
I'm stuck in an airport -- and not an airport I expected to visit today, which makes it all the more exciting -- and I don't know where to look or who to call about this. But I cannot recall a single instance of a player forcing a team to keep him in uniform when he's not wanted. I suppose one could design a contract that would allow that to happen, but I don't believe it's ever been done.
Anyway, why would Sexson (or someone like him)
want to be where he's obviously not wanted? No, what's going to happen is they're going to designate him for assignment, he's going to refuse an assignment to the minors, and will become a free agent. It's hard to imagine him showing up in the majors again this season, but many stranger things have happened.
But the M's need to get rid of him with all due haste. With the rebuilding about to begin, it's hard to justify giving Sexson more than a few plate appearances per week, maybe against the odd left-handed starter. But whatever small contribution he might make is more than balanced by the embarrassment of a $14 million salary spending most of his time on the bench. While it's easy to blame Bavasi for Sexson's contract, a lot of other people in the organization would have signed off on that contract, and as long as he's around he's an embarrassment to them, too.
So he's got to go. Let the Bryan LaHair Era begin.
(Bonus Mariner news:
Bavasi, sabermetrics vs. makeup, and the next GM.)
Wednesday Wangdoodles
Wednesday, June 18, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Notes while I wonder how long it will take the Mariners to realize that Willie Bloomquist isn't quite good enough to play center field every day …
• There's been a great deal of talk, none of it complimentary, about Omar Minaya firing Willie Randolph at 3:15 a.m. (ET). But that's pure East Coast-centrism. The Mets were in California, where 3:15 was actually 12:15, not all that late when you've just played a night game. As
this piece notes, the firing was
announced at 12:15 Pacific, but Randolph was actually fired shortly after he arrived at the team hotel after the game. Was there a
better time to fire Randolph? Well, yeah: two weeks ago, or Sunday before everyone flew across the country. But if Minaya was going to fire Randolph in California, last night after the game was the time to do it. Criticize Minaya all you like. But not for this.
" Writing in the New York Sun, my friend Jonah says what the Mets have lacked is not a good manager, but rather a good
contingency plan. Writing in an e-mail message to me, my friend Keith says what the Mets have lacked is good -- or even adequate -- clutch hitting. He's right. In
late-and-close situations -- to name just one clutch situation in which the Mets have struggled -- they're 15th in the National League this season with a .651 OPS. And yes, that's going to turn around no matter who's the manager.
• I think I have a
new favorite manager.
• My favorite pitching coach already was Rick Peterson;
this just clinches it.
• My favorite pitcher might someday be
Charlie Zink. But there's no telling when, as apparently there's room on the Red Sox for
just one knuckleballer. The good news is that Zink, 28, is still young for a knuckleballer. The bad news? So is
Tim Wakefield.
• You know what gives me shivers? Thinking about all the bright people sifting through PITCHf/x data and solving baseball's mysteries. I mean, some of these guys are tossing off discoveries without even seeming to try. Case in point: Josh Kalk's fascinating look at
pitching in Coors Field.
• Rough night for the National Leaguers, huh? As I mentioned Monday morning, through the weekend's games the AL was ahead of the NL this season, 47-36. After Tuesday night's carnage it's 59-42, and the Big Boy League's heading for another big season.
• I meant to blog about the amazing
Robinson Cancel earlier this week but forgot; fortunately, my friend Jim's got some good stuff about the guy who waited
nine years between hits.
• This might be my only blog post today, as I'll be in the air most of the day, heading toward Boston. Thursday night I'll be at the Museum of Science, Friday night at Fenway, then it's off to New York for games at Yankee and Shea Stadiums. Then a quick stop in Cooperstown -- just my second visit, and my first since 1993 -- before heading to Cleveland for the
SABR convention next week. If you see me, please say hey.
Twins Livan on the edge with Hernandez
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
As you might recall, Francisco Liriano opened the season in the minors, didn't pitch all that well in two starts, and was promoted to the majors anyway. In three starts with the Twins, he gave up 15 hits and 13 walks in 10 innings and didn't escape the first inning in his third start.
Oops. Back to Rochester. But as one of the Nicks writes, since returning to the minors Liriano's been solid:
Much to my surprise and delight, Liriano made very quick strides upon his return to Class-AAA Rochester. After an ugly first start back with the Red Wings (4.1 IP, 4 ER, 5 BB), Liriano started to make demonstrable adjustments. In nine starts since then, he has pitched 6+ innings eight times, allowed three or fewer runs eight times and issued two or fewer walks seven times. He's throwing more strikes and pitching deep into ballgames. Over his past four starts, he has gone 3-0 with a 2.45 ERA and 26-to-6 strikeout-to-walk ratio over 25 2/3 innings. Considering how far away he looked back in April, there's no way I could have anticipated that Liriano would be pitching so well so soon, even if it is just at the Triple-A level. Reports indicate that he has added a few ticks to his velocity and that he's harnessed his fastball, which he struggled mightily to command during his stint with the Twins.Despite his success, the Twins would probably like to be patient with Liriano. However, just as was the case back in April, circumstances may force the team to move ahead of its desired schedule with the left-hander. Livan Hernandez's performance has spiraled as of late, and with the number of hits and runs he is giving up each time out, it doesn't seem like Ron Gardenhire will be able to continue trotting him out there every fifth day without the players and fans revolting.
|
First, a confession: I'm mostly just using this post as an excuse to gloat about Livan Hernandez.
When the Twins signed Hernandez for $5 million last winter, I referred to his contract, coupled with Craig Monroe's $4 million deal, as a "colossal waste of money."
Monroe's been worthless this season. So it looks that $4 million is gone. But Hernandez, at least superficially, looked pretty good this spring. In his first 10 starts he went 6-2 with a 3.88 ERA. But in 65 innings he struck out only 21 batters while giving up nine homers, and it's practically impossible to maintain that sort of ERA with those sorts of underlying indicators.
Sure enough, Hernandez's luck has changed. In his last five starts he's winless, with an 11.10 ERA and 56 hits allowed in 24 innings (yes, 56 in 24). I'll admit that even I didn't guess that Hernandez's strikeout rate would be so low this season, but then I didn't account for the difference between the National League and the American League. Currently he's striking out 2.8 batters per nine innings, and that ratio simply won't work. Not in either league.
Will the Twins dump him? They should, before his innings-based bonuses start kicking in. Would the Twins then be forced into promoting Liriano? Not necessarily. The Twins are 34-36 and they've been outscored by 30 runs. I suppose it's too early to give up, but if somebody's going to make a push in the Central, isn't it probably going to be the Indians or the Tigers? Both of those teams have just slightly worse records than the Twins, but more talent and better run differentials.
The Twins are essentially a fourth-place team, and when they're figuring how to handle Liriano, they should think of themselves that way.
(H/T to Baseball Musings.)
Instant replay will help to better enforce the rules
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Salon's King Kaufman reluctantly approves of MLB using instant replay, but he's worried about the ol' slippery slope ...
It's heresy! George Will says so, in a column with the earthy lead sentence "One must say it ain't so."
Then again, speaking as someone who would trade a finger or two for the NFL's promise to scrap instant replay forever: I think it might be a good idea.
--snip--
Home run calls are pretty clear cut. The ball either went over the fence or it didn't. Video replay is good at telling us which. And a home run is a huge, huge play in a baseball game. We're not talking about stopping the game to see whether one basket out of 80 in a game was worth two or three points, or if the ball-carrier's knee touched the ground an attosecond before the ball came out of his hand.
Checking the video to confirm or overturn a close home run call is akin to the NHL's policy of routinely reviewing goals where there's any question about whether the puck went in the net. Only it shouldn't happen nearly as often. There are goals that warrant a double-check in almost every hockey game. Each team might run into a questionable home run call once a month or so.
That's all I'm up for. Home run calls. Fair or foul when a homer's not at stake? Let the umps figure it out.
We have to watch out for the old slippery slope: I'm not supporting replay without some assurances that a few years down the road we won't be stopping the game every other inning to review that bang-bang play at first base, that called third strike on the backdoor slider on the black, that diving catch that might have been a trap.
And I'm not supporting it at all starting Aug. 1. You don't change the rules in the middle of a season, or in the heat of controversy -- lukewarm in this case -- over a series of blown calls. Talk about it in the offseason, see if everybody still thinks it's a good idea. If so, go ahead. Get home runs right, but leave the human element in the game.
|
Point of Order: Nobody's talking about changing the rules. What's being discussed is enhancing the
enforcement of the rules.
Let's assume for a moment that instead of four umpires, each major league game is overseen by only two umpires. Calls are being missed all over the field, and everyone watching at home knows it. Suddenly, someone has a crazy idea ... Why not add a third umpire, just like in the Triple-A leagues?
You're not changing the rules; you're simply making it easier to enforce them. Do you wait until after the season to add the third umpire? Maybe ... Except all the umpires in the majors came up through Triple-A, so they should be able to handle the transition to a three-man crew without much trouble.
Well, that's what we're talking about here. Except it's a guy in New York rather than a third umpire. And while the current umpires have not previously worked with a guy in New York, the NHL
has used a guy in New York (or wherever) for some years now, and I have to think MLB will be talking to the NHL about protocol.
Granted, the transition might be clumsy. But it doesn't have to be. And nobody's changing any rules.
Now, about that old slipper slope ... What sort of "assurances" would be worth a pail of warm tobacco spit, anyway? Sure, MLB can say this is as far as it'll go, but what's the point? One year, two years, five years down the road, absolutely nothing would prevent a change in policy. So I don't expect MLB to make some empty gesture at this point.
And I wouldn't want them to. Maybe today the guy in New York seems appropriate only for those home-run calls. But don't you think our sensibilities might change? Here's a prediction: Within five years, the expanded use of that guy in New York will be supported by even King Kaufman.
Probably not George Will, though.
Angels need to improve their run differential
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Monday night the Mets beat the Angels.
A few hours after the game, the Mets' manager was
fired. The
Angels' manager was not.
This was not a big surprise. The Mets rank as one of most disappointing teams in the game. The Angels are riding high with the second-best record (42-29) in the American League.
So you might be surprised to find that the Mets have outscored their opponents this season.
And the Angels have not.
Outscored 9-6 by the Mets on Monday night, the Angels now have been outscored 300-298 this season.
As you would guess, teams that score roughly as many runs as they allow typically hover around the .500 mark. Further, the Pythagorean method demonstrates a strong correlation between run differentials and records. This has been an outstanding season for the Pythagorean method. Of the 30 major league teams, only six are currently more than three wins off their "expected" (by run differential) records … and four of those six are four wins off.
The two remaining teams?
The Braves have the run differential of a 41-30 team, but instead are 35-36, due almost entirely to their stunning 3-18 record in one-run games. We've mentioned them in this space at least a few times.
The Angels have the run differential of a 35-36 (or 36-35) team, but instead are 42-29. They're 13-8 in one-run games, and
17-4 in two-run games. They're also 5-10 in games decided by five or more runs. So there you have it: The Angels have won the great majority of the close ones, and they've lost most of the blowouts. Which is exactly how you stray seven wins from your Pythagorean projection just 71 games into the season.
Can they keep it up?
They can, but probably won't. Just last year the Diamondbacks won 90 games despite being outscored by 20 runs, but that sort of thing is exceptionally unusual. If the Angels are going to maintain their fine record they'll almost certainly have to improve their run differential.
Can they do that? They can, and probably will. With
John Lackey pitching brilliantly after his season-opening DL stint, the Angels have an outstanding rotation. Their bullpen is solid, as usual. On the other side of the ledger there's plenty of room for improvement from
Mike Napoli,
Garret Anderson and
Vladimir Guerrero.
The Angels were the favorites in the West before the season, and deserved to be. Their three-game lead over the A's right now means they're still the favorites. But they have
not played as well as their impressive record, and if they don't start playing better, the A's are going to catch them.
M's lineup changes make little sense
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
The good news for Mariners fans didn't last long.
Yes, Bill Bavasi got fired. But just a few hours later, manager John McLaren came up with an odd lineup and an odder idea:
When manager John McLaren posted his lineup, Ichiro Suzuki was in right field for the first time since 2006, a move McLaren said is not a one-time thing.And during batting practice, catcher Kenji Johjima was taking grounders at first base. The Mariners are looking at options for the unproductive Richie Sexson, and one could be to have Johjima get some games at first base. That would allow the club to call up catcher Jeff Clement from the minor leagues. Clement, who was up for a couple of weeks earlier in the year, continues to pound the ball at Triple-A Tacoma. He has a .337 average, 14 homers and 43 RBIs for the Rainiers, and it's a matter of time, and [possibly] not much time at that, before he's back with the hitting-starved Mariners.
|
Just to be perfectly clear about a couple of things:
1. Ichiro Suzuki played center field last year and won a Gold Glove. He probably deserved it.
2. First base is a position that many, many players can play passably enough. As a result, it's not hard to find a player who can handle the position defensively and hit pretty well. Johjima, since joining the Mariners in 2006, has been a below-average hitter (and this year he's well below average).
Let us review: After a big shakeup, the manager has pushed one player to a position for which he's obviously overqualified, and is apparently considering pushing another player to a position for which he's obviously underqualified.
My guess is that the Mariners' next general manager will be a smart young fellow, Chris Antonetti or Ben Cherington or another of the many fine candidates out there. And one of the first orders of business will be getting rid of the manager who doesn't understand the fundamental concept of positional scarcity.
Postscript: More positively, the Mariners have recalled Jeff Clement from Triple-A, where he was (once again) raking. Though it's not at all clear that they've got any more idea what to do with him than they did before they sent him to the minors last month.
Examing the Lee/Sabathia question … again
Monday, June 16, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Revisiting an earlier conversation, The Book's MGL references a recent Joe Sheehan column about Cliff Lee and C.C. Sabathia ...
His point in the article is that "we" make too much of short term performance and we don't give enough credence to the fact that changes in actual talent tend to happen gradually. He says something like, "It is not likely that all of a sudden Lee became a better pitcher than C.C."
Now, the funny or ironic thing about this article and about Joe's tenor (he sort of apologizes for being on the, "What's wrong with C.C., and Lee is now a great pitcher" bandwagon) is that by next year, both Joe and everyone else who is shaking their heads in agreement as they read this article, will have forgotten this whole concept of, "short term performance does not a good or bad player make," or something like that, and we will be once again reading about who is pitching hurt, or who is distracted by impending FA, or who has suddenly turned the corner, is now in the best shape of their life, has recovered from all their injuries, is playing relaxed and focused, etc., etc., etc.
Just for the record, and of course trying to be right or wrong about a particular projection is silly, but since April 25, which may have been around the time that I wrote that Lee was still an average or slightly below average pitcher, despite his early season ungodly performance, and got excoriated by people like Rob Neyer (actually he was justified, because I was unfair to him), he has posted an OPS against of .772 and the league average OPS in the AL this year so far is .736.
|
Actually, I don't think that we'll
forget, next year. Well, maybe we'll forget a little bit. But what really happens is that it's no fun to throw the "anomaly" label on every interesting thing that happens in April.
And let us recall what was happening two months ago. After four starts, C.C. Sabathia was 0-3 with a 13.50 ERA; he'd pitched only 18 innings, striking out 14 batters and (perhaps most oddly) walking 14. This is a guy who walked 37 batters in 241 innings last season. Meanwhile, in Cliff Lee's first four starts, he was 4-0 with a 0.28 ERA, and in 32 innings he walked two batters and struck out 29.
So we'll call this the Lee/Sabathia Question: Considering only their first four starts, which one of them do you want for the rest of the season?
After about two seconds of analysis, MGL would have chosen Sabathia. I suspect that both Joe Sheehan and I would have done the same, except we'd have spent a bit more time thinking about it.
And since then? As we would (or should have) expected, a great deal of regression. In his 11 starts since, Sabathia has a 2.21 ERA with an outstanding K/W ratio. But you know, Lee's been pretty good, too. Not
as good as he was; that's impossible. But over his past nine starts, he's 6-1 with a 3.81 ERA and an excellent (if not Sabathian) K/W ratio. Overall, Lee's now 10-1 with a 2.55 ERA, and still a decent Cy Young candidate.
So was it likely, two months ago, that Lee had become a better pitcher than Sabathia? No. Of course not. But was the
possibility interesting enough to mention? Yes. Absolutely. And when another Lee/Sabathia Question comes up again next year, we're going to mention it again. It's either that, or wait until June to write about statistics.
Bavasi's tenure with M's simply inexcusable
Monday, June 16, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Well, the move is probably a year or three late. But Bill Bavasi is finally gone.
U.S.S. Mariner's
Dave Cameron:
Lee Pelekoudas will take over as the interim GM and "a search for the new General Manager will begin immediately". With as bad as this season has gone, it's unlikely that they'll promote anyone from within and try to call it change, so expect an outside hire. If Chris Antonetti isn't on the potential interview list, we'll burn Safeco to the ground.
And yes, with the new GM will come a new manager. [John] McLaren's being left in charge in order to not make the new GM feel obligated to keep around an interim GM in case the team starts winning immediately after Mac gets fired. The new guy will almost certainly bring in his own field staff.
Obviously, we've had our disagreements with Bill on roster construction and how to build a team, but as we've said repeatedly, he's a really good person and it was our pleasure to host him at several USSM events in the past few years. I enjoyed all my conversations with him, and in the sense of having a good person to talk baseball with, I will miss him. But this is the right move for the organization.
|
This morning, I almost wrote a blog entry wondering how
something couldn't happen today,
somewhere. The Mets are a mess, the Dodgers are seven games under .500 and the Mariners just got swept by the worst team in the National League. But you know, much of the same could have been said about these teams last week and the week before, and nothing happened.
I guess getting swept by the Nationals at home was just too much for the M's, though. It really is sort of amazing. They've got a $117 million payroll -- or did, entering the season -- and they've got the worst record in the majors. The M's are 21 games under .500; the next-worst Royals are 14 games under .500. This really is a phenomenal performance, rivaled in recent memory by only the 1993 Mets (now remembered as "the worst team money could buy").
And while this season is the nadir of Bavasi's tenure, it's by no means his first poor season. Bavasi took over after 2003, in which the M's won 93 games and fell two games short of the wild card. In 2004, they
lost 99 games, then 93 more in 2005. In '06, they were respectable but still finished last. And last year, they somehow lucked into 88 wins despite being outscored. In fact, here's the most damning fact about Bavasi's five seasons at the helm: The Mariners were outscored in each of those five seasons, despite sporting one of the bigger payrolls in the league in each season.
His team's performance was simply inexcusable. He took over a rich, successful franchise, and today, he leaves behind a rich, unsuccessful franchise.
What's next? I agree with Cameron: Lee Pelekoudas, a solid baseball man, probably isn't the long-term answer. And Cameron is right about Chris Antonetti, too. If the M's can't hire him, they should hire someone like him. As we saw with the Diamondbacks last year, and as we're seeing with the Pirates this year, things can turn around really fast if you have the right guy running the show. Sometimes it's really as simple as not blowing hundreds of plate appearances and millions of dollars on guys like Jose Vidro.
Don't believe NL is trending upward
Monday, June 16, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Over the last weekend, the last-place Royals took two of three from the first-place Diamondbacks.
Meaningless? Sure. But as Rany Jazayerli writes,
the trend probably isn't ...
The Royals are now 33-27 (.550) against the NL over the last four years. In that same timeframe, they're 182-314 (.367) against AL opponents. Sixty games is a pretty substantial sample size, and in those 60 games the Royals have outscored their opponents by 46 runs, so their record is representative of how well they've played.
--snip--
There's a meme going around this year that the NL is starting to catch up on the AL, primarily because offense levels are so much higher in the NL this year, prompting claims that the NL has all the young hitting talent. That may be so, but color me unconvinced, and not just because the AL went 25-17 against the NL this weekend. I just don't understand why we have to interpret the higher offensive levels in the NL this year as the product of good young hitting in the NL, as opposed to good young pitching in the AL. Scoring levels tell you nothing about the quality of play -- an increase in scoring could be the result of better hitting, worse pitching, or both.
As I write this, a total of 22 pitchers have thrown 50 or more innings this season with a better-than-league average ERA (i.e. an ERA+ of over 100), and are no older than 25. Fifteen of them are in the American League. In descending order of ERA+, they are: Scott Kazmir, John Danks, Aaron Laffey, Felix Hernandez, Fausto Carmona, Gavin Floyd, Jon Lester, Zack Greinke, Ervin Santana, Chad Gaudin, Jesse Litsch, Greg Smith, Dana Eveland, Edwin Jackson, and Matt Garza. Only seven toil in the NL: Edinson Volquez, Tim Lincecum, Cole Hamels, Scott Olsen, John Lannan, Chad Billingsley, and Jair Jurrjens.
|
Overall this season, the AL has gone 47-36 (.566) against the NL. Last year the AL went 137-115 (.544). In 2006 -- the height of the carnage -- the AL went 154-98 (.611) against the NL. I do believe the NL has improved, relative to the AL, if only because that's the natural order of things. National League teams are drafting higher, spending more money, and getting smarter. And yes, it's hard to figure exactly why scoring is up in the National League and down in the American League. But there's simply no reason to believe this thing has turned around on a dime.
Wang's injury could be big blow to Yanks
Monday, June 16, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Yesterday the Yankees won a game and lost a pitcher. Maybe their best pitcher, and maybe -- as Tyler Kepner speculates -- for quite some time:
The injury is to the top of [Chien-Ming] Wang's foot, the same general area that reliever Brian Bruney injured when he tripped while covering first base in April. Bruney was found to have a Lisfranc injury and is expected to miss a minimum of three months.
Wang has symptoms of the same injury, including swelling and the inability to bear weight on the foot; he left Minute Maid Park on crutches, in a soft cast. Bruney's injury was in the middle of the foot, and Wang's is believed to be in the webbing of his toes, between his big toe and second toe.
|
In case you're wondering (as I was), here's
everything you ever wanted to know about Lisfranc joint injuries. My favorite Lisfranc fact: Lisfranc was a field surgeon in Napoleon's army. The Yankees' least-favorite Lisfranc fact: "Pain is elicited with palpation along the tarsometatarsal articulations, and force applied to this area may elicit medial or lateral pain."
As River Ave. Blues notes, we don't yet
know that it's Lisfranc, but if so the
Yankees do have a number of options ...
Now, if this is another Lisfranc injury, the Yanks are in for a world of pain. The diagnosis on Lisfranc injuries is generally not good. While Brian Bruney will attempt a rehab, surgery is almost always the case, and Wang's season could very well be over.
Now, before you go jump off the nearest bridge, keep in mind that this is early speculation on the part of the Yankees and Kepner. We won't know anything until later on today, and at that point, the Yankees will begin to evaluate their options.
Yes, the Yankees need Chien-Ming Wang, but if Joba [Chamberlain]'s development continues, Andy Pettitte finds some consistency and Mike Mussina continues doing what he's doing, the Yanks are not as in bad a shape as they could have been. The offense is clicking; the team is beginning to win. Wang's loss is a blow, but the Yankees can weather this storm.
Later on today around 12:30 p.m. we'll have our look at potential trade replacement. The Yankees also have internal options, including Ian Kennedy, Alan Horne, Dan Giese and Dan McCutchen as well as Phil Hughes a month or two down the road. For now, we just have to keep our chins up and hope for the best. It sounds bleak, and it may be bleak. But we just have to keep on trucking. Wang throws just once every five days, and the Yankees can win without him even if they'd rather be winning with him.
And, hey, perhaps now would be a good time for Carl Pavano to pick up his rehab pace. Imagine that one riding in on a white horse to save the Yankees.
|
Pavano. Heh. Good one.
WasWatching
isn't as optimistic ...
Now, I am back to full-blown depression over this injury. Sure, we have to wait and see what tomorrow brings. But, what are the odds that it's going to be favorable news?
As crazy as this sounds, if it turns out to be season-ending, the Yankees are going to have to go out and trade for a starting pitcher. Sure, maybe Dan McCutchen could step in. But, the Yankees may still see him as more of a relief pitcher. Who does that leave? Ian Kennedy? Kei Igawa? Jeff Karstens? None of those are going to fill Wang's shoes. This injury may bring cause for some drastic measures -- either that, or, get ready to punt the season.
|
One thing I'm sure about: the Yankees aren't punting. Not now.
I don't believe that Dan McCutchen is ready. He was excellent in nine Double-A starts this spring, but has only five Triple-A starts and generally hasn't been able to keep the ball out of the air this season. At 25, he's a prospect but not a savior.
Ian Kennedy? He's on the DL, but
throwing without pain. Kei Igawa has a 3.73 in Triple-A this season, and a 6.75 career ERA in the majors. Jeff Karstens has a 5.65 career ERA in the majors, and a 6.11 ERA in Triple-A this season. Dan Giese? What a story. At 31, he's finally getting his shot and he's getting it with the Yankees. If he really could pitch effectively in the majors, you'd think he'd have done it before now. But stranger things have happened.
Right now the Yankees don't seem to have any attractive options. But the same was true six weeks ago, right? And
Darrell Rasner stepped in, and he's given the Yankees five quality starts (out of seven). Can the Yankees really catch the Red Sox and/or the Rays with a rotation that includes Chamberlain, Darrell Rasner and (for example) Giese? Probably not. But they have to try, and will.
(And the same goes for the Indians, who still have a fighting chance and aren't trading
C.C. Sabathia anytime soon.)
Monday Mendozas
Monday, June 16, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• In the New York Times yesterday, Kevin Baker reviewed two baseball-related children's books: Kadir Nelson's "We are the Ship: The Story of Negro League Baseball" and James Sturm's "Satchel Paige: Striking Out Jim Crow." I've been a huge fan of Nelson's paintings since I saw his work at the Negro Leagues Museum, some years ago. And Sturm's earlier graphic novel The Golem's Mighty Swing, is fantastic.
• As
David Pinto notes, the Tigers have shaved five games off their Central deficit in the last six days, and now trail the first-place White Sox by only six games. I've said it before (somewhere) and I'll say it again (here): the White Sox have the second-best run differential in the best league, and they deserve their current status as favorites. But they're going to be challenged by the Indians or the Tigers, or both.
• Last winter I loved
Jed Lowrie. Well, I liked him a lot. So did John Sickels. Now
Sickels likes him even more (and so do I). So the question becomes, when do the Red Sox consider
Julio Lugo a
sunk cost and just give the job to Lowrie? (Hey, Frank McCourt's a Red Sox fan ... Maybe the Dodgers would take Lugo for
Andy LaRoche?)
• Sure,
Junior might accept a trade to the Rays. But why would they accept him? We know -- and
they must know -- that nothing's going to bring in more fans except a winning season (and even that's far from a sure thing). What's more, it's not at all clear that Griffey would push the Rays to a winning season. Granted, their right fielders haven't been particularly good: .775 OPS this season. And Junior's OPS this season? It's 749. In the lesser league. In a power hitter's ballpark. Is there really any chance the Rays are going to give the Reds a couple of prospects for the privilege of spending millions on a player who probably won't help them at all?
• You want something to chew on all day? Over at The Biz of Baseball, they've
thrown the net wide and collected
30 pundits for their takes on the state of MLB in 2008. I should have joined them, but the pressure ... Anyway, I'll stand on the shoulders of all these giants and offer, later this week, my own few paragraphs on the question at hand.
•
Homer Bailey, just a year ago one of the top two or three pitching prospects in the game,
got hammered yesterday. Again. Three starts, three losses. How could anyone have guessed this would happen? It's not like Bailey, in his last five Triple-A starts, gave up 29 hits and 19 walks in 23 innings or anything. Oh wait. He
did do those things. The Reds promoted him anyway. After pitching for three weeks like a guy with a serious head or arm problem, Bailey was summoned to the Big Boy League and was supposed to remember how to throw hard and throw strikes. Nice plan, guys.
• You think the Mets are in trouble? Saturday night the fans were chanting "Let's go, Rangers!"
at Shea Stadium. Seriously. Read
this and tell me this franchise doesn't suffer from a terrible and debilitating lack of leadership.
• Using PITCHf/x data, Mike Fast
analyzes Danny Herrera's pitches, while we continue to wonder if that's really a screwball or just an odd changeup.
Replay system was inevitable
Friday, June 13, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
I have to say, I'm impressed. Major League Baseball usually takes much longer to get anything done than you expect ... and yet, this thing might happen much sooner than we expected ...
Major League Baseball is attempting to institute instant replay on home run calls before the end of this season, according to two sources familiar with those discussions. However, in order to accomplish that, MLB still needs to settle on a replay system that would satisfy everyone involved, from the umpires to commissioner Bud Selig.USA Today reported Friday on its Web site that MLB had approached the World Umpires Association about implementing replay on Aug. 1. However, it appears that's merely a tentative target date. While it's possible a system could be in place that soon, some baseball officials merely want to get some form of replay system up and running before this year's postseason. As recently as a few weeks ago, baseball officials were still talking about experimenting with replay during the Arizona Fall League, the World Baseball Classic and spring training before implementing it in the big leagues. But so many people within the sport have reached the conclusion that replay is now inevitable, they're pushing to get it in place as soon as possible. Their thinking, according to the same sources, is that if there no longer is any serious opposition to the principle of using replay to decide home run calls, it would be embarrassing to the sport to have a big game down the stretch, or in October, decided by a blown home run call. They're hoping to settle on specifics that would be acceptable to Selig, the umpires' union and the players' union. --snip-- The idea of replay has gained momentum after umpires botched several home run rulings on national TV in May.
|
Whoever posted this at BTF added this note: "Well, this is rather premature. The NFL would never make a change like this midseason,
and for good reason -- you don't want dreaded glitches occurring in the middle of a playoff race. I am in general in favor of replay, but
this seems much too rushed to me."
It's a fair question ... What's more embarrassing? Dreaded glitches? Or another blown call by the guys on the field?
At this point, my only concern is that when the dreaded glitch happens -- and it will -- the Luddites will present this as evidence that
replay not only isn't working, but that it can't work.
This of course is preposterous. Will the new system be immediately perfect? No. Eventually perfect? No. But I'm absolutely sure that if the current system -- i.e., four guys trying to figure out what happened a few hundred feet away -- gets the tough calls right 95 percent of the time, a new video-enhanced system will push that to 98 or 99 percent.
And by the way, it's inevitable. If I were running the show, I'd probably wait until next year, after a shakedown cruise in the Arizona Fall League. But what MLB's talking about doing is not complicated. Anybody who watches TV knows how easy this could be. And last time I checked, even the Luddites watch plenty of TV.
Randolph almost gone?
Friday, June 13, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
According to SI.com's Jon Heyman, the Mets' recent swoon might finally cost Willie Randolph his job:
General manager Omar Minaya is seriously considering changing managers and at least a couple of the team's coaches, sources told SI.com.A Mets official indicated that nothing was expected to be decided today regarding Randolph's status. But that doesn't preclude something from happening later this weekend. Front-office sources indicate his hold on the job is shaky, at best. Should Randolph be fired, bench coach Jerry Manuel will take over, sources told SI.com. Minaya and other club higher-ups met on Thursday to discuss the deteriorating fortunes of the team and what can be done about it. Minaya is considered extremely loyal by coworkers and has been Randolph's strongest supporter for weeks. As one Mets person put it, "Willie's his guy." However, Randolph's detractors have become more vocal in recent days, and there seems to be a general feeling that something major needs to be done to reinvigorate the club, which trails the first-place Phillies by 7½ games and has lost six of seven after a brief surge. Mets people believe they can't start completely new and would prefer to at least employ someone who's witnessed the first portion of the schedule up close. Manuel, 2000's AL Manager of the Year with the White Sox, would be given the rest of the season to turn things around.
|
They'd better fire Randolph quickly. Otherwise, as David Pinto notes, "the Mets will likely win four or five in a row, saving Randolph's job for another couple of weeks until they lose four or five in a row."
It's worth mentioning that Manuel managed six full seasons in the majors and his teams won more games than they lost. In fact, with Manuel at hand, management's continuing unwillingness to fire Randolph just looks all that much worse. And at this point? With the Mets 7.5 behind in the East and in the wild-card standings, it's probably too late.
Indians should give it another month
Friday, June 13, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Did you know that Victor Martinez -- just sent to the DL -- hasn't hit a single home run this season? Yesterday Martinez finally hit the disabled list. Where he'll have plenty of company:
The Indians have lost their No. 3 hitter (Hafner) and No. 4 hitter (Martinez). Last year they combined for 49 homers and 214 RBI. This year, they have four homers and 43 RBI. Martinez is homerless in 198 at-bats this year.They have played with hidden injuries this year -- Hafner leaving spring training with a sore right shoulder and Martinez playing the past four to six weeks with a sore elbow. Closer Joe Borowski did the same thing. He opened the year with a strained right triceps, went on the disabled list April 15 and wasn't activated until May 23. "Whether you shut him down early or shut him down late," said Wedge, "if the guy is still able to go out there and be better than the alternative ... It's hard to push a guy to shut it down when he wants to play. "I want him to go out there and play. If he's willing to do it, and he can do it, we need him to do it for the club." --snip-- At what point does a manager step in and say enough? After a good April, Martinez was hitting .216 ( 25-for-116). "He wasn't hurting every single day, every single at-bat, every single throw," said Wedge. "It was here and there. ... Until it becomes a daily thing, and the guy is strong enough to go out and play, you want him to go out and play. And he wants to do that. "He knows we're better as a ballclub with him at 80 percent, especially when you have other injuries to other key players."
|
Really? The Indians were better as a ballclub with a .216-hitting catcher with zero power? Speaking of which, Hafner's batting .217/.326/.350 in 46 games. No, he wasn't much good last season, but his numbers this season are simply beyond the pale. Here's a question I'd like to see someone answer: How many games does the average team throw away in a season on guys who aren't healthy enough to play, but do anyway? I'll bet it's more than three.
Anyway, presumably the Indians are finished, for the time being at least, running injured players out there every day and losing. Since, you know, they're all on the DL now. But the organization finds itself in an awkward position. Apparently there's talk around baseball that the Indians may trade C.C. Sabathia at some point this summer. He's only 4-8 with a 4.34 ERA, but since his first four (terrible) starts he's posted a 2.09 ERA, with his usual outstanding K/W ratio. If you had to pick an American League pitcher to win one game, he probably would be in your top five.
Hafner and Martinez are out. One second baseman (Barfield) is on the DL and another (Asdrubal Cabrera) is back in Triple-A, remembering how to hit. Jake Westbrook is gone for a year. It's time to start thinking about 2009, right?
Probably. But if you're running the Tribe, there are counterarguments. Despite all their problems, the Indians are only 6.5 games out of first place. The first-place White Sox didn't figure to play well before the season, and might be figured to regress as the season progresses. The Indians have a 31-36 record, but have the run differential (301-282) of a 35-32 team. Fausto Carmona's coming off the DL before July. So is Hafner, probably. Among the current regulars, Ryan Garko and Jhonny Peralta should start hitting better than they have, and nobody in particular is likely to hit worse.
So I say it's too early to punt. If I'm running the Indians, I give it another month. And if on July 15 we're still within five or six games of first place, we keep trying to win.
Friday Filberts
Friday, June 13, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• The Braves continue to amaze. Thursday afternoon they lost their 21st straight one-run road game, which merely ties the major league "record" set by the Royals in 2000 and 2001 (apparently this is one of the records that does carry over from season to season). What's amazing is that those Royals were a lousy team with a lousy manager, while these Braves are a pretty good team with a Hall of Fame manager. Does not compute!
• Nice take from UniWatch on the difference between wearing green and being green.
• Wednesday, I included a short item about the passing of Eliot Asinof. Hare are two better, more in-depth takes on Asinof from Bronx Banter and Futility Infielder.
• I second ShysterBall's take on the Bradley-Lefebvre Affair.
• What's the hottest that anyone's ever been? Read for yourself.
• In the wake of various news, Paul Nyman revisits last week's video study of Justin Verlander's and Jeremy Bonderman's mechanics.
• David Laurila interviews Jeff Idelson, the Hall of Fame's new president. Among the topics: the Hall's Baseball as America exhibition (which I'll see in Boston next Thursday) and the Hall of Fame itself (which I'll be visiting a few days later).
• Finally, the Royals cut Brett Tomko. Hey, what's $3 million among friends?
• I'll close today with a note to any bloggers who might be reading ... Soon, or perhaps already, we're adding a blog roll to this page. If you don't see your blog listed and you think it should be, I have one piece of advice: Wow me. Post often and extensively (but not too extensively, unless your last name is Posnanski). And most of all, be smart and write well. Oh, and if you do see your blog listed? Don't assume it will be forever. Nothing's more annoying than a link to a site that hasn't been updated since Opening Day.
Credit Giants for picking Lincecum
Thursday, June 12, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
In the wake of yet another brilliant performance by Tim Lincecum, Driveline Mechanics runs through his stats and shows us how Lincecum does it. And remember, Lincecum is dominating major league hitters just two years after being drafted. Money quote:
Lincecum's mechanics are basically perfect. His stuff is ridiculous. Here are the nine teams that picked over him and who they took instead:When I see this list and look at Lincecum, I am reminded of this line from Moneyball: "What gets me really excited about a guy is when he has warts, and everyone knows he has warts, and the warts just don't matter." -Paul DePodesta Some teams need to remember that it's not always what you could be. It is what you have done.
|
I'm not a big fan of Brian Sabean's work in San Francisco. Somewhat famously, the Giants haven't developed a good young hitter in their system since 1996, when Bill Mueller arrived in the majors. This is an awesome and stunning organizational failure. Nevertheless, two years ago, nine teams passed on Lincecum because his mechanics were unorthodox, or because he was too short, or whatever. We don't know what the Giants would have done, if they'd had the first pick in the draft rather than the 10th.
But Sabean and scouting director Dick Tidrow deserve a great deal of credit for using the 10th pick on the best pitcher.
Things getting worse in Seattle
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
On Wednesday afternoon, Seattle's Brandon Morrow picked up the first save of his career. Why Morrow and not J.J. Putz?
For a team that's already lousy, the
early news isn't good:
J.J. Putz walked the leadoff batter in the ninth, then got to 1-2 in the count on Vernon Wells before the training staff jogged out to the mound. Putz appeared to slightly favor his elbow (he does, see update below).
--snip--
OK, I'm now back from downstairs in the clubhouse and can tell you it was indeed elbow soreness that drove Putz from the game. Putz himself didn't have much to add, saying he'll wait until Friday -- after the elbow is examined by doctors on the team's off-day tomorrow.
Mariners manager John McLaren also wasn't going to speculate much about the immediate future.
"We're just going to have to play it day-by-day," he said. "It's his elbow.
"I saw him a couple of times grabbing his elbow and going like this," McLaren said, shaking his arm for emphasis. "It just sent a red flag up."
--snip--
Putz hasn't looked right for some time. His command has been off and was off again today when he walked the leadoff batter. His elbow was "barking" and he came out. He doesn't know if this is similar to what plagued him in spring training of 2007. Like I said, he'll wait and see.
|
Last winter, as some of you might recall, I ranked the top players at each position, in terms of their value over the next five seasons (2008-2012).
Papelbon's innings are not a strength, obviously. It's certainly possible that his problems are behind him, but in this rarefied company his demonstrated lack of durability has to be mentioned. Innings aside, Papelbon joins Nathan and Putz in a class of their own. But we do have to consider innings and we have to consider ages, too. Thus:1. J.J. Putz
2. Jonathan Papelbon
3. Joe Nathan
4. Francisco Rodriguez
5. Bobby Jenks
6. Francisco Cordero
7. Brad Lidge
8. Jose Valverde
9. Huston Street
10. ????
Actually, I've got a feeling that Colorado's Manny Corpas deserves that last slot (if not Valverde's), but other young contenders include Pittsburgh's Matt Capps and Kansas City's Joakim Soria. And if you want to yell at me for making Putz No. 1, go ahead; he's the first older-than-30 player I've put at the top of a list. I do have a feeling that rules for relievers aren't the same as everybody else, but I've probably been unduly influenced by Hoffman and Rivera.
|
Well, at least I didn't give Corpas a spot. And I'm glad I mentioned Capps and Soria, both of whom have pitched exceptionally well this season. In fact, all of them -- even Lidge, a risky choice -- have pitched well this season … except of course Putz, the guy I chose for the top spot. Among the other eight on the list, Street's 3.49 ERA is the highest, but otherwise his numbers are excellent (including 33 strikeouts and seven walks in 28 innings).
And Putz? He's lost three games. He has a 5.21 ERA. In 19 innings, he's walked 16 batters. In the previous two seasons combined, Putz walked 26 batters in 150 innings. Putz had pitched so poorly
before Wednesday afternoon that the Mariners should have suspected there was something wrong with him, physically. He shouldn't have had to grab his elbow during a game for the warning bells to go off.
Dodgers should keep Kemp
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
If you believe Ken Rosenthal, the 31-33 Dodgers might be willing to deal one of their good young hitters:
Make outfielder Matt Kemp available, and the Dodgers' trade options quickly would multiply. Make Kemp available, and the team could put together a package for virtually any hitter on the trade market -- the Pirates' Jason Bay, maybe the Tigers' Magglio Ordonez, maybe even the Rockies' Matt Holliday.To this point, the Dodgers have resisted moving Kemp or any of their other top young players, but their stance might be changing. "If we get to the point where we can definitively improve ourselves, we'll do it," general manager Ned Colletti told the Los Angeles Times. Rival executives are skeptical, considering that the Dodgers frequently have backed out of trades involving their youngsters. Dodgers officials, however, say privately that they are indeed more willing to break up their young core. If that is true, Kemp would bring the greatest return. Kemp, batting .299-.346-.446 at age 23, possesses the tools to become a major star. A rival executive describes him as an "awfully, awfully intriguing talent," one who only figures to get better. Questions persist about Kemp's makeup and ability to make adjustments, but those are not unusual criticisms of a young player. A trade of Kemp is not the Dodgers' only alternative -- the team also could pursue a less dramatic possibility, trading either first baseman James Loney or right fielder Andre Ethier to add more of a veteran presence to a lineup that ranks 11th in the National League in runs per game.
|
May I just say, for the record, that trading Matt Kemp for Jason Bay, Magglio Ordonez, or (even) Matt Holliday is really, really, really bad idea? Here are each of those four outfielders, along with their ages and their current OPS+:
Kemp 23/103
Bay 29/145
Ordonez 34/138
Holliday 28/137
You can see why the Dodgers might be tempted. Kemp, after an excellent 2007, has been just decent in 2008 (a 100 OPS+ is league-average). Meanwhile, the other three guys are all hitting like superstars.
Of course, the key here is that all three of those guys are likely to get worse over the next few years, while Kemp is likely to get better. Perhaps a lot better. In fact, if baseball players were stocks, Kemp would be the most valuable Dodger (well, him or Russell Coltrane Martin). So what happens if you trade Kemp and you don't win this season? Well, then you just look like an idiot.
Not that any general manager should be afraid of looking like an idiot. But if you're thinking about doing something that's likely to make you look like an idiot, you probably shouldn't do it. And the Dodgers have so many holes in the lineup -- particularly second base and left field, plus a non-productive bench -- that the difference between Kemp and (for example) Jason Bay just isn't likely to make the difference between first place and second place. Basically, a bunch of things would have to happen to make Bay relevant … and if all those things happen, the Dodgers would probably win with Kemp instead of Bay anyway.
Bottom line, the Dodgers need to get Rafael Furcal back, and they need to get Andruw Jones back, and eventually they'll need to replace Blake DeWitt with Andy LaRoche. And then they just need to play. Maybe the front office can tinker a bit around the edges. But there's enough talent on the 40-man roster to win, so they're no reason for something idiotic.
It's all over for Atlanta
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
My nominee for the most amazing team in the majors this season?
There are plenty of candidates, but I think I'm going with the Atlanta Braves.
Entering spring training, their projected starting rotation included John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, and Mike Hampton. Those three have combined for the wonderfully grand total of five wins, and it's not at certain that that number will increase by much. Not with Hampton perpetually rehabbing, Smoltz joining the bullpen, and Glavine now suffering what might be a serious elbow injury.
Nevertheless, the Braves currently sport the fourth-best run differential in the National League.
Bobby Cox's finest hour?
Maybe. Except the Braves are 32-33. Because they're a mind-blowing 3-17 in one-run games.
With just decent luck -- say, an 8-12 record in one-run games, and a healthy season from Smoltz or Glavine -- the Braves might be 39-26, a game or two ahead of the (theoretically) second-place Phillies. They might wind up having the juice to finish ahead of the Phillies, or atop the wild-card standings.
Today, though? Absent that decent luck for the first 10 weeks of this season?
The Braves are finished. Tim Hudson's a good pitcher but he can't pitch any better than he's pitched. Chipper Jones is a great hitter, but can't hit as well as he's been hitting. Even as the Braves' luck evens out, as it almost has to, it's hard to see them doing any better than they're already doing.
Griffey should just move on
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
What shall become of the baseball that Ken Griffey hit the other night for his 600th home run?
That's hard to say, as the
lawyers are already getting involved …
Griffey said he would like to have the ball back, but the man who claimed it -- identified as "Joe" -- has not said what he will do with it. There is also a situation with another man, Justin Kimball, who said he had the ball snatched from him after he had possession. His lawyer, Ariel Saban, was at the game sitting one section over, but he still hasn't decided if they will take any legal action.
"At this point, we are in the process of investigating what actually happened at Dolphin Stadium with the home run ball and who deserves to keep it," said Saban, adding he has not been in contact with the fan who kept the ball. "Once we are finished looking at the video tape, we will make a decision on what the next step is.
"At this point, a conclusion hasn't been made. Each person has their own conclusion, and when we look at all of the proper angles, at that point we will be able to make a decision."
Marlins outfielder Cody Ross, a huge Griffey fan who got his autograph during the four-game series against the Reds, wishes things were a lot simpler.
"Just give it to the Hall of Fame, get to meet him, get an autograph, whatever," Ross said. "But people get greedy. They want to make some money."
|
Why yes, people
do want to make some money. Even, sometimes, professional baseball players. I'm sure Cody Ross will gain that piece of wisdom someday, when he's eligible for free agency. Meanwhile, about that fan …
Let's see here … This guy's offering me $100,000 for the baseball, and this other guy's offering me an autographed jersey and a game-used bat … May I have exactly three seconds to think about it?
I don't blame Griffey for wanting the baseball. I'd probably want it, too.
Also, if I were Griffey, I'd be pulling down $8 million this season (not including the $6.5 million in deferred salary). If I want the ball so badly and the guy who's got the ball wants $100,000, I give him the $100,000.
But of course, a baseball isn't worth $100,000 to me, or to Junior. It's just a baseball, and while it would be a souvenir, in the end it's just a chunk of rubber or cork, rapped up with yarn and covered with two pieces of leather stitched together. If I'm Ken Griffey I'm not getting into a bidding war for that. Life goes on, and there's plenty of other stuff to fill the trophy room.
Wednesday Wangdoodles
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• Terrible news last night: Eliot Asinof died. He was 88. Asinof is best known for writing "Eight Men Out" -- for more than 40 years the standard work about the Black Sox -- but it really was an amazing life. Before World War II, Asinof played briefly in the minor leagues. After the war, he dated Rita Moreno, married Marlon Brando's sister and was (reportedly) blacklisted. He also wrote "Man on Spikes," one of my favorite baseball novels. And all that was just in the 1950s. Asinof recently completed a memoir of his World War II service in the Aleutian Islands, and I hope to read it someday.
• With 18-year-old Cuban third baseman Dayan Viciedo recently defecting, now's the perfect time to read Michael Lewis's long article in Vanity Fair about baseball in Cuba (of course, this being Lewis, that description doesn't do the piece justice).
• Hearty congratulations to R.A. Dickey, who picked up his first win of the season Monday night. For that matter, it was his first win (in the majors) since September 2005 (and he actually got hammered in that game, his only win that year). As you know, Dickey, once a power pitcher, is now essentially a knuckleballer. And while he's not the first pitcher in history to make that transition, I believe he's the only first-round draft pick ever to do so.
• Funny what happens sometimes. Last night I was monitoring the scores, and noticed that Matt Capps was about to pitch the ninth for the Pirates, looking to protect a one-run lead. Flipped over to watch. While I was looking up Capps' fantastic stats this season (and last season, too) he racked up a couple of quick and easy outs. Figured I'd write something about his awesomeness. Then Elijah Dukes drilled a first-pitch fastball off the base of the wall. Then Lastings Milledge blasted a first-pitch fastball over the wall. It was just the second homer Capps had allowed this season, and the first save he'd blown. It all happened in about two minutes.
Two more things about this one. First, from the gamer: "Entering the game, the Nationals were last in the National League in both runs and homers and were 1-31 when trailing after six innings. They were winless in 35 games when behind heading into the ninth. The Pirates hadn't lost a game all season when leading at any point after the sixth."
And second, after Dukes scored in the ninth, he and Manny Acta got into a nasty argument in the dugout. Maybe Dukes will eventually start hitting. But what are the chances that he'll grow up enough to get along?
• Apparently we've now moved past blaming Willie Randolph, and on to blaming Omar Minaya. And you have to admit, both Matthew Cerrone and Adam Rubin make some pretty good points. Still, what many of us have to figure out is why we didn't see this coming before the season.
• Every year around this time, people ask me if I follow college baseball. I don't, for two reasons. The first reason is that the 30 major league teams keep me plenty busy. Here's the second.
• Three interviews with three of my favorite writers: Marty Appel, Tim Marchman and Josh Wilker.
• In response to allegations that he owes his agent a whole lot of money, Jose Canseco says, "I'm surrounded by liars and thieves." I don't doubt it. Who else would want to be near him?
• Dontrelle Willis got sent down yesterday. To Class A. Pudge Rodriguez is now a half-time catcher. Last winter, the Tigers signed Willis to a three-year, $29 million contract. Also last winter, the Tigers had a choice to either buy out Rodriguez's contract for $3 million, or to pay him $13 million to play in 2008. They chose the $13 million. Dave Dombrowski gets a lot of credit for doing a lot of wonderful things. But everything counts, right?
• How many of Alex Rodriguez's 528 homers have come on a 3-0 pitch? One. I'm a big fan of making the pitcher throw strikes. But shouldn't he have swung at just a few meatballs over the years?
• In the wake of the allegation that Roger Clemens used Viagra to enhance his baseball performance, two questions spring to mind: 1. Does Viagra really help? and 2. Is there anything these guys wouldn't use?
• Last weekend I did a couple of segments on Bob Costas' radio show; the first 20 minutes of this clip is Costas and Jim Nantz, and after that it's Costas and me, talking (mostly) about my new book (which, by the way, makes a pretty good Father's Day present, especially if Father grew up before 1970).
What if Junior ...
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
What might a healthy Junior have done? FanGraph's Dave Cameron:
Well, we can never know for sure, but there are several estimates we can use. The simplest is to note that he has a career rate of one home run every 15.75 at-bats. Over 1,300 trips to the plate, that same rate would have given him an extra 83 bombs. Of course, his career rate includes both his early years before his power developed, and he likely would have posted a AB/HR rate closer to his peak seasons, when he fluctuated between one home run every 10 to 13 trips to the plate. Using those rates, here are the amount of homers we could theoretically add to Junior's career total depending on which of those numbers you think would best emulate Griffey's performance.One HR every 10 at-bats: Add 130 homers
One HR every 11 at-bats: Add 118 homers
One HR every 12 at-bats: Add 108 homers
One HR every 13 at-bats: Add 100 homers Depending on your beliefs about his abilities in those seasons, the basic assumption should be that the injuries in those four seasons cost him between 100 and 130 home runs, pushing him into the exclusive 700 home run club. At age 38 and reaching a level that suggests he doesn't have that much left to contribute, it's unlikely that Junior would have passed Hank Aaron even had he stayed healthy, but he would have had a shot at it.
|
A real good shot, I should think.
Doing my own quick-and-dirty calculations last night, I came up with 712 homers for Griffey to this point, absent the long string of injuries (but allowing for the occasional injury). With 712, he'd be just two decent seasons from Aaron. Granted, looking at his numbers this season, it's not at all clear that he's still got two decent seasons left in him. But isn't it likely that his problems this season are related to all the injuries over the seven years?
Many great players are still effective into their late '30s, or even their early '40s. Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Barry (cough) Bonds … all of them were still playing good baseball into their late 30s and sometimes beyond.
I don't mean to suggest that Griffey should receive credit for what he has not accomplished. I'm sure somebody will say, "Junior was better than Mays! Just think what he'd have done if he hadn't been hurt!"
Yeah, it's fun to think about. But not being hurt is, you know, part of it. Griffey might have been a greater player than Willie Mays and he might have hit more homers than Hank Aaron. But he wasn't and he didn't.
Mets consistently a .500 team
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
I have to admit I'd have missed this if Baseball Prospectus' Jim Baker hadn't pointed it out:
Over this past weekend, the San Diego Padres completed a run of four consecutive 2-1 victories. This was ballyhooed as the first time any team has ever done that, which isn't too surprising. In fact, I started to wonder how many times teams were involved in four consecutive games with the same score -- 2-1 or otherwise. I asked Bil Burke to check our database, which goes back to 1957. Not surprisingly, the examples are sparse. The Padres are the only team to win four straight games by the same score, period. I would be very surprised if research were done prior to '57 and it was discovered that any team ever won five in a row by the same score or if there were too many other examples of four straight. (Bil reports there were plenty of threepeats.) One could imagine the chances being greater in the Deadball Era, when low-scoring games limited the number of outcomes in ways not possible in higher-scoring eras. Even with that, though, I would guess that four is the upper limit.
The Pads are the only team to have won four same-score games in the last 50 years, but in that time, there have been two instances when a team lost four consecutive games by the same score. I wonder if the managers involved, Cookie Lavagetto and Alvin Dark, reacted as Mets manager Willie Randolph did after his team's third straight 2-1 loss to San Diego when he said, "We have to find some consistency in our offense." Point of order, Mr. Randolph: consistency is clearly not the issue here!
|
Speaking of consistency, over their last 162 games the Mets are 82-80. Yes, it's cherry-picking. While 162 is not an arbitrary numbers, it's little more indicative than 142 (72-70) or 182 (90-92). But you know, 182 games is a fair number of games. The Mets are two games under .500 in their last 182 games. That means something, doesn't it?
Bad luck? Maybe. But over those same 182 games the Mets have scored 868 runs and they've allowed 869 runs. Exactly the profile of a .500 team. Over 182 games. That means
something doesn't it.
And yet the organization just rolls merrily along with the same manager and the same general manager. If I were a Mets fan I would be leading a revolt in the streets. (Actually, I would be hoping that someone else would lead a revolt that I could follow, at a safe distance.)
P.S. Suddenly the Padres, justifiably given up for dead just a couple of weeks ago, are only six-and-a-half games out of first place in the National League West. Yes, they still have a lousy run differential. But Jake Peavy is probably coming back next week, Chris Young two or three weeks later. Top prospect
Chase Headley, though perhaps not a savior, should be in the majors soon and is good enough to help the club. A month from now the Padres are going to look quite a bit different than they do now, and don't be surprised if they wind up making some noise in what now looks like a pretty weak division.
What to do with Willis
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
As Daily Fungo notes, Dontrelle Willis's start last night was a big bowl of wrong:
But back to Dontrelle. You have to wonder about his future in Detroit. As Doug said, you can't justify running him out for another start given his performance tonight. Nor can you put him in crucial relief spots because, well, that's essentially a suicide mission. I suppose all you can do is use him in long relief during a blowout loss -- an opportunity I'm sure the White Sox will offer this weekend.The last Tigers pitcher I remember struggling with his control was a young Kevin Ritz. Eventually he turned it around enough to be a number-one starter -- at Coors Field of all places. Lefty Kevin Saucier started pegging people in the spring of 1982 and never recovered. Is Willis at that point? Probably (hopefully) not. But still, you have to wonder what's eating him and if it will stop.
|
Meanwhile, over at Bless You Boys, Willis's performance brought to mind a few other pitchers with control issues …
So how much of this D-Train Wreck is going on between his ears? Names like Steve Blass and Chuck Knoblauch, two guys who seemingly lost the ability or confidence to control where their throws were going, were being tossed about in the GameThread tonight. Mike McClary sent me a text message, saying this was the second coming of Rick Ankiel. Is that what's going on here? Or is it still an issue with Willis's mechanics? The Tigers probably don't have any other choice but to keep sending Willis out there, if he's healthy. Especially now that Jeremy Bonderman is likely out for the rest of the season. But how many more times can they start a pitcher who effectively gives them no chance to win?
|
Will we see Willis again in four days? After the game, Detroit broadcaster Mario Impemba said, "I tend to believe that they'll probably run him out there again, give him an opportunity."
Maybe. But an opportunity to do … what, exactly? In 11 1/3 innings this season, Willis has walked 21 batters and struck out five. What's the next step here?
I watched Willis's outing last night, and he wasn't crazy wild, wasn't hitting guys or throwing the ball to the backstop like Ankiel used to. He just seems to have no feel for his offspeed pitches and can't throw his best fastball within a foot of where he wants to throw it. Most of the balls he threw were high and outside. This suggests to me that if he does have Steve Blass Disease -- and not a diagnosable physical problem -- it's a relatively mild case.
Still, 21 walks in 11 1/3 innings … I don't know how you can run him out there in a major league game unless you've completely given up on this season. Toledo right-hander Chris Lambert might not be a great prospect, but four years ago he was a first-round draft pick, and at the moment he's 5-3 with a 3.38 ERA. Don't you have to see if he can give you five innings without walking the ballpark?
I don't know what's wrong with Willis. Seems like the Tigers don't, either. But there has to be a better way of finding out than asking him to retire the world's best hitters in front of 40,000 people.
Right call by Texas to axe Ponson
Monday, June 9, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
It's not often that a starting pitcher with a winning record and a 3.88 ERA is dumped. But it happened last week:
ARLINGTON, Texas -- Prior to Friday night's game against the Tampa Bay Rays, the Texas Rangers made several roster moves. The Rangers designated righty Sidney Ponson for assignment, re-instated pitcher Vicente Padilla from bereavement leave and removed shortstop Michael Young from the lineup with a bruised left finger.
Right-hander Sidney Ponson, who seemed to have his career back on track, was designated for assignment by the Texas Rangers in a surprise move prior to Friday night's game against the Tampa Bay Rays.
Texas general manager Jon Daniels was vague about the reasons for the decision, saying Ponson had been dumped "for disrespecting teammates and club personnel."
"I'm not going to get into details other than to say that we're clearly trying to put together a team here in the true sense of the word ... and based on recent comments and other such things, it was pretty clear that he didn't want to be part of that," Daniels said. "That's not something we're going to tolerate. We want guys who want to be here, guys who are going to pull for their teammates and be proud of the organization."
Texas has 10 days to trade, release or outright Ponson to the minors. Daniels said Ponson had done nothing illegal and hadn't violated any club rules.
|
In other words (as I read this), Ponson was dumped for being a colossal jerk. There are a lot of jerks in baseball, but very, very few of them are fired for it.
So why Ponson?
He was probably jerkier than most jerks, the featured product in the
jerk store. Though the Rangers haven't offered any specifics for the record, MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan has been writing about the Rangers for a long time and presumably has plenty of good sources.
Sullivan:
Daniels declined to discuss the specifics and Ponson was unavailable for comment, but team sources said Ponson was put on notice after creating a serious disturbance at the hotel bar in St. Petersburg during the team's last road trip. He was told that further problems would not be tolerated.
Two more incidents occurred this week. Ponson started with three days' rest on Wednesday against the Indians and allowed six runs in four innings. Only two were earned because of three errors committed behind him, and Ponson reacted furiously after being taken out. His actions were interpreted as "showing up" his teammates.
The second incident occurred when manager Ron Washington informed Ponson on Thursday that he would be pushed back in his next start so that Kevin Millwood could start Tuesday on his regular four days' rest. Ponson would have pitched on Wednesday on six days' rest. Ponson wasn't happy with that decision and made his feelings clear in a heated discussion with the manager.
That led the Rangers to the decision to drop Ponson before Friday's game with the Rays.
|
Sounds like Ponson left the club little choice. But there's something else here worth mentioning ... The Rangers' front office pays a great deal of attention to the numbers. So I'm sure they realized that Ponson was unlikely to continue pitching well enough to maintain a 3.88 ERA. In his good years, Ponson was a power pitcher. This year he's struck out 25 hitters in 56 innings. His 1.56 WHIP is higher than his career average.
One thing about Ponson, though: His ground/fly ratio this season is 2.5, far higher than it's ever been before (and his career mark is 1.43). As a result, he's given up only three homers in those 56 innings. I don't know if he's doing something different this season, or if the G/F ratio is just a fluke.
If it's not a fluke, though, you can bet that Ponson will get another shot somewhere. Too bad he'll just screw it up.
Mariners' mess a total team effort
Monday, June 9, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Well, I guess this will fix what ails the M's ...
TORONTO -- This could be seen as an effort to upgrade the offense. Or an effort to sacrifice a lamb.
Either way, Seattle Mariners batting coach Jeff Pentland was fired Monday morning.
Pentland became the first member of the Mariner organization to pay for Seattle's lack of success this season with his job. Lee Elia, who has been with the club as a special assistant and part-time coach, is the new hitting coach, a job he's held with Seattle in the past.
He probably won't be the last.
For the moment, however, the rest of the coaching staff remains intact, and the Mariners haven't made any moves with the 25-man roster, either.
…
The reality is that [general manager Bill] Bavasi can't fire all his hitters, so Pentland got the axe.
But with Seattle owning the MLB's worst record and having an ERA (4.76) that is 13th in the American League, it would have been just as easy to go after pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre.
However, Stottlemyre's track record, including four World Series rings with the New York Yankees, and the fact that he's in his first year with Seattle helps him out.
|
Another reality is that Bavasi can't (or rather, won't) fire himself, and to this point, nobody else will, either.
Was it unfair to fire Pentland?
I don't think so. I don't think batting coaches make much difference in the majors. But teams hire them, so somebody thinks they matter. The batting coaches themselves must believe they make a difference, somehow. The Mariners are 13th in the league in slugging percentage and 14th in on-base percentage. Among their nine everyday players, five have been decent and four have been horrible. Six bench players have (or had) at least 50 at-bats; all six have been horrible.
I'm not saying it's Pentland's fault. But when you're paying someone to work with the hitters and they're not hitting -- at all -- eventually you have to make a change. Cushioning the blow for Pentland: He'll still get paid. And the way baseball works, he'll probably have a job somewhere for as long as he wants one. So shed few tears for him.
And if you're wondering what all the fuss is about, consider three facts:
1. The Mariners, like the Angels, opened this season with a payroll just a shade under $120 million.
2. The Mariners entered this season as (supposedly) strong contenders in the American League West.
3. The Mariners currently sport the worst record in the majors.
What we're seeing is what happens when you combine a dysfunctional front office with a few extra dollops of bad luck. And maybe, just maybe, a few players who already have given up on the season.
Bill James' 10 commandments
Monday, June 9, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
I'm never quite sure what to do with subscriber-only content, especially considering that I am (usually) subscriber-only content. So this time I've secured permission to reprint, in full, Bill James' (subscriber-only) "10 Commandments of Sabermetrics" (here's the free tour of Bill James Online, notable because -- as near as I can tell -- it includes all of the "Ask Bill" material, which is my favorite because there's always something new).
The Commandments:
1) Thou Shalt not Bunt.2) Thou Shalt Have no Low On Base Percentages Before the Cleanup Hitter. 3) Honor the three-run homer and the leadoff walk. 4) Thou shalt not steal at anything less than a 70% success rate. 5) Thou shalt make no idol of the light-hitting middle infielder. 6) Thou shalt not count to the credit of the pitcher that which is done by his fielders or by his hitters, nor charge him with their failings. 7) Thou shalt not abuse thy starting pitchers. 8) Thou shalt make no effort to ride the hot hand, for the hot hand is but a shape in the wind. 9) Place thy faith not in veterans, when youth be available to ye. 10) Thou shalt not pass freely thy opponent's number eight hitter, nor his cleanup hitter, nor his left-handed pinch hitter, nor any hitter that is thy opponent's.
|
First I should mention that Bill probably wouldn't suggest that each of these be taken literally. There are, for example, the occasional situations when the bunt really does make sense. And while it's obvious that abusing your starting pitcher isn't real smart (or kind), what's not so obvious is what actually constitutes abuse.
Anyway my favorites are Nos. 6 ("nor charge him with their failings"), 8 ("but a shape in the wind") and 10 ("nor any hitter that is thy opponent's").
It's funny, pundits have been prattling about the importance of team defense for a hundred years, and yet it's not been until very recently that anyone's actually bothered to figure out the defense's impact on the pitcher's stats. And as MGL points out today, the impact can be considerable.
Coincidentally enough, today Dugout Central's Don Ehrke wonders if Bill James belongs in the Hall of Fame. I've raised the same question in this space, and I think the answer is that he obviously does, in the Pioneer category (with a bit of extra credit for his role in recent years with the Red Sox. But of course I'm hardly an unbiased observer.
And finally, I should mention that on June 19, Bill and I will be at Boston's Museum of Science, talking about baseball.
Monday Mendozas
Monday, June 9, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• I'm quite sure that Josh Wilker is the one man on earth who could reasonably connect Johnny Wockenfuss and Snuffleupagus.
• Congrats to Tony Clark for hitting his first home run of the season -- and the 245th of his career -- yesterday. And like Elijah Dukes' first homer the other night, this one was a walk-off job.
• Speaking of which, I know last Thursday seems like forever ago, but this note about Giambi's walk-off shocked me: "[A]ccording to the Elias Sports Bureau, it was the first time in Yankees history that a pinch-hitter hit a two-out, game-ending homer that turned a deficit into a victory."
• In yet another solid outing, Doug Glanville revisits the 2003 Cubs' stunning, Bartman-aided collapse in Game 6 of the NLCS. Of course, Glanville would know; he was there.
• I suppose Posnanski can keep Banny Log going all season, if he's stubborn or just wants to prove a point. But the latest edition, while well worth reading for Joe's take on Johnny Damon, David Copperfield, Jamie Farr, and horse racing, doesn't have a whole lot of material about, you know, Brian Bannister. Who got destroyed by the Yankees yesterday. Unfortunately, it looks like Bannister, as a player, really isn't all that interesting. Like Doug Glanville, Bannister probably won't become truly interesting until he's finished playing, and has time for more talking, and (maybe) writing. Because as smart as you might be, it's really, really hard to outsmart a game this old.
• U.S.S. Mariner agrees with Keith Law: When the M's were drafting last week, the last thing they needed with their first-round pick was a college reliever. It's funny ... upper management often is reluctant to fire their general manager before the draft, because that's not a good time for front-office turmoil ... but on the other hand, the guy who dug you into this hole just might dig a little deeper in the draft. Which seems to be exactly the case here.
• Aside from sticking it to the Man -- worth relishing in itself -- MLB's latest legal loss in the Fantasy Sports Wars is a good thing for everyone who plays fantasy sports, or might someday play fantasy sports. Essentially, MLB has argued that if you want to run a game based on players' names and statistics, you have to ask for MLB's permission (and of course pay a hefty fee). Meanwhile, the fantasy-sports companies (and others) have said, "Wait a minute. What the players do is news, and we have just as much right to that news as we have the right to report a political speech or a five-alarm fire."
Last Monday, MLB lost a sort of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it's a loss not only for them, but for every other major sports league, too. Because a lot of people have been paying rights fees to the leagues. And now it appears that they don't have to. Why is that good for us? Because competition is good, and the more companies that can afford to do business, the better the competition.
• Allen Barra writes a sort of love letter to Ken Griffey Jr. Barra never really argues that Griffey might have been the greatest player ever if he hadn't been injured. But he does allow for the possibility, which I think overstates the case just a little. Griffey was obviously a great player. But I was never convinced that he was a sublimely talented center fielder in the vein of Willie Mays and Andruw Jones, and his .380 on-base percentage before he got hurt was good but not fantastic (just 24th best among his peers with at least 5,000 plate appearances). Would Griffey have become one of the 15 or 20 greatest players ever if not for the injuries? Perhaps. But even considering just the center fielders, I don't see how he'd have caught up to Mays, Cobb, and Mantle.
• The best name in high school baseball? Tommy Ghost Dog.
Atlanta's Hall of Fame trio
Friday, June 6, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Nice piece from FanGraphs' Eric Seidman on the current status of Atlanta's (ex-)Big Three:
When the Braves won their nine-hundred consecutive division titles they did so in large part with the help of their stellar pitching rotation. The Big Three, they were called, referring to Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz; three aces that could easily headline every other rotation in the league but served as 60% of the same one. Glavine left Atlanta after 2002 and Maddux left after 2003. Smoltz stayed.Five or six years later, these three are in the twilight of their careers, albeit at different stages of said twilight. Smoltz will undergo season-ending surgery and, despite proclaiming he would make a comeback attempt, recovering from surgery provides ample time to do nothing but think and consider options. Glavine rejoined the Braves but has not been particularly effective and seems to be a shell of his old self. Maddux is still pitching quite well, regardless of his home park, but has hinted that the time has come to watch his son play baseball, rather than vice-versa. --snip-- Essentially the opposite of Glavine, Maddux doesn't let many runners reach base but more of them come around to score. With regards to BABIP, Maddux once mentioned (when discussing DIPS) that it was definitely true that a pitcher's hits allowed would fluctuate; still, Maddux's BABIPs of the last six years have been: .290, .290, .296, .295, .313, .295. Not too much fluctuation there! Maddux also has a 0.68 WPA, ranking behind just Jake Peavy as the most from a Padres SP. I always wanted to see these three retire together so they could all go into the Hall of Fame at the same time. With Smoltz's impending surgery and the time in which he will be forced to consider his future, this very well may happen. All three are no-doubters, in my eyes, when it comes to the HOF, due to their dominance, individual and team success on the field, and the legendary ambassadorship they have garnered over the years. We'll have to wait and see what happens but I am definitely not looking forward to a baseball season in which none of these three will be active.
|
Had to throw in that passage about Maddux's non-fluctuating BABiP. His performance in general has been non-fluctuating, too. His ERA+ of the last six years (including this year) have been: 108, 109, 104, 109, 98, 110. There's no apparent indication that Maddux can't continue to pitch effectively for the rest of this season, and next season, too. As a fan, I hope he does. He's at 350 wins right now, and I'd like to see him pass Roger Clemens (354), Kid Nichols (361), Warren Spahn and Pud Galvin (364); with 365 wins, Maddux would be fifth all-time. And while it's not likely, if he pitches through 2010 he'll probably pass Pete Alexander and Christy Mathewson (373 apiece), leaving him behind only titans Walter Johnson (417) and Cy Young (511).
But as a fan, I also hope to see the Big Three go into the Coop on the same summer afternoon, which would rival Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford as perhaps the greatest induction grouping ever. The mind reels.
Friday Filberts
Friday, June 6, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• Congratulations to Joe Mather, Mark Worrell and Elijah Dukes, all of whom hit their first home runs of the season last night. Even better, it was all in the same game. Mather's a good story; he spent four full seasons in Class A before tearing up AA last year. He struggled some after his promotion to Triple-A Memphis last summer. He didn't struggle this spring, though, hitting .315/.406/.671 in 38 games with Memphis. So he's earned his shot.
• Worrell's earned his shot, too. A reliever from the first day of his professional career, Worrell led the minors with 35 saves in 2005, saved 27 more in 2006 (good interview from that period here). But he doesn't throw all that hard and wasn't a high draft pick, so he spent all of 2007 with Memphis and wasn't the club's closer. Worrell opened this season back in Memphis, and was better than ever: 1.88 ERA, 38 strikeouts in 24 innings. He finally debuted with the Cardinals on Tuesday, and pitched again last night. He hit, too. With a batting helmet that didn't fit. And became the eighth Cardinal in franchise history to homer in his first major league at-bat.
• But the evening was capped by Dukes finally homering as a National. It was a big one, too. Besides winning the game, it gave Dukes the first four-hit game of his career and pushed his average above .200 for the first time this season. Not to rain on Dukes' parade or anything, but he's 248 at-bats into his major league career and he has a .194 career batting average. On a happier note, he's drawn a ton of walks and he's super-strong, so there's probably going to be a place for him in the majors for at least a few years, assuming he can get his batting average into the .230-.250 range (and stay out of trouble off the field).
• Every few days, I seem to find a new reason to like Jimmy Rollins. Yesterday he didn't hustle on a pop fly, and Charlie Manuel benched him. That's a reason to like Charlie Manuel. But why like Jimmy Rollins? Because he took it like a man.
• Dwight Jaynes, who's been around long enough to know, writes about the war between mainstream sportswriters and bloggers, and concludes that when both professions are done well, there's really not much difference between them. I agree, but with this caveat: At this point it's not much of a war; just a few rear-guard skirmishes, with the defenders suffering most of the casualties.
• You know what drives me nuts? When I'm watching highlights from a basketball game decided by three or four points, but the winning team gets four-fifths of the highlights. As if the highlights explain the score better than a few lucky (or unlucky) bounces of the ball. Similarly, someday it's likely to be forgotten that Hillary Clinton could almost as easily have beaten Barack Obama as not. This was an incredibly close-run thing, and may well have hinged on the efforts of a man named Jeffrey Berman, whose approach to counting delegates is not dissimilar to sabermetrics. And it doesn't seem that Clinton had someone quite like him.
• And while we're on the subject, you probably know Nate Silver for his work with Baseball Prospectus, and particularly his outstanding PECOTA projections. But Silver recently revealed his identity as the brains behind FiveThirtyEight.com, and here he writes in the New York Post about why polls lie, and just how close the election in November will be. Nate, if you're reading this ... I know you're scary smart, but one of these days I will track you down for an interview.
• Some game for the Red Sox, huh? The good news was that they beat the Rays yet again, extending their lead in the East. The bad news was that Kevin Youkilis and Manny Ramirez fought in the dugout (nobody's saying why). The worst news was that Ramirez later left the game with a sore hamstring, and Jacoby Ellsbury hurt his wrist while making a spectacular catch in center field. Ellsbury's X-rays were negative (good) and he's day to day, but Ramirez's hamstring issue may linger. The Red Sox are pretty obviously the best team in the American League, but with David Ortiz out for a while, it's not so obvious that they can keep winning without Ramirez in the lineup, too.
Yanks desperately want to win now
Thursday, June 5, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
"Best win of the season!"
That's what Michael Kay just said after
Jason Giambi hit a two-run, pinch-hit homer off
B.J. Ryan to beat the Jays, 9-8.
Remember a month or so ago when people -- maybe including me, I'm afraid -- were suggesting that Giambi was finished?
Even before today's walk-off job, Giambi's .389 on-base percentage and his .544 slugging percentage both were second-best on the team (behind
Hideki Matsui and
Alex Rodriguez, respectively). Talk about your
greatly exaggerated reports, huh?
And the same might be said about the Yankees. Yes, they've been a .500 club (their record is 30-30 and they've been outscored by nine runs). But last year through 60 games they were 29-30, and exactly as far out (5½ games) in the wild card standings as they are now.
Granted, if you're a betting man, today you would have to bet against the Yankees doing this year what they did last year. But
Jorge Posada returned to the lineup today, and even at 80 percent he's a huge upgrade over
Jose Molina.
Robinson Cano has a .267 on-base percentage. Maybe he's hurt. Maybe last season was a fluke. And the season before that, and the season before that. But the smart money is on Cano getting his mojo back any day now. Oh and
Derek Jeter's not going to hit .282 all season, either.
All of which is why it's preposterous for
Johnny Damon to suggest the Yankees
aren't playing for this year. They've shifted
Joba Chamberlain to the rotation because, as always, they desperately want to win
this year. They think their chances are better with Chamberlain pitching six innings every five days instead of one inning every two or three days. And they're absolutely right.
Clubs now better drafting players
Thursday, June 5, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
WARNING: What you're about to read is not analysis, strictly speaking. It's just something that's running around in my head at the moment, and what better place than here?
Anyway, it seems to me that teams are doing a
lot better in the draft than they used to. When I was working on the piece about No. 1 picks, I came across first rounds that were nearly bereft of major league talent. In the 1970s, an entire first round might produce four or five good major leaguers. Probably an average of six or seven per draft (first round only).
But look at the two most recent relevant drafts …
In 2002, the first round produced
B.J. Upton,
Zack Greinke,
Prince Fielder,
Jeff Francis,
Jeremy Hermida,
Joe Saunders,
Khalil Greene,
Scott Kazmir,
Nick Swisher,
Cole Hamels,
James Loney,
Jeremy Guthrie,
Jeff Francoeur,
Joe Blanton and
Matt Cain. That's 15 guys who already have done good things in the majors. I suppose two or three of them will fall by the wayside soon, but they might be replaced by first-rounders who haven't made it yet.
In 2003, the first round produced
Delmon Young,
Rickie Weeks,
Nick Markakis,
John Danks,
Lastings Milledge,
Aaron Hill,
David Murphy,
Conor Jackson,
Chad Cordero,
Chad Billingsley, Eric Duncan and
Carlos Quentin. That's 12 guys, and does not include
Ian Stewart,
Michael Aubrey,
Brandon Wood or
Daric Barton, all of whom are highly regarded young hitters.
What does it mean? I don't know if it means anything. It probably means more players are going to college, and thus are drafted later, when it's easier to imagine their futures. I think it also means teams have become more systematic -- and thus more effective -- in their evaluation of amateur players. Does this mean there's more talent in the game, though? Probably, but not by much. Whether you take a great player in the first round or the third, he's still going to find his level eventually.
I do think that fewer players are just left out altogether, though. I have no doubt that in the 1970s, players who were good enough to (eventually) play in the majors were simply ignored, undrafted and forced to find another line of work. Today, those guys have a better chance of being accurately evaluated. And even if they're not drafted, the explosion of independent leagues means there's almost always a place for a talented young player who wants to keep playing.
I have to admit, I've never paid much attention to the draft because so few of the players drafted in the first round have actually panned out. But I'm just not sure that's a good reason anymore.
New York development
Thursday, June 5, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
It's hard to do well in the draft without early picks, which goes a long way toward explaining the Yankees' and Mets' inability in recent years to draft and develop their own talent. But as Steven Goldman writes, it probably doesn't go all the way:
But low draft position only goes so far in explaining the lack of abundant prospects with the Yankees and Mets. Though high first-round picks are immensely valuable, teams with better drafting acumen have been mining gold from later picks for years. In their spectacular draft of 2005, the Red Sox selected Jacoby Ellsbury and Craig Hansen in the first round, then added Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, and pitcher Michael Bowden with first-round supplemental picks. All except Bowden have reached the majors, and even he is a highly regarded prospect who could arrive late this season. Recent second-round picks of the Red Sox -- all fair game for the Yankees and Mets when they picked -- have included Jon Lester, Dustin Pedroia, Manny Delcarmen, and Justin Masterson. In other words, many Red Sox second-round picks have been better than either New York team's first-round picks.In recent seasons the Yankees have shaken off some of their drafting doldrums, securing Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, and Hughes with first-round or first-round supplemental picks, while outfielder Austin Jackson was a first-round talent the Yankees got in the eighth round when other teams were scared off by his basketball scholarship. Those players aside, the list of top Yankees picks since Jeter is largely a wasteland. The Mets have been perhaps slightly better overall thanks to Wright, Kazmir, and a few others, but due to aggressive trading they have even less to show for it. The chicken-and-egg question is, are the two teams bad at drafting or bad at development? That is, did Eric Duncan fail the Yankees, or did the Yankees fail him? Would Billy Traber have been an ace starter if he signed with a team other than the Mets? There is no sure answer, but "both" is a disconcerting possibility.
|
Every rich team professes the desire to take FULL advantage of all that money. You know they're going to be active in the free-agent market -- you have to spend all that money somehow -- but there's no obvious reason the money can't be useful in player development, too. I recall Theo Epstein, shortly after taking over as Red Sox GM, saying, "We want to be a player-development machine."
In practice it's not so easy, because there's only so much organizational capital -- money, time, manpower, brainpower -- to go around. Whether consciously or not, it's often easier to just throw money at a problem and hope for the best. Also, player development is about the long term, but when you've got a big payroll and high expectations and you're supposed to win 100 games ever year, it's tough to think about anything but the short term.
Which makes what the Red Sox have done all the more impressive.
Mariners just a big mess
Thursday, June 5, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
The Seattle Times' Jerry Brewer was in the house for John McLaren's expletive-fest last night ...
The contrived tirade began with a warning.
"We're gonna do this a little different," John McLaren said.
He sounded a little like Tina Turner at the beginning of "Proud Mary." Then the downtrodden Mariners manager unleashed a 45-second outburst that would've made Ozzie Guillen blush.
"We're playing our [expletive] off every day and got nothing to show for it," he said. "I'm tired of [expletive] losing, I'm tired of getting my [expletive] beat, and so have those guys. We gotta change this [expletive expletive] around and get after it. And only we can do it. The fans are [expletive] off, and I'm [expletive] off, and the players are [expletive] off. And that's the way it is. There's no [expletive] easy way out of this, can't feel sorry for ourself, we gotta [expletive] buckle it up and get after it. I'm tired of [expletive] losing this, [expletive] every night we bust our [expletive]. It's gotta be a total team [expletive] effort to turn this thing around, and that's it."
--snip--
The nice man did his best Al Pacino impression before storming away without taking any questions.
Now, I have a firm belief about managers and coaches who go bonkers. I call it the Cuckoo Principle. When they go cuckoo,
that's it. They're done. It works in almost every case, except for Guillen. The White Sox manager is incessantly cuckoo and blessed with the cushion of a World Series. But even his time will arrive soon.
An explosion is always proof that either you've lost the grip on your team, or you're struggling with the pressures of the job. McLaren had to be provoked to act out of character.
--snip--
"I have a tough time pinpointing this thing," Bavasi said. "We've turned over every rock to correct this thing. Unfortunately, we've also turned over every rock to lose."
With upper management still doing its "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" act with Bavasi and McLaren, the only thing left is to shift blame onto the players. It's a good strategy to -- finally -- make these guys more accountable, but it's too late. They've been protected too long. They know it's easier to fire a manager or general manager than get rid of high-priced players with multiyear contracts.
Not enough of the Mariners sincerely want to solve this problem. They want to win only if it's convenient to win, easy to win. If winning gets too complicated, they'd rather try again tomorrow. No foul-mouthed rant can change that. McLaren tried his best to stir some passion. It's too late, however. The Mariners are gone, lost, and they won't come back until words defer to actions.
|
Realistically, the M's have done nearly all they can do, short of releasing
Richie Sexson. But who's going to play first base?
Miguel Cairo? He's even worse than Sexson. Yes,
Jeff Clement should be recalled from Tacoma, with either Sexson or
Jose Vidro going to the waiver wire. But that's like sticking your finger in a dike with a thousand holes. At this moment there simply isn't enough talent in the organization to build a contending team this year.
David Pinto writes, "The Mariners are worse than even their toughest pre-season critics imagined. They're on a pace to lose 105 games. Is it McLaren's fault? If the job of the manager is to get the most out of his players, John is certainly not doing that. I agree with Jerry that the
axe is likely to fall soon."
Right. Because you have to fire somebody, and this has probably gone too far to get away with just blaming the hitting coach. I will quibble with
Shysterball's take: "Call me crazy, but I have this feeling that McLaren isn't going to get a tenth of the crap Ozzie Guillen got over his expletive-fueled rant the other day."
McLaren
shouldn't get a tenth of the crap. McLaren didn't unload on his players, or his hitting coach, or his boss. McLaren's just sick of losing, and doesn't seem to know what to do about it. Can you blame him? Is it McLaren's fault that
Kenji Johjima -- just signed to a three-year contract extension -- currently ranks among the worst hitters in the league? Is it McLaren's fault that Sexson sports a .277 on-base percentage? Is it McLaren's fault that three of his starting pitchers have ERA's of 5.90 or worse?*
* A few months ago, I wrote that free agent Kyle Lohse, while far from a great pitcher, might well be a good pickup for some team, at the right price. My friend Rany Jazayerli took that notion even farther, suggesting that he would rather have Lohse than Carlos Silva, who'd been signed by the Mariners to a four-year, $48 million contract.
I scoffed.
Today? Silva's 3-6 with a 5.96 ERA. Lohse, who signed a one-year, $4.25 million deal with the Cardinals, is 6-2 with a 3.87 ERA. Will these numbers hold? Would these numbers be reversed if Silva were pitching for Tony La Russa and Lohse for John McLaren? On both, probably not. But Rany seems to have been right and I seem to have been wrong, and I don't forget such things.
Maybe it is McLaren's fault. Some guys are right for the job and some guys aren't, and it's hard to know which are which beforehand. I do know the Mariners really aren't this bad. But I don't know that McLaren is going to lead the M's to greater glory even if they start playing as well as they can play (which isn't all that well; before the season I had them winning 77 games).
As you might imagine, U.S.S. Mariner's been all over this one. But as
DMZ points out, the best line comes from a commenter: "I'm sure glad
Barry Bonds isn't around, poisoning the atmosphere in the clubhouse."
Bannister covers a lot of territory
Wednesday, June 4, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
Some of you might be tired of Brian Bannister by now, but I'm not and it's my blog -- well, technically it's ESPN's blog, which means it's Walt Disney Co.'s blog, which means it's Steve Jobs' blog; but I digress -- so you'll have to indulge me as I enjoy Bannister for as long as possible. Today, he summarizes some fairly difficult concepts, in response to a question about BABiP, with great skill and economy ...
A good way to get a rough idea of what a pitcher is doing to improve his long-term sustainable ERA, independent of luck, is to look up his FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, on a site such as www.fangraphs.com. For example, Paul Splittorff's career FIP was 3.72, and his career ERA ended up at 3.81, while Bret Saberhagen's career FIP was 3.26, and his career ERA ended up at 3.34.
I think it is very important for young pitchers, especially those with a desire to play in the Major Leagues, to understand how they can make themselves more effective for their organizations and fans long-term, and not simply rely on the luck and emotions of a few games. Striking out more batters and walking less, without increasing your home run rate or throwing extra pitches per inning, is what every pitcher should strive for. Making low-contact pitches with two strikes will increase strikeouts, while throwing strikes early in the count will reduce walks and pitches per inning.
Throwing pitches that hitters consistently hit on the ground will lower your home runs allowed, and also increase your chances of getting double plays. Continue to focus on what will make you a better pitcher long-term, and don't let the luck of the game affect your emotions in the short-term.
The reason that a pitcher's ERA does not always match his FIP is that the timing of his hits can vary from year to year. The luck of those hits/homers are much more detrimental with runners on base, which is recorded as percentage of runners left on base, or LOB%. A common LOB% percentage is in the 70-80% range, with anything above that range representing good luck and below that bad luck.
|
All that's old news for anyone who's been paying attention to sabermetrics for the last seven or eight years, but of course it's refreshing when an actual major league pitcher -- who's
played the game and isn't
blogging in his mom's basement -- writes so well on the subject. So that's the section of Bannister's Q&A that's going to get all the play today.
But it's a short Q&A. Three questions. The above was in response to the second question. The first question was from a 14-year-old who wants to be a major league catcher someday, and Bannister's answer is thoughtful and encouraging.
Here's the third question, along with Bannister's answer:
Brian, first of all, let me say that I love watching you pitch. My question has to do with the necklaces a lot of the Royals seem to be wearing. They all seem to be of the same style. Is there any significance to that? Do they symbolize something?
-- Matt H.
Matt, the necklaces you are referring to are worn by players all over Major League Baseball and other sports, as well. They are made by Phiten, Co. (www.phitenusa.com), and contain a unique form of charged, water-soluble titanium. Athletes wear them to enhance circulation, promote relaxation and help relieve stress. We are given customized necklaces with team logos and colors on them in order to match our uniforms. Many players notice a difference when wearing them, or continue to wear them for superstitious reasons/good luck.
|
At first reading, I was struck by the disconnect here ... Bannister responds to a question about pitching with a high degree of sophistication, and follows up by endorsing a
hoax? Then I read his answer again, and realized that Bannister 1) doesn't admit to actually wearing one of these necklaces, and 2) acknowledges that players "notice" a difference (whether it exists or not) and 2) suggests that superstition is in play here.
Then again, you never know. Plenty of otherwise reasonable people hold some
truly odd beliefs.
Smoltz for the Coop?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
In a thread from earlier today, homerhanky1978 responds to my quick comment about John Smoltz and the Hall of Fame:
Rob, maybe you can explain something that's puzzled me a while about Smoltz. Yes, he has been dominant in two different roles, yet why is it so obvious that he is as good as in the HOF? The way I see it, those numbers people post as putting him in do more damage than help. He has 210 wins and 154 saves. You do realize that if he hadn't been a closer those four years he could have won 20 each year and still ended up with less than 300 wins. Actually, you would have to subtract the 6 wins he had as a closer too. So if he had one of the most dominating four years ever by a starter and won 20 each year, he would still only have 284 wins. Why is that a shoo-in?
|
Actually, Smoltz wasn't a closer for four years. He was a closer for three years, 2002-2004. In 2001, he came off the DL in the middle of May, started five games, went back on the DL, and finally came back as a middle reliever in late July. He didn't collect his first save until August 17. Regardless of his role that season, he wasn't going to win 20 games because he wasn't healthy enough to pitch for nearly half the season.
So let's give him eight wins that season, then 14 in each of the three following seasons (when he was healthy enough to average 48 saves per season). That's 50 wins in those four seasons. Now we're up to 254 wins (after subtracting the six wins he actually got in those four seasons).
While it's true that there are pitchers with more than 254 who are not in the Hall of Fame, it's also true that 1) there are many pitchers in the Hall of Fame with fewer than 254 wins, and 2) most (all?) of the non-Hall of Famers with more than 254 wins cannot match Smoltz's winning percentage or his truly brilliant postseason record. Also, Smoltz's career ERA+ (127) is 10th best since World War II among pitchers with at least 200 wins.
So it's clear to me that Smoltz should be in the Hall someday, and it's nearly as clear to me that he will be.
Reds shouldn't promote Bailey
Wednesday, June 4, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
The Reds need a starter tomorrow, and it's going to be Homer Bailey. Dugout Central's Illya Harrell thinks this is a mistake and I think he's right ...
Fresh off the heels of Jay Bruce's long anticipated and much heralded debut, the Reds are calling up Homer Bailey to start against the Phillies on Thursday. This is a grave error in judgment by General Manager Walt Jocketty and whoever else was involved in this decision.
Yes, he's only 22, but I don't care what Baseball America says, the guy's a bum. He proved it last year when he was called up, and he's proving it again this year by pitching poorly with Louisville. How can a guy pitching at AAA with a 1.40 WHIP be expected to compete at a Major League level?
Trade him! And do it while you can still get something good for him. Get a third baseman, another starter, more bullpen help ... anything. The kid will not amount to squat.
[snip]
There's no doubt in my mind that the sole reason for the recalling of Bailey is directly attributed to the current Bruce-love buzz in Cincinnati. I hope the kid proves me wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
Maybe he will. Maybe he's improved his attitude. But a 1.40 WHIP in Louisville -- that will take a miracle.
|
Bailey's probably not a bum, and it probably won't take a miracle for him to pitch effectively in the majors.
I do agree, though, that a simple reading of the evidence suggests this move is premature.
In the minors this spring, Bailey's walked 31 hitters in 69 innings and that problem's getting worse rather than better; in his last four starts he's walked 17 in 19 innings. Going back one more start, Bailey walked only two batters, but struck out just one. And that was in four innings. I'm a big believer in players earning their way to the next level, and statistically all Bailey's earned lately is another few weeks in the International League.
That said, baseball people sometimes will talk about young players who are bored, and actually benefit from the challenge of a promotion to the next level. I don't have any idea if the Reds front office suspects the same of Bailey, but it's a possibility.
Whatever the Reds may believe, though, I don't think Bailey's ready. His first four starts? Phillies, Cardinals, Red Sox, Yankees. Good luck with that.
Joba, Litsch polar opposites
Wednesday, June 4, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
I guess it's fair to say that the Tao of Stieb is not a big fan of the New York Yankees. Still, there's a good point buried in here about performance vs. potential ...
Can everybody just shut up about Joba already?
Fat ugly toad Joba Chamberlain lasted just over two innings. There's your [expletive] saviour, Yankee fans. And while we're at it, Joba (born 9/23/85) has done pretty much [super expletive] as a major league starter aside from having some overhyped "rules" named after him, while Jesse Litsch (born 3/9/85) is 7-1 this year with a 3.18 ERA (and 14-10 with a 3.58 over his first two years.) Not that we think it is an injustice necessarily, or that things won't play out differently in the end...but it does make us want to smack Michael Kay in the face with a Rideau Crusher every time we hear about how great Joe-Bah is.
|
Point taken. If Jesse Litsch was a Yankee, they'd be writing magazine articles about him. In his first 31 games (including one relief outing), Litsch is (as noted above) 14-10 with a 3.58 ERA. In
Chien-Ming Wang's first 31 games, he went 13-7 with a 4.38 ERA. But the Yankees have been getting most of the attention since 1920, so this isn't exactly new news.
But you know, this isn't just about the difference between New York and Toronto. Prior to last season, Baseball America ranked Chamberlain as the Yankees' No. 5 prospect even though he hadn't yet pitched as a professional. He was a first-round (supplemental) draft pick and routinely threw harder than 95 miles an hour. Litsch was a 24th-round pick, and threw (and throws) in the low 90s. After his first two years in the minors, Baseball America rated him as the Jays' eight-best prospect with the summation, "profiles as a back-of-the-rotation starter."
So yes, it's about the hype, but it's not just New York hype. There are, or were, a lot of reasons to be more intrigued, more
excited by Chamberlain than by Litsch. But these things have a way of sorting themselves out. If Litsch turns into
Greg Maddux and Chamberlain turns into
Todd Van Poppel, they'll both get their due.
(H/T to
Baseball Musings, who also points out
this piece about the Blue Jays rotation.)
Wednesday Wangdoodles
Wednesday, June 4, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• First, let me dispense this pearl of brilliance: They can't all come out of the gate like Fernando Valenzuela and Dwight Gooden. Now, some actual analysis: Joba Chamberlan's abbreviated start according to Pitch f/x, by way of Jonathan Hale.
• The good news is that
Dontrelle Willis, on the 3rd of June, recorded his first strikeout of the season
last night. In fact, he recorded
three strikeouts. The bad news is that he also recorded five walks. And a wild pitch. Oh, and the Tigers lost again.
• I wrote about Danny Herrera a couple of weeks ago, but in case you missed it (or have forgotten already)
here's a quick refresher course. Why bother? Because Herrera made his major league debut last night. Even better, he pitched a scoreless inning.
• You know what's been making me crazy for as long as I've been doing this? When people say that a hitter fails 70 percent of the time. But I don't think I've ever written about my craziness. And now
Posnanski's beat me to it. (Bonus JoePo: on why he
can't stand Aquaman.)
• Remember
Matt Clement? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. He hasn't pitched in two years. And when he pitched he wasn't all that good. Hasn't won 100 games, never won more than 14 games in a season, and turns 34 in a couple of months. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't know that Clement (or rather, his contract) is currently the property of the
St. Louis Cardinals. I didn't, until this morning. But last night he pitched six innings in a Class A game,
pitched well, and we just might see him on TV later this summer. And considering how long Clement's been around and how good he's looked at various times over the last decade, I'm reminded again just how hard it is to win 100 games.
• The
news about John Smoltz is disheartening. His career may not be over, but we may assume he's finished as an effective pitcher. Smoltz is going to have to decide for himself whether or not all the rehab work is worth it. If he tries to come back, the Braves will put on a brave face and list him in their future plans, just as they have with
Mike Hampton for the last three years. But Smoltz's career is essentially over. What does it mean for him? Well, he's already as good in the Hall of Fame. He won 210 games, saved another 154, won a Cy Young Award, and sports one of greatest postseason records (15-4, 2.65) you'll ever see. He may have to wait a few years, but he's in. What does it mean for the Braves? Even without Smoltz for most of this season, they've got the third-best run differential (+72) in the league, but they're just 31-28 because they're 3-16 in one-run games.
Chipper Jones has played out of his mind, but that's been (roughly) balanced by disappointing numbers from
Matt Diaz and
Jeff Francoeur. Pitching-wise,
Tim Hudson and rookie
Jair Jurrjens have both been quite good, as have the key relievers. I'm guessing the Braves really are this good, and will remain contenders even without Smoltz.
• Reliever
Dan Giese, the newest Yankee, had never seen Yankee Stadium before yesterday. So when he arrived a few hours before the game,
he took the tour. Great story, with an ending just short of magical: He got into the game and pitched well, but got hung with the loss anyway.
• In Seattle, Art Thiel argues that the Mariners should simply
release Richie Sexson. It's hard to argue that Thiel's wrong. Sure, the season's only a couple of months old. But it's not just that Sexson's hitting .199/.278/.404 this season. Since the beginning of
last season he's hitting .203/.291/.400, and you just can't play first base every day with those numbers. If Sexson wasn't earning $14 million this season he already would have been dumped. But now we're far enough into the season, and the Mariners are buried deeply enough in the standings, that it's obviously time to start thinking about what's next.
Guillen's days should be numbered
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
After getting swept last weekend, Ozzie Guillen might have set the bar so high that even he won't be able to someday clear it. From
yesterday's Sun-Times:
"There's only one message I'm going to send," a frustrated Guillen said. "That's all I'm going to talk. Just be ready because I expect movement Tuesday. I expect Kenny to do something Tuesday, and if we don't do anything Tuesday, there are going to be a lot of lineup changes. That's all I'm going to say about the offense.
"It can be me. It can be [hitting coach] Greg Walker. It can be the players. It could be anybody. I'm sick and tired to watch this thing for a year and a half. I'm not protecting anybody anymore. [Bleep] it! If they can't get it done, Kenny should find someone to get it done. That's it.
"Another bad game. If we think we are going to win with the offense we have, we are full of [bleep]. I'm just being honest. I expect better from them, if they are in the lineup."
Williams was at home when informed of Guillen's comments, and made it clear he wasn't happy about them.
"Very interesting, very disappointing," Williams said. "It's never a good idea to throw your boss under the bus, especially when that boss has had his back as much as I have. I guess that lineup will be real interesting to see on Tuesday."
|
It's actually sort of amazing, isn't it, that Guillen hasn't already talked himself out of his job?
The thing is, though ... Guillen's a winner. Or at least he's been a winner. In Guillen's first season (2004) the White Sox won (granted, they'd won
more the year before). In Guillen's second season, the Sox won the World Series for the first time since the Great War. In his third season they finished third, but with a 90-72 record. Last year the White Sox were awful. This year they're in first place.
So how do you fire a guy like that? Could you even consider such a thing?
You bet you could.
This year they're in first place. I'm not saying the White Sox are a perfect team, and I'm not even sure they're a good team. This spring, I believe I had them finishing in fourth or fifth place. Not embarrassingly. But I figured them for somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 wins, and it's now likely that they'll do somewhat better than that.
They've got the best run differential in their division. They're just a half-game ahead of the Twins, but the Twins have been outscored. They're 4½ ahead of the Indians and 6½ ahead of the Tigers, and neither of those clubs have lately looked like championship contenders. I happen to think one of those teams is going to get hot and get back in the race. But if you have to pick one team right now, don't you have to pick the White Sox?
More to the point, if you're managing the team to beat, isn't creating a firestorm the
last thing you'd want to do. It seems to me that eventually Kenny Williams and his bosses are going to tire of Guillen's shenanigans and finally get rid of him, if only for their own peace of mind.
There is, of course, one other possibility, which I hesitate to bring up only because it seems so remote. But it's at least possible, isn't it, that Guillen is some sort of master psychologist and comes up with this stuff in a completely rational effort to take the pressure off his players?
Naaaaahhhh.
Monday Mendozas
Monday, June 2, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
• For the third time since last fall, the Tigers are moving Carlos Guillen to a new position. This is the sign of an organization in disarray, right? Just last winter, the front office essentially decided that Brandon Inge wasn't good enough to play for them every day ... and now suddenly he is again? I know, I know: on paper it's not so hard to justify this switch.
• The Hardball Times' Mike Lee has a
fantastic interview with Pirates GM Neal Huntington. It's still way, way too early to know if Huntington is the right man for this job. But it's fairly obviously that the Pirates are better off today than they were one year ago.
• I'll be in Cooperstown for a recreational visit later this month, and my only regret is that I'll be there too early to see the
new Buck O'Neil statue, which won't be officially unveiled until next month.
• As an outsider, I have a hard time figuring out why Wally Backman
can't get a shot with a major league organization. Except for this: He says he "made a couple of mistakes" -- the DUI and the misdemeanor harassment charges -- but that those are the "two bad days" in his life. Maybe. But if he just happened to get busted the only two times in his life when he screwed up, then he's the unluckiest guy in the history of screwing up. Which isn't to say he doesn't deserve another shot. And it's not like there haven't been plenty of great managers who made mistakes away from the ballpark and lived to fight another day.
• Is MLB ashamed of Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa?
Sure seems like it. But if they're ashamed of those guys, don't they have to be ashamed of themselves, too? I just don't know how you separate Bonds and Sosa from MLB (and, it should be said, the MLBPA).
• Yes, yes, yes ... John Smoltz is going back to the bullpen, and
he's dropping his delivery from overhand to three-quarters. This is all very interesting. But what we really want to know is, will Smoltz bring back the knuckleball he toyed with nine years ago before suffering a major injury? Hey, he supposedly can't throw his splitter from the lower angle ... so why not bring back the knuckler? We'll all be watching ...
Rob Neyer
