|
|
|
|
 |
| MLB |
|
Scores Schedules Standings Statistics Transactions Injuries: AL | NL Players Weekly Lineup Message Board Minor Leagues MLB Stat Search Clubhouses |
| Sport Sections |
|
|
| TODAY: Monday, May 15 | ||||||||||
| January Archives | ||||||||||
| WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5 It's been a slow couple of weeks around Major League Baseball. But those guys work pretty hard the rest of the year, so let's not begrudge them their rest. The volume of mail in my box has also been light, but given what happens the rest of the year, I don't begrudge you your rest, either. Still, the e-mail box did heat up briefly late last week, mostly with messages like the following:
A year ago, as some of you might remember, I devoted a number of columns to ranking the all-time greatest players at each position. This year, I'd like to try something similar, an attempt to identify the players who will define the next decade. We'll go position by position, roughly three per week for the next month or so, notwithstanding the occasional need to interrupt our regular programming to report on breaking news. But how much can we know now, before the next decade has even started? Some things, but not everything. By way of example, let's get in the ol' way-back machine, and travel to 1969, the age of hippies, silly hair, and the Amazin' Mets. For each position, we'll try to determine who will be the best player of the 1970s. Then, jumping ahead 10 years, we'll decide who was the best. Catcher Nominee: Johnny Bench Winner: Johnny Bench At the tender age of 20, Bench was National League Rookie of the Year in 1968. And unlike most Rookies of the Year, Bench got better the next year. And in 1970, he won his first of two MVP awards. Bench was not only the best catcher of the 1970s, but he was arguably the best catcher ever. First base Nominee: Dick Allen Winner: Steve Garvey At his best, Dick Allen terrorized major league pitchers, and he was at his best for the better part of the 1960s. While it's true that Allen had already seen his 27th birthday at the close of the decade, it's also true that hitters with his talent quite often remain productive well into their 30s.
Nominee: Rod Carew Winner: Joe Morgan The American League's Rookie of the Year in 1967, Rod Carew started at second base in the All-Star Game that season, and did the same in 1968 and '69. He did slump some in '68, but rebounded to hit .332 and win the batting title in '69. Carew's future looked incredibly bright, and it was ... but not all of that incredible future came at second base. Carew kept getting hurt in the middle of the infield, in part because he never really got the hang of turning the double play. Finally, in 1976 the Twins shifted Carew to first base, where he spent the rest of his career. Then you've got Joe Morgan. At the conclusion of the 1969 season, here's what his career numbers looked like: Age Avg HR RBI OBP Slug 26 .264 40 170 .381 .394Not bad, but the only number that makes you sit up and take notice is the .381 on-base percentage. Of course, as it turned out, Little Joe had plenty more to contribute. He played well for the Astros in 1970 and '71, and then, prior to the 1972 season, Morgan was traded to Cincinnati, where he became the Joe Morgan we all know and love, a two-time MVP and eight-time All-Star. Shortstop Nominee: Rico Petrocelli Winner: Dave Concepcion Thirty years ago, the crop of young shortstops was, shall we say, sparse. Mark Belanger played great defense for a great team (Baltimore), but aside from his somewhat flukish 1969 season, he never hit at all. Bud Harrelson was young and played for the World Champion Mets, but he was even worse at the plate than Belanger. The only real candidates here are Rico Petrocelli and Don Kessinger, neither of them spring chickens but both well regarded in their time. We'll nominate Petrocelli because he was a year younger (26) than Kessinger and had hit 40 home runs in 1969. However, after another year at shortstop, Petrocelli shifted to third base in 1971, thus making him ineligible for further consideration here. His productivity also declined and his last decent season was 1974. No, I don't think Dave Concepcion should be in the Hall of Fame. But yes, I do think he probably was the best shortstop of the 1970s, even if he flailed away helplessly at the plate his first few seasons. Concepcion eventually became a pretty decent hitter. In the 1970s alone, he was named to six All-Star teams and won five Gold Gloves. Honorable mention goes to Bill Russell. Third base Nominee: Tony Perez Winner: Mike Schmidt Perez debuted with the Reds in 1964, and initially he struggled against National League pitchers. But in 1967, Perez broke through with 33 home runs and 102 RBI, and that season he earned the first of four straight All-Star berths. In 1969, Perez enjoyed his best year yet, knocking in 122 runs and slugging .526. Even though he was 27, Perez still looked like the top third baseman of the coming decade. And he didn't disappoint in 1970, setting career highs in virtually every offensive category and finishing third in the MVP voting. However, that would be Perez's finest season, and in 1972 his defensive shortcomings resulted in a shift to first base, where he spent the rest of his career. Mike Schmidt? In 1969, he was a scholar-athlete at Ohio University. The Phillies' second-round draft pick in 1971, Schmidt established himself as a top prospect the following summer when he hit 26 home runs for Philadelphia's Triple-A farm club in Eugene, Oregon. He reached the majors that September, and after some early struggles -- in his first 145 games, Schmidt batted .198 and struck out 151 times -- he rather quickly became not only the top third baseman of his era, but the top third baseman of any era. A devastating combination of power and patience at the plate, Schmidt also received 10 Gold Gloves. Left field Nominee: Willie Horton Winner: George Foster Horton, but only by default. Sure, there were some fine left fielders in 1969. Willie Stargell, Carl Yastrzemski and Lou Brock would all be elected to the Hall of Fame one day. Don Buford was a fine player, too. But Stargell finished the 1969 season at 29 years old, Yaz was 30, Brock was 30, Buford was 32. That leaves Tigers left fielder Willie Horton, who certainly wasn't a great player, but at the conclusion of the '69 campaign he was 26 years old, and he boasted a .486 career slugging percentage. True, he wasn't much of an outfielder, but we can't be picky here. Horton enjoyed a few more good seasons, but he shifted to his natural position, designated hitter, in 1973, and in 1975 he pretty much stopped hitting. Left field may be a hitter's position, but surprisingly few top sluggers played the position in the 1970s. More precisely, while a number of top sluggers played some left field -- most notably, Stargell, Jim Rice, and Yastrzemski -- no superstar spent all or even most of the decade at the position. However, George Foster did play brilliantly in left field from 1975 through 1979 for Cincinnati, and was MVP in 1977. Center field Nominee: Jimmy Wynn Winner: Amos Otis Though the quality of Jimmy Wynn's stats are somewhat masked by his home ballpark, the Astrodome, it doesn't take much brains to see that he could, as Joe Morgan once noted, do whatever he wanted on a baseball field. In 1969 at age 27, Wynn hit 33 home runs and topped the National League with 148 walks. The next year, however, Wynn was pushed from center field to left field by 19-year-old phenom Cesar Cedeno. He hit .207 in 1976, and his career ended the following season. Amos Otis the center fielder of the '70s? Yes, Amos Otis. Practically forgotten now, Otis was a five-time All-Star, and his excellence cut across all disciplines. He hit for a good average, had decent power, drew a fair number of walks, stole bases at a high percentage, and was considered an outstanding defensive center fielder. Otis, who manned center field in Kansas City for the entire decade, edges Fred Lynn, who didn't win a regular job until 1975. Right field Nominee: Reggie Jackson Winner: Reggie Jackson In 1969, 23-year-old Reggie Jackson topped the American League with 123 runs scored and a .608 slugging percentage. And while he never had a better year, Jackson was good enough in the 1970s to merit a first-ballot election to the Hall of Fame. Right-handed starter Nominees: Tom Seaver, Denny McLain Winner: Tom Seaver Left-handed starter Nominee: Steve Carlton Winner: Steve Carlton Pitchers may be unpredictable, but Seaver and Carlton sure weren't. From 1967 through 1969, Seaver went 57-32, capped by his 25-7 campaign in '69. He won the Cy Young Award that year, and he was only 24. He looked like the next great right-hander, and he was. As nominee, Carlton edges Jerry Koosman, Seaver's teammate in New York. Here are their ages and stats through the 1969 season:
Age W-L ERA
Carlton 24 47-34 2.72
Koosman 26 36-23 2.34
Koosman's ERA is better, but he's two years older than Carlton and had 11
fewer victories. What's more, Carlton was brilliant in 1969, going 17-11
with a 2.17 ERA that ranked second in the National League. Obviously, he did
become the No. 1 lefty in the majors for the next decade, plus a few more
years.
But then there's Denny McLain. In 1968, he won 31 games at age 24. In 1969, he went 24-9 to win his second straight Cy Young Award. But his arm went dead in spring training of 1970 and he won just 17 more games in the big leagues.
What does it all mean? Well, of the 10 positions under consideration, only
four have matches between the Nominee and the Winner. And of those four, two
are pitchers. Is it really that hard to forecast the best players of the
coming decade, or were the 1970s just weird?
We won't know for another eight or 10 years. But beginning Monday, in
this space we shall attempt to identify the players who will define their
positions over the next decade. Admittedly, we probably haven't heard of one
or two of those players. However, most of us are blessed with a greater
knowledge of minor-league players than we might have had 30 years ago, so we
will consider players like Nick Johnson and Pat Burrell, at least in
passing. For the most part, it'll be the players in their early 20s, known
commodities who figure to be around for at least another decade or so.
MONDAY, JANUARY 10As promised last week, we shall endeavor to identify the catcher who will define his position for the next decade or so. Unfortunately, I don't know if we'll call him "The Catcher of the Zeroes" or "The Catcher of the Aughts" or what. But you get the idea. So what are we looking for? Or rather (to be grammatically correct), for whom are we looking? Ideally, we're looking for a catcher in his early 20s who is exceptionally skilled both at the plate and behind it. Unfortunately, I don't see anybody out there who qualifies. In this writer's opinion, the top catchers right now are Jason Kendall, Mike Lieberthal, Javy Lopez, Mike Piazza and Ivan Rodriguez. Needless to say, all of these fellows are allowed into taverns without having to show their driver's licenses. Piazza's 31, and most of us think he'll be a first baseman or a DH before he's 36. Lopez is 29, and he's had problems staying in the lineup. That leaves Kendall, Lieberthal and Rodriguez. I love Jason Kendall. If you had given me, at the All-Star break last year, my pick of catchers, he would probably have been my choice. Kendall is 25 years old, his career on-base percentage is just shy of .400, he runs well, and he's a pretty good defensive catcher. Of course, then he went and broke his ankle. Bad. Everyone says he's nearly back at full strength already, but we won't really know how he'll hold up. And even if Kendall recovers fully, how long will he catch? As there always is with catchers who can run, there is sentiment to move Kendall, perhaps to the outfield. As an analyst, I think it's insane to move a good-hitting catcher to another position, just to gain a few stolen bases and maybe a few years, way down the road. But it might happen. Lieberthal, who's almost exactly the same age as Rodriguez, is a fine player. In fact, he's probably just as good a hitter as Pudge (you could look it up). But Lieberthal obviously isn't a match for Rodriguez with the glove. So what of Rodriguez? He's 28, and many top catchers these days last well into their 30s, so if he takes care of himself there's no reason he couldn't play for all or most of the coming decade. Of course, very few catchers can still hit when they're in their late 30s. He doesn't have to. Rodriguez doesn't have to be a superstar in 2009 to have defined that decade. Gary Carter's period of effectiveness ended after 1986, but he still was the top catcher of the 1980s. There is one very young catcher who looks like a future star. His name is Ben Petrick, he plays for the Colorado Rockies, he doesn't turn 23 until this April, and last year he blasted 27 home runs in 421 professional at-bats, most of them either in Class AAA or the National League. Put him in Coors Field for a full season, and there's no reason Petrick couldn't hit 40-plus home runs, season in and season out. That said, his defensive skills are very rough, and in fact the Rockies say Petrick needs another year in Colorado Springs, even though he destroyed Triple-A pitching last summer. He's not a huge guy and runs fairly well, so it wouldn't be at all surprising if Petrick wound up at another position. What to make of all this? Every catcher mentioned has his negatives. Piazza is too old, and Rodriguez certainly isn't a kid. Kendall is young, but he's coming off a severe injury and might well be moved to another position sometime in the next five years. I'm going with Kendall, for the simple reason that he's two-and-a-half years younger than Rodriguez, and still has room to grow. Yes, he's coming off an injury, and people are talking about shifting him to another position. But they're doing incredible things with rehab these days, and to my knowledge there's been little serious talk of moving Kendall. So he's my first pick, followed by Rodriguez, Somebody Else (perhaps Petrick), Piazza and Lieberthal. Next up: First basemen. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12 First off, let me mention a couple of guys I'm not going to seriously consider as "First Baseman of the Aughts," Jeff Bagwell and Jim Thome. I love Bagwell as a player, I really do. But what makes him so great is his breadth of skills, his ability to run the bases and play good defense at first base, in addition to his fantastic hitting. But Bagwell turns 32 in May, and in five years it's likely the hitting is all he'll have. And while I believe he'll eventually be in the Hall of Fame, I also believe he'll spend at least half of the next decade as merely a good player rather than a great one. Thome was a bit tougher to leave out, because he's only 29. But he's already got the skills of an old man, and so I have a sneaking suspicion that he won't age particularly well. I'm not saying he'll fall apart like Boog Powell did, but I just don't see him dominating the American League when he's 35. All right, on to the young fellows who already have established themselves ...
Age Career OPS
Sean Casey 25 881
Carlos Delgado 27 892
Todd Helton 26 938
Paul Konerko 24 783
Erubiel Durazo 26 1016
Nice mix here, wouldn't you say? Ages ranging from 24 to 27, with the youngest guy having the lowest OPS, and the two oldest guys having the two highest.
Paul Konerko is the youngest player here, even though it seems like we've been hearing about him forever. As you might remember, Konerko was Minor League Player of the Year in 1997, then struggled terribly in 1998 while shuffling between two major- and two minor-league teams. Happily, after joining this third big-league club (the White Sox), Konerko bounced back well in 1999, posting a .511 slugging percentage.
You might be surprised to see that Sean Casey's career OPS ranks fourth in the group. Like Konerko, Casey had some problems in 1998, though of a different nature. And like Konerko, Casey did what top prospects are supposed to do -- hit. I don't see any negatives here, unless perhaps it's his relative lack of power (only 25 home runs last year).
Carlos Delgado. Yet another top prospect who went through some tough times, but eventually justified the hype. The only negative here is Delgado's age; he turns 28 next June. Analyst Ron Shandler has suggested that Delgado may well make a run at 50 home runs in a season. If he does that, he quite likely moves up a notch in our rankings. But to this point, he has yet to lead his league in a statistical category, and his career .361 on-base percentage is less than overwhelming.
I am surprised that Todd Helton's OPS is the second highest in the group. But given that he plays half his games in Denver (23 of his 35 home runs came there), it should be higher. I do think that he'll be a good player, maybe even a great one, but I don't think he'll be the No. 1 first baseman of the next decade.
Erubiel Durazo ... well, we just don't know, do we? He's been in Organized Baseball for exactly one season, and at this point he looks like the new Lou Gehrig. Durazo played at three levels last year -- 64 games at Class AA, 30 games at Class AAA, and 52 games with the Diamondbacks -- and here's his line for all three levels combined:
Games AB 2B 3B HR Runs RBI OBP Slug 146 499 29 5 35 111 113 .468 .669Like I said, that's three levels. But he didn't exactly suffer when he got to the majors, as the aforementioned 1016 OPS against National League pitchers attests. That was only 155 at-bats, though, and we simply can't take too much from that. I would love to have him for my team, but there remains a bit of uncertainty here. Finally, the two kids. Both Pat "The Bat" Burrell and Nick "The Stick" Johnson spent most or all of last season in Double-A, which makes it fairly easy to compare their seasons.
Games HR BB OBP Slug OPS
Burrell 117 28 79 .438 .631 1069
Johnson 132 14 123 .525 .548 1073
Burrell's got more power, but Johnson gets on base more. Add everything together, and they're darn near even. Ah, but there's one gigantic difference. At 21, Johnson is almost exactly two years younger than Burrell, and at this point a two-year difference is huge. When Frank Thomas was in Class AA, he had very similar numbers as Johnson, and I think Johnson's got a chance to be the same kind of hitter. (We should also note that Burrell is, at this writing, a left fielder by trade, though he will likely be a first baseman within a few years.)
There is one thing that worries me about Johnson, though. He gets hit by baseballs all the time. To be precise, 37 HBPs last season, which I believe shattered the Eastern League record. I don't have any evidence, but you have to wonder about long-term durability when you see something like that.
Ranking all these guys is tough, real tough. But even though he hasn't played an inning in the major leagues and is unlikely to play regularly until 2001, I'm going with Nick Johnson, by just a nose over Sean Casey. After those two, I rank them Delgado, Durazo, Helton and Konerko -- with Jeff Bagwell not to be forgotten.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 13We'll get to the second basemen tomorrow, but I'd like to address a few issues raised by readers, regarding the catchers and first basemen from earlier this week. I was remiss in yesterday's column, in that I did select Nick Johnson as the top first baseman of the Aughts, yet I did not even identify the team for which he toils. I also wrote that he won't play regularly until 2001, but I didn't say why. Nick Johnson is -- can you believe it? -- property of the New York Yankees, who hardly need more great players. Yet there he is, and yes, the rich get richer. Johnson won't play regularly until 2001 because Tino Martinez remains under contract through the 2000 season. Also, Johnson has not yet played an inning of Class AAA baseball, and the Yankees aren't in the habit of rushing their prospects. He'll presumably open the season in Columbus, and arrive in Yankee Stadium before September only if somebody gets hurt. As for Pat Burrell, (1) he's a prospect in the Phillies system, and (2) I didn't rank him because there's no guarantee that he'll even be a first baseman. A third baseman in college, Burrell got moved to first base because there wasn't any way the Phillies would move Scott Rolen. But then the Phils decided to re-sign Rico Brogna to a long-term contract, thus closing off yet another position. So now Burrell is an outfielder, although there's a good chance that he'll eventually be back in the infield. Were I to rank him among the future first basemen, it would be No. 4, behind Nick Johnson, Sean Casey and Carlos Delgado. I erred in failing to mention Tony Clark. He was born 10 days before Delgado, and his career percentages are nearly identical to Delgado's. Yet Clark doesn't get the same respect as Delgado, and I'm not sure why. That said, I don't quite trust his long-term future, perhaps because he's 6-7, and somewhere in the back of my brain there are doubts about the career prospects of huge hitters. I could be wrong, though. Now, about the catchers. The most common response to Monday's column, the most common response by far, was "What about Jason Varitek?" My defense is, "I had to draw the line somewhere." But as you can see from the following career percentages, there are similarities between Mike Lieberthal, who I think is among the top five catchers in the game today, and Mr. Varitek:
Age OBP Slug OPS
Lieberthal 27 .326 .459 785
Varitek 27 .324 .460 784
Eerie, huh? Ah, but there's one huge factor missing from the equation here. Lieberthal's 785 OPS has been compiled over the course of 455 games. Varitek's 784 OPS has been compiled over the course of 231 games. You see what I'm getting at here? There's no metaphysical certitude in either case, but there's a significantly better chance that Lieberthal's career stats truly represent his abilities. To wit, here are some 2000 OPS projections for both players, from STATS, Inc. and analyst Ron Shandler:
STATS Shandler
Lieberthal 791 839
Varitek 741 800
I'm more than a little surprised in the relative large differences between the STATS and Shandler projections. STATS primarily bases their forecasts on the last three years, while Shandler looks at the last five years. (By the way, the STATS projections can be found in the "STATS Major League Handbook 2000," and Shandler's projections appear in "Ron Shandler's Baseball Forecaster," both of which are indispensable in my work.)
But the key point here is that, based on past performance, Lieberthal figures to be somewhat more productive next season than Varitek will be.
Speaking of Red Sox catchers, a few supporters of young Steve Lomasney also wrote me, but I fear their optimism is at least a tad premature. His moderate batting average aside, Lomasney's hitting stats last year were impressive. And he's only 22 years old. But Lomasney's experience above Class A consists of exactly 48 games, and I'm afraid it'll take another year of high-class competition before we can consider him a potential superstar.
Speaking of kid catchers, a few other readers wondered why I ignored Ben Davis, last seen in San Diego. I expect Davis to enjoy a long and productive career. But while his minor-league stats were pretty impressive, in his first taste of major league action he posted a 668 OPS, which is obviously somewhat less than impressive. He doesn't turn 23 until March so there's a massive amount of room for growth. We just need to see some of it.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 14Today's question: "Who will be the second baseman of the Aughts?" After careful -- nay, painstaking -- consideration, I was able to identify only five candidates; that is, five second basemen who are young enough and good enough to be the best at their position for at least seven of the next 10 seasons. Below are those five, along with their Opening Day ages in 2000 and their career OPS.
Age OPS
Edgardo Alfonzo 26 .785
Ron Belliard 24 .803
Carlos Febles 23 .765
Warren Morris 26 .787
Pokey Reese 26 .672
Frankly, if the next Craig Biggio or Roberto Alomar is among this group, he's camouflaged himself well.
I've been taking a lot of heat from Mets fans for suggesting that Edgardo Alfonzo's 1999 numbers were something less than predictive, and perhaps they're right. When Alfonzo was in the minor leagues, I thought he'd be an excellent major leaguer ... and then he was pretty awful his first two seasons with the Mets. But from 1997 through 1999, his combined OPS was 833, and that's impressive. Do I think Alfonzo will duplicate his spectacular 1999 stats this season? No, I don't. But then, he doesn't have to. Even if Alfonzo's slugging percentage drops 50-odd points, he'll still be the National League's best second baseman younger than 30.
Like Alfonzo, Milwaukee's Ron Belliard was considered a fine prospect while in the minors. Unlike Alfonzo, Belliard didn't miss a beat upon reaching the big show. He projects to have seasons with 15 home runs and 30 steals, which is a nice combination. He's regarded as a solid defensive player, at both second base and shortstop. Belliard's also got a good batting eye, and at just five-feet-eight, he reminds you a little of Joe Morgan. That said, the odds of Belliard actually becoming another Joe Morgan are exceedingly slim, as they would be for anyone.
A lot of you might be wondering, what in the world is Carlos Febles doing here? Well, if Pokey Reese is here, then Carlos Febles must also be here. Consider: in 1999, Febles was only 23 years old, and he suffered from nagging injuries for much of the season. Nevertheless, he still was exactly as productive as Reese, who was 26 and enjoying by far the best season of his career.
Yes, Reese won the Gold Glove. But if you saw Febles play 40 games, as I did, you would know that there might well be Gold Gloves in his future, too. And given their career paths to this point, there is an excellent chance that Febles will become the far superior hitter.
Am I saying that Febles is going to be the top second baseman of the next decade? No. His hitting stats aren't that impressive, he makes some silly mistakes in the field, and he hasn't been particularly durable. But he's got just as good a chance as Reese, so by definition the latter is also disqualified from serious consideration. Pokey may be cute and cuddly -- there is a apparently a "Pokey Bear Night" scheduled at Cinergy Field this season -- but he's not going to be a superstar. The hitting skills simply aren't there, last season's anomalous numbers notwithstanding. Oh, and I almost forgot, there's a good chance he'll end up playing shortstop eventually, anyway.
Warren Morris has a chance to be the next Jeff Kent. But he needs to improve his defense and develop his power, and neither of those tasks are easy.
And what of the youngsters, the prospects who have yet to make any kind of impression in the major leagues? Believe it or not, there is not a single Grade A prospect currently playing second base in the minors. A few good prospects, certainly -- Atlanta's Marcus Giles and St. Louis' Adam Kennedy, for example -- but there's literally nobody that looks like a good bet for future stardom ... until, that is, we widen our horizons a bit.
As you know, the Yankees are set at shortstop for the foreseeable future, what with Derek Jeter firmly ensconced as one of the American League's best players. But they've also got two excellent young shortstops in their system: D'Angelo Jimenez and Alfonso Soriano. Both are about six feet tall, both are listed at 160 pounds, and both were born almost exactly 22 years ago (if you believe the Yankees).
Jimenez spent most of last season at Triple-A Columbus, where he played shortstop and posted an 884 OPS. Soriano spent most of last season at Double-A Norwich, where he played shortstop and posted an 864 OPS. Jimenez has to considered the better prospect, but both project as solid major leaguers, or better. Chances are that one of these guys will eventually play second base for the Yankees, with the other moving to third base, left field or another team.
All right, ranking these fellows ... Edgardo Alfonzo has to be No. 1, based on the last three seasons. But it gets dicey after that, so I'm going with one of the current Yankee shortstop prospects, whichever one winds up moving to second base. And from there, I rate them: Belliard and Febles tied for third, and Morris and Reese tied for fifth.
MONDAY, JANUARY 17Before we get started, I want to mount a preemptive strike against anyone who might be thinking of e-mailing to protest the exclusion of Rey Ordonez from our list of candidates for "Shortstop of the Aughts." In a historical context, who is Rey Ordonez? Defensively, he might be as good as Mark Belanger. Was Belanger the top shortstop of the 1970s? No, he clearly was not (and he was a better hitter than Ordonez). But maybe you're not happy with that comparison. Some people would argue that Ordonez is just as good with the glove as Ozzie Smith. I think those people are wrong, but for the sake of argument let's assume they're right. Was Ozzie Smith the top shortstop of the 1980s? No, he wasn't. Cal Ripken was. And at least to this point, Ordonez isn't the hitter that Ozzie was. End of discussion, unless someone actually has some evidence to present in "The Case of the Shortstop With the Sub-600 OPS." Now, on with the legitimate candidates. As you might suspect, there are only three of them:
Age OPS
Nomar Garciaparra 26 .933
Derek Jeter 25 .854
Alex Rodriguez 24 .914
Let's get down to brass tacks. Garciaparra's got a slight edge on Rodriguez as a hitter, but Alex is two years younger, so the chances are good that he'll finish his career with superior hitting stats. As you can see, Jeter is a fair piece behind those two fellows, but as every Yankees fan will be only so quick to remind me, Jeter was incredible in 1999. This brings to mind Edgardo Alfonzo, another middle-20s, middle infielder from New York who enjoyed a power surge last season. Can we expect more of the same in 2000? Hard to say, but the evidence suggests that as good as Jeter is and will be, he won't quite match the hitting exploits of Nomar and Alex.
But of course, there's more to playing shortstop than hitting. Like, you know, defense and whatnot. Unfortunately, everybody's got a different opinion on these guys. But as a way of getting into the issue, let's start with size.
You know Alex Rodriguez is big. As for the other two ... well, it's kind of funny. In my mind's eye, Garciaparra is the tall drink of water, while Jeter is the prototypically-sized middle infielder. But my mind's eye is wrong. Garciaparra is listed at exactly six feet tall, while Jeter is six-three. I probably don't have to tell you this, but six-three is big for a shortstop.
People rave about Jeter's defense, but you can spend a day or a week or a month playing with the numbers, and you'll find zero statistical justification for that reputation. I knew this when I wrote about the MVP battle last fall, but I wrote positive things about Jeter's defense anyway. How could so many baseball people be so wrong? Well, a few of my more sabermetrically-inclined friends e-mailed their complaints, and in retrospect I fear I might have caved to convention. Yes, Jeter looks smooth, but does that tell us how good a jump he gets on the ball? No, it doesn't. And just because Tim McCarver tells us he's great, doesn't necessarily make it so.
But does this mean anything for his future? Probably not. But maybe, just maybe, the Yankee brass has its own suspicions about Jeter's defense. Maybe, just maybe, instead of moving D'Angelo Jimenez and Alfonso Soriano, they'll move Jeter to third base and let one of the kids play shortstop. I'm not saying this will happen, just that it might happen.
When you talk about position switches, you have to talk about Alex Rodriguez. Like his pal Jeter, Rodriguez is six-three and 195 pounds, or at least that's what they list him at. He was supposedly 190 pounds five years ago, and it's a little hard to believe he's gained a mere five pounds since. One suspects that Rodriguez will soon weigh more than 200 pounds, if he doesn't already. Now, can a 200-pound giant play shortstop? Well, in his prime, Cal Ripken weighed about 200 pounds (to match his six-four frame).
But Ripken, in addition to his strong arm, made a science of defensive positioning, being in the right place before the ball was hit. Might Rodriguez become the same type of shortstop? Sure, anything's possible. But if he's got that reputation, nobody in the Seattle media has picked up on it. I have a sneaking suspicion that when Rodriguez signs his $200 million contract in a year or so, his new team will have, dancing in its collective head, visions of Alex eventually playing third base.
Look, comparing these three is a crapshoot. There's not been so much young talent at one position since the early 1950s, when Willie, Mickey and the Duke were all patrolling center field in their respective New York boroughs. But here's how I see the debate ...
Jeter's got three strikes against him: there are some question marks about his defensive abilities, he's big, and there are great young shortstops in the Yankees farm system.
Rodriguez has two of the same strikes against him: his defense is also somewhat questionable, and he's also big.
Garciaparra has one (admittedly) big strike against him: at 26, he's the oldest of the three super shortstops. But I think he's our man, in a photo finish. Garciaparra is the right size for a shortstop, his defensive rep is at least decent, and he's got his ballpark working for him.
So for the coming decade, the Aughts, I rate them Garciaparra, Rodriguez, Jeter, and then whichever of the kid Yankees gets to play shortstop somewhere. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19With apologies to Russ Branyan and his 206 strikeouts in 120 games last year, below are my top six candidates for Third Baseman of the Aughts:
Age Career OPS
Adrian Beltre 22 .745
Eric Chavez 22 .765
Troy Glaus 23 .733
Chipper Jones 28 .923
Scott Rolen 25 .876
Fernando Tatis 25 .828
Glaus wasn't in the poll, but I've listed his stats here because (1) a number of readers demanded it, and (2) so I figured I must have made a mistake. Now that I look at the numbers, though, I don't feel bad about leaving him out. We can't consider everyone, and Glaus has slightly worse major league stats than Beltre and Chavez despite being a year older than those two. So let us wish Troy luck, but discuss him no more.
Looking at the other five in the table, I have to say that rating the third basemen of the future is the most daunting task we've yet faced. The best third baseman is also the oldest. The next two, statistically, are three years younger than Chipper. And the next two are three years younger than those two. Let's begin at the top ...
I don't need to tell you that Chipper Jones is a fantastic player, easily the No. 1 third baseman in the game today. In 1999, he posted the fourth-best on-base percentage in the National League and the fourth-best slugging percentage. And while he's no Gold Glover, most observers think that he's become a solid defensive third baseman. So what's not to like? Well, Chipper turns 28 in April. Can he maintain his performance at a high level for another seven or eight years? That's the $64 million question.
A year ago, I would probably have anointed Scott Rolen as Third Baseman of the Aughts with nary a thought. But that was before Chipper won the MVP, and it was before back problems limited Rolen to 112 games.
Parenthetical aside ... One of the great unknowns in baseball research is the long-term effect of various physical ailments. Rolen's back was sore when he was 24 years old. Does that mean he's less likely to be a good player when he's 34? Jason Kendall broke his ankle in 1999. Does that mean he won't be his old self until 2001? We really don't know, so we end up guessing.
Back ailments have a reputation, though, a reputation for lingering. So while Rolen will probably be a superstar for the next decade or so, we have to at least consider the possibility that his back will continue to bother him.
Next is Fernando Tatis, who broke out in a big way last season. Or did he? There's a perception that Tatis sort of came out of nowhere, but the fact is that he posted outstanding numbers as a Rangers farmhand. What's more, Tatis did well after getting traded to St. Louis during the 1998 season. Below are his stats with Texas from 1997 until the trade, and then with St. Louis since:
Games SB OBP Slug
w/Rangers 155 9 .301 .378
w/Redbirds 204 28 .394 .540
Now, I'm not saying that Tatis needed to leave Texas before he could flower. What's important here is that in 204 National League games -- a significant sample -- Tatis has been just as productive as Rolen ... and more durable. Granted, Tatis isn't the fielder that Rolen is, but I think he possesses just as much hitting talent. (By the way, I threw the stolen bases into the table to demonstrate that Tatis has many talents.)
Before we get into the kids, Adrian Beltre and Eric Chavez, I should clear something up. In the table at the top of this column, I gave 22 as the age for Beltre and Chavez, because that's what all the books say. But as we recently learned, Beltre was born not on April 7, 1978, but rather one year later. This makes what he's accomplished so far, both in the minors and the majors, all the more impressive, and it also makes him a better bet for the future than Chavez. (Both players, it should be said, will be hindered by their ballparks, as Dodger Stadium and the Oakland Coliseum are both good pitcher's parks.)
Finally, a few words about two players who have yet to establish themselves in the major leagues. Sean Burroughs is well-known both as the son of ex-big leaguer Jeff Burroughs and as a two-time Little League World Series hero. He can mash the ball, too. In his first crack at professional pitchers last year, Burroughs batted .359 and posted a 943 OPS in Class A. He was 19, so obviously that's impressive as hell. Then there's Aramis Ramirez, who is only 21 and tore up the Pacific Coast League last year. Ramirez hasn't done anything in the majors yet, but the great majority of his service with the Pirates came in 1998, when he was only 20. Simply put, he wasn't ready, and probably shouldn't have been brought up quite so early.
You know, we really are blessed with an incredible number of talented young third basemen. Two years ago in his "1998 Minor League Scouting Notebook," John Sickels rated Adrian Beltre as baseball's No. 1 prospect, Aramis Ramirez No. 5, Fernando Tatis No. 16 and Eric Chavez No. 17. With all four of those guys having matriculated to the major leagues and established themselves as likely future stars, this year Sickels has Sean Burroughs as the No. 9 prospect, and Minnesota's Mike Cuddyer (pronounced kuh-DIE-er) at No. 10. Of course, all this young talent makes forecasting the future that much more difficult.
It can't be avoided, though. So based on all that has come before, my pick for Third Baseman of the Aughts is ... Fernando Tatis, barely nosing out Chipper Jones and Scott Rolen (in that order). After that trio, I've got Beltre edging Chavez in the Kid3B Sweepstakes, and in fact there's a voice in the back of my head that says Beltre should rank ahead of all these guys. Nine months from now, that voice may well be in the front of my head.
As for Burroughs and Ramirez, it's just too early. The former has yet to play an inning of Class AA ball, and the latter has done nothing with 307 major league at-bats. Keep an eye on both of them, but remember that Ramirez is actually a year older than Beltre.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 20Revisiting the last three columns, in which we discussed second basemen, shortstops and third basemen ... Not many of you felt like arguing about Edgardo Alfonzo, my choice as Second Baseman of the Aughts; not surprising, given that he won the reader poll, too. For some reason, I continue to be accused of blanket anti-Mets bias, but I won't bore the rational among you with that distasteful matter. (By the way, my thanks to the Cincinnati fans for not bothering to argue vehemently for Pokey Reese. You may be wrong about Pete Rose and Tony Perez, but given your recent restraint, I won't hold it against you.) My only regret regarding the column on second basemen is that I neglected to mention Jose Vidro. Looking at his career stats, and knowing that his reputation as a defensive player is poor, I can't really consider him a serious candidate. But he was 24 years old for most of last season and he slugged .476, and you can't ignore that. As you might imagine, the column on shortstops elicited a fair number of responses. That's what happens when you write anything less than uniformly positive about a New York player, and this time I took both barrels, since I somehow managed to disparage both Rey Ordoñez and Derek Jeter. But before we get to them, a few words on Omar Vizquel, and the fans of his team. In my four years of writing this column, I have found that it's the New York fans and the Cleveland fans who tend to respond, more than any others, to "criticism" of their players. New York you can understand, if only because the Mets and Yankees have so many fans, by virtue of sheer population. As for Cleveland ... well, I guess the fans are simply rabid (in a good way). I mean, a tiny slight to any Indian, past or present, and you'd think I hocked a big loogy on Bob Feller's Hall of Fame plaque. But I can write anything about a Dodger, and I'll hear nary a word of complaint. Anyway, I didn't consider Omar Vizquel as Shortstop of the Aughts, and I received numerous e-mails excoriating me for this decision. My response to all of these people was the same: He's 33 years old! Or at least, he will be this April. And if you think a 33-year-old player has a decent chance of being the best player of the next decade, then the point of this exercise is probably lost on you. Frankly, even if Vizquel were 23 rather than 33, he still wouldn't be a serious candidate. You can talk about defense all you want -- yes, I know that shortstop is a "defensive position" -- but aside from the lunatic fringe, does anyone really believe that hitting doesn't matter? Look, I think that major league teams screw up all the time, and in fact I make a pretty decent living detailing the ways that they do so. But I also think that the men who run the teams have a pretty good sense for the relative worth of different types of players. You can rave about Tom Goodwin's stolen bases all you want, but he's never going to make Ken Griffey money. Everyone says you need a great closer, but the fact is that top closers make around two-thirds as much money as top starters. And rave about Omar Vizquel and Rey Ordoñez all you like, but the fact is that no team is going to pay them what Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez make. Are the teams stupid? Quite often, yes. But in this case, no. Are there exceptions to the above? I think so. Ozzie Smith deserved to make what he made. Bill Mazeroski deserved to make as much as a great-hitting second baseman. Same goes for Brooks Robinson (at third base, of course). But I don't believe that Vizquel or Ordoñez are in that class. Good, perhaps even great? Sure, if it makes you happy. But historic? I don't think so. What's my evidence for this? I don't have much, and this provides a segue to a discussion of Derek Jeter. Mind you, I didn't say that Jeter is a poor defensive shortstop. What I said was that if Jeter is a good shortstop, there is little statistical evidence. Of course, the typical response to this argument is, "Hey, I watched Jeter play 75 games last year, and I know that he's a great shortstop." The problem with that "argument" is that it's a non-starter. Anyone can use it ... and just about everyone does. Mets fans will tell you that Ordoñez is not only the greatest shortstop today, but that he also is better than even Ozzie Smith! Indians fans will tell you the exact same about Vizquel. (Most of these fans didn't actually see Ozzie in his prime, at least not on a day-to-day basis, but somehow this doesn't impact their thinking. I mean, I can say that Cris Carter has the greatest hands in NFL history, but if I never saw Raymond Berry play, how much is that opinion worth?) So how should we rate defensive players? I don't have a good answer for you. What I do know is that fielding percentage is nearly worthless for nearly all players. At the extremes, it's moderately important. Ordoñez made four errors last year. Rich Aurilia made 28. That's a big difference, obviously. But what about Deivi Cruz? He made 12 errors, eight more than Ordoñez. Does eight plays mean anything? Both players started 151 games at shortstop. Ordoñez made 636 plays (putouts plus assists), Cruz made 663 plays. In that context, roughly 650 plays apiece, eight plays means nothing at all. For the most part, then, forget about fielding percentage. I know that's a hard thing for many of us, since it's the only fielding statistic that the traditional media bothers with, but in the long run it'll be good for you. OK, so what else is there? For many years now, "range factor" has been available to those of us who use The Baseball Encyclopedia or the books published by STATS, Inc. Essentially, the most technical form of range factor is simply the number of plays made per nine innings. Range factor is quite often telling. Ozzie Smith had outstanding range factors for nearly his entire career. But range factor is, it must be said, subject to many outside influences. For example, if you play third base behind a pitching staff full of right-handed fly-ball pitchers, you simply won't have many chances to make plays. It's a mathematical certainty. Thus, you will have a low range factor. Zone rating (ZR), invented by the folks at STATS, Inc., is another method. ZR attempts to measure what percentage of balls hit into each fielder's "area of responsibility" are actually fielded by that player. Like range factor, zone rating has it's place, although I believe it too is subject to various corrupting influences. There are, literally as you read this, people out there working on these problems. I number many of these people among my friends, so you might accuse me of bias. But then, I have a number of friends stuck in the Pleistocene Era, too. Anyway, I believe that within a decade, perhaps much sooner, we'll have some super-sophisticated tools for evaluating defensive skills. These tools will account for all the variables I mentioned above, plus more that I've not bothered with here. The sad thing is, we could have the perfect tool for evaluating fielders, yet a large percentage of the baseball public would still turn up its collective nose. Rating defense will forever remain, for many fans, a solid bastion against logic, ramparts from behind which the Intuitionists may sling their poison arrows toward the Empiricists. Many fans evaluate defense using the following combination: watch the player, and/or wait to see what Tim McCarver (or whoever) says. If he looks great, then of course he must be great. Except that's not so. The key to infield defense is the first step, yet that's the step that nobody really sees, because we're all watching the hitter. That's why you can't always trust your eyes, even if your eyes do see Derek Jeter play 75 games next year. And that's why you shouldn't base your defensive ratings on the number of times a guy shows up on SportsCenter making a "great play." So getting back to the original question, how should we rate defensive players? What I like to see is a guy who looks great on the field and in the stats. Only then do I have the confidence to say he's (probably) a great defensive player. And if you've got a better way, you should be working for NASA. FRIDAY, JANUARY 21 Today, we look at young left fielders, and I have to tell you that among all the positions, this is probably the least interesting (but don't stop reading!). You see, left field is a strange position. Very few great players enter the major leagues as left fielders and remain there for the great majority of their careers. Many (if not most) analysts would agree that the best left fielders of the last half-century were Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds and Tim Raines. Well, Musial wound up playing a third of his career at first base. Williams came up as a right fielder. Henderson spent a few seasons in center field. Raines came up as a second baseman, and Bonds was initially a center fielder. I won't go into the reasons behind all this, but suffice to say it makes predicting who will be the Left Fielder of the Aughts a difficult task. That said, here are the candidates who have seen significant major league action:
Age Career OPS
Lance Berkman 24 708
Ben Grieve 23 845
Geoff Jenkins 25 839
Pretty sad little group, isn't it? Now you see what I meant earlier about young left fielders. Anyway, before we discuss that trio, let's talk about the kids, the three guys who were included in the poll but have little or no service time in the major leagues.
Milton Bradley, an Expos farmhand, doesn't turn 22 until this April, and last year at Class AA Harrisburg, he posted a 917 OPS (.391 OBP, .526 slugging). Bradley reportedly plays a pretty good center field, but the Expos have a slightly more advanced prospect named Peter Bergeron who's also a center fielder, so for the sake of argument I'm assuming that Bradley will eventually shift to left field. It might be the other way around. Honestly, I don't see Bradley taking the National League by storm any time soon, and he's here mainly to fill out the field.
Royals prospect Dee Brown also turns 22 this spring. Brown isn't much with the glove, but he's significantly more advanced than Bradley with the bat, and last year his OPS in double-A was 1031. He draws walks, hits home runs, steals bases ... that's why in his upcoming "2000 Minor League Scouting Notebook," John Sickels rates Brown the No. 6 prospect in baseball. Negatives? Like I said, Brown's not a good outfielder, and he might well end up at DH or first base a few years down the line. Also -- and right now, this is the bigger problem -- he doesn't have a major league job. The Royals are quite happy with last year's outfield, so it's hard to see when Brown will get a chance to play every day.
And then there's Pat Burrell, who we actually considered among the first basemen last week. He's playing left field now, but most people think he'll eventually move back to the infield. I agree, and so I really can't consider him strongly here.
Now, the major leaguers ... I absolutely love Lance Berkman. As a hitter. Like a lot of left fielders, he's out there because he can't do anything else. Or as a friend of mine likes to say, his best position is the batter's box. Berkman's played at three minor-league levels in three years, and here are his percentages at those levels:
Games OBP Slugging
Class A 53 .417 .543
Class AA 122 .424 .555
Class AAA 81 .418 .544
Call me a numbers freak, but that kind of consistency makes my nerves
tingle. Unfortunately for Berkman, he couldn't post a 965 OPS against
National League pitchers, at least not yet (only 93 at-bats). And like Dee Brown, Berkman isn't assured of anything like regular work in the coming season.
After an awful 1998 campaign, Brewers left fielder Geoff Jenkins was huge last year, slugging .564 and doing some other things well, too. But he turns 26 in July, and while I expect him to remain a quality player for the next six or eight years, we really shouldn't expect superstardom.
And that leaves us with Ben Grieve, who won our poll and -- I won't bother trying to keep you in suspense -- is my pick as well. I'm sure you all know about Grieve ... second overall pick in the 1994 June draft, 160 RBI in 151 professional games in 1997, Rookie of the Year in 1998 ... what's not to love?
And then in 1999, something happened. Whether it was poor luck or something else, Grieve simply couldn't hit a baseball last April. He batted .132 that month, with one home run and six RBI. A month is only a month, but great hitters simply don't go through slumps like that. At least, not until this one. Grieve improved somewhat in May, then he batted .342 with power in June, and the planets were back in alignment. Grieve finished with similar production to what he'd done in 1998, and that's actually a positive when you consider that most Rookies of the Year suffer dropoffs in the following season.
I don't know how long Grieve will play left field, but at this point he's the runaway leader in the Left Fielder of the Aughts derby.
After Grieve, I rank them: Burrell (if he stays in left field,
obviously), Brown, Berkman, Jenkins and Bradley. But to tell you the truth, I suspect Grieve's primary competition will come from either a minor leaguer we've never heard of, or somebody who's not a left fielder yet.
Before I let you go, if you're interested in the vagaries of evaluating defense (a topic we briefly explored yesterday), I recommend an article written by Tom Tippett, who is a frequent contributor here at ESPN.com.
MONDAY, JANUARY 24We listed seven candidates for Center Fielder of the Aughts in our poll, but only four of them have seen significant action in the majors:
Age Career OPS
Carlos Beltran 23 791
J.D. Drew 24 823
Ken Griffey 30 949
Andruw Jones 23 811
But wait! Before we get to those four prime candidates, a few words on the other three guys, the prospects: Ruben Mateo, Corey Patterson and Vernon Wells. John Sickels rates all three of them among baseball's dozen best prospects, and that's impressive indeed. In fact, Sickels rates Patterson as the No. 1 prospect. And Patterson did play brilliantly last year, slugging .592 for the Cubs' Class A club in Lansing, Michigan. He also batted .320, stole 33 bases, and wowed everyone with his glove work. Oh, and he was only 19 years old. The only problem I see is one typical of young hitters ... a lack of patience. Patterson drew only 25 walks in 112
games. By contrast, when Ken Griffey Jr. was 18, he drew 34 walks in 58 Class A games. And when he was 19 -- as Patterson was last year -- Griffey drew 44 walks in 127 major league games.
I just can't quite see Patterson as a superstar until he learns to take a pitch.
Rangers farmhand Mateo has something of the same problem. Great minor-league stats, fine defensive reputation, not much in the walks department. He played 95 professional games last season, and finished with the grand total of 18 walks. That said, Mateo did bat .336 in the Pacific Coast League, and he's got plenty of power. Mateo's quite young, turns 22 in a couple of weeks.
Vernon Wells isn't afraid to take a pitch. The Toronto prospect just turned 21, and last season he reached The Show after beginning the campaign in Class A. In 153 professional games at four levels, Wells drew 52 walks, and also pasted the ol' horsehide pretty good, at least until he got to the bigs. Wells is a fantastic prospect, but at 6-1 and 210 pounds already, you can't help but wonder if center field is part of his long-term future.
Now, the main event ... Andruw Jones and Carlos Beltran make for an
interesting comparison, because they were born just one day apart in April, 1977. Their career percentages are fairly close, and they're both regarded as superior defensive players. Jones's specialty is the gliding grab of the deep drive into the gap, while Beltran is particularly adept at stealing home runs from enemy batsmen.
But while they might both look great in the field, Jones is the guy with the incredible numbers (and the two Gold Gloves). Consider: in 1999, Beltran recorded 395 putouts in 154 games. That's pretty good. Jones recorded 492 putouts in 162 games. That's an immense difference, and can't be accounted for solely by the differences in the pitching staffs in Atlanta and Kansas City. (In terms of plays made per nine innings, Jones was tops in the National League, but White Sox rookie Chris Singleton -- who turned 27 last August, and thus is not a candidate for Center Fielder of the
Aughts -- was even better in the American League.)
As for their hitting, like I said earlier, their career percentages are fairly close. But while Jones was struggling against major league pitching back in 1997, Beltran was hitting .229 in Class A. Last year in the majors, Jones posted an 848 OPS, Beltran 791. Jones out-homered Beltran by four, and he out-walked him by 30. Mostly because of the walks, I think Jones clearly is a better bet for the future. Beltran is young and he still could learn the strike zone, but it's up to him.
Everybody thinks J.D. Drew was a huge disappointment in 1999, but perhaps our expectations were too high ... OK, the truth is that he really was a huge disappointment. After tearing up the minor leagues and then hitting five home runs in only 36 at-bats with the Cardinals in 1998, Drew should have done better than a .340 OBP and .424 slugging average in 1999. That said, his career percentages are still better than those of both Jones and Beltran. And not including his stint in the Northern League, Drew's only got 188 professional games under his belt. I still expect stardom, and probably more. People talk about the Cardinals improving their pitching, but I suspect that the improvement of Drew alone will add
two or three victories to the St. Louis ledger.
Ken Griffey might be 30 years old, but let's not count him out just yet (in fact, he topped our poll, so apparently many of you are not). There are different ways of looking at it, but Griffey's arguably greatest season came in 1997, when he was 27. His slugging percentage has declined somewhat in each of the last two years, while at the same time the American League hitters were going crazy.
Does this mean Junior's getting old? Not necessarily. He set a career high last season with 24 stolen bases, and his 91 walks were the second-best total of his career. Griffey's a true superstar, and most true superstars play effectively into their late 30s, at least. I think the best comparison here is Willie Mays, another power-hitting center fielder who generally took good care of himself. In 1966, when Mays was 35, he posted the fifth-best slugging percentage in the National League and knocked in 103 runs. After an off-year in '67, the 37-year-old Mays came back in '68 to finish fourth in the NL in OBP and fifth in slugging. And if Griffey is still doing things like that when he's 37, he might well be the top center fielder not only of
the 1990s, but also the 2000s.
OK, time to rate all of these guys ... Given that he's already a superior defensive center fielder and will likely be a great hitter soon, I think Andruw Jones is our man, with Griffey not far behind. After those two, I rank them Drew, Beltran, Wells, Patterson and Mateo.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26Right field is another position, like left field, where what you see today isn't always what you get tomorrow. Center fielders move to right field, right fielders move to first base, et cetera. Idiosyncratic or not, here are the five candidates for Right Fielder of the Aughts:
Age Career OPS
Bobby Abreu 26 909
Shawn Green 27 849
Vlad Guerrero 24 934
Gabe Kapler 24 748
Manny Ramirez 27 975
Looking at these numbers, there's really not much suspense, is there? But let's start with the two oldest players here, Manny Ramirez and Shawn Green. Ramirez is older by about five months. And given that his career OPS is a whopping 126 points higher than Green's, it seems pretty obvious which of them is the better player. Yes, Green is the superior outfielder and the superior baserunner, but it would take a lot of outfielding and baserunning to make up 126 points of OPS.
By the way, Ramirez' .575 career slugging percentage is the second highest among active players, behind only the big fella in St. Louis.
Before we leave Shawn Green, check out these two stat lines from 1999:
Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS SB Ass
Player A 118 93 .446 .549 995 27 8
Player B 134 123 .384 .588 972 20 5
Which of these players would you rather have? Before answering, consider that Player A is 16 months younger than Player B ... OK, now who do you want? Unless you're fixated on runs and RBI, both of which are team dependent, I think you have to take Player A. He's younger, he's got the better OPS, he stole more bases and recorded more outfield assists.
Many of you already know this, but Player A is Bobby Abreu and Player B is Green. I suspect that all of you know this, but Green is significantly more famous than Abreu. Why? A lot of people will say it's because one of them is from this country and the other isn't, but I prefer to avoid easy explanations like that. I think the real reason is that Green has been in our minds for a long time. He batted .344 with Syracuse in 1994, and then in 1995 he slugged .509 in 121 games with Toronto. There have been a few bumps along the way, but not many analysts were surprised when Green finally broke through with a monster season.
Monstrous as Green's 1999 season might have been, Abreu's was arguably better. Yet despite slightly superior overall effectiveness, Abreu scored and drove in fewer runs than Green. Why? I chalk up much of the difference to batting position. Green spent the season batting No. 3, perhaps the best spot from which to pile up both runs and RBI. Abreu batted No. 3 roughly 60 percent of the time, but he also saw significant time in the No. 6 slot, where his primary skill (reaching base) was somewhat wasted. Put Abreu in the middle of the order for an entire season, and I guarantee you his numbers will be just as good as Green's.
Which brings up an obvious question: If Shawn Green is worth $84 million over six years, what is Bobby Abreu worth? Well, today that's neither here nor there. For our purposes, all that's important is the knowledge that Abreu is every bit the player that Green is ... and he's younger.
I included Gabe Kapler among the candidates because ... well, the truth is that I wanted five guys in the poll, and he's my fifth choice. Kapler's major league stats are not good, but they're not significantly worse than Carlos Beltran's, and Beltran was Rookie of the Year last season. Kapler's minor-league numbers were outstanding -- in 1998, he slugged .583 and posted a .393 OBP with Detroit's Double-A farm club -- but he essentially skipped Triple-A, and maybe he shouldn't have. I think he'll have a good year in right field for the Rangers this season, but greatness is still only a possibility.
What's more, Kapler is actually older than Vladimir Guerrero, who already is great. I'll admit, I had a few doubts about this guy. In 1998, his first full season, Guerrero drew only 31 unintentional walks, and he struck out 95 times. But in 1999, he upped his unintentional walks to 41 and lowered his strikeouts to 62. (By way of comparison, Sammy Sosa didn't draw 41 unintentional walks until his fourth full season, and he's never struck out fewer than 134 times in a full season.) Oh, and Guerrero also upped his on-base and slugging percentages slightly last year. Really, there's not much more you'd like to see from a player. Add 25 walks, and you're looking at the National League's version of Manny Ramirez, at least when it comes to hitting.
And because Guerrero is three years younger than Ramirez (not to mention a more complete player), I'm making him my No. 1 candidate for Right Fielder of the Aughts. Ramirez has to be No. 2, followed by Abreu and Green. And Kapler? He's back there somewhere, but frankly I don't know if maybe Magglio Ordoņez and Brian Giles aren't just as worthy of consideration. Tomorrow, we'll review the outfield picks so far, and I'll explain why Shannon Stewart was not among them.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 27Time to review my more foolish decisions regarding the candidates for top outfielders of the next decade.
Runs RBI OBP SLG OPS Player A 123 134 .384 .576 960 Player B 114 128 .378 .601 979Those are pretty close. The differences in RBI and runs? I attribute them to the fact that Player A played in 16 more games last year. Considering that, you might choose Player B. Player A is Ken Griffey Jr. Player B is Juan Gonzalez. Griffey has played in 287 more games than Gonzalez, but has only hit 58 more home runs and has driven in only 77 more runs. If I could pick either for my team, I would take Griffey, too. He is a much more well-rounded player, but to leave Gonzalez off the list of right fielders is just crazy. Griffey and Gonzalez are the same age. Gonzalez has every bit the numbers of the guys on your list of right fielders. If you think Griffey will last for most of the '00s, why not Gonzalez? He is in fantastic shape, and his batting average has only been going up the last three years. His walks have also increased, although he has never been one to take pitches. He will definitely be missed in Texas despite his bizarre attitude, and if Griffey plays all or part of next season in that new stadium in Seattle, I would be willing to bet his numbers will continue to look a whole lot less colossal than they did in the Kingdome. Later, Jason Lytle Well done, Jason. However, I should point out a fatal flaw in your argument ... Junior and Gonzo are not the same age at all. Gonzalez is five weeks older than Griffey. Just kidding. You're right, they are the same age. It's the rest of the argument that doesn't quite pass muster. Yes, their stats were very close last season. But as you do note, Griffey played in 16 more games than Gonzalez last season. Why? Because, your claim that Gonzo "is in fantastic shape" notwithstanding, he does have problems staying in the lineup. Gonzalez missed nine weeks in 1995, three weeks in 1996, four weeks in 1997, and (after a healthy 1998) he played only 144 games in 1999. So while Gonzalez probably should have been considered among the candidates in right field, I suspect he will continue to suffer from various maladies as he ages, and DH is his likely destination. Oh, one more point. I can only assume that Jason resides in Texas, because only a hometown fan would conclude that Gonzalez "gets very little" press. We're talking about a two-time MVP here, a man whose ability to "hit in the clutch" has been lionized in every national sports magazine at least once. My friends, you don't know what "very little press" is until you've been a fan of a perennially non-contending team in a small market. Now that we've dispensed with that, here's something else that I might have been wrong about ...
Adam .410 The first of those is the birthday Stewart will celebrate in four weeks, and the second is his lifetime slugging percentage. Yes, Stewart does get on base (.370 lifetime OBP). But left field is a hitter's position, and if you're essentially a poor man's Rickey Henderson, you're not going to be the best left fielder of the next decade. No one had any complaints about the center fielders. Well, that's not precisely true. I believe two readers wrote to say that Andruw Jones can't be considered the No. 1 center fielder of the next decade, because occasionally his effort appears somewhat lacking, especially on defense. There's an obvious response to this, which is that if Jones makes two plays less than he should because of effort, but 50 more than an average center fielder because he's just that good ... well, you'll take that trade-off every time. What's more, by most accounts Jones is not a bad kid. He's just a kid, and he's got some growing up to do. And I still believe that when he does grow up, as he probably will, he's going to be the greatest center fielder in the game. Note on future columns: Friday, we'll discuss starting pitchers. I'm going to consider righties and lefties together, so we should have a great list of candidates. And if anyone thinks relief pitchers are worth a column, you'll have to convince me. Otherwise, it's back to the normal fare next Monday. FRIDAY, JANUARY 28 While I only listed age and OPS for each of the non-pitchers, I'm going to go a little deeper with the pitchers, for reasons that might become apparent later.
Career Stats
Age IP K/9 ERA
Rick Ankiel 20 33 10.6 3.27
Bartolo Colon 24 503 6.7 4.17
Freddy Garcia 23 201 7.6 4.07
Pedro Martinez 28 1359 10.2 2.83
Kevin Millwood 25 454 8.1 3.37
Kerry Wood 22 167 12.6 3.40
For lack of a better plan, let's go youngest to oldest. I'm sure that nearly everyone reading this knows plenty about Rick Ankiel, the best pitching prospect in the game. He opened last season with Double-A Arkansas, and went 6-0 with a 0.91 ERA. That's right, zero point nine one. Next came Triple-A Memphis. There, Ankiel's ERA jumped all the way to 3.16 (egads!), but he also struck out 119 hitters in 88 innings. And finally -- I'm sure you remember this -- the Cardinals brought him up. Ankiel looked shaky at times, going winless in five starts and four relief outings ... yet
still pitched well enough to post a 3.27 ERA, and strike out 39 hitters in 33 innings. He can throw a baseball 95 miles per hour, and his curve and change-up are already major league pitches.
Putting it simply, if Ankiel doesn't get hurt he's going to be about as good as there is. Then again, that's what they said about Steve Avery, another left-hander with a great arm who came up when he was 20. As much as I respect Bobby Cox and Leo Mazzone, I think they blew it with Avery, who pitched 181 innings when he was 20 (some of those in the minors), 210 when he was 21, and 234 when he was 22. At the end of his fourth season, when he was still only 23, Avery's career ERA stood at 3.49. In the six seasons since, it's totaled 4.85 (and 5.02 or higher in each of the last three). Avery is still only 30 years old, but -- my apologies to Steve and his family for being brutally honest -- it looks like he's washed up.
Will the same thing happen to Ankiel? Nobody can say. But his prospects are brighter if the Cardinals are very careful with him, and they say they're going to be. Unfortunately, there are two things working against him. One, the Cardinals look like contenders, so there will be pressure to let Ankiel pitch, future be damned (remember Kerry Wood in 1998?). And two, Tony La Russa's record with young pitchers is not good.
You do remember Kerry Wood? Most pitchers coming off a major surgery like the one he had, I wouldn't even consider for this column. But just as Ankiel has two things working against him, Wood has two things working for him. One, pitchers are making wonderful recoveries from Tommy John surgery these days. And two, he was incredible in 1998. It's my belief -- and you could check this if you're bored -- that most truly great pitchers show something great early on. Wood did this, striking out 12.6 batters per nine innings as a rookie. True, his control could have been better, and personally I'd rather have the next Tom Seaver than the next Nolan Ryan. But the best indicator of long-term success is a superior strikeout rate. The question, of course, is whether or not he can do it with a new elbow.
Perhaps Freddy Garcia doesn't belong here. Then again, last year as a rookie he went 17-8, and posted a 4.07 ERA that looks pretty damn good when you remember that the American League ERA in 1999 was 4.86. I know a lot of people who think Garcia shouldn't have pitched 201 innings, given that he was only 22. I'm inclined to agree. And you know that Lou Piniella's not going to start babying Garcia now. But his minor-league track record is impeccable, and if he doesn't get hurt, he's going to be very good, and perhaps great.
Don't get me wrong, Bartolo Colon is a fine, fine pitcher. The only thing that worries me is that Colon's strikeout numbers don't really match the speed of his fastballs. Apparently, he often falls in love with the heat, to the detriment of his other pitches ... and his ERA, because major league hitters can smash just about anybody's fastball if they know it's coming. This deficiency, along with Colon's past disdain for offseason conditioning, drops him a bit in the futures rankings.
Kevin Millwood's 1999 performance, fueled by a deadly fastball/slider
combination, got lost behind those of Randy Johnson and Mike Hampton, but Millwood's ERA was better than Hampton's, and his batting average allowed was lower than Johnson's (and Hampton's too, of course). Millwood's no one-year wonder, either. Back in 1998, he threw a one-hitter in which he struck out 13 Pirates without walking anybody. As I observed at the time, most pitchers who throw a game like that become something special. Millwood finished the '98 season with a 17-8 record, leading the 1999 Braves Media Guide to observe last spring, with classic understatement, that Millwood had "[e]merged as an effective 5th starter."
Whatever. In 1999 he became something more than that, and one might
reasonably argue that he's now the ace of one of baseball's all-time
greatest rotations. Fortunately for Millwood, he got something of a late start on his pro career, and thus hasn't been worked too hard. His major league record is now 40-18, and I expect great things.
We all know that the best pitcher today is Pedro Martinez. He's won two Cy Young Awards in the last three seasons, and in the other season he went 19-7 with a 2.89 ERA. The only thing that worries me about Martinez? His build. I can't think of many 170-pound power pitchers who have been effective into their mid 30s. Ron Guidry was real skinny, and he only enjoyed one great season after his 33rd birthday, and none after his 35th. Then again, there haven't been many power pitchers built like Martinez, so historical examples probably don't tell us much.
Pitchers are unpredictable, and Martinez could quite easily blow out his shoulder, or elbow, next month. But he's still only 28, he's been generally healthy for the last six seasons, and he's the best pitcher around. So I think he has to be our choice here.
Next is Kevin Millwood, a man with a Cy Young in his future. After those two? Jeez, you got me. But my contract says I'm supposed to take positions, whether reasonable or not, so here are my overall rankings: Martinez, Millwood, Ankiel, Colon, Wood, Garcia. And feel free to drop in Mike Hampton and Tim Hudson anywhere you like.
MONDAY, JANUARY 31All right, you convinced me to write a column rating closers over the next decade. I still think it's an impossible exercise, but I simply couldn't resist the temptation to try. Anyway, here are the six guys listed in the poll (won by Mariano Rivera). This time I've listed only stats for the last three seasons, something I should have done at the other positions. One thing you'll notice is how old these guys are, but the fact is that there are not any truly young closers of any great promise. Even Scott Williamson is 24.
Age IP Saves SvPct ERA
Armando Benitez 27 220 53 82.8 2.66
Billy Koch 25 64 31 88.6 3.39
Matt Mantei 26 138 41 82.0 3.32
Mariano Rivera 30 202 124 87.3 1.87
Ugueth Urbina 26 209 102 85.0 2.92
Billy Wagner 28 201 92 86.8 2.33
The thing about closers is, you never know which stats to list. Save percentage can be misleading for a variety of reasons, as can ERA. However, I think looking at all of these numbers gives us a pretty solid picture. I didn't list strikeout data, even though a lot of people think that when it comes to closers, strikeouts make the man. What the hey, here it is:
Age IP K K/9
Armando Benitez 27 220 321 13.2
Billy Koch 25 64 57 8.1
Matt Mantei 26 138 187 12.2
Mariano Rivera 30 202 156 7.0
Ugueth Urbina 26 209 278 12.0
Billy Wagner 28 201 327 14.6
Wow. The baseline for strikeout greatness is often regarded as a strikeout per inning, and here we've got four pitchers who average a dozen or more per nine innings. But as I'm sure you've already noticed, perhaps the best closer in the game has the lowest strikeout ratio in the group.
And really, how much do strikeouts matter? With most closers entering the game to start the ninth (or sometimes the eighth) inning, all that really matters is that they get the hitters out. How they do it is irrelevant.
I'm not going to examine the credentials of each of these closers in detail. Rather, let me toss out a few random observations about them.
First, Koch probably shouldn't be among the candidates. When I had him listed in the poll, I hadn't really looked at his numbers like I should have. Koch's ERA after the All-Star break was 5.70 and his fastball's straighter than you'd like. Last season was the first time he ever pitched as a reliever, so we might expect some growth as he becomes more comfortable in the role. But it's too early to consider him among the elite.
I consider Benitez, Mantei and Urbina in the same general class. They're around the same age, and all three depend on fearsome fastballs. Each features a different secondary pitch, however: Benitez, the splitter; Mantei, the curve; Urbina, the slider. That splitter that Benitez developed last season is the most impressive -- hence his 1.85 ERA in 1999 -- but many people also consider that pitch one that often results in an arm injury.
(Note to everyone who keeps e-mailing me their brilliant new formulas for rating hitters: Give that up, and try something different, like a study of which pitches, if any, really send pitchers to the surgeon's table.)
As I suggested earlier, Rivera's lack of strikeouts don't really bother me. However, his age does. Not many closers have remained brilliant much past their mid-30s. Eckersley's last great season came when he was 37, as did Rollie Fingers'. Gossage's last great season came when he was 34.
|  | |||||||||