|
|
|
|
 |
| 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| March Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1 As I wrote Tuesday, there are three things every Rookie of the Year needs: Opportunity, Ability and Support. The young talent in the National League is quite a bit more impressive than in the American, where I was able to find seven serious Rookie of the Year candidates only by including Nick Johnson and Dee Brown, both of who will probably open this season in Triple-A. In the NL, there are simply more top prospects who will likely win regular jobs this spring. Does anyone reading this column need to know more about Rick Ankiel? He should be the best left-hander for the next decade or so. True, that's what they said about Steve Avery, but that's pitchers for you (Avery pitched horribly as a rookie). Ankiel was great last year in Double-A, he was great last year in Triple-A, and he was great in the majors. Assuming that Tony La Russa doesn't destroy Ankiel's arm -- his history with young pitchers, as I've written too many times before, is not good -- the latter has to be considered the No. 1 Rookie of the Year candidate. Sorry to give this away so early, but there simply isn't any way around it. If the Expos trade Rondell White, there's room in the outfield for both Peter Bergeron and Milton Bradley. Until and unless that happens, there's only room for one of them. At this point, Bergeron is a bit ahead of Bradley, in terms of both offense and attitude. However, Bradley is the better defensive player, and Bergeron's arm may limit him to left field rather than center. Either way, the Expos are sitting pretty in the outfield. Assuming that Bradley can control his temper -- there have been ugly incidents involving umpires each of the last two seasons -- Montreal may well boast the National League's best outfield in two or three years. A.J. Burnett's story was one of the strangest of the 1999 season. He opened the season with Class AA Portland, and didn't pitch well. Late in the summer, his record stood at 6-12, with a nifty 5.52 ERA to match. So what did the Marlins do? Right, they promoted him to the big leagues. So what did Burnett do? Right, he went 4-2 with a 3.48 ERA, thus earning himself a spot in the rotation this season. Burnett throws a 92-96 mph fastball and a power curve, but I'm not all that impressed yet. The decent ERA aside, Burnett didn't show great command last season, walking 25 hitters in 41 innings. I see some serious growing pains here. Like A.J. Burnett, Brad Penny -- yes, I'm breaking the alphabetical order for a moment -- is a big right-hander. Like Burnett, Penny's two best pitches are his low-90s fastball and his curveball. And like Burnett, Penny is competing for a spot in the Marlins rotation. I actually think Penny is the better prospect of the two, but his numbers last year weren't great, and he still hasn't pitched above Double-A. Like Burnett, Penny is unlikely to take the National League by storm immediately, even if he does win the job as No. 5 starter. It's also worth mentioning that both pitchers will likely receive little Support from their mates in the lineup. Like Ankiel, Pat Burrell's no mystery to most of you. Burrell has played just 10 games at the Triple-A level and hasn't appeared in the majors, but any more time in the bush leagues would be wasted time. Burrell's already 23, and 23-year-old outstanding hitters shouldn't be screwing around in Scranton. Nevertheless, at this point that's exactly what the Phillies have planned for Burrell, because they haven't been able to trade Ron Gant. I saw Eric Gagne pitch twice last year, once in Wichita and then again on TV, in his first major league start. He looked great both times, so I don't think I'm objective. But Gagne went 12-4 with a 2.63 ERA in the Texas League last summer, then posted a 2.10 mark for the Dodgers in September after skipping Triple-A. One, and only one, caveat here; Gagne underwent Tommy John surgery and missed the entire 1997 season ... and the Dodgers let him throw 198 innings last year? There is an injury risk here, which has to drop Gagne a few notches. A few weeks ago, I wrote that the Pirates were foolish for signing Wil Cordero, thus depriving prospect Chad Hermansen of his chance to play. Last week, the Pirates traded Al Martin, allowing Cordero to take over in left field, and Hermanson to take his rightful place in right. He's young so he could develop quickly, but odds are that Hermansen still has a ways to go, especially when it comes to his strike-zone judgment. Given 600 plate appearances he'll probably hit 25 home runs, but with a poor on-base percentage. Five months ago, Rockies catcher Ben Petrick might have been my No. 1 candidate for 2000 Rookie of the Year. Only 22, Petrick already does almost everything well; as John Sickels notes, he's a "seven-skill player." However, he's not particularly adept at throwing out runners, at least not yet. That, plus his youth, led the Rockies to throw some money at Brent Mayne (Brent Mayne), who bats left-handed. Petrick's a righty, so they're expected to begin the season in something of a platoon, which means Petrick might not have the Opportunity needed by a Rookie of the Year. Then again, he might hit so well in April and May that the Rockies have to give him more at-bats. 1. Rick Ankiel 2. Pat Burrell 3. Eric Gagne 4. Ben Petrick 5. Peter Bergeron 6. Chad Hermansen 7. Brad Penny / A.J. Burnett If the Phillies clear a spot for Burrell at or near the beginning of the season -- I told them not to re-sign Rico Brogna -- then I'd make him No. 1, simply because of the injury risk to Ankiel. THURSDAY, MARCH 2 Wow, what a year for Cincinnati baseball and the Hall of Fame. Everyone knows, of course, that Sparky Anderson managed The Big Red Machine, the best baseball team of the 1970s. And everyone knows that Sparky's first baseman in Cincinnati was Tony Perez, who also will be inducted into the Hall of Fame this summer. Reds broadcaster Marty Brennaman, who's been with the Reds since 1974, is also going in, though technically he won't be in the Hall of Fame, but rather is an "Honoree" (not that anyone's interested in technicalities, so don't ask for an explanation). And now, John "Bid" McPhee, another longtime Red, has been elected by the Veterans Committee. I don't imagine that the phone lines to the Cincinnati talk shows are exactly heating up with excitement, but some would argue that McPhee is more deserving of his plaque in Cooperstown than Perez. Yeah, really. McPhee, a second baseman, began his career in 1882 with the Cincinnati Red Stockings of the American Association, then a "major" league. He was still there in 1890, when the club joined the National League and changed its name to "Reds." McPhee ranks as perhaps the outstanding defensive second baseman of his time. Like his contemporaries of the 1880s, McPhee played bare-handed. But then in the 1890s, everyone started wearing rudimentary gloves ... except McPhee (and third baseman Jerry Denny), who figured that he'd always been the best, so why change? He finally gave in during the 1895 season, and in 1896 McPhee set a fielding percentage record for second basemen of .978 that stood until 1925. McPhee was a decent hitter, better than average for his position, but it was his defense that made him the top second baseman of the 19th century. By this point, many of you have already made the logical leap ... Hey, this McPhee guy sounds like Bill Mazeroski! Indeed he does. And if you compare them in Total Baseball, McPhee looks like Mazeroski, too. Check this out:
Games Hits Avg Slug FR TPR
McPhee 2135 2250 .271 .372 313 40.1
Maz 2163 2016 .260 .367 362 36.3
"FR" stands for Fielding Runs, which is Total Baseball's measure of the runs a player saved on defense, relative to a league-average player at the same position. "TPR" stands for Total Player Rating, which as I mentioned last week, is the number of games a player was worth, relative to a league-average player at the same position.
Both players get most of their TPR from their FR, as you might expect. McPhee led his league in double plays 11 times, Mazeroski eight times. McPhee led his league in range factor (plays made per game) eight times, Mazeroski 10 times.
That's what makes the latest results from the Veterans Committee so interesting; they elected the Bill Mazeroski of the 19th century, but not the Bill Mazeroski.
McPhee, until this week, ranked No. 2 on the all-time TPR list among eligible non-Hall of Famers. Now that McPhee's in the Hall, who's the new No. 2? Right, Mr. Mazeroski. Tops on this unenviable list is Bill Dahlen, a rough contemporary of McPhee's, and a shortstop with similarly outstanding defensive statistics. In recent years the Veterans Committee, charged with the duty of electing 19th-century players, has apparently been taking its cues from someone who reads Total Baseball. So I expect Dahlen to be inducted next year, after which the doors should probably be closed to the old-timers.
Too many in the Hall?Speaking of closing doors, I can't help but think the doors should be closed to just about everyone who played before about 1970. Don't get me wrong, I like Mazeroski, as well as Ron Santo and a few others. It's nice to see Turkey Stearnes get in the Hall. But the Veterans Committee, if allowed to exist for more than another two or three years, will make a mockery of the hallowed Hall. Or should I say, more of a mockery. The problem was summed up nicely by Veterans Committee member Yogi Berra, after the Committee failed to elect any white major leaguers from the 20th century. "It was very disappointing we didn't pick one," Berra said. "That's what we come here once a year to do. But we didn't do it." No, Yogi, that's not why you come to Cooperstown. Your job is to meet each year and decide if an old-timer deserves election, not to decide which old-timer goes in. If 14 of you get together, and three-fourths of you can't agree on a single player, so be it. You might be wondering why Bid McPhee and Turkey Stearnes were elected this year, but not Bill Mazeroski or Gil Hodges or (gulp) Mel Harder. Well, the reason is that McPhee and Stearnes are in their own groups. For a while there, no 19th-century players were getting elected, in part because none of their cronies were still alive to vote as members of the Veterans Committee. So beginning in 1995, the Hall's voting rules allowed for the selection of one 19th-century player per year, through 1999. Also in 1995, Negro League players were given their own special mandate as well. Both mandates expired in 1999, but the Hall extended them, perhaps for fear of political pressure, for two years, through 2001. Thus, in the 19th-century category since 1995, we've seen new Hall of Famers Vic Willis, Ned Hanlon, George Davis, Frank Selee, and now Bid McPhee. Hanlon and Selee were both elected as managers. Willis and perhaps McPhee were marginal. Among players, only Davis was an obvious selection, which suggests the thin pickings of 19th-century players In the Negro Leagues category since 1995, we've seen new Hall of Famers Leon Day, Bill Foster, Willie Wells, Bullet Joe Rogan, Smokey Joe Williams, and now Turkey Stearnes. The Veterans Committee is so messed up that I had already decided if they put in somebody like Dom DiMaggio or Mel Harder, I would give up. I would stop caring about the annual elections, and I would stop writing about the Hall of Fame. That day will come, but at least it's been delayed for a year. And with a bit of wisdom, it might be delayed for longer. First of all, the Hall needs to resist the strong temptation to extend the mandates to elect 19th-century players and Negro Leaguers. A year from now, the Veterans Committee should select another 19th-century player. Bill Dahlen, probably, but pitcher Parisian Bob Caruthers is also a fine candidate. The Committee should also select another Negro Leaguer. Cristobal Torriente, or perhaps Ted "Double-Duty" Radcliffe. Whoever. And that's it. Sorry, Parisian Bob, but you had your chance. As for the Negro League players ... some have suggested that there are at least another 55 Negro Leaguers who deserve serious consideration for the Hall of Fame. That's patently ridiculous. Do the math, and you'll realize just how silly that number is, unless you want to start arguing that the African-American athlete of the 1920s and '30s was incredibly superior to his European-American counterparts. Let me explain. When you consider that (1) the Negro Leagues only existed for about 30 years, and (2) at that time, African-Americans constituted approximately 10 percent of the population ... well, Negro Leaguers are already well represented in the Hall of Fame. Am I saying that after 2001, 19th-century players and Negro Leaguers should forever be barred from the Hall of Fame? Absolutely not. But they should be thrown into the pool with everyone else. What's more, the Veterans Committee should still meet, but every two years, not every year. So beginning in 2002, and then again in 2004 and so forth, the Veterans Committee considers everybody -- managers, Negro Leaguers, the Committee members' buddies from the 1950s -- and elects a maximum of ... one. One man every two years, rather than three or four men every one year. There's no question, much damage has already been done to the integrity of the Hall, thanks almost entirely to the Veterans Committee's profligacy over the years. But the Hall of Fame is still worth saving, and now's the time. FRIDAY, MARCH 3 For today, I originally planned to review the columns I wrote earlier in the week on Rookie of the Year candidates. But I received a number of thoughtful e-mails regarding Negro Leaguers in the Hall of Fame, so that's the subject instead.
Elliot Lee Last week might seem like a long time ago, especially if you went to college in the early 1970s. But if you'll indulge me, I'd like to revisit my column on Rookie of the Year candidates in the American League.
2. Mark Quinn 3. Ed Yarnall 4. Kip Wells 5. Ramon Ortiz 6. Mike Lamb 7. Nick Johnson A few things about this "final" list ... After looking at his numbers again, I'm not sure that Lamb shouldn't be a couple of spots higher. But then, we all thought Fernando Tatis would become a star in Texas, too ... Johnson goes up a few spots if the Yankees give him the DH job. And Dee Brown's back on the list if the Royals get smart and trade Johnny Damon. And finally, I received almost nary an e-mail concerning my National League list, so I can only assume you're all in complete agreement with me on that one. TUESDAY, MARCH 6 This past weekend, my assessment of Bobby Valentine's baseball intelligence went up a notch. I have written, perhaps too many times these last four years, that the brilliant fielding of Rey Ordonez does not compensate for his hopeless hitting. And despite many predictions to the contrary, Ordonez has not improved in any meaningful way at the plate. Valentine has defended his shortstop in the past -- he has routinely refused to pinch-hit for Ordonez, and once let Ordonez bat second for a spell -- but, finally, he has apparently seen the light. As Valentine told the New York Post the other day, "I don't like to throw numbers out there, but they sure as heck can't be where they are now. It is not productive. The numbers are not productive." Ordonez, in case anyone's forgotten, last season posted the lowest slugging percentage (.317) in the National League by an everyday player, and his .319 on-base percentage was among the lowest. True, Ordonez did hit a career-high .258 with 60 RBI. And here's where Valentine really starts making sense. "The only number that is really acceptable is the RBIs and that has to do with men on-base," Valentine said. "That's a team thing. RBIs are not an individual stat in my mind." Frankly, this is somewhat revolutionary, and might be enough to get Valentine kicked out of the Fraternal Order of Baseball Men. RBI are not an individual stat? In many respects, they're not. And if the men who vote for MVPs understood this, we'd have many fewer silly selections. Here's more Valentine: I think he could be a high-number doubles guys, a couple of triples at times if they are playing too loose in the outfield, a few more home runs, I feel he can walk ... I want him to be a hitter. I don't want him to be one of these things that you hear about -- a hit behind the runner guy and a hit to right field guy. What is that?"I agree with the second of these -- ?What is that?? -- but I remain convinced that Ordonez simply will never be a productive major league hitter. He did draw 49 walks last season ... but a dozen of those were intentional. That was a huge improvement over 1998, when Ordonez drew a whopping 16 unintentional walks, but still not nearly enough to make him an effective hitter. Of course, the argument is that Ordonez is so great with the glove, his contributions with the bat are irrelevant anyway. With that in mind, I ran across an interesting set of numbers in the new "Baseball Prospectus": Assists per nine innings, 1996-1999, Ordonez: 3.02I'm not sure if these numbers mean anything, given that aside from 1997, when he played only 120 games, Ordonez has been in the lineup nearly every day. But it makes you think, doesn't it? Someday, one hopes, we'll have statistical methods that are accessible enough to "prove" whether or not Ordonez's performance matches his appearance. On one level, all of this is irrelevant. Because as frustrated as Valentine might become, Ordonez is in very little danger of losing his job, having just signed a four-year contract for $19 million. I promise you, unless the Mets wind up with Alex Rodriguez, Ordonez will outlast his manager. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7 Yet another day with little notable Grapefruit or Cactus news, so let's talk realignment. As you've probably heard, USA Today's Hal Bodley reported Tuesday the specifics of Bud Selig's realignment plan for 2001. ESPN's Peter Gammons had also mentioned the likelihood of realignment in his ESPN.com column last week. Here's what the proposed plan looks like:
Here's a piece of advice for the Commissioner of Baseball: "Hey Bud, get out there and listen to the fans! They really do care about the game, and they've got a lot of good ideas." Look, we all know that baseball's a business. But it's also, in some respects, a sort of public trust. So the Lords of Baseball have a moral obligation to consult the public when they want to monkey around with the game. All of this occurred to me (again) yesterday, while sifting through the hundreds of e-mails I received on the subject of realignment. Again, I'm amazed by how much fans really do care about these things. But does Bud Selig really care that the fans care? Perhaps he does. But in my mind, I see Selig and his cronies huddling together in a smoke-filled room, making their decisions and then claiming that public opinion's on their side, like an old-style political machine selecting candidates to run for office. Meanwhile, there are many thousands of intelligent fans out there with fresh ideas and perspectives, desperate for a chance to be heard. Anyway, I've received hundreds of e-mails on this subject. Rather than reproduce any of them, I'll save a little space and just answer a few of the more common questions. Question: Why don't both leagues just have 15 teams? Think about it. It's Saturday night, prime time for baseball ... but with 15 teams, somebody's left out, because 15 teams divided by two is seven-point-five. True, this problem could be solved with one interleague game, but nobody really wants interleague games every day of the season. The more I think about it, though, I'm not sure that it would really be so awful. (Assuming, of course, that we must have interleague play at all. Which I wish we didn't.) Question: Instead of putting Cincinnati in the Southeast (replacing St. Louis), why not Houston? The Astros are more of a southern team, and who cares if they're not in the same time zone as the other clubs in the division? This was the most popular question, probably because I neglected to explain the motivations for realignment. Yes, realignment will cut down on some travel costs. But it will also improve TV ratings, and you should always remember that TV money is the 800-pound gorilla in nearly every decision MLB makes. Even one hour can make a difference, as anyone with small children will tell you. That road game that begins at 8:05 local time won't end until somewhere around 11:30, and that's awfully late. By the same token, a road game that begins at 6:05 will likely be missed by someone who has to drive home from an office every day. So in both cases, the ratings drop for the local team. And with an unbalanced schedule, i.e. more games within the division, these effects are exacerbated. And that's why the Astros presumably would like to remain in the Central, competing against other clubs in their time zone. Question: Why can't the Rangers stay in the West where they belong? Same reason. As I mentioned yesterday, I don't think the American League should feature an unbalanced schedule and a wild card. But apparently that's the plan, and the time zone factor is even bigger for a team with competition that is two time zones away. Imagine that you're a Rangers fan. September rolls around, your beloved team is battling the Athletics and Mariners for the American League West title ? and they're on the road for three games in Oakland and four in Seattle. Well, five or six of those games will start at 9:05 your time, and won't end until after midnight. For whom, exactly, is this good? Question: If they're going to realign, why not go all the way? Remember, a few years ago there was talk of radical realignment, whereby the White Sox and Cubs would play in the same league, the Athletics and Giants would play in the same league, et cetera. If you permit a number of league switches, there's almost no end to the number of different arrangements possible. I have chosen to ignore this, because it's extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. And remember, teams have the right to veto a switch of divisions. Question: Don't all those four-team divisions in the National League mean a mediocre team will reach the postseason? Absolutely. Of course, we've had four-team divisions since 1994, and that season the Texas Rangers sat atop the AL. West standings with a 52-62 record in early August when the player strike ended the season. Although the Athletics and Mariners were only one and two games off the pace, respectively, the odds are that whichever team wound up in first place would not have cracked the .500 mark. With four of these small divisions, the chances simply increase. And that's not a good thing. But if it makes you feel any better, an 80-82 team would probably not fare too well in the current postseason format. Play enough years, though, and such a team will win the World Series. Remember, the Twins won the Series in 1987 after being outscored during the regular season. In general, I would rather these things didn't happen (sorry, Twin Cities), but they're rare enough that we probably shouldn't get too worked up. Question: Why doesn't baseball expand to 32 teams? That would allow for a quartet of four-team divisions in the American League, too. I know a lot of you are shaking your heads, the words "dilution of talent" on your lips. There might well be something to that, as adding six new teams within a decade might be straining the available talent past what we want. Then again, maybe not. There's no question but that, unless the whole construct falls apart due to labor problems, Major League Baseball will eventually expand to 32 teams. You can talk about struggling franchises all you like, but the population of this country is growing all the time, and there certainly will be enough markets to support 32 teams. But my guess is that we'll hear very little, if anything, from the Lords about expansion until after 2002, the year the current labor agreement runs out. In fact, expansion might be a bargaining chip in those negotiations. Either way, I suspect we'll see a couple of new teams in 2005, give or take a year. And with those two new teams will come further realignment, perhaps into 16 two-team divisions. (That last part was supposed to be funny.) Question: With no wild card in the National League, the team with the second-best record could miss the postseason! Yes, this is not a question, but a comment. And I'll be honest with you, it's a comment that I really don't understand. Has the wild card so twisted our thinking that now we're upset when second-place teams don't reach the postseason? Look, until 1994, bad things happened to good teams every year! In 1993, the Giants won 103 games ... and didn't win anything else. Tough luck for Giants fans, but man, was that great baseball for the rest of us. In 1954, the New York Yankees won 103 games, the most of any team Casey Stengel ever managed ... and when October rolled around, they watched the World Series on TV, because the Cleveland Indians won 111 games. From a fan's perspective -- not me, but some -- the most important thing is how many teams are still in the postseason hunt coming down the stretch. And I'll admit that, using the last three seasons as an admittedly small sample, eliminating the wild card might result in slightly fewer teams in that hunt. From 1997 through 1999, only two of 12 pennant races would have been decided by fewer than six games. But it would only take a couple of years with two or more true pennant races to make us forget all about the wild card. Which is exactly what I hope, someday, to do. FRIDAY, MARCH 10 So yesterday I'm reading the team notes in USA Today, and the last name mentioned in the White Sox comment was that of manager Jerry Manuel. Next comes the Indians, where the first name mentioned was Charlie Manuel. You know, this could get confusing. Same job, same division, same surname ... which got me to wondering if any sportswriters of yesteryear have been faced with similar confusing obstacles in their path to literary greatness. As it happens, baseball's first professional manager was involved in two such situations. Harry Wright piloted the Cincinnati Reds, then an independent team, in 1869 and 1870. Harry went on to manage in the National League from its inception in 1876 until 1893, initially in Boston. In '76, for a time the Philadelphia club was managed by Al Wright (no relation). And in 1879, George Wright, who had once starred at shortstop for his brother's teams in Cincinnati and Boston, guided the Providence Grays to the National League pennant in his only season as a manager. In 1887, John Kelly managed the Louisville Colonels of the American Association, then a "major" league. That same year, the legendary Mike "King" Kelly helmed the National League's Boston Beaneaters. Same names, but different leagues. In 1906, Chick and Jake Stahl -- no relation, though some sources incorrectly say they were brothers -- skippered, respectively, the Boston Pilgrims and the Washington Nationals in the American League. Students of baseball history might know the story of Chick Stahl. A center fielder by trade, Stahl took over as manager in late August of '06 and managed the club for the remainder of the season. Once described as "an affable, good-natured fellow," Chick was only 33 when he took over. Despite posting a 14-26 record, he was asked to return in 1907. Stahl initially resisted taking the job, as he was replacing a good friend (and roommate), Jimmy Collins. But eventually things worked themselves out, with Collins returning to his accustomed spot at third base. The Pilgrims trained that spring Little Rock, Arkansas. On its way back to Boston, the club stopped at West Baden Springs, Indiana. And on March 28, Stahl swallowed three ounces of carbolic acid, and died almost immediately, but not before telling Collins, "Boys, I couldn't help it. It drove me to it." As Joe Overfield wrote in Total Baseball (Fifth Edition), "For years, baseball historians pondered Stahl's cryptic words, then usually concluded it was the pressure of managing that forced him to swallow the poison. Dissenting was Harold Seymour, who, in his Baseball: The Early Years, strongly hints at the real reason: "cherchez la femme." And in 1986, historian Glenn Stout came up with some specifics in "Boston Magazine." It seems that Stahl fell in love with a young woman named Julia Harmon, and they were married on November 14, 1906. Unfortunately, Stahl had also apparently become involved with another young woman during the baseball season (no, groupies are not a modern phenomenon). This other woman claimed to be pregnant with Stahl's child, and demanded that he marry her. He protested that he already was married, but she persisted. Faced with this dilemma and full of despair, Stahl killed himself. Or so Stout says. Many, many men have been faced with similar situations, and few have ingested lethal amounts of acid. There are references in the literature suggesting that, beneath the happy-go-lucky exterior that most people saw, Stahl had long been a troubled fellow. Like many ballplayers, Stahl drank heavily and he supposedly had talked of suicide for years. I suspect that if it hadn't been a woman, it might well have been something else. Anyway, with Chick dead, the Stahls weren't quite done in Boston. A first baseman by trade, Jake took over the position for the Red Sox in 1908, and in 1912 he assumed a new role as the club's player-manager. He performed both jobs admirably, batting .301 in 95 games and leading the Sox to the American League pennant and a World Series victory over the New York Giants. But Jake hurt his leg in the spring of 1913, and wound up making only two appearances as a player that season, both times as a pinch-hitter. Worse, Stahl was fired in early July, with the club in fifth place. Supposedly, American League president Ban Johnson was so disgusted with Red Sox owner Jimmy McAleer that Johnson forced McAleer to sell the team after the season. In 1931, McAleer shot himself in the head and died the next day. Everyone cheered up? All right, back to the subject at hand ... After the Stahls, it would be many decades until same-surnamed managers would co-exist in the same league. But when it comes to the modern sports world, never underestimate the power of the "Williams" name. There were two managing Williamses from 1969 through 1972: Dick managed the Red Sox and the A's, Ted managed the Senators and the Rangers. Ted's career ended after the '72 season, but Dick stuck around long enough to be joined in the American League by Jimy. From 1986 through '88, Dick managed the Mariners and Jimy managed the Blue Jays. They weren't in the same leagues, but from 1994 through 1996 we enjoyed the Amazing Lachemann Bros., who toured the nation with Rene running the Marlins and Marcel masterminding the Angels. And of course, now we have the managing Manuels. First reader to provide me with an easy way to tell them apart receives a No-Prize. MONDAY, MARCH 13 This weekend, Peter Gammons reported that the San Francisco Giants will employ a six-man rotation this season. I have not been able to confirm this, but perhaps it's academic, given that Shawn Estes is suffering from a sore shoulder for the fourth straight spring. When asked about Estes, Dusty Baker did refer to Mark Gardner as his "sixth starter," but I'm not sure exactly what that meant. It's possible that Gardner is simply slated for a sort of utility role, ready to step in if one of the top five starters gets hurt. And that, it must be said, is pretty likely. Livan Hernandez, just signed to a new contract extension, was horribly overworked by Jim Leyland in Florida ... and then was horribly overworked by Dusty Baker after coming to San Francisco. Russ Ortiz threw 130 or more pitches in seven games last season, and twice he reached 140. As the authors of "Baseball Prospectus" have pointed out, there's a frightening similarity between Ortiz, and Shawn Estes at the same stage of his career. In his first full season, the 24-year-old Estes went 19-5 with a 3.18 ERA. In his first full season, the (barely) 25-year-old Ortiz went 18-9 with a 3.81 ERA. In his first full season, Estes threw a lot of pitches, and led the National League by walking 100 batters in 201 innings. In his first full season, Ortiz threw a lot of pitches, and led the National League by walking 125 batters in 208 innings. Both pitchers were worked much harder than they had ever been worked before in their professional careers. Since that first full season -- come on, Giants fans, you were thinking future Cy Young, right? -- Estes has gone 18-22 with a 4.98 ERA. No, I'm not stupid enough to say that just because it happened to Estes, it will happen to Ortiz. But I'm also not stupid enough to say that Ortiz will repeat the success he enjoyed last season. Because he probably won't. And Hernandez? Since his rookie season in 1997, when he posted a 3.18 ERA -- same as Estes, if you're counting -- Hernandez is 18-24 with a 4.69 ERA. Sure, it's quite possible that Ortiz will not suffer a season-ending or career-threatening injury this season. As my colleague Rany Jazayerli has pointed out, the abuse of young pitchers sometimes "just" leads to a general loss of effectiveness and career decline. We've seen it with Hernandez and we've seen it with Estes, and in 2000 we're probably going to see it with Ortiz. It's because of the uncertainty surrounding the Giants rotation that I can't pick them as clear-cut favorites in the National League West. But aside from his unwillingness to "baby" his starters, Dusty Baker is a good manager, so I think the Giants will be one of three teams in the thick of things, at least until mid-September. If pitching is 75 percent of baseball ... Ed Yarnall, penciled in as the Yankees' No. 5 starter, got hammered this weekend in his first spring start. This led to speculation that the Yankees might not be willing to trade Ramiro Mendoza, who will presumably step in if Yarnall doesn't win the job. But if the Yankees need Mendoza, they might be hamstrung in their efforts to acquire a lefty bat to replace Darryl Strawberry. Joe Torre, for one, seems unfazed. "To me, pitching is our strength," said Torre. "I'm of the mind you have to keep the other team from scoring. We've been to the playoffs four straight years ... pitching is responsible for it." In the specific case of the Yankees, one can indeed argue that they've won with pitching. From 1996 through 1999, the Yankees scored nine percent more runs than an average American League, but allowed almost 20 percent fewer. Of course, Yankee Stadium is the best pitcher's park in the American League, so the difference between the Yankees hitters and pitchers is not as large as the numbers suggest. Still, they have won with pitching. Unfortunately, Torre's argument breaks down on a general level. What he's essentially saying, I think, is that keeping the other team from scoring is somehow more important than scoring yourself. It's an extension, though not quite so literal, of that old saw, "Baseball is 75 percent pitching." Which is, of course, patently ridiculous. Don't trust me. Tomorrow on your lunch hour, head to your local library and find a baseball encyclopedia. Make a list of all the pennant winners in baseball history, and note whether they led their league in runs scored, runs allowed, or both. Throw out the last of those, the teams that led in both categories, and you know what you'll find? That the number of pennant winners who led their league in runs scored is almost exactly the same as the number of pennant winners who led their league in runs allowed. I've done the work, but you can discover this for yourself if you don't trust me. So one might say that baseball is not 75 percent pitching but, rather, 50 percent pitching and 50 percent hitting. Except it's not. It's 50 percent hitting (and baserunning), and some combination of pitching and fielding that adds up to 50 percent. I've seen some things that suggest defense is somewhere between 10 and 15 percent. That seems reasonable, and leaves just 35 or 40 percent for pitching. And we're also left with an obvious truth, which is that in the great majority of cases, scoring runs is exactly as important as preventing them. Checking the Manuels Last Friday, I asked you to come up with some methods that will allow me to remember which Manuel (Jerry) manages the White Sox, and which Manuel (Charlie) manages the Indians. And thanks to a number of different suggestions (the best and earliest provided by Gillian and Michael), I have cobbled up something that should work well. Chicago is a city of Jerrys: Jerry Reinsdorf, Jerry Krause, Jerry Springer. So I'll think of Jerry Manuel, who manages the Chicago White Sox, as "Jerry Jerry.? That should be easy enough to remember. And the man who manages the Indians is "Charlie Colon." Why? Because Charlie Manuel not only just lost part of his colon, he also has a (Bartolo) Colon anchoring his pitching rotation. You are, of course, free to borrow these methods. Just remember where you got them. TUESDAY, MARCH 14 As everyone should know by now, the big battle in Cleveland's camp this spring is between three guys -- Jacob Cruz, Lance Johnson and David Roberts -- fighting for the center field job until Kenny Lofton is back, sometime in the middle of the summer. Before yesterday's game, USA Today pointed out that those three have combined for a .153 average. After Cruz went 3-for-3 and Johnson 0-for-2, it's now .207 (12-for-58). Of course, spring stats are essentially meaningless, but that shouldn't be allowed to obscure the fact that none of these fellows are really good enough to play every day. "But that's OK," I thought. "Surely Charlie Manuel is smart enough to cobble together a reasonably effective platoon, at the least." And then I checked, and you'll never believe what I found ... Cruz, Johnson and Roberts all bat left-handed (as does Lofton). This strikes me as at least a little strange. Indians general manager John Hart has been short a center fielder since last October, yet in the five months since he's not bothered to round up a right-handed-hitting center fielder? Cruz, Johnson and Roberts all have their strong points. None of them are good players, exactly, but each of them can do something well. However, hitting lefties isn't one of those things. Actually, we can't really say that with complete certainty about Cruz or Roberts, as they've got only 13 and 36 major league at-bats against southpaws, respectively. But they're both in their late 20s, and it's probably safe to assume that if they could hit lefties, they'd likely have received a chance to play more than they have. We do have plenty of data for Johnson. Over the last five years, his OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) against lefties is 706 (and 793 against righties). In case you're wondering, there's not some kid down in the minors, just waiting to be plucked from obscurity and handed a big-league job. In fact, Cleveland's system is fairly bereft of talent and a fair number of my colleagues are already predicting that the White Sox and/or Royals will be atop the Central in two or three years. In a way, the soft talent in the minors ties Hart's hands two ways: there's nobody to promote and there's not much to trade. Then again, it probably won't matter, will it? Hart probably figures that the Indians are going to win the AL Central by eight or nine games anyway, so who cares if a three-month hole in center field costs the club a win or two? Lofton will be back in plenty of time for the postseason. And frankly, I agree with Hart ... sort of. It would not make much sense to weaken the team in another area just for a quick and moderate fix in center field. That said, things like this can sometimes come back and bite you in the butt. What if a couple of pitchers get hurt, and the Indians slump to 88 wins? And what if the White Sox or Tigers somehow put things together? Suddenly, a win or two might seem mighty important, and Hart might wonder why he didn't bother picking up a dime-a-dozen center fielder who hits right-handed (Jay Payton?) when he had the chance. I'm sure Jim Bowden didn't think a win or two would make much difference a year ago, when he traded a series against the White Sox for a series against the Indians. Well, that decision might well have cost the Reds a postseason berth -- or more. When you can get a win or two, you gotta take it. Speaking of the Indians, some of you might remember that one of my favorite players is Jeff Manto, who has spent most of the last 15 years kicking around the minor leagues. Last season, as usual, he embarrassed Triple-A pitchers (.680 slugging percentage). And as usual, he was embarrassed by major league pitchers (.273 slugging percentage). After finishing the 1999 season with 230 career minor-league home runs (and 30 major league home runs), Manto finally called it quits. Or at least, I thought he did. At some point this winter he signed with the Rockies. Of course, the Rocks are set at both of Manto's positions, first base and third base, but wouldn't it be great if he finally got a real chance to play? And in Colorado? If you don't root for a guy like Jeff Manto, there's something wrong with you. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15 Yesterday, we discussed the battle for center field in Cleveland. Or rather, in Winter Haven, Fla., where the Indians conduct spring training. But as I noted, it probably won't matter at all who wins the job, because Kenny Lofton will be back in the lineup sometime before the summer solstice, and the Tribe should cruise to yet another Central crown. Center field is somewhat more interesting in the Oakland camp, where the final disposition might well determine the course of events in the A.L. West this season. The Athletics got nothing from center field in 1999, but if they can get something in 2000, they might deserve to be the favorites in the West. Here are some numbers for the four CF candidates:
Age Bats OBP Slug OPS
Rich Becker 28 L .395 .371 766
Ryan Christenson 26 R .314 .342 653
Terrence Long 24 L .330 .404 734
Bo Porter 27 R .349 .494 843
These stat lines represent something different for each player. For Becker, it's his 1999 season, which was fairly representative of his career. For Christenson, it's his entire major league career of 638 at-bats. For Long, it's his projection in the STATS Major League Handbook. And for Porter, it's his 1999 season in the minors, adjusted to represent what he might have done in the majors last year. Porter's "Major League Equivalency" is a bit misleading, however, because these would theoretically have been his Wrigley Field numbers -- the A's grabbed him from the Cubs in the Rule 5 Draft this winter -- and of course the Coliseum is a tougher place to hit than Wrigley.)
No, none of these guys are going to be superstars, and only Long has a real chance at even becoming a star. But what I like about this group is that each player does something different. Becker provides on-base ability, but not much defense. Christenson gives you the defense, but not much else. Long is young and displays a breadth of skills, but not much depth. Porter could probably hit 25 home runs if given 500 at-bats.
The Athletics have, in recent years, constructed their lineup with a singular goal: scoring runs. I admire this philosophy, and last season it translated to 87 wins. If applied to center field this season, the position would be manned by a platoon of Becker and Porter.
As it happens, however, those two are probably the worst defensive players of the four. And given that Ben Grieve is in left field and Matt Stairs is in right field, it might behoove the A's to have a quality defensive center fielder. I'll be honest with you, I don't know what they should do. But I'm impressed with an organization that has left itself with a wide range of options. If Billy Beane and Art Howe come up with the right answer -- and of course, if the pitching holds up -- I think Oakland's got as good a chance of winning the AL West as anyone.
But will anyone see them do it?
There are three, and only three, factors that determine attendance. They are:
1. Winning2. Hitting 3. Ballpark There are still some general managers out there who think that fans care about players, but aside from the occasional Mark McGwire or Junior Griffey, fans don't care at all. Last year, the Devil Rays added Florida native Jose Canseco to Tampa natives Wade Boggs and Fred McGriff ... and watched their attendance plummet. The Royals refuse to trade Johnny Damon because they're afraid of what the fans might think ... meanwhile, attendance remains in the doldrums. No, it's those other three things. Winning is obvious. (It's true, however, that often the attendance boost that accompanies winning doesn't arrive in full force until the next season.) Hitting isn't nearly as important as winning, but there's plenty of evidence that fans prefer watching runs score over watching runs not being scored. And finally, much as it might pain some of us to acknowledge, baseball fans really do enjoy the new "mallparks." The Athletics certainly don't have a mallpark -- for many years, Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum has been nicknamed "the Mausoleum" -- but they did win 87 games last year, and they did score 893 runs, fourth-most in the American League. And what did it get them? One million, four-hundred-thirty thousand, six hundred and ten paying customers. In the American League, only the White Sox and Twins did worse. The Athletics organization is absolutely loaded with talent, Ben Grieve and Eric Chavez and Tim Hudson merely the tip of a good-sized iceberg. This team will win a division title in the next three years (notwithstanding a labor war, of course). But they'll be playing in the same old ballpark, and competing for attention with the Giants, who have already sold out 70 games in their shiny new mallpark. If the Athletics are to prosper, they need a new home. But what if they built their very own mallpark, and nobody showed up? I'm halfway convinced that the Athletics might never draw well, no matter how many games they win. In 1974, the A's won their third straight World Series ... and ranked 11th out of 12 American League teams in attendance. From 1971 through '75, a five-season span that saw Oakland win five straight division titles, the club's attendance was below league average all five seasons. Yes, I know that the Athletics drew wonderfully from 1988 through 1990. But the Raiders were in Los Angeles at the time, and I can't help but wonder if there's a connection. Some cities, methinks, have difficulty supporting baseball and football, and perhaps Oakland is one of those cities. Anyway, the A's should be a lot of fun this year. It's just too bad not many fans will be around to see them. THURSDAY, MARCH 16 I'd like to revisit Wednesday's column, beginning with the economic viability of the Oakland Athletics. My mail from Athletics fans was about evenly split, between those who argued that 33 years of mostly mediocre attendance doesn't tell the whole story, and those who sadly admit that Oakland simply isn't a good place for a baseball team. Here's the straight dope. If the Athletics don't become perennial contenders or get a new "mallpark," they're going to be in big trouble. At this moment, the Lords of Baseball don't seem particularly disposed toward letting clubs move. Nevertheless, I estimate a 50 percent chance of the Athletics moving yet again, within the next five or six years. Sacramento is the No. 20 media market in the country, Portland is No. 24, and either would make a nice fit for a club that's already in the West. I hope that doesn't happen. I hope that Billy Beane's intelligence results in a good and popular team playing in Oakland before happy crowds well into the 21st century. But I'm not holding my breath.
Matthew Before we get to Thursday's trade, I want to continue with a running theme, and consider the battle for third base with the Rangers between Tom Evans and Mike Lamb. As you might remember, not long ago I rated Lamb one of the top Rookie of the Year candidates in the American League, based on his excellent Double-A performance last season. But Evans is a pretty good player, too. He's 25 and has barely played in the majors, but that's largely because the Blue Jays were infatuated with Ed Sprague. A year ago he hooked up with the Rangers, but was stuck behind Todd Zeile and spent the season in Oklahoma City. Evans is good enough to play, though. Not as good as Lamb, but good enough, perhaps, to win a job this spring. In a way, this should not be a surprise. Very few players are allowed to skip Triple-A, especially with contending teams. And I'm not going to tell you that that's wrong. Some players have been rushed to the big leagues and, unable to quickly make the necessary adjustments, had their confidence shaken to the point where it damaged their careers. It sounds like maybe Lamb is suffering some confidence problems. Said Johnny Oates the other day, on Lamb: "He's pressing. I know he's not swinging the bat the way he can. But pressure is the name of the game. If he thinks Evans is putting pressure on him, wait until he faces Pedro." And yes, Lamb was hitting just .240 (before going 1-for-4 yesterday). But it's been, what, two weeks since they started playing games in Florida? I daresay it's too early to start making pronouncements on a guy's hitting. If a month's worth of stats don't mean anything, what do two weeks mean? Am I saying that spring training shouldn't be a factor in personnel decisions? Absolutely not. If a young player arrives in camp out of shape, then acts like he doesn't need to work to win a job ... well, you ship him back to the Pacific Coast League. That's what they call "reality therapy." But if Lamb came to camp in good order and has been working hard, then that .240 average shouldn't really be held against him. What should the Rangers do? A platoon wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, because (1) Lamb would have the chance to rest once or twice a week, and (2) Evans really isn't a good hitter, but he might look pretty good if he only had to face lefties. Anyway, watch this situation. Given their question marks at various other positions, the Rangers probably need production at third base if they're going to win another division title. Now, yesterday's trade ... In the grand scheme of things, the three-way deal involving Texas, Toronto and Montreal may not amount to much. But this was a three-team, three-player "challenge trade" -- that is, all three players involved play the same position -- and that makes it pretty fascinating. Rangers GM Doug Melvin: "We potentially looked at the club and saw that some of the younger guys might strike out 100 times. Both players (Stevens and Segui) are somewhat comparable, but David has a better on-base percentage." Yes, Doug ... but Lee has a better slugging percentage. Here's what the two have done over the last three seasons ... shoot, might as well throw in Fullmer, too: 1997-99 OBP Slug OPS David .365 .487 852 Lee .336 .502 838 Brad .326 .459 785These numbers are a tad misleading, because until last season Stevens almost never faced left-handed pitchers (then again, he did fine when given the chance). Anyway, the nod goes to Segui, and more so when you consider his defense, though if the early signals are to be believed, Segui will be mostly DHing in Texas. He must be agog at this development. Segui's an excellent defensive player, yet first he goes to Toronto, and isn't allowed to play first base because it would upset Carlos Delgado, and now he goes to Texas and won't be allowed to play first base because ... well, because Rafael Palmeiro "won" the Gold Glove last year. Texas does OK in this deal, even if Segui's getting to that point in his career where most players of his ilk go from mediocre to downright damaging. Fullmer's a strange duck (who fields like one), but there's certainly some potential there, and at 25 he's got a few more years to make good on that potential. And then we have the Expos. Frankly, Lee Stevens is just about the last player they need, except for maybe Graeme Lloyd ... Hey, they have him, too! As Baseball Prospectus adroitly notes, "A team like the Expos has no need to worry about depth in situation left-handers. And yet, they have given Graeme Lloyd a three-year, $9 million contract to be Steve Kline. When they already have Steve Kline." Of course, the Expos also picked up Hideki Irabu. He'll make $4 million this season. And Stevens? He's signed for $3.5 million, and like Irabu will likely be due for a hefty raise in 2001. (And don't even get me started on Mickey Morandini.) So between Lloyd, Stevens and Irabu, the Expos are committed to $10.5 million for three pointless players in 2000. For a team that will be lucky to win half its games, this strategy does not reflect positively on Jeff Loria, the new owner. You know, Loria's from New York, and I can't help but wonder if it's a coincidence that both Lloyd and Irabu recently pitched for the Yankees. What's next, a trade (and multi-year contract extension!) for Luis Sojo? MONDAY, MARCH 20 In the wake of the news ... Last week, my editor posted the 2000 standings as predicted by a number of supposed pundits who make regular contributions to ESPN.com's baseball coverage. Among my predictions was that the Blue Jays would finish second to the Yankees in the American League East, and eventually reach the World Series.
Vincent In the process of packing for my move to Fenway -- the Fenway Apartments, that is -- I ran across my old issues of The Sporting News. Even better, I ran across some yellowing newsprint from exactly 20 years ago: the March 22, 1980 edition. And right there on Page 4, I found the following letter in "Voice of the Fan":
Arbitration in baseball salary disputes is a joke. Steve Kemp of the Tigers jumped from $80,000 to $210,000 in one year and Bruce Sutter of the Cubs was granted $700,000, and astounding sum for a relief pitcher. When baseball ticket prices go up to $10 or $15 and fans stay at home, the players will wonder what's going on. The general managers are realistic, not cheap; the players are greedy.
Today we look at the biggest (non-rotation) question marks which must be answered by National League contenders. Braves: Shortstop Walt Weiss can't hit, Ozzie Guillen can't do anything. Rafael Furcal is only 19 years old and probably isn't ready to face Randy Johnson and Kevin Brown, but the sooner he's up, the better. Until then, the Braves have a big hole in the No. 8 slot. Mets: Outfield I know that Mets fans are sick of me writing about their team, so I'll keep it short ... With mediocrities slated for right field and center field, and a 41-year-old malcontent in left field, the Mets will likely struggle to score (enough) runs this season. And barring a trade, there's not much anybody can do. But Jon Nunnally deserves a real shot to play at least semi-regularly in right field, where a Nunnally/Bell platoon might be moderately productive. Phillies: Middle Infield Third baseman Scott Rolen and right fielder Bobby Abreu are going to play in 10 or 15 All-Star Games between them. Center fielder Doug Glanville seems to have become a productive leadoff man. Left fielder Ron Gant's on his last legs, but super-prospect Pat Burrell is more than ready to step in. Catcher Mike Lieberthal probably isn't nearly as good as he played last year, but he's certainly one of the better catchers in the National League. And first baseman Rico Brogna ... well, let's just say he's a good defensive player and leave it at that. That's six positions at which the Phillies are pretty well set ... and then you've got shortstop and second base, where Desi Relaford and Marlon Anderson ranked among the league's worst regulars at any positions. Unfortunately for the Phillies' postseason hopes, at last report Relaford and Anderson are both slated to open the season with their old jobs. If one of them breaks through with a decent season, the Phils have a legitimate shot at 85 or 90 wins. If it was my team, I wouldn't count on that happening, but the Phillies don't have many options right now. Reds: Bullpen The lineup is essentially set, so I won't quibble much there, even if I still think Dante Bichette and Pokey Reese are going to be drags on the run production. No, what really interests me here is the bullpen, which features a bunch of guys who thew a ton of innings last season. Can they do it again? You know Jack McKeon wants to find out, and the answer may well determine whether the Reds beat out the Astros, or finish third behind the Cardinals. Astros: Shortstop Everybody says Tim Bogar is a great defensive shortstop, and maybe he is. But he's also 33, and is even worse with the stick than Ricky Gutierrez, the man he's replacing. The Astros do have a pair of prospects, Julio Lugo and Adam Everett, but neither is a sure thing and both could use at least another year in the minors. Giants: Catcher I like Bobby Estalella, I really do. But he's 25 years old and has yet to show that he's anything more than a good Triple-A catcher. His backup, Doug Mirabelli, has also done well in the minors but is 29 and only has 129 major league at-bats to his credit. There's obviously some talent here, but it's yet to show itself against big-league pitchers. Dodgers: Shortstop They considered going with rookie Alex Cora, who will approximately get 25 walks if he plays 150 games ... and half of those will be intentional. He's supposed to be pretty slick with the glove, but of course we've seen Dodger Stadium do some strange things to young middle infielders. Instead, veteran Kevin Elster, who was out of baseball last year, is apparently going to get the starting nod. (Elsewhere, the Dodgers are fairly well appointed, aside from perhaps center field, where Devon White will continue to waste some of Murdoch's millions.) Diamondbacks: Right Field Travis Lee, or Bernard Gilkey? Gilkey's the Proven Veteran, but Lee still presumably has the up-side that hasn't been seen since his days in Triple-A. They'd make a productive platoon, and facing only right-handed pitching might help Lee get his career back on track. SATURDAY, MARCH 25 With the start of the season soon approaching, today I'd like to focus on the biggest question marks punctuating the contenders. A caveat, though: We could focus on starting pitching for at least half the clubs, and that's not particularly interesting or enlightening. So I'll stick to positions where guys get paid, at least in part, to hit. Yankees: Designated Hitter Yes, I wrote about this a few weeks ago, and I'm sticking to my original solution: Let Nick Johnson skip Triple-A, and have him platoon at DH with Jim Leyritz. And if you're worried about Johnson's defensive skills lying fallow, he can always trade spots with Tino Martinez two or three times a week. In a similar vein, it's fairly obvious that a Ricky Ledee-Shane Spencer platoon in left field would be more than adequate. Once again, the ingredients are here for a mighty successful season. Assuming the parts are glued together correctly, and Scott Brosius or Jorge Posada bounces back, the Yankees could lead the league in scoring. Blue Jays: Center Field The fight's between Jose Cruz and Vernon Wells, and to me the obvious choice here is Cruz. Yes, Wells has "STAR" written all over him, but the ink won't dry for another two or three years, and in the meantime the Jays are better with Cruz in center field. Assuming normal development for left fielder Shannon Stewart and a typical season from Raul Mondesi, and Toronto's got one of the better outfields in the leagues. Red Sox: Hitter Lost in the happy glow surrounding Boston's success last year was the fact that the Sox ranked ninth in runs scored, despite playing half their games in what is still a good hitter's park. Even the lowly Royals scored more runs, as did the Orioles and Mariners. You can talk about their pitching all you want, but it won't be as good this year as it was last year, so the hitters are going to have to improve. In 1999, the Red Sox suffered from huge holes at two positions, center field and third base. They've filled the first of those holes with Carl Everett, who should be worth four or five extra wins all by himself, assuming he can stay healthy. About the second, the Sox have done nothing. John Valentin still carries a hefty contract, so the club is stuck with him. While it's true that Valentin was hobbled by injuries last season, it's also true that he wasn't so hot in 1998, either. If ballplayers were stocks, I wouldn't be investing much money in JONV right now. But Valentin's not the only problem. With the departure of Reggie Jefferson, the Sox are short a lefty-hitting DH, and I don't see anyone on the roster who's going to take that spot over. Mind you, Jefferson wasn't good last year, but there is a hole. Mike Stanley and Brian Daubach would make a great platoon at either first base or DH, but unless Commissioner Bud changed the rules and didn't tell anybody, you can play just one position at a time. Everett's great, but the Sox need to get better offensively at one or two other spots. Indians: No. 2 Starter I know I said starters are off-limits, but when it comes to the Indians, I just can't help myself. Everyone knows there's a battle for center field, but it looks like Kenny Lofton might be back much sooner than anyone expected, so Lance Johnson and Jolbert Cabrera and David Roberts and Jacob Cruz might well be rendered moot before May Day. And anyway, everyone "knows" the Indians will face little competition in the Central, so we might as well look ahead to October. And if the Indians are going to beat the Yankees or the Red Sox or whoever, they'll need somebody to back up Bartolo Colon. And unless Jaret Wright suddenly gets it together, I just don't see a real No. 2 starter on this staff. Athletics: Center Field I wrote about this last week, so I won't get into the details today. Oakland's got four candidates at the position, and sorting them out won't be easy. If it were, I'd tell you what the Athletics should do, but I'll admit to ignorance (not apathy) here. Mariners: Left Field Brian Hunter. Stan Javier. Mark McLemore. One of them can run and play defense, one of them can get on base and play defense, one of them can get on base ... but none of them have any power, and a team newly bereft of a kid named Junior is going to need some power. I've been saying this since the big trade, but the Mariners are going to have problems if they don't get a lefty-hitting outfielder with some pop. If it means trading Brett Tomko and Carlos Guillen, then so be it. Rangers: ex-Tigers Despite the loss of Juan Gonzalez and Aaron Sele, the Rangers are still shooting for another pennant. However, two of the guys that came over in the Gonzalez deal, Gabe Kapler and Frank Catalanotto, simply have to perform. There's really no decision to be made here. Just write their names on lineup card, and hope for the best (though Luis Alicea is currently ahead of Catalanotto on the depth chart). MONDAY, MARCH 27 I'd like to tie up some loose ends from last week, as I received a number of e-mails that touched on one of two topics.
Age AB OBP Slug OPS
Marrero 26 616 .273 .336 609
Matheny 29 1335 .277 .331 608
Look at those numbers, and tell me which one of these guys is the better hitter?
Still, based just on what I've shown you so far, Marrero's the obvious choice, if only because, at 26, he presumably has some room for growth. It's often said that catchers tend to mature late as hitters, but with Matheny, what you see is probably what you get. And as you might remember, Marrero probably deserves special consideration, as his horrible numbers last year -- .236 on-base, .297 slugging -- may have been dragged down by his 1998 bout with cancer. Marrero's never going to be much of a hitter, but at full strength he should be at least adequate.
So Marrero's the man. And really, the Cardinals don't have any big question marks, unless you're still not sure about J.D. Drew. That's why I rate them as slightly better than the Reds, and legitimate contenders in the Central.
Now, about the trade that brought Jim Edmonds to St. Louis, and sent Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy to Anaheim. My first reaction was that Cardinals GM Walt Jocketty ripped off Angels GM Bill Stoneman. But after checking Bottenfield's career record, I'm not so sure.
No, Bottenfield is not going to go 18-7 for the Angels. He did pitch well last season, but also got more than his fair share of luck. Aside from his record, Bottenfield's stats were not particularly impressive: 3.97 ERA, 197 hits (including 21 homers) and 89 walks in 190 innings.
On the other hand, Bottenfield's been a quality pitcher over the course of his career. Take out the 101 inning the poor bastard pitched for Colorado and his career ERA is exactly 4.00, which isn't great but is worth some millions of dollars. We don't know if Bottenfield can handle the physical pressures of starting -- last season was the first major league season he pitched more than 160 innings -- but if he can, he'll likely become the nominal ace of Anaheim's rotation. Second baseman Adam Kennedy is not a great prospect, but he's certainly a good one.
Edmonds, meanwhile, becomes a free agent at the end of this season and he's had problems staying healthy over the years. So while this trade does look like a win for the Cardinals, right now, it could easily go the other way.
You probably plan on mentioning this already, but please lambaste ESPN.com readers for their ignorance in responding to the poll: "Which recent retiree is most deserving of election to the Baseball Hall of Fame?" Don Mattingly 40.1% Andre Dawson 24.5% Joe Carter 15.0% Kirk Gibson 9.8% Willie McGee 6.6% Tim Raines 3.6% Total Votes: 47,205 (as of 12:03 a.m. ET Friday)Of course, we both know that Raines is the only one of the six deserving of induction into the HOF. Unfortunately, there are some 45,000 ESPN.com voters who remain unenlightened. Ken Roberts I was disheartened at the sight of these results, but I also was heartened by the number of people who wrote me to defend Raines. And yes, I've written before that Raines was a great player, and quite deserving of a spot in the Hall of Fame. Unfortunately, I suspect that he's destined to become the single greatest player not enshrined in Cooperstown. Just briefly, what makes Raines a Hall of Famer? He got on base, he ran the bases brilliantly, and he played better defense in the outfield than most people think. Of course, it's the baserunning that everyone remembers. From 1981 through 1987, Raines stole 504 bases, and was caught 74 times. I've often written that stolen bases are overrated, but when you steal that many bases at an 87 percent success rate, you're putting a fair number of extra runs on the board. Raines' stolen-base rates fell off some after 1987, and he rarely stole at all after 1993. But he finished with 807 career steals, fifth on the all-time list, and an 85 percent success rate. And remember, we're not talking about Vince Coleman here. Raines never drew 100 walks, but he finished his career with a .285 batting average and, thanks to enough walks, a .385 on-base percentage that is even more impressive when considering Raines didn't spend much of his career in the bulked-up offenses of the late 1990s. I do like Dawson as a Hall of Fame candidate. No, he didn't walk as much as most great outfielders. No, he probably didn't deserve the MVP in 1987. And yes, for a long time he was overrated by nearly everyone. But Dawson's combination of speed, power and defense was quite valuable, and I think he's a good candidate. It's ridiculous to even discuss Kirk Gibson as a Hall of Famer. Unlike a lot of analysts, I think he actually deserved his MVP in 1988, and of course there's the homer off Eckersley. But it takes more than one great year to make a Hall of Famer, and Gibson just doesn't have the credentials. Ditto for McGee. Carter draws a fair amount of support because of all the RBI, but he simply wasn't a great player. He was a pretty good player who (1) almost always hit cleanup, and (2) drew so few walks that he took great advantage of his RBI opportunities. In essence, a poor man's Juan Gonzalez. Or if you prefer, a destitute man's Tony Perez. Like Gibson, he's got the one defining postseason moment, but it's simply not enough. Mattingly, I'm not going to get into again. He was a great player, if not truly MVP-caliber, for about five years. He was a good player for a few more years, then a mediocre player after suffering the back injury. We already have plenty of mediocre Yankees in the Hall of Fame. To sum up, of this group, only Raines and Dawson belong in the Hall. Throw in Gary Carter, and by all rights there should be three Montreal Expos in the Hall of Fame. I'm not holding my breath. TUESDAY, MARCH 28 Last week, I suggested that the Red Sox, contenders though they might be, still have a hefty hole to fill at DH, at least when there's a right-hander on the mound for the opposition. Now, I suppose Jimy Williams might employ Jose Offerman in that role more often than he did last year (only 17 games), but one reader has a more intriguing solution.
Joshua
AB OBP Slug OPS
vs LHP 143 .339 .336 675
vs RHP 659 .368 .452 840
An 840 OPS isn't great, at least not for a DH, but it'll sure get you
through some rough times in the relationship.
It's an interesting situation. Most clubs would kill for one
left-handed-hitting catcher; meanwhile, the Red Sox have a lefty (Hatteberg) and a switch-hitter (Jason Varitek).
Complicating the situation even further is Steve Lomasney, a
right-handed-hitting catcher who is arguably Boston's best non-pitching prospect, and should be ready for the majors by this time next year. If Varitek is even nearly as good as he showed last year, the Sox might have to make yet another tough decision next March.
As for Hatteberg, he doesn't throw well. Never has and never will, though he says his arm feels better than ever since undergoing elbow surgery last May.
Who knows? Given a chance, Hatteberg might become a lefty-hitting version of Mike Stanley, who spent the early part of his career as a catcher with just a decent bat. Sure, Hatteberg's got a ways to go, but it's been theorized (1) that catchers often develop late with the bat, and (2) shifting from catcher to DH can have a positive effect on one's hitting.
No, Hatteberg probably won't ever hit enough to be a truly productive DH. But if he can also serve as your backup catcher, isn't that a valuable player? In fact, that's exactly what the Yankees are doing with Jim Leyritz, but Hatteberg's probably more valuable because Leyritz bats righty. (And by the way, Hatteberg's career stats are slightly better than Leyritz's. It's funny how tags get hung on players.)
Hatteberg would be wasted in Boston, whether he's DHing regularly or not. He could probably catch five games per week for 15 or 20 clubs in the majors, and of course that's what Hatteberg would like to do. But if the Red Sox don't trade him, they could do a lot worse than give Hatteberg 450 at-bats this season, one way or another.
While we're on the subject of designated hitters -- this is why every
baseball writer should love the American League! -- I'd like to revisit the Yankees one more time. In yesterday's USA Today, a somewhat cryptic note told us, "The Yankees appear leaning toward starting Ricky Ledee in left field and using Shane Spencer in a DH role."
Friends, Shane Spencer does not hit right-handed pitchers. And as it
happens, most of the pitchers in the American League are right-handed. So if he's your regular DH, you've got a big hole in the lineup. And that's going to be the case whether the DH is Spencer, Jim Leyritz or Roberto Kelly. The way things stand right now, the Yankees simply need another lefty bat on the roster. So unless they make a deal, I still say Nick Johnson should make the club.
He's not going to, presumably because the Yankees (a) don't want to rush him, and (b) want him playing every day. Both are good reasons for sending Johnson to Columbus for at least the first two or three months of the season, and I suspect that Brian Cashman and Mark Newman know more about this situation than I do. That said, the lack of a lefty DH will likely cost the Yankees a game or two in the standings, and it's possible that a game or two might make a difference. Not likely. But possible.
Before we leave the Red Sox and Yankees (for today), just a couple more items.
First off, I'm sure most of you have seen the latest Sports Illustrated, which predicts a World Series championship for the Sox. I certainly can't cast any stones, given that I strayed even further on the limb and picked the Blue Jays.
But that SI cover brought back a 13-year-old memory ... Does anyone else remember exactly where you were in 1987, when you first saw the Sports Illustrated cover, featuring Cory Snyder, that rated the Cleveland Indians as baseball's No. 1 team?
I was at the candy counter in the Student Union at the University of Kansas, and I remember it so easily because it was such a shock, as the Indians had spent years wallowing in the nether regions of the American League East standings, and had gone just 84-78 in 1986.
The punch line, of course, is that instead of being the best major league team in 1987, the Indians were the worst, posting a 61-101 record.
And about Don Mattingly and the Hall of Fame, yesterday the following
arrived in my e-mailbox:
Ah, Opening Morning. I'll be honest with you, I wasn't ready for baseball at 5:05 in the a.m. But I did rouse myself in time to see Mike Piazza make the last out of the first inning. It's been a long time since I got up at 5:20 in the morning. First the shirt goes on inside out, then right-side out but backwards. No, the brain doesn't work too well after just five hours of sleep. (But that's no excuse for anything in this column, because I took a nap after the game. Oh, and during the eighth inning, so I missed a few runs.) Yes, at times baseball in the Tokyo Dome -- "Big Egg" as it's called in Japan -- looked a little strange. The dirt on the pitcher's mound is a different color than the dirt everywhere else. In the outfield, there's a warning line rather than a warning track. And a chain-link fence protects the fans not only behind the plate, but all the way down the lines. But after the first few minutes of these oddities, the game didn't look any stranger than, say, a typical Tuesday night in the Metrodome. Those 363-feet power alleys might well result in Home Run Derby in the second game of the series, but this game looked like any other you might see in an old-fashioned, artifically-turfed domed stadium. So baseball in Japan doesn't look so different from baseball in North America. But should we be watching it? Let's be realistic about this. "Internationalization," as Commissioner Bud calls it, is not some holy endeavor designed to spread the Good Word of Baseball around the globe. Just as it was a century ago when baseball teams traveled the earth, this is simply about making money. When Al Spalding financed expeditions to Europe and the Middle East, he hoped to create more markets for the baseball equipment manufactured by his company. Similarly, the idea now is to send a pair of major league teams to Japan for a pair of real games, and see how many Cubs and Mets and Yankees and Dodgers baseball caps you sell. See how much money you can get for the broadcast rights in Japan. Et cetera, et cetera. Of course, generating new revenues is standard operating procedure these days. But with each new revenue stream comes a cost. And too often, it seems the accompanying costs are an afterthought -- or no thought at all. I can't imagine that the benefits of playing in Japan justify taking one home game apiece from the Cubs and Mets, and starting the first two games of the season at times that prevent the great majority of American baseball fans from seeing them. And speaking of new revenues, this morning we saw the first stages of what will inevitably be a trend ... advertisements on uniforms. For both clubs, the batting helmets featured a corporate logo just above the earflap, perfectly obvious from the TV cameras installed next to the dugouts. This is where it starts, because the marketing geniuses at MLB don't think anyone will squawk at this relatively minor development. But this year it'll be the helmets, next year it'll be shoulder patches, and eventually major league uniforms might look like NASCAR jump suits. And unfortunately, there's nothing you or I can do about it. On a happier note, some real baseball. Responding to my suggestion yesterday that the Red Sox give Scott Hatteberg plenty of action as their DH, a few readers pointed out that if anything happens to Varitek during a game in which Hatteberg is DHing, the latter would have to take over, and thus the Sox would lose the DH. To which I respond, so what? The odds of the Sox losing a game because all of those things happen is insignificant compared to the odds of a Sox losing a game (or more) because they don't have a DH who can hit right-handed pitching. (And anyway, Mike Stanley could certainly serve as emergency catcher.) Matt Williams' injury -- he'll miss around six weeks with a broken toe -- obviously doesn't help Arizona's pennant chances, but it's not a huge blow. Realistically, the loss of Williams for a month and a half might be expected to cost the Diamondbacks one or two victories. So if you picked them before yesterday, you should still be picking them today. That said, I figured they'd be in a dogfight with the Dodgers and/or Giants anyway, so now I certainly have to predict a second-place finish. THURSDAY, MARCH 30 Spring notes composed while still trying to recover from seeing, just after the sun came up this morning, Rey Ordonez make his first error in 102 games ... In case you missed it, the Tokyo Dome features chain-link fencing that stretches from behind home plate to well down the lines, protecting fans in the close seats from foul balls (or at least I assume that's why it's there).
Dan O'Dowd is conducting an interesting experiment in Colorado. First, the Rockies GM let "sluggers" Vinny Castilla and Dante Bichette get away. Then he started talking about the effects of Coors Field on major league hitters, and stressing the importance of on-base percentage. Yeah, I know, this isn't exactly revolutionary stuff, but by the standards of many major-league executives, it qualifies as near-genius. O'Dowd is searching for a new paradigm for winning at Coors Field. Gone are most of the sluggers, replaced by athletic players who can cover ground in the spacious outfield. The best example, of course, is Tom Goodwin, an excellent defensive center fielder who doesn't draw walks or get hits. But hey, maybe you can live with one guy like that. So why would the Rockies sign Brian Hunter yesterday? Hunter's value lies in his ability to play defense and steal bases, which just happen to also be Goodwin's exact skills. I admire O'Dowd's willingness to try something different, but no matter how you work the math, you're still going to have to score runs to win games in that ballpark. And the presence of both Hunter and Goodwin means two roster spots that will do little help the Rockies score those runs. Speaking of Hunter, the Mariners made one good move by releasing him, even though it cost them half a million bucks. They made another good one yesterday, demoting Jose Mesa from closer to reliever-without-portfolio. The Mariners are still a lefty bat short of a full (pennant contender's) roster, but they've now gone from mild co-favorites in the American League West to strong co-favorites, which means more than it probably sounds like. |  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||