|
|
|
|
 |
| MLB |
|
Scores Schedules Standings Statistics Transactions Injuries: AL | NL Players Weekly Lineup Message Board Minor Leagues MLB Stat Search Clubhouses |
| Sport Sections |
|
|
| Monday, July 3 | |||||
| June Archives ESPN.com | |||||
| THURSDAY, JUNE 1 As more than 30 readers have been kind enough to point out, the following exchange appeared in Scott Boras' ESPN.com chat yesterday when a user asked about Rick Ankiel, who is a Boras client, and his usage by the Cardinals this year: Scott Boras: Yesterday (Tuesday), he threw 92 pitches. Our agreement with St. Louis when he signed was that until he turned 22 he would be closely monitored and kept on a strict pitch count at about 100 pitches. I'll let you know that we have contacted them after a couple games this season with our concerns."Not long after this appeared, I called Boras to clarify his statement. Most specifically, I wondered if this "agreement" was actually in Ankiel's contract. "No, it wasn't in the contract," Boras said. "It was just an agreement that the Cardinals would limit Rick's pitches to roughly 100 until he was 22. Keeping his innings down, and his pitch counts around 100." Ankiel, who turns 21 on July 19, had a no-hitter through five innings of his last start. What if he had a no-hitter through seven, but had thrown 110 pitches already? "I think the Kerry Wood situation is instructive," Boras said. "These records and things that people want, 20-strikeout games or no-hitters or whatever, they can't be allowed to get in the way of a pitcher's long-term health." And Ankiel's 121-pitch start last week? "I contacted (Cardinals GM) Walt Jocketty about that, and I've been assured that there's going to be great attention paid to this next time. Our commitment to Rick's health will certainly be adhered to by the Cardinals." Does Boras think we'll see Ankiel throw 121 pitches in another game this season? "No, I don't," Boras said. "That was well beyond the focus of what we're doing, in terms of making sure that Rick enjoys a long, productive career." I suspect that many of you are frightened at the thought of an agent calling a general manager, and attempting to dictate player usage. But while I'm no fan of agents, their job is to look after a player -- "protect and serve," as Boras told me -- and is there anything more important to a player than his health? And if the Cardinals did indeed agree to limit Ankiel to roughly 100 pitches, then they should certainly do so, whether Tony La Russa likes it or not. Of course, in practice this might be difficult, because if the manager says to a young pitcher, "Kid, I know we're at the limit, but I really need you tonight," then what's the pitcher supposed to say? That's where an agent comes in handy. He can play the bad guy and call the GM to complain, while the pitcher keeps saying all the right things about just wanting to help the team. Late Note: This is getting interesting. As reported today by Bernie Miklasz in his St. Louis Post-Dispatch column, Walt Jocketty denies (1) that there was ever any sort of agreement on limiting Ankiel's pitch counts, and (2) that he or anyone else on his staff spoke to Boras after the recent high-pitch outings. My friends, somebody here is not telling the truth, and I suspect that we've not heard the last of what seems to be a dispute-in-waiting. I hate to say I told you so ... I really do. And not because I'm such a gracious fellow, but because for nearly every time I could say I told you so, there's another time when you could do the same. However, when it comes to the New York Mets, I told you so. Prior to this season, I predicted a third-place finish for the Mets. Behind the Phillies. OK, that second thing was probably stupid. But from where I sit, the Mets will not -- as many Mets fans so happily predicted -- challenge the Braves for the East flag. Without checking, I recall that three of my reasons for doubting the Mets were: 1. Mike Hampton will not win 20-plus games again. 2. The Mets will not allow just 20 unearned runs again. 3. The Mets' outfield is woefully under-powered. All right, I'll give you Hampton. Despite his awful start, he's now 6-4 and has a decent shot at 20 wins, if not the 23 he recorded in 1999. But the 20 unearned runs? The Mets have already matched that figure and we're not yet a third of the way into the season. I've actually heard somebody blame this on the loss of John Olerud, which is fairly ridiculous. Olerud's a pretty good first baseman, but there's nobody in the game today who's that good. The Mets just got lucky last year. And the outfield? As Peter Gammons pointed out a few evenings ago, the Mets' outfield ranks 30th in slugging percentage in the major leagues. And I can tell you that not many pennant-winning teams have sported outfields that finished last in the league in anything, let alone slugging percentage. But you know what? The Mets are still in the hunt. Probably not for a division title; the Braves are just too good, as usual. But the wild card, sure. After last night's loss in Los Angeles, the Mets are two games behind the Rockies and Dodgers for the fourth playoff spot. No, 29-24 isn't a wonderful record, but that projects to 88 wins. The Mets have Mike Piazza, Edgardo Alfonzo and a fine pitching staff, which just might be enough. FRIDAY, JUNE 2 The following comes from my chat session this past Wednesday afternoon: Tommy Boy: Does Barry Bonds' consistent lollygagging on the basepaths and in the field compromise his status as the best player of his generation? Rob Neyer: Not in my mind. Nobody's perfect. Ted Williams lollygagged sometimes, too, especially early in his career. Joe DiMaggio got hurt, and sometimes he held out for more money. Willie Mays didn't walk much. Babe Ruth let himself go. Hank Aaron and Honus Wagner were pretty close to perfect, but that's an awfully tough standard.This exchange, by the way, reminds me of my favorite scene in "Bull Durham." Anyway, the above includes one of the stupider things I've written in one of these chat sessions, and my only defense is that ... hell, there's no defense. For an eloquent refutation of my assertion that "Willie Mays didn't walk much," read on ...
Jon Wells
Infield E UER UER%
1999 Mets 33 20 2.8
2000 M's 48 25 3.3
The Mets allowed 20 unearned runs in 1999; no other National League club allowed fewer than 55. This year, the Mets are on pace to allow 61 unearned runs.
Last year, the Mariners allowed 69 unearned runs. This year, the M's are on pace to allow just 25 unearned runs this season; half the teams in the American League have already allowed at least that many.
So can it be a coincidence that Olerud was the first baseman for both clubs? You bet. Before we go any further, let's return the days of yesteryear, when men were men, Rick Ankiel was but a gleam in Tony La Russa's eye, and John Olerud played first base for the Mets ...
Infield E UER UER%
1997 Mets 70 69 9.7
1998 Mets 52 36 5.7
1999 Mets 33 20 2.8
Interesting progression, don't you think? In 1997, the Mets were pretty typical. In 1998 they were outstanding defensively -- at least when defined by errors and unearned runs, and yes I know those are simplistic metrics -- and in 1999 they were incredible.
What's missing here, of course, is an analysis of the kinds of errors that were, and were not, made. Somebody out there can separate out the throwing errors, because it's tough to argue that Olerud has any real impact on fielding miscues. But even if we found that an abnormal lack of throwing errors had been made with Olerud on the field the last few seasons, should we conclude that it's mostly because of him? What, was he attending Wes Parker Fielding Academy in the offseasons or something? Taking scooping lessons from the manager of the local Baskin & Robbins?
Look, I'm a big believer in giving credit to players involved in success. So I'm more than willing to admit that Olerud was a key part of the Mets' defensive success last season. What I won't admit, not yet, is that Olerud has some magical ability to prevent other players from making significant numbers of errors. And if I'm wrong, he deserves the Gold Glove.
MONDAY, JUNE 5I'm sure you heard about Brett Gray, the 23-year-old Frontier League pitcher who struck out 25 hitters Saturday night in London, Ontario. If you're a student of baseball history and you read this story, your mind immediately turned to one name. Ron Necciai On May 13, 1952, 19-year-old right-hander "Rocket" Ron Necciai started for the Bristol Twins, a Pittsburgh Pirates farm club in the Class D Appalachian League. What Necciai did that Tuesday evening has never been matched, not even by Brett Gray. Facing the Welch Miners, Necciai pitched a nine-inning no-hitter ... and struck out 27 batters. No, he did not record every out by way of the K. In the second inning, a Miner grounded out. But in the ninth, Necciai's catcher was charged with a passed ball at the conclusion of strikeout No. 26, which allowed Necciai to record his 27th K while ending the game. Of those who do remember Necciai, many remember him as a fluke, but I believe that he was a supremely talented pitcher. After 43 amazing innings with Bristol, Necciai was promoted to Burlington of the Class B Carolina League, and he pitched brilliantly there, too.
IP Hits SO ERA
Bristol 43 10 109 0.42
Burlington 126 63 172 1.57
Totals 169 73 281 1.28
That must have been some pitching staff in Bristol. Nine days after Necciai's feat, right-hander Bill Bell tossed a nine-inning no-hitter ... and then he tossed another one four days later. Oh, and for good measure Bell threw another no-hitter (only seven innings this time) in August.
Necciai was 19 years old in the spring of 1952; Bell was only 18. Both finished the season in Pittsburgh. Necciai went 1-6 for the Pirates with a hefty 7.04 ERA; Bell fared somewhat better, posting a 4.50 ERA in four games. Necciai never pitched in the majors again; Bell tossed all of one more inning, in 1955 (after spending the 1953 and '54 seasons in the military).
Now, it's not a stretch to suggest that, in the summer of 1952, Ron Necciai and Bill Bell were two of the top pitching prospects in the game. Imagine, for a moment, what would happen this season if two pitchers, 18 and 19 years old, approximated Necciai's and Bell's feats. And they're property of the same major league club? Baseball America would go nuts.
Yes, I'm working toward a point here. One thing I hear from readers is, "Rob, quit moaning about pitch counts for young pitchers. In the old days, [insert names of two or three Hall of Fame pitchers] didn't worry about how many pitches or innings they threw!"
Perhaps not. And that helps explain why only a few thousand baseball aficionados -- and now, you -- know who Ron Necciai and Bill Bell were. The dusty files of baseball history are filled with stories of young power pitchers whose careers ended when something popped or ripped. And yes, things are getting better all the time. Even in St. Louis, where Rick Ankiel was lifted after 98 pitches yesterday.
Elsewhere in 1952 ...
From the Official Baseball Guide, 1953 edition:
Bobby Slaybaugh, 20-year-old southpaw, suffered the loss of his left eye as the result of being struck on the optic by a line drive during spring training with the St. Louis Cardinals at St. Petersburg, Fla., March 24, 1952. Slaybaugh was pitching batting practice when a line drive by Jim Dickey hit him, shattering the left cheekbone and forcing the eyeball partly out of the socket. Efforts to save the eye proved unsuccessful, and it was removed April 3.This brings up the obvious question: didn't they think to use screens in those days? Anyway, Slaybaugh actually reported to his club, the Omaha Cardinals, in May. And on June 22, he made his 1952 debut with six and one-third innings of relief, allowing just two hits and a run. It would be nice to report that Slaybaugh eventually enjoyed a long and profitable career -- he'd gone 17-10 in 1951 -- but Slaybaugh didn't win a game in 1952, and was just 2-11 over the next two seasons, after which his career ended. And finally, no list of 1952's oddities would be complete without the Legend of Joe Relford. I don't know if this still happens, but there was a time when crowds delighted, once a game was out of hand, in yelling at the manager, "Put in the bat boy!" Well, it happened in a Georgia State League game on July 19, 1952. By the eighth inning, Statesboro had run up a 13-0 lead over Fitzgerald. And in response to the crowd, Fitzgerald manager Charlie Ridgeway, after consulting with umpire Ed Kubick, sent 12-year-old bat boy Joe Relford to the plate. Relford grounded sharply to third, and then in the bottom of the inning made a nice defensive play in center field. Incidentally, Relford was the first African-American player in the history of the Georgia State League. In the aftermath, Kubick was fired, Ridgeway was suspended for five games and fined $50 ... and Relford himself was dismissed a few days later. Joe Relford would be about 60 years old today, and if anyone knows of his whereabouts, I sure would like to talk to him. TUESDAY, JUNE 6 Next time you've got a "lull" at work, check out Florida's double-play combination ... Oh, you're in a lull now? OK, then we'll check it together, here are some relevant numbers after last night's loss to the Red Sox:
Games AB Avg Runs RBI
2B 39 147 .367 34 2
SS 54 202 .163 15 11
Those are not typos. Florida second baseman Luis Castillo, in 39 games, has collected the grand total of two RBI, despite hitting .367 for the season. And Florida shortstop Alex Gonzalez, an All-Star in 1999, is somehow batting just .163 after 54 games and 202 at-bats.
How is Gonzalez doing it? I have absolutely no idea, but to hit .163 in this day and age is something truly special. As for Castillo, he's hitting .462 (49-for-106) with the bases empty ... and .122 (5-for-41) with runners on. That's nothing but a statistical fluke, the kind of statistical fluke that sets the hearts of young men who wear thick glasses aflutter. And if Castillo keeps his average above .300, eventually he'll knock home some runners.
I wish I could spend a few hours at the main branch of the Chicago Public Library (a beautiful building, by the way), digging up columns about the profound impact Don Baylor would have on the Chicago Cubs. You know, article talking about character and attitude and chemistry, because we all know that those are the things that win baseball games, and we also know that Baylor is a master in all three. Is it Baylor's fault that the Cubs are 24-35? Nah, they'd stink no matter who was running the club. It's one thing to have a bunch of old players if they're good, but the Cubs' old players aren't really that good. The point being that you can't compensate for lack of talent with surplus of character. As for this latest flap involving Baylor and Sammy Sosa, I suspect it'll blow over. The Cubs would take a huge publicity hit if either of them were shipped out, so eventually (tomorrow?) everyone will make kissy-face and say it's all behind them. That said, I think the Cubs should trade Sosa if they can. The club's not going anywhere this season or next, the fans will show up regardless of who's on the field, and Sammy's value won't go anywhere but down over the next two or three years. And you know what? I'd ship Baylor out, too. The guy's a sham. It doesn't take a genius to see that he doesn't know baseball strategy from a hole in the ground. And if the chemistry thing isn't working out, what does that leave? The Cubs need a better manager, better players, and some sort of commitment to winning. I'm not the first to make this observation, but the impression I get is of an organization that doesn't really give a damn, as long as the dollars keep rolling in. It's the curse of corporate ownership.
If you could have one player to build a team around, who would it be? We must first, I suppose, define the question with some precision. Are we building a team to compete in 2001, or are we building a team to compete in 2001 and for some years afterward? Let's assume the latter, that we're thinking four or five years ahead. There is only one pitcher worth considering, that being Pedro Martinez. And I'm going to disqualify him immediately, because recent history suggests that he'll only give you about 30 starts per season. That, coupled with the standard injury risk that comes with any pitcher, drops him out of the running. Even with Pedro out of the way, we could still come up with five or six candidates. But with all due respect to Derek and Nomar, I'd like to focus on three: Ivan Rodriguez, Vladimir Guerrero and Alex Rodriguez. At this writing, Ivan Rodriguez ranks 10th in the major leagues in OPS (on-base plus slugging), and of course that's outstanding for a catcher with a wonderful defensive reputation. But OPS doesn't always tell the whole story, and it certainly doesn't tell Pudge's whole story. You see, Rodriguez does something that nobody notices, and he does not do something else -- he grounds into a ton of double plays, and he does not draw walks. Lots of double plays. A plethora of double plays. A year ago, Pudge grounded into 32 double plays, five more than any other major leaguer. This year, he's on pace for 41, which would set a major league record. As I wrote last fall, as much as we might like to, we cannot just wish those double plays away. Those are real double plays and real outs and real truncated rallies. And walks? He only has 10 this season after drawing just 24 last year. Does this mean that Rodriguez is not a great hitter? No, it doesn't. But it does mean that he is perhaps only No. 3 among the good-hitting catchers, behind Mike Piazza and even Jorge Posada (at least this year). And frankly, defense just isn't important enough these days to move Rodriguez much higher on the list. I mean, it's great that he cuts down the running game ... but half the teams do that themselves anyway, without needing Pudge's help. Throw in the possibility that Rodriguez might not even be a catcher in four or five years, and I don't see how you could consider him as a cornerstone for the future. So in this scribe's humble opinion, the choice is between two players: Alex Rodriguez and Vladimir Guerrero. Let's compare them in simplistic fashion ...
Age Pos 2000 OPS Career OPS
Alex 24 SS 1079 926
Vlad 24 RF 1179 961
Those career numbers, it should be noted, do Rodriguez something of a disservice, as he reached the majors when he was still only 19 years old. But even if we begin the clock in 1997, the season in which Guerrero established himself as a regular, Vlad still holds an edge in OPS, 969 to 927. And that edge widens a bit when you consider that Rodriguez has played the majority of his home games in a good hitter's park (the Kingdome), while Guerrero has played all of his home games in a pitcher's park (Olympic Stadium).
So it seems fairly obvious that Guerrero has not only been the more productive hitter this season, but is also the better hitter on a fundamental level.
I'll say this, though. If you asked me which of the two will be the better hitter in five years, I believe Alex is the answer. Why? Because this season, he's discovered the wonderful world of plate discipline. I've written about this before, and I think it's an important story. In this year's Baseball Prospectus, Jeff Bower wrote, "Rodriguez has a tremendous work ethic; when he learns to lay off breaking pitches away, he will put up absolutely mind-boggling numbers." I don't live in Seattle any more, so I can't tell you if Alex is laying off the breaking pitches away; what I can tell you is that he's laying off more pitches than ever before. Rodriguez's walks per 162 games:
Rodriguez Guerrero
W/162 W/162
1996 65
1997 47 34
1998 45 42
1999 70 55
2000 118 57
Yes, Guerrero is in there for the sake of comparison. And yes, there's a difference between the American and National Leagues, and it might have been more fair to look at walks per 600 plate appearances or something similar. But the trends are, I think, clear.
And while we can certainly find great players who didn't draw many walks when they were young -- Kirby Puckett and Sammy Sosa come to mind -- I believe (nope, no proof immediately at hand) that if you take two young hitters of relatively equal accomplishment, the one with "better" plate discipline will become the better player.
There are, however, two outstanding issues: defensive position and durability. To this point, Guerrero has been the more durable of the two. From 1998 through this season, Guerrero has missed the grand total of six games. Rodriguez, on the other hand, did play 161 games in 1998, but spent two weeks on the DL in 1997 and a month there in 1999. Yes, this is a function of defensive position -- middle infielders get hurt more often than outfielders -- but it's still something to consider.
Speaking of defensive position, we know that shortstops who hit like Rodriguez are rarer, and presumably more valuable, than right fielders who hit like Guerrero. Of course, that's assuming that they're equally adept at their positions. If Alex were a lousy shortstop and Vlad were a Gold Glove right fielder, would that change the "positional adjustment"? Yeah, it would.
Based on the evidence at hand, I believe that Rodriguez is approximately average, defensively. Same for Guerrero, who was erratic his first three seasons but seems to have found some consistency.
In the end, I have to take Rodriguez, for a purely subjective reason ... I know Alex Rodriguez. No, not really. He didn't invite me to his Super Bowl party last winter. But I've seen him play a few hundred games, seen the way he carries himself on the field, seen the way he conducts himself in interviews. And I get the feeling that if he wants to be the best player in the game, he will be.
Is this fair to Guerrero? Absolutely not. But if I have to pick one over the other, I'm going with the guy I know. No, this doesn't square with my typical analytical bent. But as old Walt wrote, "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself."
FRIDAY, JUNE 9Yesterday's column, on who I would build a team around, resulted in a fair amount of e-mail, the two letters below being fairly representative.
Shawn Skelly
Byron Todd
Age Pos 2000 OPS Career OPS
Alex 24 SS 1079 926
Vlad 24 RF 1179 961
Jones 23 CF 997 834
Before this season, I argued that Jones had shown the abilities, in
different seasons, to hit for power and draw walks. And given his age, it
was probably just a matter of time before he combined those abilities in one
season, and became a true star. And what do you know, that's exactly what
he's done. Then again, he's only done it for two months. Does one year of
age cancel out the large disparities in OPS here? Probably not.
Before this season, there were people I know, smart people, who argued that
Jones would probably not become a superstar, that he simply hadn't
shown enough to justify such a projection. And two months of one season is
not enough to convince me that those people were wrong. Yeah, I trust my own
opinion about Jones, but I don't trust it enough to elevate the guy with the
834 OPS past the guys with the 926 and 961 OPS, not quite yet.
If Alex is No. 1 and Guerrero is 1-A, then Jones is No. 2, or perhaps even
1-B. I'd love to have Andruw Jones on my team. But if Alex Rodriguez can
play shortstop for another five or six years, I'd rather have him.
MONDAY, JUNE 12Mark McGwire. Barry Bonds. Todd Helton, at least in Colorado. It almost seems pointless to pitch to these guys. Or, putting it another way,
OBP Slug OPS
McGwire .488 .789 1278
Bonds .457 .828 1284
Helton, CO .562 .942 1504!
If you're pitching at Coors Field, wouldn't you be better off just giving Helton first base, the way he's hitting? As for Bonds and McGwire, when they're not drawing walks they're hitting the ball over the fence. So why bother?
Actually, this question comes up whenever a player's OPS is above 1000 (there are, at this moment, 29 such major leaguers). As Mike noted, if you just walked a player every time, his OPS will be 1000 exactly: 1.000 on-base percentage plus a .000 slugging percentage. So if a slugger is going to post a 1300 OPS (or whatever) if you pitch to him, and OPS is a good measure of offensive production, then why not at least limit him to 1000?
When thinking about this question, my first thought was to contact a pair of game designers I know, Michael Cieslinski (Dynasty League) and Tom Tippett (Diamond Mind). Here's how Michael responded ...
Rob,
Here is an idea I came up with. What about duplicating the May 18 game against the Phillies, in which McGwire blasted three homers, including two off Schilling? I think the issue here is, how bold can you be walking someone with the phenomenal stats of McGwire, and be better off doing it?
In the real game, McGwire's three-run shot in the first inning essentially ended the game, as the Cards won 7-2. Here you would have one of the best pitchers in baseball pitching in the first inning, with runners on first and third and only one out. Do you walk McGwire, thus loading the bases with Lankford and then Drew due up with the bases loaded?
To answer this question, I ran both options -- walk McGwire intentionally, don't walk McGwire intentionally -- through the Dynasty League simulation, 100 times apiece. And what I found suggests that, as great as McGwire is, walking him intentionally is essentially a break-even proposition. The Cardinals will score three or more runs 22 percent of the time, whether McGwire gets passed or not. And while pitching to him does increase Schilling's chances of getting out of the inning unscathed -- half the time, the Cardinals wound up not scoring at all, as opposed to 35 percent when the intentional pass was issued -- the Cardinals scored zero, one or two runs 78 percent of the time when the defense used both strategies.
Hope this helps,Michael Cool stuff. What's interesting to me is the break-even nature of the move. A lot of baseball strategies, when you get into the nitty-gritty, looks pretty neutral. Guarding the lines late in games and green-lighting a hitter on a 3-and-0 count are but two of many examples. I also consulted Tom Tippett, the man behind Diamond Mind Baseball and a frequent contributor to ESPN.com's Fantasy Baseball coverage. Here's what Tom came up with ... I spent some time thinking about and working on your question of whether it's better to walk McGwire all the time or pitch to him. Rather than try to simulate a great number of seasons, I decided to look at this question from a more theoretical perspective. There's a feature in Diamond Mind that generates batting orders for the computer manager to use. The logic behind that feature uses an "expected runs" approach to assess (a) each player's overall offensive ability and (b) which parts of the batting order he's most suited for. As you know, the standard expected runs tables are based on averages -- if an average series of hitters is coming up, those tables tell us how many runs are likely to be scored given the current base-out situation. Our batting order logic performs a player-specific expected runs calculation; that is, given the rates with which this hitter produces singles, doubles, and other outcomes, we figure the expected number of runs that will be produced in a given situation assuming this hitter is up next and the succeeding hitters are average. We do this for all situations, weight them based on how often they arise in the course of a season, and we wind up with an overall measure of the player's ability to produce more expected runs than the average hitter. I worked through this calculation for McGwire based on his park-adjusted 1999 performance against RHP. For each of the 24 base-out situations, I let the computer figure his personal expected runs number, and found that there wasn't a single base-out situation where walking him made more sense than pitching to him. In 22 of 24 base-out situations, McGwire's personal expected runs figure was better, usually much better, than that of an average hitter, but in no case did his extra production add up to the expected runs from walking him. Surprisingly, there were two situations (runner on third with zero outs, and runners on second and third with one out) where McGwire lags behind the league-average hitter. The reason: his walks aren't worth much in those situations, his strikeouts don't advance the runners, and the league-average hitter would more often cash in those runs with singles and doubles. Those factors more than compensate for his higher homer rate. Thanks a lot, Tom. As I understand it, then, you most certainly do pitch to McGwire and there are even some situations where you pitch to McGwire, because he's actually not as dangerous as whoever's batting behind him, given the particular base-out situation. Bill James, author of the soon-to-be-published update of his wonderful "Historical Baseball Abstract," enjoys questions like this, so I asked him, too. Rob, I took another look at the issue of how good a hitter a man would have to be in order to make it better for the pitcher just to walk him every time he comes to the plate. I did this by constructing a "worse than realistic" lineup, except that the cleanup hitter was Babe Ruth circa 1921, but modified to make him even slightly better than he actually was. The lineup was: 1. Willie Wilson (1988-1989, when Wilson was batting leadoff although he had something like a .290 on-base percentage) 2. Al Weis (career) 3. Gerald Perry (career) 4. Babe Ruth, 1921 (enhanced) 5. Gino Cimoli (career) 6. Don Wert (career) 7. Jamie Quirk (career) 8. Angel Salazar (1987) 9. Sandy Koufax (as a hitter only ... pitcher was league average) Ruth was modified by taking away 10 outs, changing him from a .378 hitter (204 for 540) to a .385 hitter (204 for 530), with proportional increases in his on-base and slugging averages. Since we don't know how many double plays he grounded into, I also gave him an unrealistically low estimate. I then ran this team through 1,000 simulated seasons on each of two computers. On one computer, I pitched to Ruth in a normal fashion, intentionally walking him only when one normally would. On the other computer, I just intentionally walked him every time he came to the plate. The conclusion? Even under those circumstances, pitching to Ruth is far, far better than just walking him. It's not even close. The winning percentage of the team when Ruth hit was .324, and the team scored ... (figuring this in my head, may be off a little) ... 3.64 runs per game. When Ruth was intentionally walked each time up, his teams' winning percentage increased to .380, and their runs scored to 4.11 per game. I think that this is an accurate analysis, for this reason ... Let's say that Ruth, batting fourth, will come to the plate 725 times in a 162-game season with no injuries or rest. If you pitch to him, he's devastating; he'll have almost 500 total bases, plus 150 walks, meaning that he'll account for about 650 bases, making only about 360 outs. That's an amazing ratio, an amazing base/out percentage or whatever you call it: 650 bases, 360 outs. But if you walk him every time, then he gets 725 bases and you get no outs: 725 to zero. That's far worse. So even in this condition, Ruth is nowhere near great enough that it would be in your best interests just to walk him every time he comes to the plate. Thanks a lot, Bill. So we have perhaps the greatest hitter ever, playing even better than he actually did in perhaps his greatest season, surrounded by a lineup full of banjo hitters ... and you should still pitch to him the great majority of the time. OPS, like many statistical measures, does some weird things at the extremes (aside from resulting in a lot of runs). By the way, Babe Ruth's non-enhanced OPS in 1921 was 1358, higher than either McGwire's or Bonds' this season (though not as high as Helton's home OPS). So if you don't walk Ruth, you certainly don't walk McGwire or Bonds. We might still ask the question, though: How good would a hitter have to be? Apparently we're not there yet, but the decade is young ... TUESDAY, JUNE 13 Quick Quiz: Which of these pitchers belongs in the pitching rotation of a major league team with World Series aspirations ...
Age IP Hits BB SO W-L ERA
Pitcher A 37 68 79 35 46 1-6 6.49
Pitcher B 35 40.2 53 23 24 2-3 6.86
By the way, both of them have Cy Young Awards in their trophy rooms (assuming, of course, that they have trophy rooms). Yes, we're talking about David Cone (Pitcher A) and Dwight Gooden.
Cone's been dreadful, and I recently saw something about his utter inability to pitch well on even five days' rest, over a long stretch running back to the middle of last season. These days, it's tough to run a pitching staff when you've got a starter who needs five days of rest. In fact, it's been tough since about 1953.
Enter, presumably, Gooden. This season alone, he's been sold by Houston and released by Tampa Bay, neither of whom have exactly a surplus of pitching talent. Nevertheless, this weekend the Yankees signed Gooden to a minor-league contract. And in yesterday's USA Today, Rod Beaton wrote, "So as soon as the Yankees figure out whom to move off the 25-man roster, Gooden will move on. The cost will be minimal. He earns $500,000 this season and the Devil Rays are liable for most of it."
Fine, but what about the cost in the standings? Is Gooden really the best the Yankees can do? I am a bit less sure of Gooden's eventual promotion than Beaton is. If he pitches well in Columbus, then he'll make it back. But there's no reason to give him a job just because he's Dwight Gooden.
Perhaps I have become, like so many other baseball fans who live in New England, obsessive about the American League East pennant race. But I would argue that it's particularly fascinating this season, because the Yankees and Red Sox both have so many apparent holes, and relatively little ability to fill them. And I still say the Blue Jays are going to make the big boys squirm before all's said and done.
Long Quiz: Who am I?
Like Dwight Gooden and David Cone, I'm 37 years old.I have won two batting titles, and my lifetime batting average is .320. My .427 lifetime on-base percentage ranks ninth this century. One might argue that aside from perhaps Frank Thomas, I was the most productive right-handed hitter of the 1990s. Yet despite all this, I am rarely discussed as a serious Hall of Fame candidate. So who am I? Short Answer: Edgar Martinez Long Answer: I (it's me, Rob the Columnist again) suspect that most of you got this after the first or second clues. The point of all this, really, is to discuss Martinez's Hall of Fame chances, because (1) he's enjoying yet another wonderful season, and (2) I do get this question via e-mail every few days. It's hard for me to imagine Martinez retiring with career numbers that would allow me to support his Hall of Fame candidacy. As I've written more than once, the standards should be somewhat higher for hitters than in the past, because for a number of reasons it's easier for modern hitters to stay healthy and productive into their late 30s and even their early 40s. Or at least, I believe that it's easier. Martinez didn't become a full-time player until he was 27, and then he missed most of the 1993 season with hamstring injuries. In his entire career, the oft-injured Martinez has played in more than 150 games in a season only twice. The results? Martinez is no sure bet for 2,000 hits, let alone 3,000. He didn't hit his 200th home run until this spring. And of course, there's the defense issue. As in, Martinez hasn't played much defense since 1994. And he hasn't played even 100 games with a glove on his hand since 1992. Am I suggesting that a DH can't be a Hall of Famer? Absolutely not. But at this point, there are two active DHs, Martinez and Harold Baines, who will receive at least a modicum of support. If Martinez had Baines' career length, I'd vote for him. And if Baines had Martinez's qualitative track record, I'd vote for him. As it stands, though, I couldn't vote for either of them. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14 Last night I was in Yankee Stadium, where the Red Sox pulled into a virtual tie with the Yankees atop the East. I had a great seat and even better company, but I've been writing far too much lately about the Sox and Yanks, so today I'm going to try something a bit different. For my stay in New York, I've borrowed the apartment of a colleague, a fine baseball writer who I've never actually met, but who graciously offered me lodgings while he's out of town. As it happens, this writer and I have much in common, including kitchen cabinets that contain baseball books rather than dishes or food. Now, it's not often that I meet someone who owns baseball books that I don't, but there are indeed a few such books in this Upper East Side apartment. So I decided to find some stuff that I didn't know. And share with you. From "The Macfarland Baseball Quotations Dictionary" ... Reporter: How many games did you win, Mr. Young? Cy Young (age 88): Son, I won more games [511] than you'll ever see.So I have a new goal: see more games than Cy Young won. And here's another quote, same book ... If you don't play to win, why keep score?I'm incredibly competitive when I play sports, and this puts people off sometimes. But my response, though usually not voiced, is, "Look, if we're just playing 'for fun,' then let's not keep score." What I didn't know is that Vern Law verbalized that exact sentiment, many years ago. From "Day by Day in Baltimore Orioles History" ... May 7, 1990 -- Gregg Olson allows his first run of the season at California in his ninth game, breaking a streak of 41 consecutive scoreless innings in 29 appearances. Olson hadn't allowed a run since July 31, 1989. Olson breaks the club record of 36 straight scoreless innings set by Hal Brown in 1961. Olson went another 12 appearances before yielding another run.I picked this entry for two reasons. One, as a Royals fan it's hard to imagine any relief pitcher going more than two or three games without allowing a run. And two, I want to tell you that Hal Brown's nickname was "Skinny," and he was a knuckleball pitcher. Here's another entry, a bit more timely ... June 13, 1985-- Manager Joe Altobelli is fired after the Orioles return home from Detroit, losing, 6-2, the night before for their fifth straight loss. The Orioles were 29-26 at the time, in fourth place, eight games behind Toronto in the standings. Third base coach Cal Ripken, Sr. managed for one game on June 13, an 8-3 win over Milwaukee, before Earl Weaver took over on the 14th for his second tour as manager as the Birds came back to dump Milwaukee, 7-5. The Orioles went 53-52 under Weaver the rest of the season.How quickly they forget. In his first season as manager, Altobelli had led the Orioles to a World Series victory in 1983. The O's dropped to 85-77 in 1984, fifth place but only four games behind the second-place Blue Jays. Then essentially more of the same in '85, and he was gone. Weaver fared no better, and in '86 guided the O's to a 73-89 mark, their worst since 1956, before quitting for good. Some stuff I learned from the new and essential "Baseball: The Biographic Encyclopedia": In 1999, Craig Biggio said, "Not a lot of guys get to play their whole careers with one team because of the economics of the game. I can't think of a better time to be wearing an Astros uniform." Wonder if he can think of a better time than now. ... Cardinals pitcher Ken Burkhart was born Kenneth Burkhardt with a "d," but he later shortened his name. Burkhart became a National League umpire in 1957 and missed the grand total of two innings before he retired in 1973. ... Chili Davis got his nickname after a bad haircut when he was in the sixth grade. A friend thought the barber had used a chili bowl to do the cutting. ... On September 28, 1995, Greg Allen Harris became the first pitcher to throw with both hands in a major league game since 1888. He pitched an inning of scoreless relief in one of his last appearances, and later donated his special glove to the Hall of Fame (where, presumably, it sits in a vast storage area, like that warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant ends up in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). ... Roger McDowell started his first two major league games, and then relieved in his next 721. ... Everyone knows that Diego Segui is the only man to play for both the Seattle Pilots and Mariners, but did you know that he pitched a perfect game in the minor leagues when he was 40? ... In 1942, Boston Braves manager Casey Stengel demoted Warren Spahn to the Eastern League because Spahn wouldn't throw a brushback pitch at Dodgers shortstop Pee Wee Reese. "It was the worst mistake I ever made," Stengel later admitted. ... Joe Torre led the National League in grounding into double plays four straight times, 1964 through 1967. Sounds like a certain hard-hitting Rangers catcher we know. ... After deranged fan Ruth Ann Steinhagen shot Phillies first baseman Eddie Waitkus in 1949, she told police, "I admire him now more than ever before. He showed so much courage as he lay there on the floor. The way he looked up at me and kept smiling." ... If you buy one baseball book this summer -- aside from mine, of course -- this should probably be the one. THURSDAY, JUNE 15 For a testament to the greatness of Pudge Rodriguez, one need look no further than the newsstand, where the cover of the latest Baseball Weekly features Jason Varitek and Jorge Posada, along with the words, "New York, Boston score big with strong, young catchers." True enough. But as my editor hastens to point out, Posada is actually three months older than Rodriguez, and Varitek is but five months younger. As I have happily pointed out over the last few years, Rodriguez has frequently been overrated, but he is a phenomenal player, and he's still only 28 years old. Other notes while we wait for Mike Myers to give up a run ... Yesterday in my chat session, the following exchange occurred: Alain: I think that baseball has been watered down the last few years. How about eliminating a few teams? If you're not scared to be blasted with a few hundred e-mails, I want you to decide which six teams should be demoted to Triple-A for whatever reason you decide. Rob Neyer: Sure, no problem. AthleticsJust to set the record straight, I don't advocate MLB contraction. While I do think the Athletics and Expos and perhaps a few other clubs are in trouble where they are, I'd rather see them move than die. I tossed the Yankees in there as a joke, though my e-mail suggests that a fair number of you actually thought I was serious. A fair number of you who are Yankee fans also think that I hate your team. Well, I don't. I enjoyed their success in 1998, and the 1939 club is one of my favorites. And the passing years have helped me recover from the wounds inflicted by the Yankees in Octobers 1976, '77 and '78. That said, this year I do have reason to root against them. As many of you know, I am living in Boston, just a few blocks from Fenway Park, and writing a book about the experience. And the simple fact is that if the Red Sox do well this season, the book will be more successful than if they don't do well. Plus, with all due respect, the Yankees have won enough World Series lately. I think the world would be better served if the fans of another team could enjoy the feeling that comes with winning a championship. But, watching the Yankees-White Sox game last night on TV, I took no pleasure in the defensive struggles of a certain second baseman who won a Gold Glove as recently as 1997. As everyone knows so well, Chuck Knoblauch has, since last year, suffered from Steve Sax disease, the frequent inability to make even the most routine throws to first base. And it's never been worse than it was last night. Last week, before Chuck Knoblauch temporarily took over my brain, I wondered if Willie Horton might be the "worst player" to be honored with a statue at a baseball stadium. Of course, some Detroiters took this as a personal affront, though it wasn't meant as such. It was just a question, perfectly susceptible to rational analysis. Before we get to said analysis, I'll happily give equal time to one of those many Detroiters ... Oops, I seem to have deleted all those messages, so instead I'll give equal time to Detroit News columnist Terry Foster. And rather than reproduce a portion of Foster's column, here's a link to that column, in which he makes a compelling argument for Horton. Please read that now, and then come back here ... OK, did Foster argue that Horton's career as a player merits a place beside Cobb and Greenberg and Gehringer and Kaline and Newhouser, Hall of Famers all? No, he didn't. And that's all I was saying, that Horton was not a great player. And he wasn't. But is he the worst player to be statue-fied? Well, nobody's come up with anybody worse, not really. A few of you suggested Michael Jordan, who was indeed a worse baseball player than Willie Horton, but his statue is outside an arena rather than a ballpark, so he's disqualified on a technicality. One joker in the crowd also suggested Pope John Paul II, who's got a plaque at Yankee Stadium. Actually, Pope Paul VI is out there, too. But I don't count either one of these guys, because (1) they've only got the plaques, not the "monuments" accorded to the really big guys like Gehrig and Ruth, and (2) they're popes, which, if I remember my schooling, means they're infallible. And as wonderful as Willie Horton might have been, he certainly made some mistakes on the basepaths from time to time. So I still think the answer is Horton, notwithstanding the following:
Maybe asking this question makes me a terrible person, but I'm really interested in your opinion on this... why the lack of moral outrage concerning Furcal's alleged drunk driving incident, given how up in arms everyone was over John Rocker's redneck fury? It seems to me that while Rocker is (possibly) a crazy homo/xeno phobe, he didn't really break any laws, while Furcal allegedly broke two (DUI, and underage drinking unless he's actually 22). Further, I personally have more moral problems with drunk drivers than I do with nutty bigots. A tremendous fan,Mike Lehmann Back in Connie Mack's heyday, before the days of extensive scouting staffs, he benefited from a string of friends around the country who tipped him off when a hot prospect surfaced. Mack, you see, was busy running a baseball team, so he didn't have time to schlep around the country watching minor league and semi-pro league and industrial league games. I am similarly blessed. I can't seem to find the time to follow the daily doings of every major league club but, fortunately, when something interesting happens, one of my "scouts" usually lets me know. That's what happened last week, when a number of readers quickly informed me of Angels hitting coach Mickey Hatcher's bewildering comments about Troy Glaus. "He's the kind of guy who needs to be aggressive," Hatcher said. "I'd rather he hit .270 with 40 homers and be aggressive than take a lot of walks."
BB/600 PA Avg OBP
Hatcher 27 .280 .313
Scioscia 68 .259 .344
It's one of our failures that we tend to want others to behave as we have behaved. Hell, Mickey Hatcher probably thinks he was a good player (he wasn't).
You want a personification of Hatcher's "theories"? Look no further than Garret Anderson. I've never liked Anderson as a player, because outfielders with sub-.500 slugging percentages and sub-.340 on-base percentages won't get you very far. Well, this year Anderson has been more "aggressive" than ever, and he's already got 17 home runs, just four off his career high of last year. Unfortunately, he's more than made up for those 17 home runs with only eight walks. Anderson's OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage), since 1996, reads like this: 719, 743, 780, 805, 740. And he's still only 27 years old, doesn't turn 28 until next Friday.
What do you think Hatcher's telling Anderson these days? Be less aggressive, or be even more aggressive?
I suppose my job as a muckraking columnist is, at this point in the narrative, to publicly denounce Hatcher and, further, demand that he immediately be fired on grounds of gross incompetence. However, Mickey Hatcher may not really be worth worrying about.
Quick, who's the better hitting coach, Anaheim's Mickey Hatcher or Atlanta's Merv Rettenmund?
Well, last year the Angels ranked 13th in scoring in the American League, and this year they're eighth. Last year the Braves ranked seventh in scoring in the National League, and this year they're sixth.
Last year the Angels ranked 13th in OPS in the American League, and this year they're No. 1! Last year the Braves ranked seventh in OPS in the National League ... and this year they're seventh.
Hatcher has seen his charges make a huge collective improvement since last season, while Rettenmund's boys are doing almost exactly what they did last year. One could, I suppose, argue that we're forgetting that Rettenmund replaced Don Baylor, himself highly regarded as a hitting instructor ... but Hatcher replaced Rod Carew, and people said a lot of nice things about Carew, too.
Ah, so it's actually Mickey Hatcher who's the miracle worker, right? No, I'm not saying that, either. I'm not sure that I believe in miracle workers. For every Darin Erstad, there's a Garret Anderson. For every Andruw Jones and Quilvio Veras, there's a Reggie Sanders and Wally Joyner.
You know what I think?
I think that in the great majority of cases, hitting coaches don't make a cat's whisker of difference. I think that if you set out to find a hitting coach who has consistently raised the general level of performance of his team's hitters, you'll drive yourself nuts. I think that if a baseball player doesn't already know how to hit by the time he reaches the majors, he'll probably never know how to hit. And I think that when a major league hitter is doing what Troy Glaus is doing, the best thing a hitting coach can do is say, "Go get 'em, big fella."
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21Recently, I was reading about the future of publishing, and ran across this: "The book -- portable, intuitive to use -- is an almost perfect technology." Now, I wouldn't argue that the newspaper is perfect, or even almost perfect. But for some things, it's still better than this newfangled "Internet." Yesterday's USA Today listed 867 players, or 1001 if you count the guys on the DL. Think about that. Eight hundred and sixty-seven players with statistics that permit analysis. Yes, there are more than 1,500 NFL players at any given time, but how many of them have either no statistics, or meaningless statistics? So that's 867 stories, right there on one page. Anyway, occasionally I like to find some of those stories, and share them with you, the computer-friendly baseball fan. What's wrong with Mike Mussina? Maybe nothing.
BR/9 K/9 ERA Win%
Career 10.6 5.7 3.50 .673
2000 11.0 5.5 3.67 .455
Those numbers suggest that the only thing that's different this year is his luck.
Cleveland's Richie Sexson has made an amazing comeback after suffering through one of the worst Aprils -- .215 batting average, one home run and two RBI in 19 games -- since the invention of the Julian calendar. In his 43 games since April, however, Sexson has smashed 12 homers and knocked in 26 runners. He still has no plate discipline, and I doubt if he'll ever be a truly productive hitter.
The following stat line combines the 2000 performance of two Detroit Tigers:
AB R H HR RBI OBP Slug 221 22 47 7 23 .304 .348That line represents the combined "contribution" of Damion Easley and Tony Clark, who, if memory serves, not long ago were signed to multi-year contracts, befitting their status as cornerstones of the franchise. (Granted, those stats were compiled before last night, when Clark hit a couple of homers, and Easley drew three walks.) Yes, that's mean-spirited of me. I do have something positive to say about the Tigers ... Rich Becker. Yes, Rich Becker, who recently was released by the Athletics and makes, in relative terms, barely more money than you do. Becker's not a great player, not by a long shot, but he does one thing that few Tigers do: he gets on base. Becker's .395 on-base percentage (including his time in Oakland) leads the club, and both Phil Garner and hitting coach Bill Madlock have been making happy sounds about patience and hitter's counts and all that neat stuff. I often receive messages asking me when players like Carlos Delgado and Jeff Kent and Mike Sweeney are going to get the credit they deserve. Well, I don't exactly what that means, but I do hear their names on Baseball Tonight, and read their names in Baseball Weekly, all the time. A name you don't often hear or read is Matt Lawton. Did you know that his .442 OBP currently ranks sixth in the American League? Lawton bats No. 3 for the Twins, but he doesn't have home-run power and would make a wonderful leadoff man. Of course, nobody else on the Twins has any home run power, either. Jacque Jones leads the Twinkies with 10 homers (accompanied, unfortunately, by only nine walks). As a club, they've got 53, which would have been acceptable 39 years ago but doesn't quite do the job in The Sluggers Era. The Twins' power outage is best exemplified by corner infielders Corey Koskie and David Ortiz, who somehow have managed to combine for 307 at-bats and three home runs. I won't bore you with another ode to the A's. But just know that they're doing this well, though John Jaha has hit one home run in 69 at-bats. Of course, he's also drawn 26 walks. Then you've got the anti-Athletics, the Devil Rays. They were built like a men's slo-pitch softball team, but score runs like a women's fast-pitch softball team. It's truly odd, Tampa Bay's one real strength entering the season was supposed to be power ... and they're currently 12th in the American League in homers, 13th in slugging percentage. There's a book called "One Shining Season," filled with the stories of players who starred for one season, or part of one season, and then faded almost immediately from the season. I'm wondering if Jeff Zimmermann will be featured in "One Shining Season Volume II." A year ago, he went 9-3 with a 2.36 ERA and made the All-Star team. This year, he's 1-4 with a 6.91 ERA. If anyone knows what happened, let me know. Or, better yet, let Jeff Zimmerman know. I look at Billy Koch's stats, and something doesn't compute. He's pitched 35 innings, allowed 40 hits, and has struck out "only" 32 hitters. But you watch him pitch, as I did last weekend, and you see him throwing 100-mph fastballs and low-90s sliders. As great as that arm is, there's still something missing. If Koch ever puts everything together, he may well be the best closer in the league. But he's not there yet. Barring some sort of earth-shaking news, tomorrow we'll zip through the National League. THURSDAY, JUNE 22 I promised to lead a statistical romp through the National League today, but if you'll indulge me, I'd like to focus on the San Francisco Giants for a moment. USA Today arranges the team stats like this: hitters first, listed in order of descending batting average; and then the pitchers, listed in order of ascending ERA. What I found interesting were the first and the last Giants listed: Jeff Kent (.347) and Russ Ortiz (6.57), because they represent the best and the worst of Dusty Baker. Kent's having a monster year; yes, even better than Edgardo Alfonzo, at least if you ignore their home ballparks. Here's the race for top-hitting second baseman in the National League:
Runs RBI OPS OW%
Kent 54 66 1097 .819
Alfonzo 54 48 1034 .787
Vidro 49 48 988 .766
These guys rank 1-2-3 in both OPS and offensive winning percentage (no coincidence there, of course), and they're also 1-2-3 in slugging percentage, among National League second baseman. (Luis Castillo sports a fairly amazing .460 on-base percentage, tops among NL second basemen, but somehow has still managed only three RBI.)
Kent's a fantastic player, though when you figure in the ballparks and the defense, Alfonzo might be slightly more fantastic. Vidro's been great, too, but we'll need a few more months before we know about him for sure. And when it comes time to pick All-Star reserves -- Craig Biggio's got the starting spot locked up -- Vidro will probably left out in the cold.
Anyway, while Kent was a good hitter before he landed in San Francisco, I don't think anybody ever thought he'd be this good. And it's not just him. The Giants have been a fine offensive club for years under Baker. Some might argue that the true improvement didn't come until Gene Clines came aboard as hitting coach in 1997, but I believe managers deserve their share of credit for what happens with the club. And the fact is Jeff Kent has thrived since coming to San Francisco.
And then there's Russ Ortiz, who entered this season with a 22-13 career record, and a 4.17 career ERA. Yes, Ortiz's performance last year was a house of cards, built on a shaky foundation that included 125 walks in 208 innings. But as Dusty Baker does with all of his starters, he's worked Ortiz incredibly hard in recent seasons, and I'm fairly convinced this has something to do with his horrible performance this season. We have, of course, been over this territory many times, so I won't belabor the point today.
My point is that people like to label managers as "good" or "bad," but the truth is almost always more complicated. Dusty Baker is good at some things, bad at some others, and the same can be said of the great majority of managers (though Baker's polarity is quite striking).
On a related note, the latest Baseball Weekly includes a column by Bob Nightengale, in which we learn that Bob Boone is anxious to manage again. As a Royals fan, at least when they're not playing the Athletics, the very thought of The Boy Genius managing again sends shivers throughout my body, and perhaps to the earth's very core. But let us speak of that terrifying possibility no more.
According to Nightengale, other candidates to manage the Reds, should Jack McKeon get the axe, are Dusty Baker and Lou Piniella. Nightengale writes, "It's no secret that [Reds GM Jim] Bowden is infatuated with Giants manager Dusty Baker, whom he believes is the finest manager in the game ... Bowden also has great respect for Lou Piniella, the fiery manager of the Seattle Mariners."
I think Jim Bowden generally knows what he's doing, but if I loved the Reds with all my heart, I would be a bit disconcerted to learn that Bowden's two favorite managerial candidates were Dusty Baker and Lou Piniella, who happen to be among the three most pitcher-abusive managers in the game. Throw in Bob Boone -- who did some nasty, sickening things to Jose Rosado a few years ago -- and I wonder if the Reds aren't better off with Geriatric Jack. At least when he destroys pitchers, they're of the relatively replaceable bullpen variety.
Addendum to Yesterday's Column: Boy, until yesterday I didn't realize how popular the Prospectus web site must be. Within hours of posting a column wondering what's wrong with Jeff Zimmerman this year, nearly a score of readers directed me to BP's site, where Michael Wolverton's analysis suggests that Zimmerman has suffered from a fair amount of bad luck. It seems that he's done a fine job of stranding inherited runners, but his successors have done a poor job of stranding the runners allowed by Zimmerman. Given just average luck, his ERA would be 4.37 rather than the ugly 6.91 you see in the stats.
FRIDAY, JUNE 23Look at the following four seasons, all compiled by one American League team:
W-L Pct
1997 86-75 .534
1998 89-73 .549
1999 97-65 .599
2000 37-32 .536
Which one of these four seasons is out of character? Yes, the 1999 season -- and not the 2000 season. So why is everyone so shocked at what the Indians have done this year? Their 37-32 record is actually quite consistent with their performances in both 1997 and '98. Last year's record -- let's be honest, kids -- was something of a fluke, with Cleveland's Nos. 1 through 4 hitters all enjoying magnificent seasons. This year, neither Kenny Lofton nor Omar Vizquel nor Roberto Alomar nor Manny Ramirez are faring quite so well, and nobody should be particularly surprised.
So what's the problem here? Actually, there are two. First off, Cleveland is just the No. 13 media market in the U.S., which makes it tough for the Indians to compete financially with the big boys, perpetual home sellouts or not. And second, the Tribe's young pitchers haven't been as good as hoped, due in part -- in this scribe's humble opinion -- to overuse when Hargrove was running the club. Chuck Finley's been great this year, but his presence simply compensates for the ill health of Bartolo Colon and Jaret Wright.
I know that a fair percentage of Clevelanders will take this analysis as an insult, but it's not meant as one. If you're a baseball fan and you don't admire an organization that's won more than half its games for seven straight seasons, something's wrong with you. Since 1994, the Indians have the third-best winning percentage (.595) in the majors; since 1997, they have the fourth-best winning percentage (.558) in the majors.
But when it comes to the AL Central standings, the facts suggest that the Indians have not, in a fundamental way, gotten worse. Rather, the White Sox have simply gotten better. A lot better. And this year, a .540 or .550 winning percentage probably won't be enough to capture the flag.
And then you've got the Braves. Here's their four-year record:
W-L Pct
1997 101-61 .623
1998 106-56 .654
1999 103-59 .636
2000 44-27 .614
The Braves aren't quite matching their recent success, but they do have the best record in the National League. Which is more than a little odd, given that three of their five starting pitchers have combined for a 5.39 ERA. That's right. Kevin Millwood (5.14), John Burkett (5.53) and Terry Mulholland (5.55) are all over five (though Burkett's been slightly better, 4.79, as a starter).
So how are they doing it? Luck? Well, maybe a little. But the Braves' Pythagorean record is 42-29, just two games off their actual record. No, the answer is simply that they're scoring a fair number of runs, and Maddux, Glavine and the bullpen have been quite effective, Mr. Rocker notwithstanding.
It's funny, seems like just a few weeks ago that the baseball pundits, some of them my colleagues, were suggesting that this Braves team might be their best yet. My friends, it's hard to improve on 310 wins over three seasons, and it was unreasonable to expect this club to better last year's record.
MONDAY, JUNE 26I spent this past weekend in Florida, attending the annual convention of the Society for American Baseball Research. After two games at Pro Player Stadium, I can tell you that it's not as bad as I thought it would be. I mean, it's a football stadium with a baseball field wedged in somewhat awkwardly, and everything's orange and blue and dark orange and teal, but Pro Player does have its charms. They do a pretty good job with the scoreboards and I appreciate the display listing the velocity and type of every pitch. I also appreciated my seat yesterday, which was so fantastic that I presumably violated some sub-section of the journalism ethics rulebook to get it. I was, if you can believe this, sitting just a few feet from the Cubs dugout, with a great view into the Cubs dugout. It's a perspective that is available in few, if any, other ballparks. When you're sitting this close to the players and the coaching staff, you can learn some fascinating things about nicknames. Mark Grace? Gracie. Brant Brown? Brownie. Jeff Huson? Hughie. Glenallen Hill? Hilly. Joe Girardi? Jo-Jo. Ah, but that's not Girardi's only nickname. In the top of the fourth, with Willie Greene on second base and Girardi batting, Cubs bench coach Rene Lachemann shouted toward the plate, "Let's go, Backbone." Backbone? I can only guess that Girardi acquired that nickname for his leadership skills ... but I have to say, if I were a catcher, I'm not sure if I'd want to be known as the leader of a 30-44 club with the worst ERA in the National League. (By the way, you learn other fascinating things when you sit that close to the action, but unfortunately most of them are not suitable for a family-oriented website like this one.) A few other notes on a game that meant something to those of us who were there: Here is why the New York Yankees are interested in Samuel Peralta Sosa.
Games Runs HR RBI OBP Slug
Sosa 74 51 20 66 .395 .583
Ledee 60 22 7 31 .333 .424
It's a bit more complicated than a one-for-one switch -- Ricky Ledee doesn't usually start against left-handed pitchers -- but if Sammy Sosa were a Yankee, he would essentially replace Ledee in the starting lineup.
Now, I suppose one could argue that the difference between Sosa and Ledee isn't actually so great, that Sosa's not really this good and Ledee's not really this bad. So here are some projections for the two that appeared before the 2000 season:
OBP Slug
Sosa .375 .621
Ledee .345 .453
Hmmm, still a pretty hefty difference. In fact, those projections from Baseball Prospectus actually are well within the acceptable margin of error, relative to the actual performances of the two players. So yes, they really are that different. Sosa's one of the best right fielders in the game, Ledee's a platoon left fielder. At best.
The math is difficult to explain in less than a few thousand words, but it's fair to suggest that Sosa is somewhere in the neighborhood of six wins better than a typical corner outfielder, and that Ledee is approximately two wins worse than a typical corner outfielder.
That's an eight-game difference over the course of a season; if the Yankees were able to replace Ledee with Sosa tomorrow, that would work out to a five-game difference over the rest of this season. Based on the Yankees' current winning percentage, five extra victories would give them a 91-71 record. And based on the current standings, that would also give them the American League East title, by a game or two.
Of course, all this assumes that if the Yankees don't pick up Sosa, they'll be content with Ledee in left field. And they probably would not be. But for the sake of the argument, let's assume that it's Sammy or nobody.
Now, a lot of people would also suggest that adding a player of Sosa's caliber not only improves you at his position, but in other areas as well.
Remember when the Braves traded for Fred McGriff in late June of 1993? In his first game, McGriff hit a two-run homer to help the Braves make up a five-run deficit and top the Cardinals, 8-5. He continued to hit, and the Braves continued to win, going 51-17 the rest of the season. In his book, "None but the Braves," Tom Glavine wrote, " ... Fred went on a tear ... and our entire lineup had a different look to it. Now, you had to get through Gant, Justice, and McGriff in the middle of the order, and that required the type of concentration from a pitcher that would eventually wear him out."
That makes a certain amount of sense, I suppose, but I also suppose that you'd have a devil of a time finding any empirical evidence supporting the existence of any such effect.
There's also the old canard about making a move just so the players know management is "trying to win." I'm not denying the existence of this effect, either ... but if the Yankees need help getting their heads on straight, then there's even more wrong with them than we've been led to believe.
So I'm sticking with the five-game improvement if they acquire Sosa, which could well make the difference between playing in October or going fishing.
On the other hand, no single player is going to completely cure the ills of the Yankees or the Red Sox. As I have now written too many times, both clubs have numerous problems. Or at the least, both have had numerous problems. If one of those clubs turns things around and wins 95 games, it's not going to be the result of a trade or trades. It's going to take some players already on hand making some serious improvements over the next three months.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28Back in January, as part of the "Team of the Aughts" series, I wondered who would be the best third baseman of the next decade. In the process of that thought experiment, we ran the following table:
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
Those are the guys in the accompanying poll, but the truth is that I didn't really consider Glaus. I wrote, "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."
Age Career OPS
Chipper Jones 28 929
Scott Rolen 25 877
Fernando Tatis 25 849
Troy Glaus 23 830
Eric Chavez 22 810
Adrian Beltre 21 752
Not a bad showing for young Troy, who in the short space of three months has moved from sixth to fourth in the career OPS rankings. Perhaps more to the point, the four third baseman ahead of him are also older. What's more, Rolen and Tatis have both made trips to the DL this season.
Meanwhile, Chavez still hasn't established himself against left-handed pitchers. He rarely starts against them, and in just 100 career at-bats against southpaws, he's hitting all of .170.
The wild card here is Adrian Beltre. As you likely remember, a few months ago we discovered that he was actually born in 1979 rather than 1978. He just turned 21, on April 7. When Troy Glaus was 21, he was still in the minor leagues; Beltre's now in his third major league season.
Here are Beltre's key percentages these last two seasons:
Beltre OBP Slug OPS 1999 .352 .428 780 2000 .320 .455 775The OPS totals are essentially identical, but the components are somewhat different. If Beltre can combine the .350 OBP and the .450 slugging percentage, suddenly you're looking at a pretty good player. Remember, too, that Andruw Jones didn't become a productive hitter until he was 21. So I think that Beltre remains a candidate for best third baseman of the next decade ... though I also think that we can't make him a top candidate until he shows a bit more in the majors. Chavez is out, for the aforementioned reason (hasn't proved he can hit lefties). That leaves four candidates: Glaus, Chipper Jones, Fernando Tatis and Scott Rolen. Let's run one more table:
Age Career OPS 2000 OPS
Chipper Jones 28 929 989
Scott Rolen 25 877 889
Fernando Tatis 25 849 1235
Troy Glaus 23 830 1095
One piece of missing information: Tatis played only 21 games before going on the DL with a pulled groin, and he may not return to the lineup until after the All-Star break. Given the injury, and the fact that he's the same age as Rolen with somewhat less impressive career numbers, it seems to me that he's the next to go. So that leaves three candidates, and the three offer something for everybody, at least when it comes to age.
Me? I'll split the difference. Assuming that Rolen's back problems don't flare up again -- yes, I know that's asking a lot -- I love his combination of youth and performance. (By the way, Rolen and Glaus have both displayed Gold Glove abilities, while Chipper is adequate but certainly not outstanding.)
And given Chipper's defensive skills, I think he might be moved to first base or the outfield in five or six years, which leaves Glaus as our No. 2 candidate. Not bad for a guy who I essentially ignored just six months ago. Now, if Mickey Hatcher will just leave him alone ...
THURSDAY, JUNE 29As I mentioned Monday, I spent last weekend in Florida, attending the Society for American Baseball research convention and enjoying some exciting Marlins baseball. Now, there are some fairly well-known people in SABR, but very few of them attend the conventions because they can't deal with all the attention. I'm still a relative nobody, so I still go every year. The best thing about the conventions is getting to hang out with friends you only get to see once a year, people like (in my case) David Mundo and Mat Olkin and Brian Morrow and Pete Palmer. If you went, you'd have your own list before long. The second-best thing is the research presentations. These are half-hour talks on subjects ranging from the bizarre to the obscure to the impenetrable, and some are truly wonderful. Every year, I resolve to see more of them, and every year I fail. This time, I missed an early-morning flight to Florida, and thus missed an entire day of presentations. And next year, I'm sure something else will happen; perhaps I'll be stuck behind a table in the vendors' room, hawking copies of {whatever my next book is called]. Anyway, I did make it to a few presentations this time around, and one of them -- "111 Years of Major League Ejections" -- was completely and utterly fascinating, the sort that made me wish there was an accompanying book, like those special monographs published in conjunction with art exhibitions. There was no monograph, but presenter Doug Pappas did distribute a three-page handout that contained some of the more interesting data. And his presentation included many other wonderful facts, including the following: I'll be on vacation next week. And with luck, by the time I return to this space, Sammy Sosa will be with his new team, assuming he finds one, because frankly I'm getting tired of him. In the meantime ...
Shane Parendo | |||||