|
|
|
|
 |
| MLB |
|
Scores Schedules Standings Statistics Transactions Injuries: AL | NL Players Weekly Lineup Message Board Minor Leagues MLB Stat Search Clubhouses |
| Sport Sections |
|
|
| Monday, August 7 | |||||
| July Archives ESPN.com | |||||
|
MONDAY, JULY 31 Tomorrow I'll make some sweeping, ill-founded generalizations about which teams did the best and the worst this trading season, but today I want to get a bit of a head start analyzing the recent deals ... Without further ado, Jim Mecir's numbers since he joined the Devil Rays in 1998: Innings Hits HR BB SO W-L ERA 154 118 8 69 125 14-5 3.03Who knew? I certainly didn't. Frankly, Mecir's got better stuff -- he throws his fastball in the low 90s and also throws a slider and a screwball -- than at least half the guys currently employed as major league closers. In a strange, though not particularly interesting coincidence, Mecir's 3.03 ERA over the last three seasons exactly matches Jeff Tam's 3.03 ERA this season (through Thursday night's game). I think you'd have a tough time, a real tough time, finding a better righty setup duo than these two. (Tam, by the way, has allowed just one home run in 66 innings, which is obviously the key to his success.) Jason Isringhausen's been something less than a Cy Young candidate, but the Athletics certainly now have one of the better bullpens in the league. They still are short a quality lefty, but Mecir, despite throwing sidearm, has historically been quite effective against left-handed hitters. Now, trading Jesus Colome is obviously something of a gamble. But recently I read something -- I think it might have been over at the Baseball Prospectus web site -- that made me pause. The author suggested that minor-league pitchers, because there are so many obstacles between them and major league success, are actually not highly valuable commodities. Yes, we still hear about the Tigers trading John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander, but how many promising Double-A pitchers actually become anything more than journeyman major league pitchers? I don't know, either, but it's worth checking someday. Most baseball teams have no sense of history, and the latest, best example is Rondell White's new contract with the Cubs. A major leaguer since 1993, White has played more than 140 games just once (in 1997). He played only 40 games in 1994, 88 games in 1996, and 97 games in 1998. Through yesterday, he had played only 76 of Montreal's 101 games this season. All in all, since 1994 White has played in roughly 70 percent of his team's games. Now, I'll admit that I've never seen conclusive evidence of this, but I certainly believe that players who have been injured in the past will tend to become injured in the future. Yet there's always some team that will forget the history, and pay a guy as if he's going to play 150 games in each of the next few seasons.
I would like to revisit, one more time, the Hall of Fame qualifications of Tony Perez. The Boston Globe ran capsules on the non-Fisk inductees, and Perez's led with this: "One of baseball's best clutch hitters and run producers ... " The second of those labels is meaningless. Frankly, when you hear someone described as a "run producer," it usually means that he doesn't do anything particularly well, but has been lucky enough to bat in the middle of a good lineup. It's not a Hall of Fame qualification, it's an excuse. No, let's focus of the first of those, the "clutch hitter" label, because that's what most everyone talks about when they talk about Perez. Now, as many of you might remember from last winter, I do not believe in clutch hitters. That is, while I believe that some hitters perform well in clutch situations, there simply is no credible evidence that these performances are due to anything other than chance. It's not an ability, but rather a fluctuation. I also specifically looked at Perez. At that time, I did not have any career clutch stats for him, so instead I just looked at his postseason performance. In a sense, I figured, nearly all postseason action is pressure-packed, as you know if you've ever attended a game in October. Anyway, Perez did not fare particularly well in postseason games, as you can see ...
Games AB HR RBI OBP Slug
Post 47 172 6 24 .291 .378
Regular 812 2957 133 563 .362 .497
For Perez's regular-season stats, I used only the six seasons at the conclusion of which Perez actually played in postseason games. Now, you can look at those numbers from here to Sunday, and it's real hard to argue that Perez stepped up his performance in the pressure-packed cauldron that is October baseball.
Of course, 47 games don't prove anything one way or the other (though if Perez had done well in those 47 games, you know that his supporters would trumpet the fact). So I turned to the good folks at Retrosheet for more information.
Retrosheet's files contain the great majority of Perez's career data, missing only 159 games between 1964 and 1972. Perez played 2,777 games in his career, which means we've got play-by-play data from 94.3 percent of his games. Which is plenty. Anyway, without further ado, here are Perez's (near) career stats, overall and some clutch stuff:
AB OBP Slug OPS
Total 9374 .340 .461 801
Late,Close 1603 .372 .495 867
Score Pos 2749 .366 .471 837
This data suggests -- nay, demands -- that Perez did indeed hit better in clutch situations. And remember, the difference is bigger than it might seem, because the "Total" line includes the clutch numbers.
However, I was wondering, don't all hitters do better in those spots? Here are the major league numbers from 1999:
AB OBP Slug OPS
Total 167137 .345 .434 779
Late,Close 24383 .341 .400 741
Score Pos 43685 .359 .429 788
Hmm, some of the numbers actually went down in the tough spots. Ah, but that's because of those killer closers, right? Surely, Perez and his peers didn't have to face such relief aces. Perhaps not, but more Retrosheet data suggests that it wasn't particularly easy to hit in the clutch situations back then, either.
AB OBP Slug OPS
Total 647419 .323 .375 698
Late,Close 114669 .330 .371 701
Score Pos 162364 .342 .374 716
That is the data from the National League, 1970 through 1979 (missing 121 games). And it says that hitting in clutch situations during the '70s wasn't much easier than hitting in non-clutch situations.
Conclusion? Tony Perez did perform well in clutch spots, relative to how he performed in other situations. Now, some would argue that this means he wasn't trying hard enough in those other situations, but I'll leave that argument aside today. However, we might ask just how Perez's clutch performance actually translated to the field. Going back to the first set of numbers above, we see that he posted an 867 OPS in late-and-close situations, an 801 OPS overall. That 66-point difference appears big.
I played around with the numbers, though, and you know what happened? I took away 20 doubles and 15 home runs, and dropped Perez's late-and-close OPS right back to around 800. That's 20 doubles and 15 homers out of a 20-year career, or about two extra-base hits in late-and-close situations per season. Do you really think that Perez's teammates, or their opponents, or the guys up in the press box, could really tell the difference? Gosh, I sure don't think so.
Yes, Perez does deserve credit for his performance in clutch situations, whether that was the result of some magical ability or not. But in terms of wins and losses, did that performance really make a big difference?
Last week, my friend Gary Huckabay, over at Baseball Prospectus, wrote, "Perez was not a great ballplayer; he wasn't even particularly close. He didn't hit for average or exceptional power, he didn't walk much and he didn't play defense particularly well. He racked up high career totals by hanging around long past his usefulness, breaking a .340 OBP only once in his last eight seasons while playing a bad defensive first base. In that season, he had less than 200 at bats."
Gary gets away with writing stuff like that because thousands of people don't have his e-mail address. I hesitate to be so blunt ... but I will say this: Tony Perez was not a great player, but a good player -- and for a few years, a very good player -- who hung around long enough to rank, at the time of his retirement, 15th on the all-time RBI list. That, and that alone, is Perez's qualification for the Hall of Fame. For many people, that's enough. For some of us, it is not.
THURSDAY, JULY 27Jeff Kent recently summed up the typical player's perspective on trade-deadline deals, saying, "The best thing that (GM Brian) Sabean's done over the last three-and-a-half years was make that trade with the White Sox. That bolstered our roster. It put us in the next gear. If he did something like that, or close to it, it'd put us in the next gear again." You see, for the players it's more about "the next gear" than the actual performance of the players involved. Yes, one could argue that the Giants would be better off right now if they'd never made that deal and still had Keith Foulke and Bobby Howry and Lorenzo Barcelo. But major league players don't give a damn about minor leaguers; they want all the help they can get, and they want it now. Do midseason acquisitions have a beneficial effect, aside from what shows up in statistics? I have no idea, but I can tell you that nearly everybody involved with the game thinks it does, from Tony Muser and Chuck LaMar to Billy Beane and Brian Cashman. So with all this in mind, below are the serious or moderately serious postseason contenders, and some thoughts on what they want and what they might get. As we all know, the first-place New York Yankees got no left fielder, unless you count Ryan Thompson and Glenallen Hill. Will they stick with what they've got? Probably not. Will they trade for Rondell White or B.J. Surhoff or Ron Gant? Probably not. The Yankees keep doing what nobody thinks they'll do, so I'll assume they're going to do one more thing that we don't expect. But even if they don't find a new left fielder, the additions of Justice and Neagle make them the team to beat in the East. The Boston Red Sox need hitters, hitters and more hitters. Currently 10th in run production, the Sox are soft at first base, they're soft at third base, they're soft at DH and they're soft in left field. That's a lot of softness, but on the other hand it means that Dan Duquette has plenty of options. Find a hitter, any hitter, and the Sox should be able to find room in the lineup for him. That said, the names we keep hearing are Rico Brogna and David Segui, both of whom are limited to first base. As it happens, the Red Sox already have a bunch of guys -- Brian Daubach and Morgan Burkhart and Ed Sprague and Jose Offerman -- whose best position is first base. Brogna and Segui are both decent players, but they're also both known as outstanding defensive players, and that's part of what you're paying for when you get them. The Sox would be better served by some big lummox DH who can hit the ball over the fence. And I suspect that Dan Duquette knows this. So who does that leave? Well, Twins third baseman Corey Koskie would look great in a Red Sox uniform, his lack of home-run power notwithstanding, and the Twins do have Mike Cuddyer, a hot third-base prospect, tearing it up in the minors. The Toronto Blue Jays are scoring plenty of runs, walks or no walks (in their case, it's no walks). The pitching's thin, and David Wells has just the prescription ... Scott Erickson. "Actually, I wish they would get Erickson and (Sidney) Ponson over here," Wells said. "We need pitching and we have a lot of depth in the minors to make a deal." Hmmm, I can't help but wonder why any contending club would want a pitcher with a 7.87 ERA, but then again I never played the game. Blue Jays GM Gord Ash might be dumb enough to add Erickson to the rotation, but I doubt it. The Chicago White Sox currently lead the American League in run production, so they're not too worried about their lineup. But with Cal Edred probably out for the season, the Sox would love to pick up a quality starter, somebody who can start Game 1 or 2 of the Division Series in October. They guy they want is Mike Mussina, but he apparently won't approve a trade. They also wanted Curt Schilling, but he added the White Sox to his lengthy list of clubs to which he wouldn't approve a trade. At this point, Pete Harnisch might be their most attractive option, but Cincinnati GM Jim Bowden might well decide to hang on to Harnisch in case the Reds have a shot at the wild card. Speaking of Ohio teams and the wild card, the Cleveland Indians are still in postseason hunt and would love to add a veteran starting pitcher, somebody like Harnisch or perhaps Steve Trachsel. But Harnisch has many suitors, and Trachsel's complicated because he's got some easily-reachable incentives that will significantly increase his compensation in the second half. Richie Sexson is trade bait, but the Indians think he's better than he is, so they've got to find another team that is similarly deluded. The Brewers recently offered Steve Woodard and Bob Wickman for Sexson, but were turned down. (The Indians, by the way, will probably not trade Manny Ramirez. They talked to the Yankees, but asked for essentially all of the Yanks' remaining top prospects, which suggests that John Hart isn't at all serious about dealing Ramirez.) In the Seattle Mariners' locker room, everyone assumes that Pat Gillick will be pulling off a big trade, because Gillick has a history of such deals at the deadline. I've seen nine or 10 names bandied about, all of them corner outfielders, but the names that stand out in my mind are Jeromy Burnitz, B.J. Surhoff and Matt Lawton. Gillick covets Johnny Damon, but so do the Royals, and it will be surprisng if Damon is traded before the winter. Everybody says the Oakland Athletics need a starting pitcher, but general manager Billy Beane is fairly happy with the club's youthful rotation: Kevin Appier, Gil Heredia, Tim Hudson and rookies Mark Mulder and Barry Zito. And if one of the kids falters, veteran Omar Olivares should be healthy before long. The A's don't have problems scoring runs (although their lineup it heavily left-handed), which leaves only a somewhat questionable bullpen. So don't be surprised if Beane comes up with a quality setup man, or even a veteran closer who will be shifted to setup duties. Technically, the Anaheim Angels are contenders, but most would agree that they're probably not going to win the World Series. So we can't expect the Angels to be trading their young players for old players. In fact, contention or no contention, they're willing to move Kent Bottenfield and/or Ken Hill ... which won't be easy, given that both have ERAs hovering around six. How do the Atlanta Braves, the best team in the National League, have so many holes? Great question. As good as they are, the Braves could certainly use a quality middle infielder, and they're reportedly interested in Rangers second baseman Luis Alicea, who while not particularly exciting would be a good fit. The Braves could also use some bullpen help, especially given John Rocker's continuing struggles, but it appears that the Rangers are going to keep John Wetteland. And with Reggie Sanders still playing like he's never seen a slider in the dirt before, the Braves may go after a complementary outfielder like John Vander Wal. And what of the New York Mets? In March, I said they needed a power-hitting outfielder, and I don't see any reason to take that back. Another name you hear is Mike Bordick, especially now that Schilling's gone and Ramirez probably isn't available. The problem is that everyone wants prospect Alex Escobar, who as it happens does play the outfield, and is the best of the Mets' exceedingly weak crop of farmhands. They trade him and there's very little left, which is why I don't think they will. For Barry Larkin? Sure. But for Mike Bordick? It's been written that the St. Louis Cardinals would like to acquire a catcher, perhaps impending free agent Charles Johnson. But Johnson's forte most years is defense, and the Cardinals already have a pretty good defensive catcher in Mike Matheny. The Cards' No. 1 priority is a lefty reliever, but of course lefties who can actually pitch are a prized commodity. So don't count on St. Louis doing much, though they might finally deal one of their excess starters, most likely Pat Hentgen. Nobody seems to know what's going on with the Cincinnati Reds. First they trade Denny Neagle. Then they deliver a barrel of money to Barry Larkin's accountant. And now they trade Manny Aybar for a prospect (not that Aybar's any great shakes). It's said that the Reds would love to dump Dante Bichette -- remember when Jim Bowden was telling us about Bichette's wonderful career numbers at Riverfront? -- perhaps to the Mets or Yankees. But Bichette's not the Yankees' type of player, and I don't think Major League Baseball will allow him and Mike Piazza on the same roster, it would be too confusing. The Arizona Diamondbacks suckered the Phillies out of Curt Schilling, so they're presumably finished with the big deals. It's really amazing that they could get Schilling while (1) dumping Travis Lee and Omar Daal, and (2) keeping Matt Mantei and Byung-Hyun Kim. Now the Phillies get to pay Daal $5.5 million next year, and try to figure out what's wrong with Lee (unless they turn around and trade him). When the San Francisco Giants talk trade, they're mostly talking about bullpen help, what with Joe Nathan and John Johnstone currently on the disabled list. As Dusty Baker said Monday, "You could always use another quality, experienced guy in the pen." But that's just playing around at the margins, and it looks like the Giants will finish the season with the same key guys they started it with. I still think the Los Angeles Dodgers have some fight in them, and they added Ismael Valdes on Wednesday without giving up much. The Dodgers simply don't have many prospects to trade to pick up much else, and they're not willing to deal Adrian Beltre or Eric Gagne, the two players everybody wants. And there's the rub. I've listed 15 teams as contenders, or 14 if you don't count the Angels. Only eight will reach the postseason. So that leaves about six clubs to burn up the phones in the next few days looking for pennant-race help, only to watch the playoffs and the World Series on TV. And like they say, sometimes the best deals are the ones you don't make. WEDNESDAY, JULY 26 First off, I committed a serious omission in yesterday's column, failing to name a pitcher to our All-Awful team. Let me remedy that now ...
W-L ERA
Jose Lima 3-13 6.98
Esteban Yan 4- 7 6.97
David Cone 1- 9 6.50
I honestly don't know how to choose from among these three, but I suppose
I'll go with Cone, who has recorded just one victory in 18 starts this
season, and is 3-14 with a 5.81 ERA in his 31 starts since throwing a perfect
game last July. (The Yankees media guide describes Cone as "one of
baseball's premier big-game pitchers." I guess he's just waiting until
October to turn it on.)
Dishonorable mention goes to the amazing Scott Erickson, who is now 5-8 with
a 7.87 ERA, and wasn't among the candidates because he's about six innings
short of qualifying for the ERA title. Of course, if we gave Erickson six
shutout innings he would still have a 7.36 ERA, still easily the worst among
major league ERA qualifiers. But he does have the five victories, so I'm
reluctantly sticking with Cone.
Now, some representative mail on yesterday's effort ...
Westmont, Illinois
Two weeks ago, we saw baseball's best in Atlanta. Well, most of baseball's best. Frank Thomas was off somewhere, doing something. And a whole bunch of guys were at home, nursing "injuries." But let's not quibble; the American and National League All-Star teams contained some pretty impressive talent. But what about the other guys? No, not the players who just missed All-Star honors, but rather the players who shouldn't even have been allowed to watch the All-Star Game on TV? Isn't it time for their collective day in the sun? Below, then, are my nominees for the All-Awful Team. To be considered, a player must have (1) racked up enough at-bats to qualify for the batting title; (2) started at least 50 games at the position in question; and (3) played awfully to this point in the season. In addition to listing games played for the candidates, we'll also see the familiar OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) and the not-so-familiar offensive winning percentage (OW%), which tells us how many games a team would win if its lineup contained, say, nine Mickey Morandinis. (Offensive winning percentage is available to you, the reader/user, at ESPN.com's sortable stats page. Catcher: Mike Matheny Since so few catchers qualify for the batting title, and those doing so this year are mostly hitting well, the qualifications for catchers were eased to 60 games played.
Games OW% OPS
Matheny 79 .290 627
Taubensee 76 .304 634
Flaherty 90 .435 762
The big surprise here is Cincinnati's Eddie Taubensee, who a year ago ranked as one of the game's best-hitting backstops. This year he's been awful with the stick, and you know he's not making up for it with the glove. Neither Matheny nor John Flaherty are known for their hitting, but Matheny in particular is doing quite poorly this season for the Cardinals.
First Base: Tino Martinez
Games OW% OPS
T Martinez 93 .426 747
Coomer 91 .418 784
K Young 90 .435 762
This one's a toss-up, but at least Ron Coomer can play third base in a pinch. Tino Martinez's performance was actually sub-par in 1999, but nobody noticed because he drove in 105 runs and the Yankees won another World Series. But this year, it's hard to ignore his shocking lack of production, "highlighted" by a .326 on-base percentage and a .420 slugging percentage, numbers more suited to a shortstop.
Second Base: Mickey Morandini
Games OW% OPS
Morandini 82 .245 609
McLemore 88 .320 641
Offerman 73 .340 679
Remember when the Phillies were so desperate to acquire a veteran second baseman? Well, sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. A somewhat useful player if he's posting a .375 on-base percentage, Morandini's at .310 this year. His slugging percentage is even worse (.299), which makes for one awful player. Offerman just snuck into the rankings, having started exactly 50 games at second base.)
Shortstop: Alex Gonzalez (Marlins)
Games OW% OPS
Al Gonzalez 84 .158 542
Sanchez 88 .199 583
Meares 81 .331 661
Florida's Alex Gonzalez and Kansas City's Rey Sanchez are in a class by themselves, and not only among shortstops. The pair sport the worst offensive winning percentages in the game, and nobody else is even close. They're also the "top" two in low OPS (Morandini is third-worst in both categories).
Many people are surprised at Pittsburgh's performance this year, but they set this course for themselves two years ago, when they signed middling veterans Kevin Young and Pat Meares to long-term contracts. What happens to middling veterans? They turn into veterans who can't hit.
Third Base: David Bell
Games OW% OPS
Da. Bell 90 .295 654
Brosius 75 .349 705
J Hernandez 90 .356 709
Seattle's David Bell opened the season at second base, switched to third base when Carlos Guillen got hurt, and has been incredibly unproductive at both positions.
Left Field: Rickey Henderson
Games OW% OPS
Henderson 79 .365 660
O'Leary 74 .433 749
Sexson 89 .443 764
Yes, Henderson has improved since moving from New York to Seattle ... but not nearly enough. It's fairly amazing, in fact, that the Mariners have played as well as they have, given that Henderson, David Bell and Mark McLemore have all essentially been zeroes at the plate (as has starting catcher Dan Wilson, who didn't quite make the list of candidates at his position).
Troy O'Leary's been hot since coming off the DL a few weeks ago, and he may well finish the season with respectable numbers. On the other hand, this might well be the real Richie Sexson, who still hasn't developed any plate discipline. And at 25, he may never do so.
Center Field: Marquis Grissom
Games OW% OPS
Grissom 98 .291 643
Glanville 94 .353 654
Bergeron 88 .353 663
Grissom typifies the malaise that has afflicted the Brewers since Major League Baseball had a real commissioner. He's making $5 million this season, and giving his employers nothing at the plate. As for Doug Glanville, he seems to have finally found his true level, a level suggested by his performance prior to 1999. Peter Bergeron's only 22 years old, so it's far to early to pass judgment on him.
Right Field: Matt Stairs
Games OW% OPS
Stairs 98 .484 763
O'Neill 91 .486 800
Kotsay 93 .506 788
As good as Oakland's offense has been, it might be even better if Stairs were replaced by rookie Adam Piatt. Still, Stairs has been productive in each of the last three seasons, so perhaps he's earned the right to prove that he's washed up. Paul O'Neill joins fellow Yankees Tino Martinez and Scott Brosius in today's discussion, all of which helps explain why the Bombers rank just sixth in the American League in run production.
"Honorable Mention" here goes to Brian Jordan, with a poor .515 offensive winning percentage, a 785 OPS ... and a $7.6 million salary.
So there they are, folks; your 2000 All-Awfuls. Enjoy them if you can.
MONDAY, JULY 24Some fairly random notes about This Weekend in Baseball ...
Rany Thanks to my typical good fortune, I was at Camden Yards Thursday afternoon when Nomar Garciaparra singled in the eighth inning to push his batting average to .401, and then doubled in the eighth to reach .403. Pretty heady stuff for late July. And I was also there, last night, when he flied to center, flied to right, grounded to third base, grounded to shortstop and flied to left. He swung at the first pitch every time, and finished the second game of the doubleheder at .396, seven points lower than where he began it. But of course, Garciaparra remains within hailing distance of that magical mark. A week or two ago in a chat, I flat-out said that Nomar hitting .400 would be "impossible." Of course, that word was used for dramatic effect. Nothing's impossible; Jaime Navarro might pitch a no-hitter next week, and the Houston Astros might win the 2000 World Series. But those things are truly unlikely, as is Nomar Garciappara finishing this season with a 4 at the front end of his batting average. And here's why: 1. At-bats As in, too damned many of them. I would like Garciaparra's chances quite a bit more if he were a bit more ... I don't want to say more patient, because if he were more patient it's quite possible that his batting average would suffer. I think that Garciaparra is simply one of those players who needs to be aggressive, and might not be better if he were more selective. But I also think that it's tough to hit .400 when you rarely walk, because nearly every non-walk is also an at-bat. Now, that's not going to make sense to many of you, but think about it like this ... Has anybody ever hit .400 over an entire career? Nope. Not even close, at least not for anyone who played more than a few games. Has anybody ever hit .400 over an entire game? Yep. In fact, it happened 68 times just this past Wednesday (thanks to Steve Schulman for the research on that one). So the gray area is in the middle. But I really don't care where exactly the dividing line is, my point is that as the at-bats increase, one's chance of hitting .400 decreases. 2. He hits right-handed A small thing, you might say. But think about all the guys who have at least threatened to hit .400 in the last few decades, and you know what they all have in common? Right, they bat from the left side. From Rod Carew (.388 in 1977) to George Brett (.390 in 1980) to John Olerud (.363 in 1993) to Tony Gwynn (.394 in 1994), it's always the lefties. Shoot, it's rare for a right-handed hitter to even win a batting title, let alone for one to put the fear of God into the Ted Williams Fan Club. For the record, it's been exactly 75 years since a right-handed batter hit .400. As many of you will recall, in 1925 Rogers Hornsby batted .403 (and in 1924, he had hit .420). Also for the record, only two men have batted .400 since then, lefties Bill Terry (.401 in 1930) and, of course, Williams (.406 in 1941). But you know, even more than Reasons No. 1 and 2, there's Reason No. 3, which is that we're continually teased, but never rewarded with a .400 hitter. Last summer people kept telling me that Tony Fernandez, who was hitting .393 at the end of June, really could hit .400. Uh-huh. Anybody remember where Fernandez finished last year? He hit .328, eighth in the American League. And yeah, Garciaparra's a better hitter than Fernandez, but is he really a better hitter, for average, than George Brett and Tony Gwynn? Or Wade Boggs? Frankly, this simply is not a particularly interesting issue yet. If Garciaparra is still hovering around .400 in late August, then it's interesting. In the meantime, I can't help but be reminded of all those e-mails I received in mid-April, asking if I thought Vladimir Guerrero might finish the season with more home runs than strikeouts. Well, Guerrero is indeed enjoying a magnificent season, with 25 home runs ... and 44 strikeouts. And then there's Nomar's teammate ... A few brief comments on Carl Everett and the batter's boxes ... First off, my prediction of a 15- or 20-game suspension for Everett was obviously a bit off. However, if the suspension is not lessened after appeal, then the effect will be the same as I predicted, 10 games. I'll be quite disappointed, though not particularly surprised, if the appeal "works." What a completely screwed-up process this is, but it's all part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, so there's really nothing to be done about it. We can only hope that Paul Beeston has the guts to let Frank Robinson's judgment stand, just this once. Now, about the batter's boxes, somebody at MLB -- are you listening, Sandy Alderson? -- really needs to do something. Last night the following appoeared in the game notes following the recap of Kansas City's 10-6 win over Cleveland: For the second straight game, the grounds crew relined the batter's and catcher's boxes around home plate at crew chief Gerry Davis' request. Normally, the inside lines are not chalked at Jacobs Field but the commissioner's office reminded all umpires last week to apply the rule uniformly to all teams.Nifty. But I just saw two games at Camden Yards, and the umpires were not applying the rule uniformly, as yet again the inside lines were not even drawn at all. Worse, Everett was up to his usual tricks, setting up in the lefty batter's box with the front of his right foot perhaps three inches from the plate. Before long, MLB will presumably conclude an agreement with the new umpire's union, and I pray that the new agreement includes something that will allow Sandy Alderson and his successors to actually force the umpires to administer the rules uniformly. Because right now, it just ain't happening. THURSDAY, JULY 20 Thanks to the capricious weather, I'm stuck in Oriole-land without any books, so please bear with me as I attempt to write a column armed with only a couple of newspapers and an Internet connection. If you didn't read yesterday's column, I suggest you go back and do that now ... OK, a few things about Beane Count I didn't mention yesterday: One, per-game stats are used rather than the raw numbers, especially important at this point because, for example, the Blue Jays have played seven more games than the Yankees. Two, the Beane Count could be improved by removing intentional walks from the equation. One could also complicate things by measuring not each team's ranks in the four categories, but their standing as a percentage relative to the league. This would certainly be a more accurate measure, but that leads to my third point ... Three, don't take this stuff too seriously. We already knew that home runs and walks were important, or at least I hope we did. Beane Count is just a toy, a trifling amusement. But there's nothing wrong with toys, or trifling amusements. And judging from my e-mail, most of you agree.
2. When you think about it, it's amazing the Royals have done as well as they have, playing .444 ball with a Beane Count of 53. Perhaps it's because they are hustling and the pitchers are establishing the fastball. 3. Imagine what Billy Beane could do if he had some money and were the GM of the Yankees or Braves. Or even the Cardinals or (gulp) Rockies. Trent Snider 2000 Beane Count Braves 20 Cardinals 21 Giants 22 Mets 22 Dodgers 24Hmmm ... go down the list, and what do you find? The teams with the No. 1 (Braves), No. 2 (Cards), No. 4 (Giants), No. 5 and No. 6 records in the National League. Only the Diamondbacks break the chain; their Beane Count is 29, seventh in the NL. As for the worst Beane Counters, nobody really stands out like the Royals do in the American League. There are sixteen NL teams, so the worst possible Beane count is 64; nobody's close to that, with the Brewers (48) and Padres (50) the worst. For what it's worth, the Padres are the only club in the double digits in all four cagetories. The Rockies are interesting. They rank 15th in home runs hit, and 16th in home runs allowed. But they're somewhat saved by their No. 6 ranking in walks drawn, and No. 4 ranking in walks allowed, everything adding up to a 41 Beane Count, 10th in the league. Now, let us hearken back to 1999 ... 1999 Beane Count Astros 14 Braves 16 Diamondbacks 25 Mets 25 Cardinals 32Like I said yesterday, I love it when things work out. As it happens, the top four National League Bean Counters in 1999 all reached the postseason. The Cardinals, far back and clustered with a bunch of other teams (not pictured), are still notable because they're the club that's broken through this year. It's also worth noting that there seems to be a fair degree of consistency from one season to the next, with three teams appearing on both lists. To conclude, I suppose I could mock those who prattle on and on and on about "doing the little things" ... hitting the ball to the right side of the infield, taking the extra base, stopping the running game, coming through in the clutch, and all that other minutiae that rarely impacts the standings in a meaningful way ... but I'm bigger than that. So I won't. TUESDAY, JULY 18 Thanks to the rain in Denver Sunday night, anyone with ESPN was treated to the ugliness that is the Kansas City Royals pitching staff. But I would like to point out that while the pitchers have certainly been the worst in baseball, the Royals hitters haven't exactly been putting the fear of God into opposing hurlers. They're now ninth in the American League in scoring; a year ago, they were seventh. This is a young team that was supposed to get better; instead, they've gotten worse. Why? Because the two things that define most good offensive teams of this era -- power and walks -- happen to be the two things the Royals don't do well. Their hitters don't hit home runs or draw walks, and their pitchers give up oodles of both. Don't believe me? Here are the Royals' ranks in those categories, last season and this:
1999 2000
Hit Pitch Hit Pitch
Home Runs 12 14 12 14
Walks 10 11 13 14
Remember, there are 14 teams in the American League. Anyway, taking these four categories -- home runs hit and allowed, walks drawn and issued -- we could come up with a composite score. Rank first in all four categories, and you'd score a perfect 4. Well, last year the Royals scored at 44, worst in the American League.
This year, they're at 53, by far the worst in the American League.
Hmm, aren't young teams supposed to improve from one year to the next? This, my friends, goes a long way toward explaining why, when one baseball "expert" or another sings the praises of Tony Muser, I hold my nose and march, as fast as I can, in the other direction. Or surf to another site, if I'm chained to my computer.
You know, I was going to call this particular freak stat the "Beane Count," because Oakland GM Billy Beane is obsessed with plate discipline and power. But I wasn't sure how his pitchers fared in those categories, so I decided to run the numbers for every American League club.
Anybody want to guess who currently sports the best Beane Count?
Yep. Billy Beane's Oakland Athletics (I love it when stuff works out). Here are the top five clubs in the AL this season:
Beane Count
Athletics 14
Mariners 18
Red Sox 20
Blue Jays 25
Yankees 27
And whither the White Sox? Their Beane Count is 31, ninth in the AL (and behind the Tigers!) but not far behind the Yankees (seven clubs are clustered between 25 and 32).
Anybody want to guess which club posted the best Beane Number in 1999?
It's Billy's A's again. Top five American League Beane Counts in 1999:
Beane Count
Athletics 9
Rangers 17
Yankees 18
Red Sox 20
Blue Jays 26
I hope those teams look familiar, because four of them appeared in the previous chart. And if we had looked at the top six in both years, the teams would have been identical. This year, the Rangers are sixth on the list; last year, the Mariners were sixth.
You know what this tells us? The same thing Billy Beane himself would tell you ... batting averages go up and down, but power and walks are generally consistent from year to year. Whether this is actually true or not, I have no idea. But it sounds good.
Getting back to the Royals for a moment, last year they finished third in the American League with a .282 team batting average, and everyone was impressed. But this year they've dropped to fifth, and ranking fifth with an empty (i.e. power-less, walk-less) batting average results in a ninth-place ranking in run production. And that's not impressive at all.
The Royals are, in a sense, the anti-Athletics. Both franchises are numbered among the "small-revenue" clubs. Both are said to have fine farm systems. Both have featured relatively low payrolls each of the last two seasons.
Yet over those same two seasons, the Athletics have won 54 percent of their games, and the Royals have won 41 percent of theirs. Why? Because Oakland's organizational philosophy is predicated upon getting great ballplayers, while Kansas City's organizational philosophy is predicated upon getting good ballplayers to "play the game right."
Just like Tony Muser did, back when he was a lousy ballplayer.
MONDAY, JULY 17When it comes to the Everett-Kulpa Incident, I have one over-arching comment ... Everybody is wrong. Having said that, let's recapitulate the events of Saturday afternoon. Bottom of the second inning at Fenway Park. Carl Everett leads off for the Sox and, as he always does, Everett takes great pains to erase the chalk that delineates the inside edge of the batter's box. This time, he's batting right-handed (against the left-handed Mike Hampton), so it's that box that gets his attention. Clarification: Everett is a switch-hitter. When he bats right-handed, he erases the inside line and places his back (right) foot quite close the plate, with a few inches of that foot completely outside the (now-vanished) line defining the box. When he bats left-handed, he erases the inside line and places his front (right) foot quite close the plate, with a few inches of that foot completely outside the (now-vanished) line defining the box. Got all that? The result is that Everett crowds the plate as much as any hitter in the history of the game, and so he's almost impossible to pitch inside.OK, so in this case Everett is erasing the inside line, then setting up with his back foot nearly touching the plate. (Now, I'm not sure exactly what happened next, because I don't have the game on tape, and Boston's two newspapers don't agree exactly on the sequence of events. But it was something like ... Mike Hampton throws a strike, Mike Piazza complains that Everett is setting up illegally, and plate umpire Ron Kulpa steps up and redraws the inside line of the box with his foot. Everett sets up illegally again. Kulpa redraws the line again. Hampton throws another strike. Everett starts jawing at Kulpa. Everett is ejected. And then things got a little crazy. Maybe you saw it on ESPN, but essentially Everett behaved as if someone had cursed his mama, violated his wife and slapped his kids. Everett's bout of temporary insanity, as strange as it looked, doesn't particularly interest me. Yes, it's just another in a long list of incidents, but what's interesting is what does all this mean for the game. Clarification: If my mail is any indication, there's plenty of confusion about the applicable rules here. Rule 6.03 states, "The batter's legal position shall be with both feet within the batter's box. APPROVED RULING: The lines defining the box are within the batter's box." Rule 6.06 states, "A batter is out for illegal action when ... He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. If a batter hits a ball fair or foul while out of the batter's box, he shall be called out."One reader reads these two rules and tells me, "So it seems like Everett was right and the umpire was wrong.? Huh? The first of these rules dictates the batter's position before he hits, the second dictates the batter's position as he hits. And the issue here was Everett's position before he swung the bat. The rules, unfortunately, do not tell us what should happen to a hitter who refuses to take a legal position in the batter's box. But the umpire essentially is empowered to take whatever action necessary to get the hitter where he belongs. In practice, that usually means a warning that takes care of the problem. But if a player refuses to obey a rule, thus making a mockery of the game, the umpire does have the right to simply eject said player. It never comes to that, though, because very few players are as stubborn as Everett. After the incident, there were complaints by the Red Sox that Kulpa enforced the batter's box only because Bobby Valentine or Dennis Cook or Mike Piazza pointed out Everett's indiscretion. Crew chief Randy Marsh, who was at first base on Saturday, did give Piazza some "credit." According to Marsh, Piazza said, "Come on, what's the deal? The guy's standing way inside." But according to Marsh, Piazza's comment was irrelevant. "He doesn't have to make a complaint," Marsh said. "Anytime we see a guy that's standing over the line, we have to tell him to get back in the box." Great, Randy. Then why don't you do always do it? Everett's been pulling this ... uh, stuff all season long, yet it's not until game No. 87 that somebody tells him to get back in the box. Marsh also said, "I would think Carl would realize what the rule is. It's not like we're making him stand on the outside of the batter's box. If he takes it to extremes, I'll do what I have to do." You want to guess who the plate umpire was yesterday? Randy Marsh. You want to guess what Everett did Sunday? Right, he began his first plate appearance by wiping out the inside line -- made a big show of it, too -- then set up like he always does, with part of one foot clearly outside the box. Yes, Everett was batting left-handed against the righty Mike Johnson, but all this means is that he cheats with his front foot rather than his back foot. Perhaps unnerved by all this, Johnson walked Everett on four pitches. In his next three appearances, Everett doubled off the scoreboard, homered to center into the center-field bleachers, and walked again. And through it all, Marsh stood there with his thumb up his ... uh, nose. Like I said, everybody is wrong. Carl Everett is wrong, both for consistently cheating and for head-butting an umpire. Ron Kulpa and Randy Marsh are wrong, because they shouldn't have waited until this weekend to notice that Everett consistently cheats. Hell, even Sandy Alderson of the commissioner's office is wrong. Alderson's got a lot on his plate, but it sure would be nice if the umpires enforced the rules, without having to be prompted by self-interested players and managers. That is, it would be nice if the umpires enforced the rules uniformly and consistently. Here's a start: Any hitter that comes to the plate and starts messing with the lines -- back, front, inside outside -- is immediately ejected. There is no conceivable rationale for allowing hitters to destroy those lines, and frankly I'm sick of watching them do it. After all, Everett didn't go berserk because a rule was enforced. He went berserk because a rule was enforced for the first time this season, after 86 games of non-enforcement. Throw in what's apparently a touch of madness, and you've got a recipe for violence. Call it a crime of passion ... and suspend him for at least 10 games, because there's no excuse for assaulting an umpire. FRIDAY, JULY 14 I hope you'll pardon another column about the All-Star Game, but it still seems to be on everyone's minds. I promise, this will be the last one until next July.
Caracas, Venezuela Trying to come up with a fresh angle on yesterday's big trades, didn't have one until I received the following e-mail:
The winning relief pitcher shall be the one who is the pitcher of record when his team assumes the lead and maintains it to the finish of the game. EXCEPTION: Do not credit a victory to a relief pitcher who is ineffective in a brief appearance, when a succeeding relief pitcher pitches effectively in helping his team maintain the lead. In such cases, credit the succeeding relief pitcher with the victory.Cammack pitched just one inning (the eighth) and gave up three runs, so I think it's safe to say that was "ineffective in a brief appearance." But the tricky thing is that the rules don?t define "ineffective" or "brief," even though it would be fairly simple to come up with such definitions. (How about "two innings or fewer" for "brief," and "at least twice as many runs as innings pitched" for "ineffective"?) Anyway, it's rare for an official scorer to apply this admittedly hazy rule, probably because all it does is make players unhappy. Benitez presumably would have preferred the save, because that's where he makes his money. And Cammack? Well, he's still looking for his first major league victory. WEDNESDAY, JULY 12 Some of you, I know, were a bit disappointed with yesterday's column, in which I came across as a spoiled, cynical baseball writer. A curmudgeon. Well, the truth is that I am spoiled, I am cynical, and I am ... nah, I'm not really a curmudgeon. I just play one on the Internet occasionally. The truth is that even I get choked up sometimes, and I did tonight at the conclusion of the national anthem, with the light bulbs popping and the giant flags shaking and the jets roaring overhead. All that stuff's manipulative as hell, but it works on most of us. Even spoiled, cynical baseball writers. Of course, I'm not a baseball writer, not really. The great majority of baseball writers really do enjoy the game, but in the end it's a job for them. This isn't a job for me. I love the game, and the truth is that it's never really work for me. I'm one of those lucky few who is paid well to do something he would pay to do. And the truth is that work doesn't particularly agree with me. Makes me want to be somewhere else. No matter where I am, it's usually where I want to be. So when it's not -- take, for instance, the Home Run Derby in Atlanta, with the air stickier than a Roach Motel, after I've spent 12 hours lugging around a laptop apparently constructed before the invention of microchips, only to arrive in an assigned seat that feels closer to Athens than Atlanta -- and yeah, I'm gonna be a little cranky. All of which is my long-winded way of saying that, yes, baseball fans have bad days, too. And yesterday was one of them for me. At 8:45, just a few seconds before Randy Johnson threw his first pitch in the 2000 All-Star Game, it hit me: I can't cheer. It's been so long since I sat in a press box, going on two years now, that I'd forgotten the rules: no alcohol (don't care) and no cheering (do care). And no singing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," either. Granted, I'm not actually in the press box proper -- like the great majority of the media, I'm in the auxiliary press area, far beyond the left-field fence -- but the rules here are the same. I hate that. Or maybe I can cheer. I'm not sure. If Jermaine Dye takes Tom Glavine deep and I start screaming, what are they going to do? Take away my membership in the Baseball Writer's Association of America? Nope, because the BBWAA won't let me join in the first place (which brings to mind Groucho's most famous line, but I'll keep that to myself). I suspect that if I do stand and applaud Jermaine Dye or Mike Sweeney, the only thing that'll happen is the people around me will think I'm a bit daft. And they might report me to the Fun Police, but I can handle those goons. Regrettably, the extent of the Royals-related excitement was Dye's leadoff walk in the fourth, and even I wasn't moved by that action. If the American Leaguers had taken a late-innings lead, I might have jumped out of my seat. But that wasn't necessary, as the National Leaguers spent the last four frames flailing away helplessly. And boy, do I love it when the Americans beat the Nationals. I'm sure I've written about this before, but once the All-Star break rolls around, I hate the National League. It's not so much that they kept beating the Americans all those years, it's that they were so damned arrogant about it. And about ... well, about everything. They don't talk about the All-Star Game any more because it's been pretty even for the 15 years or so. But they still talk about the "more aggressive style of play" in the National League, which always drives me nuts. Like you put a guy in an American League uniform and suddenly his testosterone level drops off the table like a David Wells curveball. Please. OK, about the All-Star Game. I've written this before, too, but I'm not a big fan. There have been Tuesday nights in the past when I watched only because I was already missing baseball after a Monday without games and a Tuesday without box scores. It's an exhibition, really, with winning only a relatively minor consideration. And exhibitions have trouble holding my interest. That said, I'm glad I finally got to see one, even if I was 500-some feet from most of the action. And next year in Seattle, I'll be enjoying the game from my upper-deck seat at Safeco Field. Award Time There are small benefits to sitting in the press section. One, you're informed of all official scoring decisions and lineup changes. And two, pretty girls periodically drop off various handouts, most of them transcripts of the in-game player interviews. Now, I generally don't pay much heed to such things, but the All-Star Game brings out all sorts of strange characters asking strange questions. So while I watched the game, I asked David Schoenfield, my ever-patient editor, to sift through the interviews and find the stupidest question of the night. His choice was an easy one. Question for David Wells: Being that you shine in the spotlight, are you surprised you're not a Hall of Famer?I'll let you supply your own punchline. TUESDAY, JULY 11 Tonight, I will see my first All-Star Game. Last night, I witnessed my first Home Run Derby. And I pray that the former is more exciting than the latter, because the Derby put me to sleep. The wait between Derby hitters seemed interminable, which of course it was. From the last out to the next hitter -- I counted -- was four minutes of deadness, time when literally nothing is happening. Between that, the heat/humidity, and the distance to the hitters -- more on that in a minute -- I quite literally dozed off a few times. One saving grace might have been the hope of a home run landing in my lap, but that wasn't going to happen because ESPN.com's seats were in the third row of the auxiliary press seating in left-center field and thus too far under the upper deck to permit any but the linest of line drives. Also too far under the upper deck to clearly hear the on-field interviews, which normally would be a plus but did make it even harder to stay awake. No, I was not blessed with the best seat in the house. We were stationed behind the employees of WTJH Radio, WJOX Radio, and the Southeast Sports Bureau. Among many, many others. Of course, that's nothing against WTJH or WJOX or the Southeast Sports Bureau. But I can't help but think that ESPN.com reaches a significantly larger number of people than any of those worthy outlets. For what it's worth, right next to me were four employees -- or rather, their assigned seats -- of Major League Baseball's very own website. It's a dot-com thing, and a lot of crusty old baseball organizations still don't get it. Look, the fans at Turner Field -- there were 50,118 of them, which if memory serves is more than the Braves drew for some postseason games last season -- seemed to enjoy the proceedings, so you don't have to listen to me. But gosh, I sure would like to fix the Home Run Derby. First thing I'd do is cut the field, from eight to four. Or two. In this scribe's humble opinion, if people don't come to the ballpark early to watch you take BP, you shouldn't be in the Derby. This year, I would have included McGwire, Griffey, Sosa and ... I don't know, Bonds I guess. This thing shouldn't take two hours, because we shouldn't have to watch guys like Edgar Martinez and Pudge Rodriguez spraying line drives to the left-field lawn. They're both wonderful players, but they're not Derby winners. Frankly, from 450 feet away, Edgar and Pudge might as well have been Punch and Judy, which is what led me to the very door of Mr. Sandman's house of sleep. To avoid actually drifting off, and slobbering all over myself to the great amusement of my few colleagues stupid enough to sit out there with me, I turned to the last refuge of the bored writer ... media handouts. In this case, this meant the voluminous "2000 All-Star Player Notes," one eight-page bundle for each league. And now I will share, as here are some silly and/or interesting nuggets from the "All-Star Player Notes": Chipper Jones "started Braves' first triple play since 1986 on a ground ball that he fielded on May 11." (Fine, but when did he throw the ball?) Joe Girardi "hit his first homer of the season on May 2nd and his first Cubs homer since May 8, 1992 ... only one player in Cubs history, Billy Jurges, had a longer span between homers with the club." Of Todd Helton: "Atlanta is just a three-hour drive from his hometown of Knoxville, TN." "An amateur magician, (Ryan) Dempster has thrilled many a teammate with a dazzling array of card tricks and sleight of hand ... donates $10 for every strikeout to the KIDS THAT CARE Pediatric and Cancer Fund, donating $1,200 thus far this season." Randy Johnson "donates $1,000 per strikeout to Diamondbacks Charities "Strikeout Homelessness" program ... also supports the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Make-A-Wish Foundation and the Salvation Army." "The only two games that (Kevin) Brown has lost this season the Dodgers have been shut out ... he lost 1-0 on April 25 @ ATL and 2-0 on June 5 @ TEX." Trevor Hoffman "has led the major leagues in save percentage the last 2 seasons and is the all-time career leader in save percentage among pitchers with at least 150 saves, having successfully converted 250 of 284 (.8803) save opportunities ... Tom Henke ranks second at .8698." Darin Erstad's "144 hits is most at All-Star break in major leagues since Ralph Garr (149-Atlanta Braves) in 1974." (IN case you're wondering, Garr finished that season with 214, something short of George Sisler's major league record.) On Ray Durham: Sox are 28-7 when he reaches base two or more times (25-22 otherwise) ... over his career, the Sox are 51-21 (.708) when he homers." (Yes, someone in the White Sox PR department has way too much free time.) Magglio Ordonez is "making his second consecutive All-Star Game appearance." (Who knew???) In 1999, Jorge Posada "became only the second catcher in baseball history to have switch-hit homers in two separate games in one season." (Who was the first? No really, I want to know. Ted Simmons is the obvious answer, but the obvious answer isn't always the right answer.) Since the All-Star break last year, Jason Giambi "is batting .347 (194 for 559) with 121 runs, 36 doubles, 40 home runs, 150 RBI and 131 walks in 158 games ... the RBI total is the most in the majors over that span." (Wow.) Fred McGriff "is 6 HR shy of becoming the 2nd player in major league history to hit 200-plus HR in both leagues (NL-214, AL-191)." (Who was the first? Oh wait, scratch that question, must be Frank Robinson.) All right, that's enough of that. I have to admit, watching Sammy hit tonight was pretty awesome. But that just supports my early suggestion. Wouldn't a Celebrity Death Match between Sosa and Griffey have been something to see? And it wouldn?t have taken more than two hours to settle. MONDAY, JULY 10 I know that we're all rational people here, but that's not enough. It's time for all of us to work on spreading the word, or words. Case in point: Triple Crown categories. We know them, we love them, we can't live without them ... or can we? Let us consider the following players:
Avg HR RBI
Player A .246 24 63
Player G .232 26 64
All right, which player is having the better year? Based on these stats alone, it's a wash. Player A has a few more hits (assuming the same playing time, of course), Player G has a couple more homers. I suppose that many of you already know that Player A is Garret Anderson, and Player G is Ken Griffey. The stats are two days behind, but I did that for a reason.
Saturday evening at Fenway Park, the man sitting behind me said, "I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Andruw Jones and Ken Griffey Jr. are the two best defensive center fielders since Willie Mays." And this guy was old enough to have seen Mays play, though probably not until the late ?60s.
But the woman he was talking to, she looked like she might have seen Dom DiMaggio play in the 1940s. And she responded with, "Maybe, but Griffey isn't hittin' this year. Two-thirty-two battin' average." Later, we all saw on the scoreboard that Garret Anderson hit his 25th home run, prompting this same woman to say of Anderson, "He's havin' a great year."
Uh, wrong. And wrong again. Griffey's hittin' is just fine. And Anderson's havin' an awful year.
Junior's 912 OPS ranks eighth among major league center fielders; Anderson's 761 OPS ranks 16th among major league center fielders.
Junior's .676 offensive winning percentage ranks eighth among major league center fielders; Anderson's .321 offensive winning percentage ranks 25th among major league center fielders.
Twenty-fifth!
In case you're wondering, the difference between their rankings can be attributed to two things: walks, and double plays. The OPS difference is all about the walks. Griffey's got 70 of them, Anderson -- are your ready for this? -- has 11. Yep, 11 walks in 84 games. The OW% difference is about the walks, but also about the double plays, 15 for Anderson and only four for Griffey.
This is the spot where I come up with something both pithy and insightful. But it's three in the morning in Atlanta and I gotta be up in five hours, so let me conclude with this ... Griffey good. Anderson bad.
More silliness. I love Tom Boswell, who's been writing about baseball for the Washington Post since ... well, since my mother dressed me and my little brother in matching outfits. Boswell is a wonderful writer and isn't afraid of statistics like so many of his fellow scribes. But like all of us, Boswell has his weaknesses, and one of his particularly visible foibles is an irrational something for Cal Ripken. This something is apparently what caused Boswell to pen the following in a column last Monday:
Ripken's stats right now -- 13 homers, 43 RBI and five errors -- compare favorably with solid players such as Robin Ventura, Scott Rolen, Aaron Boone, Dean Palmer, Eric Chavez, Vinny Castilla and Joe Randa. With a nod to Travis Fryman, Troy Glaus, Tony Batista and Jeff Cirillo, who are having good years, you can count on one hand the third basemen who, over the next couple of years, figure to be significantly superior to Ripken if he can become relatively pain-free.Frankly, that paragraph has more holes in it than Preston Wilson's swing. One hand? How about three hands? I would guess that there are at least a dozen third basemen that you, I, or any general manager using more than three percent of his brain would rather have than Cal Ripken. Boswell has been espousing, for many years, a statistic called Total Average. He might or might not have invented this himself, but I don't want to get into that debate today. Anyway, the basic idea behind Total Average is that every good base counts, and so does every out. The good bases are total bases (TB) and walks and steals and hit by pitch. The outs are at-bats minus hits, plus every caught stealing and double play grounded into. Divide the good bases by the outs, and you've got Total Average. Long story short, Ripken's Total Average this year is .575. I found 21 other third baseman with at least 200 at-bats this year, and 17 of them have higher Total Averages than Ripken's measly .575. How many third baseman are significantly superior to Ripken? In addition to Robin Ventura, Jeff Cirillo, and everybody in between -- except Vinny Castilla; what was he doing there? -- on Boswell's list of third basemen, I would add Corey Koskie and Fernando Tatis and Phil Nevin and ... you get the idea. Again, let me stress how much respect I have for Boswell. Back in 1982, he described the walk as "the most neglected offensive stat." He suggested "ignoring runs scored and RBI" because they are, "to a degree, tied to the performance of teammates." Right, and right again. But when it comes to Cal Ripken, Boswell doesn't believe his own intelligence. Look, we all have our blind spots. I probably shouldn't write about Tony Loser -- er, I mean Muser -- and Tom Boswell probably shouldn't write about Cal Ripken, because we simply can't get past our prejudices. FRIDAY, JULY 7 By Eddie Epstein, Special to ESPN.com It is amazing how often the saying "everything old is new again" becomes relevant. In the year 2000, baseball is struggling with the perception that competitive balance is slipping away, due to financial concerns and a power struggle among owners and between owners and players. In the year 1900, major league baseball had many of the same problems. From 1892 to 1899, the National League had a monopoly on major league baseball and had a 12-team league in one "division." It also allowed syndicate ownershi -- the same owner or group of owners could own an interest in more than one team. Talk about competitive imbalance: from 1892 to 1899, the last-place team finished an average of 59 games behind the first-place team. Since 1950, only two teams have finished more than 59 games out of first place. Either Baltimore or Boston won every pennant from 1892 to 1898. This disparity between the successful and unsuccessful teams (sound familiar?) became a real problem for the owners. After much debate, and just six weeks before the start of the 1900 season, the National League formally decided to drop four teams: Baltimore, Cleveland, Louisville and Washington. The owners of these franchises were compensated, even though the owners of Baltimore and Cleveland held interests in other clubs. Of course, there has been some talk these days about a baseball contraction, about liquidating some of the weaker franchises. While I doubt that will happen, what would be wrong with that scenario? Yes, if you lived in a city and were a fan of a team that "disappeared" you wouldn't like it, but frankly that is the type of self-interest that has hurt baseball since the beginning of time. Besides, where is it written in stone that professional sports leagues always have to get bigger? Is there some constitutional amendment that says once a city has a baseball team it always has to have a baseball team? While I think that baseball as an industry has been way too paranoid about not letting teams move, if a team is struggling in a market that won't support it and if moving is not an option, then what's wrong with liquidation? (By the way, does anyone really think that all of the franchise moves of the last 20 years have hurt the popularity of the NFL?) In the rest of the economy, if industries or businesses struggle, then things change in those industries or businesses. The league that resulted from the 1900 contraction was very stable. Even though the National League had to fight the American League and even though both leagues later fought the Federal League, the National League lineup remained unchanged until 1953. Perhaps in response to losing jobs, a players "union" was formed in June of 1900. The Players Protective Association was established with the goal of negotiating contracts and rules changes. The first meeting, on June 9, included a representative of the American Federation of Labor. While today's problems in baseball are not identical to those of 1900, the similarities are striking. Obviously, it is true that the players of 2000 are much more organized and have a much greater say in what happens than was the case in 1900. However, just like teams individually have more leverage than they realize or use, I strongly believe that the owners collectively have more leverage than they realize or use. It is also true that much of what is wrong with baseball today might not have happened, at least not to the same degree, if teams operated more intelligently, with more discipline, and with more courage. Competitive imbalance: fact or fiction? In "Baseball Dynasties," Rob Neyer and I use standard deviations to measure how much a team dominated its contemporaries. Standard deviation can also be used simply to measure the spread or dispersion of performance, like team winning percentage. If competitive balance is deteriorating, then we should be able to see it in something like the standard deviation of team winning percentage. If the gap is getting bigger between the haves and the have-nots, then it is likely that would result in a greater spread of team winning percentages, which we could measure using standard deviation. When one looks at the data, what we see is that the standard deviation of team winning percentage hasn't really changed since the 1950s. I didn't want to put a table in this piece, but I guess I don't have a choice. Standard deviation of team winning percentage Year AL NL 1957 .087 .072 1958 .053 .048 1959 .064 .047 1967 .059 .068 1968 .070 .044 1969 .085 .096 1977 .095 .077 1978 .084 .060 1979 .087 .069 1987 .062 .057 1988 .073 .072 1989 .063 .056 1997 .059 .056 1998 .078 .085 1999 .073 .077The larger the number, the bigger the spread among the teams. Perhaps you've noticed that in expansion years (like 1969, 1977, and 1998) the standard deviation of winning percentage increases, but it decreases in the years following the expansion. (Before 1950, the standard deviation of team winning percentage was often greater than .100.) The jump in standard deviation of winning percentage from 1997 to 1998 was almost certainly the result of the expansion. The only difference between the latest expansion and the others is that the standard deviation didn't decrease as much in the year after expansion (1999 in this instance) as has been the case in the past. The one thing we should all remember is the power of perception. If the perception exists that competitive balance is getting worse, then tables like this mean little. The perceived growth of competitive imbalance will have to be addressed. It is true that the same teams seem to keep winning and that a correlation exists between payroll and won-lost record, although that correlation has not been as strong so far this season. THURSDAY, JULY 6 By Eddie Epstein, Special to ESPN.com Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's the fact that, to be honest, I haven't followed baseball as closely as I did when I was working in it. Then again, maybe it's just that human beings, for all of our ability to quantify, are still a subjective species. Whatever the reason it just seems that Manny Ramirez gets far less recognition for his hitting than he should. From the day he entered professional baseball, Ramirez has been a very productive hitter. For example, after being selected in the first round by the Indians in 1991, he was sent to the Appalachian League, a rookie level league that usually has a lot of college players. (Ramirez was drafted from high school from New York city.) You know, even then Ramirez didn't get a lot of respect. When he was drafted by Cleveland, most scouts thought he had been overdrafted, drafted far too early for his "real" ability. A lot of scouts will disparage a prospect who can "only" hit by calling him a one-tool player. Some scouts called Ramirez a three-quarters tool player. All Ramirez did was post an 1.105 OPS (.426 on-baes percentage, .679 slugging percentage), score 44 runs and drive in 63 in just 59 games. While success in a rookie league doesn't guarantee major-league success, of course, a lot of players who eventually play in the majors struggle at the pro level the year they are drafted. Chipper Jones, the first pick in the 1990 draft, had a .570 OPS in 1990 in the Gulf Coast League, a league less advanced than the Appalachian League. Of course, Ramirez tore through the minors, made his major-league debut in 1993 and established himself as an everyday player in 1994. I saw Ramirez play when he was still in the minors and will never forget the long home run he hit to right-center in Memorial Stadium, the home that year of the Orioles' Double-A affiliate. Even then, he showed plate discipline and the ability to wait on the ball. You see, my peeve here is that while Ramirez plays smart, at least at the plate, his reputation is that of a .. well, an airhead and that his rep has overshadowed his performance. You may remember a couple of years ago, Ramirez dyed his hair blonde and one of his teammates remarked, "Manny is the last guy who should invite dumb blonde jokes." Ramirez's reputation is that he makes more than his share of mistakes in the field and on the bases. While that's possible, that reputation is very inconsistent with Ramirez the hitter. Take a look:
LG LG
Year AB OPS OPS BB K K/BB K/BB
1995 484 960 771 69 112 1.62 1.71
1996 550 981 795 77 104 1.35 1.76
1997 561 953 768 74 115 1.55 1.97
1998 571 976 772 70 121 1.73 1.97
1999 522 1105 786 87 131 1.51 1.77
(Walk totals and strikeout-to-walk ratios exclude intentional walks.)
In his five full big-league seasons, Ramirez has been remarkably productive and remarkably consistent. Also note that his strikeout-to-walk ratios have been better than the league average each season. Oh yeah, let's not forget the 165 RBI in 147 games in 1999 and the 145 RBI in 150 games in 1998.
This year, of course, Ramirez has missed much of the season with a hamstring injury and much of the talk surrounding him focuses on his impending free agency, not his .322 average and 47 RBI in 47 games. (By the way, I was not hired by Ramirez's agent to do this piece.) I guess that's just the way it is for Manny Ramirez.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 5By Eddie Epstein, Special to ESPN.com Which one of these two players is the more productive, or better, hitter?
Runs/ RBI/ Yrs w/ Yrs w/
Through 1999 OPS OBP SLG 150G 150G 100+ R 100+ RBI
Player A .949 .426 .523 95 84 4 4
Player B .848 .389 .459 88 71 2 1
Don't like career comparisons because I might be comparing apples to oranges? OK, how about a comparison of the last five completed seasons, 1995-1999?
Runs/ RBI/ Yrs w/ Yrs w/
1995-1999 OPS OBP SLG 150G 150G 100+ R 100+ RBI
Player A 1.034 .455 .579 106 104 3 4
Player B .886 .393 .493 87 92 0 1
Can we all agree that barring any extreme park effects, and there are none, that Player A is a better hitter than Player B? Player A's lines are pretty impressive, aren't they? Well, Player A is Edgar Martinez and including his numbers from 2000 would only make his most recent performance better (1126 OPS, .444 OBP, .682 SLG, 58 runs, 86 RBI in 74 games through Tuesday). The identity of Player B will be revealed at the end of the article.
You will notice that batting average is excluded from these tables although including it would hardly hurt Edgar Martinez. Despite what some people have written, OPS is not used by most baseball executives to evaluate offensive production. (Given that I worked in baseball for 10+ years and have been out of the game for less than a year, I have a good idea of how most baseball executives rate players.) It is also not used by most fans and most broadcasters. If you watch games on TV or pay attention to the scoreboard/message board at the game, you know that you won't see OPS or both on-base percentage and slugging percentage anywhere.
In the case of Martinez, it took a long time for even his batting average to help him. He did not become a big-league regular until the age of 27, although that was certainly not his fault. Granting that Calgary and the Pacific Coast League are a good hitting environment, Martinez spent parts of four different seasons there (1985, 1987-89), hitting .344 with 108 strikeouts and 182 walks in 950 at-bats.
It's not like Seattle had Mike Schmidt at third base (remember Jim Presley?) or that the Mariners were in the NL and couldn't use the DH. No, it was another case of paying too much attention to scouting reports and not enough attention to performance. It was also another example of how plate discipline has historically been ignored by baseball executives, although that is changing.
Just how good a hitter is Edgar Martinez? Here are the players with a 1000+ OPS from 1995 through 1999:
Player OBP SLG OPS Mark McGwire .438 .702 1140 Barry Bonds .437 .600 1037 Edgar Martinez .455 .579 1034 Jim Thome .430 .575 1005That's all, folks. Just those four players. Jeff Bagwell (996 OPS), Mike Piazza (991 OPS, 1054 road OPS), and Manny Ramirez (995 OPS) just missed, but there you have it. Edgar Martinez is truly one of the very, very best hitters in baseball, a better hitter than many others who receive more publicity. Who is Player B? Player B is Tony Gwynn, who is lionized for all of his so-called batting titles. Gwynn is a fine hitter, but Edgar is better, period. It's just too bad for him and for all of us that circumstances have conspired to keep him in the background. TUESDAY, JULY 4 By Rany Jazayerli, Special to ESPN.com As you all probably know, Rob has one of the best jobs on earth. Not only does he get to make a living by writing about baseball, but with such a passionate and educated core of readers, he is never starved for ideas to write about. I am reminded of this by the response to yesterday's column; many of you wrote in to point out that Homer Bush and Alex Gonzalez aren't the only players stinking up the joint: Player Pos AB AVG OBP SLG OPS HR BB Tim Bogar SS 136 .132 .233 .221 .454 2 17 Reggie Sanders OF 188 .176 .236 .269 .497 3 14I didn't bring up either player yesterday because neither one of them has played full-time, but their awful seasons deserve a mention. Bogar epitomizes the Astros' entire season: he is an example of how seemingly rational decisions, piled one on top of the other, can lead to an unforeseen disaster. The Astros let last year's shortstop, Ricky Gutierrez, leave via free agency, a sensible economic decision for a mid-market team. They then made sure to acquire a shortstop prospect (Adam Everett) when they traded Carl Everett in the offseason. Unfortunately, while Carl has hit like gangbusters all season, Adam hasn't hit at all (.211/.328/.298 in Triple-A), leaving the Astros with a shortstop prospect who can field but can't hit, a shortstop (Julio Lugo) who can hit but can't field, a veteran utility player (Billy Spiers) who is too fragile to play every day, and a young utility player (Russ Johnson) they didn't trust with a starting job, eventually trading him to the Devil Rays for Marc Valdes. So that leaves Tim Bogar and his amazing .132 batting average, and the Astros are 28-53. Meanwhile, Reggie Sanders is having an incredibly awful season -- an OPS under .500 for an outfielder? -- and the Braves are 49-33, and still have the best record in the NL. That Bobby Cox, he can manage a little. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. Yesterday, I ran a list of the ten worst seasons by a major league hitter in history. The top of the list read like this: Name Year OPS Lg OPS Ratio Bill Bergen 1911 .337 .691 .487 Bill Bergen 1909 .319 .624 .511 Bill Bergen 1910 .357 .666 .536 Bill Bergen 1906 .359 .620 .579This is an absolutely amazing accomplishment. Bill Bergen has, using the standard of OPS relative to league, the four worst seasons of all time. In fact, you can argue that Bergen dominates the list of "worst seasons" even more than Babe Ruth dominates the list of "best seasons." Ruth, at least, has Ted Williams to keep him honest: Ruth has the first, second, fourth, and sixth best seasons by this measure, while the Splinter holds the third, fifth, and seventh spots. In addition to the top four, Bergen also has the 14th, 21th, 35th, 37th, and 68th worst seasons of all time. Nobody else has more than two of the 70 worst seasons ever; Bergen has nine. The only reason he doesn't have more than nine is because Bergen only played enough to qualify in those nine seasons. How bad was he? Take a look at this stat line: G AB H 2B 3B HR R RBI BB AVG OBP SLG 89 322 58 8 3 0 19 36 14 .180 .214 .224Think that was a bad season? That was the best season (1902) of Bergen's career. He had 36 RBI that year -- he never had more than 22 in any other season. By now, you must be wondering -- I hope you're wondering -- who in the name of Rey Ordonez is Bill Bergen? Bill Bergen was a rookie catcher for the Cincinnati Reds in 1901, hitting .179 with one homer (half his career total) in 87 games. Apparently impressed, the Reds let Bergen catch 89 games (with the equipment of that era, few catchers caught more than 100 games a year) and he, um, justified their faith with the stat line you see above. He was demoted to second-stringer in 1903, and even though he hit a career-high .227, the Reds parted ways with him at the end of that season. And thus Bergen began an eight-year stretch with the Brooklyn Dodgers. In those eight years, Bergen hit .182, .190, .159, .159, .175, .139, .161, and .132, batting at least 240 times every year but one, never poking more than 10 extra-base hits, and never drawing more than 14 walks. In 1906, he played in 103 games, drove in 19 runs, and scored nine. And yet the Dodgers, apparently desperate to earn their lovable moniker of "Bums," continued to play him every year. Play him? He led the team in games caught for six of those eight seasons. In 1909, he caught 112 games, third-most in the league. He remained the Dodgers' starter even though his backups out-hit him by a wide margin every season. He remained the Dodgers' No. 1 catcher even though their pitchers out-hit him: Player AB H HR R RBI BB AVG OBP SLG Bergen, 1904-11 2191 356 1 83 121 59 .162 .184 .187 Pitchers, 1904-11 3847 650 2 242 183 188 .169 .212 .201For eight years, the Brooklyn Dodgers started a catcher who couldn't out-hit their pitchers. Tony La Russa's idea of letting the pitcher bat eighth wouldn't have been a gimmick on this team, it would have been common sense. But if common sense had mattered to these Dodgers, Bergen would never have been allowed to suit up year after year. Finally, after Bergen's worst season ever in 1911, the Dodgers politely told him to look for another line of work. It only took slightly more than 3000 at-bats before the plug was finally pulled on his inglorious career. Well, there must have been some reason why the Dodgers continued to play Bergen. The running game was much more in vogue, of course, and maybe his defensive reputation carried him. In 1909, Bergen recorded 202 assists, the ninth-highest total ever, in just 112 games. Only 51 times in history has a catcher averaged over 1.5 assists per game (min: 80 G), and Bergen did it four times in his career. Of course, most of his contemporaries are on the list as well; teams ran wild in the dead-ball era, and catchers had plenty of opportunities to throw out opposing baserunners. Even if Bergen had a Gold Glove reputation (before there were Gold Gloves), that does not justify why the Dodgers were so enamored with such an embarassing excuse for a major league hitter. So today, when we criticize teams for playing non-hitters like Rey Ordonez and Rey Sanchez, arguing that the defensive gain is not nearly worth the offensive cost, let's remember to give major league teams an ounce of credit. Ninety years ago, at least one team thought that a catcher who was routinely out-hit by his own batterymates could contribute enough in other ways to justify a starting job. At the very least, we can safely say that no team would contemplate such a thought today. (Well, unless Hawk Harrelson gets another shot as a GM.) And that, my friends, is progress. MONDAY, JULY 3 By Rany Jazayerli, Special to ESPN.com Rob has, on a couple of occasions, pointed out the bizarre season by Luis Castillo, who just picked up his fourth RBI last week despite a .351 average and 84 base hits. (No one in major league history has driven in fewer than five runs with even 50 hits.) I looked at this issue a few weeks ago at the Baseball Prospectus website, and found that not only is Castillo's season truly historic in terms of RBI futility, but that it's not all his fault: he hardly ever bats with runners on base. And one of the reasons for that is the unbelievably bad performance of his teammate Alex Gonzalez, who usually bats at the bottom of the order, a couple of slots ahead of Castillo. Gonzalez, whose superficially impressive numbers as a rookie (.277, 14 HR, 59 RBI) hid a strikeout-to-walk ratio of 113-15, has had a season for the ages so far: a .173 average, just 12 walks and three homers in 71 games. He has a .214 on-base percentage and a .276 slugging percentage, and I got to wondering whether he was having the worst season by an everyday player in history. Well, I was thinking that, until reader David Sally pointed out that Gonzalez isn't even having the worst season by an everyday player this year: Player AB AVG OBP SLG HR BB Alex Gonzalez 243 .173 .215 .276 3 12 Homer Bush 214 .192 .245 .224 0 11The Marlins, at least, have the excuse that they're not really playing to win this year, and Gonzalez is young enough that they hold out hope he may develop into a quality shortstop. But the Blue Jays are in first place, and they're trying to hold off the Yankees and the Red Sox with a second baseman who couldn't hit the Big Game if you spotted him five numbers and the Powerball. It's not like Bush is young -- he's 27 years old, supposedly at his peak. Yes, he hit .320 last season, but he's the kind of player that has to hit .320 to help your team, because all he does is hit singles. He drew just 21 walks last year and hit just five home runs. Even with his .320 batting average, he had a lower OPS last season (.774) than .241-hitting teammate Jose Cruz (.791). If Bush hits .241, he's killing his team. If Bush hits .192 ... let's just say that if Toronto doesn't hold on to a playoff spot, Blue Jays fans won't have any problem figuring out who to blame. Historically, the OPS for Bush (.469) and Gonzalez (.491) are not that remarkable; they don't even rank among the 50 worst OPS scores since 1901 for any player with at 250 plate appearances (Bush doesn't have 250 PAs yet, but I'm trying to make a point here). But keeping in mind that today's baseball is among the most offense-minded eras in history, their performances are even more despicable than their raw numbers suggest. If we instead rank batters by the ratio of their OPS to their league's OPS, we get a different picture: Name Year OPS Lg OPS Ratio Bill Bergen 1911 .337 .691 .487 Bill Bergen 1909 .319 .624 .511 Bill Bergen 1910 .357 .666 .536 Bill Bergen 1906 .359 .620 .579 Homer Bush 2000 .469 .806 .582 Angel Salazar 1987 .466 .761 .612 Fritz Buelow 1904 .380 .616 .617 Alex Gonzalez 2000 .491 .792 .6193 Jim Mason 1975 .439 .709 .6194 Rich Morales 1973 .440 .700 .628 Mario Mendoza 1979 .469 .746 .628 Doug Flynn 1977 .457 .727 .629 Willy Miranda 1957 .455 .710 .641(Technical note: I'm figuring OBPs here without putting sacrifice flies in the denominator, in order to compare seasons when SF data wasn't kept.) As you can see, Bush and Gonzalez are having two of the 10 worst seasons, relative to the league, by any hitter in history. Most of these players, at least, had the good sense to have their awful season for teams that had no chance at reaching the postseason anyway. (Of course, that's not exactly a coincidence.) The only player who, like Bush, played for a "contending" team was Angel Salazar, who single-handedly cost the Royals the 1987 AL West crown. Not that the Royals were very good that year; they finished 83-79. But that was the year the Twins squeaked into the playoffs with an 85-77 record (they were actually outscored on the season), then got hot for 12 games and won the World Series. The Royals were so desperate for a shortstop that offseason they traded Danny Jackson, who would win 23 games in 1988, to the Reds, who had a pair of quality shortstops. The Royals went after the wrong one, which is why Kurt Stillwell ended up in Royal Blue and Barry Larkin will go into the Hall of Fame in Cincinnati Red. As for Bush and Gonzalez, they probably won't play as poorly all season as they have to this point; in fact, I would be surprised if either one of them finished the season on this list. They shouldn't play as poorly, but more importantly, they shouldn't play as often -- both have already begun to ride the pine, and unless they have incriminating photographs of certain people in their organization, they'll probably stay there most of the season. That's it for now. Tomorrow we'll explore the dark and mysterious world of Bill Bergen, whose name you might have caught on the list above. Tune in, but I must warn you that it's not a happy story. At the advice of our lawyers, we ask that small children, pregnant women, and anyone with a heart condition leave via the "Chicken Exits" now. | |||||