|
|
|
|
 |
| MLB |
|
Scores Schedules Standings Statistics Transactions Injuries: AL | NL Players Weekly Lineup Message Board Minor Leagues MLB Stat Search Clubhouses |
| Sport Sections |
|
|
| Monday, October 2 | |||||
| September Archives ESPN.com | |||||
| FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 What's it like to spend 13 hours and 11 minutes watching baseball at Fenway Park over a two-day stretch? Well, let me tell you ... It's tiring. As I remember my Wednesday and Thursday, I can't recall much that didn't happen at Fenway Park, even though I obviously spent the majority of my waking hours elsewhere. In those 13 hours and 11 minutes, I saw: 281 at-bats 42 runs 84 hits 5 home runs (yep, four games and only five home runs) 1,283 pitches (OK, so I might have missed a few of those 1,283 pitches. But just a few.) Oh, and I saw 28 pitchers. Twenty-eight different pitchers, including one -- ex-White Sox Jesus Pena -- who was apparently acquired especially for the occasion. September baseball can seem interminable, especially when both teams are playing for something more than pride. Take last night's game ... please. The Indians owned an 8-1 lead entering the bottom of the eighth. Dante Bichette led off with a home run. Manny Alexander singled, so Charlie Manuel summoned Steve Karsay from the bullpen to replace starter Chuck Finley. Fine. But Karsay was just the first of three relievers in the inning, and none faced more than two hitters. And these are pretty good pitchers, too: Karsay, Ricardo Rincon, Paul Shuey, none of whom had pitched in the afternoon game. If you'll indulge me for a moment, I'd like to rail, once again, about the silliness of the expanded rosters we see in September. They play for five months with 25-man rosters, and then in September, when the games mean more than ever, you change the nature of the sport? Charlie Manuel and Jimy Williams both got ejected after arguing questionable calls, and when I saw the replays on TV, both of them had the truth on their side. Russell Branyan did not foul off that pitch, and Kenny Lofton did beat that throw to first base. Hey, nobody's perfect. I saw Pedro Martinez lose yet another game in which he pitched brilliantly. In Pedro's six losses, he has a 2.44 ERA, which doesn't match the 1.59 in his victories, but would still lead the American League by a hefty margin. In Pedro's six losses, the Red Sox have scored the grand and magnificent total of seven runs. I also saw why Omar Vizquel and Roberto Alomar have combined for 15 Gold Gloves (soon to be 17). As I'm sure I've written at least once, neither Vizquel nor Alomar typically have fielding numbers to match their reputations. But after watching them play five games apiece (four Wednesday and Thursday, plus the single game Tuesday), I can attest that nobody looks better than these guys. When I keep score, I put an exclamation point after a fielder who makes a spectacular play. For example,
Allan Wood forwarded me the following quote, from George Vecsey's story in the New York Times on Monday: "I don't believe in pitch counts. We lost our counter, so I have no idea how long they worked. That pitcher [Japan's Daisuke Matsuzaka] was outstanding. I think that's the way it should be. I think a young pitcher has to strengthen his arm to get better. It's like a boxer. To strengthen your legs, you have to box."Those words of wisdom were uttered by none other than Tommy Lasorda, the Sage of Pitching Longevity. For the record, Fernando Valenzuela enjoyed his last great season when he was 24 years old. Also for the record, Ramon Martinez enjoyed his last great season when he was 22 years old. And one more time for the record, Ismael Valdes enjoyed his last good season when he was 23 years old. So if you're the general manager of a major-league club, and you've sent one of your bright young pitching prospects Down Under, you'd better pray that he gets back Up Over without damage to his elbow or his shoulder. (Of course, I'm exaggerating for effect. No matter what Lasorda might say about pitch counts, I suspect teams have been quite explicit with USA Baseball, that their pitchers are not to be extended past a certain point.) 3.09 Players in uniform shall not address or mingle with spectators, nor sit in the stands before, during, or after a game. No manager, coach or player shall address any spectator before or during a game. Players of opposing teams shall not fraternize at any time while in uniform.Players of opposing teams shall not fraternize at any time while in uniform. This rule's been around for a long time, and it's been ignored for just as long. Presumably, it was originally written to discourage gambling, but it's been so uniformly ignored that one wonders why it's still in the book. As predicted, today's column brings another letter from the hinterlands ...
AB OBP Slug
Relaford 253 .363 .328
Glanville 592 .308 .373
Morandini 302 .324 .315
Jordan 304 .257 .316
Toss in the (few) walks, and you're looking at approximately 1,500 plate appearances -- three lineup spots -- that have essentially been wasted. And these are just the prime offenders; lesser lights like Rob Ducey, Rico Brogna, Travis Lee, Kevin Sefcik and Alex Arias have been just as bad in their limited playing time.
The Phillies almost have to improve next year, and improve substantially, because major league baseball players simply aren't this bad. Well, some of them are. But not this many on one team. So worry not, Philly phans. Second place may yet be in your future.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19I've got a bunch of good mail that deserves space in this space, and so I'll probably spend much of the week doing that.
Dave Kerr
W-L Pct GB
Detroit 86-70 .551 --
Boston 85-70 .548 0.5
Yes, those were the final standings. And this wasn't the Federal League in 1915 or something, it was the American League East in 1972.
How did this happen? Well, the 1972 season included the first labor strike in professional sports (or at least the first that I know about). The season was supposed to begin on April 5, but a labor agreement was not reached until April 13, and the first games didn't take place until April 15. The owners decided that the lost games wouldn't be made up, which made a certain amount of sense giving the difficulties in rescheduling six or seven games for each club.
However, the owners should have at least ensured that every club was scheduled for the same number of games, but this they did not do. No problem, really ... unless the difference in games decided a division title. And as you can see from the above standings, that's exactly what happened.
Coincidentally, the Tigers and Red Sox were slated for a three-game series to close out the season. Entering that series, here were the standings:
W-L Pct GB
Boston 84-68 .548 --
Detroit 84-69 .551 0.5
Whichever team won the series would win the division, and the Tigers took the lead in the opener, beating the Red Sox 4-1 behind ace Mickey Lolich, who racked up 15 strikeouts. Tiger Stadium held 51,518 fans that evening, and you can bet nearly all of them remember it well.
The second game matched Detroit's Woodie Fryman and Boston's Luis Tiant, two pitchers who performed brilliantly in the latter stages of the season. Fryman, purchased from Philadelphia in early August, wound up 10-3 with a 2.06 ERA for the Tigers (in 1973, Fryman fell to 6-13 with a 5.36 ERA). Tiant was just 4-4 entering August, but finished 15-6 with an AL-best 1.91 ERA.
One of Tiant's six losses came in this game, though, as Fryman and reliever Chuck Seelbach combined to beat the Red Sox 3-1, with 37-year-old Al Kaline driving in the lead run in the bottom of the seventh.
And that was the pennant. The Red Sox beat the Tigers on the season's final day, but that left them still a half-game off the pace, and their fans wondering what might have happened if the Red Sox had played just two more games: one to match Detroit, and then perhaps a one-game playoff against the Tigers to decide the division title.
Postscript: In researching this column, I ran across a pair of, umm, interesting quotes in The Official Baseball Guide for 1973 ...
"Ironically, this should bring the players and owners closer together. You don't have a good relationship when there is a superior and an inferior working under peaceful conditions. But if they are working as equals the relationship is better, even if it's stormy." "I know we have reached the saturation point. If our payroll goes any higher, we just can't make it."At that point, the Cubs had two players -- Ferguson Jenkins and Billy Williams -- who actually made more than $100,000. Apiece. Anyway, now perhaps you'll understand why, when I hear Bud Selig say that the player-owner relationship is better than ever, or when I hear anybody claim that baseball is on the brink of disaster, I usually roll my eyes and try to find a game to watch on TV. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18 Weekending in Seattle, and spotted a pair of "state-of-the-game" articles in Sunday's Seattle Times that piqued my interest. The headline of one article read, "Standings closer than ever," and by at least one measure, it's true. As Murray Chass of The New York Times reports, this might be the first season in major league history in which no teams finish with a winning percentage lower than .400 or higher than .600. Indeed, after yesterday's games, the worst percentage in the majors is .403 (Cubs), and the best is .601 (Giants). And would this mean, historically? To his credit, Chass did conduct some research ... The major leagues came closest to the .400 to .600 range in 1958, when only the Washington Senators among the 16 teams finished out of that range. With a .396 percentage in the 154-game season, the Senators could have joined the other 15 teams if they had gained one additional victory, finishing with 62 instead of 61. Four other seasons ended with one team beyond the .400 to .600 range, the White Sox in 1959, the Detroit Tigers in '68 and '84, and the Oakland Athletics in '90.... he just didn't take it the one extra and necessary step. If this season's parity is the result of some fundamental change in the game, then shouldn't we expect this parity to continue forward? Because if there's a fundamental change, the effects should show up in more than just one season.
Year -1 Year 0 Year +1
1958 4 1 1
1959 1 1 5
1968 3 1 5
1984 3 1 2
1990 3 1 2
2000 6 1 ?
The first column lists the number of teams that finished outside the .400 to
.600 range in the season before. The second column lists the number of teams
that finished outside those ranges in the season in question (with the 2000
number based on a projection of today's standings), and the third column
lists the number of teams that finished outside those ranges the year after
the season in question.
Except for that two-year run of apparent parity
in 1958 and '59, I don't see any pattern at all. What I think is that this
season is simply a statistical anomaly. As was 1999.
Unfortunately, Chass looked at the 2000 standings, conducted his research,
and then went around asking general managers if there's anything different
this season. And that's the crux of the problem, this compulsion felt by
sportswriters -- and for that matter, us regular people, too -- a compulsion
to explain that which need not be explained.
Allard Baird came up with a wacky theory (not enough pitching), Doug Melvin
came up with a slightly less wacky theory (teams with big payrolls devoting
high percentages of their money to a small percentage of their rosters), and
Ron Schueler thinks it's just a bunch of injuries suffered by the best teams
(the Yankees and the Indians).
But believe it or not, Bud Selig seems to have the most realistic view of
the situation. As Commissioner Bud said -- and this might be the first time
I've ever quoted Selig with approval -- "There may be an aberration from
time to time."
Hey, there's nothing wrong with aberrations, as they make life infinitely
more interesting than it would otherwise be. But that's about all
aberrations can teach us, that life is interesting.
The other article was simply credited to "Seattle Times News Services,"
which could mean just about anything, but the piece certainly should have
been bylined because it certainly contains an editorial bent.
As you might know, the team with the best record in each league will enjoy
home-field advantage throughout the Division Series and Championship Series.
Ah, but what happens if, say, the White Sox and Yankees tie for the best
record in the American League?
The White Sox get home field, because they beat the Yankees in their season
series, 8 games to 4. Here's where it gets tricky, though ... the Yankees
and Marlins were rained out of a game earlier in the season, and no make-up
has been scheduled. The Yankees are already playing on every day between now
and the end of the season, so the postponed game will not be made up at all.
But what if the Yankees finish a half-game ahead of the White Sox for the
best record in the American League? Obviously, the White Sox would want the
Yankees to play that game against the Marlins, because if the Yankees lost,
then the White Sox would get the home field.
According to the Seattle Times News Service, though, there is no contingency
plan for this eventuality.
It's a tough situation, it really is. Forcing the Yankees to play Florida
the day after the last day of the season would obviously hurt New York's
postseason chances. But giving the Yankees the home field because they were
"lucky" enough to have a game rained out against a National League opponent
would hurt Chicago's postseason chances, too.
I suppose I would make the Yankees play that game, because the integrity of
the 162-game season, bastardized though it's been by interleague play and
various other silly scheduling, should be maintained to the extent that it's
still possible
But whatever I think should happen, the real problem is that the decision
apparently hasn't been made yet. Due to the convoluted postseason format and
the aforementioned silly scheduling, there are all sorts of strange
possibilities, and, unfortunately, Commissioner Bud and his Band of Merry
Men didn't bother to think through everything first.
But by God, they sure did a wonderful job with the Hank Aaron Award.
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15A few notes while wondering why the Royals have topped the Athletics in home attendance this season, and why the Expos are still in Montreal ...
Innings W-L ERA ERA Rank
Maddux 230 17-8 3.09 4
Glavine 214 19-7 3.62 7
Everybody was in a tizzy over Glavine's second-half stats. Well, he's 10-2
with a 3.62 ERA since the All-Star break. Over that same span, Maddux is 7-5
with a 2.76 ERA. You take the guy with the gaudy record, I'll take the guy
with the ERA nearly a run lower, and I'll beat you the great majority of the
time.
And of course, I'd still take Randy Johnson over either of them. Johnson and
Glavine face off tonight, again, in a game that might play a big part in
making up Cy Young voters' minds. They just shouldn't forget Glavine's more
accomplished teammate.
WILD PITCHES HIT BATSMEN WALKS 22 Clement, M 17 Wright, J 115 Clement, M 21 Williamson, S 15 Clement, M 115 Park, CWhat's impressive here is Clement's across-the-board excellence in these three categories. Cincinnati's Scott Williamson ranks No. 2 in wild pitches, but not among the top 10 in Hit Batsmen or Walks (yes, I know that he's pitched relatively few innings). Milwaukee's Jamey Wright ranks No. 1 in Hit Batsmen, but not among the top 10 in Wild Pitches, and just No. 10 in Walks. Los Angeles' Chan Ho Park ranks co-No. 1 in Walks, but fourth in Wild Pitches and sixth in Hit Batsmen. So Park is having some control problems, too. The difference is that he's 15-10 with a 3.67 ERA, and Clement is 12-15 with a 5.06 ERA. I still think Clement could be a pretty decent pitcher, but he's 26 now and owns a 4.77 career ERA. Clement was supposed to be a star, and time's running out for that plan. Best thing in September? A hard-fought baseball game involving two pennant contenders. Second-best thing in September? A hard-fought baseball game involving one pennant contender, and that's just what I witnessed Wednesday night at Safeco Field. It was one of those games where -- many times -- an inch or two might well have made the difference between winning and losing. The Mariners already knew the Athletics had lost, so if Seattle could beat Kansas City, they'd stretch their lead in the West to two games. And you got the feeling that with every play, the Mariners were thinking about that lead in the West. There were, by my count, four spectacular defensive plays (Joe Randa and Luis Ordaz for the Royals, Al Martin and Carlos Guillen for the M's) and eight line drives turned into outs. As much as a pitcher's duel -- it was scoreless through six innings, and 1-1 after 10 -- this one turned into a fielder's duel. Johnny Damon, who's been unbelievable since the All-Star break, lined out in his first two at-bats, grounded out to shortstop in his third, and reached base on a one-out walk in the seventh. He advanced to second on a wild pitch, and moved to third on Rey Sanchez's liner to center (yes, another line-out). That brought up Mike Sweeney. With Jermaine Dye up next, Lou Piniella ordered an intentional walk for Sweeney. Of course, it's fairly uncommon to walk one right-handed batter with 100-plus RBI to face another right-handed batter with 100-plus RBI, unless you're trying to set up a double play or something. Here are Sweeney's and Dye's numbers this season:
Games RBI OBP Slug OPS
Sweeney 143 133 .408 .535 943
Dye 141 111 .383 .567 950
Aside from the RBI, Dye's been just as good a hitter as Sweeney, so how does one justify the addition of a baserunner in a tie game? Now, it's possible that Lou Piniella knows something about this situation that we don't know. Perhaps, considering Jose Paniagua's pitch repertoire, Sweeney was particularly likely to hit the ball hard. Or Dye was particularly unlikely to hit the ball hard. Or both.
Perhaps. But I suspect that Piniella's decision was based on something less significant; namely, the two games that preceded this one, two games in which Sweeney went 5-for-8 with three home runs, and Dye went 1-for-9.
I turned to Mike Curto, a friend of mine who broadcasts the Tacoma Rainiers games with great skill, and asked, "You walk Sweeney to get to Dye?"
"Sweeney's been killing the ball," Mike replied.
Do hot streaks exist? Of course they do. The question is, does having been hot make a batter more likely to hit safely in his next at-bat? Mike says yes, I say no. Mike will see roughly 160 baseball games in person this year, so he's got the weight of experience behind him. I will see roughly 110 games in person this year, plus I've got the weight of science behind me. But we've all trod this ground before, recently enough that I'll wait a while before doing so again.
This particularly frustrated me because, with those 133 RBI, Sweeney is currently tied for the Royals team record. One more and he passes Hal McRae (who set the record in 1982, when it seemed like he doubled to the gap every time there were runners on base), and I really wanted to see that happen in person.
Anyway, Dye followed the intentional walk with a line drive into center field. Damon scored easily, and the Royals had a 1-0 lead.
Al Martin, a huge disappointment since he arrived in Seattle, led off the bottom of the seventh with a grounder to first base. That brought up Jay Buhner, and Mike said, "Buhner hits a home run here."
A bold prediction, but Buhner is, very quietly, enjoying a fine season. He's played irregularly, but he's been excellent when he's played, posting a .377 OBP and a .551 slugging percentage. His 928 OPS ranks third among the Mariners, behind only Alex Rodriguez and Edgar Martinez, and well ahead of John Olerud, who's No. 4.
Buhner walloped Blake Stein's fourth pitch over the center-field fence for a game-tying home run, and chalk one up for Mike Curto's powers of prognostication. (Did Mike know that Buhner had already hit two home runs in his career against Stein, in only six at-bats? Nah, I think he just got lucky.)
The Royals very nearly went ahead in the top of the ninth. With Kazuhiro Sasaki on the mound, Kansas City had runners on first and third with two outs (thanks to Guillen's error). Todd Dunwoody's been terrible this season -- yes, he's terrible every season -- but he ripped Sasaki's first pitch down the first-base line. But like most of the other line drives on this night, it was caught, this time by a lunging Olerud. And so they played on.
I was shocked -- shocked!-- when Kazuhiro Sasaki came out to pitch the 10th inning. Prior to last night, Sasaki had pitched in 57 games, and in only one of those 57 games had he recorded more than three outs. But I have to give Piniella a little credit, both for using Sasaki in a tie game, and for using Sasaki in a new way. The Mariners are in a pennant race, and sometimes you have to play it differently in September than you did in April. Sasaki retired the Royals in order.
The bottom of the 10th and the top of the 11th were relatively uneventful, with both clubs getting a runner on base but failing to advance him past second.
Ricky Botallico came in to pitch the bottom of the 11th, which had to put the fear of God into the few hundred Royals fans still awake (by then, it was nearly one in the morning back in the Central Time Zone). Miracle of miracles, Botallico struck out Rodriguez, but then he walked Martinez. Charles Gipson, very fast but not an accomplished basestealer, pinch ran for Martinez with Mike Cameron due next.
With the count 1-and-2 to Martin, Botallico threw a pitch high and outside. It wasn't a pitch-out but served just as well, and Gipson was out trying to steal by a mile. But Cameron walked, too, bringing up Buhner, who had already homered, but missed a hanging curve in the bottom of the ninth, popping to center field with runners on second and third and one out.
This time, he didn't miss, lining Botallico's third pitch -- an oh-two pitch! -- into the left-field corner. The ball died when it hit the wall, so Dunwoody had to chase it down while Cameron was tearing around the bases. Dunwoody threw a strike to cutoff man Rey Sanchez, who turned and fired plateward.
From my perspective, a few rows behind the dugout on the third-base side, it looked like the runner beat the throw. But given the vehemence with which Zaun and Botallico argued the call with plate umpire Marvin Hudson, I had my doubts, and what I didn't know was that Zaun did a great job blocking Cameron from the plate.
Listening to the radio after the game, I heard Mariners broadcaster Dave Niehaus describe the play at the plate as "very, very close." Niehaus must have seen the replay, though, and he must have known that the Mariners caught a break. I've seen the replay on SportsCenter three times, and there's absolutely no doubt that Hudson blew the call. Though I'm a Royals fan, I simply can't generate much outrage, because the Royals simply didn't execute. Sanchez's throw home was high; two feet lower, and there's no way Hudson misses the call. And then there's Botallico (fondly called Ricky Blow-tallico by his fans back in Kansas City). He faced four batters, and gave up two walks and a laser beam. So as bad as Marvin Hudson might have done his job in the bottom of the 11th, Botallico might have been worse.
And if the Mariners wind up winning the West, this is one of the games they'll never forget.
A note on the fans: I've got season tickets at Safeco Field, so it gives me no joy to report that the crowd there is about as exciting as a dead fish. Yes, I've been spoiled by Fenway, but if this is baseball in the 21st century, I might want to remain in the 20th.
As exciting as last night's game was, the fans made noise only on those occasions when the video board told them to. I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again: if you've not been to Fenway Park, you need to get there before it's gone, so you'll at least have the memory of what a baseball game is supposed to feel like. Because in the great majority of the new mallparks, it just ain't the same.
Programming Note: Tonight at 7 p.m. Central Time, ESPN.com contributor Eddie Epstein will be signing copies of "Baseball Dynasties" at the Barnes & Noble in Plano, Texas (corner of Park and Preston). Be there if you can.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13One benefit of traveling -- and I've been on the road far too often this summer -- is that you get to read lots of different newspapers. And yeah, you can read just about any newspaper via the Internet, but it's just not the same. Anyway, yesterday I had to change planes in San Francisco, and picked up a copy of the Examiner at the airport. And within its pages there were a couple of cool notes about the Friday-through-Monday series between the Athletics and the Devil Rays. One, Oakland starters, threw 35 of 36 possible innings. That included complete games by Gil Heredia (4-0 loss), Tim Hudson (10-0 win) and Barry Zito (11-0 win), and an eight-inning effort by Kevin Appier (5-1 win), bouncing back from one of the worst starts of his career last week. The Examiner's Brian Murphy (who also writes about the NFL for ESPN.com) described Monday night's victory as "another perfunctory spanking of the cardboard cutouts who pass as Tampa Bay Devil Rays," and that leads to the other fact I ran across ... the Devil Rays did not draw a single walk in the entire series. A surprise? Well, the Devil Rays do rank eighth in the American League in walks. But that ranking is misleading; with 500, they're only eight walks ahead of No. 12 Detroit, but 99 walks behind No. 3 Cleveland. And they're only 50 walks ahead of No. 14 Kansas City, but 180 walks behind No. 1 Seattle. So no, Tampa Bay is not a walkin' ball club. Still, zero in four games is something else, and you have to wonder if, at this late stage of the season, they're not just going up there and taking their hacks. And this leads to something else that's been bugging me, the idea that non-contending teams are "loose" in September, and thus more "dangerous" than they might otherwise be. Last Saturday night, I was watching a game on TV -- can't remember the teams, as by this point in the season, anything that happened four days ago is mostly a blur -- and broadcaster Ken Brett kept going on and on about this, how those crummy teams are the ones you have to watch out for. Really? If you've got a choice between playing the Red Sox or the Devil Rays right now, who would you choose? I suppose I shouldn't say this until I actually study the issue, but I'll bet my Hoyt Wilhelm rookie card that crummy teams tend to play crummy in September, just as they did in April and June and August. And all this stuff about being loose and dangerous is just filler, one of those silly things that broadcasters say when they can't think of anything intelligent. Speaking of studying issues, every day I read that the White Sox and Athletics will be at a disadvantage in the postseason, because their pitching rotations are anchored by young starters. But is this true? Are the Indians better off with Chuck Finley and Dave Burba than the A's are with Tim Hudson and Barry Zito? It would be a simple, but time-consuming study (at least if you did it with nothing more than a baseball encyclopedia and an Excel file): find matched sets of pitchers, with similar ERAs in the regular season but significantly different levels of major-league experience, and see how each group fared in the postseason. If there's sufficient interest in this issue, I'll see if I can employ a small percentage of ESPN's vast research resources to the chore. (On a similar note, check out Chris Kahrl's article  on rookie pitchers in the postseason, which points out that rookie starters have gone 28-10 with a 3.77 ERA in 59 playoff games since 1977.)
Now, a few notes on this thing we call "baseball":
Let's dip into the ol' mailbag once again ...
Mike Miller
Games Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS
Thomas 141 107 134 .443 .651 1094
Delgado 143 108 129 .479 .694 1173
Thomas is enjoying a wonderful season, right in line with some of his best. Delgado is arguably posting some of the best numbers of the last half-century. No, he can't match Thomas in the RBI column, but that's largely because the Blue Jays aren't adept at getting on base. Let him bat cleanup for the Athletics or Mariners, and he'd be leading the world in RBI.
As for making the playoffs having any bearing on things, I've written this a thousand times but it bears repeating ... It's asinine to vote for Player A over Player B simply because Player A's team is blessed with a better pitching staff. Throw in the facts that (1) Delgado plays first base, while Thomas mostly DHs; and (2) Delgado is regarded by those close to his team as a consummate leader, and I really don't understand how anyone could vote for Thomas over Delgado.
Does that mean Delgado's the MVP? Nope. Look at home/road splits for these two and for Alex Rodriguez, and you might well decide that Rodriguez is the guy. At some point down the line, we'll work through all of the candidates. But I just don't understand the argument for Thomas.
Seems like forever since Gary Sheffield hit a home run, and it seems like forever since I posted reader mail. Only Sheffield can do anything about the former, but I've had plenty of practice with the latter. So ...
First thing today, I want you to look at two two pitchers' statistics from 1999:
GS Innings Hits BB K W-L ERA
Pitcher A 34 239 206 101 177 22-4 2.90
Pitcher B 35 272 207 70 364 17-9 2.48
Need a hint? Probably not, but I'll tell you that Pitcher B is a full foot taller than Pitcher A ... Got it now? Right, you've been treated to none other than Mike Hampton and Randy Johnson, just one year ago!
Now, there were some who argued for Hampton as the National League's Cy Young winner, based on his five-victory advantage. But cooler heads prevailed -- somewhat surprising, given the spotty voting record of the Baseball Writers Association of America -- and Johnson topped the balloting, drawing 20 first-place votes to Hampton's 11 (one guy voted for Kevin Millwood).
In fairness to those who did vote for Hampton, there wasn't a great difference between their ERAs, and Bank One Ballpark and the Astrodome were both good pitcher's parks a year ago.
Anyway, I didn't gather you all here just to rehash a year-old debate. No, the point is that Johnson did win, and rather handily.
OK, new pair of pitchers, this time from the current National League campaign:
GS Innings Hits BB K W-L ERA
Pitcher A 30 207 191 59 130 19-6 3.61
Pitcher B 29 217 167 63 299 17-6 2.45
Assuming that these two are battling for this year's Cy Young honors, it doesn't look like much of a battle to me. Again, Pitcher B is Randy Johnson, and his numbers are almost identical to last year's, except that he's almost certainly going to win more games. And there's no way that Pitcher A -- Tom Glavine, like Hampton a finesse left-hander who will never be mistaken for a Big Unit -- will approach Hampton's 1999 ERA or winning percentage.
Yet after Atlanta's victory Tuesday night, a story in USA Today read, "Glavine mastered Arizona in the duel of left-handers twice decorated with the Cy Young Award and is on top in the competition for the award this year."
Let me ask you, how can Randy Johnson win the Cy Young in 1999, but lose it in 2000?
Wait, I know what Rod Beaton would say!
Johnson is just 3-4 since the All-Star break, while Glavine is 10-1.
But has Glavine really pitched much better than Johnson?
GS Innings Hits BB K W-L ERA
Glavine 11 75 75 14 35 10-1 3.60
Johnson 11 72 70 27 101 3-4 3.75
Yeah, Glavine's pitched a bit better in the heat of the pennant race ... but better enough to outweigh the vast difference between their season-long performances? Gosh, I sure don't think so.
The National League Cy Young isn't as cut-and-dried as in the American League. But if the season ended tomorrow, it would be a crying shame, if anyone other than Randy Johnson won the award.
Tom Glavine's a great pitcher, perhaps a future Hall of Famer. But unless he and Johnson travel vastly divergent paths over the next three weeks, Glavine's no Cy Young in 2000.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5Many wondrous things happened over the weekend, so I hope you'll indulge an old man as he rambles through a variety of topics ... |  | ||||