More from Count Floyd and "It's Really Scary!"

Baseball Prospectus has any even more cynical and jaded analysis of this trade than I did.
Witness:

It's as if Selig didn't realize what might happen if he allowed Minaya to make the deals. Since the acquisitions of Floyd and
Colon, the Expos had broken 10,000 in attendance in 11 of 13 home games, something they'd done just eight times all season
before the trades. Oh, hell, let's run a chart:

                     Average Att.      Median Att.
Expos, Not Trying        8,429            6,091
Expos, Trying           14,064           13,402

The trades seemed to prove what we've been saying all along, that fans will come see a team--in any market, in any stadium--that
has success, and more importantly, that shows a commitment to winning. On a typical July night, twice as many people came
to see the Expos as did before the team made a significant move that signaled that the team was trying to win.

It's like Selig said, "OK, you can do this so I can say that Montreal is a dead issue," and when it wasn't a dead
issue, made sure that he stopped the momentum.

. . .

The Floyd Merry-Go-Round Continues

If you didn't hear, Cliff Floyd was traded for the second time in three weeks, this time to Red Sox for two minor league pitchers, right-handers from South Korea named Seung Song and Sun-Woo Kim.

My friend Mike Markowitz, who has a gift for the polemic, writes:

Let's see if I understand this: The commissioner's other team (not the Brewers, the Expos) acquires Cliff Floyd from the commissioner's lackey in Miami, Jeff Loria. Then the Expos send Floyd, for nothing, to the commissioner's hand-picked owner in Boston, his buddy John Henry . . . and there are no conflicts of interest here?
What a joke. This is the kind of thing that turns me off of baseball, not the possibility of a players' strike.

I have to agree, and here's why:

A) It is very suspicious that the Expos would trade for prospects given that they have been shedding prospects at an alarming rate all year.

B) Well, maybe they have recognized the error of their ways and are trying to stockpile young talent. My first response to that would be why, given that they may not exist next year. If they do exist, they will be run by a different ownership group who will most likely bring in their own baseball people-so what's the incentive for Minaya to amass future talent? Again very suspicious.

C) Let's assume that they have changed direction, however illogical that may be, These do not look like stellar acquisitions. "Song is 7-7, with a 4.39 ERA in 21 games for Double-A Trenton. He was obtained by the Red Sox as a free agent in 1999. Kim is 4-2, with a 3.18 ERA in eight starts for Triple-A Pawtucket." Kim looks OK. But Song is an average Double-AA pitcher. What do the Expos need them for?

D) Why didn't the Expos get at least one outfielder (Daubach or Nixon) given that the Red Sox now have five quality OF's on the roster. Ostensibly, Daubach will replace the underachieving Tony Clarkat 1st, improving the Red Sox in two positions. The Expos have Troy O'Leary who may revive his career, but why wouldn't they demand an outfielder in the deal? Floyd for Daubach and a prospect is still a good deal for the Sox.

E) Minaya's rationale for the trade is also iffy: "Expos general manager Omar Minaya said dumping Floyd's salary and taking on little in return gives him flexibility to deal later. 'Right now, we have close to 50 games left. We've got five teams in front of us,' he said. 'When we acquired Cliff Floyd, we didn't have five teams in front of us. I think we were second in the wild card. That's one difference.'" The Expos may be fighting for their franchise lives-there is no later. Besides this is the trade deadline: what "later" is there? Floyd was acquired on July 12. On July 11, the Expos were 46-42, in second place in the NL East, 10.5 games behind the Braves. They were tied with Cincinnati for third in the NL wild-card race, six games behind Arizona and four behind San Fran. They are still six games back are in are in sixth place in the wild-card race, having been passed by New York, Cincinnati, and Houston. They are slightly worse of given that more time has passed and they have not made up any ground and there are now more bodies in their way, but that's all the more reason to keep Floyd.

F) The Red Sox are competing with the Yankees for the Al East title (Boston is 5 back), and the Mariners, Angels, and A's, whichever two don't win the West, for the wild-card (Boston trails Anaheim by 1 game). The Yankees outfield is loaded and they don't need another lefty bat, but may have wanted to take a shot at Floyd to block the Sox. The Mariners have Mark McLemore and Ruben Sierra in left and Sierra and Edgar Martinez Dhing, so other than added depth (and maybe moving McLemore to center to spell the struggling Mikeameron) their need for Floyd isn't great. But the Angels even with a good outfield could use another bat, freeing up Brad Fullmer to play first base and Spiezio to back up in a number of places. The A's have John Mabry playing way over his head in left. They could definitely use Floyd but may not want to swallow his contract. There are NL teams that could use a left fielder but maybe Montreal did not want to trade with their competitors (or it would be too obvious).

G) John Henry, the Red Sox owner, likes Floyd. Floyd played for him in Florida when Henry owned the Marlins.

H) John Henry sold the Marlins this past offseason and purchased the Red Sox for reportedly less than some competing offers. Jeffrey Loria bought the Marlins from Henry and sold the Expos to MLB. Both Loria and Henry have been alleged to be members of the commissioner's coterie.

I) Oscar Minaya is an employee, directly or indirectly, of MLB. The Commissioner and the owners have some say in what direction the Expos take (e.g., if they can take on extra payroll).

I don't know if there was any wrongdoing here, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to follow up. However, like Selig's personal loan from Carl Pohlad or any other minor scandal, this will be swept conveniently under the rug. But it stinks worse than Bud Selig's AquaVelva.

Yankees owner George Steinbrenner has come under a great deal of scrutiny lately for collecting ballplayers like children collect baseball cards while the other owners are pushing austerity and for his Comcast-vs.-YES-induced spat with Larry Dolan. I wondered at the time why Selig didn't slap a $1M fine on the both of them. Maybe this is his way, and if so he's smarter than he looks, to get back at the Boss.

. . .

Upcoming Topics Still To Come

Do the Yankees Have an Unfair Advantage in In-Season Acquisitions?

Why I'm For the Players

1899, the Year of the Last Contraction and the Birth of the American League

Are Small-Market Teams Less Competitive Than in the Past

Dodgers, the Anti-Rockies? Are the Dodgers Unduly Helped by Playing in a Pitcher's Park?

The Far-Reaching Legacy of the League That Never Was (A Hardy Boy Mystery)

Observations on Bill James' Win Shares System

Is Greg Vaughn's 2002 season the worst ever?

Email me if you have any other questions/comments/ideas.
. . .

What's In A Hall of Fame Name, A Rose by Any Other, Well, Maybe Not

I'm sure you noticed as I did that this year was the second in a row in which a Smith was enshrined in Cooperstown. 2001 saw the inclusion of Kansas City Monarch great, pitcher Hilton Smith, and this year Ozzie "The Wizard of Oz" Smith has been immortalized in the Hall. The odd thing is that in the 65 years of Cooperstown history prior to 2001, there was a grand total of zero Smiths inducted. That's out of 139 major-leaguers with the surname (plus one Smyth and a Smythe). And the Hall is still awaiting its first Jones inductee (even though there have been 88 major-leaguers named Jones).

According to Lycos here are the most common last names in the U.S. from the 1990 census with their frequencies. I have added the number of Hall of Famers and their first names to the list (Note that there are 254 Hall of Famers so far):

 Rk Name    Frequency #HoF
1. Smith      1.01%    2 (Ozzie & Hilton)
2. Johnson    0.81     3 (Ban, Judy, Walter)
3. Williams   0.70     3 (Billy, Smokey Joe, Ted)
4. Jones      0.62     0 (Andruw? Chipper? Fielder?)
5. Brown      0.62     1 (Three-Finger)
6. Davis      0.48     1 (George)
7. Miller     0.42     0 (Marvin?)
8. Wilson     0.34     1 (Hack)
9. Moore      0.31     0
10. Taylor    0.31     0
11. Anderson  0.31     1 (Sparky)
12. Thomas    0.31     0 (Frank??)
13. Jackson   0.31     2 (Reggie & Travis)
14. White     0.28     0
15. Harris    0.28     1 (Bucky)
16. Martin    0.27     0
17. Thompson  0.27     1 (Sam)
18. Garcia    0.25     0
19. Martinez  0.23     0 (Denny?) 
20. Robinson  0.23     4 (Brooks, Frank, Jackie, Wilbert)
21. Clark     0.23     1 (Fred Clarke)
22. Rodriguez 0.23     0 (Alex? Ivan?)
23. Lewis     0.23     0
24. Lee       0.22     0
25. Walker    0.22     0 (Larry?) 
26. Hall      0.20     0 (odd, huh?)
27. Allen     0.20     0 (Sorry Dick, er, Richie, er Dick)
28. Young     0.19     2 (Cy and Ross Youngs)
29. Hernandez 0.19     0 (Sorry, Keith)
30. King      0.19     0

Other names with multiple inductees: Kelly/Kelley 3 (Joe, George, and King), Collins 2 (Eddie & Jimmy), Fox/Foxx (Nellie and Jimmie), Gibson 2 (Bob and Josh), McCarthy 2 (Joe and Tommy), and Wright 2 (brothers George and Harry).

Other Smith fun facts:

Best nickname: Phenomenal, Klondike, or Skyrocket
Most Mysterious: Just plain Smith (1884) or Smith (1886). Could they even be one?
Most common first name: Bill/Billy/Willie 8, Bob/Bobby 6, John/Jack 6, Ed/Eddie/Edgar 5, Red 5, Al/Aleck 4, Harry 4
Previous Hall of Fame votes garnered: Earl (2), Lonnie (1), Reggie (3), and Sherry (1)

By the way, Harry and George Wright are not the only brothers in the Hall. There are also Rube and Bill Foster (half-brothers), and Paul and Lloyd Waner. Also, there are father and son, Lee and Larry McPhail.

. . .

Open Letter from the Hall of Famers

Forty Hall of Famers have come together to draft an open letter to Bud Selig and Donald Fehr advising them to use a mediator to avoid a work stoppage.

Here's the text of the letter in case you missed it (for some reason ESPN pulled it but SI still had it up):

Dear Bud and Don:

Though we are bound together by sharing baseball's greatest honor -- being elected members of the Hall of Fame -- we are a diverse group. We are from different generations, have had different life experiences, and as such we each have our own -- often strongly held -- beliefs.

Each of us has our own opinions about the labor-management issues between major league baseball and the players' association through the years -- and today.

Both sides make persuasive arguments to support their positions, and thinking persons can understand the merits of those arguments. Despite how each of us feels individually, however, we all agree that another work stoppage in baseball would be a terrible mistake.

To protect the game we all love and have given so much to, we suggest you agree to a qualified mediator that will allow you to find the common ground necessary to avoid a work stoppage.

Millions of loyal fans, the thousands of people who work in and around stadiums and depend on baseball for their livelihood, and the future of the game, are depending on you and will benefit from your reasonableness and wisdom if you can achieve this.

-- Sparky Anderson, Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, George Brett, Lou Brock, Jim Bunning, Rod Carew, Steve Carlton, Orlando Cepeda, Bobby Doerr, Bob Feller, Rollie Fingers, Whitey Ford, Bob Gibson, Monte Irvin, Reggie Jackson, Fergie Jenkins, Al Kaline, George Kell, Harmon Killebrew, Ralph Kiner, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Willie Mays, Bill Mazeroski, Stan Musial, Tony Perez, Gaylord Perry, Kirby Puckett, Robin Roberts, Brooks Robinson, Red Schoendienst, Mike Schmidt, Tom Seaver, Duke Snider, Warren Spahn, Don Sutton, Ozzie Smith, Billy Williams, Dave Winfield

Now, I'm sure that they have the best of intentions, although it makes me wonder why the letter had to be open and could not have simply been sent to the respective parties. But this is the last thing that is needed at this point. To end the talks and reach an agreement, both sides have to think that the other is united and bargain accordingly. If this letter creates the slightest bit of doubt in the owners' minds as to the solidarity of the players (I know they are retired, but they have an influence and they have connections with active players), then the owners will look for an opportunity to exploit it. They will try to call the players' bluff and get ready for a siege (remember the NBA negotiations?). Besides how do they know if the mediator will come to a fair and equitable agreement for both parties. He could do just like King Solomon proposed and divide the baby down the middle to no ones' liking.

A lot of these players should know better. They have been through periods of labor strife in their careers. This could also be seen as disingenuous given that what the players negotiate will affect the players' pension fund, from which a number of these men certainly draw a paycheck. Maybe it's not a big deal if you have a plaque in Cooperstown and can get paid accordingly when you make public appearances. But for their ex-teammates who were not so fortunate, these men should screw up their pride and their souvenir businesses and stand in line with the players, no matter how unpopular that stand may be. Being actually, and not just seemingly, heroic often is unpopular.

. . .

SI: Nolan Ryan for Commissioner?

Sport Illustrated is advocating Nolan Ryan for commissioner. You know, I remember when SI was great. There was The Wide World of Sports on TV, which brought into your living room just what its name advertised, and there was its magazine counterpart, SI. That was around 1976.

SI is so marginalized now that they think that Mr. Ryan Goes to the Commissioner's Office a la Frank Capra would solve all of baseball's problems. The commissioner is no longer some moral paragon doling out virtue on high (as if he ever was). He is more the CEO of a multinational, a deal maker, a consensus achiever. He is also an employee of the owners. Why would they hire a former player who knows nothing whatsoever about the inner workings of baseball as a business?

If this is the quality of the reporting covering the labor talks, no wonder the public is so mis- (or dis-)informed.

. . .

The Physicists of Baseball

The umpires have hired a group of physicists and engineers, including The Physics of Baseball author and Sterling Professor Emeritus at Yale, Robert Kemp Adair, to investigate the Questec Umpire Information System. This should be interesting...

. . .

Respectable Street

I would like to announce that Mike's Baseball Rants has been accepted by John Skilton's Baseball Links to be listed under Statistics & Analysis. Now, we had better clean up our act.

. . .

Can't Tell a Player Without a Program

The White Sox have lost their starting catcher, center fielder, and second baseman in the last week. They were traded for a total of four minor league pitchers. This will pay dividends over the next few years. Unfortunately, they have to finish the schedule this year. Currently, their roster lists the following position 11 players: one catcher, five total infielders, 4 total outfielders, and Frank Thomas, who can kind of play first. This is including Willie Harris, who was promoted to replace Durham. They only list 23 pitchers meaning that they are 2 players short. Don't they think about this when they make a trade? Or is a 23-man roster a new cost-cutting approach? I hope they all stay healthy. I don't want to see Frank Thomas play catcher.

. . .

Rolen to Cardinals

So Scott Rolen is off to a pennant contender, and the Phils get two marginal players and a pitching prospect who the Cardinals have already given up on in return. I have already voiced my opinion of the whole affair (scroll down). I wish Scott Rolen the best and fully expect a huge last third of the season from him.

Meanwhile I will be looking forward to a Phillies line-up with Doug Glanville leading off, Travis Lee batting third, and Placido Polanco batting fifth. Maybe then Larry Bowa will finally explode (Hundreds of people explode every year. They just don't talk about it.) Then John Vukovich will get a chance to run the team with at least a modicum of composure.

. . .

Rangers Release a Big Burba. Excuse Me-yette.

The Rangers released Dave Burba today after he lost his spot in the rotation and then in his last appearance, in relief, gave up 7 earned runs in a third of an inning in the Rangers 12-2 loss to Oakland Monday. Burba has a 5.42 ERA, but that is slightly above the team average. He has not pitched well since 2000 and has a large contract (which they are eating anyway), but he has had a decent career and was very good for Cleveland from 1998-2000 (His park-adjusted ERA as a percentage of the league ERA was 17%, 18%, and 12% better than the league average and he won at least 15 games a year).

The Rangers are going nowhere, he's "only" 35, and he could turn it around. Meanwhile Narron's excuse that Burba has been released to give some younger guys some innings, doesn't hold water, not when you have Chan Ho Park, Aaron Myette, and Rob Bell eating a hole in your roster and Kenny Rogers on the trading block. Why not let him work out his mechanical problems and see if he can get ready for next year? Even if he is a free agent and does not figure into next year necessarily, he's got to be better the rest of the way than Myette and his 9.39 ERA. Methinks this is some Tom Hicks "Let's get tough and send a message" behavior. Austerity is now his buzz word. What a rational team.

. . .

I Come To Praise Bud, Not To Bury Him

Whenever he opens his mouth, Pete Rose is not doing himself any favors. Imagine that your embarassing uncle who is a bit crass and gets drunk at family get-togethers is also a geek in the local freak show. That must be the way organized baseball looks at the "Hit King". He has some somewhat reasonable things to say and then comes out with things like he feels sorry for Bud for the All-Star game and:

Of everybody in this country, I'm probably more aware of what goes on with the commissioner than anybody else. And one thing I know Bud could do to make those boos into cheers is give me a second chance.

Baseball has a big old albatross around its neck and its wering number 14, runs out bunts, and has Grecian Formula in its Mo Howard haircut. It's difficult to feel sorry for them because baseball did its best to create said albatross in the first place. Bill James has covered this ground (I think in his 1988 or 89 Baseball Book), but Rose did get a bum ride. Baseball cut a deal that included not saying that Rose bet on baseball. Then they turned around and broke the letter and the spirit of the deal.

Rose, love him or hate him, has always been about his numbers, i.e., his statistics, awards, and records. The only thing that Rose wanted after he left the sport was to be enshrined in Cooperstown. He thought that he had made a deal with Bart Giamatti to ensure his enshrinement. Giamatti went back on the deal and then promptly died, becoming a martyr in organized baseball's eyes and making Rose the villain. Should Rose be allowed to return from exile in Elba? Legally, yeah. Unless they having been hiding secret documents all this time, they have nothing to prove that Rose bet on baseball. Morally? It all depends on your point of view. But singling Rose out in this way has done more in the long run for his celebrity. If they had suspended him for a year, pressured the Reds not to re-hire him, and then let him quietly go off into the sunset of Cooperstown, it would have been a lot less trouble for everyone.

. . .

Blyleven for the Hall

Here's a good article on why Bert Blyleven is eminently qualified to be a Hall of Famer. It is very odd that Blyleven, who is widely acknowledged to have the best curveball this side of Candy Cummings, is not only not yet a Hall-of-Famer given that he's been eligible for five years, he, as the article indicates, has not even gotten much support.

The article does a good job of pleading is Hall case. I just have a few comments to add garner from the Baseball Reference site. His career ERA (adjusted for ballpark factors) is 18% better than the league average. He once bettered the league average by 58% (1973), and had one other season at 50% better and four seasons of 40% better. Here is total compared with the Hall-of-Famers listed in the article:

Pitcher         ERA+
Tom Seaver     127
Jim Palmer     125
BERT BLYLEVEN  118
Gaylord Perry  117
Steve Carlton  115
Fergie Jenkins 115
Phil Niekro    115
Nolan Ryan     112
Don Sutton     108
Catfish Hunter 104

I think this buttresses his case: The Wins Above Replacement statistic used in the article makes a good argument, but one could counter by saying that Blyleven hung on for a good deal longer than most to close failingly in on 300 wins, thereby padding his total. The adjusted ERA vs. league (ERA+) puts the entire career in perspective. Extending your career will not help and would probably hurt this stat. ERA+ also argues strongly for Blyleven's legitimacy as a Hall-of-Famer.

Also, look at the Hall of Fame indicators that Baseball Reference uses. He exceeds all of the averages for a Hall-of-Famer except one, black ink test. This test counts the number of times that a player leads his league in a category. These are listed in the baseball encyclopedias in bold or black ink, therefore, the name. Blyleven is here penalized for having a superior yet not always league-leading career. His gray ink test (similar to black ink, but tests for players in the top 10 in his league in a major category) far exceeds the Hall average:

Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 239 (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 113.5 (Likely HOFer > 100)

Looking at his "Similar Pitchers," those whose career totals most closely resembles the given player's, yields eight enshrinees out of 10 (asterisked):

Don Sutton (914) * Gaylord Perry (909) * Fergie Jenkins (890) * Tommy John (889) Robin Roberts (876) * Tom Seaver (864) * Jim Kaat (854) Early Wynn (845) * Phil Niekro (844) * Steve Carlton (840) *

The two "similar" pitchers who are not in the Hall are the next two pitchers on the most-overlooked-for-the-Hall list. Indeed Blyleven may prove an acid test for future pitcher candidates who will be less likely to win 300 games due to the use of five-man pitching rotations and the greater use (or abuse) of relief pitchers. If a pitcher does not have 300 wins or three or four Cy Young awards to his credit, he may get snubbed. I think that before the absurdity of such exclusions becomes prevalent, the Hall will be compelled to enshrine Blyleven (and perhaps Tommy John and Jim Kaat along with him. By the way their respective career ERA+ are 111 and 107).

It's odd that certain players are singled out for celebrity whereas others who are at least their equals, if not better, are largely forgotten. Compare Nolan Ryan to Blyleven. I think that the Blyleven is quantifiably the stronger of the two, Ryan is still celebrated for his seven no-hitters and record-breaking strikeout totals. Isn't having the greatest curveball in baseball and a great career enough cause for celebrity?

. . .

Alomar to Rockies?

The Rockies are apparently interested in renting the services of Sandy Alomar Jr. for the remainder of the season. I can see why the White Sox would make the trade given that Alomar will be a free agent. But why are the Rockies who are out of contention in that dire need for two months of duty from a 36-year-old catcher? Don't they have a decent catching prospect in the minors? Might they be wooing him for next year? If so, why? Do they think his veteran leadership might calm the pitching staff? I guess it's worth a try.

It is gratifying to see the Phillies 1999 back-up catchers, Estelella and Bennett, getting to work together again (at least until Estelella's injury).

. . .

Great Quote by Joe Sheehan

Read today's Daily Prospectus. They do a great job of leveling the media playing field. I especially like the following quote:

I'm not necessarily pro-player as much as I'm pro-honesty, pro-not-having-my-intelligence-insulted. When Don Fehr stands in front of a microphone and tells me Alex Rodriguez made $6.45 an hour last year, then I'll equate him with the people who still insist Wayne Huizenga lost money in 1997.

. . .

Astros Resurgence

The Houston Astros who at one point looked deader than a doornail in this year's pennant race are 12-6 since the All-Star break and are now only 6 games behind the Cardinals in the NL Central and 5.5 games back in the wild-card standings. On more than one occasion during this season, it seemed that Houston was doing everything in its power to avoid partaking in any semblance of a pennant race.

Witness, on May 11, the Astros lose their second straight game to the Pirates after being swept in a 3-game series by the Phillies; they stand at 14-21 (.400 W-L percent). May 25, the Astros have lost eight of nine including 5 losses to the Cardinals-after a seven-game winning streak brought them to .500-and stand at 22-29 (.431). On June 9, The Astros are 26-35 (.426) after losing six of seven. On June 19, The Astros are at 30-40 (.429) after losing three games to the Breweres. Since then they have only lost more than one game in a row once (a three-game losing streak) and are 23-11 (.676) in total.

So which are the real 'Stros, the pre-June 19th team that was 30-40 or the post-June 19th team is 23-11? Will the real Houston Astro team please stand up? ("I am standing up!") Let's take a look at their record to find out. Using their runs scored and allowed (485 and 456 respectively), we can use the Pythagorean Winning Percentage originally devised by Bill James to see if their winning percentage meets, exceeds, or falls short of expectation. Using this formula, one would expect them to be about 55-49, two games better than their current record. That's somewhat encouraging but not entirely convincing-at least they do not fall short of expectation.

Let's now turn to their record against certain teams to determine their fate. I am using the June 19 turning point in their season as the dividing line. Here is the Astros record against playoff-caliber teams (including interleague opponents) up to June 19, after June 19, and games to be played (Note: I define a playoff team loosely, by their playoff chances AND their actions as far as divesting themselves of or acquiring players. Therefore, the Expos are included; the Marlins are not):

         Pre Jun 19   Post Jun 19    Games         
Vs.       W- L   %     W- L   %     To Play        
STL       3- 9 .250                   7        
CIN       2- 1 .667    5- 2 .714      7        
AZ        1- 2 .333    2- 1 .667         
LA                                    6        
SF        1- 2 .333                   3        
ATL       2- 1 .667                   3        
NYM       2- 1 .667                   3        
MON       1- 2 .333                   3        
Oak       0- 3 .000            
Sea                    1- 2 .333         
=======================================
PO Total 12-21 .364    8- 5 .615     32      
Rest     18-19 .486   15- 6 .714     26      
Total    30-40 .429   23-11 .676     58 

It's a small sample post-June 19 vs. playoff caliber teams, but they have done well. They have done better (.714 winning percent) against non-playoff teams, but that is to be expected to a certain degree. They have over 50% of their games against playoff teams, which is a double-edged sword: If the play well, they can leap over their opponents; however, such a schedule makes playing well all the more difficult. If the Astros continue at their current clip (.615 vs. playoff teams, .714 vs. the rest of the NL), we would expect them to go 20-12 in the 32 games the have remaining against playoff-caliber teams and 19-7 in the 26 in the games remaining against the rest of the league. That would translate into a 39-19 record in their 58 remaining games (.672) and would give them a 92-70 (.568) record at the end of the year. Given that the Dodgers lead the wild-card hunt with a .562 winning percentage and the Cardinals lead the Central with a .569 winning percentage, there is a remote chance that the Astros could get into the playoffs. They would have to a) keep up their torrid pace, and b) hope no one else gets hot, or more preciously that everyone ahead of them gets cold, since they have a few bodies to leap over to get to a playoff spot.

One last thing that crossed my mind is that they play in the NL Central, which means that they play three poor teams, the Cubs, Brewers, and Pirates, fairly regularly. Could the Astros resurgence be based on beating up on the weak sisters in their division? Their record against the Three Stooges pre-June 19 was 10-12 (.455) and against the rest of the teams was 20-28 (.417). Their record since June 19 against Manny, Moe, and Jack is 11-5 (.688); against the rest of teams is 12-6 (.667). It appears that the 'Stros are not just feeding on the little fishes in the NL Central.

Let's say they do finish 92-70. That would be a 62-30 (.674) record in its last 92 games, an amazing turnaround, but it still may fall short if one of the teams in front of them does well down the stretch (of course not well enough to win their division though) or either the Reds or Cardinals get, if not hot, at least tepid the rest of the way.

. . .

Scott Rolen: From Savior to Cancer-How Did it Happen?

According to an article on ESPN, the Phillies Scott Rolen is actively courting the St. Louis Cardinals now in hopes of getting traded out of a very bad situation in Philly. The reported offer is Placido Polanco, Bud Smith, and a bucket of ice to be named later for Rolen if the Phillies eat his salary for this year. The trade makes sense for both teams. The Cardinals get to fill a whole on the team in time for the pennant race without giving up much in return. The Phillies get three live bodies (Smith did pitch well for the Cardinals last year and is still young, 22), and get to rid themselves of a controversy that is now in its second season.

Scott Rolen arrived in Philadelphia in late 1996. The floundering Phils were headed to a 67-95 record, but the young Rolen showed promise (while still breaking his finger in early September) and was handed the starting third base job in training camp. He soon became the heir apparent to Mike Schmidt in the minds of the Philadelphia fans and media. Everything he did was praised. He hit for power and for a decent average. He was slick fielding and had a good arm. He ran the bases well. He was described as being a student of the game, which was unusual for someone so young. He was a soft-spoken, Gary Cooper type. He was the savior of the Phillies franchise. He was the man who would lead them out of their malaise back to a championship. How did he ever become a pariah in Philadelphia and a whipping boy for sports columnist Bill Conlin and the Philadelphia media? Let's see if we can figure it out.

In 1997 the Phillies started to rebuild around him adding first baseman Rico Brogna, OF Danny Tartabull, and starters Mark Leiter and Mark Portugal, establishing Mike Lieberthal as the starting catcher, and grooming Wayne Gomes as the closer of the future. They had a core of young starters (Beech, Tyler Green, Stephenson, Grace, and Maduro) who would grow to help #1 starter Curt Schilling. They had a new young manager by the name of Terry Francona. They finished 68-94, but that was OK-they had just started rebuilding.

1998 brought outfielders Bobby Abreu and Doug Glanville. Marlon Anderson was being groomed for second base. Desi Relaford took over at short. Starter Carlton Loewer was to be a rookie sensation. Rolen was getting better each year, and the Phils ended up 75-87, third in the NL East. Things looked great for '99.

In 1999 Marlon Anderson, as expected, moved into his started role at second and Wayne Gomes became the closer after newly acquired Jeff Brantley went down. OF Ron Gant was signed to bolster the offense. Starting pitcher Chad Ogea was acquired from Cleveland. Pitcher Paul Byrd, acquired at the end of '98, blossomed. Robert Person came from nowhere and captured a spot in the rotation. And Randy Wolf was promoted from the minors to the rotation. The Phillies ended up 77-85, not a vast improvement over '98 but Rolen missed fifty games due injury, Relaford missed almost 100, Schilling missed a third of his starts, and Brantley missed almost the entire year. Besides the team just hadn't gelled yet.

Pitcher Andy Ashby was signed for 2000. But the Phillies were not doing well and a number of changes were made throughout the season. After a great deal of speculation that had been ongoing throughout the re-building process, ace Curt Schilling was traded to Arizona bringing Travis Lee, a player the Phillies had coveted for years, to play first base, starting pitchers Omar Daal and Nelson Figueroa, and then-reliever Vicente Padilla. Bruce Chen, Kent Bottenfield, and were added to the rotation mid-season. Rookie sensation Pat "The Bat" Burrell broke into the lineup in 2000 displacing aging Ron Gant. Rolen missed over 30 games and his power numbers slid (actually his HRs and RBI went down, but his slugging average went up). The Phillies ended up 65-97 and in last place.

In 2001, Francona was replaced as manager by fiery ex-Phillies shortstop Larry Bowa. Burrell took over in left field. Rookie Jimmie Rollins became the starting shortstop. Marlon Anderson was again manning second after a 2000 spent mostly in the minors. The Phils had a young staff featuring Dave Coggins, Nelson Figueroa, Brandon Duckworth, and Randy Wolf. Veteran relievers Jose Mesa, former Phil Ricky Bottalico, and Rheal Cormier were signed. To the surprise of everyone including perhaps the Phillies themselves the team gives chase to Atlanta in the NL East until the last week of the season. They were even in first place as laet as September 1 (tied with Atlanta). Rolen was dogged all your about his contract, finally stated that he and the team would not negotiate it until after the season, and then proceeded to have a solid year after an early slump. Best of all he was healthy for the entire season.

Expectations were high for the Phillies going into the 2002 season. The Phillies were young and building. The Braves were aging and dismantling. A number of polls picked the Phillies to win the division. In the off-season, Rolen rejected a $140 million, 10-year contract extension from the Phillies explaining that it was not about the money; he did not feel that they were committed to winning. How could he say such things, the locals thought. Here the Phils had almost reached the promised land, and though they had not added to their core in the off-season (starting pitcher Terry Adams was the only real addition), they didn't need to add-they had the core of a winning team in place. This is what the had been building to all of the years while Rolen had toiled. How could he now want not want to reap the benefits? Of course, the sam people who criticize players for making too much money criticized Rolen for not taking the ridiculous salary.

Then the wheels came off the Phillies' 2002 season. They finished April with a 9-18 record. May wasn't much better-they were 21-32 at the month end. At this writing they are 49-55, in the cellar of the NL East, but are slowly crawling back to respectability. Padilla, a throw-in in the Schilling trade, became one of the premier starting pitchers in the NL. They have started to shake up their lineup acquiring Jeremy Giambi from the A's on May 22 and working Ricky Ledee into the lineup instead of Glanville.

Rolen has said that he is no longer discussing a new contract with the Phillies while the season is in progress. Throughout the season speculation of his being traded has hounded Rolen and the team in general. At one point reporter Bill Conlin quoted an unnamed player who called Rolen a "cancer." Rolen's average has slipped into the .250s and his OPS (on-base plus slugging) has slipped to the lowest since his rookie year. Despite this, Rolen was named the starting third baseman on the All-Star, his first All-Star appearance (some speculated that the contract talk made his name more recognizable to the fans). Since then speculation has been building leading up to the July 31 trade deadline. Meanwhile, Conlin has taken to using Rolen's name as pejorative verb meaning grousing in the clubhouse or on the field.

Am I the only one who sees a trend here? The Phillies as a group and especially their starting pitching corps have been a revolving door since 1997. The Phillies acquire overpriced, aging, veteran talent (Gant, Adams, Parent, Ashby, Tartabull, Potugal, Brantley, etc.). These players either get injured or are unproductive. At the same time, the Phillies call on young talent especially in the pitching corps that never proves effective at the major-league level (e.g., Gomes, Loewer, Green, Relaford). The young players they recruit from other organizations never become the players the Phillies expect them to be. Witness Travis Lee, Bruce Chen, Nelson Figueroa, and Chad Ogea. There are exceptions: Abreu has been superb, Glanville was productive for a time, Giambi has been a help in 2002, Rollins has been an All-Star, Anderson is becoming steady, Wolf has been effective, and Burrell may be one of the best hitters in the league. The minor trades and throw-in players have been very effective: Robert Person, Vicente Padilla. But overall the Phillies have gone through a tremendous number of players and philosophies in five plus years.

The Philadelphia fans and media are understandably angry at having waiting so long and seemingly getting so close and then falling back so far. Someone must be blamed. So it's the guy Rolening around the clubhouse, especially when he's so arrogantly quiet about the whole thing. Rolen never continued the development and promise of his first three years. Well, he was injury-prone-that was another of his shortcomings. The elements that booed Schmidt in his day are now ruling the day, and Rolen is an outcast.

Scott Rolen will probably get traded out of Philadelphia if not by the July 31 trade deadline perhaps by the August 31 waiver deadline. That failing, Rolen will play out his string with Philly, and Collective Bargaining Agreement (and God) willing, he will sign a contract to play for another major-league team. Rolen will enter 2003 with a new team, a new contract, and the weight of the world (or of Bill Conlin whichever is more) off his shoulders. He will be 27 and probably will be entering the most productive period of his career. The Phillies will continue to be the Phillies with all that entails. Who do you think will have the last laugh?

. . .

Hold the Phone!

There is a poll on ESPN's Baseball index that asks, "Which player is the greatest shortstop of all time?" Their options are Ernie Banks, Alex Rodriguez, Ozzie Smith, and Honus Wagner. Never mind that Banks was a first baseman for half of his career and played short like a slug. Never mind that more deserving players like Cal Ripken (how soon they forget), Robin Yount (I know he was a CF for half his career), Monte Ward (I know that it wasn't his sole position), George Davis, Bil Dahlen, Arky Vaughan, Bobby Wallace, and Joe Cronin, all of whom appear above Banks, Rodriguez, and Smith in the all-time Win Shares leaders, are not even included.

Mind the fact that A-Rod is winning with 36.1%, then Smith 30.4, then Wagner 19.7%, and finally Banks 13.6%. This is not witha small group of Texas fans. This is a poll with over 11,000 responses. Look in twenty years, maybe we can discuss who was better A-Rod or Wagner. A-Rod has not yet put in the time. Smith was a great defensive player and that gives people a hook to remember him by, kind of like Nolan Ryan being overvalued by all those dazzling strikeouts. Oh, and Banks wanted to play two everyday.

Let's get this clear. Wagner is not only the greatest shortstop ever, one could make an argument for him being the best player ever, or at least in the top handful. Anyone who does not know that should not be allowed to watch the sport.

. . .

Joe Morgan Chat Day By Joe Morgan Chat Day-My Dear Lord, These Things I Pray

Joe Morgan is the Zen koan of baseball analysts-he's totally incomprehensible. His ability to be insightful and idiotic, sometimes in the same breath, is baffling and is what truly sets him apart. Once I heard two analysts arguing about the flags on the foul poles. One said the flag was moving, the other said the wind was moving, but Joe said, "Not flag. Not pole. Mind is moving." Ah, yes.

Here are the highlights from yesterday's chat session with the master, of course, with comments:

Sublime

AJ Cincinnati : Do you think the moves that bowden made to get Dempster and MOhler pay off this year in shot at making the playoffs?

Joe Morgan: Part of this is the reaction to St. Louis getting Finley. Everyone needs one more pitcher and one more bat. Since they couldn't get Rogers, they got Mohler. I think Dempster is the key but he wasn't pitching well even in Florida. I'm not sure about those moves. I'm not overjoyed with either one.

[Mike: Agreed. Dempster's career adjusted ERA is 7% above the league ERA and his ERA at the time of the trade was 4.79. Moehler is slightly better with a career adjusted ERA 6% better than the league average, but he is recovering from an injury. At best these guys are a #3 and #4 on a decent eam and a #4 and #5 on a contending team. Cy Young they aint.]

Kash (Edison, NJ): Hi Joe. What do you think about the Ray Durham trade? Does he effectively replace Damon in terms of the lineup?

Joe Morgan: The A's need a leadoff hitter and Durham can lead off. He is a very good addition to the A's I think.

[Mike: Agreed. I can't believe that it took the A's this long to get a second baseman. They start with Frank Menechino and his .661 OPS, who gets demoted during the St. Valentine's, er, Carlos Pena May 21 massacre. They try veteran Velarde (.695 OPS) and rookie Ellis (.718) and finally admit that they need a decent starting 2bman. So they get Durham and his .834 OPS and ability to lead off to fill the void. He does not replace Damon, however, since he doesn't play outfield, but the A's are still paying for relying on Terrence Long (.695 OPS) and journeyman John Mabry playing way too far over his head. The gap left by the departure of Damon is still there.]

john (trenton): hey joe. do you see any big waiver wire deals this year?

Joe Morgan: Everything depends on whether they get an agreement done or get close to one by the 31st. If GMs think they are going to get an agreement, I think we will see some big trades made. But if there isn't an agreement, we won't see that.

[Mike: Good insight.]

Jon Cincinnati: Joe, are yo going to play at the softball game at Cinergy with Rose and Bench?

Joe Morgan: I don't know yet .. probably not.

[Mike: Rose is allowed to go to the park and associate himself with the Reds and MLB is some way? I though he was banned. They had to get a special dispensation from the Pope to get him in the All-Century team celebration. Why not just drop the ban and be done with it?]

Ridiculous

Evan, Philadelphia: Joe, what do you think will happen with the whole Scott Rolen situation, and do you think the Phillies can get anyone for him?

Joe Morgan: The only think I know for sure is he is going to leave. Whether it's now or at the end of the season, he will leave. He is a free agent after this year so folks are hesitant to trade for him. He turned down a lot of money from Philadelphia.

[Mike: Thanks, Joe. That is truly insightful. You couldn't get that unless you had been following the situation for last 2 years)

Scott (San Diego): Help out a bro from the westcoast...Is Phil Nevin staying put at third or do see the Padres shifting him back to first because of his recent birrage or errors?

Joe Morgan: Everything depends on Burroughs. If he becomes as good as they think he will, then Nevin will shift. That is just something they will have to wait and see.

[Mike: No, it depends on the Pod-People coming up with a plan and sticking to it. Burroughs hit well in April and then got hurt and played poorly before going on the DL. He's now working out at second in the minors because the Padres don't want to tick off Nevin and Klesko, who now think that they are setting team policy as far as where people play and how to handle the pitching staff (they criticized management for coddling their young staff). Read this Baseball Prospectus article about San Diego's wavering ways.]

Colin (DC): Love your broadcasts, Joe -- you're the only commentator I don't mute. Do you think Derek Lowe is going to last the entire season?

Joe Morgan: Thanks for not hitting the mute button! That is a good question .. when you haven't pitched 200 innings in the past and all of sudden you have that to do, it takes it's toll on your arm. We will just have to see.

[Mike: I'm sick of hearing this. Lowe once pitched 170 innings in the minors, pitched 150 twice in the minors, and pitched 150 in '97 when he split time between the minors, the Mariners, and the Red Sox. That's a lot of innings for the minors. He came to the majors and become a reliever. Now he has the experience of a veteran and the non-overused arm of a rookie. Why would you think that he couldn't pitch 200 innings? Is there some reason or it's just that he never has. Rookies pitch 200 innings usually for the first time of their careers, and they are on closely monitored pitch counts.]

Alan (Wisconsin Rapids): Joe, what is it with pitchers today? Five-man rotations and 100-pitch limits. I grew up watching baseball in the 60's, with 3-man or 4-man rotations and very often complete games, and I don't remember pitchers dropping like flies from overwork. Why the change?

Joe Morgan: Well, the answer was given to me by a GM a few years ago. We have spoiled them. They are taught from the minors that they only have to pitch every fifth day and just have to give a quality start, not a complete game. Roger Clemens won the Cy Young last year and never pitched a complete game all season. That wouldn't have happened before. It's a game of specialization now with set up men, closers, etc.

[Mike: Here is the ultimate Joe Morgan question. "Why, you young whippersnappers have it too good. In my day..." So pitchers are spoiled is that why so many go on DLs and have careers cut short by injury, there just spoiled babies? The game has changed, Joe. The game is constantly changing. Christy Mathewson spoke of coasting in the late innings with a lead to win a game. Do you think that "coasting" is a practical approach in today's stadiums (like, say, Coor's) against today's lineups when a 4-run lead can evaporate in an instant? Why does the game change? Because teams think that the new direction will help them win. It's evolution, Joe. Stop being a dodo bird and catch up with late 20th, if not the 21st, century.

Brad, Flatwoods KY: Joe, the other night on Baseball Tonight, Dave Campbell said he thought players are "just too damned coddled these days." Do you agree?

Joe Morgan: I don't use that word! But I do think we've made it so players don't have to be as mentally or physically tough as they used to be.
[Mike: "Please don't use coddled. I prefer spoiled."]

Not Wind. Not Flag. Mind is moving.

Kyle (Long Island, NY): HOW DOES CONTRACTION WORK? DO ALL PLAYERS BECOME FREE AGENTS?

Joe Morgan: If there is contraction, all the players go into a pool and are drafted. But I don't forsee contraction soon, even with Montreal. With the lawsuits filed, I don't know if that team can be disbanded now. I don't think there will be contraction by next year.

[Mike: A) How does he know what will happen to the players when they haven't even determined if disbursement has to be discussed with the players union, who certainly would push for a different solution. B) Good insight on the viability of contraction.]

. . .

Kalas for the Hall? No so "Hard to Believe, Harry"

It's great to see Harry Kalas entering the Hall of Fan as a broadcaster. There he will be reunited with his broadcasting partner of 27 years, the late Richie Ashburn, who went in as a player. Growing up watching Phillies games on TV or listening to them on the radio, I learned to love the game with their two very human and very recognizable voices. It's very gratifying to know that those two will always be together and will always be associated with the great game they helped to bring to millions.

. . .

Who Are Today's Hall of Famers?

In The Politics of Glory Bill James states rather offhandedly:

History suggests that there are probably now about thirty to forty players in the major leagues who will eventually be in the Hall of Fame, but it will be at least seventy years until we have a firm total...

That quote has always fascinated me, especially since I have never been able to come up with more than a dozen or so that I would consider Hall-bound. I try to keep the quote in mind whenever anyone peremptorily spouts that so-and-so is not a Hall of Famer (Let's call them HoFers). I have my own idea of what a HoFer should and should not be. (For example, I never thought of Don Sutton as one.) But history won't care much for what we think, and in the end-whenever that is-there will be some three dozen, more or less, future HoFers who are currently active.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't have the patience to wait the requisite seventy or so years to find out. Let me see if I can figure it out right now. Keep in mind that the one established criterion for becoming a HoFer is ten years of service. I may feel that Alex Rodriguez is a lock right now for the Hall but if he suddenly retires to play minor-league basketball (it's happened before) and never completes 10 years of service, he can't even be considered.

I would divide the potential HoFers into 5 groups. First are those players who are locks right now because they have achieved something history (500 HRs, 4 Cy Youngs, etc.). Then there are those players who have always been generally perceived as HoFers and have met the service requirement, but do not have enough awards, set enough records, or achieved enough statistical milestones to demand inclusion. The problem for them is perceptions change and without the necessary signposts for the myopic Hall voters of the future, they may be left on the outside looking in. The third group consists of those players who have achieved enough to justify inclusion but the media have never, or at least not for some time, considered a HoFer (I created this group with one player in mind). The fourth group or those iffy players that have had a good deal of success and meet the service requirement but have not be considered by most as HoF-type players. They generally have some time left in their careers to pad their records and make themselves more desirable to future voters. The fifth group are those younger players who have not met the service requirement but have shown enough potential to one day be considered for the Hall. Remember that of those 30-40 future HoFers that Bill James spoke of, some may be rookies, some may be in the fifth year but have yet to establish themselves as a HoH-type player. Therefore, this is the most subjective, the most uncertain, and also the most fun category.

I came up with a list for each group. The total number of players is 60, which is higher than or 30-40 goal, but remember that the odds go down from one group to the next. Here is my list (they're in no particular order under the columns):

Locks          Probables      Underrated       Iffy             Future
============================================================================
Bonds          Bagwell        Raines           Palmeiro         A.Rodriguez
Henderson      Biggio                          L. Walker        V.Guerrero
Clemens        Larkin                          J.Gonzalez       Garciaparra
Maddux         P.Martinez                      Hoffman          Jeter
Glavine        I.Rodriguez                     Thome            Glaus
R. Johnson     F.Thomas                        Kent             M.Rivera
Piazza         R.Alomar                        M.Williams       I.Suzuki
Sosa           Griffey                         B.Williams       Abreu
               M.Ramirez                       K.Brown          T.Hunter
                                               Grace            Helton
                                               E.Martinez       Giambi
                                               McGriff          Berkman
                                               Schilling        Hudson
                                               Galarraga        Zito
                                               Mussina          Mulder
                                               Sheffield        A.Jones
                                               Salmon           C.Jones
                                               Edmonds          B. Giles
                                               Smoltz           Delgado
                                                                Pujols
                                                                Prior
                                                                Gagne
                                                                Buehrle

(Note that I listed Sosa under the Locks in anticipation of his imminent 500th home run.) I am not advocating any for inclusion and freely admit that a good number of these players will not make it to the Hall. Also, the Iffy column is somewhat and the Future column is completely subjective. I probably have overlooked a few deserving candidates. Keep in mind that I am not advocating anyone as a HoFer-I'm just trying to determine the Las Vegas odds. (Well, except for Raines who I feel was arguably the best player in the NL in the mid-'80s but will be completely overlooked). I would probably include about 16 of them if I ran the Hall of Fame. I also would include Bobby Cox and Joe Torre as managers.

Finally, you may find listing 60 players laughable, but remember that each year between 1925 and '33, inclusive, there were at least 50 active players who are now in the Hall (the most was 1928 with 55). And that was when there were almost half as many clubs and the DH and relief pitcher roles were not an issue. It's not inconceivable that all of these players could make it to the Hall depending on the leanings of the Veteran's Committee in the next twenty years to eighty years.

. . .

Are the Angels for Real?

As I write this, the Anaheim née California née Los Angeles Angels are a half game behind the defending AL West champion Seattle Mariners and could tie them for first with a Mariner loss tonight. If not, they are still the forerunner for the wildcard spot. A year ago today, the Angels with largely the same team as this year were one game above .500, in third place and 21 games behind the Mariners. They faltered the rest of the way to end up 75-87 (that's 24-37 from July 25 on), 41 games behind the Mariners. They started 2002 with a 6-14 record but since have been 54- 26 (.675). The vast improvement from last year is enough for people to ask if they're for real and can they contend the rest of the way. I mean, this is a franchise that has only finished first three times in 41 years. They choked in the 7th game of the AL Championship Series to the ultimate choke artists, the 1986 Red Sox. How could they be for real? Let's see...

First, let's check their Pythagorean winning percentage. This is a stat devised by Bill James to measure if a team's record reflects its runs for and against. (The formula I used is RF^1.83/(RF^1.83 + RA^1.83. James originally used the values to the 2nd power, but the 1.83 power has become standard.)

          Actual                   Pythagorean
         W-L    PCT  GB    RF-RA    W-L    PCT
Seattle 61-40  .604   -   514-407  61-40  .605
Anaheim 60-40  .600  0.5  533-426  60-40  .601
Oakland 59-43  .578  2.5  472-436  55-47  .536
Texas   42-58  .420  18.5 484-527  46-54  .461

They have basically a record that reflects their runs for and against as does Seattle. Oakland is playing 4 games better than expected and Texas 4 game worse, but they're out of it either way.

OK, so yet far their record matches what one would expect it to be. What about the players, are they playing way above their ability? Are they far exceeding what they did last year and that's why they have improved? Are they exceeding their established career levels?

Below is a table of the Angels batters and their OPS (On-Base Plus Slugging) for the last two years who have had a significant amount of playing time. Note that Fullmer's 2001 OPS is not listed because he was not with the team. Joyner and Wooten played for the Angels in 2001 but not this year (Wooten's been injured). The table compares this year's OPS with last year's and with the player's career OPS:

 NAME           OPS 2001 OPS Change Career OPS Change
G. Anderson   .860   .792   .068    .792     .068
D. Eckstein   .757   .712   .045    .729     .028
Darin Erstad  .721   .691   .030    .786    -.065
J. Fabregas   .487   .553  -.066    .605    -.118
Brad Fullmer  .821     -            .811     .010
Benji Gil     .732   .807  -.075    .650     .082
Troy Glaus    .779   .898  -.119    .855    -.076
Adam Kennedy  .756   .690   .066    .708     .048
Jose Nieves   .612   .751  -.139    .627    -.015
O. Palmeiro   .738   .641   .097    .710     .028
Tim Salmon    .882   .748   .134    .901    -.019
Scott Spiezio .793   .764   .029    .747     .046
Bengie Molina .621   .660  -.039    .681    -.060
Shawn Wooten    -    .798     -  
Wally Joyner    -    .656     -  
Angels        .764   .732   .032            -.043
Opponents     .734   .742  -.008  

Note that the Angels team OPS has gone up 32 points from last year and their opponent has gone down slightly (8 points). The greatest increase since last year is Tim Salmon (134 points), but he's still below his career OPS. So one can safely assume that last year was an aberration. The same can be said for Erstad. The 33-year-old role player, Orlando Palmeiro, is far above last year but only a slight increase over his career (28 points). Garret Anderson, however, may be due for a comeuppance-He is 68 points higher than his OPS last year and for his career and is on a pace for 28 homers and 58 doubles (his pervious high is 41). He's 30 years old and is either having a career year or is due for a very bad streak. We'll have to see. Eckstein and Kennedy are having much better years than last and are better than their career average, but that might just be the maturation process. Spiezio has improved slightly (more doubles but fewer HRs) and is far above his career totals but is still not up to snuff compared to the average first baseman. The greatest improvement was replacing a DH by committee (no more than 30 as DH games for any player) with Brad Fullmer. Last year the Angels' DHs had a .285 slugging and a .277 on-base percent, which combine for a .562 OPS. Fullmer is 259 points better than that this year. Or another way to look at is that he replaced role players like the now-retired Wally Joyner (165 point OPS difference) and recently activated Shawn Wooten (23 points). This is merely filling a hole with a good role player. Troy Glaus is playing tremendously below last year and his established career levels. He may have have a good deal of room for improvement down the stretch. Besides that the aggregate total difference for the team this year compared to their career is 43 points. There may be room for improvemet in the offense in general on the team.

Maybe their pitching improved dramatically. Let's check. Here are all of the pitchers for the past two years in Anaheim with their 2002 stats, 2001 ERA, and career ERA:

NAME           W-L   S    IP   ERA  2001 IP 2001 ERA Change  Career  Change
Troy Percival  3-1  22   29.1  2.15   57.2    2.65   -0.50    3.03   -0.88
B. Donnelly    0-0   0   17    2.65     -      -       -
Ben Weber      4-2   5   46.1  2.72   68.1    3.42   -0.70    3.67   -0.95
Scot Shields   3-1   0   22.2  2.78   11      0.00    2.78    1.87    0.91
Dennis Cook    1-1   0   22    2.86    -       -       -      3.90   -1.04
J. Washburn   12-2   0  125.2  3.22  193.1    3.77    -0.55   3.92   -0.70
Lou Pote       0-1   0   47.1  3.23   86.2    4.15    -0.92   3.50   -0.27
Matt Wise      0-0   0    8.1  3.24   49.1    4.38    -1.14   4.74   -1.50
M. Lukasiewicz 1-0   0   10.1  3.48   22.1    6.04    -2.56   5.23   -1.75
Ramon Ortiz    9-7   0  140.1  3.85  208.2    4.36    -0.51   4.58   -0.73
John Lackey    1-1   0   29.2  3.94     -      -        -     
Al Levine      3-2   4   35    4.11   75.2    2.38     1.73   3.88    0.23
Kevin Appier   8-8   0  114    4.50     -      -        -     3.67    0.83
Aaron Sele     8-7   0  125.2  4.73     -      -        -     4.36    0.37
S. Schoeneweis 7-7   0   99    5.45  205.1    5.08     0.37   5.31    0.14
Donne Wall     0-0   0   21    6.43     -      -        -     4.20    2.23
S. Hasegawa                          55.2    4.04
Ismael Valdes                       163.2    4.45
Bart Miadich                         10      4.50  
Pat Rapp                            170      4.76   
Mike Holtz                           37      4.86 
Toby Borland                          3.1   10.80 
Totals         60-40 31 893.2  3.99          4.20     -0.21  
                                   1437.2

The Angels have had far more changes in the pitching corps than in position players as you can see. Their team ERA has dropped by 21 points in a year even as the AL average ERA has increased slightly (4.47 to 4.54). Both starters Washburn and Ortiz have improved their ERAs by 50 points. Schoeneweis has seen his ERA go up a bit, and new-comers Appier and Sele are doing about as well as Rapp and Valdes whom they replaced but are well above their career ERA, so there may be room for improvement down the stretch. In general, most of the pitchers on the staff are below their 2001 and career ERAs, but given the age of the staff it is difficult to say that this is significant.

One last thing to check, how have they done against playoff teams. Here is a chart with their record against each AL playoff contender this year. Note that the games in their 6-14 start are broken out:

The Angels have had far more changes in the pitching corps than in position players as you can see.  Their team ERA has dropped by 21 points in a year even as the AL average ERA has increased slightly (4.47 to 4.54).  Both starters Washburn and Ortiz have improved their ERAs by 50 points.  Schoeneweis has seen his ERA go up a bit, and new-comers Appier and Sele are doing about as well as Rapp and Valdes whom they replaced but are well above their career ERA, so there may be room for improvement down the stretch.  In general, most of the pitchers on the staff are below their 2001 and career ERAs, but given the age of the staff it is difficult to say that this is significant.

One last thing to check, how have they done against playoff teams.  Here is a chart with their record against each AL playoff contender this year.  Note that the games in their 6-14 start are broken out:

          Total  During 6-14  Since    Games

Team        W-L     W-L        W-L   Remaining

Seattle     4-6     0-6        4-0       9

Oakland     5-7     2-4        3-3       8

Minnesota   4-5     0-0        4-5       0

New York    0-0     0-0        0-0       7

Boston      0-0     0-0        0-0       7

Pay for Play?

This MS/NBC article proposes having the players leverage their incomes and skills to become the team owners. He then proposes that the player-owners establish a pay-for-play system:

Wouldn't interest in the game be sparked if the player-owners instituted incentive compensation plans? The better the play, the more the pay.
Imagine a payroll restructured to reward performance. Players would all receive a base salary, and from there bonuses would be paid for performance and production.

The fans would be more interested in player-owners who have their livelihood on the line on each play, the article contends.

I don't know if the author is trying to be serious or droll in that Andy Rooney unfunny way or both, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word. First, I have to point out that this is how professional baseball started-a number of professional teams organized the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players (NA) in 1871. They took their blueprint for the new league from the originally amateur National Association of Base Ball Players (NABBP), which was organized in 1857 by the New York Knickerbocker club, the first group to codify the baseball rules. These were professional, largely urban men who played baseball for recreation, to get outdoors and partake in the exercise craze sweeping the nation. It originated in the New York area (the baseball that today's game evolved from was original known as "The New York Game") and spread to Philadelphia. Washington D.C., Massachusetts, and finally the Midwest and South. Originally teams would host other teams including a clebratory feast after the game. Baseball as a spectator sport began to mold the game in its own vision. As competition became more fierce players were given either fake jobs or were paid under the table since professionalism was not only looked down upon, it was not allowed in the association. Finally the association recognized professionalism as a fact of baseball life. The Cincinnati Red Legs in 1869 were the first all-professional team and their undefeated season caused a sensation. Professional teams were then split into another "division" (more a concept than a reality) in the NABBP.

Those teams became so strong that in 1871 they split away and formed the NA. The amateur association re-dubbed itself the National Association of Amateur Base Ball Players and resigned itself to the scrapheap. However, the league was structured like the amateur association. Teams scheduled their own games against the opponents that the saw fit to play. If the Boston club did not want to travel to Keokuk or Rockford to play the NA team there, nothing required them to do so. If Boston would prefer to play the Lynn team that played nearby but was not an NA team so that they could attract more fans, they could do so. If Boston agreed with New York to play 10 times but with Philadelphia to play 6 times, that was OK. As long as they paid their nominal dues, they could do as they pleased. Players had more freedom, too. If a player could get more money playing for New York than for Troy, he was free to break his Troy contract and sign one with New York. This was called "revolving." As competition for the best players evolved the team ownership concept was replaced by an actual financial backer. This owners wanted more control over the product on the field and on their assets, i.e., the players and over their contracts.

In 1876, Chicago White Stockings owner William Hulbert and his cronies but a stop to all these shenanigans and established the National League of Professional Clubs-today's National League-on the moribund body of the NA in 1876. It required a larger entrance fee, only considered clubs from large population centers (all were over 75, 000 people), established the idea of territorial rights by limiting the number of teams representing a community, and centralized the league functions (schedule-making, record-keeping, umpire management, and rule enforcement). Contracts were enforced driving down salaries. The owners then established the reserve clause (only 5 players at first) to ensure that the teams could retain some of their assets from year to year.

The players lost more and more power as the reserve clause grew to encompass all players and as the NL established itself as the premiere group of baseball talent. Its monopoly drove down player salaries and while raising ticket prices. Rival leagues attempted to break up the NL's stranglehold. The American Association was formed in 1881 after the NL had jettisoned its two most populous cities, New York and Philadelphia, after they failed to perform a road trip to the Western (actually Midwestern) teams in 1877. Known as the "Beer and Whiskey" League it reintroduced Sunday baseball, $.25 admission prices, and alcohol to the games, all things frowned upon by the NL. The AA eventually merged into the NL in 1892 after its base was weakened by other rival leagues. The Union Association, probably the weakest of all major leagues, played after a fashion in 1884. It collapsed after its financially strongest club, St. Louis, was granted an NL franchise.

In 1890 perhaps the strongest rival league began play. It was called the Players' National League, known as simply the Players' League (PL). This was formed after John Montgomery "Monte" Ward, a former pitcher turned shortstop and Columbia Law School graduate, started the first baseball players union, the Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players in response to the expansion of the reserve clause to encompass all players. The Brotherhood told players in 1889 to play out their contracts and not sign new owns for 1890. Ward lined up financial backers and formed the PL with Brotherhood teams in a number of NL and AA cities. The PL proved more popular with the fans apparently far out-drawing the two more established leagues (it's hard to determine given the inflated attendance figures reported by the leagues). However, even though all of the teams lost money because of the intense competition, the PL backers felt it most dearly without established capital to fall back on. The NL and AA made an hardline offer to the PL's financial backers almost as a last ditch effort and to their surprise they accepted. The Brotherhood collapsed but brought down the AA in its wake. The NL was left to run as a monopoly for 10 years.

The 1892 NL roster consisted of 12 teams, 4 of which had come from the collapsed AA. During the various wars that the NL had to endure investing in rival NL clubs was begun to prop up weaker franchises. Eventually, with new-found peace the NL clubs started using these shared clubs as development squads. By 1899, the NL decided to cast off these weaker teams, buying out four clubs (Washington, Loiusville, Cleveland, and Baltimore) and regrouped as an eight-club league. This created a vacuum that Ban Johnson, president of the soon-to-be-renamed Western League filled by positioning his clubs in larger markets while still remaining under the NL's auspices. The Western League became the American League in 1900. In 1901 it declared open war on the NL pilfering players from NL rosters; an attendant overall salary increase ensued. The two leagues came to an agreement in 1903. Contracts were respected and not surprising salaries dropped. In 1912 a rival league called the United States League attempted to break into the major-league market but after two successive incomplete seasons, they collapsed. One final rival league appeared in 1914 when the Federal League declared itself a major league and started raiding major-league rosters. Salaries rose until the league collapsed after 1915. The FL sued and (even though the league had settled the BaltimoreTerps club fought on) eventually the Supreme Court and justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled in 1922 that the antitrust laws do not apply to baseball because it did not constitute interstate commerce. They then left the issue for Congress to rectify, which they have failed to do ever since though threatening to do so at various times. This is the supposed antitrust exception that baseball is purported to have.

The next challenge to the baseball establishment didn't occur for 30 years. The Mexican League started recruiting professional players after World War II. Commissioner Happy Chandler issued a ban of five years on all players who skipped to the new league. Danny Gardella was a minor-league player who signed with the new league, changed his mind, but was now prevented from returning. He sued and eventually settled with the majors, the ban was lifted, and the Mexican League was admitted into organized ball as a minor league. The stillborn Continental League attempted amicably to become a third major league after efforts to replace the re-located Dodgers and Giants failed in the late '50s. The majors finally co-opted the new league allowing four CL owners to buy into the leagues as they expanded to 20 clubs. In 1969 Curt Flood refused to be traded by the Cardinals to the Phillies and challenged the majors in the courts, eventually losing in 1972 in the Supreme Court. Catfish Hunter was ruled a free agent after 1974 because A's owner Charlie Finley failed to meet all the demands laid out in Hunter's contract (he neglected to pay a $50K insurance annuity). In 1975 the reserve clause fell to arbitrator Peter Seitz, who ruled that the Dave McNally and Andy Messersmith were free agents since they had played out their contracts and the assumption that the reserve clause gave the owners the right to impose their own contract on the players was too one-sided. Seitz was fired, but the ruling stood. There have been work stoppages in baseball in 1972, 73, 76, 80, 81, 85, 90, and 94-95. Owners are assessed $286 million in damages for colluding to keep free-agent salaries down in 1985-87.

So what does this rather long-winded history have to do with the article's proposal? Basically, that a) player-owners have been tried before and they failed, and b) there is a long-winded history that explains how baseball got to this point and this delicate balance would be thrown off by such a wholesale change. Besides, how would the proposal deal with the following issues:

- How would injured players be compensated?
- How would the ownership be apportioned, by salary, playing time, longevity, etc?
- How would managers be able to make decisions if they report to the players they manage?
- What would happen to the ownership of retired or demoted players?
- How would promoted players gain ownership? Would they lose it when they get demoted as they often do?
- What happens to the ownership of a traded player? Say he gets the same number of shares in th new team. What if he doesn't feel that its compensatory?
- What's to prevent player-owners from relocating to a new town or from establishing 10 teams in New York?
- Who will enforce players to make trips to cities that do not draw well when they know that they will not be compensated? Or to even finish out the season?
- How would you compensate the players based on statistics, longevity, drawing power? What statistics would you use? What about for defensive stars whose contributions are hard to quantify?
- People complain now that players are only interested in their own stats. What will happen when their corporate bonuses are tied to them.

Besides, Andrew Zimbalist in Baseball and Billions showed that there is a correlation between players' salaries and performance. Its just occurs one year after the fact: first the player performs and then he is compensated the next year. Also, players are compensated for winning awards and reaching statistical milestones throughout the course of the season. Why should baseball players be subjected to this sort of scrutiny? Why not pay Julia Roberts based on the tickets sold to her latest cheesy flick instead of paying her $20 million up front? Why doesn't the author ofthe article get paid on the quality of each article rather than a salary? Why not require corporations to pay their CEOs based on the health of their respective corporations?

This is nothing more than another hairbrained proposal, the ones that seem to manifest themsleves as people become more disenchanted by and disaffected with major-league baseball as a whole. If the owners and players sign a contract, we will no longer have to deluged with these wacky ideas.

. . .

The Owners Just Don't Like Unions

Now baseball is insisting that the umpires union representatives "leave dressing rooms 30 minutes before games begin." The owners threatened to physically remove and revoke the credntials of noncompliant reps. The umpires are understandably threatening to sue. I'm glad that the MLB's management team has time to worry about such matters.

. . .

The Reds Et Al Hall of Fame

Dave Concepcion was a good ballplayer and very good defensive shortstop, but I don't remember anyone saying that he was a Hall-of-Famer while he was playing. Joe Morgan in a sidebar to a story on the AL West race, has to bloviate on his favorite soapbox subject, Dave Concepcion for the Hall of Fame. He goes on to say, "While I'm happy for Ozzie's Hall of Fame induction, I'm disappointed at the same time because his enshrinement hurts Dave Concepcion's chances," though he never explains why this is the case. With Morgan, Bench, Perez, and Anderson already in and Rose waiting to be exonerated so that he can enter, how many Big Red Machine alumni do we need in the Hall? Are Ed Armbrister and Ron Oester next? Concepcion was a 9-time All-star and a 4-time Gold Glove winner, but he was only a top-10 MVP candidate twice (4th in '81 and 9th in '79) and never came close to leading the league in any offensive category. Here are his Hall of Fame comparisons from Baseball Reference:

Gray Ink: Batting - 25 (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 29.1 (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 107.0 (Likely HOFer > 100)

His HOF Monitor total is only so high because of the awards that he won; otherwise he doesn't come close to qualifying. I submit that Dave Concepcion is no more a Hall of Famer than Onix Concepcion.

Let's compare the top defensive shortstops in history using the most accurate tool that I have found for this, Bill James' Fielding Win Shares:

 Name                FWS   Hall?
Ozzie Smith        139.8   Y
Bill Dahlen        128.0   
Rabbit Maranville  123.2   Y
Luis Aparicio      122.8   Y
Dave Concepcion    116.9
Honus Wagner       116.9   Y
Cal Ripken         115.2   Not Yet
Tommy Corcoran     114.6   
Joe Tinker         112.2   Y
Pee Wee Resse      107.3   Y
Roger Peckinpaugh  106.6   
Luke Appling       105.3   Y
Dave Bancroft      102.9   Y
Mark Belanger      102.8
Herman Long        101.9
Germany Smith      100.5
Roy McMillan       100.1
Mickey Doolan       99.2
Everett Scott       99.0
Bert Campanris      98.6

Also, Ozzie Smith won 13 Gold Gloves, and played in 15 All-Star games. He was a top-10 MVP candidate only once (2nd in 1987) and his Hall of Fame comparisons are not a whole lot better than Concepcion's, but he had been in the top 10 in batting average, on-base percentage, runs, hits, doubles, triples, walks, and stolen bases. Smith beats Concepcion in Batting Win Shares 187 to 147. Ozzie Smith is tied for number 120 in Total Win Shares all-time. Concepcion is tied with Dave Bancroft and 3 other non-Hall-of-Famers at #243.

Ozzie Smith is demonstrably the best defensive player of all-time at arguably the most important defensive position in the game. He could also hit effectively. He wasn't the greatest shortstop of all-time-that would be Honus Wagner- nor probably greatest of his era-probably Cal Ripken-, but the Hall has space for the greatest defensive shortstop. I wouldn't even call Concepcion the greatest defensive shortstop of his era (I would go with Belanger who beats Concepcion in Defensive Win Shares per 1000 Innings, 6.72 to 6.37, though I wouldn't put Belanger in the Hall either). He wasn't any better a hitter than Smith. He should not be in the Hall.

Also, Joe goes on to promulgate one of the greatest fallacies in player comparisons:

In fact, with today's emphasis on offense, you may never see another player reach Cooperstown strictly for his defense. Ozzie's chances would be hurt if he played today. Just like Ozzie's arrival moved Concepcion out of the picture, today's power-hitting shortstops would overshadow Ozzie. He would be viewed much like Omar Vizquel is. And if you were starting a team, would you take Alex Rodriguez or Vizquel? A-Rod.

Just because Ozzie Smith and shortstops in general were not known for power in the '70s and '80s doesn't mean that they wouldn't have learned to hit for power had they grown up in the game in the late '90s. Ozzie Smith's Park-adjusted OPS (On-base Plus Slugging) was 87% the league average in his day, Concepcion's was 88%, Vizquel's is 82%. Is there a current shortstop whose adjusted OPS is 87% of the league average? Yes, Edgar Renteria, who has hit 16 home runs in a season. A player cannot be taken out of context and be compared with another blindly. How did Smith compare with the players of his era? He was an historically superior shortstop who could get on base and steal a base for a team that played small ball and won.

The comparison of Vizquel to Alex Rodriguez is laughable. A-Rod is a shortstop whose offensive statistics are bordering on historic (his adj. OPS vs. league average is 142%, Wagners was 150%. Ripken 112%, Banks 122%, Yount 115%, and George Davis 121%). Also, Vizquel is not the that great a defensive shortstop. His Defensive Win Shares per 1000 Innings (5.10) is behind contemporaries Alfredo Griffin (5.19), Ozzie Guillen (5.56), Barry Larkin (6.01), Greg Gagne (6.26), Nomar Garciaparra (5.16), Neifi Perez (6.69), Jose Vizcaino (5.18), and Tony Fernandez (6.22) to name a few. Besides A-Rod is not far behind (4.77) and more than makes up the difference with the bat.

Besides I just heard a quote attributed to Vizquel on SportsCenter, something like "I'm glad Ozzie Smith is going into the Hall because it opens the door for players like me." Get over yourself, Omar. You've re-read your autobiography so much you're beginning to believe it.

One more thing: Morgan says that there was "only one Brooks Robinson at third base. [And along with Smith and Mazerowski] No one dominated their positions defensively like they did."I submit that Mike Schmidt was a better third basemen than Robinson, Clete Boyer was a better third baseman than Robinson, and Graig Nettles and Darrell Evans were about as good as Robinson. Mike Schmidt had 4.51 Fielding Win Shares per 1000 Innings, Robinson had 4.24 (although Robinson has more Fielding Win Shares in total due to over 6000 more innings at third). Boyer had 4.97, Nettles 4.40, and Evans 4.37. Perception does not always hold true.

. . .

The Odd Career of Alois Terry Leiter

Al Leiter signed a huge two-year extension with the Mets yesterday and will ostensibly remain in New York for some time to come. When I read about this it occurred to just how odd a career Leiter has had. I remember him appearing on a baseball card with "Future Star" (or words to that effect) emblazoned across it when he was around 27. I thought Topps had really outdone themselves. He had been a prospect for over five years most of which he spent on the disabled list and was already on his second organization. They (Topps) must have known something that I didn't because the second half of his career has been pretty good.

He is soon to be 37 and has been in the majors going on 16 years. He also has had 10 sojourns on the DL, two of which were season-ending. Toronto waited all those years for him to be ready, and he finally left as a free agent. Here are the totals for the first half of the last half of his career along with career totals:

             G   GS  CG  SHO   IP   BB   SO    W-L   ERA
First Half  85   55   2   1   339  201  286   22-21  4.75
Last Half  229  229  12   7  1480  646  1268 104-77  3.41
Total      314  284  14   8  1819  847  1554 126-98  3.66

That's quite a difference. Also consider that he never started more than 20 games in a season in the first half of his career, but in the second half he has never started fewer than 27. In the first half he never won more than 9, but in the second he has never won fewer than 11 (excluding this year). In the first half he only had an ERA lower than his league's average twice, but in the second half he has only once had an ERA higher than the league average.

I tried to think of someone who had such a great disparity between the first half of his career and the last. I thought of Randy Johnson and Steve Stone. Johnson did not establish himself as a major-league starter until he was going on 27, but had only one year of inconsistency prior to that. Stone was basically an average pitcher except for one incredible year towards the end of his career. I then thought of Sandy Koufax, who was average for the first half of his career and then unhittable in the last half, but his career was a) very short and b) one of the most unique in baseball history. Could Leiter be almost as unique as the legendary Koufax?

So I then went to Baseball Reference to see just how unique Leiter is. I checked out the players designated as his "comps," i.e., those that are most comparable to Leiter statistically. BR lists comps for each player by his career totals and by his yearly totals through each year in his baseball life. Leiter's comps were an odd crew, mostly guys who were effective when they were younger and then either because of age or injury or both became ineffective and then unemployed. There were guys who were missing years in the middle of their careers due to injury or had droughts due to ineffectiveness. Here are some examples:

Career #1: El Sid Fernandez-Fernandez was a very good pitcher who because of back problems never pitched a full season after the age of 29 though he was still effective when he did pitch.

Career #2: Ray Culp-Another good pitcher who was washed up after 29.

Career #6: Ramon Martinez-A very good pitcher who lost chunks of his career to injury. Also, never pitched a complete, effective season after 29.

Career #7: Alex Fernandez-Another very good pitcher who was washed up due to injury by 29.

Career #8: Tony Cloninger-Won 19 and 24 games back-to-back, missed parts of a couple of years due to injury, came back and was ineffectual, and was washed up after 29.

Career #10: Jose Rijo-A very good, oft-injured pitcher who retired for five years before coming back last year pitching well in relief.

Through Age 25: Mickey Mahler-A very poor pitcher who wracked up a lot of innings early in his career. A pretty good though often injured pitcher later in his career.

Through Age 28: Rich Wortham-Won 14 games at 25. His next highest season win total is 4.

Through Age 29: Bob Walk- Average pitcher who missed most of three season in the middle of his career.

Through Age 30: Donovan Osborne-Good, often injured pitcher who was washed up by 29.

Through Age 32 and 34: Jack Sanford-Good pitcher who didn't establish himself in the majors until 28. Won 19 and 24 games and was in double figures in wins (though not always pitching effectively) until age 34. He pitched until age 38 but only won in double figures one other time.

Through Age 33: Juan Guzman-Very good pitcher who was washed up by 32.

Of the other pitchers, none won in double figures after 35, and there was no one who became effective after 28 like Leiter. I'm sure there is someone else out there, but I can't seem to find him.

I have to admit that I have always pulled for the Leiter-he reminds me of the guy who played Charlie, the teenage kid on Star Trek who made people disappear after Captain Kirk, sans shirt, beat him in a wrestling match and Uhura sang a song about him. He also reminds me of a kid the Phillies had in the late '70s named Jim Wright (#37). I saw him pitch in spring training once and he was overpowering. He was their number one prospect for about three or four years. The Phillies expected him and Carlton to form a left-right tandem, but he was constantly injured. He appeared on two Phillies prospect cards two years apart ('79 and '81) but never made it to the bigs with the Phils. He finally made it up to the majors with the Royals at age 26. He pitched well one year and then was completely ineffective the next and never pitched in the majors again. Each organization must have its own Jim Wrights, a great prospect who due to injury never fulfills his promise. Leiter is the only one went on to become a number one starter. It makes me wonder, given his age and the years of abuse that his arm never had to endure on the mound, how long he can be effective. There is no way to really know given that there is no real mold to which we can compare him.

. . .

1:41, the Shortest Game Since 1984

The Tigers and Jose Lima beat the Royals and Paul Byrd 3-0 in one hour and 41 minutes, the fastest nine-inning game in the majors since 1984. There was a total of nine hits, one walk, and 14 strikeouts.

I remember a game that my Dad and I attended in the late '70s in which Jim "Kitty" Kaat pitched the Phillies to a complete game shutout in around 1:39. He was a fast worker, and he always reminded me of Popeye, the way he popped off the mound with his arms slightly akimbo. But I don't remember anyone thinking that it was all that unusual at the time. But Jose Lima acted as if he had won an Oscar:

" I wanted to thank all of these people who stuck with me when I wasn't pitching. I think the home plate umpire might have had a date tonight, because he had a big zone. I don't have a date, but I might be able to get one after this. "
- Jose Lima

. . .

Padre Owner Being Investigated by the SEC

Padre owner and Peregrine Systems chairman John Moores is being investigated due to "alleged fraudulent accounting practices at his computer software company." Two quotes of interest that are even more interesting when juxtaposed:

[T]he company generated "false and misleading" financial statements that allowed Moores to sell his majority share in the company at inflated prices. Between Oct. 29, 1997 to Feb. 28, 2001, Moores sold 18,815,966 shares for $611.4 million in 100 documented trades, according to SEC filings.

Last week, Moores was one of a handful of Major League Baseball owners who said he would be unwilling to continually finance a team under the game's current economic system. In a May 15 article in the Wall Street Journal, Moores said the Padres lost $43 million between 1998 and 2000.

. . .

Follow-Up on Umpire Information System

After looking again at the QuesTec Umpire Information System (UIS) product page, I have some additional comments that I think are even more damning regarding the use of this system as a tool for umpire evaluation.

I barely noticed the first time that I read it, the graphic on the page. It shows a left-handed pitcher pitching to a left-handed batter (I would say that they reversed the image but the catcher is right-handed). They have cross hairs around the ball like the photographer is aiming to kill it, and there is a caption that reads:

Umpire Information System
Ball Location
x = -0.68
y = 60.5
z = 3.43
Result Strike 3

Now I don't want to get too picky about the picture used. It was probably just thrown up on the site. Besides the pitch does look like a high strike on the outside corner of the plate even though the catcher is set up a little further outside and the point of view is over the pitcher's right shoulder making it difficult to be sure. But let's not quibble.

I am more interested in the coordinates that they use and how they seem to determine how the pitch is called. The y coordinate caught my eye first because it is exactly 60' 6" (if I can assume the coordinates are in feet). This must measure the distance from the pitcher's rubber and not the release point of the ball, which would be several feet shorter. The official baseball rules have this to say:

1.07
The pitcher's plate... shall be set in the ground... so that the distance between the pitcher's plate and home base (the rear point of home plate) shall be 60 feet, 6 inches.

So if y is measuring the distance from the rubber, it would then be at the back of home plate. Interesting, it makes me wonder if that is the sole point that UIS is concerned with. The reason I ask is that the official rules also has this to say in defining terms:

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hallow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

OK. So a ball is a strike if it passes through any part of the strike zone, and the strike zone is over home plate. Then only measuring at the back of the plate is inaccurate. As Robert K. Adair demonstrated in his great book, The Physics of Baseball, a 65-mile-per-hour curveball can drop out of the strike zone as it passes over home plate and by the same token a high, 95-mile-per-hour fastball can drop into the strike zone while traveling over home plate. Using one point to measure the location of the ball is inherently inaccurate. Its accuracy would be affected more by certain types of pitchers, and therefore cannot be used blindly as a purely empirical evaluation tool. "Wait a minute," you say. "How do you know that other measurements were not taken and this just happened to be the last one recorded as the pitch passes over the plate?"

Well, let's take a look at the other coordinates. X appears to be the distance left to right from the center of home plate. Here x is negative 0.68 feet, which would be 8.16 inches. This would be approximately on the right-hand corner of home, where the pitch in the photo appears to be. No problems there.

The third coordinate, z, is 3.43 feet, which would apparently mean that the ball was almost 3 1/2 feet high. This too would be in the strike zone apparently. Well maybe it is for the average major-leaguer but would it be for Freddie Patek? The rules use very specific measurements based on the individual batter: the distance between the tops of his shoulders and the top of his pants and the height of the hollow of his kneecap while the batter is crouching. How can the system possibly measure these things while the batter is possibly rotating to make contact with the ball? I highly doubt that it does. I would think that it is using pre-calculated measurements to determine the call. That may work for batters of normal height, but what about Patek or Randy Johnson for that matter? What about a batter who crouches down like Pete Rose or one who stands straight up like Jim Thome? So if it doesn't work for everyone, then it's inherently flawed and again a poor tool to use blindly.

The more that I examine the UIS system, the more I have to side with the umpires. It is a nice tool, but it doesn't necessarily measure anything. They could use it to help in evaluations and to help determine which umpires to promote to the bigs, but beyond that it is too highly flawed

. . .

Met-A Culpa

Lest the reader be led into believing that I am just a carping critic who lacks the introspection to examine my own thoughts... The Mets are now tied for third in the NL wildcard chase, 3rd with a bullet. A little over a week ago, I called their playoff hopes almost nonexistent. I have to say that the statement that "the Mets making the playoffs would be something on the order of the 1914 Miracle Braves, 1964 Cardinals, and 1978 Yankees all rolled into one" was a bit of an overstatement.

At the time the Mets were tied for third, 12.5 games behind the Braves in the NL East race and nine games behind the leader, tied for eighth in the wild card race. As of this morning, they are still 12.5 games behind the Braves but only 4.5 games behind the Dodgers and tied for third in the wild card hunt. I thought that the Mets could never make up so many games so quickly not because they were incapable of improving their own standing (I did point out that their expected winning percentage was higher than their actual indicating they had room for improvement). I thought that the odds of enough of the teams in front of them faltering when a good number are playing each other was low.

But they are 8-2 in their last ten games. The other wild card teams have been:

Mets     8-2
Expos    2-8
Marlins  4-6
Reds     6-4
D-Backs  5-5
Dodgers  3-7 
Giants   4-6

I still believe that the Mets will not make the playoffs. The teams that they have beaten up in the past couple of weeks are the Expos (twice), Phillies, Marlins, and Reds who are all starting to lose some steam. I'll reserve judgment until they have played a few better teams. I believe though that the Mets may just be reaching their expected level. Remember that I said at the time that their expected winning percentage was .519. Today their win-lose percentage stands at .520.

Unfortunately for management if this is their run and they end up falling back into the pack, it may be at the worst possible time, right before the trade deadline. Their management cannot cut payroll or build for next year by making trades if they believe that there still are playoff hopes. But given their salaries except for pitching, they probably couldn't move anyone in the current bunker-mentality trade market anyway.

. . .

Batting Disorder

Here's an interesting but, I think, flawed declination on the established and perhaps ossified conception of a batting order that I found on the Dan Lewis sports site. Far be it from me to pick on someone trying to challenge established baseball strategies. Far be it from me to pick on that world-renowned institution NJIT nor on their team nickname, the NJIT Mashing Niblets. But when someone calls homeplate "home base," I've got to let him have it.

First, I have to say that I have read studies by Rob Neyer among others (did Bill James cover this once?), suggesting that batting orders have very little effect on the outcome of a team over the course of a season. Bruce Bukiet, author of the study, found that the "difference between a team's best and worst batting order could change the outcome of as many as 10 games in a season." That raised an eyebrow.

He claims that managers traditionally place the best batter whom he terms "the slugger" fourth. Well, I take issue with his terms. "The slugger" is typically not the team's best batter. He is the man has some pop in his bat, but his on-base percentage is not necessarily great. He tends to be slower, and therefore grounds out a lot. He takes a big hack, and therefore tends to strike out a lot. He does bat fourth typically. The best batter in my opinion is the man with the highest OPS (On-Base Plus Slugging). He combines power and the ability to get on base. I contend that typically this man bats 3rd. His use of "best batter" and "slugger" interchangeably suggests that his definition of what best is does not match what I would like. That's my first problem.

My second problem in his methodology for ordering the batters themselves. He claims that the best batter should bat second in order to get more turns at bat. This is logical, but why not then lead off with him. I'll take his side of the argument and say that the possibility of having a man on-base when the best batter is up tends to increase the number of runs scored. So batting him 2nd has certain advantages over letting him lead off. Okie Dokie.

However, then he contends that the worst batter (typically the picther in NL games) should bat seventh or eighth not the accepted last bcause:

"The pitcher should be far away from the slugger in the line-up," says Bukiet. That lessens the chance that he will be the clean-up hitter responsible for getting the strongest batter back to home base.

But there are two problems here: 1) Does batting the pitcher seventh avoid his batting with the "slugger" on base? And 2) This increases the number of times that the weakest batter will bat over the course of a season which runs counter to his previous argument. As far as issue 1 is concerned, I say no. If the 2nd batter leads off in a given inning, 2 more men get on base, and 2 men make outs, that brings up the number 7 hitter, who would then be the pitcher, with the bases loaded and two outs. I know that this would probably be a rare occurence, but if the goal as stated is to minimize the number of times at bat for the weakest hitter with the "slugger" on base, then batting the pitcher last and the "slugger" 2nd ensures this. Also, who cares who is on base when the worst batter/pitcher bats? The best batter is not necessarily the best baserunner. If he means that the best batter gets on base the most, and therefore, the worst batter should not be in a position where he is expected to drive the high on-base guys in, then he's correct. But his solution does not completely resolve this. As far as issue 2 is concerned, the benefits gained from moving the pitcher up in the lineup mitigate this? I think not. I may be wrong but without further information and a definition of terms, I don't think the argument as a whole makes a whole lot of sense.

It's a nice theory but I think one as misguided as Bukiet's 2002 predictions.

. . .

Lord, Gammons Was Born a Ramblin' Man

And I thought that I rambled on a bit. I defy you to make sense of Peter Gammons latest "Rambles and Grumbles" column. It's a shame because I think there was an interesting article or three somewhere in there.

. . .

Happy Birthday Nomar

The Red Sox just beat the Devil Rays 22-4 as starting pitcher Tanyon Sturtze's woes continued. The star of the game was Garciaparra who went 3 for 5, hit 3 home runs in total including 2 in one inning, scored 3 runs, drove in 8, and walked once. Garciaparra is celebrating his 29th birthday today. He did manage to leave two men on base however. Maybe he can make up for it in the second game of the doubleheader tonight.

. . .

Who Is The Greatest Living Hitter?

With the recent death (and subsequent cryogenic freezing) of Ted Williams, there has been a good deal of debate as to who now gets to wear the crown of Greatest Living Hitter and the all of the free McDonalds french fries that come with it. The same debate occurred after Joe DiMaggio's death in 1999 and the masses settled on Williams who had entered the cuddly phase of his baseball existence.

Names like Mays and Aaron are often cited. Rose, Musial, and Robinson fans are heard from. Baseball Prosepectus did an article in which they selected Barry Bonds, using their Equivalent Average stat. adjusted for era and ballpark.

They are fine hitters all, but-and I know that this may now be sacrilegious-I am still not entirely sure that Ted Williams was the greatest before he died, and I am pretty darn certain that DiMaggio was nowhere near the greatest before he died. I ran a list of Batting Win Shares for all living players and the two recently demised legends. I know that this is not a thorough examination but I prefer it to something like Equivalent Average because it takes career length into account. When I have some time, I will try to do something taking into account Batting Win Shares, Total Baseball's Runs Created (adjusted for era and park), and Baseball Prospectus' Equivalent Average so that all of the camps are heard from. Also, I have a few picky points with Batting Win Shares, such as singles hitters (e.g., Rose, Gwynn, Raines) seem overvalued to me and certain players don't rank how you would necessarily expect (Matthews is ahead of Schmidt and Brett for example). However, it's a pretty good tool overall.

Here are the top 28 living players who were including in the top 50 all-time plus Williams and DiMaggio:

 Rk  Player          BWS
1.  Aaron          573.3
2.  Musial         538.7
3.  Mays           538.0
4.  Williams       512.4
5.  Bonds          477.9
6.  Henderson      473.7
7.  F. Robinson    467.8
8.  Rose           461.8
9.  Yaz            426.0
10. Morgan         423.9
11. Jackson        403.8
12. Murray         398.8
13. Matthews       387.4
14. Kaline         382.9
15. McCovey        379.4
16. Schmidt        378.3
17. Winfield       373.4
18. Brett          371.5
19. Molitor        367.5
20. Gwynn          353.4
21. Stargell       339.1
22. Killebrew      337.1
23. Raines         336.1
24. Carew          332.0
25. B. Williams    329.1
26. DiMaggio       325.8
27. McGwire        323.1
28. Staub          322.8
29. Boggs          319.3
30. Yount          317.3

Other than the unexpected Rusty Staub, the rest are names that one would expect to see in such a list. The two latest Greatest Hitters do not exactly top the list. Ted Williams is a very respectable 4th, and that indicates to me that a reasonable argument could be made for him as the Greatest. But DiMaggio is buried at 26, and that tells me that Joe D was more about P.R. than performance, great player though he was.

The two names that sprang to my mind when the debate began, Mays and Aaron, appear in the top 3. I thought that the more logical choice would be Mays but Aaron is eminently qualified. It is also nice to see the often overlooked Stan Musial at number 2. Bonds does take the Greatest Active Living Hitter crown nipping out Rickey Henderson.

. . .

The Quest for QuesTec: What Is The Umpire Information System?

Much has been said about the umpire rating system that Major League Baseball is trying to put in place. The World Umpires Association says that it filed a grievance against owners last Friday over the system although I don't think they know what the suit is about. Their lawyer said the umpires think that the system "cannot properly evaluate pitches, especially breaking balls." On Sunday, the umpires demanded that Questec, the company who developed the system, remove a reference to the umps that said that they supported the system. The umpires wrote a letter to the company that we know about because they released it to the press-isn't that convenient-in which they said:

The technology has never been adequately explained to umpires or our legal and technical consultants. Questec Inc. has not answered questions from the WUA, and the office of the commissioner of baseball has refused to provide requested information, which refusal led to the WUA's latest grievance. ...
Even if the Questec system were more accurate, there remain legitimate questions as to whether this device belongs in major league baseball. Like last year's 'pitch count' gimmick, Questec interjects an extraneous element into the game and pressures umpires to compete with the machine, rather than giving their full attention to calling the game as they see it unfold before them.

The umpires bristle when anyone questions their authority to call a game in seemingly whatever fashion they see fit. The pitch count reference is to a misguided attempt made last year by the commissioner's office taking the average pitch count when each ump is behind the plate and ranking them. The umpires claimed that the commissioner was pressuring them to call more strike and reduce pitch counts. The WUA filed a grievance, and pitch counts were no longer used as an evaluation tool. At first blush, the comparison seems unfounded-pitch counts as an evaluation tool a) are dependent on the pitchers involved and the situations encountered in the game and b) don't measure whether the call was accurate or not. But having a tool that could accurately call balls and strikes would be a handy evaluation tool. Were the umpires being too possessive-"the balls and strikes are ours"-or is this a poor evaluation tool?

I visited the QuesTec, Inc. site to find out more about the umpire rating system from the horse's mouth (or at least its mouthpiece). They have an announcement on the site dated February 2001 of last year that states that MLB signed a five-year deal with Questec for a new version of PitchTrax, a "pitch measurement technology in support of MLB's previously announced strike zone initiatives." The agreement also included the use of the then new Umpire Information System (UIS) for five years. There were no further announcements as regards MLB.

The statement goes on to trumpet the PitchTrax product, how it has been used exclusively by Fox and, that it was modified to meet MLB's needs. It still contains the quote that so offended the umps to impel them to write their missive ("In general they {the umps} support it!''), including the excessive punctuation.

UIS was beta-tested during the Arizona Fall League's 2000 season. Major League umpires and officials were given access to the system. It adhered to the accuracy requirements established by the commissioner's office (though it does not specify what they were). It was then to be tested in the 2001 spring training games in Arizona. There are no follow-ups to indicate if that testing was in actuality conducted and if so, how the system fared.

Besides the usual self-aggrandizing typical of leading-edge companies (Wow, Scientific American did an article about you? Well, who owns them? Any relation?), the article further describes the technology employed:

. The ball tracking component uses cameras mounted in the stands off the first and third base lines to follow the ball as it leaves the pitcher's hand until it crosses the plate. Along the way, multiple track points are measured to precisely locate the ball in space and time. This information is then used to measure the speed, placement, and curvature of the pitch along its entire path. The entire process is fully automatic including detection of the start of the pitch, tracking of the ball, location computations, and identification of non-baseball objects such as birds or wind swept debris moving through