Nobody's Perfect

Angel Ramon Ortiz has just lost a bid for a perfect game against the Orioles with one out in the top of the sixth. Geronimo Gil singled to right on a 2-2 pitch. Jerry Hairston and Melvin Mora then both singled to load the bases. The next batter, Luis Lopez, struck out and finally Chris Richard flied out to preserve the shutout.

---

Off-Joe-Morgan-Chat-Day

We here at Mike's Baseball Rants love Fridays, and especially this Friday, because we got to stand at the precipice and grin in the face of bugbear called a baseball strike-we also get to mix metaphors with ease.

But usually Friday is just plain ol' Joe Morgan Chat Day. And why is that special you ask? Why not ask yourself why the sky is blue? Or why birds suddenly appear every time you are near? Go ahead-ask yourself. I'll wait...Are you done? Did you find out that these are unanswerable questions? Well, they are (except that we do know that the sky is blue because of the refraction of light through the stratosphere, but you get my point).

Joe Morgan is baseball's answer to the Gordian knot. He is without solution. He can be brilliant one moment and ludicrous the next. Sometimes he achieves perfection and is both brilliant and ludicrous at once. Those are the moments we most savor. He is truly a knot that even Alexander the Great (no relation to Manny or Pete) could solve. But we try to slice through to his core.

I have to admit that this week is a poor JMCD, as we say in the biz. Basically, it happened right before the strike was averted. It is rank with pessimism, something that seemed to fade pretty quickly after the agreement (prediction: the Angel fans will stop throwing baseballs onto the field and will get back to enjoying their disregard for the team by Labor Day). So what we have is a snapshot in time of the ultimate pessimism of baseball fans, like a tiny little time capsule of hate. But Joe, to his credit, is pretty right on (in a groovy kind of way) with almost all of the questions. So this week I will have to supplement with some dumb questions from the Rob Neyer chat session.

Yes, apparently Neyer deigned to grace us with his presence for a full 20 minutes today. Praise be to him and to even his lowly minions who perform the holy task of transcribing his mellifluous tones into an electronic version the world can enjoy. Amen.

Also, I will check out the post-strike-averted Rob Dibble chat. Dibble is basically Morgan without the brilliant side. I hope this does not profane the spirit of JMCD. So in that spirit we now proceed. Oh, one last note, I'm sure next week Joe will be back to getting questions related to on-field activities. And then we'll back in business.

The Good

Chad (KC): Joe, I have reading your chat and article for the last couple of days, and I think you miss something. Yes, baseball players, doctors and the like have special skills. Can you honestly say AROD deserves $25 million a year? NO! The fact is we love baseball, but we don't need it. WE need teachers and doctors and those with special skills that help us. WE DO NOT NEED BASEBALL. Do the players and owners understand that? And do they realize without fans, they don't have jobs?

Joe Morgan: You missed the point, not me.

[Mike: You tell him, Joe. Chad, my sympathies if that is your real name, get out of here with that weak s&^*. There's a sale at the Gap. Why don't you run along, Chad.]

Gator in FL: How can people always comment that the big-market teams are dominating baseball and the teams with lower salary levels can't compete? You only have to look at Oakland and Minnesota to know that it's not necessarily true. Granted, there is an advantage to having a bloated payroll, but there is a lot to say about good scouting, crafty trades and good business sense. Wow, I didn't think I would put those last three words in a sentence regarding baseball.

Joe Morgan: I have never bought into the big market, small market theory. It's either good or bad management, and that's what it amounts to. Management is the reason that teams win and lose. It's not just the amount of money they have to spend. Having money is not the only way to win.

[Mike: Right, besides the concept of large and small market is skewed when Cleveland and Seattle are large market and the Phillies are small.]

Jim (Chicago) : Well Joe...thanks for all your great work on ESPN....It has been said that there has been no "magic" in baseball this year...No Sosa McGwire race...No Bonds chasing 73....My question is...with the last second deadline basically come and gone...do you think that all the future "magic" for the season has gone now too....and do you think that even though there has been no "Official strike" yet that there has been just as much damage with this "down to the wire" negotiations?

Joe Morgan: There has been a lot of damage done. It shouldn't have come down to this. I disagree that there isn't any magic. Schilling is having a great season. Lowe and Pedro have been a great 1-2 punch. A-Rod, Bonds, Sosa, Berkman -- they are all having great seasons. It's been exciting to this point. There doesn't need to be one monumental achievement to make it a magical season.

[Mike: Yeah, and how about that AL West race? And what about Scarecrow's brain? Jim, just because baseball has been horrific this year in Chicago, doesn't mean there isn't some great ball being played out there.]

Rick (Vienna, VA): You said earlier that the players have actually given up a lot during these negotiations...maybe you could help all your readers understand what these things are? However, I think that regardless of whatever real or perceived things they have given up, they are losing the battle of public perception and it may be hard to recover.

Joe Morgan: The players always lose the battle of public perception because they are visible and the owners aren't. So you take your animosity out on the players. Ever since there has been a union, it has said there would never be a salary cap. That has been the union's battle cry. A luxury tax is a modified salary cap, so they have given in on that. And on revenue sharing.

[Mike: Yeah, Joe. Take it to the limit one more time. Also, why do you think we know those players' salaries? Who discloses them? Who owns the newspapers, TV and radio stations on which these things are proffered? It ain't Wendell Wilkie, that's for sure. Do we find out how much the owners make?]

John (Seattle): Hey Joe, you had mentioned in an article about the salaries being inline with the revenues, and how people don't complain when Tom Hanks makes $50 million. but i'm concerned you may miss the point...the reason salaries are so high and there's so much revenue is because the fans are paying such high prices to watch baseball. it's tough for the average middle-to-lower income family to afford a game. how do you feel about that?

Joe Morgan: When I used to go to the movies, it would cost 25 cents. Now it's $10. The ticket prices do not pay the players' salaries. The TV revenue does. It costs you just as much to see the Devil Rays as it does to see the Giants, and they are not the same team. A team with a $40 million payroll has the same ticket prices as a team with a $100 million payroll. So it's not about the fans paying their salaries. It's the same in every sport.

[Mike: Oh, at first I thought you were going to burst into Hendrix, John. Right, salaries do not directly affect ticket prices. This has been shown.]

Mike(Alenntown): Joe, would you agree that if the current negotiations do not produce a long term (4 to 5 years) agreement then the financial damage to Major League Baseball from reduced television contracts and sponsership will be so great that a number of teams will really fold?

Joe Morgan: I don't think the teams will fold. And I heard it would be a four-year contract, which I don't think is long enough. We will have the same problem four years from now. They should have a longer agreement. No teams will fold.

[Mike: Well, I know you're living there in Allentown. And they're closing all the factories down, Mike. But it's not the case here. By the way, ESPN's contract for next year is supposed to be a huge increase.]

Jacob (Chicago): SSSSAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYY SSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Joe Morgan: I agree.

[Mike: Joe's so smooth he could talk a jumper off of a building. "I agree." I love it. I was a big Sammy Davis fan myself, so I understand the excitability.]

The Bad

Zack (New York): Do you think it makes any sense that the proposed contract does not include a minimum salary? There is no guarantee that small-market teams will use the proceeds from revenue-sharing to improve their teams, which defeats the point of a pseudo salary-cap.

Joe Morgan: That's Steinbrenner's complaint. He has given a lot of money in revenue sharing, and the owners have pocketed the money and not reinvested in their teams. The union doesn't want a mininum because when you set a mininum you then have to set a maximum, and the union doesn't want that either.

[Mike: Why a max? Who says there has to be a max if there's a min?]

Mike, Raleigh: First of all Joe, you do a great job. I agree with you 100% taht baseball has done a poor job marketing the sport. But how do you market a player like Bonds who only talks to the media when he breaks a record but shuns them all other times?

Joe Morgan: Well, there are 749 other players. There are a lot of great players in the game today. Ivan Rodriguez, Jim Thome, Jose Vidro ... go to every position and there is a big star. You don't have to dwell on one guy.

What about Sosa? He is always pleasant with the fans and interacts with them. He plays to the fans. He would be perfect to market.

[Mike: Why not market Bonds? I find him charismatic. He speaks his mind and often has insightful things to say. He's sort of MLB's version of Sir Charles Barkley, who certainly was marketed well in his niche. Look at Dennis Rodman, he got more than his fair share of publicity. The aptly named Latrell Sprewell (get it "spree" and "well") attacked his coach in Golden State but has been the Knicks' biggest star since Ewing left. So Bonds doesn't like reporters? Big deal. Did he ever spit on a fan? David Stern has developed a league where even that kind of player is marketable. The Bud boys have not.]

Roy (Ireland): Who do you think will win the AL West if there isnt a strike? Or rather make the playoffs in the AL?

Joe Morgan: I would think Oakland and either Anaheim or Seattle as a wild card. I don't think Boston will make it. We'll have to see. It's hard to tell.

[Mike: Finally the decisive Joe Morgan we love shows up. By the way, what is a guy named Roy doing in Ireland?]

Tim (Boston): A strike right now, with 9-11 right around the corner, would be disrespectful by putting a game that grown men play for millions of dollars center stage instead of remembering last years tragedy and those brave people who lost their lives. Your thoughts?

Joe Morgan: I don't equate baseball with that. At one point you want to say it's a game, and then you want to say it's part of the tragedy. Last year we didn't play after 9/11 out of respect for what happened. We don't equate football with Pearl Harbor. It was a tragedy that we should observe as Americans and not get confused with sports being involved with that tragedy. You can't equate the two. In fact, I don't think there should be baseball on 9/11. There should be a day of mourning for the country. That would show that what happened last year was bigger than any sporting event.

[Mike: How about: it's a business. And businesses have work stoppages. Enron was run out of business by the poor (and financially remunerative, at least personally) decisions of its leadership. Are we appalled that the executives of Enron are not personally supporting their laid-off employees during the September 11 anniversary (Well, maybe we are)].

Matt (Dubuque) : Mr. Neyer, what are your feelings about Joe Morgan's comment that players are justified in being paid whwat they're being paid? How is it ok for A-Rod to earn $115,000 per GAME while my boss works 80 hr weeks and earns 30,000 per year? I'm sorry but Joe isn't selling the sympathy card to me very well

Rob Neyer: I don't have any "sympathy" for the players, but I also don't understand the impulse to compare players to people who work for a living. Do you frequent chat rooms and express outrage about all six "Friends" making a cool million bucks per episode? I've never understood exactly why we hold baseball players to higher standards than other entertainers.

[Mike: Your boss works 80 hours a week and makes $30K a year? That's about $7.50 an hour, and he's your boss. What do you make? How can you afford to access the Web to join a chat session? Man, am I glad I don't live in Dubuque.]

Jim (San Diego): One on your cohorts said if there was a strike you'd be walking around in your bathrobe, unshaven, with Alice in Chains playing in the background. So what would really be playing?

Rob Neyer: The new Aimee Mann disc, probably. And not to get literal or anything, but I don't own a bathrobe.

[Mike: Jim, thank you for that image.]

Bob (Washington DC): As far as I'm concerned, they went on strike when the players shipped things home, delayed charters, etc. Baseball has lost me.

Rob Neyer: Well, I have no idea how your brain works. But I do hope you spend your new-found leisure time on something worthwhile, rather than football.

[Mike: Uh, Bob, I don't think that legally qualifies as a strike. Otherwise, I was on strike every time that I moved. A strike is the thing with picket lines and signs bearing anti-management slogans and people chanting, "Heck no, we won't go," and Woody Guthrie singing.]

John (Kansas City): A lot of KC sports radio guys were almost rooting for a strike because they believed that a compromise such as the one that was reached would not help the Royals become competitive, but that a strike might have led to a more hard line approach by owners that could have resulted in a hard cap and reasonable revenue sharing that would level the playing field. What is your opinion of such a notion?

Rob Neyer: Well, it's just my opinion and I could be wrong, but I think that anybody who thinks a strike would have been good for teams like the Royals is a lunatic. A strike of any length would have killed fan interest in Kansas City, and a few other cities, too.

[Mike: John, was the radio guy trying to be controversial, funny, or stupid. As David St. Hubbins once said, "There such a fine line between clever and stupid."

Peter (Milwaukee): The deal was a mistake. It will solve nothing and result in at least a team or two going under in the next couple of years. That said, do you think the owners will finally hold a hard line and save baseball during the next round of negotiations in 2006?

Rob Neyer: I'm amazed at the degree of pessimism I've seen in some of the questions today. I mean, I know time flies when we're having fun, but 2006?

Baseball doesn't need to be "saved." It was never in danger of dying. It could use some tweaks, but that's always been true. The notion that someday someone's going to wave a magic wand and solve every problem just isn't realistic.

[Mike: Well, thanks for putting in an appearance, Mr. Commissioner. I'm glad to see that you are back at home in Milwaukee again. Even though your offices are in New York, a minor point. I see that you are continuing your good will tour. Excellent.]

Truman (Chicago): You seem to think players salaries are justified. What do you think of this: the public doesn't go to see a Tom Cruise movie 81 times a year at at 25 bucks a pop. That's the difference. The game has become too expensive a product for the average consumer. The cost of a ticket should be reduced while maintaining reasonable profits, and the players and owners should be willing to be part of that process. I think both parties should re-examine what they consider to be reasonable profits. Even Hollywood is restructuring salaries in an effort to increase profitability.

Rob Neyer: No, I didn't say that baseball salaries are "justified." I said they're comparable to salaries in other sorts of mass entertainment. Movies, TV, boxing.

As for baseball being "too expensive," that's a load of horse hockey. The average movie ticket costs eight or ten bucks, and you can get into most ballparks for that price. What's more, baseball on TV is essentially free, and baseball on the radio is free. So please, spare me the irrational outrage. As a season-ticket holder, I'd like to see lower prices, too. But baseball tickets are not out of line with other mass entertainments.

[Mike: Hey, yo, Truman, I saw your movie. Remember the part where you were on TV, but you didn't know you were on TV...That was awesome!

By the way, A) If I said it once I must have said it at least two times: salaries do not affect ticket prices. And B) maybe if Tom Cruise could put out 81 movies a year it would be analogous. Barbra Streisand has an annual farewell tour and charges $2500 per seat. Average consume that! The Who have some sort of tontine that requires them to tour until all but one member is dead. To him goes the explanation of what Tommy is really frigging about. Oprah is a brand unto herself for chrissake. Baseball players make a good deal of money if they're lucky and make it to the majors, but they make it on average for under 10 years.]

Rob Dibble: A strike has been averted... no harm, no foul? Not necessarily. Did this whole thing consider the fans? Unfortunately I don't think so. I'm still upset that high ticket prices was not addressed. Now let's get to your questions...

[Mike: Leave it to Dibble to tick me off before even getting a question. When were ticket prices on the table? In what bargaining agreement ever were they even discussed? He says that he was a former player rep-he should know this. The players have no control over how much the owners want to charge the fans, nor should they.]

AL(MIAMI,FL): BASEBALL, AMERICA'S FAVORITE PASTTIME RIGHT?

Rob Dibble: Al, no matter what, baseball is still the best game around. The owners and players can do their best to tarnish the game but once the players are on the field, almost everything is forgiven. I'm definitely with the fans on this one. In the past, most of the arguments were about salaries and benefits and now the union has to stick up for the large-market owners. As a former player rep, I think that's something the owners should work out on their own. But now the players have it so good that they don't even realize that the only thing they're fighting for was for George Steinbrenner to help teams possibly come back and beat him. It's all almost senseless to me. If anything, the players should have been fighting to lower ticket prices so that more fans could come watch them play.

[Mike: Geez, it makes me appreciate Morgan. Dibble put down the bottle. You've barely started.]

Johnny (SF): Hey Dibs, do you think Bonds would be a legitimate Triple Crown threat if the giants could actually get people on base ahead of him? When half your RBIs consist of you driving yourself in, it's pretty pathetic. And how good would Kent be right now, if Bonds was not hitting behind him?

Rob Dibble: No. Because Jeff Kent bats in front of him, and the former MVP doesn't leave much for Bonds. Bonds was the one who gave up the third spot in the order, months ago when Kent was struggling. This unselfish act has still gone pretty much unnoticed. But not by me. If Bonds held on to the three-spot in the order, it would have enhanced his personal numbers but may not have given the Giants a chance at the playoffs. Bonds is still having an amazing year despite frequent walks, injuries and not having much left on the plate after Kent hits.

[Mike: Well those walks really eat up opportunities to drive in runs. Unless the bases are loaded (and it's happened with Bonds), a walk won't get him a ribbie.]

Arthur: Do you think that any kind of balance (like the NFL) is possible in baseball?

Rob Dibble: Good question Arthur. No, I don't think it's possible. The NFL salary cap does not allow teams to stay together for four or five years at a time. If you look at the Baltimore Ravens they've lost the majority of their Super Bowl team from two years ago. With baseball's luxury tax, the large-market teams might not spend as much money but you can still put a pretty good team together with a $117 million payroll. I like the parity in the NFL, but baseball can't set up their schedule to help the weaker teams. In the NFL if you have a good team, you get a tough schedule you're next year. In baseball, you play everyone in your division 19 times regardless if you finish first or last. It sounds great in theory but they are just two different beasts.

[Mike: It's been shown that baseball since free agency has put more teams in the playoffs and World Series than football (well, that would be Super Bowl, but you get what I mean). Did you ever hear of the Cincinnati Bengals? They make the D-Rays look good.]

Philip (Austin): Would you rank the pitching duo of Roy Oswalt and Wade Miller with the likes of Johnson and Schilling, Pedro and Lowe, or MAddux and Glavin?? Oswalt does have a 31-9 career record..

Rob Dibble: I rank pitchers by how they perform in the post season. Until last year, I would not have put Johnson and Schilling in the same category as Glavine and Maddux or Clemens and Pedro. I hate to be vain, but championships give you more credibility. I love Miller and Oswalt but they have to succeed in the post season. For this reason, see: Bert Blyleven. Bert should be in the hall of fame with his 287 wins. But people say, because of his lack of post season stats, the 287 wins aren't that big... In that case I disagree, but overall people want to see pressure situations.

[Mike: Well, Dibbs, I rate pitchers by their performances on full moons. And I have found that Glendon Rousch and Esteben Loaiza are tops. By the way, I think this Clemens guy is overrated. He'll never last.]

Bill (NJ): Dibbs, do the Angels have the horses to get to the post-season, or do you think they'll fade?

Rob Dibble: I love the Angels. Forget about their good offense and defense. The rotation pitches deep into ball games and takes pressure off of their bullpen. I think they'll keep it going into the playoffs... Skipper Mike Scioscia has been to the playoffs before. He knows what to expect. Garrett Anderson and David Eckstein don't get much attention but they've played great all year.

[Mike: Garrett Anderson gets more attention than better players on the team (Tim Salmon and Jarrod Washburn to name two). He's one of the most overrated players in baseball.]

The Ugly

Shaun (Boston, MA): Hey Joe. I have more of a comment then a quesion! If the MLB decides to go on strike, why dont they get replacement players? I would love to play in Fenway Park, man I would do it for free!

Joe Morgan: That's a good statement. Everyone thinks about how much the players make and all that. Every player has played for free longer than he has been paid for it. I played longer for free, and I played in the majors for 20 years. In the majors, you only see the finished product.

[Mike: Joe, I know, you're in the fray. You want to make a point, but you played for free longer than you got paid? You started playing professionally in 1963 at the age of 20. Your career lasted 22 seasons. Unless you started playing for free two years before you were born, I think you kind of exaggerated.]

Mike (Milwaukee): Hey, I was curious as to how you felt about Bud Selig's methods of running the league. Also, do you think we will ever see another commissioner that was once an owner or otherwise affiliated with a certain ball club?

Joe Morgan: I think you might see that happen again because the owners feel like Bud is one of them. And they are making gains in these negotiations. They will view him as someone who has helped them. The biggest mistake I've ever seen anyone make is when Bud said two teams may not make payroll.

[Mike: Woah, Joe, did you have a flashback there in the middle of your point? Selig is well liked by the other owners. OK. Let's leave it as that.]

---

Miller Time, Not

Paul Lo Duca led off the top of the fifth. He took a called strike and then beat out an infield single to short. Oh well, wouldn't it have been a great way to reinvigorate fan interest--a no-hitter on the first night "back"?

---

Miller Time?

Wade Miller is throwing a no-hitter against the Dodgers in Felony Field through 4. The Dodgers have their 4,5, and 6 hitters coming up in the top of the fifth.

---

Striking Change

"I am light as a feather, I am happy as an angel, I am merry as a schoolboy. I am as giddy as a drunken man."
--Scrooge

"Today is the greatest day I've ever known. Can't wait for tomorrow, tomorrow's much too long."
--Billy Corgin, Smashing Pumpkins

I feel like a kid at Christmas. I can't wait to open some ballgames this weekend.

By the way, attendance at Wrigley today was 36,311. Do you have a feeling that the fans will start returning in droves?

---

The Swiftian Baker-You Burnt My Gulliver!

Any lingering doubts that Jim Baker is the Sonny Tufts of the baseball world were put to rest with his high-larious sendup today on ESPN. He was promoting the Reg'lar Folks League, a league of players with average ability like you or me, making fun of all the fans who say they could do better than player X (no relation to Racer X).

Unfortunately, ESPN pulled the article, and I can't find it anymore. It could be due to all of the non-strike coverage. If you're on ESPN, look for it. It's worth the search.

---

Today's a Day of Independence for All the Munchkins and Their Descendents!

Ding Dong, the strike is dead! For the first time in nine tries they signed the collective bargaining agreement without a work stoppage.

Pros:

- The three-team AL West race.

- The Astros chase of the Cards.

- Johnson & Schilling and Martinez & Lowe, 2 sets of teammates battling for the Cy Young.

- The Dodgers and the Giants continuing the rivalry while fighting for the NL wild card.

- Bonds' pursuit of Aaron.

- A-Rod's pursuit of a first MVP.

- Smoltz and Gagne's pursuit of Thigpen's season save record.

- No more fan signs.

- One more month of baseball!

- The Playoffs!

- The World Series!

Cons:

- Less Bud Selig, Donald Fehr, and Bob Dupuy.

Yes, I'll take that trade.

---

Gloating over Fearless Predictions

One week ago there was a three-way tie for first in the AL West with some theorizing that tonight would be the end of baseball's regular season should there be a strike. I made a prediction that the A's would take over first and that the Angels would end up leading the wild card by the end of the week. If the Angels win tonight (they are ahead 4-0 in the third against Tampa at home), that is the scenario that would play out. I would like to gloat because none of my predictions ever pan out. Here are the standings if the Angels win and my predicted standings:

                                  Since Aug. 22
         W-L  GB   Prediction  Actual Prediction
Oakland 83-51  -   81-53   -    8-0      6-2
Anaheim 79-54  3.5 80-53   .5   5-4      6-3
Seattle 79-55  4   79-55  2     4-4      4-4

Have I sufficiently impressed myself yet?

---

Staff Infection

Jamey Wright was acquired by the Cradinals tonight from Milwaukee. When he starts his first game for St. Louis, he will become the 14th starting pitcher that they will have used this year. No one has stayed in the rotation all year long except Matt Morris (28 games started). The man with the next highest games started total is Jason Simontacchi (20), who was sent down today to make room to activate Garrett Stephenson. Simontacchi and Morris are the only two Cardinals starters with more than 6 wins as a starter on the year.

---

Bellhorn, Which Is It?

Tonight Mark Bellhorn became the first National Leaguer and only the second player of all time (Carlos Baerga in 1993 being the other) to hit a home run from each side of the plate in the same inning as the Cubbies defeated the Brewers 13-10.

The first came with Bellhorn batting righthanded with Alex Gonzalez on first and a 1-0 count in the fourth of a 0-0 ballgame against lefthanded starter Andrew Lorraine. Lorraine, by the way, was pitching his first major-league game in two years. One-third of an inning and 3 runs (and one throwing error on a sac. bunt) later Lorraine was replaced by rightie Jose Cabrera. Bellhorn then came up batting left with men on first and sceond and two outs. Cabrera got ahead of him 0-2 and then Bellhorn evened the count at 2-2. The next pitch he sent over the rightfield wall. Bill Mueller followed Bellhorn with a solo homer of his own.

In total Chicago scored 10 runs on 7 hits, 3 of which were home runs, 2 walks, and one throwing error. They sent thirteen men to the plate and left no one on base at the end of the inning. Bellhorn hat five RBI on the inning. It's odd that Bellhorn and Baerga are the only two men to accomplish this feat and both are second basemen (though Bellhorn played first in this game). In Bellhorn's career as a first baseman, he had been batting .227 in 22 at bats with 2 home runs and 8 RBI. He had never before his a home run with a 1-0 count (29 AB). He batted sixth for the Cubs. Lifetime he came into the game batting .175 with 2 home runs and 6 RBI in 40 at bats when he batted sixth. He doubled his career totals for home runs with a man on first (1 in 53 AB) and home runs with men on first and second (1 in 18 ABs). The two home runs give him 23 for the year and 30 in his five-year career. OK, have I done this to death yet?

Though Bellhorn has only hit 30 home runs in 670 major-league at bats, he did hit 75 in 1939 minor-league at bats. His career high was 24 in 117 games with Sacramento of the Triple-A Pacific Coast League in 2000. On June 30 of this year, Bellhorn hit two home runs from each side of the plate in one game. He is one of many players to have done this, but is the only man to have done it this year (and did it twice) besides Jorge Posada. He is one of 39 men in baseball history to have hit two home runs in the same inning.

Bellhorn is second among switch-hitters in home runs this year (behind Lance Berkman, 37). He is 32nd among active major-league switch-hitters in home runs. Here are all active switch-hitters with home runs totals of at least 20:

Rk Name             HR
 1 RUBEN SIERRA    275
 2 CHIPPER JONES   248
 3 BERNIE WILLIAMS 224
 4 ROBERTO ALOMAR  200
 5 TODD HUNDLEY    197
 6 JOSE VALENTIN   162
 7 TONY CLARK      159
 8 J. T. SNOW      157
 9 DAVID SEGUI     133
10 CARL EVERETT    131
   JOSE CRUZ       131
12 CARLOS BAERGA   126
13 DAVE HOLLINS    112
14 RAY DURHAM      108
15 JORGE POSADA    105
16 ORLANDO MERCED  100
17 LANCE BERKMAN    96
18 DMITRI YOUNG     79
19 CARLOS BELTRAN   74
20 SCOTT SPIEZIO    71
21 JOSE VIDRO       70
22 OMAR VIZQUEL     56
23 CHAD KREUTER     54
24 JOSE OFFERMAN    52
   GREG NORTON      52
   JASON VARITEK    52
27 MARK MCLEMORE    49
28 LUIS ALICEA      47
29 NEIFI PEREZ      46
30 BILL MUELLER     41
31 GEOFF BLUM       35
32 MARK BELLHORN    30
33 GREG ZAUN        29
34 ROGER CEDENO     28
35 MATT WALBECK     27
   CRISTIAN GUZMAN  27
37 JOSE VIZCAINO    25
   GARY MATTHEWS    25
39 BEN DAVIS        24
   DESI RELAFORD    24
41 JIMMY ROLLINS    23
42 DENNIS HOCKING   22
43 MIKE MORDECAI    21
   CARLOS GUILLEN   21
45 LUIS LOPEZ       20

---

In the Year 1985, 85, If Baseball Is Still Alive

Doug Pappas has a great article on ESPN comparing this labor negotiation with the one in 1985, the year of the two-day strike. Of interest is the statement:

The season resumed the following day. MLB set an all-time attendance record in 1985, then broke it in each of the next four years.

Hopefully, this negotation will end as successfully and will be as easily forgotten by the population at large.

---

Why I'm for the Players, Part 1

It's 1986 and Andre Dawson has just finished his third straight disappointing, injury-plagued season. He is now a free agent and has decided not that he will no play for his current team, the Montreal Expos. You see, on the Expos he would be required to play at least half his games on Astroturf which will continue to wreak havoc on his injury-prone knees. There is only one problem: no one but the Expos is offering him a contract even though he is a well-established star.

His agent, Dick Moss, leaves a blank contract for Dawson's services in the Cubs' offices with a note to fill out the amount as the team sees fit. The Cubs, of course, played on a natural surface in Wrigley Field (even the walls are natural there). Moss also has the foresight to mention this to the press. The Cubs offer Dawson a contract at a 60% reduction over 1986. Dawson signs with the Cubs and goes on to hit 49 home runs, drive in 137 runs, and win the league Most Valuable Player award. His Expo teammate, Tim Raines, had won a batting title in 1986 and yet could not get a contract offer as a free agent. He had been precluded from resigning with the Expos until May 1 because of the existing free agent rules. Nevertheless, he ended up leading the league in runs for the second straight year with 123.

Dawson and Raines were two of the many players whose salaries were negatively impacted by a policy that MLB led by commissioner Peter Ueberroth secretly imposed over a three-year period in the Eighties. It came to be known as "collusion". Eventually, the baseball arbitrators ruled that this policy was unfairly oppressive in our free-market economy, that the owners conspired in violation of the labor contract. The contract stipulated that "clubs shall not act I concert with other clubs [with respect to free agents]." The players won a total of $280 million in Collusion I, II, and III (one per year, 1986 to 1988). Though this sum seems quite overwhelming, it did not contain any penalties. Its design was to make the affected salaries whole again. Of course, the players had to pay legal fees so the settlement did less than was intended. Finally, new commissioner, Faye Vincent, imposed no sanctions whatsoever on the owners.

It's 1947 and Jackie Robinson has just broken the "Color Line" to become major league baseball's first player of African-American heritage in over 60 years. Robinson soon becomes one of the most exciting players in baseball history. He is also one of the most admired and is the only man to have his number retired throughout baseball. During his career but especially at the onset, Robinson must endure racial abuse and personal threats on and off the field.

His heroic actions are not diminished one iota by the realization that had the owners not acted in concert to bar players for the previous 60 years, he would never had to withstand such overt racism.

It's 1887 and Moses Fleetwood Walker is the catcher of the Newark, NJ, International League and has had to endure years of abuse on and off the field because of his race. Technically, he was the first African-American major-leaguer in 1884 when his Toledo Blue Stockings moved from the Northwestern League to the major-league American Association. His brother Welday played the outfield for the club for a handful of games that season but decided that his baseball career was not worth such a continual onslaught and retired to become a barber. They are to be the last black major-leaguers until Jackie Robinson.

In 1883 Walker's Toledo club had an exhibition with the Chicago National League team. When White Stocking team captain, Cap Anson, refused to play due Toledo due to Walker's presence and the Toledo club refuse to have their player decisions dictated to them. When the decision was made that if Chicago did not play, they would forfeit their claim to the gate, Anson reneged on his refusal to play.

After his one major-league season, Walker turned to the minor leagues. Bud Fowler (2B-P), another African-American ballplayer, had been finding success in the minors as well. 1886 saw five black men playing professional baseball in the minor leagues (Walker, Fowler, George Stovey, Frank Grant, and Jack Frye). Also in 1886, an all-black team named the Cuban Giants defeated the Cincinnati Red Stockings of the National League. The Cuban Giants would almost defeat the NL champ Detroit Wolverines the next year, but would loss 6-4 on an error in the ninth. 1886 also witnessed the birth of the first black league, the Southern League of Colored Base Ballists, though it was a regional league and is short-lived.

1887 becomes the apogee of this early African-American renaissance with 13 players on twelve different teams in five different minor leagues. In the International League, the highest minor league, seven African-Americans toil (Walker, Fowler, Stovey, Grant, Robert Higgins, William Renfro, and Randolph Jackson). Sol White in his Rosetta Stone of black baseball history, The History of Colored Base Ball, states that there are in total 20 black professional players throughout the country in 1887. Also, an all-black league consisting of six teams (league of Colored Base Ball Players, a.k.a., the Colored National League) is created in 1887 but only lasts 13 games. This league has been recognized by organized ball's National Agreement.

In 1887 Walker forms an all-black battery with 34-game winner (still the International League record), George Stovey, on the Newark club. The influx of blacks has not gone on unnoticed. The Sporting News says on June 11, "A new trouble has just arisen in the affairs of certain baseball associations [which] has done more damage to the International League than to any other we know of. We refer to the importation of colored players into the ranks of that body."

On July 14 the Newark club is scheduled to play an exhibition game with the Chicago White Stockings and Cap Anson. Walker, perhaps because of the 1883 incident, is not scheduled to play. George Stovey, however, is scheduled to start even though Walker is his regular catcher. This is when Cap Anson makes his famous utterance, "Get that nigger off the field!" Anson refuses to play unless Stovey is taken out of Newark's lineup. Newark refuses to allow Anson to dictate the use of their personnel. The game is declared a forfeit to Chicago.

On the same day the directors of the IL act to bar teams from signing African-Americans in the future. The confluence of these two events cannot be merely a coincidence. Sol White states that, "All the leagues, during the Winter of 1887 and 1888, drew the color line, or had a clause inserted in their constitutions limiting the number of colored players to be employed by each club."

White also claims that New York Giant captain John Montgomery Ward will try to acquire Stovey from Newark later in 1887 but is barred from doing so when Anson speaks out against integration.

Just why Adrian C. Anson, manager and captain of the Chicago National League Club, was so strongly opposed to colored players on white teams cannot be explained. His repugnant feeling, shown at every opportunity, toward colored ball players, was a source of comment through every league in the country, and his opposition, with his great popularity and power in base ball circles, hastened the exclusion of the black man from the white leagues.

White probably overstates Anson's influence. There are reports that the Newark manager refused to sell Stovey and Walker to the Giants, something that is within the rights of the minor-league clubs of the day. Anson probably becomes a lightning rod for these issues to serve the purpose of more powerful men. Whatever the reason, the Giants never sign Stovey, and major league baseball instead institutes the ironically designated "Gentleman's Agreement" not to sign Asfrican-American players. This apartheid lasts until Jackie Robinson.

Due to the new policies, the number of black players dwindles in 1888 to six in four leagues.

1889 introduces the concept of an all-black team in a white organization, a new answer to the segregation pressures. The great Cuban Giants represent Trenton (NJ) and the New York Gorhams represent Philadelphia (?) in the Middle-States League. There are seven other African-Americans in organized ball. By now, only Fleet Walker is left in the renamed International Association.

This trend of all-black clubs continues until 1898 when Celeron (NY) fields the last such team in white minor-league history, playing in the Iron and Oil (I&0) League. Only two other African-Americans play minor-league ball that year. They will the last two black players to play in white organized ball on American soil until Jackie Robinson debuts for the Dodgers nearly fifty years later.

In 1899, Bill Galloway becomes the last African-American to play in white organized ball appropriately in Canada (for Woodstock, Ont., of the Canadian League) until Jackie Robinson starts to play for the Montrel Royals of the International League in 1946.

Fleet Walker eventually will become the editor of a black paper and in the end an advocate of black migration back to Africa publishing a book called Ourt Home Colony in 1908. Had the owners acted to reverse the on-field decision to forfeit the 1887 game and to abolish the decision of the IL directors to bar blacks in the future, Walker's fate, as well as a good deal other black players', would have been different. The IL was in baseball's National Agreement and the major-league owners help sway in this organization. Their decisive action would have stemmed proliferation of segregationist leagues. The only negative result would have been that Jackie Robinson would have only been a hero to his family and friends instead of to the world.

For over sixty years a group of owners colluded and conspired to prevent black Americans from having an equal, or for that matter any, chance to play in the major leagues. Some found employment elsewhere on their own teams and in their own leagues to varying degrees of success. MLB chose to present an inferior product to their consumers, and individual owners chose to be less competitive than they might have otherwise been. Cap Anson is now demonized as the man who created the Color Line, and deservedly so, but the owners allowed him to do it. Teams changed hands over he course of those sixty years, but no new owners employed blacks, at least not as players.

---

Talkin' Baseball... Negotiations (Say Hey!), Epilogue

Regarding my query on the revenue tax numbers, Eric Naftaly had an answer:

Mike: Not sure whether anyone's gotten back to you on this, but according to one of Baseball Prospectus'
analyses (Derek Zumsteg's next-to-last one, I think), the reason for the discrepancy you mention is that the
first $80 million of revenue sharing goes to an MLB fund to be distributed at the discretion of the
commissioner's office (!), before the even distribution of the rest.

Hey, Bud always said he was a consensus-builder.

What I want to know is whether the racketeering laws apply.

Best,
Eric Naftaly

This would explain part of the discrepancy and also why the players' and owners' base revenue differed-since they have different commissioner slush, er, discretionary fund proposals.

I have updated my table adding the commissioner fund, the new total, and the difference between each total and 2001 revenue total ($835 M). There have been no formalized proposals, at least none that were made public, so there are no new lines to add to the table (Note: all numbers are in millions):

Proposal      Pct  Actual  Act. Pct Result Com. Fund Total Diff
Current ('01) 20%  $167     20%     $835     $0      $835     $0
Owner 1       N/A  $282     33.77%   N/A    $85      N/A       N/A
Player 1      N/A  $235     28.14%   N/A    $70      N/A       N/A
Owner 2       37%  $270     32.34%  $729.73 $85      $814.73 $20.27
Player 2    33.3%  $242.30  29.02%  $726.90 $70      $796.9  $38.1
Owner 3       36%  $263     31.50%  $730.56 $85      $815.56 $19.44

The Owners' numbers are still about $20 million off and the players' almost $40 million. I have checked out Doug Pappas' website and there are no other issues that should affect this. What am I missing? "Check me on this-am I losing my frigging mind?"

---

Con-, er, Retractions

In "What the A's?" I said that the there had only been 3 teams since 1977 to win 15 in a row. I forgot the 1991 Twins and the 2000 Braves. The Twins did indeed win a World Series that year, so that makes 1 out of 4 making it to the World Series instead of the 0-for-2 that I reported. Still that's not so hot an average.

In "One-Two-Three Strikes Yer Out!" I erroneously said that the Yankees had 19 hits the other day, of which 15 were singles and 4 were doubles. Soriano homered in the game. (I swear it was not in the ESPN boxscore when I looked.)

Thanks for the emails.

---

What the A's?

Oakland won it's 15 straight tonight behind Barry Zito. This is only the third time in the last 25 years and the 26th time in the last 100 years that this feat has been accomplished. Of course the other two teams to do it since 1977 (Seattle 2001 and Kansas City 1977) failed to make it to the World Series, so that turnishes it a bit. Oh, well. It is still kind of nifty.

---

On the Clock

Though there are only 40 hours left until the strike, there are a number of favorable signs. Today they finalized (finally) the steroid plan. Bud Selig showed up for his photo op. And both sides are meeting into the night. Let's play two, boys.

In a related story, Murray Chass of the New York Times has appointed himself Bud's press secretary. Witness this ode to the commissioner. I love the picture of Bud signing balls for the wee little fans. It's also nice to hear that Bud is punctual in returning phone calls. Keep in mind that this is The New York Times, all the news that fit to print and all that.

It is amazing that in New York where both Yankee owner George Steinbrenner and former Met owner Nelson Doubleday have openly questioned Selig (Doubleday in court and Steinbrenner threatening to follow suit as it were), Chass can say with no snese of irony, "If there is any owner who does not feel he gets a full hearing from Selig, he has not talked about it publicly." Also the following quote is amusing: "He is a master politician; he'd be at home in the U.S. Senate or the House of Parliament," Larry Lucchino, chief executive of the Boston Red Sox, said. He really impressed Rep. Maxine Waters last December: "Remember, Mr. Selig, you are under oath."

---

Take Two (from the) Red Sox and Call Me in the Morning

It seems that all the Yankees pitching needs is to play the Red Sox and all their woes will all be cured. The Yankees shut out the Red Sox 7-0 tonight. Mike Mussina pitched a 3-hit shutout and won his 16th game. It was Mussina's first shutout of the year, as well as his first complete game. He struck out 9 Bosox, a figure he hadn't matched since May 12. The last time he allowed three or fewer hits was on April 9 (only 2 hits), his second start of the season. He used 103 pitches in disposing of the Sox, his lowest total since May 7 when he has pitched at least 7 innings. It was just the third time that he had gone at least eight innings all year. Mussina also lowered his August ERA to 4.11 (it was 5.54 for the month before the game). It will be the first month since April that he has had an ERA under 5.00.

It's hard to tell if Mussina has turned a corner or if the stars just happened to have aligned for him tonight. Keep in mind that he has had some success against Boston (4-1 this year and 6-5 with a 1.78 ERA from 1999-2001). I'm sure thaough that the Yankees and especially Roger Clemens, who is next in the rotation, are unhappy to be leaving Boston so quickly.

---

New Blog

I just added Travis Nelson's Blog to the links section. Check'm out.

---

Break Up the Phillies (Please)

Never mind that the A's, winners of 14 straight, have springboarded from third to first (by 3 games) in the AL West. The Phillies story is even more remarkable. The Phillies reached .500 yesterday afte winning 6 straight. This is a team that has not been at .500 since April 11 and has been over .500 a total of 1 day (April 10) all year.

They traded their All-Star third baseman during the year. They have labored with a major-league caliber center fielder or first baseman. Three-fifths of their rotation from the start of the year has been recycled. Their one offseason free agent signee, Terry Adams, is now relagated to the bullpen. Much has been made of the Devil Rays opening starter Tanyon Sturtze puny win total. The Phils opening day starter, Robert Person, has only 4 wins on the season (he has been injured often this year, but he has also been ineffective when not injured).

That this team has made it to .500 is a testment to the Peter Principle. Let's look at the lowlights:

- On April 29, the Phillies lose their sixth straight (and 10th of their last 11) to fall to ten games under .500 at 8-18.

- The Phillies go on a seven-game win streak to get within three games of .500 at 16-19 (and then 17-20).

- They then lose 17-3 at Houston on May 15 (a game in which reliever Hector Mercado eventually takes one for the team giving up 8 runs, 7 earned, in two-thirds of an inning) to start a six-game losing streak.

- The Phils end May with an 8-7 loss to Montreal at home (after allowing 5 runs to lead off the night and struggling all night to catch up) and are 11 games under .500, their nadir of the year.

- On July 22, the Phillies travel to Wrigley and extend their win-less streak to five games losing 5-4. It will be the last time (so far) this year that the Phillies are at least 10 games under .500.

- On August 2, the Phils beat the Dodgers at home 3-1 to run their record to 52-56. It is the first time since the May 13 drubbing at the hands of the Astros that they are only 4 games under .500. They then lose two straight.

- The Phillies enter the August 7th game only four games under .500 and proceed to lose 4 straight.

- On August 16 the Phillies win their fifth straight to get to 3 games under .500 for the first time in more than three months. They then lose three straight.

- On Saturday the Phils win 4-0 at St. Louis. They pull within 2 games of .500 for the first time since April 18.

- On Sunday they complete a sweep of the Cards 5-3 an pull within 1 game of .500. This makes the fourteenth day, that's 2 weeks out of almost five months of play, that they Phillies are at one game under .500 or better this season.

- On Tuesday on the strength of a 4-2 win over the Expos the Phillies find the .500 promised land. They are lead by Joe Roa, apitcher who had not pitched in the majors in five years.

Given the streaky history of the Phillies (and the fact that they are already down 4-0 to Montreal tonight), expect a nice fat losing streak from this team. Having lived in both places, I now see the Phils as a cut-rate version of the Red Sox. Neither team seems to let themselves go through a full rebuilding process. Each year the Red Sox play just well enough to think that that one missing piece will put them over the top. The Phils have no illusions of such grandeur: each year they surge towards the end, promote a pitching prospect or two that they are expecting to build from, and then fall apart come the next spring, only to go through the surge again by the end of the next year. (This goes back to Marty Bystrom's 5-0 September, 1980, which won him the Pitcher of the Month award). So every year they are 2-3 years away from competing, at least in their minds.

Comparisons to New York are inevitable for both cities, but at least in the Phillies' case their New York team is anything but a dynasty. Maybe both the Red Sox and the Phillies are guilty of playing second fiddle to while attempting to emulate their New York counterparts. The Red Sox have just had a more successful analogue to follow.

---

Where Have All the 300 Men Gone?

Rob Neyer has a good column on how the death of the four-man rotation may spelled the death of the 300-game winner as well. I do have to admit that I got deja vu all over again when I read it. I thought Neyer covered this ground before.

Anyway, he makes an interesting point that he never really resolves:

How many pitchers whose careers began in the 1950s won 300 games? Zero.

How many pitchers whose careers began in the 1970s won 300 games? Zero.

We might have unreasonable expectations because six pitchers -- Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, and Tom Seaver -- whose careers began in the 1960s topped 300 victories.

But that crop of pitchers represent (to repeat a phrase) the exception rather than the rule. In the long history of baseball, only 19 pitchers have managed to win 300 games in the major leagues. Rather than look at today's big winners and see a shortage, perhaps we should look at them and see a bounteous wealth.

Well, why? I can see that the use of 5-man rotations may have started to effect pitchers who started in the ''70s and 80s. But why none in the Fifties? And why are there six who started in the Sixties? Does the dearth of hitting have anything to do with it.

He points to the Hall-of-Famers debuting in the '60s getting a decision in a slightly higher percentage of their games. To this he adds, "Over the course of a long career, the difference might cost a pitcher ... approximately 10 wins ... but that's not usually going to make the difference between winning 300 games and not winning 300 games." So what does? Neyer points to five-man rotations for the current and future classes and never again addresses the earlier non-300-winner eras.

I am intrigued. I have a feeling that pitcher-friendly eras breed young pitchers who have the ability to win a good number of games over their careers. That would mean that there would be fewer 300-game winners in the heavy hitting Thirties, for example. I do not know if this is true. I envision studying the effect of hitting (batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage) for each era and its effects on the ability for a young pitcher to amass a large number of wins over the span of his career. This may be a fun activity to perform during the strike, like when your mom reserved some activities for rainy days when you were a kid. I'll keep you posted.

---

Air Bud to the Rescue

In a last ditch effort to appear relevant commissioner Bud Selig will fly to New York to join the collective bargaining agreement negotiations. Never mind that MLB's offices are in New York to begin with and today is a work day. Bud, in a move that emulates George W. Bush's proclivity for vacationing, has been spending his time away from the fray in his ancestural home in scenic Milwaukee.

Apparently, Bud smells blood, and he now wants to get his puss on TV signing the agreement with a pen wrestled from Rob Manfred, the owners' chief negotiator, who will be rewarded with milk and cookies in a back office somewhere. Or maybe Bud actually sees himself as a letter-day Kennesaw Mountain Landis, above the game, trying to avert catastrophe, as opposed to just the owners' figurehead. Given that the players know otherwise, don't expect much from Air Bud.

ESPN meanwhile in its continuing effort to be as impartial as their pocketbook allows (they're owned by Angels owner Disney), is running a headline on its baseball page that reads "Bud to the Rescue?" above a picture of Bud with his hand over his heart standing solemnly erect for the national anthem. I guess the one with him eating apple pie and driving a Chevy was not available.

---

Save a Little, Save a Lot

In a text book explanation of why the save statistic is practically meaningless, not to mention the pursuit of the save record, tonight John Smoltz practically stole defeat from the jaws of victory (with pointy pointy teeth). In the process he earned his 46th save and is just 11 behind the all-time record.

Smoltz entered the game in the bottom of ninth with two men on, no outs, and his Braves leading 5-1. Set-up man Kerry Ligtenberg had done just that. He had set the table for Smoltz to walk right into a save opportunity. Witha 4-run lead and 2 men on, Smoltz was guaranteed the save (add the men on base, the batter, and the on-deck batter and if that number exceeds or matches the lead you've got yourself a save. But you do have to finish the game, and Smoltz did his darnedest not to. He gave up a double (scoring two), an RBI grounder, and a walk. He then had a man on first and third with one out and a two-run lead. He got Pokey Reese to strike out after running a 3-0 count. Abraham Nunez then singled, scoring Kevin Young and moving Hyzdou from first to third. So with men at first and third, a one-run lead, and two out, Smoltz got Jason Kendall to hit a weak fly to right on the first pitched offered to end the game. Smoltz's line doesn't even look that bad: 1 inning pitched, 2 hits, 1 run (earned), 1 walk and 1 strikeout. 13 of his 24 pitches were for strikes. His ERA only goes up seven points. And he gets the save. Funny how I haven't heard his name mentioned when the NL MVP is discussed lately. I wonder why that is?

Along the same lines, I just read that the Indians are converting soon-to-be 25-year-old Danys Baez (a man who refers to himself in the first person plural) into a closer. He did pitch much better last year as a reliever (more strikeouts, lower ERA) than this year as a starter, but...A) Baez has been the Indians' best starter (sadly) since Bartolo Colon and Chuck Finley were traded. B) Cleveland's rotation now consists of second-year man C.C. Sabathia (the last man left from the April rotation), three rookies with 20 games (and two wins as starters) among them, and a scrub to be named later when the rosters get expanded. That's a starting rotation with 27 career wins as starters, barely more than 5 per man. C) How valuable will Baez be as a closer as opposed to a starter, even if he is a very good reliever and just an average starter? Who knows maybe he will be breaking John Smoltz's all-time save record next year. Of course, that would mean that their rotation will have to win at least 57 games for him to do it. I wish him luck.

---

Rivas' Boner and Other Small Matters

The Twins beat the Mariners 5-2 tonight dropping Seattle to 3.5 games behind surging (though boner-less) Oakland. Joe Mays was the winner, improving to 3-5. That's not all: Mays caught a ball deflected off the speaker in the Contraction Dome for an out. He must have read the ground rules before the game.

Also, in the third Luis Rivas got caught trying to stretch a double to center into a triple. You see, he forgot, or at least failed to recognize, that third was already occupied by A.J. Pierzynski, who had been held there. Rivas then held a multi-dimensional sprint back to the second-base bag with Bret Boone who had retrieved the ball from center. Rivas lost.

Along the boner line, Derek Jeter was doubled at second in a bizarre play in the Yankees 6-0 win over suddenly listless-again Boston. With Jeter at second and Giambi at first, Bernie Williams hit a shallow fly to right that Manny Ramirez couldn't hold on to. Jeter evidently never saw the ball lying on the ground nor did he see the charging Giambi. He stayed at second and was tagged out without an attempt to display any sentience whatsoever on his part. Of course, this in no way detracts from his remarkable heads-up relay throw home in the playoffs last year nor from the spectacular plays that he made at short tonight at least in the minds of the Yankees commentators, men who would be debating one inning later the merits, or rather the lack thereof, of pitch counts. They forgot the year was 2002. On one of Jeter's "spectacular" plays, it appeared that his ankle had been shackled to the ground prior to the play, and the spectacular-ness consisted in diving after doing nothing whatsoever to get in position to make the play. Again the impartial Yankee commentators loved it. They also tell David Wells that he's not fat when they stay up nights discussing who likes who and do each others' hair.

There was one spectacular play by, of all people, David Wells (you see, no real physical movement was involved). With Manny Ramirez at third and Shea Hillenbrand at first in the bottom of the second in a 0-0 game, Carlos Baerga hit a high chopper to the pitcher. The ball was chopped so hard that Wells just about set for a fly ball. He caught it and throw home in one motion, like a tip drill, getting Ramirez by a step.

I am required by law to end this bit with the words, "Well, how about that?"

---

Identity Crisis in Baseball's Labor Dispute

The New York Times has an analysis of the labor negotiations that explains that the roles of the owners and the union have been reversed.

Making a demand that would be anathema to most labor unions, the Major League Baseball Players Association wants to let salaries rise and fall as market forces dictate.
And in a demand that flies in the face of notions of free enterprise, the club owners are pushing a proposal that smacks of socialism. They want to soak the richest owners and redistribute income to poorer teams to level off team payrolls.

Andrew Zimbalist, author of Baseball and Billionaires, explains in the article that "What we're seeing here is pragmatism more than ideology."

The basic premise, that the players "to let salaries rise and fall as market forces dictate," is flawed, however. The players want nothing of the sort. They want to let certain salaries rise and fall with the salary market. Those certain salaries are of arbitration-eligible players and of free-agency-eligible players whose contracts are expiring. Free agency controls the supply of players upon which teams may bid, driving up the demand. Arbitration uses, in part, the salaries set by free agency to drive up salaries for players who are not yet eligible for free agency. This is essential to the goal of free agency for the union.

The players do not want a totally free market, one in which all of the players are free agents at the end of each year. This would cause a glut in the market and lessen the supply, suppressing salaries. Marvin Miller in his epiphanic baseball autobiography, A Whole Different Ballgame explains why. Note that this after the arbitration decision to make Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally the first true free agents (that is by letting their contract expire-Catfish Hunter had became a free agent earlier because of the A's owner Charlie O. Finley not fulfilling the terms of his contract) and the owners locked out the players in protest:

By flexing their muscles with a lockout, the owners hoped to negate the impact of the Messersmith decision, which meant that no players would become free agents, whether they had signed 1976 contracts or not. Throughout the winter, we had advised players wanting to become free agents not to sign. By the time spring training was scheduled to start, almost 350 players had followed Messersmith's lead. This led to two sets of nightmares: the owners' and mine. The owners', for obvious reasons-a potential "loss" of so many valuable players. To me, a large supply of free agents each year would defeat one of the purposes of free agency, namely, the bidding up of salaries. Luckily, Oakland's owner, Charlie Finley-who generally was ignored-seemed to be the only one smart enough to recognize that opening the floodgates by making all players free agents would work to the owners advantage (by holding salaries down); the rest screamed bloody murder: "This SOB, Miller, said there'd only be a handful of free agents. Now I'm going to lose my entire infield, outfield, and pitching staff!" Instead of negotiating realistically, management insisted that a player be required to have ten years (nine years plus option year) of major league service (something few players achieved) in order to become a free agent and then hedged that with a provision that the player still could be held by his club if it offered him at least $30,000 a year.

The Times article failed to mention that supply and demand is an even more important salary determiner than having (semi-)free enterprise. Altering the effect of supply and demand is the pragmatism to which Zimbalist refers.

Owners want the luxury tax and revenue sharing plan to retard salary growth by lessening their fellow owners' demand. Players want to ensure that there is enough demand so that salaries continue to keep pace with revenues. This is a new approach in that the owners have always considered altering the supply side by setting the criteria high enough (service time usually) that only a handful of upper-echelon players would be affected. The players have always wanted to lower those criteria so that there would be large enough supply of players to drive up salaries through arbitration while still adhering to favorable supply-and-demand principles. Free Agency cannot fully achieve the union's goals without arbitration.

Though this is a new collective bargaining approach, it is basically a continuation of the reserve clause that was in effect for the first hundred years of organized ball and of collusion, which the owners tried in the mid-1980s and paid for dearly in the courts. The thinking being that if your lessen the demand that all of the owners have for certain players, then salaries in general will be less or will grow less rapidly. This is a revolutionary approach in that the owners are bargaining with the players so that they become compictious participants in the process for the first time.

---

Pure Prattle

I read the Philadelphia Inquirer's sport section yesterday-I had to since it was the only reading material in the men's room at work-and instead of being greeted with news of the Phillies sweeping the Cards, what did I see on the front page? The headline on the front page was "Phils' Pratt No Supporter of Union Hardliners."

The tone of the article was a bit less propagandistic than the headline (it had to be), but basically some blue-skying by a journeyman role player was really being oversold. Pratt did say:

I'm just sick to my stomach about this. I relate more to the people in the stands than to either side. I can't believe that both sides can't figure this thing out. It's a joke.

But then he did admit that he would stand by the union.

The article then takes great pains to plumb Pratt's spleen regarding the last strike. Pratt had just established himself as a backup to Darren Daulton in his first tour with the Phillies. Pratt says:

The only thing I remember is losing money for nothing...The thing about the last strike is that it was the players like me who got hurt. The union told us that the salaries would be spread out among everybody, but they weren't. I'll stick by the union if we walk, but sometimes I don't feel like the union sticks by players like me.

Ballplayers may be excused for their ignorance in these matters. For men who know too little about Honus Wagner and Tris Speaker, how can one expect them to be well-informed about Marvin Miller? As the article points out Pratt makes $650 K, his career high. He has made an average of $344 K in 8 major-league seasons from age 26 to 34. The article call this "[r]elatively speaking...a modest living." Modest as compared to what? This is a phenomonal sum for someone this age to make especially as a backup player who has never played more than 80 games in a season. Before Marvin Miller the minimum salary was $6000. That, or slightly more, is what Pratt would be making if he played 30 years ago. If he didn't like what his team paid, he could find a different line of work since he was tied as a ballplayer to that team for as long as the team desired. Those are but a few of the benefits that Mr. Pratt has enjoyed as a ballplayer in the late 20th and early 21st centuries because of the union.

The article then points to "Gavin Floyd, their [the Phillies'] first-round draft pick last year, [whom they paid] $4.2 million just to get him to report to the Florida Instructional League." They say this is to help "understand Pratt's discontent with the union." How is this the union's fault? The player is not even in the union until he reaches the majors. A team could pay a minor-leaguer minimum wage or a $4.2 million a year, and the union has no say in the matter. That the Phillies paid this player with no professional background and no union to help him this much money tells you that the majors are still monetarily sound.

Such a misleading a factually-flawed article made me wonder who owned the Inquirer and what was their agenda. It turns out that the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philly.com, its web enabler, are owned by Knight-Ridder, the number 3 newspaper chain in the country. Unlike the top two newspaper chains, Gannett (Reds) and the Tribune Company (Cubs), Knight-Ridder does not own a major-league team. It does, however, have a division (Knight-Ridder Digital) that has a joint initiative with the Seattle Mariners and Arizona Diamondbacks to sell tickets on their web sites via a third party called LiquidSeats.

It must be nice for MLB to have the two largest newspaper chains in the country in their back pockets and to have a deal with the third. Well, and then there's ESPN, Baseball Weekly, CNN, and Fox Sports. I'm sure that they are all working hard to bring us a fair and balanced picture of the labor talks. Just like they did in this case.

---

Bonds Market

Barry Bonds is leading the NL in batting average by one point over Larry Walker. If he wins the title, he would be the oldest first-time batting champ at 38. ESPN quotes Bonds as saying, "I want to win that batting title." And after witnessing the drive he had to become a 40-40 man not metion his immense talent, I would not put it past him.

But in his 16 seasons, he has only finished in the top 10 three times. His highest appearance was at number 4 in 1993. His .336 average was only 34 points behind the NL champ, Andres Galarraga (.370). As a matter of fact, of the 23 statiscal categories that Baseball Reference lists for Bonds, he only appears on yearly leaders fewer times for hits (once), at bats (never), strikeouts (once), and hit by a pitch (zero).

---

One-Two-Three Strikes Yer Out!

The Yankes beat the Rangers yesterday 10-3 while collecting 19 hits, of which 15 were singles and the rest doubles, an oddity in itself for the AL leader in home runs. But the oddest moment of all was when starter El Duque Hernandez threw not one but two eephus pitches-in a row-to Alex Rodriguez, the major-league leader in home runs. The first was a ball. The second landed in the left-field seats. It came in at 53 miles per hour and probably went out a little faster.

I have never understood the eephus pitch. The idea is that the pitch is so slow that it throws off the hitter's rhythm. But a major-league hitter should be well-equiped enough to spot the ball and make the necessary adjustments.

Pittsburgh Pirate Rip Sewell is well remembered for inventing, if you can call it that, the pitch. He had a good career with 143 wins against 97 losses, winning 20 games twice, and appearing in 4 All-Star games. He is probably best known for giving up a home run to Ted Williams (his second of the game) in the 1946 All-Star in Fenway Park with the eephus pitch. The legend of that pitch has grown as tidbits like Williams asking for the pitch, Sewell announcing the pitch on the toss that resulted in the homer, and Williams moving up a few feet to greet the ball.

Bugs Bunny established the major-league record while striking out three Gas House Gorillas with one slow pitch. He, of course, was pitching as well as playing all nine defensive positions.

The last appearance of the eephus that I know of was Dave LaRoche's LaLob, which he developed towards the tail end of his career. In the early '80s ('81, I think) with the Yankees, LaRoche struck out Gorman Thomas on an eephus after Thomas had tried to bunt the pitch earlier in the at-bat.

---

Lidle Worship

Corey Lidle's consecutive scoreless innings streak is dead-long live the streak!-but more importantly the A's extended their winning streak to 13 and are now 2.5 games in front in the AL West. The run was unearned and he remains a perfect 5-0 with a 0.00 ERA for August. Opponents batted .147 against him in August. His average game score is 75.2. His WHIP (walks plus hits per innings pitched) is .684. His strikeout-to-walk ratio is nearly 3.3. His ERA is now under 4.00 for the first time since April 26.

Even before the streak he was pitching well. Since the All-Star break he is 6-2 with a 1-85 ERA. He also was a quiet 13-6 with a 3.59 ERA last year.

Could Lidle have emerged as a quality starter after three years in the majors and seven organizations? Maybe. It kind of reminds me of another Oakland pitcher who established himself as a star at the age of 30 after playing seven major-league seasons with four organizations and a total win-loss record of 39-40. This man then won 20 games four years straight. You probably guess that this is Dave Stewart. I don't know if Lidle will be the next Stewart, but his career turnaround is remarkable.

---

Big Night in Beantown

The Red Sox beat the Angels 10-9 in 10 innings after scoring 4 in the bottom of the ninth to tie it. The Red Sox are now 2.5 behind the Angels and 3 behind Seattle in the wild card. The Angels fell 3 behind the A's in the AL West.

The Red Sox won on a Johnny Damon's lead-off home run in the tenth off Scot Shields. The count was 2-2 but Damon had fouled off four pitches after getting behind 1-2. The home run landed in a section of Fenway that juts out towards the field right down the rightfield line. Had it been 10 feet farther into fair territory, it may have been caught.

The Red Sox ninth was equally improbable. The Angels leading 9-5 had set-up man Al Levine in the game and closer Troy Percival ready to go if necessary. Over the last two years the Angels had been 129-1 when leading after 8. Levine had finished off the last two-thirds of the eighth only relinquishing a single and throwing seven pitches to 3 batters. Two of his next four picthes were stroked to left for singles by Manny Ramirez and Cliff Floyd. Percival relieved Levine and gave up a single to Shea Hillenbrand, loading the bases. Percival got Tony Clark to foul off two pitches and then proceeded to walk him with 4 straight balls, scoring Ramirez. Percival then got Varitek to strike out on four pitches. Trot Nixon then lifted a fly ball to right plating Floyd. Hillenbrand also moved up to third. Rickey Henderson, who was running for Clark, stole second and then scored along with Hillenbrand on Rey Sanchez's single that ended the inning when he tried to stretch it to two. This was Percival's worst outing since April 21 to Oakland in which he gave up a 3-run home run to Greg Myers with none out in the ninth of a 6-5 loss (the one in the aforementioned 129-1).

Manny Ramirez was 5-for-5 with two home runs. Johnny Damon was 3-for-6 and Hillenbrand and Sanchez were both 3-for-5. But not all was well in Beantown and I'm talking out more than the wait for the Green Line after the game. Bobby Howry saw his ERA rise 50 points after allowing 4 runs in an inning. Starter John Burkett gave up 11 hits and 4 runs (3 earned) in five and two-thirds innings. Since the All-Star game which Burkett claimed he would not seek nomination to nor if selected would he serve in, he is 3-3 and has raised his ERA nearly a point. With Casey Fossum who gives up a buckets of hits and runs, mostly unearned, when he pitches (33 hits and 17 runs, 7 unearned, in 28.2 innings as a starter).With Marinez and Lowe being stellar all year and the recently re-inserted Wakefield doing alright, their rotation seems to still be evolving. Frank Castillo, Dustin Hermanson (apparently), and injured Fernando Arroyo are all now in the bullpen. For all of the talk the Sox are alive and well, they are still only 11-12 for the month and 4-3 in the current homestand. I guess we will see in which direction they are really pointed when the Yankees come to town tonight with Fossum facing David Wells.

---

How Much for a Morgan Bulkeley Card?

Jim Caple has an interesting article today on the Veterans' Committee's inclusion of George W. Bush, the former owner of the Texas Rangers for 9 years, on their preliminary ballot of 60 non-players. Of those 60 only 15 go on the final ballot, so chances are against Bush. For the record the Rangers were 795-759 for a .512 winning percentage, with 2 division titles (and the division lead in '94 despite being 10 games under .500). He also helped orchestrate the building of the new stadium in Arlington. This is basically the golden age of Ranger baseball (their only other division title came in '99, the year after the Bush era). Obviously Bush is not much of a Hall of Famer.

Bush would, however, be the perfect way for the newly configured Vets' Committee to start off on the wrong foot just like every other such committee that's been set up since day one. He would also bookend nicely with the first such appointment, the man who is the most glaring example of veterans' committee blunders of all time. That man is Morgan Bulkeley, the first president of the National League in 1876. He was selected by the Committee on Baseball Veterans in 1937, that is, the second induction class. He was the owner of a long-forgotten team, the Hartford Dark Blues, from 1874-77 (i.e., in the National Association from 1874-75 and then the NL 1876-77). The team never finished any higher than third. Bulkeley, the Hall's site points out, "was elected unanimously as its first president. In the league's initial season, Bulkeley enhanced Baseball's image by reducing gambling and drinking...From 1889 to 1893, he was governor of Connecticut and then a United States senator. "

What it doesn't say is that the league presidency was set up as an honor that would be bestowed upon each owner in succession. The man who held the real power was Chicago White Stockings (now Cubs) owner William Hulbert. Hulbert was a totalitarian dictator, who ruled with an iron fist. When the teams representing the two most populous cities in the league (New York and Philadelphia) refused to complete a road trip out West, Hulbert dropped them from the league. Hulbert became league president in 1877 once he realized that the roud-robin election system was a farce. Hulbert was not enshrined at Cooperstown until 1995 though he was the man most responsible for making organized, professional baseball a successful venture. That shows you how much research went into the Vets' Committees original selections.

George Bush's plaque along with the 2003 class resting on the wall facing the 1936 and '37 classes would be the perfect statement that this new Vets' Committee could make. It wouldn't hurt if Joe Morgan could get a few old vets to vote in his buddy Dave Concepcion, too. All the while Ron Santo, Gary Carter, Dwight Evans, Bobby Grich, and dozens more-worthy players are left in the cold.

---

Talkin' Baseball... Negotiations (Say Hey!)

Over the weekend first the players and then the owners proffered counter proposals in the collective bargaining agreement negotiations. The owners termed the players' proposal "regressive bargaining". The players said the owners proposal still looked "very much like a salary cap." And the wheel goes on.

As the players and the owners play their game of poker hoping that the other will fold while chipping in $7 million revenue money a pop into the pot, three days and change remain in the negotiations. The luxury tax proposals did seem to be getting much closer but rather are becoming more and more multivariegated-percentages rise with each offense or thresholds change over time. I guess we should be happy that they are still at the table.

I am left, however, trying to reconcile their numbers. Even Doug Pappas' peerless baseball business website cannot help. The luxury tax numbers are almost always referred to by percentages and thresholds that are set independent of the team salaries. However, the reportage of the revenue sharing funds reveals numbers that just don't add up.

Here is what I mean: Using the ESPN article today and Doug Pappas' current negotiation status page as sources, in 2001 revenue sharing stood at 20% which translates into $167 million. That would mean that local revenues in total would be $835 million (if 20% of X is $167 M, then X = $167M /.2 = $835 M).

The latest proposals are 36% from the owners ($263 based on 2001 revenues) and a phased-in 33.3% from the players ($242.3 million based on 2001). The only thing is that the actual percentages don't match those numbers. Here are the numbers for each proposal, percentage and its impact based on 2001, plus the actual percentage based on 2001 total revenue ($835 million) and the resultant total revenue if the provided percentage were multiplied by the actual 2001 revenue:

 Proposal      Pct   Actual Act. Pct Resultant Revenue 
Current ('01) 20%   $167M   20%       $835 
Owner 1       N/A   $282M   33.77%    N/A
Player 1      N/A   $235M   28.14%    N/A
Owner 2       37%   $270M   32.34%   $729.73M 
Player 2      33.3% $242.3M 29.02%   $726.9M 
Owner 3       36%   $263M   31.50%   $730.56M 

The reported percentages are based on numbers that are at least $100 million less than 2001. Also, the percentages reported are off by almost $4 between the owners and the players. Maybe this can be accounted for in the rounding with such large sums. But the $100 million difference is still there. I hope there is just something that I'm missing in this, and they don't reach an agreement with the wrong numbers. I would hope that with nine-figure dollar amounts being thrown around somebody at the talks has invested in a good ten-dollar calculator.

---

Bonds Hits Ruthian non-HR

Barry Bonds hit two doubles yesterday for the Giants, but one of those doubles appeared, at least from the SportsCenter replay, to have cleared the fence and to have been a home run.

In the third inning with two outs and none on base, Bonds hit an 0-1 pitch to left-center that appeared to bounce off the top of the fence and back into the area of play. Bonds got to second on the hit. However, with shades of Jeffrey Maier, the replay seemed to show that a fan in attempting to catch the ball deflected it towards its new path. In the Maier-Tony Tarasco fiasco (I'm a poet...), there were at least umpires in the outfield to attempt to get the right call on the play (though they clearly did not). That was the playoffs in which additional umpires are employed. During the regular season it's left to the regular umpiring crew to make the call from over 200 feet away. Whether or not Bonds was robbed, it seemed an odd occurrence on the weekend in which the four living players with the most home runs (Aaron, Mays, Bonds, and Expos manager Frank Robinson, the Giants opponent) were celebrated.

If and when Bonds passes Babe Ruth at 714 home runs at least they could both say they were equally robbed. On July 8, 1918, in the bottom of the ninth, Ruth hit a ball over the wall at Fenway with Amos Strunk on first and Ruth's Red Sox and the Indians locked in a 0-0 tie. It was a 2-run walk-off home for Ruth, right? Wrong, the existing rules dictated that Ruth be credited with a triple since three bases were all that were required to score the winning run. Since the game was over once Strunk crossed home, how could Ruth be credited with a home run? At least that was the thinking at the time. The rule was changed two years later so that on balls that leave the area of play (home runs and ground-rule doubles), the hitter gets credit for the hit in full. Of course, the rule still applies for balls that stay in play: If a player hits a gapper with the bases loaded and the score tied in the bottom of the ninth, he only gets credited with a single and one RBI, once the run scores.

On April 26th, 1969, the Baseball Records Committee attempted to credit Babe Ruth and the rest of the players affected by the ruling with their home runs, but its recommendation fell on deaf ears. There would be some problems with doing so, 1) what about opening up the record book for every other rule change that affected old records and 2) technically Ruth and the others never crossed home plate to score the runs with which they would be credited, thereby denying the opposition the opportunity to appeal their touching the re-credited bases and home itself.

Think that Hank Aaron's 715th home run trot, perhaps the best remembered baseball moment of all time, could have been to tie not surpass Ruth's record.

So the next time you watch another walk-off home run that wins a game by more than a run, remember that 90 years ago it would have been anything but a home run. Just don't tell Bud Selig. It might be the next thing that he considers to install in the best interest of the game so that he can drive away more fans.

---

Mabry, R.F.D (Really F'ing Dangerous)

The streaking A's rallied for seven runs in the last two innings to beat the Tigers, 10-7. The win maintains their 2-game lead on Seattle and Anaheim (who rallied for 5 in the ninth to beat Derek Lowe and the Red Sox, 8-3) and extended their winning steark to 12 games. Eric Chavez had a big game going 3-for-5 and 3 RBI and Jermaine Dye was 2-for-4 with 2 RBI and 3 runes scored. The biggest hero of the night may have been John Mabry, who pinch-hit for Mark Ellis with men at second and third with one out and the A'd trailing 7-6. He doubled to right-center scoring both runners and putting the A's ahead to stay.

Mabry was acquired by the A's from the Phillies in the Jeremy Giambi trade as part of the A's mass purge May 22. He was seen as a journeyman throw-in the deal by most (he's 31 and plays first, left, and right, and used to be a third baseman and probably could be enlisted as one in a pinch), but has proven a key player in the A's resurgence. Since the trade:

- His batting average is nearly 40 points higher than his career average (.313 to .274). In fact his next highest average was .307 (the only time he hit .300 for a season) in 1995, his rookie year, with the Cards.

- His on-base average is 20+ points above his career average (.348 to .326). The last time his OBP was this high was 1997 (.352).

- His slugging average is 164 points above his career average (.571 to .407). His pervious slugging high was .431 in 1996 and his slugging average had declined steadily since 1999 from .401 to .286 in his almost two months with Philly this year. In fact, in Oakland he has nearly doubled his slugging average from before the strike.

- His OPS would rank eighth in the AL if he qualified, before Nomar Garciaparra, teammates Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada, MVP hopefuls Alfonso Soriano and Torii Hunter, and last year's MVP Ichiro Suzuki, to name a few.

Here are his totals for Oakland this year with a projection out to 162 games:

Season    TM    G   AB  R   H  2B 3B HR  RBI   BB   SO SB CS   AVG  OBP  SLG  OPS
2002      Oak  65  147 20  46  12  1  8   33    8   26  1  1  .313 .348 .571 .919
162 games Oak 162  366 50 115  30  2 20   82   20   65  2  2  .313 .348 .571 .919

First you'll notice that even projected out to 162 games his at bat totals are still low, indicating that he has only been a semi-regular since the trade (he pinch-hits & fills in late in games). But his totals still pretty impressive for a player from which not much was expected. The 20 HRs would top his major-league high of 13 in 1997 and his professional high of 16 in 1993 (for the Arkansas Travelers of the Texas League). His 80 RBI would top his career professional high of 74 in 1997.

Repeat after me: "Destiny. Destiny. No escaping as for me." Everything is firing right for this team even when they make a seemingly lopsided trade like the Mabry-Giambi one.

---

Yester-Joe-Morgan-Chat-Day All My Troubles Seemed So Far Away

We (and yet another reference to myself in the first person plural) here at Mike's Baseball Rants would like to say that we almost declared a one-week moratorium on Joe Morgan Chat Day because of Joe's excellent article on ESPN today entitled, "Why Strike?" Joe hits just about everything in the article out of the park.

Well, we almost suspended but finally we come-as always-to praise Morgan and Joe Morgan Chat Day not to bury him, er, them. Joe Morgan is to baseball analysts what Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness is to literature. He'll say things like, "I am the self which I will be, in the mode of not being it." Some people will sit there agape, some will coo approval, and some will scratch their heads and, "That makes no sense whatsoever, but it's kind of cool." If you count yourself among this last group, welcome, brother, to the world of Joe Morgan Chat Day (with the added bonus of Joe Morgan Article Day):

The Sublime

Joe Morgan: In 1972, the owners wanted a salary cap, and the players said no. Discussion of a cap was always a deal breaker. When I first came to the big leagues, former MLBPA executive director Marvin Miller always preached that the players did not want a salary cap.

As I've said in the past, to make it happen, the words "salary cap" had to be changed for something to get done. So now "salary cap" has been changed to "luxury tax" because a luxury tax is sort of a salary cap. At least that's what it is meant to be. And the players have agreed to it.

By allowing for a luxury tax and for revenue sharing, players are basically agreeing with the owners that the monetary system needs to change. The players are happy with the status quo, but they realize the status quo may not be good for the game. So they have made concessions on things they fought to gain in the past...

[Mike: Right, Joe. To all those misinformed columnists who claim that Donald Fehr is still trying to emulate Marvin Miller when the world of baseball has changed so dramatically, why is Fehr accepting a salary cap in the form of a luxury tax when Miller never would?]

Joe Morgan: [T]he players... Their slogan could be, "We are not asking for anything." They just want to be treated fairly and to not give up on too much of what they gained from past negotiations...Therefore, it is unfair to blame the players.

[Mike: Still think the players won't compromise?]

Joe Morgan: First, however, the owners need to stop blaming George Steinbrenner for their problems... He has played within the system, one the owners created, which is indicative of where the problems really lie.

[Mike: Take it to the streets, Joe]

Joe Morgan: The players are the game. Without the players, there is no game.

[Mike: You're preaching to the choir, man. Who ever went to a ballgame to see John Moores or Tom Hicks?]

Ben (Boston): Hi Joe. You mention in your most recent piece about the strike that the players are not to be blamed, that they just want to keep what they allready have. My question is how can the players justify making amazing salaries when the rest of the country is cutting way back? Many have lost their entire savings to Enron or Worldcomm, taken pay cuts and even lost jobs. It seems that the ball players of today do not want to have to make the sacrifices that many amaericans have allready had to make due to the economy. I believe, and I could be wrong, that the majority of pro ball players could never make another penny and live out their life in a very lavish style. I certainly dont think it is too much to ask for them to slow down the rapid growth of salaries. I do think the owners also have a responsibilty in this too and hopefully, if they get what they want they can pass off their savings to the fans. I havnt been to a game at Fenway in three years and dont plan on ever going again due to the price of tickets. thanks for your time.

Joe Morgan: First of all, I didn't say the players weren't to blame. I said the players have given a lot. Comparing a ballplayer to an average player is not fair. An average player can work 30 years; a ballplayer's average life span is five years. It's apples and oranges. You can't even compare players to movie stars, who can work longer. I understand, though, your feeling in that they make more than the average fan. In '94, I said both were to blame. If they strike again, both will be to blame again. But the players have given a lot in terms of agreeing to a luxury tax, which is like a salary cap. Unlike what people believe, there are a lot of people who work a long time and make a lot more than ballplayers do in a lifetime. Not every player like Bonds, A-Rod and other players. And as far as Enron and all that, that has nothing to do with baseball.

[Mike: You're on a roll, Joe]

Bob (Woodstock): What does a short career span have to do with anything? Players make so much money they don't need to play forever. Why not compare ball players to the average Joe? Are they that much better than us?

Joe Morgan: If you have a special skill in this country, you are paid for that skill. Whatever it is. Doctors, lawyers -- they are paid more than the average Joe too. Baseball players have a special skill too, but not all make $8 million a year. A lot make the minimum or a little more. You only read about the guys who make a lot of money. In this country, we reward people who have special skills. Will you compare yourself to Tom Hanks or Steven Spielberg? Should they be compared to the average Joes as well?

Joe Morgan: Entertainers are paid differently than anyone else in this country. They are paid more than school teachers, which I don't agree with, but it's a fact of life. Baseball players are paid more than I make, and I agree with that. They are paid more than the average person who works 9-to-5, and I agree with that too.

[Mike: Right, it's entertainment but it's also a business. If you don't like it, enjoy some other form of entertainment.]

Bryan (Kentucky): A lot of these people seem to be trying to criticize you and discredit you Joe. But what it seems that they don't realize is that not just anyone can play professional baseball. I am now into the college level of baseball as a pitcher and I see guys trying out for the team who have never played before. Why do so many people take basbeall for granted? Is it because it is so accesible to the public to see? When will they realize that regognizing a fastball that is going 90 miles an hour and THEN trying to hit it is the hardest thing to do in sports physically?

Joe Morgan: Finally, a sane voice in the wilderness. People think baseball is just a game because they tried to play it at one time. It takes a special skill to be a professional athlete. One more time: Baseball players make a lot more than I do, but I'm not mad at them. I don't have the skill to do it anymore.

Joe Morgan: I love what I do, and I'm not complaining because I can't do what someone else does.

[Mike: Joe, we feel your pain.]

John (Hamden, CT): With one week untill the strike, who will be the first party to budge, the Union or the owners?

Joe Morgan: I can't answer because I'm not in the meetings. I think the players have given a lot in admitting the need for a luxury tax, and I think the owners realize that both parties lose if there is a strike. I don't think of it as blinking; I think of it as being more concerned about baseball than their own personal agendas.

[Mike: Right, it's not a game of chicken. It's a negotiation process. I think you're going to make this week, Joe.]

Joe (Peoria): Pardon my ignorance, but if the players have played this long without an agreement, why can't they wait to strike until November and have all off season to work it out?

Joe Morgan: The players reasoning is if they wait until the season is over, the owners can implement their own rules without a contract. The only way the players have power is to strike now, which causes the owners to lose something. If they wait until the end of the season, the owners wouldn't lose anything and wouldn't be obligated to make a deal. The players feel a strike is the only weapon they have in the dispute, to cost the owners money down the stretch.

[Mike: Geez, Joe from Peoria, read the papers one time in maybe the last year before you join the venerable Joe Morgan Chat Day session. Oh, no. I feel that that bit of negativity may have jinxed Joe's roll, like when Linus said, "If the great Pumpkin arrives" and not "when" and the Great Pumpkin didn't arrive. Come on, Joe. You can do it.]

Stack (NYC): Earth to Joe - Baseball IS just a game!!!

Joe Morgan: OK.

[Mike: Uh, what was that? Was that a question? This can't be good. Oh, no!]

The Ridiculous

Andy (DC) : Joe, do you remember a better race than this years AL West? Who do you think has the best offense out of the three? We all know Oakland's pitching is superior.

Joe Morgan: That's a good question. Neither Seattle's nor Anaheim's offenses are as consistent as last year. If Glaus and Salmon hit like they are capable, the Angels would have more power. Both teams have been inconsistent offensively. The A's offense is inconsistent as well, although they are starting to use more speed at the top with Durham and Ellis. But they don't have a lot of power, other than Chavez and Tejada. It's a great race at this point. There are still a lot of games left. I expect one team to get hot and get up by a few games. I don't know which team it will be. It could be Oakland with its pitching, but Anaheim and Seattle are good teams and will hang in there.

[Mike: Psst. Joe, you didn't answer the question. Besides, Salmon is ninth in the AL in OPS, above MVP favorite Alfonso Soriano. He's really have a great year. Besides the Angels are 8th in OPS and 2nd to last in HRs in the AL because the have a first baseman with 8 HRs, The four position players up the middle (Erstad, Kennedy, Eckstein, and Molina) have not provided much offense (they have 30 HRs among them). But the team is stil first in batting average, for what that's worth. Oh, and the A's are 4th in the AL in home runs, 1 behind the White Sox for third, and they are actually last in the AL by ridiculous comfortable margin in stolen bases. The Mariners are fourth in the AL in batting average and OPS and second in on-base. Also, the three teams are 1 (Oakland, 3 (Anaheim), and 4 (Seattle) in ERA in the AL. It's debatable which is best. But that's Ok, Joe, get back up on that horse. No, that's just a figure of speech, Joe.]

Utek (LA): Certain players have been known for their intensity on the field---Guys like Pete Rose, Jackie Robinson and Ty Cobb. Is there a player today who brings that same burning intensity to win each and every inning?

Joe Morgan: There are a lot of players like that today. A lot of players who played with those three guys played that way. Those three were more outgoing on the field than other players may have appeared. Bob Gibson probably had more intensity on the mound than anyone I know. You are looking at their personality more than their intensity on the field.

[Mike: Psst. Joe, you forgot to answer the question again. Besides, Cobb was probably the most hated man in baseball. The only way in which he was outgoing was when he was going out into the stands to beat up on heckling fans. Bob Gibon is not playing today, but that's OK. If at first yuddah yuddah.]

Jay (Oneonta, NY): I want to comend you on taking the time to answer some very tough questions. I thought your article on nothing to strike for was insightful. If there is not a settlement by Friday can the players overrule Fehr and extend the deadline, or are they committed to August 30?

Joe Morgan: Very good question. They can always overrule Fehr. I don't think they will. Even Fehr can extend the date. Just because you come up with a date, it's not etched in stone. You can always extend the deadline. Like what they did that Monday, saying they wouldn't set one until Friday. I'm sure they will extend the date, but they can.

[Mike: Uh, excuse me, Joe, but Donald Fehr did not set the strike date. The players did. They voted on it. Hey could vote to extend it, but depending on the situation, it might make them look kind of weak. Don't you think? By the way, your last sentence made no sense. Are you OK? Remember you're ahead in points. You want to jab and move.]

Andrew (San Jose): If the Giants make the playoffs is Barry a lock for MVP? and if not?

Joe Morgan: I don't think he is a lock either way. There are a lot of players contributing to their teams' success. Shawn Green gets credit on the Dodgers. Albert Pujols gets credit on the Cardinals. There is Sosa, who is having a great year. Even though I don't like it, Schilling may be as valuable to his team as others are to theirs. I don't usually think a pitcher who pitches every fifth day qualifies as an MVP candidate.

[Mike: What?!? What have you been smoking? Bonds has a 266-point lead on the second-place man, Larry Walker, in OPS (1.339). That breaks down to a 134-point lead in on-base (.566) and an 131-pont lead in slugging (.773). Let's put that in historic perspective: His OPS is the fourth highest all-time-only Babe Ruth (twice) and Bonds last year ever exceeded it. His on-base would be the highest ever beating Ted Williams in 1941 by a good 13 points. His slugging average would be the fourth highest behind only Ruth and himself, again. He's on a pace to break his walk record from last year. He's batting .354. I dare you not to give it to him.

Pujols is 12th in OPS in the NL, Green is 9th, and Sosa is 4th but on a team that has not contented all year (not that that would eliminate him for me, but it would for the voters). ]

Being and Nothingness

Red_ice: Are you seriously comparing doctors to baseball players? Gee, I wonder which one is more important in this country. You don't see doctors going on strike, do you?

Joe Morgan: Yes. I guarantee you every profession has been on strike in this country. All I said was if you had a special skill, you are paid more. I didn't say anything about baseball players and doctors. I talked about their special skills. Read what I say rather than putting words in my mouth.

[Mike: Right, baseball players and doctors have special skills. Uh, I don't think doctors are striking much, Joe. You might want to reconsider that one.]

Tony, Everett (WA): Hi Joe, always love the chats. Alfonso Soriano is having an amazing year, becoming the first 2nd baseman to hit the 30-30 mark. But I can't stand people talking like this is the greatest season ever for a 2nd baseman. He's got a long way to go before he beats Rogers Hornsby's .756 SLG in 1925, or your own .444 OBP with 27 HR and 60 SB in 1976. Heck, I'd probably even call Jeff Kent's 2000 numbers better. What do you think?

Joe Morgan: I agree that this is not the greatest season by a second baseman, but he plays in New York, and that adds to anything you do. But make no mistake, what he is doing is very special. It's awesome, and he could end up with 40-40. Hornsby had some unbelievable years. When the Yankees won 114 games in '98, they were heralded as the greatest ever. But when the Mariners won 116 games last year, they were talked about in the same way. Everything in New York is heightened.

[Mike: Huh? OK, let's piece it back together. Exhibit A: Soriano is having a great year. Exhibit B: Hornsby had some great years. Exhibit C: The Yankees were considered the best team when they won 114, but then when Seattle won 116, they were considered better. But Exhibit D: Everything in NY is heightened. How? What does it have to do with Soriano and a player most people, regrettably, don't remember and who had not played in living memory? Dammit, Sam, I just can't figure it out. I am giving up forensic pathology and am moving in with a neat freak. Bye.]

---

Will-ful Negligence

George F. Will is one of the most popular (and most conservative) columnists and news show personalities in the country. He has won a Pulitzer Prize for his work. And yet he may be best known as a huge baseball fan.

He has written two popular books on baseball and appeared in Ken Burns' Baseball documentary. It only seems natural that he would appear on MLB's Blue Ribbon Panel on economics whose findings are the basis of the owners' proposals in these labor talks. It seems that whenever there is a forum in which the grand ol' game is discussed that Will is present.

And yet a number of muckrakers have the temerity to call him a shill especially after a recent article he wrote entitled Baseball's Disparities. Merriam-Webster's online defines "shill" as "one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler); also : one who makes a sales pitch." That would appear to be someone who acts at another's behest. Shame on anyone for calling Will a shill (even if it rhymes). I take exception at such a description of such a popular and respected gentleman. Will is far from a shill; rather he is an outright scoundrel. Anyone calling him a shill owes every shill in America an apology. The article of which I spoke (wrote?) is dated August 11, and it has taken me this long to remove the remnants of bile (figuratively) from my system. That this individual occupies a position of respect and authority on any subject, but especially on baseball, is perhaps the worst indictment of our society since they outlawed Pop Rocks because of the fictional death of Mikey from the Life cereal commercials.

So what is the cause of my consternation? Well, said George Will sits on the Commissioner's Blue Ribbon Panel and then reports its findings in his article as if the were his own ideas and deductions. Well, that's not so bad if the information is factual, right? The panel consisted of 16 individuals, 12 of whom, as Doug Pappas states, "own or operate major league baseball teams. The four "independent" members are Yale president Richard C. Levin, who drafted the owners' 1989 salary cap proposal; former Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker, who represented the owners on the last blue-ribbon economic panel, in 1992; former Senator George Mitchell, often mentioned as a possible Commissioner; and columnist George Will, who in a remarkable conflict of interest serves on the boards of both the Orioles and the Padres." Does this sound like an independent body. But there's more re. Will: Hoovers online states it even more strongly, "the team's (Orioles') minority owners include author Tom Clancy, columnist George Will, filmmaker Barry Levinson, sportscaster Jim McKay, and tennis player Pam Shriver." I could not find any evidence that he is an actual owner of the Padres.

Wait a minute, I read his article (as well as his online bio) and nowhere does it mention that he is a minority owner or a board member of any team. Well, that must have been an oversight. Since George Will is obviously representing the owners' side, as he is an owner, there must be equal time given to the players' columnist. Sorry, the Washington Post does not believe in fair play nor does it investigate its columnists particular financial interests before providing them with a forum from which to vent their views. The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Now that we know whom Will represents, let's take a look at the contents of his screed:

- First, he claims that the "players' union's primary objective is to protect the revenues of a very few very rich owners -- principally, the Yankees'." Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? Will's primary objective is to protect the revenues of the owners-he is an owner. I guess when one is this duplicitous, one sees machinations in everyone else's actions. He can't be blamed.

- Next he claims that "[t]he owners' primary objective is a more egalitarian distribution of wealth." Were that true why not pool all of the revenues, negotiate all local television contracts as a unit, and openly share players? Well, the reason is that the owners don't want socialism- they want to redistribute the wealth when it is beneficial to them. George Steinbrenner does not want to distribute his wealth to anyone.

- "But the concept of "local revenues" is problematic, because no team sells a local product." So, again, pool all local revenues and split them.

- He does at least mention parenthetically that he served on the Blue Ribbon Panel. Though, again, no mention is made of his position on any team's board. And he only mentions the "civilians" on the panel, not the owners

- "Of the 224 postseason games since the 1994 strike, 219 have been won by teams in the top two payroll quartiles." This is lifted from the Panel's report. Why not at least quote it? Enough has been said about this gross misstatement.

- He points out that "[o]ne day this May the Mets fielded a $63 million starting lineup against a $4 million Padres lineup." The Mets are only 4.5 games better than San Diego, at 58-68. So much for problems with competitive balance.

- He has a egregious error that any fact checker, let alone an 8-year-old baseball fan, would find instantly. He says that "the National League was founded in 1879 , locally generated revenues sta[aid] with the local owner.." The NL was founded not in 1879 but in 1876. I know that this is not essential to his argument, but it illustrates the shoddy research put into the column. Besides, home teams did indeed share gate receipts with the visiting team in the early days of baseball. It was the only way to ensure that they would show up.

- As to the poor state of MLB, he avers, "Attendance is down for the third consecutive season (5.7 percent this year, which means almost $80 million in lost ticket revenue alone)." Here is table of total major-league attendance, the number of games, the attendance per game, the percent change from the previous year (Att./G.), and the percentage change overall (Att./G.) for 1990-2002 (sources: 1990-2000 Tot