|
Monthly archives: September 2002
Orwellian: Shades of '84, 1884
2002-09-29 13:00
Orwellian: Shades of '84, 1884 that is With one day left in the season a lot of things are finally set. The Giants secured the final playoff spot with a 5-2 win against Houston yesterday, but found out that an Arizona drubbing of San Diego (17-8) denied them any chance at the NL West division title. The first round will be, in the NL, San Francisco vs. Atlanta and St. Louis vs. Arizona. In the AL Anaheim plays New York and Minnesota plays Oakland. The top seed in the AL is still up for grabs between the Yankees and the A's. Should the Yankees finish one-half game behind the A's (if the A's win today and the Yanks lose), they will be required to play a make-up game against the Devil Rays and a win will clinch home-field throughout the playoffs. The second seed in the NL is still to be decided between Arizona and St. Louis with the D-Backs one game in front. Should they end in a tie (i.e., D-Back loss and Cardinal win today), the Cardinals will get home-field advantage in their series. Looking at the standings, I still marvel at the polarization of the team records. There will be three teams with at least 105 losses (Detroit, Tampa Bay, and Milwaukee). That has never happened before. The previous most was two (in 1909, '11,'15, '39, '63, '64, '69, '79, and '88) and only twice before (1969 & '79) were there two 105+ losers in the same league (the AL has Detroit and Tampa Bay). However, by using wins and loses as the media do, we limit ourselves to mostly teams playing with an 162-game schedule. If instead we use the .352 percent cutoff (i.e., highest possible winning percentage with 105 losses), then we see that the 3-league year of 1884 weighs in with the highest total, 12 teams. Next are two National Association years with six (1872 and '75), and finally three years with 4 (1873-NA, 1890-three leagues, 1893-12-team NL). There are also a great deal of teams doing very well in 2002. There are three teams (Atlanta, New York Yankees, and Oakland) who will end the year with 100 wins. That has only occurred three other times 1942 (first WWII year), 1977 (expansion year), and 1998 (ditto). Again if we remove the 162-game bias from the investigation and instead use a .617 winning percentage as our lower threshold, we find that 1884 had 10 teams qualify. There was one year with 5 (1886), and five years with 4. 2002 has a good number of teams winning 90 games (11), in fact so many that three will not make the playoffs. Those three teams with 90+ wins (Los Angeles, Boston, and Seattle) that will not make the playoffs have garnered a good deal of the press that ranges from an isn't-that-odd slant to claims that the agreed-upon Collective Barganing Agreement did not go far enough to right baseball's ship. The previous high was 9 in 1977 and '99. Next were 1978, 2000, and 2001 with 8. Removing the 162-game bias (i.e., instead use .555 win percent as cutoff), returns two 3-league years as the leaders, 1884 (with 15) and 1890 (with 11). Also, the strike-shortened 1994 season had 9 teams fit the criterion. This year has seven teams with 90 losses. That is not the highest total. 1999 had 9. There were eight 90-loss teams in 1969, '72, '78, '93, 2000, and 2001. Checking without the 162-game bias (using .445 upper threshold), returns 1884 with 15. So what's the deal with 1884 you ask? Well, in 1884 there were three leagues: today's National League, the 1882-91 American Association, and the one-year Union Association. The Union Association is widely acknowledged to be the weakest major league since the National Association. The Union Association had 12 teams according to official standings, but many of those teams were short-lived and the league never had more than 8 clubs at one time. The league finally expired as its best team and the only one to complete its entire schedule, the St. Louis Maroons, joined the NL for 1885. One would expect that the adding in the loosely organized UA is what would cause such a polarized season in 1884. The 12-team UA had 3 of its teams finish with what would translate into 100 wins in 162 games (and therefore three 90 wins). They also had 6 with 90 losses and five with 105. They also had three with .451, .532, and .552 winning percentages. However, the two existing leagues were even more polarized than the UA. The AA's entire roster either won the equivalent of 90 games (7) or lost 90 (6). 5 had 100-win comparable season, and 4 had 105-loss seasons. The senior circuit faired only slightly better: all of its teams had either 90-win (5) or 90-loss (3) equivalent seasons. Two NL clubs had a 100-win equivalent season and 3 had a 105-loss equivalent one. The UA, as uneven as its talent was, was the only one of the three leagues to field mediocre (between 72 and 90 equivalent wins). In 1885, the UA folded, the NL had only 2 of 8 teams in the 90-win-equivalent category but 4 in the 80-loss. The AA's equanimity was more easily re-established: only 2 90-win-equivalent teams and no 90-loss-equivalent ones. With all of the comparisons between 2002 and the highly polarized 2002 season, it makes one wonder if the doom-and-gloom predictions of the owners have any validity. Then when the fact that 1884 was the only year with 30+ teams (33) and that there have only been a handful of 30-team years (1998 to 2002), it is apparent that there is too little data to draw any conclusion. Clearly the probability of having more 90-win or 90-loss teams increases as the number of teams increases, but whether this highly polarized season was due to dumb luck or some endemic competitive balance problem in MLB remains to be seen.
Permalink |
No comments.
Hey Joe Morgan Chat Day,
2002-09-28 02:12
Hey Joe Morgan Chat Day, Where You Going With That Gun in Your Hand? I have finally figured Joe out. But now for something completely different, the intro...Here at Mike's Baseball Rants, we love-well, not in the Biblical sense-Joe Morgan. Joe can make a brilliant insight or say something so ludicrous that you feel embarrassed to have yelled at the screen for so long that there are little spittle rainbows on the screen. Most often it's in confluence of these two events that Joe has reached perfection. So now back to what makes Joe click. Joe is in actuality just an adherent to Reductio ad Absurdum. Reductio ad Absurdum is, of course, is a means to prove a given point by taking its reverse to an absurd conclusion. C'mon you use it everyday. Remember when you first said, "If Miguel Tejada is the MVP, then I'm a monkey's uncle." Well, start developing an appetite for bananas and flinging fecal matter. The only reason that Joe is juxtaposing brilliant insights with inane tripe is to demonstrate to us mere mortals all the more the sagaciousness of said insight. The more he proffers preposterous pap, Batman, the more intelligent he really is. It's sheer brilliance. By espousing a baseball philosophy awash in ancient, hackneyed saws, he is actually trying to rid the baseball discussion once and for all of all such tripe. You are a brave man of conviction, Joe Morgan. And we salute you along with those about to rock (Fire!). Joe even uses all three forms of Reductio ad Absurdum to keep the material fresh and to make it enjoyable for himself. He uses ad absurdum when he contradicts himself and then amusingly acts as if the two statements are consistent. He continually makes seeming knowingly false statements just to exercise his ad impossibile muscles. But his pies de resistance is when he unpacks his ad ridiculum to present something that is so implausible that it's laughable as if it were a known fact and what are you some kind of moron, anyway?-though Joe's too much of gentleman to say that. Joe may have overdone it a bit today. He's so ridiculous that he's brilliant. Joe, stop toying with us. His erudition may be too great for a peon such as myself to properly capture. But like the slaves of ancient Rome who rode beside Caesar in triumph through cheering throngs while holding a laurel above his head whispering "Thou art mortal"-good work if you can get it, beats a haberdasher-try I must: The Good Kirk (Roseville): Hi Joe. What are your feelings about the Milwaukee Brewers/Jose Hernandez situation? Jerry Royster says the media/fabs [fans-I don't think he means the Beatles] are making a mockery of the game because they are watching the strikeout record? I think the mockery is that we have professional baseball players striking out at an astronomical rate! What is your opinion? [Mike: Joe wanted to have an entire Reductio ad Absurdum chat session, but this cheese was a bit too easy to hit out of the ballpark. Of course, sitting Hernandez is a joke, Jerry Royster is a joke, the whole damn Milwaukee Brewer team is a joke. "Libertad! Libertad Libertad!" Sorry, Tony Montana was just trying to escape from a Miami detention center.] The Bad Utek (LA): Hi Joe. A point about Barry Bonds. Pitchers don't pitch to him the way pitchers used to pitch to guys like Mays and Aaron. Maybe that's because Barry gets to stand on top of the plate with impunity wearing body armor, so pitchers don't feel they have a chance any more. In the past, a pitcher could knock a guy off the plate to establish the outside corner. Today if you knock a guy down you're liable to be ejected. I think if body armor were banned from baseball, and the rules about throwing at batters were loosened, Barry would end up with more pitches to hit, because pitchers would feel more comfortable challenging him. Any thoughts? Joe Morgan: I agree 100 percent. But that works for all the hitters, and Barry is the only hitter hitting .360. And yes, it wasn't that way for Mays, Aaron and Ruth. And make no mistake, when you get knocked down enough, it does change your approach. The numbers would suffer if they could pitch to Barry the same way the pitchers did against Mays and so one, but that would be the case for other hitters too. [Mike: Say, I went to Utek, too. What year were you? Anyway, just plain old "it was better in my day" or "it was better in my grandfather's day" bluster. Exhibit A) Bonds does have the highest average in baseball, but it's .371 not .360. So Bonds doesn't get plunked as often as the other greats mentioned, huh? Exhibit B) Check out this comparison of career hit by a pitch, strikeout, walks, intentional bases on balls and their percentage of the player's total plate appearances among the four greatest home run hitters all-time (sorry, Sadaharu Oh): Name HBP % SO % IBB % BB % HANK AARON 32 0.23% 1383 10.02% 293 2.12% 1402 11.34% BARRY BONDS 74 0.72% 1328 12.87% 420 4.07% 1918 23.03% WILLIE MAYS 44 0.36% 1526 12.32% 192 1.55% 1464 13.45% BABE RUTH 43 0.41% 1330 12.66% N/A 2062 24.55% Notice that Bonds has almost twice the hit-by-pitch rate of the rest? Maybe he's not getting knocked down as much as those players were and maybe he does wear armor on his elbow, but he has taken his lumps. Note as well that his walk and intentional walk rates are almost twice Aaron's and May's (Ruth's intentional walk total is unavailable), but that his strikeout ratio is about equal to the others (though Aaron is a bit better than the group). His strikeout rate is even more impressive when you consider that it comes in a time of high strikeout rates. Joe is right, Bonds is not pitched the same as these other greats. He is demonstrably more feared by pitchers and gets pitched around more. (He just got his 67 IBB of the year.)] Jason (Jefferson City): Joe, with all that the Cardinals had to overcome this season, did you ever imagine they would be were they are at today? Do you think Pujols has a legitmate shot at MVP? Joe Morgan: Pujols is the most underrated guy and the Cardinals MVP. But it's unfortunate he is playing in an era with Bonds. He will probably finish second or third, but Bonds wil win. The great thing about baseball once you are between the white lines it demands so much concentration that you don't let other things bother you. It allowed a chance for the Cardinals to escape their sadness on the field. [Mike: I know that Pujols has those RBI numbers that you love and he is having a great year, but why is he a clear-cut winner in the Cardinals MVP race over Jim Edmonds? They have about the same batting average, and slugging average, but Edmonds' on-base percentage is about 25 points higher and he plays a tougher defensive position. I'm not saying that Edmonds had a substantially better year. All I am saying is it's not that cut-and-dried. By the way, Pujols is 10th in the NL in OPS, but I bet Joe is right: he'll probably finish in the top 3.] Reductio ad Absurdum Jake (ATL): Hey Joe, love your commentating. My question which milestone is the greater accomplishment. Sosa hitting 500 HRs or Vlady and Soriano getting 40-40? Joe Morgan: The 500 home runs. You can have one good year and have 40-40. It takes 15-20 years to hit 500 home runs. [Mike: For those keeping score, a 6-3 ad ridiculum. 1) Sosa has only played 12 complete seasons (including 2 strike shortened ones) and parts of two others. 2) Isn't Joe the one who talks down home run hitting today as being too easy and wouldn't Sosa be his textbook example? 3) There have been 17 (soon to be 18) men to have hit 500 home runs. There have only been three 40-40 men with two more possibles this year. 40-40 appears easier. What do you mean by "greater"?] Brian, Cedar Grove NJ: Hey Joe. Big fan of Sunday night baseball. How do you think the Yankees and A's would match up? Who do you think has the edge? Joe Morgan: It would be the A's pitching vs. the Yankees good hitting, and the Yankees have good pitching too. It would be a great series. And I think home field would matter. [Mike: I score it ad absurdum, but the official scorer gave him a hit, that homer. Why does Joe insist on taking the 5th on this lob pitch? Fine, Joe, give us your analysis, but commit to someone. I'm 66.7% sure he's saying Yankees, but my certainty has a plus/minus of 238.2%. I hope that helps.] Jake (ATL): Joe, who do you see as the favorites for the World Series? With the Braves bullpen, and having been able to rest people, they would seem to be the NL Favorite and the Yanks are defending AL Champs so they have to be faves. Joe Morgan: The Braves have been favorites for me for 11 straight years, and they have only won one title. The great thing they have is Sheffield, but he is not healthy. And the other guys can be pitched to with good pitching. This year they are better. They have a chance, but they aren't the favorite. They have to prove they can beat the Diamondbacks and the Cardinals. In the AL, I won't bet against the Yankees, but the A's can beat anybody. [Mike: Jake, how's the Fatman? And I don't mean dubage. I'm saying ad ridiculum. The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. "The Braves have been favorites for me for 11 straight years, and they have only won one title."-Do you see a connection? Can they be pitched to or are they better? Besides he never says who the favorites for the Series are: that was the question.] Cameron (Oxford): Is this the year that the Yankees finally get taken down in the American League? Joe Morgan: Cameron, I wouldn't bet on it. I thought last year the A's or Seattle would beat the Yankees. Neither one did. In a short series, their veterans will be critical. They can all turn it up a notch. I won't be surprised to see them in the World Series again. [Mike: Cameron, how's Ferris? Ok, enough. That's ad impossibile right over the plate. Everyone keeps saying that the Yankee veterans step up in the postseason. Well, that may have been true, but a lot of those veterans are no longer with the team (Brosius, Martinez, O'Neill). There is not much in the way of evidence that the current Yankees do especially well on the offensive side. Williams is batting .158 (with a .655 OPS) in the World Series, .266 (.860) in the postseason in general. Jeter is batting .291 (.787) in the WS and .304 (.820) in the postseason-both below his career regular-season norm. Posada is batting .224 (.717) in the WS, and .226 (.739) in the postseason. Soriano had only one postseason with New York and batted .276 (.802). Giambi has done well in the postseason batting .323 (.929 OPS), but that was in only two postseason series neither of which was with the Yankees. Ventura, White, Luis Rivera, Mondesi, Vander Wal, and Johnson have yet to go through a postseason yet with New York. Their pitchers fare better but not a whole lot. Pettite is 2-3 with a 5.07 ERA in the Series and 10-7 4.34 in the postseason. Mussina has had only one postseason with the Yanks but was 2-1 with a 2.63 ERA. Clemens is 3-0, 1.56 in the WS and 6-0, 3.33 in the postseason (even though his career ERA is 3.10). Wells is 1-0, 3.98 in the WS and 8-1, 2.74 in postseason (career ERA 4.08). Hernandez (2-1 2.28 ERA in WS; 9-2, 2.48 postseason; 4.13 career) and Mariano Rivera (2-1, 1.67 WS; 6-1, 0.91 postseason; 2.58 career) are much better than their career numbers. On the whole I would say this group turns it down not up in the postseason. That may be a little unfair because we are comparing a different level of competition so career numbers may not apply, but there is not a whole lot of evidence to support the turn-it-up theory.] Andrew G (NY, NY): Obviously Tejada is everyone's favorite pick to win the MVP now, but why is he necessarily more valuable than Soriano? Soriano has almost 40 homers, 100 RBIs, and 40+ SB out of the leadoff spot for the Yankees. Do you think they'd be in the position they are right now if he wasn't setting the table for them all year? Joe Morgan: I agree that Soriano deserves a lot of accolades, but he has more help than Tejada. Four guys on that team will drive in 100 runs -- Soriano, Giambi, Williams and Posada. He has more guys hitting well around him. Other than Chavez, Tejada hasn't had much help. He is the only player on the A's who has been consistent. I'm a big fan of Soriano's. [Mike: Well, Joe, that's ad ridiculum and ad absurdum. You're a big fan of Alfonso Miguel non sequitur? Anyway, the Yanks have more guys who have driven in 100 runs, but each team has five players with an OPS of .800 or better (Williams, Posada, Giambi, Soriano, and Ventura for the Yankees; Tejada, Chavez, Hatteberg, the Jeremy Giambi/John Mabry tandem, and midseason pickup Ray Durham). By the way the A's play in a worse hitters park (according to Baseball Prospectus 4% worse on offenses in 2001). I'm not saying the A's are as good, but it's not as lopsided as you are lead to believe.] Brad S. (St. Louis): Of the playoff teams..Which player needs to elevate his game the most to help his team advance in the post-season? Joe Morgan: All the players on all the teams. You can't play the game the way you did in the regular season. All the star players have to elevate their games. [Mike: That's ad absurdum unassisted. Logically if all the players elevated their games, wouldn't they just cancel each other out.?] Wilson (Detroit): Joe, I know you like A-Rod for MVP, but isn't the real MVP valuable = winning, Tejada hands down. Joe Morgan: First of all, you aren't listening to me or reading my columns. I agree Tejada is the MVP. But the rules don't say the MVP on a winning team. There are instances when guys have won on a last-place team. I believe winning should be a tiebreaker. It should sway in a player's favor. I have been picking Tejada for the last month. Dan, Ankeny (IA): Joe, Since the Twins have struggled this season against lefthanders, do they have any chance to beat the A's, who could throw Zito and Mulder in four of the five games? Joe Morgan: Yes. Anybody in the playoffs has a chance to get to the World Series. They have struggled against lefties, but in a short series players can get hot. The Twins' big problem is more that they are playing the A's with their exceptional left-handed pitching, but don't count the Twins out. [Mike: Wait for it.] Mike(Chicago): Do you think Barry Bonds will be walked every time up in the playoffs? Joe Morgan: Not in the playoffs, because he has to prove to people he can hit in the playoffs. He has never hit well in the playoffs. He has to prove he's different in playoff pressure. If he starts out well, they will walk him. But he has to prove it first. The Giants also have to get into the playoffs first. It's not over yet. [Mike: Wow, How does he do it. That's like a doubleheader of two perfect games in the Reductio ad Absurdum world. The Twins can do anything in a short series but Barry Bonds and the Giants need to prove that they can do something. In Bonds' case we are talking about 97 at-bats spread over 11 years. How is it relevant especially if the Twins' problems with lefties this season is not? By the way, the Twins are fifth in the majors in runs produced against lefties, not conclusive, but interesting.] [Mike: That's all the time we have left. I wil be busy revering the heroes I grew up with who are in college ball now. Also, I will be giving a symposium on how you can play baseball prior to being conceived. Oh and remember, the bunt is good and today's ballplayer bad. ]
Permalink |
No comments.
Any Relation to Tito? I
2002-09-27 21:55
Any Relation to Tito? I had a chance last night to see this kid that the Rockies are using out of the bullpen, Brian Fuentes. He has the oddest delivery since Gene Garber. He rotates like a revolving door and throws some sort of nasty pitch (Is it a slider or is it just a fastball with an odd delivery?) that breaks way in on the righties-he's a lefty by trade. Fuentes seems to have a release point at around his waist-like he's shooting from the hip. He flings it up to the plate at around 92 MPH, but it looks even faster. His herky-jerky motion seems to add to the batters' bafflement. But if he had played with my friends when I was a kid, they would have said that he throws like a girl. He had been up earlier in the year and got rocked (an ERA of 13.50 at one point) but changed his mechanics-or so they say-and now looks almost unhittable. Check at his stats before and after the demotion: Fuentes IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF ERA WHIP K/BB K/IP PIT/BF 1st Stint 8 12 7 7 1 7 13 7 10 198 45 7.88 2.375 1.857 1.625 4.400 2nd Stint 16.2 9 3 3 1 5 25 11 13 260 62 1.62 0.840 5.000 1.500 4.194 Totals 24.2 21 10 10 2 12 38 18 23 458 107 3.65 1.338 3.167 1.541 4.280
Even odder are his lefty/righty splits: Right/Left AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB HBP SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS vs. Right 53 10 8 1 0 0 6 7 0 25 0 0 .151 .242 .170 .412 vs. Left 37 0 13 1 0 2 7 5 3 13 0 0 .351 .467 .541 1.007
One last thing to consider: he has a 3.31 ERA in 18 games at Coors. He seems like a worthwhile candidate for the Rockie bullpen (no pun intended) in 2003. If he can harness that delivery for both lefties and righties, he may be the eventual replacement for current closer Jose Jimenez (didn't he used to be a Mel Blanc character). If not, he will have to be the Rockie short man against righties, perhaps a first for a lefty. Check him out at a Rockies game near you.
Permalink |
No comments.
Brain Tied in Knots Last
2002-09-27 21:14
Brain Tied in Knots Last night I said that the Giants could have clinched a playoff spot with a Dodger loss becasue of the head-to-head tiebreaker. It was a ludicrous thing to say/write. My only excuse is that I was tired and had been pouring over tiebreaker possibilities and everyone knows how dangerous that is. Of course, I could respond like Neifi Perez or Tony Montana and say, "I was only kidding." But who wants to emulate them, one snorted a jewelry box-ful of coke before being drilled with more holes than Sponge Bob by the entire Columbian army and the other ended up even worse, as a Kansas City Royal.
Permalink |
No comments.
Jerry-Mandering Milwaukee manager Jerry Royster,
2002-09-27 08:18
Jerry-Mandering Milwaukee manager Jerry Royster, a man who once as a player was called for interference for getting down on his hands and knees and blowing a bunt attempt foul, is saying that the media attention that has attended Jose Hernandez's unintended run at the single-season strikeout record, "is kind of making a mockery of it'' and that his player "won't be laughed at.'' Royster pulled Hernandez from yesterday's lineup. He seems to be hinting that that will continue if the media do not behave: "To be honest with you, I don't care if he played another game,'' Royster said. "I can tell you one thing -- there's no need for him to play. I don't have a plan to sit him the rest of the season, and I don't have plans to play him. If we need him, he will play.'' Look, Jerry, you're lucky if the world is only laughing at your shortstop not your whole pathetic team. Besides Hernandez just went three games without a K, tying his longest streak of the year.
Permalink |
No comments.
Halo-Lelujah [Sorry, this post got
2002-09-27 08:04
Halo-Lelujah [Sorry, this post got eaten by Blogger last night.] The Angels beat the Rangers, 10-5, to finally clinch the final AL playoff birth. Then they found out that Oakland won the AL West title after beating the just-eliminated Mariners 5-3 in 10 innings. Oakland only leads by 3 games with 3 left to play but given that the tiebreaker is head-to-head and Oakland won the season series 11-9, the Angels are mathematically eliminated. The pairings are set for the first round: Anaheim vs. New York (homefield advantage: Yankees) and Minnesota vs. Oakland (homefield advantage: A's). They Yankees and A's are still battling for homefield througghout the playoffs. Since the wild card cannot play the team from its own division, they have to play the Yankees. The only thing we don't know is who will have homefield advantage in the LCS. The Yankees now lead by half a game due to their postponement tonight. Should the Yankees finish the weekend with a better record than Oakland, they will have home field due to their edge in head-to-head competition (5-4). If Oakland leads by one-half game, the Yankees will be forced to make up tonight's game on Monday. If the win, they get homefield. If they lose, Oakland gets it. Either way, they would have to play an extra game. At least it would be at Yankees Stadium though. In the NL, San Francisco has the night off but just might clinch a playoff spot. The Dodgers are losing 2-0. If they lose, they fall 3.5 games behind the Giants for the wild card. They each would have three left, but San Francisco could have a makeup game with the Braves if it is necessary. Even if the makeup were played and the Dodgers were able to tie, they would lose based on San Fran's 11-8 edge in the season series. St Louis and Arizona will probably remain tied for the second in the league. St. Louis beat the Brewers 9-1. The D-Backs lead Colorado 4-2. Arizona could also extends its lead over the Giants by 2.5 games. Think about this scenario though: the Giants sweep the Astros and D-Backs and Cardinals lose their last three games. The Giants would be a half-game up on Arizona. There would be no need to make up their tie game with the Braves to determine the division champ: San Francisco has an 11-8 edge in the division series. But the Giants would lead the Cardinals by only one-half game as well for the second seed in the NL. The Cardinals own the head-to-head edge 4-2 against the Giants. Therefore, the Giants would be forced to fly from San Francisco to Atlanta on Monday to make up the game with the Braves to determine the number 2 seed. If they win, they would have to fly back to San Francisco to host the Cardinals. If they lose they would fly to St. Louis to play the Cardinals. Either way, they play the Cardinals. The Braves would be slightly inconvenienced since they would be hosting a playoff game on Tuesday but would prefer to have Monday off. For all concerned, let's hope that scenario does not play out. By the way, I will be having a Mariner postmortem as well as my weekly Joe Morgan Chat Day review tomorrow.
Permalink |
No comments.
Site Sightings Cited Dan Lewis
2002-09-26 21:21
Site Sightings Cited Dan Lewis has been tracking Barry Bonds' conescutive game walk streak. He reports that yesterday: [I]n the first inning, Clay Condrey of the San Diego Padres put Bonds on first. That is the sixteenth consecutive game in which Bonds Check out his Bonds Tracker and his notes about the new, shared NL record. John J Perricone over at Only Baseball Matters announces that he has just had his 10,000th visitor. Go check him out and help him get to 20K. @ The Ballpark has an article about what he feels contributes to success in the playoffs.
Permalink |
No comments.
The Hunt for Red Sox
2002-09-26 16:11
The Hunt for Red Sox in October Boston lost 7-2 to the White Sox yesterday to be officially eliminated from the wild card race. Seattle who started the day tied with the Red Sox and whose postseason hopes were in similarly dire straits, came from behind in the bottom of the eighth to beat Oakland 3-2 and keep their playoff hopes alive. That both of these teams will probably not make the playoffs seemed highly improbably after the first half. At the All-Star break, the Mariners were in first in the AL West and were up by three games on the Angels and five on the A's. The Red Sox were trailing the Yankees by two games but had a 1.5 game lead in the wild card race. The Sox are 39-34 since, a .534 winning percentage, which was good but not good enough to fend off surging Oakland and Anaheim. The Red Sox have won 91 games, more than some past World Series winners. More remarkably, the Sox started June as the hottest team in baseball. On June 6, Boston was in first place in the AL East with a 40-17 record and a .702 winning percentage. Over an 162-game schedule that projects out to 114 wins, only two short of the all-time record. They led the Yankees by 3.5 games. No other team in baseball had more than 37 wins. The Red Sox had a 15-8 record to that point against playoff-caliber teams (7-3 vs. the Yankees, 3-3 vs. Seattle, and 5-1 vs. Oakland). Then the wheels came off. Much has been made of the Angels' 6-14 start to the season and how they overcame it. The Red Sox had a stretch starting on June 7 and extending until the end of the month in which they were 6-14. During that period they played 12 games with playoff caliber teams and won only one. They were swept in a three-game series by the D-Backs, the Dodgers, and the Braves and lost 2 of 3 in another series with the Braves. They have since gone 45-36, a .556 winning percentage. Indeed their winning percentage for the year excluding their June 7 to 30 debacle is .616. There were some warning signs. The Red Sox had rolled up their great record by beating up on the dregs of the Al East. They were 18-4 in games with Toronto, Baltimore, and Tampa Bay played before June 6. Also, their record against playoff caliber teams does not look as good when you realize that Oakland was in the middle of a 3-14 run when they played the Sox. When Boston's best offensive player, Manny Ramirez, broke his finger and went on the DL on May14. His fill-in, Rickey Henderson, ran into a wall on June 2 and missed 12 games. Brian Daubach replaced Henderson and did miserably (.149 batting average and .529 OPS for June). When their weak starting rotation (beyond Martinez and Lowe) started to misfire, it took the Red Sox far too long to come up with any solutions. It is doubly perplexing given that the solutions that they found were within their own organization (Tim Wakefield and Casey Fossum). What exactly went wrong? The Sox entered the season with three subpar players in their lineup and allowed these players to stay in the lineup most of the year after being dazzled by their tremendous start. First baseman Tony Clark was signed in the offseason to a one-year, $5-million contract. He was approaching thirty, had just come of a year in which his OPS, slugging percentage, and home runs had dropped severely from his established levels, which were just acceptable for a first baseman. Clark started off hitting .171 in April (with a .473 OPS). He ended the year a .210 batting average, 3 home runs, 29 RBI, and a .562 OPS in 272 wasted at-bats. Coming into the season, Jose Offerman had just severed through 2 subpar seasons, had turned 33, and was to be their part-time DH and first baseman. His numbers had dropped off not surprising after the Red Sox signed him coming off his 1998 career year with the Royals. His batting average dropped 50 points and his on-base percentage and slugging percentage by 60 points. He went from 45 steals in 1998 to 5 in 2001, 13 triples to 3, 102 runs to 76, and though his at-bats dropped by 83, his strikeout stayed about the same. In 2002, his batting average dropped another 35 points to .232 and his OPS 66 points to .650. He was mercifully taken off their hands by the Mariners in August but not before the Sox devoted 237 miserable at-bats to him. He started off with a .286 batting average and .830 OPS as a part-time player in April. Instead of realizing that his stock was as high as it would ever be and trading him, the Sox kept him in the lineup. Not only did they continue to play him but they upgraded him to starter to the tune of a .227 batting average (.691 OPS) in May and a .148 batting average (and .406 OPS) in June. 34-year-old shortstop Rey Sanchez was signed to a one-year, minor-league contract in the offseason and assigned to be the Sox' starting second baseman. It was a poorly conceived experiment from the start: Sanchez batted .264 with a .599 OPS in April. He got very hot in May (.382 batting average, .931 OPS), but came crashing back down to earth and never got back up (.283 batting average but .657 OPS). In the rotation, the first problem was Darren Oliver who after being acquired from Texas for Carl Everett was 3-1 with a 2.89 ERA in April, allowing shrewd rotisserians across the country to their dupe unsuspecting colleagues. He won one more game before being sent down to Triple-A and subsequently released. Rolando Arrojo and Sun-Woo Kim were in turn enlisted to replace Oliver and ended up with a 5.26 and 7.27 ERA respectively. John Burkett was signed to a two-year, $11-million contract after resurrecting his career in Atlanta in 2001. He started off the year 7-0 with a 3.86 ERA. He then refused to go to the All-Star game because it was in commissioner Bud Selig's hometown, Milwaukee. Thanks, Bobby Sands, but no one was asking. He finished 12-8 with a 4.69 ERA but was 5-5 with a 5.65 ERA in the second half. Frank Castillo started out OK in April and May but ended up 5-15 with a 5.12 ERA. It wasn't until the second half that the Red Sox turned to Tim Wakefield and Casey Fossum, two members of their bullpen to plug the starting rotation holes. Wakefield, who began the year as a starter and was pulled after two so-so starts, is now fourth in the league in ERA behind teammates Pedro Martines and Derek Lowe. His ERA as a starter is actually better than both of theirs. Fossum has been respectable with a 3.38 ERA in 11 starts. The Red Sox basically started the season as a weak team in the three offensive positions and three rotation positions (if you count first-year starter Derek Lowe). Their early success masked the fact that almost all of these weaknesses still existed. When Ramirez was hurt in May and the rotation started to falter, it caused a chain reaction where the weaker players were enlisted more and their weakness paired with falsely high expectation induced by the hot start began their crash in June. No new players were acquired except for Cliff Floyd at the trade deadline. So what happens to the 2003 edition of the Red Sox? First and foremost, they must re-sign Floyd. Free agents Clark, Henderson, Sanchez, and Castillo should be wished a hearty Bon Voyage. Closer Ugueth Urbina who had a severe drop-off in the second half should be-resigned, and Tim Wakefield's option should be picked up. A new second baseman (maybe rookie Bryan Nelson) should be sought. It must be decided if three-quarter-timer Brian Daubach can be a full-time major-league first baseman. His .796 OPS and his age (30) would answer, "No, " but the Boston budget may decide otherwise. The rotation now seems set for 2003 with Martinez, Lowe, Wakefield, Fossum, and Burkett. The Sox need to commit to the mercurial Wakefield as a starter, something they have not been able in his last 4 years there. A backup for Burkett if he falters should be acquired. The club should but probably won't eat the second year of his contract. The bullpen beyond Urbina and lefty Allan Embree (also a free agent) is a mess. The Red Sox should be able to reach the playoffs in 2003 with just a few well-directed alterations after three disappointing seasons. Of course, this is Boston and melodrama, whether real or imagined, is the word. Whatever does happen in 2003 for the Sox, it's sure to be entertaining.
Permalink |
No comments.
Cy of Relief Two of
2002-09-26 00:15
Cy of Relief Two of today's performances may have sealed the fate of the Cy Young also-rans in each league. As I said earlier, Johnson will now almost certainly win the award in the NL with Schilling's performance today driving that home. Derek Lowe lost tonight to the White Sox, 7-2. Lowe gave up 5 earned runs in seven innings. He also lost his bid to tie Barry Zito for a league-best 22 wins. With a very good but not great second half (when compared to Zito and Martinez), Lowe is sure to finish third in the voting. He may also take away votes from his teammate Martinez. Given Pedro's willingness to shut down for the year after winning 20 games while his team was still, in theory, in a pennant race, I would bet that Zito edges Martinez in the voting. Zito also has one scheduled start remaining. If he wins his 23rd in a well pitched game, voters will pick the higher win total for Zito over the lower ERA for Martinez.
Permalink |
No comments.
Rolen Rolen Rolen The Cards
2002-09-25 23:00
Rolen Rolen Rolen The Cards completed a sweep of the Diamondbacks today, 6-1, on the strength of a 3-run homer by Scott Rolen. The sweep puts the Cardinals in a tie with Arizona for the second seed in the league-the tiebreaker for which they now win on their strength of their better head-to-head record-, this with the Cardinals management seemingly barely trying. St. Louis starter Garret Stephenson had not gotten past the fourth since May 24 and was 1-5 with a 6.08 ERA as the game began. He pitched five innings of one-hit ball. He was wild (5 walks) but the D-Backs didn't capitalize on it. Stephenson started according to Tony LaRussa expressly because the Diamondbacks would not see him in the postseason or rather so that they wouldn't see a starter that they would face in the postseason. Meanwhile, Arizona started 23-game winner Curt Schilling. Schilling pitched a complete game and allowed only 6 hits (and one walk) while striking out 12. However, two of those hits were two-out, three-run home runs (to Rolen in the 4th and J.D. Drew in the 8th). Since winning his 21st on August 21, Schilling is 2-3 with two no-decisions in seven starts. He has also raised his ERA nearly .5 runs, from 2.68 to 3.14, over that time, nearly assuring teammate Randy Johnson of his fifth Cy Young award. The D-Backs collected four hits, only 1 in their top four spots in the order (and that by a pinch-hitter). They have been outscored 22-4 in what may be-if the D-Backs hang on to win their division-a preview of one of the NL Division Series. Arizona has now lost 6 straight and could have their lead cut to two games should the Giants win tonight. After their last win, September 19, the D-Backs led the Giants by 7.5 games. They have also lost Luis Gonzalez and Brian Anderson for the season during the losing streak. They now play host to the Rockies who swept them last weekend at Coors. The Cardinals play host to the reeling Brewers who just changed their team management and whose biggest story is Jose Hernandez's strikeout record "chase". Speaking of Scotty Rolen, the Cardinals reportedly are about to sign the third baseman to an 8-year, $90-million contract. Given that Rolen is 27, this deal would basically make him a Cardinal for life. It is basically the same deal, give or take a year, that he turned down a year before becoming a pariah in Philadelphia as well as sportswriter Bill Conlin's favorite whipping boy (the Phillies did up it to $140M for 10 years after it was clear that Rolen was souring). He actually would have made more per season with the Phillies' initial 7-year deal and much more in their final offer-so much for Rolen's being a self-interested "cancer." Rolen has returned to his established levels after leaving the difficult situation in Philadelphia behind. He has also hit 30 home runs for the second time in his career. The Cardinals are 35-20 since Rolen joined the team. Rolen had said that his refusal to the Phillies was more about winning than money. I hope that this proves it to the Philly faithful so that when the Cardinals next appear in town they can instead return to booing J.D. Drew, anything but skewering the team's management that treats one of the largest fan bases in the country like it's Milwaukee.
Permalink |
No comments.
Les Expos to Become Los
2002-09-25 22:08
Les Expos to Become Los Expos? ESPN reports that there is a group that wants to move the Expos to San Juan, Puerto Rico. As I indicated in my Expos relocation study, Les Exits, San Juan is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. or Canada without a major-league team (slightly larger than Portland, though it has about a million people fewer than Montreal). Although Puerto Rico has supported a winter league and a series last year to open the major-league season, it has not had a team in organized ball since the one-year Inter-American League in 1979. The stadium only holds 20,000 people. Its businesses and population are not thought to be extremely affluent. I would doubt that they could get a great cable deal. All of this adds up to a big goose huevo for San Juan, but it is an interesting idea. Maybe proving themselves with a minor-league team that is successful for 5-10 years would help.
Permalink |
No comments.
Nepotism Only Goes So Far
2002-09-25 21:42
Nepotism Only Goes So Far Just how bad have the Brewers been this year? So bad that the team president and closet Brewers owner Bud Selig's daughter, Wendy Selig-Prieb, has been relieved of her key to the executive wash room. GM Dean Taylor will also turn in his wings in the housecleaning. Taylor reportedly will be replaced by former Rangers GM Doug Melvin. Selig-Prieb will remain with the club in some other capacity, that is, she gets to keep the second half of her former title, team president and Bud Selig's daughter. Ulice Payne, the managing partner of the Milwaukee law office of Foley & Lardner, will take over as president. Evidently Payne worked on a Milwaukee committee that helped the Brew Crew get a new stadium. So now it's payback time. By the way, Payne is an African-American, something that is not mentioned in the article but is apparent from his picture. He will be the first African-American to run a major-league ballclub that I'm aware of. I have to applaud Selig for making that move. Baseball still takes its lumps, deservedly, for minority hiring. Bud is putting someone who happens to be in a minority group in control of a club. I would be the first person in line to criticize Bud Selig. Hell, I would I would get back in line for seconds, but I have to pay him his props here. And yes, by the way, Selig still does run the club and will while Payne is the president, but it's still an important move. Melvin was the GM in texas from 1994 to 2001. Every division title that the Ranger franchise has ever won was while Melvin was the GM. They also fell to last for his last two years. Melvin worked for the president, George W. Bush, if you didn't know, when he was the Texas owner. Melvin's first trade was Jose Canseco for Otis Nixon and Luis Ortiz. Canseco went on to play 7 more years (2 in Boston) and hit 186 more home runs (52 in Boston). Nixon lasted one year in Texas before free agency beckoned, and Ortiz had only 45 at-bast left in his Texas, and major-league, career. Melvin did improve however. He was the major league executive of the year in 1996. He rebuilt the depleted Ranger minor leagues. But when the now-austere Tom Hicks took over the team, he wanted to make a splash and spent money freely, thinking it would make the team winners. When the opposite occurred, Melvin took the fall. The Brewers could have done worse.
Permalink |
No comments.
Just Say No-rfolk The Mets
2002-09-25 15:02
Just Say No-rfolk The Mets held a celebration of their future hopefuls and none passed out. But rookie third baseman Jeff Spicoli had a pizza delivered that Bobby Valentine made him share with the rest of the team.
Permalink |
No comments.
Kay-OK Jose Hernandez seems like
2002-09-25 11:29
Kay-OK Jose Hernandez seems like a man possessed. He's hacking away like Richie Hebner. He has not struck out in two games and remains stuck one strikeout behind the record of 189 set by Bobby Bonds. But rest assured that it cannot last. He has not gone longer than 3 games in a row without a strikeout all year. It may not happen today, but the record will fall unless they pull Hernandez out of the lineup again.
Permalink |
No comments.
Stay Alive, the Survival Game
2002-09-25 09:39
Stay Alive, the Survival Game The Red Sox and the Mariners both won to keep their slim playoff hopes alive. Casey "Playin'" Fossum pitched a good game only giving up two solo home runs. He made a great play on a Willie Harris bunt attempt witha man on first with none out in the first. The ball was popped up on the line. Fossum dove to catch the ball and then trotted to first to double up the runner. That's one you don't score everyday DP-1U. Where was the runners head--Fosum had time to pick himself up and lope over to first, and this was the lead-off hitter, D'Angelo Jimenez. Typically, the next batter, Frank Thomas, hit a home run. I give you the bunt, ladies and gentlemen, the best way to kill a rally, especially in the first. Seattle rallied from a 7-2 deficit in the middle of the seventh to win 8-7 over the A's. The A's got a bit cocky pulled starter Barry Zito, after building up a lead, and got a dose of their own late-inning rally medicine. Would Joe Morgan look at the 8-7 loss and say that Zito pitched just well enough to lose or that the bullpen blew the game? Shades of Donnie Moore in Arlington: The Angels lost 2-1 to Joaquin Benoit and the Rangers. The Angels continued their 3-game slide and remain three games in back of the A's with only five left. Of course, they need to get that final win to ensure a postseason appearance and should not worry about the A's. They go again today: Ortiz (Ana) vs. Rogers (Tex), Hudson (Oak) vs. Moyer (Sea), and Lowe (Bos) vs. Biddle (Sox). If Lowe wins today, he will tie Zito for the AL lead. Martinez has 20 wins and has shut down for the season, but if the Sox are still in it on Thursday (his next scheduled start), can he refuse to pitch?
Permalink |
No comments.
I Wanna Be Your Backdoor
2002-09-25 08:44
I Wanna Be Your Backdoor Man Forget my screed of last night, the Dodgers lost securing a playoff spot of some sort for the D-Backs. Good luck to them on repeating as World Champions. One question: has any team seemed less like World Champs the year after than the Diamondbacks have this year? Well, yes, the '98 Florida Marlins. Anyone else? And they are probably going to win their division. No offense to Phoenix, but maybe it's because they play in a second-rate sports town and to some degree acknowledge it by using the "Arizona" and not "Phoenix" name. There's no Missouri Cardinals. Maybe it's the disgraceful purple uniforms. Maybe it's Bob Brenly's ugly mug and demeanor. Maybe it's because they will be "losing" $40-50 million this year due in large part to outrageous spending: $8 million to Jay Bell, $8 million for Todd Stottlemyre, over $5.3 to BrianAnderson, over $2.8 million to Greg Swindell, etc. By the way, Brenly is considering taking two lefties in the bullpen in anticipation of playing the Cardinals in the first round according to the Arizona Republic. First, I have to say that he is taking the Giants far too lightly if he's taking the division crown for granted. Second, those two lefties are Mike "Halloween" Myers and Greg Swindell, despite their 4.67 and 6.27, respectively, ERAs. At least Myers is effective against lefties--they're batting .230 against him this year. Lefties are batting .339 against Swindell in 2002 with a 1.028 OPS. Ouch! He had hld lefties to a .206 batting average a .578 OPS for the past three years and had 0.82 ERA vs. St. Louis in that span, but that's old news. Of course, if they had Brain Anderson available... (though lefties batted .302 against him this year) How about Mark Grace? Again, I wish them well.
Permalink |
No comments.
Notes from the St. Louis
2002-09-25 01:19
Notes from the St. Louis Underground I watched the Cardinals-D-Backs game tonight thanks to the wonderful world of digital cable. I get 10 pay-per-view baseball channels and Fox will televise on one nightly for free. It's great because you tap into the local broadcasts with the local announcers pandering to local fans. The St. Louis game had a more Cardinal-centric Joe Buck paired with, I believe, Al Hrabosky for color. The second game featured the great Vin Scully-what a great voice-announcing the Dodgers-Rockies game. Anyway, here is a running list of game notes that I had while watching the game: - First, Luis Gonzalez is out for the year with the shoulder separation that he suffeed last night. The D-Backs started David Dellucci who apparently will spell Gonzalez in left throughout the playoffs. Erubiel Durazo had an unexpected start in right. Maybe Brenly is auditioning both of these guys at once. I think he should settle on one and that one should be Durazo, with McCracken in right. The only problem in moving Durazo is that it weakens the D-Backs at first where no one seems to notice that Mark Grace has started to become an albatross. Platooning Grace with righty Greg Colbrunn for the playoffs would help, though it would deplete their bench. Then again there always is that promising rookie first baseman, Jay Bell. - The best "homer" announcer interchange that I have ever heard: Joe Buck: mike Matheny has three home runs on the year, the last coming April 26. - Roster issues: I caught the end of a conversation in which the announcers stated that the playoff roster is the August 31 roster. Therefore, Matt Morris, who was on the DL on Aug. 31, and Jason Simontacchi, who was mysteriously in the minors on August 31, are not eligible. I do not believe, at least in Morris' case that this is true. - They had a special report between innings about how great the Cardinals infield is (citing the lone statistic errors throughout) and how it's the best infield the team has ever had. For the record, Bill James' Win Shares, the best tool for evaluating talent that I know of, rates Martinez an A+ at first, Vina an A at second, Rolen a B+ at third, and Renteria a C at short. That's not bad, but what about what about the Ozzie Smith (A+) at short, Terry Pendleton (A-) at third, Tommy Herr (C+) at second, and Jack Clark (rated as OF) at first. I would rather hide my weaknesses at second and first than short. - Bad plays abounded:
- Nice plays:
By the way, I would now bet on John Patterson replacing Brian Anderson on the playoff roster. Also, if the Cardinals win tomorrow, they would tie the D-Backs for second place in the NL and gain homefield due to the head-to-head record with the D-Backs. Meanwhile, the Diamondbacks still have not clinched a darn thing.
Permalink |
No comments.
Mr. 15 x 15 I
2002-09-24 16:38
Mr. 15 x 15 I heard a stat yesterday, oh boy, and my first reaction was to sneer at it like I usually do to most end-of-year pseudo records, like Fred McGriff's being the first player to hit 30 home runs for five different teams. That's a dubious distinction, not a record. The stat to which I refer is Greg Maddux being the first person since the late, great Cy Young to win at least 15 games in 15 straight years. My first reaction was that if this is now we have got to measure the greatness of Greg Maddux, then we've got more troubles than I thought. Of course Maddux is a great pitcher and one already well-deserving of his waiting plaque in Cooperstown. But wins alone have never been the way to evaluate him, apologies to Joe Morgan. Maddux has only won 20 games twice in his career (and 19 five times), though he was on track for 20 wins in both the strike-shortened seasons (1994-95). Jim Caple states that Maddux's greatness is easy to overlook because he never struck out 300 in a year or 20 in a game. Maddux is all about control. He is-and I'm becoming Bob Costas as I write this-the thinking man's pitcher. Witness his domination of the Yankees in the 4-0 shutout in the 1996 World Series. He never allowed a ball out of the infield the entire game. Maddux is about placement and movement and speed changes to keep the batter off balance. In controlling these aspects of his pitching game he has induced hundreds of batters to ground out meekly 6-3, 4-3, and especially 1-3 over the course of his career. So how could this "record" have any bearing on his greatness? Well, I tried to reconsider. Given the unpredictability of even great pitchers year to year, maybe 15 in a row was significant. What do 15 wins represent? In the last few decades, 15 wins mean a solid season for a starting pitcher. Not necessarily anything flashy but rarely do you see a so-so pitcher collect 15 wins (Aaron Sele aside). There are pitchers who have good season that don't win 15 games. I'll use my favorite example: Nolan Ryan went 8-16 in 1986 while leading the league with a 2.76 ERA (42% better than the park-adjusted average). For Maddux, having 15 wins for 15 seasons means that he has been a consistently solid pitcher for 15 of his 16 seasons. Is that good compared to the greatest pitchers of all time? One thing that impressed me more about Maddux is that he has also has a park-adjusted ERA (Thanks Baseball-Reference.com) at least 10% better than the league average for the past 15 years as well. Is that a particularly compelling argument for his superior abilities? Let's take a look at Hall of Fame starting pitchers to determine how unusual the feat is. I'll list each pitcher, the number of times he won 15 in a row, the number of times he won 15 in total, the number of times in a row he had an adjusted ERA at least 10% better than league average (110+ ERA+), and the total number of 110+ ERA+ seasons, his total number of seasons, and the percentage of 15-win and 110+ERA+ seasons. I have included Babe Ruth and Monte Ward as Hall of Fame pitchers. I also added a few of Maddux's contemporaries for perspective: Name 15 W 110+ ERA+ %15W %110+ ERA+
RowTotRowTot #Yrs
Greg Maddux 15 15 15 15 17 88.24% 88.24%
Randy Johnson 6 8 10 11 15 53.33% 73.33%
Roger Clemens 7 11 8 15 19 57.89% 78.95%
Tom Glavine 3 9 4 10 16 56.25% 62.50%
Pedro Martinez 4 6 11 11 11 54.55% 100.00%
Curt Schilling 3 6 8 10 15 40.00% 66.67%
Nolan Ryan 3 8 3 13 27 29.63% 48.15%
Don Sutton 8 12 3 11 23 52.17% 47.83%
Phil Niekro 7 13 9 15 24 54.17% 62.50%
Jim Bunning 4 8 4 10 17 47.06% 58.82%
Vic Willis 4 9 2 7 13 69.23% 53.85%
Steve Carlton 7 11 4 15 24 45.83% 62.50%
Tom Seaver 7 13 13 15 20 65.00% 75.00%
Hal Newhouser 7 7 8 9 17 41.18% 52.94%
Gaylord Perry 13 13 14 15 22 59.09% 68.18%
Fergie Jenkins 6 10 8 13 19 52.63% 68.42%
Jim Palmer 5 12 5 11 19 63.16% 57.89%
Catfish Hunter 7 7 2 5 15 46.67% 33.33%
Don Drysdale 4 7 7 11 14 50.00% 78.57%
Juan Marichal 5 8 8 10 16 50.00% 62.50%
Bob Gibson 5 10 10 13 17 58.82% 76.47%
Addie Joss 4 6 9 9 9 66.67% 100.00%
Amos Rusie 8 8 8 8 10 80.00% 80.00%
Robin Roberts 8 10 6 11 19 52.63% 57.89%
Bob Lemon 9 9 3 8 13 69.23% 61.54%
Whitey Ford 5 10 13 15 16 62.50% 93.75%
Warren Spahn 11 16 11 16 21 76.19% 76.19%
Mickey Welch 8 10 4 8 13 76.92% 61.54%
Sandy Koufax 6 6 6 7 12 50.00% 58.33%
Early Wynn 7 10 3 11 23 43.48% 47.83%
Lefty Gomez 4 7 3 7 14 50.00% 50.00%
Rube Marquad 3 5 3 6 18 27.78% 33.33%
Jesse Haines 2 4 3 10 19 21.05% 52.63%
Stan Coveleski 7 9 7 10 14 64.29% 71.43%
Waite Hoyt 4 8 5 10 21 38.10% 47.62%
Red Ruffing 8 12 7 10 22 54.55% 45.45%
Pud Galvin 11 11 1 8 15 73.33% 53.33%
Red Faber 3 7 4 13 20 35.00% 65.00%
Burleigh Grimes 5 11 3 7 19 57.89% 36.84%
Tim Keefe 10 11 9 11 14 78.57% 78.57%
Monte Ward 6 6 2 4 7 85.71% 57.14%
John Clarkson 9 9 6 10 12 75.00% 83.33%
Eppa Rixey 5 8 5 12 21 38.10% 57.14%
Bob Feller 6 10 10 13 18 55.56% 72.22%
Ted Lyons 4 6 7 13 21 28.57% 61.90%
Dazzy Vance 4 7 5 9 16 43.75% 56.25%
Dizzy Dean 5 5 9 9 12 41.67% 75.00%
Chief Bender 3 9 8 9 16 56.25% 56.25%
Three Finger Brown 8 9 11 12 14 64.29% 85.71%
Kid Nichols 10 12 13 13 15 80.00% 86.67%
Herb Pennock 6 8 3 7 22 36.36% 31.82%
Carl Hubbell 6 8 12 12 16 50.00% 75.00%
Lefty Grove 7 11 8 14 17 64.71% 82.35%
Jack Chesbro 7 7 5 6 11 63.64% 54.55%
Joe McGinnity 9 9 3 6 10 90.00% 60.00%
Eddie Plank 8 15 12 15 17 88.24% 88.24%
Rube Waddell 7 7 7 10 13 53.85% 76.92%
Ed Walsh 7 7 9 11 14 50.00% 78.57%
Old Hoss Radbourne 7 9 4 6 11 81.82% 54.55%
Pete Alexander 7 15 19 19 20 75.00% 95.00%
Cy Young 16 19 15 18 22 86.36% 81.82%
Babe Ruth 4 4 4 5 10 40.00% 50.00%
Christy Mathewson 12 13 7 12 17 76.47% 70.59%
Walter Johnson 10 16 13 17 21 76.19% 80.95%
Total 602 691 1064 56.58% 64.94%
Average 6.66 7.19 16.25
Permalink |
No comments.
O No, Red Sox! II
2002-09-24 01:05
O No, Red Sox! II By the way, the Red Sox won in 15th on a wild pitch to stave off elimination for at least one more day.
Permalink |
No comments.
We're Number Two! II:
2002-09-24 01:01
We're Number Two! II: the 1964 Edition So much for a pitchers' duel: the Cardinals scored 10 runs in the seventh en route to a 13-1 win. The line of the night belongs to Greg Swindell-what was I saying about the stiffs in the D-Backs bullpen-zero innings pitched, 6 batters faced, 6 hits, 5 runs (all earned), 2 doubles, and no home runs, walks, or strikeouts. He did, however, throw 12 of 18 pitches for strikes. 18 pitches to six batters? It sounds like batting practice. All tolled in the seventh, the Cardinals had 10 runs on 10 hits, including 2 doubles and four straight infield singles (!). Perhaps the only thing worse for the Diamondbacks than being dominated by Jamey Wright is the loss of Luis Gonzalez on a collision with Tony Womack on a shallow fly ball. Gonzalez separated his shoulder and it is not readily apparent how long he will be out.
Permalink |
No comments.
Double Double On Sunday, the
2002-09-24 00:49
Double Double On Sunday, the Red Sox Pedro Martinez won his 20th game. Teammate Derek Lowe has already won 21. In Arizona, both Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson have won 23, both eclipsing the magical 20 mark two years in a row. One-or at least I-would think that two sets of teammates besting the 20-win mark would be a somewhat rare occurrence, but it's not. Prior to 5-man rotations, the 20-win mark was not as rare a phenomenon as today, so that certain combinations of 20-game winners were easier to find. For example, in 1906 six teams had two sets of 20 game winners (both Chicago teams, both New York teams, Cleveland with three, and Pittsburgh). That year there were 15 20-game winners in baseball. Even as late as 1969, four teams in the majors produced twin 20-game winners, when there were again 15 20-game winners. I did find, however, that in the last 29 years, when five-man rotations became standard, the majors had only one other season in which two sets of teammates won twenty. Not only that-those teams were involved in what has been called the last real pennant race, with the division being decided by a playoff game. They are the 1993 Atlanta Braves and San Francisco Giants of course. The players were Tom Glavine (22 wins) and Greg Maddux (20) for the Braves and Billy Swift (21) and John Burkett (22) for the Giants. By the way, Black Jack McDowell was the only other 20-game winner that year (22 with the White Sox).
Permalink |
No comments.
Break Up the Devil Rays
2002-09-23 22:04
Break Up the Devil Rays Tampa Bay just beat the Yankees in the start of their four-game series at Yankees Stadium, 3-2. This comes just a few days after the D-Rays took two of three from New York at home. The Yankees missed a golden opportunity to tie idle Oakland for the league's best record. They are now a full game back with six to go.
Permalink |
No comments.
We're Number Two! The D-Backs
2002-09-23 22:00
We're Number Two! The D-Backs and Cardinals meet starting tonight in a three-game in St. Louis. The Cardinals, who have already clinched the NL Central crown, are three games behind the D-Backs, who have yet to clinch a darn thing-well, does a tie for the wild card count? They are currently tied 1-1 in the bottom of the fifth in a Rick Helling-Jamey Wright pitchers' duel-swear to God. The D-Backs have lost three straight and now lead the Giants by only 4.5. Should St. Louis sweep the series and finish ahead or tied with Arizona at the end of the year, they would take the second seed based on a 4-2 head-to-head record. That would give them home-field advantage in the first round of the playoffs.
Permalink |
No comments.
O No, Red Sox! The
2002-09-23 21:51
O No, Red Sox! The Orioles just scored a run in the bottom of the ninth on a Jay Gibbons solo shot-his second of the game-to send their game with Boston into extra innings. The Red Sox failed to score in the tenth, and the Orioles are now up. If the Red Sox lose they are officially eliminated from the playoffs.
Permalink |
No comments.
John Henry Said to His
2002-09-23 21:36
John Henry Said to His Captain... II The umps are evidently not bluffing on the umpire rating system. They have filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board.
Permalink |
No comments.
Of Playoff Rosters and Men
2002-09-23 21:32
Of Playoff Rosters and Men II Vince Femenella asked a highly topical question about playoff rosters. It turns out that Brian Anderson of the (likely) playoff-bound Arizona Diamondbacks broke a bone in his foot the very next day and is probably out for the year. Anderson would likely be the D-Backs fifth starter behind Johnson, Schilling, Batiste, and Helling, if they carried him on the playoff roster at all. He was 6-11 with a 4.79 ERA after all. He did improve slightly in the second half (4.39 ERA). Last year he was 4-9 with a 5.20 ERA and again a fifth starter, and the D-Backs took him to the playoffs as a long reliever-he even won a game in the NLCS. I would think that Brenly would probably have taken him again given the stiffs in the bullpen and his left-handedness. If so, they Diamondbacks have an open roster spot. The only other starters used this year are rookie John Patterson and Todd Stottlemyre, who is out for the season. Patterson was not on the roster on August 31 but was recalled in September and has pitched a little. The may be allowed to Patterson in lieu of Anderson. Given that Arizona's bullpen is filled out with a bunch of stiffs, it's hard to tell if they would prefer the rookie over the washed-up veterans (Morgan, Swindell, Myers, and Mantei, at least two of whom will presumably go anyway to accompany Kim, Koplove, and Fetters). Patterson has only pitched in 5 games and is a righty, which hurts his chances. But it would be interesting to see if a) they are allowed to add him-technically Anderson has not been placed on the 60-day DL and besides got hurt after the trade deadline-and b) they would add him. Since the playoff rosters are seemingly sealed until the playoffs begin, we may have to wait a week anyway.
Permalink |
No comments.
Love That Dirty Water Pedro
2002-09-23 16:40
Love That Dirty Water Pedro Martinez won his 20th game of the season on Sunday, a 13-2 victory over Baltimore. Pedro promptly called it a season saying, "This is it. I'm done. To ask for a little more would be greedy. I'm going to let (Josh) Hancock show what he has, to see if he can be of any help to us next year. I don't have anything else to prove." He has one scheduled start remaining but does not want to take it fearing injury. The suddenly ever-fragile Martinez has not gotten beyond the sixth in any of his four starts this month. He had pitch 7 or more innings in each of his August starts but developed a hip injury and missed a turn against the Yankees at the beginning of September. Manager Grady Little says that he is still mulling over Martinez's "request". For the second year in a row, the Red Sox and Martinez are at odds over his finishing out the season. Last year, with the Red Sox facing elimination early, they forced Martinez back into the rotation after almost two months on the DL for three more starts, including two against the Yankees in early September. His 2001 season ended on September 7 with a three-run, three-inning outing against the Yanks that the Sox lost 3-2. Boston was 11 behind the Yankees at the time. The Sox were desperately trying to make the playoffs in an effort to save a number of front-office jobs with a team sale pending. They failed on both accounts. Martinez had claimed that he was diagnosed with a minor rotator cuff tear. Boston claimed the injury was a mere thinning of the rotator cuff. After cajoling him into pitching interim manager Joe Kerrigan claimed, "He pitched because he wanted to pitch, he's healthy enough to pitch and we're still in the race." Whatever. The team was risking injury to a valuable and costly commodity for games that no longer mattered in the standings and luckily for all involved did not continue to do further damage. Pedro also fired another salvo at the Red Sox broadside Saturday. He announced that if the Red Sox do not soon offer him a multi-year extension on his contract that ends next season, he will play out that contract and the option year for 2004 and then test the free agent waters. After the acrimonious departures of Roger Clemens and Mo Vaughn as free agents in recent years, it had taken the Sox a couple of years to rehabilitate their image. Another high-profile departure, or rather the impending threat thereof, after three straight seasons of missing the playoffs, is the last thing the Red Sox need. But in Boston at least it's always entertaining.
Permalink |
No comments.
Mystery Meat The Atlanta Braves
2002-09-23 14:56
Mystery Meat The Atlanta Braves have not lost their division since 1991, inclusive. Three players on that '91 Braves team are on the roster today. Two are pitchers John Smoltz and Tom Glavine. The third is not coach Terry Pedleton, who played third on the '91 team. And of course, manager Bobby Cox and pitching coach Leo Mazzone were there, but I'm talking about the active roster. If anyone can name the player without looking it up, I will officially be impressed.
Permalink |
No comments.
Mighty Like a Rose This
2002-09-23 14:21
Mighty Like a Rose This weekend Riverfront (or whatever they're now calling it) held its last major-league game with the Reds losing to the Phils, 4-3. The Reds held a ceremony to celebrate and grieve its passing with many former players in attendance. Peter Edward Rose, Sr. was not one of them. Cincinnati had requested from the Lords of Baseball to invite Rose, who had the first hit in the stadium and among whose many feats there, established the hits record in Riverfront. The request was denied. Fans chanted "Pete!" and former Red Tom Browning spray-painted Rose's number 14 on the mound after the game. Personally, I don't care if Pete was there. I won't mourn for Riverfront. It was an ugly tin can of a stadium and it witnessed the ass-kicking of many a Phillies club. So many that their final victory there in a disappointing year only proves that Riverfront had a sardonic wit and a flair for the ironic. That said, in all fairness Rose should have been there for a number of reasons. First, the Reds wanted him there, and it should be their celebration. Second, though Rose is banned from every aspect of baseball including stadium appearances, MLB has broken this rules before for the marketing-heavy naming of the All-Century Team. Rose also had to put up with an interview with a surly Jim Gray after the celebration. If they broke the rules for their celebration, why not for the Reds'? Third, baseball has screwed Rose enough already. How is that you ask? Baseball never was able to prove that Rose bet on baseball. Their case is based on hearsay from the felons that constituted Rose's peer group and a few scraps of paper with supposedly Rose's chicken scratchings that one of the lowlifes pilfered from him. They supposedly contained were dates on which Rose bet on baseball games with the teams and the amounts. If they were from Rose, he evidently didn't know his team's schedule because the citations don't match any games in the years that he managed (there were dates without years on the papers). Bart Giamatti knew that the case was weak and made a deal to suspend Rose. Rose agreed as long as the charge of his betting on baseball was not raised. Rose knew that this would hinder his Hall-of-Fame chances. MLB agreed to this proviso and then announced that he had indeed bet on baseball and suspended him. Giamatti then died shortly after, and the ban has stood ever since. To doubly screw Rose, baseball changed the Hall-of-Fame voting rules to eliminate anyone currently banned from the game. This was a fine decision in general, but it was made the year that Rose became eligible to voters for the precise reason of barring the doors of Cooperstown against him. If I were Rose, I would have my lawyer add the recent snubbing to a file that can be used to his advantage in the future to either force by legal means lifting of his ban or to sue for, say, defamation of character. However Rose reacts, I am glad that MLB baseball didn't act to bar him from a celebrity softball game today in Riverfront with many former Reds. At least they aren't so deluded as to think that they control every game played in America in which a ball and a bat are involved.
Permalink |
No comments.
In the Clinch As we
2002-09-23 13:33
In the Clinch As we come into the last week of the season, four of the six division titles are now decided. It seems that a flotilla-full of contenders and pretenders has been eliminated in the last week or so. Over the weekend, the Cardinals and Yankees clinched their divisions and the A's clinched a playoff spot. The Astros were eliminated from the NL Central race on Friday and the NL wild-card race on Sunday. Seattle and Boston are still (just barely) holding on-if they win all of their games and Anaheim loses all of theirs then they can force a tie for the wild-card. Anaheim and Arizona need only to win one more game to clinch a playoff birth but have failed to do that in their last two and three, respectively, ballgames. The Yankees and the A's are vying for the number one seed in the AL. The Braves now hold a three game lead over the D-Backs for the NL's best record. The A's are now three games up on Anaheim and seem a good bet to win the division. San Francisco leads LA by two games and appears to have enough of a lead in their foot race to win going away. I just that now was the appropriate time to write the epitaph for the expired or expiring teams. Let's start with the Astros. Houston started off cold in the first half and got hot in the second but never really hot enough to challenge the Cardinals. They never really had a stretch drive. When the going got tough, the Astros got cold going 4-7 since September 11. This is a disappointing year for Houston who had the number one seed in the NL last year and then lost in the first round of the playoffs. Even though the 2001 team improved 18 games over the previous year and five games over their expected record, and the Astros defeated the Cardinals 2-of-3 in a playoff-like atmosphere to win the division-not to mention garnering four division titles in five years (but only 2 games won in four playoff appearances)-, management felt that the team had underachieved and manager Larry Dierker was fired. Expectations remained high for this season. Jimmy Williams was hired to replace Dierker. Aging Moises Alou, Pedro Astacio, and Vinny Castilla were allowed to leave as free agents and were replaced by younger players. Darryle Ward was assigned to replace Alou. A pair of righthanders (Morgan Ensberg and Geoff Blum) formed a rotation at third, but Ensberg was found lacking and sent packing to New Orleans in May. Rookie pitcher Carlos Hernandez joined the young starting rotation. Also in the offseason, the Astros finally divested themselves and their park of the Enron name, a name that had become anathema to Houston fans. So what went wrong. First, the Astros has a good number of injuries especially to the starting rotation. Of the original rotation only Roy Oswalt avoided a stint on the Disabled List. Veteran starting pitcher Shane Reynolds was lost for the season June 8 with back problems. Hernandez missed a month and one-half with shoulder problems (always encouraging in a young pitcher). Dave Mlicki missed two months with a muscle pull and was largely ineffective. Wade Miller missed a month and one half early in the year with a pinched nerve in his neck. 2001 draftee Kirk Saarloos was rushed to the majors to fill in and proved ineffective (5.96 ERA in 16 starts) as did 2001 part-time starter Tim Redding. Peter Munro, already a journeyman at 27, faired better (3.24 ERA). Bullpen pitcher and winter signee T. J. Mathews was released at the end of July after a DL stint posting a 3.44 ERA (?). The Astros also lost two starting position players for most of the year. Young shortstop Julio Lugo was hit by a Kerry Wood fastball and lost for the season with a broken wrist August 12. Richard Hidalgo missed a number of games in late July due to injury, proved ineffective when he returned, and finally succumbed to the DL with a hip strain. He return a few weeks later but has only drawn pinch-hitting duties (and that only twice) since his return. Of course, Jeff Bagwell has labored all year with a sore shoulder. Second there was a problem with underachieving or perhaps an overestimation of talent: Ensberg disappointed and was sent down. Their corner outfielders, Daryle Ward and Richard Hidalgo, continued a two-year slide (both have a .734 OPS). Hidalgo's problems were due in part to injury, but Ward's slide should be particularly concerning. Aging B's: Craig Biggio's OPS dropped nearly ninety points and Bagwell's is his lowest since 1995 (but still .924). Vinny Castilla's homers at third proved hard to replace (though his many replacements have a collective OPS that is higher). Third, their sub-.500 first half put them in a hole that even a great second half couldn't clean-and-jerk them out of. At the break the Astros stood in 3rd with a 41-45 record, 6.5 games behind first-place St. Louis and 4.5 behind the Reds. The Astros are 41-29 since the All-Star break while St. Louis has gone 44-26 and Cincinnati 29-40. Actually, Houston's rebirth started a little before the break. On June 19, they had just lost three straight to Milwaukee and stood at 30-40. Since then they are 52-34. On August 30, they were 2.5 behind St. Louis but lost three straight and stayed luke-warm while St. Louis got hot in September. On September 10 the Astros still appeared to be in striking distance of the Cardinals, 5.5 games out with seven of their next 11 games with St. Louis. Unfortunately the Astros went 4-7 (3-4 vs. St. Louis) over that period while St. Louis went 8-3, which left them 9.5 behind the leader. The Astros' record by month shows just what kind of Jeckle-and-Hyde kind of team they have been: Month W L PCT April 11 14 .440 May 13 15 .464 June 12 14 .462 July 18 9 .667 August 18 11 .621 September 10 11 .476 Overall 82 74 .526
There were some positives. Lance Berkman continues to be one of the best players in the league. Bagwell played well despite injury. Oswalt became a premier pitcher. Their pitching though often injured and extremely young has held together well, dropping their starter's ERA by nearly 60 point from last year. Some of the young replacements were a disappointment and Dave Mlicki stunk up the field, but neither of those two things could be called unexpected. Their relievers pitched well again this year. So where do the Astros go next year? First. Jeff Bagwell will have surgery for the second straight offseason. Dave Mlicki, Tom Gordon, Mark Loretta, and Shane Reynolds (whose option should not be picked up by Houston) should all leave as free agents. Weak-hitting Brad Ausmus' option will probably be mercifully picked up. Lugo and Hidalgo will return. An upgrade at third would be nice but may be difficult to find. The free agent and trade waters should be plumbed for a replacement for Daryle Ward (or at least a righty to platoon with him-he has a .442 OPS vs. lefthanded pitching). The rotation will probably good and young with Oswalt, Miller, Hernandez, Munro, and Saarlos (though they may hold on to Reynolds if they feel Saarlos is not yet ready depending on the money involved). They should have a good team but just how good will depend on the rapid maturation of their young players and the slow maturation of their veterans. After three disappointing seasons (at least according to perception), this team needs to have a breakout year.
Permalink |
No comments.
Rock'Em Sock'Em Robots for a
2002-09-23 12:51
Rock'Em Sock'Em Robots for a New Generation McDonald's has a new promotion, bobblehead dolls in the image of Roger Clemens and Mike Piazza. In fact they are wearing the same mocked up uniform (I guess Mickey D's could afford the players and the major-league logos), and are featured on New York area posters happily posing together, the dolls that is. If you plan on getting both (since a good number of New York fans jump on whichever bandwagon is hot), after seeing Chuckie, Talking Tina on the Twilight Zone, and that tiki doll in Trilogy of Terror, I would recommend keeping them as far apart as possible.
Permalink |
No comments.
Exponential Each time I hear
2002-09-22 02:53
Exponential Each time I hear about the Expos 2003 season, the more variegated their future seems. Just the other day Jayson Stark wrote that there were five options to consider for next season: stay in Montreal, move to Washington, play temporarily in a minor-league city (like Buffalo), playing as orphaned team as Rob Neyer earlier suggested, or make them a traveling team on the moon or some such nonsense. And then there are the myriad other cities wooing the franchise (Portland, Charlotte, Las Vegas). The one insurmountable issue with these plans is than Washington is the only location with a stadium currently capable of supporting major-league baseball in 2003. RFK is very old (40 years) but has supported MLB in the past. Much has been said about playing temporarily elsewhere-Stark offers Buffalo. The one problem with this is a facility. The largest minor-league facility in organized ball is in Omaha, Nebraska, off the major-league radar screen, with a seating capacity of 24,000. Buffalo's is the next largest at 21,050. But there are no others over 15K. MLB cannot seriously think that any of these minor-league facilities could support baseball at the major-league level in their current configurations. Some could possibly be expanded to support the larger crowds. It has been done in past relocations/expansions. But it is not practical for a temporary host for the Expos. It is even less practical should multiple cities be involved. Besides, these cities support minor-league teams that would also have to be relocated in a domino-like fashion should the Expos move into town. It's becoming obvious that Washington is the only practical home for this club, and MLB should recognize this and move to ensure that all is made ready for next season. They should canvass responsible ownership, buy off Orioles owner Peter Angelos, refurbish RFK, and market the heck out of the new Washingtonians. Then they will prepare to finagle usurial expansion fees from the Montreal locals when they become baseball hungry in 5-10 years.
Permalink |
No comments.
Bobby Hamlet's Ghost? Barry Bonds
2002-09-22 02:27
Bobby Hamlet's Ghost? Barry Bonds has struck out 5 times (including once tonight) and hit only one home run. This pushes his strikeout total two ahead of his homer total (46 to 44), imperiling his stake in being the first since George Brett in 1980 to have more home runs than strikeouts (with over 10 four-baggers). This comes as his father's single-season strikeout record is being usurped by Jose Hernandez (if he ever plays again). If you want to know if the two are related in any way...read the book!
Permalink |
No comments.
K as in King Jose
2002-09-22 02:19
K as in King Jose Hernandez is about to set the single-season strikeout record. He is one behind Bobby Bonds' 1970 record of 189, and has eight games left on the Brewers miserable season-they just lost their 100th game tonight. Hernandez has not played in the last three games after striking out twice in Wednesday's game to pull within one strikeout of the record. He no longer appears to be a lock to break 200 K's for the first time ever. Given this imminent historic moment, I thought a review of the record itself was in order, just like was popular in the last few years when the home run record fell. The single-season strikeout crown changed hands eight times before it rested on the head of the first man to strikeout 100 times in a season Boston Beaneater Sam Wise, who had 104 in 1884, eclipsing the old record by 25. He would never exceed 66 K's in his eight remaining big-league years. 1884 was the year that pitchers were finally allowed to deliver a pitch with his hand above the hip, though still no higher than his shoulder. Five other NL players surpassed the previous high that year (the rival American Association and Union Association kept no record of strikeouts for individual batters). Wise's record stood until 1914, aided by the NL's 15-year interruption in keeping the stat in the batting records. In that year, Gus Williams of the Browns whiffed 120 times to set the record and was out of baseball in a year. This coming one year after Danny Moeller of the Senators fell one short of the record but became the second man to collect a 100 in a season (103 in 1913). The next man to strike out 100 times would not come until 1932, and the record would stand until 1938. Between 1934 and 1941 the major-league leader had 100 strikeouts each year, possibly due the home run craze that followed Babe Ruth. Jimmie Foxx came with one of Williams record. The record fell to Vince DiMaggio of the Boston Bees (still referred to as Braves by the fans) in his second year. For Vince, the weakest player of the three DiMaggio brothers, this was the second straight 100+ strikeout year, though he would only do it twice more in his remaining eight seasons. In 1949 Duke Snider became the last player to lead the majors in strikeout with fewer than 100 (92). DiMaggio's record stood until Washington Senator Jim Lemon broke it by four in 1956 (with 138). It was Lemon's first full season. He would play five more and break 100 twice. With the expansion of the 1960s, the record changed hands a few times. This could be due to the, at least perceived, dilution of batting talent after the 1960s draft. It was felt-quite the reverse of today-that having the extra teams and their attendant rosters aided the pitchers. In 1961 Tiger rookie Jake Wood struck out 141 times, and though he played six more seasons never started again. Free-swinging Hall-of-Fame Twin Harmon Killebrew surpassed that total by one the next year. This was Killebrew's career best, er, worst. In 1963 the White Sox Dave Nicholson crushed that tally with 175. Nicholson would play 4 more seasons, but never started again (though he did strike out 126 times in 294 at-bats in 1964). Nicholson would hold on to this albatross of a distinction until Bobby Bonds eclipsed him in 1969 with 187. Bonds outdid himself the next year with 189, the record that has stood until this day. Strikeouts have continued to be on the rise in the last few years. Eleven of the top 25 single-season strikeout victims have come since 1997 (12 if you count Hernandez this year). I find this records history very edifying. After a maturation process, the record was in the hands of four men for over 75 years. Then it went through a period of frequent transition and change, and three men held in exactly three years. Then only one other man has held the record until now. Well, until Hernandez's next game this year. Given the volatility of the single-season home run record in the last few years, it's gratifying to hear that a record can have a short period of volatility and then go back to pattern of changing hands only every 25-40 years. We'll just have to see if this holds true for home runs.
Permalink |
No comments.
They Say It's Your Birth-Joe-Morgan-Chat-Day-Happy
2002-09-21 02:29
They Say It's Your Birth-Joe-Morgan-Chat-Day-Happy Birth-Joe-Morgan-Chat-Day To You Yesterday was Joe Morgan's 59th birthday-Can that be true? Tomorrow is the 39th anniversary of his debut with the Houston Colt .45's. But most importantly: today is Joe Morgan Chat Day or JMCD as we call it here at Mike's Baseball Rants or MBR, not to be confused with MGD or TGIF or ESPN or LMAOROTFPIMP (which of course every emailer knows is "Laughed my ass off, rolling on the floor, peeing in my pants"-oh, it's great fun having our own little language like those idiot savant twins in that story). Here at MBR we love JMCD. Joe obviously studied under the great philosopher Ludwig Weittgenstein. How do I know? Well, first Wittgenstein batted lefty. Second, Ludwig was always spouting off on his little theories in chunk just about the size of a chat session response that definitely were seminal in Joe's baseball analyst development. Witness: "For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language." Sound like Joe? Of course, there are exceptions: "the word "is" is used with two different meanings (as the copula and as the sign of equality)" but that its meaning is not its use. That is to say, "is" has not one complex use (including both "Water is clear" and "Water is H2O") and therefore one complex meaning, but two quite distinct uses and meanings. It is an accident that the same word has these two uses. It is not an accident that we use the word "car" to refer to both Fords and Hondas. But what is accidental and what is essential to a concept depends on us, on how we use it. That's Joe all over. We have rules that we will spew about except when we don't, cause we don't. That's why we love him so. Happy Birthday, Joe! Of course, the Wittgenstein/baseball parallels run even deeper. He had a Brown Book and a Blue Book. Baseball has a Blue Book as well and if you mix the NL Green Book and the AL Red Book together, you get brown. Then there's Jason Robards' character in Max Dugan Returns who calls himself Wittgenstein to hide his identity from his grandson, played by a teen-aged Mathew Broderick. Robards then hires Charlie Lau (really) to teach the weak-hitting Broderick to hit, and Broderick then, to the surprise of everyone who has never seen a movie, hits the game-winning homer in his high school baseball game. As he rounds the bases, a jubilant Broderick declared, "That one's for you, Wittgenstein!" Of course, the grandfather's dead by this point (sorry) and Broderick knows his real identity, so it's kind of pointless, but it was the '80s, the era of John Hughes, and that's what you did. Now on to the chat: The Good Theo (Cincinnati): Why can't the Tigers pull it together? What are they lacking and what positives do they have to build on? Joe Morgan: They are lacking talent. They have some young players to build on .. Pena and some pitchers. Other than that, they just don't enough talent. [Mike: Don't sugarcoat it, Joe. Tell us how you really feel.] Mike, New Brunswick, NJ: How dangerous do you feel the Twins really are in a short 5 game series? It seems as if they are being looked over and might upset either Oakland or Anaheim who will be focusing on getting past the Yanks. Joe Morgan: It's pretty much the same answer as before.. when you are in a short series, anyone can get hot and anyone can win. When you get a group of good teams together, it's just a matter of who gets hot. [Mike: Right.] Alex (Somerville, MA): I know the Mets season is lost. However, is it possible we could still have the nucleus for a good team next year, especially if we get help with the starting pitching? Piazza, Alomar, Burnitz, Vaughn, and Cedeno all seemingly had off-years at the same time. Is it merely an impossible hope that at least some of them will return to form next year and make a playoff run? Joe Morgan: That's true .. you can't blame the pitching though. They didn't get much run support. All those guys have to bounce back for them to have a good year. Some of them have good track records, but I'm not sure about all of them bouncing back. And I'm not sure Vaughn will be the Vaughn he was before. [Mike: Hey, why is someone from Slummervile a Met's fan? Anyway, Joe's right, the Mets lineup has let down an acceptable, if not great, pitching staff. They are ninth currently in ERA in the majors. The bullpen is 10th in Adjusted Runs Prevented with 26.7 (Baseball Prospectus). The Support Neutral Value Added stat for the starter is -3.5, which is 19th in the majors, but everything else is at least better than average. They are 23rd in runs scored, 26th in OPS. And according to BP are outperforming expectations by 26 runs. Suraj (Tokyo): Your article on Cy Young awards today states that the award has nothing to do with the pennant race, but rather to do with individual stats, then you suggest Zito over Pedro or Lowe because of his contribution to the A's playoff chances. I agree that Zito has been more valuable than the two Sox, but has he truly been better? If Pedro and Lowe played for the Angels, whom would you choose? Joe Morgan: First, you need to read the article again. I said there is not as much importance placed on a team's success as in the MVP award. I never said it has nothing to do with it. I explain everything you just asked about. Zito has the edge over those two guys. Read it again .. slowly. [Mike: Ouch! The man's right. Joe's correct about what he says in the article (not that I agree with it necessarily), but is this our usual cordial Joe? It seems that Evil Joe has made an appearance again. If you don't believe me, read again... slowly.] The Bad Jake (WV): Hey Joe, What do you think about Bobby Cox getting his 1800th win as a manager. The win put him 400 games above .500 for his career as a manager. AMAZIN! Joe Morgan: The amazing thing is I don't think he has ever won Manager of the Year! He is always overlooked but I think he might get it this year. [Mike: Bobby Cox won the award in 1985 with Toronto (the last year in which one award was given out in the majors) and in 1991, 1993, and 1999 with Atlanta. As a matter of fact, he has won it more times (4) than any other person, and the award dates back to 1936. Sorry, Joe.] James (NC): Joe, Why are the Red Sox so bad? They have the talent to be as good as the Yankees (if you ask me, but I'm asking you) Joe Morgan: That's a difficult question to answer in a short time. A lot has to do with the makeup of the Yankees and Torre and his staff. [Mike: How about talent and injuries? This team has had no legitimate first baseman for a good part of the year (Clark and Offerman?). They never had a decent second baseman (Sanchez and Merloni?) They spent most of the year with two-fifths of a rotation (though Fossum and Wakefield have done well in the second half as the team unraveled). Ramirez and Pedro lost some time to injuries. Tim (Chicago): After a very disappointing year, how do you think the Red Sox will finish next year? Rob Neyer: Not like I want to make anybody in the Bronx mad at me, but I think the Red Sox are going to win next year. The Yankees have some real problems with their rotation, Jeter seems to be sliding, and the Red Sox have an owner who's taking steps to bring the organization into the 21st century. [Mike: Yes, a special cameo appearance. This is one of the most unfortunate things that I've read from Neyer. He has really gotten way into John Henry. Great, he plays APBA, but he still needs a pitching staff. They have a question mark at each spot in the rotation: Can Pedro be healthy for an entire season? Is Lowe for real? Is Fossum a reliable major-league starter? Is Wakefield even a starter and if so can he keep it up? Do I have a fifth starter on my roster? They have no second-baseman, Hillebrand and Nixon may've had fluke years, Damon had a bad second-half, do they keep Cliff Floyd, etc. The Yankees are not perfect, but they can fill every hole, and they can get someone else if they cannot do it internally. Besides, it's September of the previous season. How do you even know who will be on the team come April? Let alone what obstacles (they're always there in Boston) they will face.] Craig (Washington DC): Dont want to take up to much of your time. One question, real easy: Giants or Dodgers? Joe Morgan: The Giants because the Dodgers starting pitching is what has got them this far and they are injured right now. [Mike: I'm sick of his saying this. Why are the Dodgers worse off than the Angels-they both in essence lost one starter. Kevin Brown came off the DL, started one game, and was done. And yet he'll say that the Angels rotation is a plus when Mickey Calloway's in it. By the way, Joe. I don't want to take up too much of your valuable. Pardon me while I read the preamble to the Constitution before asking my inane, banal question.] Jim Thome (Cleveland): What should I do now? Joe Morgan: I don't have enough facts ... can't answer that! [Mike: It's nice that Jim Thome told us his home is Cleveland. Of course, he was in KC today, But that wouldn;t have gone well with the gag. ] This One's For You, Wittgenstein! Tom (Troy, NY): What's the status of the Expos? Will they stay or will they go now? Joe Morgan: I'm not sure what will happen.. I know they wont go to D.C. this year. I have heard talk about playing somewhere temporarily but I see them staying in Montreal for another year. [Mike: How does Joe know this? The commissioner's office has ruled nothing out. The RFK authority has said that they can get the stadium ready even if they are given the go-ahead as late as mid-February. Oh, this is one of those Wittgensteinian semantic things. When Joe says "know" he means he heard some guy say it on SportCenter. Same thing. By the way, I tend to agree with him though-how scary is that?] John St Louis: How are you Joe, i'm a big fan of yours my question is how well do you think the cardinals will fair in the playoffs. we all know they can play defense and score runs, but do they have the starting pitching and bullpen to match up with a team like the d'backs or braves. thanks for the time Joe Morgan: Everyone thought they would love to the Dbacks last year and they did but it was 5 tough games. They can produce runs it will just depend on how healthy their pitching is. Anytime you get to the playoffs, you have a chance to win it all, you just have to get some breaks. [Mike: Everyone thought they'd do what to the Dbacks last year? I bet it was 5 tough games with all of those pressures on you. You don't know if the other team even likes you. Your skin keeps breaking out. And you can't find a dress for the prom. Besides what if the Dbacks don't ask you anyway? Can you go solo or maybe ask that nice, fat team in Triple-A to go along with you as a friend. Decision. Decision. Pay me lawyer's salary.] The rest of the ugliness is devoted to Joe's Cy Young column: Joe Morgan: A team's placement in the standings is more important in the MVP voting than it is in the Cy Young voting. The Cy Young is more of an individual award than one tied to team performance. [Mike: Why? Is there some sort of definition that makes the awards different? Why isn't most valuable just the best player? It used to be before pundits like you changed the connotation to mean best player on a playoff team that is hot in September. Then, you'll turn around and tell us that the ones in April mean just as much when the Angels lose the division because of their 6-14 start.] Joe Morgan: Statistically, wins mean the most to me. After victories, I look at innings pitched, ERA and strikeouts -- in that order. While wins are the most important, I will use the other three statistics in a tiebreaker situation between two pitchers. [Mike: I start with Turn-Ons and then move on to quality starts. Look, no one statistic will tell you everything about a player. There are important ones like wins. Yes, you don't want to give the Cy Young to a starting pitcher with only 9 wins, but does a 22-game winner really mean that much more to you than a 20-game winner? Besides that's how a Lamarrrrrr Hoyt ends up with the award. Innings are important, but it's basically a threshold to ensure that he didn't miss to many starts or get bailed out continually by his bullpen. ERA is by far the most important conventional stat for a starting pitcher. It measures how many (earned) runs the pitcher allowed. Runs are how we score the games. He can scoff at WHIPs and strikeout-to-walk ratios, but ERA?] Joe Morgan: If a pitcher has a low ERA and consistently loses low-scoring games, like 2-1 or 3-2, it means the opposing pitchers are outpitching him. That is not a criticism; the pitcher may be pitching great. But he is pitching well enough to lose, not to win. [Mike: It just gets worse. OK, let's look at this logically. When a manager is arranging his rotation, he tries to get favorable pairings if possible, right? His number one on the opposition's number one, #2 on #2, etc. if he can to minimize his exposure. So if your #1 loses to theirs 2-1, can you possibly be upset with him? He gave your team an opportunity to win-that's all he can do. If you look at it this way, every pitcher will get outpitched over the course of the season. Would you rather have him be outpitched 3-2 or 12-4? If he is outpitched consistently as Joe says he will not even be considered. Is Lowe outpitched consistently and that's why Ziti has two more wins than him? Besides with today's rotations a pitcher may leave in the sixth or seventh even in a close, well-pitched game. Can that pitcher be held responsible for a bullpen who cannot hold a lead or keep a game close?] Joe Morgan: Everything in baseball is about production, not percentages. I view pitching statistics in the context of a hitter. ERA and batting average are percentages that don't help a team win. However, wins and innings pitched are productive numbers for a pitcher just as RBIs and runs scored are for a hitter. [Mike: Just plain wrong. ERA measures runs qualified by the "earned" label. Preventing runs helps a team win. Batting average measures hits per at-bat which is not directly associated with runs. So it therefore has no direct connection to winning. Just because they are both percentages doesn't mean they do the same thing. Return on Investment and percent of orders fulfilled may be two metrics that a company looks at, but the former will tell them a whole lot more about its own strengths.] Joe Morgan: There have been worthy exceptions among closers. When Mike Marshall (1974), Sparky Lyle (1977), Bruce Sutter (1979), Rollie Fingers (1981) and Willie Hernandez (1984) won Cy Young awards, all three pitched a lot of innings and sometimes closed games having to pitch the seventh, eighth and ninth innings. Without a single start, Marshall pitched 208 1/3 innings in 1974, more than all but 14 pitchers that season. [Mike: If you judge candidates by wins how do you view these five relievers as positive when they won a total of 49 games among them. That's less than 10 wins per season. Well, we'll let you off the hook on that one. But were these pitchers the best in the leagues for their Cy Young year. For that we will use the best tool that I know of, Bill James' Win Shares. Marshall had 21 Win Shares in '74 (second among the Dodgers pitchers) and trailed Phil Niekro by 7 WS. Lyle had 20 WS in '77, 9 behind league leader Jim Palmer. Sutter had 22 WS in '79, 2 behind league-leader Niekro (again). Fingers had 17, 1 behind Steve McCatty (curse you, Billy Martin). Hernandez had 24, 1 behind Dave Steib. OK, most of those were decent choices (not Lyle or Marshall), but none were the best. Why is that? Because the closer was a new concept. No one knew how to evaluate them. They were cool. Fingers had a funny mustache. Hrabosky psyched himself up. They were flaky. They had a lot of personality. The press liked them and gave them a lot of coverage. But their jobs had just really started to evolve. Marshall was 15-12 with 208-1/3 innings in 106 appearances. He was basically a long reliever at the end of the game. The role evolved into a shorter stint and the other four individuals won a Cy Young. They had fewer saves but pitched more innings that today. Today, a closer does not usually pitch more than one inning and pitches less frequently-mostly in save situations. But that is just how the role evolved. The role from Marshall's day is now covered by the bulk of the bullpen. The rest of the Cy Young-winning relievers had the role of setup and closer for the most part. Should players be penalized because the game has evolved? Well, yes, because their role is less important. The Cy Young is based on merit and opportunity. By being a closer or short reliever, your role limits your opportunity. And though your inning is more important than the starter's, say, third inning, it's not that much more important. Jesse Orosco can face every lefthander, one per game, that the Dodgers face, strike each out, and never approach the worth of Eric Milton. Early on the closer was a novelty and therefore drew more attention. Now, the pendulum has gone back the other way. Will it ever change back? Possibly, if the demands of the game outweigh the money that closers get paid. But don't bet on it.]
Permalink |
No comments.
How About Getting Rid of
2002-09-21 00:36
How About Getting Rid of the Diamondback Unis Altogether? A month ago the sports press was caught up in the maelstrom that were the baseball labor negotiations. We heard that if the players struck, it could be the end of the sport as we know it. If the owners didn't stick to their guns and get the deal that they needed, it could cause financial ruin for the small-revenue clubs. This is what MLB was promulgating only a month ago. Now what are they concerned with? Baggy pants. In an effort to drain any last shred of character and marketability from the game, MLB is instituting new uniform standards, not for safety or to minimize distractions for opponents, merely since they are unsightly. That means that players who have developed a unique style like Barry Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, and Manny Ramirez will lose that bit of their identity come next season. ESPN so sayeth: MLB does have uniform regulations already in the basic rulebook. Rule 1.11 prohibits everything from glass buttons to "ragged, frayed or slit" sleeves, although no sanctions for violators are listed. Two years ago, MLB also set restrictions on the sizes for protective elbow pads, like the ones Bonds and Biggio wear. However, players can go over the size limit if they prove a prior injury exists (as Bonds has done). Well, here's the rule in its entirety: 1.11 The intention of the rule is to ensure that uniform standards are enforced to identify players and to reduce any distraction or obstruction caused by non-uniformity (therefore, the name) on the part of, usually, the pitcher. It's like an extension of the balk rule. The rules were not developed so that Bud could institute a dress code. They claim that some shirts are worn to be baggy to induce a hit-by-a-pitch call. If so, that aspect may be addressed, but who cares if Barry feels that he is making a fashion statement with pants down to his toenails. Here is some history on each aspect of the rule from Rich Marazzi's The Rules and Lore of Baseball: - 1.11 (a)(1): Umpire Bill Hailer laid rule 1.11(a) on Vida Blue on April 16, 1977. Hailer forced Blue to remove the old, discolored cap that he had worn for some time. Blue superstitiously looked at his hat as his "lucky" cap. Vida said, "I'm going to wear it next time or I won't pitch." The Oakland pitcher had a change of heart the next day and proceeded to burn his cap in front of his teammates. |