|
Monthly archives: December 2002
"I don't want to achieve
2002-12-31 12:33
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work ... I want to achieve it through not dying" (Woody Allen) Yesterday, my friend Murray and I were emailing each other regarding the Jim Rice/Hall of Fame post I made they other day. I had a thought about Rice and his ilk, thus: There are a number of players like Rice (Parker, Murphy, Dawson, Allen, Mattingly, etc.) that are going to be interesting litmus tests for the writers and especially the Vets' Committee. I'm not sure if I would put any of them in, but given the dearth of players from the '70s and '80s in the Hall (I have to re-check this but I remember there being something like half as many players as the other eras) someone else from those decades will have to go in. And Joe Morgan only has some many ex-Red teammates left. After he fast-tracks Ed Armbrister, they will have to look elsewhere. I just wonder who'll make the cut. We may not know for some time. Well, the issue stuck in my craw, and we all know how painful that is. So I did a little research: By the way, I checked out the HoF data I was discussing earlier... Attached is a spreadsheet with the # of active HoFers (MLB players only), # of total ballplayers, and the % of HoFers per year. I also graphed it in the spreadsheet. I would post it, but I don't know how to embed graphs. Anyway, note the decline in the number of HoFers since around 1973 and in the % of HoFers since around 1968. There are a bunch of players who are not yet eligible (Henderson, Bonds, Clemens, etc.) who will boost some of these numbers but it's still pretty low. And it starts to decline a good 10 years before any of those guys even started. (E.g. only 2.87 of all players active in 1977, not coincidentally an expansion year, are in the Hall of Fame.) Here's the chart to which I referred. Unfortunately, I can't post the graphs, so I'll do the next best thing. The average percentage of Hall of Fame players in the chart is 5.34%. Let's call a year in the average range if the percentage is between 4 and 8%. I have underlined the years below 4%, and italicized the ones over 8%: Year # HoFers # players % in Hall 1871 1 115 0.87% 1872 2 144 1.39% 1873 2 122 1.64% 1874 2 120 1.67% 1875 3 190 1.58% 1876 2 121 1.65% 1877 2 92 2.17% 1878 4 77 5.19% 1879 6 119 5.04% 1880 11 127 8.66% 1881 11 120 9.17% 1882 13 229 5.68% 1883 12 257 4.67% 1884 14 635 2.20% 1885 15 322 4.66% 1886 15 326 4.60% 1887 15 316 4.75% 1888 19 331 5.74% 1889 20 322 6.21% 1890 24 508 4.72% 1891 26 358 7.26% 1892 26 266 9.77% 1893 24 259 9.27% 1894 23 260 8.85% 1895 22 281 7.83% 1896 22 270 8.15% 1897 24 263 9.13% 1898 22 298 7.38% 1899 24 308 7.79% 1900 25 188 13.30% 1901 27 369 7.32% 1902 26 389 6.68% 1903 28 368 7.61% 1904 31 363 8.54% 1905 30 388 7.73% 1906 31 412 7.52% 1907 30 413 7.26% 1908 31 434 7.14% 1909 31 500 6.20% 1910 29 497 5.84% 1911 25 529 4.73% 1912 29 578 5.02% 1913 29 560 5.18% 1914 32 730 4.38% 1915 35 719 4.87% 1916 35 516 6.78% 1917 33 480 6.88% 1918 27 471 5.73% 1919 28 466 6.01% 1920 30 483 6.21% 1921 33 478 6.90% 1922 38 480 7.92% 1923 40 494 8.10% 1924 47 509 9.23% 1925 50 508 9.84% 1926 52 488 10.66% 1927 52 491 10.59% 1928 53 490 10.82% 1929 53 497 10.66% 1930 53 477 11.11% 1931 48 483 9.94% 1932 52 482 10.79% 1933 51 448 11.38% 1934 47 478 9.83% 1935 44 472 9.32% 1936 41 469 8.74% 1937 41 487 8.42% 1938 36 486 7.41% 1939 36 517 6.96% 1940 33 500 6.60% 1941 36 531 6.78% 1942 31 500 6.20% 1943 20 508 3.94% 1944 16 525 3.05% 1945 16 536 2.99% 1946 27 601 4.49% 1947 32 521 6.14% 1948 29 514 5.64% 1949 28 511 5.48% 1950 28 504 5.56% 1951 29 522 5.56% 1952 29 535 5.42% 1953 30 516 5.81% 1954 31 517 6.00% 1955 34 571 5.95% 1956 36 525 6.86% 1957 32 538 5.95% 1958 31 557 5.57% 1959 32 546 5.86% 1960 31 554 5.60% 1961 32 598 5.35% 1962 34 669 5.08% 1963 34 668 5.09% 1964 31 664 4.67% 1965 37 672 5.51% 1966 34 677 5.02% 1967 36 684 5.26% 1968 35 644 5.43% 1969 36 807 4.46% 1970 34 813 4.18% 1971 35 801 4.37% 1972 34 789 4.31% 1973 31 661 4.69% 1974 27 681 3.96% 1975 26 670 3.88% 1976 23 664 3.46% 1977 20 698 2.87% 1978 21 692 3.03% 1979 21 685 3.07% 1980 20 709 2.82% 1981 19 705 2.70% 1982 19 720 2.64% 1983 17 735 2.31% 1984 13 721 1.80% 1985 12 706 1.70% 1986 11 726 1.52% 1987 10 747 1.34% 1988 9 717 1.26% 1989 6 734 0.82% 1990 6 742 0.81% 1991 6 755 0.79% 1992 6 752 0.80% 1993 6 820 0.73% 1994 3 722 0.42% 1995 3 822 0.36% 1996 1 832 0.12% 1997 0 908 0.00% 1998 0 967 0.00% 1999 0 960 0.00% 2000 0 1132 0.00% 2001 0 1220 0.00% All of the time periods that fall outside the norm can be explained by some phenomenon or another in the sport except for two, the highs of 1923 to 1937 and the lows since 1974. (Aside from the salient issues I raise above: The lows of 1871-77 are a product of a still developing major league system. As the AA folds after 1891, the percentage skyrockets.) As I already said, the 1923-'37 aberration is due to the excesses of past Veterans' Committees. Part of the explanation for the historic lows since 1974 can be attributed to players who either a) are not yet eligible or b) are eligible but have not served their time in purgatory but will be inducted eventually (e.g., Gary Carter). Here are all of the Hall of Famers who retired after 1936, the first year of inductees, with their last major-league year, the year inducted, and the number of years that they had to wait to be inducted: FirstName LastName Inducted Last Year Diff LOU GEHRIG 1939 1939 0 ROGERS HORNSBY 1942 1937 5 CARL HUBBELL 1947 1943 4 FRANKIE FRISCH 1947 1937 10 LEFTY GROVE 1947 1941 6 MICKEY COCHRANE 1947 1937 10 PIE TRAYNOR 1948 1937 11 CHARLIE GEHRINGER 1949 1942 7 JIMMIE FOXX 1951 1945 6 MEL OTT 1951 1947 4 PAUL WANER 1952 1945 7 AL SIMMONS 1953 1944 9 DIZZY DEAN 1953 1947 6 BILL DICKEY 1954 1946 8 BILL TERRY 1954 1936 18 GABBY HARTNETT 1955 1941 14 JOE DIMAGGIO 1955 1951 4 TED LYONS 1955 1946 9 HANK GREENBERG 1956 1947 9 JOE CRONIN 1956 1945 11 BOB FELLER 1962 1956 6 JACKIE ROBINSON 1962 1956 6 HEINIE MANUSH 1964 1939 25 LUKE APPLING 1964 1950 14 TED WILLIAMS 1966 1960 6 LLOYD WANER 1967 1945 22 RED RUFFING 1967 1947 20 GOOSE GOSLIN 1968 1938 30 JOE MEDWICK 1968 1948 20 KIKI CUYLER 1968 1938 30 ROY CAMPANELLA 1969 1957 12 STAN MUSIAL 1969 1963 6 WAITE HOYT 1969 1938 31 JESSE HAINES 1970 1937 33 LOU BOUDREAU 1970 1952 18 CHICK HAFEY 1971 1937 34 SATCHEL PAIGE 1971 1965 6 EARLY WYNN 1972 1963 9 LEFTY GOMEZ 1972 1943 29 SANDY KOUFAX 1972 1966 6 YOGI BERRA 1972 1965 7 MONTE IRVIN 1973 1956 17 ROBERTO CLEMENTE 1973 1972 1 WARREN SPAHN 1973 1965 8 JIM BOTTOMLEY 1974 1937 37 MICKEY MANTLE 1974 1968 6 WHITEY FORD 1974 1967 7 BILLY HERMAN 1975 1947 28 EARL AVERILL 1975 1941 34 RALPH KINER 1975 1955 20 BOB LEMON 1976 1958 18 FREDDY LINDSTROM 1976 1936 40 ROBIN ROBERTS 1976 1966 10 ERNIE BANKS 1977 1971 6 EDDIE MATHEWS 1978 1968 10 WILLIE MAYS 1979 1973 6 AL KALINE 1980 1974 6 CHUCK KLEIN 1980 1944 36 DUKE SNIDER 1980 1964 16 BOB GIBSON 1981 1975 6 JOHNNY MIZE 1981 1953 28 FRANK ROBINSON 1982 1976 6 HANK AARON 1982 1976 6 TRAVIS JACKSON 1982 1936 46 BROOKS ROBINSON 1983 1977 6 GEORGE KELL 1983 1957 26 JUAN MARICHAL 1983 1975 8 DON DRYSDALE 1984 1969 15 HARMON KILLEBREW 1984 1975 9 LUIS APARICIO 1984 1973 11 PEE WEE REESE 1984 1958 26 RICK FERRELL 1984 1947 37 ARKY VAUGHAN 1985 1948 37 ENOS SLAUGHTER 1985 1959 26 HOYT WILHELM 1985 1972 13 LOU BROCK 1985 1979 6 BOBBY DOERR 1986 1951 35 ERNIE LOMBARDI 1986 1947 39 WILLIE MCCOVEY 1986 1980 6 BILLY WILLIAMS 1987 1976 11 CATFISH HUNTER 1987 1976 11 WILLIE STARGELL 1988 1982 6 CARL YASTRZEMSKI 1989 1983 6 JOHNNY BENCH 1989 1983 6 RED SCHOENDIENST 1989 1963 26 JIM PALMER 1990 1972 18 JOE MORGAN 1990 1984 6 FERGIE JENKINS 1991 1983 8 GAYLORD PERRY 1991 1981 10 ROD CAREW 1991 1985 6 TONY LAZZERI 1991 1939 52 HAL NEWHOUSER 1992 1954 38 ROLLIE FINGERS 1992 1980 12 TOM SEAVER 1992 1983 9 REGGIE JACKSON 1993 1987 6 PHIL RIZZUTO 1994 1956 38 STEVE CARLTON 1994 1986 8 MIKE SCHMIDT 1995 1989 6 RICHIE ASHBURN 1995 1962 33 JIM BUNNING 1996 1971 25 NELLIE FOX 1997 1965 32 PHIL NIEKRO 1997 1987 10 DON SUTTON 1998 1988 10 LARRY DOBY 1998 1959 39 GEORGE BRETT 1999 1993 6 NOLAN RYAN 1999 1988 11 ORLANDO CEPEDA 1999 1974 25 ROBIN YOUNT 1999 1993 6 CARLTON FISK 2000 1993 7 TONY PEREZ 2000 1986 14 DAVE WINFIELD 2001 1995 6 KIRBY PUCKETT 2001 1995 6 OZZIE SMITH 2002 1996 6 Average 15.44248 Median 10 Max 52 Min 0
It is also partially due to the rapid expansion in the last 40 years. There were over twice as many major league ballplayers at the end of the century than in the pre-expansion era. From 1916 to 1960 there were just 16 major league teams. The average number of major-leaguers in that period is 506, almost 32 per club per year. Do the voters somehow have a preconceived notion as far as the Hall-of-Fame standards based on pre-expansion numbers? I created a new table based on the numbers above taken from 1969, the year that the downward trend starts, until 2001. I have added columns for the projected number of Hofers based on 4% (the low end of our average), 5.34% (the average percentage form the table), and 8% (the high end of our average) of the active players: Year HoF # players % in Hall 4% HoF Diff 5.34% HoF Diff 8% HoF Diff 1969 36 807 4.46% 32 -4 43 7 65 29 1970 34 813 4.18% 33 -1 43 9 65 31 1971 35 801 4.37% 32 -3 43 8 64 29 1972 34 789 4.31% 32 -2 42 8 63 29 1973 31 661 4.69% 26 -5 35 4 53 22 1974 27 681 3.96% 27 0 36 9 54 27 1975 26 670 3.88% 27 1 36 10 54 28 1976 23 664 3.46% 27 4 35 12 53 30 1977 20 698 2.87% 28 8 37 17 56 36 1978 21 692 3.03% 28 7 37 16 55 34 1979 21 685 3.07% 27 6 37 16 55 34 1980 20 709 2.82% 28 8 38 18 57 37 1981 19 705 2.70% 28 9 38 19 56 37 1982 19 720 2.64% 29 10 38 19 58 39 1983 17 735 2.31% 29 12 39 22 59 42 1984 13 721 1.80% 29 16 39 26 58 45 1985 12 706 1.70% 28 16 38 26 56 44 1986 11 726 1.52% 29 18 39 28 58 47 1987 10 747 1.34% 30 20 40 30 60 50 1988 9 717 1.26% 29 20 38 29 57 48 1989 6 734 0.82% 29 23 39 33 59 53 1990 6 742 0.81% 30 24 40 34 59 53 1991 6 755 0.79% 30 24 40 34 60 54 1992 6 752 0.80% 30 24 40 34 60 54 1993 6 820 0.73% 33 27 44 38 66 60 1994 3 722 0.42% 29 26 39 36 58 55 1995 3 822 0.36% 33 30 44 41 66 63 1996 1 832 0.12% 33 32 44 43 67 66 1997 0 908 0.00% 36 36 48 48 73 73 1998 0 967 0.00% 39 39 52 52 77 77 1999 0 960 0.00% 38 38 51 51 77 77 2000 0 1132 0.00% 45 45 60 60 91 91 2001 0 1220 0.00% 49 49 65 65 98 98 Given that this is largely a moving target given the previous issue, it's difficult to say with any degree of certainty that there has been a change in attitudes. That said, the numbers do look low. Look at 1977, it's 8 players short of the minimum 4% level. Given that it's 25 years ago and that the average waiting period is about 15 years, a young player in 1977 or three could still get inducted (Eddie Murray for one). However, that still seems pretty low. Let's try something else. Let's re-do the table above based on the average number of pre-expansion players (506): Year HoF # players % in Hall 4% HoF Diff 5.34% HoF Diff 8% HoF Diff 1969 36 506 7.11% 20 -16 27 -9 40 4 1970 34 506 6.72% 20 -14 27 -7 40 6 1971 35 506 6.92% 20 -15 27 -8 40 5 1972 34 506 6.72% 20 -14 27 -7 40 6 1973 31 506 6.13% 20 -11 27 -4 40 9 1974 27 506 5.34% 20 -7 27 0 40 13 1975 26 506 5.14% 20 -6 27 1 40 14 1976 23 506 4.55% 20 -3 27 4 40 17 1977 20 506 3.95% 20 0 27 7 40 20 1978 21 506 4.15% 20 -1 27 6 40 19 1979 21 506 4.15% 20 -1 27 6 40 19 1980 20 506 3.95% 20 0 27 7 40 20 1981 19 506 3.75% 20 1 27 8 40 21 1982 19 506 3.75% 20 1 27 8 40 21 1983 17 506 3.36% 20 3 27 10 40 23 1984 13 506 2.57% 20 7 27 14 40 27 1985 12 506 2.37% 20 8 27 15 40 28 1986 11 506 2.17% 20 9 27 16 40 29 1987 10 506 1.98% 20 10 27 17 40 30 1988 9 506 1.78% 20 11 27 18 40 31 1989 6 506 1.19% 20 14 27 21 40 34 1990 6 506 1.19% 20 14 27 21 40 34 1991 6 506 1.19% 20 14 27 21 40 34 1992 6 506 1.19% 20 14 27 21 40 34 1993 6 506 1.19% 20 14 27 21 40 34 1994 3 506 0.59% 20 17 27 24 40 37 1995 3 506 0.59% 20 17 27 24 40 37 1996 1 506 0.20% 20 19 27 26 40 39 1997 0 506 0.00% 20 20 27 27 40 40 1998 0 506 0.00% 20 20 27 27 40 40 1999 0 506 0.00% 20 20 27 27 40 40 2000 0 506 0.00% 20 20 27 27 40 40 2001 0 506 0.00% 20 20 27 27 40 40 It appears that from 1969-'73 some allowance was made for the influx of players due to expansion. There have been more Hall-of-Famers inducted from that period than the pre-expansion average. Given that the late '70s have a handful of players like Murray (e.g. Henderson and Raines) who may boost its numbers, it seems that this trend will continue into the players from the 1980s. My one question is whether or not this trend will continue with the continued expansion (1977, '93, and '98). That answer we will not know for some time. My last thought is that there are perhaps two other forces that will contribute to the levels of Hall of Famers from the present/recent era. The first is the offensive explosion since the mid-1990s. More players will be achieving impressive offensive numbers than in the past, and they will get a lot of attention. If the Thirties are any indication, more Hall of Famers than normal will be elected from the current period. Of course, that is assuming that the Veterans' Committee will play the same sort of role as in the past and that sabermetrical means to normalize these numbers will not be utilized in the assessment of these players. Given that the VC has been recently reconstituted and could be again, there's no way to know how they will act in the future. The other force is a retarding one and it has to do with the phenomenon that sports economist Andrew Zimbalist calls "talent compression". Zimbalist maintained that certain performance levels are more difficult to achieve today than in the past because the level of play has evened out. There are more players nearer to an average major-leaguer and fewer poor players today. This causes milestones like batting .400 and certain batting records to be beyond today's players grasps-there just aren't enough poor pitchers to beat up on. Of course, Zimbalist wrote about talent compression before the recent offensive explosion. The home run record that stood for 37 years (and was a 162-game adjusted over the previous record that stood for 34) was broken twice in three years and was bested by more than 20%. I am not entirely sold on Zimbalist theory. I am not sure if it just appears that way given a number of historic trends. I would want to verify it with some sort of comparison over time of the standard deviation of key (normalized) statistics. Still, it may not be convincing given that expansion increases the number of ballplayers. Whenever the number of subjects in a data set increases, the standard deviation decreases (the key problem with Rob Neyer's Dynasties book). There are number of forces at work here. We won't know for sure which ones will be the strongest until all of the players from the current/recent eras are inducted. Given the history of the Hall, that may not be complete for maybe half a century. So I'll post something on this on New Year's Eve 2052. It should be an interesting 50 years.
Permalink |
No comments.
The Road of Excess Leads
2002-12-31 10:33
The Road of Excess Leads to the Palace of Wisdom, But Can You Build a Pitching Staff on It? The Yankees GM Brian Cashman is quoted in the NY Times as saying that the Yankees are still in the Bartolo Colón sweepstakes even though they have eight starting pitchers on the roster: "I'm prepared to say we will continue to pursue all the opportunities that might enhance our organization if it fits what we're trying to accomplish," Cashman said in a telephone interview. The Yankees are trying to move Orlando Hernandez, Sterling Hitchcock, and their salaries. Unfortunately, unlike every other club they have the disadvantage of not having the Yankees to offload their overpriced players. If they cannot move these two, they will probably work out of the bullpen. Either way, they will still have six starting pitchers: Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, Andy Pettite, Jeff Weaver, Jose Contreras, and David Wells. Weaver worked out of the bullpen last year for the Yanks, but in 2003 he was supposed to be the new anchor to the Yankees' future staff. Wells began his career as a reliever but has been a starter for some time now. Let's assume that Weaver works out of the pen one more year. The Yankees would then have five starting pitchers. How could they fit another? Salaries would dictate that Colón, Clemens, Mussina, Pettite, and Contreras be in the rotation. Does that mean that Wells would be moved to the bullpen? He hasn't worked there regularly since 1992. He also was arguably their best starting pitcher last year. I had read rumors to the effect that Wells could be moved to the pen, and even posted the possibility. But the more I consider it, the worse it sounds. Maybe the Yankees are expecting at least one of their superannuated arms to be out of service on a daily basis. I would have to think that the threats to pursue Colón are just a ruse to ensure that Boston does not get him too cheaply. Montreal had been asking for Casey Fossum and Shea Hillenbrand for Colón, Fernando Tatis, and their salaries. Rumors had been circulating that Boston had pulled Fossum back and lesser youngsters were being proffered. Maybe the Yankees are just trying to pry Fossum off the Red Sox roster, leaving the Red Sox without a young starter ready to pitch in the majors (after having traded Josh Hancock to the Phils earlier this year). Or maybe the Yankees are looking to institute the first nine-man rotation in baseball.
Permalink |
No comments.
Frankly, He Catalanotto Play Right
2002-12-30 16:24
Frankly, He Catalanotto Play Right Field, II ESPN reports that Catalanotto signed for $2.2 M. That's a bit pricey for an oft-injured right fielder who's barely even played right field. Of course, it is less than the projected $5 M it would have taken to retain Cruz, and that appears to be the only sentient thought involved in this selection. God bless them.
Permalink |
No comments.
Frankly, He Catalanotto Play Right
2002-12-30 15:26
Frankly, He Catalanotto Play Right Field The Blue Jays signed Frank Catalanotto to a one-year contract today. Catalanotto has played mostly second base and left field in his career but will reportedly take over for non-tendored Jose Cruz Jr. in right field. There is a possibility that he was brought in to backup youngster Orlando Hudson at second even though the Blue Jays claimed they signed him as an outfielder. I know that Cruz was going to make a lot of money and Catalanotto comes relatively cheaply, but I think it's a dumb move. And I'll tell you why. First, Catalanotto is 28 and has played over 103 games only once in five seasons. He played only 68 in 2002 and had two stints on the DL, the first time missing seven weeks due to lower back problems and the second, a year-ending broken hand after being hit by a pitch on August 16. Second, Catalanotto is more useful as a three-quarter time player. Stick him at first, second, left, DH, etc. to give someone a rest. If he starts in right, one of his main assets, his versatility, is minimized. Third, I don't think he'll hit enough to be a corner outfielder. Aside from a career year in 2001, he has been an average to slightly above average hitter his entire career. Given that he's 28, he could have a break out season, but it's just as likely that he'll stay average. Fourth, Catalanotto has played a grand total of 16 games in right field with zero assists. Well, maybe that's too small a sample, right? Well, he has played 104 games in left field in his career and has two assists to show for it. Maybe he doesn't have the arm to start in right. Last, Catalanotto made almost $2.5 M in 2002. How much cheaper than Cruz can he be? Don't get me wrong, Cruz was an average hitter who would have received a large salary increase via arbitration. They were correct to let him go. But they need a serviceable right fielder. The best free agent right fielder out there is Reggie Sanders. Or if they wanted to go the versatility route, why not go after John Mabry, who had a big second half with Oakland? Fellow free agent Alex Ochoa may also have been a better fit. He will be 31 next season and is just an average batter but is a pretty good defense right fielder. And there are probably a few others that I missed whoa re still available. The point is that they did not get the best player available for the position. Given the bargain prices and the players available, they flubbed it. In the baseball vernacular, they pulled a boner. And every runner who takes an extra base rounding second on a single to right in 2003 is going to thank them for it.
Permalink |
No comments.
St. George and the Dragon:
2002-12-30 14:03
St. George and the Dragon: Thirty Years of Steinbrenner The NY Daily News as part of a series to commemorate thirty years of Yankee ownership by George Steinbrenner had an interview with The Boss this weekend. Before, I take a look at it, I just wanted to throw out a trivia question that I will answer at the end of this post. When did the first Steinbrenner-owned team win a championship? The interview is a great slice of recent baseball history from one man's point of view. And when that man is George, it's like reading The Glory of Their Times on quaaludes. Here were some of my favorite moments: GS (re. first day at Yankee Stadium): I walked in and saw flowers on every desk. Freshly cut flowers. I said, "What the hell is this? Is it Flowers Day? Is it Secretary's Day?" Somebody said, "Isn't that wonderful? Mr. Burke does this every day for us." (Former Yankee president) Mike Burke is a guy who I admired tremendously. He was a real heartthrob type of guy. Everybody liked him. I loved him, but for what I wanted, he didn't fit with me. When I saw the flowers, that was the trigger. I got involved. There were the much publicized barbs pointed in Derek Jeter's direction: GS (On the possibility of Jeter being named team captain): Joe (Torre) would like that right now, but I don't think now is the right time. I want to see Jetes truly focused. He wasn't totally focused last year. He had the highest number of errors he's had in some time. He wasn't himself. For the record Jeter had 14 errors in 2002, his lowest total since 1999 and tied for the second lowest of his career. His fielding percentage was three points better than his career average. His fielding has gotten worse and it wasn't great to begin with (his Range Factor was 70 points lower than the league average whereas he was 20-30 better than the league average early in his career according to Baseball-Reference.com), but the errors weren't such a large problem. Also, he might want to work on his offense with his batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging average all down. His doubles, triples (his first season with none) and homers were down and his strikeouts up. Besides Jeter is upholding a time-honored baseball tradition, cavorting like a frat boy. All the drinking never hurt Mickey Mantle's and Babe Ruth's careers. But he might want to take Mickey's (Rocky Balboa's trainer, not the mouse) advice and try to limit his female liaisons-"They're bad for the legs." On Torre's past and his cadre of coaches: GS: Joe is the greatest friend I've ever had as a manager. It's a great relationship. I don't want to destroy that, but I will tell you this: I want his whole staff to understand that they have got to do better this year. I will not see him drop back into the way he was before. Right now he's a sure-fire Hall of Famer. Before he came to the Yankees he didn't even have a job. Three different times as manager he didn't deliver, and was fired. Look how far he's come. He's come that way because of an organization, and he's got to remember that. I'm glad that Joe is an icon. He's a hell of a guy, a tremendous manager and tremendous figure for New York. I just want his coaches to understand that just being a friend of Joe Torre's is not enough. They've got to produce for him. Joe Torre and his staff have heard the bugle. For the record, Torre was fired three times as a manger before he signed with the Yankees in November 1995. But he had won a division title with Atlanta in 1982. He had a wining record with the Braves, 257-229, and was fired after a 80-82 season. He was about .500 with the Cardinals, 351-354. He had a winning record in three of his four complete seasons in St. Louis. The Mets are an entirely different story (286-420, .405), but I don't think Stengel could have won there. Speaking of Casey, he had gone through two franchises-Brooklyn (373-491 in three years) and Boston Braves (208-251 in 6)-and had one winning season (77-75 in 1938) and no appearances in the first division (as they used to say) to show for it. He came to the Yankees and things changed. As to the individual or individuals on coaching staff who incurred The Boss's rage, it appears that the last statement would point to pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre. Stottlemyre should be advised to develop a means of preventing his starting rotation from aging. Oscar Wilde had some thoughts on this matter, and perhaps a 2001 team pitcher in the attic at Yankee Stadium might help. George also claims to have taken over a team that was a "doormat"\ DN: What were your initial impressions of the club you bought? The 1972 Yankees were 79-76, 6.5 games behind division champ Detroit in fourth place, far from a doormat. They had won 93 games two years earlier. Aside from acquiring Graig Nettles, renting Matty Alou for two-thirds of a season, promoting rookie Doc Medich to the rotation, and trying retreads Pat Dobson and Sam McDowell in the rotation for half a season, this was basically the same team in 1973 that it was in 1972. Dobson and McDowell collectively were 14-16 with a 4.08 ERA (the league average was 3.82) for the Yankees in 1973. George may want to remember things differently, but that doesn't make it so. His most scathing comment were reserved for the management of the rival Red Sox: DN: John Henry, your former partner and owner of the Red Sox, was quoted as saying after you signed Contreras that he "was and is a big risk." What's your response? Don't sugar-coat it, George. How do you really feel about Larru Lucchino? The next article in the series consisted of friends and acquaintances of George relating George stories. Given that it's not George unplugged himself, it's not as good as the first article. However, it does have its moments. The first is from Lou Saban, Yankees president in 1981: One night we were having a benefit for a police officer killed in the line of duty. George was in Tampa. I made a special presentation before the game. There was a full house, 54,000 people. We're up 5-0 in the third inning when the sky just opens up. It starts raining like I never could believe. The Lou Piniella stories are pure gold: We were playing a game in spring training in my first year as manager, in 1987. George was sitting behind the dugout and said, "You know, I can manage. It's not that hard." Trivial answer: Steinbrenner owned the 1961-62 American Basketball League-champion Cleveland Pipers. He lured Jerry Lucas away from Ohio State, hired the first professional black coach John McLendon-who quit when George became too domineering and was replaced by Bill Sharman-, and failed in attempt to join the NBA as an expansion team at the end of the season (mostly to get Lucas into the NBA). The NBA and ABL had talked merger but when a deal was reached with Cleveland, the NBA announced that they would enter as an expansion team and merger talks were off. The move was blocked in the courts by the ABL, the Pipers folded, and the league followed suit before the end of the year.
Permalink |
No comments.
Retro Rocket? Roger That As
2002-12-30 12:39
Retro Rocket? Roger That As expected, Roger Clemens has re-signed with the Yankees for one year at $10.1 M. The Yankees with eight starting pitchers may want to deal with division-rival Boston to re-acquire reliever Ramiro Mendoza in exchange for, say, El Duque. I know it will never happen, but it would help both clubs. I guess that's why it will never happen.
Permalink |
No comments.
I Don't Know-Third Base! The
2002-12-30 08:48
I Don't Know-Third Base! The NY Times reports that free agent third baseman Bill Mueller has turned down the Mets offer and is expected to sign with another team in days. The two remaining candidates are free agents Tyler Houston and Jose Hernandez. Hernandez, a shortstop who has never played more than 95 games at third in a season, had been rumored to be going to the Mets as a shortstop and then to be shifted to third when minor-leaguer Jose Reyes was ready. That strategy evidently changed when the Mets signed free agent Rey Sanchez, who played second last year, to play short. In both cases Colorado appears to be the main competition. The Rockies were set to sign Houstom a little over a week ago, but the talks fell through. They are now mainly focused on Chris Stynes but have considered paying a bit more for Hernandez given that he may come cheaply in this free agent market. The Mets shouldn't be able to scew up with Hernandez since they should have the funds to outbid the Rockies. So I fully expect Chris Stynes to be the New York staring third baseman next year.
Permalink |
No comments.
Crossing the Mendoza Line Long-time
2002-12-30 00:34
Crossing the Mendoza Line Long-time Yankee swingman Ramiro Mendoza has signed a two-year contract with the division-rival Red Sox. This comes just a few days after Boston signed fellow pen men Chad Fox and Mike Timlin. The Red Sox bullpen appears set with Alan Embree (the only lefty) and Bobby Howry returning. Meanwhile the Yankees seem more concerned with acquiring every available starting pitcher in the western hemisphere while totally ignoring their already fragile bullpen. The Red Sox have followed a plan to better themselves at their most problematic positions. Their bullpen did have an ERA .75 points higher than their starters. With the trade talks apparently stalling with Montreal over Bartolo Colon, the Sox may be trying to improve in other areas. However, one may point to some chinks in their startegy. First, they have one one left-hander in the bullpen, something that may still be rectified. Second, they have no true closer in the bullpen. This may not be an oversite but rather may be by design. However the final Red Sox product will actually perform on the field in 2003, it seems that their management is set to make their small upgrades continually, inexorably until they have the roster just the way they want it. Whether or not that will translate into victory remains to be seen, but it will be interesting to watch during this offseason and into the 2003 season.
Permalink |
No comments.
Throwing Rice at the Hall
2002-12-29 01:36
Throwing Rice at the Hall Jim Rice's old teammates Bob Stanley and Bruce Hurst are cited in an MLB.com article advocating Rice's candidacy for the Hall of Fame. They quote Hurst as saying: He was a Hall of Fame-caliber hitter. Of his contemporaries who are in the Hall of Fame, he was as dominant as any of them. Dave Winfield was consistent and steady, but he didn't dominate like Jimmy. Kirby Puckett and George Brett were great players, but were they that much greater, if at all, than Jimmy? If so, I'd like to hear evidence. There's a whole lot of hokum in there, the type of tripe that was used by the spirit of Veterans' Committees past to get a good number of unworthy candidates into the Hall in the first place. I'm not saying Rice is unworthy but I'm not willing to put him in on a couple of old buddies' say-so. Aside from never missing the team bus at spring training, what makes Rice a Hall-of-Fame caliber player? Let's compare him to the three other HoFers who played in the same era. I have a list of the players mentioned above and Rice with their Win Share totals, their adjusted OPS, and their Bill James Hall of Fame criteria: Win Adj Years Black Ink Gray Ink HOF Std HOF Monitor Sim. in # WS/season WS/162 % >
Shares OPS >120 (Avg 27) (Avg 144) (Avg 50) (Likely > 100) HoF seasons 120 OPS
Rice 282 128 10 33 176 42.9 147.0 4 16 17.63 21.86 62.50%
Brett 432 135 16 39 159 60.6 208.0 6 21 20.57 25.85 76.19%
Puckett 281 124 8 22 122 38.8 155.0 2 12 23.42 25.53 66.67%
Winfield 415 129 13 4 152 55.4 148.0 8 22 18.86 22.61 59.09%
Brett scores the best of all four in the career-related criteria (Win Shares, HoF Standard and Monitor), but he also sustained the highest level of excellence over his career with the highest Win Shares per 162 games and the greatest number of adjusted OPS's at 120% or of the league average or higher. Brett is ranked second all-time among third baseman in The Historical Abstract, and is clearly the best player here. Puckett is similar to Rice in having a short career. However, he sustained a higher level of excellence (WS/162g) over his career. Puckett is ranked eighth among all center fielders by James. Winfield may the most similar to Rice in many ways. They were both corner outfielders, and their average years are comparable (WS/season, WS/162g, career Adj OPS, and % Adj OPS > 120). However, Winfield had the longest career on the list and to sustain that level of success for an additional 6 seasons is what got Winfield the career numbers (Win Shares and number fo similar players in the Hall) that merited enshrinement. He ranks 13th among all right fielders for James. Rice was basically washed up at 33. He had only one truly great season, 1978 (as defined by James as having 30 or more Win Shares). He was a poor fielder in a not very important defensive position. A quarter of his games (540 out of 2089) were as a DH. The other three players played more demanding positions, especially Brett and Puckett. He was a poor baserunner and he grounded into an incredible number of double plays (over 30 in three seasons and 315 for his career). James lists him 27th all-time among left fielders. And his career was not long enough to get him to those magical plateaus that call for their bearers' Hall inclusion. I don't mean to badmouth Rice. Would I put him in the Hall? Given the established standards, I'm not sure. He would definitely be better than a good number of Hall-of-Famers, but I certainly am not clamoring for him to get a plaque. I actually feel that his Red Sox teammate Dwight Evans is at least as deserving though you never hear his name mentioned (347 Win Shares, 21.57 WS/162g, 127 adjusted OPS and all over 20 seasons of fine defense). Do I think Rice will get in? Eventually, probably as a Veterans' Committee choice. I leave the last comment to Bill James who says this about Rice in The New Historical Abstract: Probably the most overrated player of the last 30 years...Jim Rice was one of the best left fielders I ever had there [but] the fans never liked Jim Rice. No one could like Jim Rice. Jim Rice had one of the biggest egos I've ever seen. He treated people so abruptly, just had no need for anybody, gave no time back to the fans, just was not a nice person.-Bill Lee in Fenway He may still have to do a little penance.
Permalink |
No comments.
Rey of Light...Hitting The Mets
2002-12-28 00:21
Rey of Light...Hitting The Mets have replaced shortstop Rey Ordonez with Rey Sanchez while they await heir apparent Jose Reyes. I guess so much for "Rey must go!" Sanchez was signed to a one-year deal as a stopgap at short until the 18-year-old Reyes is ready. Aside from the similarity in their first names, both Reys are light-hitting, good-fielding shortstops. Sanchez has started at second base as well throughout his career and did so last year with the Red Sox. He is at least a slight upgrade over Ordonez offensively, who for his career has an OPS that is only 59% of the adjusted league average. Sanchez is at a still-modest 70%. Sanchez's career batting average is 30 points higher than Ordonez. His paltry .311 career on-base percentage is 21 points higher than Ordonez'. To put it mildly, neither one is going to be in the running for a Silver Slugger award. The Mets had a chance to sign a superior offensive shortstop in free agent Jose Hernandez, but for whatever reason the discussions never got past the beginning (i.e., faxing and voice-mailing) phases. Hernandez had an OPS that 21% better than the adjusted league average. He batted .288 with 24 HRs and 73 RBI and was an all-star. There were rumors that he would sign a long-term contract and slide over to third when Reyes was ready. It must have been the name that threw the Mets.
Permalink |
No comments.
A Miller Bound for Cooperstown?
2002-12-27 12:54
A Miller Bound for Cooperstown? II Our friend Murray has some comments re. my list: Mike, I think you sold Chadwick short. Chadwick was baseball's premier evangelist in its early days. Chadwick is the father of baseball statistics. As the editor of Spalding's Guides, Chadwick was responsible for what passes for primary resources about the professional game's early history. As such, Chadwick is much more important than Rube Foster, whose legacy is minimized by the weak bonds that held the NNL together throughout much of its existence (especially the 20s and 30s). Yo lo respondí thusly: I was on the fence with Chadwick. He is a personal favorite and definitely the progenitor of baseball's relationship with the publishing world (newspapers and the early guides). And he came up with the box score. I do have him and James as my official sabermetricians in my "About Me" page [All-Star team]. So... - Henry Chadwick-father of baseball reportage and baseball statistics. - Alexander Joy Cartwright-codified baseball (the "New York" game) and helped established first team, the Knickerbocker Base Ball Club. Murray added: That's one crowded mountaintop. If I had to eliminate people from your list, I'd probably jettison Landis (whose importance I acknowledge but who I think is a bit of a jerk), Foster (whom I've already discussed) and Ban Johnson (who viewed the hiring of Landis as a threat to his authority, which put him on the wrong side of the fence at a critical moment in baseball history). If I had to pick four heads for a baseball Rushmore, I'd probably stick with players. Ruth, Robinson, Young and Wagner would be enough for me. Me: Maybe we can build a totem pole instead. I was trying to imagine telling the story of baseball's history and for me Landis, Foster, and Johnson would be integral to that. But I do see your point. Foster especially may be an idiosyncratic choice.
Permalink |
No comments.
Waiting to Implode My friend
2002-12-27 12:34
Waiting to Implode My friend Mike sent me this article on the imminent implosion of Riverfront Stadium/Cinergy Field. I've read that the event will be better attended than any Reds or Bengals game in years. Finally, the Bengals will have a stadium worthy of them.
Permalink |
No comments.
Well, Albie, II I forgot
2002-12-27 11:38
Well, Albie, II I forgot that Kerry Ligtenberg was non-tendored. The Braves' bullpen currently consists of Darren Holmes, John Smoltz, and Kevin Gryboski. They also signed Chris Haney as a non-roster invitee and this year's Leo Mazzone project, as if he needed another. By the way, Lopez has yet to sign with KC.
Permalink |
No comments.
A Miller Bound for Cooperstown?
2002-12-27 09:51
A Miller Bound for Cooperstown? In today's NY Times, George Vecsey argues that stadium announcers, peanut vendors (!), and the judge who used Solomon-like wisdom to divide up the Bonds 73rd homer ball should all be considered for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame now that Marvin Miller is on the Veterans' Committee ballot. I know that he is being somewhat facetious, but I think it underscores the baseball writers' misconceptions as to who is really Hall-worthy. Not only do I think Miller is worthy, I think he is the best candidate on the Veterans' Committee list. One can argue that the Hall should just be for players, but since baseball has already admitted executives, why not choose those most responsible for the game's development rather than the Tom Yawkeys of the baseball underworld? In the introduction to Miller's epiphanic autobiography A Whole Different Ballgame, Bill James writes that if baseball were to erect a monument similar to Mount Rushmore for those responsible for the evolution of the game, Miller's face would be among them. Indeed, the story of baseball in the last 35 years cannot be told without mentioning Miller numerous times. If I were erecting such a statue, I would have to consider the following baseball men: - William Hulbert-established the nascent NL as the dominant baseball league. - Ban Johnson-established the AL as a major league and a string equal to the NL. - Kenesaw Mountain Landis-as the first commissioner guided and strengthened the majors. - Babe Ruth-helped popularize the game and develop into the game we know today. - Rube Foster-established the first strong African-American league, without which integration would never have occurred. - Branch Rickey-helped develop the farm system and to integrate baseball. - Jackie Robinson-you already know. - Marvin Miller- developed and headed the first true players' union in over 70 years, which resulted in the boom era of the last 30 years. - Bill James-developed a methodology for baseball research and analysis that informs all intelligent conversation today. There are a few others (Henry Chadwick, A.G. Spalding, Alexander Cartwright, Harry Wright, Monte Ward, etc.) that one could make a valid argument for, but by and large these are the men who shaped baseball for better and/or for worse. Given that the Vets took their time in identifying Foster and Hulbert, I am actually surprised that Miller has made it onto the list at all. In Hulbert's case, they instead enshrined the first NL president, Morgan Bulkeley, who occupied the job when it was largely a figurehead position (shared among the owners and held for one year), that is until Hulbert just donned the title along with the mantle, which he already had. (By the way, the argument for removing the unworthy from teh Hall starts with the upstart Bulkeley.) Given that such knowledgeable research is done on the executives enshrined and that the writers are providing such a sage beacon themselves, I fully expect Miller to be bypassed for years to come.
Permalink |
No comments.
The Twelve Joe Morgan
2002-12-26 23:41
[From a classic July 5, 2002, Joe Morgan chat session-classic in the ESPN sense, meaning old.] On the First Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us John Ashley (Aledo, Tx): Do Tom Hicks and John Hart have it in them to pull the trigger on a deal that involves Pudge? As much as I would hate to see him leave... they need to get something for him. Joe Morgan: I don't think they have that control now. He's a 10-and-5 player. Pudge has to decide if he gets traded or not. The Rangers are in a bad situation. They say they don't want to spend money, but he deserves a lot. So he may not be there after this year. [Mike: I didn't have anywhere to put this one and no Dave Concepcion quotes-but it was too good to pass up-so...This looks like a quote from a different era given the trouble Pudge is having getting signed. Teams are just afraid of all the injuries. The Rangers and Pudge were both in a bad spot though they didn't know it. They should have worked something out or traded him to a team that would have worked a deal with him, a la Mark McGwire and the Cardinals in 1997. Pudge based on his stats alone does deserve the money-he is still one of the best catchers in baseball-, but with all the missed time and the market today, he'll never get it. Just for the record, Morgan is partially right: Rodriguez could veto a trade as a 10-and-5 player, but of course, he couldn't initiate a trade, something that the Rangers couldn't or wouldn't do. ] On the Second Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Cory (Vancouver, WA): Mr. Morgan, let me first start by saying, I have the highest level of respect for you and your knowledge of the game. I was a huge fan of the"big red machine" in the 70's. However, I feel as if your respect for Ichiro is very low. I have watched you do games on Sunday night Baseball, and sometimes it appears you try and down play his game/speed. I enjoy the Seattle team, but they are not my favorite. I must say, with the game's best players, I even try to find somebody better in every aspect then Ichiro, and I just cant do it. The kid is just flat amasing to watch. I'm curious about your feelings on Ichiro both for "pros" and "cons" of his game. tks for your time Joe Morgan: I guess you are not listening. I have always respected Ichiro. He knows how to play the game, has a great arm, hits his way on base and is a smart player. That said, I don't think he was the MVP last year. I thought he was the most fun to watch, but Bret Boone was the MVP. He drove in the runs and made the biggest difference. I love watching Ichiro play. He may be the most exciting player in the game. I like that. But I would bet you the Mariners would trade Ichiro for Vlad Guerrero, A-Rod and a few others. He may be the most exciting, but he's not the best player. If that means I'm downplaying him, then I am. [Mike: Classic Joe: equal parts brilliance and idiocy. Joe's right about Ichiro but wrong about Boone. The 2001 AL MVP should have gone to Jason Gimabi. He had it dead to rights and got robbed. Use any means that you want to-Win Shares, Adjusted OPS, etc-Giambi is the man. And he resurrected a team that was dead at the beginning of the year. I never understood how people could argue for Tejada in 2002 and against Giambi in 2001. They were similar except Giambi had a measurably superior year.] Jared Ward: First off , I'm a huge fan, Mr. Morgan, and keep up the great work in the booth. Secondly, I want to know your opinion on whether you think the Bartolo Colon trade was wise of Indians GM Mark Shapiro. Joe Morgan: I don't know all the details, but I wouldn't traded a No. 1 starter like Colon. I would have traded others if I were in a cost-cutting mode. There were other players with high salaries who were not performing. You don't trade a No. 1 starter, and that is what Colon has become. [Mike: The Indians were in third place, seven games out of first after an 11-1 start. They felt that they could not compete, and did not think that Colon and his salary figured in their future. They at least traded him for prospects, and by all accounts good ones (two are at least: Brandon Phillips and Cliff Lee, both of whom made it to the majors in 2002). They may have jumped the gun on the season. They may have jettisoned a young staff leader. But at least they have a plan and they stuck to it unlike the second-half failures this past season who did nothing to better themselves (e.g., Red Sox and Mariners). As Tony Soprano said, more is lost by indecision than a bad decision.] On the Third Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Brandon, NC: Joe, Do you think that Don Baylor is on his way out of Chicago? Joe Morgan: There is definitely a segment in Chicago that believes he should be fired. Others think it's not his fault because of injuries, lack of performance, etc. He is on the hot seat, but I can't say if he'll be fired or not. He is definitely being scrutinized closely. [Mike: Keep reading...] andy(chicago): did you hear about don baylor? he just got fired!!! Joe Morgan: I was just informed before you asked the question. I always felt Don was a good manager, but good managers get fired also. The Cubs have been a group of underachievers this year, and the manager, I guess, has to take the blame. Bruce Kimm was named as the interim manager; that should make Whitey Herzog happy. The Cubs are short in a lot of ways. They don't get any production from third, short or second, with DeShields. Alou wasn't hitting. Corey Patterson wants to be a slugger instead of doing what Baylor asked him to do. It looks like they have talent. But without any production from a number of positions, where is it coming from? Sosa is it. They don't have as much talent as people think. They have Sosa, McGriff (who is doing better now) and Alou. If two of the three aren't producing, how do you win? Managers make a lot of money now, so they have to take the fall. [Mike: Why is Baylor a good manager? He has a losing record. He never did much with a pretty good Colorado team. The Cubs turned themselves around in 2001 and nearly made the playoffs. They fell apart in 2002 with arguably a better team. He's considered a good manager for the windfall in 2001. So why doesn't he bear the brunt when they suck in 2002? In 2002, the Cubs had three players with over 25 HRs and a .500 slugging average (Sosa, McGriff, and Bellhorn). Moises Alou had a very off year, but he was better in 2002 than his incumbent Rondell White was with the Yanks. Hundley improved, but Girardi was still overused. Mueller was an improvement over Coomer, the third baseman in 2001. Gonzalez, the 2002 SS, and Guitierez, the 2001 SS, were sort of a wash. The same goes for 2001 CF Gary Matthews Jr. and 2002 CF Corey Patterson (though Patterson's lack of attention to the strike zone-142 strikeouts and only 19 walks-was alarming). The rotation was greatly improved but still young. Alfonseca tanked as the closer but it didn't affect Baylor's term greatly (he was 11 of 14 save opportunities in the first half with a 2.61 ERA; 8 of 14 5.45 in the second half). Baylor did take the fall for a team that failed as a team, and rightly so.] Jon (Chicago): If you may not have already heard, Don Baylor was just fired. Who do you think the Cubs should bring in for the job? I'm hearing Felipe Alou's named tossed around do you think but could that really happen? Joe Morgan: We know better now. But I think Alou is one of the best managers in baseball, even though he is not managing. He would be a great choice for anyone. [Mike: All the press to the contrary notwithstanding, Felipe Alou did a bad job in Montreal. The Expos were basically a doormat his last four years there. He did lead the team to some good years at first (1992-'94). But his inability to get them to be the least bit competitive for most of his tenure has to be weighed against him, especially since the Expos improved slightly after he was fired in 2001 and greatly in 2002.] On the Fourth Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Rob (NYC): What do you think of La Russa moving Albert Pujols into left field? From the little I've seen, Pujols looks like he could be a gold-glove caliber third baseman in time. Is Polanco really that valuable (.305 OBP) that you don't develop Pujols as an infielder? Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks. Joe Morgan: Pujols would be best at one position. By that I mean, put him at third and leave him, or put him in left and leave him. LaRussa may think it helps the team, though. I agree he could be a good third baseman, but again, neither of us are there everyday. I'm sure LaRussa has a good reason for what he does. [Mike: Joe, make a decision already. In the immortal words of John Blutarsky, "I don't cost nothin'." Of course, Pujols is more valuable as a third baseman, and all indications are that he would have been a capable one. LaRussa fell in love with Polanco's versatility, and for some reason felt the need to move his best player to a new position to get him into the lineup. Of course it's all academic now that the Cards traded Polanco (and others) to the Phils for Scott Rolen and Pujols is officially an outfielder. But all Cardinal fans should thank their lucky stars that LaRussa's latest favorite toy (Polanco) was taken away from him. LaRussa's good reason is that he's a pompous ass. He is a good, slightly anachronistic manager, and the Cards did well to minimize their exposure due to his eccentricities.] Marty (Atlanta): Joe, how good do you think the Braves really are this year? I think this may be the best team they've had in years, perhaps since 1993. Do you agree? Joe Morgan: I agree they are very good. The fact they have Sheffield to support Chipper Jones and Andruw Jones helps a lot. Their lack of power hurt their offense before. But now they have power. Their bullpen is unbelievable, even though the starters aren't as good as they have been. I don't know if they are better, but they are capable of winning the whole thing. [Mike: Anybody could win the whole thing, but are they a better team? Sheffield was a slight improvement over Brian Jordan, the 2001 right fielder. As far as power is concerned, the hit fewer in 2002 (174 to 164), but finished 8th instead of 10th in league as they did in 2001. Their slugging percentage also improved from 12th to 9th. However, holes at first, second, and third base were never filled or were filled by obviously inadequate players. And Javy Lopez is really starting to show his age. The pitching staff was much better in 2002. Glavine, Maddux, and especially Millwood improved. Moss came into his own. It was a wash between 2002 fifth starter Jason Marquis and the 2001 version, Odalis Perez. As Joe points out, the Braves' bullpen in 2002 was incredible. The Braves were a better team in 2002, but they improved mostly in the places that were already strengths and ignored weaknesses. As usual, those weaknesses came back to bite them in the playoffs.] On the Fifth Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Joe R. (Syr.): Hi Joe What was your reaction to losing out on the Rookie of the Year award in '65? I'm trying to figure out how you could possibly have finished behind Jim Lefebvre, who while a fine 2nd baseman and underrated manager, clearly had inferior stats. You scored 100 runs!! The only possible advantage I can see is that his team went on the World Series while the Colt .45s (love that name) finished back, back, back in ninth. Your thoughts? Joe Morgan: First of all, I didn't understand how I lost either. To be a rookie and score 100 runs on a ninth-place team is pretty special, and it's still one of the highlights of my career, in terms of one season. But the Dodgers have always had better PR than anyone else. They have had more Rookies of the Year than anyone. It was more what the Dodgers did publicity-wise than what the Astros did. That's the only thing I can think of, anyway. [Joe Mike: Yes, he was arguably better than Lefebvre. But Lefebvre had those juicy RBIs on a front runner, all things that writers love. For the record, Joe's OPS was 30% better than the adjusted league average while Lefebvre was only 6% better. Morgan led in Win Shares too, 30 to 23. The PR remark does sound like sour grapes though.] Pud (Cleveland): Do you think that John McDonald taking out Derek Jeter was a cheap shot, or an accident? Joe Morgan: It was more of an accident. It was a double-play situation, but it wasn't a DP ground ball. The runner is going there to break up a double play. That's how I got hurt in my career, on a very similar play with Tommie Agee slid into me and tore up my knee. On the replay, though, it wasn't a cheap shot. He was on the ground the whole way. [Mike: "Pud"? Really? More power to you, my brother. Anyway, "Enough about me. Let me tell you a little more about myself." I didn't see the play (or at least don't remember it), but just because a runner stays down doesn't mean it was OK. If he slides a few feet to the outside of the bag to take out the relay man, the runner should be called out. Period. They should start calling the actual play at second instead of allowing the relay man to purposely miss the bag to avoid injury and the runner to purposely miss the bag to induce injury. Here's the rule: 7.09 (g) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner. (h) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference. The (h) part is interesting. I hadn't heard of that version of the rule, i.e., that it could cost a run. It's so rare that The Rules and Lore of Baseball doesn't even have an actual example.] On the Sixth Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Matt Durand (Winchendon,MA): Hi Joe. My question is, Do you think the Red Sox will be able to acquire a power hitting first baseman such as Jim Thome and or a quality third starter such as a Jeff Weaver before the trading deadline? Joe Morgan: That's asking a lot of one team. I thought that Thome was the guy they were pursuing. He would make the most impact. But Weaver is a good pitcher. Thome is the guy they need at first base. Ideally, they would take both -- but that's a lot. [Mike: Joe, the question was can they get those players, not gee, wouldn't it be nice if they did. As it turned out the Sox got no one and crashed-and-burned in the second half, right on schedule.] Julian (Allentown PA.): I don't think any Yankee could win MVP because they are all putting up some big numbers especially Soriano and Giambi. But who is the Yankee MVP so far? Joe Morgan: You have the two of them. Flip a coin. Soriano carried them at the beginning, and Giambi is doing it now. I think Giambi could win, and so could Soriano. Because Giambi hits third, though, I think he has a better chance. He is in a run-producing spot, hitting third. [Mike: Joe, the question was who is the Yankees MVP so far. Just pick one. Go ahead make a choice. It won't hurt.] On the Seventh Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Doug (Columbus): Hey Joe, big fan. I remember reading your column last year about how the all-star game isn't as good anymore due to its lack of competition. Why is it that the players aren't competitive in the All-Star Game? Would they rather just have the three days off? Joe Morgan: I believe part of it started when they made it an exhibition, with all the skill games the day before. The players have picked up on that. The players used to just come and play the game and win it for their league. Now it's an exhibition. [Mike: Grinchie Joe, maybe the All-Star game, perhaps, means a little bit more. It's always been an exhibition. You were just one of the combatants when the leagues still had strong identities and therefore took the game seriously. Free agency, elimination of the league offices, interleague play, increased player salaries, and probably a half dozen things I haven't thought of have changed the tone of the game. Who cares if it's not your father's All-Star game? It's still a great game (though elimination of interleague play would make it greater.] David(Geneva,NY): Who is the Favorite to win the Home run derby and which league has the advantage to win the all star game? Joe Morgan: I think someone from the National League will win. Based on last year's results, I think Giambi will be a favorite. I think Shawn Green has a chance. I think Sosa is the guy to beat, though. Sosa enjoys it the most and has the most fun with it. Then I would say Bonds, Green and Giambi have a good shot. As for the game, I think the NL has a few more established stars than the AL. It depends on how the managers manage. Will they manage it as an exhibition or a game? The winning of the game has become inconsequential. [Mike: Dr. Evil Joe was right, it was so inconsequential that no one even won. Aside from that, Joe, you've got to slap people down for asking ridiculous questions like who'll win the Home Run Derby. Who cares!?! Go put your Mr. Spock ears back on David from Geneva, NY. You geek. Oh, sorry to ruin the holiday spirit. God bless us everyone.] Joe Morgan (in closing): Let's hope the All-Star Game is played the way it should be -- that it will be competitive. And let's hope that the stars will shine in the game as they should. [Mike: They did. It was a great game. Lots of excitement. All that people remember is the tie score.] On the Eighth Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us John (London): Is Kansas city going to going to be able to hang onto Sweeney? Why haven't we heard about teams looking to trade for him soon? He would be a welcome bat at first base on many contending teams Joe Morgan: Sweeney is an excellent hitter. I just don't see a lot of teams going after him; he makes a lot of money. I don't know which team he would fit well with. I think Boston needs a left-handed complement to Manny and Nomar. Tony Clark would have been a perfect fit, but he hasn't produced. [Mike: Sweeney made $8 M in 2002. He has five years at $11 M left. It rises to $12.5 M if he is traded. That is a bit of change in today's market, but Sweeney is a heck of a hitter. He would have fit in well with the Sox. Just a note on Tony Clark, Clark had been a slightly better than average first baseman for a few years and had missed a great deal of time in the previous two seasons, but even though everyone (including Joe) touted Boston's acquisition of him as a great windfall, he was horrendous in 2002. Should the Sox have foreseen this? Well he was turning 30 and had missed a great deal of time, but that complete a downfall was a bit unexpected. That said, Boston couldn't have anticipated great things for very long with Clark. He had to be seen as a stop-gap measure. That they had no one to fall back on besides Brian Daubach and Jose Offerman (Yeck!) and refused to get anyone was not exactly to their credit.] On the Ninth Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Joe Morgan (in closing): That's all the time I have for now. That Ichiro question bothers me. I've always talked about how great and smart he is. It's easier to score runs than to drive in runs. He scored runs last year, and Boone produced more than he did last year. [Mike: OK, Boone should have won the 2001 AL MVP because he produced more, but Lefebrve shouldn't have won the 1965 NL ROY even though he out-produced Morgan. Morgan had a piddly 40 RBI in 1965. I know that it doesn't mean a damn thing, but by the same token neither does Boone's out-producing Ichiro.] On the Tenth Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Bosey (New Jersey): Hey Joe! Who would you rather have on your team, A-Rod or Vlad Guerrero? Joe Morgan: Very good question. Personally, I may take A-Rod because of the position he plays. It's easier to find an outfielder who drives in 100 runs than a shortstop like A-Rod. That said, though, Vlad is arguably the best player in the game. There are more outfielders who do what Vlad does than shortstops who do what A-Rod does. [Mike: No shortstop ever has done what A-Rod has done so far. It's still early in his career, but just that he has a chance to be the best ever is amazing. Guerrero is a great player, but he does have a few chinks in the armor. First, he commits a good 10 to 20 errors a year. Stupid errors. Lapses in concentration. Yes, he has the ability to make those plays, but he doesn't. He also has a very low stolen base success rate (63% for his career, a career high of 69%, and two seasons under 50%) for someone who steals a good bit of bases. Those may just be lapses as well. He may be able to overcome these weakness, but he hasn't yet.] On the Eleventh Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Joe Morgan (closing): That's all the time I have for now. That Ichiro question bothers me. I've always talked about how great and smart he is. It's easier to score runs than to drive in runs. He scored runs last year, and Boone produced more than he did last year. [Mike: Joe gets a burr under his saddle, and it really irks him. He takes an offhanded comment after the chatter has thoroughly kissed his bee-hind and before he simply asks Morgan's opinion of Ichiro's "pros and cons" and turns it into a personal attack. I love the guy.] On the Twelfth Joe Morgan Chat Day of Christmas, Joe Morgan Gave To Us Cliff (Jackson,Ms.): Hey Joe, why do you think Rick Riley was out of line with Sosa? Wasn't he just calling his hand? The fans, as supporters of the game, have a right to know if someone is cheating, don't you think? Joe Morgan: What Reilly did was a cheap shot. Who appointed him the drug czar of this country? What you, as a fan, deserve to know is basically that this is still a free country. You are innocent until proven guilty. If you ask Sosa to take a drug test when the union has said no to testing, you are out of line. Everybody realizes that Reilly was out of line because he put himself in a win-win situation and put Sosa in a no-win situation. If Sosa says yes, then Reilly is a hero to the world. Since Sosa says no, he can write something about Sosa. It was an Enquirer style of interviewing. The players do not deserve that. It makes it very difficult for us to interview the players because they will be fearful of the media's motives. Reilly is not Bud Selig or Donald Fehr. Those are the only two people who should ask Sosa, if they wanted to do that. If Sosa would have taken the test, then every other player would have been angry at him because the union has not sanctioned drug tests. Reilly was doing it for Reilly, to make himself look good, and that's why he was out of line. [Mike: Right on the money.] Mike(Boca Raton): Joe why is Torre the bad man for not putting Thome in the all star game. He had his third chance to get in when we had the 30th man voting. It's not Torees fault someone evey year gets left out thats just part of the all star game. Joe Morgan: People are looking at Torre because he took five shortstops. That hurts other positions. It takes chances away from other players who deserve to be there. If you think all five shortstops deserve to be there over Thome, then we have a difference of opinion. [Mike: Joe is still classy even when dealing with incoherent, slavering freaks. By the way, Joe's right. Derek Jeter got his ticket punched but not Jime Thome? C'mon?!?] Dex (Boston): Is there realistically a chance that an agreement will be reached between the players and management to head off a player strike in August? Also, what is the chance that any kind of steroid testing will be adopted? Joe Morgan: There is a realistic chance for both. I think part of the agreement will have some sort of drug testing. [Mike: If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs...Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And-which is more-you'll be a Man, my son! Good call, Joe.] But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight, "Happy Christmas to all and talk to you again next week." Happy (Belated) Holidays from Mike's Baseball Rants!
Permalink |
No comments.
Well, Albie It appears that
2002-12-26 12:21
Well, Albie It appears that the Braves will lose the third member of the excellent 2002 bullpen today. Albie Lopez was offerered a one-year contract with the Royals and he is expected to sign today according to RotoWire. With rumors that John Smoltz will move back into the rotation, the defections of Lopez, Chris Hammond, and Mike Remlinger, and the trades of Tim Spooneybarger and John Foster, the Braves pen may look markedly different in 2003. At least they got that backup catcher that they were always looking for in Johnny "Don't Call Me Eric" Estrada.
Permalink |
No comments.
Honest Tim in Lincoln Oh,
2002-12-26 11:51
Honest Tim in Lincoln Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Check this out from Sports Network: Former Blue Jays manager hired by minor league team
Permalink |
No comments.
Unlucky Lucchino? Murray Chass writes
2002-12-26 11:20
Unlucky Lucchino? Murray Chass writes in the NY Times that the Red Sox may come out ahead after losing the Jose Cotreras derby to the Yankees. His reasoning is that now that the Yankees have acquired another pitcher (and appear close to re-signing Roger Clemens), they will drop out of the running for the Bartolo Colon/Javier Vazquez derby with Montreal. The Expos must cut payroll and now one of the bigger players, the Yankees, is out of the running. The Red Sox are the prime candidates apparently for offloading surplus Montreal salary. The Expos, as Chass says, had counted on playing the two AL East teams against each other: At the winter meetings in Nashville this month, Omar Minaya, the Expos' general manager, tried to get the Yankees and the Red Sox competing with each other for Colón, but they rejected his proposals. Apparently, media darling Omar Minaya overplayed his hand not realizing that a) Contreras would soon be declared a free agent (after clearing some hurdles regarding his residency documents) and b) so many players would soon become free agents after not being tendored contracts by their teams. Minaya had his moment when the demand still outpaced the supply, and it was the winter meetings. He didn't make the moves he needed to make and now the Expos are scrambling to make the mandated payroll cuts. But enough of that, the Red Sox will probably acquire Colon as Chass opines, and will have three twenty-game winners on their staff. Those three would be more dominant than any three pitchers that the Yankees could throw at a team. Besides Colon is \younger than Contreras and is an established major-league starter (By the way, Chass mistakenly states that Colon is only 27-he will be 30 in May). Casey Fossum, the starter for whom Colon will probably be swapped and whose spot he will take, started only 12 games last year and ended up 3-3 with a 3.65 ERA (and a 1.41 WHIP) as a starter. However, the Yankees gave up nothing in getting Contreras. The Red Sox will probably have to give up Casey Fossum and Shea Hillenbrand to get Colon and take on Fernando Tatis' salary as well (one year at $6.25 M remains on his contract). Fossum did start only 12 games last year, but he struck out over a man an inning (69 in 66-2/3 innings) and struck at over 3.6 men for each one he walked (69 to 19). He is only 24, and with the Josh Hancock to the Phillies, his loss doesn't bode well for the Red Sox' pitching future. The Red Sox would have no starters under 30 by the 2003 All-Star break should they acquire Colon (Martinez 31, Lowe 30, Colon 30, Wakefield 36, Burkett 38). They only have two other pitchers under 29 on the 40-man roster (Brandon Lyon and Andy Shibilo). With Burkett's $5.5 M of ineffectiveness, Boston's apparent lack of confidence Wakefield a starter, and no other viable options, the tail end of the Red Sox' rotation may be problematic in 2003 no matter what. Colon finally put together the kind of season in 2002 that his former employer, the Indians, had been anticipating for years. His ERA was under 3.00 for the first time in his career. His strikeouts dropped severely though. He only struck out 5.75 men per nine innings, a huge drop from his career high of 10.15 in 2000. His strikeout-to-walk ratio has never been greater than 2.25 and his WHIP (walks plus hits per innings pitched) has never been below 1.24, his career best in 2002. Compare those numbers to Boston's Pedro Martinez who has only had a WHIP over 1.20 once, has never has a K/9 IP under 8, and has only had one K/BB ratio under 2.5. Colon did rank 10th among all major-league starters in Baseball Prospectus' Support Neutral Wins Above Replacement-Level, but there are still a good number of negatives in his makeup. That said, he would still be the best number 3 starter in baseball. The Red Sox are apparently unhappy with uneven third baseman Shea Hillenbrand. He does have only 38 walks in over 1100 at-bats. But in 2002 his on-base percentage was actually one point better than the adjusted league average and his OPS was 9% better than the adjusted average (43 doubles and 18 HRs help). His apparent replacement in the trade, Fernando Tatis, had a deplorable 2002 season (.303 OBP and .702 OPS, which was only 83% of the adjusted league average). He signed a $14 M, four-year contract after a monster 1999 season (34 HRs, 107 RBI, .298 BA, .957 OPS- 40% better than the adjusted league average). He has been largely injured and/or ineffectual since then. He is just one year older than Hillenbrand but seems to be on the decline while Hillenbrand may still be able to improve as he did in 2002. If acquiring Colon were such a boon to the Sox, one would have to wonder why they were so vehemently pursuing Contreras. Chass cites a source who states that the Sox were prepared to pay him more than the Yankees' offer, but Contreras liked the Yankee situation better and chose them.
Permalink |
No comments.
All I Want For Christmas
2002-12-24 17:04
All I Want For Christmas Is Two Starting Pitchers The Yankees signed Cuban Defector Jose Contreras to a four-year, $32 M contract. They are still negotiating with Roger Clemens to re-sign for 2003. Quoth ESPN, "The Yankees anticipate that by the Jan. 8 deadline they will re-sign Clemens to a one-year contract worth $8 million to $10 million." If Clemens re-signs, the Yankees will have eight, count 'em, eight starting pitchers on the roster: Contreras, Clemens, Mussina, Wells, Weaver, Pettite, Hernandez, and Hitchcock. The Yankees would love to divest themselves of Hitchcock's massive contract, but the prospect seems remote. He'll probably end up the left-handed long reliever in the bullpen. The same goes for El Duque if they cannot trade him. That leaves six starters. Weaver seems the logical choice to be dropped based on last season (he was used out of the bullpen on many occasions). However, he was acquired to lead their staff in 2003 and beyond. If they cannot trade a starter, Mussina, Pettite, or Wells will have to move to the bullpen. Given his smaller salary, I wouldn't be surprised if the choice was Wells.
Permalink |
No comments.
Chris Single-As-In-Can't-Take-A-Walk-To-Save-His-Life-ton The A's have
2002-12-24 01:18
Chris Single-As-In-Can't-Take-A-Walk-To-Save-His-Life-ton The A's have just signed 30-year-old, non-tendored free agent Chris Singleton to a one-year contract. The AP article claims that the "Athletics shored up their outfield" in doing so, and "[t]he acquisition of Singleton allows the A's to move Terrence Long from center field to left field, which would improve their outfield defense." This leaves me with two questions: A) Who wants Terrence Long as a corner outfielder? His OPS (on-base plus slugging) was .688 last season. Only two starting major-league left fielders were worse than that (and they were both in New York: Rondell White and Roger Cedeno). Terrence Long is somewhat better than his 2002 season for his career, but we are only talking about a three-season career. Even if he performs at his career-average .740 OPS, he would still rank third worst in baseball based on 2002. The second question is B) Why does a team like Oakland that is built around on-base percentage sign dreck like Singleton of the .296 OPS in 2002? He walked 21 times in 466 at-bats this past season. Besides Singleton is 30 and in his 4-year career, has seen his skills deteriorate more each season. He was a pretty good ballplayer in 1999 (.300 BA, 17 HR, 72 R & RBI, .490 Slug, .818 OPS--8% better than the adjusted league average, and 20 stolen bases and an 80% stolen-base success rate, but only a .328 OBP and 22 walks). His 2000 season was horrific with an OPS that was only 69% of the adjusted league average, a terrible number for anyone outside of Bill & Ted. He returned to slightly below average in OPS in 2001, but his stolen bases (12) and stolen-base success rate (52%) dropped of severely. With Baltimore in 2002, Singleton slid closer to his 2000 numbers with a .706 OPS (87% of the adjusted league average). His OPS was actually only better than 6 other starting major-league center fielders, one of whom was Terrence Long. Aside from those issues, I think it was a tremendous pick-up. I mean, how often can you weaken yourself in two positions by signing one man?
Permalink |
No comments.
At First To Last Over
2002-12-22 12:19
At First To Last Over the last couple of days, two first basemen who were 38 years old last season were signed as free agents to, in all probably, start at first base in 2003. Those two are Fred McGriff (going from the Cubs to the Dodgers) and Mark Grace (who re-sigend with the D-Backs). It made me wonder how unusual it was to have a a starting first baseman who was that age and how dicey a proposition it was to sign one. So I did a little research (thanks to Sean Leahman's database). I found that there have only been nine other 38-year-old starting first baseman in baseball history. Here is what they did in their 38th and 39th years (with McGriff and Grace's 2002 numbers; Also, OPS+ is Baseball-Reference.com's OPS adjusted for park and era as a percentage of the average): At First To Last Over the last couple of days, two first basemen who were 38 years old last season were signed as free agents to, in all probably, start at first base in 2003. Those two are Fred McGriff (going from the Cubs to the Dodgers) and Mark Grace (who re-sigend with the D-Backs). It made me wonder how unusual it was to have a a starting first baseman who was that age and how dicey a proposition it was to sign one. So I did a little research (thanks to Sean Leahman's database). I found that there have only been nine other 38-year-old starting first baseman in baseball history. Here is what they did in their 38th and 39th years (with McGriff and Grace's 2002 numbers; Also, OPS+ is Baseball-Reference.com's OPS adjusted for park and era as a percentage of the average):
Permalink |
No comments.
Don't Take My Love for
2002-12-21 16:09
Don't Take My Love for Non-Tender, II Her are a few more: Sea: John Halama, Charles Gipson, and Desi Relaford.
Permalink |
No comments.
Hoosier Daddy: The Uncollected History
2002-12-21 00:58
Hoosier Daddy: The Uncollected History of Indiana Baseball, II Professional baseball in Indiana went on hiatus until the good citizenry back in Ft. Wayne, after 12 years, were finally ready to support another pro team. It was 1883, and at the Grand Duchess a team calling itself the Hoosiers represented Ft. Wayne in the fledgling Northwestern League. They finished seventh (34-50) in an eight-club league, and only lasted one more season as the demised with the Northwestern League itself-they didn't improve in the second season finishing 22-43, in eighth place in a 12-team league. But a few good things did happen. In 1883, the Grand Duchess in a promotional scheme became only the second site to host a game under lights ever (Methodist College played host to a team from Quincy, Il.). Also, the Ft. Wayne team's presence inspired a team from Terre Haute, a future hot bed for minor-league baseball, to join the Northwestern League in 1884 (and ended up with 15-50 record). Also in 1884, Indianapolis returned to the majors. The American Association (AA), the NL's then partner in organized ball, was expanding to 12 teams in order to combat a threat from a rival league, the Union Association (UA). The Indianapolis Hoosiers-yes, the name was becoming popular-were born. The team left not much to remember them by. They were 29-78, 46 games behind in 11th place. The one-year franchise quickly faded from memory like the rival UA threat. The only lasting impression that was left was one of dipsomania. The Hoosiers, apparently, took the "Beer and Whiskey" nickname that the AA had acquired a little too much to heart. They were repeatedly arrested for public drunkenness. They even showed up to games drunk. Worries of drunken rowdiness attended the birth of the next Indianapolis franchise in 1887. To Be Continued...
Permalink |
No comments.
Grist for the Millwood, III
2002-12-21 00:28
Grist for the Millwood, III Given the large number of non-tendors, a thought occurred to me. What if the Braves had just declined to offer Millwood a contract? He would have become a free agent and almost certainly would have been lost to them. But the odds that he would end up on a division rival would have been somewhat reduced. I would have taken the risk if all I was going to get out of trading Millwood to the Phils was Johnny Estrada anyway. Maybe that was the last screw-up in a litany that the Braves management had with their staff this week.
Permalink |
No comments.
Don't Take My Love for
2002-12-21 00:22
Don't Take My Love for Non-Tender It's Marvin Miller's worst nightmare. What would happen if all of the players were free agents every year. They would flood the market and drive down salaries. It's simple supply-and-demand economics, right? Well, we are not close to that, but this year an inordinate number of useful, arbitration-eligible players are not being tendored contracts. It seems that for whatever reason the whole of MLB has reached the proverbial tipping point and now teams would be hard pressed to retain these players given the talent available on the open market. It's the oddest offseason since the full bloom of collusion (that also could explain a lot about this offseason if it were a factor). Perhaps the oddest angle is that a number of these players are still of interest to their 2002 teams, just not at the current rate plus arbitration. Sean McAdam has a very interesting article on the phenomenon on ESPN. Here is a list of the non-tendors that I have noticed over the past day or so: NYY: Spencer, Parker
Permalink |
No comments.
Grist for the Millwood, II
2002-12-20 23:59
Grist for the Millwood, II Rob Neyer agrees with my assessment that the Braves assumed Maddux was not returning and totally fumbled their moves of the last week.
Permalink |
No comments.
Uncle Floyd, III Well, surprises
2002-12-20 23:51
Uncle Floyd, III Well, surprises abound. The Red Sox did not tendor Brian Daubach a contract, thereby making him a free agent. Theo Epstein says that the move "doesn't change Jeremy's (Giambi's) situation or the way we see first base. Again, Jeremy has a chance to be part of the solution at first base,'' Epstein said. ``If not, he'll be the designated hitter.'' I had speculated that Giambi would start in left, but it sounds as if the Sox are expecting Manny Ramirez to play there more regularly next year. By the way, he hasn't played as many as 100 games in the outfield since 1999. Giambi will be tried at first and, that failing, DH. Boston claims to still be in contact with Daubach but are keeping their options open what with all of the holiday bargains on the market.
Permalink |
No comments.
Nakamura For a Loop The
2002-12-20 23:41
Nakamura For a Loop The Mets got good news a bad news today. First the good news: The Mets will actually have a bona fide major-league outfielder on the roster this year. Cliff Floyd signed for reported 4-year, $26 M contract earlier today. Now the bad news: Japanese free-agent third baseman Norihiro Nakamura has unexpectedly signed with a Japanese team after preliminary reports had his deal with the Mets a fait accompli (that's French, querida). Is Bobby Bonilla still available?
Permalink |
No comments.
'Tis The Season The Cubs
2002-12-20 16:38
'Tis The Season The Cubs continue to play Santa Claus, handing out a one-year, $3M to of all people the ever-naughty Shawn Estes. Estes should be getting a lump of coal in his stocking after his 5-12, 5.09 ERA 2002. But this pitcher who arguably hasn't been better than average since 1997 (and at times has been a whole lot worse) now gets a spot in the rotation, apparently just for having pitched for Dusty Baker at some time in the past. The crosstown Pale Ho-Ho-Hose were being similarly beneficent handing out a one-year contract to aging catcher Sandy Alomar (who was pretty good for them last year, but was rank for them in 2001 and even worse in the second half of 2002 with Colorado).
Permalink |
No comments.
Grist for the Millwood I
2002-12-20 16:25
Grist for the Millwood I guess I was wrong-mark your calendars. Not only are the Braves willing to trade 18-game winner Kevin Millwood, they did so to the division-rival Phillies for a backup catcher, yet. Millwood is 27, but also had two sub-par years before his 18-8, 3.24 ERA 2002 season. He will also get a bunch via arbitration ($10M, John Schuerholz estimated). Oh, and the Phillies don't end up getting the left-hander that they were jones-ing after. But the Phillies got one of the best young pitchers in the NL for a player that probably wouldn't even make the team (Johnny Estrada). That's a freebie, folks. Schuerholz told ESPN, "The economics in baseball stink. The economics stink, and if this isn't a clear enough signal to the doubters and naysayers, to be forced to trade an 18-game winner to your arch enemy ... The economics stink." Apparently the Phillies were the only team with the funds to take Millwood off the Braves' hands. With all of their AOL and cable money, why can't they afford a true 5-man rotation, anyway? Besides, how did the get in this mess to begin with? Well, they acquired two pitchers when it turned out that they only needed one (after Maddux accepted arbitration). By the way, I would rather have Millwood than either of two pitchers that the acquired (Byrd or Ortiz). The Phils did not get the veteran staff leader that they wanted but they now potentially have one of the best young rotations in baseball. Rob Neyer goes as far as to say "one of the league's best rotations...The odds seem to change every day. But on this day the Phillies are the beasts of the East." I am not that optomistic, but Wolf (26), Padilla (25), Myers (22), and Millwood make a pretty good, young group. Throw in a Duckworth (26), Coggin (26), Hancock (24), Bud Smith (23) or even a Joe-Ah Roa (31), and they might have something there for a few years. I suppose the rotation will be Millwood, Wolf, Padilla, Myers, and ? Millwood had always been at best a number 3 starter in Atlanta, so he will have a little added pressure. The group has a lot of potential but they could also pull a Pat Combs, as happens often in Philly. According to the ESPN online poll the Phils are 2-to-1 favorites over the Braves to now win the division. I think it's premature, but I have to say as a Phils fan, it doesn't stink.
Permalink |
No comments.
Godzookey, II Aaron Gleeman has
2002-12-20 10:52
Godzookey, II Aaron Gleeman has the numbers from BP for the two new Japanese sluggers translated into major-league numbers. I agree with Aaron that they should be good, but I still reserve judgment on their power numbers until they produce some sateside. It is interesting though.
Permalink |
No comments.
Uncle Floyd, II David Pinto
2002-12-20 10:04
Uncle Floyd, II David Pinto reports that the Orioles are close to signing Floyd. By the way, if he does sign with the Orioles, he will be a substantial upgrade over what they had there in 2002. Take a look at Floyd's stats a compared to Baltimore's left and right fielders for the season: Floyd G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS AVG
2002 146 520 86 150 43 0 28 79 76 106 15 5 .388 .533 .921 .288
Total 955 3132 510 891 225 17 132 508 347 627 115 37 .361 .494 .855 .284
LF GP AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS AVG
Gary Matthews Jr. 16 40 5 14 4 1 1 5 3 12 1 0 .386 .575 .961 .350
Marty Cordova 72 256 29 65 14 0 12 35 24 58 1 5 .322 .449 .771 .254
Jose Leon 2 8 2 2 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 .250 .625 .875 .250
Melvin Mora 74 247 39 58 12 3 11 33 32 45 10 2 .336 .441 .777 .235
Howie Clark 4 14 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 .313 .214 .527 .214
Larry Bigbie 6 17 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 .176 .176 .353 .176
Jeff Conine 6 24 2 4 1 0 1 3 0 5 0 0 .167 .333 .500 .167
Luis Matos 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000
TOTALS GP AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS AVG
Orioles LF 162 606 78 149 31 4 26 80 60 129 13 7 .322 .439 .761 .246
RF GP AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS AVG
Larry Bigbie 6 6 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 .429 .500 .929 .333
Gary Matthews Jr. 76 244 43 70 17 1 6 29 31 44 11 3 .367 .439 .805 .287
Jay Gibbons 92 339 48 80 21 0 18 43 30 43 1 2 .298 .457 .755 .236
Melvin Mora 5 12 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 .231 .500 .731 .167
Luis Matos 7 14 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 .143 .214 .357 .143
Luis Garcia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000 .000
TOTALS GP AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS AVG
Orioles RF 162 615 92 156 41 1 25 76 63 96 13 5 .323 .446 .768 .254
Actually, the were pretty well balanced between right and left, not great in either but OK. Where they really need help is at catcher, second, shortstop, centerfield, and DH, which makes me wonder why they stopped pursuing Pudge Rodriguez.
Permalink |
No comments.
Uncle! Floyd Out of Boston-Red
2002-12-20 09:43
Uncle! Floyd Out of Boston-Red Sox Feel Oggie Cliff Floyd decline arbitration withe the Red Sox. The Sox can still negotitate with him but it seems apparent that he's headed elsewhere. There have been a lot of rumors about his going to the Mets. Now, the Jeremy Giambi deal becomes pretty big. Giambi will probably start in left (instead of spreading him between first, left, and DH as the Sox probably intended). That means that Daubach will probaby be the starting first baseman (and that the Sox will actually offer him a contract before the deadline tonight). That's kind of a spanner thrown into Epstein's works. He had been plugging some serious holes with modestly good player but apparently relied on retaining Floyd. So with all of his good work, he's kind of back to square one.
Permalink |
No comments.
Maybe the Should Have Called
2002-12-20 00:34
Maybe the Should Have Called AA Instead The Cubs re-signed Antonio Alfonseca to a one-year, $4 M contract. Evidently, the Cubbies did not get the memo on fiscal responsibility that the other teams seem to have memorized. Alfonseca has never been a premier closer and was about a league-average pitcher last year (4.00 ERA, 19 saves but 9 blown saves). The Cubs seem undeterred though: ``I'm optimistic he'll return to his old form,'' Cubs general manager Jim Hendry said Thursday. ``He was returning from back surgery early last year and didn't get a lot of chances to save.'' Keep brimming with optomism, Jim. Alfonseca's "old form" isn't that great either. He has had an ERA under 4.00 in only two of his six seasons. He's averaged just over 6 strkeouts per nine innings for his career. His strikeout-to-walk ratio is nothing to write home about either (1.75). His WHIP (Walks plus Hits per Innings Pitched) is just under 1.5 and he has more hits allowed than innings pitched. ESPN has him saving less than 80% of his save opportunities. So with Ugueth Urbina out on the market, why give this guy $4 M? Oh, one last piece of Windy City tomfoolery: ``We might give Dusty (Baker) the option or three or four guys who might close,'' Hendry said. So, now he's a $4 M setup man with a 4.00+ ERA. Great signing, guys!
Permalink |
No comments.
Can We Call Him Gamera?
2002-12-20 00:15
Can We Call Him Gamera? The Mets will announce that they have signed Japanese fre-agent third baseman Norihiro Nakamura on Friday according to New York Newsday. It's reportedly a two year deal for $7 M plus a $6M option for a third. These two power-hitting players (i.e., with Matsui) will be very interesting test cases for Japanese ballplayers in the US. Should they succeed, the Japanese leagues may soon (10 years or so) start to close up shop a la the old Negro Leagues after Jackie Robinson et al's signing by the major leagues. Perhaps they will become another overblown lesser minor league like the Mexican League. It may also create a new viable source for new players as well as a market to sell their product to for MLB. Or they could both suck. We'll have to see, but it couldn't come at a better time for MLB.
Permalink |
No comments.
What No Phil and Phyllis?
2002-12-20 00:04
What No Phil and Phyllis? The Phillies' fan newsletter is chock full of information about their new stadium, the one that won't open for another year and charge, this week. There's an article on how to choose the perfect grass, ah, turf--perhaps some Carl Spackler's special hybrid from Caddyshack. There's an interview of the man overseeing the construction. And then there's this: SCULPTURE UPDATE I'm not sure why Pete Alexander, Chuck Klein, Billy Hamilton, and Ed Delahanty got overlooked, but it will be good to see the Phils celebrating their history a bit. The Vet has some cheesy genero-Phillies sculpture dating from around 1978 in the front. The only homages to their four recent HoF inductees are the be-pinstriped retired numbers resting above the retracted extra seating for football.
Permalink |
No comments.
Maddux Redux, Deux ESPN reports
2002-12-19 23:31
Maddux Redux, Deux ESPN reports that the Braves will now have to trade one of their starting pitchers to accommodate returning Greg Maddux's salary. Given that Hampton was already untradeable when the Braves acquired him, Maddux is staying, and Paul Byrd was just signed as a free agent, that leaves Kevin Millwood and Russ Ortiz. Millwood made $3.9 M in 2002 but could make more in 2003 given that he is arbitration eligible. Besides the Braves would probably want to keep Millwood for staff stability. That leaves just Ortiz, who will make $4.4M in 2003 plus a $5.7 M option ($300 K buyout for 2004). It probably won't happen until Colon, Clemens, and Contreras find homes. (By the way, Philly.com reports that the Phillies are now pursuing the Cuban defector, meaning that Contreras will sign with another team within days.) Expect the team left standing when the music stops to go after Ortiz. Woudn't it be funny if it was division-rival Philadelphia? < |