"We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Stiffs"

"Your Milwaukee Brewers. It's coming together."

My friend Mike sent me this Milwaukee Journal article on the Brewers new ad campaign, which uses this motto as its unifying theme. It seems that the Brewers are no longer striving for excellence or even mediocrity, they just hope to be entertaining to the fanbase. Given the car wreck that the 2003 Brewers promise to be, there should be a fair share in attendance, slowing down to check out the carnage.

No clarification is made during the ad as to what the "it" is that is coming together. Though first Brewer president Ulice Payne weighs in:

I know how the people of this city stand behind their teams. I know how they cheer for every win and cry for every loss. But you can't build a winner overnight.

Evidently, building a loser can be done in a Milwaukee minute. He continues:

I also know that it's been way too long since you've had a parade on Wisconsin Ave. And it's about time we started building a team that deserves a parade.

OK, agreed. So start already. This is a team that lost its best position player in Jose Hernandez to free agency and has answered by signing the likes of Royce Clayton, Todd Ritchie, and John Vander Wal, all on Ulice "I Can't Pronounce It Either" Payne's watch.

Next up is Ned "I'm a Manager Because I Was a Worse Catcher Than Donnie Scott" Yost, who aw-goshes his way through the second commercial.

In his ad, Yost talks of his love of the game, and the challenge of molding a team. He says his team won't win all of its games, "but I can promise you this entire team will do everything we can to win you back."

Look, I'm sure these players will try their best, but they just aren't very good. It's not their fault. Blame God, blame it on Cane, but don't blame it on me. The Brewers management knows this. They chose to people this team with replacement-level players at replacement-level prices. That's why the Brewers suck. It's all about money, not even baseball decisions. The baseball decisions are already made. They are incidental. Just field a team and wait for the great big Yankee welfare checks to arrive. Pay your catcher with food stamps. Who cares? And then tell your constituency that all you need is heart. Hypocrites! The Indians in the Major League never won a championship and the Fish never saved Pittsburgh. They were pretend, but so are the 2003 Brewers, so maybe they're reading the same script and expect to win the same way.

In the printed ad, the Brewers add insult to injury pointing out that Milwaukee was naïve enough to have built these shmendriks their own stadium two years ago:

"You will see players that will play hard, or they won't play at all," the ad copy reads. "After all, Miller Park is your stadium, the Brewers are your team, and you deserve to get your money's worth. . . ."

Of course, the players will be gone if they don't play hard. They are fungible, replacement-level, dime-a-dozen scrubs. They "don't cost nuttin', " in the words of John Blutarsky, to begin with. But at least we get an explanation as to Hernandez's disappearance: he didn't play hard enough. When last year's manager, Jerry Royster, benched him at the end of the year to avoid the final embarrassment of his breaking the strikeout record, they were actually sending a message to the team. Don't play well, or else. Wasn't that it? Don't try to win because this team isn't trying, inspirational music written by local musician Kevin Sucher and arranged by Warren Wiegratz. Isn't that the message that they are still sending out? Well, the message I'm sure got through, and the Brew Crew will happily comply in 2003 and for years to come.

As Long As He Doesn't Get Back Together with Jane Fonda

My friend Murray sent me this link that purports to have evdience that Ted Turner is trying to reclaim control of the Braves as well as CNN. Apparently, the failing AOL/Time Warner/The Kitchen Sink is willing to part ways with the be-chopping team, probably citing lack of synergies.

The Drudge Report further quotes an unidentified source:

"It is safe to say he will get his baseball team back; CNN is another issue, entirely," a top AOL source said early Thursday from New York.

Meanwhile the Braves are prepared to start the season with little-leaguers at first, second, and third and may have lost their best pitcher to the division-rival Phillies. This is the routine that has been established for a yearly affirmation of Bobby Cox's genius, at least until playoff time.

Downsize the Umpire!

Ideally, the umpire should combine the integrity of a Supreme Court justice, the physical agility of an acrobat, the endurance of Job and the imperturbability of Buddha.

- "The Villains in Blue", Time, August 25, 1961

That sure shows you how times have changed.

As you probably have heard venerable, sexagenarian umpire Bruce Froemming was recorded in a phone conversation referring to fellow MLB employee Cathy Davis in a racist and misogynistic manner. It seems Froemming assessment of Davis was meant as an explanation as to why he booked his own arrangements for the season opener in Japan. The result for Froemming was a 10-game suspension and another visit to orbitz.com to cancel those plans-he ain't going. No turning Japanese for Mr. Froemming, I really think not.

There was a time when calls of "Kill the umpire!" were actually shouted in earnest. Attacks on umpire in the 19th century were not rare. The majors did what they could to support the umps and eventually fans learned to respect these men's integrity and wellbeing if not their decisions. As late as 1940, however, major-league umpires were still attacked-confrontational ump George Magerkurth was attacked by a fan at Ebbetts Field (allegedly so that the man's partner, a pickpocket, could have free reign over the diverted crowd).

Things have changed so dramatically that umpires are on the offensive lately. Confrontational umpires are the norm. In 1999 Richie Phillips led a mass-strike by seppuku that resulted in a new umpires' union and 22 unintentionally resigned umpires. The umpires have to be forced to actually call balls and strikes for goodness' sake.

Froemming himself had been reprimanded for pursuing Mike Piazza for an autograph into the clubhouse, not that there's anything wrond with that. Other than that Froemming's claim to fame may have been being the home plate ump for Milt Pappas perfect game-cum-no-hitter. Pappas blamed losing the perfect game on his ball call on a close pitch to the 27th batter, who had a full count at the time. Now Froemming will be remembered as the umpiral version of Marge Schott, a John Rocker in blue.

Given Time's criteria above Froemming is an apt umpire though. He is as rotund as Buddha and has the integrity of Justice Clarence Thomas. Maybe times haven't changed that much.

As far as acrobatic skills, he seems to have dodged a bullet more easily than the stolid Keanu Reeves in The Matrix. To get off with a 10-day suspension is very lucky on Froemming's part. I have heard of people getting fired from their jobs for less, such as forwarding or just not deleting, emails with off-color jokes.

But how effective can he be as an umpire? Let's see what the reaction is the next time he is behind the plate and makes a call against, say, Shawn Green. Will people question whether he made the call because he is anti-Semitic? How does he feel about blacks, Latins, foreign-born players? I guess we'll just have to wait for his next phone message to find out.

Doesn't just the possibility of impropriety enough to undermine him when we're talking someone whose job it is to make judgement calls, calls that form the backbone of MLB's integrity. If his calls can be questioned due to his personal views, then isn't he undermining the integrity of the game and abnegating the advancements that his fellow umpires have made in the last 150 years. It took many years to put the umpire beyond reproach. He may have been blind, but like the blindfolded justice depicted in the statue, he was fair.

Even without delving into the moral integrity requisite for being an umpire, given the realities of the world in which we live, it is incumbent on MLB to relieve Froemming of his duties at once. Call it retirement. Call it downsizing. Call it rightsizing. Just get him off the field. Meanwhile, Pete Rose's reinstatement appears stalled because of tax problems and his legal visits to casinos. How can a business exist with such divergent moral standards?

Koch-Eyed?

If further proof was needed that Billy Beane is a genius, it came last night. Arbitration-eligible closer Billy Koch, who was traded by Beane's A's this offseason, was signed by the White Sox for two years and $10.625 M ($4.25M in 2003 and $6.375M in 2004).

Don't get me wrong. Koch is only 28 and is a fine closer who had a very good year in 2002. My first reaction was just that the current market does not warrant the salary or the length of the contract.

The Sox think otherwise:

"As we talked about at the time we traded for Billy, part of the appeal of doing the deal was the fact that we would be able to keep him around beyond 2003," White Sox assistant general manager Rick Hahn said.

"This contract not only rewards Billy for the unprecedented level of success he has achieved at this stage in his career, but also provides the club with some cost certainly going forward," Hahn said.

Maybe I'm wrong. Let's take a look at a few things. First, here are the relievers (10+ relief appearances in 2002) who made over $4M in 2002 with their salaries for 2003.

First	Last	2002 salary	2003 salary	Tot Sv	2002 SV
Mariano	Rivera	$9,450,000	$8,500,000	243	28
Robb	Nen	$8,300,000	$8,600,000	314	43
Billy	Wagner	$8,000,000	$8,000,000	181	35
Wilson	Alvarez	$8,000,000	$750,000	2	1
John	Smoltz	$7,666,667	$10,000,000	65	55
Ugueth	Urbina	$6,700,000	$4,500,000	174	40
Trevor	Hoffman	$6,600,000	$9,000,000	352	38
Roberto	Hernandez	$6,000,000	$600,000	320	26
Dustin	Hermanson	$5,833,333	$900,000	4	0
Armando	Benitez	$5,812,500	$6,750,000	176	33
Brian	Anderson	$5,375,000	N/A	1	0
Mike	Timlin	$5,250,000	$1,850,000	114	0
Troy	Percival	$5,250,000	$7,500,000	250	40
Kazuhiro	Sasaki	$5,070,000	$8,000,000	119	37
Omar	Daal	$5,000,000	$3,000,000	1	0
Sterling	Hitchcock	$4,936,719	$6,750,000	3	0
Matt	Mantei	$4,333,333	$2,000,000	60	0
Dave	Veres	$4,250,000	$6,000,000	94	4
Jose	Mesa	$4,200,000	$4,500,000	225	45
Danys	Baez	$4,125,000	$4,125,000	6	6
Albie	Lopez	$4,000,000	$1,500,000	4	0
Keith	Foulke	$4,000,000	$6,000,000	100	11
Steve	Karsay	$4,000,000	$4,000,000	41	12

Well, there are some swingmen and non-closers in that mix. Of the closers, the ones that signed new contracts this offseason took their lumps (i.e., Urbina and Hernandez, who also lost his closer's role) though Antonio Alfonseca joined the $4M-per-anum ranks with his new contract with the Cubbies.

Well, let's look at the career closers and what their salaries were in 2002. maybe that's a better fit for Koch:

First	Last	2002 salary	Tot Sv
Trevor	Hoffman	$6,600,000	352
Roberto	Hernandez	$6,000,000	320
Robb	Nen	$8,300,000	314
Troy	Percival	$5,250,000	250
Mariano	Rivera	$9,450,000	243
Jose	Mesa	$4,200,000	225
Todd	Jones	$1,000,000	184
Billy	Wagner	$8,000,000	181
Armando	Benitez	$5,812,500	176
Ugueth	Urbina	$6,700,000	174
Bob	Wickman	$3,400,000	156
Dan	Plesac	$2,200,000	156
Billy	Koch	$2,433,333	144
Mike	Jackson	$500,000	142
Danny	Graves	$3,525,000	129
Antonio	Alfonseca	$3,550,000	121
Kazuhiro	Sasaki	$5,070,000	119
Mark	Wohlers	$600,000	119
Mike	Williams	$2,000,000	116
Mike	Timlin	$5,250,000	114
Ricky	Bottalico	$1,500,000	114
Jason	Isringhausen	$2,750,000	108
Keith	Foulke	$4,000,000	100

You'll note that a good number of these closers no longer close and some may not even have jobs in 2003. It does appear that Koch was due a raise compared to the other active closers at his level. Maybe that's why the A's got rid of him. Koch is among the top 10 active closers in career saves, but is that enough?

How good is Koch behind the 144 saves? Here are Koch's career numbers:

Year   G   IP   W  L  SV  ERA K/9IP K:BB WHIP HR/9IP Adj ERA  SV%
1999  56  63.2  0  5  31 3.39 8.06  1.90 1.34 0.71    145    88.57%
2000  68  78.2  9  3  33 2.63 6.86  3.33 1.22 0.69    189    86.84%
2001  69  69.1  2  5  36 4.80 7.14  1.67 1.47 0.91     99    81.82%
2002  84  93.2 11  4  44 3.27 8.94  2.02 1.27 0.67    142    88.00%
Tot  277 305.1 22 17 144 3.48 7.81  2.09 1.32 0.74    138    86.23%

You'll note that his 2001 season was pretty rancid no matter how you look at it, but he saved 36 games and had a pretty high save percentage (saves per opportunity)-again proving how meaningless the save stat is in a vacuum. Overall his numbers are not that great. He is a capable reliever but one more year like 2001 may cause him to lose that closer's role.

His 2002 year was very good, but not because of the quality of his performance, which was good, as much as because of the quantity. He threw 93.2 innings in 84 games. That's a tremendous amount of pitching for a closer. That's what allowed him to break the 30-save threshold for the first time and allowed him to win 11 games. He was used 34 times last year when their was no save opportunity. He also averaged almost a strikeout per inning, much higher than his previous level.

But can he keep it up in 2003? It's doubtful. He will probably return to a 60-appearance, 70-inning workload typical of a closer with the Sox. Aside from the attendant reduction in saves and wins, will his performance be affected by the change in workload? Here is his performance in 2002 based on days rest prior to the appearance:

Rest ERA W L SV SVO G IP    AVG  K/9IP K:BB HR/9IP WHIP SV%
0   3.21 3 1 21 21 28 28   .220  7.71  1.60  0.96  1.32 100.00%
1   3.79 5 2 12 17 30 38   .245  9.00  2.38  0.95  1.34  70.59%
2   3.21 1 1  5  5 14 14   .106 10.93  1.89  0.00  1.00 100.00%
3-5 1.42 1 0  6  6 11 12.2 .196  8.53  2.40  0.00  1.11 100.00%
6+  9.00 1 0  0  1  1  1   .400 18.00  2.00  0.00  3.00   0.00%

It seems that he pitches best with more rest. Two days seems optimal. He also pitched alright with no rest, but pitching on one-day rest was his downfall. Maybe saving him to pitch longer every couple of days would be best. Here is his 2002 performances broken down by pitch count:

Pitches	AB	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
1-15	217	.207	.283	.281	.565
16-30	101	.208	.344	.297	.641
31-45	22	.318	.400	.636	1.036
46-60	1	.000	.000	.000	.000

It seems that Koch falls apart after 30 pitchers. That should be enough for two innings on a good day.

So it seems that using him almost daily with gaps for rest as the A's did last year got the most out of Koch. It also inflated his numbers so that he would command a much larger salary this season. So the A's moved on and traded his inflated numbers for a superior closer. Given that the Sox are sort of trapped in the situation that they created, I guess that they go full-bore with Koch and sign him to the inflated contract. It's not a great move: he'll probably pitch well but it's doubtful that he'll be worth the money.

But maybe there's an ulterior motive. Perhaps with the players possibly filing a collusion grievance against the owners, it was time for Reinsdorf to take one for the team, i.e., his fellow owners. It's either that or the entire city of Chicago is totally infatuated with the save statistic. Alfonseca and Koch may help them get over that case of bad love however.

Red Sox Fence-Sitting?

O, beware, my lord, of jealousy!
It is the green-ey'd monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on. That cuckold lives in bliss
Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger;
But, O, what damned minutes tells he o'er
Who dotes, yet doubts, suspects, yet strongly loves!

- Othello by Willy "Author" Shakespeare of NY Mammoths fame

How much would you pay for a 3 and one-half hour view of Manny Ramirez's derriere? The Red Sox are banking on the average fan feverishly forking over fifty, ten fins, in filial faithfulness. Fie, you offer?

Well, the NY Times has an article on the 280 new seats being added to Fenway, perched atop of the Green Monster like Horton the Elephant a-sitting on that egg. The Red Sox, and I guess the Times who are part owners, expect to snare $1M in selling out the new section. I guess that will make carrying an extra starting third baseman on the roster easier on John Henry's wallet.

Red Sox president Larry Lucchino offers another rationale:

"I think there's also the feeling that these seats could be very cool," Lucchino said. "There's something very special about seeing a game at Fenway from that perspective."

Gnarly, dude. Whatever.

The team president, meanwhile, has apparently been watching too many Kevin Costner movies:

"Nobody likes watching a ball go into a net," said Tom Werner, chairman of the Red Sox. "The thrill of not only accommodating a few hundred people with a great seat but actually having a ball go into the crowd is a much more exciting experience."

One thing's for sure from the designer's rendering. The Yankee fans are correct-the Red Sox are empty-headed automatons:

The Times quotes the manager of the bar behind Fenway, who says, "The general feeling of the fans is that touching the Green Monster at all, putting seats on top of it, is not going to give it the same atmosphere as it had before. But we'll have to wait and see. I don't know how high they're going, but maybe it'll prevent the balls from hitting my car every day." Cute, but isn't this The Times not The Post?

No mention is made as to how this will affect the on-field product that the additional fans will see. The Sox played with the walls in the Eighties and helped make a hitter's park into a pitcher's park. If Fenway turns into a throwback Astrodome, then the fans may not turn out as frequently as they currently do.

That also reminds me, John Henry, the welfare principal owner of the Sox, channeled the smarmy evil that is Michael Eisner to add:

"There are things you can do to increase revenue and make the ballpark come alive, make it more fan-friendly," Henry said. "This is in that spirit."

(By the way, if Michael Eisner or, more importantly, Michael Esiner's attorney is reading this, I am, of course, only joking about America's favorite sweater-wearer being evil.)

New Red Sox Motto: "Fenway Park is Fan-Tabulous"

The Red Sox were fourth in AL attendance in 2002, the article further point out. Their 32,717
average is nearly a sellout of the 33,991-seat park. And this is a team who have been a bitter disappointment to their fans in recent history. So why are they so concerned about revenue?

Well, the answer is Joe Willy Shakespeare's green-ey'd monster and the Sox' hatred of the "Evil Empire" that's just down the road a piece. Just take the Mass Pike, turn left at that Dunkin' Donuts at Sturbridge Village, and you'll wind up at Yankees Stadium. The place where right now George Steinbrenner is sitting by the phone, awaiting the next Red Sox' attempt to acquire a player, which he will of course thwart, while counting up his wads of dinero. Of course, this is all conjecture on my part-I have not been following George Steinbrenner's movements ever since that restraining order bugaboo-, but you get the point.

Le Not-So-Grand Orange

Give not this rotten orange to your friend;
She's but the sign and semblance of her honor

- Much Ado About Nothing by Bill "Shake and Bake" Shakespeare

The Mets are preparing to sport orange batting practice jerseys for the 2003 season to honor the 1977 Orioles, recently elected Hall-of-Famer Eddie Murray's rookie team.

Check out Pedro Astacio wearing his before his mommy and daddy put him to bed:

Steve Phillips likes 'em. He likes anything as long as he gets to keep his job while running through more talent than a Soderbergh film:

"I like them," general manager Steve Phillips said. "It's a bright fresh look for a bright fresh start for the future of the Mets. We have a fresh start and a fresh direction with the singular ownership and [new manager] Art [Howe] and his coaching staff and the motivated group from last year joined with the winners we brought in this year, I think it's going to make for a great season. I think it's going to be a fresher environment for the players to thrive in."

Yeah, the only thing that's stale is the GM. Oh, and that corny apple that pops out of the hat whenever (if ever) a Met hits a home run.

At least Mike Piazza had a good sense of humor about it:

"[I] think they are interesting," Mike Piazza said. "The best part about them is that once the season is over, you can go hunting and you won't have to change your clothes."

He can't wait to tell that one to Alf at the next 10-10-220 shooting.

Major-League Machinations?

This odd offseason has been peppered by theories of owner collusion ever since they en masse decided not to tendor contracts to a large numebr of arbitration-eligible players. Agents then started to question the methodology behind free agent signing. And now it seems that the players are preparing to file a grievance according to an ESPN report.

The players took the first step by requesting team negotiation information with free agents. It seems that the agents are complaining that everyone is offering the same thing wherever they go. Of course, it may just be a means for said agents to justify their percentages (if everyone offers about the same thing, why do the players need agents?). It may also be just a result of the near salary cap instituted in the last Collecting Bargaining Agreement. However, there are a number of signs (the non-tendors, the proliferation of one-year contracts, the universally low offers to free agents, etc.) that indicate that an investigation is warranted. We'll just have to see how it plays out.

The owners, on the other hand, are happier than an Angel fan beating his Thindersticks (pardon the expression) to the beat of the Rally Monkey. Witness the following two articles:

First, KC owner David Glass gets to run his team into the ground under the premise that building teams on young players with a low payroll was the basis of the Angels, A's and Twins' championship years in 2002. These teams did it slowly around good young talent. There is some talent in KC (Mike Sweeney, Carlos Beltran, and Raul Ibanez), but there are also a whole lot of Triple-A players masquerading as big-leaguers. Their staff alone is peopled by a number of underachieving prospects that earned their jobs more from the management's unwillingness to pay Paul Byrd and Jeff Suppan-type salaries rather than their performance on the field in 2002. As Elvis, Costello that is, said, "All little sisters like to try on big sister's clothes."

Meanwhile, Mike Berardino has a morally represhensible little piece of , er, rather on the Marlins' new policy excluding multi-year salaries.

Marlins decision-makers, however, make no apologies for this approach. Nor should they. Rather, if this year goes as they hope, they might launch a countertrend that has been long overdue in professional sports.

Call it fiscal sanity. Call it flexibility first. Or just call it smart business.

"One of the things in sports that is never talked about that I think is critical is incentive-based pay," Marlins President David Samson says. "One of the issues in baseball is when you've got a player signed to a long-term deal and all of sudden, he's not playing. What are you supposed to do?

"If you're not the Yankees, then you've got a real problem."

Again the trendy Yankee bashing. No one bashes Tom Hicks for signing players to unwieldy salaries and then sucking. Anyway, the Marlins have returned to the days of jive, as Mr. Joel would say, and try to sell it as if they found something new. Back in the 19th century players were signed to one-year contracts. Then teams decided that continuity was best--at least for their wallets when they had to compete with other teams to retain their talent--and slowly instituted the reserve clause. Rival leagues appearred from time to time and players jumped their contracts to sign with teams from those leagues until MLB either subsumed the league or crushed it out of existence. Actually if this engenders universal free agency every year, it will drive down salaries. This is something that Marvin Miller discusses having dreaded in his autobiography and something that only one owner (Bill Veeck, of course) understood in the nascent days of free agency.

One thing that would be interesting if all teams went to one-year contracts eventually: A rival league could start up over night and recruit the available talent without worrying about MLB suing over broken contracts. Anyone for the Continental League Mach II?

Dream Weaver

Apparently, Joe Torre is sticking by his promise and Jeff Weaver will get a spot in the rotation. Jose Contreras and his $32 M contract will languish in long relief according to a NY Post source.

Of course:

A) This is the Post after all.

B) Spring training has not even started so who know's what their rotation will look like come opening day.

And

C) Given the Noachian Yankee rotation, who is in the rotation on day one may have little to do with who is there on October 1.

Hammerin' Aaron

Aaron Gleeman has a run-down of the top-50 prospects this year at Baseball Primer. Go check it out.

Cruz Missive

The Giants have signed free agent Jose Cruz Jr. to replace the likewise non-tendored Reggie Sanders in right field. The contract is for $2.5 M for 2003 with a potential $4 M option for 2004. Sanders made $1.75 M while the Blue Jays paid Cruz almost $4 M in 2002.

For my money, if I were signing one for a year, it would be the 35-year-old Sanders. He has been better over his career and in 2002. He also is a professional right fielder with a good range and a decent arm. Cruz's right field experience came in 40-odd 2002 games, and he didn't impress there, though as a center fielder by trade, he should have the wheels for right. He also may come in handy if regular center fielder Marquis Grissom returns to earth in 2003.

I guess overall the Giants did the best under the circumstances, circumstances that were largely their own making.

Web Video to Kill the Radio Star?

Baseball, that sport that cannot figure out how to ensure that there is an All-Star Game winner nor where to place its Expos--and we all know how painful that can be--, is banking on leading edge technology to sell itself over the Web according to the New York Times. It's like your grandfather getting a DVD player.

"With 16 or 18 million homes on broadband, and nearly everyone at work, that is a big enough sandbox for us to play in," said Bob Bowman, the chief executive of Major League Baseball Advanced Media.

Sandlot, not sandbox, Bob. Anyway, Bobby continues:

"There are hundreds of thousands of displaced baseball fans around the world," Mr. Bowman said. "I'm sure they will pay $6 or $10 a month to watch their teams."

Not everyone agrees with the Bob-meister:

AOL Time Warner's Turner Broadcasting division initially Webcast some programs of its CNNfn financial network when it was starting up and was not on many cable systems. But it quickly dropped that practice.

"Shame on us if all we do is use the new medium to cannibalize our core business," said Andrew T. Heller, Turner's president for domestic distribution. Since Webcast viewers are not measured by rating services, advertisers give the network no credit for ads seen online.

Instead, CNN creates a three-minute newscast for subscribers to SuperPass and its $4.95-a-month Webcasting service. Subscribers can also make their own longer newscast by picking from several dozen news segments each day. (AOL has agreed to buy access to some CNN video content for its subscribers, but details have not been worked out yet.)

As always, the challenge will not be to overcome technical issues, but to find a market and then have MLB destroy it. Why did baseball go all draconian on fan sites 6-8 months ago if it intended to woo the tech-head market? Again, one of MLB's hands doesn't know what the other is doing or who they are ticking off.

Sierra? Madre!

ESPN reports that the Texas Rangers have signed Ruben Sierra to a minor-league deal after his one year excursion to Seattle ("Attle? Who's Attle?" Thank you, Brady Bunch). He is only guaranteed $90K but would make between $600K and $800K.

Sierra is 37 and was just an average hitter last year (OPS was 1% better than average) in the second full year of his mini-Renaissance. He also appears to have been a poor left fielder and only appeared in 60 games there for a team (Seattle) that was desperate for a decent left fielder in 2002.

Th Rangers now appear to have six players for the three outfield spots and the DH: Sierra, Juan Gonzalez, Carl Everett, Doug Glanville Rusty Greer, and Kevin Mench. Funny that they didn't make ESPN's top-10 outfields list. Mench wasn't great last year but is only 25 and is the only one with a prospect to improve. Gonzalez may have one good year left in him but at 33 he may also be done. Greer is expected to miss the entire year recovering from rotator and elbow surgeries (though he is still damn plucky, he has excised running into walls from his rehab plans).

If it were me, I would hand the corner jobs to Mench and 25-year-old Jason Hart. Let them go the entire season to see if they will be major-leaguers. I would let switch-hitter Carl Everett (.170 advantage in OPS as a left-handed bat) and right-hander Doug Glanville platoon in center, unless a better option becomes available. I would do the same with Sierra and Gonzalez in the DH slot, going with the hot bat trying to resurrect one of their careers. Of course, Hart won't make the team, Mench will struggle and be benched, their outfield will be Gonzalez, Glanville, and Sierra by August, and the Rangers will continue to finish last in 2003.

Daubach-ery

The White Sox signed Brian Daubach to a minor-league deal yesterday. Daubach was non-tendored by the Red Sox even though it meant that they would be thin as Calista Flockhart on Yom Kippur at first base, corner outfield, and DH. The Pale Hose already have Paul Konerko at first and Frank Thomas to DH. Apparently, Daubach will be used as a Jeff Liefer replacement.

That's kind of a shame given the dearth of quality first baseman around. Daubach isn't the next coming of Gehrig, but he has hit 20 home runs a season for the past four and has had an OPS at least 16% better than the adjusted league average in three of those seasons. His .812 OPS last year beat out a lot of other first basemen: former MVP Mo Vaughn, Angel and Tim McCarver hero Scott Spiezio, super-rookie Carlos Pena, playoff-bound Tino Martinez, Scott Hatteberg, Doug Mientkiewicz, Julio Franco, Mark Grace, J.T. Snow, and Nick Johnson (DH-1B), and teammate Tony Clark, among others.

This is a guy that could be a useful part of a contender or a useful starter on a pretender. Now, he will have to be a bench player on a team that now has three first basemen better than the starter on its main competitor, the Twins. Though I hate to endorse any Jerry Reinsdorf team, the ChiSox could be the closest thing to a lock in MLB. I fully expect the world to be shocked if or when they win their division.

Juan a Job?

ESPN reports that the Yankees signed Juan Acevedo to a minor-league contract today. He gets $150K guaranteed and $900K if hr makes the major-league team. The Tigers had him for $850K last year, but refused to go to arbitration after he recorded 28 saves. The White Sox were talking to him but inexplicably passed him by and instead signed Rick White.

Acevedo is a good pickup for the Yankees. He has been consistently good in different organizations. Last year was probably a career year, but the Yankees aren't paying him for it. He is also good insurance if Karsay's injured back does not respond.

The Yankees now have three right-handers (Acevedo, Karsay, and Osuna) and one left-hander (Hammond) to set up the closer Rivera. Add, part-time lefty reliever Randy Choate and probably two starters, and that's the Yankees probable pen. Choate, who the article says improved in September--he pitched one inning in the month--, is only there because of his left-handedness. Hitchcock may replace him as the second left-hander in the pen (or if The Boss has his way, Paulie Walnuts may pay him a visit).

After dumping three-fifths of last year's bullpen, the Yankees have been building a nice little bullpen. On paper, the additions look pretty good (though Hammond worries me). Whether they will perform better than the 2001 version and whether they will be as overworked as last year's group remains to be seen. They may have changed the players but unless they give Torre a viable second lefty option and stop yanking, excuse the pun, pen-mates to appear in the rotation--which may be difficult with an aging rotation--, then the 2002 pen seems as ill-fated as the 2001 one.

Rarefied Error

Today in baseball there was a rarity, two teams made a trade that doesn't seem as if it could help either one. Houston sent disappointing, 27-year-old left fielder Daryle Ward to the Dodgers for minor-league pitching Ruddy Lugo, who happens to be Astro shortstop Julio Lugo's brother. Why either one of these teams made the trade I have no idea. It looks like a trade made by bored fantasy leaguers.

ESPN reports that Ward's departure opens the center field job for displaced second baseman Craig Biggio. There's only one problem with that logic: Ward was a left fielder. He's never played center field in his major-league career. Franchise player Lance Berkman was the Astros starting center fielder last year. If ESPN is correct, then the Astros intend to play Biggio in center and Berkman in left. Berkman has played left before. In fact he was the Astros' starter in left in 2001. Berkman may not have been much more than acceptable as a defensive center fielder; as an offensive one, however he led in slugging and OPS. He is potentially the best center fielder in baseball. As a left fielder, he would have ranked fifth in OPS behind Bonds, of course, Ramirez (if we consider him a left fielder), Giles, and Pujols and right before Chipper Jones. That's not bad company, but it does drop him a peg or two.

On the other hand, Biggio, though his superannuated bat may be easier to hide in center, has only played 39 games in center field. His last appearance in center field came in 1991, a year before he moved from catcher to second base. Actually, they tried him in left and center two years before his first second base appearance in the majors. Possibly they found something that indicated that he would make a better second baseman than outfielder--at least they say enough to try him at second. Since 1991, he has only made seven appearances in the outfield, solely as a leftfielder, so it's impossible to say whether he is capable. Why not keep Ward, who had never been a starter for a complete season before 2002, on the bench just in case?

I think it basically hurts them in a few ways. First and foremost, the go from having arguably the best center fielder in baseball to probably a sub-par defensive and offensive center fielder in Biggio. Second, their young superstar is no longer as special or as impactive a player in left field as in center field. Third, without Ward, they will have only Orlando Merced and switch-hitters Jose Vizcaino and Gregg Zaun to bat from the left side. Also, if Biggio falls flat on his face, which is a good possibility, they will have no one to replace him except bench players Orlando Merced, Brian Hunter, or Jason Lane. Remember when the 'Stros had too many outfielders?

They get what looks to be a decent pitching prospect, who is probably a year away from the majors. Also, it appears that the acquired him because he is their shortstop's brother. That's admirable, but considering that Julio is a below-average-hitting shortstop, he may no longer be with the team when his brother is ready to help them.

The only reason that does make sense in this surreal offseason is payroll. From ESPN:

Hunsicker said the trade was made primarily to reduce payroll and ease the ``logjam'' in the outfield. He said the team is looking to make some more payroll trims before spring training.

``Ever since the Kent signing, we've expanded our budget and I've had to get that under control,'' Hunsicker said.

So they sign a better second baseman than they already had and instead of trading the second-fiddle second-sacker. The shift him to the outfield and then get rid of a player who just broke $1 M this year even though they still think he has potential. He may never match his pre-2002 numbers over a full season, but he would be a useful bench player, something the Astros would need if they want to be a playoff contender, and he is not that expensive.

The Dodgers meanwhile pick up a guy they can't use. He is stuck behind Shawn Green in right field, Fred McGriff at firs, and Brian Jordan in left--actually Jordan is stuck behind Green in right and that's why he moved to left. The same argument for a reasonable backup outfielder applies to the Dodgers as well, but the Dodgers already had nine outfielders with major-league experience. Also, with the glaring holes at second base and shortstop on the Dodgers, it seems silly for them to consider acquiring another backup outfielder.

Going into the season, it appears that the Dodgers will have a double-play combo of Cesar Izturis and Alex Cora. Ouch! Izturis at the plate make Rey Ordonez look like A-Rod. Cora, though he produced at the plate last year, never did before in his 5-year career. Also, he has only played 56 games at second in the majors. Add in the disappointingly average Adrian Beltre and even with Fred McGriff at first, the Dodgers have one of the weakest all-around infields among the playoff contenders. Also, with an aging pitching staff, they may need a young arm next year more than a backup outfielder.

Well, there you go. It's not too often that you see an error on both teams, but the Astros and Dodgers did it today.

Pete Never Promised Bud a Rose Garden

It seems that recidivist gambler Pete Rose owes the federal government $151,689 in taxes dating from 1998. How unusual that Rose, a convicted tax evader, would owe back taxes. A couple of signed bats on QVC will get that debt paid off in a jiffy.

But now MLB according to an ESPN article might change its collective mind regarding his reinstatement.

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig's position on the talks -- and Rose's eligibility for the Hall of Fame -- could be affected by the tax revelations, a high-ranking baseball official said Friday on condition of anonymity. Selig refused to comment.

Selig will have a tough time defending his position if this turns out to be the excuse used to continue barring him from the Hall. First, Selig himself has been embroiled in many peccadilloes in the last few years, financial and otherwise. He claims not to be running the Milwaukee Brewers while being commissioner, but everything he has enacted has benefited that moribund franchise greatly. He has his coterie of owners swap franchises below the market value and proffer personal loans surreptitiously. With the Montreal Expos still own by MLB, every move is called into question, especially the recent public Bartolo Colon pilfering. And he who is without sin, yuddah yuddah.

Second, the specious argument for Rose's induction, that is that there are a number of unseemly characters in the Hall so what's one more, will now apply. Rose has not been affiliated with organized ball for 13 years. So how does his off-field conduct have anything to do with his reinstatement, especially when that conduct may boil down to an accounting error and may be quickly taken care of?

Besides 1998 was five years ago and one has to wonder if this is coming to light because it just hit some 5-year threshold that escalated its importance. Why else had we not heard anything about it for five years? Who knows what sorts of things may be brewing in his financial and personal life that may come to light in the future? For instance, if he didn't pay his 1998 taxes, what 1999, 2000, etc?

Rose is a scumbag. Didn't we already know this? But his actions off the field should have nothing to do with his reinstatement. His case's the thing wherein Bud will catch the conscience of the "Hit King". MLB is playing an odd game with Rose, holding him to a higher ethical standard to somehow mitigate his actions from more than 13 years ago. If Selig believes that Rose bet on the Reds while he was the manager--that is the only offense that would ban him for life, not just the misdemeanor of betting on baseball in general which carries a one-year ban--then by all means, do not reinstate him. If he feels the evidence is strong enough, then his path is clear. I would disagree with the strength of the evidence--especially since then-commissioner Bart Giamatti signed a document that said no finding could be made on this exact issue--, but I would respect the decision. But to continue to conduct a vivisection of Rose's personal life to plumb the depths of his soul, or lack thereof, before deigning to allow him back in is misdirected and hypocritical. Recently admitted Hall-of-Famer Kirby Puckett was recently enmeshed in a sexual assault lawsuit apparently causing his wife to file for divorce. Is Selig set to examine Puckett's personal life and to determine if he should lose his plaque in Cooperstown if he is found wanting? Of course not because it has nothing to do with his performance on the field. So what do Rose's morally reprehensible actions have to do with his reinstatement? Nothing. Bud's cold feet in re-uniting with the puckish Rose are understandable, but he needs to understand that asking Rose to have been squeaky clean for the past 13 Elba-esque years is unrealistic. His goal should be to put this ugly chapter in baseball's rearview mirror while he and his fellow owners prepare to plunder the baseball landscape.

His plight is not unlike that of Alex and his droogies in A Clockwork Orange whose escapades and life were nearly ended after revisiting the site of a former bit of the old ultra-violence. Bud should remember that he is above all other things the baseball commissioner. Therefore, his number one goal is to line the owners' pockets and that extending the shelf life of this Rose imbroglio is ultimately bad for business.

Here's a Real Throwback, As In Throw Him Back

The Detroit Tigers signed Steve Avery to a minor-league contract yesterday and invited him to spring training. Yes, the same Steve Avery that hasn't been good since the first Bush administration.

I feel bad for Avery, I do. For all the press that Leo Mazzone and Bobby Cox get for resurrecting careers, his is the one that they scuttled. In his three full major-league seasons before turning 24, Avery threw 667.1 innings in 105 games. He never threw more than 173.1 innings in a year after that. People seem to forget that when the Braves were a young-and-coming team in the early '90s, Avery got as much, if not more, press as Glavine or Smoltz. He looked like he would be better than both of them with his playoff heroics. Fans seem to forget it but not GMs--this is the third organization since he left the Braves that has tried to resurrect his career.

Remember we are not talking about a player who left the game at his prime like a Koufax. Yes, the papers are right that Avery hasn't pitched since 1999, and you think, there are a plethora (Jose, what is a plethora?) of pitchers who have been able to make it back to the majors after similar layoffs. But you cannot ignore the fact that not only has he not pitched in the majors since 1999, he hasn't pitched as well as an average major-leaguer since 1996 and he has not been a truly good pitcher since 1994.

I remember when Jim Palmer tried to come back in 1991 after being retired for seven years and after having already been elected to the Hall of Fame. I thought that Palmer's comeback was ridiculous and not just because of the long layoff. I thought the fact that he hadn't pitch well when he left indicated that he had lost the ability to pitch at the major league level 7-8 years before the so-called comeback. Avery has had a similar if not lnger layoff where productivity is concerned and has had injuries over the years that supposedly limited the velocity on his fastball to under 80 MPH and required him to alter his delivery.

Even if he can come back, how can he help a bunch of lollygaggers like the Tigers? If they ever do get good again, he'll be too old to help. I think it basically is another instance this offseason of teams trying to get by on the cheap. If the Tigers can make a serviceable major-leaguer out of him, they can pay him just over league minimum and cut a $600-$800K salary in the bullpen. That's what teams are all about this winter, robbing Peter to pay Paul or Steve.

Setting Your Seitz on the Arbitration Abattoir

My blog buddy, the Cub Reporter, has put an arbitration scorecard up on his site. You can find all of the winners and losers there during the festive arbitration season. It will be a great reference for me when I post something regarding how the players got further screwed during arbitration round this offseason as I inevitably will.

"Welcome to the Hall's of Relief", VI

The 1970s

History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of "history" it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time-and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened...

We had the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave.

So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill... and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark-that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson

In the 1960s the baseball cognoscenti started to experiment more with relief pitching. After the 1950s finally established the bullpen as a key element on the pitching staff, they started to push the envelope. Barriers like 30 saves and 90 relief appearances in a year were crossed. Career relievers like Hoyt Wilhelm, Roy Face, and Lindy McDaniel relieved in more games than anyone who came before them.

The role of the reliever was still being defined, especially that of the closer. The closer came in when his team was ahead, behind, or tied. Since scoring was so low, games were close and relievers were used often. It was not unusual for the closer to make 60 appearances, pitch 120 innings, save 25 games, and win a dozen, numbers quite unlike those of today's closers.

The evolution started in the Fifties and hit a statistical apogee in the Seventies, and the trend started to roll back a bit (though not as dramatically as in the Thompson quote). The demands that managers were placing on the closer role became too arduous. The role started to be defined as the "stopper", the man who holds a lead, though this would take nearly a decade to become established.

The evolution of the "modern" relief pitcher was delayed by, of all things, the development of the five-man rotation in the early 1970s. According to Bill James, the 1972 Dodgers were one of the first teams to fully embrace the five-man rotation. Apparently, though the trend had been developing since the early Sixties.

If you look at complete game percentages over time, the number of complete games was failing, either slowly or rapidly, from the dawn of major-league baseball until the mid-'60s. Then suddenly in 1967 they started to go back up and remained about 5% higher than the 1966 percentage for about ten years. Meanwhile the 40-game starter, something that seemed a distant memory in 1960, enjoyed a comeback starting in 1962, with a high of 12 pitchers starting 40 games (and one 45) in 1973 (a note on the DH later). The 300- and 350-inning starting pitcher also returned in 1962 and would remain with us until 1980.

Also, if you look at the number of 20- and 25-game starters per team, starting in 1961-'62 there is an increase in their numbers that although it wavers on a yearly basis, continues until today. As a matter of fact, if you look at the number of starting pitchers, however you define that, per team in the mid-'60s and compare it with today, you would see very little change. See tables below (forgive me, I love tables):

Number of pitchers-in total and per team (PT)-who reached certain games started plateaus (1, 10, 15, etc.):

Year   1    PT  10   PT  15   PT  20   PT 25   PT 30   PT 35   PT 40   PT 45   PT
1871  14  1.56   9 1.00   9 1.00   8 0.89  7 0.78  3 0.33  0 0.00  0 0.00  0 0.00
1872  22  2.00  10 0.91   7 0.64   6 0.55  5 0.45  5 0.45  5 0.45  4 0.36  4 0.36
1873  24  2.67   9 1.00   8 0.89   7 0.78  7 0.78  7 0.78  6 0.67  6 0.67  5 0.56
1874  14  1.75  10 1.25  10 1.25   9 1.13  8 1.00  7 0.88  7 0.88  6 0.75  6 0.75
1875  38  2.92  21 1.62  15 1.15  12 0.92  9 0.69  9 0.69  7 0.54  6 0.46  5 0.38
1876  23  2.88  13 1.63  13 1.63  13 1.63  8 1.00  7 0.88  5 0.63  5 0.63  5 0.63
1877  18  3.00  10 1.67   8 1.33   6 1.00  5 0.83  5 0.83  5 0.83  4 0.67  3 0.50
1878  19  3.17  10 1.67   7 1.17   6 1.00  6 1.00  6 1.00  6 1.00  4 0.67  3 0.50
1879  25  3.13  15 1.88  13 1.63  11 1.38 10 1.25  8 1.00  8 1.00  8 1.00  8 1.00
1880  26  3.25  15 1.88  13 1.63  12 1.50  9 1.13  8 1.00  8 1.00  8 1.00  8 1.00
1881  29  3.63  17 2.13  15 1.88  13 1.63 11 1.38 11 1.38 11 1.38  8 1.00  6 0.75
1882  64  4.57  33 2.36  24 1.71  23 1.64 21 1.50 19 1.36 16 1.14 12 0.86 10 0.71
1883  71  4.44  42 2.63  37 2.31  27 1.69 24 1.50 21 1.31 21 1.31 21 1.31 15 0.94
1884 205  6.21  87 2.64  69 2.09  58 1.76 45 1.36 41 1.24 35 1.06 28 0.85 21 0.64
1885 101  6.31  53 3.31  38 2.38  33 2.06 27 1.69 25 1.56 21 1.31 17 1.06 16 1.00
1886 112  7.00  52 3.25  45 2.81  40 2.50 34 2.13 31 1.94 29 1.81 28 1.75 17 1.06
1887 109  6.81  57 3.56  48 3.00  44 2.75 37 2.31 34 2.13 31 1.94 21 1.31 15 0.94
1888 106  6.63  64 4.00  53 3.31  48 3.00 37 2.31 33 2.06 29 1.81 22 1.38 15 0.94
1889 111  6.94  62 3.88  56 3.50  50 3.13 41 2.56 35 2.19 27 1.69 19 1.19 13 0.81
1890 186  7.44 109 4.36  79 3.16  67 2.68 56 2.24 46 1.84 35 1.40 26 1.04 17 0.68
1891 131  7.71  67 3.94  51 3.00  47 2.76 38 2.24 35 2.06 23 1.35 21 1.24 14 0.82
1892 100  8.33  56 4.67  46 3.83  39 3.25 31 2.58 26 2.17 23 1.92 19 1.58 14 1.17
1893  98  8.17  51 4.25  44 3.67  33 2.75 28 2.33 24 2.00 16 1.33 10 0.83  4 0.33
1894 108  9.00  52 4.33  39 3.25  35 2.92 28 2.33 23 1.92 13 1.08  9 0.75  5 0.42
1895 104  8.67  53 4.42  44 3.67  36 3.00 33 2.75 21 1.75 12 1.00  8 0.67  3 0.25
1896  98  8.17  54 4.50  44 3.67  37 3.08 27 2.25 22 1.83 17 1.42 11 0.92  3 0.25
1897  97  8.08  54 4.50  47 3.92  36 3.00 31 2.58 25 2.08 16 1.33  5 0.42  0 0.00
1898 111  9.25  56 4.67  49 4.08  46 3.83 40 3.33 31 2.58 21 1.75  8 0.67  1 0.08
1899 116  9.67  60 5.00  50 4.17  41 3.42 35 2.92 29 2.42 17 1.42  4 0.33  0 0.00
1900  61  7.63  39 4.88  33 4.13  32 4.00 26 3.25 15 1.88 10 1.25  1 0.13  0 0.00
1901 137  8.56  75 4.69  66 4.13  57 3.56 49 3.06 34 2.13 15 0.94  4 0.25  0 0.00
1902 165 10.31  81 5.06  67 4.19  52 3.25 42 2.63 30 1.88  9 0.56  4 0.25  1 0.06
1903 141  8.81  78 4.88  65 4.06  54 3.38 45 2.81 32 2.00 12 0.75  3 0.19  1 0.06
1904 129  8.06  86 5.38  75 4.69  61 3.81 45 2.81 40 2.50 24 1.50 10 0.63  4 0.25
1905 134  8.38  83 5.19  78 4.88  67 4.19 53 3.31 35 2.19 18 1.13  4 0.25  0 0.00
1906 156  9.75  87 5.44  77 4.81  64 4.00 52 3.25 35 2.19 16 1.00  3 0.19  0 0.00
1907 154  9.63  88 5.50  77 4.81  62 3.88 48 3.00 32 2.00 12 0.75  3 0.19  1 0.06
1908 158  9.88  92 5.75  79 4.94  60 3.75 46 2.88 31 1.94 14 0.88  3 0.19  1 0.06
1909 190 11.88  92 5.75  75 4.69  55 3.44 45 2.81 24 1.50  4 0.25  1 0.06  0 0.00
1910 176 11.00  92 5.75  78 4.88  59 3.69 46 2.88 27 1.69  9 0.56  1 0.06  0 0.00
1911 196 12.25  91 5.69  76 4.75  58 3.63 42 2.63 21 1.31  9 0.56  2 0.13  0 0.00
1912 193 12.06  87 5.44  76 4.75  56 3.50 43 2.69 29 1.81 11 0.69  2 0.13  0 0.00
1913 185 11.56  89 5.56  78 4.88  62 3.88 41 2.56 27 1.69 12 0.75  0 0.00  0 0.00
1914 238  9.92 138 5.75 115 4.79  91 3.79 68 2.83 48 2.00 24 1.00  5 0.21  0 0.00
1915 265 11.04 135 5.63 112 4.67  94 3.92 65 2.71 45 1.88 16 0.67  3 0.13  1 0.04
1916 159  9.94  98 6.13  78 4.88  59 3.69 39 2.44 24 1.50 12 0.75  2 0.13  1 0.06
1917 150  9.38  96 6.00  77 4.81  62 3.88 45 2.81 28 1.75 14 0.88  3 0.19  0 0.00
1918 169 10.56  81 5.06  62 3.88  43 2.69 27 1.69 15 0.94  1 0.06  0 0.00  0 0.00
1919 188 11.75  89 5.56  69 4.31  46 2.88 35 2.19 18 1.13  4 0.25  1 0.06  0 0.00
1920 164 10.25  87 5.44  71 4.44  65 4.06 52 3.25 39 2.44 15 0.94  1 0.06  0 0.00
1921 169 10.56  87 5.44  69 4.31  60 3.75 48 3.00 32 2.00 14 0.88  1 0.06  0 0.00
1922 164 10.25  93 5.81  72 4.50  61 3.81 50 3.13 33 2.06  8 0.50  1 0.06  0 0.00
1923 162 10.13  87 5.44  78 4.88  61 3.81 47 2.94 28 1.75 17 1.06  1 0.06  0 0.00
1924 180 11.25  99 6.19  76 4.75  61 3.81 43 2.69 24 1.50  5 0.31  0 0.00  0 0.00
1925 169 10.56  94 5.88  81 5.06  68 4.25 44 2.75 24 1.50  4 0.25  0 0.00  0 0.00
1926 164 10.25 101 6.31  80 5.00  63 3.94 40 2.50 19 1.19  2 0.13  0 0.00  0 0.00
1927 178 11.13  96 6.00  78 4.88  62 3.88 47 2.94 21 1.31  4 0.25  0 0.00  0 0.00
1928 174 10.88  95 5.94  75 4.69  60 3.75 44 2.75 24 1.50  4 0.25  0 0.00  0 0.00
1929 170 10.63  97 6.06  76 4.75  65 4.06 44 2.75 23 1.44  4 0.25  0 0.00  0 0.00
1930 175 10.94  91 5.69  78 4.88  62 3.88 40 2.50 26 1.63  6 0.38  0 0.00  0 0.00
1931 163 10.19 100 6.25  78 4.88  58 3.63 46 2.88 28 1.75  5 0.31  0 0.00  0 0.00
1932 163 10.19  95 5.94  80 5.00  63 3.94 41 2.56 27 1.69  3 0.19  0 0.00  0 0.00
1933 168 10.50  86 5.38  75 4.69  63 3.94 46 2.88 27 1.69  7 0.44  0 0.00  0 0.00
1934 182 11.38  91 5.69  76 4.75  60 3.75 40 2.50 29 1.81  6 0.38  0 0.00  0 0.00
1935 182 11.38  97 6.06  84 5.25  60 3.75 34 2.13 19 1.19  4 0.25  0 0.00  0 0.00
1936 181 11.31  88 5.50  71 4.44  59 3.69 44 2.75 28 1.75  6 0.38  0 0.00  0 0.00
1937 179 11.19  95 5.94  81 5.06  65 4.06 42 2.63 21 1.31  0 0.00  0 0.00  0 0.00
1938 176 11.00 100 6.25  72 4.50  56 3.50 37 2.31 19 1.19  5 0.31  2 0.13  0 0.00
1939 193 12.06 106 6.63  80 5.00  58 3.63 35 2.19 13 0.81  5 0.31  0 0.00  0 0.00
1940 181 11.31  96 6.00  78 4.88  60 3.75 36 2.25 25 1.56  7 0.44  0 0.00  0 0.00
1941 195 12.19  94 5.88  78 4.88  62 3.88 34 2.13 17 1.06  5 0.31  1 0.06  0 0.00
1942 173 10.81 103 6.44  78 4.88  55 3.44 36 2.25 18 1.13  3 0.19  0 0.00  0 0.00
1943 185 11.56 101 6.31  76 4.75  62 3.88 43 2.69 19 1.19  2 0.13  0 0.00  0 0.00
1944 171 10.69  94 5.88  77 4.81  65 4.06 42 2.63 22 1.38  4 0.25  2 0.13  0 0.00
1945 194 12.13 102 6.38  74 4.63  53 3.31 32 2.00 16 1.00  2 0.13  0 0.00  0 0.00
1946 219 13.69  99 6.19  71 4.44  55 3.44 34 2.13 14 0.88  4 0.25  1 0.06  0 0.00
1947 188 11.75  97 6.06  82 5.13  58 3.63 37 2.31 19 1.19  6 0.38  0 0.00  0 0.00
1948 175 10.94  96 6.00  81 5.06  64 4.00 39 2.44 21 1.31  6 0.38  0 0.00  0 0.00
1949 164 10.25  96 6.00  74 4.63  64 4.00 51 3.19 25 1.56  7 0.44  0 0.00  0 0.00
1950 182 11.38  94 5.88  79 4.94  60 3.75 38 2.38 24 1.50  8 0.50  0 0.00  0 0.00
1951 192 12.00  97 6.06  77 4.81  54 3.38 34 2.13 22 1.38  5 0.31  0 0.00  0 0.00
1952 203 12.69  95 5.94  72 4.50  55 3.44 40 2.50 24 1.50  4 0.25  0 0.00  0 0.00
1953 187 11.69 104 6.50  79 4.94  56 3.50 38 2.38 19 1.19  4 0.25  1 0.06  0 0.00
1954 181 11.31  97 6.06  81 5.06  61 3.81 41 2.56 22 1.38  6 0.38  0 0.00  0 0.00
1955 194 12.13 102 6.38  73 4.56  56 3.50 36 2.25 23 1.44  2 0.13  0 0.00  0 0.00
1956 196 12.25  86 5.38  70 4.38  57 3.56 43 2.69 31 1.94 10 0.63  1 0.06  0 0.00
1957 183 11.44  96 6.00  77 4.81  57 3.56 45 2.81 23 1.44  5 0.31  0 0.00  0 0.00
1958 192 12.00  94 5.88  72 4.50  58 3.63 43 2.69 24 1.50  5 0.31  0 0.00  0 0.00
1959 177 11.06  90 5.63  74 4.63  61 3.81 47 2.94 27 1.69 13 0.81  0 0.00  0 0.00
1960 162 10.13  93 5.81  76 4.75  61 3.81 42 2.63 28 1.75 11 0.69  0 0.00  0 0.00
1961 191 10.61 112 6.22  84 4.67  69 3.83 54 3.00 31 1.72 14 0.78  0 0.00  0 0.00
1962 220 11.00 117 5.85  97 4.85  84 4.20 61 3.05 38 1.90 18 0.90  2 0.10  0 0.00
1963 216 10.80 119 5.95  97 4.85  84 4.20 59 2.95 43 2.15 16 0.80  4 0.20  0 0.00
1964 220 11.00 115 5.75  92 4.60  79 3.95 61 3.05 41 2.05 21 1.05  1 0.05  0 0.00
1965 205 10.25 113 5.65  99 4.95  79 3.95 68 3.40 46 2.30 22 1.10  5 0.25  0 0.00
1966 218 10.90 124 6.20  88 4.40  70 3.50 56 2.80 40 2.00 19 0.95  4 0.20  0 0.00
1967 233 11.65 118 5.90  91 4.55  74 3.70 59 2.95 38 1.90 19 0.95  1 0.05  0 0.00
1968 187  9.35 118 5.90  99 4.95  83 4.15 71 3.55 54 2.70 18 0.90  2 0.10  0 0.00
1969 244 10.17 142 5.92 116 4.83  92 3.83 75 3.13 59 2.46 36 1.50  7 0.29  0 0.00
1970 233  9.71 138 5.75 122 5.08  91 3.79 76 3.17 55 2.29 27 1.13  6 0.25  0 0.00
1971 223  9.29 135 5.63 112 4.67  98 4.08 79 3.29 65 2.71 40 1.67  2 0.08  1 0.04
1972 224  9.33 131 5.46 114 4.75  92 3.83 74 3.08 52 2.17 27 1.13  6 0.25  1 0.04
1973 236  9.83 134 5.58 112 4.67  90 3.75 76 3.17 61 2.54 33 1.38 12 0.50  1 0.04
1974 233  9.71 132 5.50 113 4.71  97 4.04 78 3.25 59 2.46 45 1.88  9 0.38  0 0.00
1975 245 10.21 139 5.79 114 4.75  94 3.92 75 3.13 57 2.38 28 1.17  3 0.13  0 0.00
1976 232  9.67 146 6.08 116 4.83  95 3.96 80 3.33 55 2.29 21 0.88  2 0.08  0 0.00
1977 274 10.54 150 5.77 121 4.65 102 3.92 80 3.08 58 2.23 20 0.77  2 0.08  0 0.00
1978 255  9.81 153 5.88 127 4.88 112 4.31 86 3.31 60 2.31 23 0.88  3 0.12  0 0.00
1979 266 10.23 159 6.12 128 4.92  97 3.73 80 3.08 57 2.19 20 0.77  1 0.04  0 0.00
1980 256  9.85 155 5.96 123 4.73 104 4.00 86 3.31 60 2.31 17 0.65  0 0.00  0 0.00
1981 227  8.73 128 4.92  93 3.58  71 2.73  7 0.27  0 0.00  0 0.00  0 0.00  0 0.00
1982 264 10.15 151 5.81 125 4.81 110 4.23 84 3.23 58 2.23 21 0.81  1 0.04  0 0.00
1983 261 10.04 153 5.88 134 5.15 103 3.96 84 3.23 55 2.12 16 0.62  0 0.00  0 0.00
1984 261 10.04 155 5.96 129 4.96 108 4.15 86 3.31 64 2.46 13 0.50  0 0.00  0 0.00
1985 266 10.23 145 5.58 125 4.81 103 3.96 84 3.23 60 2.31 24 0.92  0 0.00  0 0.00
1986 268 10.31 158 6.08 128 4.92 100 3.85 86 3.31 63 2.42 15 0.58  0 0.00  0 0.00
1987 276 10.62 154 5.92 123 4.73 100 3.85 80 3.08 56 2.15 20 0.77  1 0.04  0 0.00
1988 259  9.96 162 6.23 128 4.92 109 4.19 81 3.12 63 2.42 11 0.42  0 0.00  0 0.00
1989 283 10.88 160 6.15 133 5.12  95 3.65 77 2.96 59 2.27 10 0.38  0 0.00  0 0.00
1990 286 11.00 154 5.92 125 4.81 107 4.12 84 3.23 54 2.08  7 0.27  0 0.00  0 0.00
1991 271 10.42 158 6.08 122 4.69  99 3.81 77 2.96 54 2.08 14 0.54  0 0.00  0 0.00
1992 281 10.81 152 5.85 119 4.58  98 3.77 85 3.27 60 2.31  9 0.35  0 0.00  0 0.00
1993 281 10.04 161 5.75 134 4.79 105 3.75 91 3.25 60 2.14 10 0.36  0 0.00  0 0.00
1994 249  8.89 142 5.07 106 3.79  81 2.89 16 0.57  0 0.00  0 0.00  0 0.00  0 0.00
1995 294 10.50 169 6.04 122 4.36  83 2.96 65 2.32 28 1.00  0 0.00  0 0.00  0 0.00
1996 298 10.64 170 6.07 132 4.71 105 3.75 86 3.07 63 2.25 18 0.64  0 0.00  0 0.00
1997 302 10.79 163 5.82 133 4.75 108 3.86 86 3.07 60 2.14  6 0.21  0 0.00  0 0.00
1998 304 10.13 185 6.17 147 4.90 123 4.10 95 3.17 66 2.20  5 0.17  0 0.00  0 0.00
1999 299  9.97 182 6.07 155 5.17 124 4.13 96 3.20 65 2.17  6 0.20  0 0.00  0 0.00
2000 322 10.73 196 6.53 153 5.10 113 3.77 82 2.73 60 2.00  7 0.23  0 0.00  0 0.00
2001 316 10.53 191 6.37 150 5.00 110 3.67 86 2.87 60 2.00  5 0.17  0 0.00  0 0.00
2002 323 10.77 185 6.17 146 4.87 115 3.83 87 2.90 62 2.07  4 0.13  0 0.00  0 0.00
Avg       9.51     5.21     4.24     3.41    2.56    1.73    0.71    0.25    0.14

Number of pitchers-in total and per team (PT)-who reached certain innings pitched plateaus (100, 150, etc.):

Year	100 	PT	150 	PT	200 	PT	250 	PT	300 	PT	350	PT
1871	9	1.00	9	1.00	8	0.89	3	0.33	0	0.00	0	0.00
1872	9	0.82	7	0.64	5	0.45	5	0.45	5	0.45	4	0.36
1873	9	1.00	8	0.89	7	0.78	7	0.78	6	0.67	6	0.67
1874	10	1.25	10	1.25	8	1.00	7	0.88	7	0.88	6	0.75
1875	21	1.62	12	0.92	11	0.85	9	0.69	7	0.54	7	0.54
1876	13	1.63	13	1.63	11	1.38	7	0.88	5	0.63	5	0.63
1877	9	1.50	7	1.17	5	0.83	5	0.83	5	0.83	5	0.83
1878	8	1.33	7	1.17	6	1.00	6	1.00	6	1.00	4	0.67
1879	14	1.75	13	1.63	9	1.13	8	1.00	8	1.00	8	1.00
1880	15	1.88	12	1.50	10	1.25	8	1.00	8	1.00	8	1.00
1881	17	2.13	14	1.75	11	1.38	11	1.38	11	1.38	8	1.00
1882	31	2.21	23	1.64	22	1.57	20	1.43	16	1.14	14	1.00
1883	41	2.56	29	1.81	27	1.69	23	1.44	21	1.31	18	1.13
1884	82	2.48	61	1.85	47	1.42	42	1.27	35	1.06	26	0.79
1885	46	2.88	36	2.25	30	1.88	25	1.56	20	1.25	18	1.13
1886	49	3.06	45	2.81	36	2.25	32	2.00	29	1.81	24	1.50
1887	55	3.44	45	2.81	38	2.38	34	2.13	31	1.94	17	1.06
1888	59	3.69	52	3.25	42	2.63	35	2.19	28	1.75	19	1.19
1889	59	3.69	53	3.31	46	2.88	35	2.19	28	1.75	17	1.06
1890	94	3.76	73	2.92	59	2.36	46	1.84	34	1.36	25	1.00
1891	60	3.53	49	2.88	43	2.53	33	1.94	22	1.29	19	1.12
1892	50	4.17	42	3.50	33	2.75	28	2.33	22	1.83	19	1.58
1893	47	3.92	40	3.33	29	2.42	23	1.92	17	1.42	7	0.58
1894	49	4.08	36	3.00	31	2.58	22	1.83	14	1.17	8	0.67
1895	50	4.17	38	3.17	33	2.75	22	1.83	12	1.00	7	0.58
1896	48	4.00	41	3.42	29	2.42	22	1.83	17	1.42	8	0.67
1897	49	4.08	40	3.33	32	2.67	24	2.00	16	1.33	1	0.08
1898	57	4.75	46	3.83	42	3.50	32	2.67	21	1.75	7	0.58
1899	52	4.33	45	3.75	36	3.00	30	2.50	16	1.33	6	0.50
1900	39	4.88	32	4.00	30	3.75	14	1.75	7	0.88	0	0.00
1901	69	4.31	63	3.94	49	3.06	40	2.50	19	1.19	5	0.31
1902	76	4.75	60	3.75	46	2.88	32	2.00	11	0.69	4	0.25
1903	77	4.81	57	3.56	47	2.94	33	2.06	15	0.94	3	0.19
1904	84	5.25	67	4.19	57	3.56	39	2.44	23	1.44	12	0.75
1905	82	5.13	72	4.50	60	3.75	41	2.56	21	1.31	1	0.06
1906	84	5.25	71	4.44	61	3.81	36	2.25	12	0.75	1	0.06
1907	84	5.25	67	4.19	54	3.38	35	2.19	13	0.81	3	0.19
1908	89	5.56	69	4.31	51	3.19	33	2.06	13	0.81	3	0.19
1909	87	5.44	64	4.00	48	3.00	26	1.63	5	0.31	1	0.06
1910	91	5.69	68	4.25	49	3.06	27	1.69	7	0.44	3	0.19
1911	86	5.38	68	4.25	45	2.81	22	1.38	9	0.56	2	0.13
1912	82	5.13	72	4.50	41	2.56	30	1.88	9	0.56	2	0.13
1913	88	5.50	69	4.31	47	2.94	24	1.50	8	0.50	0	0.00
1914	138	5.75	104	4.33	70	2.92	49	2.04	19	0.79	4	0.17
1915	133	5.54	102	4.25	74	3.08	42	1.75	12	0.50	2	0.08
1916	98	6.13	75	4.69	43	2.69	25	1.56	9	0.56	2	0.13
1917	96	6.00	74	4.63	54	3.38	25	1.56	7	0.44	1	0.06
1918	78	4.88	54	3.38	32	2.00	13	0.81	3	0.19	0	0.00
1919	84	5.25	58	3.63	37	2.31	16	1.00	3	0.19	0	0.00
1920	85	5.31	69	4.31	54	3.38	35	2.19	10	0.63	1	0.06
1921	89	5.56	67	4.19	46	2.88	24	1.50	9	0.56	0	0.00
1922	90	5.63	70	4.38	44	2.75	25	1.56	3	0.19	1	0.06
1923	90	5.63	72	4.50	45	2.81	22	1.38	9	0.56	1	0.06
1924	96	6.00	70	4.38	41	2.56	12	0.75	3	0.19	0	0.00
1925	94	5.88	73	4.56	45	2.81	12	0.75	1	0.06	0	0.00
1926	101	6.31	73	4.56	36	2.25	13	0.81	1	0.06	0	0.00
1927	88	5.50	75	4.69	42	2.63	15	0.94	4	0.25	0	0.00
1928	93	5.81	68	4.25	45	2.81	14	0.88	3	0.19	0	0.00
1929	96	6.00	71	4.44	42	2.63	15	0.94	1	0.06	0	0.00
1930	97	6.06	72	4.50	36	2.25	13	0.81	0	0.00	0	0.00
1931	95	5.94	66	4.13	45	2.81	16	1.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
1932	95	5.94	69	4.31	44	2.75	17	1.06	1	0.06	0	0.00
1933	94	5.88	65	4.06	45	2.81	17	1.06	2	0.13	0	0.00
1934	93	5.81	68	4.25	42	2.63	18	1.13	3	0.19	0	0.00
1935	98	6.13	68	4.25	35	2.19	14	0.88	3	0.19	0	0.00
1936	92	5.75	62	3.88	40	2.50	15	0.94	4	0.25	0	0.00
1937	96	6.00	68	4.25	38	2.38	11	0.69	0	0.00	0	0.00
1938	95	5.94	66	4.13	30	1.88	8	0.50	2	0.13	0	0.00
1939	105	6.56	68	4.25	25	1.56	6	0.38	2	0.13	0	0.00
1940	98	6.13	63	3.94	31	1.94	12	0.75	2	0.13	0	0.00
1941	98	6.13	66	4.13	29	1.81	8	0.50	3	0.19	0	0.00
1942	100	6.25	66	4.13	33	2.06	9	0.56	0	0.00	0	0.00
1943	97	6.06	66	4.13	33	2.06	13	0.81	1	0.06	0	0.00
1944	96	6.00	72	4.50	39	2.44	14	0.88	3	0.19	1	0.06
1945	97	6.06	57	3.56	26	1.63	8	0.50	1	0.06	0	0.00
1946	92	5.75	56	3.50	26	1.63	9	0.56	1	0.06	1	0.06
1947	96	6.00	57	3.56	25	1.56	9	0.56		0.00	0	0.00
1948	95	5.94	58	3.63	31	1.94	7	0.44	1	0.06	0	0.00
1949	90	5.63	64	4.00	41	2.56	10	0.63	1	0.06	0	0.00
1950	95	5.94	65	4.06	38	2.38	13	0.81	2	0.13	0	0.00
1951	98	6.13	52	3.25	29	1.81	11	0.69	2	0.13	0	0.00
1952	88	5.50	60	3.75	32	2.00	9	0.56	2	0.13	0	0.00
1953	103	6.44	63	3.94	22	1.38	8	0.50	1	0.06	0	0.00
1954	95	5.94	60	3.75	29	1.81	11	0.69	1	0.06	0	0.00
1955	89	5.56	53	3.31	29	1.81	4	0.25	1	0.06	0	0.00
1956	91	5.69	57	3.56	30	1.88	13	0.81	1	0.06	0	0.00
1957	99	6.19	56	3.50	34	2.13	7	0.44	0	0.00	0	0.00
1958	88	5.50	53	3.31	31	1.94	8	0.50	0	0.00	0	0.00
1959	89	5.56	62	3.88	37	2.31	9	0.56	0	0.00	0	0.00
1960	98	6.13	60	3.75	31	1.94	14	0.88	0	0.00	0	0.00
1961	106	5.89	69	3.83	36	2.00	11	0.61	0	0.00	0	0.00
1962	119	5.95	76	3.80	40	2.00	18	0.90	1	0.05	0	0.00
1963	118	5.90	78	3.90	46	2.30	17	0.85	3	0.15	0	0.00
1964	118	5.90	80	4.00	43	2.15	14	0.70	1	0.05	0	0.00
1965	117	5.85	76	3.80	41	2.05	18	0.90	2	0.10	0	0.00
1966	116	5.80	70	3.50	41	2.05	15	0.75	4	0.20	0	0.00
1967	107	5.35	72	3.60	44	2.20	17	0.85	1	0.05	0	0.00
1968	111	5.55	80	4.00	56	2.80	21	1.05	4	0.20	0	0.00
1969	139	5.79	83	3.46	58	2.42	24	1.00	9	0.38	0	0.00
1970	135	5.63	84	3.50	56	2.33	27	1.13	4	0.17	0	0.00
1971	130	5.42	89	3.71	64	2.67	33	1.38	4	0.17	1	0.04
1972	133	5.54	89	3.71	51	2.13	27	1.13	4	0.17	1	0.04
1973	129	5.38	93	3.88	61	2.54	32	1.33	7	0.29	1	0.04
1974	141	5.88	90	3.75	64	2.67	34	1.42	8	0.33	0	0.00
1975	137	5.71	87	3.63	55	2.29	25	1.04	4	0.17	0	0.00
1976	141	5.88	90	3.75	57	2.38	23	0.96	2	0.08	0	0.00
1977	163	6.27	88	3.38	57	2.19	14	0.54	4	0.15	0	0.00
1978	152	5.85	95	3.65	57	2.19	22	0.85	1	0.04	0	0.00
1979	148	5.69	96	3.69	54	2.08	14	0.54	1	0.04	0	0.00
1980	158	6.08	101	3.88	55	2.12	17	0.65	1	0.04	0	0.00
1981	97	3.73	29	1.12	1	0.04		0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
1982	166	6.38	96	3.69	48	1.85	13	0.50	0	0.00	0	0.00
1983	152	5.85	95	3.65	49	1.88	12	0.46	0	0.00	0	0.00
1984	153	5.88	97	3.73	50	1.92	9	0.35	0	0.00	0	0.00
1985	137	5.27	87	3.35	56	2.15	16	0.62	0	0.00	0	0.00
1986	143	5.50	87	3.35	51	1.96	11	0.42	0	0.00	0	0.00
1987	144	5.54	87	3.35	44	1.69	13	0.50	0	0.00	0	0.00
1988	141	5.42	93	3.58	52	2.00	10	0.38	0	0.00	0	0.00
1989	141	5.42	80	3.08	48	1.85	5	0.19	0	0.00	0	0.00
1990	137	5.27	85	3.27	40	1.54	1	0.04	0	0.00	0	0.00
1991	133	5.12	85	3.27	48	1.85	3	0.12	0	0.00	0	0.00
1992	131	5.04	85	3.27	52	2.00	6	0.23	0	0.00	0	0.00
1993	141	5.04	94	3.36	49	1.75	8	0.29	0	0.00	0	0.00
1994	106	3.79	43	1.54	1	0.04		0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
1995	117	4.18	63	2.25	18	0.64		0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
1996	128	4.57	88	3.14	45	1.61	4	0.14	0	0.00	0	0.00
1997	131	4.68	86	3.07	40	1.43	5	0.18	0	0.00	0	0.00
1998	145	4.83	97	3.23	52	1.73	4	0.13	0	0.00	0	0.00
1999	148	4.93	90	3.00	41	1.37	2	0.07	0	0.00	0	0.00
2000	142	4.73	88	2.93	34	1.13	1	0.03	0	0.00	0	0.00
2001	145	4.83	86	2.87	42	1.40	1	0.03	0	0.00	0	0.00
2002	141	4.70	87	2.90	40	1.33	2	0.07	0	0.00	0	0.00
Avg		4.96		3.46		2.17		1.04		0.43		0.20

One thing you would notice are the heavy-start pitchers in the Sixties and Seventies. Apparently, when the idea of a five-man rotation was developing, the idea was to give the pitcher an extra day's rest but also to add to his burden on the day he was pitching. A higher percentage of complete games was expected. The number-one pitcher assumed more of the burden never missing a start every fifth day, which translated into 40-start years. This would fade in the 1980s, but this development affected the relief pitcher's role immensely.

Just a passing comment or two on rotations over history from the data above: Staffs went from basically one man possibly without a backup to 5-man rotations very slowly even though the move to four-man rotations was rather quick. By the early 1880s most teams employed two pitchers regularly. By the mid-1880s three-man "rotations" were employed-I'm not sure if the term "rotation" fits exactly, but three men were employed regularly. Somewhere in the 1890s, 4-man rotations became the norm. Staffs grew very quickly and by 1902, using 10 different starters per team (5 of which started at least 10 games) was the norm.

As staffs grew, the bulk of the work was transferred from the one main pitcher to the staff, but that had fits and starts as well. By the mid-1890s, 45-game starters were rare. By World War I, 40-game starters had almost disappeared (both were resurrected in the 1960s, however). Also, note that high innings pitchers still remained as the number-one starter pulled double duty as the number one reliever. They had almost died out by the turn of the Twentieth Century, until John McGrw latched onto the idea of using them in the swingman role. However, by World War I the 350-inning pitcher was just about dead and the 300-inning pitcher was becoming rare (again until the Sixties).

Five-man rotations were extremely long in coming. From the data above, it's difficult to determine when the change occurred. As I mentioned the data from the Sixties onward (ignoring the 40-game started revival from 1964-'78) do not waver. The average team employs 10 starting pitchers over the year. About 6 pitchers per staff start 10 or more games. About five start 15 games. About four start 20; about 3 start 25, and about 2 start 30. Actually aside from the 30-game starters, these numbers have held pretty steady since around 1905 (30-game starters were rarer in the Forties and Fifties as swingmen prevailed). From this data, it is even difficult to say that 5-man rotations are in actuality employed today, or at least that the workload of the average starting pitcher has changed tremendously in the past 100 years. Of course, there have been changes, like having an extra day of rest, that have made an impact, but they have had more to do with how the starting pitcher's work is allotted than the amount of workload (i.e., starts not innings) each pitcher has.

Lastly, the resurgence of the high-start, high-innings pitcher in the Sixties helps explain why there is a gap in the Forties and Fifties in 300- and 250-game winners. This is something that I noted about six months ago, and a fellow blogger posted a response opining that it was just an aberration. Clearly, it was not.

One final note on the DH as promised: Some of you may be skeptical of any numbers related to the mid-'70s because the DH changed everything in the AL starting in 1973. Well, since I love tables, here's one that shows that the DH may have prolonged the comeback of the complete game (and buoyed AL CG totals for about 15 years), but it certainly didn't start it:

Year	AL CG%	NL CG%	Overall	AL-NL
1960	25.28%	28.59%	26.94%	-3.31%
1961	25.71%	26.49%	26.05%	-0.79%
1962	23.86%	28.20%	26.03%	-4.35%
1963	25.12%	28.30%	26.71%	-3.17%
1964	21.44%	27.59%	24.51%	-6.15%
1965	19.94%	25.58%	22.77%	-5.65%
1966	20.72%	24.85%	22.79%	-4.13%
1967	22.53%	25.74%	24.14%	-3.21%
1968	26.23%	28.97%	27.60%	-2.74%
1969	23.18%	27.29%	25.23%	-4.11%
1970	19.63%	24.20%	21.91%	-4.57%
1971	27.80%	28.09%	27.94%	-0.29%
1972	27.02%	27.26%	27.14%	-0.24%
1973	31.58%	23.02%	27.30%	8.57%
1974	33.40%	22.58%	27.99%	10.82%
1975	32.45%	21.99%	27.20%	10.46%
1976	30.51%	23.10%	26.79%	7.41%
1977	25.91%	16.51%	21.56%	9.39%
1978	28.51%	20.03%	24.60%	8.48%
1979	24.45%	18.64%	21.76%	5.80%
1980	24.25%	15.78%	20.33%	8.47%
1981	22.27%	13.66%	18.29%	8.60%
1982	19.60%	14.87%	17.42%	4.74%
1983	20.66%	14.17%	17.66%	6.49%
1984	17.55%	12.05%	15.01%	5.50%
1985	15.90%	13.75%	14.91%	2.15%
1986	15.65%	11.56%	13.77%	4.09%
1987	16.40%	9.73%	13.33%	6.67%
1988	15.56%	13.93%	14.81%	1.63%
1989	11.69%	11.20%	11.47%	0.49%
1990	10.11%	10.29%	10.19%	-0.18%
1991	9.52%	7.73%	8.70%	1.79%
1992	10.67%	9.10%	9.95%	1.57%
1993	9.22%	7.14%	8.18%	2.08%
1994	9.60%	6.35%	7.97%	3.25%
1995	7.48%	6.16%	6.82%	1.32%
1996	7.19%	5.60%	6.40%	1.59%
1997	5.43%	6.31%	5.87%	-0.87%
1998	6.22%	6.20%	6.21%	0.02%
1999	4.77%	4.94%	4.86%	-0.17%
2000	4.72%	4.90%	4.82%	-0.17%
2001	4.55%	3.70%	4.10%	0.84%
2002	5.08%	3.83%	4.41%	1.25%

Now, back to our story. When we had last left our hero, the relief pitcher, he had just survived the experimentation of the Sixties and entered an era of reflection and retrenchment in the Seventies. Now, tell me that life does not reflect baseball.

Although the Seventies were the decade in which most of our relief pitching archetypes were established (Fingers, Gossage, Sutter, Lyle, etc.), it was not necessarily the greatest decade for relievers. First, the DH and five-man rotation put the experimentation in the bullpen on the back burner. Then, realizations were made regarding relief pitching, were forgotten for a few years, and then re-discovered. There was change even though in the end the statistics for relievers looked very similar to those at the end of the Sixties since it was anything but a linear progression.

So what happened in the Seventies anyway? Well, the 100-appearance reliever (Mike Marshall) was born. The saves record changed hands three times by 1973, but remained unchanged at 38 for the rest of the decade. A number of the old career relievers retired (Hoyt Wilhelm, Ron Perranoski, and Lindy McDaniel) to be replaced by a new group of career relievers.

One of the revelations that was discovered, lost, and re-discovered was that a career reliever was now the way to go. Swingmen fell to 51% of all pitchers in 1970, but their number fluctuated throughout the decade. By 1979, however, the swingmen comprised fewer than 50% of all pitchers (for the first time since 1888). Their numbers have been dwindling since.

The pure relief pitcher swelled to 38% of all pitchers to start the decade (the highest percentage up until that point), but their numbers fell for the rest of the decade. They rose back to 34% by 1979, but wouldn't top their 1970 numbers in a full season until 1986. They have been steadily climbing since the Seventies.

Starting pitchers were the winners of the mid-'70s as 5-man rotations opened up more jobs. Their numbers grew by about 80% between 1970 and 1977, and then fell off a bit. They too have been climbing steadily as swingmen are cannibalized into pure starters.

Relievers became better quality pitchers. Teams learned from the career relievers in the Sixties. They developed relievers from a higher quality of pitcher than in the past and that resulted in better performance on the field. It's a simple concept but it took them decades to learn it or it took them decades to unlearn the idea of getting by on the cheap in the bullpen.

For the first time, relievers eclipsed 600 appearances in a decade (by Mike Marshall, Rollie Fingers, and Sparky Lyle). The number of 500-appearance relievers increased from 5 in the Sixties to 7 in the Seventies, 400-appearance relievers from 11 to 17, 300-appearances relievers from 28 to 31, and 200-appearance relievers from 60 to 72. It's a subtle change but an important one.

By the end of the decade, relief pitchers had better ERAs than starters for the first time. They also struck out more men per nine innings and gave up fewer home runs. They did tend to be a little wilder though, with a higher WHIP and a lower strikeouts-to-walk ratio. By the end if the decade, swingmen had the worst numbers of three and they have been getting progressively worse ever since, as the specialists ruled the day.

As far as the development of the reliever, the decade could be seen to have three distinct periods (1970-72, 1973-76, and 1977-79). The first was from 1970 to '72. Relief pitchers were starting to evolve into today's paradigm: fewer appearances, fewer innings, and more saves. The closer was being used to hold leads. The maximum number of appearances fell from 90 in 1969 to in the 80s 1970-71 to 66 in 1972. The maximum number of innings pitched fell as well from 140s at the end of the Sixties to 116 by 1972.

John Hiller sets the save record in 1973 with 38 in 65 relief appearances (and 125.1 innings), as the culmination of this first wave of relief pitching evolution. But it proved to be short-lived.

By the way here is a table of the maximum relief appearances and maximum relief innings pitched (by a pure reliever) for the Sixties and Seventies:

Year 	Max IP	Max RA
1960	127.0	70
1961	122.0	65
1962	124.7	70
1963	132.3	71
1964	157.0	81
1965	165.3	84
1966	126.0	71
1967	124.7	77
1968	134.7	86
1969	144.7	90
1970	135.3	80
1971	136.3	83
1972	116.0	66
1973	179.0	92
1974	208.3	106
1975	141.7	75
1976	167.7	81
1977	146.7	78
1978	135.0	91
1979	143.0	94

Then the DH arrives and throws a spanner in the works. In 1973, the Montreal Expos who had been using closer Mike Marshall in 60-odd games a year to pitch 110-120 innings for a couple of years, decide that they want to use him basically everyday. In 1973 Marshall throws 179 innings in 92 games. In 1974, now as a Los Angeles Dodger, he throws over 208 innings in 106 appearances. He is 15-12 with 21 saves that year.

The idea of using a closer to save games seemingly evaporates as Terry Forster leads the majors in saves with 24, the lowest major-league leader total since 1959. There are only two other pitchers over 20 that year (Hiller and Tom Murphy). Here are the leaders in relief appearances for the year. Note the low number of saves among the group and these include almost all of the closers of the day. Also note that almost all of these men are relievers 100% of the time:

 Pitcher		RA	Saves	GP
Mike	Marshall	106	21	106
Rollie	Fingers	76	18	76
Larry	Hardy	75	2	76
Pedro	Borbon	73	14	73
Ken	Forsch	70	10	70
Tom	Murphy	70	20	70
Steve	Foucault	69	12	69
Elias	Sosa	68	6	68
Sparky	Lyle	66	15	66
Al	Hrabosky	65	9	65
Mike	Garman	64	6	64
Bill	Campbell	63	19	63
Dave	Giusti	62	12	64
Chuck	Taylor	61	11	61
Randy	Moffitt	60	15	61
John	Hiller	59	13	59
Mac	Scarce	58	5	58
Ramon	Hernandez	58	2	58
Terry	Forster	58	24	59
Bob	Miller	58	2	58
Diego	Segui	58	10	58
Tom	House	56	11	56
Oscar	Zamora	56	10	56
Rich	Folkers	55	2	55
Tom	Buskey	55	18	55
Clay	Carroll	54	6	57
Doug	Bird	54	10	55
Bob	Reynolds	54	7	54
Fred	Scherman	53	4	53
Vicente	Romo	53	9	54
Gene	Garber	51	5	51
Tom	Burgmeier	50	4	50

Over the next few years, closers started to re-assumed their "modern" role. They were used in fewer games and they recorded more saves.

Rollie Fingers re-crossed the Rubicon of 30 saves in a season with 35 in 1977. Since then no major-league leader has recorded less than 30 in a full season. Also in 1977, closers were being surpassed by setup men as far as the leaders in relief appearances, though Fingers did lead the majors.

Then Kent Tekulve and Mike Marshall arrived in 1979 and everything seemed to go caflooey again. Most teams continued to limit their closers and use their setup men more. But as the decade closed here were the league leaders in relief appearances:

 Pitcher		RA	Saves	GP 
Kent	Tekulve	94	31	94
Mike	Marshall	89	32	90
Enrique	Romo	84	5	84
Dick	Tidrow	77	6	77
Sid	Monge	76	19	76
Grant	Jackson	72	14	72
Jim	Kern	71	29	71
Gary	Lavelle	70	20	70
Gene	Garber	68	25	68
Dale	Murray	67	5	67
Sparky	Lyle	67	13	67
Doug	Bair	65	16	65
Tug	McGraw	64	16	65
Joe	Sambito	63	22	63
Mark	Littell	63	13	63
Bruce	Sutter	62	37	62

But Bruce Sutter's Cy Young winning year galvanizes baseball. His final numbers don't look all that different from his 1977-'78 numbers, but instead of accumulating them mostly in the first half of the season and injuring his arm, as he had done the two previous seasons, he staggers those appearances throughout the year.

What isn't apparent about Bruce Sutter from a cursory perusal of the statistics is how overwhelming he was his first four years and how he became the blueprint for all future closers until today. That's why he finishes ahead of Goose Gossage in the Hall-of-Fame voting (266 to 209 votes this year), even though the statheads cannot understand it. The ensuing debate has established that Gossage was a better pitcher for his career and that his peak wasn't far behind Sutter's. Both valid points, but the impression that Sutter left on the game has been more important. Maybe he should get extra points like a Candy Cummings as a modern-day pioneer of the closer role. However, given the foundation of quicksand on which the relief pitcher role is built, basing Sutter's enshrinement on his imprimatur on the closer role may be as spurious an argument as using the claim that Cummings invented the curveball as cause for his plaque in Cooperstown.

So what exactly did Sutter do that doesn't show up in the stats? He played for a .500 team, and though his stats were impressive, were they that revelatory? Let's take a look at the first four years of his career, 1976-'79.

Sutter joined the Cubs on May 9, 1976. Chicago, though they started the year 5-1, were 11-15 on May 8 and had just lost 4 straight. Herman Franks, the Cubs manager, was having a devil of a time trying to find a reliable closer. He tried Buddy Schultz, Darold Knowles, Mike Garman, Tom Dettore (who gave up three runs to the Mets in the ninth and lost 10-8 in his one chance on April 15), Garman again, Oscar Zamora, Schultz again, and Garman again. I don't believe it was a bullpen by committee since Franks would go to the same guy until he had blown two or three save opportunities in a row and then he would try someone else. There were some real gems in there, too. On April 17, the Cubs lost to the Phils 18-16 in ten innings. The game is best remembered as Mike Schmidt's four-homer game (by the way Schmidt batted 6th in that game). It was considered so remarkably high-scoring at the time, that the Phils rebroadcast it a week later, something unheard of at the time. The Cub bullpen (Garman, Knowles, Paul Reuschel, and Schultz) had the following linescore: 3 innings pitched, 10 hits, 3 home runs (2 to Schmidt), 11 runs all earned, 2 walks, and 1 K. The final straw came in a 14-4 home loss to the Reds on May 8. The bullpen (Zamora, Ken Crosby, and Garman) allowed 7 runs, all earned, on 10 hits, four walks and one strikeout in 5.2 innings. That was the end of Mike Garman's trial as the closer-he gave up 4 of those runs in 2 innings. Franks then turned to the 23-year-old rookie Sutter.

Sutter pitched very well, but showed a pattern that would plague him the next three years:

Month       G  GS  CG SHO  GF  SV  IP     H  BFP  HR   R  ER  BB IBB   K  WP HBP  BK GDP   W   L    ERA
May         7   0   0   0   5   2   9.1   6   37   0   2   2   5   0   3   0   0   0   1   0   1   1.93
June       12   0   0   0   4   0  16.2  14   68   0   4   4   4   2  13   2   0   0   0   0   0   2.16
July        9   0   0   0   5   2  18    13   70   2   6   6   6   1  16   0   0   0   1   2   1   3.00
August     13   0   0   0   9   4  19    13   69   1   2   2   3   1  21   0   0   0   2   1   1   0.95
September  10   0   0   0   4   1  19.2  17   86   1  13  11   8   4  20   0   0   0   1   3   0   5.03
October     1   0   0   0   1   1   0.2   0    2   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0.00

Sutter was growing slowly into the closer's role and by July was starting to show signs of the pitcher he would become. Franks, however, still was toying with the bullpen using Knowles, Zamora, and Joe Coleman in the closer's role until the end of July.

Sutter was regularly used for two to four innings. He would also be used in consecutive games often. He pitched 4.2 scoreless innings in three consecutive games in two days, May 22-23 (and then was not used for over a week). Between June 19 and June 27, he was used in eight consecutive Cub games and on four of those days pitched 2 or more innings. These weren't save opportunities-he only finished two games in the span- but he didn't allow a run and recorded 10 strikeouts and only 6 hits in 9.2 innings through the first 7 games. On June 26, his ERA stood at a Bob Gibson-like 1.12. Then on June 27 he was used for two innings in a 13-3 blowout at the hands of the Mets at Wrigley, and he finally broke down, allowing 3 runs and 4 hits. His ERA almost doubled. He was then ignored for five games until the Cubs had a doubleheader. He pitched three no-hit innings against the Padres to complete a July 6th shutout by Steve Stone. Sutter also collected 5 Ks and 1 walk in the three innings and recorded his first save since May 31.

But in August Sutter was used in 13 of the Cubs' 30 games and the team had its first winning month of the year (17-13). Sutter had a 2.00 ERA by the end of August and would be the team's closer for the rest of the year. Sutter's September (5.03 ERA) would be far from spectacular, but it was due mostly to a few poor performances following overuse earlier in the year. For example, on July 9 Sutter tallied his first major-league win hurling four scoreless innings with five K's against the Giants. Then Franks' overuse of Sutter led to three consecutive poor performances (7/11-7/21: 4 innings and 5 runs allowed with only two strikeouts). Between August 3 and 12, he was used on 8 of nine Cub game days. He threw 10 scoreless innings (with 11 K's) in nine days. On August 12, he allowed two runs and recorded no outs in the eighth inning to give the Reds the lead in an eventual 8-3 loss. Franks then started using Sutter for 2-3 innings at a time one or two times a week. During the first week of September he broke down again, allowing 6 runs (and 8 K's) in 8.1 innings.

After the season, did Franks evaluate how he used the budding star and make adjustments? Of course not. Sutter started 1977 with an ERA under 1.00 until basically the All-Star break. However, Franks continued his abusive pattern. Sutter was used for 3.1 innings each of two consecutive appearances (5/1 and 5/4). Surprise! He gave up two runs in the second appearance. He was used in 7 of 9 games May 20-29, including two 3-inning and two 2+ inning games. He had a couple of small breakdowns during that period but was on too good a roll. Not coincidentally, at the beginning of July the Cubs were in first place 7.5 games ahead. On July 12, The Mets' Steve Henderson hit a game-winning, two-run home run off of Sutter. From Baseball-library.com: "After the game the Cubs relief ace admits his arm is bothering him, and asks to be excused from the All-Star game. Bleeding will be found in Sutter's arm and he will get the week off after the All-Star break to rest it." He returns to pitch two games (one for 3 innings!) but then goes onto the disabled list on August 3rd, at which time the Cubs still lead the Phillies in the NL East by 1.5 games. When he returns on August 23, the Cubs are tied for second, 7.5 games back. He finishes the year pitching well, but the Cubs finish 81-81, in fourth place and 20 games back. Sutter does have one amazing outing September 8, in which he ties the NL record for consecutive strikeouts for a reliever with 6 after whiffing the first 6 Expos he faces on just nine pitches. This is including Hall-of-Famers Tony Perez and Gary Carter as well as Andre Dawson, Larry Parrish, Ellis Valentine, and Warren Cromartie-not too shabby.

So of course, Franks now realizes that overworking his star has been leading to injury and ineffectiveness, right? Not yet. After a rough start, Sutter has his ERA well under 2.00 at the All-Star break and the Cubs are doggedly chasing the Phils in the NL East. Franks' pattern of abuse continues. After missing the last week in July, Sutter is used in a string of games, saving 5 in 7 days (8/1-8/7). On August 19, the Cubs trail the Phillies by 2 games, and Sutter has a 1.91 ERA with 22 saves. That day against the Reds, Sutter is brought in with two out in the seventh and the Cubs leading 5-3 and two men on. He strikes out Ken Griffey to end the inning and strikes out two in a scoreless eighth (though he allows Johnny Bench to steal a base). The Cubs leave him in to pitch the ninth, and he gives up a two-out single to Joe Morgan and then a three-run home run to Griffey, to allow the Reds to tie the game. In the 10th-yes, Sutter is still pitching-he gives up three singles on one out and the Reds capture the lead. From that point forward, Sutter would pitch 16 games and was 1-7 with a 7.33 ERA in 23.1 innings with 28 hits, 4 wild pitches, 4 home runs, 4 unerned runs (in addition to 19 earned), 24 strikeouts, 11 walks, a 1.67 WHIP, 5 saves, and only 12 games finished. Even Franks could see that there was a problem. The Cubs were 17-25 from August 19 on and finished in third place, 11 games behind the Phillies.

In 1979, Franks used Sutter in key situations and he recorded 37 saves in the Cubs' 80 wins. Franks goes back to his abusing ways in August and Sutter's September suffers, but he still wins the NL Cy Young:

Month       G  GS  CG SHO  GF  SV  IP     H  BFP  HR   R  ER  BB IBB   K  WP HBP  BK GDP   W   L    ERA
April       5   0   0   0   5   5   7.2   5   29   0   0   0   2   0   6   2   0   0   1   0   0   0.00
May        10   0   0   0   9   4  19.1  14   80   2   6   5   7   2  20   0   0   0   1   1   2   2.33
June       10   0   0   0   9   8  17     6   62   0   2   2   5   0  21   1   0   0   0   1   0   1.06
July       10   0   0   0  10   6  16     3   60   0   3   2   7   2  19   3   0   0   1   2   1   1.12
August     15   0   0   0  14  12  21    19   83   0   5   3   3   0  24   2   0   0   1   0   0   1.29
September  12   0   0   0   9   2  20.1  20   89   1  13  13   8   1  20   1   0   0   1   2   3   5.75

When Herman Franks finally decided to try to limit Sutter to get the most out of him over a season, it paid off big. This proves to be a success even though Franks does not survive the season. It is also sufficient impetus to managers to extinguish the 80- to 90-appearance closer once and for all. Sutter was a living litmus test for closers. Everyone knew that he was a tremendous pitcher, but he broke down over the course of a season when asked to provide Mike Marshall-like innings. When Franks finally solved the problem by using him mostly in save situations and limiting his appearances and innings (only three appearances of three or more innings in 1979),-Q.E.D., the path was discovered. Eureka!

I think that during this period managers were convinced that the old abusing ways were not the way to use closers. But they just couldn't be convinced to use them any other way. Given any excuse (the DH, Mike Marshall, etc.), they would fall back on old habits. Franks went out on the thin ice and survived, so now other managers could be more adventurous.

Also, given Bill James' analysis in The New Historical Baseball Abstract, the most appropriate times to use closers is when the score is tied or your club is ahead by a one-run margin. James also recommends using your closer when your team is behind by a run and he is well rested. The save statistic was not developed with this value system in mind. First, three-inning relief appearances were common then, so that was an automatic save when the reliever finishes the game in the first place and his team wins. Helping your team win tie ballgames was left to the win-loss figures. And the situation that the relief creates through ineffectiveness, at least initially, is just as important as the situation when he entered the game as far as the save stat is concerned. That is why other unofficial stats like blown saves and holds have cropped up ever since. I also believe that managers in the '70s were not sold on the modern-day closer role as defined via the save. Once there was empirical proof using Sutter as a guinea pig, they could no longer argue against the modern closer. One last note regarding Sutter, however: his team did not improve once he was used effectively as a closer. His numbers improved and he enjoyed more success over the course of the season, but that did not translate into team success. So maybe the managers of the day shouldn't have been so convinced.

So ends the topsy-turvy Seventies.

Here are the leaders in relief appearances and saves for the decade. These names should be much more familiar to the average fan than the ones from the previous decades:

First	Last	RA	Saves	GP	
Mike	Marshall	618	177	628	
Rollie	Fingers	611	209	640	
Sparky	Lyle	600	190	600	
Pedro	Borbon	557	79	561	
Dave	LaRoche	538	122	543	
Darold	Knowles	537	99	543	
Tug	McGraw	533	132	542	
Dave	Giusti	467	140	470	
Tom	Burgmeier	457	59	458	
Paul	Lindblad	453	46	460	
Al	Hrabosky	444	90	445	
Gene	Garber	436	110	444	
Clay	Carroll	436	106	447	
Randy	Moffitt	435	83	436	
Elias	Sosa	421	66	423	
John	Hiller	409	115	426	
Grant	Jackson	407	63	443	
Steve	Mingori	383	42	385	
Dale	Murray	371	48	372	
Charlie	Hough	367	59	382	
Dave	Tomlin	367	12	368	
Kent	Tekulve	363	83	363	
Gary	Lavelle	350	74	350	
Bill	Campbell	346	95	355	
Fred	Scherman	331	39	342	
Wayne	Granger	327	77	327	
Rich	Gossage	322	101	359	
Terry	Forster	321	100	360	
Ken	Sanders	318	82	318	
Danny	Frisella	313	55	315	
Jerry	Johnson	309	40	316	
Jim	Brewer	299	92	299	
Mike	Garman	295	42	301	
Tom	Murphy	291	59	388	
Dave	Heaverlo	290	22	290	
Skip	Lockwood	288	66	390	
Ramon	Hernandez	283	41	283	
Rawly	Eastwick	281	67	282	
Doug	Bird	280	58	324	
Joe	Hoerner	279	39	279	
Tom	Hall	278	32	319	
Steve	Foucault	277	52	277	
Horacio	Pina	271	35	271	
Chuck	Taylor	270	31	278	
Will	McEnaney	269	29	269	
Ken	Forsch	268	50	389	
Tom	House	268	33	289	
Jim	Todd	262	24	270	
Lindy	McDaniel	260	45	268	
Diego	Segui	258	46	309	
Bob	Locker	254	41	254	
Jim	Kern	244	75	256	
Ron	Reed	244	52	412	
Bruce	Sutter	240	105	240	
Dick	Drago	240	49	396	
Mark	Littell	240	52	258	
Charlie	Williams	235	4	268	
Frank	Linzy	227	34	228	
Eduardo	Rodriguez	225	32	264	
Tom	Buskey	225	34	225	
Dave	Hamilton	224	31	280	
Jack	Aker	222	51	222	
Dick	Tidrow	222	27	359	
Jim	Ray	220	24	223	
Lerrin	LaGrow	217	51	284	
Bob	Miller	213	19	228	
Jim	Willoughby	210	34	238	
Vicente	Romo	210	28	224	
Ron	Schueler	205	11	291	
Eddie	Watt	204	41	204	
Cecil	Upshaw	203	38	203	
Dan	Spillner	200	11	277
	
First	Last	RA	Saves	GP 
Rollie	Fingers	611	209	640	
Sparky	Lyle	600	190	600	
Mike	Marshall	618	177	628	
Dave	Giusti	467	140	470	
Tug	McGraw	533	132	542	
Dave	LaRoche	538	122	543	
John	Hiller	409	115	426	
Gene	Garber	436	110	444	
Clay	Carroll	436	106	447	
Bruce	Sutter	240	105	240	
Rich	Gossage	322	101	359	
Terry	Forster	321	100	360	
Darold	Knowles	537	99	543	
Bill	Campbell	346	95	355	
Jim	Brewer	299	92	299	
Al	Hrabosky	444	90	445	
Randy	Moffitt	435	83	436	
Kent	Tekulve	363	83	363	
Ken	Sanders	318	82	318	
Pedro	Borbon	557	79	561	
Wayne	Granger	327	77	327	
Jim	Kern	244	75	256	
Gary	Lavelle	350	74	350	
Rawly	Eastwick	281	67	282	
Elias	Sosa	421	66	423	
Skip	Lockwood	288	66	390	
Grant	Jackson	407	63	443	
Tom	Burgmeier	457	59	458	
Charlie	Hough	367	59	382	
Tom	Murphy	291	59	388	
Doug	Bird	280	58	324	
Don	Stanhouse	190	57	256	
Danny	Frisella	313	55	315	
Steve	Foucault	277	52	277	
Ron	Reed	244	52	412	
Mark	Littell	240	52	258	
Doug	Bair	184	52	184	
Jack	Aker	222	51	222	
Lerrin	LaGrow	217	51	284	
Ken	Forsch	268	50	389	

Here are the totals per role for the decade:

Year    GP   GS  SV   CG    CG% RA     P/G #P  SP    SP%  RP    RP% SP/RP Swing%
1970 10356 3888 878  852 21.91% 6468 2.664 363 37 10.19% 140 38.57%  186  51.24%
1971  9661 3876 689 1083 27.94% 5785 2.493 343 37 10.79% 121 35.28%  185  53.94%
1972  9127 3718 733 1009 27.14% 5409 2.455 339 43 12.68% 122 35.99%  174  51.33%
1973  9209 3886 819 1061 27.30% 5323 2.370 330 41 12.42% 106 32.12%  183  55.45%
1974  9330 3890 517 1089 27.99% 5440 2.398 344 48 13.95% 120 34.88%  176  51.16%
1975  9270 3868 669 1052 27.20% 5402 2.397 339 44 12.98% 108 31.86%  187  55.16%
1976  9364 3878 683 1039 26.79% 5486 2.415 325 50 15.38% 104 32.00%  171  52.62%
1977 10621 4206 845  907 21.56% 6415 2.525 371 69 18.60% 115 31.00%  187  50.40%
1978 10095 4204 804 1034 24.60% 5891 2.401 369 58 15.72% 122 33.06%  189  51.22%
1979 10573 4196 840  913 21.76% 6377 2.520 390 64 16.41% 134 34.36%  192  49.23%

Year

Pernicious Pen Name, Batman-The PETCO Padres!

The Padres, with one year left to play at "Qualcom" Park, already have an appalling appellation for their yet-unfinished new stadium, PETCO Park. The corporate sponsor is PETCO, the pet store chain. No, not the one with that annoying hand puppet dog.

Get this for classy:

The announcement was made in the new park by Padres chairman John Moores and PETCO chairman, president and CEO Brian Devine along with Eddie, the dog from the TV show "Frazier."

There was no word as to the extent of Eddie's participation in the announcement. Well, what do you expect for a sport run by a used car dealer? Why, Bud has class he's never even used yet. Yes, they've really gone to the dogs. Yuck Yuck.

Ivan the Marlin

Pudge Rodriguez courtship with the Baltimore Orioles was quick and not so sweet. The Marlins apparently topped the Os' offer and have landed Ivan Rodriguez for one year at $10 M. Pudge made about $9.6 M last year in Texas, so after all the hand wringing he ends up getting a raise.

Of course today it's never that easy (from ESPN):

Florida will pay Rodriguez $3 million this year, with the remainder deferred without interest. The Marlins will pay him $3 million on June 1, 2004, and $2 million each on June 1 in the following two years.

Rodriguez should play well for Florida if he can avoid injury, which he has not been able to do since his MVP year. The Marlins might have cause for concern in other areas as well, i.e., their young staff. Pudge does not have a great track record in developing young pitching talent. Add the fact that they had a decent catcher, offensively and defensively, in Mike Redmond already on the roster and the move seems less than a necessity (as opposed to, say, a Cleveland or Milwaukee team that does not have anything better than an average backup catcher on the roster). He is by no means an all-star but seems a serviceable catcher.

It seems a lot of money for a team that paid its top player (Cliff Floyd) "only" $6.5 M last year. I guess with Floyd and other high-priced players (Johnson, Wilson, Taveras, Lloyd, Dempster, and Owens-in fact the Marlins kept only 4 of 11 players making $2 M or more in 2002), they could afford him. The Marlins seem committed to developing their young staff. They paid Charles Johnson $10 M over the last two years to do it, and now they will pay Pudge that much to do it in 2003. The staff was below average at best under Johnson's tutelage (4.59 and 4.71 ERAs). They may fair better under Rodriguez, but $10 M seems a steep price to pay for it.

Phillips Headed Screw-Ups

The NY Times reports that the Mets now consider third base their top priority. Well, that's nice. It's about time. GM Steve Phillips is still selling the "we can go with Ty Wigginton (and his orchestra) at third" party line. I don't know if anyone is buying except for maybe Phillips himself:

"I think we're in a pretty good position with a young player that can play offense and defense," Phillips said yesterday by telephone. "If we had a situation, we would've acted differently in the free-agent market."

He can now say this because they tried and failed to sign free agents Tyler Houston and Jose Hernandez (who signed for more than I reported at the time though still incredibly low, $1 M plus $300K in incentives). Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing. It was just a month ago when the Mets had all but signed Japanese free agent Norihiro Nakamura. For whatever reason, Nakamura demurred and re-signed instead in Japan. Phillips has compounded that mistake, with this ludicrous stance backing Wigginton, who played 14 games poorly at third last year (though he did play there this winter) and who even though he redeemed himself at the plate has only 116 major-league at-bats under his belt. Besides he clearly was going in another direction a month ago.

They could have afforded Hernandez. They have $1.5 M available for a third baseman (although Nakamura was reportedly offered $7 M over two years plus a $6 M option for a third). The explanation for passing on the bargain-basement Hernandez?

Phillips would only say that Hernandez was not a fit. With Mo Vaughn and Jeromy Burnitz under contract, the Mets probably did not want to add another strikeout-prone hitter like Hernandez.

Leave it to the Mets to look at the best shortstop in the NL in 2002 and see K's. They suffered through years of Rey Ordonez at short. Now, there was a player with a hole in his offensive. Actually, the hole was his offense.

The Mets are now focusing on Boston's Shea Hillenbrand and Baltimore's Tony Batista. Somehow they got Baltimore interested in Jeromy Burnitz and his $11.5 M salary. But in addition to Batista's $6 M salary, the Os want the Mets to take the comatose Scotty Erickson and his $6.6 M salary off their hands. Somehow Phillips knows enough not to bite at that one.

Apparently the Mets are unwilling to acquire players who strike out but don't mind collecting ones like Hillenbrand and Batista that can't take a walk to save their lives.

Remember last year when everyone was picking this team to knock off the Braves and met the Yankees in the Series again. Their best option right now may be to sign Yankee bench player and castoff Ron Coomer as a stopgap at the hot corner. This is a team that has had Edgardo Alfonzo, Jeff Kent, and Robin Ventura playing third since the '94-'95 players' strike. By the way, the Yankees have third base patrolled by former Mets Robin Ventura and Todd Zeile. Zeile had to play first for the Mets because they had too many third sackers: Zeile, Alfonzo, and Vetura all played and started for the Mets in the halcyon days of 2000 and 2001. Compare that to Ty Wigginton and a stiff to be named later.

"I lieb you, baby. I lieb you. Now lieb me alone."

[By the way, that's a line from The Producers]

In an effort to ensure that Larry Lucchino and the Red Sox cannot acquire a single player this offseason, the Yankees signed John Lieber to a two-year contract for $4M (plus an $8 M option for 2005). Since Lieber is expected to miss this entire season recuperating his elbow after offseason surgery, it's basically a $4M contract for 2004.

It's not as if the Yankees want or even need Lieber, but the Red Sox were readying to sign the free agent, so the Yankees had to snatch him up. The Red Sox could start using this against the Yankees. They could start chatting up inferior players in hopes that the Yankees sign them to exorbitant contracts. Knowing the Sox, they'd probably just screw that up, too. They'd end up with guys like Jose Offerman and John Burkett. Oh, never mind.

Crazy Like a Fox

There is an AP report today that "Former New York sports executive David Checketts has made a $650 million offer to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers, but the deal must include one of News Corp.'s moneymaking cable channels."

The Dodgers were bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. bought the Dodgers for a then-record $311 M on March 19, 1998. The deal was awaiting MLB approval from at least may 12, 1997.

Lest anyone believe the owners cries of poverty, consider that the Dodgers have increased in value at least 100% in five seasons. Here is what they have done on the field since 1997:

The Dodgers are 12th in Winning Percentage and have not made a playoff appearance although 19 other teams have:

Team		W%	WS Win	LCS Win	Div Title 	Wild Card
New York Yankees	.613	3	4	5	1
Atlanta Braves	.612		1	6	
San Francisco Giants	.563		1	2	1
Seattle Mariners	.561			2	1
Houston Astros	.547			4	
Arizona Diamondbacks	.543	1	1	3	
Cleveland Indians	.543		1	4	
Boston Red Sox	.540				2
New York Mets	.539		1		2
Oakland Athletics	.538			2	1
St. Louis Cardinals	.531			2	1
Los Angeles Dodgers	.527				
Chicago White Sox	.509			1	
Anaheim Angels	.509	1	1		1
Toronto Blue Jays	.503				
Cincinnati Reds	.491				
Texas Rangers	.490			2	
San Diego Padres	.483		1	1	
Colorado Rockies	.473				
Baltimore Orioles	.473			1	
Philadelphia Phillies	.464				
Minnesota Twins	.463			1	
Chicago Cubs		.457				1
Florida Marlins	.457	1	1		1
Pittsburgh Pirates	.442				
Montreal Expos	.441				
Milwaukee Brewers	.436				
Detroit Tigers	.426				
Kansas City Royals	.420				
Tampa Bay Devil Rays	.394	

They are ninth in attendance:

Team		Att/G
Colorado Rockies	41,897.10
Baltimore Orioles	41,037.61
Cleveland Indians	40,390.20
Atlanta Braves	38,624.62
New York Yankees	38,619.09
Seattle Mariners	38,528.77
Arizona Diamondbacks	38,290.43
Los Angeles Dodgers	38,133.15
St. Louis Cardinals	38,014.10
Texas Rangers	33,777.60
Chicago Cubs		32,829.40
Houston Astros	32,215.65
San Francisco Giants	32,054.72
New York Mets	31,187.35
Boston Red Sox	30,553.69
San Diego Padres	29,053.33
Anaheim Angels	26,515.77
Toronto Blue Jays	25,597.77
Cincinnati Reds	24,545.33
Milwaukee Brewers	23,370.31
Pittsburgh Pirates	22,473.63
Detroit Tigers	21,988.73
Philadelphia Phillies	20,754.11
Chicago White Sox	20,546.63
Oakland Athletics	20,242.80
Tampa Bay Devil Rays	19,512.13
Kansas City Royals	18,669.80
Florida Marlins	18,092.69
Minnesota Twins	17,465.08
Montreal Expos	11,454.44

And yet they have averaged the second highest team payroll over that period:

Team		Avg Payroll
New York Yankees	$91,056,126.17
Los Angeles Dodgers	$77,823,991.50
Boston Red Sox	$76,692,579.33
Atlanta Braves	$75,991,478.17
Texas Rangers	$75,281,067.83
Arizona Diamondbacks	$73,996,366.00
Cleveland Indians	$73,087,218.17
New York Mets	$70,714,714.67
Baltimore Orioles	$70,169,726.50
St. Louis Cardinals	$60,760,075.67
Seattle Mariners	$60,611,867.00
Chicago Cubs		$59,380,388.67
Colorado Rockies	$57,580,619.83
Toronto Blue Jays	$57,083,138.33
San Francisco Giants	$53,345,182.83
Houston Astros	$51,235,949.17
Anaheim Angels	$48,087,606.50
Chicago White Sox	$45,922,500.00
San Diego Padres	$44,853,697.33
Tampa Bay Devil Rays	$44,055,025.80
Philadelphia Phillies	$41,928,888.67
Cincinnati Reds	$41,273,225.17
Detroit Tigers	$40,759,333.33
Milwaukee Brewers	$38,604,606.00
Florida Marlins	$34,767,514.00
Kansas City Royals	$33,975,833.33
Pittsburgh Pirates	$29,924,516.50
Oakland Athletics	$29,256,597.17
Minnesota Twins	$27,355,333.33
Montreal Expos	$25,777,388.83

I know that these are THE Dodgers that play in the second largest media market in the country and that there is a cable channel being bartered over, but if these numbers warrant a 100% increase, how much have the other successful franchises worth? And how could their cries of poverty found a an audience in the media (besides the fact that they own all of it) during the last Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations?

The players are really going to be kicking themselves by the time this CBA expires.

"The Rose of Battle"

Rose of all Roses, Rose of all the World!
You, too, have come where the dim tides are hurled
Upon the wharves of sorrow, and heard ring
The bell that calls us on; the sweet far thing.
-Yeats, "The Rose of Battle"

A report in Newsday claims that Pete Rose is willing to admit that he bet on baseball and to apologize for his denying this fact for 13 years. Rose would then face a reported six- to eight-month probationary period before reinstatement. If his behavior is up to snuff, he could enter Cooperstown in 2004. Bud Selig has required during the "negotiations that Rose fulfill all three obligations: an admission, an apology and probation."

There has been no mention of an admission of betting on the Reds, which would ban him for life, and then some. Therefore, I see no reason for the probationary period other than to exact another pound of flesh from the Hit Earl. The penalty for gambling on baseball is one year, and Rose has served that 13 times over. If the probation is to evaluate Rose's behavior, then he has displayed that not a whole lot has changed in the quagmire that is his personal life in the intervening 13 years. Besides, if Rose were to change for 6 months, does anyone believe that he would be permanently altered in some way?

Whatever, it's good for baseball to end this ugly episode. Let him enter the Hall, be the flavor of the week, and then fade from the baseball landscape.

O Positive?

MLB.com reports that the Orioles are set to sign free-agent catcher Pudge Rodriguez and outfielder Jose Cruz Jr. to one-year deals for, respectively, $7 M and $1.5-2 M.

Cruz would apparently take over for recently departed Chris Singleton in center although he can play all three spots. Jay Gibbons and Gary Matthews Jr. should probably play the corners, unless a better defensive player is needed, in which case Melvin Mora will be added to the mix. (Marty Cordova should just be used as a DH.)

These guys should be big upgrades over what Baltimore had at their positions in 2002, but after winning only 67 games last year will it matter? Given Pudge's injury history and Cruz's underachieving, their signings could turn into busts. But at least the market minimizes their exposure to one year and under $10 M.

Brew Ha Ha

Here's the Brewers quote of the day from SportsTicker:

MILWAUKEE (Ticker) - The Milwaukee Brewers on Tuesday signed righthander Chuck Smith to a minor league contract and invited him to spring training.

Smith, 33, is hoping to rebound from "Tommy John" surgery that caused him to miss all but the first month of last season. He appeared in just four games for Class AAA Colorado Springs of the Pacific Coast League, a Colorado Rockies' affiliate, before suffering a torn flexor tendon and ulnar collateral ligament on April 28.

Smith pitched for the Florida Marlins in 2000 and 2001. He owns a career mark of 11-11 with a 3.84 ERA in 34 major league starts.

"Chuck Smith has experienced success in this league while with the Florida Marlins," Brewers general manager Doug Melvin said. "His work ethic and determination will allow him to compete for a spot on this year's club."

Hoyt Couture

Over at Futility Infielder they have an interesting Hall of Fame analysis for baseball relievers. FI revamps a stat introduced by Rich Rifkin called the Hoyt Scale. It is interesting to see pitchers from different eras compared in one scale.

I feel that I cannot accurately comment on the Hoyt Scale until I complete my history of relievers. I plan on having my own means of comparing relievers over time at the end of it. Like most of American culture, I am currently stuck in the '70s. It is the decade in which the greatest amount of change occurred in relief pitching. The experimentation of '60s led to new approaches. The sticking point for me is the development of the 5-man rotation and its effects on relief pitching. I should have something out soon though.

I Heard He Sat on the Dugout Floor Until He Got the Deal He Wanted

The Twins have signed first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz to a one-year, $1.75 M contract, thereby avoiding arbitration. From the AP:

Mientkiewicz made $285,000 last season and asked for $2.05 million in his first year of arbitration eligibility. The Twins offered $1.45 million.

So they basically split the difference.

Mientkiewicz is a useful player who knows how to take a walk and is a good defensive first baseman, but he doesn't really hit enough to play first base or DH regularly. Ortiz was probably a better choice to have been kept, but as David St. Hubbins once said, "That's just nitpicking, isn't it?"

Flash in the Pen Paean

The White Sox may now be considered the front-runners in the AL Central after acquiring 20-game-winner and erstwhile man without a ballclub, Bartolo Colon, but they have not done their bullpen any favors this offseason.

First they traded away closer Keith Foulke for Bill Koch. Then they traded right-handers Antonio Osuna and Rocky Biddle in the Colon deal. Yesterday they acquired Tom "Flash" Gordon for one year at $1.4 M to replace them. The White Sox bullpen had also lost longtime member Booby Howry to the Red Sox during 2002.

Foulke was a superior closer who fell into the White Sox doghouse early last year and was never redeemed. He did finish 15th in Baseball Prospectus' s reliever rankings by Adjusted Runs Prevented (with 17.5). Koch wasn't bad in 2002 (12.4 ARP), but is not Foulke's equal by a long shot. Foulke has had an ERA under 3.00 each of the last four seasons. Koch had a sub-3.00 ERA just once and also had a 4.80 ERA two years ago.

Osuna was a valuable setup guy (6.6 ARP) but Biddle was sub-par (-7.5 ARP). The White Sox bullpen was ranked 13th in the majors by BP with a 22.0 ARP. Gordon is still a good pitcher at 35 but hasn't thrown over 46 innings since his arm troubles in 1999. Osuna threw 67.2 innings last year and Biddle 77.2. Oh, and Gordon's ARP was an unimpressive 0.4 overall.

With these changes, expecting the White Sox bullpen to be better than mediocre may be unrealistic.