News of the Stupid

Today Mike's Baseball Rants surpased 7,500 hits (or so it seems from the grainy Sitemeter reports) in a month for the first time in our illustrious history.

Thanks for stopping by.

The Mahay Kid

Brooks Kieschnick was promoted tonight (sort of) to the Brewers and becomes the first player since Ron Mahay in 1997 to appear on a major-league roster (sort of) as position player and as a pitcher. He should pitch right-handed and pinch hit left-handed for the Brew Crew, though his first appearance (tonight) was as a pinch-hitter not a pitcher.

I am very excited about the prospect of a two-way player (though Todd Jones may have a problem with it). However, given Kieschnick's albeit limited minor-league stats (8.49 ERA as a pitcher and 0-for-9 as a batter), I get the impression that his presence may be for little more than some cheap publicity. I know that he impressed the Brewers in spring training, but--and I've said this before--the main advantage of having a two-way player on the roster is to save a roster spot. Why do the Brewers need to save a roster spot? Do the need another Keith Osik on the roster?

Heck, maybe it's time for Milwaukee to turn to cheap publicity. Their team sure is not going to do much in the win column and the fans are staying away on droves. Maybe it's time for Bud and/or his caretakers to turn to a little Bill Veeck-esque tactics though it seems odd for the only man on the planet who still takes the All-Star game seriously.

Re-Todd

Todd Jones, hear Sir Todd Jones
"I wouldn't want a gay guy being around me."
With a head of bedrock,
He's a scrub with an ERA of six point three.

Should gays ride with this busher in the pen?
Maybe he should worry about himself and not them.
When you're with sir Todd Jones,
You'll have a homophobic good time,
John Rocker, too, time.
You'll have an anti-gay old time.

(Fred Flintstone Rock, Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah--now there's a rockhead, and I don't mean Joe Rockhead.)

Jays? Why?

CBC Sports (eh?) via Baseball News Blog reports that the Toronto Blue Jays, as early as next season, intend to change their names to the Toronto Jays. It just sounds friendlier, I guess, sort of like the Bullets becoming the Wizards--screw nearly 50 years of history.

The last such nickname change without a relocation was the Houston Colt .45s-cum-Astros. Many teams have changed their names over the years, especially in the early days when the names were not yet official. In the Fifties, because of the Red Scare, the Cincinnati Reds briefly changed their names to the Red Legs (I heard, I believe, YES's Michael Kay say that he liked that the team used the old-time name when it appeared in the graphic. The Red Legs was no more an old-time name than the Red Storm of St. Johns).

Poor franchises changed their name often. The Phils changed theirs to the Blue Jays (fancy that) during World War II. The Braves were the Bees in the late '30s. The old Washington Senators were officially the Nationals, but no one called them that. The Dodgers, back when they sucked, were known as the Robins as late as 1931 for manager Wilbert Robinson. And the Yankees were originally the Highlanders (like the Jets were the Titans in the AFL and the Nets, the Americans in the ABA).

Of course, in the early days before the names were official, teams changed names like Sox. The Pirates were the Innocents (as well as the Pittsburg Alleghenys: the H had yet to be added to the city's name). The Cardinals were once the Brown Stockings. The Boston Braves were originally the Red Stockings (the team became known as the Doves when they went to all-white uniforms and were purchase by the Dovey brothers; the AL team stole the name before the original Red Stockings could change their uniforms back and with it, the city's hearts). The Cubs were the White Stockings (and Cap Anson's Colts while he managed and the Orphans when he left). The Phils were the Live Wires and the Quakers. The Dodgers were once the Bridegrooms because a number of players were married in one season.

The best and most varied names may belong to the Cleveland AL franchise: the Naps (for Nap Lajoie), the Bronchos (yes, with an H, maybe they gave it to Pittsburg), the Blues (huh?), and the Molly Maquires.

Splendid Splinters

Chris DeRosa has a piece on Yankee benches over at Bronx Banter. There is a Luis Sojo sighting, but alas no mention of Ron Blomberg.

By the way, I forgot to mention that Sojo, now 38, just announced that he is attempting a comeback via the Mexican League (a la Julio Franco). Sojo batted .165 and had an OPS that was 92% worse than the league average in his last season, two years ago. I don't there's much left in the tank.

"Ipse Dixit"-Easy for Pythagoras to Say

It's three weeks into the season and I thought it would be interesting to compare the actual standings against the Pythagorean standings. Bill James first introduced the idea of calculating a team's projected performance based on their runs for and against, which he called the Pythogorean formula (Win = Games * RF^1.83 / (RF^1.83 + RA^1.83). Actually James used to the power of two, but I prefer 1.83. I'm kooky that way).

It's a small sample and the differences may be meaningless, but the Pythogorean formula may be a more accurate way of calculating actual performance and predicting first half performance. So here 'tis:

 ----Actual----  -Runs-  --Pythogoras--
AL EAST        W  L  PCT GB   For Opp  W  L  PCT GB
NY Yankees    20  5 .800  -   170  88 19  6 .760  -
Boston        16  9 .640  4   147 138 13 12 .520  6
Baltimore     12 12 .500  7.5 115 117 12 12 .500  6.5
Tampa Bay     10 15 .400 10   116 153  9 16 .360 10
Toronto       10 16 .385 11   139 159 11 15 .423  8.5
AL CENTRAL         
Kansas City   17  5 .773  -   119  83 15  7 .682  -
Chicago Sox   14 11 .560  4.5 116  99 14 11 .560  2.5
Minnesota     10 14 .417  8    88 106 10 14 .417  6
Cleveland      7 18 .280 12    88 116  9 16 .360  9
Detroit        3 20 .130 15    52 116  4 19 .174 11.5
AL WEST            
Seattle       16  9 .640  -   121  96 15 10 .600  -
Oakland       15 10 .600  1   126  93 16  9 .640  0
Anaheim       11 14 .440  5   124 124 13 12 .520  2
Texas         11 14 .440  5   120 153 10 15 .400  5
           
NL EAST  
Philadelphia  16 10 .615  -   145  95 18  8 .692  -
Montreal      15 10 .600  0.5 112  86 15 10 .600  2.5
Atlanta       15 10 .600  0.5 118 130 11 14 .440  6.5
Florida       13 14 .481  3.5 127 138 12 15 .444  6.5
NY Mets       11 14 .440  4.5  90 112 10 15 .400  7.5
NL CENTRAL       
Chicago Cubs  14 11 .560  -   146 102 16  9 .640  -
St. Louis     11 12 .478  2   130 107 14  9 .609  1
Houston       11 13 .458  2.5 106 113 11 13 .458  4.5
Pittsburgh    10 14 .417  3.5  86  98 11 13 .458  4.5
Cincinnati    10 15 .400  4   114 166  8 17 .320  8
Milwaukee      9 16 .360  5   102 138  9 16 .360  7
NL WEST         
San Francisco 18  6 .750  -   125 105 14 10 .583  -
Colorado      14 11 .560  4.5 152 137 14 11 .560  0.5
Los Angeles   12 14 .462  7    93  83 14 12 .538  1
Arizona       11 15 .423  8    97 109 12 14 .462  3
San Diego     10 15 .400  8.5 100 124 10 15 .400  4.5

It makes me think that the Royals', Giants', and Mariners' leads may be shrinking, and that the Phils', and Yanks' may be expanding soon. The Cubs should have a better record, but so should the Cards. The two West divisions may be the most interesting (again) with three or four teams remaining competitive in each.

Stay tuned.

I Guess I Picked the Wrong Day to Give Up Sniffing Glue

ESPN reports that attendance is down 4.8% from the same point last season. And 2002 itself had a 6% decline.

It seems that baseball picked the wrong time to berate itself. The labor negotiations and their attendant (get it?) public disputes were extended an extra year due to the September 11th attacks at the end of the 2001 season. Baseball felt that it was best to delay their minor squabbles (how big of them!). They hadn't planned on the economy collapsing and staying collapsed, the war, SARs, and whatever problem bedevils us this week (Monica Lewinsky hosting a reality show, maybe?).

The owners talked down the sport so much that the fans are still doing it. It was too successful. And the pitbulls that they got rolling, can't seem to stop. I heard Pardon the Interruption's Tony Kornheiser say today that all outfielders should be removed and that they should go to three-ball walks and two-strike Ks after the 12th inning of an extra-inning ballgame because the game is too slow. Aside from the ridiculousness of this assertion (how many 12-inning games are they and are they really the culprits in games taking too long?), it presents an underlying animosity towards the sport.

Baseball has ridden two decades of revenue growth due to a baseball nostalgia that swept the country. They chose to kill that golden goose by pointing out every blemish in the sport just as that nostalgia was wearing thin. Now, sports fans are content to watch Tiger Woods play a "sport" that is the equivalent, in my book, of watching paint dry and they still see a nuanced and exciting game. Auto racing which feels the same to me as a commute home after a day of work (maybe that's why it's so popular: the people who watch it don't get to experience a rush hour when they drive to their job at Stuckey's) is trendy and youthful.

Baseball may have killed that golden goose or at least severely maimed it. I have said this an umpteen plus one times, but what this sport needs to do is sell its superstars. Barry Bonds is sullen. A-Rod, overpaid. Vlad Guerrero, unknown. Greg Maddux, too bookish, Clemens, a bat-wielding hot head. Baseball needs to sell these stars to the public before a whole generation of fans is lost to the poly-knits of golf.

They own all the media anyway. They should now use them to their advantage.

Of course, another factor in all this is the number of new stadiums built in the last 12 or so years. Baseball is now experiencing the effects of those stadiums losing their honeymoon appeal for the fans. Cleveland, as the article points out, was once a franchise to emulate, locking up their young stars to long-term contracts and selling out their stadium, but has had a 30% decline in the last year. (They also gutted their franchise at the same time.)

With Bud Selig announcing that he shall not seek, and will not accept, another term as your baseball commissioner, the sport is at a crossroads at a time when Bud will be starting to gut the offices for cheap supplies with which to outfit his Brewers. Baseball seems unconcerned. Their biggest announcement is that games are now available for a fee on the Web. Given that fans do not wish to pay to actually attend a game, paying to view it on a crappy monitor may have a limited market. Besides MLB.TV may be another means to choke the casual fan's interest in baseball and further distance its fans if it means that games will be unavailable on regular TV (i.e., basic cable).

So what is to be done? Selig should address the issue quickly and decisively. Run some promos featuring baseball stars. Guarantee (or thereabouts) that the All-Star game will not end in a tie. Admit that interleague play is not attracting as many fans as it repels and move on.

That he is doing none of those things speaks for itself. Baseball, meaning the owners, are concerned with reducing payroll and are still kvelling after an offseason of decimating player salaries and creatively pricing ticket packages. Until lower attendance hits their bottomline they will not be concerned about it. And then it may be too late. By that time, a new commissioner and a new CBA may be sought and then the cycle of negatively spinning may start anew. Before the players and owners came to an agreement late last season, some were saying that the sport may not survive another strike or if it did it would be as an NFL Europe-attended event. The two parties signed their CBA and peace is assured for some time, but the fans are reacting like the players are still on strike, staying away in droves. It all makes the players' capitulation to the owners in signing the agreement look like that much more of bad decision in the first place.

Bull Reloaded, III

A few weeks ago I wrote a letter (more accurately a screed) to the Board of Directors of the Baseball Hall of Fame demanding the removal of president Dale A. Petroskey after his handling of the Bull Durham non-celebration.

Today I received the same form letter that has been posted in many places. And the letter is from Petroskey himself. I mean, I really turned up the polemic and the best they can do is to send me a form letter from the man whose dismissal I was demanding. They did not even have the forethought to send the form letter back addressed to the indivdual. It just says "Dear Friend".

Besides my letter was after his public apology. The apology was the impetus for my letter in the first place: "And now his apology dated Friday, April 18 makes it clear that he is content with doing nothing to rectify his mistakes." They could have at least sent me an updated form letter apologizing for the original (non-)apology. Pathetic!

Anyway, here is the form letter for those of you who have not seen it:

April 24, 2003

Dear Friend:

We have received thousands of letters, e-mails, and phone calls about the cancellation of the Bull Durham events scheduled for April 26-27. Thank you for sharing your feelings with us.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a very special place - a national treasure - and my responsibility is to protect it. Politics has no place in The Hall of Fame. There was a chance of politics being injected into The Hall during these sensitive times, and I made a decision to not take that chance. But I inadvertently did exactly what I was trying to avoid. With the advantage of hindsight, it is clear I should have handled the matter differently.

I am sorry I didn't pick up the phone to have a discussion with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon rather than sending them a letter.

We are so lucky to have Baseball - a game that unites us as Americans. The events of the past week show us all that The Game burns brighter than ever and continues to stir passions in many people.

Our wish is that every American will visit Cooperstown and join us in celebrating Baseball, our national pastime and the greatest game of all.

My Best Wishes,

Dale Petroskey

President

"Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet."

Phantastic

I had a trip to Veterans Stadium for today's game penciled in about three months ago. You see, over the winter my daughter received an invitation to the Phillie Phanatic's last birthday at the Vet. She's only four but is already on mailing lists. I had planned on going but delayed in buying the tickets, and then a family obligation cropped up. So of course, today ends up being the day that Kevin Millwood ends up pitching a no-hitter against the Giants, no less, winning 1-0.

I have never seen a no-hitter live and in its entirity.

Millwood seemed to pitch well but had a few lucky breaks. Jose Cruz hit a monster shot to right field that went just foul in the second. Barry Bonds also hit a ball hard that was caught by Abreu in right in the fourth. Marquis Grissom smacked a ball to center in the seventh and Ricky Ledee made a nice running catch on it.

It occurred to me that Millwood, though he pitched a gem, may have been aided by the newly home run-stingy Vet. Here are the teams with the stingiest home parks sorted by homers by at-bat. The team's own home runs and opponents homers are broken out:

Team           Home    Opp.  Total
              HR  AB HR  AB HR   AB   HR%
Pittsburgh     6 471 10 487 16  958 1.67%
NY Mets        8 415  9 445 17  860 1.98%
Kansas City    9 314  4 326 13  640 2.03%
Philadelphia  13 504  8 518 21 1022 2.05%
Detroit        2 242  9 280 11  522 2.11%
Chicago Cubs  14 413  4 419 18  832 2.16%
NY Yankees    12 290  2 300 14  590 2.37%
San Diego      4 338 12 334 16  672 2.38%
Toronto       10 375 10 414 20  789 2.53%
Seattle       10 495 16 521 26 1016 2.56%
Arizona        6 342 12 355 18  697 2.58%
Florida       14 473 11 493 25  966 2.59%
San Francisco 10 308  7 334 17  642 2.65%
Oakland       14 477 11 466 25  943 2.65%
Tampa Bay      9 559 22 557 31 1116 2.78%
Boston        12 309  6 316 18  625 2.88%
Los Angeles    6 299 12 311 18  610 2.95%
Atlanta       13 500 17 516 30 1016 2.95%
Cleveland      9 346 12 353 21  699 3.00%
Houston       12 304  7 309 19  613 3.10%
Anaheim       13 478 18 494 31  972 3.19%
Baltimore     15 437 13 438 28  875 3.20%
St. Louis      8 279 10 283 18  562 3.20%
Minnesota      6 345 19 368 25  713 3.51%
Colorado      18 397 12 396 30  793 3.78%
Cincinnati    21 463 16 511 37  974 3.80%
Texas         28 512 14 489 42 1001 4.20%
Montreal      20 490 23 534 43 1024 4.20%
Milwaukee     14 352 19 381 33  733 4.50%
Chicago Sox   22 396 17 406 39  802 4.86%
Avg           12 397 12 412 24  809 2.97%
Phil (2002)  165    153    318      2.89%
               5523    5481   11004

Note that the Phils are fourth but their HR rate is nearly a third less than 2002 (last line).

The explanation may be that the construction of a stadium right next door set to open in 2004, may have changed the air flow to the outfield. Something similar was said to have happened in Fenway after some boxes were added a few years ago. It'll be interesting to see if the low home run totals continue for the Phils, who were considered by many to have had the most potent offense in the NL coming into the season. One thing to keep in mind with the 2003 Phils is that they are still fifth in baseball, and third in the NL, in runs scored. This may have been due to the Phils being second overall in walks and fifth in on-base percentage (while just 17th in slugging and 12th in batting average).

Competitive Balancing Act II-The King James Version: An Overview of the Literature

Previous entries in the series:

Competitive Balancing Act I-Intro: Chris DeRosa's Reinsdorf Award 2002

Future entries in the series:

Competitive Balancing Act III-This Is Pop: Redefining Large- and Small-Market by Population
Competitive Balancing Act IV-C'mon Freddy, Everyone into the Poo-el: Reviewing the Available Player Pool
Competitive Balancing Act V-Natural Resources: Attendance and Competitive Balance

The financial results of the past season prove that salaries must come down. We believe that players in insisting upon exorbitant prices are injuring their own interests by forcing out of existence clubs which cannot be run and pay large salaries except at large personal lose.

The season financially has been a little better than that of [the previous year], but the expenses of many of the clubs have far exceeded their receipts, attributable wholly to high salaries. In view of these facts, measures have been taken by this League to remedy the evil to some extent for [next season].

- NL President William A. Hulbert, September 29, 1879, announcing the adoption of what he called the "uniform player contract" but which became known as the "reserve clause" after a league meeting in Buffalo.

"Today baseball woke up and recognized there was an 800-pound gorilla sitting in our living room - the lack of competitive balance in the game. Let's cure some of the problems. Enough is enough. Baseball has been for too long a big, old oil transport ship that takes forever to turn. Bud should take the rudder and turn ASAP."

- Larry Lucchino, San Diego Padres, January 20, 2000

By every measure, baseball is in the midst of a great renaissance. Never has the game been more popular. We set a new attendance record in 2000, drawing nearly 73 million fans to our ballparks. More fans attended Major League Baseball games than attended the games of the other three major professional team sports combined. When you add the 35 million fans drawn by minor league baseball, the aggregate number of fans that attended professional baseball is nearly 110 million. In the so-called halcyon days of New York baseball in 1949, the three New York teams-the Yankees, the Dodgers, and the Giants-drew a combined 5,113,000. Last season, the Yankees and Mets drew 6 million.

The only set of circumstances-and I have often said this, Senator -that can impede this great renaissance is our inability to solve the problem of competitive imbalance. During the past decade, baseball has experienced a terribly disturbing trend. To put it simply, an increasing number of our clubs have become unable to successfully compete for their respective division championships, thereby making post-season appearances, let alone post-season success, an impossibility.

The enduring success of our game rests on the hope and faith- key words here, ''hope and faith''-of each fan that his or her team will be competitive. At the start of spring training, there no longer exists hope and faith for the fans of more than half of our 30 clubs, and we must restore that hope and faith.

The trend toward competitive imbalance which is caused by baseball's economic structure began in the early 1990's and has consistently gained momentum. Indeed, as I testified in 1994 before members of the U.S. House of Representatives, baseball's economic problems have become so serious that in many of our cities the competitive hope that is the very essence of our game is being eroded.

Unfortunately, baseball's economic problems have only worsened since 1994, and for millions of our fans the flicker of competitive hope continues to become more faint. The competitive imbalance problem is one that, if not remedied, could have a substantial effect on the continuing vitality of our game.

- Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig at the Senate hearings on competitive balance (i.e., Hearing Before The Subcommittee On Antitrust, Business Rights, And Competition Of The Committee On The Judiciary
United States Senate entitled "Baseball's Revenue Gap: Pennant For Sale?"), November 21, 2000.

Competitive balance has been a concern in baseball almost since the beginning of the sport as an organized concern. In two years leading up to last year's labor dispute and the resulting collective bargaining agreement, Bud Selig and the owners painted a dreary picture of baseball's immediate future. Whether this was just a negotiating tactic or an airing of the sport's laundry in public, it did seem to correspond to the year leading up to the first deadline for the old CBA. And when the deadline was extended in the wake of the September 11th tragedy, the rhetoric seemed also to be extended. Talk of competitive balance since the new CBA is of how the Angels rode the crest of positivity that the improved competitive balance engendered. (You might guess my stance on the issue from these observations.)

I am belatedly starting a series on competitive balance to examine how balanced the game has been historically and how balanced it remains today. I thank Chris DeRosa for allowing me to re-print his Reinsdorf Award 2002 article, which I felt was an excellent opening salvo on the issue. It is from the point of view of a Yankees fan, but given the attack that that franchise has been under from within baseball as well as from the media and the fans, I felt that an incendiary response to those seemingly endemic attacks was more than appropriate. Besides it's damn well-written.

The next section of the competitive balance series will review what has been written up until now regarding the topic. Of course, it will be in my own idiomatically irreverent style. I will review the findings of baseball's independent Blue Ribbon Panel of MLB insiders, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould's explanation for the death of the .400 hitter, Bill James' 1990 analysis on competitive balance, economist Andrew Zimbalist's take on the state of the game, as well as a few papers that I have found online from non-professionals.

To be continued....

Stood Up

My weekly review of Joe Morgan Chat Day will not appear this week beacuse there was no Joe Morgan chat this Friday.

However, I can comment that I thoroughly enjoyed watching Ugueth Urbina blow the ballgame against the Yankees tonight, allowing 2 runs in the tenth. After hearing Morgan's ode to Urbina last weekend in the Rangers-A's Sunday night game, I wanted to retch. Morgan said something to the effect that Urbina was a superior pitcher to the A's closer Keith Foulke and that he had many pitches with which to get a batter out whereas Foulke had but one.

Urbina showed again tonight why he and his ilk are the best argument possible against the post modern closers in the Dennis Eckersley mold. Urbina looked good in the ninth inning of a tie ballgame, striking out Williams and Matsui with Giambi at first and one out. But he walked two of the first four men he faced in the tenth and then relinquished Soriano's game-winning RBI double.

Urbina now has given up eight walks to go with his nine strikeouts in eleven innings. Those eleven innings have been amassed in ten games. Tonight was only the third time he had gone over one inning in an outing and his 1.2 innings tonight are his season high for an outing yet far. Even though opponents have batted .189 against Urbina, he has a 1.36 WHIP (walks plus hits per innings pitched).

Keithe Foulke, on the other hand, has 15 K's and 3 walks in his 12.1 innings this year. Opponents are batting .205 against him but his WHIP is under 1.00 (0.97). Foulke only has two appearances over an inning in his 10 appearances yet far, but one was for 2 innings. Besides given that he has pitched between 77.2 and 105 innings in each of the last 4 seasons, he should continue to roll up the innings (Urbina's high over the same period is 75.2). Also, even though reliever ERAs are somewhat deceptive, Foulke distances himself from Urbina by registering an ERA no higher than 2.97 since 1998. Urbina's low over that period is 3.00 (though he did have a 1.30 ERA in 1998).

Urbina is not a bad pitcher, but he is the typical one who impresses enough to be a closer but does not pitch well enough to be an effective one for his career (see Roberto Hernandez). Morgan is impressed by the variety of his pitches, but when he hangs a 1-2 slider to Soriano to lose the game, one has to wonder if variety alone is such a good thing. Though Foulke still relies on his fastball and excellent changeup combination, his stuff is not such that it would dazzle an overeager analyst like Morgan. Urbina now seems to again have good velocity on his fastball (after some injuries over the last couple of years) and his slider can impress, but he is demonstrably an inferior pitcher to the underrated Foulke, and Morgan should know that.

Call To Arms, III

Apparently, the cell tosser did get tossed in a cell. Thanks to Frank Gill for the link. And apols to the Barney Fifes in Chicago. Also, apols to Don Knotts for comparing him to a Chicago cops.

Frank also sent me this report that the White Sox are upping their security to ensure that upper-deck fans don't mix with the hoity-toity field-level dwellers. My reaction: 1) Who's to say that the field-levelers can't become drunken louts, too, and 2) one moron just ruined it for a bunch of decent fans who get to move up to the good seats. Many of my best baseball moments came from this bending of the rules, and no, it never caused me to run on the field and hump the leg of an umpire. I hope that the rest of the South Side faithful unleash their displeasure with this decision on the moron, and not the security or White Sox personnel.

Call To Arms, II

Apparently, some copycat moron threw a cell phone at Sean Burroughs tonight at Wrigley--what is it with these Chicagoans? Anyway, this idiot at least did not have the aim that Carl Everett's pelter did: the phone hit Burroughs on the foot.

No one was arrested, and the Barney Fifes in the windy hamlet erroneously indicated that no one was hit by the phone in their report. No wonder the show is not called CPD Blue. If you visit Chitown, I hope you don't lose your wallet. These buffoons can't track down the cuplrit even when his phone number is contained in a piece of evidence (i.e., the phone itself).

The Dingers of Ignorance, III

The answer to the all-time leader in home runs by a catcher comes from Chuck Rosciam of the Encycolpedia of Catchers, but it's not at straightforward as I expected. Chuck explains that Fisk holds the "record" according to the SABR HR Encyclopedia at 351, but...

Fisk apparently holds the Record with 351 (out of 376 hit), BUT five of those non-catcher ones were hit between/during position changes. That is, Fisk's last defensive position was catcher in a game, then he came to bat and hit a HR and then he took up a different position in the bottom of the same inning. My logic tells me that he was still a catcher and that he didn't change positions until after he hit those five. That would make his Catcher-only total 356. However, there are 3 games in which he started as a non-catcher, then changed positions during the game with a HR being hit between changes (same rule as previous) and was WRONGLY CREDITED with a homer as a catcher. Now subtract 3 from 356 to make his Catcher Total = 353. Piazza's HR's as a catcher I believe stand at 342 unless he hit one in the past two days. That means that he needs 13 more to hold the record, which he will easily do plus some this season.

It gets kind of complicated. Besides as Chuck mentions, Piazza will obliterate the old "record" anyway, barring some catastrophe. So it won't matter by the time he retires if they count the home runs he hit just as a catcher or they count them all. He will still rank number one among all catchers.

By the way, my friend Mike informs me that the venerable NY Post did notice that Piazza hit his 350th home run but mentioned it just in passing:

"Obviously we got some bad news," said Mike Piazza, who went 2-for-3 with a double and his 350th career homer. "We're gonna have to persevere, scratch and claw and work hard.

"It's a tough time for us."

Wow, poor Mike didn't even get to enjoy it. I hope Alf took him out for a beer or something.

Watching the Detectives

Tony Massarotti of The Boston Herald writes that the Questec Umpire Information System (UIS) that has been implemented in a third of all stadiums may be causing more walks to be issued and also may not be achieving one of its proposed goals-to speed up games.

I have already shown that the system cannot work the way that it is currently envisioned (here and here). The umps hate it and would do something about it if they had a credible union (thanks, Richie Phillips). Now, Questec apparently is causing problems on the field. The umps are nervous to call something a strike if it can be proven to be otherwise. This is evidently getting under some pitchers', catchers', and managers' collective skin. Leave it to the commissioner's office to come up with something as caustic as UIS to tick everyone off.

I do have to say that the implication that Questec is causing runs, home runs, and walks to go up across the majors is a specious contention at best. Questec is only used in one-third of all stadiums. Besides statistics vary from year to year and from park to park and always seem to be higher in the spring anyway. The change may have very little to do with Questec.

Crew chief Randy Marsh's comments regarding "hittable pitches" are very telling though:

"In the past, there have been pitches that are a little off the plate that are hittable pitches that we'd call strikes. If we call them strikes now, we're wrong. You have Questec looking over your shoulder every single pitch.''

The self-importance of the umps to call their own strike zone and not the one defined in the rule book-which Marsh admits was commonly done-is what got us in this mess in the first place. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Well, that sure ain't the umps.

Of course, this is all tilting at windmills. The commissioner's office wants the system because they don't trust the umps. The umps are relatively powerless to stop it. Unless the players union gets involved, in a few years the UIS will be monitoring all major-league games. Where's Neo, aka Mr. Anderson, when you need him anyway?

Appier Way

The Angels' Kevin Appier is calling for a series in Toronto to be moved to Anaheim because of the high incidence of SARS in the Ontario city. I guess that's not much of a disadvantage for the Blue Jays. Why not just make them a traveling road team (there's an independent-league team called the Road Warriors that does it)? I know a stadium in San Juan that they could use if they want to re-locate...

I guess you can't blame the players for being a bit skittish since the World Health Organization has already advised travelers to avoid Toronto. But the Angels are not travelers: they are conducting business. The Asian economy has already taken a healthy hit from SARS. Is Canada next? Isn't time for the ballplayers to step up and be the heroes that they so revered after 9-11, people who were heroically going about their lives under extraordinary circumstances? Can't the ballplayers lead by example here? I know that it's easy for me to say this given that I am not traveling to Toronto on business any time soon. But I wonder what the odds are that the players would come in contact with an infected individual:

"The fact is SARS is there,'' said Dr. Elliot Pellman, MLB's medical adviser. "The other fact is there are 111/2 million people in Ontario, 21/2 million in the greater Toronto area. Take those figures and it's not an epidemic or the black plague. With proper precaution there is very little risk. Is there some risk? Yes.''

That's 140 infected out of 2.5 million people. The possibility seems extremely remote. It's time for the ballplayers to be the heroes that they are painted to be: it's their turns to do something heroic just by going about their lives in extraordinary circumstances.

Reitsma Lips

I hate to say I told you say I told you so, in the sense that I love to say it. The Reds' Chris Reitsma in his first start of the year pitched eight-innings of shutout ball and won, 3-0.

Go ahead and smile Chris. You earned it.

I have been saying all along that the Reds made a mistake sending Reitsma down (he was the last pitcher with options left in spring training). It wasn't pretty but two nicely turned double-plays by fellow replacement Juan Castro (plus a home run) sealed the Dodgers' fate.

Cincinnati manager Bob Boone was non-commital before the game as to whether Reitsma would get more than one start. He doesn't have a choice now: Reitsma now leads all Reds starters in ERA and is tied for the lead in wins.

Castro and Reitsma's night underscores how poor Boone's spring training decisions were. He dumped Reitsma because of his poor won-loss record in 2002, ignoring his good ERA. Boone also moved son Aaron to second in the offseason. Pere Boone has since moved back to third and Castro is filling in at second.

Don't worry though. There are still many Boone errors to fix. Reggie Taylor is filling in for Ken Griffey in center field, a questionable decision at best, but Taylor and his career .274 on-base percentage batted second tonight (for the first time this season). Taylor left the game batting .167 for the season. I know he has a lefty bat and you want the lefty-right matchup against the tough righty Dreifort, but Taylor for his career has an OBP of .292 vs. righties. Where's the advantage?

The bad thing with reversing all of Boone's mistakes is that it may end up saving his job. I guess that's a risk the Reds are willing to take.

Parody of Parity

Here are some notes on the streaky nature of the 2003 season so far, from our friend Christian Ruzich, the Sosa Soothsayer, the Banks Briefer, the Wrigley Regaler, the Ivy Inquirer, the-OK, that's enough of that-The Cub Reporter.

The Good

Yankees 17-3; best start ever; best 20-game performance since 1998
Red Sox 14-6; third straight year and 4th out of 6 that they've started 14-6
Royals 15-3; best start ever; best 18-game performance since 1994
Expos 12-8; for the third time in four years
Cubs 13-7; best start since 1995
Giants 15-4; best start since 1945

The Bad
Blue Jays 7-14; worst start since 1981
Indians 7-1;3 worst start since 1993
Reds 6-14; worst start since 1997
Diamondbacks 7-13; worst start since inaugural season of 1998

The Ugly
Tigers 1-17; worst start ever; worst 18-game performance since 1996

It is kind of funny that this season is being trumpeted as an endorsement for last year's Collective Bargaining Agreement given the parity it supposedly engendered. I guess by MLB's definition of parity, i.e, emulating football and basketball, it qualifies. The Tigers are baseball's answer to the Grizzlies and the Bengals.

The Dingers of Ignorance, II

Leave it to Lee Sinins! No sooner do I post my previous piece, in which I state that no one noticed Mike Piazza had hit his 350th home run, than do I receive my ATM Report from Lee featuring the feat. As far as I can tell, Lee scooped ESPN.com, MLB.com, CNN/SI, the USA Today, and the New York Times. Nice going, Lee.

Later, I will use his Sabermetric Baseball Encyclopedia to determine how far Piazza is from the all-time HR mark for catchers (It's at home).

The Dingers of Ignorance

Last night I watched Mike Piazza became only the fourth catcher to hit 350 home runs with a ninth-inning no-question shot into the left field bleachers at Shea. The homer raised the dead of the Mets lineup (or was it the cheesy NY apple that sprang up as a result of the HR). The Mets started the ninth down 6-1 and eventually brought the tying run to the plate in the person of Tsuyoshi Shinjo. But he lined out with the bases loaded to end it (interestingly, Billy Wagner was not awarded a save in the effort; EDIT: Actually Wagner didn't qualify since his team led by more than 3 runs when he entered, and getting the tie run to the plate was largely his doing: Burnitz HBP and a Bell walk. Wagner would need to face the tying run in his first two batters, so my comment was erroneous).

The three other catchers are Johnny Bench (389), Carlton Fisk (376), and "Yo? No, Yogi" Berra (358). I confirmed this at a great new (at least to me) site called the Encyclopedia of Baseball Catchers, which I have added under my Reference Links.

But it occurred to me that Bench and Berra played other positions towards the end of their careers (third base and left field respectively), and even Fisk would DH from time to time. Could Piazza have more home runs as a catcher than any of these men?

So I checked the great but out-of-date SABR's Home Run Encyclopedia since they list career home run leaders by position. I found that Fisk had the most as a catcher with 351.

Could Piazza be within one of the all-time record? Well, the HR Encylclopedia could not help since it was published in 1996 and, therefore, was not helpful for investigating Piazza. All I could dig up online regarding position batting stats for Piazza was that since 1999 and he had 8 non-catching home runs (6 as a DH and 2 as a pinch-hitter). I will do a bit more research to find the real total, but given that the baseball world is so record-crazed, I am surprised I didn't hear any mention of the feat (i.e., 350 homers). The ESPN recap of the game doesn't even mention it. I guess it's because the Mets don't play in a big media town. Yeah, and to quote Spinal Tap, "Boston's not a big college town."

411 on 423

Some tidbits on April 23:

- Four eventual Hall-of-Famers hit their first home run on this day: Hank Aaron (1954), Ted Williams (1939), Hoyt Wilhelm (1952 in first major-league game), and Ferguson Jenkins (1966). Aaron would go on to hit 754 more, Williams 520, Wilhelm zero in 431 more at-bats and 1069 more games, and Jenkins 12 (and 6 in 1971 when he slugs .478 and has an OPS of .761).

- Fernando Tatis became the first to hit two grand slams in one inning and, in the process, set the single-inning RBI record at 8.

- The Mets and Yankees (then Highlanders) won their first regular-season game as New York teams in 1962 and 1903 respectively. Also, in 1929 on this day, the Yankees become the first team to wear numbers on their uniforms, losing 4-2 to the Red Sox at Fenway.

- No-Nos: The Colt .45's Ken Johnson in 1964 became the first man to lose a nine-inning no-hitter, 1-0 to Cincinnati. Pete Rose scored in the ninth on a Nellie Fox error, the second by Houston in the inning. Also, in 1989 Nolan Ryan missed garnering his sixth no-hitter by two outs as Nelson Liriano tripled with one out in the ninth. He would get two more no-no's a little later on. Lastly Brooklyn's Ed Head in 1946 throws a no-hitter, 5-0, against the Braves. It is his first game since returning from military service.

News of the Stupid

Mike's Baseball Rants has recorded consecutive months with over 5,500 visitors for the first time. Thanks to a nice plug from Lee Sinins, I recorded my second highest single-day hit total (800 and counting) and passed 5,500 for the month. April is also the fourth straight month that MBBR has recorded 5,000 or more visits. Thanks for stopping by.

Also, MBBR is listed under the Adorable Little Rodents section of the Truth Laid Bear's Blogosphere Ecosystem. I was listed number 342, the highest baseball blog that I saw. I believe the listing is by links. Whatever it is, I'll take it. However, I'm not thrilled by the adorable characterization. Curmudgeonly may be more fitting, but as Stephen Wright said, "You can't have everything. Where would you put it?" Thanks to all my fellow bloggers who felt the site link-worthy.

Buster Bronx

Alex Belth at Bronx Banter has an interview of Buster Olney of The New York Times. Go check him out.

It's a Holi-Joe Morgan Chat Day, II

Charlie Mikolajczak writes:

When moron Joe Morgan said that the Yanks bat Nick Johnson 2nd because he can hit the ball the other way makes absolutely no sense, unless he was trying to infer that Johnson is a better contact hitter than Mondesi (which he is). However, he compares Johnson to Jeter in their ability to go the other way, which is a bit of a problem considering one is lefty and the other is a righty. You WANT a righty batting 2nd to be able to go the other way because of the whole that opens up on the right side w/the first baseman holding the runner on and the ability to go first to third on a basehit. Obviously, it's a wee bit tougher to go first to third with Nick Johnson going the other way and slapping the ball into left field. This kills me that he never mentions that when you take into account that Morgan is considered one of the best baserunners/stealers in baseball. (He was, you can just ask him).

Good point, Charlie. I was too concerned with Morgan contradicting himself to notice that his comments made no sense. Thanks.

Detroit?! No, Not Detroit!

A comment from my friend Murray that the Yankees have more home runs (39) than the Detroit Tigers have runs (34-actually Texas has more, 35, too) got me to thinking. The Detroit Tigers are 17 games into their schedule and are 13 full games behind the Royals in the AL Central with their major-league worst 1-16 record and an anemic .059 winning percentage

That means that they are a third of the way to their 39 games back from 2002, when they were tied for the worst record in baseball (with Tampa Bay at 55-106, .342). They were only 6.5 games behind Kansas City at the end of 2002 and were supposed to have a dogfight with the Royals for last place this year. The biggest change in Detroit was hiring former Tiger star Alan Trammell as manager. Even though this was his first managerial gig ever (well, discounting little league ball), the move was heralded by many analysts (aka Joe Morgan).

The Tigers divested themselves of their 2002 leader in OPS (Randall Simon) and top-two home run hitters (Simon and Robert Fick). In 2002, they had six starting pitchers who threw 10 or more starts. Four of those six are no longer in the rotation (Jose Lima, Mark Redman, Jeff Weaver who was traded mid-2002 to the Yankees, and Steve Sparks who is now in the pen). They added a 20-year-old who had never pitched above Single-A (Jeremy Bonderman), and who now sports a 10.22 ERA and a 0-3 record.

How bad is this team? It may be unfair to evaluate them given that they are barely one-tenth of the way into the season and have only faced three clubs, but given that it should be fun, I will risk it. The Tigers are batting .180 as a team. They have a .493 OPS (on-base plus slugging), which is lower than the Yankees and Rangers' slugging average. They have five home runs and have allowed 23. They have two doubles in 538 at-bats. Their on-base percentage (.247) is worse than every other team's batting average and is 56 points behind the second worst team (the Mets). Their slugging average is over one hundred points behind the second-worst team (the Pirates). They have scored half as many runs as the second-worst team in that category (Arizona). They have three stolen bases in 11 chances. Their OPS leader is Greg Kingsdale with a .725 average. Eric Munson leads them with two home runs. They have five regulars below the Mendoza line.

All of that sounds pretty bad, but is it historically bad?

Well, if they play as well as they did last year the rest of the way, they will end up with 51 wins and 111 losses. There are only 14 teams all-time that have lost that many games, the last being the 1965 Mets at 50-112. Keep in mind that it would be a seemingly Herculean task for the 2003 Tigers to catch up with last year's team. If they could be a .500 club the rest of the way, they would end up about 73-89 anyway. For them to end up with a .500 record, they would have to go 80-65 or win 55.2% of their games (comparable to an 89-73 record over 162 games). If the Royals go .500 the rest of the way, the Tigers would have to go 86-59 or win 59.3% of their remaining games to pass them (that would 96-66 based on a 162-game schedule).

Still not convinced? How does this grab you, Kyle?

The only year in which one team had more home runs than another team scored runs was 1884. The Chicago White Stockings (now Cubs) hit 142 home runs, had four men with at least 20 each, and were led in the statistic by Ned Williamson, whose 27 stood until Babe Ruth broke it in 1919. It seems that they changed the ground rules in their last year at Lake Front Park: in previous years, balls over the right field fence only 196 feet away from home counted as a double. In 1884, they became home runa and Chicago increased their homer output 10-fold. They also scored 7.38 runs per game. The NL passed a rule after that season that the minimum distance for outfield fences would need to be at least 210 feet.

Chicago's 142 dingers were more than the number of runs scored by four Union Association teams (the one-year UA is recognized as a major league though it is arguably the weakest one in history). Those four teams were the Milwaukee Brewers (53 runs in only 12 games), Mountain City club of Altoona (Pa., 90 runs in 25 games), St. Paul Apostles (24 runs in 9 games), and Wilmington Quicksteps (35 runs in 18 games). As you can tell, a number of these teams did not last the entire season.

The closest anyone has come to out-homering another teams run output in the "modern" era was in 1981 when the Oakland A's hit 104 home runs and the Blue Jays scored only 329 runs, with a difference of 225. So no one has come close over a full season to the comparative weakness of the Tigers offense using this as a measuring stick.

Here are a few more tidbits that might interest you:

As I said, the Tigers are only batting .180 as a team. There have only been seven teams in baseball history that have hit .200 or less, and none have done it since 1884:

Year	BA	Team
1873	.156	Baltimore Marylands (NA)
1875	.197	Brooklyn Atlantics (NA)
1875	.180	Keokuk Westerns (NA)
1875	.195	Washington Nationals (NA)
1884	.199	Kansas City (UA)
1884	.180	St. Paul (UA)
1884	.175	Wilmington (UA) 

The Tigers have scored exactly two runs per game (34 runs in 17 games). The only other major-league team to do that was the 1884 Wilmington UA club that scored an average of 1.94 runs per game (or 35 runs in 18 games).

The Tigers are on pace to hit just 47.6 home runs for the season based on their 5 in 17 games. No team has ever hit that few home runs over the course of a 162-game season. The 1981 Padres hit just 32 home runs in 110 games, which projects to 47.13 home runs in 162 games. If you don't want a strike-interrupted season, the 1949 White Sox hit 43 dingers in 154 games (or 45.23 in 162 games). The lowest in a 162-schedule was the 1979 Astros who hit 49 homers. The team leader in home runs was Jose Cruz (Sr.) with nine.

So there you are. If you don't believe me that the 2003 Tigers, at least in their first 17 games, are the most anemic offensive team in history, then nothing will convince you. Tiger fans should take heart given that no team has performed this badly over the course of the season. However, one hundred losses appear more certain than ever for Detroit. It's hard to believe that they were just 4 games under .500 just three years ago.

All I Am Saying Is Give the Batter's Box a Chance

My friend Murray dropped me a line containing the following:

I don't want to blame MLB for the idiots who misbehave at ballparks...well, no, actually, I do, just a little bit. Baseball is not a violent game, but every time you have one of these beanball incidents, you raise the blood-lust level at the park. The Royals/Sox game where Laz Diaz was attacked featured a beanball dispute in the *first inning*. It isn't the root cause, but it sets a tone for the evening for a group largely filled with young, single males whose discretionary income is wasted on watery beer.
Look, is the pitcher's right to hit batters part of the game, or not? If it is, then Tino shouldn't charge the mound, should he? He just has to wait for his pitcher to drill the other guy, and then it's over, isn't it?
Somebody has to explain to the players that all this machismo posturing is bad for the game, and bad for public safety. Think of it as you might the advisories tourists used to receive before traveling abroad about wearing baseball caps and sneakers. Before they became the global uniform, it was a sure-fire way to be branded an American tourist, which wasn't advisable in all parts of the world. If the game on the field is free of fighting, maybe the crowd won't be as edgy.
It's a theory, that's all.

I couldn't agree more. The aggression on field that started in spring training for goodness' sake and has continued ever since. I think that these moron fans are affected to a certain degree by the behavior modeled on the field.

The latest Chicago attacker said that he was just trying to stand out from the idiots who proceeded him. He didn't want to inflict any pain on the umpire he attacked. He just wanted to give the crowd that little bit extra. Aw, he did it for the little people; isn't that sweet? Maybe it's his temporarily idiocy defense, I don't know.

Here's mine: if you want to control violence in the sport, enforce the batter's box. The rules say:

6.03
The batter's legal position shall be with both feet within the batter's box. APPROVED RULING: The lines defining the box are within the batter's box...

6.06
A batter is out for illegal action when (a) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely outside the batter's box. If a batter hits a ball fair or foul while out of the batter's box, he shall be called out. Umpires should pay particular attention to the position of the batter's feet if he attempts to hit the ball while he is being intentionally passed. A batter cannot jump or step out of the batter's box and hit the ball.

If the umpires enforce the batter's box, i.e., the back line, the inner line, the whole enchilada, then you wouldn't see batters standing on top of the plate, who would have to be brushed back on a regular basis to keep them honest. Batters now feel that they own the plate and are enraged, like Thomas in the ump-attack game, whenever a pitcher has the temerity to assert himself on the inside half of the plate.

Besides how often can you even see the box after the first inning? Prevent batters from rubbing out the batter's box lines and if they are successful anyway, have it redrawn.

Maybe enforcing the batter's box won't do a darn thing, but it's cheaper for the owners than cutting beer sales or hiring extra security and it's less intrusive than partitions around the playing field. Besides with the popular backlash against home runs, enforcing the batter's box should help reduce the number of home runs hit. And then we won't have to hear about steroids. No matter how you look at it, it's a win-win decision.

It's a Holi-Joe Morgan Chat Day (Mama Mama Please, No More Face Lifts-
I Just Don't Know Which One You Is!)

Why is this Joe Morgan Chat Day different from all other Joe Morgan Chat Days? Well, this weekend represents a holiday time for many in the baseball-viewing community. Many will be damming their intestinal tracts with matzoh while others will "cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war", if you catch my meaning, with tons of Easter candy. But whether you enjoy PAAS-colored eggs and Peep chicks or heavy Malaga and charoses on your afikoman, Joe has a message for you. Joe is the world, after all.

For both Christians and Jews, Joe represents a time of redemption. For Christians Joe's rebirth as an analyst has an historical antecedent. But given Joe's subsequent fall after the death of his playing career, his forefather is not likely to be found in The Bible but rather in Milton's Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno.

For Jews, Joe can be used as an example for future generations that there is a promised land. One must suffer through the oppressive commentary of today, through the plagues of Thom Brennaman, to get to the promised land. Joe will lead his baseball people to Canaan. He will part the Red Sea: "The Reds were the greatest, see?" Unfortunately, that promised land was the land promised by Joe himself, the land that he chooses to cover and he will brook no breach by analysis and the like.

You may have about, oh, let's say, four questions about Joe Morgan Chat Day:

1) Why is Joe Morgan different from all other analysts? Joe was one of our favorite players (again I use the royal "we" or "our"). He is arguably the greatest second baseman of all time. He also seems a rather pleasant fellow. But as an analyst he parts his Red Sea of opinions between great observations by an all-time great player and prodigious pusillanimous palaver from a punch-less palooka.

2) Why is it that with most chat sessions, there is only the chat session itself, but with Joe's chat, there is a double dip, if you will, the original chat and Mike's commentary on the chat? We here at Mike's Baseball Rants are fascinated with the baseball Rashomon that is a Joe Morgan chat session. That is why. To hear such great baseball insight paired with idiocy is a rare thing indeed.

3) Why is that even the flat, unleavened commentary from Joe must be commented upon? Because true Joe-ness is only achieved through digesting the small details. Otherwise the broad strokes would lose all context.

4) With other chat sessions, one must read in an upright position usually at your desk chair at work. But with Joe's chats, one should read in a reclining position, why? Because Joe's chat must be savored or one loses one of the great pleasures of the sport.

So without further ado...

So even if your head is wood,
Comments, if ugly, bad, or good,
Will bring lots of tasty pain. Oy Vey!

The Good: Eating the chocolate bunny's ears first

Jay (Detroit): hey Joe, are the Tigers mathematically eliminated yet?

Maybe not mathematically! Mentally I think they are. But, it's still early. Everyone is jumping on the Giants bandwagon and bagging on teams that have started slow. It's a 162 game season. The Giants will slump.. the Yankees will slump.. everyone will slump at some point. And even the bad teams will go on a streak.. it takes about 50 games to get a real pulse on how good a team can or can't be.

[Mike: OK, that seems reasonable although sometimes it takes longer than 50 games. The Angels were 29-21 four games behind Seattle (with Oakland 10 back) on May 20, 2000, 50 games into their season. The Red Sox were a full game up on the Yankees and the Reds were one half-game ahead of the Cardinals in 2002 after 50 games.

Jay (Minneapolis, MN) : Hey Joe, after the Twins bad start they have won six in a row, can they finally beat the Yankees now?

Again, I think it's too early to tell. I think they need to beat the White Sox first. It's too early to be thinking about the playoffs. Teams are still trying to find their niche and get their guys in the right spot. But the Twins are a fun team to watch.

[Mike: Right, Joe. See note above about early leads.

Keith (Brooklyn, NY): Hey Joe, What do you think of Roberto Alomars play in New York? I only saw espn highlights of him when he was in cleveland and other places. But he does some unexplicable things with the Mets. Head first slides into first, shying away from double play turns, bunting with runners in scoring position. Is this normal for Robby?

It would be unfair for me to comment, I haven't seen him play yet this year. But his average has climbed a bit .. he has been a good player over his career, he just has adjustments to make. When you get older, things don't always work the same way and you have to adjust. I expect him to do better than he did last year.

[Mike: Yeah, I guess he kind of has to improve. Given how bad he was in 2002, his career would dead-end if he continued on that path. Besides given how good he was in 2001, it's doubtful that his 2002 decline was just a normal one due to age.

The Bad: Someone's eaten your Peep chicks sugar eyes

Rob (Yorktown, VA): Do you think there will ever be another 30 game winner?

No. Wen pitchers pitch every fifth day, they really are only going to get 30-32 starts a year. You aren't going to win 30 out of 32. In the past guys got 35-40 starts. But that doesn't happen anymore.

[Mike: Well, that's not exactly true. Most teams do not employ a true 5-man rotation until May given the number of off days in April. The top starters still get 35 or 36 starts a season if healthy.

Denny McLain had 41 starts in 1968, the year he became the last 30-game winner. Bob Welch, the man who has come closest (27-6) since, had 35 starts in 1990. Randy Johnson had 35 last season. Pedro Martinez has never started more than 33, but that has a lot to do with injuries.

Yes, it's much harder now. And yes, there is much less margin for error. But winning 30 games is not yet as impossible as Joe paints it to be.]

Blake Mitchell (Austin, Texas): Hi, Joe--A concern I have about the Giants being more aggressive on the basepaths this season is that they will experience more injuries (i.e. Ray Durham already) ... is that something that normally happens and should be expected with teams who employ that style of play?

No... players today are in better shape than every before. That used to be a problem in the past. Being aggressive on the bases and injuries don't' go hand in hand. The Angels were very aggressive last year and it wasn't a problem for them.

[Mike: Has this ever been a problem? It seems to me that heavier, power-hitter types tend to suffer more injuries than the fleet, typically younger base stealers, but I've never seen a study of it.]

Chris, Boston: What would have happened if the Royals did not take the field this week against the White Sox? Would it have been a forfeit or would they haved made it up later? Do you feel that Chicago fans are a bit off compared to the rest of the league's, or is this just a few crazies that all happened to be in Chicago?

The umpires would have to declare the forfeit .. Sparky Anderson took us off the field once because they were throwing things at Rose. But they got the guy who was throwing things, got things under control and we went back out. The umpires could have called a forfeit if they felt it was out of control.

I can't really say anything about the Chicago fans.. I don't know them all. Maybe it's like hitting and it's contagious ..

[Mike: Actually, there is nothing explicitly in the rules that allows for a forfeit to be awarded to a team when they won't take the field under these circumstances. Here is the rule that pertains:

3.18
The home team shall provide police protection sufficient to preserve order. If a person, or persons, enter the playing field during a game and interfere in any way with the play, the visiting team may refuse to play until the field is cleared. PENALTY: If the field is not cleared in a reasonable length of time, which shall in no case be less than fifteen minutes after the visiting team's refusal to play, the umpire may forfeit the game to the visiting team.

It does not mention a team preemptively declining to take the field because they are not pleased with the home team's security measures. No one (i.e., a marauding moronic fan) is yet on the field and there is no reason that anyone would necessarily go one the field to became a threat (and no one did in the next game).

There is also this rule:

3.11
Between games of a doubleheader, or whenever a game is suspended because of the unfitness of the playing field, the umpire in chief shall have control of ground keepers and assistants for the purpose of making the playing field fit for play. PENALTY: For violation, the umpire in chief may forfeit the game to the visiting team.

I guess the ump could claim that the field is inherently unfit because security did not take sufficient measures, but that's a bit of a stretch.]

Tony (Portland): People in my area are making a big deal of the Mariners outfield and how it is one of the best in the big leauges on defense. It is the best I have seen, but I havn't seen that many. I was wondering what is the best out field you ever saw?

I agree the Mariners are really good in the outfield .. probably the best I remember was the Cardinals with Flood, Pinson and Brock .. seems you couldn't get a ball between those guys ..

[Mike: Ichiro and Cameron did win Gold Gloves together in 2001. That makes them one of only 12 outfields all-time to do that (none have won three). Winn is a center fielder playing left. They're very good, but I don't know if you can call them the best ever.

By the way, Flood did win seven Gold Gloves, but Pinson only won one and Brock none. And Flood and Pinson never won a Gold Glove in the same year.]

Lucas (Grand Rapids, MI): Hey Joe. Many people believe that A-Rod may retire as the best player ever? Any thoughts? Thanks.

He certainly is moving in that direction.. he is a great player and he plays hard everyday.. that is a main criteria. Everything he does fits that mold. It will always be tough to take one player and say he his the best.. you can't discout Mays, Aaron, Ruth.. just because I guy has better stats doesn't always mean he is better .. it is easier to hit HRs today than it was back then. Easier .. not easy.

[Mike: Does Joe even know that Barry Bonds is playing? After the last two seasons, how can anyone mention another player in the same breath as Bonds as the best player of his era?

By the way, ESPN ran a poll this weekend as to the answer to this question. The results A-Rod destroyed Bonds. Vlad was a not-too-distant third. Can he be that big a jerk that everyone can discount his two historic seasons and incredible career?

Oh, and I like the analysis from Morgan on the difficulty, or lack there of, of hitting homers today. The man is a true sabermetrician in his heart.]

David, Bloomington, IN: Hey Joe, do you still remember all the words to "Proud to be an Astro"????

Sorry .. No, I do not! But it was a part of my life for a long time.

[Mike: From Ball Four:

"We'll make the other hitters laugh,
Then calmly break their bats in half.
It makes a fellow proud to be an Astro."

If I were Larry Dierker, Joe's former teammate and the song's author, I would be a bit miffed.]

Martin (Dunsmuir, CA): Hey Joe. Why don't players bunt more to get on base? I see guys like Dave Roberts, Johnny Damon, Jimmy rollins and Rafael Furcal who can be much more effective if they'd just concentrate on getting on base for the hitters behind them. Is bunting for a hit not glamorous enough or something?

That's a very good question.. what has happened is the HR is more glamourous, like you say, although I think bunting is very exciting. Ichiro is fun to watch. It's a lost art .. people do not practice it. They bunt two balls and then swing for the fences. It's a lost art because the philosphy of the game has changed.

[Mike: "[T[he HR is more glamourous"? How 'bout more effective? It is darn hard to record an out when the ball is hit over the fence, but not so with a bunted ball. And the payoff is far greater with a homer. Isn't that what it's all about: using each at-bat to execute the play that is the best gamble and to minimize your outs?

"[B]unting is very exciting"? How exciting is a foul-tip strikeout?

"They bunt two balls and then swing for the fences." Maybe they should bunt and foul off the third ball, thereby striking out?]

Mike (Hampton, NH): Hi Joe, One of the local sports talk show hosts insisted that it was a bad move by the Red Sox to pitch Pedro Martinez last night in the cold weather (21 degrees with wind chill). I was there in the stands rooting him on. If the Red Sox are going to be successful in the post season, Pedro has to be able to pitch in cold weather. there are very few 80 degree nights in Boston in October. What do you think?

I like the last thought .. you have to be able to pitch in any condition, just like hitters. Sometimes you do have to be careful with guys like Pedro or guys who have had arm problems. It is harder to get loose in cold weather. But if he can get loose, he should pitch.

[Mike: Yes, Pedro should pitch if possible. I think that coddling a pitcher ends up getting them hurt more often than treating them like any other pitcher. That's not to say that they should take unnecessary risks, like throwing 140 pitches in a 10-0 shutout, but reasonable use should not be avoided.

As far as April starts helping in the cold of October, how can one cold-weather start now help Pedro six months from now? Do games in the Winter League heat help a player in the dog days of summer?]

Ryan, PA: Hey Joe! Now with Griffey out I think the Reds need to put Kearns in center, and the young guy Wily Mo in right do you agree with me? He's notting getting any better on the bench. thanks

I do not know enough about Wily but this is the time to experiment and find out what you have as far as players in your system. Find someone you think has a good shot and give him a chance. The Reds aren't going anyplace .. so yes, I agre with you.

[Mike: "The Reds aren't going anyplace"? When Joe wrote this Cincinnati was 5-11. They are now 6-13. Does Joe remember that the Angels started 6-14 last year and won it all? Yes, that outcome is extremely unlikely for the Reds, but it's far from time to throw in the towel.

The Reds should put in the player that they feel would make them the best team possible this season. Pena has been highly touted seemingly for years even though he is only 21. Pena has been given only 8 at-bats so far this season, which is a great indictment of Bob Boone's management style. Given that the other option (the one Boone is pursuing) is to put Reggie Taylor in center, I would rather try Pena. They already know what Taylor can do, or more importantly, what he can't do.]

Pete (Washington DC): Should beer sales be banned from stadiums, close sales after the 4th inning or some other restriction?

No .. First of all, I don't think you can limit beer sales anymore than they already do. You say a guy can only get 3 beers .. what's to stop him from getting someone else to buy him a beer? Someone who wants a drink will find a way of getting it. The fans just have to be more responsible ... that's the only way it will work.

[Mike: No, why can't the stadium or the team be held responsible for serving beer to already drunken morons? Bars are held responsible for ensuring their patrons are not out of control.

Here's what you do: Limit patrons to, say, 5 beers. Put 5 beer stein icons on each ticket. Each time a patron orders a beer, you punch his ticket. If he buys for his buddy, he still gets punched twice, and the buddy will have to make up for it with the next round. If all 5 pictures are punched, that patron gets no more beer.

The attacker admitted to entering the game drunk anyway. Maybe he should have been turned away at the gate.]

Matt(Boise): Joe, I heard you once recite a dity you said to yourself before each at bat...was too slow writing it down. Would you please share that again...it was the best focus technique I've heard. Thanks

See the ball before you stride
Let it go if it's outside
If it's a curve and breaks down,
Jack up and hit it downtown!

[Mike: That doesn't really scan. Here's a new one for Morgan the analyst:

Make the call before you decide
If you're on one or the other side.
If it's a player of some renown,
Be sure to praise him up and down.]

Andy (Rochester NY): How come the Mariners do not hit Ichiro in the 3 spot and move Winn to the 1, Boone to the second? Ichiro with his average could get a great number of rbi's which i do not think Bret Boone could do. Your thoughts?

I don't know where you think Boone can't .. he drove in 142 two years ago and over 100 last year. There is some logic to what you are saying, you could take advantage of Winn's speed but Boone has proven to be more of an RBI man than Ichiro. I understand your logic, and if they had gotten off to a slow start, you might have seen that.

[Mike: A) Every study indicates that it really doesn't matter all that much. B) Ichiro does not have the power associated with a typical number three hitter.]

Dan (Hartford, CT): Hey Joe, What is the difference between this year's Yanks and last year'? I mean they look great, they are taking pitches, not striking out and other than almonte not making errors, were they always this good, or is this just a spell?

I think they are a better team. Matsui puts the ball in play and doesn't strike out a lot. Their starting pitcher is better. Clemens, Mussina and Pettitte, will they hold up over the season? Who knows. But I think they are a better team.

[Mike: Uh, Joe, Clemens, Mussina, Pettitte, and the rest of the starters were on the Yankees last season. ]

Brian (Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada): What do you think are the chances that Mark McGwire gets involved in the game somehow in the future? What do you think he might do if he was so inclined?

I think he is involved and is slowly opening up to being involved in the game now. When he left he just wanted to get away but after time you want to come back. I think he will get that feeling.

[Mike: McGwire was known as a surly player prior to his move to St. Louis and his 1998 apotheosis. Maybe he prefers being surly or at least being left alone.]

Joe (Old Bridge, NJ): Hey Joe, Lance Berkman has a mild sprain in his elbow. Do you think the Astros should sit him for a while, call up Jason Lane and finally find out what the 26-year-old can do? Then if he does well and Berkman comes back, Jimmy Williams finally has a reason to bench Hidalgo?

It depends on Berkman. If he feels he can play, you have to let him play. The decision is his. The player knows how much the injury is affecting his play. That's how it has to be.

[Mike: Well, no. Players always want to play, at least the good ones. Managers must make the call given advice from the coaches, trainer, player, etc. Hidalgo is still owed at least $22 M over the next two years and he's hitting (.919 OPS) , so he will play no matter what. I think the Astros know what Lane can do but will not turn to him unless there is a significant injury.]

Justin ( Oklahoma City): Joe, The AL West's collective record is not too great right now. What does that say about the balance in the West this year and how strong it will be?

I thought the West would be a close race anyway .. my reason for thinking that was I felt like Texas would be better than they were. That would make every team capable of winning. I'm not so sure Texas will be able to overcome their inablity to shut teams down. I think it will still be a close race.

[Mike: The AL West's collective record is .500 because its teams have only played each other. The three other teams are clearly better than the Rangers so they are in last even though they appear to have impoved. Let's allow the Rangers to play someone outside their division before we decide their fate.]

Jeff (Chicago, IL): Joe, Right now 4 AL Central teams are among the league leaders in staff ERA. Do you think it's a sign of great pitching in the division, or just a case of those teams' benefitting from playing the Tigers?

(Laughing) It's a combination. Not all their games have been against the Tigers! They are just pitching well.. pitchers have an advantage coming out of Spring Training and into the first couple weeks of the season because of the cold weather back East.

[Mike: Or maybe it's two weeks into the season. So far the pitchers don't appear to have an advantage with the high scores that have been rung up-ask the Reds if their pitchers have had an advantage.]

Karrum (Terre Haute): Do you thinkBig Unit will get out of his funk. Is he pressing or has his age caught up with him?

I think he definitely will pitch well.. he is too good not to. He has a knee problem which is bothering him. Onc he gets healthy, he will be dominate again. I wouldn't worry about Randy.

[Mike: Except at his age, injuries will take longer to heal and may take a greater toll. A severe dropoff due to injury is not out of the question.]

The Ugly: Can't find the $%^ Easter basket but you do find last year's afikoman

Aurora (Hawaii): Mr. Morgan, The San Francisco Giants are off to a great start this year! What do you think of the coaching style of Felipe Alou as compared to Dusty Baker and what contribution has it made towards that great start? PS: You look great on TV

They are two different managers. Alou is more of a gambler. He likes to push the button and make things happen. Dusty adjusted more to what kind of team they had at that point. They were a power team. Dusty would have loved to have the team Alou has now. They are different mostly because of the teams they had.

[Mike: But what about the question of a great start? Joe, answer the question that was offered.

Alou has always been known as a player's manager but so has Baker. Alou was highly successful at motivating his players in Montreal for his first few years. Maybe it's that. Maybe it's luck. Who knows?]

Jon Philly, PA: Hey Joe, do have any explanation as to why the Phillies can score 16 runs one day, and then struggle to get a hit the next? Will it be like this the whole year, or is it too early to tell?

When that happens, it has to do with hitting being contagious, like I said before. The pitcher from the day before, if he shuts you down, it starts to press on you. If you score on him, it relaxes you and you hit well. The one thing about baseball, everyday is differnet because it's a different pitcher each day.

[Mike: No, that does not explain the up-and-down Phillies offense. If they are pressing to score after being shut down by the previous day's pitcher, wouldn't they continue to press. If your statements were true the Phillies would not be so mutable.

Maybe they have just faced some good pitching?

The rest is an OBP montage. Joe has condemned OBP as an overrated stat and continues the quest to ignore it's value here.]

Justin (Phoenix AZ): Do the Diamondbacks have enough offense to be a serious contender?

I have questioned their offense the last couple years but they have scored runs and when Schilling and Johnson are on, you don't need as much offense. But that is a question mark for them.

[Mike: Arizona led the league in runs in 2002. They also led in on-base percentage, which we all know Morgan feels is overrated. Arizona has a .314 OBP this year and is 28th in the majors in runs scored. Tony Womack (.215 OBP and .204 leading off), Junior Spivey (.276 mostly as the number three hitter), and Steve Finley (.319, mostly as number 2 hitter), i.e., the top of the order, are killing them.

More on OBP to come...]

Jason(Austin, TX): What's up with the Cubs scoring binge? Is it due to an increase in offensive talent or just an anomaly? Can they keep it up?

When the season started I think most felt they were not a great offensive team. But they have gotten off to a great start. I don't think they are as good as they have shown though .. hitting is contagious. When one guy is hitting well, the rest of the lineup tends to hit well. When one guy goes into a slump, it can bring down the whole team. They are feeding off each other.

[Mike: Again OBP is doing it for the Cubs: their .376 OBP is third in the majors. But I agree that Grudzielanek (.380 OBP in 2003, 55 points higher than career average) and Gonzalez (.373, 67 points above his career) are playing over their heads right now. ]

Kim (Hualien, Taiwan): First I have to say I thought it was cool you mentioned your kids both on national TV and in one of your articles I read on ESPN. I believe family is the most important and so I love what you did. My question is, Nick Johnson doesn't seem to be a guy that is that fast and Doesn't really hit that great for average. Wouldn't the Yankees be better off with Mondesi hitting in the number two slot? Mondesi at least provides more speed at that position. However with the way things are going I guess I really can't complain that much with what Torre has done.

That's a pretty good question but in the scheme of things.. if Soriano is hitting first, you need a guy that can hit the ball the other way. Jeter can do that and so can Johnson. I don't think they want Mondesi there because he doesn't really hit the ball the other way. Mondesi strikes out a lot but so does Johnson.

[Mike: OBP again. Mondesi had a .308 in 2002 and has a .331 OBP for his career. Johnson had a .347 OBP in 2002 and should improve on that (and has) as he matures. Besides Yankee fans would mutiny if Mondesi were given the extra at-bats.]

Anthony, San Francisco: Hey Joe, Did u like hitting 2nd for the Reds? What was your primary goal at the plate in the 2 slot? Thanks Joe

No. 2's job is to become the leadoff hitter and the leadoff guy doesn't 'get on base. If he does get on base, then it's your job to move him into scoring position. I prefered hitting No. 2 behind Rose at one point. But after I got a taste of hitting third, I preferred third.

[Mike: Or to quote Austin Powers, "Who does Number 2 work for?" A fair assessment by Joe, but how can this statement follow the Johnson-Mondesi ones? Number 2 is about getting on base and moving runners on base, not just about hitting the other way.]

[By the way, the title is from an old Nazareth song, if you were wondering.]

The Martinez-Batista Undercard

It was a wild one in St. Loius today as Tino Martinez of the Cardinals, in this corner with the white uniform and red trim, and the D-Backs' Miguel Batista, in the grey uniforms and blak trim, squared off after Martinez was hit by Batista and Batista had the temerity to stare at him.

It seems that Batista hit Martinez on the shoulder with a 1-0 pitch in the fifth. Martinez looked back at Batista but did not charge the mound. Martinez was forced at second and doubled back on his route to the dugout to approach Batista. Batista threw a ball and Maryinez a punch, neither of which landed. Benches cleared and both were ejected. Later on pitcher Jeff Fassero and manager Tony LaRussa of the Cardinals were also ejected for Fassero's hitting Luis Gonzalez in the ribs, which Fassero admitted to doing on purpose:

"I still believe in the old ways, settling scores for teams and stuff like that, protect your guys.''

Why all the hubbub anyway? According to LaRussa, Miguel Batista stared at Martinez after hitting him and as he left the field:

"When you drill somebody and you stare at them like he stared, that is so unprofessional and so intentional-looking that we'll see how major league baseball handles it."

Staring? Big deal, get over it. Maybe he was just trying to get into Martinez's head, which he evidently did. It's very surprising to see a consummate professional like Martinez react this way.

Batista's using the ball as a weapon was also reprehensible, but given that he was chargee, not the charger, I am inclined to agree, perhaps for the first time ever, with Arizona manager Bob Brenly:

"I don't know what you're supposed to do as a pitcher,'' Brenly said. "Just stand there and let the guy drive you down through the rubber?

"He's got to defend himself anyway he knows how.''

Well, that won't fly at MLB hind-, er, headquarters. Expect some big suspensions and fines from this one. And maybe Batista will learn that it's impolite to stare.

It's a Holi-Joe Morgan Chat Day (Mama Mama Please, No More Face Lifts-
I Just Don't Know Which One You Is!)

Why is this Joe Morgan Chat Day different from all other Joe Morgan Chat Days? Well, this weekend represents a holiday time for many in the baseball-viewing community. Many will be damming their intestinal tracts with matzoh while others will "cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war", if you catch my meaning, with tons of Easter candy. But whether you enjoy PAAS-colored eggs and Peep chicks or heavy Malaga and haroses on your afikoman, Joe has a message for you. Joe is the world.

For both Christians and Jews, Joe represents a time of redemption. For Christians Joe's rebirth as an analyst has an historical antecedent. But given Joe's subsequent fall after the death of his playing career, his forefather is not likely to be found in The Bible but rather in Milton's Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno.

For Jews, Joe can be used as an example for future generations that there is a promised land. One must suffer through the oppressive commentary of today, through the plagues of Thom Brennaman, to get to the promised land. Joe will lead his baseball people to Canaan. He will part the Red Sea: "The Reds were the greatest, see?" Unfortunately, that promised land was the land promised by Joe himself, the land that he chooses to cover and he will brook no breach by analysis and the like.

To be continued...

Better Dead Than Red

The Reds shook up the roster today a la the Oakland A's on May 22, 2002. Now they'll have to see if the results are just as good:

- Ostensible starting third baseman Brandon Larson was sent down, replaced by Triple-A callup Ryan Freel.

- Pitchers Anderson and Josias Manzanillo were designated for reassignment. Chris Reitsma, Jeff Austin (both recalled), and Brian Reith (purchased) were brought up from the minors.

Larson was given 48 at-bats to prove himself. And even though he didn't show much in those at-bats, he deserved more of a chance. Juan Castro is expected to start at third base until Russell Branyan returns from the DL. Reitsma, who had a good ERA but a bad record last year (and that was the reason he was in manager Bob Boone's dog house from day one of spring training) takes over Jimmy Haynes' rotation spot and should remain in the rotation even after Haynes returns. The other two are decent prospects by all accounts.

So it took all of 18 games for the Reds to panic. I hope Boone has his resume together and his references lined up.

Call To Arms

The Elephants in Oakland have a first-hand account of the cell-throwing incident in Oakland. And if you haven't heard, it was not battery cells for once it was a cell phone. Someone nailed Carl Everett in the back of the head while he was patrolling right field in between half innings in the sixth. Everett, a less than equanimical figure in far less trying times, lost control and tossed the phone over the right field wall and struck a stadium operations worker.

Now, I condemn anyone who throws things at a public event. Heck, I condemn people who do "the wave" at public events (It's OK to do in the privacy of your own living room). But how miserable and idiotic a human being do you have to be to chuck a cell phone at someone. First because a cell phone could really do some damage to someone. And second because it is so easily traceable. Why not throw your wallet? How about leaving your name and address on a murder weapon? This is true social Darwinism.

The perpetrator was quickly apprehended and should, if nothing else, have his cell phone privileges revoked for life. Everett can be excused to a certain degree for being caught unawares, but someone in the commissioner's or the Rangers' office should sit him down and tell him that his too was a boneheaded move. Why? Because someone else could, and did evidently, get hurt. And because he threw away a solid piece of evidence against the bonehead that hit him with the phone in the first place.

Whatever happens to the mad cell-phoner, it seems that this recent rash of attacks at ball games shows no signs of abating. MLB seems to be devoting the appropriate resources to the problem. It's just such a difficult problem to resolve. If people cannot get a hold on themselves, which seems unlikely, either beer sales will have to be more closely monitored or eliminated altogether, or some sort of divider like they have in Japanese baseball and in European and South American soccer will have to be considered.

Imagine if Everett, even though he is a universally reviled individual, were injured by the projectile or someone in the stands was instead hit and injured. Given the topicality of the issue, it would just be a matter of time before some ambulance-chasing lawyer got involved. Then the owners' hand would really be forced. All we can do is hope it does not come to it, oh, and holster our cell phones when we are at the game.

Bull Reloaded, II

Here is my email to the National Baseball Hall of Fame board of directors:

Dear Sirs and Madam:

I am writing to you to request the dismissal of the National Baseball Hall of Fame president Dale A. Petroskey.

I am appalled by this individual's actions in the events surrounding the cancellation of the planned celebration for the film "Bull Durham". He had used his position inappropriately in canceling the event. He brought universal condemnation down upon the decision. Also, the taint of politics has sullied the Hall by this man's actions, which were, according to him, intended to effect the reverse.

And now his apology dated Friday, April 18 makes it clear that he is content with doing nothing to rectify his mistakes. I believe that you have no possible option but to remove him from his position.

I cannot countenance paying admission to your fine museum while it is headed by such a morally reprehensible individual. That is the reason I am writing you in hopes that he be removed. If Mr. Petroskey remains in his current position, I have no other option but regrettably to avoid all interaction with your museum.

Good day,
Mikearminati

Bull Reloaded

Dale Petroskey, the president of the Hall of Fame Museum, sent a letter of apology to anyone who complained about the Bull Durham event cancellation. Here is a copy of the letter from a Baseball Primer link. Here's the venerable Petroskey himself:

Petroskey took responsibility for his actions in stating that "it is clear [he] should have handled the matter differently" and that he was "sorry [he] didn't pick up the phone to have a discussion with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon rather than sending them a letter." Poor grammar aside, one gets the idea that Petroskey is apologizing for his actions. That's fine, but shouldn't Sarandon and Robbins be the ones to whom he apologies, not the fans?

Besides, what's the point of apologizing if one does not correct one's actions? He did not say that the event would be rescheduled. He did not say that he had learned any lesson and that this would not happen in the future.

He does confess that "I inadvertently did exactly what I was trying to avoid [i.e., inject politics into the Hall]." But offers no solution as to how to avoid this in the future nor does he admit culpability. He committed some actions in the past and admits that they were unfortunate, but he proffers no punishment or corrective action to ensure that the same actions do not happen again.

What does he turn to after his apology? Nostalgia: "We are so lucky to have Baseball - a game that unites us as Americans." Yeah, but we were lucky to have baseball even before some braying ass decided to politicize the Hall. What does it have to do with anything?

How did Tim Robbins take the indirect apology? Exactly, as he should:

"Because Petroskey's actions resulted in a bipartisan, nationwide affirmation of free speech and the First Amendment, he has inadvertently done us all a favor," Robbins responded in a statement.

"I appreciate Petroskey's non-apology apology and his realization of the perils of paper trails," he said.

Robbins explained his final remark by pointing out that Petroskey invited White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to speak at a Hall event last year.

In a release promoting the visit, Petroskey wrote: "We are thrilled to welcome him to Cooperstown and hear his perspective on life in the White House and the current political scene which, of course, includes the war on terrorism."

I again repeat my call for this troglodytic descendent of Ollie North to be excised from an institution that I once only condemned for its questionable choice of plaque-worthy players. In other words, s^&t-can the bum!

By the way, hereare the Hall's board of directors. Clearly we have heard what constitutes Petroskey's final word on the matter. Contacting him further is futile. Perhaps letters sent to his bosses on the board will carry more weight, especially when one of the Clark family members serves on the board. Oh, and here are ways to contact the Hall.

Red Hot Cubs-They Blow'd Up Real Good!

Christian Ruzich, The Cub Reporter, has some interesting tidbits on the Cubs' historic offensive explosion in their series with the Reds.

Christian has good cause to be pleased. The Cubs are now in first in the NL Central with an 11-6 record, and the Reds are last at 5-11. The Reds have a 6.62 team ERA. Only one of their starters has an ERA under 6.00 and they have an overall 2-9 record. Their number one starter is 0-4 with a 12.74 ERA and twice as many walks as strikeouts and is now on the DL.

But they have been equally bad on offense. Their .224 team batting average is 85 points behind their collective opponent's average. They are almost 200 point behind in OPS. They've ben outscored 71 to 122 overall or 4.4 to 7.6 per game (that's being outscored by 72%). Rookie third baseman Brandon Larson is batting .093 and has a .305 OPS with 15 strikeouts in 43 at-bats. Their number two hitter has a .286 on-base percentage. And they have two future Hall-of-Famers on the DL.

Bob Boone seems a shoo-in for the first managerial dismissal of the year, and I can't think of anyone who deserves the honor more.

No Way, Jose!

JoseCanseco.com is auctioning off an afternoon with Jose with bids starting at $2,500. No mention was made of the minimum bid for a day with Ozzie Canseco. Come to think of it how would you know which brother you got anyway?

Why is every Eighties baseball star a complete loser?

Jones for Closing, II

Well, now I've read it, and I kind of wish I hadn't. It's basically the partyline on relieving. It's the standard stuff you hear whenever anyone tries to change how relievers are used:

Boston needs to either name one guy the closer and live and die with him, or go get somebody to be the guy. Bullpen by committee might work in Montreal or Tampa, but it in ain't gonna fly in Beantown.

There are so many errors in Jones' article that it's a bit overwhelming to document them.

First, what is meant by a "closer" has been in flux on , if not a yearly, a decadal basis since free player replacement was allowed in the 1890s. The title "closer" since at least the mid-Seventies when I was a kid. Back then it meant the pitcher than closed out maybe 80-90 games pitched 130 innings and save 20-25 games. He would pitch anywhere from one to three innings at a time. Now it refers to pitcher who comes in in the ninth inning almost only in save situations. He pitches 50-60 games a year, throws about the same number of innings, and saves 30-40 games.

Sometimes closers continued to be used in save opportunities even when their statistics clearly display they are not a good choice for the closer's role. I documented many such examples in my relief pitching series. However, Jones' 1998 season is a prime example: he saved 28 games with a 4.97 ERA (5 % worse than the park-adjusted league average), a 1.48 WHIP (Walks plus Hits per Innings Pitched), and only strikeout 1.5 men per each walk he allowed. Jones was a subpar pitcher that year, but his team, the Tigers, decided in their wisdom that he should be entrusted in holding a lead late in somewhat close games. Jones should praise the current role for the closer; he has been one of the pitchers who have benefited from its use: Jones has 184 saves to go with his 3.75 career ERA and 1.42 career WHIP.

Anyway, I don't know Theo Epstein's or Grady Little's take on the bullpen system employed by the Red Sox this year. But I know Bill James'. First, he does not refer to it as a bullpen- or closer-by-committee, meaning that on any night anyone in the pen could be used in any reliever role. Indeed that does seem doomed for failure as pitcher use would be rather haphazard, and the best pitcher would not be used when most important. Not to mention the unease that it would breed in the bullpen, to quote Jones:

The bullpen works better if guys have certain roles. As the game goes on, if you have set roles and your scenario comes up, you can prepare for it much better. It's awful not knowing when you're going to pitch from night to night.

But this is not what James advocates-at least not what he advocates in his articles. James' study in the New Historical Baseball Abstract calls for the best pitcher, i.e., the closer, to be used when the game is on the line. He found that the most appropriate time for this is from the seventh inning on with the game either tied or the closer's team up by one run (also, when they are down by one run and the pitcher is well rested). He also found that using the closer for more than one inning if needs be is most effective.

For the rest of the bullpen, although James does not really go into this, a hierarchy would be used to optimize the best pitcher for the most important situation (depending on the pitcher's availability). This is not an arbitrary bullpen-by-committee, just a redefinition of the closer's role. The pitcher's all have roles, just not the "traditional" ones. The closer would be used whenever the game is on the line in close games, not just in save situations.

What this could do is redistribute some of the saves to secondary pitchers who happen to finish up a fairly close game after the "closer" pitched the inning(s) that allowed the team to win. Jones goes on to say, "The difference between the eighth and the ninth is mental. As a closer, you are where the rubber hits the road." Well, why is where the "runner hits the road" (and we all know how painful that can be) the ninth inning? The game could be on the line in the eighth and if you don't use your best pitcher, you not lose the save opportunity, you lose the game.

I'm no psychologist, but I understand the comfort that the finality of pitching in the ninth must have for a closer. That's nice for him. As to whether it requires more "mental" toughness, I can't say. All I know is that James' theories make a whole lot more sense than losing a game in the 7th or 8th inning while the best available pitcher languishes unused in he pen. It seems like a bunch of lollygaggers to me.

Now, to evaluate James' theories based on two weeks with the Red Sox personnel seems unfair to me. Epstein has said that he did not have the funds to re-sign Ugueth Urbina and that was one of the reasons that they went with this plan. Perhaps they do not have the right personnel. They are all veteran relievers, but almost to a man they are performing poorly. They have the highest reliever ERA in baseball and Baseball Prospectus ranks them as the worst pen in the game (just behind the Braves). Bobby Howry has already been sent down to the minors. Allan Embree (who's hurt), Ramiro Medoza, and Chad Fox have been awful. Then again if they all stink, does it matter who the closer is?

Maybe evaluating short relievers based on a small sample of innings per season is not the most effective means of predicting future success, or maybe they have all had a slump at the same time, or maybe they are just adjusting to a new system, or maybe Grady Little doesn't understand the system himself, or maybe James' theories don't work in practice. Time will tell. But to say a new system won't work because it has not been tried is erroneous. First, because history tells us that the use of relievers is constantly in flux. And second, because a version of James' system on steroids was in use in the Seventies and the Eighties.

The closers who first put their stamp on the role were used in the way James' prescribes just for an extra 40 or so innings per year. There were also smaller pens and fewer pitchers used per game. You never heard Bruce Sutter, Goose Gossage, Kent Tekulve, and Rollie Fingers complain about their roles back then.

Managers saw that the number of innings caused stress and cut back on the innings that the top closers pitched. James argues that the just cut the wrong innings. Managers followed Tony LaRussa's use of Dennis Eckersley in the late Eighties and tailored the closer role to the definition of a save.

According to James' definition Chad Fox was in essence the Red Sox closer to start the season. Of all the instances in which the Sox either led by 1 run or were tied in the last three innings, Fox pitched the bulk of these. One was handled and blown by Bobby Howry and one was a 2.2 inning win by Mike Timlin, who entered with the game tied. Maybe the choice of Fox was a poor one, what with him returning after a year lost to injury.

Besides this is not exactly new for this team. The Red Sox actually did implement this sort of system with Derek Lowe in his three years as a closer (kudos to Chris DeRosa for pointing this out). Lowe pitched 91.1 to 109.1 innings in 67 to 74 games each year and saved 15, 24, and 42 games. That's more in the Sutter mold than the Eckersley one.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't react to this statement from Jones:

Our skipper plays games against teams with dominant closers as if they are eight innings long. If we're losing, we know who is coming in in the ninth.

Any Rockies team that approaches a game as if it were eight innings long is doomed for failure. I understand Jones' point, but given the fragility of leads in Coors, this statement is ludicrous.

Deja Vu All Over Again, IV

The commissioner's office is saying that they "will do whatever is necessary to maximize the consequences for those individuals who intrude on the field or assault or make any attempt to interact with umpires, players or coaches or fans in the stands." It's good that they are taking it seriously, but MLB is infamous for making proclamations and not following through (Does anybody remember, the tied All-Star game?).

They are said to be reviewing security in all major-league parks, which has to be a good thing. They did send baseball security chief Kevin Hallinan to Chicago to aid with last night's ballgame security, and all did go smoothly (thank god). Although it is interesting that suspending beer sales for the game was not entertained. The attacker confessed to drinking all day at a Cubs' game before going to the White Sox-Royals affair.

If nothing else I found one topic on which Bud Selig and I see eye to eye. Quoth El Bud, "There is no place in baseball for such deplorable fan behavior." I couldn't agree more.

Thebaseball folks interviewed also agree there are limitations as to what can be done:

"You still couldn't prevent a person, one lunatic or whatever you want to call it, from trying to get his 10 seconds of fame,'' [Cubs general manager Jim] Hendry said. "I don't think you could ever say you're going to prevent it completely in any stadium: football, basketball, baseball, whatever.''

And I'm glad that my references jibe more with managers than players. It doen't make me old in the slightest:

"In the old days, you were always looking forward to Morganna running onto the field,'' [the over-excited Mets manager Art Howe] said. "It would be a shame if we had to do what they do in Japan, where everybody is screened in.''

Jones for Closing

TSN's Todd Jones reports on closers. I have not read it yet and will critique it tomorrow, but perhaps the best argument for a closer by committee is Todd Jones' career.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I'lll be here all week.

Phil-anthropy

From the Phillies email newsletter:

LIVE WEBCAST
April 16, 2003

Phillies to reveal tribute to Hall of Famer Richie Ashburn
in new ballpark.

The Phillies will reveal a special tribute to legendary
Hall of Famer and former Phillies broadcaster Richie
Ashburn to be included in the Phillies Ballpark. Check out
phillies.com for the live webcast of the press conference
Thursday, April 17, 2003 at 12: