The once-vaunted New York Times reports that there is a study -surprise!-"that managers, coaches and players are often far too cautious for their own good 'Teams are averse to going for all or none.'" In a related story, researchers are investigating claims that professional football are actually larger than the average American male and that the average heterosexual male is attracted to Anna Kournikova. Imagine that!

And you thought our government was the only ones getting a nice boondoggle on someone else's dime. Professors get to watch a ton of sports, call it research, and report findings of the obvious. This all goes back to Bill James, the man of whom the academics are said in the article to be jealous. James in-I believe-the 1983 Abstract proposed his law of competitive balance that found that winning teams and losing teams develop separate and distinct strategies that favor the losing teams. Winning teams try to hold on to what they've got. Losing teams take risks.

So how is that analogous? Replace "winning teams" with "employed managers". If a manger is employed, the most important thing is retain that cushy salary, which means not going so far out on a limb that Bobby V. and Harold Reynolds roast your managerial peccadilloes. Managers bunted when bunting was in vogue. They played small ball when the book was to play small ball. Slowly as offenses went berserk managers climbed out of the primordial sludge and walked upright-that is, they changed the strategy and were successful.

Mangers walk Bonds so that they don't "Let him beat us". They'd rather have Benito Santiago or J.T. Snow beat them. Bless them. But at least everyone will nod in ascent when you pitch around Bonds, and the manger can accept the loss with honor. Like Nuke LaLoosh the manager has studied and knows his cliches-i.e., cliched approaches-well. They're his friends. As the story illustrates with the story of Yankee third base coach Mike Ferraro, who lost his assignment because he sent a runner home on a close play in the 1980 ALCS, going out on a limb can be ill-advised career-wise (though Ferraro did end up managing within two years).

---

Tonight the A's picked up Jose Guillen from the Reds for Aaron Harang and a couple of minor-leaguers. On paper it seems like a great trade. The A's need outfielders and Guillen is batting .337 with 23 dingers and only makes half a mil a season. The Reds need young pitching and Harang was not going to be used by the A's.

However, given the A's proclivity towards players with high on-base percentages, I can't see why they would try a player with a lifetime .315 OBP. I guess it boils down to which you think the real Jose Guillen is: The player who couldn't make it with the D-Rays two years ago and in 2002 had an OBP almost 100 points lower than this year's and had an OPS that was only 25 points higher than his slugging percentage this year or the best offensive player on the Cincinnati club.

If I were Billy Beane I would be concerned that a rebuilding team like the Reds would jettison a 27-year-old that only makes $500 K. You could argue that they have three outfielders already. Or that they need pitching more. Or that Guillen's constant grousing tied their hands. Or that they know Guillen will cost them more in arbitration.

But then again, Ken Griffey hasn't played a full season in three years, so an extra outfielder couldn't hurt. And that Harang is by no means the next Mark Prior. And grousing shmousing--his OPS is over 1.000! And arbitration is a half a year away.

I think that Beane is trying to capture lightning in a jar. The needed at least one outfielder. They chased after Brian Giles but couldn't figure out a way to take on Jason Kendall's ill-advised long-term contract, a condition that the Pirates insisted upon (Giles is now said to be heading to the Padres). Guillen was the best he could get. Maybe, given that he's 27, Guillen's having his career year and he can help the A's upend the M's for the division title.

I guess it's worth a shot given the A's apparent distaste for Harang, the overabundance of quality young pitching, their need for an outfielder, and Guillen's low salary. They really can't lose even if Guillen stink: It's a fair but that he'll do better than Terrence Long's .579 OPS and Jermaine Dye's .709 (i.e., the two men who have patrolled right field for the A's this season).

It could be pointed out that Guillen never had an OPS over .750 in the American League. But then again, he never had an OPS over .750 in he majors before this year. This is all uncharted territory.

---

Tonight Bill Mueller became the first player in major-league history to hit a grand slam from each side of the plate in the same game.

---

Overture, curtain, lights.
This is it, the night of nights.

No more rehearsing and nursing our part.
We know every part by heart.

Overture, curtain, lights.
This is it, we'll hit the heights.

And oh what heights we'll hit.
On with the show this is it.

-Bugs Bunny and Friends

Time once was that I would wake up at the crack of dawn and scurry down to the living room to watch those great Saturday morning cartoons. Yeah, college was great. Anyway, Saturday morning was the highlight of a kid's busy TV watching week. Heck, they would devote prime time specials starring teen pop sensations and other Republicans to the new lineup up of kiddy programies.

The first thing I would do on Saturday mornings was flick the switch and check out the shows. Sid and Marty Krofft ruled the airwaves when I was kid, purveying mind-bending, Hunter S. Thompson-esque glimpses of magical worlds.

The one hole in the lineup was Tom & Jerry. Somehow this antediluvian bit of nostalgia, replete with some sort of minstrel Mammy patrolling the kitchen, survived coelacanth-like while the rest of its ilk perished in the face of viewers actually expecting their entertainment to entertain. Tom & Jerry once danced with Gene Kelly and did have some odd beatnik-inspired, funky period, but by the time I was a kid they made the Three Stooges seem intellectual. All they had left to contribute to society was being the inspiration for the gloriously self-aware Itchy and Scratchy ("They fight and fight and fight and fight and fight..."

Actually, this self-aware, "works on many levels" type of cartoon started with the original Ren and Stimpy (and don't forgot the Simpsons, "You EE-diot!"). Now the technique pervades almost every cartoon that you can find. Watching the Powerpuff Girl Movie with my four-and-one-half-year-old, I found myself laughing at things that went completely over her head ("I am no longer Jo-Jo. I am Mojo Jo-Jo", well maybe that wasn't over her head).

While I love seeing Space Ghost being recast as a talk show host and I have probably seen every Spongebob in creation-even the lost episode-, I can't help but notice that when I went back to Ohio, my city was gone. Only in this case "Ohio" was Saturday morning cartoons and "my city" was a Holden Caulfield-like innocence. Letting the self-referential, tongue-in-cheek cartoons run rampant was like a Pandora's box from which the Archies, Josie and the Pussycats, and Marine Boy never returned ("Zoinks!").

So again you wonder what this has to do with Joe Morgan. Times once were when Joe's homespun idiocy was routinely swallowed whole cloth while we were a-whittling by the pot-belly stove ("Patooie"). Now, we sabermetrically-minded (or, for Ralph Wiley, sabtramatiracall-minded) have all sort of whizbangery to put such hokum to the litmus test. And yet I can't help to think that we've lost something.

My friend Murray reminds me that even though Joe is oh-so nonsensical, there's always worse. Rick Sutcliffe took over the reins as town idiot for last weekend's Sunday Night Baseball:

Oh, here's the best one. They were talking about playing winter ball, and Sutcliffe mentioned that although he played winter ball, he took French in high school, which wasn't so helpful. Miller of course, wondered aloud why maybe there wasn't any Winter League team in Martinique, and Sutcliffe said, "Well, there's probably a weather problem."

Thank goodness there's Joe. He retains the innocence of our youth while the touches of unintended irony double our pleasure, double our fun. He's baseball's equivalent to Ren and Stimpy in one package. And like Old Faithful he blows on schedule once a week for chat day. So on with the Joe: this is it.

The Good

Buhdda (New York, NY): Mr. Morgan, I just read that Andy Pettite ha sbecome the 1st pitcher in 75 years to win 12 or more games in his 1st 9 seaons. Do you think this is because he is a hall of fame type pitcher or that he has just benefitted from being a decent pitcher on a great team? Thanks for your time.

I think he has benefitted but he has also pitched well under pressure, when the Yankees had to win. He has done a great job there. Obviously if you have played for the Yankees for the past 9 years, you are going to benefit. I can't say he's a HOFer yet but he is an expectional pitcher.

[Mike: A) Pettitte only has 140 career wins. B) His ERA is a hair under 4.00 (though it is 18% better than the park-adjusted league average). He has won 20 games once and finished second in the Cy Young vote once, that same year (and was in the top-10 three times).

He's a good pitcher on a good team. If he performs like this for another 10 years, then we can start talking about the Hall of Fame. Right now, unless you are Pedro Martinez it's very hard to make a case for the Hall of Fame for a pitcher in his early thirties. At thirty, Black Jack McDowell was one of the most dominant pitchers in baseball. Soon he was out of baseball and now he is largely forgotten. He is the most similar to Pettitte through age 30 by the way.]

The Bad

Goatse (goatse.cx): How does Felipe Alou do it? His offense (except for left field) is playing below their ability, their top closer is out, and their starting pitching isn't the best, yet they're on a huge tear. I'm left to assume this is Felipe's work, so how does he do it?

I have to say he deserves all the credit. Bonds and Schmidt have helped, and Worrell, but it's mostly Alou. This team has OVER achieved greatly. That credit always has to go to the manager. He has pushed the right buttons at the right time. Bonds is his only really consistent player. It's amazing.

[Mike: "The credit always has to go to the manager"? Really? How many at-bats does he have? How many innings pitched?

Bonds and Schmidt have helped? They have been lights out: Schmidt is arguably the best pitcher in the NL and Bonds continues to be the best player in baseball. Worrell has been as good if not better than Nen was last year. Youngster Jerome Williams has been very impressive so far. By the way, Joe lauded him last week and now gives him no credit. Their bullpen has been very good (6th in ERA in baseball) and even though their starters have had a few rough spots, they are 8th in ERA in baseball. They also have a team ERA of 2.00 since the break.

The Giants are 13th in the majors in runs scored and just 9th in OPS. But they have had a solid core of good-hitting players led by Bonds (1.249 OPS, which leads the majors), Grissom (.831), Snow (.812) and Galarraga (.881) at first, Durham (.811), Cruz (.806), and Santiago (.785). Aurilia is basically a push (.727, slightly better than last year but below his career average). Offseason pickup Edgardo Alfonzo has been the only real hole on offense (.660).

These are veteran players, a number of whom were acquired in the offseason by Brian Sabean. What does Alou have to do with their performance?

The one affect that I see Alou having on the offense is his desire to get the dreadful Neifi Perez in the lineup. Alou has lavished 221 empty at-bats on Perez (.662 OPS).

By the way, the Giants offense is 60 points better in OPS than the opposition on the year and 160 points better than the opposition since the break.

The Giants are outperforming expectations by 6 games, but I would credit the deep bullpen or would chalk it up to luck before giving Alou the credit. It's not that he hasn't done a good job. It's just that a manager does not have that much control over such matters.]

Aaron, Potomac Md: Hi Mr. Morgan, I am a huge fan of yours and love listening to you give commentary on games. I am a huge red sox fan and I am wondering if you think that with the latest trade of sauerback that they now have all the pieces they would need to reach the world series?

If you are thinking he is the difference, the answer is no. To get to the WS, the players like Pedro and Derrick Lowe will have to be the difference.

[Mike: Yeah, that's true, but it's not the question. They already had those pieces on the team.

To answer Aaron's actual question, the Red Sox have severe holes in the pitching staff. Unfortunately, they are filled by the Red Sox' actual pitchers. Aside from Pedro and a short, interrupted stint by Kim, the Sox starters have been uniformly bad. It's a good thing that they didn't part with Casey Fossum, eh? They could use at least two starting pitchers. Their bullpen has been even worse, but it does seem that they have all the necessary parts. On Offense, they have been busy just getting ABs for everybody or to quote the unctuous Frank Rizzo in Scarface"All you have to worry about is what to do with all the f'ing cash."]

Jason, Chambersburg, Pa: Good morning, Joe! I've got a hypothetical question for you. If the playoffs started today, the NL would be Braves, Astros, Giants, and Phils. I like the Phils chances because of how their starting pitching matches up. Who do you like? Thanks.

You still have to hit. The Phillies' hitting is always suspect. In this situation, I would put the Braves first and the Giants second. The Giants have Bonds and the Braves have Lopez, Jones, just a lot of weapons.

[Mike: Well, no. The Phils offense had problems at the beginning of the year. They are fifth in OPS in the majors since the break (.823). Their pitching is 18th in ERA (4.65) since the break by the way.

The Phils have had three holes on offense consistently this year: shortstop with Jimmy Rollins, left field with Pat Burrell, and third base with David Bell. Bell and Burrell are signed to big contracts, so the Phils have given them every opportunity and then some to right themselves. Rollins is a very popular player and once had a "future star" tag so until he ticks off Bill Conlin, he's going to eat a hole in their lineup. Actually the Phils offense improved greatly once Rollins and his .319 OBP were dropped from the leadoff spot in favor of the ever-improving Marlon Byrd.

That said, clearly the two best teams in the NL have been San Fran and Hotlanta. Who would a short series between the two? Your guess is as good as mine. However, the Braves' deficiency (starting pitching) becomes less of an issue when you only need 3-4 starters. I'm still waiting for the bottom to drop out of Cinderella season for Furcal, Giles, Castilla, and Lopez. But it has not happened yet.]

Brandon Henderson (Independence, MO): Should Major League Baseball mandate that the Metrodome's roof be changed to a color that isn't white? (such as skyblue) Do you think the roof is unfair for fielders?

Well, I guess the only thing to say is they haven't changed it in how many years? It's been that way for the life of the Metrodome so I don't see them changing it now. They should have changed it 20 years ago. Maybe there is a reason they kept it that way that we don't know.

[Mike: What, the Twins don't have to play D there or something? So an odd Rocco Baldelli loses a ball or two in the roof glare. At least the thing hasn't collapsed in over twenty years. So there's an upside.]

Jay(Cleveland): Hey Joe. How will the Reds ever be able to put a legit contender on the field when they won't raise payroll? Dunn, Boone and Kearns will be due for big-time raises over the next 1-3 years. I can't stand the thought of those three or Junior putting up huge numbers elsewhere. But they seem to be the only appealing trade bait on the squad.

It's pretty simple. They will have to make a choice. Do they want to stay a medicore team or take a step forward? Looking at their history the last few years, they will probably not put a great team on the field. What I find interesting, the last time they won something was when Marge Schott ran the team. She spent on payroll.

[Mike: Yeah, Schott was a player's dream owner. Just ask Eric Davis about having to pay for his own flight home after injuring himself in the 1990 World Series.

The Reds do spend money, just not wisely. The Reds outspend successful teams like the Royals, the Jays, the Marlins, the Expos, and the A's. Their 2003 salary is slightly more than the Twins. That's below average, but clearly other teams have been successful for less. Also, their salary went up about $8 M since last season, about a 15% increase.

The Reds problem is trusting in wins to judge their pitchers' performance. Now, who advocates that again? Is it Satan? No, not his schtick. It must be you, Joe.]

Joey, Nj: Is Ken Griffey Jr still a hall of famer even if he does not reach 500 home runs?

That will be a difficult call. I think he will reach 500. Probably 600. He is mentally tough. He is still young. I saw this with Bonds. 4-5 years ago, he wasn't even mentioned as a top player. But I knew he would bounce back. I think Griffey will do the same thing. When you are a great player and they stop talking about you, it's a real motivator.

So yes, I think he will make the Hall of Fame.

[Mike: Joey, how you doin'?

That's not a difficult call at all. Griffey is a Hall of Fame-caliber player, period. His career OPS is 44% better than the league average. Who cares if he falls a handful of home runs short of 500? Gehrig, DiMaggio, Musial, Kaline, Kiner, Snider, Bench, Ripken, Mize, Berra, and Greenberg never collected 500 home runs either.]

Ray Stinger,Jr.(Pittsburgh,Pa): Hi Mr.Morgan! I'm a Pirates fan(that's right!)and would like your opinion on the "rebuilding" of the Pirates (AGAIN!!) Will the Bucs in 2004 be better than the 2003 Tigers?

I think the key word is rebuilding again. They started rebuilding and should have stuck with it but instead they got a couple veterans and made a run for it. They have to do it all the way .. you can't rebuild halfway.

[Mike: Ray, what are you Subliminal Man or something?

The Pirates were far from rebuilding. They overspend on Jason Kendall, Derek Bell, Pat Meares, Aramis Ramirez, and Kevin Young and went through pitching talent like it was going out of style. They were supposed to be a low-budget version of the Indians locking up players for blocks of years. It's just that they did a poor job of evaluating those players.

Then last offseason they picked up some bargain-basement veterans like Kenny Lofton and Reggie Sanders. They traded Ramirez, Lofton, Williams, and Sauerbeck and in each case picked up prospects. If you don't have a good minor-league system, that's the only way to do it. They're trying to do the same with Giles and especially Kendall. That is rebuilding. It remains to be seen if they picked up decent prospects.]

Greg, Pa: Can Pat Burrell ever turn this around? Should he be playing out of this? Or do the Phils look somewhere else in left field?

Burrell had a good year last year. He has not been able to hit well this year. He has had spurts. This late into the season I'm not sure he can turn it around. He can still be a help towards but a pennant but I don't think he can lead them there.

[Mike: A good year? Burrell has a tremendous season. He had an OPS (.920) that was 49% better than the league average. He was 25 years old and had looked solid from the start and just kept getting better. His Charboneau-ing is completely unexpected.

The Phillies signed him to a huge six-year, $50 M contract before 2003. Here's how that contract grows over the years (thanks to MLB Contracts):

2003: $1.0M (+$1.5M signing bonus)
2004: $4.0M
2005: $7.0M
2006: $9.5M
2007: $13.0M
2008: $14.0M

The Phillies have a big investment in Burrell. They want to get a return on that investment. Getting a new left fielder won't help them in this matter.

But his season has been awful as my friend Murray points out:

Pat Burrell went 0-for-4 yesterday to fall back under .200.

Burrell is hitting .199, but what is more amazing is how awful he's been against lefties. In 69 at-bats against southpaws this year, Burrell is hitting .188-0-1. One RBI. He'll face Kaz Ishii tonight and Odalis Perez on Thursday in an effort to add to that grand total.

Wow. That's world-historic bad.

Burrell has a .563 OPS and is slugging .246 against lefties. Burrell is a right-handed batter who had clobbered lefties in his career (1.034 OPS and .619 slugging). So this may the oddest development for Burrell.

Either you give up on this season and allow Burrell to regain his confidence by only facing right-handers against whom he has been respectable this season (.743 OPS) and send righty Jason Michaels out against left-handers OR you hope that the lefties that he has coming up will help him shake this season-long funk. Neither option is enviable though.]

James Howlett: Is Barry Bonds kidding me with his remarks about Babe Ruth ? while Bonds is definitly in the top 5 players of all time, has he forgotten that Babe Ruth did all of that in less games played, in bigger ballparks, and he was a pitcher !! what are your thoughta on that Joe ?

I can't tell you what Bonds thinks. I was as shocked as you were that he would make the statements that were attributed to him. Anytime you do not respect Babe Ruth in this game and what he accomplished, I have a problem with you. Babe Ruth is still Babe Ruth. He brought this game back to prominence.

[Mike: Yes, James, he's kidding YOU. It was all a practical joke orchestrated by Bonds to get you. Surprise!

Who cares what Bonds has to say? He's entitled to his opinion though I don't agree with it. Are your opinions so shaky that a few offhanded remarks by Bonds will affect them? If not, why is it an issue? Oh, because there was a reporter there to catch it. Perhaps he could have said in a more diplomatic fashion. But, in summation, who cares?]

The Ugly

Jerry(Salt Lake City, UT): You once said that the Reds teams you played on understood what it took to win games, which set them apart from other teams that had a lot of talent. Which team this year is the most like that?

The Yankees of three years ago, when they won 100 games, they reminded me of the Reds. What I actually said was every player knew his role and what he was supposed to do. The team always came first. I saw that in the Yankees during that stretch. As of today, I would say most teams are not as stable as the Yankees were in those years. Most teams are still searching.

[Mike: The guy lobs in a pitch and Joe totally whiffs on it. Joe, he didn't ask about three years ago. He asked about "this year".

If it were the end of 2002 Joe would have answered the Angels. Let's wait until the Series and then Joe will pry the winning team into the Big Red Mold-though of course the modern team will be far inferior.

Anyway, "every player [knowing] his role and what he was supposed to do" is what makes you win? How about talent?

Pure tripe.]

Brad New York, NY: "Some Mets fans are also Yankees fans" - completely incorrect; you can't be both...

I don't mean they are both (laughing). What I meant was if the the Mets are playing the Yankees I'm still a Mets fan .. but if the Yankees are playing the Red Sox, I'm probably pulling for the Yankees.

But I do understand your point! Maybe I overstated it.

[Mike: I thought you were a Reds fan, Joe.

Besides I know plenty of Mets fans who jump on that Yankee bandwagon around playoff time.

Anyway, this is a reference to Joe's weekly article. So let's take a looky-see at that:]

Owned by Major League Baseball -- basically, MLB saved the franchise last year -- the Expos already have baseball's lowest payroll. But they can't add more salary.

[Mike: Actually, Loria ran the team into the ground on MLB's watch and then they let him dump the team, screw his fellow investors, and buy the Marlins. That's not exactly saving the franchise.

By the way, the Expos did not have the lowest payroll in 2002 or so far in 2003. That honor falls to the D-Rays. The Expos are 24th of 30 teams.]

Minaya and Robinson tread a difficult trade road.

[Mike: True, because Minaya is a moron more concerned with pleasing his handlers in the commissioner's office than in building a good team.

By the way, Minaya acquired and traded Colon, Floyd, Herges, Chen, Truby, et al. None of them lasted a year. And just about every time a player was traded the Expos ended up bleeding prospects.

By the way, I think it's odd that a man who claimed he wasn't well-informed to discuss trades last week is ready to assess the Expos trade possibilities.]

Matt (VA): Hey Joe. I was reading this article the other day where it had this poll on the greatest player ever to play at each respective position. At left-field, almost everyone put down Ted Williams. Not to say he wasnt a great great player, but wouldnt you say Hank Aaron was better? He gets overlooked to much in my opinion.

Hank played right mostly. If you are asking me to choose.. Hank was better defensively. Ted was a better hitter. But with power and RBIs and everything included, I would take Aaron. That's hard for me to say because I grew up idolizing Williams. But I played against Aaron and saw what he could do.

[Mike: Joe, why are even fielding this question? The premise makes no sense. Aaron only played 313 games in left of his over 2700 in the outfield. He does not enter into the question of who was the best left fielder ever.

If that's the question, then you are both off-base. Did you ever hear of Barry Bonds? The man gets no respect just because he disses the Babe.

If the question is who was better Williams or Aaron, I agree with Joe. It's Aaron. But Ruth was a better right fielder than Aaron.

Actually Ruth is split between left (1057 games) and right (1131). "I did not know that." So you could stick him in either spot.]

Brian Boston: Hey Joe! what do you think the demand for players like Guerrero and Tejada will be at the end of the season? Do you think either will get $20 mil or has that time past? Tejada is a better player than Jeter who makes that much but is vastly overpaid. Is this or his poor season going to affect his next contract? And if Guerrero takes a discount to stay in Montreal how will that effect players the next year (Nomar and Pedro for instance)?

I think the super player is still going to get paid. Guerrero is a super player. He will get paid. Tejada is a little different. He has not been as consistent. Guerrero will get super money but I'm not sure about Tejada. I think Guerrero is the last of that kind of breed where everyone will want him and he can get the big big money.

[Mike: Faster than a speeding Frank Bolick... Look, up in the sky. It's Paul Byrd. It's a Phil Plantier. No, it's Super Player!

So Guerrero is super but Tejada is just nearly super. Ah, poor Miggie!

Like John Winger, Guerrero is "the last of a dying breed". Huh? Guerrero is a great player, but there are other very good young players out there. Why is he the last? Tell me that Albert Pujols is not going to command "Real money, Amigo money" (Yes, that is a Three Amigos reference).

By the way, I am not Derek Jeter's biggest fan, nor do I think he's "dreamy", but Jeter has been a better player over his career than Tejada. There's no question. Tejada was better in 2002, and may be better over the course of their careers, but Jeter has been a clear-cut Hall-of-Famer yet far. The same cannot be said of Tejada.]

Chris-KC: Good morning Joe Will the Royals have any chance of keeping their young talent for seasons to come or will Baird cut them all lose at the end of the season to save $$?

Remember the fact that salaries will probably continue to go down. Only Guerrero will get super money among the FA's. It will be easier to keep players in the coming years. FA's will not be able to command the big numbers. It's a decision they have to make. I think teams will be able to keep more players in the future.

[Mike: Joe, are those players or super players?

Super Money!?! Do they have any Super Players on the Royals as well?

Salaries have not gone down. They increased about 2.25% over last year. The increase is smaller than usual but still an increase.

Also, the Royals' team payroll went down about $11 M in 2003. They should have the cash for at least one big-name player if not more with the added revenue of fielding a winner.]

Steve (Los Angeles): Mr. Morgan, A friend and I feel that there are far too many "gift" double plays, where the umpire concedes the out of the runner going to second, but it seems the 2nd baseman or shortstop tag the base before they receive the ball, or the play is out of sync in some way. What are your thoughts?

What has happened, a lot of fundamentals in the game have broken down. Base running, situational hitting, etc. Guys could always cheat a little but it wasn't obvious. Now it is obvious. I think MLB will probably address that over the winter. Maybe they will start demanding they touch the bag. But I think you will see a difference in the coming years.

[Mike: Joe, what position did you play again?

This is pure revisionist history. Tell me that Joe never took a gift double play.

Here's what I said when Jayson Stark got uppity on the topic as part of his 25 Things Wrong with Baseball ordeal:

Here we go again:

7.08
Any runner is out when_ (a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from a direct line between bases to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball;

b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire's judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. If the umpire declares the hindrance intentional, the following penalty shall apply: With less than two out, the umpire shall declare both the runner and batter out.

Call the batter out when a runner at second goes two feet to the right of second to interfere with the relay throw and you'll get rid of the so-called "phantom" tag.

Boulder, CO: Hi, Joe. I grew up in Dayton, OH in the 70's. You were an example of not only a great player but a team leader who had the intangibles. Why do think so many players lack the intangibles these days? Thanks, Jim

Well, intangibles have gone the way of fundamentals. Hitting is all that is important these days. Everyone works more on hitting and power hitting than other parts of the game. Without fundamentals, you can't have the intangibles it takes to make the difference in close games.

[Mike: Intangibles have gone the way of fundamentals. And the ethereals have gone the way of the essentials. And the knee bones connected to the ankle bone.

Which came first, the fundamentals or the intangibles? According to Joe, it's the egg, er, the fundamentals.

Of course, a team must be fundamental sound to succeed. But how can you measure or even evaluate that? Intangibles are even worse since you can't tange them, let alone measure them. I'll leave the hokum to Joe and stick to good old reliable facts.

Without facts, you can't have the tangibles intangibles it takes to make the difference in close chat sessions.]

GG- St. Louis, MO: Mr. Morgan, What is your take on Tony La Russa's management style? He takes a lot of heat here in St. Louis for his approach. Does he go overboard in in style? Thanks

I've always felt he was one of the top managers in the game. There was an earlier question about Alou. I did two books, Baseball for Dummies, I picked Top 10 players, managers, etc. I had Alou No. 1, Baker No. 2 and La Russa No. 3. I still think he is a top manager. He knows how to deal with players. I don't know exactly what people are questioning about him. He is a good manager.

[Mike: OK, I'm not even going to touch the "Baseball for Dummies" reference. There's no need to say something like Joe is the most eminently qualified individual on the planet to write just such a book.

However, "I did two books, Baseball for Dummies"-what, was it an unfinished trilogy? "Baseball for Dummies At Rest" is due out any day now.

Now to the content: he picked the top-10 managers for what period? All time or just the current time? I can't believe that Joe McCarthy John McGraw, Earl Weaver, Connie Mack, and their ilk could be beaten out in anyone's book by Alou. So let's assume he refers to the top-10 active managers.

First, that's not much of a list. You have 30 active managers plus maybe an old inactive Davey Johnson or two. Who cares about the tenth guy on that list?

Second, how can he rank Alou, who entered the year under .500 as a manager for his career (691-717 for a .491 winning percentage) and whose teams had never made the playoffs, higher than Bobby Cox, who has won nearly three times as many games (1805 to start the year), whose career winning percentage is .562, and whose teams have finished first 12 times? Or higher than Lou Piniella, who has won about twice as many games and whose teams have won a world series and four division crowns. Or higher than Joe Torre-twice as many games won, four World Series, and 7 division titles. Or Davey Johnson or Baker or LaRussa? Frankly I cannot comprehend how Alou even made the top-10.

Yes, LaRussa is a good manager, but his team is underperforming and he has to take some flak. The manager gets the credit when the team wins. He should take some blame when they fail. Maybe that will be in "Baseball for Dummies, Part Eight".]

---

The Reds fired GM Jim Bowden and manager Bob Boone today. Triple-A manager Dave Miley (who lived across the street from me when I was a kid, and whom I once hit with an apple--probably not the same guy) takes over for the rest of the year for Boone. Bowden will be replaced by a small patch of brown liquid. Upon hearing the news, Bowden immediately fired Tony Perez.

---

Coming soon!

---

A former Metrodome superintendent claims to have attempted to aid the Twins in close, late-inning games by, to quote Trading Places, giving them "the winds something awful." Says said ex-Schneider disciple Dick Ericson:

"If they (the Twins) were down two runs and you're still hoping for them to have the advantage, you'd want to be blowing all the air out and up as much as you can."

One such wind-aided dinger was Kirby Puckett's game-winner in the eleventh inning of the sixth game of the 1991 World Series. But he calls his machinations "your home-field advantage. Every stadium has got one." Yeah, maybe in the Cold-War era Soviet Union. At least he claims to have done it on his own without any instructions from the Twins.

Like everything that has transpired in baseball since Abner Doubleday apocryphally invented the game, Bobby Valentine, the famous Bobby V, know about it years ago: "I became very suspicious, maybe paranoid. They had such an uncanny way of winning." Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean people aren't against you (Frank Burns).

A professor of fluid dynamics had previously run two separate tests in the Metrodome. One found that balls traveled an average of three feet farther when aided by antics like Ericson's. Then the second found no effect. So your guess is as good as his and you didn't have to take any Quantum Physics classes to formulate yours.

I consulted the Bible, Robert K. Adair's The Physics of Baseball, and found that Adair (p. 17) indicates that a batted ball with an initial velocity of 110 miles per hour will travel something like 20-30 feet farther if aided by a 10 MPH wind. Adair goes on to discuss the effects of wind on the pitcher, something not tested by the fluid dynamics professor. Adair found that fastball pitchers were not affected by wind in the faces but curveball pitchers will find their ball approaching the plate more slowly (though Adair says that it's negligible except for slower curves, p. 43).

I guess there's not much that MLB can do about the past, but they can ensure that it is not happening today. It seems to fly in the face of fair play. Consider the following rule:

3.13
The manager of the home team shall present to the umpire in chief and the opposing manager any ground rules he thinks necessary covering the overflow of spectators upon the playing field, batted or thrown balls into such overflow, or any other contingencies. If these rules are acceptable to the opposing manager they shall be legal. If these rules are unacceptable to the opposing manager, the umpire in chief shall make and enforce any special ground rules he thinks are made necessary by ground conditions, which shall not conflict with the official playing rules.

"Our ground rule is that we get help in the late innings of a close ballgame by having our long flies blown over the wall for a round-tripper, OK?" I don't think it would fly.

Then again the Mets have done so much sucking of late but they have yet to be reprimanded.

---

The Mudville Magazine has a great article on The Baseball Reliquary. The Reliquary is a wonderful organization that views baseball with the same childlike awe that we all had when we kids learning the game's folklore. It reminds me of the Strange But True Baseball Stories books that I read as a kid, but a bit funkier.

Here are two of their exhibits:

The Babe Ruth hot dog from the famous "Bellyache Heard 'Round the World"...

And good ol' number 1/8 Eddie Gaedel's jock:

Check them out for more incredible momentos that you'll never see in Cooperstown.

---

Weep on! and as thy sorrows flow,
I 'll taste the luxury of woe.

-Sir Thomas "Jo-Jo" Moore

Baseball released its payroll numbers for luxury taxes and-surprise!-the Yankees are the only ones who pass the $117 M threshold.

I did a little research though and found that salaries remained relatively flat over the last year. I took the payrolls from an October 11, 2002 AP article that I found at Doug Pappas' Business of Baseball site. However, these numbers are based on 25-man rosters and the ESPN report is based on 40-man rosters. Therefore, I added 15 spots to each team with each spot receiving the league minimum $200K. Also, I added $7,552,271 for health benefits and so that the Yankees don't have to lay off more office staff. I also calculated luxury taxes for 2002, had they then existed.

Here's what I got:

Team	2002 Payroll (Proj)	2003 Payroll	Difference	2002 Tax (Proj)	2003 Tax
New York Yankees	$143,981,846	$180,322,403	$36,340,557	$4,586,914	$10,764,809
Boston	$120,801,806	$104,873,607	-$15,928,199	$646,307	$0
Texas	$117,467,451	$106,277,880	-$11,189,571	$79,467	$0
Arizona	$114,081,148	$92,665,040	-$21,416,108	$0	$0
Los Angeles	$112,057,160	$109,248,680	-$2,808,480	$0	$0
New York Mets	$104,947,846	$116,253,927	$11,306,081	$0	$0
Atlanta	$104,338,336	$103,912,011	-$426,325	$0	$0
Seattle	$96,636,981	$92,268,063	-$4,368,918	$0	$0
San Francisco	$88,978,843	$100,061,211	$11,082,368	$0	$0
St. Louis	$86,780,072	$101,825,848	$15,045,776	$0	$0
Chicago Cubs	$85,502,814	$86,576,763	$1,073,949	$0	$0
Cleveland	$85,440,636	$58,108,824	-$27,331,812	$0	$0
Toronto	$77,367,242	$61,175,638	-$16,191,604	$0	$0
Houston	$75,965,231	$79,946,964	$3,981,733	$0	$0
Anaheim	$73,309,312	$83,235,098	$9,925,786	$0	$0
Philadelphia	$70,146,012	$95,338,704	$25,192,692	$0	$0
Colorado	$67,061,456	$78,738,492	$11,677,036	$0	$0
Baltimore	$67,056,956	$75,502,154	$8,445,198	$0	$0
Chicago White Sox	$65,086,355	$71,336,029	$6,249,674	$0	$0
Detroit	$64,943,141	$59,006,941	-$5,936,200	$0	$0
Kansas City	$59,914,980	$48,475,322	-$11,439,658	$0	$0
Milwaukee	$59,811,401	$47,294,226	-$12,517,175	$0	$0
Cincinnati	$56,862,969	$65,083,196	$8,220,227	$0	$0
Pittsburgh	$56,612,255	$62,314,723	$5,702,468	$0	$0
Oakland	$52,494,936	$56,596,691	$4,101,755	$0	$0
San Diego	$52,343,441	$57,871,722	$5,528,281	$0	$0
Minnesota	$51,861,302	$65,318,977	$13,457,675	$0	$0
Florida	$51,374,807	$63,281,152	$11,906,345	$0	$0
Montreal	$48,453,303	$45,853,889	-$2,599,414	$0	$0
Tampa Bay	$45,280,811	$31,660,602	-$13,620,209	$0	$0
Total	$2,356,960,849	$2,400,424,777	$43,463,928	$5,312,688	$10,764,809
Avg	$78,565,362	$80,014,159	$1,448,798	$177,090	$358,827

Salaries are a lot flatter apparently this year. But are they equally flat for all teams? Let's take a look.

First, I calculated the difference between the 2003 and 2002 salary per team. Then I represented that as a percentage of each team's 2002 payroll. Next the teams were grouped based on 2002 payrolls. The Yankees were in a class by themselves and then the rest were group at about a half-dozen at a time whenever an appropriately large gap presented itself. Then the payroll differences and percent increase/decrease were calculated per group:

Team	Difference	Avg Diff	%Increase	Avg Inc
New York Yankees	$36,340,557	$46,892,828	25.24%	25.24%
Boston	-$15,928,199		-13.19%
Texas	-$11,189,571		-9.53%
Arizona	-$21,416,108		-18.77%
Los Angeles	-$2,808,480		-2.51%
New York Mets	$11,306,081		10.77%
Atlanta	-$426,325	-$6,743,767	-0.41%	-5.60%
Seattle	-$4,368,918		-4.52%
San Francisco	$11,082,368		12.46%
St. Louis	$15,045,776		17.34%
Chicago Cubs	$1,073,949		1.26%
Cleveland	-$27,331,812		-31.99%
Toronto	-$16,191,604		-20.93%
Houston	$3,981,733		5.24%
Anaheim	$9,925,786	-$847,840	13.54%	-0.95%
Philadelphia	$25,192,692		35.91%
Colorado	$11,677,036		17.41%
Baltimore	$8,445,198		12.59%
Chicago White Sox	$6,249,674		9.60%
Detroit	-$5,936,200		-9.14%
Kansas City	-$11,439,658		-19.09%
Milwaukee	-$12,517,175		-20.93%
Cincinnati	$8,220,227		14.46%
Pittsburgh	$5,702,468	$3,954,918	10.07%	5.65%
Oakland	$4,101,755		7.81%
San Diego	$5,528,281		10.56%
Minnesota	$13,457,675		25.95%
Florida	$11,906,345		23.18%
Montreal	-$2,599,414		-5.36%
Tampa Bay	-$13,620,209	$3,129,072	-30.08%	5.34%
Total	$43,463,928		1.84%
Avg	$1,448,798			2.23%

Note the largest dropoff was in the highest salaried teams (aside from the Yankees). The next group stayed about the same and then the next two groups grew at 5-6%.

What this means is that the Yankees' payroll increase looks even sharper when compared to the other high-salaried teams. Let's take a look at team payrolls based on 2002 and 2003 "Yankee dollars", meaning using the Yankees' payroll each year as the standard (i.e., $1.00) and representing the other payrolls as percentages of that:

Team	2002 Yankee $	2003 Yankee $
New York Yankees	$1.00	$1.00
Boston	$0.84	$0.58
Texas	$0.82	$0.59
Arizona	$0.79	$0.51
Los Angeles	$0.78	$0.61
New York Mets	$0.73	$0.64
Atlanta	$0.72	$0.58
Seattle	$0.67	$0.51
San Francisco	$0.62	$0.55
St. Louis	$0.60	$0.56
Chicago Cubs	$0.59	$0.48
Cleveland	$0.59	$0.32
Toronto	$0.54	$0.34
Houston	$0.53	$0.44
Anaheim	$0.51	$0.46
Philadelphia	$0.49	$0.53
Colorado	$0.47	$0.44
Baltimore	$0.47	$0.42
Chicago White Sox	$0.45	$0.40
Detroit	$0.45	$0.33
Kansas City	$0.42	$0.27
Milwaukee	$0.42	$0.26
Cincinnati	$0.39	$0.36
Pittsburgh	$0.39	$0.35
Oakland	$0.36	$0.31
San Diego	$0.36	$0.32
Minnesota	$0.36	$0.36
Florida	$0.36	$0.35
Montreal	$0.34	$0.25
Tampa Bay	$0.31	$0.18
Total	$16.37	$13.31
Avg	$0.55	$0.44

That's quite a change. Consider that Minnesota increased its payroll by the fourth largest amount in the majors ($13 M, behind the Yankees, Phils, and Cards) but had exactly the same value for Yankee Dollars each year. The Phils were the only team to see their Yankee Dollars increase in 2003. The highest 2003 value (i.e., the Mets') was twenty Yankee Cents less than the highest in 2002 (Boston's) and the lowest was 13 Yankee Cents less (Tampa Bay for both).

One interesting side note, the Astros seem to have the finger on the pulse of whatever is afoot here. They are the closest to average in just about every category so far. The 'Stros took on Jeff Kent's contract but just had a small increase in payroll.

So what does it all mean? Are the highest-salaried teams (aside from the Yanks) just attempting to avoid the luxury tax? Are the lower-salaried teams spending more in anticipation of actual Yankee dollars stuffing their coffers? Who invented liquid soap and why?

Of course, each team has its own set of issues and is to a degree working independent of the rest. But the market does help dictate salary trends. To help make sense of it all, let's look at the necessary salary costs incurred in winning. Here is a table of team wins for 2002 and what each win cost that team in 2002 payroll:

Team	2002 W	$/W 2002
Texas	72	$1,484,933.06
New York Yankees	103	$1,295,432.77
New York Mets	75	$1,258,607.67
Boston	93	$1,185,478.87
Chicago Cubs	67	$1,118,664.82
Los Angeles	92	$1,103,314.01
Arizona	98	$1,056,417.11
Cleveland	74	$1,012,004.93
Detroit	55	$988,924.91
Atlanta	101	$928,574.90
Seattle	93	$925,642.04
Milwaukee	56	$879,627.32
Toronto	78	$856,602.19
Baltimore	67	$843,353.51
San Francisco	95	$825,542.86
Kansas City	62	$796,172.73
St. Louis	97	$785,853.62
Houston	84	$778,725.71
Colorado	73	$774,098.42
Philadelphia	80	$744,921.76
Chicago White Sox	81	$673,260.30
Pittsburgh	72	$639,722.00
Anaheim	99	$633,909.51
San Diego	66	$633,199.55
Tampa Bay	55	$631,428.00
Cincinnati	78	$593,726.90
Florida	79	$516,740.96
Montreal	83	$456,638.94
Minnesota	94	$439,457.78
Oakland	103	$407,210.34
Total	2425	$25,268,187.48
Avg	81	$842,272.92

The Yankees are not first and are only about 50% higher than the average. Also note that playoff calliber teams are scattered throughout with the A's-surprise!-getting the best bang for their buck.

Now let's look at the numbers based on 2003 projected wins and the ESPN payroll numbers:

Team	Proj W	$/W 2003
New York Yankees	100	$1,803,224.03
New York Mets	67	$1,735,133.24
Texas	66	$1,610,270.91
Detroit	44	$1,341,066.84
Los Angeles	85	$1,285,278.59
St. Louis	83	$1,226,817.45
Boston	96	$1,092,433.41
Chicago Cubs	80	$1,082,209.54
Arizona	86	$1,077,500.47
Philadelphia	92	$1,036,290.26
Anaheim	83	$1,002,832.51
Colorado	80	$984,231.15
San Francisco	103	$971,468.07
Atlanta	107	$971,140.29
Baltimore	79	$955,723.47
San Diego	61	$948,716.75
Seattle	98	$941,510.85
Cincinnati	71	$916,664.73
Houston	89	$898,280.49
Cleveland	67	$867,295.88
Chicago White Sox	83	$859,470.23
Pittsburgh	75	$830,862.97
Minnesota	80	$816,487.21
Florida	84	$753,347.05
Toronto	83	$737,055.88
Milwaukee	66	$716,579.18
Oakland	91	$621,941.66
Montreal	83	$552,456.49
Tampa Bay	58	$545,872.45
Kansas City	89	$544,666.54
Total	2,429	$29,726,828.58
Avg	81	$990,894.29

If the season ended today teams that are numbers 1, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 30 in payroll per win would make the playoffs. In 2002, teams number 2, 7, 10, 15, 17, 23, 29, and 30 made it. So much for the Blue Ribbon Panel's postseason research by payroll quartile. That translates into an average payroll position of 13.875 for 2003 playoff teams and 16.625 for 2002 playoff teams. This is an extremely small sample, but it is possible that teams spending more money are now more likely to make the playoffs. Also the standard deviations for the two year's playoff team positions have shrunk (10.18 in 2002 to 8.66 in 2003) meaning that the playoff teams are clustering nearer to the average.

It should be noted that the standard deviation for payroll dollars per win overall increased significantly, from $266 K in 2002 to $317 K in 2003. Even if you remove the anomalous Yankees from the equation, there is still a large increase ($257 K to $283 K). So if you are expecting the Billy Beane revolution to take hold throughout the game, you may have to wait a bit.

If you look at the standard deviation for team payrolls it increased overall from last year to this year, ($25,692,726 to $29,124,676). However, again ignoring the Yankees returns a slight decrease ($22,925,727 to $22,512,263), meaning that the team payrolls outside of the Bronx may be converging.

So what do I think it all means? Way back in the negotiating process for last year's CBA, the owners started bandying around ideas that sounded pretty close to a salary cap. Even in the final agreement, there were many, including yours truly, who called the new system a de facto cap.

I think that given the indicators above there is some validity in that claim. Payrolls aside from the Yankees have grown much more slowly and they are tending to converge. However, the approach taken varies per team. Therefore, what teams are paying per win has diverged.

So if anyone is concerned with the homogenization of baseball that a cap would engender, it doesn't appear to be an issue. Teams like the A's and Jays who spend wisely will still win for less money and teams like the Rangers and Mets (at least in Steve Phillips' day) who overspend for marginal talent will still get a bad return on their investment.

---

I just wanted to make a couple of points regarding Sailer's article, which is a good summation en toto.

First, I agree that a good number of Latin players, especially Dominicans, are free swingers who follow the adage that one cannot "walk off the island". As Sailer points out this may change as future players tailor their game to match organizations needs. It should also be pointed out that the go-between in evaluating these players are the major-league scouts. Sailer refers to Moneyball, Michael Lewis' homage to Billy Beane, and in the book one finds that Beane is still heavily reliant on his scouts for information. Even though they do end up drafting a Jeremy Brown or five based mostly on statistical evidence, they do consult with the scouts to get a feel for the player's personality and adaptability to profession ball. And that's for the players in college ball where their statistical record is easily accessible. I would doubt that the stats for every Latin player are as easy to find. Therefore, for these players more reliance on the scouting system is required. Therefore, Latins are selected based on the more archaic of baseball measuring sticks, the scout, who is still looking for the type of player that Billy Beane was throughout his highly anticipated yet highly unsuccessful career. Also, GMs may ignore Latin players if all they have to go on is a "Good Body" scouting report.

I have a few other minor issues: The explanation as to how the reliance on stolen bases and ignorance of on-base percentage for leadoff hitters let to the dearth of hitting in the Sixties and Seventies is a bit facile. I'm sure it was a factor but to say that Maury Wills caused the statistical averages for all hitters to drop significantly is an overstatement.

Sailer also states that:

Sabermetricians have done less to revolutionize thinking about pitching, however, because baseball already possessed an excellent statistic in the earned run average.

I beg to differ. Sure, ERA is a much better tool than batting average, but if Voros McCracken's research and development of the DIPS (Defense-Independent Pitching Stats) are not revolutionary, I don't know what is.

---

Steve Sailer has a good look a sabermetricians and their perceived racism.

Also, Eric McErlain has an overview of articles that have cropped up in response to Wiley.

I have comments--don't I always?--but have to go to meeting right now.

---

Here's a little slice of delusion from Ralph Wiley's chat and love-in session earlier today:

jeff, boston ma: Ralph, I thought it was shameful the way you implied Bill James and other sabermetricians de-vaule the SB because they have racist leanings. James thinks Rickey is one of the greatest players of all time.

Ralph Wiley: OK, before we get to Kobe, this one deserves mention, more than one person has mentioned it; I spoke with another big fan of Bill James, Page 2 editor David Schoenfield, last week via e-mail; he also told me, informed me, really, that James was supposedly a big fan of Rick's, and think Rick is one of the top 15 players all time; the tone within that section of the piece did imply that, I think now, but I am not as fine as I like to be sometimes. Writing is like pitching. (or hitting). You are not going to always put the ball exactly where you want, but I'll say this. It was still the right velocity. Actually it was a systemic thing James just happened to be part of; SI asked him to right a piece about the effect, meaning of the stolen base in 1982, as RIck was stealing 130 bags. James does not care for the stolen base. Or, should I say, the unsuccessful stolen base. So, let's just call it a rather unhappy coincidence, Unhappy because I came with Rick, see? I was a rookie on the beat when he was a rookie in the Show, and I've seen him do some things. I meant no harm to Bill James.

OK, first it's not "Rick"; it's "Rickey". Rickey refers to Rickey so many times in the third person, how can your forget Rickey's name? Second, SI did not ask him to "right" a piece. They asked him to write it. What was the piece off course and needed a sure pilot like James to right it? Or was the piece wronged by some roue and it needed the masked avenger, James, to right the wrongs done to it? Wiley is a grate righter tho, Eye reed hymn awl the thyme.

Contrast this response to Wiley's original statement:

It is usually the American-born blacks' records and place that are resented instead of celebrated. For example, it's the stolen base that is denigrated as a weapon by baseball sabermaticians [sic] like Bill James, at precisely the time when a Rickey Henderson steals 130 bases in a season. There are sour grapes when a baseball man uses stats to tell you a stolen base isn't important. Any time a baseball manager will give up an out for a base, as with a sac bunt or groundball to the right side, any time a base is so precious, then it goes without saying that the stolen base must be important. Not the CS, the caught stealing, or stats of success rates, but the stolen base itself.

"James was supposedly a big fan of Rick's... the tone within that section of the piece did imply that, I think now'? I think Wiley's referring to his own piece (piece of what?) here, not James' article on Henderson.

The reason I say that is is that he goes on to, "[B]ut I am not as fine as I like to be sometimes. Writing is like pitching. (or hitting). You are not going to always put the ball exactly where you want, but I'll say this. It was still the right velocity."

So to paraphrase, "I screwed up but it was an honest mistake." James is characterized as a man with an agenda using stats to "denigrate as a weapon" an individual because he holds an "American-born blacks' record". But one email from an editor gets Wiley to rehabilitate James to the point that the problem now is a "systemic thing James just happened to be part of" and that he "meant no harm to Bill James." I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.

By the way, why didn't the editor point this out before ESPN published Wiley's tripe to begin with? I'm sorry, I used to work for a publisher whose editors actually edited, but I probably just don't get ESPN's paradigm. Oh, and sorry for trying to inject logic into the situation.

Maybe the systemic thing is the problem of allowing hacks with an axe to grind a forum in which to bloviate on topics, on which they have not even a pedestrian understanding. Heck, you can't even get away with that in the blogging world.

After reading Wiley's chat response I have even less respect for him. He was a just hack righter before, but at least he had convictions. James was a racist hiding under the cloak of "sabermetrics". Now, he wants to just pretend he didn't say it? It's like the old Gilda Radner character Emily Latella spouting off on topics that she mishears: "What's all this I hear about banning violins in school?"

How can anything that he says from this point forward have any credibility? Oh, you say it never did?

"Never mind."

[By the way the headline was a reference to "Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius". I bit of a stretch, eh?]

---

The Yankees and Red Sox unsured that there would be no lefty-gap yesterday when both clubs picked up a left-hander for their bullpen. The Sox got Scott Sauerbeck for one-time embattled close Brandon Lyons (they also swapped minor-leaguers) as Boston continues their year-long tinkering with the bullpen. When Sauerbeck pitches in a Red Sox uniform for the first time, he will be the 21st man used out of the Boston bullpen. He'll also be the sixth man in that pen to have pitched for another club besides Boston this year (Lyons will make seven). And he is a very intelligent looking man...

The Yanks followed up by getting the old man of the hill, 46-year-old Jesse Orosco. If you look Orosco up in Baseball Reference, you'll see that that two most similar pitches to him at his age are two Hall-of-Famers (with similarity scores):

Hoyt Wilhelm (782)
Satchel Paige (621)

That's pretty impressive until you realize that there have only been twenty pitchers who have pitched in their 45th year and very few were predominantly relievers:

Nick Altrock
Red Faber
Clark Griffith
Joe Heving
Charlie Hough
Tommy John
Fred Johnson
Jim Kaat
Hod Lisenbee
Dolf Luque
Ted Lyons
Bobo Newsom
Phil Niekro
Jesse Orosco
Satchel Paige
Gaylord Perry
Jack Quinn
Nolan Ryan
Hoyt Wilhelm
Kaiser Wilhelm

Another thing to consider about Orosco is that he is now on the club with the best record in the AL and given that club's history, recent or otherwise, he has a good shot of winning another World Series. It has been 17 years since his last World Series win with some other New York team. Then...

And Now...

Orosco has aged well since then. Then again, he appeared well-aged at 30.

Anyway, this got me thinking if that would be the largest gap for a player between World Series victories. I did a query and found that there were four names that had at least 17 years between their first and last Series:

Name	# WS	First Year	Last Year	Diff
Ernie Johnson	2	1923	1957	34
Pedro Borbon	3	1975	1995	20
Babe Ruth	7	1915	1932	17
Jim Palmer	3	1966	1983	17

The only thing is that there were two Ernie Johnsons (one on the 1923 Giants and one on 1957 Braves) and two Pedro Borbons (1975-76 Reds--of Airplane! fame--and Jr. on '95 Braves) who spanned those years.

That leaves the Babe and Palmer--I think there was only one of each of them. They both had a 17-year span between their first and last World Series win. However, both won Series in the intervening years: Palmer one in 1970 and Ruth, another 5.

So if the Yankees win the World Series and if Orosco is still part of the team at that time, he'll be the first to have a 17-year wait between World Series parades. Then again, at his age almost anything he does will be a first in the majors.

Also, both Palmer and Ruth were twenty years old and were embarking on their first complete season in the bigs when they won their first World Series. Orosco was nine years older and had already recorded 7 seasons in the majors.

---

The much-rumored trade between the Cubs and the Pirates finally went through today. The Cubs get third baseman Aramis Ramirez and center fielder Kenny Lofton for shortstop-cum-third baseman Jose Hernandez and a couple of minor-leaguers.

The two moves fill the holes that were created when center fielder Corey Patterson went down with a season-ending injury and third baseman Mark Bellhorn had a 200-point slugging and 225-point OPS dropoff earlier this year. Hernandez replaced Bellhorn and then decided to channel him, batting .188 with a .570 OPS (both had two home runs for the Cubs in their short stints).

Ramirez is 9 years younger than Hernandez. He is having a good year (.786 OPS) but has been succeptable to power outages as well (especially in 2002). His three years as a starter have ranged from awful to very good, so who knows what the Cub can expect? The good news is that he is just 25; the bad news is that he will make $3 M this year and will make $6M in 2004 (there's no mention if the Pirates will take on any of that salary--I think not though).

Chicago also rents two months and change of 36-year-old Kenny Lofton's career. He has been a consistently above-average player at the end of his career. He carries a respectable .773 OPS and his home run total projects to 15 on the year, which would match his career high. Unfortunately, his .334 OPS represents a career-low and even though he has 18 stolen bases, those numbers don't speak well of a leadoff hitter, but that's is probably where the Cubbies will insert him in the lineup (except against lefties probably). Ramirez pushes Alex Gonzalez down to seventh in the order (again probably), giving the Cubs three right-handed bats at the bottom of their order--seven when Karros spells Choi (preceded by Alou, Sosa, and Grudzielanek, in reverse order).

Chicago finally got the deal it wanted. Now we'll just have to see if it was the right deal.

---

Marty DiBergi: Do you feel that playing rock 'n' roll music keeps you a child? That is, keeps you in a state of arrested development?

Derek Smalls: No. No. No. I feel it's like, it's more like going, going to a, a national park or something. And there's, you know, they preserve the moose. And that's, that's my childhood up there on stage. That moose, you know.

Marty DiBergi: So when you're playing you feel like a preserved moose on stage?

Derek Smalls: Yeah.

- From This Is Spinal Tap

We here at Mike's Baseball Rants love the Joe Morgan but we love the Joe Morgan Chat Days even more. But then again, who couldn't after last week's sublimely ridiculous offering? Joe's handlers must have adjusted his medication this week though-for the first time in recent memory I have nothing to put in "The Ugly" category, But don't fret gentle reader, there is always plenty to enjoy in a Joe chat (as opposed to a Joe Pa).

This week I have come to the conclusion that, just like Album-Oriented Rock (or AOR) cum Classic Rock, Joe is Derek Smalls' "preserved moose". Open the music section of your local paper and you will see that bands that you thought had broken up years ago are still touring like mad. My musical youth is still paraded up on stage by performers who are reluctant to pass the dutchy to the under-40 whippersnappers.

There were always those Spinal Tap-inspired "Black Sabbath featuring Tony Iommi"-type bands, that is with only one surviving member going for the cash. Somewhere the Temptations are still performing. This reminds me of a story that juggler/comic Michael Davis used to tell before juggling an axe. "This axe once belonged to George Washington," he began. "I replaced the head and the handle. But it occupies the same space."

But now reunion tours abound as well. "Welcome back to the Age of Jive". The Eagles have had more farewells than Barbra Steisand. You can hear "Mr. Roboto" performed by some semblance of Styx. Styx lead singer and pianist Dennis DeYoung actually wrote a song for the All-Star game that either did not make the broadcast or I blinked and missed it (or more likely I winced after the fiasco that was the "League of Extraordinary Gentleman" opening and the woodenly mannequin Jeannie So-at-last-go, or whatever her name is).

The Who continue to play as some sort of tontine with the last surviving member inheriting their empire. So much for "I hope I die before I get old." Oddly and in sharp contrast to the Who, the Stones, remain intact though Keith Richards' desiccated mug would give Freddy Krueger nightmares. I recently caught a performance by them on HBO and couldn't help thinking of the skeleton band in that Grateful Dead video. And boy is it depressing to think that I can remember when Stevie Nicks was a sultry belladonna.

So too is Joe resting on his MOR laurels as a broadcaster. Joe was once the greatest second baseman of the latter half of the twentieth century. Well, he is still is, but it's hard to tell by the tripe he dishes out on a regular basis during his game broadcasts and in his propagandistic pontifications on ESPN online. Joe has even taking to denying his misstatements of late proving that no one could accept such pap when presented impersonally. Now, watch me paste this pathetic palooka with a powerful pachydermous pitch.

The Good

Utek (LA): Hi Joe. I've got a question about second basemen for you. Traditionally, the only position on the infield that left-handed throwers are allowed to play (besides pitcher) is first base. But I contend that a left-handed throwing second baseman would be an asset, because arguably a second baseman's most important throw---and the one he has to get off the quickest---is to second base, on double plays and force outs. A lefty wouldn't have to pivot to make these throws. So Joe, as a left-handed hitting Hall of Fame second baseman yourself, do you think we'll ever see a left-handed throwing second baseman in the major leagues?

No, because you throw more throws to first base than second base. No, you will not see a left-handed second baseman in major league baseball.

[Mike: Joe knows second basemen. Playing a lefty at second became untenable by the late 1870s. The last left-hander to play more than one or two games at second was Prince Hal Chase in 1916, regularly a first baseman. Chase played 35 at second in his career (he also played three at short and one at third!). The last left-hander to play even a game at second was first sacker Don Mattingly in 1983, his rookie year, though nothing was hit his way (Mattingly also played three games at third). The last left-handed starting second baseman was Bill Greenwood for the American Association Rochester Broncos in 1890 (123 games at second in their 126-game season).

Here is a chart of the years in which a left-hander played second and the resulting stats compared to the overall stats for second basemen in the year:

Yr	Lefty G	%TC	TC/G%	F PCT %	DP%	A PCT%
1871	57	23.39%	107.94%	98.24%	92.70%	98.46%
1872	25	5.52%	83.67%	97.35%	108.40%	90.41%
1873	21	3.74%	75.51%	103.96%	65.62%	112.30%
1874	52	11.78%	111.45%	103.33%	45.89%	106.94%
1875	33	3.48%	77.09%	92.64%	66.82%	92.95%
1876	6	0.84%	75.04%	83.84%	135.29%	70.60%
1877	42	10.39%	92.04%	95.27%	92.67%	81.87%
1878	52	12.16%	86.79%	96.92%	90.09%	107.00%
1879	8	0.80%	64.22%	74.36%	0.00%	65.04%
1880	1	0.08%	56.82%	55.76%	0.00%	0.00%
1881	1	0.11%	72.93%	110.80%	0.00%	128.10%
1882	12	0.49%	47.43%	91.64%	0.00%	94.14%
1883	55	2.63%	76.51%	97.71%	109.12%	91.75%
1884	279	9.32%	104.45%	98.62%	92.31%	94.84%
1885	67	3.75%	100.70%	98.17%	74.98%	93.86%
1886	168	8.36%	105.71%	99.07%	90.95%	96.49%
1887	267	12.40%	99.67%	99.13%	80.11%	95.41%
1888	154	6.11%	87.59%	98.36%	94.00%	100.66%
1889	125	5.33%	93.91%	99.34%	105.52%	96.25%
1890	124	3.81%	99.74%	100.01%	110.09%	93.11%
1891	3	0.04%	33.14%	54.27%	0.00%	0.00%
1892	16	0.62%	71.59%	92.09%	63.93%	105.72%
1893	24	1.19%	78.72%	90.99%	56.26%	107.29%
1894	9	0.46%	83.09%	103.06%	28.80%	95.07%
1895	11	0.36%	52.74%	88.84%	40.75%	79.14%
1896	3	0.04%	23.13%	106.45%	0.00%	95.06%
1897	3	0.09%	50.79%	83.09%	0.00%	21.00%
1898	1	0.02%	34.09%	106.02%	0.00%	95.82%
1899	1	0.06%	120.60%	75.91%	0.00%	81.88%
1900	1	0.02%	18.00%	106.64%	0.00%	198.63%
1901	5	0.12%	56.08%	106.60%	0.00%	96.01%
1902	3	0.11%	83.13%	98.04%	103.52%	108.77%
1904	1	0.03%	73.63%	105.50%	0.00%	90.56%
1905	14	0.27%	48.62%	96.75%	52.12%	117.82%
1906	8	0.25%	79.49%	92.84%	49.14%	110.33%
1907	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
1908	3	0.08%	68.80%	85.94%	0.00%	115.35%
1909	1	0.01%	19.93%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
1910	7	0.17%	62.59%	105.41%	118.59%	132.69%
1911	2	0.04%	57.17%	105.25%	232.25%	93.90%
1912	7	0.20%	71.73%	85.02%	54.57%	72.74%
1913	5	0.13%	66.58%	80.15%	0.00%	32.26%
1915	3	0.10%	132.26%	94.32%	136.80%	91.46%
1916	16	0.72%	118.21%	97.86%	96.42%	92.34%
1917	2	0.07%	87.01%	81.22%	0.00%	101.65%
1920	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
1924	1	0.01%	17.53%	103.81%	0.00%	180.71%
1933	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
1958	1	0.01%	20.69%	102.38%	709.99%	0.00%
1970	1	0.00%	21.03%	102.13%	0.00%	0.00%
1973	2	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
1983	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Total	1707	0.51%	118.00%	91.39%	51.72%	84.41%
Avg		2.49%	64.80%	83.56%	61.49%	79.35%

You'll notice that the most enticing thing was that relay to second for a force out or to start a double play. The A PCT% indicates this. It is based on the ratio of assists to total chances for lefties as a percentage of all second basemen. They remain very high, mostly higher than the average second baseman (i.e., over 100%-it is hard to tell though as the sample size shrinks). Double Play percentages are likewise pretty good: given that a lefty second baseman's relay to first would be slowed greatly, the fact that the DP% numbers are as high as they are represents a big advantage with second basemen starting a double play.

So managers still tinkered with lefty second basemen to get the advantage of the throw to the shortstop/third baseman to get a lead runner or to start a double play. However Hal Chase seemed to spell the death knell. Even though he handled many more chances per game than an average second baseman-he was known as very good fielder at first-and his fielding percentage was respectable, he started fewer double plays and doled out fewer assists. Maybe the thinking was if a good fielder like Chase could no longer give you the advantage of a throw to the left side of the diamond, then there's really no point in trying a left-hander at second.

I would think this is just part of the evolution of the position. Right-handed second basemen improved the technique to the point that being able to throw more easily to the left side of the infield as a lefty was no longer a real advantage. But whatever the case, I agree with Joe that the left-handed second baseman as a viable option is deader than a doornail (though like Charles Dickens I agree that a coffin nail would be a more apropos metaphor).]

The Bad

Lyle Goleta, Ca: Pete Rose was great, but he never was extremely great. Do you think he is even good enough to really be thought of as one of the elite baseball players of all time and one of the neccesitites to be in the hall of fame?

Yes, I think that Pete Rose's numbers and everything else he did on the field puts him in an elite class of baseball players and his numbers are good enough for the Hall of Fame.

[Mike: A) The Hall aint that elite-thanks, Frankie Frisch! B) Give the man his due. I wouldn't rank him up with Ruth, Mays, and Bonds, but Rose is the all-time Hit King after all. The man has the apparel to prove-like the ubiquitous script-L's on Laverne Difozio's blouses, the man embroiders Hit King into every piece of clothing he owns. Besides what does "extremely great" even mean? ]

John Currie, Minnesota: Exactly how good will the Twins be for the rest of the season and do they have enough to make it to the playoffs.

Well they basically have the same team they had last year and they made the playoffs. I think other teams improved. They have a chance, but it's going to be very difficult for them to make the playoffs.

[Mike: Make the playoffs? How about breaking .500. They looked good this past week in sweeping the A's, but this team did go from 31-20 to 44-49.

But, Joe, this is not basically the same team as last year. Gone are David Ortiz, perhaps their best power hitter, and Bobby Kielty, who looked like one of their best young players last year, to be replaced by Shannon Stewart, who brings speed to a lineup that already features Luis Rivas, Torii Hunter, and Cristian Guzman. Also, I don't anyone would agree that Kenny Rogers replacing Eric Milton has been a smooth transition.

Besides, last year's team played well over its head if their expected record from the Pythagorean formula is any indication. One would have expected the Twins to be eight games worse in 2002 based on the runs that they scored and they allowed. This was a team with a five-year plan when Gardenhire took over. They got a bit lucky in year one with a weak division and a team that gelled quickly. A slight return to earth is not unexpected. The one concern may be that in their rush to duplicate 2002, they may give up on the five-year plan and start to Shannon Stewart their future away.]

Josh Calgary Alberta: We all saw Wells Delgado and Halladay represent Toronto in the allstar game. I feel its a team with a lot of young talent and want to know who else you see as becoming allstars from that system.

Well it's hard to predict what young players will do. If players continue to improve they obviously have a chance at being an All-Star, but players have to continue to improve to reach their full potential before they become All-Stars.

[Mike: To quote Billy Ray Valentine, "Thanks, you've been halpful."

The Blue Jays have a bunch of young position players that showed promise in 2002 and appeared to be knocking on the doorstep of the All-Star game, to mix metaphors. That includes Orlando Hudson, Chris Woodward, Eric Hinske, and Josh Phelps, all of whom have taken a step back so far in 2003. They picked up a similarly underachieving youngster in Bobby Kielty. They all looked capable of being future All-Stars last year. We'll have to see if they bounce back.

It is remarkable that the Jays are in a pennant race, at least as wild card, and a number of their young players are underperforming and their staff is a wasteland behind Roy Halladay. Carlos Delgado may deserve the MVP on that statement alone.]

John (Branford, CT): Joe three ?'s about the Yanks for you, first how will Benitez handle the setup role for MO, Will Soriano reach 40/40 this year and lastly will Clemens get any votes for AL Cy Young

I think that Benitez will handle the set-up role perfectly because it will take a lot of pressure off of him in New York from being a closer. Soriano has an excellent chance of reaching the 40/40 club, last year he came up one short and he seems to be on track this year. And you can't predict the amount of votes a person gets until you see how many wins he ends up with.

[Mike: People forget that Benitez was a setup man in Baltimore for years. He allowed only 49 hits and struck out 106 in 73.1 innings in 1997. He was also the setup up man in his first half-year with the Metsgoes until John Franco went down. He is a highly-talented head case who walks too many and gives up the gopher ball. That's why he is a much more effective setup man than closer. I don't think it has anything to do with pressure. He just doesn't have the specific talents (few walks and fewer home runs allowed) to be a closer. He's much more effective pitching more innings, in which his minor peccadilloes are mitigated and his strikeouts pile up with the innings.

Soriano is projected to be a 40-40-40 man, exactly 40 HRs, 42 stolen bases, and 43 walks. However, his numbers did drop off considerably in 2002 so it's by no means a lock.

Last year, the top four starters in each league received Cy Young votes. Clemens is fourteenth in the AL in wins, fifteenth in ERA, and first in strikeouts. He may be third in line on his own team. If he continues this way for the year, the only votes he will get will be sympathy ones.]

Steve, Watford, UK: Joe - A few months ago I asked you about the lack of African-American pitchers then on cue Dontrelle Willis and Jerome Williams emerged (we only get Sunday & Wednesday baseball so I've only seen Williams). Do you see these guys having long careers as they are pretty young for ML pitchers and if so could they possibly become role models?

Well I think they are already role models because other African-American kids see them. Automatically when they see them in the big leagues, they become role models to everyone, not just African-Americans when you see them pitching in the major leagues. As far as injuries, they are like all the other pitchers, they have to stay healthy. If they are healthy they will be good pitchers for a long period of time.

[Mike: I don't know, Steve. Are they good Christian boys? I personally agree with Sir Charles Barkley who said that he is not a role model; parents are role models.

That said, Both have great minor league numbers. Actually I like Williams' a little better. But you never know what will happen with young pitchers even without a major injury. From Steve Stone to Esteben Loaiza, you can't predict a pitcher's performance. Let's allow them to pitch to a few teams a couple of times and they'll we'll know if the hitters adjust to them. Willis did get rocked his second time in two weeks against the Cubbies.]

Matt (Cheshire, CT): Hello Mr. Morgan. As a Dodger fan, I am happy that the team aquired Jeromy Burnitz, and somewhat happy that they went after Henderson. However, I am afraid that those additions will not be nearly enough to push the Dodgers into the playoffs. Do you agree that the only way for the Dodgers to catch the Giants and Diamondbacks is if Shawn Green starts hitting like Shawn Green?

I agree that the Dodgers needed to do something to improve their offense. I think Rickey and Burnitz were good additions. But for them to catch the Giants, players that are already there will have to perform better and that included Shawn Green.

[Mike: The main problem with acquiring both Burnitz and Henderson is that they will play the same position, left field. Neither plays center well enough, Bobby V's opinions notwithstanding, to warrant playing them there on a low-scoring team, and Shawn Green is a fixture in right.

Besides Green is having a down year, but he has not been awful and has always been a streaky hitter. The Dodgers' problem is that they don't have the talent. Dave Roberts, Adrian Beltre, Alex Cora, and especially Cesar Izturis don't hit nearly enough to merit being major-league starters and they have not hit well in recent memory (Beltre was pretty good in 2000 and Cora did well in limited service last year). Cora and Izturis are third and fourth last in the majors in OPS among batters who qualify for the batting title. Ouch!]

Matt (Woodside, DE): Joe..What do you think of Marlon Byrd?

I think he's a good player, but like all young players, needs to continue to improve.

[Mike: Yeah, Joe's standard answer for young ballplayers. He would even answer that way for Albert Pujols.

What do I think? First, he's a good role model. Second, he's performed much better of late especially as the leadoff man. In the minors he has a good understanding of the strike zone, decent power, and decent speed. He hasn't walked much this year but still has a .370 OBP. He has only three dingers and a slugging average slightly over .400 this year. So you could say that he has room for improvement. He should be a pretty good center fielder. We'll have to see.]

Chris (Raleigh): What pitchers do you think will really start to catch fire in the second half?

Schilling and Johnson have thrown fewer innings, so they should be fresher. But I think pitchers who have had a good frist half should have a good second half.

[Mike: Great answer, Joe! But no fair cheating.

OK, if course you have Schilling and Johnson. I like Rich Harden in Oakland. Pitchers are impossible to predict, so let's see who is having a big July and has been overlooked of late.

San Diego's Adam Eaton is 3-0 with a 0.90 ERA in July. Jose Lima and Darrell May both won four with sub 2.00 ERAs for the Royals. Others: Kevin Jarvis in San Diego, Pirate Jeff Suppan, Expo Livan Hernandez, O's Sidney Ponson, the Giants Jim Brower, Buehrle, Pineiero, Myers, Jerome Williams, Simontacchi, and Brandon Webb.

For relievers, Rod Beck in San Diego, Jason Isringhausen in St. Louis, and Kim in Boston have been strong of late.]

Doug ( Detroit): Do u think the Tigers have the beginning of a good young staff?

I think they have the beginning of a good young staff because they show a lot of mental toughness to be able to battle through a lot of losses and continue to pitch well.

[Mike: I guess it all depends on your definition of "beginnings". The Tigers starters are not terrible at least. They rank 22nd in the majors in ERA in the majors, 19th in WHIP, 19th in opposition's OPS, thirteenth in home runs allowed per nine innings, last in strikeouts per nine innings (4.34), and 26th in strikeouts-to-walks ratio. They could be in the chrysalis phase like the Braves around 1990, but then again they might not have a decent pitcher in the lot.]

jared (st. louis): Hey Joe, I recently heard Tim McCarver on FOX say he thought Scott Rolen was the best defensive 3rd baseman he had ever seen. Who would you say deserves that recognition? Schmidt?

Maybe when McCarver saw Rolen, he may have been the best he ever saw, but the best I have ever seen are Mike Schmidt or Brooks Robinson.

[Mike: Hey Jared, how's that Subway gig going?

Bill James in Win Shares gives Rolen a B+ defensive rating as a third baseman. This only covers up until 2000, and looking at Rolen's range factor since, I looks like he may have gotten even better. In 2002 he had a 3.10 range factor, his highest total yet far. He was also involved in 41 double plays, again a career high. Two of his four Gold Gloves came after 2000. So let's assume he has improved to, say, A-.

James lists the following third basemen with an A+ rating by era:

Early 3B: Jimmy Collins, Lave Cross, Art Devlin, Tommy Leach, and Lee Tannehill
Depression Era 3B: None (Billl Werber is the highest-rated with an A-)
Post-War 3B: Clete Boyer

In post-war period, there are just two other men who register an A rating, Schmidt and Tim Wallach. Robinson scores an A- (one of 10, the others: Buddy Bell, Scott Brosius, Billy Cox, Darrell Evans, Gary Gaetti, Wayne Garrett, Graig Nettles, Terry Pendleton, and Robin Ventura-not a bad group)

I saw both Schmidt and Rolen play and even though it's hard to compare players who were ten years apart, I still think Schmidt was better. I also thought Schmidt was better than Brooks Robinson, though Robinson gets all the press. I never saw Clete Boyer play though and am willing to accept that he was better than Schmidt (he had a 3.26 range factor, Schmidt 3.00, Rolen 2.83, and Robinson 3.10-of course those are different eras).]

Andrew (NYC): WIth Randy Johnson coming back and Curt Shilling back and pitching like he did last night, can they overtake the Giants for the N.L west lead?

With Randy and Curt, they do have a chance of overtaking the Giants. We haven't seen Randy pitch yet, he got knocked around in the minor leagues the other day.

[Mike: Good Joe, so they are not yet mathematically eliminated.

With Schilling and Johnson heading a staff that includes Brandon Webb (2.45 ERA) and Miguel Batista (2.77) and Jose Valverde heading a good bullpen, the D-Backs look like a solid pick to capsize the Giants in the second half.

However, when you look at the way that they have overachieved on offense, it makes you wonder. Veterans (Moeller, Counsell, Baerga, Hillenbrand-1.048 OPS since joining the D-Backs-, etc.) and youngsters (Alex Cintron, Matt Kata, and Robby Hammock) alike have exceeded expectations. Throw in the fact that the D-Backs have overhauled three fourths of their infield this year (all but Junior Spivey at second), and an offensive comeuppance may be due.

Then again the Giants are playing five games better than expected and the D-Backs, one game worse. So instead of being seven games back, one would expect from their run differentials that Arizona would only be one game back. This is a lot closer than people realize.]

John ,Toledo,Oh: Hi Joe,if Rose gets in the HOF,should Shoeless Joe get in also?

I think you have to take each case one at a time.

[Mike: The answer is an emphatic no. A) Joe Jackson was accused of throwing ballgames. No one accuses Rose of ever throwing a game nor betting against the Reds. B) Those ballgames were in the World Series. C) Joe Jackson signed an admission to having thrown games. Rose claims never to have bet on a baseball game, let alone a game he was a part of. D) Jackson violated rule 21(a), not 21(f) like Rose.

Rule 21 (a) MISCONDUCT IN PLAYING BASEBALL. Any player or person connected with a club who shall promise or agree to lose, or to attempt to lose, or to fail to give his best efforts towards the winning of any baseball game with which he is or may be in any way concerned; or who shall intentionally fail to give his best efforts towards the winning of any such baseball game, or who shall solicit or attempt to induce any player or person connected with a club to lose, or attempt to lose, or to fail to give his best efforts towards the winning of any baseball game with which such other player or person is or may be in any way connected; or who, being solicited by any person, shall fail to inform his Major League President and the Commissioner.

Rule 21 (f) OTHER MISCONDUCT. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the particular case may warrant.

It's odd that everyone uses Rule 21 (d) for all of the banned players but it does not apply to either man here:

Rule 21 (d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

]

Brad (Seattle): What does Seattle need to put themselves over the top in the A.L.?

I think Seattle just needs to continue to play well, they have a good offense, a great pitching staff, and a great defense, so they just have to continue to perform.

[Mike: Brad, check the standings. The Mariners are four games up on the A's.

However, the M's could only improve if they could divest themselves of Jeff Cirillo, his salary, and his .570 OPS. Transitioning time from Dan Wilson to Ben Davis should help as well.]

matt (d.c.): Hi Joe! I dont know if you get to see the Cardinals all that much or not, but we really need a starting pitcher! Do you know of anyone out there that would be a good fit? Thanks!

The problem is that a lot of teams need starting pitching, but knowing who is available is key and I'm not sure who is available.

[Mike: How about Chuck Finley? I hear he's free? Just kidding of course. Though he pitched pretty well for them in the second half last year. Besides him you have Sidney Ponson (if the O's can't get him signed), the Pirates' Jeff Suppan, the Expos' Livan Hernandez (when and if they fall out of contention), and the Padres' Kevin Jarvis, to name a few.

Nolan Bas, New Jersey: Do you really think the Cubs are a contender in the National League Central? What are their chances of trading for Lofton and Ramirez from Pittsburgh?

The Cubs are contenders because they have a good pitching staff, but they need offense. Ramirez and Loften would both help them, but I don't know what their chances of getting them are.

[Mike: No, the Cubs are contenders because they are in a weak division. The Cubs are only 3.5 games out and could win the division, though a wild card run seems unlikely.

They just lost Prior and have Patterson out. Jose Hernandez has been a bust so far at third. The same goes for the catcher Miller and Tom Goodwin, filling in in center. Also Choi has been atrocious since his unfortunate injury. Lofton would probably be a decent fill-in for Patterson and Ramirez is probably a better long-term solution at third if that's what they are looking for. But this team is springing more holes than the Titanic. If Prior is out for an extended period, I doubt Wood and Zmbrano can carry the staff alone.]

Gerard (North Brunswick): Joe, Does ANYONE outside of Queens and Boston think the Benitez deal was a good one? Just wait until the first time Torre brings in Mariano with no out in the 8th because Benitez walked the bases loaded. I take Jason Anderson pitching LEFT-handed over Clubhouse Poison.

The Yankees usually make the decisions and I think they made a good one this time as well.

[Mike: Lots of teams "make the decisions", but this, as I showed before, was a good one. Gerard, stop listening to Mike and the Mad Dog and take at the man's stats. There are weaknesses (the walks and home runs), but Benitez is a talented pitcher who should be able to help someone. Besides if Benitez falters in the eighth, don't you think that the Yankees will go to Hammond, Osuna, or Micelli rather than disrupt their closer's routine?

Oh, and Jason Anderson had a 4.79 ERA when the Yankees traded him. Benitez has a 3.04 ERA for his career and hasn't had an ERA as high as Anderson's since his rookie year. As a Mets fan, you certainly would take Anderson over Benitez. That's why your Mets are where they are. Anderson was shuttled through th Yankees organization that it's hard to tell how good he is. He started the year in 2002 at Single-A and his 4.07 ERA was ignored because of his high strikeout total, so onward and upward. Then again, if you owned the Mets, why not take a shot at Anderson who has the velocity and had good strikeout-to-walks and strikeouts-per-nine-innings ratios in the minors. According to their old co-owner, the Mets are no better than a Double-A team anyway. However, if the Mets were in a pennant race, there's no way they would consider the deal.]

---

This morning the Phillies acquired struggling closer Mike Williams for a mid-level prospect plus cash. Williams will be the setup man for Jose Mesa. He should be able to improve on his 6.27 ERA. Though in his first go-round with the Phils, he had an ERA above 5.00 in four of five years.

I was kind of surprised that the Phils, whose offense has been so suspect all year, decided to improve their relieving given that their bullpen has a 2.99 ERA. It may be for Jose Mesa insurance as the mercurial Mesa has a 4.67 ERA and three blown saves. I trust that Joe Kerrigan knows what he is doing with that staff, and that he had some doing in acquiring Williams.

---

The rose looks fair, but fairer we it deem
For that sweet odour which doth in it live.

-William "Author" Shakespeare

Big Blue Meanie: Arise! Arouse! A rose! A rose!
Jeremy Hillary Boob: A rosy nose?

-Yellow Submarine

I have not watched the entire Rose mock trial as yet. What I did see reminded me more of the People's Court than Law & Order. The jury voted 8-4 that Rose should be eligible for the Hall of Fame. They then responded 11-1 to a poll by prosecuting attorney Alan Dershowitz that they believed Rose bet on baseball. Unfortunately, he did not poll them as to whether they felt Rose bet on any Reds games in which he managed (though I suppose that was the implication). That is the offense that carries the lifetime ban. Betting on baseball itself carries a one-year ban (ask The Lip), which Rose has more than served.

Rule 21 section d:

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

So why is betting on baseball even an issue? Did he bet on the Reds? That's the only question that matters.

Having reviewed the Dowd report and the rules involved, I can't agree with the jury's thought process even though I agree with their "verdict". If they believed there was evidence that Rose gambled on the game and on the Reds specifically, then how can they pronounce him innocent.

Well, the old cliches that he had suffered enough-as if not being in the Hall is a torture-, that other sordid characters have their plaques at Cooperstown, etc. were tramped out by the jurors as each explained his or her stance. Many added that they think he should be Hall but should not be allowed to act as manager again, which is akin to saying if found guilty in the impeachment proceedings, Bill Clinton should have remained president but been restricted from serving as dog catcher in every American municipality. Only one juror mentioned the evidence.

I'm going to take a look at the "trial" this weekend and comments should ensue.

---

We're about to discuss "race", Ralph Wiley, and writing.

So bring a snack of some sort. And a beverage in case you get thirsty. Also, please remember to bus your table and to floss afterwards.

First, for such a well-known sports journalist, Wiley makes Peter Gammons seem concise and cogent. This article is so scattershot that it's difficult to determine who or what is at the root of the problem.

Is it Bill James for dissing the African-American stat, stolen bases? Is it Alvin Dark who evidently, like Nigel Tufnel, would have chosen haberdashery for an alternate career path? Is it the media for hounding Barry Bonds because of his race? Is it the All-Star voters for ignoring African-Americans? Is it Webster's for not defining "African-American" so as to exclude Latins of African decent from the rubric? Is it the Chicago sports writers for goading Dusty Baker into saying ill-informed racial statements? Is it the Little League coaches? Is it the unnamed writer from 25 years ago who hazarded to point out that African-Americans were a shrinking population in Major League Baseball, even though that is the thrust of Wiley's article? Is it his editor, who apparently does not even scan his laborious screed? Is it ESPN for paying him to document his mental felo-de-se? Or maybe as Wiley indicates, "this dogged resentment comes from blacks themselves...like the notion that doing well in school is 'acting white.'"

The only problem is that Wiley seems to name most of the culprits in the list above and like Oliver Stone's JFK makes them all part of some sort of worldwide conspiracy.

One thing is for sure in Wiley's tendentious universe, though "he is no anthropologist" and he may need "to think a little more before he speaks", it's not Dusty Baker's fault:

[B]ecause Italians often comment and joke about Italian stereotypes or predilections or history -- likewise the Irish, or whomever [sic]-- but when you say blacks and minority people can take the heat better, because that's what black people were specifically brought over here for, it allows bigots room.

Ironic, because something else was going on there, I felt. I felt Dusty's comments were a reaction to a perceived threat... I do know Dusty knows baseball exceedingly well, and something of the historical role of black players in baseball; after all, he was on the Braves team when Hank Aaron...was chasing the Babe's home run record.

I also know going from managing in northern California to managing on the north side of Chicago is a quantum leap backward sociologically... [w]e didn't hear what all was said to Dusty, or about Dusty, leading up to his out-of-the-blue statement that sounded to me like a man trying to back people up...like saying, "Back up off me, now."

That's just my gut feeling.

First, how racist is it to characterize Italians as people who "joke about Italian stereotypes"? Didn't Wiley hear how upset some Italian-Americans were with the stereotypes on The Sopranos?

There's a nice shot at Chicago and its writers for goading Baker into the ill-advised remarks. However, here is what Baker said from the ESPN article:

"It's easier for most Latin guys and it's easier for most minority people because most of us come from heat. You don't find too many brothers in New Hampshire and Maine and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Right?" he said with a chuckle.
"We were brought over here for the heat, right? Isn't that history? Weren't we brought over because we could take the heat?"
"Your skin color is more conducive to heat than it is to the lighter-skinned people. I don't see brothers running around burnt," Baker said before the Cubs beat St. Louis at Wrigley. "That's a fact. I'm not making this up. I'm not seeing some brothers walking around with some white stuff on their ears and noses."

Here is a man at home with the writers, joking and expounding. Where's the "Back up off me, now"-ness? Baker seems far from threatened. The only person who seems threatened is Wiley and he projects that onto Baker. That's just my gut feeling.

Lastly, how does playing with Hank Aaron make one an expert in African-American baseball history? There had been over a hundred years of such history that preceded Aaron's historic run at the HR record. Then again, Wiley seems a novice when it comes to African-American baseball history:

Rube Foster's Chicago American Giants of the original Negro National League [was] formed because blacks were said to be unfit for duty in the bigs. Couldn't handle pressure.

Foster happens to be a hero of mine and I have read most that has been written about or by-he had a semi-regular gig with the Chicago Defender-him. Not only was his league NOT "formed because blacks were said to be unfit for duty in the bigs", Foster wanted to develop a league that would excel on its own and potentially subsume the majors. His letterhead read, "We are the ship, all else the sea", and he meant it. I'm sure that he preferred his disciplined and well-coached brand of baseball to the majors at the time.

Besides, when African-Americans were originally barred from organized baseball it had nothing to do with their abilities or inability to "handle pressure". It was because some white players couldn't countenance playing alongside or against them. This evolved viewpoint predates professional baseball as the African-American Pythian club from Philadelphia was denied entrance into the amateur grandfather to the National League, the National Association of Base Ball Players, in 1867. Since some felt strongly on both sides of the issue, it was speciously resolved that barring the club was the only fair solution so that no one would be offended.

Nineteenth-century African-American stars George Stovey, Fleet Walker, Frank Grant, and Bud Fowler were not viewed as inferior ballplayers. Stovey still holds the International League record with 34 wins. And the antics of Cap Anson employed in removing African-American players from games with his Chicago club demonstrate that he didn't want a valuable weapon such as Stovey available on the opposing club. These men excelled in their various leagues as baseball worked to restrict African-Americans from the organized game. The fact that they excelled appears to have precipitated their exile.

Not only does Wiley lack a basic understanding of the issues of race in baseball from an historical viewpoint. He has difficulty grabbling with the current issues. He prattles on about All-Star rosters without realizing that they are such a small sample that it's difficult to say that their racial makeup has any meaning. He mentions that there are a number of international players in baseball, but still maintains that there is an underlying problem:

The beauty of the game of baseball is this egalitarian inevitability, with everything else being equal.

Which, of course, everything else never is.

Another beauty of baseball is that it is played out of time, which can be both a bad thing...or a good thing...

Baseball has a Problem, a deeply rooted Problem, but it is not the pace of the game, or the performance or interest level of any human sub-grouping; no, it is baseball's uneasy truce with the social construct called race.

Well, I agree with the last statement, but I don't agree with how he got there. Aside from the appallingly poor writing style ("Another beauty of baseball...", "Which, of course, everything else never is", etc.), Wiley takes the egalitarianism of baseball and somehow twists it into another form of established "ways and mores" which evince racism. Is the NBA racist for employing Dikembe Mutumbo and other international players? Why does he single out baseball for similarly going more international?

My main problem with race in baseball is with the lack of managerial a