|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 2001 Archives By Rob Neyer ESPN.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TUESDAY, JULY 31 I understand the baseball schedule is one troublesome beast, but can we all agree that no day in May, June, July or August should be without a game, the All-Star break notwithstanding? If not for that train derailment in Baltimore a couple of weeks ago, there wouldn't have been a single game yesterday. So maybe it's true, that everything does happen for a reason. In a statistical oddity, yesterday's lone game featured two starters with virtually identical statistics: D. Davis 5-7, 4.43 S. Ponson 5-6, 4.43How far does the comparison go?
Age W-L ERA IP BB SO
D. Davis 25 5-7 4.43 108 49 68
S. Ponson 24 5-6 4.43 102 29 69
The only real differences between the two? Ponson has better control than Davis. Ponson throws with his right hand, Davis throws with his left hand. And there's another big difference between them. Ponson is pure power, throwing a mid-90s fastball and a hard slider. On the other hand, Davis (as Dallas Morning News writer Gerry Fraley wrote last winter) "makes the most of marginal stuff."
And after six innings, the lines were as even as could be:
R H E
Rangers 4 9 1
Orioles 4 9 1
Both starters wound up pitching seven innings and allowing four runs, and they nearly threw the same number of pitchers; 102 for Davis, 104 for Ponson. But Davis was far more impressive statistically, as two of the runs he allowed were unearned, and he struck out six while walking nary a Bird.
It was an even game between a couple of teams that spend a lot but haven't been getting a lot. Here are the five highest-paid Orioles, along with their 2001 stats (or not):
Salary
Albert Belle $12.0 M Retired
David Segui $ 6.7 M 68 Gms, 859 OPS
Brady Anderson $ 6.5 M 89 Gms, 593 OPS
Scott Erickson $ 6.3 M Hasn't pitched in 2001
Cal Ripken $ 6.3 M 77 Gms, 683 OPS
Segui has been quite productive ... when he's been available to play. Segui spent three weeks in April and May on the disabled list, and landed there again a couple of weeks ago. Neither Belle nor Erickson have played for the Orioles at all this year. Ripken hasn't hit much, but at least he adds a little box-office appeal. Brady Anderson's been a complete disaster. Among the 36 American League outfielders who have played enough to qualify for the batting title, Anderson ranks 36th in batting average, 35th in on-base percentage, and 36th in slugging percentage. His 593 OPS is easily the worst among all everyday major-league outfielders.
Unfortunately, the Orioles' financial problems go beyond just the top five. Nos. 6, 7, and 8 on the list -- Mike Bordick, Delino DeShields, and Pat Hentgen -- have all been major disappointments, too.
The Rangers have had problems of their own. Here's their Opening Day lineup:
LF Rusty Greer 2B Randy Velarde SS Alex Rodriguez 1B Rafael Palmeiro C Ivan Rodriguez DH Andres Galarraga 3B Ken Caminiti RF Ruben Mateo CF Bo PorterThat lineup is essentially as designed by Rangers GM Doug Melvin last winter, with the exception of Bo Porter, who was filling in for the injured Gabe Kapler in center field. That lineup didn't really work out -- Galarraga and Caminiti are gone (and neither played particularly well for Texas), Greer and Velarde and Mateo have all spent significant time on the DL -- yet, strangely enough, the Rangers currently rank third in the American League with 577 runs. How? Well, Alex Rodriguez has played brilliantly, and he'd be a popular MVP candidate if the Rangers weren't in the tank. Ruben Sierra's been great in limited duty. Pudge and Palmeiro have played like they're supposed to. And Frank Catalanotto is perhaps the most productive utility player in the game; in fact, Catalanotto has been, over the course of both this season and his career, a better hitter than Gabe Kapler, which is certainly a surprise to those of us who care about such things. (Hey, speaking of surprises, did you know that Baltimore's Melvin Mora is the proud father of quintuplets? It occurs to me that, given how many sons of major leaguers wind up playing in the majors themselves, perhaps Bud Selig, as a part of his continuing effort to "grow the game," should encourage the wives of all major-league players to take fertility drugs. Just a thought.) Of course, the problem for Texas hasn't been run production, but run prevention. Even their good starters haven't been very good ... and most of their starters haven't been good. Long-term, though, I like the Rangers' chances somewhat more than those of the Orioles. Texas has a couple of great prospects in the minors, in first baseman Carlos Pena and third baseman Hank Blalock, while the O's don't have anybody that's truly exciting, especially at the Triple-A level; just about everybody who can play has already been summoned to the big club. Both clubs are at least a year from contending for anything other than third place, but I do believe that the Rangers will get there sooner than the Orioles, if only because the Rangers have the best player in the game. What, exactly, do the Orioles have, other than a bloated payroll? MONDAY, JULY 30 Belated kudos are due Mark Jacobson, who serves as the official scorer for most of the Orioles' home games. On July 21 in Baltimore, Troy Percival entered a 5-2 game in the bottom of the ninth ... and blew the easy save, permitting three runs before finally escaping with the game tied at five runs apiece. The Angels scored in the top of the 10th, and then Shigetoshi Hasegawa retired three straight Orioles hitters in the bottom of the 10th to preserve Anaheim's victory. Typically, of course, Percival would be awarded the victory, and Hasegawa the save. Not this night, however. Rule 10.19(4) says, The winning relief pitcher shall be the one who is the pitcher of record when his team assumes the lead and maintains it to the finish of the game. EXCEPTION: Do not credit a victory to a relief pitcher who is ineffective in a brief appearance, when a succeeding relief pitcher pitches effectively in helping his team maintain the lead. In such cases, credit the succeeding relief pitcher with the victory.Rule 10.19(4) does, of course, leave plenty of room for argument. Without definitions of "ineffective" or "brief," the official scorer is in a precarious spot, and it's quite likely that if this particular game had been played in Anaheim, the scorer would have awarded the win to Percival, if only to avoid having to hear about it. But Jacobson didn't have to worry about offending one of the hometown boys, so he made the sensible ruling, that three runs in one inning does, indeed, constitute ineffective and brief (which is something that I think most reasonable baseball fans might agree upon). And so Jacobson, in awarding the victory to Hasegawa, made the right choice. Yesterday in Oakland, the official scorer did not, as Jason Isringhausen "earned" the W by allowing three runs in two-thirds of an inning. Preposterous. IP Hits BB SO W-L ERA 261 226 100 277 19-8 3.42Granted, the Cubs have plenty of pitching. And granted, the Cubs can always afford to buy what they need. So rather than say it's a lousy deal for the Cubs, let's just say it's a great deal for the Brewers, perhaps the first great deal that Dean Taylor has made. THURSDAY, JULY 26 Yesterday I saw some strange things. I saw Paul Byrd come within a couple of lucky breaks from shutting out the best baseball team on the planet. I saw Neifi Perez and Rey Sanchez, both shortstops and both paragons of poor plate discipline, batting one-two in the same major-league lineup. I saw Brett Tomko and Dee Brown and Carlos Febles, quality major leaguers all of them, plying their trade in the minor leagues for no particularly good reason. I saw a pitcher who makes $1.9 million this season wielding a radar gun behind the plate in a ballpark where the most expensive seat costs 10 bucks. I saw 17 doubles. How did I see all of this (and more) in one day? By a happy twist of fate, the Seattle Mariners' and Kansas City Royals' Triple-A farm clubs were scheduled to face off in Tacoma at 12:35 ... and then at 7:05, the Mariners and Royals themselves would battle at Seattle's Safeco Field, just 35½ miles north of Tacoma's rustic Cheney Stadium. As a Royals fan -- hell, as a baseball fan -- I didn't really have any choice in the matter. I had to visit both Cheney Stadium and Safeco Field, to see what I could see. Tacoma Rainiers broadcaster Mike Curto is a friend, so after I found my seat at the ballpark I headed up to the booth to check in with Mike. First thing, he broke the news to me ... the big trade had gone through. But more about that later. Second thing, he broke more news to me ... Kansas City's top prospect, left-handed pitcher Chris George, was supposed to start for Omaha yesterday, but he got called up to the big club instead. Taking his place? An intense young man named Corey Thurman, making his first Triple-A start. Thurman arrived in Tacoma just a few hours before the game, and didn't have his best stuff, or at least I hope it wasn't his best stuff. He labored. Fastball topped out at 91 -- most of them were in the high 80s -- and he never did find his change-up, which is supposed to be his best pitch. Thurman's got a big curve and fooled some guys with it, but he couldn't get it over the plate consistently. The result? Thurman was gone after five innings, 96 pitches, and four runs. Three of those runs came in the third inning, when the Rainiers cracked four doubles. They got another double in the fourth, then another in the sixth ... and then four more in the seventh. Yes, 10 doubles for one team. The Golden Spikes chipped in with a two-bagger of their own, thanks to second baseman Carlos Febles ... yes, that's the same Carlos Febles who, just a couple of years ago, was considered one of the American League's top rookies. Febles entered the game with the following stats in 19 Triple-A games this season: .361 batting average, .446 on-base percentage, .542 slugging percentage, eight walks and 18 runs scored. In this game, he would single (and steal second base), double, and walk. So why is Febles wasting his talents with Omaha, when Donnie Sadler is utterly wasting a spot on the 25-man roster? Only God and Allard Baird know the answer to that question. Febles did most of his damage against Brett Tomko, who otherwise did what major-league pitchers are supposed to do against minor leaguers. Tomko lost his release point in the third inning and walked three Spikes, but he also struck out nine hitters in seven innings and picked up the win. In 12 games with Tacoma, Tomko is 7-3 with a 3.16 ERA, and he's probably better than a third of the pitchers currently in big-league rotations. I watched all of this from a seat right behind the plate. And sitting just in front of me, holding a radar gun when Golden Spikes were on the mound, was Brian Meadows. Remember him? A year ago, the Royals acquired Meadows from the Padres. He rewarded his new employers with a 6-2 record in 10 starts, and so they rewarded him with a $1.9 million contract for 2001. He started 10 games for the Royals this year, too ... and went 1-6 with a 6.97 ERA. A trip to Omaha didn't help much: again 10 starts, this time resulting in a 9.63 ERA. When I mentioned to Meadows that I saw him pitch a good game last year, he said, "I had a pretty good year last year, having a tough year this year." I suppose that's one way to look at it. But you know, it's good for somebody like me to chat with somebody like Brian Meadows, because there's nothing wrong with the occasional reminder that pitchers, even pitchers who can't get anybody out, have feelings, too. Meadows is currently in a sort of limbo, as the Royals cut him from the 40-man roster (though they still have to pay him), but apparently hope to re-sign him, for organizational depth if nothing else. The odds are long, but I'd love to see him return to the majors and pitch well. Brian Meadows is only 25 years old. Anyway, the game got ugly late, the first-place Rainiers trouncing the also-ran Golden Spikes -- this is the last year for that silly name, by the way -- by a 10-4 count. One game down, one to go, as Mike and I zipped north on I-5 to Seattle. On the way, we got to talking seriously about the big trade -- it wasn't quite a blockbuster -- that sent Kansas City's Jermaine Dye to Oakland, Oakland's three prospects to Colorado, and Colorado's Neifi Perez to Kansas City. There are a lot of things about this trade that I'd like to say, but I'm afraid that if I say all of them, I'll overwhelm the ESPN.com servers (or whatever they're called) with my verbiage. So instead, I'll restrict myself to just a few comments:
AB HR OBP Slug
Since 9/2/00 477 14 .342 .419
Now, it's quite possible that Dye's just been suffering an extended slump,
and will start hitting home runs again any minute now. But 477 at-bats is a
significant sample, and Kauffman Stadium is a good place for power hitters.
I'm sure that Jermaine Dye has many fine months ahead of him ... but I'm not
at all sure that August and September of 2001 will be among them.
All that said, the big trade created one ugly lineup for the Royals last
night. Rey Sanchez will apparently be traded soon -- and by the way, trading
for Perez before trading away Sanchez leaves Allard Baird with
essentially zero leverage (Bravo, Allard, bravo!) -- but for now Sanchez
remains a Royal. So with Febles exiled to Triple-A, the Royals put Neifi
Perez at second base, where he hasn't played in about four years. What's
more, Gunnery Sergeant Tony Muser even stuck Perez in the leadoff slot, OBP
be damned. Sanchez batted in his customary No. 2 slot (and somehow managed
to collect four hits). With Dye gone and Carlos Beltran ailing, the Royals
called up Endy Chavez to play center field.
Chavez illustrates once again what's wrong with the Royals. Last year in
Class A, Chavez drew 47 walks in 111 games. The Royals grabbed him from the
Mets in the Rule 5 Draft, and sent him to Wichita, Kansas City's Double-A
affiliate. He did OK there, and got jumped past Omaha straight to the big
club. Chavez played horribly for the Royals, though, and this time was sent
north to Omaha. Now, a good organization would have said to Chavez, "Endy,
you're a hardworking kid and we love your speed and your defense, but you
need to work on your plate discipline. If you can't get on base, we can't
use you."
A bad organization wouldn't say anything about plate discipline. A bad
organization would say, "Endy, just go to Omaha and stay aggressive, and
you'll be back."
Wanna guess what the Royals did? Chavez went to Omaha and batted .333 ...
but he didn't draw a single walk in 12 games, and so his OBP was actually
lower than his batting average. And when the Royals needed an outfielder,
who did they summon? You got it. In his first game back, Chavez went
0-for-4, with a GIDP and a strikeout.
And it didn't matter, as the Royals somehow took their second straight from
the Mariners. Tuesday night it was Kris Wilson befuddling the M's, and last
night it was Paul Byrd. Actually, Byrd didn't so much befuddle the M's as
trick them into hitting line drives to his teammates. But he issued just one
walk, and the M's -- who entered the series leading the American League in
walks -- didn't manage to score even a single run until two were out in the
bottom of the ninth.
That run came a few minutes after John Olerud doubled. It was the Mariners'
second double, and the sixth of the game; in the fourth, three straight
Royals doubled off Aaron Sele, who lost for only the second time this
season.
So I saw Brett Tomko beat the Royals, I saw Aaron Sele lose to the Royals,
and I saw 17 doubles in the pleasant, climate-controlled environment that
is the Pacific Northwest in late summer. Not bad for a day's "work."
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25When an athlete lies about his age, he's considered "colorful." It's a big joke. So am I the only person who thinks it's not funny? A year ago, Andy Morales defected from Cuba. A third baseman by trade, Morales signed a four-year, $4.5 million contract with the Yankees in March. And then about three weeks ago, the Yankees cut Morales from Norwich, their Double-A affiliate. At the time, Morales was batting .231, with sub-.300 on-base and slugging percentages. But the Yankees didn't cite Morales' statistics when they refused to make a scheduled, $250,000 bonus payment on June 15, nor did they cite his statistics when they released him. Rather, the Yankees abrogated Morales' contract because, they claim, he's 29 years old, not 26 as he told them. Needless to say, a 29-year-old third baseman who can barely hit his weight in Norwich isn't worth $4.5 million. (The union and Morales' agent are going to fight for the money that he still hasn't been paid, but their case doesn't look good. A top Yankee executive would not comment specifically on this subject.) Does age really matter? Here are 2000 stats for two Triple-A sluggers:
AB Runs HR OBP Slug
Slugger A 403 65 31 .366 .608
Slugger B 392 76 26 .372 .579
Given only that information, which of those two is the better prospect? Hard to say. But what if we add a column?
Age AB Runs HR OBP Slug
Slugger A 31 403 65 31 .366 .608
Slugger B 25 392 76 26 .372 .579
OK, now which of them would you like for your team?
In case you're curious, Slugger A is minor-league veteran Chris Hatcher, whose major-league career consists of 15 at-bats with the Royals back in 1998. Fairly or not, Hatcher has long been considered a so-called "Four-A" player, too good for Triple-A but not good enough for the majors. And Slugger B is Cubs first baseman Julio Zuleta, who is currently toiling for Iowa but does have a major-league future, if perhaps only in a platoon role.
In sports, Age is a qualification. Or if not exactly a qualification, certainly a consideration. Look at it this way ... If you apply for a job, and tell your prospective employers that you graduated with honors from Harvard when you actually dropped out of Plainfield Teachers College, is that right? Or what if you're applying for a job with the government, and say that you're a U.S. citizen when you're not? Even if you assume that Employers Beware is the operative principle here, don't your new employers have every right to fire you when they discover the truth?
I have very little doubt that Andy Morales' agent told Morales to lie about his age; that's what agents do. Morales was just a kid ... well, at 29 he's not really a kid anymore, is he? ... just a fella looking for a break, hoping to make the millions that the best ballplayers in the "free world" make. Perfectly natural, and the great majority of us would have done exactly the same thing.
And of course, this is nothing new. Until the day he died, Hall of Fame pitcher Rube Marquard maintained he'd been born in 1889, but he actually was born in 1886. In 1950, Sam Jethroe came out of the Negro Leagues and grabbed National League Rookie of the Year honors. He was 28 ... or so everyone thought. Jethroe was actually 32. More recently, Hal McRae -- now managing the Devil Rays, but once baseball's top DH -- maintained until well into his career that he'd been born in 1946; finally, prior to his last season, he admitted he was actually born in 1945, and so was, at the time, 41 rather than 40. El Duque still says he's 31, but we all know he's really 35, right?
All that said, just because Morales did something natural doesn't mean he should be rewarded for it. Because lying is, if not quite always wrong, certainly wrong in this case. Millions of dollars are at stake, along with the integrity of the game itself. Sure, $4.5 million isn't a lot of money to the Yankees ... but what if, say, the Twins somehow scraped up $4.5 million to sign a Cuban pitcher who claimed he was 24, and then later they discovered that he was actually 27?
Of course, the Twins would never spend $4.5 million, or even $1.5 million on a Cuban player, because they wouldn't know exactly what they were getting. When I said that "baseball ages" compromise the game's integrity, that's what I meant. With all the subterfuge going on, you take two big chances when you sign a Cuban player. First you watch him play, and take a chance that the skills you've seen will translate to the major leagues. And you take a chance that he's the age he says he is, and so will develop as such a player should. Given the money involved, few teams can afford to take that first chance, but fewer still can afford to take both chances. That's why the Yankees have practically cornered the market on Cuban players.
One can't help but think the Yanks knew how old Morales was all the time. If they were able to find out that he's 29 in July, why couldn't they have found out last March when they signed him? The answer, of course, is that they could have. In fact, it seems quite likely that while the Yankees might not have known how old Morales was when they signed him, they must have at least suspected the truth.
And the result? The Yankees have the luxury of signing whomever they like for however much money it takes ... and then they can dump the guy if he fails his extended tryout.
I don't know about you, but I think it stinks.
TUESDAY, JULY 24Approximately a year ago, I came up with a silly little contraption called the Beane Count. Named in honor of Billy Beane (for obvious reasons), the Beane Count adds together a team's abilities to hit home runs, draw walks, and also prevent its opponents from doing those things. Let's work through the math for baseball's best team, the Seattle Mariners ...
Count Record
Indians 16 56-40
Yankees 17 57-41
Athletics 17 52-46
Mariners 20 71-27
Red Sox 22 56-42
These five clubs also happen to sport five of the top six records in the league; only the Twins are missing, with a 31 Beane Count that ranks ninth in the league, and also makes me fear for their long-term pennant prospects.
And here's the same chart for the National League:
Count Record
D-Backs 23 57-41
Giants 24 52-47
Astros 25 54-43
Cubs 25 56-41
Dodgers 29 56-43
Padres 29 48-51
They're figuring things out in the West, methinks. Four NL West clubs in the top six, two AL West clubs in the top five. It's almost as if there's a West Coast Philosophy of baseball.
There's no such thing, of course, but I also don't think it's entirely coincidental. San Diego GM Kevin Towers, for example, has acknowledged his debt to Billy Beane. The Padres are first in walks drawn and second in walks allowed ... now, if they could just hit more home runs and allow fewer -- they rank 13th in both categories -- then they'd really be in business.
The Braves, by the way, rank seventh in the National League with a 32 Beane Count. Their pitching, of course, is fine. But the veteran-laden lineup ranks 10th in home runs and 14th in walks, and that just ain't getting it done. Their recent run notwithstanding, the Braves simply aren't a great team, and aren't going to be unless both Tom Glavine and Kevin Millwood return to form.
Of course, no Rob Neyer column would be complete without ripping someone. And with Billy Beane's Athletics just having taking three of four games in Kansas City, how do you think the Royals -- or, as I call them, the Bizzaro Athletics -- fare as Beane Counters?
The bottom five in the American League, with records:
Count Record
Rangers 32 40-57
Orioles 36 42-55
Tigers 39 43-53
Devil Rays 48 32-67
Royals 52 38-60
There you have them, a veritable Who's Who of the worst clubs in the American League. And the Royals? They're 12th in home runs, 12th in walks allowed, 14th (last) in walks and 14th (last) in home runs allowed. And lest anyone think this season's performance is simply a fluke, a blip in baseball history, let me tell you that the Royals also finished 2000 with the AL's worst Beane Count. In fact, last year they very nearly maxed out, finishing last in home runs allowed, last in walks, last in walks allowed ... and next to last in home runs (the Twins finished last in homers last season, which is perhaps the biggest reason I didn't think they'd be competitive this year).
It's tempting to excuse the Royals their faults, because of course they can't compete financially ... except a funny thing happened on the way to crying poor. Let's look at the five clubs that opened this season with the lowest payrolls:
Payroll
26. Royals $35.6 M
27. Marlins $35.5 M
28. Expos $34.7 M
29. Athletics $33.8 M
30. Twins $24.8 M
OK, let's see here ... The Twins have the lowest payroll in baseball, by far, and they've spent virtually the entire season in first place. The Athletics have the second-lowest payroll -- about $2 million less than Kansas City's -- and they're in second place in their division, making a late bid for the wild card. The Marlins have the fourth-lowest payroll, and they're in third place in their division, still in the wild card hunt.
Kansas City's organization is rotten to the core, and you can see that in the Beane Count even better than in the standings. The Royals won 77 games last year, but that (relative) success was built on a paper-thin foundation of empty batting average and timely hitting.
Batting averages, and especially batting averages with men in scoring position, go up and down, within a certain range but enough to seriously impact run production. But power and patience are relative constants, and that shows up in the Beane Count. Yes, of course Beane Count is a junk stat, but sometimes it's easy to miss the obvious. Just the other day I was talking to a friend who works for a major-league club, a major-league club that's not doing well this season, and he asked me, "So what do you think we need?"
I didn't have the stats in front of me, but I said, "I don't think it's real complicated, Steve. Your hitters don't hit home runs, and they don't get on base." And now I look at my Beane Count spreadsheet, and I see that Steve's team ranks near the bottom of its league in both home runs and walks, and of course it's very difficult to score runs that way. And despite what you might have heard on TV, it's very difficult to win games if you don't score runs.
MONDAY, JULY 23Among my preseason predictions, I am proud of a few -- the Astros would be better than the Cardinals, Pedro Martinez would not win another Cy Young -- and not so proud of a few others -- the White Sox would be better than the Twins, Kevin Millwood would win a Cy Young. But the one prediction which currently looks the worst was my favorite to win the National League West ... the Colorado Rockies. The Rockies aren't in first place. They've now lost 25 of their last 30 games, and so they currently reside in last place, which means I've made the Maximum Possible Error (MPE), to this point at least. So what happened? Well, let me begin with my favorite scapegoat ... lousy luck. The Rockies have scored 571 runs this season, and allowed 578. Those numbers typically result in a 48-50 record ... yet the Rockies are 41-57, seven games off. This can be largely explained by Colorado's 8-18 record in one-run games, but while bad luck can explain why the Rockies are in last place, it certainly doesn't explain why they're not in first place. Prior to this season, general manager Dan O'Dowd's primary mission was to improve the rotation, and so he committed $171 million to Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle. Both have taken their lumps recently, yet both have pitched reasonably well considering their home ballpark ... yet there sit the Rockies, in fifth place. In The Big Bad Baseball Annual 2001, co-author Don Malcolm presented some fascinating data. From 1995 through 2000, home teams won almost exactly 50 percent of the slugfests played, where "slugfest" is any game in which a dozen or more runs were scored. However, the Rockies won nearly 60 percent of such home games, which is a huge difference. One might conclude, then (as Malcolm does), that "it's in the best interest of the Rockies to score the greatest number of runs possible at home ... If slugfests are where you natural advantage lies, then you should play to that strength ... This might also help insulate you from giving ground in road slugfests (as the Rockies have been doing over the past six years, with a major-league worst .398 WPCT in those games)." Malcolm's point is that if the Rockies have a natural advantage in slugfests at home, then they should do what they can to increase the number of slugfests at home. There are two ways to do that: you can get better hitters, or you can get poorer pitchers. And it doesn't take a genius, or even Allard Baird, to know which of those options makes more sense; you get better hitters. They didn't do that, though. They got better pitchers, and while it certainly seemed to make sense at the time, it also certainly hasn't produced the desired result. You see, Dan O'Dowd has fallen prey to the same curse that afflicts, and has afflicted, nearly every executive who has run a franchise that plays in an extreme hitter's park. He overrates his hitters, and he underrates his pitchers. O'Dowd was very smart to replace Vinny Castilla and Dante Bichette and Mike Lansing and Jeffrey Hammonds, because all of them were making far more money than their skills warranted. The problem, though, is that O'Dowd didn't replace any of those fellows with appreciably better players. In 1999, the Rockies scored 906 runs, (a close) second in the National League to Arizona, which scored 908. In 2000, the Rockies scored 968 runs, No. 1 in the National League and 30 more than No. 2 Houston. In 2001, the Rockies have scored 571 runs, No. 1 in the National League and 26 more than No. 2 Houston. But it's not enough. Pitching and defense is fine and dandy, but if the Rockies are going to win a division title they can't "just" lead the National League in run production, by 30 runs or some other insignificant figure. They need to blow away the competition, and score 50 or 100 more runs than any other team in the league. This isn't suggesting that the Rockies should ignore the pitching staff, and try to get by with any old hurler picked up on the waiver wire. But they simply don't score enough runs in their road games to win many of them, which shows up in their horrible winning percentage in road slugfests. By the way, this marks the third straight season, and the fourth in the last five, in which the Rockies have gone through a horrible stretch in June or July. When this happens, of course, everyone looks for an explanation. One theory is that the Rockies physically suffer from all the long games, much as people have long said that the Cubs suffer from playing so many day games. And I suppose it's an empirical question; my friend Don Zminda once demonstrated that, indeed, the Cubs did suffer (and may suffer still) from all those games under the hot Midwest sun. I believe that Dan O'Dowd is a thoughtful man, probably possessed of more native intelligence than most of his colleagues. Winning with any sort of consistency in Coors Field -- or, rather, with Coors Field as one's home ballpark -- is a complicated puzzle, but given enough time O'Dowd might make the pieces fit together. Then again, he recently said something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense: "We have to figure out what works in our park. What we've tried obviously hasn't worked, so we have to get younger, cheaper and more athletic." Younger and cheaper is fine, but "more athletic" isn't the issue, unless by "more athletic" O'Dowd means "better with the bat." I don't think that's what he means at all, though. So on the off chance that O'Dowd reads this humble column, I offer two pieces of advice, one of them even more radical than the other. Piece of Advice No. 1: While they still have some value, trade either Neagle or Hampton for a cheap hitter or two. Use the money you save for an expensive hitter, and shift your focus from preventing runs to scoring them. It's not enough to lead the National League in run production; to consistently win, the Rockies need to consistently score 1,000-plus runs per season ... and the Rockies have never scored 1,000 runs in a season. Piece of Advice No. 2: If you don't want to score 1,000 runs, here's another option ... Follow the advice that I've been giving your organization for three years, and use a different baseball in Denver. Coors Field is a severe handicap, perhaps too severe for even the best general manager to overcome. They use special tennis balls in tournaments played at high altitudes, and of course there are all sorts of different softballs. So why not a limited-flight baseball? (Answer: Because most baseball men are hide-bound conservatives who treat new ideas like they're the Ebola virus.) THURSDAY, JULY 19 Suddenly, nobody wants to catch anymore. Or rather, nobody who can hit wants to catch anymore. True, catching can be rough on a fellow. But as my colleague Alan Schwarz recently put it, "utter catchicide seems rash." Simply put, if a catcher and a first baseman post identical batting stats, the catcher's stats are far more valuable within the context of the team. Why? Because first basemen are typically more productive -- significantly more productive -- than catchers. Catchers who can hit are rare, first baseman who can hit are common. So if you can find one of the former, you're ahead of the game, and now all you have to do is cast about for one of the latter (and I know of at least two who are stuck in Japan this season). And Mike Piazza isn't even sure that he wants to stop catching. As he told Schwarz, "If I switch, what am I gonna do, go from 35 homers to 55? Nothing's guaranteed. I don't know if it would be good or bad." Nobody knows. That said, it might be instructive to look at catchers who established themselves at the position before shifting to another spot and playing a significant number of games at the new position (or positions). Craig Biggio is a great example, as he caught more than 400 games in the majors before shifting to second base. Todd Zeile isn't, as he caught only 128 games before shifting to third base. Speaking of Cardinals who wound up with the Mets, chronologically our first example is Joe Torre, who, before he became the most famous baseball manager in the world, was a pretty fair ballplayer. The chart below lists Torre's stats before and after switching from catcher to (in his case) first and third base. Torre AB Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS Before 3700 470 552 .358 .462 820 After 4174 526 633 .375 .441 816I consider his conversion from catcher to have occurred in 1969, but it's something of an arbitrary decision. He caught 92 games in 1968, then played almost exclusively at first base in 1969 ... but in 1970 Torre caught 90 games and also played 73 games at third base. In 1971 he played 161 games at third, and never went behind the plate again, not even for an inning. Why did Torre switch? Common wisdom holds that Torre wasn't a good defensive catcher, and was moved because he was hurting his club behind the plate. Well, I'm not going to argue that Torre was an outstanding fielder, because he probably was not. However, Torre did win a Gold Glove in 1965, and after the '68 season Jack Zanger wrote, "At his best, Joe is of All-Star caliber as a receiver and a hitter." Traded to the Cardinals prior to the '69 season, Torre shifted to first base mostly because the Cards already had Tim McCarver, who of course was himself considered a fine defensive catcher. St. Louis wound up trading McCarver after that season ... but not to open up the position for Torre. Rather, they needed a spot for young Ted Simmons (more on him later), and Torre only caught 90 games in 1970 because Simmons spent a significant part of the season in the military. And Torre, shifted to third base full-time in 1971, enjoyed his finest season (by far): .363 batting average and 137 RBI (both figures leading the National League), and an MVP Award. Amazing what moving to a new position (and losing 20 pounds of fat) can do, huh? Except it didn't last, not for Joe Torre. After 1969, his two best years (by far) were 1970 (when he actually caught 90 games) and 1971. He remained a decent hitter for another five years, but when you consider that hitting got a lot easier for everybody after 1968, it's fair to say that Torre was a better hitter before he stopped catching than after. Right around the time that Joe Torre stopped catching, Johnny Bench was establishing himself as perhaps the game's greatest player (well, him or Joe Morgan), a perennial Gold Glove catcher who also led the National League in RBI three times. Bench caught regularly until 1981, at which point he moved to first, then third base. This didn't go so well. Bench AB Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS Before 6771 1001 1259 .348 .482 830 After 887 90 117 .326 .427 754It's tempting to suggest that Bench was already shot in 1980 -- his last year behind the plate -- even though he was only 32. But in 1980, Bench hit 24 home runs and slugged .483, the latter figure the best on his team. The problem was that he played only 114 games; Bench's knees just couldn't take it anymore, and he lobbied the Reds for a switch. And for a while, it worked. Through May 28, 1981, Bench was batting .328 ... and then he broke his ankle, and never really hit the ball with any authority again. Bench lasted just two more seasons, playing sparingly at third base in both. OK, back to Ted Simmons. He took over as regular catcher for the Cards in 1972. The very next year, he made the All-Star team for the first of eight times. Simmons AB Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS Before 7244 930 1195 .359 .453 812 After 1436 144 194 .315 .357 671Unlike Torre and Bench, Simmons did have a lousy reputation as a defensive catcher, and occasionally played at first base or in the outfield. It wasn't until 1984, however, when he was 35, that Simmons didn't catch. Coincidentally or not, that was also Simmons' worst season as a hitter, before or after. By then with the Brewers, Simmons hung around for another few years. But as you can see from the above numbers, he just didn't hit much at all after switching positions. Brian Downing came up in 1973 with the White Sox, then joined the California Angels in 1978 (he still owns most of the franchise's career hitting records). Downing missed most of the 1980 season -- he was 29 that year -- with a broken ankle, and so in 1981 he shifted to the outfield (and eventually DH). Downing AB Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS Before 2603 351 326 .366 .374 740 After 5250 837 747 .377 .451 828A hefty improvement here, and the great majority of Downing's good hitting years came after he stopped catching. But there's more to the story. In the early '80s Downing became one of the first major leaguers to seriously train with weights, and eventually earned the nickname, "The Incredible Hulk." How much of his post-1980 improvement was due to his new position, and how much was due to his hard work with the weights? He did have better luck staying off the DL after shifting to the outfield. Like Downing, B.J. Surhoff's offensive production increased significantly after he stopped catching. Surhoff AB Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS Before 2783 314 350 .320 .356 676 After 4235 599 653 .346 .457 803Granted, his hitting stats as a catcher were about average for this position. However, he was roundly considered a poor defensive catcher, and so a switch made sense. He moved to third base when he was 28, and then to the outfield when he was 32. And while Surhoff never became a great hitter, it's clear that he became a better, more valuable player when he wasn't catching. Craig Biggio is a special case, to my knowledge the only player in the last century who shifted from catcher to second base. What's more, he turned into a prospective Hall of Famer in the process. Biggio AB Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS Before 1667 210 153 .341 .371 712 After 5458 1051 632 .397 .458 855Biggio was only 26 when he discarded the tools of ignorance, and of course it's possible that he'd have developed at the plate even if he'd stayed behind it. Still, such a dramatic improvement is rare, and we can't be faulted for assuming that Biggio became a great hitter at least partly because he stopped catching. So what does all this mean for Mike Piazza? Frankly, there simply aren't enough examples -- "data points," to use a geeky term -- for us to draw any solid conclusions from history. These six players, great as they were (well, Surhoff has been merely good), simply don't constitute a meaningful sample. Here's what I think, though. I think that Mike Piazza is still a great hitter, and will remain a great hitter if he becomes a first baseman. However, I do not think that he'll become a greater hitter at first base (though a switch might slow down the natural decline as he advances into his 30s). What's more, I think that if Piazza shifts to first base, suddenly the Mets will have yet another hole in their lineup, a hole which, as we have seen this year, they can ill afford. Someday, perhaps, it will be time for Mike Piazza to hang up the ol' shin guards, and find another trade. But that time has not yet arrived. WEDNESDAY, JULY 18 Baseball is, as people so often like to remind me, more than a bunch of numbers. That said, yesterday's major-league slate featured the following three pitching lines:
IP H R ER BB SO
Isringhausen 1.0 0 0 0 1 1 (Save, 19)
Pulsipher .2 1 1 1 0 0
P Wilson 2.0 0 0 0 1 1
Not a bad night: nearly four innings pitched, just one hit and one
run, with a couple of walks and a couple of strikeouts. Jason Isringhausen closed
out Oakland's 3-2 victory in the afternoon, and in the evening Bill Pulsipher
(Red Sox) and Paul Wilson (Devil Rays) were pitching at the same time, in
separate losing efforts.
Aside from being major-league relief pitchers who saw action yesterday, what
do these fellows have in common? All of them once pitched for the New York
Mets, and were expected to anchor one of the great pitching rotations of our
time. Baseball America nicknamed the trio "Generation K."
Both Isringhausen and Pulsipher pitched, and pitched well, for the
major-league Mets in 1995, after which the authors of The Scouting Report:
1996" remarked:
On Isringhausen: "Isringhausen began 1995 in Double-A. Now he's a
staff ace in the big leagues ... The Mets must watch his arm, though, as
Jason has pitched 418 innings over the past two seasons."
On Pulsipher: "Pulsipher had an uncomfortable September, when he was
affected by a sprained elbow ligament. With the Mets out of the race, Bill
sat out after September 11, but is reported to have fully recovered without
any surgery ... Bill will be just 22 this season and should continue to
improve if he doesn't abuse his arm. Like Jason Isringhausen, he has had two
straight years of over 200 innings at a tender age."
How does a pitcher abuse his arm? I mean, I can certainly imagine how a
manager might abuse a pitcher's arm, but I'm not sure how a pitcher himself
would. Anyway, to these two impressive fellows the Mets would, in 1996, add
the most impressive fellow of all, a 23-year-old right-hander named Paul
Wilson, who complemented his overpowering, mid-90s fastball with a sharp
slider. Pitching in the minors in '95, Wilson was the Pitcher of the Year in
the Double-A Eastern League ... and then, in 10 starts, posted a 2.85 ERA in
Triple-A. He struck out 194 hapless hitters in 187 innings, and issued
merely 44 walks. John Sickels put Wilson on the cover of the 1996 Minor
League Scouting Notebook, and rated Wilson the game's No. 2 minor-league
prospect (behind Johnny Damon). And so Wilson was expected to join
Isringhausen and Pulsipher in the Mets rotation in 1996.
And in 1996?
Isringhausen had pitched at three levels in 1995, and started 38 games. In
1996, his ERA jumped to 5.26 and the injury list included a pulled rib-cage
muscle, bone spurs in his elbow, and then (most seriously) a torn labrum.
Two 130-plus pitch outings might (or might not have) played a part in Izzy's
woes. Early in 1997, he suffered a broken wrist, and wound up missing most
of the season. And then in January of 1998, Isringhausen underwent
reconstructive surgery on his right elbow and spent the entire season
recovering.
Three years, gone.
Pulsipher had pitched 201 minor-league innings in 1994, then 218 innings
combined in Triple-A and the majors in 1995. In 1996, his ERA jumped to ...
actually, it dropped all the way to nothing, because Pulsipher didn't pitch
even a single inning, due to a torn elbow ligament. He missed most of 1997,
too, and then spent half of 1998 in the minors. And after getting traded to
the Brewers, he spent half of 1999 on the DL with a lower back strain. The
Brewers traded Pulsipher back to the Mets before the 2000 season, in which
he spent a couple of weeks on the DL with the Mets, then another month on
the DL (another back strain) after getting traded to the Diamondbacks.
The better part of five years, gone.
Wilson, the crown jewel, had pitched 187 minor-league innings in 1995. And,
according to plan, he joined the big club's rotation at the beginning of the
1996 season. Wilson struggled, went on the DL with shoulder tendinitis in
June, and came back with a 2-7 record in the second half of the season ...
after which, he was diagnosed with a torn labrum that of course required
surgery. In 1997, Wilson pitched 26 innings, all in the minors. In 1998,
Wilson pitched 57 innings, all in the minors. In 1999, Wilson pitched
precisely zero innings anywhere.
Three years, gone.
Between 1995 and right this minute, Isringhausen, Pulsipher, and Wilson have
combined for 13 stints and 1,278 days on the disabled list. All three
of them spent April of '97 on the DL. All three of them spent July of '97 on
the DL. And most months from 1997 through 1999, at least two of them
were on the DL.
There were many, many people who thought that Isringhausen, Pulsipher, and
Wilson could, and perhaps would, return the Mets to their mid-1980s
glory. After 1995, Generation K combined for 14 wins, 33 losses, and a 5.54
ERA with the Metropolitans. Not exactly what anybody in Flushing had in
mind.
And yet, all three of these once-young pitchers are now back in the major
leagues. Many of you, I suspect, assumed that this column's subject would be
the mistreatment of young pitchers, and one can certainly argue that the
Mets in general, and then manager Dallas Green specifically, did some
unspeakable things to their young pitchers five, six, and seven years ago.
But that story has been written many times, and most everyone -- yes, even
"baseball men" -- know better than they did then. In fact, the downfall of
the Mets' Big Three opened a lot of eyes even among those who would much
rather have remained blind.
Rather, I'm interested in what these stories tell us about the men who lived
them. A lot of people think that professional athletes have easy lives. That
they play games for a few hours per day, and spend the rest of their time
lounging around, waiting for the paychecks with all the zeroes to arrive in
their big greedy palms. Well, sports fans, it ain't that way. For
Isringhausen, Pulsipher, and Wilson, the last six years have included an
immense amount of physical pain, many hundreds of hours of hard physical
labor, and an untold amount of emotional anguish as they wondered if they
would ever reach the heights that everyone predicted for them.
All three of them were supposed to be superior major-league starters. At
this moment, all three are, instead, major-league relievers. And to this
point, only Isringhausen has even approached stardom. Yet all three continue
to plug away, doing the best they can with what they've still got left in
those once-fearsome arms.
You think playing baseball is easy? You think it's all about
God-given talent? If someone asked me for advice on improving himself, I
might say, "You want to get better? Try working at your profession with the
same sort of devotion that Jason Isringhausen, Bill Pulsipher, and Paul
Wilson have shown to theirs. I dare you."
TUESDAY, JULY 17Imagine that you're the general manager of a first-place club, and ponder this stat line posted by one of your players ... G AB Runs SB CS Avg OBP Slug 74 310 51 17 8 .255 .307 .384... now ask yourself, "Is this player helping us stay in first place?" Well, maybe. He's not getting on base or hitting for power, but he's apparently fast and is scoring a fair number of runs. If this man plays a key defensive position he might not kill you, especially if he plays that position well. Oh, but there's one last piece of information that I haven't given you ... these are your player's minor-league stats this season. Specifically, they are Corey Patterson's statistics at Triple-A Iowa, and it was with these statistics that Patterson "earned" a promotion to Wrigley Field. I saw him there Friday and Sunday, and if he's a major leaguer then I'm a tugboat. Friday, he pinch-hit in the ninth and looked bad striking out (yes, I know that it's hard to look good striking out, but I promise you that Patterson was nowhere close). Sunday, he grounded to second on an 0-1 pitch, grounded (bunted, actually) to third on a first pitch, and flied to medium left. Last night he pinch-hit, and struck out on a ball in the dirt. That K dropped Patterson's OBP to .200, and his slugging percentage to .214. True, it's only 28 at-bats, but I would argue that there is essentially zero evidence to support the notion that Patterson is ready to help the Cubs win a division title with his bat. His legs? He's clearly not getting on base very often, and these days no team has room (until September) to carry a pinch-runner. His glove? Patterson is regarded as a superior center fielder, and I believe that he probably is. But what does it mean when Patterson starts a game in center field, but shifts to left when Gary "Li'l Sarge" Matthews enters the game? One might guess, then, that while Patterson is a fine defensive center fielder, he isn't as fine as Matthews. Again, let me stress that Patterson isn't playing enough to really hurt the Cubs. But if he remains on the roster for the rest of the season -- granted, he won't if he doesn't get better -- then he could cost the Cubs a couple of games. And while it doesn't every year, occasionally a couple of games can make the difference between playing baseball in October and going on a fishin' trip. Those are all practical matters. Here's another one. If Corey Patterson develops into a star, he will command a large amount of money in a few years, and an even larger amount of money when he becomes eligible for free agency. So why "start the clock" (as they say) on Patterson's contract? Why not leave him in the minors until he's clearly proved that he doesn't belong there anymore? About half a century ago, a very young rookie center fielder named Willie Mays joined the New York Giants, who had opened the season with designs on the pennant. Mays struggled badly, going hitless in his first 24 plate appearances. As the story goes, Giants manager Leo Durocher entered the locker room and found Mays sitting with his head in his hands, weeping. Durocher went over to Mays and told him, "You're my center fielder as long as I'm the manager because you're the best center fielder I've ever seen." In his next game, Willie Mays hit a home run off Warren Spahn, and of course he became perhaps the best center fielder that anyone had ever seen. But Corey Patterson, right now, might not even be the best center fielder on his own team. And before joining the Giants, Willie Mays did this in the minor leagues:
AB 2B 3B HR Avg
1950 Class B 306 20 8 4 .353
1951 Class AAA 149 18 3 8 .477
When a great defensive center fielder bats .477 in Triple-A, you don't have
a choice. You call him up even though he's barely 20 years old, and you let
him play. But when you've got a great defensive center fielder who bats .255
in Triple-A, you leave him there to play every day, and learn how to hit.
Andy MacPhail has done a lot of things right this year. This just isn't one
of them.
MONDAY, JULY 16This past weekend, I lucked out and got to spend four nights and days in Milwaukee and Chicago, with my worthy excuse being the 31st annual convention of the Society for American Baseball Research. Like any good convention, the primary activity of the SABR convention is hanging out with a bunch of people you only get to see once a year, and standing around talking about something about which you all share a passion. However, the secondary activity at SABR conventions is a doozy, too ... We get to see some of the world's greatest baseball players ply their ancient -- well, ancient by American standards -- and skilled trade. And if you enjoy this particular trade, then what better place than Lake Michigan's capital cities? With two of the Great Lake's three clubs at home, I caught four games in four days, alternating Brewers and Miller Park with Cubs and Wrigley Field. Thursday, Miller Park. But frankly, for me the bigger attraction was the first-place Minnesota Twins, playing their first game since the All-Star break. Don't get me wrong, there are few things that I enjoy more than adding a new ballpark to my life list (now 28). But the new ballparks generally leave me ... well, not exactly cold, but something less than surprised. While it's certainly true that no two are exactly alike, it's also fair to say that all of them have something like the same feel. They are all great (as in "large") structures, featuring wide concourses and profiles that dwarf those of the old ballparks. Miller Park seems to have been built on something of the cheap, at least relative to the other retractable-roof parks. That's not really a knock. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money, and anyway I can do without the thrills. No, the only real beef I have with Miller Park is that, even with the roof open, a large percentage of the seats are apparently covered by a part of the roof that doesn't move. I suppose that I've been spoiled by Safeco Field, where when the roof is off, you really do get the feeling that you're outdoors. Thursday night, I not only saw Miller Park for the first time, I also saw one team hit seven home runs for the first time. And as you might imagine, it's a mighty impressive thing to watch. The Minnesota Twins, for all their first-place glories, aren't exactly a fearsome power club. They entered the game with 84 homers, 11th in the American League, yet on this night they hit seven home runs, including two each from Jacque Jones, Torii Hunter, and Corey Koskie. Hunter's homers were particularly impressive, both of them blasts to deep center field. Friday afternoon, my compatriots and I shuttled down to Wrigleyville, where those front-running Cubs were set to host their crosstown rivals. A day previous, the North Siders mojo showed no sign of letting up, as Ricky Gutierrez slammed a grand hit to top the Sox 5-1. But Friday, the Sox took their revenge, 7-2. Funnily enough, though, all that we could talk about -- and I was sitting with two old friends who happen to live and die with the Pale Hose -- was something called the Clearly Identifiable Defensive Mistake. What might such a beast be? Stupid question, as you've probably already figured it out. So here are some better questions ... Whose crazy idea was this, anyway? And how does this affect me, Joe Baseball Fan? The Clearly Identifiable Defensive Mistake -- CIDM, for short -- is the brainchild of a fellow named Bill James, who dropped CIDM as a little aside in the midst of a talk on his latest big invention (Win Shares). While discussing, in the most rudimentary of fashions, his new method for rating defensive value, Bill mentioned in passing that we could learn a lot of we started to count Clearly Identifiable Defensive Mistakes. He said this with a twinkle in his eye -- at least, I think it was a twinkle -- but upon such utterances are built great amusement. And so when Chris Singleton singled to left field, and Rondell White picked up the ball and threw third baseward far too late to stop Paul Konerko from reaching safely, thus allowing Singleton to steam into second base with nary a slide, we turned to each other yelled almost simultaneously, "CIDM!" Saturday, it was back to Miller Park, where I actually sat next to the aforementioned Mr. James for a few innings. Bottom of the seventh, Ronnie Belliard shot a liner down the right field line and eased into second base as if he were just finishing a marathon. Disgusted, Bill asked, "What is Belliard doing on second base? He could easily have made it to third." I wasn't so sure. Belliard might have been able to make it, but there certainly would have been a play, and he might well have been out by three feet. Look, it's true that many, many players assume that they've hit a double long before they should give up on third base. On the other hand, these days it doesn't make much sense to get thrown out stretching. In fact, that would qualify as a CIBM (Clearly Identifiable Baserunning Mistake). What's more, I would argue that hitters are essentially trained, by their experience, to assume that various things are going to happen. How many times have you seen a hitter slap a "routine" grounder to shortstop, and fail to sprint all the way through the bag? Happens all the time. And why? Because after you do bust down the line a few hundred times to no avail, it's human nature to assume that the play will be made, so why not conserve your energy? The game's basic elements have become so refined that players leave the batter's box with a damn good idea of what's going to happen, and so many of their actions are practically rote. So while ballplayers should certainly be encouraged for hustling around the bases, their failures to do so shouldn't be considered evidence of apathy. Rather, it's simple more evidence (not that we need it) that ballplayers are human, too. Sunday, I was back at Wrigley Field, where the Cubs hosted Tony Muser, whose Royals looked particularly inept on this sunny afternoon. They lost to the Cubs, 2-1, in part because of catcher Brent Mayne's inability to execute a simple rundown play in the fourth inning. The Royals made a number of other blunders -- the always-heady Luis Alicea being the prime culprit this time -- but lost mostly because Mark Quinn's three rockets were all snared by Baby Bear gardeners. It's always tough watching the Royals lose, but at least it happened in a truly great place. You know, Wrigley Field is a great value. My ticket in the 14th row behind the plate cost $28; a similar seat at Fenway Park costs twice that. And for the grand price of $1, you can purchase a scorecard and an informative program, in which I learned, for example, "Our pitchers need to be aware that [the Royals'] lineup has aggressive hitters. That makes them dangerous but, at the same time, vulnerable" (that's from Cubs advance scout Brad Mills). Now, it's generally true that you'll get a better value for your money in the Midwest than anywhere else in the country. But Wrigley Field is one of the two greatest ballparks that remain, and we're very lucky not only to have it, but to have it in fairly pristine condition, and at such a reasonable price. I saw 81 games at Fenway Park last year, I've seen four games at Wrigley within the last nine months, and I can't quite decide which ballpark I prefer. The fans at Fenway are better; for a lot of people at Wrigley, the ballpark is essentially a beer garden with substantial cover charge. But you get a purer baseball experience at Wrigley, where there still isn't any permanent advertising (though that will likely change next year). At Fenway, you're assailed by giant Coke bottles and milk jugs and whatever else they've been able to think up lately. They're both wonderful, but I hope that the men who have been entrusted with Wrigley can resist the urge to make it more like Fenway. THURSDAY, JULY 12 Questions, Quips, and Quasi-Wisdom composed while sitting in the Denver airport, waiting for the weather to clear up ... It was certainly wonderful to see Tony Gwynn at the All-Star Game, but why not Rickey Henderson, too? Does anyone, even Rickey himself, think that he'll actually be playing again next year? And if anyone deserves a Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award, isn't it Henderson? This is the greatest leadoff man in the history of the sport, the all-time leader in both walks and steals, and he may yet top the runs-scored list, too. ... Watching Ben Sheets pitch his one inning Tuesday night, I was reminded of why we have to discount, if only a little, the achievements of relief pitchers. Sheets threw virtually all of his fastballs 97 miles per hour, and I'm guessing that he can't do that when he starts, because of course he has to pace himself. Yes, there are dominating closers who throw in the upper 90s, and of course they are quite valuable. But I suspect that there are many, many starters who could throw that hard if they only had to pitch an inning at a time. Teams know this, but they'd rather have a starter who throws 92 than a closer who throws 97. Top starters make more money than top closers, and they should because their skills are rarer. ... I know this comment is late, but did it occur to anyone else that hiring Tony Muser to coach All-Stars is like hiring Howard Stern to teach manners at an all-girls school. Are there no limits to Joe Torre's charity?. ... Speaking of All-Star silliness, one wag near me suggested that Vladimir Guerrero's bat was destined to collide with Tommy Lasorda, because Lasorda's grown to the point of having his own gravitational field. ... Here's one of the biggest problems with sportswriters (and people in general): anything more complex than the double switch leaves us perplexed. Yesterday one national columnist wrote of Barry Bonds, "I've felt for years Barry Bonds has trouble figuring out who Barry Bonds is supposed to be. Is he the best player in baseball, whose talents, charisma and charm can overwhelm everyone in his company? Or is he the moody, sometimes bitter young man who detests talking with the media and who'd rather just play his game and to hell with the world?" Uh, is it possible that he's both of those things? We all (and I mean all) bristle when someone tries to slap an easy label on us, but we do it every day with professional athletes. ... I'm in the middle of an obscure book called "Victory Faust: The Rube Who Saved McGraw's Giants," and it's a helluva read. Author Gabriel Schechter researched every detail of the 1911 New York Giants, and the result is a delightful book that recounts not only the odd story of Charles "Victory" Faust, but also the wonderfully colorful game of baseball 90 years ago. ... Does anybody in the world realize that Magglio Ordonez has now played in three straight All-Star Games?. ... As my friend (and fellow SABR member) Mat Olkin points out in the latest Baseball Weekly, the Mariners rank No. 2 in the American League in road home runs and road slugging percentage. Olkin smirks, "Not bad for a club that supposedly abandoned AL-style baseball in favor of pitching and defense." ... I don't really have any idea if Fred McGriff, if he agrees to the trade, will help the Cubs or not. It's simple, really. If the Cubs get the Crime Dog of 2001, he will. If they get the Crime Dog of 2000, he won't. ... Anybody out there predict the fall in fortunes of Toronto's Esteban Loaiza? He's recently suffered the indignity of getting bumped from the rotation by Roy Halladay. ... I hope that John Boles, wherever he is, was tickled at the news of Dan Miceli joining the Rockies. Danny, you thought your ERA was a problem at sea level. ... Speaking of the Rockies, if I'd told you before the season that Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle would both have sub-4.50 ERAs at the All-Star break, would you have figured the Rocks for last place? Neither would I. ... The National League's All-Bust Team: C, Brad Ausmus; 1B, Rico Brogna; 2B, Pokey Reese; SS, Rey Ordonez; 3B, Russ Davis/Pedro Feliz;LF, Benny Agbayani; CF, Steve Finley; RF, Derek Bell. The American League's All-Bust Team: C, Sandy Alomar; 1B, the Scott Spiezio/Larry Barnes platoon; 2B, Alfonso Soriano; SS, Royce Clayton; 3B, Cal Ripken (sorry); LF, Johnny Damon; CF, Kenny Lofton; RF, Tim Salmon. And the skippers of these fine lineups? Bob Boone and Tony Muser, two of my all-time favoritest managers. WEDNESDAY, JULY 11 It's funny. In the wake of last weekend's Pepsi 400, in which it's been speculated that one or more drivers might have allowed another to win the race, some couldn't help but wonder if Chan Ho Park didn't groove that first-pitch fastball to Cal Ripken last night. That possibility didn't quite ring true, though. Not in a scoreless game, with a pitcher from a foreign land, in his first All-Star Game. And then when I got home and watched the replay on ESPN, I saw that Park's pitch, straight and true that it was, came out of his hand traveling 92 miles per hour. If you're trying to give up a home run, you don't throw the ball 92 miles per hour. And while Ripken has managed only four home runs -- one of them an upper-deck shot at Safeco on May 31 -- in the first half of the season, he's still a strong man, and occasionally his once-fearsome muscle memory takes over. Now, my friends and I assumed that Ripken would bow out of the game after hitting that home run. And who knows, he just might have ... but Bud Selig had other plans. Look, it was one thing to stop the game at the top of the sixth, when Troy Glaus came out to replace Cal. If I were commissioner, I wouldn't have stopped the game for seven minutes ... but the fact is that nobody in the stands seemed to mind, and the All-Stars themselves certainly seemed to enjoy those moments. No, the trouble came when Commissioner Bud took the field. This man is perhaps the worst public speaker since the invention of oral communication, yet he takes every chance to inflict himself upon the country's -- oops, I mean the world's -- baseball fans. Monday night, he congratulated Home Run Derby winner "Louis" Gonzalez; Tuesday night, he praised Cal Ripken for hitting more than 400 RBI. I believe that Bud Selig loves baseball, but unfortunately he doesn't realize that one of the best things he could do for baseball would be to stay out of range of any microphone or television camera. As long as Commissioner Bud feels compelled to bask in the reflected glory of the men who have actually accomplished something on the field, he'll make those moments slightly less memorable than they might otherwise be. End of sermon. There was a lot more right with the 2001 All-Star Game than wrong. Let's start with Joe Torre, who just might have come out of this one smelling sweeter than any of his All-Star managing predecessors. Let's run down the checklist: 1. Win the game. Did it. 2. Get all the hitters real playing time. Did it. 3. Get all but one of the pitchers in the game, just in case we get extra innings. Did it. 4. Make sure that both the win and the save are credited to the host team's pitchers. Did it. Mind you, it wasn't easy. Freddy Garcia didn't have to get the victory; it just worked out that way. And Mike Sweeney just barely got to hit; he made the last out for the Americans, in the bottom of the eighth. Torre also helped orchestrate that wonderful moment that led off the game, with Alex Rodriguez pushing Ripken to shortstop. And Torre brought Don Zimmer to Seattle, which allowed us all to see Zimmer's reaction when Tommy Lasorda -- the two were teammates in Brooklyn, nearly a half-century ago -- found himself the unwitting target of Vladimir Guerrero's lumber. (And of course, Barry Bonds' attempt to protect Lasorda with a catcher's chest protector reminded us of Zimmer wearing an army helmet during the World Series a few year ago.) When you're actually at the ballpark for an All-Star Game, and especially if you're keeping score, it's very entertaining to think along with the managers as they play "the game within the game," shuttling players in and out of the lineup. And it's quite possible that nobody ever played that game better than Torre did last night. A few more notes from the stands:
A scrapbook of All-Star Game memories ... Believe it or not, the 1979 All-Star Game is the first Midsummer Classic that I remember. Looking at the box score, the most amazing thing about the '79 Game was this: not one, not two, but three Red Sox outfielders started for the American League. Well, not exactly. Carl Yastrzemski didn't play much outfield during the regular season, and he played first base in the All-Star Game due to an injury that kept Rod Carew out of the lineup. But Yaz was voted in as an outfielder, along with Fred Lynn (who started in center field and homered off Steve Carlton) and Jim Rice (who started in right field, and played the entire game). Three Royals also started, as did two Angels. But I was 13 in 1979, and not yet paying attention to such things. I remember only two things about the '79 All-Star Game. With the festivities in Seattle's Kingdome, Bruce Bochte collected the first hit (an infield single, but a hit nonetheless) by a Mariner All-Star. And Dave Parker unleashed the most famous throw in All-Star history, gunning down Brian Downing at the plate in the eighth inning. The 1983 All-Star Game remains my favorite, because that was the year that our long American (League) nightmare finally ended. Exactly 50 years after the first All-Star Game, the American Leaguers won for the first time since 1971, and they did so in spectacular fashion.
In the interest of accountability, I've been trolling through my old columns, looking for predictions. You'll find them below, along with a few words about their accuracy, or lack thereof ... April 4: "The Pirates are going to fall on their faces in 2001, which is going to disappoint a lot of the people who come to see the new ballpark. This 2001 season may, should, be Cam Bonifay's last hurrah." I suppose this one was a gimme, but I'll happily take credit for it anyway. The Pirates are in last place, and Bonifay didn't even make it to the All-Star break. (By the way, if you'd like to see me at my vicious best/worst, go back and read that April 4 column.) April 5: "[David] Eckstein is old, 26 already, but in four minor-league seasons he's posted a .415 on-base percentage. Baseball America didn't consider Eckstein one of the Angels' top 30 prospects, but with the benefit of a break here and there, he could spend five or six years in the majors." The jury's still out, of course. But Eckstein got a big break when Adam Kennedy opened the season on the DL, and that might be the only break he'll ever need. Because Eckstein played so well at second base in Kennedy's absence, when Kennedy came off the DL, Eckstein simply moved over to shortstop. He's not hitting for any power at all, but as long as he's at least passable with the glove, his .355 OBP should keep him in the big leagues. April 9: "... John Hart surely thinks that C.C. Sabathia has the talent to become the seventh 20-year-old pitcher since 1980 to start 20 games. After all, everyone thinks that their guy is 'special,' and so history is not particularly relevant in their particular case. But to paraphrase a tired old saying, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, so Hart and his staff should probably take heed of the past." Sabathia almost certainly will become the seventh 20-year-old pitcher since 1980 to start 20 games in the major leagues. And despite getting rocked in his last two starts, Sabathia sports the lowest ERA (4.72) and the best record (7-3) among Cleveland's starters. His 68-46 strikeout-to-walk ratio is not impressive, but he's been very stingy with the gopher ball, only seven in 88 innings. With one notable exception, the Indians have shown great restraint with Sabathia; until last Monday, when he threw 125 pitches, Sabathia had not thrown more than 113 pitches in a game. If that July 2 start was the exception rather than the new rule, I'll be somewhat more optimistic about Sabathia's future than I was back in April. April 16: "I still think the Athletics are a good team. But I also think that they've put themselves into a big hole -- they're already seven games behind the Mariners -- and only have about a one-in-four chance to reach the postseason." Now they're a bit lower than one-in-four. They're 19 games behind the Mariners, so winning the West is no longer a viable goal. The A's trail only two teams for the wild card ... but they trail both teams by a fair piece: six behind the Indians, seven behind the Red Sox. Same day, I wrote, "I ... wouldn't be surprised if Minnesota's rotation finished the season with numbers just as good as Oakland's. It's the run production that will eventually kill the Twins' chances." The Twins, of course, are still in first place. And they've moved up to sixth in the American League in run production, which is certainly better than I thought they could, despite Doug Mientkiewicz's inevitable return to the land of mortals. Matt Lawton, Christian Guzman, and Corey Koskie, along with part-timers Chad Allen and David Ortiz have been the keys. Essentially, everything has gone right for the Twins this year, with the exception of Mark Redman's injury. I still think the Twins are going to falter, but it might not matter. The Indians have problems of their own, and of course there's always the wild card. The Twins are sitting pretty, and are quite likely going to make Bud Selig (and a lot of forecasters, me for example) look pretty silly come season's end. April 23: "It's still early, and something tells me that the Phillies won't still be sitting atop the East standings at, say, the All-Star break." Well, it's the All-Star break, and guess who's sitting atop the East standings? You got it, the Philadelphia Phillies. Still, the Braves are breathing down the Phillies' collective neck. On April 23, Atlanta ranked 15th in the National League in run production, the Mets 16th. At that point, I wrote of Atlanta's offense, "The question, of course, is whether this can continue. And of course, it cannot." And it did not. As of today, the Braves rank 10th in the NL (on the other hand, the Mets haven't budged). The Braves are only one game behind the Phillies, and must be considered the favorites. May 5: "So what of the Padres? No, they're not going to win the West. But if they can keep drawing walks, they can win as many games as they lose. And that would stand as a significant accomplishment for the division's poorest sister." The Padres still lead the National League in walks, and by a fairly hefty margin (they've got 401, and the No. 2 Giants have 338). But they're not winning half their games, in large part because they've also got a .403 slugging percentage, second-lowest in the league (the Mets, of course, have the lowest). May 17:"Four years ago, [Deion] Sanders was a decent major-league ballplayer. That was then. Now he's 33, and quite likely past the point at which he can really help a ballclub." 'Nuff said. May 24: "I would argue that if the Yankees continue to play Knoblauch and Soriano every day, eventually that decision will come back to bite them. Maybe soft, but maybe hard." At the time, the Yankees ranked ninth in the American League in slugging percentage and 10th in on-base percentage, yet somehow managed to also rank sixth in the league in run production. Since then, Knoblauch and Soriano have indeed continued to play every day ... and the Yanks have moved from ninth to sixth in slugging, from 10th to sixth in on-base ... and from sixth to fourth in run production. How are they doing it? The Yankees lead the league in steals, with 95 (and have been caught only 26 times). And they've grounded into only 58 double plays, fewer than every A.L. team but Seattle (interestingly enough, the Mariners are the only team to steal bases at a higher success rate than the Yankees). And what of Knoblauch and Soriano? Among the 10 everyday second basemen in the American League, Soriano ranks eighth in Offensive Winning Percentage, ahead of Baltimore's Jerry Hairston and Minnesota's Luis Rivas). Among the 11 every left fielders in the American League, Knoblauch ranks eighth in Offensive Winning Percentage, ahead of Anaheim's Garret Anderson, Minnesota's Jacque Jones, and Oakland's Johnny Damon (Damon has recently shifted to center field). Essentially, the Yankees have two second basemen in the lineup ... but they can get away with it, because they've got great hitters at center field and behind the plate and a pretty good one at shortstop. June 5: "I'll say that the Mariners win 56 percent of their remaining games, which gives them a final record of ... 103-59." The M's have gone 19-12 since, which means they've won significantly more than 56 percent of their games since my prediction. And even if the M's do win only 56 percent of the rest of their games, they'll finish the season with a 105-57 record ? and it's now become fairly apparent that the M's are better than that. I won't be surprised if they win 105 games, but I won't be surprised if they win 110, either. (How good are things going for the Mariners? They've currently got two major-league starters parked in Triple-A Tacoma, and in the last 10 days both Brett Tomko and John Halama have thrown no-hitters. Halama's was actually the first perfect game in the 99-year history of the Pacific Coast League.) June 12: "In fact, it's almost impossible to see any other [American League] teams but the Angels and Athletics getting into the postseason hunt. But they're at a disadvantage, because the division title is no longer an option for them. So they've got to fight each other, plus two of those other five clubs, for the wild card. At this moment, I give the A's a slight edge over the Angels, but I rate both of their wild card chances significantly behind those of the Yankees or Red Sox, and the Twins." Nothing's happened since to change my mind. The A's have finally been playing consistently well, and aside from the division leaders, only two other American League teams are even above .500. Of course, those two (the Indians and Red Sox) have the upper hand in the wild-card race. The A's still have a decent shot, but in the long term they just might be better off planning for next season. Also, on June 12, I wrote: "The Yankees aren't happy with [Alfonso] Soriano, and he'll probably be traded within a month ... to a really stupid team that will continue to play him every day. Hillenbrand, on the other hand, will likely be doing his hacking for Pawtucket within a month." The month isn't up yet, but it's become less and less likely that the Yankees will trade Soriano. The above was written in regard to a discussion of who would finish this season with fewer walks, Soriano or Shea Hillenbrand, and Soriano has since upped his walk rate significantly. At the time, both players had drawn five walks. In the four weeks since, Soriano has drawn eight walks; Hillenbrand has drawn one. At this writing, Hillenbrand has yet to be sent to Pawtucket, but it may well happen soon, as he's been in the starting lineup just once -- yesterday, when he went 0-for-3 -- since last Monday. June 19: "[Tim Redding] could, right this very minute, do quite well in a major-league bullpen. In fact, given the Astros' tendency to start their prospective starters in the bullpen, there's really little reason to keep Redding in the minors much longer." I wrote that after witnessing Redding's first Triple-A start (and appearance). He didn't get a chance to make a second, because his seven innings of shutout ball convinced the Astros that Redding was, indeed, ready to face National League hitters. I still say that Redding would be better off starting his career in the bullpen, and he's struggled in his three major-league starts. Saturday, Redding couldn't even handle the bush-league Royals, and he now sports an airplane-like 7.27 ERA, though the 19 strikeouts in 17 innings leave room for optimism. C'mon, Astros, give him a few weeks in the pen! THURSDAY, JULY 5 Quick test of your baseball knowledge: Which pitcher leads the American League in ERA? OK, so that's an easy one. You already know that the answer to that question is "Pedro Martinez" (bonus points if you also know that Pedro's currently sitting on the DL with a 2.26 ERA). Here's a tougher one: Which pitcher ranks second in the American League in ERA? Need help? Here's a hint: our No. 2 man is one of two working knuckleball pitchers in the major leagues right now. No, not Steve Sparks (though he's pitching quite well, too. Another hint: our No. 2 man is now, in the absence of Mr. Martinez, the ace of Boston's league-leading pitching staff. Yes, it's Tim Wakefield. After beating the Indians yesterday (albeit with a less-than-stellar outing), Wakefield sports a 2.61 ERA that nestles comfortably between Martinez (2.26) and Andy Pettitte (2.95).
IP Hits BB SO W-L ERA
Pitcher A 87 68 30 82 5-2 2.38
Pitcher B 47 44 16 49 6-2 1.91
Pitcher A's ERA is a bit higher, but he's also thrown twice as many innings as Pitcher B, and allowed fewer baserunners per nine innings. Pitcher A is Wakefield -- the listed stats are from before yesterday's game, as that's when the All-Star selections were made -- and he's not going to the All-Star Game. Pitcher B is Mike Stanton, and he is going to the All-Star Game. Yes, it's lovely to see a middle reliever making the team ... but they've already got that covered with the selection of Toronto's Paul Quantrill.
Frankly, this is one of those situations where the Commissioner's Office should have stepped in and said, "You know what, Joe? We know that you're a loyal guy, and we know that your owner and your players want you to select as many Yankees as you can. So we'll take some of the heat off you, and exercise our rights by 'helping' you choose the All-Star reserves."
Instead, Commissioner Bud punted. Maybe he figured that All-Star rosters are a "league matter," forgetting that there really aren't leagues any more.
Before I get to another All-Star snub, let me stress that most of the snubs aren't really snubs at all, but rather are simply situations where there isn't room on the roster for every player who's enjoying a great season. Yes, I would have taken Greg Maddux over Rick Reed, and I certainly would have found a spot for Paul LoDuca. But at least I can see the argument for the guys who made it. And reports indicate that Maddux lobbied for teammate John Burkett to Bobby Valentine, implying he wouldn't mind spending the three days golfing.
That said, I didn't think that Valentine would have the nerve to leave Cliff Floyd off the All-Star team, their silly feud notwithstanding. Or rather, I didn't think that Major League Baseball would let Bobby Valentine leave Cliff Floyd off the All-Star team.
Games AB HR Runs RBI OBP Slug OPS
Floyd 78 291 21 69 69 .414 .636 1050
Alou 66 266 18 49 61 .409 .643 1052
Just looking at the percentages, Alou has been every bit as effective as Floyd. But look a little closer. Floyd has played a dozen more games than Alou. Floyd ranks fourth in the National League with 69 runs scored, while Alou ranks 27th. Floyd has stolen 11 bases, Alou one. What's more, Floyd plays in one of the best pitcher's parks in the National League, while Alou plays in one of the best hitter's parks in the National League.
They're both great hitters, but Floyd is clearly having the better year, so it's a black mark against both Valentine and MLB that Floyd won't be in Seattle next week. Major League Baseball has a responsibility to "help" the managers avoid the appearance of impropriety, and this year that august organization simply ignored that responsibility.
TUESDAY, JULY 3Dusty Baker is doing it again. After last night's loss, Baker's Giants have actually been outscored this season: 400 runs for, 407 runs against. The Giants have played 82 games, and a 400-407 run differential typically results in a 40-42 record. But are the Giants 40-42, and 10½ games behind the first-place Diamondbacks? Nope. The Giants are 44-38, 6½ games behind Arizona and still very much a part of the wild-card picture. So the Giants are playing better than their run differential, which isn't really anything new. Many of us still remember the Giants' amazing 1997 season, when they reached the postseason with a 90-72 record despite being outscored in the regular season. Baker has received, and of course deserved, his share of the credit for the Giants' successes. But were the Giants' performances in 1997 and this season part of a larger pattern? Have Baker's teams consistently won more games than their run differentials would lead us to expect?
Actual W-L Expect W-L Diff
1993 103-59 98-64 +4.5
1994 55-60 58-57 -2.9
1995 67-77 61-83 +6.4
1996 68-94 71-91 -2.9
1997 90-72 80-82 +9.8
1998 89-74 91-72 -2.4
1999 86-76 85-77 +1.4
2000 97-65 97-65 +0.4
2001 44-38 40-42 +3.7
Totals 699-615 681-633 +18.5
Including this season, the Giants have won about 18 games more than "expected" since Baker took over, which is a large number. You can page through the manager register in Total Baseball, and not find many managers with a number like that. Baker's got four seasons with at least a +3.5 differential, and zero seasons with worse than a -3.0.
Does Baker have some magical ability to get the most out of his teams, to win the close games?
This year, the Giants are 15-8 in one-run games, an outstanding record, tied with the Cubs for the best percentage in the National League (the Twins are tops in the majors, at 17-8). But Baker's Giants have not generally done particularly well in one-run games. Under Baker, the Giants have gone 193-184 in one-run games. That works out to a .511 winning percentage, which is actually lower than Baker's overall .532 winning percentage.
That's not a knock against Baker; good teams typically perform worse in one-run games than overall -- yes, great teams do win the close ones ... but they win a smaller percentage of the close ones than the non-close ones. Still, we can say with some confidence that Baker's teams have not out-performed expectations by winning more than their fair share of close ones.
So how does Baker do it? Until somebody convinces me different, I'm going to guess that Baker's +18.5 is mostly, if not solely, a matter of luck.
And what of the National League West? Here are the current standings ...
Arizona 50-31 -- L.A. 45-37 5.5 San Fran 44-38 6.5 Colorado 38-43 12.0 San Diego 37-45 13.5and here are the "expected" standings ... Arizona 50-31 -- Colorado 44-37 6.0 L.A. 43-39 7.5 San Diego 41-41 9.5 San Fran 40-42 10.5Friends, the Diamondbacks are no fluke. They've won 50 games, and that's exactly how many we'd have expected them to win, given their superior 435-344 run differential. Arizona's played better than anybody else in the league, and it shows up in both sets of standings. Here are the teams that have out-performed their run differentials to the greatest degree:
Actual W-L Pythag W-L Diff
Mariners 60-21 54-27 +6
Phillies 47-34 42-39 +5
Twins 50-31 45-36 +5
Giants 44-38 40-42 +4
Mets 36-47 33-50 +3
Yes, the Mariners have exceeded run-differential expectations by six games, but this shouldn't surprise us; virtually every team with a record like that is a little lucky (or something). When the Yankees won 114 games in 1998, they exceeded expectations by six games. When the Mets won 108 games in 1986, they exceeded expectations by five games. It's something of a statistical truism that incredible results -- positive or negative -- involve more than the average amount of luck.
The Twins' and Phillies' presence on this list doesn't bode well for their continued presence at the top of the standings in their respective divisions, as "expected records" predict future records even better than actual records do.
Here are the teams that have under-performed their run differentials to the greatest degree:
Actual W-L Pythag W-L Diff
Rockies 38-43 44-37 -6
Brewers 39-41 44-36 -5
Rangers 31-49 36-44 -5
Blue Jays 38-44 42-40 -4
Marlins 41-41 45-37 -4
Padres 37-45 41-41 -4
I've already mentioned the Rockies, but here we see just how unlucky (or, if you prefer, "bad") they've been. They're 8-13 in one-run games, and not coincidentally have the biggest differential between their actual and expected records. If the Rockies were really 44-37, they'd still be six games behind the Diamondbacks in the West, but just a single game behind Atlanta in the wild-card standings. Instead, they're close to cooked, which bothers me only because I picked the Rockies to win their division.
It's a similar story for the Brewers. If they were 44-36, they'd be in second place in the Central, giddy with postseason aspirations in their new ballpark. Instead, they're already thinking about next year (or should be).
If this sort of stuff interests you at all, check out our Expanded Standings page, where you can see the expected records for every major-league team.
MONDAY, JULY 2I'm writing this Monday morning, and at any moment David Bell might be yesterday's news. Then again, he might be your American League All-Star third baseman. So here are a few questions about Bell and the All-Star Game that I've been seeing lately ... The other day, you wrote about the various ways that people can vote for All-Star candidates? Is there anything you didn't tell us? Yes, there is. In fact, I missed a big piece of the puzzle. From MLB's web site: Major League Baseball's All-Star Balloting Program, the largest in professional sports, encompasses Claritin in-stadium balloting at all 30 Major League ballparks, RadioShack online balloting at MLB.com and RadioShack.com, Pepsi retail balloting at Kroger Grocery Stores and international balloting throughout Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Japan and the Dominican Republic.Last Monday, I discussed the ballpark balloting, the online balloting, and (cursorily, I'll admit) the international balloting. But what I neglected was the "Pepsi retail balloting at Kroger Grocery Stores." Now, a lot of you haven't ever seen a Kroger Grocery Store, and it's been quite a while since I've seen one. Kroger, however, owns many other grocery stores, some of which I know about and some of which I don't. Here's the complete list: Kroger, Ralphs, Dillons, Smith's, King Soopers, Quality Food Center (QFC), City Market, Hilander, Owen's, Jay C Food Stores, Cala Foods/Bell Markets, Kessel, Pay Less, and Gerbes. Kroger also owns what are called "multi-department stores," large building in which you can find both Captain Crunch cereal and Captain America action figures, among many thousands of other necessary items. Kroger's multi-departments stores include Fred Meyer and Fry's Marketplace. Now, this information might seem arcane, if not absolutely pointless. But bear with me, because in a moment this all starts to get interesting. Because you see, that Pepsi retail balloting at Kroger Grocery Stores is rigged against some players (Yankees, Indians, Red Sox) and for others (Mariners and Angels, to name a few). Here are eight American League teams, all of them featuring viable/popular All-Star candidates, along with the number of Kroger or Kroger-owned stores within 20 miles of each team's home stadium: Anaheim Angels 87 Seattle Mariners 67 Texas Rangers 31 Oakland Athletics 18 New York Yankees 0 Boston Red Sox 0 Cleveland Indians 0 Toronto Blue Jays 0Troy Glaus can't blame his showing on Kroger, as the Anaheim area is even thicker with Kroger stores (Ralphs and Food 4 Less, actually) than Seattle is. But isn't it apparent that Seattle's players enjoy a substantial advantage over All-Star candidates from the Yankees, Red Sox, Indians and Blue Jays? Is this Bud Selig's idea of fairness? Wait, I know the answer to that last question. Bud Selig doesn't have any ideas of fairness, unless they relate to teams (like the one owned by his daughter) that don't enjoy the fruits of a hefty local TV deal. Within 20 miles of Safeco Field there are 67 Kroger Stores (QFC and Fred Meyer, or "Freddy's" as we call them), and that number doesn't even consider the many other QFC and Fred Meyer stores that dot the Northwest. Meanwhile, there was not even a single, solitary All-Star ballot in Key Food stores (New York area) or Star Markets (Boston) or Giant Eagles (Cleveland). How many "extra" votes might this mean for Bell? Steve Cuthbert works for Pepsi Bottling here in Seattle. When I asked him how many ballots might have been submitted in the Seattle area, he responded, "Between 2,000 and 3,000 per outlet, so I would say an average of about 2,500." After calling a few other QFC stores in Seattle, that figure squares pretty well with what the store managers said. So with 67 stores, that's approximately 165,000 more ballots just within 20 miles of Safeco Field ... which certainly would account for at least some of the great showing by every Mariner on the ballot. Aren't you forgetting something? David Bell is the best defensive third baseman in the American League. Really? Says who? Bell is almost certainly a good defensive third baseman Last year, Bell posted a .765 Zone Rating, which essentially means that he successfully fielded 76.5 percent of the baseballs hit into his area of responsibility. The MLB average was .751, which suggests that Bell was, indeed, better than average. But Scott Brosius was better, and so was Corey Koskie. And the oft-maligned Troy Glaus also "zoned" .765. And here are the Zone Ratings for this year's regular third basemen in the American League, top five only: Chavez .827 Koskie .811 Bell .772 Brosius .768 Batista .758Yes, Bell has been playing quite well defensively, and should probably be considered for the Gold Glove this year. But if David Bell, then why not Corey Koskie? He's got the best defensive numbers in the American League, he plays for the first-place Minnesota Twins ... and he's got significantly better hitting stats than Bell. And I guess the question I would ask is, since when did defensive prowess figure into All-Star voting (Ozzie Smith notwithstanding)? When Alex Rodriguez played for the Mariners, were the good fans of Seattle eagerly punching out chads next to Omar Vizquel? Haven't players of less than star caliber been making All-Star teams for a long time? Don't you remember Terry Steinbach? I remember Terry Steinbach quite well. In 1988, Oakland catcher Steinbach was elected to the starting lineup, and he entered the Midsummer Classic sporting a nifty .212 batting average and four home runs, thanks largely to injuries. Yes, a real clunker (his third-inning home run off Dwight Gooden notwithstanding). But these situations, David Bell in 2001 and Terry Steinbach in 1988, aren't really analagous at all. Steinbach was coming off a solid 1987 campaign that saw him hit 16 home runs and slug .463 in 122 games. His 815 OPS ranked second among American League catchers in '87. Bell, meanwhile, is coming off a 2000 campaign that saw him hit 11 home runs, slug just .381 and post an anemic .316 on-base percentage. Steinbach was, by some accounts, a budding star. Bell is, by most accounts, roster filler (though a somewhat versatile one). More to the point, Steinbach went to the All-Star Game because there really weren't any great catchers in the American League. Here are the names of the dozen American Leaguers who caught at least 80 games in 1988, along with their OPS that season: Rich Gedman (649), Matt Nokes (735), B.J. Surhoff (612), Ernie Whitt (762), Don Slaught (788), Andy Allanson (630), Mickey Tettleton (617), Terry Steinbach (740), Tim Laudner (726), Bob Boone (738), Geno Petralli (753), and Dave Valle (697). There are some good ballplayers on that list, but there aren't any Hall of Famers here. How weak was the group? Steinbach's backup in the All-Star Game was Tim Laudner (perhaps because the All-Star manager -- Tom Kelly -- happened to be Laudner's manager that season, but there certainly wasn't any hue and cry to pick somebody else). How weak was the group? In the late 1980s, people were writing articles suggesting that Carlton Fisk might be the last great catcher we would ever see, because ?kids these days just don't want to catch, they're not tough enough.? Uh, sure. In 1991, Ivan Rodriguez arrived in the major leagues; a year later, Mike Piazza followed. And suddenly nobody was spouting any nonsense about the extinction of talented young catchers. Rob Neyer is a Senior Writer for ESPN.com. His column runs Monday through Thursday. You can e-mail Rob at rob.neyer@dig.com. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
