TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2
This past weekend, I read something that made me a little sad. It was a newspaper column written by a baseball writer who, 20 years ago, ranked as one of the brighter minds in his profession. He wrote beautifully, and at the same time was one of the few mainstream baseball writers who seemed to have at least a reasonable grasp of statistical analysis. This baseball writer's best work has been collected in a number of books, and those books have a place in virtually any sort of serious baseball library. When I was in college, with the idea of someday being a baseball writer nothing more than a silly fantasy deep within me, this particular columnist ranked as one of my professional heroes.

Unfortunately, this baseball writer has apparently not moved even a single inch forward in the last 20 years, which is a sobering thought. Granted, I've suspected as much for the last few years. But any doubts were removed this past weekend, when this baseball writer wrote a column in which he devoted 700 words to proving that Bonds is enjoying one of the greatest seasons in history ... so far, so good ... and then 600 more to "proving" that Bonds is, unless the Giants reach the postseason, only the NL's third-best MVP candidate. At best.

I believe that this baseball writer, this man I admired, already had his mind made up when he sat down to write about Barry Bonds. I'm not inside his head so I don't know why he already had his mind made up, but it's fairly apparent that he did. He looked for numbers to support the notion that Bonds is not the MVP, but instead he found numbers to support the notion that "Mays never dreamed of having the seasons Bonds is having."

So when this baseball writer didn't find the numbers that he wanted to find, he did the next best thing: he made up some numbers; or rather, he made up some assumptions about the numbers. At one point he wrote, "Bonds has done an amazing job of producing least when it mattered most -- with men on base or a rally in progress. But he's hit a ton of solo homers."

Really? Let's compare Barry Bonds to Sammy Sosa with runners in scoring position:

 
         PA   BI    OBP  Slug 
Barry   152   58   .642  .943 
Sammy   191   82   .505  .672 

Yes, it's true that Bonds has not driven in many runners when they were in scoring position ... but look at the number of plate appearances each has had in those situations. Sosa's got nearly 40 more; given his rate of production, if Bonds had Sosa's 191 plate appearances, he would also have 73 RBI in those situations rather than 58. And 73 isn't really much different than 82.

More to the point, look at Bonds' percentages with runners in scoring position. How can anyone look at that .943 slugging percentage and say, with a straight face, that Bonds produces least when it matters most? One might as well argue that the earth is flat, or that Tony Muser is a good manager.

Has Bonds really "hit a ton of solo homers"? Sure he has. When your leadoff men don't get on base and you hit 69 home runs, that's going to happen, and Bonds has homered 42 times with the bases empty. On the other hand, he's got 27 homers with runners on base ... which happens to be exactly the same number of home runs that Sammy Sosa has hit with men on base.

Here are some numbers with runners on base:

 
        HR    OBP   Slug 
Barry   27   .577   .814 
Sammy   27   .476   .721 

Again, it's exceedingly difficult to argue that Bonds has performed poorly "when it mattered most."

The spoken argument against Bonds -- there's an unspoken argument, too, but we'll get to that later -- comes down to one thing, and one thing only: he doesn't have enough RBI. Baseball writers love RBI like they love their kids; sometimes more so, I suspect.

Now, why does Bonds rank "only" fourth in RBI in the National League?

Well, it might be because he hasn't played as much as, say, Sammy Sosa. Our baseball writer claims that this isn't the case -- "And he's barely missed a game all year, so that's not the cause." -- once again demonstrating our writer's failure to bother with the truth. Bonds has played seven fewer games than Sosa, and started 12 fewer. Should this be held against Bonds? Absolutely. The question is, to what degree?

It might also be because he hasn't performed well in the clutch ... but we now know that's not the case, don't we?

It might be because opposing teams work him very carefully in clutch situations. Or it might be because he's "too patient" and draws too many walks.

Now, the first of those obviously isn't Bonds' "fault." And the second ... well, if there is anyone out there who still believes that walks are somehow a bad thing for a middle-of-the-order hitter ... there's probably not a lot I can tell you that you haven't heard. Suffice to say, it still strikes me as a strange notion. Aside from the obvious statistical arguments, one might also list the names of some great middle-of-the-order hitters, all of them considered among baseball's greatest players and all of them lionized by virtually every modern baseball columnist. This list would include Babe Ruth (who led his league in walks 11 times), Ted Williams (eight times), Mickey Mantle (five times), Mike Schmidt (four times), and Lou Gehrig (three times). Slackers. Losers. Miscreants.

I don't like to accuse a fellow baseball writer of bias, because I get accused of bias nearly every day and it ain't no fun. But I look at what baseball writers say about Barry Bonds, and I have to wonder.

Barry Bonds, batting No. 3 in the lineup for a second-place team without benefit of a good leadoff man, ranks fourth in the National League in RBI and first in walks. A substantial number of baseball writers tell us that Barry Bonds is a dog.

Jason Giambi, batting No. 3 in the lineup for a second-place team without benefit of a good leadoff man, ranks ninth in the American League in RBI and first in walks. A substantial number of baseball writers -- many of them the same brilliant analysts who tells us what's wrong with Barry Bonds -- tell us that Jason Giambi is an MVP.

The aforementioned column reached its nadir near the end, where we read, "At the moment, there's no way a knowledgeable baseball writer could vote for Bonds over Sosa for MVP if neither's team makes the playoffs."

Gosh, I guess this might make me the least knowledgeable baseball writer in the history of the profession. But considering the source of the accusation, I think I'll consider it a compliment.

Sometimes we outgrow our heroes. And sadly enough, sometimes our heroes simply fail to grow with us.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 1
A reader named Eric Benson wonders, "If Jamie Moyer wins 20 games this season, will he become the oldest first-time 20-game winner?"

Yes.

Next question?

Just kidding, folks. Do you really think I'm going to let a chance like this pass with but a single-word affirmative? While it's true that Moyer failed Saturday in his first try for No. 20, and that he'll presumably have another shot Friday, it's also true that other subjects for this column might be more compelling by then (yes, I'm still hoping for a lively pennant race four days from now).

	Jamie Moyer Starting Pitcher Seattle Mariners Profile
	2001 SEASON STATISTICS GM W-L IP H K ERA 32 19-6 202.2 183 116 3.46

So whether it's relevant or not, you're getting The Jamie Moyer Column today.

Now, you might imagine that not many pitchers have won 20-plus games at 38 or older, let alone done it for the first time in their careers at that age.

Well, you'd be right, but you might be surprised at just how right you would be. Prior to this season, only eight pitchers in major-league history won 20 games in a season in which they were 38 or older. Warren Spahn did it four times. Cy Young did it twice. Early Wynn, Gaylord Perry, Pete Alexander, Eddie Plank, Phil Niekro, and Spud Chandler each did it once.

A couple of things about those pitchers.

One, Chandler is the only one of the eight who didn't win at least 300 games in his career; with 109 career victories, he didn't come close. And not coincidentally, he's also the only one of the eight who's not in the Hall of Fame.

And two, if Moyer does win again later this week, he will indeed become the oldest pitcher to win 20 for the first time. The aforementioned eight, along with the age at which they first won 20 games:

        20-Win Seasons   First?
Young         15           24
Spahn         13           26
Alexander      9           24
Plank          8           26
Clemens        6           23
Wynn           5           31
Perry          5           27
Niekro         3           30
Chandler       2           35

You might have noticed an addition to the list; it seems that a fellow named Clemens, who actually turned 39 in August, recently became this exclusive club's ninth member. But of course, The Rocket registered his first 20-win season many years ago, before some of you knew how to tie your shoes.

Chandler is the closest analogue to Moyer, but aside from the facts that both of them did their best pitching after 30 and neither will end up in the Hall of Fame, they're really not so similar at all.

Moyer reached the majors when he was 23, has won exactly 150 games (and counting), and has pitched one postseason game in his career (0-1, 5.79 ERA in 1997).

Chandler reached the majors when he was 29 -- at the time, he claimed he was 27 -- and wound up winning 109 games. Always a Yankee, he pitched in six World Series games (and went 2-2 with a 1.62 ERA).

Chandler, by the way, has a couple of claims to fame.

Those two World Series victories? Both came in 1943, when Chandler beat the Cardinals 4-2 in Game 1, and then 2-0 in the deciding Game 5. That regular season, Chandler went 20-4 with a league-best 1.64 ERA, and he won the American League MVP award. Granted, in 1943 many of the best players had already been drafted, but World War II didn't do Chandler any other favors; he spent most of 1944 and '45 in the service before returning in 1946 to win 20 games when he was 39. Chandler also pitched well (9-5, 2.46) in 1947, but bone chips in his elbow limited him to 128 innings, and (remember, sports medicine was a crude discipline in those days) he never pitched in the majors again.

Chandler retired with a .717 career winning percentage, and that figure still ranks first all-time among pitchers with at least 100 victories. Moyer's got an impressive winning percentage, too: .562. But it wasn't until he arrived in Seattle that "Jamie Moyer" became the Jamie Moyer who gets compared to people like Spud Chandler; since joining the Mariners, Moyer's won 84 games and lost only 40. That's a .677 winning percentage ... and should give you an idea of just how good Chandler was, because .677 is lower than Spud's career mark.

Moyer is a lefty who relies on guile, control, and one of the best changeups you'll ever see.

Chandler was a righty of whom longtime Tigers outfielder Barney McCosky once said, "There were some real tough guys on the mound back then. One of the toughest was Spud Chandler of the Yankees. He threw a heavy sinker that produced a lot of grounders."

All of which is to say, Moyer and Chandler are really nothing alike, except that both starred in their 30s after doing little of note in their 20s.

So what does the future hold for Jamie Moyer, who turns 39 next month? It's hard to say, because there have been very few pitchers like him. But in 1987, a 44-year-old left-hander named Tommy John, who relied on guile, control, and a baffling sinker, went 13-6 for the Yankees. And so until Moyer again pitches poorly (as he did last season, perhaps due to a lingering shoulder injury), I'm not going to assume that he won't pitch well. And if you're looking for a guy to root for this month, you could do a lot worse than Jamie Moyer.

Send this story to a friend | Most sent stories