NL Central Stage

Brew Crew through

2011-10-19T13:06:00.004-05:00

So I'm bummed. Obviously. I wish we won. I wish we had at least played better in losing. I wish we had traded for Reyes. I wish I was big.

I don't want to dwell on this to much but it's hard not to. I am so proud of this team. They won more games than any other Brewers team ever. They made it to their first CS since 1982, and the first playoffs I could watch (only a one year-old in '82, in Europe in '08). I got so much joy from watching the team this year it's hard to feel let down by them.

I know the playoffs are as much about luck as they are about being good at baseball. I know this. It still hurts.

I hope that I will remember the season for the fun it was in the future. I hope we get a SS with some range. I hope it's not another 29 years.

A lot of things happened during this series but among them was me noticing how terrible umpires are. The advent of baseball technology is amazing, not the least of which is slow motion instant replay. The umpires blew several important calls. I'm not blaming this for the loss as these bad calls went both ways. Primarily though I was blown away by the Pitch FX data. Even the one just on the broadcast showed some pitch calls that were not even close. Ryan Braun got a strike call on a fastball that was shown to be lower than the previous fastball that was called a ball. The strikezone varied so much from batter to batter it was stupid. Umpires suck, I want robots.

Here's a list of things that I want to look into to see if my impressions were off or not:

- The Cardinals seemed like much more patient hitters, especially in games 3-6. P/PA will tell us this pretty quickly.

- Braun and Fielder were trying too hard and pressed, and their P/PA was much lower than their season average.

- The Cardinals struck out far less than the Brewers in games 3-6. I know strikeouts are not the terrible thing that they are made out to be but it's just an observation.

- It seemed like the Brewers were all trying way too hard. The errors may be a product of that but I'm mostly referring to every batter going up there with home run swings. I want to see if the Cards bullpen (who really gets the credit for containing our offense) even give up a lot of HR.

- Tony LaRussa is still an idiot.

Thanks again for the great season Crew. I'll call when I feel ready again.

It's always the Central, isn't it?

2011-10-13T20:51:00.004-05:00

So we have an all Central NLCS. Neat for us, as we care about the NL Central here at NL Central Stage. You know our motto: "If it's not NL Central, then it's pretty much the minors."

A deranged fan asked me if the NL has more intradivision LCS (LCSs?) than any other division. I was doing other research anyway so I looked into it. Get ready for some numbers.

From 1995-2011 there have been 34 LCS and 11 intradivision matchups. Of those the numbers for each division were:

AL East: 5
AL Central: 0
AL West: 0
NL East: 2
NL Central: 3
NL West: 1

So yeah it's the AL East, buoyed by 3 different NY vs. Boston series. I suppose it's not that much of a surprise. Still, I'm happy to see the NL Central a not entirely distant second. Also we are much less hateable so I'm happy in my polite Midwestern fandom.

Championship Market

2011-10-13T19:55:00.005-05:00

Commentary in these playoffs has already mentioned many times that Milwaukee is a very small market. It's the smallest in baseball in fact. Seeing as how this is the Brewers first appearance in an LCS since 1982 it seemed possible that this was the smallest market for combined LCS ever?

I decided to dig into a bit as I ran an experiment. It required spurts of activity followed by waiting so it's good time for me to do online research, and occasionally it doesn't have to be work related.

The idea that Milwaukee is the smallest market is based on their Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). It works as a general measure of the population of a city area as opposed to the population of the city itself.

A few notes: I limited my analysis to the Wild Card Era because I didn't want to spend an entire week on this and I answered my original question pretty quickly. I used census data from 2000 as an approximation for 1995-2011. While there were some significant changes in populations from 2000-2010 in some markets (i.e. +23% for Dallas-Fort Worth) the lack of yearly data rendered completely accurate analysis impossible regardless of method. You'll notice some years with only three markets. Those are years that two teams that share an MSA both made it to their LCS and it doesn't make sense to count both populations.

So you don't have to go back that far to find a year with a smaller total market.

2011

Texas	5,221,801
Detroit	5,456,428
Milwaukee	1,689,572
St. Louis	2,603,607

14,971,408

2007

Boston	5,819,100
Cleveland	2,945,831
Arizona	3,251,876
Colorado	2,581,506

14,598,313

1995 (first WC year and smallest market)

Seattle	3,554,760
Cleveland	2,945,831
Atlanta	4,112,198
Cincinnati	1,979,202

12,591,991

All three years are lower than the markets for New York (21,195,865) and Los Angeles (16,373,645) alone.

There are some obvious problems with this analysis. The big one is that the MSA is not actually the market for many teams. For some (Baltimore and Washington) their MSA includes another market meaning that the MLB doesn't actually count the entire MSA. There are others (Boston) whose market greatly exceeds their MSA. Still, it was interesting looking into how little my home town, that used to feel so big, really was.

Class of?

2011-08-05T12:48:00.004-05:00

A question occurred to me the other day that prompted the writing of this article. I'll get to that later and instead just get into it: which player on each NL Central team already has (or is closest to) a Hall of Fame resume?

I'm picking one player for each team and in some cases it's a stretch to say the least. Regardless the premise is that I'm considering only those already Hall of Fame bound, not on the track. To continue the train metaphor I will present the case and whether or not I think they're in for each player I choo choo choose. I really only even looked at players who were at least 33 years old as anyone younger hasn't had enough season for a Hall of Fame career regardless.

(Speaking of which in researching this article I came across Dick Allen's career numbers which I had never looked at before. Holy crap. To admit Jim Rice and keep Allen out is asinine. All those character issues and his outspoken nature didn't endear him to reporters and really that's what the Hall should be about right?)

In the order for current standings (hahahaha this is an evil laugh):

Milwaukee Brewers - Randy Wolf

In other words no we don't have anyone who's already punched a ticket into the Hall of Fame. Really my choices were Wolf, Mark Kotsay or Craig Counssell and c'mon. I can't even be bothered to spell Craig Counsell's name right. Back to Wolferine though, he's had a nice career but nothing spectacular. Career ERA+ of 103, high of 124. Strikes out 7 per 9 but walks 3 per 9 too. He's a decent to good pitcher and I'm happy he's in our rotation but he's not a Hall of Famer. Career WAR of 20.0 in 13 seasons. So yeah we don't have anyone already in the Hall but we have a couple guys who could be on their way so no worries.

St. Louis Cardinals - Lance Berkman

This is what prompted this article: Is Lance Berkman a Hall of Famer? I was inclined to say yes and in looking at the numbers the answer is he's getting there. His resurgence this year has been incredible (although quite frankly I wish he'd stop) and it made me want to take a look at his numbers to see if he's already in. .295/.408/.548, OPS+ 146, 49.2 WAR in 13 seasons. As of right now the fact that he's only played 13 seasons is what will hurt him but frankly after this year it looks like he's got a few good years left in him without significant decline to add to his number totals (sitting at 355 HR). But the question presented is does he get in right now? I'd say he's good enough (3.78 WAR/yr is good) but I'm not convinced the BWAA will vote for him, mostly because that's the Boxing Writers Association of America and I mistyped. So he still has some work to do but he looks like he has a great case once he is finished.

Now it's easy to say "Wait what about Pujols?" Only the season thing kept me from picking him but frankly if he were hit by a bus tomorrow I'd still say he had the numbers to get in. 86.7 WAR in 11 seasons (7.88 WAR/yr) is already better than the average HoF player (70.5 WAR in 19 seasons, 3.71 WAR/yr). (I couldn't find an update to those numbers on BTB but it's from 2009 and three players can't have changed the numbers that much. Also I think that might use FanGraphs' WAR instead of B-R. I think FanGraphs gives more credit to defense. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Pittsburgh Pirates - Derrek Lee

It pains me to do this to Dave but he's really the best choice on a relatively young Pirates squad. That being said no Derrek Lee is not a Hall of Famer. But he is a very good player. .281/.364/.494, OPS+122 at first base is something you'd definitely be happy to have on your team but it's not all time great level. WAR of only 30.7 in 15 seasons (2.04/yr) is lower than the HoF replacement (low) level of 53.3 in 17 (3.13/yr). (Doing all this is just making me more mad that Jim Rice got in.) So while Derrek Lee was a very good player he falls short of the Hall. (FanGraphs gives him more credit for his defense, which I always thought Lee was pretty good at. Still he only has 39.1 WAR by their metric so he's still shy.)

Cincinnati Reds - Scott Rolen

Finally I get to someone who actually has 16 seasons played and can actually measure his current numbers against the Hall. .282/.366/.494 is good not great. Same with an OPS+ of 123. Of course none of that adjusts for position and Scott Rolen was for a period of time the best third baseman in the game. He played great defense on the hot corner and his WAR total of 66.3 (4.14/yr) is enough for me to say that yes Scott Rolen is already a Hall of Famer.

Time for a mea culpa. .277/.362/.464. OPS+ 125. WAR 66.4 in 15 seasons (4.14/yr). Those are Ron Santo's numbers. For a long time I've been saying Santo was borderline and that he doesn't deserve to be in. The only reason is the number of years he played because those are Hall of Fame quality numbers without quesiton. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and that he belongs in and that if you can generate almost the same number of wins in four fewer seasons than the average Hall of Famer then you shouldn't be penalized for a lack of longevity.

Chicago Cubs - Kerry Wood

Oh what could have been. That statement may hurt Dave more than the Derrek Lee stuff. Only 13 seasons but damn. 10.3 K/9 (balanced against 4.3 BB/9 though) is monsterous. Of course every counting stat will make his career graphs all exponential decays. The injuries all mean he'll never get the innings or strikeout totals that are enough to get elected but damn, look at those first four seasons. Not a Hall of Famer but in some alternate universe he is still a dominant starter for the Yankees. Sorry, in the alternate universe the Yankees are still the Yankees.

Houston Astros - Carlos Lee

I was actually thinking to myself the other day "What ever happened to Carlos Lee?" El Caballo put together a nice career but was always hurt by relatively low OBP totals. .286/.338/.491 is a frustrating line for a sabermetrician to look at. Career OPS+ 114 isn't going to blow anyone away either. 22.2 WAR in 13 seasons. Yeah not a Hall of Famer. Houston doesn't have much going for it. At least they have Hunter Pence and Michael Bourn entering the prime of their careers nevermind.

So what is the end result of all this? Really Rolen's the only one that I would say is already heading for the Hall but plenty of players are building their cases to be on the ballot right now. And really given that the average class size can be assumed to be 2-3 players so it's really not so surprising. Among players playing right now here's who I think are already in the Hall: Rolen, Thome, Halladay, Jones, Jeter, Rodriguez, Rivera, and Helton. There are a few other borderline cases out there (plus Ichiro will be sort of hard to predict how the writers treat him but I think he'll get in) but these guys could all be on a bus together tomorrow that drives off a cliff and I'd still say they did enough to get in and also that was really random that they were all on a bus together.

Quick link

2011-07-18T15:04:00.001-05:00

I want to shout out to James Dunne who posted basically the same article I was about to write after watching part of the Red Sox vs. Rays last night. I saw the graphic and the only thing I could think was "Well that was a fun an interesting way to illustrate how random and unimportant counting stats can be."

Vacation is fun. I get to watch a ton of baseball.

Wrong Met

2011-07-13T23:00:00.003-05:00

Yes K-Rod will help our bullpen, which really needed help. Although I was under the impression that K-Rod wouldn't be happy with anything but the closer role based on the clauses in his contract. Does that mean Axford is moving to setup man? All reports seem to indicate otherwise.

The point is that obviously the Brewers could have upgraded a lot more if they had gotten Reyes. Reyes has been worth 4 wins already this year while Betancourt has been worth -0.8. That's almost a five game swing at the halfway mark. That is massive for a single position.

It's probably pie in the sky to hope for Reyes anyway though. Still I'd like to see the Brewers do something to improve at SS if they really are going for it this year. I'm really worried about the Reds. They are below .500 but their Pythagorean puts them at tied with the Brewers and Cards. They are going to start winning some more ballgames.

Cincy needs help at short too and I'm really hoping they don't land Reyes. Paul Janish is at least in the positive for WAR at 0.2 but that's all defense. Holy crap at that .227/.259/.251 line. They probably need pitching help too but somewhat fortunately for them their bullpen looks pretty solid. I hope they don't get the help they need and Johnny Cueto gets kicked in the head.

The Cards have such a surprisingly potent lineup. I have no idea if Berkman can sustain what he's done so far but he doesn't have a crazy high BABIP or anything so who knows. Really though the Cards need pitching in a bad way. They have a couple decent starters and two to three above average arms in the bullpen but it just drops off the shelf after that. Lohse, Garcia, Salas, Motte and Boggs are the only pitchers with significant innings and an ERA+ over 100. I have no idea who's available. Johnson? Zimmermann?

Fair and Balanced

2011-06-30T10:43:00.003-05:00

There's been a lot of talk recently about balancing the leagues and divisions, something that directly affects the NL Central since we are the six team division that along with the four team AL West throws everything off. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is but everyone seems set on moving Houston out west. It seems like a lot of travel for the team but that's the nature of being in the western half of the United States and the Rangers already do it so no big deal I suppose.

The real accomplishment though is the balancing of the schedule. While this would put 15 teams in each league and require one interleague series throughout the season so that every team is playing it would finally eliminate the extra in division games for the NL Central. Lately it's been a way to inflate the win total for the division winners seeing as how they get to play the Astros and Pirates a few extra times.

Really though my purpose for writing this today is this: F*** You Major League Baseball. You look at this interleague schedule for our division and see if anything sticks out:

MIL: @BOS, TBR, MIN, @NYY, @MIN

STL: @KCR, KCR, TOR, @BAL, @TBR

CIN: @CLE, TOR, NYY, @BAL, CLE

PIT: DET, @CLE, BAL, BOS, @TOR

CHC: @BOS, NYY, @CHW, @KCR, CHW

HOU: @TOR, @TEX, TBR, TEX, BOS

So this is the current version of balanced. It's the NL Central vs. the AL East this year. But the Brewers have to go play at Boston, at New York and they get the Rays at home. The only other team that plays Boston and New York is the Cubs but they got the Yankees at Home and they play at Kansas City for some reason.

I did realize this at the start of the year but didn't get in the mood to write about it until today.

Also why doesn't Pittsburgh get a home/away series with someone? I know they're the Pirates but at least pretend they matter.

Questions and Concerns

2011-05-10T18:17:00.004-05:00

We are roughly a fifth of the way into the season and a few questions/concerns have arisen. I will pose them here knowing that really only one person will read them.

Brewers:

- Is there anyway to revisit arbitration hearings? I'm just asking because Corey Hart has an OPS+ of 7 right now.

- Does anybody want me to send an "I told you so" postcard to them for saying the Randy Wolf signing was a good one a year ago?

- Is Yovani's problem that I'm not writing enough about him? I'm still writing sonnets to him I just haven't been posting them.

- Is it possible that Latroy Hawkins offered up Corey Hart and Casey McGehee's power in some bizarre ritual to transform himself into early 2000s Latroy Hawkins? Because awesome.

- What the hell John Axford?

MLB:

- Is this the Jose Bautista that exists now? Because 2005 Latroy Hawkins laughed when I said that he should probably pitch around Jose Bautista.

- Can you name someone who plays for the Kansas City Royals? Let me rephrase: can you name someone who plays for the second place Kansas City Royals?

- They are second to the Indians, who have the second best record in baseball.

- The best record in baseball belongs to the Phillies. Duh.

- In terms of OPS Albert Pujols is the fifth best hitter on the Cardinals right now. That's wrong right?

- The Chicago Cubs have one regular starter with a slugging percentage over .500: Alfonso Soriano. The next highest? Darwin Barney at .412. My questions is this: how do you manage to have a better record than the Brewers?

PSA: FIP

2011-01-10T22:53:00.000-06:00

It's no secret that I love over-the-top PSAs. So to say that I love Bradley Woodrum's "FIP: A New ERA" is about as surprising as a sunrise. But the damned thing explains FIP quickly, simply, and with use of a Luck Dragon. So go watch it. Now. It's easily my favorite analytical baseball video since "How Mariano Rivera Dominates Hitters."

Vote for me in 2012

2011-01-06T09:46:00.005-06:00

You might as well since you're throwing votes away, BBWAA. Let's look at some people who actually received votes during this HoF cycle.

Marquis Grissom
Career WAR of 30.6 in 17 seasons puts him at 1.8 WAR/season. His career Batting RAA and Fielding RAA are both in the negative. He had only 5 seasons where his OPS+ was above 100. 4 votes.

B.J. Surhoff
I take no pleasure in this. B.J. Surhoff was one of my favorite players growing up. Career OPS+ is 98 so we may as well call it 100 and say he was average for his career. Admittedly for a catcher you take that if he can field reasonably well and Surhoff apparently did with five seasons of FRAA of 10 or higher. Still, a career OPS of .745 and 1.8 WAR/season in 19 seasons is not a HoF resume. 2 votes.

The rest of the people who received votes I have little to no problem with as they either had a few really good years (Al Leiter) or long productive careers (John Olerud). I can't bring myself to get worked up about Benito Santiago's one vote. It was probably a guy in San Diego who still owes him dinner or something.

Blyleven in 2011!

2011-01-05T14:00:00.000-06:00

Apparently, the Powers That Be wanted to ensure that Bert Blyleven's enshrinement resulted in rhyme time.

Congratulations to Blyleven and Alomar for their well-deserved (if delayed) elections.

A few quick notes:

Barry Larkin jumped to 62.1%, which makes his enshrinement likely a question of when rather than if
Tim Raines lost ground, dropping to 30.4% from 37.5% and making my life 7.1% less awesome
Jeff Bagwell on only 41.7% of ballots; I'm not surprised, just disappointed
Harold Baines finally fell below 5%; he will be missed
Dave Parker didn't get the final year bump in votes that most players do, but stayed on the ballot all 15 years
Kevin Brown got only 2.1% of the vote, something I was afraid of as I looked more and more at this class; Brown might not be a Hall of Famer, but he sure as hell deserved a look before falling off the ballot, as I'm sure he's got a damn good case
John Franco also deserved to stick around, though I'm very, very skeptical that he has much of a case

All-in-all, it was a tough ballot for newcomers, and I'm pretty disappointed at some of the names that we won't get to consider next year, but to reiterate:

BLYLEVEN IN 2011!

My Hall of Fame Ballot that Still Doesn't Mean Anything

2011-01-02T19:37:00.003-06:00

It's Hall of Fame season again, and once again I'm behind the 8-ball with regards to writing much despite the fact that Hall of Fame debates are by nature historical debates, specifically historical baseball debates, and I love baseball, history, and debates (as well as every possible combination of two or more of those terms).

I blame holiday revelry.

Nevertheless, like last year, I have just enough time to do a quick rundown of my imaginary ballot. This year is particularly tough, as there are more than ten candidates who I think would make good additions to the Hall of Fame. I don't think I'd vote for more than ten even if I could (which is to say, even if I could vote, and could then also vote for more than ten players), but there are legitimate cases to be made for fourteen or fifteen of these guys, especially in light of recent inductions.

But before I digress too far from my intended purpose, here's my "ballot" (once again in alphabetical order):

Roberto Alomar. From last year: "If the various advanced defensive metrics developed by smarter folks than I are to be believed, Roberto Alomar was not the defensive genius I thought he was when I was a wee one. But when you hit .300/.371/.443 over 17 seasons at a skill position, you're one hell of a ballplayer."

I stand by everything I wrote last year, though this past year has seen a lot of advanced defensive metrics called into question, still by smarter folks than I, though it's worth noting that the folks who are smart enough to create advanced defensive metrics have also, historically, been smart enough to warn the likes of me that said metrics are advancements, not end points. So the fact that Robbie Alomar's defense is difficult to quantify, though perhaps more obvious this year than last, is hardly surprising.

But in light of all this, I think Joe Posnanski sums up Alomar best (as he tends to do):

"If you feel that he was a solid but overrated defender -- which probably  sums up the anti-Alomar-defense stance -- then he is one of the 10 best  second basemen in baseball history...if you believe Alomar was a GREAT defensive player, as many people do,  then he's one of the five best second basemen ever and should be in the  discussion with Joe Morgan and Rogers Hornsby."

Alomar should have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer. He probably would have been had he not spat in John Hirschbeck's face back in '96. He definitely will be a Hall of Famer this year.

Jeff Bagwell. I suspect that Jeff Bagwell is going to be this year's Roberto Alomar: a guy with a first ballot résumé who has to wait for some ridiculous reason. But whereas Alomar paid the proverbial piper for slingin' saliva, Bagwell will wait because he was a power hitting first baseman in an era when power hitting first basemen grew on trees (or, perhaps more aptly, were trees─trees which used smaller trees to hit baseballs really goddamned far......or...something).

But despite the fact that suddenly everyone was launching 30+ homers on a yearly basis back in Bagwell's heyday, Bagwell was so, so much better (and so, so much more consistent) than the average bear. Even ten short years ago, the numbers would have spoken for themselves: .297/.408/.540. 449 homers. 1500+ runs and RBIs (if you're a ribbie fan). 9 seasons with 30+ home runs. 3 with 40+. 2 30-30 years (that's right; Bagwell could steal a bag well* back in the day, and even once his speed left him he was a smart baserunner). A lifetime OPS+ of 149. 79.9 WAR. A Gold Glove and 3 Silver Slugger awards. A Rookie of the Year award and an MVP award.

*That's out of my system now. I promise.

And oh, what an MVP campaign it was. .368/.451/.750 with 39 homers, a 65-65 SO-BB rate, 100+ runs/RBI's, 300 total bases─an extraordinary season in any era. Except it wasn't a season. It was 1994. Bagwell did all that in only 110 games. Motherfucker formed Voltron all by himself in '94.

I'm not going to belabor the point now, because odds are I'll furiously belabor it once the results are in. But if Jeff Bagwell is not a Hall of Famer, then I have no idea what the words "Hall of Fame" mean.

Bert Blyleven. From last year: "One of my favorite arguments against Bert Blyleven (and I wish I could remember who made it) was that no kids in the 80's opened up Bert Blyleven baseball cards and got excited. I was excited when I opened Blylevens in the 80's. That's the fun thing about argumentative absolutes: as soon as one little thing doesn't fit, the argument falls apart. As for an argument that matters with regards to Blyleven, point your browsers Rich Ledererward (the Bert Blyleven series is about halfway down the left navbar) if you've not done so already."

Blyleven in 2011!

Barry Larkin. From last year: "Larkin did absolutely everything well. He hit for average (.295 lifetime). He hit for power (.444 SLG as a middle infielder). He got on base (.371 OBP). He had speed (379 SB at an 83% success rate). He fielded his position (37 defensive RAR). He's 59th all time in WAR with 68.8. He is, quite simply, a Hall of Famer."

Larkin got pretty solid support last year (51.6% of the ballot), and frankly, I suspect his candidacy is going to look better and better as the PED debate hits fever pitch on the next few HoF ballots.

Edgar Martinez. From last year: "Yes, I know he played most of his career as a DH (of course, so did Paul Molitor, and so did future Hall of Famer Frank Thomas). But inducting relief pitchers has been all the rage lately (and fairly, I think). Designated hitters are a lot more valuable than relief pitchers. And Edgar Martinez was the greatest DH of all time. It's time we set the bar, no?"

.312/.418/.515. 309 HR. 514 2B. 1283 walks versus 1202 strikeouts. And the man wasn't a regular in the big leagues until he was my age. Eat your heart out, Ichiro; Edgar was late to the Seattle party before it was cool.

Mark McGwire. From last year: "I'll also be casting my vote that doesn't mean anything for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro, by the by."

I've seen several arguments over the years in which people claim that, regardless of what any given person may think of the PED issue, McGwire didn't have a Hall of Fame career. Most of these arguments hinge on McGwire's low hits total, and the fact that a third of those hits were home runs (as if being one-dimensionally biased towards the best thing you can do at the plate were a bad thing...).

I think a good question for those people, then, is whether they think Harmon Killebrew is a Hall of Famer. Because McGwire, as a hitter, was a lot like Killebrew. Except much better.

Just sayin'.

Of course, we all know why most of the people who haven't voted for McGwire, and why most of those people probably still won't vote for him. Still, it'll be interesting to see the results of his confession on his candidacy, and I'm hopefully that as the years go by, McGwire's case will look better.

Rafael Palmeiro. I told you last year that I'd case my vote for Palmeiro, and I stick to that promise. Palmeiro may be the most debatable of the "enhanced" candidates. One could argue that he simply "compiled," that his career totals are the result of lots and lots of good-but-not-great seasons, that though he was always good he was never great, and so on.

I don't really care about that argument.

When Palmeiro "limped" to the finish line in '05, he still posted an OPS+ of 108. That's not exactly stellar, mind you, but it's not like he threw together a few part-time, 85 OPS+ years in order to crack the 500 home run mark. Palmeiro was a valuable player right up until the end, and an elite (if not inner-circle) player for 10 or 11 years. Durability and consistency are important in baseball, and I think they should be important to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Palmeiro failed a drug test after being a condescending asshole about PEDs during a nationally televised Congressional hearing. He got entirely too friendly with then-Mrs. Sandberg while a Chicago Cub. Rafael Palmeiro has, in other words, been a jerk.

Ty Cobb stabbed a dude.

Just sayin'.

Tim Raines. From last year: "A case could be made for Tim Raines as the second greatest leadoff hitter ever. Unfortunately, he played at the same time as the greatest leadoff hitter ever, and he played in Montreal. But there's no reason a .294/.385/.425 hitter with an OPS+ of 123 and 808 of the most efficient stolen bases in baseball history shouldn't have a plaque in Cooperstown."

I strongly suspect that, with Blyleven's induction imminent, SABR-minded members of cyberspace will turn their attention towards the Rock.

Alan Trammell. From last year: "Trammell will probably never make it to Cooperstown (like fellow HoF-worthy Tiger Lou Whitaker) because he spread his value over several skillsets, and not as obviously as Larkin did. Trammell could hit. He could field. He was what so many sportswriters have called a "complete player." But he was outhit by Cal Ripken (an anomaly at SS at the time) and outfielded by Ozzie Smith (who was the best defensive SS of all time), putting him in a Tim Raines-easque purgatory despite his 66.8 WAR (69th all time)."

Hopefully, as Larkin gains momentum, Trammell will, too. Unfortunately, Alan's on the ballot for the 11th time already, which probably doesn't give him enough time to mount a serious comeback. Fortunately, the Veteran's committee exists to continue to deny Trammell membership for years to come.

But we still love you on the internets, Mr. Trammell.

Larry Walker. Yup. Coors Field. 90's. Blergity-blarg-blurg.* I've read the arguments against Walker for years.

*How's that for an even-handed summary of the opposing arguments?

But the man wasn't a one-dimensional slugger, and he wasn't simply a product of his home ballpark. Was Walker better at Coors Field than on the road? Absolutely. He hit .348/.431/.637 at home vs. .278/.370/.495 away. But an .865 OPS in away games is nothing to sneeze at (Jim Rice OPSed .854 for his career despite playing in Fenway, a notorious hitter's ballpark that, for some reason, isn't as notorious as it probably should be), and Walker also ran the bases well and was an excellent fielder. He was, in short, a very complete ballplayer.

OPS+, which adjusts for park factors, still loves Walker, who chalked up seven seasons with an OPS+ north of 150 (though one was a partial season and another was the strike-shortened 1994 campaign). In three of those seven seasons, his OPS+ exceeded 160. One on of those three seasons, it exceeded 170 Walker collected 409 TB that year, on top of 78 BBs). Over the course of his career, Walker's OPS+ sits at an even 140. His WAR was 67.3.

I don't expect Walker to do especially well in the voting this year. But it will get a lot of people talking, which should prove interesting.

There are other interesting candidates. Fred McGriff will be giving voters headaches for years to come, methinks. Kevin Brown has a very, very good case (and as the crowd thins a bit, that case will likely emerge), though I'm not sure I buy into it just yet. Lenny Harris is the most hilariously awesome ballot choice in recent memory (though I want to make it clear right now that I love Lenny Harris). Murphy, Parker, and Mattingly will once again make everyone wonder "what if?"─while, simultaneously, many others will make very good cases for why what was is good enough. And of course, through it all, the harrumphing over PED users, alleged PED users, and suspected PED users will continue.

My prediction? Alomar and Blyleven get the call. Everyone else waits.

Facebalk

2010-11-26T23:41:00.001-06:00

From my Facebook:

Ben Leslie
Dear Derek Jeter,
Umm, you saw what LeBron did last year, right? How's that working for his legacy? Time to be a team player and make less than 10 million a year for a change. http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/columns/story?columnist=matthews_wallace&id=5843900

If Derek Jeter is not careful, he could make New York Yankees look like good guys - ESPN New York

sports.espn.go.com

If Derek Jeter's not careful, he could make the Yankees look like the good guy.

Wednesday at 12:18am · · Comment · Share

You like this.
- Caleb Nienow They reportedly offered a 36 year old shortstop $15 mil/year. I think they are being as loyal as they should be even if they essentially have infinity money.
  Wednesday at 9:46am ·
- Ben Leslie
  Yeah, it's completely redonk. For a guy as careful and measured as Jete, this is ludicrous. He basically could have cemented his HOF career by making a big public statement of how he's had a great time and made lots of money, and he'll play... for a million dollars a year (i.e., free) for five years or something like that- he gets the years he wants and the media'd love him. Does he really need the money? He got in trouble a couple years ago, cause he lists his primary residence as FL, so he barely even pays any taxes! By demanding the cash, the only thing i can see is that by demanding a lot he's saying, if you're not gonna have me be your starting SS, then I'm done. Which I can respect. But couldn't he just have a creative contract that says I'll play for beans but if I don't start, I can opt out?
  I agree, they are being way more loyal than they should, just cause he's jeter. Look what they did to Matsui, 3 months after he single-handedly won them 2 games in a WS? Then yankees have it all wrong- instead of buying HR hitters, they need to just buy the entire management organization, top to bottom, of some poor-ass team like the Giants. People that actually have to make intelligent decisions and can scout. Oh, and some pitchers, duh. Cashman is a turd.See More
  Wednesday at 10:03am ·
- Caleb Nienow Um, no we disagree here. Sabean is an absolute idiot that lucked into a fantastic pitching staff. Their lower tier scouts and management may be good but the Giants front office is terrible. Their highest paid player this past year? Barry Zito. Nuff said.
  Wednesday at 10:15am ·
- Ben Leslie Yeah, I guess what we really mean is the Rays. JFC, 72 million, 35% of the yankees. in 2008 it was something like 43. Zito's locked into a million-year deal. Pitchers are like RBs in football, the Ace in the league has a good track record of becoming a turd the next year (ZITO!) but at least in the NFL owners are smart enough to collude and not give RBs 10-year deals for crazy money. Marion barber signed a 7 (?)-year deal, but for only like 16 mil guaranteed. http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/2010baseballteampayrolls.htm
  Wednesday at 10:27am ·
- Caleb Nienow
  I've heard arguments against the Rays too. The claim is that they were terrible and are riding a string of good, high draft picks and will suck after they start leaving. I think this is bogus because the baseball draft can be such a crap sh...oot and a string of good draft picks is partially luck and partially good management. It's more impressive to have a steady string of young players than an indication of past failures. Agreed about pitchers and RBs with the caveat that good scouting and analysis should prevent situations like Zito from happening which most teams had scouted out and weren't going to pay him. Regardless the gold standard for farm systems is still the Braves, who haven't been outside the top ten in overall rankings by most analysts in many years.See More
  Wednesday at 10:39am ·

Baseball is a Game Played by the Dextrous but Only Understood by the Poindextrous

2010-10-11T21:19:00.001-05:00

This finally happened.

To say that Caleb and I love it when The Simpsons take on baseball would be an understatement. But taking on baseball and sabermetrics in the same episode? While finally granting Mike Scioscia his wish to reprise his role from "Homer at the Bat"? And while tipping the cap to Bill James ("I made baseball as fun as doing your taxes!")?

Amazing.

Granted, the episode uses some misguided stathead-slamming tropes (most egregiously Professor Frink's ridiculously obscure analysis of Zach Greinke, reminiscent of Tom Selleck's ridiculous self-analysis from Mr. Baseball and pretty much every Murray Chass anti-SABR article ever), but the "guts" guys don't get off any easier, and this seems like a great opportunity for both "sides" to laugh at each other and themselves.

But as an English teacher, my favorite part of the episode turned out to be Homer's response to Marge's "Why do you say such ridiculous things?" question. It was comedy gold even before he pointlessly tacked on "formally" to the end of his run-on sentence-like-thing, but at "formally" I was laughing harder than I've laughed for a long time (and I watched this episode while sick as a dog!).

19 years after "Homer at the Bat," The Simpsons has hit another homer. And yes, I should be very, very ashamed of myself for closing a post with such a terrible pun.

THE BEST DAY OF THE YEAR

2010-09-22T09:11:00.002-05:00

It's FJM Day over at Deadspin. As the unquestioned beacon of hope for baseball blogs FJM is revered here at NL Central Stage so go there all day and enjoy the wonderful.

Bob Brenly is a [word redacted per request of wife].

2010-09-19T12:07:00.007-05:00

Notes: Cubs are are 7-1 on the recent road trip. They are hitting .212 but .292 (might not be accurate numbers but whatever) with RISP.

Brenly from the pregame: "For all you statgeeks who say that batting average is overrated here's a perfect example of how timely hits, good defense and just getting the ball in play can create some wins."

Thanks for setting me straight by citing things that are not batting average to support batting average. That's like telling me slugging is overrated and illustrating your point by pointing to park attendance.

A Pair of Fond Farewells

2010-08-29T20:17:00.007-05:00

It's been a bad year for Cubs fans. Predictably, the Cubs have been out of the division race since Opening Day. Unpredictably, they've spiraled into the depths of the NL Central, with only the lowly Quadruple-A Pirates to break their epic fall. It seems like only yesterday when the Wrigley faithful watched the Cubs win 97 en route to the best record in the National League (though, to be fair, it also seems like only yesterday when we watched them lose 96 games en route to the worst record in the National League).

In light of this season's brutal doom spiral, it was no surprise when the fire sale began. First, Lilly and Theriot went west to the Dodgers for Blake DeWitt. Then Fontenot was off to San Francisco. But the big one, the one that really hurt this die hard's heart, was when Derrek Lee was traded to the Atlanta Braves on August 18th.

Obviously, Lee was having a down year. Actually, that's an understatement: Derrek Lee was on pace for his worst full season ever. His power and on-base skills seemed to evaporate completely during the early goings. His speed has long since abandoned him. And his strikeout totals were up. But it's tough for this fan to forget 2005, and 2009, and 2007. It's tough to see Derrek Lee walk up to the plate, a picture of class and calm, and not believe that this is the at-bat that will turn things around. But mostly, it's tough to lose such a great player and such a great man, regardless of the slump that has been his 2010.

* * *

I got the news from my friend Keith Larson:

lee to atlanta

Three simple words--short even by text message standards. But they hit me right in the gut. Sure, losing Lilly, Theriot, and Fontenot had hurt. Ted Lilly was, year-in and year-out, our most dependable (and best or second best) starter and a joy to watch if you're a fan of a good curve ball (I am). Ryan Theriot was exactly the sort of scrappy, 110% effort ballplayer a scrappy, 110% non-ballplayer like me can love unashamedly. And Mike Fontenot--well, Mike was a heartbreaker. His partial seasons made him look like the second baseman of the future, and the Theriot-Fontenot LSU connection was too good not to love. But Mike never seemed to be able to put it all together for a full season, and wound up being a good utility guy instead of the anchor at second many of us were hoping he'd become.

But Derrek Lee was my favorite Cub.

Keith knew this. We'd had the "favorite Cub" discussion early on. His was Aramis Ramirez. I certainly understand his position. I have never seen a human being swing one object at another object harder than Aramis Ramirez swings a bat at a ball when their are fewer than two strikes and runners on base. Keith often calls baseball a chess match, and I think there's a lot to be said for that analogy. But Aramis Ramirez brings a battle axe to a chess match. It's a joy to watch. But the beauty of Rami's approach is that, when he's on at the plate (which, over the course of his career, has been most of the time), he doesn't swing that axe at stupid pitches. He makes pitchers nibble (difficult) or come right at him (dangerous).

But my favorite Cub was Derrek Lee. When the Cubs signed him before the '04 season, I went nuts. Few of my Cubs fan friends knew why. Sure, they'd seen D-Lee "crush" in the '03 NLCS.* But Marlins, then as now, rarely attracted national attention, so where I saw a slick-fielding, hard-hitting big man with 20+ SB speed, they saw...some guy they'd never heard of until he helped transfer the misplaced loathing of the Cubs faithful from a billy goat and a black cat to a poor guy named Bartman.

*It's funny, because no matter how many times I look at Derrek Lee's ugly line from the '03 NLCS--.188/.235/.344 with a meaningless homer and a pair of doubles--I can't stop thinking and, sometimes, saying that Lee killed us in that series. That's the word I've used: "killed." And my Cubs fan friends never call me out on that statement. In fact, most of them agree with me! And yet, he did nothing of the sort. Our pitchers kept him off balance the whole series. He struck out eight times and hit into a pair of double plays. He only collected six hits, and half of them were in losing efforts. Derrek Lee didn't kill us in that series. But his two run double off of Mark Prior in that disastrous eighth inning of Game 6 killed us in a very real way, nonetheless, a way we're still feeling--and talking about--seven years later.

Getting Derrek Lee in the Great Marlin Fire Sale of '03-'04 felt like a form of closure for me, I guess. And when D-Lee put up a .278/.356/.504 line while digging enough balls out of the dirt to make Aramis Ramirez look like a Gold Glover to enough of my friends for it to be annoying, all while going about his business with a quiet dignity and professionalism that sometimes seems like a lost art in modern free agents (that's right, it's a "damned kids and their music" argument!), it was settled: #25 was The Man in Chicago as far as I was concerned.

* * *

Keith came to Chicago with his girlfriend Sara in the fall of 2009. They had moved together from Portland when Sara got into grad school in the Flatlands. Keith loves Portland. Whenever the city came up in conversation, he'd tell me about how perfect it is geographically: "90 minutes to the beach, 90 minutes to the mountains." Or how easy it is to get to Mariners games: "The Amtrak literally drops you off next to the stadium; you can't even park that close!" Within hours of friending me on Facebook, Keith had sent me links to local Portland farmers markets that "put anything here in Chicago to shame." Keith loves Portland.

But Keith also loved Sara, and he's loved the Cubs for as long as he can remember, so he came to Chicago to be with his lady.

Unfortunately for Keith, it was a rough year with both his beloveds. Things with Sara didn't work out, and the Cubs quickly spiraled into oblivion. But he decided that, while he was here, he'd nevertheless be sure to go to as many games at Wrigley as possible. Based on the number of Wrigleyville doormen and ticket takers who know him by name, I think it's safe to say that he was successful in that endeavor.

* * *

Keith and I didn't see much of one another this summer. I had quit my gig at the bar in his neighborhood that had given us a default hangout place and time every week, and had then spent most of the summer traveling from one wedding and/or miscellaneous adventure to the next. But on Thursday, August 19th, we found ourselves at Wrigley Field for only our second game together this season, a heartbreaking loss to the San Diego Padres. It had been a month to the day since we'd gotten together to talk baseball (our last--and first--game together had been on July 19th when the Astros were in town), and we spent virtually the entire game talking baseball, oblivious to the fans around us.

That is, until one of those fans turned around and said, "You two should host your own talk show."

Keith and I were mortified. In that instant, we'd both realized that we had basically spent an entire ballgame talking about the game we were watching, the game in general, the year so far (from rookie-of-the-year candidates to Griffey and his contemporaries' Hall of Fame cases/legacies)...you name it. And we'd done this while sitting directly behind a pair of 50-something women who probably just wanted to enjoy a Thursday afternoon game in peace.

But as it turned out, they had been enjoying our baseball talk almost as much as we had. "It's been very interesting," the first woman told us when we began to apologize. "I didn't know a lot of the stuff you were talking about."*

*Among that "stuff": that Derrek Lee had killed us in the '03 playoffs. I deserve to be slapped.

"Just don't talk that much when our friend [can't remember her name] is here," added the second woman. "She'll kill you." They laughed.

At the end of the game, we said goodbye to our new ballpark friends and made our way to the exits, sure of two things: that we would absolutely love to host a radio show together (Keith later told Sara the story, and she agreed wholeheartedly with the Wrigley ladies, so we'd have at least three listeners), and that we needed to return the next day for Derrek Lee's first game as an Atlanta Brave, and first game as a visitor in Wrigley since he killed us in '03.

* * *

The funny thing is, I'd never have been there for D-Lee's swan song if Keith hadn't wandered into the Bird's Nest after work on Tuesday, December 8th of last year. Keith had never been to the Bird's Nest, even though he'd lived down the street for over a month. But for whatever reason, he chose that night to wander in for a nightcap. And on that night, ESPN reported that Curtis Granderson, former UIC standout, reigning All-Star center fielder, and general class act (seriously, check out http://www.grandkidsfoundation.org/) would be going to the Yankees.

"Goddamned Yankees," I growled at a television for what felt like the thousandth time.

And that's how I met Keith. Keith is the sort of guy who can strike up a conversation with anyone at any time in any situation. It's admirable--and enviable. That night, he'd pulled up a barstool a couple seats down from me and was watching the report with equal interest. And he struck up a conversation. We spent the next few High Lifes lauding the merits (on-field and off) of Granderson, lambasting the Evil Empire in the Big Apple, and talking baseball, Chicago--the important stuff.

And as the weeks went on and the 2010 season came closer, we lamented the lack of initiative the front office seemed to be showing (did Hendry & Co. seriously think we were that close to contending that they could sit on their thumbs?). We made grand plans for Opening Day (thwarted when we had the wrong day of the week and I had to work). And on a weekly basis, we raised our glasses and waxed poetical and statistical* about the game we loved.

*I didn't know it, but early on in our friendship, Keith was as amazed by my historical baseball knowledge as I was by his ability to keep up with Cubs farmhands I knew almost nothing about. When I met Sara for the first time, Keith did the standard introductions, then nonchalantly turned to me and said, "Hey, by the way, when was it that Hack Wilson had his crazy season again?" "1929," I told him. "The year he drove in 191 and set the RBI record. One of the three best hitting seasons by a Cub ever, right up there with Hornsby's '29 and Sosa's '01." Keith turned to Sara. "See?" It seemed I had been successfully shown off.

The fact is, we'd had our own radio show since the day we met. We just hadn't been told until those two ladies did so at the Padres game.

* * *

Aisle 36. Row 8. Seats 3 and 4. We'd never sprung for such good seats before (though Keith had found them for half the box office price). But this was Derrek Lee. This was a tribute to, as Keith put it, "a seven year love affair."

The couple next to us were season ticket holders. Like most season ticket holders, they were curious about the unfamiliar faces sitting next to them, and we struck up a conversation while we watched the Braves "warm up,"* hoping to spot Derrek before the game got going and get a gauge on his emotions. But when we finally spotted Big D, he was placid as always, and spent most of his time chatting with young phenom Jason Heyward. ("Listen to him, kid," I said to nobody in particular. "He's exactly what you can become, albeit sooner in your career and hopefully without a derailing wrist injury.") We should have known.

*Seriously, I hope Jair Jurrjens did his real warm up before we got to the stadium. Otherwise, that was the most half-assed warm up routine I've seen this side of a 13-year-old. Trust me: if you're capable of throwing a baseball--or any object, for that matter--you're capable of kicking above your waist while doing Frankensteins!

When the starting lineups were announced, Derrek Lee (hitting cleanup and playing first base for Atlanta) got more cheers from the Wrigley crowd than anyone on either team. "This bodes well for his first at bat," I said. Keith agreed.

When Omar Infante led off the inning with a double, it was tough (and confusing) not to be a bit excited. "Looks like we'll see Lee this inning," Keith said.

And when Derrek Lee stepped to the plate with two outs and a runner on third in the top of the first inning, 39,345 people, ourselves included, waited just long enough for the last syllable of his name to fill the stadium before the roar of Cubs fans thanking Derrek for 6+ years in blue and Braves fans welcoming their newest player became absolutely deafening. Keith was pointing at people who were still sitting and yelling at them to stand up; I'm not sure they could hear him. Ryan Dempster stepped off the mound.

Derrek Lee stepped out of the box. He put his bat under his arm, took off his helmet to wipe his brow with his forearm, and then tipped the helmet in an understated gesture of thanks to the crowd. It was classy all around. It was exactly the way Derrek Lee will be and should be remembered here in the Windy City.

When Lee flied out on a well-hit ball to left field, the crowd went just as wild on his trip back to the dugout (albeit the wrong dugout for most of us fans) as this did on his trip to the plate. Derrek Lee would go 0-for-4 in the game with 2 strikeouts, and only 1-for-11 in the series, though he walked three times and hit a 3-run double in a 16-5 Game 3 rout. And he would receive a standing ovation in his first at bat of each game.

* * *

Keith and I sat on his steps for the last time on Thursday, August 26th, 2010. I had his old (and my new) microwave at my feet, and we were trying to hail a cab so that I could get it home. I'd joked that it would look like I'd just robbed Keith's place. Keith joked that he'd chase the cab when I got in.

And, as always, we found ourselves talking baseball: Who's going to replace Lou? Where will Maddux and Sandberg be in the organization next year? How was it that we were 0-for-3 at Wrigley together and suddenly the Cubs had strung together a 3-game win streak?

And we also said our goodbyes. Keith continued to tell me about the food in Portland. I made him promise he'd get a beer at Bent River in Rock Island, IL on his way west. And Keith, ever the gentleman, chased down a cab for me while I hustled after him with a microwave in my arms.

* * *

It's been a bad year for Cubs fans. But this Cubs fan has had his share of sweet to go with the bitter thanks to comrades-in-arms like Keith. And so, to Mr. Lee and Mr. Larson, old friend and new, I tip my cap and bid you both a fond farewell from the Windy City.

Building up inside of me: Omar Vizquel

2010-06-09T10:29:00.006-05:00

In this ongoing series of however many I feel like I tackle an issue that has bothered me in the past but is not necessarily relevant.

This season at some point I saw a game where they put up a 3000 hit tracker for players in the range of making this pointless plateau. Included on the list was Omar Vizquel.

Omar Vizquel currently has 2720 hits currently (I have no memory of what he had at the time I saw the graphic). That puts him 280 hits shy of the 3000 hit mark. That wouldn't seem so unreasonable except for a litany of reasons. Omar Vizquel is 44 years-old. Omar Vizquel's highest hit total in a season ever is 191; it happened in 1999 when he was 32. Omar Vizquel is a lifetime .272 hitter and would need something above 1000 AB to get there. Omar Vizquel is currently a utility player for the White Sox and will probably play in something like 70 games this season if he's lucky.

If Omar Vizquel reaches 3000 hits I will buy an Omar Vizquel jersey and wear it to a church on Easter Sunday. I'll make it a Rangers jersey for funsies.

If you are the type to hold arbitrary benchmarks at numbers divisible by 100 or 1000 for whatever reason at least do it reasonably. There are arguments to be made for Omar Viquel to be elected to the Hall of Fame when the time comes. His hits are not one of them.

A piece of advice for Steven Strasburg

2010-06-09T08:33:00.004-05:00

Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring, and besides that they're fascist.

Seriously that was an awesome game last night for so many reasons. The reasons we're interested in here all have to do with numbers and algebra so deal with it. Strasburg's K/IP is 2 and his K/BB is undefined.

Also it was awesome that every run of the game came off a homerun until the eighth inning when Pudge had one of my favorite statistical plays: the run scoring nonRBI GIDP.

I'm so happy the winning run came from Adam "True Outcomes" Dunn too.

Pointless extrapolation time! At this rate Strasburg will shatter the K/9 record (13.4 Randy Johnson 2001) and of course the K/BB record. Let's worry about Ks. Modern era record is 383 by Nolan Ryan in 1973. (When he was 26. His name appears five times in the all time top 50 strikeouts in a season and that's not excluding deadball era pitchers. Goddamn I love Nolan Ryan.) Strassburg needs to pitch 184.5 more innings this year at his clip of 2 K/IP to get there. The Nationals have 103 games left this year. Assume Strasburg gets a start every five games that gives him about 20 games to pitch those 184.5 innings, meaning he will have to go the distance in every game plus get an extra start or make some relief appearances.

It could happen. If only Dusty Baker managed in Washington.

Prince Fielder and Charity

2010-05-04T15:39:00.003-05:00

Prince Fielder needs to get on track and fast or the Brewers are in trouble. I've decided to try to motivate him. For every home run Prince hits this year I will donate $5 to the MACC Fund. So either Prince starts hitting homers or he hates kids with cancer.

In case he actually reads this: I'm kidding Prince. I love you so much I named my dog after you. I am completely serious about donating this money.

Baseball Facts

2010-04-18T12:44:00.003-05:00

1) 20 innings of baseball is awesome.
2) Tony LaRussa is a gorram idiot.
2a) Ryan Ludwick, who stole four bases last year, got thrown out with Albert Pujols up and no one out in the 19th.

Preview of the 2010 Season!

2010-04-08T13:12:00.003-05:00

Go over to SB Nation to and read Jon's 27 Critical Details That You Should Be Made Aware Of. It is better than anything I have ever written including my thesis.

My Hall of Fame Ballot that Doesn't Mean Anything

2010-01-05T18:06:00.005-06:00

I meant to write this much earlier. Then I went on vacation. And here we are.

So, if I had a vote in this year's election (and a million dollars and a unicorn and a million dollar unicorn insurance policy), here's who I'd put on my ballot (in alphabetical order):

Roberto Alomar. If the various advanced defensive metrics developed by smarter folks than I are to be believed, Roberto Alomar was not the defensive genius I thought he was when I was a wee one. But when you hit .300/.371/.443 over 17 seasons at a skill position, you're one hell of a ballplayer.

Bert Blyleven. One of my favorite arguments against Bert Blyleven (and I wish I could remember who made it) was that no kids in the 80's opened up Bert Blyleven baseball cards and got excited. I was excited when I opened Blylevens in the 80's. That's the fun thing about argumentative absolutes: as soon as one little thing doesn't fit, the argument falls apart. As for an argument that matters with regards to Blyleven, point your browsers Rich Ledererward (the Bert Blyleven series is about halfway down the left navbar) if you've not done so already.

Andre Dawson. For a long time, I didn't think Dawson was a Hall of Famer. I saw that .323 OBP and cringed. But the Hawk also slugged .482 on his career, and took a lot of extra bases (314) at a 74% success rate. In other words, when he got on base, he got on bases. And until his knees went to hell, he was a premier defensive center fielder, as well, which is an added bonus. He's not a slam-dunk, but I think he makes the cut (especially when I look at some of the other folks who already have plaques). He is, however, easily the most arguable of my choices (ignoring PED-related debates, that is).

Barry Larkin. Larkin did absolutely everything well. He hit for average (.295 lifetime). He hit for power (.444 SLG as a middle infielder). He got on base (.371 OBP). He had speed (379 SB at an 83% success rate). He fielded his position (37 defensive RAR). He's 59th all time in WAR with 68.8. He is, quite simply, a Hall of Famer.

Edgar Martinez. Yes, I know he played most of his career as a DH (of course, so did Paul Molitor, and so did future Hall of Famer Frank Thomas). But inducting relief pitchers has been all the rage lately (and fairly, I think). Designated hitters are a lot more valuable than relief pitchers. And Edgar Martinez was the greatest DH of all time. It's time we set the bar, no?

Mark McGwire. I'll also be casting my vote that doesn't mean anything for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro, by the by.

Tim Raines. A case could be made for Tim Raines as the second greatest leadoff hitter ever. Unfortunately, he played at the same time as the greatest leadoff hitter ever, and he played in Montreal. But there's no reason a .294/.385/.425 hitter with an OPS+ of 123 and 808 of the most efficient stolen bases in baseball history shouldn't have a plaque in Cooperstown.

Alan Trammell. Trammell will probably never make it to Cooperstown (like fellow HoF-worthy Tiger Lou Whitaker) because he spread his value over several skillsets, and not as obviously as Larkin did. Trammell could hit. He could field. He was what so many sportswriters have called a "complete player." But he was outhit by Cal Ripken (an anomaly at SS at the time) and outfielded by Ozzie Smith (who was the best defensive SS of all time), putting him in a Tim Raines-easque purgatory despite his 66.8 WAR (69th all time).

Cubs All-Aught Team

2010-01-01T15:31:00.015-06:00

Whether you think the decade ended last night or 364ish days from now, the twenty-aughts are over, which means I have a rock-solid excuse to do a bit of reflecting on the decade that was (and very technically still is). This reflection, unsurprisingly, has taken the form of a list, as I found myself wondering what an all-decade team would look like for the North Siders. Here's my attempt at answering that question.

Whenever possible, I tried to err on the side of seniority. In other words, 1-year rentals shouldn't make an All-Aught team in my opinion, because the All-Aught Cubbies aren't just about putting the best team possible on the field. They're also about putting the most representative team on the field. And sometimes, that means Corey Patterson gets to play (the abyss gazes also...).

I may decide to extend the All-Aught analysis to the other teams in the NL Central, though this took me quite some time to compile and, if Caleb and Steve are interested (hint, hint) ,they could certainly claim Milwaukee and St. Louis.

So without further ado...

STARTING LINEUP:

Catcher: Michael Barrett

If Geovany Soto had followed up his 2008 campaign with a similarly impressive 2009, he'd likely have taken this spot. As it stands, Cubs catchers haven't lasted very long in the aughts, and Barrett's 431 games behind the dish are easily the most by any backstop on the decade (Girardi and Soto are neck-and-neck behind Barrett, with 274 and 273 games, respectively). Barrett's defensive reputation wasn't exactly sterling, but he sure got things done with the bat, posting a .284/.343/.484 line with 57 HR, and 98 2B in 3+ years with the Cubs. He also led the Major Leagues with 1 punch to A.J. Pierzynski's face, which shouldn't be underestimated. We'll just make sure to keep him away from Zambrano in the All-Aught dugout.

Other Cubs catchers.

First Base: Derrek Lee

You were expecting someone else? D-Lee absolutely owned the also-rans at first base this decade. He may not get a lot of press (2005 excepted) playing in a division that claims Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder, but sweet Lord has Lee ever had a fantastic career in Chicago. In five full seasons (and parts of 2006), Derrek Lee has hit .304/.384/.539 with 163 HR and 218 2B, and he's done it all while playing Gold Glove caliber defense. Just to put things in perspective, his nearest competition, Fred McGriff, trails Lee by over 500 RC and was nowhere near the defensive player D-Lee is.

Other Cubs first basemen.

Second Base: Mark DeRosa

Second base is a three horse race between DeRosa, Eric Young, and Todd Walker. There is no iconic choice at second like there is at first, and there's little seperation between the top candidates like there is at catcher; DeRo, Young, and Walker are all within 3 RC of one another (176, 177, 174, respectively). But Walker had an extra year on the North Side to put up those numbers, which makes me skeptical that he'll really be able to hang with the other two upon more careful analysis.

Dipping into WAR data confirms this: DeRosa was worth 6.4 WAR in his two seasons with the Cubs, Young 4.0 WAR, and Walker only 2.9 across 3 seasons. DeRo, with his .289/.373/.451 line (plus 31 homers and 58 doubles) beats out Young due to slightly better fielding numbers (though neither was a defensive wizard and it's worth noting that DeRosa was all over the diamond at times), and better OBP and SLG skills.

Other Cubs second basemen.

Third Base: Aramis Ramirez

Another easy choice, Ramirez and his .300/.364/.546 line, 188 HR, and 200 2B annihilate the rest of the field (Bill Mueller? Ron Coomer? Willie Greene?). He may be a bit of a statue at third, but his bat more than makes up for his lack of range, making Aramis Ramirez a very, very good baseball player.

Other Cubs third basemen.

Shortstop: Ryan Theriot

The knock against The Riot is that he's a woefully inefficient base stealer and he absolutely does not hit for power (his career SLG is only 13 points higher than his career OBP: 369 vs. .356). But he gets on base and plays adequately at short (some years a bit above replacement, sometimes a bit below). And from a fan perspective, I have to say that he's a hell of a lot of fun to watch, and even more fun to yell silly things like "The Quiet Riot!" at. Bonus.

Other Cubs shortstops.

Left Field: Alfonso Soriano

This one hurts me a little, because I very much want to pencil Moises Alou into the All-Aught lineup. But although Alou was better offensively (mostly because his down year, 2002 was so much better than Soriano's godawful 2009, and his best year, 2004, was crazygonuts), Soriano's defense is much, much better than Alou's ever was. And it's not just Soriano's amazing outfield arm; his range in left is better, and even with the silly little hop, he's better at reeling in balls hit his way. He's also better on the basepaths (no surprise there). Add all those "little" things together and Soriano has a massive 4.9 to 2.5 WAR advantage over Alou despite Moises's superior batting line.

None of this is to say that non-2009 Soriano is a slouch at the plate, of course. Sure, the guy will not take a walk, and sure, right handers with sliders make him look absolutely ridiculous, but Soriano has one very, very valuable tool as a hitter. He hits the ball hard. Really, really hard. The end result? A terrible OBP as a Cub (.328) coupled with a fantastic slugging percentage (.508). Add that to his fielding numbers, and non-2009 Soriano is a very valuable (albeit very overpaid) player.

Other Cubs left fielders.

Center Field: Corey Patterson

The Cubs just couldn't seem to figure out center field in the aughts. Sure, they had solid single season efforts from the likes of Jim Edmonds and Kenny Lofton, but few players lasted longer than a year or two in center. As a result, Corey Patterson and his .252/.293/.414 line make the cut, mostly on the strength of solid 2003-2004 campaigns.

Patterson actually is a pretty good fielder, and was worth 2.8 WAR during his five year tenure with the team. But outside of '03-'04, he never showed an ability to get on base consistently, and the Cubs ultimately gave up on their former top prospect. But he played more (and contributed more) than any other center fielder during the decade, so he gets the nod here.

Other Cubs center fielders.

Right Field: Sammy Sosa

Another ridiculously easy choice, Slammin' Sammy hit .295/.390/.612 (that's a 1.002 OPS!) as a Cub from 2000-2004. In that time, he slugged 238 home runs and 134 doubles. He played an above average right field, with decent range and a cannon of an arm (which actually hurt him, as it was an incredibly inaccurate cannon). His 2001 was one of the greatest single seasons ever by a Cub (along with Rogers Hornsby's 1930 and Hack Wilson's 1929). All in all, he was worth 27.7 WAR for the Cubs during the aughts, and was the face of the franchise until things got silly in '04. Pencil him in.

Other Cubs right fielders.

STARTING ROTATION:

#1 Starter: Carlos Zambrano

Turn back the clock six or seven years and Big Z was overshadowed by the next two pitchers in my All-Aught rotation. But in the end, no Cubs pitcher started (and won) more games, threw more innings, struck out more batters, or was worth more wins than Carlos Zambrano. The ace of the Cubs staff for the past few years emerged as the [f]ace of the rotation on the decade as a whole, throwing 1551.1 innings with 1324 K, 698 BB, and an ERA+ of 127, all good for 28.4 WAR.

#2 Starter: Kerry Wood

Oh, what might have been. After pitching one of the greatest games in history (and there's an argument to be made that it was in fact the greatest pitching performance in history) in '98, Wood started the aughts strong as the Cubs' recently repaired ace. Obviously, things didn't work out the way we all thought they would. But Kerry Wood was still a dominant pitcher for the first half of the decade, and is second only to Zambrano in games started, IP, Ks, and WAR with 152, 1052.2, 1174, and 19.9, respectively. Some of those numbers came in '07 and '08 when Wood worked out of the bullpen, but nevertheless, no All-Aught rotation would be complete without Kerry.

#3 Starter: Mark Prior

Oh, what might have been: round two. Prior followed up his fantastic 2002 rookie campaign with a season for the ages in 2003: 211.1 IP, 245 K, 50 BB, a 1.103 WHIP, and a 178 ERA+. Cubs fans saw the best young rotation in baseball in Prior, Wood, and Zambrano. And then the injury bug hit: Prior pitched well the next two years but missed starts due to nagging injury issues. And then 2006 happened and everything went to hell. The Cubs eventually gave up on Prior, and he's bounced around a bit since, but has never thrown another pitch in a Major League Baseball game. But good Lord was he amazing for the North Siders in those few short non-2006 years, during which he piled up 13.1 WAR (6.2 of those wins in '03 alone).

#4 Starter: Ted Lilly

It's easy to forget Ted Lilly's contributions sometimes because he pitches alongside flashier (see: Big Z) starters. But Lilly has been solid-to-excellent in all three of his years with the Cubs, throwing a total of 588.2 innings with 509 Ks against 155 BBs, a WHIP between 1.06 and 1.23, and an ERA+ of 124, good for 10.4 WAR. I remember thinking that we were overpaying for a mediocre pitcher when the Cubbies picked up Lilly prior to the 2007 season, but he's proven me wrong by pitching far better in Chicago than he ever did in Toronto (or anywhere else, for that matter).

#5 Starter: Jon Lieber

It's also easy to forget that Jon Lieber was a top-of-the-rotation starter for the Cubs in the early aughts and instead remember him as the journeyman long reliever/spot starter who rejoined the club in '09. But from '00-'02, Lieber was a reliable workhorse who didn't strike many batters out but also didn't walk many, and who threw 671 innings (including some relief innings in 2009) with 454 Ks, 113 BBs, a WHIP that hovered between 1.14 and 1.20, and an ERA+ of 107. He was also worth 9.2 WAR, 9.0 of those as a starter. And so as much as the sentimental fan in me would like to give Maddux's Chicago swan song the fifth spot in the rotation, I have to give the nod to Lieber here.

Other Cubs starters.

BULLPEN:

Spot Starter/Long Reliever #1: Ryan Dempster

True, Dempster has been much, much better (and of course, much more valuable) as a starter, but he was also the Cubs closer for a while. He certainly deserves a spot on the All-Aughts team due both to his longevity with the team and value at both ends of the ballgame, but because of the names ahead of him, he'd be a spot starter at best. But it's worth noting that Dempster has contributed 1.5 WAR as a reliever and 8.1 as a starter, so he didn't miss the rotation by much.

Spot Starter/Long Reliever #2: Greg Maddux

Maddux's best years were behind him when he returned to Wrigley in 2004, but his homecoming was still both celebrated and valuable. Maddux was a roughly league-average pitcher by this point in his career, but he was good for 200+ innings per year (he never missed a start) and was every bit the control artist he'd been in Atlanta (only 92 BB in 574 IP with Chicago). He didn't really strike many guys out anymore (only 368 Ks), but his K/BB ratio never dipped below 3.1 (though he gave up his fair share of home runs), and he was worth 6.9 WAR to the Cubs over 2+ seasons..

Middle Reliever #1: Joe Borowski

An All-Aughts team without Borowski would feel so very, very wrong to me. Of course, an All-Aughts team with Borowski as the closer would feel even more wrong. But frankly, the numbers don't match up with my memories. Sure, Borowski's 2004 was horrible beyond words. But I remember Borowski as the master of the "scary save."

We all know a "scary save" when we see one. My favorite was on June 8, 2003, when the Yankees were in town and I'd scored a seat in the first row of the upper deck, just above first base. Borowski took over in the bottom of the ninth with a 3 run lead and promptly struck out Alfonso Soriano before walking Derek Jeter, giving up a double to Giambi, and then a 2-run single to Jorge Posada. Robin Ventura then flew out to right, after which Posada was pulled for the speedier Charles Gipson...who Borowski picked off to win the game as Wrigley went wild. I'll never forget poor Gipson, though; I was directly above the play, celebrating with everyone else while he just lied there, face down, as if he couldn't believe what he'd just done and was hoping that perhaps the infield dirt near first would take pity and swallow him up. It's one of the most poignant baseball memories I have.

But that's the funny thing about memories: it's the really extraordinary happenings that stick with us much of the time, and as such, I remember Borowski as the guy who gave up a leadoff hit, walked a couple guys, maybe let a run or two score, but in the end held on long enough to get the save. And yet, his 198.0 innings, 192/67 K/BB ratio, 113 ERA+, and WHIP that, outside of that abysmal 2004 campaign, never strayed north of 1.18 stare me accusingly in the face these many years later.

Mea culpa, Joe.

Middle Reliever #2/ROOGY: Michael Wuertz

In four seasons with the Cubs, Wuertz and his signature slider saw 262.1 innings of relief work with 270 Ks to 128 BBs, a WHIP that hovered a bit dangerously in the 1.2-1.4 range, but a solid ERA+ of 127. I'm sure I'm not the only Cubs fan who wishes Wuertz's 2009 line of 78.2 IP, 102 K, 23 BB, 166 ERA+, and 0.953 WHIP had helped Chicago rather than Oakland.

Middle Reliever #3/LOOGY: Mike Remlinger

Remlinger pitched 2+ solid years for the Cubs, mostly as a setup man/LOOGY, and he pitched quite well, particularly in 2003 when he struck out 83 batters in only 69 innings. While with the team, he threw 138.2 innings, struck out 148, walked 67, and maintained an ERA+ of 112 and a WHIP that consistently hovered in the 1.3's.

Setup Man: Bobby Howry

228.2 IP. 202 K. 49 BB. 118 ERA+. Sure, his 2008 wasn't pretty, but for two years, Howry was the man in the seventh. On the whole, he sure seems like a good choice to be the man in the eighth.

Closer: Carlos Marmol

Last year wasn't pretty. But Marmol was the man in '06 and '07, and has thrown 307.2 innings for the Cubs with 362 K, 200 BB, a 134 ERA+, and a WHIP of 1.284. He walks too many guys, sure. But when the league hits .181 against you, you can afford an extra BB or three. The fact is, Marmol's slider feeds on human suffering, and I have every confidence that he'll bounce back next year. Maybe I'm too high on Marmol. Maybe I'm letting his recent success ('06-'07) blind me while blinding myself to his recent lack of success ('08). But when I think about Cubs bullpen aces of the aughts, the first name that comes to mind is Carlos Marmol.

BENCH:

Backup Catcher: Geovany Soto (.264/.348/.461, 3.9 WAR)
Outfield/DH (interleague play): Moises Alou (.283/.353/.484, 2.5 WAR)
Infield/Pinch Runner: Eric Young (.288/.351/.396, 4.0 WAR)
Utility Infielder: Todd Walker (.286/.353/.487, 2.9 WAR)

And rounding things off (though not part of the official roster):

Enforcer/Historian: Kyle Farnsworth (348.2 IP, 397 K, 172 BB, 92 ERA+, 2 confirmed kills)

Obviously, there are some potential snubs. I'd love to find a spot for Fred McGriff and Mike Fontenot. Mark Guthrie and Will Ohman should probably be in the bullpen, but I'm still scarred from the 2003 playoffs. Even still, the All-Aughts opening day lineup would look something like this:

1.) 2B Mark DeRosa
2.) 1B Derrek Lee
3.) 3B Aramis Ramirez
4.) RF Sammy Sosa
5.) C Michael Barrett
6.) LF Alfonso Soriano
7.) SS Ryan Theriot
8.) CF Corey Patterson
9.) SP Carlos Zambrano

Not too shabby.

And now, cheers to 2010. "Next year" has arrived once more (though not yet for baseball fans). Perhaps the twenty-teens will finally bring us Next Year.

The Game of Life

2009-12-21T14:58:00.004-06:00

You'll understand how clever I am in a moment.

First off, I've got several posts in the works, but life (post title reference #1) got in the way of late, as I had an inordinate number of final projects to grade. I'm on vacation now. Booyah.

Secondly, and significantly more importantly, what the fucking fuck? Milton Bradley (post title reference #2) for Carlos Silva plus pittance? Look, I know that Bradley didn't dig Chicago. And I know that Chicago didn't particularly dig Bradley. And I know that Bradley, for all his skills as a baseball player, is injury- and explosion-prone. But he was still an above-average player last year (between 0.5 and 1.0 WAR, depending on whose formula you trust), a year when his power numbers basically evaporated (he slugged only .397). But Bradley's batting eye didn't evaporate: he OBPed .378. And he stayed relatively healthy, playing in 124 games, his third most ever. All of this was good for a 99 OPS+, which is hardly what Chicago paid for, but not exactly a Mike Hampton level blunder, either.

And Silva? Well, his career best WHIP is 1.173, which doesn't sound too bad until we look at the rest of his career: his second best WHIP is 1.312 (1.310 if you count his 84.0 IP as a rookie reliever). Silva has been a starter for six years, and in that time has had an above average ERA+ thrice (2004, 2005, and 2007), and in one of those years (2007) he was still just about as average as can be (102 ERA+). He's posted a positive WAR only three times (the same seasons his ERA+ topped the century mark), and has cost his team more than a win in the other three seasons he's started (including, importantly, both of his years with Seattle).

With Seattle's crazygonuts outfield defense, don't expect Milton to spend much time roaming around in right. That means Bradley will be moving into the DH slot in Seattle, which will protect him from injury the way the Cubs couldn't, potentially adding to his value (paradoxically, as moving to DH is usually a downgrade in value for all but the worst fielders). As for Silva, he might eat up some innings. He's done so before. And he might be good. He'll probably be OK-to-bad. Bradley will be OK-to-exceptional.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether any of those middling prospects Seattle sent our way work out.

Wait...

Shit.

Cy Young opinions.

2009-11-19T22:05:00.004-06:00

I caught a snippet from Sportscenter today and some commenter was discussing the Tim Lincecum NL Cy Young. He was asked if being on the same team hurt Carpenter and Wainwright's chances and his response seemed to be "it doesn't make a difference to me" but he said that some people might have a problem with it. Here's the problem: he said some people may consider it and said "Well it's the argument that Carpenter didn't lead his own team in wins and Wainwright didn't lead his own team in ERA."

I think the argument against someone that they didn't lead their own team in something is dumb but it is amazing that he picked the two common pitcher stats that I care the least about.

Realization

2009-11-18T07:34:00.001-06:00

The last AL Cy Young award winner not from the Central was Bartolo Colon. God.

World Series Fun

2009-11-05T09:08:00.003-06:00

Congrats to the Yanks are in order I suppose.

For fun:
If Matsui had hit like he did in the World Series all year (.615/.643/1.385) he would have hit 105 HR with 280 RBI. He also would not have turned to see the destruction which followed in his wake.

The Clutchiest Clutch of Clutches That Ever Clutched

2009-10-16T18:03:00.004-05:00

Because I have, as recently as last night, been known to yell corrections at my (see: my roommate's) television during baseball telecasts in the vain hope that the announcers might one day actually (most likely magically) hear me, and because I have, as recently as last week, yelled at said television while watching the Yankees-Twins series and listening to drivel regarding Alex Rodriguez's lack of postseason clutchiness (followed closely by drivel regarding Alex Rodriguez's newly-discovered postseason clutchiness), and because I have, as recently as last year, written about the absurdity of A-Rod's postseason performance becoming a metaphor for failure, I will, at this time, direct your attention to this piece by Matthew Carruth over at FanGraphs. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

You may now return to reading sentences of an acceptable (see: non-long-19th-century) length.

West Loop MVP

2009-10-13T14:50:00.004-05:00

West Loop MVP 2009
Princess Fielder

.187/.666/748
She takes a lot of walks and is an expert of the suicide squeeze.

144/145 SB/CS
Rickey Henderson was the symbol of great base stealing. But today, my dog is greatest of all time. Thank you.

34 FRAA
It's not just a name, mothaf*****s.

12.1 WAR
Not quite as good as Pujols.

100%

2009-10-13T09:12:00.006-05:00

The season is now over and we can look back at the years various players had and evaluate how well they did. Remember this post? Well now we get to see how accurate it is to predict things less than one-fifth of the way through the season.

C - Yadier Molina
.293/.366/.383, .273 EqA, 6.3 WAR

1B - Albert Pujols
.327/.443/.658, .362 EqA, 12.2 WAR

2B - Felipe Lopez*
.320/.407/.448, .304 EqA, 2.4 WAR

*MIL numbers; Brandon Phillips had a higher WAR (3.0) but Lopez did this in only 66 G in Milwaukee, adding in his ARI stats would lower his rate stats but increase his WAR total

SS- Miguel Tejada
.313/.340/.455, .279 EqA, 5.3 WAR

3B - Andy LaRoche
.258/.330/.401, .260 EqA, 2.7 WAR

OF - Andrew McCutchen
.286/.365/.471, .297 EqA, 5.5 WAR

OF - Ryan Braun
.320/.386/.551, .323 EqA, 6.9 WAR

OF - Mike Cameron
.250/.342/.452, .281 EqA, 5.0 WAR

P - Chris Carpenter
192.2 IP, 1.01 WHIP, 0.33 HR/9, 6.73 K/9

Notes: 3B was a tough one. LaRoche won it out on strong defense and a full season. Ramirez had much better offensive rates but played a half a season due to injury and below average defense.

In the outfield Michael Bourn was close with a higher WAR than Cameron but they both play great defense and Cameron has way more power.

Overall among the ten positions four stayed the same (or 40%). More than the 19.1% of the season played the previous go around but it shows that one-fifth of a season is not a reliable indicator of the season as a whole.

Thus Ends the NL Central

2009-10-11T14:27:00.004-05:00

And with a whimper, the season ends.

I said before the playoffs started that the Cardinals had about a 25% chance to get to the World Series this year. Every team, to me, seems about the same. Every team is not without it's faults: With the Cardinals, the bullpen. Dodgers, the starting pitching. Rockies, starting pitching. Phillies, bullpen. I don't think anyone in St. Louis expected them to come out as flat as they did this series.

Matt Holliday is going to bear the brunt of the ire for "losing the series", maybe rightfully so, but the truth is that Franklin still gave up two hits and a walk and didn't do his job either. Also, Carpenter didn't pitch his A-game, the bats were dead, poor baserunning, questionable managing, and the worst part being that in game 3 once they were down, they seemed to just give up.

One thing that I think this will mean for the franchise, and I hate to say I told you so, is that the majority of the "best fans in baseball" are going to be screaming to NOT pay Matt Holliday now, forgetting about how much he bolstered the offense through the late part of the season. Go check out the message boards on stltoday.com for all of your Holliday bashing needs. For what it's worth I still don't think Holliday will re-sign here, and the negativity surrounding him now certainly won't help that (though it might drive his price down), but I think that any notion now of his signing at a "home-town discount" are out the window. Not to mention the Angels and Yanks both need OF help this offseason, have higher payrolls to play with, and are better teams. C'est la vie.

It may in fact be rebuilding time for St. Louis, an idea that I for one am all for. Maybe we will have some decent giveaways and lower concession prices and be able to sit wherever you want in the upper deck since it's not a sellout. A few losing seasons might prepare us for our next run at a string of postseason appearances, and that's not a bad thing in the long run. We've been very spoiled here this past decade. Time to give someone else a little run? Okay, as long as it's not the Cubs.

Your Playoff Broadcasters.

2009-10-08T18:02:00.004-05:00

While watching the start of the Cardinals-Dodgers game Cass reminded me that I picked the right girl by talking about how stupid everything that came out of Tim McCarver's mouth was.

More Awesome

2009-10-05T21:51:00.003-05:00

Hell yeah one game playoff. It's outstanding because it is impossible to predict and the most condensed form of sport there is, in the sense that no other sport plays 162 games and now the season comes down to just one game for both teams.

No 20-game Winners? YES!

2009-10-03T09:39:00.005-05:00

It isn't simple schadenfreude that makes me so happy that both Adam Wainwright and C.C. Sabathia failed to collect their 20th wins last night. What really has me excited is the effect that C.C.'s loss and Wainwright's no decision could have on the Cy Young races; with no 20-game winner this year, voters will (hopefully) be more likely to delve beyond the wins column in selecting their candidates.

Now I don't mean to suggest that Sabathia and Wainwright don't deserve CYA votes. They absolutely do. But they shouldn't be getting many, if any, first place votes.

Let's start with Sabathia and the AL. The baseball worlds (all of them, from the traditional media outlets to the amateur blogroll) were abuzz with talk of Zach Greinke's amazing start. Then the wins started drying up, and fewer voices were raised in support of Zach. This isn't to say that Greinke supporters abandoned the cause, but a lot of the early hubbub was gone (particularly in traditional media) because the wins column wasn't 8-0 anymore. Why not? Because Greinke pitches for the Kansas City Royals.

Sabathia, on the other hand, led the American League in wins thanks in part to a Yankees offense that scored a shade under 6 runs per Sabathia start (versus 3.7 for Greinke in KC). Craig Brown over at the Hardball Times has created an excellent breakdown of the top Cy Young candidates in the AL. Although Brown leaves the question of who to choose somewhat open-ended (he is, however, a Greinke supporter, as am I), Sabathia's case really takes a hit when subjected to Brown's analysis. The only major statistical category in which Sabathia leads the pack is wins. Greinke, meanwhile, destroys the field in ERA, ERA+, PRC, and WAR, is tied for the lead in SHO, pitched in eight games in which his team gave him no more than 1 run of support, and had four wins blown by his bullpen.

Sabathia had a great year. Greinke, and arguably Halladay, Verlander, and King Felix, had a better one.

Meanwhile, on the NL side, Wainwright's 19 wins are the result of a fantastic year (and a potent offense), to be sure. But Adam Wainwright, as good as he was in '09, was not even the best starting pitcher on his own team.

Let's look at two seasons:

Season 1: 1.007 WHIP, 2.24 ERA, 186 ERA+, 192.2 IP, 144/38 K/BB, 7 HR, 3 CG, 1 SHO, 5.7 WAR

Season 2: 1.210 WHIP, 2.63 ERA, 159 ERA+, 233.0 IP, 212/66 K/BB, 17 HR, 1 CG, 0 SHO, 5.8 WAR

Season 1 is tops in WHIP, ERA, ERA+, K/BB ratio, BB, HR allowed, HR/9, BB/9, H/9, CG, and SHO. Season 2 leads in IP, K, and K/9, and has a slight edge in WAR.

Season 1 belongs to Chris Carpenter. Season 2 is Adam Wainwright's.

There are certainly arguments to be made for Wainwright over Carpenter: Wainwright ate up more innings, which kept spot starters and lesser bullpen arms off the mound. And 212 punch outs is pretty sexy. But Carpenter leads the Cardinals rotation in so many other important statistical categories while, importantly, not yielding much in the way of WAR to his teammate, that Wainwright is far from a slam dunk (and more likely a doink! in my book).

And the argument gets more complicated:

Carpenter: 1.007 WHIP, 2.24 ERA, 186 ERA+, 192.2 IP, 144/38 K/BB, 7 HR, 3 CG, 1 SHO, 5.7 WAR

Wainwright: 1.210 WHIP, 2.63 ERA, 159 ERA+, 233.0 IP, 212/66 K/BB, 17 HR, 1 CG, 0 SHO, 5.8 WAR

Lincecum: 1.047 WHIP, 2.48 ERA, 173 ERA+, 225.1 IP, 261/68 K/BB, 10 HR, 4 CG, 2 SHO, 8.3 WAR

Tim Lincecum put up another monster year in 2009 (even better than his 2008 campaign, in fact), further complicating things for voters. The leaderboard now?

Carpenter: WHIP, ERA, ERA+, BB, BB/9, HR, HR/9
Lincecum: K, K/9, K/BB, CG, SHO, WAR
Wainwright: IP

Wainwright's case gets even shakier, as both Carpenter and Lincecum have had ridiculous years. Wainwright, like Sabathia, was excellent in '09. But like Sabathia, he wasn't tops in his league. And thanks to last night, the door has been opened for deserving candidates to avoid the 20-win elephant in the voting booth when the Cy Young winners are determined later this month.

Baseball is awesome.

2009-09-29T23:12:00.003-05:00

Mike Blowers, journeyman, career OPS+ 97, and one of the most amazing things I've ever heard.

Cubs "All-Time 9"

2009-09-24T21:49:00.011-05:00

This seems like it would be a good idea. The Cubs are, after all, a franchise steeped in history, and some of the greats have played on the North Side (especially given Cubs.com's one-season format, which allows us to pretend that Rogers Hornsby belongs on an all-time Cubs list despite his HoF career as a Cardinal). So compiling an "All-Time 9" list seems like it could be a lot of fun.

Unfortunately, there are a few problems. First off, most of the statistics given on the ballot are junk. Runs and RBIs are too dependent on teammates to be reliable for...well, much of anything when we're talking individual performance. Batting average, when combined with OBP and slugging, can actually tell us quite a bit about a hitter. Of course, it's presented alone, which tells us very little. SB totals are nice, but without CS numbers it's impossible to know whether the player ran himself into bonus bases or right back into the dugout. Home runs are great, and definitely the best "stand-alone" stat that Cubs.com gives us, though it would be nice to see doubles in there as well (I'm not going to ask for anything crazy here like isolated slugging).

But these troubles are easy to overcome and, frankly, the sort of thing I'd expect. Most fans aren't interested in the sorts of numbers that I'm interested in. Fortunately, there's always Baseball-Reference.com. I pointed my browser B-R-ward and started creating some play index pages by position, sorting by runs created (which seemed the best statistic to use, seeing as the purpose of Cubs.com's little thought experiment is to determine the best offensive lineup).

That's when the real problems became apparent.

Even before I hit up Baseball-Reference, I noticed some glaring omissions from the ballot. Example: who the fuck leaves Cap Anson off any so-called "All-Time 9" ballot for the Chicago Cubs? I don't care if we're talking all-time seasons, careers, or months of June; Cap Anson was an insanely good baseball player and one of the Cubs' first stars. In fact, he's probably the greatest first baseman to ever lace up for the North Siders.

But the hits just kept on coming: even when the right names are on the ballot, the right years aren't always there (RBI/BA bias in several cases, but some of the choices were absolutely baffling).

Clearly, the solution to these problems is for an anal-retentive Cubs fan, who happens to maintain a ridiculously obscure pseudo-sabermetric blog [very] loosely based on the NL Central, to write about said problems.

Fortunately, I know just such a fan.

Following is my position-by-position analysis of the Cubs.com "All-Time 9" ballot. Sometimes Cubs.com does a solid job of picking candidates. Sometimes they don't. And sometimes, they pick Pittsburgh Pirates.

Read on, if you dare.

FIRST BASE

Cubs.com's ballot:
1982 Bill Buckner (98 RC)
1903 Frank Chance (83 RC)
1995 Mark Grace (115 RC)
1922 Ray Grimes (125 RC)
2005 Derrek Lee (167 RC)
2002 Fred McGriff (93 RC)

Frank Chance was awesome, and I'm glad to see an "old schooler" from the turn-of-the-century Cubs dynasty on the ballot. But Frank doesn't belong in this conversation if we're talking single-season dominance, unfortunately, as he simply did not hit for power.

Fred McGriff did hit for power, but as much as I love the Crime Dog, he also doesn't belong on this list (though his 30 HRs and 100+ RBIs explain why he made the ballots, methinks).

Bill Buckner is probably the 7th or 8th most deserving first baseman, so his inclusion on the list isn't a big problem: he's not going to win, and neither are the guys who turned in slightly better performances. So why not give the much-maligned Buckner (who, it's worth noting for the umpteenth time, was a solid ballplayer) his day in the sun?

My ballot:
2005 Derrek Lee
1970 Jim Hickman (129 RC)
1922 Ray Grimes
1886 Cap Anson (119 RC)
1995 Mark Grace
1953 Dee Fondy (100 RC)

Cubs.com was right on when it came to Lee, Grace, and Grimes; all three should be in this discussion, and for the years they appear on the ballot. But what about Jim Hickman's 1970 campaign? Only Lee's 2005 beats out Hickman's 1970 in RC for a Cubs first baseman. And how about Cap Anson? He may not be the third beat in the Tinker-to-Evers connection, but if Frank Chance is fair game for the All-Time 9, why the hell wouldn't Mr. Burns' first choice at first base be? Fondy and Buckner could easily be switched, but Dee slightly outperformed Bill in every rate state and several counting stats (Buckner's RBI total appears to have been the deciding factor for Cubs.com), so I went with Fondy's '53.

Top 100 by RC. Note that Phil Cavarretta had a couple big years in 1944 and 1945 but did not make my list. That's because in 1945, the total number of arms in Major League Baseball was not an even number.

Best season: 2005 Derrek Lee
My vote: 2005 Derrek Lee

SECOND BASE

Cubs.com's ballot:
1912 Johnny Evers (91 RC)
1935 Billy Herman (120 RC)
1929 Rogers Hornsby (188 RC)
1990 Ryne Sandberg (124 RC)

One of these things is not like the other things. I'll give Cubs.com's writers credit for knowing their baseball poetics, but Evers really shouldn't be on this list. Hornsby and Herman, however, are spot on, as is Sandberg (though I prefer his 1984 season slightly).

My ballot:
1929 Rogers Hornsby
1935 Billy Herman
1984 Ryne Sandberg (126 RC)

Sure, I could add a fourth player to the list, in which case it would be between 2000 Eric Young and 2008 Mark DeRosa, but neither player topped the 100 RC mark, making them massive underdogs (just as Evers was), and DeRo wasn't exclusively a second sacker in '08. Best to keep this one simple, methinks.

Top 100 by RC. Note that Sandberg and Herman absolutely dominate this list.

Best season: 1929 Rogers Hornsby
My vote: 1929 Rogers Hornsby

SHORTSTOP

Cubs.com's ballot:
1958 Ernie Banks (135 RC)
1978 Ivan DeJesus (84 RC)
1995 Shawon Dunston (68 RC)
1931 Woody English (101 RC)
1922 Charlie Hollochar (97 RC)
1912 Joe Tinker (63 RC)

Now things are starting to get tricky. Why? Because when I started digging into the numbers, it seemed like Woody English should be on the ballot for his 1930 campaign, in which he totalled a club-best 139 RC splitting time at short and third. Cubs.com's rationale seems pretty obvious: in 1931, English played SS almost exclusively, whereas he played SS only about half the time the previous year (and actually played more games at third). But sweet merciful crap was his 1930 line a thing to behold: .335/.430/.511 (vs. .319/.391/.413 the following year).

As for the rest of the ballot, enough with "Baseball's Sad Lexicon," already: Joe Tinker doesn't belong here. And much as I love Shawon Dunston, he wasn't exactly the most feared hitter in baseball back in the day.

My ballot:
1958 Ernie Banks
1931 Woody English
1894 Bill Dahlen (125 RC)

Much like the second base ballot, this one is pretty straight-forward. If I had to add a couple more names to the list for the sake of argument, I'd take 1922 Hollocher, 1978 DeJesus, and 1969 Don Kessinger.

Top 100 by RC. Note that Ernie Banks was really, really good at baseball.

Best season: 1958 Ernie Banks
My vote: 1958 Ernie Banks

THIRD BASE

Cubs.com's ballot:
1983 Ron Cey (90 RC)
1976 Bill Madlock (100 RC)
1948 Andy Pafko (105 RC)
2004 Aramis Ramirez (109 RC)
1964 Ron Santo (135 RC)
1912 Heinie Zimmerman (131 RC)

This is probably the best ballot Cubs.com created. Most of the players are right on. Most of the years are, too. But Ron Cey really doesn't belong here, particularly since there is one glaring omission, not to mention one arguable omission: Woody English, playing just over half his time at third in 1930, put up an RC of 139 and could have made this a three horse race (OK, so I mentioned it). For the glaring omission, see my ballot...

My ballot:
1976 Bill Madlock
1948 Andy Pafko
2006 Aramis Ramirez (115 RC)
1964 Ron Santo
1912 Heinie Zimmerman
1938 Stan Hack (108 RC)

Stan Hack has no business being left off this list. He put up four of the top 15 RC seasons by Cubs third basemen. Granted, all were during World War II, but his best season (1938) came before the U.S. started sending Big Leaguers off to fight (or anyone, for that matter). So why was he left off the list? I have two guesses: 4 HR and 67 RBI. Of course, he also put up a .320/.411/.432 line. But in a battle of traditional statistics, Hack's not gonna do so well.

As for Aramis, his 2004 season was actually only his third best offensively as a Cub: 2006 and 2008 were both better. In fact, the only reason I can find for Cubs.com to select Ramirez's 2004 over his 2006 campaign is batting average; even Ramirez's traditional stats were better in 2006, with the exception of BA (.291/38/119 in '06 vs. .318/36/103 in '04). Ah, the siren's call of the .300 average...

Top 100 by RC. Santo is a Hall of Famer. Just sayin'.

Best season: 1964 Ron Santo
My vote: 1964 Ron Santo

CATCHER

Cubs.com's ballot:
1984 Jody Davis (63 RC)
1935 Gabby Hartnett (91 RC)
2008 Geovany Soto (91 RC)
1993 Rick Wilkins (95 RC)

On the heels of Cubs.com's best ballot comes their worst ballot. The catcher race only looks close because of two terrible, terrible calls: the inclusion of Jody Davis at all (and the use of his third best year as Cubs catcher, to boot!) and the inexplicable decision to use Gabby Hartnett's 1935 season instead of his 1930, when he was worth a staggering 129 runs at the plate.

My ballot:
1930 Gabby Hartnett (129 RC)
2008 Geovany Soto
1993 Rick Wilkins
1923 Bob O'Farrell (88 RC)

Ol' Bob ain't gonna win this one, but at least his performance is in line with Soto's and Wilkins's.

As for the Hartnett mixup, I can only shake my head in dumbfounded wonder. Let's take a look at two seasons:

Season 1: .339/.404/.630, 37 HR, 31 2B, 172 H, 84 R, and 122 RBI in 141 games
Season 2: .344/.404/.545, 13 HR, 32 2B, 142 H, 67 R, and 91 RBI in 116 games

Which was the better season? If you said Season 1, it's because the answer is really, really obvious. I even included a couple numbers I don't put much stock in (R and RBI) to illustrate how hard it is to get this one wrong even when relying on the BA/HR/RBI split stat style of player evaluation. So what the hell happened? Are five points of batting average really worth 24 homers (just for starters)?

Top 100 by RC.

Best season: 1930 Gabby Hartnett
My vote: 1935 Gabby Hartnett

I probably should've gone with Rick Wilkins since, based on the ballot, it was technically the best answer and it would be a nice, petty move on my part in response to the ridiculously crappy catcher ballot. But I couldn't say no to the greatest catcher in Cubs history, even if it meant cheating a little bit.

OUTFIELD

Cubs.com's ballot:
1961 George Altman (105 RC)
1925 Kiki Cuyler (154 RC)
1987 Andre Dawson (111 RC)
1937 Frank Demaree (114 RC)
1982 Leon Durham (108 RC)
1970 Jim Hickman (129 RC)
1979 Dave Kingman (112 RC)
1939 Hank Leiber (82 RC)
1943 Bill Nicholson (123 RC)
1950 Andy Pafko (117 RC)
1952 Hank Sauer (107 RC)
2007 Alfonso Soriano (107 RC)
1998 Sammy Sosa (149 RC)
1929 Riggs Stephenson (122 RC)
1970 Billy Williams (147 RC)
1930 Hack Wilson (192 RC)

There are quite a few snubs on the outfielder ballot, but it's such a gigantic field that I tend to be forgiving so long as we're at least talking about a guy who was over the century mark in run value. But Hank Leiber? Really?

Also: Kiki Cuyler was awesome in 1925. And a Pittsburgh Pirate.

My ballot:
2001 Sammy Sosa (193 RC)
1930 Hack Wilson
1970 Billy Williams
1930 Kiki "Chicago Cub" Cuyler (147 RC)
1970 Jim Hickman
2004 Moises Alou (123 RC)
1929 Riggs Stephenson
1936 Frank Demaree (120 RC)
1935 Augie Galan (119 RC)
1950 Andy Pafko
1911 Frank Shulte (117 RC)
1979 Dave Kingman
1987 Andre Dawson

Sosa's '98 was awesome. His His 2000 and 2001 seasons were even better. His '98 is on the ballot only because of the chase: he hit two fewer homers in '01, but with 2 more RBIs (for those who care) and a batting average that was 20 points higher (and, more tellingly, an OBP up 60 points and a SLG up 90 points). Sosa's 2001 season is, for all intents and purposes, tied with Hack Wilson's 1930 campaign (and possibly Rogers Hornsby's 1929) as the best offensive season by a Cubs player. Ever. At any position. But it wasn't part of a magical home run chase, so it's not on the ballot.

Lame.

Fortunately, Sosa's '98 is still comfortably in the top three on this ballot. Poor Kiki Cuyler, though, gets screwed over. If Cubs.com actually listed Cuyler's best season as a Cub, I'd have a tough decision between Kiki and Billy Williams for the third outfield spot. As things stand, however, I'm not voting for a Pirate on an all-time Cubs list. (Though for what it's worth, Cuyler's value is inflated due to the fact that MLB didn't keep CS records during his playing days, so I'd probably vote for Billy W. regardless.)

And as a final note, where's the love for Moises Alou? The man gave us two fantastic seasons in 2003 and 2004, and yet he gets snubbed for the likes of Soriano? For shame, Cubs.com. For shame.

Top 100 by RC. Note that Bill Lange's 1895 (124 RC) did not make my ballot. That's because the lack of CS numbers from way back when result in what appears to be a 67-for-67 SB record, which is almost certainly inaccurate. Since I don't know whether he got caught once or 68 times, and since he isn't going to win anyway, I left Lange off my list (perhaps unfairly).

Best seasons: 2001 Sammy Sosa, 1930 Hack Wilson, 1970 Billy Williams
My votes: 1998 Sammy Sosa, 1930 Hack Wilson, 1970 Billy Williams

PITCHER

Cubs.com's ballot:
1921 Grover Alexander (11 RC)
1918 Claude Hendrix (12 RC)
1971 Fergie Jenkins (16 RC)
1930 Pat Malone (11 RC)
1933 Lon Warneke (14 RC)
2008 Carlos Zambrano (13 RC)

Pitcher is a really, really tough position for this sort of vote. Since the All-Time 9, as proposed by Cubs.com, is intended as purely an offensive force, it doesn't matter whether the pitcher is actually good at pitching (though it's worth noting that most of these guys were), which makes things a bit easier. But the pitcher's spot in the batting order is where the differences between the game of the late nineteenth century and the game since the early twentieth century are perhaps most obvious: pitchers started (and finished!) a lot more games back then (see John Clarkson), which really skewed the all-time seasonal RC leaderboard in favor of the olde timers.

Cubs.com's solution seems like the right move in my mind. Rather than loading up the ballot with obscure names from the 1870's, they went with 20th- and 21st-century hurlers. This makes a lot of sense. Even once I sorted out pitchers who'd appeared in more than 45 games, 19th-century types still lurked atop the leaderboard en masse. Some of these performances are damned impressive (Scott Stratton's 1894 season is absolutely eye-popping, in fact). But many of these pitchers, Stratton included, saw time at other positions, and even those who didn't tended to be left in games longer, resulting in more at bats and, therefore, more accumulated value with the bat.

So with the 19th century eliminated, how did Cubs.com do?

My ballot:
1921 Grover Alexander
1918 Claude Hendrix
1971 Fergie Jenkins
1924 Tony Kaufman (11 RC)
1933 Lon Warneke
2008 Carlos Zambrano

They did pretty damned well, as it turns out. There's an argument to be made for Jack Taylor's 1902, in theory, but his line really wasn't all that impressive: those extra runs (he put up 14 RC that year) are a function of his 204 PAs (79 more than any player on Cubs.com's ballot) rather than his lackluster .237/.272/.280 line. Tony Kaufman's 1924 should probably replace Malone's 1930, but it's such a close call (it really comes down to rate vs. counting stats evening out in RC) that I can't fault Cubs.com for going with the guy who got more PAs in this case.

Top 100 by RC (post-1900).

Best season: 1971 Fergie Jenkins
My vote: 1971 Fergie Jenkins

Cubs.com's All-Time 9 is a great idea. And in some ways, it's executed very well. The stats on the ballot are crap, but even when the positional ballots themselves are garbage, I'm usually able to pick the best player(s), if not always the best year(s), and that's not something that should be sold short. Still, I wish that more of the ballots looked like those for third base (pretty much dead-on) or pitcher (arguable, but with solid logic backing the choices). A+ for the concept, and a big "thank you" to Cubs.com for giving me an excuse to dive into the B-R archives, but just a little more statistical legwork would have made the All-Time 9 a much, much better experiment.

Holliday Revisited

2009-09-22T20:11:00.003-05:00

I am not willing to, as yet, admit that I was dead wrong a couple months ago when I bashed the hell out of the trade to acquire Matt Holiday from Oakland. I still think that signing him is going to be an issue, and the playoffs will of course be an issue as well. But man, oh, man, has he been fun to watch.

I'm not going to get into specific numbers and all that rigmarole, because that's just not what I do. What I know for sure is that the Cardinals would not be the team they are now without his bat in their cleanup slot every night. He's managed to put up over 100 RBIs this season despite a very inauspicious first half with the A's, and with his bat and, to a lesser extent, Mark DeRosa's bat as well, the Cardinals are being mentioned by many as the "team to beat" in the NL.

Not so fast.

Let me dig up some numbers, because they are important for this part. Okay. So, the question remains: Are these Cardinals good enough to get to the World Series? The short answer, in my opinion, is yes. However, I could just as easily see them ousted in the first round. Of the teams that are likely to make the playoffs (that is, the Rockies, Dodgers, and Phillies), all have at least one dominant-to-very-good left handed starter. Cardinals average against lefties this year? .234. I just watched Sean West of Florida tear through our lineup like it was wet toilet paper and then proceed to get mauled my the Kip Wells-led Reds club in Cincy.

Jorge De La Rosa of Colorado is their lone dominant lefty, however the Rockies are playing like the best team in the NL over the past month or so. I do not want to play a streaky team...I found out how that works when we won in '06. And that guy is tough, and on a side note I will probably thank his waiver-wire pickup for me winning in fantasy baseball this year.

The Dodgers would throw Kershaw, Billingsley, and Randy Wolf at us, probably in that order. I don't trust this Cardinal team to beat Kershaw or even Wolf. Wainwright matches up well with Billingsley but you have to admit that ol' Chad is not a bad pitcher in his own right. Thus, the Dodgers scare me.

Finally the Phillies. Oh, the Phillies. You and your possible 7 man rotation. If I'm Charlie Manuel, the Cardinals get Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels, J.A. Happ and good night Irene. Not to mention they have a very potent offense and, for the record, I believe them to be the NL Champs this year.

So we come full circle. If the Cardinals fall short, which no one in St. Louis expects them to, will the Matt Holliday trade have been for naught? I have to say yes to this, and that is regardless of what kind of players Clay Mortensen and Brett Wallace become. He has added a spark to this team that I didn't expect, though, that much I can admit. But one of two things need to happen to cause me to completely rethink this trade: 1) A World Series appearance, or 2) Re-sign him. I do give props to John Mozeliak and the front office for trying to make things happen this year, though. Too many times we have watched the Cardinals go on their merry way and not pick up anyone who could give the team a boost. This year they went out and got 3 of those guys.

Nothing to do now but wait til the playoffs to start and look for an old hat to eat. Go Cards!

Wait 'til next year

2009-09-16T11:46:00.004-05:00

Yeah, things are pretty quiet for us in Chicago about now. My Brewers failed to make the type of move that got them in the playoffs last year and aren't going anywhere.

We still cheer of course but until the end of the season when we can do awards and stuff we are mostly just waiting out the year.

I did want to mention one thing: Jim Thome left Chicago for the Dodgers and I am very sad to see him go as he is one of my true favorites in the league. I wanted to quote Jon Bois to illustrate how great a guy Thome is: "Perhaps the most telling acid test: think back to all the insults you’ve heard from Cubs fans. They hate Ozzie Guillen, they hate Gordon Beckham, they hate Jermaine Dye. But I have never, ever heard a Cubs fan speak ill of Jim Thome. It’s almost like speaking ill of Buck O’Neil. It doesn’t make any sense."

Happy FJM Day

2009-09-16T09:35:00.005-05:00

The Gang from FJM is getting back together for a day of guest editing over at Deadspin. We here of course adore FJM and are happy to see them back in any form at all. Go read and understand what bad sports journalism looks like when it is being mocked by sarcastic know-it-alls.

Here's to the Next 17 Years!

2009-09-09T21:54:00.007-05:00

As most of you probably already know, the Pirates clinched their record 17th consecutive losing season on Monday following a 4-2 loss to the Cubs. It seems nothing's gone right for the Pirates since that devastating loss in Game 7 of the 1992 NLCS, and Pittsburgh's season-long fire sale suggests that the streak could hit 20 unless some young Pirates develop quickly and simultaneously in the next couple years.

So how do small-market franchises like the Pirates, Royals, and Nationals compete? Joe Posnanski has some ideas. As always, Joe P's piece is a damned good read, but with apologies to Joe, I think my favorite part of his article this time 'round is actually a link: "How David Beats Goliath" is one of the most enjoyable New Yorker essays I've read in a long while (which is saying something), and it's food for thought for a beleaguered small-budget ball club. And as Justin Bopp's recent BtB post illustrates, a small-market club can get a lot of bang for its bucks if it makes smart (and lucky) investments or manages to exploit inefficiencies in the market (as Sabermetricians have attempted to do since time immemorial).

#17 is all but in the books now, Pittsburgh front office. It's time to do something gutsy and innovative. Hire Bill James. Bat your best hitter second. Scout soft-tossing control artists. Put together a team of banjo-hitting defenders that makes the Mariners outfield look like Little Leaguers trying to shag flies in a 30 mph crosswind. Sign a golden retriever. But don't simply stay the course and doom your fans to 17 more years of "rebuilding."

Concerning Large Numbers

2009-09-09T20:05:00.006-05:00

The Rays are up 2-0 against the Yankees on ESPN right now, but Derek Jeter has moved two hits closer to Lou Gehrig on the all-time Yanks hit list thanks to a bunt single and a ground rule double. When Derek stepping into the box for his second at bat, however, I heard something absolutely astonishing: Steve Phillips believes that Jeter will get to 4000 hits.

Actually, I think he said that Jeter has a "very good chance," or something along those lines, but still. Phillips went on to explain that Jeter "only" (and he did in fact use the word "only") needs to play eight more seasons (the man is 35) and average 158 hits in each of those seasons in order to crack 4000.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who are statistically savvy enough to use aging curves and such to illustrate how unlikely Phillips' claim really is, but I'm not one of those people.

Instead, I'm going to point here and here. Pete Rose and Ty Cobb are the only members of the 4000 hit club, and I think we can all agree that they were both pretty good at baseball. Rose played for about three minutes shy of forever. Cobb was done at 41. Rose averaged 167 hits between his age 36 and age 43 seasons. Cobb averaged 154 from 36 on. Jeter is a damned fine hitter, but 158 hits for eight more seasons, even assuming that, like Rose and Cobb, Jeter is going to pile up hits totals in the high 100's or even low 200's until he's 40 or so, is no easy task (one that Ty Cobb, he of the 4189 hits and .366 career average, failed).

The Yankee captain has a further disadvantage due to his position: there is almost no damned way any manager in his right mind is going to trot out a 43-year-old to the shortstop position every day (even Vizquel was only the everyday shortstop through his age 40 season), and Jeter's numbers aren't likely to be DH-worthy into his 40's.

Where Jeter actually has an advantage over Rose, though, is in the slugging category. Rose had a career SLG of .409; Jeter has slugged .459 over his career (Cobb slugged .512, because he was Ty Fucking Cobb). Jeter's hit totals are less dependent on legging out singles than Rose's were, so it's likely that while there's still some pop in #2's bat, he'll continue to rack up hits as he's always done. And there's no doubting Jeter's commitment: his off-season training regime (which emphasized lateral quickness, particularly on defense) has resulted in Jeter's best defensive season to date (he's worth 5.1 runs at short so far this year, a far cry from the negative numbers that usually "grace" Derek's WAR charts).

But will all this translate into the longevity and productivity that Jeter would need to reach the 4000 hit plateau? Probably not. There is, after all, a damned good reason that only two players have cracked 4k in 150 years of baseball: it is really, really hard to play baseball into your 40's, particularly at a high level, without...help. And Jeter's .409 SLG, while better than Rose's and solid for a SS, isn't a number most managers want their first basemen or DHs turning in.

Steve Phillips could be right, of course. Derek Jeter could one day rap hit number 4000. He might even hit number 4257. But to claim that Jeter has a "very good chance" of doing so is absurd, as is taking eight seasons of 158-hit production for granted.

Fortunately, Steve Phillips' little speech was intercut with shots of Nick Swisher screwing around in the dugout, and was followed by Swish striking out and yelling "fuck!" on national television. Nick Swisher is amazing even when he strikes out.

Haha Awesome

2009-08-27T12:47:00.005-05:00

The Onion's Little League World Series Highlights isn't all that funny but one entry on the list warrants it receiving it's own post:

"Georgia player Kyle King slides headfirst so as to avoid breaking the crack vials in his back pocket."

Hell yeah, Rock. Even if you never make the Hall you are an immortal.

Baseball Movies

2009-08-27T09:25:00.004-05:00

These are the Top Five performances in Baseball Movies.

5. Tom Selleck as Jack Elliot in Mr. Baseball
There are definitely some memorable scenes in this movie although overall it is somewhat lackluster. Selleck does a decent job with mediocre material and certainly gets some mileage out of being a jerk through the first 80% of the movie. It's a fun enough movie to watch though and Selleck had to carry the whole movie. Watching it again I remembered some scenes as being better than they were but it was a fun nostalgia trip and I swear we saw Fukudome in there.

4. Walter Mathau as Morris Buttermaker in The Bad News Bears
There's something about Walter Matthau that shines through in his performances. Although he is playing a crank or a jerk in some of his most memorable roles (including this one) he still manages to be lovable. I never connected with this film the way many did because I liked playing baseball and was supported when I was growing up. I still enjoyed it and some of the kids do great jobs.

3. Robert Redford as Roy Hobbs in The Natural
It took me a while to get The Natural and understand it as more than a baseball movie. I remember watching it when I was a kid and not liking it because it wasn't real enough. Of course it isn't supposed to be and Redford plays the larger than life Hobbs as a fantasy character perfectly. He's less a person than a phenomenon at times and of course the final scene is a fulfillment of every baseball dream ever. He's just lucky he had that enchanted jockstrap.

2. Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham
There are about a million memorable scenes in Bull Durham and to be fair part of that should be credited to the ensemble cast. It's Costner though who creates a memorable character that is grounded and believable. Minor league journeymen are as common as flash in the pan pitching prospects but Tim Robbins character has a few too many quirks and eccentricities for my taste. Costner is able to give the right lines significance and project his character's frustrations and desperation when necessary. For the record the conference on the mound scene would rank somewhere in the top ten of my favorite movie moments of all time.

1. Tom Hanks as Jimmy Dugan in A League of Their Own
Quite simply the movie is average at best without Tom Hanks. Hanks plays a former player as a whiskey soaked ballbuster who doesn't really give a crap about anything, which is probably a fairly accurate portrayal. His comedic timing is perfect and he also is able to display emotion subtly when he has to, although he does have to deliver some sappy lines but that is the fault of the script and Hanks does what he can with it. Everyone remembers the "there's no crying in baseball" scene but it's probably around the 15th funniest thing Hanks does in the movie.

For your enjoyment:

The Little League World Series is Amazing

2009-08-25T18:54:00.004-05:00

Things I have seen from Williamsport, PA that are much more heartening than the Cubs impression of one of those Heimlich maneuver charts:

1.) a 6' 2", 220 lb. player
2.) a 4' 6", 75 lb. player
3.) an inning-ending, bases loaded double play on a layout grab by the pitcher (the ball was popped up midway between third and home, right on the line) followed by a nearly-botched throw to second to double up an overly aggressive baserunner.
4.) a runner getting thrown out at first on a hard line drive to right field
5.) a team from Chula Vista, CA hitting seven home runs in only five innings
6.) a pitcher batting cleanup
7.) a left-handed third baseman
8.) a shortstop who high-fived an opposing player who was trotting around the bases after a monstrous home run
9.) a delayed steal of home in a league that doesn't allow leadoffs
10.) Orestes Destrade's baffling lack of understanding of human anatomy (it is possible to injure something that isn't a knee, good sir)
11.) a ground ball to third base that resulted in three seperate run-downs with two different runners
12.) a mother who, after requesting (and being denied) leave without pay to travel to the United States to watch her son play in the LLWS, quit her job and hopped a plain to PA
13.) a mother who took her two youngest children to the U.S. aboard a C-17 cargo plane that departed Germany at 3:30 in the morning and only took her as far as the Eastern seaboard; she then waited four hours for a rental car to be delivered to the airbase where she'd touched down and drove the rest of the way, tykes in tow
14.) sportsmanship (almost) across the board

And, perhaps my favorite story of the LLWS so far:

15.) a player whose father was redeployed to Germany from Texas and had to leave his league (where he was an All-Star) and try out for a new team in a new country: he made the Ramstein Air Force All-Star team, which won the European tournament and a bid in the LLWS, and was then reunited with his teammates from Texas, who also went all the way to Williamsport (representing the U.S. Southwest).

All Rooting Interest Team

2009-08-20T12:49:00.004-05:00

In an effort to do something softer I have decided to make a team of players that I root for regardless of ability. A common criticism of sabermetricians is that they too often favor numbers over the human element of the game and I think that at times the criticism can be valid, although it is perfectly acceptable to enjoy both.

What follows are my positional picks for players that I support regardless of how good they are. I will include reasoning for why I root for these players. Some of these reasons will be petty or silly but that is part of being a fan. I avoided naming people who play for the Brewers simply because they play for my team and I did not name any players who I root for simply because they are good. Sometimes hoping for someone to do well is as much fun as watching someone do well.

I would encourage my colleagues here to do something similar.

SP - C.C. Sabathia
Reasoning: in a sport so plagued with steroid controversies it is kind of wonderful to watch a 250 lb man; it's nice knowing that there are professional athletes that I can easily outrun; he hit homeruns in each league last year becoming only the third pitcher in history to homer in both leagues in one season, one of those insane, nitpicky records that makes baseball wonderful, his big gri n.

RP - David Aardsma
Reasoning: read this if you haven't yet; he is the first player alphabetically in major league history, replacing Hank Aaron and this is funny to me for some reason; his sister is an actress who appeared on CSI. Her character's name? Sexy Mistress.

C - Mike Napoli
Reasoning: was best friends with the man playing in front of him and by all accounts has been really supportive; his entrance song is "I'm On a Boat".

1b - Kevin Youkilis
Reasoning: on his wikipedia page the following phrases are found: "roly-poly", "pudgy", "fat kid"; Terry Francona's response when asked about his nickname (The Greek God of Walks) was "I've seen him in the shower, he isn't Greek God of anything."; holds the major league record for consecutive errorless games at first base, which is the most arbitrary record possible.

2B - Ian Kinsler
Reasoning: he is a small Jewish kid with asthma playing a professional sport; active in community charity work.

3B - Gordon Beckham
Reasoning: Josie's on a vacation far away come around and talk it over so many things I wanna say you know I like my girls a little bit older I just wanna use your love tonight I don't wanna lose your love tonight I ain't got many friends left to talk to nowhere to run when I'm in trouble you know I'd do anything for you stay the night but keep it undercover.

SS - Marco Scutaro
Reasoning: not necessarily stat-based but is supposedly a strong believer in sabermetrics as memorialized here; the entire trivia section of his wikipedia page is awesome but this in particular is incredible: On June 18, 2009, after being issued a walk by Phillies pitcher Joe Blanton, Scutaro immediately took off for second base and slid in safely.

LF - Juan Pierre
Reasoning: as much as he is crapped on my sabermetricians stories of him showing up early to ballparks and throwing balls against the wall to figure out how to play balls are endearing; is named after Juan Marichal; received the Cool Papa Bell award from the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum and Cool Papa Bell is tremendous; robbed Barry Bonds of what would have been career home run number 714 on May 9, 2006.

CF - Curtis Granderson
Reasoning: fellow UIC alumnus; charity work; appeared on TNA Wrestling's Slammiversary PPV but I am deciding not to hold that against him.

RF - Ichiro Suzuki
Reasoning: his swing is awesome and I love imitating it during softball; I wish I was left handed so I could actually use his swing; his arm is astounding; he is probably the best current baseball player named Ichiro; his success makes teams continue signing Japanese players for ungodly sums of money in case they found the next Ichiro; they have not.

DH - Jim Thome
Reasoning: second place finisher in 2007 SI poll asking major league players to name the nicest player in baseball (behind Sean Casey who had 46%!!); put all 10 of his nieces and nephews through college; wordupthome.com

Prince Fielder Erases Baseball From History

2009-08-18T12:34:00.003-05:00

Sweet merciful crap. With one mighty Princefieldian whallop, the cow whence came that baseball has been violently torn from the fabric of history, sent spinning through the ceaseless void we call Eternity until all skies fall and all light fails.

Watching videos like this one, I find myself wondering what could possibly be going through a pitcher's mind when Prince Fielder lumbers to the plate and starts taking hacks as though he could cleave the world in twain. I suspect most pitchers feel a combination of amusement, confusion, and fear, much like how I feel whenever I watch this. And given Fielder's 2009 season, I suspect that the balance falls nearest to fear.

Fielder isn't just having a good year; if it weren't for some guy named Pujols (who seems to get a lot of press these days), Fielder would be the story in the NL Central (and possibly the NL). He's put up mind-boggling numbers so far: .311/.420/.600 with 31 homers, 27 doubles, 257 TB, and an OPS+ of 166 despite the fact that the Prince Fielder shift (as previously discussed) moves two outfielders into the right field seats. Yesterday's Superlaser blast is simply the latest exclamation mark to a season that has been punctuated like a text message from an overly excited 14-year-old (OMG prince felder iz 2 kewl!!! lolol!!!!!!!).

Reality Check

2009-08-13T19:10:00.004-05:00

Cubs fans: We're playing against Philadelphia. We're not in Philadelphia. Here's hoping Captain Douchebag has an assault charge waiting for him for this bit of idiocy.

Kudos to Shane Victorino for handling his recent rash of center field insanity as well as he has.

Our corner

2009-08-12T10:10:00.004-05:00

When we started this blog it was mostly so Dave and I could talk baseball with each other but loud enough so anyone could hear it. Well now it has a new purpose: to officially declare that the NL Central is where first basemen go to crush faces.

This division is absolutely stacked at first base. I wanted to show this so I took a look at the WAR1 for the regular first basemen for each team and sorted them by division. I hate using WAR1 as an all encompassing statistic but it is much better than showing five different graphs and looking at the differences. It also includes defense and I wanted to allow for the possibility of a defense minded first baseman because it could happen even if it is stupid.

There were some platooning issues on some teams. I used the regular first baseman if his games played total was greater than 75% of the team games. Otherwise I used the highest WAR for a player who played 1B for the team. This came up for five teams: Atlanta (minor issue), Arizona, Cleveland, Texas and Oakland. For some of these teams they are lucky I did that because part of the platoon they used had a negative WAR.

The NL Central just destroys all the other divisions. These are sorted from highest to lowest so there is the issue of having one extra team in the division. But get this: even without Albert Pujols the division still has a higher WAR total for first basemen than all but one division: the NL West. However, the NL West includes Arizona for which I used Mark Reynolds for this analysis even though he is not their regular first baseman. I did this for the reason listed above. In actuality the player who has started the most games for them at first is Chad Tracy and his WAR is -1.0.

There was some issue of games lost but this really evened out overall. Most divisions had one or two teams with a regular first basemen who has missed 10 games or so but it didn't affect the overall balance.

In summary our first basemen are awesome. If you don't count the farm-system-for-the-entire-MLB Pirates as an actual team then the worst first basemen in our division is Derrek Lee, and Derrek Lee (WAR 2.5) kicks ass.

National Pride

2009-08-11T09:04:00.003-05:00

While no one was looking except for Jay Wackerly the Nationals have gone on an eight game winning streak, improving their record to 40-72. They are outscoring opponents 57-33 in the stretch. If they can keep this up for an unprecedented 50 more games they can finish 90-72, in the wild card hunt but still missing the playoffs. Get your red on, NatsTown.

Last Holliday

2009-07-24T17:07:00.005-05:00

No, it's not an article about that wonderful Queen Latifah film.

It is an article about what I feel is the biggest mistake the Cardinals have made in recent memory. This post may drone on for a bit, which should make up for my general lack of participation on this blog, however I only post when I feel strongly about something, and I feel the need to make my opinion known on this matter. John Mozeliak did make one good move this week, shipping the pathetic mess known as Chris Duncan off - and actually getting a player in return instead of the bag of used jockstraps we deserved. And then he goes and does this.

Mark my words, the deal for Matt Holliday this afternoon will come back to haunt this team for years to come. First of all, with due respect to the Brewers and Cubs, the Cardinals seemed to be on their way to winning, or at least competing for, another Central Division crown this year with or without this move. Adding Holliday probably makes this a definite, however, it does not put us up there as World Series contenders. Not by a long shot. We're likely going to play the Dodgers in the first round of the playoffs, barring anything unforseen, and we still don't have what it takes to beat their pitching in a short series. So, what have we gained? Sure, a solid bat (and that's all he is - solid. Not great, but solid) behind Albert and Ludwick is nice, but for a two-month rental? The chances of us re-signing this Scott Boras client is slim to none. Maybe we offer and he agrees to arbitration at around 15 million next year, but that's it. Furthermore, I don't think that a player of Holliday's ilk is worth that kind of money, especially for the long-term deal he'll be seeking.

So, what have we lost, you might ask?

Well, for starters, we lose a 3B/OF/1B prospect by the name of Brett Wallace, who has been compared to Ryan Braun both offensively and defensively and is by all accounts Major League-ready. He may make a few blunders in the field but if his numbers could be compared to Braun's, I think Caleb knows that anyone in their right mind should take that and run with it, especially given the fact that his numbers would come at the price of peanuts for years to come compared with veteran talent putting up similar numbers. Our slugger of the future, down the drain.

We also lose Clay Mortensen, who is also close to, if not already, Major League ready. One of our top starting pitchers in the minors who also had a cup of coffee earlier this year with the big club. He's 7-6 in AAA this year with an ERA just over 4. However, I guarantee Oakland's scouts see something special in him to make him a part of this deal.

I don't know much about this Shane Peterson character, and maybe he's just a throw-in but we'll see how that all pans out for him.

This PLUS we are on the hook for around 5 million of Holliday's 2009 salary. Let's also keep in mind that a month or so ago, the Cardinals were inquiring about Holliday and they said "We want Wallace." GM John Mozeliak said no. Fast forward to today, and we give up not only Wallace, but two other talents, PLUS pick up some salary. So apparently by waiting, we managed to get a worse deal for the same player. Billy Beane has done it to us again, ladies and gentlemen. Fleeced us like a thief in the night. Remember the Dan Haren trade? Billy Beane is smarter than anyone in the Cardinal organization and he has pulled the wool over our eyes yet again. Mozeliak must be the worst negotiator in the history of baseball.

Mozeliak: We want Matt Holliday.
Beane: Great. We want Brett Wallace.
Mozeliak: No deal.
...
Mozeliak: We still want Matt Holliday.
Beane: We still want Brett Wallace.
Mozeliak: Is that your final offer?
Beane: We also want a couple other guys.
Mozeliak: Uh, huh.
Beane: And you pick up some salary.
Mozeliak: Deal!

It's not that I hate Matt Holliday; I think he's a good player. Again, good, not great. .286/11/54 isn't great. Mark DeRosa has comparable numbers. I just think that this trade will start a sequence of events as follows:

Cards aquire Matt Holliday
Cards lose in first round of the playoffs in 2009
Matt Holliday becomes a free agent this offseason
Cardinals are stuck with Nick Stavinoha or rookie Daryl Jones in LF and Joe Thurston/Brian Barden/David Freese at 3B next year, barring a F/A signing (which, if history is any judge, would not be for an "impact" player at either position)
Cards finish in 3rd place or lower in 2010
Cards struggle in 2011 with another poor team, resulting in Albert Pujols being traded for prospects similar to what we just gave up for Matt Holliday
Cards suck in 2012 with their rookie squad out there every day
Cards finally get back above .500 in 2013 as the young studs mature

So that's just great. 3 years of futility await us. At least maybe I can go back to getting tickets at the gate and won't have to mortgage my house for season tickets for the next couple years. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat - I just remember how I laughed and laughed at Milwaukee over the Sabathia trade last year and here we are with the shoe on the other foot. They better win it all this year, and I think that's what they are shooting for, but I think this whole thing was a big, big mistake.

Felipe Lopez the answer to Brewers pitching woes.

2009-07-24T10:08:00.003-05:00

At least he better be because otherwise trading for him makes no sense. Admittedly he was decent enough last year (especially after he arrived in St. Louis) with a .283/.343/.387 line and this year he is posting .308/.370/.421, which is good. But the Brewers already have a solid 2B in Casey McGehee (.323/.376/.534) who is also a utility infielder like Lopez. In addition the Brewers also have utility infielder Craig Counsell to fill in around the diamond as well (.291/.362/.421). This indicates to me that the Brewers plan on shopping an infielder for pitching soon, or at least they better be.

If the Diamondbacks were willing to trade with you though why not just trade for pitching from them? Between Haren, Davis and Scherzer there are three starting pitchers on the D-Backs that would come in and be in the top two in ERA+, and all three would be tied for or lead the team in HR/9, which I bring up because the Brewers rank last in HR surrendered. So the Brewers better be doing everything they can to get some help. They better be.

Any Sufficiently Advanced Defense is Indistinguishable From Pitching

2009-07-24T09:16:00.005-05:00

Congratulations to Dewayne Wise for 1/27th of a perfect game. Oh yeah, and to Mark Buehrle for pitching the thing.

Buehrle's second no-no (and first perfecto) is a textbook example of just how hard it is to throw a no-hitter: Buerhrle struck out 6, which means his defense had to account for the other 21 putouts. And not all of those were weak grounders to second, as Mr. Wise's robbery illustrates.

Kudos to you, White Sox. To all of you, from your ace starting pitcher to your late-inning defensive substitute. And especially to Ramon Castro, for not being A.J. Pierzynski.

Complaint Department

2009-07-17T12:54:00.005-05:00

Before I say anything, I want to acknowledge three things of which I am aware:

1) He went 2 for 4 with a run scored and an RBI and a HBP.

2) We won the game.

3) Lineups barely matter.

All that being said why in the hell was Jason Kendall leading off for us last night? His career high numbers of .332/.428/.511 would make him a good choice in the top of the order but that was in 1999 and he only played in (career worst, admittedly) 78 games. He's a 35 year old catcher now and his line of .237/.327/.279 this year isn't doing you any favors anywhere in the lineup let alone at the top. In the lineup last night only two Brewer position players had a worse OBP: Corey Hart and J.J. Hardy, and both of those guys hit for more power than Kendall (.422 and .381 respectively). At least Hart and Hardy were in the 7th and 8th positions in the lineup.

Now that I'm on the subject of J.J. Hardy I have to imagine he can be dangled as trade bait to get some better pitching. I'd hate to see him go but some teams might be interested and we desperately need an arm. Granted he is having a bad year (career worst if he doesn't pick up) but the previous two seasons he posted OPS+ of 100 and 113 and he's only 26. That and prospects should be able to land some kind of help. Plus you have Counsell to slide it at shortstop. Our infield would look drastically different from the opening day lineup (2-3-SS Weeks-Hall-Hardy v McGehee-Gamel-Counsell) but we might be better off for it, not that I am happy Weeks got hurt.

Dear NL All Star Managers,

2009-07-16T08:06:00.004-05:00

Please stop putting the Padres closer on your roster.

Thanks,
NL Central Stage

Final Vote

2009-07-08T12:56:00.004-05:00

The final position of the All-Star game is decided by online vote among five candidates. Go vote now. Wait, not now. After I tell you who to vote for.

NL: Matt Kemp
First things first: if you vote for Cristian Guzman and his .310/.325/.418 then I'm coming to your house and punching you in the head. Matt Kemp (.307/.372/.474) leads all NL OFs with a 4.6 WAR. That is very good. He is fourth among position players in the NL. He's done it on both sides of the ball with 28 BRAR and 25 FRAR. I feel sort of bad for Pablo Sandoval (.328/.381/.564) as he's having a great year and is second in NL 3B in WAR, but the leader (Casey Blake) isn't even on the roster because David Wright is popular and Ryan Zimmerman is the default Nationals representative. No big deal though: Sandoval is 22 and will get more chances. So will Kemp but he deserves this one.

AL: Ian Kinsler
Kinsler should be starting. I understand how people voted for Pedroia (Kinsler: .252/.329/.498 3.9WAR, Pedroia: .290/.370/.392 2.6WAR) seeing as how he is the reigning MVP but why is Aaron Hill (.296/.335/.495 2.8WAR) ahead of him when the Blue Jays already were sending Roy Halladay? Granted, looking at their lines it becomes clear that Kinsler is playing great defense, but that was known anecdotally as he has been featured on all kinds of highlight reels this season for his glove. Anyway, go vote for Kinsler.

In reality I was going to tell you to choose the guy playing kickass defense because I think the All-Star game sucks when the players in the field aren't making plays like it's important. It turned out to be the persons leading in WAR.

Heynowyoureanallstargoplayheynowyoureanallstargetpaidandallthatglittersisgold

2009-07-08T12:26:00.005-05:00

The All-Star Rosters were announced and we here at NL Central Stage have no real complaints about players being left off. The NL Central got appropriate representation and the only snubs that come to mind are starting pitchers and the general rule seems to be not to mess too much with them so that rotations aren't ruined. Mike Cameron has an argument based on his glove vs. Brad Hawpe's bat but I could argue either way so I'm not up in arms about it.

Miguel Tejada squeezed in just by his bat. By my count he is fourth among NL shortstops in WAR (trailing Ramirez, Escobar, and Tulowitzki). He is second in terms of offensive output but his FRAA of -8 is terrible. H-Ram is destroying him on both sides of the ball.

The game is in St. Louis so we get to showcase some Midwest flavor, being mostly fat people and the food that made them that way. Pujols and Fielder get to have fun in the prior-to-the-fake-game-fake competition of the Home Run Derby. I'm picking Adrian Gonzalez for the win for no reason whatsoever because it is a silly competition for which no amount of information or data could lend any credible foresight. If nothing else the Home Run Derby stresses this: first base is an offense first position.

Identity Crisis

2009-07-01T17:14:00.003-05:00

No no no BrewCrew. It's the Mets who do this sort of thing.

They scored 5 runs off of Santana the previous day and got blanked by Mike Pelfry. Gallardo takes the loss because he really should have struck out 13 batters.

Gallardo is striking out more than 9/9IP. He is Yovani.

NLCS Presents: Informed Political Discourse

2009-06-25T16:05:00.004-05:00

Apparently.

New project: tricking search engines and link aggregaters by embedding (H.J. Res. 57) misleading (llama farming) words (Brangelina) and phrases (natural male enhancement) into my posts.

Towards that end, Evan Longoria will henceforce be referred to as Eva [sic] Longoria, and one or more of the words "hot," "nude," "naked," "sex," "movies," or "pics" will always precede and/or follow any mention of his achievements.

Example: Eva [sic] Longoria has slowed down a bit after his hot April/May start, but he still leads the A.L. in XBH and is in the top ten in runs created, batting wins, SLG, OPS, OPS+, HR, sextape, 2B, and TB.

Seamless.

Balloteering for positions.

2009-06-25T13:07:00.005-05:00

Wondering who in the NL Central deserves a spot in the All-Star Game? I kind of was, so I wrote an article about it.

Really I was looking at who could reasonably be argued as one of the top two at a given position in the National League. I focused mainly on WAR, OPS+, and EqA. Here are the choices by team:

Chicago Cubs: None.
Fukudome comes close but he's tied for 8th among OF for WAR and his EqA is only .279. Ramirez would be up there but he actually tried to show some range in the field and his shoulder rebelled against this idea.

Cincinnati Reds: None.
Poor Joey Votto. He's having a great year but trails Pujols, Gonzalez, and Fielder in most categories. Brandon Phillips is having a good year as well but Utley and Sanchez edge him out. Ryan Hannigan is having a good year at the plate but is not as good offensively as McCann or defensively as Molina and they both lead him out in WAR.

Houston Astros: Hunter Pence
Pence is surprising me and I'll eat my words if he maintains this through the end of the season (BABIP .355 so far). Michael Bourn is tied with Fukudome at 8th for OF WAR and is having a slightly better year at the plate. I would be surprised if it is enough. I wouldn't be surprised if Rodriguez gets elected in what is expected to be his last year.

Milwaukee Brewers: Ryan Braun, Mike Cameron
Braun is developing into a true superstar which has me excited and nervous. There are stories about his marketability being targeted by all kinds of people and this makes it harder for me to envision him remaining in Milwaukee. Cameron started the year crushing at the plate and although he has cooled off his work in the field has been outstanding (20 FRAR, 9 FRAA). Fielder is trailing only Gonzalez and Pujols but it might be enough to keep him out.

Pittsburgh Pirates: Freddy Sanchez
Sanchez is having an excellent year at the plate and in the field and trails only Chase Utley among second basemen for WAR. Watch for him at the trade deadline as his contract ends with a club option for next year that the Pirates may not want to spend. This may be good for Freddy as the Pirates are terrible.

St Louis Cardinals: Albert Pujols, Yadier Molina
Pujols just barely edges out just kidding he is destoying everything. Yadier's decent year at the plate combined with his always awesome defense keeps him in the top two C for WAR.

EDIT: I realized as I finished writing that I ignored injuries. I know Beltran and Ibanez both may not play the game if elected which could open up windows for Fukudome or Bourn. I don't feel like going back and checking each leaderboard for injured players so my lists assume the game is being played in an XBox and injures are set to "only Aramis Ramirez."

Common sense

2009-06-22T14:24:00.005-05:00

Albert Pujols has passed Chase Utley and now is the top vote getter for the All-Star game. While I encourage this seeing as how Pujols leads the league in everything there is a small discrepancy I'd like to acknowledge. All-Star ballotting is done by league and by position. Pujols leads all players in WAR with 5.5. The next closest NL 1B is Adrian Gonzalez with 4.7. Utley sits at 3.2. The next closest NL 2B is Freddy Sanchez with 3.0. It really shouldn't be this close.

It should be noted that Sanchez narrows the gap between himself and Utley mostly through defense even though he is having a good year at the plate.

Hi-Larious

2009-06-18T19:08:00.008-05:00

Yeah, yeah, so I've been busy. Sue me. But while we're on the topic of the "worst" awesome player in baseball today, I'll float out a little nugget of conversation obliterating the St. Louis radiowaves lately.

A poll question on stltoday.com, the website for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, begged the question of this, and I paraphrase:

What would be worse for the city of St. Louis to lose? The St. Louis Rams, or Albert Pujols?

The answer, to me, is obvious. The answer was obvious to many people in my fantasy baseball league as well, only their obvious answer went the other way. Now, I hope you are right thinking people and understand the economic loss the city would sustain if a National Football League franchise were to leave town, which was my argument. One player, who very well may be starting a decline by 2011 (debatable, sure), is unquestionably better for the city to lose than a football team. In simple numbers, if Pujols leaves, one job leaves town. If the Rams leave, hundreds of jobs leave town or are lost completely. Simple mathematics.

Clearly the question is just that, a poll question. Most folks reading this blog are not from St. Louis, I assume, and thus don't really know how Cardinal management does business. Allow me to enlighten you. Now, I know, I know, "stop complaining, the Cardinals are competitive every year, yadda yadda yadda." I know. It's been a sweet ride. However, the Cardinals operate as a small market team. Our payroll is something like 81 million right now. Middle of the pack. Not showing off, not lagging behind. A lot of our success has come from, no offense, but from being in a shitty division. A .530 winning percentage is generally good enough to win the Central, but it's not the mark of a pennant contender. Granted in 2004 and 2005 the Cardinals were, in a word, great. But we won in 2006 with a shitty team that got hot at the right time.

In his tenure, Cardinal owner Bill DeWitt has done nothing to indicate that he is much more than a money grubbing owner. The payroll is always middle of the pack - I believe we are 14th currently. The team is generally competetive but not stellar...juuuuust good enough to stay competetive until October. Couple that with the fact that we are 4th in terms of highest ticket prices with the most expensive concessions in the league, and old Billy Boy is making money hand over fist. I get that it's a business, but the team could always be so much better, and it's more than a coincidence that we never go out and get a FA who isn't a "project" (Kyle Lohse, Kip Wells) who we can get off the scrap heap and hope Dave Duncan can work another miracle. The last "big" free agent we picked up was Jason Isringhausen, I believe, and he wasn't that big. Before that it was Ron Gant. They've done well through trades (Jim Edmonds), but then again they've also done not so well (Dan Haren).

My point through this incoherent rambling is this: the Cardinals are in no way a sure-fire lock to re-sign Albert Pujols. He'll command 25-30 million a year, and more importantly he wants to win. Not squeak by and have a shot at the Central, but he wants a team that is committed to giving him protection and a team that is a perennial contender. All the folks in my fantasy league and all the yahoos on sports talk radio better deal with the good possibility that Albert might be gone in 2011 and it won't be the end of the world. We'll come away with a fucking HAUL of young stud talent that should shore up two positions and 2/5 of the pitching staff for years to come - and theoretically we'll have another 30 million to spend on free agents (yeah, right!).

Believe me, I'd love to have my cake and eat it too. But since I know I can't, Pujols can go and give me the prospects. I'd rather have 5-10 more years atop the standings than .500 ball or worse with 1/3 of our salary going to one dude. Oh, and let us keep the Rams - no matter how shitty they are.

Comparing Pirates Aces

2009-06-18T10:39:00.006-05:00

Only one team remains in my WAR-based analysis of NL Central aces of the last half century: the Pittsburgh Pirates. Once again, I had to do some digging to find my four candidates. Two were obvious: Doug Drabek, whose brilliant 1990 campaign is an early formative baseball memory of mine, and Dock Ellis, charter member of the Shrine of the Eternals and subject of some of the great baseball stories of the '60s and '70s. Once I bolstered my Pirates knowledge with a bit of research, I realized that to round out my final four I need look no further than the Bobs: Bob Friend and Bob Veale. Both were excellent pitchers who get overlooked because, with the exception of Friend's World Champion Pirates of 1960, their teams were mediocre to terrible. But, as I hope to show, they were extremely valuable on the mound during their tenures in Pittsburgh.

Because Friend started pitching before my available WAR data (his rookie year was 1951, but Sean Smith's WAR database begins with 1953), he gets short shrift in this analysis. But, once each pitcher's seasonal WAR is graphed in descending order, it becomes pretty obvious that Friend was still far and away the most valuable Pirates pitcher of the past half century:

Friend easily outpaces the rest of the Pirates pitchers on my short list. His 48.2 Pirates WAR is likely low by 2-3 wins since neither his 1951 nor his 1952 season is accounted for (which, by the way, is why I haven't included a career WAR graph as I have in previous posts), but Veale's 26.8 is the next highest total, and he's not even close. Veale surprised me, actually. I expected him to beat out Drabek, which he did (26.8 to 21.8), but I expected Drabek's peak to be higher. Basically, I figured that Drabek burned a bit brighter but not for long enough, when in fact Veale's Xth best year beat out Drabek's Xth best year every single time. Impressive.

Unfortunately, Ellis surprised me, too. I was really pulling for Dock to make a better showing than the 14.5 WAR he put up as a Pirate. But he just didn't produce like the other three men on my list (though I will say this for Ellis: how many stories do people tell about Bob Friend throwing at every single batter he faced in order to motivate his team?).

Next up: the final "battle royale" between the top pitchers from each team. Gibson! Jenkins! Higuera! Oswalt! Rijo! Friend!

Numbers! Graphs! Unicorns! Exclamation marks!

Nothing to see here.

2009-06-18T08:39:00.003-05:00

Just an "All-Star" going 0 for 2 with no runs scored, no RsBI, and no talent. He did leave two men on base though so at least his day wasn't a total waste.

This Person Exists

2009-06-17T20:59:00.002-05:00

From MLB.com: "Farnsworth said he owned two American bulldogs, one about 80 pounds and the other about 90 pounds. They're named Strike and Rambo."

Stone. Strike. Rambo. Wow.

A most unimpressive homerun by Pujols.

2009-06-17T09:33:00.003-05:00

A solo shot when his team wins 11-2 is not enough to convince me Pujols is anything other than another overrated superfart.

Pujols sucks it up while the rest of the Cardinals...join him in sucking it up

2009-06-15T17:28:00.003-05:00

Pujols went 0 for 3 yesterday in a none too surprising move, given his general awfulness. The Cards only got three hits off of Cliff Lee who carried a no hitter into the eighth so the good news is that Pujols wasn't dragging his team down for once.

Is This the End of Zombie Shakes...Eric Chavez?

2009-06-14T16:34:00.006-05:00

Unfortunately, it's the end of Chavez's 2009 season at the least, and perhaps of his career, as the oft-injured Athletics third baseman will have back surgery yet again.

Chavez hasn't played more than 90 games since 2006, and he hasn't been even close to 90 games since 2007. But from 2000 to 2006, he was a perennial Gold Glover who hit for power and was consistently above average in OPS+. Put simply, he was a bright young star in the A's system (despite, incidentally, never making an All-Star team) who got hurt in his prime:

As a fan and an athlete myself (though, as evidenced by the fact that I write about baseball rather than playing it, not much of an athlete in the grand scheme), I hate to see this sort of thing happen to a player; Chavy seemed to have found his groove as a consistently All-Star caliber third baseman (something that, hopefully, voters outside of Oakland would have eventually recognized) when the injury bug bit.

But as much of a shame as it would be to see Chavez forced to walk away from the game so prematurely, it would be even worse to see him ruin his chance at a healthy post-baseball life if he stages an ill-conceived comeback attempt. So here's hoping that whether next year finds Chavez stepping to the plate in uniform to continue his career or in a suit to end it, A's fans give him the standing ovation he deserves.

Best of luck, Eric.

Today's Pujols bashing posted after the 1st inning.

2009-06-13T20:26:00.003-05:00

Nice strikeout. I assume the rest of his day went about the same.

I Shin-Soo Choo Choo Choose You

2009-06-13T16:28:00.004-05:00

That's right, I went there.

Just when non-Zach-Greinke things couldn't get any worse for the Royals...well, you know the rest of that cliché. Shin-Soo Choo won the game for the Indians on Thursday with a walk off single against Royals reliever Kyle "Professor" Farnsworth—and off a particularly well- (or, depending on your perspective, poorly-) placed seagull.

The ridiculous end to Thursday's game prompted a particularly entertaining post from Joe Posnanski (I'm reminded of the mostly-wonderful Royals by Mail).

Choo's seagull shot also puts him in second place on my all-time gullball list, which now reads as follows:

1.) Randy Johnson
2.) Shin-Soo Choo
3.) Randy Johnson
4.) Randy Johnson
5.) Randy Johnson
6.) Randy Johnson
7.) Randy Johnson
8.) Randy Johnson
9.) Randy Johnson
10.) Randy Johnson

Todd Helton, the Hall of Fame, and a Rain-Delayed White Sox Game

2009-06-13T11:58:00.022-05:00

This past Thursday, I attended my first game at U.S. Cellular Field since September 20, 2006 when the Tigers came to town and beat the Southsiders 6-2 in what was, for all intents and purposes, playoff caliber baseball. The Tigers were in town on Thursday, as well, albeit on a much drearier, rainier day. Caleb and I sat through a three hour rain delay before the game began, during which we had a couple beers, listened to stadium organist Nancy Faust play all manner of amazingly hilarious renditions of popular music from the past forty years (her first selection after we arrived at the ballpark at 12:45 was this), and watched 7+ innings of the Brewers-Rockies series finale on the jumbotron.

* * *

It was while watching the Brewers game that I saw a familiar poll question appear on the bigscreen: is Todd Helton a first-ballot Hall of Famer? Len Kasper and Bob Brenly brought up this very question when the Rockies came to town earlier this year, and then as now I felt as though the commentators were asking the wrong question. The question, I thought, shouldn't be whether or not Todd Helton is a first-ballot Hall of Famer, but whether or not Todd Helton is a Hall of Famer at all. With those questions in mind once more, I decided to do a little digging into Todd Helton's Hall of Fame case.

Any discussion of Todd Helton's Hall of Fame candidacy, of course, has to begin with his 2000-2004 seasons, during which he was an absolute monster. Just to put Helton's performances during that stretch into perspective, I took his five year season lows and put them all together to create his worst composite season during that period:

.329/.429/.577, 1.006 OPS (147 OPS+), 182 H, 39 2B, 2 3B, 30 HR, 319 TB, 98 BB, 104 SO, 0 SB, 5 CS, 107 R, 96 RBI

Obviously, those numbers don't add up due to my ridiculously imprecise "methods," and it's worth noting that a whole lot of those lows are from Helton's 2002 campaign, but I can't imagine a single major league GM who wouldn't love to add that kind of production to his lineup for even one year, let alone five. That's a superstar year, and it is in every way possible the worst year that I could cobble together for Helton during his five year peak.

But the next issue that any Helton-for-the-Hall discussion needs to deal with is his power outage after the '04 season. Since 2004, Todd Helton has never hit more than 20 home runs, and he's done that only once. In fairness to Helton, he still gets on base like a beast (if he maintains his .384 OBP for the rest of the 2009 season, it will be his lowest since 1998, his first full year in the bigs), and there are plenty of Hall of Fame hitters who either lost their power or never had any in the first place. Of course, most former power hitters who went on to the Hall of Fame enjoyed longer peaks than Helton (whose power peak lasted six years, including 1999), and most of the guys who never had any power in the first place were slick glove and/or speed men up the middle of the diamond (with some obvious exceptions like Boggs and Gwynn). Helton is a first baseman, and this year's Hall of Fame voting was not particularly kind to the most recently eligible all-OBP no-SLG first sacker.

Still, there's no denying that Helton was a monster for five or six years, and has been a very valuable ballplayer for another three or four. But how valuable, exactly, and how has his value stacked up against Hall of Fame hitters in general and, in light of the first ballot question, first-ballot hitters in particular?

The first question seems like the logical place to start. Helton's numbers were eye-popping during his peak years, but so were those of a lot of other players in the early aughts (lest we forget). So how good was Helton in context, and how valuable has he remained post-peak? Pretty valuable, as it turns out, as recently as 2007. Here's how Helton's numbers have translated into baseball currency (runs) over the course of his career, including adjustments for position:

Offense includes batting, baserunning, and GIDP values; Defense includes TotalZone and infield double play numbers, and Positional is the RAR system's way to account for different positions on the diamond. Math whizzes who aren't familiar with RAR will notice that the three values I've given first don't add up to the total RAR values. That's because I haven't graphed the replacement level values that go into converting from "raw" runs above average to runs above replacement.

But the graph is still telling: during his peak years, Helton was worth between 60 and 90 RAR for the Colorado Rockies, and much of that was on the strength of his bat (though it's worth noting that Helton's reputation as an excellent glove man at first is warranted; he has been above average on defense throughout most of his career). But are those big seasons enough for Cooperstown to come calling?

My immediate thought was to simply compare Helton's production to that of the already enshrined. Fortunately for me, several folks over at Beyond the Box Score (JBrew and TucsonRoyal in particular) have already done quite a bit of legwork in order to establish baseline Hall of Fame performance levels using Wins Above Replacement (WAR), which frequent readers of NLCS (both of you!) will recognize as one of my favorite statistics. (To put my first graph in context, 10 RAR ~ 1 WAR.)

My next move was to use JBrew's data for average Hall of Famer WAR and compare it to Helton's 12-year career (as of the end of 2008):

As you can see, Helton's best seven seasons compare favorably to those of the average Hall of Famer, but then Helton falls off a comparative cliff.

But the question raised by both the Cubs and Brewers telecasts that prompted me to perform this analysis in the first place was not whether Helton is a Hall of Famer, but whether Helton is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Comparing him to the average resident of Cooperstown doesn't do much to answer that question. So I narrowed the dataset down to include only those players who were inducted into the Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility (data available here).

As it turns out, all but six first-balloters (Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, and Jackie Robinson) played recently enough that most or all of their careers are included in Sean Smith's historical WAR database. Once I had worked out what the average first ballot inductee's WAR looked like, I graphed Helton again, this time against the very creamiest of the crop:

Helton still stacks up pretty well in his top seven seasons; in fact, there doesn't seem to be much of an upward jump in Cooperstown standards when we limit the HoF WAR sampling to first balloters:

In general, the difference between a first ballot Hall of Famer and the average Hall of Famer (importantly, the "average" HoFer values include first balloters) is about half a win per year. Based on WAR, we can see that during his peak years Helton was playing like a borderline first-ballot Hall of Famer, then like a slightly below average Hall of Famer during his remaining good years, and that he's been well below the average immortal in the remaining five years of his career. And this twelve year WAR graph is something of a best case scenario right now, as most players who end up in Cooperstown these days played for much longer than 12 (soon to be 13) seasons:

That's an awful lot of ground for Helton to make up. In order for him to look like a first ballot Hall of Famer, he'll need another five or six years in the 3-5 WAR range, and Helton is already 35. That doesn't mean he won't be a Hall of Famer if he hangs up his spikes tomorrow; hell, he might already be a first ballot Hall of Famer in the eyes of enough voters for him to find himself at the podium in 2014 accepting his election as the Rockies' first representative in Cooperstown. But by at least one metric (and one that I tend to put a lot of stock in), he sure doesn't look like a first ballot Hall of Famer—and perhaps not even like a Hall of Famer, period.

In light of this, perhaps the question that we should be asking isn't "Is Todd Helton a first-ballot Hall of Famer?" or even "Is Todd Helton a Hall of Famer at all?" but rather "Why are we asking about Todd Helton's Hall of Fame chances right now?" His peak, while impressive, probably won't be enough for enshrinement on its own given the historical context, not to mention park effects, which I haven't even mentioned in my analysis [EDIT: though they are accounted for in WAR] but which will absolutely come into play any time a Rockie finds his way to a Hall of Fame ballot. And who knows? Helton could surprise us all and put up four or five good years before calling it quits. So let's wait and see what the next few seasons have in store for Helton, as well what next year's vote has in store for the first legitimate Hall of Fame candidate to put up most of his numbers in Denver, Larry Walker, before we go trying to figure out if Todd Helton has punched his ticket to Cooperstown.

* * *

I was, of course, unable to argue my point so clearly off the cuff, but Caleb and I talked of Helton and the Hall regardless. Were I to show Past Dave and Past Caleb the first half of this post, they'd both be rather surprised: we gave Helton a rather dismal shot at election at the time. But we were perhaps overly pessimistic, particularly in light of the ray of hope that was 2007.

When the game finally began around 4:00, Caleb and I had already been watching baseball and talking baseball for over three hours, but Chicago-Detroit didn't disappoint. Floyd pitched a gem, Thome and Granderson (the two players who both Caleb and I were most invested in) had big games, and thanks to Granderson's 2-run shot off of Bobby Jenks in the top of the ninth, there was plenty of drama late.

And of course, this was a Sox game, so when Ramon Santiago hit a solo home run in the eighth, the whole stadium gave him the booing of a lifetime (quoth Caleb, "Who bothers to boo Ramon Santiago?").*

*Before any furious Sox fans try to remind me: Yes, I'm well aware that Cubs fans en masse are just as bad.

But the highlight of the day for both of us, by far, occurred in the bottom of the second when highly touted prospect Gordon Beckham strode to the plate and this happened. That's right, the kid's entrance music is "Your Love" by The Outfield. Beckham gave one of Edwin Jackson's offerings a pretty good ride to left center, but it died on the track. He got good wood on another pitch in his second at-bat against Jackson, but to no avail.

Fortunately, he hit a home run with "Your Love" and, in doing so, instantly became both Caleb's and my favorite player on the White Sox (sorry, Jimmy T.). He also softened the blow of having to watch A.J. Pierzynski hit a home run to right. As I said to Caleb, "If every Pierzynski home run is followed by Gordon Beckham walking to the plate to that song, I hope he hits 170."

Going into the top of the ninth, I laid out my plans for the ideal game: the Tigers would score two runs to tie the game and the White Sox would be shut down in the ninth, sending us to extras and setting up Gordon Beckham's first Major League home run, a glorious walk-off in the bottom of the whatever. When Curtis Granderson took Bobby Jenks deep to tie things up, things were looking good for the Perfect Game.

But the ninth inning didn't work out quite as planned. Brian Anderson led off with a single off Joel Zumaya. Zumaya then mishandled Chris Goetz's sacrifice bunt attempt and threw the ball away, putting runners on second and third. Josh Fields walked to load the bases, bringing up Scott Podsednik with a chance to win the game. I told Caleb that if Beckham couldn't win the game, a Podsednik-struck walk-off grand slam would be one hell of a consolation prize. He quickly agreed.

And then things got weird.

Podsednik fouled a ball towards the third base side that Brandon Inge chased like a madman. Inge lunged into the stands in shallow left with a bead on the ball only to have it deflected away by a Sox fan. While Inge, furious, began to argue for fan interference (an argument that Jim Leyland and some of his staff joined), the fan raised the ball triumphantly in his hands and turned to all corners of the stadium to bask in the adulation of the rest of the ballpark. (On our way out of the park, we walked right past this guy while he, gesturing furiously and with the ball still in his hand, screamed "I took it away from you!" at every Tigers fan he passed.)

I have an inordinate amount of respect for Section 510, which joined us in booing this jerkbag until we were blue in the face. This includes several fans who were decked to the nines in Sox apparel, one of whom yelled "Let 'em fuckin' play!" in front of his gradeschool daughter.

What made this scene even more odious is the fact that, during the rain delay, we'd been "treated" to the White Sox World Series film, during which we'd watched Joe Crede make his amazing catch in the '05 series in much the same spot at Minute Maid Park as Podsednik's foul had landed at U.S. Cellular. At the time, Caleb and I had talked about how classy the fans in Houston were for getting out of the way of a ballplayer in general, and an opposing ballplayer in particular, and allowing him the chance to make a play. We had no idea how portentious such a line of discussion would turn out to be.

It's worth noting, by the way, that with all of Inge's momentum taking him away from the plate, not to mention the fact that he fell into the stands to try to make a play, Anderson probably could have tagged up and scored from third even if Inge had caught the ball. But, as history will forever show, Podsednik got another chance, and hit a sharp grounder through on the right side to end the game. It's likely that the Sox would have won regardless, but it was a shame to see a fan intentionally break up a play like that.

Come on, guys. Let 'em fuckin' play.

Apples and better baseball players

2009-06-13T11:40:00.003-05:00

Albert Pujols did hit a homerun yesterday but was totally outplayed by Shin-Soo Choo who went 3 for 4 with 3 RBI. Also, Shin-Soo Choo is much better at pleasing women.

Blech

2009-06-10T23:18:00.003-05:00

While the rest of the Cardinals were busy getting 17 hits Albert Pujols only managed one. Way to go, lameass. I'm sure Barden enjoyed being stranded too.

Talkin' 'bout Walkin'

2009-06-10T17:13:00.003-05:00

Apostrophes!

Joe Posnanski has been writing about the base on balls quite a bit of late, first on his blog, and more recently in a combined effort with Bill James on SI.com. Between the two articles, Posnanski and James make numerous claims, some anecdotal and some statistical, concerning the benefits of the "free pass" (as well as, indirectly, why calling a base on balls a "free pass" is a misnomer), all while correctly assuming that the walk is and always has been underappreciated.

But it's worth noting that, even during the early days of the game, there were proponents of the base on balls. Posnanski and James tell some wonderful stories about players and managers who fall into this category, but their only examples of off-field opinions on the walk are negative: the lack of a BB column on baseball cards back in the day, the ridiculous (for those of us who, like James and Posnanski, dig OBP) caveat issued in the first MLB statistical guide to include walk totals for hitters, and so on. Yet as early as 1917, F.C. Lane, then editor of Baseball Magazine, wrote this article, in which he extolls the benefits of the walk and claims that "ignoring the base on balls puts a decided premium on sheer blind slugging and discourages brainy inside baseball." It was 1917, and Lane was already attempting to quantify the benefits of each method of reaching base and, in doing so, was seeing past a hopelessly incomplete (and frustratingly elevated, then as now) batting average statistic that elided walks entirely. It's a wonderful piece, and is made all the better for its syntactical similarities to a certain late night television host's take on old time baseball.

Comparing Reds Aces

2009-06-10T14:55:00.005-05:00

Cincinnati is the next stop on my tour of NL Central aces from the past half century, and although the Reds don't have a Bob Gibson or a Fergie Jenkins to show for the last fifty years, they have sent a lot of talent to the mound (certainly more than I anticipated when I started stratching my head and thinking "Jose Rijo and...?"). There was Mario Soto, whose struck out 1248, tops among all big leaguers, during a six-year run from 1980-1985. Then there was Tom Seaver, who came over from New York in the late seventies and was still a solid to very good pitcher (ignoring 1982, of course) even though his best years were behind him. Nowadays, Aaron Harang heads the Reds staff despite slipping a bit in '08 and early '09. Along with Rijo, these three make for a solid group of pitching talent for the purposes of my admittedly cursory, WAR-centric analysis.

First up (as usual), here is each player's year-by-year WAR as a Red. Note that only Soto started his career in Cincy (though Harang only spent a little over a year in Oakland before being traded to the Reds for Jose Guillen in 2003):

I must say, I really expected Seaver's '82 season to have costed the Reds more than ~1 win (Seaver's WAR was -0.8). Sure, he only started 21 games that year, but it was by far his worst season: 5.50 ERA (67 ERA+), 1.617 WHIP, 11.0 H/9, 1.1 HR/9, 3.6 BB/9, 5.0 K/9, and 1.41 K/BB is not a typical Tom Terriffic line. But Seaver's 1982 campaign serves as a useful example of just how difficult it is to significantly affect a team's chances of success (positively or negatively) as a single player, making all four of these pitchers' peaks that much more impressive.

Based on the career path graph, Rijo and Soto clearly have the edge in WAR, and graphing each pitcher's WAR in descending order makes that edge even more obvious:

Rijo takes the gold, as it were, with 34.3 WAR in a Reds uniform, with Soto in second with 26.9. Seaver and Harang are well behind the top two due to a combination of lower peaks and shorter service time, with 18.7 and 17.3 WAR, respectively, though Harang will likely add to his total, particularly if he starts pitching like 2007 Aaron Harang again rather than 2008 Harang. As for Mr. George Thomas Seaver...well, there's a reason he's sporting a Mets cap on his Hall of Fame plaque. He was still (mostly) a very good pitcher in Cincinnati, but his best years were in New York, where he was worth a staggering 75.8 WAR over 11+ seasons.

Of course, now that you, dear reader, know that Jose Rijo, not Tom Terrific, is the most valuable Reds pitcher of the past fifty years, I recommend stocking up on soon-to-be obscenely valuable Rijo memorabilia from the early '90s. Sure, Donruss printed about 62 million sets of the '91 line, but it's bound to be worth something someday soon. Right? Right?

On an unrelated note, I have several hundred vintage Jose Rijo cards for sale. Free or best offer.

New Policy

2009-06-09T21:19:00.003-05:00

So as much as it pains me to do it I am going to post inflammatory things about Albert Pujols each game until Steve posts more.

OOOhhh, nice 0 for 4 line. Way to get struck out by the mighty Josh Johnson too.

Unfortunately (or not), I now hate three of the players featured.

2009-06-09T13:37:00.004-05:00

Top five moments from Homer at the Bat:
5. "I still like him better than Steinbrenner."
4. Mr. Burns's original desired lineup included a player that has been dead for 130 years.
3. Lenny's imagination of Homer with a laser that incinerates his opponents.
2. "Lord Palmerston!" "Pitt the Elder!"
1. The closing credits song.

I am prepared to defend all of these.

I should note that I compiled this list after my original intention of a sabermetric analysis of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant softball team fell through due to lack of data. The only thing I could say for certain was that because every at bat shown/known for Homer and Daryl is a homerun (one HBP for Homer) Daryl's VORP is technically 0.0.

Comparing Astros Aces

2009-06-09T11:35:00.008-05:00

One of the benefits of researching this staff ace series is that I've had a chance to dig into the numbers for some pitchers who I remember vividly from my earliest days as a baseball fan and, in doing so, quantify or challenge assumptions I've made about these players for as long as I knew why the IP column on the back of my baseball cards sometimes included numbers with decimals.

Mike Scott is one such pitcher. I remember (inaccurately, as it turns out) Scott and Nolan Ryan striking out 300 hitters each in the same season more than once when, as it turns out, Scott "only" struck out 300+ once in his career (in his insanely dominant 1986 season), and the two never struck out 300 in the same season. In fact, Ryan never struck out 300 in an Astros uniform at all! The closest he ever came was 270 in '87 (though he struck out 301 in his very first season with Texas). I remembered Scott as the dominant pitcher he was on the back of the baseball cards I collected as a kid, not as the pitcher who had a short but amazing run and then faded, as so very many players do. It's a good thing I'm not, say, a Hall of Fame voter who abhors research and votes based on impressions I formed of players ten, fifteen, or even twenty years ago.

That said, both Scott and Ryan absolutely belong in this discussion. Scott came up with the Mets before being traded to Houston and breaking out in the mid-80's and enjoying a stretch of five years as a top-flight starter. I assume Ryan needs no introduction. Rounding out the Final Four are J.R. Richard, the former first-rounder who appeared to be on the fast track to super-stardom before a stroke tragically ended his career, and Roy Oswalt, the underappreciated ace of the current Astros staff.

The elephant in the room, at least from recent years, is Roger Clemens, but although he was absolutely lights-out in two-and-a-half seasons with the Astros, he didn't pitch in Houston long enough to merit consideration, and his ridiculous 2006 and 2007 decision holdouts hamstrung Houston significantly (even in 2006, when Clemens eventually joined the team midseason and pitched brilliantly).

With the contenders established, let's start by looking at each pitcher's Astros WAR as it fits into his overall career path:

Scott's peak is far-and-away the most impressive when measured by WAR, but all four pitchers enjoyed peak seasons in the 6.0+ WAR range, so when it comes to career WAR, consistency and longevity will win this race. Since all four pitchers were with the Astros for 9-10 years, longevity is essentially out the window. As for consistency, both Oswalt and Ryan were worth ~2 wins to the Astros at minimum each year, but Oswalt's low end and high end WAR values were better than Ryan's, making him the favorite. Graphing each pitcher's WAR in descending order from best season to worst season makes Oswalt's edge obvious:

Oswalt, as the second graph illustrates rather vividly, blew away the competition in an extraordinarily talented field with 36.4 WAR as of last season, and his lead is only going to increase. Ryan was over ten wins behind with 26.2. Scott and Richard, on the strength of their brief but brilliant peaks, were just behind Ryan with 23.5 and 22.4 career Astros WAR, respectively.

Since the Astros began play in 1962 (as the Houston Colt .45's), every single season in Houston is covered by Baseball Projection's wonderful WAR databases, which means that Oswalt, while certainly not the best pitcher the Astros organization has every sent to the mound, has done more than any other Astros pitcher in franchise history to add to the "W" column. And he's a damned fine pitcher in his own right, lest cries of "compiler!" be made. In eight full seasons, Oswalt has thrown 200+ innings six times, struck out 200 twice (and dipped below 150 only once), never had an ERA+ of less than 120, and only once had a WHIP over 1.250. He has a career ERA of 3.20 for an ERA+ of 136 (that's 36% fewer earned runs than the average pitcher over his entire career!), a 1.205 WHIP, 7.4 K/9, 2.1 BB/9, 3.57 K/BB, and 0.8 HR/9 (Crawford Boxes be damned!). He's even won 20 games twice and 19 games once, for those who care about wins.

And yet, Oswalt seems to be perenially overshadowed by flashier stars in his division or even on his own team (Clemens and Andy Pettitte, anyone?). Hell, he couldn't even take home RotY honors in 2001, despite a fantastic rookie campaign, because some jerk named Pujols decided to put together one of the greatest rookie seasons in history.

So if somebody starts talking NL Central aces and doesn't mention Oswalt (or, if he remains in the division, Ben Sheets for that matter), remind him or her just how good the Astros ace really is. And if any of you Houston fans see Roy Oswalt on the street, give him a hug and thank him for his unparalled contributions to your team. He deserves it, the big lug...

Pujols: "1-run Sac Flies are for Little Girly Men"

2009-06-08T14:33:00.004-05:00

Despite a great catch by the Rockies' Carlos Gonzalez, Albert Pujols managed to drive in two runs on one sacrifice fly this afternoon in St. Louis. Pujols is hitting .333/.455/.682 for an OPS+ of 197 (!) so far on the season, and remains on pace for 50+ homers, 35+ doubles, 130+ walks (against less than 60 SO), ~180 hits, ~130 runs, ~150 RBIs, nearly 400 TB, and—perhaps most astonishing of all—20 stolen bases.

Those readers (do we even have readers?) who remember my Pujols post from April 28th will note that he remains on pretty much the same comically absurd pace six weeks further into the season.

Tune in next week when Pujols will hit a home run while playing defense.

Wide open

2009-06-08T14:19:00.005-05:00

It should be noted that the NL Central is shaping up to be a race to the wire with no real favorite and everyone contending. Even though the Brewers hold a two game lead they are only at +22 in run differential, lowest among all division leaders (but tops in the NL Central). In fact, the run differential in the NL Central (51; Brewers +22, Astros -29) between the highest and lowest team is the smallest margin of all the divisions in baseball. The Astros are the only team in the division with a negative run differential (still only seven games back) and only the AL East can make the claim of only one team in the red (Baltimore -60, with the other four teams crushing). The point is, don't sleep on anyone in the Central to make a run and don't get too down if your team drops eight games straight. They aren't out of it yet.

Comparing Brewers Aces

2009-06-07T11:33:00.008-05:00

The Brewers were a tougher team to find "aces" for than the Cubs or Cardinals. Obviously, there's Ben Sheets in the aughts, but the 70's, 80's, and 90's initially seemed like a wasteland for Brewers pitchers based on my (admittedly limited) memories of the club during the early days of my youth. Fortunately, a bit of research turned up some specters of baseball card collections past: Teddy Higuera, who I'd always thought was a flash-in-the-pan sort of player but who had several good years beyond his three dominant seasons; Mike Caldwell, who was a flash-in-the-pan but burned brightly for a couple years in the late 70's; and Bill Wegman, a slow-and-steady type who had two strong seasons in the early 90's and was largely average otherwise.

The list isn't chock full of Hall of Famers, but it made for an interesting comparison regardless. First, here's each player's WAR as a Brewer:

The season numbers on the x-axis represent each year of the player's career, so a player with a value at (1, y) began his career as a Brewer, while players further along the axis began their careers elsewhere and joined the team in year x of their careers (in this case, only Caldwell was a rookie outside of Milwaukee).

Here's the same data, but sorted in descending order from highest-WAR season as a Brewer to lowest:

As it turns out, Higeura was better than I'd remembered. Aside from his three big seasons, he also posted a WAR over 2.0 three more times, giving him a career WAR as a Brewer of 28.3, easily beating Sheets' second place total of 23.9. Bill Wegman, meanwhile, played tortoise to Mike Caldwell's hare, as the two came in third and fourth with WAR totals of 16.2 and 15.9, respectively.

It's worth noting, however, that Sheets put up his WAR totals in three fewer seasons than Higuera, and that although he is rehabbing from elbow surgery, he's still probably the best arm on the market right now (seriously, if nobody signs him to an incentive-laden contract after the draft, I'll be beyond baffled—Sheets is an ace when healthy, and he's bounced back from injury before). If the Brewers resign him, he could easily pass up Higuera with a good season or two. Plus, as Caleb would probably be quick to remind me if I failed to mention this, we may well be talking about Yovani Gallardo in a few years. But for now, Teddy Higuera is king of the mountain ~~amongst Brewers aces in career WAR~~ [edit: dammit, Caleb was right].

The Continuing Adventures of Juan Pierreborg

2009-06-06T17:06:00.002-05:00

.367/.431/.473. 55 hits (10 2B, 3 3B, 0 HR) in 49 games. .904 OPS (138 OPS+). 14/15 BB/SO. 13/4 SB/CS. Abandon all hope, ye who pitch here.

Lest We Forget Rick

2009-06-06T16:55:00.003-05:00

No, I wasn't [only] joking when I wrote my letter of apology to Rick Reuschel last month; I really do have every intention of posting Rick-related analysis on this site whenever I perform it or, better yet, stumble across it. And stumble I did! Cyril Morong of Cybermetrics posted an old article of his in which he makes a case for Big Daddy as a Hall of Famer. I'm not sure I buy Reuschel's Hall credentials (I need to do a bit more digging before I cast my inconsequencial yea or nay), but the article is a great read regardless.

Comparing Cardinals Aces

2009-06-06T15:45:00.007-05:00

About a month ago, I compared Cubs aces from the last half century using pitcher WAR after a graphical tribute to Greg Maddux and Fergie Jenkins yielded some interesting results. At the time, I ran the numbers for the entire NL Central with the intention of turning the results into the NL Central Stage post whence spawned all lesser NL Central Stage posts. But compiling everything into one uberpost proved daunting at best, and so I went small and stuck to my Cubbies.

Nevertheless, I had all this data on my harddrive, so I thought, "Why not revisit my original data and break it all into manageable chunks in order to circumvent my own laziness?"

Having successfully outsmarted myself, I can now present to you round two of my team-by-team ace analysis: the St. Louis Cardinals.

When it comes to Cardinals pitchers of the past half century, there's Bob Gibson and then there's everyone else. But for the sake of argument, I wanted to plot Gibson against some other Cards aces. The trouble was, there really haven't been many between Bob Gibson's time and now. I settled on Matt Morris and Chris Carpenter, two recent pitchers who put together (in Morris's case) a string of good years or (in Carpenter's) a couple dominating years on the hill for the Redbirds. To put things in perspective, I added Bob Forsch, a solid but hardly dominant hurler from the 70's and 80's (pretty much immediately post-Gibson), to the mix, then graphed all four pitchers' career WARs with St. Louis. The results were illuminating, to say the least:

The next graph is of the same dataset, but organized in descending order:

Clearly, my "Bob Gibson and everyone else" instinct was spot on, at least with pitcher WAR as my graphical guiding star. But I honestly didn't expect Gibson to so completely dominate the other pitchers on this list. Obviously, Gibson's peak years were absolutely absurd. (1968: 304.2 IP, 1.12 ERA, 258 ERA+, 0.853 WHIP, 268/62 K/BB? That's inhuman, even in the Year of the Pitcher.) But I really expected Carpenter's 2005 Cy Young season to hold up to the competition better than it did. By WAR, Carpenter's best season would only have been Gibson's ninth best (and almost a win and a half back from the eight spot!).

But what really shocked me was how much perspective Forsch really added to the Cardinals ace conversation. Forsch, a consistently average to above-average starter, was probably the second most valuable Cardinals pitcher of the last half century (career-wise, that is) despite having only one truly excellent year.

Carpenter has a shot at bridging the gap if he can stay healthy. In six starts this year, he's pitched like a demigod. His line so far? 38.0 IP, 0.71 ERA, 598 ERA+, 0.632 WHIP, and 31/5 K/BB. But Carpenter hasn't pitched a full season since 2006, and though he's only 34 and locked up by the Cards until 2011, there's a huge difference between a 34-year-old pitcher and a 34-year-old pitcher with a history of serious injury. And even if Carpenter can outpace the forgetable (but, and I can't emphasize this enough, valuable) Forsch, there's no catching Gibson.

Interestingly, the Cards have had their fair share of dominant relievers over the decades. Bruce Sutter, Lee Smith, Todd Worrell, and Jason Isringhausen all spent time as kings of the Cardinal bullpen. But when it comes to starters...

(wait for it)

...there was Bob Gibson. And then there was everyone else.

Professor Pedro Bigrocket

2009-06-05T15:28:00.004-05:00

The four best pitchers of our generation? Probably. A hyper-literate Dominican pornstar? Definitely.

Big Numbers

2009-06-04T22:21:00.005-05:00

Randy Johnson won his 300th game tonight against the Washington Nationals (in his first try at #300, no less). I'd throw together a celebratory graph, but the fine folks at Beyond the Boxscore already have.

One thing's for certain. Nobody, ever, under any circumstances, will ever win 300 games ever again. Ever.

EDIT: How did I overlook the opportunity to post a video of the greatest pitch ever thrown?

Peavy for some magic beans.

2009-05-21T11:43:00.003-05:00

If the White Sox land Peavy I'll be interested to see what the Padres get. Reports indicate prospects but the White Sox have two to four impact prospects in their system at most. The past four years has seen the Sox trade away nearly all their young talent for various players (Thome, Vasquez, Swisher, etc.). Their farm system has done a good job of rebuilding but how often can you trade away your young talent and stay competitive? When the White Sox enter rebuilding mode it will be a long process unless they can squeeze away talent from other teams for aging veterans, because they have plenty of those.

Joe Posnanski is a Better Baseball Analyst Than Steve Phillips

2009-05-19T10:02:00.002-05:00

It amazes me that, with everything Carlos Beltran has accomplished in a major market, he still manages to be underrated. Fortunately, Joe Posnanski is there.

Juan Pierreborg is Here for Your Soul

2009-05-17T11:30:00.004-05:00

Listen, and understand. Juan Pierreborg is in Los Angeles. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is on the basepaths.

And he usually doesn't stop there, either.

No, he's not Manny Ramirez. But Juan Pierre has been putting together exactly the sort of season he needs to land a starting job again, either in LA or elsewhere. Pierre's line in 30 games so far? .406/.461/.522 with 6 2B and 1 3B for 36 TB and an OPS+ of 154. Yes, this is a small sample size. And yes, there are some warning signs. Pierre still isn't taking walks (5 BB in 77 PA). He still isn't hitting for anything that even vaguely resembles power. And his BABIP is an almost certainly unsustainable .412, which suggests a batting average regression sooner rather than later.

But Pierre's LD% of 27.3%, while higher than his 21.9% career average, means that Pierre probably should have a pretty insane BABIP right now, albeit in the .390 range rather than the .410 range. Also encouraging is how low Pierre's GB% is this year compared to his career: 40.9% in 2009 vs. 55.7% overall. Those career GB% numbers skew high due to Pierre's ability (and tendency) to bunt for hits frequently (which, importantly, must be accounted for when determining how "lucky" Pierre's BABIP is, as he'll beat out more bunts and bouncers than most players), but it's nice to see that he's swinging the bat this year rather than simply dragging it, and that he's putting balls into play on a line.

Previously, I wrote that Pierre needed to demonstrate his ability to get on base, and he's done just that in Manny's abscence (though those low BB totals are still cause for concern). And as much as I've slammed Pierre as a leadoff hitter in the past, I do have a soft spot for the speedsters, so watching him put together a gem of a season so far has been a joy. Keep it up, Juan!

0.191

2009-05-11T11:13:00.003-05:00

We are about a month into the season but already I'm hearing stories about how the wheels have fallen off a certain wagon or a certain surprise contender is showing the grit and hustle of a championship team. This is stupid nonsense spouted by stupid people. Less than one-fifth of the season has been played.

That being said, I thought it might be fun to go through the NL Central and pick the top players so far and contrast it with the end of the season.

C - Yadier Molina
.317/.386/.465, .294 EqA, 1.5 WARP

1B - Albert Pujols
.330/.443/.696, .364 EqA, 2.3 WARP

2B - Freddy Sanchez
.317/.353/.533, .305 EqA, 1.3 WARP

SS - Ryan Theriot
.299/.366/.444, .278 EqA, 0.8 WARP

3B - Aramis Ramirez
.364/.417/.591, .328 EqA, 0.9 WARP

OF - Mike Cameron
.295/.395/.571, .324 EqA, 2.1 WARP

OF - Ryan Braun
.345/.463/.627, .353 EqA, 1.9 WARP

OF - Kosuke Fukudome
.319/.449/.543, .320 EqA, 1.6 WARP

P - Johnny Cueto
39.2 IP, 1.034 WHIP, 0.5 HR/9, 7.3 K/9

Notes:
-There are a lot of quality first basemen in the NL Central. Joey Votto is crushing balls right now just not at a Pujolsian rate.
-Pitcher was the hardest category to decide on. Wandy Rodriguez is having a great year as is Yovani Gallardo. I gave Cueto the benefit of the doubt for having a better WHIP even though he has one fewer start. We'll see what happens.

Kudos to You, Mike Scioscia

2009-05-08T17:14:00.003-05:00

I've made no secret of my belief that consistently starting Jeff Mathis over Mike Napoli is an act of total insanity. And so far, it looks like Mike Scioscia agrees with me. Although Napoli started off the season playing second fiddle to BFF Mathis, he has gotten more starts (19-11, with 16 of those starts behind the dish and 3 as a DH) and his bat has remained red hot. Put simply, Napoli is absolutely mashing the ball, hitting .328/.444/.642 with 5 HR, 6 2B, and 43 TB in only 19 games. He's already a 1.1 WAR player (as opposed to Jeff Mathis's 0.0 WAR).

Mathis, meanwhile, has come down to earth after a solid first week, and is currently maintaining a .237/.310/.263 batting line (I suppose that's more subterranian than it is "down to earth").

Although OPS isn't the whole picture, particularly since Mathis supporters are quick to label him a defensive whiz kid, here's a game-by-game look at just how much better Napoli has been at the plate than Mathis (each box represents a game in which the player made at least one plate appearance):

Note that at no time was Mathis outhitting Napoli, and that Napoli's OPS has not yet dropped below .850 for even one game this season. If Scioscia continues to play Napoli as often as he has so far (a big question mark given Vladimir Guerrero's imminent return), Napoli is on pace to be a 6.6 WAR player this year. I'm not saying that he will be worth six extra wins, but it seems foolish not to let Napoli show his stuff for a full season (finally). So far, Scioscia is giving Napoli the playing time he deserves and Mike is capitalizing; here's hoping both trends continue.

I haven't seen play this bad since the days of Bob Uecker.

2009-05-08T13:23:00.006-05:00

I love Bob Uecker. For a long time he was the reason to listen to Brewers games and since my work truck only had an AM radio I did it whenever possible. He instilled a love of baseball in me by being entertaining, engaging, and passionate when he it was appropriate. He's a down to earth good person who I enjoyed having as a part of my childhood.

So things like this are awesome. Via Deadspin via Videogum.
edit: Sorry the HD format screws with our borders so the video won't be embedded. Just click a link and watch it.

Edit: I've got your back, Caleb.
Kittens and teddy bears,
Dave

Juan vs. Manny

2009-05-08T00:11:00.007-05:00

Juan Pierre (or, God willing, Juan Pierreborg) will be taking over for the suspended Manny Ramirez in the Dodgers outfield, and for once, the baseball community agrees on something: Manny Ramirez is better as baseball than Juan Pierre (graph by Tommy Rancel of Beyond the Boxscore). Now, I don't mean this as a knock against Juan Pierre (though Pierre is very definitely a below-average big leaguer); Manny Ramirez is better than 99.9% of humans at baseball. But just how much production is LA losing for fifty games?

I took a look at both players' statistics dating back to 2000 (Pierre's rookie year), and I think the results speak for themselves. First off, Manny gets on base a whole lot more than Pierre does, mostly because JP is allergic to walks (a shame given his speed):

And of course, Manny hits the ball a whole lot harder than Juan Pierre does:

So even taking into account the fact that Pierre has only played in the NL and Ramirez has mostly played in the AL, JP gets absolutely crushed in the OPS+ department (notably, Pierre has only been above league average once in his career):

Pierre makes up a little ground with his fielding, but not nearly enough for him to be anything less than a tremendous downgrade for the Dodgers (not that I'm surprising anyone here):

Fortunately for the Dodgers, Manny is not the only piece in their franchise puzzle. They will still play good baseball without him, and probably good enough baseball to hold on to the division until he gets back. But Manny is the heart of the Dodger lineup, and replacing him with Pierre (especially if Joe Torre is foolish enough to bat Pierre in the leadoff spot) will hurt LA's production significantly. No, I'm not writing anything the baseball world doesn't already know, but the visuals really do hammer home the impact of a Mannyless Los Angeles Dodgers team.

But although making Pierre a starter again is a blow to the Dodgers, it could also prove to be a boon to both LA and Pierre himself. If JP can figure out how to improve his OBP (preferably by demonstrating an ability to take a walk or two), he could give his trade value a huge shot in the arm. A .320 OBP from a speedy guy with no power isn't going to turn any heads, but a .340 or a .350 OBP could make the difference between Juan Pierre returning to his role as baseball's best paid fourth outfielder and finding himself a starter in a new organization. Use these games well, Juan.

[Insert "Performance Enhancement" Pun Here]

2009-05-07T14:53:00.007-05:00

Manny Ramirez has been suspended for 50 games for testing positive to a series of words that is very difficult to pronounce (human chorionic gonadatropin).

But the plot thickens. According to an anonymous source, Manny was taking the drug due to erectile dysfunction, though Ramirez himself was far more cryptic, claiming simply that his HCG use was for "a personal health issue." Even if Manny is on the level, he should have been more careful, particularly given the fate of the last big name player to be so publicly associated with erectile disfunction. But this incident certainly complicates the PED issue, as yet another future Hall of Famer has tested positive to a banned substance (but, importantly, not to a PED itself but instead a potential masking drug).

The Dodgers, currently in first in the NL West by a comfortable 6.5 game margin, should be able to hold their lead in a weak division. But there is no doubt that losing Manny for a third of a season is a tremendous blow. After a slow first week, Manny has been a monster in 2009, hitting .348/.492/.641 with 6 HR, 9 2B, 59 TB, and 26 BB against 17 SO, good for an OPS+ of 194 through 27 games. LA can't replace that level of production unless Juan Pierre is willing to blow his career earnings on all manner of uneccesary surgery.

Long live Juan Pierreborg!

Jose vs. Hong Man Choi

2009-05-07T09:08:00.010-05:00

Jose Canseco, who, despite losing his only "professional" bout (to Vai Sikahema in a celebrity boxing match), still seems to fancy himself a fighter, will fight 7'2" South Korean Hong Man Choi on May 26th in Tokyo. Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro will be sitting together ringside to watch the carnage.

Speaking of 7'2" fighters, Shaquille O'Neal (all 325 pounds of him) may be eyeing a mixed martial arts career after he retires from basketball. If O'Neal has any skill as a fighter, he will instantly become the most terrifying human being on the planet. If he does not have any skill as a fighter, he should go the circus route by dusting off an old costume...

Other likely future fighters from the baseball world (MMALB?) include Izzy Alcantara, Mo Vaughn, Michael Barrett, and of course, Kyle "Professor" Farnsworth. Robin Ventura need not apply.

Bert vs. Nightcrawlers

2009-05-06T09:32:00.008-05:00

The plural "s" is getting really damned technical; Blyleven will eat exactly plural (see: two) live nightcrawlers before Saturday's Twins-Mariners game. Apparently, this stunt has something to do with Parkinson's disease. I've gotta hand it to the folks at the Parkinson Association of Minnesota: calling the fundraiser "Bert vs. Nightcrawlers" was a stroke of genius, although I was picturing a whole bucket of nightcrawlers rather than simply two. In my mind, Blyleven had signed up for the Fear Factor version of my old elementary school walk-a-thons; he would have spent the last several weeks walking from door to door collecting pledges for each nightcrawler that he ate, setting himself up for a glorious return to each doorstep on Sunday with tidings of nightcrawly domination (tidings with precise pricetags, no less). He probably would have won a shitty Walkman knock-off for being the top nightcrawler eater at the game.

Glorious.

Alternatively, I would have been even more excited about "Bert vs. Nightcrawler."

In preparation for Blyleven's impending insecticide, I whipped up a couple historical WAR graphs in an attempt to weigh the relative value of Bert Blyleven vs. two nightcrawlers. Although I have historical WAR data for Blyleven, I had to extrapolate for the nightcrawlers, which proved difficult. First, there are two of them, and second, it is unlikely that either can swing a bat. But then again, neither can most backup catchers, so I fudged the data and assumed that two nightcrawlers, taken together, would perform at replacement level. This is probably a generous assumption, but as you can see, Blyleven still has the obvious edge:

The situation doesn't look any less grim for the nightcrawlers if we switch to a career-path plot:

The data doesn't lie: those nightcrawlers are going to get their shit fucked up.

No word yet on whether Blyleven will be credited with a pair of wins after vanquishing his diminuative opponents this weekend. If Commissioner Bud Selig approves of the move, Blyleven's career record will improve to a still largely misleading 289-250, making him look slightly more appealing to Hall of Fame voters who realize that wins are the only pitching statistic that matter, no matter how convincingly Rich Lederer (among others) may argue to the contrary, and putting Blyleven only 11 nightcrawlers shy of Cooperstown.

Comparing Cubs Aces

2009-05-04T20:23:00.012-05:00

After last night's Jenkins/Maddux graphstravaganza, I got to thinking: how do the various Cubs aces of the last half century stack up against one another? I mean, the turn-of-the-century (20th, that is) Cubs had a fistful of aces: Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown, Hippo Vaughn, Orval Overall, Pete Alexander, and Ed Reulbach were all dominating pitchers (some for longer than others, of course). But as I thought about the last fifty years, very few names sprang to mind. Of course, there was Fergie Jenkins, who I fully expected to top the list of Cubs pitchers, and Greg Maddux, who I expected to top the overall list. And there's Big Z, though he's had a couple off years of late, and his near-contemporary Kerry Wood (during his prime as a starter, anyway). And who could forget Rick Sutcliffe's brief period of 80's dominance?

But the list pretty much ended there. Sure, several Cubs pitchers had a solid season or two; some even put together seasons I'd call great (2003 Mark Prior, anyone?). But I was hard-pressed to think of many Cubs starters who were true aces for more than a year or two.

So I dove into Baseball-Reference.com to find a sample set on which to perform a couple quick-and-dirty historical WAR tests. I had a few criteria in mind: First, each pitcher had to have at least a couple Opening Day starts under his belt (I'm looking for staff aces, after all). Second, each pitcher had to be a legitimate ace for a few years, so no ERA+ 100 guys who simply happened to be better than three subpar options (ie. Jon Lieber, Larry Jackson), and no pitchers with one good year and then little else to show for themselves (Prior). And finally, each pitcher had to have played in Chicago for at least five or six years (this was the loosest of my criteria, as it turned out that nobody who belonged on my short list played fewer than eight seasons in a Cubs uniform).

Using these three criteria to thin the crowd, I narrowed down my list to my original suspects (Jenkins, Maddux, Zambrano, Wood, Sutcliffe) and one pitcher I'd completely overlooked: Rick Reuschel.

Here's how the final six stacked up against one another while in Cubbie blue, with seasonal WAR graphed from best season to worst:

As I expected, Jenkins (blue) was well ahead of the pack, but there were certainly plenty of surprises here. First and foremost, I'd forgotten just how good Reuschel (orange) really was (a consequence of being too young to remember his best years with Chicago, methinks); he was far and away the best of the rest while a Cub, which is saying something in this crowd. On the other side of the coin, Sutcliffe (purple) didn't fare nearly as well in this little experiment as I'd expected him to, nor did Big Z (green). I expected Wood (brown) to suffer due to his injury seasons and his switch to the bullpen, but he actually outpaced Sutcliffe and wasn't significantly outperformed by Zambrano (though Z clearly has the edge). Maddux's (red) Cy Young year is right up there with Jenkins' and Reuschel's best years, but it's an outlier; as a Cub, Maddux was generally more similar to Wood and Zambrano than Jenkins valuewise.

Next up, I graphed each pitcher's career, fully expecting to see Maddux pull away from the pack, Jenkins to settle comfortably into second, Reuschel to drop back into the pack, and Wood and Zambrano to fall behind Sutcliffe:

As expected, Maddux was King of the Mountain careerwise, with Jenkins just behind. But Reuschel continued to surprise me; seriously, how did I miss this guy? Wood and Zambrano didn't change a bit, as neither had played for anyone other than Chicago before 2009. Sutcliffe had some absolutely Godawful seasons away from Chicago, which drag his career value down significantly. Once again, I found that I'd conveniently overlooked Sutcliffe's bad years while almost completely ignoring Rick Reuschel. I feel like I should send him a letter of apology or something:

Dear Mr. Reuschel,

Although I was only two years old when you left my Chicago Cubs (who were, incidentally, still four years away from being "my" team), I feel terrible for having underestimated your contributions to Cubs baseball in the late '70's and early '80's. I am currently taking measures to rectify what I feel is a grevious error. Fortunately, I write for a largely-unknown baseball blog with a loose focus on the NL Central; rest assured that I will do everything in my power to make mention of your achievements whenever possible.

Please accept my humble apologies.

Your new biggest fan,
David J. Marincic

That should do it. While I track down a stamp, here are a couple more graphs I made just for funsies. Both are, as I expected, convoluted rat's nests due to the fact that there are six pitchers included in the dataset, but they're fun nonetheless.

First up, here is each pitcher's Cubs years. The x-axis represents which year in the pitcher's career he threw for the Cubs, so a pitcher whose career begins at "1" was a rookie in Chicago. Only their Cubs WAR values are displayed for pitchers who threw for more than one team in a season:

Next, here is each pitcher's year-by-year WAR. All seasons are accounted for, and WAR values for pitchers who split time between multiple teams in one season are combined to create a yearly total:

Sweet merciful crap, I'm out of unicorn postage stamps! I'd better run to the store; Mr. Reuschel has had to wait almost thirty years for this letter, and damned if I'm going to let him wait a day longer...

More Fun with Historical WAR Data

2009-05-03T22:56:00.004-05:00

Just in case anyone is interested, I also graphed a team-by-team breakdown of Fergie Jenkins' and Greg Maddux's pitching WAR:

I think the results are rather interesting. I hadn't realized how much value Jenkins brought to the table in Texas; conversely, I overestimated Maddux's value as a Padre.

A Graphical Tribute to Fergie Jenkins and Greg Maddux

2009-05-03T20:02:00.015-05:00

Fergie Jenkins and Greg Maddux had their number 31 retired by the Cubs today. Both were obviously great pitchers, and as is my tendency when I read about various baseball-related honors, I dove into the numbers in an attempt to quantify just how great each of these guys really was. All of my data comes from BaseballProjection.com's wonderful pitcher WAR database.

First off, I borrowed a move from the fine folks at Beyond the Boxscore and graphed each pitcher's WAR in descending order from his best season in a Cubs uniform to his worst (partial seasons are included as full seasons for simplicity's sake):

The results shouldn't surprise anyone. Both Jenkins and Maddux essentially started and finished their careers in Chicago (Jenkins pitched a whopping 14.2 innings for the Phillies before coming to Chicago to begin his career in earnest; Maddux pitched two more respectable years for the Dodgers and Padres before hanging up his spikes three years after his Chicago swan song), but Jenkins developed faster and enjoyed his best seasons in a Cubs uniform, whereas Maddux didn't emerge as an ace until his final season in Chicago, after which he was (in)famously allowed to walk, so his prime years were for the Braves. A graph of each pitcher's Cubs career path puts these developmental discrepancies in rather stark perspective:

Maddux's career was on the upswing when he left for Atlanta, while Jenkins had already peaked before he moved on to Texas. If we expand each pitcher's career path to include every stop in his big league career, the advantage shifts to Maddux:

Jenkins peaked earlier, but Maddux sustained his peak (and his career) longer, though mostly as a Brave. Revisiting each pitcher's descending seasonal WAR while taking into account his entire career gives Maddux the edge over Jenkins:

Of course, it's important to remember that Maddux put up most of these numbers in Atlanta rather than Chicago; seven of his top ten seasons (#1 and #'s 3-8) were as a Brave, while Jenkins put up seven of his top ten seasons (#'s 1-2, 4-7, and 10) as a Cub. Breaking up each player's total WAR as a Cub and overall really hammers home this difference:

Jenkins was worth 81.4 WAR over his career, and 53.5 of those wins were with the Cubs. Maddux's career WAR was 96.7, but only 31.4 of those wins were in Cubbie blue. Maddux was the more valuable pitcher; Jenkins was the more valuable Cubs pitcher.

None of this changes the fact that both Jenkins and Maddux are beloved by Cubs fans (and rightly so!). Congratulations to both players for this well-deserved honor. I look forward to watching the number 31 flapping in the breeze at Wrigley for many years to come.

Because as Much as I Dig the Longball, I Still Think Speed is Totally Awesome...

2009-05-03T18:46:00.005-05:00

...I have to throw up a quick link to Carl Crawford's record-tying six stolen base performance against Boston this afternoon. Crawford went 4-for-4 with a walk while running Jason Varitek and the Boston pitching staff ragged in a 5-3 win for the Rays. Admittedly, I was initially a bit surprised that, despite Crawford's baserunning antics, his Tampa Bay teammates had only driven him in twice. But then I remembered that even though the last time I saw a player swipe six bags in a game he also scored six runs, that game was in MVP Baseball 2004 for the Playstation 2; this was a real game.

Poor Jason Varitek.

NL Central Stage

Brew Crew through

It's always the Central, isn't it?

Championship Market

Class of?

Quick link

Wrong Met

Fair and Balanced

Questions and Concerns

PSA: FIP

Vote for me in 2012

Blyleven in 2011!

My Hall of Fame Ballot that Still Doesn't Mean Anything

Facebalk

Ben Leslie Dear Derek Jeter,Umm, you saw what LeBron did last year, right? How's that working for his legacy? Time to be a team player and make less than 10 million a year for a change. http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/columns/story?columnist=matthews_wallace&id=5843900

Baseball is a Game Played by the Dextrous but Only Understood by the Poindextrous

THE BEST DAY OF THE YEAR

Bob Brenly is a [word redacted per request of wife].

A Pair of Fond Farewells

Building up inside of me: Omar Vizquel

A piece of advice for Steven Strasburg

Prince Fielder and Charity

Baseball Facts

Preview of the 2010 Season!

My Hall of Fame Ballot that Doesn't Mean Anything

Cubs All-Aught Team

The Game of Life

Cy Young opinions.

Realization

World Series Fun

The Clutchiest Clutch of Clutches That Ever Clutched

West Loop MVP

100%

Thus Ends the NL Central

Your Playoff Broadcasters.

More Awesome

No 20-game Winners? YES!

Baseball is awesome.

Cubs "All-Time 9"

Holliday Revisited

Wait 'til next year

Happy FJM Day

Here's to the Next 17 Years!

Concerning Large Numbers

Haha Awesome

Baseball Movies

The Little League World Series is Amazing

All Rooting Interest Team

Prince Fielder Erases Baseball From History

Reality Check

Our corner

National Pride

Last Holliday

Felipe Lopez the answer to Brewers pitching woes.

Any Sufficiently Advanced Defense is Indistinguishable From Pitching

Complaint Department

Dear NL All Star Managers,

Final Vote

Heynowyoureanallstargoplayheynowyoureanallstargetpaidandallthatglittersisgold

Identity Crisis

NLCS Presents: Informed Political Discourse

Balloteering for positions.

Common sense

Hi-Larious

Comparing Pirates Aces

Nothing to see here.

This Person Exists

A most unimpressive homerun by Pujols.

Pujols sucks it up while the rest of the Cardinals...join him in sucking it up

Is This the End of Zombie Shakes...Eric Chavez?

Today's Pujols bashing posted after the 1st inning.

I Shin-Soo Choo Choo Choose You

Todd Helton, the Hall of Fame, and a Rain-Delayed White Sox Game

Apples and better baseball players

Blech

Talkin' 'bout Walkin'

Comparing Reds Aces

New Policy

Unfortunately (or not), I now hate three of the players featured.

Comparing Astros Aces

Ben Leslie
Dear Derek Jeter,
Umm, you saw what LeBron did last year, right? How's that working for his legacy? Time to be a team player and make less than 10 million a year for a change. http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/columns/story?columnist=matthews_wallace&id=5843900