Whether you think they've shaped up as a bunch of banjo-hitting ninnies or the stingiest run prevention unit this side of the 1968 St. Louis Cardinals, or both, or somewhere in between, the Boston Red Sox have set their 2010 roster for all intents and purposes. While Red Sox players and fans alike gear up for another exciting season with high expectations, it falls to the Boston front office to focus on longer term roster planning, no small task given the personnel shifts that are sure to continue.

In the lineup David Ortiz, Victor Martinez and Adrian Beltre will become unrestricted free agents at the end of the 2010 season. Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon's contract also expires and given his not-so-subtle eagerness for his big payday, it's fair to say he will probably be moving on. The most critical looming free agent decision, however, will center on Josh Beckett. Beckett will pitch out his 30-year old season this year, his fifth in a Red Sox uniform.

The choice to extend Beckett will test Theo Epstein and his Baseball Operations staff. Beckett's popular, both with teammates and Boston's rabid fan base. We all know that Beckett has experienced an inordinate amount of post-season success. And yet, whether it's a nagging injury here or there, his proclivity to give up the gopher ball or the mere fact that he will be 31 in the first season of his new contract, the Red Sox have a number of red flags to consider. Let's take stock of the factors surrounding Beckett's case.

The first thing to understand is that Beckett is a truly elite pitcher. Since he joined the Red Sox, let's look at where he has ranked in the American League in both xFIP and Wins Above Replacement (WAR):

          xFIP      WAR
2006       21       30
2007        4        2
2008        2        8
2009        7        7

In just under 800 total innings pitched since 2006, Beckett has a 116 ERA+ but if you take out his outlier 5.01 ERA season his first year in Boston, that ERA+ figure jumps to 126 while averaging just under 200 innings per season. To see how he has stacked up since 2007 with other American League pitchers, consider below:

                IP      ERA+
Greinke        553.2     149
Halladay       710.1     141
F. Hernandez   629.2     133
Lackey         563.2     129
Sabathia       593.1     129
Beckett        587.1     126

You get the picture. Josh Beckett is an excellent power arm with historically standout peripherals and dependable durability, and that's a critical part of this equation. He's not Mike Hampton or Barry Zito. And yet, before you commit the sort of dollars it will take to secure Beckett's services, it's essential to understand how pitchers perform from 31 on.

Above, I showed where Beckett stacked up among American League pitchers from 2007 to 2009 with at least 500 innings pitched. Applying the same parameters but extending it out to include the National League and pitchers 31 and older, we get a total of 10 pitchers (as opposed to 35 under 31). Half of them posted ERA+ totals under 100 over that time, and the rest of the list looks like this:

                IP      ERA+
Lilly          588.2     124
D. Davis       542.0     110
Lowe           605.2     108
Pettitte       614.0     104
Washburn       523.1     102

The rest of the list includes Kevin Millwood, Jamie Moyer, Braden Looper, Jeff Suppan and Livan Hernandez. Aside from Ted Lilly, I think the Red Sox would be disappointed with output in line with any of the other 9 pitchers. But let's tinker with the list further. Let's say the Red Sox or any other team giving Beckett 5 years would like him to average 175 innings per season. So let's set the following Play Index list parameters: at least 875 innings (5x175) with an ERA+ of at least 110 from 2000 to 2009, age 31 and older. Here is what we get.

Whoa. You might have to go to the very bottom of that list before you even get to a non future Hall of Famer. In Major League Baseball, only the truly elite starting pitchers survive. And Jamie Moyer and Tim Wakefield, I suppose, but that's another story.

The first lesson here is that it's critical to understand that there is a premium to be paid on the unrestricted free agent market, and that you have to recalibrate performance expectations. You might not get the late-aughts Beckett for his next contract, and it might feel like you've overpaid at times, but when you consider how much value Boston got in this last contract, it could all even out. Let's take the John Lackey deal as an example and given Lackey's similarities to Beckett, it's not a bad proxy at all. If you believe Fangraphs free agent dollar values assigned to each win, all the Red Sox need from Lackey to make the deal worthwhile is output like Scott Baker or Carl Pavano produced in 2009, or Andy Sonnanstine in 2008. Can Beckett do that in his 31 to 35 seasons? Maybe.

The second lesson is that, given the odds of a 30-plus pitcher living up to his end of the deal, there are probably better areas to allocate your free agent spend. In Boston's case, this is especially true given the commitment they have made to John Lackey this off-season. As a Red Sox fan, I am not ready to state explicitly that they should let Beckett walk but $35-$40 million committed to Lackey and Beckett annually from 2011-2014 has the potential to hamper Boston's flexibility. As with anything else, this decision will come down to Boston's ability to meld medical, scouting and performance analysis insight to generate an accurate projection of Beckett's future output.

Now don't mess it up!

Permalink | Comments (11)

To the extent that you want more solid MLB-caliber players than not on the roster, the addition of Xavier Nady is a nice get for the 2010 Cubs. Short money, decent enough right-handed bat, positional flexibility, in some ways the move was a no-brainer. Almost any team in baseball would improve, some more than others, as a result of having Nady on their roster.

The problem for the Cubs, and any other team for that matter, is that resources and roster spots are finite. Coming off of 83 wins playing in one of baseball's weakest divisions, a few focused, tactical moves could have resulted in enough wins added to spring the North Siders into contention. As it stands at the end of the Hot Stove season, their starting rotation looks thin and injury prone while their offense looks to be improved. On the whole, it looks like this Cubs team should be just a bit better than last year's club. With luck, they'll contend. With Xavier Nady in the fold, they'll still need luck.

It's hard not to think back to the Milton Bradley episode and how much it distracted Chicago when looking at their moves this off-season. Losing Bradley and picking up Carlos Silva and Marlon Byrd, wherever you come down on the argument that they just had to part ways with Bradley, amounts to wheel-spinning. Byrd is no better than Bradley, Silva is just awful. Nady might hit southpaws better than Kosuke Fukudome, but how much of that differential offensively does Nady give back when he takes the field in right? As I see it, the most enticing part of this addition is that it protects against further Soriano deterioration. That's no small thing, but in an off-season where just a few shrewd moves could have made all that difference, Bradley, Byrd, Silva, Nady - the Cubs just haven't seem focused.

With the ownership commotion surrounding the club and Soriano's bi-weekly direct deposit hamstringing baseball operations, I can empathize. But at the same time, this was an off-season that called for even greater focus. There wasn't going to be a lot of money to spend, but the Cubs had a roster on the cusp. And it still is on the cusp, so it's not like they've mismanaged their way out of any hope for 2010. They just could have done more, and the announcement of the Nady signing tells me that they're not thinking strategically enough. Nady just won't make much of an impact, when there was impact at a great price still to be had on the free agent market.

You want to go short money and improve the club? Well what about Orlando Hudson or Felipe Lopez for a team whose second basemen hit .254/.310/.357 in 2009? If the Cubs opted to bolster their starting pitching instead, to avoid relying on some combination of Tom Gorzelanny and Randy Wells and Sean Marshall for 400 innings, then Jon Garland and his 200 league average innings could have helped. Garland would have led the 2009 Cubs in innings pitched. And heavens, Johnny Damon is still sitting out there. Maybe you don't want to hurt Alfonso Soriano's feelings or you otherwise sense a logjam in the outfield, but Damon is still an excellent player whose value seems to have plummeted without good reason.

Again, I want to stress that I can't get too worked up about any of the Cubs moves this off-season. I understand the chemistry stuff and the case for why Bradley had to go. Center field was a hole that Marlon Byrd should be able to fill. Xavier Nady adds some depth and a nice platoon partner if deployed appropriately. But if the Cubs looked at their roster and determined they only had a few moves to make this off-season, I wish they would have been executed with more focus and precision. Because a couple wins could mean all the difference in the National League Central.

Permalink | Comments (6)

Recently, former New York Times journalist and J.G. Taylor Spink Award winner Murray Chass took to the pages of his blog titled Murray Chass On Baseball to discuss Hall of Fame voting. He addressed an array of topics, from Hall voting eliciting strong opinions, to Tommy John's Hall of Fame candidacy, to my own personal "track record". There's no need to FJM someone like Chass - he's just writing on his blog that he refuses to acknowledge is a blog, snarling at (certain) stats and just sort of watching the world pass him by. Honestly, it has to be difficult. On a human level, I pity Murray Chass.

Since I guess Chass probably maintains a broad readership and has decided to come at me personally in his column, I suppose I should respond to a few of the points he made. It's evident to me that Chass doesn't like the tone of the Hall of Fame debate, and I suppose that's reasonable. Heck, we get awfully passionate around here about it, maybe excessively so on occasion. Chass points out one reader who emailed to say that one candidate "clearly deserved" enshrinement, and Chass thought that language was too strong. Fine, I suppose, but surely there are "clearly deserving" Hall candidates, no? Anyway, and Craig Calcaterra has already dealt with this nicely, problems arise when Chass veers off "can't we all just get along" course and into this:

“Clearly deserve” in whose judgment? His, of course. Does that make him right and me wrong? Of course not. Am I right? Yes. Why? Because my opinion counts and his doesn’t. My ballot was one of the 539 counted in the election. He did not have a vote. Therefore, his opinion is worthless as far as the election is concerned.

That’s the real problem self-proclaimed experts have. They want to be the ones voting, but they don’t have that privilege. It’s their own fault. They chose the wrong profession. Accountants, lawyers, doctors, teachers and salesmen don’t get to vote for the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers do.

Someday, a curious individual might set out to understand why it was that baseball websites were able to amass strong followings at a time when the profession of mainstream media baseball writing was still so entrenched in American culture. How could Rob Neyer and Nate Silver and Jonah Keri and Joe Sheehan and Keith Law and David Cameron and Sky Andrecheck and Cliff Corcoran have risen to such prominence, when the baseball writing establishment was still churning out columns? Well, that individual researching why it was that new internet baseball writers succeeded will stumble across what Chass has written above, and it will all make sense.

You don't get credibility because you hung around clubhouses for 30 years. Or because you traveled on the team plane, have had cocktails with Lou Gorman, were at Fenway the day Bucky Dent hit his home run or because you can recall the fear in opposing pitchers' eyes as Jim Rice came to the plate. You don't even get credibility because you have a vote. You get credibility by doing good work. And if your work is good, it stands on its own. If a new age of writers comes along with a new way of thinking about the game, and a new medium like the internet emerges, you don't kick and scream and yearn for yester-year, you evolve and learn and continue to do good work.

As for the notion that a non-voter's opinion is "worthless", tell that to Bert Blyleven or the proprietor of this site. Blyleven has publicly expressed gratitude for Rich Lederer time after time, and recently Peter Gammons praised Rich's work as well. About a dozen writers have explicitly attributed their Blyleven support to Rich's Blyleven series. How many more writers have been persuaded and not admitted as much? Rich may not have a vote, and he may not have swayed Murray Chass, but his opinion is anything but "worthless".

To be sure, there are nobler causes to take up, but there is virtue in working to ensure the Hall of Fame voting process is more just. A baseball career is a man's life's work, and there is no more prestigious recognition than to be enshrined in Cooperstown. So if Murray Chass and Dan Shaughnessy can't be bothered to figure out who the best players were, others will have to take it up. Whether we're writers or salespeople or money managers or entrepreneurs or consultants or lawyers, we'll take it up. We'll do so by building strong cases for the candidates we think deserve enshrinement, and we'll do so by exposing and discrediting flimsy logic. Because flimsy logic, when it comes to the Hall of Fame, can lead to a man's life's work being remembered in the wrong light, or even not remembered at all. Readers, fans, other voters - they'll be the ones to decide whose judgment should be called into question. Not Murray Chass through a baseless assertion on his baseball blog.

==========

As I noted at the outset, Chass also came at me personally in his blog entry, and I want to address it quickly. It was actually quite harmless but let me just offer up a few thoughts. Chass wrote the following...

Patrick Sullivan, a name unknown to me, ridiculed Dan Shaughnessy, a highly respected columnist for the Boston Globe, for writing that … well, just about anything. I don’t know that Shaughnessy wrote a sentence that Sullivan didn’t ridicule.

One of the statements he faulted Shaughnessy for was his belief that Jack Morris was better than Curt Schilling. Preposterous, Sullivan suggested. True, I say in agreement with Shaughnessy. But then I would probably take Shaughnessy’s view over Sullivan’s on any subject. Shaughnessy has a track record; Sullivan doesn’t, as far as I know.

I have had a similar debate with a reader over Morris and Bert Blyleven. Like Sullivan in his case for Schilling, the reader used statistics to argue his case for Blyleven. Most of the Hall arguments today seem to be statistics-centered.

All I can say is if you're going to be called out in public by a washed-up sportswriter on his baseball blog, this is how you want it to be done; in a fashion that is so self-evidently discrediting. We learned three things from this Chass excerpt:

1. Chass thinks Shaughnessy is right and I am wrong because Shaughnessy has a track record with which he's familiar.

2. Chass thinks Shaughnessy would be right and I would be wrong on ANY subject because Shaughnessy has a track record as a baseball sportswriter and I do not.

3. He thinks Jack Morris was better than Curt Schilling.

Two thoughts. One, how harebrained do you have to be to admit freely that you won't entertain the merits of a particular argument, but rather will simply appeal to authority? What a great way to discredit your whole philosophy in one fell swoop.

Two, and I can't be clear enough about this. If you think Jack Morris was a better pitcher than Curt Schilling, THEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE VERY FIRST THING ABOUT BASEBALL. Talk about life's work? The life's work of Murray Chass, all those days and nights hanging around a smelly clubhouse, and what does he have to show for it? A baseball mind that leads him to believe that Jack Morris is better than Curt Schilling. It's nothing short of embarrassing.

The piece ends the way so many of these do. After berating those of us who look to statistics to form the basis of our baseball-related arguments, he transitions to Tommy John's Hall of Fame case, comparing his to Blyleven's.

John had a career 288-231 record with a 3.34 earned run average. Blyleven’s record was 287-250 and his e.r.a. 3.31. John retired 57 percent of the batters he faced, Blyleven, with all his strikeouts, 59 percent.

Yup, stats. But not just any stats, moronic, wrong stats that say Tommy John yielded a career .430 on-base percentage and Bert Blyleven yielded a .410 figure. Truth is, John's career on-base against was .315 while Blyleven's was .301. I am not sure where that gets us, but at least we're dealing in reality.

Anyway, back away from the word processor, Murray. People, successful people, knowledgeable people who adore baseball, are all laughing at you.

Permalink | Comments (35)

The Chicago Cubs boast a core group of championship caliber position players that includes Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee, Geovany Soto, Alfonso Soriano, Marlon Byrd, Kosuke Fukudome and Ryan Theriot. Their front three starting pitchers, Ted Lilly, Ryan Dempster and Carlos Zambrano, form a perfectly adequate top end of a World Series aspirant club. In the bullpen, arms like Carlos Marmol, Angel Guzman, John Grabow and Sean Marshall offer Manager Lou Piniella a pool of live and (often) dependable arms for late in ballgames. All of this is to say that the Cubs, as currently constituted, look like a solid club.

Of course a "solid club" when you're looking up at the St. Louis Cardinals might not do the trick and to their credit, the Cubs are looking to round out their roster with a player or two still available on the free agent market. As I concluded in my piece over the weekend, it's likely that the Cubs will still have a strong pitching staff, just not one that stacks up to their outstanding 2009 unit. They can expect some improvement offensively, but for a team looking to make a big leap from 83 wins to contender, it doesn't look like the offense will do enough to get them over that line. The Cubs are looking for another starter.

Now, if you were to diagnose what went wrong with the Chicago Cubs in 2009, you would point to four separate players. Soriano and Soto battled injuries and sub-par performance all season long, Ramirez missed too many games and Milton Bradley failed to live up to his potential. The Cubs signed three of those four players to splashy free agent contracts, and Soto was the 2008 NL Rookie of the Year. All four are stud talents, and while the Cubs SHOULD be able to pencil in improvement from Soriano, Soto and Ramirez (Byrd fills in for Bradley), there is still a high-risk high-reward element at play.

This brings me to their starting pitching decision. The Cubs are rumored to be in hot pursuit of right-handed pitcher Ben Sheets, the man whose medicals are said to be disastrous. Even for smallish money, the choice to depend on Ben Sheets for 2010 would amount to a classic high risk/reward strategy for Chicago. With lingering uncertainty offensively, why fill out a borderline contender with another player who brings along as much downside as Sheets would?

If one were to assess where the Cubs might struggle in 2010, you might start with starting pitching depth. With the likes of Tom Gorzelanny, Randy Wells, and good grief, Carlos Silva filling out the back end of the rotation, and with some injury concerns surrounding Lilly and Zambrano, I am not sure a flier on Sheets is the play. Make me in charge of Cubs personnel choices and I would opt for the guy I know will take the ball every fifth day and give the offense a chance to win the game. In my estimation, the right target for the Cubs would be Jon Garland.

Garland is by no means the superstar some might have thought he would become after his breakout 2005 campaign with the Chicago White Sox, but his 162-game career average of 208 innings at a 104 ERA+ clip could be just what the doctor ordered for a Cubs team searching for stability.

Permalink | Comments (6)

A few months back I wrote a piece on the Cubs and the merits of inaction. Sometimes when it's not your year, the best moves are the ones you don't make. Chicago battled injuries and under-performance all season long, and stumbled their way to a disappointing 83-win season.

Prompted in part by this piece from David Cameron at Fangraphs, I now realize that I had not thought through the Cubs roster and how they might project for 2010 properly. The gist of my piece was that, with their rock-solid pitching, bounceback seasons from key players could well be enough to catapult them back to the top of the National League Central. The problem, of course, is that their pitching is unlikely to hold up as well as it did in 2009.

Now, it's one thing for a guy who follows and roots for the Cubs from a distance to make a mistake of this nature. It's another thing entirely for the individual tasked with making sure the best Cubs roster possible takes the field on Opening Day to make a similar error. Consider the following remarks by Jim Hendry from yesterday's edition of suburban Chicago newspaper the Daily Herald:

"We have to have our best players play like they're our best players, and that's something they didn't do that last year,'' Hendry said in a quiet moment amid the insanity of the Cubs Convention. "We had five guys have terrible years all in the same year at the same time, and you don't figure that to happen, but it sure happened to us.''

One of the players Hendry identified was Carlos Zambrano.

"It would be huge for us if he does what he's capable of doing, which is 18-20 wins with a lot of innings and a lot of quality starts,'' Hendry said. "The good thing is he's upset about it. He knows it wasn't a good year and he says he's mad about it.

And you knew this one, a favorite of Craig Calcaterra's, was coming.

"He's also in better shape than I've seen him, so that's a real good sign.''

Of course he is. Anyway, in one sense Hendry is spot on. Leaving aside Zambrano for a moment, let's assume Hendry is referring to Alfonso Soriano, Milton Bradley, Aramis Ramirez and Carlos Marmol. Soriano has $90 million left on his contract, and turned in a .241/.303/.423 year in 117 games last year. It's safe to say Chicago needs more from their left fielder and should get a lot more output in 2010. Bradley has been shipped off to Seattle and replaced with the more dependable but less talented Marlon Byrd. Ramirez was excellent, but in only 342 plate appearances. Marmol struggled with his control all season long. You could also toss Geovany Soto in there, too. Chicago's backstop figures to be much better in 2010. So, yes, the Cubs will need better play from these roster spots and should be able to count on it.

For Cubs fans, though, there are a couple of red flags in Hendry's thinking as revealed by these comments. The first is that he thinks Zambrano was a problem for the Cubs last season. But when you look at Zambrano's career numbers, 2009 seems right in line. He threw fewer innings than you'd ideally like (169.1) and his walk rate was up but the rest of it was a typical Zambrano season. In fact, his strikeout rate was up too, and Fangraphs had Zambrano at 3.6 Wins Above Replacement (WAR), his best total since 2006. If the bedrock of an improved Cubs team in 2010 is a drastic uptick in Zambrano's output, then they're already in a hole.

The second problem with Hendry's thinking, and the one I alluded to at the outset of this piece, is the notion that the rest of the team will just stay constant while the disappointments from 2009 pick up the slack. Let's start with the starting pitching staff, an impressive 2009 unit that returns in place aside from Rich Harden. With rumors of an imminent Ben Sheets signing swirling, for our purposes, let's assume similar output from Sheets (or Gorzelanny) as the 2009 Harden. For the other four, here are their 2009 ERA's, 2009 xFIP (a fielding-independent and more accurate and predictive measure of actual pitching quality), and their 2010 CHONE and MARCEL projections.

              2009              2010
           ERA    xFIP     CHONE    MARCEL
Dempster  3.65    3.81     4.12     3.76
Lilly     3.10    3.98     4.21     3.73
Zambrano  3.77    4.27     4.28     3.84
Wells     3.05    4.24     4.53     3.66

The Cubs team ERA+ was 117 in 2009, good for 2nd best in the National League. Their starters' ERA was 3.71, another excellent figure. In 2010, Chicago's pitching will not be as good. Three of the four pitchers listed above figure to under-perform their 2009 levels, and don't even get me started on what happens if Carlos Silva starts to take a regular turn. It's a good pitching staff, but I don't see it as one of the league's very best the way it was in 2009.

Offensively, because 2009 was such a disappointment for the Cubs, it's easy to forget just how good Derrek Lee was last year. At age 33, he hit .306/.393/.579 while in his 30-32 seasons, from 2006 to 2008, he hit .301/.378/.485. As you might imagine, projections have him closer to those levels for 2010. While the Cubs offense figures to improve year over year, it figures to do so in spite of lost production from Lee.

=========

One of the most common themes in year-end performance self-evaluations at companies across America and around the world is the tendency to overstate successes and gloss over or ignore failures. Hendry's comments are not entirely analogous, but you can see a similar phenomenon taking hold. He's glossing over the great performance the Cubs got from their starting pitching in 2010. Ted Lilly and Derrek Lee were two of the very best players in baseball last season. He's brushing off the bad seasons in 2009 as though they were somehow fluky, but is someone like Soriano a guarantee to come back strong in 2010? How he thinks he's getting more out of Zambrano is beyond me. It seems like Hendry does not want to own some of his roster failures.

The best teams project future performance through an honest assessment of successes and failures, what's predictive and what's not. Taking the successes from a given season, penciling them in for the next season and banking on disappointments to return to form is a sure way to stay a few steps behind the teams more dynamically and realistically striving to improve.

Permalink

The Boston Sunday Globe's Baseball Notes column achieved must-read status for me at an early age. Peter Gammons wrote it. Gordon Edes tackled it for a number of years. More recently it's been Nick Cafardo, not necessarily a personal favorite of mine but the template was in place and he's largely done a fine job. Last week, an up and comer on the Boston sports media scene, Amalie Benjamin, handled the duties.

There is one terrible, corrosive portion of the column that I want to address. It's something called the "Bill Chuck files", it's at the very end, and it's more often than not just misleading tripe. As far as I can tell, giving Cafardo and Benjamin the benefit of the doubt, it's designed to point out interesting statistical oddities and nothing more. The end result, however, is that a mass audience is subjected to nonsense. Here are a few examples from the last few weeks:

From Benjamin's 1/3 column:

From the Bill Chuck files: Runs produced (RBIs plus runs minus home runs) is a good tool to measure batter effectiveness. Albert Pujols led the majors in 2009 with 212 runs produced. Jason Bay ended up with 186, the same as Mark Teixeira...

How terrible is that? "Runs produced is a good tool to measure batter effectiveness." Here's how "effective" the measure is:

Dustin Pedroia led Kevin Youkilis in Runs Produced.

Aaron Hill led Joe Mauer.

Brian Roberts bested Ben Zobrist.

With proper context, sure, it's fine to mention it. Runs produced is a tool. It tells you something. But good grief, a good tool to measure batter effectiveness? No.

This was another gem from the same paragraph last week:

Over the last three seasons, Stephen Drew (left) hit .264 with 45 homers and 192 RBIs, while older brother J.D. Drew hit .276 with 54 homers and 196 RBIs. Stephen made $1.5 million in 2009, while J.D. made $14 million . . .

Given my mild obsession with J.D. Drew and his treatment by the mainstream media and many fans, you can imagine this one got under my skin. Here's a portion of the email I sent Benjamin last weekend:

First of all, Stephen has not had a chance to be an unrestricted free agent. JD has. From the outset, it's an unfair comparison. JD also makes more money than Chase Utley and Joe Mauer and Jon Lester and Felix Hernandez - that's the CBA's fault, not JD's. But salaries aside, the brothers Drew are not comparable players...JD has walked 240 times since 2007, Stephen 150. JD's OBP is .390 since 2007, Stephen's .322. JD has slugged .485, Stephen .436. Stephen has made 289 more outs (albeit in 330 more plate appearances). Finally, J.D. is one of baseball's best RF according to UZR. Stephen has a spotty defensive record at SS. JD is just a way better player, a fact that might be lost on your readership given the way you framed your comment.

And now, this week, we get this from Cafardo:

Carlos Beltran and Adrian Beltre each has had 6,877 plate appearances. Beltre has 1,700 hits, Beltran has 1,705. Beltre has 348 doubles, Beltran 340. Beltran has struck out 1,086 times, Beltre 1,084 times. Beltre is a lifetime .270 hitter with 250 homers and 906 RBIs. Beltran is a lifetime .283 hitter with 273 homers and 1,035 RBIs.

All that's needed here is some context because even I find this to be interesting. Adrian Beltre and Carlos Beltran have similar names, the same amount of plate appearances and a number of similar statistics. A lead-in like this might work.

"While Beltran is a far better player, an excellent center fielder who gets on base way more often and steals bases prolifically and as efficiently as anyone in baseball, there are nonetheless statling and coincidental similarities between Beltran and new Red Sox 3B Adrian Beltre."

Ok maybe that's a run-on and I need an editor but you get the point. With just the excerpt published in the Globe, I can only imagine how many Red Sox fans think their new third baseman is every bit the player the Mets' center fielder is. Just to hammer this point home.

           PA     BB   SB   CS  Outs
Belran    6,877  730  286   38  4,556      
Beltre    6,877  478  111   38  4,837

Beltre is a nice player who should help the Red Sox a lot in 2010. Beltran is a few more good seasons away from having an excellent Hall of Fame case.

In fairness, writers like Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald and Benjamin have been doing a great job of articulating the meaning of more advanced defensive metrics for their local readership as the Red Sox have undergone their off-season makeover. But cherry picking certain statistics and presenting them as though they tell a story the way Cafardo and Benjamin have with Runs Produced, the Drew brothers comparison and now the Beltre/Beltran comparison, do a disservice to their sizeable audience.

Permalink | Comments (11)

I tend to think this medium is best left to its originators but I couldn't resist FJM'ing Dan Shaughnessy's latest "effort" for SI.com. It's so devoid of logic, so arrogant, so venomous towards those of us that like to think about the game, that I wanted to have a look at the column bit by bit and present it here at Baseball Analysts.

Fortunately, we expect the mood to pick up around here later today when the 2010 HOF class is announced. The latest BBTF vote tracker, through 118 ballots, has our guy Bert Blyleven trending above the 75% threshold. Let's cross our fingers.

Onto Shaughnessy...

===========

Baseball's 2010 Hall of Fame class will be announced on Wednesday, and I'm betting that Edgar Martinez comes up short in his first year of eligibility for Cooperstown. Edgar presents voters with a unique choice because he is the first candidate who compiled virtually all of his resume as a designated hitter.

This article is off to a great start. Edgar does present a tough choice. He didn't rack up a ton of plate appearances by Hall standards, and all of his value is derived from his hitting, so I am assuming we can anticipate an interesting discussion on just how good that hitter should be in order to be considered Hall-worthy as a DH.

In 18 seasons, all with the Seattle Mariners, Edgar batted .312 with an on-base percentage of .418 and a slugging percentage of .515. This makes him one of 20 players in hardball history with lifetime numbers over .300, .400 and .500, respectively. He has a higher on-base percentage than Stan Musial, Wade Boggs and Mel Ott. He is one of only eight players with 300 homers, 500 doubles and the aforementioned .300/.400/.500 line. He won a couple of batting titles and was an All-Star seven times.

Oh ok, I see where you’re going. Edgar is SO good as a hitter, that you probably have to put him in. .300/.400/.500 over a whole career is a pretty special accomplishment.

He stayed with the same team for his entire career, so there would be no controversy regarding which logo to put on his Hall cap.

Crisp writing. Way to stay on point. It's essential that we think about "Hall cap", particularly in the free agent era, as we decide which ballplayers merit consideration for the game’s most prestigious honor.

The Mariners have campaigned madly for Edgar and it pains me to withhold my vote, but I just can't bring myself to put him in Cooperstown alongside Ted Williams, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.

Nobody cares at all that it “pains” you, Dan. Nobody.

And you know what, nobody is asking you to put him alongside Williams, Ruth or Gehrig. They’re three of the absolute very best of all time. Put him alongside Kirby Puckett and Tony Perez.

If I squint here, I think Dan is saying he’s a “small hall” guy. That would be fine. It really would. A Hall of Fame that enshrines fewer players, as Sky demonstrated yesterday, would be great. But Dan, not only did you vote Jim Rice in, but you were like Chuck Norris to John McCain, touting Rice's candidacy at every opportunity for what seemed like a full decade. You can’t – CAN’T – be a “small hall” proponent and also advocate for baseball’s 258th best position player of all time. It’s a complete joke.

I have been a Hall voter for more than 25 years and it's the most important task assigned to the baseball writers of America. In recent years the Hall ballot has become heavier as voters are asked to make character judgments regarding players who may have padded their statistics with illegal and/or banned substances.

There's no problem with Edgar in this area. He was never tainted by the scourge of steroids, and he retired with an impeccable reputation, on and off the field.

Funny story: Tainted by the Scourge is actually the name of a Worcester garage band Dan followed around Central Massachusetts during his days at Holy Cross.

I just don't think he's a Hall of Famer, and that doesn't make him less than great. It doesn't take away his numbers. I like Dwight Evans, Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell and Andre Dawson, but I don't think they're Hall of Famers, either.

Oh, well ok. I happen to agree on all but Trammell (although I struggle badly with Dewey) but that's cool, sounds like you've been thoughtful about this. Interesting stuff. I’m eager to learn more about your thought process. These guys don't measure up to your standard and it's your ballot so hey, tell me about your standard.

Each Hall voter applies his own standards, and mine often references the famous line that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart applied to pornography. Stewart argued that he might not be able to define what was pornographic, "but I know it when I see it.''

/falls off chair

Indeed. Hall of Famers, just like pornography! Except, no. Just, no. You DON’T know it when you see it. Branch Rickey didn’t know it when he saw it. Robinson Cano LOOKS like a Hall of Famer to me. Sweet, powerful swing. Smooth and athletic in the field. But he’s not! He might yet become one, but I know he’s not because I can check his performance record and note that his does not stack up to others in the HOF. If I didn't know more about his numbers and that he hadn't played long enough, and I had the same standard of "knowing it when I see it" then I might conclude Cano was, right now, a Hall of Famer.

For me, it's the same with Hall of Famers. Some guys just strike you as Cooperstown-worthy and others do not. Edgar Martinez was a very fine hitter, but I never said to myself, "The Mariners are coming to Fenway this weekend. I wonder how the Sox are going to pitch to Edgar Martinez?''

YOU might not have said that but why don't you talk to Red Sox advance scouts? Because I am positive they agonized over it.

But there you have it, this is Dan’s standard. At this point, given how much we know about what makes a baseball player good, isn’t this just criminal. Isn’t this the very height of arrogance. Stat folks are often criticized for being arrogant themselves, but isn’t it the person that says “it is because I know it to be” who’s arrogant? Not the person who arrives at some sort of logical, objective and defensible conclusion based on reason?

I want to revisit a Bill James quote I used in a piece about Shaughnessy last year to reinforce this point:

"Virtually all sportswriters, I suppose, believe that Jim Rice is an outstanding player. If you ask them how they know this, they'll tell you that they just know; I've seen him play. That's the difference in a nutshell between knowledge and bullshit; knowledge is something that can be objectively demonstrated to be true, and bullshit is something that you just 'know.' If someone can actually demonstrate that Jim Rice is a great ballplayer, I'd be most interested to see the evidence."

Thanks, Bill! And great timing, because guess who Dan's going to bring up next?!?!

It was different with players like Eddie Murray and Jim Rice. They were feared. Murray got into Cooperstown in his first year of eligibility (thanks to 500 homers, no doubt), while it took Rice 15 years to finally get the required 75 percent of votes.

But what about Eddie Murray’s cap? So many teams!

Anyway, Murray and Rice were feared, but Edgar Martinez was not. That’s Shaughnessy’s point. Let's pretend this makes any sense at all - this "fear" stuff. The best way I can think to measure it is by the intentional walk.

Murray was walked intentionally 222 times (once every 57 plate appearances), an incredible figure. As a switch hitter who played for a very long time and had a ton of plate appearances, this isn’t too surprising. Beyond being a good hitter, Murray presented opposing managers late-inning bullpen match-up problems.

Edgar was intentionally walked 113 times (once every 77 plate appearances). Martinez hit in some stacked Mariner lineups though, with the likes of Ken Griffey, Jr., A-Rod, Jay Buhner, Tino Martinez, Paul Sorrento and others. It’s a respectable total, but one that was influenced downward by the excellent hitters surrounding Edgar. Remember, Roger Maris wasn’t walked intentionally once in 1961.

As for Rice, his career total of 77 intentional free passes (once every 118 plate appearances) places him tied for 180th all time. Among others, Geoff Jenkins and Terry Pendleton are tied with Rice.

So I would say it’s best not to use the “feared” argument at all, because once you start to investigate the claim in any meaningful way, you end up with a lot of information pulling you in different directions. Directions like the exact opposite one you're hoping for when you argue that Rice was a HOF'er because he was "feared."

Both were feared sluggers who spent a lot of time in the field before becoming DHs as elder statesmen.

But there you go again! With the “feared”! You just can’t help yourself! Why don’t we keep it simple? AVG/OBP/SLG – OPS+ - Plate Appearances

Murray: .287/.359/.476 – 129 – 12,817
Rice: .298/.352/.502 – 128 – 9,058
Edgar: .312/.418/.515 – 147 – 8,672

Ding Edgar for no defense. Ding him for not enough plate appearances, but good grief, admit he was a much, much better hitter than both Eddie Murray and Jim Rice!

This year I voted for Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris.

I guess that’s good. Two of the three are deserving but there are some glaring omissions.

Alomar goes down as one of the greatest second basemen of all time and was the best at his position for just about the entire time he played. This is his first year on the ballot and I think he'll be the top vote-getter in the class of 2010.

Sure, ok.

Blyleven has been on the ballot for 13 years and may come up short again, but he won 287 games, ranks fifth all-time in strikeouts and compiled a 3.31 ERA over 22 seasons, pitching for a lot of bad ball clubs.

Yeah, you got it.

Morris won 254 games in 18 seasons and pitched one of the greatest World Series games of all time, a 10-inning, 1-0 Game 7 victory over the Braves in 1991. There's already support for Boston blowhard Curt Schilling, who won't be on the ballot for another three years, but Morris has to get in before Schilling gets in. Morris was better.

We're going to pause here so that everyone can appreciate this. Jack Morris is better than Curt Schilling. Let that sink in for a moment.

Here’s a man who covers baseball for a living. Think of what you do for a living, how you have trained to come to understand what you need to in order to carry out your job well. How you strive to learn as much as you can so that you can perform to the best of your abilities.

And now ponder for a moment what it must be like to spend your career working in baseball, to laying claim to and having others bestow upon you some measure of expertise. And you assert that Jack Morris was better than Curt Schilling. I get Dan's schtick, but it's just so beyond the pale.

Curt Schilling was a career 127 ERA+ pitcher with a 4.38 K/BB ratio in 3,261 innings. Jack Morris was a career 105 ERA+ pitcher with a 1.78 K/BB ratio in 3,824 innings. The innings difference is not insignificant, but those innings amount to an additional 563 frames of 6.46 ERA ball. Like, two or three full seasons of Adam Eaton. If you place a lot of stock in peripherals, a stat like K/BB, then although Schilling might be lacking in longevity compared to other Hall performers, he is still one of the best of all time. Jack Morris is kind of like Livan Hernandez or Tim Wakefield.

As for their post-season performance, Morris was 7-4 with a career 3.80 ERA in the playoffs. Schilling was 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA.

Now, you’re a Sports Editor. You like Shaughnessy because he’s plucky and he attracts readers because he appeals to some segment of sports fans I'll never understand while irritating another segment. But at what point does self-respect come into play? At what point do you say to yourself, “Enough’s enough. It reflects too poorly on my organization and me professionally to continue to provide this guy a forum”? Does that point ever arrive? Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but with the likes of Joe Posnanski and Rob Neyer and Keith Law furthering their march into the mainstream, that day’s coming a lot sooner than Dan Shaughnessy may think. It's simply preposterous to lay any claim whatsoever to baseball expertise and simultaneously hold that Jack Morris was better than Curt Schilling. It's irreconcilable.

The toughest omissions this year were Dawson, Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff ... and Edgar.

But not Raines or Trammell. And certainly not McGwire, what with his taint of the scourge and all.

A lifetime .312 average is impressive and Edgar's OPS puts him in an elite class. But he wasn't a home run hitter (309), he couldn't carry a team, he didn't scare you, and (sorry) he rarely played defense. Edgar spent a couple of years at third for the M's in the early 1990s before taking over as full-time DH.

Two facts (a lifetime .312 average IS impressive, his OPS DOES put him in an elite class) and then meaningless and/or counter-factual assertions. He "wasn't a home run hitter" with "309" listed parenthetically. How does one amass 309 home runs without being a "home run hitter"?

"He couldn't carry a team." Good grief, well who can? 9 players HAVE to come to the plate! "He didn't scare you." He didn't scare who! You?! Why should he?! So dumb. So very dumb. Ask Andy Pettitte (career 1.132 OPS vs Edgar) or Bartolo Colon (1.049) or Chris Carpenter (1.183) if Edgar scared THEM!

The stat geeks, those get-a-lifers who are sucking all the joy out of our national pastime, no doubt will be able to demonstrate that Edgar was better than Lou Gehrig and Rogers Hornsby. I'm not buying. Stats don't tell the whole story. A man can drown in three feet of water.

Nope, nobody has said he was even close to as good as either of those players. And really, who sucks the joy out of baseball? The fan eager to enhance his or her understanding of the game or the sportswriter who trusts his eye/gut over any sort of elementary performance metics? Oh, hold on, I know, it's the third option; it's the writer who has built his career by being a know-nothing instigator. THAT guy sucks the joy out of the sport.

Edgar Martinez was a fine hitter and got on base a lot. But he was a corner infielder who didn't hit a lot of homers and then he became a guy who spent the majority of every game watching from the bench.

You know who else spends the majority of the games behind the bench? EVERY SINGLE PITCHER EVER VOTED INTO THE HALL OF FAME! But really, great point.

==========

Ok, that's done with. Hopefully Baseball Analysts readers for whom Rich Lederer's tireless work advocating for Bert Blyleven's candidacy has resonated can stop back later on today and we can all toast some good news. And to end on a positive note with Dan himself, given that he cast a vote for Bert, he will have had a hand in that potential bit of good news. So at least there's that!

Permalink | Comments (32)

Engage a J.D. Drew detractor, try and dissuade him, try and convince him Drew might be a good player, and the conversation will go something like this:

Supporter: J.D. Drew is very good at baseball.

Detractor: Drew is hurt all the time, doesn’t hit many home runs and doesn’t drive anybody in. What am I missing?

Supporter: Well, you’re missing that he is on base all the time, that he hits with quite a bit of power and that given the type of player he is, one that puts the ball in play more seldom than most, he’s bound to have smallish RBI totals. Also, he plays great defense.

Detractor: Fine, fine. Maybe it’s his demeanor that gets me. But you have to admit, he’s overpaid.

And it’s right about there that the legions of Drew supporters – and they’re out there – lose their energy. It seems we have arrived at a place on Drew where fans who think he’s not a very good player have come around on that front while the olive branch from the pro-J.D. side is to concede that Drew may be overpaid. To get a good sense for the mindset of the Drew detractor, check out this August piece from Bleacher Report. Keep in mind that Bleacher Report is all bloggy and of the intertubes and forward thinking and part of the future. Drew hate is not limited to the broadsheets and tabloids. Here’s a little taste:

The Red Sox are probably wishing that Victor Martinez was a right fielder so they could sit Drew and his $14 million salary for the rest of the season.

Instead the Red Sox will keep trotting Drew out to right field while Martinez will have to check the lineup everyday to see if he is catching, playing first base, DHing or sitting on the bench.

The Red Sox front office is probably counting the days till Drew’s contract ends in 2011. Until then they are liable for the $28 million they still owe Drew.

Drew and Boras are probably laughing all the way to the bank thinking of how they duped the Red Sox into thinking Drew would actually earn the money they are paying him.

This is nothing new, either. Here is something called JT the Brick responding to news of Drew’s signing in Boston:

Christmas has come early to every member of the Boston sports media as J.D. Drew has agreed to a new five-year, $70 million contract. There is no doubt in my mind that Drew will eventually get run out of Beantown by the Red Sox fans and several members of the media after they figure out what he is all about.

Drew comes to Boston as one of the most hated players in the modern history of the game and with a reputation as a player who always gets hurt and rarely smiles.

Boston sports media institution Bob Ryan wasted no time, saying to Theo Epstein on a conference call announcing the Drew acquisition, "“On behalf of an eager constituency, let’s hope the rumor is not true" before Epstein could even speak. Boston Dirt Dogs, in one of its characteristically bland posts lacking any sort of wit or creativity, described Drew's role this way:

Media Gathers In Anticipation of Press Conference to Introduce the Man Who Would Replace Trot Nixon at Five Times the Salary

Oh, how Steve Silva loves him some Trot Nixon. Anyway, you see the point. Many do not like J.D. Drew. Those who concede he might be decent at baseball will complain of his injuries or how much money he makes. That he's hit .276/.390/.485 since joining the Red Sox, or that he's a terrific defensive player, are no matter.

I imagine those reading this are familiar with the Fangraphs practice of assigning a dollar value to each Win Above Replacement (WAR). Baseball Analysts’ Sky Andrecheck has his own methodology as well. Dave Cameron at Fangraphs has already addressed the question of whether or not Drew is overpaid (he's not). This piece will not set out to determine whether or not Drew was worth the money per se – that discussion is subject to countless variables which are specific to individual team needs and budgets, and even how one assigns a dollar value to a player's performance.

Instead, we will just have a look at how his performance has stacked up against the other free agents in his class. After all, given the CBA, there is no sense in comparing Drew to a pre-arb player like Matt Kemp or guys who have never been unrestricted like Matt Holliday or Albert Pujols. By the same token, it’s not fair to evaluate Boston’s choice to ink Drew to a 5-year, $70M contract by pointing out cheaper players that might have put up comparable value. Unrestricted free agents are paid differently, and we should evaluate Drew vis-a-vis this peer group in determining to what extent he has “earned” his money. The Red Sox needed an outfielder heading into the 2007 season, had nobody they felt could fill the role internally and did not wish to make a trade. They turned to the free agent market.

So let’s see how Drew compares to his 2006-2007 free agent class. Then we can assess whether the Red Sox made a good decision, and if Drew has held up his end of the bargain. We will start first with a look at every free agent that signed a contract for a total value of more than $9.5 million in the off-season preceding the 2007 campaign. For Kei Igawa and Daisuke Matsuzaka, I have included posting fees in their respective total contract values. "Duration" is in years and "Total $" in millions of dollars.

Player	        POS    Duration	  Total $ Value
Soriano, A.	OF	  8	       136
Zito, B.	SP	  7            126
Matsuzaka, D.	SP	  6	       103.1
Lee, C. 	OF        6            100
Ramirez, A.	3B	  5	        75
Drew, J.D.	OF        5     	70
Meche, Gil	SP        5     	55
Matthews, Jr.	OF	  5     	50
Schmidt, J.	SP        3	        47
Igawa, K.	SP	  5	        46
Pierre, J.	OF        5      	44
Suppan, J.	SP	  4	        42
Lilly, T.	SP	  4	        40
Lugo, J.	SS	  4	        36
Padilla, V.	SP	  3	        33.75
Batista, M.	SP        3	        25
Eaton, A.	SP	  3	        24.5
Mussina, M.	SP	  2	        23
Marquis, J.	SP	  3             21
Huff, A.	1B        3     	20
Edmonds, J. 	OF        2             19
Baez, D.        RP        3             19
Garciaparra, N.	1B	  2	        18.5
Thomas, F.	DH	  2	        18.12
Roberts. D.	OF        3	        18
Speier, J.	RP        4	        18
Molina, B.	C	  3	        16
Pettitte, A.	SP	  1	        16
Bonds, B.	OF        1	        15.8
Gonzalez, Alex	SS	  3	        14
Durham Ray	2B        2             14
DeRosa, Mark	3B        3	        13
Catalanotto, F.	OF	  3	        13
Mulder, Mark	SP	  2	        13
Williams, W.	SP	  2	        12.5
Hernandez, O.	SP        2	        12
Walker, J.	RP	  3	        12
Dellucci, D.	OF	  3	        11.5
Schoenweis, S.	RP        3             10.8
Bradford, C.	RP	  3	        10.5
Glavine, T.	SP	  1	        10.5
Maddux, G.	SP        1	        10
Kennedy, A.	2B	  3	        10
Payton, J.	OF	  2	         9.5

Prior to the 2007 season, Drew signed the 6th richest free agent contract as reflected by total value over the life of the deal. Bob Ryan was aghast. I recall LA Times columnist T.J. Simers booked solid for a full week on Boston sports radio to rail against Drew.

I want to frame Drew's relative value as clearly as I can here, so I will next present a list of players who have provided negative or no value at all - replacement level value or worse - over the life of their respective deals signed. Let's try and contextualize the term overpaid as it relates to Major League Baseball players for folks like JT the Brick. We will use Fangraphs' Wins Above Replacement to measure on-field contribution.

Player     POS  Duration  Total $   WAR since '07
Schoenweis  RP	   3	   10.8	        -1.5
Dellucci    OF	   3	   11.5	        -1.5
Matthews    OF	   5	    50	        -1.1
Walker      RP	   3        12	        -0.6
Baez        RP	   3	    19	        -0.5
Mulder      SP	   2	    13	        -0.4
Igawa       SP	   5	    46	        -0.2
Speier      RP	   4	    18	        -0.2
Garciaparra 1B	   2	   18.5	        -0.2
Williams    SP	   2	   12.5	        -0.1
Roberts     OF	   3	    18	        -0.1
Catalanotto OF	   3	    13	        -0.1
Schmidt     SP	   3	    47  	 0
Eaton  	    SP	   3	   24.5          0

That's $313.8 million (!) paid out to players that have provided less value than your typical AAAA Minor League veteran kicking around just about any organization. You see that list right above this paragraph? THOSE guys are overpaid. Prior to the 2007 season, Ned Colletti saw fit to guarantee Nomar Garciaparra $18.5 million, in part to replace the offense J.D. Drew had provided. The Nomar deal was a masterstroke in comparison to his signing of Jason Schmidt. The Dodgers had decided they did not want to try and re-sign Drew once he decided he wanted to exercise his opt-out. Said Colletti:

"He wants out, he can have out. He's moving on, we're moving on. We'll find players who like playing here. If he doesn't want to be here, he has the right to leave, and he's exercising that right."

But Drew didn't necessarily want to leave Los Angeles. He just wanted more guaranteed money, and had every right to exercise the option in his contract. Here's Drew's agent, Scott Boras from the same ESPN article:

"J.D. was very happy in Los Angeles. He liked the players. He liked the team. & He's not opposed to going back," Boras said. "We let the Dodgers know we're interested in returning and discussing a new contract. Obviously, it was something we had to do in free agency."

Bill Plaschke chimed in:

Losing J.D. Drew is the best thing to happen to the Dodgers since they lost Milton Bradley...

They can take the $33 million that he just dropped in their pockets -- $11 million annually -- and use it to get stronger and tougher and better.

So instead of entertaining re-signing Drew, how did the Dodgers address their roster prior to the 2007 campaign? They dished out $109.5 million to Nomar, Schmidt and Juan Pierre, three players who contributed a combined 3.4 wins in three seasons. You don't need to be Tom Tango or Sky Andrecheck to figure out that $32 million per win is not great value.

Ok, so we know there were a bunch of atrocious contracts handed out in the 2006-2007 off-season, by the Dodgers and plenty of other teams, so right off the bat we know Drew is going to be looking better than those that provided negative or no value. Well what if we set aside money for a moment and just try and assess who the best players of that class have been since the beginning of the 2007 season?

Player     POS  Duration  Total $   WAR since '07
Ramirez     3B	   5	    75	        12.3
Meche       SP     5        55          10.9
Drew        OF     5        70          10.3
Lilly       SP     4        40          10.0
Mussina     SP     2        23           8.2
DeRosa      IF     3        13           8.1
Soriano     OF     8       136           8.0
Matsuzaka   SP     6       103           7.7
Marquis     SP     2        21           7.3

If WAR is to be believed, J.D. Drew has been the third most productive player of his class since 2007, just behind Gil Meche and a ways behind Aramis Ramirez, who is just a terrific baseball player. Since we know he signed the sixth largest contract that off-season, checking in as the third most productive player suggests Drew has offered the Red Sox considerable value. To distill his peer group even further, how about we look at other outfielders, this time with a cost per win calculation included.

Player	Duration Total $  WAR	$ per win
Bonds	    1	  15.8	  3.9	4.05
Drew	    5	  70	  10.3	4.07
Lee	    6	  100	  9.2	5.43
Pierre	    5	  44	  3.6	7.33
Edmonds	    2	  19	  1.9	10.00
Payton	    2	  9.5	  0.7	13.57
Dellucci    3	  11.5	 -1.5	NA
Matthews    5	  50	 -1.1	NA
Roberts     3	  18	 -0.1	NA
Catalanotto 3	  13	 -0.1	NA

This list tells us that, outside of Barry Bonds and the one-year deal he signed in his last season, no team that signed a free agent outfielder before the 2007 season has enjoyed a better bargain on a per-season basis than the Red Sox have in paying for Drew's services.

Successfully negotiating the free agent market is a critical component of Major League Baseball roster composition. You can promote from within your organization, you can make a splashy trade, you can lock up your pre-arb players and buy out a year or two of their free agency. But you also must dabble in the free agent market in order to assemble a championship caliber club. Given this fact of life for MLB General Managers, it is useful to evaluate the "value" of a certain deal vis-a-vis other free agents and more specifically, other free agents that were available that year. Supply matters when evaluating value. And if you think of the J.D. Drew contract in this light, not only has his contract turned out to be a worthwhile one for the Red Sox, but it's been a full-fledged bargain.

Permalink | Comments (6)

Cameron, while not as big a star as Lackey, is a top-tier defensive outfielder who has some power and can steal a base. General manager Theo Epstein did overdo it with the superlatives, saying, “He’ll get his 20 to 25 home runs every year, play outstanding defense, sees a lot of pitches at the plate. We just think he’s an underrated offensive player.”

Well . . . no. He is not an underrated player. He is a guy who does hit 20-25 home runs a year, and who has a career .250 batting average and .340 on-base percentage. Offensively, he’s rated right where he should be: Average.

-Steve Buckley in the December 17 Boston Herald

You could force Steve Buckley to stare at that second paragraph for hours on end, just have him read it over and over, and the irony would not hit him. Yes, Mike Cameron has a career .250 batting average and yes he has a career .340 on-base percentage. If you choose not to take the time to understand more about his specific skill-set or you decide to ignore context, then sure, Cameron will look as though he's been an average offensive player to you. What's great about Buckley presenting those stats as his evidence that Cameron is average and not underrated is that it's precisely BECAUSE of those (and other) numbers that Cameron IS underrated.

Cameron's career OPS+ is 107, comfortably above average. 7 center fielders eclipsed the mark in 2009, 10 in 2008, 7 in 2007. wRC+ paints an even better picture, as it takes into account stolen bases and appropriately weights on-base versus slugging. His career 114 mark is better than Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon or Joe Carter. Think Buckley would refer to any of those three as "average"?

Like his new teammate JD Drew, Cameron does not put the ball in play as often as most big league hitters. Since 1999, only Jim Thome has struck out more times. Over that same time period, however, Cameron ranks 21st in bases on balls, ahead of Damon, Carlos Beltran, Derrek Lee and Derek Jeter. Not bad at all, but also not the skill set that will grab the attention of the Steve Buckleys of the world.

Finally, Cameron has toiled for much of his career in Safeco and Petco and Shea, tough hitters parks all. Mike Cameron may turn out to be merely average in 2010. He is 37 now, after all. But with Buckley making the case simply by highlighting Cameron's career batting average and on base, I thought some additional context and reasoning were in order.

Permalink | Comments (1)

“We talked about this a lot at the end of the year, that we’re kind of in a bridge period,’’ he said. “We still think that if we push some of the right buttons, we can be competitive at the very highest levels for the next two years. But we don’t want to compromise too much of the future for that competitiveness during the bridge period, but we all don’t want to sacrifice our competitiveness during the bridge just for the future. So we’re just trying to balance both those issues.’’

-Theo Epstein, as excerpted in Amalie Benjamin's December 9th Boston Globe report

John Henry and Theo Epstein are preparing you for the Big Slide. While they continue to raise ticket prices and drain every dollar out of Fenway, they are telling you to put your expectations on the shelf. No more “championship-driven’’ campaign for your Red Sox. The Sox are building a “bridge’’ for the future. They are giving up on competing with those big, bad Yankees.

-Dan Shaughnessy, December 10th Globe column

The Sox still need a couple of bats. They still need one or two guys like Jason Bay, Matt Holliday, Adrian Gonzalez, or Miguel Cabrera. But Boston’s loyal fans should be happy that the Sox are spending money and going for Lackey. It demonstrates that the brass is still trying to compete with the Yankees, still willing to commit big dollars in the quest for a championship.

-Dan Shaughnessy, December 15th in the Globe after Boston reportedly added John Lackey and Mike Cameron

Boston was due for a good old-fashioned Red Sox media sh*tstorm. After all, things have been pretty quiet over years around here. What is there to say about a team that has qualified for the playoffs in six of the past seven seasons, including two World Series titles and two ALCS Game 7 losses? There are only so many times the fan base can bitch about J.D. Drew when the team they're rooting for is winning 60% of the time. But, you know, Theo Epstein had the audacity to use the word "bridge" and if you think Dan Shaughnessy was going to show any sort of restraint or understanding or maturity or sobriety in handling that remark, well, you're not a Boston sports journalism enthusiast.

If you read the first quote above, it's pretty evident what Theo was saying. The Red Sox front office is really excited over their low-minors talent and, according to John Sickels, with good reason. Having graduated Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, Jonathan Papelbon, Dustin Pedroia, Jacoby Ellsbury, Daniel Bard and others over the last few seasons, the high-minors cupboard, understandably, is looking somewhat bare. This means that the Red Sox need to be thoughtful about how they operate as they look to link up their current core to the 2011 and 2012 ETA's.

Maybe he could have worded Boston's situation differently or better anticipated the backlash that might ensue from the word "bridge" (really, you can't imagine how up in arms folks here were over the comment), but all Epstein said was that he would not compromise the Red Sox bright future for short-term gains. There would be no ridiculous package being sent away for Roy Halladay, no long-term free agent signing that might hamper the team down the road and/or block a better, cheaper option that might emerge in 2011 or 2012. While Shaughnessy might prefer a press conference jointly announcing the additions of Matt Holliday, Jason Bay, Adrian Gonzalez, Lackey, Cameron, Halladay, Jim Rice, Nick Esasky and a new book deal for a certain curly haired Boston scribe, as a fan, I'm thankful for Epstein's approach.

With regard to the third quote listed above, let's leave aside for a moment that Shaughnessy convinced himself that Boston's brass succumbed to pressure he applied in the December 10th column. Rather, let's focus on his assertion that, even after the additions of Lackey and Cameron, Boston needs "one or two guys like Jason Bay, Matt Holliday, Adrian Gonzalez, or Miguel Cabrera." The specific contention is obviously nuts - that a team that won 95 games last year and just added two very good baseball players NEEDS two of the 20 best hitters in the game - but I think a more tempered iteration might go something like this; "Who's gonna hit for this team?". It's a fair question.

Offensively, replacing Bay with Mike Cameron will hurt. Bay hit .274/.380/.534 as a Red Sox, while Cameron turns 37 soon and has managed a .350 on-base just once in the last eight seasons. Mike Lowell hit .290/.337/.474 in 2009, a batting line his replacement in the 2010 Red Sox lineup at this point, Casey Kotchman, will in all likelihood struggle to match. Kevin Youkilis will be 31 and is coming off of a career year. Will Drew be able to play 137 games again? You get the picture. There are some questions surrounding the Red Sox offense.

There also is some good news. Marco Scutaro, however much regression you factor in for him coming off of a career year in 2009, will serve as an upgrade at shortstop. In 2009, Red Sox shortstops combined to hit just .235/.297/.358. In addition, Victor Martinez will play a full season in a Red Sox uniform. Most of that time will be behind the plate, but the Red Sox also have a nifty little platoon option at their disposal. Jason Varitek, who OPS'd .807 against southpaws last year, could move Victor to first base against lefties, spell Kotchman and give Martinez a break from behind the dish. Thankfully, CHONE projects significant improvement for David Ortiz.

Losing Bay is a big hit, so you net it all out and I think we can expect some regression for the Red Sox offense. The question is, does it matter? Wins are wins, and if you can make up for a spotty offense with top-notch pitching and defense, maybe you can keep enough runs off the board to grade out as a better overall team. So let's look at the run prevention side of the ledger for the Red Sox.

In looking at the offense, we started with swapping Bay out for Cameron so we'll start there defensively, too. As David Cameron's prescient analysis pointed out, the gap in their defensive ability makes up for Bay's significant edge at the plate. If UZR is to be trusted, the Red Sox could be looking at a 20-run defensive improvement simply by playing Cameron instead of Bay. Cameron's been one of the best outfielders in the game over the last decade. Bay is one of baseball's very worst.

Elsewhere on the defensive side, Mike Lowell and Jacoby Ellsbury showed as two of the worst defensive players in baseball last season. Kevin Youkilis should be an upgrade over Lowell while Ellsbury, whether he is in left field or center, figures to improve considerably. There seems to be a consensus out there that his 2009 defensive performance was anomalous. Even if the Red Sox decided not to make one change on their pitching staff, by virtue of defensive improvements alone, I think the Red Sox might have made up for their lost offensive output.

But of course the Red Sox HAVE made changes to the pitching staff. Cliff Corcoran summed it up nicely in his recent piece for SI.com:

The Red Sox rotation behind Jon Lester and Josh Beckett struggled mightily in 2009. In the 98 games not started by Lester or Beckett this past season, Red Sox starters went 36-36 with a 5.40 ERA, and 1.57 WHIP. With Clay Buchholz having emerged as a legitimate mid-rotation starter in August and Daisuke Matsuzaka having made a strong comeback in mid-September, the Red Sox already had hope for improvement in their rotation heading into 2010, but the addition of Lackey, easily the best starting pitcher in a weak free agent market, ramps that improvement up from modest to drastic.

If you want a model for how the Red Sox can succeed without "one or two guys like Jason Bay, Matt Holliday, Adrian Gonzalez, or Miguel Cabrera", just look to 2007. Listed below are where the Red Sox ranked in 2007 and 2009 in a bunch of different offensive and defensive categories.

      RS  OPS+  RA  ERA+  DER  BABIP  UZR
2007   3   3     1    1    1     2     4
2009   3   3     3    3   13    14     7

*DER is Defensive Efficiency Rating, BABIP is batting average on balls in play, UZR is ultimate zone rating.

With their pitching and defense improvements, the Red Sox look like the 2007 run prevention unit once again. Fans waiting for the other shoe to drop in the form of a deal for Adrian Gonzalez might be disappointed, but the Red Sox could wrap for the off-season, take this team to Fort Myers and have every reason to believe they will once again be in the thick of things. If their offense can hold somewhat steady from 2009 to 2010, the pitching and defense improvements should be more than enough to help them blow right through their annual goal of 95 wins.

Permalink | Comments (8)

Like others I had no idea what Josh Byrnes might have been thinking when I first heard of yesterday's trade. Now, I'll admit it, I am no longer as appalled by the deal from the Diamondbacks' perspective as many of the writers and analysts I have seen. Arizona gave up Max Scherzer, a power pitcher with a longstanding history of arm troubles. As Keith Law noted in his write-up, it's likely that Scherzer will one day soon transition to the bullpen due to ongoing injury issues. He should be a good reliever, but not only could the D-Backs afford to give up a player who projects out as a quality 70-inning guy, but they absolutely should have. They gave up Dan Schlereth as well, a live-armed lefty whose limited performance record in pro baseball hasn't told us much about what he figures to become. We know he has a good arm, we know he struggled some in 2009 with Arizona.

In return, the Diamondbacks get two starters they hope to run out 30 times or so in 2010. Edwin Jackson is not as good as his 2009 performance might suggest, but he now transitions from the AL to the NL. Ask Brad Penny and John Smoltz how that worked out. While Scherzer might be more talented, Jackson should be able to offer more quality innings and quality starts over the next two seasons. In Ian Kennedy, Arizona receives a player who has dominated Minor League ball and struggled in spot Major League action. There's plenty still to like about Kennedy, and his return from a freak 2009 injury should not be much of an issue.

In the end this deal comes down to a relatively new and key performance projection factor, or what's often referred to as a player's "medicals" or "meds". Arizona might think they have a ticking time-bomb in Scherzer, while their diligence on Jackson and Kennedy (both with durability questions of their own) indicates they now have a couple of work-horses. If that's the case, with Brandon Webb back in the fold and Dan Haren taking the hill every 5th game, the Diamondbacks now have a nice little rotation. Whether the haul was maximized or not, at the very least, I don't think folks should be as dismissive of Arizona's decision to try and retrieve value elsewhere for Scherzer.

Oh, and yeah, the Yankees did great to acquire Curtis Granderson.

Permalink | Comments (6)

Any news is big news for Red Sox fans, and so yesterday when it was announced that prized farmhand Casey Kelly would pitch full-time and give up his career as a shortstop, reporters pounced. The Boston Globe and Boston Herald were quick to post stories. Twitter was abuzz.

Last night, I offered my two cents on my Twitter feed:

Big news for #redsox today: Casey Kelly chooses pitching. Elsewhere, Martin Brodeur remains goalie & NOT moving to forward.

I understand reporters have to cover these sorts of things - nothing at all against Amalie Benjamin or John Tomase. Benjamin's report, loaded with quotes from Red Sox Minor League infield instructor Gary DiSarcina, was terrific. The joke lies in the extent to which the writing was on the wall for Kelly. He could have continued at shortstop for part of the year if he wished. A bigtime recruit to play quarterback for the University of Tennessee, Kelly's ability to return to play college football offered him leverage even as the Sox urged him to focus on his pitching.

But just look at his numbers. He's a career .219/.282/.336 hitter in the Minors. Meanwhile, as a hurler, he has flashed command well beyond his years. It's no secret just how great the Red Sox brass thinks Kelly can be. At first glance, his 74 strikeouts in 95 professional innings pitched might underwhelm a bit. But when you consider he was 19 splitting the season between the Sally and Carolina leagues and sported a 4.63 K/BB, you can start to appreciate what the Red Sox see. For context, the list of Major League pitchers who were able to post a 4.63 K/BB in at least 95 innings in 2009 consisted of Zack Greinke, Javier Vazquez, Dan Haren and Roy Halladay.

We all have to make choices in our careers that shape how our professional lives play out. Yesterday Casey Kelly made a smart (and obvious) career move.

Permalink | Comments (2)

The Chicago Cubs have an outfielder who tends to miss games due to injury, flashes brilliance, makes a lot of money and struggles with his attitude from time to time. His name is Alfonso Soriano. He turns 34 in January. In the last two seasons, Soriano has managed to hit just .260/.323/.476 in 226 games played. His defense in left field is suspect. Few players in baseball enjoy more job security.

Milton Bradley had an off year in 2009. With a career .450 slugging percentage and coming off of a career high .563 number in 2008, you can understand why Cubs fans were frustrated with Bradley's lack of power. Still, Bradley managed a .378 on-base percentage and netted out as an asset to the club on the field. He wasn't worth his contract in 2009, but he helped the Cubs win baseball games more than he hurt them. The Cubs cannot say that same thing of Soriano's 2009 season. Yet, probably because he has a more favorable contract and dozens of other reasons beyond me, by all accounts, the Cubs seem determined to move Bradley and not Soriano.

When the Cubs acquired Bradley after his career season in 2008, they knew precisely what they were getting. They knew he had the ability to get on base and hit with a lot of pop if he could stay on the field. Anything approaching his 2008 campaign could have put them over the top. They also knew of his past. They knew he was emotional and complex. They also knew he was sincere. Here's Jim Hendry at the announcement of Bradley's signing:

"As we left the restaurant and stood on the curb waiting for the driver ... [Bradley] said, 'I know it's going to take some time and you have some work to do, but I want to be a Chicago Cub if you want me,'" Hendry said.

Hendry was moved by this. So much so, that he felt comfortable looking past Bradley's occasional meltdown and offering him a lucrative multi-year offer.

And here's Bradley:

"I don't feel like everybody is against me anymore," Bradley said. "I really felt like that in the past, and that I had to watch my back about everything, and I learned you have to trust somebody at some point. In Oakland, I had great teammates [and in] San Diego, Texas. Once I got around good guys who all they wanted to do was support and play with you and be a friend, I felt that love. Anybody, all they want is to be loved.

"My whole life all I tried to do was fit in places. I felt like I finally fit. Getting elected to the All-Star team last year by the players was a complete honor. A lot of that changed me. I just felt more comfortable being more open and letting people know who I am."

So there it is. He wants to be loved. When he hasn't felt "loved" in the past, he has reacted very poorly at the first signs of adversity. No question, Bradley bears responsibility for all of his past transgressions, but he also has shown that in an environment of acceptance and happiness, he can thrive. But at this point, at 31, Bradley is a known quantity.

When an employer looks to add to its workforce, it's hiring criteria rests on two components: ability and fit. Ability is straightforward. Does he/she interview well? How's the resume? Can they sell? Can they program? Are they innovative marketers? You get the point.

Fit is a bit more complicated. In a hands-off environment, can the individual thrive autonomously? In a more micro-managed organization, will the prospective employee be able to conform? The calculus runs deeper still. If the fit is there, maybe you make tweaks in your style. Maybe you have a candidate that could make such an impact, you decide it's appropriate to handle that employee differently than others. On the other hand, maybe the individual's working style and personality align so perfectly with your organizational culture that you can look past a mediocre resume or lackluster interview.

In this regard, in the Human Resources department, the Cubs failed miserably with either their acquisition of Milton Bradley or their subsequent handling. Either they knew that they would have to go to great lengths to make him comfortable once they brought him on board and just failed, or they signed him thinking he would be an excellent fit. It's impossible to know.

It's not too late. Imagine the impact a press conference from the Winter Meetings in Indianapolis would have if the Cubs, with Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella at the podium, said something to the following effect:

In January of this year, we acquired one of the very best players in baseball in 2008. He failed to meet our expectations on the field in 2009, he failed to meet his own expectations as well. We also think that we could have done a better job of fostering a productive environment for Milton. In 2010, that all changes. We cannot wait to welcome Bradley back to the Chicago Cubs. We urge our fans to do the same.

There is no way to know what kind of impact this would have on Bradley's play, but I know this approach would be better than eating salary and trying to pass him off for pennies on the dollar. Moreover, instead of handing Soriano a lineup spot for 2010, at least take other teams' temperature on him as well. I recognize his contract is far more burdensome than Bradley's - he's owed $18M annually through 2014 - but spilled milk is spilled milk. And Soriano is far more problematic for the Cubs than Bradley is.

Bradley is younger than Soriano, projections (at least CHONE) have him looking like a good bet to outperform Soriano, and the market for Bradley is thin thanks to teams appropriately questioning whether Bradley would make for a good fit. In this light, the Cubs would be smarter to try and move Soriano at all costs than they would be trying to move Bradley.

Permalink | Comments (4)

As a number of readers know, I am from Boston and a lifelong Red Sox fan. I also have married into a family of Cubs fans and so, in the spirit of concentrating on those things I feel I am most knowledgeable and passionate about, you will likely start to see the focus of the Wednesday Change-Up column narrow. Just as it did over this past weekend, more and more of my writing will center on the Red Sox and Cubbies. And to continue the theme, I thought I would look at the Hall candidacy of Andre Dawson, a Cub for six seasons and a Red Sox for two.

Joe Posnanski and more recently, Keith Law, presented arguments representing where I come down on the issue. This is not uncharted territory. Wrote Posnanski:

Dawson got on base less often than the average major leaguer of his time. That's just a very tough thing to overlook.

To counter that thinking, Ken Rosenthal has led a group of writers who contend that you can't blame Hawk for not getting on base more; that it was well within his skill set to get on base more often (the same argument was made for Jim Rice, by the way). I thought Law dealt with that line of reasoning nicely:

Yes, you will hear the argument that the value of OBP wasn't recognized during Dawson's career to the extent that it is today and that he shouldn't be penalized for it. But OBP measures how often a hitter doesn't make an out, and if you think that players, coaches and executives in the 1970s and 1980s didn't realize that making outs was bad, you are saying that people in the game in that era were, collectively, a giant box of rocks.

I would take Keith's point further. Whatever the conventional wisdom of the time, outs have always mattered the same. Each out brings you 1/27th of the way closer to the last chance for your team to score runs. That was the case in 1908, in 1946, in 2009 and certainly in 1985. Avoid outs, runners advance, runs score. It's that simple. Make outs and the club is that much closer to running out of chances to score.

Very few players managed to produce outs as prolifically as Dawson did during his career. On Baseball-Reference's Play Index, I ran a list of players who had at least 8,000 plate appearances during Hawk's playing days, 1976 to 1996. They are sorted by the number of outs made. Plenty of interesting tidbits leap off the screen but for our purposes here, let me compare Dawson to three Hall of Famers, as that seems to be the standard we should be concerned with.

During Dawson's playing career, Paul Molitor came up to the plate 235 more times than Dawson. Despite this, Dawson managed 391 more outs than Molitor. Put another way, Dawson managed this despite Molitor playing in what would amount to 50 full games more than Dawson, which would give Molitor a good 150-out head start on Hawk if you consider Molitor's career outs-per-PA numbers. Dawson managed to make up the 541-out difference. If you accept the commonly held calculation that an out is worth about -0.27 runs, then those outs Hawk gave back were worth about 146 runs, or 14-15 wins.

What about Robin Yount? He had 509 more plate appearances than Dawson between 1976 and 1996. That's about a season's worth of PA's for a platoon player or maybe a regular who does a 60-day DL stint (insert J.D. Drew jokes here). During that time, he made just 21 more outs than Dawson. How valuable would a guy that manages a .959 on-base percentage in 509 plate appearances be for a club? Let's not even give Yount credit for any hitting or power, and just assume those are all walks. With the run value of a walk at 0.30 and keeping with the -0.27 value of an out, Yount's mini-season (stretched out over 20 years of course), would be worth about 140 runs or, again, about 14 wins.

The crazy part about the Yount and Molitor cases is that, even though both were excellent players, neither was off the charts in terms of their ability to get on base. So what about someone like Rickey Henderson? Between '76 and '96, Henderson had 418 fewer plate appearances. So, in fairness, Dawson had 418 more chances to make outs than Rickey. But Dawson made 990 more outs. To put that into perspective, let's do this. Give Hawk back the 418 more chances to even up the plate appearances. We will forgive him that brutal 0-for-418 stretch that any player can go through. That still leaves him with 572 more outs. It would be as though in his 1985 season, when Dawson had 570 plate appearances, he made nothing but outs. Which, now that I look at it, he didn't come too far from doing given his paltry .295 on-base percentage that year.

You get the picture. Hawk's case amounts to counting up a bunch of numbers. He had 2,774 hits, 438 home runs, almost 1,600 RBI, 8 Gold Gloves, etc. That's fine. If you want to ignore a critical rate statistic like Dawson's .323 on-base and focus on the counting stats, then at least be thorough and consider ALL of the relevant counting statistics. Because those 7,479 outs sure stick out for me.

Permalink | Comments (7)

Bob Ryan took to the pages of the Boston Globe yesterday to list Alex Gonzalez's departure for Toronto as the latest in a series of shortstop mishandlings by Red Sox General Manager Theo Epstein. The logic seems to go something like this: Gonzalez suits my eye when I watch him field a baseball. He even hits a little bit. Theo has no credibility on shortstops. Therefore Gonzalez should have been retained.

But let's be perfectly clear on Alex Gonzalez. He's one of the very worst hitters in Major League Baseball and has been for a number of years running. He's now 33 years-old, and while his solid glove has made him as good as an average player or so in his best seasons, there is no reason for a championship-aspirant club to simply hand such a mediocrity the role. Not with Jed Lowrie in the fold, and not with Marco Scutaro very much available. Here's the class of hitter Gonzalez finds himself in, presented in a table of the worst hitters since 2005 as measured by OPS+ (min 1700 PA's):

But in fairness to Gonzalez, we should incorporate fielding into our analysis, something we can easily do thanks to Fangraphs' Wins Above Replacement (WAR) statistic. For a direct comparison to Scutaro, consider that in Gonzalez's two best seasons were 2.8 and 2.5 in 2003 and 2007 respectively. On the other hand, Scutaro, in his first two seasons as a full-timer in 2008 and 2009, averaged 3.6 Wins. Even if Scutaro should sign with Seattle or Texas or the Dodgers, Sean Smith projects Lowrie at .249/.334/.385 to Gonzalez's .249/.291/.374. Like Gonzalez, Lowrie has held up quite well with the glove at shortstop.

I feel for Bob Ryan and his loyal followers that they will have to wait for Gonzalez's number retirement ceremony to welcome their hero back to Fenway. But in the meantime, trust me, the Red Sox will be just fine without Alex Gonzalez.

Permalink

Coming off consecutive NL Central crowns, 97 wins in 2008, and with bigtime acquisitions like Rich Harden and Milton Bradley set to be in the fold for a full season, Chicago Cubs fans had every reason to believe that the 2009 edition of their club could finally end their century-old title drought. Then the Cardinals started hot, the Cubs suffered some injuries, good players did not play to their potential and before long, it was evident that 2009 was going to be anything but the Cubs' year.

Human nature compels us to identify and address problems. It also compels us to shield ourselves from external criticism. Action, therefore, trumps inaction. "Do something" and fail, heck, at least you tried. As the Cubs look to rebound from their disappointing 2009, the boys in the buffet line smell blood. Milton Bradley must go, say the mainstream baseball commentariat. "He's too volatile." "They need to just release him." But you know how the old saying goes, "If you're taking your player personnel cues from Jon Heyman, Jay Mariotti and Phil Rogers, you've already forfeited any hope for 85 wins." Or something like that.

Barring exceptional opportunities in the trade or free agent markets and outside of some run-of-the-mill year-to-year tinkering, Cubs GM Jim Hendry should more or less stand pat this off-season. He returns a top-notch pitching staff, and has a stable of bats ready to bounce back from down years. Let's look at the Cubs hitting in 2009 and compare it to how Sean Smith's CHONE projection system sees them in 2010. If you are skeptical of such improvement up and down the lineup, remember the unit that could only muster a team OPS+ of 88 in 2009 had the second best figure - 102 - in 2008. Coming off one of the finest years of his career, only Derrek Lee figures to regress.

               2009                   2010
          AVG  OBP  SLG          AVG  OBP  SLG
Soto     .218 .320 .382   Soto  .265 .354 .456
Lee      .306 .390 .579   Lee   .283 .363 .485
Cubs 2B  .254 .310 .357  Fntnot .260 .329 .397
Theriot  .286 .346 .372  Thriot .280 .350 .367
Cubs 3B  .278 .352 .466  Ramirz .291 .361 .504
Cubs LF  .240 .304 .414  Sriano .259 .312 .471
Cubs CF  .260 .358 .417  Fukdme .258 .363 .403
Cubs RF  .264 .373 .412  Bradly .275 .383 .461

On the pitching side, Chicago's 117 team ERA+ trailed only the San Francisco Giants in 2009. They return Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly, Ryan Dempster, Randy Wells and Tom Gorzelanny. They may miss Harden, the electric righty whose stuff can dominate when he manages good enough health to take the mound. But his high walk-rate and tendency to give up the long ball make him dispensable. Kudos to Hendry for not feeling as though he needed to retain Harden. In limited action last season, both Sean Marshall and Gorzelanny outpitched him.

Since any GM needs always to prioritize improving the club, Hendry should be on the lookout for a bigtime deal, should one present. Given their woeful center field defense, a play for someone like Curtis Granderson at the right price would make some sense. Replacing Soriano should be a priority, but that will be tough to do given Soriano's contract and besides, that option already seems to be available with their current personnel. Sam Fuld in center, with Fukudome and Bradley in left and right is arguably a better outfield. A great defensive 5th outfielder could help. Hendry might consider one more starter to provide a little insurance at the back end of the rotation. I think Mike Fontenot is a perfectly acceptable everyday option at second base but if you want to find an upgrade there, I understand.

The point is that, coming off of an 84-win Pythag season in which so much of the roster underperformed expectations, the Cubs should not feel in any way desperate to make sweeping changes. This is especially the case considering key free agents Matt Holliday and Joel Pineiro look set to depart the 2009 NL Central Champion Cardinals. Jim Hendry's approach should stem from two beliefs: (1) that Milton Bradley's value as a Cub far exceeds his trade market value and (2) that the Cubs are already darn close to a 90-win team as is. From there, a sober look at where the realistic and cost-effective upgrades can be had should get the North-siders right back into contention.

Permalink | Comments (2)

Zack Greinke won the 2009 American League Cy Young Award yesterday, capturing 25 of 28 first place votes. I am going to dive into Baseball Reference's Play Index to try and gain some perspective on Greinke's 2009 season, but first let's have a look at a couple of mainstream baseball pieces that appeared yesterday.

Since we tend to wander into the realm of media criticism from time to time here, let's start off with the negative, a look at Steve Kornacki's defense of his first place vote for Justin Verlaner.

Writes Kornacki...

Verlander received my first-place vote because nobody was tougher on the mound with the season on the line for his team.

He threw at least 120 pitches in six of his last eight outings and won his last three starts, forcing a one-game playoff against the Minnesota Twins with his final victory.

He was an inspirational "horse," using Tigers manager Jim Leyland's term for him, on a fading team.

Verlander was excellent in 2009, don't get me wrong. I don't know about "inspirational horse" but whatever, he was really good. But an honest 30-second comparison between Verlander and Greinke should do away with any confusion as to which pitcher had the better 2009 season. But Kornacki's writing in Detroit and more or less employed the classic BBWAA "I know what my eyes tell me" crutch to cast a vote for Verlander.

And that's fine. He's just one voter, and Greinke ran away with the thing. Unfortunately for Kornacki, as Tyler Kepner notes, yesterday may have represented a landmark in terms of advanced statistics infiltrating the mainstream, and Kornacki appears to have missed the boat. There's always next year, Steve!

You won't find a better piece of baseball writing all year in a daily newspaper, so be sure to go on over and check out Kepner's piece on yesterday's Greinke vote and its broader significance. But here are a couple of excerpts:

It was not surprising that Greinke won, since his earned run average, 2.16, was the lowest in the American League since 2000. But his decisive margin of victory over Seattle’s Felix Hernandez was a sign that voters overlooked his deficiency in another bedrock statistic: wins.

The article goes on to note that, thanks to his teammate Brian Bannister, Greinke has been turned on to more progressive pitching metrics. And really, in a world where so many still value wins, who can blame a Kansas City Royals starting pitcher for looking to convince himself that he really is pitching well? One can imagine how the dialogue between Bannister and Greinke might go:

Zack: Sheesh, sure feels like I am pitching well. But I only have 11 wins.

Brian: You are, and people are noticing. Here, check out Fangraphs. And Rob Neyer. And Poz.

Zack: Oh, cool. But wait, I have been digging into this stuff, and...wait...did we really just trade for Yuniesky Betancourt?

Brian: Let's not got there, Zack. Stay focused. You're an awesome pitcher.

I have read and re-read this next excerpt about 12 times now, because I can't even believe it. Kepner writes:

To that end, Bannister introduced Greinke to FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, the statistic Greinke named Tuesday as his favorite. It is a formula that measures how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his fielders. According to fangraphs.com, Greinke had the best FIP in the majors.

“That’s pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible,” Greinke said.

A big, hearty congrats to the guys over at Fangraphs. They're doing great work, and fans, media members and Cy Young Award winners alike are taking notice.

=====

OK, how great was Greinke in 2009? First of all, he eclipsed the 200 ERA+ mark. Let's just go ahead and put that one into perspective. Since 1959, it has been done 13 times by starters who have tossed at least 200 innings.

Here is the complete list of 200-inning, 200 ERA+ or better seasons in the last 50 years. Zack's at the bottom, but he is also one of the youngest on the list. I bet we see him back on here in the next few seasons.

But, as Tyler Kepner told us, yesterday was about pitching independent numbers. ERA and ERA+ both have quite a bit to do with the defense behind a pitcher. So let's stick with the same parameters as the last table, seasons where starters have thrown at least 200 innings since 1959 only this time we will sub in K/BB ratio for ERA+.

========

As you can see from the company Greinke is keeping in the tables above, his 2009 campaign was truly one for the ages. That the voters recognized this, or that they at least looked past his win total and saw that he was the AL's best in 2009, is a great sign of progress. That Greinke himself, in the pages of the country's most famous newspaper, confessed to pitching to keep his FIP as low as possible, makes yesterday even more remarkable. And the cherry on top of it all is that Greinke is a genuinely modest and curious young man who has overcome incredible mental health struggles to get to where he is today. Baseball fans and suckers for compelling personal stories alike can get behind a story such as this one.

Permalink | Comments (17)

Throughout baseball history, there have been a number of memorable positional rivalries that have unfolded within broader team battles. The 1950's in New York come to mind, when Duke Snider, Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were all playing center field for their respective clubs. The Yankees also featured Phil Rizzutto while Brooklyn had Pee Wee Reese at shortstop. Bar room arguments raged.

Since the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees could both reasonably lay claim to team of the decade thus far in the 21st century, positional battles within this rivalry have garnered attention. Nine or ten years ago, it looked like Derek Jeter and Nomar Garciaparra would battle head to head throughout their careers, but the Red Sox would trade Nomar away while Jeter remained and continues to perform at a remarkably high level. Nomar faded, but another positional dual emerged.

Jorge Posada has won 4 World Series rings and Jason Varitek 2. While nobody would dispute that Posada has had the better career, both are two of the finest catchers in the last 25 years or so, and with Posada coming off his latest title and Varitek looking like his time as a starter is coming to an end, a retrospective seems in order.

I want to be clear about one thing as it relates to Varitek and Posada. They are not comparable players. That statement takes nothing away from Varitek's terrific playing record and has everything to do with my belief that Posada is a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer. Posada's career OPS+ of 124 bests Varitek's season high of 123. Yes, they've both been very good players. But more than how they have performed on the field, it's their longevity, the number of times they've faced one another and the fact that each has toiled their entire MLB careers for the Yankees and Red Sox respectively that will forever link the two players.

Varitek has caught 1,381 games in his career, again, all as a Red Sox. Posada has caught 1,490 games, all as a Yankee. Varitek has played in 163 regular season games against the Yankees, Posada 184 against the Red Sox, They competed against one another in the 1999, 2003 and 2004 ALCS. They both won World Series championships with Johnny Damon.

The Red Sox and Yankee rivalry has had three separate "golden ages", if you will. There was the David Halberstam Summer of '49 era, when the Ted Williams Red Sox tried time and again to take down the Bronx Bombers. They managed to in 1946, but lost the World Series in 7 games to the St. Louis Cardinals. Meanwhile, the Yankees won the 1947 championship, their first of 6 titles in 7 years.

In the 1970's, the Red Sox once again boasted some great teams, except that their 1975 World Series appearance, which seemed at the time to portend great things for a young Red Sox club, turned out to be their only showing that decade in the Fall Classic. The Yankees won the AL pennant in 1976 and then took home the 1977 and 1978 titles. Like this most recent era, the Sox and Yanks each featured terrific catchers in Carlton Fisk and Thurmon Munson.

It's been better during the time of Jorge Posada and Jason Varitek that the rivalry has flourished more than any other period. For one, post-season expansion now allows for the Yanks and Sox to compete against one another in the LCS. Say what you will about the Wild Card, say what you will about how tired you are of the Red Sox and Yankees, but when these two clubs hook up in the post-season, it's just terrific theatre. Even the least dramatic of their three LCS tilts, the 1999 ALCS, was unbelievable. Like Posada and Varitek, I was at Fenway for Game 3 when Pedro Martinez faced Roger Clemens and I will never forget it. I haven't heard Fenway like it since. Not in 2003, 2004 or 2007. Game 3 of the 1999 ALCS was as loud and batsh*t insane as Fenway Park has ever been. So there's that - they now play each other sometimes in the playoffs. Also, the Red Sox now win World Series titles. The hammer and nail thing no longer applies. That makes the "rivalry" more of a rivalry.

Tim Wakefield played with Varitek on the 1999 Red Sox. Jeter, Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera were Posada's teammates on the '99 Yanks. These have been the mainstays (Pettite's Houston stint notwithstanding). But Varitek and Posada play the same position, and it's not just any position. It's catcher. They're field generals. They both switch hit. Varitek wears a big stupid "C" on his jersey. Their teammates gush over how important each player is, an attribute I typically don't care too much about but after 10+ years of it, you have to defer to the guys hanging around them everyday at some point, no? When Bill Simmons writes his Yankees/Red Sox book in 2034 looking back at this era of the rivalry, he had better devote a full chapter to the two backstops.

If you're a Yankees fan, how much do you love Posada for his ownership of Curt Schilling alone? Posada has tuned the loudmouth up for a .326/.383/.558 line in 47 plate appearances. Heck he has hit .274/.380/.493 against the Red Sox for his career. And these weren't the Aaron Sele and John Wasdin Red Sox. These were the Pedro, Derek Lowe, Schilling, Josh Beckett and Jon Lester Red Sox. Posada can go cold, he can be quiet for periods of time, but it's always his own doing. He is never, ever over-matched.

One cannot say the same of Varitek. In his career, he hit .171/.227/.214 against Mike Mussina. Against the Yankees, he managed just a .225/.305/.388 line. But on those big, bad, slugging 2003 Red Sox, how great was it when 'Tek would come to the plate right-handed against Pettitte or David Wells? Varitek slugged .630 for his career off of Wells and hit Pettitte at a .310/.388/.466 clip. Perhaps an indicator of his toughness, he has managed a .742 OPS against the immortal Mariano Rivera.

Over the last 30 years, of catchers with at least 5,000 plate appearances, Posada ranks 2nd with a .859 OPS and Varitek 5th with a .779 mark. Jorge is well on his way to Cooperstown, but Varitek might as well be joining him. That's because when fans look at Posada's plaque, they will always associate Varitek with him.

Permalink | Comments (22)

Two days before Game 1 of the World Series, three managerial moves dominated the Major League Baseball headlines. The San Diego Padres officially announced Jed Hoyer as their General Manager, the Cleveland Indians named their new Manager, Manny Acta, and the St. Louis Cardinals made Mark McGwire Hitting Coach.

Hoyer is 35 and as some may recall, a friend of Baseball Analysts. In 2007 he was kind enough to discuss with Rich and me his background and how he thinks about personnel evaluation, among other topics. I'm not sure there's a more comprehensive look at Hoyer's mindset anywhere else so if you're interested, check it out. Here's an excerpt:

Pat: Do you have any regrets about trading Hanley Ramirez?

Jed: Do I wish that Hanley was still in our organization? Absolutely. But I don't have any regrets about trading him for Josh Beckett. While Josh didn't have the kind of year he had hoped for in 2006, that certainly hasn't changed the way we look at him as a pitcher. Pitching in the AL East is a challenge and the fact that Josh was eager to sign a long-term deal in Boston tells us that he is excited about meeting that challenge head-on. You can't acquire extremely talented 25-year old starting pitchers cheaply. We don't have Josh Beckett without trading Hanley Ramirez. And we are very excited to have Josh Beckett.

Jed's just a total pro, and we wish him all the best as he endeavors to rebuild a San Diego Padres organization that is currently in tough shape.

==========

In hiring Manny Acta, the Indians have given the reins over to a Manager with a career .385 win percentage. So, how and why is he qualified? What does General Manager Mark Shapiro see in Acta? Terry Pluto's report from the Cleveland Plain Dealer may offer a glimpse:

I asked Acta what were his favorite stats, and he gave an answer right from the Tribe's playbook: The on-base percentage and OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage).

Ah, yes. "The on-base percentage."

This interview with Squawking Baseball also confirms Acta's philosophy:

SB: You’re obviously a very statistically-inclined manager. How do you think that gives you an advantage over managers that aren’t as progressive?

MA: I want to win. More than being statistically-inclined, I’m very open minded. If someone can show me things that I didn’t already know, I am willing to change. I’m not stubborn. If the statistical evidence shows I’m wrong, and it helps me and my team win baseball games, then I would be a fool not to listen.

SB: Looking back, have there been any decisions that you made that perhaps you wouldn’t have if you had not been so aware of sabermetrics?

MA: I would have bunted less when I managed in the minors. I still would have had the minor leaguers run, because winning isn’t the most important thing down there, and most players have the green light to work on their baserunning skills.

Acta seems to say all the right things and it's not hard to see why Shapiro might like him. Now that Acta takes over a club that was just a game away from the World Series in 2007 (albeit without the two Game 1 World Series starters, but still...), Acta should have a chance to prove his open-mindedness can generate results.

==========

The St. Louis Cardinals' choice to bring on McGwire as their Hitting Coach has predictably drawn criticism and also some wisecracks.

I'm inclined to give McGwire a chance. He saw a ton of pitches every season and his career 114 walks per 162 games played screams of precisely the sort of approach that I would want my offensive attack to adopt. Whether he will be able to teach inferior sluggers to focus on pitch recognition and patience, or if he even realizes that such a philosophy was much of what made him a great hitter, remains to be seen. But if the way he took to the plate is directionally where the Cards want to head as an organization, that would be good news to me if I were a St. Louis fan.

==========

The common thread in these three personnel choices is that there is a progressive approach that Hoyer, Acta and McGwire take in their respective roles. Hoyer is a Wesleyan grad who has worked alongside Theo Epstein his whole career in baseball, Acta speaks openly about sabermetric principles and McGwire's patient approach over the course of his career reflected many of these same principles. Baseball continues to evolve.

Permalink | Comments (4)

After spending two days in Austin, Texas to start my work week, I was happy to be coming home to Boston. Since I was on a Jet Blue flight from Austin to Boston last night, replete with leather seats and television screens, I was even happier since I would be able to watch Game 4 of the ALCS. The FOX telecast started as we took to the skies.

I had the option of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver or my iPod, and having spent 48 hours or so in Austin, maybe the best music city in the country, you can understand why I might not have been eager to ditch the tunes for the telecast. Emmylou Harris was playing and as the game was about to start, the cameras cut to Derek Jeter and the Yankee bench. Emmylou belted out "We came out west together with a common desire." Two More Bottles of Wine was playing, and two more wins was all the Yankees needed to advance to their first Fall Classic since 2003.

The Yankees are ridiculously talented, without a doubt the best team in baseball based on their performance in 2009. That guarantees you nothing in the post-season, but it should be said. The Angels are also excellent, probably the second best team in baseball. I note these things because when you boil a game down, you can never set aside pure talent. Alex Rodriguez can hit. C.C. Sabathia can pitch. That's a lot of your Game 4 story right there.

But for me, looking a bit further, this game came down to Scott Kazmir's inability to command his off-speed stuff, and an excellent Yankee approach that seemed to be predicated on an understanding that Kazmir might struggle to command his off-speed stuff. For the latter, credit the Yankees advance scouting effort. What makes Kazmir so tough, however, is that he commands his fastball exceptionally well. The Yankees game plan seemed to be to bear down with their pitch recognition, pick up the fastball and attack it, and whenever possible let the braking ball pass. Chances are it will be a ball anyway.

To start the game, Jeter saw a fastball at the knees on the outside corner - a terrific pitch. On the next offering, another fastball, Jeter was ready and he muscled a base hit to right field. Jeter would be picked off, Johnny Damon would ground out and Mark Teixeira would come to the plate with two outs and nobody on. If you're a baseball fan, like you really really love the game within the game, you loved last night's Kaz/Tex match-ups.

In his first at-bat against Kazmir, Tex worked the count to 2 and 2. Kazmir then rolled a loose change-up to about 56 feet for ball 3. It was 3-2 and Tex knew what he was looking for. He crushed two inside fastballs foul. He was just a tick off. With nobody on base, Kazmir thought he would try his hand at a breaking ball. Sure enough, Tex was taking but Kaz managed to find the plate for strike 3. Tex walked confidently back to the dugout, like he knew that given his approach for the evening, what had just transpired was precisely the downside he had already calculated. Kazmir was out of the first inning.

The Yankees patience was on display once again in the second. A-Rod worked an easy walk after watching a few breaking pitches pass for balls. Jorge Posada owned Kazmir his first time up, almost laughing to himself as Kazmir's breaking pitches landed nowhere near the strike zone. After A-Rod stole easily - another advance scouting triumph given the jump he had - Posada worked a walk. Kazmir would settle down and induce three consecutive lazy fly balls to get out of the inning but still, the formula was clear for the Yanks. Wait out the soft stuff, pounce on Kazmir's fastballs that catch too much of the zone.

Teixeira would come to bat once again in the third with Damon on first. He got up 2-0 after watching two Kazmir fastballs go by for balls. Kaz then was the beneficiary of a gift called strike on a hanging breaking ball that looked both high and outside. Now it's on between these two again. Kaz lets a fastball go a little high and away and Tex, sitting on it, swings through it. He usually won't chase, but that's a pitch he wanted. Now, at 2-2, Kazmir could use some of his opponent Sabathia's command. Instead he bounces another slider to 57 feet or so. The count goes to 3-2 and as a result of the wild pitch, in a scoreless game with two outs, Damon advances and is now in scoring position. On the 3-2, Teixeira sits dead-red on a fastball and to his credit, Kaz breaks off his best pitch of the night; a hard cutter/slider that dives right into Tex's kitchen. He swings over it. Strike 3. Again, Tex had the exact right approach but Kazmir made a pitch. No sign of frustration or disappointment this time around either for Teixeira. He knew what he was up against tonight.

Kazmir's command struggles came to a head in the 4th. A-Rod worked Kazmir over a bit and then roped a single. After watching off-speed pitch after off-speed pitch bounce to the plate in his first plate appearance, Jorge Posada came to the plate a step ahead of Kazmir. The lefty thought he would change up his approach with Posada and started him with a fastball. Posada was all over it and ripped a double down the left field line.

Again, a moment that makes baseball so great. Hideki Matsui comes up with two ducks on the pond and with Kazmir on the ropes, Matsui promptly takes two sharp sliders for strikes. Had Kazmir commanded his off-speed like this all night, who knows what this series looks like this morning? Even better, on the 0-2, Kazmir busts Matsui in with a fastball he feebly offers at. A quick punch out. After a Robinson Cano fielder's choice that plated A-Rod, now it's Nick Swisher. And again, he works a tough at-bat and gets to a full count. Kazmir tries the inside slider that he got Tex with in the 3rd but misses badly. Ball 4, bases loaded. Again, the off-speed command evades Kazmir.

Now it's Melky, the one mediocre hitter in baseball's best lineup. Seemingly sick of letting hitters get away from him by offering poor breaking pitches, Kaz starts with two fastballs for strikes. Then, like the football team that runs twice on the goal line and then predictably goes play action on 3rd down, Kazmir rolls a crappy breaking ball to the plate. No way Cabrera was going to swing at that, yet another bouncer. After fighting two pitches off, Melky then delivers a base hit that scores two more Yankee runs.

The 4th was Kazmir's undoing. The rest of the game was all about Sabathia pitching lights out and the Yankees tatooing the dregs of the Halos bullpen. Sabathia commands all of his pitches and notably, in stark contrast to Kazmir, after bouncing a breaking ball to the plate on a 1-1 pitch to Torii Hunter in the 6th, Sabathia kicked the dirt on the mound. That pitch, the hard breaking ball bouncer that Kazmir must have featured a dozen times, is entirely unacceptable to C.C. I am not sure there's much difference between Sabatia and Kazmir's stuff. There's a world of difference between their command and control.

The Yanks would cruise to a win, thanks to their approach at the plate. They knew Kazmir's strengths and weaknesses and with an approach content to let his rare well-placed breaking balls beat them, wore down the talented Angels lefty. Now they're two games up, and one game from fulfilling that common desire they came out west to fulfill.

Permalink | Comments (5)

Before I hop into the links - we want to highlight the writers around the internet getting us through the post-season - let me just say that yesterday's performance by Pedro was nothing short of astounding. He kept the Dodgers off balance all day long, and carried himself with the same bravado that always characterized his pitching style. He backs down from nobody. It might not be 1999 anymore, but Pedro seemed not to care one bit. We'll never know what kind of baseball history Charlie Manuel robbed non-Dodger fans everywhere of witnessing, but back where it all began for Pedro, at Dodger Stadium, he regained his vintage form in his biggest start in 5 years.

====

Rob Iracane of Walkoff Walk was kind enough to allow me to contribute to his "This Guy Is Playing Golf Right Now" series, a look at some of the better players around baseball who did not qualify for post-season play. I chose to profile Dan Haren. Check it out!

...Pitchers emerge and fade, the better ones vacillating season-to-season in quality anywhere from above average to Cy Young Award candidate; and that's if they're fortunate enough to stay healthy. The best? I mean the very, very best? They get it done every season. Roy Halladay leads this list given Johan Santana's recent injury troubles, although Santana isn't far behind. Roy Oswalt's on it. So is C.C. John Lackey and Felix Hernandez may have a claim.

You know who else is on it? Dan Haren.

====

We were thrilled to see Angel fan Sean Smith of Chone projection system fame stop by yesterday to comment on Rich and Jeremy's entertaining back and forth on the ALCS. We're not there yet, there's still plenty of baseball to be played this season, but you're going to want to keep tabs on his Baseball Projection site this off-season to see how your favorite team is shaping up.

====

As for specific team sites, you know Rev Halofan and the crew at Halos Heaven will be guiding you through every twist and turn during the playoffs. Understandably, the gang wasn't exactly enamored with last night's performance.

On the Yankees side, our buddies Alex Belth and Cliff Corcoran are still getting it done at Bronx Banter. Cliff approves of Mr. Sabathia's work last evening. I'm just impressed that he figured out the upside down exclamation mark in the title. Nice work, guys!

Also offering comprehensive playoff coverage is Jay Jaffe at his Futility Infielder blog. A Yankee fan with a soft spot for the Dodgers, he's a must read these days. He also just joined the Twittersphere, so if that's your thing, you can follow Jay here.

I have to say that in the few months since I have joined Twitter, it's been a blast. The ability to comment quickly and real-time makes it seem like the medium was made for sports. Keith Law, Rob Neyer, Jonah Keri, Iracane, Larry Granillo of Wezen Ball, Tommy Bennett of Beyond the Boxscore, Jon Weisman and Crashburn Alley and many more are tweeting with regular baseball updates. It's great fun.

====

Speaking of Weisman and Crashburn Alley, with their two teams squaring off in the NLCS, you'll want to keep tabs on both sites. Like Bronx Banter and Futility Infielder, Dodger Thoughts is a true classic, offering the best Dodgers content you'll find anywhere. As for Crashburn Alley, Bill Baer leads with the headline "Chase Knoblauch" this morning. OUCH!

====

Enjoy the weekend, everybody. Hoepfully we get Game 2 of the ALCS in tonight and boy oh boy, if the first two games are any indication, it appears like we may be in for a classic NLCS. Cliff Lee and Hiroki Kuroda tomorrow night at CBP.

Permalink

Since the dance cards were set for the two League Championship Series, there's been no shortage of interesting baseball content being generated around the web. With three of the four LDS series having ended abruptly - of the LCS participants, only the Phillies failed to sweep their opponent - there was time to step back, reflect on what took place in the LDS and even shift gears a bit.

To start, there's been no shortage of controversy surrounding the umpiring thus far in the post-season. C.B Bucknor was atrocious in the Boston-Los Angeles series, while a horrible foul ball call compromised the Twins' chances of taking Game 2 of the ALDS at Yankee Stadium. With K-Zone type features viewable on nearly every pitch now for post-season telecasts, the practice of placing a human being behind home plate to determine if a 95-mph pitched passed the plate while in a tightly defined area known as the strike zone seems, well, antiquated. It's not hard to envision baseball turning to sensors and cameras like the ones tennis uses to help determine if balls are in or out or foul balls. And for calls on the basepaths, how much longer would a quick overrule take when video evidence clearly refutes the call on the field?

Jonah Keri took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal and wondered if umpires are even necessary. The whole piece, including a history of why umpires were deemed necessary to begin with, is well worth a read. But the following excerpt hammers home a critical point:

At the end of the day, Mr. Port [VP of Umpiring for MLB] says, the whole argument about umpires comes down to this: "Do we want the tradition of 18 people on the field doing their best to help their teams win, officiated by four trained gentlemen also doing their best? Or do we want to translate over to some sort of technologically advanced video endeavor that removes human elements from the game?"

Joe Mauer could not be reached for comment.

To the extent that a wholesale technological officiating solution would be cost-effective or otherwise feasible, contrary to Port's contention, it would do nothing to "remove the human elements from the game" that any fan cares about. Humans compete hard all season long in baseball, only to have their fate determined by other humans. Only the latter are humans the paying customers do not come to see, and they also turn out to be ill-equipped and incapable of administering the rules appropriately. Keri's point here is that the human we care most about as it relates to the 11th inning play at Yankee Stadium is Mauer and not Phil Cuzzi. Let's get it right so Mauer and every other competitor in post-season play gets an honest shot at pursuing a World Series championship.

======

I will admit that the thought crossed my mind. With A-List Closers Huston Street, Jonathan Papelbon and Joe Nathan faltering badly in their respective Division Series appearances, it occurred to me that it must be nice to have a relief pitcher operating on an altogether different plane when the time comes to nail down a win. Mariano Rivera once again looked dominant in the Yankees 3-0 sweep of Minnesota.

So yes, that thought crossed my mind - that it sure must be nice to have Rivera. What did not cross my mind, however, was to draw overarching conclusions about the nature of post-season pitching based on a handful of innings of work from some very good relief pitchers in the first round of the 2009 playoffs. But that's why we have Tom Verducci. Tom, take it away!

Why is the ninth inning so much harder for pitchers in October than in the other six months? There is the element of pressure, of course. But there are also so much more detailed scouting reports and so much studying of that information. (Players couldn't possibly absorb and apply that much information over 162 games without frying their brains, but it works for a five- or seven-game series with off days.) Finally, there is also more intense focus by the batters in the postseason. No one gives away an at-bat in the ninth inning of a postseason game. No one. Yes, it does happen during the regular season.

So there's "pressure", there's "scouting", and there's "more intense focus" by the hitters. Got it. What about the prospect that the hitters are also just better in the post-season? Or better yet, maybe it was just random. Maybe with another 18 innings to look at, since these guys are excellent pitchers, we would see entirely different outcomes? Why don't we look historically at how relievers have fared in the 9th inning of post-season play versus the regular season to see if we're working with anything meaningful? That way there, we aren't devoting a full paragraph of conclusions drawn from 18 innings of work. Someone missed sample size class at baseball school.

Let's play a quick game. I will re-write that paragraph:

Why is the ninth inning so much harder for hitters in October than in the other six months? There is the element of pressure, of course. But there are also so much more detailed scouting reports and so much studying of that information. (Players couldn't possibly absorb and apply that much information over 162 games without frying their brains, but it works for a five- or seven-game series with off days.) Finally, there is also more intense focus by the pitchers in the postseason. No pitcher lets up for a hitter in the ninth inning of a postseason game. No one. Yes, it does happen during the regular season.

See what I did there? Doesn't make any less sense, does it? And in Verducci's world, it may have even been applicable had Street, Nathan and Papelbon pitched as they usually do. Assertions are fun!

======

The Arizona Fall League is under way. This is a very good thing, as most anyone who ever has attended will tell you. Promising players, beautiful weather, relaxed atmosphere. It's supposed to be just great fun. Your best source for real time information, at least as far as I can tell, is going to be Keith Law's Twitter feed. I am sure his column over at the World Wide Leader will be excellent as well. Law's on the ground in the Grand Canyon State, and updating frequently. MLB.com's AFL page is terrific, too, with the neatest feature of all being that there is Pitch f/x installed in Surprise and Peoria, home to 3 of the 6 teams. Here's Harry Pavlidis at Beyond the Boxscore recapping the first day's data.

Stephen Strasburg and Dustin Ackley are there. Jason Heyward, Mike Stanton and Buster Posey are there. Pitch f/x is there. You're going to want to keep tabs.

==========

We're back with a full NLCS preview tomorrow and a special ALCS look on Friday featuring our resident Southern California and New York natives going back and forth. There are four terrific teams still standing, and we can't wait to share our thoughts as the action unfolds.

Permalink | Comments (4)

Zombie Season here in the northeast! I put my wool Red Sox game-cap on this morning with my business casual attire as I left for work. Is it a silly look? Sure. Do the Red Sox start another playoff series tonight against a balanced Angels team that scares the living daylights out of me? You bet.

These are the 2nd and 3rd best teams in baseball (I'll never tell which team I think is which), and it ought to be one heck of a series. The gang's all here to discuss it. Enjoy!

Sully: The Red Sox and Angels are meeting in the ALDS for the fourth time in six seasons. I look at the two teams and the first thing that stands out is that, unlike in past seasons, the Angels appear to have the superior offensive attack while the Red Sox boast better pitching. But when you peel back the onion, I am not so sure that's the story. The Angels pitching staff came on in the 2nd half while the Red Sox, thanks to the addition of Victor Martinez, really solidified their offense after the trade deadline. What are fans to make of these two teams?

Jeremy: I agree that the additions of Scott Kazmir for the Angels and Martinez for the Red Sox bolstered both teams. The Sox still probably have an edge in pitching, especially if they can use a shortened rotation. Meanwhile, the Angels have a definite edge fielding the ball, and they have home field advantage. I think the Angels' offense matches up well with the Sox' run prevention unit, and the Yankees' for that matter, since the Angels are renowned for putting the ball in play, while the Sox and Yankees both build their defenses around power pitching and subpar fielding. However, the Sox offense can take advantage of possibly facing two lefties in Kazmir and Joe Saunders.

Sky: I think the Martinez pickup is one of the biggest additions any playoff team made this summer and with him, I put the Sox hitting on even par with LA. Martinez was key because he not only is he a good player, but Boston badly needed someone who could hit behind the plate. Varitek - nice of a guy as he is - has had awful plate production for some time now and the upgrade is significant. Even with the addition of Kazmir, I like the Boston's pitching staff over LA's as well.

This is the third time in a row we'll be seeing the Boston-LA matchup and so far the Red Sox have dominated. Is it possible it starts to get in the heads of LA if they lose a Game 1? Or is that kind of momentum thinking mostly baseball myth?

Rich: I don't know, Sky. I think winning Game 1 is important because it gives you a huge advantage the rest of the way in a short series. The losing team has to win three of four. Other than that, I wouldn't overemphasize the importance of Game 1. To the extent that it's a bigger deal for the Angels to win the opener than the Red Sox, I think it would be due to the loss of home field advantage.

Sky: I tend to agree with you, Rich. I think the feeling of "here we go again" is something that perhaps would get to the fans, but not the players. Plus, with the history of a World Series championship just a few years ago, it's not as if the Angels are fighting 86 or 100 year psychological demons. Even in that situation I think that kind of effect would be somewhere between small or non-existent. The fact that I even brought it up shows I've been hanging out with Cub fans for too long...Anyhow, I'm really excited for this series, as it's a great matchup given the history of the clubs, the opposing styles of play, and the overall quality of the teams - either of which has a good shot at the title.

Rich: Speaking of 2002, the Angels lost the first game of the ALDS to the Yankees and then swept the next three games. The Halos then lost the first game of the ALCS to the Twins and swept the next four games. Finally, the club lost the opening game of the World Series to the Giants and won four of the next six to capture its first world championship ever.

Not that it has much relevance this year, but I'm quite certain that Mike Scioscia will remind his troops of those comebacks should the Angels lose the opening game to Boston. And, besides, he's got Jered Weaver starting in Game 2.

Sully: Weaver's your boy, Rich! By nature, a short baseball series is difficult to handicap but this one is even tougher than your average series. There are two reasons for this. First, there has been enough personnel turnover that a season's worth of statistics bear little meaning to the two teams taking the field now. Second, it's hard to figure out if some of the shorter-term player performances bear any predictive value. Are Kendry Morales and Howie Kendrick the best right side in baseball, the way they have played for two months now? Is JD Drew a .415/.550 guy like he has been in the 2nd half?

Rich: No and no. As for Morales and Kendrick, that's an easy one. They're both good but not nearly the best right side in baseball. For one, Boston's right side is better. But there are others as well. Mark Teixeira is better than Morales and Robinson Cano is better than Kendrick. Ryan Howard is better than Kendry as well and Chase Utley is way, way better than Howie. I might go as far as to say Albert Pujols at first base and anyone of us at second base would outperform those Angels. And I haven't turned two in a long, long time.

Jeremy: Pujols by himself is the best right side of the infield, left side of the infield, and the best team in baseball. And Sully, I'm surprised you're underselling your Sox infield with the reigning MVP at the keystone and the AL's second best hitter this year at first. Come to think of it, the only positions where I'd give the Angels a definite advantage this season are on the left side of the infield and in center.

Sully: I agree, guys. My only point is that if they've been this good for this long - Morales and Kendrick, what's 5, 10, 15 more games?

Rich: As a fan, I hope it's more than five games.

Sky: I'm not a big fan of the hot hand theory. For a two month period, the standard error of OBP, is 35 points - larger for SLG or OPS. The variability out there due to chance is just huge, so it's hard to read into what's going on. Kendrick in particular has had a big second half, but over the course of the year and over the course of his career, he's been about a league average hitter. Is it possible he's made adjustments and is a far better hitter than he was in May? Yes, but I'd bet that most of the uptick is due to random variation.

Sully: Ok let's start digging into some of the personnel. Can we agree the Red Sox have the two best starting pitchers in the series? Even the most charitable interpretation of the Angels pitching resurgence in the second half does not render John Lackey or Kazmir or Weaver better than Jon Lester or Josh Beckett, right?

Sky: I'll agree with that. I also like the Boston bullpen. Papelbon has a significant edge over Fuentes in my opinion, and in the postseason, the closer really takes on added importance - especially now that they've added more off days to the schedule. Fuentes also hasn't pitched more than 1 inning in a game all season long - it will be interesting to see if that changes come playoffs. We know the Sox won't be shy about putting Papelbon out there for extended outings.

Rich: The Angels bullpen has been up and down all year long. Like all Scioscia's closers, Fuentes has a lot of saves, but he doesn't inspire much confidence in highly leveraged situations. A lefthander, he's slinging 89-91 mph fastballs up there. The combination of his arm angle and breaking ball has been successful against left-handed batters (.239/.308/.282 with no HR in 78 TBF), but it's been rather pedestrian vs. right-handed hittters (.261/.358/.428 with 6 HR in 164 TBF). Kevin Jepsen has much better stuff. He developed a cutter during the season and was lights out for a long stretch during the second half. He also throws a 96+ mph fastball and a nasty breaking ball. I suspect he's not very well known right now but believe he may get his due on the national stage this week. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Ervin Santana's potential impact on the bullpen. It's easy to forget that he was the Angels best starter last season. His fastball/slider combo figures to be a welcomed addition throughout the playoffs.

Dave: Yeah Jepsen has really flown under the radar as a very good reliever. This year he has struck out more batters per inning and walked fewer batters per inning than Fuentes. Plus he is an extreme ground ball pitcher (16% LD, 57% GB, 27% FB) while Fuentes is an extreme fly ball pitcher (17% LD, 36 % GB, 47% FB). It would be interesting to see what Scioscia would do if, say, he had both pitchers available going into the ninth up by one with Bay, Lowell and Vartiek due up. All three hit lefties much better. I think Scoscia would be giving up a lot sticking with his traditional closer there.

Sully: While the Red Sox may have more and better options, the specific deployment will be a more difficult task than meets the eye. Terry Francona will face some of the challenges that Scioscia figures to. Hideki Okajima, Manny Delcarmen, Ramon Ramirez and Daniel Bard have all struggled of late. In fact, Delcarmen will not even be on the roster for the ALDS. Will Takashi Saito and Billy Wagner be Francona's go-to setup men?

Rich: Kudos to Boston's front office for picking up Wagner. The lefty is still throwing gas and striking out batters like always. Incredible. Saito's strikeout rate is down and his walk and home run rates are up since his years with the Dodgers, but he's still been a pretty effective pitcher the past couple months. Neither reliever, however, has been used on back-to-back days very often. Both are approaching 40 and coming off injuries so they seem like high-beta risks and rewards from afar.

Dave: Jumping topics a little bit. One thing to consider is that if the Yankees want to force the Twins/Tigers winner to play games two days in a row they will take the long series that starts Wednesday. That means the Angels/Red Sox series will be the short one and both team will be forced to use four-man rotations. Do you guys think that is a clear advantage to either team?

Rich: Not really. I think both teams have a strong four. Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, and Dice-K vs. Lackey, Weaver, Kazmir, and Saunders. Saunders may be the weakest link here, mainly due to his poor strikeout rate. But he has been a much more effective pitcher since returning from the DL in August. He's throwing harder and with better command than in the first half of the season. Most writers and analysts have conceded the starting and relief pitching edge to the Red Sox. While I understand why, I don't think the advantage is as large as the consensus believes.

Sully: I think this series actually sets up nicely for the Red Sox. You have to think they can muster a split with the big pitching advantage in Games 1 and 2. Then, they're so good in Fenway that they might be able to win a high scoring affair or two should Buchholz or Matsuzaka falter. What do you guys forsee happening?

Sky: I like both the Red Sox pitching as well as hitting over the Angels, but it's close. I'm going with the Red Sox in 5, with the bullpen making the difference.

Jeremy: I think the Red Sox win in 4. I don't see them losing a game where Beckett or Lester pitches.

Sully: I think the Red Sox win in 4 as well, but I think that is a certifiable fanboy prediction. This series has me really uneasy; this might be the best Angels team of their whole recent run of success.

Dave: I think the Red Sox are the slightly better team, but with the home field advantage I am going to go Angels in 5.

Rich: This series is between two of the best three teams in baseball. It's a shame that one of them will get knocked out this early. But that's the nature of the post-season. I believe it could go either way. I'll give the smallest of edges to Boston until proven otherwise. Red Sox in five.

Permalink | Comments (4)

We considered giving an in-depth series preview the ol' college try for the Minnesota Twins and New York Yankees ALDS match-up but by the time the Twins secured the AL Central, so many good previews were already popping up at some great sights around the web, there wasn't much to add. Here's a sampling:

Over the weekend I happened across this Joe Posnanski blog entry on Theo Epstein after Posnanski heard the Boston Red Sox GM on a local radio station with Boston sports media personalities Tony Massarotti and Michael Felger. You can listen to that interview here. The money excerpt takes place beginning at the 15:55 mark or so, when Theo asks Mazz and Felgy, who typify the mindset of the average Red Sox fan in so many ways, why they haven't asked him about J.D. Drew.

As Red Sox fans will probably remember, Drew has been treated unfairly in Boston since before his signing was even announced in the off-season prior to the 2007 season. Bob Ryan famously remarked on a media conference call, “On behalf of an eager constituency, let’s hope the rumor is not true" in reference to the possibility that the Red Sox would sign Drew. It wasn't limited to the mainstream, either. Our friend Chad Finn was very much against the deal, and you can see here in this Baseball Think Factory thread, Sox fan Jim Furtado says "this will not end well for Drew or the Red Sox".

Now, we are three years in. And let's just list out his record:

Towards the end of August of this season, as Jon Lester was wrapping up a month in which he would strike out over four times as many batters as he would walk and hold opposing hitters to a .178/.242/.271 line, I thought it might be interesting to see how he was stacking up from an historic perspective thus far in his young career. Let's leave aside his personal story for the moment and take note of the fact that at the age of 25, he has now posted back to back seasons of better than 140 ERA+ pitching while throwing a good amount of innings and backing it up with impressive peripherals. What's more, his strikeout rate has jumped more than 50% in 2009 over 2008 to nearly 10 strikeouts per nine innings, suggesting he may have developed to the point where he will be an elite pitcher for years to come.

But let's stick to the present. I wanted to have a look at how many other players in the last 50 years had pitched as impressively as Lester had in his 24 year-old and 25 year-old Big League seasons. So of course, I ventured over to Baseball Reference's Play Index. Parameters: Since 1959, the best combined 24-25 seasons, minimum 350 innings pitched, as determined by Adjusted ERA+. Admittedly I cherry-picked these parameters because they apply specifically to what I had observed about Lester - that he had been very good in his 24 and 25 seasons. Here is the list this criteria produced:

Player     From-To   ERA+   K/9    K/BB
Appier     '92-'93   173    6.77   2.26
Lincecum   '08-'09   170   10.51   3.48
Santana    '03-'04   166   10.11   4.30
Greinke    '08-'09   155    8.88   4.07
Pedro      '96-'97   154   10.36   3.85
Seaver     '69-'70   152    7.84   2.98
Clemens    '87-'88   148    9.02   3.77
Zito       '02-'03   145    6.40   1.98
Oswalt     '02-'03   145    7.89   3.47
Webb       '03-'04   143    7.78   1.80
McLain     '68-'69   143    6.28   3.55
Lester     '08-'09   143    8.16   2.91

Yes, it’s arbitrary but take a look at that. We are witnessing three of the best 25 year-old pitchers of the last 50 years. In fairness, Tim Lincecum and Zack Greinke are in a league all their own but Lester holds his own, showing up 12th on the list. And with his peripherals as strong as ever but his balls in play luck down a bit, Cole Hamels, another 25 year-old, probably deserves a spot here as well. Had he posted ERA numbers similar to his 2007 and 2008 seasons in 2009, he would be right there.

What’s even more interesting is that when you take a look at the head scratchers, the guys that might make you inclined not to place much stock in such a list, a look at their peripheral numbers accurately predicts which pitchers would continue their greatness and which pitchers might take a step back. Kevin Appier and Barry Zito, for instance, rank at the bottom of the list in K/9 and K/BB. Soon after their 24-25 seasons, Appier and Zito would both settle in as very good pitchers and not the great ones their ERA figures might have suggested they had become. You could place Brandon Webb in that category, too, but his ridiculous 119 walks in 2004 badly skews his numbers. Never again has he even approached that number of bases on balls. Denny McLain’s K/BB numbers were terrific but his K/9 figure did not quite stack up. Either way, injury and off-the-field trouble would derail McLain’s career.

So we have whittled the list down a bit. We’re going to keep Webb for the reasons specified above but eliminate Appier, Zito and McLain. Also, let’s take the following into account; since the All-Star Break 2008, in 43 starts, Lester has posted a 9.2 K/9 and 3.48 K/BB – numbers that push him a lot closer to that Lincecum and Greinke neighborhood than the Appier one. Like Timmy and Zack, Lester’s future looks bright. With our new list, Lester finds himself alongside the no-brainer 2009 AL and NL Cy Young Award winners, Johan Santana, Pedro Martinez, Tom Seaver, Roger Clemens, Roy Oswalt and Webb. Not bad company at all.

The Play Index is great fun for things like this. If you suspect one of your favorite players might be inching up (or down) into select company, have a look. In this case, I learned that baseball is currently showcasing some of the most promising - historically promising - young pitching talent to burst onto the scene simultaneously in years. And that Jon Lester is one heck of a pitcher.

Permalink | Comments (9)

The Boston Red Sox have not played the Baltimore Orioles or the Toronto Blue Jays over their last four games but during that stretch they have won all four, having outscored their opposition 20-3 in the process. I am not sure what this will do to persuade Tony Massarotti of The Boston Globe that the Red Sox might have a chance in the post-season, but you never know. In a recent blog entry on boston.com titled "A Sox Smokescreen?", Mazz voices concern over Boston's ability to take on the better teams in baseball.

Boston is 24-6 this season against Toronto and Baltimore, which compels Mazz to all but encourage Red Sox fans to pack it in and settle in for football season. This was written last Wednesday, September 9th.

The Orioles have not been the Sox' only punching bag. The Sox are 11-4 against Toronto (another doormat) and went 11-7 against the inferior National League. That leaves the Sox at 46-45 against everyone else. All of this suggests the Sox are far closer to being a mediocre team than they are an elite one.

That last sentence is quite a statement - "the Sox are far closer to being a mediocre team than they are an elite one". For those unfamiliar with his work, Mazz has a history of writing nonsensical, provocative statements of this nature which vacillate between vitriolic and just plain dumb. He and Curt Schilling have famously butted heads in the past, to the point where Mazz threatened not to cover his charity events if Schilling continued to bypass the sports media and engage his fans directly. So who knows, maybe Mazz is doing his "look at me" routine or maybe he really does think the Sox are more mediocre than elite? Either way it reflects poorly on him.

Let's take stock of where the Red Sox are right now. They are 85-58, 5.5 games clear of the Texas Rangers for the AL Wild Card lead. They boast a +126 run differential, better than every team in baseball except for the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers. They are on pace for 96 wins, they have not had one month where they were under .500, and they have not had one month where they failed to outscore the opposition. They have weathered their share of bumps at times, there have been major swings all season long, but if the Red Sox are not an "elite" team, then I guess I should brush up on my vocab because apparently I don't know what the word "elite" means.

The thing about the Blue Jays and Orioles is that they still play Major League Baseball. In a league where the best teams tend to win 60% of their games and the worst 40%, that qualifier means that they are very much capable of beating the best teams in the league with regularity. They're just like the Red Sox or Yankees, only they win one less game a week or so. That the Red Sox have so dominated Toronto and Baltimore is not a red flag, but rather an indication that they are probably quite good. Or better yet, it's probably not all that significant at all and probably just attributable to small sample; sort of like Boston's poor play against the Texas Rangers this year. And if the Jays and O's are so bad, then sheesh, how bad are the Yankees? They've lost 3 of their last 4 against the AL East "doormats", yielding 30 runs over that span.

The truth of course is that, since it is more difficult to beat good teams, even good teams will have mediocre records against other good teams. This has always been the case. Here is how the last 10 World Series champions have fared against teams that played .500 ball or better.

Year   Team        W - L
2008   Philly      42-44
2007   Boston      44-40
2006   St. Louis   21-26
2005   Chicago     39-33
2004   Boston      40-31
2003   Florida     53-48
2002   Angels      37-40
2001   Arizona     42-43
2000   Yankees     42-43
1999   Yankees     39-26

Total it up and those teams played .509 baseball. In 2009 the Red Sox are 37-34 against teams who have won more games than they have lost, good for a .521 win percentage. When you factor that consideration, it sure makes a statement like this sound stupid, doesn't it? From the same piece linked at the top:

But we're now 138 games into the 162-game marathon, and we still have no evidence that the Sox of late 2009 can compete with the big boys.

Define a "big boy", Mazz. Would a record of 15-7 against the AL East and AL Central division leaders qualify? Might that be some evidence? Like so many other Massarotti "antagonistic for the hell of it" pieces, this one too falls flat.

I had the pleasure of having lunch in Cambridge with Jonah Keri and David Cameron last Saturday. The next day my Baseball Analysts colleague Jeremy Greenhouse accompanied me at Fenway to watch Jon Lester turn in yet another gem against the Tampa Bay Rays. All three are thoughtful, ridiculously intelligent and open to new and different ways of thinking about baseball. Read some of their work, then go back and check out a couple of Mazz pieces and then decide for yourself. Where is the best baseball writing taking place?

Permalink | Comments (6)

To be sure, there are better players than those included below on the rosters of Major League contenders. Mark Teixeira, Kevin Youkilis, Miguel Cabrera, Bobby Abreu, Chase Utley, Albert Pujols, Ubaldo Jimenez, Matt Cain - you know about all of them. What follows is a list of those players (and one unit for that matter) that figure to skew pennant races or the post-season one way or another who haven't factored like they are now all season long. A season is a process, and it is often the best playoff-qualifying team on October 1st that wins the World Series and not the team that has been the best all season long. These players, many not factors at all for their current clubs for much of the season, will impact their teams' chances for better or worse from here on out. In the case of the Dodgers offense, of course they have been "factors" all season long. I include it because it has been such an enigma of late. I include it because it seemed like it could be counted on for much of the year. It's not a specific player like every other entrant, but its performance is just as uncertain and critical as the other players listed.

National League

Madison Bumgarner

Bumgarner made his debut for San Francisco last night, an event that should have been met with great anticipation and zeal by Giants fans. In his 19 year-old season (he turned 20 on August 1), Bumgarner is a career 27-5 Minor League pitcher and boasts a 4.65 K/BB ratio. Problem is, the Giants only gave the kid the Big League nod because baseball's best pitcher was scratched with back problems.

Back problems could mean just one start but there is also the possibility that it could be something much worse. Should Tim Lincecum miss an extended period of time, it will be up to Bumgarner to take his turn in the rotation. With a lineup as inept as San Francisco's, a Lincecum gem is more of a necessity than a luxury. The Giants lost 4-3 last night, a respectable run prevention showing by any measure. But the Giants had only yielded as many as four runs in six of Lincecum's previous 20 starts. In other words, a typical Lincecum start last night wins. Lincecum's injury and Bumgarner's adaptability will play critical roles in the National League Wild Card race.

Brad Penny

Penny's peripherals have been respectable all season long, and in two starts with the Giants so far he has been terrific. If Penny can maintain his effectiveness, he will give San Francisco one of the more solid one-through-five rotations in baseball, with Lincecum (Bumgarner), Matt Cain, Barry Zito and Jonathan Sanchez filling out the remaining spots.

As Red Sox fans can attest, Penny's mistakes seem to be hit as hard as any pitcher's in baseball. But when he limits the mistakes, or when the competition is less fierce (sorry, but let's be honest), he can definitely take a turn in a championship-aspirant rotation.

The Dodgers offense

Prior to the All-Star Game, even without Manny Ramirez for much of that time, this was an offense firing on all cylinders. Since the All-Star break, things have gone south. An offense that, despite playing home games in one of the more favorable pitcher's parks in baseball, was 2nd in the league in OPS heading into the break has ranked just 9th since then.

             Pre ASB             Post ASB
         AVG   OBP   SLG      AVG   OBP   SLG
Manny   .355  .487  .669     .264  .373  .466
Pierre  .328  .387  .417     .282  .345  .321
Kemp    .320  .384  .495     .308  .333  .538
Blake   .285  .364  .486     .252  .333  .409
Ethier  .250  .338  .475     .333  .410  .612

James Loney and Rafael Furcal never quite found their strokes this season. In Loney's case, help may be on the way in the form of Jim Thome, though the veteran's defensive limitations will preclude him from playing regularly. Thank heavens for Andre Ethier.

Carlos Gonzalez

To kick off the month, Gonzalez is chasing a .371/.432/.714 August with a .357/.455/.679 September. With apologies to Seth Smith, Tulo and Dexter Fowler, it has been Gonzalez's emergence that have transitioned the Rockies from pesky Wild Card contender to a legitimate World Series-caliber force.

To the Rockies credit, they do not sit tight when they think they have a superior performer hanging around somewhere, whether it be on the dugout, the Minor Leagues or the waiver wire. Ask Garrett Atkins and Ryan Spilborghs. You'd better perform if you want to hang onto your job in Denver.

Rafael Betancourt & Franklin Morales

The Colorado bullpen is rounding into form thanks to these two. After injuries and struggles as a starter relegated Morales to the Minor Leagues after playing such a key role on the 2007 NL Champions, he has come back late in 2009 as a force out of the bullpen. Add Betancourt to the fold, whom the Rox acquired from the Cleveland Indians at the trade deadline, and all of a sudden it appears Colorado has the makings of a shut-down late inning 1-2 punch. In just under 40 combined innings since the All-Star Break for Colorado, the two have combined for 43 strikeouts, 14 walks and just 27 hits.

John Smoltz

Look, the Red Sox couldn't wait around to see if Smoltz would turn this corner. They saw his stuff and liked it. They saw his peripherals and took note. If it were April when he made his first start, you can bet they would have kept running him out there through May, through June, etc to see if he would turn the corner he seems to have.

You might have come across this David Cameron piece about Smoltz after the Red Sox designated him. To me it wasn't controversial because of the key point it was making - that Smoltz still appeared to have good innings left in him. It was the ease with which he dismissed the Red Sox evaluative process.

Cardinal fans just picked up a pretty good pitcher for the league minimum, thanks to the continued overestimation of the usefulness of ERA. The sooner people realize that it’s an obsolete pitching statistic, the better off baseball will be.

Indeed. The Red Sox brass could learn a thing or two about how there is more to pitching than ERA. It was this dig that stood out for me; the presumption that Boston's front office - Theo Epstein and Tom Tippett and Bill James - overvalue ERA and worse, hold baseball back as a result. Boston was in the thick of a race and didn't have the luxury of finding out if Smoltz's strong peripherals and his complete ineptitude versus left handed batters would correct itself. With a comfortable lead in its division, St. Louis did have that luxury and has benefited.

Either way, Cameron looks pretty smart these days with Smoltz and Penny performing the way they are, the former with a ridiculous 28 strikeouts against just one walk in four starts with St. Louis.

Pedro Martinez

Speaking of strong K/BB ratios, in four starts with the Phillies, Pedro is now at 27 strikeouts and four walks. He is still getting hit pretty hard at times but it looks as though Philadelphia has found themselves some options when it comes playoff time. Joe Blanton and J.A. Happ have also been great lately, and Cole Hamels and Cliff Lee are, well, Cole Hamels and Cliff Lee. Pedro may yet find himself on the outside looking in when October rolls around, but if he continues to pitch the way he has, Charlie Manuel won't have a choice.

J.C. Romero & Brett Myers

Like Colorado, Philadelphia's bullpen stands to benefit from two late additions. Romero and Myers have returned from injuries and not a moment too soon with Brad Lidge struggling as badly as he has. These two will be worth watching down the stretch as the Phillies try and figure out optimal post-season deployment of their pitching talent. All of a sudden they have remarkable starting pitching depth and if Romero or Myers struggles, it may be worth considering converting one or more of their starters into relievers.

American League

Brandon McCarthy

After his second consecutive season spending extended time on the Disabled List, McCarthy returns to the Rangers rotation in the thick of a playoff chase. If not for Akinori Otsuka and Adam Eaton, it's almost as if McCarthy would be best known for occupying the short end of a bad Jon Daniels trade.

But here he is, the #49 prospect on Baseball America's 2005 Top 100 list, and he still has that wiry frame that has served so many other pitchers well. He has won his first two decisions since coming back, but with shaky peripherals in the process. He will need a couple more good starts to stick through September because the player whose rotation slot he took, Dustin Nippert, had been throwing pretty nicely.

Julio Borbon

Since being recalled from Triple-A Oklahoma City on August 7th, all Borbon has done is hit .329/.397/.486 with 13 steals against just one caught stealing. Marlon Byrd hasn't been so bad either (.287/.328/.486). Now Ron Washington is going to have some decisions to make. Josh Hamilton (.270/.318/.426) and Andruw Jones (.217/.329/.482) are set to return from injury but each game is crucial to the Rangers' hopes. If playing time is to be doled out on a meritocratic basis, Borbon and Byrd should not be sitting much down the stretch.

Howie Kendrick

Since returning to the Big Leagues on the 4th of July, Kendrick is hitting .361/.397/.511. Since the All-Star break, it's .373/.405/.545. Who knows if Kendrick has finally arrived or if this is some sort of short-term blip - my guess is the former for what it's worth - but let's put this in perspective. An excellent fielding second baseman OPS'ing .900+ is more commonly known as an MVP candidate. Or Chase Utley. Or Joe Morgan.

You get the point. On a team with a lot of excellent players, Kendrick might be the Halos' very best at the moment.

Scott Kazmir

I have heard some friends in baseball circles refer to "change of scenery" guys and to be candid, it made little sense to me. The concept is that the player, for whatever reason, is unable to perform up to his ability because of external factors specific to a given team or city. That makes enough sense, that a player's environment can impact their performance, but how could you know that any other environment would suit him better? Well in light of Smoltz, Penny, Julio Lugo, Matt Holliday and now Kazmir, I am becoming more of a believer. The southpaw is flashing a 1.35 ERA in his first 13.1 innings with the Halos.

Edwin Jackson

On a team badly lacking pitching pitching depth, Detroit's World Series road-map consists of little more than two or three shut-down performances from Jackson and Justin Verlander per series, and then figure it out from there. Unfortunately for Tigers fans, Jackson is looking like he may no longer be capable of filling such a role.

      April 7 to June 6    June 7 to Sept 9
          ERA   K/BB          ERA   K/BB
Jackson   2.16  3.26          3.88  1.88

He has still been good, but the Tigers need the dominant Jackson back to make a run in the post-season. Unless their bats get a big boost...

Carlos Guillen

...which brings me to Guillen. Miguel Cabrera is the only Tiger OPS'ing over .800 on the season, a problem for a team with thin starting pitching and a bullpen that can look shaky. But since the All-Star Break Guillen has been terrific, raking at a .276/.374/.530 clip. Magglio Ordonez has come on and the addition of Ryan Raburn has helped, too. It looks like the new road map for the Tigers might be simply to outslug teams. It would have seemed unlikely a few months ago, but their lineup may yet round together.

Clay Buchholz, anyone who can get them to October

Josh Beckett and Jon Lester are known commodities, even if the former has struggled of late. The Red Sox #4 and #5 starters, with Penny and Smoltz long gone, Tim Wakefield's back a major question, Daisuke Matsuzaka's return unclear, Junichi Tazawa struggling and Paul Byrd even in the mix to begin with, could be considered, um, uncertain. Which leaves Buchholz.

He has been inconsistent to date in 2009 but seems like he might - might - have turned a corner. In 21.1 innings in his last three starts he has yielded just 16 baserunners and posted a 4.25 K/BB ratio. If this, or even some loose variant of this, is the Buchholz Boston gets for the rest of the year and they manage to qualify for the post-season, they're contenders.

Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain

I won't belabor this one because Rob Neyer already did such a nice job with it. The Yankees are the best team in baseball, but if you could undergo any tinkering at all with their squad, what would you do? In a piece titled "How to make the Yankees perfect" Neyer writes:

Which is where Hughes comes in. Chamberlain is the Yankees' No. 4 starter. Sergio Mitre is the Yankees' No. 5 starter. Which means the Yankees, as things stand now, have only three reliable starters. And again, you need four of them when the leaves are turning in New England.

I know, I know ... Phil Hughes has been so good in the bullpen: 1.11 ERA with an overpowering strikeout-to-walk ratio. Make him a starter again and he's not going to post numbers anything like those. But to help the Yankees, he doesn't have to be anywhere near that good; he just has to be measurably better than Chamberlain and Mitre. Particularly if -- and I know this is highly speculative -- Chamberlain regains his dominant stuff upon returning to a relief role.

Perhaps I'm overreacting to Chamberlain's recent struggles, and the Yankees are good enough to win the World Series even without a decent fourth starter. But the other day somebody asked me what could keep the Yankees from winning. I didn't have a good answer, because this is essentially a team without a weakness.

Except one. And with a little creativity, they could probably make it zero.

Will the Yankees shift personnel around this late in the season as Neyer is proposing? It might be the key to them nailing down their first title since 2000.

Permalink | Comments (4)

Baseball pundits, purists, analysts and announcers disagree on a wide array of issues relating to the game. DH or no DH? What are the virtues of the sacrifice bunt? Small ball or the three-run homer? But one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that what makes baseball particularly neat is that you never know when you might witness something extraordinary. Maybe it's a perfect game, or a speedster steals home or a nail-biter between division foes ends in an unassisted triple play. When you show up at the park, you never know what you might witness.

One can extrapolate that very same principle over the course of a week, a month or an entire season. You just never know. For instance, Mark Reynolds has 40 home runs. I find that to be absolutely remarkable. The New York Yankees have had five key contributors - Jorge Posada, Derek Jeter, Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui and Andy Pettitte - all on the wrong side of the age of 35, make marked improvements over their 2008 campaigns. What are the odds? And perhaps most stunningly of all, Garrett Jones, 28 year-old Garrett Jones, Garrett Jones of the 1,038 Minor League plate appearances in 11 seasons at a .258/.312/.450 clip, is hitting .291/.360/.602 for the Pittsburgh Pirates in 2009.

Jones' transaction history (thanks B-Ref) offers a glimpse of what an afterthought he was coming into 2009:

June 2, 1999: Drafted by the Atlanta Braves in the 14th round of the 1999 amateur draft. Player signed June 18, 1999.

May 21, 2002: Released by the Atlanta Braves.

May 24, 2002: Signed as a Free Agent with the Minnesota Twins.

November 3, 2008: Granted Free Agency.

December 16, 2008: Signed as a Free Agent with the Pittsburgh Pirates.

And yet, here he is. Let's have a look at how Jones is stacking up in 2009. Let me caveat everything I am about to present by noting that small sample size warnings apply. Jones has played in just 53 games and come to the plate only 228 times in 2009. He may tank before the end of this season. Still, it's fun to have a look. Here is how he ranks among MLB hitters in AB/HR (minimum 200 PA's):

           AB/HR
Pujols     10.9
Pena       11.6
Reynolds   11.8
Jones      12.4
Dunn       12.8

And what about the Major League OPS+ leaders? Again, minimum of 200 plate appearances:

            OPS+
Pujols      190  
Mauer       181
Gonzalez    162
Fielder     161
M. Ramirez  157
H. Ramirez  156
Dunn        156 
G. Jones    153
Utley       152
Beltran     149

Ok ok, so we know that Jones is right there offensively with the best sluggers in the game for 2009. But is his rookie season, at the age of 28, taking on historic significance? Is there much precedent for the way Jones has performed in 2009? The answer is "no".

Oh sure there was Johnny Schulte in 1927 and Bill Kenworthy in 1914 - I am sure you remember both - but for ballplayers in their rookie campaigns at the age of 27 or later, it does not get much better than Jones in 2009. Have a look for yourself.

It's unlikely that Jones keeps up anything resembling this clip but let's put his rookie campaign in perspective, much the way we would when we witness a cycle, no-hitter or 4-home run game. Maybe they lack big-picture significance but they're significant achievements on their own.

Permalink | Comments (3)

When I learned I would be arriving in Chicago on business earlier than originally planned Wednesday night, I decided to call the Cubs box office to pick up the best available single I could buy for that evening's game against the Washington Nationals. While my support for the Boston Red Sox will never waver, my wife comes from a long line of Cubs fans and I must admit that their devotion to the North Siders has rubbed off over the years. I like the Cubs. I like Wrigley Field. I like baseball. I managed a seat in the fifth row of section 115 (pictured terribly on the right).

When I arrived at the park about 30 minutes or so before the first pitch, a few things struck me. First, there was a nonstop procession of promotions; honorary batboys and batgirls and I swear to you there were four separate "first pitches". Interestingly it was Phillips Exeter grad Sam Fuld who somehow pulled promotion duty that evening. I couldn't tell if it was simply Sam's turn or if they just tell the 5'7" kid who went to Exeter and Stanford to go and make nice with the community. Whatever it was, Fuld was doing just about everything but preparing to play an actual baseball game leading up to the first pitch. Of course, he also wasn't in the lineup that night.

The other thing I noticed was a peculiar, unspoken game of one-upmanship in which Cubs fans try and evidence their love of the team by donning a $22 tee-shirt with some of the club's lesser known players' names on the back; the less heralded, the better. Ryan Theriot? I saw at least 25. Koyie Hill? You bet. Ryan Dempster? Everywhere. Tom Gorzelanny? Now on sale. I did not see one Milton Bradley tee shirt.

The clear fan favorite of the Chicago Cubs is Derrek Lee. The Cubs started to become what they are now - a veritable power brand in MLB - beginning in the 1998 season if you ask me. You could point to any number of players that will live on in peoples' memories as most representing this era of Cubs success (four playoff appearances in 11 seasons), but as time goes on and with steroid allegations tarnishing images as they seem to do, it just may be Lee that stands taller than the rest. Sure there's Sosa and Prior and Wood and Aramis and Zambrano, but Lee's steadiness, professionalism and off-the-charts awesome 2005 season position him a bit differently.

Maybe you're a Frank Chance kind of guy/gal but Lee has a fine argument as the best first baseman ever to wear a Cubs uniform. Looking back, it's a credit to my father-in-law's respect for his daughter's independence that he let me have her hand in marriage; in the Spring of 2004 I did after all argue to him that Hee Seop Choi would be better than Lee after they were traded for one another. I was adamant, too.

My scorecard pencil eraser saw work immediately. I had Nyjer Morgan leading off and playing center field, right where he was the previous night, right where he had been for the 48 other games he had played for the Washington Nationals in 2009. Willie Harris would take his position that night, however, as Morgan would miss the game with reported flu-like symptoms and then later be placed on the DL for the remainder of the year with a fractured hand. You can imagine my disappointment.

I love Fangraphs and think it's data is indispensable. But I am not one of these fans that takes their value lists at face. I am a skeptic, though would defer to it ahead of my own instinct most of the time if I had to make a call on a certain player. So back to Morgan. According to Fangraphs, he ranks 14th in total value this season amongst all Major League position players; better than Mark Teixeira, better than Troy Tulowitzki. I find this surprising but I do not necessarily doubt it. That's why I was so eager to see Morgan, a player whose value is so tied to his defense. What kind of jump does he get? I wanted to see how quickly and easily he could track down a surefire gap shot. But it wasn't to be.

The game itself was clean for seven innings or so. The Cubs managed two runs against Livan Hernandez and then another off of Jason Bergmann. Bradley had all three RBI for the Cubs through seven innings, two of which came after a long home run he pulled to right field off of Hernandez. As he made his way back to the Cubs dugout after crossing the plate, he opened and closed his hand repeatedly, the way one might if they were mocking someone for talking too much. He clearly has no use for the Chicago media or even the fans. As David Cameron notes, Bradley has not provided great value for the Cubs but he also has not been nearly as disastrous as, say, Alfonso Soriano.

Hernandez struck out the first two batters he faced and looked for all of Wrigley Field like he might have something special in him that night. Of course you would never know it from the radar gun. The velocity on at least ten of his pitches that I saw did not eclipse 66 miles per hour. But when his night was done he had given up just seven baserunners and two runs in six innings. He struck out six. For his part, Rich Harden was both dazzling and infuriating, struggling with command but blowing hitters away with his pure stuff. He pitched every bit as well as Hernandez, a back-handed compliment of sorts for a pitcher of Harden's ability ("hey, I went pitch for pitch with Livan Hernandez tonight, guys!").

Just as I was eager to witness Morgan's defensive prowess, I couldn't help but notice Adam Dunn's fielding ineptitude. It's something to behold. To lead off the eighth inning, Kosuke Fukudome hit a sharp ground ball no more than four feet to Dunn's right between the second baseman and where Dunn was playing, first base. He never moved. Later in the inning Dunn misplayed a Jeff Baker grounder that was charitably ruled a hit. The Cubs broke the game open, Dunn did not commit an error but he definitely cost his team two outs that at least 25 other Major League first baseman would have had no trouble at all handling. It was exhibit A for the inadequacy of traditional defensive statistics (errors, fielding percentage).

The Cubs would score six in the eighth, the Nats two in the ninth and the game would end up a 9-4 win for the Cubbies. Wrigley's energy was a bit zapped by the previous night's drubbing to the lowly Nationals and the overall disappointment that has characterized the 2009 season for Chicago. The lack of energy only served to make my personal experience all the more pure and somehow, timeless; it was August Major League Baseball between two teams without a chance this year featuring no shortage of intriguing players. I was at a beautiful, historic park in a world-class city. I had an Old Style, a hot dog, met some nice people, kept score. There were empty seats.

I love taking in a game with a friend as much as the next guy but there was something about this meaningless game in August, alone, away from my hometown that made me feel closer to the game than I had been in a long time. I'm recharged. The dog days are behind us.

Now bring on the stretch run.

Permalink | Comments (1)

A deal finalized yesterday between the Mets and Red Sox gives Boston another live arm while raising questions about Billy Wagner's health and more broadly, how to handle a pitcher post-Tommy John Surgery. With respect to his chances for success this season and beyond, it seems Wagner is fortunate to be a relief pitcher.

David Young at SI.com pointed out as much in his recent piece focusing on Tim Hudson's chances for making a successful return to the Big Leagues.

Perhaps an argument in favor of going to the bullpen is the high-profile closers and relievers that have been able to perform well at the major-league level post-TJS. Danys Baez, Rod Beck, Manny Delcarmen, Octavio Dotel, Frank Francisco, Eric Gagne, Tom Gordon, Hong-Chih Kuo (twice), Jose Mesa, Rafael Soriano and Bob Wickman were all able to pitch competitively after receiving TJS.

There can be no questioning Wagner's record of success. He is a relief pitcher of historic stature, the career leader both in K/9 and K/BB for relief pitchers with at least 600 career innings. In two Big League innings for the Mets in 2009, he struck out four, walked one and did not allow a hit. It's unclear what role he will fill for Boston but their once dominant bullpen has stumbled a bit of late. Takashi Saito, Hideki Okajima and Jonathan Papelbon have remained steady, but Ramon Ramirez, Daniel Bard and Manny Delcarmen have looked shaky. Adding Wagner to the mix can only help.

With Wagner's health of central concern to Boston and the American League Wild Card race, I sought out some professional perspective on Wagner, how the Sox should handle him and what he will need to do in order to sustain success. Craig Friedman is Director of Methodology at Athletes' Performance and works with Cactus League clubs preparing MLB pitchers for a long season during Spring Training. Here is what he had to share:

Billy Wagner’s acquisition by the Red Sox brings up the lingering question of Tommy John surgery—can pitchers fully recover after surgery, and if so, how can the Sox (or any team) best set up the pitcher for long-term success?

First, here is some insight on why surgery is needed in the first place: pitching velocity should be the summation of forces coming up the kinetic chain. From the ground through foot, legs, hips, torso, shoulders, elbow, hand , and finally to ball. If there is an issue with this kinetic linking as in faulty pitching technique where the hips are leaving the shoulders behind, increased stress is placed through the shoulder and elbow.

To help players recovering from Tommy John, there are both tactical considerations and physical ones:

Tactical considerations- watching pitch count over multiple games- one game of an elevated pitch count isn’t an issue if it is considered in the next games the player is in. Pitching volume should be manipulated throughout the season to make sure a pitcher is not being over-taxed. Under-recovery is also an issue that could create a sub-optimal environment in the human system- lack of sleep, and poor soft tissue quality, and poor conditioning could all lead to issues where the athlete is not as prepared as they could be the next time they take the mound.

Physical considerations- again related to kinetic linking- if there is a mobility, stability, or soft tissue issue anywhere in the body, force is not transferred efficiently through the body. These “energy leaks” force the athlete to compensate in order to make up the loss somewhere else in the chain. For example, if a pitcher has poor hip stability, energy is lost and not passed up the chain through the torso and increased stress is placed on the shoulder and elbow. It could even be as simple as having an issue with your big toe not engaging with the ground properly

So, there you have it; don't overuse him or under-use him, get him to bed early, keep him in shape and keep an eye on his "kinetic linking". Do all of that and the Red Sox may have the Billy Wagner of old, slamming the door late in games down the stretch.

==========

As Director of Methodology for Athletes' Performance, Craig Friedman designs and implements performance training systems for professional athletes of all sports as well as elite youth through college athletes. He also continues to specialize in Major League Baseball Spring Training preparation at the Arizona facility and served as a Performance Specialist for the German National Soccer Team during their run to a 3rd place finish at the 2006 World Cup in Germany. He is also involved with numerous developmental initiatives integrating performance training and technology for both Athletes' Performance and Core Performance as a leader of the Performance Innovation Team at AP.

Craig received both his Master of Science and Bachelor of Science degrees from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, where he worked with the Women's Athletic Training Department. He gained additional experience as a graduate assistant at the University of Arizona as the Assistant Football Athletic Trainer, where he was responsible for the acute care, assessment, and rehabilitation of injured players before shifting his emphasis toward performance training.

Permalink | Comments (1)

In the throes of the dog days of August, it's easy to lose sight of the importance of the baseball games being played night-to-night. In baseball there's the season's beginning, the excitement around the trade deadline and the September pennant races that seem to garner the most attention. But these are interesting times in Major League Baseball, and I thought it might be useful to stop and take stock of where we are at the moment. We'll start with the American Legaue.

In the AL East, the New York Yankees seem to be on cruise control, bashing their way to their first division crown since 2006. Their team OPS+ is 116 and with only one regular OPS'ing under .800, this is the finest edition of the Yankees in a number of years. They are getting hot at the right time, too, having gone 24-8 since the All-Star Break. Of the top-22 in OPS since the break, five are Yankees. One through nine, it's easily baseball's scariest lineup.

Elsewhere in the division, the Boston Red Sox are tied with the Texas Rangers for the American League Wild Card lead but it's been a tough slog for Boston of late. Just 13-17 since the All-Star Break, it's hard to envision these Red Sox qualifying for post-season play without really catching fire. Fear not, Sox fans. Paul Byrd goes tonight in Pawtucket. Help is on the way!

Three games back of the Red Sox and Rangers in the AL Wild Card race are the Tampa Bay Rays. The Rays field four legitimate MVP vote-getters every night, have a great front end of the rotation and an overachieving bullpen. And yet, they can't seem to string wins together consistently. Should they miss the playoffs this season, you can point to four players. Scott Kazmir and his 6.61 ERA is one, and here are the three others:

          AVG   OBP   SLG
Upton    .240  .316  .370
Burrell  .224  .326  .388
Navarro  .220  .252  .336

In the Central, the Detroit Tigers are three games clear of the Chicago White Sox. Detroit has added Jarrod Washburn and now Aubrey Huff, and despite a negative run differential for the month, are 10-7 in August. They don't really hit much, though, and while Justin Verlander continues to dazzle, Edwin Jackson has yielded a .896 OPS since the All-Star Break. If Washburn and Jackson struggle and the offense limps to the finish line, this division is there for the taking should Chicago or even Minnesota step up.

Kenny Williams has grown tired of his team's underachieving ways but don't blame 22 year-old rookie third baseman, Gordon Becham. He's been Chicago's best player of late, hitting .322/.415/.517 since the Break. The problem with the White Sox has been that Jermaine Dye and Paul Konerko are doing what old people do, slowing down. Meanwhile for 40% of their games Chicago pretends Jose Contreras and Freddy Garcia are still Major League starters. Get healthy, Mr. Peavy.

For Minnesota's part, their catcher's having a pretty good season, huh? I don't really feel compelled to jump into the absurd Joe Mauer vs. Mark Teixeira MVP debate, but a few things I have read especially resonated with me. There is this article from Dayn Perry at Fox Sports which reminds the BBWAA of the voting criteria, and that their job is not to award the hardware to "the player with the most RBI or most home runs or dirtiest uniform on a team bound for the playoffs."

There was also this tweet (hate that word but it is what it is) from Ken Tremendous, formerly of Fire Joe Morgan fame and writer for NBC's The Office and Parks and Recreation.

Joe Mauer is hitting .383/.448/.653/1.101. He has a 10.6 WARP3, and it's mid-August. If he doesn't win the MVP, I quit America.

But maybe David Cameron has it right over at FanGraphs. I tend to feel the same way these days about the Hall of Fame vote. In a piece he titles "Why Do We Care?". he writes...

If they want to think that Teixeira was the most important player to his team in the league this year, that’s fine. Most of us probably disagree, and we’re under no obligation to report that as any kind of factual statement. I’ll be telling people that Mauer was the most valuable player in the American League for 2009, and I’ve got a mountain of information to back it up. How other people view the definition of the word value has no real world impact on me.

As for Minnesota's team hopes, they sit 6.5 games back. Switch out Matt Tolbert, Alexi Casilla and anyone else who has manned second base for the Twins for Robinson Cano and the Twins are in the thick of a division race and there is no question at all about whether the guy putting up the best season ever for a catcher should capture a long overdue first MVP award. Also of note in the AL Central, Billy Butler is raking to the tune of a .331/.393/.589 line in the second half for the Kansas City Royals.

Out west we have witnessed quite a role reversal in 2009. The Texas Rangers lead baseball in Runs Saved Above Average while the Los Angeles Angels lead the Big Leagues in runs per game and batting average. Seven Angels regulars are OPS'ing over .800 on the season while the two that are not, Howie Kendrick and Erick Aybar have posted a .986 and .878 mark respectively in the second half. I wonder if Mike Scioscia has reconsidered some of his philosophies regarding how runs are plated.

The Rangers improved run prevention can be attributed in large part to their defense. Led by Elvis Andrus, Texas is second in the American League in Defensive Efficiency Rating. Texas has a tough road the rest of the way, with seven remaining against the Angels, six against the Rays and three against New York. Their last seven games of the season will be away from Arlington. They look strong - they might even be the favorites for the Wild Card - but let's see them close. It's been a while.

==========

I'll be back next Wednesday with a similar look at the National League.

Permalink | Comments (2)

There is a shortstop playing for one of the Florida teams this season batting .336/.391/.541, heating up at the right time and overall posting one of the better offensive years by a player at his position in recent memory. Yes, Hanley Ramirez (.351/.413/.556) is having another banner year but the first sentence here applies to Tampa Bay Rays shortstop, Jason Bartlett.

The players manning Tampa Bay's middle infield represent two of this year's biggest surprises in Bartlett and Ben Zobrist. Coming into this season, Bartlett was a career .276/.337/.362 hitter more renowned for his clubhouse presence (2008 team MVP!!) and glove than for his contributions with the bat. Now he's OPS'ing over .900. And really, how much playing time would Zobrist even have seen if Akinori Iwamura did not go down?

But I want to focus on shortstops for the purposes of this article. I wrote at the beginning of the 2007 season how 2006 was just the sixth ever season in which four or more shortstops eclipsed the 120 OPS+ mark. For all of the talk of how A-Rod, Nomar, Jeter and Tejada represented the peak for shortstop productivity by posting banner season after banner season around the turn of the century, that era seems never to have gone away.

Since 1985, there have been 103 seasons of 110 OPS+ batting by MLB shortstops playing at least 90 games (a convenient cutoff given Bartlett's DL stint this year). 42 of those seasons occurred between 1985 and 1998, the first 14 of the 25 years I analyzed. From 1999 through 2009, in those eleven years there have been 61 shortstops eclipse the 110 OPS+ mark in a given season.

While their simultaneous emergence captivated baseball fans everywhere, Alex Rodriguez would eventually move to third base, Nomar Garciaparra would fall off badly and Derek Jeter began producing unspectacular but steady seasons. When Miguel Tejada regressed significantly in 2007 after three great seasons in Baltimore, it seemed the age of the high-producing offensive shortstop may have come to a close.

But now there is a new crop of shortstops, young and old, toiling in smaller markets and to much less fanfare than did Nomar and Jeter and A-Rod during their shortstop heyday. In fact, 2009 may well be the best season in baseball history for shortstop productivity. Sticking with the metric mentioned earlier, players posting 110 OPS+ and higher, only 2002 matches this season in terms of the amount of players besting the mark. In both years, seven shortstops accomplished the feat.

2002

            AVG   OBP   SLG   OPS+
A-Rod      .308  .392  .623   158
Tejada     .308  .354  .508   128
Nomar      .310  .352  .528   127
Hernandez  .288  .356  .478   120
Cora       .291  .371  .434   119
Renteria   .305  .364  .439   113
Jeter      .297  .373  .421   111

2009

            AVG   OBP   SLG   OPS+
HanRam     .351  .413  .556   154
Bartlett   .336  .391  .541   139
Tulo       .275  .360  .535   126
Jeter      .318  .387  .452   121
Escobar    .307  .374  .464   120
Scutaro    .295  .386  .441   118
Tejada     .323  .350  .463   115

A quick glance at both lists makes it pretty easy to explain why the 2009 group gets so much less publicity. The first group was still considered part of a revolutionary time in baseball, and it didn't hurt that they were largely either in huge baseball markets or playing for the best teams in the game. A-Rod, Nomar and Jeter were referred to as the Holy Trinity, Tejada came on later but grabbed headlines for the great Oakland A's teams of the turn of the century. Edgar Renteria played for St. Louis at the time, a great market with a large and attentive fanbase.

This season's group is a different story. Ramirez and Bartlett's teams have combined to draw less than the Yankees this year. Speaking of the Yankees, it seems like for once Jeter might be overlooked! Newcomers Mark Teixeira, C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett are grabbing headlines as the Yankees cruise to their best season in a few years. Troy Tulowitzki is in Denver, Yunel Escobar in Atlanta, Miggy is now in Houston and the excitement directed towards Marco Scutaro at the beginning of the season seems to have faded with the hopes of the Blue Jays.

We are still in the middle of a golden era of shortstop productivity, perhaps even at the peak of it. If the Marlins and Rays make a big push and qualify for the post-season, it will have to be thanks in large part to their respective shortstops. If that happens, then maybe this crop of slugging glove-men will get their due.

Permalink | Comments (9)

A quick one today because I was up way too late last night watching the Red Sox lose to the Tampa Bay Rays in 13 innings, but here is some of what happened last night around Major League Baseball:

Just like each of the previous 11 seasons, it's been a tough year of baseball in Baltimore. They're 42-57 and in last place in the American League East. Almost without question, they will end up in last place, too. The Orioles will not even sniff 80 wins, a mark the franchise has failed to reach every season since 1997. You could forgive an Orioles fan for losing hope.

Compounding matters is the fact that Major League Baseball forces Baltimore to play an unbalanced schedule against some of the league's best teams. They will have played 57 games against the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Tampa Bay Rays by the end of the season, clubs sporting the top three run differentials in the American League and three of the top five in all of baseball. The Toronto Blue Jays, the other American League East team, is not so bad either.

Despite all of this, there is ample cause for optimism in the Charm City. The Orioles boast an offensive core they can build around to go along with some of the most promising pitching prospects in all of baseball. Moreover, close to $46 million of payroll will come off the books after the 2009 season. The Orioles will be in a position both to promote good players from within and leverage new-found financial flexibility to fill holes. And before we get too far ahead of ourselves, they might also be able to address the 2010 club and beyond before Friday's trade deadline.

Let's take a look at what their 2010 lineup and pitching staff might look like and try and figure out what they might do to give themselves the best shot to compete next season (2009 stats shown below).

The Lineup

POS Name       Age  Level(s)   AVG   OBP   SLG
C   Wieters    23   AAA/MAJ   .289  .356  .446
1B  Snyder     22    AA/AAA   .300  .371  .501
2B  Roberts    31     MAJ     .279  .342  .434
3B  Wigginton  31     MAJ     .256  .303  .385
SS  Izturis    29   MAJ/AA    .263  .296  .320
LF  Reimold    25   AAA/MAJ   .327  .413  .565
CF  Jones      23     MAJ     .297  .352  .488
RF  Markakis   25     MAJ     .292  .348  .463
DH  Scott      31   MAJ/L-A   .283  .367  .546

Baltimore can count on average or better production from catcher, second base, all three outfield positions and designated hitter. From there, Baltimore President of Baseball Operations Andy MacPhail will be forced to make a series of judgment calls, beginning this week. Will Brandon Snyder be ready to fill everyday duties at first base (or DH if you want to slide Luke Scott to 1st)? What can George Sherrill get in the form of a third baseman or shortstop? Might Brian Fuentes' recent struggles compel the Angels to bid for Sherrill's services? Have they soured on Brandon Wood given his career .188/.250/.280 Major League mark? Wood would almost certainly be too much for Sherrill alone but what about Dodgers third base prospect Josh Bell? The National League's best club is rumored to be interested in Sherrill.

There are also a number of options on the free agent market. Adrian Beltre's offensive struggles this season might mean that he could be had on the cheap. He remains a top-notch defender and is a strong bounce-back candidate at the plate given how precipitous his decline has been. Chone Figgins might be another option at third, an all-around good guy who has won a lot and could be a terrific influence on a young team.

If Baltimore does not think Snyder is ready for an everyday job and decides to move Scott to first, maybe they could pursue a full-time DH like Vladimir Guerrero or Jermaine Dye. The 2010 free agent class of shortstops is thin but a number of them would represent an upgrade over Izturis. If Baltimore could acquire Marco Scutaro, Jack Wilson, Adam Everett or Orlando Cabrera at a reasonable price, it may be well worth their while.

In Matt Wieters, Brian Roberts, Nolan Reimold, Adam Jones, Nick Markakis and Luke Scott, the Orioles have a legitimate offensive nucleus. What they do to fill in the holes will go a long way in determining the type of season they have in 2010.

Pitching

Name      Age  Level(s)   IP    K/BB   WHIP   ERA  
Uehara    34     MAJ     66.1   4.00   1.25  4.07
Guthrie   30     MAJ     115.1  1.82   1.38  5.23
Bergesen  23   AAA/MAJ   127.0  2.06   1.24  3.47
Hernandez 24  AA/AAA/MAJ 106.0  3.12   1.17  3.23
Tillman   21     AAA     96.1   3.81   1.15  2.71
Matusz    22   H-A/AA    111.1  3.87   1.05  1.94
Arrieta   23    AA/AAA   104.1  2.83   1.26  3.36
Berken    25  AA/AAA/MAJ 95.1   1.63   1.42  4.81

This is the part where O's fans should start to salivate. Chris Tillman will start tonight against Zack Greinke and the Kansas City Royals, which may well be the beginning of an era in Baltimore. Tillman, along with Brian Matusz, are both top-10 Baseball America prospects. Jake Arrieta gets honorable mention on the Baseball America midseason top-25 list.

Add some combination of these three to a healthy Koji Uehara (awesome periphs), David Hernandez and Brad Bergesen (two youngsters who have made the jump), and Jeremy Guthrie (a track record of MLB success) and all of a sudden the Orioles are looking at a very nice starting pitching staff. Baltimore's rotation will be its meal ticket for 2010 and beyond.

==========

Given their youth, Baltimore might consider tacking on a free agent to the rotation. They will also have to cobble together a bullpen. But as it stands right now this Orioles starting staff looks like it will be able to post a season's worth of above average pitching in 2010 and quite a bit better than that in 2011 and out. When you combine this with their offensive nucleus, the Orioles appear positioned to make the moves necessary to put a contender on the field.

Regardless of what they do at the trading deadline and during this upcoming off-season, Baltimore will field a young, talented group of players in 2010. But given the amount of salary coming off the books, Andy MacPhail has an opportunity to compete sooner rather than later and he should go for it. While Baltimore might be out of it for 2009, with Tillman on the bump and Wieters behind the plate tonight, there will be no mistaking for O's fans that the future has indeed arrived for a franchise looking to reclaim its proud history.

Thanks to Cot's Contracts and Baseball-Reference for much of the data contained herein.

Permalink | Comments (3)

Living in Boston I can tell you that the ridiculous tenor of the Jim Rice adulation and yes, revisionism, is in high gear on this induction weekend. It's to the point where people are now just making stuff up about the guy. Roger Clemens and Wade Boggs will watch Jim Rice's #14 retired at Fenway Park before #21 or #26 decorate the right field facade. It's all very silly.

But that's ok. The Rice ship has sailed. He's going to be inducted into Cooperstown tomorrow and he will not be the worst player in the Hall of Fame. What grates as a Red Sox fan, however, is just how overlooked Dwight Evans has become. In that spirit, I am going to re-run my first columnn that I wrote for Rich here at Baseball Analysts, a comparison of Evans and Rice.

The debate is a bit played out in baseball internet circles but nonetheless the timing is right. If the Boston Globe can devote full sections to Jim Rice, I can remind our little audience of just how good Dwight Evans was; how he was a better hitter, fielder and baserunner than Rice. Oh and he played longer. We've moved so far beyond the AVG/HR/RBI era of evaluating baseball players that Rice's inclusion and Evans's exclusion serves only to discredit a once venerable institution.

Without further ado, here is my post from January 10, 2007.

==============================

For my introductory Change-Up post at Baseball Analysts, I thought I would tackle something near and dear to my heart. It's a topic that also represents a hat-tip of sorts to my past, both as a fan and blogger. So let's get to it.

Based on the numbers below, which player would you contend had the better career?

           GAMES  AVG  OBP  SLG  OPS+   
Player A:  2,089 .298 .352 .502  128  
Player B:  2,606 .272 .370 .470  127

Here are some additional numbers, including plate appearances, total bases, bases on balls, outs made and times the player grounded into a double play:

           PA     TB     BB     OUTS   GIDP
Player A:  9,058  4,129  670    6,221  315
Player B: 10,569  4,230  1,391  6,965  227

To give you a sense of peak value, here are their respective best five seasons in terms of OPS+:

Player A    Player B
  158         163   
  154         156  
  148         148
  141         147
  137         137

To my eye, they look pretty comparable, though I would take Player B's career. He played longer, had a slightly better peak, and derived more of his offensive value from his on-base percentage than he did from his slugging percentage. Quality and quantity. The best of both worlds.

Now what if I told you that Player B played right field and Player A left field? The same output from a right fielder as a left fielder will always be more valuable from the guy playing right because it is a more demanding defensive position. And then what if I told you Player B also won eight Gold Gloves while Player A was considered a mediocre defender at best?

And then what if I told you that the two were not only contemporaries, but teammates? Wouldn't it stand to reason that the media and general public could come to a fair assessment of who the better player was?

Well in case you haven't yet figured it out, Jim Rice is Player A and Dwight Evans is Player B. Rice received 63.5% of Hall of Fame votes yesterday, making him a likely bet to get in on next year's thin ballot. Dewey, on the other hand, never managed 8% of the votes and only managed to stay on the ballot for three years.

So why the perception gap? I have a few theories. For one, Rice had his best seasons early in his career and leveled off some thereafter while Evans started relatively slowly and became a superstar during the middle part of his career. It seems that each had their reputations solidified during their early years - Rice as the superstar and Evans as the good defender with an OK bat.

Also, Rice's best seasons, particularly 1977 and 1978, came for some very good Boston Red Sox teams while Evans did his best work for more mediocre editions of the Carmine Hose in the early 80's. Further, Rice excelled in the back-of-the-trading-card AVG/HR/RBI numbers whereas Evans stood out because he walked a lot, mixed in some pop and played great defense. Evans's statistical edges come in categories less valued by the mainstream. Take all of this together and the inexplicable, that fans and media alike recall Rice's work more favorably than Dewey's, becomes a little easier to account for.

Fan opinion is one thing. Fans are busy. Fans have jobs. Fans do not devote their professional lives to the coverage of baseball. But the media owes the game and the integrity of the Hall of Fame more - not the least of which is a good faith attempt at understanding the sport. Wouldn't it be more useful for you to know, say, that Evans twice led the American League in OPS while Rice did just once (something I had no idea of before researching for this piece) than to listen to story after story about how "Rice was the most feared hitter in the league for a decade?"

Dwight Evans was a better player than Jim Rice and yet the Baseball Writers' Association of America would have you believe that they were not even in the same galaxy as players, with the conventional wisdom being that Rice was better. Well you can take the more "feared" guy. I'll take the more durable player who was the superior offensive force, defender and baserunner.

Permalink | Comments (9)

The Red Sox traded for Adam LaRoche yesterday in a move that, on its own, underwhelms given Boston's potential to get something big done and the fierce competition they are sure to face for a playoff spot. But the trade deadline is still a week away.

LaRoche makes sense for the Red Sox because Mike Lowell is hobbled and aging quickly. He is no longer the fielder he once was and while he still can swing the bat a little bit, he can no longer move. He might be Major League Baseball's slowest baserunner and his ability to get to balls laterally has diminished severely. He has also demonstrated a more drastic platoon split of late, continuing to hit lefties nicely while struggling against right-handers.

Here's why the Red Sox did the deal. LaRoche is a career .269/.338/.486 hitter whom they acquired for two players that do not figure into their future plans. He has hit .296/.357/.544 in the 2nd Half for his career (he slugged .613 in the '08 2nd half). He also hits well against right-handers, posting a .275/.347/.500 clip for his career. All of this sets up a tidy straight-up platoon with Lowell, getting LaRoche in there when he is positioned to succeed and offering the gimpy Lowell much-needed regular rest. Kevin Youkilis's ability to play third affords Boston this kind of flexibility.

Permalink | Comments (1)

Momentum doesn't exist in baseball, at least as far as I can tell. Last night's thriller in Philadelphia will probably not propel the Phillies to another 10 consecutive wins and by the same token, it's not yet time for Cubs fans to "wait 'til next year" either. But the game seemed to accentuate so much about the constitution and performance of each team in 2009. It was a great game, one of the very best I have seen this season, and yet even well before Jayson Werth's game-winning home run, I couldn't help but marvel at Philadelphia's resilience and Chicago's offensive futility

Phillies starter Joe Blanton is exactly the kind of pedestrian right-hander the Cubs pounded on in 2008. Blanton's ERA has improved a bit since last year but make no mistake, he's the same pitcher he has always been. He has good control, can mix in some decent strikeout numbers from time to time and still gives up the long ball with the best of them. Coming off of a 10-1 loss at the hands of Rodrigo Lopez (Rodrigo Lopez!) and in the thick of the NL Central, the Cubbies had a chance to bounce back against Blanton.

On the hill for Chicago was Rich Harden, sort of the anti-Blanton. Whereas Harden's former Oakland teammate puts up strong innings numbers at right around a league average clip, Harden battles injuries and inconsistency constantly but sports the potential to dazzle on a given night. His performance last evening against the National League's best lineup was yet another painful reminder of just how good the Cubs pitching has been this year with so little to show for it.

A look at the Cubs and Phillies rosters, and even their 2009 statistics, would suggest that the teams are not too far apart.

       OPS+   ERA+
PHI     107    96
CHC      88   114

The Phillies hit the hell out of the ball and pitch just ok, while the Cubs are lights out on the mound and can't hit for their lives. But look at their respective lineups (cOPS+ = career OPS+).

     PHI      cOPS+  CHI       cOPS+
C    Ruiz     79     Soto      112 
1B   Howard   141    Lee       122  
2B   Utley    131    Fontenot  99
3B   Feliz    85     Ramirez   113
SS   Rollins  97     Theriot   91
LF   Ibanez   116    Soriano   114
CF   Victrno  99     Fukudome  97
RF   Werth    112    Bradley   116

As constructed, it doesn't seem like there should be a whole lot of difference between the two clubs. And I suppose in reality, there is not. The Cubs are just 6.5 games worse than Philadelphia. It is easy to get swept up in the negativity that can surround a club and with such high expectations coming into this season and a high-profile free agent flop (to date) like Milton Bradley on the roster, the Chicago media is already trying to figure out whom to blame for the Cubs' failed campaign. And yet they are just two games out of a playoff spot. It's funny, too. I wonder how many in the Chicago media who are crushing the Cubs are card-carrying members of the "pitching wins" club.

In last night's game, Chicago managed to take Philadelphia out of their comfort zone. The Phillies win by outslugging teams, but here they were at their hitter-friendly home ballpark going deep into the game in a 1-1 tie. Blanton and Harden were both very good, and then each handed the ball over to their respective bullpens. The relievers would somehow outdo both of them.

The devil is in the details, however. Both bullpens were excellent but here is what the Cubs mustered against Philadelphia relievers over the final six inning of the game. They managed to get on base just once when Brad Lidge plunked Aramis Ramirez. They saw just 61 pitches over that six-inning stretch. They did not get a hit, they could not work a walk. They rolled over. Philadelphia, on the other hand, saw 86 pitches in 5.2 innings. They made Chicago's bullpen work. Aesthetically, it was easy to tell the team that has been playing winning baseball and the one who has been underachieving all year, even as they were locked up 1-1 long into the night.

Here is the best analogy I can think of. Think of the 5th set of Wimbledon this year. Neither Andy Roddick nor Roger Federer could break the other, not until the 30th game at least. But that was because each dominated on their own serve. I liken the Cubs performance in extra innings last night to a tennis player that holds serve, only to make a bunch of unforced errors on their opponent's second serve. Sure Chicago's pitchers deserved credit for getting that far into the game but Cubby batters could not manage one base-runner against Chan Ho Park. Ryan Madson I understand, but Chan Ho Park!?!?

One mark of a great team is the ability to win games consistently in a variety of ways. Philadelphia hung tough for 12+ innings last night and finally delivered in dramatic fashion in the bottom half of the 13th. For their part, the Cubs pitched it well as they had all year but didn't hit and didn't show a whole lot of character. In other words, on a big stage in a big game playing the hottest team in baseball they squandered a golden opportunity - not by playing particularly badly but rather just by being the team they have been all season.

Permalink

More than four years after drafting Clay Buchholz out of Angelina County Junior College in the supplemental round of the 2005 Amateur Draft, the Boston Red Sox will send the 24-year old righty to the mound on Friday night for his 19th career Major League start. He will face the Toronto Blue Jays, a team rumored to be shopping their best player, Roy Halladay. Whether he is being "showcased" or given a shot to stick remains to be seen, but let's take a look at Buchholz's roller coaster professional career to see how we got to this point.

When the Red Sox drafted him, the only questions about Buchholz seemed to center on his makeup. Here is Baseball America, recapping the Boston draft pick:

While Buchholz hoped to become a regular shortstop, Angelina coaches saw him pitch at 88-89 mph at a tryout camp and thought he had upside on the mound if he could make mechanical adjustments. They were right. Buchholz' fastball sat at 92 mph and touched 97 this spring. When he's on, his slider grades as a 65 and his curveball as a 55 on the 20-80 scouting scale. Buchholz still needs to improve the consistency of his breaking pitches and his changeup, but it's hard to argue with his pure stuff. He went 11-1, 1.19 with 112 strikeouts in 76 innings as the ace of a prospect-laden pitching staff ...The biggest concern is his makeup, stemming from an incident in high school that has some clubs avoiding him entirely.

Here is Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe, recapping the 2005 draft for the Sox.

With their next pick, the 42d, the Sox took Angelina (Texas) Junior College righthander Clay Buchholz, Stanford second baseman Jed Lowrie at No. 45, Waubonise Valley (Ill.) High School righthander Michael Bowden at No. 47, and Cross Creek (Ga.) high school catcher Jonathan Egan at No. 57.

Buchholz has 97-mile-per-hour stuff and 13.6 strikeouts per nine innings. McLeod said he spent a lot of time on background checks with Buchholz, who has had off-field issues, and came away convinced that those issues were behind him.

Buchholz had two arrests to his name, one for theft and another for breaking and entering, but the Sox came away convinced that both incidents amounted to little more than youthful hijinks and were not indicative of the type of kid he was. It seems they were both right and wrong, to the extent that one can connect behavioral dots throughout different points in an individual's life. When Buchholz would eventually reach the Big Leagues, let's just say he would enjoy himself and did not always display the kind of maturity and professionalism his teammates, manager and front office personnel would have liked to have seen from him.

On the field, Buchholz dominated pro ball from the moment he took to the mound. He was excellent in short-season ball in the New York/Penn League in the summer of 2005, he tore through the Sally and Carolina Leagues in 2006 and then the Eastern and International Leagues in 2007, earning a late-season call-up from the eventual World Series champion Red Sox that year. Here is how he had fared throughout his Minor League career to that point.

          IP    K/9   K/BB   WHIP   ERA
2005     41.1   9.8   2.00   1.04  2.61
2006    119.0  10.6   4.24   1.02  2.42
2007    125.1   9.4   4.89   0.97  2.44

He would make his debut on August 14th, 2007, three days before his 23rd birthday. In three starts and one relief appearance, he was excellent - everything the Sox could have hoped for and more. There was, of course, this, a no-hitter in just his second career Major League start. While Boston management determined there was no need for Buchholz on the Red Sox post-season roster, he had secured his future. He would begin the 2008 season in the Boston rotation.

Unfortunately, he would also struggle mightily. Here is how he fared in his two Big League seasons. Note the contrast between 2007 and 2008.

          IP    K/9   K/BB   WHIP   ERA
2007     22.2   8.7   2.20   1.06  1.59
2008     76.0   8.5   1.76   1.76  6.75

His command and seemingly his focus were off in 2008. The word that is tossed around in interviews with club personnel is "maturity". A consensus seemed to emerge that Buchholz lacked it both on and off the field between the time he threw the no-hitter and the time he landed back in the Minor Leagues for good in August of 2008. He was a known partier - no major black mark given his age, level of fame and good looks in a baseball-crazed town. On the mound he would try to strike too many guys out or fail to consider the situation or shake off the captain Jason Varitek. Add it all up and he left a little bit of a bad taste in the mouths of some key Red Sox.

He has returned to dominance since his demotion. Here are his Minor League stats in 2008 and 2009.

          IP    K/9   K/BB   WHIP   ERA
2008     58.2   9.4   3.39   1.04  2.30
2009     99.0   8.1   2.97   0.98  2.36

All of this brings us to Friday night, when Buchholz will make his first Major League start of 2009. Why Friday night? Well the Red Sox say that since Buchholz is on rest, it's an opportunity to allow them to align their rotation since they had two starting pitchers in the All-Star Game. It's one of those statements that sounds logical enough but when you apply any scrutiny at all, it just doesn't add up. Neither Josh Beckett nor Tim Wakefield actually pitched last night in St. Louis and even if they had, it would have been no more than an inning or so. Besides, why couldn't they start their three other starters and then turn to Beckett and Wake?

So then you get the other end of the spectrum. People say the reason that he is starting on Friday night, in Toronto no less where they are shopping this deadline season's prize, is that they are "showcasing" Buchholz. It's as though were it not for the sight of him on a Major League mound, teams' front office personnel might question Buchholz's very existence. That doesn't make much sense to me either. He's been an incredibly consistent and dominant Minor League pitcher and he has tossed a no-hitter in the Big Leagues. A July start in Toronto will do little to enhance or detract from his value.

That leaves two possibilities. One is that the Sox just want to give the kid a nod. He's been great all season long and deserves a chance at the Big League level - nothing more, nothing less. The other possibility is that they want to see how he performs Friday night and beyond in case they decide they want to move, say, Brad Penny. I think this is the most likely scenario. Other than Halladay, I am not sure of another player who could be available before the deadline for whom Boston would move Buchholz.

But make no mistake, the Red Sox are going to be involved in what is shaping up to be one of the most active and exciting trading seasons in recent memory. While Boston cherishes its organizational depth, it is also a team that is not afraid to go for it. As they say, "flags fly forever." They boast enough depth and possess the financial wherewithal to replenish with free agent stopgaps, that they can match just about any offer another team could without suffering too badly in the long term. And if you don't think they have the stomachs to deal with trading great talent, consider the Beckett (and Mike Lowell) for Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez trade.

On the night of September 6, 2006, Sanchez threw a no-hitter for the Florida Marlins, Ramirez was well on his way to winning the National League Rookie of the Year award while Beckett had a 5.11 ERA and Mike Lowell was plodding along with an ok, .286/.340/.474 mark. The Red Sox trailed the Yankees by 9 games in the AL East and the Minnesota Twins by 7 games in the Wild Card. Talk to the Red Sox brass about that night - it was a true low point - and yet just a year later, Lowell would win the World Series MVP with Beckett leading the way on the mound as the Red Sox won their second title in four seasons.

Now think about the 2009 Red Sox lineup and all of the question marks. Lowell's health is a major question so with Kevin Youkilis playing third base, Mark Kotsay or Jeff Bailey start regularly at first. Nick Green struggles defensively and his bat comes and goes. Julio Lugo is just awful. Youkilis and Dustin Pedroia have missed time with injuries this season. You have to figure J.D. Drew has at least one DL stint in him, no? Are you ready to conclude that David Ortiz is completely back, or could he slump badly again? Is Jason Varitek's .826 OPS likely to hold up?

Meanwhile, Boston features ten starting pitchers who I think can consistently get outs at the Major League level. There are the five starters currently in the rotation, Justin Masterson in the bullpen, Buchholz, Michael Bowden, and finally Junichi Tazawa and Felix Doubront in Portland. Every Boston reliever is worthy of high-leverage Big League work. Daniel Bard, currently Terry Francona's last option out of the bullpen, features a 10.6 K/9 and a 183 ERA+ in 2009. You get the point. A lot of these guys are worth more to other teams than they are to the Sox, while the only thing standing between the Red Sox and what could be their third title in six seasons is lineup depth.

When Buchholz takes to the hill to start the second half of the season for the Red Sox on Friday night, it will also signal the kick-off of what is sure to be the most exciting deadline for Boston since they dealt Nomar Garciaparra en route to winning the 2004 World Series (I omit last season's deadline and the Manny trade because it was an altogether different feel). They have the opportunity once again either to shore up organizational weaknesses or, if they so choose, go big and net another superstar.

Or maybe both?

Permalink | Comments (14)

**Update below**

The Washington Nationals took to the field in Denver last night for the 81st time in regular season play and just as they had 56 other times in 2009, they lost a baseball game. At the halfway mark of their season the Nats are now 24-57, "good" for a .296 win percentage that puts them on pace to win 48 games. It would be the lowest win total in a 162-game season since the 1962 New York Mets won 40. No other National League team has won less than 50 since those Mets and just the 2003 Detroit Tigers have failed to win 50 in either league since the advent of the 162-game season. What I want to know is this; will the Nationals win 50 games?

Let's take a close look at the Nats and also analyze the makeup of the other historically awful teams in recent memory to try and identify differences and similarities. In this morning's Washington Post, Tom Boswell diagnoses what's wrong with the Nats. He has me for a while but then he writes this:

As if that weren't enough, the Nats have few situational hitters. Zimmerman was excellent as a rookie; now, he thinks he's past such humble duties. Put a man on second with nobody out or a man on third with one out and no Nat changes his plan of attack. Bunt for a hit, hit-and-run, squeeze? The Nats? You could die waiting.

When a team is on pace for a sub-50 win season, it's safe to say that a lack of situational hitting is in all likelihood not one of the top, oh, 100 problems or so with that team.

First the bright side for the Nats. They are 7 wins off of their Pythagorean-win pace and even further off if you look at Baseball Prospectus's third order wins, which looks more closely at how a team is hitting and pitching and assigns expected run totals. That number has them 11 wins short of where they ought to be and not even the worst team in the National League. That distinction belongs to the San Diego Padres. So it would appear that they have been unlucky.

The Nationals are also getting better. They started the season with a 5-16 April and backed it up with an 8-20 May. They are 11-21 since June 1st, which may not sound all that great - heck it's terrible - but it does represent marked improvement over their 13-36 record in the first two months. Some of that is the result of better luck and some of that, to management's credit, is the result of some personnel changes.

They acquired the tall right hander in the first place so it's hard to give too much credit here but Washington did replace Daniel Cabrera with promising youngster Jordan Zimmerman. That they optioned Shairon Martis, he of the 5-3 win-loss record, tells me that they are thoughtful about peripheral statistics. It will be interesting to see how long they can tolerate one disastrous Scott Olsen start after another.

They haven't sat idly with their position players, either. They acquired Nyjer Morgan from the Pittsburgh Pirates. Morgan is exactly the kind of defensive player they need patrolling their outfield with some combination of Adam Dunn, Austin Kearns and Josh Willingham flanking the center fielder at the corner outfield spots. While Washington's pitching has been nothing to write home about, much of their horrendous run prevention can be attributed to its defense, which ranks worst in Major League Baseball according to Defensive Efficiency Rating.

There are rays of hope for the Nationals, something that could not be said for some of the other historically bad teams over the last 50 years or so. Look at the 1962 Mets roster and there is no recipe for consistency with those ingredients. It's loaded with players that had no real shot of succeeding as Major League regulars. And they were an expansion team, so you would expect as much.

The 2004 Arizona Diamondbacks, winners of 51 games, managed to hit .253/.310/.393 as a team, all while playing home games in an absolute hitters paradise. Their starting pitchers not named Randy Johnson and Brandon Webb combined for 459 innings of 7.22 ERA performance. Again, there was just no way a team like that could string together wins.

The 2003 Detroit Tigers, who went 43-119, were sort of like the 1962 Mets. There was just nothing there. Their best starting pitcher in 2003 in terms of ERA was Nate Cornejo, who posted a 4.67 figure. My favorite part of Cornejo's season is that he was ostensibly the best pitcher on the team while featuring 2.1 K/9 and .79 K/BB ratios. He was awful, and yet a big reason the Tigers pitching numbers were merely bad and not a complete disaster is because Cornejo managed a 95 ERA+. The team ERA+ was 81.

Washington is different. Ryan Zimmerman has blossomed into a top-20 MLB position player. Dunn is having one of his better seasons at the plate. Nick Johnson and Cristian Guzman are both healthy and playing solidly. Josh Bard is having a nice year and getting more time behind the plate now. John Lannan currently sports a 145 ERA+. Their pitching is bad, but not that bad. Maybe with Morgan in the fold, their run prevention improves a bit.

If the Nationals play the same way in the second half and simply hit their Pythag number, they win 55 games. If they hit their third-order wins number, they're looking at closer to 60 wins. Factor in personnel changes - some of the players contributing to their awful numbers are no longer in the mix - and maybe you can even push 65 wins. The biggest threat to the 2009 Nationals is what happens at the trade deadline. Just about any deal that retrieves young, cheap talent would be defensible so I am not saying that they should avoid making deals in order to avoid infamy. But this team as currently constituted is bad, just not historically so. Swap out Johnson or Guzman or Joe Beimel for some Minor Leaguers and then sure, things will look different.

Short of blowing up their Major League roster, however, I would say that they've got the 50-win threshold in the bag.

**Update**

This is one of the funniest reads I've seen in a while, courtesy of the DC Sports Blog. Last night's loss to Colorado was straight out of Major League, right down to the Austin Kearns Willie Mays Hayes-style headfirst slide to nowhere and the Harry Doyle/Monte "what the *^%& is this *&%#" announcing. Seriously, go read it.

Permalink | Comments (5)

It's July 1, three months into the baseball season. With another three months remaining, it's a popular time for mainstream media members and basement dwellers alike to look back and determine their respective all-star teams, evaluate trade needs and look forward to what we might be able to expect the rest of the way.

In baseball we have grown accustomed to certain start and end points. The "first half" equals pre-All Star Game. So readily available, monthly splits are now popular. Understandably, the beginning of any given season represents the most widely cited starting point. There have been no shortage of great 10-game stretches by ballplayers in 2009, but remember when Emilio Bonifacio was making an MVP push back in mid-April?

One of many gifts that Fangraphs has given baseball enthusiasts is the ability to sort 365-day leaders in any number of statistics. So at the halfway mark of the 2009 season, I am going to take a different approach and put together an All-MLB team of sorts based on players' performances over the last 365 days - more or less a full season's worth of baseball. The only difference is that I will be using start and end points less commonly cited.

I will list my three top players since July 1st, 2008 at each position, toss in a starting rotation and then three relievers. You will notice that I highlight wOBA, as good a measure of offensive output as any. It combined on-base and slugging, but in a way that more accurately reflects their true respective values. Whereas OPS weights on-base and slugging equally, wOBA makes the proper adjustments. Its creator, Tom Tango, describes it this way:

Do we really need another statistic? Yes, we do. Instead of trying to take two statistics (OBP, SLG) and combine and correct their flaws in the hopes of getting one number, we prefer to start from scratch. Furthermore, by recasting the number onto the OBP scale, it makes it much easier for the reader to get a grasp on the number. wOBA is weighted on-base average (we call it an average rather than a percentage). When you look at wOBA numbers throughout the book, just think OBP, and you’ll be fine. In other words, an average hitter is around 0.340 or so, a great hitter is 0.400 or higher, and a poor hitter would be under 0.300.

Without further ado...

Catcher

             AVG   OBP   SLG   wOBA
Mauer       .356  .434  .547   .420
McCann      .308  .389  .509   .390
Soto        .263  .351  .441   .344

Notes: