I first saw Jamie Moyer when I bought my first pack of Topps baseball cards in 1987. I went through my collection a few years ago and came across that same baseball card. It was not in great shape but the picture with his Cubs hat virtually floating on top of his head was exactly as I remembered it. Moyer also sported a mad flat-brim two decades before flat-brims became cool.
Moyer will be 46 in November. He has a 112 ERA+. That’s plenty good to be an effective starter in the majors. In fact, he’s easily the second best pitcher on Philadelphia’s staff and it certainly isn’t a fluke. Moyer learned to survive a long time ago by varying the speeds of his pitches and, equally important, locating them. His fastball tops out in the low 80s which is among the slowest in the league. As a result, there doesn’t appear to be any physical limitations to Moyer playing until he’s 50 unless his arm falls off. Moyer seems to realize this. He has repeatedly stated that he plans to pitch as long as possible. He recently reiterated this in an article on MLB.com by saying "I am not at the end...This isn't my last year."
Moyer won eight games before the All-Star break this year. It’s reasonable to assume he’ll win approximately six games after the break. That will give him 244 career wins. If he intends to play four or five more seasons, he’ll have a legitimate shot at 300 career wins. It’s unlikely that Moyer will last that long but not out of the question. I wrote a similar post about Julio Franco (who was 48 at the time) last year and he was released this season ending his career. The difference between Franco and Moyer is that Moyer is a workhorse who has been thriving with the same repertoire of pitches for the last 13 years. Franco was just a part-time player over his last eight seasons. At least half the teams in MLB would love to have Moyer on their staff.
I realize that I might be getting ahead of myself just a bit here, but, in the highly unlikely event that Moyer hangs around long enough to reach 300 wins, Hall of Fame voters would be faced with the most difficult decision of their voting lives. No pitcher has ever been kept out of the HOF with at least 300 wins. Conversely, no pitcher has ever made the HOF with an ERA over 4.00 (Red Ruffing has the highest ERA among HOFers at 3.80). It’s not as if his numbers are awful. He has been one of the best pitchers in the majors over the past 13 years. He has the 6th most wins in the majors since 1996 behind only Greg Maddux, Andy Pettitte, Randy Johnson, Mike Mussina, and Tom Glavine. He has pitched the 4th most innings since 1996 behind only Maddux, Glavine, and Mussina. He is 179-108 since ’96 with a .623 winning percentage. He has also led the league in age three times. Still, I don’t think there’s any doubt he would be the least qualified pitcher in the HOF if that ever happened. I wonder if the members of the 300 win-club are rooting heavily against Moyer’s membership.
Back to reality. Moyer is the last active player from the 1987 Topps set (Greg Maddux was in the ’87 Topps Traded set). There is something comforting about Moyer keeping the candle burning from the first baseball pack I ever opened. As long as he’s pitching, I’ve got a direct link to my seven-year old self. As I did for Julio Franco and Brett Favre, I’m urging Jamie Moyer to play forever. Luckily for me, I get the feeling that he might actually do it.
Showing posts with label Baseball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baseball. Show all posts
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Howard's Snub
Jayson Stark wrote a piece on ESPN last week that included one of my “pet peeves.” He wrote, “Complaining about the All-Star Game sure is fashionable these days. Maybe not as fashionable as hanging out with Lenny Kravitz. Or hugging the nearest Wimbledon runner-up. But in serious vogue nonetheless. Well, here at World Rumblings Headquarters, we don't want to get lumped in with all those other All Star Game malcontents. Heck, we love the All-Star Game.”
Then, of course, he goes on to “complain” about the All-Star game by listing three ways the game could be improved. Just because you preface a complaint with “we don’t want to get lumped in with all those other All Star Game malcontents” doesn’t mean you’re not complaining. I like Stark. His enthusiasm for baseball is infectious. He is thorough and credible. I just don’t like the, “I don’t like it when other people do X but it’s OK if I do X” argument. It’s OK to love the All-Star Game and it’s OK to complain about the All-Star Game. They are not mutually exclusive. I know this to be the case because I love the All-Star game and I’m about to complain about it.
How can Ryan Howard not be in the All-Star game? Winning the Triple Crown is one of the all-time great accomplishments in baseball. It hasn’t been done in the AL since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967. It hasn’t been done in the NL since Joe Medwick did it in 1937. So, leading the league in two of the three categories qualifies as a big deal. He obviously stands no chance at winning the third category with his paltry .234 batting average. However, how telling can “batting average” be in this instance when Howard leads the NL in home runs and RBIs? Plus, for those people still hung up on batting average (this population is dwindling by the year), Howard is hitting .330 with a 1.079 OPS with runners in scoring position (RISP). He is hitting .184 with a .701 OPS with nobody on base. Isn’t that what you want out of your clean-up hitter?
It has been 60 years since a player led the league in both home runs and RBIs and didn’t make the All-Star Game. That distinction went to Hank Sauer in 1948. There is a reason why it has been that long: leading the league in both categories makes you an All-Star. If Howard keeps up his current pace (47 HRs and 142 RBIs), he’ll easily finish in the top five of the MVP voting and might actually win it. This probably sounds like a tall task—almost as tall as installing video replay mid-season—but there is no reason why Bud Selig couldn’t have simply said, “Howard not being in the All-Star game is a joke, I’m putting him in.”
Outrageously, Howard wasn’t even among the five players submitted for the “Final Vote”. He is easily one of the biggest snubs ever and we’re supposed to believe that he wasn’t even one of the five biggest snubs this season? By the way, the winner of the NL’s “Final Vote” was Corey Hart.
Here is a brief comparison of Hart’s numbers to Howard’s:
------------HR---RBIs---Runs---
Howard—28-----84----62
Hart—----15------58----48
I realize that once Clint Hurdle (NL Manager) chose the five players for the Final Vote, the outcome was out of his hands. My question is: what was he thinking putting Hart in the Final Vote over Howard? That’s just ludicrous.
I do understand that a numbers-crunch made it somewhat difficult to make room for Howard. He does have the unfortunate distinction of playing at a position that features two of the best hitters in MLB. Phat Albert and Fat Elvis have put up monster numbers this season and deserved to make the NL squad ahead of Howard. The other NL first baseman on the roster—Adrian Gonzalez—made the team because he was chosen as San Diego’s lone representative. However, since the game is being played at Yankee Stadium, the DH is in play. Pujols is the NL’s starting DH. That frees up a first base slot for Howard. There was easily room for Howard to make the squad as either a manager’s selection or a “Final Vote” selection. Instead, the NL leader in home runs and RBIs is sitting at home (or wherever he’s sitting) for the All-Star Game.
The worst part about Howard not being in the game—other than it not being fair to him, of course—is that the leading home run-hitter in MLB was not a participant in the Home Run Derby. Can you imagine how historic a Josh Hamilton/Ryan Howard duel would’ve been in the first round?
I thought the sporting world would be all over the Howard-snub but apparently few people even know about it. I was listening to Doug Karsch and Scott “The Gator” Anderson (the most enjoyable sports radio show in Detroit, IMHO) on 1270 AM yesterday. A listener called in and said something to the effect of “It’s a shame that Lance Berkman didn’t make the All-Star Game. He leads the NL in home runs. He’s had a monster season and I can’t believe they didn’t have room for him.” Since you’ve been reading this post, you will clearly realize that there are a number of things wrong with that statement. Instead of correcting the caller, Karsh and Anderson agreed with him by saying Berkman should be an All-Star and marveled at how well he had been hitting this year. A few minutes passed and Karsch made a correction by saying that Berkman did not lead the NL in home runs. A few more minutes passed and Karsch made another correction by saying that Berkman was, in fact, the starting first baseman for the NL. Ryan Howard’s name was not mentioned once in the segment.
Once again, baseball—led by Bud Selig—has proven why it has been the butt of so many jokes in recent years. I can’t think of another sport that would allow a player who leads the league in two of the sport’s most important categories to miss its All-Star Game. Howard is the biggest snub in All-Star Game history in any sport. All I can say about his absence in the Home Run Derby is, “Thank God for Josh Hamilton!”
Then, of course, he goes on to “complain” about the All-Star game by listing three ways the game could be improved. Just because you preface a complaint with “we don’t want to get lumped in with all those other All Star Game malcontents” doesn’t mean you’re not complaining. I like Stark. His enthusiasm for baseball is infectious. He is thorough and credible. I just don’t like the, “I don’t like it when other people do X but it’s OK if I do X” argument. It’s OK to love the All-Star Game and it’s OK to complain about the All-Star Game. They are not mutually exclusive. I know this to be the case because I love the All-Star game and I’m about to complain about it.
How can Ryan Howard not be in the All-Star game? Winning the Triple Crown is one of the all-time great accomplishments in baseball. It hasn’t been done in the AL since Carl Yastrzemski did it in 1967. It hasn’t been done in the NL since Joe Medwick did it in 1937. So, leading the league in two of the three categories qualifies as a big deal. He obviously stands no chance at winning the third category with his paltry .234 batting average. However, how telling can “batting average” be in this instance when Howard leads the NL in home runs and RBIs? Plus, for those people still hung up on batting average (this population is dwindling by the year), Howard is hitting .330 with a 1.079 OPS with runners in scoring position (RISP). He is hitting .184 with a .701 OPS with nobody on base. Isn’t that what you want out of your clean-up hitter?
It has been 60 years since a player led the league in both home runs and RBIs and didn’t make the All-Star Game. That distinction went to Hank Sauer in 1948. There is a reason why it has been that long: leading the league in both categories makes you an All-Star. If Howard keeps up his current pace (47 HRs and 142 RBIs), he’ll easily finish in the top five of the MVP voting and might actually win it. This probably sounds like a tall task—almost as tall as installing video replay mid-season—but there is no reason why Bud Selig couldn’t have simply said, “Howard not being in the All-Star game is a joke, I’m putting him in.”
Outrageously, Howard wasn’t even among the five players submitted for the “Final Vote”. He is easily one of the biggest snubs ever and we’re supposed to believe that he wasn’t even one of the five biggest snubs this season? By the way, the winner of the NL’s “Final Vote” was Corey Hart.
Here is a brief comparison of Hart’s numbers to Howard’s:
------------HR---RBIs---Runs---
Howard—28-----84----62
Hart—----15------58----48
I realize that once Clint Hurdle (NL Manager) chose the five players for the Final Vote, the outcome was out of his hands. My question is: what was he thinking putting Hart in the Final Vote over Howard? That’s just ludicrous.
I do understand that a numbers-crunch made it somewhat difficult to make room for Howard. He does have the unfortunate distinction of playing at a position that features two of the best hitters in MLB. Phat Albert and Fat Elvis have put up monster numbers this season and deserved to make the NL squad ahead of Howard. The other NL first baseman on the roster—Adrian Gonzalez—made the team because he was chosen as San Diego’s lone representative. However, since the game is being played at Yankee Stadium, the DH is in play. Pujols is the NL’s starting DH. That frees up a first base slot for Howard. There was easily room for Howard to make the squad as either a manager’s selection or a “Final Vote” selection. Instead, the NL leader in home runs and RBIs is sitting at home (or wherever he’s sitting) for the All-Star Game.
The worst part about Howard not being in the game—other than it not being fair to him, of course—is that the leading home run-hitter in MLB was not a participant in the Home Run Derby. Can you imagine how historic a Josh Hamilton/Ryan Howard duel would’ve been in the first round?
I thought the sporting world would be all over the Howard-snub but apparently few people even know about it. I was listening to Doug Karsch and Scott “The Gator” Anderson (the most enjoyable sports radio show in Detroit, IMHO) on 1270 AM yesterday. A listener called in and said something to the effect of “It’s a shame that Lance Berkman didn’t make the All-Star Game. He leads the NL in home runs. He’s had a monster season and I can’t believe they didn’t have room for him.” Since you’ve been reading this post, you will clearly realize that there are a number of things wrong with that statement. Instead of correcting the caller, Karsh and Anderson agreed with him by saying Berkman should be an All-Star and marveled at how well he had been hitting this year. A few minutes passed and Karsch made a correction by saying that Berkman did not lead the NL in home runs. A few more minutes passed and Karsch made another correction by saying that Berkman was, in fact, the starting first baseman for the NL. Ryan Howard’s name was not mentioned once in the segment.
Once again, baseball—led by Bud Selig—has proven why it has been the butt of so many jokes in recent years. I can’t think of another sport that would allow a player who leads the league in two of the sport’s most important categories to miss its All-Star Game. Howard is the biggest snub in All-Star Game history in any sport. All I can say about his absence in the Home Run Derby is, “Thank God for Josh Hamilton!”
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Schilling is unquestionably a Hall of Famer
With the initial revelation that Curt Schilling might have thrown his last pitch, the inevitable discussion of his Hall of Fame chances followed. Schilling’s shoulder surgery went well and he has intimated that he will begin a rehabilitation program which one can only assume means he will attempt to pitch again. Nonetheless, the discussion of Schilling’s Hall of Fame status is very much in play. Hall of Fame discussions are great when they involve objectivity, facts, and due diligence. They aren’t great when they occur on Baseball Tonight for all of two minutes. It’s impossible to adequately portray an intelligent stance on Schilling’s Hall of Fame chances in just two minutes. Trying to shove everything into the debate in such a short amount of time leads to things like Orestes Destrade saying that if Curt Schilling is a Hall of Famer, then Orel Hershiser should be one, too.
First of all, Destrade never answered the question. Second, he does Schilling a disservice by turning a question about Schilling into a question about Hershiser. Comparing Schilling’s resume to Hershiser’s is ridiculous. If Destrade wants to make a case for Hershiser, then so be it. But, it should certainly not be in the form of piggy-backing on Schilling’s candidacy. Even Buster Olney’s answer was brief and not very convincing and I agreed with him. It takes a decent amount of research to come to the proper conclusion on Schilling’s case for the Hall of Fame. It’s certainly not something that can be argued in less than two minutes. Destrade and Olney never even had a chance to put forth a convincing argument either way to no fault of their own. So, I’ll attempt to finish where they barely started. Schilling’s case for the Hall of Fame is being presented as borderline at best by most. I actually don’t think there’s anything “borderline” about it. In fact, I think Schilling is easily one of the top 25 starting pitchers in MLB history.
Regular Season
Most baseball fans know that Schilling has had big moments in the post-season. I’m not sure everyone knows just how dominating he has been in the playoffs (I’ll get to that later), but people know he has been great in October. What people apparently don’t realize—or remember—is that Schilling has been a great regular season pitcher, too. In fact, his regular season credentials alone are Hall of Fame worthy. The only blemish on his regular season resume is his win-total (216) which is relatively low for two reasons: 1). He has suffered a number of debilitating injuries, and 2). He didn’t peak until he was 29 years old. Dizzy Dean, Addie Joss, Sandy Koufax, Lefty Gomez, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh, Dazzy Vance, Rube Marquard, Hal Newhouser, Bob Lemon, and Don Drysdale all had fewer wins than Schilling. In fact, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz have fewer wins than Schilling and they would both be Hall of Famers if their careers ended today. When Tom Glavine reached 300 wins, it became chic to suggest that he was the last 300-game winner. If Glavine is the last 300-game winner, does that mean that there will never be another pitcher to make the Hall of Fame? The 300-win mark has never been a requirement to make the Hall of Fame just like the 3,000-hit mark has never been one for hitters. Anyone who makes a decision based solely on Schilling’s win total is missing out on one of the best starting pitchers in MLB history without even knowing it.
Schilling is the all-time leader in SO:BB Ratio since 1885. He is the only pitcher in MLB history with more than 3,000 strikeouts and fewer than 800 walks. He is one of only four pitchers in MLB history to have three seasons of 300+ strikeouts (Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan, and Sandy Koufax are the others). Schilling is one of only three pitchers in MLB history to record a season with 23+ wins, 75%+ winning percentage, 300+ strikeouts, and a WHIP under 1.00 (Pedro Martinez and Sandy Koufax are the others). He has three seasons of at least 21 wins. Nobody in the last 25 years has had more and only Roger Clemens has equaled Schilling’s three. Schilling led the league in complete games four times including a remarkable 15 complete games in 1998 which is the highest total of the last 20 years. He also led the league in wins, innings, WHIP and strikeouts twice each.
It’s easy to dismiss Schilling’s prominence—or lack thereof—on the all-time lists since those lists are littered with a). relievers, b). pitchers who played before 1900, and c). pitchers who had short careers. When you compare Schilling’s numbers to starting pitchers who pitched 3,000 innings (most Hall of Fame starters pitch at least 3,000 innings), his numbers become incredibly impressive. Among pitchers who pitched at least 3,000 innings after 1900, Schilling is 4th in K/9, 9th in WHIP, and 12th in ERA+. How can a pitcher with that kind of presence on the all-time lists not be a Hall of Famer?
Schilling never won a Cy Young award but he finished second three times and fourth another time. He was named the TSN Pitcher of the Year in 2000 and 2001. Schilling also finished in the top 15 of the MVP voting four times which is remarkable for a pitcher. As I mentioned above, Schilling’s post-season prowess is well-known but getting his teams to the post-season is another notch on his regular-season resume. As a full-time starter, he led every franchise that he pitched for to the playoffs and to the World Series.
Hall of Fame Tests
Schilling is a Hall of Famer on the Black Ink, Gray Ink, and HOF Monitor tests. Since 1900, every eligible pitcher above 32 on the Black Ink Test is in the Hall of Fame. Schilling has a 42. The Black Ink Test measures how often a player led the league in various categories. Post-season success does not factor into this test. Since 1900, every eligible pitcher above 135 on the HOF Monitor Test is in the Hall of Fame. In fact, a score of 130 is considered “a lock.” Schilling has a 171. Since 1900, Bert Blyleven is the only pitcher above 200 on the Gray Ink Test who is not in the Hall of Fame and he is generally regarded as one of the biggest Hall of Fame snubs of all-time. Schilling has a 205. The Gray Ink Test measures how often a player finished in the top ten of various categories. Post-season success is not factored in this test, either. Those who suggest that Schilling’s resume is heavily slanted towards post-season success might want to reconsider. By virtually all “tests” that measure regular season success only, Schilling is a Hall of Famer. Now it’s time for the…
Postseason
Along with Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson, a good case can be made that Schilling is the greatest post-season pitcher in MLB history. He won the World Series MVP in 2001 and the NLCS MVP in 1993. He has led his teams to four World Series appearances and three World Series Championships. In 21 career post-season starts, Schilling is 12-2 with a 2.45 ERA. Among starting pitchers who pitched at least 60 innings, Schilling has the best post-season winning percentage in MLB history. In eight World Series starts, Schilling is 4-1 with a 2.03 ERA.
It's easy to dismiss Schilling in an era dominated by Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, and Pedro Martinez. I'm not going to suggest Schilling deserves to be in their class since they are four of the ten greatest pitchers in MLB history but he deserves to be recognized as one of the greats.
First of all, Destrade never answered the question. Second, he does Schilling a disservice by turning a question about Schilling into a question about Hershiser. Comparing Schilling’s resume to Hershiser’s is ridiculous. If Destrade wants to make a case for Hershiser, then so be it. But, it should certainly not be in the form of piggy-backing on Schilling’s candidacy. Even Buster Olney’s answer was brief and not very convincing and I agreed with him. It takes a decent amount of research to come to the proper conclusion on Schilling’s case for the Hall of Fame. It’s certainly not something that can be argued in less than two minutes. Destrade and Olney never even had a chance to put forth a convincing argument either way to no fault of their own. So, I’ll attempt to finish where they barely started. Schilling’s case for the Hall of Fame is being presented as borderline at best by most. I actually don’t think there’s anything “borderline” about it. In fact, I think Schilling is easily one of the top 25 starting pitchers in MLB history.
Regular Season
Most baseball fans know that Schilling has had big moments in the post-season. I’m not sure everyone knows just how dominating he has been in the playoffs (I’ll get to that later), but people know he has been great in October. What people apparently don’t realize—or remember—is that Schilling has been a great regular season pitcher, too. In fact, his regular season credentials alone are Hall of Fame worthy. The only blemish on his regular season resume is his win-total (216) which is relatively low for two reasons: 1). He has suffered a number of debilitating injuries, and 2). He didn’t peak until he was 29 years old. Dizzy Dean, Addie Joss, Sandy Koufax, Lefty Gomez, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh, Dazzy Vance, Rube Marquard, Hal Newhouser, Bob Lemon, and Don Drysdale all had fewer wins than Schilling. In fact, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz have fewer wins than Schilling and they would both be Hall of Famers if their careers ended today. When Tom Glavine reached 300 wins, it became chic to suggest that he was the last 300-game winner. If Glavine is the last 300-game winner, does that mean that there will never be another pitcher to make the Hall of Fame? The 300-win mark has never been a requirement to make the Hall of Fame just like the 3,000-hit mark has never been one for hitters. Anyone who makes a decision based solely on Schilling’s win total is missing out on one of the best starting pitchers in MLB history without even knowing it.
Schilling is the all-time leader in SO:BB Ratio since 1885. He is the only pitcher in MLB history with more than 3,000 strikeouts and fewer than 800 walks. He is one of only four pitchers in MLB history to have three seasons of 300+ strikeouts (Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan, and Sandy Koufax are the others). Schilling is one of only three pitchers in MLB history to record a season with 23+ wins, 75%+ winning percentage, 300+ strikeouts, and a WHIP under 1.00 (Pedro Martinez and Sandy Koufax are the others). He has three seasons of at least 21 wins. Nobody in the last 25 years has had more and only Roger Clemens has equaled Schilling’s three. Schilling led the league in complete games four times including a remarkable 15 complete games in 1998 which is the highest total of the last 20 years. He also led the league in wins, innings, WHIP and strikeouts twice each.
It’s easy to dismiss Schilling’s prominence—or lack thereof—on the all-time lists since those lists are littered with a). relievers, b). pitchers who played before 1900, and c). pitchers who had short careers. When you compare Schilling’s numbers to starting pitchers who pitched 3,000 innings (most Hall of Fame starters pitch at least 3,000 innings), his numbers become incredibly impressive. Among pitchers who pitched at least 3,000 innings after 1900, Schilling is 4th in K/9, 9th in WHIP, and 12th in ERA+. How can a pitcher with that kind of presence on the all-time lists not be a Hall of Famer?
Schilling never won a Cy Young award but he finished second three times and fourth another time. He was named the TSN Pitcher of the Year in 2000 and 2001. Schilling also finished in the top 15 of the MVP voting four times which is remarkable for a pitcher. As I mentioned above, Schilling’s post-season prowess is well-known but getting his teams to the post-season is another notch on his regular-season resume. As a full-time starter, he led every franchise that he pitched for to the playoffs and to the World Series.
Hall of Fame Tests
Schilling is a Hall of Famer on the Black Ink, Gray Ink, and HOF Monitor tests. Since 1900, every eligible pitcher above 32 on the Black Ink Test is in the Hall of Fame. Schilling has a 42. The Black Ink Test measures how often a player led the league in various categories. Post-season success does not factor into this test. Since 1900, every eligible pitcher above 135 on the HOF Monitor Test is in the Hall of Fame. In fact, a score of 130 is considered “a lock.” Schilling has a 171. Since 1900, Bert Blyleven is the only pitcher above 200 on the Gray Ink Test who is not in the Hall of Fame and he is generally regarded as one of the biggest Hall of Fame snubs of all-time. Schilling has a 205. The Gray Ink Test measures how often a player finished in the top ten of various categories. Post-season success is not factored in this test, either. Those who suggest that Schilling’s resume is heavily slanted towards post-season success might want to reconsider. By virtually all “tests” that measure regular season success only, Schilling is a Hall of Famer. Now it’s time for the…
Postseason
Along with Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson, a good case can be made that Schilling is the greatest post-season pitcher in MLB history. He won the World Series MVP in 2001 and the NLCS MVP in 1993. He has led his teams to four World Series appearances and three World Series Championships. In 21 career post-season starts, Schilling is 12-2 with a 2.45 ERA. Among starting pitchers who pitched at least 60 innings, Schilling has the best post-season winning percentage in MLB history. In eight World Series starts, Schilling is 4-1 with a 2.03 ERA.
It's easy to dismiss Schilling in an era dominated by Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, and Pedro Martinez. I'm not going to suggest Schilling deserves to be in their class since they are four of the ten greatest pitchers in MLB history but he deserves to be recognized as one of the greats.
Monday, June 09, 2008
.380 is the new .400
Last week’s post about Chipper Jones got me thinking about “reasonable expectations.” Chances are Chipper won’t hit .400. If he doesn’t, his season will be appreciated but—in the long run—won’t be considered "truly significant" by milestone-standards. I’m not so sure that should be the case.
Every once in a while, we’re treated to a “run” at .400. People start to get excited if a player is above .400 in June but I’m going to classify a “run” as being around .400 in August. The most recent “runs” were by John Olerud in 1993 who was hitting .400 as of August 2nd, Tony Gwynn in 1994 who was hitting .394 on August 11th when the work stoppage hit, and Todd Helton in 2000 who was hitting .399 on August 18th. None were hitting .400 within 55 games of a full season. Getting excited about .400 in June, July or even August, is akin to the requisite—yet futile—excitement that occurs whenever a player gets halfway to Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak. Nobody is going to break DiMaggio’s record and nobody is going to hit .400. There is no question in my mind that we need to ditch .400 as the milestone.
I’m sure most sabermetricians will have no problem with this since they don’t care much about batting average to begin with. I agree that batting average is a flawed measure but I think it becomes less flawed at the extremes. Most batting averages fall between .250 and .300. Having a batting average in that range does little to indicate the caliber of a season in terms of run production. For instance, a .300 batting average has historically been considered a good season, but it can be misleading (see; Pudge Rodriguez ’06). On the other hand, a .250 batting average has usually been considered a below-average mark but, in some cases, a player who hits .250 can have a very good season (see; Mike Schmidt ’79). However, at the extremes, there is less ambiguity. A player who hits .200 will have a truly horrible season 99.9% of the time. A player who hits .350 will have a great season 99.9% of the time. While “batting average” might be a dividing line between new school and old school statisticians, the significance of hitting .400—or the modern-day equivalent—should be intriguing to everyone.
If it were up to me, the novelty of “.400” would be a thing of the past. Unless we’re all married to the idea of seeing people fail over and over again, a new benchmark needs to be established. There has been an obvious shift in what is an attainable batting average. Ted Williams was the last player to hit .400 and that was 67 years ago. Only two players have hit .380+ in a full season over the last 50 years. Yet, there were 13 players who hit over .400 from 1900-1957. Nobody hits .400 anymore. Heck, nobody even hits .380 anymore. Interestingly, a number of players have hit .370 which seems to make .380 an ideal milestone. Below are the highest single-season batting averages in MLB since 1980 (this does not include strike-shortened seasons).
Larry Walker--------’99 .379
Ichiro-----------------‘04 .372
Todd Helton---------’00 .372
Nomar Garciaparra-’00 .372
Tony Gwynn---------’97 .372
Andres Galaragga---’93 .370
Tony Gwynn---------‘87 .370
Barry Bonds----------‘02 .370
It seems to me that .380 is the new .400. Assigning a new “bench mark” batting average for a single-season makes a lot of sense to me. Heck, it probably makes a lot of sense to you. However, the chances of .380 becoming the new historically significant milestone for batting average hover around 0%. It won’t happen for the same reason that nobody cared that Curtis Granderson was the first player in MLB history to reach 23 stolen bases, 23 home runs, 23 triples, and 23 doubles in the same season. All anyone wanted to talk about was that he was the fourth player to reach 20 in all four categories. People love round numbers. 20 and .400 are nice, round numbers. 23 and .380 are not. So, the next time someone gets into August with a .400 batting average and the nation grips for a run at .400, consider it mission accomplished if said player reaches .380. In fact, hitting .380 now would be an even more impressive feat than hitting .400 ever was back in the first half of the 20th century. There were six times as many players who hit .400 from 1900-1957 as have been players who hit .380 from 1958 to 2008.
Every once in a while, we’re treated to a “run” at .400. People start to get excited if a player is above .400 in June but I’m going to classify a “run” as being around .400 in August. The most recent “runs” were by John Olerud in 1993 who was hitting .400 as of August 2nd, Tony Gwynn in 1994 who was hitting .394 on August 11th when the work stoppage hit, and Todd Helton in 2000 who was hitting .399 on August 18th. None were hitting .400 within 55 games of a full season. Getting excited about .400 in June, July or even August, is akin to the requisite—yet futile—excitement that occurs whenever a player gets halfway to Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak. Nobody is going to break DiMaggio’s record and nobody is going to hit .400. There is no question in my mind that we need to ditch .400 as the milestone.
I’m sure most sabermetricians will have no problem with this since they don’t care much about batting average to begin with. I agree that batting average is a flawed measure but I think it becomes less flawed at the extremes. Most batting averages fall between .250 and .300. Having a batting average in that range does little to indicate the caliber of a season in terms of run production. For instance, a .300 batting average has historically been considered a good season, but it can be misleading (see; Pudge Rodriguez ’06). On the other hand, a .250 batting average has usually been considered a below-average mark but, in some cases, a player who hits .250 can have a very good season (see; Mike Schmidt ’79). However, at the extremes, there is less ambiguity. A player who hits .200 will have a truly horrible season 99.9% of the time. A player who hits .350 will have a great season 99.9% of the time. While “batting average” might be a dividing line between new school and old school statisticians, the significance of hitting .400—or the modern-day equivalent—should be intriguing to everyone.
If it were up to me, the novelty of “.400” would be a thing of the past. Unless we’re all married to the idea of seeing people fail over and over again, a new benchmark needs to be established. There has been an obvious shift in what is an attainable batting average. Ted Williams was the last player to hit .400 and that was 67 years ago. Only two players have hit .380+ in a full season over the last 50 years. Yet, there were 13 players who hit over .400 from 1900-1957. Nobody hits .400 anymore. Heck, nobody even hits .380 anymore. Interestingly, a number of players have hit .370 which seems to make .380 an ideal milestone. Below are the highest single-season batting averages in MLB since 1980 (this does not include strike-shortened seasons).
Larry Walker--------’99 .379
Ichiro-----------------‘04 .372
Todd Helton---------’00 .372
Nomar Garciaparra-’00 .372
Tony Gwynn---------’97 .372
Andres Galaragga---’93 .370
Tony Gwynn---------‘87 .370
Barry Bonds----------‘02 .370
It seems to me that .380 is the new .400. Assigning a new “bench mark” batting average for a single-season makes a lot of sense to me. Heck, it probably makes a lot of sense to you. However, the chances of .380 becoming the new historically significant milestone for batting average hover around 0%. It won’t happen for the same reason that nobody cared that Curtis Granderson was the first player in MLB history to reach 23 stolen bases, 23 home runs, 23 triples, and 23 doubles in the same season. All anyone wanted to talk about was that he was the fourth player to reach 20 in all four categories. People love round numbers. 20 and .400 are nice, round numbers. 23 and .380 are not. So, the next time someone gets into August with a .400 batting average and the nation grips for a run at .400, consider it mission accomplished if said player reaches .380. In fact, hitting .380 now would be an even more impressive feat than hitting .400 ever was back in the first half of the 20th century. There were six times as many players who hit .400 from 1900-1957 as have been players who hit .380 from 1958 to 2008.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Jonesin' for some respect
Not much has been made of this yet, but Chipper Jones is hitting .420. Although it might seem like I’m referring to recreational drug-use, I assure you that Jones has a .420 batting average. It’ll be June in 48 hours. Hitting .420 for two straight months is incredible (half the dudes on my hall freshman year--and probably Joakim Noah--would be giggling uncontrollably right now). It would take a truly remarkable player to accomplish such a feat. Jones is just that. I realize batting average isn’t the greatest statistic but its significance increases exponentially when we’re talking about an historical mark. The last two players to make runs at .400 for an entire season were Tony Gwynn and George Brett. As of May 29, 1994, Gwynn was hitting .389. As of May 29, 1980, Brett was hitting .289. Of course, Brett went 65 for 139 the following month for an unbelievable .468 average so he caught up in a hurry. I’m not sure .400 is realistic in this era of baseball, but Jones is in great shape with respect to Gwynn and Brett who fell short of .400 but were the last two players to hit .390+ in a season. It’s interesting that after a splendid 14-year career, it will probably take a run at .400—or maybe just one of the best single-season batting averages of the last 50 years—to get anyone to notice just how good Chipper Jones has been. He might even be the best third baseman of all-time.
Jones is having the best season of his career. Along with hitting .420, he has a .500 OBP% which would be the highest non-Bonds OBP% of the last 50 years. In most years, he would be running away with the MVP. This year, however, his chances are 50/50 at best with Lance Berkman leading the NL in RBIs, Runs, OPS, Slugging %, and Total Bases, and Albert Pujols putting together another monster-season. Still, a second MVP is possible which would immediately thrust him into the realm of some of the elite players who have ever played.
In fact, it’s time for the baseball world to acknowledge the kind of career Jones has had. There is a good chance that he will become the first player in MLB history to hit 500 home runs, 3,000 hits, and have a .310 + batting average (Manny Ramirez could also accomplish that feat. Both are the same age and need about the same number of hits). Jones would also be the first third baseman to hit 500 home runs and reach 3,000 hits. Jones’s significance is probably best measured by comparing him to the other great third basemen in MLB history. Mike Schmidt and George Brett are probably the most accomplished players at the position. Alex Rodriguez still has played close to twice as many games at shortstop than at third so I will consider him a shortstop until that number moves closer to 1:1. Jones has been a better all-around hitter than Schmidt and Brett. He has more plate discipline than Schmidt and more power than Brett. Even with Schmidt’s reputation as an elite power-hitter, he only holds a 147-145 OPS+ advantage over Jones. Chipper will likely pass Schmidt in every significant offensive category with the exception of home runs. He hits for power, average, and has phenomenal plate-discipline. He’s also equally potent against righties and lefties.
Jones has won 11 Division Titles with the Braves including three World Series appearances and a World Championship in ’95. He was the only Braves-player who played for all 11 Division-winners. Mike Schmidt won five Division Titles, played in two World Series and also won a World Championship. Brett won five Division Titles, played in two World Series and also won a World Championship. Comparing team-success in baseball isn’t always the best way to compare players but it is just another comparison in which Jones stands out.
At the very minimum, Jones has to be considered one of the three best third basemen of all-time. The way his career is headed now, he will easily beat Brett in a straight-up comparison by the time he retires. Mike Schmidt’s three MVPs and reputation as the superior defensive third baseman give him a better resume than Brett and thus the unofficial title of “Greatest Third Baseman of All-Time”. However, if Jones picks up the MVP this year and becomes the first player in MLB history to have 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, and a .310 batting average, I think there will be a compelling argument to pass that title on to him. It’s just unfortunate that Jones has been building one of the all-time impressive resumes and he is rarely—if ever—considered one of the stars in MLB. Maybe a run at .400 will change that.
Update: According to Jayson Stark, Jones has the fourth highest batting average through May 28 of the last 50 years.
Jones is having the best season of his career. Along with hitting .420, he has a .500 OBP% which would be the highest non-Bonds OBP% of the last 50 years. In most years, he would be running away with the MVP. This year, however, his chances are 50/50 at best with Lance Berkman leading the NL in RBIs, Runs, OPS, Slugging %, and Total Bases, and Albert Pujols putting together another monster-season. Still, a second MVP is possible which would immediately thrust him into the realm of some of the elite players who have ever played.
In fact, it’s time for the baseball world to acknowledge the kind of career Jones has had. There is a good chance that he will become the first player in MLB history to hit 500 home runs, 3,000 hits, and have a .310 + batting average (Manny Ramirez could also accomplish that feat. Both are the same age and need about the same number of hits). Jones would also be the first third baseman to hit 500 home runs and reach 3,000 hits. Jones’s significance is probably best measured by comparing him to the other great third basemen in MLB history. Mike Schmidt and George Brett are probably the most accomplished players at the position. Alex Rodriguez still has played close to twice as many games at shortstop than at third so I will consider him a shortstop until that number moves closer to 1:1. Jones has been a better all-around hitter than Schmidt and Brett. He has more plate discipline than Schmidt and more power than Brett. Even with Schmidt’s reputation as an elite power-hitter, he only holds a 147-145 OPS+ advantage over Jones. Chipper will likely pass Schmidt in every significant offensive category with the exception of home runs. He hits for power, average, and has phenomenal plate-discipline. He’s also equally potent against righties and lefties.
Jones has won 11 Division Titles with the Braves including three World Series appearances and a World Championship in ’95. He was the only Braves-player who played for all 11 Division-winners. Mike Schmidt won five Division Titles, played in two World Series and also won a World Championship. Brett won five Division Titles, played in two World Series and also won a World Championship. Comparing team-success in baseball isn’t always the best way to compare players but it is just another comparison in which Jones stands out.
At the very minimum, Jones has to be considered one of the three best third basemen of all-time. The way his career is headed now, he will easily beat Brett in a straight-up comparison by the time he retires. Mike Schmidt’s three MVPs and reputation as the superior defensive third baseman give him a better resume than Brett and thus the unofficial title of “Greatest Third Baseman of All-Time”. However, if Jones picks up the MVP this year and becomes the first player in MLB history to have 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, and a .310 batting average, I think there will be a compelling argument to pass that title on to him. It’s just unfortunate that Jones has been building one of the all-time impressive resumes and he is rarely—if ever—considered one of the stars in MLB. Maybe a run at .400 will change that.
Update: According to Jayson Stark, Jones has the fourth highest batting average through May 28 of the last 50 years.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Hope lies with Dombrowski and $50 million
I don’t know if the Tigers are going to rebound from their early season malaise. Three weeks ago, I would’ve told you that it was only a matter of time before the bats fired-up and the pitching became more consistent. Now, the likelihood of that is probably less than 50/50. This season may very well end up being a waste in much the same way that last year was a waste. Fortunately, there is hope. It’s not short-term hope or quick-fix hope that will help this year. Rather, it’s kind of like being strapped for cash with no relief in sight and then getting a big, forgotten-about, refund from the IRS. The Tigers appear to be littered with underachieving players whose once promising futures appear to be uncertain (i.e. Verlander, Bonderman, Willis, Cabrera, Zumaya). With their futures in doubt, it’s difficult to get excited about direction this team is going. However, that should all change very, very soon.
Over the next two years, the Tigers are going to have roughly $50 million come off the existing payroll. Gary Sheffield, Ivan Rodriguez, Edgar Renteria, Kenny Rogers, and Todd Jones will count for the bulk of that money. It would be nearly impossible for the Tigers to get less value for $50 million than they are getting with the above players right now. Sheffield has absolutely no power because of his maimed shoulder. Pudge is worthless. Rogers and Jones have looked their age. Renteria isn’t the worst player in the world but he certainly wasn’t worth Jair Jurrjens.
While the Tigers may look like a big pile of junk right now, a lot of the junk will be gone by September of 2009. The Tigers will be left with a core featuring Miguel Cabrera, Curtis Granderson, Magglio Ordonez, Justin Verlander, and Rick Porcello. Carlos Guillen and Placido Polanco should still be around and fairly productive which means the Tigers will still have the depth and talent to field a very competitive team. How good that team will be will almost certainly depend on how wisely Dave Dombrowski spends the extra $50 million. The Tigers—despite their $137 million payroll and resurgence as a factor in the baseball world—have still not been able to lure high-profile free agents to Detroit. All of Dombrowski’s work has come through trades, the draft, and by overpaying dinged-up stars. So, I’m not sure that he’ll be able to bring in the hot name in the off-season just because he has money to burn. Ideally, Dombrowski could just rely on his trading prowess. Unfortunately, the minors were depleted in last winter’s spending spree so there won’t be many enticing packages the Tigers can offer. Jeff Larish is raking at Toledo (AAA) right now with an OPS of .976 and 15 home runs in 48 games. With Cabrera at first, Larish’s future appears to be somewhere else. Eddie Bonine is a starting pitching-prospect who has also been phenomenal at Toledo (AAA) this year. His splits include an 8-0 record, a 3.79 ERA, and a 1.13 WHIP. Bonine will be 27 in June and Larish is 25 so their trade value is dwindling. The Tigers may be able to build a package around them but reeling in a big-name via a trade is still unlikely. There is a tremendous amount of talent in the lower-levels of the organization but that will take a few years to mature into viable trade bait.
The idea that the Tigers could have so much money to spend but not have anyone to spend it on is a depressing one. Maybe the work that Dombrowski and Mike Ilitch have done over the last few years has increased the Tigers profile enough to lure even the most sought after free agents. Miguel Cabrera sure didn’t seem to mind signing an extension to stay in Detroit for seven more years. If, however, Detroit is still not a desired-destination for the big-time free agents, then the Tigers will have to once again revert to overpaying and then that $50 million becomes more like $35 million.
For the time being, though, I’m going to assume two things…1). Mike Ilitch intends on using the $50 million rather than reducing payroll and 2). Dombrowski will be able to get fair value for his $50 million. The Tigers absolutely must find a left-fielder who can mash. Gary Sheffield in his prime would be a perfect fit. Unfortunately, he has turned into the king of infield pop-ups. The Tigers will be able to afford a bona-fide superstar left-fielder and they should be willing to splurge a bit to bring the best one available to Detroit. The two best left-field types available in the Free Agent class of '09 are Pat Burrell and Adam Dunn. Either would be a monumental upgrade over Sheffield at this point. Cabrera and Ordonez provide enough in the middle of the lineup that the offense could afford the addition of a high power/low average guy. Over the last four years, Dunn has averaged 100+ runs, 100+ RBIs, 100+ BBs, and 40+ HRs. Throw in the fact that he is a lefty and he could be a nice fit for the Tigers. Burrell hasn’t been as productive as Dunn but he is having his best season in ’08. Neither are perfect. Both are upgrades in left.
The other position that needs a major upgrade is the rotation. In the same irrational way Joe Dumars is in love with his starting five of underachievers, I believe that Jim Leyland—and probably Dombrowski to some extent—is in love with his rotation. He might not be in love with their production but I fear that he’ll stick with them beyond reason. While it is refreshing to see the team move Dontrelle Willis into the bullpen to keep Armando Galarraga—by far the Tigers’ best starter through two months—in the rotation, I don’t see Willis staying in the bullpen all season. So, don’t be too surprised if the brass stick with Verlander, Bonderman, Robertson, and Willis for the long-term. All but Verlander are signed through 2010 and the Tigers will certainly re-sign Verlander beyond his current contract. Fortunately, the team will have the opportunity to address the spot opened by Kenny Rogers’s likely departure. Rick Porcello might get the first-look there. There is a decent chance that Porcello will immediately be the most talented pitcher on the team. That would mean that Leyland and Dombrowski would have to pull the plug on one of the other underachieving pitchers in order to add Porcello and make the significant upgrade through free agency that is absolutely necessary to contend for a championship. The Tigers will have plenty of money available over the next two years to make a run at even the most expensive pitching-free agents. The key is not to overpay for the mid-level pitcher. Those bidding wars end up getting ridiculous and can often result in Mike Hampton making $15 per year. The trick is to either pay big money for the “cream”, sign a veteran (like Rogers), or go with one of your prospects. The Tigers need major upgrades at only two positions and the rotation happens to be one of them. So, going after the “cream” should be an organizational goal.
Unfortunately, the ’09 free agent class for starting pitching is weak. Only C.C. Sabathia and Ben Sheets would qualify as the “cream.” Every team in baseball with any financial flexibility will be after them. That shouldn’t stop the Tigers from making a run, though. Sabathia and Sheets are proven front-line starters that the Tigers desperately need. Sheets’s injury history might make him more affordable but it also makes him a risk. The Tigers have had plenty of injury issues in the rotation with Willis, Bonderman, and Rogers all having lengthy stints on the DL over the past two years. Still, Sheets is an ace-caliber pitcher who is still only 29. He is off to a strong start in ’08. Sabathia is, of course, a superstar. He won the Cy Young in ’07 and has been lights-out after a rough start in ’08. Adding Sabathia would have the dual advantage of crippling the rotation of the intra-division Indians.
With Carlos Guillen and Miguel Cabrera in the fold for the next few years, the Tigers are unlikely to have room for a first-baseman or a DH. Guillen might be a stop-gap at third for ’08 but the same fielding inconsistencies that plagued him at shortstop will catch up to him at third base. Granderson and Mags will occupy CF and RF for the next few years. Polanco is a great value at 2B which might mean an even longer stay in Detroit than his current contract runs. Shortstop and catcher are positions that will need to be addressed but the Tigers absolutely do not have to spend money for a “name” at either position. Heck, Brandon Inge might be Pudge’s replacement. Renteria will be gone after next year which will leave a hole at SS. The Tigers would be best-served putting all of their money into adding talent in LF and SP and allocating significantly less money to the catcher and shortstop positions. The Tigers will have enough power offensively with Granderson, Mags, Cabrera, Guillen, Polanco and a power-hitting left-fielder that they won’t need to overpay a catcher or a shortstop.
The only other position that the Tigers will likely have to address is third base. Cabrera has already been booted from the position. Guillen won’t last long. And nobody knows if Inge will even be on the team next year. Fortunately, the Tigers might have an answer in-house. Wilkin Ramirez is tearing it up AA Erie with a .942 OPS. Aside from Porcello, he is the #1 prospect in the organization and, unlike Larish, there is room for him in the organization. Two years from now, he’ll be 24 and more than due for a MLB promotion. That would also mean the Tigers could allocate bottom dollar to the third base position.
So, even though this was supposed to be the year where all of the pieces were put together for a run at the World Series, I actually think the best Tigers team—chemistry and talent-wise—is still two or three years away. In a year of such disappointment, that is something to get excited about.
Over the next two years, the Tigers are going to have roughly $50 million come off the existing payroll. Gary Sheffield, Ivan Rodriguez, Edgar Renteria, Kenny Rogers, and Todd Jones will count for the bulk of that money. It would be nearly impossible for the Tigers to get less value for $50 million than they are getting with the above players right now. Sheffield has absolutely no power because of his maimed shoulder. Pudge is worthless. Rogers and Jones have looked their age. Renteria isn’t the worst player in the world but he certainly wasn’t worth Jair Jurrjens.
While the Tigers may look like a big pile of junk right now, a lot of the junk will be gone by September of 2009. The Tigers will be left with a core featuring Miguel Cabrera, Curtis Granderson, Magglio Ordonez, Justin Verlander, and Rick Porcello. Carlos Guillen and Placido Polanco should still be around and fairly productive which means the Tigers will still have the depth and talent to field a very competitive team. How good that team will be will almost certainly depend on how wisely Dave Dombrowski spends the extra $50 million. The Tigers—despite their $137 million payroll and resurgence as a factor in the baseball world—have still not been able to lure high-profile free agents to Detroit. All of Dombrowski’s work has come through trades, the draft, and by overpaying dinged-up stars. So, I’m not sure that he’ll be able to bring in the hot name in the off-season just because he has money to burn. Ideally, Dombrowski could just rely on his trading prowess. Unfortunately, the minors were depleted in last winter’s spending spree so there won’t be many enticing packages the Tigers can offer. Jeff Larish is raking at Toledo (AAA) right now with an OPS of .976 and 15 home runs in 48 games. With Cabrera at first, Larish’s future appears to be somewhere else. Eddie Bonine is a starting pitching-prospect who has also been phenomenal at Toledo (AAA) this year. His splits include an 8-0 record, a 3.79 ERA, and a 1.13 WHIP. Bonine will be 27 in June and Larish is 25 so their trade value is dwindling. The Tigers may be able to build a package around them but reeling in a big-name via a trade is still unlikely. There is a tremendous amount of talent in the lower-levels of the organization but that will take a few years to mature into viable trade bait.
The idea that the Tigers could have so much money to spend but not have anyone to spend it on is a depressing one. Maybe the work that Dombrowski and Mike Ilitch have done over the last few years has increased the Tigers profile enough to lure even the most sought after free agents. Miguel Cabrera sure didn’t seem to mind signing an extension to stay in Detroit for seven more years. If, however, Detroit is still not a desired-destination for the big-time free agents, then the Tigers will have to once again revert to overpaying and then that $50 million becomes more like $35 million.
For the time being, though, I’m going to assume two things…1). Mike Ilitch intends on using the $50 million rather than reducing payroll and 2). Dombrowski will be able to get fair value for his $50 million. The Tigers absolutely must find a left-fielder who can mash. Gary Sheffield in his prime would be a perfect fit. Unfortunately, he has turned into the king of infield pop-ups. The Tigers will be able to afford a bona-fide superstar left-fielder and they should be willing to splurge a bit to bring the best one available to Detroit. The two best left-field types available in the Free Agent class of '09 are Pat Burrell and Adam Dunn. Either would be a monumental upgrade over Sheffield at this point. Cabrera and Ordonez provide enough in the middle of the lineup that the offense could afford the addition of a high power/low average guy. Over the last four years, Dunn has averaged 100+ runs, 100+ RBIs, 100+ BBs, and 40+ HRs. Throw in the fact that he is a lefty and he could be a nice fit for the Tigers. Burrell hasn’t been as productive as Dunn but he is having his best season in ’08. Neither are perfect. Both are upgrades in left.
The other position that needs a major upgrade is the rotation. In the same irrational way Joe Dumars is in love with his starting five of underachievers, I believe that Jim Leyland—and probably Dombrowski to some extent—is in love with his rotation. He might not be in love with their production but I fear that he’ll stick with them beyond reason. While it is refreshing to see the team move Dontrelle Willis into the bullpen to keep Armando Galarraga—by far the Tigers’ best starter through two months—in the rotation, I don’t see Willis staying in the bullpen all season. So, don’t be too surprised if the brass stick with Verlander, Bonderman, Robertson, and Willis for the long-term. All but Verlander are signed through 2010 and the Tigers will certainly re-sign Verlander beyond his current contract. Fortunately, the team will have the opportunity to address the spot opened by Kenny Rogers’s likely departure. Rick Porcello might get the first-look there. There is a decent chance that Porcello will immediately be the most talented pitcher on the team. That would mean that Leyland and Dombrowski would have to pull the plug on one of the other underachieving pitchers in order to add Porcello and make the significant upgrade through free agency that is absolutely necessary to contend for a championship. The Tigers will have plenty of money available over the next two years to make a run at even the most expensive pitching-free agents. The key is not to overpay for the mid-level pitcher. Those bidding wars end up getting ridiculous and can often result in Mike Hampton making $15 per year. The trick is to either pay big money for the “cream”, sign a veteran (like Rogers), or go with one of your prospects. The Tigers need major upgrades at only two positions and the rotation happens to be one of them. So, going after the “cream” should be an organizational goal.
Unfortunately, the ’09 free agent class for starting pitching is weak. Only C.C. Sabathia and Ben Sheets would qualify as the “cream.” Every team in baseball with any financial flexibility will be after them. That shouldn’t stop the Tigers from making a run, though. Sabathia and Sheets are proven front-line starters that the Tigers desperately need. Sheets’s injury history might make him more affordable but it also makes him a risk. The Tigers have had plenty of injury issues in the rotation with Willis, Bonderman, and Rogers all having lengthy stints on the DL over the past two years. Still, Sheets is an ace-caliber pitcher who is still only 29. He is off to a strong start in ’08. Sabathia is, of course, a superstar. He won the Cy Young in ’07 and has been lights-out after a rough start in ’08. Adding Sabathia would have the dual advantage of crippling the rotation of the intra-division Indians.
With Carlos Guillen and Miguel Cabrera in the fold for the next few years, the Tigers are unlikely to have room for a first-baseman or a DH. Guillen might be a stop-gap at third for ’08 but the same fielding inconsistencies that plagued him at shortstop will catch up to him at third base. Granderson and Mags will occupy CF and RF for the next few years. Polanco is a great value at 2B which might mean an even longer stay in Detroit than his current contract runs. Shortstop and catcher are positions that will need to be addressed but the Tigers absolutely do not have to spend money for a “name” at either position. Heck, Brandon Inge might be Pudge’s replacement. Renteria will be gone after next year which will leave a hole at SS. The Tigers would be best-served putting all of their money into adding talent in LF and SP and allocating significantly less money to the catcher and shortstop positions. The Tigers will have enough power offensively with Granderson, Mags, Cabrera, Guillen, Polanco and a power-hitting left-fielder that they won’t need to overpay a catcher or a shortstop.
The only other position that the Tigers will likely have to address is third base. Cabrera has already been booted from the position. Guillen won’t last long. And nobody knows if Inge will even be on the team next year. Fortunately, the Tigers might have an answer in-house. Wilkin Ramirez is tearing it up AA Erie with a .942 OPS. Aside from Porcello, he is the #1 prospect in the organization and, unlike Larish, there is room for him in the organization. Two years from now, he’ll be 24 and more than due for a MLB promotion. That would also mean the Tigers could allocate bottom dollar to the third base position.
So, even though this was supposed to be the year where all of the pieces were put together for a run at the World Series, I actually think the best Tigers team—chemistry and talent-wise—is still two or three years away. In a year of such disappointment, that is something to get excited about.
Monday, April 14, 2008
How many MVPs should Babe Ruth have won?
It’s rare now days that a player with an historic baseball season is robbed of an MVP Award. Sure, there have been questionable MVP choices. We only need to look to last season to find one of those. My point is that superstars like Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez usually win the MVP when they should win the MVP. A strong argument could be made that Bonds should have won the MVP in ’91 over Terry Pendleton. Still, Bonds has seven MVPs and he should have won no more than eight. A-Rod has three MVPs. He probably should’ve won in ’92 and ’02 but he has won three and he should have won no more than five. There are injustices but the best players end up with their fair share of MVP Awards.
Unfortunately for Babe Ruth, that hasn’t always been the case. In fact, of the 28 players who have won multiple MVPs, you will not find Ruth’s name on that list. You may be even more shocked to find out that the greatest player who ever lived only finished in the top three of the MVP Voting once in his entire career. Most of that has to do with the outrageous manner in which the MVP was awarded in MLB at the time. Two rules in specific made the MVP a joke. First, voters could not vote for more than one player on a team. That meant teammates, more often than not, cancelled each other out. Second, no player could win the MVP more than once...ever. This led to some highly questionable winners and results like Babe Ruth winning one MVP.
Ruth’s shortage of MVPs is a result of terrible luck—the same sort of terrible luck that got him one measly batting title despite having the 6th highest batting average in MLB history (min. 3,500 at-bats after 1900). The MVP wasn’t awarded during Ruth’s career until 1923 which meant his first five prolific seasons couldn’t result in an MVP. There also wasn’t an AL MVP awarded in 1929 or 1930. The rule about no repeat winners meant that once he won the inaugural MVP in 1923, he was never allowed to win the MVP again. As you might have imagined, the MVP didn't last long in that format. Obvious concerns about the validity of an MVP that wasn't actually awarded to the MVP took over and change was afoot in 1929. Even then--when the Baseball Writer's Association of America gave out an MVP in '29 and '30--Ruth was robbed. Instead of the award going to Ruth--who had easily been the best hitter in the game--the award was given to Lew Fonseca and Al Simmons in '29 and Joe Cronin in '30. I’m convinced—although I don’t have proof of this—that voters purposefully voted against Ruth. I’m not sure what their motives would’ve been but an in-depth look at Ruth’s career shows that even with the voting-rules in play, Ruth should have won the BBWAA’s MVP in 1929 and 1930.
Here is a breakdown of the seasons in which Ruth was productive enough to merit consideration…
The Six that Ruth deserved
From 1923-1930, Ruth flat-out deserved six MVPs. The award existed and he should have won it. He won it in ’23 and should have won it from ’26-’30. During that five-year stretch, Ruth was unquestionably the best player in MLB. A comparison of Ruth’s numbers to the actual winners (in order; George Burns ’26, Lou Gehrig ’27, and Mickey Cochrane ’28) isn’t even close. Ruth was the victim of another stretch of bad luck when the AL MVP was inexplicably vacant in '29 and '30 instead of simply having the voting rules amended. He was easily the best player in the majors in '29 and '30 ahead of Gehrig. There was an NL MVP in 1929 which makes the AL not having an award that season curious at best.
Ruth vs. Triple Crown Pitchers
It’s easy to prove that Ruth was the best hitter in the game in ’24 and ‘31. It’s not easy to prove that he was the best player in the game in ’24 and ’31. In ’24, Walter Johnson—who ended up winning the MVP that year—won the Triple Crown and his team won the AL Pennant and World Series. Johnson was certainly a worthy candidate. However, Ruth had one of the greatest offensive seasons in MLB history. Ruth deserved it as much as Johnson, if not more. Johnson's ERA+ was 149. Ruth's OPS+ was 220. Ruth wasn’t even eligible because he won it in ’23 so Johnson won. It’s worth noting that Johnson barely beat out Eddie Collins for the award. Collins’s season didn’t come remotely close to Ruth’s season.
1931 was a repeat of ’24 in the sense that Ruth’s main competition was a pitcher who won the Triple Crown and played for a team that won the AL Pennant. It was different in the sense that Ruth was now eligible to win the MVP for the first time since 1923 because voting rules were mercifully amended. Lefty Grove ended up winning the award, however. Grove’s season was certainly worthy of MVP consideration but Ruth’s season was again one of the greatest in MLB history. The fact that Ruth only managed a 5th place finish in ’31 reeks of collusion by the voters. I’m not going to say Grove didn’t deserve it. His season was phenomenal. I just think Ruth had just as much right to it as Grove.
Pre-MVP years
The MVP was awarded before Ruth’s career from 1911-1914. It was vacated from 1915 through 1922. From 1918-1922, Ruth was the best player in baseball at least three times and possibly during all five seasons. In 1918, it would’ve been a toss-up between Ruth and Cobb. In 1922, I think Ruth had the advantage but it probably would’ve been a toss-up between Ruth and George Sisler. From 1919-1921, it would’ve been all Ruth.
The “Unofficial” total
Assuming the MVP existed over the entirety of Ruth’s career (remember, there was no AL MVP in 1918-1922, 1929, and 1930), and voters a). didn’t have to follow ridiculous rules and b). didn’t hold some sort of grudge against Ruth, I believe Ruth would have won nine MVPs. That is the “bare bones” minimum total. I didn’t count 1918, 1922, 1924, and 1931. Ruth would have had at least a 50/50 shot in each of those seasons under the above mentioned conditions. By my tally, Ruth should have won the MVP in the following seasons:
1919
1920
1921
1923
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
The current record for most MVPs is held by Bonds who has seven. Had Ruth played under the same voting conditions as Bonds, he would’ve won nine and possibly as many as 13. It would be interesting to look into Ty Cobb's career as well. Under today's voting conditions, I think he would've won close to nine MVPs as well.
I'll leave you with this…
In 1921, Ruth hit 59 home runs. However, balls that hit the foul poll in the air were considered “ground rule doubles” and balls that went over the fence in fair territory but hooked foul after passing the foul poll were considered “foul” balls. This guy re-calculated Ruth’s homerun total that year based on present-day rules where both instances are home runs. The result? Ruth actually hit 104 home runs in 1921.
Unfortunately for Babe Ruth, that hasn’t always been the case. In fact, of the 28 players who have won multiple MVPs, you will not find Ruth’s name on that list. You may be even more shocked to find out that the greatest player who ever lived only finished in the top three of the MVP Voting once in his entire career. Most of that has to do with the outrageous manner in which the MVP was awarded in MLB at the time. Two rules in specific made the MVP a joke. First, voters could not vote for more than one player on a team. That meant teammates, more often than not, cancelled each other out. Second, no player could win the MVP more than once...ever. This led to some highly questionable winners and results like Babe Ruth winning one MVP.
Ruth’s shortage of MVPs is a result of terrible luck—the same sort of terrible luck that got him one measly batting title despite having the 6th highest batting average in MLB history (min. 3,500 at-bats after 1900). The MVP wasn’t awarded during Ruth’s career until 1923 which meant his first five prolific seasons couldn’t result in an MVP. There also wasn’t an AL MVP awarded in 1929 or 1930. The rule about no repeat winners meant that once he won the inaugural MVP in 1923, he was never allowed to win the MVP again. As you might have imagined, the MVP didn't last long in that format. Obvious concerns about the validity of an MVP that wasn't actually awarded to the MVP took over and change was afoot in 1929. Even then--when the Baseball Writer's Association of America gave out an MVP in '29 and '30--Ruth was robbed. Instead of the award going to Ruth--who had easily been the best hitter in the game--the award was given to Lew Fonseca and Al Simmons in '29 and Joe Cronin in '30. I’m convinced—although I don’t have proof of this—that voters purposefully voted against Ruth. I’m not sure what their motives would’ve been but an in-depth look at Ruth’s career shows that even with the voting-rules in play, Ruth should have won the BBWAA’s MVP in 1929 and 1930.
Here is a breakdown of the seasons in which Ruth was productive enough to merit consideration…
The Six that Ruth deserved
From 1923-1930, Ruth flat-out deserved six MVPs. The award existed and he should have won it. He won it in ’23 and should have won it from ’26-’30. During that five-year stretch, Ruth was unquestionably the best player in MLB. A comparison of Ruth’s numbers to the actual winners (in order; George Burns ’26, Lou Gehrig ’27, and Mickey Cochrane ’28) isn’t even close. Ruth was the victim of another stretch of bad luck when the AL MVP was inexplicably vacant in '29 and '30 instead of simply having the voting rules amended. He was easily the best player in the majors in '29 and '30 ahead of Gehrig. There was an NL MVP in 1929 which makes the AL not having an award that season curious at best.
Ruth vs. Triple Crown Pitchers
It’s easy to prove that Ruth was the best hitter in the game in ’24 and ‘31. It’s not easy to prove that he was the best player in the game in ’24 and ’31. In ’24, Walter Johnson—who ended up winning the MVP that year—won the Triple Crown and his team won the AL Pennant and World Series. Johnson was certainly a worthy candidate. However, Ruth had one of the greatest offensive seasons in MLB history. Ruth deserved it as much as Johnson, if not more. Johnson's ERA+ was 149. Ruth's OPS+ was 220. Ruth wasn’t even eligible because he won it in ’23 so Johnson won. It’s worth noting that Johnson barely beat out Eddie Collins for the award. Collins’s season didn’t come remotely close to Ruth’s season.
1931 was a repeat of ’24 in the sense that Ruth’s main competition was a pitcher who won the Triple Crown and played for a team that won the AL Pennant. It was different in the sense that Ruth was now eligible to win the MVP for the first time since 1923 because voting rules were mercifully amended. Lefty Grove ended up winning the award, however. Grove’s season was certainly worthy of MVP consideration but Ruth’s season was again one of the greatest in MLB history. The fact that Ruth only managed a 5th place finish in ’31 reeks of collusion by the voters. I’m not going to say Grove didn’t deserve it. His season was phenomenal. I just think Ruth had just as much right to it as Grove.
Pre-MVP years
The MVP was awarded before Ruth’s career from 1911-1914. It was vacated from 1915 through 1922. From 1918-1922, Ruth was the best player in baseball at least three times and possibly during all five seasons. In 1918, it would’ve been a toss-up between Ruth and Cobb. In 1922, I think Ruth had the advantage but it probably would’ve been a toss-up between Ruth and George Sisler. From 1919-1921, it would’ve been all Ruth.
The “Unofficial” total
Assuming the MVP existed over the entirety of Ruth’s career (remember, there was no AL MVP in 1918-1922, 1929, and 1930), and voters a). didn’t have to follow ridiculous rules and b). didn’t hold some sort of grudge against Ruth, I believe Ruth would have won nine MVPs. That is the “bare bones” minimum total. I didn’t count 1918, 1922, 1924, and 1931. Ruth would have had at least a 50/50 shot in each of those seasons under the above mentioned conditions. By my tally, Ruth should have won the MVP in the following seasons:
1919
1920
1921
1923
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
The current record for most MVPs is held by Bonds who has seven. Had Ruth played under the same voting conditions as Bonds, he would’ve won nine and possibly as many as 13. It would be interesting to look into Ty Cobb's career as well. Under today's voting conditions, I think he would've won close to nine MVPs as well.
I'll leave you with this…
In 1921, Ruth hit 59 home runs. However, balls that hit the foul poll in the air were considered “ground rule doubles” and balls that went over the fence in fair territory but hooked foul after passing the foul poll were considered “foul” balls. This guy re-calculated Ruth’s homerun total that year based on present-day rules where both instances are home runs. The result? Ruth actually hit 104 home runs in 1921.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Bondo on pace for greatest pitching season ever
The leading candidate for AL MVP and Cy Young after ten games of the MLB season is, unequivocally, Jeremy Bonderman. No player in the majors this season—and perhaps MLB history—has meant more to his team. Consider he has 100% of the Tigers wins. That is unprecedented. If he can keep that up over the course of the season, he would have the best single-season in sports history. So, be sure to keep an eye on that.
In other news, the Tigers have sent Metro Detroit into an area-wide depression with their 1-8 start fueled by anything and everything going wrong. I had on my Old English D cap the other day and a man said to me, “do you feel good about wearing that hat?” Clearly, he forgot about 2003 but this man was burned about the start. No single event sums up the Tigers early season futility more appropriately than the fact that Placido Polanco broke his MLB record consecutive errorless streak by committing an error in two straight games. When Polanco is making mental mistakes, you know you’ve got issues. Polanco’s errors might be the most shocking faux pas of the season but they certainly aren’t the worst of Detroit’s problems. Of the following group—Gary Sheffield, Miguel Cabrera, and Placido Polanco—who is hitting over .200? Unfortunately, the answer is none. Of the following group—Sheffield, Cabrera, Polanco, Marcus Thames, Jacque Jones, Pudge Rodriguez, Edgar Renteria, and Magglio Ordonez—who has an OPS above .750? Unfortunately, the answer is none. The hitting has been atrocious and, not surprisingly, the Tigers are last in the AL in runs scored.
The Tigers have actually scored more runs per game than the Yankees by .01 runs per game and the Yankees are not 1-8. What does that mean? It means that the Yankees have pitching. Tigers-pitching has been awful. In fact, it has been even worse than the hitting. The Tigers are last in virtually every measurable pitching statistic. That’s what makes the hitting drought so damaging. Everyone knew coming into the season that the Tigers had big-time question marks with the starting rotation and bullpen. The offense was supposed to mask those problems until some moves could be made to sure up the staff (whether those moves were going to come this season or next is a different story). The hitting hasn’t masked anything and the Tigers have no chance of winning until it does.
There is good news, however, and there is actually quite a bit of it. First, the Royals are leading the AL Central. There is no doubt that the Royals are an improved team but if the Tigers can’t catch the Royals by season’s end, then a lot of people need to be fired. Second, the Tigers haven’t even played 1/16th of the season. Last season, from May 25-June 1, the Tigers went 1-7. From July 26-Aug 5, the Tigers went 1-9. They still managed to finish 14 games over .500. They are only 4.5 games out of the wild card spot. Presuming the Tigers don’t let this slump adversely affect them more than any other slump simply because it's the start of the season, there is no difference between a slump in April and a slump in July. Third, Curtis Granderson is set to return as early as next week. His importance to the Tigers cannot be overstated. Remember, Granderson finished 10th in the AL MVP Voting last year and—if the voters had any idea what they were talking about—he would’ve finished in the top five. Granderson makes the Tigers offense go. No offense to Edgar Renteria—the only off-season trade that I wasn't ecstatic about—the Tigers don’t have the same effectiveness with Renteria leading off. Fourth, some of this stuff isn’t unfamiliar at all. Gary Sheffield hit .200 with a .675 OPS for the whole month of April last season. Over the next three months, he hit .320 with an OPS bordering 1.000.
There is no way that the offense will continue to be putrid throughout the season unless there is a rash of injuries. These players are just too good. The big question is, will the offense heat up soon enough to keep the Tigers from falling too far behind? Cleveland is a good team and possibly a great team. Chicago could be very good, too. It’s early in the season but the Tigers can only play so much better than the best teams even when they’re on a role.
Even though there are some things to take solace in, I don’t want to minimize the unacceptable nature of the Tigers porous play. It is disappointing to see the current level of effort and execution from a team that had so much promise coming into the season. My first guess is that they bought into the hype about how good they were going to be and that affected their mental and physical preparation coming into the season. There is just no other excuse for an entire team to be underachieving at such a ridiculous level. I could blame Jim Leyland for allowing such a malaise-attitude—and anyone who wants to do this would be more than justified—but I won’t. The players are responsible for their own preparation. They didn’t have it in Spring Training and they don’t have it now. The season is still young enough that a 1-8 start can be overcome but they need to start winning right now.
In other news, the Tigers have sent Metro Detroit into an area-wide depression with their 1-8 start fueled by anything and everything going wrong. I had on my Old English D cap the other day and a man said to me, “do you feel good about wearing that hat?” Clearly, he forgot about 2003 but this man was burned about the start. No single event sums up the Tigers early season futility more appropriately than the fact that Placido Polanco broke his MLB record consecutive errorless streak by committing an error in two straight games. When Polanco is making mental mistakes, you know you’ve got issues. Polanco’s errors might be the most shocking faux pas of the season but they certainly aren’t the worst of Detroit’s problems. Of the following group—Gary Sheffield, Miguel Cabrera, and Placido Polanco—who is hitting over .200? Unfortunately, the answer is none. Of the following group—Sheffield, Cabrera, Polanco, Marcus Thames, Jacque Jones, Pudge Rodriguez, Edgar Renteria, and Magglio Ordonez—who has an OPS above .750? Unfortunately, the answer is none. The hitting has been atrocious and, not surprisingly, the Tigers are last in the AL in runs scored.
The Tigers have actually scored more runs per game than the Yankees by .01 runs per game and the Yankees are not 1-8. What does that mean? It means that the Yankees have pitching. Tigers-pitching has been awful. In fact, it has been even worse than the hitting. The Tigers are last in virtually every measurable pitching statistic. That’s what makes the hitting drought so damaging. Everyone knew coming into the season that the Tigers had big-time question marks with the starting rotation and bullpen. The offense was supposed to mask those problems until some moves could be made to sure up the staff (whether those moves were going to come this season or next is a different story). The hitting hasn’t masked anything and the Tigers have no chance of winning until it does.
There is good news, however, and there is actually quite a bit of it. First, the Royals are leading the AL Central. There is no doubt that the Royals are an improved team but if the Tigers can’t catch the Royals by season’s end, then a lot of people need to be fired. Second, the Tigers haven’t even played 1/16th of the season. Last season, from May 25-June 1, the Tigers went 1-7. From July 26-Aug 5, the Tigers went 1-9. They still managed to finish 14 games over .500. They are only 4.5 games out of the wild card spot. Presuming the Tigers don’t let this slump adversely affect them more than any other slump simply because it's the start of the season, there is no difference between a slump in April and a slump in July. Third, Curtis Granderson is set to return as early as next week. His importance to the Tigers cannot be overstated. Remember, Granderson finished 10th in the AL MVP Voting last year and—if the voters had any idea what they were talking about—he would’ve finished in the top five. Granderson makes the Tigers offense go. No offense to Edgar Renteria—the only off-season trade that I wasn't ecstatic about—the Tigers don’t have the same effectiveness with Renteria leading off. Fourth, some of this stuff isn’t unfamiliar at all. Gary Sheffield hit .200 with a .675 OPS for the whole month of April last season. Over the next three months, he hit .320 with an OPS bordering 1.000.
There is no way that the offense will continue to be putrid throughout the season unless there is a rash of injuries. These players are just too good. The big question is, will the offense heat up soon enough to keep the Tigers from falling too far behind? Cleveland is a good team and possibly a great team. Chicago could be very good, too. It’s early in the season but the Tigers can only play so much better than the best teams even when they’re on a role.
Even though there are some things to take solace in, I don’t want to minimize the unacceptable nature of the Tigers porous play. It is disappointing to see the current level of effort and execution from a team that had so much promise coming into the season. My first guess is that they bought into the hype about how good they were going to be and that affected their mental and physical preparation coming into the season. There is just no other excuse for an entire team to be underachieving at such a ridiculous level. I could blame Jim Leyland for allowing such a malaise-attitude—and anyone who wants to do this would be more than justified—but I won’t. The players are responsible for their own preparation. They didn’t have it in Spring Training and they don’t have it now. The season is still young enough that a 1-8 start can be overcome but they need to start winning right now.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Depressed about the Tigers? Read a book.
The baseball season has begun and—even though it’s only three games young—everyone in Detroit is already depressed. The Tigers have not only started the season 0-3 but they have managed to do it against the Royals at home, no less. To make matters worse, the greatest offense in the universe scored a grand total of five runs against one of the worst staffs in the league. To make matters even worse than that, Miguel Cabrera is out with a pulled quadriceps to go along with Curtis Granderson’s broken finger. This is where I remind you that the baseball season is 162 games-long and the Tigers have one of the easiest second-half schedules in the league. But still, the Royals?
Thankfully, my mind is stuck in 1973. The folks at Sourcebooks were nice enough to send me a copy of John Rosengren’s latest book titled, Hammerin’ Hank, George Almighty & The Say Hey Kid. The story chronicles the 1973 MLB season which had more sub-plots than an episode of Lost. In the face of death threats that literally made him fear living long enough to play the next season, Hank Aaron was slowly chasing down Babe Ruth as the All-Time Home Run King. George Steinbrenner purchased a reeling Yankees franchise that hadn’t been to the playoffs since 1964—and he purchased it for $10 million! The World Series ushered out one of the greatest players of all-time (Willie Mays) and welcomed a new superstar named Reggie Jackson. Mr. October took the league by storm in ’73 winning both the AL MVP and the World Series MVP.
Rosengren provides a fantastic look into one of the greatest seasons—and time periods—in MLB history. It’s a virtual encyclopedia of all things baseball from the early 70’s including insight into the tumulteous race relations in MLB, Gaylord Perry’s transgressions with his “spitball”, the AL’s controversial decision to introduce the DH, and Orlando Cepeda’s love for Mary Jane. With brilliant baseball websites like baseball-reference.com, it doesn’t take much to look up statistics from 1973. But, you’ll have to look pretty damn hard to find something that adequately portrays the drama--and there was a lot of it--that encapsulated the sport in ’73 as much as Hammerin' Hank. My only complaint is that he hasn't written a book like this for every season.
Thankfully, my mind is stuck in 1973. The folks at Sourcebooks were nice enough to send me a copy of John Rosengren’s latest book titled, Hammerin’ Hank, George Almighty & The Say Hey Kid. The story chronicles the 1973 MLB season which had more sub-plots than an episode of Lost. In the face of death threats that literally made him fear living long enough to play the next season, Hank Aaron was slowly chasing down Babe Ruth as the All-Time Home Run King. George Steinbrenner purchased a reeling Yankees franchise that hadn’t been to the playoffs since 1964—and he purchased it for $10 million! The World Series ushered out one of the greatest players of all-time (Willie Mays) and welcomed a new superstar named Reggie Jackson. Mr. October took the league by storm in ’73 winning both the AL MVP and the World Series MVP.
Rosengren provides a fantastic look into one of the greatest seasons—and time periods—in MLB history. It’s a virtual encyclopedia of all things baseball from the early 70’s including insight into the tumulteous race relations in MLB, Gaylord Perry’s transgressions with his “spitball”, the AL’s controversial decision to introduce the DH, and Orlando Cepeda’s love for Mary Jane. With brilliant baseball websites like baseball-reference.com, it doesn’t take much to look up statistics from 1973. But, you’ll have to look pretty damn hard to find something that adequately portrays the drama--and there was a lot of it--that encapsulated the sport in ’73 as much as Hammerin' Hank. My only complaint is that he hasn't written a book like this for every season.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Inge is exhausting
I was able to hold off on three prior attempts to write about the incredibly annoying Brandon Inge but I have failed miserably at holding off on a fourth attempt. Inge has whined and sulked his way from the New Year all the way through spring training disgruntling even his most avid supporters. The Detroit Tigers blogosphere has previously addressed this topic en mass and I probably don't have a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said in one form or another. Jim Leyland has done his best to quash the situation by saying things like, “His attitude is tremendous. Our relationship is tremendous. He'll leave camp happier and a bit more at ease, and he deserves that." I appreciate what Leyland is trying to do here but I cry “foul.” The Tigers are days away from starting the season and this is what Inge had to say about his good fortune at being named a starter for the first two weeks of the season due to Curtis Granderson’s broken hand, “I'm glad I'm playing, but it's for two weeks". That sentence would’ve been acceptable without the “but” and everything after it.
Inge has expressed his displeasure at being a back-up third baseman, back-up catcher and everything else involving the word “backup” all the while saying he just wants what’s best for the team. While the rest of the Tigers were absolutely ecstatic about the arrival of Miguel Cabrera, Inge has been a “wet blanket”. I have read on numerous occasions how Inge’s comments are understandable for a professional athlete because it’s in his nature to be ultra-competitive thus there’s no way he could or should be happy about losing his job. That’s fine. Inge doesn’t have to be happy about not starting. However, there is a huge difference between not being happy and letting everyone know it. I’m guessing if the majority of Americans expressed themselves in a similar way at their place of employment, they would be reprimanded at the very least and possibly fired. It is totally unprofessional to openly discuss your dissatisfaction at your company especially when said dissatisfaction is because the company is moving in a better direction at your expense. It becomes even more unprofessional when said company keeps paying you the money you were promised. There is nothing OK about how Inge has handled this situation. He didn’t lose his job. He still makes $6.2 million for one of the best baseball teams in the league. One thing is for certain, if you’re going to complain as much as Inge has, you better be frickin’ good—and Inge is not.
Despite Inge’s obvious displeasure, the Tigers have bent over backwards to accommodate his wishes. They’ve attempted to trade him on numerous occasions. They’ve tried him out at a number of positions to increase his chances of seeing the field. They’ve let him say things like, “I don’t want to catch” without telling him to shut up. I’m not sure what Inge thinks is fair treatment but the Tigers have been too understanding, in my opinion. Leyland gave a paradoxical quote that underscores just how understanding the Tigers have been. Leyland said, “Read the paper this morning. It’s obvious. He does not want to catch. I’m not going to force somebody to catch. He’s doing all the right things, saying all the right things. He’s a professional. He’s one of my favorites. I want him to play third base somewhere everyday. Is that going to happen? I have no clue.” Again, I appreciate Leyland’s intentions here but there are a number of things that speak to Inge’s unprofessionalism in that quote. First, Leyland says to read the paper to find out that its obvious that Inge doesn’t want to catch. Why is Inge taking his case to the media? Then, Leyland says that Inge is “doing all the right things, saying all the right things.” Huh? That’s not even remotely believable. Since when does, “I don’t want to catch” constitute saying and doing all the right things? Inge should feel fortunate that the Tigers don’t just dump him or trade him to a bottom-feeder. Does Inge really think there’s an abundance of MLB teams looking for a starting third baseman who carries around a .241 batting average?
Any knowledgeable baseball fan knew a long time ago that Inge was a liability in the Tigers lineup. He is lucky that the Tigers were willing to put up with his porous offense for as long as they did. He has “back-up” skills and it wasn’t until last December that the Tigers addressed his deficiencies by bringing in Cabrera. Inge is not a man with leverage. He is a terrible hitter by almost any measure. There is no hiding his 85 OPS+ which is an appalling number at any position let alone a corner infield position. His career OBP is a putrid .304. His K to BB ratio is an abominable 3 to 1. He makes the occasional spectacular play in the field but there is no way his defense makes up for his wretched offense.
The biggest beef I have is Inge’s inability to keep his negative comments to himself. He has to know that Cabrera is one of the best things to happen to the Tigers in decades. Inge gets paid to be a good teammate and perform when called upon. Nowhere in his contract does it state that he is to be a starter. I totally understand that nobody wants to take a diminished role but Inge won’t play for the Tigers forever. The team will explore trade options and he will likely play for a different team in the somewhat-near future. I fault Inge big-time for not seeing the big picture. There is pretty close to a 100% chance that Inge will get an opportunity to battle for a starting position sometime, somewhere in the future. In the intermediate, he is the #1 reserve at virtually every position which means he’ll get his fair share of at-bats. The fact that Inge will be the Opening Day-starter in centerfield is proof of that. I just wish he could appreciate the opportunity rather than take it for granted. Maybe next time he can simply say, “I’m glad I’m playing” and save the “but” for an ungrateful clown in another city.
Inge has expressed his displeasure at being a back-up third baseman, back-up catcher and everything else involving the word “backup” all the while saying he just wants what’s best for the team. While the rest of the Tigers were absolutely ecstatic about the arrival of Miguel Cabrera, Inge has been a “wet blanket”. I have read on numerous occasions how Inge’s comments are understandable for a professional athlete because it’s in his nature to be ultra-competitive thus there’s no way he could or should be happy about losing his job. That’s fine. Inge doesn’t have to be happy about not starting. However, there is a huge difference between not being happy and letting everyone know it. I’m guessing if the majority of Americans expressed themselves in a similar way at their place of employment, they would be reprimanded at the very least and possibly fired. It is totally unprofessional to openly discuss your dissatisfaction at your company especially when said dissatisfaction is because the company is moving in a better direction at your expense. It becomes even more unprofessional when said company keeps paying you the money you were promised. There is nothing OK about how Inge has handled this situation. He didn’t lose his job. He still makes $6.2 million for one of the best baseball teams in the league. One thing is for certain, if you’re going to complain as much as Inge has, you better be frickin’ good—and Inge is not.
Despite Inge’s obvious displeasure, the Tigers have bent over backwards to accommodate his wishes. They’ve attempted to trade him on numerous occasions. They’ve tried him out at a number of positions to increase his chances of seeing the field. They’ve let him say things like, “I don’t want to catch” without telling him to shut up. I’m not sure what Inge thinks is fair treatment but the Tigers have been too understanding, in my opinion. Leyland gave a paradoxical quote that underscores just how understanding the Tigers have been. Leyland said, “Read the paper this morning. It’s obvious. He does not want to catch. I’m not going to force somebody to catch. He’s doing all the right things, saying all the right things. He’s a professional. He’s one of my favorites. I want him to play third base somewhere everyday. Is that going to happen? I have no clue.” Again, I appreciate Leyland’s intentions here but there are a number of things that speak to Inge’s unprofessionalism in that quote. First, Leyland says to read the paper to find out that its obvious that Inge doesn’t want to catch. Why is Inge taking his case to the media? Then, Leyland says that Inge is “doing all the right things, saying all the right things.” Huh? That’s not even remotely believable. Since when does, “I don’t want to catch” constitute saying and doing all the right things? Inge should feel fortunate that the Tigers don’t just dump him or trade him to a bottom-feeder. Does Inge really think there’s an abundance of MLB teams looking for a starting third baseman who carries around a .241 batting average?
Any knowledgeable baseball fan knew a long time ago that Inge was a liability in the Tigers lineup. He is lucky that the Tigers were willing to put up with his porous offense for as long as they did. He has “back-up” skills and it wasn’t until last December that the Tigers addressed his deficiencies by bringing in Cabrera. Inge is not a man with leverage. He is a terrible hitter by almost any measure. There is no hiding his 85 OPS+ which is an appalling number at any position let alone a corner infield position. His career OBP is a putrid .304. His K to BB ratio is an abominable 3 to 1. He makes the occasional spectacular play in the field but there is no way his defense makes up for his wretched offense.
The biggest beef I have is Inge’s inability to keep his negative comments to himself. He has to know that Cabrera is one of the best things to happen to the Tigers in decades. Inge gets paid to be a good teammate and perform when called upon. Nowhere in his contract does it state that he is to be a starter. I totally understand that nobody wants to take a diminished role but Inge won’t play for the Tigers forever. The team will explore trade options and he will likely play for a different team in the somewhat-near future. I fault Inge big-time for not seeing the big picture. There is pretty close to a 100% chance that Inge will get an opportunity to battle for a starting position sometime, somewhere in the future. In the intermediate, he is the #1 reserve at virtually every position which means he’ll get his fair share of at-bats. The fact that Inge will be the Opening Day-starter in centerfield is proof of that. I just wish he could appreciate the opportunity rather than take it for granted. Maybe next time he can simply say, “I’m glad I’m playing” and save the “but” for an ungrateful clown in another city.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Tigers could coast into playoffs with a strong start
Before the Tigers took the field in 2007 to defend their American League Championship, one could’ve predicted potential disappointment because of the “red herring” that was the second half-schedule. Of course, most Detroiters were still too much in shock that the Tigers weren’t the worst team ever anymore to care about something as trivial as “the second-half schedule.” Unfortunately, said schedule featured 43 games against teams that were above .500 the previous season. There were few breaks in the slate as the Tigers only played 13 games against teams with fewer than 75 wins in ’06. If Detroit was healthy for that part of the schedule, it may have been able to sneak into the playoffs. However, the difficulty of the schedule combined with a number of key injuries (losing Sheffield for that stretch ended up being the deal-breaker, IMO) made for an incredibly disappointing end to 2007.
Contrast that to the 2008 schedule and it appears that the schedule-maker noticed the raw deal that the Tigers were dealt in ’07 and made amends. I would venture to say that the second-half schedule for 2008 is even easier than the 2007 second-half schedule was difficult. In the final 67 games this season, the Tigers only play 17 games against teams that were above .500 last season. That’s 26 fewer than in the second-half of 2007. Even more incredible is that the Tigers play 41 games in the latter half of the season against teams that won fewer than 75 games in 2007. That’s 28 more than last season. The Tigers will see an extreme shift in second-half schedule difficulty from last season and I think that will make this season much more successful. The second-half of the MLB season is notorious for the “grind” of playing through the summer months and mounting injuries. The Tigers had no chance against those factors last season. Even a few key injuries likely wouldn’t be enough to derail the Tigers from finishing strong in 2008.
This is good news for a number of obvious reasons. However, the “best” reason is that it puts the Tigers in a win-win situation for the first-half of 2008. If the Tigers play good baseball and find themselves close to the division lead at the All-Star break, then they will be in excellent position to pull away from the field as they get into the easy part of the schedule. If things fall apart for one reason or another in the first half, the Tigers can rest easy knowing that they will have the opportunity to take advantage of a weak schedule post-All-Star break. The Tigers could also have the luxury of resting their starting pitching near the end of the season if they’re able to pull away from the pack.
Usually the best team wins in baseball but if teams are close enough in talent (i.e. Cleveland and Detroit in ’07), the schedule can play a huge factor in which team moves on to the postseason. It feels good to have that on our side this time around.
Contrast that to the 2008 schedule and it appears that the schedule-maker noticed the raw deal that the Tigers were dealt in ’07 and made amends. I would venture to say that the second-half schedule for 2008 is even easier than the 2007 second-half schedule was difficult. In the final 67 games this season, the Tigers only play 17 games against teams that were above .500 last season. That’s 26 fewer than in the second-half of 2007. Even more incredible is that the Tigers play 41 games in the latter half of the season against teams that won fewer than 75 games in 2007. That’s 28 more than last season. The Tigers will see an extreme shift in second-half schedule difficulty from last season and I think that will make this season much more successful. The second-half of the MLB season is notorious for the “grind” of playing through the summer months and mounting injuries. The Tigers had no chance against those factors last season. Even a few key injuries likely wouldn’t be enough to derail the Tigers from finishing strong in 2008.
This is good news for a number of obvious reasons. However, the “best” reason is that it puts the Tigers in a win-win situation for the first-half of 2008. If the Tigers play good baseball and find themselves close to the division lead at the All-Star break, then they will be in excellent position to pull away from the field as they get into the easy part of the schedule. If things fall apart for one reason or another in the first half, the Tigers can rest easy knowing that they will have the opportunity to take advantage of a weak schedule post-All-Star break. The Tigers could also have the luxury of resting their starting pitching near the end of the season if they’re able to pull away from the pack.
Usually the best team wins in baseball but if teams are close enough in talent (i.e. Cleveland and Detroit in ’07), the schedule can play a huge factor in which team moves on to the postseason. It feels good to have that on our side this time around.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
I love New York (NL)
I’d like to send a big “shout-out” to my dawg, Omar Minaya, for bringing Johan Santana to Queens. I’d also like to send out smaller “shout-outs” to Hank Steinbrenner and Theo Epstein for haggling themselves out of the best pitcher of the 21st century. Boston and New York fans alike seem to be buying the “company line” that Minnesota’s asking-price was simply too much. Somehow, Boston convinced itself that Jacoby Ellsbury (oh ye of 116 regular season at-bats) and Jon Lester (1.566 career WHIP) were too much value to give up for one of the 15 best pitchers in MLB history in his 20s no less. The Yankees—no doubt using the same highly questionable logic—convinced themselves that Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera were too much to part with. I would hate to be a Yankees or Red Sox fan five years from now when Santana is in the midst of throwing down Greg Maddux-caliber seasons like they’re Kwame Kilpatrick-perjuries. Remember, Santana has only been a full-time starter for four seasons. He has a lot of innings left.
The Tigers—facing the same "unproven talent or proven awesomeness" dilemma—gave up Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller—who were both rated among the top 10 prospects in baseball—along with Dallas Trahern, Eulogio De La Cruz, Mike Rabelo, and Burke Badenhop for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. Willis was essentially a “throw in.” The Tigers clearly weren’t offended by having to take Willis but the only way Cabrera was coming to Detroit was by giving up both Maybin and Miller. That package is considerably more potent than anything the Yankees and Red Sox discussed for Santana. Despite parting with two uber-prospects and four of the top six prospects in the organization, Dave Dombrowski jumped all over the deal without the slightest reservation. Tigers fans were universally ecstatic. Adding a player of Cabrera’s caliber for prospects was a no-brainer. As good as Cabrera is—and part of his allure is the fact that he’s only 24—Santana is even better. It is astonishing to me that the Yankees and Red Sox failure to land Santana can be construed as anything other than a disaster. At least Boston can point to its World Championship. New York has no excuse.
Yet, it seems like Boston and New York fans are actually breathing a sigh-of-relief that their coveted prospects are still with the team. I understand that fans obsess over prospects. I’ve fawned over a Juan Encarnacion or two so I’m not going to come down too hard on the folks who love prospects. However, please show some semblance of discretion. A Yankees fan left a comment on a related-article that said, “I really am finding this Santana thing a bit overkill. The Yankees might have 4 Santanas right in front of their noses…” Of course, those four Santanas are Chien-Ming Wang, Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, and Phillip Hughes. The latter three have 16 career starts between them. Who needs Santana when you can have uncertainty? Apparently, it's the Yankees. Boston fans feel the same way about Jacoby Ellsbury. He has been touted as “the next coming” because of one stellar postseason. He’ll have to be pretty damn good to justify passing on Santana.
The Mets gave up four of their top seven prospects (Guerra, Gomez, Mulvey, and Humber) according to Baseball America. I haven’t seen or a heard a single mention by anyone that the Mets gave up too much. The Mets instantly became a World Series contender and possible favorite by adding Santana to its rotation. One would think that with the Tigers putting together an all-world lineup capable of rockin’ out 1,000 runs that an AL team would feel the need to get involved. To be fair to Boston, it actually has a pitching staff that can be counted on. Still, it had the means to add Santana and didn't. While Boston and New York are patting themselves on the back because the other didn’t get Santana, the Tigers are the big winner in all of this. Here are just a few of the gazillion reasons why the Tigers scored big-time with this trade…
* The two biggest threats to the Tigers in the AL are New York and Boston. Santana to either of those teams would’ve changed the landscape for 2008 dramatically. Instead, the Red Sox and Yankees come back with essentially the same teams—unless you want to make a big deal about Pettitte in NY—while the Tigers added Cabrera, Willis, and Renteria.
*Santana is no longer in the division which means the Tigers won’t see him six times per year like they did last season.
*The Tigers don’t have to contend with the Johan Santana/Francisco Liriano combo that propelled the Twins through a 31-7 stretch in 2006 that culminated in winning the division after trailing by 12.5 games. The Twins are annoying with Santana alone. They are downright scary with Santana and Liriano.
*Since the Yankees and Red Sox passed on him, the Tigers won’t have to face Santana at any point in the AL playoffs where a pitcher of his caliber does the most damage.
*The Yankees play six games against the Mets which could very well mean they’ll have to face Santana twice. The Tigers won’t face him at all. Last season, the Tigers faced Santana six times and the Yankees only had to seem him once. That should be worth a few games in the standings for the Tigers.
All of these little things add up to one huge boost for Detroit’s chances of reaching and ultimately winning the World Series.
I thought for sure that the Yankees or Red Sox would reach into their unlimited pocketbooks—with Detroit’s $130 payroll, am I still allowed to say things like this?—and gleefully plug Santana right into the top of the rotation. I’m blown away that this didn’t happen. Back in early December when the Santana-negotiations heated up—even after the Tigers had added Cabrera—I felt that if either the Yankees or the Red Sox added Santana, they would be the favorite to come out of the AL slightly ahead of Detroit. If neither ended up with him, Detroit’s addition of Cabrera and Willis would put the Tigers on top. I haven’t changed my mind. This trade was huge for the Tigers. If it can be assumed that Santana was definitely going to be traded and it can be assumed that the Red Sox and Yankees were the two primary contenders for his services, then this trade may end up being nearly as important as the Miguel Cabrera-trade. Avoiding the wrath of Santana/Liriano while also avoiding having to face Santana against the Red Sox or Yankees in the post-season is huge.
I could understand New York’s decision to pass on Santana if it had focused its attention on adding another top-flight starter. Thankfully, that doesn’t seem to be in the works either. The Yankees passed on Dan Haren who is now in Arizona. They also appear to be passing on Erik Bedard who is likely headed to Seattle. Midway through the 2007-season when the Tigers were an offensive juggernaut, Dave Dombrowski said he would not be adding offense at the trade-deadline. That statement broke my heart considering the Tigers were getting subpar offensive production from third base, first base, and left-field all of which are positions that are generally counted on for offensive production. Despite Dombrowksi's optimism, the Tigers needed to look at adding offense. Instead, they decided to pass. Gary Sheffield got hurt just a short time later and the offense fell apart. My point is that Boston is in love with its rotation in the same way Dombrowski was in love with his lineup. Dombrowski no doubt learned a lesson and brought in "Miggy" in the off-season. Thankfully, Boston has chosen to learn its lesson before making a similar addition.
The 2007-season showed just how difficult it is to make the playoffs even if you bring back a team that just went to the World Series the year before in tact. The Tigers seemed to be poised for another run at the World Series with an even more talented team coming back last season. Injuries and inconsistencies proved to be too much and the Tigers came up just a few games short. Boston and New York’s indifference this off-season may go overlooked now but it should pay huge dividends for the Tigers in 2008.
The Tigers—facing the same "unproven talent or proven awesomeness" dilemma—gave up Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller—who were both rated among the top 10 prospects in baseball—along with Dallas Trahern, Eulogio De La Cruz, Mike Rabelo, and Burke Badenhop for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. Willis was essentially a “throw in.” The Tigers clearly weren’t offended by having to take Willis but the only way Cabrera was coming to Detroit was by giving up both Maybin and Miller. That package is considerably more potent than anything the Yankees and Red Sox discussed for Santana. Despite parting with two uber-prospects and four of the top six prospects in the organization, Dave Dombrowski jumped all over the deal without the slightest reservation. Tigers fans were universally ecstatic. Adding a player of Cabrera’s caliber for prospects was a no-brainer. As good as Cabrera is—and part of his allure is the fact that he’s only 24—Santana is even better. It is astonishing to me that the Yankees and Red Sox failure to land Santana can be construed as anything other than a disaster. At least Boston can point to its World Championship. New York has no excuse.
Yet, it seems like Boston and New York fans are actually breathing a sigh-of-relief that their coveted prospects are still with the team. I understand that fans obsess over prospects. I’ve fawned over a Juan Encarnacion or two so I’m not going to come down too hard on the folks who love prospects. However, please show some semblance of discretion. A Yankees fan left a comment on a related-article that said, “I really am finding this Santana thing a bit overkill. The Yankees might have 4 Santanas right in front of their noses…” Of course, those four Santanas are Chien-Ming Wang, Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, and Phillip Hughes. The latter three have 16 career starts between them. Who needs Santana when you can have uncertainty? Apparently, it's the Yankees. Boston fans feel the same way about Jacoby Ellsbury. He has been touted as “the next coming” because of one stellar postseason. He’ll have to be pretty damn good to justify passing on Santana.
The Mets gave up four of their top seven prospects (Guerra, Gomez, Mulvey, and Humber) according to Baseball America. I haven’t seen or a heard a single mention by anyone that the Mets gave up too much. The Mets instantly became a World Series contender and possible favorite by adding Santana to its rotation. One would think that with the Tigers putting together an all-world lineup capable of rockin’ out 1,000 runs that an AL team would feel the need to get involved. To be fair to Boston, it actually has a pitching staff that can be counted on. Still, it had the means to add Santana and didn't. While Boston and New York are patting themselves on the back because the other didn’t get Santana, the Tigers are the big winner in all of this. Here are just a few of the gazillion reasons why the Tigers scored big-time with this trade…
* The two biggest threats to the Tigers in the AL are New York and Boston. Santana to either of those teams would’ve changed the landscape for 2008 dramatically. Instead, the Red Sox and Yankees come back with essentially the same teams—unless you want to make a big deal about Pettitte in NY—while the Tigers added Cabrera, Willis, and Renteria.
*Santana is no longer in the division which means the Tigers won’t see him six times per year like they did last season.
*The Tigers don’t have to contend with the Johan Santana/Francisco Liriano combo that propelled the Twins through a 31-7 stretch in 2006 that culminated in winning the division after trailing by 12.5 games. The Twins are annoying with Santana alone. They are downright scary with Santana and Liriano.
*Since the Yankees and Red Sox passed on him, the Tigers won’t have to face Santana at any point in the AL playoffs where a pitcher of his caliber does the most damage.
*The Yankees play six games against the Mets which could very well mean they’ll have to face Santana twice. The Tigers won’t face him at all. Last season, the Tigers faced Santana six times and the Yankees only had to seem him once. That should be worth a few games in the standings for the Tigers.
All of these little things add up to one huge boost for Detroit’s chances of reaching and ultimately winning the World Series.
I thought for sure that the Yankees or Red Sox would reach into their unlimited pocketbooks—with Detroit’s $130 payroll, am I still allowed to say things like this?—and gleefully plug Santana right into the top of the rotation. I’m blown away that this didn’t happen. Back in early December when the Santana-negotiations heated up—even after the Tigers had added Cabrera—I felt that if either the Yankees or the Red Sox added Santana, they would be the favorite to come out of the AL slightly ahead of Detroit. If neither ended up with him, Detroit’s addition of Cabrera and Willis would put the Tigers on top. I haven’t changed my mind. This trade was huge for the Tigers. If it can be assumed that Santana was definitely going to be traded and it can be assumed that the Red Sox and Yankees were the two primary contenders for his services, then this trade may end up being nearly as important as the Miguel Cabrera-trade. Avoiding the wrath of Santana/Liriano while also avoiding having to face Santana against the Red Sox or Yankees in the post-season is huge.
I could understand New York’s decision to pass on Santana if it had focused its attention on adding another top-flight starter. Thankfully, that doesn’t seem to be in the works either. The Yankees passed on Dan Haren who is now in Arizona. They also appear to be passing on Erik Bedard who is likely headed to Seattle. Midway through the 2007-season when the Tigers were an offensive juggernaut, Dave Dombrowski said he would not be adding offense at the trade-deadline. That statement broke my heart considering the Tigers were getting subpar offensive production from third base, first base, and left-field all of which are positions that are generally counted on for offensive production. Despite Dombrowksi's optimism, the Tigers needed to look at adding offense. Instead, they decided to pass. Gary Sheffield got hurt just a short time later and the offense fell apart. My point is that Boston is in love with its rotation in the same way Dombrowski was in love with his lineup. Dombrowski no doubt learned a lesson and brought in "Miggy" in the off-season. Thankfully, Boston has chosen to learn its lesson before making a similar addition.
The 2007-season showed just how difficult it is to make the playoffs even if you bring back a team that just went to the World Series the year before in tact. The Tigers seemed to be poised for another run at the World Series with an even more talented team coming back last season. Injuries and inconsistencies proved to be too much and the Tigers came up just a few games short. Boston and New York’s indifference this off-season may go overlooked now but it should pay huge dividends for the Tigers in 2008.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Clemens, his legacy, and the Hall of Fame
Those of you who are familiar with my blog know that I think Roger Clemens is the greatest pitcher who ever lived based on a number of factors. If it turns out that he did take steroids, then I would certainly emphasize that fact whenever making such a claim in the future. I don’t have a problem acknowledging his numbers. I don’t have a problem calling him the best ever. However, in fairness to every other great pitcher who has played the game who very likely didn’t take steroids (i.e. Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux), the first sentence describing Clemens’ accomplishments should include the phrase, “steroid-use.” That is really the only way I can reconcile his super-human statistics while appropriately acknowledging the players who did it the “right” way.
We may never know for certain whether Clemens took steroids or not. However, based on what there is to go on at this point, I believe that he did. With one notable exception—that being Todd Helton—whenever there has been “smoke”, there has been “fire” when it comes to players accused of taking steroids. That certainly isn’t conclusive but clearly players from the steroid-era have not earned the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Clemens is lying through his teeth to save his legacy. While I don’t condone “lying”, he clearly has a lot to lose if these allegations prove to be legit. He stands to gain a considerable amount of fanfare for the remainder of his life by being billed as “the greatest pitcher who ever lived.” The thought of losing that and losing the legitimacy of his eye-popping-accomplishments are probably too much for Clemens to simply acknowledge steroid-use without putting up a fight. However, he’ll have to factor “jail time” into that equation if he agrees to testify in front of Congress on February 13.
Preponderance of Evidence
Clemens’s former trainer, Brian McNamee, was dead-on about Andy Pettitte’s HGH-use. Clemens and Pettitte are best pals. Clemens denies even knowing that Pettitte took HGH. I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that McNamee would tell the truth about Pettitte and make up a lie about Clemens—his good friend—just to drag his name through the mud. Without anything to gain, McNamee has stood steadfast behind his allegations and has certainly come off as credible in lieu of Pettitte’s admission to HGH-use.
On the other hand, Clemens’s camp has looked incredibly suspect throughout this whole ordeal. From the multi-day silence following the release of the Mitchell Report to the lame attempts to clear his name by secretly recording a phone-conversation with McNamee, Clemens has been scrambling. He looked desperate when he played the tape of the conversation to the media because it didn’t reveal anything except that McNamee would not relent on his accusations even in a private telephone conversation with Clemens. McNamee even sounded sympathetic to Clemens on the tape and still never wavered. I’m still not sure what Clemens thought he was proving by playing the tape. It actually made him look worse. Clemens then accounted for the injections that McNamee claimed to have administered by saying they were B-12 and Lidocaine. McNamee has said that Clemens sported an abscess (don't click) from the injections which is “far less likely” to come from B-12 and Lidocaine than it is from steroids according to a doctor from the World Anti-Doping Agency. Clemens also claimed that he was unaware that his name would be mentioned in the Mitchell Report. According to Mitchell, that seems highly unlikely.
Considering the above information, I am forced to site Occam’s razor in believing that Clemens is guilty. Either I believe the following; 1). McNamee told the truth about Pettitte and lied about Clemens, 2). Clemens didn’t know that Pettitte—his best pal—was taking steroids, 3). Mitchell lied about notifying Clemens that he was in the report, 4). Clemens just happens to be the only player with a myriad of circumstantial evidence pointing towards steroid-use who turns out to be innocent, 5). Clemens developed an abscess from B-12 or Lidocaine, 6). Clemens—like Bonds as a hitter—is the only elite pitcher who not only peaked after the age of 35 but got better into his mid-40s and beyond or, I can believe that he very likely took steroids. I’m going with option #2.
The “lying” is more annoying than the steroid-use.
I am not going to pretend that taking steroids is akin to murder. In the grand scheme of things, “Joe Roidman” taking steroids at the local gym isn’t that big of a deal. Everyone makes mistakes. However, in the world of athletics, there are a number of additional dynamics in play. Competitive-sports are based on fairness and a level playing-field. If those are compromised, sports like baseball lose legitimacy. Steroid-users in the sports world are often rewarded with larger profiles and bigger paydays. On the flip side, the respective legacies of players like Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey Jr.—players who almost certainly did not take performance-enhancing drugs—are minimized.
I don’t despise the gains achieved by taking steroids as much as I despise the fact that steroid-users take away from people who achieved success the right way. For instance, the worst part of Ben Johnson’s steroid-use prior to the ’88 Seoul Olympics wasn’t that he broke the law. It was that Carl Lewis—who, as far as I know, did things the “right” way—was denied what he had rightfully earned. Lewis was eventually awarded the “gold” three days later but only after first experiencing the initial heartbreak of losing the race. Not everyone is as lucky as Lewis. Marion Jones won five gold medals in the 2000 Sydney Olympics and it wasn’t until seven years later that she was caught.
There is no doubt that “cheating” leaves a path of destruction in the sports world. However, the thing that bothers me most about Clemens, Bonds, Marion Jones and everyone else who has denied use in the face of fairly serious evidence is the “lying.” Let's forget for a moment that nobody ever gets away with a weak-denial. Lying is such a heinous act. It's the ultimate form of insult to the American public especially when it comes in front of a Grand Jury or Congress. Then there's the fact that lying almost always ends up making things much worse than telling the truth would've yielded. Pete Rose isn’t still banned from the HOF because he bet on baseball. He’s still banned because he lied about it for so long. Bonds isn’t facing jail time because he took steroids. He’s facing jail time because he lied about it. The same goes for Marion Jones. However cliché this is to say, America does love to give people second chances. That ceases to be true when the “people” in question refuse to accept responsibility. Bonds, Rose, Palmeiro, and Marion Jones are almost universally viewed with shame in America more so because they lied than because of the “cheating” (or in Rose’s case, “Cardinal sinning”). Clemens will likely follow suit if he steps in front of Congress.
The Hall of Fame-question shouldn't be about statistics.
While my opinion of Clemens—both personally and statistically—has changed, one thing that hasn’t changed for me—and shouldn’t change for anyone else—is his candidacy for the Hall of Fame based on numbers. If you’re going to argue that Clemens shouldn’t be elected to the HOF, you’re better off leaving numbers out of the argument.
Whenever a superstar is accused of taking steroids, everyone asks, “is he still a Hall of Famer?” I think some people interpret this question the wrong way. Many rush to recreate career statistics or simply choose to only acknowledge statistics attained before the alleged steroid-use. Let’s throw aside the fact that recalculating career numbers to account for steroid-use is impossible. Nobody knows how much better steroids make a player. There are number of bad players who were still bad after taking steroids (i.e. Alex Sanchez, Nook Logan, Neifi Perez and more than half the guys in the Mitchell Report). Conversely, Bonds likely took steroids and hit 24 more home runs than he had ever hit in a single-season. The effects obviously differ from person to person so recalculating career numbers isn’t even a reasonable option. The real problem with the question is that it assumes that there actually is a player who became a Hall of Famer because of steroids. I’m not so sure that steroids can make a non-Hall of Famer, a Hall of Famer. There is a lot more to baseball than brute strength. Mechanics, instincts, hand-eye coordination, and work ethic are, by far, the most important factors in determining the caliber of a baseball player. Barry Bonds was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Roger Clemens was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro would’ve almost certainly reached 500 career home runs without steroids. To suggest that there is a logical way to figure out if steroid-use turned a good player into a Hall of Fame-player is a “pie in the sky” notion. I also don’t care for only looking at statistics achieved before the alleged steroid-use. For instance, even without steroid-use, it is very likely that Bonds would’ve had a good stretch from 2001-2004. It doesn’t make sense to treat those years as a total zero as some choose to do.
The question about whether a player should be a Hall of Famer in lieu of steroid-use really should be about whether any player who took steroids should be admitted into the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers across America are racking their brains trying to figure out whether various players who took steroids are Hall of Famers statistically. They should be discussing whether or not steroid-users should even be eligible for the Hall of Fame. Since there is no way to know just how many more home runs a player hit because of steroids and there is no way of knowing how much healthier a player was because of steroids, statistics should be taken at face value. Some have adopted the “if it’s even close, just say no” philosophy and others have chosen to teach steroid-users a lesson by refusing to vote for borderline steroid-users. If people want to adopt the “teach a lesson” stance, then it should be across the board. Steroid-use should either be a total deal-breaker, or eliminated from the discussion of Hall of Fame-status all together. I can respect either side. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to pick and choose. Voters who fashion themselves as someone who is smart enough to be able to decipher whether steroid-use made someone a Hall of Famer or not are claiming mathematical abilities that as far as I know aren’t even possible. The only acceptable caveat I see with “picking and choosing” is if someone wants to punish the players who lied.
There is no “right” answer but there are “better” answers.
There are a lot of reasonable opinions out there and I don’t envy anyone trying to sort all of this out. If I had to pick a side, I would choose to eliminate “steroids” or “HGH” from Hall of Fame discussions. I don’t have a problem putting an asterisk next to the names of Hall of Fame steroid-users. The future baseball fan has a right to know which players cheated and which players didn’t and the “cheaters” deserve to have their indiscretions acknowledged. Some have argued that it wouldn’t be fair to label a player with an asterisk when we don’t know everyone who took steroids. I don’t understand that logic. The players who got caught shouldn’t be spared because everyone didn’t get caught. That doesn't even make sense. I think that—unless you lie to a Grand Jury—the proper punishment for using steroids should be the permanent-tarnishing of one’s career and legacy.
Some may argue that steroids weren’t against the rules in baseball so taking a hard stance is unfair. I don’t by that for a second. Steroids were very much against the rules in baseball and in every other facet of American life. They were illegal for everyone regardless of affiliation or stature. Those players broke the law to get an advantage and that should not be lost on anyone. Too many people want to place all of the blame on baseball for allowing an environment where drug-use went unchecked. If people want to rail baseball for not being vigilant enough, I have no qualms with that. However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the players who used. They are to blame and they should pay a price. Whether that’s banishment from the “Hall” or just a permanent tarnishing of their legacy is up to you to decide. Keep in mind, other players have cheated. Gaylord Perry "doctored" the ball as did many other pitchers. There is proof of this and there is admission of this. Teams have stolen signs. There is proof of this and admission of this. I’m not suggesting those forms of cheating are better or worse than steroids. I’m just saying there has been a precedent set in the past for “cheating.” That’s something worth considering as well.
We may never know for certain whether Clemens took steroids or not. However, based on what there is to go on at this point, I believe that he did. With one notable exception—that being Todd Helton—whenever there has been “smoke”, there has been “fire” when it comes to players accused of taking steroids. That certainly isn’t conclusive but clearly players from the steroid-era have not earned the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Clemens is lying through his teeth to save his legacy. While I don’t condone “lying”, he clearly has a lot to lose if these allegations prove to be legit. He stands to gain a considerable amount of fanfare for the remainder of his life by being billed as “the greatest pitcher who ever lived.” The thought of losing that and losing the legitimacy of his eye-popping-accomplishments are probably too much for Clemens to simply acknowledge steroid-use without putting up a fight. However, he’ll have to factor “jail time” into that equation if he agrees to testify in front of Congress on February 13.
Preponderance of Evidence
Clemens’s former trainer, Brian McNamee, was dead-on about Andy Pettitte’s HGH-use. Clemens and Pettitte are best pals. Clemens denies even knowing that Pettitte took HGH. I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that McNamee would tell the truth about Pettitte and make up a lie about Clemens—his good friend—just to drag his name through the mud. Without anything to gain, McNamee has stood steadfast behind his allegations and has certainly come off as credible in lieu of Pettitte’s admission to HGH-use.
On the other hand, Clemens’s camp has looked incredibly suspect throughout this whole ordeal. From the multi-day silence following the release of the Mitchell Report to the lame attempts to clear his name by secretly recording a phone-conversation with McNamee, Clemens has been scrambling. He looked desperate when he played the tape of the conversation to the media because it didn’t reveal anything except that McNamee would not relent on his accusations even in a private telephone conversation with Clemens. McNamee even sounded sympathetic to Clemens on the tape and still never wavered. I’m still not sure what Clemens thought he was proving by playing the tape. It actually made him look worse. Clemens then accounted for the injections that McNamee claimed to have administered by saying they were B-12 and Lidocaine. McNamee has said that Clemens sported an abscess (don't click) from the injections which is “far less likely” to come from B-12 and Lidocaine than it is from steroids according to a doctor from the World Anti-Doping Agency. Clemens also claimed that he was unaware that his name would be mentioned in the Mitchell Report. According to Mitchell, that seems highly unlikely.
Considering the above information, I am forced to site Occam’s razor in believing that Clemens is guilty. Either I believe the following; 1). McNamee told the truth about Pettitte and lied about Clemens, 2). Clemens didn’t know that Pettitte—his best pal—was taking steroids, 3). Mitchell lied about notifying Clemens that he was in the report, 4). Clemens just happens to be the only player with a myriad of circumstantial evidence pointing towards steroid-use who turns out to be innocent, 5). Clemens developed an abscess from B-12 or Lidocaine, 6). Clemens—like Bonds as a hitter—is the only elite pitcher who not only peaked after the age of 35 but got better into his mid-40s and beyond or, I can believe that he very likely took steroids. I’m going with option #2.
The “lying” is more annoying than the steroid-use.
I am not going to pretend that taking steroids is akin to murder. In the grand scheme of things, “Joe Roidman” taking steroids at the local gym isn’t that big of a deal. Everyone makes mistakes. However, in the world of athletics, there are a number of additional dynamics in play. Competitive-sports are based on fairness and a level playing-field. If those are compromised, sports like baseball lose legitimacy. Steroid-users in the sports world are often rewarded with larger profiles and bigger paydays. On the flip side, the respective legacies of players like Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey Jr.—players who almost certainly did not take performance-enhancing drugs—are minimized.
I don’t despise the gains achieved by taking steroids as much as I despise the fact that steroid-users take away from people who achieved success the right way. For instance, the worst part of Ben Johnson’s steroid-use prior to the ’88 Seoul Olympics wasn’t that he broke the law. It was that Carl Lewis—who, as far as I know, did things the “right” way—was denied what he had rightfully earned. Lewis was eventually awarded the “gold” three days later but only after first experiencing the initial heartbreak of losing the race. Not everyone is as lucky as Lewis. Marion Jones won five gold medals in the 2000 Sydney Olympics and it wasn’t until seven years later that she was caught.
There is no doubt that “cheating” leaves a path of destruction in the sports world. However, the thing that bothers me most about Clemens, Bonds, Marion Jones and everyone else who has denied use in the face of fairly serious evidence is the “lying.” Let's forget for a moment that nobody ever gets away with a weak-denial. Lying is such a heinous act. It's the ultimate form of insult to the American public especially when it comes in front of a Grand Jury or Congress. Then there's the fact that lying almost always ends up making things much worse than telling the truth would've yielded. Pete Rose isn’t still banned from the HOF because he bet on baseball. He’s still banned because he lied about it for so long. Bonds isn’t facing jail time because he took steroids. He’s facing jail time because he lied about it. The same goes for Marion Jones. However cliché this is to say, America does love to give people second chances. That ceases to be true when the “people” in question refuse to accept responsibility. Bonds, Rose, Palmeiro, and Marion Jones are almost universally viewed with shame in America more so because they lied than because of the “cheating” (or in Rose’s case, “Cardinal sinning”). Clemens will likely follow suit if he steps in front of Congress.
The Hall of Fame-question shouldn't be about statistics.
While my opinion of Clemens—both personally and statistically—has changed, one thing that hasn’t changed for me—and shouldn’t change for anyone else—is his candidacy for the Hall of Fame based on numbers. If you’re going to argue that Clemens shouldn’t be elected to the HOF, you’re better off leaving numbers out of the argument.
Whenever a superstar is accused of taking steroids, everyone asks, “is he still a Hall of Famer?” I think some people interpret this question the wrong way. Many rush to recreate career statistics or simply choose to only acknowledge statistics attained before the alleged steroid-use. Let’s throw aside the fact that recalculating career numbers to account for steroid-use is impossible. Nobody knows how much better steroids make a player. There are number of bad players who were still bad after taking steroids (i.e. Alex Sanchez, Nook Logan, Neifi Perez and more than half the guys in the Mitchell Report). Conversely, Bonds likely took steroids and hit 24 more home runs than he had ever hit in a single-season. The effects obviously differ from person to person so recalculating career numbers isn’t even a reasonable option. The real problem with the question is that it assumes that there actually is a player who became a Hall of Famer because of steroids. I’m not so sure that steroids can make a non-Hall of Famer, a Hall of Famer. There is a lot more to baseball than brute strength. Mechanics, instincts, hand-eye coordination, and work ethic are, by far, the most important factors in determining the caliber of a baseball player. Barry Bonds was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Roger Clemens was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro would’ve almost certainly reached 500 career home runs without steroids. To suggest that there is a logical way to figure out if steroid-use turned a good player into a Hall of Fame-player is a “pie in the sky” notion. I also don’t care for only looking at statistics achieved before the alleged steroid-use. For instance, even without steroid-use, it is very likely that Bonds would’ve had a good stretch from 2001-2004. It doesn’t make sense to treat those years as a total zero as some choose to do.
The question about whether a player should be a Hall of Famer in lieu of steroid-use really should be about whether any player who took steroids should be admitted into the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers across America are racking their brains trying to figure out whether various players who took steroids are Hall of Famers statistically. They should be discussing whether or not steroid-users should even be eligible for the Hall of Fame. Since there is no way to know just how many more home runs a player hit because of steroids and there is no way of knowing how much healthier a player was because of steroids, statistics should be taken at face value. Some have adopted the “if it’s even close, just say no” philosophy and others have chosen to teach steroid-users a lesson by refusing to vote for borderline steroid-users. If people want to adopt the “teach a lesson” stance, then it should be across the board. Steroid-use should either be a total deal-breaker, or eliminated from the discussion of Hall of Fame-status all together. I can respect either side. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to pick and choose. Voters who fashion themselves as someone who is smart enough to be able to decipher whether steroid-use made someone a Hall of Famer or not are claiming mathematical abilities that as far as I know aren’t even possible. The only acceptable caveat I see with “picking and choosing” is if someone wants to punish the players who lied.
There is no “right” answer but there are “better” answers.
There are a lot of reasonable opinions out there and I don’t envy anyone trying to sort all of this out. If I had to pick a side, I would choose to eliminate “steroids” or “HGH” from Hall of Fame discussions. I don’t have a problem putting an asterisk next to the names of Hall of Fame steroid-users. The future baseball fan has a right to know which players cheated and which players didn’t and the “cheaters” deserve to have their indiscretions acknowledged. Some have argued that it wouldn’t be fair to label a player with an asterisk when we don’t know everyone who took steroids. I don’t understand that logic. The players who got caught shouldn’t be spared because everyone didn’t get caught. That doesn't even make sense. I think that—unless you lie to a Grand Jury—the proper punishment for using steroids should be the permanent-tarnishing of one’s career and legacy.
Some may argue that steroids weren’t against the rules in baseball so taking a hard stance is unfair. I don’t by that for a second. Steroids were very much against the rules in baseball and in every other facet of American life. They were illegal for everyone regardless of affiliation or stature. Those players broke the law to get an advantage and that should not be lost on anyone. Too many people want to place all of the blame on baseball for allowing an environment where drug-use went unchecked. If people want to rail baseball for not being vigilant enough, I have no qualms with that. However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the players who used. They are to blame and they should pay a price. Whether that’s banishment from the “Hall” or just a permanent tarnishing of their legacy is up to you to decide. Keep in mind, other players have cheated. Gaylord Perry "doctored" the ball as did many other pitchers. There is proof of this and there is admission of this. Teams have stolen signs. There is proof of this and admission of this. I’m not suggesting those forms of cheating are better or worse than steroids. I’m just saying there has been a precedent set in the past for “cheating.” That’s something worth considering as well.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
The GM of infinite mastery strikes again
I have been waiting 28 years for a trade like the one the Tigers made on Tuesday. Nabbing Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis without giving up a single contributing piece for next season is just one of the things that makes this trade the biggest one in Detroit sports in my lifetime. I can’t think of another trade that brought in two All-Stars—one of which is a 25-year old lefty who already has 68 career wins and the other is a 24-year old third baseman whose similarity score most resembles Hank Aaron—who haven’t even entered the prime of their careers, yet. The way things generally work in MLB is that you trade talented youth for accomplished veterans. In this instance, the Tigers managed to trade talented youth for even more talented, accomplished youth.
The Tigers may have gotten a great combination of players but they certainly didn’t get them for cheap. Back in June, I put together a list of the 40 best prospects in the Tigers minor league system. In this trade alone, the Tigers gave up the #1, #2, #3, and #5 prospects along with Burke Badenhop (#24 and rising fast) and Mike Rabelo who would’ve made the list but started the season in Detroit because of Vance Wilson’s injury. Combine that with the Edgar Renteria trade and the Tigers have traded their top five prospects and six of the top seven prospects in the last month alone. It’s extraordinary to think that Dave Dombrowski spent four years re-tooling the Tigers moribund farm system and--in just one month--all of that hard work and patience got cashed in in two moves. This is exactly how the Yankees and Red Sox have been doing business for years. It’s great to be on the ecstatic side of one of these deals for once. To look at things incredibly bluntly and simplistically, the minors are for cheapskates and losers. The Tigers are neither anymore.
There are a number of fascinating elements to this trade. For starters, the arrival of Cabrera mercifully spells the end of Brandon Inge’s bat from the third base position. Third base is generally a position that is expected to contribute respectable offensive numbers and Inge wasn’t doing that. However, with Pudge possibly on his way out after this season, Inge could again become a factor at catcher. This is just speculation on my part but the Tigers could do a lot worse than having Inge’s bat coming from the catcher-position. In the intermediate, Inge could be a valuable utility guy in the infield. Look for him to not only spell Cabrera at third base but possibly get in at shortstop and second base as well if he stays which gets more and more unlikely by the day. Seeing Inge at 2B would certainly take some time to get used to from a visual perspective.
Something else to think about is the impressive bat of Dontrelle Willis. In 2007, he hit .286 with an impressive OPS+ of 121. Just to compare, that was better than Pudge, Sean Casey, Brandon Inge, Craig Monroe, and Marcus Thames; none had an OPS+ greater than 100. Before I get too carried away, it’s important to note that ’07 was by far Willis’ best season with the bat. The rest of his career has been decent for a pitcher but certainly less than spectacular for an everyday hitter. However, if Willis’ performance in ’07 is a sign that his hitting skills are on the rise, his arrival to the American League adds some versatility to the Tigers lineup. All the more interesting is the fact that Willis bats left-handed which is something the Tigers are short on. It’ll be interesting to see if the Tigers plan on using him at all as a pinch-hitter or in any hitting capacity.
Incredibly, the Tigers now have six players in the lineup who were All-Stars in 2007. Throw in Gary Sheffield and Curtis Granderson—who were two of the biggest snubs in All-Star history—and the Tigers trot out eight All-Star caliber hitters on any given night. As if that isn’t impressive enough, the addition of Jacque Jones now allows the Tigers to platoon him with Marcus Thames in the ninth spot to create a virtual All-Star-caliber hitter. Marcus Thames hit .310 against lefties with a 128 OPS+--or a .927 OPS—in 2007 and Jacque Jones’ career OPS+ is 110—or an .825 OPS—against righties. This offense—if it can stay healthy—should be as good as any offense in our lifetime. Much of the expected offensive fireworks hinges on Gary Sheffield’s health. However, the addition of Cabrera will give the Tigers a powerful lineup regardless. Bill from the Detroit Tigers Weblog ran a simulation and discovered that this offense should generate around 5.8 runs per game. If everyone stays healthy--and most importantly if Sheff's shoulder is fully recovered--I think there's a pretty good chance it could be even more than that.
This is literally a once-in-a-lifetime deal. The Tigers may have issues with the bullpen but no team in MLB has a better lineup and few can touch the depth of the rotation. Dave Dombrowski is the best GM in baseball just ahead ofRandy Smith everyone else. It’s one thing to run a baseball team when an unlimited payroll or a loaded farm system is waiting for you the day you take the job like the Yankees or Red Sox. It’s something entirely different—and with a degree of difficulty vastly more impressive—to take over an organization with neither and turn it into one of the two or three best organizations in baseball in just four years.
The addition of Cabrera and Willis brings the total number of Latinos in the starting lineup to six. So, —just as a bit of advice—the next time you visit South America you may want to wear an Old English D cap. It may just be a “get out of kidnapping free” card.
The Tigers may have gotten a great combination of players but they certainly didn’t get them for cheap. Back in June, I put together a list of the 40 best prospects in the Tigers minor league system. In this trade alone, the Tigers gave up the #1, #2, #3, and #5 prospects along with Burke Badenhop (#24 and rising fast) and Mike Rabelo who would’ve made the list but started the season in Detroit because of Vance Wilson’s injury. Combine that with the Edgar Renteria trade and the Tigers have traded their top five prospects and six of the top seven prospects in the last month alone. It’s extraordinary to think that Dave Dombrowski spent four years re-tooling the Tigers moribund farm system and--in just one month--all of that hard work and patience got cashed in in two moves. This is exactly how the Yankees and Red Sox have been doing business for years. It’s great to be on the ecstatic side of one of these deals for once. To look at things incredibly bluntly and simplistically, the minors are for cheapskates and losers. The Tigers are neither anymore.
There are a number of fascinating elements to this trade. For starters, the arrival of Cabrera mercifully spells the end of Brandon Inge’s bat from the third base position. Third base is generally a position that is expected to contribute respectable offensive numbers and Inge wasn’t doing that. However, with Pudge possibly on his way out after this season, Inge could again become a factor at catcher. This is just speculation on my part but the Tigers could do a lot worse than having Inge’s bat coming from the catcher-position. In the intermediate, Inge could be a valuable utility guy in the infield. Look for him to not only spell Cabrera at third base but possibly get in at shortstop and second base as well if he stays which gets more and more unlikely by the day. Seeing Inge at 2B would certainly take some time to get used to from a visual perspective.
Something else to think about is the impressive bat of Dontrelle Willis. In 2007, he hit .286 with an impressive OPS+ of 121. Just to compare, that was better than Pudge, Sean Casey, Brandon Inge, Craig Monroe, and Marcus Thames; none had an OPS+ greater than 100. Before I get too carried away, it’s important to note that ’07 was by far Willis’ best season with the bat. The rest of his career has been decent for a pitcher but certainly less than spectacular for an everyday hitter. However, if Willis’ performance in ’07 is a sign that his hitting skills are on the rise, his arrival to the American League adds some versatility to the Tigers lineup. All the more interesting is the fact that Willis bats left-handed which is something the Tigers are short on. It’ll be interesting to see if the Tigers plan on using him at all as a pinch-hitter or in any hitting capacity.
Incredibly, the Tigers now have six players in the lineup who were All-Stars in 2007. Throw in Gary Sheffield and Curtis Granderson—who were two of the biggest snubs in All-Star history—and the Tigers trot out eight All-Star caliber hitters on any given night. As if that isn’t impressive enough, the addition of Jacque Jones now allows the Tigers to platoon him with Marcus Thames in the ninth spot to create a virtual All-Star-caliber hitter. Marcus Thames hit .310 against lefties with a 128 OPS+--or a .927 OPS—in 2007 and Jacque Jones’ career OPS+ is 110—or an .825 OPS—against righties. This offense—if it can stay healthy—should be as good as any offense in our lifetime. Much of the expected offensive fireworks hinges on Gary Sheffield’s health. However, the addition of Cabrera will give the Tigers a powerful lineup regardless. Bill from the Detroit Tigers Weblog ran a simulation and discovered that this offense should generate around 5.8 runs per game. If everyone stays healthy--and most importantly if Sheff's shoulder is fully recovered--I think there's a pretty good chance it could be even more than that.
This is literally a once-in-a-lifetime deal. The Tigers may have issues with the bullpen but no team in MLB has a better lineup and few can touch the depth of the rotation. Dave Dombrowski is the best GM in baseball just ahead of
The addition of Cabrera and Willis brings the total number of Latinos in the starting lineup to six. So, —just as a bit of advice—the next time you visit South America you may want to wear an Old English D cap. It may just be a “get out of kidnapping free” card.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
2007 DIBS Awards
Press Release
Nov. 29, 2007
For immediate release
ORDONEZ NAMED TIGERS PLAYER OF YEAR
Verlander top pitcher, Granderson breakout player
DETROIT — The Detroit Independent Baseball Scribes are proud to announce the results of the 2007 DIBS Awards balloting.
DIBS (Detroit Independent Baseball Scribes) is a collection of independent Web sites that cover the Detroit Tigers. Formed by Brian Borawski, Bill Ferris and Ryan Sosin in 2005 with the idea of uniting a community of fans and writers, DIBS is focused on improving and promoting the quality sports coverage taking place on the internet.
Magglio Ordonez was selected by 14 of 16 DIBS voters as the player of the year. The Tigers’ right fielder finished second in Most Valuable Player balloting by baseball writers this season. His .434 on-base-percentage coupled with a .595 slugging (1.029 OPS) made Ordonez a force at the plate all season. He hit 28 home runs and 54 doubles to go with 139 RBI. Curtis Granderson received the remaining two first-place votes. His 20 stolen bases, 20 doubles, 20 triples, 20 home runs season put him in rare air, allowing him to join just Willie Mays and Frank “Wildfire” Schulte at the time. A left-handed center fielder, Granderson got on base a .361 rate and slugged .552 (.913OPS). Placido Polanco, who completed an errorless season at second base, placed third overall with two second-place votes an 11 third.
Right-handed starter Justin Verlander was the unanimous selection for Tigers pitcher of the year. His no-hitter pitched against Milwaukee June 12 is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the Tigers season, but he was consistent throughout the year and finished 18-6 with an ERA of 3.66 and 1.23 WHIP. He struck out 183 and walked 67 in 201-2/3 innings pitched. Closer Todd Jones finished runner-up with 10 second-place and one third-place votes. He made 38 saves in 44 chances (86.4 percent success) and had a 4.26 ERA and 1.42 WHIP. Left-handed middle reliever Bobby Seay placed third overall with two second-place and eight third-place votes. He had a 2.33 ERA and 1.14 WHIP. He struck out 38 and walked 15 in 46-1/3 innings pitched.
Granderson was also named breakout player of the year with nine of 16 first-place votes. Utilityman Ryan Raburn, called up from Triple-A Toledo in July, finished second in balloting with four first-place, four second-place and four third-place votes. He got on base at a .304 rate and slugged .507 (.847 OPS) while playing in 49 games. He had four home runs, 12 doubles, two triples and 27 RBI. Pitcher Jair Jurrjens, now a member of the Atlanta Braves organization after being included in a trade for shortstop Edgar Renteria, finished third in voting with one first-place vote, five second-place votes and five third-place votes. Jurrjens started seven games for the Tigers. His ERA was 4.70 to go with a 1.14 WHIP. He struck out 13 and walked 11 in 30-2/3 innings pitched. Receiving his first start Aug. 15, Jurrjens pitched a span of games from Aug. 21 to Sept. 16 where he gave up just one run per game.
The blogs that voted included:
Roar of the Tigers
Mack Avenue Tigers
Out of Bounds/Johnny Grubb
Wayne Fontes Experience
Daily Fungo
Detroit Tiger Tales
Bless You Boys
Leelanau Sports Guy
The Fanhouse
D Town Baseball
Take 75 North
Grandy Report
From the Copa
Detroit Tigers Weblog
Tigerblog
Motown Sports Revival
My ballot is below…
Tiger player of the year
1). Mags
2). Granderson
3). Polanco
This was how most people saw it. Sheff and Granderson would’ve had a battle for second if not for the shoulder injury.
Tiger pitcher of the year
1). Verlander
2). Bobby Seay
3). Todd Jones
Jones finished second ahead of Seay. I couldn’t bring myself to vote that way. Seay had a much better season statistically. That a guy with an appropriate nickname like “rollercoaster” finishes second for “Tigers Pitcher of the Year” just goes to show how dire the pitching situation was for the Tigers in 2007. Seay certainly was a pleasant surprise.
Tiger breakout player of the year
1). Raburn
2). Durbin
3). (tie) Jurrjens
3). (tie) Bazardo
This award is a bit ambiguous and I think it’s meant to be that way. Granderson won hands down with a whopping nine first place votes (out of 16). He didn't receive a single second or third place vote from the seven voters who didn't vote him #1 so there is certainly many different interpretations going on with regards to how to define "breakout player." Granderson finished 3rd in the voting for the same award last season. I didn’t vote for Granderson this year and I didn’t vote for him last year. My interpretation of “breakout player” precluded Granderson from being on either of my ballots the last two years. So, I went with Raburn first. He was a pleasant surprise and certainly “broke out”. Durbin did more than anyone could have possibly imagined back at the start of spring training before Rogers went out. Jurrjens and Bazardo were a toss-up. I was the only voter who listed Bazardo but he quietly put together a season equally impressive--if not more impressive--than Jurrjens who finished second. Both did some OK things but that was about it. Twelve players received votes in this category including Paws who is the Tigers mascot.
Nov. 29, 2007
For immediate release
ORDONEZ NAMED TIGERS PLAYER OF YEAR
Verlander top pitcher, Granderson breakout player
DETROIT — The Detroit Independent Baseball Scribes are proud to announce the results of the 2007 DIBS Awards balloting.
DIBS (Detroit Independent Baseball Scribes) is a collection of independent Web sites that cover the Detroit Tigers. Formed by Brian Borawski, Bill Ferris and Ryan Sosin in 2005 with the idea of uniting a community of fans and writers, DIBS is focused on improving and promoting the quality sports coverage taking place on the internet.
Magglio Ordonez was selected by 14 of 16 DIBS voters as the player of the year. The Tigers’ right fielder finished second in Most Valuable Player balloting by baseball writers this season. His .434 on-base-percentage coupled with a .595 slugging (1.029 OPS) made Ordonez a force at the plate all season. He hit 28 home runs and 54 doubles to go with 139 RBI. Curtis Granderson received the remaining two first-place votes. His 20 stolen bases, 20 doubles, 20 triples, 20 home runs season put him in rare air, allowing him to join just Willie Mays and Frank “Wildfire” Schulte at the time. A left-handed center fielder, Granderson got on base a .361 rate and slugged .552 (.913OPS). Placido Polanco, who completed an errorless season at second base, placed third overall with two second-place votes an 11 third.
Right-handed starter Justin Verlander was the unanimous selection for Tigers pitcher of the year. His no-hitter pitched against Milwaukee June 12 is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the Tigers season, but he was consistent throughout the year and finished 18-6 with an ERA of 3.66 and 1.23 WHIP. He struck out 183 and walked 67 in 201-2/3 innings pitched. Closer Todd Jones finished runner-up with 10 second-place and one third-place votes. He made 38 saves in 44 chances (86.4 percent success) and had a 4.26 ERA and 1.42 WHIP. Left-handed middle reliever Bobby Seay placed third overall with two second-place and eight third-place votes. He had a 2.33 ERA and 1.14 WHIP. He struck out 38 and walked 15 in 46-1/3 innings pitched.
Granderson was also named breakout player of the year with nine of 16 first-place votes. Utilityman Ryan Raburn, called up from Triple-A Toledo in July, finished second in balloting with four first-place, four second-place and four third-place votes. He got on base at a .304 rate and slugged .507 (.847 OPS) while playing in 49 games. He had four home runs, 12 doubles, two triples and 27 RBI. Pitcher Jair Jurrjens, now a member of the Atlanta Braves organization after being included in a trade for shortstop Edgar Renteria, finished third in voting with one first-place vote, five second-place votes and five third-place votes. Jurrjens started seven games for the Tigers. His ERA was 4.70 to go with a 1.14 WHIP. He struck out 13 and walked 11 in 30-2/3 innings pitched. Receiving his first start Aug. 15, Jurrjens pitched a span of games from Aug. 21 to Sept. 16 where he gave up just one run per game.
The blogs that voted included:
Roar of the Tigers
Mack Avenue Tigers
Out of Bounds/Johnny Grubb
Wayne Fontes Experience
Daily Fungo
Detroit Tiger Tales
Bless You Boys
Leelanau Sports Guy
The Fanhouse
D Town Baseball
Take 75 North
Grandy Report
From the Copa
Detroit Tigers Weblog
Tigerblog
Motown Sports Revival
My ballot is below…
Tiger player of the year
1). Mags
2). Granderson
3). Polanco
This was how most people saw it. Sheff and Granderson would’ve had a battle for second if not for the shoulder injury.
Tiger pitcher of the year
1). Verlander
2). Bobby Seay
3). Todd Jones
Jones finished second ahead of Seay. I couldn’t bring myself to vote that way. Seay had a much better season statistically. That a guy with an appropriate nickname like “rollercoaster” finishes second for “Tigers Pitcher of the Year” just goes to show how dire the pitching situation was for the Tigers in 2007. Seay certainly was a pleasant surprise.
Tiger breakout player of the year
1). Raburn
2). Durbin
3). (tie) Jurrjens
3). (tie) Bazardo
This award is a bit ambiguous and I think it’s meant to be that way. Granderson won hands down with a whopping nine first place votes (out of 16). He didn't receive a single second or third place vote from the seven voters who didn't vote him #1 so there is certainly many different interpretations going on with regards to how to define "breakout player." Granderson finished 3rd in the voting for the same award last season. I didn’t vote for Granderson this year and I didn’t vote for him last year. My interpretation of “breakout player” precluded Granderson from being on either of my ballots the last two years. So, I went with Raburn first. He was a pleasant surprise and certainly “broke out”. Durbin did more than anyone could have possibly imagined back at the start of spring training before Rogers went out. Jurrjens and Bazardo were a toss-up. I was the only voter who listed Bazardo but he quietly put together a season equally impressive--if not more impressive--than Jurrjens who finished second. Both did some OK things but that was about it. Twelve players received votes in this category including Paws who is the Tigers mascot.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Tigers transformation to Marlins is almost complete
The Tigers were quick to acquire the shortstop that would enable the club to finally move Carlos Guillen to first-base permanently. Acquiring Edgar Renteria dually shores up the infield and effectively removes the Tigers from the A-Rod Sweepstakes. With the Yankees and Tigers out of the picture, it looks like A-Rod will either go to the Dodgers, Cubs, or Angels. Scott Boras can’t be too pleased with an audience of three teams. That seriously reduces his bargaining power. Nonetheless, the Tigers picked up Renteria in almost the exact same way they did Sheffield last season. They did it quick—even quicker than the Sheffield trade—and had to part with some pretty good prospects. Dave Dombrowski and Jim Leyland clearly look for familiar players who have helped them win in the past. It’s no coincidence that Sheffield and Renteria were both members of the ’97 Florida Marlins in which Jim Leyland was the Manager and Dave Dombrowski was the General Manager. Unfortunately for them, the number of productive ex-’97 Marlins who are left to acquire is basically zero. That means the Tigers will have to get creative next off-season. I’ll be looking forward to that especially with another ex- Marlin (Pudge) and his $13 million coming off the payroll.
My first reaction to the trade was basically the same reaction I had to the Sheffield trade last season. It seems steep. Although, Sheffield is more important and came at a cheaper price. Jair Jurrjens and Gorkys Hernandez are big-time prospects. Jurrjens was considerably more advanced than Hernandez but both were known commodities around MLB. The Tigers have a surplus of pitching in the organization with Andrew Miller and Rick Porcello still waiting to get into the starting rotation. Losing Jurrjens stings in the sense that it immediately downgrades the overall talent level in the minors but it won’t affect the Tigers chances of winning a World Series in the near future. The Sheffield trade—giving up Humberto Sanchez, Kevin Whelan, and Anthony Claggett—brought the same dynamic. The Tigers lucked-out when Sanchez suffered a serious elbow injury for the Yankees but considering Sheffield's health--or lack thereof--the winner of that trade is still uncertain. Losing prospects like Sanchez and Jurrjens is especially difficult for Tigers fans because for 20+ years, there wasn’t but one or two players who were as good as either. We’re not used to seeing the “future” traded away. Any time a player like Juan Encarnacion, Gabe Kapler, or Justin Thompson came along, the Tigers held on to them like they were gold. Fortunately, the Tigers have legitimate “prospects” now and equally fortunate is the fact that the Tigers are good enough to be able to trade away those prospects without incurring years of regret. The Tigers traded away John Smoltz 20 years ago and—because the organization was run into the ground—it has been a notorious trade ever since. Even if Jurrjens turns into the next Smoltz, or Hernandez becomes the next Torii Hunter, fans will be too busy cheering for the Tigers in October to dwell on a trade gone awry.
I’m remorseful to see Jurrjens and Hernandez go; Jurrjens especially. He has great command, a 95-MPH fastball, and the confidence to match. I think he’ll end up being a pretty good pitcher. However, you have to give to get. The Tigers needed a bona fide shortstop and the price for one of those is clearly not cheap. My concern is that Renteria isn’t a top-tier shortstop. The Tigers didn’t just seek anyone to replace Guillen. The goal was to come close to replacing Guillen’s power and/or drastically improve the position defensively. I’m not sure Renteria does either. His career OPS+ is 97. He has had three above-average seasons in 12 years. He is extremely inconsistent from year to year as you can expect anything from an OPS+ of 77 to 130. He is coming off the second-best season of his career as he posted an OPS+ of 125. His best season came in 2003 in which he produced an OPS+ of 130. He followed that with two miserable seasons.
I don’t mind giving up prospects for a proven commodity. The current depth in the Tigers system allows for that trade-off. However, in this instance, I do at least slightly mind giving up Jurrjens and Hernandez for Renteria. According to Bill at The Detroit Tigers Weblog, the Tigers picked up 2 to 2.5 wins by essentially replacing Guillen’s defense and Sean Casey’s bat with Renteria. Two wins isn’t anything to scoff at but given Renteria’s unreliability from year to year, a two-win improvement is no guarantee. Plus, it’s not like the Braves had all the leverage in this deal and the Tigers had none. The Braves were actively trying to unload Renteria because Yunel Escobar—a promising, young shortstop in the Braves organization—was ready to take over. Given Renteria’s unreliability and Escobar’s pending promotion, it seems a little much to give up Jurrjens and Hernandez.
If I were a Braves fan, I would be elated with this deal. Not only does Escobar get to move into the shortstop position on an everyday basis, but the Braves also picked up a top-of-the-line pitching prospect and a centerfielder who has been drawing rave reviews ever since he stepped foot in the minor leagues. Players like Renteria are relatively easy to find. This trade isn’t going to cripple the Tigers. The chances are actually very good that this trade will have a net impact of zero or slightly positive. That said, I don’t think there is any doubt that the Braves got the better end of this deal.
After quickly acquiring Sheffield early in the off-season last year, the Tigers were done with major acquisitions despite some speculation to the contrary. The same could be the case this year at least offensively. Although, the recent revelation that Joel Zumaya might miss at least half of the 2008 season makes finding a good-to-great relief-pitcher a high priority. Said injury might increase the odds that the Tigers will make a run at Mariano Rivera. The Tigers have long been rumored to be searching for a left-fielder but the combination of Marcus Thames and Timo Perez apparently seems somewhat manageable to the front-office. Plus, with the payroll at an all-time high (well over $100 million) and the increased need to find bullpen help, I think the offense is pretty much the way it’ll look on opening day.
My first reaction to the trade was basically the same reaction I had to the Sheffield trade last season. It seems steep. Although, Sheffield is more important and came at a cheaper price. Jair Jurrjens and Gorkys Hernandez are big-time prospects. Jurrjens was considerably more advanced than Hernandez but both were known commodities around MLB. The Tigers have a surplus of pitching in the organization with Andrew Miller and Rick Porcello still waiting to get into the starting rotation. Losing Jurrjens stings in the sense that it immediately downgrades the overall talent level in the minors but it won’t affect the Tigers chances of winning a World Series in the near future. The Sheffield trade—giving up Humberto Sanchez, Kevin Whelan, and Anthony Claggett—brought the same dynamic. The Tigers lucked-out when Sanchez suffered a serious elbow injury for the Yankees but considering Sheffield's health--or lack thereof--the winner of that trade is still uncertain. Losing prospects like Sanchez and Jurrjens is especially difficult for Tigers fans because for 20+ years, there wasn’t but one or two players who were as good as either. We’re not used to seeing the “future” traded away. Any time a player like Juan Encarnacion, Gabe Kapler, or Justin Thompson came along, the Tigers held on to them like they were gold. Fortunately, the Tigers have legitimate “prospects” now and equally fortunate is the fact that the Tigers are good enough to be able to trade away those prospects without incurring years of regret. The Tigers traded away John Smoltz 20 years ago and—because the organization was run into the ground—it has been a notorious trade ever since. Even if Jurrjens turns into the next Smoltz, or Hernandez becomes the next Torii Hunter, fans will be too busy cheering for the Tigers in October to dwell on a trade gone awry.
I’m remorseful to see Jurrjens and Hernandez go; Jurrjens especially. He has great command, a 95-MPH fastball, and the confidence to match. I think he’ll end up being a pretty good pitcher. However, you have to give to get. The Tigers needed a bona fide shortstop and the price for one of those is clearly not cheap. My concern is that Renteria isn’t a top-tier shortstop. The Tigers didn’t just seek anyone to replace Guillen. The goal was to come close to replacing Guillen’s power and/or drastically improve the position defensively. I’m not sure Renteria does either. His career OPS+ is 97. He has had three above-average seasons in 12 years. He is extremely inconsistent from year to year as you can expect anything from an OPS+ of 77 to 130. He is coming off the second-best season of his career as he posted an OPS+ of 125. His best season came in 2003 in which he produced an OPS+ of 130. He followed that with two miserable seasons.
I don’t mind giving up prospects for a proven commodity. The current depth in the Tigers system allows for that trade-off. However, in this instance, I do at least slightly mind giving up Jurrjens and Hernandez for Renteria. According to Bill at The Detroit Tigers Weblog, the Tigers picked up 2 to 2.5 wins by essentially replacing Guillen’s defense and Sean Casey’s bat with Renteria. Two wins isn’t anything to scoff at but given Renteria’s unreliability from year to year, a two-win improvement is no guarantee. Plus, it’s not like the Braves had all the leverage in this deal and the Tigers had none. The Braves were actively trying to unload Renteria because Yunel Escobar—a promising, young shortstop in the Braves organization—was ready to take over. Given Renteria’s unreliability and Escobar’s pending promotion, it seems a little much to give up Jurrjens and Hernandez.
If I were a Braves fan, I would be elated with this deal. Not only does Escobar get to move into the shortstop position on an everyday basis, but the Braves also picked up a top-of-the-line pitching prospect and a centerfielder who has been drawing rave reviews ever since he stepped foot in the minor leagues. Players like Renteria are relatively easy to find. This trade isn’t going to cripple the Tigers. The chances are actually very good that this trade will have a net impact of zero or slightly positive. That said, I don’t think there is any doubt that the Braves got the better end of this deal.
After quickly acquiring Sheffield early in the off-season last year, the Tigers were done with major acquisitions despite some speculation to the contrary. The same could be the case this year at least offensively. Although, the recent revelation that Joel Zumaya might miss at least half of the 2008 season makes finding a good-to-great relief-pitcher a high priority. Said injury might increase the odds that the Tigers will make a run at Mariano Rivera. The Tigers have long been rumored to be searching for a left-fielder but the combination of Marcus Thames and Timo Perez apparently seems somewhat manageable to the front-office. Plus, with the payroll at an all-time high (well over $100 million) and the increased need to find bullpen help, I think the offense is pretty much the way it’ll look on opening day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
