Between the Lines

Wrapping Up the Rest

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:35:00 +0000

I'm going to cover the next few ESPN HoF "debates" in one post, since I have less to say about each of them. Michael Knisley and John Shea tackled Andrew Dawson's candidacy; here's how Shea justified his decision to vote for "The Hawk":

For me, the most important ingredient when voting is this: When you saw him play, did you think he was a Hall of Famer or not? Cooperstown has the best Hall of Fame in sports because it's the toughest to get into, because not every borderline candidate is inducted. It could be argued that it's great not for who is in, but for who is not in.

In the case of Dawson, I always thought he was usually better than everyone else on the field, a guy who could take over a game, and dominate an era. Plus, what an intimidating fellow. I covered the Padres in '87, Dawson's MVP year with the Cubs. There was a game in July in which Dawson took an Eric Show fastball on the cheek that required 24 stitches. At first, he was motionless and couldn't charge the mound. So his teammates did for him. That's the ultimate respect.

Shea actually uses the "borderline candidates dilute the Hall's talent level" argument in favor of Dawson here, something I've never seen before. This is precisely why "what you thought when you saw him play" should not be the most important ingredient when voting. First of all, how much did you see him play? Did you watch every game he played at the Major League level, or did you merely cover one MVP season and see him intermittently throughout the rest of his career? Even if you did see every AB Dawson had, and every putout he made, in a big league uniform, I guarantee that you missed or forgot something important which could be revealed by a little statistical analysis. Human memory and perception are fallible. That's why we keep statistics.

In contrast, here's what Jay Jaffe has to say about Dawson's candidacy:

In his heyday, Dawson brought to the table an exceptional combination of power and speed. As an Expo, he was a Gold Glove center fielder who shifted to right after the Olympic Stadium turf took its toll on his knees. He left as a free agent following the 1986 season, and made a huge splash in his first year with the Cubs, hitting 49 homers, driving in 137 runs, and winning dubious MVP honors--he had just 7.3 WARP, which ranked 24^th in the league and was only his sixth-best season--while playing for a last-place club, the first player to win the MVP from the basement. His stats that year were grossly inflated by Wrigley Field (.332/.373/.668 at home vs. .246/.288/.480 away), but for his career, the park effects were more even: .281/.330/.481 with 207 HR at home, .278/.316/.483 with 231 HR on the road. His Gold Gloves are somewhat overstated; the FRAA numbers show him a combined 15 runs below average in two of those seasons, but that's about par for the course. The biggest problem with Dawson's case is his lifetime .323 OBP, nine points below the park-adjusted league average for his career; he topped .350 just three times, while scraping the .300 range for too many years. That particularly depresses the value of his peak, which is tied for a rather unimpressive 250^th all-time, though seven Hall of Famers--Dave Bancroft, Willie Stargell, Earl Averill, Hugh Duffy, Pie Traynor, Orlando Cepeda, and Luis Aparacio--are within half a win of his total. He's a better choice than Rice, but he still comes up short.

So, yeah. Something like that, maybe. I'm sure Jaffe watched Dawson play, too, you know.

The Raines debate was actually somewhat heartening; Jayson Stark converted Peter Gammons to the pro-Raines camp. Gammons didn't put up much of a fight, and considering that the agent of change was Jayson Stark, I'd wager to say that he was leaning towards voting for Raines anyway, but hey, it's still nice to see. That said, Gammons did offer one line to which I took exception:

Raines, Rickey Henderson and Wade Boggs were the best of the '80s and early '90s, and while some of our sabermetric fellows do not believe players are humans, Raines made every team he was on better, not just because he was such a good player, but because his effervescent personality made teammates relax and play better; you'd go out to the cage and players would all be following him around.

Low blow, Pete. Moreover, I don't know exactly what provoked it. Sabermetricians don't believe that players are robots; they believe in examining performance which can actually be quantified. Most sabermetricians probably wouldn't rule out the possibility that Raines' personality might have helped his teams, since it's impossible to prove that it didn't; however, it's also impossible to prove that it did, and since its hypothetical impact pales in comparison to other factors which actually can be observed, devoting an inordinate amount of attention to it would be ill-advised.

And finally, we come to Jim Rice. I don't believe that Rice is a Hall-of-Fame; one of the arguments most frequently employed to support his candidacy reveals the dearth of his other HoF qualifications. Larry Stone echoes that familiar refrain:

As our pal Jayson Stark said a few years ago, when he finally saw the light and began to vote for Rice, he met one essential Cooperstown criterion: the fear factor. Pitchers absolutely hated to face him, and for good reason.

Rob Neyer addressed this line of reasoning recently; I'll let him answer Stone:

Turns out Rice has one credential: As Shaughnessy and so many others have said over the years, he was "the most feared hitter of his day" ... but was he, really? I'm still waiting for someone, anybody.

Shaughnessy cites intentional walks: "Managers thought about intentionally walking him when he came to the plate with the bases loaded." Well, that's an interesting bit of untestable trivia, but for the moment let's ignore all those imaginary intentional walks and talk about the real ones. Because yes, a great number of intentional walks would suggest that a player really was feared.

Rice's 12 best seasons -- 1975-1986 -- are usually mentioned because the rest of his career was not good. Did Rice draw more intentional walks than anyone else over those 12 seasons? From 1975 through 1986 -- remember, that range of seasons has been chosen specifically to make Rice look his best -- 32 major leaguers drew more intentional walks than Jim Rice.
Stoney, in regard to the '86 World Series, I will quote a great American, Hawk Harrelson -- "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit.''

By the way, check out this article, which was linked to by an ESPN user in the discussion section of that Neyer blog entry; it perfectly illustrates the futility of the "fear factor" argument.

Now, Phil Rogers, Stone's opponent in the debate, isn't blameless--he quotes Hawk Harrelson in a favorable light, even going so far as to call him a "great American--but at least he's on the right side (or was, at the beginning of the debate--sadly, another one bites the dust). Joe Sheehan and Jay Jaffe have quite a bit more to say about the issue, as usual. These ESPN voters weren't necessarily the worst of all, but they certainly didn't improve my opinion of the average BBWAA HoF voter's knowledge and analytical skills.

Aaaaand We're Back

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:20:00 +0000

I've been remiss in my blogging duties, to say the least. Hope I didn't ruin your holidays. Fortunately, I picked a good time to get lazy; these last couple weeks have been about as devoid of news as any during the year. So, what have I missed?

I won't go back too far, but recently, ESPN's series of Hall of Fame debates has provided more evidence for what we already knew: some Hall of Fame voters really shouldn't have votes. The series included discussions of Bert Blyleven, Andrew Dawson, Tim Raines, Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, and Mark McGwire, and I want to post some especially egregious excerpts from a few of these.

First up: the Blyleven debate, wherein Sean McAdam has wins on the brain. Bob Klapisch does his best, (which can't quite equal the respective bests of Rich Lederer and Jay Jaffe) but McAdam simply cannot get over the absence of a few wins scattered over the course of Blyleven's career, which would have given him some a few more "magic numbers":

Let's start with the number of 20-win seasons, or more accurately, lack of 20-win seasons. In 22 seasons, Blyleven had exactly one 20-win season. And remember, he pitched mostly in the era of four-man rotations. I could give you a list of many, many players who had a 20-win season and I assure you, you wouldn't be campaigning for any of them.

And not only did he win 20 only once, but he didn't come real close in other years. He had one 19-win season ('84, with the Indians) and then a whole bunch of 17-win seasons (five). Does that sound like an ace's resume?

It sounds like an extremely incomplete excerpt from what could be an ace's resume. It certainly doesn't tell the whole story, or even close to it.

What? All of a sudden, won-loss record isn't a fair measuring stick for pitchers? If we're not going to take records into account, what's the new standard? I'm not expecting six or seven seasons -- though that's been accomplished. But more than one isn't too much to ask, either.

"All of a sudden?" Come on, Sean. I'll let Rich Lederer's address to the BBWAA on behalf of Blyleven offer some better alternatives:

1. Mr. Blyleven ranks fifth all time in career strikeouts. You have seen the virtues of electing the top dozen other than the man known as Only The Lonely.

2. Mr. Blyleven ranks ninth in shutouts. You have seen the virtues of inducting the top 20 other than our subject.

3. Mr. Blyleven ranks 24th in wins. You have seen the virtues of honoring every eligible pitcher ahead of him save one.

4. Looking at more advanced metrics, Bert Blyleven ranks 14th in Neutral Wins. You have voted in every pitcher in the top 20 other than Mr. Blyleven.

5. Mr. Blyleven also ranks 17th in Runs Saved Above Average. You have enshrined every pitcher in the top 20 other than him.

6. Among pitchers with 4,000 or more innings, Bert Blyleven ranks 19th in ERA vs. the league average. Once again, you have found a spot in Cooperstown for every pitcher in the top 20 other than Mr. Blyleven.

For some icing on the cake, may I point out that Bert Blyleven was named American League Rookie Pitcher of the Year in 1970 at the age of 19, threw a no-hitter in 1977, and was voted Comeback Player of the Year in 1989? I might also add that Mr. Blyleven pitched on two World Series Championship teams, compiling a 5-1 won-loss record and a 2.47 ERA in the postseason.

By the way, I would like to bring to your attention, ladies and gentlemen, the little-known fact that you haven't honored any pitchers born since 1947 (Nolan Ryan), yet you have felt compelled to induct eight hitters (George Brett, Gary Carter, Eddie Murray, Kirby Puckett, Mike Schmidt, Ozzie Smith, Dave Winfield, and Robin Yount) born since then. Furthermore, every pitcher that has been elected since Mr. Blyleven became eligible six years ago, as well as the two immediately preceding his candidacy, has won 300 or more games. In fact, Rollie Fingers in 1992 was the last pitcher that was voted into the Hall of Fame without 300 wins and he, of course, was a reliever.

Based on the above, one can't help but think that winning 300 games has become the de facto standard for pitchers. As a point of clarification, had you held to that magical mark all along, there would only be 20 pitchers currently in the Hall of Fame with another one on his way (Clemens) and perhaps a second one on the horizon (Greg Maddux). A total of 22 starting pitchers would be comparable to only four or five position players. The fewest number of HOFers at any one position is 11 (3B). As such, holding starting pitchers to a minimum of 300 victories is overly strict and unfair. Focusing exclusively on wins is also a mistake as this stat is as much dependent on the pitcher's team as it is on the pitcher himself.

Exactly. Give that man a Hall of Fame vote. Please.

Sometimes, Honesty Isn't the Best Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:46:00 +0000

Woody Paige has solicited the aid of his readers as he fills out his Hall-of-Fame ballot--and not a moment too soon:

I need your help.

Do I vote for suspected steroid users, particularly a couple included in the Mitchell report on Thursday, or do I automatically dismiss their candidacy? Do I vote for guys I personally like, or is that not being objective? Do I vote for a creep or a man who committed suicide? Do I check 10 players, the maximum allowed, or keep it to one or two? Do I go with pitcher Tommy John because they named a surgical procedure after him?

A couple of those questions are legitimate, but you really shouldn't need assistance with the others. You shouldn't resolve to check either 1 or 2 players, or 10; you should vote for as many players as you think are deserving of enshrinement. You shouldn't vote for someone because they named a surgical procedure after him. And most importantly, does voting for guys you personally like sound objective to you?

Gossage — During a visit to Yankee Stadium in the late 1970s, I wanted to talk to Goose but was told he was cruel and gruff to reporters. I sheepishly introduced myself and said I was from Colorado, his home state, and he talked pleasantly for 30 minutes. We've been good friends since. I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving. But Goose was one of the most dominant, and frightening, closers in baseball for two decades. One major difference between when he pitched and now: Gossage most times worked two or three innings, not three outs. He needs 75 percent of the vote. Goose climbed to 71.2 percent last year, his ninth time (15 max) on the ballot.

I appreciate the attempt at a justification, but that "I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving" is all we really need to know.

Knoblauch, McGwire and Justice — I won't vote for them because of the swirl of steroid and human growth hormone accusations, and I also won't vote for them because I don't think they're worthy. Justice had a career batting average of .279 (with 305 home runs and 1,017 RBIs). His teams did win two World Series, but I don't feel it. Knoblauch was a very good second baseman, but this is not the Hall of Very Good. McGwire had 583 homers but a career .263 average. The drug suspicions, and his appearance at a Washington hearing examining drug use, haunt him.

Nothing terrible here. "Not feeling it" isn't a great substitute for detailed analysis, but either way, Justice doesn't deserve to be in, so I'll let it slide. Not thrilled with the "but this is not the Hall of Very Good" line, either; seems like I may have heard that one before. Make note of the .263 career average behind held against Big Mac here; that will be relevant in the next paragraph.

Murphy — Got my vote, but he won't get in. He was two short of 400 home runs and hit only .265, but he won back-to-back MVP awards, made seven all-star teams and earned five Gold Gloves. He played 26 games for the Rockies in their first season, 1993, before retiring. I vote for Rockies. He was who a ballplayer should be. And he always remembers my name. I'm a sap.

So Dale Murphy gets a vote with a career average 2 points higher than McGwire's, despite having hit 185 fewer homers. OK, so Murphy wasn't juicing, but does anyone really think that was what made the difference here? He remembers Woody's name, for goodness sake.

Andre Dawson and Tim Raines — I'm voting for them. Both are borderline. But I was amazed by, and wrote columns about, Dawson and Raines when they played for the Denver Bears. Dawson passed through in 1976 on his way to the Montreal Expos, and Raines was the 1980 minor-league player of the year as the Bears' second baseman. (Raines did have a cocaine addiction problem but overcame it.)

Just for the record, I think that Raines should be in, and Dawson shouldn't. Paige, of course, thinks they should both be in, not because of anything they did in the Major Leagues, (which, of course, is all that matters when considering their candidacies) but because of a single season he saw each of them have in AAA. Not sure whether this is worse than voting for someone because of a personal friendship, but it's close.

Jim Rice — He has been shut out for 13 years, mainly because he primarily was a DH. That doesn't bother me, but his overall numbers are just shy. Yet, he was an MVP, in the top five in the MVP five other times and made eight all-star teams in 16 seasons. Why not? I'll check his name.

He was primarily a DH, and you don't even think that his offensive numbers are Hall-worthy--yet you checked his name. "Why not," indeed.

Don Mattingly — Another former player, now a coach, who I became friends with, so I'm prejudiced. I like voting for friends, especially when they hit .307 lifetime, won an MVP, made six consecutive all-star teams and won a Gold Glove nine times in 14 seasons. Class act.

I know from personal experience that class acts don't get Hall-of-Fame votes just for being class acts. At least, they shouldn't. Chalk another Paige vote up to openly-admitted bias.

Bert Blyleven (287-250) and Tommy John (288-231) — Also on my list. I will give a vote as a salute to Dave Concepcion, in his final year on the ballot.

In conclusion, we have 3 votes attributable to personal friendships, 2 attributable to AAA performance, 1 attributable to "why not," 1 attributable to a surgical procedure, and 1 attributable to a symbolic "salute." Only the Blyleven selection passes the smell test here, and for all I know, he and Woody may be best buds. This is a travesty, and the man isn't even ashamed to admit it.

The Eckstein Report

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:10:00 +0000

David Eckstein has signed a contract. Go tell it on the mountain--twice. Even if you have to make up erroneous information about a 2nd year in order to make it sound like an original headline.

Around and Around We Go

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:14:00 +0000

The "Around the Majors" section of Jon Heyman's CNNSI columns often operates as a haven for misinformation. Fully 1/3 of his latest bullet-pointed entries struck me as misleading and ill-informed, if not flat-out wrong:

*The Yankees and Giants could possibly make a deal involving Hideki Matsui, one that involves either pitchers Noah Lowry or Jonathan Sanchez. But would anyone really expect Matsui to waive his no-trade clause to leave the team of his dreams?

Yes. Absolutely. Matsui may like being a Yankee, but he also doesn't strike me as the type to stand in the way of a trade which both parties are eager to complete. It's also worth mentioning that many Japanese players have expressed a preference to play on the West Coast, which cuts almost half a day of off the round-trip flight to Japan. Matsui's approval isn't a sure thing, but it's certainly not ridiculous to expect him ultimately to accede to the wishes of the two teams involved.

*Upon hearing that Eric Gagne got a guaranteed $10 million (plus incentives), my reaction was: I wonder how much he could have gotten if he wasn't the worst pitcher in the majors over the last three months of the 2007 season.

Upon reading this, my reaction was: there is no way that Eric Gagne was the worst pitcher in the majors over the last three months of the 2007 season. Maybe it seemed like it, because of the fanfare surrounding his acquisition by the eventual World Series Champions, followed by his woeful under-performance, but good baseball writers generally delve a little deeper than the "superficial perception" level of analysis. And in fact, 30 Major League pitchers equaled or surpassed Gagne's 24 2/3 Post-All-Star-Break IP, and finished with worse ERA's than the 6.57 mark which he posted during that span. 11 of them were starters who made at least 10 starts; all of those guys did considerably more damage to their teams than Gagne could inflict in relief.

*Let me get this straight: Texas and San Diego (and probably others) would both take Milton Bradley (Bradley eventually agreed to a $5 million contract with the Rangers) but not Barry Bonds?

Barry Bonds is a 43-year-old public relations nightmare, who was recently indicted for lying under oath about taking steroids. He's also too brittle to play a defensive position at this stage of his career, which, at least for San Diego, represents a significant problem. He's still an enormously productive hitter, of course, (most likely because he's still juicing) so someone will probably sign him, assuming, of course, that he doesn't spend Spring Training in a jail cell.

Milton Bradley has an anger problem, but he's only 29. He's injury-prone, too, but at his age, there's considerably more reason to expect a relatively healthy season than there is for Bonds. He can play center field, and he's also productive at the plate. I wouldn't call him popular, but he's not one of the most reviled players in the game's history, either; signing him would cause only a fraction of the backlash and negative press which a Bonds signing would entail. Is it really so hard to understand why someone would take a chance on Bradley over Bonds? I don't think so.

Not So Fast

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:37:00 +0000

According to Mike Lupica of The Daily News, Jay Gibbons should be lauded for his recent admission of HGH use:

In the same week that Barry Bonds stood in a courtroom and issued not-guilty pleas to felony charges that are primarily about him being a stone liar on the subject of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs, Jay Gibbons of the Orioles did something rather amazing in baseball:

He told the truth.

"I am deeply sorry for the mistakes I have made," Gibbons said. "I have no excuses and bare sole responsibility for my decisions."

Gibbons didn't come up with some phantom illness, offer some jived-up explanation of why he had to get the drugs from a dentist operating out of the trunk of his car. He didn't blame a teammate, didn't say he was unaware of what he was taking, didn't say he'd been tripped up by a tainted "diet supplement," always my personal favorite.

Lupica couldn't be more wrong. For a long list of Gibbons' denials, equivocations, and disingenous statements, check out this article by The Baltimore Sun's Rick Maese. Here's what Maese had to say about Gibbons' confession:

What's most bothersome now has less to do with cheating the game and so much more with cheating our collective sensibilities. Yesterday's news that Orioles outfielder Jay Gibbons faces a 15-day suspension for violating Major League Baseball's substance-abuse policy was hardly a surprise. But Gibbons' admission that he purchased and used hGH should have stirred deeper feelings for fans.

He's an excellent example of why fans have built up so much distrust, why it's so difficult to look at a man or woman capable of superhuman athleticism and feel that innocent sense of awe bubble inside. Gibbons' actions are disappointing, but his words are much more damaging.

Perhaps the reaction would have been different if he were among the first busted offenders, but as it is - Gibbons is one of eight players connected to the Orioles to be tied to performance-enhancing drugs - what feels especially repulsive today is his parallel career of lying.

Buster Olney also weighed in:

I would respectively disagree with Mike in this case: For years, Gibbons flatly and angrily denied any suggestion that he used performance-enhancing drugs, and from what I've heard, he was completely cornered by the evidence -- and only now offers a mea culpa after his penalty was negotiated, a la Marion Jones.

Lupica's Gibbons encomium is inexcusable, and betrays an almost total unfamiliarity with the subject at hand. Might want to do just a tiny bit of research next time, Mike.

Unfair Expectations

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:16:00 +0000

Detroit News columnist Jerry Green (who's old enough to use the word "balderdash" without blushing) felt he had to let us know that "perfection [is] now demanded of new-look Tigers." It's unclear who, exactly, is demanding this flawless performance, other than Green himself.

The Tigers must win the World Series next October -- or bust.

A division title would not be satisfactory. Not any more.

Another American League pennant, the same as the Tigers unexpectedly won in 2006, would be insufficient.

The Tigers have to win the pennant plus the World Series next season or the monster trade of the other day becomes a flop.

The Tigers didn't make the playoffs last year. One trade later, they have to win the World Series or be considered a disgrace? I mean sure, they picked up a great player, but they also finished 8 games behind the Indians last year, and 6 games behind the Yankees in the Wild Card. This trade certainly improves them in the short term (as does the acquisition of Edgar Renteria), but if Cabrera plays as expected, and Willis rebounds somewhat from a terrible 2007, but the Tigers still fail to go all the way, would anyone really call the trade a "flop?"

Articles like this are why General Managers retire early.

He Said, He Said

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 05:07:00 +0000

I'm not here to criticize the Andruw Jones signing. $18.1 per may be a little pricey, but that seems to be what decent center fielders are going for these days, and it's only for two years. I do agree with Keith Law when he says that it could end up being a mistake if it's a prelude to a Kemp trade and a starting role for Juan Pierre. But I digress; what I'd really like to talk to you about today is the continuing presence of Bill Plaschke at the Los Angeles Times. What's up with that?

Folks will complain because Jones, 30, is coming off the worst full season of his career, but every question has an answer.

You say he had a bad summer? I say he still would have led the Dodgers in home runs (26) and runs batted in (94).

I say RBI are lineup-dependent and tell us very little about Jones' performance. I also say that he hit .222/.311/.413. He may have hit more homers than anyone on the Dodgers, but if we're only considering offense, would you really have taken him over Russ Martin, (.293/.374/.469) James Loney, (.331/.381/.538) Jeff Kent, (.302/.375/.500) Luis Gonzalez, (.278/.359/.433) Andre Ethier, (.284/350/.452) or even half a season of .342/.373/.521 production from Matt Kemp?

You say he's overpaid? I say that by giving him only a two-year deal, he's going to feel underpaid, and you know how hungry those guys get.

If he feels underpaid making $18.1 million after a .222/.311/.413 year, I won't have too much sympathy. Last year was the time to expect a big season from Jones; BP's Dayn Perry has shown that players exhibit a WARP increase of approximately 10% in their walk years, due to both improved production and increased playing time. Of course, we know how that turned out.

You say he won't be any better than the combination of Kemp and Andre Ethier? I say, in a post-steroid-era season in 2006, he hit 41 homers with 129 RBIs, so get real.

I say it's naive to call 2006 the "post-steroid-era."

You say it's silly to bring a power hitter to Dodger Stadium? OK, well, how about bringing a perennial Gold Glove winner to Dodger Stadium?

Stop putting words in my mouth; I wouldn't say it's silly to bring a power hitter to Dodger Stadium. According to ESPN's Park Factor stats, Dodger Stadium has favored home-run hitting in every season since 2002.

In acquiring Jones, the Dodgers are actually acquiring four players.

I highly doubt that.

His power allows them to give Andy LaRoche a long-awaited chance to win the job at third base.

Actually, Nomar Garciaparra's lack of power (.371 SLG) allows (actually, encourages) them to do that.

His pedigree probably convinces Jeff Kent to return for one more run at a championship.

As far as I can tell, the Dodgers hold a club option on Jeff Kent. He doesn't need to be convinced.

His position lets Juan Pierre become Juan Pierre.

You mean it lets Juan Pierre move to left and take at-bats from Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier? Fantastic.

No, no, the Dodgers will not and should not trade the short-armed center fielder. Just because he was overpaid doesn't mean he lacked value. Did everybody somehow miss that he was second in the league in stolen bases and led the league in sacrifice bunts?

Although I consider myself fairly well-informed about most baseball goings-on, I must admit that I did miss Pierre's stellar sacrifice bunting performance; Pierre managed to beat out fellow slugger Omar Vizquel by a mere four bunts. Rounding out the top 25 NL sacrifice bunters were 23 starting pitchers. And Plaschke wonders why this didn't get more attention.

The 64 SB (and even more importantly, the 81% success rate) were nice, but they don't make up for the .331 OBP and the abysmal .353 SLG. So, unsurprisingly, it turns out that in acquiring Jones, the Dodgers actually only acquired Jones.

The Dodgers need to keep Pierre's speed and bunting ability at the top of the order. Goodness, it's one of the reasons Jones agreed to play here. But at least now, Pierre can move to a safer left field and be viewed for what he is -- a complementary player.

"I never said Juan Pierre is a franchise player," Colletti said. "He's a very good player on a winning team."

Ah, Ned Colletti. I appreciate the plucky attempt at a defense of an indefensible signing, but Juan Pierre is not a very good player, regardless of the team he plays for.

Kenny Enters the Spin Room

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:55:00 +0000

Why did the Tigers trade their two best prospects for an established star and an established ex-star? To compete with those 72-90 Chicago White Sox, of course!

Reacting Wednesday to the blockbuster deal that sent power-hitting third baseman Miguel Cabrera and former All-Star left-hander Dontrelle Willis from the Florida Marlins to the Detroit Tigers — wrecking the Sox’ latest offseason plans — Williams said: ‘‘All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us.''

I suppose that's not exactly a lie, but it certainly is a very strange way of telling the truth.

Not Sure What to Think? Refer to a Senseless Axiom

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:40:00 +0000

The Detroit News' Rob Parker on the Cabrera-Willis trade:

It was a no-brainer.

Whenever you have a chance to trade potential for production, you do it.

Really? Even if it means trading a top prospect who's a year away from reaching the Majors for a mediocre veteran who would probably provide only a marginal short-term benefit? Obviously, that's not what happened in this case, as Cabrera, at least, is a star, but that sort of deal does happen way more often than it should. Judging this deal on its own merits is far more helpful than resorting to an unsubstantiated generalization. Don't believe me? Check out this or this.

Does anyone draw conclusions from Rob Parker columns when there are so many better sources of information available?

25 is the New 35

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:40:00 +0000

Red Sox beat writers Gordon Edes and Amalie Benjamin demonstrate just a little unfamiliarity with the roster of their team's main rival:

The Yankees, even with lefthander Andy Pettitte informing the club he will return for a 14th big-league season, would seem to have a greater need for Santana. Their rotation is aging and lacking a true No. 1 starter. The Sox potentially have Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Lester, Buchholz and veterans Curt Schilling and Tim Wakefield, but would become prohibitive favorites in the AL East if they added Santana, who will be 29 next season.

No argument on the Yankees' need for a #1 starter, or the fact that the Sox would be overwhelming favorites should they land Santana. But is the Yanks' rotation really "aging?"

The average age of a Wang-Pettitte-Hughes-Chamberlain-Kennedy rotation, as of Opening Day 2008, is 25.6. The average age of a Beckett-Matsuzaka-Schilling-Buchholz-Lester rotation, the youngest possible Boston combination of starters, is 28.2. Keep in mind that 41-year-old Tim Wakefield may very well start over Lester or Buchholz (though almost-39-year-old Mike Mussina could end up starting over Kennedy in New York, as well). The Yankees may have an ace problem, but they most certainly do not have an age problem.

The Forgotten Confessers

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:15:00 +0000

An item in Buster Olney's latest blog entry echoes a certain Rick Morrissey article which you may have seen 'round these parts:

But isn't it an incredible coincidence that just about everybody who tests positive points to somebody else? Is it possible that some players actually knowingly took steroids? We could take the denials a little more seriously if somebody besides Matt Lawton acknowledged that he made the decision to take performance-enhancing drugs.

Buster has been extremely thorough in his coverage of baseball's steroid problem, so I'm surprised that he, too, failed to remember these guys.

Most Valuable Prognosticator

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:28:00 +0000

Another offseason, another Jimmy Rollins prediction:

"We'll win probably 100 games . . . 100 games will get us to the playoffs," Rollins told Comcast SportsNet last night, when asked for his forecast for next season.

I'm not sure why Rollins thinks it'll take 100 wins to garner the NL East title in 2008, but if either the Mets or the Braves miraculously manages to finish 99-63, he'll be spending October at home. The Phillies finished 89-73 in 2007, and their Pythagorean W-L of 87-75 indicates that they actually outperformed expectations. Teams don't typically vault from 89 wins to 100 wins without a major change in personnel, (although it can happen) so let's look at what the Phillies have done since the end of the NLDS.

They re-signed J.C. Romero, (who threw 36 1/3 innings for the team last year) traded Michael Bourn and Geoff Geary to Houston for Brad Lidge and Eric Bruntlett, and acquired Chris Snelling from Tampa Bay. The addition of Lidge, in particular, signifies an improvement, but an 11-win improvement? Granted, the Phillies did suffer some serious injuries last year, to Chase Utley, Cole Hamels, Ryan Howard, Brett Myers, Freddy Garcia, and Tom Gordon, in particular. But no team stays healthy all year, and while the Phillies might enjoy better luck next season, it's quite possible that they won't. Once the possible (or even probable) departures of free agents Aaron Rowand and Kyle Lohse are factored in, I simply don't see any way to justify calling the 2008 Phillies a 100-win team at this point.

Bold sports predictions have a nasty habit of coming back to bite their sources. Rollins avoided that common pitfall with last year's "team to beat" pronouncement, backing up his words with an excellent season, (though not truly a "most valuable" one) but I can't imagine that his most recent augury will be similarly vindicated.

When Guerrero's Eyes Are Smiling...

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:08:00 +0000

CNNSI's Jon Heyman approves of Kenny Williams' Orlando Cabrera acquisition:

The White Sox's Williams scored big with the deal for Orlando Cabrera, another great chemistry guy. He's the one who kept Guerrero smiling the last couple years.

Here's what a real baseball analyst (Keith Law) had to say about the deal a week ago:

The White Sox's aim in this deal is less apparent. Cabrera is a good defensive shortstop with very sure hands and good range, but he's mediocre at the plate. His .301 batting average in 2007 was a career best, and he hadn't topped .282 in any of the previous three seasons. Because he doesn't walk or hit for much power, Cabrera's offensive contribution depends on his batting average, and the evidence we have says that he's a .260-.280 hitter, not a .300 hitter. He has good bat control and makes a lot of contact, struggling against breaking stuff away but otherwise putting the ball in play. If he hits .300 again in this contract year, he'll be valuable, more valuable than Garland. But it's more likely the 33-year-old Cabrera reverts to form and hits .270 or so with gradually declining defense (due to age), making Garland the better value.

The acquisition also makes the decision to re-sign Juan Uribe rather puzzling, although it's possible they'll slide Uribe -- a formerly great defensive shortstop who has eaten his way out of that status -- over to second base and bench Danny Richar, or that they'll trade one of those two middle infielders.

Let's hope this is the last time that Keith Law will neglect one of the elementary components of player evaluation: the ability to make star players smile. Let's also hope that new Angels GM Tony Reagins has done his homework on Garland: does the 6'6" hurler have what it takes to pierce the stormy emotional clouds which surround the team's enigmatic right fielder? Or is that what Torii Hunter's for? If these pressing questions aren't answered soon, Angels fans could be in for a long year.

Mountain Time Zone Bias

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:55:00 +0000

Bernie Lincicome of the Rocky Mountain News believes that Matt Holliday was the NL's MVP in 2007. He just isn't sure why.

Stiffed again. Were we the only ones watching? Was all that happened with the Rockies just air guitar baseball and shadow puppets?

Pay no attention to the man behind the screen. He has no MVP vote, anyhow.

This one is worse than the other two because Matt Holliday was not only the most valuable player in the National League he was practically in his own league.

I'll ignore try the absence of commas in that last sentence, and focus instead on the content of the statement itself. Lincicome implies that Holliday's performance placed him so far above his competitors that one would have to be a fool to deny him an MVP vote, but in fact, Holliday was probably not even one of the best three players in his league. I'll refer you to the great Joe Sheehan's MVP analysis, since I agree with his conclusions. If you're not a BP subscriber, just know that Sheehan looked at VORP, WARP, and everything in between, and came up with the following player rankings:

1.) Albert Pujols, 2) David Wright, 3) Jake Peavy, 4) Matt Holliday, 5) Chase Utley, 6) Jimmy Rollins, 7) Miguel Cabrera, 8) Chipper Jones, 9) Hanley Ramirez, 10) Prince Fielder

Feel free to disagree with this list, but it's pretty safe to say that Holliday was not "in his own league" in 2007.

The numbers are as obvious as they are tedious, to be chewed on by more serious stat pets than me, but Holliday became more than this season’s poster prop for the Rockies, not the usual Coors Field inflated creature, though that seems to be the most common mark against him.

Perfectly understandable position here. Why should an important writer like Bernie Lincicome be forced to pore over tedious statistics before concluding that Holliday was the NL's most valuable player? Especially when the numbers are so "obvious?" He'd rather leave that to the poor saps who are actually interested in discovering the truth.

With that face first slide in the last inning, on the last play of the extended season, the last moment these things are supposed to be considered, Holliday should have sewn up every vote.

A single run (which may or may not have actually scored) should have decided the NL MVP winner? And made the voting unanimous, too? I think not.

Rollins, a nice little player for the Phillies, beating out Holliday is as ridiculous as a parking valet being named driver of the year over NASCAR’s Jimmie Johnson.

Holliday was better than Rollins, but calling Rollins a "nice little player" is indicative of some serious ignorance on Lincicome's part. Holliday was only slightly more valuable than Rollins, (9.7 WARP vs. 9.2 WARP) so the parking valet/Jimmie Johnson comparison is clearly an extreme exaggeration.

The vote was close, but it would have been wrong even had it been close the other way around. If one wonders how two voters could not have picked Alex Rodriquez first in the American League, more strange is how 21 could not have considered Holliday the best in the National.

Actually, it's not strange at all. A-Rod was the best player in the AL, and Holliday wasn't the best in the NL. Neither was Rollins, of course, but that's almost beside the point here.

The Reason Why Award Voting is Never Unanimous

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:40:00 +0000

There's nothing wrong with a little disagreement. In fact, disagreement is the root of all baseball debates, and we all love arguing about our national pastime. But is educated disagreement too much to ask? Apparently so.

I knew it would be a losing vote, but that's OK.

As long as you follow your conscience, as long as you vote the way you think you should, and what your heart and eyes tell you -- even if it's in a lopsided minority -- then that's the way you need to vote.

Be true to what you believe.

Normally I'd agree with you. But when what you believe is based on a foolish and ill-informed conclusion, it might be wiser to be true to what others believe.

This ballot happened to be for American League Most Valuable Player, a privilege I've had as a baseball writer more than a dozen times over the years.

This is truly frightening.

I don't blame anybody else for not voting for Magglio, though. They didn't see him play every day. They went by the stat sheet -- as I've had to do with most MVP votes.

Why do we keep statistics, Tom Gage of The Detroit News? Mightn't it be because our memories and perceptions are fallible and subjective, and probably don't do justice to most of the players we watch? Aren't stats really the fairest way to judge one player's performance against another's? Even if you think your frequent observation of Magglio granted you a special insight into his performance, how can you be so willing to dismiss A-Rod's performance (despite statistical evidence which indicated that he was better) simply because you didn't grant him the same daily attention?

But I believed in the vote for Ordonez when I cast it. And now, several wondering-why phone calls later, I still believe in it.

I did it because I thought Ordonez was more valuable to his team than A-Rod was to his, but also for specific statistical reasons: such as the wide disparity between Ordonez's batting average (.363-.314) and more so because Ordonez hit .429 with runners in scoring position compared to .333 by A-Rod.

It's bad enough that Gage didn't base his conclusion that Ordonez was more valuable on specific statistical reasons; that telltale "also" in the 2nd line reveals that it was nothing more than a gut feeling. Even worse is the fact that the year is 2007, and Tom Gage of the Detroit News is still basing his MVP voting on: 1) batting average, and 2) batting average over a much smaller sample size. It's also worth mentioning that Magglio had a .381 BABIP, while A-Rod had to make do with a .309 mark. Of course, I'm sure Tom Gage took that into account during his lengthy research process.

To me, that was the separating proof of value right there. The Tigers were able to depend on Ordonez with runners in scoring position far more than the Yankees were able to depend on A-Rod. Yes, Rodriguez had all those home runs, the glamour stat. Plus he had 17 more RBIs than Ordonez, but only 17.

I think a 49-point difference in batting average and a 96-point difference in their averages with runners in scoring position, the clutch stat to home runs' glamour, more than offset the obvious reasons to vote for A-Rod.

No, no, no. Observe:

A-Rod, EqA: .340...Magglio, EqA: .336

A-Rod, VORP: 96.6...Magglio, VORP: 87.8

A-Rod, WARP-3: 13.7...Magglio, WARP-3: 11.2 (According to BP, both had below-average defensive seasons, although THT is far kinder to Magglio, but Rodriguez played the more difficult position)).

Hell, even good ol' OBP/SLG:

A-Rod: .422/.645 (1.067 OPS)...Magglio: .434/.595 (1.029 OPS)

AVG, and AVG w/RISP--on such fragile foundations does baseball's award voting process continue to rest.

Sometimes, the Consensus Choice is the Right One

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:06:00 +0000

Jason Tuohey of The Boston Globe insists that the acronym "MVP" (as in MVP Award) actually stands for "Most Valuable Papi." Of course, the rest of us know that it most certainly does not. And only if it did would David Ortiz be the man most qualified to win it.

Although the Red Sox World Series victory promises a painful offseason in New York, some Yankees fans will take solace when Alex Rodriguez brings another Most Valuable Player award to the Bronx.

I'm certainly not aware of any. How many Yankee fans even like A-Rod? The few who do probably won't be forgetting Papelbon's "Victory Squat" any time soon just because A-Rod took home some regular season hardware.

Major League Baseball doesn't announce the MVP awards until Monday, but it's considered a mere formality in the American League this year. Even the casual fan knows A-Rod already has the trophy wrapped up in a tidy, pinstriped bow.

Meanwhile, the consensus on David Ortiz is that he had an off year. Despite being a Boston folk hero on par with John Hancock or Paul Revere, Ortiz's homer total dipped and he didn't launch nearly as many walk-off blasts into the bleachers. Unlike in 2005, when a battle raged over which player meant more to his team, this year even the most hah-dened New England fans concede A-Rod deserves the award.

Don't believe it.

It's true that Ortiz did not have an off year, despite his injuries; his decline in HR production was partly offset by his greatly increased doubles output, and more importantly, by his significantly improved OBP. Of course, that dramatic rise in OBP was a result of his tremendous improvement in batting average, which was in turn a product of simple good fortune; Ortiz's BABIP was .358 in 2007, compared to .274 in 2006. Nonetheless, he had another incredible offensive season. However, A-Rod is still more deserving of the award.

Believe it.

Ortiz's prolific on base percentage even made his teammates look better. Mike Lowell had the lowest home run total of any Sox player with 120 RBIs since the dead ball era, a direct result of hitting behind Big Papi.

However, Ortiz was much more than an on base machine this season. While A-Rod paced the league in slugging percentage, Ortiz finished third with a respectable .621, the second best total of his career. Papi made up for hitting "only" 35 homers by crushing 52 doubles and leading the league in extra base hits. Contrary to popular opinion, Ortiz didn't hit for less power in 2007, he merely diversified his portfolio.

Actually, he did hit for less power in 2007; his SLG% declined from .636 to .621, and more significantly, his Isolated Power went from .349 to .289. The decline in SLG% doesn't seem that dramatic, but that's only because he hit a lot more singles last year than he did in 2006 (again, luck played a large role in that). Of course, the torn meniscus in his right knee may have been responsible.

And despite A-Rod's 156 RBIs, Ortiz performed better in the clutch, outhitting the Yankees third baseman with runners in scoring position, .358 to .333, and also posting a higher OPS in the same situation, 1.142 to 1.138.

Not really significant. We're dealing with small samples sizes here, and those aren't even very large disparities.

Ultimately, flashy numbers are just vanity without a pennant race to add context. In September nobody brought his game to a higher level than Ortiz. With Manny Ramirez on the sidelines and the bullpen imploding, Ortiz was at his best, balky knee and all. His .396 average, .517 on base percentage, .824 slugging percentage, and 1.341 OPS kept the team from losing its hold on the division.

In the last week of the season, when every win became life or death, Papi somehow found a higher gear. Despite limping around on one good knee, Ortiz hit a mind-boggling .647 with a 2.139 OPS. He hit three homers and only struck out twice. And in case you missed it, the Red Sox, not the Yankees, won the division, tied for the best record in baseball, and earned home field advantage that proved crucial to their championship playoff run.

A-Rod, to be fair, hit well in September too, putting up a .362 average and a 1.193 OPS. But he was just good enough to finish second. Papi was on another plane.

The award is given to the season's most valuable player, not to September's hottest hitter. Ortiz's September heroics may have prevented the Sox from losing their division lead, but if his September stats and June stats (a mere .326/.439/.539) had been reversed, things still probably would have worked out the same way. Every regular seasons game counts equally in the standings.

Of course, there's also the DH factor. The plodding Ortiz doesn't contribute on the basepaths and with the glove the way A-Rod does. But while A-Rod's 24 steals certainly deserve respect, they weren't the difference between wins and losses. For a Yankees team that averaged six runs a game, one steal a week wasn't exactly a monumental event.

Rodriguez possesses a reputation as a good fielder, but the stats don't necessarily back it up. He finished second to last in the AL in range factor (putouts plus assists per game). His zone rating (number of plays a player makes within his "zone") and fielding percentage ranked in the middle of the pack and an adjusted zone rating stat offered by analysts at The Hardball Times put A-Rod second to last among AL starters. See a pattern forming here? And think about it: When was the last time you saw a highlight of A-Rod diving to stop a screaming line drive or charging a bunt to gun down a batter? Defensive stats never tell the whole story, but clearly A-Rod isn't the second coming of Brooks Robinson.

Ah, finally we reach the crux of the matter. No, A-Rod's steals don't make a huge difference, although their impact shouldn't be dismissed; not only did he steal 24 bases, but he stole them at an 85.7% success rate. But the defense is huge. A-Rod did not have a very good season in the field, but unlike Ortiz, he did have a season in the field, and that makes all the difference. If we look only at offensive stats, the race is fairly close (although A-Rod's still better). A-Rod's .340 EqA narrowly trumps Ortiz's .338, while his 96.6 VORP surpasses Ortiz's 86.2 by a fairly comfortable margin. But when we take defense into account, it's no longer close. A-Rod's 13.7 WARP-3 dwarfs Ortiz's 9.6. The moral of this story is that it's pretty tough to be the MVP without playing defense, when another player who does play defense also manages to surpass your offensive performance. In fact, it might just be impossible.

It's a Conspiracy

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:04:00 +0000

Don't believe anything you may have read about Alex Rodriguez's negotiations with the Yankees. Newsday's Wallace Matthews has pierced the veil of lies surrounding the proceedings, and brings you the real scoop:

If you really believe Alex Rodriguez is going to negotiate with the Yankees without Scott Boras in the room, you probably also believe Ali G is about to be hired as a correspondent by "60 Minutes".

If anyone is being used here, it's the Yankees, but they must know this, mustn't they? Because if they believe they're getting Rodriguez in a room by himself, they must also believe somebody can do a better job of managing this team than Joe Torre. (Oh, wait a minute ... )

This article was written after the publication of numerous reports which said that A-Rod had in fact already met with the Yankees brass, sans Boras, and agreed on a base salary. Should I believe numerous accomplished journalists who utilize advanced techniques like "quoting sources," and "fact-checking," or should I believe Wallace Matthews, who insists that things which already happened will never happen? I hate hard choices.

The Philadelphia Daily News Has Company

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:35:00 +0000

George Vecsey of The New York Times wants to get in on the "A-Rod doesn't improve his teams" act:

Rodriguez had a monster season, but the Yankees could not get out of the first round of the playoffs, yet again. He is an enigmatic figure in their clubhouse, clearly not a player who improves his team.

This is the Yankees’ big chance to take whatever money they had penciled in for him and spend it on pitching and power and first base and a reasonable approximation of Scott Brosius at third base.

Alex Rodriguez let his agent opt out for him, right during the World Series. Now the Yankees should opt out on him.

In 4 seasons with the Yankees, A-Rod has made 4 All-Star appearances, won 2 MVP awards, and contributed 43.4 WARP-3. Clearly not a player who has improved the team, especially when one factors in his "enigmatic clubhouse presence" (it's worth mentioning that Buster Olney today asserted that A-Rod "plays hard, prepares diligently, [and] is a much better teammate than anyone realizes").

Why spend money on the game's best player when one can blow the same load on pitching studs like Carlos Silva and Kyle Lohse, or 1B sluggers such as Sean Casey and Tony Clark? Especially when he can't even get you out of the first round, unlike St. Brosius, who ensured four first-round victories for his Yankee teams by putting up a monster .167/.196/.259 career ALDS line.

When Great Stats Go to Waste

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:51:00 +0000

Check out the caption: "Alex Rodriguez' big stats haven't improved the Rangers or Yanks." Really, Philadelphia Daily News? In seven All-Star seasons, in which Rodriguez won (almost certainly) 3 MVP Awards and amassed a total WARP-3 of 81.5, he failed to improve his teams? Pretty hard to believe.

The Bad, the Worse, and Rick Morrissey

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:46:00 +0000

Rick Morrissey of The Chicago Tribune wishes just one steroid user would admit his wrongdoing:

For no other reason than to humor us, could one baseball player please admit he used steroids or human growth hormone for the sole purpose of becoming a better athlete? Just one guy? OK, somebody less clownish than Jose Canseco.

In other words, it would be nice if a ballplayer, having been outed for buying HGH from an aromatherapist in Scranton or a manicurist in Biloxi, simply said: "You know what? I wanted to be bigger, faster and stronger. So sue me."

Instead, we're learning that Major League Baseball is filled with all sorts of maladies that only steroids and HGH can help. And the fact that these drugs happen to be considered performance enhancers … well, you want to talk about a coincidence.

This is a worthwhile sentiment; I'm just as sick of these implausible excuses and faux-confessions (not that I don't still find them amusing). Here's the problem, though: more than one baseball player not named Canseco has already fessed up. For instance, Matt Lawton:

"I wasn't playing well enough to be on a Little League roster, let alone be on the roster of the New York Yankees," Lawton told Sports Weekly in its current issue. "I just wasn't physically able to do the job. I had never been in the playoff hunt before. So I did something that will always haunt me."

Lawton, who signed Thursday with the Mariners, said that he's never taken amphetamines, but injected the steroid on Sept. 20. The next day, he started in center field and hit a home run in his first at-bat. He said he didn't feel any pain.

Or perhaps David Segui, whose comments sound almost as if they were uttered in response to Morrissey's article:

"Obviously, I've done 'growth,'" says Segui. "I'm not going to tell you I never took a 'greenie' [amphetamine]. I'm not going to tell you I never tried steroids before.

"I'm not going to be one of these guys: 'No, no, I never did this.' Baloney. I see guys on TV all the time claiming they never did anything. Come on, please. I don't think it is anybody's business to come out and tell everything they did; but at same time, I am not going to sit here and pretend I never tried something before."

Next up: Guillermo Mota.

Mota admitted full resposibility in a statement issued the same day.

"I used extremely poor judgment and deserve to be held accountable. To my teammates and the entire Mets organization, I am sorry. I truly regret what I did and hope that you can forgive me."

"To baseball fans everywhere, I understand that you are disappointed in me, and I don't blame you. I feel terrible and I promise this is the first and last time that this will happen."

Want another? How about Ken Caminiti?

Ken Caminiti, the National League's Most Valuable Player in 1996, says he won the award while on steroids and that at least half of major leaguers use the drugs.

In a Sports Illustrated report on steroids in baseball, Caminiti confirmed he used them the season he batted a career-high .326 with 40 home runs and 130 runs batted in.

One more name: Wally Joyner.

He made the call. A man answered, they exchanged a few sentences and Joyner hung up. The next day, Caminiti handed him one of those flimsy overnight packages Joyner had learned to recognize. It was from the man he'd called. "This is for you," Cammy said.

Joyner took the package, went back to his apartment and opened it. Inside was a small bottle filled with pills; he didn't know what they were called. Caminiti had given him instructions on how to use them, though. Joyner carried the pills around for a few days, sometimes taking one out to stare at it. Finally, he took one. The next day, he took another. "What am I doing?" he asked himself. Ten days passed before he took a third.

Sure, most guys have lied after being caught. But plenty have also owned up, and it's not fair to lump these "honest" cheaters together with their more deceitful counterparts. Let me know if I neglected to mention any other penitent performance-enhancing druggies.

A Sore Losing Clinic

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:56:00 +0000

Chipper Jones may not flub too many grounders during the season, but off the field, he makes plenty of errors:

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chipper Jones is a bit baffled by David Wright winning the NL Gold Glove.

"When I find out [Wright won] I was speechless, for quite some time," Jones said. "Certainly the guys with the least amount of errors and best fielding percentage quite obviously didn't win it."

Fortunately, Gold Glove Awards aren't necessarily handed out to the guys with the least amount of errors and the highest fielding percentage. Well, OK, pretty frequently they are, but they shouldn't be; we have far more telling defensive stats at our disposal. Jones did have fewer errors and a higher FP than Wright, but he also had a .662 RZR, compared to Wright's .689, and he finished at 1 FRAA, compared to Wright's 5 FRAA. I'm not saying Wright was the best choice; Pedro Feliz, Scott Rolen, Ryan Zimmerman, and Aramis Ramirez all probably had better claims to the award. But Chipper most certainly did not.

Keep Dreaming

noreply@blogger.com (The Intern) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:32:00 +0000

Patrick Reusse of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune plays GM:

"How can the Yankees make the folks who bought 4 1/2 million tickets this season forget about A-Rod? They acquire Johan Santana from the Twins for pitchers Philip Hughes and Ian Kennedy and outfielders Melky Cabrera and Jose Tabata.

The Twins also add Joe Nathan to the deal and get bullet-throwing Joba Chamberlain.

I think this one speaks for itself.

What We've Got Here is a Failure to Communicate

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:46:00 +0000

Bill Plaschke really doesn't understand the concept of instant replay:

All this talk about bringing instant replay to baseball neglects one piece of, as the football techs like to say, indisputable visual evidence.

Baseball already uses instant replay.

When a plate umpire checks with a first base umpire on a check swing, isn't that instant replay?

When a third base umpire gathers his crew to decide whether a ball that sailed over the fence was fair or foul, isn't that instant replay?

No. This is instant replay.

Bad Advice

noreply@blogger.com (Class Act) — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:09:00 +0000

Mike Berardino of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel knows just what the Marlins should do if they can only retain half of the Miguel Cabrera/Dontrelle Willis duo:

Finally, there's the stark difference between finding another slugger and replacing a legitimate ace. The first is comparatively easy, while the second is nearly "impossible," to use J.P. Ricciardi's word.

"You try to get pitching —from anybody," said Ricciardi, the Blue Jays' GM. "You talk to anyone, it's pitching, pitching, pitching, pitching. It becomes gold after a while."

That's why the Marlins should hold onto Willis as long as they possibly can, even if it means moving Cabrera now.

This would be true, if Dontrelle Willis were anything even close to a "legitimate ace." This is not the case; in fact, he's no longer even league-average. Willis posted an 83 ERA+ in 2007, after finishing with a 112 ERA+ in 2006, both numbers well below his career-high 151 ERA+ in 2005. He certainly could reverse this decline, (that 151 ERA+ performance came after a 102 ERA+ year in his sophomore year) but he might simply be feeling the strain of having thrown 1022 2/3 innings at the age of 25; Berardino admits that Willis twice left starts early in 2007 complaining of pain. Miguel Cabrera may be packing on the pounds, but Willis' workload is an even bigger concern.

More importantly, Willis is no longer performing at an elite level, while Cabrera is. If you could only keep one of these guys, would you really choose the declining, below-average pitcher over the slugger who's over a year younger and still produces at a HoF pace?