LAS VEGAS--As the 2008 Winter Meetings opened, a great chapter in baseball came to a close. As Greg Maddux took his place in front of the podium to deliver his farewell speech, the world was confronted his by greatness, humility, and humor.
Maddux will retire the greatest right hander of his era, having completed a magnificent career that spanned twenty-three years and three decades. The current active wins leader edges Roger "The Rocket" Clemens by a single win, his 355 wins a feat accomplished under the dark cloud of the steroids era while never having his cleanliness doubted once. Then again, who would've dared insinuated that this wily pitcher who lived on guile, location, and an eighty-five mile-an-hour fastball was juicing? No, Maddux is one of the last of his kind, a true "pitcher" in an age of scouting reports driven by radar-gun readings and not results.
As much as Maddux will be remembered for the scope of his career--the four Cy Youngs, the miniscule ERAs, and his years of dominance with the Atlanta Braves--he'll also be remembered as one of the great personalities of his era. Maddux entertained the fan with his dry humor and down to earth persona as much as he did with his patented back-up two-seamer for strike three. In a time in which baseball was riddled with the dark, no non-sense, anti-media personas of the Kenny Rogers, Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds types, Maddux was undeniably a breath of fresh air.
Maddux was a class-act, a living legend, a comedian, and an undoubtable first ballot hall-of-famer. As he rides of into the sunset of the Las Vegas skyline, the magnitude of his accomplishments will only grow as we slip deeper into the era of 5 inning starters and stunning mediocrity.
Sorry Bert, like your career, you can't do this fuckin thing over again.
MINNESOTA -- The fact the pitcher Bert Blyleven does not have a plaque in Cooperstown is as grandiose of a joke as Rosie O'Donnell getting her own variety show on NBC. Bert is a Hall of Famer through and through. And with the Vet Committee enshrining the likes of Gotham City Police Commissioner Joe Gordon, not enshrining Bert becomes more and more ludicrous by the year.
Bert ranks fifth all-time in strikeouts (3,701) behind only Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, and Steve Carlton. His 60 career complete game shutouts ranks 9th all time. Playing for a slew of poor teams left Bert 13 wins shy of 300. Yet he piled up 242 complete games. He also showed off a rubber arm. At age 22 he compiled 25 complete games, and 13 years later he led the league with 24 complete games at the age of 35.
Bert pitched 21 games in the Minor Leagues. He would be called up less than two months removed from his 19th birthday; he would never appear in a Minor League uniform again. At age 19, the Rookie of the Year started 25 games and came on in relief for two. In nearly 5,000 innings of work he would go on to relieve just five more times after age 19. That's 685 starts, and 7 relief appearances over 22 seasons.
In Bert's first four full seasons in the Majors he maintained an ERA under three, averaging 18 wins, and 240 strikeouts. He notoriously pitched on horrible teams and was constantly requested to be traded. That misfortune resulted in him being traded five different times in his career; generally from shit team to shit team. In 1973 he lossed 17 games despite posting a 158 ERA+ (almost a run and a half better ERA than the league average). Bert had a rubber arm. At the age of 22 he hurled 325 innings, and at age 38 compiled 240. Despite pitching deep into games his career ERA+ was a very respectable 118.
Bert's most comparable pitcher is Hall of Famer Don Sutton. Sutton's career ERA+ was 108 (10 less than Blyleven), with 200 less strikeouts, and 64 fewer complete games. Bert's ERA+ is also better than Cooperstown's Phil Niekro, the 80's version of Jamie Moyer, who joined the 300 win club at the ripe age of 84. Blyleven retired at 41. He was considered washed up with only 8 wins in 1992. However, had he repeated his washed campaign just two more times he would have had 300.
Niekro and Sutton, age 86, 90 respectively.
Blyleven managed to win two World Series despite only being on a playoff team three times in his 22 year career. He was 4-1 with a 2.47 ERA in six postseason starts. His most memorable game was a complete game, nine strikeout performance in 1979 against Cincinnati; a game in which he chalked got a hit (making him a .333 career LCS hitter). He was undefeated in World Series games, posting a 2.35 ERA. With the Rangers in 1977, two weeks removed from a groin injury, Bert mounted a no-hitter against the Angels.
ESPN tool Chris Berman referred to him as Bert "Be Home By Eleven" Blyleven. Well eleven years have past since Bert's initial Hall eligibility and Bert's still not home. In that span Niekro, Sutton, and three men known better as relief pitchers in Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Sutter, and Goose Gossage were all enshrined. Eck's ERA+ is 116, two less than Bert's. Sutter pitched 1,042 innings in his entire Major League career. Blyleven eclipsed that by age 22. That's right, Bert had more innings under his belt a year removed from the legal drinking age than Sutter's entire Hall of Fame career combined.
Goose was a mediocre reliever turned failed starter, turned great closer, turned poor reliever. Goose's only season of starting brought about a 9-17 record with an ERA+ of 91. Bert pitched into his 40's despite averaging 245 innings a year for 22 seasons. Gossage's last year of 60 or more innings was at the age of 34 (also the last year he would finish top 10 in saves), yet pitched until age 42. That's eight years of mediocrity and averaging less than 5 saves per year. Without those years, he would not have surpassed 300 saves. The great Tom Hanks retired with a save more than Gossage and an ERA+ of 156 (30 points better than Goose). Oops, I mean Tom Henke. Tough to remember relief pitchers who don't have a badass mustache and pitch for the Yankees.
Dennis Eckersley was no longer cutting it as a starting pitcher. He was traded to Oakland in 1987 where prophet Tony LaRussa intended to use him in relief. When Oakland's closer went down, Eck was promoted to the closer's role. Eck would thrive in the role, managing to pitch into his 40's as a dominant closer. In 1989, Blyleven (age 38) would win 17 games with a 2.73 ERA. Eckersley, in 174 fewer innings, posted a 4.16 ERA at age 38.
Gibson: "Yaaaaaaay! I just hit a walkoff World Series home run against a washed up starter turned relief pitcher."
What's the difference between Niekro / Sutton and Blyleven? The trivial 300 win plateau. What's the difference between Goose/ Sutter / Eckersley and Blyleven? Bert was good enough to start for 22 seasons.
What if Blyleven was a career closer? Gossage (age 24) *only year as a starter*... 9-17, 91 ERA+, 135 K
Blyleven (age 24) *one of 22 years of starting*... 15-10, 129 ERA+, 233 K
Or simply retired at age 22... Bruce Sutter (entire Hall of Fame career) 1,042.3 IP, 68 W, 861 K, 309 BB, 2.83 ERA
Bert Blyleven (first four seasons in MLB, age 19-22) 1,054.6 IP, 63 W, 845 K, 242 BB, 3.06 ERA
Ozzie: "Dude, we're fuckin' G's. You were a reliever for 12 years and I had a career OPS+ of 87. Bahahahaha." Bench: "Yeah, you guys can't my hold my jock. I can't believe I'm standing here with the white Roberto Hernandez and the black Cesar Izturis."
What if Bert was demoted to the bullpen in his 13th season and finished his career as a closer? Statistics of the first 12 seasons of starting for Eck / Bert (Eck was demoted in year 13). Eckersley (career ERA+ 116) 151 W, 1,627 K, 3.86 ERA
Blyleven (career ERA+ 118) 167 W, 2,357 K, 3.27 ERA
If Blyleven was clearly more dominant and effective than Eck as a starter, wouldn't logic lead you to believe he would at least be Eck's equal as a closer?
Bert just wasn't terrible enough to get demoted to the bullpen. Too bad for him, as it may cost him Cooperstown.
Why the 300 win benchmark is trivial...
Sutton: "Sure Blyleven is better than me, but my haircut is the shit."
Seasons with an ERA+ greater than 100. Niekro - 18 (115 career ERA+) Sutton - 18 (108 career ERA+) Blyleven - 19 (118 career ERA+)
Innings Pitched Per 162 Games Niekro - 232.3 Sutton - 234.7 Blyleven - 245.3
Seasons Pitching With A Winning Team Niekro - 11 Sutton - 16 Blyleven - 10
Wins In Their 40's Niekro - 121 Sutton - 44 Blyleven - 8
Career Innings Pitched Before Age 40 Niekro - 3,436 Sutton - 4,570 Blyleven - 4,837
What about the postseason... We recently saw the worst Vet Committee selection, Joe Gordon, since Bill Mazeroski. His main reason for being elected was his five World Series rings. So do rings really weigh that heavily into consideration? If so...
Postseason Stats Gossage - 5-2, 8 S, 2.87 ERA in 19 games (1 WS ring) Sutter - 2-0, 3 S, 3.00 ERA in 6 games (1 WS ring) Eckersley - 5-6, 15 S, 3.00 ERA in 28 games (1 WS ring) *8.44 ERA as a starter* Niekro - 0-2, 3.86 ERA in 2 starts (0 WS rings) Sutton - 4-5, 3.68 ERA in 14 starts (0 WS rings) Blyleven - 4-1, 2.47 ERA in 6 starts (2 WS rings)
Sutton: "Sure Blyleven equaled my postseason win total in eight fewer starts and won two rings to my zero. Sure I played on 16 winning teams and never won a World Series. Sure, I lost two games in the 78 World Series, but my haircut is the shit."
Sorry Bert, your ERA was just too low for 300 wins, your teams were just too atrocious to get you 13 more wins over 22 seasons of work, and you shouldn't have averaged nearly 250 innings a year for the 21 seasons preceding your 40th birthday, maybe you could pitched a few years of average ball and got those 13 wins.
Maybe if you did not aspire to pitch 242 complete games your arm could have withstood one or two more years into your 40's. Sorry Bert, you're just too damn good for the Hall of Fame. In your next life, either call it quits after 6 innings of work, become a closer, or sign with a team that wins games. But sorry, we're live, can't start this fuckin' thing over again.
One last thing. What measures a pitcher's dominance? Would you say strikeouts? If so, Bert ranks 5th all-time. Of the 16 pitchers who have had 3,000 or more strikeouts, Bert is the only eligible player not in the Hall of Fame. Or, you may say complete game shutouts measure dominance. Excluding the dead ball ERA, here is the top 10 shutout list. 1. Warren Spahn - 63* 2. Nolan Ryan - 61* 2. Tom Seaver - 61* 4. Bert Blyleven - 60 5. Don Sutton - 58* 6. Bob Gibson - 56* 7. Steve Carlton - 55* 8. Jim Palmer - 53* 8. Gaylord Perry - 53* 10. Juan Marichal - 52*
ATLANTA--Denizens, take a good look at the man above. At first glance, he appears to be a genial, kindly old chap, slightly resembling what I expect Anthony Hopkins to look like when he turns 95. Do not be fooled, as this man, Furman Bisher, a member of the AJC's staff of "sports columnists", is something much, much more cynical (not to mention senile).
In his latest attempt at journalism, Bisher attempts to state a case that the Braves farm system is barren, and Frank Wren is to blame. I'll spare you the gory, ignorant details, but if you find yourself short of alcohol and want to kill a few brain cells, read the piece.
I, R. Fukuoka Henderson, am sort of a masochist myself, and thus submit myself to such journalistic folly as often as possible. I would tell you I feel bad for my following assault on this 90 year-old (unconfirmed) man's thought process, integrity, and general view on whatever pops into his head at the moment, but unlike Mr. Bisher, I do not like to provide false information to my audience.
The following are the highlight's of Bisher's senility and/or stupidity, and my corresponding response, which I hope forces him into retirement out of realization that his life as a journalist is a sham.
There comes a time in the life of any guy . . . that he is seized by this urge to take over the management of somebody’s baseball team. In this case: The Braves. While most everybody else is looking in the direction of some football conflict, perhaps I can reply to the seizure without hurting somebody’s feelings. In this case: Frank Wren’s
Blaming Wren for not keeping the system stocked is extremely weak considering he’s been through one amateur draft. Add to that that there is still exceptional to quality talent in the system in Tommy Hanson, Jason Heyward, Jordan Schafer, Freddie Freeman, Cole Rohrbough, Julio Teheran, Jeffrey Locke, Kris Medlen and Cody Johnson.
The prospect of facing the next season with Jair Jurrjens as ace of the staff seems to have present management so perturbed that they went out and signed another pitcher with a losing record and an inflated ERA, Javier Vazquez.
You can knock on Vazquez’s inflated ERA, but it’s somewhat mistelling in that he consistently has great control numbers, is relatively difficult to hit, and has some of the best FIP numbers out there. The guy consistently throws up 200 innings and 200 K’s. And if you’re ignorant enough to knock his being a sub-.500 pitcher, the guy once went 10-13 while throwing up a 3.91, followed by a mere 13-12 after throwing 3.24 ball all year for terrible Montreal teams. Next to saves, wins are the most worthless “statistic” out there.
In the past season the Braves have traded away a busload of prospects for, in one case, a mere flirtation with Mark Teixiera, who was merely passing through town. They did happen to pick up an inexpensive Casey Kotchman in the deal, but back to Vazquez again, they traded a hot number with power, Tyler Flowers, for him.
As much as I hate to see Flowers go, he had nowhere to play as he was blocked by McCann, Freeman is a comparable to better 1B prospect, and Flowers was 22—23 next year—and still in A ball.
Even though in retrospect the Tex trade looks bad, consider that Andrus was and still is blocked by Yunel Escobar, Salty was blocked by McCann and he was probably an average bat at 1B at best, and Feliz was an 18 year old fresh off his first season of Rookie ball, and as most anyone can tell you projecting young pitchers from A-ball up is a crapshoot given the attrition that an organization can take. Doesn’t make the trade any better now, but the move was and to some extent still is justified.
As if they didn’t learn a costly lesson from [Hampton], they are now leaving their calling card with A.J. Burnett’s agent, 31 years old and twice under the knife. Oh, but for the likes of the young and handsome Adam Wainwright.
If you want to compare Burnett’s injury history to somebody, choose someone better than Adam Wainwright, who lost 12 to 13 starts to the DL last year, missed most of 2004 in the minors with an injury, and has misses time here and there throughout his minor league career. Sure it’s not Tommy John, but I would say he compares better to the infamous Mike Hampton and his strained quads/pecks/shoulders more than Burnett’s reconstructive elbow surgery. That, and without J.D. Drew in 2004, who had an All-Star and perhaps even MVP type year, the Braves likely miss the playoffs.
Not to malign Senor Vazquez, but such signings as these have not worked out to the glory of the cause, and I cite here Russ Ortiz, Albie Lopez and the most costly of all, Mike Hampton.
In addition, of Bisher’s examples, only Lopez was a signing. Vazquez (TR CWS-Flowers), Ortiz (TR SF-Damian Moss), and Hampton (TR FLA-Spooneybarger) were all acquired with pre-existing contracts using pieces of this so-called weak farm system. It’s incredibly difficult to have any journalistic credibility if you 1: don’t know the extent of the talent currently in the system that you are openly criticizing and 2: can’t even provide solid facts in your argument.
Honestly, AJC, as the most prominent newspaper in the South, you owe it to yourself to do a hell of a lot better than Furman Bisher, Terrance Moore, and Mark Bradley. At least you have your one saving grace in Dave O'Brian, the one source of anything pertinent or logical in your publication.
HOUSTON -- Braves oft injured left hander Mike Hampton turned down a more lucrative deal from Atlanta to sign with the Houston Astros. Mike had some prosperous seasons in Houston, and remains close friends with many former Astros who reside in the area. This move also allows him to be closer to his family in Arizona. Due to a divorce, he cannot relocate his family, thus, he has to be close to them in Arizona. Atlanta spent millions upon millions of dollars on Mike, who was basically injured throughout the latter stages of his contract. It became a comical scene to see Mike's latest injury. One time he was a few warmup pitches away from making his first start in years, and out of nowhere he tears a pectoral muscle. I recall Braves Hall of Fame announcer Pete Van Wieren publicly asking Mike "when is enough, enough?" and begging for Mike to call it quits.
Mike's stint with Atlanta, and his career for that matter, reminds me of Rocky. For awhile there, I pictured him as Apollo Creed in Rocky IV. Before the bout against the genetically jacked Russian, Apollo demanded that Rocky not throw in the towel, under any circumstances, on his behalf. The Russian went on to murder Creed in the ring. I pictured this as Mike's fate, re-habbing his injuries until an arm fell off, or he spontaneously combusted. With the never quit attitude of Rocky and Apollo.
But now, he's suddenly Rocky, not Apollo. Rocky came out of retirement in Rocky IV to take on the Russian and to avenge the death of his friend Apollo. Despite the bone chilling words, "I veel break you," Ivan Drago whispered to Rocky, his competitive spirit and drive to win brought him victory. Mike is a former top pitcher with one of the first lucrative pitching contracts of this era; he turned into mediocrity, and then near retirement. But a late surge in 2008 where he showed flashes of his former self, made him a fairly marketable free agent pitcher. So what will Mike's final chapter be? Will he, like Rocky, have the drive to pitch until no one offers him a contract? I believe so. Mike is a bulldog and a competitor, and while I loathed his existence for a few years in Atlanta, his departure left a bittersweet feeling.
Mike Hampton will never retire; he will never throw in the towel. His departure from the game will be the day no one offers him a contract. While I picture his career ending in a less than Hollywood fashion, part of me feels he has a great run somewhere still ahead of him. While I breathed a sigh of relief, knowing the headache that is Mike Hampton will no longer be there, a cloud of disappointment also fell over me. The Braves will not be along for the ride when Mike begins to knockout the opposition, however short of time that may be.
This letter is in response to your request of an asterisk on the Major League Baseball all-time and single-season home run records. Barry Lamar Bonds is widely believed to have been on performance enhancing drugs during the latter seasons of his record-breaking career and during the season he broke the single season record. While your request was well noted by my colleagues and the media alike, it has been declined.
An asterisk is to be reserved for a side note of noteworthy substance, not to vent your self-righteousness. Performance enhancers have been used throughout the history of baseball and the game of life. Do we put an asterisk on players with records attained on cocaine highs? Or better yet, what about players who take cortisone shots to weather an injury and play in a game. Are you aware cortisone is a steroid? You praise Curt Schilling, but loathe Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and the like? Maybe we should also put an asterisk next to Greg Maddux, who was a known user of eye contacts during his dominating seasons in the 1990's.
Perhaps your argument is not that he used a performance enhancer, but that the nature of his conditioning provided him with an advantage past players did not have. Do we also put an asterisk next to Cy Young's name because he pitched against guys who had the skill level of a JV high school utility infielder? Should we put an asterisk next to pitchers who win a game under the blind umpiring of CB Buckner?
Maybe your argument is that he violated some set of moral standards, and then lied about his actions. As if there is some sort of objective moral code in this country. If so, who follows it? Would cheating on your wife be a violation of morals? If so, many beloved presidents and political figures, including John F. Kennedy and Senator John McCain, cheated on their spouse. Are we to hold our athletes at a higher standard of morality than the men leading our country?
An asterisk is to be used for extreme scenarios of variance that should be noted. For example, a strike shortened the 1994 baseball season, therefore an asterisk should be used for 1994 to note such a fact. You would have a better argument giving an asterisk to those players who served in World War II, since they lost key seasons in their careers. Cecil Travis for example, batting .359 with 210 hits at age 27 in 1941. He did not return until age 31, and out of the game by age 33 due to constant complications from war injuries. Do those players who played during the War not deserve an asterisk?
Also, my colleagues and I would like to ask you a personal question. Have you ever cheated on a test? Kept change when a cashier gave you an extra bill? Called in sick when you really were not? Would you not object to taking a lie detector test? Maybe your degree or high school diploma should be denoted with an asterisk on your job resume, where a key would read "cheated." Maybe for your next date, an asterisk should be placed upon on your left testicle for its infidelity history.
While the economy was crumbling before their eyes, American presence in international relations worsening, and other nations' economies growing at the rate of bacteria, what did our Congress spend its priceless time on? Baseball. Are you aware that in 2005 Congress spent more days in session investigating steroid use than the Iraq war? Our own president, who ironically enough was an owner of a team with a slew of steroid users, mentioned in his State of the Union address that steroids must be stopped and ridden from the game! Like a magician with a fancy card trick, he pushed a war under his podium while dangling a syringe in our face and pointing at baseball and screaming "that's the bad guys!"
So John, your request has been adamantly denied. In the world of sport, may the ambitious competitors thrive and bask in glory, and the genetically weak or unmotivated parish. This is America, land of the cheater and home of the backstabber. And we like it that way. So get off your pedestal, look in the mirror, and get fucked.
ATLANTA--Yesterday, various sources confirmed that Javier Vazquez and Boone Logan were on their way to Atlanta, as Brave's GM completed the long rumored acquisition from his home in the Wren's Nest. At first glance, this move helps solidify a shaky rotation and marks an item off the list of parts that needed to be picked up this offseason. Chicago's side of the deal is all but confirmed, pending physicals and a press conference. There are many conflicting reports as to who Atlanta gave up to complete the trade, as ESPN.com reports the deal as SS Brent Lillibridge, LHP Jo-Jo Reyes, and a minor leaguer. Foxsports.com, Sportline, and MLBTR (via the AJC's Dave O'Brian) all indicate a four-player swap, in which Atlanta would hand over Lillibridge, C Tyler Flowers, 3B Jon Gilmore, and Rookie-League pitcher Santos Rodriguez.
I find it odd that the would include Flowers in a package for Vazquez, as it seemed that his inclusion is what caused the Peavy deal to fall through. Flowers, one of the hottest hitting catching prospects this year, posted 17 homers and a .921 OPS in Class A Myrtle Beach this year and followed that up by mashing 12 homers in 20 games with the Mesa Solar Sox. He's shown the ability to play 1B, long a position of continuity that has eluded the Braves, and it would make sense to keep him in the system as insurance that 18 year old phenom Freddie Freeman doesn't pan out.
The first scenario, though seemingly much more unlikely as more reports come out, is much more favorable to Atlanta, though Flowers is still likely to be a part of the deal. Reyes, the Braves' best major league ready prospect at the beginning of 2008, struggled with his control and homers throughout the season, though he did show flashes of brilliance. Still, his loss could be afforded by a team relatively thick with low-expectation, major-league ready pitching in Charlie Morton, James Parr, Chuck James, and, if healthy, Anthony Lerew, not to mention the dominant Tommy Hanson.
The second scenario is a little tougher to swallow, as the Braves not only give up Flowers but also Jon Gilmore, the 19 year-old 3B prospect out of Iowa. Gilmore projects to have great raw power and plate discipline once he develops while already being a consistent bat, hitting .291 over two seasons including .337 in Danville before getting a cup of coffee with low-A Rome. Losing a low-A, projectable player is generally an acceptable cost; however, the Braves now have to find another player in the draft to replace Gilmore and his gifted athleticism as the heir-apparant to an old and frequently battered Chipper Jones. Gilmore figured to break in around 2011--about the time Chipper hit 40, and the two prospects above him in the pecking order--Van Pope and Eric Campbell--each have their flaws. Pope possesses an outstanding glove, but struggles at the plate, hitting .237 in Mississippi this year. Campbell has exceptional talent and athleticism, but has struggled off the field, including a suspension handed down by the organization, and is being exposed to the Rule V draft (though unlikely he'd be taken given the off field troubles).
As for Javy Vazquez being a Brave--I'm elated. He's a guy who showed great stuff and the ability to eat innings while toiling for terrible Montreal teams. While he's not the ace, or likely even the number two, that Wren was looking for, he's a solid addition. He continues to eat innings (would top 200+ nine straight years if not for coming two short in 2004) as well as still having great stuff, as he still averages over 8 K's per 9 and usually only walks 2-3 per 9. He's generally hard to hit (Top 10 in H/9 3 times since 2001) as well as posting good WHIP numbers from year to year. Furthermore, a return to the senior circuit where he could face a pitcher three times a game as well as not facing the stacked offenses of the AL could do him significant good.
The other piece the Braves receive, Boone Logan, is a guy I hope I don't have to write about much when the season begins. I can see myself getting pissed off everytime he enters the game. Think 2008 Royce Ring. But with a weaker beard, a weaker name, and weaker stuff. I see him being inducted into the HOS by July.
This trade should do the Braves some short-term good over the next two years, as Vazquez is likely to deliver 200+ innings of sub-4.00 ball, while posting close to 200 K's and around 60 BB's, all while making a manageable $11.7 million a year. The Braves gave up three guys who weren't going to see the bigs by 2010 or 2011, and a utility infielder who was blocked and fell off the cliff last year splitting time between AAA and Atlanta. The long-term assessment depends on how Flowers and Gilmore develop. If these two become even .270/20 guys, this deal may be much harder to swallow three or four years from now if the acquisition fails to help lead Atlanta back to the playoffs.
CRAWFORD -- The title of this blog, I Am Jack's Broken Bat, is inspired by the narrator's voiceovers during the bad ass existential film, Fight Club. During the onset of the film, the protagonist frequently attends self help groups for diseases and problems he does not have. Seeing others in misery helps him become at peace with his own hatred of self. So the powers that be have elected to start a self help group for people who really do need it.
The group - Jack's Bullshitters Notanonymous. Except, well, you're not anonymous, as the first step to becoming a non-bullshitter is for everyone to know you're a bullshitter. Confused? Well the fact is, a bullshitter does not want help. So publicly showing he is a bullshitter may provide some ample motivation to cut the bullshit. As George Carlin put it, most people are either stupid, insane, or a bullshitter. In baseball, the stupid people would be the general managers who trade Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. Or the guys who hire Dusty Baker to manage a young pitching staff. The insane are the owners who would willingly pay Ryan Dempster fifty million dollars. And the bullshitters? The majority of bullshitters are those agents who bullshit their player from mediocre pitcher to multi-millionaire ace.
But there are other bullshitters on the planet from every arena. We have decided to not give the first BA member title to just anyone. No. The first bullshitter must be the ultimate bullshitter. A bullshitter of epic proportions. While this blog is largely revolved around subjective baseball journalism, we intend to delve into all facets of life. After all, baseball is simply a metaphor to life and the American dream.
... Drum role ...
The first member of Bullshitter's Notanonymous is...
George W. Bush
I would go into detail about why the Governor should be recognized with this honor, but would it not be trivial and obvious? Stay tuned for future bullshitters to be announced soon.
STERLING--After much deliberation, The Powers That Be have decided upon our Hall of Shame inductee for December: Reggie Sanders. The other candidates put forth quite a compelling case, but the damage Reggie did to the Atlanta Braves not only in 2000, but down the road as well put him over the top.
In the offseason of 1999 Reggie Sanders was traded to the Braves as the Padres centerpiece of a six-player trade, with the Padres receiving Bret Boone, Ryan Klesko, and Jason Shiell and Atlanta receiving Quilvio Veras, Wally Joyner, and Reggie. The trade looked promising, as Boone struggled in his only season in Atlanta and Klesko was blocked by Andres Gallaraga and never developed the consistency or big-time power that made him a major prospect with the Braves. Sanders, meanwhile, was expected to replace the eternally mediocre Gerald Williams in left field and be a big veteran bat in the middle of the lineup, having come off several above-average seasons.
In 2000 Sanders, and the weight of his expected contribution, manged to hit .232/.302/.403--good for a 76 OPS+. The man whose production Sanders was traded to replace, Gerald "Ice" Williams, amassed an 86 OPS+. After two to three months of mediocrity he was uncermoniously dropped to 7th or 8th in the order, as the Braves effectively conceded that Sanders sucked.
As is the cases with many Hall of Shame candidates, the damage done to the organization went much deeper than the feebleness of the players themselves. Much of the damage is done in what it took to acquire these floundering veterans. The pieces the Braves traded to acquire Sanders went on to do much greater things. Klesko went on to post three consecutive seasons of an OPS+ of 136 or better, and then of at least 110 in the three years after, all while splitting time between first base and left field--the position Reggie failed to provide any production for whatsoever. Bret Boone--steroids allegations and all--proceded to OPS+ 94 with the Padres but then put up insane numbers for three years with the Mariners, including two seasons of at least 35 homers and two top-ten MVP finishes. Furthermore the trade ate up more than $10 million of payroll between Sanders, Veras, and Joyner, with Sanders making $4 million to put up some of the worst numbers for a starting outfielder in the majors that year.
Thanks to his single season of non-production and the years of cost-effective, MVP-calliber players he cost the Braves, Reggie Sanders earns his spot in the Atlanta Braves Hall of Shame.
NEW YORK--After failing in his first two years of eligibility, Mark McGwire will appear on the Hall of Fame ballot for the third time. After retiring, McGwire seemed to be a lock for a first ballot entry into the Hall. He was the single season record holder for home runs in a season, was eighth all-time in career homers, and amassed a 162 OPS+ across sixteen storied seasons.
All of that changed when the steroid rumors hit full tilt in 2004. Writers began openly questioning the merits of McGwire's candidacy, linking him to performance enhancing drugs and renowned users, including former team-mate and Oakland Bash-Brother Jose Canseco. In spite of McGwire's adamant demands that he never juiced, there is little doubt that he did in fact use PED's during his career--a fact made all the more apparent by his embarrassing testimony in front of the Senate Committee.
Many feel McGwire should never be let in for his alleged use of steroids. However, if one were to look at the circumstances of the time it becomes much harder to say he truly doesn't belong. Baseball's ban of steroids and subsequent testing policies were not ex post facto law. That is: those who used before were not subject to penalties if they were clean afterward. Since baseball didn't implement proper testing until after McGwire's years, it seems to reason that his using is inconsequential. Furthermore, the substance McGwire is most commonly linked to--Andro--was not formally banned by the controlled substance act until 2005, meaning his use was absolutely legal.
To put this in context, suppose that in 2015 baseball and/or the government were to ban creatine and advanced protein supplements. One couldn't possibly deny an entire generation of baseball players entrance to the Hall based on a law put in act years after they left. Yet that is what is happening today. According to Canseco and numerous other players, more than half of the players in the 90's juiced, casting a shadow over the whole generation. While some players certainly used after the ban (I'm looking at you, Damian Moss), the fact that so many players used then-legal supplements during this so-called steroids era should level the playing field in the eyes of voters (especially when numbers suggest that more pitchers juiced than position players).
On the basis of his counting and rate stats alone McGwire deserves to grace Cooperstown. 583 homers, an unreal .392 OBP, a career .982 OPS, a 162 OPS+, and (for what it's worth, if 2008 shows you anything) numerous All-Star appearances, Silver Sluggers, and massive MVP consideration year after year speak on McGwire's behalf. Hopefully the writers will man up and realize that not having one of the most dominant players in the 90's in the Hall of Fame is a travesty to baseball and to his generation.
With a promising film by David Fincher set for release on Christmas Day, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, starring Brad Pitt, it got me thinking. Pitt's character, Benjamin Button, ages backwards throughout life. Meaning he starts out as an old man and slowly grows younger throughout his life. The F. Scott Fitzgerald classic mimics what happened to many Major Leaguers in the 90's and early 2000's. The most blatent example of what I will coin the Benjamin Button reverse aging disorder is John Jaha. Jaha dominated for the Oakland A's in 1999, but his numbers did not logically follow suit with his career numbers.
In 99 Jaha hit 35 homers, had 111 RBI's, a .414 OBP, and an OPS+ of 152. He was top ten in seven different offensive categories. Jaha's only good full season was in 1995 with Milwaukee. All other seasons were mostly plagued with injuries. In 2000 and 2001, he combined for a total of one home run and his -6 OPS+ in 2001 led to his retirement. So how does one go from MVP consideration to flat out one of the worst hitters in baseball in one year? I mean, even the decline of Andruw Jones was more subtle than this.
John Jaha (39) in 2005
To me, it seems obvious to think Jaha was a steroid abuser like most of that 1999 Oakland team, highlighted by admitted user Jason Giambi. Actually, that year Jaha made the All-Star team and Giambi did not. Giambi ended the year with 33 HR, 123 RBI, and an OPS+of 153; almost identical to Jaha's numbers. Who else was on that team? Well another proven juicer, Miguel Tejada. Also, Matt Stairs and Ben Grieve had power surges that season. Grieve is another guy who had his power numbers magically disappear like the fried chicken platter at Bob Wickman's family reunion.
So how does one magically hit his prime at age 33, then becomes washed up at age 34? Well there is one of two scenarios. Either Jaha juiced more than that girl from the Welch's grape juice commercials from the 90s, or he is a medical marvel. We are all quick to label certain guys steroid users to explain their dramatic decline. However, what if this is more common that we may think? If this was simply a case of natural dropoff, shouldn't teams be more weary of other such late bloomers? I mean lets say on some distant reality Jaha naturally hit his prime that late.
Why would a team right now give someone a huge contract who hit their stride late in their career? For example, why would the Cubs give Ryan Dempster a huge contract? Or why would St. Louis give Kyle Lohse millions more than he deserves? Can anyone say Carl Pavano? Lohse had an ERA+ of 113 last season, the best of his entire career. Four years, 41M, and a full no-trade clause? What! He has a career ERA+ of 97, less than league average.
Maybe certain players do bloom late, however, I would be willing to bet not many stay blooming. Just as Benjamin Button hit his prime later than others, his decline to child-like performance should be noted among GM's in baseball. When a GM finds a diamond in the ruff for one season they should feel thankful, but not committed. Thankful to find such a bargain, and also thankful someone else is about to waste payroll on signing this guy. Mark my words: Kyle Lohse will go down in history next to the names of Darren Dreifort, Carl Pavano, and Jaret Wright.
Three different organizations gave up on a Lohse before his 29th birthday. Yet the Cardinals gave the man 41 million dollars because he had an above average season. That is catastrophically stupid. Oh and get this, Lohse will make about three million less than Albert Pujols next year, the best player in the league. Ironic eh? Pujols should have played his cards right and bloomed during a contract year.
"Kyle could have obtained a more substantial contract on the open market, but decided to settle for a lesser contract and stay in St. Louis." -Scott Boras, Professional Conman
You know, now that I set my formula for 500 plate appearances. I checked... and Milton Bradley had 510 plate appearances, which means he does qualify for the MVP. But A-Rod still has it...
The AL MVP Qualifiers TIER A 1. Alex Rodriguez - 59 points (8th) TIER B 2. Milton Bradley - 49 points (17th) 3. Kevin Youkilis - 46 points (3rd...hey there is one right!!!) TIER C 4. Carlos Quentin - 38 points (5th) 5. Joe Mauer - 36 points (4th) 6. Josh Hamilton - 34 points (7th) 7. Justin Morneau - 32.5 points (2nd...yeah, 2nd on his team) 8. Grady Sizemore - 31.5 points (10th) 9. Nick Markakis - 31 points (NO VOTES!) TIER D 10. Dustin Pedroia - 25 points (1st...not even 1st in Boston) RESULT Pedroia won. Making this a total wash of an MVP. Pedroia barely made the list and although this is an acceptable MVP choice, it is a pretty bad grade and near failure. Writers get a D.
I think of all those, the most interesting find was that Bradley was more valuable than Hamilton. However, Hamilton finished ten spots ahead of Bradley in voting. Both have had troubled pasts. Hamilton was on enough crank to increase productivity in a Chinese toy factory by 600 percent. Bradley has had his share of problems, but most of them come from anger.
Bradley grew up a poor black kid who chose to dedicate his life to baseball which is uncommon in the black community. Hamilton grew up a wealthy white kid who was groomed to be the next phenom baseball player. However, drug and alcohol problems derailed his climb to the Majors. Bradley's anger issues halted him from having lucrative contract offers and made him unwanted by many teams.
So has Milton Bradley overcome more or Josh Hamilton? Hell the man overcame my 500 plate appearance requirement, so I say Milton by a landslide.
The AL top list is intriguing. It has a pair of American Latinos, three men cast off by their first team as lost causes, an angry black man, a few ex football players, an ex hockey player, a guy not offered a division one scholarship, a catcher, a crackhead, a DH, a caveman, a hard-nosed fidget, and a top prospect now voted off a 40 man roster. Thus proving that the game of baseball is the exemplary, definitive metaphor to the American dream. Where height, race, body fat percentage, attitude, and addictions are nothing but side notes and prefaces to living like a rock star and getting paid like a oil tycoon.
The value formula perfected by this author was proved to be a sound and accurate management of total player value for a given team. So I figured, why not prove it for the National League as well? However, I would like to add in some rules. To be considered for Most Valuable, under my theory, one has to also check off the following: 1.) > 500 plate appearances 2.) Statistics accumulated in another League during the season will not count towards the 500 plate appearances, as the MVP is a league award, not a "Major League Most Valuable Player" award. 3.) A pitcher cannot qualify for the MVP unless they pitch 324 innings in a season; as that is the only way they would be more valuable than a position player. If a pitcher ever pitches 324 innings in a season, he will automatically be awarded the unanimous MVP regardless of statistical performance. 4.) A designated hitter can qualify. However, his VORP and Fielding statistics will be nil. 5.) Cost vs. Reward tie breaker. Should two player tie in points, if one player makes five million dollars or more less than the other player, he will be the MVP. Should they have salaries within five million dollars from one another, they tie for the award. 6.) To be considered an MVP candidate a player must score 20 or above on the MVP formula. Any player with less than 20 points will not be listed in the top finishers. 7.) TIER's. Whatever the top leading tier is (ie: three players finish in tier A), then it is acceptable for any of those players to be voted MVP and I will not critique the vote. However, if a player from Tier F wins the MVP when there are seven players in Tier B, then it is unacceptable. For example... UNANIMOUS - Obvious selection for MVP, should not be anyone else winning even in consideration. TIER A - Assuming no unanimous, any player from this group would be an excellent and near perfect MVP choice. TIER B - Any player from this group would be a "good" choice. TIER C - Average choice, and there were clearly better candidates. TIER D - Pretty bad choice, near failure. TIER F - Horrendous MVP selection. No tier - Pretty much a worthless choice, and all players in above Tiers should kidnap this man and beat him to near death until he agrees to burn his MVP trophy in protest.
Ok, so here goes for the National League. Their actual MVP ranking is in (here). UNANIMOUS 1. Albert Pujols - 70 points **perfect score, utter domination** (1st) TIER A 2. Lance Berkman - 57.5 points (5th) 3. Chipper Jones - 56 points (12th) TIER B 4. Hanley Ramirez - 46.5 points (11th) 5. David Wright - 40.5 points (7th) TIER C 6. Matt Holliday - 31.5 points (18th) 7. Ryan Ludwick - 31 points (16th) TIER D 8. Chase Utley - 25 points (14th) RESULT Pujols was the obvious MVP. Perfect MVP choice.
-Ryan Howard finished second behind Pujols in MVP voting, yet his teammate Chase Utley was drastically more valuable, and he finished 14th in voting. Also, his teammate, Brad Lidge, finished eigth despite pitching in less than five percent of his team's games. -Even though five Mets got MVP votes, only Wright was worthy. Carlos Delgado finished 9th (ahead of five of the top 8 on my list), yet his teammates Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran, were more valuable than Delgado and they barely had any consideration. -There were no Cubs even sniffing MVP consideration. However, they were first in the league, leading writers feeling compelled to vote for a Cub. That screwy logic led to three Cubs getting votes, including Aramis Ramirez (10th) who failed to even eclisple a .900 OPS for the year. In fact, he finished ahead of Chipper Jones, who had equal the hits in over 100 less at bats! That's right, Chipper could have gone 0 for 100 and had as many as hits as Aramis. -Three assclowns voted for Jose Valverde for MVP, despite Jose nearly leading the league in blown saves. -Two Ryan's finished in the top 3 in voting. Howard 2nd, and Ryan Braun 3rd. However, another Ryan, Ludwick that is, completely shattered Braun's statistics in every way. Ludwick even matched his power. They each had 37 home runs. Ludwick was 12 homers shy of Howard. Although Lud's OPS+ was an ungodly 26 points higher than Howard and 22 ahead of Braun. -Hanley Ramirez played in 153 games for his team. Manny Ramirez played in 53. Their voting? Manny 4th, Hanley 11th. You might argue "The Dodgers made the playoffs" as an argument. However, the Marlins matched the Dodgers with 84 wins, and did so at a fraction of the cost. -Also, Manny finished 4th. Why was he even in this league? Because his teammates voted him off. He was so un-MVP-esque in Boston that veteran teammates hungry for a World Series cast him off their island. They willingly said to hell with one of the greatest hitters of all time. Yet in 53 games he's an MVP? Not only that, had his team been in any other division they would have been selling at the deadline, not buying.
I hope you have taken away two facts from this article. One - baseball needs to seriously re-vamp their MVP process. And two - Albert Pujols is a man among boys.
Alex Rodriguez was the blatant and obvious MVP choice this year. And for once, his name hurt him. Had he been an average Joe who happened to dominate offensively like he did in 2008, the MVP would have been nearly unanimous. If he sported a shaved head, a caveman goatee, a knack for fighting with Hall of Fame outfielders, and always sprinting out an infield fly rule...you would be in awe of the way he plays the game. Or maybe if he was four foot seven, weighed 115 pounds, you would vote for him.
Sure, his team did not make the playoffs. However, his team was in the best division in baseball, and by a long shot. Had he played in the NL West, he could have single handily pushed the Rockies back into the postseason. Sure, A-Rod has won three MVP's already, he's filthy rich, and he's on the most hated team in baseball. However, that does not mean he was not the MVP. Let me throw some stats out and A-Rod's statistical rank compared to Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis, two Bahston guys who finished ahead of A-Rod in the MVP voting. I will not list flawed statistics, but stats with proven formulas to measure a true MVP. X = that player did not finish in the top ten
NOTE: Milton Bradley dominated nearly every stat above and finished first almost unanimously. However, due to him missing nearly 40 games, I dismissed his MVP credentials. But that is another argument in and of itself. Also, I would not consider pitchers for the MVP award as 30 starts or 70 innings does not warrant you being the most valuable player...sorry.
The Machiavellian Value of Player Formula Adjusted OPS + Runs Created + Adjusted Batting Runs + Batting Wins + Offensive Win % + VORP + [(Fielding Percentage at Position + Zone Rating) / 2]
First place would be ten points, second nine points, and so on. Tenth place is one point and below tenth there is zero.
Rodriguez - 59 Pedroia - 25 Youkilis - 46
So, while A-Rod is the clear MVP, Youk should have at least won it over his own teammate who was nearly half as valuable.
In the coming weeks we will be seeing Angels' closer Francisco Rodriguez sign a massive contract, possibly returning to the Angels or going to a team like the Mets with an imploding bullpen and a fat wallet.
Just like the statistic created for them, saves, closers are completely overrated and overvalued in Major League Baseball. A closer who blows games for your team on a consistent basis is one of the most aggravating things a fan can go through, but serviceable closers just are not that hard to find. In fact, most are failed starters or converted middle relievers. There is a clear upper echelon of closers, like K-Rod, Joe Nathan and Mariano Rivera, but every year a few guys rack up a bunch of saves who had never closed before in their careers.
In 2008, George Sherrill saved 31 games for the Orioles. Before 2008 he had four career saves and was merely a very good reliever who the Orioles decided to put in the ninth inning instead of the eighth, and save themselves a bunch of money on a big-name closer. Same thing for Jeremy Accardo (30) and Al Reyes (26) in 2007. JJ Putz (36) and Chris Ray (33) in 2006. The list goes on.
Even some of today's best closers, like Nathan, started out as experiments like that and stuck in the role when they thrived. Only in very recent years have we seen players drafted and groomed specifically to be closers, such as Huston Street. I hereby dub this the Dennis Eckersley Effect. There is absolutely nothing special about a closer that separates him from a middle reliever except that he can handle the pressure. If a team has a middle reliever who pitches 60 innings with a decent ERA, chances are he would rack up 30+ saves for a fraction of the cost.
Major League Baseball salaries are out of control in general, but it is especially bad for closers. K-Rod was paid $10 million in 2008, for 68 1/3 innings. That adds up to 205 outs that he recorded, which means he was paid $48,780 per out.
Let's take a top middle reliever from 2008, Carlos Marmol, and compare him with K-Rod. Marmol's ERA was 2.68, not quite at the level of K-Rod's 2.24, but still excellent. Except Marmol pitched more innings, 87 1/3, and was paid $430,000. Divide that out, and Marmol made $1,641 per out (which is still a better hourly wage than any of us will ever see, but that is beside the point). Not only did Marmol obviously provide better monetary value than K-Rod, but I would argue that he was a more valuable pitcher overall. He pitched almost 20 more innings, his K/9 and BB/9 ratios were better, his WHIP was .36 points better and his opponent batting average was .140(!) compared to K-Rod's .219.
After K-Rod's record-setting 62 saves, that salary will only go up. He strikes me as the definition of a mercenary player and he is in line for a massive payday, for no other reason than that the Angels decided to use him as a closer instead of a setup man.
"I've got three pitches, my change, my change off my change, and my change off my change off my change." -Preacher Roe
Former pitcher Elwin Charles "Preacher" Roe passed away earlier this month. He lived 92 years and some change. Roe spent seven of his twelve Major League seasons with the Brooklyn Dodgers, and was a member of the famous Dodger team immortalized in Roger Kahn's classic novel The Boys of Summer. A team which included Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Gil Hodges, Duke Snider and Pee Wee Reese. Kahn wrote "When I went forth to cover the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1952, the most cerebral Brooklyn pitcher was a tall, skinny hillbilly named Elwin Charles 'Preacher' Roe."
The left hander retired with a .602 winning percentage, 127 wins, and a 3.43 ERA. He won ten or more games in eight different years and in 1951, at the age of 36, had a 22-3 record with 19 complete games. That season he finished fifth in MVP voting. Roe made five All-Star clubs, led the league in strikeouts one season (1945), and was top ten in ERA five different years. Preacher made three starts in the postseason. In those three games he pitched three complete games, every time against the Yankees, posting a 2.54 ERA with a record of 2-1. His one loss came in 1952 when he lost the game in the 12th inning! Yes, he pitched 11.1 innings that day against a potent Yankee team.
Roe's career numbers might have merited Cooperstown consideration had he not lost a good part of his prime to World War 2 action. Almost all of his twenties were lost to military service as his first full season did not come until age 29. He also spent four seasons with the worst team in the National League at the time, the Pittsburgh Pirates. In addition, Roe had two horrific seasons in 1946 and 1947 due to an injury suffered in the 1945 offseason. The injury... Roe was coaching high school basketball during the offseason, and fractured his skull in a fight with the referee.
Preacher was known as a "smart" pitcher before the term was common lingo. He had arguably the best control in baseball during his time, and struck out a fair share of hitters. He perfected the art of pitching and not throwing. Think of him as a poor man's version of Greg Maddux. At age 34 Roe walked 44 in 212.7 innings. Maddux, at age 34, walked 42 in 249.3 innings.
Roe was also known for his eccentricity. In addition to fighting high school basketball refs, Roe refused to fly in an airplane. Not because of a fear of flying, but because it "made his head hurt." There are differing opinions on how he attained his nickname. Some say he called himself "Preacher" as early as age three because of his admiration for a local preacher. Others argue he was given the nickname because Roe never stopped talking. In a famous Sports Illustrated article after his retirement, Roe admitted to throwing a spitball. Hitters knew of this. They would often come to the plate looking for it, yet Roe said he only threw the pitch a handful of times per season to keep his reputation in tact.
It seems plausible that Roe would have made Cooperstown had he not lost key seasons to the war. Given his solid career, domination in the playoffs, and notoriety and fame in the press, I think he would have made it. Preacher won 114 games during his thirties. Of Hall of Fame starting pitchers who were non 300-game-winners, who pitched after the dead ball era, here is the win totals for their 30's. Jim Bunning - 150 Dizzy Dean - 3 Don Drysdale - 32 Bob Feller - 89 Whitey Ford - 131 Bob Gibson - 160 Lefty Gomez - 36 Waite Hoyt - 72 Carl Hubbell - 172 Catfish Hunter - 40 Fergie Jenkins - 143 Sandy Koufax - 27 Bob Lemon - 117 Ted Lyons - 107 Juan Marichal - 99 Hal Newhouser - 22 Jim Palmer - 116 Robin Roberts - 107 Red Ruffing - 157
Former Montreal Expos' star Tim Raines was recently named the manager of the Newark Bears in the independent Atlantic League. After being a coach for the Chicago White Sox from 2004-06, Raines spent last year in anonymity, working as the hitting coach for the class-AA Harrisburg Senators - anonymity that will continue in 2009, as the manager for an independent league team.
Raines should be used to being anonymous, spending the best years of his career playing for (mostly) bad Montreal teams - a fact that may be seriously hurting his Hall of Fame chances. He has not gotten as much attention as other snubs, like Bert Blyleven or Ron Santo, but he might be just as deserving. Raines is one of the top leadoff hitters in the history of baseball, and belongs in the same category as Rickey Henderson and Lou Brock. Raines would probably have been elected last year, in his first year of eligibility, if not for spending the last six years of his career as a part-time player due to injuries. Had he been a full-time player for a bit longer, he would have reached 3,000 hits and seriously challenged Brock for second all-time in stolen bases. What he did end up with was 2,605 hits and 808 stolen bases, which is good enough for fifth all time.
Those are hardly numbers to be embarrassed by, but Raines' real case lies in how ridiculously good he was in his prime. The Hall of Fame voters love counting numbers, but guys with short careers and amazing primes like Ralph Kiner and Sandy Koufax have been elected before, so there are some precedents showing that a guy like Raines could get in. Raines' career was not even short, it is just that he had a pretty sharp decline once he reached his mid-30s.
I am going to define Raines' prime as 1981-87 (the last year he hit over .300 as a full-time player). Raines was a terror on the basepaths in these years, stealing at least 70 bases in every year but '87. He was excellent in the traditional hitting stats and all over the league leader boards for most of the 1980s; he batted over .300 in five of those seven years, including a batting title in 1986; and he was in the top 10 for walks and triples every year and in the top 10 in on base percentage, runs and hits in six of the seven years.
Besides racking up stolen bases, Raines' skills as a leadoff hitter lie in his OBP, OPS and OPS+. In his prime his OBP was in the high .300s consistently, over .400 from '85-87 and he has a career mark of .385. There are some leadoff hitters like Juan Pierre who give the illusion of being good by hitting singles and stealing bases, but Raines, while not hitting a ton of home runs, was an extra-base machine. His percentage of hits that went for extra bases is 27.3; Henderson's career mark was 28 percent, while Brock is at 25 percent.
Raines was a master of not striking out. His career high in strikeouts was 83, and 966 for a career in which he came to the plate over 10,000 times. He also drew loads of walks - 1,330 in his career - an essential skill for leadoff hitters, and a major reason his OBP was as high as it was.
Lou Brock, in comparison, came to the plate over 11,000 times but drew only 761 walks and had 1,730 strikeouts.
All those extra base hits and walks gave Raines excellent OPSs; he was over .800 in six of his seven prime years, and was at .955 in 1987 - a number that high is almost unheard of for non-power hitters. His OPS+ was top 10 in those same six years, including a string of 138, 151, 145 and 149. Compare those numbers to Brock, and Raines was clearly better - Brock's best year was 146, but he was never higher than 128 in any other year. Brock was over 100 for a larger percentage of his career, but his career mark is only 109, whereas Raines' is 123 - which is getting close to leadoff-god Henderson's mark of 127.
So what does all this tell us? It's clear that Raines' prime was far and away better than Brock, and while Brock's counting stats are better than Raines', they're not that much better. A serious argument could even be made that his career as a whole was better than Brock's. Raines is at least the third-best leadoff hitter of the modern era, was one of the best hitters of the 1980s, a decade that is extremely underrepresented in the Hall of Fame and might be the best Expo of all time, a team that is destined to be just as underrepresented.
So put him in the Hall, where he belongs. His exhibit could even include a game-used vial of cocaine.
Sport's Illustrated's Web site recently posted a gallery of baseball's 16 $100 million men. It got me thinking about the success of the players' teams since handing out these massive contracts. The players are: Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Manny Ramirez, Todd Helton, Johan Santana, Alfonso Soriano, Vernon Wells, Barry Zito, Mike Hampton, Jason Giambi, Carlos Beltran, Ken Griffey Jr., Kevin Brown, Albert Pujols, Carlos Lee and Miguel Cabrera.
"This is how many wins I will give you for your $14.5 million in 2008."
The fundamental problem with handing out contracts like these is that the players are always looking for an extremely long-term deal, and are already established stars, which means they are likely in their late 20s or early 30s. Giving a long-term deal to a player that age means a team will have him until his late 30s at least, and will be paying him the most during those later years since the salaries in these contracts typically go up each year. A team that hands out a contract like this get a few years of the player's prime, but they will end up paying him the most during his later (and likely, worst) years.
The other problem is that teams that blow so much money on one player do not leave enough money left over to surround their superstar with other quality players. As the Rays proved this year, a championship-caliber team does not need a high-priced superstar to be successful.
Let's take a look at how these teams with loose wallets have fared since signing their big-name free agents:
Alex Rodriguez - $275 million, 10 years Yankees, signed in 2008 Age when contract will be complete: 42 World Series' won by Yankees since signing: 0
Derek Jeter - $189 million, 10 years Yankees, signed in 2001 Age when contract will be complete: 37 World Series' won by Yankees since signing: 0
Manny Ramirez - $160 million, 8 years Red Sox, signed in 2000 Contract completed at age 36 World Series' won by Red Sox since signing: 2
Todd Helton - $141 million, 9 years Rockies, signed in 2001, took effect in 2003 Age when contract will be complete: 39 World Series' won by Rockies since signing: 0
Johan Santana - $137.5 million, 6 years Mets, signed in 2008 Age when contract will be complete: 34 World Series' won by Mets since signing: 0
Alfonso Soriano - $136 million, 8 years Cubs, signed in 2007 Age when contract will be complete: 38 World Series' won by Cubs since signing: 0
Vernon Wells - $126 million, 7 years Blue Jays, signed in 2007 Age when contract will be complete: 35 World Series' won by Blue Jays since signing: 0
Barry Zito - $126 million, 7 years Giants, signed in 2007 Age when contract will be complete: 35 World Series' won by Giants since signing: 0
Mike Hampton - $121 million, 8 years Rockies, signed in 2001 Contract completed at age 35 World Series' won by Rockies since signing: 0
Jason Giambi - $120 million, 7 years Yankees, signed in 2002 Contract completed at age 37 World Series' won by Yankees since signing: 0
Carlos Beltran - $119 million, 7 years Mets, signed in 2005 Age when contract will be completed: 34 World Series' won by Mets since signing: 0
Ken Griffey Jr. - $116.5 million, 9 years Reds, signed in 2000 Contract completed at age 38 World Series' won by Reds since signing: 0
Kevin Brown - $105 million, 7 years Dodgers, signed in 1999 Contract completed at age 40 World Series' won by Dodgers since signing: 0
Albert Pujols - $100 million, 7 years Cardinals, signed in 2004 Age when contract will be complete: 30 World Series' won by Cardinals since signing: 1
Carlos Lee - $100 million, 6 years Astros, signed in 2006 Age when contract will be complete: 36 World Series' won by Astros since signing: 0
Miguel Cabrera - $153.3 million, 8 years Tigers, signed in 2008 Age when contract will be complete: 32 World Series' won by Tigers since signing: 0
Total - $2.22 billion, 124 years Combined World Series' won: 3
The moral of the story is that paying players big money does not even come close to guaranteeing a World Series appearance or win, but teams still hand it out because if they do not some other team will. If a team does decide to do it, they should make sure it is a bona fide superstar (Rodriguez, Pujols), that the player is not already old at the time of signing (Brown) and that the player has not shown even the slightest sign of decline (Zito).
There are some clear winners (Pujols, Ramirez) and losers (Zito, Hampton, Brown, Giambi) in this group, and some that the jury is still out on (Cabrera, Santana, Soriano). Others, like Rodriguez and Jeter, have played well but their teams have nothing to show for it.
The way things are working now, if a team does not want to pay somebody's huge contract demands, that player can always find a more willing team waiting with open arms and an open wallet. What I want to see this offseason is for every team to refuse to hand out huge contracts and force superstars to futilely hold out for the big money. How awesome would it be to see Mark Teixeira or Francisco Rodriguez starting the 2009 season with the Long Island Ducks or Atlantic City Surf?
Posts
