Katrina from Belarus mounts the balance beam.  Al Trautwig regales us with tales of her upbringing that includes years of training...in Los Angeles.  And so goes another OlympiAD.  Sure the Olympic ideal still exists in those nations that send an Olympic team where if you blink during the opening ceremonies, you'll miss that country's contingent.  "Here is the Palestine squad - complete with a marathon runner and an archer.  Oh and Suriname has just entered the stadium.  He'll be doing the speedwalking."

For the rest of the world, the Olympic ideal is to find out which nation is currently prodcing the best undetectable drugs.  Then they all can send their next batch of athletes to train in that nation, and ultimately compete on behalf of the motherland (which they likely haven't seen in two years).

Alternatively, one could be raised, schooled, and employed in the United States, and also employed in another country, and then play for said other country.  Did you get all that?  Perhaps Becky Hammon can explain it better.  Becky plays in the WNBA, which pays okay, but it's meager compared to the 4 years/$2 million she will receive from Russian professional club  CSKA.  It has been hinted that the contract value is correlated to her participation in the Olympics as a Russian. 

What's the problem?  As has been determined, people train in the USA, use our resources, and then play for another country.  Alternatively, US Soccer has used liberal ancestral rules to gain access to players.  All you need is one grandparent born in a country to claim an Olympic claim.  The Greek softball team was full of Americans.  So why does this one matter?

Becky Hammon has no such ties.  Her dual citizenship was fast-tracked after signing her contract.  She doesn't even speak the language.  She is doing what's best for her, and that's fine.  The hammer and sickle has long since fallen, and doing alright by yourself is now legal in Russia.  But one can't help but wonder how appropriate it is for her to leverage her Olympic availability into a lucrative deal.  The question for the IJWMFTT community is: Does the Olympic ideal still exist, or did it die with the Dream Team?  Then again, Larry Bird could have rested his back.  And Magic had his own set of circumstances.  So even in the Dream Team era, people have put country first.

  

 

It was Wednesday June 4th in Rockville, Maryland.  The sky had turned all shades of the rainbow that afternoon.  A storm was coming.  At 5 pm, the sky in Rockville was red.  That is to say, it was announced that Red Zebra had purchased DC's Sportstalk 980 from Clear Channel Communications.  Sure the sky literally turned charcoal (I've seen some crazy rainbows man) and dumped rain on the area for a few hours, but the real storm that day had already occurred. 

Radio stations are bought and sold everyday in this nation.  What's the big deal?  Well, Sportstalk 980 joins Six Flags, Johnny Rockets restaurants, the Redskins, and even Tom Cruise as part of the Daniel Snyder entertainment conglamerate that has no real direction other than for one guy to say "Yeah I got one of those."  The problem is - when it comes to sports radio, Daniel Snyder already had one of those.

Snyder's Red Zebra already owned AM730 (and other stations to form Triple X ESPN radio) which functions as the official station of the Redskins.  Sportstalk 980 was free to cover the team in an objective manner.  In the case of 980, the team did not own the medium through which it was being covered.  If the station wanted to examine the wag the dog approach that the Redksins (namely Clinton Portis) had taken in Gibbs 2.0, it was free to explore that realm.  If an unlikely playoff run were to occur after the death of a teammate, they were also free to explore the canonization path that the official station endorses.

The Redskins have effectively purchased public opinion.  Their relationship with The Washington Post is all but dead after some unflattering coverage of Snyder by the paper.  Sure the paper covers the team, but one need look no further than the buyout granted to Tony Kornheiser, critic Steven Hunter, et al, to understand where that business is headed.  The court of public opinion is on the airwaves and on this bandwidth.  I can only hope that my blog colors can remain orange and #### opposed to burgundy and gold, because the airwaves will now be cluttered with renditions of "Hail to the Redskins."  There aren't enough stations in the world that can tell me that Jim Zorn can lead this team to glory.  Nor are there enough stations that can convice me that Vinnie Ceratto is a top notch GM. 

One thing is for certain, within a month, there certainly won't be enough stations that are going to be able to tell you otherwise.

Please tell me I heard this wrong, and hopefully I didn't, for if I did, typing it is a waste of time.  Karl Ravech posed this question to Buck Showalter:  Who's line-up is affected more?  A-Rod out of the Yankkes line-up, or Papi from the Red Sox?  Now, this is a valid question.  There are 180 broadcast days for BBTN.  There have to be talking points for a Monday night in June.  The problem is, it's one of those questions that has a right answer, and methinks Mr Showalter is carrying a grudge from his managerial days.

Buck Showalter said the Red Sox will miss Papi more than the Yankees did/would miss A-Rod.  If anyone saw the broadcast, and would like to tell me it was the allergy medicine kicking in, please do so, and Mr Showalter will receive an official IJWMFTT apology (Which btw, apologies to Colin Cowherd for lighting up that nutjob who called Manny Ramirez "almost" a HOFer.  I grill the guy too much not to point out when he's actually right on the mark).

Anyway, let's take a look at some things.  For their careers, a team of nine David Ortizes would score 7.8 runs per game.  A team of nine Alex Rodriguezes would score 8.3 runs per game.  So they both round to 8 runs per game.  Since the question is relevant to this year, A-Rod holds a 7.6 to 5.5 edge.  Factor in the glove, and there's no doubt that A-Rod is a better player than Ortiz.

To be fair, the question has to do with each player relative to his line-up.  So let's look at the replacements for each, and tally the drop-off.  A line-up of nine Wilson Betemits would score 3.7 runs per game in 2008 (5.0 for his career).  Couple this drop-off with the best htting catcher on the DL, and it's a recipe for disaster. 

The Red Sox have a lot of options.  From a simplistic standpoint, Sean Casey is the next man up.  This season, nine Sean Caseys would produce 6.8 runs per game (5.9 career).  Both are better than Betemit's contribution, and (small sample size alert) right now would represent an upgrade in the Red Sox line-up (Save it people.  I wrote small sample size.  I am not advocating that I would take 600 ABs of Casey over 600 ABs of Ortiz).

Let us also not forget that the Sox have the option of improving the outfield by putting Ellsbury and Crisp in the outfiled, thus allowing Manny to take the DH slot.  While David Ortiz is possibly the greatest pure DH of all time (Harold Baines and Edgar Martinez may have a say), losing one still leaves you with options, whereas losing the AL MVP who plays the hot corner while your catcher is already hurt, probably gives you some kind of record like 28-30 on the year. [Checks standings].  36>28 right?

 

Seeing as this is a FOX blog, I think it's only right to be fair and balanced. As one of the accused (and proudly guilty as charged) stat-geeks on the blogosphere, I must call into question an overused and frankly miscalculated statistic. OPS was the spawn of the "Moneyball stats" used by the Oakland A's before on-base percentage finally became an acceptable everyday stat. When used by the A's, it was new, and admittedly crude.

Taking on-base percentage and simply adding a player's slugging percentage met the A's needs in 2002, when other GMs weren't necessarily on the OBP and SLG trains. OPS has become so matter of factly dropped in conversation by most people involved in baseball, that it has become batting average 2.0. The problem? Batting average is flawed. Not every out made by a player is counted. It has taken a hundred years to get the underutilized EqA (Equivalent average that factors all plate appearances and outs, and translates well to traditional BA) available to the masses - well at least to the masses wishing to visit baseballreference.com, or baseball prospectus.com. Let's not take another one hundred years to get OPS correct.

OPS is calculated by adding OBP and SLG. OBP is simply "times reaching base/plate appearances." Like most baseball stats, it is a percentage expressed in terms of thousandths. Slugging percentage is simply "total bases/at bats." Unlike most baseball stats, SLG is actually measured in terms of four-thousandths. That is to say, the perfect SLG is 4.000 (10 ABs of all HR=40/10=4.0).

So what's the problem? My issue is a bit dorky, and I always thought that someone had been reporting on this. That said, nobody seems to be pointing out the mathematical inaccuracy of the calculation. The implication of the calculation is 300/1000+450/4000 somehow = 750/????. Playing with the variables a little, 350/1000+400/4000 somehow also = 750/???. You can only add fractions with common denominators. When this adjustment is made, it properly provides more weight to OBP.

With this in mind, I will post the top twenty in TrueOPS. Let me know what you think. Do you find OPS useful or overrated?

1. Chipper .668
2. Berkman .660
3. Pujols .641
4. Ludwick .584
5. Bradley .575
6. Burrell .565
7. Bay .554
8. Utley .554
9. Uggla .553
10. Quentin .549
11. Aramis .549
12. Dunn .548
13. McClouth .546
14. Rowand .546
15. Holliday .543
16. Cust .543
17. ConorJackson .537
18. Ad Gonzalez .533
19. Giambi .532
20. Soto .532

Here are the rankings using the standard calculation.  They range from 1.228 to .940

 

1. Berkman  2. Chipper  3. Pujols  4. Ludwick  5. Uggla  6. Utley  7. Burrell  8. Bradley 9. McClouth  10. Quentin  11. Bay  12. Dunn  13. Hamilton  14.McCann  15.Rowand 16.Holliday  17. Soto  18. Ad Gonzalez  19. Giambi  20. Aramis

 

Much has been made over the use of instant replay in baseball.  Just prior to press time, another call has been blown that has affected scoring.  Needless to say, the Orioles and Yankees are deadlocked prior to the bottom of the ninth.  Of course, had the home plate umpire employed baseic logic, Hideki Matsui's line out to Kevin Millar would have ended the game.  Ramon Hernandez hit a two out single to right field.  Bobby Abreu made his usual good throw.  Jose Molina placed his glove on the middle of home plate as Kevin Millar slid home.  The call?  Out!  A bit of logic would dictate that Millar would have had to slide through the first half of the plate prior to touching Molina's glove.  Alas, it was not to be.

The replay discussion has involved home runs.  Frankly it's not a bad idea.  The official call can be posted on the outfield scoreboard.  In the midst of baseball puritanism, scoreboard watching - replay style could become a new tradition.  But there is a more pragmatic reason.

Let's face it, the concrete doughnut is a thing of the past, and that's a good thing.  A ballpark is now an anchor for urban renewal.  It isn't just a place where games are played.  It's a feat of architecture as well - with poles in play, hills that require sherpas, left field toy factories in play, catwalks, and regular old yellow foul poles that don't line up with the fould line.  Frankly, it's hard to call home run versus in play.  There should be no shame in getting by with a little help from your friends.

Back to my introductory rant, should replay be employed for all scoring plays?  Opponents would say no, since once you're in, where would you stop?  Couldn't a blown out/safe call be construed as a potential run thwarted?  Then what about balls and strikes?  It's a valid argument.  All I could say for reassurance is that baseball would look at out/safe and ball/strike as win some/lose some. But a blown homer call is a sure thing, so only that would be reviewed.  Could you get Emperor Bud to put such a thing in writing?  I'm sure you could, and in car salesman fashion, he'd be sure to put it in 3 point font!

While we're at it, let's ponder some other rule changes in baseball.  See if you like these:

• Tough luck or too tough on offenses?  The Padres just lost a sure run when a gapper bounded into the stands.  The runner on first was going on contact with two outs, but was sent back to third.  Should a runner be allowed home plate on a two out ground rule double?
• Should there be a minimum performance standard for pitchers, or are LOOGYs a necessary evil?  Eight pitches?  Two batters?  What do you think?
• Should it matter when the rain delay occurs (as it relates to suspending a game)?  Why shouldn't four innings played count toward the tally?
• One "time out" for each dueler per at bat.

 

 

It's no secret, I'm a huge fan of FJM.  On FJM, the writers highlight sports journalism (on-screen, on-line, and in print) gone awry.  Joe Morgan, the baseball HOF second baseman, is the poster boy because he is the analyst on the lead broadcast of the leading sports network - and he seemingly has done no homework on the game since 1994.

Never is this lack of research more apparent when Joe is asked to take part in an online chat.  Joe's analysis always ends with a "lack of consistency" to explain a hitter's regression from the previous year.  Joe, always consistent, is able to explain away every team's slow start - there just aren't "any great teams anymore."  The impact of that phrase is two fold.  One is the face value.  The other is the implication that there were once great teams, presumably the ones he was playing on or happened to lose to during his career.

I read this phrase enough to finally examine Mr Morgan's theory.  Is directly answering someone's question not worth your time because there simply aren't any great teams playing nowadays?  It's time to put Joe to the test.

Heading into this week of play, the Boston Red Sox were playing at a .596 clip.  They are considered the great team of today, but if no teams are actually great today, then one must presume that .600 is the threshold.  After all, .700 has only been achieved twice since Joe Morgan was involved in Major League baseball.  Those times?  The 1998 Yankees and the 2001 Mariners - well after Morgan's playing career ended.  So, in some sense, end of article.

Anyway, let's look at this .600 threshold.  Twenty-four teams did it in the 1970s.  Fifteen did it in the 1980s.  Including this season, seventeen have done since 2000 - with a year and a half to get it to twenty.  The point?  There is no correlation between decade and winning percentage.  It is akin to calling someone clutch.  A person could bat .500 with 2 out/RISP in season A,and spend seasons B-D hitting .200.  But the clutch label is hard to shake (to the benefit of Mr Jeter and to the chagrin of Mr Rodriguez).

Now, let's look at the 2008 Red Sox versus the 1978 Red Sox - who needed a 163rd game to be eliminated from the playoffs.  The 1978 Red Sox had a winning percentage of .607 and finished second in the AL East with a record of 99-64.  Applying the .596 win percentage at the beginning of this week, the 2008 Red Sox would finish in first place with 96 wins.  Their ExWL is 95-67 if you want to use that instead. 

So what's the difference in greatness?  Three wins.  Are today's teams simply three wins worse than teams of the 1970s?  Or could something actually be in play here?  I'm willing to bet that realignment and interleague play are factors - both of which have created the unbalanced schedule.

The 1978 Red Sox played fifteen games against the Detroit Tigers and ten games against the Seattle Mariners.  This season, the Sox play seven games against the Tigers and nine against the Mariners.  Teams play between six and nine games against intraleague non-division teams.  I picked the Mariners because they were bad then and they are bad now.  The Tigers were mediocre then and pretty bad right now.  If the Red Sox were to have those nine games back (instead of three game sets against the Phillies, Cardinals, and Diamondbacks), it could be reasoned that the Sox would post a 6-3 record in those games, but would wind up around the .500 mark against that NL competition.  The Red Sox have also added three games against the Yankees between 1978 and 2008.  If those three games were given to the Royals (from ten games to seven between 1978 and 2008), the Sox would be more likely to post a 2-1 record in those games.  Those scenarios give you the three wins Boston needs to be great in Joe Morgan's eyes.

Now, shouldn't greatness be measured by run differential, ERA+, OPS+, or anything that transcends eras?  How are two wins three decades apart the barometer of great when expansion, interleague play, three divisions, etc all have an affect?    

 

 

Three things are certain - death, taxes, and Jim Leyland blowing up after a slow start. Some may think the act would get old. Some may also be wrong. In the twenty games the Tigers have played after the first two Jim Leyland blow ups, the Tigers are 28-12 winning by an average of 4.7 runs per game.

They are 1-0 after Leyland's third blow up of his tenure in Detroit. The problem this year is the plethora of teams the Tigers must hurdle to gain one of the top four spots in the American League. The Rays no longer represent six or seven sure wins. The Roylas have slightly improved. Even the Orioles aren't easy outs this year.

That said, Jim Leyland doesn't have two World Series appearances and numerous playoff appearances because he's a dummy. Leyland recognized that 2008 is a longshot. Naturally, he blew up over the fact that the Motor City Kitties have no wins in 2009. "You think I like smoking eight packs of cigarettes a day stressing over this winless ball club? Do you think I down a bottle of Jim Beam each day because I enjoy it? Don't answer that!"

ESPN's Joe Morgan criticized the timing of the rant. "I don't see the need. They still have Gary Sheffield. They just need more consistency." Respected Detroit writer, Mitch Albom noted, "This should have been done ten games into the season instead of forty. All these impending wins could have helped for this season, instead of getting the Tigers off to a 71 game lead on the 2009 season."

When approached with the various criticism, Leyland responded, "Do you think I eat a pound of chewing tobacco each day because it tastes good?" Dontrelle Willis, with television cameras off, took reporters aside and said, "This #### was cute when McKeon was doing it. This guy is plain nuts. I have my agent looking into my contract to find a retroactive no trade clause."

More details on the 2009 Tigers as they become known.

*satire

So a graphic on SportsCenter read, "Seattle Mariners: Scouting Ken Griffey Jr."  I can only imagine that the report read like this:

Pros:  He's Ken Griffey Jr.  We probably heard of him.  He played for us.

Cons: How can we look like geniuses if we replace Jose Vidro as our DH?

....

So my predictions are all over the place, but the outlandish ones still have a chance with recent developments.  Here are the IJWMFTT quarter pole (dis)honors:

Biggest Surprise: Arizona.  Last year seemed fluky, and Haren has been more than an offset for a bad offense.  The bad offense is no more.  They have had the fourth easiest schedule thus far, so a regression to mediocrity is still feasible.

Biggest Disappointment: Atlanta.  They are five games below their ExWL against the easiest schedule in baseball.  They should be where the Marlins are right now.  Oh yeah, there's that Tigers team, but explaining that is a two foot putt.  Playing first and short is the same Mr Morgan? 

Poised for a run: Cleveland.  Nine games coming up against sub .500 competition.

Best Managing Job: Dave Trembley, Baltimore Orioles.  Is this the man who got Daniel Cabrerra to turn the corner?

NL MVP Semi-Finalists: Lance Berkman, Albert Pujols, Chase Utley, Hanley Ramirez, Derek Lee, Pat Burrell

AL MVP Semi-Finalists: Kevin Youkilis, Grady Sizemore, Tori Hunter, Manny Ramirez, Eric Hinske, Brian Roberts

NL Cy Young Semi-Finalists: Brandon Webb and Carlos Zambrano

AL Cy Young Semi-Finalists: Shaun Marcum, CM Wang, Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay

NL ROY: Joey Votto, Jair Jurgens, Fukudome

AL ROY: Jacoby Ellsbury, Evan Longoria, James Johnson, Joey Devine

Far be it for me to take anything said by JT the Brick too seriously, but in his medium, he is probably in the top twenty in terms of recognizability.  Also, to be fair, he isn't the only one guilty of this infraction.  The infraction?  Tiger isn't quite in Jack's (Nickalus') league because Jack played against stiffer competition (I'm sure there's a stiff joke to be made regarding Ms Nordgren, but I can't formulate it).

There are several things wrong with this argument.  First, as any golfer knows, the course is the competition.  As equipment improves, the course can be changed to accomodate it.  In this sense, the concept of par is the great equalizer amongst eras.  Five hundred home runs is no longer five hundred home runs.  Forty touchdown passes are no longer forty touchdown passes.  But par 72 is still par 72.

The leader in adjusted scoring average for the year receives the Harry Vardon Trophy (for 60 rounds plus) and/or the Byron Nelson Trophy (for 50 rounds plus).  Over the past ten years, Tiger Woods has won seven Vardons and eight Nelsons.  The Nelson Trophy began in 1980, so Nicklaus' peak years only applied to the Vardon \.  Nicklaus has no Vardon Trophies, with Lee Trevino and Tom Watson taking the honors in the seventies, and Arnold Palmer in the sixties.

So perhaps this does help the case that the competition was better.  But wait!  What about all the golfers who didn't win the Vardon Trophy this decade?  What were they scoring?  In 2007, thirty three golfers matched or exceeded the best adjusted scoring average posted in the 1970s.  In other words, Tom Watson would have finished in 34th place in the Vardon standings.

Let's look at the majors.  Some cite the number of majors Tiger has won relative to the number won by his counterparts.  That ratio is supposedly off kilter in comparison to the 1970s when Nickalus and Player were dominant.  In the 1970s, twenty golfers won major championships.  Of those twenty, eight won three or more in their careers.  Those twenty golfers hailed from five nations.

In the naughts, nineteen golfers have won majors.  Four have won three or more in their careers.  Those nineteen hail from seven nations.  Remember, we still have seven more majors to get those two unique winners needed to eclipse the total from the 1970s.  Also, the three or more threshold included golfers who went on to win their other majors in the 1980s, or won their final major in the 1970s.  So there is still time for guys like Zach Johnson, Trevor Immelman, or Padraig Harrington to win a couple more majors.

As far as past eras of golf, if it were a business, it would be an oligopoly.  An oligopoly is similar to what Rockefeller, Morgan, and Vanderbilt had during the Industrial Revolution.  Nobody had all, but a few had most.  Sure the 1970s had Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Watson, and an aging Palmer.  The current field has thirty of those guys.  But nothing happening now can be good, can it?  I mean, we wouldn't want to admit that A-Rod is good at baseball, or that Manning is better than Unitas, would we?  For if we did, we'd lose half our sports arguemnts available to us on a slownews day.

So Jon Heyman likes Arizona more than he did in 2007.  He cited their record in one run games as a reason.  Here at IJWMFTT, we believe that playing too many one run games from year to year means that just as many eeked out wins in year A can turn into aw shucks losses in year B.  Needless to say, we don't have the D-backs winning the pennant. 

Below, I have ranked the teams 1-30.  I graded them on their pitching, offense, and defense using PRAR, BRAR, and FRAR (_runs above replacement).  I then factored in age of their core players and the net of player movement.  Remember, replacement doesn't mean average.  I'll use both terms in my synopsis, but not interchangeably.

Rank. Team (2007 Grade Pitching, Batting, Fielding, Score): Likely Finish

1. Boston Red Sox (A, A, A, 199): 101-61

Hard to believe that these apparent ball slugging clodhoppers grade out to an A on defense.  They are solid where it counts, and for all the flack Manny gets, he plays a pretty mean monster.  You can't expect the big two to hit like this forever, but Pedroia and Ellsbury should ramp up to take on any slack. Ranking change from 2007: -

2. Detroit Tigers (D, A, A, 65): 94-68

The pitching grade improves with a healthy bullpen (as Jim Leyland crosses his fingers) and the addition of Dontrelle Willis.  Willis is not the answer he's made out to be, but in a market where Kyle Lohse was a good signing, Willis is a notch below Santana and Garland.  Miguel Cabrera adds five wins to this team as well.  Change from 07: +5

3. New York Mets (C, A, B, 83): 92-70

The addition of Santana, more than twelve starts from Pedro, and some progress from Pelfrey give this team the edge in the East.  Oh, and the real NL MVP plays third base on this team.  Change from 07: +1

4. Colorado Rockies (C, B, A, 92): 91-71

This team has no glaring weakness.  Unlike last year's miracle run that made them the third best team in baseball, this year's version will be a relatively #### hum 90 win squad.  Change from 07: -1

5. Cleveland Indians (A, C, C, 73): 89-73

Spahn and Sain and pray for rain.  Oh wait, that was 60 years ago.  CC and Carmona and pray for a monsoona.  Actually, I don't know who the real Fausto is.  And for as much grief as someone on I-71 southbound gets for striking out, I think Travis Haffner has the highest strikeouts to pounds ratio.  This team is good, but not as good as the Tigers.  Position change: +2

6. Philadelphia Phillies (D, A, B, 82): 90-72

This team can mash.  Shane Victorino will make everyone forget about Aaron Rowand.  Burning questions: If the Blue Jays are out of it, and Rolen is healthy, does he supplant Pedro Feliz?  Is Brad Lidge still a premier closer?  Position change: -1

7. New York Yankees (D, A, B, 143): 89-73

The only thing added to this staff was a year to everyone's age.  Joba will be phased in, and loyal readers know that IJWMFTT likes the idea.  It's funny to me that A-rod is better at his unnatural position than captain deuce is at his natural position.  Doesn't matter though.  A-rod will shoulder the blame for a non-playoff season. Position change: -5

8. Chicago Cubs (B, D, A, 49): 89-73

As Uncle Owen said of Ben Kenobi, that's not just some crazy old man.  I am, of course, referring to Lou Piniella.  The addition of Fukudome, and a return to normal for some key players will improve the offensive grade.  Giving Kerry Wood the closers role make s him pith fewer innings, and truly gives this team a bullpen ace, as opposed to a mere closer.  Position change: +2

9. San Diego Padres (B, B, B, 59): 88-74

There were two teams in the NL with no glaring weakness.  Unfortunately, they both played in game 163.  The problem with the Padres is that beyond Jake Peavy, nothing really stands out as a strength. Position change: -1

10. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (A, C, D, 54): 88-74

With an aging core, Willits and Kotchman need to become stars.  Tori Hunter is expected to sure up the defensive ineptitude by at least getting them to average.  He won't.  At the wrong side of peak, that sure was a curious contract.  This team has a lot of pitching and plays in the worst division, so a win total is hard to pin down.  They'll be in the playoffs, but they are the AL's fifth best team. Position change: -1

11. Atlanta Braves (D, B, B, 49): 86-76

You read it right.  The Braves pitching did not grade well.  Jeff Francoeur is an outmaker.  Andruw is gone.  Chipper is aging.  How are they here at eleventh?  I guess the other teams don't make a strong case to move ahead.  Hudson, Glavine, Smoltz, Teixiera, McCann - There are still some good names here. Position change: -

12. Toronto Blue Jays (B, D, A, 31): 84-78

Pitching and defense always stand a chance in baseball circles.  On the diamond, this team has to play 38 games against the Yankees and Red Sox.  They're good.  They probably make the playoffs in several other divisions (AL West, NL Central, and maybe NL West). Position change: -

13. Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles (A, D, D, 23): 84-78

Names and names with age are a surplus here.  They aren't losers, but it will be frustrating to say "I remember when that guy was hitting forty taters a year." Position change: +1

14. Milwaukee Brewers (A, B, F, 28): 84-78

The Brewers will win the World Series if every batter they face is a lefty with fly ball tendencies.  Corey Hart in right field was the only player who performed above average with the glove.  These guys can mash, and you have to assume a full year of Ben Sheets.  Not enough though.  Position change: -1

15. Arizona Diamondbacks (A, F, B, 1): 82-80

Arizona won last year because of two things: Bob Melvin managed, or better yet, failed to overmanage the bullpen.  And the team won close games by not making "invisible" outs like caught stealing GIDP, bunting, etc.  If they can't get on base, or eat up bases when they do get on base, Dan Haren will only serve as the person that keeps this squad from falling all the way back to Earth.  Position change: -

16. Oakland A's (C, C, D, 1) 80-82

The A's are the poor man's San Diego.  They don't fail at anything, but they certainly don't have any strengths at this point.  The A's suffered mnay key injuries, and this was one team with no margin for error in that department.  This team will be respectable, but on the wrong side of mediocrity. Position change: -

17. Seattle Mariners (C, B, F, -28) 79-83

Save for Ichiro, the team is big and slow, which yields runs.  Actually, Ichiro is merely an average centerfielder (arm induced) yielding a total of seven fewer runs than average over the past two seasons.  For every bit of happiness about Bedard, there should be caution.  He has never thrown 200 innings in a season.  Give me the name of an ace who has not been asked to go 200 innings.  Also, you live by the pen, you die by the pen.  Intuitively, you understand that relievers are not as good as starters.  If the M's think they will get the same pen production, they are taking a gamble.  That is why IJWMFTT is not as big on the Mariners as others are.  Position change: +1

18. Cincinnati Reds (C, C, F, -49) 77-85

This team scares me because of Dusty Baker.  Dusty has managed two playoff teams, but it seems like he gets out maneuvered in the post-season.  That won't be a concern in Cincy.  What is a concern is taking a guy like Joey Votto and trying to turn him into a free swinger.  If an old schooler like Dusty is so in love with free swinging, he should look at Adam Dunn.  Dunn has a place, and that place is hitting three run jacks with guys like Votto setting the table.  With Baker at the healm, I'm not so sure. Position change: +2

19. San Francisco Giants (B, F, C, -35) 77-85

You see that right.  A team with Barry Bonds graded to an F offensively.  Let's see: First baseman is Rich Aurilia?  Check!  Shortstop is the last respected defensive only SS since Tony Fernandez?  Check!  Center fielder played for the Rays in their fluorescent green days? Check mate!  Pitching keeps this team afloat.  Position change: -

20. Houston Astros (C, D, D, -58) 75-87

At this point in time, Luke Scott may be the offensive equivalent of Miguel Tejada.  This team has been so obsessed with getting a shortstop.  Well, they got one.  Too bad he's on the wrong side of prime.  Position Change: +1

21. St. Louis (D, C, D, -78) 74-88

Did this team really win the 2006 World Series?  Position change: +1

22. Minnesota Twins (B, F, C, -14) 73-89

I'm willing to listen to theories as to why this team will not continue its precipitous decline.  I have none to offer.  Remember, that B in the pitching column includes Johan.  And that C includes Tori (a####e as it is).  Position change: -5

23. Florida Marlins (D, A, F, -61) 70-92

That's how bad the rest of MLB is.  The team with nothing loses Cabrera and Willis, and still isn't the worst.  This team can't field, especially in the cavernous left field in Miami.  Hanley, Emezega, and Uggla still give some hope.  Not much.  But some.  Position change: -1

24. Texas (F, C, C, -84) 70-92

The offense doesn't grade out as well as it did in the past, and that includes a 30 run barrage to make up for any shortcomings.  I don't think a team has ever regressed to their ExWL in one game the way the Orioles did that day (Their pythag was 6 games better than actual before that dreadful game).  Beyond that, there wasn't much to the Rangers season.  Another season, another slugger lost with Teixeira being moved to the Braves at the deadline.  Are Blaylock and Young next? Position change: +1

25. Baltimore (F, D, C, -95) 70-92 

There has been a major misnomer about this team and its owner.  People hate Peter Angelos for the wrong reasons.  He has kept the payroll in the top half of all major league clubs, and that includes the fact that the Nationals have eroded 30 percent of his market.  No, the problem has been poor baseball decisions.  Oh what a guy like Billy Beane could do with Angelos' money.  Well we may be seeing that with Andy MacPhail wheeling and dealing.  If by the grace of God, he is able to pry Felix Pie from the Cubs in the Brian Roberts deal, the Orioles may be set up to not allow a fly ball base hit all season.  Melvin Mora could be moved at the deadline.  Do the Orioles have young arms, or bad arms?  Position change: -

26. Washington (F, D, A, -96) 69-93

Jim Bowden likes projects.  Jose Guillen, Dimitri Young, Lastings Milledge (bad wrap in my opinion), and Elijah Dukes (deserved rap) are on Bowden's lifetime reclamation list.  Will Dimitri play now that he's getting paid?  Can Nick Johnson stay healthy?  Can John Patterson stay healthy?  Will Bowden do with Chad Cordero what he failed to do with Alfonso Soriano?  And of course, will the Nationals or their opponents benefit from the new ballpark?  Position change: -

27. Kansas City (C, F, C, -120) 69-93

One would likely place the tag of "young ballclub" on the Royals.  After all, that's how cash strapped clubs field a squad.  Take a bunch of non-arbitraion-eligible players and hope for the best until year six.  For the 2007 edition of the club, they took their younger talent and paired them with third tier free agents.  As for the young talent?  It's not that young anymore.  It appears that Angel Berroa peaked in his rookie season.  John Buck is average.  Emil Brown is outta here.  Position change: +1

28. Tampa (F, B, F , -142) 68-94

When you hear young and fast, you rarely think worst defense in the majors.  The not so devil Rays were the worst defense.  The bullpen was awful as always.  Carlos Pena, Johnny Gomes, and BJ Upton provide a surprising amount of pop.  Every year, we hear this is the year that Tampa climbs out of the cellar.  I'll believe it when I see it.  Position change: +2

29. Pittsburgh (C, D, F, -114) 67-95

Young talent.  How much of it will be in a Cubs or Mets uniform on August 1st?  Position change: -

30. White Sox (B, F, F, -121) 65-97

I am reminded of the 2001 Baltimore Ravens.  The team felt that they could not repeat with the roster they had, so they brought in a new quarterback.  The team made the playoffs, but did not repeat.  Many felt that the Ravens should have stood pat, and rolled with Dilfer.  The White Sox would be those people.  After winning the 2005 World Series, they stood pat and got a little worse.  We were told that 2006 was an anomoly, and that Ozzie Guillen would outcrazy the league the way he did in 2005.  Again, the team got worse.  Again, the White Sox are in denial.  It doesn't matter that your centerfielder is a certified outmaker, your right fielder just got extended after his last prime year, or that you finally realized how bad your shortstop is - your going to keep giving outs away, and hope that dirtying your uniform or getting tossed from games gives you the extra 100 runs your offense needed...to be average. Position change: -3