Just some random MLB musings while we await my next big blog project.
*Nick Markakis is becoming the football Deion Sanders of baseball. "Huh!?!" I mean that in a good way. "No seriously BT1, huh?!?" It's time that teams stopped running on Nick Markakis the way teams just stopped throwing in the direction of Deion Sanders. Then again, I'd pay good money to see Nick drop a Gatorade (oops, G lightning bolt) bucket on Tim McCarver.
*MLB needs to consider allowing teams to trade draft picks, or at the very least, draft rights. It has become apparent that the Washington Nationals do not feel as if signability is a component of drafting. If they did, they would actually sign a draft pick. If the Nats won't pay, at leasst let them trade out of the spot to where they will pay. The Nats wound up with two top tens this season because they failed to sign Aaron Crow last season. If it happens again, they will have the top two picks in 2010. This can't go on forever.
*People say that the Phillies need Roy Halladay if they want to win the World Series. I was unaware that he was on last season's roster. Now that Pedro is on the Clemens plan (the playing half the season part, not the absess on the butt part), that could be enough without having to sacrifice a potential dynasty.
*The Cardinals could use another body, or a four game series against the Nationals. One of those scenarios is not happening. Plus, if Halladay and Holliday were on the saem team, my brother in law could finally stop getting confused as to who went where. They're all in St Louis, mmkay!
*Erik Bedard is on the DL. At this point, as an Oriole fan, I feel one of those gate clerks from the old A&E show "Airline." I know they know the rules, but I want to provide superior service to brighten their day. Perhaps if we just refunded George Sherill, it would make them feel less angry. Chris Tillman starts Wednesday. M's fans set your MLB Extra Innings package to the O's/Royals game.
*Anyone else get the feeling that the AL Central teams have banded together to say, "Let's make ourselves as least interesting as possible"? And one of the teams is managed by Ozzie Guillen!
If you are interested in the genesis of this entry, please see amarant00's "Bud Selig, Update The Record Books."
If you read my entry defending the modern ballplayer, you may be surprised to read this one. That said, the point was to say that baseball is essentially a timeless game with good players, bad players, and characters in any era. Rather than leave the typical Internet comment, I decided to expand my thoughts into an entry of my own. Quotes from the amarant's entry are italicized.
Major League Baseball should update their record books to make the game more modern.
Most baseball squawkers delineate in their mind between the modern era, and the era where the National League was Major League Baseball. Even so, there just aren't many career record holders who played in the pre-modern era. There are many single-season pitching records that pre-date the modern era. Even if you look at the all-time list for innings pitched, it is littered with modern era players. This is likely due to burnout from 500 inning seasons that were thrown in the older era.
Even so, the single season record holders are simply beneficiaries of the baseball culture in which they played. They are not the result of a sport that would appear foreign to you or I. The notable change in the rules would be walks. The modern era player benefits in this regard, since they no longer need to wait for ball five.
Babe Ruth is such a historical figure in baseball, but I venture out on a limb and say that he would be irrelevant in today's game
Oddly enough, if you look at a list of most walks thrown in a season, it is littered with 1890s pitchers. Why is that relevant point? Up until the era of Ruth (and including the Boston years), there was the dead ball era. This made pitches wild, and power non-existant. In 1918, the single season record holder for home runs was Ned Williamson with 27. In 1919, Ruth broke that record. The following year, he doubled the Williamson mark. The current mark is 73.
If the current player is 30% better (as you suggested - see below), how come the single season mark for home runs isn't 30% higher over an eighty year period? As far as relevance, I look at OPS+. The top ten single-season leaders in OPS+ are Bonds, Ruth, and Ted Williams. Each played in a different time. Each were great. Some people reach a level of great that transcends their era. Ruth would be one of those folks.
I seen a poll on [the four letter] that asked who was the better player, Manny Ramirez or Mickey Mantle. I say this, take Manny back to face the pitchers Mantle faced, I say he increases his production by 30%. I say Mantle comes to play in today's game, his production drops at least 10%
Manny Ramirez OPS+: 156
Mickey Mantle OPS+: 172
These numbers are park and era adjusted. Mickey Mantle, despite his personal demons, was good at baseball. Heck, Manny has his own issues. And I want to address the matter of taking player x and putting him in a different time. For instance (re Ruth):
Tell me if you think that man, in his shape, could get around on a fastball in today's game.
Ask Adam Dunn and Prince Fielder. They seem to so okay. In fact, it is odd that people debit the prior era player for being out of shape. With salaries what they were, many players worked other jobs. Spring training was a necessity, not a hoop through which to jump. Also, think about the bus and rail travel. It's much harder than the first class travel of today's athlete. Finally, think about modern medicine. If we're playing what if, perhaps today's doctors fix Mickey Mantle's knees, thus INCREASING his production by at least 10%.
They have video libraries on how to effectively throw certain pitches, or hit the ball better.
I'm not sure how this factors into the higher, faster, stronger argument behind today's athlete. If the record holders span eras, it is a testament that any record is held by an old-timer. The modern player has a scouting advantage.
I think all the stats pre-Jackie Robinson should be irrelevant...Josh Gibson...I heard figures as high as 950 homers, but most agree it was at least 800.
Any disagreement with the first sentence would seem apologetic to the culture of the time. Some have argued that Robinson broke a color barrier that was non-existant (there were apparently minority players prior to Robinson). I won't touch it, other than to say, duely noted.
As far as Gibson is concerned, this evidence is largely anecdotal. Negro League stats are inconsistent. Furthermore, the 800 number is believed to have included homers accumulated in barnstorming tours. This would be like allowing players to include their spring training and minor league stats. This doesn't mean he wasn't great at baseball. It just means that he's the John Hanson of baseball. People invoke his name to appear holier than thou, but usually proves a point that may not be based on fact.
The players today are more finely tuned to specific tasks
This would seem to detract from your argument. Tony Larussa's four hour baseball game may have created inferior pitchers. It all basically means that you can't trust Joe Beimel to get out a right handed hitter, hardly the composition of a superior athlete.
Steroids have nothing to do with the game or its numbers as many would like to call out as the reasoning for the boom in baseball.
Here is a question that noone has answered: If steroids don't work, then why were so many players taking them? Oh by the way, Miguel Cabrera led the AL in home runs last year with 37 - about half the single season mark. Nobody has hit 60 since testing began. It took 37 years to reach 60. It happened six times in four years.
Out of all the years to continually improve skills, the normal average for a good contact hitter is .300. That seems as if it were always gauged as normal. It blows my mind that someone hasn't figured out how to hit .400 yearly or even to reach that mark. To me it doesn't say much still for the players who did it such as Ted Williams as once again, natural progression of the game rules the possibility of him ever doing it facing the level of talent that plays today.
I wanted to wrap up on this quote, because it speaks to 90 feet and 60 feet 6 inches. The rules and culture have been tweaked to help offense. Ball parks since the time of Williams are homer friendly. The mound was changed after Bob Gibson's domination. And the notion that Williams would suffer is a tad foolish. I'm sure he would love to grab a bat against watered down, expansion era, heavily used bullpen pitching.
All of that said, Williams still sports a .344 career average. Today's leader in that category is Albert Pujols at a .334 clip. With all of the help afforded to batters, I don't see any use in updating the record books. The only thing it would accomplish is to demean the accomplishments of Ruth, Williams, Mantle, and Mays.
When IJWMFTT started, it sought to be a critical blog on the sports radio world. As time went by, other media drew my ire. So when I get the chance to return to my roots, I take it.
In an earlier entry, I chronicled the failings of the Washington Nationals franchise. Today, ESPN 980's The Locker Room With Kevin Sheehan unknowingly let us have a glimpse of that failing. At every juncture, this team has overvalued itself.
Interim manager Jim Riggleman was on in an attempt to shed that title. No not how you're thinking. Most want to drop the interim. If Nationals management were lsitening, I would seriously question both parts of the title that were bestowed upon him.
Riggleman was the bench coach, and sat alongside Manny Acta all season. He saw the same games that you, Ray Knight, and Rob Dibble saw. Somehow, Riggleman has drawn this conclusion: "When we put it all together, we usually win by a large margin."
Riggleman and the rest of the Nationals brass overvalue the team's offense. What is really going on is that this team was so woeful in recent years, that mediocrity looks like a daunting line-up. The Nats have some decent offensive players, but they each have glaring holes (which I chronicled as well in the previous post). These holes prevent big wins.
I was in the car when all of this ran through my head. I knew with a modicum of research, I could prove my point that the Nats don't win big very much at all. The reason I knew the research would be easy was because I knew it wasn't much of a chore to gain insight into their twenty-six wins.
In fact, one need only to look at the standings page to get the information necessary to draw a conclusion. This team is on pace to be outscored by 200 runs. Perhaps all the blowouts Riggleman thought he was seeing were being administered by the opponents.
Think about this: if you went 0-162, but lost each game by a run, that's a -162 differential (Right now you're thinking "Thank the Good Grapefruit I came here to learn that.") Of course, 0-162 is all but impossible. There have to be a few wins in there. In order to maintain the -200 with their win percentage, there can't be many wins of great magnitude in the tally.
In fact, of the Nats'twenty-six wins, ten have been by three or more runs. Why three or more? Well, according to this table: www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/so..., teams up three in the ninth win at a 98 percent clip. Putting yourself in a sure thing situation is what I would call winning big.
Now here are the other last place teams:
Padres: 12 wins/37 total = 30%
Pirates: 26/41 = 63%
A's: 24/39 = 62%
Indians: 21/36 = 58%
Orioles: 20/41 = 49%
So the Nationals have a higher percentage of big wins than the Padres; however, the Padres have a worse offense. The two more big wins by the Padres does say something in and of itself.
Just for fun:
Red Sox: 32/55 = 58%
Yankees: 25/55 = 45%
Dodgers: 26/59 = 44%
Why did I go over the winning teams? Well it has a little bit to do with run differential theory. It can be effective because the blowouts can offset. Winning baseball teams have a propensity to consistently win the one and two run games.
Riggleman would have a leg to stand on if his assertion were true. If the Nats had a propensity to win big, their expected W/L would be 10 games better, and we could say that this team is due for a win streak. In other words, their wins would "catch-up" to their level of play. Unfortunately, the team's ExW% of .364 would make this club 59-103. If Jim Riggleman continues to overvalue his offense, and thinks his team will club it's way to respectability, his team will continue to be forty games under .500.
Edit: The team is on pace for 52 wins, so playing to their ExW/L would be an improvement. That said, once you get below 60, aren't you just splitting hairs?
It's pretty much a law - one has to say that the greatest era of Saturday Night Live was the era that was on when they were fifteen. Of course, noone expresses it in those terms. It just shakes out that way. At fifteen, you're still impressionable, but now you "get it." You know who Colonel Angus is, but you're parents find him too dirty for television. Of course, your parents will never admit that The Beatles were always considered hipsters with long hair.
Everything from your time was always white bread, mom, and apple pie. (Oh and by the way, with the existence of wheat, pumpernickle, rye, sourdough, etc, why does white bread get the glory?) Of course, we view our baseball in the same light.
Much to my chagrin, I had to deal with this issue recently. Compounding the frustration was that it was an in-law. It's not a hate thing. It's a "you can't win this road game but you feel like playing anyway" thing. For you see, "most of today's players aren't half as good as the guys I grew up watching."
Is that really a defensible position? Okay, let's say that this was actually a case of hyperbole. And let's rearrange the words to give the benefi of the doubt. Let's say "Half of these players aren't as good as the ones I grew up watching."
Of course, we need apples to apples. The second part of the original quote included players' names. So the players today, according to my adversary, aren't half as good as Brooks Robinson, Mickey Mantle, and Roger Maris. The problem is, neither was Gene Freese.
Who's Gene Freese? Gene Freese played third base for the White Sox in 1966. He wasn't as good as Brooks Robinson. I'm sure that you are surprised to learn that there were more than three dozen players who played during the sixties. I bet you thought that Lou Brock patrolled the entire outfield. Or that Brooks Robinson covered the whole left side, throwing to Boog Powell at second, who then threw to himself at first to complete the double play (This bit of hyperbole is totally unfair since it implies that Davey Johnson was not a damn good second baseman, but it's what I came up with right now. I'm running with it).
All eras had good players, mediocre players, and marginal players. It is unfair to degrade Albert Pujols for playing in this era because Melvin Mora isn't as good Brooks Robinson. Just for fun, some 162 game career averages:
Okay, so you see these splits, and say "What should I see?" The first two are counting stats. They are what they are. In parentheses I have rate stats (Avg, OBP, SLG). These are rates that can be affected by the era. OPS+ takes the OBP and SLG elements, and factors in the era. 100 is average. Offensively, Melvin Mora is slightly better than Brooks Robinson, and easily better than Gene Freese.
Kind of takes the whole "half as good as..." out with the garbage, doesn't it? Quite simply, nobody has made a Hall of Fame case for Melvin Mora, so stop comparing him to HOFers as a way of downing his (or his era's) play. I could do the same analysis for Carlos Beltran, Mookie Wilson, and Willie Mays. Or how about Albert Pujols, Jack Clark, and Keith Hernandez? Players have different assets (or liabilities) that have no knowledge of what year it is, or how old you are at home.
Then there is the money. Maybe this is what is at the heart of the argument. You know, people really don't bat an eye at auto workers' salaries (Or perhaps they do since implicit in the price of a Detroit car is a cost structure not seen with other makers. And we know how well the Detroit cars are doing on the market, don't we?) The odd thing is, both salary structures were collectively bargained. But one labor agreement is more noble than the other I suppose.
Brooks Robinson made $64,000 in 1966. Gene Freese made $22,000. Melvin Mora currently makes $ 8 million. Melvin Mora is past his prime, so maybe that's the Orioles crime. But it evens out since his three msot productive years (2003-2005) came with a total proce tag of $7.8 million. Even adjusting for inflation, the $8 million far outpaces Robinson's $480,000. So if you want to analyze how much the extra 4 points of OPS costs the Orioles, that is valid. Of course, I'm not hearing any of that. This was a qualitative argument that began with the infusion of knee-jerk quantitative analysis. When I see or hear that, I mutter "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times." Then I try to entertain you.
Let's give Bud Selig some credit. Somehow the All-Star Game has become a three day sports talkfest. Day one - the home run derby and celebrity game. Day two - the game. Day three - talk about the home field advantage stipulation.
Longtime readers of IJWMFTT know that the Commissioner is, in my eyes, Emperor Bud. Everything about him and his public persona exudes an "aw shucks" aura. When he has to testify, he finds the worst sport jacket available. It makes him look sympathetic. Of course, for every "aw shucks" moment, he seems to get more power. First it was the elimination of league offices. Then it was the Mitchell report. Then it was the "oh what the heck" extension he got from the owners after he told Dan Patrick on a weekly basis that his time was up.
Bud Selig is smarter than we think. Bud Selig is more successful in his position than we think. The wild card upset purists, but gave more fan bases hope in September. Interleague play upset purists, but gave us a chance to see teams we had not seen before. There has been labor strife, but that's nothing new. What is new is fifteen years and counting without a work stoppage.
Despite all of those debatable points, what draws the most ire (judging by the day after yak), is the home-field advantage stipulation attached to the All-Star Game. As Bud Selig pointed out on the four letter's morning program, "It's not like what we had was rocket science." One league got it one year, and the other league got it the next year.
At IJWMFTT, we question the answers and anticipate the questions. Why not just give it to the team with the best record? Sounds easy enough, but how does one account for the unbalanced schedule. Why not give it to the winner of interleague play? Not bad. Give the superior league and brand of baseball the advantage. There is still that unbalanced schedule issue. Take a team like Tampa, who is on the good side of average. Now take a team like Washington, which is the worst in all MLB. The AL would benefit in that scenario if the schedule fails to shake out a Dodgers/Royals match-up.
Of course, this isn't a perfect solution. But you know who I blame? I blame the fans. I said it. If you demand a result from the All-Star Game, then this is what you get. The fans are hammering Bud Selig for listening to them!
All that said, I wanted to examine just what it is we are playing for on Tuesday and griping about on Wednesday:
The team with home field advantage has won 58% of the World Series.
52% of World Series have gone to the final two games.
Of the 33 deciding game sevens, there were sixteen home wins
Of the 21 deciding game sixes (game eights for the nine gamers), there were eleven home winners.
If you add the latter two together, then it's a toss-up. That means that there is another 8% out there that needs some accounting. Since these series went four or five games, is that a function of home field, or the better team winning? The team with the better record has won 52 of 104 World Series. Again, it's a coin-flip. Perhaps the stars were aligned and the better team won in a year where it was their turn to have home field. Here are some points to remember since the change in 2003:
The AL has won home field each time, and is 3-3 in the World Series.
The AL had the team with the better record five out of six times. In other words, the NL has gone on the road and overcome the better team for their three series wins.
2005 and 2007 would have been NL turns to have home field. Both were AL sweeps, which likely meant that home field didn't matter in those seasons.
I'm sure when game seven is played in the cold, as opposed to a retractable roof, and it factors into the result, we'll hear about it. To date, it hasn't mattered. All it has served is to get us through the worst sports day of the year.
Send Message
Add Friend
Block User
All Star