|
|
|
Friday, February 07, 2003
A little more Randy versus Koufax, some Justice and yet another picture of a beautiful womanI was hesitant to use reader mail for a second straight day and to focus on the Randy Johnson/Sandy Koufax talk for a third straight day (click here for day one and click here for day two), but I got an email from Lee Sinins, the creator of the Sabermetric Encyclopedia and the man behind the wonderful "Around the Majors" newsletter, so I just had to include it:I'd like to respond to what you wrote in your blog about Randy Johnson and Sandy Koufax. I disagree with the idea that just a case could be made that Johnson's past 4 years were better than Koufax's last 4. I don't think there's any doubt that Johnson's years were better. In order of RSAA-- 1) Johnson, 2002, 62 2) Johnson, 1999, 60 3) Johnson, 2001, 59 4) Koufax, 1966, 58 5) Johnson, 2000, 57 T6) Koufax, 1963, 40 T6) Koufax, 1965, 40 8) Koufax, 1964, 35 All it takes is 1 RSAA, taken away from Koufax's 1966 and given to Johnson's 2000, and the worst of Johnson's seasons are ahead of the best of Koufax's. During those 4 years, Koufax's ERA was 1.64 better than the league average. Johnson didn't have a single year in which his ERA above average was that "low". And, Koufax got to do that in an extreme pitcher's park. Twice during those 4 years, Dodgers Stadium reduced scoring by more 20%, with a 86 park factor being its high point. Johnson led the league in RSAA 4 out of 4 years. Koufax led the league only 2 out of 4 years. And in one of the years he didn't lead, he was beaten out by a margin of 17 RSAA. To show you what kind of landslide loss that was for Koufax, put into 2002 terms, that's 1 RSAA more than the difference between Pedro Martinez and Tim Wakefield. If you want lower Johnson's performance level, then we talk about a comparison to Koufax. One more stat about Johnson vs. Koufax-- From 1963-66, Koufax beat Marichal, 173-155, for the NL lead in RSAA. That's an 18 run margin. Over the past 4 years, Johnson beat Maddux, 238-131, for the NL lead in RSAA. That's a 107 run margin over those years. So, Koufax's margin of victory is 18 runs, spread out over 4 years. Johnson's margin is just under 27 runs every year. Thanks for the email Lee. For those of you wondering, "RSAA" stands for "Runs Saved Against Average." You can learn more about that stat and some others that Lee uses by clicking here. Here is what I originally said about Koufax versus Johnson: A case could easily be made that Randy Johnson's last 4 years have been better than the final 4 seasons of Sandy Koufax's career. And that is truly saying something! After I said that, I got a lot of very good emails from various readers, some of whom disagreed with that statement. Basically, I starting thinking about what I had said and, quite simply, "chickened out" and said this yesterday: I want to stress that I didn't mean to imply that I thought Randy's 1999-2002 was better than Koufax's final 4 seasons. I just wanted to point out that the argument could certainly be made. What I should have said is that I did not mean to imply that Johnson's 4 seasons were, without a doubt, better than Koufax's, just that I personally believe that they were. There, how's that? Not satisfied? Too bad! As much fun as all this Koufax/Johnson and Pedro/Gibson talk has been this week, I think it is time to move on to a new subject... 
David Justice called it a career yesterday, retiring from the game of baseball after 14 seasons in the Major Leagues. David Justice was one of the first players that I really knew about. I started following baseball fairly closely right around 1991, when the Twins were winning their 2nd championship in 5 years. The Twins played the Atlanta Braves in the World Series that year, so I became familar with a lot of the Atlanta players. I vivdly remember Mark Lemke, who was simultaneously referred to as "The Amazing Lemke" by most people during the 1991 WS and "F@#%ing Lemke" by all Twins fans (he hit .417/.462/.708 in the 7 game series, after hitting .234/.305/.312 in the regular season). They also had guys like Sid Bream, Ron Gant and, of course, Lonnie Smith, to whom I will forever be grateful to for being a complete moron on the basepaths. The Braves also had Glavine and Smoltz and Avery. And, the 1991 NL MVP, Terry Pendleton. Despite Pendleton's MVP award, their most feared hitter that year was, arguably, none other than David Justice. Justice and I got off to a bad start, simply because I was forced to root against him and his teammates during my first exposure to him. Since then, perhaps not-so-coincidentally, I have never really been a fan of Justice's. He always struck me a very good, but not great player. Looking back on his career right now, it seems to me that he is one of the more underrated players of his era. Glancing at his career stats, one possible reason for his underratedness (is that a word?) jumps out at me: he almost never played a full season's worth of games. In 14 Major League seasons, Justice played as many as 150 games 1 time, 1993, when he played in 157. In fact, his career breaks down like this: Games YearsI should point out that 2 of those 14 seasons were "strike years" (1994 and 1995) so Justice couldn't have played in a normal full season's worth of games in those 2 seasons no matter what. Anyway, two major reasons for his being underrated come from the above chart: 1) Guys that consistently miss a lot of time tend to lose a little luster in the eyes of fans and the media too. 2) His "raw" offensive totals are hurt because he simply didn't play nearly as many games as he could have. When you miss about 20 games per season in your prime, that is gonna end up hurting your career totals quite a bit. When he was playing, he was a very good hitter for a lot of years. His best season was likely 1997, when he hit .329/.418/.596 with 33 homers, 31 doubles and 101 RBIs in 139 games for Cleveland. That was good for an OPS+ of 157, which was the highest of his career and ranked 4th in the AL that year. More recently, Justice split the 2000 season between Cleveland and the Yankees and hit a combined .286/.377/.584 with a career high 41 homers, 31 doubles and 118 RBIs in 146 games. In total, Justice played in 100+ games in a season 12 times... On-base %: .400+ = 3 times .370+ = 7 times .350+ = 11 times Slugging %: .550+ = 2 times .500+ = 6 times .450+ = 9 times Adjusted OPS+: 150+ = 1 time 140+ = 4 times 130+ = 5 times 120+ = 8 times 100+ = 12 times Those are some very impressive numbers when you disregard the games played factor. David Justice is not a Hall of Fame baseball player, he simply doesn't have enough games or homers or any of the other "counting stats" a HoF needs. That said, he was one of the better players in baseball throughout the 1990s and he had one of the sweetest swings I have ever seen. If he could only have managed another 20 games in a few of those seasons, we'd be looking at his career in a whole different light. For as many games as Justice missed in the regular season, he sure tried to make up for it in the post-season. Justice appeared in the post-season every single season from 1991-2002, except for one, 1996, when he was injured and couldn't play for the Braves, who did make the playoffs. However, while Justice played in a tremendous amount of playoff games, his actual performance in them was very sub par. Justice's career playoff stats: G AB AVG OBP SLG HR 2B BB RBI RUNThe totals get even worse when you only look at his numbers in the World Series: G AB AVG OBP SLG HR 2B BB RBI RUNJustice played in almost enough post-season games to make up for an entire extra season, which is pretty amazing in itself, no matter how badly he played in them. He's the all-time leader in post-season games played, with 112, which is almost 20% more than the next best total. Finally, no article about the career of David Justice would be complete without mentioning the fact that he was once married to this woman... 
...which may be a more impressive accomplishment than all of those post-season appearances put together. *****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****     
Thursday, February 06, 2003
Reader mail!There are 3 main reasons why today's entry involves reader mail.#1) I got some really good emails in response to yesterday's entry about Randy Johnson. #2) I want to encourage everyone to send me emails anytime they feel like it. I love reading what you have to say and I am always willing to respond. #3) I absolutely had to find a reason to use the following picture... 
Letter number one comes to us from Heidi K.: "Aaron you sexy thing, I am so sorry to hear about you dropping a window on your finger. It is too bad I don't live in Minnesota or I would come over to your dorm room and kiss it and make it better." Heidi, thanks for the email. Your...um...laptop looks very lovely in that picture. As for my finger, it is actual feeling a lot better than yesterday and I suspect it isn't as badly injured as I initially feared. That said, anytime you are in Minnesota, Heidi, you are welcome to come over and kiss it. I'll even give you a tour of the Aaron's Baseball Blog Mansion, where you can see the window that dropped on my finger. Our next letter comes to us from Rick: Aaron, Good article on Randy Johnson. Interesting idea that he may be using a [splitter] more. Another way I thought of to see this is to look at his percentage of balls in play.. Year BF BIP BIP%As you can see, Johnson's % of balls in play has increased. He is allowing more balls in play and getting more ground ball outs. Thanks for the interesting article (and giving me something to do at work ;-) ) Thanks for the email Rick. I am always glad to keep production down at various offices across the country. As for the BIP figures...that is just another way of expressing what I was talking about, which is that Randy Johnson was striking out less guys in 2002. As the Ks go down, the BIP% goes up. I probably should have included that table in my entry yesterday, along with his K rates, GB/FB ratios and pitches/PA...they all go together to help support my little theory. By the way, Rick included a picture of him typing his email to me, similar to Heidi's, but I decided against using it. Believe me, you're all better off having not seen it. Our final letter comes to us from Devin: Aaron, Interesting comparison between Johnson and Koufax, but I'm not sure it's as close as you think. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I think Koufax's ERA+ may represent better pitching than Johnson's, because of the level of offense in their leagues. As I understand it, ERA+ is a comparison of the pitcher's ERA (adjusted for park) to the league-average ERA, with the league-average set to 100. Now, in an extreme pitchers' era (the mid-60s), the league-average is quite a bit lower than in an extreme hitters' era (1999-2001, at least). But there's a limit to how good a pitcher can be - theoretically at a 0.00 ERA, and more reasonably a bit above that. And Sandy's numbers start out a lot closer to that limit than Randy's do. Randy has more room to work with, so it's easier for him to raise his ERA+ to a high level. I would argue that Sandy's ERA+ of 190 is more impressive than Randy's. Of course, a) Randy is 39, Sandy was 32, b) in any case, Pedro's been better than both of them over the past 4 years, and c) my understanding of the math may be cockeyed anyway. I think ERA+ is a useful stat in most situations, but when you're comparing extreme conditions, you have to take these things into account. In any case, thanks for yet another interesting article. I hope your finger gets better. (And you're not that much of an idiot. A friend of mine broke his hand punching a wall in anger. And he was sober at the time.) Thanks for the email Devin. And, believe me, I am that much of an idiot. For I am Gleeman...LORD OF THE IDIOTS! 
Anyway, I completely agree with what Devin said. While, theoretically, a pitcher could get his ERA as low as 0.00, the real limit is likely close to 1.00. The higher the league ERA is, the more room there is to separate yourself from the rest of the pack. At the same time, I want to stress that I didn't mean to imply that I thought Randy's 1999-2002 was better than Koufax's final 4 seasons. I just wanted to point out that the argument could certainly be made. My main point in the Johnson/Koufax comparison was that Koufax is thought of as perhaps the greatest pitcher ever in a short time frame. People say, "He didn't have a long career, but those 4 years were so awesome..." and stuff like that. I just wanted to point out that, while those 4 seasons were unbelievably good, Johnson's most recent 4 years were damn good too and could possibly even be considered as good or better. Plus, Randy had many other very good seasons prior to 1999, which is why I think he has to rank among the all-time greats, more so than even Koufax. Devin also mentions Pedro Martinez in his letter and that gives me an opportunity to add Pedro to the Koufax/Johnson comparison. Here is that table from yesterday, with Koufax's final 4 seasons and Randy Johnson's 4 most recent seasons: Koufax JohnsonNow, here is a table with Pedro's last 6 seasons: MartinezThat is amazing. Using ERA+ to measure, 5 out of Pedro's last 6 seasons have been as good or better than Koufax's final year, which is often considered one of the greatest single season pitching performances of all-time. Obviously, Pedro has not pitched nearly as many innings as Koufax and has had some injuries, but still... I truly believe that Pedro Martinez's 1999 and 2000 seasons are the best back-to-back seasons ever by a Major League pitcher and I also think that his 2000 season is the greatest of all-time. Since 1900, Pedro's 2000 ERA+ of 285 ranks #1 and his 245 in 1999 is #8. Greg Maddux's 1994 ERA+ of 273 ranks 3rd and his 259 in 1995 is tied for 4th, so Maddux could also be considered for that honor. No other pitcher has back-to-back seasons in the top 20. The closest is Walter Johnson, who's 1918 and 1919 each rank tied for 21st at 214. As far as Pedro's 2000 being the greatest single season by a pitcher of all-time, that is obviously up for debate. Many people would point to Bob Gibson's 1968 season and I can't say that I would be against that either. Gibson had an amazing 1.12 ERA in 1968, which ranks 4th all-time and #1 since 1914. However, Gibson's ERA+ for that season is "only" the 6th best since 1900, because the environment and era he was pitching in was extremely low scoring. According to Baseball-Reference.com (which is where I got almost all of the stats I am using for this discussion), the league ERA for Bob Gibson in 1968, adjusting for his ballpark and his league, was 2.90. Pedro's league ERA in 2000 was 4.97. This is exactly the sort of situation that Devin was talking about in his email. Bob Gibson had a lot less room with which he could separate himself from the league. His 1.12 ERA was good for a 258 ERA, but to get it up to Pedro's level in 2000 (285) he would have had to cut his actual ERA down to about 1.00. On the other hand, there were quite a few other pitchers that posted very impressive ERAs in 1968: Luis Tiant 1.60 (258 IP) Sam McDowell 1.81 (269 IP) Dave McNally 1.95 (273 IP) Denny McLain 1.96 (336 IP) Tommy John 1.98 (177 IP) Bobby Bolin 1.99 (177 IP) Bob Veale 2.05 (245 IP) Stan Bahnsen 2.05 (267 IP) Jerry Koosman 2.08 (264 IP) While Gibson's 1.12 ERA is extraordinary, it does not appear at first glance to be that much better than quite a few other pitchers in 1968, mostly because of how scarce runs were in that environment overall. Gibson's ERA+ in 1968 was 258. Tiant's was 184, McDowell's was 163 and McLain and John tied at 154. That closer look at the numbers does reveal that, because Gibson's ERA was so incredibly miniscule in 1968, the other ERAs, while also amazing, were still a pretty big percentage higher than Gibson's. Meanwhile, Pedro posted a 1.74 ERA in 2000. Here are the other top ERAs from that year: Kevin Brown 2.58 (230 IP) Randy Johnson 2.64 (249 IP) Jeff D'Amico 2.66 (162 IP) Greg Maddux 3.00 (249 IP) Mike Hampton 3.14 (218 IP) Al Leiter 3.20 (208 IP) Chan Ho Park 3.27 (226 IP) You'll notice that not one of the top ERAs (besides Pedro's) came from the American League, which is where Pedro pitched. Here are leaders from the 2000 AL: Roger Clemens 3.70 (204 IP) Mike Mussina 3.79 (238 IP) Mike Sirotka 3.79 (197 IP) Bartolo Colon 3.88 (188 IP) David Wells 4.11 (230 IP) WOW. Pedro had a 1.74 ERA in 2000 and not a single other pitcher in the AL that pitched enough to qualify for the ERA title had an ERA lower than 3.70. Roger Clemens was 2nd to Pedro and his ERA was 112% higher than Pedro's! In contrast, Bobby Bolin finished 2nd in NL ERA race in 1968 with a 1.99 ERA, which was 77% higher than Gibson's. If you look at both leagues though, as we did in Gibson's case, it gets a lot closer. Martinez's ERA+ was 285. Randy Johnson's was 177, Jeff D'Amico's was 169 and Kevin Brown's was 167. To do a quick recap: Bob Gibson's 1968 ERA = 1.12 Pedro Martinez's 2000 ERA = 1.74 Bob Gibson's 1968 ERA+ = 258 Pedro Martinez's 2000 ERA+ = 285 The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th best ERAs in 1968, compared to Gibson's, were 43%, 62%, 74%, 75% and 77% higher than Gibson's. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th best ERAs in 2000, compared to Pedro's, were 48%, 52%, 53%, 72% and 80% higher than Pedro's. The next best ERA+ totals to Gibson's 258 in 1968 were: 184, 163 and 154. The next best ERA+ totals to Pedro's 285 in 2000 were: 177, 169 and 167. Gibson led the NL in 1968 with a 1.12 ERA, the next best ERA in the NL was 1.99, 78% higher. Martinez led the AL in 2000 with a 1.74 ERA, the next best ERA in the AL was 3.70, 112% higher. Oh, and just in case you thought I was forgetting about how many innings they each pitched... Gibson pitched a whole lot more innings in 1968 than Pedro did in 2000, but that is largely due to the differences in the two eras. Gibson pitched 305 innings in 1968, while Martinez pitched only 217 in 2000. However, when put in context with the rest of baseball, those innings pitched totals are a lot closer: Gibson was 3rd in the National League in innings, about 7% fewer than the league leader (Juan Marichal) Martinez was tied for 7th in the American League in innings, about 9% fewer than the league leader (Mike Mussina). I am sure this debate could go on forever and it is definitely a lot of fun to look back at some of these stats from 1968 and even 2000. As of right now, I will stick to what I have been saying, which is that Pedro's 2000 season was the greatest of all-time. 
By the way, for more of my thoughts on the greatness of Pedro Martinez, I urge you to check out my entry from August 5th entitled, simply, "Pedro." This blog started on August 1st, so that Pedro entry was written in its first week of existence, but it remains one of my favorite pieces that I have written on this site. Finally... This website went over the 30,000 visitor mark early this morning. I think I've made announcements at 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 and 25,000, so I figured I might as well continue the pattern. Thanks to everyone that visits the site on a regular basis and a special thanks to everyone that sends me emails (especially you, Heidi)! *****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
For I am Gleeman, LORD OF THE IDIOTS!I am an idiot.I like to live in a cool environment. Now, by "cool" I don't mean good or nice or whatever else you want to use the slang term to represent. By cool, I mean literally cool. When I am not at the dorm, I keep the temperature in the house at 67 degrees and sit comfortably while my mother and dog shiver under layers of blankets. When I am at the dorm, like right now, I keep the window in my room open, despite the fact that it was 0 (yes, ZERO) degrees outside yesterday. I don't know what to tell you, I can only sleep when I am cold. So anyway, back to why I am an idiot. I wake up yesterday morning and hop out of bed. I was all set to walk across the room to hit the snooze button on my alarm when I think to myself, "Hmm...it's kind cold...maybe I'll close the window before I go back to sleep." So I mosey on over to the window, with what I like to call my "sleep face" in full effect (eyes swollen shut, hair completely out of sorts, mouth all stinky and gross, etc). I go to close the window and I get about 75% of the way through the job when I realize I just dropped the window on my finger. I am an idiot. I finish closing the window and then look down at my finger. It is all bloody and the nail is already purple. Not a good thing to be looking at first thing in the morning, especially when you have to squint to see because your eyes are still swollen shut. It is about this time that it starts hurting. A lot. Anyway, there is no punchline to this story and definitely no moral. I just wanted to inform everyone that I am, in fact, an idiot. Thank you. In other news... Remember when I asked for advice on my Diamond-Mind team from everyone? Well, I promised to keep you updated, whether you like it or not.  
Yesterday I traded for Randy Johnson. The trading in a Diamond-Mind keeper league with player salaries and team salary caps can get very interesting. My trade for the Big Unit is a perfect example of that. Every off-season, the salary of each player in the league rises 15%. At the same time, the team salary cap stays constant at $400. So, basically, if you sign a guy for $50, eventually he is going to be too expensive to keep and you'll have to cut him, at which point he'll go back in to the free agent auction. Last season, Randy Johnson was $85. That price wasn't a 15% hike from the year before, it was the amount he was bid up to in the auction. $85 is a ton of money in this league, over 20% of the total team payroll, and Johnson was the highest paid player in the whole league. And, this off-season, Johnson went up 15% to $98. Most teams can't afford to devote 25% of their entire payroll to one pitcher, even if he is as good as Johnson. Long story short, the deadline for "re-signing" players at their new salaries (with the 15% increases) is fast approaching and it was very likely Johnson would be cut by his team. I was well aware of this possibility, having checked out all the new salaries before. I even made of list of guys that I projected to be too expensive for their current teams, guys that I thought would be cut and made available in the auction. What can I say? When I pretend to be a General Manager, I go all out! At the same time, my own roster was taking shape. I had a whole lot of $3 and $5 players and my overall team salary was fairly low. My offense was pretty much set, but I lacked starting pitching, so my plan for the auction was to spend a boatload, probably $60-$65, on a #1 or #2 starter. Someone like Roger Clemens or Tom Glavine or Mike Mussina. The more I thought about it, the more I began to think that maybe I would be better off trying to get Randy Johnson before he hit the open market. I mean really, if I was going to pay $65 for Roger Clemens, why not just pay an extra $33 and get the #1 starter, Randy Johnson? I made the inquiry and realized that Johnson could be had very easily and cheaply. His team was almost certainly going to cut him, so they would be willing to trade him as long as they could get something useful in return. Before I could make the trade, I needed to clear an additional $35 in cap room and, at the same time, not weaken my offense too much. As you may have guessed, that's tough to do. I was having a hard time figuring out how to do it when I saw that Johnson's team also had Ellis Burks on the roster. Burks was only $23, which seemed like a bargain for someone that had an EqA over .300 last year. The wheels in my mind went into motion and I figured out that if I could get Burks in addition to Johnson, I could use him as my DH and either cut or trade Adam Dunn (my planned DH), who was scheduled to make $58. $58 minus $23 is...exactly $35! The exact amount I needed to free up to get Randy Johnson. I inquired about Burks and, to my surprise, he was almost as available and could be had almost as cheaply as Randy Johnson. Okay, enough with the details. Would you like to know who I had to trade to get Randy Johnson and Ellis Burks? Gary Bennett and Eric Owens. Like I said, when you involve player salaries and team salary caps, trades can get kind of interesting. For the other team, he gets two cheap players (Owens is $3 and Bennett is $5) that he can plug into his team, for 2 guys that he was likely going to cut and lose for nothing. Bennett hit .365/.412/.444 against lefties last year, meaning he can make up 1/2 of a very nice catcher platoon. Owens hit only .270/.324/.366, but he stole 26 bases, played in 131 games and had very good defensive ratings in the outfield ("VERY GOOD" in LF and RF and "AVERAGE" in CF). He's a perfect backup outfielder. For me, I get Burks to replace Dunn at DH, for a savings of $35. And I get Randy Johnson to be my #1 starter at the completely obscene price of $98! The Big Unit is nothing more than a 1 year rental for me and he will almost certainly be tossed back into the free agent auction after this season, because I don't think even I am crazy enough to pay $113 for him, which is what he'll cost after his 15% price hike following this upcoming year. On the subject of Randy Johnson... Shortly after I traded for him, I had a conversation with Craig Burley, from Baseball Primer and the Batter's Box. Craig is in my Diamond-Mind league and is a good guy that is often willing to listen to me ramble on about things, sort of like I just did to you about my trade for Burks and Johnson. Anyway, I explained to Craig a theory I have about Randy Johnson and, since he didn't think it was complete non-sense, I thought I would share it with all of you. Last off-season I remember hearing about how Johnson had worked to add a split-fingered fastball to his arsenal of pitches. At the time, it seemed sort of like Bill Gates cashing a birthday check from his grandmother...it can't hurt, but is it really something that he needs? Well, it turns out the new pitch definitely came in handy in 2002. You see, Johnson is 39 years old and, despite how it appears right now, he is eventually going to cease being able to strike out 350 guys a season. As pitchers age, they need to find ways to change their style if they want to remain highly successful for a long time. I think Johnson changed his style last year, largely because of his new pitch, the splitter. Check out some of the numbers that make me say that... #1) Strike out rate. Randy Johnson led Major League Baseball in both strike out rate and total strike outs last season. At the same time, his actual K rate declined significantly from prior years: Year IP Ks K/9Randy's K rate dropped about 2 per 9 innings last year, which is significant. His 11.6 Ks/9 IP was his lowest rate since 1994, when he K'd 10.7/9. Taken by itself, a drop in K rate causing the lowest number since 1994 doesn't really prove my theory, but there are some other things that go along with it as evidence... 2) Ground-ball / Fly-ball ratio Randy Johnson has always been a pretty neutral pitcher as far as how he gets his non-strike out outs. Here are his GB/FB ratios: Year GB FB G/FWhat do all those numbers mean? Basically, since 1997, Johnson has gotten more outs via groundball than flyball, with ratios ranging between 1.06 to 1.27. Like I said, that is pretty neutral, making him neither a "ground ball pitcher" or a "flyball pitcher." For reference, Derek Lowe's GB/FB ratio last year was 3.46, which means he got 3.46 ground ball outs for every fly ball out. At the same time, Jarrod Washburn's ratio was 0.60, meaning he got 0.6 GBs for every FB. As you can see, Randy's ratio is right in the middle ground. But this year, his ratio of GBs out went up significantly and he posted his highest ratio of GB outs since...1994. The drop in strike outs, along with the rise in ground ball outs has me believing that, with his new pitch, Johnson was allowing the batters to simply hit the ball more in 2002. Instead of trying to strike everyone out, he was using his new splitter and letting them hit the ball a little more often, causing them to hit more grounders than usual. This theory of mine has one final stat on its side... 3) Pitches per plate appearance. So far, my theory has been this: Randy didn't try to rack up as many strike outs, choosing instead to use his new pitch to get batters to beat the ball into the ground, thus causing more ground balls outs and allowing Johnson to cut down a little bit on his overall stress. If this were the case, the amount of total pitches he threw would likely have gone down, right? Yep. Year #Pit TBF P/PARandy threw about 6% fewer pitches per batter in 2002 than he did in 2001. The number of 3.86 per batter was the lowest of his entire career. So, to recap: Less strike outs. More groundballs. Less pitches per batter. For once, I think one of my theories might actually make some sense. I don't know whether it was a conscious effort on Randy Johnson's behalf or just the outcome of him learning another pitch, but in 2002 the overall effect was that he did not strike out as many guys, he got more batters to ground out and he threw less pitches in general. I'd say for a 39 year old pitcher, throwing less pitches and (likely) exerting less effort is probably a smart thing to be doing, especially when you can do so while continuing to lead the world in strike outs. Randy Johnson is a very special pitcher. I think, at this point, it is about time to start thinking about 2 questions that Craig Burley posed to me during our conversation the other day: 1) Can Randy win 300 games? and 2) If he can, would he have to be considered the best pitcher of all-time? When Craig asked the first question, I responded immediately that I thought he would win 300 games. I think we would all agree that Randy is pretty much a lock to win about 20 games in 2003, which would put him at "only" 244 career wins. The question then becomes: can he win 55 ball games after he turns 40? I think it all depends on whether or not Randy wants to continue pitching into his mid-40s. I could very easily see him doing what Nolan Ryan did in the early 90s, which is to continue to be an effective pitcher well after the age of 40. If Johnson is to do that, he is going to have to follow the same path as Ryan did, which is to continue to maintain a great K rate. I wouldn't expect Johnson to win 24 games or pitch 260 innings at 43, but I don't doubt that he could win 12-15 games and pitch 180-200 innings. As long as that K rate stays strong, Randy can be a successful pitcher. Does this projection look so out of whack? 1988-2002 = 224 wins 2003 = 20 wins 2004 = 18 wins 2005 = 15 wins 2006 = 13 wins 2007 = 10 wins TOTAL = 300 The above would include Johnson pitching (and pitching effectively) until he was 43. If Johnson can repeat his 2002 win total in 2003, that would add 4 more wins and make his 2006 and 2007 a lot easier for reaching this goal. I'll stand by my answer that Randy Johnson will win 300 games. If he does that, does that make him a serious candidate for best pitcher of all-time? Absolutely. Does it make him the best? I don't know. Back in November, I wrote another entry about Randy Johnson. Here is a little of what I said then: The Big Unit ranks 4th in the history of baseball in strikeouts. He is #1 all-time is strike outs per 9 innings (by a pretty huge margin). 6th all-time in hits allowed per 9 innings. 9th all-time in career winning percentage. Back in August I put together a list of my top 20 pitchers of all-time. I ranked Randall David Johnson 14th overall. Being the 14th greatest pitcher in the history of baseball is a pretty amazing accomplishment, but I have a feeling that, when all is said and done, Johnson will be a lot closer to #1 than he is to #14. (For those of you that missed it, here is my list of the top 20 pitchers of all-time) That ranking of 14th is low, primarily because I was very conservative with all active players. It is very difficult to rank pitchers from different eras. While Randy Johnson is the workhorse of all workhorses in today's era, he pitched "only" 260 innings in 2002, which was nothing when Cy Young or Walter Johnson were pitching. Plus, the ballparks are different, the equipment is different, the medical technology is different, the hitters are different and on and on and on. That said, judged against his peers and his era, Randy Johnson has to rank among the top handful of pitchers of all-time. So, to answer Craig's questions... Yes, he will win 300 games. As for whether or not he'll have to be considered the best pitcher ever? That's a tough one. Who am I to say that Randy Johnson was better than Walter Johnson or Lefty Grove? I would have no problem saying he was one of the 2-3 greatest pitchers of the last 35 or 40 years, along with Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux. I also don't want to forget about Pedro Martinez when talking about the greatest pitchers ever, but he still has to have some more great seasons to be considered in the same group as those 3 I just mentioned. Much is made of how great Sandy Koufax's last 4 seasons were. He is often described as a comet that shot through the baseball world and was gone all too quickly. I love Sandy Koufax. He is one of my favorite players of all-time and I am currently reading his biography. But when you look at the numbers, Randy Johnson's last 4 seasons compare pretty nicely to Koufax's. Koufax JohnsonFor those of you wondering, "ERA+" stands for adjusted ERA, which takes into account the eras a pitcher pitched in, as well as the ballparks and leagues. The higher the number, the higher above "league average" a pitcher was. Koufax obviously pitched more innings than Johnson in 3 of those 4 seasons, but that was just the way it was back when he was pitching. Johnson is asked to start about 35 games a year, while Koufax was asked to pitch about 40. Compared to their leagues at the time: Koufax led the NL in innings pitched in 1965 and 1966 and was 3rd in 1963. Johnson led the NL in innings in 2002 and 1999 and was 2nd in 2001 and 3rd in 2000. A case could easily be made that Randy Johnson's last 4 years have been better than the final 4 seasons of Sandy Koufax's career. And that is truly saying something! Add in the fact that Randy was also an elite pitcher since about 1990 and you can see why he is absolutely among the greats of all-time. All of this talk about the greatness of Randy Johnson brings up two more questions... #1) Am I completely insane for devoting 25% of my payroll to him this year? and #2) Will he be worth $113 dollars for me to keep after this upcoming season? I wouldn't put it past him (or me). Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go ice my finger. *****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Burrell, as in hurl (seriously, that's how it's pronounced!) 
The big baseball news yesterday was the Phillies signing Pat Burrell to a $50 million dollar contract extension. The deal is for 6 years and runs from his age 26 season through his age 31 season. In other words, the exact years a team would want to have a player locked up for. The Phillies picked Pat Burrell with the #1 overall pick in the 1998 draft. He was an extremely successful hitter at the University of Miami and a lot of people projected him as a future superstar at the time. Burrell has hit everywhere he has played, but for some reason he has been able to sneek under the radar of most fans. 2002 was his 3rd Major League season and, although he isn't a superstar yet, he has established himself as one of the top young power hitters in baseball. Check out his stats: Year G AVG OBP SLG HR 2B BBHis batting average has never been great, which is probably why he has yet to reach true star status. It did improve a lot in 2002 though and he has everything else you'd want in a hitter. Burrell smacked 37 homers, which ranked 7th in the NL, and added in 39 doubles, which ranked 10th. He even added in some very good plate discipline, with 89 walks, although he strikes out a ton (162 and 153 in 01 and 02). Predicting someone's batting average is a really tough thing to do, much harder than predicting power numbers (in my opinion). That said, I think Burrell's average will continue to improve in the next couple of seasons. He was an outstanding hitter for average in college and his minor league numbers were very good. He hit .303, .333 and .294 in his 3 minor league stops. I don't think he'll ever hit .320, but I wouldn't be surprised if he settled into the .285-.300 range. Add in 85-100 walks, 35-45 homers and 40+ doubles and you've got a star player, no doubt about it. Defensively, he's not great, but he is definitely improving. Diamond-Mind gave him a left field rating of "FAIR" in 2002, which was a huge improvement over his "POOR" in 2001. Burrell is the real deal and I already talked about the length of the contract being good for the Phillies. As for the cost? Who knows. We saw this off-season how quickly things can change in regard to contracts free agents are getting. While teams still handed out a few big deals this off-season, I thought that, for the most part, there was more financial restraint shown this year than in any year I can recall. The deal breaks down as follows: $1.5 signing bonus $1 in 2003 $4 in 2004 $7 in 2005 $9.5 in 2006 $13 in 2007 $14 in 2008 Like I said, who knows what we'll think of Pat Burrell making $14 million in 2008? If I had to guess now, I'd say that, as long as he doesn't get hurt or completely fall of a cliff offensively, $14 mill will be a bargain in 2008's market. The $1 mill in 2003 and $4 in 2004 look very cheap, but the Phillies have dibs on Burrell until 2006, when he stops being arbitration eligible. So, basically, they bought out 3 arbitration years (2003, 2004 and 2005) and his first 3 years of free agency (2006, 2007, 2008). I'd say it's a good deal, as much as any long-term deal given to a baseball player can be. While signing Burrell to a 6-year deal doesn't really change anything for 2003, it does give me an opportunity to do something I've been wanting to do, which is to take a look at the Philadelphia lineup and see how it stacks up. To recap their off-season... They signed Jim Thome from Cleveland to replace Travis Lee (and Jeremy Giambi) at first base. They signed David Bell from San Francisco to replace Scott Rolen, whom they dealt to St. Louis last year, at third base. With Bell at 3B, they shifted their third baseman from the last half of 2002, Placido Polanco, over to second base and got rid of 2002's second baseman, Marlon Anderson. In the outfield, center fielder Doug Glanville is (finally!) gone and will likely be replaced by Marlon Byrd, a rookie. The shortstop, catcher, left fielder and right fielder all remain the same. Here's what their lineup might end up looking like: SS Jimmy Rollins .247 EqA*Marlon Byrd spent 2002 in Triple-A, so his EqA is his minor league performance, adjusted to the National League. Overall, that is a damn good lineup and the 3-4-5 is as good as any in the game. Compared to the Major League average at their position, the Phils have quite a few guys that had EqAs significantly above average: Jim Thome +.082 (.369 minus the MLB 1B average of .287) Bobby Abreu +.040 Mike Lieberthal +.033 Pat Burrell +.030 David Bell +.009 Placido Polanco -.001 Marlon Byrd -.002 Jimmy Rollins -.009 They've got 4 guys that were among the best in baseball at their position offensively last year. According to Baseball Prospectus' "Runs Above Replacement Position" (RARP) Thome was #1 among all MLB first basemen, Abreu was #5 among right fielders, Lieberthal was #4 among catchers and Burrell was #6 among left fielders. That is pretty impressive. David Bell was slightly above-average in 2002. Philly has two guys that were right around average (Byrd and Polanco). And one guy that was slightly below-average (Rollins). I think Thome will decline in 2003, although nothing serious. I would expect Abreu, Lieberthal and Polanco to play at about the same level. Burrell seems like a candidate to boost his EqA by 10 or 15 points in 2003, as does Rollins. I would guess that Bell would decline slightly, but not much. Byrd is the real wild card, because what he can do at the ML level is an unknown. I am a fan of Marlon Byrd's and I think he will be an excellent player. Here is what I wrote about him in my "Top 50 Prospects" article for Baseball Primer: While Doug Glanville has been devouring outs by the hundreds in Philadelphia for the past several seasons, the Phillies have been extremely conservative with Marlon Byrd. He has played full seasons at A, AA and AAA in the past 3 years, without any mid or late season promotions, except for last season’s September call up. Byrd is ready, both offensively and defensively, and now that Glanville’s days of making 500 outs a year are over with - at least in Philadelphia - Byrd can step in as the everyday center fielder. Marlon Byrd has been pretty much the same hitter for the last 3 years - .300 average, 50 walks, 60 extra base hits, 100 strikeouts and solid center field defense. The only thing that has really changed is his work on the bases. Byrd has always been a phenomenal base stealer, but his attempts at thievery have dwindled over the past few years, from 46 in 2000 to 37 in 2001 and only 16 this past year. He has always had an exceptional success rate, which is why the lack of attempts this year is troubling. Perhaps he just decided to focus entirely on hitting in 2002 or maybe he bulked up a little and lost some speed. Whatever the reason, if he hits like I think he can, the Phillies won’t really care what his stolen base totals look like. Marlon Byrd doesn’t particularly look like a centerfielder, sort of like how Kirby Puckett didn’t look like a centerfielder. However, his defense has never been an issue and he should have no problem manning center for the Phillies. Byrd will make Philadelphia fans forget Doug Glanville, because lord knows they’ll try to. For 2003, I would put Marlon's EqA somewhere in the .265-.275 range, which would make him about average offensively for a center fielder. The Phils could very easily have a 2003 lineup with 4 guys in the top 5 in baseball at their position and 4 guys hovering right around average. That may not sound like it, but that's a recipe for a very good offense and I wouldn't be surprised if they led the NL in runs in 2003. I would almost guarantee they will be among the top 2 or 3. Defensively, the Phillies should be very good too. Bell is excellent at third and Polanco is outstanding at any infield spot. Rollins is above average at SS and while Thome is poor at 1B, defense there doesn't mean much and he isn't completely miserable. In the outfield, Byrd should be above average in center and Abreu is very good in right field. And we already talked about the improvements Burrell has made out in left. Good offense? Check. Good defense? Check. Good pitching? Ch...not so fast! You'll have to wait until I do my pre-season preview and predictions for each division to get my complete thoughts on the Phillies. Until then, here is a hint: THE PHILLIES WILL WIN THE NL EAST DIVISION IN 2003! That's all I am going to say for now. I don't want to give too much away. *****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****
Monday, February 03, 2003
News, commentary, statistical charts and rumors (and ideas for blog entries) delivered right to your email boxOne of the things that I enjoy most about this blog is that my readers often make me aware of stories about baseball that I have no knowledge of.Basically, even a baseball nut like myself can only find so much information on the sport, so I love it when I get an email and someone says, "Hey Aaron...I saw this article in the (insert name of newspaper) and thought you'd be interested." Another thing I enjoy is that by having this blog, I get to learn about tons of websites that I didn't know about. Readers email me to tell me about their favorite sites. Other bloggers email me to let me know what's going on at their site. New bloggers email me to tell me to check out their new blog. What does all of this have to do with anything, you ask? Well, about a week ago I came across a baseball-related service that I had never heard about before and I have to say that I am shocked and saddened that I wasn't aware of it a long time ago. I signed up for Lee Sinins' "Around the Majors" daily email newsletter and have been extraordinarily impressed with it each day since. It is jam packed with breaking news, stats, analysis and even humor. And it is completely free of charge! Rather than speak in general terms about what type of stuff Lee puts in the newsletter, I want to use the actual newsletter I received Saturday morning as an example. Here are some snippets of a few of the topics covered in Saturday's "Around the Majors" newsletter, along with my own comments... "The Astros re-signed Craig Biggio to a 1 year contract extension that will pay him $3 million in 2004 and a team option that will either pay $3 million in 2005 or a $1 million buyout." I wrote about the Biggio situation in an entry last week. Here is some of what I said then: "Craig Biggio is one of the best players ever to play for the Astros. In his prime, he was among the best second basemen and leadoff hitters in the game. However, he is getting up there in age and has had some injuries in the past couple years. His overall performance, offensively and defensively, has been in a serious decline for a while now. [...] All of this is why Houston GM Gerry Hunsicker has a very tough decision to make. Biggio is signed for 2003 and he'll play one of the Astros' 3 outfield spots and bat at the top of the order. But, after this season, would you really want to be in the position of paying Biggio (presumably) a large amount of money for several more seasons? I wouldn't. [...] If I were Gerry Hunsicker, I would bite the bullet and let Biggio play out his deal and leave after the season. If he wants to sign a 1-year deal for a reasonable amount and come back to play in 2004, that's fine. But I would never give out a multi-year deal to a player that is aging as poorly as Biggio is." From the looks of things, Hunsicker did exactly what I was recommending. It sounds like he went into negotiations unwilling to give Biggio a big, long-term deal and ended up signing him to a very reasonable 1 year extension, with a buyout for the 2nd year. Now he's made one of his all-time great players a little happier and he hasn't committed the franchise to a crippling long-term deal to an aging star. Let's face it, even for a team with a midsized payroll like Houston, $3 million dollars is not going to affect them very much. If he doesn't play well in 2004, the team can just give him the $1 buyout and make the contract extension (essentially) $4 million for 1 season. Even if Biggio is a below average outfielder in 2004, $4 million dollars isn't that much more than the going rate for mediocrity. I think the Astros made a very nice move with Biggio, perhaps a perfect move. They turned a tough situation into a positive. They retain one of their best players of all-time and they do it for a very reasonable amount of money and for a very reasonable amount of time. The fans are happy that Biggio will be back and Biggio is happy that the team was willing to listen to his request for an extension. Hopefully, come 2004, Biggio is playing well, in which case they would pick up his $3 million dollar option for 2005. I suspect that he won't be, at which point, hopefully, he'll be willing to step away from the game at the age of 40. Either way, the 'Stros put off a possible public relations problem for at least another two seasons, which is always a good thing. "If the Pirates don't sign a veteran CF, Brian Giles says he's interested in returning to the position. According to Giles, "center field is my most comfortable position and left field is probably my least comfortable." Giles is the Pirates career leaders in OBA (.404), OPS (1.030) and SLG (.604), while he's also the leader in OBA and OPS vs. the league average, but plummets all the way to #2 in SLG vs. average, .001 behind Ralph Kiner (min of 2500 PA for each category)." A weird thing happened to Brian Giles' defense last season. Prior to 2002, Giles had always been a decent corner outfielder that occasionally played a little center field and didn't make a complete fool of himself out there. Something happened in 2002, as Diamond-Mind gave him "POOR" defensive ratings in both center and left field. The "POOR" center field rating doesn't surprise me, as Giles is 32 years old and has never been anything more than average, at best, in center. I always considered him an "average" left and right fielder and his ratings from Diamond-Mind in previous years have basically agreed with that. A player that receives a "POOR" left field rating has to have been truly awful defensively. Such ratings are usually reserved for big, slow guys that should be DHing, injured players trying to play through the pain, or aging veterans on their last legs. Want proof? Here is a list of players that received "POOR" ratings in LF last year: Brian Giles Jeremy Giambi Manny Ramirez Rusty Greer Wil Cordero Tim Raines Daryle Ward Ellis Burks Shawon Dunston Defensively, that is not a group you want to have anything to do with. Let's put those guys into categories, shall we? Big, slow guys that should be DHing: Giambi Ramirez Cordero Ward Burks Injured players trying to play through the pain: Greer Aging veterans on their last legs: Raines Dunston Greer could be put into the "aging vet" group and Burks could have gone in all 3 groups, but you get the idea. Where does Giles fit in? I am not really sure. Athletically, he's never going to be compared to anyone very flattering. To quote the guy from the movie Rudy, "He's five foot nothin, a hundred and nothin." But, Giles is far from a big plodding oaf, like Jeremy Giambi or Daryle Ward. He is 32, but if his hitting is any indication, he is far from on his last legs. So, I am inclined to believe that Giles had some minor injury problems last season that, along with the normal affects of aging, caused him to lose a step (or five) in the outfield. It'll be interesting to see if he can bounce back in 2003 and play at an "average" level, as he has in the past few years. As for the Pirates possibly playing him as a full-time CF? At his best, Giles is a below-average defender in center and at his worst, which he was last year, he is a complete disaster out there, capable of costing a team dozens of runs. That said, I don't exactly see them as having very many good options. Last year, 4 guys had 100+ at bats while playing center field for the Pirates: Adam Hyzdu, Chad Hermanson, Rob Mackowiak and Adrian Brown. That is a list of guys that would make a manager consider putting a good-hitting amputee out in center field, let alone Brian Giles. The Pirates didn't pick up any center fielders during the off-season, so that group of options doesn't get any better (although Hermanson and Brown are gone, which is like addition by subtraction, I suppose). They do have a nice center field prospect named Tony Alvarez on the horizon and, knowing the Pirates, they'll probably rush him to the Majors, play him full-time this season and ruin his career. If I were Lloyd McClendon I would seriously consider just forgetting about outfield defense for this year. The Pirates aren't going anywhere and they really do not have any center field options that are even remotely decent, so why not try to score as many runs as possible with your 3 outfielders? Put Matt Stairs in left field, Brian Giles in center field and Craig Wilson in right field. My god that is a bad defense, but okay, we knew that. It'll score some runs though. 2002 stats: Player AB AVG OBP SLG HR 2B BBIf you give them everyday playing time, all 3 of those guys are good bets to hit 25+ homers and 25+ doubles. Stairs can't hit lefties at all, so he'll need a platoon partner, but other than that, just stick those 3 out there and watch the extra base hits pile up...for both teams! "The Expos re-signed P Joey Eischen to a 1 year, $800,000 contract. Eischen had a 1.34 ERA/17 RSAA career year in 59 games in 2002. He has a 3.52 career ERA, compared to his league average of 4.32, and 14 RSAA in 154 games." Joey Eischen signing a 1 year deal with Montreal is really anything but news. However, for completely obsessed baseball freaks like myself, I like hearing about minor transactions like this one. Saturday's "ATM" newsletter also included notes about Carlos Baerga signing a minor league deal with Arizona, Paul Rigdon signing a minor league deal with Cleveland and Scott Linebrink signing a minor league deal with Houston. Basically, all stuff that you normally wouldn't learn of unless you were really looking for it, and even then you'd have a hard time. But now, I get it all in one nice email that gets dropped into my mailbox every single day. As for Joey Eischen, I realize a lot of you probably have never even heard of him before and you guys are the upper percentile of baseball freaks. Joey Eischen is a very important person in my life because he will serve as the "closer" on my Diamond-Mind team next season. "Joey Eischen is going to be your closer next year?" Yes, he is. Remember, DMB uses last year's stats in the current season, so Eischen will be serving as closer and pitching like he did in 2002. Check out the stats: Player IP ERA SO BB H HR OAVGIf you didn't know who those numbers belonged to, you would have no problem believing he was a big time closer, right? The late-inning fate of the Minnesota Gophers of the Three Run Homer League rests upon the left arm of one Joey Eischen. I hope it doesn't end up turning out as bad as it sounds! "The Twins hired Paul Molitor as minor league infield and baserunning coordinator. Molitor had a .817 career OPS, compared to his league average of .739, and 479 RCAA in 2683 games, from 1978-98." This strikes me as a very good thing, although I am not entirely sure why. I like Paul Molitor. He's a Minnesota boy like me and generally appears to be a great guy (like me?). Plus, he was a great baseball player (not like me). When Tom Kelly "retired" and the Twins were working on getting a new manager, Paul Molitor was my choice. They ended up with Ron Gardenhire and I couldn't be happier (well, almost...FREE BOBBY KIELTY AND JOHAN SANTANA!). Eventually, I think Molitor will get a job managing at the big league level, although not in Minnesota. Until then, I think it is a good idea to keep him in the organization because you can never surround a franchise with too many quality people with good baseball minds. Plus, Molitor was a hell of a baserunner in his day and the Twins were truly execrable in that department last year, so maybe he can teach Guzman and the boys some actual techniques to improve. "The Whitesox will receive $68 million, over 20 years, to rename Comiskey Park as U.S. Cellular Field." I am only 20 years old, so I am not exactly Mr. Tradition or anything, but this trend in stadium naming is really bugging me. $68 million dollars is a whole lot of money and there isn't much in this world I wouldn't do to get my hands on it, but is $3.4 million dollars a year really enough to start referring to your ballpark as "U.S. Cellular Field?" To a baseball team with a payroll in excess of $50 million every season and an operating budget that is probably over $100 million, $3.4 mill is a drop in the bucket. I like calling places Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park and I am even proud that the Twins have yet to name their piece of crap stadium something corporate. The way I think about whether or not the name for a stadium or arena is a good one is this: Think ahead 50 or 60 years. Can you envision someone thinking about the past and speaking in glowing terms about the ballpark, as if it has a special place in their heart, as if it were a magical place with too many great memories to possibly count? Plug Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park or *gasp* even the Metrodome into that scenario. You know Yankee Stadium and Fenway work because people talk about them that way right now. And, I have no problem imagining myself or another Minnesotan talking about the 87 or 91 Twins, with the Homer Hankies flying and "The Dome" rocking. Now, plug "U.S. Cellular Field" in. It doesn't quite have that same feeling, does it? I just can't see some 70 year old guy talking about the first baseball game he ever attended and saying, "As soon as I stepped into U.S. Cellular Field, I was in love with baseball." I'm for naming stadiums after people (Wrigley Field, Jacobs Field), the team (Dodger Stadium, Yankee Stadium) or even just coming up with a cool name (Camden Yards, SkyDome). Heck, even corporate names like Safeco Field or Coors Field don't bother me. But when your stadium gets in the 6-syllables-and-over range, it better be because it's called "Olympic Stadium" and not "U.S. Cellular Field." The bright side of all this is that the ballpark will inevitably be called "The Cell" by any self-respecting baseball fan, which will be fun. "According to the St. Petersburg Times, the Devil Rays may be interested in free agent 1B Travis Lee." Yeah, that sounds about right. "According to the NY Daily News, the Mets are interested in free agent INF Keith Lockhart." For what job? Obviously not to play baseball for them, right? RIGHT?! "Umpire Bruce Froemming was suspended for 10 days after a comment calling someone a "stupid Jew bitch" appeared on his supervisor's answering machine. Froemming both denies that his comment was anti Semitic and also claims it wasn't intended for the supervisor. He also says he thought he had already hung up the phone and the comment was directed at someone else. Neither of those explanations sound credible." I couldn't agree with Lee more in regard to neither explanation sounding credible, but I suppose any sort of excuse in this situation would sound pretty lame. Normally I try to stick to baseball on this site and when I first saw this story I decided that I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. However, since I saw it, I have been thinking about it an awful lot and, well, I decided to find myself an 11-foot pole and share my thoughts with you. Take it for what it's worth and remember that I am just some guy who writes about baseball everyday. Can you imagine if Froemming had said "stupid black bitch" instead of "stupid Jew bitch?" It seems to me that it has become more acceptable (or maybe more accurately less punishable) to pick on certain groups of people than others. I don't know why that has happened and I am not sure how, but I believe it definitely exists. At the same time, it was "just words" and I am not suggesting he lose his job or anything of that sort (although I wouldn't lose sleep over it if he did). I am just wondering how different things would have been if he had chosen to pick on a different group of people. It is just speculation on my part, but I believe his punishment would have been significantly stronger, it would have received more media attention and Froemming's life would have been a whole lot more miserable. Anyway, that is about all the "political" type talk you are going to ever hear on this site, so I hope you liked it. Remember, I got all of those "topics" straight from Lee Sinins' "Around the Majors" email newsletter and that was on the weekend! I can't recommend signing up for it enough. For me, it is going to keep me up to date on all the minor signings and not-so-newsworthy events taking place across baseball, so I can write big, long entries about some backup outfielder signing a minor league contract with the Royals or something. For those of you that are not completely obsessed with the minutia of baseball and don't write about it every day of the week, Sinins' newsletter is still awesome because he gets breaking news before almost everyone and he sends it right to your mailbox. Plus, he adds in tons of unique stats and charts and a lot of good analysis too. And you don't have to do any work, like typing a website address or clicking on links. It just shows up right in your mailbox every day. To sign up for the newsletter, go here: http://www.baseballimmortals.net/subscribe.shtml I promise you won't regret it. *****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****
|
E-Mail: aarongleeman@gmail.com Twitter: twitter.com/aarongleeman  Read Me Elsewhere Rotoworld NBC Sports MinnPost Minnesota Twins Stuff Minneapolis Star Tribune St. Paul Pioneer Press MinnesotaTwins.com LaVelle E. Neal III Joe Christensen Kelsie Smith Kelly Thesier Seth Stohs Stick and Ball Guy Nick Nelson Parker Hageman Phil Mackey John Bonnes Edward Thoma Josh Johnson Howard Sinker Twinkie Town Pat Neshek Sports Stuff Hardball Talk Rotoworld Fan Graphs Baseball-Reference.com The Hardball Times Baseball America Baseball Think Factory Bill Simmons Rob Neyer Joe Posnanski Big League Stew The Big Lead Deadspin Fanhouse Baseball Prospectus U.S.S. Mariner Al's Ramblings Sports By Brooks Baseball Musings MLB Trade Rumors Non-Sports Stuff MinnPost Alan Sepinwall David Brauer Adam Carolla Poker Road Gorilla Mask Wicked Chops Poker WWTDD? Popoholic The Superficial Steve Silver Tao of Poker Discount Sporting Goods   ![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
 Official Fantasy Girl of AG.com OFGoAG.com Timeline: Heidi Klum (8/2002 - 12/2003) Jessica Alba (12/2003 - 10/2004) Elisha Cuthbert (10/2004 - 11/2006) Vacant (11/2006 - 6/2008) Keeley Hazell (6/2008 - 3/2010) Mila Kunis (3/2010 - Present) OFGoAG.com Candidates: Marisa Miller Jenna Fischer Kate Beckinsale Keeley Hazell Diora Baird Top 40 Twins Prospects of 2010: 1. Aaron Hicks, CF 2. Kyle Gibson, SP 3. Wilson Ramos, C 4. Miguel Angel Sano, SS 5. Ben Revere, CF 6. Angel Morales, CF 7. David Bromberg, SP 8. Danny Valencia, 3B 9. Matthew Bashore, SP 10. Billy Bullock, RP 11. Rene Tosoni, RF 12. Chris Parmelee, RF 13. Adrian Salcedo, SP 14. Joe Benson, CF 15. Jeff Manship, SP 16. Tyler Robertson, SP 17. Carlos Gutierrez, RP 18. B.J. Hermsen, SP 19. Anthony Slama, RP 20. Max Kepler, CF 21. Alex Burnett, RP 22. Robert Delaney, RP 23. Luke Hughes, 3B 24. Ben Tootle, RP 25. Deolis Guerra, SP 26. Shooter Hunt, SP 27. Trevor Plouffe, SS 28. Michael McCardell, SP 29. Reggie Williams, 2B 30. Estarlin De Los Santos, SS 31. Derek McCallum, 2B 32. Jose Morales, C 33. Chris Herrmann, LF 34. Bobby Lanigan, SP 35. Danny Rams, C 36. Josmil Pinto, C 37. Steven Tolleson, 2B 38. Anderson Hidalgo, 3B 39. Loek Van Mil, RP 40. Joe Testa, RP |