If I said it once, I said it, well, more than once: I thought that Omar Minaya (and especially) Jerry Manuel were being scapegoated (at least to some extent) by the people in charge. I'm not saying that no blame should be put on the people whose job it is to produce victories. I'm saying that using words like "unacceptable" and "anguish" about four seasons which included seasons with 88 and 89 wins, four seasons in which the Mets won over 50% of the time, was rather disingenuous.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Hit-chiro
For whatever reason, perfection or expertise in one particular field impresses people. A man can be a horrible person, feared by his peers and hated by acquaintances, but if his skill at one particular thing is prodigious, he will often be exalted, regardless of his many faults. The overlooking of his faults by society are not my point - I'm just trying to say that people get wowed by one aspect of a person and just zone in on that, forevermore.
Take Ichiro*. I'm not using him as somebody who has faults.** I'm using him as an example of somebody with a huge amount of single-facetedness. The single is his art, his distinct niche in the game of baseball. (It's certainly not his only skill, as he's an excellent outfielder and base stealer, but the single, an act which he performed 175 times this year***, is certainly what he's most distinctively great at.****)
*Yes. Everything leads to Ichiro.
**Though, naturally, I assume he does. I just don't know them.
***And an average of 182.5 times over his ten-year career.
****Quite simply, we've seen base-stealers like Ichiro in Jose Reyes, strong-armed outfielders like him in Jeff Francoeur (and that's just on the 2010 Mets), but no bat-slapping singles-hitting phenoms akin to Ichiro.
I noted last year (here) that Ichiro had never been lower than (tied for) second place in hits in the major leagues since he joined them in 2001. With 2010 in the books, I (not surprisingly) noticed that he had once again led the major leagues in hits. Here's the more surprising thing: He's now led the American League in hits for five consecutive years. Take a guess at how many people have led the league in hits for that many consecutive years. I'll wait.*
*I guessed one: Ty Cobb.
Nobody, that's how many.*
Wrong.
Just one of the many reasons to be a Mariners fan!*
*Yes, that was a joke.
Take Ichiro*. I'm not using him as somebody who has faults.** I'm using him as an example of somebody with a huge amount of single-facetedness. The single is his art, his distinct niche in the game of baseball. (It's certainly not his only skill, as he's an excellent outfielder and base stealer, but the single, an act which he performed 175 times this year***, is certainly what he's most distinctively great at.****)
*Yes. Everything leads to Ichiro.
**Though, naturally, I assume he does. I just don't know them.
***And an average of 182.5 times over his ten-year career.
****Quite simply, we've seen base-stealers like Ichiro in Jose Reyes, strong-armed outfielders like him in Jeff Francoeur (and that's just on the 2010 Mets), but no bat-slapping singles-hitting phenoms akin to Ichiro.
I noted last year (here) that Ichiro had never been lower than (tied for) second place in hits in the major leagues since he joined them in 2001. With 2010 in the books, I (not surprisingly) noticed that he had once again led the major leagues in hits. Here's the more surprising thing: He's now led the American League in hits for five consecutive years. Take a guess at how many people have led the league in hits for that many consecutive years. I'll wait.*
*I guessed one: Ty Cobb.
Nobody, that's how many.*
Wrong.
Just one of the many reasons to be a Mariners fan!*
*Yes, that was a joke.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The Good, The Bad and The Precedent
As the 2010 season melts in the 2010 post-season with the Mets missing - again - the time has certainly come to reflect upon the 2010 season; a season of failed promise, questionable injuries, and youthful enthusiasm, leading - after six months and 162 gmaes - to nothing. Some would say 2010 personified what the Mets are: A lot of hoopla for little substance, a mediocre team with a managerial and hierarchical mess. In a word, a laughingstock.
But along with the Bizarre and Ugly came a fair share of Promise and Future. The 2010 Mets are dead, but the Mets are far from that demise. Here's a recap of the good, the bad and the precedent as the leaves turn red, the grass white, and the windshields frosty:
THE GOOD:
The good for the Mets in 2010 was, to a large extent, divided into two categories: Bounceback and Youth.
Bounceback
After an injury-riddled 2009, the Mets brought many questions into the 2010 season: Could Jose Reyes remain healthy and effective for a whole season? Was Johan Santana, after another surgery, still the phenomenal pitcher that came over from the Twins? Could David Wright, after a weak power year and a terrifying beaning in 2009, return in '10 as the force that he'd been in the 2000s? All those questions were answered affirmatively, bringing joy for the present and expectation for the future.
Youth
What's worse than a losing baseball team? A losing baseball team composed of has-beens.* Youthful energy on a ballclub - even a rather bad one - provides excitement to the fans, and a sense of optimism for a brighter future, too. Ike Davis and his fine play at first base, Josh Thole and his neat work behind the plate, both look to have bright futures with the Mets for the betterment of the team and their careers. Ruben Tejada, Jon Niese and Chris Carter, similarly, all played nicely in trial runs, and look to have shots at cracking the 2010 roster (particularly Niese). Thought hardly youthful (he turns 36 this month) R.A. Dickey and his utterly effective knuckleball also provide hope for Met fans, and as such belongs in this category.
*The prime example of a "losing baseball team composed of has-beens" is the 2002 Mets. That 75-win squad that got Bobby Valentine fired had on its roster has-beens Roberto Alomar, Rey Ordonez, Roger Cedeno, Jeromy Burnitz, Mo Vaughn as well as Pedro Astacio, Jeff D'Amico and Shawn Estes. Brutal.
THE BAD:
Where to begin? The bad is basically comprised of the "bad contracts" and "underperforming incumbents."
Bad Contracts
Over the course of this season, three (rather) long-term contracts seemed to bite the Mets.
Oliver Perez, the prime culprit, gave significant angst to Mets fans whenever he took the mound. His ineffectiveness was consistent, and he probably was the least popular among all the players on the squad (while being paid $12 million).
Luis Castillo, the veteran second baseman who had a resurgence last year, performed pretty poorly this year. While his athletic suffering was not even close to that suffered by Perez, he was quite ineffective this year, sporting a .235 batting average and an OPS+ of 68. His quality 2009 season notwithstanding, Castillo's contract seems rather heavy.
The third and least guilty large contract-bearer is Jason Bay*. Bay signed with the Mets last offseason and performed below expectations. Luckily for Bay, with three years left on his deal, he has the possibility of making everyone forget about this season by playing well in the future.
*Why is Bay least guilty?
When you get down to it - and ignore the high expectations - Bay did not have a bad season, as illustrated by his adequate defense and 105 OPS+. Is that the production that the Mets expected when they gave him a $66 million contract? Certainly not. But, honestly, it's far from dreadful. (Well better, for example, than Jeff Francoeur.)
Under-performing Incumbents
While some players on the Mets, like Johan Santana and David Wright, performed quite well, others' performances left a lot to be desired. Jeff Francoeur, Carlos Beltran, Fernando Tatis, and John Maine, were all supposed to be big parts of a quality 2010 New York Mets team. Yet, between injuries (to three of them), and general under-production (by all four), the Mets post-season chances were swept away, like shards of glass after an earthquake, deliberately and unpleasantly.
THE PRECEDENT
So, what's next? How will the Mets perform next year?
- The Mets finished 79-83 this year, the first time they won precisely 79 games in a year.
- The Mets improved by 9 games from last years's 70 wins. The only other time the Mets improved by exactly 9 games was in 1999, when they won 97 games (to their 88 in 1998) and lost the National League Championship Series to the Braves.
- This year's team won 79 games, an improvement of 9; the 2004 Mets won 71 games, an improvement of 5; the 2005 Mets won 83 games an improvement of 12. When the Mets won the division in 2006, they were just one year removed from '05 and two from '06.
Are the Mets in a similar position to the one they were in in 2004 or 2005? It's hard to say. The 2005 team was loaded with young talent (Reyes, Wright, Beltran). However, the current Mets are not exactly slackers in that area, with Ike Davis, Jon Niese and Josh Thole looking to have significant, and promising, future roles with the club.
And maybe, just maybe, the Mets will fall into some luck for a change. Maybe the new General Manager will prove himself to be an adept trader. Maybe some players who seem done, like Luis Castillo, Jason Bay and K-Rod, still have some life in them.
If you're a saddened Met fan, there's still some room for hope.
But along with the Bizarre and Ugly came a fair share of Promise and Future. The 2010 Mets are dead, but the Mets are far from that demise. Here's a recap of the good, the bad and the precedent as the leaves turn red, the grass white, and the windshields frosty:
THE GOOD:
The good for the Mets in 2010 was, to a large extent, divided into two categories: Bounceback and Youth.
Bounceback
After an injury-riddled 2009, the Mets brought many questions into the 2010 season: Could Jose Reyes remain healthy and effective for a whole season? Was Johan Santana, after another surgery, still the phenomenal pitcher that came over from the Twins? Could David Wright, after a weak power year and a terrifying beaning in 2009, return in '10 as the force that he'd been in the 2000s? All those questions were answered affirmatively, bringing joy for the present and expectation for the future.
Youth
What's worse than a losing baseball team? A losing baseball team composed of has-beens.* Youthful energy on a ballclub - even a rather bad one - provides excitement to the fans, and a sense of optimism for a brighter future, too. Ike Davis and his fine play at first base, Josh Thole and his neat work behind the plate, both look to have bright futures with the Mets for the betterment of the team and their careers. Ruben Tejada, Jon Niese and Chris Carter, similarly, all played nicely in trial runs, and look to have shots at cracking the 2010 roster (particularly Niese). Thought hardly youthful (he turns 36 this month) R.A. Dickey and his utterly effective knuckleball also provide hope for Met fans, and as such belongs in this category.
*The prime example of a "losing baseball team composed of has-beens" is the 2002 Mets. That 75-win squad that got Bobby Valentine fired had on its roster has-beens Roberto Alomar, Rey Ordonez, Roger Cedeno, Jeromy Burnitz, Mo Vaughn as well as Pedro Astacio, Jeff D'Amico and Shawn Estes. Brutal.
THE BAD:
Where to begin? The bad is basically comprised of the "bad contracts" and "underperforming incumbents."
Bad Contracts
Over the course of this season, three (rather) long-term contracts seemed to bite the Mets.
Oliver Perez, the prime culprit, gave significant angst to Mets fans whenever he took the mound. His ineffectiveness was consistent, and he probably was the least popular among all the players on the squad (while being paid $12 million).
Luis Castillo, the veteran second baseman who had a resurgence last year, performed pretty poorly this year. While his athletic suffering was not even close to that suffered by Perez, he was quite ineffective this year, sporting a .235 batting average and an OPS+ of 68. His quality 2009 season notwithstanding, Castillo's contract seems rather heavy.
The third and least guilty large contract-bearer is Jason Bay*. Bay signed with the Mets last offseason and performed below expectations. Luckily for Bay, with three years left on his deal, he has the possibility of making everyone forget about this season by playing well in the future.
*Why is Bay least guilty?
When you get down to it - and ignore the high expectations - Bay did not have a bad season, as illustrated by his adequate defense and 105 OPS+. Is that the production that the Mets expected when they gave him a $66 million contract? Certainly not. But, honestly, it's far from dreadful. (Well better, for example, than Jeff Francoeur.)
Under-performing Incumbents
While some players on the Mets, like Johan Santana and David Wright, performed quite well, others' performances left a lot to be desired. Jeff Francoeur, Carlos Beltran, Fernando Tatis, and John Maine, were all supposed to be big parts of a quality 2010 New York Mets team. Yet, between injuries (to three of them), and general under-production (by all four), the Mets post-season chances were swept away, like shards of glass after an earthquake, deliberately and unpleasantly.
THE PRECEDENT
So, what's next? How will the Mets perform next year?
- The Mets finished 79-83 this year, the first time they won precisely 79 games in a year.
- The Mets improved by 9 games from last years's 70 wins. The only other time the Mets improved by exactly 9 games was in 1999, when they won 97 games (to their 88 in 1998) and lost the National League Championship Series to the Braves.
- This year's team won 79 games, an improvement of 9; the 2004 Mets won 71 games, an improvement of 5; the 2005 Mets won 83 games an improvement of 12. When the Mets won the division in 2006, they were just one year removed from '05 and two from '06.
Are the Mets in a similar position to the one they were in in 2004 or 2005? It's hard to say. The 2005 team was loaded with young talent (Reyes, Wright, Beltran). However, the current Mets are not exactly slackers in that area, with Ike Davis, Jon Niese and Josh Thole looking to have significant, and promising, future roles with the club.
And maybe, just maybe, the Mets will fall into some luck for a change. Maybe the new General Manager will prove himself to be an adept trader. Maybe some players who seem done, like Luis Castillo, Jason Bay and K-Rod, still have some life in them.
If you're a saddened Met fan, there's still some room for hope.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Gee Willigers
It isn't really easy to impress a New Yorker*, but Dillon Gee has, seemingly, accomplished that not-too-easy trick. In what was apparently unprecedented in Mets history, last night marked the first Mets game in which both starting pitchers (Mets and opposition) were pitching in their major league debuts.
*So, there's a guy on the window 60 stories up? And that's why you interrupted my mustard-smearing?!
Dillon Gee was drafted by the Mets in 2007 (well after Eddie Kunz and Lucas Duda) and pitched quite well in 62 innings in Brooklyn. Over the following three years, he pitched for St. Lucie, Binghampton and Buffalo, pitching exclusively as a starter (in quite limited action in 2009, due to an injury). In 2010, Gee impressed, with 165 strikeouts in 161.1 innings, 13 wins, and a strikeout to walk ratio of over 4.
Interestingly enough, for a pitcher who just made his major league debut, Gee's ERA has risen in every year of his professional career, but last night's game was something more than a mirage. Gee was both good and efficient, holding the Nationals to one run in 7 innings on 2 hits and 3 walks, while collecting five strikeouts and throwing just 86 pitches. For a Met team and fanbase that can't help but be down in the dumps, Gee's excellence has to be a beacon of hope for the future.
In a somewhat interesting sidenote, while it was Gee's first major league game, he must have hardly felt out of place; 5 of the 8 other players in the Mets starting lineup played with him in Buffalo this year, as did both pinch hitters and one of the three Met relievers.
While the Mets season seems to be over, their life as a franchise is, likely, not. More than just kinship to Dillon Gee, the Mets rather nice collection of young talent, from Ike Davis and Bobby Parnell, to Lucas Duda and Jon Niese, should inspire hope among Mets faithful, however blue (or orange) 2010 (and, yes, '09, '08, etc.) make them feel.
History Note of the Day: In 1983, the Mets were 68-94 (and dead last in the league in attendance). They stank, sure, but in that pile of stink were Darryl Strawberry, Keith Hernandez, Jesse Orosco, Mookie Wilson and other who would bring them to, shall we say, a somewhat more respectable position in the baseball universe.
In 1984, the Mets won 90 games, came in second, and would have been the wild card team, had the slot been invented.
Gee, that sounds good.
*So, there's a guy on the window 60 stories up? And that's why you interrupted my mustard-smearing?!
Dillon Gee was drafted by the Mets in 2007 (well after Eddie Kunz and Lucas Duda) and pitched quite well in 62 innings in Brooklyn. Over the following three years, he pitched for St. Lucie, Binghampton and Buffalo, pitching exclusively as a starter (in quite limited action in 2009, due to an injury). In 2010, Gee impressed, with 165 strikeouts in 161.1 innings, 13 wins, and a strikeout to walk ratio of over 4.
Interestingly enough, for a pitcher who just made his major league debut, Gee's ERA has risen in every year of his professional career, but last night's game was something more than a mirage. Gee was both good and efficient, holding the Nationals to one run in 7 innings on 2 hits and 3 walks, while collecting five strikeouts and throwing just 86 pitches. For a Met team and fanbase that can't help but be down in the dumps, Gee's excellence has to be a beacon of hope for the future.
In a somewhat interesting sidenote, while it was Gee's first major league game, he must have hardly felt out of place; 5 of the 8 other players in the Mets starting lineup played with him in Buffalo this year, as did both pinch hitters and one of the three Met relievers.
While the Mets season seems to be over, their life as a franchise is, likely, not. More than just kinship to Dillon Gee, the Mets rather nice collection of young talent, from Ike Davis and Bobby Parnell, to Lucas Duda and Jon Niese, should inspire hope among Mets faithful, however blue (or orange) 2010 (and, yes, '09, '08, etc.) make them feel.
History Note of the Day: In 1983, the Mets were 68-94 (and dead last in the league in attendance). They stank, sure, but in that pile of stink were Darryl Strawberry, Keith Hernandez, Jesse Orosco, Mookie Wilson and other who would bring them to, shall we say, a somewhat more respectable position in the baseball universe.
In 1984, the Mets won 90 games, came in second, and would have been the wild card team, had the slot been invented.
Gee, that sounds good.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
All-Star Outfielder Picked up at the Trade Deadline
Carlos Beltran is not a free-agent acquisition, nor is he playing in 2010 like an All-Star. (In fact, his offense this year has been too close to non-existent.) But if you have any belief at all in the concept of history repeating itself, you’ve got to be expecting good things from the man.
For a moment, let’s make believe you don’t know who Carlos Beltran is. Well, I’ll tell you. He’s a 33-year-old centerfielder who is seemingly somewhat past very prime. (He’s not exactly old, but he’s not 26, either.) On his resume reside a Rookie of the Year award, five All-Star games, three Gold Gloves, two Silver Sluggers and two Fielding Bible awards. He has a career .282/.359/.495 batting line (118 OPS+), has topped 25 home runs six times, and has had seven seasons with 100 runs scored and eight with 100 RBI. According to baseball-reference.com, three of his top five similar batters are Hall of Famers (Andre Dawson, Dave Winfield, Billy Williams; Shawn Green and Bobby Bonds round out the group).
Which is all to say that Carlos Beltran is really, really good. Now, granted, most of that’s history. But Babe Ruth’s career up to 33 was all history, too, and all he did to that history was add four 40 home runs seasons to it. Ted Williams’ two MVPs and two wars were history when he was 33; all he did was add two batting titles and three league leaderships in intentional walks (and OPS+ over 200 three times in rather full seasons).
Beltran is 33, not 53. He may be a shell of his former self, but I think he’s still a darn good shell. Having barely played in the last year, is Beltran rusty? Probably. But wait for the rust to wear off, and see what shines underneath. It may be a diamond.
And seriously, even if it isn’t, would your really rather see Jeff Francoeur out there?
For a moment, let’s make believe you don’t know who Carlos Beltran is. Well, I’ll tell you. He’s a 33-year-old centerfielder who is seemingly somewhat past very prime. (He’s not exactly old, but he’s not 26, either.) On his resume reside a Rookie of the Year award, five All-Star games, three Gold Gloves, two Silver Sluggers and two Fielding Bible awards. He has a career .282/.359/.495 batting line (118 OPS+), has topped 25 home runs six times, and has had seven seasons with 100 runs scored and eight with 100 RBI. According to baseball-reference.com, three of his top five similar batters are Hall of Famers (Andre Dawson, Dave Winfield, Billy Williams; Shawn Green and Bobby Bonds round out the group).
Which is all to say that Carlos Beltran is really, really good. Now, granted, most of that’s history. But Babe Ruth’s career up to 33 was all history, too, and all he did to that history was add four 40 home runs seasons to it. Ted Williams’ two MVPs and two wars were history when he was 33; all he did was add two batting titles and three league leaderships in intentional walks (and OPS+ over 200 three times in rather full seasons).
Beltran is 33, not 53. He may be a shell of his former self, but I think he’s still a darn good shell. Having barely played in the last year, is Beltran rusty? Probably. But wait for the rust to wear off, and see what shines underneath. It may be a diamond.
And seriously, even if it isn’t, would your really rather see Jeff Francoeur out there?
Taking Stock
The 2010 season is past the actual and theoretical halfway points, and a look at the baseball* world brings a lot of surprises: The Royals stink, the Giants have good pitching, the Yankees are in first place - oh, surprises? Not so much.
I mean, most people would probably have pegged the Red Sox at less than 7 games back, and I certainly didn't expect to hear this much Angel Pagan-lauding, but like a Hershey's bar and a tank of gas, the first four months of this baseball game have basically given you what you expected.**
*I'm going to congratulate myself right here for remembering that August 1 is Mike Piazza's birthday. I must say, however, that I'd probably be congratulating myself somewhat more heartily if it were actually, you know, his birthday. In fact, I'm off by more than a month, as his birthday isn't until September 12. Stay young, Mike.
**The All-Star Game notwithstanding.
The Mets, as might’ve been expected, were neither laughably bad nor haughtily good in the first 4 months of the season,* and the time period has yielded surprises both good (Mike Pelfrey can pitch) and bad (no he can’t), but the Mets when all is said and done, are – and this really feels exciting after the meaningful-game drought that was 2009 – in the hunt.
*Honestly, that’s not true. They were both laughably bad AND haughtily good. But their season thus far has been neither.
I’m not going to say that at 6.5 games back of the wild card the Mets have a real good shot at winning, but I think the current angle for any Met-minded person has got to be, “Well, we’ve got a much better shot than seven back with seventeen to play, right?”
Which they do.
I mean, most people would probably have pegged the Red Sox at less than 7 games back, and I certainly didn't expect to hear this much Angel Pagan-lauding, but like a Hershey's bar and a tank of gas, the first four months of this baseball game have basically given you what you expected.**
*I'm going to congratulate myself right here for remembering that August 1 is Mike Piazza's birthday. I must say, however, that I'd probably be congratulating myself somewhat more heartily if it were actually, you know, his birthday. In fact, I'm off by more than a month, as his birthday isn't until September 12. Stay young, Mike.
**The All-Star Game notwithstanding.
The Mets, as might’ve been expected, were neither laughably bad nor haughtily good in the first 4 months of the season,* and the time period has yielded surprises both good (Mike Pelfrey can pitch) and bad (no he can’t), but the Mets when all is said and done, are – and this really feels exciting after the meaningful-game drought that was 2009 – in the hunt.
*Honestly, that’s not true. They were both laughably bad AND haughtily good. But their season thus far has been neither.
I’m not going to say that at 6.5 games back of the wild card the Mets have a real good shot at winning, but I think the current angle for any Met-minded person has got to be, “Well, we’ve got a much better shot than seven back with seventeen to play, right?”
Which they do.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Is that really Jermaine to the Matter?
Like professionals in many industries*, performers in the field of sport often don't know when to stop. Fans of baseball are no strangers to this social fact. In his last year, Babe Ruth batted .181,** about half of his lifetime .342 average. Willie Mays hit .211 with 6 home runs in close to half a year's worth of games in 1973. Bob Gibson went 5-10 with an ERA over 5 in his last year, 1975. Christy Mathewson was 12-18 with an ERA+ of 74 in his last two years (1915-1916). The names abound. Three-Finger Brown. Lefty Gomez. Robin Roberts. Lou Gehrig. All these men were clearly overmatched before they decided to retire.***
*Think Richard Nixon.
**Though, with a 118 OPS+.
***There have certainly been exceptions. Joe Dimaggio, Hank Greenberg and Tom Seaver were notable players who defied this rule, but the exceptions illustrate the rule.
Were they trying to hold onto the fame that they'd acquired, feeling that retirement would propel them into an abyss of depression? Perhaps. Were they, realizing that their livelihood was nearing its end, desperately trying to stick around and make as much money as possible? Perhaps. Were they, like nearly every other member of the human race, unwilling to admit that age had caught up with them? Perhaps. Were they simply continuing the course of work that they had been involved in for most of their lives? Perhaps.
But when you get down to it, many athletes, many people, stick around at their trade until they embarrass themselves and those who must watch them.
Which brings me to Jermaine Dye.
Coming off a 2009 season in which he batted .250/.340/.453 (103 OPS+), Jermaine Dye found himself without whatever he deemed an "appropriate" job offer. His hitting last year was not without value. Had he made a statement in which he said something about being less than 2 years removed from a 34 home run season, well, that would be a nice marketing job. Had he said something about being less than 4 years removed from a 44 home run season, well, that would seem rather weak, if not entirely irrelevant.
But, no. According to this, Dye said (in February) “It has only been 41/2 years since I was the World Series MVP.” Which, seriously, says just about nothing.
Honestly, for a man who got some MVP consideration in 2008, is he really attempting to get a job because of a good week (4 games, by the way) he had in 2005?
I don't know about you, but if I were him, I'd be talking about the 133 homers I hit from 2006-2009, not the four-game set in Fall 2005 in which I hit one.
*Think Richard Nixon.
**Though, with a 118 OPS+.
***There have certainly been exceptions. Joe Dimaggio, Hank Greenberg and Tom Seaver were notable players who defied this rule, but the exceptions illustrate the rule.
Were they trying to hold onto the fame that they'd acquired, feeling that retirement would propel them into an abyss of depression? Perhaps. Were they, realizing that their livelihood was nearing its end, desperately trying to stick around and make as much money as possible? Perhaps. Were they, like nearly every other member of the human race, unwilling to admit that age had caught up with them? Perhaps. Were they simply continuing the course of work that they had been involved in for most of their lives? Perhaps.
But when you get down to it, many athletes, many people, stick around at their trade until they embarrass themselves and those who must watch them.
Which brings me to Jermaine Dye.
Coming off a 2009 season in which he batted .250/.340/.453 (103 OPS+), Jermaine Dye found himself without whatever he deemed an "appropriate" job offer. His hitting last year was not without value. Had he made a statement in which he said something about being less than 2 years removed from a 34 home run season, well, that would be a nice marketing job. Had he said something about being less than 4 years removed from a 44 home run season, well, that would seem rather weak, if not entirely irrelevant.
But, no. According to this, Dye said (in February) “It has only been 41/2 years since I was the World Series MVP.” Which, seriously, says just about nothing.
Honestly, for a man who got some MVP consideration in 2008, is he really attempting to get a job because of a good week (4 games, by the way) he had in 2005?
I don't know about you, but if I were him, I'd be talking about the 133 homers I hit from 2006-2009, not the four-game set in Fall 2005 in which I hit one.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Who's Got The Dough?
There's a time and place for everything, and considering the hour, this is not the time for blogging.
Yet, I'd just like to point out that the 6 most highly-paid players in baseball play in.........New York.*
*What were you expecting - Kansas City?
Yet, I'd just like to point out that the 6 most highly-paid players in baseball play in.........New York.*
*What were you expecting - Kansas City?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Consistent Inconsistency
Do you know what it means to be busy? Good. Because now I have a lot less to explain about why I haven't been posting.
The Mets now stand at 18-16 on the season, 2.5 games out of first place (they're behind the Phillies and the Nationals). Coming after last year, it's kind of a breath of fresh air, because while the Mets are not doing all that well (and are EXTREMELY streaky) they're doing alright and hanging in there in the divisional race.
I don't know if this is good or bad, but it seems like nearly everybody's either really good or really bad. David Wright, Jeff Francoeur, and Jose Reyes headline a crew that is either doing nothing or everything right.* The rotation has seen no-one in complete command. Mike Pelfrey, who started this season in nice fashion, has now put together two far-from-quality starts out of his last three. I'm not saying there's cause for concern - though health concerns may exist - I'm just saying that (while baseball's long season almost requires inconsistency over the long haul, it seems like) the 2010 Mets are consistently inconsistent.
* I say this on an individual basis. Players are streaky, but they are not coordinating with one another.
Not good; not bad. Weird.
The Mets now stand at 18-16 on the season, 2.5 games out of first place (they're behind the Phillies and the Nationals). Coming after last year, it's kind of a breath of fresh air, because while the Mets are not doing all that well (and are EXTREMELY streaky) they're doing alright and hanging in there in the divisional race.
I don't know if this is good or bad, but it seems like nearly everybody's either really good or really bad. David Wright, Jeff Francoeur, and Jose Reyes headline a crew that is either doing nothing or everything right.* The rotation has seen no-one in complete command. Mike Pelfrey, who started this season in nice fashion, has now put together two far-from-quality starts out of his last three. I'm not saying there's cause for concern - though health concerns may exist - I'm just saying that (while baseball's long season almost requires inconsistency over the long haul, it seems like) the 2010 Mets are consistently inconsistent.
* I say this on an individual basis. Players are streaky, but they are not coordinating with one another.
Not good; not bad. Weird.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
On the Upcoming Season
Opening Day's about a week away, and it's time to look at the upcoming season - in foresight - and make some predictions. They're going to be wrong - heck, they're always wrong, but what're you worth if you can't make mistakes on your own blog?
I'm going to go position by position, and give my ratings, both objective and subjective (as compared with the 2009 Mets).
Catcher - Rod Barajas is hardly somebody to write home about, but compared with either Brian Schneider or Bengie Molina at five times the price, his acquistion was a quite logical move by the Mets.
He should provide some pop, but his high in OBP (for a full season) is .306. Last year it was .258.
First Base - Daniel Murphy should be better this year than last year for a few reasons:
1. Age - He's about to turn 25, and is probably getting better.
2. More experience should make him a better first baseman
3. More experience should make him a better hitter.
So, yes, I think he's going to be better than he was last year. In a league with Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Adrian Gonzalez, Lance Berkman and Ryan Howard as other first basemen, I'd give Murphy a very slim chance to make the All-Star team.
Second Base - Luis Castillo's signing has been widely scoffed at by the world at large. And I'm not here to defend it. But according to fangraphs.com, Castillo was worth more than what he made last year. If he's similar to what he was in 2009, he'll be quite serviceable. But, at his age, decline is to be expected. Still, if he's close to last year, it'll be hard to keep complaining about Luis's contract.
Third Base - David Wright had (statistically) a freakishly weird season last year. A lot of people expect his power to rebound. Personally, I'd be surprised if he hits 10 (or fewer) homers in 2010, but without knowing why he hit so few home runs last year, I can't quite convince myself that he'll hit 30 this year.
The thing is, even if he loses his power stroke completeley, like last year, he's still an extremely good baseball player. His fielding, batting and baserunning are all quite good. He's just not MVP-caliber without the power, but he's still excellent.
Left Field - Jason Bay will probably (i.e. he'd better) hit better than 2009 Met left-fielders, and I think he'll field out there a lot better than Daniel Murphy, too. The guy's good.*
Center Field - Carlos Beltran will probably be back soon and have a phenomenal year. He's going to knock over 25 home runs and he's going to have over 100 RBIs. And play Gold Glove defense. He's probably the best center fielder in baseball. And in the last 12 seasons, he's been caught stealing 38 times.
Right Field - Jeff Francoeur leaves, I suppose, some room for hope. I'm probably least optimistic about his upcoming year than I am with any other Met.
*And for all those who like to point at his 36 home runs last year being in his first full year with the Red Sox, he only hit 15 home runs at Fenway Park. And only 2 were at Yankee Stadium.
That's it for the starting lineup. No guarantees, but pitchers, the bench and that ever-elusive might fast shortstop may follow in a future post.
I'm going to go position by position, and give my ratings, both objective and subjective (as compared with the 2009 Mets).
Catcher - Rod Barajas is hardly somebody to write home about, but compared with either Brian Schneider or Bengie Molina at five times the price, his acquistion was a quite logical move by the Mets.
He should provide some pop, but his high in OBP (for a full season) is .306. Last year it was .258.
First Base - Daniel Murphy should be better this year than last year for a few reasons:
1. Age - He's about to turn 25, and is probably getting better.
2. More experience should make him a better first baseman
3. More experience should make him a better hitter.
So, yes, I think he's going to be better than he was last year. In a league with Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Adrian Gonzalez, Lance Berkman and Ryan Howard as other first basemen, I'd give Murphy a very slim chance to make the All-Star team.
Second Base - Luis Castillo's signing has been widely scoffed at by the world at large. And I'm not here to defend it. But according to fangraphs.com, Castillo was worth more than what he made last year. If he's similar to what he was in 2009, he'll be quite serviceable. But, at his age, decline is to be expected. Still, if he's close to last year, it'll be hard to keep complaining about Luis's contract.
Third Base - David Wright had (statistically) a freakishly weird season last year. A lot of people expect his power to rebound. Personally, I'd be surprised if he hits 10 (or fewer) homers in 2010, but without knowing why he hit so few home runs last year, I can't quite convince myself that he'll hit 30 this year.
The thing is, even if he loses his power stroke completeley, like last year, he's still an extremely good baseball player. His fielding, batting and baserunning are all quite good. He's just not MVP-caliber without the power, but he's still excellent.
Left Field - Jason Bay will probably (i.e. he'd better) hit better than 2009 Met left-fielders, and I think he'll field out there a lot better than Daniel Murphy, too. The guy's good.*
Center Field - Carlos Beltran will probably be back soon and have a phenomenal year. He's going to knock over 25 home runs and he's going to have over 100 RBIs. And play Gold Glove defense. He's probably the best center fielder in baseball. And in the last 12 seasons, he's been caught stealing 38 times.
Right Field - Jeff Francoeur leaves, I suppose, some room for hope. I'm probably least optimistic about his upcoming year than I am with any other Met.
*And for all those who like to point at his 36 home runs last year being in his first full year with the Red Sox, he only hit 15 home runs at Fenway Park. And only 2 were at Yankee Stadium.
That's it for the starting lineup. No guarantees, but pitchers, the bench and that ever-elusive might fast shortstop may follow in a future post.
Monday, March 8, 2010
On Fernando Martinez
Fernando Martinez is something (or, perhaps, someone) that I have spent some time thinking about. Obviously, it's way too early to know what will become of him, and I think that a lot of Mets fan were rather disappointed in the way that he performed in his tours of duty in 2009. Which is understandable. When your number one prospect is struggling to approach .200 and has an OPS+ of 38 (Johan Santana OPS+d 33 last year), discouragement is a rather natural reaction.
Here's the thing. Fernando was just 20 years old last year and was the second youngest player in the National League. (Giants pitcher Madison Bumgarnerthe youngest). He couldn't really have been expected to flourish at such a young age (and with the dearth of AAA experience that he had) at the major league level.
Also, and I thought this was very encouraging, Martinez could field quite well. Often, a player is touted as a five-tool prospect, yet he lacks the instincts to playe the field well. (Lastings Milledge is a textbook example of this .) This doesn't* seem to be the case with Martinez.
Now he just needs to hit.
* Fangraphs.com is not all that happy with Martinez's fielding, but it's a small sample size, and as such, I think we can ignore it for the time being (i.e. until the sample size grows).
Here's the thing. Fernando was just 20 years old last year and was the second youngest player in the National League. (Giants pitcher Madison Bumgarnerthe youngest). He couldn't really have been expected to flourish at such a young age (and with the dearth of AAA experience that he had) at the major league level.
Also, and I thought this was very encouraging, Martinez could field quite well. Often, a player is touted as a five-tool prospect, yet he lacks the instincts to playe the field well. (Lastings Milledge is a textbook example of this .) This doesn't* seem to be the case with Martinez.
Now he just needs to hit.
* Fangraphs.com is not all that happy with Martinez's fielding, but it's a small sample size, and as such, I think we can ignore it for the time being (i.e. until the sample size grows).
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Officially Psyched
It's Spring Training in Port St. Lucie, and hope is in the air. Hope for a fresh season. Hope for an about-face by those Mets. Hope for summer.
No, I'm not going there. Enough of that is written by, like, people who write that type of stuff. I'm not necessarily against the "hope"y slant, but I think it's overdone. Here's the problem - perhaps more than most previous years, I really feel it.
Reyes hitting a triple, Jon Niese saying that he's fine, a little battle for the first base position, Fernando Tatis breaking in all his gloves (it was third base yesterday, what do you think it'll be tomorrow?)...what can I say? As I sit in the snow in New York (and if you're not around here, it's A LOT of snow) things are just looking up -- way up.
And I don't care if it's too poetic. That's how I feel!
Golf Point: There's a headline on ESPN.com reading "Report: Tiger at home, getting into golf shape." Now, I don't consider myself a golf expert by any means, but isn't the whole point of golf that you don't need to be in shpae to play it?
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's kind of what I thought.
No, I'm not going there. Enough of that is written by, like, people who write that type of stuff. I'm not necessarily against the "hope"y slant, but I think it's overdone. Here's the problem - perhaps more than most previous years, I really feel it.
Reyes hitting a triple, Jon Niese saying that he's fine, a little battle for the first base position, Fernando Tatis breaking in all his gloves (it was third base yesterday, what do you think it'll be tomorrow?)...what can I say? As I sit in the snow in New York (and if you're not around here, it's A LOT of snow) things are just looking up -- way up.
And I don't care if it's too poetic. That's how I feel!
Golf Point: There's a headline on ESPN.com reading "Report: Tiger at home, getting into golf shape." Now, I don't consider myself a golf expert by any means, but isn't the whole point of golf that you don't need to be in shpae to play it?
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's kind of what I thought.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Who's on First?
Apparently, the Mets have first base up for grabs between Mike Jacobs and Daniel Murphy. Depending on his (and whoever wins the job's) production as the season wears on, Fernando Tatis figures to see a reasonable amount of playing time - at least against left-handed starting pitchers.
If you ask me, Daniel Murphy has to be given the upper hand. Mike Jacobs has had his shot - and he hasn't done much with it. People have gone from really high on Daniel Murphy to really low on him - both on offense and on defense - in the space of a relatively short period of time. Now he's hardly a fan-favorite, but you've got to remember - the guy has had less than 650 at bats. I know some people have given up on him,but I just don't get it.
On a somewhat different note, in case you're wondering just how the at-bats will be divvied, I did a little research on the primary candidates for first base.
Fernando Tatis performs slightly better against lefties than righties. The difference is rather slight, but it is there. Fernando is basically Todd Walker against righties and Kevin Millar against lefties.
Daniel Murphy has hit better, though not drastically, against righties than lefties. His power, however, is virtually the same either way (and his isolated slugging is higher against lefties). Against righties, Murphy is basically Eric Hinske, and against lefties he's pretty close to Juan Uribe.
Mike Jacobs is much, much better against right-handers than against lefties. Against righties, Jacobs is basically Alfonso Soriano; against lefties he's not (as crazy as this sounds) so much better than Rey Ordonez (he's got a lot more power, but doesn't get on base as much).
What does this mean? Well, technically, nothing - it's all history. If Mike Jacobs hits like it's 2005 again, no-one will care that he couldn't hit for beans last year or against lefties in 2010. If Daniel Murphy turns into Keith Hernandez, yeah, I think New York would be content. If Fernando Tatis hits like Bill Clinton was still president the Mets might just win the National League.
But, as occurs with any history-related findings, the past can give us a window to the future. Cats don't usually fly. Pumpkins don't turn into carriages. And the Mets depending on Fernando Tatis to hold down first base or Mike Jacobs to hit left-handed pitching is nearly the equivalent of putting a nail in that coffin labeled 2010.
Their hope just may lie in the person of Daniel Murphy.
If you ask me, Daniel Murphy has to be given the upper hand. Mike Jacobs has had his shot - and he hasn't done much with it. People have gone from really high on Daniel Murphy to really low on him - both on offense and on defense - in the space of a relatively short period of time. Now he's hardly a fan-favorite, but you've got to remember - the guy has had less than 650 at bats. I know some people have given up on him,but I just don't get it.
On a somewhat different note, in case you're wondering just how the at-bats will be divvied, I did a little research on the primary candidates for first base.
Fernando Tatis performs slightly better against lefties than righties. The difference is rather slight, but it is there. Fernando is basically Todd Walker against righties and Kevin Millar against lefties.
Daniel Murphy has hit better, though not drastically, against righties than lefties. His power, however, is virtually the same either way (and his isolated slugging is higher against lefties). Against righties, Murphy is basically Eric Hinske, and against lefties he's pretty close to Juan Uribe.
Mike Jacobs is much, much better against right-handers than against lefties. Against righties, Jacobs is basically Alfonso Soriano; against lefties he's not (as crazy as this sounds) so much better than Rey Ordonez (he's got a lot more power, but doesn't get on base as much).
What does this mean? Well, technically, nothing - it's all history. If Mike Jacobs hits like it's 2005 again, no-one will care that he couldn't hit for beans last year or against lefties in 2010. If Daniel Murphy turns into Keith Hernandez, yeah, I think New York would be content. If Fernando Tatis hits like Bill Clinton was still president the Mets might just win the National League.
But, as occurs with any history-related findings, the past can give us a window to the future. Cats don't usually fly. Pumpkins don't turn into carriages. And the Mets depending on Fernando Tatis to hold down first base or Mike Jacobs to hit left-handed pitching is nearly the equivalent of putting a nail in that coffin labeled 2010.
Their hope just may lie in the person of Daniel Murphy.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Bases on Balls
Sky Andrechek, here, writes about the statistical revolution in baseball and how it is not really affecting the on-field play. As such, he opines, fans who would like to ignore sabermetrics can do so, even with their eyes open.
One of the things he writes is that walks have not gone up since the publication of Moneyball in 2003. Which doesn't seem like a proof to me.
Sabermetrics attempt to find objective truth in baseball. The traditional view was that batters who "luckily" walked should not be rewarded for the pitcher's inability to throw strikes. Of course, a base on balls is not actually a construction of the pitcher. But on the other hand, it is not entirely a construction of the batter.
Andrechek (and others) have noted that walks have not gone up in the last several years. I'm not sure why you'd expect them to have done so. True, batters are now more aware of the value of the walk; organizations are telling them of it. But pitchers are now aware of the danger of the walk, and, I'm sure, are more hesitant about issuing free passes to those who'd like them.
With one group trying to increase walks and one trying to decrease them, one can hardly express surprise when the numbers don't change.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Mystifying
The Mets, as you no doubt know, traded reliever Brian Stokes to the Angels for outfielder Gary Matthews, Jr. The move was clearly in part due to the fact that Carlos Beltran, of late knee surgery, is expected to be out for around a month at the beginning of the season.
Gary Matthews is not a very good ballplayer at the Major League level. In about half a season's work last year, he had 4 home runs, a .250 batting average and OPS+d 83. In 2008, he had 8 home runs, a .242 average and a 77 OPS+.
Sabermetrics are a hot topic in baseball today, but I think it's pretty clear that all the complicated formulas (or at least most of them) have some use. Perfection may not exist*, but I think that at the very least they provide insight into baseball.
* For example, many point out that while on-base abilities and slugging abilities are not equally valuable, they are counted equally in OPS.
Fangraphs.com assigns a value to every baseball player, based on offense, defense, baserunning and defensive position. In 2009, according to their calculations Matthews was worth negative 3.8 million dollars. In 2008, negative 3.6. And he's not at an age where improvement can be expected - he's 35 years old!
Stokes, on the other hand, was (according to Fangraphs) worth 0.6 million dollars in 2008 and negative 1.0 million last year. His ERA+ were 120 and 104. At 30, he's also significantly younger than Matthews, and as such, less likely to decline in 2010.
It's hard to believe that the Mets could not acquire a backup outfielder without giving up a decent bullpen arm.
Remember, they have Angel Pagan, who should be able to play the bulk of the time until Beltran gets back. So what the Mets seemingly acquired is a backup outfielder for a month. Fernando Martinez could probably perform those duties. Heck, for a couple of games, the Mets could put Nick Evans in left and Bay in center, forfeiting nothing out of the bullpen.
Or, even further out of the box, perhaps David Wright could man center field for a spell. (There were rumors about a potential move to the outfield when Alex Rodriguez declared free agency in 2007.)
One of the few redeeming qualities about the 2009 New York Mets was its quite decent bullpen. Messing with it more than is necessary seems questionable.
Gary Matthews is not a very good ballplayer at the Major League level. In about half a season's work last year, he had 4 home runs, a .250 batting average and OPS+d 83. In 2008, he had 8 home runs, a .242 average and a 77 OPS+.
Sabermetrics are a hot topic in baseball today, but I think it's pretty clear that all the complicated formulas (or at least most of them) have some use. Perfection may not exist*, but I think that at the very least they provide insight into baseball.
* For example, many point out that while on-base abilities and slugging abilities are not equally valuable, they are counted equally in OPS.
Fangraphs.com assigns a value to every baseball player, based on offense, defense, baserunning and defensive position. In 2009, according to their calculations Matthews was worth negative 3.8 million dollars. In 2008, negative 3.6. And he's not at an age where improvement can be expected - he's 35 years old!
Stokes, on the other hand, was (according to Fangraphs) worth 0.6 million dollars in 2008 and negative 1.0 million last year. His ERA+ were 120 and 104. At 30, he's also significantly younger than Matthews, and as such, less likely to decline in 2010.
It's hard to believe that the Mets could not acquire a backup outfielder without giving up a decent bullpen arm.
Remember, they have Angel Pagan, who should be able to play the bulk of the time until Beltran gets back. So what the Mets seemingly acquired is a backup outfielder for a month. Fernando Martinez could probably perform those duties. Heck, for a couple of games, the Mets could put Nick Evans in left and Bay in center, forfeiting nothing out of the bullpen.
Or, even further out of the box, perhaps David Wright could man center field for a spell. (There were rumors about a potential move to the outfield when Alex Rodriguez declared free agency in 2007.)
One of the few redeeming qualities about the 2009 New York Mets was its quite decent bullpen. Messing with it more than is necessary seems questionable.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
"Lots of Passed Balls"
As Casey Stengel said, "If you don't have a catcher, you'll have lots of passed balls."
When you consider that Molina would have cost the Mets more (probably much more) than 4 million dollars more than Santos, I don't think it's a bad choice.
Bengie Molina, who nearly everyone thought the Mets were going for, is now off the market, having been re-signed by the San Francisco Giants.
As things stand, the Mets starting catcher is probably Omir Santos. Which is terrible. Or is it?
Last year, Bengie Molina threw out 23% of would-be base stealers. Santos threw out 30%. Molina OPS+d 86; Santos 82. Molina obviously has much more of track record, but Santos is at a much more favorable place, age-wise.
When you consider that Molina would have cost the Mets more (probably much more) than 4 million dollars more than Santos, I don't think it's a bad choice.
Particularly if they put that money into the pitching staff.
Because with bad hurlers, you get a lot of wild pitches.
Monday, January 18, 2010
On Mark McGwire
You may be sick of reading about Mark McGwire's confession about steroids. And I'm not writing about that (not now, anyway).
I want to talk for a moment about his non-confession in 2005 in front of a Congressional Committee. Mark famously said "I'm not here to talk about the past," for which he has been roundly bashed.
Obviously, Mark, you're not here to talk about the past. That's why you're discussing it!
And I've said similar things, myself. But honestly, what did you want him to say?
There are two other options:
1. A lie
2. The truth
Well, it's pretty clear that his statement was better than option 1, so it really comes down to option 2. I mean, he clearly didn't want to admit his steroid usage. He wasn't going to do it, so he took the only way out.
Sure he came out looking like an idiot. But this man's not being investigated for perjury.
I want to talk for a moment about his non-confession in 2005 in front of a Congressional Committee. Mark famously said "I'm not here to talk about the past," for which he has been roundly bashed.
Obviously, Mark, you're not here to talk about the past. That's why you're discussing it!
And I've said similar things, myself. But honestly, what did you want him to say?
There are two other options:
1. A lie
2. The truth
Well, it's pretty clear that his statement was better than option 1, so it really comes down to option 2. I mean, he clearly didn't want to admit his steroid usage. He wasn't going to do it, so he took the only way out.
Sure he came out looking like an idiot. But this man's not being investigated for perjury.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Jack Morris - Hall of Famer?
Among the many things that inspire vociferous debates of baseball - and there are many - resides the ever-present Hall of Fame talk. Who should go in, and who shouldn't. I've given my thoughts (here) on Mark McGwire, and now I'd like to delve into a few of the other popular candidates.
Firstly, Jack Morris. 44% of voters last year believed that Jack Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame. And he's got quite a fan club among non-baseball writers, too. He is acknowledged as a gamer, a man who could give you that win when you really needed it, and is considered a great postseason pitcher.
The problem? He's just not Hall of Fame quality. I've read various things about his candidacy and have never seen this essential fact: If Jack Morris gets elected to the Hall of Fame, he will have the highest ERA of any Hall of Fame pitcher. I'm not trying to disrespect him here - obviously, with 44% of voters voting for him, he was a really good, quality, effective pitcher. But if elected to the Hall of Fame, there's no doubt that Morris would be lowering the proverbial bar.
You don't like ERA? In terms of ERA+, if elected, Morris would have the third lowest - behind only Catfish Hunter and Rube Marquard. So he wouldn't be the worst in terms of that. But, I mean, you have to see what I'm getting at. He doesn't make the cut.
Maybe if you think about his all-time numbers, you'll get my point. Among all pitchers with at least 1,000 innings, Morris is ... tied for 469th in ERA+. In ERA (also with a minimum of 1,000 innings), he's 732nd. I'm not saying that Morris is the 732nd best pitcher in baseball history. Or the 469th. Don't get me wrong - close to 4,000 innings pitched with an ERA 5% above average is quite good. I just don't think it's worthy of the Hall of Fame.
Firstly, Jack Morris. 44% of voters last year believed that Jack Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame. And he's got quite a fan club among non-baseball writers, too. He is acknowledged as a gamer, a man who could give you that win when you really needed it, and is considered a great postseason pitcher.
The problem? He's just not Hall of Fame quality. I've read various things about his candidacy and have never seen this essential fact: If Jack Morris gets elected to the Hall of Fame, he will have the highest ERA of any Hall of Fame pitcher. I'm not trying to disrespect him here - obviously, with 44% of voters voting for him, he was a really good, quality, effective pitcher. But if elected to the Hall of Fame, there's no doubt that Morris would be lowering the proverbial bar.
You don't like ERA? In terms of ERA+, if elected, Morris would have the third lowest - behind only Catfish Hunter and Rube Marquard. So he wouldn't be the worst in terms of that. But, I mean, you have to see what I'm getting at. He doesn't make the cut.
Maybe if you think about his all-time numbers, you'll get my point. Among all pitchers with at least 1,000 innings, Morris is ... tied for 469th in ERA+. In ERA (also with a minimum of 1,000 innings), he's 732nd. I'm not saying that Morris is the 732nd best pitcher in baseball history. Or the 469th. Don't get me wrong - close to 4,000 innings pitched with an ERA 5% above average is quite good. I just don't think it's worthy of the Hall of Fame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)