Just a Couple of Thoughts

- I understand that the Yankees got Curtis Granderson in part (possibly) to have leverage in contract negotiations with Johnny Damon. I understand that they probably think that Granderson will bounce back in a similar way to Nick Swisher last year. I won't be surprised if he does. I don't understand why they are willing (if they are) to let Melky Cabrera play every day. He's not much of a hitter. He's not that great in the field, at least according to UZR. And the whole team is getting older. They honestly can't expect similar production from all or most of Posada, Jeter, Rivera. Age usually shows. I know Mariano has not broken (or come close), but seriously, do you think he can do it forever.

If they really have limitations on their payroll, I understand the move and the thought that they can live without Damon. But I have trouble believing that. To me, their too complacent. And that may just hurt them in 2009

- I don't know if Daniel Murphy can be a good everyday first baseman in the big leagues. But I don't know why other people think they do. The man, my friends, will turn 25 in April. His best years should be ahead of him. His batting line of.266/.313/.427, while far from spectacular was not far from league average. And that was in his first big league season.

As a frame of reference, I'd like to bring up a different first-year player's batting line. .266/.324/.396, with an OPS+ of 91. Pretty similar. Now this chap was 21, so a straight comparison is certainly not reasonable. But this chap is Carl Yastrzemski, so if Murph can emulate him at all, that's cool.

- I don't really get Wikipedia's sales pitch. They want people to donate money to keep them going. Or do they want money to keep themselves ad-free. I'm all for ad-free. For example, I liked baseball-reference.com better without the ads. But I don't think it's worth any significant (or, perhaps, insignificant,) money to me.

Belt-Run

Q: How many times has Carlos Beltran been caught stealing in the major leagues (answer later)?

 

Power-Speed Number* could be (badly) redefined as Belting-Running Number, or Belt-Run for short. And Carlos Beltran is, in fact, one of the greats in recording that stat. Since he began playing regularly in Kansas City in 1999, Carlos has been in the top 7 in the league in P-S # every single year (except his injury-riddled 2000, 2005 and 2009 seasons).  In three of those years, he was in the top 3 in the league. He's never led a league, however, in P-S #.

 

Or has he? In 2004, Beltran put up the 10^th-best (at the time, now it's 11^th) P-S # single-season mark ever. Do you see the problem? He was traded halfway through that year, and played the 2^nd half in the NL with the Astros. Since P-S # is an accumulating (as opposed to rate) stat, it is nearly impossible for a player who gets traded in mid-season to lead a league in it. Beltran actually came in fourth in the National League – that's how phenomenal he was. But his total number was significantly higher than NL Leader Bobby Abreu and AL Leader Alex Rodriguez.**

 

* Power-Speed Number is a metric that measures a player's ability at stealing bases and hitting home runs. What you might be thinking is "just add them together," but what that gives you will be often be an utterly dominant player in of the categories who has no real skill in the other (see Wills, Maury). Power-Speed Number takes both into equal account but also gives value to having proficiency in both areas as opposed to just one of the two (i.e. 40 home runs 40 steals nets a Power-Speed Number of 40; 60 home runs and 20 steals nets a P-S # of 30).

 

** How's that for a little Yankee-bashing. And speaking of the Yankees, I don't really get this rationale about forgetting about Damon and putting Granderson in left. The economy is bad. Long-term contracts are not available to 35 year old outfielders even if they're coming of their best season. So I don't think Damon is going to require more than, say, 2 years. Does anybody really think that 2 years of Cabrera is really preferable to 2 years of Damon.

 

Melky just finished his fourth relatively full-time year in the majors. He just had what was probably his best offensive year yet. And to be honest, it (in all of its .274/.336/.416 glamour) was not all that good. I know he should be coming into his peak offensive years, but does anyone get the feeling that he's just not that good?***

 

*** Parenthetically, Melky Cabrera's Baseball-Reference's sponsor for Melky Cabrera says (in part):

"Mike Cameron? Dude, has a career .340 OBP and he's 37. Melky, maybe now that you have a ring people will back off and remember you're 24 (with a career .331 OBP). There's plenty of time for the power to come."

 

That is so wrong on so many accounts. First of all, Cameron's 36. Second of all, Melky's 25. Thirdly, though he seems to acknowledge it, his bashing of Mike Cameron is dumb because Melky's OBP is worse. And fourthly (though he doesn't deal with this directly), Cameron is much better. In the last 11 seasons Cameron's lowest OPS+ has been 104. Melky has never cracked 100.

 

What I'm trying to say, is that the guy is a really good (and really consistent) all-around player. And here's the thing: It's not just those two stats. Beltran plays Gold-Glove defense, can take a walk and…

 

Answer: 38

 

…the man never, NEVER, gets caught stealing. Beltran has played 1562 games in his career. That's essentially the equivalent of 10 seasons in which he played nearly every game. Per season, that would mean, he gets thrown out less than 4 times a season on average. His steal number per season 28.6. He has done the equivalent of 10 seasons of 28.6 steals and 3.8 caught stealings. That's phenomenal.

 

His success rate is over 88%. That's the highest in baseball history (min. 200 steals, I think).

 

I guess I'm trying to say that this guy is a phenomenal ballplayer.

 

But you knew that.

No thanks, I'll Walk

One of the interesting aspects in the game of baseball is the intentional base on balls. It is generally given to a fearsome slugger, illustrating the long-held baseball idea that "it's better to
give four balls for one base than four bases for one ball." Just as an example, Barry Bonds was intentionally walked 120 times in 2004.
Some people feel that it is a cowardly play – there are people out there who favor banning the intentional walk – but I don't really have much of a problem with it. I don't really see how it is a less legitimate part of baseball strategy than the bunt, for example. True, the pitcher is giving up on this hitter – but it's for the greater good. The bunter, similarly, is giving himself up for what he thinks will benefit his team.*
*I'm not calling into question whether or not the sacrifice bunt or the intentional walk is a good play. I'm just saying that they don't offend me with their submission of the battle in attempting to win the war.
The weird thing about the intentional walk, however, is that it is not always given to the most feared hitters out there. It's true that the league leader will usually be the best (or one of the best) hitters in the league.* But it seems that just as often (or perhaps almost as often) intentional walks are granted to the player immediately preceding a really bad one. A lot of the time, what causes an intentional walk is not so much the batter in the box as the one in the on-deck circle.
Case in point: In 2008, David Wright drew 5 intentional walks in 735 plate appearances. Brian Schneider drew 9 intentional walks in 384 plate appearances. Wright, by the way, finished seventh in the MVP voting and won the Silver Slugger. Schneider was lynched by a mob.** Did the opposing teams fear Schneider more than Wright? No. They feared Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado more than the Met pitchers.
* The league leaders in intentional walks (going back to 2000): Bonds (5 times), Vladimir Guerrero (5 times) Albert Pujols (3 times), Ichiro (3 times), Manny Ramirez (twice) Sammy Sosa, Justin Morneau and Nomar Garciaparra.
** Not really.

Eventually, after being bad for long enough, a ballplayer can accumulate a nice chunk of intentional walks. I'm still referring to Brian Schneider, of course. Schneider, in case you didn't know, is 39th in intentional walks among active players! 39th. As in tied with Pudge Rodriguez and Miguel Tejada. He's ahead of (among many others, obviously) Nomar, Alfonso Soriano, Pat Burrell. These aren't young players who haven't accumulated them yet. They're legitimate offensive stars who've been intentionally walked less than Brian Schneider. Others he's ahead of include Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon, Jimmy Rollins, Jason Bay.
Two others: Derek Jeter, David Wright. Tell me you can't win a bet with that one.

Worth The Risk

There are some baseball deals that are no-brainers. You know:

 

Acquire: Babe Ruth

Give up: $100,000

 

Then you have those baseball deals that make you think that the people doing them have no brains. Like:

 

Acquire: $100,000

Give up: Babe Ruth

 

Now, in truth, the Babe was somewhat of a trouble child. And he was reneging on his contract with the Red Sox. But that was some sort of dumb trade.

 

Not the point at all. The point is that these (or this) kinds of trades are outliers. Nobody argues about Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson. Nobody (especially out of Met fandom) is even discussing Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano*. And the truth is that because they don't inspire any discussion, they're really kind of boring. Not entirely boring. Rob Neyer wrote a book (Rob Neyer's Big Guide Book of Baseball Blunders) which heavily consists of really bad trades. Like Nolan Ryan for Jim Fregosi. But in general, they're kind of boring. You can make some real arguments about whether trading Aaron Heilman was smart. Not so much with Nolan Ryan.

 

* Not that anybody's discussing him either, but included in that trade was Joselo Diaz, who, as I recall, was at one time a relatively highly touted Met prospect. In the 5+ years since the Mets traded him he has reached the Major Leagues. For 7.2 innings. And an ERA of 9.39. (He's got a 14.77 minor league WHIP, so I wouldn't really expect to see much of him, henceforth.)

 

Not that this has to do with anything, but the Albuquerque Isotopes, the Dodgers AAA team, had a nice collection of former Met talent. Doug Mientkiewicz, Shawn Estes**, Scott Strickland, and Claudio Vargas all played for them this year. Mientkiewicz played alright for them, and actually spent part of the year on the Dodgers' bench.

 

Shawn Estes also pitched well, 3.07 ERA in 73.1 innings. Then something happened. My understanding (and I certainly could be wrong here) is that he thought that he merited promotion to the Dodgers, the Dodgers didn't, and he said goodbye. According to his Wikipedia page, "Estes claimed that he has not retired, but that he is simply unwilling to play AAA baseball."

 

I think the Mets should get him. I'm not kidding here. That's actually the point I'm too busy to get to because I'm doing a footnote.

 

Oh yeah, Vargas pitched well in 13 innings and Scott Strickland, who, by the way, has not pitched in the majors since 2005, recorded 32 saves, with a 2.98 ERA in 48 innings.

 

Now, what's weird about Strickland, who has not had much opportunity at the Major League level (he broke in 11 seasons ago and has 240 innings), is that for the most part he's been quite effective. In every season in which he pitched more than 18 innings, he's had an ERA+ of at least 116. For his career, he's got a 131 ERA+.

 

But it gets weirder. They can't think that he's just been luck y at the big league level, because without much exception, he's been quite good in the minors, too. He has a minor league ERA of 3.32. Last year, as I said, he had a 2.98 ERA. The year before that (also in AAA, this time with the Yankees Scranton team) he pitched 66.1 innings with an ERA of 3.53. Those ballclubs, especially the 2008 Yankees could have used a good, extra relief pitcher. But for some reason, Scott Strickland didn't get the call.

 

I don't want to belabor the point, but there's one glaring ballplayer who's getting in my way. LaTroy Hawkins gave the Yankees 41 innings at an ERA of 5.71. He got paid 3.75 million. Meanwhile, Scott Strickland has a 3.53 ERA in AAA. And remember, he's got a bit of a track record, too. His 131 ERA+ is much better than Hawkins' 104. I just don't get it.

 

Oh yeah, former Mets did pretty well.

 

** It's pretty cool to go to some great ballplayer who utterly dominated the game (Wagner, Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Pujols)'s Baseball-Reference.com page and see how freaking good they were. I don't even mean intense analysis (in the 7 years from 1910-1916, Walter Johnson had a 1.56 ERA), I'm referring to just glancing at how many of their numbers are in bold (signifying being a leader in that particular category).

 

Well, you can do the same thing with some less than awesome players. Shawn Estes had led the league in earned runs, walks and wild pitches.

 

The lesser players are usually cheaper. And worse. Which makes a lot of sense. But when they're a lot cheaper than proven commodities, they just might be worth it.

 

Take the 2009 Mets. They signed Gary Sheffield, a proven, if aged, slugger, for the minimum major league salary and he led the team in home runs (or tied, anyway). They got some serious bang for their buck. Now I know he was injured a heck of a lot of the time, but he was worth well more than the (relative) pittance that they gave him.

 

So I can't, for the life of me, figure out why people are against picking up veterans. I'm not referring to the Moises Alou's of the world, who are going to cost a pretty penny (and that's besides the doctor bills). I'm referring to the Gary Sheffields of the world. I don't even remember where it was that I heard this, but it seemed as though there was a big consensus that the Mets needed to forget about the aged. Which I just don't get.

 

Shelling out money is entirely different. You don't want to give Gary Sheffield (or Julio Franco, or perhaps Alex Cora) a big-money multi-year deal in the twilight stage of his career. But these cheap pickups of proven veterans have got to be good – both for the clubhouse and the diamond.

 

If the Mets are going to lose, I'd also rather it be with Daniel Murphy than with some aged non-Met. But extending spring training invitations to Edgardo Alfonzo, Shawn Estes and other mere possibilities might just net the Mets the 2010 version of Gary Sheffield.

 

And that's a lot more good than it is bad.

Say "No" to Mac

Mark McGwire has been on the Hall of Fame ballot for three years. He has not been elected. He has not reached 25% in the voting, which is precisely 1/3 of what it takes to be elected. Mark McGwire was a great player. So why would he not not be elected to the Hall of Fame?

There are essentially three reasons that could explain why people would not vote for him:*

1. He was not great enough to merit Hall of Fame election.

2. He was not great for long enough to merit Hall of Fame election.

3. He was a freaking cheater, and as such does not merit Hall of Fame election.

Reason 1, I believe, is patently inaccurate. Or impossible. Either way. Just to run down what this guy did: He won a Rookie of the Year award, finished as high as second in MVP voting (he figured in the balloting ten times), was a 12 time All-Star, broke a 37-year old record twice (well, technically only once, but you know what I mean), won a Gold Glove (who knew?) and three Silver Sluggers.** He led the league: in RBIs once, in homers four times, in walks twice, in OBP twice, in SLG twice, in OPS twice, OPS+ four times, and in intentional walks once. Career-wise, he's tied for 12th in OPS+, ninth in  slugging, in essence ninth in home runs (he's technically tied for 8th, but it's with A-Rod, so that's kind of irrelevant), and he's in the top 40 in walks and offensive winning percentage. He leads everyone ever in at bats per homer. Nice resume.

*Actually, four, everyone could just love the other candidates more, but that's just complicating matters.

** This, to tell you the truth, stuns me. McGwire won four home run crowns, but only three Silver Sluggers? I know shortstop is not the same as first base, but do you realize that Derek Jeter has more Silver Sluggers than Mark McGwire.

*** Interestingly enough, even though his 61 home run year, 1961, came in a lower scoring era than McGwire's 70 season, Maris's OPS+ is lower, markedly lower, than Mark's. McGwire, in '98, drew 68 more walks than Maris in '61. That probably has something to do with the fact that Mickey Mantle was protecting Maris while Ray Lankford and Brian Jordan were protecting Mac. Just saying.

In terms of McGwire's not being great for long enough, well, there's a question there. Roger Maris, whose record McGwire broke in 1998, is, surprisingly to some casual baseball fans, not in the Hall of Fame. Quite simply, he had some Hall of Fame worthy seasons, but his career numbers don't reach the mark.*** The truth is that this doesn't really seem to be true. Did he have a very long career? No. He had over 2,000 fewer plate appearances than Ted Williams who lost significant time fighting in Europe and Korea. But what's important to remember with McGwire is that he does not only have great seasonal stats (70 HR) and rate stats (10.6 AB/HR, 162 OPS+), but he also accumulated some pretty serious stats (583 HR). Was McGwire essentially a one-dimensional player? Yes. Was he awesome for a rather short period of time? Yes. But when you consider that the man is 9th in career home runs (or 8th), I think it's pretty hard to trash on his longevity.

So, it seems that if you don't think he's a Hall of Famer, you believe that because "He was a freaking cheater, and as such does not merit Hall of Fame election." Personally, I think that's pretty darned logical. Rob Neyer doesn't. Neyer says:

There have been, for many years, rules prohibiting corked bats and doctored baseballs, but we know there are players in the Hall of Fame who happily violated those rules. We also know that many, and perhaps most of the great players of the 1970s routinely and illegally ingested stimulants with the express purpose of enhancing their performance.

For me, this is the heart of the matter. Like steroids, stimulants in the 1970s (and afterward) were used as performance enhancers. Like steroids, stimulants were generally against the law, but willfully ignored by the Lords of Baseball. I would absolutely love for someone to explain to me the difference between what Mark McGwire (allegedly) did, and what the superstars of the 1960s and '70s were doing.

I think there are basically two things that are up for discussion here:

1. Pre-Canseco drugs
2. corked bats and doctored balls

I'm not going to even touch upon the amphetamines of the 60s and 70s. My opinion on steroids is simple: You cheated. Period. Why should the fact that others were doing it have relevance? If the players of the 60s and 70s were doing the same type of thing, then they, too, should not be voted for.

Neyer's first argument is "corked bats and doctored baseballs," which are of course expressly against the law. I have three thoughts about this. First, simply, three of the criteria for Hall of Fame election are integrity, sportsmanship and character.* I think a clear argument could be made that known cheaters - of any type - should not be admitted to the Hall, henceforth. But Gaylord Perry is in? So what - that was someone else's mistake. Remember, Freddie Lindstrom's in the Hall, too.

Secondly, and this applies to scuffing but not corking, I think there is an intrinsic difference between scuffing a ball (or corking a bat) and juicing. Scuffing the ball is done on the field, and I think that there is a general perception that anything that is done on the field of play, under the umpire's watchful eye, is legitimate. It's kind of like the phantom double play.

Thirdly, scuffing the ball is a situational thing. So is, to a lesser extent. Sammy Sosa** corked a bat. (Assuming that you believe he used it on purpose,) Sammy Sosa is a cheater. But what did he cheat? Well, he cheated in that at bat. And he probably cheated in a bunch of other at bats. But it's a one-time, or two-time or a twenty-time transgression. He's probably playing legitimately most of the time. When a ballplayer juices, he's changing his body. You lose the whole "Man vs. Man" struggle, because that's not what it is anymore - it's man vs. HGH-man. It's essentially man vs. robot man. More, ethically, you're done. You have illegally and unethically changed your body and there is no going back. Assume with me for a moment that Sammy Sosa used a corked bat just that once and used legal materials the rest of the time. Can that be compared with a fellow who changes his chemical makeup turning him into a Superman?

I think not.

*Please. Do me a favor. Don't take those criteria to tell you that Ty Cobb doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. If you're trying to make a conclusion about a bordrline candidate, those traits should certainly be taken into account. Cobb's statistics are so staggering that I don't think there's any relevance as to the fact that he was of bad character.

That argument is akin to claiming, if the Hall of Fame were to be started right now, that there's no way you could vote Ty Cobb in because he hit fewer home runs than Ben Grieve. There's too much stuff overflowing in the other categories (batting average, a triple crown) to make an argument against his Hall of Fame legitimacy.

** I am obviously using Sammy Sosa because I consider him a good example of someone who corked his bat. Not because I consider him a good example of someone who obviously did not take steroids.

Catch the Ball

Apparently, the Mets have re-signed infielder Alex Cora and signed utility-catcher Chris Coste. Cora's job should be similar to what it was last year, backing up the middle infielders. Coste's is somewhat less clear.

Coste, who rookied with the Phillies at age 33 in 2006, will turn 37 before the start of the 2010 season. Defensively, he can catch and play first base. Though he hasn't thus far in his major league career, in his time in the minors Coste did spend significant time at third base. (He also played some games in the outfield, but that's probably irrelevant as he's a full eight years removed from his most recent outfield appearance.

In terms of his hitting, after a very fine rookie showing in 2006, Coste's offensive game has gone downhill. Never one to take a walk, Coste has shown a declining batting average and power as he moves into his later thirties. Which can hardly be a surprise.

Though he has shown proficiency against lefties and Omir Santos has against right-handers, it would be very surprising if the Mets make these two their catching tandem. His versatility does allow the possibility of him making the roster as a utility catcher - with the ability to backup the first and third basemen - but his decline in hitting over the last few years does not make that seem very likely.

More likely, Coste is being brought in with the expectation of landing
a job in AAA, where he would be just a phone call (and a flight) away
if a major league catcher went down.

On the other hand, he may be in the fray with Omir Santos for the
backup catcher job. I'm not really sure how the Mets brass feels about
Santos.

Either way, I think the pick-up is a good one. Coste is a versatile
player, and to be quite frank, the numbers he put up after being
traded to Houston last year, .204/.259/.252, while horrendous, are far
enough from his standard that I think he could bounce back.

How RIght You Are

I was talking to someone and he made some possibly accurate but totally ridiculous comparison. I forget what it was, but I told him that what he was saying was akin to explaining Rey Ordonez's inability to hit with the fact that he didn't hit as well as George--er--Babe Ruth.

That kind of comparison is like winning the battle but getting nowhere in the war. Ordonez didn't hit as well as Babe Ruth - not many people have - but that is not what proves that he was a terrible hitter. If you were to point out that he couldn't hit as well as Desi Relaford, well, that might be a bit more informative.

As you probably know, Albert Pujols was voted MVP of the National League. More importantly, I suppose, Pujols was MVP of the National League. It was his 3rd MVP. That means that Pujols now has more MVPs than all but 9 baseball players. Bonds, Berra, Campy, Dimag, Foxx, Mantle, Musial, A-Rod, Mike Schmidt. That's pretty good company, and I'm sure that Albert is happy to be mentioned in the same sentence as those great ballplayers.

Here's what Barry Bonds had to say about a young Albert in 2003 "[Albert Pujols] reminds me of Bobby Bonilla, but better."

Right on, Barry.

What Are You So Mad About?

Tim Lincecum was voted the National League's Cy Young Award winner last week (actually, that's when the results came out, but whatever). Lincecum had, by all accounts, a really good season, leading the NL in strikeouts, complete games, and shutouts and placing second in categories like ERA and hits/9 innings. He was fourth in WHIP.

As you may be aware, there was some considerable hoopla surrounding the voting process, as various people believed that either Chris Carpenter or Adam Wainwright, both of St. Louis, should have won the award.

On Monday, Joe Mauer was announced as the AL MVP. The vote was unanimous, excepting one voter who listed Miguel Cabrera first on his ballot.*

The hoopla around that award's voting, and there was some of it, was that Mauer should have been unanimous.

*Mauer did come as close to unanimous as possible. He was listed second on that one ballot.

The pro-Carpenter people expressed disdain at the fact that people are relying on new-fangled stats, like FIP, to rate players. And that may well have been done.

But here's what I don't get. The people who didn't vote for Carpenter were not relying on some new-alphabet-soup kind of statistic. I mean, they might have been, but the reason you don't vote for Carpenter is simple. It's called Innings Pitched. He may have been somewhat more effective than Lincecum, but he pitched 32.2 fewer innings. That's pretty significant. And it's a rather good reason not to vote for the man.

I would have been less surprised if traditional baseball writers been annoyed with Mauer's inclusion than Carpenter's exclusion. Mark Teixeira led the AL in home runs, RBI and total bases. If the push would have been for him to win it would have been understandable, if wrong.

But blasting people for not voting for a man with less than 200 IP against pretty comparable competition is not really something that I get.

3s in Our Society

Did you ever notice how certain numbers always seem to be creeping up on you all the time? Maybe you were reading Harry Potter and there were too many sevens. Maybe you noticed that 50% of the words you uttered were precisely two syllables. Maybe not.

Now that the award voting is in for the 2009 baseball season, I'd like to identify three significant 3s in baseball today. And more than significant, they're rather mind-boggling.

1. Ichiro Suzuki just concluded his ninth year in the major leagues. In only 3 of his seasons did he not lead the Major Leagues (or tie for the lead) in hits. In those three seasons he had (or had a tie for) second place in hits in the Major Leagues.

2. Albert Pujols has just concluded his ninth year in the major leagues. In only 3 of his seasons did he not come in first or second place in the MVP voting.*

3. In the history of the American League, a catcher has only won the batting title 3 times. Joe Mauer, Joe Mauer and Joe Mauer. (2006, 2008, 2009)

* Ichiro and Albert Pujols were both rookies in 2001. They won Rookie of the Year Awards in their respective leagues in 2001.**  2001 may well go down as the best ROY Class of all time. Ichiro and Albert Pujols, not bad. They do have some competition.

In 1947, Jackie Robinson was Rookie of the Year. They only gave out one award for both leagues back then, so it would be pretty hard to count that. In 1951, World Series foes Willie Mays and Gil McDougald won the two awards. Only one Hall of Famer there, but McDougald was a really good infielder, and between the two of them you've got 25 years of All-Star Game appearances.

1956 was the first time that two future Hall-of-Famers would win the award. Frank Robinson and his 38 home runs won the National League ROY, while Luis Aparicio and his league-leading 21 steals won the Junior Circuit's rookie crown.

In 1967, Tom Seaver and Rod Carew, both future first-ballot Hall-of-Famers, won their league's award.

10 year later, in 1977, Montreal's Andre Dawson and Baltimore's Eddie Murray were Rookies of the Year. Dawson is, as of right now, not a Hall-of-Famer (and he may never be), but I think (and I'm not sure here) that these two have more career home runs than any other ROYs.

WIth apologies to Jose Canseco (1986), the steroid class of ROYs was 1987, with Mark McGwire and Benito Santiago.

It's not really fair to try and rate the 2006 (Hanley Ramirez, Justin Verlander) and 2007 (Ryan Braun, Dustin Pedroia) as of yet.

I think that the winning class is....1967. Rod Carew and Tom Seaver are ahead of Pujols and Ichiro. And quite frankly, I don't know if they'll catch them. Ichiro is already 36. We don't know how much he has left (though it'd be hard to say that he's showing his age).

For the more complete answer, check back in ten years.

Parenthetically, that was some serious class of rookies in '01. Besides the winners, Ichiro and Pujols, there were Sabathia, Alfonso Soriano, David Eckstein, Roy Oswalt, Jimmy Rollins, Adam Dunn. Not too shabby.

** I was discussing the ROY with a friend of mine in 2001. He was, as I recall, trying to point out how good a rookie year Soriano had. Sorry, sir. Most irrelevant. Looking it up now, Soriano didn't just not get a first-place vote - he finished third, behind Ichiro and CC Sabathia.

The Best?

Joe Girardi finished second in the Manager of the Year Award voting this year. If Joe Girardi did not make the playoffs this year, I think there's a pretty good bet that he'd have been fired. In essence, making the playoffs was part of his job. (I suppose you could quibble on that, but it's what I believe, and I think most people would agree with that.)

If making the playoffs was part of his job, it would seem that he did so well in the balloting because of his postseason managing. Here's the problem: Everybody thought that his managing was bad in the postseason.

Do you get this?

Randomness

Over time, things have a habit of evening out. What I mean by this, I suppose, is that while something really peculiar may occur, you would expect things to eventually revert to normal (whatever that may be).

Sometimes, however, things that occur are so bizarre that they are noteworthy, even though they are just random fluctuations.

An example of this would involve Doc Ellis's having pitched a no-hitter while on LSD. Most of the time that people are on LSD, they don't pitch a game, but if you started a study on people under the influence of LSD on June 12, 1970, you might have assumed that it was a common occurrence.

That's all pretty intuitive and very useless.

My point is that sometimes things happen and they are interesting in their out-of-the-ordinary way. *

My point is that Honus Wagner, the greatest shortstop in baseball history (and it's not close) pitched 8.1 innings in his career and had an ERA of 0.00. **

*I think that this is what I am trying to say. The fact that Babe Ruth led the AL in home runs 12 times in his career is pretty amazing. But if had, say, turned a triple play once, it would have a distinctly different kind of interest to it.

** Which means, in case you were wondering, that he pitched so well that he didn't have an ERA+. And you thought Zack Greinke was good!

By the Way: There's a new poll up.

How About This?

How about this for your random and obscure fact of the day? In 1876, the Athletics, Reds, Louisville Grays and New York Mutuals all had more errors than runs scored.

With modern groundskeeping, better playing fields and better equipment, things are very different in today's game of baseball. In 2009, the only team that had more errors than runs scored was the New York Mets.

Oh, my mistake. Even the Mets managed to squeeze past the .500 mark with 674 more runs scored than errors committed.

What can I say? It's a different game!

Awesome

I don't know if you knew about this, but the spectacular website baseball-reference.com has this really awesome thing called Play Index. Play Index has a few really cool facets, one of which is a tool with which you can search for seasons with statistical criteria, like most home runs in a season by a switch-hitting second baseman (Ray Durham, 26, 2006), or highest batting average by a 29 year old who batted left-handed and threw right-handed (Ty Cobb, .371, 1916) or most hit-by-pitches by a National League right-fielder (Geoff Jenkins, 19, 2005). Basically, it's really, really cool.

Check it out. http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/

And for the next five days, it's free.

Awful October

Well, not really, but from a baseball perspective, what more is there to say?

What could be worse than the Yankees meeting the Phillies in the World Series? The Yankees beating the Phillies in the World Series.

Such is life as a Mets fan.

Pessimism abounds. You miss victory. As kind of an about-face to most Met fans mentalities, I'm going to try to recap what has gone right over the past five years in Mets-ville.

And the truth is, it's a heck of a lot.

2004 -2005

-- The Mets hire Willie Randolph and sign star free agents Carlos Beltran and Pedro Martinez, bringing respect back to a franchise just over a year removed from a 95-loss season.

-- Cliff Floyd has, perhaps the best season in his career, setting personal records with 34 home runs and having his second to best season in terms of walks, games played and RBIs.

-- Mike Piazza, in his last year with the club, spanks 19 home runs in declining playing time.

-- The Mets have one of the best fielding right fielders in baseball, with former Gold Glove winning Mike Cameron manning the post.

-- David Wright hits 27 home runs in his first full season and seems destined for stardom.

--Mike Jacobs makes mincemeat out of Major League pitching in his first exposure to it, swatting 11 home runs in only 100 at bats.

There was more. Check back for more 2005 highlights, and also coming up will be highlights from the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 seasons.

Why, oh Why

What an unpleasant Yankee-Angel game yesterday. Not only did the Yankees score twice as many runs as their playoff opponents, but the umpires mad three (count 'em, three) truly bad calls during the game.*

When the game was over, I just couldn't figure out one thing: Why didn't Girardi pull Gaudin with two outs in the ninth?

*I'd probably rate them from worse to worser as follows:
1. Calling Nick Swisher out in the 4th inning for leaving third base early (on appeal). Which would be great. Except he didn't leave third base early.
2. Calling Nick Swisher safe on that pickoff play (also in the 4th).
3. Calling Robinson Cano safe on what should have been a double play in the top of the fifth inning. That call at third base was the worst that I can remember seeing. Period.

More Itching

As you probably know, in today's game of baseball, on-base percentage is valued very much (as it should be). Jeff Francoeur, for example, is derided by many due to his inability to take a walk.

There are, however, certain players (like Albert Pujols, Luis Castillo, Derek Jeter and many others) who use walks effectively as an offensive weapon.

And then there's Ichiro. Ichiro is a speedster. He has stolen at least 26 bases every year of his career, while totalling over 40 three times. He's the exact kind of player that you would think would try to take as many pitches as possible, try to walk as much as possible, so that he could get on base and steal bases and use his speed. But he doesn't. Never.

Now, you never really hear Ichiro criticized for this* because his OBP is never low. His high batting averages (.352 this year, good for second in the AL) kind of camouflage the fact that he doesn't take any pitches.

Jeff Francoeur, who never walks, walked 23 times this year, to Ichiro's 32. Here's the thing: Ichiro was intentionally walked 15 times. Francouer was intentionally walked 5 times.** So Jeff Let-me-swing-at-everything Francoeur actually drew more walks of his own volition than Ichiro did.***

Also, with a minimum of 632 plate appearances, the leader in fewest walks drawn is Migue Tejada, with 19. Two were intentional. Ichiro tied the leader in fewest walks in unintentional walks. Just something to chew on.

* I don't know how accurate this really is. Ichiro has such a weird hitting style that he might not be able to be the player he is if he wouldn't be so aggressive at the plate. I really don't know. But I'm assuming not.

** Which is a scary thought, in-and-of itself. Jeff Francoeur was intentionally walked 5 times? Wow!

*** Of course. How many walks did you expect Ichiro to draw of Francoeur's volition?

Not Fresh But Still Funny:

Jordan

There's been a lot of chatter about moving Piazza to 1B. My feeling is that he's of more value as a catcher even with all the stolen bases, especially with offense at such a premium for the Mets. What's your take?

Bill James

(4:44 PM)

I'd move him, and let Mo Vaughn catch. I think he'd throw out about as many runners, and it would be more entertaining to watch.

(http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/3503)

* * *

I was speaking with somebody today, and he told me that he hates the Marlins. For crying out loud, who hates the Marlins? They're not a great team, they don't have a great history, and this guy is not even a fan of a National League team!

Cigars?

Albert Pujols is currently leading the National League in home runs. He is third in batting average and third in RBIs. Not bad, huh. Even measured up to his own standard's, he's doing pretty well.

But, alas; what could have been? Though there was some speculation about it earlier in the season, it now seems as though Albert Pujols will not win the Triple Crown.

But you never know. With a little luck, he could just make it. And a lot of hitting.

Poll Results: The voters have voted and the results are in: David Wright is the Mets' MVP this year. Big surprise.

It's Official

It's official. We have seen way too much Obama-mania in this country over the past 20 months or so.

How so? I was watching Mike Piazza's dramatic home run in the bottom of the eighth inning on September 21, 2001. That was the first (professional) baseball game played in New York City after the 9/11 attacks. With the Mets down by a run with one out and Desi Relaford* on first base, Piazza cranked a home run over the center field fence. This was a huge moment for New York. The TV cameras showed the ebullient fans jumping up and down and cheering like crazy. Then it showed the auxiliary scoreboard down the left-field line which flashed "Home Run!"

*Remember him? Desi Relaford was the backup infielder for the Mets for that lone 2001 season. I was probably his biggest fan. In what was one of the best years of his career, he put up a .302/.364/.472 line. Not bad for a backup infielder. He'd be batting second on the 2009 Mets. He also pitched a perfect inning for the Mets (to give some relief to the relief pitchers) when they were getting shelled by the Padres.

As you may recall, (okay, probably not) Desi was included in the deal with the Giants that netted the Mets Shawn Estes. Though, you probably have not heard much (if anything) about him of late (since the end of the 2005 season, he's started 9 Major League games), Shawn was in the major leagues with the Padres last year, and pitched, quite frankly, a lot better than Livan Hernandez did. Maybe the Mets should have gotten him instead.

He began this year with the Dodgers Triple-A affiliate and pitched quite well, posting 3-4 record, but an ERA of 3.07. He is no longer playing, but is officially "not retired."

The TV flashed to a fan jumping up and down with a sign that read "WE BELIEVE." Then it showed Piazza getting greeted by his teammated near the dugout steps. It flashes to the auxiliary scoreboard down the right-field line, which scrolls "YES." And my mind immediately expects to see "WE CAN."

It's Not that Hard to Defend.

A lot of people seem to be making a big deal over Pedro Martinez's victory over the Mets on Sunday night. Pedro threw a great game, no doubt, with 8 shutout innings in which he allowed just 6 hits, while striking out 7 and walking just two. He also lowered his ERA to 2.87 and received the victory to improve his record to 5-0. Not bad. In fact, with numbers like those combined with the fact that Johan Santana's on the disabled list, Pedro would probably be the Mets best starter.

But if you ask me, it's pretty darn hard to blame the Mets for not signing him when he became available this summer.

1. He wouldn't be helping the Mets anyway. You know that. Give the Mets five more wins, and they're 15 games out of first place. And that's besides the fact that with the Mets anemic offense and with the actuality that the Mets don't have any pitchers who are 0-5, he's not giving them five wins anyway.

2. He stank last year. Did you forget. After an encouraging five games after he returned from surgery at the end of the 2007 season, Pedro pitched terribly in 2008. How badly? 5-6 with a 5.61 ERA.

How bad is that?

Let's put it this way. When Livan Hernandez was released by the Mets this year, his ERA was 5.47.

WOW!

This is ridiculous.

And let me just point out that either

1. That guy is so scraped and bruised from messing up so many times that his mother probably doesn't recognize him; or

2. That guy is so awesome that he isn't scraped and bruised.

I don't know which is a scarier concept.