Things That Irritate Me in MLB's Off Season

We are fresh into the new year of 2019 and the Off Season (is that what this is called?) drags on with news items, signings and trades few and far between. Rumors (rumours for my Canadian pals) become the news when there is no news. The last two Off Seasons have been particularly draggy. With teams taking a much harder look at free agency and the cost benefits, potential deals seem to take forever to happen. And many (like last year) may not happen at all. This is not Aaron Boone's father's Off Season (or even Aaron Boone's when he was playing). This paragraph is just one of the irritants of the season. Here are several more...

1. Reporting.

• MLBTradeRumors.com is required reading this time of year. That is a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing is that you know all the important happenings will be reported here with (usually) very good analysis to go along with it. What is irritating is that when things are slow, you get a bunch of non-stories about..well...rumors that never end up happening. The most irritating is when a signing or trade results in the same article being posted three times as more information is added about the deal. I guess it would be okay if the original article was appended and left where it was in order. But it is irritating that any update to the original article pushes it back to the top of the list. It makes me grouchy.
• Jon Heyman is a respected baseball writer who has put in the time and walked the beat. There is no arguing his place among his peers. But it sure seems like he is in the agents' pockets. Have you ever noticed that he always has the sweaty details of each deal? How would he get that so quick? If he is deep inside the agents' pocket (read Scott Boras)--and I don't know if he really is--then couldn't he be used to put out false information to help those agents (unbeknownst to him of course)?

2. Every Twitter baseball fan knows more than the team does.

• I remember last season as the Red Sox were on their way to winning five-thousand games, one of their fans was calling the team's manager every name in the book for his use of the bullpen. Excuse me. Can you at least wait until after they are no longer World Champions before you start questioning the guy?
• Those same fans and bloggers (like me, I will admit) think we have all the answers about what our teams should do this time of year. Most Yankee fans and bloggers are begging the team to sign Manny Machado. I will wear black on the day that happens. It's not what I want at all. And then, no matter how it works out the brain trust making the decision will be criticized as being the worst in baseball. I will also wear black if Miguel Andujar gets traded. I will be just another idiot complaining.

3. The Hall Of Fame

• The HOF has been a boil on my butt (lovely imagery there) ever since Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds got on the ballot. The former MLB players have already put two or three guys into the HOF that do not belong there (with Marvin Miller and George Steinbrenner out when they should be in) and for another year, writers who vote (shame on you who turn in empty ballots) based on some morality plane. The HOF is NOT the HOF if the best players of their generation were left out.
• I applaud writers who take the heat and publicize their ballot choices. That's brave. But if you disagree, the irritation builds because you cannot do anything about your disagreement. Tweeting the guy that he is a putz is not really pretty.

4. No baseball means the other sports get all the air time.

• The NBA is the paragon of sports. It is the greatest thing since Red Auerbach smoked his cigars while coaching. Meh. It's been all downhill for me since the last time the Knicks won the title with those marvelous players like Frazier passing to Bradley, who hits Debusschere in the corner--SWISH!
• Baseball will always be a better game than basketball.
• The NFL is America's Game. Uhh...Not to me. They have a commissioner who thinks he is God and the game turns the players into Swiss cheese. It's okay to watch. But it is not baseball.
• Soccer...seriously!?

5. Two more things...

• There are still no games to watch and won't be for two more months. :::sigh:::
• It is that time of the year when I start thinking about how I can afford MLB.TV for another season. It sucks being poor.

Oh! One amendment! The Off Season allows my Twitter follows too much time and they talk politics. That is probably the biggest irritant of them all...

A Coming MLB Salary Crisis?

We have been very fortunate to live with relative peace between MLB and the players' union. There is an entire generation that has not experienced a work stoppage or a owner / player crisis. The game has changed since the current agreement between the sides was last negotiated. Players are getting younger and it has become harder for older free agents to get jobs. Is a crisis looming?

The current pay system made sense when the agreement was being signed. Players would bide their time through the team control years and then reap their rewards. The owners got great value in the early careers of its players and then coughed up the money to re-sign them after control was over or sign other players on the market.

An inkling of trouble ahead occurred last winter when free agents could not find jobs and shouts of "Collusion!" filled the air. But it was not collusion. The facts are that analysis now rules decision making for teams and teams are going younger and reaping value from its players during their young, peak seasons.

For the exceptional players such as Manny Machado, Mike Trout and a few others, this has worked out just fine as they started young and were then positioned to make big bucks at an age when it seems more reasonable to ask for it. A ten year deal to a 26-year-old is somewhat more palatable than the same deal to a 30-year-old.

The trouble is, not all players are Mike Trouts and Mookie Betts. Some like Josh Donaldson (for example) are going to find it extremely difficult to get multiple years after hitting free agency in the early thirties. And players who start young and play just above league average will replaced by younger players who can do just as well when it is time to "cash in."

The old standby of artificially keeping young players in the minors to keep control longer is going out the window. Young players are exploding all over baseball as analysts succinctly show that these young players will never be better (and more valuable) than they are right now.

One just has to look at the WAR leaderboard over the last ten years. Baseball-reference.com was used for position player leaders because it is easier to see ages on that site.

The Median age for the top ten position players looks like this:

• 2018 - 25
• 2017 - 25.5
• 2016 - 25.5
• 2015 - 26
• 2010 - 27.5

The Median age has decreased by 2.5 years since 2010.

The average age of players in baseball has changed as well. The numbers may not seem drastic, but consider how many players there are and the decrease holds much more gravity.

Average player age:

• 2018 - 28.1
• 2017 - 28.3
• 2016 and 2015 - 28.4
• 2014 - 2012 - 28.5
• 2011 - 28.7
• 2010 - 28.4
• 2009 and 2008 - 28.8
• 1998 - 28.9

Let's look at the 2018 Yankees for a moment. 21.9 Wins Above Replacement were tallied by players making less than a million dollars. That is 42.6% of the team's total. Back in 2008, that tally was 12.2 WAR or only 28.4% of the team's total. The Yankees are getting more value from younger players than ever before. Even if you go back to 1998 in the second year of the Core Four, that group making less than a million dollars (which included Jeter and Rivera) tallied 38.2% of the team's WAR that season. Gene Michaels was way ahead of his times.

Thinking about these things, the players' union has a lot to discuss before the current agreement is up. Much more of the value of play is being provided by younger and younger players. These player are not making any money (comparatively speaking). Analysts rightly have convinced teams that this is the way to go and signing (hopefully) break even value deals long term for free agents does not make as much sense. There is the positive that younger players get to free agency quicker. But this only benefits the elite talent. The union will need to ask for more of a value / pay system to counteract this trend.

Steroids and the Hall of Fame

There is no joy at writing another post about the steroid situation in baseball. Of all the buzz kill conversations concerning baseball of the last decade, the steroid conversation has to be the most debilitating. Nothing has sucked the juice out of being a fan more. And yet, the topic completely overshadows the entire Hall of Fame vote this year. To this point, the only "known" user trying to gain entrance to the HOF was Mark McGwire. His candidacy hasn't gone well. But this year the issue stains Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez and still Mark McGwire. Fingers have pointed to Jeff Bagwell, though those closest to him have vehemently denied he ever used. The entire voting process has become not about the player's performance, but about what the steroid accusations say about the players' character. It is a debate which will rage for years.

The Fan has gone on record several times. Frankly, the Fan doesn't give a crap who used, for how long and when. The entire mess was a forfeiture of responsibility from teams, their managers, their owners, the league, Bud Selig, the players union, team doctors and team trainers. It was a mess in which we can never and will never know the scope and depth. Some estimates are that seventy percent of players used. Other estimates say fifty percent. We have a supposed list somewhere that's top secret that has over 100 names listed of those who tested positive. That's a lot of names. And yet, only a small handful of those names have been "leaked." The Fan doesn't care because we can never know the depth of the problem. All baseball can do is go on from where George Mitchell left them and make baseball as clean as possible from here on out.

The Fan's personal guess is that those that were called to Congress that fateful week that Mark McGwire refused to talk about the past and Rafael Palmeiro pointed his finger at the camera and said he didn't use, were all players that were on that imfamous and unknown list of those who tested positive. Why else would they be called to testify? Congress had to have stacked its deck with some of the biggest stars in the game because that would make the most impact. But what about all the players that didn't testify? What about all the players that used and were never caught or outed? They get a pass. When their names come up for election to the Hall of Fame, only their stats will be considered. Some think that a steroid user is already in the Hall of Fame. So how fair is it, then to make examples of only those that have been outed? It isn't.

This Fan understands that the question is polarizing. Blog buddy, Josh Borenstein, will never cut the "users" any slack. Understandable. But the Fan's question for Josh and for all the writers who have declared they will NEVER vote for McGwire or Palmeiro or Clemens or Bonds is this: How do you know who the others are and how do you know those that get your vote weren't just as "dirty?" People have actually pointed fingers at Bagwell. Do they understand that such claims are libelous without proof? Most have avoided the libel problem by stating someone is "suspicious." But isn't that guilt by association anyway? If this writer ever ran for Congress, a paper could write its suspicion that the Fan was a communist. Would that be any less of an attack of character?

Which again leads us back to the question of the Hall of Fame. Palmeiro has a failed test. He says that he didn't know there were steroid derivatives in the B-12 shot Miguel Tejada gave him. Do we give him a lie detector? Will we believe the results anyway? In this entire issue, we have allowed evidence to become the verdict. There is no "shadow of a doubt." These players have already been judged in the court of public opinion. Very few, namely Bonds and Clemens will actually have a legal case involving their public stances on whether they used or not. So again, Palmeiro tested positive. We now know that the evidence against him has become the verdict. So that discounts everything he ever did in baseball? Does it?

Can anyone give the Fan any scientific percentage boost steroids gave these players? Could they hit the ball five feet further? Ten? Two? If you say that the steroids that Palmeiro supposedly took improved his performance by ten percent, then he would still have 524 homers instead of 583. The Fan has heard people say that McGwire only did one thing well in baseball (homers) and the steroids helped him with that one thing. Forgetting all those walks he also took and his on base percentage, is that kind of "cheating" much different than Gaylord Perry who only did one thing well and used Vaseline or whatever to help him do that one thing much better?

The question leaves us only two options. Either we vote for nobody from this era or we vote based on statistics relative to the era the player played. You can't cherry pick. Roberto Alomar will get elected this year. Does anyone know he never used? Can you say that for sure? We can think or believe he didn't. But is that any more fair or accurate? We just don't know. And because we don't know, then all players from Alomar's era are suspect and shouldn't get in. Or, we can reverse that same thought. Since we can't be sure, then we will have to vote for a player only based on the criteria of if the player was one of the best of his era. You can't have it both ways. For another view of the same type of dilemma in thinking, click here.

You know of course, where the Fan stands. Rafael Palmeiro is a Hall of Fame player and so is Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds and whomever else is whispered about. Juan Gonzalez is not a Hall of Fame player; not because he used steroids (and it is alleged that he did) but because he did not sustain his statistics long enough.

We have to get past this issue. We can't let it sit and fester here forever. It robs and shames those who grew up becoming fans during this era of their favorite players. It colors all players in a suspicious light no matter how clean that player might be. There was a hole in baseball's armor and that was a lack of commitment to testing and investigation. That hole should be smaller now and the MLB should do everything possible to make that hole as small as possible. The game goes on, but it needs to throw all this stuff up. We can't be having this debate forever.

Great Article on Fielding Statistics

In one of the best articles the Fan has read on fielding statistics, the linked and long article does a great service on educating fans on how they came to be and how they work. Many writers make mention of these ratings but fail to educate readers on what they mean. It's okay to tell the fans that Derek Jeter had a UZR of -0.1 in 2008, but what does that mean exactly?

The article also points out that these statistics aren't quite perfect in their analysis yet. The creator of UZR admits that his system is only 90% there and they have 10% to go. The 10%, when it comes to statistical analysis is a big deal. The article also points to the future when routes to balls hit and other factors will be analyzed and added to the statistical analysis.

The latter part of the previous paragraph is why, in the Fan's opinion, the current fielding stats have some degree of skepticism built in. While they do help baseball figure out where fielders rank in ability and success rate, there are some variables missing such as positioning and other things that make up what a fielder does.

The article does a great job of pointing to fielding stats to show why the Bay Rays climbed successfully to the top of the food chain last year. And while they make a great case for the Rays, it doesn't totally explain how a poor fielding team like the Yankees finished in first place in 2007. There are some intangibles in the game that are yet to be accounted for.

Don't get the Fan wrong. These stats are extremely rewarding and very encouraging and the more the merrier.

New Way to Evaluate Umpire Strike Zones

In what is a positive step for MLB, there is a new way to evaluate the balls and strikes calls of major league umpires. The previous method was not employed in all ball parks and had some issues. The first issue was that it interpreted home plate as a rectangle, which misses some of the nuances of a five sided plate. For example, a curve could miss the front of the plate and cut across the back portion of it. The ump could correctly call that a strike, but would be judged wrong by the system.

Naturally, the umpires aren't too happy about the whole thing. Nobody likes to have someone looking over their shoulders as they do their jobs. That's understandable. But when the technology is there to improve the game and make it as standardized as possible, MLB has to take that opportunity. Let's face it, fans that watch the game see most of the game from behind the pitcher and to see the inconsistencies of umpires around the league drives fans nuts.

The umpires have three things going against them in their angst. First, there is a perception that the umpires are arrogant and think they are as important as the game and players themselves. Second, most fans think umpires have a great job and get paid really well for what amounts to nine months of work. Finally, umpires are found all over the minor leagues and in colleges and high schools around the country. If these guys aren't happy with their jobs, then there are thousands who could take their place.

Anyone who has watched games over the last ten years knows that the strike zone has been a joke. Most pitches above the belt are considered high by major league umps. Tom Glavine and others made a career of moving the strike zone two or three inches off the outside corner. Anything that improves the calling of the zone by umpires is a great thing.

Umpires may not be happy, but they should just accept this because there is no turning back. The technology is in place and there will be oversight. From the Fan's perspective, it's about time.