Why Did it Take So Long?

A story published by MLB.com indicates that Felipe Lopez has signed a one year contract. Why did it take so long? Lopez is a steal for the Cardinals and if they were smart, they would install him at second base full time and let him play.

Lopez is as good an offensive player as Skip Schumaker and can field second base in circles around last year's Cardinal second baseman. Neither have much for power, but Lopez is a far superior glove man and he has learned some patience at the plate shown by his 71 walks of a year ago.

It's still hard to figure. Lopez is only 30 years old and is far superior than anything the Mets are going to employ. He's probably better than the current second baseman for about eight or nine teams. It's true that Lopez is not a good shortstop, but he doesn't have to be.

The Cardinals are simply great at these kinds of personnel moves and it's no wonder that other teams in their division will have difficulty catching them.

Another Year, the Same Hope

Some players are simply more fun to watch than others. Granderson, Rollins, Reyes and others are just flat out fun to watch play baseball (when they are healthy and productive). Not too many pitchers over the years are the same kind of entertaining. Pedro comes to mind. Juan Marichal (for you older folks) and Luis Tiant are a couple of others. Ron Guidry, Oil Can Boyd and Fernando Valenzuela were fun to watch. But few pitchers in history were more fun to watch than Dontrelle Willis.

Boy doesn't just reading his name bring up a ton of conflicting emotions? There isn't anybody that has watched Willis pitch that can dislike him. He is infectious and his smile is simply magical. And when he was good, what a fun ride to watch him work against major league hitters. Add to the mix his sometimes good hitting (what other pitcher legs out a triple?), his athletic fielding of his position and it's simply a gas.

Well, we all know the sad story of the past three years. Willis couldn't throw strikes, he lost it. He had anxiety. The Tigers were ridiculed for the contract they gave him, and rightly so. Dontrelle Willis would probably be a footnote already to history if not for that contract.

But last year, he tried to come back. He had some good outings in May and then the wheels fell off with an eight walk performance that finished his season. Those of us that were rooting for him sighed sadly and figured that was that.

But the old cliche is that Spring Training brings eternal hope, and those of us who have been on the Dontrelle train over the years have one last gasp of hope. The reports are good so far and the reality is that this is probably his last shot. Willis is in the last year of his big contract and as such, the Tigers are in the position to give him every opportunity to grasp that brass ring one more time.

The Fan understands that he has written this same type of post for three straight years, but what the heck, sometimes you have to go against the stats and logic and hope we get to smile and appreciate the joy of Dontrelle Willis pitching effectively and smiling and nodding through it all. It's what we do. It's why we are Fans of the game.

Chewing on SIERA

Much good work has been done in recent years to quantify the value of baseball players. There has been a lot of discussion just in this space concerning the new stats and what they mean to the game and to the average fan. One major benefit touted by these new statistics is the ability to project a player's performance based on detailed analysis. Baseball Prospectus has developed a strong following for doing just that. Their PECOTA projections are the most respected in the game. As such, the Fan spends a lot of time looking at their data. One article (the site is a subscription site so you can't read it if you aren't a member) based on their projections talks about pitchers who should do better than expected this coming year or worse than expected based on their projections. Their criteria is a new stat they have created called SIERA, which tries to only measure ERA based on issues the pitcher can control. It's very interesting, but one thing seems to nag at the Fan.

The writer uses Randy Wells of the Cubs as an example of a pitcher who should not be as successful this year as he was last year. Here is what the writer says:

Wells and Happ found themselves intertwined for much of the 2009 seasons as NL Rookie of the Year candidates and also in that the controllable numbers indicated both would regress in 2010. Wells barely touches 90 mph with his fastball and he doesn’t miss many bats, but he is
stingy with walks and keeps the ball on the ground. All of that is well and good, but what one would expect from a third or fourth starter, which is what his SIERA indicates.

Again, there is a nagging feeling that the numbers don't tells us everything here. How do you measure a pitcher that is just darn good at getting a batter to hit the ball where the pitcher wants him to hit the ball? Can you measure such a thing?

Some of the big things SIERA looks at is strikeouts per nine innings, walks per innings, strikeouts to walk ratios and home runs allowed. So the argument against Randy Wells continuing to have the kind of success he had last year is that he didn't strike out that many batters and he was "lucky" with a low BABIP. In other words, most of the balls the hitters put in play were turned into outs. BABIP is a favorite stat here in the FanDome. But again, something nags at the Fan when he uses it. The general consensus is that the BABIP (batting average on balls in play) should be around .300. Get over that and the pitcher is unlucky. Get under that and the pitcher is lucky. Mostly it makes sense. But not completely.

Take for example a guy like Jim Kaat. Kaat won 283 games in his career despite striking out only 4.9 batters per nine innings. And Kaat's career BABIP was .283. So was his 283 wins and great success a matter of 25 years of good luck? The Fan guesses that's possible. But perhaps Kaat was really, really good at getting batters to hit the ball where he wanted them to hit it.

The Fan has watched Mariano Rivera pitch for fourteen years now. Yes, the man does strike out guys, but not as much as some closers. Yes, he is stingy with walks. So he is everything a SIERA stat would ask for. But one thing about Rivera that the Fan has consistently noted is his ability to get guys to ground out weakly to the pitcher, the second baseman and the first baseman. So his career BABIP is .266. Is he just lucky when they hit the ball? No, the Fan contends that he is awesome at getting the batter to hit the ball the way Rivera wants them to hit the ball.

Greg Maddux had a career BABIP of .286. Lucky? Hardly. He too was unbelievable in controlling where the batter hit the ball. Luis Tiant won over 200 games. His career BABIP was an amazing .264. Lucky? At this point, the Fan will let you decide. Want more? Okay, here are a few more examples of low strikeout, successful pitchers and their career BABIPs:

Mel Stottlemyer - .264
Jake Peavy - .287
Chien-Ming Wang - .295
Tommy John - .285

Some pitchers won't blow you away with stuff. Some will not blow you away with K/9 or K/BB ratios. But they were just really good at locating their pitches in a way where the batter hit the ball with predictable results. So SIERA and many of the new stats are good things. The Fan likes them. But they don't account for baseball smarts and the ability to duplicate strategy over a long period of time to force batters into hitting the ball in such a way that damage would be negligible.

SIERA may or may not be right about Randy Wells. Time will tell. But in 2009, it simply looked like Randy Wells was just great at getting batters to hit the ball where he wanted them to hit it.

Toyota, the Weather and Baseball

There is a saying in northern Maine that if you don't like the weather today, just wait until tomorrow. This Fan isn't complaining about the weather. While there has not been an appearance by the sun in a while, we've had ten straight days peaking over 30 degrees, which is unheard of in February. While the rest of the country has had unexpected snow, we've had very little and I heard of some reports that daffodils have poked their heads out of the ground and quickly looked around and said, "What the heck?" You just never know what's going to happen with the weather. It pops up and down. Toyota has to be feeling the same way. The little company that could started out as a maker of cheap automobiles, much like Hyundai is now. Then they became the biggest in the world and were the gold standard for quality that everyone wanted to emulate. Now look what's happened. They appear to be back where they were thirty years ago thanks to all their problems.

The Astros and Mets have to know what that feels like. Both started as expansion teams in the early 1960s. Both had cheap little teams that couldn't. Both had serious runs of euphoria and success. And both have fallen on hard times. The history of both teams is sprinkled with failure and success, failure and success and then failure. It seems difficult for them to stay on some kind of even ground.

There have been other teams that were once good but have been bad for a long time now like the Royals and the Pirates. There have been teams that were mostly bad but poked their heads up above the tree line for a brief look like the Brewers and the Padres. There are other teams that always remain competitive like the Cardinals, the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Twins, the Braves and the Dodgers.

For those latter six teams, the weather is mostly good like the weather in San Diego. But most of the rest seem to have histories like northern Maine weather. They are all over the place. Is it all about the money? The Cardinals and the Twins seem to disprove that. The Cardinals are always in the upper middle level of the salary world. The Twins were once always at the bottom of that world but now are solidly in the middle. Both just have good organizations. The Yankees and the Red Sox can either be smart or use their financial resources to cover up moments of stupidity.

But then you have all those other organizations that can't seem to consistently produce over the years. It can be about the money, but it's also about smarts and good management.

The Fan thought he had a bigger point to make here, but it fizzled faster than Toyota and Tiger Woods' reputations. Oh well.

Message to MLB.com

The last post led to one more thought. The Fan is in love with MLB.com. After all, isn't it wonderful to be able to watch games on the computer over the Internet for just a few dollars a month? Sure it is. It's great. But now that they are hiring big time writers, it's time to change a few things over there.

When Peter Gammons was with ESPN.com, you could bookmark his home page and blogs like this one could have automatic links to that page. But try to find Gammons on MLB.com's site, the Fan dares you. It's impossible. But once you do find him, it's only a link to one of his articles. If you want more, then there is a little drop down box under the heading for his archive.

Well how about this idea. Put his archive on its own site page so we can link to it. Well duh. That's hardly a new idea. And forget about it if you want to figure out what Hal Bodley's latest piece is. Isn't it funny how some site can be so progressively cool in some areas and so utterly stupid in others? ESPN.com is far from perfect either. Have you ever tried to comment on one of the articles or posts and were not signed in? Yeesh. What a nightmare that turns into.

But to have Peter Gammons as an invisible ghost or a needle in a haystack is a sad waste of whatever it is MLB.com is paying him (and the Fan is sure he isn't cheap). So ...pssst ... MLB.com... FIX IT. Please.

Marvin Miller - Hall of Fame?

The great Peter Gammons, now toiling for MLB.com, wrote a great piece on why Marvin Miller should be in the Hall of Fame. The Fan has to admit that it makes a lot of sense and thaws a few of the hard feelings brought up by the mere mention of Miller's name.

After all, it was Miller who stopped baseball. It was Miller who so united the players that the 1981 season and the 1984 season will forever be a blot on fandom everywhere. Let's face it, this blog is written from a fan's perspective. We didn't care about what was right and what was wrong. All we cared about was that our passion and our joy was being pulled apart by this upstart, Marvin Miller.

Deep down we knew that the owners of baseball had it made when it came to ruling their fiefdoms. Holdouts such as the one pulled in tandem by Don Drysdale and Sandy Koufax were rare. And we knew it was rare because the owners had all the chips on the table. They owned the players and could do whatever they wanted.

But most of us fans were willing to keep a blind eye to that sort of thing as long as our games and seasons rolled on uninterrupted and unchallenged. We incorrectly perceived Miller to be the bad guy because it if wasn't for him, none of that unpleasantness might have happened.

Of course, this perspective might be different in union towns such as Detroit or Pittsburgh. Those communities had long union histories and already knew the perils of company owners who had unfair advantages over the workers they employed. It's quite possible in those places that Marvin Miller was a hero.

It is only in hindsight that we understand that players being "owned" forever by their teams is wrong. It is only fair in looking back that players get a bigger slice of the revenue their services generate. It's only fair that after a few years of service to their teams that they have a right to seek out alternate paths for their careers.

Fairly or not, unions and their officials are viewed in many places of our country as mafia fronts or in other unflattering ways. When the Fan worked in factories (early in his manhood), it seemed better that the guy who owned the company telling us what to do than some unseen union head in another city far away. So those thoughts all lingered and added to the perception that Marvin Miller was the creep that ruined baseball.

In retrospect, the battle between Miller, his players and the owners was epic. And Miller was so successful in what he did that the entire financial face of baseball changed as a result. Of course, there are some negatives that came about. The free agency system made it easier for rich teams to stay rich and poor teams to lose their talent. But it's a far better system than ball players only being commodities with no rights. Millers epic work also made it possible for those retired from the game to be cared for and remembered. The first work stoppage was about pension benefits for those who don't know or remember.

So yeah, thanks Mr. Gammons. It seems time to soften on Miller. Sometimes the most gifted men on the planet are the most hated. The Fan always had some healthy dislike for the man. But it's time to acknowledge that his cause was right and his success at achieving victory in those causes was nothing short of brilliant.

Americans Can Be Snobs

Several years ago, MLB decided it would be a good idea to have a couple of teams in Canada. It seemed weird at the time, but the Toronto Blue Jays were born in 1977 and Montreal Expos were born in 1969. Predictably, as expansion teams. there were a few dismal years in the beginning. The Blue Jays lost over 100 games their first three seasons. They played at Exhibition Stadium, which had been built in 1879. Yes, that's right. 1879. Quick! Name the Blue Jays' first manager. Oh, forget it. His name was Roy Hartsfield. Who?

The Expos started quicker out of the gate. They only lost 100 games their first year (1969) and they started their existence with a big name manager in Gene Mauch. They played in a quickly little park called Jarry Park. The place is now a tennis stadium of all things. At least it's still around. Exhibition Stadium was demolished in 1999, 120 years after it was first erected.

Neither team did well at the box office to begin with. The Expos had an old time manager and Rusty Staub (Le Grand Orange) became a real hero. After the Mauch years, Dick Williams took over and he was one of the great all time managers. Mauch had longevity, but Williams had results. And the Expos did quite well at the gate from 1979 to around 1984. It is easy to wonder what it would have been like in Montreal if the strike hadn't shortened the 1981 season which was probably the best team the Expos ever assembled. But as we all know, it all went down hill after those years until the team was taken over by the MLB and moved to Washington, D. C.

The Blue Jays had to deal with the strike in only their fourth year of operation. That was awful timing for them. But after the strike (when the team was lousy anyway), the team steadily improved under several good managers like Bobby Cox, Jimy Williams and then Cito Gaston. The team exploded in attendance from the late 80s to about the mid 90s. Skydome was the wonder of the world and fans went their in droves.

Since those heady days, the Blue Jays have slowly declined and have become an afterthought in the American League East. They wouldn't be mentioned much at all if it weren't for all that Roy Halladay business for the last thirteen months. SkyDome isn't the buzzing place to go anymore and unfortunately, it isn't even called SkyDome anymore.

The teams north of the border always had a couple of obstacles to begin with. First, every road trip takes them through customs, which has to be a major drag. Next, salaries are not the same since the Canadian dollar and the U. S. dollar are rarely the same. Signing free agents is difficult because of the dollar obstacles.

The Fan lives right next door to Quebec. Montreal is only six hours from here. But the Expos were never buzz worthy. The Canadians of hockey, now that was the passion of sports fans in Quebec. But Toronto fans are avid and passionate. There just isn't as many as their used to be. The Fan has gotten acquainted with some of the bloggers that write up there and has come to appreciate just how good they are at covering their teams. Sites like Sports And the City and TaoofStieb are well written and show the same kind of savvy and passion as any city in MLB.

All of which is great to learn about. The Fan has always believed that when it comes to Canada, U.S. citizens are snobs. School kids in Canada could name off every U. S. state and their capital cities. Ask any kid in the U. S. to name two Canadian provinces and you'll get a blank stare. People in this country make jokes about mounties and moose and the word, "eh." Canadians are considered American wannabes (as if). Canada is the home of many proud families that fled the colonies during the Revolution if they wanted to stay loyal to the kind. That should be a source of pride, but instead is scorned over here and those people are labeled as Tories.

Living so close to Canada, the Fan has really had his eyes opened about that country. For example, if you want to be a teacher over there, you have to obtain a degree in some four year subject and THEN take a year of teaching courses. Imagine how much better our teachers would be if we did that? The coastline of New Brunswick is absolutely gorgeous. The Bay of Fundy is fascinating. Prince Edward Island is totally different than anywhere else on the east coast.

Personally, it would be thrilling to go to Toronto. It seems like a really cool city. Quebec City is probably the most romantic city in North America. But Toronto seems like one of the coolest. Perhaps some day the Fan will get a chance to visit there.

Oh. One last story about this meandering post that doesn't seem to have any point or substance (oh well). The Fan's wife is one of the U. S. snobs. No offense, dear, but you are. Back in 2000, the Fan went to Illinois to help his wife to be move from that state to Maine. The best route was to go through Canada instead of across the states, so that is what we did.

Well, the Fan's wife only drinks one thing from the minute she wakes up until the moment she goes to bed and that is Diet Mountain Dew. She loves the stuff and it's of utmost importance to always have it on hand. Well, it took us parts of three days to travel across Canada going from Illinois to here. We stopped at just about every convenience and grocery store along our route and for some reason, none of them sold Diet Mountain Dew. By the time we made it to Maine, the Fan's wife was pretty much a raving maniac.

Because of that, she still believes that Canada is the most backwards country on the planet and has absolutely nothing but bad thoughts about the country. Unfortunately, she is more the norm than the exception.

Addiction?

So Tiger Woods had his say today and it was well done. Does the Fan forgive the guy? Hey, it's his business, not the Fan's. The Fan just wants to know when he'll play again. This little fence mending expedition comes a few weeks after former GM and ESPN analyst, Steve Phillips, talked about his sexual addiction. At the sake of sounding all uneducated and stupid, the Fan's take on all this is heavy on the skepticism.

Look, we all have cravings. In fact, right now the Fan is really craving Kentucky Fried Chicken. But life is full of these cravings. The balancing act is to balance the cravings with the end results. If the Fan eats KFC, he ends up making weird noises on the porcelain fixtures and has many agonizing moments therein. The Fan gets this craving several times a month and gives in to it perhaps once a year. But that one time is enough to educate for the rest of the year. Cravings are something we want. Reality is what we know will/could happen if we give in to those cravings.

There are legitimate addictions. Tobacco is among the worst. But chemical addictions are very real. In those cases, the body is altered and chemical deficiencies scream out to be heard. Yeah, those are cravings, but until help or will is summoned, the price of giving in to those cravings goes unheeded.

The Fan isn't well versed in psychology and those kinds of studies. But the Fan is aware of sexual cravings. Yeah, the Fan is a man and men get cravings. The Fan can't speak about women because he isn't one. But they must get cravings too. But when you are married or in a serious relationship, the cravings are like that KFC thing. Yeah, we know what will happen if it all blows up in our faces. Fortunately, most of us don't give in to them once a year like KFC and hopefully, we find some bliss and aid for our needs from our significant others.

And again, the Fan isn't a sociologist. But it seems that men are wired to crave women (if we have that sexual preference anyway). Studies have shown that our pulse quickens at the sight of a pretty girl. We just can't help ourselves. We also have innate (so they say) desires for conquest that go back to our human roots (or our sinful and carnal side, depending on your belief system). But as rational men (is that an oxymoron?) we make the trade off of putting a "shush" to our cravings and our nature for the convenience of a partner that makes the world a much nicer place to live.

But you put a man in a playground where there are no rules and he will try to satisfy his cravings as many times as possible. If you don't believe the Fan, watch Big Brother. When men have unlimited money, unlimited opportunities and people who will take money to feed our cravings, then that trade off system gets a little harder to deal with. Sexual addiction? No. That's just the same cravings we all have with no rules or restrictions. When you have a lot of money, you secretly think you are gifted above mere mortals and the same rules don't apply. It's very hard not to feel those kinds of "I'm special" thoughts. Tiger Woods said the same thing today.

Therapy? Sure. When a man is in the kind of fix Tiger Woods is in, then you go to therapy or whatever else your mother or offended wife thinks is appropriate. Deep down, do you really think Tiger Woods thinks he has an addiction? No, deep down, he knows that he has manly cravings that ran amok because they could and now that he is busted, he has to revert back to the trade off system. Does Steve Phillips have an addiction? No, that's what he has accepted as part of his punishment for getting caught. After all, he would like to work again.

Personally, sex and love are totally separate issues. But we are so screwed up, we can't separate them without people's feelings being hurt. We are screwed up about this issue you know. So, though the human species isn't really good at the monogamy thing, that's what we have to deal with at present and its trade off system. Those who have means and ability and who come to believe they are above it all, they do what our species is especially good at and that is finding some other warm place to put our warm places and they do so thinking that they are entitled to be above our present system.

Frankly, if we could simply separate the two issues of love and sex, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. But let the Fan prove his point by asking you one basic question: Haven't you seen a face like Tiger's today somewhere before? Yes you have. Admit it. You've seen that same face when a man is seen walking out of a porn shop (if those places still exist in this world of the Internet) or when a man is caught participating in pregnancy classes with his woman. It's the same face. The face simply says: "Oh my, I've been caught red handed and am in this mess thanks to my cravings."

Addicts? Who knows. The Fan doesn't know everything. But this whole sexual addiction things seems pretty bogus.

Rooting for J. J. Hardy

J. J. Hardy hit a wall last year with the Milwaukee Brewers. After two seasons averaging 25 homers per and above league average OPS+, he sank to .229 last year with 11 homers and had the indignity of being sent down to the minors for three weeks. The Brewers all but gave up on him to bring in Alcides Escobar, the supposed next great thing for the Milwaukee Brewers. Escobar batted over .300, but he showed little patience at the plate and had no pop in his bat. The Fan's first thought when the Brewers traded Hardy to the Twins was that the Twins were getting the better shortstop. Heck, he's got to be an upgrade on Nick Punto.

Escobar could turn out to be great. But Hardy put up better fielding numbers and for his career has shown himself to have above league average range at short and a higher fielding percentage than league average. Hardy had 15 errors in 2008. Escobar made 6 in 33 games for the Brewers.

Hardy seems like a good guy. Looking at his stats, it appears that after his 26 homer performance in 2007, he started swinging for them in 2008. Though 2008 was a better statistical year for Hardy than 2007, his strikeouts rose from 78 to 93 for pretty much the same number of plate appearances.

The Twins seem like the perfect place to land for Hardy. For one, he'll have no competition for his job at short. Punto was a great fielder, but man, the guy could not hit his weight most of the time. Secondly, the Twins are such a good organization. They stress fundamentals and team play and Hardy should thrive in that situation. The Twins will keep him on an even keel and stay on top of him if he starts swinging from his heels.

With another chance to flourish with a new organization, this writer predicts that Hardy will again hit 25 homers, drive in 80 and put up a solid 110 or better OPS+. If he does that and continues his excellent glove work, the Twins should gain three or four wins over anything they would have gotten from Punto.

The Fan will be rooting for him. The feeling here is that he wasn't treated very well by the Brewers and deserves to show what he can do for a class organization like the Twins.

Building a Brand

Part of every business model is building a brand. Once you have a known brand, it's tough to beat. When working for a tax software company that was very successful, we were always trying to catch up to Intuit because they had the better-known brand, "TurboTax". Words like "Kleenex" and "Q-tips" have become household words which is the grand poobah of brand-building. Several baseball teams have been successful building their brands. It is no mystery that the teams that have great success building their brands have great success on the baseball diamond. They are cause and effect in a chicken or the egg kind of way. Some teams have a long way to go to build their brands. Some of the problems are team names which aren't condusive to brand building. But some teams just don't get it. For the sake of the exercise, here is a businessman's view of MLB teams and a scorecard of their brand building excellence. To show a lack of favoritism that is so obviously there, the teams are listed in alphabetical order.

Arizona Diamondbacks

• Team Name: A bit long and unwieldy. The Snakes would have been better.
• Logo: The team has done a nice job of incorporating the snake into their logo. The snake, "D," is especially effective.
• Attendance: The D-backs (a cool nickname by the way) lost about 300,000 in attendance last year and are off about a million ticket sales since their high of over 3 million in 2002.
• Analysis: The Diamondbacks have done a good job for being such a new team. Only in existence for twelve years, they have been to the post-season four times including their dramatic World Series win. Their top players are rarely featured in national ads. They seem to have a good market but could do better to promote their brand.
• Grade: 7 out of 10 which is pretty darn good for a new team.

Atlanta Braves:

• Team Name: Not particularly politically correct, but too steeped in history to be abandoned.
• Logo: The logo incorporates the brave hatchet, so that's good (except for the people it offends). The lettering is weak and not particularly effective.
• Attendance: Their 2.4 million in attendance was off about 300,000 from just a few years ago, but even then, they haven't ever drawn as well as a team in a great market like Atlanta should do. They are always in the middle of the pack in attendance.
• Analysis: The Braves seemingly have had every advantage. They had a great and flamboyant owner in Ted Turner. They had one of the first national cable television deals. They had consistent success on the field and one of the most beloved managers of all time. They have had star players with marquis names, but just don't seem to draw that well despite of it and as such have had salary issues that have kept them from being competitive in recent years.
• Grade: 5

Baltimore Orioles

• Team Name: The name, "Orioles" is an old one rooted into the early reaches of the 20th Century. But it is a passive name and hard to build on.
• Logo: The team's logo is kind of boring. The scripted name is similar to the font and style of the Braves. It just doesn't grab you.
• Attendance: The Orioles have averaged between 1.9 and 2.1 million for a long time which is in the middle of the pack. They should have a good market.
• Analysis: The Orioles have a wonderful ballpark that has become a centerpiece for the team and a rallying point. They also have success in their past. Recent years have presented the idea that the team isn't managed well and that perceived turmoil is never good for marketing. They seem to be on the right road though with a strong new emphasis on developing prospects. That should improve their perception in the marketplace. But they need some success to show the growth.
• Grade: 5

Boston Red Sox

• Team Name: The name is so old that you don't think about how passive it is. But it is a passive team name at the very least.
• Logo: The Red Sox logo of two hanging red socks is boring as heck and needs a fresh new update. It really is staid and corny. The word, "Hackneyed" seems to come to mind.
• Attendance: The Red Sox have done a great job of filling their ballpark. Fenway is utilized to its fullest as a symbol of the team. The new seats on the "Green Monster" are fabulous.
• Analysis: "Red Sox Nation" has become as big a phenomenon as the "America's Team" of the Dallas Cowboys. They have done a super job of building this brand. They use their history and their great old ballpark really well. NESN adds to the success and is a solid cable brand. Say "Green Monster" to just about anyone in the country and you'll know exactly what they are talking about. While it is evident the team has done much to pull even (and even ahead) of the Yankees on success and smarts, they still project a bit of the second best attitude particularly expressed last year when the Yankees signed Teixeira. That needs to stop.
• Grade: 9 out of 10. It would be a 10 except for the dull old logo and the "evil Yankee empire" rantings.

Chicago Cubs

• Team Name: Kind of cuddly, eh? The football team is the bears, a much more aggressive name. But "Cubs" is lovable, which isn't necessarily always a good thing. But at least it has some heft of history.
• Logo: The Cubs logo, with a circle and the, "C" surrounding the rest of the name is well done. The colors are a bit pastel and add to the cuddly affect.
• Attendance: The Cubs' ability to draw fans has never been a problem. Wrigley Field is the National League version of Fenway with lots of history and charm.
• Analysis: The Cubs are the perennial underdogs who have been particularly good the few years. But whereas, those other underdogs, the Red Sox, are perceived as smart and sharp, the Cubs seem dumb by comparison. They don't have players that you can wrap your anthem around like in the past either. With this market and this fan base, they should be way more successful than they are. Despite being one of the first to televise nationally, they just don't seem to get over the top.
• Grade: 6 out of 10

Chicago White Sox

• Team Name: You can't mess with tradition here. The name goes back to the beginning of the American League like the Red Sox. And though the name is weird when you think about it and passive, it is what it is because of history. Pale Hose is a cool nickname.
• Logo: The White Sox logo is really well done if a bit old fashioned. But even being old fashioned, it is classic.
• Attendance: The White Sox have never drawn as well as their cross-town rivals, the Cubs. They are always in the middle of the pack which is a shame considering the team is in the second best market in the majors. That tells this Fan that they haven't done a great job of brand-building. When you think of the team, it seems working class or drab. Add to that their GM's maverick nature and the same for its manager and you just get a blue collar feel about the team.
• Analysis: Appealing to blue collar values is not necessarily a bad thing, but that may not be the best way to sell tickets to those upscale enough to buy them. The team has always seemed second to the city to the Cubs and that is as much a result of marketing as anything else. Everything is black and white with the White Sox and it desperately needs some color.
• Grade: 5 out of 10

The Cincinnati Reds

• Team Name: The Reds are one of the oldest teams in baseball and the name is a hold over of the original names of Red Stockings and Redlegs. For those new to baseball, the name could be confusing. Communists? Just red? But it has too much history to change.
• Logo: The Reds have one of the coolest and crispest logos in baseball. It's unmistakable and perfect.
• Attendance: The Reds play in one of the smallest markets in baseball and yet do better than some teams with bigger markets. But their market does keep the attendance down to levels that hurt the product on the field.
• Analysis: The Reds haven't had success for a while and it's been a while since the "Big Red Machine" (one of the coolest nicknames ever) roared. It seems the team does the best it can with what it has but would benefit greatly from success on the field to spur more interest.
• Grade: 7 out of 10

Cleveland Indians

• Team Name: Problematic because of the PC thing. But at least it's not passive.
• Logo: The team logo is horribly and terribly offensive. The team seems to hold on to in for tradition, but some traditions should be done away with. This is one of them. It is pigheaded to hold onto such an offensive symbol for their brand.
• Attendance: The team's attendance has shrunk for several years in a row. Times are hard, but the Indians aren't maximizing their market. They have a great ball park (the old one was a definite downer). The Indians seem to have the same PR problem that Cleveland itself has. The team has to do something to turn the perception around and they haven't done that.
• Analysis: The Indians do not build their brand particularly well. For one thing, the team name and logo are hard to sell. The logo has got to go. The branding of the Indians needs to overcome its perception.
• Grade: 4 out of 10.

Colorado Rockies

• Team Name: Perfect for where they are. Denver Rockies wouldn't have had the same impact. Coors Field builds into the brand too.
• Logo: One of the best in baseball. Modern, crisp, unmistakable.
• Attendance: The Rockies have a problem. They were drawing consistently drawing over $3 million their first nine seasons but dropped off dramatically. The last two seasons have been better though and raised up to 2.6 million.
• Analysis: The Rockies are perfectly branded and located in a really nice location. But they need to build up their brand that translates to the kind of attendance it had in the past.
• Grade: 8 out of 10.

Detroit Tigers

• Team Name: Perfect. Aggressive.
• Logo: When the Fan was a kid, the "D" seemed very cool and the Fan used to practice duplicating it to perfection. Now it seems old and dated.
• Attendance: Detroit has been devastated by the recession. As such, their attendance fell off by nearly 600,000. But that figure was still higher than just ten years ago. The Tigers do a great job with their brand locally and have loyal fans as a result.
• Analysis: There is a perception that Detroit is old fashioned and their logo is old fashioned. Start there. They have to weather out the recession and continue to be a force in their neighborhood, which they are.
• Grade: 8 out of 10

Florida Marlins

• Team Name: Good. It represents the area very well.
• Logo: Beautiful. The logo is one of the finest and really well done.
• Attendance: Ugh. Consistently last in its league. The Marlins drew 3 million their first year of existence and it's been all downhill since then. They only drew 1.3 million the year they won the World Series.
• Analysis: The Marlins have the feel of cheap. Watching their telecasts has a decided amateur feel to it. Contrast this with the Tampa Bay Rays who have a first class telecast and the Marlins look sick in comparison. There is cheap and there is professional and inexpensive. They have to upgrade their approach. They also play in the shadow of the Dolphins. Even their ballpark is named after the football team (it also doesn't help that the name has changed four times). It just doesn't seem that this team is branded correctly or marketed correctly.
• Grade: 2 out of 10

Houston Astros

• Team Name: Too reminiscent of cartoon dogs. Seems dated.
• Logo: The logo is really well done and is stylish. Not fond of the color scheme, but the execution is great.
• Attendance: The Astros never drew well until the last eleven years. The new ballpark helped but the growth predated that by two years. That shows great local branding and marketing. Though attendance has fallen off some in the last two years, it's still quite good for a team that hasn't been competitive.
• Analysis: The Enron thing certainly didn't help, did it? But that is getting long in the memory now. The biggest problem facing the Astros is that their front office has the same reputation problem the Orioles face. Their system is pretty bare. They have to turn around their operations so they can show its hard-earned fans that it is a successful organization.
• Grade: 7 out of 10 (down from 9 a few years ago)

Kansas City Royals

• Team Name: Meaningless to the average person. Even "Monarchs" would be better. Just doesn't do anything for the brand.
• Logo: The logo is attractive, but it seems like something you'd see on a soda bottle.
• Attendance: The Royals used to average around 2.2 million per season but have been way down from that for a dozen years now. They had a nice little increase last year though thanks to beautiful upgrades to Kaufman Stadium and the promotion of such.
• Analysis: The Royals, who get little help from their name or logo have fallen as a brand thanks to a long stretch of anguishing ineptness. Even now, their moves cause heads to scratch. It's hard to build a brand when fans perceive the decision making to be moronic. They are loyal fans though and the uptick in attendance shows that the marketing folks are making lemonade out of lemons.
• Grade: 6 out of 10

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

• Team Name: You have to ask? The name and the fight over cities is a joke. It's awkward and untenable.
• Logo: The Eiffel Tower-like "A" with its halo is a classic. Great logo.
• Attendance: The Angels have really built their fan base. After several down years, the team now draws consistently over 3 million fans a year.
• Analysis: They have a progressive owner and a smartly run organization and despite the pettiness of the whole name thing, have really done a great job building the Angels brand.
• Grade: 9 out of 10

Los Angeles Dodgers

• Team Name: A holdover from their Brooklyn days, the name is sort of nonsensical, but at least it denotes action.
• Logo: The baseball shooting through the well drawn Dodgers name is simple and classy and instantly recognizable.
• Attendance: The Dodgers are a consistent behemoth in drawing fans always finishing first or near the top in their league.
• Analysis: The Dodgers have a great brand. The "true blue Dodger blue" has been developed over a long time. People like Tommy Lasorda (despite there being some bluster and fraud behind his image) has been kept around to continue that branding. The messy divorce of the owners leaves a little bit of a PR black eye. But the brand is probably strong enough to overcome it. The hiring of Joe Torre was genius for the brand.
• Grade: 10 out of 10.

Milwaukee Brewers

• Team Name: Who wouldn't love brewers? It's such a homiletic sort of name that it makes one smile. Even the Brew Crew nickname is great.
• Logo: The Brewers' logo is awful. It's clunky and bulky and there is nothing to like about it.
• Attendance: After years of mediocre attendance, the Brewers have gone over 3 million two years in a row.
• Analysis: The Brewers have done a great job of building their brand and making going to a Brewers game a great thing to do. Their market does not seem to be that big and yet they have maximized it to great affect. Those sausage races are perfect for their brand. Too bad about that logo though.
• Grade: 9 out of 10.

Minnesota Twins

• Team Name: Doesn't do anything for the brand. Named for the twin city situation of Minneapolis and St. Paul, the name may have seemed logical but is too juvenile to be of any use.
• Logo: Despite the weakness of the Twins' name, the logo is fantastic and really clean and well done.
• Attendance: The Twins are consistently in the middle of the pack when it comes to attendance.
• Analysis: The attendance is certainly an improvement over decades past. But they have flattened out for several years which says that the brand has leveled off and in need of some thought and work. The Metrodome, so hated by the rest of baseball was a real source of rally for the fans. It will be interesting to see what happens in the new park. The Mauer situation will also affect the brand either positively or negatively.
• Grade: 7 out of 10

New York Mets

• Team Name: Terrible. What the heck is a Met (yeah, yeah, short of metropolitan)? Just a terrible name to hang a brand on.
• Logo: Despite the name, the logo is one of the five best in baseball. It's really cool.
• Attendance: The Mets' attendance seems to be more up and down related to their record than many other teams.
• Analysis: The Mets certainly seem mismanaged at the moment. The ups and downs of the attendance seem to indicate a fan base not strongly tied to the brand. The Mets are to the Yankees what the White Sox are to the Cubs and they need to do better.
• Grade: 5 out of 10

New York Yankees

• Team Name: As American as apple pie.
• Logo: As classic as it gets
• Attendance: over 4 million in recent years. Wow.
• Analysis: Everyone hates the Yankees' success. But nobody has ever built a stronger brand in sports. Ever. Steinbrenner was a genius.
• Grade: 10 well duh.

Oakland Athletics

• Team Name. Good but problematic at the same time. Do you type out the whole name or shorten it to the, "A's?"
• Logo: Classy. Well done.
• Attendance: Terrible. The A's have made it clear to their market that they can't be supported in Oakland.
• Analysis: The above is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If your fan base is constantly hearing that Oakland isn't the best place for the A's, would you get excited about your team? And the problem with all of that is that the A's draw much better than they did in the Charlie Finley era when they won all those World Series. MUCH BETTER. But instead of building on that, they tear it down by saying they can't make a go of it in Oakland. It's a terrible anti-branding campaign.
• Grade: 3 out of 10.

Philadelphia Phillies

• Team Name: It's another one of those names that has been around for twelve decades and is too steeped in history to complain about. But it is kind of a silly name.
• Logo: The Phillies' logo is lazy and boring. Very.
• Attendance: Attendance has exploded with the advent of Citizen's Bank Park and with the recent success of the Phillies on the field.
• Analysis: The organization had lost some luster, but they are back in a big way. They have done a tremendous job of building their brand and instilling excitement in their market.
• Grade: 9 out of 10.

Pittsburgh Pirates

• Team Name: Perfect. Pirates are scrappy, resourceful, dangerous. Great team name.
• Logo: The Pirates have by far the worst logo in baseball. The single yellow P is just brutal and does nothing for the brand.
• Attendance: The Pirates had a one year spike when PNC park opened, but one year was all it was.
• Analysis: Let's face it, the Pirates have been awful for a long, long time. They have been inept as an organization. And unlike the Cubs who were the loveable losers, the Pirates have had success in the past and their lack of it has lost its fanbase. If you go to their team site, the slogan is, "Pride, Passion, Pirates." That would be great once you saw those things lead to some success. But it just sounds empty now. The Pirates are doing a good job of reaching out to the community and to the young kids in the schools, so that's a plus.
• Grade: 3

San Diego Padres

• Team Name: The worst in baseball. Priests? Umm...yeah. This team is dying for a name change
• Logo: The Padres have a really good logo. Well done considering the name it has to promote.
• Attendance: The Padres lost 500,000 in attendance. That's major oofage there. It was the first time the Padres have had less than 2 million in Petco Park (another lousy name).
• Analysis: The Padres have gotten lost after the Kroc years. They have fallen hard on the field, in the payroll and in the stands. Their brand is slipping badly and they desperately need direction and at least a finger in the dike.
• Grade: 2

San Francisco Giants

• Team Name: The Giants name is as old as baseball and has always been perfect. What kind of man is more impressive than a giant?
• Logo: The Giants logo is classy and professional but a little on the boring side.
• Attendance: The Giants have lost a bit of their attendance. During the Bonds' wonder years, they beat the Dodgers for three straight years which was unheard of. Though down, if you would have asked a Giants' owner of twenty years ago if he would be please with 2.8 million in attendance and that owner would have felt it was Christmas.
• Analysis: The Giants are in a bit of a crossroad. They have lost their biggest draw in Bonds but have gained Lincecum. However, 70 homers is a bit more thrilling than a one-hitter. Even so, AT&T Park (formerly PacBell, formerly 3Com) is a wonder and is a wonderful place to see a baseball game. McCovey Cove is brilliant. Everything about that park is brilliant and really rescued the brand. And the Giants have made the most of it. It remains unclear what will happen in the post-Bonds years.
• Grade: 9

Seattle Mariners

• Team Name: It's different. It evokes romantic adventure. Not aggressive, but not bad.
• Logo: The logo is attractive but the lettering of the team name is too small thus rendering it ineffective.
• Attendance: The Mariners are about a million ticket sales less than the early days of Safeco Field.
• Analysis: You have to give the Mariners credit. They saw that what direction they were in wasn't working and they have been aggressive in turning the ship around, to use a bad pun. Bringing Griffey back for a swan song was brilliant and their aggressive off season coupled with positive moves last year in the dugout and front office has strengthened the resolve and the brand.
• Grade: 8

St. Louis Cardinals

• Team Name: About the same as the Orioles, but at least the Cardinal is all one color so you can say, "Redbirds" which is a cool nickname.
• Logo: The team logo is great. Classic and timeless.
• Attendance: The Cardinals have been extraordinary at the box office for twelve straight years. Like it or not, it started with McGwire.
• Analysis: The Cardinals have really maximized their market. They have had continuity with LaRussa, bonafide superstars in McGwire to Pujols and plenty of post season appearances. Regardless, the Cardinals make the most of their market and stay on top of their brand.
• Grade: 10

Tampa Bay Rays

• Team Name: Very cool. And, "Bay Rays" is so darn fun to say. Thank goodness they took the Devil out of the name.
• Logo: The Rays' logo is good. It would have been better if the outline of the diamond behind the script wasn't so dark. Being as dark as it is makes it too busy.
• Attendance: They have increased attendance by 500,000 from three years ago, but that only has lifted them from dead last to third from last.
• Analysis: The interesting question for the Rays is whether they have a market that can be maximized. They run a first class organization. Their telecasts are top notch and almost better than the big networks. They have put successful teams on the field. Perhaps the test will be if they continue to succeed on the field and whether that translates to a viable brand in Tampa.
• Grade: 8 out of 10. Would be higher if the end results were higher.

Texas Rangers

• Team Name: Perfect for their market. Absolutely perfect because of the romance and history of the rangers in Texas
• Logo: Really well done. Similar concept to the Mariners but executed 100% better.
• Attendance: The Rangers have lost a third of their fan base since its height in 1998.
• Analysis: The Rangers have really muddled along for many years. They haven't captivated their market for at least a dozen years. A new ownership group that features home town hero, Nolan Ryan should continue his growing role the past two years which has been a smart move and has nudged their attendance up the last two years. Hopefully they will build some momentum.
• Grade: 6 out of 10 up until now.

Toronto Blue Jays

• Team Name: Same as Orioles and Cardinals. Not a great team name.
• Logo: The logo is good. It shows forward motion and is effective.
• Attendance: Wow has this team gone downhill in fanbase. Starting in 1987, they led the league in attendance for seven out of eight years, topping out over 4 million seats sold. They have lost half of that fanbase since.
• Analysis: Whatever they were doing right in the late 80s and early 90s, they are doing all wrong now. They have not sustained their brand and bringing back Cito Gaston was more a misfire of harkening back to those days than it was a shrewd baseball move. The team has no traction and little identity. With a new GM and a renewed emphasis on home grown talent, perhaps they could turn it around.
• Grade: 2

Washington Nationals

• Team Name: Terrible. Of all the names to come up with, this one was not effective at all.
• Logo: Their logo is kind of cool though. Well done.
• Attendance: Much better than they ever did in Montreal, but still not great.
• Analysis: The team is so new to Washington and they have performed so badly on the field that they haven't had a chance to develop any identity or fanbase. The team does seem headed in the right direction though and will be in need of time to build up a team and its fanbase accordingly.
• Grade: Not fair to give it one yet.

President's Day All Star Team

Since it is President's Day here in the United States, a holiday that means that the government and the banks are closed, but most everyone else is still working, it might be fun to come up with an all President All Star Team. Come up with your own if you can think of those that were missed.

• DH - Joe Carter
• LP - Whitey Ford
• RP - Grover Cleveland Alexander
• C - Terry Kennedy
• 1B - Benjamin ("Ben") Harrison Taylor - Negro League player/manager in the Hall of Fame
• 2B - Jack Roosevelt Robinson - Jackie Robinson!
• SS - Derrel McKinley Harrelson - You'd know him as Bud Harrelson
• 3B - Travis Jackson
• OF - Otis Nixon or Willie Wilson
• OF - George Washington Case - three time All Star in the 40s
• OF - Joseph Jefferson Jackson - Shoeless Joe!

** Update: Hey! This guy had the same idea. Except he probably did it better. How could the Fan forget Gary Carter?

Will B. J. Upton Ever Blossom?

This post is a result of the news today that B. J. Upton lost his arbitration hearing with the Tampa Bay Rays. He will receive $3 million for playing in 2010 instead of the $3.3 million he was asking for. Perhaps for baseball players, $300,000 doesn't seem like much. But if you prorate that over 52 weeks in a year, that's $5769 a week more he could have made. There were no reports on how Upton took the defeat, but if he is sensible, he shouldn't be upset. He didn't exactly have a banner year.

Which brings up the question of whether Upton will ever be the kind of player that everyone thought he was going to be. Upton will turn 26 during the 2010 season, so he is still young and is entering into his prime years as a player. Upton certainly gave us all a peak of what he could be when he put up the following line in his first full season in 2007: .300/.386/.508. He also hit 24 homers that year and drove in 82. He hasn't come close to those numbers since.

In 2008, Upton's line sank to: .273/.383/.401. He did walk 97 times, which was good. But his power shriveled. Last year was even worse: .241/.313/.373. And hidden in his final stats is the fact that he was abominable on the road. Upton only had one good month last year and that was June. The rest of the year (except for a little surge in Sept/Oct.) was awful.

So what is the answer? The Fan has a feeling that he had better produce this coming year or the Bay Rays will find someone else. Upton does have two things going for him that are not dependent on his hitting. He again stole over 40 bases and he again played above league average center field. But those are little consolation for a team that committed to him with the second overall pick of the 2002 draft.

There were reports that part of Upton's struggles resulted from a weak shoulder that was operated on between the 2008 and 2009 seasons. A bad shoulder could certainly curtail some of his ability. But you would have to assume that he is now a year removed from that situation and should be entering 2010 at full strength.

Upton has always looked like an exceptional talent. He's always had great bat speed. He knows how to take a walk. He's fast. He is athletic. Now he just needs to pull it all together. Time is running out if he ever hopes to became the sensational baseball player that everyone assumed he would become.

Frank Thomas Retires

Upon first hearing the story that Frank Thomas was announcing his retirement, this writer was a bit baffled. Wasn't he already retired? Apparently not. He didn't play in 2009 because no one offered him a job, which is a rather ignominious way to end what was a brilliant career. The previous sentence is even more stark in the little news that covered the slugger's absence from the game. After all, for a ten year period, he was one of the best batters in baseball. At least his formal announcement will give the baseball world some time to catch up and encapsulate his career, something that wasn't happening last year when he didn't play and very few people noticed. And it was a career worth talking about.

By any of the current player measurements, Frank Thomas was a great player. He led the league in OPS four times and OPS+ three times. He finished with a .974 career OPS. His career line finished at: .301/.419/.555. The .419 for On Base Percentage is what everyone will remember. Frank Thomas walked a LOT. He walked more than he struck out in his career. He walked over 100 times in a season ten times, including eight years in a row.

But he also hit the crap out of the ball when he did swing. He finished with 521 homers and had eleven seasons where he drove in more than 100 runs. And Frank Thomas was big. He was six foot, five inches tall and played close to 265 pounds. He led the league in doubles once and hit over 30 homers nine times.

Frank Thomas finished in the top ten for MVP eight times. He won the award twice. His career WAR (wins over replacement) finished up at 75.9. To get some perspective on that number, Jim Thome sits at 66.9 and Hall of Famer, Eddie Murray finished at 66.7. Of course, that figure would have been higher if he hadn't been a first baseman/DH. Thomas wasn't much of a first baseman. His counting stats also suffered from three lost seasons in 2001, 2004 and 2005 when he missed most of those seasons.

Thomas had one last great season for the Oakland A's in 2006 and a very good campaign for the Blue Jays the following year. But in reality, he was never the force after 2001 that he was from 1991 to 2000. His slow and gradual decline, broken by a few over the top seasons after 2000 probably accounts for his low profile and lack of recognition from the average fan. In that regard, his career most compares to Harmon Killebrew whose career path was very similar.

Is Thomas a Hall of Fame candidate? Count the Fan with a resounding YES. His career exemplified power and patience and few ever did it better. By the way, there was another Frank Thomas who played when the Fan was growing up. He was also big (6' 3") and had a nice career from 1951 to 1966. He hit 286 homers. So the combined total of 807 homers by the pair of Frank Thomases has to be a record for any one name.

Tale of Three Pitchers

Three pitchers that figured greatly in their teams' runs to the playoffs and beyond have been in the news this week. Two will be pitching for different teams and one is still under contract. All three have had varying levels of success, two of them have had high levels of success. All faced difficulties in 2009 and have serious question marks behind their names. The three? Todd Wellemeyer, Chien-Ming Wang and Daisuke Matsusaka.

Wellemeyer just signed with the Giants, so let's start with him. Two years ago, he seemed to be another of Duncan's miracles for the Cardinals. He went 13-9 with an ERA of 3.79. After never throwing more than 79 innings in any season in his years with the Royals, Cubs and Marlins, he threw 191 quality innings for the Cardinals.

Then 2009 came and Wellemeyer had a dud. His record sunk to 7-10. His ERA ballooned to 5.89 and his hits per nine and homers per nine innings were downright scary. So the question needs to be asked, is he as good as 2008, or as bad as 2009? The answer is probably no to both.

After playing around with Wellemeyer's numbers, it appears that he was pretty lucky in 2008. His BABIP or Batting Average for Balls in Play was a ridiculous .267. It was an even more absurd .216 on ball hit on the ground. His 20.6% line drive percentage was high, his walks per nine were high and he gave up 25 homers. But the Cardinals had a good team, a good defense and they won a good percentage of his games.

As lucky as Wellemeyer was in 2008, he was as unlucky in 2009. His BABIP shot up to .357 including .330 on ground balls. Remember that he had Schumaker out of position at second base and a rotating case of fielders at third and short whereas he had Troy Glaus at third and Cesar Izturis at short and Adam Kennedy at second (a good fielding infield) in 2008. .300 is about right for BABIP and would be considered neutral on the luck scale. But BABIP also shows fielding skills behind a pitcher. Wellemeyer had good fielding support in 2008 and lousy support in 2009. The Cardinals were 11th out of 16 teams in fielding percentage in the NL.

So what can the Giants expect? Probably a league average pitcher. He fared well in relief last year after he lost his rotation spot. He walks too many and gives up his fair share of homers, but whether he is in relief or starting, he should give them a shot at winning any game at least. It should also be noted that last year, he was coming off a year in which he threw more innings than ever before. That had to be some kind of factor as well.

Chien-Ming Wang has been reported close to a deal with the Nationals. The question begs as to why the Yankees gave up on him. What do they know that they aren't telling anyone? After all, before his injury in 2008 (running the bases in an interleague game), he had gone 54-22 for the Yankees. That's a pretty darn good winning percentage, eh? And it wasn't a fluke. In 2006 and 2007, his ERA+ was over 120.

So Wang got hurt and when he tried to come back last year, he had one of the most horrendous starts in the history of baseball. The Fan watched most of those games and has never seen a pitcher get so rocked...ever! Obviously, he wasn't right. After spending some time on the DL, he came back late in the year and pitched three games in relief. The numbers looked good for those outings too. So given his history, and given the state of pitching in the game, why would the Yankees just let him walk? Only they know. But it will be interesting to see if they were right or if he comes back and pitches well for his new team.

If he does sign with the Nats and can give them some semblance of his former self, they could be a lot more fun to watch this year than last. They already have Marquis, so they could have some decent starters at least.

Daisuke Matsusaka (his nickname of Dice-K is MUCH easier to say) is pretty much in the same boat as Wang except he still has a contract with his old team. If he didn't, odds would be that he wouldn't still be with the Red Sox either, especially when he angered his manager in a dispute over his conditioning and the state of his shoulder.

Like Wang, Dice-K had a dreadful year to forget in 2009. After two years of success, he apparently hurt his shoulder in the World Baseball Waste of Time Thingy. He never could get started for the Red Sox, but since they have committed a lot of money with him, he will get a chance to prove he can pitch again for the Red Sox--something Wang didn't get from the Yankees.

But again, Dice-K's numbers are interesting. He fared moderately well in 2007. His BABIP was right where it should have been at .301. He walked way too many batters, but struck out a passel of them too. His 18-3 in 2008 was something of a fluke. His BABIP was an insane .260 which also showed how good the Red Sox were in the field. His walks were still high and he has showed a propensity over the years to pitch worse when runners are on base and he has to pitch out of the stretch. His saving grace is his strikeouts--consistently in the 8.2 K/9 range for his career.

Last year, he wasn't quite as bad as much as he wasn't quite that good in 2008. His BABIP shot up to .382 which is REALLY high. Everyone agrees (including the Red Sox themselves) that the Red Sox did not field well last year. Shortstop was particularly painful.

So what does this tale of three pitchers tell us? First, things sure do change from year to year, don't they? Second, if all three are healthy, they could help the teams they will be pitching for. Predictions? Dice-K, from all accounts has worked hard on strengthening his shoulder and legs and should finish with an ERA+ between 115 and 125. Wang, if he is healthy, should finish with an ERA+ of between 100-110 and Wellemeyer will be anywhere from 95 to 105. If those predictions were to come true, everyone who employs them should be quite happy.

Real Life Versus Unreal Life

Life takes on new perspective when money is tight. When money is tight and life is about survival from week to week, which it is for 90 percent of us in this country, then the unreality of someone paying $103,579 for a baseball...any baseball...is surreal. But that is how much money it cost some lucky bid winner to buy the baseball that Alex Rodriguez hit for his 500th homer.

Normally, this Fan doesn't exercise in this kind of futility when players' salaries are discussed. After all, $4 million a year for marginal players is not even computable in this Fan's brain. But a number like $103, 579 is a number that the brain can wrap around. It's not so big a number that the average Joe cannot understand what it means. And for most of us, it means a lot.

To put it into perspective, that much money would buy 36,992 gallons of heating oil, or enough to completely fill a home owner or renter's home tank 148 times. That would get you through a few winters, eh? For the struggling family, that amount of money would supply over 1,000 weeks of groceries. It would pay 695 power bills. It would pay 1726 months of cell phone service. For those of us who dream of traveling for vacation, it would buy 478 plane tickets. It would buy five modest new vehicles for families or 50 used ones.

All that money for a baseball that because of our obsession with stats and numbers, is seemingly worth so much more than the 499th homer or the 501st. All that money was spent for a baseball that will sit in someone's trophy case and do nothing for nobody.

Look, the Fan gets it. The Fan once spent $275 for a 1968 Mickey Mantle (Topps) baseball card. It's cool to collect things...that is until you fall on hard times and the money seems like a travesty. Imagine how many folks in Haiti that money would help. But the story has a good flip side. The average Joe who happened to be lucky enough to catch Alex Rodriguez's 500th homer ball, just made enough money (minus the auctioneer's take) to buy all that fuel oil, groceries, cars or plane tickets. Good for him.

Coming to Terms With Greatness

The following is one of the most obvious statements in history. Wait for it... Here it comes... Hank Aaron was a great baseball player. But while that statement is obvious to anyone who knows baseball at least a little bit, the belief held here is that very few have a good idea of how good he was. To put it in an even more obvious statement and this STILL an understatement: Henry Aaron was an incredible player.

Hank Aaron wasn't flashy. He wasn't the "Say Hey Kid." He wasn't white and beloved like Mickey Mantle. He wasn't nasty or arrogant like Barry Bonds. He wasn't a big kid like Babe Ruth. But despite all of those things, Aaron might be the best all around player that ever lived. It's impossible to compare eras of course and such a statement is impossible to prove. But the point is that Aaron's greatness is understated by those who have loved the game for a long time.

Part of Aaron's problem was that he played originally in Milwaukee when the Braves played there. He didn't play on a lot of nationally televised games except for the All Star Game every year. He played in two World Series and one NLCS (late in his career). The Braves won only one championship during the Aaron years. And even his chase of Babe Ruth late in his career was not the overwhelming story you would have thought it should have been. Commissioner, Bowie Kuhn, didn't even bother attending the games.

But Aaron was remarkable and he was remarkable for a long, long time. He batted over .300 fourteen times in his career. He drove in over 100 runs thirteen times. And it wasn't just homers that tell the story of Aaron. He also hit over 600 doubles and 98 triples in his career. He is the all time leader in total bases thanks to his 1477 career extra base hits. Let that number sink in for a second. 1477 career extra base hits. 39% of his 3771 career hits went for at least a double or more.

And if his career 155 OPS+ and 2297 RBIs (the all time record) don't grab you, he had less career strikeouts than he did walks. He also stole 240 bases at a 77% success rate. Too bad he didn't have three more RBI because then he would have had 2300 in 23 seasons or 100 for every season he played.

And it wasn't just the homers, the extra base hits, the RBIs, the stolen bases, the OPS+. He was also an excellent fielder. His career runs above replacement player in the outfield add up to 104.1. His career range factor was above league average. His career fielding percentage was above league average. He also threw out 201 runners in his career.

The Fan never really thought much about Hank Aaron. He played in the National League and thus was not often on this Fan's radar screen. It was a surprise when he was going for Babe Ruth's homer record. It was a surprise at the time that he had more than Willie Mays.

In fact, it's a fun exercise to compare Aaron with Mays in every category. Mays had 93 more stolen bases with the same success rate. Their career OPS+ is a wash (155 for Aaron, 156 for Mays). Their career batting averages were nearly the same. Mays had a higher OBP for his career, Aaron a higher Slugging Percentage. Mays struck out more, but not by much. If you restore the year and three quarters that Mays lost to the military, his homer and extra base total may have been near Aaron's. The one big difference is that Mays was a better fielder (as good as Aaron was).

But again, the bottom line is that Mays is given credit for being one of the best all around players (you've heard the term, "Five Tool") of all time. But Aaron is right there too. Can you only imagine how much money those two would have made in today's market? But not only are these two of the best players of all time, but they entered baseball soon after Jackie Robinson and while Robinson was a very good player, Aaron and Mays were much, much better and as the elite players of their era, had to endure harsh bigotry.

Yeah, it's easy to overlook Hank Aaron. And unfortunately, Willie Mays left his last years with the Mets in a lot of people's minds. But man, they were brilliant for a long, long time.

Giants Among Men

Rob Neyer over at ESPN.com ran a pretty good piece commenting on another writer's piece about Frank Howard. While Frank Howard will probably never make it into the Hall of Fame, he was a scary hitter for his time and Neyer's blog brought back a lot of memories of the guy. He was one of the true giants of the game whose physical stature simply dwarfed those of his peers.

And Howard did play during the pitching era when mounds were higher, ball parks were more spacious (at least where Howard played) and the ball wasn't quite as lively as it is now. He had a three year stretch from 1968 to 1970 where he hit 132 homers. He finished with an impressive 142 for a career OPS+. He could simply crush a baseball. And the guy was six foot, seven inches tall and was built like a tank. And from all accounts, he was one of the nicest guys in sports.

But you know what? He looked like a high school principal or something like that. All the big guys of his era did. Guys like Elston Howard and Harmon Killebrew and Ed Kranepool were massive guys that looked more like dock workers than they did athletes. Later guys like Carlton Fisk and Cliff Johnson were similar. They were huge. They were giants among men.

We have big guys today too. Ryan Howard and C. C. Sabathia come to mind. But they don't look the same anymore do they? The Fan really likes Howard, Sabathia, Fielder and others. Hey, that's what Fans do. But their trademarks are their baggy uniforms and unkempt looks. Their caps are askew and they look clownish at times.

There was dignity in guys like Elston Howard and Frank Howard. There was a certain humility to their look and their demeanor. The Neyer piece mentions Don Sutton who is quoted as saying that no hitter instilled more fear in a pitcher than Frank Howard. There were other guys like Horner for the Braves who could hit a baseball through a wall. Even Dave Winfield qualifies, though he was a bit more of a strutter than the Howards mentioned earlier in this paragraph.

Maybe it was because guys like Elston Howard and Frank Howard didn't make the kind of money they are making today. Maybe that made it harder to swagger. Who knows. But they were a breed unto themselves.

All the Fan can tell you, from a geezer point of view, is that when we went to the Stadium to watch a game against the Senators, you always spotted Frank Howard right away. He didn't need a baggy uniform or an off-center cap to be the focus of our attention. He was the big guy. He was the palooka. He was the man.

One of the dangers of hitting upper middle age is the belief that everything was harder in our day. Yeah, we walked three miles to school in the dead of winter (up all hills if you really want to get dramatic). Food tasted better, parenting was better and so on and so forth. But sometimes, as much as it sounds like we don't respect today (we mostly do), we just remember certain things like a big mammoth of a guy with librarian glasses who swung this big bat that sounded different than anyone else's.

Hey, Frank Howard hit 44 homers in 1968 when American League pitchers (collectively) gave up 0.68 homers per nine innings. What would he have done today when that same rate is 1.10? His big year came when AL pitchers put up a 3.41 league ERA compared to last year's 4.75. That was a big man who hit a lot of balls a long way even playing half his games in that huge stadium in Washington.

Frank Howard was not cool. His pants didn't bag at his ankles and he didn't have gloves sticking out of his back pockets or eye-black under his eyes. But he was a giant and he was fun to watch.

First Projections Are Out

Baseball Prospectus (PECOTA) has released its preliminary projections for 2010 and wow, are they interesting in some pretty weird ways. Some examples? The Nationals are projected for 82 wins. Really? The Rays are projected at 96 wins while the Yankees come in at 93. Really? The Yankees come in third place. Really? The Twins are the only AL Central team to win ore than half their games. Wow. The A's win the AL West and the Angels come in last? hmm...

In case you can't get the link, here is each division, projected wins and standings:

AL East

Rays (96), Red Sox (95), Yankees (93), Orioles (79), Blue Jays (71).

AL Central

Twins (82), White Sox (79), Tigers (79), Indians (77), Royals (66).

AL West

Oakland (87), Mariners (86), Rangers (85), Angels (76).


NL East

Phillies (88), Braves (85), Nationals (82), Mets (77), Marlins (76).

NL Central

Cardinals (89), Reds (82), Cubs (77), Astros (75), Brewers (75), Pirates (70).

NL West

Dodgers (87), Diamondbacks (85), Giants (81), Rockies (80), Padres (74).


There are some things that seem incredible in those projections (besides the Nats winning 82 games). The Fan can't imagine the Marlins finishing under .500. Can't imagine the Astros winning 75 games. 65 seems more like it. According to these, there won't be a 100 loss team nor a 100 win team. The Cardinals should win more than 89 times. The Pirates won't reach 70 wins. In addition, that AL Central always has a surprise in store. One of the pick of Tigers, White Sox or Cleveland will make a move this year nobody expects.

For sure, these projections are early. Rosters aren't even set yet. If Damon goes to the Blue Jays, give them two or three more wins, etc.

For the next post, the Fan will discuss a few of the surprising player projections we are seeing so far. Here's one tease, Dustin Pedroia will have a much higher VORP than Kevin Youkilis and Lackey will have a higher VORP than Beckett. Stay tuned.

Winn Lose or Draw?

So the Yankees are reportedly going to sign Randy Winn for a few million. Winn, a right-handed batter, brings a couple of possibilities to the Yankees. He either puts a right-handed bat (he is a switch hitter) in the line up instead of Gardner or Granderson (more likely the former) and it effectively closes the door on Johnny Damon's Yankee career. The other possibility is that he replaces Gardner completely.

One of the questions the signing brings is how much Randy Winn has left to offer. A career .762 OPS and Winn finished last year at .671. At the age of 35, does he have anything left, or was last year what you are going to get from now on? His BABIP was .308 which is right about where it should have been. In other words, he wasn't lucky or unlucky. So he fully deserved the low level he finished up with.

Now here is the devastating part. He is being brought in primarily to bat right handed and balance out the lefties, Granderson and Gardner. BUT, his batting line against lefties last year? Ugh, try .158/.184/.200. Now that's ugly. Even Gardner could do that with one hand, right?

So how does this move make sense? To add a bit of fairness to this evaluation, while Winn's over all BABIP was .308, his BABIP was under .200 batting from the right side. That's pretty unlucky. Winn's career numbers against lefties are .280/.332/.426. Not great, but better than last year (understatement alert!). To continue the fairness end of things, Winn posted an .812 OPS as a right-handed batter in 2008. So maybe last year was just a fluke.

Let's take a minute to talk about the other ramifications. Damon's Yankee career is dead. Scott Boras really didn't gauge this one correctly. The Yankees would have welcomed Damon back, but not for $10 million a year. Damon has been a popular player, but his wheels are falling off (lots of calf problems) and it will be nice for Yankee fans to see a throw actually make it to the infield once in a while. Damon was fun. But he is done.

Brett Gardner can't get a break can he? The Yankees get rid of his main competition in Melky Cabrera and then along comes Winn. Let's face it, the Yankees do not believe in Brett Gardner. And as much as the Fan wanted to see what happened if he got 500 at bats, it's not to be. First the Fuld dream in Chicago dies and now Gardner. The Fan could be wrong, but there is no way that Gardner gets 300 at bats now, never mind 500. The kid was simply fun to watch. Yeah, we know...fun doesn't equal stats and Gardner didn't excite anyone with his OPS or even his OBP. But he sure was a lot of fun.

Okay, bottom line: If Winn can prove that last year was a fluke (on all fronts) and can continue to bring superior defense from the corner outfield spots (he's much less effective in center), then a platoon role makes a lot of sense for the chump change the Yankees spent on him. The Yankees might miss Matsui and Damon in the post season. Or they may not. Who knows. But if last year wasn't a fluke for Winn...If the guy has simply gotten too old to be effective, then this is a bad deal. Time will tell.

Lessens From Little League

[[switching to first person]]

When my son was young and in little league, I fulfilled a lifelong ambition to coach a team. It was a blast. Well, at least most of the time it was. There was nothing like taking the Bad News Bears (let's face it, all little league teams are that when the season starts) and win or lose, turn them into good sports who tried hard and learned some skill along the way. That was the good stuff.

The bad? One example sums it up. As the team coach, I took the usual position at the third base coaching box when our team was up to bat. There was one game where we were getting smoked. The score was something like 17 to 3 after two innings. There wasn't any set standard for which bleacher a parent would sit on. The one closest to the road was the most popular no matter if the son or daughter was in the opposite dugout or not.

This particular and disastrous game, one highly vocal parent (female I might add) rooting for the other team did not seem to notice the score. Despite the whoopin' we were taking, this parent kept up a violent diatribe that went something like this: "Strike this kid out, he ain't nothin'." or "This pitcher is terrible, knock the ball out of the park." It was endless, and it was all the worst kind of cheering.

Finally, seeing that my kids were already down, I walked over to this woman and asked politely, "Ma'am, the score is 17 to 3, do you think it would be okay to tone it down a little bit? Our kids are already feeling bad enough." Now any reasonable parent would listen to this polite request and maybe respond in kind. But not this woman. Her response was to hurl some highly blue language in my direction telling me to go back to whatever egg I came from.

Now obviously, in the position I was in, there was little I could do. To this day, I know that woman should be ashamed of herself. It is doubtful that she is. But I had some measure of revenge after my little league coaching career ended. I became an umpire. My first real test was the town's championship game.

Before the game started, I asked the two coaches and their captains to meet me behind the plate. I told them two things. First, I told them that this was the two best teams in town and they better swing at anything close because I wasn't going to be an umpire of a championship game of walk after walk. You can argue the validity of that and I will understand. The second thing I told them was that as the town's best, they had a responsibility to project the highest standard of decency. I would not allow the teams or their fans the ability to put down any player on the other team. I told them I didn't even want to hear a, "He's no batter, he's no batter." I told them to cheer for their teammates but not to cheer against the other team. To back it up, I would throw out any player, coach or fan that would go against that directive.

Needless to say the coaches had very wide eyes looking back at me. But when they saw I was serious, they nodded. After the game, many parents and players said the game was the best little league game they ever watched. The final score was 3-1.

And the lessen in all of this? Perhaps I was too strong in forcing my beliefs on those teams and their fans, but listen, there is too much negativity in the world. It seems to get worse every year. And what brought this all up, you ask? Umm...err...would you believe the State of the Union address?

Uh oh, we're talking politics here? No, not really. I'm not going to espouse my political agenda, though I do have one. I'm talking about the urgent need both political parties have to obfuscate and deride any thought the opposite party has expressed or tried to put into motion. I'm pretty old at this point and have probably watched forty State of the Union addresses. Isn't it pretty sickening that no matter what party is in the White House, the other party members stoically sit in their seats to make sure the world knows that they are superior?

The President talked about how sick Americans are of partisanship. Aren't we? And yet, before he delivered that part of his speech, he blamed the previous administration for the problems he inherited. I don't know if he is wrong or right. He probably is. But did he have to say it? After his speech, the Republicans got their chance to respond. Was it any surprise that the new Virginia governor (who looks like a Republican presidential candidate) used such a soundbite of negativism such as, "top down politics"? It's stupid.

The President is right. Should it take 60 votes to get anything done in this country? Does every bill have to be about how each party can use the thing to either strengthen their party's chances in the next election or damage the other party? Should every idea expressed by the opposing party be slammed by the party that didn't state the idea?

Right now, politics in America are like that lady in the bleachers. It is vicious and it is winner take all. That isn't what we want. It's not even close.

What Washington needs is an umpire like me. If you're going to be nasty and negative, you're not going to play. Of course, that will never happen. But if those in office were truly serious about wanting to do what the people of this country want, then they should all take a pledge and put it in writing that they will cheer on their own teammates and not cheer against the other side. Imagine that, will you?

It's no wonder so many of us in this country are fed up and yes, cynical. The job in Washington is not much different than a little league game. It is a chance to teach our children about a higher vision of decency and competition. Sure, one team is going to win. But decency uplifts the winners and the losers every time. Wouldn't it be a life-changing moment if we could all, you know, root for our leaders and be proud of them?