Luis Severino and CC Sabathia will begin the season on the shelf for the Yankees when they head north to begin the season. Since Severino went down, the speculation would be that the fourth and fifth starters of the Yankee rotation would be two of a possible three consisting of Luis Cessa, Domingo German and Jonathan Loaisiga. Cessa has seemed to have cemented his place as one of the two. His lack of options and his spring success seems to guarantee as much. Recently signed "insurance policy," Gio Gonzalez should jump both German and Loaisiga as the fifth option.
I know, I know. I have been the one screaming to keep away from Manny Machado and Bryce Harper to let the kids play. But pitching is different. A team needs starters that give the team the best chance to win. I think Loaisiga should be out anyway since his command has not been there this spring and he is still walking too many batters. But with a choice of German (who throws strikes) and Gonzalez, I still have to go with Gonzalez.
For those thinking that Gonzalez has not built himself up enough yet with a full Spring Training, Aaron Boone has said that Gonzalez had his own throwing program and had recently pitched as many as eight pitches in those sessions. Gonzalez has been through the wars and knows what he needs to do. He is durable and reliable and, though he is not flashy, he has more than a decade of getting Major League batters out. All you need is a decent five innings from the guy.
This way, German can take the place of Dellin Betances as a strike-throwing, bat-missing arm out of the pen. Sure, if you need German as a starter later in the season (let's hope not), you can stretch him back out if needed.
There are times when Domingo German looks better than Luis Severino. Unfortunately, there are other times when he looks like the 2016 version of Severino. He has a maddening tendency for giving up crooked numbers in a hurry interspersed with innings of brilliance. It makes you wonder if he too is tipping pitches.
The Yankees' offense is great. And that offense will win the team a lot of games. But the team still needs good starting pitching. Right now, that is my biggest worry about this team. Gio Gonzalez would be one less worry. The biggest thing I like about him is that he has a 0.8 homers per nine rate for his career. That is important when pitching for the Yankees.
Yes, I am a youth movement guy. Part of the excitement of this current team is the thrill of watching young and potential superstars take shape. Domingo German and Jonathan Loaisiga can be two of those potential stars. But Loaisiga is not ready (IMHO) and German needs to show he can be consistently effective. Gonzalez will never be a superstar. But he is more comforting in the rotation right now.
P.S. I completely want to puke thinking the Yankees are even considering using an "Opener." Such a thing is the scourge of the world. DO NOT DO IT, Yankees!! Don't go to the dark side!
Friday, March 22, 2019
Monday, March 18, 2019
Austin Romine And The Sorry State of Backup Catching
Austin Romine seems like a good guy, a good team player and a capable catcher. Romine had some timely hits last year and added ten homers--a new career high--to finish the 2018 season with a .417 slugging percentage. While a part of me appreciates his contribution, the fan side of me yawns with boredom. Romine is not the player you would ever associate with exciting. Basically, he is a backup catcher and that means a limited skill set.
I have long held that backup catchers are fungible. Really good ones are hard to find. To see if I could back up my long-held feelings, I used Baseball-reference.com's season finder, I attempted to construct a search that would pinpoint what are truly backup catchers and how much value they brought to their teams. For my criteria, I limited my search to players that caught at least 80% of their games and had 300 plate appearances or less. My search also looked for such players that brought at least one Win Above Replacement (WAR, Baseball-reference.com version).
Out of thirty teams last year, there were only four players that fit the search. Austin Romine was one of them. Since the year 2000 there have only been 81 such seasons or about 4.3 per season. There were only two in 2017! Of those 81, only two have been Yankee players--Romine (last year) and Francisco Cervelli in 2014.
The search was pretty successful since only a few of those seasons included starting catchers who happened to be injured that particular season. The search showed me how few backup catchers actually provided at least a win in value for their given teams. Only a handful reached two wins. None reached three.
I should state that such a search really only works for catchers. Starting catchers simply cannot start every day and the best ones are limited to 120 to 130 games. There are exceptions, but that is the norm. If I did a similar search for say a first baseman, I would only come up with 24 such seasons because there really isn't such a thing as a backup first baseman. Maybe I will do a similar search for multi-position players tomorrow.
If I took that search back to 1990, the 4.3 per season held up and between 1990 and 1999, only one Yankee reached that 1 WAR season: Mike Stanley. To show how rare these seasons are and how little value backup catchers have brought to their teams, since 1990, only five backup catchers have reached one win in a season more than twice. The leaders during that time period have to be considered the best backup catchers of their eras:
Only thirteen of the 96 total such catching seasons had two. 78 catchers during that period only did it once. And let me reiterate that since 1990, 124 catchers have had seasons with 1 WAR or more for a season out of 870 such team seasons. That is 14%. Backup catchers are truly fungible...or have been 86% of the time. Apparently, it all works out because they usually become managers and broadcasters.
By the way, David Ross is tied for the all time lead in such seasons since 1900 with a guy named Hank Gowdy. Does that make Ross one of the all time greats as a backup catcher? I think you would have to go there.
It seems that the one thing a backup catcher needs to do is have some defensive skills. If we go back to our original search from 2000 to 2018, there were 570 possible seasons for backup catchers (we will go with that even though some teams rarely have three catchers on a squad). Of those 570 seasons, 193 of those were by catchers who had at least 0.5 Defensive Wins Above Replacement. That 34% is certainly higher than the 14% with 1 WAR or more.
If we take that down to 0.1 Defensive Wins Above Replacement, then we have all but 76 seasons. Clearly, roster makers are looking for catchers who can display decent catching skills. That's why a pathetic hitter like Jeff Mathis (with his career 52 OPS+) can play fourteen seasons in the big leagues when he topped 0.5 Defensive Wins nine times during that span.
Tying this all back to Austin Romine, when considering all that we have talked about here, what he produced last season was terrific in light of the fact that only 14% of backup catchers have had such seasons since 1990. There is absolutely no reason for anyone else to replace him as the Yankees' backup catcher. But man, that still feels like getting a box of socks for Christmas.
I have long held that backup catchers are fungible. Really good ones are hard to find. To see if I could back up my long-held feelings, I used Baseball-reference.com's season finder, I attempted to construct a search that would pinpoint what are truly backup catchers and how much value they brought to their teams. For my criteria, I limited my search to players that caught at least 80% of their games and had 300 plate appearances or less. My search also looked for such players that brought at least one Win Above Replacement (WAR, Baseball-reference.com version).
Out of thirty teams last year, there were only four players that fit the search. Austin Romine was one of them. Since the year 2000 there have only been 81 such seasons or about 4.3 per season. There were only two in 2017! Of those 81, only two have been Yankee players--Romine (last year) and Francisco Cervelli in 2014.
The search was pretty successful since only a few of those seasons included starting catchers who happened to be injured that particular season. The search showed me how few backup catchers actually provided at least a win in value for their given teams. Only a handful reached two wins. None reached three.
I should state that such a search really only works for catchers. Starting catchers simply cannot start every day and the best ones are limited to 120 to 130 games. There are exceptions, but that is the norm. If I did a similar search for say a first baseman, I would only come up with 24 such seasons because there really isn't such a thing as a backup first baseman. Maybe I will do a similar search for multi-position players tomorrow.
If I took that search back to 1990, the 4.3 per season held up and between 1990 and 1999, only one Yankee reached that 1 WAR season: Mike Stanley. To show how rare these seasons are and how little value backup catchers have brought to their teams, since 1990, only five backup catchers have reached one win in a season more than twice. The leaders during that time period have to be considered the best backup catchers of their eras:
- David Ross - 7
- Mike Redmond - 4
- Rick Wilkins, Don Slaught - 3
Only thirteen of the 96 total such catching seasons had two. 78 catchers during that period only did it once. And let me reiterate that since 1990, 124 catchers have had seasons with 1 WAR or more for a season out of 870 such team seasons. That is 14%. Backup catchers are truly fungible...or have been 86% of the time. Apparently, it all works out because they usually become managers and broadcasters.
By the way, David Ross is tied for the all time lead in such seasons since 1900 with a guy named Hank Gowdy. Does that make Ross one of the all time greats as a backup catcher? I think you would have to go there.
It seems that the one thing a backup catcher needs to do is have some defensive skills. If we go back to our original search from 2000 to 2018, there were 570 possible seasons for backup catchers (we will go with that even though some teams rarely have three catchers on a squad). Of those 570 seasons, 193 of those were by catchers who had at least 0.5 Defensive Wins Above Replacement. That 34% is certainly higher than the 14% with 1 WAR or more.
If we take that down to 0.1 Defensive Wins Above Replacement, then we have all but 76 seasons. Clearly, roster makers are looking for catchers who can display decent catching skills. That's why a pathetic hitter like Jeff Mathis (with his career 52 OPS+) can play fourteen seasons in the big leagues when he topped 0.5 Defensive Wins nine times during that span.
Tying this all back to Austin Romine, when considering all that we have talked about here, what he produced last season was terrific in light of the fact that only 14% of backup catchers have had such seasons since 1990. There is absolutely no reason for anyone else to replace him as the Yankees' backup catcher. But man, that still feels like getting a box of socks for Christmas.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Luke Voit Or Greg Bird
Many New York Yankee fans looked on wistfully when Paul Goldschmidt was traded to the St. Louis Cardinals. When it was first hinted that Goldschmidt was on the trading block, the thought of him wearing pinstripes was an attractive one. When that deal did not happen, the reality set in that first base would be manned by either Luke Voit--last year's hero--or Greg Bird. Now the reality is setting in that only one of them will survive the cut to head north for the season as suggested by Aaron Boone and Brian Cashman. Voit was given the initial nudge because of what he did last year, but Bird is being touted (once again) for the kind of spring he is having. So which will it be?
From a fan's perspective, there is an emotional choice here. Luke Voit won a lot of hearts in the city with his magical run, his infectious smile and his Hulk-like super hero body. Greg Bird has been the perennial disappointment akin to the Nick Johnson days. A few fans might be sad to see Greg Bird go, but not a majority. Voit would be the fan favorite.
The thing nobody knows is if Luke Voit is the real deal. As someone who has lived through the Kevin Maas and Shane Spencer days, Voit's fall exploits feel reminiscent. Heck, even Greg Bird had a great first year at the age of 22. There is also the fact that the Yankees are a heavily right-handed batting team. Greg Bird gives them more balance. But balance with a 79 career OPS+ kind of loses its luster.
I wonder what the Las Vegas odds would be on which player will make the team. In the Deja Vu department, Greg Bird is having a really good spring. But so is Luke Voit. But what about projections? Marcels' Projections has Luke Voit with an .842 OPS. Most would take that in a lineup like the Yankees have. The same projections has Greg Bird just topping a .700 OPS, which wouldn't cut it at all. Over at Fangraphs.com, the five projections there have a low wRC+ for Voit at 115 and a high of 140. Greg Bird has wRC+ projections that are at 100 for a low and 115 for a high. I think we have seen that projections are very much more in favor of Voit over Bird.
It would be a bit easier if one of them was superior with the glove. The hard truth is that both are terrible fielding first basemen. Fangraphs assigned Bird with a -3.4 runs on defense while Voit did worse at -3.7. It seems like their range is below standard in both cases and neither is very good at scooping balls out of the dirt. Voit seems a lot like Ron Bloomberg at first base which is why Bloomberg is the perennial trivia answer as to which player recorded the first hit with the DH rule.
Paul Goldschmidt's range makes him look like a gazelle in comparison to either choice for the Yankees. Alas...
It is easy to see why the Yankees are loathe to give up on Greg Bird. He is two years younger than Voit and is only 26. Bird has far superior MiLB numbers. Voit's were not terrible, but his career MiLB OPS of .824 is some 50+ points lower than Bird's. But does that mean anything? It all comes down to how you perform once you get the chance. Bird simply has not been able to lift off.
Both players have very similar walk and strikeout rates. Luke Voit hit the ball hard 47% of the time last year. Greg Bird was at 40%. Voit's weak contact was only 9% while Bird's was over 13%. Greg Bird has always been over 13% in that area.
Luke Voit seems to have the edge as a fan favorite, better projections, more hard hit balls and less weak hit ones and he has already become a legend. But Bird is home grown and younger. The Yankees have invested much more into his career. And if Bird is the one to get sent down, does that become a glass ceiling kind of thing? Is it worth even keeping him in the minors at that point?
Without taking a poll, it would be hard to imagine the fans wanting anyone but Luke Voit at first base. That would be my preference as well. But the fans do not always get what they want which is why Manny Machado and Bryce Harper are not Yankees. My gut feels kind of sick inside, but it is telling me that Greg Bird will be the choice.
From a fan's perspective, there is an emotional choice here. Luke Voit won a lot of hearts in the city with his magical run, his infectious smile and his Hulk-like super hero body. Greg Bird has been the perennial disappointment akin to the Nick Johnson days. A few fans might be sad to see Greg Bird go, but not a majority. Voit would be the fan favorite.
The thing nobody knows is if Luke Voit is the real deal. As someone who has lived through the Kevin Maas and Shane Spencer days, Voit's fall exploits feel reminiscent. Heck, even Greg Bird had a great first year at the age of 22. There is also the fact that the Yankees are a heavily right-handed batting team. Greg Bird gives them more balance. But balance with a 79 career OPS+ kind of loses its luster.
I wonder what the Las Vegas odds would be on which player will make the team. In the Deja Vu department, Greg Bird is having a really good spring. But so is Luke Voit. But what about projections? Marcels' Projections has Luke Voit with an .842 OPS. Most would take that in a lineup like the Yankees have. The same projections has Greg Bird just topping a .700 OPS, which wouldn't cut it at all. Over at Fangraphs.com, the five projections there have a low wRC+ for Voit at 115 and a high of 140. Greg Bird has wRC+ projections that are at 100 for a low and 115 for a high. I think we have seen that projections are very much more in favor of Voit over Bird.
It would be a bit easier if one of them was superior with the glove. The hard truth is that both are terrible fielding first basemen. Fangraphs assigned Bird with a -3.4 runs on defense while Voit did worse at -3.7. It seems like their range is below standard in both cases and neither is very good at scooping balls out of the dirt. Voit seems a lot like Ron Bloomberg at first base which is why Bloomberg is the perennial trivia answer as to which player recorded the first hit with the DH rule.
Paul Goldschmidt's range makes him look like a gazelle in comparison to either choice for the Yankees. Alas...
It is easy to see why the Yankees are loathe to give up on Greg Bird. He is two years younger than Voit and is only 26. Bird has far superior MiLB numbers. Voit's were not terrible, but his career MiLB OPS of .824 is some 50+ points lower than Bird's. But does that mean anything? It all comes down to how you perform once you get the chance. Bird simply has not been able to lift off.
Both players have very similar walk and strikeout rates. Luke Voit hit the ball hard 47% of the time last year. Greg Bird was at 40%. Voit's weak contact was only 9% while Bird's was over 13%. Greg Bird has always been over 13% in that area.
Luke Voit seems to have the edge as a fan favorite, better projections, more hard hit balls and less weak hit ones and he has already become a legend. But Bird is home grown and younger. The Yankees have invested much more into his career. And if Bird is the one to get sent down, does that become a glass ceiling kind of thing? Is it worth even keeping him in the minors at that point?
Without taking a poll, it would be hard to imagine the fans wanting anyone but Luke Voit at first base. That would be my preference as well. But the fans do not always get what they want which is why Manny Machado and Bryce Harper are not Yankees. My gut feels kind of sick inside, but it is telling me that Greg Bird will be the choice.
Wednesday, March 06, 2019
The Tiresome Rants Against The Yankees Making A Profit
Twitter is full of rants against the owners and brain trust of the New York Yankees caring more about profits than about the fans. Because the Yankees do not want to blow across the payroll tax limit nor be held hostage for overlong, overly pricey free agents, the team is not doing its job for you and me. The constant comparison is made to George Steinbrenner's period of ownership when he would spend at all costs to build his teams. And, of course, the theme is that old George did it for the fans and his son(s) will not. How tiresome.
First of all, take any or all of these ranters and complainers and give them a company to run and see what their boards will say about making the fans happy over profits. That is not how capitalism works. Sure, there is a balance that must be struck between cost, price and what the customer is willing to pay or endure. Finding the right balance is how company's maximize profit. It's just the way it works.
To assume that sports teams are different than other businesses is a fantasy. The old cliche is that a rich guy/gal will tickle the funny bone and cluck his/her feathers for a trophy team may be true once in a great while. But such a purchase is always a business decision. And the team buyer is not in the business to lose money or profit. I will admit it does happen occasionally. The Detroit Tigers' owner did not care how much the team paid in salary as long as the Tigers could win a World Series before the owner died. It does happen. But not very often.
It is also a fantasy that old George did what he did altruistically for the "benefit of the fans." The man was a very proud man. He wanted to be king. He wanted his team to be the kings to prove that he was the king. It wasn't about the fans. However, his flair and his bravado did change the course of the team's history forever, so much so that a $10 million purchase has turned into a multi-billion dollar enterprise. The fans came along for that exciting ride!
To lose sight of the Major League Baseball Luxury Tax is bordering on being cavalier. After the 1994 strike, George Steinbrenner was also coming off of his most recent suspension. Unlike the past two decades, Steinbrenner gave more control to Gene Michael and his front office and stepped back a bit. That was the also the timing of the start of the Luxury Tax in 1997. The system was different in the beginning and the top five payroll teams were taxed between 1997 and 1999. From 2000 to 2002, there was no Luxury Tax and then a new system was put in place starting with the 2003 season.
During the first three years, the Yankees did not pay the most Luxury Tax. The Orioles did. Does that surprise you? One of the reasons is that Gene Michael and his team went to a youth movement and thus the Core Four was born. Of course, that Core Four became expensive as the years went along. But the Yankees did contribute $9.1 million in taxes during that time.
During the second system put in place in 2003, the Yankees lapped the field between 2003 and 2017 and paid over $319 million in taxes. That is about the cost of Bryce Harper! Ouch! The Dodgers were second with almost $150 million. During those years not only did it become extremely expensive to keep Jeter, Posada, Pettitte and Rivera as Yankees but they also got a little willy nilly again with free agents. How many World Series titles did the Yankees have in that period? Yeah, one. So much for making the fans so happy.
The way the system is set up, if a team is over the limit for three straight years, then the team has to pay 50% of whatever amount the team was over the limit. It is 20% the first year and 30% the second. So, it makes perfect sense to "reset" things by being under the limit or you are blowing out 50% more out the window. Not getting under the limit is just plain business stupid. It is akin to not having an inventory system and not caring how much shrink your products have.
Half of the money teams pay in Luxury Taxes is split among the teams that did not go over the limit. Thus, the Yankees and other teams over the limits line the coffers of teams that care more about profits than fans like the Pirates, Marlins, Rays, Royals and other teams that artificially keep their payrolls among the lowest in the league year after year. So the Yankees not only care little for their own fans, but the fans of all those other teams they helped support all these years.
Young players are ridiculously cheap and make no money in the minors and minimum upon entering the Majors. But, there is a huge cost to develop them. There are coaches and instructors and scouts and equipment and medical and on and on it goes. Yes, MiLB team owners pay some of that, but the cost is still large for the parent club. Why would you ignore those costs and not see if they pay any dividends?
Would Gio Gonzalez be that much better than the young talent the Yankees have developed? Would Dallas Keuchel? Who knows? The Yankees have developed their own talent. Use them and see which one will get the job done. If Domingo German would equal Gio Gonzalez at one-tenth the price, wouldn't that be the way to go?
The Yankees have decided to go young. Under the current CBA, young means cheaper and it is exciting to see young players develop. Yankee fans had a ball last year watching Torres, Andujar and Judge grow into what they could be. It brought them 100 wins. That is usually enough. It wasn't last year. There are a sprinkling of free agent veterans that did not break the bank. This team can be great...really great. Let's see how it will play out, shall we?
No business--or perhaps we can say few businesses--exist today out of the goodness of their hearts. As C.S. Lewis once said, "I've never had a selfless thought since I was born." Businesses pay attention to customer service and to quality product because they help maximize profit. It isn't for me to feel great about myself or for you. Apple doesn't give you everything you want for a low price and then throw away a chunk of their revenue. Thy will command the price you will pay whether the new product was better than the old one. Why? Because that is how to maximize profits. To expect a baseball team to act any different is unrealistic and leads to a lot of screaming into the night.
Tuesday, March 05, 2019
Blessed Day Watching Baseball
Today was the first chance this spring I have had to watch a baseball game. It was so totally enjoyable and relaxing to listen in to the flow of the announcers, hear the cracks of the bats and pitches popping the catcher's mitt. Being a Spring Training game, I was able to see some prospects play, see the relaxed fans and listen as running steps ran through first on ground outs. While I have been enjoying the game for over a half a century, baseball always seems new and wonderful. Those feelings overcome all the negativity that I otherwise hear about the game.
South-central Florida has three different sports talk radio stations. And during the week I listen when I can and flip back and forth. I would never dare call any of them and that is okay because they hardly take calls on talk radio these days.
One of the stations is a Fox Sports affiliate, the other a CBS Sports station and then there is ESPN. I mostly prefer the Fox station as they have rock-solid personalities to listen to (except probably Andy Slater). Despite the riches of options, I cannot listen to them for long.
You can pretty much guarantee what will be discussed on these stations these days (and most of the year). Number one seems to be Lebron James and the Lakers. Number two seems to be that player the Lakers wanted and New Orleans foiled them with a gleam in their eyes. Following those two are the Celtics, the Knicks, the NFL draft and the current situation (ad nauseam) with the Steelers' erstwhile wide receiver.
Baseball was briefly discussed when Bryce Harper signed. Most panned the contract for the Phillies stating the team was crazy. So my ears perked up when one of the shows brought up baseball that was not free agent related. To my dismay (but not surprise), most of the talk was negative. Baseball is in trouble, they said. Baseball is boring, they said. Baseball is only enjoyed by people with the average age of 50 they said. Baseball is no longer the center of American life, they said.
Radio, like television, lives and dies by advertising revenue. And advertising revenue these days seems to mean targeting to young people between 18 and 35. According to all wisdom, that is the age group that sparks the economy. That age bracket is the one which spends money. As such, it has been determined that the NBA is most important to the targeted age bracket followed by the NFL. None of them want to hear about baseball.
That could be true and it could be a self-fulfilling prophesy. The length of the game is ALWAYS cited as a problem. The lack of action is another big one. And the fuzzy third is that Major League Baseball discourages the individualism and spontaneity of its players.
Let's discuss these three for a brief moment. I am not going to get all technical about it with facts and figures. I could if I wanted to. But I am a fan. And albeit, I am one of those older fans they talk about and outside the target audience. But baseball is only too long if you do not love the game. That's it, plain and simple. One of the radio "experts" cited extra-innings as a killer. Seriously? That thought has been so loud lately as to have baseball's commissioner consider starting extra innings with a runner on second. What an abomination that would be!
There is an ebb and flow in a baseball game. It takes a lifetime of playing and watching the sport to enjoy that tidal ride. If you are a marginal fan, I can see how that could be boring.
I am not against doing away with some of the really tedious things. Stopping Gary Sanchez from going to the mound 45 times in a half inning was a good idea. I thought that helped a lot. I am not totally against a pitch clock as long as it includes an element for the batter too. I like the idea of not so many pitching changes in an inning. Tony La Russa really started that mess, didn't he? As long as the ancient (there, I said it) ebb and flow of a game is not messed with, speed it up where you can. But even as it stands now, baseball is never too long for me. Ever.
The second one is related to the first. Much is talked about how baseball has become a three-outcome affair. Either it is a strikeout, a walk or a homer. And it is true that strikeouts are at an all-time high and homers are way up there as everyone preaches launch angle these days. But does that really make it a three-outcome game?
Okay, I lied, I will throw a couple of numbers out there. Last season, strikeouts, walks and homers accounted for 62,478 plate appearances. That is a lot, eh? In 2010, that number was at 54,697 and in 2000, the number was 55,286. That is quite a jump. If we assume that 55,000 was the old norm, then last year's rate was a 12% increase. And last year was the first time there were more strikeouts league-wide than hits. So far, I seem to be making the point for the naysayers.
But consider there are around 185,000 plate appearances a year (last year was 185,154). Strikeouts-walks-homers accounted for 33% of the total of plate appearances. So basically there is 67% of the time when something other than those three events happen. That 2010 number accounted for 29.7% of plate appearances. By percentage, that really is not that big a leap
Look, I have railed against strikeouts over the years more than most. I hate that statistics do not seem to care that Aaron Judge strikes out 200 times a year. I do. Think how good he would be if he halved that? But are they making the game boring? I would argue that strikeouts excite people. We already know that homers do.
The lack of offense is a more important issue than the three-outcome thing. While we are not at Deadball Era offense in the modern game, offense has taken a hit from analytics and positioning. Even saying that, I am really against legislating against shifts because it is a strategic part of the game. It is up to the batters to adjust, not the rules. And they will eventually. Baseball is cyclical. It always has been.
The third thing is the individualism, flair, personality issue. While some of the "unwritten" rules discourage celebrations and individualism, I think baseball players are trending toward being more personable. Video games and 24-hours sports programming on the MLB Network (for example) is showing the players more as people.
But I am more than okay with the players doing their jobs and grinding it out day after day. After all, the complete freedom of expression now has players in the NBA and NFL saying things like they are their own CEOs and the sport cannot tell them what to do. Uh, excuse me, but the fans are paying the teams and the teams are paying you, so sit down, shut up and play.
I am not saying that the current MLB is not without its problems. Having teams that can "tank" to get better draft picks by trading their young, expensive talent is a problem. That is not fair to the fans of those cities. Having teams that rake in as much profit from television contracts, salary-tax payments and the staggering money handed over from The MLB Network and MLB.com and not turn those profits into better talent in their dugouts is a real problem. Just ask Pirates and Royals fans.
There is a pseudo-salary cap in place. There should be a salary basement as well. The minimum team payroll should be set at $80-$100 million. The minimum salary should be at a million a year. Players need to start making money when they are younger because the free-agent model has changed (and it should change). And there are other things like pitcher health, for example, and the playing of important games far too late into the night so children can watch is a huge problem
But overall, Major League Baseball is still a beloved game by a LOT of people. It still has the second highest revenue in all of major sports. I think if some of the radio energy was actually put into MLB, then the perception would change. While I am not going to get into the way that Fox and CNN try to bend perception, the fact is that they do. And it hurts us as a country. Having the sports media down-talk baseball and instead try to increase its relevance in their thinking would go a long way to change how young people think about the game.
Either way, MLB has been one of my strongest passions my entire lifetime and one of my true joys. I was so glad to watch a game today. It never gets old. Only I do. And I do believe that this game that I love will still be kicking strong as long as I am on this earth.
South-central Florida has three different sports talk radio stations. And during the week I listen when I can and flip back and forth. I would never dare call any of them and that is okay because they hardly take calls on talk radio these days.
One of the stations is a Fox Sports affiliate, the other a CBS Sports station and then there is ESPN. I mostly prefer the Fox station as they have rock-solid personalities to listen to (except probably Andy Slater). Despite the riches of options, I cannot listen to them for long.
You can pretty much guarantee what will be discussed on these stations these days (and most of the year). Number one seems to be Lebron James and the Lakers. Number two seems to be that player the Lakers wanted and New Orleans foiled them with a gleam in their eyes. Following those two are the Celtics, the Knicks, the NFL draft and the current situation (ad nauseam) with the Steelers' erstwhile wide receiver.
Baseball was briefly discussed when Bryce Harper signed. Most panned the contract for the Phillies stating the team was crazy. So my ears perked up when one of the shows brought up baseball that was not free agent related. To my dismay (but not surprise), most of the talk was negative. Baseball is in trouble, they said. Baseball is boring, they said. Baseball is only enjoyed by people with the average age of 50 they said. Baseball is no longer the center of American life, they said.
Radio, like television, lives and dies by advertising revenue. And advertising revenue these days seems to mean targeting to young people between 18 and 35. According to all wisdom, that is the age group that sparks the economy. That age bracket is the one which spends money. As such, it has been determined that the NBA is most important to the targeted age bracket followed by the NFL. None of them want to hear about baseball.
That could be true and it could be a self-fulfilling prophesy. The length of the game is ALWAYS cited as a problem. The lack of action is another big one. And the fuzzy third is that Major League Baseball discourages the individualism and spontaneity of its players.
Let's discuss these three for a brief moment. I am not going to get all technical about it with facts and figures. I could if I wanted to. But I am a fan. And albeit, I am one of those older fans they talk about and outside the target audience. But baseball is only too long if you do not love the game. That's it, plain and simple. One of the radio "experts" cited extra-innings as a killer. Seriously? That thought has been so loud lately as to have baseball's commissioner consider starting extra innings with a runner on second. What an abomination that would be!
There is an ebb and flow in a baseball game. It takes a lifetime of playing and watching the sport to enjoy that tidal ride. If you are a marginal fan, I can see how that could be boring.
I am not against doing away with some of the really tedious things. Stopping Gary Sanchez from going to the mound 45 times in a half inning was a good idea. I thought that helped a lot. I am not totally against a pitch clock as long as it includes an element for the batter too. I like the idea of not so many pitching changes in an inning. Tony La Russa really started that mess, didn't he? As long as the ancient (there, I said it) ebb and flow of a game is not messed with, speed it up where you can. But even as it stands now, baseball is never too long for me. Ever.
The second one is related to the first. Much is talked about how baseball has become a three-outcome affair. Either it is a strikeout, a walk or a homer. And it is true that strikeouts are at an all-time high and homers are way up there as everyone preaches launch angle these days. But does that really make it a three-outcome game?
Okay, I lied, I will throw a couple of numbers out there. Last season, strikeouts, walks and homers accounted for 62,478 plate appearances. That is a lot, eh? In 2010, that number was at 54,697 and in 2000, the number was 55,286. That is quite a jump. If we assume that 55,000 was the old norm, then last year's rate was a 12% increase. And last year was the first time there were more strikeouts league-wide than hits. So far, I seem to be making the point for the naysayers.
But consider there are around 185,000 plate appearances a year (last year was 185,154). Strikeouts-walks-homers accounted for 33% of the total of plate appearances. So basically there is 67% of the time when something other than those three events happen. That 2010 number accounted for 29.7% of plate appearances. By percentage, that really is not that big a leap
Look, I have railed against strikeouts over the years more than most. I hate that statistics do not seem to care that Aaron Judge strikes out 200 times a year. I do. Think how good he would be if he halved that? But are they making the game boring? I would argue that strikeouts excite people. We already know that homers do.
The lack of offense is a more important issue than the three-outcome thing. While we are not at Deadball Era offense in the modern game, offense has taken a hit from analytics and positioning. Even saying that, I am really against legislating against shifts because it is a strategic part of the game. It is up to the batters to adjust, not the rules. And they will eventually. Baseball is cyclical. It always has been.
The third thing is the individualism, flair, personality issue. While some of the "unwritten" rules discourage celebrations and individualism, I think baseball players are trending toward being more personable. Video games and 24-hours sports programming on the MLB Network (for example) is showing the players more as people.
But I am more than okay with the players doing their jobs and grinding it out day after day. After all, the complete freedom of expression now has players in the NBA and NFL saying things like they are their own CEOs and the sport cannot tell them what to do. Uh, excuse me, but the fans are paying the teams and the teams are paying you, so sit down, shut up and play.
I am not saying that the current MLB is not without its problems. Having teams that can "tank" to get better draft picks by trading their young, expensive talent is a problem. That is not fair to the fans of those cities. Having teams that rake in as much profit from television contracts, salary-tax payments and the staggering money handed over from The MLB Network and MLB.com and not turn those profits into better talent in their dugouts is a real problem. Just ask Pirates and Royals fans.
There is a pseudo-salary cap in place. There should be a salary basement as well. The minimum team payroll should be set at $80-$100 million. The minimum salary should be at a million a year. Players need to start making money when they are younger because the free-agent model has changed (and it should change). And there are other things like pitcher health, for example, and the playing of important games far too late into the night so children can watch is a huge problem
But overall, Major League Baseball is still a beloved game by a LOT of people. It still has the second highest revenue in all of major sports. I think if some of the radio energy was actually put into MLB, then the perception would change. While I am not going to get into the way that Fox and CNN try to bend perception, the fact is that they do. And it hurts us as a country. Having the sports media down-talk baseball and instead try to increase its relevance in their thinking would go a long way to change how young people think about the game.
Either way, MLB has been one of my strongest passions my entire lifetime and one of my true joys. I was so glad to watch a game today. It never gets old. Only I do. And I do believe that this game that I love will still be kicking strong as long as I am on this earth.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Is Greg Bird Teasing Us Again?
I promised myself that I was done with Greg Bird. After all the hype about his sweet swing and his MiLB success, hopes were built and expectations were set. Outstanding Spring Training performances occurred in 2015 and 2017 and led to the big tease. The result was a total letdown of major proportions. The tease did not even lead to decent numbers. They led to oblivion.
And thus, it was somewhat liberating to just write him off. The mindset was not particularly cruel. After all, for a position on the field that has an expectation to hit the ball effectively, Bird, flopped spectacularly. During the last two seasons, his wCR+ has been 86 and 81 respectively. According to Fangraphs, his offense in the past two seasons has been worth -11.9. Yeesh.
But it was worse than that for those of us who watched all those games. Greg Bird batted .133 with the bases loaded. He came to the plate seven times with the bases loaded and only one out. He went zero for seven in those opportunities. In late and close games in 2018, Bird batted .154 in those situations.
He was the rally killer. He was the candle snuffer. Just when it looked like the Yankees had an offensive surge coming, Greg Bird would take the life out of it. That made it very easy to jump on the Luke Voit bandwagon once the big guy performed his Shane Spencer imitation. No second thoughts were even given to Greg Bird not even making the post season rosters.
Much like a baker who puts the bread in the oven, I was more than willing to brush my hands of the Greg Bird experience. It seemed time to move on.
But one thing that seems to hold true about Brian Cashman and Aaron Boone is a loyalty you would not expect in a kill or be killed game. Cashman and Boone have remained steadfast concerning not only Greg Bird, but also Gary Sanchez after the bad egg he laid in 2018 himself.
Personally, I was not confident of the Yankees' first base position heading into the 2019 season. Sure, the Luke Voit thing was fun. But is it sustainable? And would a Voit / Bird platoon work? The first alarming thing about a platoon is that Bird hit lefties better than right-handed pitching in 2018, which, granted, is not saying much. But not only is the offensive tandem worrisome, but the fielding between the two is terrible.
I have long stated that a first baseman's defense is one of the most underrated aspects of baseball. If you have a squad full of ground ball pitchers and an infield of very young players, then you need first basemen who can make all the scoops and have all that footwork down. Neither Voit or Bird are strong defenders and their marks on Fangraphs.com and others show that to be the case.
Here we are in Spring Training once again. Both Voit and Greg Bird have had a good start in smacking the ball around. Of course, it is all meaningless at this point, but it is encouraging. And that is the problem.
I do not want to get sucked into the Greg Bird narrative again. I do not want to read articles about how he is finally where he needs to be both physically and mentally. I do not want to hear it when Boone says that Bird could be a large contributor this season. We have been down that road too many times before and, each time, it has turned to dust.
But....what if they are right? Nuh uh! Can't be! Won't happen! But what if it does? Darnit! It's happening again...
And thus, it was somewhat liberating to just write him off. The mindset was not particularly cruel. After all, for a position on the field that has an expectation to hit the ball effectively, Bird, flopped spectacularly. During the last two seasons, his wCR+ has been 86 and 81 respectively. According to Fangraphs, his offense in the past two seasons has been worth -11.9. Yeesh.
But it was worse than that for those of us who watched all those games. Greg Bird batted .133 with the bases loaded. He came to the plate seven times with the bases loaded and only one out. He went zero for seven in those opportunities. In late and close games in 2018, Bird batted .154 in those situations.
He was the rally killer. He was the candle snuffer. Just when it looked like the Yankees had an offensive surge coming, Greg Bird would take the life out of it. That made it very easy to jump on the Luke Voit bandwagon once the big guy performed his Shane Spencer imitation. No second thoughts were even given to Greg Bird not even making the post season rosters.
Much like a baker who puts the bread in the oven, I was more than willing to brush my hands of the Greg Bird experience. It seemed time to move on.
But one thing that seems to hold true about Brian Cashman and Aaron Boone is a loyalty you would not expect in a kill or be killed game. Cashman and Boone have remained steadfast concerning not only Greg Bird, but also Gary Sanchez after the bad egg he laid in 2018 himself.
Personally, I was not confident of the Yankees' first base position heading into the 2019 season. Sure, the Luke Voit thing was fun. But is it sustainable? And would a Voit / Bird platoon work? The first alarming thing about a platoon is that Bird hit lefties better than right-handed pitching in 2018, which, granted, is not saying much. But not only is the offensive tandem worrisome, but the fielding between the two is terrible.
I have long stated that a first baseman's defense is one of the most underrated aspects of baseball. If you have a squad full of ground ball pitchers and an infield of very young players, then you need first basemen who can make all the scoops and have all that footwork down. Neither Voit or Bird are strong defenders and their marks on Fangraphs.com and others show that to be the case.
Here we are in Spring Training once again. Both Voit and Greg Bird have had a good start in smacking the ball around. Of course, it is all meaningless at this point, but it is encouraging. And that is the problem.
I do not want to get sucked into the Greg Bird narrative again. I do not want to read articles about how he is finally where he needs to be both physically and mentally. I do not want to hear it when Boone says that Bird could be a large contributor this season. We have been down that road too many times before and, each time, it has turned to dust.
But....what if they are right? Nuh uh! Can't be! Won't happen! But what if it does? Darnit! It's happening again...
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Aaron Judge Has No Leverage For An Extension
The current trend with free agents in Major League Baseball does not favor Aaron Judge, the New York Yankees' slugger and face of the team. The big man has a problem in that he has not yet reached the arbitration years (2020 will be his first) and cannot hit the open market until 2023. By then he will be 31-years-old. If he continues his star pace through the years, he will be limited by the length of any free agent deal. The Yankees, however, have no urgent need to speed up the process since he is under the team's control for at least four more seasons.
These thoughts coalesced upon hearing of Nolan Arenado's new extension with the Rockies. Arenado is a year older than Judge but had the benefit of starting younger in his career. That gave the Rockies a bit more urgency to tie up the face of their organization for the foreseeable future.
Aaron Judge probably is not built this way, but it would be understandable to see him whistling ruefully over the money that Arenado is getting. After all, Judge has compiled 13.2 fWAR over the last two seasons even though he missed a good chunk of 2018. Arenado, in comparison, compiled 11.7 fWAR in that same period. Judge has also had great numbers in the post season while Arenado has not. But Judge has no leverage with so much team control remaining.
If Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andujar continue to advance their young games, they will be in much better positions when their times come. They started so young that their greatness will be rewarded. Gary Sanchez is in a similar position to Judge, but Sanchez has to prove that 2018 was just a ditch in a long road. Sanchez cannot even get to a deserving point of view until he Lysol's what happened last season.
Aaron Judge's position is the exact one where MLB players have a problem. The days of a 30-year-old getting eight or more years are over and will not come back. Teams do not want to speculate on a player beyond his 35th birthday. And if that is what the numbers say, who can blame them? There have been enough of those foolish deals spattered over history: Pujols and A-Rod are just two who come to mind.
From a player's standpoint, if the free agent game has changed to a younger mindset, then the players cannot keep playing for free in their early careers. Yes, $1.2 million over two years is a lot of money by our mortal standards. But, it is peanuts in baseball's expense model. Consider that Aaron Judge has given the Yankees $118 million of performance value for a three year paycheck of about $2 million. That is a steal and Judge will probably not have the ability to recoup what he has provided.
Aaron Hicks seemingly read the tea leaves and signed a bargain of a deal for the Yankees in his extension. While I am not as high on Hicks as others, if he continues on his current track and stays healthy, he will blow away that deal in favor of the team. But Hicks had more leverage than Judge has.
Will the Yankees buy out the remainder of Aaron Judge's pre-free agent years? And if so, what would that look like? Again, there is no real urgency on their part to even consider it at this stage of Judge's career.
And so Judge has a problem. He must continue to prove that he is this big of a star, wait patiently and get decent raises through the arbitration process (once that even starts) and hope he can get a four or five-year deal on the back end that makes up for what he essentially gave for free. I am not sure if this model is fair for any players who start at an age when Aaron Judge did or whether this only applies to superstars. Either way, the odds are against Aaron Judge ever seeing Arenado-type money even though he has been a more valuable player.
These thoughts coalesced upon hearing of Nolan Arenado's new extension with the Rockies. Arenado is a year older than Judge but had the benefit of starting younger in his career. That gave the Rockies a bit more urgency to tie up the face of their organization for the foreseeable future.
Aaron Judge probably is not built this way, but it would be understandable to see him whistling ruefully over the money that Arenado is getting. After all, Judge has compiled 13.2 fWAR over the last two seasons even though he missed a good chunk of 2018. Arenado, in comparison, compiled 11.7 fWAR in that same period. Judge has also had great numbers in the post season while Arenado has not. But Judge has no leverage with so much team control remaining.
If Gleyber Torres and Miguel Andujar continue to advance their young games, they will be in much better positions when their times come. They started so young that their greatness will be rewarded. Gary Sanchez is in a similar position to Judge, but Sanchez has to prove that 2018 was just a ditch in a long road. Sanchez cannot even get to a deserving point of view until he Lysol's what happened last season.
Aaron Judge's position is the exact one where MLB players have a problem. The days of a 30-year-old getting eight or more years are over and will not come back. Teams do not want to speculate on a player beyond his 35th birthday. And if that is what the numbers say, who can blame them? There have been enough of those foolish deals spattered over history: Pujols and A-Rod are just two who come to mind.
From a player's standpoint, if the free agent game has changed to a younger mindset, then the players cannot keep playing for free in their early careers. Yes, $1.2 million over two years is a lot of money by our mortal standards. But, it is peanuts in baseball's expense model. Consider that Aaron Judge has given the Yankees $118 million of performance value for a three year paycheck of about $2 million. That is a steal and Judge will probably not have the ability to recoup what he has provided.
Aaron Hicks seemingly read the tea leaves and signed a bargain of a deal for the Yankees in his extension. While I am not as high on Hicks as others, if he continues on his current track and stays healthy, he will blow away that deal in favor of the team. But Hicks had more leverage than Judge has.
Will the Yankees buy out the remainder of Aaron Judge's pre-free agent years? And if so, what would that look like? Again, there is no real urgency on their part to even consider it at this stage of Judge's career.
And so Judge has a problem. He must continue to prove that he is this big of a star, wait patiently and get decent raises through the arbitration process (once that even starts) and hope he can get a four or five-year deal on the back end that makes up for what he essentially gave for free. I am not sure if this model is fair for any players who start at an age when Aaron Judge did or whether this only applies to superstars. Either way, the odds are against Aaron Judge ever seeing Arenado-type money even though he has been a more valuable player.
Friday, February 22, 2019
Yankees Infield Puzzle Revolves Around Gleyber Torres
Now that Manny Machado is out of the equation, the New York Yankees have a bit of a puzzle to solve in the infield. The additions of Troy Tulowitzki (and the promise made to him that he will be a shortstop) and DJ LeMahieu further complicate things. And then what happens when Didi Gregorius comes back? Obviously, the Yankees can cut ties with Tulowitzki when Didi returns since they are only on the hook with him at league minimum. But that is not the case with LeMahieu. The latter is considered insurance if Miguel Andujar does not improve defensively. A large part of this puzzle, though, is what exactly the Yankees think of Gleyber Torres moving forward.
The first question is whether Torres is a second baseman or a shortstop. Do the Yankees see Torres as their second baseman in the coming years or the successor to Didi at short? As much as Andujar's defense was dissected a season ago, Torres did not exactly light up the defensive stats. He did better than Andujar, but his defense was far less than what was expected.
In fairness to Torres, he did look like a special defender when he first got the call to play full-time. He had that glorious month where he was hitting everything in sight and was making special plays in the field at second. Then it sort of went away. There were questions about his concentration and he stopped making highlight reels and started adding errors.
My feeling was that he was not right physically the second half of the season. You could kind of see it in his body language. That first month and a half, he was exuberant and there was a twinkle in his eyes. The second half showed far fewer smiles. But there is more to talk about then just the perception of his body language.
If you look at his range numbers in the minors compared to his range numbers on the Yankees in 2018, there is no comparison. There was a significant drop in his range. If the body language argument leaves you limp, then the drop-off of range should provide better circumstantial evidence.
Other than his stint on the disabled list, his health was never really mentioned after Gleyber Torres returned. But I still insist he was not right. A drop-off in his offensive production and his defense certainly manifested itself in the latter months of the season.
It will be instructive to see what he looks like early in 2019. If his health is better than it was in the second half, we should see more range and a more athletic infielder like he was in the minors. If I am totally off here and what he showed in 2018 was what he is, then he certainly should not be considered shortstop material. LeMahieu was the highest rated second baseman defensively in 2018. It is hard to fathom taking that guy and making him a super utility player. Not for $24 million anyway. But LeMahieu is nowhere near the offensive player Torres is and his numbers away from Coors in his career are in the .700 OPS range. He will not replace Torres at second for that reason.
Both Torres and Andujar are going to be fabulous offensive players for years to come. The team did not sign Manny Machado. To justify that decision, Andujar needs to be given a chance to show his hard work will pay off and that he can be a serviceable third baseman anchored there for years to come.The Yankees have shown strong interest in signing Didi Gregorius to an extension which means that second base will be where Gleyber Torres will play if the former's deal gets done.
For those reasons, LeMahieu should not take away much of either's playing time. Andujar cannot improve his defense or prove improvement by not playing defense and Torres is still hoped upon to be a star player on both sides of the ball.
Much to my delight (sorry if you disagree), the Yankees have said "no thanks" to Machado and have shown commitment to developing this strong young core. The team's leadership just needs to stay calm and try not to muck it up.
The first question is whether Torres is a second baseman or a shortstop. Do the Yankees see Torres as their second baseman in the coming years or the successor to Didi at short? As much as Andujar's defense was dissected a season ago, Torres did not exactly light up the defensive stats. He did better than Andujar, but his defense was far less than what was expected.
In fairness to Torres, he did look like a special defender when he first got the call to play full-time. He had that glorious month where he was hitting everything in sight and was making special plays in the field at second. Then it sort of went away. There were questions about his concentration and he stopped making highlight reels and started adding errors.
My feeling was that he was not right physically the second half of the season. You could kind of see it in his body language. That first month and a half, he was exuberant and there was a twinkle in his eyes. The second half showed far fewer smiles. But there is more to talk about then just the perception of his body language.
If you look at his range numbers in the minors compared to his range numbers on the Yankees in 2018, there is no comparison. There was a significant drop in his range. If the body language argument leaves you limp, then the drop-off of range should provide better circumstantial evidence.
Other than his stint on the disabled list, his health was never really mentioned after Gleyber Torres returned. But I still insist he was not right. A drop-off in his offensive production and his defense certainly manifested itself in the latter months of the season.
It will be instructive to see what he looks like early in 2019. If his health is better than it was in the second half, we should see more range and a more athletic infielder like he was in the minors. If I am totally off here and what he showed in 2018 was what he is, then he certainly should not be considered shortstop material. LeMahieu was the highest rated second baseman defensively in 2018. It is hard to fathom taking that guy and making him a super utility player. Not for $24 million anyway. But LeMahieu is nowhere near the offensive player Torres is and his numbers away from Coors in his career are in the .700 OPS range. He will not replace Torres at second for that reason.
Both Torres and Andujar are going to be fabulous offensive players for years to come. The team did not sign Manny Machado. To justify that decision, Andujar needs to be given a chance to show his hard work will pay off and that he can be a serviceable third baseman anchored there for years to come.The Yankees have shown strong interest in signing Didi Gregorius to an extension which means that second base will be where Gleyber Torres will play if the former's deal gets done.
For those reasons, LeMahieu should not take away much of either's playing time. Andujar cannot improve his defense or prove improvement by not playing defense and Torres is still hoped upon to be a star player on both sides of the ball.
Much to my delight (sorry if you disagree), the Yankees have said "no thanks" to Machado and have shown commitment to developing this strong young core. The team's leadership just needs to stay calm and try not to muck it up.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Some Eve Of February Thoughts - Free Agents, HOF, Others
Here we are on the last day of January and all of us (fans, writers, etc.) should be thinking about Spring Training which begins in two weeks. Instead, we are still looking at the top free agents on this year's slate unsigned. Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, Dallas Keuchel and Craig Kimbrel are still searching for homes. Every single day, I go to Major League Trade Rumors to see what has happened and the answer is still the same - Nothing! Can we end this misery so we can go on thinking about the season?
The funny thing is that I remember thinking the same thing last year. We were all wondering where J.D. Martinez was going to land. And when he did, and where he did gave me the sinking feeling that the Red Sox were going to win the division and the World Series. I really felt that way and I was right.
I also know I am correct in what I wrote about the consequences coming from the last two off seasons. While my reasoning might be a bit flawed, the players' union and MLB are headed to a showdown about compensation since the dynamic has changed for free agency. It is all about youth now and value and we are going to have a work stoppage if things do not get worked out.
But how much of this is the players' fault? The money gets ridiculous after a while. If Machado and Harper take $34 million for five years instead of ten, is that not still a ridiculous amount of money? I think I could survive the future with $170 million. We'll never be sure, but the rumor is that the Nationals already offered Harper $30 million per for ten years. Three-hundred million dollars is not enough? Oh my. If a really good "real life" salary is $100 thousand a year, then 40 years at that salary is equal to $4 million in a lifetime! Come on now! Figure out where you want to play and sign on the dotted line already!
From a fan's perspective, I would love to see Harper's swing in Yankee Stadium. And I love the walks. I do not mind him taking Brett Gardner's spot in the outfield. Though I do think Giancarlo Stanton is a better player playing in the field at least half the time.
On the other hand, I would hate to see Machado land with the Yankees. I have made that clear all along and I know it is not a popular stance. I know it is kind of stupid, but I like rooting for likable as well as talented players. I do not like Machado and I never will. Plus, I love Miguel Andujar and Didi Gregorius and want them playing the left side of the Yankee's infield.
Craig Kimbrel and Dallas Keuchel need to find homes too. Kimbrel is probably asking for too much and Keuchel is probably asking for too long. I just want to think about Spring Training and dream about what the Yankees and other teams are going to do in 2019. I simply want this over with.
**********************************************************************
I cannot quibble with those selected to the Hall Of Fame this year in the writer's vote. The committee vote held earlier was a joke. But the four selected were deserving.
As a longtime Yankee fan, of course I am ecstatic that Mariano Rivera is a HOFer. He was the classiest player that ever put on a uniform. Mike Mussina had a more valuable career than both Schilling and Halladay, but, if you listen to Michael Kay, he was not a class act. It takes all kinds and it is about the value the player's performance was when they played.
That is why I continue to maintain that the HOF is bogus as long as Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are not enshrined there. Perhaps "enshrined" is part of the problem. Being in the HOF is not a beatification. We are not creating saints here. We are designating players as the best of their eras. In the supposed steroid era, there were no better players than Clemens or Bonds. Until this is rectified, I will never go there or celebrate the organization.
And how does Scott Rolen keep getting overlooked!?
***********************************************************************
Super Bowl Sunday is upon us and I must say that I really, really want the Patriots to win. I moved from New Jersey to New Hampshire in 1975 and was never a Jets or Giants fan. I liked the Bills when O.J. was there. Stupid me, eh? But I was not passionate about any team.
After I moved, in the pre-cable days, the only games we could get on Sunday were the Patriot games. Those were the days of Steve Grogan, Sam "Bam" Cunningham, Darryl Stingley and Russ Francis. I have adopted them ever since. That means that I am not a "winner" and rooting for a team because of its success. The same is true for the Yankees (though the Patriots will never be as important to me as the Yankees).
The game scares me and to predict the Patriots to win would be foolish. I certainly hope they win and add another notch in the team's dynastic run.
Oh, and one thing about that "run." It is said by many to be the best dynasty ever in sports. While it is amazing, these people should look at the Yankees from 1947 to 1964. Yogi Berra has twice as many rings as Tom Brady.
The funny thing is that I remember thinking the same thing last year. We were all wondering where J.D. Martinez was going to land. And when he did, and where he did gave me the sinking feeling that the Red Sox were going to win the division and the World Series. I really felt that way and I was right.
I also know I am correct in what I wrote about the consequences coming from the last two off seasons. While my reasoning might be a bit flawed, the players' union and MLB are headed to a showdown about compensation since the dynamic has changed for free agency. It is all about youth now and value and we are going to have a work stoppage if things do not get worked out.
But how much of this is the players' fault? The money gets ridiculous after a while. If Machado and Harper take $34 million for five years instead of ten, is that not still a ridiculous amount of money? I think I could survive the future with $170 million. We'll never be sure, but the rumor is that the Nationals already offered Harper $30 million per for ten years. Three-hundred million dollars is not enough? Oh my. If a really good "real life" salary is $100 thousand a year, then 40 years at that salary is equal to $4 million in a lifetime! Come on now! Figure out where you want to play and sign on the dotted line already!
From a fan's perspective, I would love to see Harper's swing in Yankee Stadium. And I love the walks. I do not mind him taking Brett Gardner's spot in the outfield. Though I do think Giancarlo Stanton is a better player playing in the field at least half the time.
On the other hand, I would hate to see Machado land with the Yankees. I have made that clear all along and I know it is not a popular stance. I know it is kind of stupid, but I like rooting for likable as well as talented players. I do not like Machado and I never will. Plus, I love Miguel Andujar and Didi Gregorius and want them playing the left side of the Yankee's infield.
Craig Kimbrel and Dallas Keuchel need to find homes too. Kimbrel is probably asking for too much and Keuchel is probably asking for too long. I just want to think about Spring Training and dream about what the Yankees and other teams are going to do in 2019. I simply want this over with.
**********************************************************************
I cannot quibble with those selected to the Hall Of Fame this year in the writer's vote. The committee vote held earlier was a joke. But the four selected were deserving.
As a longtime Yankee fan, of course I am ecstatic that Mariano Rivera is a HOFer. He was the classiest player that ever put on a uniform. Mike Mussina had a more valuable career than both Schilling and Halladay, but, if you listen to Michael Kay, he was not a class act. It takes all kinds and it is about the value the player's performance was when they played.
That is why I continue to maintain that the HOF is bogus as long as Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are not enshrined there. Perhaps "enshrined" is part of the problem. Being in the HOF is not a beatification. We are not creating saints here. We are designating players as the best of their eras. In the supposed steroid era, there were no better players than Clemens or Bonds. Until this is rectified, I will never go there or celebrate the organization.
And how does Scott Rolen keep getting overlooked!?
***********************************************************************
Super Bowl Sunday is upon us and I must say that I really, really want the Patriots to win. I moved from New Jersey to New Hampshire in 1975 and was never a Jets or Giants fan. I liked the Bills when O.J. was there. Stupid me, eh? But I was not passionate about any team.
After I moved, in the pre-cable days, the only games we could get on Sunday were the Patriot games. Those were the days of Steve Grogan, Sam "Bam" Cunningham, Darryl Stingley and Russ Francis. I have adopted them ever since. That means that I am not a "winner" and rooting for a team because of its success. The same is true for the Yankees (though the Patriots will never be as important to me as the Yankees).
The game scares me and to predict the Patriots to win would be foolish. I certainly hope they win and add another notch in the team's dynastic run.
Oh, and one thing about that "run." It is said by many to be the best dynasty ever in sports. While it is amazing, these people should look at the Yankees from 1947 to 1964. Yogi Berra has twice as many rings as Tom Brady.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Would A Steve Balboni Career Happen Today?
I want to say right up front that I am not going to knock Steve Balboni in this piece. I really like (liked) the guy when he played and I respected his love for the game (for reasons I will explain in a bit). I am using "Bye-Bye" as an example of a type of player that simply might not exist in MLB today. Steve Balboni set a record for homers by a Kansas City Royals' player that stood for 22 years. But if you look at his valuation through the eyes of the statistics we use now, the Steve "Bye-Bye" Balboni we liked back then would not fly today.
Balboni is claimed affectionately by both the Royals and the Yankees' fan bases. He started in the Yankees' farm system after he was drafted in the 2nd Round. He had brief glimpses of playing time for the Yankees in 1981, 1982 and 1983 while mashing a prodigious amount of dingers for the Yankees' farm teams in each of those seasons.
He was then traded before the 1984 season, along with Roger Erickson, for Duane Dewey and Mike Armstrong. Nobody remembers any of those other guys. But Balboni hit it just right with the Royals as they made the playoffs in 1984 and won the World Series in 1985. Balboni played in 120 games in 1984 and hit 28 homers. He played in 160 games in 1985 and set the franchise record for homers with 36. That record stood until 2017 when Mike Moustakas broke it.
Balboni's homers and his ascension as a Major League player cemented him in the hearts of Royals' fans and even more so when he hit a single in the bottom of the ninth to start a rally in Game Six of the 1985 World Series (against the Cardinals). Believe it or not, Steve Balboni received regular season MVP votes in both 1984 and 1985.
And there is the rub. He got himself a World Series ring (and check). His Royals' fan base loved him and he received MVP votes. But according to today's valuations, his season that year was worth 1.1 win above replacement. By comparison, in this past seasons MVP vote, the lowest WAR total by someone who received votes was 2.9.
By today's valuation, Steve Balboni was only the 16th best first basemen in the game that season. If that was today, there would be rumbling by MLB Trade Rumors that his team was in the market for an upgrade.
Steve Balboni played in parts of eleven seasons. Four of them were not of the regular playing time variety. He had seven seasons of major playing time. If you add up all the partials, you could argue eight seasons worth of playing baseball at the highest level. Steve Balboni's career WAR total (according to baseball-reference.com) finished out at 0.9 WAR. So if you do the math, his average yearly WAR total for eight seasons came to about 0.11 per season.
Looking at those valuations, would Steve Balboni have seen eleven seasons in MLB today? The answer is probably no. First base is an offensive position. You want your first baseman to be a bopper but also to play decent defense and get on base at an at least league average rate. Balboni only had the first talent of the three. His lifetime OPS+ is 101. So he was basically just a tick above league average for his career (despite hitting 181 homers). His fielding metrics are not pretty at all.
In Balboni's biggest season, he made 18 errors. As a first baseman? Mark Teixeira only reached ten errors once in his entire career. In 1985, baseball-reference.com rated his defense as costing the Royals to the tune of -1.6 wins.
Steve Balboni made $3.5 million in his career plus the World Series check. With eleven years of service, he has an MLB pension. That is good on him. I always liked him so I'm glad he got those things. On top of his 181 MLB homers, Balboni also hit 239 more homers in the minors including 86 for the Texas Rangers' Triple A team in three years after his MLB career was basically over. After he retired from baseball at its highest level, he went home and played for semi-pro teams. The guy loved the game. You don't ride the buses at the Triple A level for three seasons after your MLB career has set you up for life.
My favorite factoid about Steve Balboni is that he did not play in the Major Leagues in 1991 or 1992 after the Yankees (in his second act there) released him after the 1990 season. He had three very successful Triple A seasons for the Rangers and finally, at the very end of the 1993 season, the Rangers gave him a courtesy call up and he started the last game of his career on October 2 and his second MLB game of 1993. He played all nine innings and had three hits in four at bats.
Steve Balboni had his career at just the right time. He is forever cemented in the hearts of Royals' fans and he did one thing well. He hit the ball over the fence. I imagine he had a heck of a good time playing and I am glad for that. I just do not think today's MLB world would have a Steve Balboni. And maybe that's a little bit sad.
Balboni is claimed affectionately by both the Royals and the Yankees' fan bases. He started in the Yankees' farm system after he was drafted in the 2nd Round. He had brief glimpses of playing time for the Yankees in 1981, 1982 and 1983 while mashing a prodigious amount of dingers for the Yankees' farm teams in each of those seasons.
He was then traded before the 1984 season, along with Roger Erickson, for Duane Dewey and Mike Armstrong. Nobody remembers any of those other guys. But Balboni hit it just right with the Royals as they made the playoffs in 1984 and won the World Series in 1985. Balboni played in 120 games in 1984 and hit 28 homers. He played in 160 games in 1985 and set the franchise record for homers with 36. That record stood until 2017 when Mike Moustakas broke it.
Balboni's homers and his ascension as a Major League player cemented him in the hearts of Royals' fans and even more so when he hit a single in the bottom of the ninth to start a rally in Game Six of the 1985 World Series (against the Cardinals). Believe it or not, Steve Balboni received regular season MVP votes in both 1984 and 1985.
And there is the rub. He got himself a World Series ring (and check). His Royals' fan base loved him and he received MVP votes. But according to today's valuations, his season that year was worth 1.1 win above replacement. By comparison, in this past seasons MVP vote, the lowest WAR total by someone who received votes was 2.9.
By today's valuation, Steve Balboni was only the 16th best first basemen in the game that season. If that was today, there would be rumbling by MLB Trade Rumors that his team was in the market for an upgrade.
Steve Balboni played in parts of eleven seasons. Four of them were not of the regular playing time variety. He had seven seasons of major playing time. If you add up all the partials, you could argue eight seasons worth of playing baseball at the highest level. Steve Balboni's career WAR total (according to baseball-reference.com) finished out at 0.9 WAR. So if you do the math, his average yearly WAR total for eight seasons came to about 0.11 per season.
Looking at those valuations, would Steve Balboni have seen eleven seasons in MLB today? The answer is probably no. First base is an offensive position. You want your first baseman to be a bopper but also to play decent defense and get on base at an at least league average rate. Balboni only had the first talent of the three. His lifetime OPS+ is 101. So he was basically just a tick above league average for his career (despite hitting 181 homers). His fielding metrics are not pretty at all.
In Balboni's biggest season, he made 18 errors. As a first baseman? Mark Teixeira only reached ten errors once in his entire career. In 1985, baseball-reference.com rated his defense as costing the Royals to the tune of -1.6 wins.
Steve Balboni made $3.5 million in his career plus the World Series check. With eleven years of service, he has an MLB pension. That is good on him. I always liked him so I'm glad he got those things. On top of his 181 MLB homers, Balboni also hit 239 more homers in the minors including 86 for the Texas Rangers' Triple A team in three years after his MLB career was basically over. After he retired from baseball at its highest level, he went home and played for semi-pro teams. The guy loved the game. You don't ride the buses at the Triple A level for three seasons after your MLB career has set you up for life.
My favorite factoid about Steve Balboni is that he did not play in the Major Leagues in 1991 or 1992 after the Yankees (in his second act there) released him after the 1990 season. He had three very successful Triple A seasons for the Rangers and finally, at the very end of the 1993 season, the Rangers gave him a courtesy call up and he started the last game of his career on October 2 and his second MLB game of 1993. He played all nine innings and had three hits in four at bats.
Steve Balboni had his career at just the right time. He is forever cemented in the hearts of Royals' fans and he did one thing well. He hit the ball over the fence. I imagine he had a heck of a good time playing and I am glad for that. I just do not think today's MLB world would have a Steve Balboni. And maybe that's a little bit sad.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
A Fan's Ode To Mel Stottlemyre
Passionate baseball fans fall in love with baseball players. Or they do not. We all have different ways that asserts itself meaning that a player I love might be a player you hate. Most of that passion is for players on your favorite team. Some players--say a Mike Trout--transcend the team orientation and are universally loved. And some are universally hated. Barry Bonds was probably in that category. Dave Winfield's constant smile won most over and Randy Johnson's constant scowl turned most people off. The reason I am thinking about all of this is for a story in the Yankee universe this week: the passing of Mel Stottlemyre.
Before I delve into those that story, I will digress a bit on how being a fan of baseball players has changed. I have been a fan a long time--well over half a century. Growing up, the most important part of any week was getting The Sporting News in the mail. That weekly was our source of statistics and stories about players on every team. It gave me many happy hours of reading. Since it was delivered in large newspaper format, the end of the reading left your hands black with newspaper ink.
I filled scrapbooks of pictures of the players that I would cut out of the weekly. Each team had its own pages. I knew all of the players on every team. I did not really know them. I knew whatever the team's PR department wanted me to know. But you got a feel for who was who, what they meant to their teams, how hard they worked and it felt intimate. There were also baseball cards. They were a must and you would mark the ones you had on the checklists that were provided.
There was little national coverage. You had the Saturday game of the week, the All Star Game and the World Series. That was it. So you watched the league your favorite team played but not the other league.
I mentioned the statistics. They were always interesting to me. They fascinated me. I believe the love of them helped me get high scores on the math portion of the SAT. To this day I can tell you the batting average of a guy with one hit in anywhere from one at bat to twenty. I still know how to figure out ERA and slugging percentage. But the numbers were a way of ranking players but had little to do with how you rooted for them.
Maybe that was just me. It was a way I worked around the fact that my favorite team stunk every year. Pretty much all of the players were terrible on the Yankees during the years from 1965 onward, so I rooted for the players we had. When I kept score to a WPIX broadcast, I was happy that Stick Michael got a hit and not much thought was into what he did not hit pretty much most of the time.
I think it is different now. The constant information, the 24/7 sports media, up-to-the-minute statistical breakdowns and scouting reports for MiLB players never existed back then. Players are dissected and valued or not valued based on the lab results. We know what young players to root for because we have been anticipating them for years and have followed their progress. Players are commodities for our fantasy leagues and our betting.
The point is that if you were an Orioles' fan last year, you did not like the crappy players because everyone pointed out how crappy they were. You did not like the crappy players as much as the good players like I did when I was young.
But you did realize, even back then, when a player was really good and sometimes those players became your idols. Bobby Murcer was one of those for me and so was Mel Stottlemyre. When the latter pitched, you payed even more attention.
Mel Stottlemyre was not exciting. He was like a metronome. He was constant. He always kept the Yankees in the game. He was not flashy. In a day where they did not have today's fielding charts to determine where to place fielders, Mel Stottlemyre got the other team to hit the ball to his fielders...consistently.
Take 1969, for example. It was the first year without Mickey Mantle. The Yankees had no offense. The team's OPS+ was 86. Roy White was their best hitter. Joe Pepitone led the team with 27 homers. The 1969 Yankees finished fifth in a six-team A.L. East and ended up 28.5 games behind the division winning Baltimore Orioles. The team went 80-81.
Mel Stottlemyre started 39 of those games. 39! He finished 24 of them. The team's record when he pitched was 23-15. That was a .590 winning percentage for a team that finished under .500. Stottlemyre went 20-14 that season and pitched 303 innings. In 23 of his starts, his team scored three runs or less. It was the third and last time he won 20 games. He struck out only 3.4 batters per nine innings. It was not Randy Johnson-esque. But it worked. Stottlemyre made $53 thousand dollars that year.
Beginning in 1965, Stottlemyre made between 35 and 39 starts for nine straight seasons and pitched between 251 to 303 innings. In those nine seasons, he won 149 games and completed 141 starts including 38 shutouts. Most of those nine seasons were pitching for a terrible to mediocre team. Only in 1970 and 1972 did his teams have decent seasons.
He was a rock for us fans. He was stoic, workmanlike and reliable. He went out there every fourth day and gave his teams a chance. He fielded his position well and was a pretty good hitter for a pitcher (seven homers). Of course we would would idolize the guy. Despite pitching only nine full seasons and two partial seasons, Stottlemyre compiled 43.2 rWAR. He is definitely in the Hall Of Very Good.
It did not end well for Mel Stottlemyre in New York. His shoulder fell off in 1974 and the team said thank you very much and dumped him to the curb. His passing was hardly noticed by Yankee fans (especially since he refused to come back for Old Timers Games) who saw the signs of a building franchise on its way to the top in 1977 and 78. Some of us missed the guy who got us all the way through the Horace Clarke days.
But then there he was with Joe Torre in 1996. His calm demeanor matched Torre's and they were the quiet leaders of the beginning of the Core Four (it should be five or six) dynasty. Steinbrenner could do what he wanted and spout off but Torre and Stottlemyre and Zimmer made a strong team stronger. Stottlemyre and Zimmer finally tired of the owner and split. But the pitching coach, when he was there, was the same guy and brought continuity to the teams of my younger days.
After his passing, there feels like a need to thank Mel Stottlemyre for that continuity of excellence and stability. He was strong through his career and strong through the illness that ultimately took his life. He was a man to look up to and emulate. He taught by doing without being flashy. And for nine years, he was the source of many a pleasant summer afternoon and evenings either listening to him pitch on the radio, watching on Channel 11 or at the Stadium itself.
Before I delve into those that story, I will digress a bit on how being a fan of baseball players has changed. I have been a fan a long time--well over half a century. Growing up, the most important part of any week was getting The Sporting News in the mail. That weekly was our source of statistics and stories about players on every team. It gave me many happy hours of reading. Since it was delivered in large newspaper format, the end of the reading left your hands black with newspaper ink.
I filled scrapbooks of pictures of the players that I would cut out of the weekly. Each team had its own pages. I knew all of the players on every team. I did not really know them. I knew whatever the team's PR department wanted me to know. But you got a feel for who was who, what they meant to their teams, how hard they worked and it felt intimate. There were also baseball cards. They were a must and you would mark the ones you had on the checklists that were provided.
There was little national coverage. You had the Saturday game of the week, the All Star Game and the World Series. That was it. So you watched the league your favorite team played but not the other league.
I mentioned the statistics. They were always interesting to me. They fascinated me. I believe the love of them helped me get high scores on the math portion of the SAT. To this day I can tell you the batting average of a guy with one hit in anywhere from one at bat to twenty. I still know how to figure out ERA and slugging percentage. But the numbers were a way of ranking players but had little to do with how you rooted for them.
Maybe that was just me. It was a way I worked around the fact that my favorite team stunk every year. Pretty much all of the players were terrible on the Yankees during the years from 1965 onward, so I rooted for the players we had. When I kept score to a WPIX broadcast, I was happy that Stick Michael got a hit and not much thought was into what he did not hit pretty much most of the time.
I think it is different now. The constant information, the 24/7 sports media, up-to-the-minute statistical breakdowns and scouting reports for MiLB players never existed back then. Players are dissected and valued or not valued based on the lab results. We know what young players to root for because we have been anticipating them for years and have followed their progress. Players are commodities for our fantasy leagues and our betting.
The point is that if you were an Orioles' fan last year, you did not like the crappy players because everyone pointed out how crappy they were. You did not like the crappy players as much as the good players like I did when I was young.
But you did realize, even back then, when a player was really good and sometimes those players became your idols. Bobby Murcer was one of those for me and so was Mel Stottlemyre. When the latter pitched, you payed even more attention.
Mel Stottlemyre was not exciting. He was like a metronome. He was constant. He always kept the Yankees in the game. He was not flashy. In a day where they did not have today's fielding charts to determine where to place fielders, Mel Stottlemyre got the other team to hit the ball to his fielders...consistently.
Take 1969, for example. It was the first year without Mickey Mantle. The Yankees had no offense. The team's OPS+ was 86. Roy White was their best hitter. Joe Pepitone led the team with 27 homers. The 1969 Yankees finished fifth in a six-team A.L. East and ended up 28.5 games behind the division winning Baltimore Orioles. The team went 80-81.
Mel Stottlemyre started 39 of those games. 39! He finished 24 of them. The team's record when he pitched was 23-15. That was a .590 winning percentage for a team that finished under .500. Stottlemyre went 20-14 that season and pitched 303 innings. In 23 of his starts, his team scored three runs or less. It was the third and last time he won 20 games. He struck out only 3.4 batters per nine innings. It was not Randy Johnson-esque. But it worked. Stottlemyre made $53 thousand dollars that year.
Beginning in 1965, Stottlemyre made between 35 and 39 starts for nine straight seasons and pitched between 251 to 303 innings. In those nine seasons, he won 149 games and completed 141 starts including 38 shutouts. Most of those nine seasons were pitching for a terrible to mediocre team. Only in 1970 and 1972 did his teams have decent seasons.
He was a rock for us fans. He was stoic, workmanlike and reliable. He went out there every fourth day and gave his teams a chance. He fielded his position well and was a pretty good hitter for a pitcher (seven homers). Of course we would would idolize the guy. Despite pitching only nine full seasons and two partial seasons, Stottlemyre compiled 43.2 rWAR. He is definitely in the Hall Of Very Good.
It did not end well for Mel Stottlemyre in New York. His shoulder fell off in 1974 and the team said thank you very much and dumped him to the curb. His passing was hardly noticed by Yankee fans (especially since he refused to come back for Old Timers Games) who saw the signs of a building franchise on its way to the top in 1977 and 78. Some of us missed the guy who got us all the way through the Horace Clarke days.
But then there he was with Joe Torre in 1996. His calm demeanor matched Torre's and they were the quiet leaders of the beginning of the Core Four (it should be five or six) dynasty. Steinbrenner could do what he wanted and spout off but Torre and Stottlemyre and Zimmer made a strong team stronger. Stottlemyre and Zimmer finally tired of the owner and split. But the pitching coach, when he was there, was the same guy and brought continuity to the teams of my younger days.
After his passing, there feels like a need to thank Mel Stottlemyre for that continuity of excellence and stability. He was strong through his career and strong through the illness that ultimately took his life. He was a man to look up to and emulate. He taught by doing without being flashy. And for nine years, he was the source of many a pleasant summer afternoon and evenings either listening to him pitch on the radio, watching on Channel 11 or at the Stadium itself.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Someone Smack Carly Simon - Anticipation Stinks
The Major League Baseball off season has become such a major drag in recent seasons and this year has been the worst yet. Here we are on January 10 and some of the biggest names on the board are still out there. Of course, we are talking about Bryce Harper and Manny Machado. But there are others as well. Part of the reason has already been discussed in this space before. With organizations now run by analytical types, teams are very hesitant to outlay big money that stretches out beyond a player's declining years. Knowing what's going on, and yet not, is enough to drive a fan crazy.
Fans of the New York Yankees are sorely vexed that Machado is still not signed. Very rarely has such a situation polarized a fan base. Half of those fans are fuming that the team has not yet signed Machado and question George Steinbrenner's son's manhood. The other half (:::raising hand:::) do not want the guy no matter how good he is and need to know one way or another how it is going to go.
There is no need to worry about Harper as he does not fit with the Yankees. Imagining his swing in Yankee Stadium is enticing, but where would he play? So unless there is some kind of major shock, the wait on Harper is not killing the fan base all that much. The same could be said about Yasmani Grandl who apparently shot himself in the foot by not taking a multi-year deal from the Mets. The only catcher the Yankees would ever consider instead of Gary Sanchez is J.T. Realmuto.
The power-reliever market has been somewhat lively and the Yankees already made a splash by re-signing Zach Britton and still may pull the trigger on Adam Ottavino. But it sure did hurt to see David Robertson sign with the Phillies. Robertson is such a known commodity and it really stunk to see him get away. Most fans would have traded Britton for Robertson in a heartbeat and the same with the unproven (long-term) Ottavino.
Craig Kimbrel has yet to find a landing spot. It seems he has well over-stepped what teams are willing to give him (whether it be years or dollars). The prediction here is that he signs with the Red Sox for two years with an option.
Meanwhile, the New York Mets just made a steal by signing Luis Avilan to a Minor League deal with a Spring Training invite. Avilan has bee used mostly as a Loogy, but has shown he can get right-handed batters out as well. He has been very solid every year he's pitched in the Majors. Smart move.
There are other players out there who would have signed much earlier in the past. Dallas Keuchel is still out there as is A.J. Pollack. Adam Jones would have been signed by now in years past and the same can be said of Mike Moustakas or Nick Markakis. Being an older player in today's game is not a good thing anymore...just ask Josh Donaldson.
Of course, we were in a similar position last year when the Red Sox let the bottom fall out of the market to sign J.D. Martinez. He is a once in a generation example though as he totally revamped his teammates' mindset and was as much responsible for their season and championship than can be said about anyone in a very long while. There are no gems like him out there in the current land of the unsigned.
The real drama is whether Harper and Machado back down their demands or whether a team will blink in the headlights. There are no manhood questions for Hal Steinbrenner here. Despite those who think otherwise, just because the Yankees have the money to spend, it doesn't mean it should be stupid about it.
Meanwhile, we wait. And wait. And wait. That song hinted at in the title was okay for ketchup, but not for those fans heavily invested in the outcome of this free agent tug-of-war.
Fans of the New York Yankees are sorely vexed that Machado is still not signed. Very rarely has such a situation polarized a fan base. Half of those fans are fuming that the team has not yet signed Machado and question George Steinbrenner's son's manhood. The other half (:::raising hand:::) do not want the guy no matter how good he is and need to know one way or another how it is going to go.
There is no need to worry about Harper as he does not fit with the Yankees. Imagining his swing in Yankee Stadium is enticing, but where would he play? So unless there is some kind of major shock, the wait on Harper is not killing the fan base all that much. The same could be said about Yasmani Grandl who apparently shot himself in the foot by not taking a multi-year deal from the Mets. The only catcher the Yankees would ever consider instead of Gary Sanchez is J.T. Realmuto.
The power-reliever market has been somewhat lively and the Yankees already made a splash by re-signing Zach Britton and still may pull the trigger on Adam Ottavino. But it sure did hurt to see David Robertson sign with the Phillies. Robertson is such a known commodity and it really stunk to see him get away. Most fans would have traded Britton for Robertson in a heartbeat and the same with the unproven (long-term) Ottavino.
Craig Kimbrel has yet to find a landing spot. It seems he has well over-stepped what teams are willing to give him (whether it be years or dollars). The prediction here is that he signs with the Red Sox for two years with an option.
Meanwhile, the New York Mets just made a steal by signing Luis Avilan to a Minor League deal with a Spring Training invite. Avilan has bee used mostly as a Loogy, but has shown he can get right-handed batters out as well. He has been very solid every year he's pitched in the Majors. Smart move.
There are other players out there who would have signed much earlier in the past. Dallas Keuchel is still out there as is A.J. Pollack. Adam Jones would have been signed by now in years past and the same can be said of Mike Moustakas or Nick Markakis. Being an older player in today's game is not a good thing anymore...just ask Josh Donaldson.
Of course, we were in a similar position last year when the Red Sox let the bottom fall out of the market to sign J.D. Martinez. He is a once in a generation example though as he totally revamped his teammates' mindset and was as much responsible for their season and championship than can be said about anyone in a very long while. There are no gems like him out there in the current land of the unsigned.
The real drama is whether Harper and Machado back down their demands or whether a team will blink in the headlights. There are no manhood questions for Hal Steinbrenner here. Despite those who think otherwise, just because the Yankees have the money to spend, it doesn't mean it should be stupid about it.
Meanwhile, we wait. And wait. And wait. That song hinted at in the title was okay for ketchup, but not for those fans heavily invested in the outcome of this free agent tug-of-war.
Thursday, January 03, 2019
Troy Tulowitzki Pick Up Is A No-Brainer
Troy Tulowitzki is a name that appeared many times over the years in this blog. He has been coveted, mourned and buried for dead. He was once the best shortstop in the game. But he has averaged only 107 games a season in his twelve-year career. Now coming off another lost season, dumped by the Blue Jays, the New York Yankees have taken a no-brain decision to sign him for the league minimum. The Blue Jays, clearly licking their wounds and rebuilding, will pay the rest of his salary.
What is the worst that could happen from this deal? Nothing really. If he gets hurt again, Tulowitzki did not cost anything.
What is the best thing that could happen? The best that could happen is Troy Tulowitzki summoning a bit of his old glory giving the Yankees a fill-in for the injured Didi Gregorius (thus keeping Gleyber Torres at second where he will be when Gregorius returns anyway). He could be a real boost for the Yankees early in the season and it would be a nice story for the former #1 draft pick to rebound for a hurrah.
Consider that despite his injuries, Fangraphs.com has never given Tulowitzki a negative score for his fielding. Baseball-reference.com gave him one negative season for a season he only played 42 games. So, even an older, slightly rickety shortstop like Troy Tulowitzki should give the Yankees some solid defense. If he hits, which he could still do as of 2016, that will be a bonus.
The looming problem will be what will happen if he plays well and Didi returns? Other than DH, Troy Tulowitzki has never played a position other than shortstop in the Major Leagues. Can he fill in at second? Can he fill in at third? Can he play first base? Those are all question marks. He does not fit the normal profile of a utility infielder (and he does not seem to want that either).
One possibility if things go well is that the Yankees can flip him in a trade for a needed piece once Didi returns.
Notice that these thoughts are trying not to mention Manny Machado nor Miguel Andujar. The continued hope here is that the latter will still be here when the season starts and the former will not. A strong comeback for Tulowitzki would be especially needed if the former does not come to Yankee Stadium.
It is truly a shame that Troy Tulowitzki could not totally play to his career potential. His story is not a rare one. Others like Tony Oliva, Rico Carty and even George Brett come to mind. Even if the Yankees had not taken this step, Tulowitzki would be worth rooting for after a career far too marred by injuries.
What is the worst that could happen from this deal? Nothing really. If he gets hurt again, Tulowitzki did not cost anything.
What is the best thing that could happen? The best that could happen is Troy Tulowitzki summoning a bit of his old glory giving the Yankees a fill-in for the injured Didi Gregorius (thus keeping Gleyber Torres at second where he will be when Gregorius returns anyway). He could be a real boost for the Yankees early in the season and it would be a nice story for the former #1 draft pick to rebound for a hurrah.
Consider that despite his injuries, Fangraphs.com has never given Tulowitzki a negative score for his fielding. Baseball-reference.com gave him one negative season for a season he only played 42 games. So, even an older, slightly rickety shortstop like Troy Tulowitzki should give the Yankees some solid defense. If he hits, which he could still do as of 2016, that will be a bonus.
The looming problem will be what will happen if he plays well and Didi returns? Other than DH, Troy Tulowitzki has never played a position other than shortstop in the Major Leagues. Can he fill in at second? Can he fill in at third? Can he play first base? Those are all question marks. He does not fit the normal profile of a utility infielder (and he does not seem to want that either).
One possibility if things go well is that the Yankees can flip him in a trade for a needed piece once Didi returns.
Notice that these thoughts are trying not to mention Manny Machado nor Miguel Andujar. The continued hope here is that the latter will still be here when the season starts and the former will not. A strong comeback for Tulowitzki would be especially needed if the former does not come to Yankee Stadium.
It is truly a shame that Troy Tulowitzki could not totally play to his career potential. His story is not a rare one. Others like Tony Oliva, Rico Carty and even George Brett come to mind. Even if the Yankees had not taken this step, Tulowitzki would be worth rooting for after a career far too marred by injuries.
Wednesday, January 02, 2019
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.
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...
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
The New Moneyball And The Corner Bakery
My first admission is that I am 62-years-old. As a fan of some 56 years of MLB, I have to fight my inner Murray Chass (or Tony La Russa apparently) and not be a curmudgeon about baseball analytics. I use them. I enjoy them as rating tools. But there is just something about the entire game being run by them that rubs me in all the wrong George Orwell places.
My curmudgeon side will complain that analytics is the cause of shifts in baseball and lower batting averages. They are the cause of being unhappy that Justin Verlander's career was petering until he went to Houston. Can't a guy I don't like die a graceless death already?
My inner Murray Chass will bemoan strikeouts that are just outs when I will never accept that or that they are worth it if launch angles create more homers along the way. I won't ever be able to figure out why Designated Hitters who never touch a glove all season get negative dWAR. I'll never understand how Didi Gregorius never rates higher defensively than he does or how the defense of a lousy hitter makes him a better player than a really good hitter.
My second admission is that I long ago accepted that is the game now as we know it. I get it. I am, after all, the kid who played multiple Strat-o-matic baseball game seasons each summer knowing they were an early form of statistical analysis. I will never be an Eno Sarris, but I've done my best to understand as much as I can about what the numbers mean. It's okay. I'll deal.
But then I saw this video on Twitter. And the ever smug, I-know-more-than-you, Brian Kenny introduces Mr. Sarris to talk about the new Moneyball and how analytics is taking over the game from every angle right through player development. I remember when the (very pleasant) Mr. Sarris was a hack blogger like the rest of us. Good on him for carving a career out of figuring this stuff all out. I root for people like him.
So anyway, I watch this video and instead of marveling at how far technology has come in baseball, I got this sinking feeling. There is a sort of innocence lost in being able to parse the game into its minutia.
For some reason, the thought process made me think of cookies. Yes, this is the time of year I think about cookies. I am really good at making cookies. My cookies taste better than ANY cookie I've ever bought at the grocery store. Why is that? Nothing you can buy in a package tastes as good as it did when we used to go down to the bakery and buy from a nice man and his wife. THOSE were cookies!
Is there a similarity here? I think there is. The act of making cookies in mass production came from information. The basic formula is how a company can mass produce cookies that consumers will buy despite not tasting as good as their bakery forebears. Use the cheapest materials, find artificial replacements for real ingredients and design machinery and packaging to produce a somewhat tasty, cheaply-made bulk product for the masses.
All those cookie decisions were made by analyzing data. And these companies, whether it be Nabisco or Keebler rely on tons of data to balance performance versus cost. It sounds similar does it not? The bottom line is maximizing the dollar.
But some of the magic was lost. Bakeries cannot compete with mass production. They make a better product but it costs more. I feel a loss not making a special trip to a bakery and smelling the delicious odors and trying to understand what the owners were saying.
Some of the magic of baseball is being lost for me. Does that make me Murray Chass? Gosh, I hope not. Players do not play their entire career with the same team. Next year's roster will look totally different than this year's. A hit up the middle is no longer a hit. Strikeouts with a man on third with one out are okay. No, it's not!
When a rookie came into a league, it was like trying a new cookie recipe. Would it be a winner or a disappointment? Now rookies are measured from molecular structure to entire psychological profiles. Sure, some still flop. But young players just seem to have it so much more together than they did even ten years ago.
I am having a problem describing what I am feeling here. The game just seemed more basic and rooted in my past. If my scorecard read, "5-3," it meant that the third baseman fielded the grounder over by third base, not between first and second (and no, I am not advocating doing away with shifts). There was more mystery to the game which made it unpredictable and accessible.
I wish I could express things better. Let's just say that the attached video that started this thought process made me feel like I had lost something. Cookies no longer melt in my mouth (unless I make them myself). And baseball feels more like a science project than a game.
My curmudgeon side will complain that analytics is the cause of shifts in baseball and lower batting averages. They are the cause of being unhappy that Justin Verlander's career was petering until he went to Houston. Can't a guy I don't like die a graceless death already?
My inner Murray Chass will bemoan strikeouts that are just outs when I will never accept that or that they are worth it if launch angles create more homers along the way. I won't ever be able to figure out why Designated Hitters who never touch a glove all season get negative dWAR. I'll never understand how Didi Gregorius never rates higher defensively than he does or how the defense of a lousy hitter makes him a better player than a really good hitter.
My second admission is that I long ago accepted that is the game now as we know it. I get it. I am, after all, the kid who played multiple Strat-o-matic baseball game seasons each summer knowing they were an early form of statistical analysis. I will never be an Eno Sarris, but I've done my best to understand as much as I can about what the numbers mean. It's okay. I'll deal.
But then I saw this video on Twitter. And the ever smug, I-know-more-than-you, Brian Kenny introduces Mr. Sarris to talk about the new Moneyball and how analytics is taking over the game from every angle right through player development. I remember when the (very pleasant) Mr. Sarris was a hack blogger like the rest of us. Good on him for carving a career out of figuring this stuff all out. I root for people like him.
So anyway, I watch this video and instead of marveling at how far technology has come in baseball, I got this sinking feeling. There is a sort of innocence lost in being able to parse the game into its minutia.
For some reason, the thought process made me think of cookies. Yes, this is the time of year I think about cookies. I am really good at making cookies. My cookies taste better than ANY cookie I've ever bought at the grocery store. Why is that? Nothing you can buy in a package tastes as good as it did when we used to go down to the bakery and buy from a nice man and his wife. THOSE were cookies!
Is there a similarity here? I think there is. The act of making cookies in mass production came from information. The basic formula is how a company can mass produce cookies that consumers will buy despite not tasting as good as their bakery forebears. Use the cheapest materials, find artificial replacements for real ingredients and design machinery and packaging to produce a somewhat tasty, cheaply-made bulk product for the masses.
All those cookie decisions were made by analyzing data. And these companies, whether it be Nabisco or Keebler rely on tons of data to balance performance versus cost. It sounds similar does it not? The bottom line is maximizing the dollar.
But some of the magic was lost. Bakeries cannot compete with mass production. They make a better product but it costs more. I feel a loss not making a special trip to a bakery and smelling the delicious odors and trying to understand what the owners were saying.
Some of the magic of baseball is being lost for me. Does that make me Murray Chass? Gosh, I hope not. Players do not play their entire career with the same team. Next year's roster will look totally different than this year's. A hit up the middle is no longer a hit. Strikeouts with a man on third with one out are okay. No, it's not!
When a rookie came into a league, it was like trying a new cookie recipe. Would it be a winner or a disappointment? Now rookies are measured from molecular structure to entire psychological profiles. Sure, some still flop. But young players just seem to have it so much more together than they did even ten years ago.
I am having a problem describing what I am feeling here. The game just seemed more basic and rooted in my past. If my scorecard read, "5-3," it meant that the third baseman fielded the grounder over by third base, not between first and second (and no, I am not advocating doing away with shifts). There was more mystery to the game which made it unpredictable and accessible.
I wish I could express things better. Let's just say that the attached video that started this thought process made me feel like I had lost something. Cookies no longer melt in my mouth (unless I make them myself). And baseball feels more like a science project than a game.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
On Trading Miguel Andujar
Rumors rule the off season and as the market heats up, they are swirling in gusty winds. Of course, rumors are just rumors until they are not. But they do get clicks don't they? The latest gust has the Yankees, Mets and Marlins involved in a three-team swap as the Mets desperately want to get J.T. Realmuto from the Marlins and the Yankees would love get a big-time pitcher and Derek Jeter wants a Major League player. The name swirling for the Yankees is Miguel Andujar. Another piece stated that the Yankees were willing to listen to talks concerning Andujar.
Granted, we are just talking rumors here. And granted, the Yankees need pitching as we have seen time and time again that pitching wins the post season. But if there is any kernel of truth to these rumors, why Miguel Andujar? Is it his defense? Or that he does not walk enough? Or is the truth closer to the fact that the Yankees really want to sign Manny Machado? Or is it all three?
If the Yankees were to trade Andujar, they better have Machado all but locked up because Miguel Andujar was the rock of the Yankees' offense in 2018. He was consistently a presence in the lineup from when he arrived to when the season ended. He did flop in the playoffs, but so did a lot of Yankees. As good as Andujar was in the first half of the season, he was better in the second. There is no way the Yankees would have won a hundred games without him.
There is also a pretty good comparable to Miguel Andujar. His name is Robinson Cano. Remember him? He is a Met now. But Robinson Cano had stellar years with the Yankees. Yes, he was a bit of Machado without the mean streak, but he was really, really good.
Cano started a year younger than Andujar. But let's compare their first full season in the big leagues:
Maybe those comparisons are not fair to Cano because he was a year younger. Cano blossomed in his second year. Let's compare Andujar's first year to Cano's second:
At least they are in the ballpark. But again, that was Cano's second full season. Andujar is faulted for his swing at everything approach. He walked only 28 times. Cano only walked 18 times in both his first and second seasons. Cano was able to build his walk rate to the 50-60 range mid-career. There is no reason to think that Andujar could not do the same.
Let's talk about Miguel Andujar's defense. It would be foolish to think that Miguel Andujar could become as good a defender as Robinson Cano became. Cano has better instincts and range. But, by all means, Andujar could get much better than he was in 2018. For one, make the guy play on the front of the dirt so that he does not lose runners being so deep. Work with him on not backpedaling on everything. If he could approach league average, he would be a superstar for years to come.
As good as Robinson Cano has been as an offensive player, Andujar can be better. He was a better hitter in the minors and he started with a bang in his rookie season. He seems like a Roberto Clemente-type offensive talent with more power. Other than his low walk total, there is nothing not to like about him offensively. He is going to be a batting star in the Majors for a long while. That's a hunch, of course and time will tell.
There is another strange thing about this rumor: Why would the Mets trade one of the team's star pitchers if pitching and Realmuto is the team's only shot of post season glory? It does not seem to make sense for them to do so.
Perhaps serving Andujar up for a trade will help the Yankees in the near future. But consider that Chase Headley, a veteran, only had a higher rWAR once while with the Yankees than Andujar's 2.2 tally. And that 2.2 tally was the exact same as the 2012 Alex Rodriguez who cost a heck of a lot more money. The bottom line is that losing Miguel Andujar will hurt and we will see him in the All Star game for years to come...playing for somebody else.
Granted, we are just talking rumors here. And granted, the Yankees need pitching as we have seen time and time again that pitching wins the post season. But if there is any kernel of truth to these rumors, why Miguel Andujar? Is it his defense? Or that he does not walk enough? Or is the truth closer to the fact that the Yankees really want to sign Manny Machado? Or is it all three?
If the Yankees were to trade Andujar, they better have Machado all but locked up because Miguel Andujar was the rock of the Yankees' offense in 2018. He was consistently a presence in the lineup from when he arrived to when the season ended. He did flop in the playoffs, but so did a lot of Yankees. As good as Andujar was in the first half of the season, he was better in the second. There is no way the Yankees would have won a hundred games without him.
There is also a pretty good comparable to Miguel Andujar. His name is Robinson Cano. Remember him? He is a Met now. But Robinson Cano had stellar years with the Yankees. Yes, he was a bit of Machado without the mean streak, but he was really, really good.
Cano started a year younger than Andujar. But let's compare their first full season in the big leagues:
- OPS - Andujar: .855, Cano: .778
- OPS+ - Andujar: 126, Cano: .106
- rWAR - Andujar: 2.2, Cano: 0.8
- dWAR - Andujar: -2.2, Cano: -1.8
Maybe those comparisons are not fair to Cano because he was a year younger. Cano blossomed in his second year. Let's compare Andujar's first year to Cano's second:
- OPS - Andujar: .855, Cano: .890
- OPS+ - Andujar: 126, Cano: 126
- rWAR - Andujar: 2.2, Cano: 3.2
- dWAR - Andujar: -2.2, Cano: -0.1
At least they are in the ballpark. But again, that was Cano's second full season. Andujar is faulted for his swing at everything approach. He walked only 28 times. Cano only walked 18 times in both his first and second seasons. Cano was able to build his walk rate to the 50-60 range mid-career. There is no reason to think that Andujar could not do the same.
Let's talk about Miguel Andujar's defense. It would be foolish to think that Miguel Andujar could become as good a defender as Robinson Cano became. Cano has better instincts and range. But, by all means, Andujar could get much better than he was in 2018. For one, make the guy play on the front of the dirt so that he does not lose runners being so deep. Work with him on not backpedaling on everything. If he could approach league average, he would be a superstar for years to come.
As good as Robinson Cano has been as an offensive player, Andujar can be better. He was a better hitter in the minors and he started with a bang in his rookie season. He seems like a Roberto Clemente-type offensive talent with more power. Other than his low walk total, there is nothing not to like about him offensively. He is going to be a batting star in the Majors for a long while. That's a hunch, of course and time will tell.
There is another strange thing about this rumor: Why would the Mets trade one of the team's star pitchers if pitching and Realmuto is the team's only shot of post season glory? It does not seem to make sense for them to do so.
Perhaps serving Andujar up for a trade will help the Yankees in the near future. But consider that Chase Headley, a veteran, only had a higher rWAR once while with the Yankees than Andujar's 2.2 tally. And that 2.2 tally was the exact same as the 2012 Alex Rodriguez who cost a heck of a lot more money. The bottom line is that losing Miguel Andujar will hurt and we will see him in the All Star game for years to come...playing for somebody else.
Monday, December 10, 2018
George Steinbrenner Snubbed Again
For decades, some sort of committee has been in place to consider players, team execs and managers who were not elected to baseball's Hall Of Fame via the sports writers' vote. The latest iteration of those committees is called the "Today's Game" committee. This committee's results are in and are hardly inspiring. Harold Baines was elected and should not have been. Lee Smith was elected and teeter-totters on the fence at face value and George Steinbrenner received less than four votes out of sixteen. Say what!?
George Steinbrenner bought baseball's most glittering franchise (with partners) for $10 million, a low figure because CBS had run the team into the ground. His tenacity, ferocity and controversial reign took a shabby franchise and made it the glittering jewel of all sport teams.
There is some understanding of why people would not vote for him. There were the suspensions from baseball. Steinbrenner was bombastic and disliked my many. His treatment of Dave Winfield was particularly odious. There are many stories about his terrible treatment of employees. There was a lot to dislike. But look, if Tom Yawkey is a Hall Of Fame owner, Steinbrenner should be too.
Steinbrenner defined a baseball era. George Steinbrenner was the first to exploit the free agent market. He was the first to spend big money to win. He dominated the news to such an extent that baseball and the Yankees were hot topics. He did not just raise the status of the New York Yankees. His success in building the franchise value rubbed off on all baseball franchises around Major League Baseball.
Baseball players owe Steinbrenner a debt for raising their value. Teams own Steinbrenner a debt for raising the value of their own franchises. That sounds like someone whose contributions should be remembered and enshrined.
The biggest thing about whether Steinbrenner belongs in the Hall of Fame is this: You cannot discuss Major League baseball from the 1970s to the 1990s without mentioning George Steinbrenner in the narrative. It does not matter if he was mouthy, arrogant and did some bad things (among many good ones). What matters was that he mattered. He mattered a great deal.
Not having George Steinbrenner in the Hall Of Fame along with Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds defeats the purpose of having a Hall of Fame. If making a moral stand dilutes the narrative of people who defined their eras, then just tear the whole thing down.
George Steinbrenner bought baseball's most glittering franchise (with partners) for $10 million, a low figure because CBS had run the team into the ground. His tenacity, ferocity and controversial reign took a shabby franchise and made it the glittering jewel of all sport teams.
There is some understanding of why people would not vote for him. There were the suspensions from baseball. Steinbrenner was bombastic and disliked my many. His treatment of Dave Winfield was particularly odious. There are many stories about his terrible treatment of employees. There was a lot to dislike. But look, if Tom Yawkey is a Hall Of Fame owner, Steinbrenner should be too.
Steinbrenner defined a baseball era. George Steinbrenner was the first to exploit the free agent market. He was the first to spend big money to win. He dominated the news to such an extent that baseball and the Yankees were hot topics. He did not just raise the status of the New York Yankees. His success in building the franchise value rubbed off on all baseball franchises around Major League Baseball.
Baseball players owe Steinbrenner a debt for raising their value. Teams own Steinbrenner a debt for raising the value of their own franchises. That sounds like someone whose contributions should be remembered and enshrined.
The biggest thing about whether Steinbrenner belongs in the Hall of Fame is this: You cannot discuss Major League baseball from the 1970s to the 1990s without mentioning George Steinbrenner in the narrative. It does not matter if he was mouthy, arrogant and did some bad things (among many good ones). What matters was that he mattered. He mattered a great deal.
Not having George Steinbrenner in the Hall Of Fame along with Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds defeats the purpose of having a Hall of Fame. If making a moral stand dilutes the narrative of people who defined their eras, then just tear the whole thing down.
Monday, December 03, 2018
MLB Off Season Is A Lot Like Waiting For Christmas
For those of us who celebrate Christmas (and no judgments if you do not), there is this anticipation about what kind of gifts (if any) will be ours for the big day. On the one hand, you hope that you will get at least something and on the other, you hope if you do that it will be something you really want and need. Fans of baseball teams have this same collective feeling during the off season where rumors abound but only time will tell what actually comes about.
The first part of the equation is already answered for New York Yankee fans. The trade for James Paxton was a nice little present under the tree. But it is like getting some sort of electronic gizmo. Will it work as advertised? Past deals involving Sonny Gray and A.J. Burnett put the fear of hoping for too much from this new gift.
But will that be all that the Yankee fans get? The team lost two big bullpen pieces. They still don't have a real first baseman. Second base will need a decent player until Didi Gregorius comes back--that is, if Gleyber Torres slides over to short instead of some terrible long-term deal given to a dirty, self-absorbed free agent signing that will be Gary Sheffield 2.0. Forgive the non-analytical belief that talent alone is not enough to make a team better.
Will there be any big, gaudy presents under the tree? Will the Yankees be able to resist Bryce Harper? Yes, Yankee Stadium was made for him. Yes, his on-base ability is tempting. But where will he play? Perhaps that is too good a gift to question like Giancarlo Stanton was and you figure out later where it fits on the shelf. And which Bryce Harper is the real one? The MVP one or the one with a low batting average, big-time strikeouts and terrible defense?
By the way, you heard it here first: 2018 was an adjustment year for Stanton. He will be huge in 2019. Very huge.
Will there be any big presents? Perhaps a big-name starter? At what price? Can that big-name pitcher come up big in the post season? Can he beat the Red Sox in a big game? With a long-term deal, will he become an albatross?
Will a fairly deep pool of talented relief pitchers be tapped? Should David Robertson come back home? Is Andrew Miller past his best pitching? Both he and Robertson are the same age and a bit of a gamble with a multi-year deal.
And what would be good stocking-stuffers? Luis Cessa going somewhere else would be one. What addition / subtraction deals would make the team better enough to add a win or two over a season? A nice return for a traded Sonny Gray would be great. Gray and Greg Bird for Eric Hosmer and cash might be a nice thing for the stocking.
Like Christmas celebrants everywhere, this off season is much like the anticipation and tension of what will be under the tree on the big day. Will there be disappointment or will there be immediate appreciation? And if it is the latter, will it actually work when taken out of the box to play? Sometimes the anticipation is hard on the stomach.
The first part of the equation is already answered for New York Yankee fans. The trade for James Paxton was a nice little present under the tree. But it is like getting some sort of electronic gizmo. Will it work as advertised? Past deals involving Sonny Gray and A.J. Burnett put the fear of hoping for too much from this new gift.
But will that be all that the Yankee fans get? The team lost two big bullpen pieces. They still don't have a real first baseman. Second base will need a decent player until Didi Gregorius comes back--that is, if Gleyber Torres slides over to short instead of some terrible long-term deal given to a dirty, self-absorbed free agent signing that will be Gary Sheffield 2.0. Forgive the non-analytical belief that talent alone is not enough to make a team better.
Will there be any big, gaudy presents under the tree? Will the Yankees be able to resist Bryce Harper? Yes, Yankee Stadium was made for him. Yes, his on-base ability is tempting. But where will he play? Perhaps that is too good a gift to question like Giancarlo Stanton was and you figure out later where it fits on the shelf. And which Bryce Harper is the real one? The MVP one or the one with a low batting average, big-time strikeouts and terrible defense?
By the way, you heard it here first: 2018 was an adjustment year for Stanton. He will be huge in 2019. Very huge.
Will there be any big presents? Perhaps a big-name starter? At what price? Can that big-name pitcher come up big in the post season? Can he beat the Red Sox in a big game? With a long-term deal, will he become an albatross?
Will a fairly deep pool of talented relief pitchers be tapped? Should David Robertson come back home? Is Andrew Miller past his best pitching? Both he and Robertson are the same age and a bit of a gamble with a multi-year deal.
And what would be good stocking-stuffers? Luis Cessa going somewhere else would be one. What addition / subtraction deals would make the team better enough to add a win or two over a season? A nice return for a traded Sonny Gray would be great. Gray and Greg Bird for Eric Hosmer and cash might be a nice thing for the stocking.
Like Christmas celebrants everywhere, this off season is much like the anticipation and tension of what will be under the tree on the big day. Will there be disappointment or will there be immediate appreciation? And if it is the latter, will it actually work when taken out of the box to play? Sometimes the anticipation is hard on the stomach.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
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:
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
James Paxton - A Sweet Yankees Move
Acquiring pitchers is such a risky move. Elbows, shoulders and just about anything else can derail a pitcher and leave a team in the lurch if they had high hopes for him. That is why signing free agent pitchers is such a perilous business. In James Paxton, the New York Yankees obtained one of the most talented pitchers in baseball while mitigating their risk.
Yes, the trade did cost the Yankees three MiLB players. One of them, Justus Sheffield, might be a special talent in his own right. But Sheffield has yet to prove anything and Paxton is a known quantity in his ability to get MLB batters out.
The best part of the deal is that it does not commit the Yankees to a long-term deal and mega-millions to obtain a top notch pitcher. Paxton is under team control for two more years and signing him via arbitration rates will be much cheaper than getting a similarly talented pitcher with long-term baggage of salary. Oh, the Yankees might still get one of those. But at least one deal was incredibly reasonable.
Will Justus Sheffield turn out to be a great pitcher for years to come? Possibly. The question is his command. The Yankees have been down that road before with Dellin Betances (as a starter) and others--great talent, but not always great execution. The right pitching coach could turn him into a stud. These are all "mights" and "coulds." Paxton has the track record.
The one gray specter with Paxton is the ability to stay on the field. He made significant strides on that side of things in 2018. But he managed only 160+ innings and that is the most he has pitched since he started his career. To the Yankees, and, it makes sense, the risk is worth taking.
What do the numbers tells us about James Paxton?
The Good:
The Troublesome:
All in all, Yankee fans have to be excited by this trade. Some may rue losing Sheffield, but if Paxton can build on 2018 and stay healthy, Sheffield should become a forgotten memory.
Yes, the trade did cost the Yankees three MiLB players. One of them, Justus Sheffield, might be a special talent in his own right. But Sheffield has yet to prove anything and Paxton is a known quantity in his ability to get MLB batters out.
The best part of the deal is that it does not commit the Yankees to a long-term deal and mega-millions to obtain a top notch pitcher. Paxton is under team control for two more years and signing him via arbitration rates will be much cheaper than getting a similarly talented pitcher with long-term baggage of salary. Oh, the Yankees might still get one of those. But at least one deal was incredibly reasonable.
Will Justus Sheffield turn out to be a great pitcher for years to come? Possibly. The question is his command. The Yankees have been down that road before with Dellin Betances (as a starter) and others--great talent, but not always great execution. The right pitching coach could turn him into a stud. These are all "mights" and "coulds." Paxton has the track record.
The one gray specter with Paxton is the ability to stay on the field. He made significant strides on that side of things in 2018. But he managed only 160+ innings and that is the most he has pitched since he started his career. To the Yankees, and, it makes sense, the risk is worth taking.
What do the numbers tells us about James Paxton?
The Good:
- He has absolutely owned the Astros but did not fare well in his one start against the Red Sox and struggled against Cleveland.
- He has won 60% of his games against teams with a record of .500 or better. His home run rate jumps high in this category.
- He is the rare pitcher who actually dominates the third time through a batting order. For anyone who witnessed with alarm the four or five inning starts for Yankees starters down the stretch, Paxton will help there. He is strong with high pitch counts too.
- He is actually better against right-handed batters as a lefty hurler than against lefties.
- Sure, "wins" is not a favored stat these days, but two things about them with Paxton: If you give him three or more runs in a game, he is 36-10 for his career. The Yankee offense should do that easily. And cluck if you'd like, but he has won 60% of his games in his career, a mark that always separated pitchers in this corner of the world.
- He has always been good with runners in scoring position and in clutch situations.
The Troublesome:
- The injuries
- After a great start last year, he was just middling in the second half.
- He led the league in wild pitches two years ago and had a high count in 2018. Pair that up with Gary Sanchez behind the plate and it seems scary.
- He had his lowest WHIP of his career in 2018, but that was evened out by a big jump in his homers allowed. His rate in 2018 doubled what it was in 2016 and 2017.
- He is much better with five days of rest than he is with four days.
- While the home run rate might be a fluke due to a spike in homer to fly ball ratio, his ground ball rate has dipped six to eight points of the last two seasons.
- He has never pitched in Fenway Park.
- The last time the Yankees got a pitcher from Seattle, it did not work out so well. Heh.
All in all, Yankee fans have to be excited by this trade. Some may rue losing Sheffield, but if Paxton can build on 2018 and stay healthy, Sheffield should become a forgotten memory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)