As another new PED revelation unfolds, it's safe to say more MLB players will be implicated in the use of banned substances, and that list may grow quite large upon further investigation. This should come as no surprise to anyone, based on what transpired nearly fifteen years ago.
In the immediate aftermath of that PED-aided-homer-happy 1998 MLB season, which saw Roger Maris' single season home run record of 61 obliterated by both Mark McGwire (70 HR) and Sammy Sosa (66 HR), a voice of reason tried to warn the world of baseball of serious trouble brewing.
The voice of reason belonged to Texas Rangers pitcher, Rick Helling, during the '98 MLBPA winter meetings in Nashville. Helling saw what was happening; the use of performance enhancing drugs had become so widespread, it was forcing normally honest players to jump on the bandwagon just to keep up with the pack. Helling realized this was making it impossible to maintain a "level playing field" between the users and the non-users; something had to give.
Of course, nobody listened. Taking the sort of action Helling was recommending would be terribly inconvenient; worse yet, it would be terribly costly. Sacrificing revenue was a preposterous notion; especially since the fans were clearly enjoying the pumped-up performances throughout The Show. While the McGwire - Sosa home run spectacle got most of the national attention, attendance throughout MLB was clearly on the rise, along with the home run totals. The infamous players' strike of '94, which not only wiped out the last couple of months of the regular season, along with the postseason, also alienated millions of faithful fans; many of whom vowed to never attend another game again. However, all that animosity seemed to fade away with every September home run smashed by the two friendly rivals. By the time the New York Yankees completed its four-game sweep of the San Diego Padres in a somewhat anti-climactic World Series, baseball was back, with its image restored, quickly regaining its pre-strike popularity.
As the seasons rolled by, the unprecedented power surge continued, as more and more players were mysteriously muscle-bound, hitting balls farther than anyone ever dreamed possible. It was no mystery to Rick Helling; he continued voicing concerns about PED use at the winter meetings, and the MLBPA continued to ignore him. By 2001, a brand-new single season home run record had been established (73) by an amazingly pumped-up Barry Bonds, while fans were flocking to games in record numbers. In the July 2001 issue of Playboy (of course I read the articles), sportswriter Allen Barra suggested MLB was experiencing a new "golden age". After all, he concluded, "there's never been an era with so many outstanding performances at every level." How true.
Few seemed to care what caused all those "outstanding performances". Strangely enough, in that same July 2001 Playboy, there was another article, written by Scott Dickensheets (no kidding), exploring the growing popularity of steroid use among young men ("Steroids - All the Rage"). The author observed that steroid use had become mainstream, since so many "athletes" (role models) were users. Although baseball players weren't singled-out, they clearly had the motivation to use performance enhancing drugs; for some, it was a competitive desire to perform better than their peers. For others - as Rick Helling warned back in 1998 - it was simply an attempt to keep up with the pack; from their perspective, the only way a level playing field could be maintained. Baseball had reached a tipping point right around the start of the new millennium; there were more forces than ever nudging players toward steroid use, and fewer considerations urging them to just say no.
In the meantime, even Lance Armstrong - the all-American boy with an impecable image - was routinely using PEDs to win seven consecutive Tour de France cycling marathons. He had become the world's greatest athlete; a courageous cancer survivor who battled back to reach the summit of his profession, and stay there for an unprecedented reign of supremacy. He was Superman, with a girlfriend even hotter than Lois Lane. When allegations of PED use surfaced, Armstrong steadfastly denied them, citing hundreds of clean drug tests as proof. He even went so far as to sue anyone who had the audacity to accuse him of what was actually true; and he fraudulantly won many millions of dollars in court over the years, to maintain his squeaky-clean image. Here's what he had to say during a 2005 interview with Kevin Cook:
"All I can say is thank God we're tested. When baseball players were charged with using steroids, what was their defense? Nothing. Whereas my defense is hundreds of drug controls, at races and everywhere else."
When Armstrong finally came "truly clean" on Oprah recently, it was with little remorse. To him, his doping routine had become just that; a "routine" to prepare his body for the grueling challenge of competing in an event that requires extreme stamina, against a field comprised of other PED-aided rivals. To Armstrong, he was merely doing what he had to do to maintain a "level playing field".
The fact that he got away with it for so long, is almost as amazing as winning all those races. It makes me wonder if some of Armstrong's tricks of the trade have been used by more than a few MLB players over the years.
We may never know just how widespread PED use was throughout baseball during the peak of the Steroids Era. Rick Helling had the guts to come forward and voice his concerns. He saw what was going on; there was little attempt by the users to hide what they were doing. Surely, there are many others who saw what was going on in their own clubhouses throughout MLB and never said a word about it to anyone. To this day, they insist they never saw anything suspicious, and of course, all deny ever doing it themselves.
I have a difficult time believing any of them. Again, we may never know the actual percentage of players who have used performance enhancing drugs at one time or another. However, I suspect at least half of the players knew precisely what was going on, even if they weren't doing it themselves; and I suspect the players who weren't taking PEDs were in the minority - and probably had shorter careers than they had bargained for.
After all, it's hard to compete without a "level playing field". That's why the latest scandal brewing out of Coral Gables, Florida may be a disturbing trend; but it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Steroid Era may not quite be over in major league baseball.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Musial: The Greatest Ever?
It has been one week since St Louis Cardinals icon Stan Musial passed away. In that brief period of time, Stan the Man has received more media attention and adulation in death than he ever experienced over his entire 22-year Hall of Fame career. It's nice that he's finally getting some publicity, along with some well-deserved recognition for his greatness; not only as a baseball player, but as a human being.
Musial always seemed to be overshadowed by the likes of Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio early in his career, despite being the best player in the National League; at least until Willie Mays came along in the early '50s. As Musial's career reached its peak by the mid '50s, Mays' and Mickey Mantle's were rapidly ascending - and grabbing all the headlines. By the time Musial retired in 1963, he had quietly compiled a Hall of Fame career that was worthy of a first ballot induction at Cooperstown in 1969, with 93.2% of the vote. What's puzzling to me is how 6.8% of the voters could justify excluding him from baseball's highest fraternity. Go figure.
Recently, when MLB Network's sabermetric-obsessed expert Brian Kenny compared the career production of Stan Musial to the likes of Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Henry Aaron, his conclusion may surprise the vast majority of baseball fans outside of St Louis: "Saying Stan Musial was among the greatest to ever play the game is probably selling him short. He may very well have been the greatest all-round player in major league history."
Not to mention its most under-rated superstar, by far.
He was certainly under-rated back in 1999, when MLB decided to let fans vote for the players they felt worthy to be on the All-Century Team. The top nine vote getters among the outfielders would make the squad (100 total candidates were previously selected by a panel of experts). Musial finished eleventh in the fan voting, behind Pete Rose - the guy with the most hits in the history of MLB, as well as the guy who made the most outs. It took a special veteran's committee to add Musial and some other all-time greats who played so long ago nobody had ever heard of them. Honus Wagner? Who's he? (Arguably, the greatest shortstop of all-time) Warren Spahn? Never heard of him. (The winningest left-handed pitcher of all-time with 363)
A couple of years after the All-Century Team was chosen, the Godfather of Sabermetrics - Bill James - did a little independent research of his own, and concluded that Stan Musial was the second-best left-fielder to ever play the game (behind Ted Williams) - and the tenth-best player, overall; even better than Pete Rose.
As early as Musial's first full season (1942), it seemed as though this humble 21-year-old kid with the unique batting stance was destined for greatness. He played on three World Championship teams for the Cardinals in the '40s - just before the Television Age brought the Fall Classics into millions of homes from coast to coast. He also won seven batting titles and three Most Valuable Player Awards - the last coming in his greatest season - 1948. Unfortunately for Musial and his team, St Louis barely missed winning another NL pennant that year; or any other year for the rest of his career, for that matter. While his destiny for greatness had already been realized, his accomplishments were almost taken for granted; destined to be overlooked by the casual fan.
Case in point: In 1948, Musial led the National League in every major offensive category, except home runs. Perhaps Mother Nature is to blame for Stan the Man coming up just one home run short of winning the Triple Crown. Officially, he is credited with 39 home runs. Unofficially, he hit 40, but one of those came in a game that was eventually rained-out; so it didn't count.
Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose those rain clouds never materialized; let's suppose all of Musial's 40 home runs counted that year. With that minor revision to baseball history, add in his .376 batting average (with a .450 OBP) and 131 RBI which also topped the Senior Circuit, and he'd have that coveted Triple Crown. But he was just getting started. Musial also led the NL with 133 runs scored, 46 doubles and 18 triples (He led the NL in triples five times in his career). This combination of pure hitting, remarkable plate selection, power and speed has really never been matched in MLB history. In fact, no other Triple Crown winner has ever taken the triple crown, as well.
Even minus that extra home run, Stan the Man racked up an astounding 429 total bases while becoming the first National League player since 1930 to have a slugging percentage over .700 (.702 SLG to be exact); a feat that wouldn't happen in the NL again until 1997.
Getting back to reality; Musial's incredible 1948 season is often mentioned merely as a footnote to his storied career accomplishments. Thanks to some lousy weather, he not only was deprived of a home run title and a Triple Crown of historic significance, he was also deprived of a much higher level of adulation from fans, in general. Of course, all that stuff didn't matter to him; in fact, he seemed a bit embarrassed when people noticed his greatness. In 1952, the irascible and brutally honest Ty Cobb created a bit of a stir when he was quoted in a Time Magazine article, "Stan Musial is better than Joe DiMaggio." Deep down inside, Stan the Man may have agreed with the Georgia Peach's bold assessment, although he modestly replied, "I don't think I've ever been as good as DiMaggio."
Many people would beg to differ, taking into consideration the total package that Musial brought to the ballpark on a daily basis; the key components that made him so great. Not only was he an elite hitter who rarely struck out; he was incredibly durable - rarely missing a game until the tail end of his career - and he was able to sustain a high level of performance for well over two decades. Those attributes are rare enough; added to the mix was Musial's genuine humility, his kindness towards everyone he came in contact with, and his unwavering positive attitude. Essentially, he was a truly great person in all facets of life.
MLB Network analyst Brian Kenny's closing comment says it all: "If you had to choose one player in the history of major league baseball you'd want to be on your team for twenty years - you'd want Stan Musial."
Millions of grateful Cardinals fans who will always cherish the Musial legacy, agree wholeheartedly.
Musial always seemed to be overshadowed by the likes of Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio early in his career, despite being the best player in the National League; at least until Willie Mays came along in the early '50s. As Musial's career reached its peak by the mid '50s, Mays' and Mickey Mantle's were rapidly ascending - and grabbing all the headlines. By the time Musial retired in 1963, he had quietly compiled a Hall of Fame career that was worthy of a first ballot induction at Cooperstown in 1969, with 93.2% of the vote. What's puzzling to me is how 6.8% of the voters could justify excluding him from baseball's highest fraternity. Go figure.
Recently, when MLB Network's sabermetric-obsessed expert Brian Kenny compared the career production of Stan Musial to the likes of Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Henry Aaron, his conclusion may surprise the vast majority of baseball fans outside of St Louis: "Saying Stan Musial was among the greatest to ever play the game is probably selling him short. He may very well have been the greatest all-round player in major league history."
Not to mention its most under-rated superstar, by far.
He was certainly under-rated back in 1999, when MLB decided to let fans vote for the players they felt worthy to be on the All-Century Team. The top nine vote getters among the outfielders would make the squad (100 total candidates were previously selected by a panel of experts). Musial finished eleventh in the fan voting, behind Pete Rose - the guy with the most hits in the history of MLB, as well as the guy who made the most outs. It took a special veteran's committee to add Musial and some other all-time greats who played so long ago nobody had ever heard of them. Honus Wagner? Who's he? (Arguably, the greatest shortstop of all-time) Warren Spahn? Never heard of him. (The winningest left-handed pitcher of all-time with 363)
A couple of years after the All-Century Team was chosen, the Godfather of Sabermetrics - Bill James - did a little independent research of his own, and concluded that Stan Musial was the second-best left-fielder to ever play the game (behind Ted Williams) - and the tenth-best player, overall; even better than Pete Rose.
As early as Musial's first full season (1942), it seemed as though this humble 21-year-old kid with the unique batting stance was destined for greatness. He played on three World Championship teams for the Cardinals in the '40s - just before the Television Age brought the Fall Classics into millions of homes from coast to coast. He also won seven batting titles and three Most Valuable Player Awards - the last coming in his greatest season - 1948. Unfortunately for Musial and his team, St Louis barely missed winning another NL pennant that year; or any other year for the rest of his career, for that matter. While his destiny for greatness had already been realized, his accomplishments were almost taken for granted; destined to be overlooked by the casual fan.
Case in point: In 1948, Musial led the National League in every major offensive category, except home runs. Perhaps Mother Nature is to blame for Stan the Man coming up just one home run short of winning the Triple Crown. Officially, he is credited with 39 home runs. Unofficially, he hit 40, but one of those came in a game that was eventually rained-out; so it didn't count.
Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose those rain clouds never materialized; let's suppose all of Musial's 40 home runs counted that year. With that minor revision to baseball history, add in his .376 batting average (with a .450 OBP) and 131 RBI which also topped the Senior Circuit, and he'd have that coveted Triple Crown. But he was just getting started. Musial also led the NL with 133 runs scored, 46 doubles and 18 triples (He led the NL in triples five times in his career). This combination of pure hitting, remarkable plate selection, power and speed has really never been matched in MLB history. In fact, no other Triple Crown winner has ever taken the triple crown, as well.
Even minus that extra home run, Stan the Man racked up an astounding 429 total bases while becoming the first National League player since 1930 to have a slugging percentage over .700 (.702 SLG to be exact); a feat that wouldn't happen in the NL again until 1997.
Getting back to reality; Musial's incredible 1948 season is often mentioned merely as a footnote to his storied career accomplishments. Thanks to some lousy weather, he not only was deprived of a home run title and a Triple Crown of historic significance, he was also deprived of a much higher level of adulation from fans, in general. Of course, all that stuff didn't matter to him; in fact, he seemed a bit embarrassed when people noticed his greatness. In 1952, the irascible and brutally honest Ty Cobb created a bit of a stir when he was quoted in a Time Magazine article, "Stan Musial is better than Joe DiMaggio." Deep down inside, Stan the Man may have agreed with the Georgia Peach's bold assessment, although he modestly replied, "I don't think I've ever been as good as DiMaggio."
Many people would beg to differ, taking into consideration the total package that Musial brought to the ballpark on a daily basis; the key components that made him so great. Not only was he an elite hitter who rarely struck out; he was incredibly durable - rarely missing a game until the tail end of his career - and he was able to sustain a high level of performance for well over two decades. Those attributes are rare enough; added to the mix was Musial's genuine humility, his kindness towards everyone he came in contact with, and his unwavering positive attitude. Essentially, he was a truly great person in all facets of life.
MLB Network analyst Brian Kenny's closing comment says it all: "If you had to choose one player in the history of major league baseball you'd want to be on your team for twenty years - you'd want Stan Musial."
Millions of grateful Cardinals fans who will always cherish the Musial legacy, agree wholeheartedly.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
HOF Class of 2013 Flunking Out
The list of former MLB players eligible for Hall of Fame consideration for the first time in 2013 includes a pair that are among the best to ever play the game - Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. They also happen to be among the list of players suspected of using performance enhancing drugs, so there's no way either one will be getting into Cooperstown this year.
In fact, it looks doubtful any of this year's new candidates - or holdovers from previous years for that matter - will be getting enough votes to be enshrined. At last check, even Craig Biggio - what many consider a HOF lock - is only hovering around 70% of the votes (75% is required to be inducted). It seems as though the voters are making a collective statement: Nobody gets in.
That's a shame, because there are at least a dozen (try fifteen) candidates that are worthy of Hall of Fame consideration; most notably:
Craig Biggio
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Fred McGriff
Larry Walker
Mike Piazza
Curt Schilling
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Lee Smith
Dale Murphy
Don Mattingly
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
I suppose if I were actually voting, I'd have to leave five of these selections off my ballot (ten is the maximum number of players allowed). Even though Bonds and Clemens have no chance of getting in, I'd still be compelled to cast my ballot in their favor. I'm not sure how much the PEDs padded their numbers, but I believe they had HOF credentials before they started juicing; besides, they weren't alone.
Actually, I wouldn't want to drop any of the above off my hypothetical ballot, so it's probably a good thing I don't get to vote.
In fact, it looks doubtful any of this year's new candidates - or holdovers from previous years for that matter - will be getting enough votes to be enshrined. At last check, even Craig Biggio - what many consider a HOF lock - is only hovering around 70% of the votes (75% is required to be inducted). It seems as though the voters are making a collective statement: Nobody gets in.
That's a shame, because there are at least a dozen (try fifteen) candidates that are worthy of Hall of Fame consideration; most notably:
Craig Biggio
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Fred McGriff
Larry Walker
Mike Piazza
Curt Schilling
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Lee Smith
Dale Murphy
Don Mattingly
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
I suppose if I were actually voting, I'd have to leave five of these selections off my ballot (ten is the maximum number of players allowed). Even though Bonds and Clemens have no chance of getting in, I'd still be compelled to cast my ballot in their favor. I'm not sure how much the PEDs padded their numbers, but I believe they had HOF credentials before they started juicing; besides, they weren't alone.
Actually, I wouldn't want to drop any of the above off my hypothetical ballot, so it's probably a good thing I don't get to vote.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Numbers Don't Lie - Morris Not HOF Material
Jack Morris had a nice career, but was it really a Hall of Fame career? His won-loss record (254-186 - .577) is just slightly below average for all pitchers who have been enshrined (251-176 - .588). What should keep him out is his mediocre career ERA of 3.90, which is nearly a run per nine-innings higher than the average ERA for Hall of Fame hurlers (2.96). In fact, Morris never even had a single season (he played for 18 seasons) when he was able to post an ERA under 3.00. Those don't sound like Hall of Fame numbers to me.
His supporters tout him as the Pitcher of the Eighties because he happened to win more games in that particular decade than anyone else. However, that was attributable more to his durability (and stellar defense behind him) than his pitching ability. Yes, he was a workhorse, but Morris never won a Cy Young Award (his best finish was third-place) and that high ERA is barely better than what an average run-of-the-mill pitcher posted during the time he played (1977-1994). It's not surprising that his ERA+ of 105 is likewise, only slightly above average (100). So far, he seems to be a good candidate for the Hall of Above Average to Pretty Good But Not Great.
Digging deeper into the sabermetric evidence, we find that his career WAR of 39.3 is lower than such above-average-to-pretty-good-but-not-great pitchers as Brad Radke, Kevin Brown and Kevin Appier - all solid performers with flashes of excellence who will never, ever be enshrined in Cooperstown.
It seems that the Morris Hall of Fame candidacy really comes down to that one legendary postseason game - Game Seven of the 1991 World Series - when Morris, pitching for the Minnesota Twins, squared off against a young John Smoltz of the Atlanta Braves in a truly classic duel. Morris would pitch ten shutout innings - good enough for the win - as the Twins finally broke through for the only run of the game in the bottom of the tenth-inning. As valiant as that effort was, Morris also had more than just a little bit of luck going for him, when the Braves hit him hard in the eighth-inning, but came up empty-handed - thanks in large part to a base-running gaffe by Lonnie Smith. Still, this effort by Morris on the grandest of all stages was certainly his most noteworthy episode - or flash - of excellence.
In the end, Morris became the iconic hero, as Minnesota won its second World Championship in five seasons; they've yet to win their third. The perception that Morris was a great postseason pitcher is largely based from that one sensational flash-in-the-pan performance; otherwise, his postseason career amounted to a fairly run-of-the-mill 7-4 record with a 3.80 ERA. Once again, not exactly Hall of Fame worthy.
If Morris does get the necessary support this year (2014 is his final year of eligibilty), he will supplant Red Ruffing (3.80 ERA) for the dubious distinction of having the highest ERA for any enshrined hurler. The fact that he managed to win 254 games (I thought 300 was the magic number?) is more a testament to the strength of the teams he spent time with - namely, three World Series champions - Detroit, Minnesota and Toronto.
In Detroit, where he spent the early years of his career, he had the good fortune of having one of the greatest (if not "the" greatest) double-play combinations of all-time playing behind him: Alan Trammell & Lou Whitaker - both of whom deserve more Hall of Fame consideration than Morris.
With all the controversy surrounding this new batch of Hall of Fame candidates emerging from the dreaded Steroids Era, the time may be right for Morris to sneak in the back door of Cooperstown; no doubt steroid-free and a pretty darn good pitcher with an engaging personality who was a fierce competitor, to boot.
Another fierce competitor - Roger Clemens - is on the ballot for the first time this year, along with a few others that have been linked to performance enhancing drugs. It's highly unlikely for Clemens to get voted in this time around; however, it's interesting to note that he managed to win exactly 100 more games than Jack Morris, and he also managed to lose two fewer games than Morris. Clemens' ERA is almost a point lower (3.12), and his ERA+ is a very Hall-of-Fame-like 143. I don't know how much of all that is inflated by any possible steroid use; but here's a guy who won seven Cy Young Awards and an MVP Award, and is perhaps the greatest pitcher who ever lived.
How strange it would be to see Morris getting voted into the Hall of Fame while Clemens is forced to wait; possibly for more than fifteen years.
His supporters tout him as the Pitcher of the Eighties because he happened to win more games in that particular decade than anyone else. However, that was attributable more to his durability (and stellar defense behind him) than his pitching ability. Yes, he was a workhorse, but Morris never won a Cy Young Award (his best finish was third-place) and that high ERA is barely better than what an average run-of-the-mill pitcher posted during the time he played (1977-1994). It's not surprising that his ERA+ of 105 is likewise, only slightly above average (100). So far, he seems to be a good candidate for the Hall of Above Average to Pretty Good But Not Great.
Digging deeper into the sabermetric evidence, we find that his career WAR of 39.3 is lower than such above-average-to-pretty-good-but-not-great pitchers as Brad Radke, Kevin Brown and Kevin Appier - all solid performers with flashes of excellence who will never, ever be enshrined in Cooperstown.
It seems that the Morris Hall of Fame candidacy really comes down to that one legendary postseason game - Game Seven of the 1991 World Series - when Morris, pitching for the Minnesota Twins, squared off against a young John Smoltz of the Atlanta Braves in a truly classic duel. Morris would pitch ten shutout innings - good enough for the win - as the Twins finally broke through for the only run of the game in the bottom of the tenth-inning. As valiant as that effort was, Morris also had more than just a little bit of luck going for him, when the Braves hit him hard in the eighth-inning, but came up empty-handed - thanks in large part to a base-running gaffe by Lonnie Smith. Still, this effort by Morris on the grandest of all stages was certainly his most noteworthy episode - or flash - of excellence.
In the end, Morris became the iconic hero, as Minnesota won its second World Championship in five seasons; they've yet to win their third. The perception that Morris was a great postseason pitcher is largely based from that one sensational flash-in-the-pan performance; otherwise, his postseason career amounted to a fairly run-of-the-mill 7-4 record with a 3.80 ERA. Once again, not exactly Hall of Fame worthy.
If Morris does get the necessary support this year (2014 is his final year of eligibilty), he will supplant Red Ruffing (3.80 ERA) for the dubious distinction of having the highest ERA for any enshrined hurler. The fact that he managed to win 254 games (I thought 300 was the magic number?) is more a testament to the strength of the teams he spent time with - namely, three World Series champions - Detroit, Minnesota and Toronto.
In Detroit, where he spent the early years of his career, he had the good fortune of having one of the greatest (if not "the" greatest) double-play combinations of all-time playing behind him: Alan Trammell & Lou Whitaker - both of whom deserve more Hall of Fame consideration than Morris.
With all the controversy surrounding this new batch of Hall of Fame candidates emerging from the dreaded Steroids Era, the time may be right for Morris to sneak in the back door of Cooperstown; no doubt steroid-free and a pretty darn good pitcher with an engaging personality who was a fierce competitor, to boot.
Another fierce competitor - Roger Clemens - is on the ballot for the first time this year, along with a few others that have been linked to performance enhancing drugs. It's highly unlikely for Clemens to get voted in this time around; however, it's interesting to note that he managed to win exactly 100 more games than Jack Morris, and he also managed to lose two fewer games than Morris. Clemens' ERA is almost a point lower (3.12), and his ERA+ is a very Hall-of-Fame-like 143. I don't know how much of all that is inflated by any possible steroid use; but here's a guy who won seven Cy Young Awards and an MVP Award, and is perhaps the greatest pitcher who ever lived.
How strange it would be to see Morris getting voted into the Hall of Fame while Clemens is forced to wait; possibly for more than fifteen years.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Are Today's MLB Relievers Overrated & Overpaid?
What was the best season ever recorded by a reliever in major league history? Many baseball experts point to Dennis Eckersley's 1990 season when the Hall of Fame closer for the Oakland A's posted the lowest ERA ever for a reliever - 0.61 - while recording 48 saves in 73.1 innings of work. His ERA+ of 603 is so far off the charts, it's ridiculous. In fact, MLB Network recently aired a Prime Nine episode highlighting the Top Nine Reliever Seasons of All-Time, and this particular effort was ranked Number One.
Apparently, Prime Nine doesn't believe in all that saber-metrics stuff like the Baseball Reference.com Wins Over Replacement (WAR) measurement. But we do, and Eckersley's 3.2 WAR is good for 9th-place on this list. Strangely enough, Eric Gagne's 2003 season (MLB-record 55 straight saves) may be Number Two on Prime Nine, but is 8th over here. Go figure.
Here's how Gagne and the others fared (Prime Nine's rank in parenthesis) - In ascending order by WAR - along with ERA, IP, CYA & MVP voting.
2003 - Eric Gagne (2) - 1.20 ERA - 82.1 IP - 3.6 WAR (Won NL CYA)
1998 - Trevor Hoffman (8) - 1.48 ERA - 73.0 IP - 4.0 WAR (2nd NL CYA)
1984 - Willie Hernandez (9) - 1.92 ERA - 140.1 IP - 4.6 WAR (Won AL CYA & MVP)
1996 - Mariano Rivera (6) - 2.09 ERA - 107.2 IP - 4.8 WAR (3rd AL CYA)
1977 - Bruce Sutter (4) - 1.34 ERA - 107.1 IP - 6.5 WAR (6th NL CYA)
1986 - Mark Eichorn (7) - 1.72 ERA - 157.0 IP - 7.1 WAR (6th AL CYA)
1973 - John Hiller (3) - 1.44 ERA - 125.1 IP - 7.9 WAR (4th AL CYA)
1975 - Goose Gossage (5) - 1.84 ERA - 141.2 IP - 8.1 WAR (T-6th AL CYA)
Not that the baseball writers who vote on MVP and Cy Young Awards are dumb, but the guys at the top of this list had the lowest Wins Over Replacement calculations - yet the strongest support for postseason awards - whereas the guys like Eichorn, Hiller and Gossage - with exceptionally high WAR totals - hardly received any support at all. Go figure.
Of course, back in the '70s and '80s, the concept of Wins Over Replacement had yet to be developed. Voters typically gave the pitcher with the most wins the most CYA support - or in the case of relievers - an unusually high saves total. Of course, those numbers can be misleading; when Gossage saved 28 games in '75 (he also won 9), he often worked more than just an inning or two to secure the win. Many of the games he entered were in the middle innings with runners on base; his job was to put out the fire, then keep the other team at bay until the last out was recorded. Now those were real saves; it also explains why he pitched about twice as many innings as Eckersley, Gagne and Hoffman; and why his WAR was more than two times higher than those other guys. But what can be expected from part-time help; aside from multi-million dollar contracts?
It's nobody's fault; this is how the game is being managed today. The art of securing saves has become a joint effort, for the most part, often employing the services of a 7th-inning specialist, then the set-up man, then the closer. It's an efficient system, since having three fresh arms coming in to pitch the last thee innings or so to secure a win makes perfect sense. Of course, Gossage used to perform all three functions by himself, thank you very much. Doing it the old-fashioned Gossage way not only freed-up a couple of spots on the roster, it probably saved his team (Chicago White Sox) a little bit of money on payroll expense. Of course, in 1975, that didn't amount to much.
However, in 2013, just about everybody working in the bullpen will be making anywhere from a couple of million to $15 million per year. These salaries are skyrocketing because most front offices in MLB have bought into the notion that relievers (part-time employees) are actually worth as much, if not more than a starting pitcher or position player (full-time employees).
Saves are nice, of course. However, when they come by rather cheaply, their significance is overrated; and for teams looking to trim the payroll, there appears to be no relief in sight - just plenty of relievers.
Apparently, Prime Nine doesn't believe in all that saber-metrics stuff like the Baseball Reference.com Wins Over Replacement (WAR) measurement. But we do, and Eckersley's 3.2 WAR is good for 9th-place on this list. Strangely enough, Eric Gagne's 2003 season (MLB-record 55 straight saves) may be Number Two on Prime Nine, but is 8th over here. Go figure.
Here's how Gagne and the others fared (Prime Nine's rank in parenthesis) - In ascending order by WAR - along with ERA, IP, CYA & MVP voting.
2003 - Eric Gagne (2) - 1.20 ERA - 82.1 IP - 3.6 WAR (Won NL CYA)
1998 - Trevor Hoffman (8) - 1.48 ERA - 73.0 IP - 4.0 WAR (2nd NL CYA)
1984 - Willie Hernandez (9) - 1.92 ERA - 140.1 IP - 4.6 WAR (Won AL CYA & MVP)
1996 - Mariano Rivera (6) - 2.09 ERA - 107.2 IP - 4.8 WAR (3rd AL CYA)
1977 - Bruce Sutter (4) - 1.34 ERA - 107.1 IP - 6.5 WAR (6th NL CYA)
1986 - Mark Eichorn (7) - 1.72 ERA - 157.0 IP - 7.1 WAR (6th AL CYA)
1973 - John Hiller (3) - 1.44 ERA - 125.1 IP - 7.9 WAR (4th AL CYA)
1975 - Goose Gossage (5) - 1.84 ERA - 141.2 IP - 8.1 WAR (T-6th AL CYA)
Not that the baseball writers who vote on MVP and Cy Young Awards are dumb, but the guys at the top of this list had the lowest Wins Over Replacement calculations - yet the strongest support for postseason awards - whereas the guys like Eichorn, Hiller and Gossage - with exceptionally high WAR totals - hardly received any support at all. Go figure.
Of course, back in the '70s and '80s, the concept of Wins Over Replacement had yet to be developed. Voters typically gave the pitcher with the most wins the most CYA support - or in the case of relievers - an unusually high saves total. Of course, those numbers can be misleading; when Gossage saved 28 games in '75 (he also won 9), he often worked more than just an inning or two to secure the win. Many of the games he entered were in the middle innings with runners on base; his job was to put out the fire, then keep the other team at bay until the last out was recorded. Now those were real saves; it also explains why he pitched about twice as many innings as Eckersley, Gagne and Hoffman; and why his WAR was more than two times higher than those other guys. But what can be expected from part-time help; aside from multi-million dollar contracts?
It's nobody's fault; this is how the game is being managed today. The art of securing saves has become a joint effort, for the most part, often employing the services of a 7th-inning specialist, then the set-up man, then the closer. It's an efficient system, since having three fresh arms coming in to pitch the last thee innings or so to secure a win makes perfect sense. Of course, Gossage used to perform all three functions by himself, thank you very much. Doing it the old-fashioned Gossage way not only freed-up a couple of spots on the roster, it probably saved his team (Chicago White Sox) a little bit of money on payroll expense. Of course, in 1975, that didn't amount to much.
However, in 2013, just about everybody working in the bullpen will be making anywhere from a couple of million to $15 million per year. These salaries are skyrocketing because most front offices in MLB have bought into the notion that relievers (part-time employees) are actually worth as much, if not more than a starting pitcher or position player (full-time employees).
Saves are nice, of course. However, when they come by rather cheaply, their significance is overrated; and for teams looking to trim the payroll, there appears to be no relief in sight - just plenty of relievers.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Chapman to Rotation Makes Sabermetric Sense
The Cincinnati Reds' plan to move lefty power-closer Aroldis Chapman and his 100 mph fastball into the starting rotation has drawn the ire of many baseball analysts, including MLB Network's Mitch "Wild Thing" Williams. For that reason alone, the decision makes sense, since the inaccuracy of "Wild Thing's" assessments and predictions is nearly 100%.
Aside from that compelling bit of logic, Chapman's transition from the bullpen to the starting rotation would potentially give Cincinnati around 200 innings pitched*, as opposed to the 71.2 he logged in 2012. Those extra innings - assuming they are "quality innings" - would translate into more wins for Cincinnati; a scary thought for the rest of the NL Central, considering the Reds already won 97 games in 2012.
*UPDATE: Word from the Reds' front office is that Chapman will be under an innings limit when he goes into the rotation. No word on what that innings limit will be, however.
The saber-metric evidence is compelling: Good starting pitchers are more valuable than even the elite relief specialists; sometimes, significantly more valuable. Observe the disparity in the ERA+ of Chapman over the top four starting pitchers in the 2012 NL Cy Young Award voting; then observe the disparity in the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) of the four starters over Chapman:
ERA+ WAR
Dickey - 140 5.6
Kershaw - 150 6.2
Gonzalez - 137 4.5
Cueto - 152 5.8
Chapman - 282 3.6
Chapman's ERA+ is roughly two times better than the four best starting pitchers in the National League; yet the limited use of his talents translates into fewer wins for his team than the other four. As an aside, it appears that either Kershaw or Cueto might have a stronger case for the CYA than Dickey; however, somebody else can write about that.
Historically, even when relief specialists get the nod for either the Most Valuable Player Award and/or the Cy Young Award, they don't compare favorably to other players in the voting mix, from a purely saber-metric perspective. Here's the evidence - the award winners who were strictly relief specialists - their WAR, their rank compared to other players receiving votes, and the player who actually had the highest WAR:
WAR Rank Highest Player
1950 - NL MVP Jim Konstanty (PHI) 4.2 16th 7.8 Eddie Stanky (NYG)
1974 - NL CYA Mike Marshall (LAD) 2.9 5th 7.5 Phil Niekro (ATL)
1977 - AL CYA Sparky Lyle (NYY) 3.5 9th 8.0 Frank Tanana (CAA)
1979 - NL CYA Bruce Sutter (CHC) 4.9 3rd 7.0 Phil Niekro (ATL)
1981 - AL MVP Rollie Fingers (MIL) 4.1 10th 6.6 Rickey Henderson (OAK) &
Dwight Evans (BOS)
1981 - AL CYA Rollie Fingers (MIL) 4.1 2nd 4.3 Steve McCatty (OAK)
1984 - AL MVP Willie Hernandez (DET) 4.6 14th 9.8 Cal Ripken (BAL)*
1984 - AL CYA Willie Hernandez (DET) 4.6 4th 7.6 Dave Stieb (TOR)
1987 - NL CYA Steve Bedrosian (PHI) 2.2 8th** 6.8 Bob Welch (LAD)
1992 - AL MVP Dennis Eckersley (OAK) 2.8 17th 8.4 Roger Clemens (BOS)
1992 - AL CYA Dennis Eckersley (OAK) 2.8 6th 8.4 Roger Clemens (BOS)
2003 - NL CYA Eric Gagne (LAD) 3.6 3rd 7.2 Mark Prior (CHC)
Notes: *Despite having the highest WAR in the AL in 1984 (before WAR was even devised), Cal Ripken garnered the grand total of ONE POINT in the MVP vote! **Steve Bedrosian (who saved 40 games) had the lowest WAR among all pitchers receiving NL CYA votes in 1987! Surely, there were others not receiving votes that had a higher WAR than Bedrock's 2.2.
The impact on MLB history may not seem significant if the players with the highest WAR actually won these awards, but it surely would've gotten Phil Niekro in the HOF sooner had he won both the '74 and '79 NL Cy Young Awards! Ironically, a knuckleball pitcher won the NL CYA this past season - RA Dickey - and it was the first time in MLB history that had happened; but it should've happened 38 years ago.
In the "borderline" case of Dwight Evans, perhaps winning the 1981 AL MVP Award would've put him over the top with the voters; he certainly belongs in Cooperstown. Hopefully, as they become more saber-metrically informed, worthy players like Evans will finally get their just rewards.
Although some may disagree with the evidence, it seems apparent that a great starting pitcher is comparable to a great everyday player, in terms of the value they provide for their team. The argument baseball analysts (like Mitch Williams) use when trying to dispel the notion that no pitcher should be considered for a Most Valuable Player Award - because they're not "everyday players" - is saber-metrically unfounded. Some of the highest WAR totals over the years belong to starting pitchers; just not relief pitchers.
Another compelling piece of evidence: The elite relief specialists obviously receive a lot of media attention for racking up a lot of saves; but it appears the "save" may be one of the most overrated statistics in MLB history. That probably explains why a fairly mediocre relief pitcher like Steve Bedrosian - with those 40 saves in 1987 - was able to capture the NL Cy Young Award that year. Strangely enough, the greatest closer ever - the New York Yankees' Mariano Rivera - never won a CYA, although he finished second once and third twice.
It's also interesting to note that for whatever reasons, no team has ever won a World Series with a closer that has recorded 50 or more saves; it's happened on nine different occasions, but has yet to help produce a World Championship for any team. Go figure.
That gets us back to the Aroldis Chapman debate. Quite simply, if he's able to still pitch effectively as a starter and give the Reds somewhere around 200 IP next season (assuming he stays healthy), he'll be helping them win more games, and that seems to be a gamble worth taking; a no-brainer, especially for a team with no left-handed starters currently in the rotation.
Taking it one step further, if Chapman even comes close to matching the level of performance he produced in 2012, the next NL Cy Young Award winner may well be a former flame-throwing, somersaulting, left-handed relief specialist currently employed by the Cincinnati Reds; who were smart enough to put him in a role that made saber-metric sense.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Cabrera-Bashing Tarnishes MVP Honor
If you regularly watch MLB Network's Clubhouse Confidential segment - hosted by the analytically brilliant Brian Kenny - chances are, you're gaining insight into the saber-metric side of baseball; and that's a good thing. Unfortunately, Kenny and his legion of saber-metric fanatics may have gone too far with their relentless attack of American League Most Valuable Player, Miguel Cabrera - you know; the guy who won the AL Triple Crown (last accomplished by Carl Yastrzemski forty-five years ago) while leading his Detroit Tigers team into the postseason for the second straight year (the first time that's happened since 1934 and '35).
While Cabrera's historic season should have made him a lock to win the AL MVP Award (in fact, it did), the saber-metrics community felt otherwise; essentially drawing a line in the sand in support of LA Angels of Anaheim rookie sensation, Mike Trout. Okay; Mike Trout is a better all-round player than Miguel Cabrera, but under the subjective nature of this award, not necessarily "more valuable". Hence, the MVP Award went to Miggy and the debate intensified to epic proportions; saber-metric Cabrera-bashing became the latest trend, and leading the charge on MLB Network was the uncompromising Brian Kenny, who refused to believe anyone with a brain could possibly support the Detroit slugger. Such a travesty.
What Kenny refuses to accept is the reality that voters (sportswriters) are usually impressed by big offensive numbers, especially when they help carry a team into the postseason. That makes for good copy. Sometimes, big offensive numbers plus a last place finish is even good enough to win (1987 - Andre Dawson - 49 HR/137 RBI). Talk about a travesty.
In the aftermath of the Cabrera MVP Travesty of 2012, Brian Kenny has paraded various guest saber-metric analysts on his program - including the witty and smug Keith Olbermann - decrying the injustice and outright stupidity of it all. One of Kenny's guest saber-geeks solemnly remarked how "sad" it was that the sportswriters did the unthinkable, thus depriving the 20-year old rookie of the award he so richly deserved. Oh, the humanity. This may be worse than the Hindenburg Disaster.
I'll tell you what's sad. It's how the game's greatest pure hitter - Miguel Cabrera - finally wins his first MVP Award, and is being declared "undeserving" by the Brian Kennys of the world, who apparently don't like being on the losing side of their saber-metric arguments. We're talking about an individual award to a ballplayer coming off a terrific season. Let him bask in a little glory; not stick him under the microscope and comment about all his deficiencies. To say there have been far less-deserving players over the years who were chosen "Most Valuable" in their league is an understatement.
In defense of the current crop of voting sportswriters, they've been doing a credible job of selecting players who are at or near the top of the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) saber-metric guidelines; at least in the current millennium. How all this mumbo-jumbo is calculated is beyond me; however, when Albert Pujols won it on three separate occasions (2005, 2008 & 2009), he indeed had the NL's highest WAR each season. In fact, he also had the highest WAR on a couple of occasions when he didn't win (2006 & 2010); and I don't recall anybody complaining about those two snubs. The great Stan The Man Musial - who recently celebrated his 92nd birthday - only won three MVP Awards, but could have easily won another three or four.
Ted Williams was never very popular with a lot of the sportswriters, which partly explains why his incredible season in 1941 - featuring his iconic .406 BA - was trumped by Joe DiMaggio's equally iconic 56-game hitting streak. Perhaps the most galling snub came when a Teddy Ballgame Triple Crown-season in 1947 was clipped by a rather mediocre Yankee Clipper-season, by a single point.
Many other all-time greats like Mays and Aaron have been consistently snubbed over the years by the likes of Maury Wills and Dick Groat, among others. Generally speaking, if a player wins a batting championship on a pennant winner (Groat) or establishes some new MLB (stolen base) record (Wills), sportswriters eat that stuff up. Every now and then, superior players on bad teams are selected (Ernie Banks in '58 and '59), but once their "quota" is fulfilled, they'd really have to go wild to get another one. Banks had another great year in 1960, but winning three times in a row just wasn't happening.
A couple of my favorite MVP's - Kenny Boyer (1964) and Orlando Cepeda (1967) both led the NL in RBI's playing on pennant winning St Louis Cardinal teams. Much to my surprise, there were several other players with higher WAR totals than the former Redbird heroes; especially surprising, since the vote for Cepeda was unanimous in 1967. Go figure.
Meanwhile, as the outrage over the selection of Miggy over Trouty was starting to wane, our saber-metric hero on MLB Network decided it would be fun to review previous MVP selections on his Clubhouse Confidential program which he deemed "wrong". I wonder if I was the only one surprised when he chose to nitpick the 2005 NL MVP Award which went to Albert Pujols of the 100-win NL Central champion-St Louis Cardinals, instead of Derrick Lee of the sub-.500 Chicago Cubs. Both had very similar offensive numbers, but Lee's slugging percentage was about fifty points higher, plus he won the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger Award. I suppose a clean sweep of the awards would've been nice for Lee, but for some reason those crazy sportswriters took the guy from the 100-win team instead. "What were they thinking?" suggested the irrepressible Kenny.
I'll tell you what they were thinking, Brian. They were thinking Pujols was the best player in the National League that season, who played a key role in the success of his team. His "value" to his team is best measured by his NL-leading 8.2 WAR. I'm surprised Brian Kenny failed to realize that before he decided to tell his viewers something that made no saber-metric sense whatsoever. And that's a travesty.
No, the real travesty is subjecting the likable and extremely talented Miguel Cabrera to unfair scrutiny of an honor he deserved - American League Most Valuable Player - 2012. The last time I checked, Andre Dawson got to keep his; along with George Bell, Don Baylor and Jeff Burroughs, for that matter. None of those guys won the Triple Crown, by the way.
While Cabrera's historic season should have made him a lock to win the AL MVP Award (in fact, it did), the saber-metrics community felt otherwise; essentially drawing a line in the sand in support of LA Angels of Anaheim rookie sensation, Mike Trout. Okay; Mike Trout is a better all-round player than Miguel Cabrera, but under the subjective nature of this award, not necessarily "more valuable". Hence, the MVP Award went to Miggy and the debate intensified to epic proportions; saber-metric Cabrera-bashing became the latest trend, and leading the charge on MLB Network was the uncompromising Brian Kenny, who refused to believe anyone with a brain could possibly support the Detroit slugger. Such a travesty.
What Kenny refuses to accept is the reality that voters (sportswriters) are usually impressed by big offensive numbers, especially when they help carry a team into the postseason. That makes for good copy. Sometimes, big offensive numbers plus a last place finish is even good enough to win (1987 - Andre Dawson - 49 HR/137 RBI). Talk about a travesty.
In the aftermath of the Cabrera MVP Travesty of 2012, Brian Kenny has paraded various guest saber-metric analysts on his program - including the witty and smug Keith Olbermann - decrying the injustice and outright stupidity of it all. One of Kenny's guest saber-geeks solemnly remarked how "sad" it was that the sportswriters did the unthinkable, thus depriving the 20-year old rookie of the award he so richly deserved. Oh, the humanity. This may be worse than the Hindenburg Disaster.
I'll tell you what's sad. It's how the game's greatest pure hitter - Miguel Cabrera - finally wins his first MVP Award, and is being declared "undeserving" by the Brian Kennys of the world, who apparently don't like being on the losing side of their saber-metric arguments. We're talking about an individual award to a ballplayer coming off a terrific season. Let him bask in a little glory; not stick him under the microscope and comment about all his deficiencies. To say there have been far less-deserving players over the years who were chosen "Most Valuable" in their league is an understatement.
In defense of the current crop of voting sportswriters, they've been doing a credible job of selecting players who are at or near the top of the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) saber-metric guidelines; at least in the current millennium. How all this mumbo-jumbo is calculated is beyond me; however, when Albert Pujols won it on three separate occasions (2005, 2008 & 2009), he indeed had the NL's highest WAR each season. In fact, he also had the highest WAR on a couple of occasions when he didn't win (2006 & 2010); and I don't recall anybody complaining about those two snubs. The great Stan The Man Musial - who recently celebrated his 92nd birthday - only won three MVP Awards, but could have easily won another three or four.
Ted Williams was never very popular with a lot of the sportswriters, which partly explains why his incredible season in 1941 - featuring his iconic .406 BA - was trumped by Joe DiMaggio's equally iconic 56-game hitting streak. Perhaps the most galling snub came when a Teddy Ballgame Triple Crown-season in 1947 was clipped by a rather mediocre Yankee Clipper-season, by a single point.
Many other all-time greats like Mays and Aaron have been consistently snubbed over the years by the likes of Maury Wills and Dick Groat, among others. Generally speaking, if a player wins a batting championship on a pennant winner (Groat) or establishes some new MLB (stolen base) record (Wills), sportswriters eat that stuff up. Every now and then, superior players on bad teams are selected (Ernie Banks in '58 and '59), but once their "quota" is fulfilled, they'd really have to go wild to get another one. Banks had another great year in 1960, but winning three times in a row just wasn't happening.
A couple of my favorite MVP's - Kenny Boyer (1964) and Orlando Cepeda (1967) both led the NL in RBI's playing on pennant winning St Louis Cardinal teams. Much to my surprise, there were several other players with higher WAR totals than the former Redbird heroes; especially surprising, since the vote for Cepeda was unanimous in 1967. Go figure.
Meanwhile, as the outrage over the selection of Miggy over Trouty was starting to wane, our saber-metric hero on MLB Network decided it would be fun to review previous MVP selections on his Clubhouse Confidential program which he deemed "wrong". I wonder if I was the only one surprised when he chose to nitpick the 2005 NL MVP Award which went to Albert Pujols of the 100-win NL Central champion-St Louis Cardinals, instead of Derrick Lee of the sub-.500 Chicago Cubs. Both had very similar offensive numbers, but Lee's slugging percentage was about fifty points higher, plus he won the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger Award. I suppose a clean sweep of the awards would've been nice for Lee, but for some reason those crazy sportswriters took the guy from the 100-win team instead. "What were they thinking?" suggested the irrepressible Kenny.
I'll tell you what they were thinking, Brian. They were thinking Pujols was the best player in the National League that season, who played a key role in the success of his team. His "value" to his team is best measured by his NL-leading 8.2 WAR. I'm surprised Brian Kenny failed to realize that before he decided to tell his viewers something that made no saber-metric sense whatsoever. And that's a travesty.
No, the real travesty is subjecting the likable and extremely talented Miguel Cabrera to unfair scrutiny of an honor he deserved - American League Most Valuable Player - 2012. The last time I checked, Andre Dawson got to keep his; along with George Bell, Don Baylor and Jeff Burroughs, for that matter. None of those guys won the Triple Crown, by the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)