It is within every baseball fan's rights to profess the longing for a return to "pure" baseball. One of the first things they will argue about is the elimination of the DH. You'll hear this every year.
I take the stance of being FOR the DH rule, chiefly because the DH had been around for seven seasons before I really began following the game. Yes, the DH is not a pure rule. But neither are six divisions, All-Star Games that supposedly mean something, and outrageous player salaries. They're a part of baseball lore now, although they aren't pure.
How effective is the DH? I believe it made Paul Molitor the Hall Of Famer that he is.
More often than not, the slot is reserved for an aging hitter who no longer has reputable fielding prowess. Critics claim that a player should be able to be effective on both ends: hitting & fielding. But the legs generally go before the arms do, so those who DH on a regular basis may defend their stance, saying the experience has extended their careers.
Let's say there had never been a DH, and look at Molitor's numbers under that new scenario:
His career lasted from 1978-1998. He was a stalwart at second, third, and even the outfield; but began being a primary DH in 1989; nine seasons before he called it a career. If that is the case, consider the numbers he put up in these categories:
Games: 1246
Hits: 1568
Homers: 115
Stolen Bases: 160
Also note: Three of his four 200-hit seasons came after he became a DH.
What would this have done to his final numbers if no DH caused him not to play those extra nine seasons?
Games: 1437 instead of 2683
Hits: 1661 instead of 3319
Homers: 119 versus 234
Stolen Bases: 344 against 504
Most likely, he wouldn't have been in the Hall Of Fame, given today's perceived requirements. Remember, he was an injury bug waiting to happen early in his career. In 1987, the year of his 39-game hitting streak, the consensus seemed to be, "Wow, he actually played 100 games?"
Molitor was a legitimate fragile person who overcame that label to become the player he ended up being. He needed the role to continue his career; but none of those nine years were subpar by any standard. He was nothing but a bonus to any team he was with.
The DH was a positive innovation in Paul Molitor's case. Innovation helps spur life forward. It seems silly to say... but we are stuck with the DH in the AL, and it does have perks that aren't normally associated with it directly.
06 March, 2007
05 March, 2007
Predictions based on heresy
Since everyone seems to do it, here's my standings predictions for 2007 one week into spring training. Of course, this does not count any pending trades between now & Opening Day, and I do predict at least two mini-blockbusters occurring...
AL EAST:
1. New York -- Whether A-Rod & Jeter want to or not
2. Toronto -- All they need is a bullpen, could talk wild card in '08
3. Boston -- Import starts well, but mystique disappearing
4. Tampa Bay -- Finally becomes Florida's better team
5. Baltimore -- Could you imagine attendance at old Memorial?
AL CENTRAL:
1. Chicago -- Ozzie won't be quiet (sigh) this year either
2. Detroit -- Pitching hits reality, but they're too deep to freefall
3. Minnesota -- Blow away the smoke; no Liriano will hurt more
4. Cleveland -- Resurgence relies too much on SS Pheralta
5. Kansas City -- As good as the fountains: drowned and dunked
AL WEST:
1. Oakland -- Open Billy Beane's brain and spread it around
2. Texas -- All Blalock & Texiera need is help from hurlers
3. Los Angeles -- Banking too much on age and career years
4. Seattle -- Sorry... come July, exit Ichiro: stage right
NL EAST:
1. New York -- The fans will expect a subway series in Oct.
2. Atlanta -- Their pitching will come back for the most part
3. Philly -- Howard or not; they'll get booed no matter what
4. Florida -- Ad in paper: Fire Sale #3 to take place in July
5. Washington -- Montreal's bad closing years weren't mirage
NL CENTRAL:
1. St. Louis -- They'll win, but it won't be a runaway race
2. Chicago -- How much is the dollar worth? Check Wrigley
3. Houston -- Could finish in second place if Clemens plays
4. Pittsburgh -- Why the heck not? Youngsters getting better
5. Cincinnati -- Stadium air-conditioning system by Dunn
6. Milwaukee -- Notice how Selig is distancing himself?
NL WEST:
(Do I HAVE to?) (Ahem)
1. San Diego -- Strange item: Peavy will inspire Maddux
2. San Francisco -- No pennant, but a new king struts
3. Los Angeles -- Overly-optimistic agenda crashes by May
4. Colorado -- What, they can't even power their own park?
AL Wildcard: Detroit
NL Wildcard: Atlanta
I won't dive into further post-season predictions, because much can happen between now and then. But a New York team will be represented in the Fall Classic, guaranteed.
AL EAST:
1. New York -- Whether A-Rod & Jeter want to or not
2. Toronto -- All they need is a bullpen, could talk wild card in '08
3. Boston -- Import starts well, but mystique disappearing
4. Tampa Bay -- Finally becomes Florida's better team
5. Baltimore -- Could you imagine attendance at old Memorial?
AL CENTRAL:
1. Chicago -- Ozzie won't be quiet (sigh) this year either
2. Detroit -- Pitching hits reality, but they're too deep to freefall
3. Minnesota -- Blow away the smoke; no Liriano will hurt more
4. Cleveland -- Resurgence relies too much on SS Pheralta
5. Kansas City -- As good as the fountains: drowned and dunked
AL WEST:
1. Oakland -- Open Billy Beane's brain and spread it around
2. Texas -- All Blalock & Texiera need is help from hurlers
3. Los Angeles -- Banking too much on age and career years
4. Seattle -- Sorry... come July, exit Ichiro: stage right
NL EAST:
1. New York -- The fans will expect a subway series in Oct.
2. Atlanta -- Their pitching will come back for the most part
3. Philly -- Howard or not; they'll get booed no matter what
4. Florida -- Ad in paper: Fire Sale #3 to take place in July
5. Washington -- Montreal's bad closing years weren't mirage
NL CENTRAL:
1. St. Louis -- They'll win, but it won't be a runaway race
2. Chicago -- How much is the dollar worth? Check Wrigley
3. Houston -- Could finish in second place if Clemens plays
4. Pittsburgh -- Why the heck not? Youngsters getting better
5. Cincinnati -- Stadium air-conditioning system by Dunn
6. Milwaukee -- Notice how Selig is distancing himself?
NL WEST:
(Do I HAVE to?) (Ahem)
1. San Diego -- Strange item: Peavy will inspire Maddux
2. San Francisco -- No pennant, but a new king struts
3. Los Angeles -- Overly-optimistic agenda crashes by May
4. Colorado -- What, they can't even power their own park?
AL Wildcard: Detroit
NL Wildcard: Atlanta
I won't dive into further post-season predictions, because much can happen between now and then. But a New York team will be represented in the Fall Classic, guaranteed.
04 March, 2007
Brewers need a smooth spring
As a person who likes the idea of parity in the major sports vs. dynasties, I tend to root for the underdogs. Milwaukee has been an underdog target for two decades now; not having made a peep on the post-season stage since 1982.
They've spent the past four off-seasons promoting optimistic outlooks to their fans -- while still hamstrung with payroll limitations that keep putting them near the middle of the pack.
This year seems to look good on paper, with the surprise signing of post-season hero Jeff Suppan to a multi-year contract, and the hopeful full-season return of long-time ace starter Ben Sheets.
Some fans, however, are likely wishing that they used that money to re-sign Carlos Lee before 2006, for that would have solved their left-field situation. That position is generating controversy, as Kevin Mench & Geoff Jenkins both want the full-time starting position, and aren't too high on manager Ned Yost's idea of a platoon.
You can bet the publicity from this will not be positive, and the Brewers are one club that needs all the positive press it can get.
Mench's pitch: "I'll pitch a fit." Jenkins' view: he'll leave if he's not the full-timer in left.
Yost may have the right idea initially. Combine Jenkins' 2006 stats (.271, 17-70) and Mench's (.269, 13-68) and you get .270, 30-138; about what Carlos Lee averages per season. Despite Milwaukee once being labelled "Harvey's Wallbangers", power is somewhat short on this team, having lost Lee, Richie Sexson & Lyle Overbay in recent years.
But once again, we enter with the assumption that the manager has control over the team, and the players cannot dictate his actions. In just the first week of spring training action, both players are already criticizing the manager. It's not as if they have no shortage of candidates to replace both of them either, and at less cost, which may have gone through the general manager's mind more than once.
The Brewers are starving for respectability and positive press. Should the issue morph into a problem, fans may wish for 2008 before a 2007 pitch is even thrown.
They've spent the past four off-seasons promoting optimistic outlooks to their fans -- while still hamstrung with payroll limitations that keep putting them near the middle of the pack.
This year seems to look good on paper, with the surprise signing of post-season hero Jeff Suppan to a multi-year contract, and the hopeful full-season return of long-time ace starter Ben Sheets.
Some fans, however, are likely wishing that they used that money to re-sign Carlos Lee before 2006, for that would have solved their left-field situation. That position is generating controversy, as Kevin Mench & Geoff Jenkins both want the full-time starting position, and aren't too high on manager Ned Yost's idea of a platoon.
You can bet the publicity from this will not be positive, and the Brewers are one club that needs all the positive press it can get.
Mench's pitch: "I'll pitch a fit." Jenkins' view: he'll leave if he's not the full-timer in left.
Yost may have the right idea initially. Combine Jenkins' 2006 stats (.271, 17-70) and Mench's (.269, 13-68) and you get .270, 30-138; about what Carlos Lee averages per season. Despite Milwaukee once being labelled "Harvey's Wallbangers", power is somewhat short on this team, having lost Lee, Richie Sexson & Lyle Overbay in recent years.
But once again, we enter with the assumption that the manager has control over the team, and the players cannot dictate his actions. In just the first week of spring training action, both players are already criticizing the manager. It's not as if they have no shortage of candidates to replace both of them either, and at less cost, which may have gone through the general manager's mind more than once.
The Brewers are starving for respectability and positive press. Should the issue morph into a problem, fans may wish for 2008 before a 2007 pitch is even thrown.
03 March, 2007
Closer's stuff: Simple or diverse?
The best starting pitchers in the league have a variety of pitches to choose from. The good ones average four different pitches, while the best ones can rely on up to six, with the additional potential of each pitch being thrown with differing speeds or arm angles. If you can keep a lineup of hitters guessing and off-balance, chances are success is obtainable.
I've noticed through time that reliever's repitoires are not as vast, and some closers have only two pitches. I don't know what reason, other than the fact they may not throw enough pitches in a game, that they don't have bigger bags of tricks.
On one hand, Royals closer Octavio Dotel gets by with a fastball & slider when healthy. Tigers closer Todd Jones relies basically on a cutter.
Jose Valverde, potential Diamondbacks closer, has an assortment of pitches (4-seam and 2-seam fastballs, splitter, slider, cut fastball; five total) he can throw at different speeds. Yet he's under suggestion from Diamondbacks management that he concentrate on two pitches only.
Valverde may be questioning these suggestions, saying that during his struggles, he was relying on a certain pitch much too often. On the surface, I may be tempted to agree. As much as pitching coaches would stress pitch diversity for starters, how come the same does not apply to relievers or closers?
An underrated closer of the past was ex-Royal Jeff Montgomery. He had four pitches, two above the closer's norm -- his best pitch was a baffling changeup. Five times in his 13-year career he had 30 or more saves, with 304 in his career. And his repitoire survived with good control; walking only 23 batters in 87 innings in 1993, where he set a personal high of 45 saves.
Closers are trained not to go more than one inning these days, limiting their pitch counts, while being available for more games as a result. It may happen that they won't throw enough pitches in a game to show a hitter three different varieties. But I wouldn't think that having the pitch selection at hand would hurt. Wouldn't it be a great time to befuddle a hitter - ninth inning in a pressure situation?
Valverde used the expanded repoitoire to his advantage in his final 14 appearances last year (four walks and 1.94 ERA), which makes me think the Diamondbacks should let him use his whole arsenal.
I've noticed through time that reliever's repitoires are not as vast, and some closers have only two pitches. I don't know what reason, other than the fact they may not throw enough pitches in a game, that they don't have bigger bags of tricks.
On one hand, Royals closer Octavio Dotel gets by with a fastball & slider when healthy. Tigers closer Todd Jones relies basically on a cutter.
Jose Valverde, potential Diamondbacks closer, has an assortment of pitches (4-seam and 2-seam fastballs, splitter, slider, cut fastball; five total) he can throw at different speeds. Yet he's under suggestion from Diamondbacks management that he concentrate on two pitches only.
Valverde may be questioning these suggestions, saying that during his struggles, he was relying on a certain pitch much too often. On the surface, I may be tempted to agree. As much as pitching coaches would stress pitch diversity for starters, how come the same does not apply to relievers or closers?
An underrated closer of the past was ex-Royal Jeff Montgomery. He had four pitches, two above the closer's norm -- his best pitch was a baffling changeup. Five times in his 13-year career he had 30 or more saves, with 304 in his career. And his repitoire survived with good control; walking only 23 batters in 87 innings in 1993, where he set a personal high of 45 saves.
Closers are trained not to go more than one inning these days, limiting their pitch counts, while being available for more games as a result. It may happen that they won't throw enough pitches in a game to show a hitter three different varieties. But I wouldn't think that having the pitch selection at hand would hurt. Wouldn't it be a great time to befuddle a hitter - ninth inning in a pressure situation?
Valverde used the expanded repoitoire to his advantage in his final 14 appearances last year (four walks and 1.94 ERA), which makes me think the Diamondbacks should let him use his whole arsenal.
02 March, 2007
McLain's not worth the price of print
To think they even wrote a song about this guy at one point, and held him in such high esteem to where he was a valuable team member.
Grudges that are not healed, or even addressed, always bubble to the surface. Denny McLain, the last pitcher to win 30 games in a season, has outdone and ostricized himself from the baseball community even more with the release of a new book, I Told You I Wasn't Perfect.
This appears to be one book that can be judged by title alone - never mind the rest of the cover. We know that McLain crashed hard in the 1980s, even overlooking his suspicious bookmaking activities of the late 1960s. He's been in the federal pen on two different occasions, but this time he is more stingy than ever. Why a printing company even took on such a ridiculous project is beyond me; I believe it wasted precious ink.
McLain still stands behind his statements & grudges, and continues to hide behind them, unwilling or afraid to face confrontation, restitution, and chances to bury the hatchet and forget the past. He is still very much living in the past, and to him, the past appears to have happened yesterday versus forty years ago.
On Al Kaline: "Our guys resented Kaline for turning down a $100,000 salary when (club president & GM) Jim Campbell offered to put him on par with the top players in the game. While the media played him up as a hero for being so modest, we all knew that it cost us serious dough."
Excuse me? For years, I applauded Kaline's decision to turn down that salary. Yes, he was modest in his reasoning, but something like that would be unheard of today. This is someone putting the team's needs before his own. And how could it cost the Tigers "serious dough"? Doesn't a lower contract value save the team dollars? Would fans have deserted Kaline because he didn't take the $100,000? This simply doesn't make sense - it made Kaline even more of a working man's hero.
On Mickey Lolich: "Overwhelmingly jealous. I was the last guy he wanted to see win 30 games."
Did Lolich ever say that? McLain thought that on his own and created his own inter-team rivalry. Lolich was a decent man and very popular; I can't imagine him complaining bitterly about McLain's role on the team.
McLain's career fizzled quickly after that magical 1968 season; it ended before the 1972 season began. Casual observers may wonder why Lolich gets more of the ink when it comes to remembering past Tigers of that '68 team, while McLain seems to fall into the pack.
The book will speak for itself on that reasoning -- no pun intended there, Denny.
Grudges that are not healed, or even addressed, always bubble to the surface. Denny McLain, the last pitcher to win 30 games in a season, has outdone and ostricized himself from the baseball community even more with the release of a new book, I Told You I Wasn't Perfect.
This appears to be one book that can be judged by title alone - never mind the rest of the cover. We know that McLain crashed hard in the 1980s, even overlooking his suspicious bookmaking activities of the late 1960s. He's been in the federal pen on two different occasions, but this time he is more stingy than ever. Why a printing company even took on such a ridiculous project is beyond me; I believe it wasted precious ink.
McLain still stands behind his statements & grudges, and continues to hide behind them, unwilling or afraid to face confrontation, restitution, and chances to bury the hatchet and forget the past. He is still very much living in the past, and to him, the past appears to have happened yesterday versus forty years ago.
On Al Kaline: "Our guys resented Kaline for turning down a $100,000 salary when (club president & GM) Jim Campbell offered to put him on par with the top players in the game. While the media played him up as a hero for being so modest, we all knew that it cost us serious dough."
Excuse me? For years, I applauded Kaline's decision to turn down that salary. Yes, he was modest in his reasoning, but something like that would be unheard of today. This is someone putting the team's needs before his own. And how could it cost the Tigers "serious dough"? Doesn't a lower contract value save the team dollars? Would fans have deserted Kaline because he didn't take the $100,000? This simply doesn't make sense - it made Kaline even more of a working man's hero.
On Mickey Lolich: "Overwhelmingly jealous. I was the last guy he wanted to see win 30 games."
Did Lolich ever say that? McLain thought that on his own and created his own inter-team rivalry. Lolich was a decent man and very popular; I can't imagine him complaining bitterly about McLain's role on the team.
McLain's career fizzled quickly after that magical 1968 season; it ended before the 1972 season began. Casual observers may wonder why Lolich gets more of the ink when it comes to remembering past Tigers of that '68 team, while McLain seems to fall into the pack.
The book will speak for itself on that reasoning -- no pun intended there, Denny.
01 March, 2007
Lost art of the steal
In standing the test of time, baseball has gone through many cycles independent of labor strife. Look at the power factor, for instance. At the turn of the century, ten and 12-homer totals would be enough to win you a crown. Babe Ruth then came in and changed all that with his magnificent swing.
Now think back to the 1960s, the "Decade Of The Pitcher". How many clubs actually had a composite team average of .250 or better? How close did the leagues come to not having a .300 hitter at all? How many ERAs were grossly below two?
Then comes 1987, the year of the "Rabbit Ball" that's still talked about today. Afterward, expansion and (yes) steroids boosted the power totals for a time. Now they seem to be levelling off, as 60 homers a season once again ranks as an accomplishment instead of something to yawn at.
What's been lost in all this is the stolen base. Really getting into the game in the mid and late-1980s, I expressed jealousy at the St. Louis Cardinals, who would swipe 300 bases a season as a team. How could you think of stopping Vince Coleman as he stole 100-110 bases on his own every year? Rickey Henderson and Lou Brock? Forget it, you may as well assume they'd score once they get on base, because they truly manufactured runs on their own.
Look at today. Even the once-speedy veterans hanging on today are nowhere near the top-ten basestealers of all time. Can Kenny Lofton, once a 70-steal absolute for the Indians, hold a candle to people like Tim Raines? Will Carl Crawford ever hit such a total for the Devil Rays, or will his power come into more prominence? It is likely that could happen, and his speed will be put aside for Earl Weaver's favorite strategy: the three-run homer.
I do not knock clubs' strategies. These days, you need instant rallies to attack otherwise effective pitching staffs. There's nothing more debilitating to a pitcher than having three earned runs come at him suddenly, signalling an early end to their day.
But whatever happened to the speedy leadoff man? To see Jason Kendall lead off for the A's is a case in point. Kendall has great speed for a catcher and will never be known for a power bat. But is this saying that the A's don't have another better speed weapon for the top of the order? Or are they putting those speedsters lower in the order because speed is not the manager's weapon of choice?
I applaud "small ball", and still think it could be as effective today as it was in Raines' era. For sure, it would befuddle pitchers and opposing managers.
Great clubs find ways to win that are multi-dimensional and have a huge bag of tricks they can pull out at any time. What did they do with the bag labeled "steals"?
Pardon the expression; but in game play, stealing is not a crime.
Now think back to the 1960s, the "Decade Of The Pitcher". How many clubs actually had a composite team average of .250 or better? How close did the leagues come to not having a .300 hitter at all? How many ERAs were grossly below two?
Then comes 1987, the year of the "Rabbit Ball" that's still talked about today. Afterward, expansion and (yes) steroids boosted the power totals for a time. Now they seem to be levelling off, as 60 homers a season once again ranks as an accomplishment instead of something to yawn at.
What's been lost in all this is the stolen base. Really getting into the game in the mid and late-1980s, I expressed jealousy at the St. Louis Cardinals, who would swipe 300 bases a season as a team. How could you think of stopping Vince Coleman as he stole 100-110 bases on his own every year? Rickey Henderson and Lou Brock? Forget it, you may as well assume they'd score once they get on base, because they truly manufactured runs on their own.
Look at today. Even the once-speedy veterans hanging on today are nowhere near the top-ten basestealers of all time. Can Kenny Lofton, once a 70-steal absolute for the Indians, hold a candle to people like Tim Raines? Will Carl Crawford ever hit such a total for the Devil Rays, or will his power come into more prominence? It is likely that could happen, and his speed will be put aside for Earl Weaver's favorite strategy: the three-run homer.
I do not knock clubs' strategies. These days, you need instant rallies to attack otherwise effective pitching staffs. There's nothing more debilitating to a pitcher than having three earned runs come at him suddenly, signalling an early end to their day.
But whatever happened to the speedy leadoff man? To see Jason Kendall lead off for the A's is a case in point. Kendall has great speed for a catcher and will never be known for a power bat. But is this saying that the A's don't have another better speed weapon for the top of the order? Or are they putting those speedsters lower in the order because speed is not the manager's weapon of choice?
I applaud "small ball", and still think it could be as effective today as it was in Raines' era. For sure, it would befuddle pitchers and opposing managers.
Great clubs find ways to win that are multi-dimensional and have a huge bag of tricks they can pull out at any time. What did they do with the bag labeled "steals"?
Pardon the expression; but in game play, stealing is not a crime.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)