Odd Thoughts

I Couldn't Take a Picture in Moving Traffic

Life throws some funny images in your way sometimes, and lately, what with the digital camera always at my side, I've been able to to photograph some of these images, such as the Two-Headed Swan and the Coon Hunters for Christ. My appraisal travels took me to Jonesboro yesterday, and I missed another similar opportunity because of moving traffic, but it was so good I'll see if I can reduce the value of the picture to something under 1,000 words. I saw an Astro Van with the windows all decorated with shoe pollish. Around here that's a fairly common way of bragging that your kid is on the All-Star team or a way of showing your school pride, and of course it's common for those who are "Just Married." The words on this van boasted "Just Divorced."

A Pitcher’s Dominance & the Hall of Fame

If you’ve been here much, you know that I love to consider the Hall of Fame. Several researchers over the years have come up with statistical calculations to determine the merits of one player over another and the likelihood that a player will be in the Hall. Such tests in include the Hall of Fame Monitor, the Hall of Fame Standards, the Gray Ink Test, the Black Ink Test, and the Player Similarity Scores. All of these tests can be found for any given player on that player’s baseballreference.com page. These tests can be very helpful, especially when used together, but none of them directly address the issue of dominance.

Ken Rosenthal of foxsports.com has a Hall of Fame vote and says his primary criterion is ten years dominance. Obviously, there’s room to debate the nature of dominance, but one thing is clear by that statement: the players must be considered within the era they played. A player that hit .280 with 35 home runs in 1985 doesn’t seem special today, but that was really something then. Those would have been “dominant” numbers, while today they’re just good numbers. So the idea behind the current research is, can we isolate a player’s dominance and confine those numbers to the specific era and years in which he played? I have attempted to do just that, and before I discuss the results, let me tell you a bit about the methods I’ve used.

First I started with DFB points. I use DFB points in a lot of my research, and I suppose at some point I ought to really lay out how I calculate them, but I don’t want to right now. Basically DFB points attribute an assigned value for certain statistical achievements, and attempts to do so in a balanced, accurate, and relevant way, and overall, I think they work fairly well without requiring a super computer like Win Shares. Anyway, the first thing I did was gather the top 100 pitchers, according to DFB points, from 1890 to the present. You might be wondering why I chose 1890. The basic reason is that going back that far allows the entire career of Cy Young to be included in the study. Certain Hall of Fame pitchers like Tim Keefe and Pud Galvin played before 1890, but Young is the standard bearer for in a lot of minds and the results of adding the careers of Keefe or Galvin will not really effect the results of the study.

After gathering the top 100 players from each season, I pared them down into smaller categories: A “Good Season” was defined as a pitcher that performed in the top 6-10% of the league for that given year. An “All-Star Season” is players that perform in the top 2.5-5% of the league, a “Premier Season” is players in the top 1-2.5%, and an “Elite Season” was 1% or better. I did not use a strict 10% for each year, as the exact number varies from one season to the next, so I generalized for multiple years, and made adjustments to the total numbers considered to represent 10% at specific points in the game’s history. From 1998-2005, I used the top 60 players as the base. From 1993-1997 I used 50. 1973-1992 was 40, 1961-1972 was 35. I took the top 30 from 1903 to 1960, and the top 20 for seasons before 1903.

Once I had the top 10% for each season, I broke the players down into their more precise percentages and awards points to each player based on which of the above categories they fit in for that year. A Good Season was awarded 1 point. An All-Star Season earned 4 points. A Premier Season earned 8 points, and an Elite Season was given 16 points. These point assignments were arbitrary, but the results seem to be reasonable, and they appear to accurately attribute value to the players depending on just how dominant a particular player was in a given year.

Before I share the meat of the findings, though, I need to do a little more explaining. Specifically regarding what this study does and does not do. This study does a very good job of confining the pitcher’s dominance to the era in which they played. When Ben Sheets was in the elite group in 2004, it had noting whatever to do with comparing his numbers to what it took for Bob Feller to be elite in the 1930’s. Furthermore, because the number of players taken expands over the years, it does a decent job of accounting for the historical trend of improved play. It may or may not do enough to account for this, but it does something to account for it.

This study does not, however, answer the question of the greatest of all time. Most of the usual suspects still appear at the top of this list, but when this list puts Warren Spahn at #1, it just means that he performs very well on this test, but there are still plenty of others factors that go beyond the scope of this study. Secondly, I used a hard and fast line when awarding points and that is not always fair from one year to the next. In the 60’s, when the top 4 pitchers were considered to be elite, Sandy Koufax was often #1, and really much better than the guy that was #4, yet this test awards them both 16 points. And on top of that, the guy that was #5 that year might have missed being #4 by only 2 DFB points, and yet he was awarded only 8 points instead of 16. These lines and cutoff points are typical for tests of this nature and are present in every single test that I mentioned at the beginning of this explanation. That’s why it’s good to have several tests to measure by.

I’ve said this in other articles, but it always bears repeating: Stats don’t mean everything. When we ask the question, “Who is the greatest pitcher of all-time?” the stats are a tool that helps to answer a few of the questions so that we can then focus on the other questions (I stole that from Bill James, at least conceptually). But we also have to agree on how to interpret those stats and use them best. These new methods of reviewing the stats are simply an attempt to simplify the data. I hope that the following research does these things and that we know a little more at the end of it.

On to the List

From 1890 to the present, I found 1,141 different pitchers that performed in the top 10% of their league at least once. Obviously, I can’t put the whole list on here, so I’ll simply give you the top 50 or so and highlight other players of note, making some comments along the way, and then point out some interesting facts about the results of the study. Active players are in bold. If you want to receive the entire list, I would be happy to send you a copy in a Microsoft Excel file.

	Player	Elite	Premier	All-Star	Good	TA	TRNK	E+P	HOF?
1	W Spahn	10	7	0	0	17	216	17	HOF
2	W Johnson	11	1	4	2	18	202	12	HOF
3	G Maddux	10	3	4	1	18	201	13
4	R Clemens	9	5	2	3	19	195	14
5	R Johnson	10	1	0	2	13	170	11
6	G Alexander	7	3	2	4	16	148	10	HOF
7	L Grove	5	7	1	1	14	141	12	HOF
8	C Mathewson	5	7	1	0	13	140	12	HOF
9	R Roberts	7	1	2	4	14	132	8	HOF
10	G Perry	5	4	4	2	15	130	9	HOF

I imagine most of you find the top ten to be pretty typical stuff. Warren Spahn and Robin Roberts are both probably higher on the list than most would suspect, but can you name many other significant pitchers in the 40’s and early 50’s? Having looked at those years it just appears that those two guys were the cream of the crop with very little competition. You might also be surprised to see Greg Maddux ahead of Roger Clemens, but again, I wouldn’t put a tremendous degree of weight on the difference between being #3 and #4.

	Player	Elite	Premier	All-Star	Good	TA	TRNK	E+P	HOF?
11	S Carlton	6	1	4	7	18	127	7	HOF
12	P Martinez	6	2	3	0	11	124	8
13	B Blyleven	3	6	6	1	16	121	9
14	K Nichols	5	4	1	2	12	118	9	HOF
15	C Schilling	5	4	1	1	11	117	9
16	N Ryan	4	4	3	7	18	115	8	HOF
17	D Drysdale	5	3	2	2	12	114	8	HOF
18	J Bunning	6	1	2	2	11	114	7	HOF
19	C Hubbell	6	1	2	1	10	113	7	HOF
20	F Jenkins	5	2	3	3	13	111	7	HOF

Again, more typical stuff: All the players are either in the Hall of Fame or will be when their time comes, with one notable exception: Bert Blyleven. I believe, and I’m not alone, that Blyleven is currently the most dramatic oversight in Hall of Fame voting. 287 career wins, 5th on the all-time strikeout list (3rd when he retired); how is that not Hall of Fame worthy? Anyway, besides that, 11-20 probably does not surprise you.

	Player	Elite	Premier	All-Star	Good	TA	TRNK	E+P	HOF?
21	A Rusie	6	1	1	0	8	108	7	HOF
22	J Marichal	6	0	2	2	10	106	6	HOF
23	B Feller	5	2	2	1	10	105	7	HOF
24	T Seaver	2	6	5	4	17	104	8	HOF
25	K Brown*	5	2	1	2	10	102	7
26	C Young	4	4	1	1	10	101	8	HOF
27	M Mussina*	2	7	2	0	11	96	9
28	J Palmer	3	5	1	1	10	93	8	HOF
29	B Gibson	3	4	2	2	11	90	7	HOF
30	P Niekro	2	4	5	4	15	88	6	HOF

I guess there are two surprises here: 1) Kevin Brown and Mike Mussina rank that high? 2) Cy Young ranks so low? The data on Brown and Mussina speaks for itself: they’ve both pitched a long time, and while they’ve been good, they haven’t been Maddux, Clemens and Randy Johnson. Right now Brown and Mussina are viewed as either washed up or probably washed up pitchers that had decent careers but really aren’t that special. Lucky for them, there will be five years between the time they retire and the time they go on the Hall of Fame ballot. That five years will give us all some perspective. As for the other surprise, Cy Young is different animal. If you haven’t ever given his numbers a good look, when you do, your jaw will hit the floor. Pitchers just are not used that way anymore, but if you look at the other pitchers from Young’s era, you’ll notice that 40 wins and 450 innings is just not that uncommon. Young had his peers beat on longevity, but he really wasn’t the very best pitcher for a long time, and most of the experts agree that Cy Young is really not in the discussion of the greatest pitcher of all-time.

	Player	Elite	Premier	All-Star	Good	TA	TRNK	E+P	HOF?
31	D Vance	5	0	1	2	8	86	5	HOF
32	E Walsh	5	0	1	1	7	85	5	HOF
33	J Morris	3	2	4	4	13	84	5
34	H Newhouser	4	2	0	1	7	81	6	HOF
35	D Cone	2	4	3	2	11	78	6
36	F Valenzuela	4	1	1	1	7	77	5
37	D Dean	4	1	1	0	6	76	5	HOF
38	T Glavine	2	1	8	3	14	75	3
39	S Koufax	4	1	0	1	6	73	5	HOF
40	B Lemon	2	4	2	1	9	73	6

Now we’re into the border line. Five of the ten are in, one is active, one is yet to reach the ballot (Dave Cone), one is still on the ballot (Jack Morris), and two are off the ballot. We all know that Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean were really great, and by great I mean absolutely fabulous, pitchers that just didn’t last long. I never in my life would have thought Fernando Valenzuela would be so comparable to those guys, but there it is – almost identical from a dominance standpoint. Did the voters make a mistake? I don’t know. Koufax and Dean are legends, and I was too young to pay attention to Fernando when he was at his best.

	Player	Elite	Premier	All-Star	Good	TA	TRNK	E+P	HOF?
41	L Gomez	3	2	1	2	8	70	5	HOF
42	P Derringer	2	3	2	5	12	69	5
43	E Wynn	1	4	4	4	13	68	5	HOF
44	B Pierce	2	3	2	3	10	67	5
45	W Cooper	2	3	2	3	10	67	5
46	J McDowell	3	2	0	2	7	66	5
47	J Smoltz	1	4	3	5	13	65	5
48	H Vaughn	2	3	2	1	8	65	5
49	B Grimes	1	5	1	3	10	63	6	HOF
50	C Hunter	2	2	3	3	10	63	4	HOF

Fairly similar to the previous ten. I guess I’m a bit surprised to see Jack McDowell up so high. John Smoltz would have been a borderline Hall of Famer, but I think his starting pitcher record combined with three and a half years as a premier closer makes him a lock.

Other Hall of Famers

	Player	Elite	Premier	All-Star	Good	TA	TRNK	E+P
57	E Plank	1	3	5	2	11	62	4
58	V Willis	2	1	5	2	10	62	3
60	J McGinnity	3	1	1	1	6	61	4
62	W Ford	2	1	4	4	11	60	3
63	S Coveleski	1	4	2	3	10	59	5
65	D Newcombe	2	3	0	2	7	58	5
68	R Waddell	2	2	2	1	7	57	4
71	D Sutton	0	1	10	8	19	56	1
79	R Faber	2	2	0	4	8	52	4
91	E Rixey	0	4	3	3	10	47	4
92	R Ruffing	0	3	4	7	14	47	3
94	C Griffith	1	3	1	2	7	46	4
95	M Brown	1	3	1	2	7	46	4
102	A Joss	2	0	3	1	6	45	2
110	T Lyons	1	2	1	7	11	43	3
132	H Pennock	1	2	0	4	7	36	3
142	J Chesbro	1	0	4	2	7	34	1
179	R Marquard	0	2	2	3	7	27	2
189	W Hoyt	0	1	3	5	9	25	1
218	D Eckersley	0	2	1	3	6	23	2
249	J Haines	1	0	0	4	5	20	1
266	C Bender	0	1	2	2	5	18	1

These are the other Hall of Famers and their places on the list. It should be noted that Dennis Eckersley performs poorly and Hoyt Wilhelm and Rollie Fingers do not even appear on the list. This is basically because relief pitchers just don’t do as well in DFB points as the starting pitchers, and there’s nothing we can do about it now. Eckersley’s numbers on this list are predominantly from his days as a starter. Otherwise, I can come up with some reasonable explanations for other guys on this list, but not all of them. For instance, Don Newcombe spent some time in the Negro Leagues, Don Sutton, despite a lack of great dominance, still manage 300+ wins, and Clark Griffith was just as significant as a baseball executive. But I don’t have any suggestions for you on Jesse Haines or Chief Bender.

Other Notable Active Pitchers

	Player	Elite	Premier	All-Star	Good	TA	TRNK	E+P
66	D Gooden	2	3	0	2	7	58	5
77	O Hershiser	2	2	0	5	9	53	4
83	C Finley*	1	1	6	2	10	50	2
86	R Oswalt	3	0	0	1	4	49	3
97	A Pettitte	1	2	3	2	8	46	3
99	J Vazquez	2	1	1	2	6	46	3
103	B Colon	0	4	3	1	8	45	4
116	D Wells	0	3	3	5	11	41	3
119	H Nomo*	1	2	1	4	8	40	3
125	T Hudson	1	2	1	2	6	38	3
127	J Moyer	0	4	1	1	6	37	4
137	K Appier*	1	0	3	8	12	36	1
140	J Schmidt	2	0	0	3	5	35	2
146	F Garcia	1	0	4	2	7	34	1
150	B Zito	1	1	2	1	5	33	2
154	J Santana	2	0	0	1	3	33	2
155	L Hernandez	0	3	1	4	8	32	3
156	M Buehrle	0	3	2	0	5	32	3
158	B Radke	0	2	3	4	9	32	2
159	R Halladay*	2	0	0	0	2	32	2
165	A Leiter*	0	2	3	2	7	30	2
183	K Millwood	1	0	2	3	6	27	1
191	K Rogers	0	2	1	5	8	25	2
194	J Lieber	0	2	2	1	5	25	2
202	M Hampton*	1	0	2	1	4	25	1
209	D Neagle*	0	2	2	0	4	24	2
211	J Lima*	1	1	0	0	2	24	2
223	C Park*	0	2	1	2	5	22	2
236	E Loaiza	1	0	1	2	4	22	1
247	B Sheets	1	0	1	1	3	21	1
248	C Carpenter	1	0	1	1	3	21	1
250	C Zambrano	0	2	1	0	3	20	2
254	M Mulder	0	1	3	0	4	20	1
261	M Morris	0	1	2	3	6	19	1
282	D Willis	1	0	0	2	3	18	1
299	A Sele*	0	0	4	1	5	17	0

I included a few players that are no longer active, but have also not yet been on the Hall of Fame Ballot. You can see from this list that having just one elite season can really put you on the map. And in case you were wondering, Babe Ruth is #301. Eddie Cicotte is #95. Cicotte was still pitching effectively when he was banned in 1920 as a part of the Black Sox scandal.

And Now for Some Handy Observations

Hall of Famers

From 1890 to the present, there have been 25 pitchers that have had 5 or more Elite Seasons. Six of them are active, the other nineteen are in the Hall of Fame. The Active players are Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, and Brown. Of the pitchers with 4 dominant seasons, all of them are in the Hall except Valenzuela. That makes 83% of pitchers with 4 elite seasons Hall of Famers.

If you measure it by adding the number of Elite and Premier Seasons together, you’ll find that there are 34 pitchers with 6 or more seasons of that caliber. Eight of them are not yet eligible, two are not in the Hall, and 24 are – 92%.

Only one pitcher is in the Hall of Fame despite never having an elite season: Don Sutton, who still managed 300 wins. He is one out of 861 eligible players. Sutton is, however, tied with Roger Clemens for the most appearances on the list (19).

The number of total appearances on the list is a bit less conclusive as measure from just the Elite Seasons, but 13 total appearances seems to make a pitcher pretty close to a lock. There are 22 pitchers with 13 appearances. 5 of those are active, and 15 of the remaining 17 are in the Hall. The two that are not in are still on the ballot: Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris.

Of the legitimate Hall of Famers, Koufax, Dean, Joe McGinnity, and Addie Joss have the fewest appearances with only 6.

As for total points, 80 looks to be the magic number. There are 34 players with 80 or more, 7 are active, and 25 of the remaining 27 are already in the Hall. The other two? Blyleven and Morris.

Of players with 50-80 points, 7 are either active, on the ballot, or not yet on the ballot, and 15 are in the hall of fame, or about 40%.

The Average Hall of Famer has about 10.5 total appearances and 82 points.

One-Hit Wonders & Odd Combinations

377 pitchers appear on the list only once. Of those, 300 had Good Seasons (79.6%), 62 had All-Star Seasons (16.4%), 13 had Premier Seasons (3.5%), and only 2 had Elite Seasons (0.53%).

This should come as no surprise, but the all the pitchers with the most Elite Seasons are in the top 10.

Every pitcher with 5 or more Premier Seasons has at least 1 Elite Season. Spahn, Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, and Mussina have the most Premier Seasons with 7 each. Six pitchers have had 4 Premier Seasons without ever having an Elite Season: Eppa Rixey, Bartolo Colon, Nap Rucker, Jamie Moyer, Ted Breitenstein, and Camilo Pascual.

Don Sutton had 10 All-Star Seasons without ever being Elite. Dennis Martinez and Jack W. Taylor did the same thing 7 times. Rick Reuschel, Aaron Sele, and Bob Knepper each had 4 All-Star Seasons and were never better than that.

Sutton, Kevin Appier, and Larry Jackson had 8 Good Seasons. Sutton and Jackson did it without ever being Elite. Jack Quinn had 7 good seasons and was never better that that. Bill Doak and Red Donahue did the same thing 6 times.

187 different players have had an Elite Season. These players average 7.4 total appearances on the list. 136 of these players did not manage to get to the Hall of Fame average of 10 total appearances (73%).

I’m sure I could come up with other relevant, or at least interesting, facts from the list, but I think I’m on the verge of exhuming the corpse of a dead horse that had already been beaten.

Ava Clementine

I'm sure most of you have heard, but in case you haven't or you just want to see a picture, Ava Clementine Booth arrived at 12:20 PM on Monday, December 19th. She weighed 7 lbs. 6 oz. and measured 20 inches. Everybody is home now and doing just fine. Ava is accompanied by Sophie in the first picture and her two happy grandmothers in the the next pictures.

Fixing the Mariners, Johnny Damon

Oddly enough, the whole Johnny Damon situation does have some effect on the Mariners. For a few weeks now, the M's have reportedly been in talks with the Red Sox about a Jeremy Reed for Matt Clement or Bronson Arroyo trade. If the M's were to make this trade, it would create a hole in the outfield, but the non-tender list includes the likes of Eric Byrnes - formerly of the A's, Rockies, and Orioles. Byrnes didn't have his best year in 2005, but getting traded twice - ultimately to the wasteland of motivation and morale in Baltimore - probably didn't help. But take a look at 2004: Byrnes hit .283 with 20 homers and 17 steals, and he plays plus defense in centerfield. I think he'd be an adequate replacement, should we loose Reed for a pitcher.

But what if we keep Reed and still want to add another pitcher. Obviously, Kevin Millwood is out of the question, and Jeff Weaver is probably too expensive at this point too. Where to look? Go back to the non-tender list. Names like Josh Fogg, Wade Miller, Victor Santos, and Joe Mays are all there - in addition to existing free agents Pedro Astacio and Jason Johnson. Certainly none of these guys will make big headlines, and any one of them could be a total bust, but each one of them could also find themselves in a situation to win 15 or 16 games, and do so without breaking the bank.

Now, Johnny Damon. I'm neither a Yankee fan, nor a Red Sox fan, but I just have to weigh in on this one. For the Yankees, this could be the single best player acquisition they've made in the last 10 years. I could detail my thoughts on the additions of A-Rod or Randy Johnson, but I'll leave that for later and just tell you that everything about the Damon signing is perfect.

1) The Yankees needed a centerfielder. Red Sox nation is trying their best to say that Damon really isn't that good, including but not limited to defense, and particularly, they pick on Damon's reportedly below average arm. But really, the Yankees haven't had a good arm in centerfield in a long, long time - certainly not in from 1995 to the present. Obviously Damon is better than Bernie Williams now, but I would guess that Damon plays better defense than Williams ever played. Furthermore, Yankee Stadium is an easier centerfield to play. Damon is not Torii Hunter or Andruw Jones, but if the only question is whether or not the Yankees made a significant improvement in their centerfield defense, the answer is a resounding yes. Whatever he brings to the plate, which is considerable, is gravy. The defense was the issue, and the Yanks did what they needed to do in that regard.

2) The price was right. $52 million over four years is perfectly reasonable in the current market. That's $13 million a season. Five years ago he would have gotten $18 million a year, and probably that over at least six years. I think you could argue that the price might even be a little low. Rafael Furcal got $13 million a season (only for 3 years). The Red Sox offer of $40 million for four years is absolutely laughable. How is it that the Sox can make an offer that is well below market value and then be indignant when it's not taken? And the typical Yankees as the Evil Empire argument just doesn't work this time. In years past, when the Boss wanted somebody, he sent his Italian manager out to make them offer they couldn't refuse by making the dollars offered so high nobody could compete. But not this time. The Yankees paid a fair price, for a premier free agent, at a position they needed. And it was a huge victory for baseball in general, which leads to the next point . . .

3)Brain Cashman 1, Scott Boras 0 Boras has become the most powerful, and evil, sports agent of the era. Some teams will not even consider talking to a player if he's represented by Boras. He does all he can to create a media frenzy around his clients, he plays teams off one another, he grievously takes statistical evidence out of context, and places makes statements about his player's level of value that the average person could hardly make while keeping a straight face. And somehow, it usually works, but not this time. Boras was sure his client deserved a 7-year deal. To those that suggested a 7-year deal was too long, Boras mocked that the poor fools must be looking at age chronologically,; what fools! Nevertheless, the Yankees said we're only interested in a 4-year deal, and then called Boras to say that they had to know by that night, and Boras blinked. Hopefully the rest of the league will take note.

4)The move absolutely kills the Red Sox. Not only are the Yankees better, but the Red Sox are worse. In their quest for another division title, the Yankees functionally added two studs to the team by adding one guy to their own roster, and taking him from their chief rival. Boston's front office brass insists they'll spend the money offered to Damon to repair the holes on the team, but how? All the free agents are gone. Well not all of them - if you're a Boston fan, would the signing of Preston Wilson and Alex Gonzalez make you feel better? They could have traded Bronson Arroyo or Matt Clement for Coco Crisp or Jeremy Reed, but guess what - the price just went up. The Twins aren't going to trade Torii Hunter for cash. Maybe cash and Andy Marte, but if they trade Marte, then all they got for Edgar Renteria is a $4 million bill for the each of the next three years. Things could be very bad in Boston this year. I would be absolutely dumbfounded if they can make any kind of move that would lead people to believe that they are contenders for even a wild card spot in 2006. And really, would Boston finishing in last place be such a far-fetched idea? Imagine this: Schilling and Beckett can't pitch more than 15 games apiece this year, David Wells is gone, Clement or Arroyo is gone, and Tim Wakefield is your best starting pitcher. Jon Paplebon and Kevin Youkilis just can't handle the pressure, Mark Loretta can't come back from his injury, and Mike Lowell and Keith Foulke are just through. Manny becomes even more disgruntled, but the Sox can survive all this, right? They've got David Ortiz and Jason Varitek. If half of the above happens, Ortiz will leave as a free agent at the end of the year, and Varitek will demand a trade. Maybe Theo Epstein knew more than he let on when he walked away from the Boston front office.

Marlins and White Sox and Astros, Oh My!

I have a new idea for the Marlins that could possibly stave off relocation. Just have them switch leagues with the Devil Rays. The Devil Rays would get out of the death trap in the AL East, and they would have much better shot of taking the field in the NL East sometime in the next five years. The Marlins, on the other hand, would have an increase in local interest and revenue by having the Red Sox and Yankees come into town 20 times a year. It might even generate enough interest for the people of Miami to pony up with a stadium deal. But maybe it wouldn't and the Marlins would be out the door, but where too? Las Vegas? San Antonio? Portland? All three are possibilities. So if they go to one of those towns, could you still leave them in the NL East, and if they left the NL East, what other NL division could you put them in without radically realigning the whole league? But if they were in the American League and they moved west, you just stick them in the AL West, and let that division have five teams, and keep it at just four teams in the AL East. What's wrong with this idea?

The White Sox just absolutely stole Javier Vazquez. They gave up Orlando Hernandez, Luis Vizcaino, and an outfield prospect named Chris Young. I'm sure the prospect was the blue-chipper in the trade, but the fact is, the White Sox made what was already the best starting rotation in baseball even better. They now have five guys with almost no injury histories, a minimum of four years of major league experience, and all in the middle of their primes. If this group fails to log 1,000 innings pitched I'll be very surprised. I know the Twins and Indians intend to be much better in 2006, but it looks to me like they'll be vying for the wild card because the Sox will repeat as AL Central Champions.

Meanwhile the Astros are doing nothing, unless you consider talking to Rondell White something. I could go on about the Astros, but I cannot understand why the Astros are not making big moves to improve themselves this winter. Their 2005 payroll was already presumably $15 million below expectations as a result of missing out on Carlos Beltran, and now, the budget will be lighter by another $18 million without Roger Clemens. The Cardinals should still win this division, but I think they're coming back to earth and could be beaten by the Astros, if the Astros wanted to make it happen. I know the Astros Like Chris Burke and Jason Lane and Willy Tavares, and their all good players, but none of them are going to become great stars. I can understand why they didn't pursue Paul Konerko, but there's no reason they shouldn't have pursued Rafael Furcal. There's no reason for them to not be calling Johnny Damon, and they ought to be on the horn right now trying to land Miguel Tejada. If they were to make one of those moves, then signing Rondell White would be a nice compliment, but right now, it looks like the Astros are content to win 89 games a year, which may or may not (probably not) get them back to the playoffs

A Few Thoughts on MLB's Hot Stove

The trade of catcher Paul Lo Duca to the Mets has really changed the face of the current market behind the plate. Bengie Molina and Ramon Hernandez are still the premier free agent catchers, but the two teams that appeared willing to spend money on catchers have addressed their needs with the Mariners going the route of the import in Kenji Johjima and the Mets trading for Lo Duca, it appears that Molina and Hernandez have been hung out to dry. Maybe now Brad Ausmus will get his wish and go to his hometown San Diego, Hernandez signs with the Astros, and Molina just gets stuck – maybe Toronto?

Meanwhile, the relief pitching market is out of control. After one year as an above average closer, B.J. Ryan signed the five-year deal with the Blue Jays. Deacon made the interesting point that this is the first 5+ year deal for any pitcher since the Rangers signed Chan Ho Park – not a good omen. The odd thing about it is, the Ryan deal is probably not the worst relief signing we’ve seen this off-season. That honor goes to the Phillies’ signing of Tom Gordon. Not only have they signed a 38-year-old to a 3-year deal, they’ve signed a fly-ball pitcher to close in a hitter friendly park. Prediction? Gordon will save 35 games or so, but it will be far from pretty. But all things considered, if I were a member of the Trevor Hoffman family, I’d be shopping for a new car.

Going back to Lo Duca, the Marlins “market correction” has been a lot of fun for the hot stove league. It’s been so fun I think Bud Selig should require it. Every year, one of the top 16 teams, less the playoff teams, that is, the 8 best non-playoff teams should be required to have a fire sale. It would just keep it interesting.

Did Rafael Furcal make a mistake? Maybe. He probably made a mistake signing with the Dodgers at all, but did he make a mistake by taking a more lucrative 3-year deal over a 5-year deal? It is definitely a gamble, but consider that when he’s done with the Dodgers he’ll be only 31, which according to Scott Boras, is still a perfectly reasonable age for a player to land a 7-year deal. More on Boras in a minute. The bottom line on Furcal is, he will still be extremely marketable and likely to land another high-dollar, multi-year contract even when his days in LA are over.

Now back to Boras. The wonder-agent, Scott Boras, has suggested that Johnny Damon deserves a 7-year pact. Now, you might think that guaranteeing 7 years to a 32-year-old (meaning he’ll be 39 at the end of the deal) would be ridiculous, but you would be wrong. You’re obviously thinking of age chronologically. Silly you. Anyway, I have not had the opportunity to do a thorough historical search on players like Damon, but recent history does provide at least one good example of why signing a player of Damon’s type to such a long contract would be a bad idea. Damon had a pretty good season in 2005, at the age of 31, but consider Craig Biggio at the same age. I would argue that Biggio was actually better. Here is a comparison of their seasons at the age of 31:

Career Totals Through 2005
	AB	R	H	HR	RBI	SB	BB	BA	OPS
Johnny Damon	624	117	197	10	75	18	53	.316	.805
Craig Biggio	619	146	191	22	81	47	84	.309	.916

 

Not convinced the Biggio was a better player? Check out Biggio in his next year, at age 32:

Career Totals Through 2005
	AB	R	H	HR	RBI	SB	BB	BA	OPS
Craig Biggio	646	123	210	20	88	50	64	.325	.906

 

Now, here’s the point: Biggio, while still a valuable player his been in significant decline ever since he was 32-years old. You could counter by saying that Bonds and Sheffield and other have had tremendous success after the age of 35, but none of those guys are the same type of player as Damon, and those guys are abnormal even for their own player-type. Now, what happened to Biggio? Nothing really – he just got older, and experienced the things that go with it, most particularly, he lost his speed. The lost speed hasn’t just effected his stolen base total either. It reduces his number of hits because he used to get some bunt hits and hustle-singles, and it’s hurt his bat speed too. So when you take the speed away, what’s left? Here’s Biggio at ages 36-39:

Career Totals Through 2005
	AB	R	H	HR	RBI	SB	BB	BA	OPS
Craig Biggio, 36	577	96	146	15	58	16	50	..253	.734
Craig Biggio, 37	628	102	266	15	62	8	57	.264	.762
Craig Biggio, 38	633	100	278	24	63	7	40	.281	.806
Craig Biggio, 39	590	94	156	26	69	11	37	.264	.793

 

Those numbers are still valuable in the right context, but they’re a far cry to the kind of numbers he used to produce. If you are a Red Sox fan, doe you want your team on the hook for 10+ million per season for those for years? I don’t think so. Boras argues that Damon was a key reason the Red Sox won in 2004 and that he can be a key part of further success in Boston. Those things are true. Certainly if the Sox want to have their best chance to contend in 2006 or 2007, having Johnny Damon would be a big step in the right direction, but the Red Sox want to contend in 2010 and beyond, and paying superstar money for role player numbers is probably not the best way to make sure that happens.