ESPN MLB

One of the most important things Bill James learned when he wrote his "Baseball Abstract" books back in the 1980s was that the aging curve for ballplayers was much different than commonly believed. A player’s peak didn’t run from 28 to 32, but more like 25 to 29, with 27 being the most typical peak season for ballplayers.

This doesn’t mean old teams can’t win. In fact, many of the best teams feature old lineups for fairly obvious reasons if you think about it: Old players are still around (for the most part) because they were good or great young players. Like a pitcher who throws in the upper 90s before losing velocity, great young players can lose a little value and still maintain success. The 2009 Yankees had five regulars who were at least 33 years old -- Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui and Jorge Posada -- and while none were at their peak level of ability they were still good enough to help that team win 103 games and the World Series.

But there's a fine line in the aging process. It's one thing to have A-Rod or Albert Pujols in their mid-30s; but what if your old players are, say, Marco Scutaro, Casey Blake and Michael Cuddyer?

Before we get to the Colorado Rockies, let's do a quick study. I looked at all playoff teams over the past five seasons to see how many plate appearances they received from players 32 or older (not including pitchers). By the way, when we refer to a player's age, it's his age as of June 30 of that season.

For those 40 playoff teams, the average number of plate appearances was 1,711. Here are the 10 oldest playoff teams by this method (remember, we're only looking at position players):

Some of these teams are warning signs about what can go wrong with an old team: the 2008 Cubs and White Sox haven't sniffed the playoffs since; the Giants brought back many of their veterans from their World Series champs and paid the price as Aubrey Huff, Andres Torres and Freddy Sanchez (plus new addition Miguel Tejada) all failed to replicate their performances; the 2009 Red Sox made the playoffs but fell off in 2010 as the lineup scored 54 fewer runs (the pitching allowed only eight more runs); the Angels scored 872 runs in 2009 but were down to 667 by 2011, in part because of the declines of Torii Hunter and Bobby Abreu and the addition of ineffective 32-year-old Vernon Wells.

Even the 2011 Phillies are an interesting example. The Phillies have won the past five NL East titles. Interestingly, that first team in their run in 2007 had the fewest plate appearances from players 32 or older of the 40 playoff teams:

That 2007 team scored 892 runs. As the Phillies stuck with that core group and the players started getting into their 30s, guess what happened -- their runs scored have dropped to 820 in 2009 to 772 in 2010 and to 713 in 2011. Of course, the Phillies have been able to balance that out by bringing in pitchers like Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee and Roy Oswalt. You can also now add Ryan Howard to the age-32 classification for 2012 and we already know he's going to miss a significant chunk of time. Will the Phillies score even 700 runs this season?

And that gets us back to the Rockies. In addition to the 38-year-old Todd Helton, they've added 38-year-old third baseman Blake, 36-year-old catcher Ramon Hernandez, 36-year-old second baseman Scutaro and 33-year-old outfielder Cuddyer. All of those guys have been good players, even as recently as last season. And while Helton was once a superstar, his back problems have helped limit him to an average of 11 home runs over the past four seasons. So my point: This group isn't exactly starting out from the same aging curve as Rodriguez and Jeter or Chase Utley and Jimmy Rollins or even Hunter or Bobby Abreu.

It's a potential recipe for disaster. The Rockies are expecting close to 3,000 plate appearances from those five guys. Maybe it will happen, but I don't see. There's no precedent over the past five seasons for a lineup with that construction making the playoffs.

And the Rockies don't have three guys named Halladay, Lee and Hamels in the rotation.

As we learned in 2011, baseball teams can survive the loss of even a superstar player. When Cardinals ace Adam Wainwright, who had finished second and third in the Cy Young voting the previous two seasons, went down in spring training with season-ending Tommy John surgery, many wrote off the Cardinals. "Wainwright injury deals crippling blow to Cardinals' chances," blared the headline of one major online publication.

We all know what happened.

That said, some players would seem to be more vital than others. I asked the question, "Who is the most important player in 2012?" on Twitter on Tuesday and received a wide range of answers. I'll list my top five followed by some reader responses. My one rule: I think the team involved has to be a legit contender. Joe Mauer and Felix Hernandez are obviously important to their teams, but the Twins and Mariners are unlikely contenders even if those guys deliver monster seasons.

1. Josh Johnson, Miami Marlins

The Marlins are probably borderline contenders even if everything breaks well -- I projected them to win 86 games -- making it imperative Johnson stays healthy after making just nine starts in 2011. The 2010 NL ERA leader, Johnson's health is even more vital since the Marlins would appear to lack rotation depth past their top five.

2. Joey Votto, Cincinnati Reds

The Reds lineup will feature two rookies, inconsistent Drew Stubbs, injury-prone Scott Rolen and mediocre production at best from left field, making it imperative the 2010 NL MVP stay on the field. He did that last year, missing just one game.

3. Josh Beckett, Boston Red Sox

The Red Sox could survive the loss of one of their big hitters, but if Beckett struggles like he did in 2010 (21 starts, 5.78 ERA), the rotation will likely be exposed.

4. Troy Tulowitzki, Colorado Rockies

Considering his position and skill-set, perhaps the most irreplaceable player in baseball today.

5. Roy Halladay, Philadelphia Phillies

As the Phillies continue to get older and score fewer runs, the pressure on the Big Three increases. You don't replace the best pitcher in the game.

From the readers:

Jordan Walden. The angels have the rotation, but will walden be able to close games, because no one behind him looks promising -- @matte1727

Josh Beckett decides whether Boston is title contender or third place in East. --@TheFanManifesto

Jason Heyward. --@jasonwright

Kendrys Morales! If he comes back & b the hitter he was be4 the ankle injury then #Angels offense will b balance & powerful. --@LAngelsteelers

Ryan Braun! He will be mentally and emotionally tested in every ballpark that he plays in --@jcbritt13

I gotta say Verlander ( and I hate Detroit) that team is in big trouble without him --@Poptart_Larson

'most important' an interesting concept. Wright perhaps. Other teams may cope without their superstar(s), but The Mets... --@samjturner

Michael Pineda. A whole lot of organizational strategy, let alone a post season berth, hinges on his success --@MagicRatSF

Has to be Josh Johnson...so many expectations, but without a big JJ year, team could finish 4th --@m_techner

thinking Fielder...epic fail for Tigers if they don't make playoffs --@ChadMacNeil

@2Charms

@dschoenfield gosh, so many. Darvish needs to work for TEX, Pujols for LAA, Lawrie & Bautista for TOR, Fielder for DET, Adrian for BOS, etc

Evan Longoria plays like a top 10 fantasy player and I can see the Rays winning the division. --@KCs_Corner

daniel bard. red sox need him to be a decent 4th starter/3rd if bucholtz cant go all year. --@Conley76

Troy Tulowitzki. Five tool player at the most premium of positions. --@FSportsSchiel

Johan Santana. With him back to form, Mets could be alright. If not, they will probably be a joke. --@Doug_Gausepohl

Wainwright's return to form (or not) will go long way in deciding tight NLC --@rausdenmoore

Buster posey --@nimyaj

Among the topics in Tuesday's awesome chat: the Chris Carpenter situation in St. Louis, bold predictions from readers, the most vital player in baseball, should the Tigers play Miguel Cabrera at third, the Oakland A's and giving up, Brett Lawrie, Andre Ethier and James Loney and much, much more!

Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane has retooled yet again as he waits to see if the A's ever get a new ballpark that will allow him to expand to a two-shoestring budget. What is the upside for Oakland's current collection of ballplayers? Well, with Keith Law filing a report on Yoenis Cespedes, let's pull some numbers out of Mount Everest air and see if the A's could be contenders in a couple years when the club matures.

Catcher: Derek Norris (3.5 WAR)

After hitting .235 at high-A in 2010 and then .210 at Double-A, some of the luster has been lost on Norris' prospect shine. Still, he projects as a power/OBP guy with OK defense thanks to his ability to draw walks -- similar to what Carlos Santana did in 2011 (.239/.351/.457).

First base: Chris Carter (2.5 WAR)

Like Norris, the power is real, but the ability to make enough contact remains an issue. I suppose A's fans can dream of a Carlos Pena comparison, minus the defense. (Pena was about 2.7 WAR in 2011.)

Second base: Jemile Weeks (4.0 WAR)

He produced 2.0 FanGraphs WAR in 97 games a year ago. His lack of power will prevent seasons in the Robinson Cano/Dustin Pedroia class, but he should be a good player with near-All-Star potential.

Third base: B.A. Vollmuth (2.5 WAR)

The team's third-round pick in 2011 out of Southern Miss, Vollmuth is the best third-base prospect in the system. Power potential is his biggest asset.

Shortstop: Cliff Pennington (4.0 WAR)

The A's lack a top shortstop prospect in the system (Grant Green, the team's 2009 first-round pick doesn't have the glove to stick at short and hasn't hit as projected anyway). Pennington had a 4.0 FanGraphs WAR in 2010, thanks to a good defensive rating. That's probably rose-colored view, but we'll give it to him.

Left field: Josh Reddick (3.5 WAR)

The ability is there but plate discipline may undermine his star ability. He did produce 1.9 WAR in a part-time role with the Red Sox in 2011.

Center field: Michael Choice (4.5 WAR)

After swatting 30 home runs in 118 games in Class A, Choice became the club's top position prospect. The 134 strikeouts were a huge issue and not everyone thinks he'll stick in center. But the power and walks at a premium position give him All-Star potential.

Right field: Yoenis Cespedes (5.0 WAR)

If everything comes together ...

Designated hitter: Michael Taylor (2.0)

You can slot Taylor or Brandon Allen or Collin Cowgill or Seth Smith here, but all have limited upside.

Pitcher: Jarrod Parker (5.0 WAR)
Pitcher: Sonny Gray (4.5 WAR)
Pitcher: Brandon McCarthy (4.5 WAR)
Pitcher: Brett Anderson (4.0 WAR)
Pitcher: Brad Peacock (3.5 WAR)

We're not willing to project Parker has a six-WAR pitcher -- in 2011, FanGraphs graded only six starters at that level and Baseball-Reference.com graded eight. Gray, the team's 2011 first-rounder out of Vanderbilt, should move quickly and could be in the rotation by season's end. Anderson needs to get healthy and McCarthy needs to stay healthy. Some believe Peacock will eventually end up as a reliever, but the A's have other starting options such as Dallas Braden or Tyson Ross.

Reliever: Tyson Ross (1.5 WAR)
Reliever: Ryan Cook (1.0 WAR)
Reliever: Fautino De Los Santos (0.5 WAR)
Reliever: Andrew Carignan (0.5 WAR)
Reliever: Tom Milone (0.5 WAR)

Your guess is as good as mine with these guys. Ross should be a solid reliever if he doesn't end up in the rotation, and Cook has a big upside if he can harness his upper 90s fastball.

Add it up and you get ... 57.0 Wins Above Replacement!

Compare that to your leading team totals in 2011 (using FanGraphs WAR):

Rangers: 60.9 WAR
Yankees: 59.9 WAR
Red Sox: 59.6 WAR
Phillies: 51.5 WAR
Brewers: 51.5 WAR

So there you go, A's fans. There is some upside here, especially in the rotation. The team obviously needs Choice and Cespedes to deliver on their power potential. Will all of these players end up grading out this high? Of course not. Undoubtedly, you could do this same exercise for all 30 teams and get similar results. But the A's do have some high-upside prospects and young pitching depth. There are worse positions to be in.

Buster Olney had a note in his Sunday blog that the Dodgers may open the season with 13 pitchers.

Not to pick on the Dodgers, because they won't be the only team to carry 13 pitchers, but I just don't understand this trend. Seven relief pitchers seemed like a lot, but eight? There are barely enough innings available to keep seven relievers busy.

What's even more odd about the Dodgers potentially keeping eight relievers is they threw the second-fewest relief innings in the National League last season. There are 26 weeks in the regular season. Dodgers relievers threw 439 innings, or about 17 innings per week. That's about two innings per reliever per week, or 52 innings per season. Of course, your best relievers will pitch more than 52 innings. Matt Guerrier pitched 66 a year ago. Kenley Jansen should approach 70, assuming he has no further complications with his heart palpitations. Closer Javy Guerra will pitch more than the 46.2 he threw last season when he wasn't recalled until May 15. A good manager will figure out how to get all three of those guys around 70 innings -- or 54 total innings above and beyond the 52-inning average if you carry eight relievers.

In other words, there is no room for an eighth guy if you properly manage your pen. And considering the Dodgers only have one lefty reliever in Scott Elbert likely to make the team, this isn't a case of carrying three lefties for the sake of carrying three lefties.

But the bigger problem is it limits your flexibility in managing your bench. If you carry 13 pitchers, that means four bench players -- two hitters you need to keep handy to pinch-hit for pitchers, your backup catcher, and a utility guy like Jerry Hairston who can double-switch into just about any position. It leaves manager Don Mattingly with essentially no ability to hit for a player in the starting lineup. That means no pinch-hitting for James Loney, who hit .213/.254/.307 against left-handers in 2011. It means no hitting for Andre Ethier, who hit .220/.258/.305 against lefties (and is just .242 with little power in his career). It means you can't really hit for Tony Gwynn Jr., Juan Rivera or Adam Kennedy with an opposite-side hitter except in maybe the eighth or ninth innings, and even then only if you haven't already hit for the pitcher.

It basically means opposing managers will always get the matchup they want against the Dodgers. The tactical advantage for carrying 13 pitchers is so small it actually becomes a tactical disadvantage, especially for a team like the Dodgers that should be hitting regularly for its starting eight.

This is a theme you'll likely see me pound home time and again. One small reason scoring has gone down in recent seasons is the trend to bigger bullpens. That may be great for the platoon edge on defense, but it makes most teams ill-equipped to make a countermove.

When Early Wynn won his 300th (and final) game in 1963, many expected he would be the last 300-game winner. After all, since 1924, only he, Warren Spahn and Lefty Grove had reached the mark. Wynn himself believed this, often referring to himself in interviews in those terms.

Nineteen years later, Gaylord Perry won his 300th game, beginning a run of 300-game winners who had started their careers soon after Wynn had finished his -- Perry, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Phil Niekro, Don Sutton and Nolan Ryan all won their 300th games over an eight-year span.

When Ryan became the last of that generation to reach the magic mark in 1990, many opined that he'd be the last 300-game winner. That generation had grown up pitching in four-man rotations, often pitching close to (or exceeding) 300 innings per season. By 1990, pitchers worked in five-man rotations and didn't carry the same workloads.

Of course, a new generation of pitchers would reach 300 wins -- Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Randy Johnson. Again, many skeptics believed that would be it. "This generation's fans can be reasonably certain of having witnessed the last pursuit of this kind, and that now the 300-game winner will follow dinosaurs, dodo birds and 59-cent Big Macs into extinction," wrote Tom Singer on MLB.com as Johnson approached his 300th win.

Singer wasn't alone in his thoughts. "You don't want to say never, but this could be it, with Randy," Glavine told Singer. "It wouldn't surprise me if there's not another. We're not developing 250-, 270-inning pitchers. When you throw 250, 270 innings, it gives you a better chance to get a win. It's tough to get a bunch of wins if you're going five or six innings. There are many pitchers who have the talent to win 300 games. But I'm not sure you're going to see the durability you saw a generation ago."

I'm here to tell you that we will see another 300-game winner, and that Roy Halladay will be the next to reach the milestone.

Jamie Moyer, if he pitches again, is the active leader in wins with 267. But after that comes Halladay with 188. Considering he turns 35 in May and needs 112 wins, it may seem easy to dismiss his chances.

Looking back at those last two generations of pitchers, here is where they stood through their age-34 season and their win totals over the rest of their careers:

Randy Johnson, 143-79 (160 wins)
Tom Glavine, 208-125 (97 wins)
Greg Maddux, 240-135 (115 wins)
Roger Clemens, 213-118 (141 wins)
Nolan Ryan, 189-174 (135 wins)
Don Sutton, 217-170 (107 wins)
Phil Niekro, 110-94 (208 wins)
Tom Seaver, 235-133 (76 wins)
Steve Carlton, 225-160 (104 wins)
Gaylord Perry, 177-144 (137 wins)

So Halladay has more wins than three of the pitchers and just one fewer than Ryan. The Bill James formula for predicting 300-game winners gives Halladay a solid 49 percent chance of reaching 300. Even leaving out the extreme case of the knuckleballer Niekro, the other nine pitchers averaged 119 wins the rest of their careers.

Maybe you're reluctant to compare Halladay to Johnson or Ryan, two guys who maintained their overpowering fastballs into their 40s, or even Clemens and his alleged extracurricular help. So let's compare Halladay to where Glavine and Maddux stood as they turned 35.

Maddux's age-34 season was 2000, when he went 19-9 with a 3.00 ERA for the Braves, finishing third in the Cy Young vote. Glavine's age-34 season was the same year and he went 21-9 with a 3.40 ERA and finished second in the Cy Young vote. Halladay went 19-6 with a 2.35 ERA in 2011, finishing second in the Cy Young vote. Here are each pitcher's rate stats for those seasons:

Maddux, 2000: 1.5 BB/9, 6.9 SO/9, 249 IP, 153 ERA+
Glavine, 2000: 2.4 BB/9, 5.7 SO/9, 241 IP, 135 ERA+
Halladay, 2011: 1.3 BB/9, 8.5 SO/9, 233.2 IP, 164 ERA+

Maddux and Glavine never again received Cy Young votes, although each had two more excellent seasons before starting to lose steam. Granted, they were pitching at the end of the "steroid era," so offensive production was at a different level than we're seeing now, but just looking at the rate stats, we can see Halladay is at a different level than those two at this age. He had better control even than Maddux and a much higher strikeout rate than either. Maddux had already started to decline from his 1992 to 1998 peak when he compiled a 2.15 ERA; Halladay remains at his peak.

And no offense to Maddux or Glavine, but those two didn't have a workout routine that compares to Halladay's legendary program. Jarred Cosart, now with the Astros, was a 19-year-old prospect when he showed up early to spring training in 2010, Halladay's first season with the Phillies. He found himself working out with the Phillies' new ace. "I tried to do all the reps, but I realized I couldn't finish a Roy Halladay workout," Cosart said.

As legendary as his workout routine is Halladay's arsenal of pitches -- fastball, slider, cutter, changeup and curveball, all of them plus, none of them straight, all thrown with pinpoint accuracy. This is a pitcher at the top of his game.

All this makes him a great bet to continue dominating as he pitches into his late 30s. Here are some various average win totals and how close they bring Halladay to 300 wins:

Six years, 18 wins per season: 108 wins, 296 total (through age 40)
Six years, 16 wins per season: 96 wins, 284 total
Seven years, 17 wins per season: 119 wins, 307 total (through age 41)
Seven years, 16 wins per season: 112 wins, 300 total
Eight years, 15 wins per season: 120 wins, 308 total (through age 42)
Eight years, 14 wins per season: 112 wins, 300 total
Nine years, 14 wins per season: 126 wins, 314 total (through age 43)
Nine years, 13 wins per season: 117 wins (305 total)

Those all seems like reasonable results for a pitcher who has averaged 19 wins over the past four seasons. I believe Halladay will do it, proving yet again that while dinosaurs may be extinct, the 300-game winner lives on.

Follow David Schoenfield on Twitter @dschoenfield.

I'll miss Johnny Damon if we've seen him play his last major league game: the hair, the hustle, that awkward flip of a swing that somehow worked.

You know Damon wants 3,000 hits. He's 277 shy of that total, meaning two seasons of full-time play at last season's level of production (152 hits in 150 games), so he spent the offseason holding out for a full-time job in left field or DH. Of course, he's 38 years old and while he was decently productive a year ago, hitting .261 with 16 home runs for Tampa Bay, he's no longer an asset in left field with his poor arm and diminishing range, so many teams viewed him only as a viable option for DH. Once they Yankees signed Raul Ibanez, that may have closed the door on Damon.

At this point, Damon's best chance of hooking on with somebody is probably depends on whether a major injury occurs during spring training. I just don't see a good fit where he would get any playing time other than as a fourth outfielder/pinch-hitter/part-time DH.

Teams with obviously better or younger options in left and/or designated hitter: Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Blue Jays, Tigers, Royals, Rangers, Angels, Nationals, Marlins, Brewers, Cardinals, Pirates, Astros, Diamondbacks, Giants, Rockies, Padres.

Teams that conceivably had options but are locked into other players, such as a high-priced vet: White Sox, A's, Phillies, Mets, Cubs. (I mean, Damon is better than Adam Dunn or Alfonso Soriano or Jason Bay, but those teams aren't willing to punt on the big contracts.)

So that leaves seven teams where Damon could possibly fit. Let's take a quick look at each.

Baltimore Orioles: The Orioles are probably committed to giving Nolan Reimold another shot in left, but right now their best DH option appears to be Wilson Betemit. He has hit well the past two seasons in a part-time role -- .290/.359/.479 -- and has the added benefit of being a small trade chip at the deadline like he was for the Royals last season.

Cleveland Indians: The Indians are a bit of a mess with injury-prone Grady Sizemore in center and injury-prone Travis Hafner at DH. Cleveland should probably give up on the idea of playing Sizemore in center at this point, which moves Sizemore to left and Michael Brantley to center. Shelley Duncan is around as a good platoon guy against left-handed pitching. The Indians probably could have figured out a way to squeeze Damon on to the roster, but there isn't really room unless Hafner or Sizemore goes down for an extended period (and Sizemore is already injured).

Minnesota Twins: Second-year speedster Ben Revere will be in left field, but the Twins don't really have a regular DH. Certainly, Joe Mauer will see time there and Ryan Doumit when he's not filling in for Mauer behind the plate. Chris Parmalee is also around, but he's probably headed to Triple-A if Justin Morneau can go every day at first base. Hard to argue against the logic of using a roster spot on a guy like Doumit instead of Damon.

Seattle Mariners: If we consider Jesus Montero the DH, that pushes Mike Carp to left field and there's no reason to give at-bats to Damon over Carp. If Montero can catch and Carp ends up DHing, that could conceivably open up time in left field, but I don't see how the Mariners could squeeze Damon on to the roster. He's not going to beat out Casper Wells as the fourth outfielder (behind Ichiro Suzuki, Franklin Gutierrez, Carp) and the Mariners may have to carry two catchers besides Montero.

Atlanta Braves: There is a possibility here if the Braves turn Martin Prado into a super-utility guy, playing some third for Chipper Jones, some second for Dan Uggla, some left field. That clears room for Damon to play on a semi-regular basis. I would argue Damon has more value than Matt Diaz, for example.

Cincinnati Reds: Chris Heisey has some power -- 18 home runs in 279 at-bats -- but also posted a .309 OBP. Damon posted a .326 OBP in 2011 for Tampa Bay, but Heisey is the better left fielder. If Damon had been willing to serve as a part-time left fielder, he certainly would have made for a better role player than Ryan Ludwick.

Los Angeles Dodgers: Juan Rivera? Tony Gwynn Jr.? Jerry Sands? The Dodgers signed every other mediocre veteran this offseason; couldn't they have found room for Damon?

So that may be the end of Damon's quest for 3,000 hits. And certainly the end to the "Is Johnny Damon a Hall of Famer?" debate, a debate that would existed only on the assumption he would reach 3,000 hits.

We've moved on to the second round of the Greatest MLB Season Ever bracket. All top-10 seeds advanced, but there were three upsets; interestingly, all involved shortstops. Alex Rodriguez lost to Ken Griffey Jr. in a Mariners death duel (got destroyed, actually, 87 percent to 13 percent); Hank Aaron defeated Robin Yount, 61 to 39 percent; and Jimmie Foxx creamed Cal Ripken, 71 to 29 percent. Maybe I'll have to write up a post on the value of positional scarcity.

I'm not surprised about Rodriguez; even though I chose one of his "pre-steroid" seasons, he's not exactly a fan favorite. Griffey has no PED stain on his reputation, a huge advantage in a popular vote like this. I was surprised Ripken lost so easily to Foxx, despite Foxx's awesome power numbers in 1932 (58 home runs, 169 RBIs). Ripken remains one of the most beloved players ever, and while his raw numbers in 1991 might not immediately impress (.323, 34 home runs, 114 RBIs), those were tremendous numbers for that season and especially tremendous for a shortstop in the pre-Rodriguez/Jeter/Garciaparra era.

But here's what stands out to me: Baseball fans still show great respect for the old guys. Foxx beat Ripken. Aaron over Yount. Stan Musial over George Brett. Joe DiMaggio edged out Albert Pujols in the closest first-round vote, 52 to 48 percent. Ty Cobb easily outvoted Rickey Henderson. In fact, in every matchup in which there was a sizable generation gap, the older guy won. Now, some of these weren't necessarily surprises -- it's not surprising that Mickey Mantle would beat Mike Piazza, for example -- but could you imagine this happening in other sports? No football fan thinks Bronko Nagurski was better than Walter Payton or Emmitt Smith. Sammy Baugh wouldn't outpoll Peyton Manning. George Mikan wouldn't beat out Shaquille O'Neal. Bob Cousy doesn't beat out Magic Johnson or even a more modern guy such as Dwyane Wade.

But in baseball, we cling to the past. Yes, the sport has been around longer, so the framework of the game hasn't changed dramatically like it has in football or basketball. I always wonder why people will argue that football and basketball athletes have improved, but not baseball players. Of course, baseball players in 2012 are bigger, stronger and more athletic than the players Babe Ruth faced in 1921. Pitchers throw harder. Outfielders cover more ground. Infielders have stronger arms. That's the way sports evolve.

* * * *

OK, a quick look at Round 2 in which the matchups get a lot tougher to decide:

• Babe Ruth 1921 versus Joe DiMaggio 1941: The Babe remains the overwhelming favorite to win the tournament, but Yankees fans will be torn here. DiMaggio had the historic 56-game hitting streak and should get a boost from playing a brilliant center field.
• Carl Yastrzemski 1967 versus Honus Wagner 1908: Two guys who utterly dominated their leagues. Fans respect the old guys, but Wagner's stats were compiled in the dead ball era and might not impress the voting public.
• Ty Cobb 1911 versus Joe Morgan: I've made my case for Morgan. Not that Cobb was a slouch. Note that while Cobb hit .420 to Morgan's .327. Their OBPs were essentially identical (.467 to .466). And while 1911 was the dead ball era, consider this: The OPS in the 1911 AL was .696; the OPS in the 1975 NL was .696.
• Rogers Hornsby 1922 versus Mickey Mantle 1956: The Mick won the Triple Crown, but Hornsby hit .401 with 42 home runs and 152 RBIs. I expect a close vote.
• Barry Bonds 2001 versus Ken Griffey Jr. 1997: The most intriguing matchup of the second round. Bonds beat out Johnny Bench 65 to 35 percent, and while it was a decisive victory it's also clear that many voters held PED usage against Bonds. With a tougher second-round matchup, it will be interesting to see how he fares.
• Stan Musial 1948 versus Willie Mays 1962: What makes this even more interesting is that Musial played a lot of center field in 1948. Not saying he played it as well as Mays, but it makes his season more impressive than at first glance.
• Hank Aaron 1957 versus Lou Gehrig 1927: Two MVP winners, two beloved players. Both World Series champions as well. I'll say Gehrig pulls it out.
• Jimmie Foxx 1932 versus Ted Williams 1941: No matter the era, 58 home runs and 169 RBIs are impressive. But so is .406. I'll predict Teddy Ballgame rolls on.

Hack Wilson set the all-time RBI mark playing for the Chicago Cubs, driving in 191 runs, including a remarkable 53 in August alone.

But was it an all-time great season?

If you're not familiar with Wilson, he was a short, muscle-bound outfielder, kind of built like a pumped-up version of Kirby Puckett with a big barrel chest and neck thicker than a redwood; listed at 5-foot-6, he was shorter even than Puckett.

Originally signed by John McGraw and the Giants, the Cubs eventually acquired him and Wilson had a stretch of five seasons from 1926 to 1930 where he was one of the best players in the National League, leading the circuit four times in home runs and twice in RBIs. He took a prodigious cut -- he also led the league all five years in strikeouts -- and also lived a prodigious nightlife, a lifestyle that ultimately undermined his career. For one season, the high-octane year of 1930, everything aligned perfectly for Wilson. (By the way, Bill Chastain, who covers the Rays for MLB.com, has a new book out on Wilson, "Hack's 191: Hack Wilson and His Incredible 1930 Season."

He hit .356/.454/.723 with 56 home runs (an NL record that stood until Mark McGwire broke it in 1998). Besides the home runs and RBIs, he led the NL in slugging percentage and OPS while ranking second in on-base percentage and 10th in batting average. His OPS ranks tied for 24th best since 1901 (but only eight different players rank ahead of him) and he played a key position in center field.

So why did I give Wilson the 32nd and final seed in our greatest season tournament?

Many of you will know this, but Wilson's 1930 season is prima facie in understanding the context a player's numbers were compiled in. The National League hit .303 that year; so if you hit .300, you were a below-average hitter in terms of batting average. Wilson hit .356, but Bill Terry hit .401 and Babe Herman hit .393 and Chuck Klein hit .386. Wilson had a 1.177 OPS but eight others players were over 1.000. In fact, the basic runs created formula has Klein creating 193 runs, one more than Wilson.

Wilson still rates as the best offensive player in the league, but his advantage was diminished a bit by playing in Wrigley Field. The Cubs posted an .892 team OPS at home, .824 on the road. Wilson loved Wrigley that year, hitting .388 with 33 home runs there versus .324 with 23 home runs on the road. He had a remarkable 116 RBIs in 78 home games.

Wilson's value -- at least on Baseball-Reference -- is further knocked down by its defensive system, which ranks Wilson as a poor center fielder that year. He received 8.4 wins above replacement for his offense, but -1.0 for his defense. (He did commit 19 errors, a high total even for 1930.)

Now, about those RBIs. We don't have play-by-play data, so we can't evaluate how Wilson fared with runners in scoring position or with men on base, but suffice it say he had some quality tablesetters in front of him. Woody English spent most of the season batting second and he posted a .430 OBP. Kiki Cuyler was the No. 3 hitter and he posted a .428 OBP. Both were also in scoring position a lot -- English had 36 doubles and 17 triples while Cuyler had 50 doubles and 17 triples. The two combined for just 27 home runs, so they didn't do a lot of clearing the bases.

Here's what's amazing, however: Second baseman Footsie Blair was the Cubs' regular leadoff hitter (111 starts there) and his OBP was a lousy .306, which ranked 75th of 79 NL regulars. Imagine if the Cubs had even a mediocre leadoff hitter that year. Wilson would have easily driven in 200-plus runs from his cleanup spot.

So while the RBI record makes it an iconic season and a fun one to consider, I don't believe it deserves serious consideration for "best ever."

I seeded Carl Yastrzemski eighth in our 32-player greatest season of all time bracket, which puts him on a collision course to meet Babe Ruth in the quarterfinals.

There is a case to be made that Yaz's 1967 season was the best ever. Here are the bullet points in his favor:

• Won the Triple Crown (he actually tied Harmon Killebrew for the home run title). But he also led the AL in on-base percentage, slugging percentage, runs scored, total bases and hits. In other words, everything that matters most.
• He put up an impressive .326/.418/.622 line in a pretty good year for pitchers. It wasn't 1968 (when Yaz won the batting title with a .301 average), but the AL hit just .236/.303/.351 that year. Compare that to the 2011 NL overall line of .253/.319/.391.
• Yaz's dominance can be seen in the leaderboards. For example, while his .622 slugging percentage would have been good enough to lead the AL in 2011, the No. 10 man in 1967 slugged just .447. In 2011, 36 AL batters slugged at least .447. Likewise, he scored 112 runs in a league where only one other player reached the century mark and the No. 10 guy scored just 79. He was also just one of two hitters to drive in 100.
• Not only was he the best offensive player in the league, he was also one of the best defensive players. Baseball-Reference credits him with 2.7 WAR on defense, the second-best total in the AL behind Brooks Robinson. A master of the Green Monster and decoying runners, B-R ranks Yaz's season as one of the top 20 defensive seasons ever by a left fielder.
• If you like clutch, few batters can match the mesmerizing clutch hitting of Yaz down the stretch. With the Impossible Dream Red Sox fighting for the pennant (they had finished in ninth place the year before), he hit .417/.504/.760 in September with nine home runs and 26 RBIs in 27 games. He was even bigger the final 13 games, hitting .500 with 18 RBIs. And then there were the final two games, both Boston victories to clinch the pennant by one game. In Game 161, against the Twins (who led the Sox by one game), Yaz went 3-for-4 with four RBIs, including a go-ahead RBI single in the fifth and a three-run homer in the seventh that gave Boston a 6-2 lead. In Game 162, with the teams tied, Yaz went 4-for-4, including a game-tying two-run single in the fifth. In the eighth, Bob Allison singled to make it 5-3 but Yaz killed the rally when he nailed Allison trying to stretch the hit into a double. Talk about carrying a team.
• Yaz's 12.2 WAR ranks tied for 10th all time on the Baseball-Reference single-season list. Ahead of him are four Babe Ruth seasons from the 1920s, two Barry Bonds seasons, a Rogers Hornsby season from 1924 and two Mickey Mantle years. Other than the Bonds seasons that you may wish to put an asterisk next to, Yaz's '67 is the most modern in the top 10. It's harder for more modern players to outclass their contemporaries, but Yaz was 4.9 wins ahead of the No. 2 position player in the league, Al Kaline.

So that's the case: Dominance compared to peers, great numbers, clutch hitting. Go here to vote in the entire bracket.

Follow David Schoenfield on Twitter @dschoenfield.

In 1975, Joe Morgan hit .327 with 17 home runs and 94 RBIs. Those traditional statistics may not seem impressive, but Morgan’s season ranks as one of the best in the game’s history.

As we begin voting Monday on the greatest individual season of all time, consider Morgan's value that season:

• He drew 132 walks, giving him a league-leading .466 on-base percentage (the highest figure, by the way, in either league between Mickey Mantle in 1962 and Wade Boggs in 1988).
• Because of his ability to get on base, he created a lot of runs --about 145, 17 more than the No. 2 hitter in the league, Greg Luzinski. But he created his runs in an efficient manner. He used up 354 outs; Luzinski, by comparison, used up 443 outs. So Morgan created more runs while using up 89 fewer outs.
• He stole 67 bases in 77 attempts. Factor in his speed, and he was one of the best baserunners in the league.
• He was an outstanding defensive second baseman, not only winning a Gold Glove but also ranking as the third-best overall defensive player in the National League in 1975, according to Baseball-Reference.com.
• He did all this in an era when second basemen usually produced little at the plate. In 1975, National League second basemen hit a collective .267/.330/.353 (BA/OBP/SLG) -- with just 80 home runs. Morgan hit nearly one quarter of all home runs by National League second basemen. In 2011 terms, that would be akin to a second baseman hitting close to 50 home runs.
• The Reds won 108 games, Morgan was the near-unanimous MVP winner, and he even drove in the winning run in the ninth inning of Game 7 of the World Series.

Add it up, and you end up with a player who was the best hitter in the league and one of the best defenders and baserunners in his league, and he did so while towering over other players at his position and playing on a championship team.

The wins above replacement statistic attempts to capture all this. In 1975, Morgan’s Baseball-Reference WAR was 12.0, the best of his career and easily the best in the National League. During his 1972 to 1976 peak, Morgan rated as the best player in the NL four times, at least acording to Baseball-Reference.



In 1975, Morgan was a full five wins better than Mike Schmidt, an astonishing total. Only 12 times since 1901 has a player recorded a bWAR of at least 4.5 wins higher than the No. 2 position player in his league:

1921 AL: Babe Ruth (14.0) over Ty Cobb/Tris Speaker (6.6)
1924 AL: Babe Ruth (11.9) over Harry Heilmann (6.2)
1956 AL: Mickey Mantle (12.9) over Yogi Berra (7.3)
2002 NL: Barry Bonds (12.2) over Jim Edmonds (7.2)
1975 NL: Joe Morgan (12.0) over Mike Schmidt (7.0)
1924 NL: Rogers Hornsby (13.0) over Frankie Frisch (8.0)
1967 AL: Carl Yastrzemski (12.2) over Al Kaline (7.3)
1946 AL: Ted Williams (11.8) over Johnny Pesky (6.9)
1923 AL: Babe Ruth (14.7) over Harry Heilmann (9.8)
1926 AL: Babe Ruth (12.0) over Goose Goslin (7.2)
1922 NL: Rogers Hornsby (10.7) over Dave Bancroft (5.9)
1948 NL: Stan Musial (11.5) over Johnny Mize (6.9)

For what it’s worth, only three of those 12 seasons ended in a World Series title -- Morgan, Mantle and Ruth in 1923.

So maybe Joe Morgan didn’t hit 73 home runs or drive in 191 runs or bat .400. But his 1975 season ranks as sleeper candidate for greatest individual season of all time.

* * * *

It wasn’t easy picking the 32 best seasons. I had two rules: Only one season per player, so we’d end up with a bracket of 32 different players; and I considered only seasons since 1901 (sorry, Ross Barnes fans).

It was important to get a diverse list of eras as well as positions. I did put a little more emphasis on more recent decades; basically, the quality of the game has improved over time, thus making it more difficult to post seasons with huge WAR totals like Ruth put up. Here is the breakdown by decade:

1900s -- 1
1910s -- 3
1920s -- 3
1930s -- 2
1940s -- 4
1950s -- 3
1960s -- 2
1970s -- 3
1980s -- 3
1990s -- 4
2000s -- 4

And by position:

C -- 2; Johnny Bench, Mike Piazza.
1B -- 3; Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Rod Carew.
2B -- 4; Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, Jackie Robinson, Joe Morgan.
3B -- 2; George Brett, Mike Schmidt.
SS -- 5; Honus Wagner, Ernie Banks, Robin Yount, Cal Ripken, Alex Rodriguez.
LF -- 6; Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski, Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols. (Ruth played left field in 1921, and Pujols primarily played left in 2003.)
CF – 8; Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Hack Wilson, Joe DiMaggio, Stan Musial, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Ken Griffey Jr. (Musial started at all three outfield positions in 1948 but played the most in center.)
RF -- 2; Hank Aaron, Sammy Sosa.

So there are our 32 players. I didn’t necessarily pick each player’s highest WAR season. In some cases, a player’s iconic season -- like Ted Williams’ .406 year or Hank Aaron’s 1957 MVP campaign -- was selected. In some instances, maybe a player had other things in his favor that would help him to potentially fare better in the voting, like a big RBI total. Certainly, WAR is a good baseline to use because it helps us adjust for differences in eras, but it shouldn’t be the only factor in determining the better season between two players. Was what Williams accomplished in 1941 more impressive than what Morgan accomplished in 1975? Is Yount being the best hitter in his league while playing shortstop more impressive than what Babe Ruth did in 1921 against an inferior brand of pitching? Maybe you prefer the all-around brilliance of Mays or DiMaggio over the pure hitting dominance of Rogers Hornsby or Lou Gehrig.

Which seasons just missed the cut? There were seven players who had a bWAR season of at least 10.0 who didn’t make the bracket -- Lou Boudreau, Jason Giambi, Ron Santo, Adrian Beltre, Home Run Baker, Norm Cash and Matt Kemp. Sorry, guys. (Just noticed there are three third basemen there; too late now to change the final 32, unfortunately.)

So get to the bracket and start voting. We’ll do one round per day this week, culminating in the final matchup on Friday.

Let the debates begin.

Follow David Schoenfield on Twitter @dschoenfield.

Earlier this week, Buster Olney took his annual look at which teams face the toughest early-season schedules. In the NL, Buster has the Pirates, Cubs and Padres facing difficult early slates. In the AL, he has the Twins, Orioles and Rays with the toughest opening five or six weeks.

That's my segue into baseball's problem with its schedules, a problem that will be compounded by the addition of a second wild-card team.

Let's compare two teams: the Rays, playing in baseball's toughest division; and the Angels, playing in a division that includes Seattle and Oakland.

Tampa Bay Rays

• 72 games against the AL East (18 against each team)
• 34 games against the AL Central
• 38 games against the AL West
• 18 games against the NL East (six against the Marlins)

Los Angeles Angels

• 42 games against the AL East (but only six against the Red Sox)
• 45 games against the AL Central
• 57 games against the AL West (19 against each team)
• 18 games against the NL West (six against the Dodgers

So while the Rays get 36 games against the Red Sox and Yankees, the Angels get 38 games against the Mariners and A's. Yes, you can argue the Angels get 19 games against Rangers while the Rays get only nine, but that hardly makes up for the Rays having to play the Red Sox and Yankees 21 more games than the Angels do. In interleague play, the Rays also have to play the NL East, a presumably tougher division than the Angels' NL West opponents.

Is this a big issue? I believe so. I suppose those who disagree would argue, "Just win your division." That's certainly what MLB appears to be saying by implementing a second wild-card team. Just win your division. Take care of business.

The problem, of course, is there are two completely different playoff races going on here: (1) The division race, in which the competitors play close to identical schedules; (2) The wild-card race, in which competitors may play drastically different schedules.

Such a situation came into play a year ago in the National League, when the Cardinals edged out the Braves by one game for the wild card. The Braves played in a division in which the worst team was the Marlins at 72-90. The Cardinals played in a division with three teams that went 72-90, 71-91 and 56-106. The Braves went 36-36 against their division. The Cardinals went 44-35 against their division.

Maybe a second wild-card team helps alleviate this issue. After all, with a second wild card, the Braves make the playoffs last year and nobody talks about their collapse. But what if the Rays, Red Sox and Angels are battling for two spots? Or the Rays and Angels are battling for the second wild card? Then we're slipping back into murky waters of unbalanced schedules being an underlying factor.

And that doesn't even get into possibility of a third-place team winning the World Series. As Phillies manager Charlie Manuel said, "It's hard to swallow sometimes when you play all year and you win a lot of games and you lose to somebody who did not play as good as you consistently all year."

Quick: Where does Jason Varitek rank on the all-time list of catchers?

Top 50? Top 40? Top 20?

Varitek is apparently set to retire on Thursday, calling it quits after 15 seasons with the Boston Red Sox, 1,546 major league games, two World Series rings and one memorable brawl with Alex Rodriguez.

That Varitek ended up playing his entire career with the Boston is remarkable considering the early twists and turns of his career. An All-American at Georgia Tech, the Minnesota Twins drafted him in the first round in 1993 but he declined to sign and returned to college. The Seattle Mariners made him the 14th pick in 1994 (two picks after the Red Sox had selected Nomar Garciaparra, his Georgia Tech teammate). With agent Scott Boras negotiating, Varitek again held out and actually signed in January of 1995 with the independent St. Paul Saints. Boras argued this meant the Mariners no longer held Varitek's rights and that he wouldn't be subject to the draft again since he was no longer an amateur.

The ploy didn't work and Varitek never played with the Saints, eventually signing with Seattle in April. In the end, Boras may have gotten Varitek a couple extra hundred thousand for his signing bonus but he cost him millions in long-term dollars. Varitek's professional career should have began in June of 1993; instead it didn't begin until April of 1995. Varitek's first full season with the Red Sox came in 1998, when he was already 26. His first season as full-time starter didn't come until he was 27. If he'd signed in 1993, his big league clock probably would have started a couple years earlier and he would have hit free agency in the prime of his career instead of his early 30s. Nice job, Boras.

Of course, the Red Sox stole Varitek from the Mariners in one of the best deals (or worst, depending on your viewpoint) of the past 20 years. Desperate for relief help at the 1997 trade deadline, Mariners general manager Woody Woodward inquired about Red Sox closer Heathcliff Slocumb, who at the time was stumbling along with a 5.79 ERA, 1.97 WHIP and nearly as many walks as strikeouts. Urban legend has it Red Sox GM Dan Duquette asked for Varitek or pitching prospect Derek Lowe. Woodward misheard and agreed to both as the clock struck midnight.

According to Baseball-Reference WAR, the Mariners received 0.4 wins above replacement from Slocumb. The Red Sox received 23.1 wins above replacement from Varitek and 18.4 from Lowe. Larceny of the most impressive degree.

Back to the original question. Varitek ranks 30th on the all-time list for games caught and finished with a career line of .256/.341/.435, with 1,307 hits, 193 home runs and 757 RBIs.

Among players since 1901 who spent at least 50 percent of their career games behind the plate, Baseball-Reference ranks Varitek 43rd in career WAR, alongside guys like Mike Scioscia, Rick Dempsey, Chris Hoiles and Ramon Hernandez.

I thought Varitek would rank a little higher and it's true that WAR doesn't account for Varitek's much-praised leadership abilities, if you want to give him bonus points for that. But it's also true that Varitek's window as a star player was pretty narrow. He was really an outstanding player for only three seasons, 2003 to 2005, when he hit .283/.369/.494 and averaged 22 home runs. He was very good again in 2007 when he posted a .367 OBP and had a few other solid-but-not-great seasons. But he wasn't much of a player the past four seasons, hitting just .218 with a .308 OBP, and his leadership skills certainly failed to help rise the sinking ship in 2011.

Red Sox fans will undoubtedly argue that Varitek was better than his numbers. That may be the case; until we know about catcher defense, for example, perhaps Varitek's game-calling skills or ability to work with pitchers is being underrated. Maybe his grit and toughness were essential keys to the Red Sox winning it all in 2004 and 2007. Sox fans will certainly tell you that, as they point with pride to the game he introduced A-Rod to the smell of his catcher's glove. That game, on July 24, 2004, is often cited as key to Boston's season. Trailing 9-4, they rallied to win 11-10 on Bill Mueller's two-run walk-off homer off Mariano Rivera. Varitek's refusal to back down did seem to ignite the team. The Red Sox went 45-20 the rest of the regular season, riding that momentum to a curse-ending dream, and cementing Varitek as one of the most popular players in Red Sox history.

I'm comfortable moving Varitek up a few spots, certainly ahead of Hoiles (who had a short career), Dempsey (never had 500 plate appearances in a season), Butch Wynegar and maybe a few others.

Top-35 all time? I can see that.

Not bad for a guy acquired as a throw-in at the trade deadline.

Follow David Schoenfield on Twitter @dschoenfield.

I want to be happy for Ryan Braun. I want to be excited that one of baseball's biggest stars will be in the Opening Day lineup for the Milwaukee Brewers on April 6. I want to enjoy that moment when Braun jogs out from the top step of the dugout when those first-game lineups are announced and the fans at Miller Park give him an ovation so loud it scares the mustache off Bernie Brewer.

I want to believe that MLB's drug testing program works, that it catches those using banned substances, that the sport is clean and the days of tainted home runs and MVP winners are long behind us. I want to believe that Braun's positive test for synthetic testosterone resulted from hair-loss medication or a tainted milk or even a vitamin B-12 injection.

But I can't believe that.

Instead, I believe this is a troubling day for baseball.

Braun won his appeal. He won't be suspended for 50 games. According to ESPN's Mark Fainaru-Wada and T.J. Quinn, Braun didn't appeal any evidence of tampering or the science of the test results, but the chain of custody and collection procedure.

Don't get me wrong: The procedures need to be in place and properly followed; the innocent need to be protected. Braun's lawyers apparently found a flaw, a mistake or a loophole in the drug-testing system.

And that's the problem.

The system didn't work.

As a fan, the whole "steroids era" doesn't bother me. Using performance-enhancing drugs was a part of the game, part of the baseball culture of the time, not much different than wearing baggy uniform pants or stylin' cool sunglasses. Some players did those things, some didn't. There were no rules against PEDs, no testing program in place, no outcry from those players who didn't use. So, no, I don't consider Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire cheaters. They were part of a culture that was widely accepted at the time.

But baseball now has a program in place. It has rules against using specific, banned substances. We're supposed to believe it works. We want to believe the magnificence of the players we love to watch is attained through hard work and gifts we can only dream of possessing.

But now?

We don't know what Ryan Braun did or didn't do. In a statement, he proclaimed his innocence. "It is the first step in restoring my good name and reputation. We were able to get through this because I am innocent and the truth is on our side," he said.

You can dissect that in any number of ways, I suppose. I'm not saying he's clean; I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm saying: We don't know and we can't presume to know.

I followed the outcry on Twitter. Many ripped MLB for its news release saying, "As a part of our drug testing program, the Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association agreed to a neutral third party review for instances that are under dispute. While we have always respected that process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das."

Well, MLB probably should be angry. Its program is run through the Olympic testing program in Montreal, perhaps the most respected drug testing lab in the world. But we're left stranded today: What went wrong? Is our sport clean? Do we cheer Ryan Braun or boo him?

Today was supposed to bring a resolution. Instead, we're left more confused than ever.

In this story, Danny Hultzen, the second overall pick in the 2011 draft by the Seattle Mariners and Keith Law's No. 30 prospect, tells the Tacoma News Tribune:

I pitch to contact. From the first pitch on, I’m thinking 'hit it,' because the quicker you get outs, the fewer pitches it takes, the longer you stay in games. That’s the kind of pitcher I am. I don’t have knee-buckling stuff, I don’t throw pitches that make people go 'whoa!' but I can make hitters hit my pitch. In high school, I got by with my fastball. My freshman year in college, I learned real quick that wasn’t going to work.

On the positive side, it's good that Hultzen understands his stuff and knows he can't simply rely on blowing his fastball past hitters (he's generally at 91-92 mph, topping out at 94). But I worry whenever I see a quote like this. I worry because I always think of Dwight Gooden and Mel Stottlemyre in the spring of 1986, the spring after Gooden had won 24 games with a 1.53 ERA and 276 strikeouts. Stottlemyre, the Mets' pitching coach, wanted Gooden to strike out fewer hitters. ''I have downplayed the strikeouts with him for the simple reason he doesn't need to strike out 10 batters to have a strong game. The important thing is put zeros on the scoreboard," Stottlemyre said that season. Gooden, of course, was never the same pitcher again (admittedly, for a variety of reasons).

Now, a pitcher's goal isn't merely to strike out hitters; as Stottlemyre said, it's to prevent runs. Now it takes a lot of factors to prevent runs: don't walk hitters, don't give up home runs, get ahead in the count .. and, yes, strike batters out. The best pitchers tend to strike out more batters than inferior pitchers.

I'm guessing most of you know that. But just in case you don't, here's a little study. I looked at the 100 pitchers with the most innings pitched in 2011, which gives us a list from Justin Verlander (251 innings) to Johnny Cueto (156 innings). Actually, J.A. Happ had 156.1 innings, but I missed him in my initial tabulation. I then divided the pitchers into four groups, based on ERA: the top 25, the next 25 and so on.

Here are the cumulative results for each group of 25:



Certainly, the first group is better at everything -- a higher strikeout rate, a lower walk rate, fewer hits allowed, a higher percentage of pitches thrown for strikes and fewer home runs allowed.

But strikeouts are vital. If you rack up more strikeouts, you allow fewer balls in play, and thus you usually allow fewer hits and perhaps fewer home runs (although that can be affected by whether you're a ground ball or flyball pitcher).

Here's another way of looking at it -- the number of pitchers in each group who had fewer than 7.0 strikeouts per nine innings:

Group 1: 7
Group 2: 12
Group 3: 13
Group 4: 18

(The pitchers in Group 1, incidentally: Cueto, Ryan Vogelsong, Doug Fister, Jeremy Hellickson, Jordan Zimmermann, Justin Masterson and Tim Hudson.)

Back to Hultzen. Certainly, conserving pitches and going deep into games is important for a starter. He walked just 23 batters in 18 starts for Virginia, so he does have great control. And while he says he pitches to contact, he did strike out 165 in 118 innings, or 12.6 batters per nine innings, a rate better than No. 1 overall pick Gerrit Cole although lower than No. 3 pick Trevor Bauer (both from UCLA).

By all accounts, Hultzen knows how to pitch. He has confidence in all of his pitches (fastball, changeup, slider). And while he says he's not aiming for strikeouts, he was pretty good at sending hitters back to the bench in college. I suspect he'll learn soon enough that once he gets ahead of hitters -- which he should be good at doing -- that he'll want to put them away. Maybe his arsenal isn't ultimately dominant enough to become a No. 1 starter with the Mariners, but even No. 2 and No. 3 starters need to know there are times when you have to go for the strikeout.