ESPN MLB

A few selections from the new (and improved!) mailbag ...

Jason, in Atlanta:

Rob, you said in your chat Tuesday that Kotsay's not a good everyday 1B (with which I agree). However, why would Lowrie being around help? Would his offense be that much better than Kotsay's, or would a defensive arrangement of Youkilis at 1B and Lowrie at 3B be that much more preferable to Youkilis at 3B and Kotsay at 1B?

Why, yes I do. I believe that Lowrie -- a shortstop by trade -- might well play Gold Glove-quality defense at third base, and we know that Youkilis does play Gold Glove defense at first base. Throw in Pedroia at second, and the Red Sox might have the best defensive infield in the majors (even with Julio Lugo missing all kinds of stuff at shortstop). And even leaving all that aside, I believe that Lowrie, when (if?) healthy, is at least as good a hitter as Kotsay.

From Dom, in Chicago:

Rob -- where is the Scott Podsednik love? When my White Sox signed him, I have to admit I was less than enthused and thought "haven't we had enough of this experiment?". Given your opinion of him over the past several years, isn't it time to give him some props on what has been a great first half?

Well, we're talking about 57 games, at the conclusion of which Podsednik's exceeded his career on-base percentage and his career slugging percentage by 27 points apiece. Is that really something worth big props? Particularly considering that he's still a corner outfielder with league-average hitting stats? Yes, Podsednik's been surprisingly useful to the White Sox, and he does deserve credit for that. But before we start trying to make an All-Star out of him, let's give him another month or two to find his level.

And speaking of All-Stars (or not) and finding levels ... From Greg, in New York City:

Hey Rob. In regards to your postulating in your chat today that Cain has been pretty lucky this year, is it just as likely (or even 1/3 as likely) that he was just rather unlucky his first few years? Maybe I'm just a disgruntled fantasy league ex-Cain owner, but it seems to me that the Ks were always there, but ERA and wins (the most luck-influenced pitching stat?) always fell short. Maybe three years is too long to be considered "unlucky" but from my (unscientific) observations, it seems like maybe this year it's just finally all coming together for him (skill AND some luck).

What Greg's suggesting, I think, is that Cain's ERA's over his first three full seasons were inflated by bad luck, while his ERA this season is the product of skill and perhaps a bit of bad luck. I hope the fundamental problem with this line of analysis is fairly obvious. If not, here's something else:

Cain's fielding-independent ERA's, 2006-2009: 3.96, 3.78, 3.91, 3.95
Cain's ERA's, 2006-2009: 4.15, 3.65, 3.76, 2.48

Another reader -- who I won't mention, because he seems like a reasonable enough sort and I don't want to embarrass him -- has argued (in the mailbag) that Cain has consistently outperformed his FIP. Really? Prior to this season, Cain's career ERA and his career FIP were highly consistent with one another, both season to season and career-wise. Aside from the seven starts in Cain's rookie season (2005), there was nothing at all odd about his performance until this season. And in case I haven't mentioned it already, this season is actually just half a season.

Give the numbers a bit more time. Usually they'll prove out.

In a couple of weeks they're going to officially break ground for the Marlins' new, publicly financed ballpark, and famous Floridian Carl Hiaasen couldn't be more thrilled. Money quote:

As this is being written, the Marlins are playing some pretty good ball. They're in second-place in their division, only a half-game behind the Philadelphia Phillies. Home games at Landshark are drawing an average of 17,688 fans.

The good news: Attendance is slightly up. The bad news: The new ballpark will hold 37,000 seats. Only in 1993 -- its inaugural season -- has the team filled more than 37,000 seats per game, and it hasn't come close ever since.

Nothing underscores the community's chronic indifference more than what happened in 2003. The Marlins were on their way to being the best team in baseball, yet they sold on average a pitiable 16,089 tickets during the regular season.

Eventually, word got out that the Marlins made the playoffs, and big crowds showed up in time to see them win the World Series.

For a variety of reasons, the new stadium -- theoretically to be funded by hotel bed taxes -- had tepid public support, except for die-hard fans. By contrast, most local politicians swooned for the proposition that the team's fortunes would change with an extravagant new venue.

If we build it, they said, people will come.

That's way beyond optimism. It's $634 million worth of wild delusions.

The question isn't if the fans will go back to ignoring the Marlins after the ballpark is built. The question is how soon.

With a dismal prospect of 20,000 empty seats per game, they must be painted so deceivingly that nobody will notice.

At least until the bills come due.

The year after the Marlins won the 1997 World Series, they finished 13th in the league in attendance. That's excusable, as the owner decided that winning was yesterday's news and so the Marlins lost 108 games. But a few years later the Marlins won another World Series. The next year they did try to win, and did win 83 games ... and finished 14th in the league in attendance.

The Marlins and the Miami-Dade voters are about to conduct a grand experiment, and there's really no telling how it'll turn out. The fans probably will show up in drove in 2012, when the new ballpark opens. After that, though? There's little reason to think they'll show up in great numbers after that, even if the Marlins have good teams. Which doesn't mean they won't. Perhaps the accumulated weight of seasons and history will expand the fan base, to the point where the Marlins' attendance matches (or at least approaches) the market size.

And if not? I don't mean to minimize the impact of $634 million -- I would rather see that money plowed into schools and low-income housing and other social goods -- but over a number of years, $634 million is little more than a rounding error. What bothers me about this deal is that the Marlins franchise is now locked into its current home for many, many years. Even if nobody shows up to see them play, they'll be stuck there and some other, more suitable locale will be left without a baseball team. I'm far from a reactionary capitalist. But when you inhibit the free flow of money, you can wind up with some ugly situations.

(H/T: ShysterBall)

Xtreme Blog's got a candidate for biggest All-Star snub, and it might be a guy you haven't heard about already:

Gallardo

There are many players deserving to be an all-star this season, but no bigger then Milwaukee Brewers ace Yovani Gallardo. With free agent C.C Sabathia leaving the Brew Crew in the offseason, there were a ton of questions regarding the Brewers pitching rotation. Everyone knows the Brewers have the bats with Prince Fielder & Ryan Braun, but the pitching was the main concern coming into the season. Gallardo is not only the ace of this staff, I feel like he is one of the best young pitchers in the majors. Gallardo for the season is currently 8-5 with a 2.75 ERA and almost 10 K/9.

I'm mentioning this only because Keith Law, who did a great job in reviewing the All-Star rosters yesterday, didn't mention Gallardo. I'm sure he had his reasons. But it's worth noting that Gallardo has eight wins, the sixth-best ERA in the National League and is fifth in strikeouts. The only semi-blot on his record is his relative lack of durability; he's just 21st in the league in innings.

Whether Gallardo gets to pitch one inning in the middle of July is inconsequential. What's consequential is that Gallardo, who missed nearly all of last season with a serious knee injury, has now established himself as one of the best pitchers in the league. If Gallardo were getting any help at all from his rotation-mates, the Brewers might be running away with the NL Central.

From where Dave Cameron sits, the A's just stole a player from the Padres ...

When I heard that the Padres had traded Scott Hairston for Craig Italiano, Ryan Webb, and a PTBNL, my first reaction was to wonder if they were trying to tank as quickly as possible to give themselves a shot at drafting Bryce Harper. There weren't too many other explanations that made much sense, given that Hairston was one of only two guys on the Padres roster hitting his weight and that he made a total of $1.25 million this year while not being eligible for free agency until after 2011.

After a night to think it over and do some more research on the deal, I don't have many more answers than I did last night. I still don't get it.

--snip--

Call me crazy, but I think low cost, above average major league players should command more than a potential back-end starter and a pair of bullpen arms. It's hard for me to fathom how the Padres could back away from really good deals for Jake Peavy over the winter, but then begin to sell off useful pieces like Hairston for spare parts.

From the A's perspective, this is a no-brainer deal. Hairston will replace the soon-to-be-traded Matt Holliday in the line-up, giving them a right-handed outfield bat that they lacked going forward, and they gave up no real parts of their future to acquire a guy who can fit into their near-term core.

Easy win for Oakland here. Can't say I'm a fan of whatever plan San Diego is putting in place.

My only problem with Hairston is that he's 29 and has a .313 career on-base percentage. Yes, this season it's .358 ... but last season it was .312 in significantly more plate appearances than he's got this season (so far). My only concern is that Hairston's been (roughly) a National League-average hitter, which means he'll be a less than American League-average hitter.

Of course, he is cheap and he does play well in the outfield, so he's still worth a roster spot for sure. Oh, one more concern: the A's have three young outfielders who have failed miserably to this point, but still deserve chances to play and probably need them because the A's need some great players (at the moment they don't have even one). In the long run, who loses playing time to Hairston? Ryan Sweeney? Travis Buck? Aaron Cunningham?

Perhaps none of them. Ken Rosenthal says the A's aren't going to flip Hairston. I'm not so sure. They could trade him soon, when his value's at its highest. Or they could trade him a year from now, when he's got a .298 on-base percentage and suddenly their young outfielders are looking pretty good by comparison. But I don't see Hairston in the lineup when the A's get back into the playoffs.

The Red Sox are probably the best team in the majors, so it shouldn't be all that surprising that they've got six All-Stars. It's the identity of one of them that's a bit of a surprise. Red Sox Monster:

Wakefield

The good news is that Major League Baseball announced its 2009 All-Star selections today, and six members of the Boston Red Sox were named to the team. Even better, the list includes Tim Wakefield, 42, who becomes the second oldest player ever to make the All-Star team for the first time (The first? The legendary Satchel Paige).

--snip--

On the weekend when Wakefield started his 383rd game with the Red Sox (breaking Roger Clemens' team record), Timmay was chosen for an All-Star game over Jeff Weaver, Kevin Milwood and dozens of other pitchers in the AL.

Should he have been? In a normal year, there are plenty of folks who would point to Wakefield's miniscule strikeout numbers (53 in 102 2/3 innings) and his relatively high ERA (4.30) and call him a fluke.

But flukes don't last nearly two decades in the major leagues, nearly pitch the 2003 Red Sox to an American League Championship Series win or swing back and forth between starting and relief as needs dictate. They also don't tie for the league lead in wins (10) or carry the Red Sox during the month of April, when everyone from Josh Beckett to Jon Lester to Daisuke Matsuzaka all nuked leads with [regularity].

So, in a word, it's time.

With apologies to Weaver and Millwood, Wakefield has earned this spot and all the national recognition that goes with it.

Is the All-Star Game the place for Lifetime Achievement Awards?

Oh, I don't know. There's certainly a precedent for future Hall of Famers; Ozzie Smith somehow garnered that honor three times. I think it's not a bad idea for a player who might have deserved All-Star nods over the years but somehow never got one. Tim Wakefield, though? Has he ever been great? Ever deserved to be an All-Star?

Wakefield's best seasons were a long time ago: 1992, his first season in the majors; and 1995, his first season with the Red Sox.

In 1992, he didn't debut in the majors (with the Pirates) until after the All-Star Game. In 1995, he didn't debut with the Red Sox until late May because he'd opened the season in the International League. Thus, at the All-Star break in 1995, Wakefield was 7-1 with a 1.61 ERA but he'd started only 10 games. Looking at his other seasons, it's possible that he had All-Star-worthy stats at some point, but pretty unlikely.

And this season? He's tied for the American League lead with 10 wins, but ranks just 28th in ERA, 19th in innings, and 40th in strikeouts. It's pretty hard to argue that he's been one of the dozen best starters in the league. Or two-dozen best.

All of which leaves me thoughtful but unwavering: I want to see Tim Wakefield pitch in the All-Star Game. He's a good guy, and historically unique, and I've been avidly following the ups and downs of his career since he arrived in the majors 17 years ago. I think an All-Star Game that has room for Tim Wakefield is a better All-Star Game. Even if it does count.

I'm not nearly as surprised that Yadier Molina's having a better season than Bengie Molina, as by the odd fact that the voting public has rewarded Yadier for having a better season than his (much) older brother. Anyway, this morning I have some things that might interest you ...

• Evan Grant takes me to task and Adam Morris defends me. Life is good.

• I almost posted something last week about John Henry's wedding, but didn't (maybe because the older I get, the less enjoyment I derive from making fun of people). Anyway, now I'm really glad I didn't, because it looks like the original stories might have been mostly bunk.

• Does anyone else get the impression that the Royals are floundering, organizationally? One of their biggest and most optimistic fans is Rany Jazayerli, right? Well, Rany's now persona non grata at Kauffman Stadium (more on that here). Meanwhile, Joe Posnanski -- who's not as big a fan as Rany, but has often been even more optimistic -- last week wrote scathing commentary on consecutive days (here and here). The Royals can't hit, they can't field, and they can't run the bases. As usual, they're short on top prospects. And nothing ever seems to change, really.

• Hey, since when did players get so smart? (Of course, then he went out yesterday afternoon and poked a hole in his own theory.)

• It happened about a week earlier than I'd guessed, but the Rangers had little choice: they had to send Chris Davis down. The guy just struck out too much. He's only 23, and might eventually get back to where he was.

• I don't usually care much, which two of 10 guys is chosen by the fans to fill out the All-Star rosters ... but will it really be an All-Star Game without Kung Fu Panda? I was lucky enough to be at the ballpark Friday night when 1) I saw my first video review in person (which was cool, 2) Panda tripled and homered -- and by the way, he's a lot faster than you think -- and 3) the Giants scored 13 runs on 14 hits in the first three innings ... and managed zero runs and one hit the rest of the way. It's a funny game, this baseball.

Kevin Millwood: All-Star? Yeah, probably.

Kevin Millwood: deserving All-Star? No, probably not. As FanGraphs' R.J. Anderson notes, Millwood has been exceptionally lucky:

Name the pitchers:

Pitcher A: 172.2 IP, 17.31% K, 5.85 BB%, 10.1% HR/FB, 67.7% LOB, 5.16 ERA
Pitcher B: 112.2 IP, 14.64% K, 7.88 BB%, 10.8% HR/FB, 85.9% LOB, 2.64 ERA

Pitcher B is Kevin Millwood, benefactor of an unsustainable amount of stranded runners, thus keeping his ERA at a comfortable, and easily overrated, 2.64. Pitcher A is also Kevin Millwood, two seasons ago. The differences between the two seasons are minimal. This Millwood walks a few more, strikes out a few less, and has a vastly superior defense behind him, otherwise, they're the same pitcher -- literally and figuratively.

--snip--

If you have Millwood on your fantasy team, sell him now. There are some examples of seasons like this actually lasting through October, but don't bet on another Steve Trachsel 1996, just pull the trigger before it's too late.

I cut the part where Anderson gives some credit to the defense behind Millwood, but he dispenses that nugget and then sort of forgets about it, and I wonder if he should. He doesn't mention Millwood's batting average (allowed) on balls in play, and I wonder if he should. In 2007, Millwood gave up an astronomical .340 BABiP ... and last year it was even higher (.358!).

And this year?

.261, the lowest of his Millwood's career.

I'm sure someone's pointed this out before, but a high strand rate isn't completely about good relievers and effective clutch pitching; it's also about BABiP. If you have a low BABiP you're going to have a low BA, and a low BA is going to result in more runners being stranded. Oh, and of course the defense contributes to a low BABiP ... but not nearly enough to explain an 80- (or 100-) point drop in BABiP from one season to the next.

Millwood has been incredibly lucky this season. There's just no way around it. If he's on your fantasy team, you should trade him to someone who doesn't read FanGraphs (or SweetSpot!). In the real world, though, the Rangers are basically stuck with a guy who's going to post an ERA well above 4.00 in the second half of the season.

Mark Reynolds is one of the Diamondbacks' few bright spots this season -- along with Dan Haren, Max Scherzer, and Justin Upton -- and RotoSavants' Troy Patterson is happy to remind us that he called it. How is Reynolds doing it?

Reynolds

His plate numbers haven't changed much as he is walking at a 11.6%, which is only up slightly from his 10.6%. Then his strikeout rate is similar to last year down slightly to 36.7% from 37.8%. Overall he is showing the same numbers at the plate, but it is concerning that his LD% is down to 14% from a career rate of 18.2%. This could lead to a lowering BABIP if it doesn't return to normal rates.

So what about the power? Last year Matt Williams made the comment he thought that Reynolds would hit 50 homers some day. What scouting or info he based this on I don't know, but he sure looks smart right now. He won't reach 50 this year, but a 40 homer season is within his grasp. He does have a 38% rate of Just Enough homers which is a bit high, but even a final count of 35-38 homers would make a great return on your investment.

Line-drive percentage. Batting average on balls in play. Just Enough homers. Can you believe the things we're talking about these days. Something I don't know, but would like to ... Has anyone pulled all these things together yet, in their efforts to build perfect projections? I suppose that I'm dating myself, but it really doesn't seem all that long ago when a) trying to project performance was considered somewhat radical, and 2) the height of sophistication involved using five or six statistics from the previous three seasons.

Seriously.

Anyway, Reynolds is probably a little bit over his head this season, but he's only 25 and is pretty obviously going to enjoy a number of fine seasons. The biggest differences between last season and this season are that his line-drive percentage is significantly lower (as noted above), his fly-ball percentage is significantly higher, and a significantly higher percentage of his fly balls are flying over the fence (perhaps due to luck, as manifested in those "just enough" home runs; with eight of those, Reynolds is second in the National League.

Today's links may be capped but not traded, and publicly optioned but only if you're not happy with your current links ...

• Was Mariano Rivera really almost traded to the Tigers? No, not really (headline notwithstanding). But what if Mo had become a Tiger 14 years ago? Grand Cards wonders.

• A couple of days ago, a baseball card arrived in the mail: Topps 1979, Marty Pattin. No note. No return address. Just a New York, N.Y. postmark. From whence came this mysterious item? As ShysterBall noted, I was far from the only recipient ... and then Craig solved the mystery.

And while we're on the subject, the L.A. Times' David Davis recently tracked down Brendan Boyd and Fred Harris, who co-wrote one of my all-time favorite books (which is, somewhat shockingly, now out of print; thank heaven for eBay, etc).

• If you really want to know the whole story -- well, 95 percent of it, anyway -- about why the "Moneyball" movie got junked mere days before filming was set to begin, the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times have most of the puzzle pieces. And yeah, I'm still bummed.

• Maury's got all the ins and outs of interleague attendance, but I'm still left with one question: What's the attendance like in the non-marquee games? The argument for interleague games -- well, commissioner Bud Selig's argument, anyway -- is that interleague games juice the attendance ... but is that true of all interleague games? Or just those that fans actually get excited about? I think I know the answer, but I'd like some proof to show the next commissioner.

• The Wall Street Journal's Shirley Wang offers a nice (if somewhat thin) overview of mental-health issues among baseball players. But somehow she didn't even mention this latest scary bit about Ian Snell. Oh, and in case you missed this news, in Snell's first start with Indianapolis, he struck out 17 batters ... including 13 straight.

• Do not -- I repeat, do not -- give up on Charlie Haeger yet. He's an All-Star!

• Why so many hip surgeries, so suddenly? Better doctoring, mostly.

• Crazy Manager Video of the Week.

Adrian Beltre is out. Chris Woodward is in. Chris Woodward's not any sort of long- (or even medium-) term answer. So as long as the Mariners are hanging around the fringes of the pennant race, people are going to speculate about the M's acquiring an established third baseman.

Case in point: The Tacoma News-Tribune's John McGrath suggests -- after a long allusion to Piano Legs Hickman, for which McGrath scores big bonus points -- that the Mariners have nobody in the organization who can take over at third base, and thus should look outside the organization, and McGrath's gaze alights on Greg Dobbs.

Meanwhile, Jon Paul Morosi reports that the Mariners have "have engaged in preliminary discussions with the Padres about third baseman Kevin Kouzmanoff, according to one source with knowledge of the talks."

Now, don't get me wrong: both of those are fascinating ideas. They just wouldn't lead to many (if any) extra wins for the Mariners.

Like Raul Ibanez, Dobbs saw his hitting stats jump after leaving Seattle for Philadelphia. Two stat lines:

American League (Seattle), 2004-2006: .257/.291/.351
National League (Philadelphia), 2007-2009: .278/.327/.463

Dobbs wasn't even a great hitter in the minor leagues. The only place he's ever hit, really, was in Double-A way back when, and in 2007 and 2008 in a hitter's park in a (relatively) weak league. If the M's could have him for a song? Sure, why not. He's better than Woodward. But so much better that anybody should trade a legitimate prospect for him.

Kouzmanoff's a different case, of course. He's younger than Dobbs, and did some pretty impressive things not so long ago. But there's that same moving-from-the-National-to-the-American thing, plus the little matter of the sub-.300 on-base percentage over these past two seasons. And finally, Kouzmanoff is just adequate with the glove, at best. Just like Dobbs. And like Dobbs, Kouzmanoff would be just a small improvement over Woodward, but with a tad more upside because of his relative youth.

Dobbs can probably be gotten for little of value, considering that he's been reduced to mostly pinch-hitting appearances. Getting Kouzmanoff would probably mean giving up at least a Grade B prospect, and possibly a B+.

Bottom line: The Mariners really shouldn't give up much of anything. Not now, when they're in third place in early July. If they're still close to first place in late July and their starting pitchers are healthy and happy, then maybe they can seriously considering trading away a lot of future for a little bit of present.

Now, though? It's all just idle talk, or should be.

How good is Nyjer Morgan? Dave Cameron thinks you might be really surprised ...

When the Nationals signed Adam Dunn over the winter to a 2 year, $20 million contract, the reaction from the sabermetric community was almost unanimously positive towards the move for Washington. For a fraction of his original asking price, they got the guy who had become something of a poster boy for the kind of player that statistical analysts have been claiming is undervalued for years. The walks and power skillset produces a lot of runs, and Dunn has a master's degree in the walks and power skillset.

When the Nationals acquired Nyjer Morgan yesterday, the reaction from the sabermetric community was almost unanimously negative towards the move for Washington. He was routinely called a no-power fourth outfielder, easily replaceable, and a 29-year-old with no upside. The Nationals were destroyed for giving up on a "talent” like Lastings Milledge to acquire Morgan. Analysts I have quite a bit of respect for, like Keith Law, Dan Szymborski, and our own R.J. Anderson, hailed this as an easy win for the Pirates, as none of them see much value in Morgan.

Here's the problem. Nyjer Morgan and Adam Dunn are nearly equals in value, and the polar reactions from the sabermetric crowd puts the blindspots that have been developed over the last 10-15 years on full display.

Since I know you're all pressed for time, I'll summarize the next few grafs, thusly: 1) Dunn is 45 runs better with the bat; Morgan is 5 runs better on the bases; and Morgan is 35 runs better with the glove. Ergo, Dunn is a whole five runs better than Morgan. Or roughly speaking, one-half of one win. For this, Dunn is paid $10 million and Morgan $411,500.

Cameron's big finish:

There's just no way around the real conclusion -- the sabermetric community, for the most part, has a blindspot when it comes to players with defensive skills at the extremes of the spectrum. Given the cost differences, Morgan is clearly a more valuable asset than Dunn, yet his acquisition is mocked while Dunn's is celebrated.

Baseball is not just about who can hit the ball further. It's time we stopped evaluating players on their offensive worth alone.

Cameron's done as much as anyone in recent years to awaken the sabermetric community -- and by extension, anyone else who's interesting in being awake -- to the relative values of hitting and defense. We all owe him our gratitude for his hard work and unflagging enthusiasm. But I think he's firing his barbs at a straw man here. Was he not around last winter when everyone was explaining why Adam Dunn and Pat Burrell and Bobby Abreu were forced to take pay cuts?

OK, so we may have given short shrift to Morgan yesterday, but that's not because we don't understand that a run saved is just as valuable as a run scored. It's because Morgan's never been a regular before this season, so it's not easy to get a handle on just how great he is, defensively. Certainly, Morgan doesn't have any sort of reputation yet. Also, it's because Morgan's just about as good as he's ever going to be, while Lastings Milledge -- who, after all, was actually a part of the trade; Dunn was not -- is still considered by some to have a legitimate shot at becoming a super player.

I'm not particularly optimistic about Milledge. It's true that members of the "sabermetric community" -- which I suppose might include me -- can become a tad overenthusiastic about young players. But that's a whole different blindspot. Maybe we don't completely get the value of defense yet. But trust me, Dave Cameron: we're getting there, and we're getting there quickly.

The news in Kansas City just keeps getting better. Breaking, from Bob Dutton:

Shortstop Mike Aviles is scheduled to undergo reconstructive-elbow surgery, commonly known as Tommy John surgery, to correct ligament damage that failed to heal through rest.

--snip--

He began experiencing forearm and elbow soreness this season in spring training and batted just .183 in 36 games before going on the disabled list after the May 23 games in St. Louis.

Well, that's a kick in the pants. As recently as yesterday, Aviles' injury was still being described as "a sore right forearm," but at least now we've got an explanation for his off-the-cliff performance this spring. As if Rany Jazayerli needed any more ammo than he already had.

You have to love the Royals' shortstops this season. In addition to Aviles, you've got Luis Hernandez and Tony Pena, Jr. Together, they've combined for a .199/.229/.255 line. Those latter two numbers are the worst in the majors, while the .199 is "bested" by only the Phillies' shortstops' .197 batting average (thanks, J-Roll!).

Among the many reasons for the Royals having the worst run differential in the American League, the failure of their shortstops might rank as No. 1. Other candidates: Alex Gordon's injury, Kyle Davies' ongoing inability to control the strike zone, and Sidney Ponson's Sidney Ponson-ness.

In the end, though, one struggles to avoid returning to the front office. The Royals are 13th in the league in walks, 13th in on-base percentage, and 13th in scoring. Maybe, one of these years, somebody wearing a suit will realize that those things might be somehow connected.

Peter Abraham on the Yankees' newest and bestest middle reliever:

Phil Hughes found something last week he thought he had lost a few years ago. It was a 96-mph fastball.

The 23-year-old right-hander has been pitching in relief since the first week of June when the Yankees decided to return Chien-Ming Wang to the rotation. What seemed at first like a temporary assignment has turned into a move that could be one of the keys to a successful season for the Yankees.

With his perfect inning in last night's 8-5 win over the Mariners, Hughes has pitched seven times in relief. In 13 innings out of the bullpen, he's allowed two earned runs on five hits with only three walks and 16 strikeouts.

--snip--

"He is a full-fledged reliever now. I won't hesitate to bring him in in any situation at this point," manager Joe Girardi said. "We still consider him a starter, but right now he's filling a void for us."

General manager Brian Cashman feels the same way. With 37-year-old Andy Pettitte on a year-to-year basis, Hughes is next in line to join the rotation. But that is an issue for next season.

I was watching the Mariners and Yankees last night. Upon watching Hughes uncoiling those mid-90s fastballs, Mariners broadcaster Mike Blowers said something like, "Based on the scouting reports, I didn't expect Phil Hughes to throw this hard. I thought he was more of a low-90s guy."

Really, Mike? You've been around the game for a long time. You never noticed that starting pitchers add some giddyup when they move to the bullpen? Anyway, Hughes is obviously more effective as a reliever and I admire management's reluctance to just leave him in the 'pen forever. I do question the notion that it's "an issue for next season," because that sort of assumes that the Yankees' five starters at this moment will be healthy for the next three months. I also question Girardi's decision last night to yank Hughes after just one perfect inning (and nine pitches!).

It's easy to second-guess him because Brian Bruney came in and blew the lead -- and got the win; nice scoring rules, MLB! -- but Bruney's been pretty brilliant lately. My problem with taking out Hughes is that every time you use him for just one easy inning, you make it that much harder to get him back into the rotation if the need arises. Why not use Hughes for two or three innings at a time? And if the "problem" is not enough work for the other relievers, here's a radical idea: don't carry so many relievers.

Bugs & Cranks on last night's gem:

Marquis

In case you missed it, Jason Marquis was Bob Gibson, Orel Hershiser, and Greg Maddux all rolled into one last night.

In other words, he was pretty special. A kind of special Rockies fans have seen maybe seven or eight times in 17 years ... and six of those came AGAINST the Rockies.

Marquis needed only 86 pitches (66 strikes) to throw a complete game, two-hit shutout of the first place Dodgers. He threw first pitch strikes to 16 of the first 19 batters - 22 of 29 overall. He struck out only three, while amassing a ridiculous 17 groundball outs.

It's those groundball outs that caught my eye. Marquis has been quite good for the Rockies: 10-5, 3.87 ERA. And he's doing it on the ground. While he's not exactly an extreme groundball pitcher, his ground/fly ratio is the highest of his career; the second highest was in 2004, when -- probably not coincidentally -- Marquis enjoyed the best season of his career.

It's not like Marquis has completely changed his style; last summer, then-Cubs teammate Sean Gallagher described Marquis' style as "sinker, sinker, sinker." Repertoire-wise, Marquis is throwing a few more sliders than he did last year, and fewer changeups. Nothing obvious that would explain his apparent transformation.

Whatever he's doing, though, he should keep doing it. As good as Marquis has been this year, he's not the unalloyed ace of the staff, as Ubaldo Jimenez and Aaron Cook both have lower ERA's (though not by much) than Marquis' 3.87.

But Jimenez and Cook are doing about what we might have expected them to do. It's Marquis -- and Jason Hammel, too -- who have been the real surprises, it's Marquis and Hammel who will have to keep surprising us if the whole team is going to continue surprising us.

Also, it would help if Seth Smith played more.

Today's links should be wrapped in a bow with best wishes for a Happy Canada Day (and a moment of silence for les Expos) ...

• Dave Cameron agrees with my take on the Milledge-Morgan deal, though not for precisely the same reasons. (Oh, and speaking of Cameron: He asked the Mariners to trade for Ryan Langerhans ... and six days later they did it. Just saying.

• I absolutely adore Peter Abraham's take on Joba Chamberlain: "He's too good to be boring."

• And I like Ken Tremendous's tweet on the Red Sox's shocking loss Tuesday night: "I choose to think of tonight's events as simply the Sox going down -1 in run differential."

• Nice little debate (and poll) over at Big League Stew.

• All these years, I thought Peter Golenbock was a diehard Yankees fan, and now it turns out that he's got another passion.

• You don't need to read the whole thing, but the headline alone is worth a peek.

• Posnanski says this isn't about the Royals ... but really it is, and we learn that 1) Mike Jacobs has one RBI in his last 101 plate appearances, 2) the Royals are the worst baserunners in the majors, by far, and 3) the offense gets worse every year, even though the people making the big decisions are just unbelievably bright and talented. Would JoePo lie to you?

• Your Non-Baseball Web site of the Week.