Today's links were tidied up while I wondered if even the great Tim Lincecum could strike out Superman ...
- Yesterday was a strange day, especially (I'm guessing) for Keith Law and Will Carroll. After a few hours of thinking about them, I finally realized, "Hey! That could have been me!" If I'd had the ballot, I probably would have left Carpenter off mine, too. And all those guys on TV and the radio and the Internets would be saying terrible things about me. I've gotten a bit of that over the years, mostly in New York. But never on a national level.
- Wezen-Ball takes a first stab at satirizing the over-the-top reactions of those pundits who are just so sure that Chris Carpenter was one of the three best pitchers in the National League.
- And finally, it's official, friends: With this, Tyler Kepner is officially forgiven for his odd little moment last summer.
- From baseball-intellect.com, everything you need to know about Aroldis Chapman.
- In these strange days, it's worth taking a pick-axe to a commonly used (by me, anyway) metric for team performance, and Dave Cameron's just the man to do it.
- I don't think we'll ever know exactly why the Red Sox were the last major league team to integrate, but Glenn Stout's discovered quite a good clue.
- Sorry, but I just can't resist.
- Jeez, what a killjoy this guy is. Sure, he's mostly right, but still ...
- Bill Simmons is signing books tonight in Denver. A word of advice, if you're going: Go early. I was at a Bill Simmons event last night, and I arrived early, and I still couldn't get near the man. I mean, we're talking rock star here. I'm sure the interaction is worth the wait. But if you're not there early, you'll be there really, really late.
- Speaking of The Sports Guy, I did pick up his new book (sans signature). From Malcolm Gladwell's preface: "This is the basketball version of the old Baseball Abstracts that Bill James used to put out in the 1980s." Well, that's not exactly right. This is the basketball version of Bill's Historical Baseball Abstract, which was quite a different animal from the annual books of the '80s. Either way, though, you really can't go wrong.
- Programming note: I'll be blogging infrequently (at best) between now and the end of next week. I might drop in for a little MVP action, but won't return to full-time duties until a week from Monday.
More from the Commish:
No, baseball's owners don't live in a bubble. That long walk from the chauffeured Town Car to the private jet can be terribly stressful.
OK, I know what Selig means. He's saying that baseball doesn't operate in a vacuum. When the economy's hurting, so are MLB's revenues. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that a few teams really did lose money this year. But let's say an owner pays himself $5 million, his wife $2 million, and his ne'er-do-well son $1 million. Let's say he also assigns parking revenues to a wholly separate entity, with a $6 million profit. OK, that's $14 million just sort of floating around with no real connection to the operation of the franchise. Our owner tells the Commissioner's Office that he lost $4 million.
Well, technically speaking that might be perfectly true, and the Commissioner is perfectly within his rights to include this franchise among those that lost money.
But was any money lost, really? Of course not. Everybody's fat and happy, and we haven't even mentioned franchises that own their own TV networks (not to mention all the other ways that teams hide revenues).
I don't trust any of them. As long as he doesn't have to name specific teams, it is to the Commissioner's advantage to claim that teams are losing money. As long as the agents don't have complete access to all the books, they can reasonably claim that MLB is raking in millions in profits.
The truth? Most of us can't know. However, I would simply look at behavior. When teams are spending big money, we can at least guess that they've got extra money to spend. When they're cutting back, we can at least guess that they're feeling a bit of a pinch, financially.
Major League Baseball is far from a perfect market. Generally, though, owners do want to win and they will spend what money they've got. I think agent Scott Boras might reasonably argue that owners aren't spending everything they have because every team's not trying to win 90 games per season -- which is smart, since they all can't win 90 games per season -- and the result is that a hefty percentage of the revenues are staying in house.
There's an easy way to address that "problem" ... an NBA- or NFL-style salary cap, which mandates that the players must receive a set percentage of the revenues. Do you think the Players Association will be arguing for a salary cap in 2011?
- Some teams lost money in 2009, baseball commissioner Bud Selig said Thursday after the final owners meeting of the year.
"There was no question about that," Selig said. "I don't think the concerns have been ameliorated at all. I think the concerns are still there because all these people have their own economists."
Selig said final figures for this year are still being calculated and everyone is living in the most difficult economic times since the Great Depression. He declined to identify the teams.
"I think of all the heartache that's in the world," Selig said. "We live in this environment. We don't live in a bubble. And so, I think the clubs in some areas have been hit a lot harder than others."
No, baseball's owners don't live in a bubble. That long walk from the chauffeured Town Car to the private jet can be terribly stressful.
OK, I know what Selig means. He's saying that baseball doesn't operate in a vacuum. When the economy's hurting, so are MLB's revenues. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that a few teams really did lose money this year. But let's say an owner pays himself $5 million, his wife $2 million, and his ne'er-do-well son $1 million. Let's say he also assigns parking revenues to a wholly separate entity, with a $6 million profit. OK, that's $14 million just sort of floating around with no real connection to the operation of the franchise. Our owner tells the Commissioner's Office that he lost $4 million.
Well, technically speaking that might be perfectly true, and the Commissioner is perfectly within his rights to include this franchise among those that lost money.
But was any money lost, really? Of course not. Everybody's fat and happy, and we haven't even mentioned franchises that own their own TV networks (not to mention all the other ways that teams hide revenues).
I don't trust any of them. As long as he doesn't have to name specific teams, it is to the Commissioner's advantage to claim that teams are losing money. As long as the agents don't have complete access to all the books, they can reasonably claim that MLB is raking in millions in profits.
The truth? Most of us can't know. However, I would simply look at behavior. When teams are spending big money, we can at least guess that they've got extra money to spend. When they're cutting back, we can at least guess that they're feeling a bit of a pinch, financially.
Major League Baseball is far from a perfect market. Generally, though, owners do want to win and they will spend what money they've got. I think agent Scott Boras might reasonably argue that owners aren't spending everything they have because every team's not trying to win 90 games per season -- which is smart, since they all can't win 90 games per season -- and the result is that a hefty percentage of the revenues are staying in house.
There's an easy way to address that "problem" ... an NBA- or NFL-style salary cap, which mandates that the players must receive a set percentage of the revenues. Do you think the Players Association will be arguing for a salary cap in 2011?
Let's dig into the Cy Young balloting, shall we?
Obviously, $70,000 is not a great deal of money to Vazquez. Just as obviously, Law cost the Atlanta Braves $70,000.
Also obviously, neither Carroll nor Law alone cost Carpenter or Wainwright anything.
There were 32 voters, each asked to list their top three candidates. A first choice gets five points, a second choice three points, a third choice one point. If you retabulate the voting results, but without Carroll, the results are exactly the same: Lincecum-Carpenter-Wainwright. If you retabulate without Law, again the same: Lincecum-Carpenter-Wainwright. Unless the voting is exceptionally close, even closer than this time, one voter cannot change the results.
That said, it's true that the two non-traditional -- that is, non-newspaper -- voters did essentially swing the results. If you refigure the voting without Carroll and Law, Carpenter wins:
1. Carpenter (94)
2. Lincecum (92)
3. Wainwright (84)
With, by the way, nobody else figuring in the voting. Aside from Carroll and Law, every ballot was filled with only three names.*
*St. Louis writer Jeff Gordon argues that Wainwright got "jobbed." And further, "Carpenter was left off two ballots, with Javier Vasquez and Danny Haren presumably getting some local love. If Carpenter made those two ballots, he could have won the award. So you can expect those two voters to face heavy questioning in the days ahead."
Will and Keith may face heavy questioning, but Gordon's math here is wrong. Even if both had listed Carpenter third on their ballots, he still would have finished four points behind Lincecum.
On the other hand, purely in terms of performance -- rather than precedent -- it's very difficult to make the case that a vote for Vazquez or Haren is somehow crazy. Vazquez's ERA was little different from Wainwright's, but he was one of only two National Leaguers with a strikeout-to-walk ratio higher than 5-to-1.
The other was Haren, who led the league in that category.
I'm not going to run through every basic statistic (and yes, K/BB is a basic statistic), nor will I run through every advanced metric. I will say that according to FanGraphs, the most valuable pitcher in the league was Lincecum, the second most valuable was Vazquez, and the third most valuable was Haren.
Which isn't necessarily how I would have voted. Value-wise -- as theoretically measured by dollars -- there's virtually no difference between Haren, Wainwright, Carpenter, or (gulp) Ubaldo Jimenez and Josh Johnson. My point is that among the five candidates who wound up on at least one voter's ballot, only Lincecum's fundamental performance truly stands out.
There's something to be said for Conventional Wisdom. In this case, the Conventional Wisdom was unanimous: the three best pitchers in the league were Lincecum, Carpenter, and Wainwright. But in a field as traditionally conservative as award voting, isn't it healthy to allow room for just a bit of unconventional wisdom, too?
Carroll and Law didn't do anything crazy. They looked at the same numbers available to everyone else, and came up with slightly different answers. They should not be reviled for this. They should instead be applauded. And yes, even in St. Louis, where a bit more unconventional wisdom in 1987 would have given Ozzie Smith the MVP Award he deserved.
Two voters, Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus and Keith Law of ESPN.com, did not include Chris Carpenter on their ballots. Carroll had Wainwright in the top spot, Tim Lincecum second and Arizona's Dan Haren third. Law voted for Lincecum, Atlanta's Javier Vazquez and Wainwright in third. Those were the only votes in any position for Haren and Vazquez.
The six-point gap between Lincecum and Carpenter is tied for the third-closest in the NL since the ballot expanded to three pitchers in 1970. The 10-point margin from first to third is the second closest for the NL ballot.
Lincecum, who had a $650,000 salary and could be headed for a big raise if he goes to arbitration before next season, did not have any bonus provision for winning the award. Carpenter receives $100,000 for finishing second, Wainwright $100,000 for winding up third and Vazquez $70,000 for being voted fourth.
Obviously, $70,000 is not a great deal of money to Vazquez. Just as obviously, Law cost the Atlanta Braves $70,000.
Also obviously, neither Carroll nor Law alone cost Carpenter or Wainwright anything.
There were 32 voters, each asked to list their top three candidates. A first choice gets five points, a second choice three points, a third choice one point. If you retabulate the voting results, but without Carroll, the results are exactly the same: Lincecum-Carpenter-Wainwright. If you retabulate without Law, again the same: Lincecum-Carpenter-Wainwright. Unless the voting is exceptionally close, even closer than this time, one voter cannot change the results.
That said, it's true that the two non-traditional -- that is, non-newspaper -- voters did essentially swing the results. If you refigure the voting without Carroll and Law, Carpenter wins:
1. Carpenter (94)
2. Lincecum (92)
3. Wainwright (84)
With, by the way, nobody else figuring in the voting. Aside from Carroll and Law, every ballot was filled with only three names.*
*St. Louis writer Jeff Gordon argues that Wainwright got "jobbed." And further, "Carpenter was left off two ballots, with Javier Vasquez and Danny Haren presumably getting some local love. If Carpenter made those two ballots, he could have won the award. So you can expect those two voters to face heavy questioning in the days ahead."
Will and Keith may face heavy questioning, but Gordon's math here is wrong. Even if both had listed Carpenter third on their ballots, he still would have finished four points behind Lincecum.
On the other hand, purely in terms of performance -- rather than precedent -- it's very difficult to make the case that a vote for Vazquez or Haren is somehow crazy. Vazquez's ERA was little different from Wainwright's, but he was one of only two National Leaguers with a strikeout-to-walk ratio higher than 5-to-1.
The other was Haren, who led the league in that category.
I'm not going to run through every basic statistic (and yes, K/BB is a basic statistic), nor will I run through every advanced metric. I will say that according to FanGraphs, the most valuable pitcher in the league was Lincecum, the second most valuable was Vazquez, and the third most valuable was Haren.
Which isn't necessarily how I would have voted. Value-wise -- as theoretically measured by dollars -- there's virtually no difference between Haren, Wainwright, Carpenter, or (gulp) Ubaldo Jimenez and Josh Johnson. My point is that among the five candidates who wound up on at least one voter's ballot, only Lincecum's fundamental performance truly stands out.
There's something to be said for Conventional Wisdom. In this case, the Conventional Wisdom was unanimous: the three best pitchers in the league were Lincecum, Carpenter, and Wainwright. But in a field as traditionally conservative as award voting, isn't it healthy to allow room for just a bit of unconventional wisdom, too?
Carroll and Law didn't do anything crazy. They looked at the same numbers available to everyone else, and came up with slightly different answers. They should not be reviled for this. They should instead be applauded. And yes, even in St. Louis, where a bit more unconventional wisdom in 1987 would have given Ozzie Smith the MVP Award he deserved.
It's just one year. I'm not quite ready to declare that the paradigm has shifted.
As I wrote a few months ago, Bill James' method to predict Cy Young Awards has always worked quite well, even in recent seasons. The only caveat is that the Predictor really doesn't know how to handle relief pitchers, for the simple reason that Cy Young voters have never demonstrated any sort of consistency with relief pitchers.
When it comes to starters, though? The Predictor has been good. Really good.
But not this year.
This year, the Predictor gave Felix Hernandez a sizable edge over Zack Greinke, who won only 16 games and didn't pitch for a winning team. Nevertheless, Greinke garnered 25 first-place votes; Hernandez got two.
Still, one example doesn't prove anything, and it seemed apparent that Greinke was going to win. As I wrote earlier this week, Greinke just had that certain (if indefinable) buzz.
What happened in the National League is a completely different thing.
Where Greinke finished the season second on the Predictor list, Lincecum finished fourth. And more relevantly, third among starters. And not just third; a deep third. While Zack Attack finished 14 points behind King Felix, Lincecum finished 15 points behind Chris Carpenter and 26 points behind Adam Wainwright.
And yet Lincecum, who won four fewer games than Wainwright and posted a higher ERA than Carpenter while not pitching for a postseason team, won the Cy Young Award. It's been at least 10 years since anything remotely like this has happened.
Granted, Lincecum didn't run away with the award. He actually picked up 11 first-place votes to Wainwright's 12. It seems likely that if Wainwright had managed to win 20 games -- and remember how close he came! -- he would have won the award, because we can guess that at least a few voters still believe there's a big difference between winning 19 games and winning 20.
Still, I think we're in the midst of a sea change, due in some small part to the BBWAA opening its doors, however slightly, to non-traditional writers (and voters). We know that Keith Law participated in the National League Cy Young balloting. Anyone care to guess who he voted for?
Meanwhile, I'm ready to nominate for sainthood the only voter who gave Javier Vazquez his only support, a second-place vote (unless this was an Atlanta voter, in which case I must regrettably chalk it up to the typical provincialism).
Update: Keith Law, consider yourself nominated.
As I wrote a few months ago, Bill James' method to predict Cy Young Awards has always worked quite well, even in recent seasons. The only caveat is that the Predictor really doesn't know how to handle relief pitchers, for the simple reason that Cy Young voters have never demonstrated any sort of consistency with relief pitchers.
When it comes to starters, though? The Predictor has been good. Really good.
But not this year.
This year, the Predictor gave Felix Hernandez a sizable edge over Zack Greinke, who won only 16 games and didn't pitch for a winning team. Nevertheless, Greinke garnered 25 first-place votes; Hernandez got two.
Still, one example doesn't prove anything, and it seemed apparent that Greinke was going to win. As I wrote earlier this week, Greinke just had that certain (if indefinable) buzz.
What happened in the National League is a completely different thing.
Where Greinke finished the season second on the Predictor list, Lincecum finished fourth. And more relevantly, third among starters. And not just third; a deep third. While Zack Attack finished 14 points behind King Felix, Lincecum finished 15 points behind Chris Carpenter and 26 points behind Adam Wainwright.
And yet Lincecum, who won four fewer games than Wainwright and posted a higher ERA than Carpenter while not pitching for a postseason team, won the Cy Young Award. It's been at least 10 years since anything remotely like this has happened.
Granted, Lincecum didn't run away with the award. He actually picked up 11 first-place votes to Wainwright's 12. It seems likely that if Wainwright had managed to win 20 games -- and remember how close he came! -- he would have won the award, because we can guess that at least a few voters still believe there's a big difference between winning 19 games and winning 20.
Still, I think we're in the midst of a sea change, due in some small part to the BBWAA opening its doors, however slightly, to non-traditional writers (and voters). We know that Keith Law participated in the National League Cy Young balloting. Anyone care to guess who he voted for?
Meanwhile, I'm ready to nominate for sainthood the only voter who gave Javier Vazquez his only support, a second-place vote (unless this was an Atlanta voter, in which case I must regrettably chalk it up to the typical provincialism).
Update: Keith Law, consider yourself nominated.
Will October sked really be tightened?
November, 19, 2009
Nov 19
9:59
AM ET
Hey, it turns out that Mike Scioscia wasn't the only baseball man who thought this year's postseason schedule was screwy. Bud Selig does, too!
Well, you can consider me guardedly optimistic. You can't change anything without commissioner Bud's enthusiastic approval, so this would seem to be a lovely first step. But I will note for the record that: a) Selig has promised to do things before that didn't get done; and 2) don't the TV networks call the shots on this one?
At least one of the current TV contracts runs through 2013. Is Selig saying he'll change it five years from now, when he's 80? Or is he saying that he'll slap Fox and TBS, and they'll take it and like it? Stay tuned ...
- "We're going to change it," Selig said. "I don't disagree with Mike Scioscia. I think he was right, so we're going to try and tighten that up."
--snip--
Selig said he's still working on details for the new postseason format.
"When you plan the playoff schedule, you don't know how many games the first round would go. So it's difficult," he explained. "There were clubs that sat around. Some were necessary, but some were not."
Starting in 2007, baseball added four extra days off during the postseason at the request of its television partners, shifting the World Series opener to Wednesday from Saturday, usually the lowest-rated night of the week.
Well, you can consider me guardedly optimistic. You can't change anything without commissioner Bud's enthusiastic approval, so this would seem to be a lovely first step. But I will note for the record that: a) Selig has promised to do things before that didn't get done; and 2) don't the TV networks call the shots on this one?
At least one of the current TV contracts runs through 2013. Is Selig saying he'll change it five years from now, when he's 80? Or is he saying that he'll slap Fox and TBS, and they'll take it and like it? Stay tuned ...
It looks like a fairly boring winter for the A's, at least if you believe Billy Beane ...
Beane's problem isn't that he's got holes to fill. Wallace and Carter are both legitimate prospects, even if both might eventually wind up at the wrong end of the defensive spectrum. But the A's might be able to field decent players at every position by the middle of next summer, particularly if Daric Barton's September was more than a mirage.
That's the problem, though. Everybody's just decent. Is there going to be a single star in the lineup next season? Sure, Wallace and Carter both have potential, but both also have limitations and they're likely to be exposed as rookies. And without any stars, the A's will be like the Angels without Chone Figgins and Kendry Morales and Torii Hunter and Erick Aybar.
Every year I pick the A's, and every year they finish well behind the Angels.
Well, not in 2010. Not this time.
Now, about 2011 ...
- In other words, he's staying the course that he set a couple of winters ago before appearing to veer a bit off last offseason with the acquisitions of veteran stars Matt Holliday, Jason Giambi, Orlando Cabrera and Nomar Garciaparra.
Beane, now more than ever, is committed to going young. If he doesn't think a current need -- third base, first base, shortstop and left field are unsettled -- can be filled by a prospect from within the organization, he'll be looking to acquire such players via trade.
Those players, he suggested, would have to be up-and-comers. He seems to have little to no interest in down-siders such as Vladimir Guerrero, Miguel Tejada and Carlos Delgado.
--snip--
"We're going to look at young players to fill spots, first and foremost," Beane said. "If those players we'd like to acquire aren't obtainable, we'll consider bringing in guys who can hold the positions down. We're going to stay disciplined and try to do everything we can to fill those spots with young players."
Ideally, top prospects such as third baseman Brett Wallace and first baseman/outfielder Chris Carter will quickly blossom into the positional equivalent of Bailey.
Beane's problem isn't that he's got holes to fill. Wallace and Carter are both legitimate prospects, even if both might eventually wind up at the wrong end of the defensive spectrum. But the A's might be able to field decent players at every position by the middle of next summer, particularly if Daric Barton's September was more than a mirage.
That's the problem, though. Everybody's just decent. Is there going to be a single star in the lineup next season? Sure, Wallace and Carter both have potential, but both also have limitations and they're likely to be exposed as rookies. And without any stars, the A's will be like the Angels without Chone Figgins and Kendry Morales and Torii Hunter and Erick Aybar.
Every year I pick the A's, and every year they finish well behind the Angels.
Well, not in 2010. Not this time.
Now, about 2011 ...
From our old friend J.C. Bradbury -- here writing for the Huffington Post -- come four hot-stove myths:
1. GMs can buy low and sell high
"GMs have made mistakes in the past and will make mistakes again, but they're not dumb enough to act on a meaningless hot/cold streak. You can't sell high or buy low and profit financially because all GMs understand these things."
Really? I have a few hundred counter-examples if anyone's interested.
2. The number of free agents at a position affects the price of free agents at a position
"The increased supply of players is canceled out by the increased demand by teams needing replacements."
Absolutely not true. Sure, it's somewhat canceled out. But completely? No way. The Brewers just traded J.J. Hardy. Does that mean they have to turn to the free-agent market to fill their hole at shortstop? Of course not, because they've already got Alcides Escobar. The Dodgers have two free-agent second basemen in Ronnie Belliard and Orlando Hudson. They'll probably re-sign one of them, but if not do they have to venture into the pool of free-agent second basemen? Not necessarily, because they've got young Blake DeWitt at hand. One can't evaluate the price of free agents without also looking at the pool of other available players.
3. Every trade has a winner and a loser
"Swapping resources only takes place if both parties are made better off ... Mistakes happen, but as a general rule, all parties to trades are winners. Who says economists aren't touchy-feely?"
I'm not sure who says that, but a lot of people say that economists often forget that we live in a real world, rather than a theoretical world. Economists like models, but unfortunately models don't work particularly well unless you assume that all actors in your model are "rational" ... so that's what economists do, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that all actors are not rational. Maybe that's why economics is called "the dismal science"?
4. Players peak at 27 and old players are worthless
"Players peak at 29-30. And just because a guy is past his peak doesn't mean he's not valuable."
Reasonable people still disagree about peak ages ... 27, 28, 29, whatever. I just say "late 20s" and figure that's close enough for baseball players and hand grenades. But who exactly is saying that "old players are worthless"? Nobody bothers much with age except analysts, and the analysts absolutely love Mike Cameron (36) and Derek Jeter (35). Granted, I just happened to notice that if you make a list of the best players in the majors right now, nearly all of them are still in their 20s. But a good player is a good player, whether he's 28 or 38.
Maybe I'm not being fair to Bradbury, who's writing for something of a general audience here. General audiences can be a lot smarter than you think, though.
1. GMs can buy low and sell high
"GMs have made mistakes in the past and will make mistakes again, but they're not dumb enough to act on a meaningless hot/cold streak. You can't sell high or buy low and profit financially because all GMs understand these things."
Really? I have a few hundred counter-examples if anyone's interested.
2. The number of free agents at a position affects the price of free agents at a position
"The increased supply of players is canceled out by the increased demand by teams needing replacements."
Absolutely not true. Sure, it's somewhat canceled out. But completely? No way. The Brewers just traded J.J. Hardy. Does that mean they have to turn to the free-agent market to fill their hole at shortstop? Of course not, because they've already got Alcides Escobar. The Dodgers have two free-agent second basemen in Ronnie Belliard and Orlando Hudson. They'll probably re-sign one of them, but if not do they have to venture into the pool of free-agent second basemen? Not necessarily, because they've got young Blake DeWitt at hand. One can't evaluate the price of free agents without also looking at the pool of other available players.
3. Every trade has a winner and a loser
"Swapping resources only takes place if both parties are made better off ... Mistakes happen, but as a general rule, all parties to trades are winners. Who says economists aren't touchy-feely?"
I'm not sure who says that, but a lot of people say that economists often forget that we live in a real world, rather than a theoretical world. Economists like models, but unfortunately models don't work particularly well unless you assume that all actors in your model are "rational" ... so that's what economists do, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that all actors are not rational. Maybe that's why economics is called "the dismal science"?
4. Players peak at 27 and old players are worthless
"Players peak at 29-30. And just because a guy is past his peak doesn't mean he's not valuable."
Reasonable people still disagree about peak ages ... 27, 28, 29, whatever. I just say "late 20s" and figure that's close enough for baseball players and hand grenades. But who exactly is saying that "old players are worthless"? Nobody bothers much with age except analysts, and the analysts absolutely love Mike Cameron (36) and Derek Jeter (35). Granted, I just happened to notice that if you make a list of the best players in the majors right now, nearly all of them are still in their 20s. But a good player is a good player, whether he's 28 or 38.
Maybe I'm not being fair to Bradbury, who's writing for something of a general audience here. General audiences can be a lot smarter than you think, though.
No real surprises here, huh?
Tracy was an easy choice. He took over an 18-28 team -- a team that went 74-88 the year before -- and went 74-42 the rest of the way. I would have voted for him even if the Rockies hadn't won the wild card. Since they did, there was simply no other reasonable choice. Tony La Russa got two first-place votes, and Joe Torre one. I certainly can understand the argument that La Russa and Torre both had good years ... but better than Tracy? The Dodgers were supposed to win the West -- yes, I know they lost Manny Ramirez for a while -- and the Cardinals were supposed to be pretty good, at least. The Rockies were nothing before Tracy took over.
Anyway, it's silly to quibble when 29 of 32 voters get it right.
It was obviously closer in the American League, with Scioscia picking up only 15 of 28 possible first-place votes. The others: Ron Gardenhire (6), Joe Girardi (4), Don Wakamatsu (2) and Ron Washington (1). Oddly, Wakamatsu picked up two first-place votes, two second-place votes, and three third-place votes, while Washington was one, one ... and 11 third-place votes. Consensus-wise, Scioscia was the best manager, Gardenhire was the second-best manager, and Washington was the third-best manager (though he actually tied for fourth in the results).
I'm not sold on Scioscia. As a fine manager, sure. But the manager of the year? Yes, winning 97 games and yet another division title was a real accomplishment. I certainly didn't think the Angels would win so many games this year. The Angels were as good as they were because of Kendry Morales (their second choice at first base), Torii Hunter, and budget acquisition Bobby Abreu.
Wait, wait ... I do know this: "Scioscia’s job in 2009 included keeping the Angels focused following the April 9 death of pitcher Nick Adenhart, who was killed in an automobile crash."
I will argue that you simply can't find any correlation between tragedy and performance, aside from the quantitative loss of the player's actual performance. This isn't football. A manager can't give a "Win one for the Gipper!" speech in April and expect results for six months.
All that said, I don't have a problem with Scioscia winning. Shoot, I might even have voted for him. The Twins didn't do anything special, Girardi did have some pretty good players, and Wakamatsu's Mariners weren't as impressive as you might think, considering their poor luck last year and their good luck this year. I might have voted for Ron Washington, but the Rangers' big gains in run prevention this year were partially offset by losses in run scoring.
The problem with managers is that so much of what they do is beyond our reach as analysts, and what's not beyond our reach -- all the bunts and pitching changes and lineups -- is overwhelming in its detail. The annual Bill James Handbook counts all sorts of managerial things ... but there's no attempt to tie them all together with a tidy bow, and the last three columns in each manager's entry are the old stand-bys: wins, losses, and winning percentage.
So we turn to what's obvious, the managers who win when they're not supposed to, or guide their team through troubled waters. By that standard, Tracy and Scioscia both were fine, solid choices this year.
- Jim Tracy of Colorado has won the NL Manager of the Year award and Mike Scioscia of the Los Angeles Angels has been selected for the AL honor.
Tracy became the second manager to win the award after taking over in midseason, joining Jack McKeon for Florida in 2003. Scioscia also picked up the AL award in 2002.
Tracy received 29 first-place votes and two seconds for 151 points in balloting released Wednesday by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Scioscia got 15 first-place votes.
Tracy was an easy choice. He took over an 18-28 team -- a team that went 74-88 the year before -- and went 74-42 the rest of the way. I would have voted for him even if the Rockies hadn't won the wild card. Since they did, there was simply no other reasonable choice. Tony La Russa got two first-place votes, and Joe Torre one. I certainly can understand the argument that La Russa and Torre both had good years ... but better than Tracy? The Dodgers were supposed to win the West -- yes, I know they lost Manny Ramirez for a while -- and the Cardinals were supposed to be pretty good, at least. The Rockies were nothing before Tracy took over.
Anyway, it's silly to quibble when 29 of 32 voters get it right.
It was obviously closer in the American League, with Scioscia picking up only 15 of 28 possible first-place votes. The others: Ron Gardenhire (6), Joe Girardi (4), Don Wakamatsu (2) and Ron Washington (1). Oddly, Wakamatsu picked up two first-place votes, two second-place votes, and three third-place votes, while Washington was one, one ... and 11 third-place votes. Consensus-wise, Scioscia was the best manager, Gardenhire was the second-best manager, and Washington was the third-best manager (though he actually tied for fourth in the results).
I'm not sold on Scioscia. As a fine manager, sure. But the manager of the year? Yes, winning 97 games and yet another division title was a real accomplishment. I certainly didn't think the Angels would win so many games this year. The Angels were as good as they were because of Kendry Morales (their second choice at first base), Torii Hunter, and budget acquisition Bobby Abreu.
Wait, wait ... I do know this: "Scioscia’s job in 2009 included keeping the Angels focused following the April 9 death of pitcher Nick Adenhart, who was killed in an automobile crash."
I will argue that you simply can't find any correlation between tragedy and performance, aside from the quantitative loss of the player's actual performance. This isn't football. A manager can't give a "Win one for the Gipper!" speech in April and expect results for six months.
All that said, I don't have a problem with Scioscia winning. Shoot, I might even have voted for him. The Twins didn't do anything special, Girardi did have some pretty good players, and Wakamatsu's Mariners weren't as impressive as you might think, considering their poor luck last year and their good luck this year. I might have voted for Ron Washington, but the Rangers' big gains in run prevention this year were partially offset by losses in run scoring.
The problem with managers is that so much of what they do is beyond our reach as analysts, and what's not beyond our reach -- all the bunts and pitching changes and lineups -- is overwhelming in its detail. The annual Bill James Handbook counts all sorts of managerial things ... but there's no attempt to tie them all together with a tidy bow, and the last three columns in each manager's entry are the old stand-bys: wins, losses, and winning percentage.
So we turn to what's obvious, the managers who win when they're not supposed to, or guide their team through troubled waters. By that standard, Tracy and Scioscia both were fine, solid choices this year.
After running through Ian Kinsler's many accomplishments in 2009 -- career highs in homers and steals, good fielding stats, more playing time than ever, and the third 30/30 season by a second baseman in major league history -- Jonathan C. Mitchell moves to an optimistic prediction ...
Not much room to go up from there, right? Wrong. I will show you why Kinsler is due for bigger and better things.
Kinsler had the lowest BABIP (batting average on balls in play) of any qualifying player in the majors at .245. This number was easily the lowest of any season in Kinsler’s career (.339, .282, 310). This is a big deal. Imagine two hits per month that just happen to fall in and not get caught. This would move his BABIP to .271 and his overall AVG to .274, and that is still a low BABIP according to his career averages.
Another area of Kinsler’s 2009 season that was out of the norm was his LD% (line-drive percentage). In his first three seasons he posted LD% of 20.6, 19.6, and 24.2. In 2009 he posted a LD% of 15.9, 10th lowest in the majors. That is surely a number that Kinsler will bring back to normal in 2010.
--snip--
Kinsler didn’t do anything out of the norm to warrant a drop in his BABIP and LD%. His out-of-zone swing percentage was in-line with his career averages and his contact rates were the best of his career while his BB% was exactly the same as his career average of 9.4%.
With all that said, Kinsler should have no problems bringing his BABIP and LD% back to his career norms. If those two things happen, in addition to his continued progress as a player, I see no reason why Kinsler cannot hit at least .285/.370/.525 and go above and beyond another 30/30 season. Add that to the well above-average defense he displayed last season and Kinsler may very well be on his way to an MVP type season. Do not rule it out.
I wouldn't rule anything out.
Kinsler has played four seasons in the majors. He's got one .285/.370/.525 season (2008), and three .270/.340/.460 seasons. It seems a stretch to predict another 2008, and a big stretch to predict some Great Leap Forward. Particularly because when I look at the same numbers Mitchell is looking at, I see something completely different.
Kinsler did hit 31 home runs in 2009. Was this because he was hitting the ball harder, though? Or was it because he was hitting the ball differently? Yes, Kinsler's line-drive percentage was easily the lowest of his career. But his fly-ball percentage was easily the highest of his career. Isn't it possible that he was consciously going for more fly balls and home runs? And even if he wasn't, doesn't it seem likely that he can't have it both ways? That if his line-drive percentage comes back up -- and with it, his batting average -- his fly-ball percentage will come down? And with it, his home runs?
Kinsler has been immensely valuable in each of the last two seasons, just a notch or two below MVP-caliber. They were completely different seasons, though. In 2008, Kinsler went .319/.375/.517 but played lousy defense. In 2009, Kinsler went .253/.327/.488 but played good defense. (The only common thread was Kinsler's brilliant base-stealing: 26 for 28 in '08 and 31 for 36 in '09).
Like I said, I wouldn't rule anything out. Kinsler turns 28 next June (he shares a birthday with me and Carl Hubbell), and figures to have some fine seasons ahead. If he can hit 30 homers again and get his batting average back above .300 and keep stealing bases brilliantly and play Gold Glove-quality defense ... Well, now you're talking about one of the very best players in the league.
But right now, that's all pie in the sky.
Today's links were compiled while I fantasized about seeing these guys in a televised debate. Or maybe an MMA match ...
* FanGraphs' Erik Manning, with a lot of help from Baseball Prospectus, takes a look at non-SB baserunning: first on the team level and then the individuals. Condensed version: Rockies really good (Coors effect?), Orioles really bad, and none of it seems to mean nearly as much as you might think. Except Chone Figgins and Chase Utley are even better than we thought.
* Crashburn Alley suggests that when it comes to J.A. Happ, maybe the Phillies should get out while the gettin's good. I absolutely agree that Happ has become overrated, but I'm not sure how marketable he is, or if the Phillies can actually spare him at this moment.
* Joe Posnanski, who probably knows as much about Zack Greinke as anyone, delivers a fine summary of Greinke's oddly brilliant career.
* Kurt Mensching blogs about the Tigers, but give him some credit for objectivity. He's right: the lone Cy Young vote for Justin Verlander is simply indefensible (or at the very least, was not well defended by the voter who cast it).
* Hey, if the Wall Street Journal says Bill Belichick made the right move ... (and no, I'm not the only baseball guy who's been intrigued by this controversy; here's Dave Cameron's two cents).
* If you weren't around to enjoy it (or even if you were), I recommend Chris Jaffe's evaluation of Billy Martin's managerial career (straight from the pages of Jaffe's new book). He really was one of a kind, at least since Leo Durocher. And I don't know that we'll ever see another like him.
* I'm always a bit awed by completely new ideas for Web content, and here's one now.
* You know, I figured all this apocalypse-in-2012 stuff was just to sell movie tickets. But if Darren Daulton believes it, it must be true, right?
* Oops, almost forgot ... Here's a great interview with Bill Simmons. And if you're anywhere near Portland, Ore., The Sports Guy himself will be discussing and signing his No. 1 bestseller (really! it was No. 1 last week!) Thursday night at the Borders in Beaverton. I'll be there, hanging with all the other schmos who've never hit the charts.
* FanGraphs' Erik Manning, with a lot of help from Baseball Prospectus, takes a look at non-SB baserunning: first on the team level and then the individuals. Condensed version: Rockies really good (Coors effect?), Orioles really bad, and none of it seems to mean nearly as much as you might think. Except Chone Figgins and Chase Utley are even better than we thought.
* Crashburn Alley suggests that when it comes to J.A. Happ, maybe the Phillies should get out while the gettin's good. I absolutely agree that Happ has become overrated, but I'm not sure how marketable he is, or if the Phillies can actually spare him at this moment.
* Joe Posnanski, who probably knows as much about Zack Greinke as anyone, delivers a fine summary of Greinke's oddly brilliant career.
* Kurt Mensching blogs about the Tigers, but give him some credit for objectivity. He's right: the lone Cy Young vote for Justin Verlander is simply indefensible (or at the very least, was not well defended by the voter who cast it).
* Hey, if the Wall Street Journal says Bill Belichick made the right move ... (and no, I'm not the only baseball guy who's been intrigued by this controversy; here's Dave Cameron's two cents).
* If you weren't around to enjoy it (or even if you were), I recommend Chris Jaffe's evaluation of Billy Martin's managerial career (straight from the pages of Jaffe's new book). He really was one of a kind, at least since Leo Durocher. And I don't know that we'll ever see another like him.
* I'm always a bit awed by completely new ideas for Web content, and here's one now.
* You know, I figured all this apocalypse-in-2012 stuff was just to sell movie tickets. But if Darren Daulton believes it, it must be true, right?
* Oops, almost forgot ... Here's a great interview with Bill Simmons. And if you're anywhere near Portland, Ore., The Sports Guy himself will be discussing and signing his No. 1 bestseller (really! it was No. 1 last week!) Thursday night at the Borders in Beaverton. I'll be there, hanging with all the other schmos who've never hit the charts.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Rob Neyer
Neyer is a senior writer at ESPN.com. He began his career with legendary baseball author (and now Red Sox executive) Bill James, then joined Stats Inc. and wrote about MLB, the NFL and the NBA. Neyer joined ESPN.com in 1996, and it's believed that he's written more words for the site than anybody.
Neyer moved to Kansas City in 1976, just in time for the Royals' first division title, and fell in love almost immediately. He attended the University of Kansas the same four years as Danny Manning, and is now happy to wait another 20 years for the Jayhawks' next championship.