• Twins 8-Rays 3:

    That Rays team needs a wakeup call and quick.

    This is what happens when all you hear all winter long is how great a team's future is; how brilliant their front office is; how their new age manager is reinventing the way he deals with his players.

    They begin believing their press clippings and become a target for the opposition; they outthink themselves with the absurd decision to formulate a right field platoon with players like Gabe Kapler, Gabe Gross and Matt Joyce (I dunno if I've even met two people named Gabe in my life, but the Rays have two splitting time in their outfield); and their manager doesn't have the ability to light a fire under his players, nor the strategic skills to deal with what's wrong. 

    So now let's see how clever the Rays "brilliant and innovative" young front office is that the club needs a kick in the ass. Do they demote Andy Sonnanstine? Bring up David Price? They're not going to do anything too drastic like make a trade with the likes of Grant Balfour or Dan Wheeler; so short of yelling at them, I don't know what they can do, but at 8-14 in that division, they're going to have to get their heads out of their asses or their second step on the way to their dynasty will go right off a cliff.

• Diamondbacks 10-Cubs 0:

    Ryan Dempster is in the process of proving why it's unwise to overpay a player off of his obvious career year; what makes it even worse is that the market was so terrible during the winter that the Cubs could very possibly have wound up getting Dempster back for two years plus an option instead of four years for a 32-year-old pitcher who never before in his career had pitched as well as he did in 2008. Dempster hasn't been that bad this year, but he's pitched six innings in every start and allowed between 2 and 5 runs in each. That's okay enough, but not for a guy who's just signed a 4-year, $48 million contract (with a $14 million player option for the fourth year), and started the first game of the playoffs.

• Viewer Mail 4.30.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE the MLB draft on TV:

I agree. MLB draft on TV = Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. What a waste of time, money and effort. Think of how great MLB.TV could be or MLBlogs for that matter, if MLB wised up and put their money where it's actually needed (still can't watch in HD, even though I'm paying for it... BASTARDS!).

    I get so many emails from MLB.com about sales of crap and entreaties to watch this or that that they're bordering on being spammers. I'd suggest you threaten to take your blog elsewhere, but the problem with threatening someone is that they have to care about that which you're threatening, and they don't.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan also writes RE the faux enthusiasm about the televised draft:  

I couldn't care less about seeing the draft on TV!

    They either don't understand or don't care about the following fact: this ain't college football or basketball; aside from Stephen Strasburg, even the more astute fans don't know who these fuckers are!!!!

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE my offhand comment calling Keith Law a "questionable source":

Do you not think Law is legit because he didn't play baseball? I understand that perspective if that is how you are thinking, but one can be taught the mechanics of pitching, or hitting, just like they can be taught anything else. 

    How'd I know this was coming?

    Joe, the way you defend this guy if anyone says anything about him is bordering on disturbing. I have no problem with Law; in fact, he makes sense a lot of the time; but he sometimes seems to be harboring an agenda of ill-will (against J.P. Ricciardi and the Blue Jays); makes unconscionable mistakes for someone who's supposed to be an "expert" (not knowing or remembering that Emilio Bonifacio had been traded from the Nationals to the Marlins; not knowing the difference between Jerry and Johnny Narron) and it's like he's regurgitating a memorized template rather than being truly invested in and paying attention to what he's doing; it's as if he's mailing it in or he's using the SparkNotes version of scouting. (I heartily recommend SparkNotes, by the way; wouldn't have gotten through college without them.)

    Whether or not he actually played the game is irrelevant; in fact, sometimes that's a hindrance. If Joe Morgan were just some guy rather than a Hall of Fame player and possibly the best second baseman in history, he'd have been relegated to the studio or be used as an on-site reporter long ago. You should know by now that it's never personal with me.     

    Whether or not Law's accurate in his statistical analysis or his scouting, he's not an unquestionable authority given these issues. There are very few executives and analysts around who deserve such a pass that they can't be disputed before seeing some results. Ken Williams is in that category given some of his head-scratching decisions that have worked; Tony La Russa is in that category; Larry Beinfest of the Marlins gets that pass. Keith Law doesn't.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 10
  

• The MLB Draft will be shown in primetime----MLB.com Story!!!!

    Uh, yeah?

    So?

    If you've got the time and/or the inclination to keep track of the majors, the minors and the amateur ranks, I don't know whether to envy your dedication or direct you to the nearest mental health clinic.

    MLB's attempt to drum up interest in the draft to the proportions that the NFL and NBA are afforded are missing some important points.

    One, almost every player drafted by a big league team is going to have to spend at least some time in the minors, no matter how polished and poised they are; because of that, you're talking about 2-3 years of studying statistics and listening to reports from questionable sources like Keith Law about how your team's picks are doing. 

    Two, the games the NFL and NBA play are pretty much the same as what they play in the NCAA; the differences from the amateur baseball game to the pro game are so vast that there's really no way to quantify the players other than by their size, projected physical growth and what they actually bring to the table like speed, a power fastball, bat speed and the like. Teams try to gauge a player's approach at the plate as a portent for the future; that's been hit and miss.

    There's no way to determine whether a pitcher who may have been great in college blowing people away with a power fastball is going to do similarly well against professional hitters. A guy who might've been known as a contact "bat-breaker" if he wasn't dealing with hitters wielding aluminum bats, could turn into a bastard to face in the pros; and once that power fastballer gets to the higher minors, the older and more experienced hitters are going to tee off on his fastball if velocity's all he's got.

    Three, the NFL and NBA (and NHL for that matter) are allowed to trade their picks for established players or other picks; MLB doesn't allow that for whatever reason. I couldn't name any college player at this moment aside from Stephen Strasburg and that's only because he's busting radar guns with fastballs clocked at 102+ mph. What that has to do with his big league future is beyond me because there've been so many guys with a gaudy radar gun reading and nothing else and failed miserably that it's about time to take a step back from that and look at whether a guy can pitch or not.

    Strasburg's been crammed down our throats for months now and the author of the above-linked article says that the draft is "likely to begin with the selection of San Diego State junior pitcher Stephen Strasburg by the Washington Nationals". How he'd know enough about what the Nationals are thinking to make that authoritative statement is unclear. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the Nats might like another pitcher? Another hitter? Or not want to be forced by outsiders as to whom they're going to draft? Or they may just not want to pay what Scott Boras is going to demand for Strasburg? And who knows what Strasburg's going to be? Has anyone ever heard of Todd Van Poppel or Matt Anderson (two among a multitude of others)? Power fastballers who did nearly nothing in the majors? Whose flaws were "obvious" after the fact?

    The games of the NCAA in basketball and football are there for everyone to see with the players making the leap with some degree of certainty as to whether they're going to make it in the pros; such is not the case in baseball where a survival of the fittest mentality (and the amount of money invested in the players) has more of an effect than anything else. So now we'll have a "primetime event" that no one----short of the hard core follower of amateur baseball or someone who's bought into the promotion----is going to watch. Big deal.

• Just retire already!!!

    Tom Glavine was "encouraged" after throwing in the outfield for a second straight day. Is Glavine not going to be satisfied until he's either getting raked all over the ballpark like it's batting practice or is only getting batters out because his stuff is so weak that they're leaping out of their shoes to swing at it? There is such a thing as career euthanasia, but someone needs to be merciful and tell Glavine that it's over.

• "One more shot" and then what?

    Mets manager Jerry Manuel has said that struggling lefty Oliver Perez will get one more shot as he pitches against the Phillies on Saturday. And what if he pitches poorly? Empty threats are relatively useless and short of my suggestions from the other day of what to do with Perez----the only viable ones being extended spring training or sessions with Tom Seaver----what are they intending to do with Perez and his $36 million contract, which he'll collect one way or the other?

    They should say, "One more shot until the next one; then the next one; then the next one..."

• Viewer Mail 4.29.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE my suggestion that Joe Maddon scream at his slumbering club:

Maddon strikes me as someone who'd rather have a sit-down, heart-to-heart talk about his players' feelings.

    And that, combined with being asleep at the switch and "throwing darts at the wall" strategies make me question his long term future as a big league manager.  

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Yankees and their issues:

Love your Maddon tongue lashing to players! I think you're right and Girardi's safe until A-Rod's back. But it's Cashman who paid no attention to the bullpen and they suck.

    There are many things about which to give Brian Cashman a hard time. His insistence that the young starters from last season were all ready to make big contributions; his managerial hire that's looking less and less astute by the day; but I don't see what they could've done about the bullpen. They could've signed the likes of Juan Cruz, Will Ohman and/or Joe Beimel, but they went down that road years ago with Chris Hammond, Paul Quantrill, Steve Karsay, Kyle Farnsworth and Tom Gordon and that didn't work any better than this. Bullpens are always a gamble unless men like Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan are identifying pitchers' strengths and weaknesses and putting them into their best possible situations to succeed. Girardi ain't no La Russa. (And neither is Joe Torre for that matter.)

• Notes on the new picture of me in the upper right corner:

    Yes, that is my fiancee in the background as proof that she actually does exist and she wasn't hired as a prop; nor did I sneak over and take a picture of myself standing in front of some random person. An interesting conversation took place at the horse ranch (where she left me sitting on a bench reading Bukowski as she rode off into the forest) and went as follows:

Hanna: I'd love to make my living just riding horses; sort of like you with baseball, except you could actually do it.

Paul: I could? Where?

    All I get is people calling me a retard and well-paid and for some unfathomable reason, credible, writers writing the same stuff----almost verbatim----that I'd written two days earlier. (This blanket statement doesn't include my loyal followers; and you know who you are. What's more important, so do I.) 

• Rockies bench Troy Tulowitzki:

    It was only a year-and-a-half ago that the way Troy Tulowitzki carried himself; went back on pop flies; deftly grabbed the mantle of leadership in a clubhouse with veterans like Matt Holliday and Todd Helton; and helped his team advance further than they ever had before as they went to the World Series. Last season, injuries limited him to 101 games and now, after a terrible start, he's been benched----ESPN Story. After the fact, it's easy to roll one's eyes at the comparisons to Derek Jeter that were so prevalent (and I'm guilty too) that it became part of the lexicon that when you mentioned Tulowitzki, you mentioned Jeter; but in all fairness, Tulowitzki is being scapegoated for the Rockies slow start in 2009. 

    Jeter was in a position when he was in his first couple of years as a big leaguer, he: A) had provided big hits for a team that won the World Series in 1996; and B) didn't have a manager who was worried about losing his job to the point that someone had to be benched for appearance-sake as Clint Hurdle is right now.

    Tulowitzki got off to a terrible start in 2007 as well, but no one noticed because no one with a brain expected much of anything from the Rockies that year anyway----2007 Tulowitzki Gamelogs----but now, there are reports that manager Hurdle's job security is increasingly in question and Tulowitzki's taking the brunt with a benching.

    Why GM Dan O'Dowd is absolved of all blame is beyond me since it was O'Dowd who signed Tulowitzki to a guaranteed $30 million extension after that rookie year; and what's really strange is Todd Helton, Garrett Atkins and Chris Iannetta aren't hitting either, but the one who's being openly blamed is Tulowitzki. If he's going to be touted as a Derek Jeter, he's got to be treated like a Derek Jeter; sitting him and publicly blaming him is only going to make things worse.

• Tigers 4-Yankees 2:

    Amid all the doom and gloom surrounding the Tigers; their awful 2008; the manager without a contract for next season; and a 2009 team that just didn't look all that good, they've held their own for the first 19 games. Considering how they looked on paper and in the spring, 11-8 is pretty good.

    Before anointing them as a stunning comeback story, it has to be realized that they still don't know who their long term closer is; Justin Verlander had been terrible before last night against the Yankees; Gerald Laird isn't going to hit .340; and Carlos Guillen is beginning to look like he's finished. That aside, the AL Central is staggering as a whole, and while I fully expect the Indians to come out on top, the Tigers 11-8 start is better than the alternative of a total disaster, a fired manager and an early season sell-off.

    A note on the Yankees: We don't hear the spring training lament that the team might be better off without Alex Rodriguez these days, do we? With all the ridicule ARod's received, it's going to come down to him to try and help right the ship for a staggering 9-10 team, and perhaps save manager Joe Girardi's job or be the final nail in the acknowledgement of a mistaken hire. We'll know soon enough.

• More about my suggestion for a Joe Maddon screaming session to wake up his team:

    I should've mentioned that if a manager is going to flip the food table and start screaming like a lunatic, he should let the veterans in the clubhouse know what he's about to do. With the Rays, that would include Troy Percival, Carlos Pena, Pat Burrell and Dan Wheeler; you don't want to alienate the vets. With the youngsters, it's like Crash Davis said in Bull Durham: "They're kids. Scare 'em." 

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 9
  

• Mets realistic options with Perez are limited:

    It's conveniently forgotten that the only reason the Mets even acquired a pitcher with Oliver Perez's arm and stuff as a throw-in when they re-acquired Roberto Hernandez for Xavier Nady was because the Pirates had had enough of him pitching like, well, pitching like this: 4 1/3 innings pitched; 9 hits; 7 runs; 7 earned runs; 3 walks; 3 strikeouts; 2 homers allowed. Now, with $36 million invested in Perez over three years, they have to do something (perhaps outside the box and stepping on a few organizational toes) to straighten him out and get him to fulfill his part of the bargain.

    They could do one of the following: A) send him to Triple A (for which Perez, as a five-year big league veteran, would have to approve); B) send him to extended spring training to have the organizational pitching coaches (Randy Niemann, etc.) fiddle with his mechanics; C) send him to the bullpen; or D) have him go through a few sessions with a former Met hero like Tom Seaver, who can pinpoint everything, mentally and physically, that Perez is doing wrong.

    Their only options, as I see it, are extended spring training or sessions with Seaver. Sending him to the minors isn't viable and would do more harm than good; the bullpen won't work because they can't trust him to throw strikes and as a long man, there's no guarantees as to when he'd pitch. Extended spring training might work because it would give him a break from the ridicule and stress he's obviously enduring and could fix whatever's wrong with him mechanically and mentally. Seaver notably helped Mike Hampton overcome a bad start with the Mets in 2000, noticing that the free agent to be and supposedly "missing piece" for the Mets was holding the ball too tightly and trying too hard to justify why he was acquired. As pompous, condescending and overbearing as he can be, Seaver is a pitching genius and would likely be more than happy to help his former team with a pitcher as clearly gifted as Perez.

    All we're hearing is what a mistake it was for the Mets to bring back Perez, but they brought him back because of his abilities and because he was their best choice in the market. They weren't going to beat the Braves offer for Derek Lowe; they weren't going to mortgage the future for a veteran pitcher in a trade; and it's too early in Perez's contract to already label it as a mistake. They must get Perez back on the right track not just because of the money, but because the Mets don't have any other alternatives.

• Red Sox 4-Yankees 1:

    Jacoby Ellsbury's steal of home was ballsy and exciting, but with the bases loaded and J.D. Drew at the plate? Especially since Drew's numbers against Andy Pettitte for his career were the following: 9 for 26 with 2 doubles and 3 homers? No way.

    Yankees manager Joe Girardi won't be in trouble until the team starts getting healthy, specifically getting Alex Rodriguez back; after that, if they're still playing like this----with the money they spent and C.C. Sabathia struggling----along with the questionable strategies Girardi uses, it won't be long before both he and Dave Eiland are in the crosshairs of the fans, media and front office, not long at all.

• Athletics 7-Rays 1:

    Need a speech to give to your troops Joe Maddon? Here's a speech:

    (First begin by flinging the post-game food spread all over the room. Lower case signifies yelling; upper case signifies SCREAMING!!!)

    Each and every one of you in this room is responsible for this club's shitty start. That includes the coaches and me and everyone in the front office. You cocksuckers are playing like you think it's automatic that you're in the playoffs every year because of last year; well, last year was last year and if you think they you're gonna make the playoffs again based on talent and reputation, you got another thing coming!!! What I've seen this year has been FUCKING SHOCKING!!!!! Have you looked at the standings lately? Not only are the Red Sox and Yankees in this division, but in case you hadn't noticed, the fucking Blue Jays are 14 and fucking 6!!!! Now I'm gonna tell you guys something, you keep playing like this and I'm gonna shitcan the whole starting lineup and just play the guys who are hitting and playing the game the right way. You look like shit; so I look like shit; and that's FUCKING UNACCCEPTABLE!!!! You guys better get your heads outta your asses because if you think I'm kidding, then keep playing like this and FUCKING TRY ME!!!!!!

    (Then slam the door to the office and leave them wallowing in post-game food and, hopefully, embarrassment and shame.) 

    It ain't Shakespeare, but these guys ain't grad students and they're playing like they're a little too impressed with themselves coming off of last year.

• Viewer Mail 4.27.2009:

Ga-ae from South Korea writes: If you have interest in Sports, How about "Universiade" which will be held in Gwang-Ju, Korea. I hope you would enjoy it :-)

    I looked up this "Universiade" and it's a student Olympics type of thing. Dunno what that has to do with me though. I'll be more than happy to go to South Korea if someone wants to pay me and pay my way. 

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER:  8

• Red Sox 16-Yankees 11:

    Before I start, am I the only one who gets the following types of sponsored links?

Avg. Yankees IQ = 84

Are you smarter than a Yankees player? Take the IQ test now!

    I'm not clicking on (nor providing) the link, but the IQ in most cases (certain parties excepted) seems pretty close to the mark.

    As for the game, sometimes starters get shelled. It happens. It's a little bit more of a kick in the head when the starter for the Yankees----A.J. Burnett----was sold to the public as someone who had a great record against the Red Sox (he did last year), and allows eight runs in five-plus innings as he blows a six run lead, but what can you do?

    The Yankees can do something about another problem they have and that's the absence of a pure long reliever. You have to wonder if they're regretting letting Dan Giese go. Even though Giese is a journeyman and he hasn't pitched all that well with the Athletics, at the very least, he could come into a game for the Yankees and pitch multiple innings if the starter got knocked out. They're going to have to address the situation and they have a bunch of guys in Triple A to choose from. They could bring up one of their starters like Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy, who are pitching well in the minors; they could use Alfredo Aceves; or they could bring up a veteran like Jason Johnson, which is what I'd expect.

    They can't be using six relievers on a regular basis and expect the bullpen to be fresh late in the season.

• Are the Blue Jays for real?

    Cito Gaston never got the respect he deserved as Blue Jays manager when they won back-to-back World Series in 1992 and 1993; he'd also led them to the playoffs in 1989 and 1991. (Strangely, Gaston didn't really even want the job in 1989 when he replaced Jimy Williams, whom the players hated; it worked out pretty well for Gaston in the end.) After he was fired in 1997, it's odd that a manager who'd won two World Series and four division titles never got another managerial opportunity, but the closest he came was being the runner up to Ozzie Guillen for the White Sox job.

    Now, in a season in which the Blue Jays were expected to fall to the bottom of the division (I had them at 70-92, falling to last place even behind the Orioles) and finally signal the end of the J.P. Ricciardi reign in Toronto, they've gotten off to an excellent and stunning 13-6 start even as more than 20% of the team's big league roster is on the disabled list (not including the injury-prone Vernon Wells and Scott Rolen, who've stayed on the field so far). They've navigated their way through injuries to pretty much the whole pitching staff and continued to win not just when Roy Halladay pitches, but when Independent League signings like Scott Richmond pitch. But realistically, can it continue?

    In all fairness, the Blue Jays have yet to play the Yankees, Red Sox or Rays; they've beaten up on some mediocre teams like the White Sox, Athletics, Rangers and Tigers; and teams that have gotten off to bad starts or are dealing with injuries like the Indians and Twins. The Blue Jays bullpen is very deep and very good (and are better off without B.J. Ryan, whether they want to hear that or not); they've gotten timely power hitting from unexpected sources in Adam Lind and Marco Scutaro; Lyle Overbay is killing the ball; Travis Snider is hitting well for a rookie; Aaron Hill, Rolen and Wells have stayed healthy; and they've yet to get expected production from Alex Rios. Can this continue when they start running into the bullies of the league and if the career histories of the above-mentioned players reverts to normal, especially with the injury-prone players? 

    It's a great advantage to get off to a good start, sort of like being in a college class that only gives three tests for the semester and drilling the first one; but that doesn't necessarily mean that an "A" is guaranteed because of that good start. Things are going to get more difficult with the schedule; the current injury bug to the pitching staff is going to catch up to them along with the future injury bug that's historically unavoidable. The 13-6 start should avoid a 90-loss season, but barring a total collapse or a miracle, that doesn't mean they're going to stay at the top of the division nor even finish any better than at or around .500. 

• Phillies 6-Marlins 4:

    I'm sure Marlins fans would like to join in with the stat geeks and chase me up a hill holding truncheons and torches...

FIRE BAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!!

...and blame me for opening my big fat mouth after the Marlins 11-1 start and mentioning how I picked them for 90 wins and the division title. I fully expect them to steer out of this tailspin, but if you're looking to blame someone, blame Joe at Statistician Magician because he brought it up first.

• Cardinals 8-Cubs 2:

    Lou Piniella must be about to blow a gasket.

• Athletics 5-Rays 2:
  

    Sometimes young teams need to be screamed at and I question whether Joe Maddon is the type of guy with whom the players would be intimidated if he came in and tipped over the postgame food spread, or they'd see it as a farce from a guy who just doesn't have that in him. The Rays on the whole look like they could use a good, closed-door meeting with the manager screaming so loud paint starts coming off the walls----in short, an ass-kicking, but with Maddon, they might just shake their heads and ignore it because he's not that kind of guy.

• Your moment of clarity----the Diamondbacks are in trouble without Webb:

    Vince Lombardi used to lament that the one major flaw in the team concept of football was that the quarterback was such a centerpiece to winning and losing. The Diamondbacks are in a similar situation with their decision to invest a big chunk of their fortunes on their sublime top two starting pitchers Brandon Webb and Dan Haren. With Webb now shut down for the next three weeks----ESPN Story----the already reeling Diamondbacks are in big, big trouble.

    With a shaky defense, a free-swinging offense and overt mediocrity the likes of Jon Garland and Doug Davis behind Haren and Webb, the Diamondbacks needed the innings-gobbling and wins that Webb and Haren were peciled in to deliver; every two games out of five, the Diamondbacks could've guaranteed that they'd be pretty good and have a chance to win; now they can't count on that. 

    With Webb shut down completely for three weeks, you're already talking late May; then if (and this is a big "if") he's judged able to start throwing again, you've got at least three rehab starts before he's able to pitch to big league hitters. Long story short, the Diamondbacks and their fans shouldn't expect to even see Webb on a big league mound until after the All Star break, and with the way things are going, they could be too far out of contention to make any difference if Webb returns healthy. 

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 7           

• The decision had been made before the fact:

    Considering the following quote from Mariano Rivera about entering the game in the eighth inning last night, it's clear what was going on:

"They told me already so I was preparing myself for that," Rivera said when asked about pitching in the eighth for the first time this season. "It wasn't something that I was affected by. I was ready for that. These things are going to happen. It was one pitch, and if I made the pitch, we wouldn't be talking about it."

   With Brian Bruney unavailable with a creaky elbow and from the way manager Joe Girardi automatically yanked Jonathan Albaladejo after he hit Nick Green, it was as if he'd told Rivera that he might need him in the eighth inning and decided to do it no matter the circumstances with which Albaladejo got into trouble.

    That Albaladejo had rolled through the first three hitters he faced and was up 0-2 on Green, along with (as I mentioned in my previous posting) that the batter, Jacoby Ellsbury, wasn't someone for whom to push the panic button, Girardi did the equivalent of a batter deciding to swing the bat before the pitcher even goes into his windup. It's obvious to the naked eye when that happens from the way the batter swings, and the way Girardi made the move was clearly obvious too; and it was a mistake that could cost them today's game if Rivera's unable to pitch because of the extra work. (Anyone ready to debate the intelligent but callow Girardi's need for a better bench coach than Tony Pena?)

• An addition to my link list:

• Red Sox 5-Yankees 4:

    The big problem with the "world is ending" atmosphere between Yankees-Red Sox is when it affects the way the managers handle their rosters. Terry Francona's been going through it for so long (and has two championships in the process) that he doesn't panic to appease the media and try to desperately win one game at the expense of the long term; Joe Girardi is still managing as if it's the playoffs, seemingly forgetting that it's April.

    Such was the case when Girardi panicked and removed Jonathan Albaladejo in favor of Mariano Rivera with two outs in the eighth inning with a two run lead and a runner on first base; and what had Albaladejo done to warrant being yanked? He'd pitched to four batters, easily retired the first three and then hit Nick Green on an 0-2 pitch. If any of the Red Sox big bashers had been due up, then maybe you have a reason to bring in Rivera for a four-out save; but it was Jacoby Ellsbury at the plate.

    Ellsbury, at this point in his career, is a better-hyped version of Jason Tyner. He has almost no power whatsoever. He has two extra base hits this season (doubles). Two. What would've been the harm of letting Albaladejo pitch to Ellsbury? Then if Ellsbury gets on base, you bring in Rivera. There was almost no threat of a home run from Ellsbury; what's the worst that could happen? That Ellsbury singles as he did against Rivera? There was no reason, other than panic, to bring in Rivera, who at his age needs to save his bullets rather than be brought into games in April for four out saves, especially against guys who aren't threats to hit the ball out of the park.

    Even if the Red Sox hadn't tied the game in the ninth and won it in the eleventh as Kevin Youkilis homered off the burgeoning disaster Damaso Marte, or if the Yankees had won, it would've been the wrong move. One would assume that Rivera's not going to be available to close today's game either, all because of Girardi's overmanaging.

• Maybe it's time to start a GM watch in Colorado:

    You have to wonder how much more time Dan O'Dowd is going to get in Colorado. His tenure will reach (if he's still there) the ten year mark in September and what does he have to show for it? Two seasons over .500; one blazing, unbelievable hot streak that spurred the club to the World Series in 2007 and...and...and...nothing. How much longer are the Rockies going to be allowed to flop around on the field with Teflon Dan still serving as GM?

• Phillies 7-Marlins 3:

    If you're the Marlins, how do you give up seven runs in the ninth inning?

• Royals 6-Tigers 1:

• Milton Bradley's persecution complex:

    It honestly doesn't matter all that much how healthy Milton Bradley is during the regular season; nor does it matter much how well he hits; the keys for Bradley and the Cubs are twofold: 1) have him healthy for the playoffs; and 2) keep him from doing something so stupid that he gets himself suspended for a loooong time or worse. But now that he's still nursing a groin injury, Bradley's not speaking to the Chicago media because they're trying to make him "snap"----ESPN Story; I have to ask, what is this guy's problem? 

    Before the season, I said that Bradley's main function is to provide the one thing the Cubs lacked last season as a left-handed swinging threat for the playoffs. They were making do with Kosuke Fukudome and Jim Edmonds last season and the results spoke for themselves in a three game whitewashing at the hands of the Dodgers and Bradley has done predominately well in his post-season opportunities with the Dodgers and Athletics----stats; but the guy seems to have a genuine mental disorder that sabotages every opportunity he gets to restart his career and refurbish his reputation.

    It's always something with him. A fan yells something, he goes off; an umpire provokes him, he goes off; a teammate says the wrong thing, he goes off; the media ridicules his hideous 1 for 23 start and frequent injuries, he goes off. I don't know whether the Chicago media is provoking Bradley or they're asking legitimate questions to a guy who doesn't like to be questioned about anything ever, but I'd think that the Chicago media would be invested in the Cubs doing well enough to make the playoffs again and doing damage while there. They have a window this year of a weak National League and probably the best team in the league to finally make it to the World Series, where anything can happen. Bradley's idea of being provoked might be someone mentioning how often he's been hurt in his career; that he's hurt again; and the Cubs are stuck with him at $10 million per for three years----all are completely in bounds .

    Bradley behaved himself under Ron Washington in Texas last year and had the best and most productive season in his career. Part of that was because he was able to DH much of the time; part of that was playing in the hitter's heaven of Rangers Stadium; but that doesn't change the facts that he was on his best behavior and he had a fantastic offensive year. I thought Cubs manager Lou Piniella could handle Bradley, but after his turbulent first month as a Cub, I don't know who, short of Sigmund Freud, could handle Bradley and keep whatever demons creep up from exploding again and taking his team along with him. 

• Mel Kiper Jr's Christmas:

• Y'know, I hadn't even bothered to check...

    Me not good at math; but me can do simple calcumatory t'ings...

    Oh, wait. I forgot. I am pretty good at English.

    Amid all the spears heading my way for my sheer audacity in questioning the almighty PECOTA, it never occurred to me that I should check their predictions vs mine from 2008, so that's what I did; and I found some interesting stuff. 

    First, my predicted won/lost totals were off by 270; PECOTA's were off by 241.

    Second, I had the following teams making the playoffs: the Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers and Angels in the AL; the Mets, Reds, Dodgers and Diamondbacks in the NL. PECOTA had the Yankees, Red Sox, Indians and Angels in the AL; the Mets, Cubs, Brewers and Diamondbacks in the NL. 

    Judging from my limited math skills that's....let's see, 8 X 7+ the square root of the hypotenuse...Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four; steak, steak, steak, steak....got it!!!

    They had four of the eight playoff teams right and I had three of the eight playoff teams right. Then we get into what we both missed on (all of which, on my end, can be found at my former blogging home at the following links:  Blog 10.22.2008 and Blog 10.11.2008) and you see that PECOTA had the Padres at 83-79 (off by 20 games); the Twins at 74-88 (off by 14 games); the Cardinals at 72-90 (off by 14 games); the Tigers at 89-73 (off by 15 games); the White Sox at 77-85 (off by 12 games); and the Phillies at 84-78 (off by 8 games for the teams that won the World Series). It doesn't look like the computers were much more accurate than I was.

    Then we come to what's made PECOTA a household name for even the non-stat geek----that they predicted a drastic improvement for the Rays at...82-80.

    So, what you're trying to tell me is that PECOTA and the computer simulations of the stat geeks is so much more accurate because they predicted that a Rays team (who I had at 76 wins) would: A) win six more games than I had them winning based on my eyeballs and not just numbers (and I do look at numbers); and B) was 15 games off of what the Rays actually accomplished?

    Gimme a break, huh?

    But please, keep attacking me, because you're only bringing more people to my cause.

• Quick notes on yesterday's games:

Indians 5-Royals 2:

    Uh, why wasn't Ron Mahay in the game to pitch to Travis Hafner while the Royals were still leading 2-1? And I don't want to hear about how Hafner's career average vs Gil Meche was .208; he's 1 for 9 career against Mahay and the game was on the line. I know Mahay gave up a three-run homer to Grady Sizemore when he did come into the game, but Sizemore is taking the next step to superstardom as he figures out lefties. Hafner has handled lefties well enough in his career, but you have to have bring the lefty in there to pitch to him. Trey Hillman's decisions are bordering on the obscene. 

Brewers 6-Phillies 1:

     Almost getting no-hit by Dave Bush is a bad sign for any team, but for the Phillies in Philadelphia? Even without Cole Hamels getting hit with that line drive, his season's beginning to take an ominous tone as if he's paying penance for his star turn last year on the way to the championship; if I were the Phillies, I'd start mentally preparing to get next-to-nothing from Hamels this year.

Mariners 1-Rays 0:

    Aside from Evan Longoria's George Brett routine, the Rays may have been reading too many press clippings over the winter; and I don't think Joe Maddon is a particularly good manager anyway, so he's not the guy to wake up a team that's too busy gazing into reflective surfaces and sighing like they're lovestruck and can't concentrate on anything else but how fantastic everyone else thinks they are.

Cardinals 12-Mets 8:

    Almost exactly a year ago, my mother was about to undergo a hip replacement and as we were sitting in the hospital lobby to check in, a maintenance guy came walking by. The uniformed security guard called out to him, "What's wrong with the Mets?" He exhaled a breath "Phhhh", shrugged and said matter-of-factly, "They suck" and walked on to continue his business. 

    It's a year later and nothing much has changed.

Blue Jays 1-Rangers 0:

    The Blue Jays are playing really well; dunno how long it can continue as their annual array of injuries is already starting with Ricky Romero and B.J. Ryan both going on the disabled list. Romero has a muscle strain in his side and Ryan has "soreness between his shoulder and back". Romero's a promising young pitcher and they'll miss him, but truth be told, they're probably better off without Ryan, who looks like he's running on fumes; it's a bad sign when your closer isn't throwing much harder than Brian Shouse.

• A gift of peace from the Prince of New York:

    Benevolent as I am, I thought it's behoove me to offer a gesture of conciliation to the stat geeks. Since I'm sure many (if not all) of you are fans of the Lord of the Rings, I embed the following infomercial I saw while in Europe a few years ago. I'm sure if you try really hard, you can get your hands on the wonderful piece of craftsmanship they're selling.(Fast forward to 2:20 to save time is my advice.)

• A zombie-like fanaticism:

    Judging by the reactions of the hard-core, unreasonable stat geeks, you'd think they were fanatical Muslims and Christians and I'd done the equivalent of drawing a picture of Muhammad and Jesus engaged in sodomy, except instead of Muhammad, it was Bill James, and instead of Jesus, it was Nate Silver. 

    The reaction to my posting decrying the prevalence of PECOTA and other formulas to turn human beings into robots was intense to say the least. (Incidentally, the Vegas guy corrected his spelling mistake regarding my name.) They can say whatever they want and I couldn't care less, but what stuns me is that you have to figure that a large chunk of these people are pretty bright, so how is it that there's such a blind spot to the opinions of others? It's a religion with these people, and if anyone even dares question anything their exalted objects of worship----Bill James, et al----say or do, they freak out completely; there's no give-and-take; no debate; no discussion. It's an all-out attack not only decrying another person's opinion, but their character; their intelligence and their motives. 

    I'm willing to discuss anything and listen to what anyone has to say, but when the response is so vitriolic, how is any exchange of ideas supposed to take place? Instead of someone saying, "Paul, let me explain why I believe so strongly in PECOTA and why you're wrong" (and I would listen), I'm called, for example, a retard.

    These numbers are not infallible; Bill James is not a deity; and I have a right to wonder about formulas that don't seem accurate enough to justify such an unbridled torrential reaction and adherence against any and all protest.

    The problem with these guys is that they're like the FOX News of sports prognostication----none of them are allowed to be doubted. If one of them stood up and said just one of the following...

    "Paul DePodesta did an embarrassing, horseshit job as the GM of the Dodgers."

    "J.P. Ricciardi does not have the emotional temperament nor the judgment to be a GM in the big leagues."

    "Sandy Alderson was an obnoxious, disingenuous and arrogant jerk desperately seeking credit as he ran the Padres into the ground."

...they'd have more credibility. Instead, like the radical right wing republicans who still defend the indefensible the likes of Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, they're pathologically incapable of telling the truth when one of their "own" isn't able to translate computer printouts into success on the field. 

    Being a zealot is fine, but there are other views out there and attacking, attacking, attacking with ridicule and derogatory name-calling isn't going to help their cause to bring people into their way of thinking. The world ain't flat and numbers aren't the final word in all matters.

• The truth about Nails?

    Not long ago, when Lenny Dykstra's savant-like business savvy was everyday news, I mentioned to my mother (who remembered the Mets of the 80s very well) that if you were to pick the absolute last guy from those Mets teams to hit it big off the field as an entrepreneur, it would've been Dykstra. In fact, if you were gonna pick one guy to lose every penny from his playing days and be scrounging around for a coaching job to pay the bills, it would've been Dykstra. Now, his savant-like business savvy is alleged to be a series of scams; flim-flams; financial sleight of hand; and word-of-mouth talk from one person to another that Lenny's a brilliant businessman without any reality to back up the appellations.

    There's a great story on ESPN.com about Dykstra and his business practices. According to the article, they involve cajoling; threatening; a George Steinbrenner-like penchant for firing people; and financial disputes with just about his entire family. The bravado from his playing days is still evident, but the way "Nails" forced his will on the game of baseball, especially at crunch time in the post-season, doesn't work as well when "Nails" is being sued left and right for non-payment of loans and for services rendered. It's a fascinating article showing how the unbelievable is generally referred to as such for a pretty good reason.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 6

    My skewering of PECOTA yesterday was posted on Baseball Think Factory and drummed up a ridiculous amount of traffic, so I'd like to thank whoever's responsible. As for the post itself, reading the comments and resulting apoplexy the posting caused grew tiresome, but there are a few things I'll address. 

• Viewer Mail 4.22.2009:

sad9999@aol.com writes RE my 2008 predictions:

 You're retarded.

Nice predictions by the way:

http://paullebowitz.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/03/2008_predicted_.html

Tigers and Reds winning the Central divisions

Rays: 76 wins
Mariners: 89 wins

NL Cy Young: Aaron Harang
AL Cy Young: Justin Verlander

    First of all, it's typical of the stat geeks to cherry pick and omit out of convenience for their own purposes. By taking predictions that were so overtly wrong that they're retrospectively ludicrous, it's easy to "prove" one's point; but if anyone's interested in seeing an evenhanded post-season analysis of what I got right and wrong, they can go to my former blogging home and read the following two posts: Blog 10.22.2008 and Blog 10.11.2008. 

    Second, you'll notice the email address of the commenter (it fits) and that he didn't sign his name to the message; because of that, he's clearly not worth the effort it would take for me to expend the energy to raise my arm and slam down the hammer; so I'm gonna give him a pass----this time. 

•  Somebody needs spellcheck:

    Then there was the posting on Vegas Watch with the following title:

Liebowitz Schmebowitz

   Now, one would think that if a blog is going to be dedicated to a particular person, said blogger would make sure to spell his name right!!!!

• If you think my PECOTA assessment pissed you off...

    Oh, I've got something special on the way for you boys. Something real special.

• PECOTA SCHMECOTA:

    Joe at Statistician Magician points out my (so far) accurate assessment of the Florida Marlins (the last two losses not withstanding) in the following:

Marlins not this good?:  Obviously, they are not going to win eleven of every twelve games.  The Paul Lebowitz of New York predicted the Marlins to take the division with 88 wins.  A prediction that looks pretty good at this point.  I simply chose to predict them to win 81 games.  Stayed on the safe side.  PECOTA however, had them at 68 wins, not looking good almighty automator. 

   I had the Marlins at 90 wins, for the record.

   Before anything else, I've reached some pretty lofty status as I've become "The Paul Lebowitz of New York". That's up there with The Batman of Gotham City; The Superman of Metropolis; The Donald of Trump; and the Übermensch of Nietzsche.

    I honestly do not know how to calculate: A) PECOTA; B) The Pygmalion Win Theorem; or C) Win Shares. Nor do I care. How many numbers do we have to sift through to realize that these facts and figures (some of which had not only the Marlins going 68-94 this year and the Padres winning the pennant last season) aren't any more accurate than the judgment of those who take statistics and other factors into account. 

    How hard is it to have a formula, plug said formula into a computer and come out with the same predictions as everyone else who's using the same formula is coming out with? There's no analysis; no knowledge from actually knowing anything about the game or about people; it's numbers crunching and it's boring. What's worse, it's no more accurate than listening to someone who has an idea of what they're talking about and isn't just blowing smoke out of their asses like Joe Morgan; or babbling endlessly about the veracity of numbers as the hard core stat-geeks do.

    The one thing I know about PECOTA is that it's named after a former Kansas City Royals utility infielder named Bill Pecota. Bill Pecota wasn't a particularly good player as his numbers will tell you; he was also part of the trade that brought Bret Saberhagen to the Mets along with the repeated mantra: "New York's going to love Bill Pecota."

    I can tell you from first hand experience that New York did not love Bill Pecota.

    Now there are people desperately entranced by this PECOTA projection system; but they shouldn't be in love with that either.

*My book's still available and useful if anyone's interested. You can get it as an E-book here if the paperback's too pricey.

• Oliver Perez needs a psychiatrist or a sports psychologist:

    I'm being serious about this. Tonight, the Mets stake him to a 4-0 lead; he rolls through four innings and...gives up a leadoff single to the pitcher to start the bottom of the fifth before the wheels came off. Things went downhill from there and the Mets lost 6-4 when J.J. Putz didn't have it for a change and lost the game in the eighth inning. 

    Perez has Cy Young Award-caliber/All Star stuff; and he can clearly handle pressure from his above-and-beyond the call emergency performances in the 2006 NLCS; he's just  mentally out of it, which brings me to my point.

    People forget this now that he's heading for the Hall of Fame and is known as one of the best clutch pitchers in the history of the game, but in 1991 the 24-year-old John Smoltz was a basket case. He had the best stuff in baseball, but outthought himself until he found himself at 2-11 and had the body language of a person so frustrated that he was getting close to jumping off the nearest bridge; his mechanics were a mess and his future was in doubt. Then the Braves did two things: they sent him to a sports psychologist named Jack Llewellyn and pitching coach Leo Mazzone fixed Smoltz's mechanics so he was in control and not flopping around all over the place.

    Smoltz tuned his season and possibly his career around as his late hot streak helped carry the young Braves into the playoffs and all the way to the World Series----1991 Gamelogs. Some scoff at the usefulness of sports psychologists because sometimes it hasn't worked; but Smoltz thought his work with Llewellyn helped him overcome whatever was going on in his overloaded mind and if the player thinks something's working, then something's working.

    Would Smoltz have turned his career around and become the pitcher he's been since then without clearing his mind? Who knows? But there've been many players who were gifted on a level with Smoltz, but never put it together for one reason or another; had Smoltz not gotten over his obsession for perfection or was hamstrung because he had so many gifts that he didn't know what to do with them all, he could very easily have been one of those players about whom people shake their heads and wonder what might've been if he hadn't been such a head case. 

    Everything that sabotages Perez----mechanics included----emanates from his head. Maybe he needs someone out of uniform to talk to. If the Mets haven't considered finding a qualified person to work with him mentally, they should because they've invested a lot of money on what Perez could be, but none of that has anything to do with what he will be; they need to find help before he loses it completely.  

• Being a hardass is great, but how about some common sense?

    You can understand why a guy like Elijah Dukes would be a bit jaded after the troubled, angry and gifted outfielder does something positive like speak to a Little League, shows up to the ballpark slightly late, and is benched, fined and threatened with demotion to the minors if it happens again. The Little League has offered to pay the fine----ESPN Story----but that's beside the point. The quotes from manager Manny Acta and GM Mike Rizzo are pretty stupid and self-defeating in their stridency:

On Saturday, Nationals acting general manager Mike Rizzo and manager Manny Acta decided to fine and bench Dukes because Dukes was late and the appearance was not sponsored by the Nationals. They warned Dukes that if he was late again, he could be sent to the minor leagues.

"We are going to change the culture here, regardless of how well a guy is playing," Acta said, according to MLB.com. "It was a bizarre situation, because he was doing something that we encourage our players to do. He was out in the community doing something for some Little League program and he just showed up late for work.

"He was very remorseful about it. He felt bad, but we have to lay down the law. Regardless of who is out there, we are still losing ballgames. We have to change the culture somehow."

    I'm old school in that I believe you have to build trust with the players and create an atmosphere not just of discipline for discipline's sake, but discipline because everyone has the same goal in mind, and common sense plays a part in that. Dukes is a guy who should've been rewarded for doing something positive in the community after all the years of trying to contain his anger and failing repeatedly. Instead the Nats made the situation worse by pulling the crap of "the rules are the same for everyone no matter what".

    What they should've done is held a brief pregame team meeting explaining why they weren't fining Dukes; not because they were lapsing into the anarchy that destroys some teams, but because he wasn't late for a stupid or selfish reason. I'd have said something like this, very informally and briefly:

    All right, listen up guys. You probably see that Elijah was late today but he hasn't been fined and is still in the starting lineup. That's not a green light for everyone to do what they want and show up whenever. Elijah was late because he was speaking to a Little League; now we don't want people showing up late, but if the reason for being late is something positive----and I don't mean being late because you were banging two girls at once as a viable excuse----then there won't be a fine for it. Let's go kick some ass!!!!

     The team would probably agree with the assessment and would feel a kinship with management that they understood where the players are coming from. Instead, they used this heavy-handed treatment trying to be hardasses and it's just going to contribute to the organization's problems rather than fix them. 

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 5
  

• The Yankees early season panic:

     We're getting all kinds of theories as to why the ball seems to be flying so freely out of the new Yankee Stadium; the club is studying the situation to see if there's a genuine reason for it, but what can be done about it is unclear. One would assume that an architect would be able to account for the things that are being cited as possible reasons for the frequency with which home runs are being hit (20 in the first four games); but if the players are noticing balls that have no business going out of the park are doing just that, then obviously something's going on.

    I'm more inclined to believe that it's the pitchers who are the problem rather than blaming the wind or God's angry wrath or whatever. It's not like C.C. Sabathia walked out and gave up five homers; the names of pitchers against whom a big chunk of the homers that were hit----Damaso Marte; Anthony Claggett; Jose Veras; Edwar Ramirez----aren't pitchers that promote disbelief when they do poorly. It's probably a fluky thing instead of a trend; I doubt the Yankees quietly intended to build a bandbox.

    Speaking of promoting disbelief, I can't see how a pitcher who's been as good as Chien-Ming Wang's been over the first four years of his career would suddenly lose his ability to get big league hitters out unless----and this is a big unless----he's hurt. Short of that one caveat, he's either off to a bad start (and this isn't unusual for Wang if you look at his career splits), he's off kilter mechanically, or both. They'll skip his turn, work on some stuff and see if he straightens out; and I expect he will. 

• Is Bobby Cox's "genius" monicker gone yet?

    Whenever I think of the current state of the Braves, I think of the following Beavis and Butt-head episode:




    The girl's "career as a leading molecular biologist seems far away" just like the Braves annual anointed passage into the playoffs; and just as far away is their Midas touch with bringing in players and having manager Bobby Cox integrate them into the Braves culture and getting them to sign on for the Braves way of doing things; also far away are the young players reaching the big leagues and producing immediately as cogs in the machine.

    It's not overtly Cox's fault because the entire organization is reluctant to accept the facts that I've repeatedly harped on in my writings----they need to move forward!!!! They need to cut ties with the past and stop bringing in players like Garret Anderson; to stop signing warhorses like Chipper Jones to contract extensions knowing they're not going to get much from them by the time to contract is winding down in 2012; to keep patching things together with players that aren't all that good or are past their primes.

    The Braves run in the 90s was based on their starting pitching, which could be counted on to gobble innings and win, win, win. Because of that, they were able to make the playoffs with mediocre bullpens whose flaws would be more evident and costly in a short series. Cox was never the type of manager that Billy Martin was or Tony La Russa is in that he's unable to make something out of nothing through sheer force of strategic brilliance and the ability to identify a player's strengths and use him in that role. He handled the pitchers brilliantly during the run; he disciplined the clubhouse; and handled the media. At his age, he's clearly not going to be managing the team if and when they turn the corner. The Braves current predicament is not the fault of the manager since the front office won't take the necessary steps to get back to what made them so good in the 90s to begin with.

    There's a clinging to the past in Atlanta that is a precursor to the mistakes they're making. They've steadfastly refused to move on from players like Jones who, while being great, isn't going to be a member of the club if and when they return to realistic contention; they continue to bring in veterans for one last run under their veteran manager when it's just not going to happen. Cox understandably, at his age, wouldn't want to be part of a rebuilding project, but that's not a concern for the front office if they truly decide to go about their business in an efficient way rather than copy the mistakes the Mets made in the early part of the decade as they gave loyalty contracts to pitchers like Al Leiter and John Franco when neither was going to be part of the solution for the future. Moving away from the past is being forced on the Braves as John Smoltz left of his own accord and Tom Glavine is pondering retirement; they should accept these instances as omens, but something tells me they won't.

    Loyalty and reverence are great, but they shouldn't trump winning. Until they acknowledge that there's a problem, that problem isn't going to be fixed and they'll stay on their current road to mediocrity (and worse) because the team isn't very good and their years as the annual champion of the NL East will seem just as far away as that girl's job as a leading molecular biologist. And that ain't smooth.      

• There were established veteran relievers available for nothing, so I don't wanna hear it:

    Rather than firing their manager (that should come later), the Nationals did the equivalent of firing two pitchers (Wil Ledezma and Steven Shell) and shipped out Saul Rivera in favor of Kip Wells (good luck with that), Jason Bergmann and Garrett Mock. Let's put it this way: the new guys can't be any worse. 

    This isn't an isolated problem so far this young season. The Nats, Braves, Phillies and Yankees among others, have major problems in their bullpens, but these problems were aviodable relatively cheaply had they invested in the likes of Juan Cruz, Will Ohman or Joe Beimel to fill the slots that currently have pitchers shuttling in and out of the revolving door. Short of signing a veteran free agent, they could've taken the same route that the Marlins take and bring in relievers who either have nowhere else to go or are recovering from injuries. That seems to work too, but this exemplifies the difference between the Marlins and the Nats. The Marlins bring in players they can use; the Nats are running a halfway house for disenfranchised youth and corner outfielders. 

• Saving themselves from endless ridicule:

    There are certain incidents that define "rock-bottom" and the Yankees avoided one yesterday by coming back to beat the Indians and Yankees legend (and not in a good way)----Carl Pavano.

    Pavano pitched quite well despite the Yankees 7-3 comeback win and ordinarily, one would think that the Yankees hitters were overanxious because of Pavano being the opposing pitcher and the desire to really unload on him (much as the Rangers did in Pavano's rancid first Indians start) to stick it up his ass for four years and $40 million wasted dollars, but the only part of yesterday's Yankee lineup who would've had some motivation for that was Derek Jeter, who mustered a double off of his former teammate. 

    This game made me think that Pavano's the type of guy who needs some sort of incentive to dig deeper inside himself for whatever it was that made him an 18-game winner with the Marlins in 2004 and the guy who pitched so well in the 2003 post-season. Once he got paid by the Yankees, he lost his desire. Yesterday, one can only imagine...*

*Actually, I have a pretty fertile imagination----don't ask----and I probably couldn't come up with some of the stuff Pavano undoubtedly heard from the Yankees faithful from the time he started warming up until he left the game.

...what he was hearing from the fans and he battled his way through that and left the game with a lead. That's no excuse for his uninterested and embarrassing Yankees career, but he can still be a useful component to a pitching staff here and there; just don't let him get too comfortable.

• The Angels' spiraling season:

      It's going to be very, very, very hard for the Angels to recover and salvage this season. The injuries they've endured are nothing compared to the still-present shock and devastation the entire organization is going through after the death of Nick Adenhart.

    This situation is in no way similar to the way the Cardinals overcame the death of Darryl Kile in 2002 to win their division and make it all the way to the NLCS before losing. Kile died of natural causes; Adenhart was essentially murdered. If it was just the injury-tattered pitching staff the Angels were trying to piece their way through, they'd be competitive in a weak division; this is different.

    By late May or early June, once they've reached the acceptance stage of grieving and realize what happened happened, they should start looking toward the future because no manager or organization, regardless of how well run, could overcome this and get right back to the business of baseball in time to save the on-field season, and I don't think the Angels or their fans care that much about how many games the team wins or whether or not they make the playoffs for 2009.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 4
  

Gabriel at rock_bard@hotmail.com writes RE the Blue Jays:

Hey! I know it's only been two weeks, but I'm really liking Toronto's pitching, especially because the rookies are looking very good and sharp, and even that injury has already struck the rotation, they're still keeping the boat afloat. How do you like their chances?
 

    Well, let's put it this way: Marco Scutaro has four homers in the first two weeks of the season----that won't continue.

    Scott Rolen and Vernon Wells have been healthy and regular parts of the lineup----that won't continue.

    Aaron Hill's gotten off to a blazing start----that won't continue.

    Their catching situation is a nightmare and they've run into some mediocre or struggling teams up to this point and haven't played the Yankees, Red Sox or Rays yet. 

    They're functioning with two minor league veterans in their starting rotation in David Purcey and Scott Richmond with Purcey getting hammered and Richmond pitching serviceably for a 29-year-old former independent leaguer; and Jesse Litsch (who I believe will straighten himself out) is getting pummeled; Ricky Romero's pitched well but his minor league numbers aren't all that impressive, so the league is likely to catch up to him.

    On the bright side, Roy Halladay is a absolute horse at the top of the rotation who doesn't have to take a backseat to anyone; the bullpen is deep and very good; Travis Snider is going to be a productive slugger; and Alexis Rios is eventually going to hit; and Adam Lind may have turned the corner. 

    Things have gone about as well as could possibly be imagined for the Blue Jays considering their circumstances, there's no way to think it'll stay that way in that division. Even though the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays are struggling to start the season, I can't realistically believe in the Blue Jays even if one of them underachieves to an 82-win season (my money's on the Rays); so the Blue Jays issues are eventually gonna catch up to them once the season gets underway and they start playing their divisional opponents and even if by some miracle they get something from Shaun Marcum, Dustin McGowan and Casey Janssen, they still don't have enough offense. 

    The rest of the league looks mediocre and very beatable (especially with the Angels reeling and their entire season appearing to be totally shot). Maybe the Blue Jays can loiter around for awhile and stay competitive, but I wouldn't bank on it. 

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Joe Girardi/Dave Eiland and the Yankees:

I agree that Girardi's got a short leash. But since it's the pitching that sucks, they could give Dave Eiland the hook. Maybe.

    If George still had his faculties, Eiland would not have survived the first half of last season and definitely wouldn't have been back this year considering his main attribute as pitching coach was his supposed "rapport" with the young pitchers and they fell on their faces or got hurt.

    There are names available to replace him. Leo Mazzone is still out there doing broadcasting work as the best pitching coach not currently being a pitching coach. If they dump both Eiland and Girardi, it could be, as I mentioned, Davey Johnson and Mel Stottlemyre or possibly Jim Fregosi and Mazzone. 

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Robinson Cano:

 It's funny, because although Cano has been playing well. He has almost looked like he is bored at the plate, with his new found patience.

    Did you buy a copy of my book, Joe?

• Girardi doesn't have as much rope as people seem to think:

    The Yankees inconsistent pitching (in Chien-Ming Wang's case, embarrassing pitching) and mediocre start isn't overtly the fault of manager Joe Girardi, but to think that the young manager has an unlimited amount of time this season to maximize the value of that payroll is at best, naive and at worst, stupid. 

    It's only 12 games in and while Girardi has made a concerted effort to change his image as an aloof, thin-skinned neophyte who's in over his head doing a job he's not ready for and the team is still stumbling along as Girardi is still making mistakes that a veteran manager wouldn't make. Having Nick Swisher pitch in a blowout loss to the Rays last week was a symptom of the larger issue of Girardi's lapses.

    By nature, the negatives are more glaring than the positives----that's the way the job is. The starting pitching, aside from Wang, has been quite good and Robinson Cano is playing like someone lit a rocket under his ass and Girardi deserves that credit; but Damaso Marte, Phil Coke and Jose Veras have been atrocious; then there are the strange maneuvers like having Swisher pitch. I'm not intentionally harping on one mistake, but it was such an ill-thought-out, brainless thing to do that it can't be simply forgotten as one glitch over the course of a season. Sometimes Girardi just does...not...think. 

    There's no way to dismiss a manager----regardless of how well-compensated his team is or how poorly they're playing----when Mark Teixeira is dealing with his wrist injury; Alex Rodriguez is still out; Hideki Matsui's recurring knee problems; and Xavier Nady possibly out for the year; but eventually, if the team is still staggering along, GM Brian Cashman and, especially, owners Hank and Hal Steinbrenner aren't going to be patient with Girardi if the season is taking a similar tone as last year.

    In years past, when George Steinbrenner was in his explosive prime, pitching coach Dave Eiland would already have been "put on notice" in the newspapers if Wang, Marte, Veras and Coke continue to struggle; the situation is different now, but even Cashman has to realize that the team spent a quarter of a billion dollars to fix the team's problems and if they're sitting at, around or even below .500 at the end of May when their players are back from injury and the team's supposed to be firing on all cylinders but still aren't, then something's going to have to be done. Don't be surprised if  Davey Johnson and Mel Stottlemyre are sitting side-by-side in the Yankees dugout instead of Girardi and Eiland if things don't turn around. The consensus among the "experts" before the season was that Girardi had the year before a decision was made; I don't think he has that long because a team with this high a payroll can't afford to lose because a manager is still learning on the job.

• Padres 8-Phillies 5:

    If this keeps up, I'm going to have to dismantle my "PADRES LOSSOMETER". The natural questions after a stunning 9-3 start for a team that has such little talent are these: Are they not as bad as they looked before the season or are they just playing over their heads and running into some struggling teams? 

    I cannot look at the Padres roster and back off of the evaluation that they're easily the worst team in baseball----even worse than the Nationals. The Phillies season has started about as badly as they could've imagined in their worst nightmares as if they're paying the price for getting career seasons from journeymen like Chad Durbin and Clay Condrey; Brad Lidge set up for a fall because he couldn't go anywhere but down after last year; and their starting pitching mostly terrible so far. The Padres also beat the mediocre Mets; and the offensively challenged Giants.

    This isn't going to last. In fact, the team's numbers are pretty well what you'd expect from them before the season started, they're just getting great work from their bullpen and some timely hits. That can't continue based on a lack of talent.

• The land of the sharpening axes:

    I'd expect Manny Acta of the Nationals to be fired in the coming days (possibly by tomorrow) and replaced by bench coach Jim Riggleman if new GM Mike Rizzo and CEO Stan Kasten want to evaluate for the rest of the season, or third base coach Pat Listach if they'd like to see if Listach's minor league managerial experience make him a permanent candidate for the job. It's not Acta's fault, but managers pay the price for teams that win one game in the first two weeks of the season. Willie Randolph would be a good choice for that rebuilding club as well.

    Ron Washington of the Rangers has spent pretty much his entire tenure as the team's manager looking over his shoulder and wondering when he's going to get fired. The team's now 4-7; Washington's not going to be the manager when the team turns the corner and it makes no sense to keep him if they're looking toward the next guy, whoever that is.

• Milton Bradley's behavior and suspension:

    I dunno if Milton Bradley deserved to be suspended or not for his latest incident with an umpire----ESPN Story----but I will say that a guy like Bradley is already dealing with his reputation before he even says a single word to anyone. The umpires are like cops with the "blue wall of silence" and they may privately believe that Bradley didn't do anything to deserve to be suspended, but won't give him any leeway at all if he starts barking at them; because of that, incidental contact that could have been completely innocent turns into a suspension. It won't happen, but he'd be better off just staring straight ahead whenever any call goes against him, taking it and moving forward because he simply can't win.

    Another note from the above-linked article is this quote:

Bradley...had been on his best behavior since joining the Cubs on a three-year, $30 million deal and had downplayed his reputation as a hothead. 

    "Had been on his best behavior since joining the Cubs"?!?

    The man just joined the team and he's already gotten suspended.

    It's April!!!

    That's a pretty low standard for good behavior if he managed to stay out of trouble through spring training and the first week of the season. It's gonna be a rocky ride if that's the case. 

• Are people waking up to the problems of the Braves now?

    I've repeatedly asked why the Braves are still the darlings of the media when they're clearly a mediocre-to-poor team; badly constructed and refusing to accept reality of their situation. Still clinging to the past when everything worked and resulted in another notch in their annual run of division titles, the Braves are reluctant to make the correct decisions and start all over again with their young players. 

    As expected, the bullpen's been hideous; Chipper Jones is in and out of the lineup with his injuries (and they inexplicably signed him to a lucrative contract extension as more of a severance package than for what he's expected to be for the duration of the contract); Casey Kotchman is hitting like the pre-PED Rafael Palmeiro; and the whole team is quite plainly not very good. Is anyone listening? Do they have to fall to 65 wins before beginning a tear down or making the necessary changes? 

    If Jed Lowrie is out for an extended period of time, Julio Lugo will get an unlikely and brief chance to redeem himself from entering the "Land of Pavano" as one of the worst free agent signings in recent baseball history. 

    Had Lowrie been able to stay healthy and hit enough so as not to be a black hole in the lineup, then the defensively weak and offensively inept (at least since he's joined the Red Sox) Lugo not only wasn't getting back in the lineup, but he wasn't going to be in Boston much longer if Theo Epstein was able to find anyone to take the nearly two years remaining on his contract. Now, he's going to play an extended spring training game by the end of the week and could be back in Boston by the end of the month.

    Lugo getting back into the lineup is a development that could only happen if Lowrie fell on his face or got hurt----and now he's hurt. This isn't to imply that Lugo's going to have longer than a few weeks to a month (depending on how long Lowrie's going to be out with his wrist injury and right now, the reports don't sound good) to prove that he can be counted on to do the job. By June, if Lowrie's gone and Lugo's playing like he has since donning a Red Sox uniform, Epstein will either head into the market to look for a replacement or the organization will hold their collective breaths and throw Double A shortstop Argenis Diaz out there and see if they strike lightning. 

    There are going to be some shortstops available for various prices. Miguel Tejada is hitting so far this season and the Astros would give him away for nothing (his contract's up at the end of the year); Jack Wilson will be available from the Pirates; J.J. Hardy of the Brewers and Yunel Escobar of the Braves could probably be had in a deal for some pitching if their teams fall out of the race; but Lugo's probably going to get one more chance as the Red Sox everyday shortstop.

    If I had to bet on what's going to happen, I'd say a trade is made to fill the hole in the field and at the plate, but desperation does strange things to people and Lugo has to realize that he's got a chance to redeem himself for his terrible tenure in Boston by getting one last opportunity to play and that's more than could've been said in the middle of spring training when he hurt his knee and looked like he was just going to be forgotten as a mistaken signing who'd only play in an emergency; but that emergency is here; let's see what he does with it.    

• Sheffield's 500th:

    Tim Kurkjian went into a whole thing about how Gary Sheffield's 500th homer automatically makes him a Hall of Famer. Frankly, I don't see the connection. I said weeks ago that Sheffield's numbers if he never plays another game make him a Hall of Famer; now it's going to be more difficult to keep him out unless----and this is a big "unless"----the writers hold his cantankerous reputation and BALCO involvement against him. Other than that, Sheffield's numbers make him a first ballot, no-doubt Hall of Famer.

    Here's the argument I made in my posting on April 1st for Sheffield's candidacy based on the numbers:

499 homers; 1633 RBI; 1592 runs; 2615 hits; 454 doubles; 251 stolen bases; a .292 batting average; a .394 OBP; .516 slugging %; and a three time finisher in the top three of the MVP voting. Then if you look at his numbers based on individual seasons and not as a "stat-compiler"...*

*Fred McGriff was mentioned as a contemporary of Sheffied; I think McGriff warrants enshrinement as well, but he was nowhere near the threat the Gary Sheffield ever was at any point in his career. 

...Sheffield still deserves to be a Hall of Famer. This is a guy whose on base percentages were, from the ages of 26-34, above .400 and usually over .420. He drove in 100+ runs eight times; always hit over .300 and was, for the most part, durable. Add in that, for a pure slugger, he rarely struck out and never struck out more than 83 times in a season.

    These numbers weren't padded by any ballpark he played in either. It wasn't like he was playing in Colorado or shooting at the Green Monster in Boston; Sheffield, for most of his career, was playing in pitcher's ballparks. Jack Murphy Stadium in San Diego wasn't a canyon as the new Padres ballpark is, but it was never an easy shot to hit the ball out of the park; after that he played in Florida, Los Angeles, Atlanta and with the Yankees; none of these parks are known for being a hitter's haven. Statistically, all things being equal, Sheffield's a Hall of Famer.

• What's with the spate of torn labrums in hips?

    Now Alex Gordon of the Royals has torn a hip labrum. In the past year, that's Chase Utley, Alex Rodriguez and now Gordon all sustaining an injury that either wasn't diagnosed in the past or simply didn't happen and I have to ask why. Could it be because of all these various types of exercise routines away from the field they're doing now? Or did they happen more often and doctors didn't have the equipment to know what the injury was? I'd look for common denominators in what the three players were doing in terms of exercises (plyometrics, weights, whatever) and have my players, y'know, stop doing them. 

• I don't wanna hear it:

    Did this Andrew Gallo go out with the intention of killing anyone? Highly doubtful if for no other reason than he was so self-interested that he behaved this way in the first place (driving so fast----70 mph----and so drunk that he was three times the legal limit for intoxication); he certainly wouldn't want to end up in this amount of trouble; but I don't want to hear people asking for sympathy for him as his parents are in this article from ESPN.com.

    Three of the four people he ran into are dead and the fourth is still in the hospital. If the prosecutors offer this Gallo a plea bargain in which he'll be able to walk outside for a few years of his life, then he'll see more sunlight than the people he killed ever will. He can sit in the courtroom and cry all he wants; while I have no doubt he feels terrible for what he did, his tears are more for himself than they are for the people he killed.

• You got accentuate the positives, eliminate the negaitves:

• Xavier Nady may be out for the year:

    This is a great example of why it's good for teams----especially teams with the cash to pay for quality----to have depth on their roster. In retrospect, the Yankees lukewarm attempts to trade either Nick Swisher or Nady in the spring were a positive failure. If Nady's elbow injury is as serious as it sounds, he's also going to be costing himself a guaranteed contract as an everyday players somewhere next year as he heads into free agency.

     That Nady hurt himself making a routine throw emphasizes the risky stupidity of manager Joe Girardi having Nick Swisher pitch in Monday's blowout. I doubt we'll see a key everyday player on the mound again under Girardi no matter what the score is.

• Uh, let's calm down about A.J. Burnett:

A.J. Burnett worth every penny as he stops another Yankee skid

     The questions with Burnett have never, ever had anything to do with his stuff. The questions have to do with whether or not he's going to stay healthy. How someone can equate two starts with a pitcher who has the injury history of Burnett to being "worth" the $82.5 million contract he signed is inexplicable.

     I don't think even the Yankees expect Burnett's tenure with the team to be free of at least one or two trips to the disabled list in the best case scenario; and one thing that would really be on my mind is how this newfound acclaim is going to affect Burnett if he does feel a twinge that will require some rest. Is he going to be afraid to tell the team that there's something wrong because of how it'll look and make things worse? And it should be remembered, as Burnett is being seen as the Anti-Carl Pavano, is that Pavano won his first start as a Yankee (against the Red Sox no less!) and pitched pretty well in his first two months with the team before the wheels fell off----2005 Pavano Gamelogs. It's a bit premature to be validating the Burnett signing after two starts.

• Could the Rays be regretting their right field platoon already?

     Neither Gabe Kapler nor Matt Joyce have done much of anything so far this season and you have to wonder if the Rays are regretting not going more aggressively after Bobby Abreu (defensive lapses aside) or just shutting their eyes and repeating last season's widespread use of their entire roster with Ben Zobrist and Gabe Gross as their primary right fielders. Their offense is good enough to withstand Gross returning to the offensive black hole he was before the sudden (and unforeseen) burst of power after he joined the Rays; and Zobrist has shown he can hit enough to be a semi-regular.

    Kapler is only two years removed from retiring to manage in the minors for the Red Sox and was an injury-prone/"looks better than he plays" type of guy during his entire career. Joyce has shown some pop in the minors, but all things being equal, they might've been better off keeping Edwin Jackson (and it's easy to critique the move while Jackson's doing a pretty fair imitation of Dave Stewart with the Tigers) and playing Gross/Zobrist. If they were so intent on trading Jackson, they could've held onto him into the season to see what the offers would be as starting pitchers began feeling twinges and going on the DL as Dasiuke Matsuzaka, Mike Pelfrey, Brandon Webb and Chris Carpenter have so far already.

    This is the problem when a management team like that of the Rays begins to believe the press clippings of how "smart" and "innovative" they are: they get too smart; they think that whereas every move they made before 2008 turned to shit, every move they make now will turn to gold; and it doesn't work that way. They outsmarted themselves and it's starting to look like it's going to cost them more in the long run than it would've been to be happy with the offensive upgrade from Pat Burrell and to leave right field as it was while holding onto Jackson or trading him elsewhere for better quality than Joyce currently appears to be.

• Is calling Chris Carpenter an "ace" even accurate at this point?

    Chris Carpenter is a great pitcher when he's healthy, but the storyline that the Cardinals have "placed their ace on the disabled list" is something of a misnomer. Carpenter has barely pitched at all in the past two years; at this point, rather than calling him an "ace", maybe he should be called "an oft-injured extra from whom no one should expect much of anything and be happy if he pitches in 15 games".

• The Farnsworth Chronicles:

    Kyle (2-years, $9.25 million) Farnsworth has been in four games this season and singlehandedly gacked up two of them with his horrendous hideousness. They should consider making him into a starter. I'm serious.

• The Padres Lossometer: 3

     They've gotten off to a stunningly good start, but I still have faith that my prediction in my still available and useful book will come true and we'll be counting up (or down, however you see it) toward 106 losses.

• You wanna see some moves? Here are some moves:

    I'm stunningly pleased that the New York Rangers were able to swipe the first game of the first round NHL Stanley Cup playoffs series with the Washington Capitals with a 4-3 win. Here's a highlight video of the game and if fast forward to about 4:00 in if you'd like to see Rangers center Brandon Dubinsky's imitation of Wayne Gretzky with a move that totally discombobulated the Caps defense and won the game for the Rangers----NHL.com video.

    This looked vaguely familiar when I read it from Michael Salfino at SNY.tv:

Why risk injury by putting your most valuable early-season hitter, Nick Swisher, on the mound yesterday? And what the heck was going on Sunday in Kansas City, a game Girardi just gave away with some really bizarre end-game moves?

The Swisher-to-the-mound gambit was just begging for an elbow injury, a la Jose Canseco in 1993. I understand Girardi wanted to rest his 'pen. But put a relative scrub out there instead like Ramiro Pena, not a guy with a bat you will likely continue to badly need.

    The time of the posting was 1:25 PM on April 14th. Here's what I posted at 5:31 AM on April 14th:

I totally understand using a position player to get the outs when the game's out of hand rather than wasting a reliever (even if it's only for one inning); but hasn't Yankees manager Joe Girardi ever heard about the Jose Canseco incident in which the outfielder was allowed to pitch and blew out his elbow? If they'd used a---- I'm using this term as gently as possible---- disposable commodity like Cody Ransom, then fine, but Nick Swisher?

     With Mark Teixeira having tendinitis issues in his wrist, why risk getting Swisher, whom they need for his bat and that he's a switch-hitter, getting hurt doing something so unnecessary as pitching? Yeah, it was funny; yeah it was a loosening moment to see Swisher out there trying to pitch; and yeah, he was unlikely to get hurt throwing one inning, but why do it? It wasn't worth it.

    My math skills are wanting, but from what I can tell, 5:31 AM comes before 1:25 PM. This Salfino is a "nationally syndicated columnist" according to the bottom of the SNY page this quote was clipped from; I'm just a schmuck clawing his way to the top Neanderthal-style and it ain't fair. 

• Manny Ramirez openly muses about finishing his career with the Indians:

    On the scale of stupid things that Manny Ramirez says and does, this is probably low enough for the Dodgers sort of shake their heads, shrug and say, "whatever"; but it's a bit out of line (in the mind of a normal person anyway) to openly fantasize about finishing his career in another city when he's just started working on a 2-year contract worth $45 million. The Manny quote went as follows: 

"I would like to play for Cleveland one more time, to go back where I started," Ramirez told USA Today. "I have so many good memories there, why not?

"I think to go back where you started is everyone's dream."

    Manny discussed the possibility of returning to Cleveland and reuniting with former Indians teammate Jim Thome. This wouldn't be that bad of an idea except for the small obstacles of: the Indians not wanting to bring Manny back; that it's unlikely that they'd be willing to have not one, not two, but three fulltime DHs on their roster; and Manny's already, y'know, employed by another team.

     I'd say it were at least possible with most reasonable human beings that they'd be able to manipulate their careers to end in their desired locale, but Manny isn't a reasonable human being. If he were willing to take a 1-year, incentive-laden, $5 million base salary in two years to rejoin the Indians----presuming he proves he can still hit while dealing with the small issue of completing his Dodgers contract for 2009 and 2010----then the Indians would be stupid to not consider the option for Manny's bat, and because of the fannies he'd put in the seats. But this is Manny we're talking about. It'd be just like him to say to the Indians, "Yeah, I wanna go back to Cleveland; and I'll give you a discount; you only hafta pay me $40 million for two years."

    Then there are the facts that Indians boss Mark Shapiro dismissed the Manny-back-to-Cleveland notion out of hand when it was even suggested this past off-season, and that they're still going to be paying a declining DH in Travis Hafner $13 million annually in 2011 and 2012. And of course they'd have room for Thome as well. 

    It'd be a great idea if the Indians were planning a beer league softball team for alumni, but aside from that, I can't see it happening. If the Dodgers are annoyed about Manny's childish longing for the past, they shouldn't be; it's just part of Manny Being Manny.

• There's something wrong with this guy's entire musculature:
  

    So Chris Carpenter's arm is holding up after all the injuries, he's pitching brilliantly so far in 2009...and he pulls a rib cage muscle swinging the bat in last night's 7-6 loss to the Diamondbacks. It looks like Carpenter's heading back to his home away from home----the disabled list. Who knows for how long? 

• Will Macha receive the same ridicule as Howe?

    The Brewers are off to a rotten, 2-6 start under new manager Ken Macha and I have to wonder whether those that ruthlessly ridiculed Art Howe as a creation of Billy Beane's genius in Oakland when he went to the Mets and failed in the standings (although, as usual for his managerial career, Howe had a hand in the development of the young Mets stars David Wright and Jose Reyes) are going to aim their poison at Howe's replacement with the Athletics, Ken Macha. 

    Macha was just as disposable as Howe was in the Billy Beane system (proven neatly when Beane fired him after the A's went to the ALCS and were swept by the Tigers in 2006) and given how he's started with the Brewers, he's not going to have any more success than Howe did post-Beane. The main differences between the two managers, as far as I can see, is that Macha was more of a hard-ass than Howe could ever be, but that doesn't mean he's going to be able to duplicate the success he had with the A's either and if Howe was the object of scorn and abuse, then Macha deserves the same treatment.

• Let the managerial watches begin:

    The season's a week old and already there are some managers under whom the ground is beginning to rumble. Let's take a look at who they are, when and why they may go.

Manny Acta-Washington Nationals: 

    Acta is widely respected as a solid game manager and has done as good a job as anyone could reasonably expect in dealing with the dysfunctional personalities and bizarrely constructed roster presented to him by former GM Jim Bowden, but eventually he's going to answer for the team's lack of response to him.

    The Nats did spend some money and made some moves to improve at least slightly with the acquisitions of Adam Dunn, Joe Beimel, Daniel Cabrera, Scott Olsen and Josh Willingham, but they're 0-7 and look terrible. Perhaps the years of dealing with the off-field issues along with losing and having to do everything he could to squeeze whatever he could out of that roster has taken its toll on him, but if the Nats are going to start over with a new GM, that new GM might want to start fresh with a new manager.

Eric Wedge-Cleveland Indians:

    Mark Shapiro doesn't act capriciously and he's not going to fire his manager a week or two into the season (unless they're 2-15 next week), but nor is he going to sit around in a winnable division with a team that has enough talent to contend and let things spiral out of control to the point that the season's completely shot before May's out. Shapiro has a relationship with Buck Showalter and don't be stunned to see a move made if things don't pick up by the end of the month. 

Ron Washington-Texas Rangers:

    It's not his fault, but he's not going to be there when the club does turn the corner in the next year or two and it's better to get rid of him now, let Rudy Jaramillo manage the team and see if he can handle it. If he can, give him the permanent job; if not, Bobby Valentine would probably love a return trip to Texas to finish his managerial career where it started, and he'd win too.

Cecil Cooper-Houston Astros:

    Cooper's a nice man and a solid baseball guy; they'd be doing him a favor by ejecting him from that sinking (rotting) ship. 

• Viewer Mail:

Franklin Rabon writes RE Jordan Schafer:

To point an inaccuracy, Jordan Schafer has never failed a PED test.  He was found by MLB investigators to have "significant evidence linking him to HGH use" which apparently consisted of having friends at his apartment who were later caught with HGH.  He couldn't have failed a PED test for HGH, because baseball doesn't administer one, because a reliable one doesn't exist.  He actually wanted to protest, but the Braves told him to just keep quiet about it, that it would blow over and they wouldn't hold it against him.  I am not sure what the Braves reasoning was behind this, other than possibly not wanting to deal with a "denier" when all these other stars had denied, denied, denied and then were later caught.  He may or may not have taken HGH, but we do know for certain that he did not actually fail any PED test and he was never caught with any PED in his possession.  We also know that he would not have been punished in any way, shape or form had he been in a MLB uniform at the time of the accusations.

    An absolutely fair point and I have to correct the statement that he "failed" the drug test. Since he was suspended for 50 games, it automatically makes him appear guilty. In fact, he probably, in a weird way, would've been better off having failed for using steroids; that way, he's be able to state that he's clean and have testing to back it up. As of right now, he's always going to have the words "HGH" hanging over his head even if he never did them to begin with. 

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE MLBlogs commenting issues:

Thanks for trying (and succeeding!) to leave a comment. I know how torturously boring it is to sit there and wait for the thing to work. I have no technical expertise, but could it really be that hard to fix this?

    There's a tie in to my thinking with Franklin's comment about Jordan Schafer----it makes me think of the NFL. The NFL has the ability to suspend players just as MLB is trying to do with their minor leaguers based on just feeling like they've violated some phantom set of rules, sort of like NCAA's floating, based on whims eligibility requirements. They can move the goalposts anytime and there's not much anyone can do about it. Schafer could've threatened to take MLB to court over it and probably backed them off because every time MLB winds up in court (in almost directly opposite results to the NFL), they lose badly.

     What would the NFL do if their web operator had such issues with their website? Would they react in such a wishy-washy manner and accept that such an important participatory aspect as commenting was working so terribly and continually say that they're "working on the problem"? Or would they behave as the cold-blooded corporate monolith/monopoly that is so ruthless and powerful that there's no point in even taking them on in court or anywhere else? Then again, the NFL would've replaced the inept, self-interested people MLB has running their web presence long ago, so I suppose the point is moot. 

• Harry Kalas, 1936-2009:
  

    I really remember Harry Kalas more for his work on This Is The NFL years ago than for his baseball work. With highlights available at the click of a button or on the various sports shows on cable 24/7, that in the 80s, shows like This Is The NFL were the only place to get a booster shot of extended highlights from the previous week's games. I loved that show when I was a kid. And Kalas had such a recognizable voice and slow, deliberate manner of speaking that his voice was unmistakable. With the way broadcasters all sound alike now with their perfect diction and deep broadcaster's voices, there'll never be another Harry Kalas since he made it with that unique style and having not been a former player. That's good in a way because he'll be more easily remembered.

• Why was Nick Swisher pitching?

    Chien-Ming Wang's problems are clearly mechanical because when a pitcher with his devastating sinker is giving up as many line drives and long flyballs, then he's either not getting on top of his pitches adequately; not following through; or not getting the proper rotation as he releases the ball; but that's beside the point in the Rays 15-5 win over the Yankees. 

    I totally understand using a position player to get the outs when the game's out of hand rather than wasting a reliever (even if it's only for one inning); but hasn't Yankees manager Joe Girardi ever heard about the Jose Canseco incident in which the outfielder was allowed to pitch and blew out his elbow? If they'd used a----I'm using this term as gently as possible----disposable commodity like Cody Ransom, then fine, but Nick Swisher?

     With Mark Teixeira having tendinitis issues in his wrist, why risk getting Swisher, whom they need for his bat and that he's a switch-hitter, getting hurt doing something so unnecessary as pitching? Yeah, it was funny; yeah it was a loosening moment to see Swisher out there trying to pitch; and yeah, he was unlikely to get hurt throwing one inning, but why do it? It wasn't worth it. 

• Cardinals 2-Diamondbacks 1:

    So, is Jason Motte officially out as the Cardinals closer after one chance?

    I'm not arguing with the decision because if anyone can manipulate a "closer-by-committee" deal, it's Tony La Russa, but it's somewhat interesting that Motte gets one game to close and then is sort of forgotten in a "never mind" moment of Motte even having "won" the job in spring training to begin with. Perhaps it's a bit of a time out from the job for him to get his big league bearings, but if the Cardinals are playing well as the season moves along with Ryan Franklin, Dennys Reyes, Kyle McLellan, etc. closing, then La Russa's not going to stick Motte back out there and mess things up. 

    I tried to comment on both the MLBlogs Confessions of a She-Fan and Red State Blue State and as...I.........was......typing.....each............let..............ter.......................to.....................ok....

a..................ver.....................y.......................lo..........................ng.......................ti........

me.................to..................move....................a..............................long for me to finish what I wanted to say. I type pretty fast and it's impossible to continue writing while the screen is moving so slowly. Then, after I'd finished my comment on Jane's blog and waiting another interminable amount of time, the following popped up:

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@mlblogs.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

    Of course the words "anything you might have done that caused the error" are completely appropriate, I mean, how could it be the fault of anyone at MLBlogs or their webmaster Six Apart? It had to be something I'd done.

    Are they kidding? 

    Presumably a client the size of MLB would be able to call up Six Apart and, in the style I'd use, say, "Listen, stop fuckin' around and fix this fuckin' problem!!! How much money are we paying you to handle this project? If you can't fix it, we'll go somewhere else to handle out business. How's that sound?"

    Then we'd see how fast the "technical problems" would be sorted out.

    An inability to participate in an already shoddily run enterprise is going to diminish the number of people who are using MLBlogs to begin with; or perhaps they don't even care one way or the other. Does that sound feasible since it's all free over there now anyway. If it's free, why provide a quality experience, right? 

•     (1) Boston Bruins vs (8) Montreal Canadiens:

    The Bruins are a highly vulnerable #1 seed and the Canadiens are probably relieved that the even made the playoffs with the pressure and ridicule that comes from having 11 beat writers and a hockey-obsessed hometown attacking you at every turn. The Canadiens have some players who've come alive at playoff time in the past like Alex Kovalev, but the Bruins have played too well this season to lose in the first round again. If there was a distinct advantage in goal, then maybe the Canadiens could steal the series, but there isn't and they won't.

BRUINS IN SEVEN.

•   (2) Washington Capitals vs (7) New York Rangers:

    I'm a Rangers fan and this is one of the worst matchups they could've gotten themselves into. The Capitals have so much firepower led by Alex Ovechkin, Alex Semin and Mike Green (my pick for the Conn Smythe trophy for playoff MVP) that the only hope for the Rangers is if goalie Henrik Lundqvist does a David Copperfield routine and makes the net shrink or disappear entirely. The Caps goaltending isn't great and their defense is compromised by their high-powered and aggressive offensive approach. If these games turn into gunfights, the Rangers are going to be out before they even know what happened.

CAPITALS IN SIX.

• (3) New Jersey Devils vs (6) Carolina Hurricanes:

    The Hurricanes have been smoking hot over the past month and they're so aggressive on the forecheck, offensively and in penalty killing that the Devils can't rely on Martin Brodeur to bail them out because 'Canes goalie Cam Ward has been playing on an all-world level. The Devils have looked sloppy recently and they looked atrocious in losing in the first round of last year's playoff series with the Rangers----both poor reflections on coach Brent Sutter. 

HURRICANES IN SIX.

• (4) Pittsburgh Penguins vs (5) Philadelphia Flyers:

    The Flyers, with their goal scoring power from Jeff Carter, Joffrey Lupul, Mike Richards, Simon Gagne, etc. are one of the few teams that can hang with the Penguins offensively. The Penguins have been playing very well since the coaching change at mid-season and the Flyers are going to rue the day they lost the regular season finale to the Rangers, who had no stake one way or the other except to stick it to the Flyers and end their season on a winning note.

PENGUINS IN SEVEN.

Western Conference: 

• (1) San Jose Sharks vs (8) Anaheim Ducks:

    The Ducks seemed to surprise even themselves with their run to the playoffs especially after the cleared out some players at the trading deadline. Making the playoffs was a bonus and in years past, the Sharks have had great regular seasons and flamed out in the playoffs. With the up-tempo game the Sharks play and the veteran presence of Dan Boyle, Rob Blake and Claude Lemieux, they're not going to be shocked out of the playoffs early this time.

SHARKS IN FOUR.

• (2) Detroit Red Wings vs (7) Columbus Blue Jackets:

    The Red Wings are an anomaly in that they win championships with a high-powered, but disciplined style; a rangy and offensively aggressive defense that completes their assignments in their own end to protect mediocre goaltending. 

    The Blue Jackets have made the playoffs for the first time and coach Ken Hitchcock has extensive experience matching up with the Red Wings from his years coaching in Dallas for the Stars. They're playing with house money and should be loose and relaxed to go deep into the series and steal it from the heavily favored Red Wings.

BLUE JACKETS IN SEVEN.

• (3) Vancouver Canucks vs (6) St. Louis Blues:

    The Canucks have been playing brilliantly down the stretch and goalie Roberto Luongo isn't going to be challenged by the offensively shaky and overmatched Blues. The Blues organization has rebounded from the depths of the past few seasons, but this playoff appearance is more of a reward for hard work than any kind of portent for a long playoff run. Mats Sundin did very little of consequence for the Canucks since he signed, but I expect he'll wake up in the playoffs for one final chance at glory.

CANUCKS IN FIVE.

• (4) Calgary Flames vs (5) Chicago Blackhawks:

    This has a chance to be a great, seesaw series between two evenly matched teams. The coaching matchup between Mike Keenan of the Flames and Joel Queeneville of the Blackhawks is top-notch; the Chicago fans will be in a frenzy in their return to the playoffs; and the Flames are built for a long run. I have great respect for Blackhawks goalie Nikolai Khabibulin, but their team is very young and inexperienced. The Flames defense is big and tough and they have plenty of scoring to carry them through a rough, in-the-trenches, battle.

FLAMES IN SEVEN.

• Angels 5-Red Sox 4:

    Josh Beckett is widely acknowledged around baseball as a complete asshole, so it's no shock to see him in the middle of the headhunting incident with Bobby Abreu of the Angels, but how much did the death of Nick Adenhart and that the Angels emotions were on such a hair trigger affect yesterday's shoving/shouting match between the teams?

    The last few days have been such a nightmare for the Angels organization that had Beckett said "good morning" in the wrong way, it might have elicited the same reaction. Beckett's reputation had something to do with the whole thing, but the pitch that set everything off wasn't really even close. That reaction was waiting to happen for the Angels and all it needed was the smallest spark to set it off. They're going to have to fight their way through this----emotionally and not physically----somehow.

• Reds 2-Pirates 0:

    Aaron Harang pitched like the guy he was in 2006 and 2007 as he dominated the Pirates in a complete game shutout; this made me think of all the nonsense that went on when Reds manager Dusty Baker named Harang as his opening day starter despite Harang having lost 17 games last year. There was shock and dismay at a 17-game loser from the year before being named to start the "all-important" opening game as if it mattered that it was opening day at all (it's just one game); plus, did anyone really believe that a guy with Aaron Harang's resume was a typical 17-game loser from the year before being named to start the "all-important" opening game as if it mattered that it was opening day at all (it's just one game); plus, did anyone really believe that a guy with Aaron Harang's resume was a typical 17-game loser?

    It was all in the vein of making a story out of nothing. Harang may not be the pitcher I predicted to win the Cy Young Award before last season, but nor is he a guy who should be ridiculed for being named the opening day starter after one bad, injury-interrupted season.

• Speaking of the Pirates...

    It's about put-up or shut-up time for Andy LaRoche. This is a player who's put up great minor league numbers who appears totally overmatched by the big leagues in every conceivable way. He was atrocious last year after the Pirates acquired him in the deal that sent Jason Bay to Boston and Manny Ramirez to the LA and he's still a non-competitive big leaguer. Here's what I wrote in my book about Andy LaRoche:

Andy LaRoche was a highly touted third base prospect for the Dodgers who was acquired at mid-season. He was non-competitive to the point where he not only looked like he didn’t belong in the big leagues, but he looked like he didn’t belong in pro baseball. I’m convinced the Pirates weren’t as enamored with LaRoche’s talent as they were with the marketing possibilities of having brothers manning the infield corners. Not only didn’t LaRoche hit, but he was clueless defensively as well. I’ve never seen much from LaRoche to be all that impressed with and he’s already 25, so his days as a prospect are over; he has to start producing----if he can.

    If he can't get the job done in a low-pressure, low-expectations, low-interest atmosphere like in Pittsburgh with the Pirates, then when is he going to get the job done exactly? He's not far away from being sent to Triple A and since the Pirates signed Ramon Vazquez to a 2-year contract this past winter, that should hold down the position until Pedro Alvarez is ready, then LaRoche will be completely out of the Pirates plans for the future, if he isn't already.

• Marlins 2-Mets 1:

    If anyone's stunned about the brilliant performance by Josh Johnson in outdueling Johan Santana, don't be. These two are going to be battling for the Cy Young Award by season's end. That's how good Johnson is. More from my book (and if this is getting annoying, too bad; nyahhh):

Josh Johnson returned from Tommy John surgery for 14 starts; he went 7-1, posted a 3.61 ERA. The 25-year-old Johnson is a star in the making and will contend for the Cy Young Award as he fronts the young Marlins rotation. 

• The Indians Endure Another Hideous Start:

    Last year, expectations were high for the Indians after they came to within one win of the World Series in 2007, but they got off to a 5-10 start, staggered along for awhile and eventually threw the towel in on the season trading C.C. Sabathia and Casey Blake for prospects. Now they're off to another bad start (0-5 after the handcuffing they endured from Roy Halladay yesterday) and are being ridiculed for following through with the folly that Carl Pavano was going to be their "number three starter". Given that it's only the first week of the season and the AL Central is stumbling en masse, there's no reason to believe that the Indians can't turn things around.

     That entire division is a pretty sorry lot, so once they get their bearings, the Indians should be well in the mix to rise to the top. Pavano's status as the "number three starter" was a bit of a misnomer from the beginning. And under no circumstances am I defending Pavano. I haven't picked up a baseball in fourteen years and thrown it with dangerous intent and I could've pitched better than he did on Thurdsday. He gave up nine earned runs to the Rangers in the first inning, in case you missed it.

    Indians boss Mark Shapiro is far too smart to believe that he was going to get anything resembling a performance befitting the "number three starter" from Pavano for a team with designs on contention. The idea of Pavano was probably akin to a cheap veteran presence looking to reestablish his career and perhaps get another lucrative contract for 2010 and beyond than someone to be relied upon; the idea was for him to be in the rotation as long as he could stay healthy as Indians are feeling their way through deciding whether Zach Jackson, Anthony Reyes, Scott Lewis or Aaron Laffey can step up and as they wait for Jake Westbrook to return from injury. It was never about any real belief in Pavano as anything more than a roll of the dice. That being said, I doubt they would've signed up for nine first inning runs from anyone no matter how inexpensive a flier they were taking. 

    This bad start was also an accident of circumstance. Cliff Lee has no chance----none----of ever being as good as he was during his 22-3, 2008 season; but he's not going to be as bad as he's been in his first two starts either. Starting a season in Texas, in their ballpark against their lineup, is bound to have serious ramifications upon one's ERA; yesterday he ran into Roy Halladay, who probably wanted to prove that he should've won the Cy Young Award in the AL last year; and everyone's going to be gunning for Lee anyway because he's the reigning CYA winner. 

    The Indians lineup is too good not to score and there's no team in that division that's going to run away and hide. They've got a longtime minor leaguer pitching against them today in Blue Jays' lefty David Purcey, so they should put up some runs. Once they get that first win and get their feet on the ground, they should be fine...I think.

• Let's just calm down about Jordan Schafer:

    All we've heard in the first week of the new season is Jordan Schafer, Jordan Schafer, Jordan Schafer. The Braves rookie center fielder boosted his average to .421 yesterday with a 3 for 4 performance, but all of this lust is a little premature. This is a player who did not have a good year in Double A last season----stats; is still overcoming the stigma of a failed PED test; and is hitting well in his first time around the league as a rookie. Once the book is out on how to pitch him, will he be able to adjust? Or will he wind up back in the minors? It's just as high a probability that he'll be in Triple A by the end of May and he'll be forgotten about by those that won't shut up about him now as it is he'll continue hitting; the probability is higher in fact, because he ain't gonna hit .400.

• Going from closer to mop-up man in three easy steps:

    I'm getting the feeling that Cardinals manager Tony La Russa is so haunted by what happened with Rick Ankiel that he's erring on the side of caution with all of his young pitchers if they hit even the smallest adversity. How else do you explain the way designated closer Jason Motte went from blowing the opener against the Pirates; to pitching 1/3 of an inning four days later, allowing two hits and being yanked from another save situation; then pitching in the sixth inning of a game in which the Cards had a 6-0 lead? 

    Given his success, I can't give La Russa a hard time with how he's handling his players, especially young players; but if Motte's going to be his closer, he's going to have to learn to overcome blowing games. The Ankiel situation was one in which the kid just lost it and, truth be told, it was probably exacerbated by La Russa's fateful decision to start the then-21-year-old in the opening game of the 2000 playoffs against the Braves, but it's likely that it would've happened anyway. If Motte can't handle the ups-and-downs of closing now (and he did the job in the minors), then when's he going to be able to handle it? And he's not some 21-year-old kid either, Motte's going to be 27 in a couple of months. If he's the closer of the future, he's got to be closer of the present.

• I wasn't the only one who warned Lou Piniella about Kevin Gregg:

    Here's a quote from my book about Kevin Gregg:

    Kevin Gregg has two characteristics that are going to put him into Piniella’s doghouse sooner rather than later: he gives up a lot of home runs and he has trouble thowing strikes. Why the Cubs traded a young power pitcher like Jose Ceda for a shaky journeyman-quality pitcher like Gregg is beyond me and they’re going to regret it when Gregg is blowing games in April and Piniella relegates him to mopup duty.

    It's already begun with two of his three performances from this season so far ranging between shaky and terrible. Not only are the Cubs going to relegate Gregg to (at best) set-up man in the sixth or seventh innings, but they're eventually going to have to watch the young pitcher for whom they got Gregg----Jose Ceda----contributing to the Marlins rise, possibly as soon as later on this season. What's worse is that had the Marlins not been able to trade Gregg, it was a realistic possibility that they would simply have non-tendered him to save his salary.

     On the bright side for the Cubs, Aaron Heilman's pitching very well out of their bullpen and Piniella's "just throw the fuckin' ball" personality with his pitchers may be exactly what Heilman needed to straighten himself out and fulfill his potential with his nasty stuff.

• Yankees 6-Royals 1:

    C.C. Sabathia was excellent, but that's only a side story because there was no reason to believe that Sabathia wouldn't eventually find his game. No. The real story is the Royals and that there are still people who consider them a "team on the rise" despite the fact that two of their five starters are named Sidney Ponson and Horacio Ramirez. Even if Kyle Davies and Zack Greinke pitch as well as they did in their first starts of the season (a huge question with Davies considering the up-and-down nature of his career so far), how does anyone possibly come to the conclusion that a team with Ponson and Ramirez as starting pitchers will achieve a win total in the mid-80s? How?

• My Padres Lossometer Is Stuck:

    The 4-2 Padres are playing surprisingly well. It won't last, but a win is a win is a win.

• That ain't the way Kirk's s'posda talk:

    I saw the preview to the upcoming Star Trek movie (here's a link to YouTube; you can't embed it) and the way the kid early in the trailer announces his name----"My name's James Tiberius Kirk"----delivered in the way a normal human being would speak, just doesn't work for me. They should've had the kid say it the way William Shatner would've said it with the hand gestures, facial gesticulations and everything:

"My name IS....James........TI-berius......KIRK!!!!"

    It's just part of Kirk being Kirk to talk.....that.....WAY!!!! 

• Angels have a tough road ahead:

    Tonight's 6-3 win over the Red Sox notwithstanding, the rest of the season is going to be a difficult one for the Angels as they try to overcome the tragic and senseless death of Nick Adenhart...*

*Speaking of which, it doesn't take any prognostication on a grand scale to know what's going to happen to that scumbag, Andrew Gallo, who drove drunk and killed Adenhart and two others. The following lyrics from the band Sublime and their song Date Rape sums Gallo's future up nicely:

The judge knew he was full of shit and he gave him 25 years

Now his heart is filled with cheeeeeers

One night in jail it was getting late

He was butt-raped by a large inmate and he screamed

But the guards paid no attention to his cries...

That's the way it had to be

They locked him up and threw away the key

Now I can't take pity on men of this kind

Even though he now takes it in the behind.

...and they're going to have to put everything they're feeling aside and concentrate on the business at hand. Once the emotionality and waste of three lives----including a young teammate and friend----sinks in, the injuries to their pitching staff are going to pale in comparison to the "oh, what's the fucking difference?" attitude that could permeate the minds of even the most competitive and intense players. It's going to be hard to get past that for even the front office, manager and coaching staff.

    They could also channel their grief into the one respite they have from thinking about it on the field. The Angels are a well-run, tight-knit organization that treats their employees very well, so that is a very real possibility. Given how solid a team they've been over the entire Mike Scioscia/Bill Stoneman/Tony Reagins/Arte Moreno era, they are mentally tough enough to battle their way through this to a point, but digging deep and fighting through the adversity of injuries to John Lackey, Ervin Santana and Kelvim Escobar is one thing; getting past the death of a 22-year-old so needlessly is another. It's going to be a test of the organization to focus on baseball and I don't know if they, or anyone, can do it.

• On a lighter side of predictions:

    We'll ignore the fact that the Indians were my pick in the AL Central and they've looked hideous for the first week of the season; instead, we'll focus on another of my picks in my still available and valuable book, Paul Lebowitz's 2009 Baseball Guide, the 4-0 Marlins. 

    In looking at their lineup (even though Emilio Bonifacio's imitation of Rod Carew isn't going to last much longer) I have no idea how anyone could think they weren't going to hit enough. Jorge Cantu's picked up right where he left off last season; Hanley Ramriez is going to be an MVP candidate by season's end; and Dan Uggla's a big time power threat. The back of the rotation is the only question, but the Marlins, as always, just seem to figure it out----and cheaply to boot. 

• A question of NHL propriety:

    I'm of course pleased that the New York Rangers have made the playoffs for the fourth straight year , but now they're faced with a conundrum: do they put forth a full effort in the regular season finale on Sunday against the Philadelphia Flyers and run the risk of injury against a longtime rival in a hostile environment? Or do they "rest" their stars for the playoffs and not worry about where the chips fall in the playoff seedings quietly hoping that they lose and the Montreal Canadiens win?

    This is no small thing. The game only means something to the Rangers in terms of which team they're going to play in the first round. If they lose and the Canadiens (who also have reason to "rest" their stars for the playoffs) win or tie, the Rangers take the eighth seed and play the top seeded, but flawed and beatable Boston Bruins; whichever team is seventh will have to play the high-powered and Alex Ovechkin/Mike Green-driven Washington Capitals. I literally want nothing to do with the Capitals, but the Bruins are a prime candidate to do what they generally do and flame out in the first round no matter how great a regular season they had. I'd rather play the Bruins if I'm both the Rangers and Canadiens. (If the Rangers and Canadiens end up tied in points, the Rangers get the higher seeding because they'll have more victories.)

    Both of the Rangers and Canadiens opponents have something on the line as well. Without getting too complicated in the explanation, the Flyers (playing the Rangers); the Pittsburgh Penguins (playing the Canadiens); and the Carolina Hurricanes all have 97 points as I write this; depending on whom they want to play in the first round, each team has reason to either go all out to win or take things easy and not worry about winning or losing. It's no shame to let a game that's meaningless go to rest the stars who are crucial in the interest of getting as deep into the playoffs as possible. The Penguins famously dumped the end of their regular season in 1984 to get Mario Lemieux and it seemed like a pretty good idea at the time and in retrospect. These are the laws of the aquarium and no one should apologize for looking out for team interests before anything else.

    Long story short, if I were Rangers GM Glen Sather and coach John Tortorella, not only would goalie Henrik Lundqvist be sitting on Sunday, but so would hobbled forward Nik Antropov (whose hulking presence in front of the net and lightning quick hands are irreplaceable) and defenseman Michal Rozsival  (who's just coming back from a knee injury). The matchup with the Bruins is far more advantageous to the Rangers because I'll say right now, I don't think they'll beat the Capitals unless Lundqvist stands on his head in the series and the Caps' goalie issues creep up; they've got far too much firepower to make that likely. It's not exactly "dumping" a game, but in the interests of what's best for the team, a loss would be better than a win. 

    What can you possibly say when a 22-year old pitcher with the world in front of him and two other young people are killed in such a stupid and senseless fashion? It's not just that Nick Adenhart was a major league baseball player who had a great career blossoming, but that he was considered such a nice kid. And for what? Because some imbecile named Andrew Gallo, who already had a suspended license for a DUI, decided he: A) had to drive anyway; and B) drove not just over the legal limit for impairment, but "substantially" over according to the police. There are ways to die that make sense; then there are ways to die that are a colossal waste. 

    When anyone enters a vehicle, they're essentially signing a contract with the other drivers on the road that the laws will be obeyed; not simply the law not to drive drunk, but to accept that red means stop and green means go. Everyone who behaves in the way this Gallo did doesn't just put himself at risk (and how many times do we hear of incidents such as this and see the perp just walk away without a scratch?), but he's betraying one of the most basic social tenets to not put the lives of others at risk being stupid, selfish and arrogant. 

     This type of thing would be fine if this Gallo had run into a tree and killed himself----he asked for it and he'd have gotten it; but that's not what happened. Three people are dead because of a fool who couldn't control himself or simply decided that he was going to do what he wanted and damn the consequences because he didn't care. Well, now three people are dead and Gallo is, hopefully, going to spend the rest of his life in jail. That's little comfort to the families who lost their loved ones, but as a society, it's all we have. There's really no adequate punishment for this; nor is there a way to describe the senseless nature in which this incident destroyed the lives of so many. And for what?

• Phillies 12-Braves 11:

    I'm not sure why there appears to be such a desire for many observers to have the Braves return to their glory days of the 90s and early 2000s, but every year there's talk of the Braves returning to glory; getting back into contention and again becoming the creme de la creme of baseball organizations; every time it dissipates once the season gets underway. I don't generally get too high or too low at the start of a season, but the Braves bullpen before the season was----at best----shaky; at worst, it was hideous. Yesterday's game was essentially a rerun of the Braves problems last season when no lead was ever safe.

    The arsonists from yesterday's neverending seventh inning were as follows:

    Eric O'Flaherty, signed to be a lefty specialist out of the pen, allowed a single to Chase Utley and hit Ryan Howard with a pitch. O'Flaherty was so atrocious with the Mariners last season that he wound up back in the minors, so it shouldn't be a shock if he pitches like this.

    Peter Moylan, who deserves a break since he's returning from major elbow surgery, allowed two hits, two walks and didn't record an out.

    Blaine Boyer, who wasn't very good last year either, walked in two runs and didn't record an out.

    And Jorge Campillo, a soft-tossing righty who's meat for the Phillies lineup, allowed a hit and a walk to finally gack the lead up.

    In total, the Phillies scored eight runs in the inning off of four different pitchers.

    So how can the Braves----with a lineup still suspect and a bullpen that pitches like that----be expected to hang around at the top of a difficult NL East?

• One that got away; Marlins 6-Nationals 4:

    Omar Minaya is a superlative talent evaluator for the Mets, but I'm wondering who was asleep at the switch when the decision was made to trade Matt Lindstrom for Jason Vargas. Lindstom came into the game for the Marlins to close and, presumably because of a lack of spring training work due to a rotator cuff strain, struggled a bit (although a few of his pitches were very, very close and it looked like the ump was squeezing him), but was still unleashing relatively effortless 98 mph fastballs. Had the Mets gotten a similar arm or a promising bat for Lindstrom, then fine, but Jason Vargas? You can't trade an arm like Lindstrom for a soft-tossing lefty unless there were behind the scenes concerns that we don't know about and such concerns would have to be pretty major to pull the trigger.

• Viewer Mail 4.9.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:What do you think about Pat Burrell going back to Philly for the ring ceremony? If I were a Ray, I'd be kinda upset about that. That was then, this is now. So Taguchi didn't leave his Iowa Cubs (AAA assignment) to attend the ceremony despite being invited. His reasoning was that it wouldn't be appropriate. I find Burrell's teary-eyed return to Philly a bit disturbing.   

Joe at Statistician Magician responds: Jeff, Dave Roberts, and I believe Derek Lowe were at the Sox ring ceremony. I don't have a problem with it, personally. This is the greatest thing that a player can accomplish, and basking in its glory one time can't be so bad.

    I'm with Joe except for one caveat: I don't care if the player goes back to his former home to get his ring as long as he's not missing a game for his new team. 

    When Pedro Martinez signed with the Mets after the 2004 season, Chris (Mad Dog) Russo...*

*Remember him? He used to be on the radio.

  ...went on and on and on and on about how Pedro should've been there for the ring ceremony, blah, blah, blah; but what he failed to realize was that had Pedro been in Boston for the ring ceremony, he would've missed the opening game for his new team, the Mets. If the Mets or Red Sox games were being played that evening while the other game was in the afternoon, then Pedro could go to Boston and make it back to New York and it wouldn't have been a big deal to me at all; but if he's missing his new team's opener or missing an actual game? No way. 

    As for Burrell's whimpering, I didn't see it, but it strikes me as disingenuous. Burrell never appeared to be a particularly sentimental guy and if he was crying, it's probably due more to the $6 million less he wound up with in his contract with the Rays after the Phillies perfunctory and disinterested offer of 2-years, $22 million to keep him.

• Dodgers 5-Padres 2: 

    Uh, so in the bottom of the fifth inning, Chad Billingsley walks both Henry Blanco and Everth Cabrera, then throws two balls to Luis Rodriguez; Billingsley looked like he couldn't find the plate if he had a map, so Padres manager Bud Black has Rodriguez sacrifice (as he's batting for the pitcher no less, thereby wasting a position player doing something the pitcher could've done) almost giving the struggling pitcher an out. Rodriguez wound up walking anyway and the Padres tied the score before losing later; but if you want a blueprint on how to blow a potential big inning, there it is. 

PADRES LOSSOMETER: 2

• Blue Jays 5-Tigers 4:

    Edwin Jackson was doing a pretty damn good imitation of Dave Stewart last night. From his intense concentration on the mound; to the death stare; to the clean motion (similar to Stewart's ability to hide the baseball as he prepares to launch); and the pounding of the strike zone, Jackson looked great and it could've been a confidence-inducing win for the Tigers...until Brandon Lyon came into the game. 

    I kinda felt that he was going to give up a homer before it happened not based on any Nostradamus-like skills I have, but because of history. We've established how much I hate doing this, but here's a quote from my book:

Hard throwing veteran Brandon Lyon signed a one-year contract to compete to be the Tigers closer. Lyon throws strikes, but gives up a lot of home runs (7 last season) and a lot of hits (75 in 59 innings) with the Diamondbacks last season as their closer. The Diamondbacks defense wasn’t very good and a contact pitcher like Lyon should benefit from the Tigers improved defense as long as he keeps the ball in the park.

    Notice the key words: "as long as he keeps the ball in the park".

    A team like the Tigers, who've heard all spring long how bad they're going to be and are decimated by injuries, cannot have games like this blown by the bullpen and sabotaged by their defense. (It was an error by Brandon Inge----normally an excellent fielding third baseman----that opened the floodgates to the result.) I couldn't function with a closer who has a history of giving up homers. This could turn into an avalanche if the Tigers don't stop the slide soon.

• Marlins 8-Nationals 3:

    I'm aware it's the Nationals pitching staff they're beating up on, but why were there such concerns about the Marlins' offense? That lineup can bash, bash, bash; and if Jorge Cantu repeats his 70 extra base hit performance from last season, their only concerns will be the back of the rotation and the bullpen. Other than that, the Marlins are right up there at the top of the NL. 

• If you have an hour to spare, why not try to comment on MLBlogs?

• White Sox 4-Royals 2:

    I hate to keep doing this (but I will anyway); here's a quote from my still available and useful book:

Kyle Farnsworth was signed to a 2-year contract for $9.25 million. Why? I don’t know. Farnsworth was horrible with the Yankees; he was horrible with the Tigers; and for a guy who throws a 100-mph fastball, Farnsworth can’t get anyone out. He’s going to play an important role for the Royals setting up for Soria, but expect him to blow so many games that the Royals may end up trying him in the starting rotation by the time their dismal season is coming to a close.

    In today's opener between the Royals and White Sox, Farnsworth entered the game with the Royals leading 2-1in the eighth inning. Long story short, by the time the inning ended, it was 4-2 White Sox after Jim Thome blasted a three-run homer over the left-center field wall.

    Three things: 1) Why did the Royals sign Farnsworth to begin with and expect a different result from what he's been his entire career? 2) Why was Farnsworth in the game since they'd signed Juan Cruz (who was warming up) during spring training? And 3) Why wasn't lefty Ron Mahay (who was warming up) in the game to pitch to Thome?

    I'm beginning to think that Royals manager Trey Hillman (for whom my "man-crush" from before last season is completely worn off) is a "just does stuff" type of manager. Willie Randolph was a "just does stuff" manager who did things, well, he did them because.

    It's like asking a child why they intentionally dumped all their toys out and they respond, "because"; or asking a cat or dog why they pulled the tablecloth completely off the dining room table after it'd just been set for a family gathering; they give you a look that says, "because" without the ability to give any other reason. I certainly don't want a robotic, by-the-numbers, "I do things that are explainable because I don't want to get criticized" type of manager like Jeff Torborg; but nor do I want a guy who "just does stuff" without any reason whatsoever and that's what Hillman looks like. 

• Viewer Mail 4.7.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Yankees:

My knickers are in a twist over today's loss, but as you'll see from my blog I got over it. I think CC will be fine. Coke too. It's Bruney and Marte that worry me. Congrats on the Mets win. Really a perfect scenario with Santana giving them a good start and then Putz and K-Rod finishing it up. Bravo.   

    I think Jane's one of the few Yankee fans who I believe when she says she hopes the Mets do well. I dunno about Phil Coke though; he pitched so well at the end of last season, it's easy to forget that he was part of the trade that brought the Yankees Damaso Marte and Xavier Nady before it was redone and Coke remained with the Yankees. I'd be concerned about Marte, but not Bruney. I like Bruney's power fastball. 

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Jason Motte of the Cardinals:

Any chance you want to start a Blown-Save-O-Meter for me, Prince? We're at 1 after Opening Day. Can Motte -- a pitcher who doesn't have anything except a fastball -- really be a major league closing threat? I doubt it. Your thoughts?

    I haven't seen Motte, but if a guy's got a jumping fastball, then he can be a success as a closer. Mariano Rivera's made it as far as he has with basically one pitch. Grant Balfour got by with fastball number one and fastball number two last year, just like Mitch Williams and Rob Dibble. I'd give the guy a break on the first one. He is a rookie; but you'll have a pretty good idea where this is going by the end of the month. There's such a thing as big league shell-shock.

• Dodgers 4-Padres 1:

    Whether Jake Peavy's pitching or not, how can anyone expect a team fielding the following opening day lineup to have a reasonable expectation of winning?

1. Jody Gerut, CF
2. David Eckstein, 2B
3. Brian Giles, RF
4. Adrian Gonzalez, 1B
5. Kevin Kouzmaoff, 3B
6. Chase Headley, LF
7. Henry Blanco, C
8. Luis Rodriguez, SS
9. Jake Peavy, P 

    It is with this (and that new Padres owner Jeff Moorad is considering keeping some of the architects of that nightmare in paradise in place in the team's front office) that I begin the "Padres Lossometer". With every Padres loss (and I said in my book to expect 106 this year), I'll add a number to the total. Last night was the inauguration. (And, contrary to popular belief, I'm not abusing the downtrodden; I'm trying to help.)

SAN DIEGO PADRES LOSSOMETER: 1

•  Why I'm a genius (or just an idiot-savant):

• Mets 2-Reds 1:

    Aside from the runners left on base by the middle of the lineup and missed opportunities to bust the game open, the Mets have to be pleased with the way the season opened up as their revamped bullpen cleanly held a 2-1 lead. Johan Santana got off to a shaky and wild start, but as Daniel Murphy made his presence felt with a go-ahead homer and a sprint around the bases as if he was almost embarrassed, the Mets handed the game over to three newly acquired bullpen components. 

    Sean Green pitched 1 1/3 scoreless innings (his performance constituted the heavy lifting for the bullpen); J.J. Putz worked around a walk in the eighth; and Francisco (K-Rod) Rodriguez pitched a clean ninth for his first save. The Mets left 12 runners on base, so the score shouldn't have been 2-1 had they gotten one opportune hit here or there, but Gary Cohen made a good point that it's better for the Mets to have their newly revamped bullpen hold down a lead for a team that probably still has some doubt in their collective minds about the way the last two seasons have ended. It's also a positive to get off to a winning start under manager Jerry Manuel as he begins his first full season.

• Orioles 10-Yankees 5:

    Yankee fans, especially certain hysterical She-Fans shouldn't get their panties into a bunch over one loss even if it was on opening day and the ace pitcher they imported for gobs and gobs of money against his will wasn't himself. In his eight year big league career, Sabathia has gotten off to good starts in only three of them, 2004, 2005 and 2007; other than that, he's been a notoriously slow starter. Add in that he's probably pressing a bit to validate the contract, was wild and wasn't fooling anyone and you get the terrible results. I wouldn't worry about Sabathia much; he'll be fine once he gets accustomed to his new surroundings; and it's the same thing with Mark Teixeira.

    Speaking of Teixeira, why was he getting booed so lustily by the Orioles faithful? Did they really think for a second that he was: A) going to sign with a team at least two years from possible contention just because he's a local product, and B) take less money than the Yankees and Red Sox offered to finish at the bottom of the division? For what? It's like they're offended or something. I mean, can you blame the guy? He got paid more lucratively and has a better chance to win and Maryland ain't that far from New York for a guy with the kind of cash that Teixeira was offered by the Yankees and Red Sox. 

    The one thing I'd be concerned about if I were the Yankees----and it's a small thing----is Phil Coke. He was terrible today and the consensus reaction was disbelief. Why? I wrote in my (still very available and useful) book:

As he pitched in 12 late season games, Coke was “it” again and there were expectations for what he’d do if he were kept on the roster from the beginning of the season. Coke posted a 0.61 ERA in 12 games, with 14 strikeouts in 15 innings. I’d hesitate before getting too excited about Coke repeating that level of work...

    There's a huge difference between pitching in September as a late-season call-up as the likelihood of the team making the playoffs is almost gone and no one's really paying any attention to what a player's doing, and pitching on opening day in a situation where the team not only is expected to win, but must win. Plus, from what I remember, Coke seemed a little too impressed with himself as he was doing so well late last year. Don't be surprised if Coke is sent down before April is out. You can't be giving up homers to Cesar Izturis if you'd like to stay in the big leagues. (And it was a homer; I don't want to hear any whining that Johnny Damon was interfered with. The ball was gone.)

• Howzabout a little honesty?

    I was watching a bit of the Astros and Cubs on ESPN2; Rick Sutcliffe and Dave O'Brien were discussing the Astros new catcher Ivan Rodriguez and mentioning the catching immortals with whom he's compared because of his longevity and numbers; then they said authoritatively that he's going to the Hall of Fame five years after he retires. Not one word was mentioned (while I was watching) about Pudge's name being among the group of players whom Jose Canseco outed in his book; not one word was mentioned about how the others----Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro, Alex Rodriguez----either have no chance or are going to have to wait a loooong time to get into the HOF.

    I've said that I would vote for McGwire (he was never busted); Clemens and Barry Bonds (both were HOFers before they allegedly started using); and ARod. Pudge is different. Pudge not only was in the "Canseco group", but his numbers literally collapsed once PED testing started in baseball. This is a player who came to the big leagues at age 19 weighing 160 lbs and after a couple of years looked like either a small NFL linebacker or a big NFL safety; then he appeared to shrink like his body had been systematically pricked by pins. He tried to cover himself while with the Tigers by coming up with some horseshit explanation that he wanted to slim down for more stamina, but please...

    Are the ESPN broadcasters consciously omitting these matters to keep the peace with MLB? Or are people like Sutcliffe, a former player, unwilling to state the truth about what was clearly going on with a player like Pudge Rodriguez? You tell me.

    I'll say one thing, Pudge Rodriguez ain't gettin' into no Hall of Fame five years after he retires given the circumstantial evidence; that Canseco hasn't been refuted in any of his allegations even once; and that most of the suspects from this era are going to put under such great scrutiny that it's possible that none of them will be elected, not just five years after they're retired, but ever at all.

• A Hall of Fame question of a different variety:

• The addition of Steve Phillips to the broadcasting booth:

    Anything----and I do mean anything short of physical violence----that reduces the number of words that come out of Joe Morgan's mouth is fine with me.

    Steve Phillips is one of those guys that people just seem to dislike; why I don't know. Maybe because he has such a large and cautious vocabulary; maybe because he's so handsome; but he's becoming a very, very solid broadcaster who makes excellent, well-explained points throughout the game. He also has an insider's view of what it's like to be a big league general manager; and despite the unfair vitriol he receives for his tenure with the Mets, the teams were quite successful as, for the majority of the time, the second best team in the National League behind the Braves. 

    What I liked most about Phillips's addition is that there's finally someone to disagree with Morgan when he says things that sound like they're coming from an alien species that Kirk and Spock ran into in the Midi-Gorak star system on Star Trek. Listening between the lines, Morgan didn't sound too enthused at not just having Jon Miller to only cautiously disagree with "Hall of Famer Joe Morgan" as if his greatness on the field translated into an unassailable understanding and ability to dissect the game.

    As for the actual broadcast, Morgan came up with one good point throughout the mess and one statement that was typical of his bizarre thought process. He was dead on in his assessment (as obvious as it is) that the Phillies are going to have a problem late in games against teams with tough lefty specialists if they continue batting Chase Utley, Ryan Howard and Raul Ibanez back-to-back-to-back. It's not going to be long before something or someone----Jayson Werth or Pedro Feliz----are inserted somewhere in between to mix things up. 

    The other point, which was in the category of "General Joe Morgan Absurdity", was his non-stop praise of Derek Lowe's attempt to bunt for a base hit with runners on first and third and two outs. Morgan seems to love it when hitters bunt no matter the situation; but Lowe's failed bunt attempt was probably a lower percentage play than him swinging the bat, making contact and hoping something good happened. As slow as Lowe is and as good a fielder as Feliz is at third base made it highly unlikely that he's beat the play out unless it was a picture perfect bunt. He should've been swinging the bat.

• Who the hell is Logan Schafer:

    Jon Miller referred to Jordan Schafer as "Logan" Schafer three times in one at-bat. Dunno who Logan is unless Schafer's also Wolverine in his spare time. After he did it twice within two sentences and there was a pause, I thought for sure that Phillips was going to make it a point to refer to Schafer as "Jordan" emphatically to gently remind Miller of the guy's name.

    That's another good thing about Phillips: he doesn't embarrass those who are embarrassing themselves with what they don't know or because of their mistakes; he didn't unleash on Stephen A. Smith a couple of years ago for not knowing which team was in what division and he didn't openly correct Miller's mistake. One would assume that the production crew corrected Miller after they finished cringing and twitching` at the awkwardness.

• Braves 4-Phillies 1:

    I understand that Charlie Manuel won the World Series using the strategy of the endless array of relievers trotting in from the Phillies bullpen, but was it necessary to use five pitchers in a game that they were losing 4-0? No lead is safe with the combination of Citizens Bank Park; the Phillies power; and the Braves heinous bullpen, but over the course of a long season, why waste the bullets of veterans Chad Durbin and Scott Eyre in a game that they're probably not going to come back and win anyway unless there's a big rally? Using Brad Lidge was a good idea; get him into a game in a non-save situation to bust the seal on the new season, but other than that, he could've left the disposable Jack Taschner in the game instead of doing what he did with the other pitchers.

    The broadcasters also wouldn't shut up about Jeff Francoeur's new batting stance in which he's more open and has both eyes on the pitcher. It appeared to help as he hit a home run on the first pitch he saw for the 2009 season, but a new batting stance isn't going to change the fundamental problem that Francoeur has in that he just hacks at anything and everything. Until he's more selective, he's going to susceptible to pitchers trying to get him to chase bad pitches and, in retrospect, it may be seen later in the season that the worst thing that could've happened was for him to homer on the first pitch he saw because in a weird way, it might validate his approach of hack first, ask questions later.       

• The consensus #1 draft pick presents an opportunity:

    I don't know the reasoning behind MLB's decision not to allow teams to trade draft picks (taking the big leap that there is a reason behind a decision made by MLB), but with Stephen Strasburg receiving the widespread attention for his fastball that's reaching 104+ mph, what would happen if the Washington Nationals were allowed to put the top pick, and Strasburg, up for auction? 

    What would be the demand for that pick? A team like the Nats, who have so many deficiencies would be able to accrue at least the other team's top draft pick, a couple of lower picks and a major league ready player or two. The price tag for Strasburg is going to be steep. What if the Nats decide that they: A) don't want to pay him what Scott Boras is going to demand; and B) have the opportunity to mine a richer team like the Yankees or Red Sox for some picks and prospects to save some money? 

    MLB has gone to great lengths to use the increased interest in amateur players to boost attention to the draft. Everyone's a draft expert now that they have access to the statistics of these amateurs; ah, it seems so long ago when Moneyball was published that Billy Beane and Paul DePodesta considered eliminating eyeball scouting entirely and drafting based on numbers. Great idea.

    Personally, I haven't the faintest idea who any of these amateur players are except for what I read here and there; their results in college or high school don't always have much influence on how they're going to perform in the pros; it's hit or miss. I can't stand watching college baseball with the delayed PING of the aluminum bat; the charging out of the dugout after every home run and congratulating the hitter as if he'd just pulled a Joe Carter and ended the World Series; and the robotic way in which players are forced by the coaches to act with the threat of decreased playing time and scholarships hanging over their heads if they don't conform.

    MLB has tried to promote the June draft as some big event, but it's not like college football or basketball where players are leaping from the amateur ranks into the top leagues. The baseball players who leap straight to the majors like Pete Incaviglia and Bob Horner are very, very rare. It takes at least 3-years for even the top college picks to be ready mentally and physically for the majors. MLB is already interfering with the draft itself with the "slotting system" to hold bonuses down for these players; some teams ignore the entreaties, some don't, so why not jazz it up even further?

    What would be the problem for the teams who hold the high picks and access to certain coveted amateurs to trade the picks? What if the Padres, who need some juice and would probably love to get their hands on the local boy Strasburg, offered their own top pick, a second rounder and Chris Young to the pitching poor Nats for the pick? Wouldn't such machinations generate more interest in the draft for those who, like me, couldn't care less about a guy's on base percentage while playing at Oklahoma State?

    If MLB would like to see which GMs are the most skillful at working their way up and down the draft board and have the ability to get the players they want while getting people to pay closer attention to the draft, that's the way to do it. (My money'd be on the Marlins the first and best at figuring it out and manipulating it to their own advantage quicker than anyone else.)

• Giggling like a schoolgirl and clinging to stuff:

    Buster Olney seems like a harmless sort who doesn't take cheap shots, but my problem with some of his writing (along with that of Peter Gammons and Tim Kirkjian at ESPN) is that they get overly enthusiastic after hearing certain things from people who are inside baseball and let it cloud their objectivity or grip on reality.

    Olney won't stop going on about the aforementioned Strasburg, but how many more hotshot prospects do we have to hear about before realizing that just because he's dominating the NCAA and has a ridiculous fastball and immense potential doesn't mean he's going to even make it to the big leagues? The scouts don't know more than anyone else what Strasburg is going to become, so why all the hype surrounding the guy? And what happens if the Nats and Mariners pass on him because they like someone else better? Are we going to hear the same relentless ridicule that followed the Twins when they drafted Joe Mauer over Mark Prior in 2001? How'd that turn out? 

    Then there's the talk about the Padres and Royals. Inexplicably, the current restructuring that's going on still has Paul DePodesta in the mix as an executive. (Olney linked this article.) 

    I don't want to hear any defense of this guy. I don't want to hear how smart he is. I don't want to hear about how he's a nice guy and solid evaluator who got caught up in some bad luck. I...do...not...want...to...hear...it.

    There was no "bad luck" involved in what he did to the Dodgers while he was their GM. There was no "bad luck" involved with how the Padres were demolished from a consistent contender under Kevin Towers and Bruce Bochy before Sandy Alderson (whose success as an executive is so far away that it's been almost 20 years since he was attached to the Tony La Russa Athletics and has been living off of that ever since) and DePodesta got involved in their front office. It was sheer ineptitude and overreliance on numbers and cheapness, pure and simple. To think that new owner Jeff Moorad is even considering keeping DePodesta around is completely out of my realm of understanding. And for the record, this is nothing personal. Much like the stat advocates, I'm going based on results and the results of the Padres current hierarchy are what they are. If I were a Padres fan, I'd be pretty irritated right now. 

    The Royals are another case study. Everyone looks like they're trying to be the one that "predicts" that another team will make a historic early 90s Braves/2008 Rays leap into contention and that designated team is the Royals. I'm not immune to making wrong predictions myself. Last year I picked the Reds to win the NL Central; the year before I picked the Orioles to win the Wild Card; but history has shown that these "ballsy" predictions rarely work out. And the Royals? Where's the pitching? This is a team with Horacio Ramirez, Brian Bannister and Kyle Farnsworth expected to make serious contributions to the club's improvement; and they're under the impression that Mike Jacobs and Coco Crisp are going to make a big difference in scoring more runs. I don't see it. And their second half surge last season occurred after a start in which they looked well on their way to losing almost 100 games.

    These articles and predictions are all well and good, but it seems to me that there's a reluctance to rip into people who, in all fairness, deserve to be ripped. Keeping the peace is not a way to report; being nice to get access to the "all-important baseball executive" by taking him seriously just because he's an "all-important baseball executive" isn't the way to gain a reputation for telling it like it is. And when an ego gets involved, there's no credibility there either.

    Speaking of which, Mike Francesa was still clutching at his "the Mets hafta break up the core" mantra from the end of last season.

    In an interview with Keith Hernandez----podcast----at Citi Field on Friday, Francesa again went into his reasoning behind his absurd and non-stop rabble rousing about the Mets second consecutive collapse and how they "hafta break up the core". Instead of admitting that he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's clutching and grabbing at this one theory that had no basis in reality to try to prop himself up as an expert. 

    It's very rare for someone to stand up and say, "I feel this way because of this..." and admit to a mistake with no influence from baseball executives or corporate higher-ups who are demanding certain "predictions" for dramatic sake. Well, there's this prick...

    If you don't believe me, just watch ESPN's coverage of the upcoming season and how every Baseball Tonight contributor----Steve Phillips, John Kruk, etc.----picks a different team to win every division. Watch. It's a slick way to analyze each team without everyone agreeing to make things interesting and it's formula and it's not real.

• I'm reprinting my 2009 Predicted Standings and award winners again for anyone who missed them:

American League East:

                                                 W       L       GB

1. New York Yankees            97      65      --
2. Boston Red Sox                 94      68       3    *(Wild Card Winner)
3. Tampa Bay Rays               82      80     15
4. Baltimore Orioles              71      91     26
5. Toronto Blue Jays             70      92     27


American League Central:

                                                 W       L       GB

   1. Cleveland Indians             93      69      --
   2. Minnesota Twins              82      80      11
   3. Chicago White Sox           81      81      12
   4. Detroit Tigers                   76      86      17
   5. Kansas City Royals          72      90      21

American League West:

                                                  W       L       GB
    
   1. Los Angeles Angels           87      75       --
   2. Oakland Athletics              84      78       3
   3. Texas Rangers                   78      84       9  
   4. Seattle Mariners                73      89      14



National League East:

                                                    W       L       GB

   1. Florida Marlins                   90       72       --
   2. Philadelphia Phillies            88       74        2 *(Wild Card Winner)
   3. New York Mets                   86      76         4
   4. Atlanta Braves                    75       87        15
   5. Washington Nationals         70       92        20


National League Central:

                                                    W       L       GB

   1. Chicago Cubs                      96       66       --
   2. Cincinnati Reds                   85       77       11
   3. St. Louis Cardinals              85       77       11
   4. Milwaukee Brewers            81       81       15
   5. Houston Astros                    75       87       21
   6. Pittsburgh Pirates                64       98       32


National League West:

                                                     W       L       GB

   1. San Francisco Giants            89       73      --
   2. Los Angeles Dodgers           85       77       4
   3. Arizona Diamondbacks        84       78        5
   4. Colorado Rockies                 81       81       8
   5. San Diego Padres                 56       106     33

AMERICAN LEAGUE PLAYOFF PREDICTIONS:

ALDS:
New York Yankees vs Los Angeles Angels

Yankees in Four

ALDS:
Boston Red Sox vs Cleveland Indians

Red Sox in Five

ALCS:
    New York Yankees vs Boston Red Sox

    Yankees in Six

AMERICAN LEAGUE CHAMPIONS: NEW YORK YANKEES
 

AMERICAN LEAGUE AWARDS:

MOST VALUABLE PLAYER: Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees

CY YOUNG AWARD: C.C. Sabathia, New York Yankees

ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Elvis Andrus, Texas Rangers

MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Joe Girardi, New York Yankees

NATIONAL LEAGUE PLAYOFF PREDICTIONS:

NLDS:
    Chicago Cubs vs Philadelphia Phillies

    Cubs in Three

NLDS:
    San Francisco Giants vs Florida Marlins

    Giants in Five

NLCS:
    Chicago Cubs vs San Francisco Giants

    Cubs in Five

NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPIONS: CHICAGO CUBS
 

NATIONAL LEAGUE AWARDS:

MOST VALUABLE PLAYER: Hanley Ramirez, Florida Marlins

CY YOUNG AWARD: Johan Santana, New York Mets

ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: James McDonald, Los Angeles Dodgers

MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Bruce Bochy, San Francisco Giants

• Citi Field looks BIG:

    The Mets and Red Sox played a "cut the ribbon" exhibition game at Citi Field last night and, while not yet having had the opportunity to see the new ballpark in person, the first game made me wonder how the dimensions are going to affect the games. In the parts of the game I watched, both Chris Carter of the Red Sox and Fernando Tatis of the Mets hit rockets that looked like they had genuine chances to get out of the park, but both died before even coming close to getting out. How is this going to affect the Mets, their pitchers and the opponents?

    For flyball pitchers like Oliver Perez, the advantage is going to be a great cushion for their results (which makes him a solid bet to win 16+ games this year). Perez isn't going to have to worry about being too careful with his pitches, which should lead to more strikes and lower pitch counts. Perhaps that confidence will translate onto the road for him too. As for the other members of the starting rotation, most of them----especially Mike Pelfrey----are ground ball pitchers anyway. It should help John Maine too. 

    The crevices in the corners and the wide expanse in the gaps should let Jose Reyes hit some balls that are going to be bouncing around for so long that he'll be able to circle the bases twice while they're being chased. David Wright might lose a few homers, but Carlos Delgado's shots are usually of the no-doubt variety and the ballpark's size won't affect him. Carlos Beltran will be an interesting case study because he does so many different things well and it's easy to disregard that he has perfect running form and technique and is fast. 

    And what of the opponents? Ryan Howard of the Phillies has the penchant to flick his wrists at tough pitches and go the opposite way; in Citizens Bank Park in Philly, those flyballs go out of the park; at Citi Field, they won't. The Marlins' sluggers Dan Uggla and Jorge Cantu both hit the ball out of the park without help from their ballpark or the wind, so they shouldn't be affected; and Hanley Ramirez will have a similar situation as Reyes and Beltran in that it'll rob him of a homer or two, but he might be able to gap the ball and drive in his runs that way. 

     The wind currents is another factor that is a variable. Shea Stadium had the open outfield which made a big ballpark play bigger; the wind would knock down some balls that would otherwise have gone out of the park. Citi Field only has openings here and there which could create some strange wind currents that both teams are going to have to get used to. From watching last night though, even in the poor weather, it's going to take a legit shot to get the ball out of the park and that is going to advantage the Mets over the course of the season. 

• What does this do to one's credit score?

    I'm paraphrasing, but I remember none other than Donald Trump saying something to the tune of, "If you owe a hundred grand to a bank, you have a problem; if you owe a hundred million, they have a problem". So if any normal person did the following----Tom Hicks defaults on $525 million in loans----their credit score would be, to put it mildly, shot.

    I have no comment on this, but it's obvious that banks in this position are in a similar situation as they are with the defaulted houses that they now own because they certainly don't want to take any of those sports teams and if they wanna get their money back, they're gonna have to renegotiate to terms of the loans. If I tried that, there's be people walking in and taking a bunch of my stuff. 

    The New York Mets have signed free agent outfielder Gary Sheffield and I think it's a great, no-risk move for them to bring in a veteran bat and see if he has anything left for no money.
    Sheffield could genuinely be finished, but the Mets aren't taking a major risk if they take a look for a couple of months to see if they can get some production out of him and provide some right-handed pop along with the drama of a guy hitting his 500th homer. If Sheffield can recapture even 70% of what he once was, he's still a big step up from Ryan Church or Fernando Tatis.
     The idea of this signing reminds me of when the Mets signed Orel Hershiser during spring training in 1999. There was talk that the signing, along with another former star veteran, Rickey Henderson, was another example of the Mets grasping at straws and trying to dig into the past to find a fading veteran and thinking that he was going to contribute to a championship team as a final piece; but it turned out that both Hershiser and Henderson did have a great deal left to add to that veteran club.
    Some may scoff at equating Sheffield with Hershiser. Hershiser had a reputation of being the equivalent of an extra coach on the pitching staff; he was well-liked and respected by the other players and the media along with the coaching staff. Sheffield carries baggage from so many well-publicized disagreements with various front offices and managers along with outrageous behaviors and comments at which even the most paranoid conspiracy theorists would roll their eyes; but one thing about Sheffield is that you won't hear any of his former teammates say a negative word about him on the field or in the clubhouse.

    Sheffield plays hard; he helps his teammates; he plays through injuries and has been known as one of the hardest workers in baseball. Add in that he's got a winning pedigree and an edge that the Mets lack. If someone tries to take the liberties as Hanley Ramirez did when he walked by the Mets dugout on the last weekend of the 2008 season and told them, en masse, that they were going home and not to the playoffs, you can bet that Gary Sheffield would leap the dugout steps and be right in Ramirez's face.
    The only issue is whether Sheffield is going to be healthy and whether he can still play; but the risk is minimal because he's not going to cost any money and he'll be on his best behavior to try and impress either the Mets or another interested team for next year. It's a worthwhile gamble.

*Note: My blog and the server, Register.com, have been up and down all day to the point that I was wondering if they'd hired one of the fucking morons from MLBlogs who decided to change the platform on opening weekend last year. Apparently the Conficker thing ain't a joke. If, for any reason, it looks like this website is down, mark down this site: Prince Of New York Blogspot, and I'll post there in case of emergency.  

    The Denver Broncos settled the Jay Cutler controversy today by trading him to the Chicago Bears for quarterback Kyle Ortion the Bears' first round draft picks in 2009 and 2010 and a third rounder in 2009. In all, coach Josh McDaniels, GM Brian Xanders and owner Pat Bowlen did quite well in the return for a player they had no alternative but to get out of town.

    Cutler is from Indiana so he should have a middle-America appeal to the Bears to go along with that rocket arm. Orton doesn't have the gaudy stats that Cutler does, but he's more of a system guy who'll be perfectly happy to be a part of the equation rather than the solution in Denver. In addition to getting Orton, who's going to be a down and dirty type, the Broncos also loaded up on valuable draft picks. 

    The Bears are going to have to deviate from their usual style of powerball to accommodate Cutler, but with his penchant for wanting to fling the ball downfield (and he's got the arm to get the ball through the wind in Chicago) the Bears are going to open things up.

     This maneuver allows McDaniels to concentrate on coaching the team instead of answering questions about his relationship with his star quarterback. The controversy is gone along with the tantrum-throwing star. This trade gives McDaniels a chance to move forward without wondering whether his first head coaching job would be demolished before it even got started. There was talk that McDaniels dustup with Cutler was going to serve notice to the other players in the Broncos lockerroom that even though he's so young, McDaniels isn't to be messed with; I didn't see it that way.

    With the way McDaniels seemed overwhelmed and unsure of himself as he unsuccessfully channeled Bill Belichick, there were probably players who were intent on testing him since he seemed so overmatched; but in the end, McDaniels won. He not only got the quarterback (whom he probably couldn't have gotten to buy into his system anyway) out of town, but he loaded up on draft picks and got a viable replacement in Orton who's more suited to his system. Now he can coach the team and be judged on his skills in that area than the nonsense that's gone on after his initial screwups with Cutler. 

    A couple of notes from Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan:

RE: Dontrelle Willis and his trip to the disabled list with "anxiety disorder":

I'm not a doctor, obviously, but I've never heard of "anxiety disorder" being diagnosed via a blood test. Sorry to hear Dontrelle's story, because he was so much fun to watch once upon a time, but hopefully they can get his problem under control with meds. Oh, wait. Would these drugs be considered "performance enhancing?"

And RE Gary Sheffield:

I can't imagine why the Phillies would want Sheffield. Sure, he can still hit (I'm assuming). But he can't play the OF and he sucks at 1st base. I think it's an AL team or retirement for Sheff.

    There's a bigger than expected uproar about Willis and the way the Tigers are seemingly trying to stickhandle their way around making a decision on what to do with him. This "anxiety disorder" and stuff about blood tests is a bit odd; Zach Greinke was on the DL with depression problems, so if they wanted to disable Willis because of his mental state, supposedly they could; or, as I mentioned the other day, no one can prove whether or not a player has pain in a certain bodypart even if the doctors don't find any damage. Usually, if a guy's complaining about pain in a joint and no obvious injury is evident, they'll say it's tendinitis and disable him. They're making a problem for themselves with this "anxiety" and blood test stuff unnecessarily. 

    As for Sheffield, I can't imagine him going to Philly either if there's another offer out there for him. A NL team can ostensibly hide him in left field if they want to take a chance on his bat. He can't be any worse than Adam Dunn was for the Reds and if he can still hit, he'd help the teams I've mentioned like the Giants. He's absolutely worth a shot since he's coming basically for nothing. And he'll behave because he wants that 500th homer and to prove that he's not finished.

    *An ancillary note about Sheffield and the Hall of Fame that I heard yesterday. Peter Gammons was on Michael Kay's show and Gammons said he thinks Sheffield has the numbers, but isn't going to get in because of his relationship with the media and because media types have a long memory about Sheffield saying he tanked plays just to get out of Milwaukee almost 20 years ago. That's right. 20 years ago. 

    If any writer who's holding that against Sheffield now is going to use it as a basis to keep him out of the HOF, they don't deserve to have a vote. To say that he was involved with BALCO and that's why he's not getting their vote is fine, but to take one stupid comment that a 21-year-old kid made (and that there's no proof that he actually followed through upon in throwing balls away intentionally) and deny him induction because of that is ridiculous. 

    Paul Williams writes RE Kevin Gregg:

 As much as I couldn't stand Gregg last year, his numbers aren't actually as poor as you made them sound.  He only gave up 10 home runs the last 2 years in over 150 innings, and just 114 over that span as well.  That said, he is way too wild to be a closer, and it's insane for Pinella to go with him over Marmol. I'm still glad he's gone, oh and he is a pretty awful clubhouse guy too as you can see here: <Marlins Musings>.

    You're right about the homer numbers. Even the best closers give up a few here and there and Marmol gave up 10 last season in his own right; I'm focusing on that shot he gave up to Carlos Beltran to blow the game against the Mets. Even with that, he's completely untrustworthy as a closer and forget it if the Cubs are in the playoffs and have to rely on him to hold down a one run lead with Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley and Ryan Howard coming up to hit.

    The consensus seems to be that Piniella wants Marmol getting the big outs in the earlier innings and he'll let Gregg accrue the saves; is Marmol going to understand and accept that even if he has people whispering in his ear about how money's being taken out of his pocket? Guys like Scot Shields, who accept their role as the set-up guy and don't get the glory (or the money) are very rare. It's not going to matter much. Gregg's not going to be closing for long. By mid-May, they'll switch roles and by June, Gregg's in Piniella's doghouse. 

    This whole mess with Gregg has endlessly entertained Jeff at Red State Blue State:

Just want to say that Sweet Lou's irrational decision is music to my Cardinal-lovin' ears. Nothing makes me happier than seeing dissent on the Northside, and believe me, all my Cub fan friends are livid over this. I just sit back and laugh... hahaha HAHA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!

    The only thing I can say about Piniella is that when he's had enough of Gregg as the closer, everyone (especially Gregg) will know about it. 

    It's rare that a new coach or manager in any sport has his future laid out in front of him so early in his tenure, especially when that coach is 32-years-old; but that's exactly the abyss into which Denver Broncos coach Josh McDaniels is staring into as he and the rest of the braintrust begins sifting through offers to grant quarterback Jay Cutler his wish by trading him. This decision will make or break not only McDaniels's Broncos career, but his entire NFL coaching career. It's a high-risk move that's either going to launch him into stardom or dispatch him onto the unemployment line. 

    With the way McDaniels is starting his tenure in Denver, he'd better be the genius that he's supposed to be because unless the Broncos manage to bring back a legitimate veteran signal caller or a younger quarterback that they believe will work more efficiently in McDaniels's high percentage system, the rest of the team is automatically going to cast a jaundiced eye on how this was handled and wonder whether they're going to be dumped next. Having come from the Patriots organization in which the whole is more important than the parts, McDaniels wasted no time in alienating Cutler to the point where the star of the team made it clear that he was done in Denver with no room for reconciliation.

    Cutler's been accused of being a baby and nudged by former NFL players such as Mike Golic and Boomer Esiason to get over his hurt feelings, but Cutler, at age 25, is in a unique position to crowbar his way out of Denver and that's what's going to happen. There won't be an absence of suitors seeking to get their hands on the rifle arm of Cutler and it's going to come down to what McDaniels, young GM Brian Xanders and owner Pat Bowlen do to make the best out of the situation and bring someone viable in to run the club. If McDaniels isn't enamored of having a Brett Favre-style gunslinger like Cutler, who wants to show off his arm at every opportunity, then he as the coach has a right to want to bring in a Matt Cassel, whom he tutored and developed in New England; but now that Cassel was traded to the Chiefs and Cutler was so angry at the perceived slight, then McDaniels had better have a backup plan in mind before his head coaching career is over before he blinks and forgets that he even had one at all. 

    McDaniels has botched this at every turn and he's going to have a tough time righting the ship, but if he manages to do it, bring in a quarterback who can run his offense and keep the Broncos competitive, then he'll have a great chance at success; but now everything's on the table and there's no room for error. In interviews, McDaniels has seemed overwhelmed and skittish; unsure of himself and parroting his mentor Bill Belichick; at the NFL meetings, even McDaniels's attempt at levity by using a #6 Cutler jersey as an example of the throwback uniforms the Broncos will use occasionally next season came off awkwardly as McDaniels wore a smug look on his face that must've pissed Cutler off even further. 

    In general, every new coach or manager has that watershed moment to take himself and his team to the next level or fall completely overboard and ruin his opportunity; it's not customary for it to happen right after the person's hired. The Broncos fans aren't going to want to hear any of the Bill Belichick-style script if Cutler is playing for the Jets and has the team 6-2 at the halfway point and the Broncos have Chris Simms or whoever under center and are 2-6 as McDaniels "weeds out" the players that don't fit into his system. 

    I'm sure McDaniels is running it through his mind how Belichick went through a similar rite of passage with the Browns in 1993 when he cut Cleveland legend Bernie Kosar. What shouldn't be lost on McDaniels is that: A) Kosar was finished by that point; B) the Browns had a replacement on hand in the younger and rocket-armed Vinny Testaverde; and C) Belichick never overcame the hatred he engendered in Ohio for cutting Kosar whether the quarterback could still play or not.

    Add in that Belichick had an impeccable resume from his years with the Giants and he was likely to get another chance after the Cleveland failure; McDaniels, at age 32, might not if this doesn't work and unless he's got a trick up his sleeve and is playing dumb with all the landmines he's stepped on in his first three months on the job, he's in way over his head and things are going to get much, much worse----if that's even possible.   

• Where will Gary Sheffield wind up?

    Buster Olney is saying that the Phillies have interest in Sheffield replacing the released Geoff Jenkins as their right-handed bench guy/backup outfielder. Presumably, he'd also play some first base when Ryan Howard is rested against the occasional tough lefty. Unless the Phillies are the only team to show any genuine interest in Sheffield, I have a hard time seeing why he'd want to go somewhere where he's only going to get maybe 200 at bats. There are far better fits for Sheffield in which he'd get a greater chance to play.

    The Giants need a bat; the Reds could use him and Dusty Baker wouldn't have a problem handling him; plus a couple of American League teams like the Angels or White Sox could slot him in and see if he has anything left. The Phillies aren't going to platoon Raul Ibanez, who's making $10 million; Jayson Werth bats right-handed and it's hard to imagine Sheffield at his age with is physical breakdowns able to be a "jack-of-all-trades" and handle third base again. So why would he want to sign somewhere that he's not going to play unless he has no other choice? That's the only way he winds up in Philly----if there are no other offers.

• Is Gary Sheffield a Hall of Famer?

    Michael Kay was buffooning with his buffoonish buffoonery yesterday when he and his cronies were discussing whether or not Sheffield, even if he never plays another game and doesn't hit his 500th homer, is a Hall of Famer. Kay uttered the opinion, apparently emanating directly from his ass, that he (I'm paraphrasing) "doesn't see Sheffield as a Hall of Famer". 

    Uh, okay...? Is that the end of the story or is there an actual reason in there somewhere that Sheffield isn't a Hall of Famer other than the all-seeing, all-knowing comprehensive and innate knowledge to which Michael Kay is privy that the rest of us don't have? Do his supernatural interpretive abilities extend to sharing why Sheffield doesn't warrant enshrinement other than the vague and oft-used explanation that he "just doesn't feel like a Hall of Famer".

    I have an answer to these questions: there's no explanation to keep him out because, statistically, it doesn't exist. Looking at Sheffield's numbers there's no question that he's a Hall of Famer. Even if he never ever plays another game in the major leagues, Gary Sheffield walks right through the door in five years as a no-doubt, first ballot Hall of Famer. The numbers are right there for anyone and everyone to see no matter how you feel about Sheffield and his reputation for being a malcontent (and the majority of his former teammates stand by him as a great influence).

    499 homers; 1633 RBI; 1592 runs; 2615 hits; 454 doubles; 251 stolen bases; a .292 batting average; a .394 OBP; .516 slugging %; and a three time finisher in the top three of the MVP voting. Then if you look at his numbers based on individual seasons and not as a "stat-compiler"...*

*Fred McGriff was mentioned as a contemporary of Sheffied; I think McGriff warrants enshrinement as well, but he was nowhere near the threat the Gary Sheffield ever was at any point in his career. 

...Sheffield still deserves to be a Hall of Famer. This is a guy whose on base percentages were, from the ages of 26-34, above .400 and usually over .420. He drove in 100+ runs eight times; always hit over .300 and was, for the most part, durable. Add in that, for a pure slugger, he rarely struck out and never struck out more than 83 times in a season.

    These numbers weren't padded by any ballpark he played in either. It wasn't like he was playing in Colorado or shooting at the Green Monster in Boston; Sheffield, for most of his career, was playing in pitcher's ballparks. Jack Murphy Stadium in San Diego wasn't a canyon as the new Padres ballpark is, but it was never an easy shot to hit the ball out of the park; after that he played in Florida, Los Angeles, Atlanta and with the Yankees; none of these parks are known for being a hitter's haven. Statistically, all things being equal, Sheffield's a Hall of Famer.

    Now, if you'd like to make an argument against him----a viable argument----then the one thing that can be clutched at is BALCO. The argument could be made that despite Sheffield's vehement denials, he knew what it was he was taking when he was training with Barry Bonds and using BALCO supplements, he can easily be lumped in with Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens and the rest of the names who are being soiled and blackballed from the Hall by their supposed guilt. On that basis, you can make an argument for Sheffield to be out and, combined with his cantankerous reputation, he might have a problem getting in; but statistically, to sit there and say such things as the self-important, "I don't think he's a HOFer" is embarrassing to whoever's making the statement because it's just throwing stuff in the air without giving any reason other than a self-anointed judgment based on nothing.

    This is why guys like Kay and Mike Francesa cannot be taken seriously. I disagree with those who turn their thumbs down at the candidacy of Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, but at least those who don't think they're HOFers have an argument based on their view of numbers; I've made my arguments for Rice and Dawson (Rice was a dominant player of his time; and an annual MVP candidate who tailored his swing to shoot for the Green Monster; Dawson did as he was asked to do before the day of rampant reliance on OBP trumped RBI and batting average); but to sit there just dismiss a candidate without any argument other than a "feeling" is purely arrogant, self-important nonsense.