My Hall of Fame Ballot–Part II

In my previous post, I considered the pitchers I would add to my hypothetical Hall of Fame ballot. In this one I’ll consider the hitters.

Before I go too deeply into this, I want to mention one thing that colors my thinking on this issue. The voting rules for the Baseball Writers of America portion of the Hall balloting automatically drop players who failed to draw 5% of the vote from consideration. In several cases, I think this rule has rushed players worthy of further scrutiny out of eligibility too soon. The new voting system announced by the Hall of Fame last August, which reformulates the Veterans Committee into a 90-member body made up of living honorees, will supposedly restore them to consideration. But that voting won’t start until next year (the new VC will consider players every two years, and execs/umps/managers every four years).

As I’ve already made up my mind not to consider a certain banned hustler for my ballot until he’s actually eligible, I’m going to stick by the rules and not include any ineligibles here. But that won’t preclude me from discussing them.

Catchers

Friends, I was never a fan of Gary Carter. For some reason, I always found him annoying, though I can’t really put my finger on why. It probably had something to do with his earnest, gung-ho attitude combined with the fact that I rooted against the ’86 and ’88 Mets as hard as any teams I ever rooted against. That said, I am absolutely convinced that Gary Carter is a Hall of Famer. I had an unshakeable feeling of watching a Hall of Famer in the prime of his career when I watched him, and I’ll wager that was a consensus perception among those of you reading this right now. If you thought about the question the best catcher in the National League after Johnny Bench declined, there simply wasn’t any other credible answer besides Gary Carter.

Keeping in mind that as a catcher his hitting stats are a bit deflated, Carter still scores well on the James Standards and Monitor methods (41.3 HOFS, 135 HOFM). By his Win Shares method, Carter is fourth among catchers in terms of career value, and in the middle of the top 10 in peak value as well–James rates him eighth overall. Carter hit 324 HRs for his career, topping 20 nine times. He topped 80 RBI eight times and 100 four times–that’s some serious production for a catcher. While he only hit .262 for his career, he was about at a .280 AVG/.360 OBP/.485 SLG level at his peak. He played in eleven All-Star Games (winning the MVP award twice), and won three Gold Gloves. He had a great ’86 World Series, driving in 9 runs, and went for .280 AVG, 4 HR, and 21 RBI in 30 postseason games overall. Everywhere you look, there is evidence of his greatness. In, unequivocally and without further ado.

Another catcher, Ted Simmons, ought to be in as well. Simmons was a better hitter than Carter, and for a longer time. He amassed 2472 hits while hitting .285 AVG/.348 OPB/.437 SLG (Carter was at .262/.335/.439 with 2092 hits). That Simmons played a good portion of his career as a DH (279 of his 2035 games) has more to do with his being a good enough hitter to keep in the lineup than it does with his being a lousy defensive catcher (which he apparently was not, according to those who’ve studied the issue). Topped 20 HRs six times, 90 RBI eight times, and at his peak carried around a 900 OPS. He played on 8 All-Star teams. His James numbers are good (44.5 HOFS, 125 HOFM, and he’s ranked 10th in the NBJHA among catchers). Older than Carter, he suffered in comparison with Bench, particularly on defense. But he deserves serious consideration for the Hall, and if he were eligible, I’d probably vote for him.

First Basemen

Two first-basemen are popular candidates among New Yorkers, Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly. While they were excellent players in their day, and both fair very well in James’s rankings (Mattingly is ranked 12th, Hernandez 16th), I’m not inclined to add them to my ballot. I’m of the feeling that, especially with last year’s election of Tony Perez, there are too many first basemen already in to be adding those with 2100 hits and less than 225 HRs. Had James examined their careers more closely in the NBJHA (he gives Donnie Baseball a one-liner and compares Mex to, among others, Chris Chambliss and Mark Grace, neither of them my idea of a Hall of Famer), I might be more inclined to consider the weight of their defensive contributions, but without a better picture of them, it’s tough.

Steve Garvey is a candidate that always gives me some pause. He was the matinee-idol star of my favorite team as a kid, and he put up some nice shiny numbers primarily in the context of a lousy hitters’ park, Dodger Stadium. Basically, Garvey did the things that tend to impress Hall of Fame voters–he scores at 131.0 on the Hall of Fame Monitor thanks to his clockwork ability to rap out 200 hits, hit .300 with 20 homers, drive in 100 runs, make the All-Star team, and have perfectly coiffed hair in doing so. He was great in the postseason overall (.338/.361/.550 with 11 HR and 31 RBI) in helping–no, leading his teams (he never hit less than .286 in an LCS or division series) –to five World Series, he won an MVP award, four Gold Gloves, played in ten All-Star games and set the National League record for consecutive games played. His career totals (2599 hits, 272 HRs) are certainly better than Mattingly or Hernandez, though he didn’t have as high a peak. The knocks against him are that he didn’t get on base enough (only a .329 OBP despite a .294 AVG), or have enough power (.446 SLG, never topping .500). He’s not a popular candidate thanks in part to his post-retirement zipper problems. James ranks Garvey only 31st among first basemen.

Hell, let’s got to the chart:

              H   HR   RBI   AVG   OPB   SLG  AS  MVP  GG  HOFS   HOFM   WS  Top 5

Garvey    2599  272  1308  .294  .329  .446  10   1   4   31.5  131.0  279   124

Hernandez 2182  162  1071  .296  .384  .436   5   1  11   32.0   86.0  311   136

Mattingly 2153  222  1099  .307  .358  .471   6   1   9   34.1  134.0  263   146

Most of these categores are self-evident. AS is All-Star appearances, GG is Gold Gloves, WS is Win Shares, and Top 5 is Win Shares in a players best five consecutive seasons. None of them overwhelm, but all three candidates have their merits, no question about it–one way or another, they were thought of as among the best in the game in their time. The questions are how much should we compensate for the lower offensive levels of Garvey’s time and environment (which also would boost Hernandez a bit), how much was Hernandez’s stellar glove play worth (though the other two weren’t slouches), how much the longer career benefits Garvey, and whether anybody’s candidacy is helped by postseason play. Win Shares, which adjust for offensive context and include defense, offer us some guidance: Garvey at his peak was worth less than either of the other two, and scores lower than Hernandez on the career mark as well despite a longer career. What he gains in postseason play may narrow the gap, but it probably doesn’t overcome it.

My personal preferences color this one beyond being able to choose, I’m afraid. While Garvey was never my favorite Dodger, he was unquestionably The Man for them in the same way that Mattingly was for the Yanks later on, with one big exception–the Dodgers won with Garvey, and he was a big part of that reason. That might be a tad unfair to Donnie Baseball, but hey, I was rooting against the Yanks back then, and them’s the breaks. Hernandez I never liked; his early drug problems, his being a Met (see Carter), and that awful mustache… eugh. What I said about the Perez selection still applies, and I don’t see any of these three as signifiantly better, so I’ll pass on all three.

Infielders

Among infielders, two first-time-eligible shortstops who are very different top my list: Ozzie Smith and Alan Trammell. The Wizard of Oz wasn’t a wiz with the bat, though he was hardly a liability at his peak–six times he topped a .350 OBP, and he stole 580 bases, most of them in the service of Whitey Herzog’s small-ball Cardinals teams. He was, of course, a magician with the glove, whether you look at the highlight reels or the numbers. Bill James rates him 2nd among all shortstops defensively by the Win Shares method (and places him 7th overall); though we don’t really know everything that entails, James points out how wide the margin Smith’s assist totals exceed statistical expectations–504 over the course of his career, or about 28 a season. He won 13 Gold Gloves for his efforts. Not many players get into the Hall on the merits of their defense alone, but Oz is one who deserves it.

Alan Trammell is a horse of a different color–a very solid hitter who more than held his own in the field. Trammell racked up 2365 hits to the tune of .285/.352/.415 and hit 185 HRs to boot. He should have been the MVP of the American League in 1987, when he went .343/.402/.551 with 28 HR and 105 RBI, yet barely lost out to 47-HR George Bell. James ranks him 9th overall, right behind Joe Cronin, and ahead of Pee Wee Reese, Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, and Luis Aparicio–all Hall of Famers. Welcome to flavor country. He does reasonably well on the earlier James methods too (40.4 HOFS, 104 HOFM). In, by my book.

Trammell’s keystone partner, Lou Whittaker (the two of them were as inseparably linked in their time and place as my all-time favorite sporting duo, Utah Jazzmen Karl Malone and John Stockton), was one of the unfortunates bumped off the ballot by the 5% rule. I’m not totally convinced he should be in the Hall, but I do think his candidacy bears closer scrutiny. He places 13th on James’s list, ahead of enshrinees Nellie Fox, Tony Lazzerri, and Bobby Doerr. He hit .276/.363/.426 with 242 career dingers, and was generally good for about 20 HR and 70 RBI. He won three Gold Gloves and made five All-Star teams. He might not be good enough for the Hall, but he deserves some further consideration.

It’s interesting to note that the Detroit Tigers came up with four prospects at almost exactly the same time (debuting in 1977 and sticking in ’78) who went on to long, stellar careers that wind up on the fringe of the Hall of Fame–Trammell, Whittaker, Jack Morris, and catcher Lance Parrish. They, along with Kirk Gibson, were the nucleus of the Tigers’ outstanding 1984 World Champions and their 1987 team, which had the best record in baseball, but went to an early playoff grave at the hands of the 85-win Minnesota Twins. Had they at least reached a second World Series, all of their candidacies would be helped thanks to the increased exposure. Instead, the fact that they didn’t win more often may be held against them.

There are other infielders just as worthy of consideration as Whittaker who fell off due to the 5% rule. Bobby Grich, Darrell Evans, and Graig Nettles are the most prominent–all of them fitting a similar profile: relatively low batting average, good power, lots of walks, very good defense. In other words, not likely to impress a particularly dull voter uninclined to sift through the numbers. Bill James, who has sifted through the numbers until the cows came home, rates Grich 12th, Evans 10th, and Nettles 13th–definitely in the realm of the Hall of Famers.

It’s tough to believe there are only nine MLB third basemen in the Hall: Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Eddie Mathews, Home Run Baker, Brooks Robinson, Jimmy Collins, Pie Traynor, George Kell, and Freddie Lindstrom (plus two Negro Leaguers, Ray Dandridge and Judy Johnson). Wade Boggs, with his 3010 hits, will make it ten in a few years. A more equal distribution by position would have about twice as many third basemen in. Several worthy candidates, including Ron Santo, Ken Boyer, and Stan Hack–all of whom place in James’s top 10–should be in, but aren’t. Additionally, Lindstrom and Kell are among the worst selections by the Hall of Fame’s Veterans Committee. If you were going to tear down the Hall and start over (which is what the soon-to-come Hall of Merit over at Baseball Primer promises to do), the enshrinees at third base would get a mighty welcome overhaul. Unfortunately, none of my men are on the ballot, so we’ll have to move on.

Outfielders

There are plenty of heavy hitters on the docket for the Hall, including first-timer Andre Dawson and holdovers Jim Rice (whose candidacy is building), Dave Parker, and Dale Murphy. Let’s cut to the chart:

            H   HR   RBI  SB    AVG   OPB   SLG  AS  MVP  GG  HOFS   HOFM   WS  Top 5

Dawson  2774  438  1591  314  .279  .323  .482   8   1   8   43.7  117.5  340   132

Parker  2712  339  1493  154  .290  .339  .471   7   1   3   41.1  125.5  327   150  

Rice    2452  382  1451   58  .298  .352  .502   7   1   0   42.9  147.0  282   127

Murphy  2111  398  1266  161  .265  .346  .469   7   2   5   34.3  115.5  294   150

No slouches here. Murphy was a Gold-Glove centerfielder who was shifted to rightfield when he got older. Ditto for Dawson, except he kept winning Gold Gloves after the shift. Parker was a Gold Glove rightfielder who became a DH, Rice a mediocre leftfielder who became a DH. Murphy and Rice petered out early; Rice at 36, Murph at 37. Parker had some drug problems, but had a mid-career rebound which gives his candidacy some extra muscle.

Dawson’s MVP award in 1987 with the last-place Cubs is one of the more dubious awards of all time, but he was also a two-time runner-up, including once to Murphy, who got big help from his park that year. On the road in ’83, Dawson went .322/.351/.615 while Murphy went .266/.356/.503. In general, Murphy was helped greatly by his home parks (.284/.374/.511 with 206 HR at home vs. .251/.329/.445 with 170 on the road; the splits from Retrosheet are incomplete but not far off). Rice got big help from Fenway (.323/.379/.539 with 156 HR at home vs. .271/.327/.456 with 127 HR on the road). Parker was helped a bit (.297/.346/.495 with 134 HRs at home, vs. .276/.327/.445 and 127 HRs on the road). Dawson is pretty much even (.278/.331/.477 with 147 HR at home vs. .288/.327/.508 and 180 HR on the road). We’re missing bigger portions of Parker, Rice, and Dawson’s splits than the Murphy; the biggest gap is two years of Dawson at Wrigley Field.

Like the first basemen, each of these guys has his knocks. Rice has the short career, the least defensive value, and the most park help. Murphy has the short career and some serious park help. Dawson has the low OBP. Parker’s on the lower end defensively and he’s got character issues (though he was seen as an asset during his late-career days in Oakland). None of them have very good postseason resumes, and Parker’s the only one with a ring.

It’s not clear-cut by any stretch. I’m inclined to rule out the guys with shorter careers and heavy park effects first–so, no to Rice and Murphy. Then the question becomes whether Dawson’s aesthetic value–more speed, better defense, positive character–is enough to overcome Parker’s advantage in peak value (Parker had four seasons as good or better than Dawson’s best, according to Win Shares). Had Parker not spent two seasons wandering in the wilderness mid-career, there’s no question he’d be pretty close to 3000 hits and a bona fide Hall of Famer. Hawk’s knee troubles curtailed his stats in Montreal and probably cut his chances at 3000 as well. After much agonizing deliberation, I’d say it’s a slight edge to Dawson because his problems were less of his making. And I’m swayed by the combination of speed and power. Yes on Dawson, no on Parker.

So, adding in yesterday’s results, that makes my ballot Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Rich Gossage, Gary Carter, Ozzie Smith, Alan Trammell, and Andre Dawson. This wasn’t easy, and I’m tempted to round it out to ten with the borderline calls I made on Jack Morris, Luis Tiant, Bruce Sutter, Steve Garvey, and Dave Parker. But I’m going to restrain my inclusive tendencies and various biases. For now, at least. Ask me again in a year.

Oh, and here’s my hunch: Carter, Smith, and Gossage get in, Blyleven and Jim Rice come up just short.

About a month ago, I partook in the 2001 STATLG-L Internet Hall Of Fame vote, an online poll which simulates the portion of the Cooperstown process determined by the Baseball Writers of America. It’s open to anyone and everyone who wishes to cast their own electronic ballot, and just like the real thing, one can check off ten names worthy of enshrinement.

Giving exactly half of a lunch break and half an ass worth of effort to consider the matter, I checked off my ten (listed here alphabetically): Bert Blyleven, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Rich Gossage, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Jack Morris, Ozzie Smith, Bruce Sutter, and Alan Trammell. Not a list I’m ashamed of, but one which probably could have withstood a more rigorous analysis. So, with the Hall of Fame voting results to be announced Tuesday, I’ll take this opportunity to re-examine my choices.

Before I do, a few caveats. The Hall of Fame is a deeply flawed institution which has been particularly sullied by dubious choices on the part of the Veterans Committee, especially when it comes to the hitter-happy 1930s. So I’m not of the opinion that arguing that so-and-so was better than this or that dubious choice makes one a Hall of Famer. Having said that, my tastes in the Hall of Fame tend to run towards the inclusive, rather than the exclusive, especially among players whose careers I’ve seen. I’m not saying that’s necessarily a good thing, but it is a bias of mine. Hand in hand with that bias, I tend to place more weight on career value than peak value–I do think that longevity counts for something. Finally, my choices are guided by several tools invented by Bill James, but I don’t promise any rigidly consistent methodology in the choices I’ve made.

With all that, I’m still willing to bet I’ve put more thought into this than many of the writers who actually get to vote.

Starting Pitchers

Twenty men have won 300 games in the big leagues and every single one of them is in the Hall of Fame. On the career wins list, of the next group of 21 pitchers (including a tie), going down to 253 wins, eleven are in, two (Maddux and Clemens) are mortal locks, and four are nineteenth-century freaks of nature whose pitching stats bespeak a much different ballgame. This leaves four pitchers from that group sitting outside the Hall. Three of them are fairly similar in terms of their basic career statistics and their careers overlap considerably: Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat, and Tommy John. The fourth pitcher is Jack Morris.

           W    L   ERA+  HOFS   HOFM   WS   Top 3    Top 5    AVG
Blyleven  287  250  118    50   113.5  339  29,23,23   114    26.36
John      288  231  111    44   100.0  289  23,19,19    86    23.73
Kaat      283  237  107    44   120.5  268  26,22,22    88    22.64
Morris    254  186  105    39   108.5

Wins and losses you’re familiar with. ERA+ is the ratio of the pitcher’s ERA to a park-adjusted league average, multiplied by 100. A 100 denotes a league-average performance (adjusted for park), a 120 represents a performance 20 percent better than league average. HOFS is short for Hall of Fame Standards, a metric Bill James invented which awards points to players based on their career accomplishments (“One point for each 150 hits above 1500, limit 10,” etc.). One hundred is the maximum score; 50 is an average Hall of Famer. HOFM is short for Hall of Fame Monitor, another Jamesian metric which attempts to assess how likely an active player is to make the Hall. Like the Standards system, it awards points based on accomplishments. A score of 100 means a good possiblity of enshrinement, a 130 is a lock. Baseball-reference.com computes scores in both of these systems for every player, and lists the criteria here.

The next four columns relate to Bill James’s new metric, Win Shares, which he introduced recently in his New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. I’m not about to go into detail here about Win Shares (the full methodology behind it hasn’t even been published yet) except to summarize that it boils down the value of a player’s season (based on runs created or allowed, plus defense, and their context) to a simple integer. A score of 30 represents an MVP-candidate season.

Win Shares is a promising new system, but until the methods behind it are published, all we have to go on is what’s in the new Abstract, which is why Morris’s numbers aren’t included above–he didn’t rate in James’s top 100 pitchers, while Blyleven (39th), John (63rd) and Kaat (65th) did. Using Win Shares right now is like calling up a hot prospect in the middle of a pennant race–maybe he can help you here or there, but he’s not ready for prime time. Until the methods see the light of day and can be picked apart from the master’s own idiosyncracies, they remain somewhat suspect. That said, I do think we should take a look at what he’s made available thus far. So… WS is the player’s career total in Win Shares; the Top 3 are his top 3 seasons, the Top 5 is a total of his five best consecutive seasons, and the AVG is projected to 43 starts per season (a high total given all of these pitchers spent most of their careers in 5-man rotations).

Of Blyleven, John, and Kaat, none are overwhelming on the basis of their career peaks; Kaat and John each had three 20-win seasons, Blyleven just one. But all had extremely long careers, John at 26 years, Kaat at 25, and Blyleven the baby of the bunch at 22. All of them come from a time period which is somewhat over-represented in the Hall; six 300-game winners (Carlton, Ryan, Sutton, Niekro, Perry, and Seaver), plus Hall of Famers Fergie Jenkins (285-226, 115 ERA+, seven 20-win seasons in an eight-year span), Jim Palmer (268-152, 125 ERA+, eight 20-win seasons in a nine-year span), and Catfish Hunter (224-166, 104 ERA+, five straight 20-win seasons). Those three all had longer (and higher) sustained peaks than our three, not to mention hardware in the shape of Cy Young Awards (three for Palmer, one each for Jenkins and Hunter), while our fair trio won none.

So these three are not clearly better than the bottom ranks of the enshrined from their era. But each of them has their additional merits which I feel should be enough to vault them into the ranks of the Hall.

Blyleven ranks number four on the career strikeout list, having been passed by Roger Clemens near the end of the 2001 season. He is also in the top 10 in shutouts (#9, with 60). He came up big in the postseason (5-1, 2.47 ERA , with World Series wins for champions Pittsburgh in ’79 and Minnesota in ’87). And his curveball had the reputation as being the best in the game. He spent most of his career with some mediocre (but not horrible) Minnesota and Cleveland teams, and rarely outperformed them by significant margins in the Won-Loss columns–he was an inning-eating horse who stuck around for the decision most of the time. But his ERAs relative to the league were excellent, as was his consistency–outperforming the league average by 15 percent or more (that is, an ERA+ of 115 or better) for the first nine years of his career and fourteen times overall. He won in double figures seventeen times, and won 17 or more games seven times. He gets my vote.

John was a much different type of pitcher than Blyleven–a finesse pitcher who relied on ground balls rather than strikeouts and gave up more than his share of hits. A prototype, in fact, of certain breed of successful left-handers. He had a fairly concentrated peak, winning 80 games over a four-year span from 1977-80 and reaching the World Series three times. What’s amazing is that span started when he was 34 years old and had overcome an unprecedented surgical elbow-reconstruction procedure which now bears his name. He did very well in the postseason (6-3, 2.65 ERA) and was subjected to one of the most questionable pitching moves in World Series history, being pinch-hit for in the fourth inning of a 1-1 Game 6 (at a time when his ERA on the series was 0.69). The next two Yankee relievers allowed seven runs in two innings, allowing Tommy Lasorda’s Dodgers to finally best the Yanks in the Fall Classic. He had an ERA+ of 115 or better eleven times. He won in double digits 17 times. His case isn’t as strong as Blyleven’s, but it’s strong enough to get my vote.

Kaat was a remarkably consistent performer for the Minnesota Twins for a 12-year span, a teammate of Blyleven’s for the better part of four seasons (their 1970 division-winning rotation also included Jim Perry and Luis Tiant–a foursome with at least 215 career wins apiece). Had the Cy Young Award been given in both leagues instead of just one overall, he likely would have won in 1966, when he went 25-13, 2.75 ERA, and he would have been in the mix in ’65, with an 18-11, 2.83 for a pennant-winner. Until David Cone won 20 games in 1998, Kaat held the record for the longest drought between 20-win seasons (eight years). He won in double digits 15 times (he lost in double-digits 16 times), won 17+ games six times, but had a 115 ERA+ or better only six times. A lefty, he tacked on a successful second career as a middle reliever, which enabled him to set a record for the longest gap between World Series appearances (1965-1982). Oh, and he also won 16 straight Gold Gloves, though a look at his raw fielding stats suggests several somebodys weren’t paying attention–five times in that span his Fielding Percentage was below .930, though his range factors were always 50-100 percent higher than the league average at the position. If I had to pick one of the three to leave off, it would be Kaat, but I still think he should be in.

Morris had a shorter career than that trio (“only” 18 years), but his peaks were fairly high. He was the ace on three World Champions–the ’84 Tigers, the ’91 Twins, and the ’92 Blue Jays, and he put up some stellar performances in the postseason (7-4, 3.80), most notably a 10-inning 1-0 complete game in Game 7 of the ’91 Series–a performance which, in my mind, rates as high as any no-hitter I ever saw (and as a matter of fact, I did watch Morris’s no-no, on April 7, 1984 against the White Sox). He won 20 or more games 3 times, topped 17 victories eight times, and was in double-digits 14 times. He had an ERA+ of 115 or better seven times. And unlike the above three pitchers, he had a very clearly identifiable peak in terms of W-L and ERA+ that lasted awhile. From 1983-87 he was 94-54 with an ERA+ of 120. But… Morris’s career ERA and ERA+ are nothing to write home about, and they especially took a hit during the last two years of his career, raising his overall ERA from 3.73 to 3.90. And he got tagged pretty hard in the 1992 postseason, though the Jays won it all.

I could see voting for Morris (he was on my initial list), and I have argued vehemently in his favor in the past. Guys who win 254 games in their career don’t grow on trees (after Clemens and Maddux, who’ve surpassed that mark, the next closest active players are Tom Glavine at 224 and Randy Johnson at 200). He’s not a horrible choice, though his raw ERA would be the highest of any Hall of Famer–higher than Burleigh Grimes (3.53 ERA, 107 ERA+), Waite Hoyt (3.59 ERA, 111 ERA+), Herb Pennock (3.60 ERA, 106 ERA+), Jess Haines (3.64 ERA, 108 ERA+), Ted Lyons (3.67 ERA, 118 ERA+), Red Ruffing (3.80 ERA, 109 ERA+). With the exception of Grimes and Ruffing, those guys don’t do very well on James’s older metrics–in the low 30s on the HOFS and the 70s or lower on the HOFM (which is NOT to say that those were bad pitchers). Morris wouldn’t be the worst Hall of Famer by any stretch. I’m going to leave him off my ballot for now, because I believe he’s less deserving than the other three. But I might be willing to vote for him at a later date upon further review.

A couple of others I thought about: Ron Guidry is a popular candidate among Yankees fans, and he’s not far off the pack above when it comes to the James scales (38 HOFS, 98.5 HOFM). He ranks 66th in the NBJHA (though the actual methodology of how James arrived at those rankings from his raw Win Shares totals has already started too many catfights over at Baseball Primer to take seriously). His overall record (171-91, 3.29 ERA and 120 ERA+) is very good, but in my eyes, he lacks the longevity of the others. And like I said, I’m a career guy. Luis Tiant (229-172, 3.30 ERA, 114 ERA+) is probably worth a longer look than I’m prepared to give him here. He’s a little short on the James scales (41 HOFS, 91 HOFM), but he does well in the Win Shares (putting him in the chart above, we have 256 total, Top 3 of 29, 28, 22, a top 5 of 108, and an average of 27.43). James places him 52nd, and argues that he was a better pitcher over the course of his career than Catfish Hunter (224-166, 3.26 ERA, 104 ERA+). With more time to study the issue, I could be convinced.

Relief Pitching

There are exactly two relievers in the Hall of Fame: Hoyt Wilhelm and Rollie Fingers. While the modern-day closer (and its ever-shifting definition) has evolved into a unique and somewhat overrated species of pitcher, this underrepresentation in the Hall simply shouldn’t exist. There are any number of excellent relievers who should be in, and the line, in my opinion, starts with Goose Gossage. Gossage saved 20+ games 11 times, back when that figure meant something–he led the league three times and was in the top 5 eight times. And he had an amazingly long peak. Over a 12-season stretch from 1975 to 1987 (excluding an ill-spent season as a starter in ’76), he posted a 2.25 ERA, while striking out 8.5 per nine innings and allowing only 1.1 baserunners per inning. Oh, and he made the All-Star team nine times in that span.

Gossage came into ballgames to put The Fear into the hitter, and he simply blew them away with his heat. And he wasn’t just waltzing in for a one-inning save–over that stretch he averaged 1.7 innings per appearance. He was good in the postseason (2-1, 2.87 ERA, 8 saves), though he did give up a couple of famous homers–George Brett’s 1980 ALCS shot which finally killed the Yankees, Kirk Gibson’s clincher in the 1984 World Series. Like the Arizona Diamondbacks’ jubilation at beating Mariano Rivera, you knew that if you beat Gossage, you were beating the best. Goose remained a useful reliever long after his peak, lasting until 1994. James placed him 37th on his list, though his details about Win Shares for relievers are largely absent. Still, I’m as sure he belongs in the Hall of Fame as I am of anybody this year.

Bruce Sutter has the reputation of being a one-inning save man, but he averaged 1.6 innings per appearance over the course of his career. He was a pioneer of the split-fingered fastball, though he didn’t invent it. He had seven great seasons in an eight-year stretch for Chicago and St. Louis, leading the league in saves five times and placing no lower than fourth in that span. For that stretch, he posted a 2.52 ERA, striking out 7.6 per 9 and allowing 1.1 baserunners per inning. Also, during that stretch he was being used more heavily than Gossage–nine appearances and ten innings more per year, which may help to explain their relative extremes in career length–Sutter fell apart in the three years after that stretch in Atlanta and was cooked at 35, while Gossage stuck around until he was 42. James places Sutter 57th, with slightly higher peak but only about 2/3 of the career value as Gossage. I do think he should be in, but I’m willing to wait a year to get a better look at him via Win Shares.

I also think that will tell us more than we know right now about several other relievers who may or may not be worthy of the Hall–Sparky Lyle, the late, lamented Dan Quisenberry, Kent Tekulve, and the off-the-ballot Tom Henke (who failed to garner the 5% required to stay on), to name a few. Not to mention the wave of big-save-total relievers to come: Lee Smith, Dennis Eckersley, John Franco, Randy Myers and others, none of them eligible yet (hell, Franco’s still active). Let’s face it: between Fingers being elected and Mariano Rivera getting in someday (and I’m pretty damn sure he will), some of these other guys are worthy of enshrinement and the construction of a standard for what constitutes a Hall of Fame relief pitcher.

So, to summarize thus far… I listed six pitchers on my original ballot, and upon further review, I’m keeping four of them: Blyleven, John, Kaat, and Gossage. I’m tabling the decisions on Morris and Sutter for the moment. I’ll evaluate the hitters in my next piece.

Happy New Year!!!

Best wishes for a great 2002 to everyone reading this. I hope you all had happy holidays. Today I’m going to gorge on football, but I’ll be back with my irregularly scheduled postings in the next day or two.

Happy Birthday to Me, Rickey Henderson, and 64 Other Ballplayers

December 25 marks a holiday for most of this country and probably, for most of my readership–if so, my sincere wishes for a happy holiday to you. For me the day is somewhat more paradoxical: I’m Jewish and thus don’t celebrate Christmas, which is fine by me because I’m none too fond of that red and green color scheme. It also happens to be my birthday, number 32 to be exact.

I’ll spare you the tales about how this combination of circumstances influenced my psyche while growing up (long story short: people forgetting birthday bad, never having to work or go to school on birthday good) and, as usual, move onto the baseball angle in all of this. Baseball-reference.com lists 65 players as being born on December 25, including Hall-of-Famers Pud Galvin and Nellie Fox, and future Hall-of-Famer Rickey Henderson. Henderson is undoubtedly the best major-leaguer born on this day, but then again, he’d be the best major-leaguer born on any one of over three hundred other days, too.

Given that there are 253 members of the Hall of Fame (including executives), having two or three HOFers born on any single date is an above-average representation. Still, having spent some time looking over the resumes of the 65 ballplayers with December 25 birthdays, I can’t make any claims for the All Xmas Team I’ve assembled. They’re exceedingly long on futility infielders and backup catchers, short on outfielders, first basemen, and power hitters in general. Their pitching is pretty solid, though they don’t really have a closer.

Pos  Name (Years)                 AVG   OBP   SLG   HR

C    Quincy Trouppe (1952)       .100  .182  .100    0   

1B   Walter Holke (1914-1925)    .287  .318  .363   24

2B   Nellie Fox (1947-1965)      .288  .348  .363   35

3B   Gene Robertson (1919-1930)  .280  .344  .373   20

SS   Manny Trillo (1973-1989)    .263  .316  .345   61

LF   Jo-Jo Moore (1930-1941)     .298  .344  .408   79

CF   Rickey Henderson (1979-)    .280  .402  .420  290

RF   Ben Chapman (1930-1946)     .302  .383  .440   90



C    Gene Lamont (1970-1975)     .233  .278  .371    4

IF   Tom O'Malley (1982-1990)    .256  .329  .340   13

IF   Joe Quinn (1884-1901)       .261  .302  .327   29

IF   Bill Akers (1929-1932)      .261  .349  .404   11

OF   Red Barnes (1927-1930)      .269  .347  .404    8

OF   Gerry Davis (1983-1985)     .301  .370  .397    0

PH   Wallace Johnson (1981-1990) .255  .316  .332    5



Pos  Name (Years)                 W    L    S   ERA

SP   Pud Galvin (1875-1892)      364  310   2  2.86   

SP   Ned Garver (1948-1961)      129  157  12  3.73

SP   Ted Lewis (1896-1901)        94   64   4  3.53

SP   Charlie Lea (1980-1988)      62   48   0  3.54

SP   George Haddock (1888-1894)   95   87   2  4.07

RP   Al Jackson (1959-1969)       67   99  10  3.98

RP   Lloyd Brown (1928-1940)      91  105  21  4.20

RP   Eric Hiljus (1999-2001)       5    0   0  3.68

RP   Charlie Beamon (1956-1958)    3    3   0  3.91

CL   Jack Hamilton (1962-1969)    32   40  20  4.53

A few words about the selections:

* Quincy Trouppe spent twenty-two years in the Negro Leagues before receiving a 10-at-bat cup of coffee with the Cleveland Indians in 1952, at age 39. He was a fine player in his day, making All-Star teams everywhere he went and accumulating a lifetime Negro League Average of .311. He also won a Negro League championship as player-manager of the Cleveland Buckeyes. Bill James rates him the #7 catcher of the Negro Leagues in the New Historical Baseball Abstract. One more interesting note about him: during the height of World War II, he had trouble securing a passport to play in the Mexican League. The league’s president intervened, and made arrangements for Trouppe’s services in exchange for those of 80,000 Mexican workers. You could look it up.

* Manny Trillo played most of his career as a second baseman, and a slick-fielding one at that, winning three Gold Gloves and setting a record for consecutive errorless games. But Nellie Fox also won three Gold Gloves at 2B, so I took the liberty of moving Trillo to SS (where he had limited experience). I’m sure he and Nellie would have made a fine double-play combo. Trillo is the only Christmas-born ballplayer whose real name is Jesus.

* Jo-Jo Moore and Ben Chapman both crack Bill James’ Top 100 lists by postion. Moore ranks 77th among LFs, Chapman 55th among CFs (I put him in right because he played a good portion of his career there). Chapman was, by all accounts, an aggressive ballplayer who fought a lot. He stole as many as 61 bases, and had some power as well. He later managed the Philadelphia Phillies for parts of four seasons and is most noted for baiting the rookie Jackie Robinson with racial epithets. Schmuck. We’ll let Trouppe manage this squad, just to rub it in Chapman’s face.

* Red Barnes–don’t you love that name? Gerry Davis did pretty well in 73 ABs for the Padres, but missed out on their glory year of 1984. There’s now an umpire with the same name, but I can’t figure out if its the same guy.

* Wallace Johnson was a pretty good pinch-hitter whose claim to fame was the hit that put the Montreal Expos in their first (and only) postseason in 1981. He’s now a coach with the Chicago White Sox.

* Three of the pitchers on this team made their names in the 19th century, when pitching and pitching stats were much different. Galvin had back-to-back 46-win seasons in 1883 and 1884, making over 70 starts each year. He won 20 games or more ten times, and lost 20 games or more 10 times as well. George Haddock went from 9-26 in 1890 for Buffalo of the Players League to 34-11 with Boston of the American Association the following year. Ted Lewis won 47 games over two seasons for the Boston Beaneaters in 1896-1897.

* Ned Garver was a hard-luck pitcher who managed to go 20-12 for a St. Louis Browns team that went 52-102 in 1951. This performance so impressed MVP voters in the AL that he finished second to Yogi Berra.

* Speaking of pitching for lousy teams… at 8-20 with a 4.40 ERA, Al Jackson could have easily been mistaken for the ace of the 1962 Mets (though Roger Craig had an equal claim). Jackson managed to lose 88 games in a 5-year span, four of those with the Mets. He’s spent several years as a pitching coach, and I believe was recently hired somewhere.

One more thing I discovered: The first Christmas-born ballplayer, Nat Jewett (who I’m guessing didn’t celebrate either), was a member of the 1872 Brooklyn Eckfords of the National Association, who went 3-26 for the season. Sweeeet. You learn something new every day, even on your birthday…

Remaking the Yankees, Part VII: Adding It Up

In analyzing the Yankees offseason moves over the past couple of weeks, I’ve largely steered clear of any commentary about the consequences of the Yanks’ spending spree, both for themselves and for the rest of baseball. I did this for several reasons:

• First, because I wanted to focus on the vacancies in their 2002 roster, their options for filling said vacancies, and the quality of the decisions they made.

• Second, because in this contentious environment, we are currently so awash in misleading financial data, that it’s tough to take any analysis of baseball’s finances seriously.

• And third, because if I’m nowhere near being a major-league baseball player (even a futility infielder with a sub-700 OPS) or a General Manager, I’m even further away from being an economist or an accountant. In general, money bores the hell out of me, unless it’s my own we’re talking about.

Nevertheless, I do feel some nagging responsibility to address the issue now that I’ve watched George Steinbrenner’s team throw $165 million at four free agents. So bear with me as I try to weed through some of the numbers.

According to figures released last week by the Major League Baseball Players Association, the Yankees paid an average annual salary of $3.93 million to the 31 players on their August 31 roster or disabled list, leading the major leagues. This figure was 84% higher than the major league average of $2.14 million. This was the first year that the average salary surpassed $2 million, and was up 12.8% on last year’s figure of $1.9 million

This was the third straight year that the Yanks have had the highest annual salary, and the seventh time in the past eight. Multiplying the average salary by the number of players on their roster and DL, we get a figure of $121.8 million worth of salaries. Back in April, ESPN reported the Yanks’ opening day roster as totalling $109.8 million in salary, which barely edged out the the Boston Red Sox ($109.6 million) and Los Angeles Dodgers ($109 million) for the top spot. If I understand correctly, those opening day figures were based on average annual values of contracts rather than what the teams would actually be paying this year, but it’s unclear whether the recently released figures are calculated the same way. We may be comparing apples and oranges.

This is an important distinction. Take Derek Jeter’s contract, for example. Jeter signed a 10-year contract worth $18.9 million annually, so that $18.9 mil figure would be included in the MLBPA’s calculations. But according to the structure of the contract, in 2001 Jeter actually received an $11 million salary, plus $2 million of a $16-million bonus which was spread over 8 years. Total salary for 2001: $13 million. You can see where this is going–a vastly inflated figure compared to their actual payments for the year. Still, according to these figures, the Yanks spent more money on player contracts than any other team.

The Yankees spend the most money because they make the most money. Forbes Magazine estimated their revenue for the 2000 season at $192.4 million, tops in baseball. The Mets were second, at $162.0 million, the Braves third at $145.5 million, the Expos last at $53.9 million. The league average was $105.9 million. According to 2001 unaudited figures released by Major League Baseball a couple of weeks ago, the Yanks’ revenue was $242.2 million, again tops and about twice the major league average of $118.3 million. Montreal again brought up the rear, this time at $34.2 million. Not coincidentally, these high revenues make the Yankees the most valuable franchise in baseball. George Steinbrenner’s team was valued by Forbes in the beginning of the season at $635 million, almost 40% higher than the next most valuable club, the Mets, and 241% of the major league average franchise valuation.

According to those numbers released by Bud Selig, numbers about which we should be very skeptical because of the lack of detail they provide and the accounting tricks they undoubtedly conceal, major league teams posted a $232 million operating loss in 2001, or an average of $7.73 million per team. Against all of this, the Yanks posted an operating profit of $14.32 million after factoring in revenue sharing (towards which the Yankees kicked in $26.5 million this year), making them one of only nine teams to show a profit for 2001:

Milwaukee $16.13 million

Seattle    15.48

NYY        14.32

SF         12.69

Detroit     5.66

Oakland     3.41

Cincy       2.35

Minnesota   0.54

Anaheim     0.03

A closer look at the numbers reveals that revenue sharing put the Angels, Reds, Tigers, Twins, and A’s in the black, while it put seven otherwise profitable teams in the red. The Brewers, in addition to turning a profit (nice job, Bud, I mean Wendy) received a small amount of revenue sharing ($1.7 million), meaning only three teams withstood their revenue-sharing contributions and still showed a profit. Not surprisingly, the Yanks were one of those teams.

According to Selig’s testimony before Congress, the Yankees were one of only two profitable teams over the past seven years, the other being the Cleveland Indians. The Yankees posted a $64.5 million operating profit from the years 1995-1999, as the Blue Ribbon Committee reported last summer (I don’t have updated figures covering all seven years).

The Yankees are the wealthiest and healthiest franchise, so what else is new? Well, YES–the Yankee Entertainment and Sports Network, George Steinbrenner’s new cable channel–will be carrying the Yankees games starting next season, bringing a new revenue stream of bigger and bigger local broadcasting dollars. The Yankees made $56.75 million in local broadcast revenue this year, according to Major League Baseball, 2.5 times the major league average. Estimates on what the team will earn in its first year of YES range from a low of $52 million (according to a former president of CBS Sports) to a high of $80 million (according to Doug Pappas, head of the Society for American Baseball Research Business of Baseball Committee, who maintains a site devoted to his excellent writings on the subject and who has been writing a worthwhile series on similar grounds over at Baseball Prospectus). The rich, in other words, stand to get a whole lot richer, which is why they’ve been spending so much money lately.

One of the things wrong with baseball right now is the ill-structured revenue sharing agreement, a result of the 1995 strike settlement, which allows teams receiving luxury taxes paid by the likes of the Yankees to pocket those dollars rather than reinvesting them in player salaries. But just as wrong is that the Yankees are allowed to maintain their huge local revenue advantage unchecked. As it’s structured right now, teams do not share their local broadcast revenues, despite the fact that it takes two teams to tango on the Madison Square Garden Network or YES. A revenue-sharing solution which requires teams to contribute some percentage of local revenues (AND prevents those receiving revenue sharing from merely pocketing the income) is one of the most commonly offered solutions to the current revenue disparity problems.

It remains to be seen whether the owners will get hip to this idea, as it makes much more sense than a salary cap. Given George Steinbrenner’s public support for Bud Selig but his just-as-public disdain for revenue sharing (“I’d rather send a million dollars to Save the Whales than to the Pittsburgh Pirates,” he’s been quoted as saying), it will be some measure of Selig’s sincerity in tackling the problem if he shows the courage to try to reach inside of George’s pocket himself.

You can stop laughing now.

In the wake of the Yanks’ wave of free-agent signings last week, ESPN offered up a headline which read “Yank payroll closes in on $150 million.” The story–mostly about YES–included a sidebar which listed the average annual value of Yankee players’ contracts, along with estimates for their unsigned younger players. The total reported there was $147 million–an astronomical number. But it’s also one that simply isn’t true. Those numbers do not take into account the salary structures of several of the Yanks’ top contracts, as I hinted at above. Derek Jeter and Jason Giambi, for example, both have heavily back-loaded contracts. While ESPN reports the averages as $18.9 million for Jeter and $17 million for Giambi, the truth is that Jeter will receive “only” $15 million in 2002 including signing bonus, and Giambi only $10.8 million (on the other hand, they will be receiving respective salaries in 2007 of $20 and $21 million). These figures are taken from a contracts page which lists the year-by-year structure of nearly every long-term contract. Using these figures (which include the structure of bonus payments), as well as what’s been reported this week, we come up with a much different estimate of the Yankees payroll. In creating the table below, I’ve averaged out bonuses over the life of the contract unless they were otherwise indicated, and I’ve used ESPN’s estimates for unsigned players, denoted by an asterisk:

              2002               ESPN

          Base + bonus  total    AVG

Jeter     13.0 + 2.0    15.0    18.9

Giambi     8.0 + 2.8    11.8    17.0

Mussina    9.0 + 2.0    11.0    14.8

Clemens    7.8 + 2.5    10.3    15.4

BWilliams  12.0         12.0    12.5

Pettitte   8.5 + 1.7    10.2     8.5

Rivera     7.45 + 2.0    9.45    9.9

Ventura    8.25          8.25    8.0

Posada     8.0*          8.0     8.0*

Karsay     3.0 + 4.0     7.0     5.75

Hitchcock  5.0           6.0     6.0

White      4.5           5.5     5.0

OHernandez 4.0*          4.0     4.0*

Stanton    2.5           2.5     2.58

Mendoza    2.5*          2.5     2.5*

GWilliams  2.0           2.0    

Vander Wal 1.55          1.55    1.92

AHernandez 1.0           1.0     1.0

Soriano    1.0*          1.0     1.0*

Spencer    1.0*          1.0     1.0*

Henson     1.0           1.0     2.83

Johnson    0.5*          0.5     0.5*

-------------------------------------

                       130.55  147.08

As you can see, those are two very different figures–a 12.7% difference. What’s interesting is that the righthand column of approximate annual values is what the MLBPA uses to calculate revenue-sharing figures, rather than basing them on actual payments due.

There’s no getting around the fact that the Yankee payroll is extremely high. So far, they’ve been the most active team in the free-agent market, and while teams have paid lip service to cutting payroll, questionable mid-level signings have abounded. Many of the top free agents–Barry Bonds, Juan Gonzalez, Chan Ho Park, for example–remain unsigned, with their respective suitors keeping a very low profile. Right now the Yanks are getting all of the exposure and taking all of the heat.

For what it’s worth, I would like to point out that with the exception of the Karsay signing, the Yanks haven’t really broken any new ground, contract-wise. Jeter’s contract is still about $6 million per year lower than Alex Rodriguez’s. Giambi’s contract is one of the top five in terms of average annual value, and it’s probably going to become a millstone over the second half unless he stays in shape and very productive. What is new ground is the number of players the Yanks have who will be making over $10 million a year–five or six, depending on which method you use.

Right now the Yanks are clearly in a class by themselves when it comes to spending. There’s no doubt that losing the World Series and shedding mid-priced mediocrities has opened their checkbooks wider than if they had won the Series. Whether they’ll be the only team in that stratosphere come opening day remains to be seen.

As I said before, I’m not an economist. I highly recommend anybody who’s got even a passing interest in the finances of baseball read Doug Pappas’s writings–there’s a man who understands where the money comes from and where it’s going much better than I do.

Remaking the Yankees, Part VI: The Bullpen

In the era of the Feel-Good Yankee Dynasty, it’s ironic that one of the team’s most glaring weaknesses last season had its roots in an old-school Bronx Zoo-style feud. It started when Joe Torre bypassed his own righty setup man, Jeff Nelson, for a spot on the 2000 AL All-Stars. Nelson, en route to a 6-2, 1.69 ERA first half, publicly vented his frustration at Torre. The seeds of ill will thus sown, they were further cultivated when Nelson questioned Torre’s use of him later in the season as the team began to struggle. Nelson’s complaints earned a put-up-or-shut-up rebuke from the Boss himself: “I want to offer Nelson the following advice,” Steinbrenner told the New York Daily News in early September. “Just give us what we need and zip the lip.”

Nelson began talking like a man on the way out. “I have 29 more days plus the playoffs to put up with this stuff,” he responded, then made good on his prediction by signing a 3-year, $10.5 million contract with the Seattle Mariners during the offseason. The Yankees had offered Nelson $9 million over the same period, and despite his role in bolstering a dominating bullpen which anchored four World Championships in five years, Steinbrenner let him walk over such a relatively small amount.

The Yankees never did replace Nelson adequately last season, and their failure to do so had a trickle-down effect on the entire bullpen. They auditioned a sordid assortment of righties, trading away prospects such as D’Angleo Jiminez and Ricardo Aramboles to get mediocrities like Jay Witasick and Mark Wohlers. Lefty Mike Stanton got the bulk of the setup duty in the bullpen, appearing in 76 games and wearing down as the season progressed. Randy Choate stepped into the spot-lefty role with mixed results, including some serious control problems. With the back end of the starting rotation struggling, Ramiro Mendoza racked up lots of innings in middle relief instead of the type of setup duty in which he’s excelled in the postseason.

In the end, Torre put his trust in only three relievers–Stanton, Mendoza, and Rivera. Not coincidentally, they were the only ones to pitch over 50 innings for the team. This short bullpen had ramifications during the playoffs, as Rivera was called upon for five outings of longer than an inning, including Game Seven of the World Series, where… well, you know the rest.

Here’s a breakdown of the relievers’ stats, with the pretenders to Nelson’s role grouped together in roughly chronological order (I threw Nelson’s stats with Seattle on for comparison’s sake). Note that while those relievers’ ERAs weren’t uniformly bad, they allowed a high number of baserunners per inning (WHIP) and a majority of inherited baserunners (IR) to score (IS). The last column is saves (SV) and blown saves (BS):

                  IP    ERA    WHIP  IR-IS  SV/BS

Todd Williams     15.1  4.70   2.02  12-8    0/0

Carlos Almanzar   10.2  3.38   1.50  13-11   0/2

Brian Boehringer  34.2  3.12   1.36  14-6    1/1

Jay Witasick      40.1  4.69   1.61  18-10   0/1

Mark Wohlers      35.2  4.54   1.43  17-5    0/0



Randy Choate      48.3  3.35   1.25  19-4    0/0

Ramiro Mendoza   100.6  3.75   1.11  46-7    6/2

Mike Stanton      80.1  2.58   1.36  44-12   0/1

Mariano Rivera    80.2  2.34   0.81  25-5    50/7



Jeff Nelson (SEA) 65.1  2.76   1.13  38-5    4/1

The good news is that the Yankee brass has recognized the cost of their penny-wise, pound-foolish decision to let Nelson walk. Brian Cashman even took public responsibility for his less-than-stellar work in this department. And so the Yanks did what they have done all winter–carefully evaluated their options, then threw A LOT of money at their top choice and induced him to sign a contract. In this case, they settled on righty Steve Karsay, who started the year in Cleveland before being traded to Atlanta in the John Rocker deal. Karsay signed a 4-year, $23 million dollar contract to serve as the belated replacement for Nelson. Reportedly, Joe Torre plans to have Karsay, who has a history of elbow trouble, share the righty setup role with the equally fragile Mendoza so as not to overwork either. This in turn should take some of the pressure off of Stanton to throw as many innings as he did. And it should also take some pressure off of Rivera; Karsay’s experience in the closer role (though not wildly successful–29 saves, 15 blown saves overall) may prevent Mariano from working too many days in a row.

While the signing was emphatic (almost twice the amount they offered to Nelson per year), this was one example where they overspent significantly. The Yanks also toyed with the idea of signing David Weathers, a former Yankee with a longer track record of mediocrity (save for his ’96 postseason in pinstripes, when he won two games) who just signed with the Mets for three years at $9.4 million. The two posted very similar stats, though Weathers entered many more games with men on base:

                    IP    ERA    WHIP  IR-IS  SV/BS  Car. ERA

S. Karsay (CLE-ATL) 88.0  2.35   1.11  19-3    8/4   4.00

Weathers (MIL-CHC)  86.0  2.41   1.15  44-8    4/6   4.81

If you see double the annual value in Karsay, you’ll have to show me how that works, because I certainly don’t see it.

Be that as it may, the Yankees bullpen is much stronger than it was when Luis Gonzalez’s broken-bat single fell for a game-winning base hit one sad November night. Rivera will be back, and he’s expected to shrug off that devastating defeat with the same success he did Sandy Alomar’s home run in the 1997 AL Divisional Series. With one inning to go and the World Championship on the line, he’s still the man any manager in baseball would be thrilled to turn to. As for the rest of them… Witasick was just traded for outfielder John Vander Wal. Wohlers was offered arbitration but is probably a longshot to make the team in the spring. The question marks are:

• Whether Randy Choate will emerge to take on significant innings and earn the trust of Torre. Rather than being used as a spot lefty, Choate pitched most of his innings doing mop-up, perhaps to better showcase his trade value. Looking at his game log, 15 of his last 19 outings were in games decided by more than three runs, and his last six appearances (from August 18 on) were all in losses. Choate showed control problems, walking 27 batters in his 48+ innings (5.0 per 9 IP). Given the Yanks’ surplus of developing lefties, it wouldn’t be surprising to see him traded.

• Whether Ted Lilly, bumped to the bullpen by the signing of Sterling Hitchcock and Brian Cashman’s assertion that the team will keep El Duque (I think he reads my column, as Baseball News Blog‘s Pete Sommers has suggested), will get enough work in the bullpen to develop. Given Lilly’s high strikeout rate (8.4 per 9 IP) and success out of the pen (3.78 ERA, 1.08 WHIP, 5.0 K/W in 16.2 innings), this may be an appealing option.

• Whether another Yankee youngster, such as Adrian “El Duquecito” Hernandez, will make the club and get some major league innings. Hernandez, a Cuban defector, is at least 27. He didn’t wow anybody at Columbus (5.51 ERA, 7.4 K/9, 1.5 WHIP as a starter), but he acquitted himself reasonably well with the Yanks (3.68 ERA, 1.14 WHIP in 22 innings). If they’re going to find out what they’ve got in him, now may be the time.

Those are minor questions, however. The Yankees seem very content with the answers they can offer out of the bullpen at this point.

Before I put the issue of the Yanks’ big makeover to bed and depart for the ski slopes of Utah, I have some final thoughts on the ramifications of their spending this winter. I’ll be back with those in my next piece, as well as some words about what’s going on elsewhere.

Remaking the Yankees, Part V-Point-Two: Patching the Rotation

In my last piece, I examined the Yankee pitching rotation’s performance in 2001, and pointed out the gulf that existed between their top-line starters and the back of the rotation. Today I’ll examine their options for constructing the rotation for 2002.

Their Big Three–Mike Mussina, Roger Clemens, and Andy Pettite–will return as the front end, and while one could quibble about various aspects of their performance, they provide a strong foundation that nearly any team would kill for. Clemens will turn 40 in August, but has pitched significantly better in the latter half of his thirties (three Cy Youngs in the Dan Duquette-termed “twilight of his career”) than the former half, so this shouldn’t be too much cause for alarm. Mussina, coming off of arguably his finest season, just turned 33 and should be more comfortable in New York than he was last year. Pettitte improved his control considerably and showed signs of evolving into a power pitcher. He turns 30 in mid-June and already has 115 major-league wins under his belt. You could do worse.

Which brings us to the back end of the rotation, where two spots are up for grabs right now. Speculation about this has been rampant since the World Series, with everybody from David Wells to John Smoltz to Hideo Nomo to Jason Schmidt mentioned as a possible free-agent signing. Additionally, three pitchers who saw limited time in the Yanks’ rotation in 2001 are still in the mix as of this writing, though that situation could change very soon.

So without further ado, let’s take a look at some of the candidates (ages are as of July 1, 2002, innings are rounded to the nearest whole, ERA+ is a measure which compares the pitcher’s ERA to the park-adjusted league average–100 means that the pitcher was league-average, a 110 ERA+ means the pitcher was 10 percent better than the league average):

                Age   --------2001--------   ------Career------

                      IP  W-L   ERA  ERA+    W-L     ERA  ERA+

Hernandez (R)   36    95  4-7  5.63   92    45-33   4.13  113

Hitchcock (L)   30    70  6-5  5.63   77    67-67   4.75   91

Lilly     (L)   26   121  5-6  5.37   83     5-7    5.73   79

Wells     (L)   39   101  5-7  4.47  103   166-114  4.08  110

Nomo      (R)   33   198 13-10 4.50  101    82-71   4.05  104

Schmidt   (R)   29   150 13-7  4.07  103    56-54   4.50   97

Not exactly the most promising lot, at first glance–no one who was significantly better than league average in ERA, at least. Several of the pitchers are coming off of injuries: El Duque missed two months with toe surgery and had question-marks about his elbow hanging over his head all season; Hitchcock came back from Tommy John surgery; Wells was shelved after June 28 with a back problem that required the knife.

A closer look at each once:

• Acquired near the trading deadline from San Diego last summer, Hitchcock may be close to re-signing or already re-signed as I write this, but the Yanks have been delaying their official free-agent announcements until they seal the Giambi deal. Reportedly it’s a 2-year, $12 million contract. I’m not big on the idea. Coming off of surgery, Hitchcock was tagged routinely until October, when he gained enough strength to give his fastball some life (it was in the high 80s, not exactly Ryan country). In October, he went 2-0 with a 3.06 ERA in 17.2 innings, pitching a complete game in the season’s final week, then picking up a win in Game 5 of the World Series. He’s a good strikeout pitcher (7.0 per 9 IP, with a career high of 194) when healthy. But Hitchcock has never put together a season with a winning record and a better-than-average ERA. And he’s never won more than 13 games. They say lefty pitchers don’t really find themselves until they’re 30; while it’s possible Hitchcock could develop into a solid 12-10 man, I don’t see much more upside than that.

• Hernandez was once considered to be one of the many aces of the Yankee staff. But he’s only 16-20 the past two years, with a 4.61 ERA (105 ERA+), and he may have worn out his welcome with his enigmatic tendencies (including lying about his age) and his macho refusal to report injuries. From where I sit, the Yanks have cultivated the existing communications gap just as much as El Duque. Their failure to retain first base coach Jose Cardenal, El Duque’s translator, after the ’98 season, and subsequently not hire a Spanish-speaking coach has contributed greatly to El Duque’s wariness of communicating with the Yankees’ staff.

Hernandez is a free agent, but one with fewer than six years of major league service, and thus still bound to the Yanks (so long as they offer him a contract by December 20). He’s been the subject of several trade rumors, most recently in a package to Anaheim for Daren Erstad. Nobody really knows how many miles are on El Duque’s arm at this point and Yanks aren’t sure they want to find out.

But given his past two seasons, I don’t think he’s liable to command a big contract, and at the price (say, $4-6 million), the Yanks aren’t going to find a pitcher with more big-game experience and a higher upside, even given his age. He pitched well in September (4-1, 2.88 ERA) and had two solid, gutty starts in the postseason (the third start, in the 14-3 drubbing they took in Game 3 of the ALCS, was right after the death of his father, as we later learned). If the Yanks are going on late-season auditions, his was much more substantial than Hitchcock’s, and he probably won’t cost more.

• Lilly had his ups and downs in his rookie season, making 21 starts for the Yanks. There’s definitely some promise there–in 120.2 innings, he struck out 112 and only allowed 126 hits. But as his ERA attests, he took his lumps. His troubles were due to giving up too many walks (3.8 per 9 IP) and too many homers (1.5 per 9 IP). Better control and more experience are all he needs–he doesn’t lack for stuff or the ability to challenge hitters. I’d hate to see him wearing another uniform when become the #3-#4 starter he looks to be.

• Nomo hasn’t drawn serious interest from the Yankees. He broke off talks with the Red Sox, who were reportedly offering 3 years at $20 million, and thus will be searching for his seventh team in the past five years. He showed flashes of brilliance in 2001, including a no-hiter in his first start for Boston. But he was awful in the second half, collapsing with the rest of the team: after a 5-0 July, he went 2-6 with a 6.98 ERA. And if you want a communications gap, well… remember that Hideki Irabu wasn’t that long ago. End of story.

• Schmidt is a pitcher the Yanks have long coveted, dating back to his days as a Pittsburgh Pirate (ironically enough, the outfielder he was traded for last summer, John Vander Wal, was just landed in a trade for Jay Witasick). He missed the first five weeks of 2001 after undergoing surgery to repair a frayed rotator cuff in August 2000. Still, he posted the strongest season of his career, and is seeking a long-term deal. Reportedly, he’s close to one with the Giants (at 4 years + option for $34 million) or the Mariners, while the Yankees have yet to make an offer. He would be a decent addition, but I wouldn’t bother leaving the light on for him at this point.

• Wells has been itching to get back into pinstripes since the moment he left in the Roger Clemens trade. If it’s ever going to happen, now is the time. Cast adrift after an injury-shortened season which followed yet another controversial trade, he is reportedly prepared to accept a low up-front, incentive-laden contract to prove he’s healthy. He has his suitors; the Rangers are interested, and Wells’s agent has called attention to the Diamondbacks’ interest–probably to spur George Steinbrenner’s competitive check-writing juices. I wouldn’t normally go around recommending 39-year-old overweight pitchers with outsized personalities who are coming off of back surgery, but hey, this is Boomer–a man who lives to pitch in Yankee Stadium and who does it as well as any active player (28-9, 3.27 ERA lifetime). When he’s healthy, he eats innings with the same voracious appetite he has for salted meat products (200+ innings for six straight years, several bouts of gout as well). Torre may be wary of some of his personality traits, but with something to prove and a small safety net to work with, Wells is liable to be on his best behavior. At the price, he may be worth a gamble even if he knocks Lilly back into the bullpen for awhile.

With Hitchcock all but signed, the Yanks have the jump on me here. I’ve more or less given the thumbs-up to three pitchers, all of them relatively known commodities in Yankeeland, and none of them Hitchcock. If he’s added, that leaves my trio competing for one spot. It’s possible Lilly would start the season in the bullpen, though a trade isn’t out of the question (I’d hate to see it happen, though). And the Yanks have several young hurlers on the horizon (Brandon Claussen, Alex Graman, Adrian “El Duquecito” Hernandez, and Brandon Knight–see this handy article at mlbprospect.com for more on them) who may push Lilly out the door.

Meaning, even if you stash Lilly in the bullpen, it probably comes down to a choice between El Duque or Boomer. Two old guys, questionable health-wise but with no shortage of personality or history with the Yanks. I’d hate to have to choose between the two. My emotional attachment to both may be clouding my judgement, but I think they’re each capable of solid seasons at a reasonable price. With Pettitte, Hitchcock, and Lilly in the fold, the Yanks would be stocked for lefty starters and I can’t see that adding another (Wells) would make as much sense. So I’d pick El Duque. But my gut feeling is that the Yanks are leaning the other direction, partially because Hernandez has some trade value, because they feel compelled to punish El Duque for his enigmatic ways, and because it’s no secret George Steinbrenner has a soft spot for the big man. While I’d welcome seeing Boomer in pinstripes under nearly every other circumstance, I’d hate to see the crafty Cuban go on his way.

I’ll evaluate the Yanks’ bullpen this weekend. Meanwhile, the announcements have come down: the Giambi deal is done, Rondell White has been signed to a 2-year, $10 million contract and will play leftfield, and John Vander Wal was acquired in a trade for Jay Witasick and will likely platoon with Shane Spencer in right. First, White: a 30-year-old product of the Expos system who the Yanks tried to get last year before acquiring David Justice, White brings a similar reputation to Justice for being injury-prone. He’s been on the DL seven times in the past six years, he’s averaged only 110 games a year over that span. But when he plays, he does hit–.351 career OBP, .484 SLG, .371 and .529 in 95 games last year. White is a relative bargain when compared to Moises Alou, who seemed to intentionally price himself out of the market. His speed has decreased considerably with his knee problems (only 6 SB the past two seasons after a high of 25 and five straight years of double-digits), and he’s certainly a risk. But he may well flourish if healthy. Vander Wal: a 36-year-old lefty with a .364 OBP and .442 SLG (.357 and .442 for his career) who’s become a semi-regular after being one of the game’s best pinch-hiters. He doesn’t have great range or a great arm, but he’s relatively sure-handed. Adding him to a platoon with Spencer automatically strengthens the bench. And by trading away Witasick, a middle-relief bust acquired for infielder D’Angelo Jiminez, Yanks GM Brian Cashman may finally get the rabid sabermetric critics of that deal to put a sock in it. Which is worth something in the circles I travel in.

One final note of gratitude for Pete Sommers at Baseball News Blog and Sean Forman at Baseball Primer for highlighting this series in their web logs. This page is on its third straight week of record-high readership thanks in part to their kind words. I hope those of you coming here for the first time have been sufficiently impressed to keep coming back for more (take a look around the rest of the site while you’re here). I promise it’s not all Yankees, all the time–I’ve got several other pieces in the works when I’m done with the Big Makeover.

Remaking the Yankees, Part V: Assessing the Rotation

I’ve spent the past week and a half evaluating the Yankees’ options for revamping their offense this offseason. Given the attrition of several of their less effective hitters and the ability to spend BIG dollars to replace those hitters with significantly better ones, there’s no doubt that the Yankee offense should see a big boost in 2002. At least once Jason Giambi signs on the dotted line and the Yanks land themselves a reasonably competent corner outfielder or two, that is.

But when it comes to the Yankees’ perennial plans for October, the name of the game is pitching. No better illustration of this came than when they made their big free-agent splash last winter by signing Mike Mussina rather than a big hitter to bolster their sagging offense. The signing gave the Yanks four top-line starters, in Mussina, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and Orlando Hernandez–on paper the best quartet in baseball going into the season. Today I’ll examine how that vaunted rotation performed, and move into the Yanks’ options in my next piece.

Three of the four top-line starters–Clemens, Mussina, and Pettitte–lived up to their billing and managed to stay reasonably healthy in 2001. Pettitte missed a few starts, but as a group they made 61% of the Yanks’ starts, exactly what we would have expected in a five-man rotation. Orlando Hernandez, on the other hand, didn’t hold up his end of the bargain. To the puzzlement of Joe Torre, Mel Stottlemyre, and crew, El Duque struggled during the first two months of the season (0-5, 5.14 ERA) before revealing that he had been concealing a toe injury which hampered his mechanics. Sidelined for two months by surgery, he came back strong, going 4-1 with a 2.88 ERA in September.

Hernandez’s early-season troubles created a domino-effect mess at the back end of the Yankees rotation. While El Duque was dragging his damaged body out to the mound every fifth day, the Yanks were struggling to identify a #5 starter. Rookie Christian Parker won the job out of spring training, got shelled in his first outing, developed tendonitis and was done for the year. Rookie Randy Keisler made two starts, stunk up the joint and created an even big stink when he was demoted. Yet another rookie, Ted Lilly, took over the #5 spot and acquitted himself reasonably well before becoming the de facto #4 when El Duque went down. At that point, Kiesler rejoined the rotation, and when Adrian Hernandez (still another rookie, and a Cuban-defector protege of El Duque) subbed for Pettitte through a couple of turns, the Yanks suddenly had three rookies in their rotation.

The results, as one would expect, were not pretty, and Yankee GM Brian Cashman finally acquired an experienced (if significantly less than 100%) arm in the form of Sterling Hitchcock. Hitchcock, still recovering from Tommy John surgery, was tattooed on a slightly less frequent basis than the rookies. Not until El Duque returned strong in September did the Yanks have their playoff-projected quartet of top-liners in place.

Looking at the statistics of these pitchers as a group, there’s a wide chasm between the Big Three and the rest of the group. The Big Three combined to go 52-24 with a 3.53 ERA, while Your Name Here went 12-24 with a 5.96 ERA. Here are their performances as starters only (Innings Pitched have been rounded, the AVG, OBP, SLG and SL*OB are the opposing hitters stats against each pitcher):

            IP   W-L   ERA   RS   K/9  K/W  WHIP  HR/9  AVG   OPB   SLG  SL*OB

Mussina   229  17-11 3.15  4.53  8.4  5.1  1.07  0.8  .237  .271  .358  .097

Clemens   220  20-3  3.51  6.58  8.7  3.0  1.26  0.8  .246  .305  .375  .114

Pettitte  201  15-10 3.99  6.46  7.4  4.0  1.32  0.6  .281  .313  .397  .124  



Lilly     104   4-6  5.63  4.62  8.4  2.0  1.53  1.5  .267  .337  .464  .156

Hernandez  91   3-7  5.06  3.61  7.3  1.8  1.42  1.9  .248  .324  .452  .147

Keisler    51   1-2  6.22  6.75  6.4  1.1  1.70  2.1  .259  .366  .358  .180

Hitchcock  50   4-4  6.16  7.42  4.9  1.6  1.65  0.9  .315  .366  .469  .172

Cy Young Award to the contrary, Mike Mussina was the best Yankee starter, hands down. His ERA was 0.36 better than Clemens, and he had significantly better rate stats with regards to K/W ratio and WHIP (Walks + Hits per Inning Pitched) than Clemens did. Andy Pettitte was off to his best season ever until a late dip; still, he significantly improved with regards to his stamina, WHIP, walks and strikeouts per nine innings and his K/W ratio (I published a piece on his improvement in the wee hours of September 11, just before the world as we know it changed). He wasn’t as good as either Clemens or Mussina overall, but he was better than the one in the catalog.

I took a novel look at the Yankee starters by examining the offensive performance of the hitters that faced them. Using Extrapolated Runs, I calculated Offensive Winning Percentages for the batters facing each one, then multiplied by the number of decisions and compared that to the pitchers’ actual Won-Lost records. The results confirm what we already know–Clemens was very lucky with regards to wins and losses (six wins above the projection), Mussina fairly unlucky (almost three wins below). Run support obviously played a big factor in that disparity–the Yanks scored over two runs per game more for Clemens (and Pettitte) than for Mussina. Pettite was almost dead on in this projection (the four categories stand for Offensive Winning Percentage Against, Projected Wins, Projected Losses, and Wins Above the projection):

           OWPA    PW    PL    WA

Mussina   .290  19.9   8.1  -2.9   

Clemens   .392  14.0   9.0   6.0

Pettitte  .416  15.2  10.8  -0.2

Lilly     .569   4.3   5.7  -0.3

Hernandez .572   4.3   5.7  -1.3

Kiesler   .663   1.0   2.0   0.0

Hitchcock .624   3.0   5.0  -1.0

Does anybody still think Clemens deserved that Cy Young?

Anyway, I could play with the numbers all day (I did, in fact). In my next piece, I’ll explore how this all shakes down as the Yanks plan for 2002.

Remaking the Yanks, Part IV-Point-Something: The Ventura Deal

It’s not as if the Futility Infielder eight-ball didn’t see the possiblity of a David Justice-for-Robin Ventura trade coming. But when it was being discussed in the New York Post a few of days ago, I took it for the Post’s usual modus operandi when it comes to the Yanks. I’ve often felt that their writers covering any NY team write about what they want to see happen, either as a best- or worst-case scenario (Jordan/Ewing/Tino/Boomer/Tuna is coming back with the Knicks/Yanks/Mets/Jets/Rockettes) rather than what will happen. So I waved it off, writing, “It’s hard to see how that trade helps either team from a financial standpoint. It might solve the Yanks short-term third base needs, but at the expense of outfield production.”

I wasn’t wrong about the financial angle. The difference in salaries (Justice will make $7 million, Ventura $8.25 mil) won’t prevent the Yanks from signing Jason Giambi, and it won’t help the Mets sign Barry Bonds, unless Steve Phillips can ship Justice off for some cheaper talent. But while it’s obviously a trade that’s short-term in nature (both players are in the final year of their contracts), I do think it’s a good one, particularly for the Yankees.

On the surface, what we have here is a challenge trade involving two proven veterans coming off of disappointing, injury-plagued seasons. Justice hit .241 with 18 HR and 51 RBI while hampered by groin problems, Ventura hit .237 with 20 HR and 61 RBI while struggling with shoulder problems that have contributed to two consecutive sub-par seasons.

But if you look at it more closely, it’s easy to be convinced that the Yanks are getting the better end of the deal. For one thing, Ventura’s season wasn’t all that bad. He still managed 88 walks and a .359 On Base Percentage, only five points off of his carer mark. And that .359 OBP is 16 points higher than Scott Brosius, who had a good year with the bat by his own standards. Here are the lines of the two traded players, along with Brosius:

           2001 OBP/SLG/SL*OB        Career OBP/SLG/SL*OB               

Justice    .333/.430/.142 (439 PA)   .378/.507/.192

Ventura    .359/.419/.150 (549 PA)   .364/.447/.163

Brosius    .343/.446/.153 (478 PA)   .323/.422/.136

Ventura was about 5% more productive than Justice on a per at-bat basis, and not far off of his own career level (down 8%). In a down year, he was almost on-par with Brosius. Justice was waaaaay off, down about 25% from his career level of productivity.

And then there’s the defense. For starter’s there’s a larger market for corner outfielders than third basemen, not just this year, but in any year–that’s just the normal distribution of talent. Justice is so highly thought of for his defense that he’s been a DH for about half of the American League portion of his career (334 times in 675 games). On the other hand, Ventura plays a difficult position and has six Gold Gloves to his name, most recently in 1999. He has fallen off a bit in the past two seasons, but he still had a better season with the leather than Scott Brosius (who fielded a lousy .935 this year). In fact, he’s got slight edges on Brosius, career-wise, in fielding percentage, range factor, double plays and zone rating (though not enough to draw conclusions without analyzing the groundball tendencies of their respective pitching staffs).

Ventura had shoulder surgery after the ’99 season, but the shoulder has continued to bother him. He struggled mightily last summer, hitting only .183 from June through August, though he had a strong September (.286 AVG/.412 OBP/.536 SLG) as the Mets pushed the Atlanta Braves for the NL (L)East title. Reportedly he’s taken a new approach to his training this offseason, involving kick-boxing. It should help him if he’s looking for a rematch with Nolan Ryan, and it probably couldn’t hurt if the Sox ever recall Izzy Alcantara. But the bottom line is that hif he’s reasonably healthy, he should be as good or better than Brosius, and he buys (albeit at a steep price) some time for Drew Henson to develop.

On the other side of the coin… I spent a lot of time during the postseason ragging on Justice, who looked awful for most of the year, and especially bad in the World Series. In 2001, he lived up to his injury-prone nature, and had a career-worst season. But that doesn’t detract from what he did in 2000, coming over to the Yanks in a trade from the Indians and igniting the Yankee offense with 20 HR and 60 RBI in a half-season. Those 87-win Yanks may well have missed the playoffs without him, and his home run in Game 6 of the AL Championship Series, off of the Mariners’ Arthur Rhodes, goes down as one of the biggest of the Torre Era (it was still giving me shivers when they played it during pre-games and rain delays at Yankee Stadium in the fall).

Justice may well help some team in 2002, but there’s a good chance it won’t be the Mets. One of the reasons Phillips traded for Justice is that unlike Ventura, he doesn’t have any no-trade restrictions in his contract. As he’s probably not capable of a 140-game season in the outfield, he’ll likely wind up back in the American League. But even if the Mets did keep him, he would help a sad outfield whose top hitter was Tsuyoshi Shinjo (.268, 10 HR, 56 RBI, .320 OBP, .405 SLG). Not exactly amazin’.

As for the rest of the Yanks latest offensive facelift (since I’ve blown my piece on the rotation off for at least another day), wild reports are emanating from ESPN. Bob Klapisch reports that the Yanks are growing disturbed about Jason Giambi’s hesitancy to close the deal. Giambi was reportedly huddling with his family in Las Vegas this weekend to mull his options–or to wait for another suitor (or a credible counteroffer from the A’s) to emerge. Meanwhile, over on Planet Gammons, Ol’ Pete seems to have gone off of his medication, and not just the kind that prevents him from those run-on sentences (see the opening paragraph of this column). Gammons concocts a scenario whereby both Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds end up in pinstripes. Somebody get this guy a doctor. On a much more rational note, the New York Times suggests that the Yanks are pursuing Giants outfielder John Vander Wal, a 36-year old lefty who hit .270 with 14 HR and 70 RBI (.364 OBP/.442 SLG). I’ll let you guess which Giant my money is on for donning the stripes.

Technical Difficulties

Apologies to any of you who had trouble finding this page earlier today. Apparently something is wrong with Reblogger, the service which allows readers to post comments to each article. I had to disable that feature–hell, I had to go on a search-and-destroy mission within my site’s code to weed it out–because when it went down it prevented this page from loading.

I’ll be looking into other alternatives in the next few days. Again, sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for trying again. And now, back to my series about the Yankees’ offseason facelift…