tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66311252307795477242023-11-16T08:17:10.511-05:00The Outsiders Look at the Insides of BaseballBrandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.comBlogger272125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-75523755695414480082012-04-25T14:30:00.000-04:002012-04-25T14:30:00.517-04:00Fixing the BoSox...or NotI picked the Boston Red Sox to win the American League East, I also picked the Rangers to finish second to the Angels in the American League West. I'm glad we're only two weeks in.<br />
<br />
While I may have been one of the more optimistic prognosticators when it came to the Red Sox, I simply can't understand the crazies who think there needs to be major changes in Boston in order for this team to turn things around.<br />
<br />
Here's the thing, the Red Sox pitching has been atrocious, unbearably bad. As of this post, they own a team ERA of 6.27, their starters, a hefty 5.63. You know how you fix this team? Give them a couple weeks to watch the ERA's of Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, and Josh Beckett's respective numbers to fall dramatically.<br /><br />Unless of course you believe that what those pitchers are doing is for real.<br />
<br />
If not, then there is no need to worry. There is especially no need to make any ridiculous changes as ex-GM Jim Bowden proposes. These changes, in order of idiocracy begin with moving Kevin Youkilis and replacing him with Wil Middlebrooks. It continues with swapping the Red Sox RF platoon, a platoon that has the highest OPS among team rightfield numbers in the league (.955 OPS) with the underachieving Dominic Brown (acquired in the Youk trade). And finally it suggests the Arizona Diamondbacks would trade their top of the line catcher for <i>three</i> Red Sox catchers.<br />
<br />
How do these moves make the Red Sox better?<br />
<br />
There is no one who would argue that Middlebrooks would outperform Youkilis. Yes, Middlebrooks is off to an incredible start, and Youkilis is off to a horrible start, but the difference between triple A and the majors is akin to the difference between being <i>in</i> China and being <i>in</i> a Chinese restaurant at the mall.<br />
<br />
We're looking at a substantial loss here for the Red Sox, probably close to two wins on the season.<br />
<br />
Then the idea of bringing in Brown. Brown who certainly deserves a chance, <i>should</i> be traded out of Philadelphia. Actually, Brown should be starting for Philadelphia, bet he's not. But the problem with the Red Sox isn't in the outfield, specifically, it doesn't exist in right field where the combination of Ryan Sweeney and Cody Ross will easily outperform whatever Brown's ceiling may be. <br />
<br />
Again, we're looking at a team loss here, probably only worth a win, but enough to make the last day of the season not very exciting.<br />
<br />
Finally the addition of Miguel Montero. An excellent idea. Who wouldn't love to add this guy? Even the Twins who are playing a catcher in right field could use his services.<br />
<br />
But does Bowden really believe that the Diamondbacks would trade him for not one, not two, but <i>three</i> catchers? Granted Blake Swihart has a decent ceiling. Ryan Lavarnway should put together a nice major league career once he figures out what to do defensively. And Jarrod Saltalammachia is an <i>okay</i> place filler, there is no way the Diamondbacks make this deal, at least not now. Possibly they come around to it in the middle of July if they are out of the playoff hunt, but right now, what a joke!<br />
<br />
A gain here, but an impossible gain that can't be counted on.<br />
<br />
<br />
The main thing to understand here isn't that the Red Sox need fixing, they need time. They have had a terrible start to a season which saw them opening up against five teams which were all projected to be well above .500. But between now and May 9th they go on a stretch against some terrible teams (Minnesota, Oakland, Baltimore, and Kansas City) which could see them going on a 12-4 run which would easily get them above .500 an make everyone forget about lynching Youkilis.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-5639995360398290082012-04-06T12:00:00.002-04:002012-04-06T13:02:34.798-04:002012 Predictions....American LeagueI know I haven't written in a while but I thought with the excitement of Opening Days and all the picks of "experts" and talking heads that I'd again throw my hat in the ring. I'm going to break down every team and give my prediction on where they should rank this season.<br /><br />American League<br /><br />East<br /><br />I don't agree that this is the power house division everyone says it is. There are a lot of holes, a lot of aging players, some awful rotations. Where it is strong is in the prospect ranks which makes the top 4 teams in this division buyers on the trade market.<br /><br />1. Boston Red Sox<br />I think they have the best hitting lineup, possibly in all of the Majors once Carl Crawford returns. It would be nice for them to make a move for a RFer, but the system has some pieces that could fill that hole if need be - which it shouldn't need.<br /><br />The rotation could be the best in the division, I'd say at worst it is the second best. The area of concern here is with health as even their #4 and #5 are big question marks.<br /><br />In any event, the Sox should be able to take the division as they are the team with the least amount of flaws and the best top end players in the division.<br /><br />2. Tampa Bay Rays<br />The Rays are a team of fewer weaknesses rather than many strengths. The rotation is probably the best in the division as this team could boast three #1 starters. The bullpen will be strong but it won't be relied on heavily.<br /><br />Offensively and defensively this is a good cast of players. Longoria is the only superstar but there aren't any other holes.<br /><br />3. New York Yankees<br />I know CC Sabathia took the mound every three days a few years back in Milwaukee, but that's not going to happen this year. So who do you trust as even a #3 in this rotation? Simply put, I don't think they have the rotation depth to get it done...Yet. In a year or two when Betances and Banuelos are ready and relied on, but for now there is a lot of junk-at-the-wall throwing going on in this rotation. Don't tell me that Kuroda and Pineda are the answers in that ballpark, in that division, with that fly ball rate. The bullpen will again be dynamite, and that might be enough to save them from a bunch of 4 inning starts.<br /><br />Offensively, this team isn't getting any younger. Granderson is off of a career year and I rarely bet on a player to improve on his numbers after a career year. Aside from him, where is the upside? What happens if they drop 60-80 runs scored?<br /><br />4. Toronto Blue Jays<br />This is not the Lucero of baseball in that they are everyone's darling. Offensively this team is stacked. Top to bottom it's tough to find a player who shouldn't at least exceed last year's output. This could easily be the highest scoring team in the league if everything goes right. Big statement as they were 6th in the Majors in scoring last year, but still, this team can, and will rake. Edwin Encarnacion is my breakout player on this team.<br /><br />However, the reason this team ranks 4th, their rotation. What a mess!!! They have two starters and that's it. There is a little bit of wishing with those two starters as is. If this is 2013, it's one thing, but the Jays are thin with upper level prospect pitchers and it's going to come through this season.<br /><br />5. Baltimore Orioles<br />This team just got unlucky. Had things gone according to plan, this team would be ready to contend this year. Unfortunately, all of that hope that was in the rotation (Britton, Matusz, and Tillman) has gone in the complete wrong direction. Unfortunately that happens.<br /><br />Offensively this team is fine and should see improvements from where they were in 2011. We're not looking at any easy win for a starter, but we're also not looking at a 1-9 like the Sox. I'm also betting there are going to be some pieces sold at some point today. This is the easiest pick in baseball.<br /><br />Central<br /><br />Everyone, I mean everyone is saying the Tigers will run away with this division, I don't see it.<br /><br />1. Chicago White Sox<br />What changed with this team from 2010 to 2011? Essentially nothing. Yet for some reason this team dropped 100 runs offensively. They won't be that bad. Rios and Dunn will more then make up for that and this team will again score 750.<br /><br />On the pitching side of the ball the rotation is excellent, arguably the best in the division. Is there a #1? No. Maybe not even a #2. But there are easily 4 #3s which is more then enough when you have the bats this team possesses. 90 wins will be enough to win this division and that's where the ChiSox will finish.<br /><br />2. Cleveland Indians<br />I'm coming around on the rotation and I like how they built their infield around defense. The club is going to be pesky and get starters out early as they will get on base a lot. Lot's of areas for improvement top to bottom and the team couldn't possibly be less healthy then they were last year.<br /><br />The rotation is nice and I'm looking forward to seeing them develop as a unit. Not having a lefty just feels weird, as does not having a closer, but that's what makes this team a #2 instead of a #1.<br /><br />However, this club is thin and another injury to one of their stars and the season is over.<br /><br />3. Detroit Tigers<br />What was the difference between 2011 and 2010? Or 2009? Career years. Top to bottom this club received career years from their players. Jose Valverde didn't blow a single save last year. he probably should be expected to blow at least 5. Let's be lazy and call those 5 losses. Now we're a 90 win team. How about Fister, what were his numbers last year? Verlander has to be expected to take a step back. So on the pitching side I can see this team dropping 8-10 wins.<br /><br />How about with the bats? Who sees Jhonny Peralta having another career year? At age "30"? How about Avila? Did they really improve with Fielder over Martinez? Let's not even talk about the infield defense.<br /><br />Like I said, 2011 had everything go right for this team. Not only did everything click for them in-house, but the club also got lightning in a bottle from the other clubs in the division who were no-shows from June on-wards.<br /><br />4. Minnesota Twins<br />I don't hate this team. It's not great, but it has what the Sox have in that they can't possibly be as unlucky as they were the previous year. The hitters will improve top to bottom as nearly everyone was injured or had a career year, albeit in the wrong direction.<br /><br />The pitching staff is shallow, but it too has upside. And the bullpen again has some depth.<br /><br />In all honesty, I could see the Twins overtaking the Tigers in this division.<br /><br />5. Kansas City Royals.<br />This team has no rotation. None. And like the Orioles, the highly regarded arms they did have in the system haven't looked too great. It's going to take some clever work by Moore to get this club moving up the ladder. Fortunately they have the chips in the cupboard to make some noise with trades like they did with Sanchez.<br /><br />The hitting should be solid for this team, but like the Tigers, there were a lot of career years for this club. The difference, those career years were from hitters that are in their prime. Still, it's tough to see Francouer or Gordon being as good as they was last year, same goes for Hosmer who should be a star, just not yet.<br /><br />West<br /><br />Everyone is taking the Rangers but as you have seen, I have my reservations against teams coming off of career years.<br /><br />1. Anaheim Angels<br />You add Albert Pujols to an already playoff caliber team, you make the playoffs. You swap Bobby Abreu with Kendry Morales, you dominate your division. This club even had a fair amount of down years from their hitters. Which is why their additions should add about 100 runs, which will also be enough to get them in the playoffs.<br /><br />Then, there is their rotation. The best in baseball in my opinion. It is young, durable, and absolutely deep, with 4 studs. The issue is if an injury creeps up on them. However, that shouldn't be an issue given the history of these pitchers. This could be an <span style="font-style: italic;">easy</span> 100 win team if there ever was one.<br /><br />2. Texas Rangers<br />We're probably looking at a Wild Card team here. More because of what they have to play against half of the time then on actual talent. Yes this team has a lot offensively, but it also has a lot of problems. I'm not banking on Josh Hamilton not falling off the wagon again. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Napoli far exceeded expectations. So too did Beltre. Cruz was a monster. Young isn't young. Just like the Yankees and the Tigers a great deal of regression has to be expected.<br /><br />The pitching should be interesting to watch and may be enough to put this team over the top. Darvish sounds like he is a monster, but let's see how the workload and weather stateside fairs on him. Keep in mind he was pitching most of his games in temperature controlled ballparks. Texas is <span style="font-style: italic;">hot</span>! The rest of the rotation is also a bunch of question marks, something a word-series bound team doesn't need to face.<br /><br />Anyone who picks this team for the World Series is just copy and pasting last years results.<br /><br />3. Seattle Mariners<br />A lot went wrong for this team last year. Not a lot will go right this year. However, it won't be as bad as last year and there is reason for hope. Offensively they should be better across the board, just look at Chone Figgins and Justin Smoak. They also added a dangerous prospect in some guy named Jesus Montero to improve on the worst DH spot in the league from a year ago, tough to imagine his OPS is less than .650.<br /><br />On the pitching side this club will be okay. Most of the starters are just biding their time until a flux of young, high upside arms. This team is poised for a big move in 2013 and with deep pockets, the rest of the West should be alert.<br /><br />4. Oakland A's<br />The worst team in the American League in my opinion. There aren't going to be a lot of runs scored at McAfee Collesium, at least not for the green and gold. The plus side, they might sell some additional tickets which won't force them to close the middle deck as well (my attempt at a joke, but do they even have a middle deck?)<br /><br />The pitching is all prospects so whoever is throwing today doesn't really matter except for who they flip them for in a couple months. I can't see anyone being off-limits.<br /><br />The hitting is starting to show some signs of development, but I expect a lot of strikeouts from these guys, which doesn't bode well when you are in a pitchers park.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-84546296073491270872011-02-09T15:18:00.003-05:002011-02-09T16:09:54.593-05:00Dear Yahoo/Experts League OrganizersMay you <span style="font-style: italic;">please</span> allow me to join a league with Brandon Funston?<br /><br />Yesterday Yahoo released their <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/fantasy/mlb/news;_ylt=AlYs18AfF8wan5s6wpacYoW5bZ8u?slug=ys-expertpoll-11preseason1-sp">starting pitcher preseason ranks</a>. Mr. Funston tabbed <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4930&position=P">Jon Lester</a> as his 11th best starting pitcher. That's right, 11th! Meaning there are 10 pitchers that are superior to Lester.<br /><br />Now I know it is common for experts to undervalue pitchers, claiming that there are soooo many, and I will admit that I easily overvalue Lester - I have him as my #1 or #2 starter entering this season, I'm extremely bullish on him.<br /><br />Here's the line I'm thinking for Lester for 2011 season - his age 27 season:<br />20w, 240k, 2.80, and 1.15<br /><br />Honestly, I feel as though 20w might be a couple low, but it's tough to project more then 20 wins for any pitchers under any circumstances.<br /><br />Now, the argument for why I see an improvement. First, the defensive squad behind Lester is arguably the best in baseball. While he pitches in a hitter friendly environment, his ground ball tendencies, that got even better in 2010, should negate the environment. This should then help decrease his ERA and WHIP.<br /><br />Second, the wins. This Red Sox team is loaded, as I previously mentioned, in a defensive perspective, as well as it's bullpen (at least the top half), and the hitters. Speaking of the hitters, if <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=8370&position=2B">Dustin Pedroia</a> and <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4727&position=OF">Jacoby Ellsbury</a> return to the form of 2009, this is going to be a devastatingly strong lineup. In other words, stay away from pitchers from the AL East this year.<br /><br />Worst case scenario is that Lester puts up the numbers he did in 2011. While the ERA and WHIP were not the strongest of the top 10 pitchers, he easily made up for that with strikeouts and wins.<br /><br />Let's look at Funston's top 10 and their 2010 numbers:<br /><ol><li>Roy Halladay</li><li>Tim Lincecum</li><li>Adam Wainwright</li><li>Felix Hernandez </li><li>Clayton Kershaw</li><li>Cliff Lee</li><li>Josh Johnson</li><li>Ubaldo Jimenez</li><li>Tommy Hanson</li><li>Zach Grienke</li></ol>I'll ignore the top 5, even 6. But where the question marks begin to pop up are with the seventh through 10th players.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4567&position=P">Josh Johnson</a> is coming off of a season where his ERA and WHIP were incredible, neither of which are sustainable given his left on base percentage (LOB%). Further, we're talking about a guy that is fresh off of an end-of-season stint on the disabled list due to his shoulder flaring up and tightness in his back. Both of which are terrible signs for a starting pitcher that has only once logged over 200 innings and never put up 200 strikeouts. Add to the fact that the Marlins are a middling at best squad, and it's easy to think that Lester and Johnson could have similar rate stats with Lester logging an additional 40 strikeouts and 8 wins.<br /><br />Next, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3374&position=P">Ubaldo Jimenez</a>. I love the pitcher in real life and his stuff is unreal. However, he's yet to harness his control and until he does so, it's tough to rate him above Lester simply because of another unsustainable ERA. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Funston traded for Jimenez the first week in June - where his from that point out ERA was approaching 5.00. I would expect Lester to have Jimenez is all four starting pitcher categories.<br /><br />Now we come up to the biggest head scratcher. It's obvious to me that Funston made this selection based on <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9129&position=P">Tommy Hanson's</a> second half, completely ignoring the fact that aside from a nice walk rate, Hanson did nothing to deserve the numbers he put up. If those second half numbers are extrapolated over the course of a full season, we're essentially looking at <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9918&position=P">Kevin Slowey</a>. That's right, Brandon Funston feels Slowey is a top 10 pitcher.<br /><br />I like Hanson, but I don't see his second half numbers as a sign of things to come nor do I see him as the next Slowey. He's still got a lot of upside, but it's not enough to peg him as a better starter than Lester for this season.<br /><br />Lastly, Funston picked <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1943&position=P">Zach Greinke</a> over Lester. We can easily conclude that based on the teams around these respective pitchers, Lester will chalk up more wins. Yes, I understand Greinke is moving to the National League and that two years ago he put up monster numbers, but to simply assume that his one monster season is the norm is a mistake.<br /><br />Managing a fantasy baseball team is about understanding expectations. I agree that Joey Gathright <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> have become the next Juan Pierre, but it didn't happen. It is out of the question that any of these pitchers, or even another five not mentioned here jump over Lester this season? Certainly, but when we are looking at a pitcher with a clean bill of health that has dropped in 225 strikeouts for two straight seasons, pitches for a phenomenal team in all aspects of the game, and has strong groundball and control numbers, why take the <span style="font-style: italic;">risk</span> on these others with question marks. These others that have to show a semblance of certainty.<br /><br /><br />So Brandon Funston, I'm asking you to explain yourself here. Fill us in as to why you would let Jon Lester be, in a 10 team league, someone #2 pitcher.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-85419748607533552952011-02-08T17:59:00.002-05:002011-02-08T19:38:03.861-05:00Let's Try This "Blogging" Thing Again, AgainI've been thinking that it's time to try getting back into writing. I truly did enjoy it when I was at my heyday of putting out an article a day and part of me misses it. While time may play a role in not allowing me to write as much as I would like, I'm going to give it a go, again, again.<br /><br />The focus however will shift, it will shift to "Fantasy" baseball. While writing about Major League Baseball from an outsiders perspective providing feedback and breaking down trades provided a good starting off point, I feel as though I can't offer anything to the baseball community and the fans at large - at least at this point.<br /><br />As such, I will focus on fantasy baseball and essentially provide my two cents. Of course I will try to remain open-minded, albeit with a bias towards ex-Bisons, past and present Indians, Canadians, and Koreans, my objective is to provide some insight and strategy for my readers, something I feel is currently lacking. That is, outside of the <span style="font-style: italic;">major</span> media outlets, there is very little in terms of authentic fantasy baseball writing.<br /><br />Where is this coming from? Today I purchased a "fantasy" guide, USA Today's 2011 publication. Honestly, it isn't to give me an inside edge over my peers in my leagues, rather to give me something to read while otherwise preoccupied. I've went through a few articles and one specifically stood out to me. The author of the article was discussing how fantasy managers "chase" pre-rankings, and average draft positions (ADP). The author made out as if it was foolish to follow these or use them as a guide and instead, owners should create their own set of "values".<br /><br />While I won't disagree with the author's assertion that owners ought to create their own set of values - I for one have no interest in paying for a <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1327&position=OF">Jayson Werth</a> unless he costs $10-12 or is a mid to late round draft selection - I caution an owner who strictly follows their own set of values.<br /><br />Here's an example. I am in a 13 team, 5x5, mixed auction dynasty league. Two years ago in that league I took a "flyer"on <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9015&position=2B/3B">Gordon Beckham</a> in the reserve round. As you know he turned into a very promising keeper, one who cost me a very affordable $5 for the 2010 season. Unfortunately this $5 "bargain" ended up being a terrible disappointment and a huge over-expense.<br /><br />Here we are just weeks before I am due to select keepers and Beckham's price tag for the 2011 season is now inflated to $11. This is where I'm torn. Had Beckham had the 2010 season I expected him to have (or, essentially the season he is projected to have this year - .273-15-81-77 - Bill James via FanGraphs) there's no question I keep him at $11. However, after his awful sophomore season, it got me thinking that I could potentially land him for a couple dollars less, after all, his 2011 season was disastrous before a mid-season turnaround.<br /><br />In any event, even though I value Beckham as a $15-18 player and that's where I would take him in a re-draft league (I see 25 home run upside in him) I must adjust my strategy on Beckham based on his pre-draft rankings and "book" auction values. Instead of being torn whether or not to keep him at $11, a price I see him being more then worthy of, I must make a decision based on my league, not based on how I value my player.<br /><br />That is, do I feel that $11 will be a "value" in my league, or do I feel that it will be too costly? I had originally pegged Beckham at $5-7 based on feedback I had received from my league mates. However, now that I see a lot of his expert values up over $11, it's tough to imagine I'll get him at $6 below cost.<br /><br /><br />Boiling this down to one quick conclusion, while the magazine I was reading suggested that average draft position should not be your be-all end-all, and there is some merit to that, one certainly has to consider the general consensus of a player when creating his value.<br /><br />Next up, I will write about knowing your opponents.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-7748396693517084552010-10-27T17:26:00.003-04:002010-10-27T17:29:04.356-04:00Worst Blogger Alive....Since the worst blogger died.<br /><br />Quickly, San Francisco is <span style="font-style: italic;">still</span> my pick to take the World Series. The Rangers have faired well to this point while not having to face the caliber of pitching that they will see from the Giants. Further, four of the possible seven games will take place in a pitchers ball park, where those can'o'corn homers will be more along their rightful lines.<br /><br />I'm going with San Francisco in five, although I want to say six.<br /><br />Either way, Giants win.<br /><br />I think Panda has a huge series.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-25832539100469008812010-10-22T17:34:00.004-04:002010-10-23T11:45:50.465-04:00Gutting It OutI don't know a lot, or really anything about cars, so I rarely if ever give my input regarding them. I don't follow basketball and probably couldn't name the "star" player on every team in the league, so I won't stick my nose into a discussion about basketball. Football, ditto. European soccer, same thing. When someone with a background in politics raises a point regarding politics, I typically concede to that person, assuming they know what they are talking about.<br /><br />Why then, can't radio personalities do the same?<br /><br />(Maybe the greater question is why I continue to go to the sources I do for entertainment).<br /><br />I have in my short time writing made mistakes, lot's to be certain. I even mistakenly called right handed pitcher <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3543&position=P">Clay Buchholz</a> a lefty, and at the time, that was much of the reason I liked him as a prospect. I've even started <a href="http://draftshawdotcom.blogspot.com/">a second</a>, yet short lived blog about my favorite OHLer, Andrew Shaw because I felt as though he deserved to be drafted - didn't happen.<br /><br />On the radio this afternoon I heard Jim Rome (guh!) give a monologue about how <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1303&position=P">Roy "Doc" Halladay</a> had one of the gutsiest performances in recently history. Rome even asserted that this performance may have overshadowed the performance of <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=73&position=P">Curt Schilling</a> a couple years back. Rome attempted to make it out as if Halladay's performance was the fuel to ignite the fire that was the Phillies win. You can bet that if the Phillies take this series, Rome will talk about how Halladay went out there on "one leg".<br /><br />Here's the scoop if you missed out on it.<br /><br />Halladay claimed to have pulled<span style="font-style: italic;"></span> his groin sometime in the second inning. And according to Rotoworld, "might explain why his stuff looked so shaky throughout the night".<br /><br />Of course, his second inning groin pull had to do with how poorly he pitched in the first inning. It was entirely owed to the fact that Giants hitters were hammering the ball all night!<br /><br />I'm sorry, maybe I'm beginning to sound like a Doc hater, but this is going too far! The guy is a fantastic pitcher who has had a memorable season and is probably destined for the hall of fame. It's tough to say negative things about him.<br /><br />However, this wasn't a gutsy performance. What we saw was a pitcher who simply didn't have his best stuff that happened to pull his groin after 30 or so pitches.<br /><br />Pitches...Pitcher...Throwing pitches. Wait, this gives me an idea...<br /><br />Tom Verducci has the "rule of 30", where he asserts a pitcher under the age of 25 that increases his workload by more then 30 is vulnerable to injury. Entering last night's ballgame, Halladay had tossed 266.1 innings during the 2010 season (including the All Star Game and Post Season). This falls just 3.2 innings short of eclipsing the magic 30. Maybe we have something here?<br /><br />We also see that Halladay has thrown 150 more pitches during 2010 then he did during his career high season in 2003. 2004, the season after his previous career high, also resulted in Halladay missing a significant amount of time.<br /><br />I'm not saying this is an open and shut case, but could throwing a career high in innings and pitches result in Halladay running out of gas? If he were 25, almost everyone would be convinced this is true, so why not for a 33 year old? A 33 year old who year after year has been among the league leaders in pitches thrown and innings pitched.<br /><br />Baseball Prospectus has a stat called "Pitcher Abuse Points". It hasn't been used to link many injuries recently, and I'll be the first to admit the premise isn't iron-clad. In fact, this stat was created over a decade ago and not much work has been done to further it. Even BP's ex-injury expert Will Carrol wasn't found utilizing this stat.<br /><br />In any event, PAP is created using the following formula, as per BP,<br /><blockquote>These points are cumulative: a 115-pitch outing gets you 20 PAP's - 1 for each pitch from 101-110 (10 total), and 2 for each pitch from 111-115 (10 total). A 120-pitch outing is worth 30 PAP's, while a 140-pitch outing is worth 100 PAP's - more than 3 times as much. This seems fair; a pitcher doesn't get tired all at once, but fatigue sets on gradually, and with each pitch the danger of continuing to pitch grows.</blockquote>Further, BP breaks the pitch tallies into a chart as follows:<br /><br /><center><table style="width: 189px; height: 162px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#96b4d4"><td colspan="2" align="center"><b>Pitcher Abuse Points</b> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#dddddd"> <td> Situation </td> <td> PAP/Pitch </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Pitches 1-100 </td> <td align="center"> 0 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#dddddd"> <td style="text-align: center;"> Pitches 101-110 </td> <td align="center"> 1 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Pitches 111-120 </td> <td align="center"> 2 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#dddddd"> <td> Pitches 121-130 </td> <td align="center"> 3 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Pitches 131-140 </td> <td align="center"> 4 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#dddddd"> <td> Pitches 141-150 </td> <td align="center"> 5 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Pitches 151+ </td> <td align="center"> 6 </td> </tr> </tbody></table></center><br />This is all a lead up to stating that Roy Halladay has finished in the top 5 in PAP for the last five seasons, possibly pointing to a breakdown in the pitcher. Maybe pitching into October has caused the otherwise indestructible Halladay to fall apart?<br /><br /><br />I need to again state that this isn't me hating on Roy Halladay, <a href="http://www.baseballdailydigest.com/2008/10/27/2008-bdd-writers-nl-and-al-cy-young-picks/">two years ago I fought</a> tooth and nail to convince the writers at Baseball Daily Digest to use some critical thinking in making their selections. What I am doing here is proposing the idea that Halladay's "gutting it out" was possibly due to him being worn down due to overuse, something he displayed in the first inning. His "gutting it out" was not due to pulling his groin in the second inning, as his performance did not tail off after that point - he was arguably a better pitcher after the second inning.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-88816614581941213172010-10-15T15:46:00.003-04:002010-10-15T16:08:47.541-04:00ALCS and NLCSWell, I went four for four with my AL and NL division series picks. I was a little nervous about picking the Rangers over the Rays and the Giants over the Braves, but in the end, everything ended how I expected.<br /><br />On my twitter account (@TheOLIB) I tweeted that I expected the Giants to take the World Series entering the first day of the post season. I made this decision based on the pitching of the Giants and while <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1303&position=P">Roy Halladay</a> is getting all the press after his no-hitter, with people going as far as ranking him among the best right handers of all time (something I disagree with and will write about at a later date) I still feel as though the Giants 1-2-3 of <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5705&position=P">Tim Lincecum</a>, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4732&position=P">Matt Cain</a>, and <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=7507&position=P">Jonathan Sanchez</a> are superior to the Phils 1-2-3, not to mention I prefer the Giants bullpen.<br /><br />Where the Phillies have some fortune is going up against a lot of right handed pitchers, only four of the Giants active pitchers pitch from the wrong side with essentially nothing in the end game. That being said, I would anticipate seeing a lot of <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=583&position=P">Jeremy Affeldt</a> and <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1663&position=P">Javier Lopez</a> during this series and a little less <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2873&position=P">Santiago "what's my name" Casilla</a> - even though Casilla has looked incredible this season.<br /><br />I still have the Giants taking this series in what should go the distance. Hopefully this series has Lincecum winning a couple of games head-to-head against Halladay which will remind people that while Doc has been a phenomenal pitcher for his career, his timing is what truly makes his career stand out (pre-Schilling, post-Hernandez/Lincecum dominance).<br /><br />Over in the American League I'm going with the Yankees taking the Rangers. I'm taking this one based on strategy, not so much the strategy of having <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1636&position=P">Cliff Lee</a> heading to the bump for game three, but for sending <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3580&position=P">CJ Wilson</a> out there for game one. I would have conceded game one and wend for back to back W's without <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=404&position=P">CC Sabathia</a> on the hill. That is, Wilson is essentially going to have to outpitch Sabathia to win game one, not an easy task facing any group of hitters, but against the Yanks, that much more difficult.<br /><br />Additionally, this is a possible seven game series where a shaky bullpen is that much more vulnerable, especially against experienced hitters that are solid at putting the ball in play. With all the Yankees hitters up to full speed, it's doubtful the Rangers will have an easy inning towards the end of the game. That said, I see this one ending in five, maybe six with experts blaming it on Washington for the wrong reason (Lee) rather then the rotation configuration as a whole.<br /><br /><br />So again, Yankees over the Rangers in the ALCS and Giants over the Phillies in the NLCS with the Giants taking home the World Series.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-84476214316648123092010-10-12T14:00:00.004-04:002010-10-12T14:48:10.215-04:00Curiosity Kills SomethingRight, it's playoff time and I'm making a quick post about a single-A catcher, deal with it. I made my Division Series picks at the final hour over on <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/theolib">my twitter page</a> (yea, I "tweet") and also promised for a post that evening - best unemployed writer, ever!<br /><br />Anyways, there has been a fair amount of negative things written about Nationals catching prospect <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa390384&position=C/DH">Derek Norris</a>. Here are comments by two of the industries most well-known prospect authors.<br /><ul><li>Kevin Goldstein stated, "[Norris] became an on-base machine with little power" while giving him a mulligan due to injuries (I'll touch on these later).</li><li>Jason Gray wrote, "Norris will look to rebound from a subpar season in the Carolina League, where he hit .235 and slugged <span style="font-weight: bold;">just</span> .419."</li></ul>Truth be told, I actually thought there was more negative press about the 21 year old. However, we still have two authors who walked away unimpressed with the power that Norris displayed in 2010.<br /><br />Quick explanation. Keith Law wrote in a recent chat transcript that it isn't uncommon for hitters to take a year to a year and a half to recover their power stroke after a hamate injury. I have read that similar power sapping can occur to wrist injuries. The hamate bone is, from my non-medical opinion, a part of the wrist, and as such, Derek Norris' power sapping should not have been too much of a surprise.<br /><br />Norris also suffered a minor concussion when he was hit in the head by a "96mph fastball". Which Norris admitted took him a fair amount of plate appearances to bounce back from, something his month-by-month statistics show as this was the only <span style="font-style: italic;">full</span> month where Norris posted an OPS under .830 (keep this number in mind for later). Even his playoff-shortened month of September had Norris posting an OPS of .865 (if my math is correct).<br /><br />Of course we don't want to altogether eliminate Norris' month of June, but we can see that something might not have been right that month, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that it had to do with having just taken a fastball off the head.<br /><br />Neither of which is the point. The point here is that Norris didn't really have <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> bad of a season. In fact, his power numbers as is would suffice in the big leagues.<br /><br />Consider where he would stand with those numbers at the show. These numbers I am speaking of are the end of season line of an .838 OPS and an ISO of .184.<br /><br />Among catchers with 390 plate appearances (Norris had 387) there are 20 qualified catchers, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=c&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=380&type=1&season=2010&month=0">five of whom posted an OPS</a> higher then Norris' .838, while <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=c&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=380&type=1&season=2010&month=0">six put up an ISO</a> over Norris' .184.<br /><br />In other words, if Norris' numbers translated cleanly to major league baseball, he suffered a serious hand injury, and a concussion, we're looking at a top 5 or 6 hitting catcher in baseball. Keep in mind Norris is also putting in a conscious effort to being a better defensive catcher, something we all know a guy like <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=841&position=C">Jorge Posada</a> could care less about.<br /><br /><br />Derek Norris is one of my favorite prospects and should be one of yours as well. Keep his name in mind over the next 20 months or so, because he'll be making a splash in Washington while <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=10131&position=P">Stephen Strasberg</a> is making a push for his first Cy Young award.<br /><br /><br />Quick question, is the catcher position getting "deep"? There are a fair amount of highly regarded youngsters that are already in the majors, and we should see another handful or so in the next year.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-18330184588745308672010-10-04T22:25:00.004-04:002010-10-04T22:50:24.762-04:00All About the PlayoffsDave Cameron of FanGraphs <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/making-the-divisions-count-again/">keeps the playoff story</a> alive in proposing yet another idea for "improving" baseball down the stretch. Honestly, it's not a terrible idea, although I'm not sure it will solve any current "problems" while not annoying certain fan bases.<br /><br />To me, the bigger issue is that we are rewarding teams for winning their division under any circumstance. Take the Texas Rangers, for example. Here's a team that if divisional winners weren't given the golden ticket (a mistake in my opinion) would have JUST made it into the playoffs. They finished one game above the Red Sox and two ahead of the ChiSox, two teams that were eliminated with more then a week left.<br /><br />One has to wonder what kind of "extra effort" those teams put in if they knew it was about win #90 (a foreseeable goal with the Red Sox needing 15 and the Chi Sox needing 17 as of September 1st) instead of win #95 (based on the Yankees and Rays pace as of September 1st).<br /><br />Likewise, authors have made a stink about a lack of drama in the American League East, but what about the lack of drama in the American League West?<br /><br />Sadly the 2010 season didn't offer a lot of last week entertainment. Most teams were more concerned about setting up their rotations for the playoffs and wondering where they would play their first round of golf rather then digging deep and making a run of things. But keep in mind that the 2009 season had a division winner crowned on day #163.<br /><br />Wait, let's look at <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/index.jsp?ymd=20091004">2009 again</a>...<br /><br />Wow, if teams weren't put into the playoffs based on geographical boundaries, we could have has a VERY exciting end to the season. While the Yankees, Angels, and Red Sox were all locks to make the playoffs and had things all but wrapped up a week in advanced, look at all the teams that come into contention if they are shooting for the 86 wins that both the Tigers and Twins settled in with.<br /><br />We'd have the Rays, who finished with 84 and had the two best teams in the American League in their division (can't blame a team for packing that in). We'd also have the Rangers, who with 87 wins would have been the class of the final playoff spot, possibly providing a little more oomph with leading a race rather then trailing by 10 games. And we'd also have the Mariners, who with 85 wins might have had a shot.<br /><br />2009 offered a little bit of drama with the Tigers and Twins fighting it out and needing an extra game, but imagine if those imaginary geographic lines didn't exist? There would have been 5 teams fighting the last days of the season for one playoff spot.<br /><br />Maybe 2009 was a special case, <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/index.jsp?ymd=20081010">how about 2008</a>? Same thing, the American League Central went down to game #163 while two nearly equal teams, the Yankees and Jays were out with plenty of time left in the season.<br /><br /><a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/index.jsp?ymd=20071010">What about 2007</a>? Not too much excitement. Although having 88 wins and chasing two 94 win teams has got to look a lot nicer then chasing a single 94 and another with 96 as the Mariners and Tigers had to do respectively.<br /><br /><a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/index.jsp?ymd=20061010">Then there is 2006</a>, where a 90 win team didn't make the playoffs, while in the National League, an 83 win team made the playoffs with an 85 win team dusting off their fairway woods.<br /><br /><br />All of this is to say that the wild card isn't the issue. The wild card is predominantly rewarding one of the top teams in the league for being a top team. Is it taking some drama out? Certainly! But think how ridiculous the old system was where a team like the 2009 Red Sox, the team with the third most wins in the American League, would have been sitting at home.<br /><br />The system, as is, works. It's not perfect, but it works. I would get rid of the geographical lines altogether, as it isn't as if the players are riding buses or non-chartered airplanes.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-6191957162630028472010-09-24T20:45:00.004-04:002010-09-24T21:13:28.732-04:00The WhO'sDuring tonight's Jays-O's radio broadcast I heard a "record" that hasn't been getting any press and also one that drew me to an even more startling conclusion.<br /><br />Baltimore Orioles right fielder <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5930&position=OF">Nick Markakis</a> became the third (yes, the THIRD) major leaguer in history to have 4 straight seasons of 43 or more doubles. Wow, really? Ever? That's quite impressive, well done Nick!<br /><br />However, what really stuck out to me as the Jays announcers were talking about Markakis was that Nick may have more extra base hits (55) then runs batted in (53) - which in fact is true. While Nick has been hitting in the two hole for a good chunk of the season, having as many runs batted in as extra base hits is disastrous!<br /><br />Possibly that is somewhat of an overstatement. However, how disheartening does it have to be for Markakis to be hitting the ball so well, yet offering so little production for his club?<br /><br />I suppose this simply highlights the fact that the Orioles have been terrible at creating runs this season. So bad, that they <span style="font-style: italic;">need</span> to have one of their best hitters hitting 2nd as things rapidly go downhill after that point. The team has three hitters with an on base percentage above league average. Their first basemen have the second lowest combined OPS in the league and it <span style="font-style: italic;">can't</span> be chalked up to <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9054&position=1B">Justin Smoak</a> (who has played for both the worst and third worst teams in terms of team first base OPS).<br /><br />With as much young pitching depth as the Orioles have, their lack of hitting both at the major league and minor league level make it increasingly less likely that this team turns around any time soon. We may not be looking at the Pirates, but I'm not sure we are too far off given the depth of the systems and pockets of the teams in this division.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-64685999647203992372010-09-20T18:58:00.003-04:002010-09-20T19:34:43.959-04:00"Illogic" - A Race for MVPI will touch on this more in the coming days, but I simply could not pass up on the opportunity to call out one of the most stupid comments I have <span style="font-style: italic;">ever</span> read. And let me tell you, that bar is quite low!<br /><br />Cliff Corcoran of SI.com <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/cliff_corcoran/09/20/corcoran.awards/index.html">writes</a>,<br /><div><div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1857&position=C">[Joe] Mauer</a> might be the first player you'd eliminate from that list, if only because his performance this season (.331/.407/.473, 9 HR, 74 RBIs) falls so far short of his otherworldly MVP campaign of a year ago.<span></span></blockquote><span>You can check out the list of obvious candidates for yourself. You can also ignore the fact that for some reason I keep going back to SI.com despite the continual abomination that is their baseball writing (although there is more to come).<br /><br />Despite all of that I have to wonder where Corcoran gets off eliminating Mauer based on the fact that Mauer is failing to be Mauer. That is, Corcoran feels as though simply because Mauer's MVP season in 2009 was greater than his season in 2010 that he is undeserving of it this year. What he fails to mention is that there is a hippo standing on a banana in odd numbered months that make it impossible to vote for the Twins backstop.<br /><br />What a joke!<br /><br />Well thanks for eliminating Mauer out of the MVP race based on <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> logic, I was really scratching my head there!<br /><br />But Corcoran goes on to oust his own logic time and time again.<br /><br />First, he suggests that <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3531&position=SS">Troy Tulowitzki</a> is undeserving of the NL MVP simply because he missed a month of the season (okay) and consequently his counting stats are down (okay, fault MVP voters). However, this "logic" only applies to Tulowitzki because...Well, because.<br /><br />That is, Corcoran believes that despite not leading the league in any counting categories and missing a significant amount of time, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1875&position=OF">Josh Hamilton</a> is the favorite to win AL MVP. Sadly, Corcoran leaves out his rationale behind the pineapple taking home the Cy Young, but I can't imagine the logic would be much different then removing Tulo from the NL ballot for injuries and a lack of counting stats and adding Hamilton to the top of his despite the same inefficiencies.<br /><br />Second, Corcoran uses his "Mauer defense" MINUS the counting stats argument to write why <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1177&position=1B">Albert Pujols</a> deserves third instead of first in writing,<br /></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><span>"</span>The counting stats are there, but relative to his own absurd standard, Pujols' rate stats are down this season. In the course of winning the last two NL MVPs, he averaged 42 home runs and 125 RBIs, totals within his reach this year, but also hit .342/.452/.656, which is yet another level of awesomeness above what he has accomplished in 2010. Expect Pujols to be penalized a bit for failing to live up to his own past performance<span>..."</span></blockquote><span>Corcoran does mention that this may be "unfair" however is not willing to fully commit to the level of fairness in this discussion nor state if Pujols <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> be the winner.<br /></span></div></div><br />Going against his own logic, Corcoran writes about the counting stats being there, but the failure of Pujols to be Pujols as his fault. There is an interesting comment about Coco the talking monkey and Afghanistan though, which certainly leads to a further understanding of who will win the NL MVP.<br /><br /><br />If I were a less serious baseball fan, or simply a casual observer of the sport. Maybe I'm from Minnesota and I'm bummed that the Vikings started off 0 and 2 and I'm looking for something to heal those wounds ending up at Corcoran's article. However, upon completion I'm not certain this person would have a better understanding of who the deserving MVP is in either league. Where an argument goes against one player, it supports another; where it disqualifies one, it inflates another. Simply put, the logic makes teaching flip cup to a class of 5 year olds seem like a great decision.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><object width="400" height="300"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="movie" value="http://www.facebook.com/v/485418265680"><embed src="http://www.facebook.com/v/485418265680" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="300"></embed></object><br /></div><br />By the way, that's a decision I made while teaching in Korea, so thank you Mr. Corcoran.<br /><br />(Take note that 3 of the students were one'n'done - I'm a great teacher!)Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-70641118302842043592010-09-07T16:11:00.004-04:002010-09-07T17:00:45.362-04:00Expanding MLB's Playoff FormatMmm, I don't like it.<br /><br />Next!<br /><br />Here's the basis; Tom Verducci at SI.com <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/09/07/playoff.format/index.html">writes an article suggesting a way to <span style="font-style: italic;">improve</span></a> Major League Baseball's playoff format and add some revenue. He has an excellent point that recent "win or go home" games have drawn outstanding viewership and the lack of these nail biters have hurt baseball. Although the former has evidence only in that the National Football League is a behemoth and Major League Baseball is simply puttering along. I'm not sure if Verducci follows the National Hockey League or not, but the Stanley Cup has went the distance in 4 of the last 7 seasons, yet the NHL isn't doing all that hot. In fact, the NHL Finals have gained little (if any) ground on the NBA Finals despite being drastically more dramatic (the NBA Finals have went 7 games only four times since 1988).<br /><br />Verducci states that teams are content simply making the playoffs in Major League Baseball. Whether factual or not, this is not really a big deal in my opinion given the home field advantages (albeit small) provided to teams. While Verducci points out that the Rays may sit their staff ace in a potential division winning game at the end of the season, it's tough to blame the Rays for wanting <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3184&position=P">David Price</a> available to pitch at least twice in the first round of the playoffs. Further, with injuries being a part of any sport, it's smarter to keep your best pitcher available for the playoffs, rather then risk him getting hurt for home field advantage.<br /><br />Verducci suggests an idea which I totally disagree with. He suggests that MLB open up <span style="font-style: italic;">two</span> wild card spots instead of the current set up of one (per league). He sets up a situation where the two wild card teams play a <span style="font-style: italic;">play-in</span> game, where the winner goes onto the playoffs and the loser goes home. What this would do is create more meaningful games as teams further down the pecking order would still have a shot at the playoffs. To me, there isn't anything really wrong with this basis and it's tough to argue against making baseball more competitive in September. But that's it.<br /><br />Verducci writes, "I have a hard time thinking of a down side to this system.<span></span>" His rationale for said statement is, "It rewards division winners and penalizes second-place teams.<span>"<br /><br />Okay, that is fair, and Verducci brings up an example of the 2005 Houston Astros who were far out of contention as early as May 7th.<br /><br />But here is where I disagree. We are giving lesser teams a ridiculous breath of air. Anything can happen in a single game and while this game may have encouraged a few better games on the last day of the season, we could conceivably hurt the playoffs by allowing - for example - the Boston Red Sox (leaving history out of the picture) into the playoffs.<br /><br />That is, the Yankees and Rays are the two best teams in baseball, by a fairly significant margin. I'm sure the Rays would prefer to win the division, but they certainly aren't going to kill themselves to get in. They are currently 7 games ahead of the Sox and a vastly superior team (owning a +123 run differential to the Sox +68).<br /><br />Verducci is then suggesting that we potentially kick the second best team in all of baseball (inexcusable) out of the playoffs for a good, not great team in the Sox.<br /><br />Worse yet, while this system would give the Rays something to play for if they were tied with the Yankees on the final day of the season, what does this do to the 5th ranked team? A team like the current White Sox who are out of the playoffs but if the season were to end today, would have nothing to play for on the last day - win and they are in, lose and they are in (the wildcard playoff that is).<br /><br />In fact, I would argue that the Rays would be likely to sit Price on the last day of the season anyways, as they would want him for the more meaningful game against the ChiSox. That is, on the last day of the season, <span style="font-style: italic;">if</span> tied with the Yanks, their destiny isn't even in their own hands. Whereas against the ChiSox, it would be.<br /><br /><br />Verducci isn't wrong to ask the question of how we can improve the playoff format and the last week of the season. He is wrong, however, to suggest a one game playoff. Using the NFL as a barometer in this scenario is not appropriate as the sport is vastly different. The NFL, for example, never uses a "best of" playoff format.<br /><br />This then leads to the question of <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> MLB can improve the playoffs and the end of the season. One area I have always been a proponent of is not allowing any division winners into the playoffs based solely on their standings in the division. Some years this may be unfair as one division may be particularly strong, but even in that scenario, if we go by Verducci's logic, "just win" and you have nothing to complain about.<br /><br />For example, this season the American League would be represented by the Yanks, the Rays, the Twins, and the ChiSox, the four best teams in the league. This would satisfy Verducci's desire for more meaningful and competitive games. It would make more teams eligible down the stretch as we would have a team like the Jays sitting 6 games out of the playoffs instead of 12. That would give us 4 teams fighting to make the American League bracket instead of 1.<br /><br />In the National League, things get even better, where we have three exciting races, but only involving two teams. My suggested playoff format would invite an additional two teams into the playoff picture.<br /><br /><br />How would you change Major League Baseball's playoff format without watering down the competition? Keep in mind, making more teams eligible, while adding the excitement of March Madness, doesn't always add excitement to the final and could potentially water it down.<br /><br />That is, while the wildcard has been a good addition, remember the throttling the ChiSox gave the 'Stros in the 2005 World Series.<br /><br /><br />I personally like the way things are, I would just like to see an additional bonus for the best team in the league. For example, in Japan, the best team only has to win 3 games to win the series whereas the underdog has to win 4. In Korea, the league winner sits out the first two rounds of the playoffs.<br /><br /><br />Verducci, you have some good intentions, but your comparisons aren't accurate. Baseball is not Football, and <span style="font-style: italic;">nothing</span> is the NCAA Tournament. Don't waste your time trying to make baseball like those two events.<br /></span>Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-296048001317238092010-09-05T13:32:00.006-04:002010-09-05T22:43:42.306-04:00"Illogic" - I Really Tried...I know, I know, I'm not going to make it in the business if I keep making enemies, burning bridges is not a good idea. I know my "elitist attitude is not going to get" me far. But when there are errors in baseball writing, I feel the need to point it out - I sure wish someone would do the same for me.<br /><br />I found myself on SI.com reading one of <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dan_shaughnessy/09/02/manny/index.html#">the cover stories</a> about <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=210&position=OF">Manny Ramirez</a>, a perfect time given Ramirez's recent trade to the White Sox and the weekend set of the Whites versus the Reds (socks that is). I typically don't find myself reading SI.com too frequently as I find they mix real life emotions with that of sport. Yes, it is fine to get emotional over sports and to feel some semblance of joy or sorrow based on them, but at the end of the day, they are simply sports and are there for entertainment and nothing more.<br /><br />In any event, the article mentioned the headaches<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>that Manny will provide to the Chi Sox, as he had to the Red Sox, Indians, and Dodgers. The author mentions a couple highly publicized events which made Manny into some sort of anti-hero.<br /><br />The purpose of this article isn't to praise Manny Ramirez, I really don't care about him as a person, he's one of the greatest hitters regardless of performance enhancers (which, this just in, ONLY helped hitters, meaning that the stats from the past 20 years have only inflated the numbers of the hitters - great science Mr. Shaughnessy) and that's all that matters to me. The purpose of this article is to question why another author is making assumed claims about a hitter based on illogic (spell check confirms, I just made up a word and am now titling this series "Illogic").<br /><br />So here goes...<br /><br />The author writes,<br /><div><div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"><p></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><p>It's harder for Manny to hit now that it's harder to juice.</p> <p>Testing is not his friend. Some of the power and skill is gone.</p></blockquote><p></p><span></span></div></div>Oh! That's the correlation?!? It's harder to hit now that Manny can't use steroids, and that's it? No other reasons it's harder for Manny to hit? Nothing? Okay, I'll give you a second to think about that....<br /><br />Anything?<br /><br />No, not yet?<br /><br />How about now?<br /><br />Here, I'll give you a couple hints...<br /><br />#1 "Ballpark Factors" are a "factor" in the performance of a hitter and pitcher. Fenway, for example is consistently improving the numbers of a hitter, especially a right handed power hitter who needs to hit the ball 310 feet instead of over 370. Conversely, Dodger stadium tends to sap this power.<br /><br />It's not a difficult concept. The numbers are fairly straight forward. Some ballparks help a hitter (Fenway) others hinder a hitter (Dodger Stadium).<br /><br />Admittedly, Manny's Fenway vs. road OPS doesn't really display this. In fact, Manny managed to hit better (according to OPS) at Dodger stadium then at Fenway. OPS isn't the greatest statistic, but it shouldn't be dismissed.<br /><br />In any event, ballpark factors ought to be considered, and the fact remains that Dodger stadium i less of a hitter friendly ballpark then Fenway Park. Regardless of "juice".<br /><br />#2 Manny Ramirez is no longer in his late 20's/early 30's (aka the Prime of a hitters career). It is a well known fact that ball players typically get worse as they leave the prime of their career. I wouldn't expect a baseball writer to know this fact, as it doesn't draw reader interest the same way a headline including "Manny" and "badly" does.<br /><br />In any event, Manny is simply an older hitter. With or without steroids, Manny would have seen a dip in production, the same way <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=10&position=SS">David Eckstein</a> saw it - of course, we could chalk Eckstein's career ISO, which scored below "steroid era" league average up to steroids, after all, who knows what he would have been like without them? <a href="http://theoutsiderslook.blogspot.com/2010/08/no-you-dont.html">Positive test be damned</a>, right Cox?<br /><br />The point is, Manny's ISO peaked during his age 27 and 28 seasons at an amazing .330 and .348. During five of the next six seasons, Manny hovered around .300 having a low of a still impressive .262 in 2003 (presumably a statistical anomaly). Manny's age 35 season was easily the worst of his career and possibly signaled the end of what was an amazing career (keep in mind, that he still had an excellent season that year).<br /><br />Then, the trade to LA occurred and Manny's career was, can I go as far as to say resurrected? He did, post a .270 ISO that season, which again, continued the negative trend that one would assume from an individual who is in his late 30s. This was then followed with a .241 season, and then the .188 he is posting this year.<br /><br />We do see a trend forming here though. If you start at 2004 and run the numbers up to 2010 you see it clear as day - 305, 301, 298, 197, 270, 241, 188. That is Manny's age 32 season running through his age 38 season. It's tough to suggest that this isn't simply the normal aging pattern of a player (possibly to the extreme because Manny's peak was so incredibly high).<br /><br />#3 Manny's "skills" have hardly diminished.<br /><br />While Manny's power numbers have tailed off, his wOBA (weighted on base average) has seen only a marginal drop in production and remained <span style="font-style: italic;">well </span>above that of the league average hitter. In fact, he is in the top 20 in all of baseball (among hitters with 200+ plate appearances) despite being <span style="font-style: italic;">clean</span> - baffling, isn't it?<br /><br />Another little factoid, he is one of only two hitters older then 35 in the top 20. I wonder how much of his career is to be blamed on steroids in the first place. That is, a hitter who is in the twilight of his career and is clean is still among the top 20 hitters in baseball, where does this put him for the prime of his career?<br /><br /><br />Instead of chalking Manny's decreasing power up to steroids, would it be so difficult to look a little further? Instead of assuming that steroids created Manny into the hitter he is/was, do some research, ask some questions. The fact is, there is very little to link PEDs to Performance Enhancement other then the name.<br /><br />I really wish that writers who get paid would take some time and do a bit of research. Stop aiming for tabloid-style points and write concrete material that brings something to the discussion. Yes Manny will provide some headaches for this team's management, but he's also going to win the team some games.<br /><br /><br />The better headline would have been, "Kenny Williams admits letting Jim Thome go a HUGE mistake".Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-31822031397290420582010-08-28T10:16:00.003-04:002010-08-28T10:40:11.332-04:00Thinking it Over - End of Year AwardsThe Cy Young Award, and many other in baseball are typically given to a pitcher which it is often times difficult to agree with. I think back to when <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=375&position=P">Bartolo Colon</a> won the award in 2005, a year when he led the league in essentially one statistical category, yet walked away with the award.<br /><br />This insight (read - tangent) came from my perusing of Baseball Prospectus' <span style="font-style: italic;">On the Beat</span> series, where author John Perrotto provides us with a handful of scout reactions to some Major League players. On August 9th, Perrotto had this tidbit about sure-thing non-Cy Young contender <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4772&position=P">Felix Hernandez</a>,<br /><blockquote>"The fact that this guy is 7-9 is just further proof that you can't judge a pitcher solely on his win-loss record. He was 19-5 last season and his stuff is basically the same and he's pitching almost as well. Believe me, there's nothing wrong with him that some run support wouldn't help. He's still as nasty as ever."</blockquote>And really, once you look deeper, Felix truly is having the same season as last year, with an argument that he's performing better. That is, his strikeouts are up (career high), his walks are down (career low). In fact, Felix is performing at the best level of his career across the board.<br /><br />Felix is currently tied with <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=404&position=P">CC Sabathia</a> for the highest WPA in the American League. His 3.27 mark is higher then the total he put up in 2009 and the highest mark of his career.<br /><br /><br />I suppose what this post boils down to is <span style="font-style: italic;">A Case for Felix</span>, as there is a legitimate chance that despite his mound heroics, Felix won't come home with the Cy Young this year. It wouldn't surprise me, that his potentially sub .500 record would leave him off the ballot of most BBWA despite being among the most valuable and dominant in the American League.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-49261650654458524602010-08-26T11:08:00.003-04:002010-08-26T11:17:56.751-04:00Wahn, Wahn, Waaaaaahnnnnn<a href="http://buffalo.bisons.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100825&content_id=13914904&vkey=pr_t422&fext=.jsp&sid=t422">Yesterday</a> the Bisons (you think I forgot about them, didn't you?!?) placed still-a-prospect <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9210&position=OF">Fernando "That's Fun to Say" Martinez</a> on the disabled list. Ironically, this was also the same day the Bisons had their last big promo night of the season - a Fernando Martinez bobble head.<br /><br />The bitter pill became even more bitter when the Bisons made an 8th inning comeback only to allow 5 runs in the 10th.<br /><br />It's as if Buffalo knows I am back home - thanks!Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-90127952910213618162010-08-25T10:08:00.003-04:002010-08-25T11:56:27.119-04:00No, You Don'tI won't link you to the article which is the basis for this article, but I will give you a brief summary:<br /><blockquote>A hockey writer and self proclaimed <span style="font-style: italic;">pot stirrer</span>, decided to take his turn writing about baseball - after all, hockey season is just around the corner and he wouldn't want his readers to forget he exists. Short story even shorter, the writer asks if <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1887&position=3B/OF">Jose Bautista</a> is juiced.<br /><br />Well, that's unfair. He never directly <span style="font-style: italic;">asked</span> the question, simply alluded to the possibility of bringing up said question.</blockquote>There is so much to cover here I'm having a difficult time figuring out where to start.<br /><br />First, into the allegation. I'm not going to deny nor confirm that Bautista is juiced. All we can go on is that he hasn't failed a test, so as far as the public knows, Bautista is clean. Is there a chance he is doing something that isn't being detected? Sure. But asking a question to an answer we already have isn't really journalism, is it? That is, over a decade ago the question was asked if players were using something to aid their performance. The question was answered and as such baseball was slagged with this imaginary line of a time when players began using "something to aid their performance".<br /><br />Which leads to the second point. Cox writes, <span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">For the following unpopular question, blame Major League baseball and all the nonsense it has spewed over the past decade. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Don't blame me.</span></blockquote>No, I'm going to blame you. I'm going to blame you for a lack of journalistic integrity. I'm going to blame you for being a lazy journalist. I'm going to blame you for simply being you, a "pot stirrer".<br /><br />I wouldn't expect Cox to know of a statistic such as isolated power (ISO), which gives a legitimate understanding of a player's power. Similarly, I wouldn't expect Cox to know about Park Factors. However, if one is going to "ask a question", shouldn't they at least know what they are talking about.<br /><br />Let's do the hard work for Cox.<br /><br />Yes, Bautista's ISO increased. In fact, it has doubled. Okay, case closed. Evidence in the bag. No no, Cox, wait a minute, maybe there is more.<br /><br />Park Factors. These are...Well let's have ESPN explain them.<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Park Factor compares the rate of stats at home vs. the rate of stats on the road. A rate higher than 1.000 favors the hitter. Below 1.000 favors the pitcher. Teams with home games in multiple stadiums list aggregate Park Factors.</blockquote>In other words, a park factor can tell us if a park helps or hurts a hitter. Pretty simple. I'm sure even a hockey writer could figure this out.<br /><br />In 2010 the SkyDome is playing to a park factor of 1.369 for home runs. In other words, the SkyDome is increasing home runs by 37% over the average ballpark.<br /><br />PNC Park has a park factor of 0.757 for home runs, or it decreases home runs by 24% over the average ballpark.<br /><br />That's a fairly large difference. One that hasn't existed since the opening of PNC, but on average, SkyDome has favored hitters and PNC has deflated them.<br /><br />Possibly we have the beginning of an explanation, something to look further into before proclaiming Bautista a 'roid user.<br /><br />Admittedly, I don't feel like going <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> the way into it, but briefly we can see that Bautista's career at SkyDome has produced a .312 ISO (close to his current season rate) with his PNC ISO sitting at .153 (close to his previous career average).<br /><br />This doesn't merely open and close the case that Bautista's improvements have been a result of playing half of his games at the SkyDome. In fact, Bautista has provided a higher then career average ISO on the road this year.<br /><br /><br />So yes, Cox, you are right to ask a question. You are wrong, however to ask your current question. What would should be doing, as a journalist with some sort of integrity is asking, "what is up with Bautista" and then digging deep. Don't take the easy way out and slap him with the steroid tag. Do some research. Make a real story. Give some information that people can use and learn from.<br /><br />What Cox did isn't baseball writing. It isn't journalism. It's the same garbage we see on FOXNews. It's a reporter with a bias directing his bias onto a subject with which he has little information. It's like asking a child who will win the World Series in spring, of course the child will answer that his/her favorite team will win.<br /><br /><br />But, at least it started a conversation and provides us with a jumping off point. That is, "Is Damion Cox a worthless writer?"Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-69460688771030152252009-06-17T18:18:00.002-04:002009-06-18T11:29:32.506-04:00Keepin' It UpNow I am simply confused...<br /><br />Listening to Toronto's AM 640 yesterday, the sub for Bill Waters was discussing the Blue Jays and taking calls about the Blue Jays. There seemed to be an ongoing theme that JP Riccardi did not know what he had in terms of arms in the system. This theme was coming as praise for the young arms in the Blue Jays system with the solid job they had done to this point.<br /><br />The host mentioned that Jays fans had been told that there is not much in the cupboards, that the Jays were going into the season with five starting pitchers and needed health in order to be competitive.<br /><br />The first issue is that this is simply obvious. Very few teams can afford to dig deep into the minors in order to cover up long term injuries to their starting five. I would say that Baltimore, Boston, and San Francisco are two exceptions to the rule, with others being capable of replacing low-end starters, but having no hope of replacing top end starters.<br /><br />That aside, I find this report to be conflicting with what <a href="http://www.baseballdigestdaily.com/blogs/2009/01/07/white-flag-raised-over-the-rogers-centre/">another writer stated</a> (<a href="http://theoutsiderslook.blogspot.com/2009/01/mis-article-of-week-misremembering.html">one whom I ripped up</a>) that the Jays had raised a white flag on the season prior to Spring Training. That is, the author of the aforementioned article mentioned that the Jays actually had nothing in the cupboards and in order to be competitive, should have spent money and draft picks to add proven starters.<br /><br />However, quite the opposite has proven to be true-something I asserted. The host of the Bill Waters show on AM 640 should have taken Riccardi's inaction during the off-season as evidence that he had faith in the youth that had been coming through. Riccardi's big off-season splash to his rotation was bringing in <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=271&position=P">Matt Clement</a> and minor signing <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5066&position=P">Bryan Bullington</a>. Clement proved to be as useless as one could be, but Bullington has offered some nice organizational depth, even showing some of the promise that once made him the first overall pick.<br /><br />To be honest, as someone who was quite familiar with the Jays system, I didn't walk away from this offseason unimpressed. I figured the rotation would be fine and signing free agents would have been useless.<br /><br />My problem with the discussion on AM 640 is that Riccardi clearly knew what he had. Riccardi showed this by going against the author at Baseball Digest Daily and not wasting money and draft picks. If Riccardi did not know what he had, he would have went the route of Mark Shapiro and signed a David Dellucci type player (to a long term, Major League contract).<br /><br /><br />With over half the season remaining, the Jays have one of the deepest rotations in baseball. The club can comfortably go to it's 9th or 10th starter, adequately replacing all but <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1303&position=P">Roy Halladay</a>. The big issue for Jays fans shouldn't be that Riccardi "doesn't know what he has", rather, it should be that Riccardi is going to have some difficult decisions to make for 2010.<br /><br />That is, with Halladay, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=8600&position=P">Dustin McGowan</a>, and <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6204&position=P">Shaun Marcum</a>, more or less a lock to anchor the front three spots of the rotation, they also have to figure out what to do with youngsters <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=8360&position=P">David Purcey</a>, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3403&position=P">Ricky Romero</a>, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2660&position=P">Brett Cecil</a>, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3359&position=P">Robert Ray</a>, and <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=paN06023&position=P">Brad Mills</a>, converts <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=7355&position=P">Casey Jansen</a>, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6428&position=P">Jeremy Accardo</a>, and <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1646&position=P">Brian Tallet</a>, prospect <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=paN07004&position=P">Marc Rzepcynski</a>, and 'veterans' <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4307&position=P">Scott Richmond</a> and Bullington. Oh, and <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3688&position=P">Jesse Litsch</a> along with 2009 draftees Chad Jenkins and James Paxton would be fringey September 2010 contributors.<br /><br />While the names after Marcum will not blow anyones socks off, each one is plenty capable of being a high quality 4th or 5th starting pitcher.<br /><br />However, if Riccardi does not do anything, one voice in baseball will claim that he has raised the white flag, while the another will assert that going 10 or 11 deep by mid-June shows that Riccardi is clueless as to what he has. I see both as Riccardi not wanting to spend on what he knows he already has. It is Riccardi understanding the market.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-46937782565848245422009-06-17T02:52:00.004-04:002009-06-17T03:09:20.472-04:00Gasp - A Noble TruthNow I hate to be cynical, but really? <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4264062">This is a story?</a><br /><br />I first heard the news that <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=302&position=OF">Sammy Sosa</a> had tested positive for taking performance enhancing drugs as I was driving around, taking care of some pre-Korea errands. And I must say, my first reaction was, "this is news?" That is, I was questioning whether or not this was something that had not already been broken.<br /><br />Alas, the presumed guilt of every player in the Majors.<br /><br />But wait, that's not the point. The point here is that not <span style="font-style: italic;">every</span> player is presumed guilty of taking steroids during the steroid era (although I certainly would not doubt that a great majority did so), the point is that it has always been obvious that Sammy had been a user throughout his career.<br /><br />My problem isn't that Sosa's name got leaked, it isn't that some innocent players are presumed guilty, nor is it that a non-story is being covered, it's the fact that there were some, we'll call them <span style="font-style: italic;">noble truths</span>, some no-brainers out there that simply should not surprise anyone.<br /><br />So I'm sorry Sammy, even without this story, I simply assumed that you had used steroids. It's like assuming that in a few hours it will no longer be dark outside. It's like assuming that Albert Pujols is an outstanding ballplayer. Or like assuming that some baseball writers will use information that legally should not have been leaked and use it as a slight against a player that brought an enormous amount of energy and joy to the ballpark.<br /><br />It is times like these that I loathe 24 hour media coverage.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-28355367710067076512009-06-03T16:52:00.002-04:002009-06-03T17:02:21.663-04:00It's Not That I'm Back...I have, for all intents and purposes, clipped the wings that made this site soar. While things were far from booming for me, I was very pleased with the direction of the site and the increased readership. Four months of school-related busy-ness and it feels like the first time all over again.<br /><br />Over this time I began to question why I was "blogging" and if there was a point to continue. While I did not come up with an affirmative yes, I furthered my understanding of why I write and to whom I write for.<br /><br />That is, it is not as if I am writing through the lens of some minority, fact is, like the majority of baseball fans, I fall under the category of WASPy-McWASP; but a Canadian WASP! While I have a relatively open mind when it comes to writing and researching (read, filled with cynicism) there really isn't a whole lot that I can offer to the baseball world that couldn't be found elsewhere.<br /><br />Alas, a purpose must be found, a purpose must be committed to, and a purpose must be put into action.<br /><br />Over the coming weeks as I prepare for a major change in my life I intend to develope (/discover) this purpose, stringing it together as a work in progress.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-84620682636819905452009-04-19T23:19:00.002-04:002009-04-19T23:24:12.710-04:00The National League - Without Ration or ReasonHere is my bare bones National League prognostication:<br /><br />National League<br />East<br />1. Atlanta Braves<br />2. New York Mets*<br />3. Florida Marlins<br />4. Philadelphia Phillies<br />5. Washington Nationals<br /><br />Central<br />1. St. Louis Cardinals<br />2. Chicago Cubs<br />3. Milwaukee Brewers<br />4. Cincinnati Reds<br />5. Pittsburgh Pirates<br />6. Houston Astros<br /><br />West<br />1. Los Angeles Dodgers<br />2. Colorado Rockies<br />3. San Francisco Giants<br />4. San Diego Padres<br />5. Arizona Diamondbacks<br /><br />I'll take time in the next few days to break down the teams and divisions, MLB.tv takes up more time then I thought it would.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-13150576161779438132009-04-12T08:21:00.004-04:002009-04-12T21:36:58.174-04:00Procrastinating Prognostication American LeagueWhile a week has passed, I can't honestly say I am in a different frame of mind with my projections then I was a week or two ago. In fact, teams have simply cemented what I already thought of them in most cases, with the exception of the Marlins - whom I still don't trust.<br /><br />This will be brief, but hopefully it gets the ball rolling on further posts.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">American League<br />East</span><br /><br />1. Toronto Blue Jays - Last year I had the Jays taking second and winning the wild card, this year I have them winning what is easily the toughest division in baseball, and arguably North American sports. The Jays were 5 games below .500 before Cito Gaston arrived and ended the season 6 games above - that's an 11 game turn around in a little over half the season. Projecting a 90 win season out of the Jays is easy, projecting 95 games will rely on a decent amount of luck.<br /><br />Offensively the Jays are deep, Travis Snider and Adam Lind fill holes that the team had for more then half of last year, Vernon Wells and Scott Rolen <span style="font-style: italic;">need</span> to stay healthy, and Aaron Hill will provide a marked improvement over the Eckstein/McDonald mess that the Jays went with for much of last year. Gaston pushes a more aggressive style at the plate which certainly helped the Jays in the second half of last year.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Jays Need?</span> Dustin McGowan and Shaun Marcum aren't coming back, that's the end of that. Why not kick the tires of Pedro Martinez?<br /><br />2. Boston Red Sox - I simply cannot deny it, the depth of the Sox bullpen and rotation makes them a feirce opponent whom no one would want to face. Offensively the Sox are deep but are aging and have some major holes (see Varitek and Lowrie). The Sox shouldn't expect Pedroia and Youkilis to repeat 2008, but they will be spectacular hitters no matter what.<br /><br />What is scary about this Sox team is the fact that this could quite possibly be the club's worst team over the next decade.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Sox Need?</span>Forget tradition, forget being faithful, Jason Varitek and Tim Wakefield should no longer be taking on vital roles within this organization. The Sox have fine replacements for both players and they should be using them.<br /><br />3. Tampa Bay Rays - On paper this team is as good as any, where they have offensive weaknesses, they have defensive gems. The club has a deep rotation and bullpen with plenty of backups within the system.<br /><br />I am cautious in not putting the Rays in second and fighting for the wild card considering all that went wrong for this club in 2008, but I simply prefer the Jays and Sox over the course of 162 games. Despite ranking 3rd, I feel Tampa Bay is the best team in baseball and will make it very close, with the potential at winning the division if the Jays and Sox hit some road blocks.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Rays Need?</span> Not much really. If anything they need to make some organization decisions like the one they made with Jason Hammel. Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus recently proposed a situation where the Rays move Scott Kazmir to the Indians for Carlos Santana, this is the sort of active move I would expect the Rays to make.<br /><br />4. New York Yankees - I know, they added a lot, but they also took a lot away. In all, I see what the Yanks did as moving parallel rather then advancing. Long term they are in a better situation, but for today we're looking at an old team where one missing part could end their season.<br /><br />With the focus shifting towards defensive play the Yanks did well in cutting ties with Jason Giambi and Bobby Abreu, but this team is still weak in most areas with the glove.<br /><br />In addition, their "ace" is somewhat of an enigma. Certainly Charles Carstens' run with Milwaukee makes him appear as a legitimate ace, but consider that was in the National League. Further, while Sabathia has had a nice career, consider the division and opponents he has, for the most part, faced. That is, all but one of the ballparks in the American League Central is pitcher friendly. Not only that, but CC has had the luxury of facing the terrible Royals and prior to 2006, the terrible Tigers on an annual basis. In other words, leaving the Central is only going to hurt the big guy.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Yanks Need?</span> Health. If this club is healthy, they can hit with anyone. If they suffer the expected bumps and bruises of a team with an average age well into the 30s, expect another season of disappointment in the Bronx.<br /><br />5. Baltimore Orioles - The "Next Year's, This Year's" Rays have a team that won't roll over, at least offensively. In terms of pitching, the O's are set up to let their young guns arrive at the show as soon as they are ready - both Matusz and Tillman will make their Major League debuts sooner then later this season.<br /><br />Despite the right direction, the Orioles are still a few pieces, and a year (atleast) away from being a true competitor. Put this team in the National League, and we've got a different story. In the men's league, the tough division of the men's league, not so much.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the O's Need?</span> Don't screw this up, things are heading in the right direction and your fanbase is getting excited for the franchise to show up. A hot start will be lucky and treated as a learning experience.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Central</span><br /><br />1. Cleveland Indians - Homer alert! Truth be told, I do not like the way the Indians are currently set up. Offensively they are fine, although I feel as though a good lefty could shut them down. Defensively they are adequate, they have their holes, just as they have their strengths. The bullpen has a lot invested in it, both money and youngsters, and should be able to hold its own. Where the Tribe are lost is with their rotation, that is filled with maybe's and if's and nothing certain, not even within the organization.<br /><br />That said, I am hesitant to place the Indians atop the division, and do so simply because of my personal biases. In addition to that, I simply cannot see another team in this division being worthy of winning, each having their own major flaws.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Tribe Need?</span> Every season I preach the same line, "Let the best play". The Indians, more so then any team in the Major Leagues will keep their players down in the lower levels for what must feel like an eternity. At some point, Matt LaPorta is going to be talking with Mat Gamel and asking him what the show feels like, despite the fact that LaPorta is the far more advanced player.<br /><br />There were very few who figured that LaPorta wouldn't have been the better Opening Day option in left then Ben Francisco, unfortunately those few are making the decisions in Cleveland.<br /><br />2. Chicago White Sox - I actually really like this team. The rotation goes 5 strong and I am a big fan of the bullpen. Offensively the ChiSox are old, but with enough promising hitters to even out any drop in production. In addition to this, the Sox are the anti-Tribe in that they will promote their prospects even if they aren't ready. Fortunate for them, Gordon Beckham <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> ready.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Sox Need?</span> A drink from the fountain of youth. If Jim Thome, Jermaine Dye, and/or Paul Konerko begin to really show their age, this team is doomed. If that trio can stave off aging for one more year, watch out!<br /><br />3. Detroit Tigers - Admittedly, the Tigers are alright. Having Cabrera and what he can do with the stick will help even the most hopeless of clubs. The Tigers, are slightly more hopeless, having a nice offensive unit and an improved defensive club.<br /><br />The issue is with pitching and what to expect from the pitchers. The fact that there are question marks from top to bottom with their arms means the Tigers are rolling the dice that they aren't entering every series expecting an out and out slug fest.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Tigers Need?</span> Zumaya to come back healthy and for the rest of the bullpen to simply fall into place. If the Tigers can lean on their bullpen it will take some pressure off of the starters who aren't overly conservative with their pitch counts to begin with.<br /><br />4. Kansas City Royals - This is built entirely off of promise, and the hope that everything lines up accordingly. Out of spite, I wanted to place the Royals in 5th, as Dayton Moore is showing a total disregard for modern baseball analysis.<br /><br />That being said, the Royals have a fine pitching staff that will steal a series or two. Their hitters, while inferior to the rest of the division, are good enough to win them the occasional 2-1 game.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Royals Need?</span>A new leader who has a single plan, rather then a few plans that are half hearted to begin with. Consistent at bats need to be given to their young emerging stars, and innings need to be ripped from their old, lousy veterans.<br /><br />5. Minnesota Twins - I don't trust them, I don't love what they have, I just can't see them being a team that can contend in what has become a deep, albeit mediocre division. The thing is, no Mauer is a tough pill to swallow. Add to the fact this club has a young rotation that may need to rely on the bullpen, and it just doesn't seem like a formula for success.<br /><br />I must admit, this was as much of a coin toss as it is an educated decision. The club still has some nice hitters, and defensively they are fine (without Delmon in the lineup), but this isn't enough to save them from being the bottom feeder of this division. Keep in mind, by "bottom feeder" I am referring to the club being an 80 win team in a division being won by an 88 win team.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Twins Need?</span> Some help to their bullpen. As much as I am a homer for Canadian born players, Jesse Crain is not the guy you want handing the ball to Joe Nathan. Pat Neshek was, but he is out for the year. This team would be well served to add an arm or two to the bullpen.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">West</span><br /><br />1. L'Anaheim Angels - The other teams in this division simply are not ready to compete at the level of the Angels. While they aren't the team they were in 2008 (which was a very lucky team), they are still the class of a weak division. The Angels don't really have any strengths, but they also lack that glaring weakness.<br /><br />The addition of Bobby Abreu was an excellent one for a team that lacked on base and power. Abreu isn't going to win another home run derby, but he still has fine power. Missing Lackey and Santana has started the Angels off on the wrong foot, but they should be able to sustain the losses, as long as they don't go too far into May.<br /><br />I suppose this is as good of a time as any to mention the loss of Nick Adenhart. As someone who lost a friend at an early age to tragic incident, there really isn't anything that can be said that hasn't been said, or that will add some comfort to what happened.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Halos Need?</span> To play this game with Adenhart on their minds. It has to be impossible to go about regular business, but that is what the club needs to do. They need to play this year for Adenhart.<br /><br />2. Seattle Mariners - I know, crazy, right? Well I don't think so. This team shed a lot of bad weight and has fine hitters and quality defenders around the diamond. I can't understand why they didn't swoop in and scoop up Dallas McPherson, however, the M's may have their sights set on the #1 pick in the 2010 draft, maybe hoping that Strasburg is too difficult to sign?<br /><br />That said, the Mariners are in a division with holes. The Angels aren't really <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> good, and both the A's and Rangers are without reliable starters. This would be quite the improvement, but there are still a lot of things that I like about this team. Don't forget the duo at the top of the rotation, one that is arguably as good as any in the American League.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Mariners Need?</span> Depth/Power. The outfield is defence first. Griffey Jr adds some power and should be an adequate designated hitter, but first base is a black hole, and their left fielder is more of a bench player then a guy who deserves 600+ plate appearances.<br /><br />3. Oakland Athletics - If this club had even one pitcher that could be relied on, say Joe Blanton, then I might have them atop the division. I like what they have, specifically in the bullpen, and offensively they are solid, but the rotation is a year away.<br /><br />I'm typically not a "names" guy. I am, however, concerned about what a player has done, and what I believe they are capable of doing. Trevor Cahill, for example, has a fine career ahead of him. But how can a team expect a pitcher that has walked nearly 4 hitters per 9 innings to at the lower levels of the minors to succeed at the big league level?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the A's Need?</span> You guessed it, pitching. Find some cheap, "reliable" pitching, and this club could make some noise. Stand pat, and I have a feeling they are in for some major trouble.<br /><br />4. Texas Rangers - The Rangers have a plan, one that seems very positive. Unfortunately the pitching is a year behind. The club has nothing to worry about, however, as the next two or three years should have them standing alone in the division.<br /><br />Offensively the Rangers are stacked. This lineup is dangerous, one that has me sitting my starting pitchers when they go up against the Rangers in fantasy baseball. Defensively the club is fine, not spectacular, but fine. The pitching, however, is dreadful - for now.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What the Rangers Need?</span> Time. They may be tempted to rush things with Holland and Feliz, and they may be justified in doing so. However, if the club is not going to make a legitimate run at the playoffs, there isn't any need to push up the service clock of those two.<br /><br /><br />As I did last year, I will be reflecting on these projections at the All Star Break and season's end.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-20473179944499854182009-02-22T19:50:00.001-05:002009-02-22T21:23:56.849-05:00Did You Get the Memo - Wasting a First Round Pick<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxvMAEAGRN72fPYwwdrYrl8gI6Z33E79T-zBHC2WgfYz1vW7PlJMcMoSW1tqFk-WKcmjlAT5zhGdwMCGw1zYQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /></div><br />Well maybe that is a little harsh but the point remains the same, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1307&position=2B">Orlando Hudson</a> is not worth a first round pick. This is the reason Hudson, a highly valuable middle infielder, took until the first week of Spring Training to finally sign a Major League deal.<br /><br />We have seen over the course of the last year or so that team's are becoming more hesitant to trade expiring contracts of players <span style="font-style: italic;">expected</span> to highly rated by Elias. That is, if the Elias board rates a player as a Type A free agent, and the player is offered and rejects arbitration, the team losing him will receive compensation in the form of a draft pick.<br /><br />There is a lot that goes into this, but that isn't the point here. What is the point is that the system now appears to be potentially broken, or at least in need of serious restructuring. The reason behind this is that a player such as Hudson should not take this long to sign.<br /><br />However, when a player like Hudson costs the amount of money he does, as well as a pretty darn good prospect, teams begin to stay away. Not only does a team signing Hudson have to be certain that he is worth the dollar value over an in-house option, but they also have to consider the long term affects of losing a top 60 pick.<br /><br />It is this prospective value which led the Colorado Rockies to stand pat with <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=429&position=P">Brian Fuentes</a> at last year's trade deadline. A player, whom could have been the difference between the Philadelphia Phillies winning the World Series and not making the playoffs altogether had the Mets pulled the trigger and acquired him.<br /><br />This inherent value is also causing Major League Baseball to re-evaluate their rules regarding the signing of free agents. That is, under the current rules, free agents are not eligible to be traded prior to June 15th of the year they sign their free agent contract. However, this rule may be changed in order to facilitate a sign-and-trade for <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=273&position=P">Juan Cruz</a> (rumored to be heading to the Minnesota Twins via the Arizona Diamondbacks).<br /><br />Consider a trade the Twins and Diamondbacks may be able to come to terms on, say Cruz for <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=paI04016&position=P">Anthony Swarzak</a>. Some may argue this is too high of a price, others may argue it is not enough, but consider the alternatives. For the Diamondbacks, it is either Swarzak or nothing; for the Twins, it is either Swarzak or their 23rd overall pick.<br /><br />However, this is where we currently stand in this market. Teams are beginning to recognize that a free agent is being paid predominantly for what he has done in the past, with only a minor consideration of what he will do in the future. Slowly the long term potential is taking precedence over short term gains. We are in a market where the highly effective Bobby Abreu signed for $5M on a one year deal.<br /><br />But we are also in a market where full-time designated hitter Raul Ibanez signed for three years at $10M a year-to play in the field nonetheless.<br /><br />Maybe baseball isn't getting smarter after-all?Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-59219556614073712662009-02-20T07:01:00.002-05:002009-02-20T07:14:31.771-05:00New Inadmissable EvidenceThe first games of Spring Training are just days away which must excite even the least enthusiastic fan. Here at the Outsiders Look, I am simply beside myself with joy, oh, and the biggest sports trial in recent memory isn't too far off either. Baseball is about to grab center stage and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.<br /><br />Via David Pinto's Baseball Musings, an <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/11400088/rss">interesting article at CBS Sports</a> which states that much of what seemed to be key evidence against Mr. Bonds has been ruled <span style="font-style: italic;">inadmissible</span> for the upcoming trial.<br /><br />According to the article,<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">The decision is a setback for the government in its five-year pursuit of Bonds, who has pleaded not guilty to lying to a grand jury on Dec. 4, 2003, when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said the test results -- urine samples that are positive for steroids -- are inadmissible because prosecutors can't prove conclusively that they belong to Bonds. The judge also barred prosecutors from showing jurors so-called doping calendars that Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, allegedly maintained for the slugger. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The judge said for prosecutors to introduce such evidence, they need direct testimony from Anderson. Illston said Feb. 5 she was leaning toward that ruling.</span></blockquote>Not being familiar with the in's and out's of the court system, I decided to contact the author(s) of <a href="http://sports-law.blogspot.com/">Sports Law Blog</a> for further information. Once I receive a reply I will be certain to discuss this issue further. However, at this point, it is looking as if Mr. Bonds is going to be set free from these charges. If that is the case, the union's collusion case against MLB will gain that much more steam.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-75661602040127086552009-02-17T17:46:00.002-05:002009-02-17T19:23:11.019-05:00A CallRare, if ever, will I sign a petition. I always seem to know of a much better way to spend the 30 seconds of my life it would take to put my name on a form.<br /><br />However this situation is different.<br /><br />By now everyone has heard that a plane crashed in the east Buffalo suburb of Clarence. The magnitude of this crash was felt immediately as WGR 550 morning radio hosts Howard Simon and Jeremy White reported their respective feelings for the tragedy. It was at this point I took note of just exactly the size of the Buffalo community. You can feel it at Sabres games, even when outnumbered by Leaf fans, Western New Yorkers do not go down without a fight.<br /><br />As if hearing the cracking voices of Schopp and the Bulldog on my drive home was not enough to remind me how small the Buffalo community is, today I received an email from my college informing me that a Program Counselor had been directly affected from this tragedy. The counselor lost her uncle, who happened to be living in the house that flight 3407 crashed into on Thursday night. Six degrees of separation was just reduced by two-thirds.<br /><br />So here it is, <a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/Hope4You/">my official request to sign a 'petition'</a> to get Extreme Home Makeover to assist with the rebuilding of a lost home. While nobody can help restore the life that was lost, we as a community can lend a hand to get two lives back on track.<br /><br />And where I would typically end with a scene from <span style="font-style: italic;">It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia</span>, I will instead sign off with <span style="font-style: italic;">Facing and Backing</span> by Hot Water Music:<br /><br />Instead of resting your legs,<br />you should be standing up.<br />Instead of folding your hands,<br />you should be giving them out.<br />Instead of turning your back,<br />you should be showing your face.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631125230779547724.post-46667638409927776332009-02-15T16:16:00.000-05:002009-02-15T17:32:24.670-05:00Salary CappingI've never been pro-salary cap. I simply cannot understand the rationale behind enforcing a cap. Yes, the Yankees spend way more money then the lower class citizen's, and yes there is a decent relationship between the playoffs and spending, however it is not a direct relationship.<br /><br />That is, spending does not invariably get a team into the post-season. It does, ensure the team has a shot at being competitive, but so too does smart management like we have seen in Oakland and Minnesota over the last decade.<br /><br />Sports fans will point to the other sports leagues as examples of <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> there should be a salary cap in baseball. As if there isn't competitive imbalance in basketball (Milwaukee anyone?), football (the dynasty-esqe Patriots), or hockey (see Detroit). For the most part, people ignore the fact that the Cincinnati Bengals have been awful for the better part of two decades. That the Los Angeles Kings are not looking to recreate Wayne Gretzky. Or that the Los Angeles Clippers have essentially always been awful.<br /><br />Let's use a hypothetical cap which Shawn Hoffman of Squawking Baseball suggests in <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8409">an outstanding article at Baseball Prospectus</a>. Shawn suggests that the cap would sit around $100M and the floor would be over $75M. At a cap of $100M there would only be nine teams that would have to lower their payroll. A floor of $75M would increase the payroll of at least eleven teams. In other words, the rebuilding efforts of the Washington Nationals, Kansas City Royals, etc would be squashed as they would have to dish out money to players without long term value.<br /><br />Even if those teams could remain on track with their respective building efforts, another issue exists, one which fans ignore, one that is of incredible importance. That is the fact that baseball is simply different then the other sports. In football and basketball there isn't much a team can do with their excess revenue. Sure they can hire better coaches, supply superior medical facilities, but for the most part, teams operate on an even playing field to begin with.<br /><br />Not so with baseball. In baseball, not every player is involved in the amateur draft. Between professionals from international leagues overseas, or kids from Latin America, the teams with excess cash could simply blow the small market clubs out of the water in those markets.<br /><br />That is, in basketball a player is drafted, signed, and added to the roster of the pro team. He immediately becomes a contributor, if only marginally. It is very rare for a player to be drafted early and sent to the D-League. For the most part, players are NBA-ready on draft day.<br /><br />In baseball this could not be further from the case. Even players with three or four years of college experience under their belts will need a year or two (at least) of minor league seasoning before they are ready to be called up. Due to this, a player's salary could not be justifiably added to the Major League payroll.<br /><br />Adding more confusion to this is in regards to <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> a player is acquired. Taking a look at the draft we see 'over slot' bonuses handed out all the time. Imagine if the Yankees were spending $100M less on their big league roster? You better believe that they are going to spend it somewhere, the first place being the draft.<br /><br />Now imagine the Yankees setting aside an <span style="font-style: italic;">extra</span> $40-60M for the first year player draft. Imagine a top-10 player sitting there with Scott Boras as his agent, knowing full well that the Yankees are going to pay whatever the player asks. The $6M+ that Pedro Alvarez received would be half of what the Yankees would have available for the drafts top prospect. Where are the Pirates going to get $10M to sign this kid?<br /><br />But let's take this a step further. Now we're looking at the top 10 prospects in the first year player draft, each knowing the Yankees have a boat load of cash to spend on draft day. Do you think the teams with lesser financial luxuries will have a leg to negotiate with? No way!<br /><br />So one will say, 'easy solution, we cap the draft spending'. Well, MLB has tried that, so has the NFL. It simply does not work.<br /><br />However, let's pretend that this does hypothetically occur. The Yankees still have that additional $100M that they aren't <span style="font-style: italic;">allowed</span> to spend on their big league roster or on the amateur draft. Where does that money go?<br /><br />How about to the international market, a market which is impossible to cap because of how large of a market we are talking about. Also, what would be capped? Would teams be limited at how many academies they open? Certainly no one is going to argue that the Yankees offer less opportunity (albeit, while being Un-American) to the have-nots of the world.<br /><br />So now we have the Yankees blowing the lid off the international market. Michel Inoa, here are your pinstripes. Felix Hernandez, welcome to the Bronx. Juan Duran, you never knew the Reds.<br /><br />The simple fact remains that there are teams that simply have more money then those they are competing against. Is it absolutely fair? I suppose it isn't. But baseball cannot be <span style="font-style: italic;">fair</span> without devastating the sport and it's current player development.<br /><br /><br />Let's stop this call for a salary cap. Let's remember that the money the Yankees bring in isn't going to stop them from spending, rather, it will cause them to spend money elsewhere. For now, as a fan of a small market club, I don't mind the current financial environment. I don't mind that the Yankees are in a market and a financial position where winning today is everything. That mentality forces the club to spend great sums of cash in order to build the best team possible.<br /><br />However, that is for today. That is the Yankees building a team of players based on what they have done in the past. Who thinks the CC Sabathia or AJ Burnett deals won't look like atrocities toward the end of their respective contracts?<br /><br />So I suppose it is unfair that the Indians didn't have a chance to resign Sabathia long term, but in 2013, I'm sure Indians fans coast to coast will be smiling that Sabathia is not 'anchoring' (literally and figuratively) the Tribe's rotation.<br /><br />Time to re-build.Brandon Heikoophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110882879784940527noreply@blogger.com0