Barry Bonds Didn't Sin Afterall

Jonathan Littman at Yahoo! Sports writes the first part of a series which will dive into the 30,000 pages of testimony from the BALCO case. The conclusion of this first article in this series, apparently the perjury case against Barry Bonds does not hold as much water as we have been led to believe.

I am not incredibly knowledgeable in regards to the justice system and perjury charges; however I have found it interesting that congress found 19 cases in which Bonds lied however are only charging him with 4 acts of perjury. While Bonds simply needs to be found guilty of one of these charges, I would think that the more charges against an individual the greater chance of one sticking.

The problem, which Littman discusses, is that it is looking more and more likely that Bond did not knowingly lie to congress. At the time, the Clear, the substance Bonds did not deny taking, was not classified as an illegal steroid. This, according to Littman, could be enough for Bonds’ lawyers to have his charges dropped due to the assumption that an individual may refer to steroids as an illegal substance.

From the Littman article,

Bonds’ attorneys could argue that even if he took the Clear, he wasn’t lying when he responded by saying "Not that I know of."

"It’s reasonable to think that the person answering a question about steroids would think they were asking about an illegal steroid," said Charles La Bella, a former U. S. attorney and chief of the criminal division for the Southern District of California who now practices criminal defense in San Diego.

"[A jury] wants unambiguous terms."

More than two months after Bonds testified, the government dropped clues that it was aware that the Clear was legal – and not a steroid.

While this is not evidence to the Bonds apologists that Bonds did not take steroids, this can be place in the "Bonds did nothing wrong" file.

Furthermore, Littman asserts,

The government believes it has tripped Bonds, but whether he falls will be determined in court. The fact that the key drug he is accused of taking was legal and not recognized as a steroid under federal law could complicate the case, experts say.

"I don’t understand why the government would seek an indictment after obtaining Catlin’s expert testimony that the Clear was not a steroid," Cannon said. "Why come up with an indictment based on an ambiguous definition?"

One needs to keep in mind that no matter the outcome of this trial, Bonds is not being tried based on whether he has or has not taken steroids. Rather, Bonds is being investigated in his part with the BALCO investigation.

According to Littman,

Neither Conte nor Anderson was charged with distributing THG. In fact, nobody in the seven-year BALCO investigation has been charged with possession or trafficking of the drug. Less than $2,000 of drugs was found in the highly publicized raid of the Burlingame, Calif., laboratory in 2003.

With this in mind, I find it interesting that congress is spending as much time and money on such a minor issue. This will certainly go down as an embarrassment to congress if (and when) the charges are subsequently dropped. That the media has fed into this being a larger case then it actually is seems to be more associated with Bonds and pinning him as the bad guy then it does with solving the steroid issue.

Mis-Article of the Week - Misremembering Facts

When did it become okay for writers to improperly analyze facts?

I know everyone wants to be a sports writer, but simply because you have fingers and a keyboard does not give an individual the right to incorrectly report the on goings of the game. If you aren't going to offer anything of worth to the conversation, my advice, don't offer anything at all.

On Wednesday, a writer from Baseball Digest Daily decided he would pen one of the least educated pieces baseball will see this year. The writer proclaimed that the Toronto Blue Jays have called it quits on the 2009 season simply because they are not being overly active in free agency. The author's central thesis, 'The Jays spent x in 2008 and are on pace to spend x-1 in 2009, they certainly don't care about winning'.

Now the jump to conclusions mat is often a comfortable place to land for authors, and I suppose it is irresponsible for me to assert the author understands the current economic realities in North America, but really? Come on Mr. Hamrahi, if you are going to drop me as a writer, at least bring in someone who is going to report some of the facts, not merely typing aimlessly to reach a weekly quota.

Let's attack what is incorrect about the authors article.

First, if the Jays are in fact spending less money this year, it is completely rationale. Recall, in early December that the Blue Jays were said to be laying off many of it's employees, predominantly from the sales staff. The layoffs were said to be 'in the 30s'.

While I can't confirm how significant 30 layoffs are, I am willing to speculate the Jays are cutting over a million dollars. So that the Jays may be spending less money on the on-the-field product, this is a top to bottom decision, presumably tied to the passing of Ted Rogers.

Second, are the Jays spending less money? The author states that the Jays are scheduled to fall $15M under 2008's $100M team payroll. For arguments sake, I will assume the author does not know that different nations use different currencies and that different currencies have different respective values.

According to the Bank of Canada, the exchange rate on the day the article was penned (January 7th, 2009) sat at 18.5%. This means that in order to purchase one American dollar, it would cost $1.18 Canadian. Keep in mind, this is the Bank of Canada's rate, which is not the rate an individual would be able to buy the currency, but for simplicity sake, we'll say it is.

A year ago to that very day, the exchange rate was essentially par (0.5%), in fact, the following day the exchange rate actually favored the loonie.

So let's break this down. On January 7th, 2008, the Jays $100M payroll cost them $100M. Simple.

Exactly one year from that day, eighty five million loonies would have cost a little over one hundred and one million Susan B. Anthony's.

In other words, that Jays have actually increased their payroll and are subsequently not "quit[ting] on a season".

With the loonie sitting relatively idle, it is not unreasonable for the Jays organization to believe that the eighty five million United States dollars they are investing has the same value as the one hundred million they spent last year.

Assuming the author does not know anything about the current state of the economy, nor the differences between currencies, one would expect a writer for a baseball website to provide accurate and insightful information regarding baseball specific facts. Not so.

The third piece of misinformation, the author discusses the Jays failure to sign Jason Giambi. While Giambi would certainly be an offensive upgrade over Adam Lind, Lyle Overbay, and/or Travis Snider there are more negatives to this signing then the offensive upgrades. That is, Giambi would mean that Lind, Snider, or Overbay would be pushed out of the starting lineup. One can make an argument for Overbay (although the Blue Jays high valuation of team defensive play would arguable eliminate Giambi from playing in the field), but Lind and Snider are two young, high upside players. Both are essential locks to be healthy all season, and given their youth, could potentially outperform the aging Giambi.

Not only that, one has to assume that Giambi would play in Toronto instead of signing for a home-state discount in Oakland. In other words, signing Giambi may marginally benefit the Jays, but it would almost be like the Yankees bringing in Francisco Rodriguez at a closer's salary to close the games Mariano Rivera can't. We're bordering on useless and stupid.

The author then attacks JP Ricciardi's decision to bring in David Eckstein. I suppose the new standard at BDD is accurately reporting one fact-a year late. Eckstein has since left town (in exchange for a nice, albeit relatively unimportant prospect, Chad Beck) and the Jays are, according to the author, need to find a replacement.

Because Eckstein was such a vital part of the Blue Jays success in 2008, the author states, "so couldn’t the Blue Jays use a veteran like Orlando Cabrera with his .281 BA, 8 HR’s, 57 RBI’s and 19 SB’s?"

The easy answer, 'Sure', any team could use any above replacement level player. You know, I could 'use' a new car. I could 'use' a new watch. When you ask a stupid question, there are only stupid, pointless answers.

That said, the question the author should have asked is, 'so don't the Blue Jays need a veteran like Cabrera and his pointless counting stats?'

At which point, a person with even a marginal ability to analyze baseball would say, 'No! They certainly do not!'

Really? Why not? I mean Cabrera's contract would not only get the Jays well over what they spent in 2008, but it would also cost the club a draft pick.

That's not all! For signing Cabrera the Blue Jays would also have the honor of placing Cabrera in a position that is currently manned by the superior, Marco Scutaro. Scuatro, if you recall, was the 'Shoulda' runner-up for the short stop gold glove award in the American League. While his hitting leaves much to be desired, so too does Cabrera's at this point in his career. In other words, the Jays have a similar hitting short stop who also happens to have an incredible mit.

By deciding not to throw his money away, by choosing not to exceed last years payroll, JP Riccardi is, I quote, "a slap in the face of Blue Jay fans". In other words, according to this incredible analysis, JP Riccardi's decision to ensure his team does not get worse, is the same as slapping each and every Jays fan in the face-specifically those Drunk Jays Fans.


How does this pile of garbage get published?

Prior to being 'released' from BDD, I had been considering leaving the site due to a lack of quality analysis involved. The site appeared more for the casual fan of the game then for someone who is looking to be challenged, someone who wants to dive deep into the game of baseball. BDD, for all intents and purposes, had become more of a secondary place for baseball news. If it is a weekend at MLB.com, then BDD is the place to go.

Not only does the author of this piece think that the only way to win is by spending money, but he feels that teams should ignore their current assets and load up on free agents. This author is essentially useless to the baseball community with articles of this ilk.

Questionable Assumption - Would Barry Have Been a Good Hitter in 2008?

As promised, yet another follow up to the Barry Bonds saga.

Jack Marshall writes,

...[S]igning Bonds in order to make the playoffs would have been a dubious and foolish deal for any team, even if one buys the questionable assumption that he would have played well enough to hold up his end of it.

Questionable assumption? I'm sorry, but did I miss something?

While Marshall is accurate in asserting that Bonds would have been an injury risk had a team signed him for the 2008 season (or even for half of the 2008 season), sometimes the risk outweighs the reward. The risk involved in this scenario would be signing Barry to the league minimum and getting zero at bats out of him.

The reward? Signing Barry to the league minimum and getting close to the season Barry put up in 2007.

On the surface, to someone who is simply a fan of the game, that might not mean much. I mean, 28 home runs and 75 runs batted in is not going to win an MVP award in this day and age-unless of course you are a scrappy underdog. But further analysis gives us a different story.

Let's first look at some of the numbers Barry put up in 2007 as a 42 year old.

Barry posted the 6th highest wOBA in all of Major League Baseball during the 2007 season. This is not a park adjusted figure, but alone, that speaks highly of Mr Bonds. Keep in mind Bonds' .429 mark that season would have rated 4th in the league in 2008. That .429 figure would have been tops among American League DH's , and 80 points higher then the league average DH with 300 or more plate appearances, a number that is higher then it should be due to some non-DH qualified hitters making the list (Guerrero and Guillen).

Thus, in the best possible scenario, Bonds is the #1 rated DH in the American League ahead of Milton Bradley.

However, despite wOBA being 'league adjusted', I don't feel comfortable simply sliding Bonds' numbers over to the American League and saying, 'viola'. What I want to prove is that Bonds would have been a highly efficient hitter had he moved to the American League and DHed. This is giving the author that Bonds absolutely could not play in the outfield-which is a 'questionable assumption' given some of the iron glovers that patrol left field, but something I will still accept for arguments sake.

Let us, however, look at one more statistic before diving into the knitty-gritty.

Equivalent Average (EQA), Baseball Prospectus' league, park, and pitching adjusted statistic which takes into account baserunning-something I will readily accept Bonds can rate low at. Still, from 2005 to 2007, Bonds posted an EQA of .330, .334, and .353. Even if we take Bonds' half season, injury wrecked 2005, he still would have rated as the 5th best hitter in all of baseball in 2008. His .353 mark in 2007 would have rated him as the top DH, ahead of Bradley by 12 points.

In other words, based entirely on what Bonds had done recently, there was little reason to believe he couldn't have been a useful designated hitter in 2008, even for 50 games.

But how useful?

As I dove into when analyzing the JJ Putz to the Mets deal, the FanGraphs.com provided statistics of O and Z-Swing Percentage and O and Z-Contact Percentages. Briefly summarizing this, via FanGraphs.com:

• O-Swing%: The percentage of pitches a batter swings at outside the strike zone.
• Z-Swing%: The percentage of pitches a batter swings at inside the strike zone.
• Swing%: The overall percentage of pitches a batter swings at.
• O-Contact%: The percentage of pitches a batter makes contact with outside the strike zone when swinging the bat.
• Z-Contact%: The percentage of pitches a batter makes contact with inside the strike zone when swinging the bat.
• Contact%: The overall percentage of a batter makes contact with when swinging the bat.
• Zone%: The overall percentage of pitches a batter sees inside the strike zone.
  

Utilizing this data, and understanding that this data translate extremely well from season to season for individual players, we can begin to see what we could have expected from Barry in 2008, based purely on his approach at the plate.

As one might expect, the fewer times a hitter swings at pitches outside of the strike zone (ie. having a low O-Swing Percentage-OS%), the higher the hitters walk rate. Interestingly, this does not correlate to a hitters strikeout rate.

In 2006 and 2007, Bonds displayed his usual excellent eye at the plate, rating in the top five among most patient hitters in the league. Keep in mind, Barry had essentially nothing around him during these two seasons, en route to receiving the most intentional base on balls both years.

Of course that would go on to skew Barry's numbers, as he obviously is not going to swing at a pitch when the catcher is not in his crouch and is a few steps from the plate. Nevertheless, Barry did not receive those type of walks through having Wily Mo Pena-type discipline.

Thus, Barry's ability to lay off outside pitches means he was likely to sustain a high walk rate in 2008. Further, Barry has consistently been among the league leaders in seeing pitches outside of the strikezone, as well as having a very low (which is good) first pitch, strike rate. Again, there is definitely a connection between having no one around Barry, and being a league leader in this area, but clearly Bonds' ability and reputation is enough for pitchers to keep staying away from him.

One area where Bonds is simply 'average' (by Barry's standards) is in regards to making contact outside of the strike zone (OC%). This is not necessarily a negative, but does go to show that the odd occassion where Barry swings at a pitch outside of the strike zone, it's most likely not his pitch. That being said, Bonds still rates well above average in making contact during these occassions, so the change in leagues shouldn't account for much of a deviation aside from a short adjustment period.


Given, as mentioned, these statistics are fairly constant from season to season, it is safe to assume that Bonds would have been an equally as valuable asset getting on base as he had been the previous years with the Giants. While an adjustment period would have ensued, it is unlikely that he moved to a worse hitters park in the American League, and thus, would have been an equally proficient hitter.

Worst case scenario, however, is that Barry is platooning at designated hitter. Having additional time off, as well as not being required to stand, jog, and run for up to two hours a night would certainly keep Barry fresh.

BOOM!

I told you not to get involed with that...

Why is an ethicist, a 'fan', analyzing baseball? That would be like me calling Rachel Ray and telling her how to prepare for a formal function. Sure, I like food, but that doesn't mean I know how prepare a high quality meal. I mean, you could get a good look at a cow by putting your head...Wait, the butcher?

Just Let it Go...

Not just yet. I'm going to take a look at three of the main aspects regarding the Barry Bonds issue as pertaining to the article written by Jack Marshall over at the Hardball Times. I know, I have went over this article twice already, but I feel as though there are a couple more issues which need to be addressed.

This article will address Marshall's flawed argument regarding 'Baseball uphold[ing] the American ethical standards more so then any other professional league in America'. With this argument, Marshall asserted that baseball would never put up with a Pacman Jones. In fact, as I mentioned, the argument regarding Clay Buchholz holds little water.

The next article will address Marshall's assertion that Bonds would not be of a help to a Major League roster. While Marshall can always fall back on the fact that Bonds is 'old' and invariably vulnerable to injury, I will provide evidence that even if Bonds does succumb to injury, he was likely to be more valuable in 2008 then a great deal of players.

The final (hopefully) article will return to the question regarding baseball's place in upholding America's ethical standards. That article will touch on ideas offered by John Brattain as well as those found throughout other portals of the web.

Once this is all taken care of, I will return to my regular articles, Under the Radar, Trade Reflections, as well as getting back to work on my prospect lists.


Back at the topic at hand, a response to Marshall's article at Ball Hype brought up an excellent point, one that Marshall unethically ignored. That is, baseball is different then the other major sports leagues in North America, this, from a socio-economic perspective.

The commenter wrote,

Furthermore, I disagree that baseball has less crime than football or basketball, at least relatively speaking. If you compare the crime rates of baseball players against their socio-economic peers prior to becoming professional baseball players, you will see the same thing that you see in football and basketball: the crime rate is slightly lower...It just so happens that football and basketball (particularly basketball) draw from a socio-economic group that has a higher crime rate than baseball. That has more to do with the fans of the sport - it's not something that baseball itself cultivates. My point is your belief that baseball somehow upholds a higher ethical standard is pure fantasy.

Now this is based on relatively vague evidence, and something that could certainly be further investigated, but stay with me.

In America, African Americans are substantially more likely to be imprisoned then any other race. While there are many reasons that lead to this result, of which I will not spend the time going over, the fact remains that an African American male is six times more likely to be imprisoned then a Caucasian male. While this does not equate to criminal activities as a whole, the trend is large enough not to ignore.

If we take this generality and look at it from the perspective of sports, it would appear obvious that baseball (and it's fewer then ten percent population of African Americans) would follow only hockey in terms of imprisonment league-wide.

This seems to hold true as it is rare to hear about any ballplayer going to jail or being charged criminally. It is even more rare to find this within hockey, that is even more dominated by Caucasians.

Marshall cited the Cincinnati Bengals and their players continual involvement with criminal activity. He brought up Pacman Jones who is the exception for football players, not the rule. But even still, the NFL has nearly seven times the amount of African American's that baseball has, would it not be obvious that football then would have around seven times as much criminal activity?

The same can be said within basketball, which has nearly ten times the amount of African Americans.

None of this is to say that African Americans are invariably, not in the least bit. Rather, statistically, there is a greater chance for an individual of color to end up imprisoned then a non-Hispanic, white.

The next thing to look at is in regards to culture. The culture in these sports is vastly different. In hockey and baseball, even the most prolific prospects are stuck riding in buses, making little to no money (relatively speaking) until around their 25th birthday.

Conversely, the amateur stars in both football and basketball are praised prior to becoming professionals. We hear about the party life that is so closely tied with football. Basketball has an annual All-Star binge that is highly publicized. And to the fact that a great deal of players in both sports are multi-millionaires prior to their 25th birthday, and there is a perfect storm for irresponsibility.

Stan McNeil of the Sporting News wrote an interesting piece of the lack of African American's in baseball, part of his conclusion read,

Youth baseball has become so organized (translation: expensive) that kids from poor families have little chance of keeping up with players on traveling teams that participate in 80 games a summer across various states.

Baseball competes with football and basketball, games which appear to provide a quicker path to fame and fortune.

"It's simple, really," the Blue Jays' Wells says. "The length of time it takes to get to the big leagues is a turnoff, and having to go to (minor league) cities that most people have never heard of is a turnoff. The NFL and NBA make for a quicker way to be famous."

We also have another factor at play, a factor that is outside of race and ethnicity-press and media.

Think back to the final weeks of this season on SportsCenter or otherwise. This should be a time when baseball is at the forefront of American sports media, but this isn't the case. While baseball logs a substantial amount of time at this point of the year, it is still battling football (both college and professional), basketball, and to a lesser extent, hockey, and soccer.

Baseball is clearly not as popular as basketball, and especially football. Thus, even if the criminal activities were the same in baseball, we wouldn't hear about them as frequently as we do the criminal activities of basketball and football based solely on the amount of media coverage.

Consider the amount of criminal activities we hear about in MLS? Because we rarely, if ever, hear of anything of this sort, does that mean there are not any wrongs being committed by the players in this sport?

So perception is the catalyst of criminal activity in professional sports, if we hear about it more, it must be happening more frequently. Interestingly, baseball plays the most games and for the longest periods of time, yet we hear about it less then we do football.

Perception can also be seen from another angle.

In each of the other professional sports there are legitimate 'faces' of the league. Basketball has LeBron Jame, Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, etc. Hockey has Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, etc. Football has its Eli and Payton Manning, Tom Brady, Reggie Bush, etc. But who does baseball have?

Yes, Albert Pujols is a household name, but I would wager that there are even a casual baseball fans who couldn't pick him out in a lineup. I wouldn't be surprised if the only time a non-baseball fan saw Alex Rodriguez's face was when it was linked with Madonna.

In baseball, unlike the other professional sports in North America, it appears as though the heroes and legends are built locally. Each team has a face, but there are few players who would be recognized outside of the context of baseball.


As we can see, there is a lot more to the story then what Marshall decided to report on. Marshall decides that 'counting stats' are the way to go in this discussion when there are clearly more logical ways to analyze it. True, this is a minor part of Marshall's argument, but by dissecting his article and pointing out the major flaws, much of his explanation begins to unravel.

That is, the evidence behind baseball holding up America's ethical standards is weak at best (and lessens when looked at from yet another angle). So what is Mr. Marshall trying to say?

Well, he has somewhat changed his tune to suggesting that he 'told you so'. I'm not sure if it surprises many people that Bonds was not signed, rather, I think there is enough of the population that simply do not agree that Bonds shouldn't have been singed.

"Personally, I (Jack Marshall) DO feel the same about Brendan Donnelly, Giambi, et al"

That's false, he does not.

In his article he wrote that he would stop supporting the Boston Red Sox as long as the regime that employed Bonds was still intact. Yet comically he does not have the same angst toward the Red Sox for buying Paul Byrd? In other words, he does not feel the same about Donnelly, Giambi, et al. that he does about Bonds.

Which helps confirm the fact that Marshall is more a Bonds hater, then anything else.

On Logic and Barry

Well apparently I've gone out and upset someone, quite possibly ticked them off. That's fine, often times during a discussion individuals let their passion and opinion trump logic. Yesterday I reviewed an article over at the Hardball Times. An article which seemed to ruffle a bunch of feathers and even got 'voted down' at Ball Hype (something I have personally never seen from a THT article). That said, there was a very interesting discussion at Ball Hype in regards to this column. About 10 people chimed in with responses to the article, only one of whom was truly agreeing with the author (although I recognize that people are more likely to speak up when they disagree then when they agree).

The author of that piece decided to chime in himself, disregarding many of the comments made and shutting down only those that he can illogically skew - albeit, these were the typical rejections that are met with this discussion.

The discussion at hand is, Why did teams refuse to sign Barry Bonds? The author believes there is a simple ethical explanation, although it doesn't hold much weight when you break it down (something I will do later).

What I am writing about is a few issues I have with the authors rejection of logic.

First, the author ignores the cases in which baseball has turned its eye to 'bad behavior'. Between the message board at Baseball Think Factory (I encourage you to flip through them, it is a great and educated discussion) and at Ball Hype, there are mentions of a parallel between Pacman Jones and Elijah Dukes.

While Pacman Jones is clearly not a model citizen, Elijah Dukes isn't really reeking of parental approval - although truth be told, I imagine Dukes doesn't care. Not being one to typically dive into the personal lives of the sport I love, a post at Ball Hype states,

"Baseball sure likes to pick and choose its ethical battles, then...Drunk driving is a much greater evil than steroid use. And do you really believe that anyone would hesitate picking up Urbina if he weren't in prison?"

Isn't that the sad truth. I think back to a story when Milton Bradley asked a police officer if he knew who Bradley was. This invariably led to Bradley leaving the Indians, but in the midst of baseball's off season, we see Bradley is one of the most sought after free agent outfielders. More so then perfect records of Adam Dunn, Pat Burrell, and Bobby Abreu.

Or how about when baseball's good guy, Albert Pujols, was named in Jason Grimsley's affidavit? How quickly was that brushed aside by baseball? How many reporters jumped on that story discrediting Pujols for his miraculous climb up baseballs ladder?

The author then turns this morality issue on an axis, providing factually defunct examples. One such example, "Basketball refuses to do anything about pot use, because it would decimate the league."

Decimate the league? I know we hear some about marijuana issues in the NBA, but of the 500+ players in the NBA, are there more then 10 arrests a year? I mean, how many NBAers played in the Olympics? How many of them have tested positive for marijuana? Were those not most of the best players the NBA has?

At worst, I'd say marijuana use in the NBA is worth monitoring, but extremely far from being a cause to 'decimate' the league. I'd say STD's have a better shot at doing that.

The next error, "Has any baseball team ever tolerated the number of criminals, or even a small percentage of same, accumulated by the Bengals of recent vintage?"

Answer, no. Bravo! But I would like to further my answer with a question to the authors question: Has any other football team ever tolerated the number of criminals, or even a small percentage of same accumulated by the Bengals of recent vintage?

Answer, no. The Bengals were a special case. A team that went after 'bad seeds' as they were under valued on draft day. A team that had perpetually lost for nearly two decades that was looking for any semblance of progress.

The fact there, however, is it sort of worked for the Bengals. If only for a moment.

This is where logic chimes in loud and clear. The author obviously does not know specifics about what he is talking about. He understands ethics, but cannot argue popular culture to save his life.

The author takes the following stab at me,

"Brandini, on the other hand, adopts the ridiculous argument that because baseball was a little late adopting a wholly unnecessary rule against what was already ILLEGAL under US law, Barry wasn't cheating. Baseball, like the rest of society, is bound by the laws...it doesn't have to specify that every felony is prohibited by baseball too. This may be the lamest of all the Bonds defenses."

First, my assertion that Bonds wasn't cheating is based on him not breaking any of the rules of the game of baseball. In baseball, a pitcher can throw a ball at a hitters head and get a 'warning'. Whereas here in the West, if one were caught throwing a ball at an individuals head, I'm more then certain a restraining order would at least be placed on the thrower.

This is not to say that all laws in the US do not apply to the world of baseball, although that is a questionable assertion in and of itself. For example, if one were to purchase and use steroids in Mexico, would they be breaking a US law? Would this then make it acceptable for one to use steroids, as long as they did them in legal settings?

Second, I did not claim that Bonds was not cheating simply because baseball was 'behind' in making its rules. In fact, I argued that baseball was pushing the use of steroids (and I used a source too! Wow! What a concept!).

That being said, my point was that 'cheating' is breaking the rules of baseball, not society. If Ken Griffey Jr was a negligent parent, would this mean he is 'cheating'? Obviously that is a stretch, as being a poor parent has nothing to do with baseball performance, but I wonder how much the author knows about steroids and baseball performance? On a scale of 10 to -10 do we think he would rate in the positives or the negatives?

He does, however, attempt to know the relationship between performance and steroids (something not even Bill James is able to conclude on). Here the author reasons, "Drunk driving may or may not be worse than illegal steroid use, but unlike steroid use, it doesn't provide a competitive advantage, now, does it?"

First, how many terrible players have taken steroids and still ended up being terrible? All we know is that there are some players who allegedly took steroids that had 'breakout seasons', although it is simply an assumption that the player had this breakout season due to the steroids. If all one needs to do to provide reasonable is to suggest a player who did not improve while taking steroids, how about Alex Sanchez? Breakout seasons happen for all sorts of reasons. To argue that every steroid user had a breakout season is to simply ignore facts.

Second, how do we know that driving drunk does not improve a players ability? Yes, this is a stretch. But think of the pressures a player puts on himself during a baseball season. If the player decides not to go out to the bar, or maybe head home a little early, is it unreasonable to think that a couple drinks wouldn't relieve him of some stress?


The author continues with a lengthy explanation of his justification. But he presents a major error in his first example. One that I need to point out.

The scenario,

"The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with rightly concluding that someone is guilty of misconduct when the evidence is overwhelming. Let us presume your companion, standing right next to you, suddenly ran up to someone on the street and strangled him right before your eyes, in broad daylight, then came back to you and said, "I'm sorry you had to see that, but I just had to kill the guy." Would you later maintain that there was a question whether he had actually committed the murder? In the eyes of the law, your deadly companion would still be technically "innocent," because a jury hadn't pronounced him guilty. But this wouldn't mean that there was the slightest doubt that he committed the act, and it would be unreasonable, indeed absurd, for you to claim otherwise. The huge amount of documentation and testimony gathered in the book "Game of Shadows" places Bonds perilously close to the status of your fictional companion. At a certain point, the presumption of innocence concerns only process, not truth."

Let's put this into some different perspectives.

The first, the 'murderer' has a clean record, is a model citizen, and has a good relationship with the district attorney. The 'witness' has a long record, is a narcotic user, and has little to no references to speak of.

Would a judge find the 'murderer' guilty based on the claim of the 'witness' in this scenario? Probably not.

Let's spin this around. We're got the 'murderer' who has a fine record, but isn't well liked. The 'witness' doesn't report the issue immediately, but has a decent track record and most people like him.

Chances are, that even without raw evidence the judge won't be able to find the murderer guilty, but on an off day, evidence be damned.

Let's put this into baseball perspectives now. In scenario number two, the 'murderer' is Barry Bonds, the 'witness' are those belonging to the media.

Now I'm not going to say that Barry Bonds did not to steroids. What I am going to say is that I'd like to see some more evidence before passing judgment. While there is plenty of quality evidence, I'm still not sold. I won' argue for or against it nor will I tell people they are wrong for going either way, but I won't watch FOX News, those people probably do.


With all of that said, there is no way a person can call Barry Bonds a 'cheater'. If Barry was the only player to use steroids, sure, but he wasn't. In fact, he wasn't the first, nor will he be the last. Did Bonds break some ethical standards? Sure. But how many people wouldn't take the same efforts to be the best they are? This is occurring in academia. It is occurring in medicine.

However, this does not make what Bonds did as 'ethical'. So the author has a marginal point. What Bonds did was unethical. So too were the actions of the majority of baseball. Thus, the question to ask then, 'is it ethical to pick a scapegoat?' While many of us may do so currently, that doesn't make it right.

Barry Bonds is Unethical?

Over at the Hardball Times there is a well-written, albeit illogical, rationale regarding why teams did not sign Barry Bonds for the 2008 season. THT writer John Brattain has spent much of the season putting together a series of asserting that MLB has intentionally avoided Barry and done so wrongfully.

To start, I will reaffirm everyone that I am an official Barry Bond apologist. I always thought the needle-throwing incidents, while humorous, were inappropriate and appeared to align with jealousy and envy over anything else. That is, I simply do not feel that the chance that Bonds did steroids was worthy of the scrutiny that he received (keep in mind, this 'chance' has increased exponentially in the last 4 years, although it still is not confirmed with any legitimate evidence).

Barry Bonds is still a phenomenal ballplayer. If the court of public opinion had not already drawn up their verdict regarding Bonds' alleged steroid use, the 2007 season should have went a long way in guiding Bonds to innocence. I mean, how many 43 year old ballplayers put up a wOBA of .429? A non-park adjusted rate that would have been good for number six in all of Major League Baseball had Bonds qualified. Keep this fact in mind.

All that being said, in similar fashion to John Brattain, I do feel as though Bonds would have helped a number of teams in the 2008 season. His impending trial would not have affected how many games he played, at worst giving Bonds some much needed time off from the baseball world.

While there is a legitimate reason to believe that the fans of the teams Bonds could have helped would have been disappointed regarding the signing of Barry Bonds. But how many of them would have truly turned their backs on their favorite MLB franchise? How many of them wouldn't have come pouring in through the turnstiles in the midst of a postseason race in August and September? How many of them would have rejected the playoffs because of speculation?

If, of a teams fan base, more then five percent were truly against the Bonds signing so much so that they would bail from following the team, I would be surprised. While it may take some time to warm up to Barry, even in the worst of lights, his game would have created enough buzz to forget, at least temporarily, why people hated the best player of all time.


Back to the article at hand. Jack Marshall is labelled an 'ethicist', a questionable moniker if there ever was one. This, in my opinion, is the equivalent of the faux pas it would have been for a professional snowboarder to call himself a 'pro' a decade ago. This is like religions battling over who is going to be saved. This, is an interesting profession, and comically un-ethical.

Getting to the article, the author asks, "Are baseball commentators really so disconnected from the ethical imperatives of the game?" He mentions these 'imperatives' later, but they are a joke. He claims that these 'imperatives' are obvious due to one case, the Red Sox potentially avoiding the drafting of Clay Buccholz due to a high school incident. I don't think I need to remind everyone how that turned out. Yes, the Red Sox still drafted Clay and he has vaulted up the clubs prospect rankings.

Now I'm not a 'logicist', but has the author not heard of negotiation tactics? Is he also 100% certain that this is factual? Could this not simply been one of the 'cons'? Nope, not according to the author. It is an open and shut case in his opinion.

It's too bad jumping to conclusions is ethical.

The author also fails to properly report facts. "Can anyone imagine a pro football team hesitating for one second from drafting a promising prospect because of something like this?"

Yes, there is a penalty for teams drafting players with a 'history' if that player gets into trouble with his drafted team. There is also a strict personal conduct policy in the National Football League. What does baseball have?

The author asks another question, "Do they really not grasp what signing Barry Bonds, for any amount of money or no amount at all, would have meant?" To which he himself never really answers, maybe I can piece some sort of logic together.

"[S]igning Bonds in order to make the playoffs would have been a dubious and foolish deal for any team, even if one buys the questionable assumption that he would have played well enough to hold up his end of it."

'Questionable assumption'? Based on what? Yes, Barry would have been 44 years old in 2008, but is this author really trying tell me that it was likely that Bonds would fall off the map as a designated hitter? We would be talking a fairly substantial fall as well. That is, Bonds' non-park adjusted wOBA of .429 would need to plummet nearly 100 points in order for him to be worse then the league average designated hitter.

The author then points to the Mitchell Report as his evidence why teams were justified in avoiding Barry. We do recall that the major sources in the Mitchell Report were essentially drug dealers, right? Either way, as a lawyer and an ethicist I find it depressing that the author is: a) taking the opinion of a drug dealer, and b) acting upon Napoleon Law (guilty until proven innocent). How ethical is it to circumvent due process and figure that a person is guilty based on a tiny amount of evidence?

In case you thought it was hilarious that the author tried to suggest that Bonds wouldn't help a team, you might want to cover your eyes for this next doozey.

"Cynics may scoff, and Barry himself couldn’t care less, but baseball is the one professional sport that carries with it a duty to the American culture. Character counts in America, and baseball is bound by history, tradition and its role in legend and myth to make certain that character counts on its playing fields as well. Baseball players, as Bill James quite accurately stated, are paid to be heroes. The sport does not have the raw physical display of football, or the speed of basketball, or the simple-minded appeal of soccer. What it does have that no other professional sport even values very much is integrity, or at least an appreciation that integrity is important."

Carries the duty of American culture? I think the author means Melanophobia, right Houston?

Let's skip through the bulk of that quote as much of it comes off as ignorant and comical. But let's tough on 'integrity'. Is the author really trying to tell us that the baseball executives, journalists, and fans of the 90s truly thought steroid use was 'ethical'? There was no integrity at the height of the steroid era, there was a campaign to encourage hitters to take more steroids.

It has been well documented that teams shifted their focus towards weight training in light of the home run explosions. In Howard Bryant's Juicing the Game the author has multiple sources suggesting teams use to provide amphetamines for its players. Baseball has integrity? Since when?!?

"But the Mitchell Report, released a year ago, was a crystal-clear announcement that the sport was banishing its ethical ambiguity on the matter of performance-enhancing drugs."

Crystal clear? Taking the word of a man with a gun to his head is 'crystal clear'? I'm sorry, but I really cannot understand how one can make that conclusion. What the Mitchell Report did was name some names and force it down the public's throat. For a couple years prior to the Report, baseball had been attacking its steroid problem head on. Not a whole lot has changed since the Report, at least nothing that is 'crystal clear'.

"Cheating was not cool, and cheaters were not welcome. The conduct was officially inconsistent with the values and best interests of the game (as it had, in fact, always been), and the owners, players, teams and fans were hereby expected to heed that fact."

How is Bonds a 'cheat'? Did he break any rules? Did he do something out of the ordinary? Let's agree that he did PED's, was this against the rules of baseball? Were they throwing the book at Bonds' peers while Bonds invariably threw his teammates under the bus? What logic can one have to assert that Bonds 'cheated'? How would one define 'cheat' or 'to cheat' in order to conclude that Barry in fact did cheat?

The fact is, Bonds did not 'cheat', he simply was an amazing player would benefited from baseball turning a blind eye. This isn't like a student copying off of a peers test when the teacher isn't looking. This is like driving over the speed limit and then slowing down in areas where police officers typically park. This is like not properly counting your change at the grocery store not noticing that the cashier gave you an extra 50 cents.

According to the author,

"A team could employ one of the many mediocre, borderline or journeyman players whose names appeared in the Mitchell Report without making the implied statement that it was endorsing and rewarding a cheat."

Why?

Well, according to the author, it is because Bonds broke records. The author asserts that Bonds did so on the back of PEDs and PEDs alone. It would come as no surprise if the author believes Bonds was using in 2007, and probably still is today.

"[H]is career stood for the proposition that steroid use could turn a great player into a super-human juggernaut, shattering all previous limits; that they could allow players to improve dramatically when historically athletes began to decline; that the drugs could lengthen their careers, make the players become more valuable to their teams, and earn them millions more dollars than they would have earned otherwise—and they could get away with it."

A 'great' player? Lance Berkman is a 'great' player. Chipper Jones is a 'great' player. Barry Bonds was historical prior to any steroid allegations. He was historical prior to even becoming a feared home run hitter. Had Barry Bonds retired after the 1999 season he would have been a Hall of Fame no-brainer, and would have went down in history as one of the best hitters of all time.

What did the steroid use do? Honestly, we don't and won't ever know. In 2006 and 2007 Bonds was 42 and 43 years old. During these years, which are labeled as 'post-steroid', Bonds was still in the upper echelon of hitters in all of baseball. Wait?!? Players aren't supposed to do that sort of stuff, he must have been still using.

As we can see from Bonds' age 42 and 43 season, clearly his career would have been long no matter what. In fact, there is a legitimate argument to be made that steroids have shortened his career. I mean, isn't rapid degeneration of muscles, joints, etc one of the main reasons steroids aren't prescribed more frequently?

Also, isn't there a legitimate argument that steroids took money out of Bonds' pocket? Think about it. While Bonds was making a lot of money, how much more would he have made if there wasn't a Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, or juiced up pitchers?

The author then goes about an interesting scale called the Cognitive Dissonance Scale. In summary, this scale is a popularity index. For example, I love apples, but hate bananas. I find out apples are bananas and begin to like apples less, and bananas more.

What I don't see is how this relates to Barry Bonds.

The author is telling us that Mets and Jays fans (and other 'also ran' franchises) would feel better in October watching other teams in MLBs playoff then their favorite simply because of an accusation?

Let's put it this way, maybe I am in the minority, but October 2008 was half as enjoyable as October 2007 because the Indians were not in the post season. This, coming from an individual who simply loves baseball and doesn't spend an intense amount of time following a single team.

That said, there is very little the Indians could have done to get into the playoffs that would have pushed me to the brink of not cheering for them. Very little.

"I would not continue to follow or support the team if it embraced the warped ethics of Barry Bonds and the steroid apologists by signing him. I would, I am quite sure, actively dislike the team until a new regime took over, and it would probably never regain my previous level of loyalty or good will. Cognitive dissonance dictates that the team’s unavoidable decline on the value scale would also pull down others associated closely with it, such as its players, management, and major league baseball itself."

This is interesting. The author discussed the Clay Buchholz issue and seemingly had no issue with that. The Red Sox employed David Wells recently, and we all know how little Wells stands up for. What about the team acquiring Paul Byrd for the playoff run? I'm sure there are many other scenarios where players have had questionable ethical considerations, so why is Barry any different? Why would Bonds affect this authors fan-ship?

This is sounding more of personal vengeance then logic. Logic, would suggest that you stand up for what is wrong no matter what. Personal Vengeance is taking a stance when it suits you. One is ethical, the other is wishy-washy.

"Sure: some factors could raise a player’s score: cooperating with Mitchell (Giambi), apologizing (Pettite), minimal use (Paul Byrd), not being good or healthy enough to matter (lots of guys). But Bonds had many factors that deepened his negative score: greed, warping the records, encouraging other players to use by his success, arrogance, embarrassing the sport through his prominence, and more."

Greed? How was Barry greedy?

Warping the records? The ones he would have already 'warped'?

Encouraging other players to use by his success? Right, because Barry was at the forefront of steroid chemistry. Bonds was the first one to stick a needle in his backside. Bonds was only successful through the addition of drugs.

Arrogance? Oh, because Bonds doesn't like the media.

Embarrassing the sport through his prominence? The author is talking about the prominence which Bonds did not create himself.


Is it ethical to have a pre-conceived notion prior to writing a piece of this sort? The author asserts that a team adding Bonds would be making a 'questionable assumption' that Barry would add offensively, yet has nothing to back this up (ie his previous season in the Majors which was among the best in all of baseball).

This is a maddening article writen by a non-baseball mind about a non-baseball subject. It is depressing that such a legitimate site as the Hardball Times would post such a piece of garbage.

People are welcome to have their opinions, but have something to back it up. Has some logic and reason. Don't step into the pool when it is the thing everyone else is doing (ie hating Bonds and steroids) and step out when the story is under the radar (ie Paul Byrd and steroids). Be a man! go all in, or don't go at all!

Election and a Response

Tomorrow is an election day, and while this blog has nothing to do with politics (at least directly), I do feel the need to share an outstandingly humorous clip from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. After all, if it's not one politician, it's another:

Baseball Musings, run by David Pinto, is one of baseball's best online sites. He has what feels like hourly posts updating his readers of the ongoings of baseball. His analysis is consistently strong and he has an outstanding database and tools for his readers to utilize. In other words, Pinto runs a site that I could only dream mine turns into.

A recent post has Pinto questioning if the Athletics selectivity is a hindrance to their hitters. He recalls the Moneyball philosophy where hitters were rewarded for not going after tough pitches, even if it meant striking out looking, and being punished for going after bad pitches, even if it had a positive result. Teaching 'good process' is ideal at low levels of baseball, but as Pinto points out, can be a negative at the Major League level.

However, there is somewhat of a flaw in Pinto's argument. Pinto creates the following table:

2008	Batting Avg.	On-Base Avg.
Mark Ellis	.233	.321
Jack Cust	.231	.375
Daric Barton	.226	.327
Jack Hannahan	.218	.305

While the table does tell a story, it misses on some key factors. The first, and most important, batting average, even slugging percentage, are secondary to on base average in terms of creating a winning ballclub. However, an on base average of under .310 from a team's infield is not going to win anything anytime soon.

The next key factor is the reliability of batting average. According to Baseball Prospectus' "Baseball Between the Numbers-Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong", batting average has the least season to season reliability of any offensive measure (isolate power, walk rate, strikeout rate, and stolen base). Thus, when we see a hitter with a .330 batting average one season, there is typically a reason to look into that number.

The same can be said when a hitter is so far below Major League average, we can simply ask 'why'. Oftentimes, the answer is noted within a comparison of the players Batting Average of Balls in Play (BABIP) and their expected BABIP (xBABIP). A players xBABIP is simply calculated by taking the players line drive rate, placing it into decimal form, and adding .11. While this is not an open and shut calculation, for arguments sake, it will suffice.


Let's now look at the aforementioned quad of Ellis, Cust, Barton, and Hannahan.

Mark Ellis had a rough 2008 season. While much of this can be blamed on a lingering injury (something that has consistently nagged Ellis throughout his career), we can also see that he fell victim to some poor luck. Ellis' 2008 line drive rate of 20.1% is only marginally higher then his career average. One can assume this is a sustainable rate for season to season, and subsequently a viable figure to utilize when calculating xBABIP.

With a BABIP of .249, Ellis fell more then 50 points below his xBABIP of .311. Ellis' expected batting average is then .285, a 50+ point jump from where he finished in 2008. How many secondbasemen with a .374 on base average are there? Answer: 5.

Jack Cust is a special case as his strikeouts will keep his batting average down, no matter how high his line drive rate is. That said, Cust's xBABIP was only 8 points higher then his actual BABIP, hardly worth calculating. However, there is very little to complain about a hitter that gets on base over 37% of the time while providing a .245 ISO.

Interestingly, Cust's outstanding home run rate of 29.7% was actually a dip from his 2007 total of 31.7%. That's an extra couple of points in a players batting and on base averages.

One of the biggest outliers from this list is Daric Barton, one of my favorite young players and a hitter who was underperforming his expected statistics by a large margin all season. As a rookie, Barton has a built in reason for underperforming. The season started off miserably for Barton, as he appeared overmatched, struggling to provide a league average strikeout rate. However, as the season grew on, Barton's strong plate discipline eventually resulted in fewer strikeouts.

Also in this mess was Barton under performing his xBABIP by just over 30 points. This deviation resulted in Barton's batting average falling 23 points under his expected figure. When one considers that much of Barton's struggles can be tied in with a strikeout rate that dropped 10% from the first half (26%) to the second half (16%) and that his home run per fly ball rate was well under league average and expected rates, it is clear that Barton was a victim to poor luck and being a rookie.

However, even a .250/.350 line from Barton in 2008 would have put him around projected levels and at the American League average for first basemen. Not terrible for a rookie.

Similar to Barton, Jack Hannahan's BABIP fell over 30 points below his xBABIP. Simply achieving his xBABIP would have seen both his batting and on base averages approach league average. For a player that is more utility/quadruple A, league average production is just fine.


While Pinto does bring up a valid point that the A's may be preaching over-selectivity, it certainly does not appear to be hurting them to the degree he asserts. I would expect the aforementioned players to approach, if not exceed, their expected values for the 2009 season.

Article of the Week for the Week of June 29 - July 5

The Hardball Times author Sal Baxamusa pens an article titled "Good team, Bad Team, Glad team, Sad Team".

So what makes a good team? What allows for a team to win ballgames? Baxamusa asserts,

Three things are required for a team to win a lot of baseball games:

1. Have a lot of talented players.
2. Have those players play well.
3. Have more runs than the other team at the end of games.

'Have more runs than the other team at the end of games'.

Article of the Week for the Week of June 22 - 28

Article of the Week is running a few days behind due to the sudden media focus on the Rays. Because of that, I wanted to ensure that my voice was heard and those who continue to refer to the Rays as the SURPRISING Rays would recognize this isn't all that shocking to everyone.

Being able to reflect upon an article from the website I write for is thrilling. While the content is typically strong at Baseball Digest Daily, it is not often that an article truly sticks out. Recently, I reflected upon The Hot Stove League and analyzed the mid-point value of the three major trades. One of which included the Mariners sending a boat load of prospects to the Orioles for Erik Bedard.

One of those prospects happened to be Chris Tillman, who is one of the most exciting prospects in baseball. BDD's Paul Bugala sat down with the kid and talked baseball. A very interesting read.

A few highlights which make Tillman a very interesting longterm prospect. Tillman recognizes that he occasionally needs to pitch to contact. Tillman states,

That’s one thing I’d like to get better on is pitching to contact early in the count and not getting late in counts. Lately I’ve been walking people, so I have to go to the strikeout mentality so they don’t score runs. Pitching to contact is huge.

Furthermore, Tillman's intelligence appears to be off the charts. He discusses the 'mind games' that hitters play at Double A. Explaining this concept Tillman states,

Reading swings is a big part of it, but every now and then you’ll get a hitter who will take a terrible swing at a pitch and he’s doing it to set you up to get you to throw it again.

Pick up on these two aspects of pitching is vital to a pitchers success at the highest levels. That is, relying on the defense behind a pitcher, as well as being prepared to make changes on the fly will help Tillman as he rises through the minors and into the majors. With this type of recognition, in addition to his raw stuff, it wouldn't surprise me if Tillman made noise immediately in the majors. He is a prospect to keep track of over the next year or so.

Article of the Week for the Week of June 15 - 21

The Onion yet again steps up with an outstanding article. Typically the articles have little to do with baseball, or if they do, they are more satire then anything that is legitimate to the baseball community.

However, on June 19th, The Onion released an article titled, "Fantasy Baseball Owner Rips Team in Media".

Really, the article is self-explanatory and has language which I have chosen to avoid here. To summarize, it is mocking the actions that each and every fantasy owner, in any sport, wants to one day take part in. To pull aside our players and ask them why it was so tough to leg out that triple, or how tough it is to put the ball in play with a runner on third and two outs.

Sam Walker's FantasyLand does touch on this subject, as author Sam Walker utilizes his press privileges to get into the clubhouse and...

In the middle of May, with my team safely ensconced in second place, I reloaded my beat-up wheelie bag for a trip to Toronto. With the Minnesota Twins due to arrive there for three games with the Blue Jays, I'll have nine of my players in the two dugouts, the highest concentration at any ballpark so far this season. This will be my first chance to try my hand at "managing" my team.

Check out the article at The Onion, and if you are heading on a vacation, I suggest reading FantasyLand. It is simple and fun, the way fantasy sports were meant to be.

Oh Bill James!

Bill James has his own website which is ironically named Bill James Online. Actually, that isn't even ironic. Being that James is one of the most witty authors I have ever come across, I decided to spend the $3 a month the website costs. Interesting note, if the site cost an annual, one time fee of $36 I probably wouldn't have joined, and regretfully I haven't take the full advantage of this website that it offers.

That aside, James offers up an excellent point in a recent column.

Ten-Second Column

By Bill James

I had an idea for a new statistic: GTC. Got to Closer. The stat had a half-life of about twenty seconds. My idea was that, while Complete Games are virtually extinct, we could count something close to complete games by counting how often the starting pitcher got the ball to the closer. Have to define what’s a “closer”, but. .. we can deal with that. But then I checked how many of these there actually were. Full schedule of games on Sunday (June 8), no complete games. You know how many starting pitchers got the ball to the closer? Zero. Oh, well. .

I probably shouldn't have posted the entire article, but I figured most wouldn't have access to it. That assumption is based on the fact that Bill James Online has, surprisingly, only 1500 readers. In any event, here is the permanent link.

THE RETURN OF Article of the Week for the Week of June 8 - 14

Squawking Baseball has long been one of my favorite websites to check out. The author does a great job of not overloading the readers through not making several posts a day. This is something I have tried to emulate by keeping my posts to a daily routine, when possible, and trying to keep it at no more then one per day. I personally feel there is a lot of excellent articles to read online, why should I hog up all your time? Also, if I am out writing an article a day, how would I possibly have time to read all the other outstanding stuff out there?

All that being said, Squawking Baseball is self proclaimed as "Wall Street analysis of Major League Baseball's player market". Furthermore, the stated purpose of Squawking Baseball is,

[To]stay in front of the trends, play the cards right, and, hopefully, stay in contention.

That’s where we come in. We are baseball people first and foremost. Despite tender ages (mostly early to mid-20s), everyone on our staff has experience in a Major League front office, as well as outside businesses. Some of us also happen to be Wall Street junkies, consistently beating the stock market by staying ahead of the curve. What we hope to create with this blog is an outlet for us, and others, to look at the market for baseball talent with the same kind of thoughtful, diligent outlook.

This is precisely what drew me to Squawking Baseball and has continued to draw me in. That is, the discovery of baseball through an economic perspective. There are plenty of rumor websites, plenty of team blogs, plenty of sabermetric websites, but very few that are dedicated to understanding how and why managers exploit the market-although, isn't the 'why' obvious?

This week's article of the week is a look back on Major League Baseball's Rule IV draft. Shawn of Squawking Baseball asks, 'Is the Draft Efficient?'

In this post, the author (Shawn) discusses the merits of baseball's current draft system. Shawn acknowledges the system which allows the players to make up their salary demands, which in some cases results in inferior players being selected due to signability. However, this is only a partial flaw, as for the most part, the best players in the draft are going with the top picks.

Shawn writes,

But there’s another facet to this that I think is pretty interesting: the draft inherently changes the sport’s incentive-structure, as it rewards the league’s worst teams. In other words, if you’re not going to be good, you may as well try to be awful. Does this lower the quality of play, and therefore hurt the product? It’s very tough to say.

While a valid point, the baseball draft is unlike any other of the professional sports. That is, most even the very best draft picks, take several years before they make it to the majors, and even longer before they are truly impact players. Furthermore, when one considers that there is a 2 in 50 chance of selecting a meaningful player in the draft, those best players become even more of a rare breed. While 2 in 50 might be somewhat of an exaggeration, consider that many of the players on a MLB roster were not selected in the draft as they were considered international.

However, the author concludes,

But overall, I think the draft accomplishes its goals. Top-tier amateur talent is distributed to the teams that need it (or value it) the most, in effect allowing bad teams to shorten their success cycles. As we’ve learned from the expanded playoff system, any mechanism that allows more teams to be competitive without shaving significant dollars off of big market teams’ top lines is generally good for the sport.

It is tough to argue with this sentiment. While the poor teams will struggle to be annual threats, if they play their cards correctly and make intelligent and timely moves, it is tough to imagine the teams are without hope.

Article of the Week for the Week of May 18 - 24

Colleague John Brattain regularly writes some of my favorite baseball articles. In a recent article at the Hardball Times, Brattain furthers the discussion regarding regarding possible collusion between baseball and Barry Bonds. This has been a running theme for Brattain as he has written about this topic at length on several occasions which I will link later on in this article.

What I want to point out is how great the logic Brattain uses and the discussion he is proposing within the baseball community. This discussion is similar to the one that occurs within academia where authors and researchers dig and gouge at one another's work. In doing so, Brattain is attempting to push the conversation within the baseball community. Brattain is attempting to open up a dialogue where answers can be found and individuals can draw direct and logical answers.

Furthermore, this dialogue, in essence, is attempting to better the baseball community. Why should those who spend so much time analyzing the sport, not have an open ended discussion? I attempted to add something to the discussion in response to an earlier Brattain column which first brought light to a possible collusion case. Brattain furthered this with an outstanding entry at Baseball Digest Daily where he officially went out and called the Bonds situation a case of collusion.


But back to the article...

Brattain discusses how the media has had an influence on other occasions of collusion, asserting that there is little difference between what is going on with baseball, the media and Bonds at this moment. Bonds, as everyone knows, has never been on the best terms with the baseball media. Several documents discuss how irritated Bonds was over the home run chase between McGwire and Sosa in 1998. To be fair, Bonds was justified in this, as at this time, he was far and away the best baseball player in the game, one who was not all about home runs.

However, the media fell in love with McGwire and Sosa and the ever cold Bonds grew colder. Brattain responds to an article where the author tried to claim that the theory of collusion against Bonds was ridiculous, citing that teams did not want old players with a history of being a clubhouse cancer and injury issues. I thought that the Frank Thomas signing would have been the perfect case for collusion against Bonds, however it went largely ignored that a superior hitter was available.

Brattain reminds readers that much of the negativity towards Bonds has been media fueled. For example, Brattain debates whether Bonds has truly been pampered compared to other major league veterans? He also questions why, if it is such an issue, a team does not simply say no to Bonds? Teams give out no-trade clauses to players, I would think they could also create a no-clubhouse privileges as well.

I love this part...

Baggage? You mean how the media defines it? I get the feeling baggage is a generic term for “he’s nasty to us.” After all, spousal abuse, drunk driving, assault and performance-enhancing/recreational drug use doesn’t give a player baggage (lots of those in the game but they lack the “baggage" of Bonds) but Bonds has enough of this commodity to suck the life out of any clubhouse. I am just curious who are these hangers-on causing radiation poisoning? Bonds’ entourage of who the club can bar from the premises as a condition of employment or is it a reference to segments of the press with axes to grind? It’s a pity the evil Roger Maris has shuffled off his mortal coil—he could inform us about the fair and balanced reporting we can expect from those covering the game.

Oddly enough both surpassed the home run feats of a beloved icon and both records are/were slagged by writers like the author of the column in question—one because of a longer schedule, the other due to PED use.

I have always loved how journalists will get on an athlete for being cold or withdrawn. I recall when Randy Johnson stiff armed a camera man his first day in New York and the media went crazy. Today, that is all but forgotten.

Brattain concludes by questioning the authors assertion that Bonds has a negative impact on the clubhouse, asserting,

Not as excited as they were in 1997, 2000 and 2002-03 I'll wager. Of course when you win fewer than four times over every 10 games, a win may be cause for celebration. It should be noted that the Giants had such a stacked team from 1997 to 2004 that they could still reach the postseason four times, averaging 92 wins per year while Bonds was “sucking the life force and youthful exuberance from their clubhouse.”

Using this writer’s logic, Bonds’ presence on the team cost the team eight straight World Series championships and an equal amount of 120-win seasons due to being such an anchor in the clubhouse. I'm surprised that he didn't claim that Bonds sucked so much life out of the atmosphere at Fulton County Stadium that it slowed the ball just enough that it couldn't reach home plate fast enough to nail Sid Bream.

Once Bonds left Pittsburgh, the new refreshing atmosphere in the Pirates clubhouse catapulted the Bucs from a club that three-peated in the NL East from 1990-92 to a juggernaut working on its 16th-straight losing season that just celebrated its 1058th Bonds-free victory. (We'll just ignore those meaningless 1,319 losses since they were all moral victories.)

Using the slobbermetric formula of wins + moral victories (losses that are achieved absent Barry Bonds) x life-force/attendance + media members rolled in the Colonel's secret blend of herbs and spices divided by investigative reporting grade of the baseball press between 1998-2003 adjusted for home park, hyperbole, exuberance while subtracting placement in divisional standings and games played after October 3, we see that after jettisoning Bonds the Pirates have an Inconsequentialian win-loss record of 2,377-0 and are undefeated in postseason play!

There really isn't much to add to the discussion, however I wish that baseball would go in that direction. The issue is that there are too many people who take the issues personally and do not evaluate them with an open mind. I am not a 'Barry Bonds' fan, I am a baseball fan. Sure I have certain situations where I assert favoritism, but nothing to the extent where I will ignore logic (at least I hope).

I recognize that certain authors have to appease a certain audience. A writer cannot find a job writing for a newspaper in Dallas and incessantly cheer for the Astros in his columns. However, if the Rangers are brutal and the management is running the organization to the ground, why beat around the bush?

Brattain is an author who does not beat around the bush. He is an author who admittedly 'goes the opposite way of popular opinion'. This is presumably how he got into baseball being from Ontario, a hockey crazed region. Most importantly, Brattain is attempting to open a dialogue among baseball writers, which seems perfectly rationale to me.

Link of the Day (For the Week of May 4 - May 10)

"I mean, I know it's just joke after joke, but I like that. At least it doesn't get all preachy and up its own ass with messages, you know?" - Trucker (South Park, 2006)

I would like to take this moment to introduce a blog that is vastly more popular then mine, The Drunk Jays Fans: We Are Smarter Than You, And More Drunk. Go Jays! I think the biggest thing they have on me, is that they are 'Good for the dick jokes'. Check out their blog.

Recently, The Score Hardcore Sports Network added DJF to their Podcast lineup. On the negative side, The Score is an embarrassment of sports coverage which tries to promote a Howard Stern type sports coverage. Keep in mind, I have no major issue with mindless vocabulary, but much of the coverage on Hardcore Radio appears to aim for the shock jock mentality.

That aside, I congratulate the guys at DJF for this gig, this is huge for their publicity and I see a bright future for them within sports media. This week I am introducing you their first Podcast over at The Score.

Topics covered on the Podcast include:

• The typical bloggers rant against latest mainstream media v. the Blogosphere. I'm not sure why bloggers take such offense to this, nor do I care. Anyone who is writing a blog and can honestly say that they would turn down press credentials and a regular paying salary to join mainstream media is a joke.
• A great conversation with the FAN 590's Mike Wilner. Wilner knows a lot about the Jays and baseball history, and a little bit about the rest of baseball. He is entertaining to listen to after Jays games as he shoots down fans who know a little bit about the Jays and nothing about the rest of baseball.
• The segment What's Getting at Your Craw? Is interesting and discusses the on-goings of the world of baseball.
• A segment which about the best Jays blog article of the week, this week is The Tao of Stieb co-author of The Tao of Steib another Jays blog. Question, with all of these Blue Jays blogs and presumably needed audience, how do the Jays have such poor attendance?
• Interestingly there is a reader/listener mail segment where they attack Nick Swisher. I have no issue with attacking the way a player looks...Especially one that is struggling to this great of a degree.
  

I definitely suggest listening to the Podcast, but I caution doing so for anything outside of comic relief. Keep in mind, I am not asserting that you click over to me and then make your way to DJF, in fact, if you want real news of the Blue Jays, check out MLB-Rumors.

Check out the Podcast for yourself for a nice laugh. I'm typically not a big Podcast person, but I gave this one a shot and was not disappointed-that is, for what I was expecting.

Link of the Day (For the Week of April 27 - May 3)

I'm going to start a new series where I pick the most interesting article I read in a week and briefly write about it. I will, however, suggest that this is more of an 'article of the day' then an 'article of the week' situation, as I feel as though calling one of the hundred or so baseball articles I read in any given week as the best is simply wrong. So this will be more of an article that stands out, something I think everyone needs to read. I will also attempt to switch it up, avoiding the same author on multiple occasions.

This weeks article jumped out to me this afternoon at school, as I was sifting through my inbox. Fellow Baseball Digest Daily author Bill Chuck's email from Billy-Ball.com (I suggest joining this mailing list, very entertaining stuff) entitled The Feel Good Story of 2008. You can check out the full article here.

Bill Chuck outlines what the feel good story to date is, which is obviously the classy move made by the Red Sox brass to bring Bill Buckner to Fenway for the Sox real Opening Day. Buckner, as Chuck writes, "was greeted with love and forgiveness by fans who had unfairly vilified him since 1986."

Chuck however, feels as though there will be an even greater feel good story soon, and that is of Ken Griffey Jr.'s return to Seattle. Bill Chuck suggests that the Reds should make a move to get rid of Jr due to his high contract and the Reds need to move forward, taking advantage of their young core. Chuck writes, "Even though he’s the team's marquee player and its biggest gate attraction, the team can justify this deal, but only this deal for Griffey."

Similarly, Chuck suggests that the Mariners are an ideal location for Griffey, writing,

Let’s look first at the Mariners. The team is floundering in the bottom third in runs. They have the fourth lowest batting average. They exceed only Kansas City and Minnesota in On Base Percentage. Their DH, Jose Vidro is hitting .195. The M’s are just under .500 but the division is weak, there is plenty of time to make up the games they trail the A’s and Angels.

A very compelling argument. But do the Mariners have the tools to pull it off? Additionally, do the Reds want something the Mariners could offer? I imagine the Reds would have been glad to take on Chris Tillman for Jr, however Tillman is now part of the Orioles organization after this trade.

Taking a look at the Mariners top prospects (according to Minor League Ball's John Sickels) Jeff Clement, Carlos Triunfel and Wladimir Balentien remain with the organization. Clement would be especially attractive to the Reds, considering their current catcher situation and the lack of depth coming through the system, the one catcher the team does have, is probably 5 years from being ready. If you would have asked me a week ago, I would have said 'no way' on Clement, but given that the Mariners have recently signed Kenji Johjima a 3 year extension, the club could spare Clement and use him as a trade chip.

Wladimir Balentien could also be an interesting piece for the Reds, as the team is on the verge of losing both Jr and Adam Dunn. Balentien could step into the spot of either player and provide similar power at a substantially cheaper cost. The Mariners seemed to be willing to shop him during the past off season, and they do not seem too willing to give him a shot with the big league club.

The Reds system obviously boasts some impressive talent, with Jay Bruce leading the charge and Joey Votto already up with the club. Clement would obviously be ideal, but I doubt that the Mariners would trade Clement and take on the entire remainder of Jr's salary. That said, receiving Balentien, and Juan Ramirez while the M's take on the entirety of Griffey's salary is a best case scenario in my opinion.

Think back to the Abreu to the Yankees trade of a few years back. John Beamer of The Hardball Times wrote a piece reflecting on that trade and how it was clearly a salary dump. I think Reds fans would take the loss of Griffey a lot harder then Phils fans did with Abreu, so getting something in return is important.

Overall, I do agree with Bill Chuck and I definitely see a match within the organizations. I think the Mariners fan base would appreciate the addition and the Reds fan base would be fine, as long as they received a major league contributor and a nice prospect. It is interesting to note, a few months back, the Reds had a surplus of outfielders and did not know where they were going to find at bats for all of them. Now Jerry Hairston Jr is getting at bats.


I do, however disagree with Bill Chuck that a return to Seattle for Griffey Jr would be the feel good story of the year. Really, no matter what else happens this season, if (and when) Doug Davis gets back on the bump, that will undeniably be the story of the year. I have intentionally refrained from talking about that subject, as many have beat it to the ground and this is such a tough time in Davis' life, but there is no way that won't be the feel good story of the year.