I was away today, but it's always wonderful when the baseball season begins anew. Looks like Colon is pitching a good game, although his strikeouts aren't very high. Real opening day tomorrow! (I don't know why it's not a national holiday!)

Cecilia Tam, who is the author of Why I Like Baseball, writes with her opinion on small vs. large market teams:

Hmm, one point, though -- I don't think it will work if the small teams refuse to play the big teams. That wouldn't give them any leverage at all. The big eight to twelve teams would happily form a higher tier league where they just play each other, relegating the small teams to the second division. The Yankees would love to just play the Red Sox, Braves, Dodgers, Giants, Reds, Cardinals, Mets, Mariners, Indians, etc... and forget about Tampa Bay, etc... The other thing being that when a team is winning, they often seem to vault from "small" to "large" and when they are losing the drop from "large" to "small." Why is it that no one seems to remember the days when Cleveland was the laughingstock of the league and considered a small market?

It's a chicken and egg problem, but not an unsolvable problem in theory. Winning brings more fans to the ballpark. More fans = more money, which means better ability to compete. But how do you win without the ability to compete in the first place, if you aren't drawing enough fans? Somehow you have to make it a worthwhile experience for people to go out to the ballpark even if the team isn't in contention. That's an inherent problem in all sports as entertainment--you can't guarantee the audience a happy ending. So you have to make it a worthwhile experience despite what the outcome of the game may be. I think this is why you see some teams in the past decade or so snap their chicken/egg cycle by building a nice, new stadium that people will want to go to, starting an upswing in money nd attendance. But do I think this is going to actually work for the Brewers, for example? Not a chance.

I have to agree with Cecilia here. That's why I think TV rights is the way to bring pressure on the large teams, rather than refusing to play at all. Cecilia is also right when she says that winning is what brings fans to the park. The A's and Indians should be the model franchises here. The Indians in the early 90's insulated themselves from arbitration and free agent costs by signing young players to long term contracts, and for years turned out a resonably priced winning team. The A's, as small a market team as there is, has turned themselves into winners by developing really good young talent; they insist on their minor league hitters getting on base and developing power; they insist on their pitcher striking out batters and not walking them. When they can afford to, they sign players to long term deals. And when they lose someone, they have someone molded in the minors to take their place. Sure, it's easier for the Yankees to win. They can afford great players. But there are other ways to win, and these small market teams have to be creative, as the A's are. There's enough randomness in a baseball season, that if you have put your team in a position to win, they just might. The small market teams need to invest in winning to survive.

Here's a good background article on Hank Blalock. One thing I'd like to comment on:

The Rangers understand it's a gamble to push a 21-year-old player into the big leagues after no more than a half-season at Double A. But in a lineup filled with potential Hall of Famers, Blalock only has to hold his own at the bottom of the order and play solid defense to be successful.

Why is this a gamble? The younger you are when you come up, the more likely you are to have a Hall of Fame career. How old were I-Rod, A-Rod, Juan Gonzalez, Roberto Alomar, Ken Griffey, Jr.? Remember Pujols last year? The Rangers should be very excited to have a 21-year-old who can play major league baseball. It sounds like he'll be a great one.

Speaking of A-Rod and I-Rod, when are the Rangers going to sign E-Rod, O-Rod, U-Rod and Sometimes Y-Rod?

Joe Sheehan of the Baseball Prospectus gives a good summary of Selig's cyber town meeting. I don't disagree with anything in the article. Bud is bad for baseball. Selig has been there for every work stoppage. If in 1972, he had said, "Let's avoid war. Let's take the players in as partners and build the sport together," who knows what would have happened. He'd be a hero. But for thirty years he has wanted to put the players back into serfdom. And as far as I can tell, for one reason; he wants the Brewers to win, and he can't do it through intelligent building of a franchise. The only way he can do it is to pull other teams down to his level, where he's able to compete. I don't know how to get the owners to fire him. I suppose we could protest outside the MLB offices everyday. We could write the owner of our favorite team and complain. But Bud owns a lot of owners at this point. He let Steinbrenner back in the league after Vincent had banned him. He got Henry the Red Sox. He got Loria the Marlins. He owns the Brewers and Expos. And no one comes into the league without giving Bud his alligence. It's a bad situation. I wish I had a more constructive suggestion for his removal. Maybe if the game is stopped again by a strike, owners will come to their senses and oust him.

There's a scoop at ESPN.com on Sweeney's new contract. Has to be one of the most complicated contracts I've ever seen. Fifty-five million over five years, but the Royals have to win by 2004. If they don't have a .500 record in either of those years, Sweeney can become a free agent. He also can name eight teams a year where he'll allow himself to be traded, and the trade will lead to a raise and free agency.

My guess is that the Royals are too inept to create a winner by then. Sweeney will be a free agent in for the 2005 season.

This article by Pat Daugherty is pretty negative, but there was something that caught my eye:

If baseball owners had any guts, they'd cancel the season and do what they could to break the union. They'd sacrifice six months to remake a flawed system.

Barring that, the little teams should refuse to play the big teams. Until the Yankees agree to share equally their obscene local media revenues, the Royals should decline to play them. Because here's something about the rich teams: They're nothing without poor teams to play.

I like the take no prisoners attitude, however I don't think either would work. As shown by Selig starting to enforce the 40% debt rule, teams have a lot of debt, and lenders tend to get upset when you miss interest payments. I like the second idea, however, although teams don't have to go as far as refusing to play. I believe teams have the right to refuse to be broadcast by a competitor. So KC could say to the Yankees, "You can't broadcast this game on YES." No broadcast, no advertisers, no revenue. The big teams could do the same to the little teams, but the little teams get so little in local revenue, they probably wouldn't be hurt that much. I'd love to see some little team try this.

Also, I don't think Cincy will be as bad as Daugherty says. Griffey, Dunn, Casey and Larkin can provide a lot of offense. I'm looking for a surprise here.

Gordon Edes has a piece about leadoff men this morning, in which he discusses how the position has changed for the worse. He quotes Frank Robinson in the piece.

''Everybody swings from the end of the bat with two strikes,'' he said. ''Nobody shortens up. Nobody sits back a little bit and be less aggressive. All the time you see guys swinging at pitches with strikes, balls bouncing in the dirt, like the count is 3 and 0. They don't know how to hit in those situations.

''But it's very difficult to teach guys, because they don't have to accept it. You can't tell a hitter, `Do this or else,' because there is no `else.' He's going to be in lineup, anyway. That's the way it is today.''

I've thought this for a few years, but for all hitters in general. I remember watching the Yankees vs. Pedro Martinez a couple of years back. They were striking out left and right. Why didn't Torre say to his hitters, "Guys, swinging for the fences isn't working against this guy. Everyone shorten up and try to make contact. They have a pourous defense. Let's get some balls in play and see what happens?"

I don't agree with one thesis of the article, which is that good leadoff hitters are hard to find. They aren't hard to find, it's that managers don't look for the right things. The only thing you really need is a high OBA. How you get on base doesn't matter; being there doesn't matter. Speed is nice, but I think too many managers sacrifice speed for OBA at the top of the order, especially in this high HR era. So I don't think it's that players are incapable of leading off, it's that managers refuse to see what is really important. Here's a quote in the article from the Reds assistant GM:

''I can tell you this,'' said Gary Hughes, special assistant to Reds GM Jim Bowden. ''In 10 years as a scouting director, I never read a report that ever referred to a potential leadoff hitter. Scouts look at tools, but their reports never get as specific as that.

''There's a lot of emphasis of late on on-base percentage, but I've never made it a priority to talk about it.''

Not a member of the Billy Beane school. As long as people like Hughes are making personnel decisions, it will be hard to find leadoff men.

Mo Vaughn seems to be rubbing off on Mike Piazza. He waited on the bench after he was plunked by the Dodger's Mota, then went after Mota.

Looks to me more and more like the Mets are going to implode quickly if they get off to a bad start.

After I read Rob Neyer's column today, I felt bad for criticizing the Yankees over Soriano leading off. At least the Yankees have a number of excellent on-base average players that it really doesn't matter where Soriano bats. The Dodgers, on the other hand, have nothing but Shawn Green. From Rob's column:

But then I clicked on that link, and as I read the headline -– "Izturis wins shortstop job, could bat leadoff" –- and then got into the story, my eyebrows kept arching higher and higher until they ran into my hairline, where a truce was declared. Because in that story we learned that the Dodgers plan to employ the following combination of players, in some fashion or another, in the top two spots in their batting order:

Career OBP
Cesar Izturis .279
M. Grudzielanek .328
Marquis Grissom .318
Dave Roberts .292

Granted, Izturis is only 22 and that .279 career on-base percentage was compiled in only 46 games. But the fact is that Izturis has done nothing in his minor-league career to make us think that he's capable of doing much better than .279, at least not now. When Izturis was 20 years old, he posted a .253 OBP in Triple-A. When Izturis was 21 years old, he posted a .310 OBP in Triple-A (and that .279 OBP in the majors, with Toronto).

There's little reason to think that Izturis is ready to play in the majors, and there's absolutely no reason at all to think he's ready to be remotely productive with the bat in the majors ... and yet Dodgers manager Jim Tracy is actually thinking about putting Izturis at the top of the batting order.

Failing that, Izturis is slated to bat second, leaving the leadoff slot for ... Marquis Grissom and Dave Roberts, both of whom are horrible miscast as leadoff men because both of them are unlikely to reach base even 30 percent of the time. Well, OK, if strictly platooned they'll do better than that. But not better enough to justify their jobs.

Oh, and it's said that if Izturis doesn't win the leadoff job he'll slide all the way down to the No. 2 slot, where of course he'll do almost exactly as much damage to the Dodgers as if he were batting leadoff.

I've written more than a few times that batting order doesn't matter, and I'm not changing my tune today. Still, all this does say a couple of things about the Dodgers, and neither of them are positive.

It looks like the Dodgers went to the KC Royals baseball academy (for GM's). Dan Evans already made one bad move getting Jordan for Sheffield. I wonder if Evans will take a page out of Billy Bean's book, and start developing OBA in the minors, or if he'll continue to pay a lot of money to poor offensive players.

Click here to read a good interview with the Cubs hitting coach, Jeff Petland. He seems to have grasped one of the truths of the game that should be obvious but often isn't:

Q. Everybody thinks a team wins with pitching, but the offense has to do more than it did last season, doesn't it?

A. We have to beat teams that aren't doing well, and that's where offense kicks in. You can't pitch a great game every day. When you run up against teams not doing well, we've got to dominate them better. We lost too many games last year against the struggling teams. We had to grind out too many of the 162. It's a lot easier to win 7-2 than 3-2. (Empahsis mine)

He answers this question just right. He doesn't say to the reporter, "Offense if 50% of the game. People who think you can win with just pitching are idiots!" But he does get across the point that run differential is important.

I also like this bit about Corey Patterson:

Q. What's a realistic expectation for Corey Patterson?

A. Moving closer to the plate has helped him. It's not always seen in production, but his pitch selection has been a lot better since he's done that. He is tracking the ball better and laying off pitches he hadn't in the past. It keeps him from diving out over the plate. Any time your head is moving around, you lose perspective of where the ball is. You create your own holes. Jim Hendry made the perfect comment to Corey: "See the two guys next to you in the outfield [Alou and Sosa]? Let them do the hitting, and you just do whatever you can.''

It's good technical analysis, not the good attitude junk you often get from coaches. Now when I watch Patterson this year, I can watch for how close to the plate he's standing, and see how his eyes track the ball. Thank, Jeff!

From a reader:

"I see Jose Canseco was released by the Expos. That has to hurt. You have to
be pretty bad to be released by the Expos"

Which is worse: being release from Expos or the Devil Rays?

That's a tough one. Probably the Devil Rays. Canseco can argue that he can still hit, and he was released because he has to play the field for an NL team. If the Rays release you, you can't be any good.

I'm trying to make up my mind about the Cubs/Marlins deal, but I don't know enough (or anything) about the minor leaguers involved. If anyone has info, please let me know.

Alfonseca doesn't strike out many for a closer. I read he has a great fastball, but it looks to me like he K's about 6 per 9. Now, as Bill James discussed in his new Historical Abstract, researchers have shown that the fewer you strike out, the more hits you are going to give up. In hitter friendly Wrigley, that could mean trouble for Alfonseca. He does get a lot of ground balls, so the Cubs better have their best infield defense behind him when he takes the mound.

I see Jose Canseco was released by the Expos. That has to hurt. You have to be pretty bad to be released by the Expos.

I wonder if Jose will be voted into the Hall if the gets to 500 HR. It would certainly be a remarkable feat given the way he's thrown his career away. My guess is that he will achieve neither goal. Even if he does get 500 HR, his attitude is likely to keep him out. Remember when he was traded from the A's to Texas, he said that all Oakland wanted to do was win! Why would anyone want this guy.

If you are looking for Troy Pericval's response to Mo Vaughn, click here. Percival doesn't need to swear to make his point. Most leaders don't. Of course, I wonder if Disney allows its players to swear?

Check out the back page of the April 1st New Yorker magazine. A very funny baseball cartoon.

I noticed Davy Lopes talking about the Brewers being more selective in this article. Surprised me a bit, since Lopes was a player who was never that selective at the plate, and the Brewers were very much like that last year. Here's the quote:

Entering play Tuesday, the Brewers led the National League with a .335 team batting average and an on-base percentage of .396.

"Our hitters have all done a great job this spring in making adjustments at the plate and being selective," Lopes said. " 'Sarge' (hitting coach Gary Matthews) has done an outstanding job with them. Guys are really working the count and giving quality at-bats. The situational hitting has been outstanding.

"I know that people say, 'It's only spring training; don't get too excited.' But right now, that's all we have to measure it on. Is there improvement? Yes, there's improvement. Are there still some old habits there? Sure, but these guys have made an effort to make a change, and that's what you have to do."

Last year the Brewers had a batting average of .251 and an OBA of .319, 68 points higher. Right now, the OBA is 61 points higher. Last year, they drew a walk once every 11.2 AB. This spring, it's every 10.1 AB, so that is a real improvement. Everyone is hitting well in Arizona, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the batting average, but if they can get the walks up, the HR will drive in more runs.

Here's another article about Soriano leading off. I'm not sure I agree with this quote:

Torre remained non-committal about what his lineup will be Monday in Baltimore, although he has been both intrigued and upbeat about what he has seen in Soriano batting first and Johnson second. The detractors - and there are plenty inside the organization - think Soriano is just not patient enough. And it might turn out he isn't. If Soriano cannot get on base at least 35 percent of the time - and there are serious questions if he can - then his electricity will not be enough to bat him leadoff.

Thirty-five percent of the time translates to a .350 OBA. Last year, a horrible one for leadoff hitters, the AL average among #1 hitters was .330. In the previous 10 years, it was between .344 and .360. So .350 is about average. That's fine if you have no one else on your team that is capable of leading off, but when I think of a leadoff hitter, I want someone who's at least at .380, and the Yankees have that in Jeter.

Sherman had it right when he first thought about the Yankees lineup, although he has Nick Johnson too low:

When spring training began, I was convinced the Yankees would look best with Soriano batting sixth and Nick Johnson ninth. I imagined Soriano ready to step into an RBI spot and figured Johnson would be best served hitting last, just as Jeter and Soriano mostly did in their rookie season to lower-pressure success.

Now I think the best lineup would be: Soriano, Johnson, Derek Jeter, Jason Giambi, Bernie Williams, Rondell White, Jorge Posada, Robin Ventura and Shane Spencer.

Why?

Because if it doesn't work, the Yanks can always change. A month from now, the Yanks can switch to Jeter leading off and Williams second. But if it works, the Yanks are set up for a 900-run season and the blueprint for a long-term lineup.

They also can change if Soriano can put up a .370 OBA from the 8th or ninth spot.

Based on Johnson's minor league record, there was little doubt he'd put up good OBA numbers, so I would never have had him ninth. I was thinking he'd bat 2nd, depending on how his power developed. I'd even consider leading him off and batting Jeter 2nd. In fact, if you take the latter lineup above, move Soriano to 8th and everyone above him up a notch, that's not a bad order at all.

Selig has pledged not to lock out the players this year. Read the article here. So if their is going to be a work stoppage, the players will have to strike. Looks like Selig is trying to make the players look like the bad guys again, instead of trying to build a partnership. I don't understand why baseball continues to have this adversarial relationship with the players. It hasn't worked, and it never will work. They need to take players on as full partners. Only then can there be labor peace.

This article on Rickey Henderson was sent to me by a friend, and it's just hilarious. Very different from the Rickey is moody and hard to get along with articles that you usually find.

There are a number of interesting insights.

Rickey on steals: ''Guys stopped stealing when they couldn't get paid for it. It wasn't no money in it. You know what an arbitrator told me one time? He said they let me steal 100 bases. Man! I almost jumped across the table. How did anyone let me steal 100? This game is corporate. Big business. They like home runs, not steals, so you see a lot of guys trying to hit home runs.''

Henderson pauses and says that Roger Cedeno could be a great base-stealer. ''But the last time I saw him on TV, he was pretty bulked up,'' he says. ''So you know what he's going to try to do.''

To a certain extent this is true, but the reality is that when offense is abundant, stolen bases are less important. It's a one run strategy, and when teams are routinely scoring five runs, SB's just aren't worth the risk.

Rickey on Mattingly: ''One year, he drove me in 79 times. Did you hear what I said? Seventy-nine times. He would do anything to get me in. You'd have to throw the ball over Mattingly's head for him not to get Rickey in. Dave Winfield used to get mad at him. He'd say, `Now, you ain't the only one who can drive Rickey in.'''

This is the best part of the show. Henderson grabs a bat and stands in front of his locker. He is demonstrating how to relax oneself at the plate. Players become so tense, he says, that they tense up and violently squeeze the bat.

''That's not how you're supposed to do it,'' he says. ''You're supposed to step out of the box and breathe.''

He clenches his teeth and then exhales.

''It frees up your hands. Once you step back in, you're all freed up. I'm telling you, it works. Mattingly used to do it. That's why I'm not afraid to get two strikes on me. I'm relaxed with two strikes. I'll do anything to keep that third strike from going by me.''

When Rickey was traded back to the A's in the late 80's, the I remember watching a game the Yankees were playing in Oakland. Before the game, Rickey was hitting off the tee, and Mattingly was sitting there setting up the balls for Rickey. Mattingly liked Rickey. This was the moment that I realized that all the negative writing about Henderson was wrong. Don Mattingly was the most respected player in baseball at that time. If Don liked Rickey well enough to sit there and tee up balls for him when he was playing for the opposition, Rickey must be okay.

Rickey suffers from being inarticulate and a lack of education, just as Roger Clemens does. When they speak to the media, they have a hard time expressing themselves clearly, so they come off as jerks. I'm glad this article shows Rickey talking in a comfortable setting. It gives us a new insight into the man.

I was looking at the STATS, Inc. web site, and see that Win Shares won't be available until April. It would have been fun March reading.

A really good article here by Tom Tippett of Diamond Mind Baseball. Tom has a really good baseball simulator, and has used it to see how this season may play out. I thought his Mets simulation was the most interesting. He has the Mets finishing 80-82, in fourth place in the NL East. I'm sure this will upset a lot of Mets fans, but it shouldn't surprise them. There's a lot of variance in this Met's team; I would expect them to win 90 games, but I wouldn't be surprised if they won only 70. Lots could go right, but lots can go wrong, also.

Compare this to the Yankees. I think they'll win 100 games, but I'd be very surprised if they only won 85. We're less sure about how the Mets season will play out.

A friend sent me this article today on Soriano leading off. What are we, back to the days of Horace Clarke? Soriano's strength as a hitter is his power. He has a poor OBA and has only drawn 1 walk this spring through Sunday the 24th. Despite his ability to steal bases, Soriano will be better at driving in runs than scoring them, so should bat farther down in the order. Ninth seems just right for him. With all the on-base potential on this Yankee team, he'll have lots of RBI opportunities, and when he does get on base, his speed will give the top of the order rbi chances on short hits.

Down's observations really bother me. From the article:

"Soriano had 94 more strikeouts than walks last season. As he improves his knowledge of the strike zone, Down said, he will become a better hitter. Though he has only one walk this spring, Soriano has been more selective. He said batting leadoff would give him a chance to see more pitches.

"'I don't care about the walks,' Down said. 'How many bad pitches has he swung at? If he never walked this season, that would be fine, if he swung at his pitch every at-bat. He's a good hitter, and you go to the plate not to walk or to take strikes, but to get a pitch to hit.'"

Down should care about the walks. Giambi may draw 100 more walks that Soriano this year. There's no reason for that. I think this is a bad move, but the team is so good, it probably won't make a difference. It reminds me of Toronto in 1992 and 1993. Devon White was a poor choice for leadoff on that team, but Cito Gaston wanted to make Devo happy, and the rest were so good it didn't matter.

Hello and welcome to Baseball Musings. My name is David Pinto, and for 10 years I was the lead researcher for ESPN's Baseball Tonight. Last year, I hosted Baseball Tonight Online on ESPN.com. ESPN is not bringing the online version back this year, but I enjoyed talking baseball with fans. This web log will be my new outlet. Enjoy!