Michele at A Small Victory doesn't like Ted Turner.

The Braves were fun. Dale Murphy remains to this day one of my favorite basbeall players ever. The team also boasted another favorite player of mine, Brett Butler.

In 1983, Ted Turner saw fit to trade Buttler. He was sent off to the Cleveland Indians for a player to be named later. But Ted let it leak. That player was Brett Butler. So Butler had to play his time on the Braves out, knowing his days with them were numbered.

In exchange, the Braves got Len Barker. This is where you shake your head pitifully. Such a sad day it was for me when the news of Brett's impending departure leaked out that my friend Chris sent me a sympathy card.

I disagree with her about Ted's ability to run a ball club. Yes, the Braves were very bad in the mid-80's, but Turner eventually brought in the right people and the down turn allowed them to draft people like Glavine and Justice and the others who became the core of the great 1990's team. Besides, Brett Butler's caught stealings seriously deflated the value of his OBA.

TwinsFest 2003 is this weekend! Sounds like everything a Twins fan (or a baseball fan) could want, and only $7.

Dadof4 has some thoughts on the Rodriguez signing.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the Hall of Fame...

It's crunch time at the day job, so blogging will be light for another week. Luckily, news is pretty light lately. I should be free and clear for spring training, however.

John Geer e-mailed me this under the heading, "Owners are losing big money..."

Go ahead, drink the Kool-Aid...

Former New York sports executive David Checketts has made a $650 million offer to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers

News Corp. bought the Dodgers from the O'Malley family in 1997 for a then-record $310 million.

Checketts also wants the Fox Sports Net channel that broadcasts those games for that price.

Why not buy the Angels? They're a better team, and you can get them for 1/3 of the money.

According to this report, Rose may be on his way back. Of course, if he admits he bet on baseball, how can you let him back in? I think the answer lies here:

What remains to be determined, a source told ESPN on Wednesday, is whether Rose would be permitted to work in baseball or if so how much of a role he would be allowed to have.

It seems to me Bud is looking for a way to let Rose into the Hall of Fame. My guess is that Rose will be reinstated to the point that he can be in the Hall, go to ballparks, play in old-timers game, etc., but I doubt he'll ever have an inside baseball job again.

The Marlins have signed Ivan Rodriguez to a one-year, $10 million contract. Looks like a pretty good deal all around. Most of the money is deferred, so he's not costing the Marlins a lot this year. Ivan gets a year to prove he can still play, and if so, he can try free agency again next year. The deal has a lot of upside potential for the Marlins, with very little downside risk.

I was glad to see the Twins sign Torii Hunter to a four year contract. He's improved his slugging percentage every year in the bigs, but more importantly, it gives the Twins fans the sense that the team is serious about building a winner. If they want to keep winning fans back, they'll have to continue to make moves like this.

I'm really catching up here. I like Osuna as a reliever. He K's better than a batter an inning, doesn't give up too many HR and doesn't walk a lot of batters. That's important with the Yankees porous defense. The White Sox get Colon, and he should improve a starting staff that was 8th in the AL in ERA last year. The Expos get stuck with Hernandez, but they are getting him cheap, with the White Sox and Yankees picking up most of the contract. I guess it's another form of revenue sharing. Moving into the pitcher's park that is Olympic Stadium might give El Duque a lift. A good trade all-around; Yankees and White Sox improved their staffs, and the Expos reduced their payroll.

Albert Pujols has been named St. Louis Baseball Man of the Year, but he thinks there's room for improvement:

The St. Louis Cardinals' cleanup hitter was honored Tuesday as the Baseball Man of the Year by the city's chapter of the Baseball Writers Association of America. But like a lot of his teammates, Pujols' bat went silent in the playoffs as the Cardinals were eliminated by the Giants in a five-game National League championship series, so there's a bit of a sour aftertaste.

"I think if we would have hit a little better, including myself, I think we would have had a better chance," said Pujols, who was 5-for-19 with two RBIs. "I had a lot of opportunities to drive some runs in with men on third base with no outs and I didn't do my job.

"That's how it is. That's the game."

To manager Tony La Russa, that attitude is another indication of how far Pujols has come in such a short time.

"I'm glad to hear that," La Russa said. "I think that's really healthy, instead of just turning the page and saying everything's OK."

That's the right attitude to have. If Pujols is really as young as he's listed, he's going to have a monster career.

When I was at Disney World over the weekend, I ran into these four gentlemen, who combined two of my favorite hobbies.

I used to play sax in school.

I'm catching up on work today. Hope to be blogging again tonight.

Thought you would like to see a picture from the launch. It was a spectacular sight. Photo by my wife, Marilyn.

The Hall of Fame responded promptly to my e-mail inquiry about logos on caps:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your e-mail message.

The choice of which team's logo appears on a player's plaque is the Museum's decision, though we always consider the wishes of an inductee.

We're a history museum and as such, it's important that the logo be emblematic of the historical accomplishments of that player's career. A player's election to the Hall of Fame is a career achievement, and as such, every team for whom he played is listed on the plaque; however, the logo selection is based on where that player makes his most indelible mark.

Example: It would not be appropriate from an historical standpoint if Babe Ruth's cap had a Red Sox logo, if Ty Cobb's cap had a Philly A's logo, or if Hank Greenberg's a Pirates logo. However, when instances come up where a player's career achievements were fairly evenly divided, as was the cases with Dave Winfield or Carlton Fisk, we give the player more ownership in the decision, though the Museum retains the final one.

My college roommate, David Aceto, would be happy they used whom properly. :-)

I'm leaving for Florida to watch the shuttle launch so blogging will be light over the next few days. Before I go, however, I have some e-mails that correct some things I recently blogged about.

On Eric Owens (here and here), Ivan Baxter writes:

While I agree with you about Eric Owens playing abilities, I have lived in San Diego for the last 5 years and Bisheff is correct about the Padres most popular player. Tony Gwynn was OBVIOUSLY past his prime and the fans around here recognized it. Gwynn was still popular, but most fans I knew wanted him to retire a year or two before he did. Granted most of them are fans of sabermatrician columnists, so they might not reflect the population at large:). But people loved Owens around here.

I sometimes forget there's a difference between being popular and being good. Endearing himself to fans may have kept Owens in the game longer than his talent would allow.

As for the previous post about Carter's hat, two readers wrote to correct me on who makes the decision. Jerry Christensen writes:

David- long time reader of your blog. I enjoy it and appreciate your viewpoints. If I recall correctly, after the whole Dave Winfield incident in which he made a drama about which cap he was going to wear in the HOF, I believe the Hall decided they would pick the caps for the players. Some of this logic was to prevent players like Wade Boggs from wearing a Devil Rays cap should he be elected, or from players receiving "payola" from owners like Steinbrenner to wear their team's specific cap. I am almost certain of this unless the article I am recalling was a suggestion/ column rather than a news story. FWIW I think Carter should wear a 'spos cap.

And Jason Brannon agrees:

Hi, David. I'm probably not the first person to tell you this, but the choice of team cap on his HOF plaque isn't up to Gary Carter, it's up to the Hall of Fame.

I think a lot of the confusion stems from the induction of Dave Winfield, who I think was given a choice in the matter because he spent roughly equal time w/ the Pads and Yanks. Around the same time, Wade Boggs was said to have made a deal w/ Tampa saying he'd wear a D'Rays cap on his plaque. All of this has fed into the common misconception that players choose their HOF caps.

I expect the Hall will put a Montreal cap on Carter's plaque, even if it "does (him) no good", to use Carter's phrase.

I'm predicting a national firestorm on this issue when McGwire becomes eligible.

This is probably the article confusing people. I looked at the Hall of Fame web site, but could not find a policy on hats. I've written them, and I hope they get back to me before the summer. :-)

However, if the issue is payola, all the policy does is move the payola from the players to the committee making the decision. Why should we think the people in the Hall are any more virtuous than the players? The Hall can always use cash. When the Boggs debate comes up, what's to stop Steinbrenner from coming up with a big donation to the Hall? I guess it's the capitalist in me. If I have something valuable that multiple people want, I should be able to sell it to the highest bidder. If it's the Devil Rays, so be it.

Michael Longfield asked me to post a link to a page where you can sign a petition to get Gary Carter to go in to the Hall of Fame as an Expo. I'm a bit agnostic on this, since I think it's really up to Carter, but it would be nice to have one Expo in the Hall before the team disappears.

Don Mattingly and Cal Ripken are buying into a minor league team that's being moved to Mattingly's home town.

A star player who manages his money well will be able to buy a major league team upon retirement. No doubt this will happen. I wonder how this will affect the league? Will it force owners to be more conciliatory to the union? Will trust break out among the parties? Or will the former players now owners be more concerned with the bottom lines than their brothers in the union?

Actually, this would be a great way for a players league to happen. One by one, former stars can buy teams, and run the league the way the union wants. I doubt it will happen that way, but it would be a very interesting scenario.

Jonathan Leshanski has a new blog, At Home Plate. Jonathan has already started profiling clubs for 2003 and has comments on the lengths of games and attendance.

Another casualty of the strike in that South American country.
Update: Instapundit has some more Venezeulan links.

Steve Bisheff was nice enough to reply to my comments about his piece on Eric Owens:

Since I don't know anything about you or your background, I'm certainly not offended. But trust me, this wasn't a puff piece. I'd seen Owens play extensively when he was with San Diego, and I think the guy is a fine player who definitely fits into the style the Angels play. Sorry if you don't agree. But anyone who has read me or knows my style understands that I NEVER write puff pieces. Check with the Angels. I've been their biggest critic through the years. Nice hearing from you, though.

I'm one of those who is less impressed by hustle than by results. Eric Owen may truly be a hard-nosed player. But I'd rather have someone with a .360 OBA or a .480 slugging percentage if Salmon gets hurt.

A long article by Jim Souhan of the Star-Tribune about the Twins lagging behind other clubs in the Dominican Republic, but also a nice overview of how baseball is expanding world wide.

This is one of the worst puff pieces I've ever seen. Steve Bisheff of the Orange County Register makes Eric Owens sound like someone valuable:

Eric Owens was playing Mike Scioscia's style of baseball before Scioscia's defending world champions were. He was running and bunting and skidding all over the outfield grass to make catches. He would hit ground balls to the right side to move runners over from second and do almost anything humanly possible to get a teammate home from third.

Maybe that's why he was the most popular player in San Diego when he was with the Padres from 1999-2000.

Unfortunately, playing a style of baseball is all Eric can do. He doesn't get on base. He doesn't hit for power (carreer .320 OBA, .352 slugging). As for being the most popular player on the Padres? I remember a guy named Gwynn who was still around then.

Owens can play all three outfield positions and even three of the four infield positions if needed. What that means is that Tim Salmon, seemingly more fragile now at age 34, probably will see more at-bats as a DH this season.

"Eric will not only fill a role for us, he will help our energy level," Scioscia said. "He competes. He does whatever it takes to help his team win."

This is no coincidence, by the way. This is a guy General Manager Bill Stoneman studied carefully before signing to a free-agent contract.

"We had Owens on a list of players we'd be interested in, and when he became available, we went after him," Stoneman said. "Sometimes, the player and his agent aren't always as interested as you are in them. Happily, this time they felt the same way."

Stoneman tries not to smile when describing Owens.

"He's an (Darin) Erstad, (David) Eckstein kind of player. He's perfect for our ballclub."

I guess we don't have to worry about the Angels repeating if this is what the manager and GM thinks pass as a good ballplayer. I'd rather have Salmon playing hurt.

Weekend edition on NPR reported that today is the 30th anniversary of the designated hitter rule. I suppose there will be an equal amount of celebration and saddness.

I've never been too extreme on the DH. I'd be happy to see it go, but I don't think it's a tremendous blight on the game. It certainly hasn't lived up to it's billing. The DH should be about the best hitter on the team, but seldom is. Often it's just used as a way to keep an injured bat in the lineup, or extend the career of a broken down fielder. And these players are usually overpaid. I don't really buy the strategy arguments. I don't sit open-mouthed in awe whenever I see a double switch. But I do love seeing a pitcher who can hit bat. I think we missed something by not seeing hurlers like Clemens take a few more hacks during his career. At least the NL keeps the dream alive.

Spring training is starting earlier than you thought!

Selig wants the league that wins the All-Star Game to get home field in the World Series. He believes that this will invigorate the All-Star Game.

I don't buy it. I don't know that there is any great league pride in the World Series. I bet most Red Sox fans root against the Yankees when the Yankees are in the fall classic. Can you imagine Red Sox fans saying, "Go out and play your butt off Nomar so the Yankees can have home field in October!" Plus, what does the All-Star Game have to do with anything? It's a bit of fun in the middle of summer. You will have injustices like a team winning 103 games having to play on the road to a Wild Card team that won 85 games. If you think home field is important to the series, then make home field based on season record. If you want to invigorate the All-Star Game, pay a huge bonus to the players on the team that wins. (Winner gets $200,000 for each player, loser gets nothing.) Then you'll see some competition, and you won't see many all-stars opting out.

The Florida Marlins have signed Todd Hollandsworth:

"We're fortunate to get a quality athlete, plus that left-handed bat," Marlins manager Jeff Torborg said. "Those guys that were with us all last year heard me talk about needing a left-handed bat from the middle of the season on ... and this was the opportunity to do that."

I'm not sure they are quite that fortunate. Hollandsworth had a big fallof in his road numbers last year:

2002       Home         Road

BA         .358         .224

OBA        .429         .272

Slug       .606         .346

In his first two years in Colorado, he hit well on the road, so I don't know if last year was a fluke, or a real falloff in his ability. In Miami, he's moving to a good pitchers park. If the 2002 road numbers are for real, we could see a huge falloff in his production this year.

According to this AP report on ESPN.com, Livan Hernandez has been charged with assualting an elderly man.

Hernandez, 27, was charged with felony aggravated assault after he got into a "violent'' scuffle Wednesday with the man, who received a minor cut on the back of his head, according to a witness account cited in a police statement.

Two things:

1. Why is violent in quotes? Has anyone seen a non-violent scuffle? Is the AP trying to tell us this isn't for real?


2. Does anyone really believe that Hernandez is only 27?

UPDATE: Steve Bauman, Editor in Cheif of Computer Games Magazine, clears up the quotes:

Without the quotes, it can be interpreted as a statement of fact by the reporter, and AP could be held liable if it turned out the incident never occurred, that it turned out it was a tap on the shoulder, blah blah blah.

With the quotes, you know that it's not AP's judgment; it was probably listed in the police report that way, hence the quotes.

Thanks, Steve!

Chris Lynch has a take at SportsPages.com. Looks like the bean counters are having as much as an effect as Billy Beane. :-)

The Cub Reporter takes the test and finds Sandberg borderline.

It appears it wasn't a scoop at all. AP had sent a number of stories, including stats on Sandberg and Lee Smith, as Adam Bonin has pointed out. A moment of glory dashed.

Of course, Mike C. never said it was definitive.

Brad Harris was also shocked by Sandberg receiving less than 50% of the vote:

I, too, was shocked to see Sandberg receive less than 50% of the votes. Unlike those suggestions made in your blog, however, I believe it has more to do with the "first ballot" phenomenon than anything else. Sandberg's numbers, short career or not, shout Hall of Fame. And if there's a voter or two out there who is blind enough to compare a middle infielder's 277 home runs to the 350+ by guys like Rice or Dawson, then we've got a whole 'nother issue on hand. Giving the BBWAA voters the benefit of the doubt, that leaves us with a very substantial portion of the electorate who must subscribe to the ridiculous notion that "Sandberg deserves election, but not on the first ballot."

I've witnessed my share of discussions about the Hall of Fame and future candidates (Eckersley, Molitor and Boggs in the next two years alone) where at least one person inevitably forwards the theory that there is a distinction made (or at least should be) between first-ballot inductees and other inductees. As ridiculous as it seems, and as flawed as the logic that support that argument is, there is a very vocal minority that supports the idea.

Apparently, many of the voters are of similar sympathies. We'll know for sure this time next year, when we see just how much higher Sandberg's percentage of support rises. If it increases dramatically, I think we'll have our answer.

In the meantime, shame on the 252 voters who didn't write his name on their ballot.

Sandberg had 10 very productive years (1984-1993). And looking at the stats again, he had a decent enough OBA for a power hitting 2nd baseman during that time. But you also have five poor offensive seasons surrounding the peak ten. Sandberg had his last good season at age 33. That's very young to fall apart and still be a Hall of Famer. It's similar to Dale Murphy. Murph had his last good season at age 30. Neither of these players did anything to extend their Hall Credentials in their 30's, and that's why they are marginal candidates now. Ryno does have the great defense at 2nd as a plus, but if you start comparing Sandberg to Joe Morgan, who was an effective ballplayer into his late 30's, you wonder if Sandberg really belongs.

Chris Lynch sent me this link to an article he wrote on the SportsPages.com WebLog. I must admit, Bud sure makes it easy.

Alex Lash offers a defense of Peter Gammon's Saturday column, mentioned in this post.

Yes, Gammons' prose is bad. It looks like someone dictated his TV-broadcast monologues verbatim. In fact, it's quite possible that's how it works over at ESPN.com: Gammons calls an "editor," rambles for 10 minutes, and his comments are transcribed for his Web column. Whether he dictates his column or slams it out on his laptop on a tight deadline, it's not his fault that his material is full of bad grammar, typos and twisted syntax. For all that, the blame lies squarely with ESPN, which either can't afford an editor or can't afford an editor with half a brain. As a veteran writer and editor, I can assure you that Gammons' prose is no worse than most reporters' first drafts. It's not his fault that no one is doing even a cursory line edit before publication. But it does make ESPN look bush-league.

As for his clubbiness with GMs and his Boston bias, there's certainly truth in that, but every "national" reporter has a home base and trusted sources from those days that he or she still leans on. Tom Verducci was a Mets beat writer. Tim Keown covered the Giants for the SF Chronicle. Jayson Stark came from the Philly Inquirer, hence the Ed Wade chumminess and the tiresome quips from Doug Glanville. (By the way, is there anything more grindingly boring than Stark's "Useless Info"?) I will concede, however, that Gammons' weekly droolfest over Susan Tedeschi and his other favorite New England rockers has no place in a baseball column. Tedeschi may be the second coming of Joni Mitchell who can't quite get the big break, but she sure as hell can't throw 90 MPH or hit .310 with power, so enough already.

I have to agree with Alex on the editing. When I was reading Mike's Rant, I kept thinking, "Where was the editor?"

David Bloom follows the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and Tampa professional players in general. Check out his blog.

Thanks to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit for the link. I may end up with more hits today than all of last week!

It's official, Murray and Carter get elected. But we already knew that. :-)

The big surprise for me is Sandberg not getting 50% of the vote. I agree with it, but he's the type of player (high average, few walks, some power at a position that doesn't expect it) that Hall Voters usually like. I wonder if his dropping out of baseball has anything to do with it?

Then there is the longevity issue. After starting the 1994 season hitting .238 in 56 games, Sandberg abruptly retired, walking away from his contract because he thought he was shortchanging the Cubs. There were personal issues with the breakup of his marriage, too.

From what I heard, it was mostly about the breakup of his marriage. Voters could have easily held this against him. It will be interesting to see how he fares in future votes. The ballot at ESPN's sports nation had him second, but still below 75%.

I think Cal has it right:

"The issue about whether (Rose's) career should be celebrated in the Hall of Fame, I think absolutely. He's the all-time hit leader, his accomplishments are as great as anyone who's ever played the game," Ripken said in an exclusive ESPN interview Monday. "And so if you think about the Hall of Fame in a way that celebrates the history of baseball, he certainly should be celebrated in the Hall of Fame."

When someone says, for example, "Roger Maris should be in the Hall of Fame," I will say, "He already is." The argument for Maris rests on his breaking Babe Ruth's HR record. That feat, however, is already celebrated in the Hall. And that's one of the purposes of the Hall, to remember not only great players, but great accomplishments. If Roger Clemens had broken down after the 1986 season, he would still be in the Hall of Fame for his 20 K game.

Ripken offers a fair compromise to the Rose situation. Have a permanent exhibit about Rose without enshrining him. Today's quickie seems to agree.

Mike's Baseball Rant uncovers evidence that Gary Carter has been elected to the Hall of Fame. If so, he is very deserving. The 80's lacked great catchers. Carter was the Bench/Berra/Lombardi/Cochrane of his era.

This is worth attending:

PETER GAMMONS' 3RD ANNUAL HOT STOVE/COOL MUSIC FUNDRAISER CONCERT

WHAT: Charity fundraiser concert and silent auction to benefit The Jimmy Fund/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
WHEN: Wednesday, January 15
WHERE: The Paradise Rock Club, 967 Commonwealth Ave., Boston
WHO: American Hi-Fi, Kay Hanley, The Gentlemen, Bill Janovitz' Crown Victoria and special guests
TIME: Doors at 6 p.m.; first band 7:15 p.m.
PRICE: $20 (all proceeds go to the Jimmy Fund/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute)

THE SKINNY: In a truly unique event, ESPN baseball guru Peter Gammons hosts his third annual fundraiser to benefit children's cancer research at the legendary Paradise Rock Club on Wed., Jan. 15. Gammons will be joined by American Hi-Fi, Kay Hanley, The Gentlemen, Bill Janovitz' Crown Victoria and other special guests in an evening that brings together rock and roll music and off-season baseball talk (aka, the Hot Stove), as well as a silent auction that has become a bonanza for baseball and rock memorabilia collectors.
Island-Def Jam recording stars American Hi-Fi will be kicking off a tour to promote their new release, "The Art Of Losing", which follows up on their ultra-successful self-titled debut (featuring the hit single "Flavor Of The Weak").
Former Letters To Cleo singer Hanley will be accompanied by her husband, Our Lady Peace guitarist Michael Eisenstein, in an acoustic set that will open the show. Buffalo Tom singer-guitarist Janovitz will follow with his Crown Victoria side project, while 2002 WBCN Rock And Roll Rumble victors, The Gentlemen, will lead into American Hi-Fi with one of their edgy, garage-rock sets.
Gammons, who sang and played guitar in a rock band during his days at the University of North Carolina, will also be performing for the first time in decades. He will be backed by an all-star band (featuring Janovitz, Eisenstein and Gentelmen Ed Valauskas and Pete Caldes) for a song or two.
At least one other surprise on-stage performance is confirmed but the act has asked that its appearance not be disclosed until 48 hours before the event.
The evening will also feature question-and-answer sessions with Gammons between sets, as well as a silent auction of baseball and rock memorabilia, including signed items from Pedro Martinez, Nomar Garciaparra, Barry Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, Jason Giambi, Derek Jeter and others.
Bidders will also have the chance to win several unique baseball opportunities that promise to provide a lifetime of memories. Among the packages being auction off are the chance to sit with Red Sox owner John Henry in his front-row seats for a game at Fenway Park, the opportunity to sit with Sox general manager Theo Epstein in his private luxury box, dinner and a game with Peter Gammons and a trip to Bristol, Conn., to watch Baseball Tonight from ESPN's studios.
"Most guys I know host charity golf tournaments," Gammons said. "Well, I don't golf, so this is my version of that. It's the best way I know to bring together my two greatest passions -- baseball and rock music -- while raising money for a great cause."
Tickets are $20 and are available at the Paradise box office or via NEXT Ticketing: www.nextticketing.com or 617-423-NEXT.

I can't go this year due to a prior commitment, but I had a great time last year. The music is good, lots of interesting items to bid on, and everyone wants to talk baseball! And of course, it's for a great cause. If you are anywhere near Boston, check it out.

Mike's Baseball Rant takes aim at Peter Gammon's ESPN column. (If you don't know what a fisking is, check here. For the winner of the first Fiskie award, check here.)

Bruce Kauffmann remembers the 30th anniversary of the designated hitter rule, and explains why it was (and still is) a bad idea.

In anticipation of tomorrow's Hall of Fame election annoucements, there are a number of articles on the web abou the voting.

Jack O'Connell in the Hartford Courant sums up the arguments for and against certain relievers:

Hoyt Wilhelm and Rollie Fingers are the only pitchers who worked primarily out of the bullpen who are in the Hall of Fame, and they were never really part of the era of the closer. Gossage and Sutter also began their time as relievers by coming into games whenever a fire needed to be extinguished, regardless of the inning. Nowadays, the closer for the most part is reserved for ninth inning duty only.

I continue to support Gossage, one of the most intimidating relievers in the game's history, and Sutter, who perfected and popularized the split-finger fastball to the degree that he was the first reliever who shortened the game for opposing managers. One look at Sutter warming up in the bullpen, and the manager in the other dugout felt he was headed for the ninth inning, even though the game might still have been in the sixth.

Smith has the glaring statistic of 478 career saves, most in history, and is the career leader in saves for two franchises, the Cubs and the Cardinals. Just as Gossage, intimidation was part of Smith's game while, again like Gossage, underneath he was a teddy bear. Smith's 71-92 record is a blemish, but he spent many years on mediocre teams. He also holds the bogus record of most consecutive errorless games by a pitcher (546), which is ludicrous because for many of those "games" he was around for only an inning or two.

That alone might be why relievers get short shrift from the writers. There are really no stats that accurately measure a reliever's value. Won-lost record and ERA are unsatisfactory gauges because inherited runners who score are not charged to a reliever's record, and the closer is most often faced with a save-or-lose scenario. While I admit that Smith was exceptional at what he did, I cannot vote for him in front of Gossage or Sutter. If they have to wait, so should he.

Tracy Ringolsby devotes his whole column to relievers in the hall.

I tend to agree with O'Connell; I like Gossage and Sutter for the Hall, but I'm less impressed with Smith. Modern relievers are used in such a way to maximize the number of save opportunites they convert, but putting them into the easiest situation in which to get a save (start of the 9th, your team with the lead). Over the last decade, overall save percentages have gone down, while save percentages for closers have gone up. This is due to middle relievers being put into game critical situations, rather than bringing in the best relief pitcher. Unless there is some way to change the save rule to recognize this, I don't expect the situation to change. So pitchers like Smith will have amass large numbers of saves at the expense of their teams actually winning.

Brian Decaussin sends a thoughful e-mail about this post:

I'd like to share some of my thoughts with you regarding your comments on collusion. (I'm long winded, so you may want to grab your coffee now.) You suggest two reasons for viewing this time in history differently than the time of the collusion case of the Eighties. First is the interest shown in Glavine, Thome, et al. The second is the new era of GMs. I've got some additional ideas about the latter, which I'll save for a moment, but I still think you may have missed a major reason. The economy.

This recessed economy is vastly different than the booming economic times of the Reagan administration (when the collusion case emerged) or even the recent epic upswing during the Clinton administration. The complete and surprisingly rapid collapse of various corporations coupled with the terrorist/war fears have made nearly organization re-evaluate spending. Baseball, considered by most pundits a dying sport, is no different.

I don't think it would be hard for Selig to suggest that these are unusual economic times and that MLB owners are just acting as the vast majority of corporate America has. The Millwood deal alone might justify his position. However, they could also point to the number of players not tendered deals or offered arbitration as another example of belt-tightening across the board. When people are losing their jobs, even in fields where the economy hasn't been quite as devastating, it's going to be easy for MLB to stick with the line "It's the economy, stupid".

On to your thoughts about the new generation of GM's. I guess I am a little concerned about this statement:

More and more, GM's are in the mold of Billy Beane, well educated men with good sabremetric skills. They can look at a player's stats, and figure out what he's worth.

This is the type of thought that keeps me from totally embracing my friends in the stathead community. It implies, perhaps unintentionally, that all GM's prior to Bill James arrival and sans a diploma were/are either ignorant, stupid or both. I find that not only unfair, but demeaning and shortsighted.

There is no question that James and his brethren have opened the door on a new universe of analysis, one that the baseball community hasn't quite figured out what to do with. However, to even imply that the GM's prior to this new realm of analysis weren't able to evaluate talent is far too broad a suggestion for me.

While unquestionably a number of "baseball people" throughout history were no more than drinking buddies of the owners or members of their family, there were men who worked hard to make solid personnel decisions. In fact, many of these GM's were able to evaluate talent long before the emergence of stat gurus. Stating, or implying, otherwise is simply unfair to them. Besides, we've got plenty of the well educated types, with access to these new tools, now making what appear to be horrible decisions.

A cursory search of history reveals that each passing generation is convinced of their superiority over their parents and grandparents. They feel they will not replicate the mistakes of those that came before them because, in part, they are better educated than their forefathers. There have even been times throughout history that a generation actually has thought that it may have reached the pinnacle of societal progress. Sometimes, when I hear today's "well educated men with good sabremeteric skills", I harken back to those countless generations that scoffed at those who came before.

Clearly, my honorary membership is SABR is not forthcoming. However, I am not so close minded that I don't find this modern statistical evaluation intriguing. I am even impressed and amazed at those individuals who continue to research baseball in this manner. I just remain far from convinced that this type of analysis had made, or will ever make, the game on the field any better. There are just too many variables (time, team finances, national economy, ownership's motivation, player development, etc...) to assume that these new stats are the end-all, be-all for our game.

Finally, (I bet you thought I that was never going to come, but I warned you) let me say that I enjoy your blog quite a bit. You have one of the two baseball blogs I check routinely. Aaron's Baseball Blog being the other. You are not only an excellent writer, but you appear to have mastered an art that often eludes me, obviously, concise writing. You have a very professional attitude towards your work and I believe that shows.

I have been very inspired by both you and Aaron's work and may get enough courage to start my own baseball blog. If I do, I'll let you know so you can hammer me in turn. Feel free to bash away at this e-mail immediately.

I wish you continued success with your endeavors in 2003.

Your fellow baseball fan,

Brian DeCaussin

First, I agree that the economy has something to do with the lack of contract offers, but I don't think it's that big. After all, there is a new labor agreement in place that is supposed to supply more money to the small market clubs. Yet, I don't see them spending money. The Milwaukee Brewers, the most profitable team in baseball, let their best player go and signed Royce Clayton to replace him. And everytime I do a google search for Kansas City Royals, I don't find much news. So maybe part of it is that these teams are just taking their revenue sharing and sticking it in their pockets. Which again, wouldn't be collusion.

Second, I think Brian is making a big leap to infer that I think that previous generations of GMs "were/are either ignorant, stupid or both." However, let me elaborate on what I meant so that there is no confusion. There is a lot more information available to GM's today, due to advances in technology, and GM's like Beane, due to their education and acceptence of sabremetrics, are better able to process it. When you give people with similar skills the same information, you're going to get similar answers.

As for each generation thinking it's better... I sure hope so. It's been my experience that the previous generations think everything was better in their time. I've been watching this game for over 1/3 of a century, and Whitey Ford is about the only ex-player I've heard say that today's ballplayers are better. Most complain that ballplayers don't know how to play, they don't respect the game, they don't do the little things, blah, blah, blah, blah. I heard it in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Please. Every generation knows what the previous one did, and more. Today's GM's, managers and ballplayers are better than at anytime in baseball history. Doctors, lawyers, politicians, truck drivers, coal miners, secretaries, etc. are all better today. And they are better because they built on the accomplishments of the past, not dismissed them.

So I think Billy Beane would be the best GM of any previous era, not just today. And I think in 20 years there will be an even better one, because he'll have learned from Beane's mistakes.

Eliot Shepard has a bog about the Red Sox call Darn Sox. Give it a look, and check out his all birthday team.

So reports the NY Times:

Hillenbrand is exactly the kind of player the Mets are looking for at third: he hits right-handed, is only 27 years old, makes less than $500,000 and is coming off an All-Star season. To get him, though, the Mets would have to satisfy Montreal General Manager Omar Minaya's asking price for Colón or Vazquez.

I think there are a lot of questions as to whether Hillenbrand is really an all-star. He does have some interesting characteristics:

1. He's a right-handed batter who doesn't hit lefties very well (career OPS: .640 vs. LHP, .775 vs. RHP).


2. He's a Fenway player who hits better on the road (career OPS .650 home, .838 away).


3. He's shown very litte selectivity at the plate. Among players with at least 1000 AB over the last two years, Hillenbrand is tied with Christian Guzman for the fewest walks in the majors, 38.

He's an okay third baseman. He ranks tied for 10th in defensive win shares at third base among players with 100 games at the position last year, but more than once I've seen him make poor plays at the position.

So the Mets would get a cheap third baseman who may or may not be very good. If the Red Sox can pull off this trade and get Vazquez, they'll have a 1-2-3 punch in their rotation equal to or better than Oakland. It's not clear what the Expos will get, but it looks to me like a big win for the Red Sox and not such a great deal for the Mets.

This story on ESPN.com points out that the union may be looking for collusion this year:

The union wouldn't comment on the possibility of a collusion case, and Gene Orza, the associate general counsel of the players' association, said Friday that requesting agents to keep records was not unusual. The agents, however, said the union has emphasized record-keeping more than in recent years.

"Asking agents to keep good notes of negotiating meetings is nothing new,'' said Orza, the union's No. 2 official. "We've been doing it the last 15 years. It's the way we monitor the market. The operation of the free-agency market is always a concern for us.''

I've had readers over the last month e-mail me about this possibility, and frankly, I don't think it's happening. The 1986 collusion was very different. The top free agent that year was probably Jack Morris, and there was no interest in him:

After finding no other clubs interested in signing him, free-agent pitcher and 20-game winner Jack Morris agrees to salary arbitration with the Tigers while at the same time accusing the ML owners of collusion against free agents. Morris had offered to sign a one-year contract, with salary to be determined by an arbitrator, with either the Yankees, Angels, Twins, or Phillies, but was turned down by all 4.

The Yankees of that era were a great offensive team that lacked pitching. The boss signing Morris at any other time in his history would be a given. Today, while there was little interest in Thome, there was bidding for his services. There were negotiations and bidding for Glavine. Other top free agents are old, so it's likely clubs thought their money was spent better elsewhere.

The other difference between today and the mid-80's is the make up of front offices. More and more, GM's are in the mold of Billy Beane, well educated men with good sabremetric skills. They can look at a player's stats, and figure out what he's worth. I'm not surprised at all that a number of teams would come to the same conclusion.

So is there collusion? Probably not. But if there is, the owners appear to have done enough to make it really hard to prove.

The Mariners have signed Greg Colbrunn:

The Mariners signed infielder Greg Colbrunn to a two-year contract Friday, the first step in upgrade a depleted bench.

Infielder? He's a first baseman/DH. They make it sound like he's a utility player.

"Greg is a very nice addition to our ball club,'' new Mariners manager Bob Melvin said. "In addition to his abilities on the field, he's got a tremendous amount of character and his veteran leadership and daily approach will fit in very well in our clubhouse.''

Melvin should know. He and Colbrunn worked together the last two seasons in Arizona, where Melvin was the bench coach before taking the job formerly held by Lou Piniella.

Yep, that's what clubs need, players with lots of character. It reminds me of what Bill James wrotein the 1983 Baseball Abstract. He was criticizing Sparky Anderson for having Enos Cabell as his first baseman:

I mean, I would never say that it was not important to have a team with a good attitude, but Christ, Sparky, there are millions of people in this country who have good attitudes, but there are only about 200 who can play a major-league brand of baseball, so which are you going to take? Sparky is so focused on all that attitude stuff that he looks at an Enos Cabell and he doesn't even see that the man can't play baseball. This we ballplayer, Sparky, can't play first, can't play third, can't hit, can't run and can't throw. So who cares what his attitude is?

The 1983 Abstract was the first I read cover to cover, and this paragraph really stuck with me. If I'm with one of my baseball buddies, and a manager starts talking about attitude, "Christ, Sparky!" will pop out of one of our mouths.

That said, Colbrunn is a decent backup for Olerud and Martinez. Just don't give me the attitude excuse. As long as he's not betting on baseball or committing crimes, I can live with the attitude if he can hit.

Jed Roberts pointed out this article on OpinionJournal.com, touting the late Gil Hodges for the Hall of Fame:

They're looking at the wrong man.

The Hall of Fame, that is. While the entire baseball world fixates on the ban on Pete Rose, a true injustice goes almost unheralded: the exclusion of Gil Hodges from baseball's Hall of Fame. The good news is that when members of the newly revamped Veterans Committee cast their ballots this month, they will have the perfect moment to right this wrong.

Over 18 seasons, the Dodger first baseman hit 370 home runs, had seven straight seasons where he drove in more than 100 RBIs, won the National League's first three Golden Gloves for his position and was an eight-time All-Star. He played in seven World Series, where he twice hit game-winning home runs. As a manager, moreover, Hodges led the 1969 Miracle Mets to their first World Championship.

But the Hall of Fame isn't supposed to be just about numbers. Rule No. 5 states that voting should be based not only on the player's stats but on "integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Yes, that's what rule 5 says, but I believe it's a moderating condition. So if you have someone on the bubble, maybe his character pushes him over the edge. Of maybe you have someone like Rose, who would otherwise get in, but his poor character keeps him out (as a warning to others).

So it seems to me, the question should be, "Is Hodges on the bubble?" Gil was a regular for the Dodgers from 1948 through 1961. Let's look at the most win shares over that time:

1948-1961          Win Shares

Mickey Mantle         401

Stan Musial           398

Yogi Berra            347

Duke Snider           327

Eddie Mathews         319

Warren Spahn          318

Richie Ashburn        317

Ted Williams          312

Willie Mays           309

Minnie Minoso         277

Robin Roberts         277

Larry Doby            268

Nellie Fox            262

Gil Hodges            260

Eddie Yost            256

Hank Aaron            247

Jackie Robinson       236

Given this list, it's hard to believe that Hodges was on the bubble. Look at Snider. They were teammates all during this time, and Snider put up 60 more win shares. Robinson was out of baseball by 1957, and Hodges barely beats him out. Mantle, Mathews, Mays and Williams beat him handily with fewer seasons played during the time period.

Gil Hodges was a good ballplayer and a great man. If he had lived and was able to establish a dynasty with the Mets, I think he'd have a better chance of getting in as a manager. But I just don't see him as qualifying as a Hall of Famer based on his playing days. It's a nice sentiment, and it's good that someone remembers him well. The veterans committee has certainly made worse picks. But I just don't think he belongs.

My ISP was having all kinds of routing problems yesterday and today, but I just looked and the blog seems to be back on-line. Now, I just need to find something to blog about...

As you probably know, the record setting HR ball hit by Barry Bonds during the 2001 season was awarded jointly to the two men who caught it. Now, they are having a difficult time trying to decide how to sell it.

A judge ruled last month that both Alex Popov, who gloved the ball for an instant, and Patrick Hayashi, who ended up with the ball, have a legitimate claim -- so neither should get it outright.

Now, the only thing the men can agree on is to postpone a court order that requires them to unload the ball and split the proceeds.

The judge should have been more creative in awarding custody. He could have used Solomon's trick of splitting the ball in two, and giving each half. Then see who is willing to give it up, and award the ball to him. (Newman used this effectively in an episode of Seinfeld to decide if Kramer or Elaine should keep a classic bicycle). Or, make them keep the ball, each getting to display it for 1/2 a year.

Oh well, they'll just have to be happy making a lot of money for very little work.

May your favorite team win the Pennant!