Jason Collins

Today, Jason Collins became the first professional athlete in one of the four major American sports to declare himself gay while still an active player, to which I congratulate him.  Attitudes have changed immensely in this country, my own attitude included.  Twenty-five years ago, a classmate of mine at college gave a speech in our Public Speaking class on how we should support his rights as a gay man.  He was openly gay, and a number of people in class were uncomfortable with him, myself being one of them.  I responded to him by giving a speech religious-based on how I could not in good faith be supportive.

Years later, my brother came out.  I never suspected he was gay, though I guess I should have.  There were hints of it, but my gaydar isn't really that good.  Since 2002 when he came out, I have worked hard to become a better brother, friend...and have changed my attitude towards the LGBT community.  To that point, I want to apologize to my former classmate Todd for being so narrow-minded.  I should've accepted his differences, ALL of our differences - fortunately, I've grown.

But...

The media is making a huge deal out of this - to an extent, it is.  But I hear some comparing this to Jackie Robinson's integration of baseball, and I think this is going too far.  Why?

1. The United States was segregated at this time.  Horribly segregated.  Robinson began playing baseball with the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1947...seventeen years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended most of the segregation of this country.  There were hotels he couldn't stay at with his teammates, restaurants that wouldn't serve him.  Today, the LGBT community lives largely unaffected within every American community.
2. There have been some gay men who played in the major leagues before:  John Amaechi, Billy Bean, Wade Davis to name a few.  Before Robinson, the last African-American to play baseball was Moses Fleetwood Walker, who was chased from the game by Cap Anson among others in 1889.  African-Americans couldn't hide among their peers on the field/court/ice.  They couldn't hide in plain sight, like the gay athlete could.
3. There has been an growing movement among professional athletes encouraging someone to come out.  Chris Kluwe has been outspoken on this issue, as has Brendon Ayanbadejo.  Today, Jason Collins' Twitter followers jumped from 4,000 to over 35,000, and positive Twitter responses have outnumbered negative ones by 4-1.  On the other hand, Jackie Robinson was not welcomed as warmly - while some teammates accepted him immediately, the abuse he suffered from fans, opposing teams and some teammates early in his career may have contributed to his stress-related illnesses later in life, to which he finally succumbed at age 53. 

So, I want to congratulate Jason Collins, and I hope that he is in the NBA next year.  I hope the announcement gives him some peace of mind, and I hope teammates and our society continues to be as welcoming as they appear in the first moments of this coming out.  But the next big, BIG barrier we're to face?

When a woman attempts to make a realistic attempt to play in one of those four leagues.  And you know what?  It's coming.

A Case for Cashman

About a year ago, my friend Black Asian and I started a debate over a few beers...and in the last couple of months, it has become increasingly violent in tone.  It began innocently enough:  is Brian Cashman a good GM?

I argued he was - in fact, I thought he was one of the top 10 GMs in the game over the last fifteen year.  But before I'm accused of being a "homer", I should mention that I despise the Yankees:  I've been an Orioles fan since the mid-70's, with the Phillies (my hometown) a distant second.  As much as I enjoy those teams, one of the greatest moments I remember is Luis Gonzalez's hit over a drawn-in infield against Mariano Rivera in the 2001 World Series, ending three-year run the Yankees had as champions.

I couldn't sleep that night, I was so excited.  That's how much I hate the Yankees.

So how could I possibly defend his tenure as GM?  (some of this information comes from E-Yes-PN, so bear with me)

1. George Steinbrenner bought the team in 1973, and between then and 2010 when The Boss passed away, Steinbrenner had 11 GMs...and average of 1 every 2 1/2 years.  Cashman is the third-longest tenured GM in baseball today (trailing Brian Sabean and Billy Beane, the latter by only 3 1/2 months).  So he's served under the most demanding, meddling owner this side of Jerry Jones.  And he's still there. 
2. How did he survive?  A few reasons.  Firstly, the Yankees have won non-stop since he arrived, only missing the playoffs one time (which cost Joe Torre his job).  The worst record since he took over?  87-74...and they won the World Series that year.  Their second worst was 89-73, when they missed the playoffs.  Otherwise, they've been at 95 wins or better, including a asinine 114-48 his first year on the job.
3. To those who wish to NOT give credit to him in 1998, 1999, or 2000, remember Cashman has dealt with a meddlesome owner.  At the trading deadline in 1998, Steinbrenner wanted Cashman to get Randy Johnson who was on his way out of Seattle.  Cleveland, who had knocked New York out of the playoffs the year before, wanted him badly.  Cashman put his job on the line (he had a one-year contract at the time) and refused to trade for him.  In the end, Johnson wound up in Houston, New York defeated the Indians in the AL Championship Series 4 games to 2, then swept the Padres.  In 2005, Steinbrenner finally got his man.  How did that go?
4. My friend suggests that most of the hard work was done by Cashman's predecessor, Gene Michael.  The farm system was stocked, and four of those players have been mainstays on the Yankees roster:  Pettite, Posada, Rivera and Jeter (Bernie Williams was a fifth I'll add to that list).  To that point, Cashman has done a good job of filling out the team around its stars.  Yes, it helps to have a checkbook with no balance, but he has needed it.  Why?  For a few reasons:  the Yankees have not drafted well, which has forced Cashman to spend to fill roster weaknesses where other teams could trade for them or bring them up from the minors.  And we can not place the blame of the farm system on Cashman, because he isn't in charge of that aspect of the Yankees.  
5. Who did Cashman get to fill in on those first three championship teams?  He got Chuck Knoblauch for Brian Buchanan, Cristian Guzman, Eric Milton and Danny Mota.  When we look at WAR to see who won the trade, it's fairly close (7.5 vs 8.0)...but almost all of that value is through Guzman a few years later.  Knoblauch was worth 2.8 and 3.5 wins in those first two years, so we can assume Cashman came ahead in the trade.  He also brought in David Justice for Zach Day, Ricky Ledee and Jake Westbrook in 2000.  While in the long-term the Yankees lost that trade, David Justice stabilized the DH position.  He also added Chili Davis (DH in 1999), Roger Clemens as a free agent, Orlando Hernandez and others.  Was there anything like that in the Yankees farm system?  No.
6. Another example of how Cashman has been forced to compensate for a weak farm system (taken from Bleacher Report): 
   

   The Yankees went through the 2003 season with a rotation of Mike Mussina, David Wells, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and Jeff Weaver, with some starts from Jose Contreras. That offseason, they lost Clemens to “retirement” and Wells and Pettitte to free agency. This would have been a devastating blow to any team—no club can, under normal circumstances, replace three-fifths of its rotation in one winter, particularly not when the pitchers in question include a seven-time Cy Young Award winner and two top-50 all-time lefties.
   Cashman found that there was little help on the farm, and given the Steinbrenners’ historic distrust of young players—George Steinbrenner almost always preferred to play someone else’s mediocre veteran over his own most promising kid—it might not have mattered if there had been help. As a result, he rebuilt the rotation, or tried to, with Javier Vazquez (who cost Nick Johnson, Randy Choate and Juan Rivera), Kevin Brown (for the ineffective Weaver and two prospects) and Jon Lieber, whose rehabilitation from Tommy John surgery Cashman had elected to pay for in 2003, a gamble that paid off.
   The following offseason, Cashman tried again. Lieber was allowed to depart as a free agent; the vastly disappointing Vazquez was traded for Randy Johnson; Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright were signed as free agents; and (miracle) Chien-Ming Wang was added from the farm system. Johnson was 41 and the Pavano and Wright moves were almost guaranteed not to work, but what is a GM to do? You need pitching. You have none in the cupboard. You go to the supermarket looking for caviar, but all you find is hamburger. If you’re hungry, you buy the hamburger.

   Hamburger indeed - the Yankees won 101 games in 2004, and another 95 in 2005.
7. Cashman has never let his ego get in the way.  Theo Epstein was one of the rising stars in the GM world, and he decided to make a power play in October of 2005.  He wound up caving in and returning to the Red Sox in January 2006...but wound up leaving again in 2011.  Is he a good GM?  Yes, but Epstein would've never survived in New York.
8. Sometimes, the best moves are the ones he didn't make.  In 2007, Cashman went out to dinner with Carl Crawford's agent to make it seem like they were interested in him.  Epstein and the Red Sox bit on the fake, signing him to a seven-year, $142 million deal.  How well did that go for the Red Sox?  
9.  Then there's the issue of A-Rod.  Cashman was able to trade for the talented shortstop, get the Rangers to pay 1/3 of his salary, and take back Alfonso Soriano.  In addition, A-Rod agreed to switch to third base, and change uniform numbers.  When Boras and Rodriguez announced that A-Rod was opting out of his contract, Cashman did not want to resign him, but was once again overruled by the Steinbrenner family.  
10. Cashman has the respect of the players as well.  When rumors of discord became popular knowledge, he sat down with Jeter and told him that he and A-Rod needed to get on the same page.  They did.

So where does leave us?   It leaves us with a General Manager working for a team who has no control over the farm system, and only one option:  to win every year.  To do so, he needed to spend money to fill the needs of an aging team, and he did this exceptionally well.  In addition, he managed to keep his owner's own impatience and ego in check at times, while containing his own frustrations with moves made that he didn't want.  How many GMs could've dealt with this, in addition to the microscope that is the New York media?

I don't think Billy Beane could.  Theo Epstein's own actions suggest he could not.  In fact, I don't believe any general managers in the game today, or fifteen years ago could have.  On top of it all, the Yankees have won four World Series, and have been in the playoffs every year but one, and while the general manager does not have much control over the game-to-game situations, his job is to get them an opportunity to play in those important games.  Brian Cashman has proven himself worthy.

One final note:  the Yankees are looking to cut their salary to $189 million in 2014, which means they'll have to find a way to reduce their costs by about $30 million.  Their farm system doesn't have anyone that can replace their aging pieces, and Cashman's one ability is about to be taken away from him.  Will he survive?  I don't think so, but don't underestimate the ability of this Top 10 GM.

My letter to Rick Reilly

Many writers have been down on Rick Reilly since he joined ESPN and became a mere shadow of himself.  His lazy efforts in column writing have left a sour taste in some readers' mouths, and I'm sure jealousy contributes to their vindictiveness.

It doesn't help when you get caught doing this on national TV.

His latest column about the Lakers 33-game win streak left a sour taste in my mouth.  So sour, in fact, that I felt I needed to respond.

Way to "mail in" another column Rick.  Nice cliche at the end, but the facts of the story are weak.  Case in point:

In 1966-67 there were a total of 10 professional basketball teams, but by 1971-72 there were 28 teams between the NBA and ABA.  That "expansion" led to some extremely weak teams, and they were not (whether you believe it or not) all in the ABA.  Have you looked at the Portland Trailblazers roster from that year?  Or what Lanier was working with in Detroit?

When those ABA teams joined the NBA in 1976 (an eternity later, but you opened the door), how did they do?  The Denver Nuggets won their division, the Spurs had a winning record, and only the Nets (better than both the Spurs and Nuggets the year before) embarrassed themselves...because they were forced to sell their best players (Erving especially) to pay off the Knicks.  10 of the 24 players in that year's All-Star game were ABA alum.  Why didn't you see them in the NBA beforehand?  Because the ABA paid better.

Your "beasts" the Lakers had to face, night-in, night out?  I love Wes Unseld, but the man is 6-7...and was playing center for the Baltimore Bullets.  LeBron is 6-8 and spends some time at guard.  If these teams played each other, the Heat would beat them 8 out of 10.  In 2013, better and bigger athletes play the game.  The travel might be easier, the rules about 3 games in 3 nights may have changed, but the game overall today is much tougher to play. Your Lakers shot 73.4% at the free throw line...which would be good for 22nd in the league this year.

Defense didn't exist in the NBA - yes, the Lakers scored 121 points per game, but that's easy to do when a team takes 8000 shots in a season.  Last year in the NBA, the most shots a team took was 5400.  With fewer possessions and tougher defense, games are going to be closer...which is why the Heat had a tougher time winning 27 in a row.

Give credit where credit is due - both streaks were tough, and congratulations on the Lakers still having their record intact...but winning in the NBA today is much tougher.

But at least it gave you a nice ending to your story.

A few final words on the AL MVP

Answer:  Mike Trout

Question:  Who was the AL Player of the Year in 2012?

Before we move into the new season, I wanted to say a few things about last year's MVP race, and take on the statheads and pundits who screamed bloody murder and how the voters are concerned only about the Triple Crown statistics that aren't a true evaluator of performance.

Here are my problems with their arguments:

1.  What exactly is WAR?  Fangraphs has Trout at 10.0, Baseball Reference at 10.7 - because they're based on different weighted formulas.  Each gives different positions different values, and the defensive metrics are still in their infant stage.  I was a big fan of Bill James' Win Shares, but I think he's copyrighted that since I can't find his own rankings.  When WAR becomes the same for everyone, I think the older guard will gradually accept it...or just retire and let the younger generation accept it.

2.  Statheads also argue that there is no such thing as "clutch", and that a game in April is as important as a game in September.  To an extent, they are correct:  it counts the same in the standings.  But anyone who has seen a 92% free throw shooter miss the first of a 1 & 1 in the final minute of a last game, or a wide receiver letting a sure TD pass slipping through their hands on the final drive knows that the games at the end of a season are under a magnifying glass.  While it may be the same as an April game, the pennant race is studied a lot, lot closer - in the locker room, on sports radio, and the players can feel it.  So what did Trout do at the end of the year?  August and September were his worst months.  For Cabrera, it was the exact opposite - the last two months were his strongest.

3.  Finally, Cabrera was in the position to do something no has done since 1967:  win the Triple Crown.  More importantly, he did it...and while we can all agree that RBIs has more to do with opportunity given to a player by his teammates, the fact is Cabrera succeeded where others have failed.  So, not only was the Tigers being watched as they moved towards the post-season, Cabrera was under intense scrutiny for his pursuit of an achievement accomplished only 13 times.* 

This is why Cabrera won the MVP award, and I'm really not upset by it, even as I focus more and more on OPS, xBA, UZR and the like. 

Mike Trout was the best player in 2012...but Cabrera was the MVP. 

*I'm not counting Lajoie's achievement in 1901 when the AL was a minor league, or the two times Baseball Reference counts it from the 1800s.

Comments on this year's (lack of) class

I'm worried about some of the comments made by various pundits on ESPN, Yahoo! and the like.  Since no one was elected this year, many are screaming at the top of their lungs, clamoring for change, claiming the system is broken and needs revision. 

This isn't a new claim - it happened after Bill Mazeroski was elected by the Veterans Committee, an election many view as lowering the standards by which players were chosen after their opportunities on the ballot were extinguished.  After the rules for the Veterans Committee were changed, they failed to elect anyone that would bring crowds to Cooperstown, so the rules were revised again.

Let's review the facts, and make a few assessments:

1.  569 BBWAA members voted. 
2.  Any number of voters above "1" will create the possibility there isn't unanimous agreement.  No matter what various voters, TV personalities, baseball bloggers or morons who idolize every MLB player say, there is going to be disagreements on who belongs, and who doesn't.
3.  That's why there are so many discussions about the election.
4.  When there are less standout players, votes tend to coalesce around them.  When there are more, votes get scattered, making it more difficult for anyone to reach 75%.
5.  Why?  For a few reasons:

• Writers are limited to selecting a maximum of 10 players a year.  This, I believe, is a good thing, since we live in an era where everyone gets an award for participating in sports, rather than just the winners.  If there are more than 10 players worthy of serious consideration, votes will be split.
• The "small Hall, big Hall" split.  Whereas Tim Kurkjian will vote for almost one-third of the eligible players per year, others prefer to keep their standards a bit higher.
• Steroids.
• Steroids.  Or did I already state that?
• No clarification on what makes a "Hall of Famer".  I don't have a vote, but I've always subscribed to the "small Hall" theory.

6.  This will change, and the logjam that's been created will dissipate.  Why?

• Because voters are influenced.  If they didn't get influenced, Bert Blyleven wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, and Jack Morris wouldn't be knocking on the door.
• Based on this year's votes, some voters who weren't initially influenced to vote for Biggio, or Bagwell, or Piazza will do so.  
• Next year, a few untainted players become eligible.  Maybe that keeps a few from this year's class from getting elected, but they will get elected.  A democratic process acts slowly, but it usually gets it right.  

However, if no one is elected next year, I can promise you changes will be made...and it won't be for the better.  Cooperstown needs players to be elected, our impatient psyche as a nation needs players to get elected.  

2013 Hall of Fame Ballot

I'm wondering how each of you would vote, if you had one on this year's HOF ballot. Here's mine, but I should mention I prefer a higher standard for election:
1. Jeff Bagwell - although there are suspicions that he used steroids, he was never tainted with the Mitchell Report, there is nothing that proves otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, right? That's why I'd vote Mike Piazza in as well, though his back acne brings more questions.
2. Tim Raines - possibly the 2nd best leadoff hitter in the history of the game, he unfortunately played in the shadow of the best (Henderson), and plied his skills in Montreal before 24 hr sports channels and anyone recognized him as a great player. By the time he came south, injuries from playing on turf took away much of his speed, though he still wound up on base more than Tony Gwynn.
3. Barry Bonds - don't know if I'd vote him in on the first ballot because of his steroid use, but if I voided out the steroid-tainted yrs, he's still worthy.
4. Schilling - had a discussion with Joe about him...I think he's one of the six best starters of that era, along with P. Martinez, Maddux, Glavine, R. Johnson, and Clemens. Add in the fact that he may have been the best post-season pitcher in the history of the game (and an apology to Bob Gibson before he brushes me back with a pitch), I think he should get in.
5. Craig Biggio - 3000 hits, and Bill James viewed him as the second best 2nd basemen in the history of the game (behind J. Morgan).
Players I wouldn't vote in:
1. Roger Clemens: something happened to him when he went to Toronto. When he signed, he was widely considered washed up, yet suddenly he was reborn. He's his stats after his final season in Boston: 192-111, 3.06 ERA, 100 CGs, 2590 K's, an ERA 44% better than the league he played in. 5 All-star games, 3 Cy Youngs, 2 more top 3 finishes, an MVP. Okay, maybe he deserves to be in, but he's a dick.
2. Jack Morris - No way. His 3.90 ERA would be the highest in the HOF, and over a tenth higher than the next highest. He was a workman, and performed fantastically on the big stage...and may have pitched the greatest World Series game ever. I just don't think he's deserves it.
3. Lee Smith - No.
4. Alan Trammell - there's a lot of reasons to vote him in...but I just don't know. Please convince me.
5. Fred McGriff - didn't pass the eye ball test to me. Maybe his number just get overshadowed by the stats of the 90s.
6. Edgar Martinez - not a long enough career. I think a player needs to have career stats, as well as peak seasons.
7. Mark McGwire - without the steroids, he's a rich man's Dave Kingman.
8. Sammy Sosa - before steroids, he was a 30-30 guy who hit .257. So was Ron Gant.
9. Dale Murphy - short on career stats
10. Palmeiro - the "B12" shot did him in.
11. Larry Walker - his home/road splits are too great for me.
Any others?

Jim Thome

Congratulations to Jim Thome on hitting his 600th HR last night, only the eighth player in history to accomplish that. With it, he has practically written his ticket into the HOF. (It used to be 500, but the Steroid Era ruined that)

But let me be a contrarian for a moment. If we could ignore for a moment that specific number, I would suggest that he doesn't pass the Smell Test. In that way, he's sort of the Don Sutton of position players. For this, let me use Bill James' "common-sense approach" to deciding whether or not a person belongs in the HOF. He asked 14 questions of a person:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball? No. Even after eliminating the steroid-tainted players from MVP voting, Thome would have finished (in his best years): 6th, 3rd, 4th, and 2nd. Not what one would expect from the best player in baseball.

2. Was he the best player on his team? Yes. He was the best player on the a number of Cleveland teams, and the first two seasons with Philadelphia.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Does DH count? He was never considered a good fielder - he moved from third to first to hide this weakness, and then eventually became a DH. Except for a short pinch-hitting stint with the Dodgers, he has been exclusively a DH since 2007. That being said, he was was probably the best first baseman in the AL in 2001 and 2002. He was behind, at various times, Tino Martinez, Frank Thomas and Albert Pujols.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? Yes. The Indians were a consistent powerhouse in the mid- to late 1990s, and reached the World Series in his second full season. After they faded, he signed with the Phillies, and while they didn't win a pennant in 2003/2004, they were competitive. He didn't do much with the Dodgers in 2009 (.235 BA, 0 HRs as a pinch hitter).

5. Was he good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime? Well, he's the 5th oldest player in the AL right now, so yes.

6. Was he the best player in the league at his position? He wasn't, as mentioned before, but he was the in the top three for a few years.

7. Is he the very best player not in the HOF? No. He isn't eligible, and there are other non-tainted players awaiting eligibility that are better (Maddux, Griffey)

8. Are most of the players who have comparable triple crown stats in the HOF? HOF voters are starting to get away from "Triple Crown stats", as well they should. But I wouldn't throw all of my trust into WAR, because many of those "numbers" are artificially created. Sticking with the initial question, yes.

9. Are the player's totals of career approximate value and offensive wins and losses similar to those of other HOFers? Yes

I guess I could continue, but he's a "Yes" to most of them. Congrats to Jim Thome.