EVIL~! alkeiper

Joe Kerrigan left the Red Sox after the 2001 season. He spent a year as a Comcast analyst, and joined the Phillies as a pitching coach in 2003.

Don't forget Mike Lowell, Ted Lilly, Jake Westbrook, D'Angelo Jimenez and Joe Borowski. And if you count prospects, there's Eric Milton, Christian Guzman, Tony Armas Jr., Zach Day, Wily Mo Pena and Damaso Marte.

I'd add Superstar Billy Graham to that list.

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. This is the toughest standard, and anyone who answers "yes" is probably a Hall of Famer. Its not meant to analyze a single season. As part of a critique of Barry Bonds, Total Baseball created a list of the top five players of each decade. I am going to start using that as a reference, recognizing that most of the players I analyze are not on that list. 2. Was he the best player on his team? No. He was probably the second best player on the Braves in the 1960s, behind Hank Aaron. He was also the best player on the St. Louis Cardinals in 1971. 3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position? Yes. From 1965-66, Torre was the best catcher in baseball. Before then, he was surpassed by Elston Howard, and afterwards, by Bill Freehan and then Johnny Bench. 4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? None of Torre's teams ever made the postseason, but the 1971 and '73 Cardinals stayed close. Torre won an MVP for the '71 Cardinals. 5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime? Not really. Torre was out of baseball by 36. 6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame? No, that honor still goes to Ron Santo. 7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame? Two of Torre's ten most similar players are in the Hall, but none are considered truly similar. Oddly, most of Torre's comps are not catchers. 8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? Not quite. Torre scores 12 on the Black Ink test and 71 on the Gray Ink test. He does meet 40.1% of HOF standards. 9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics? None apparent. 10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame? It is either Torre or Ted Simmons. There is a strong case that Torre is the best eligible catcher. 11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? Torre won an MVP in 1971, and finished fifth in 1964. 12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame? Torre played in nine All-Star games, a good total. 13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? Yes. 14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way? None apparent. 15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider? Yes. Torre, especially in his managerial days, is considered a team leader and a class act. Conclusion: In 1995, Bill James wrote that Joe Torre should be in the Hall of Fame. Since then, Torre has won four World Series, six League championships, and seven division titles as manager as the New York Yankees. Torre was also a top player throughout the 1960s. When you take everything into account at this point, Torre is a Hall of Fame lock.

I think that's often a misconstrued part of the strategy. You don't literally wait around for the three run home run. The main key is to reach base and avoid outs. That in turn translates into runs. I've always felt that there are situations where it pays to be agressive. If a pitcher is lights out all night, and you can go from first to third on a single to set up a sac fly, it might be better than just going to second and watching the next guy fly out. Oh certainly, you would always like to take the extra base, no matter what the situation. The question is, what is the tradeoff? Is your speedster going to hit like Doug Glanville? If that's the case, then he's probably not worth it. The A's do have some players with decent speed. Eric Byrnes has 10 steals in 11 attempts. Mark Kotsay, Bobby Kielty, Bobby Crosby, and Mark McLemore are all good runners. They just don't get noticed because the A's don't use the stolen base often.

Ugh. What the heck is with Bowa using Todd Jones every day?!

That's what happens with sample sizes. In 50 at bats, just about anything can happen. Spiezio got hot at just the right time.

A one credit course?

Absolutely. Its a gray area for Hall voters, but the precident is there with such players as Frank Chance. You do have to excel at some area. Dusty Baker, for example, is not likely to make the Hall.

I think that's often a misconstrued part of the strategy. You don't literally wait around for the three run home run. The main key is to reach base and avoid outs. That in turn translates into runs.

Yep. The 50k walk is longer than the marathon, at 31 miles and change. The 20k walk is a much more manageable 12 miles.

I really don't know what's going to be on, and I'll miss it anyway. But heck, if you guys are around, discuss away!

For me, the problem is that young players like Jimmy Rollins, Marlon Byrd, Pat Burrell and Brett Myers have failed to develop under Larry Bowa. If one player fails its the player's fault. But when a group fails, you have to look for the root cause. And while I'm assigning blame, why hasn't Joe Kerrigan been fired yet?

Looking over the list, I doubt they'll include Cabrera's hit. There's no justification for putting it so much higher than Carter's HR. I'll also say I doubt Greg Norman's Masters Collapse will make the cut.

I'm on the ball today. I got an email entitled "Support Youth Charities with the Commissioner" and I replied by requesting they tell the commissioner to bite my ass.

1932 for the 50k walk, and 1956 for the 20k walk.

The 1994 Strike and WS Cancellation has to be on there.

I'd say that has more to do with knowing fundamentals than knowing team chemestry. Team chemestry, as commonly known, refers to the idea that players play at their best in a harmonious environment, which is best created by having the right players, a mix of an outspoken leader, good clubhouse guys, and whoever the media latches onto this week. It's a highly suspect area, because good "team chemestry" is commonly associated with a winning team, leading to the old chicken or the egg argument. When's the last time you read of a losing team with great team chemestry? OBP, by far, is the most important skill for the top of the order. Much moreso than speed. If you have doubts, here is an example. In 1929, the Philadelphia Athletics won the World Series. Al Simmons drove in 157 runs, and Jimmie Foxx drove in 118 runs. Now in order to drive in those runs, you need guys on base. Their #2 hitter, Max Bishop, hit .232 and stole 1 base. He scored 102 runs. How did he do it? He drew 128 walks, posting a .398 OBP. Every year, the A's big hitters drove in massive amounts of runs, and Max Bishop scored obscene numbers of runs, all thanks to OBP. This is an extreme example, but it shows the concept behind Moneyball. Baserunners equal more runs and less outs. Speed is a nice bonus, but it is just that, a bonus.

I suspect it will be more like Olympic Basketball, in that the big stars are reshuffled around, but I could be wrong. The big issue at this point is getting Japan on board.

There have been three or four moments where I've said, "ok, that's their cue to fire Bowa." He should've been gone after the Marlins sweep. Now its too late.

It didn't get much notice, but Eric Gagne blew just his second save of the season yesterday.

Its odd. In the last year especially, there's been a backlash against the book, with announcers going out of their way to express that it simply does not work, and small ball is not only good, but its the superior strategy. Instead of educating their fanbase, these commentators seem fit to denounce new ideas as poppycock. A lot of people think sabermetrics is simply about denouncing small ball. It is not. The purpose is to question conventional wisdom by asking the simple question, "Can this be proven?" Is there such a thing as clutch hitting? Team chemestry? Can it be measured? What does score runs? What predicts future performance?

Baseball Primer also has a good thread up.

Damn. We clearly should have guessed that.

Are you kidding me? The rare benefit of being a Philadelphia sports fan is that we NEVER get our hopes up. I am thinking about starting an "Alan Keiper for Philly GM" movement though.