EVIL~! alkeiper

I'm a proponent of the rule suggestion that says if you miss the All-Star game, you have to sit out the next game/series. It's a minor, minor penalty to the team, but it provides at least some incentive to the player to attend. And if he's really hurt, the extra rest should benefit. A player would get 12 at bats in a series. If Manny sits out, you replace a .300 hitter with a .250 hitter. That's 1-2 hits on average. It's not a lot.

Not entirely. The second All-Star game of 1961 was called after nine innings due to rain with the score tied 1-1.

Two points. One, Will Carroll is not the best of sources. Second, if he was hurt, what the heck was he doing playing 19 innings? That's the problem. It's not that he missed the All-Star game due to injury. It's that the injury wasn't bad enough to keep him from any other game. As for the Astros/Devil Rays trade, Baseball America rates Zobrist as the 16th best prospect in the Astros organization and Mitch Talbot 26th. Zobrist is a 25 year old shortstop in AA who doesn't hit for power. Talbot was barely a prospect before this season, but he's showing a little promise in AA. Neither is really a top-notch prospect. It's a good trade for the Devil Rays considering they have tons of guys who can replace Huff, but nothing I'd get excited about.

I've been debating on Extra Innings since I'm getting digital cable soon. The problem is I already get the Mets, Yankees and Phillies with my current cable package, and the price is awfully steep (plus, the Pirates would be blacked out). I'm fairly content with my XM Radio package, which runs $13/month and I can listen to in my car.

Ugh. Usually I could just ignore it, but they took the MSG network off my cable lineup for this.

Plaschke's complaints about Gagne pitching 82 1/3 innings in 2004 are gold. Just out of curiosity, how many innings did he pitch in 2002/03? Oh that's right, he pitched exactly 82 1/3 innings in both those years as well. Besides, if there's a pitcher so fragile that his existance is propped up by a single set-up man, I don't think he's a long term solution.

Just for fun, let's see how Phil Garner has benefitted from home field advantage. 1973/1974: Cups of coffee with the Oakland A's. Two World Series wins, though Garner appeared in neither. For what it's worth, the A's won both series in 1973 in the last game, and both were at home. Neither series in 1974 went the distance. 1975: Division title with Oakland, swept by Red Sox in three. 1979: "We are Family" Pirates sweep the Reds and beat the Baltimore Orioles in seven games. The Pirates won game seven on the road. 1981: Garner's new team the Astros drop a five game division series to the Dodgers. The fifth and deciding game occured in Los Angeles. 1986: The Astros lose the NLCS in six games to the Mets. The Astros had home field advantage. 2004: With Garner now managing, the Astros defeat the Braves in five games, winning the last on the road. The Astros then lose to the Cards in seven, on the road. 2005: The Astros go to the World Series. None of their series go the distance.

I can't see McCarver announcing that much longer. How many tv analysts remain national for so long? Joe Buck is underrated I think. The big problem has always been the presentation, namely selling everything possible about the broadcast right down to the National anthem. I'm glad to see TBS pick up some games. Their presentation is top notch.

And Ryan Howard wins the derby!

Let me state again that the Home Run Derby has gotten too long. I've been to many baseball games this season that didn't last as long.

Chris Berman's such a baseball fan that he's never been to PNC Park.

$5.15 an hour was too low considering even Kmart paid $6 right out of the chute. I do find it amusing that Rendell signed this after coming out against an increase in the last election (saying it would hurt PA businesses to do it when other states didn't). Of course, when Mike Fisher aired half that speech, it backfired on him. I doubt it will really effect the number of self-checkout lanes that much. My local Kmart actually eliminated them because they drastically increased the level of theft from the store.

Yes. I'd be tempted to give him my vote. I forgot about him when I filled out my choices. David Wright really should've brought LIMA time with him. Unfortunately, the Mets DFA'd Lima a day or two ago.

The problem is what happens if one player comes into the finals with a 15 HR lead. You think fans will stick around for an anticlimatic final round?

As I stated at NMB, they need to amend the rules to say 15 swings, instead of 10 outs. The length has become ridiculous the last few years. AL MVP: Travis Hafner, Cle AL Cy Young: Roy Halladay, Tor AL Rookie of the Year: Francisco Liriano, Min Manager of the Year: Jim Leyland, Det NL MVP: Albert Pujols, StL NL Cy Young: Brad Penny, LAD NL Rookie of the Year: Ryan Zimmerman, Was NL Manager of the Year: Tony LaRussa, StL

43/50 on the baseball quiz. Figures I'd get the same score as Rob Neyer.

Before I begin, a quick note about ERA+, since I will use it often in this blog. ERA+ takes a pitcher's ERA and adjusts it for park and era. An ERA+ of 100 is league average. Higher is above average, lower is below average. Hall of Fame Relievers In my last entry I discussed the Hall of Fame chances for starting pitchers. This time out I will cover the relievers. Relief pitchers are a difficult field to judge because the Hall of Fame voters are still establishing the bar of excellence. To this date, only four relievers have been elected to the Hall (Bruce Sutter is not techically a member until his induction next month, but we're treating him as an inductee for this purpose). Here's a brief overview of their statistics. Hoyt Wilhelm (1952-72): 143-122, 2.52 ERA, 146 ERA+, 227 saves, 2,254.3 Innings Pitched Rollie Fingers (1968-85): 114-118, 2.90 ERA, 119 ERA+, 341 saves, 1,701.3 IP Bruce Sutter (1976-88): 68-71, 2.83 ERA, 136 ERA+, 300 saves, 1,042.3 IP Dennis Eckersley (1975-98): 197-171, 3.50 ERA, 116 ERA+, 390 saves, 3,285.7 IP When comparing starters, you can make a group of Hall of Famers and compare candidates. You can not really do that here because all four inductees are different. Hoyt Wilhelm was a knuckleball pitcher who did not even reach the majors until the age of 29 (incidently, he hit his only career home run in his first at bat). Rollie Fingers looks like an undeserving candidate in some aspects, but he did retire as the career leader in saves. Dennis Eckersley combined dual careers as a starter and reliever. And Bruce Sutter may or may not have invented the split-finger fastball. The difficulty is that some relievers with equal credentials have been excluded. Dan Quisenberry for example finished with a career ERA+ better than any of the four Hall of Fame relievers above. Voters are less impressed with final results and more impressed with image. A reliever needs either a blazing fastball or high strikeout totals. Quisenberry rarely struck out batters, but he walked as few batters as any pitcher in modern baseball history. What is the best measure of reliever quality? Saves? The top five in saves are Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman, John Franco, Dennis Eckersley and Mariano Rivera. Jeff Reardon follows at number six. The problem is that saves are a product of the current era. Jose Mesa has 319 saves and a career ERA+ of 101 (just about average). That's certainly not Hall of Fame quality. You need to set aside statistics across eras. The trend in relief pitching has been to utilize shorter outings. Modern relievers pitch less innings than twenty or thirty years ago. However, they pitch at MUCH higher effectiveness. Billy Wagner's ERA+ would rate as the best of all time, but he has not even pitched 700 innings at this rate. If pitchers of this era pitched in a different era, they could pitch longer but less effectively. The same goes for the relievers of the Gossage/Sutter era. So the only real way to identify Hall of Fame relievers is to compare them against the current era. The mark of a Hall of Famer is separation from the pack. If many players have reached the same level of achievement, then it's not that outstanding a performance. From baseball-reference, I identified the 15 active leaders in games finished. Those 15 relievers compiled ERA+'s ranging from 197 to 101. I think we can safely dismiss the nine relievers with ERA+'s under 140. I do not see a single Hall of Fame candidate among that group. That gives us six names. Mariano Rivera, Billy Wagner, Troy Percival, Armando Benitez, Trevor Hoffman and Keith Foulke. Billy Wagner and Troy Percival each have less than 700 innings pitched for their career, and Armando Benitez and Keith Foulke are barely above that. All four would easily have the fewest innings pitched of any Hall of Fame pitcher (including Babe Ruth). That leaves Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman as legitimate candidates with an acceptable number of innings pitched. Mariano Rivera has really surpassed any element of debate. Rivera's ERA+ is better than any pitcher in baseball history. On top of that, he has pitched 111.7 innings in the postseason with just an 0.81 ERA, an 8-1 record and 34 saves. Not only is Rivera's postseason ERA the lowest of any pitcher with significant postseason innings, but they are nearly all high leverage innings. Trevor Hoffman's a slightly more difficult case. His ERA+ is very good, but Rivera, Billy Wagner, Troy Percival and Armando Benitez are better (and Wagner's is significantly better). How much strength do you put in 150-200 more innings pitched? It is not insignificant, considering that is 3-4 seasons worth of work for a relief pitcher. Hoffman doesn't have a real postseason resume (although he's pitched well when given the opportunity. Hoffman has however put himself in reach of the all time saves mark. When Hoffman reaches the All-Time saves record, he should punch his ticket to the Hall of Fame. His ERA+ is on the level of the elites, and you have to do something right to set the saves record. The big question mark is Billy Wagner. No one really discusses him as a Hall of Famer, and I never really saw him as such. But his 180 ERA+ is one of the greatest marks in baseball history, and only Rivera is really on his level. Wagner is the most dominant left handed relief pitcher of all time. However, his 650 or so innings is incredibly low for a Hall of Famer. In 3-4 years however, he might be a serious candidate.

We could trade Aaron Rowand, Cory Lidle and David Dellucci, and it might even make the team better in the short term as well. I'm not saying Rowand's bad, but there's little drop between him and Shane Victorino, and we can shore up another spot.

In.

Futures game coming on ESPN2.

Question. Does the game end if there's a goal after one overtime period, or do they have to play both 15 minute periods regardless?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ts/14996298.htm The article also states Gammons' cd just came out.

I try not to. I would find it hard to think a pitcher could collect 286 wins just because he played on a great team. And the Braves were great in part because they had Glavine for so many seasons. But I look at other factors besides wins and losses. Bert Blyleven for example was a truly great pitcher with a mediocre win/loss record because he played on some sub-par teams. But generally it's not a big factor because the pitcher has more effect on the game than any other player. Even on a bad team, a great pitcher gives them half a good team when he pitches. ERA+ is a great metric because it measures run prevention, adjusts for era, and isn't affected by wins and losses. I hope that's clear.

Crede has 9. Hafner has 26. Doesn't that kinda make win shares seem extremely overrated considering where their respective teams are right now? 1. I don't know where the heck that information comes from. Through July 2, Hafner has 15 win shares and Crede has 12. Hafner is second among AL DH's behind Jim Thome, and Joe Crede has fallen behind Alex Rodriguez in the latest update. Crede did lead a week ago. 2. Understand that the premise of win shares is that they are a percentage of team wins. A win share is one-third of a win. If you were to add the win shares of all the Indians together, you would get about 117 win shares. You would get 165 for the White Sox. The idea is that you CAN fairly compare players between good and bad teams.

Mike & Mike this morning discussed pitching candidates for the Hall of Fame. I figured I'd throw in my two cents. Shoe Ins Roger Clemens Greg Maddux Randy Johnson Tom Glavine Pedro Martinez Tom Glavine is often labeled as a guy who is close, but in. He's a dead lock, and it is not even close. Glavine as of this writing has 286 wins. Of the 30 pitchers who have won 275 or more games, 22 are in the Hall, three are still active, and two were 19th century pitchers. That leaves Bert Blyleven, Tommy John and Jim Kaat. Let's stack up the numbers. Glavine: 286-186 (.606), 3.44 ERA, 120 ERA+ Blyleven: 287-250 (.534), 3.31 ERA, 118 ERA+ Kaat: 283-237 (.544), 3.45 ERA, 107 ERA+ John: 288-231 (.555), 3.34 ERA, 111 ERA+ Two things should come out right away. The first is that Glavine's win percentage is over .600. There is simply no precident for leaving out a pitcher with this many wins AND this high a winning percentage. Also note that Blyleven, who pitched effectively as long, posted nearly as good an earned run average in context. Pedro Martinez has 204 wins right now. Compare his record to pitchers let in with few wins. The Black Ink Test is a tool that measures how often a player led his league in something. It's a good tool both for measuring players with high peaks, and players from different eras. The average Hall of Fame pitcher has a Black Ink score of 40. Pedro Martinez: 204-88 (.697), 2.75 ERA, 166 ERA+, Black Ink: 55 Jack Chesbro: 198-132 (.600), 2.68 ERA, 110 ERA+, Black Ink: 27 Dizzy Dean: 150-83 (.644), 3.02 ERA, 130 ERA+, Black Ink: 52 Lefty Gomez: 189-102 (.649), 3.34 ERA, 125 ERA+, Black Ink: 46 Addie Joss: 160-97 (.623), 1.89 ERA, 142 ERA+, Black Ink: 19 Sandy Koufax: 165-87 (.655), 2.76 ERA, 131 ERA+, Black Ink: 78 Dazzy Vance: 197-140 (.585), 3.24 ERA, 125 ERA+, Black Ink: 66 Rube Waddell: 193-143 (.574), 2.16 ERA, 134 ERA+, Black Ink: 46 Ed Walsh: 195-126 (.607), 1.82 ERA, 145 ERA+, Black Ink: 67 All of the above players scored high on the Black Ink test except for Jack Chesbro and Addie Joss. Chesbro won 41 games in 1904, and is essentially in the Hall on that statistic alone. Addie Joss's raw numbers are eye popping, but he was never the best pitcher in the league. Pedro Martinez stacks up favorably with all these players, and his winning percentage and ERA+ are better than any pitcher on the list. In fact, Pedro's ERA+ ranks number one all time, and his winning percentage is second behind Al Spalding among HOF pitchers (And Spalding pitched most of his career in the National Association, which MLB does not recognize in official statistics). On the Bubble Mike Mussina Curt Schilling John Smoltz These pitchers are harder to judge, and even I am not certain of their Hall of Fame qualifications. Mussina's going to have a tricky time because he never won 20 games, and we know voters love those big round numbers. Mussina's won 19 games twice, 19 three times, and 17 twice. One problem is that Mussina's best years were 1994-95, when he missed several starts due to the strike. It is not difficult to think Mussina would have won four games between August 12 and the end of the 1994 season, and just one more game in four starts in 1995. He led the league in wins in 1995. If you look at Mussina's record, again you see a superior win/loss percentage (.643 in this case). Let's make a comparison for Mussina here. Eleven pitchers have won 225 or more games, not made the Hall, and pitched after 1900 (not counting active players). I will not add another table because frankly, most readers have not heard some of these names. As a group, they had winning percentages between .491 and .577. Their adjusted ERAs ranged from 101 to 118. They scored between 7 and 20 on the Black Ink test. Mussina blasts them out of the water in win percentage and adjusted ERA. His record there is superior to any pitcher not in the Hall of Fame. The Black Ink test is trickier, because Mussina only scores a 14. But if you move on to the Gray Ink test (which measures top ten appearances instead of just leading a category), Mussina stands out. Only Bert Blyleven beats Mussina in that category, and Blyleven really should be in the Hall as well. Mussina does not have that one outstanding season. But he's clearly superior to any fringe candidate. Curt Schilling is the opposite. Not great counting numbers, but some tremendous seasons. Just for fun, here's Schilling next to another current pitcher Curt Schilling: 202-134 Kenny Rogers: 201-134 Of course Schilling's ERA is nearly a run lower and he has about a thousand more strikeouts. What makes Schilling odd is that he also never won a Cy Young award, which you would think is a prerequisite for making the Hall on a short career. I think Schilling's a deserving candidate though, as he scores favorably on all the Hall of Fame standards tests. If he finishes his career with 220-225 wins with his current win percentage, he should be a lock. There's no really good statistical judge for John Smoltz. Dennis Eckersley reshaped the closers' role. Smoltz was just a closer for a few years. Obviously he was a great closer and deserves some credit for that, but how much? A closer is not as valuable as a 20 win pitcher, and probably not as valuable as a 15 win pitcher. What about 12 wins? Add 36 wins to his total, give him credit for the 15 wins in the postseason, and he's up to around 233 wins. I would not vote for Smoltz just let, but if he reaches 200 wins, then you have a guy who also has 154 saves and an amazing 15-4 record in the postseason. It's hard to go against that. Others It is difficult to predict the future of pitchers. Among the top 100 active pitchers in wins, only Andy Pettitte has a legitimate shot at the Hall. There are many pitchers in the sub 100 win club who could make a run, noteably Johan Santana. The problem is there is little difference in the peak values of great pitchers and good pitchers. The difference is how long they last. Many pitchers like Fernando Valenzuela had great peaks, but only had a few great years. Some guys look like HOFers at age 30 and are gone by age 33. But even if you can not identify a single Hall of Famer or even a 300 game winner in the current generation, chances are someone will outlast the pack. I'll take a look at HOF closers in the future.