EVIL~! alkeiper

Not really, if you consider that he demanded a trade from Baltimore to Philadelphia, and participated in the infamous MNF skit with Nicolette Sheridan, which got a lot of bad press for virtually everybody involved. A quiet year by his standards, sure, but not exactly "model citizen material." Why should the MNF skit be a strike against him. Was it ill considered of ABC? That's open for debate. But it is hardly something that had a negative effect on the Philadelphia Eagles.

The Portland Beavers have existed in some form since 1915. As long as the club has been in the PCL, it's the only nickname they've used. Las Vegas has had the 51s since 2000, and they were the Las Vegas Stars from 1983-99.

Since Culloden Hastings (Vern) requested it, here are the top ten seasons in Twins' franchise history... 1. Walter Johnson, 1913 2. Walter Johnson, 1912 3. Walter Johnson, 1915 t-4. Walter Johnson, 1914 t-4. Walter Johnson, 1918 t-4. Harmon Killebrew, 1967 7. Rod Carew, 1977 t-8. Walter Johnson, 1910 t-8. Walter Johnson, 1916 10. Joe Cronin, 1931 Wanna take a guess at who the franchise leader in win shares is? I'll do a Minnesota-only list in the future. That I need to compile manually.

Yes I read that as Tampons the first time too. Most expansion teams use nicknames used previously in the minor leagues. The Los Angeles Angels, Miami Marlins, San Diego Padres, Dallas/Ft. Worth Rangers, and Milwaukee Brewers were all minor league clubs before they were awarded MLB franchises. The Tarpons was the name of Tampa's entry in the Florida State League from 1957-87. They were a Phillies' affiliate until 1960, and a Reds' affiliate the rest of the way. The White Sox acquired the affiliate in 1988 and changed the team's name to the White Sox. The Tarpons was also used by the Ft. Lauderdale team from 1940-42. The Miami Sun Sox were a Dodgers' farm club from 1949-54. Several teams have also used the "Saints," including teams in St. Augustine and St. Petersburg. The Sun Sox has a nice ring to it.

Only real notable moves are trading for Luis Castillo, signing Rondell White, and losing Jacque Jones to free agency. Using Castillo to replace Rivas and company is a big plus. I'm sure they'll be fine in a couple years if everything goes as planned, but they're going to totally suck next season. They have exactly one proven starter and one proven hitter, plus no bullpen, how can they not finish in last? I mean, they might, might have a better record than the Reds or Pirates or Rockies, but so what? The Marlins are going to finish dead last this season, and the only question is how spectacular of a fashion do they do so? Is the team in bad shape long term? Depends on how you look at it. Talent wise, they added a ton to their farm system. But there isn't a great deal of minor league hitting talent beyond Jeremy Hermida, Josh Willingham and Hanley Ramirez. Worse, the fire sale and relocation proclamations have decimated the Marlins' fan base in South Florida. Not only are they a good bet to lose 100+ games, but they are at least a 50/50 shot to draw less than a million fans.

It's because the Brewers made no offseason acquisitions from outside except the Corey Koskie trade, and signing Brent Abernathy to a minor league contract. Koskie had a poor season last year so he accounts for just six win shares. Let me give you the whole process. ADDITIONS Corey Koskie (6) David Bush (6) Gabe Gross (2) Brent Abernathy (1) DEPARTURES Lyle Overbay (18) Russell Branyan (9) Wes Helms (6) Victor Santos (3) Julio Santana (2) Gary Glover (1) Wes Obermueller (1) I only recorded players with win shares, so Dan Kolb goes unrecorded. It isn't as bad as it might seem, because the Brewers have several young players from the farm. That doesn't get noticed in this process.

By comparison, the Marlins would have scored -103 for the 1997-98 offseason firesale. They didn't unload some of their key parts until midseason.

Best season in Twins' Franchise history: Walter Johnson, 1913. 36-7, 1.14 ERA, 346 IP, 11 shutouts, 38 BBs, 243 Ks. 5th best season since 1901. Since leaving Washington, it's Harmon Killebrew in 1967. .269 batting average, 44 home runs, 113 RBIs and 131 walks. This was in a year when the league hit .236 and slugged .351 as a whole.

Sure they will. They took a motley crew of catchers and replaced them with Japanese star Kenji Johmima (and his acquisition isn't even reflected in the number). Miguel Olivo had an OPS+ of 17. I'm sure Johjima can top that. The rotation adds Jarrod Washburn, and hopefully a full season of Felix Hernandez. I don't think Seattle contends, but it's hard to envision them doing worse than 69 wins. 75-80 is more likely.

Yeah, Damon's the difference between that and breaking even. They also lost Bill Mueller (18 win shares) and Edgar Renteria (14). People forget though that they picked up Josh Beckett and Mark Loretta.

That surprised me too. They dealt Lyle Overbay (18 win shares) for David Bush, Greg Gross, and Corey Koskie (14 win shares total). Because they acquired Koskie, they let go Russell Branyan and Wes Helms (another 15 win shares). The only other moves they made were losing Gary Glover, Wes Obermueller and Julio Santana, and adding Brent Abernathy. They're in better shape than that, because they're adding Prince Fielder from the farm system.

A few days ago, Steve Phillips appeared on ESPN news and gave his picks for the five teams with the best offseasons, and the five with the worst. I wish I could remember the specific teams. I do remember hearing the Phillies names as having one of the worst offseasons. That struck me as silly. It seemed like Phillips just looked at the big signings, and I think a lot of people do that. So I decided to go about an objective rating system. The concept is simple. I look at the win shares from last year of the players a team added, and subtract those whom the team lost. For example, the Phillies lost Billy Wagner to free agency, thus losing 16 win shares. They gained 10 for Tom Gordon, for a net loss of six. This system is not perfect, as it is subject to variations in playing time, fluke and out of context seasons, and ignores up and coming prospects. Still, I think it's worth a look. One note. If you were to take the sum of these numbers, you'd get -132. The totals are uneven due to unsigned players and retirees. So -4 is closer to breaking even than zero. Instead of commenting on each team, I'll discuss teams as requested. 1. Toronto (+41) 2. LA Dodgers (+40) 3. Kansas City (+36) 4. Oakland (+32) 5. NY Yankees (+30) t-6. NY Mets (+29) t-6. Chicago Cubs (+29) t-6. Seattle (+29) 9. Detroit (8) 10. Pittsburgh (7) 11. Minnesota (6) 12. Cincinnati (2) 13. Cleveland (1) 14. Philadelphia (0) t-15. San Francisco (-4) t-15. Arizona (-4) 17. Texas (-6) 18. Baltimore (-6) 19. Houston (-11) 20. Colorado (-13) 21. Washington (-14) 22. LA Angels (-19) 23. Milwaukee (-22) t-24. Atlanta (-23) t-24. Tampa Bay (-23) t-26. Boston (-24) t-26. Chicago WS (-24) 28. St. Louis (-29) 29. San Diego (-39) 30. Florida (-161) That four of the bottom five were playoff teams indicates there is probably a natural falloff, as 90+ win teams have nowhere to go but down. Outside of Florida, I don't think any team has had an offseason that completely knocks them out of contention (provided they started there).

It finally occured to me the problem with Cowherd's thinking. Let's say you are a hardcore baseball fanatic, and watch a game every single day of the baseball season. That's 180 games. There are 2,250 games in a baseball season. And that's in an age with satellite radio, satellite television, cable, etc. And Cowherd thinks you can make HOF judgements based on memory from 25-30 years ago, without statistics, when you couldn't possibly have seen 90% of the games? That's exactly why we have statistics.

but that is not part of the institution. There is no footnote on a Hall of Fame plaque that says "first ballot." There's no distinction on a list of HOFers in an encyclopedia that separates the first ballot entrants. It's just somethings a small group of writers invented to make themselves feel more important about the voting.

Bored laid out Tim Raines' HOF qualifications nicely. Here is another statistic to consider. Raines of course is 5th all time in stolen bases, with 808. He is also the highest percentage base-stealer in baseball history. When you have a hitter who walks 97 times and then steals 90 bases in 104 tries, that's insanely valuable. Raines had a three year stretch where he hit .320, .334 and .330 in consecutive years. To give you an idea of how effective Raines was at the plate, in 1987 Raines was intentionally walked 26 times. A guy with 70+ steals a season and they're putting him on. If you put stock in the Win Shares system, Raines was the best player in the NL for three straight years, 1985-87. Compare Raines to Lou Brock. Brock stole 130 more bases, but was caught stealing 161 more times. Brock had 418 more hits, but 569 less walks. Which player was better? Tim Raines is the second greatest leadoff hitter in baseball history, behind Rickey Henderson. .385 lifetime OBP, 808 stolen bases, 390 career win shares.

Roy Oswalt, Mark Buehrle and Johan Santana strike me as strong candidates. Also, Pedro Martinez is sitting at 197 wins. He's got a reasonable shot. The fact that Raines is the only new candidate in 2008 within a mile of the Hall will help his chances. The sabermetric crowd will boost Raine. If they get support from Peter Gammons, I can see Raines drawing significant support. As it is, I feel comfortable thinking Raines gets at least 60%. Otherwise your assessment is probably right. Next year will be a telling sign of Rice's candidacy.

Quite honestly, until the Tommy John trio, 250 wins was the standard for HOF election. I do think there is a 300 game winner somewhere in the under 30 set. Looking at the gains made by some players this year is somewhat deceiving. Many players received higher vote totals because the ballot lacked any first time players with a prayer of entry. None of these players are getting in next year with Gwynn and Ripken. Then we've got 2008 (Tim Raines) and 2009 (Rickey Henderson). Rice is off the ballot after that. I don't think he can make up the ground. Hershiser had an excellent three year run, but there's a ton of pitchers who can make that claim. And even then Hershiser's W/L records weren't sterling. His numbers just aren't there. Read Bill James' Whatever Happened To the Hall of Fame? A great read until the last chapter where he goes off on a tangent and bitches that the writers shouldn't be the only ones who vote. It covers the history of the Hall and the voting quite nicely.

I wouldn't vote for Morris, but I don't think he's such the offensive candidate that many in the sabermetric community paint him as. His career ERA is mediocre. But he did win 254 games, in a brief era when so many pitchers flamed out. The only pitchers with more wins who are not in are either 19th century pitchers, or the trio of Blyleven, Tommy John and Jim Kaat. Also, among candidates with a better win percentage, Freddie Fitzsimmons has the most wins at 217.

God I hope not. Jim Rice going in would be perhaps the worst writers' decision since Rabbit Maranville. There are currently 17 HOFers who played the majority of their games in left field. Let's see how Rice stacks up... Rice compiled a 128 OPS+ over his career. Fourteen of the 17 have that beat. The others are Goose Goslin (tied, had a longer career), Heinie Manush (questionable vets' committee pick), and Lou Brock (in for his stolen bases). But Rice was better at his peak, right? Rice's best two year stretch saw him produce an OPS+ of 156. I'm using a two-year period because the number goes down over three years, and I want to make this emphatic. 13 of the 17 HOF left fielders had a better two-year run than Rice. The exceptions are Brock, Manush, Billy Williams and Zach Wheat. Win Shares. Jim Rice earned 282 win shares in his career. That is worse than FIFTEEN of the seventeen left fielders currently in the Hall of Fame. The only players worse are Chick Hafey (another bad vet's committee pick), and Ralph Kiner (whose peak was off the charts). Win Shares per season. I simply divided win shares by games played, and multiplied by 162. SIXTEEN of the seventeen players in the Hall were better on a per game basis. The only exception is Lou Brock, who has 500 more hits to his credit. By any standard, Rice would rate in the bottom fourth of the HOF. The only players worse are guys who made it into the Hall because the veterans' committee contained their old teammates. It's a joke that Rice received 64.8% of the vote, and disheartening to hear so many ill-informed analysts call for his election. Particularly when the current ballot contains seven players who were better, and that's not even counting the closers. Jim Rice had a great peak? Dale Murphy won two consecutive MVPs. Dave Parker hit .334 and .338 in consecutive years. And while Rice was playing a mediocre left field defensively, Parker collected 26 outfield assists in a single season. Rice was a feared hitter? Pitchers intentionally walked Will Clark twice as often. We'd honestly be better off letting Jose Canseco into the Hall than electing Jim Rice. At least Canseco has numbers to justify his candidacy.

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. Fernandez finished in the top ten of the MVP voting just once, placing eighth in 1987. 2. Was he the best player on his team? Probably not. Dave Steib was the star of the Toronto Blue Jays in the mid '80s. 3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position? No. Alan Trammell, Cal Ripken, Barry Larkin and Ozzie Smith were superior players. 4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? Fernandez's teams reached the playoffs often. The Blue Jays won the East in '85, '89, and Fernandez was traded back in time for the 1993 stretch run. Fernandez also played for the 1995 NY Yankees and the 1997 Cleveland Indians. Fernandez generally played well down the stretch. He's a .327 postseason hitter. This is a strong point for Fernandez. 5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime? Yes. Fernandez remained productive well into his late 30s. 6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame? No. 7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame? Three out of ten (Red Schoendienst, Billy Herman and Pee Wee Reese). All three however were somewhat questionable veterans' committee picks. Reese is a stronger player, but he's #10 on the comp list. 8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? No. Fernandez scores low on the Black Ink test, Gray Ink test, and HOF Standards measure. 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? No. I would rank Alan Trammell above Fernandez. 11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? 1987 is Fernandez's best year, when he hit .322 while winning a Gold Glove at short. However, that was a year of explosive offense. Fernandez's batting average rated just 7th, and he did not place in the top ten in either OBP or slugging percentage. 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? Fernandez played in five All-Star games, an average total. 13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? Not unless the team was very balanced. 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. 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. Tony Fernandez won four Gold Gloves and compiled a 101 OPS+. He was a very good player, but not a HOF caliber talent.

Four. Wally Joyner admitted using near the end of his career.

Signing Gonzalez really just reeks of signing a name for the sake of having a name. Dustin Pedroia may be just as good a hitter, and Alex Cora wouldn't even be much worse, and would have a higher OBP than Gonzalez at least. All Gonzalez would do is aim for the monster and strike out frequently. The Sox already have enough power.

I've been working on some data regarding relief pitchers. There are various marks of pitching excellence, but I think we can all agree that the relievers who deserve the Hall are the ones who distanced themselves from the pack. The easiest way to find an undeserving candidate is to find a boatload of similar players. When you look at the candidates, Bruce Sutter had an ERA+ of 136, while Gossage's mark was 126 (in nearly twice as many innings). Those would be very impressive marks for starters. But look at today's crop of closers. Mariano Rivera (197), Billy Wagner (180), Trevor Hoffman (146), John Franco (137), and even Troy Percival (150). Are all of these pitchers better than Gossage or Sutter? Certainly not. The problem is that performance varies along with usage patterns. Any pitcher is more likely to get shelled the longer he stays in a game, as he tires. To say that Gossage and Sutter logged many, many three inning saves is an overstatement. But both pitched over an inning and a half per game over the course of their careers. That is a significant factor to consider. Power pitchers have a distinct advantage in the voting. Dan Quisenberry was every bit as effective as Bruce Sutter. Kent Tekulve's numbers equal Lee Smith's in many aspects. Doug Jones is fairly close to Lee Smith as well. The problem is that these types of pitchers are ignored. Dan Quisenberry only walked batters at gunpoint. Kent Tekulve gave up less home runs than practically any pitcher in baseball history. They may not have seemed "dominant," but they were sure as hell hard to score runs off. A relief pitcher has to dominate for an extended period of time. All-Star appearances may help to separate the pack. Gossage made nine All-Star teams, more than any other reliever. Mariano Rivera has made seven All-Star games, which certainly distinguishes him from the rest of today's closers. I think HOF voters need to take a broader approach to the issue. The saves record is still in the process of being written. As a side note, the pitching skill of Hoyt Wilhelm really comes into focus here. Wilhelm was a career reliever and a knuckleballer, and in 1985 became the first reliever inducted into the Hall. Wilhelm pitched more innings in relief in baseball history, pitched over two innings a game, and still tops the list as far as both ERA+ and raw ERA, among the retired relievers I used.

I don't have a prayer. The requirement is that you need to be a BBWAA member for ten years. Rob Neyer doesn't even have a vote. I do find it slightly amusing that the MVP and Cy Young votes are far more exclusive than the HOF balloting.

Clearly we need a west coast admin.