Barry Bonds Presses Back in Press Conference

As a baseball fan, and by some accounts, a baseball writer, I have an obligation not to just sit by and allow the biggest stories of the year to simply elude me, for any reason. I cannot allow the fact that a story might not pertain to my favorite team to prevent me from writing. I cannot allow, worse yet, the fact that a story may reflect badly on a players from my favorite team to keep me from writing. I cannot even allow, and you may find this hard to believe but stick with me here, the fact that I have absolutely nothing unique or interesting to say on the matter to prevent me from commenting on a story.

And why? Is it because you, my reader(s?), have come to expect hard-hitting, tough-nosed reporting from Boy of Summer? Is it because you expect insightful commentary and a singular perspective from Boy of Summer? Is it because I'm bigger than you and I might beat you up?

No. It's because if I don't write on some kind of regular basis, I only get about eleven lousy hits on this website in a day. And half of those are from me, checking to see if anyone else has been reading.

And so, despite the fact that a nasty case of bronchitis still has me a little closer to Death's Door than I am comfortable with, I will take some time to do what I (apparently) do best: Wise crack about the news.

Barry Bonds Spring Training Press Conference

Q. Can you explain over the last four or five years your amazing production, your tremendous growth in muscle strength getting stronger as you get older? Can you finally put to rest --

BARRY BONDS: Can I? Hard work that's about it. Now it's to rest.

Q. That's it?

BARRY BONDS: That's it.

TMN: Wow! And I thought it was all those milk shakes, or his spiffy, new Nike cleats.

What Barry should have said was that he couldn't answer this question becasue it pertains to the BALCO case, which would have allowed him to answer the question honestly (for once) without actually answering it. He could have simultaneously been both more honest and more elusive than Jason Giambi was in his press conference last week! Now that's one for the record books!

Q. What was the bigger off-season distraction, dealing with the steroid issue or the knee problem?

BARRY BONDS: [...] You know, I know that I'm older now. I put my body through a lot in 147 games last year. I played more games than anyone on my team, and the oldest and I'm still trying to recover from that.

But the most part is just my knees. I have to be able to play at a level that I want to play at, and, you know, right now, I'm having a little bit more difficulties with this right one than I did with the left one.

TMN: Hey, Barry, you should try steroids. I've heard that they can help with healing from injuries, especially as you get older...

Q. Jose Canseco singled you out, I want to know what your reaction is to that, and also, what he said about Mark McGwire, do you believe what he said?

BARRY BONDS: [...] But I don't know Jose. I was better than Jose now and I've been better than Jose his whole career. So I don't have anything to talk about Jose. If he wants to go make money, go make money. You had the Bash Boys, you had one of the best lineups in baseball that's second to some of the Yankees lineups or you can go on. For somebody that brags about what he did, I don't see any of your records.

TMN: Technically, Barry, you weren't better than him "then" depending on when "then" is. You and Canseco are nearly the same age, born in the same month in 1964, and you came up around the same time. Canseco was apparently better than you in High School, since he got drafted then and you didn't. He was better than you in 1985 as he plowed his way through two minor league levels and the majors, hitting .328 with 41 homers and 140 RBI, as you spent the season hitting .299 in the Carolina League. He was better than you in 1986, winning AL Rookie of the Year Honors with 33 homers and 117 RBI, as you played 44 games in the Pacific Coast League and hit only .223 for the Pirates in 113 National League games.

You and Canseco were roughly comparable in 1987, him with more power, you with more patience and speed.

But Canseco easily outpaced you in 1988, hitting .307 with 42 homers, 40 steals, 120 runs and 124 RBI to win AL MVP honors easily, as you hit .283 with decent power, but only 17 steals in 28 attempts. He was better than you in 1989, despite an injury that linited him to 65 major league games, and 1990 and 1991 were again roughly comparable years for the two of you, each with your own strengths and weaknesses (his power, your speed and batting eye). It was't until 1992, when you started winning MVP awards, and Jose started getting injured and/or playing for Texas, that it could be said that you were clearly "better than him." Just so we're clear on that.

And besides, where does it say that talent and credibility go hand-in-hand? I didn't realize that lawyers select witnesses based upon their career accomplishments, but then, I'm not a lawyer.

Q. Jose maintains that he did take steroids -- inaudible -- Mike Greenwell feels he should get the MVP because Canseco admitted that he used steroids. What's your opinion on that? And people who achieve awards, should there be an asterisk or maybe it taken back?

BARRY BONDS: You know, I feel that baseball -- I commend Bud Selig and the Players Union and all of the players for trying to put together a testing program that supposed to satisfy everyone. I cannot say enough for what Bud has come out and stated. The Union and the players -- I mean, you can't -- you guys are like rerun stories. This is just -- this is old stuff. I mean, it's like watching Sanford and Son, you know, you just, rerun after rerun after rerun.

You guys, it's like, what, I mean, you can't -- it's almost comical, basically. I mean, we've got alcohol that's the No. 1 killer in America and we legalize that to buy in the store. You've got, you know, you've got tobacco number two, three killer in America, we legalize that. There's other issues. You guys are going to be the same people next week as some tragedy happened, how we need to save our children and everything else and next week, you're the same people sitting there coming, how we should be doing this and how we're evil people, or, you know, you guys, it's one thing after another. You know, pick one side or the other. Are y'all going to be good people or are you all going to be who you are and make the game or sports what it is? It's become "Hard Copy" all day long. Are you guys jealous? Upset? Disappointed? What?

TMN: Does anyone know if any research has been done to correlate steroid use with an inability to form complete sentences?

And someone should point out to Barry that the next column Tom Boswell or Murray Chass writes about alcoholism or tobacco addiction will be their first. They cover baseball, and as long as steroids is germane to baseball, they'll keep covering it. Does Barry think that the press should have stopped writing stories about gambling in baseball once Ring Lardner had published his first column on the 1919 World Series, just because he'd done it once?

Q. As you approach Babe Ruth on the home run charts, is it troubling to you that people are scrutinizing your achievements, particularly home runs?

BARRY BONDS: No, you guys don't bother me. You're professional at what you do. That doesn't bother me. That's part of the game. That's part of sports, it always has been.

The problem with me, my dad told me before he past away, he said, "The biggest problem with you, Barry is that every great athlete that has gone on for great records, everyone knows their story. People have made hundreds of millions of dollars off their stories with them and protected them. Nobody knows you and they are pissed off."

[...]

I'm an adult and I take responsibilities for what I do, but I'm not going to allow you guys to ruin my joy.

TMN: No, Barry. The problem with you is not that you don't let the public know you. The problem is that everything we do know about you seems to indicate that you're a jerk. You have a right to be a recluse. You don't have a right to be a butthead.

And while we're on the subject of "joy", you should realize that this is not simply about your joy, it's about the joy of the 40,000+ fans who come to see you everywhere you go, the joy of the millions who watch you on TV or listen to your games on the radio. It's about the joy of the fans, you self-absorbed, overpaid primadonna. You're an entertainer. You might find a little more joy in entertaining people if you would let them in a little, but if not, don't blame them for wanting to know what makes you tick (besides muscle spasms).

Q. Right or wrong, true or false, a lot of the accusations, particularly involving Canseco's book, people are saying it's damaged the game, do you agree with that? And if so, does it bother you that it's damaged the game that you play for a living?

BARRY BONDS: I don't -- I think a lot of things have damaged sports with a lot of just the whole, everything. But there's a lot worse things going on in our world, a lot more worse. You should focus on fixing those first.

TMN: Well, someone should focus on fixing those things, but I'm not sure that the baseball beat writers are necessarily the best option for that.

Q. Jason Giambi felt the need to make an apology. Is there anything that you need to apologize for?

BARRY BONDS: What did I do?

Q. Well, he talked about the grand jury testimony.

BARRY BONDS: Yeah, but what did I do? I'm just sorry that we're even going through all this rerun stuff. I'm sorry that, you know, this fictional stuff and maybe some facts, who knows, but I'm sorry that, you know -- we're all sorry about this.

None of us want to go through this. None of us want to deal with this stuff. We want to go out and do our job. But what's your purpose and what you're doing it for, rewriting it, writing it over and over and over and over again, what's your reasoning? What are you going to apologize for when you're wrong?

TMN: This is about as much as anyone was able to get out of Barry about the BALCO trial, which is not much. Bonds is still missing the point that this remains a HUGE story until it's settled, and that it's far from settled. The media don't continue to pester him about it because they're jealous or upset, they harp on the issue because it's still an issue.

We have leaked grand jury testimony indicating that Bonds did use steroids, but he continually keeps his head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge having anything to do with steroids. He purportedly can't say anything about the issue because of "legal constraints" which means essentially that he could be brought up on charges for discussing the trial while it's still going on, but witnesses are not legally under those constraints, only jurors. Am I worng here? Or is Barry just trying to save face?

Q. Can you talk about batting with Moises Alou behind you?

BARRY BONDS: I hope it's going to be fun, man, because from what I hear, they say they are going to pitch to me more, so it's going to be a lot quicker for me. (Laughing.)

But who knows. But, you know, it's going to be fun. But we're all old on our team, so it's going to be interesting. I'm going to talk with Michael Tucker a lot because I think Michael Tucker is going to play like -- we're going to go three days and then just Tucker is going to play 162 days: Left, center, right; left, center, right; left, center, right, while the rest of us take some time off.

TMN: Man, for the sake of Giants fans everywhere, I hope not. Tucker may be the youngest of the Giants' outfielders, but he's also the worst hitter, if not appreciably worse than Marquis Grissom. And at 33, Tucker isn't likely to get any better either. If Felipe Alou plans to give any significant amount of Bonds' and Moises Alou's playing time to Tucker, they might as well throw in the towel now.

Q. You mentioned a setback and what we've been told from the beginning since July 31 when you had this operation that you would be ready to play in an exhibition game around the 15th of March and there --

BARRY BONDS: Where did you hear that from?

Q. That was what was in the release, I believe that was--

BARRY BONDS: Why do you guys never give up your source? Name, name, name, please.

Q. [Giants trainer] Stan Conte.

BARRY BONDS: Stan Conte did not say that, that's a lie. I know for a fact Stan could not have said it. See, you guys...

Q. The official release --

BARRY BONDS: See, you lied, you lied. Next question. (Laughter.)

Q. Will you be ready to play by April 5th?

BARRY BONDS: April 5? Opening Day. I don't know. But you did lie.

TMN: There you go, Barry, way to endear yourself to the media. Call them liars for quoting your teams official press releases. I understand that criticizing them for the headlines on their newspaper columns is also a good way to make friends. Why don't you try prank phone calls while you're at it?

Q. Everybody in this room agrees with what you said, this is a circus --

BARRY BONDS: I like you. What's your name, man?

Q. What would be your solution to end the circus?

BARRY BONDS: I think that allow Major League Baseball, Bud Selig and the Union and its players, allow the drug testing program to work. Allow it to work. Let's go forward. I truly believe that we need to go forward. Okay, you cannot rehash the past. If that's the case, we're going to go way back into 19th, 18th centuries in rehashing the past and we'll crush a lot of things in a lot of sports if that's what you guys want. If you just want a lot of things out of the sports world, then we can go back into the 1800s and basically asterisk a lot of sports if that's what you choose and that's what you want to do. If that's going to make you happy and everything, then go right ahead, figure it out, who you want, it's going to go all the way down the line.

But, things that happen in sports, in all sorts of sports, it's time to move on. Every time there has been incident, it has been corrected and now that it's being corrected, I think we need to go forward, move forward, let it go. Y'all stop watching Red Foxx in rerun shows and let's go ahead and let the program work and allow us to do our job.

TMN: Barry's actually right about this. Obnoxious, but right.

The notion of an asterisk on anyone's records, for any reason, is just silly. People did what they did, and their accomplishments are matters of meticulously kept public record. It's up to the thinking fan to figure out what they mean. We're not diminishing Roger Maris for needing eight more games than Babe Ruth to hit 61 homers. We're not ignoring records from the 1960's because most players were high on amphetamines. We don't pretend that Cy Young and Christy Matthewson and a host of 19th century record holders didn't exist just because they pitched during the dead ball era, and we can't do it to Barry Bonds.

But like these others, we need to understand the context in which those records were set, and we can't let the issue go until we're clear on that. So get used to it, Barry.

Q. What's going to be your approach to repair it from here on out? You are you expect other people to come clean and move forward?

BARRY BONDS: We just need to go out there and do our jobs, just as you professionals do your job. All you guys lied. All of y'all and the story or whatever have lied. Should you have asterisk behind your name? All of you lied. All of you have said something wrong. All of you have dirt. All of you. When your closet's clean, then come clean somebody else's. But clean yours first, okay.

But I think right now baseball just needs to go forward and you guys need to turn the page and let's move forward. Let us play the game, and we will fix it. I think we all want to, I think we all have a desire to. I think we all are hurting, including myself.

TMN: Barry, you're not getting it. They are doing their jobs. Their jobs are to describe you and other people who do your job, and to find out, if possible, what allows you to do your job well and/or prevents the same. Their job isn't just to record the data. We have box scores for that. Their job is to get the inside information. We'll move on when the issue is put to rest.

If they've truly made erroneous reports, then that will eventually become apparent. If the San Francisco Chronicle Dan Rathered this grand jury testimony story, then they'll be called to task for it, in time. But as far as we know, none of these reporters has just made this story up, accusing you out of thin air. There's a legal document out there, albeit one we shouldn't yet know about, that says you used steroids. You've denied it in this forum, i.e. the Locker Room, but in another forum (the Courtroom) you've apparently admitted it, and the public has a right to know which of those two mutually exclusive assertions is actually true.


Q. If and when you break Hank's record, do you think fans across the country will celebrate (ph) it?

BARRY BONDS: I do. I really I do. Fans like sports. Fans love sports. Yes, I do.

TMN: I do too, or at least I hope so. Regardless of the auspices under which these records have been set, History is still History. Barry Bonds has accomplished incredible things, with or without performance enhancing substances to aid him, and if I had the opportunity to be present for #756, I surely would stand and cheer.

Q. Do you view the use of steroid as cheating?

BARRY BONDS: As cheating? I don't -- I don't know what cheating is. I don't know cheating, if steroid is going to help you in baseball. I just don't believe it. I don't believe steroids can help you, eye/hand coordination, technically hit a baseball, I just don't believe it and that's just my opinion.

TMN: Hand-eye coordination? Probably not, but then nobody ever said that was the reason for using them, did they? But muscle mass buildup? Ability to heal more quickly? Staving off the physical wear and tear of a long season? Absolutely. Hand-eye coordination is not the only thing teams look for in professional baseball players. If it were, they'd be sending their scouts to video arcades and internet gaming chatrooms. I personally have good enough hand-eye coordination and reflexes to beat Zuma, but I can barely hit a baseball 200 feet.

Q. You talked about protecting your family when your kids come home and they tell you stories of your reputation under attack, what do you say to them?

BARRY BONDS: None of your business because I wouldn't let you in my house.

TMN: Nice, Barry. An excellent way to punctuate the interview session. Too bad you couldn't have ended that sentence with a swear word. I hope your children learn their manners from your wife, because as an example of etiquette and courtesy, well, you make a great left-fielder.

Bye-Bye, Barry: Larkin's Legacy

On Monday, Cincinnati Reds shortstop Barry Larkin announced his retirement. Larkin is 40 years old and had played a full season only once since 1999, due to age and injuries. He had looked washed up after 2002, having hit only .245 with seven home runs in over 500 at-bats that season. But desiring to justify the $9 million annual salary he was given after the 2001 season, he fought his age and bounced back nicely with two solid, if truncated, seasons to end his career, posting a respectable OPS (~750) in parts of the last two seasons.

Still, it was clear to everyone, except perhaps Barry himself, that Larkin was not in the plans for the 2005 Reds. Larkin certainly wanted to be a contributor to Cincinnati's plans for this season, but either he was asking too much money or the Reds figured that he would be taking up space on the roster that would be better spent on, well, somebody. For something like a $500,000 contract, he could have been useful as a platoon player, but they've got three shortstops under the age of 24 on the roster, and they want to see if any of them stands a chance of being something next year, other than 25.

None of them looks like a good bet: Felipe Lopez has over 1000 major league plate appearances over parts of four seasons, and has hit .235/.309/.379 in them. His minor league record is also unimpressive, showing a (very) little power, a little speed, and almost no plate discipline at all. Ditto for Ray Olmedo, except that he's not even as good as Lopez. The third part of the trio is Anderson Machado, who is roughly the same type of player, but with more speed, more patience, and less of everything else. Unfortunately, Machado will not be part of the running, after having had knee surgery, leaving these two to compete with Rich Aurilia, who at least used to be good. As they say in France: When you've got three shortstops, you've got no shortstop. On the other hand, by signing Joe Randa to play 3B, they may get Ryan Freel more playing time at short, though the plan for the future is not yet clear. But this column isn't about the future: It's about the past. Sort of.

How sad it is that an icon like Barry Larkin should see his career end so that the Reds can waste their energies on players such as these. Thankfully, Larkin will most likely not be primarily remembered as "the Guy who Played Shortstop for the Reds Before Eddie Langenpoop". A Cincinnati native who grew up to play more games for his hometown team than all but four other players in history, Larkin was more than just an icon in Ohio. He was a baseball icon, a symbol of the American dream, fulfilling every kids fantasy, to grow up and become their own town's hero. But nostalgia alone doesn't get you into the Hall of Fame. Accomplishments do.


Barry at bat 

And Barry Larkin has got an accomplishment or two. He won a World Series in 1990, with his Reds sweeping the heavily-favored, heavily-medicated Oakland Athletics, the first championship for Cincinnati since 1976. He also won the 1995 NL MVP award as he helped the Reds to a division title, though they were swept by the eventual World Champion Atlanta Braves. The following year, Larkin became the first infielder to join the 30-30 Club (homers and steals), though he finished a distant 12th in the MVP voting, as the Reds' 81-81 record dragged him down. Larkin won three Gold Gloves at shortstop (1994-96) as well, and probably deserved the two that Ozzie Smith won in 1990 and 1991.

These items, while making some nice padding for his resume, are only small aspects of Larkin's career. His statistical accomplishments must also be considered, both in the context of his peers and in that of History. First, History:

Before I start this section, let me thank Lee Sinins, whose wonderful Sabermetric Baseball Encyclopedia is a tool no seamhead should be without. All of these stats were easily found with it. I used a cutoff of 5000

Career Average Rankings (5000 PA)    
AVG  OBP  SLG  OPS
 12   9    10   9

These are Larkin's career rankings among shortstops with at least 5000 career plate appearances. (If we bump up the requirement to 6000 or 7000, it mostly eliminates people who are still playing, Like Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez. As Larkin will no doubt be compared to these players when the baseball writers are considering his candidacy for Cooperstown, I kept them in as well.) Except for Ed McKean, who played from 1887-1899, and Vern Stephens, the players ahead of Larkin on these four lists are either already in the Hall of Fame, will be elected soon (Cal Ripken) or are likely eventual Hall members still playing (Jeter and A-Rod). That's pretty good company, even though he doesn't get much above the top ten.

Compilation Stats
H  2B  SB  XBH  HR  RBI  Runs
7   4  10   4    5   12   6

Larkin does a little better in these categories. He played for 19 seasons and therefore had plenty of time to rack up these sorts of numbers. The only significant category in which he's not in the top ten is RBI, and Larkin batted #3, #4 or #5 in the lineup for only about a third of his career, so it's hard to hold that against him. Today's dynamos notwithstanding, shortstops have traditionally been relatively light hitters. Nevertheless, Larkin was clearly among the best of these, if only due to his relative longevity. A lot of shortstops (like Ripken and A-Rod) get moved to third base or somewhere else (like Ernie Banks), whereas Larkin was able to remain at short his entire career. That's got to be worth something.

Sabermetric Stats
OWP  TA  RCAA  RCAP  RC  RC/G 
 8    7    4     3    5   12     

These stats bear some explanation:

OWP is Offensive Winning Percentage, a rough measure of a players worth that answers the question of "How much would a team of nine of these guys win, given average pitching and defense?" I know, it's kind of a dumb question, since that could never happen, but it does offer us a means of evaluating a player's hitting contributions without the effect of his actual team(s). Larkin ranks 8th all-time, behind only Honus Wagner, Arky Vaughan, Alex Rodriguez, Ernie Banks, Derek Jeter, George Davis, and Lou Boudreau. All of these are either in the Hall of Fame or probably will be, as long as they don't get hit by a bus tomorrow. Actually, maybe even if they do.

TA stands for Total Average, a measure that Total Baseball magazine came up with a few years ago, back when it still existed. This essentially tells you how likely, on average, a player was to advance a base by any possible means. It helps to compensate for players with different skill sets. Again, it's Jeter, A-Rod, and four Cooperstown Cronies in front of him.

RCAA and RCAP are Lee Sinins' own stats, Runs Created above Average and Runs Created Above Position. Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan are ahead of him on both lists, and A-Rod is ahead of him on the RCAA but not RCAP, as the average shortstop was a better hitter during most of A-Rod's career than during the earlier part of Larkin's.

RC is just Runs Created, which gives an idea of how many runs Larkin was responsible for over the course of his career. Hall of Famers Wagner and Luke Appling, future HoF'er Cal Ripken, and Bill Dahlen, a Dead-Ball Era player who had about 1000 more career plate appearances than Larkin, are the only ones ahead of him on this list.

RC/G is Runs Created per Game, which equalizes for playing career length. Of the 11 players ahead of Larkin, six are already in the Hall, and two more probably will be (again, the left side of the Yankees' infield). Bill Dahlen, Ed McKean and Jack Glasscock are the other three, and their 19th century careers were all very good. Besides this, Larkin ranks ahead of Hall of Famers Lou Boudreau, George Davis, Travis Jackson and (eventually) Cal Ripken.

So, as you might expect, seamheads like me see a lot to like in Barry Larkin's career. Speaking of seamheads, there are two more potential stats that we should seriously consider as we examine Larkin's career: Bill James' Win Shares and Baseball Prospectus' Wins Above Replacement Player, adjusted for all-time. Let's take the second part first, like the guy in Quiz Show, except without all the lying.

Baseball Prospectus has come up with a means of evaluating how many Wins a player was worth over a replacement level player, that is, someone who might be readily available on some AAA farm team to step in and hit .260 with 17 homers and 40 walks, or something like that. "Replacement Level", of course, changes for the position. A shortstop's replacement isn't expected to hit as well as a firstbaseman, for example.

Name               WARP3 
Honus Wagner*       180.7
Cal Ripken          162.5
Robin Yount*        129.5
Ozzie Smith*        127.7
Bill Dahlen         119.0
Arky Vaughan*       118.8
Ernie Banks*        117.3
Barry Larkin        116.8
Luke Appling*       116.4
Alan Trammell       114.0
George Davis*       111.3
Bobby Wallace*      106.6
Alex Rodriguez      104.9
Joe Cronin*         104.8
Lou Boudreau*       101.4
Pee Wee Reese*       96.6
Luis Aparicio*       90.7
Rabbit Maranville*   88.7
Joe Sewell*          87.1
Omar Vizquel         81.9
Vern Stephens        78.5
Monte Ward*          78.0
Dave Bancroft*       76.6
Phil Rizutto*        73.6
Joe Tinker*          72.6
Derek Jeter          68.1
Travis Jackson*      57.1
Ed McKean            46.3

That's a pretty good list.

These are the players' career WARP3 numbers, adjusted for all-time, that is, for a 162-game schedule. The players with an asterisk (*) are not denoted in this manner because they were on the Juice, at least as far as we know. Those players are currently members of the Hall of Fame. Players in italics are not necessarily from Italy, but are either still active or recently retired and therefore not eligible for the Hall, yet.

Ripken will easily get in on the 2006 ballott, and Alex Rodriguez would get in if he retired tomorrow. Robin Yount and Ernie Banks both started their careers as shortstops but moved to another position and actually spent more time at that position throughout their careers than they did at short, so technically, they shouldn't even be a part of this study. Without them, that leaves Barry Larkin as the #5 shortstop in history, ahead of more than a dozen other shortstops already in the Hall. He's behind only Honus Wagner, Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith (whose value is comprised mostly of his defensive contributions), Arky Vaughan and Bill Dahlen. And Dahlen is probably a little underrated, since he played in the Dead Ball Era, and persistently found himself overshadowed by his future Hall of Fame teammates.


Barry Fielding 

The last metric, and perhaps the best, is Win Shares. This list is the top 20 players whose value was largely defined by their play as a shortstop. Again, Ripken, Yount, banks and others had significant portions of their careers as something other than a shortstop, but their greatest value was tallied at that position.

Honus Wagner     656
Cal Ripken       427
Robin Yount      420
Monte Ward       410
George Davis     398
Bill Dahlen      393
Luke Appling     376
Arky Vaughan     356
Barry Larkin     346
Bobby Wallace    345
Joe Cronin       333
Ernie Banks      332
Ozzie Smith      327
Alan Trammell    318
Pee Wee Reese    314
R. Maranville    302
Luis Aparicio    293
Alex Rodriguez   282
Lou Boudreau     277
Joe Sewell       277

I only used the top 20, which really shouldn't include Monte Ward, a 19th century player/pioneer who also pitched very well for several seasons, and therefore picks up a lot of Win Shares that way. Rodriguez, as well as Jeter and Nomar, will move up on this list, and A-Rod will certainly eclipse him with two more good seasons. Jeter currently has only 209 WS, so it will take 4-6 years for him to surpass Larkin, if he ever does. So without Ward, and for that matter without Yount, Larkin is one of the half dozen or so best shortstops ever, and is easily more valuable than a dozen or so shortstops already in the Hall.

That's pretty good company, and hopefully the onslaught of impressive offensive shortstops will not deter the baseball writers from recognizing Barry as a deserving member, when his time comes.

But when will Bill Dahlen get some love?

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

I don't believe it, but the talking heads on sports radio have found yet another excuse for putting Roger Maris in the Hall of Fame. I just dealt with this issue a week or two ago, but it's back, and, like Mike and Mike in the Morning, not better than ever.

The logic goes something like this:

1) Jose Canseco says that Mark McGuire was cheating, so maybe he was. We know Barry Bonds has cheated and it's possible that Sammy Sosa was too, though nobody has named him outright yet.

2) If those who passed Roger Maris to take the single-season home run record weren't legit, and they're going to be in the Hall of Fame, then Maris' record was all the more impressive.

3) Therefore, since Maris "earned" his record, he should be in Cooperstown.

Mike Greenberg and Steve Phillips were proposing this line of thought this morning on their show, and Mike mentioned that newsman Bob Pecose had initially brought it to his attention. Pecose, like me, was raised a Yankee fan, so you can see why he would be biased towards Maris. I, however, try to keep personal stuff like that out of the picture when thinking about things like this.

The idea was simply that Maris' record must be remembered somehow, since it's no longer the record, but it now appears that his record was more legitimate than the current ones. Putting Maris in Cooperstown, as the player who held that record the longest, would accomplish this. Greenberg contended that Maris deserves it anyway, that he was a two-time MVP, one of only two eligible players (of 20) with two or more who are not in the Hall. (The other is Dale Murphy, who has a more compelling Cooperstown case, but still doesn't belong there, in my opinion.) Maris was also supposedly a great defensive outfielder, and of course he held the single-season home run record longer than anyone else in history, 37 years, 4 more than Babe Ruth held it.

That's a pretty weak case in my book. First of all, the last of those points is just silly. Maris had no control over when he broke the record, and therefore deserves absolutely no extra credit for having his career when he had it. Earl Webb has held the single season record for doubles (67) since 1931. That no one's been able to best him doesn't make him worthy of the Hall.

Besides, Maris' record, though it is not the record any longer, had its own extenuating circumstances, as the American League added two expansion teams in 1961, adding eight additional games and increasing home runs/game by 7.4% from 1960. Take away those eight games and drop the rate by 7.4% and Maris hits only 54 homers, not 61, and Rajah is remembered only as an also-ran in the 1961 MVP race, finishing well behind Mickey Mantle. Maris may have won two MVP awards, but Mantle deserved at least one of those, if not both, in two of the closest MVP votes in history.

By my count, there are 78 players currently in Cooperstown who are listed as having been predominantly an outfielder, firstbaseman or DH, i.e. those whose offensive contributions were paramount in their careers. Maris' .260 career batting average would perhaps be the second lowest of any of these in the Hall, ahead of only Harmon Killebrew, who hit almost 300 more home runs than Maris did, while playing ten seasons more than Maris, and walking a lot more often. Maris' .345 OBP would be the 4th lowest in the Hall for OF/1B DH types. These are the three below him on that list:

Name         Years  .300+  100RBI  100Runs  All-Star   Other
Tony Perez    22      2       7       2        7      379 HR, 505 2B
George Kelly  16      7       5       0       N/A     337 2B
Lou Brock     20      8       0       7        6      938 SB
Roger Maris   12      0       3       1        4      61*

Those middle columns are the numbers of seasons that each player hit .300 or higher, had 100RBI or 100 Runs scored, All-Star Selections, and finally any other reason they might belong in the Hall. As you can see, each of these players, despite their relatively pedestrian OBP numbers, were better players than Maris in at least a couple of areas. Lou Brock was the most prolific base stealer in baseball for the better part of two decades, went to two more All-Star games than did Maris, and did his job as a leadoff man well enough to score 100+ runs seven different times, not to mention at least 92 runs in three other seasons. Tony Perez, a borderline Hall of Famer in his own right, hit over 300 more doubles than Maris, over 100 more homers, played ten more seasons, had 100 RBI seven times (and 90 or more five more times). George "Highpockets" Kelley, another borderline guy, hit .300 seven times in his 16-year career, part of which occurred during the Dead Ball Era.

*It should be noted that, other than Hall of Famers, this list also would include guys who aren't yet eligible (Bonds, Palmiero, etc.) and guys who never will be eligible, namely Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Numerous players aren't yet retired for five years, so thay can't be in the Hall yet, though they too are much better than Roger Maris was. Also, Joe Jackson was permanently banned from baseball because of his involvement in the 1919 Black Sox Scandal. Also, if you heard any Pete Rose interviews before 2004, you know he was kicked out for football betting.

For all the talk that Maris was a great defensive outfielder, he won only one gold glove in his 12 seasons, and more modern measurements of his defensive abilities, like Bill James' defensive Win Shares or Baseball Prospectus' fielding runs, do not seem to indicate that he was even good, let alone great, in the field.

Maris didn't hustle either, and you don't have to take Jim Bouton's word for it: Despite all his power, he hit more than 21 doubles only once in his career, and remains the only player in history with more than 250 homers but fewer than 200 doubles. Loafers don't get into my Hall of Fame.

To quote Greenie, "at the end of the day" Maris was
a good but not great outfielder who had one really good season. He was in the right place at the right time, and didn't choke in the spotlight.

His record is on the wall at Cooperstown where other such records are, 7th on the single-season home run list, where it belongs. The rest of Maris' career was in no way worthy of induction in Cooperstown.

Should Canseco Confessions be Commonplace?

In light of Jose Canseco's recent statements alleging several high-profile teammates used and assisted others in using performance-enhancing drugs, the 360the Pitch.com writers weigh in on whether Canseco's actions should be standard in Major League Baseball.

---------------------------------------


Travis Nelson
Yes...with qualifications

Should players call each other out for steroid use? Yes, but not the way Jose Canseco has. Naming names in a published book, especially once your own baseball career is over, is not the best way to weed out problems like this. Players and others with this kind of inside knowledge ought to go through private channels in an attempt to remedy the situation before going public like this. Canseco's mixed motives in writing this book cannot be overlooked when considering his credibility, but they cannot make us simply discard his allegations either.

The integrity of the product that Major League Baseball puts on the field absolutely depends on players being held accountable for their actions, not only with regard to steroids and other performance-enhancing substances, but also with any form of cheating or unfair play. There is no "Right to Privacy" in the U.S. Constitution, and public figures in particular must be held to a higher standard, as they set examples for a lot of the world's youth, whether they like it or not. Performance-enhancing drugs have skewed the game of Major League Baseball unlike anything since the end of the Dead Ball Era, and it's got to stop.

As exciting as it's been watching players on the juice obliterate all kinds of records for the last half a decade, I think most of us would have preferred to let the players who actually earned those records keep them. And when I say "earned" I mean via dedication and hard work, not "better living through chemistry". The fact that we even have to call the credulity of an icon like Mark McGuire into question is an absolute shame, one that could have been avoided if the owners and the MLB Players' Union had done something about this in the late 1980's, when the issue first reared its ugly, muscle-bound head. I don't know if McGuire is guilty or not, but any rational person would have to admit that the evidence is mounting against him. I would rather that he would have restrained himself from "saving baseball" by surpassing Roger Maris in 1998 than to accomplish what he did dishonestly, if he did.

If a player becomes aware that an opposing player or even a teammate is cheating, it is his responsibility to inform the appropriate people to see that the cheating stops. Tell a coach. Tell the manager. Tell the GM or the owner. But tell somebody who has some sway over the player, to get it to stop. Canseco may only be slightly more credible than a talking mouse, but we must at least acknowledge the possibility that he's telling the truth. If the players around him had told the truth 15 years ago, or if his club and others had taken the appropriate steps to keep the game honest, this conversation wouldn't be necessary now.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

See what my colleagues at 360thePitch.com have to say...

Not-a-Hero Nakamura

The Los Angeles Dodgers have signed former Kinetsu/Orix Buffaloes thirdbaseman Norihiro Nakamura to a contract. The Dodgers had to make a bid to Nakamura's Japanese team for the right to negotiate with him, and upon winning the bid, they have signed him to a contract.

The Associated Press reports that it is not yet clear whether this will be a major- or minor-league contract. Everybody get that? Not only have the Dodgers have not said that Nakamura is expected to be the starting 3B in 2005, they haven't even told us if he's going to make the major league roster. This, my dear Dodger fans, is not your savior. This is not another Hideo Nomo. This may not even be another Kazuo Matsui.

Norihiro Nakamura may have been the preeminent slugging thirdbaseman in the Japanese leagues, but that was a couple of years and a couple of injuries ago. He his .300 or better only once, in 2001, and hasn’t been the same player since. His .267/.366/.506 career averages in ten-plus seasons in Japan do not bode well for his success in the Majors. Hideki Matsui was a much better and younger player when he came over, and his .304/.413/.582 Japanese career, also in about ten seasons, has translated into only .292/.371/.477 here. Very good, but not a superstar.

Even Ichiro, as good as he’s been, has lost over 100 points of OPS after crossing the Pacific. A comparable drop for Nomura, even if he is past his injuries, would mean he’ll be about as good as, say, Jose Valentin, whom they already have on the roster. If we’ve learned anything from the influx of Japanese players into MLB, and the records that washed-up MLB players (Tuffy Rhodes, George Arias, Alex Cabrera, etc.) keep setting in the Japanese leagues, it’s that this game is still the hardest around.

Mark my words: Nakamura will not be the answer at 3B for the 2005 Dodgers. I'll be very surprised if he sees more than 200 at-bats, and even more surprised if he hits 15 homers.

Updates...

I made a couple of changes/updates to the site today. I got a couple of link requests, from Fantasybaseball.com and latino-mlb-players.com, which are both very direct in their choices of names. The first, of course, is about baseball that doesn't actually happen but you wish it would and the second is about baseball in ancient Rome. Or something like that.

I also added a couple of Washington Nationals links, Nationals Enquirer and Capitol Punishment. These I found by pure luck, something the Expos/Nats have not experienced very much lately. With the relocation and name change of the franchise, plus the fact that they suck, the Law of Unintended Consequences has also provided numerous bloggers the opportunity to come up with quite clever names for their new websites, so there are numerous other Nationals blogs out there, just waiting to be linked. If you want a link, drop me a line.

Last, but most importantly, thanks muchly to Fred H for bringing to my attention the fact that my Haloscan comment tags have a limit of 1000 characters. I plan to phase these out, as Blogger actually provides its own comment tags, which are at the bottom of each post where it says,

Make comments HERE

Please use those, rather than the other comment tags, if you have something to say. Even if you don't have something to say, like me.

Speaking of people with something to say, John J(acob Jingleheimer) Perricone over at Only Baseball Matters has an interesting analysis of the Brian Sabean era of the San Francisco Giants franchise. Go check it out.

Analyzing the Leftovers

In the past couple of weeks, ESPN analysts Jayson Stark and Rob Neyer have looked at the ten (allegedly) Most Improved Teams and ten Least Improved Teams, respectively. Subjective as they may be, I think that most of us would probably agree on at least seven or eight of each of these lists, if not more, so I won't argue too strenuously with either. However, it occurs to me that there remains a mid-range pack of ten teams whose offseason moves have not received the, quick, sound-bite filled, shallow and incomplete analysis they deserve. So I, your hero, am here to save the day and provide you with the almost completely useless service of examining...


The Ten (or so) Middle Static Misunderestimated Teams of 2005

Or something like that.

The ten teams that made neither Neyer's nor Stark's lists were, in no particular order:

Phillies
Dodgers
Astros
Nationals
Brewers
Orioles
Blue Jays
Twins
Indians
Cardinals

Let's take these one at a time. For the record, I didn't generally count a player if he didn't play some kind of significant role on the team in 2004. So if you're wondering why I don't mention Omar Daal or Todd Hundley after this sentence, now you know.

Philadelphia Phillies
Gained: Terry Adams, Jon Lieber, Jose Offerman, Kenny Lofton
Kept: Rheal Cormier, Cory Lidle, Placido Polanco, Todd Pratt, Amaury Telemaco, Geoff Geary
Lost: Kevin Millwood, Eric Milton, Todd Jones, Roberto Hernandez, Felix Rodriguez, Doug Glanville

I won't write too much here, because I've already written a much more detailed analysis of the Phillies, but on a cursory level, the Phils are tough to gauge. They lost some big "names" to free agency, but Millwood and Milton are both overrated, the latter having gotten a pile of money from the Reds despite never pitching a full season with an ERA under 4.32. Jones and Hernandez were going to be expensive and unnecessary, so they really didn't lose much there. Of course, Lieber and Adams don't really add a lot either, and Offerman isn't likely to play much, if at all, for the Phillies.

The really telling list for Philadelphia is that of the free agents they kept. Polanco and Cormier are both pretty good at what they do, and could have gotten more money elsewhere. Telemaco and Geary give some bullpen strength and Lidle is a solid, if unimpressive, presence in the rotation. They may get burned on the $21 million they gave Lieber, but if he's healthy, this team should compete in the NL East all season.


Los Angeles Dodgers

Gained: JD Drew, Jeff Kent, Jose Valentin, Derek Lowe, Ricky Ledee
Kept: Wilson Alvarez, Elmer Dessens, Odalis Perez
Lost: Adrian Beltre, Shawn Green, Alex Cora, Steve Finley, Jose Lima, Hideo Nomo, Scott Stewart

Lots of movement here, not a lot of improvement.

Derek Lowe certainly wasn't worth the $36 million for four years he got from LA, but Jose Lima was as good a bet to get injured or stink as he was to put up another 4.00ish ERA, so that seems like a wash. Nomo and Stewarts departures are classic "addition by subtraction." They won't be missed. Odalis Perez and Wilson Alvarez would have been, so they kept them.

Whether he matched last year's 48 homers again or not (hint: NOT), the loss of Adrian Beltre is a huge hit to this offense. Shawn Green, even though he didn't produce enough to justify being paid $17 million per season, was their second best hitter, and Finley was no slouch either. Drew more than compensates for Green, but Ledee won't ever hit like Finley did those last two months.

They also lost both halves of their 2B platoon (Cora and Hernandez), which combined for an .813 OPS in 2004, not much worse than the .836 new 2B Jeff Kent posted in road games last year. Unfortunately, Jose Valentin's 30 homers also come with his .216 average, 139 strikeouts, and 35-year old knees, so it's hard to see where they're going to get back the runs created by Green and Beltre, unless Hee Seop Choi and Jayson Werth somehow blossom given the chance to play every day. Stranger things have happened.


Houston Astros
Gained: John Franco, Orlando Palmiero, Dave Burba
Kept: Roger Clemens, Jose Vizcaino, Russ Springer
Lost: Carlos Beltran, Jeff Kent, Wade Miller, Dan Miceli, Darren Oliver

I'm not sure how the Astros didn't make Rob Neyer's list.

Beltran and Kent accounted for 50 homers, 160 RBI and 166 runs scored between them, and that for Beltran in only half a season. Who's going to compensate for that? Vizcaino? Palmiero? Rookie Chris Burke put up nice numbers in the PCL in 2004, but he won't hit like Kent did, not this year. Lance Berkman missing the first month of the season will also hurt them.

After losing three games in the postseason last year, Dan Miceli may have been run out of town if he hadn't signed with a team in Japan, but during the season he was still their most consistent setup man. Wade Miller may have been injury-prone, but he was also a solid bet to be worth more than the $1.5 million he got from Boston.

They kept Clemens and a couple other role-players. Think of Clemens' arbitration award as "back-pay" for his 2004 season, in which he only made about $5 million plus some incentives. But don't think that Clemens is going to put up another 200+ innings of sub-3.00 ERA work in 2005. This is a team destined to take a dive in '05.

Washington Nationals
Gained: Vinny Castilla, Christian Guzman, Esteban Loaiza, Antonio Osuna, Jose Guillen
Kept:
Lost: Tony Batista, Juan Rivera

The Nationals did not re-sign any of their free agents, but for once that's a good thing. Actually, they found crappy free agents elsewhere to fill out the 2005 roster, including Vinny Castilla and Christian Guzman, neither of whom should be terrible, but neither of whom is really worth the money they got either. Loaiza probably won't be as bad as he was in 2004 or as good as he was in 2003, which makes one year at $2.9 million a decent risk. Osuna's decent when healthy, the likelihood of which which is anybody's guess.

Jose Guillen was a nice pickup in a trade for Juan Rivera, capitalizing on the bad taste he left in the mouth of the Angels' front office, but he won't do enough to vault the Nats into contention, not in a division with three or four teams that could contend for the playoffs. Technically, after finishing in last place, they should have nowhere to go but up, but staying put is a more likely outcome.

Milwaukee Brewers
Gained: Carlos Lee, Ricky Botallico, Damian Miller, Tommy Phelps, Rigo Beltran
Kept: Nobody of Consequence
Lost: Craig Counsell, Scott Podsednik, Luis Vizcaino, Dan Kolb, Chad Moeller, Selig Ownership

Talk about your lackluster offseasons. The Brewers' only notable free agent acquisition was Damian Miller, to whom they inexplicably gave a three-year contract even though his knees are 35 going on mashed potatoes. Otherwise, they were very conservative this winter, which means either that

A) They realize that spending good money to keep mediocre free agents is not a winning strategy

2) They were in a holding pattern most of the offseason pending the sale of the team, or

iii) Their GM still isn't even allowed to buy a bratwurst without approval from On High.

Personally, my money's on the Patriots.

Seriously, though, the trade for Carlos Lee is a nice upgrade to the offense, as is losing Craig Counsell to the D-Backs. The bullpen's a little thinner, but relievers are so erratic anyway that the team might have two guys as good as Vizcaino and Kolb on the roster now and not know it yet. This team could surprise a lot of people and finish with a winning record, if only slightly.

Baltimore Orioles
Gained: Sammy Sosa, Steve Kline, Steve Reed, Enrique Wilson, Chris Gomez
Kept: BJ Surhoff
Lost: Jerry Hairston, Marty Cordova, Buddy Groom

The Orioles failed to lure any significant free agents this winter. For a team like Pittsburgh or Kansas City, that's not an issue, but for one of the wealthiest franchises in baseball, that's a serious problem. Sammy Sosa's presence makes an already formidable lineup (8th in MLB in 2004 with 842 Runs) even better, but the man can't pitch, and neither can much of anyone else on the roster. No team this winter did less with more, at least before last weekend.


Toronto Blue Jays
Gained: Shea Hillenbrand, Billy Koch, Corey Koskie, Scott Schoenweiss
Kept: Greg Myers, Gregg Zaun
Lost: Carlos Delgado, Chris Gomez

When the best thing you can say about your offseason is that you held onto Greg(g), The Two-Headed Catching Monster, your offseason was probably a bust. I suppose Corey Koskie isn't a bad player, but he's not Delgado either, and neither is Erik Hinske, who was slated to take over the first base job vacated when Delgado flew south for the rest of his career. Hinske's really, really not Delgado, and would be the worst regular first baseman in MLB in 2005 if the slide he's endured since his Rookie-of-the-Year 2002 season doesn't reverse itself quickly. Shea Hillenbrand, unwisely acquired by trade from the Diamondbacks, may instead be the regular 1B, with Hinske being the regular DH (emphasis not on the "H") or traded himself.

Their biggest addition to the pitching staff was Billy Koch, who started his career with Toronto, but has been with three teams the last three years. He won the Ridiculous Rolaids Relief Man Award in 2002, but has had a 5.12 ERA combined over the two seasons since, so I don't see how he helps much.

What the Blow Jays really needed was, well, everything. They were 11th in the AL in ERA in 2004, 12th in Runs Scored, 12th in home runs, 12th in batting average, 12th in OBP, 12th in slugging, 13th in steals. Their hitters were 4th in the AL in strikeouts, while their pitchers were (you guessed it) 12th. This team did nothing well on its way to 94 losses in 2004, and did very little o prevent another 90+ losses in 2005. This is another team that I think should have made Rob Neyer's "Least-Improved" list.


Minnesota Twins
Gained: Juan Castro, Eric Munson, CJ Nitkowski, Mike Redmond
Kept: Brad Radke, Terry Mulholland
Lost: Corey Koskie, Christian Guzman, Henry Blanco, Jose Offerman

The Twins expect first-round draft pick Joe Mauer to be ready to catch every day in 2005, but they signed Mike Redmond as a backup and safety net, essentially to replace Henry Blanco on the roster. He's the same age as Blanco, with comparable skills, but somehow was signed for a million dollars less than Blanco got from the Cubs, for the same 2-year deal. Go figure.

The Twins also have two good-hitting, 25-year old 3B candidates in Terry Tiffee and Michael Cuddyer, so they shouldn't miss Koskie much, especially not at an average of more than $5 million per year. Christian Guzman's at-bats will be taken by rookie Jason Bartlett, who showed the ability to hit for average and to take a walk in the minors, two skills that continually elude Guzman. He's only 24 though, so his backup is Augie Ojeda, whose main distinction in life is that he shares my birth date.

If they're smart, the Twins will trade one of their bigger name outfielders and let the younger guys play, maybe getting some help at 2B in return. This team won its division in 2004 despite finishing 10th in the AL in Runs Scored, and would do well to improve the offense however they can, because the pitching staff isn't likely to lead the league in ERA again.

The list of name changes on the Twins' roster doesn't really tell the story here. The real deal is that the Twins are virtually bursting at the seams with young hitting talent, and with Offerman, Koskie and Guzman gone, they could take some huge strides.


Cleveland Indians
Gained: Kevin Millwood, Alex Cora, Juan Gonzales, Jose Hernandez, Arthur Rhodes
Kept: Bob Wickman
Lost: Matt Lawton, Josh Phelps, Omar Vizquel, Lou Merloni, Jose Jimenez, Rick White

The Indians surprised a lot of people by contending for as long as they did in 2004. Ironically, they were in it until the weekend I visited Cleveland and watched the Twins beat them, and then went 17-27 down the stretch. If it's any consolation, I promise I won't visit Cleveland this summer.

But the Indians do not seem to be daunted by their late-season slide, but rather encouraged by how well they did perform. And so this offseason they went out and quietly made a lot of smart little moves. Everyone heard that they gave $7 million to Kevin Millwood, but it's only for one year, and if he's healthy, he'll more than earn it.

They shed some big-ticket items like Matt Lawton and Omar Vizquel, preferring instead to go with the no-frills versions (Juan Gonzales and Alex Cora) to replace them. Cora's nothing special, but he'll make a solid regular to hold down the job until Jhonny Peralta learns to spell, and to play everyday. Gonzales was signed to a minor league contract, but you have to admit he's got a lot of upside if he can stay healthy. Jose Hernandez and Arthur Rhodes are solid role players without huge price tags. Even Bob Wickman, despite his injury history, could prove to be worth the $2.7 million he'll be paid this year.

It looks to me like the Indians are planning on contending again in 2005, but know they don't have the money to go out and sign the Carlos Delgados and Beltrans of the world, so they've stacked the deck in their favor by getting several players with relatively low cost-to-upside ratios. If just a few of those pan out, they'll be in the playoff mix.


St. Louis Cardinals
Gained: Mark Mulder, Einar Diaz, David Eckstein, Mark Grudzielanek, Mike Myers
Kept: Chris Carpenter, Matt Morris, So Taguchi, Cal Eldred, John Mabry
Lost: Steve Kline, Kiki Calero, Mike Matheny, Tony Womack, Edgar Renteria, Woody Williams, Ray Lankford

There's not much of anywhere to go but down after a 105-win season and a trip to the World Series, so not surprisingly, the Cardinals probably will.

They turned over their starting double-play combo, losing Edgar Renteria to a $40 million contract with the Red Sox and Womack to the Yankees, but replaced them with Eckstein and Grudzielanek, capable if not spectacular players. They probably lose a win or two right there, but it's not as severe a dropoff as you might expect, since Womack was way over his head in 2004. They lost their starting catcher, and don't have anyone on the roster who got to the plate more than 150 times last year, so that looks like a weak spot in the lineup.

The rotation lost Woody Williams, but should be improved with the addition of Mulder, whenever he's not chasing aliens and/or government conspiracies. Steve Kline and Kiki Calero were two of their better relief pitchers, but they still have a solid bullpen, and the addition of Mike Myers gives them a situational lefty with a pretty funny Scottish accent.

Again, most of these transactions look like they'll even out, but remember that a lot of things went right for St. Louis last year. Their starting rotation was healthy all season, with a total of only eight starts doled out to someone other than the Fab Five. That almost never happens in today's game. Furthermore, their outfielders are all in their mid-30's, which also raises the possibility of injuries, and some of their role players (Womack, Mabry) hit well beyond expectations.

The Cardinals should still be in the thick of the NL Central race in 2005, but their 2004 performance was a tough act to follow. If they do suffer a severe drop in 2005 though, it will likely not be due to their offseason moves as much as the simple law of averages.


.....................

So there you have them, the Ten Kinda Sorta Not Sure What To Think Teams of the 2004-05 Offseason, AKA, The Rest of the Rest. They're the Major Majors of the baseball world, and somehow I managed to crank out over 2700 words remarking on them, the Ten Least Remarkable Teams in baseball.

God help us if I ever develop a talent anyone actually needs.