Diamond-Theory.com

It looks like this trade deadline could be a fun one, with a lot of good names on the block.  I wanted to give my take on some of the names and some of the possible destinations.

We have to start with the pitching.  It is always about the pitching.  And one very good name seems to be on the move.  Any team that lands Roy Halladay would have a good staff.  He's that dominant.  The usual suspects are in play, but I think the only realistic ones are the Phillies, Dodgers, Cardinals, Brewers, Cubs, White Sox, Rangers, and Angels.  Sure, Boston could try to get in the game, as could the Yankees, but Toronto will want a higher price from teams in the AL East than elsewhere.  Plus, do the Yankees have the minor league talent to land Halladay?  I don't think they do. 

As for the teams mentioned, it is all up in the air.  Halladay would make either the Phillies or the Dodgers the insant favorites in the NL.  He could put St. Louis, Chcago, or Milwaukee over the top in the NL Central, the White Sox over Detroit in the AL Central, or win the division for either the Rangers or the Angels.  From Halladay's point of view, he'd have to go to the Phillies or the Dodgers to have the best shot at a title.  He could make the other teams playoff contenders, but he'd make those two World Series contenders.  That's just my take.  

The rosters are set for the All-Start game, or as the American League has been calling it, that week off when they take home-field advantage for the World Series.

The NL squad looks as if only fans East of the Rockies got to vote.  The lone dissent I will voice is that Beltran is starting.  He probably deserves a look as a reserve, but he shouldn't be starting.  Brad Hawpe deserves the start over Beltran.  Its probably moot, though, since Beltran might not be available anyways.  Other than that, I have no complaints.

As for the reserves, it doesn't look as if anyone is missing.  A few guys probably missed out due to the rule requiring all teams to be represented.  Casey Blake is having about the same year as Ryan Zimmerman, but the Nationals have no one else going.  So Zimmerman goes.  That rule is also why Hunter Pence won a spot over Jayson Werth, Andre Ethier, or even Cody Ross.  None of these snubs is a crime, but I think the three I mentioned deserved it more than Pence.

I'll admit I'm more confused looking at the AL roster.  Again, it look as if a requirement to start is that you play in the AL East.  Hamilton, though I love the story, doesn't belong.  Neither does Pedroia.  The fact that Pedroia is in and Ian Kinsler has to wait for the Final Vote is a joke.  If it came down to my vote, I'd put Alberto Callaspo in the game before Pedroia, based purely on stats from the first half of this year.  But that's just me.

There are a couple of questions I have about the reserve rosters, as well.  Russell Branyan is having a very good year, as is Jermaine Dye.  But they are not even in the mix with the Final Vote.  Ok?  Dye has an OPS that ranks second among AL outfielders at .935 and he's not even in the discussion, apparently.  Branyan is sandwiched between Kevin Youkilis and Mark Teixeira on the AL OPS list at first, but he doesn't get a shot either.  Yet Carlos Pena, a nearly a full 100 points behind Branyan in OPS gets on the Final Vote Ballot.  Someone tell me the fact that he's in the AL East did not figure in that discussion.  

Also, Curtis Granderson really that much of a lock.  Of all the reserves, I think he has the weakest case to be on the team.  Especially since there are two other Tigers.  I know the players get to pick the reserves, but I think they missed on that one.  Dye over Granderson, I think.

That's my take. 

There are a number of suggestions about what to do with players from the so-called “Steroid Era” when it comes to the Hall of Fame.  Ideas range from having a “Steroid Era” wing of the Hall to not inducting anyone who played during the juiced years.  Of these two stances, the later one is the more popular.  The reasoning is that we should withhold Hall of Fame induction until we are absolutely sure a player did not take PEDs.  Advocates of this position are apparently fine with the fact that since we will never be absolutely sure a player did not take illegal/banned PEDs, no one from the Steroid Era will ever make the Hall.

There is one problem with this stance, though.  It has already been contradicted.  By almost everyone.  The 2007 Hall of Fame induction was the first time this issue was confronted, when Mark McGwire, a sure bet Hall of Famer at the end of his career, was rejected because of his questionable PED history.  During that same year, however, two men who played most, if not all, of their careers in the Steroid Era were welcomed to Cooperstown with open arms and surprisingly few suspicions of PED use.  These two men were fan favorites and ambassadors to the game of baseball: Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, Jr.

Let us first look at Tony Gwynn.  Gwynn played with the Padres from 1982, when he entered the league at age 22, until 2001, when he retired at age 41.  Tony amassed 3,141 career hits and a .338 career batting average, leading the National League in hitting eight times.  In fact, his lowest season-long batting average (after .289 in 190 AB in 1982) was .309, to which he fell twice.  Not known as a base-stealer in his later years, Gwynn still swiped 319 bases and was successful at a rate of 71.8%.  No one has ever suggested Tony Gwynn took steroids or any other PED, nor am I doing so here, but the fact is I doubt a serious investigation ever took place.  Gwynn saw his home run totals jump from 9 and 3 in 1995 and 1996 to a career high of 17 in 1997 (age 37).  He followed that up with 16 and 10 home runs in 1998 and 1999, respectively.  A late-career home run power surge is generally a red flag warranting some PED investigation, but Gwynn’s seemed to fly by under the radar.

Next we move on to Cal Ripken, Jr., who quite honestly should be under more PED suspicion than Gwynn.  Ripken began his career as one of the biggest short stops of all time, and his career and numbers fulfilled the expectations that came with that distinction.  Ripken had a total of 3,184 hits, 431 home runs, and 1,695 RBI, to go with a .276 batting average over his career, which spanned from 1981 (age 20) to 2001.  What Ripken is legendary for, however, is his streak of 2,632 consecutive games played.  If one of the main reasons baseball players take PEDs is to help recover from injuries and recuperate during a long, body draining season, it seems like the one player who played more games without missing one than anyone else ever might conjure up suspicion.  As with Gwynn, Ripken’s astounding numbers went unquestioned.

In 2007, Ripken garnered 98.5% of BWAA votes, while Gwynn received 97.6%.  This means that only 8 writers did not vote for Ripken and 13 did not vote for Gwynn.  A number of voters who did not vote for these players did so because they feel no one should be elected unanimously.  While this reason in itself is ridiculous, it means that even fewer than these 21 denials were for steroid-related reasons.

Most people will site Gwynn’s and Ripken’s personality or respect for the game or general integrity as reasons to exclude them from PED suspicion.  To those people, I would site the public perception of McGwire in the years from 1997 to 2004.  He was a mythical figure who brought baseball back into the American consciousness.  Everyone admired the outward, loving relationship he had with his son, put on display for the world after his 62nd home run of 1998.  Fans applauded when he donated the ball from that blast to the Hall of Fame.  At the signing of his last contract, he pledged to donate $1 million a year to a foundation for abused children which he started.  The list goes on, and the point is that the intangible qualities “respect for the game” and “integrity” don’t necessarily go along with lack of performance enhancement suspicion.

This year, we face a similar quandary.  Career stolen base leader Rickey Henderson, who played from 1979 to 2003, is scheduled for induction to Cooperstown later this month.  The man stole 66 bases at age 39, and 109 bases in his 40’s alone, in only 469 games.  I personally would not be surprised if it comes out that Rickey was taking some sort of “performance enhancers” during part or all of his career, and much as it would kill me for it to be made public and confirmed.

So what are BWAA writers using as evidence suggesting a PED investigation?  Not the years a career spanned, not late career power surges, not otherworldly consistent strength and endurance, not a 50% increase in a career record.  Maybe the only criterion is “big guys who hit lots of home runs.”  Unfortunately, a quick look at any list of players with serious steroid accusations will prove this assumption to be false.

 

References:

Tony Gwynn’s career stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gwynnto01.shtml

Cal Ripken’s career stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ripkeca01.shtml

2007 Hall of Fame voting:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/voting_year.jsp?year=2007

Career stolen base leaders:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SB_career.shtml

General MLB-Steroids info:

http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

The St. Louis Cardinals signed Wagner Mateo, a highly-touted 16-year-old Dominican outfielder, today.  The deal looks to include a bonus of approximately $3 million.

I have to say this is an interesting move for an organization which is always so cost-conscious.  In the article about the Cards trading for DeRosa, I mentioned that that moved saved them about $4 million over signing Holliday.  Apparently now we know why they made that decision.

As a Cards fan, it's good to see them investing moneyin future talent (hopefully something they don't trade away), but I wonder if that $3 million couldn't be spent better to help the team in the short term, or for a more sure hit than a 16 year old outfielder.

Matthew Leach's article, notes that this is a significant step for the Cardinals in scouting in Latin America.  I wonder if the club and fan popularity of their two 2009 All-Stars have anything to do with it.

The Trade:

The Cardinals acquire Mark DeRosa from the Indians for Chris Perez and a players to be named.

On Paper:

The Pirates trade Nyjer Morgan and Sean Burnett to the Nationals for Lastings Milledge and Joel Hanrahan.

Best Case Scenario for Pirates:

They can turn Hanrahan into the closer he was supposed to be and Milledge, age 24, matures into a serviceable outfielder.

Best Case Scenario for Nationals:

Morgan becomes the fan and player favorite he was in Pittsburgh and has a little fun in DC, Burnett can eat some some innings and provide quality relief until Strasbourg is signed and send directly to Washington to help out.

Worst Case Scenario for Pirates:

They get the players they traded for.

Worst Case Scenario for Nationals:

Morgan's so far productive season flares out and Burnett does exactly what Hanrahan has been doing.

Bottom Line:

Does this trade matter for anyone outside of Pittsburgh and Washington?  These two teams have a combined 58 wins (the Dodgers have 50).  Washington is playing at an unsightly .289 pace, to they almost have to improve, though I don't see this being a major turning point in their season.  On the other side of the deal, what have the Pirates been doing?  In the last 12 months, they have traded four starting outfielders: Xavier Nady, Jason Bay, Nate McLouth, and now Nyjer Morgan.  They weren't a great team to begin with.  What have they gotten back?  The likes of Ross Ohlendorf, some decent to good prospects, and Joel Hanrahan with his 7+ ERA and Lastings Milledge and his .167 BA.  Those prospects better be really good.

 

Either way, neither team improved enough to get to .500 this season, which is a sad thought.

The Trade:

The Cardinals acquire Mark DeRosa from the Indians for Chris Perez and a players to be named.

On Paper:

The Cardinals are searching for offense to stay in the division race.  The Indians stock up on young pitching.

Best Case Scenario for Cardinals:

DeRosa plays third until Glaus returns (or for the season) while adding a right-handed option to a lefty-saturated outfield. He also adds a home run threat at offesnive legitimacy to the 4 through 2 spots in the order.

Best Case Scenario for Indians:

Perez becomes the closer the Cardinals were hoping he would be at the beginning of this season. He's still 23, so it's not unreasonable to think it can be done.  At this point he probably has a better chance with Cleveland than, say, Anthony Reyes.

Worst Case Scenario for Cardinals:

DeRosa has been pretty consistent throughout his career, so the worst case here may be that Mark DeRosa wasn't enough of a bat to begin with.

Worst Case Scenario for Indians:

The Cards were hoping Perez could fill in as their closer as early as the middle part of last season, and he still hasn't found the consistency to do so.If this continues, the Indians just gave away Mark DeRosa for a fireballing relief pitcher with a 4.18 ERA and 1.35 WHIP in his first full season.  The name Kenny Powers rings a bell.

Bottom Line:

The Cardinals have been looking at Matt Holiday, but make a safer move acquiring DeRosa.  DeRosa has been playing well this season, and will cost the Redbirds about $4 million less than Holliday (both are free agents at year's end).  DeRosa is a great add for a team who lost their starting third baseman just before the season started and isn't too hopeful about an upcoming return.  Adding him to a team with a 41-35 record makes for a serious playoff contender.  Plus, Tony has to be salavating at the 3B/2B/OF possibilities now.  (Maybe I'll keep an eye on that...)

The Indians, at 31-45 and 11 games back of the division lead, get a solid relief pitcher (possibly their future closer) who will be with the team for a number of years plus what appears to be a top-level prospect. In a rebuilding mode, the Indians couldn't ask for much morefor a half-season loan.

This is a very weak year for rookies.  Last year spoiled us, as we were treated to very good years by Evan Longoria and Geovany Soto.  Not so much this year. 

There is only one (yes, one) qualified PLAYER on the National League side.  One.  That will probably change with the promotion of Andrew McCutchen, but beyond that the cupbaord is bare.  If the award went out today, it would go to Colby Rasmus of the Cardinals.  He's had a good, not great, year, and is far and away the only rookie in the National League to have contributed in any important manner.  McCutchen could make a run for it, but he's a bit late on the scene. 

This could turn into a race, but Rasmus is clearly the frontrunner.

The American League does not have a qualified batter, but does have a few qualified pitchers.  It also has a few non-qualified pitchers who have made important contributions.  Among those in contention are practically the entire A's pitching staff up to and including Andrew Bailey, Trevor Cahill, and Vin Mazzaro.  Baltimore'e Brad Bergesen and Nolan Reimold are also in the hunt.  Ricky Romero would be amongst the ranks of the qualified pitchers save for a stint on the DL, and he is very much in the game.  Boston's fireballer Daniel Bard is late on the scene, but could make some noise. 

This race is much more crowded than the NL, and right now Bailey is probably in the lead.  But not much of one.

The popular choices like Matt Weiters and Gordon Beckham have not done enough to be in contention.  But its only June, almost July.  There is plenty of time.  We'll see how it all stacks up in a few weeks.

Some disclaimers:  I am a fervent supporter of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and I live on the West Coast.  So every time I hear someone bashing the NL West, I get defensive.  For years now, I've heard all about how the National League West is and has consistently been the worst division in baseball.  And for years I have been trying to defend it.  Here is one of those tries.

First, we need to come up with some measures for how to define a "good" division with regards to the other divisions.  I would assume these to be the following: World Series titles, pennants, the number of times the division has sent the wildcard to the postseason, the division's overall winning percentage, and the NL West's head-to-head winning percentages against the two other divisions.  It is clearly all about winning.  As for time span, I have chosen the last ten full years (1998-2008).  Seems to be a good enough span to get some decent measures.

On the first measure, the NL West appears to lag.  Only the Arizona Diamondbacks have won a World Series within the past decade.  No excuses here, they just haven't won many titles.  But neither has the National League.  The NL has won four titles over the last decade.  We would expect the West to have at least one of those, and it does.  So its on track with the other divisions.

On the second, we would assume that the odds of winning a pennant in a perfectly random league with three divisions would be 1:3.  Over a ten year span, this would mean each division should win 3 pennants, with one taking 4.  Over the time span we've chosen, the NL West is the division with 4 pennants: the 1998 Padres, 2001 D'Backs, 2002 Giants, and 2007 Rockies.  On this measure, the division is doing its part by winning at the rate it is supposed to.

With regards to sending the wildcard team, the same odds apply as above.  We would expect each division to send two teams three times, with one division adding another to round out the decade.  The NL West has sent two teams three times:  in 2002 the Giants and the D'Backs, in 2006 the Dodgers and the Padres, and in 2007 the D'Backs and the Rockies.  Again, the division is holding its own.

The last two measures have to do with winning percentages.  Over the last ten years, the winning percentages of the three divisions are:

          NL East .503

          NL West .500

          NL Central .490

Top to bottom, the NL West has won more games than it has lost over the past decade.  And it bests the NL Central in overall winning percentage by plenty.

The last measure, the head-to-head measure, will tell us how well the NL West has played against the other divisions over the last decade.  Since 1998, the West has played at a .503 clip versus the NL East and a .516 clip against the NL Central.  Not bad, since it supposedly worse than both divisions.  We would expect the West to be worse.

On all measures, save the overall World Series titles, the NL West is doing just as much as would be expected.  It has sent its share of teams to the World Series, it has won its share of wildcards, and it has played well against the other divisions.  I can't think of a measure that would demonstrate that this division qualifies as the worst in the National League, let alone baseball. 

Maybe we should rethink our assumptions.

For all the stories and opinions circling about players who took PEDs, or players who might have taken PEDs, or players who knew a guy who used or sold PEDs, there are almost no stories about one group of people: those who succeeded in the steroid era yet have remained (relatively) clean.  One organization that should get more of this kind of press than it does is the Atlanta Braves.  For the years 1997 to 2002, which I chose rather arbitrarily as the scope of this article, the Braves were the National League’s dominant force, with regular- and post-seasons accolades matched only by the New York Yankees.

The Braves won the NL East every year from 1997 to 2002 (actually 1991 to 2005, excluding 1994, but who’s counting), even making it to the World Series in 1999 (and 1991, 1992, 1995, and 1996).  Somehow, a team with a 0.612 winning percentage, averaging 99 wins per season during the height of the steroid era has seemed to navigate through the storm that is steroid accusations nearly unscathed.

Sure, the Braves have some employed players accused of taking PEDs from time to time (which team hasn’t?) but most of these players were not the focal point of the team, and many were not long-term organizational investments.  For example, Gary Sheffield did play from the Braves, and no one would claim he didn’t help the team, but he only played with them for two seasons, from 2002 to 2003, before joining the Yankees, a team on which steroid use seems to have run unchecked.  John Rocker was also a major part of the Braves’ bullpen from 1999 to 2001 (he was traded to the Indians in June 2001).  In Rocker’s case, the only hard evidence against him comes from purchases in 2003, two years after his run with the Braves ended.  Similarly, Denny Neagle made a cameo with the Braves in the late 90’s, with a steroid accusation coming much later in his, at that point declining, career.  Bret Boone played with the Braves in 1999, and in Jose Canseco’s Juiced, he claims to have had a conversation with Boone where Boone implied he had taken steroids.  Boone’s numbers, however, take an obvious jump in 2001, two years after his one-year tenure with the Braves.

The four names above are the only players with extended stints on the Braves who I have found to be implicated in the performance enhancement scandals.  One interesting fact is that no accusations seem to involve Braves teammates or suggest any organizational complacency in dealing with steroid users.

Now a list of Braves players who have not been accused of using PEDs to improve their game, along with the number of years from 1997 to 2002 they spent with the organization and some telling numbers

• Tom Glavine (6; 103 W, 1388.1 IP, 3.25 ERA, 1 CYA)
• Andruw Jones (6; 180 HR, 546 RBI, 5 GG)
• Chipper Jones (6; 200 HR, 641 RBI, .316 BA)
• Javy Lopez (6; 120 HR, 426 RBI)
• Greg Maddux (6; 108 W, 1375.2 IP, 3.14 ERA)
• John Smoltz (5 – injured all of 2000; 49 W, 65 SV, 3.35 ERA)
• Rafael Furcal (3; 70 2B, 89 SB)
• Brian Jordan (3; 65 HR, 289 RBI, .281 BA)
• Ryan Klesko (3; 63 HR, 234 RBI, 80 2B)

It’s easy to see that PEDs had little to do with the Braves’ late 90’s – early 2000’s success.  Any argument that they did would be ludicrous.

It’s common knowledge that the Braves’ amazing pitching staff is what got them to the playoffs so consistently.  While steroids are most associated with muscle-bound sluggers, there are no fewer than 35 pitchers implicated in steroid/PED abuse.  The fact that Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz all seem to have remained clean is not really a surprise looking at their respective physiques and pitching styles, but is definitely something worth noting, especially when their 1999 World Series opponents had two accused pitchers in their starting rotation (Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte).

So, do steroids give athletes an uneven playing field?  Even if steroids don’t help on a specific at-bat or stolen base attempt, or inning of pitching, the general consensus is that they should help a player (or team) stay healthy and at full strength throughout a 162-game season (in fact, this is the reason most players site for taking PEDs).  However, it seems that the Atlanta Braves were able to be the National League’s premier team for six years while their team stayed relatively clean.  They avoided major injuries and played deep into October every year in Atlanta, a place to which I’ve never been but I can’t imagine it being an easy place to play baseball in mid-August.

Maybe steroids don’t help baseball players.  Or maybe the (marginal?) advantage afforded by steroids can be overcome by a well-oiled baseball organization like the Atlanta Braves.

 

References:

Braves team and player stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/ATL/

General MLB-Steroids info:

http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

With the shocking (shocking) revelation that Sammy Sosa tested positive for PEDs, I thought it would be fun to update everyone on the new, steroid free (or unproven) top 20 home run list.

1. Barry Bonds

2. Hank Aaron

3. Babe Ruth

4. Willie Mays

5. Ken Griffey Jr.

6. Sammy Sosa

7. Frank Robinson

8. Mark McGwire

9. Harmon Killebrew

10. Rafael Palmeiro

11. Reggie Jackson

12. Alex Rodriguez

13. Jim Thome

14. Mike Schmidt

15. Mickey Mantle

16. Jimmie Foxx

17. Manny Ramirez

18. Willlie McCovey

Frank Thomas

Ted Williams

Makes you feel all good inside, doesn't it.